Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Alan Dershowitz’

Alan Dershowitz Discusses How Trump, Congress Could Curb Judge Halting Terrorist Deportations


By: David Gregoire | March 19, 2025

Read more at https://libertyonenews.com/alan-dershowitz-on-how-trump-congress-could-curb-judge-halting-terrorist-deportations/

Attorney Alan Dershowitz highlighted various strategies available to President Donald Trump and Congress to counteract a judge’s decision that temporarily blocked the deportation of over 200 members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) prison gang. The judge in question, United States District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, issued an injunction ordering the Trump administration to halt deportations. Trump had previously cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the removal of the gang members.

Dershowitz noted that the language within the Alien Enemies Act might have given Judge Boasberg leeway to stop the deportations. However, he asserted that Trump had multiple avenues to remove TdA members, many of whom lacked proper documentation. The legal expert also mentioned that these options could also help manage Boasberg’s influence over the situation.

“What I don’t understand, maybe my listeners can explain it to me, is why the administration invoked this Alien 1798 French exclusion law that requires that there be either an invasion or declared war,” Dershowitz remarked.

He questioned whether Venezuela, potentially complicit in the situation, could be considered as involved in a declared war or invasion. The complexity of the law, he said, allowed the judge to scrutinize its application.

Dershowitz pondered the consequences if the administration had opted for a different legal approach. “What if they had said, ‘Look, these guys are gang members. They’re murderers. They’re rapists. They’re bringing in fentanyl,’” he mused.

The question of whether the judge would have reacted differently remained unanswered, but Dershowitz emphasized its importance.

President Trump has actively pursued measures to tackle illegal immigration, issuing several executive orders to this end. Notably, he designated Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. This highlights the administration’s commitment to addressing the threats posed by violent gangs.

“I think Congress can do more to facilitate the exit of these bad guys,” Dershowitz argued. He suggested that legislative action could limit the jurisdiction of courts, preventing judges from one district from influencing decisions in another. Such measures could streamline the process of deporting dangerous individuals.

Recalling his teaching days, Dershowitz discussed the legal complexities surrounding the Vietnam War. Debates about the war’s constitutionality and the role of courts and presidential decisions were common. He recognized the importance of checks and balances in navigating such intricate issues.

Dershowitz dismissed the idea that Trump’s actions created a constitutional crisis. He asserted that Congress has the power to reshape the judiciary by adjusting the number and jurisdiction of district courts. This legislative authority, he said, could avert potential constitutional conflicts.

“Congress clearly has the authority,” Dershowitz stated. He pointed out that the Constitution does not specify the number or location of lower courts, leaving these decisions to Congress. By exercising this power, Congress can play a more significant role in shaping the judicial landscape.

Despite the current legal challenges, Dershowitz emphasized there is no constitutional crisis. He urged Congress to take proactive steps in legislating on complex legal matters to prevent future disputes. The potential for Congress to have a greater impact on these issues is clear.

Dershowitz’s insights shed light on the intricate interplay between the executive branch, the judiciary, and Congress.

The current situation underscores the ongoing debate about immigration law and the powers of different branches of government. As the nation grapples with these challenges, finding effective solutions remains paramount.

David Gregoire

About the Author David Gregoire

Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: Supreme Court J6 Ruling Victory for Civil Liberties


By Sam Barron    |   Friday, 28 June 2024 12:25 PM EDT

Read More at https://www.newsmax.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-jan-6-donald-trump/2024/06/28/id/1170573/

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges against Jan. 6 protesters is a victory for civil liberties.

The justices ruled 6-3 to throw out a lower court’s decision that had allowed a charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over former President Donald Trump that the rioters sought to prevent — against defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer. The justice directed the lower court to reconsider the matter.

“It’s so interesting because it’s the conservative justices who are giving some meaning to civil liberties and the liberal justices who are saying lock them up and throw them in jail,” Dershowitz said on Newsmax TV’s “National Report.”

“It shows the partisan nature of the judiciary.”

