Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, who represented former President Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial, insisted that Trump, hit with a felony indictment on Thursday, could not get a fair trial in Manhattan and that his attorneys should move the trial to Staten Island or Upstate New York.
The indictment, filed under seal by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, was reportedly connected to so-called hush money payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
“Any first-year student could win this case if the name wasn’t Donald Trump and if it wasn’t in Manhattan,” Dershowitz said to Fox News host Sean Hannity of the present indictment. “This case has to get out of Manhattan. Will it get out of Manhattan? We don’t know.”
“Would you attempt to get a change of venue?” Hannity asked.
“Of course,” Dershowitz replied. “I would try to move it to Staten Island or some upstate venue. But could you imagine a judge or a juror coming home to their wife and family and friends and saying, ‘I’m the man, I’m the woman who let Donald Trump off.’ Nobody would ever speak to them again &#8230; There’s no possibility he can get a fair trial in Manhattan.”
“He could have indicted him any day over the last seven years,” Dershowitz said of Bragg. “They deliberately violated the statute of limitations because no previous prosecutor would go after him. The very fact that the indictment came down when he was out of state proves that they could have indicted him any time before the indictment came down.”
“This is a totally bizarre, convoluted theory that Alvin Bragg has simply dreamed up, taking a misdemeanor and supercharging it into a felony,” Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett added. “The law doesn’t support that.”
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Jarrett predicted Trump’s attorneys would immediately file a motion to dismiss.
“Bragg would have to prove that Trump was personally involved in falsifying records, and then he’d have to prove that Trump understood the complex campaign finance laws that nobody can comprehend and then intended to violate the those laws,” he explained. “Non-disclosure agreements in exchange for money are perfectly legal; the Federal Election Commission looked at this and they said it’s not a crime. Even if it’s not personal or a commercial reason behind it, it’s still not a campaign donation.”

Trump, Dershowitz

‘Any First-Year Student Could Win This Case’: Dershowitz Says Move Trump’s Trial To Staten Island, Upstate New York

Dershowitz: Move Trump's Trial To Staten Island Or Upstate New York

Alan Dershowitz

Donald Trump

Indictment

Politics

U.S.

Manhattan District Attorney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alvin-bragg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alvin Bragg</a>’s possible criminal case against former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> may have derailed this week, according to Harvard Law professor emeritus <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alan-dershowitz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alan Dershowitz</a>.
On Monday, former federal prosecutor Robert Costello testified in front of a Manhattan grand jury over matters related to a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star in 2016. Costello <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/nyregion/costello-cohen-trump-grand-jury.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the jury that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, expected to be Bragg’s main witness in any case against Trump, “couldn&#8217;t tell the truth if you put a gun to his head.”
Dershowitz appeared on Fox News on Tuesday night and told host Sean Hannity that “Bob Costello has changed this case dramatically.”
“I think that Bragg now only has two possible results from that. Number one, he can say, ‘alright, I’m going to try to make the case without Cohen.’ He cannot use Cohen as a witness anymore. That would be unethical because of the testimony that Costello gave,” Dershowitz said. “Or he could say, ‘look, I have to drop the case.’ He may not be able to make it without Cohen. But if he can’t make it without Cohen, he can&#8217;t make it, because no ethical prosecutor is allowed to put on as a witness somebody who has told the lies and has contradicted himself so much.”
Bragg is investigating Trump over an alleged hush money payment the former president made to the porn star known as Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payment was made through Cohen, a longtime fixer for Trump, to allegedly keep Daniels from spreading claims that she had sex with Trump in July 2006 after his wife, Melania, had just given birth to their son. The former president allegedly reimbursed Cohen for the payment in 2017.
Cohen was later investigated by federal agents over the hush money payments. He went to Costello for legal counsel and advice, and the two men spent hours meeting and talking over the phone. In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges involving tax evasion, fraud, and campaign finance violations related to the payment to Daniels and another payment made to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also alleged an inappropriate relationship with Trump.
Cohen has said he made the payments at Trump’s direction. Trump has denied that claim and the allegations of the two women who accused him of infidelity.
Costello told the grand jury on Monday that Cohen had said that the hush money payments were his idea, not Trump’s. Costello also lambasted prosecutors for “cherry-picking” evidence to show the grand jury that gave a false view of what actually happened. “They seemed clearly one-sided and not after the truth,” Costello told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/nyregion/costello-cohen-trump-grand-jury.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a> afterward.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-453076">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
While it’s unclear what actual charges Bragg may pursue, the legal pathway toward getting to an indictment is complicated, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/21/unpacking-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-00088035" target="_blank" rel="noopener">POLITICO</a>. Bragg’s case likely involves testing a novel legal theory that New York law classifies falsifying business records as a felony if the records were falsified to cover up a federal crime, which in this case would be a campaign finance crime similar to what Cohen pleaded guilty to.
Dershowitz says that Costello’s testimony has, at the very least, slowed Bragg’s movement toward any potential indictment, if not halted it altogether.
“I think that Bob Costello — it&#8217;s a game changer. I think maybe that&#8217;s a reason for the delay here. I think ethical experts are now telling Bragg, ‘wait a minute, you cannot use Cohen,’” said Dershowitz. “But if you can&#8217;t make it without Cohen, you cannot bring this charge.”

