Famed Harvard Law Prof: Jack Smith Could be Indicted for Fraud

Wake up. You’re dreaming again.

 

I saw last week where Dershowitz said the election charges were the most serious of the 3 indictments thus far, but it will likely be the hardest to prove. Here's the video where he describes why and he's absolutely brilliant in it. Having Jack Smith as "your guy" just lends more credibility to this being politically motivated. He already has two epic fails on his resume with high profile political figures. Federal prosecutors are not known for losing, so when you are, that's not good.

 

I guess the argument is that it's a fact that might exonerate? Of course, Trump wasn't charged with incitement. I'm not sure Trump's speech prior to the violence is really that key to what's actually been charged, but one could ask I guess why include any of it unless you're trying to give that impression.

 

Exactly.

 

Does this position by Fox News Personality Alan Dershowitz somehow absolve Trump of conspiracy to defraud the US through the fake electors plot? Because if not, this is merely a distraction from the real issues raised in the indictment....

 

Apparently, Trump is not the first one to use different electors to protest the outcome of an election.

 

Dershowitz is just a shill for Trump. He's in a wrestling match with Lindsey Graham to see who can get farther up the orange one's ass.

 

he's not charged with originality

 

But he's the first to use fake electors. Heck the electors themselves even called themsevles "fake"

 

Yep, the SCOTUS slammed Jack Smith in a 9-0 beat-down once before. I only know of once that Smith got cooked by the SCOTUS on a high profile case. He seems to be less than credible more often than I originally thought.

 

How can anyone take him seriously anymore. He's providing hope, not legal analysis. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that "but your honor, the prosecution didn't mention all the days that my client didn't rob a bank."

 

It was a corruption case against Bob McDonnell the former governor of Virginia. McDonnell was charged with corruption and convicted for receiving a lot of goodies including a Rolex watch from a constituent. SCOTUS reversed on the basis that government failed to establish an actual quid pro quo which was required under the statute although McDonnell did support policies favorable to the constituent.
Supreme Court overturns Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions

 

Agree. I don't recall the last time that Dershowitz took a position that was inconsistent with the narratives of the other Fox News talking heads.

 

What defraud? You mean the president speaking on behalf of what he feels to be a fraudulent election? Is that now an "opinion" crime?

So, the Leftists feel strong about this "felony" of an "opinion" crime?

An opposing opinion, especially when the courts refuse to take this case in the court of law, is free speech. Nothing tangible or otherwise was lost or gained in president Trump's, Constitutionally protected free speech, opinion of voter fraud.



defraud
dĭ-frôd′
transitive verb

1. To take something from by fraud; swindle.
2. To deprive of some right, interest, or property, by a deceitful device; to withhold from wrongfully; to injure by embezzlement; to cheat; to overreach; ; -- with of before the thing taken or withheld.

verb

1. To obtain money or property by fraud; to swindle.

 

Conspiracy to defraud. Still a crime if you fail at criming.

 

No, the former president can think or say anything he wants about the election. That's free speech, 1st amendment. What he can't do is conspire with a bunch of crackpot lawyers to organize sets of fake electors to travel to DC and claim to be the actual electors carrying that state's legitimate EC votes. That's a blatant misrepresentation, and where the fraud comes in. Please read the indictment if you're unclear on the allegations.

 

The goal posts seem to be moving daily for this Jack Smith clown. I guess they gave up on "proving" that Trump was a spy for Russia?

Elections are states rights and controlled by the Legislatures of states? Not a federal case? Not their purview? Lawyers in that state acted alone, Trump never told them anything.. and all the wet spaghetti the Dems try and throw against the wall will NOT stick.

 

he hasn’t had the public fall that Rudy has, but he’s gone off the deep and and certainly tarnished his professional credibility

 

Dershowitz doesn’t need Trump for anything. His resume speaks on its own. He’s absolutely correct and one of two things will happen with these indictments:

1. They will be thrown out or he will be acquitted.

2. He’ll be convicted but not spend a day in prison. Possibly re-elected.