- Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticizes the Department of Justice’s case against former President Donald Trump.
- Dershowitz argues that the case is not about espionage or national security, but about documents.
- He suggests that the prosecution may unjustifiably interfere with a presidential election, arguing for a high bar, akin to the “Nixon standard,” in such circumstances.
Renowned Harvard Law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, voiced strong criticism of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) prosecution of former President Donald Trump on Sunday’s broadcast of FNC’s “MediaBuzz.” According to Dershowitz, the case isn’t about espionage or national security but rather documents. He asserted that such a case might not be strong enough to justify interfering with a presidential election.
“He’d be a difficult client, but being a difficult client doesn’t mean that you should be prosecuted for a crime when you’re running for president against the incumbent president,” Dershowitz stated. He contended that in situations involving presidential candidates, there needs to be a compelling case, akin to the severity witnessed during the Nixon presidency.
“In Nixon’s case, he destroyed evidence, he bribed witnesses, and Republicans and Democrats alike wanted him to be removed from office. That standard hasn’t been met here,” Dershowitz added. He emphasized that a strong, inescapable case should be a prerequisite to prosecute someone running for president against the incumbent.
Dershowitz continued, arguing that while Trump may have admitted to possessing classified material, the nation might have been better off if he had not been prosecuted. He emphasized that this case should not be construed as one involving espionage, given Trump’s actions didn’t involve selling information to enemies or harming national security.
“This is a documents case. And the question is, should you bring a documents case, even if it’s a strong documents case, and interfere with the election in this way? I think that’s a hard, hard question,” he concluded, raising concerns about the potential implications of the prosecution on the democratic process.