Trump Gets HUGE News From SCOTUS Following Unprecedented Guilty Verdict

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Over the weekend, renowned Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz provided an explanation of how former President Donald Trump might be able to get a speedy review of his Manhattan hush money conviction by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After being found guilty on Thursday of 34 felonies, Trump and his attorneys promised to file an expedited appeal. According to Dershowitz, it’s feasible that the issue may be reviewed by the country’s top court before to the presidential election, as reported by The Epoch Times.

According to legal experts consulted by the source, it is customary for all appeals to be exhausted in the state court system of New York before proceeding to the Supreme Court.

There have been rumors, though, that this procedure might be accelerated.

Amidst accusations of political motivation and pervasive bias throughout the trial, there have even been requests for the Supreme Court to step in sooner rather than waiting for the state appeals process to run its course.

As an example, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared that the conviction ought to be overturned by the Supreme Court. He maintained that the public’s confidence in the American legal system has declined as a result of the case’s circumstances.

Johnson and other critics have said that the lawsuit was a clandestine effort to harm Trump’s standing with the public and jeopardize his chances of winning the election. They contend that in order to reestablish a feeling of justice, the Supreme Court ought to be given a chance to comment before people cast their ballots in November.

Dershowitz spoke with podcaster Megyn Kelly on Friday about the issue and how the Supreme Court might hear it sooner rather than later.

The former law professor counseled President Trump’s legal team to expedite their appeal so that it might be heard by the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state of New York and the court that hears appeals before the United States Supreme Court.

He did point out, nevertheless, that appeals to this court are not assured; usually, they require permission from the New York Court of Appeals itself or from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.

“He should make an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals asking them to bypass the Appellate Division because he’s not going to get justice in the Appellate Division,” Dershowitz said, going on to say that those judges are elected are likely more concerned about electorate blowback if they find in favor of Trump.

“The Appellate Division or Manhattan judges that are elected and they don’t want to have to face their families and say you were the judge who allowed Trump to become the next President of the United States. They don’t want to be Dershowitz’ed,” he said, referring to blowback he received after defending the then-president in his first impeachment trial in the Senate.

“They don’t want to be treated in New York, the way I have been treated in Martha’s Vineyard and Harvard and New York because I defended Donald Trump, so they should skip the Appellate Division,” he continued.

Dershowitz advised Trump’s legal team to file a straight appeal with New York’s top appeals court, asking for a streamlined procedure to present their case to the Supreme Court.

“Go to the New York Court of Appeals, ask for an expedited appeal. In the meantime, prepare for an expedited appeal in the United States Supreme Court and say that this was a rush to try to get this case, a verdict of conviction before the election, and the Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to review this case before the election so that the American public knows whether or not Donald Trump is guilty or not guilty of these made up crimes,” Dershowitz said.

According to the professor, Trump’s team ought to debate two points: 1) “the state’s highest court recently reversed Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction because the trial judge prejudicially allowed testimony on allegations unrelated to the case,” The Epoch Times reported, and 2) “the judge allegedly didn’t instruct the jury properly on why prosecutors didn’t call former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg to testify in the case.”

Weisselberg could have refuted the prosecution’s main witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend