Alan Dershowitz is a well-known lawyer who has specialized in the fields of constitutional law and civil liberties. His political leanings are Democratic, as he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and publicly endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.
But in an irony of history, it’s Dershowitz’s defense of President Trump during this past winter’s impeachment hearings that’s the subject of a $300 million lawsuit the 82-year-old attorney has filed against CNN.
The crux of the impeachment hearings against Trump revolved around whether there was a “quid pro quo”—a tacit understanding between the White House and the Ukrainian government of an investigation of the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine in exchange for American weapons.
It was in that context that Dershowitz said the following during the trial (emphasis added — the bolded portion of the quote is crucial to understanding the Dershowitz-CNN lawsuit):
“the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal” — and providing arms to Ukraine wasn’t illegal. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and if the president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
When CNN played the clip, the part in bold was eliminated. Reading only the unbolded part makes it appear that Dershowitz was saying that elected officials could do almost anything they wanted. It’s only the bolded content that gives context to his remarks.
No sane constitutional lawyer would argue that perceived political advantage is all that’s required to make a quid pro quo legal. And thus we get to the crux of Dershowitz’s lawsuit, where he says CNN edited the clip to make it appear he “had lost his mind.”
Dershowitz has represented high-profile clients over the years, from Mike Tyson to Leona Helmsley to O.J. Simpson and many more. Dershowitz is a frequent contributor on cable news programs. If he were perceived as having “lost his mind,” it would have a significant impact on his future earnings capacity.
Thus, the lawsuit seeks $50 million in compensatory damages. The additional $250 million sought are for punitive damages. If Dershowitz gets the trial he desires, a jury would have to determine 3 things:
- Was CNN guilty as charged?
- Do Dershowitz’s financial losses actually total $50 million? (Expect Dershowitz to present evidence in support of this figure.)
- Is $250 million appropriate as punishment for CNN, the aspect of the award designed to send a message to others who might attempt the same tactic?
The jury has options. They can rule in favor of Dershowitz but come back with less money than he was asking. A famous example of this came in 1986 when the jury ruled in favor of the fledgling United States Football League (USFL) in its antitrust lawsuit against the National Football League. But the jury only awarded the USFL 1 dollar.
It’s also possible the jury could decide to increase the punitive damages beyond what Dershowitz is seeking.
The jury could also simply rule in favor of CNN. Dershowitz, normally in the role of defense lawyer, knows better than most that winning a defamation suit as a public figure requires a high standard of proof. He must show that CNN not only edited the statements and that they damaged his reputation, but he also must also establish malicious intent. That’s not an easy bar to hurdle.