Letters to the Editor: Alan Dershowitz is better than his nonsensical defense of Trump

Alan Dershowitz defends Trump
Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for President Trump, speaks during the impeachment trial in the Senate on Tuesday.
(Associated Press)

To the editor: In his speech against impeaching and removing President Trump, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz likened Trump holding back funds to Ukraine unless its government agreed to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter to a hypothetical situation in which the U.S. would hold back funds to Israel unless it stopped building settlements.

The fallacy in this argument is obvious. The Israel situation would demonstrate an open, recognized policy on settlements, whereas the Trump situation involved secretly holding back funds unless Ukraine helped Trump win an election.

Dershowitz should know better.

Susan Shell, Los Angeles


To the editor: Watching the Trump lawyers through Dershowitz had me wishing I could throw an NFL challenge flag, which is used by coaches to dispute a call on the field.

Attorney Jane Raskin started out with this old standby: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” Then she and her colleagues proceeded with a version of events whereby facts were twisted, left out or made up.


Again and again, challenge-flag moments popped up. Any knowledgeable person could have responded and sent the Trump team not to pounding the table, but hiding underneath it.

Unfortunately, the best we can expect is reputable commentators who dissect the falsehoods after the arguments are made. Or you can watch Fox News and be assured everything Trump did was aboveboard.

Bill Pratt, Northridge