Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz has been a notable voice in the discussion over the Democrats’ constant efforts to weaponize the government against former President Donald Trump. Ever since officials working with federal agencies concocted the Russia collusion hoax, he has spoken out against these politically-motivated smear jobs even though he did not vote for Trump in 2016.

Now, the professor is taking on the latest Justice Department indictment against the former president. During an exclusive interview on “Breitbart News Sunday” on SiriusXM, Dershowitz discussed the latest development in this ongoing saga in which Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to convince a judge to issue a protective order to limit Trump’s access to information that his team could obtain through discovery. The objective appears to be to keep the former president from speaking publicly about these details.

Dershowitz argued that Trump has the right to see what evidence the prosecution plans to use against him, saying that despite Smith using the former president’s recent posts on Truth Social as an excuse to obtain the protective order, “There’s no basis for restricting his free speech.”

Instead of restricting Trump’s right to post on social media, or even to share documents obtained during discovery, Dershowitz said prosecutors could simply question Trump about his remarks or “introduce that as evidence against him, if it’s relevant.”

In a trial where a former — and possible future president — was at peril of losing his liberty, or his life, Dershowitz said, the public should be allowed to see prosecutors’ evidence against him, “unless there’s some very compelling reason for keeping it secret.”

“He has a First Amendment right — and we have a First Amendment right — to know what’s in the documents,” Dershowitz said.

He agreed with Pollak that Smith should not have accused Trump publicly of inciting the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol without charging him with incitement in his indictment. “Nor should the prosecutor have purported to quote from [Trump’s] January 6 speech” while leaving out Trump’s urging to protest at the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically,” Dershowitz said.

Some have argued that Trump at least partially brought this upon himself by his online behavior, but this does not excuse Smith trying to exploit the situation to violate the former president’s First Amendment rights, as Dershowitz argued. Additionally, he has the right to know what the state plans to use against him so that he can have a fair and adequate defense. Of course, this would be the very last thing the prosecution would want because this is not about justice, but about influencing the outcome of the upcoming 2024 election.

Moreover, Dershowitz is right in his assessment of Smith selectively cherry-picking parts of Trump’s words on January 6 to further the falsehood that he incited the riot at the U.S. Capitol building that day. It shows exactly what Smith is trying to do here: railroad the former president.

Lastly, the notion that the public should not know the details of this case is absurd. The American people deserve to understand the case against a former president who could wind up behind bars – especially if the powers that be are continually trying to get us to believe that this whole circus isn’t motivated by politics. Besides, if the prosecution wants so badly to keep us from knowing what is going on with the trial, one has to wonder what they are trying to hide.