Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz dropped a bit of a bombshell this week regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The last indictment handed down by Smith has created quite the buzz, with many legal experts baffled as to the strength of the case.
Dershowitz is taking this a step further, hinting that Smith could be indicted if the case against Trump does not stick, reported MediaITE.
Legal Problems for Smith
Dershowitz believes that the wording of the indictment against Trump may have him in some hot water if Trump decides to pursue legal action against Smith if he beats these charges.
He stated, “You know the worst thing about this indictment, under the terms of this indictment, Jack Smith can be indicted. Let me explain to you why. The statute says the following, two or more persons conspire to injure and deny somebody the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured him by the constitution.
“What if a court ultimately ruled that Donald Trump had a right under the First Amendment to make his Jan. 6 speech and to do what he did? Then Jack Smith will have conspired to deny him of that right. That’s how serious this is.
“Jack Smith … deliberately, willfully and maliciously leaves out the words that President Trump spoke on Jan. 6 in his terrible speech, which I disagree with, but what he said was, ‘I want you to assemble peacefully and patriotically.’
“Jack [Smith] leaves that out. That is a lie, a lie, an omission lie, and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment. If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is,” reported the Conservative Brief.
Believe it or not, there is a related precedent. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist had ruled that a false opinion or idea does not exist. So, if Trump believed the election was rigged, this is not something that he can be indicted for criminally. The fact that Smith left out that disclaimer also just adds weight to the deceptive nature of the indictment.
Honestly, I would have never thought about the angle that Dershowitz is presenting here because we see people brought up on bogus charges all the time.
The difference here, however, is that the source of the indictment, Trump’s words, is technically protected as part of our First Amendment rights.
Now imagine Trump beats this charge, then wins the presidency… do you think he will sic his DOJ on Smith and indict him?