Alvin Bragg

‘Game-Changer’ Costello Testimony May Have Sunk Manhattan DA’s Case Against Trump, Dershowitz Says

Crime

New York

One of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims has now said that she “may have made a mistake” in her accusation against lawyer Alan Dershowitz. 
Virginia Giuffre has contended since 2014 that Alan Dershowitz had sex with her when she was a minor. Giuffre also accused Epstein of abuse, which has been verified. When Giuffre accused Dershowitz, he strongly pushed back and said it hadn’t happened. The two have now come to a deal and all lawsuits involved are ended.
“I have long believed that I was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Alan Dershowitz,” Giuffre <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-alan-dershowitz-agree-permanently-drop-lawsuits-against-each-other" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a joint statement. “However, I was very young at the time, it was a very stressful and traumatic environment, and Mr. Dershowitz has from the beginning consistently denied these allegations. I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz. This litigation has been very stressful and burdensome for me and my family, and we believe it is time to bring it to an end and move on with our lives.” 
In the statement, Dershowitz said, “As I have said from the beginning, I never had sex with Ms. Giuffre.”
“I have nevertheless come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said. Ms. Giuffre is to be commended for her courage in now stating publicly that she may have been mistaken about me,” he added. “She has suffered much at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, and I commend her work combatting the evil of sex trafficking. I also now believe that my allegations that David Boies engaged in an extortion plot and in suborning perjury were mistaken.”
On the Megyn Kelly show, Dershowitz announced the end of the lawsuits, adding that no payments have been issued.
“The matter is over,” he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7d1v81h0I4&amp;ab_channel=MegynKelly" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “She has now acknowledged that she may have made a mistake in recognizing me or in identifying me, so I’m very gratified, of course.”
Dershowitz was friends with Epstein in the past and defended him after his first arrest and charge of sex trafficking. In 2008, he reportedly assisted in getting Epstein an easy plea deal. 
Giuffre has been part of several legal actions involving Jeffrey Epstein. She sued Prince Andrew and accused him of raping her when she was in her teens. In February, the lawsuit resulted in a settlement. Prince Andrew <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/nyregion/epstein-victim-giuffre-dershowitz.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement at the time that he “regrets his association with Epstein and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.”
Giuffre was also involved in legal action against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and girlfriend, who was recently given a twenty-year prison sentence.

6CDC2F56-219F-4EC1-B088-20254B63236A_1_201_a

Dershowitz Accuser Admits She ‘May Have Made A Mistake’

Alan Dershowitz Accuser Virginia Giuffre Admits She ‘May Have Made A Mistake’ 

Jeffrey Epstein

Famed attorney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alan-dershowitz">Alan Dershowitz</a> weighed in on the reported <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fbi">FBI</a> raid on former President Trump’s Florida home at Mar-A-Lago on Monday and slammed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration">Biden administration</a> for weaponizing the justice system.
“A raid is supposed to be a last resort,” Dershowitz pointed out. “But this administration has used the weaponization of the justice system against its political enemies. It’s arrested people, denied them bail, put them in handcuffs – used all kinds of techniques that are not usually applied to American citizens.”
“I suspect it has to do with some investigations leading toward Donald Trump and some of his associates,” he theorized. “Again, the law is clear: You don’t engage in a raid unless you’ve exhausted all of the other remedies, unless you believe that the person you raided will destroy the evidence. Raids are not a first recourse in America; they’re a last recourse.”
“And so the government will have to show a court eventually that they exhausted all other possibilities or they had a reasonable basis for believing that the evidence would be destroyed if it was sought in the normal legal course of events through a subpoena,” he explained. “Raids are a last resort, but today, in many instances, it’s being used as a first resort.”
Dershowitz opined that many raids conducted by current law enforcement are impelled by a desire for celebrity, as he stated, “In order to get on television, they have a lot of these raids where people are arrested, put in handcuffs, sometimes put in leg shackles, bail denied. Presumption of innocence still applies, but it’s applied only in theory, not in practice.”
Referencing the reported FBI raid at Trump’s home, he proclaimed, “Unless there is evidence that we’re not aware of, this is improper, and it is misconduct. We have to find out what the facts are. But we have to make sure the shoe fits on the other foot – that we want to make sure what’s being one here is something that Democrats would not oppose if it were being done to Democratic operatives, as well. I don’t think it passes the test.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L26taXZcDZM" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
In November 2019, Dershowitz was <a href="https://twitter.com/JCats2013/status/1193552789038911494">asked</a> by radio show host John Catsimatidis, “Do the Democrats today think that the American public is so stupid on some of the things they’re doing?”
Dershowitz replied, &#8220;They’re very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.&#8221;

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump

Dershowitz Reacts To FBI Raid At Mar-A-Lago: Biden Administration Has Weaponized Justice System

