Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz gave former President Donald Trump some very good news during an interview on Thursday.

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

Dershowitz said he believes that a Washington, D.C. jury will likely convict Trump because the city is 90 percent Democrat. However, he predicted any conviction would be overturned eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court (see video below):

Not only freedom of speech but freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances and freedom to challenge elections. In the indictment, they acknowledge that there are these freedoms, but they claim that Donald — and this is the key point — that Donald Trump actually believed that he lost the election. That everything he did was fraudulent. That he conspired with unnamed lawyers mostly to affect the election outcome.

You’re allowed to challenge elections. In fact, the best way to challenge an election is to come up with a slate of alternate electors. That’s what a court said in Hawaii in 1960; that’s been the case throughout our history.

So the government has the burden of proof beyond an unreasonable doubt that subjectively, Donald Trump actually believed that he lost the election and acted contrary to that belief.

I read the indictment carefully. There is no smoking gun. There is no one who is credibly prepared to testify that Donald Trump said to him, I know personally, I lost the election. There is a lot of evidence a lot of people told me he lost the election, but you know Donald Trump, and you know he will make up his own mind. And they’ll have a very hard time proving it.

This is the District of Columbia, so 90 percent of the jury pool voted against him. So, they may actually get a conviction from a D.C. jury but will it survive appellate review and review in the Supreme Court? I do not think so.

I think he may lose in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but I think he will probably win in the United States Supreme Court if they grant review, and they should grant review.

When you have the president of the United States and his people going after his opponent in a political election, it has to be beyond reproach. It has to be the strongest case in history. This doesn’t meet that standard.


Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.