Their friendship dates back to Kushner's freshman year at Harvard, when Kushner was a student leading a small Jewish sect, and Dershowitz was the faculty adviser.

They both also have links to the pro-Putin Chief Rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar.

So nothing Dershowitz says about DT or Russia or Putin can be trusted.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029183235

In my view he hasn't had credibility on constitutional matters since he tried to give Junior Bush cover for the torture Cheney ordered and Junior acquiesced in by suggesting "torture warrants", even though the constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment and the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and there is a consensus among civilized nations that it is so barbaric it is illegal under international law by agreed upon treaties signed by those nations. A situational constitutionalist and amoral servant of power he has shown himself to be.

with Dershowitz's support of Israel, and Israel's use of the same kinds of torture Cheney wanted allowed here.

Morrison v. Olson (1988) is a case about the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel office. That office no longer exists so the court ruling is about something that no longer exists.

What little he has left?

can be read as broadly as Professor Pildes suggests. The holding in Morrison is limited to the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. There is language in Morrison to support Professor Pildes's argument but it is outside the holding.

It seems to me that Professor Dershowitz is simply making too strong a case for executive authority. If the President abuses his position to corruptly stop a criminal prosecution to protect himself or family or associates that would be an obstruction of justice.

More to the point, however, given that a criminal prosecution of a President is unlikely, whether or not the President's apparent actions meet the definition of the obstruction of justice under the criminal code is really a red-herring. The real question is whether the Congress thinks it is political obstruction of justice or abuse of power for purposes of an impeachment.

We saw him interviewed, pushing the "this can't possibly be obstruction of justice" meme, and we both said to each other simultaneously "he's working for trump now?" Can't help wondering if he's being paid now? He sure hires on with some interesting defense teams, I must say.