Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Alan Dershowitz: NY Prosecutors Pose Greater Danger to Trump Than Mueller

    Alan Dershowitz: NY Prosecutors Pose Greater Danger to Trump Than Mueller

    No such constitutional defenses for state investigations

    On Fox and Friends Monday morning, the Harvard Law professor emeritus explained that while Trump has constitutional defenses in the federal investigation conducted by Mueller, that’s not the case in investigation currently underway at the behest of New York’s Southern District.

    Watch here:

    From Fox News Insider:

    The “greatest risk” to President Donald Trump’s presidency and businesses is not Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but federal prosecutors in New York, according to Alan Dershowitz.

    Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, explained on “Fox & Friend” on Monday that Trump has constitutional defenses to Mueller’s Russia probe, but that is not the case with respect to the investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

    He noted that last week federal prosecutors secured a guilty plea from longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen and granted immunity to the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg.

    A source told Fox News that Weisselberg’s immunity agreement was related to the grand jury probe into Cohen’s personal business dealings, including his hush money payments to two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who allege they had affairs with Trump.

    “These are business investigations,” Dershowitz explained. “And of course, the president can’t be indicted, but his businesses can be indicted.”

    Earlier this summer, New York’s Attorney General sued Trump, kiss kids, and his foundation, alleging repeated, “self-dealing.”

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     1 
     
     2
    dystopia | August 28, 2018 at 7:19 am

    I disagree with the learned Professor. Trump has substantial powers.

    1. A Federal grant of immunity is binding on the States. Trump probably has the power to grant “immunity”
    2. The Civil Rights Act makes it a crime to use color of law to deprive someone of a constitutional right. In other words all members of the cabal (even those with absolute immunity) can be prosecuted.
    3. The last and least palatable choice is to invoke the Insurrection Act. Any prosecution is merely an attempt to overthrow the government cloaked in the color of law.


       
       1 
       
       1
      objection in reply to dystopia. | August 28, 2018 at 7:23 am

      An Attorney General truly concerned about the rule of law and the independence of the Executive Branch would be making it clear to State Officials that they would face severe legal consequences.

      What do you think Jeff Sessions is doing?


       
       1 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | August 28, 2018 at 9:35 am

      Federal grants of immunity are not binding on the states, unless they’re grants by a court in order to compel testimony.

      In any case, despite the odd sub-title, this post has nothing to do with the states.


         
         0 
         
         0
        dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | August 28, 2018 at 10:10 am

        References please.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | August 28, 2018 at 1:58 pm

          References for what? That a contract between two parties is not binding on a third party?! Why would I need a reference for that, it’s completely obvious and everyone knows it. “What is well known does not need proof.”

          That the post has nothing to do with states? Just read the post; the reference is right there in the text.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | August 28, 2018 at 7:36 pm

          Oh, well, because you asked nicely I went and looked it up for you. Here you go. Exactly as I wrote, immunity grants by federal prosecutors, given in order to induce testimony, are contracts between the US government and the witness, and so cannot compel third parties such as states. (Immunity grants by a court, state or federal, given in order to compel testimony, are not contracts, and are binding in all other courts, state or federal.)


     
     0 
     
     0
    TPHobbit | August 28, 2018 at 9:17 am

    On what grounds did Rosenstein force the Trump appointed US Attorney in the NYSD to recuse himself? This after appointing Comey’s buddy Mueller as special prosecutor.


     
     1 
     
     1
    Milhouse | August 28, 2018 at 9:29 am

    The sub-title of this post is…odd. Dershowitz’s words have nothing to do with state investigations. The SDNY is not a state entity.


       
       0 
       
       0
      MSO in reply to Milhouse. | August 28, 2018 at 11:08 am

      “The sub-title of this post is…odd.”

      I agree — but the news media in general is pushing the same meme. Since it doesn’t make sense, I find it frustrating not to be able to uncover what is going on here.

      It’s almost as if the US public is being attacked with loud drums while be sprayed with fire hoses. This isn’t freedom of the press or even propaganda, this is psychological assault.


     
     0 
     
     1
    gwsjr425 | August 28, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Evidence initiated by falsifying docs that were present to a judge to illegally obtain a warrant is corrupt.

    No fake dossier means no warrant no warrant means no FBI investigation, no FBI investigation means no Mueller, no Mueller means no SDNY.

    End this farce now.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to gwsjr425. | August 28, 2018 at 2:00 pm

      That’s not how it works. The exclusionary rule is not in the constitution, it’s a rule made up by the courts for their own internal use, has a ton of exceptions, and isn’t applicable in other contexts.


         
         0 
         
         0
        SDN in reply to Milhouse. | August 28, 2018 at 11:39 pm

        Actually, the definition of how evidence must be obtained IS in the Constitution, numbnuts, and the courts use the exclusionary rule because without it the 4th Amendment is useless.

        4th Amendment: “The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three issues: what government activities constitute “search” and “seizure”; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed.

        The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree”, unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to SDN. | August 29, 2018 at 1:52 am

          As you yourself pointed out, “numbnuts”, the exclusionary rule is not constitutional, it was invented in 1914. And the courts have never claimed that it is constitutional; they’ve always explicitly said it’s a rule they invented for their own internal use, under their constitutional authority to make their own rules. The “poisonous tree” rule is also something the courts made up for their own internal use, and is absolutely not required by the constitution. Therefore neither rule is relevant here and gwsjr425’s fantasy is just that. Next time take the trouble to read and comprehend what you cut and paste.


     
     0 
     
     0
    beagleEar | August 28, 2018 at 5:01 pm

    Blue-collar folks, the long term unemployed, and formerly unemployed members of minority groups are all getting full-time jobs. Clearly, some people are furious about that change and will do anything to fix it.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend