Noted liberal Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz believes the first Jan. 6th hearing was a one-sided, partisan, unethical, and fraudulent performance that buried the underlying, indisputable fact that “Donald Trump committed no crimes.”
Speaking on Newsmax’s “Spicer & Co.,” he told co-host Lyndsay Keith that the entire spectacle, from beginning to end, was essentially nothing but bullschiff. To really convey why, he offered a basketball analogy.
“I’m wearing my [Boston] Celtics shirt today. Not only in preparation for the great match-up tonight, but to make an analogy. It’s as if the [Golden State] Warriors came out yesterday and started shooting toward the basket, but the Celtics were kept off the court, and all we saw was one team scoring one after the other, missing a few layups, missing a few jump-shots, but no defense, no stealing of the mall, no rebounds. That’s what we saw last night,” he said.
“It was not a fair proceeding. And even if you say it was one-sided, it was unethical. Why was it unethical? Take for example President Trump’s speech on January 6th. I opposed that speech. I didn’t think it was done well. I didn’t think he should have done it. But he said at the end of the speech he wanted people to show their voices patriotically and peacefully. They doctored the tape! They edited those words out.”
Yes, they did:
“If a prosecutor ever did that, they’d be disbarred! You can’t present part of a tape and deliberately omit the rest of the tape in order to mislead the audience, especially when the other side has no opportunity to cross-examine, no opportunity to put on its own evidence. There is a special ethical obligation not to cheat, not to defraud the viewers, but that’s exactly what the Democrats with their two Republicans did yesterday. They cheated the viewers of hearing the actual words that Donald Trump spoke,” Dershowitz continued.
“And, you know, Donald Trump committed no crimes. All those recitations of crimes, it would be the same if a leader of Black Lives Matter stood up somewhere on the west coast and made a firebrand speech saying, you know, we’re going to bring down this, we’re going to do that, and then people went out and burned buildings.”
His point was that the hyperbolic rhetoric of one person cannot be linked with the illegal behavior of another. They are two separate things.
And indeed, in a blog post published this week, fellow liberal law school professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University noted that without this rule, Democrats would be just as guilty of inciting violence as they claim Trump is.
Referencing what happened last year in Minnesota, he wrote, “[W]ith rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they ‘gotta stay on the street’ and ‘get more confrontational.'”
Referencing the present, he added, “Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else. The ‘else’ varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of ‘revolution,'” he wrote.
In fact, even President Joe Biden is now calling for revolution:
“I don’t think the country will stand for it,” Biden said of a possible Roe defeat on Kimmel. “If in fact the decision comes down the way it does, and these states impose the limitations, it’s going to cause a mini-revolution”#JoeBiden #SupremeCourt #roevwade #abortion #prolife pic.twitter.com/SRCl2ktS8j
— WorthyNews (@worthynews) June 9, 2022
“Clearly, these leaders are using over-heated rhetoric and do not support violence. They no more want true revolution than Sen. Chuck Schumer was calling for the killing of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch when he declared on the steps of Supreme Court ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,'” according to Turley.
The problem, he concluded, is that “these same politicians have insisted that such references are literal when made by their opponents,” i.e., Donald Trump.
It’s highly disingenuous at best, if not outright unethical, as Dershowitz called it.
Continuing his remarks on Newsmax, Dershowitz added that anyone who argues that Trump is guilty of inciting violence is just plain ignorant of how the First Amendment works.
“This is like 100 speeches that have been done by radical leftists and radicals on every side urging people to go and demonstrate. As I said before, if the leader of Black Lives Matter had been arrested for inciting violence because of a speech he made led to violent actions, I would be defending that on the ground that the First Amendment protects advocacy,” he said.
“So President Trump committed no crimes. Anybody who thinks he did fails to understand the First Amendment,” the liberal law professor concluded.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
- House Sgt. at Arms threatens GOP Rep to delete video of Dems waving Ukraine flags or else - April 24, 2024
- Biden’s epic slip, asks ‘how many times does Trump have to prove WE can’t be trusted?’ - April 24, 2024
- Columbia rabbi warns Jewish students to go home until it’s ‘safe again for them on campus’ - April 21, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.