Alan Dershowitz Said Smith Might Could Face Criminal Charges Over Trump’s Indictments Due To ‘A Lie By Omission’
OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade that Biden DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could potentially face indictment himself for the crime of depriving former President Donald J. Trump of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. The law under which Smith could be charged is as incendiary as the charge itself, as the Special Counsel seems to have run afoul of the Ku Klux Klan Statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Dershowitz appearing with Kilmeade on The Brian Kilmeade Show on August 3rd said that “The indictment is based on lies. The indictment itself contains a blatant lie by Jack Smith,” he stressed that the indictment contains “lies of omission.” The constitutional scholar explained that Smith “describes the speech of January 6th, but he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the key words of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically.”
He continued, telling Kilmeade,
“By leaving out those words. It’s a lie by omission. And under the standards set out in the indictment, you know, Jack Smith could be indicted.”
Derschowitz took it a step further adding, “Theoretically, it’s not going to happen, obviously, under the Ku Klux Klan statute that he says any people who conspire to deny somebody their constitutional rights is guilty of a crime.”
“That would mean that Jack Smith tried to deny Trump his constitutional rights in this indictment,” Dershowitz observed adding, ”I make that point not to argue that Jack Smith should be indicted, of course not. To make the point that the indictment is so broad, so wide, so all-encompassing, it could include so much political conduct.”
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute specifically addresses acts or omissions by a judicial officer “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” This suggests that the Trump legal team could seek a declaratory decree from the court, if not an actual indictment of Smith, and then indict him should he violate that decree.
WATCH:
As previously reported by Explain America, Dershowitz told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity Monday that Trump’s critics are pursuing an alternate tack already attempting to invoke the 14th Amendment to disqualify him from holding office, hoping the 3rd clause of the amendment will serve as an “impeachment substitute.”
“He said… ‘I thought it would be easier and smoother to go [via] the 14th Amendment’ – well, of course. You don’t need any proof. You don’t need [a] 50 percent vote in the House. You don’t need a two-thirds vote in the Senate. You don’t need specific charges: treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. You don’t need due process,” he explained.
Advertisement
“You [would] just need a couple of secretaries of state, Prof. Laurence Tribe and Adam Schiff to say it’s our opinion that this is an insurrection. We don’t think what happened after the George Floyd killing was an insurrection. We don’t think what happened with open borders or sanctuary cities is an insurrection. But we do think this was an insurrection,” Dershowitz added.
“By leaving out those words. It’s a lie by omission. And under the standards set out in the indictment, you know, Jack Smith could be indicted.”
Derschowitz took it a step further adding, “Theoretically, it’s not going to happen, obviously, under the Ku Klux Klan statute that he says any people who conspire to deny somebody their constitutional rights is guilty of a crime.”
“That would mean that Jack Smith tried to deny Trump his constitutional rights in this indictment,” Dershowitz observed adding, ”I make that point not to argue that Jack Smith should be indicted, of course not. To make the point that the indictment is so broad, so wide, so all-encompassing, it could include so much political conduct.”
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute specifically addresses acts or omissions by a judicial officer “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” This suggests that the Trump legal team could seek a declaratory decree from the court, if not an actual indictment of Smith, and then indict him should he violate that decree.
WATCH:
As previously reported by Explain America, Dershowitz told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity Monday that Trump’s critics are pursuing an alternate tack already attempting to invoke the 14th Amendment to disqualify him from holding office, hoping the 3rd clause of the amendment will serve as an “impeachment substitute.”
“He said… ‘I thought it would be easier and smoother to go [via] the 14th Amendment’ – well, of course. You don’t need any proof. You don’t need [a] 50 percent vote in the House. You don’t need a two-thirds vote in the Senate. You don’t need specific charges: treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. You don’t need due process,” he explained.
Advertisement
“You [would] just need a couple of secretaries of state, Prof. Laurence Tribe and Adam Schiff to say it’s our opinion that this is an insurrection. We don’t think what happened after the George Floyd killing was an insurrection. We don’t think what happened with open borders or sanctuary cities is an insurrection. But we do think this was an insurrection,” Dershowitz added.
No comments:
Post a Comment