LISTEN HERE:
A surge of legal experts from diverse backgrounds have started rallying behind former President Donald Trump, offering a defense against the recent felony charges filed by special counsel Jack Smith. These charges stem from alleged actions related to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown Law School, voiced his concerns during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, highlighting how the Biden administration’s relentless pursuit of Trump is losing favor with a significant portion of the American public. Turley emphasized that the increasing perception of the cases as politically motivated is not good for the nation.
The charges against Trump include conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Reports suggest that the last charge is based on a law enacted around 1900, primarily concerning the obstruction of travel on highways.
Turley expressed grave concern, labeling this indictment as a direct threat to free speech. As someone who frequently writes about free-speech matters in academia, he found the Department of Justice’s filing particularly alarming and chilling.
Turley questioned whether the pursuit of Trump is becoming too costly, as the DOJ seems to want to criminalize what they perceive as disinformation. He opined that the indictment lacks substantial evidence and legal grounds to establish Trump’s guilt.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz added another perspective to the matter during an interview with former Trump administration economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Fox Business Network. He raised a crucial point, explaining that the indictment might inadvertently expose Jack Smith himself to legal consequences.
Dershowitz drew attention to the statute, which states that conspiring to deny someone their constitutional rights or privileges could lead to prosecution. He theorized that if a court were to rule that Trump had the right to make his speech and act as he did on January 6, then Jack Smith would be seen as conspiring to deny Trump’s rights.
Dershowitz further highlighted a glaring omission from the indictment: the exclusion of Trump’s statement on January 6 in which he urged people to assemble peacefully and patriotically.
By deliberately leaving this out, Dershowitz argued, Smith distorted the truth and perpetuated a lie of omission. He criticized the indictment for hypocritically accusing others of lying while engaging in the same behavior.
Dershowitz stressed the significance of protecting the First Amendment and the marketplace of ideas, as established by previous Supreme Court rulings.
He warned of the dangerous implications of this indictment for both the First and Sixth Amendments, raising concerns about its impact on Trump’s lawyers, who are referred to as unindicted co-conspirators without being named.
The shifting opinions from legal experts demonstrate the deep division regarding the charges against Trump. Despite political differences, many agree that the approach taken by the Biden administration and Jack Smith appears to pose a threat to constitutional rights.
The American public is growing increasingly skeptical about the motivations behind the cases, questioning whether the prosecutors are genuinely objective or driven by political motives. It is crucial to strike a balance between accountability and safeguarding civil liberties, ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not come at the expense of fundamental rights.