The justices ruled that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category, the court ruled.

The court, in the decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that an obstruction conviction requires prosecutors to show that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity” of documents other records related to an official proceeding – or attempted to do so.

Dershowitz said the ruling is good for civil liberties.

“This is a victory for civil liberties, a victory for truly liberal people, but also a victory for Republicans and for Trump,” the famed legal scholar said.

He also said the ruling could benefit those who engaged in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protesters on college campuses.

“You can’t give rights to some people without giving rights to other people,” Dershowitz said.

“This may give rights to all protesters. This is a ruling by conservative justices that is very supportive of civil liberties. It really is a very dramatic demonstration of how partisanship is more important than principle, even for some justices of the Supreme Court.”

Overall, Dershowitz said he was happy with the ruling.

“I think it’s a good day for America, a good day for protesters, a good day for civil liberties,” Dershowitz said. “This was a necessary response to the over broadening of criminal law.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

  • Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
  • Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE – See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com

Sam Barron 

Sam Barron has almost two decades of experience covering a wide range of topics including politics, crime and business.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: Trump Prosecutors Misled Jury


By Sam Barron    |   Wednesday, 29 May 2024 11:04 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-michael-cohen/2024/05/29/id/1166625/

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, told Newsmax Wednesday that the prosecutors in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan misled the jury in closing arguments.

Trump is charged with falsifying business records on a $130,000 payment to Michael Cohen. Trump’s former attorney to reimburse him for paying adult film star Stormy Daniels to stop saying she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied all charges and said the encounter never occurred.

The prosecutors told the jury they could find all the elements of a crime committed without believing Michael Cohen, their star witness.

“That’s just not true,” Dershowitz told “The National Report.” “The only evidence that Donald Trump knew of this at all comes from an uncorroborated conversation with Michael Cohen that could have been corroborated by Alan Weisselberg.”

But prosecutors never called Weisselberg, Dershowitz said.

“There is a lack of corroboration for a crucial conversation that might criminalize what was otherwise innocent behavior,” Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz also attacked a New York State law that allows the prosecution to go last when presenting closing arguments, calling it unconstitutional.

“How does a defense go first when it doesn’t even know what the crimes are that turned a misdemeanor into a felony?” Dershowitz said. “They had to wait until they heard it from the prosecutor’s closing argument and then had no chance to rebut.”

Dershowitz said if he was on the defense team, he would’ve said he had nothing to say and that he would wait for the prosecutors to present their case and then respond to it.

“You can’t make me respond to a case I haven’t heard yet,” Dershowitz said. “The defense was forced to go first, which imposed a burden on them which the jury will take into the room.”

In closing arguments, Dershowitz said the defense should’ve focused on prosecutors not calling Weisselberg as a witness.

“I would’ve put up a life-size blown-up picture of Allen Weisselberg on the witness stand,” Dershowitz said. “What did the prosecution hide from you?”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

  • Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
  • Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com

Sam Barron 

Sam Barron has almost two decades of experience covering a wide range of topics including politics, crime and business.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: $464M Judgment Against Trump Intended to Prevent Appeal


 By Nicole Wells    |   Tuesday, 19 March 2024 11:00 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-new-york/2024/03/19/id/1157811/

Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that the $464 million judgment against Donald Trump in the New York civil fraud case is “unconscionable” and “unconstitutional,” and it is designed to prevent the former president from being able to appeal.

“It encourages lawless judges to simply impose fines that are so high that nobody can ever get the bond to appeal, and it means that they preclude themselves from being reversed on appeal,” Dershowitz said on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “It’s unconscionable, and the state of New York has to change the process. I would hope that the New York Court of Appeals would do something about it.

“It just gives the judges the incentive to impose high fines to avoid being reversed on appeal. In this case, the fine was outrageous and will be lowered on appeal. Nobody has ever heard of a fine of close to a half a billion dollars without a finding of any damage whatsoever. Nobody was hurt. No lender, no bank was hurt. The money was made up.”

Trump has thus far been unable to obtain a bond that would allow him to appeal the $464 million judgment against him without posting the full amount himself, his attorneys said Monday. Trump must either find the cash or post a bond to prevent New York authorities from seizing his properties while he appeals last month’s ruling.

Dershowitz said Justice Arthur Engoron imposed such a high fine to prevent Trump from being able to appeal.

“The purpose of imposing so high a fine was precisely to prevent the appellate courts from slapping down the judge and saying, What are you thinking? That kind of money for this kind of event?” Dershowitz said. “It’s a cruel and unusual fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the process by which he’s being denied an appeal is also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

“I hope his lawyers will bring these matters to the attention of the higher courts because it affects not only Donald Trump. This kind of a tactic, this ploy, could be used by judges against anybody. Impose a high fine, make it impossible for you to raise the bail and then avoid being reversed on appeal.”

Compounding Trump’s legal woes, Dershowitz said, is the difficulty in obtaining first-rate legal counsel due to a campaign of intimidation.

“Trump has had a hard time getting the top, top, top-tier attorneys in many instances because there’s an organization called Project 65, a McCarthy-ite left-wing organization which has as its goal deterring lawyers from representing Trump,” Dershowitz said. “They file bar charges, including one against me, and any other lawyer who defends Trump.

“I’ve had lawyers call me and say we’d love to defend the former president, but we can’t afford to have a bar charge. I’m obviously fighting mine — everybody should.

“There’s a systematic effort by this McCarthy-ite, unethical Project 65 to prevent lawyers from defending Trump and, unfortunately, it’s working.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

  • Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
  • Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com

Nicole Wells 

Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: Jan. 6 Case ‘Probably’ Applies to Trump


By Nicole Wells    |   Thursday, 14 December 2023 01:11 PM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-newsmax-donald-trump/2023/12/14/id/1145965/

Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Thursday that the Jan. 6 case the Supreme Court has agreed to take up “probably” applies to former President Donald Trump, in addition to a number of other Jan. 6 defendants, including his client.

“Look, these were not obstructions of justice,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on “National Report.” “These were attempts to exercise First Amendment rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Some of the people went too far and destroyed property, but those people who just tried to influence the congressional hearings were exercising their constitutional right.

“They’re entitled to do it, and I think the court will render a ruling in which it says that the indictments of many of the people went too far by charging obstruction of justice.”

“It doesn’t apply to everybody, but I think it probably does apply to President Trump,” he continued. “He, too, as a citizen, had the right to petition his government for what he believed was a redress of grievances.

“He was wrong, in my view, but that doesn’t affect his legal claim of acting under the First Amendment. So, I think the Supreme Court may very well render a ruling that helps former President Trump, helps my client and helps many others who were swept up in this.

“It’s very important that everybody be treated as individuals. If you did something, if you went in there and you destroyed property deliberately, that’s one thing. But if you simply objected to the way in which the votes were counted, even if you were wrong, that’s a complete defense under the Constitution.”

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide if a man involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol Building can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Defendant Joseph Fischer, who was indicted on seven charges following the Jan. 6 protest, is 1 of at least 325 people facing that charge for their alleged roles in the incident. The charge has also been brought against Trump in the federal case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

In agreeing to take up the case, the justices made no mention of the Trump prosecution, but legal experts say Trump’s lawyers could argue that the court’s move should delay the start of the trial, slated to begin in March.

Dershowitz said everything, for both Trump and the Department of Justice, comes down to “timing,” given next year’s November presidential election.

“The prosecutors want a down and dirty conviction to affect the election, before the election, knowing that they very well may be reversed on appeal, but that will be too late to affect the election,” he said. “And so both sides are playing the timing game and timing is always up to the judges themselves — how quickly they put the case on, how quickly they decide the case. There’s very little anybody can do to affect the timing of judges.”

