Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz railed on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo over the targeting of former President Trump while alluding to one “damning piece of evidence” the DOJ has against him in its indictment.

(Video Credit: Fox News)

Dershowitz commented that Special Counsel Jack Smith had only one job when he was assigned to the former president’s case and that was to “Get Trump.” When Smith announced the charges against Trump, he speciously proclaimed there is “one set of laws” in the country and they “apply to everyone.”

“Applying those laws, collecting facts, that’s what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, nothing less,” he exclaimed.

On Friday, the 37-count indictment was released. It contains counts of willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements. If convicted on all counts, Trump could be sentenced to over 100 years in prison.

Dershowitz contended that Smith claiming there was only one set of laws in the country was untrue.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who wrote #GetTrump, didn’t vote for DJT, but he explains how Bidens DOJ has turned America into a banana Republic… pic.twitter.com/fur3dd1mlH

— ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ ™ (@ClownsOfCSPAN) June 9, 2023

“He was assigned only one job – to get Trump,” he stated Sunday. “If you put aside all your resources and do what [Supreme Court] Justice [Robert] Jackson warned about 80 years ago – where he said it’s a question of picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him – that’s what they did.”

Former Acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker pointed out that Smith was pursuing an “aggressive prosecution” against Trump.

“I’ll point out that he was the one that got reversed 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell case for taking a very aggressive position on a statute. You know, the interplay between the Presidential Records Act, which says all documents are covered by that act, and the Espionage Act, which preceded it” and was passed in 1917 shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I, “I think is going to be the most important issue that the courts are going to have to decide,” Whitaker asserted.

Trump is declaring he has done nothing wrong and will not be forced out of the 2024 presidential race over a political witch hunt. He’s not budging even if he is convicted. The former president is scheduled to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday.

The 44-page indictment has one “damning piece of evidence,” according to Dershowitz who also said the case against Trump is “the product of targeting.”

“For the first time in American history, the leading candidate to defeat the incumbent president has been indicted by the incumbent’s Justice Department” says Alan Dershowitz

— Gayle Trotter (@gayletrotter) June 11, 2023

That piece of evidence deals with a recorded conversation that Trump had during a 2021 meeting where he ostensibly acknowledged he had a document that he did not declassify.

“This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?” Trump reportedly said.

“I don’t know, we’ll, we’ll have to see. Yeah, we’ll have to try to…” an unknown staff member replied.

“Declassify it,” Trump stated.

“…figure out a – yeah,” the staffer continued.

“See, as president, I could have declassified it,” Trump asserted.

“Yeah,” the staffer laughed.

“Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” the former president told him.

“Yeah. Now we have a problem,” the staffer responded laughing again.

“Isn’t that interesting?” Trump noted.

Dershowitz contended that that conversation is a problem for Trump.

“There’s one problem with that, and that is the tape recording in which Donald Trump foolishly waves a piece of paper and says, ‘I could have declassified this, but I didn’t. It’s secret. Here, look at it.’ Now, maybe he didn’t actually allow the person to read it. But that tape recording, which can’t be cross-examined, you can’t say it’s a flip witness or a witness who shouldn’t have been able to testify. That’s a damning piece of evidence,” Dershowitz told Bartiromo.

The document referenced in the recording was never recovered. It wasn’t top secret and could have been Trump embellishing/bragging like he often does. There’s zero proof he showed anyone any documents. *Mathew Whitaker *Alan Dershowitz

— YinzAwake (@BurghGurl) June 11, 2023

“Now, the defense could be, ‘Hey, I had the right to have that piece of information because the Records Act permits me to have it.’ But that’s going to be a kind of weak defense. I think this is a much stronger indictment than the [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg indictment, but it’s the product of targeting,” he continued.

The “secret” document in question has not been located.

Dershowitz remarked that the former president is “lucky” because the case is being tried in Florida, not New York. Therefore, he might get a “sympathetic” jury and he already has a “good judge” assigned to the case. But it’s hard to tell what the outcome of the prosecution will be.

He previously told Bartiromo on Fox Business, “If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history,” he told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo.

(Video Credit: Fox Business)

“If I were a Republican leader, what I would do is draft a potential indictment against Biden and his son based on the information that’s now available, and present that in the court of public opinion in juxtaposition with the indictment that will come down on Tuesday,” Dershowitz said Friday, “and let the public judge whether or not there’s a single standard of justice.”

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

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.