HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR RUINS CNN’S DAY WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT COHEN’S PLEA DEAL

ATCH: Harvard Law Professor Ruins CNN’s Day With The Truth About Cohen’s Plea Deal

 August 22, 2018  Chris Donaldson

The Resistance and the anti-Trump activists in the media are salivating after Tuesday’s whirlwind turn of events that ended up with Paul Manafort convicted and facing 80 years in prison and Michael Cohen setting up the president to take the fall for him.

Look for Democrats to now fully embrace impeachment as a campaign issue after the rat Cohen accused Trump of authorizing payment of “hush money” to Stormy Daniels and another woman which has been framed by the relentless left as campaign finance violations.

But even while billionaire Democrat sugar daddy Tom Steyer pours millions more of his own dollars into an impeachment blitz prior to the elections, some are throwing cold water on the Cohen matter and the fanatics who believe that they finally will be able to avenge Hillary by reversing the 2016 election.

Like Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz who appeared on CNN with Chris Cuomo on Tuesday and scoffed at the notion that what Trump may have done as being the equivalent of high crimes and misdemeanors but rather more akin to jaywalking.

CHECK THIS OUT: 

Via The Daily Caller, “‘Essentially Jaywalking’ — Alan Dershowitz Goes On CNN And Lays Out Worst Cast Scenario For Trump”:

Liberal attorney and Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz on Tuesday discussed former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea arrangement with CNN’s Chris Cuomo and former prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers. When the conversation worked its way around to the potential legal ramifications for President Trump, Dershowitz said that it amounted to “essentially jaywalking.”

“We’re probably not going to end up in court with an indictment against Donald Trump on this, in large part because of the office of legal counsel opinion that a president can’t be indicted,” said Rodgers, noting that such a plea deal is still “unprecedented.”

“I mean never before has someone stood up, sworn under oath that the president directed them to commit a crime, which means of course that the president also has committed a crime,” she continued. “And I don’t agree that these laws are vague or there’s some reason that this contribution to the campaign, which is clear is what it was, is somehow unenforceable. If the president were not the president, he would be indicted very soon if he hadn’t been already.”

Dershowitz took issue with Rodgers’ contention by arguing that a candidate is allowed to contribute to their own campaign.

“Any candidate has the right to contribute unlimited amounts to his own campaign,” said Dershowitz. “Any candidate. It may sound terrible, and it may be terrible, but any candidate has the right to pay hush money to somebody to influence the outcome of the election.”

“Not if it’s unreported,” interrupted Rodgers.

“Well, that’s the next question is whether it has to be reported, and is that a technical violation?” Dershowitz responded. “Do you know how many technical violations has the Obama campaign committed and every other campaign committed? Failure to report a contribution by the candidate itself is essentially jaywalking.”