The way I read the Dershowitz Precedent is this:

[Still In Wisconsin]

It will be generally assumed from this point forward that abuse of power is not possible, on the part of any President, so long as his or her actions are carried out in an attempt to be re-elected. The underlying principle put forth by Dershowitz is that every President believes their election to be in the nation's best interest and therefore any action taken in furtherance of this aim is legal.

Think of it this way: US Special Forces killed Osama Bin Laden on the orders of President Obama in the interest of protecting this nation. Few protested this action as unconstitutional or illegal. Trump could now, by the Dershowitz Precedent, conceivably have the Democratic nominee for President killed on the grounds that his or her election would threaten US security by preventing him (Trump) from remaining as President. Yes, it's that serious.

[pangaia]

1. Yes it is...

And imprison anyone he wants...

[klook]

2. It's not a precedent.

It’s one idiot’s opinion, an opinion that put a nanometer-thin veneer on a huge stinking turd of a sham acquittal.

Now we move past it and work on GOTV for November like never before.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. It won't be "precedent" when a Democrat in the WH does it.

[Xipe Totec]

4. The end justifies the means argument. nt

[Still In Wisconsin]

5. Yes, as re-packaged by a former Harvard professor.

Problem is, the US Senate just said it's A-OK.