President Trump is reportedly considering adding Alan Dershowitz to his legal team as the Democratic Party’s impeachment case moves to trial in the Senate. Doing so would be a mistake.
If the White House does recruit Dershowitz, Trump might just be the least controversial client the Harvard emeritus professor has represented. Some of his clients, such as Claus von Bulow, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, and most recently, Jeffrey Epstein, raise concerning questions about Dershowitz’s legal prudence and his personal relations.
The most troubling is Dershowitz’s relationship with Epstein, the deceased financier accused of sexually abusing and trafficking dozens of young women. It’s not just that he represented Epstein, but that one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has claimed that Epstein forced her to have sex with Dershowitz. Others have alleged Dershowitz was one of the many prominent acquaintances who traveled with Epstein to the financier’s many mansions.
Dershowitz has denied the allegations and recently filed a lawsuit against Giuffre, calling her a “liar.” He has also claimed that Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, who has spent years investigating the allegations against Epstein, is not a “real” reporter, simply because she wrote about the accusations against Dershowitz.
The court will determine what the truth is or whether it can be proven, but we do know that, as Epstein’s legal representative, Dershowitz successfully prevented Epstein from facing serious legal repercussions, despite the dozens of credible accusations against him.
Dershowitz was one of the lawyers who secured “dozens” of secret settlements and nondisclosure agreements that effectively silenced Epstein’s victims. He was also involved in the crony Florida deal that allowed Epstein to walk scot-free. Because of Dershowitz, Epstein pleaded guilty to minor changes, served a brief sentence, and continued to abuse women after his release.
When confronted about his role in the deal, Dershowitz’s excuse was, “Every honest criminal lawyer will tell you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.” But even so, Trump would be wise not to involve himself someone who is under just as much legal scrutiny as he is. The White House already has its hands full with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, who is arguably the reason the president is staring down impeachment.
Instead, the White House should consider Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar who testified during one of the House’s impeachment hearings. Turley’s testimony was based on sound, constitutional reasoning, and his reputation is pristine.
Indeed, Turley’s defense of Trump might be the only one the Democrats will buy. He has admitted that there was, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the president, but that this evidence is not sufficient.
“This would be the first presidential impeachment to go forward with no credible (or at least uncontested) crime at its heart. That does not mean that the Democrats’ case is necessarily invalid,” Turley wrote in an opinion piece last week. “The problem is that this is the thinnest record of any modern impeachment as well as arguably the shortest impeachment investigation in history (Johnson was impeached after three prior attempts and the House had been working on creating the grounds for impeachment for a year).”
Ironically, Dershowitz was not pleased that the GOP asked Turley to testify instead of asking him. “Just because there is an accusation out there, the decision was made not to use me,” Dershowitz said, referring to Giuffre’s allegation, which he claimed he has “disproved.” (He has not.)
Dershowitz’s displeasure with being passed over for Turley is a sign that the GOP did something right. The White House should follow suit.
Editor’s Note: Mr. Dershowitz responds.
