Alan Dershowitz is a Harvard Law School professor.
I have a degree in communications from a community college.
Yet, we both have the exact same opinion about the legal merits of Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent indictment of Donald Trump.
You might not care about my reasons for thinking this, but I'll bet that Dershowitz's name carries a bit more weight in the legal world, so here's what he has to say about the issue:
Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted. He told a direct lie in this indictment. He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on January 6th. And he left out the key words, when President Trump said, ‘I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically. You know, a lie by omission, under the law, can be as serious as a lie by commission.
Dershowitz and the rest of America know that Smith didn't accidentally omit this. He's trying to paint a certain narrative about Trump's behavior on Jan. 6, 2021 that simply isn't true.
There's no way that Smith could have omitted Trump's comments about protesting "peacefully" without doing it on purpose.
That one word was at the center of Trump's impeachment trial and essentially won that case for Donald.
If you think that Smith "accidentally" left out the one word that was Trump's ace in the hole, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. It's a little old, but you can have it.
Trump literally instructed Americans on Jan. 6 to march peacefully to the Capitol.
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Those don't sound like the words of somebody inciting violence.
They sound like the words of somebody being unfairly persecuted by political opponents.
To read more about this story, click on the source here.