“But it really affects all of us because there are many Americans who won’t vote for somebody who has been convicted of a serious felony, whether it be on the Democratic side or the Republican side,” he continued. “So, the criminal justice system has been weaponized by both sides to try to influence the election and the losers are the American public.

“We’re not getting fair justice on either side. We’re getting politicized, weaponized, partisan justice.”

Nicole Wells | editorial.wells@newsmax.com

Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.

Alan Dershowitz calls out Obama’s ‘deep hatred of Israel’: ‘He should be ashamed’


By Kristen Altus FOXBusiness | Published November 10, 2023 1:15pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-calls-obamas-deep-hatred-israel-ashamed

Harvard Law professor emeritus and author Alan Dershowitz harshly criticizes former President Barack Obama and college students for their anti-Israel comments and sentiments. Expressing outrage over former President Barack Obama’s call for an end to Israeli “occupation,” Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz expanded on why he’s never talking to the Democratic president again.

“I think he always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart. He hid it very well. He called me to the Oval Office and he said to me, ‘Alan, you’ve known me for a long time. You know I have Israel’s back.’ I didn’t realize he meant to paint a target on it,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.”

“He’s never been supportive of Israel. And finally, his true feelings have come out now that he’s no longer president and doesn’t have to be elected,” the professor continued. “He has contributed enormously to the problem because he is respected among young people. And if he says the occupation is unbearable and that anything can be done to stop it, he is encouraging people to engage in their antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American attitudes. He should be ashamed of himself. He should apologize, but he won’t.”

Dershowitz’s commentary comes after he claimed Thursday that any relationship with Obama is “over” following the 44th president’s onstage statements about the Israel-Hamas war.

ILHAN OMAR STONEWALLS FOX BUSINESS REPORTER’S QUESTIONS ON ISRAEL CEASE-FIRE DEMANDS

Obama spoke at the Obama Foundation’s Democracy Forum last Thursday, where he called for a two-state solution and an end to the “occupation,” while not clarifying what occupation he meant.

Alan Dershowitz on Obama Israel comments
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, left, called for former President Barack Obama to apologize for his Israeli occupation comments on “Mornings with Maria.”  (Fox News)

“All of this is taking place against the backdrop of decades of failure to achieve a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” the former president told the forum audience.

He continued: “One that is based on genuine security for Israel, a recognition of its right to exist, and a peace that is based on an end of the occupation and the creation of a viable state and self-determination for the Palestinian people.”

video

Alan Dershowitz, Cornel West debate issues surrounding Palestinian invasion of Israel

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and political activist Cornel West join ‘Hannity’ to sound off on major disagreements.

The Harvard professor on Friday accused Obama of lying “through his teeth” about what the former president called an “unbearable” occupation of Gaza.

“To compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it’s just obscene and despicable,” Dershowitz said. “And what it does is it lends support to those students basically, who are saying, ‘Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad… It was in response to the occupation.’”

“Although he said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable,” Dershowitz added, “he made them justifiable because if life really is unbearable, as it’s not, then you can do anything you want.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

video

Harvard student says his voting decisions ‘absolutely’ changed amid Israel-Hamas war

Harvard University graduate student Shabbos Kestenbaum calls for a ‘moral reckoning’ across college campuses and the U.S.

Obama is further “pouring gas on the fire” of a serious matter, the Harvard professor argued, which could fuel more antisemitic sentiment nationwide.

“What he did was contribute to the risks to not only Israelis, but Americans, because it’s coming to a theater near you,” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo. “If Hamas is not stopped in its tracks from doing the terrorist acts, they will bring them to the United States.”

The Obama Foundation did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

FOX News’ Timothy H.J. Nerozzi contributed to this report.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: Hunter Biden Won’t Stand Trial on Gun Charges


By Jeffrey Rodack    |   Friday, 15 September 2023 11:44 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-hunter-biden-gun-trial/2023/09/15/id/1134634/

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, in an interview with Newsmax, predicted Hunter Biden will work out a plea deal and avoid standing trial on gun charges, during an appearance on Friday’s “National Report.

“There’s not going to be a full-blown trial,” he said. “There will be a plea bargain. This was a tactic to just raise the ante. The plea bargain, I predict, will be as follows: Biden will admit to the facts underlying these three charges; admit that he lied; admit that he owned a gun while he was addicted to drugs … he’ll admit all that, but he’ll challenge some of the aspects of the indictment on legal grounds, on Second Amendment grounds, on double jeopardy grounds, which will entitle him to appeal the case.

“So, I predict there won’t be a full-blown trial, will be a kind of guilty play, and it will result in a probationary sentence, which is typical for a first offender who was charged with these kinds of crimes.”

Asked the difference between Hunter Biden’s original plea deal, which fell apart and a possible new one, Dershowitz said: “The difference is that in the original plea, it was a diversion, which doesn’t give you a criminal record. He’d have to plead guilty and get a criminal record and be put on probation.

“So, there is a difference. It’s not a big deal difference. But if it’s my client, I care that he does not have a criminal record. The other big difference is in the original plea we weren’t sure whether it kept open the possibility of further investigations and further indictments. That’s why it fell apart. Here we now know that there can be further investigations, including investigations pointing to the Oval Office.”

Asked what he thought of special counsel David Weiss’ handling of the case, Dershowitz responded: “He shouldn’t have been appointed. He’s a Delaware guy. People say he was appointed by Donald Trump. It’s nonsense. He was appointed essentially by the two Democratic senators in Delaware.

“Trump rubber stamped the appointment as happens with U.S. attorneys, but he was exactly the wrong person to do this investigation. Now he’s flexing his muscles a little bit, but the end result will be no prison time and a probationary sentence and perhaps an appeal on these two technical legal issues.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

Jeffrey Rodack 

Jeffrey Rodack, who has nearly a half century in news as a senior editor and city editor for national and local publications, has covered politics for Newsmax for nearly seven years.

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: ‘No Such Thing as a False Idea or False Opinion’


By Eric Mack    |   Wednesday, 09 August 2023 03:40 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-indictment-first-amendment/2023/08/09/id/1130210/

Amid allegations President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has spied on former President Donald Trump‘s Twitter account, constitutional legal expert Alan Dershowitz chimed in on Newsmax.

“I can’t imagine there’d be anything in his Twitter account which isn’t public, but if there is something, they should have to justify that: Government can’t just go rummaging through people’s First Amendment statements,” Dershowitz told Wednesday’s “John Bachman Now.”

“But this is a First Amendment case,” he continued, rejecting former Attorney General Bill Barr’s claim to the contrary.

“This is a case all about what Donald Trump said, what he believed. Even the things he did, he did, according to him, because he honestly believed, and still believes, the election was stolen.

“He was wrong, in my view, but my view doesn’t matter under the First Amendment.”

Trump’s election challenge speech, and subsequent seeking of legal remedies, is protected, according to Dershowitz.

“Under the First Amendment, there’s no such thing as a false idea or a false opinion,” Dershowitz told co-hosts Bianca de la Garza and John Huddy.

“The remedy for false ideas and false opinions is to respond to them and write better ideas and better opinions, not to criminalize what somebody said or did consistent with his belief that the election was stolen.”

Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan cannot be trusted to give Trump his right to a fair trial, Dershowitz continued.

“I am a liberal Democrat who has voted for Democrats all my life. I do not trust her; I do not trust her to do justice,” he said. “The test is not only must justice be done, must it seem to be done. I don’t see it being done.”

Chutkan has concerning ties to a law firm “that has had the most conflicts of interest, in my opinion, of any major firm in the United States,” in addition to ties to Hunter Biden and clients and cases tied to Burisma Holdings, according to Dershowitz.

“This is exactly the wrong person to preside over this case,” he warned. “This case is going to be decided largely by the judge, by what instructions the judge gives.

“So, this case should be taken away from her. She should be recused, and she should not be deciding issues that divide the American people. Because they’re not going to trust her judgment.”

