Alan Dershowitz is an attorney, Harvard Law School professor, and author of Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law
Election challenges have long been a part of American history.
Only now are they being criminalized.
I was one of the attorneys involved in objections to the 2000 Florida presidential election.
A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush, rather than Vice President Al Gore, won the state and thus the Electoral College vote.
I was convinced then and I am convinced now that this result was wrong.
No one was charged, suspended, punished or even criticized for those efforts, but here we stand today.
President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants have been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations known as the RICO Act.
Should Al Gore have been indicted in 2000?
What about me?
I represented the voters of Palm Beach County, many of whom accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore because of the infamous butterfly voting and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.
Many tactics similar to those of 2020 were tried during our challenges.
Lawyers wrote legal memorandums outlining possible courses of action, including proposing a list of alternate voters who would deliver our favored election results to Congress.
A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush, rather than Vice President Al Gore (above), won the state and thus the Electoral College vote.
I represented Palm Beach County voters, many of whom accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore because of the infamous butterfly ballots (above) and hanging chads that prevented their votes from being accurately counted.
Election challenges have long been a part of American history, but now they are being criminalized. I was one of the attorneys involved in objections to the 2000 Florida presidential election. (Above) Alan Dershowitz is an attorney, Harvard Law School professor, and author of Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law’
Now Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with others, are being charged with conspiracy to forgery and false statements for preparing their roster of alternate voters.
In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties where we believed the count would be in our favor. We tried to find at least 600 votes that would change the result.
This new indictment includes Trump’s phone conversation with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which is captured in an audio recording. In the conversation, Trump asks Raffensperger to “find” 12,000 votes.
In my opinion, this phone call is one of the most exculpatory pieces of evidence. Trump, as a candidate, had the right to ask a Georgia state official to track down votes he said had not been counted.
In 2000, attempts were made to influence several Florida officials to recount the votes.
Now the former president’s request for the Republican speaker of the Georgia House to reconsider the count is being charged with inciting a government official to violate his oath.
Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties where we believed the count would be in our favor. We tried to find at least 600 votes that would change the result. (Above) Election officials in Paln Beach, Florida County conduct a recount of the presidential election on November 11, 2000
President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants have been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations known as the RICO Act.
But if similar behavior was legal in 2000, how can it be illegal in 2023?
Ultimately, all those attempts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court ordered a 5-4 vote to halt the recounts, handing the election over to President George W. Bush.
I wrote a book called Supreme Injustice in which I condemned the Supreme Court’s decision and maintained that Gore’s election had been stolen and wrongly handed to the candidate who received fewer votes.
The book was a bestseller and made the front pages of the New York Times and other major publications. Most Americans believed those contesting the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them.
What is different today is that many observers do not believe that Trump and his advisers were sincere when they declared that he had won the election. But that doesn’t make what they did a crime.
The charge against Georgia hinges on the allegation that Trump lied to corruptly prevent the inauguration of the candidate who won the election fair and election plaza.
Conspiracy and RICO violations are specific “intentional” crimes. To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove a personal agreement to participate in a criminal activity.
That will be an incredibly difficult thing to do, especially with regard to Trump himself, who – as far as I know – has never wavered from his belief that the election was stolen.
Ultimately, all those attempts in Florida failed when the Supreme Court ordered a 5-4 vote to halt the recounts, handing the election over to President George W. Bush.
Most Americans believed those contesting the Florida vote had acted in good faith, even though the courts ruled against them. (Above) Demonstrations at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where judges determined whether the Florida recount could proceed
He’s wrong, but again, that’s not enough to prove him guilty.
The First Amendment and the General Principles of Criminal Justice protect the right to be wrong, especially if that right is based on a genuine error or belief.
Many point to the allegation that Trump aides allegedly stole data from voting machines, but that allegation is hotly disputed. The jury will have to assess the credibility of both parties.
The basic truth of this charge is that if the evidence of specific crimes were compelling, there would be no need to charge under RICO’s heavy “intent” requirements and conspiracy laws. The evidence is inconclusive, because these electoral challenges have precedent.
Once again, as with the previous three charges against Trump, the law is being stretched to the limit to entrap a former president.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,” goes the infamous Soviet-era boast attributed to Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief.
Is this really what our country has become?
When prosecutions are rooted in the fickle soil of politics and not in the solid rock of justice, everything will collapse.