Mar-a-Lago

Oh, you haven&#8217;t heard?
Turns out a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico on Monday. In the 98-page majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito says, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.&#8221;
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes, a move that would invalidate the landmark 1973 decision that declared abortion constitutional.
There are several theories about why the opinion was leaked. &#8220;I think it&#8217;s plainly an attempt by the Left to try and change the outcome in this case and corrupt the process, and the court must not allow that to happen,&#8221; Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/hawley-supreme-court-leak-an-attempt-by-left-to-change-decision">said</a> on Fox News.
But the big question of the day is: Who leaked the opinion?
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz on Monday <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305539087112#sp=show-clips">proffered</a> a theory.
&#8220;I have a theory, and it&#8217;s only a theory,&#8221; Dershowitz said on Fox News. &#8220;I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who was trying to change the outcome of the case, either by putting pressure on some of the justices to change their mind, or by getting Congress to pack the court even before June, which is very unlikely, or to get Congress to pass a national right-to-abortion law, which would apply to all the states, and that would have to come to the Supreme Court to see whether that could be upheld under the Commerce Clause.&#8221;
&#8220;But I think this is real, and &#8230; my theory is that it was leaked by somebody who wants to change the outcome,&#8221; the attorney said. &#8220;Look, I&#8217;ve been watching Supreme Court for 55 years. And this has all the hallmarks of reality and it does not have the hallmark of a decision that&#8217;s likely to be changed. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts will go with the minority, but I think they seem to have five votes at this point to overrule Roe vs. Wade.&#8221;
Dershowitz added: &#8220;I strongly oppose overruling Roe vs. Wade after 50 years, but I think it will be overruled.&#8221;
Hawley said this has never happened before. &#8220;This is an unprecedented breach of the court&#8217;s confidentiality, and it is plainly meant to corrupt the process within a court. It’s an assault on the court,&#8221; he said.
But the original Roe v. Wade opinion leaked out in dribs and drabs. &#8220;In 1973, both Roe v. Wade&#8217;s decision and some of its deliberations were leaked to Time magazine and The Washington Post, both of which published articles before the ruling was made public,&#8221; The Washington Post <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-original-roe-v-wade-decision-was-also-leaked-in-1973-and-angered-the-chief-justice-so-much-he-threatened-staff-with-lie-detector-tests/ar-AAWRNlW?cvid=5a0e691b567041139b0a18df3bdd519c">reported</a>.
&#8220;Then-Chief Justice Warren Burger was &#8216;livid&#8217; about the leak, and wrote to all justices demanding that the leaker be found,&#8221; the Post said. &#8220;He said that if nobody came forward he would demand lie detector tests for the court&#8217;s clerks.&#8221;
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Supreme Court Draft Ruling Rejects Abortion Rights

Liberal Clerk The Likely SCOTUS Leaker, Top Harvard Prof Says

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz  says Liberal Clerk The Likely SCOTUS Leaker of Roe v Wade decision

Abortion

Josh Hawley

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

SCOTUS

A defense attorney who has represented defendants in the January 6 Capitol riot is offering her services pro bono to conservatives and has already helped clear a Virginia dad accused of slander for saying a Left-wing activist was &#8220;grooming&#8221; children.
Marina Medvin, who started RightDefense.org earlier this year with help from the nonprofit Coolidge Reagan Foundation (CRF), is offering the free services in Washington, D.C., and Virginia. The project was inspired by what she said was widespread skepticism that conservatives could find lawyers they could rely on.
&#8220;As I am sure everyone noticed in the January 6 Capitol arrests, conservatives were scrambling to find lawyers they could trust to represent their interests in criminal court,&#8221; Medvin told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Our goal is to prevent this scramble in the future.&#8221;
The project is being launched as the trials of multiple January 6 defendants get underway. One defendant, Matthew Martin, was acquitted of all charges last Wednesday after a federal judge ruled that Martin plausibly believed that Capitol Police waved him into the building. That ruling sent shockwaves through the Washington legal community, as dozens more defendants accused of trespassing could likely make the same case. Alan Dershowitz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/if-thats-the-rule-we-will-win-january-6-acquittal-enormously-important-dershowitz-says">told</a> The Daily Wire that the &#8220;enormously important&#8221; decision, by U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, could set a legal precedent for a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hes-facing-over-20-years-for-january-6-charges-his-lawyers-say-he-just-went-to-protest">case</a> in which he is representing January 6 defendant Brady Knowlton.
RightDefense.org, which has not made its foray into January 6 cases yet, won a case last week against Virginia dad and former PTA President Harry Jackson, who faced criminal charges for accusing a Left-wing activist of &#8220;grooming,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dad-will-no-longer-face-criminal-charges-for-calling-leftist-activist-a-groomer">The Daily Wire</a> reported. All four charges were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be brought back.
&#8220;The father who was victimized by the criminalization of free speech is now free to speak his mind,&#8221; said Medvin.
Medvin said donations will help CRF&#8217;s initiative defend people like Jackson, January 6 defendants, and also fight for legal reforms.
&#8220;We can use the foundation to do more than just represent conservatives in criminal court — we can go further and advocate for changes in the law,&#8221; she said.
Dan Backer, founder and president of CRF, said the need for conservative legal representation became clear when Virginia parents and children were targeted by the legal system for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virginia-judge-denies-governors-request-to-immediately-strike-down-mask-mandates">not wearing</a> masks after Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) removed the statewide mandate.
He said that CRF&#8217;s &#8220;mandate is to defend conservatives who are being criminally prosecuted for living and speaking their conservative values.&#8221;
The defense of Jackson and conservative families caught in the masking dispute come cheap compared to defending alleged Capitol rioters. Backer said just one such case could cost a defendant as much as $250,000.
&#8220;Financial support at that level – or anything close to it – is wildly beyond the amount CRF has raised to date,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Maybe one day we’ll have those kinds of resources, but we’re still a modest effort to do whatever we can, when we can, to offset the pain being inflicted by leftists persecution.&#8221;
January 6 defendant John Lammons, who was arrested in March and <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1487231/download">charged</a> with four misdemeanors, told The Daily Wire RightDefense.org offers an alternative to beleaguered public defenders.
&#8220;It&#8217;s definitely valuable,&#8221; he said in an interview, clarifying that he has already hired legal counsel. &#8220;It&#8217;s just all in if you trust your court-appointed lawyer.&#8221;
Send story tips to Gabe Kaminsky at <a href="mailto:gekaminsky@protonmail.com">gekaminsky@protonmail.com</a>. Follow him <a href="https://twitter.com/gekaminsky">on Twitter</a>
The Daily Wire is building up its investigative reporting team to bring you the stories the legacy media refuse to cover. Support journalism that matters and join one of the fastest-growing conservative media companies in America by becoming a Daily Wire member <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">today</a>.

January 6

Attorney For Pro Bono Criminal Defense Project Eyeing January 6 Cases

Capitol Riot

Conservatives

Washington D.C.

Alan Dershowitz, who is representing a January 6 defendant facing roughly 20 years in prison, told The Daily Wire in an interview Wednesday that the acquittal of Capitol riot defendant Matthew Martin is &#8220;enormously important,&#8221; sets a legal precedent, and could swing momentum in favor of his legal team.
A federal judge <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-acquits-january-6-defendant-reasonably-believed-capitol-police-let-him-in-building">acquitted</a> Martin, a former government contractor at a nuclear weapons laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, on all charges Wednesday. Martin argued that police let him enter the Capitol and that he was waved into the building, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/man-who-testified-at-his-capitol-riot-trial-awaits-verdict/2022/04/06/38b91c54-b5cc-11ec-8358-20aa16355fb4_story.html">reported</a>.
Brady Knowlton, who Dershowitz is representing, spent 18 minutes in the Capitol on January 6 after he and others passed several police officers walking in their opposite direction, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hes-facing-over-20-years-for-january-6-charges-his-lawyers-say-he-just-went-to-protest">The Daily Wire</a> reported. Knowlton told The Daily Wire that an officer said, &#8220;You can go in as long as you don&#8217;t break anything,&#8221; before watching police and protestors shaking hands.
Dershowitz said that &#8220;the subjective intent of the defendant is key,&#8221; noting that the judge took Martin&#8217;s word over that of the police and the prosecution. The courts &#8220;have to look at the state of mind of the defendant,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;If that&#8217;s the rule, we will win,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Because it&#8217;s clear Brady honestly and reasonably believed that he was not violating any rules or laws — that he was being welcomed — as long as he didn&#8217;t do any damage.&#8221;
There are now three January 6 defendants who have resolved their cases in a trial — but Martin is the first to be acquitted of all charges. The defendant was charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, and demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.
Knowlton has been <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1389206/download">charged</a> with similar misdemeanors to Martin. He faces about 20 years in prison, as the DOJ uses statute 1512 in the U.S. code to prosecute him for obstruction of a congressional &#8220;proceeding.&#8221;
Knowlton&#8217;s attorneys, who include Harvard Law School professor Ronald Sullivan, say his law degree has been withheld by The University of Denver. Around the same time, Airbnb banned him and his wife, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection removed his Global Entry access, according to emails <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hes-facing-over-20-years-for-january-6-charges-his-lawyers-say-he-just-went-to-protest">obtained</a> by The Daily Wire.
There was a status hearing for Knowlton&#8217;s case in March. The court ordered the prosecution and defense to submit a status report by May 20, said Sullivan.
The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hes-facing-over-20-years-for-january-6-charges-his-lawyers-say-he-just-went-to-protest">He’s Facing 20 Years For January 6 Charges. His Lawyers Say He Just Went To Protest.</a>
Send story tips to Gabe Kaminsky at <a href="mailto:gekaminsky@protonmail.com">gekaminsky@protonmail.com</a>. Follow him <a href="https://twitter.com/gekaminsky">on Twitter</a>.
<div class="css-j7qwjs">
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="e1nzmkc90 css-1s0j25g">
<div class="article-body" data-qa="article-body">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

‘If That’s The Rule, We Will Win’: January 6 Acquittal ‘Enormously Important,’ Dershowitz Says