The case should be moved out of Washington, D.C., to grant Trump a fair trial, Dershowitz added.

“The case should be taken out of the District of Columbia, to which is 95% anti-Trump, and put in West Virginia or Virginia or some purple area, where at least there’s a shot at getting a fair trial, like there is in Florida, in the county where the trial is going to be taking place in Florida.

“But you know Manhattan and the District of Columbia, I can’t imagine two districts more anti-Trump and more unfair to Trump. The American public is not going to trust them.”

Even though the decision to recuse is in the hand of Chutkan, Dershowitz said keeping it under her hand will leave it open to preemptive appeal all the way up the U.S. judicial system.

“It’s her decision, but it can be appealable,” he said. “If she doesn’t recuse herself and if there’s a conviction, there could be an appeal.

“There’s also some argument that can be made — of course, today, lawyers trying to make creative arguments, they get indicted,” he added, noting the basis of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment listing Trump’s lawyers as alleged co-conspirators, “but there’s some argument that could be made that if there’s a motion to recuse her and she refuses it, that is appealable or subject to a writ of mandamus right away.

“There are cases all ways on that, and so that’s one other possibility that could be explored.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

Related Stories:

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Alan Dershowitz: Trump indictment doesn’t pass the Richard Nixon test


By Kristen Altus FOXBusiness | Published June 9, 2023 10:50am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-trump-indictment-pass-richard-nixon-test

Harvard University law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says this is the first time in U.S. history that a leading candidate against an incumbent president is criminally indicted by that president.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz warned of the “dangerous” consequences posed by the federal charges launched against former President Donald Trump, arguing the indictment’s “weak” appearance does not meet historic precedent.

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz said Friday on “Mornings with Maria.”

“I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor continued.

Trump himself announced the indictment Thursday on his social media platform, Truth Social. Seven federal charges have emerged out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s months-long investigation, and reportedly involve obstruction of justice, conspiracy and illegal retention of classified government material.

SUPER PACs FOR TRUMP, DESANTIS AMONG BIGGEST SPENDERS IN 2023 PRESIDENTIAL AD WARS

This is the second time Trump has been indicted this year. The former president pleaded not guilty in April after being charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Donald Trump and Alan Dershowitz
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, right, called the latest federal charges against former President Donald Trump “the most dangerous indictment in political history” on “Mornings with Maria” on Friday. (Getty Images)

“If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history,” Dershowitz said.

“As everybody knows,” he added, “it’s the first time that a man who is the leading candidate against the incumbent president has been indicted by the incumbent administration in an effort to prevent him from running.”

Dershowitz emphasized his belief that the prosecution’s purpose is less for the public good, and more “to go after the leading candidate against the president.”

“It’s an extraordinarily dangerous indictment, potentially dangerous to the rule of law, dangerous to the neutral application of criminal justice, and dangerous to establishing a precedent that each side will weaponize the criminal justice system against their political opponents,” Dershowitz argued. “That’s not America.”

video

Merrick Garland doesn’t care about the law: Gregg Jarrett

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz share their insight on former President Donald Trump’s indictment on ‘Hannity.’

American citizens, Dershowitz argued, should be able to cast their votes for those candidates who align with their social, economic or foreign policy views as opposed to “who’s more criminal.”

“Look, I voted, myself, against Trump twice. I have a constitutional right to vote against him a third time on the merits, and that right shouldn’t be taken away from me by politicians, by attorneys general, by judges, by jurors,” the Harvard professor noted.

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon… I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment.”- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus

“If this becomes a politically divided prosecution, where the Republicans are on one side, the Democrats are on the other, it moves the election out of the polling booth to the courthouse,” Dershowitz continued. “And that’s not where elections ought to be held.”

The professor argued there “has to be equal justice” served as he pointed out Republicans will likely speed up their investigation into Hunter Biden and the Biden family foreign business dealings.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

video

Trump charges over classified documents will politically strengthen him: Jason Chaffetz

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said, “and let the public judge whether or not there’s a single standard of justice.”

