Alan Dershowitz’s “Maladministration” Argument Makes No Sense

Ummmm what?

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

During a heated question-and-answer session on Wednesday, Alan Dershowitz, a member of the president’s legal team in the impeachment trial, continued to argue that even if Trump’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine last summer qualified as an “abuse of power,” as such, it does not qualify as an impeachable offense. Instead, he said, “abuse of power” falls under the category of “maladministration”—a term rejected by the framers of the Constitution in the 18th century.

As evidence, he cited…the dictionary. “What is maladministration?” Dershowitz asked, pressing his fingertips together as he stood before the Senate chamber. “If you look it up in the dictionary and you look up synonyms, the synonyms include abuse, corruption, misrule, dishonesty, misuse of office, and misbehavior.”

The Internet promptly did some fact-checking:

Merriam-Webster defines maladministration as “corrupt or incompetent administration (as of a public office).” Macmillan has “bad or dishonest management.” According to Dictionary.com, the term means “to administer or manage badly or inefficiently.”

So, not synonymous with “abuse of power.” And of course, definitions can evolve over some 200-odd years. But even at the Constitutional Convention, it was clear that nobody could agree on the meaning of “maladministration”—and in fact, that was the very reason it was rejected as a standard for impeaching a president. Politico has the 18th-century backstory:

In the waning days of the convention, on September 8, 1787, Virginia delegate George Mason moved to add “maladministration” to the existing list of impeachable offenses—at that point, only “Treason or Bribery.” Madison objected that “so vague a term [as maladministration] will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” Mason responded by withdrawing his motion and substituting “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” Mason’s revised motion passed 8-3, which is how the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language got into to the Constitution.

The puzzling rhetorical cartwheels by Dershowitz and the rest of the president’s legal team all serve the larger strategy of convincing the Senate that in order to remove the president from office, the House managers must prove that Trump had committed a criminal offense. Ironically, Dershowitz has also had to do some additional gymnastics to explain why, 22 years ago, he believed a crime was not necessary for an impeachment trial.

“What happened since 1998 is that I studied more, did more research, read more documents and like any academic altered my views. That’s what happens,” he said. “That’s what professors ought to do.”

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate