Alan Dershowitz Said Smith Might Could Face Criminal Charges Over Trump’s Indictments Due To ‘A Lie By Omission’
Matthew Holloway Sept 12, 2023
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.
Taya Gray/USA TODAY NETWORK file California lawmakers will send a state excise tax on guns and ammunition to Gov. Gavin Newsom after years of failed attempts by Democratic legislators.
The Senate voted 27-9 on Thursday to approve Assembly Bill 28, which would require manufacturers, vendors and dealers to pay an 11% tax on guns and ammunition to fund violence prevention efforts. The bill passed with exactly the two-thirds threshold needed for approval of a tax.
Gun and ammunition-sellers would pay the new state tax on top of the 10 to 11% federal excise tax they already pay to fund wildlife conservation efforts.
Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, authored the bill after former Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, failed multiple times to get excise tax bills through the Legislature.
Prior to Levine’s attempts, at least three other lawmakers had pushed similar taxes on guns and ammunition since 2013. Gabriel’s bill was the first of its kind to pass out of the Assembly.
When the assemblyman first put the bill forward, there were questions about whether it was “in the realm of possibility,” he said after the Senate vote.
“I introduced this bill at the very beginning of session,” Gabriel said. “A few weeks later, we have mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and in Monterey Park and in all these places.”
“Frankly, I think part of the reason the bill passed is the public is demanding this of us,” he added. “They are demanding that we have more solutions that will do more to protect their kids, to protect their communities.” Lawmakers debate tax effectiveness
Many senators on Thursday cited their children and grandchildren and school safety concerns in their arguments for backing the bill. Floor debate lasted for about an hour before lawmakers voted.
Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, urged her colleagues to support AB 28 as a “mechanism to address gun violence.” She made her plea in the name of her school-age daughter and California children, as well as Amber Clark, a Natomas librarian who was fatally shot in 2018.
“Like so many Americans, I do hug my little daughter each morning as I drop her off at school,” Ashby said. “And as I drive away, I push out of my mind the unthinkable. Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to face the tasks I’m responsible for every day.”
But Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, said the tax would do little to prevent gun violence, and retailers would pass on the added cost on to customers. In this way, it would penalize law-abiding firearm owners, hunters and students taking part in shooting sports, they said.
“When you add another 11% on, all it’s going do is decrease the number of hunters,” said Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa. “Sooner or later, this will be like the tobacco tax. And sooner or later, this money’s going to go down, down, down.”
Gun control groups cheered AB 28’s passage and urged Newsom to sign it.
“This bill is an innovative approach in tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” said Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the California chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in a statement.
Gun rights advocates said they plan to sue the state over the legislation if the governor makes it law.
“The passage of this bill will be seen for what it is ... an unconstitutional tax on an enumerated right,” said Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, in an email.
The measure now heads to Newsom, who must sign or veto bills by Oct. 14.
Trump lawyers move
'insurrection' clause
lawsuit aiming to bar him
from the ballot to federal
court
Story by By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press •
Photo: Former President Donald Trump visits with campaign volunteers at the Elks Lodge, July 18, 2023, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump moved a lawsuit seeking to bar him from running again for the White House from state to federal court in the first step of what promises to be a tangled legal battle that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed the initial lawsuit on Wednesday in Colorado state court, arguing a Civil War-era clause prohibiting higher office for those who once swore an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection” prevents Trump from running in 2024.
The initial state judge in Denver assigned the case recused himself for an unspecified conflict of interest, and then Trump’s attorneys on Thursday moved the case to federal court — asserting that the matter should be adjudicated at the federal level since it raises a constitutional issue. The plaintiffs in the case will argue it should first go back to state court, but both sides anticipate that ultimately the top echelons of the federal system will have to consider the issues the lawsuit raises.
“Plaintiffs’ challenge to Colorado’s ability to place Donald Trump on the presidential ballot depends solely on the Fourteenth Amendment,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Trump’s basis for removal of the state court action is federal question jurisdiction under Section 3 of Fourteenth Amendment.”
CREW’s case is the first of what’s expected to be many challenges filed in various states by the group and Free Speech for People, another liberal nonprofit. Activists in other states have filed lawsuits in which they represent themselves, but legal observers contend the more robust complaints by the nonprofits are more likely to end up at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on the clause.
Trump on Friday slammed the liberal organization, contending it’s affiliated with a number of his critics and people with whom he clashed as president. He called the group “TRUMP DERANGED CREW” on his social media network Truth Social said it was “ridiculously” and “Unconstitutionally” trying to disqualify him
CREW said it will ask a federal judge to return the case to state court. It has also requested a speedy ruling on the issues before Colorado’s Republican primary ballot is finalized on Jan. 5.
The world is laughing , we should be outraged that over 30% that still support him, we should be totally outraged at Chuck Schummer and those in the Democratic Party that in the name of democracy are interfering with the election process in both parties by not allowing the public’s choice and only the elites their choice of candidates. We should be outraged and more important we should be enraged enough and care enough to vote out those whose age and health, be it mental or physical incompetent to do their jobs.. it’s our way of life and our children’s way of life that is at stake, check out Nevada and guns,, the role of parents in children’s care. So many issues and so little time.
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #2428
-
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugn...