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz claimed that Kyle Rittenhouse should be acquitted in his murder trial this week, then sue media organizations for smearing him.
Dershowitz appeared on <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/dershowitz-rittenhouse-media-trial/2021/11/13/id/1044528/">Newsmax</a> on Saturday and said that Rittenhouse, who is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third during riots in Wisconsin last year, should walk free under the “reasonable doubt” standard that he acted in self-defense. The Harvard professor then added that Rittenhouse should take various media organizations to court for spreading “deliberate and willful lies” about him and his trial.
“He should be acquitted,” Dershowitz said. “If I were a juror, I would vote that there was reasonable doubt that he did act in self-defense, and then he’ll bring lawsuits and that’s the way to answer. I’ve sued CNN, the Covington people have sued CNN. You know, the idea is to make the media accountable for deliberate and willful lies, and that is consistent with the First Amendment.”
The Harvard professor and Constitutional scholar tore into the media for its coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, mentioning several outlets by name and accusing them of attempting to abuse the justice system for other reasons.
“The bigger deal is that all of us civil libertarians, all the liberals, all the ACLU-types, The New Yorker, The New York Times, they all attack the judge for simply applying the Constitution. These phony civil libertarians couldn’t care less about due process, about free speech. All they want is due process for me, but not for thee,” Dershowitz said. “They’re taking sides, They’re cheering, they’re rooting. The New Yorker, that trashy magazine, … already dubbed [Rittenhouse], without any evidence, the ‘<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante">American Vigilante</a>.’”
“People are picking sides, and they are picking on the judge because the judge has made some fair rulings under the Constitution. If the judge had made, with the same attitude, rulings in favor of the prosecution, the civil libertarians, the liberals, the left, The New York Times would be praising him to the sky. It’s so biased. We don’t have justice out there. We have partisan injustice,” he said.
The jury in Rittenhouse’s trial is expected to begin deliberations after arguments are wrapped up by the prosecutions and his defense. Rittenhouse is facing six total charges: five felonies and one misdemeanor. The felony charges are intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. The misdemeanor charge is underage possession of a deadly weapon.
The prosecution has ran afoul of the judge in the case, Bruce Schroeder, multiple times throughout the trial. On several occasions, Schroeder stopped the trial and sent the jury out of the courtroom to reprimand Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger during Rittenhouse’s testimony. As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-watch-rittenhouse-judge-stops-trial-explodes-after-prosecutor-risks-grave-constitutional-violation">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse repeatedly admonished the prosecution on Wednesday – at one point yelling at the lead prosecutor – for risking a “grave constitutional violation” during cross-examination of Rittenhouse.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger ran afoul of Judge Bruce Schroeder multiple times while questioning Rittenhouse. The judge scolded, then exploded, on Binger for commenting on Rittenhouse’s pretrial silence, which risked violating the 18-year-old’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Schroeder stopped the trial and sent the jury into a nearby room minutes after Binger had begun his examination of Rittenhouse.
“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence, and that is, you’re right on the borderline. And you may be over, but it better stop,” Schroeder said. “I can’t think of an initial case on it, but this is not permitted.”</blockquote>

Kyle Rittenhouse

Rittenhouse ‘Should Be Acquitted,’ Sue Media For ‘Deliberate And Willful Lies,’ Harvard Professor Says

The on-set killing of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins likely constitutes &#8220;homicide,&#8221; or a criminal killing, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz explained in an opinion piece published Sunday.
Actor and co-producer Alec Baldwin on Thursday shot Hutchins and director Joel Souza while on the film set for &#8220;Rust,&#8221; killing Hutchins and wounding Souza. According to a court document, Baldwin was told he was handed a &#8220;cold gun&#8221; before firing at the camera, striking the two crew members. It still remains unclear if the &#8220;live round&#8221; was real ammunition.
Dershowitz <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/578183-is-the-alec-baldwin-shooting-a-homicide">asserts</a> at The Hill that &#8220;two things&#8221; seem clear in the incident: &#8220;guidelines seem not to have been followed in this case, and the existing guidelines seem insufficient to prevent accidents like this.&#8221;
&#8220;It is likely, therefore, that the killing of Halyna Hutchins could constitute a homicide — that is, a criminal killing,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The remaining questions are who might be criminally responsible for the killing and what degree of homicide fits the evidence?&#8221;
&#8220;It seems clear that Alec Baldwin was not aware that he was firing a gun capable of expelling a lethal projectile,&#8221; Dershowitz wrote. &#8220;But his role reportedly was not limited to passively being an actor; he may have had some responsibility as one of several producers of the film. The nature of the role of producers varies from film to film, and it is unlikely that Baldwin’s role included responsibility for set safety. But some may think that it was not simply enough for him to accept the word of an assistant director about the gun’s safety, that he perhaps should have independently inspected the gun before firing it. It is unlikely, however, that such an omission would result in criminal responsibility.&#8221;
&#8220;Others on the set almost certainly bore greater responsibility, and their roles should be investigated, their responsibilities pinpointed,&#8221; he added.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/use-of-force-expert-state-witness-throws-wrench-in-prosecutions-knee-on-neck-narrative">Attorney Andrew Branca</a> of Law of Self Defense similarly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-expert-weighs-in-on-alec-baldwin-shooting-incident-discusses-potential-prison-time-co-producer-role">weighed in</a> on the case, Friday.
The fatal shooting could be argued to be an accident, prove negligence, or be classified as recklessness or involuntary manslaughter — a worst-case scenario for the actor, Branca said in an 18-minute video.
The attorney noted that, for this case, involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico would be classified as a fourth-degree felony, which is typically punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a fine of $5,000.
<div class="in-body-articles css-ns67zv">
<section class="css-79elbk">
<header class="css-acwcvw">
Branca outlined the hypothetical case that Baldwin was negligent in the killing (emphasis added):
<blockquote>In our hypothetical with the defective gun, for example, it may be true that the discharge of the gun was not foreseeable by Alec Baldwin, and therefore not really in his control—but the direction in which the gun was pointed certainly was in his control.
The death of Ms. Hutchins by the discharge of the gun could not have occurred had the gun not been pointed at her—and that pointing of the gun at her would certainly seem to constitute negligence.
Anyone trained in firearms safety—and anyone handling an inherently dangerous instrument like a firearm can be reasonably expected to have a duty to be trained on its safe operation around others—would know that one of the four primary safety rules of handling firearms is that you do not point the muzzle of the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Pointing the gun at Ms. Hutchins then, at least under circumstances in which the gun discharges and kills her, would certainly qualify as negligence at a minimum, and thus create civil liability for her death.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/union-says-alec-baldwin-shot-live-round-in-on-set-fatal-incident-report-notes-clarity-needed">Union Says Alec Baldwin Shot ‘Live Round’ In On-Set Fatal Incident; Report Notes ‘Clarity’ Needed</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-expert-weighs-in-on-alec-baldwin-shooting-incident-discusses-potential-prison-time-co-producer-role">Legal Expert Weighs In On Alec Baldwin Shooting Incident; Discusses Potential Prison Time, Co-Producer Role</a>
</header>
</section>
</div>

Sundance Film Festival Kickoff Party

Famed Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Says It’s ‘Likely’ On-Set Hutchins Killing A ‘Homicide’

Alec Baldwin

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, slammed Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) during an interview following the guilty verdict against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on all counts.
&#8220;The irony of what Congresswoman Waters did. She borrowed the playbook of the Ku Klux Klan from the 1920s and 1930s. They would stand outside of courtrooms, and they would threaten violence,” Dershowitz <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-maxine-waters-kkk-playbook-intimidate-jury-in-trial">told</a> Newsmax. &#8220;This violates the separation of powers. It insults the integrity of the independent judiciary, and Congresswoman Waters ought to be ashamed of herself. What she did was disgraceful.&#8221;
In a separate interview on Newsmax, Dershowitz said that Chauvin&#8217;s conviction should be overturned because the jury was tainted by outside influences.
&#8220;Well, first what was done to George Floyd by officer Chauvin was inexcusable morally, but the verdict is very questionable, because of the outside influences of people like Al Sharpton and people like Maxine Waters,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Their threats and intimidation and hanging the Sword of Damocles over the jury and basically saying, if you don&#8217;t convict on the murder charge and all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed—seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering the jury.&#8221;
&#8220;So the judge himself said this case may be reversed on appeal. And I think it might be reversed on appeal, I think it should be reversed on appeal,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I think the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be all over this case if it weren&#8217;t a racially charged case, all Americans who care about due process and liberty should be concerned that the jury verdict may have been influenced by, if not the thumb, maybe even the elbow of the outside pressures, the fears, the threats.&#8221;
&#8220;Every juror in that room knew about these threats. And when they sit and deliberate, they have to be saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, if I would render a verdict other than a murder verdict, what the consequences will be for me, my family, my friends, my business,&#8221; he concluded. &#8220;That should never, ever, be allowed to seep into a jury room. So I have no real confidence that this verdict, which may be correct in some ways, but I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law rather than the influence of the crowd.&#8221;
Dershowitz later said that &#8220;the whole judicial system has been corrupted by identity politics and by the weaponization of the criminal justice system toward particular agendas.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The path to a Chauvin reversal | Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMd5bBdqPd0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>LINDSAY KEITH, NEWSMAX TV HOST: We are now joined by legal reaction of the verdict, constitutional law expert and author of the new book &#8216;The Case Against The New Censorship,&#8217; Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz, thanks so much for being here. What is your initial reaction to this verdict?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, LEGAL EXPERT: Well, first what was done to George Floyd by officer Chauvin was inexcusable morally, but the verdict is very questionable, because of the outside influences of people like Al Sharpton and people like Maxine Waters. Their threats and intimidation and hanging the Sword of Damocles over the jury and basically saying, if you don&#8217;t convict on the murder charge and all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed—seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering the jury. So the judge himself said this case may be reversed on appeal. And I think it might be reversed on appeal, I think it should be reversed on appeal. I think the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be all over this case if it weren&#8217;t a racially charged case, all Americans who care about due process and liberty should be concerned that the jury verdict may have been influenced by, if not the thumb, maybe even the elbow of the outside pressures, the fears, the threats. Every juror in that room knew about these threats. And when they sit and deliberate, they have to be saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, if I would render a verdict other than a murder verdict, what the consequences will be for me, my family, my friends, my business. That should never, ever, be allowed to seep into a jury room. So I have no real confidence that this verdict, which may be correct in some ways, but I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law rather than the influence of the crowd.
KEITH: Okay, so what is the appeal process look like? Is that something that we&#8217;ll see played out in the next few days? Or is it going to take weeks or months?
