I like Alan Dershowitz. He brings a perspective to the table that fascillitates deeper understanding of how difficult the practice of law actually is. Any attorney will tell you they can argue both sides of any issue successfully. Alan loves to take the unpopular stance among his peers, but he is always well researched and uses impeccable reasoning. He also doesn’t shy away from the fact that his views, while completely sound in his mind, can be challenged using the exact same statutes he bases his opinions on.
”A candidate is free to contribute to his or her own campaign. It also is not criminal for a candidate to pay hush money to women whose disclosures might endanger his campaign. So if candidate Trump paid hush money to his two accusers, there would be no violation of any campaign or other laws. To be sure, if he did so for the purpose of helping his campaign - as distinguished from helping his marriage - his campaign would have to disclose any such contribution, and failure to do so might be a violation of a campaign law, but the payments themselves would be entirely lawful.”
“Anyone reading the collection of statutes, regulations and rules that govern elections would immediately conclude - even while sitting - that they do not satisfy this Jeffersonian criteria. Reasonable people can disagree about whether these open-ended laws apply to any of the acts and omissions alleged against Trump by Cohen.”
“An overzealous prosecutor could, of course, stretch the words of the accordion-like statute to target a political enemy, or read it more narrowly to favor a political friend.”