An appeal to authority, despite being an intellectually dishonest argument, should have names attached. If you were at all informed you would know at least a few of the many names involved. Of course, the obvious one is the preeminent trial attorney in America today, Alan Dershowitz. And behind him, Turley (who referred to the "conviction" as a "travesty" and the "most glaring example of lawfare".
Harmeet Dhillon, a name you surely recognize.
Robert Giuffra (Sullivan & Cromwell, clerk to Sandra Day O'Connor), who referred to the conviction as a "dangerous precedent through "misuse of the criminal law" by Bragg.
And of course, ever-present-on-MSNBC ex-law professor at Harvard. Tribe called the charges a "normative stretch" and "improper" revival of "zombie" claims, criticizing DA Alvin Bragg for pursuing a case that "should never have been brought" due to weak evidence of intent and overreach in linking to election law.
That was Lawrence Tribe.
Jed Shugerman, Boston School of Law (I believe I've posted a few of his videos here):
Shugerman, identifying as "politically progressive," argued the prosecution exaggerated the "election fraud" element for political impact and failed to clearly specify the underlying crimes needed to elevate the charges to felonies. He called the theory "dicey" and predicted vulnerability on appeal, stating it risked setting a precedent for overly broad interpretations of state election laws.
From Syracuse, Gregory Germain, leftist law professor who is an expert in business and tax law -- and has complained about Trump's "business practices", described the case a "convoluted and legally flawed, arguing the felony enhancement requires proof of an underlying crime, which prosecutors didn't establish. Furthermore, the statute of limitations BARRED the felony, and called it a "penalty enhancement" that "unravels without a viable predicate offense". Which is correct and consistent with Sugerman, above.
You really can't get worst than that.
Now, what do YOU have???? |
