Alan Dershowitz:
Citat:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dershowitz-slams-trump-conviction-worst-legal-verdict-ive-seen-60-years
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticized the guilty verdict in New York's case against former President Trump during a recent interview with British journalist Piers Morgan.
---
"From one to 10, it was a below 20," Dershowitz said after the "Piers Morgan Uncensored" host asked him how "sound" the verdict was. "It’s the worst legal verdict I’ve seen in 60 years of practicing, writing, litigating [inaudible] cases."
---
Dershowitz said he was unclear what exactly the crimes Trump was convicted of were.
"I still don’t know what he was convicted of," he said. "Was he convicted of intent to cheat on his taxes two years later, although he didn’t take it as a deduction? Was he convicted of defrauding voters, who obviously knew that he was a sexual scoundrel?"
"Was he convicted of seeking to make an illegal campaign contribution, although the contribution didn’t have to be listed until after the election?" Dershowitz asked.
"I have never seen a case where, even after the verdict came down, we don’t know what he was convicted of," Dershowitz continued. "No one in history — in history — has ever been convicted of failing to disclose hush money payments paid to somebody."
"Why would anybody pay hush money if they had to disclose it?" he asked. "This is a case where the prosecutor simply decided to get Trump."
---
"From one to 10, it was a below 20," Dershowitz said after the "Piers Morgan Uncensored" host asked him how "sound" the verdict was. "It’s the worst legal verdict I’ve seen in 60 years of practicing, writing, litigating [inaudible] cases."
---
Dershowitz said he was unclear what exactly the crimes Trump was convicted of were.
"I still don’t know what he was convicted of," he said. "Was he convicted of intent to cheat on his taxes two years later, although he didn’t take it as a deduction? Was he convicted of defrauding voters, who obviously knew that he was a sexual scoundrel?"
"Was he convicted of seeking to make an illegal campaign contribution, although the contribution didn’t have to be listed until after the election?" Dershowitz asked.
"I have never seen a case where, even after the verdict came down, we don’t know what he was convicted of," Dershowitz continued. "No one in history — in history — has ever been convicted of failing to disclose hush money payments paid to somebody."
"Why would anybody pay hush money if they had to disclose it?" he asked. "This is a case where the prosecutor simply decided to get Trump."
