Re: Alan Dershowitz Says Trump Is Guilty and Must Receive The Harshest Punishment The Law Allows

On 1/12/2025 11:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2025 5:13 PM, zen cycle wrote:

On 1/11/2025 4:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2025 2:19 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Fri Jan 10 20:10:55 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

On 1/10/2025 5:58 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Fri Jan 10 21:47:13 2025 Adrian Dittman  wrote:

>
No Judge Will Overturn Donald Trump's Conviction?Alan Dershowitz
Published May 31, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT
>
Attorney Alan Dershowitz believes former President Donald Trump's
conviction in his criminal hush money case will not be overturned due to
the New York legal system and judges not wanting to be held
"responsible" for such decisions.
>
Trump has lashed out at the Manhattan jury's decision to find him guilty
of 34 counts of falsifying business records in relation to purported hush
money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the months
leading up to his successful 2016 presidential election victory. Daniels
alleged that she had an affair with Trump in 2006, which he has denied.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought the case forward as part
of a March 2023 indictment.
>
"This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who
was corrupt," Trump said outside the courtroom following the verdict.
Trump, who has long denounced the prosecution as a "witch hunt," has said
he is innocent of all charges in this case and other criminal and civil
cases he is facing.
>
While appearing on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast on Thursday,
Dershowitz said the former president "has to appeal first through the New
York system, and the New York system are all judges that don't wanna be
responsible for freeing Donald Trump."
>
He added: "These are people who have to live with their families. These
are people who don't wanna be Dershowitzed."
>
Newsweek has reached out to Dershowitz via email for further comment.
>
The longtime lawyer and Harvard Law School professor emeritus compared
Trump's legal anguish to his own personal strife, mentioning how Harvard
Law School "canceled" him after 50 years of service due to him
representing Trump during his first impeachment.
>
"People know what happened to me when I defended Donald Trump on the
floor of the Senate. Nobody on Martha's Vineyard would speak to me....I
am not encouraged that he'll get a fair appeal," Dershowitz said, adding
that the case may reach the Supreme Court, but not prior to the November
5 election.
Exclusively Available to Subscribers
Try it now for $1
Alan Dershowitz
Attorney Alan Dershowitz returns to the courtroom after a break during
former President Donald Trump's hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal
Court on May 20 in New York City. Dershowitz believes Trump's conviction
in his...
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
>
The legal analyst also said he predicted a Trump conviction in this case
due to the location of the trial and strong Democratic leaning in New
York City, echoing Trump's words about the overall case being "rigged."
>
Dershowitz's Thursday remarks are contrary to what he said earlier this
month, in which he said during the first days of the trial that
prosecutors in the hush money case were perhaps following a doomed
"roadmap" in attempting to reach a Trump conviction? comparing the case to
the New York Court of Appeals' overturning of Harvey Weinstein's 2020
rape conviction.
>
"I can't imagine how the Court of Appeals in New York that reversed the
Harvey Weinstein conviction?which was a harder case to reverse? wouldn't
reverse this conviction if it got up there," he said on Fox News.
Read more
>
      Donald Trump "nearly doubled" fundraising record after verdict:
Campaign
      George Conway trolls evangelical leader's defense of Donald Trump
      Donald Trump's hometown newspaper cheers guilty verdict: "Damning"
      Mary Trump does victory lap after Donald Trump verdict
>
The longtime lawyer also said in April that some Democrats wanted Trump
"killed" based on legislation introduced by Representative Bennie
Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, called the "Denying Infinite Security
and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely
Dishonorable Former Protectees Act"?or the DISGRACED Act?intended to
terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of either
state or local felonies.
>
New York City-based attorney Nicole Brenecki recently told Newsweek that
Secret Service has very likely already been involved in any potential
incarceration discussions should Trump be sentenced to prison time.
>
Trump's sentencing will be on July 11.

>
>
>
>
A Democrat prosecutor taking a case SPECIFICALLY before a Democrat judge and with 100% registered Democrat Jury.
>
There isn't even an INKLING of a law that makes it illegal for a man to pay a sexual partner for her silence or else the entire Democrat Congress would be DOA.

>
No one said an NDL is illegal. He was not charged for that.

>
>
>
>
What do you think that Trump was charged with? The DA claimed that paying for a woman's silence broke election laws since it could have cost him votes.

>
Not quite.
>
An NDA is perfectly legal (I have been on either side of several NDAs over the years).
>
Disgraced attorney Cohen (who later admitted stealing from Mr Trump separately from this situation) wrote the NDA, secured the signature and made the disbursement. He then billed the Trump organization and requested 34 payments. The bookkeepers entered those payments as 'legal expense', which in fact they were.
>
After the 2016 election, the FEC investigated the matter to see if any of it constituted an illegal campaign contribution. Their decision was that no violation occurred and no complaint should be brought.
>
Nothing happened until Mr Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election. Then this contorted logic lawsuit (and others) sprung up as if by magic. And when I say magic, I mean Eric Holder and Merrick Garland. Without precedent, the US Justice Department #3 official Michael Colangelo took over the case in a New York County court and steered it along, wrote the indictment, briefs, personally argued the case. Mr Bragg's Manhattan District Attorney office has a $575 million annual budget and 1200 employees including experienced qualified attorneys. and yet...
>
>
So as I understand it they charge that writing an NDA is not a crime but recording payments for legal services as 'legal services' is an infraction.
>
Since that is an administrative infraction, they then extended it to allege 'illegal campaign contribution' which it was not. Even if it were, subsidiarity prevents county district attorneys from charging Federal crimes. But it is not, both on its face and also because the FEC is charged with those matters and they had already ruled the item was not illegal. Prosecutors alleged that Federal crime but it was never charged.
>
Even more convoluted, since none of the above charges are criminal, they invoked a NY statute charging that infractions committed in furtherance of a felony become felonies. So these perfectly legal acts became illegal furtherance of alleged (but not proved) illegal campaign contributions (which they weren't and that issue had been previously decided).
>
I ask again, where's the crime?

>
He used campaign funds to pay hush money. Yes, that's a crime.

 I'm surprised to hear that breaking news.
 Perhaps Mr Bragg should have included that in the charges if he thought it was so.  You should write the FEC to pursue this new development.
 

I'm sticking with that story as long as the right-winger keep promoting the lie that the January 6 insurrection was a peaceful demonstration.