Thread by @twoodiac

@ParryPierce Just to be clear: Dershowitz’s position (so far as it can made out) is absurd--and will prove to be yet another embarrassment to Harvard Law (along with the likes of Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, and Kayleigh McEnany). 2/19

@ParryPierce First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that the attorney-client privilege was violated in this case, because of the well-known and well-tested crime-fraud exception to that privilege. 3/19

@ParryPierce This is especially important here, because the attorney-client privilege was, it appears, annulled in this search warrant decision, meaning that Trump is quite possibly in trouble. 4/19

@ParryPierce Dershowitz has claimed that sudden search and seizure operations are only justified when there is reason to believe that relevant evidence in the investigation will be destroyed or hidden. Really? 5/19

@ParryPierce Is Dershowitz suggesting that prosecutors should have to notify the individual of the evidence they think he has, and then request him to turn that evidence over? 6/19

@ParryPierce But why should the burden of proof be on prosecutors to show that the individual WON’T destroy or hide evidence--especially because advance notification and requests would tell the individual that he is under investigation? 7/19

@ParryPierce Nor should prosecutors be expected to identify and specify all the evidence they are interested in--nor, for that matter, is that the way search warrants do in fact work. 8/19

@ParryPierce One of the purposes of a valid search warrant is to ferret out possible evidence relevant to the investigation that prosecutors have reason to believe may exist but have not yet identified, 9/19

@ParryPierce and this is perfectly legal, provided that all the evidence involves a party that the prosecutors *and the court* believe *may* be a party to a crime, an accessory to a crime, or involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. 10/19

@ParryPierce Which is why a number of legal commentators have been saying that Trump and many of his supporters have plenty of reason to be worried by the search and seizure of belongings in Giuliani’s apartment and office. 11/19

@ParryPierce Here the criminal investigation appears to concern, at least in large part, whether a crime was committed when Marie Yovanovitch lost her job and was summarily reassigned from her ambassadorship in Ukraine. 12/19

@ParryPierce This was one of the crucial points in Trump’s impeachment trial, where he was accused of abuse of power.

Dershowitz famously defended Trump against the impeachment charge, 13/19

@ParryPierce arguing (absurdly enough) that Trump as POTUS could sell or give away the state of Alaska to Russia without committing an impeachable offense. 14/19

@ParryPierce Now that Trump is out of office and a private citizen, however, the feds seem to be investigating whether Giuliani--and yes, probably Trump as well--committed one or more *crimes* when they pressured Zelensky to find dirt on the Bidens. 15/19

@ParryPierce There is a well-known principle in the law, according to which “tainted evidence”--that is, information in a criminal trial that has been obtained by illegal means or has been traced through evidence obtained by illegal search and/or seizure, Is not admissible in court. 16/19

@ParryPierce (This is often referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.) Dershowitz seems to foresee a trial in which the defendant(s) might hope to escape conviction by somehow invoking this principle. 17/19

@ParryPierce As a number of legal commentators have already pointed out, this effort won’t succeed in court. Nevertheless, there is a real *political* concern that Dershowtiz’s claim will work wonders with the MAGA cult, 18/19

@ParryPierce which is prepared to believe and endorse nonsense exactly like this if they want to believe it. Expect most of the talking heads on Fox News to run with it as well.

CAVEAT: Kindly note that I am not a lawyer. 19/19

@ParryPierce unroll @threadreaderapp