Former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has expressed his belief that prosecutors who have brought charges against former President Donald Trump in the New York hush money case should be investigated.
Dershowitz took to social media over the weekend to highlight a “major issue” in the hush money case regarding how the prosecution can prove to the jury that the payments made by Trump to his former lawyer Michael Cohen were illegal.
In this case, the prosecution alleges that Trump initiated a reimbursement scheme for Cohen and directed him to make payments to an adult film actress to keep her silence about alleged extramarital affairs, which Trump has denied.
Dershowitz argued that if Trump made these payments to avoid “exposure” and “public disclosure,” then Trump is actually a victim of “extortion.”
He stated, “The only situation in which it is not extortion is if the money was paid to avoid litigation, in which case it was a legal fee.”
Dershowitz further suggested on social media that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had fabricated a crime and utilized a witness, Michael Cohen, who he believed “will not tell the truth.”
He also mentioned that there are “so many ethical violations” in this case.
The Epoch Times reached out to the District Attorney’s office for comment.
The trial has been ongoing for over six weeks. Last week, both the prosecution and defense teams presented their evidence. Judge Juan Merchan then announced that the jury should return to the courtroom on the day after Memorial Day to hear closing arguments.
Earlier this month, Cohen testified that he believed Trump instructed him to make payments to the adult film actress to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, aligning with the prosecution’s argument.
Trump’s lawyers subpoenaed Robert Costello, Cohen’s former legal advisor, who testified that Cohen told him in 2018 that Trump was not involved in the payment scheme.
Trump did not testify, a common practice in criminal cases. He informed a local affiliate of ABC News that he did not testify due to the judge’s rulings.
“The rulings he made made it very difficult to testify,” Trump told the television station. “Because they have no evidence, why should I testify if they have no evidence?”
Meanwhile, the New York appellate court rejected Trump’s request for Judge Merchan to recuse himself from the case, a request that had been pending for six weeks.
In mid-April, Trump’s legal team asked Merchan to recuse himself because his daughter works at a consulting firm that serves Democratic candidates. Merchan stated that he would not consider their recusal request until the state appellate court ruled on it.
On May 23, a panel of judges from the appellate court stated that Trump’s team did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Judge Merchan overstepped his authority.
“Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the court’s denial of their motion exceeded its jurisdiction,” the order read. “Petitioners also failed to demonstrate that they had a clear right to require the judge’s recusal.”
Throughout the trial, Trump has been under a gag order, preventing him from making comments about the prosecution’s staff, witnesses, court personnel, and Judge Merchan’s family. He has criticized the judge several times, alleging bias and inconsistency.
Merchan anticipates that the closing arguments will take a full day or possibly longer.
After that, he plans to provide the jury with about an hour of legal instruction before deliberation. He mentioned that this could happen as early as next Wednesday.
Closing arguments, also known as summation or final arguments, allow both sides to reiterate the case and make their final attempts to convince the jury.
Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass will present the prosecution’s closing arguments, likely emphasizing key evidence and testimonies supporting the case. The defense may point out discrepancies in the testimonies of many crucial prosecution witnesses, question their credibility, and emphasize Trump’s insistence on his innocence.