I’m not a big fan of Alan Dershowitz, especially when he claimed citizens can be forcibly injected with vaccines, and yet Desheowitz shares important points about Trump’s indictment from Georgia.
Here's what Dershowitz said in a recent interview:
Well, first of all, nobody should take it at all seriously. The fact that there was a grand jury indictment means nothing. It's the prosecutor who indicted. The best evidence of that is that it was on his website before the grand jury even voted.
Now, the whole strategy of all these four cases is to get a conviction before the election, even if they're going to lose on appeal. I used to teach my students, many of them future prosecutors: if you bring a RICO case, that increases your chances of winning a trial and losing on appeal. The same thing is true with conspiracy and other cases involving mental states.
And so all four of these cases are designed to get quick, quick convictions in jurisdictions that are heavily loaded against Donald Trump. And these prosecutors don't care as much as prosecutors generally do about having the convictions reversed on appeal, because that will happen after the election.
Which only goes to prove what I've been arguing now for months. If you're going after the man who's running against your incumbent president, you had darn well better have the strongest case possible. And these are among the four -- at least three of them -- three weakest cases I've ever seen against any candidate. We don't know about the fourth, but it seems like it's very much like the DC case.
And if you're going after the man running for president against your person, you have to have the strongest case. Otherwise it becomes a banana republic: anybody can prosecute anybody. And we're opening the door to prosecution of Democrats by Republicans, Republicans by Democrats.
Image credit: The US Sun
Love is the greatest defender,
Darel L. Long