Yes, but not in defense of what you were describing upthread.

For whatever reason, the net sifter is not coming up with a citation for what I recalled. I don't quite have the ambition to wade through hours of legal bloviating, to try and find that assertion. I think it was in the closing argument by the defense, but that is still a good long stretch of talk. Yes, I could be confusing what was said in the two impeachments. The point remains, that Dershowitz made that claim, shown in the video clip, in the first impeachment. The implication of what he said, in the specific case of a quid pro quo, implies that a POTUS can do anything, to advance his personal interests, as long as his personal ambition aligns with what he sees as the "national interest". That would extend to overturning an election he lost, if he sees his staying in office as in the "national interest". I find that breathtaking.

If someone wants to argue that there exists any cockamamie thing that Trump might try that would succeed? I haven't heard any scenario, at all, that would fit that bill...

Ever since his first term, I have been observing how much the functioning of USian democratic processes, and the rule of law, depend on people of good will, doing the right thing. We have never been so cursed with a megalomaniac who does as he pleases, and says "what ya gonna do about it?"

Steve