“They’re going to get on the bandwagon,” Dershowitz said of prosecutors. The “approach is to get him before the election, convict him before the election, and he wins on appeal.”
“They’re all going to raise it,” said Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University. “Trump is going to argue that he and all his merry people were simply ensuring the integrity and fairness of federal elections, something they had an obligation to do, and therefore he has immunity.”
Segall said the laws protecting federal officials from state prosecution serve an important purpose. Consider, for instance, federal officials working to desegregate the South during the civil rights era being thrown in jail by state officials opposed to those efforts. But Segall stressed that he doesn’t believe the facts of Trump’s intervention will warrant immunity.
He saying that’s their approach. Ultimately might come down to the Supreme Court which hasn’t favored Trump and similar cases so far.
What does this look like in context? Not charging him for crimes? Not covering this extremely newsworthy event?
deleted by creator
Show your work here, because none of the actual lawyers I’ve seen weigh in on this have come to that conclusion.
deleted by creator
No he didn’t.
He saying that’s their approach. Ultimately might come down to the Supreme Court which hasn’t favored Trump and similar cases so far.
deleted by creator
That’s not what Dershowitz said.
deleted by creator
I just showed you what he said in the articles you provided.
Shouldn’t you be counting all your money instead of spending so much time strangely defending Trump online?
deleted by creator
This guy? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/alan-dershowitz-trump.html
deleted by creator
Did you happen to read that article?
deleted by creator
Did you even look at the link? It’s not one you cited.