Les, He made his point inarticulately and expanded it afterwards. What he meant and as I stated myself, was that a president often makes public policy with one eye on an election. He'll ignore what's good for the country by deciding what's good for his re-election. Not only is that legal. It's what they should do in many cases. In a democracy, leaders are elected. They respond to their voters. When Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 against his military advisors advice that he would create a vacuum for ISIS, he did it anyway. Why? Because he was soon to run for re-election and wanted his voters to know he keeps his word. So public policy is often decided by what leaders think their voters want from them. That's the point Dershowitz was making.
Taking a decision that is against the interest of the country but in favor of a re-election is fine as long as the decision is legal.
The fact that such an incompatibility of interest isn't in itself illegal is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.
The nature of the decison has to be measured against the law and the constitution, and in the case of Trump most legal experts assess the usage of a quid pro quo with a foreign leader as being unconstitutional.
But again, we see that the Republican camp is abusing the usage of twisted logic to manipulate the opinion.
Fortunately, the people aren't stupid and every additional layer of manipulation is simply reducing the credibility of the Republican camp.
Everybody understands that there is no need to twist logic when you have a clear and sound case.
Cheers,
Bernard
