Regardless of where you stand on President Donald Trump's impeachment process, Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz's Wednesday argument should be scorned ("GOP pushes for a swift acquittal," front page, Jan. 30). His argument — that if the president thinks having himself as president is in the national interest, anything he does to maintain that position is not impeachable — is laughable.
Prior to the 1972 election, the war in Vietnam and the civil unrest in the United States were at their peak. Voters were strongly divided among those who loved former President Richard Nixon, and those who loathed him. There was a rumor that Nixon had the Rand Corporation do a study on whether he could suspend the election. (It's a good thing there was no social media at the time!)
Of course, Nixon tried no such thing. However, if the Dershowitz argument were valid, there would be no reason why Nixon could not have suspended the election.
It's too bad, really; Dershowitz had a career as a distinguished, even brilliant, career as a law professor. In one five-minute answer, he trashed his reputation with an assertion that would have been dismissed in 30 seconds in a classroom discussion.
Gary L. Brisbin, Fridley
VOTER FRAUD
It's happened here — and recently
Regarding the reader's letter on voter fraud ("This old thing, again?" Jan. 30) where he states, "Indeed, the only voting fraud scandals of recent years have involved Republican operatives, like that doofus in North Carolina with his absentee ballot scam," I guess that with the reader not living in the metro area he had not heard of these issues: