Alan Dershowitz discusses his new book “Get Trump” and provides insights into the legal troubles former President Donald Trump is facing. Dershowitz clarifies that he is not a Trump supporter but is more concerned about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. He criticizes efforts to prevent Trump from running for office again, citing concerns about improper indictments and attempts to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment.
Dershowitz addresses various legal cases involving Trump, emphasizing the weaknesses and strengths of each. He expresses concerns about the fairness of upcoming trials, particularly if they are rushed and held in locations with biased jurors.
He also discusses the lack of free speech and academic diversity at institutions like Harvard University, where he taught for 50 years. Dershowitz argues for the importance of ideological diversity and the need for universities to uphold free speech.
In the end, he urges people to buy his book on Amazon, “Get Trump,” and watch his podcast “The Dershow” to stay informed about different points of view.
Stephen Gardner discusses this in the youtube video below:
TOP COMMENTS FROM VIDEO BELOW
While I enjoy listening to Alan Dershowitz, I’m very puzzled as to why he would continue to vote for the party that is clearly violating our Constitution.
I thank you for standing up for our Constitution.
Com on man, how can that be. Didn’t the democrats say no one was above the law. Are you saying the democrats are while the Republicans aren’t. Well if your not, then I am. We all see the lies and corruption of the democrats every day. All these court deals trying to nail Trump is just another part of the lies and corruption of far left Communist democrats to fix the elections, like the way their trying to say in the court hearing that Trump did. Once again its the guilty, being the accuser. And no, not all are judged equally. Cause the democrats are above our laws or else most of them would be in prison by now.
SPOT ON !!!
True words.
Conering Trump, or anyone in the USA. I was always under the impression that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even the Magna Carta emphasised that any person can be charged with a crime, but everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their piers. I have sat on two juries that in our deliberations we found that the proponderance of guilt was high and the proof was presented. Unfortunately the defendents in both cases were spawn of either a poltician or a District Attorney. The presiding Judge called us all back in, thanked us for our time, and pronounced a Directed Verdict of innocent when they should have been guilty. What a bunch of legal crap. In both cases, a person lost their lives due to neglance on the part of the defendent.