 DERSHOWITZ: Oh, more than weeks and months, an appeal will be filed immediately because he&#8217;s in jail, now pending appeal, there are two levels of appeal in Minnesota. And then ultimately, the case will go to the United States Supreme Court. And I think the United States Supreme Court holds the best possibility for the defense of getting this conviction reversed on the ground that the judge himself suggested the statements made by people outside the courtroom, essentially intimidating jurors, and telling them that if they don&#8217;t come to the quote, &#8216;right verdict,&#8217; there will be violence and consequences and their own lives may be affected. Jurors should never, ever, have that fear or influence in their verdicts.
KEITH: I gotta ask you this. We had this morning, President Biden say that he hoped that they reach the right verdict. He said, because the jury was sequestered, that&#8217;s why he made the comments. Was he out of line by doing that?
DERSHOWITZ: No, I think he waited long enough. I think he would have been wrong to have said it. While the jury was not sequestered, when they could have heard his views, presidents have bully pulpits. But once the jury was sequestered, I think it was okay for the President to do that. Now he raised expectations. The expectations have been fulfilled, have they not been fulfilled, had the jury come back with a verdict either guilty or guilty only a manslaughter, his raising of expectations might have exacerbated the problem. But in the end, he waited. He waited until the jury was sequestered to statements were relatively moderate. So I can&#8217;t criticize him. I can criticize Waters, I can criticize Sharpton. These folks took what they did right out of the playbook of the deep south in the 1920s, when prominent public officials would whoop up the crowds in front of the courthouse demanding conviction of black people and acquittal of white people. And the Supreme Court and other courts reverse convictions based on that, because jurors should not be intimidated or influenced by what goes on outside the courtroom. This judge did not do a good enough job. He just told the jurors not to watch the news. Well, today most people don&#8217;t get their information from the news. They get them from social media, they get them from friends and family. They get them even from non news shows on television. So I don&#8217;t think the judge did a good enough job in insulating the jury from outside pressures.
KEITH: You know, and this was such a public case from the get go. We&#8217;ve been watching this for almost a year. Now we you know, there aren&#8217;t many cases like this where you actually have a video of a murder happening, or the incident happening. I do have to ask you though, when the judge at the end, he thinks the jury and he said you know it will be a few weeks before he reaches a sentence on how many, you know, years that Chavez will spend in jail. I know that depending on it&#8217;s 40, 25 or 10. What does that look like and what is his defense lawyer doing right now to try to minimize that potential life in prison?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, it is potentially life in prison and the defense lawyers are preparing a sentencing memorandum which go back into his career. This is a first offense, he&#8217;s been generally law abiding, he did have some complaints against him, and they will come out in sentencing. And the judge has some hard decisions to make. But the judge will sentence to a very substantial sentence, which might be the equivalent of life imprisonment for a person the age of Chauvin. And then the appellate process will commence. And there are three levels of appeal, two in the Minnesota courts, and then one to the United States Supreme Court. And I&#8217;m sure that the lawyers preserve federal constitutional issues. And so ultimately, the United States Supreme Court may decide this case. Remember the case of Sam Shepard, that was very famous F. Lee Bailey did it, it became a television series. And in that case, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction based on outside pressures. And in other cases as well, convictions have been reversed not because of what happened inside the courtroom, but because what happened outside the courtroom seeped into the jury box. And that&#8217;s not acceptable under the rule of law.
KEITH: So before I let you go real quick, what is the judge using here to determine how long this sentence is because record shows that Chauvin has no previous convictions?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, unfortunately, he&#8217;s probably putting his finger up to the wind and seeing what sentence he should impose that wouldn&#8217;t result in all kinds of riots. The whole judicial system has been corrupted by identity politics and by the weaponization of the criminal justice system toward particular agendas. So I&#8217;m not confident this judge will impose the sentence he would normally impose if the worldwide watching. I suspect the sentence will be somewhat higher than what was generally imposed in similar cases.</blockquote>

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Testifies Before House Financial Services Committee

Dershowitz: Chauvin Conviction ‘Should Be Reversed On Appeal,’ Maxine Waters Used KKK ‘Playbook’ To Intimidate Jury

