Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz claims that the Bragg indictment has several problems that, if addressed immediately, might result in having the false case dismissed.
The recent book by Professor Alan Dershowitz, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law,” examines the never-ending campaign by Trump’s political opponents to prevent him from competing in 2024.
The illegal attempts to prevent Trump from regaining the presidency threaten due process, the right to representation, and free expression. The risk of a second Trump administration, according to those who defend these catastrophic deviations from the dictates of the law, is distinct and immediate, whereas the danger of departing from constitutional standards is more prolonged and more abstract.
Dershowitz adds that individuals who support Trump’s constitutional rights are targeted for silencing, with attacks on their free speech rights, questions of their honesty, and threats to their financial status.
This includes those who, like Dershowitz, are politically opposed to Trump. To get their way, many in the media and academics advocate instead of reporting on Trump, and many in the academy agitate and propagandize against liberties they formerly respected.
According to Dershowitz, justice is treating everyone the same. While no one is immune to punishment, the equitable execution of the law does not include spying and lying to sway an election.
A report reveals before the grand jury indictment of former President Trump, a majority of Americans felt that a trial in New York would be unfair to him.
In their survey for YouGov/Economist, they asked if respondents believed Donald Trump would receive an impartial trial in New York.
Forty percent of the respondents polled in the United States agreed that Trump could not get a fair trial in New York, while 39 percent disagreed. Among voters, the difference increases little, with 42% thinking he could not “get a fair trial” and 40% saying he could.