The Dershowitz quotes are basically his entire speech. But here are some:

…This return to the days of yesteryear is necessary because the issue today is not what the criteria of impeachment should be, not what a legislative body or a constitutional body might today decide are the proper criteria for impeachment of a president, but what the framers of our constitution actually chose and what they expressively and implicitly rejected. I will ask whether the framers would have accepted such vague and open-ended terms as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as governing criteria…

I will show by a close review of the history that they did not and would not accept such criteria for fear that these criteria would turn our new republic into a British style parliamentary democracy in which the chief’s executives tenure would be in the words of James Madison, the father of our constitution, “At the pleasure of the legislature.” …

…[Justice Benjamin Curtis] argued and I quote, “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law written or unwritten, express or implied.” In so arguing, he was echoing the conclusion reached by Dean Theodore Dwight of the Columbia Law School who wrote in 1867 just before the impeachment, “Unless a crime is specifically named in the constitution, treason and bribery, impeachments like indictments can only be instituted for crimes committed against the statutory law of the United States.” As Judge Starr said earlier today, he described that as “The weight of authority being on the side of that proposition at a time, much closer to the framing than we are today.”

The main thrust of my argument, however, and the one most relevant to these proceedings is that even if that position is not accepted, even if criminal conduct were not required, the framers of our constitution implicitly rejected, and if it had been presented to them, would have explicitly rejected such vague terms as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as among the enumerated and defined criteria for impeaching a president.

Note the careful attention to what the charges must be, and at no time does Dershowitz indicate that “anything goes” if a person thinks it’s for the country’s good or his/her own political good. Dershowitz goes on and on after these quotes, continuing to discuss what crimes are necessary. It is crystal clear – and I mean utterly utterly clear – he is saying the opposite of what the left is saying he’s saying.

Later, but only after this very lengthy discussion of what sorts of crimes are necessary for impeachment (and there are quite a few), does Dershowitz go into the motive aspect. What he says about that involves the “abuse of power” charge, a charge he thinks does not justify impeachment because it’s not one of the required high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution requires, and in any case cannot be defined in terms of thoughtcrime:

Such a subjective probing of motives cannot be the legal basis for a serious accusation of abuse of power that could result in the removal of an elected president. Yet this is precisely what the managers are claiming. Here’s what they say, quote, “Whether the president’s real reason, the ones actually in his mind are at the time legitimate.” What a standard. What was in the president’s mind? Actually in his mind? What was the real reason? Would you want your actions to be probe for what was the real reason why you acted? Even if a president were… It clearly shows in my mind that the framers could not have intended this psychoanalytic approach to presidential motives to determine the distinction between what is impeachable and what is not.

Here I come to a relevant and contemporaneous issue. Even if a president, any president, were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously-

Alan Dershowitz: (46:03)
As a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power. Consider the following hypothetical case that is in our news today as the Israeli prime minister comes to the United States for meetings. Let’s assume a Democratic president tells Israel that foreign aid authorized by Congress will not be sent or an Oval Office meeting will not be scheduled unless the Israelis stop building settlements. Quid pro quo. I might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds, but it would not constitute an abuse of power. Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abusive power. It’s part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the President was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase, abusive power, as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.

Much more at the link. But it’s clear Dershowitz’s motive discussion isn’t even remotely as the left says it was.

But very wrong about who does the lifting.
Only the poor individuals, by their own actions, can lift themselves out of poverty. They take advantage of the opportunities. It’s their actions of making money, creating wealth, which create the bigger pie. Good gov’t makes it easier with more ways to lift yourself up. And bad gov’t makes it harder, including the wrong rewards of giving tax dollars to those who don’t work, where the taxes are taken from those who do work. Punishing the workers for the benefit of the non-workers.

The promise of socialism is exactly that “lifting” mistake – that society, thru gov’t, will lift you up out of poverty.
It won’t. It can’t. Nor can it give you self-respect.
You have to earn the self-respect yourself, by respecting yourself, by being respectable. Taking the actions, doing the work.
One person at a time.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/01/29/peter-schweizer-bernie-is-his-biggest-charity/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/17/what-is-bernie-sanders-net-worth.aspx

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/bernie-sanders-net-worth-14678955

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-socialist-bernie-sanders-has-3-houses-makes-millions

Um, no, he’s not.

He’s lying.

By omission.

The words he (conveniently?) left out:
“…but it doesn’t matter.”

To paraphrase Hobsbawm: To achieve paradise on earth, we are prepared to sacrifice millions. Willingly. Lovingly. Justifiedly.

File under: No true Dialectician…

Bernie has some fixed principles that he actually wishes to see translated into policy, isn’t demonstrably contrived, does not present blatantly pathological power drives, hasn’t generated any domestic scandals in the last 40 years, and limits his lying to the common-and-garden artifice that is omnipresent in public life.

FIFY

The term ‘mascot group’ was coined by Thos. Sowell to refer to client populations. Elderly Jews who spent the first 20 years of their adult life as downwardly mobile ne’r-do-well’s are not a Democratic Party client.

“Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is now the outright leader in voter preferences in California’s upcoming March 3rd Democratic presidential primary. The latest Berkeley IGS Poll completed last week finds Sanders to be the choice of 26% of likely voters in the Democratic primary. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is second at 20%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 15%. No other Democrat is in double digits. . “