Harvard Law Professor Analyzes 4 Trump Indictments: ‘It’s Insignificant’

Legal Expert: Indictments Against Trump “Mean Nothing”

According to Alan Dershowitz, a professor ‍of law at Harvard Law​ School, the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump, and possibly the three others, is essentially ​meaningless.⁣ In an interview with Fox News, Dershowitz stated, “First of all, nobody⁢ should take at‌ all seriously that⁣ there was a grand jury​ indictment. It means ​nothing, it’s the prosecutor who indicted him, the best evidence of that it ⁣was on the website before the grand jury even ​voted.”

Reuters was the first to report that the Georgia‍ court posted, then removed, two pages listing several counts against President​ Trump while ⁤the grand jury was still hearing witnesses regarding ‌the challenge to 2020 election results. Ultimately, the former president and 18‍ other co-conspirators were indicted‌ on a total of 41 counts, including racketeering.

According to Dershowitz, the purpose of the four ongoing cases against President Trump is to secure a conviction before the election, even if it is likely‍ to be ‌overturned ⁤on⁢ appeal.⁣ He explains, ⁤”If you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal, the same ⁢thing is ‍true with conspiracy and other cases involving ⁤mental states.” These cases require the prosecution to prove that President Trump had corrupt intent and carried out his actions while believing he had lost the elections.

Dershowitz ​believes‌ that all four​ cases are designed to ⁢quickly secure convictions in jurisdictions ‍that are heavily biased against Donald Trump.

Despite not being a Republican or a Trump supporter, Dershowitz previously defended the president ​during his impeachment. He argues that these prosecutors are not as concerned about the convictions being reversed on ⁢appeal because that would ‍happen‍ after the election, leading to claims of election interference‌ by GOP supporters.

Dershowitz emphasizes the importance of ⁣having a strong ⁤case when bringing charges against a political rival‍ of the incumbent president. He criticizes the Department of Justice for its loose adherence to the law in these cases, stating, “Otherwise it becomes a​ banana republic. Anyone can ‌prosecute anybody.”

He warns that this trend of prosecuting political opponents sets a dangerous precedent and threatens‌ democracy, echoing the concerns⁢ expressed by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist. Dershowitz concludes, “I’m ‌not a Republican, I’m not a Trump supporter, ‍but I care deeply about the constitution, I care deeply ‍about preserving the rule of law, and we’re seeing‌ it being frittered away for partisan political purposes.”

In addition, Dershowitz draws a parallel between President Trump’s actions and those of Al Gore in 2000. He points out that Gore also challenged the election results and called for ​a recount in Florida, which was similar to Trump’s strategy. Dershowitz ​had written a book titled “Supreme Injustice” about the high court’s intervention in⁢ the Florida recount.