Derek Chauvin

Maxine Waters

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Monday slammed Congresswoman Maxine Waters&#8217; (D-CA) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-maxine-waters-on-if-derek-chauvin-is-acquitted-get-more-confrontational-on-the-street">comments</a> about activists needing to &#8220;get more confrontational” if the jury in the George Floyd trial did not find officer Derrick Chauvin guilty in Floyd&#8217;s death.
According to Dershowitz, Waters&#8217; comments were straight out of the KKK&#8217;s &#8220;playbook.&#8221;
&#8220;You know, when you think about the irony of what Congresswoman Waters did, she borrowed the playbook of the Ku Klux Klan from the 1920s and 1930s. They would stand outside of courtrooms and they would threaten violence if any jury would ever acquit a black person or convict a white person,&#8221; the attorney explained, according to <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-dershowitz-compares-maxine-waters-to-the-ku-klux-klan/">Mediaite</a>. &#8220;Now we&#8217;re seeing exactly the opposite. We&#8217;re seeing mobs outside the courthouse and we&#8217;re seeing members of Congress, just like the Klan had governors and senators and very prominent public officials, demanding verdicts in particular cases. And now we have a member of Congress demanding a verdict in a case.&#8221;
The professor said the judge in the case should have issued a mistrial over Waters&#8217; remarks. Instead, the judge decided to allow the appellate court to make that decision, something Dershowitz believes was due to the public&#8217;s reaction.
&#8220;&#8230; if he declared a mistrial there&#8217;d be riots in the streets and he&#8217;d be blamed for it. The true blame would be on Waters but he would be blamed for it,&#8221; the professor explained.
Dershowitz pointed out that the case is complex and Waters was attempting to influence the jury.
&#8220;Her message was clearly intended to get to the jury: &#8216;If you will acquit or if you find the charge less than murder, we will burn down your buildings. We will burn down your businesses,&#8221; he explained, as <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-says-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-intimidate-jury-chauvin-trial-1585111">Newsweek</a> reported. &#8220;We will attack you. We will do what happened to the witness—blood on their door.'&#8221;
&#8220;This is a very close case on what degree of homicide is involved if the jury gets beyond the issue of causation,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is not a simple case of looking at a video. There&#8217;s causation, issues of intent, and other issues in the case that the judge instructed the jury on.&#8221;
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) introduced a resolution to censure Waters for her comments. The motion to table the full floor vote <a href="https://twitter.com/emilyelarsen/status/1384607386653057031?s=20">passed</a>, with no Democrats defecting.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/derek-chauvin-jury-reaches-verdict-after-short-deliberation">The Daily Wire</a> reported, the jury in the Chauvin trial reached a verdict shortly after noon on Tuesday. The former officer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-jury-finds-derek-chauvin-guilty">was found</a> guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Testifies Before The House Financial Services Committee

Alan Dershowitz: Maxine Waters’ Comments Were ‘Borrowed’ From The ‘Playbook Of The Ku Klux Klan’

George Floyd

Speaking on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Thursday night, famed attorney Alan Dershowitz said the Democrats making the impeachment  argument in the Senate on Thursday had “overplayed their hand; they went on too long, too repetitious, they should have rested yesterday.”
Dershowitz started by slamming Hillary Clinton, who had called senators who might acquit Trump his “co-conspirators.” She tweeted, “If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense. It will be because the jury included his co-conspirators.”
Dershowitz said, “I don’t understand; Hillary Clinton’s a very good lawyer. When she says to the Republican senators that ‘You’re as guilty as he is,’ they’re listening and saying, ‘Oh, you mean, he’s as innocent as we are.’ They think they’re innocent, so if she’s making comparisons between the senators and Trump, that’s very ineffective advocacy; she’s actually advocating for the senators to vote to acquit him.”
Dershowitz surmised there were two avenues lawyers could use to defend Trump: that his statements on January 6 were protected by the First Amendment and that the Senate does not have jurisdiction to convict a former president. He noted the letter by 140 constitutional scholars to Trump&#8217;s attorneys warning them not to defend him on free speech grounds. “The letter carries an implicit threat, as the rules of professional responsibility prohibit an attorney from making frivolous arguments and carry disciplinary sanctions for those who do,” <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9252867/Alan-Dershowitz-says-House-impeachment-managers-overplayed-hand.html">the Daily Mail</a> noted.
“The evidence is overwhelming,” Dershowitz asserted. “The president made a statement, a speech that was so within the parameters of our First Amendment and Brandenburg, notwithstanding the fact that 144 scholars have said it would be unethical, unethical, to even raise a First Amendment issue. I hope the defense attorneys for Trump don’t listen and make that argument; I’ve offered to defend them in front of any bar association that finds this argument (First Amendment) unethical because these scholars are trying to intimidate lawyers, trying to persuade them that they cannot make a First Amendment argument, depriving all of America and the Senate of the opportunity to hear how the First Amendment precludes this impeachment.”
He added, “And so I expect we’ll hear a few hours — David Schoen is a very good lawyer; he will focus laser-like on the First Amendment issues.”
Turning to the Senate’s jurisdiction, Dershowitz continued, “They should also argue the jurisdictional issue. Remember: it doesn’t matter what reasons the senators have for acquitting; some may acquit on the First Amendment grounds; others, even though they were voted down, may still acquit on the ground that there’s no jurisdiction.
He concluded, “And the total simply has to be more than a third and there will be an acquittal, so I think that will be the strategy. The Democrats overplayed their hand today; they went on too long, too repetitious, they should have rested yesterday. I think the Republicans, the lawyers will do a good job by making it neat and clean, and to the point and short.”
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AvtpetnEQTo?start=1534" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Menu