Renowned Democrat Law Prof REBUKES Democrats “Out To Get” Trump Regardless of the Law

Alan , a prominent Democrat attorney, has had enough of the anti-Trump hysteria and has penned a defense of President Trump’s skillful bluff regarding his and Comey’s meetings being taped.  While the leftist media ties itself in knots attempting to say that our president engaged in “witness intimidation,” Dershowitz explains how that is impossible.

President Trump tweeted that he “may” have a recording of his meetings with disgraced former FBI head James Comey, and the president has since revealed that he said this only to “keep Comey honest.”  (And it worked.)

The Hill reports:

Now that President Trump has tweeted that he didn’t tape James Comey, the anti-Trump zealots are accusing him of witness intimidation.  

This is most the absurd of the many absurd charges leveled against Trump by those out to get him without regard to the law.

Trump’s bluff was calculated to get Comey to tell the truth. How can that be witness intimidation?  If it were, Abraham Lincoln would have gone to prison rather than the White House. . . .

. . . . What President Trump did was no different from what prosecutors, defense attorneys, policemen, FBI agents and others do every day in an effort to elicit truthful testimony from mendacious witnesses.  But in today’s hyper-partisan climate, those out to get President Trump will concoct “crimes” out of the most innocent behavior.  This really illustrates how far things have gone in partisan efforts to criminalize political differences.

Presumably, Comey intends to use his attempting to avoid the president by hiding in curtains as an indication that he felt intimidated.  Sorry, but hiding in curtains says more about Comey than it ever could about our president.

To Top