Law professor tears apart Dershowitz's book arguing Trump can serve a third term

(This article has been corrected to clarify that Washington Monthly Legal Affairs Editor Garrett Epps was not a student of attorney Alan Dershowitz. I apologize for the error. --Lynch)

Former Jeffrey Epstein lawyer and President Donald Trump ally Alan Dershowitz has published a whole book arguing for Trump to have a third term. But Washington Monthly Legal Affairs Editor Garrett Epps is having none of it.

Dershowitz made good arguments back in the 1960s and 1970s. But Dershowitz is a different man now, said Epps — and what he’s written is bunk.

This doesn’t mean Epps is not an admirer, however.

“I gladly took part in a symposium honoring his career,” said Epps.

But this doesn’t mean the lawyer who helped arrange a sweetheart deal for convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein makes the best arguments in Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?: My Nonpartisan Legal Analysis.

Epps criticism comes at some risk because Epps said Dershowitz, is a vindictive man who “… dishes it out but doesn’t want to take it.”

“When a political scientist accused him of plagiarism, Dershowitz wrote to the offender’s superiors demanding that he be denied tenure; the university obliged,” said Epps. “When a Yale psychiatrist suggested that Dershowitz’s speech patterns seemed to be drawing closer to those of President Trump, Dershowitz demanded that Yale rescind her teaching appointment; Yale obliged. When Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown’s dogged reporting broke open the full extent of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Dershowitz (lawyer for and a friend of Epstein) wrote to the Pulitzer Prize committee and enjoined them from giving Brown the prize. They did not.”

Still, Dershowitz’ arguments that Trump could be “elected or appointed vice president and later succeeding to the presidency,” “being elected or appointed speaker of the House and succeeding under the Presidential Succession Act,” or “being chosen by the House of Representatives following an Electoral College deadlock” is not only a stretch but an outrage.

“These queries leave me profoundly torn. Part of me says the answer is ‘no’; the other part says ‘F——, no.’” said Epps. “Dershowitz and some other scholars say that there is doubt. They are (how shall I put this?) wrong.”

Similarly, Dershowitz’ claim that his arguments are “an honest, objective, nonpartisan analysis of a complex series of interesting issues” are also bunk.

“Anyone reading this book carefully cannot reasonably conclude that it is partisan advocacy rather than a neutral exercise in constitutional analysis,” wrote Dershowitz in his book. “Former President Barack Obama, because of his relative youth (sixty-four), is at least as likely to benefit from my analysis as seventy-nine-year-old President Trump.”

That’s a dog, said Epps, that “won’t even leave the kennel, much less hunt.”

“Let’s review the bidding: Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, is the current president of the United States. Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, has demanded a third term. Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, has followers who attacked the United States Capitol to win a second term for Trump to which he hadn’t been elected,” said Epps. “Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, is currently the commander-in-chief of the military. Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, has recently attempted to use the American military for politicized ‘law enforcement.’ Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and impose military rule on parts of the country he deems unfriendly to him. “

“And Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, is a former client of Dershowitz,” added Epps.