Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: Affidavit Doesn't Show Enough to Indict Trump
NewsMax ^ | Friday, 26 August 2022 04:38 PM EDT | Luca Cacciatore

Posted on 08/26/2022 3:36:31 PM PDT by SoConPubbie

Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax that Attorney General Merrick Garland might not have enough to indict former President Donald Trump based on the Mar-a-Lago raid's affidavit.

During a Friday appearance on "American Agenda," the Harvard law professor emeritus took issue with the Justice Department seeking a search warrant so early. However, he still argued that there was enough probable cause to issue it.

"I've gone through the affidavit very carefully, and I don't see any justification for them seeking a search warrant," Dershowitz said, noting that a subpoena was issued. "What was the rush?

"So, I think that Merrick Garland has the burden of now establishing — based on the unredacted portions of the affidavit — what's the rush? Why didn't you simply enforce the subpoena? Why didn't you follow what you started with the subpoena?" he added.

Based on the redacted affidavit, Dershowitz concluded that Garland probably lacks enough to charge Trump. He then predicted that more legal back-and-forth between the former president's legal team and the government is coming.

"I do not think, based on this affidavit, that Merrick Garland will indict because I don't think the information meets the two standards that I think are necessary to indict a former and potentially future president," he stated.

Dershowitz then outlined the two criteria: 

"Number one: it has to beat the [former President Richard] Nixon standard. So egregious, so serious, that even Republicans would agree," the attorney explained. "Number two: it has to meet the Hillary Clinton standard. Why is this different than Hillary Clinton? What's the justification for doing to Trump what was not done to Hillary Clinton?

"I don't think those two standards were met in the unredacted portions of the affidavit," he continued. "Maybe they were met by the redacted portions, but I haven't seen it."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dershowitz; dershy; fbi; fbiakastasi; garlandsucks; iylm; maralago; maralagoraid; pdjt; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: lee martell

That’s why my eyebrows are raised, too.


41 posted on 08/26/2022 4:14:42 PM PDT by Sacajaweau ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Note to self: Never drive behind or next to Alan Dershowitz.


42 posted on 08/26/2022 4:20:39 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Looks like the newsweek story came after an interview before the affidavit was partially unsealed. Dersh had not seen what the redacted unsealed said. So newsweak withheld the article until today to confuse all the unwashed.

Looks like Newsmax’s interview with Dersh is from after the redacted affidavit was made public today.


43 posted on 08/26/2022 4:20:42 PM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Actually, I think these folks are making S up as they go.

Newsweek thinks it has license to.


44 posted on 08/26/2022 4:21:42 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I pledge allegiance the flag of the U S of A, and to the REPUBLIC for which stands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
So egregious, so serious, that even Republicans would agree

You've got to be kidding me. Serious among GOPeers means that you need to buy another round at the bar.

45 posted on 08/26/2022 4:23:19 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpp113

Good detective work, sir knight.


46 posted on 08/26/2022 4:24:52 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

Yes, in idiotic “NEWSWEEK” who got it wrong.


47 posted on 08/26/2022 4:27:42 PM PDT by John S Mosby ( Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Dersh is a con man.


48 posted on 08/26/2022 4:29:05 PM PDT by Fledermaus (With Trans Republicans like McCarthy and McConnell do we really want them to win Congress in 2022?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Probably so. Schiff set the new standard.
49 posted on 08/26/2022 4:29:34 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Dersh is a mess right now and can’t think straight. His Epstein past visits are coming back into the limelight now. He’s on a calendar showing he got a massage back in 2011 from what he says was a middle aged woman. He’s got some answering to do now and can’t think straight.


50 posted on 08/26/2022 4:33:13 PM PDT by Kevin in California (EP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Author Brett Tolman has a very different take on the visible affidavit.

1–it does not appear to include any exculpatory evidence or mitigating facts. While it includes a letter from Trump’s lawyers it doesn’t acknowledge potential advice of counsel defenses or even that they may lack authority to bring such a case against a former POTUS
2-It has no factual evidence attributable to the mens rea requirement —which is the burden the Gov’t must meet showing criminal intent of the target. If it’s in there it is redacted.
3-The affidavit is filled with conclusory statements “there is probable cause” is stated authoritatively but without any reference to whom the PC applies nor to sufficient facts supporting such PC It is surprising that Reinhart signed this given that the overwhelming tenor of the unredacted facts are a civil dispute over which documents can or cannot be retained versus sent to NARA. Criminal Intent appears nowhere in the affidavit.
4–(My Favorite part) The focus of the facts is less on if FPOTUS may or may not be able to possess but whether docs are in a secure, designated room. No mention that the whole place is secured by the Secret Service.
5-There does not appear to be PC to search the safe. The safe is also not listed on places to search nor described in the factual justifications.
6-There is no set of facts revealed to show that the target transported, removed, destroyed, altered or instructed others to do so Re: classified docs.
7-The affidavit instructs the judge of the applicable law but withholds any mention of court decisions re a POTUS’ unfettered ability to declassify and fails to inform the Court that a FPOTUS may fall outside the criminal statute.
8–Shockingly, it admits that the FBI searched through boxes of documents that NARA had recovered, and did so pursuant to their “criminal investigation” but did not use a Taint Team to ensure they were not reviewing privileged documents.
9-The brief reference to the article citing Kash Patel’s statements that documents were declassified should have given the judge pause that this is not a criminal case and that requisite Mens Rea would be impossible to establish against the target.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1563212486093942784.html

51 posted on 08/26/2022 4:36:10 PM PDT by Boomer ( George Orwell: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c

Sounds like we have a Fungus amongus.


52 posted on 08/26/2022 4:44:10 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Impeach Jo Jo now while we still have a country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OHPatriot

Dershbag isn’t to be trusted.


53 posted on 08/26/2022 4:47:46 PM PDT by sauropod (Unbelief has nothing to say. Chanece favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I love how this is turning back onto what hilLIARy did


54 posted on 08/26/2022 4:51:38 PM PDT by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c

Fung Ting Wong may not understand English.


55 posted on 08/26/2022 5:05:46 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jpp113

OK thanks. Yeah I was reading the parts that weren’t redacted, to me it just screams once again of another hoax to get Trump.

If Republicans sweep the midterms and do not hold hearings on this and the Jan. 6th Stalinist trial, then they are finished. Put a fork in them, they are done. The democratic party has morphed into domestic enemies of the USA. If the Republican party refuses to protect the nation from these psychopaths then the party is lost and so is the nation. Where we go from there, I do not know.


56 posted on 08/26/2022 5:18:02 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (As long as Hillary Clinton remains free, the USA will never have equal justice under the law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The FBI Affidavit Is So Redacted, They Even Redacted Their Reasons For Redacting What They Redacted


57 posted on 08/26/2022 5:18:08 PM PDT by SkyDancer ( I make airplanes fly, what's your super power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

And this says the opposite! Incredible!

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4088593/posts


58 posted on 08/26/2022 5:25:58 PM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

When you have different news outlets, you must give the outlet what they want to hear in order for them to continue coming back to you with money for your opinion. 🙂


59 posted on 08/26/2022 5:29:00 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Is Kamola their headline writer?


60 posted on 08/26/2022 5:39:20 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (D.I.S.T.R.A.C.T.I.O.N.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson