Staff Reports
Renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz recently voiced his concerns about the indictment brought against former President Donald Trump. Speaking to Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren and Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Dershowitz highlighted the lack of evidence and high standard required for such a case. He questioned the motives behind going after a political opponent and expressed worries about election interference in the 2024 election.
— DLW🍊 (@Dlw20161950) August 3, 2023
Dershowitz emphasized that the charge of classified material did not meet the same standard of justice applied to others in the Democratic Party. He pointed out that there was no evidence to warrant prosecuting someone who is currently tied in the polls with the incumbent president. Dershowitz also discussed the possibility of overturning a conviction in the Supreme Court, should it come to that.
In addition to his television appearances, Dershowitz shared his thoughts on the indictment in a Substack article, where he raised several concerns. He questioned the speculative nature of the evidence and pointed out that the case relies on a novel and untested legal theory. Dershowitz also criticized the prosecutor, Jack Smith, for leaving out key words from Trump’s speech on January 6, potentially jeopardizing Trump’s First Amendment rights.
Dershowitz concluded by reiterating that the high standard required for such a case had not been met, and the attorney general should not have approved it. He cautioned against the potential consequences of such an indictment and criticized its open-ended and broad nature. Dershowitz specifically criticized Smith’s use of a Reconstruction era law, arguing that it violated the spirit of our Constitution and could have been employed against House Democrats who challenged Trump’s election victory in 2016.
Overall, Dershowitz’s statements reflect his concerns about the lack of evidence, the novel legal theory, and the potential infringement on Trump’s rights in this indictment. He believes that a strong case is necessary when going after a political opponent and that the attorney general should have been more cautious in approving this indictment.
