Alan Dershowitz explains why judge may quickly toss out Trump indictment: 'Foolish, foolish decision'



Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz explained why he believes the indictment against former President Donald Trump will be quickly tossed from court.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg confirmed on Thursday that a grand jury has indicted Trump over allegations related to an alleged hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. The indictment, however, remains under seal, and the exact charges will not be publicized until Trump is arraigned, which is expected to take place next week.

What did Dershowitz say?

Reacting to the unprecedented news, the Harvard Law School emeritus professor predicted a judge will toss the case on statute of limitations grounds.

"I think the most important thing is they indicted him when he was out of New York, and that means they could have indicted him within the statute of limitations when he was out of New York. The statute of limitations is way expired," Dershowitz explained on Newsmax. "They claimed they couldn't have indicted him because he was outside of New York, but now they've indicted him when he's not in New York."

Dershowitz added that Bragg made a "foolish, foolish decision, which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."

A scholar of American criminal law, Dershowitz predicted Trump's attorneys will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations grounds.

\u201c.@AlanDersh on Trump indictment: "They've made a foolish, foolish decision which will cause the case to be thrown out, I think, on statute of limitations grounds."\u201d
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) 1680213720

What about the statute of limitations?

Bragg reportedly investigated Trump for falsifying business records over allegations that money he claimed went to Michael Cohen for legal services actually went to Daniels.

In New York, the crime of falsifying business records is generally a misdemeanor — for which the statute of limitations is two years — but it can be a Class E felony if the crime occurred "to conceal another crime." The statute of limitations in that case is five years.

It is not yet known what second crime prosecutors allege Trump committed to elevate the charge to a felony, though it is believed that prosecutors will argue the hush-money payment constituted a violation of campaign finance laws.

At the center of the statute of limitations concern is whether they were triggered in 2017 — when the payments to Cohen were allegedly made — or in 2018 on the basis of bookkeeping implications.

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explained:

Assuming the statute of limitations was thus triggered in 2018, the five-year period would lapse sometime this year. That, at least in part, explains the frenetic investigative activity thathas gone on the last few weeks: If the state doesn't indict soon, the case would be time-barred.Or . . . it could be time-barred already.

The indictment came despite the Justice Department declining to prosecute it. The Federal Election Commission also declined the case.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz blasts DOJ for 'unconstitutional' raid on Mar-a-Lago: 'Absolutely outrageous'



Liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz condemned the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago Tuesday as "unconstitutional."

The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago on Monday to reportedly retrieve classified documents that former President Donald Trump allegedly took from the White House and stored at his south Florida home.

The raid ignited a political firestorm, and Republicans accused the Justice Department of taking politically motivated retribution against Trump.

What did Dershowitz say?

Speaking with Glenn Beck on the "Glenn Beck Radio Program," Dershowitz — a constitutional scholar and former Harvard Law School professor — described the raid as "absolutely outrageous and unconstitutional."

"I've litigated dozens of cases on the Fourth Amendment. And I'm a liberal Democrat, who voted for Biden and against Trump," Dershowitz said. "But this raid is absolutely outrageous and unconstitutional."

According to Dershowitz, law enforcement should not conduct a raid unless they have "exhausted all other possibilities" to retrieve evidence. The most obvious evidentiary retrieval method is a subpoena, Dershowitz explained, but it is not clear whether one was issued in this case.

At any rate, if Trump did remove classified documents from the White House, raiding his residence is not an appropriate retrieval method, Dershowitz told Beck. What if the FBI agents tasked with conducting the raid lacked sufficient security clearance to be in possession of the documents?

"This is exactly the kind of thing that needs a document-by-document analysis — by a judge. Not the FBI coming in and sweeping everything together, breaking into a safe," Dershowitz said.

Even more important, Dershowitz emphasized the government's action against Trump has the optics of using a different standard of justice against Trump from the standards levied against other individuals — like Hillary Clinton — who have also been accused of possessing classified information outside the proper channels.

"You must have a single standard of justice," Dershowitz said. "I'm a friend of both Sandy Berger, who was the former national security adviser ... and a friend of Hillary Clinton. What they were accused of was exactly comparable. And there were no searches of their houses."

"People who have been found guilty of taking classified material improperly have been given fines. I don't think there's ever been a search like this based on the allegations made in this case," he added.

