During Sunday’s broadcast of FNC’s “MediaBuzz,” Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued against the Department of Justice’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
According to Dershowitz, the case was not about espionage or national security but documents, which he said may not justify interfering with a presidential election.
“He’d be a difficult client, but being a difficult client doesn’t mean that you should be prosecuted for a crime when you’re running for president against the incumbent president,” he said. “There has to be the strongest possible case to justify that. I call it the Nixon standard. In Nixon’s case, he destroyed evidence, he bribed witnesses, and Republicans and Democrats alike wanted him to be removed from office. That standard hasn’t been met here. And in order to prosecute somebody who’s running for president against the incumbent, it has to be not only slam dunk, but it has to be something that’s just inescapable.”
“And I think the country would have been better off if he had not been prosecuted, even though clearly, by his own admissions, he did possess classified material,” Dershowitz continued. “Also, nobody should mention the word espionage here in court or out of court. This is not an espionage case. He didn’t sell to enemies. He didn’t hurt national security. This is a documents case. And the question is, should you bring a documents case, even if it’s a strong documents case, and interfere with the election in this way? I think that’s a hard, hard question.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Read the full article here
Discussion about this post