Posted on 08/03/2023 6:36:43 AM PDT by george76
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said that Special Counsel Jack Smith could himself be indicted if the indictment of former President Donald Trump is thrown out.
Smith secured a four-count indictment of Trump relating to his efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election after he previously secured a 37-count indictment against Trump in June based on an investigation into allegations surrounding classified documents, which was supplemented with a superseding indictment issued Thursday that included charges against Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida estate owned by former President Trump. Trump faces arraignment on the charges in the Jan. 6 indictment on Aug. 3.
“You know the worst thing about this indictment, under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith can be indicted. Let me explain to you why,” Dershowitz said. “The statute says the following, two or more persons conspire to injure and deny somebody the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured him by the constitution. What if a court ultimately rules that Donald Trump had a right under the First Amendment to make his Jan. 6 speech and to do what he did? Then Jack Smith will have conspired to deny him of that right. That’s how serious this is.”
“Jack Smith … deliberately, willfully and maliciously leaves out the words that President Trump spoke on Jan. 6 in his terrible speech. which I disagree with, but what he said was, ‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically,’” Dershowitz added. “Jack [Smith] leaves that out. That is a lie, a lie, an omission lie and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment. If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is.”
Dershowitz earlier said that Smith’s indictment targeted Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, by naming attorneys who represented Trump as unindicted co-conspirators.
“The Supreme Court has said in an opinion by Chief Justice [William] Rehnquist … under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false opinion or a false idea. The response to a false idea is the marketplace of ideas or Election Day,” Dershowitz said. “So you’re absolutely right, this is a very, very dangerous indictment, dangerous to the First Amendment and also dangerous to the Sixth Amendment because it directly goes after Trump’s lawyers, names them as unindicted coconspirators without giving their names, but basically says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election.”
Jack Smith is a deranged mentally unstable lawyer hack, not unlike a Michael Cohen. There are thousands of them.
Oh it’s far worse then striking out.
He was reversed 9-0 in Gov McDonnell’s case. They criticized him ruthlessly for his ‘expansive” interpretations of the law that pushed all boundaries.
The guy is a mad psychopath. He skews all of his writing to include conclusionary statements asserting that something is either illegal or already proven when it is factually not.
How a partisan loose cannon like that keeps his job is beyond me. Think they sent him to Europe to hide him.
Contrast this nutcase - and he really is a psych job - with the ponderous, slow foot dragging of the Durham “investigation” which resulted in absolutely nothing: not one indictment save the hapless Clinesmith knuckle rap.
Mad Jack should end up disbarred for life. If they can do that to Giuliani or Eastman, they can sure as hell do it to this guy. And his so-called boss.
“I don’t think smith has to worry about getting indicted by merrick garland or the doj”
When Trump is re-elected it will no longer be Merrick Garland’s DOJ.
” It is merely a cut and paste from the Jan 6 select committee. It isn’t intended to survive a legal challenge. Its only purpose was to get the Devon Archer testimony out of the headlines”
Now that is really the right answer.
Gotta admit, the Communists go all out to play defense.
They need get by prosecutorial immunity first.
‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically’
That’s recorded seen by millions the supreme court will have a easy case for Trump.
This may be Jack Smith’s last job.
Biggest mistakes are the last one
It would have to be an extra-special, special counsel appointed in a special way to go after the very special Special Persecutor Jack "Torquemada" Smith, who was obviously told he was "a special boy" by his mommy way too many times.
Dershowitz, like him or hate him, is once again showing his cruise-missile-like ability to find the target. Garland and Smith etc. are engaging in election interference.
That was totally different.
Appreciate you both bringing me up to seed on this jack Smith person.....I figured he was a criminal.
He said “may be indicted.” Obviously won’t be the case if a rat or RINO is installed as POTUS in 2025, or if Trump or DeSantis is POTUS in 2025 and the RINOs or a possible rat senate majority torpedo his pick for AG.
It is a growing trend to be selective in what is told and repeated. Statements and allegations hardly ever come out anymore as whole cloth truth. This is the very same as a lie.
The Republicans MUST IMPEACH Mayorkas, Garland and Wray....IMMEDIATELY!
“DeSantis is POTUS in 2025”
You do realize that suggestion is strictly forbidden on Free Republic right?
You have just opened yourself up to everything from hateful childish name calling to a voodoo curse. 😏
A DC Grand Jury. Any guess as to how many DC residents hate Trump?
Not saying this is likely, and I expect to vote for Trump, even if I have to write it in, but what if Trump had a severe health problem and died or withdrew. I would rather have DeSantis than Biden or somebody from the dems’ evil bench. And if such a thing happened, I don’t think I would be the only one.
Hung, drawn, and quartered would be preferable.
I’ve seen right here on this forum more people than I can remember state they wouldn’t vote for Governor DeSantis under any circumstances.
Jack Smith is just that type. The give away is that he has a history of getting indictments for conduct that is not normally considered criminal and which has clearly valid defenses. Also, the judge and the jury pool are obviously hostile to Trump and Republicans in general, so the chance of an invalid conviction is considerable. In such cases, vindication in the appellate courts always comes late, often so late that a defendant's life has been unjustly destroyed.
Under current law, prosecutors have broad immunity from civil and criminal law when they are acting within their role as prosecutors. Jack Smith and the Garland Department of Justice though seem to have gone over that edge in indicting Trump. They ought to be impeached and removed now and prosecuted later in a Trump administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.