Alan Dershowitz Deals Blow to Democrats: ‘Trump Won’t Be Indicted as Case Doesn’t Pass Nixon-Clinton Standards’

Liberal Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz has warned Democrats that the case against President Donald Trump by Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) won’t lead to an indictment.

Dershowitz said the DOJ has enough evidence to indict Trump but they won’t for one main reason.

He said the evidence doesn’t pass the Clinton-Nixon test.

“Every judge would’ve made the same ruling,” Dershowitz explains.

“So it’s no harm, no foul. The problem was not with Reinhart. It was with the attorney general who didn’t follow his own guidelines.

“There should never have been a search warrant requested here. The other important thing is, there is enough evidence here to indict Trump. But Trump will not be indicted in my view because the evidence doesn’t pass what I call the Nixon-Clinton standards.

“The Nixon standard is, the case has to be so overwhelmingly strong that even Republicans support it.

“And the Clinton standard is, why is this case more serious than Clinton’s case where there wasn’t a criminal prosecution?

“There was probable cause, they shouldn’t have sought a warrant, there is enough for an indictment.

“But there will not be an indictment and should not be an indictment based on what we’ve seen up to now,” he said.

According to Newsweek:

Donald Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz said that the unsealed affidavit supporting the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago gives the Justice Department enough evidence to indict the former president.

In an interview with Newsweek, Dershowitz said, “It sounds like there would be enough for an indictment, but like probable cause, an indictment is easy to get,” explaining that prosecutors could simply point to the materials found at Trump’s residence that he had unlawful access to.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Alan wrote:

Today’s devil is Trump, and today’s Ropers are willing to “cut a great road through the law to get after [today’s] devil.” Like More, I would give everyone “the benefit of law,” but not only “for my own safety’s sake,” but for the sake of future generations.

Once the Constitution and civil liberties are “cut down,” it is difficult to regrow them and the “winds that would blow them” might prevent us from “standing upright” against new tyrannies from the extreme left and right.

There is a legitimate way to stop Trump from being elected in 2024, just as he was not elected in 2020: a fair election defeated him once, and it can do so again – without cutting down the Constitution and weakening the rule of law.

But it will take hard work, not unconstitutional shortcuts.

I voted against Trump twice. If he is re-nominated, I plan to vote against him a third time.

That’s my right in a democracy, just as it is the right of Trump supporters to vote for him.

This important right should not be taken away by unconstitutional means, even if the result were to be the unlikely re-election of Trump. That is the price of democracy.

Advertise with Slay News
join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By David Hawkins

David Hawkins is a writer who specializes in political commentary and world affairs. He's been writing professionally since 2014.

Notify of
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x