\u201cThe FBI's raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago was "absolutely outrageous and unconstitutional," attorney @AlanDersh tells me. "The most obvious recourse here was a SUBPOENA."\u201d
— Glenn Beck (@Glenn Beck) 1660059257

Speaking with Newsmax in another interview late Monday, Dershowitz said the raid is more evidence the Biden administration has weaponized the DOJ.

"A raid is supposed to be a last resort," Dershowitz explained. "But this administration has used the weaponization of the justice system against its political enemies. It’s arrested people, denied them bail, put them in handcuffs — used all kinds of techniques that are not usually applied to American citizens."

Although the raid itself indicates that a federal judge agreed that investigators had secured probable cause that some crime had been committed, Dershowitz said the government will eventually need to prove the raid was justifiable.

"The government will have to show a court eventually that they exhausted all other possibilities or they had a reasonable basis for believing the evidence would be destroyed if it were sought in the normal legal course of events through subpoena," he said.

"Unless there is evidence that we’re not aware of, this is improper, and it is misconduct," Dershowitz declared. "We have to find out what the facts are. But we have to make sure the shoe fits on the other foot, that we want to make sure what’s being done here is something that Democrats would not oppose if it were being done to Democratic operatives as well. I don’t think it passes the test."

"This is improper, it is misconduct": Alan Dershowitz on the FBI's raid of Trump's Mar-a-Lago www.youtube.com

Dershowitz predicts Derek Chauvin's conviction will be overturned, citing Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton



Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz predicted Monday that Derek Chauvin's conviction would be overturned on appeal because of the unusual number of "outside influences" that potentially tainted the jury, which was unsequestered for the majority of the trial.

Chauvin was convicted Tuesday of murdering George Floyd last May. The jury reached a verdict more quickly than expected, declaring Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

What did Dershowitz say?

Speaking on Newmax TV, Dershowitz declared that Chauvin's actions were "inexcusable morally," but called the verdict "very questionable," citing outside influences.

In fact, Dershowitz said the verdict "should be" overturned on appeal.

"The verdict is very questionable because of the outside influences from people like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters. Their threats and intimidation and hanging the 'Sword of Damocles' over the jury — basically saying that if you don't convict on the murder charge, or all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed — seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering a jury," Dershowitz explained.

"I think it should be reversed on appeal," he predicted.

.@AlanDersh says "threats and intimidation and hanging the 'Sword of Damocles' over the jury...seeped into the jury… https://t.co/HXKyqh0zaQ
— Newsmax (@Newsmax)1618958100.0

Despite the amount of attention Chauvin's trial received, the jury was only fully sequestered on Monday when closing arguments took place.

Because the jurors were not sequestered for the duration of the trial and were open to outside voices threatening protest violence, Dershowitz said it would be inconceivable to think the jurors were not consciously or subconsciously weighing the impact their decision would have on society.

"That should never, ever be allowed to seep into a jury room," Dershowitz said, adding that he has no confidence the verdict was "produced by due process and the rule of law."

What about an appeal?

Dershowitz predicted Chauvin's case will ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which he said would be Chauvin's best hope for a conviction reversal.

Citing Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Al Sharpton, Dershowitz said, "These folks took what they did right out of the playbook of the Deep South in the 1920s when prominent public officials would whoop up the crowds in front of the courthouse, demanding conviction of black people and acquittal of white people."

"The Supreme Court and other courts reversed convictions based on that because jurors should not be intimidated or influenced by what goes on outside the courtroom," he added.

Specifically, Dershowitz cited the infamous Sam Sheppard murder trial in the 1950s. Sheppard was convicted of murdering his wife, but was exonerated a decade later. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately determined Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial because the jury was tainted by media attention that engulfed the case.

Dershowitz also said Judge Peter Cahill, the judge who presided over Chauvin's trial, supports his hypothesis.

On Monday, Cahill castigated Waters for urging protesters to "get more confrontational" if Chauvin was not found guilty. "You got to make sure that they know we mean business," Waters said.

Cahill said Waters' comments could be used by the defense in an appeal to argue for a mistrial.

"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said after denying the defense's motion for a mistrial over Waters' remarks.

"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function," the judge added. "I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government."

"Their failure to do so is abhorrent!" he said.