Trump’s Trial and the Legal Catastrophe
Summary: Alan Dershowitz argues that Trump’s trial is a legal catastrophe, with prosecutors cobbling together misdemeanors and felonies to “get Trump.” The underlying crime, falsifying business records, expired under the statute of limitations.
Federal authorities haven’t prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime, and state prosecutors lack jurisdiction over federal election law. Dershowitz highlights factual weaknesses and questionable witnesses. He emphasizes the need for fairness and warns that selective prosecution threatens the justice system.
READ MORE: DONALD TRUMP REVEALS 100,000 PEOPLE ATTENDING MAJOR RALLY IN WILDWOOD, NEW JERSEY
Every American should be appalled at the selective prosecution unfolding in Trump’s trial. Today, the target is former President Donald Trump, but tomorrow it could be a Democrat. The real problem lies in the legal arguments: prosecutors have pieced together misdemeanors and felonies to “get Trump.”
The alleged underlying crime—falsifying business records—has long expired under the statute of limitations. To turn it into a felony, prosecutors must show that Trump falsified records to impact his election, constituting a federal election felony. However, federal authorities haven’t prosecuted Trump for this crime, and state prosecutors lack jurisdiction over federal election law.
As the trial began, we weren’t even clear which federal election laws the district attorney relied on. In my 60 years of teaching and practicing criminal law, I’ve never seen a case where someone was criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose “hush money.” Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair, and others have done the same. If legislators wanted to criminalize such conduct, they could enact a statute, but they haven’t.
Prosecutors can’t invent new crimes by combining existing ones, especially when some are barred by the statute of limitations or beyond state jurisdiction. Appellate courts should see through this ruse, but a conviction before the election might sway independent voters against a felon.
READ MORE: FULL MIGHT OF MAGA TURNS OUT AT TRUMP’S RALLY IN WILDWOOD, NEW JERSEY
Factual weaknesses plague the prosecution’s case, relying on questionable witnesses. To convict, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly authorized false statements in business records regarding hush money payments. If Trump weren’t the defendant, this weak case would never have been brought.
As someone who voted for Joe Biden, I seek fairness. Selective prosecution undermines our justice system. Today it’s Trump, tomorrow it could be anyone. New York’s criminal justice system is on trial, and if Trump is convicted based on distorted law and facts, the system will fail us all.
