Here’s What Legal Experts Are Saying About The Trump Indictment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Ashe Schow.

Publisher's Note: This series of posts on this one issue - The Unprecedented FBI Raid of President Trump's Mar-a-Lago Estate - can all be found here on ENC NOW.

    Since former President Donald Trump was indicted on Thursday for charges related to a nearly seven-year-old alleged payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, various legal experts have weighed in on the legitimacy of the indictment and its chances in court.

    The indictment against Trump is sealed by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and reportedly contains more than 30 criminal charges against the former president.

    Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial, told Fox News that "any first-year student could win this case if the name wasn't Donald Trump and if it wasn't in Manhattan." Dershowitz added that the case "has to get out of Manhattan."

    "I would try to move it to Staten Island or some upstate venue. But could you imagine a judge or a juror coming home to their wife and family and friends and saying, 'I'm the man, I'm the woman who let Donald Trump off.' Nobody would ever speak to them again. ... There's no possibility he can get a fair trial in Manhattan," Dershowitz said.

    Scott Greenfield, a defense attorney in New York who is no fan of Trump, told The Daily Wire that it was impossible to truly comment on the indictment until it is unsealed.

    "But if the indictment is what has been discussed and what's expected, there are serious doubts the case will survive a motion to dismiss or result in a conviction," Greenfield added.

    William A. Jacobson, a Cornell law professor and founder of the conservative legal blog Legal Insurrection, echoed these sentiments, saying that "unless there is some surprise, this appears to be a politically-motivated legally-questionable resurrection of stale misdemeanor charges bootstrapped into a felony using a highly unusual legal theory."

    Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law and conservative blogger, also noted that Bragg faces no consequences for bringing bad or unfounded charges.

    "It doesn't cost them anything if they lose," he said, adding that it would be easy "in our polarized nation" to find "juries hostile to people from the other side."

    "The charge in this case seems absurd, but I see Democratic friends on social media literally popping champagne," Reynolds added. "So it's produced the result the party, and the media, wanted so far."

    On the other side of the aisle, many experts have been hesitant to comment on the sealed indictment.

    Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, along with Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic, wrote about the background of the case, and how Bragg originally said there likely wouldn't be any charges, but has since reversed his decision. The two encouraged commenters to "refrain alike from triumphant claims that the rule of law has been vindicated or from clucking about witch hunts."

    Others, such as George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, explained that the Department of Justice previously declined to prosecute Trump on the same charges.

    "Now, there's a host of problems with that," Turley told Fox News. "First of all, it's a federal crime the Department of Justice chose not to prosecute. Bragg's own predecessor declined to prosecute it, but he is attempting to bootstrap that federal crime into a state case. And if that is the basis for the indictment, I think it's rather outrageous. I think it's legally pathetic."

Was it a judicious ploy for Joe Biden's FBI to execute the unprecedented raid of President Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate?
  Yes; the Cheneys despise this former Republican president, and for good reason ... so they say.
  No; never has a former president been treated with this level of vindictive abuse by those temporarily in power.
  Who cares? It's Trump.
857 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Considering what many of the most revered legal experts of this age consider a political persecution by the infamous and ignoble New York District Attorney Alvan Bragg: Should the historic, unprecedented indictment of 45th President Donald Trump be considered as a benefit, or a liability to the sustainability of OUR Constitutional Republic?
  Liability, our nation is in peril, as we are losing our "Rule of Law" integrity.
  Benefit, losing our "Rule of Law" integrity is secondary to destroying Donald Trump.
  I mostly worry about losing my Tik Tok.
87 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )

Navy Urges Americans To Be An ‘Ally’ As Biden Admin Promotes Transgenderism Daily Wire, Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Pro-Trump Memester Found Guilty Of Election Interference


Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Fox News is reportedly set to replace its entire primetime lineup with three of the network’s biggest hosts, according to a new report.
President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) each said on Tuesday that they made progress on debt ceiling negotiations, indicating thaws in an impasse as the nation faces a possible debt default in two weeks.
Amid news that Vice Media is filing for bankruptcy, there is growing concern at the White House that the Biden administration will now have to begin lying to the American people directly rather than doing so more discreetly through Vice Media.
Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Lance Gooden (R-TX) issued a joint letter calling attention to the potential use of federal funds to enable illegal immigration into the United States.
When the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on our state’s voter ID law on April 28th, the justices only had to answer one narrow question: “[Does the voter ID law] violate the meaningful protections set forth in Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution?”
Twitter CEO Elon Musk said during an interview Tuesday night that he believes that the U.S. might be on the verge of serious financial issues later this year due to a variety of factors.
The White House is claiming that illegal immigration is now down over 90% thanks to them redefining what illegal immigration is.
A top House Republican wants the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to clarify what is happening with the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden after lawyers for a whistleblower within the agency claimed his team got removed from the case.


Back to Top