I could have sworn that just an hour ago, here on FR, I saw a post, headline “ Dershowitz says FBI now has enough to indict Trump.”
Dershowitz to Newsmax: Affidavit Doesn’t Show Enough to Indict Trump
How is this possible?
Affidavit Gives DOJ Enough to Indict Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz Says
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4088593/posts
It’s scrambled eggs time....
Wait WHAT, an hour ago he said there was enough and now there isnt LOL..well there NEVER was any reason to indict, its a ARCHIVES DISPUTE, nothing more, nothing less..this would have been a NON ISSUE if some commie Trump hating douche bag at the archives didnt go making a big stink out of NOTHING and Biden got his hired goons at the feds to go after Trump since everyone knows Trump is gonna whoop his ass in 2024
“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.””
Dershowitz to Newsmax: Affidavit Doesn’t Show Enough to Indict Trump
8/26/2022, 3:36:31 PM · by SoConPubbie · 13 replies
NewsMax ^ | Friday, 26 August 2022 04:38 PM EDT | Luca Cacciatore
Affidavit Gives DOJ Enough to Indict Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz Says
8/26/2022, 2:56:00 PM · by Trump20162020 · 60 replies
Newsweek ^ | August 26, 2022 | Katherine Fung
LMAO
The Durz says one thing to Newsweak and just the opposite to Newsmax.
It will be the seriousness of the charge(s), not the weight of the evidence.
We already have seen that with the Pee Document and the Russian hoax instigated by the Hillary Clinton staff.
We have already seen that with Impeachment I.
We have already seen that with Impeachment II.
They have yet to come up with any real evidence of any illegality.
They wish they had video and/or pix of ‘him’ tossing a chewing gum wrapper on the sidewalk.
Why did he tell SnoozeWeak that it did?
“What’s the justification for doing to Trump what was not done to Hillary Clinton?”
This was said by Mr. I-Love-Hillary Dershowitz? It seems he recognizes that she was off the reservation.
Which is it????
Affidavit Gives DOJ Enough to Indict Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz Says
Newsweek ^ | August 26, 2022 | Katherine Fung
Posted on 8/26/2022, 4:56:00 PM by Trump20162020
Donald Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the unsealed affidavit supporting the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago gives the Justice Department enough evidence to indict the former president.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4088593/posts
So confusing :-)
They only wanted the Russia hoax stuff in the raid. The stuff that would make their own agency look bad.
You've got to be kidding me. Serious among GOPeers means that you need to buy another round at the bar.
Dersh is a con man.
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.
I love how this is turning back onto what hilLIARy did
The FBI Affidavit Is So Redacted, They Even Redacted Their Reasons For Redacting What They Redacted
“”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.”
What the heck is this kind of “Law”?
What’s the justification for doing to Trump what was not done to Hillary Clinton.
The two faces of democrats (Marxists) showing again.