Trump said he has “been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM.”

Fox News’ Brooke Singman, Jake Gibson and Bill Mears contributed to this report.

12 Anti-Trump Pundits and Lawmakers Who Think Bragg’s Case is Terrible


BY: JORDAN BOYD | APRIL 05, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/05/12-anti-trump-pundits-and-lawmakers-who-think-braggs-case-is-terrible/

Donald Trump arrives for arraignment in New York
Some of Trump’s most outspoken political enemies are casting doubt on Bragg’s attempts to send the former president to jail.

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

For weeks now, former President Donald Trump and legal experts on the right predicted that the prosecution Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought against Trump was pathetic and partisan. Not long after Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records during his arraignment on Tuesday, some of his most outspoken political enemies also began casting doubt on Bragg’s attempts to send the former president to jail.

Here are the notorious anti-Trumpers who willingly admitted that Bragg’s case against the leader of the Republican Party is a weak attempt to keep him from winning the White House in 2024.

Andrew McCabe

Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe expressed disappointment on CNN on Tuesday after he realized that Bragg’s justification for elevating Trump’s charges to felonies “simply isn’t there.”

“I think everyone was hoping we would see more,” McCabe said.

He later added that “It’s hard to imagine convincing a jury that they should get there.”

Jonathan Chait

Jonathan Chait, a political columnist at New York Magazine, wrote in the Intelligencer that Bragg’s case against Trump is littered with “legal deficiencies” and kicks off “the criminalization of politics.”

“Trump is being prosecuted charged because he paid hush money to a mistress, something it’s inconcievable he would have been charged over if he were never a candidate for office,” Chait tweeted.

Alan Dershowitz

Attorney Alan Dershowitz called Bragg’s case against Trump a “politicization of the criminal justice system” and “very, very dangerous for America.”

“This is a scandalous misuse of the criminal justice system,” Dershowitz told Sky News Australia. “It will create a terrible precedent in which other prosecutors will go after people of the opposing party.”

Carrie Cordero

CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero said she expected Bragg’s charges against Trump to be connected to the payments Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels but said the case itself is “a little underwhelming.”

“There’s not more to it. There are not more violations, tax violations. There’s not an incredible new set of facts that we didn’t know about publicly. It’s really the facts of this case, as they have existed for basically almost seven years,” Cordero said.

Sen. Mitt Romney

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney’s distaste for the former president is no secret but even his strong anti-Trump bias didn’t stop him from calling out the Manhattan D.A. for having “stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”

John Bolton

Trump-era National Security Adviser John Bolton says Bragg is “wrong on the applicability of the New York statute” that he charged Trump under.

“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document. I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be and I think it’s easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump,” Bolton explained on a CNN panel on Tuesday.

Bolton warned that “there is no basis in the statutory language to say that Trump’s behavior forms either a [campaign] contribution or an expenditure under federal law” which effectively renders Bragg’s case vulnerable to challenge.

“If you can construe the statute to cover this behavior then I think it violates the First Amendment,” Bolton said.

Ian Millhiser 

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, called Bragg’s case against Trump “painfully anticlimactic” and said it was built on an “uncertain legal theory.”

In the second paragraph of the Vox analysis he penned on Tuesday, Millhiser acknowledges that “there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax” because “it is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”

“Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law,” Millhiser reaffirms later in the article.

Noah Feldman

Bloomberg opinion columnist and Harvard law professor Noah Feldman wrote in The Washington Post on Tuesday that indicting Trump is a “Risky Bet for New York and the Nation.”

Feldman opens by invoking Democrats’ favorite Trump talking point — “no one is above the law”– but quickly criticized Bragg’s case against the former president as “poorly timed,” “legally weak,” and one that could easily result in a mistrial or acquittal.

“And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal,” Feldman wrote. “He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him.”

Mark Joseph Stern

“The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted,” Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern’s latest headline blared.

According to Stern, Bragg fails to disclose the specific election law that he believes Trump violated even though the “entire prosecution hinges on that question.”

“These charges will be difficult to prove,” Stern warned. “There can be no doubt that the district attorney faces an uphill climb.”

“They tell the story of a complex conspiracy to illicitly alter the course of the 2016 election—potentially, a powerful tale of corruption that persuades both the jury and the public of this prosecution’s necessity,” he continued. “But Bragg’s legal theory is, if not convoluted, a fairly confusing effort to patch together disparate offenses into one alleged crime, carried out over 34 illegal payments. This is not at all the slam-dunk case that so many Democrats wanted.”

Michael Avenatti

Even the lawyer who previously represented on-screen prostitute Stormy Daniels apparently cast doubt on Bragg’s ability to bring a successful case against Trump based on testimony from his former client.

“You can’t build a case on the testimony of Cohen and Daniels,” Michael Avenatti reportedly said.

Jonathan Lemire’s Democrat Sources

MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire told his fellow “Morning Joe” panelists last week that he and other Democrats are concerned Bragg’s case isn’t strong.

“Democrats I’ve spoken to, including some senior members of the White House, who do fear that because this case is weakest, that if it is brought first, that it will be potential — allow Trump to then paint this one as illegitimate, that it’s weak, and suggest that all of the other cases against him are as well. And that is something they’re worried about,” he warned.

Sarah Isgur

Harvard law grad and senior editor of the anti-Trump publication The Dispatch Sarah Isgur admitted on Twitter shortly after Trump’s arraignment that Bragg’s charges don’t make sense.

“He’s tying felony falsification of business records to another state crime that requires unlawful means…so now we need a third crime in order for this ‘felony turtles all the way down’ charge to work. The two state crimes can’t point back to each other!” she wrote.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Alan Dershowitz: ‘I Do Think that Trump Will Win the Pennsylvania Lawsuit’ if Enough Votes at Stake


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK | 1

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/11/13/dershowitz-i-do-think-trump-win-pennsylvania-lawsuit-enough-votes-stake/

Election workers sort absentee ballot envelopes at the Lansing City Clerk’s office on November 02, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. For the first time, Michigan law is allowing clerks in Michigan cities to expedite the vote-counting process by removing secrecy envelopes from outer mailing envelopes one day ahead of the election. …John Moore/Getty Images

Dershowitz predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the Trump campaign’s lawsuit if the number of votes being challenged are enough to change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

“I do think that Trump will win the Pennsylvania lawsuit,” said Dershowitz on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Joel Pollak, “namely, the lawsuit that challenges ballots that were filed before the end of Election Day but not received until after Election Day.”

Dershowitz continued, “The [Pennsylvania] legislature had basically said no to that and the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court said yes because of the pandemic. That may have been the right decision in some theoretical sense, but the Constitution doesn’t permit anybody in the state but the legislature to make decisions about elections.”

LISTEN:

“That was decided correctly in Bush versus Gore, and I think that four-to-four vote would become a five-to-four vote if the issue came before the Supreme Court and there were not disputed ballots to make a difference in the outcome of the election. That remains to be seen.”

Dershowitz remarked, “As I understand the facts of the case — although I think what the judiciary did may have been the right thing morally: if you get your ballot in on time, you shouldn’t be denied the vote just because the post office screwed up — I don’t think you can really make that argument under Article Two. I do think that the Republican argument is the stronger one.’

“The Supreme Court will take the case only if it would make a difference, only if the plaintiffs — the Republicans — can show that the number of disputed ballots that were subject to sequestration by Justice Alito’s decision exceeds the difference between the winning margin and the losing margin.”

Dershowitz concluded, “The Pennsylvania constitutional argument is a wholesale argument that clearly belongs in federal courts..”

The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania election boards on November 6 to separate the count of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in the event that the Supreme Court revisits election lawsuits related to such votes.

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).

Tag Cloud