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 ...
That’s why my eyebrows are raised, too.
Note to self: Never drive behind or next to Alan Dershowitz.
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.
Actually, I think these folks are making S up as they go.
Newsweek thinks it has license to.
You've got to be kidding me. Serious among GOPeers means that you need to buy another round at the bar.
Good detective work, sir knight.
Yes, in idiotic “NEWSWEEK” who got it wrong.
Dersh is a con man.
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.
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.
Sounds like we have a Fungus amongus.
Dershbag isn’t to be trusted.
I love how this is turning back onto what hilLIARy did
Fung Ting Wong may not understand English.
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.
The FBI Affidavit Is So Redacted, They Even Redacted Their Reasons For Redacting What They Redacted
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. 🙂
Is Kamola their headline writer?
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.