Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Is DERSHOWITZ now a Republican?

Recommended Posts

 

BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

"The New York Times has reported that, according to three sources, special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to stitch together an obstruction of justice case against President Trump based on his public tweets, TV appearances, conversations with public officials and other entirely lawful acts. If this is true, it suggests that there is no “smoking gun” or fire, not even any kindling. It suggests that all Mueller seems to have is some dry twigs from which he is trying to build a bonfire. The Times’ headline — “Mueller looking for Obstruction in Trump Tweets” — should raise a red flag for all civil libertarians. This is exactly the kind of creative manufacturing of crimes from innocent — indeed, constitutionally protected acts — that endangers the liberties of all Americans.

Just imagine a prosecutor going through all of your tweets, all of your conversations, all of your actions and all of your emails in search of a plausible theory of criminality based on an accordion-like statute such as obstruction of justice. If Mueller manages to cobble together an obstruction of justice case from innocent communications, then this dangerous precedent will lie around like a loaded gun ready to be used by any vindictive prosecutors against any plausible target. That target could be you or someone you love. It could be a Democrat or a Republican. It could be a liberal or a conservative.

In Harvey Silverglate’s brilliant and increasingly relevant book, “Three Felonies a Day,” the experienced attorney and author describes a “game” prosecutors play: One of them names a well-known target, and the others scour the criminal code to find three felonies he or she may have committed. If the New York Times report is accurate, Mueller’s team may be playing this game with a real, live target — namely, President Trump"

"The problem with turning communications — all of which by themselves are noncriminal — into an overarching criminal obstruction case is that life is lived prospectively while prosecutors look at evidence retrospectively. As the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard put it, “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward.” Translated into legal language, this means that isolated statements may have an innocent intention at the time they were made but, when looked at “backwards,” they may appear to be part of a guilty pattern. Even more fundamentally, crime requires both guilty acts and guilty intentions. There is considerable danger in turning innocent acts — especially constitutionally protected ones — into criminal obstruction based on an intent inferred after the fact from a pattern that may not have been contemplated or apparent at the time of the acts. This is what Mueller seems to be doing, if the report is accurate."

"All of us who care about preserving civil liberties and the rule of law should be concerned about this dangerous approach to stitching together a guilty fabric from innocent threads."

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. He is the author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy” and “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.” He is on Twitter @AlanDersh and Facebook @AlanMDershowitz

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/399205-an-obstruction-case-against-trump-would-be-civil-libertarian-nightmare

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz is a lawyer so he's whatever he's paid to be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz was past his prime when OJ hired him. He's on Cheetolini's legal team now. Why? I don't know. I think he's senile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Dershowitz was past his prime when OJ hired him. He's on Cheetolini's legal team now. Why? I don't know. I think he's senile. 

Past his prime? Senile? A media whore? Answers the question..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz has long been a media whore for hire. No one is surprised that Happy Jack is behind the times and fucked up yet another lame gotcha attempt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the only answer to his argument is to attack his character.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

Seems the only answer to his argument is to attack his character.

In your mind, calling someone a Republican is a character attack? There is hope for you yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

In your mind, calling someone a Republican is a character attack? There is hope for you yet.

"Dershowitz has long been a media whore for hire"...Bent Sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

"Dershowitz has long been a media whore for hire"...Bent Sailor.

Which was not a comment made in response Dershowitz' argument. It was made in response to Happy Jack's question regarding whether or not he is a Republican. That is the only question in the OP (& it's title) and so the only question I answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Which was not a comment made in response Dershowitz' argument. It was made in response to Happy Jack's question regarding whether or not he is a Republican. That is the only question in the OP (& it's title) and so the only question I answered.

It certainly was not a response to Dershowitz's arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

It certainly was not a response to Dershowitz's arguement.

Exactly. And so was not, as you stated, "in answer to his argument". It was, as I stated, in response to Happy Jack's question.

Would you like to try again or do you think you stepped on enough rakes tonight?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dog said:

It certainly was not a response to Dershowitz's arguement.

He had an argument in there somewhere? That stuff looked pretty weak to me.

I'll give you this one sentence if you want to debate it: The Times’ headline — “Mueller looking for Obstruction in Trump Tweets” —

Say I am being investigated for a crime on Kent Island. I tweet/say/write "These accusations are a partisan witch hunt and the entire police force and DA's office on Kent Island should be defunded and the island itself should be taken by eminent domain and used as a test range for chemical weapons*". I would bed ignored or perhaps "Dude is nuts" would be added to the charges and my lawyer would probably decide to find a better client.

Now say I am the governor or the president with the power to actually do that stuff or worse. Now we are looking at obstruction.

Or say you tell the neighbor to pick up after his dog or he will be sleeping with the fishes. Big deal except if you are a mafia boss and actually can have this done ;)

* this really did almost happen in real life during WW I :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not Dershowitz is a Republican (he's not, he's a self professed Liberal Democrat), he's probably right on his assessment.

Collusion was always going to be hard to prove because Trump has a hard time colluding with HIMSELF DURING THE SAME PRESS CONFERENCE and seems to have as much of an aversion to writing stuff down as he does to reading.  So the reality is Muller was going to have to prove that the campaign colluded under direction of Trump (probably by digging up some old Fox and Friends footage) or else go for a lesser fish and be satisfied with a sacrificial buffalo (see 12 Russian agents, Paul Manafort, etc.).

Fearless prediction:  As Dershowitz says, Muller is pulling a Ken Star and, SHOCKINGLY, going after Obstruction.   Just like Whitewater degenerated into a glorified Contempt of Court charge over diddling an intern and trying to cover it up, Russia Collusion is going to degenerate into a glorified Contempt of Court charge for .. diddling a porn actress and trying to cover it up.

Trump/Clinton supporters claim witchhunt!  Trump/Clinton detractors will claim villainy and invalid presidency!  Political symmetry lives on and the status quo wins.. again.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

Whether or not Dershowitz is a Republican (he's not, he's a self professed Liberal Democrat), he's probably right on his assessment.

Collusion was always going to be hard to prove because Trump has a hard time colluding with HIMSELF DURING THE SAME PRESS CONFERENCE and seems to have as much of an aversion to writing stuff down as he does to reading.  So the reality is Muller was going to have to prove that the campaign colluded under direction of Trump (probably by digging up some old Fox and Friends footage) or else go for a lesser fish and be satisfied with a sacrificial buffalo (see 12 Russian agents, Paul Manafort, etc.).

Fearless prediction:  As Dershowitz says, Muller is pulling a Ken Star and, SHOCKINGLY, going after Obstruction.   Just like Whitewater degenerated into a glorified Contempt of Court charge over diddling an intern and trying to cover it up, Russia Collusion is going to degenerate into a glorified Contempt of Court charge for .. diddling a porn actress and trying to cover it up.

Trump/Clinton supporters claim witchhunt!  Trump/Clinton detractors will claim villainy and invalid presidency!  Political symmetry lives on and the status quo wins.. again.

 

Trump being too stupid to pull off a complicated crime actually has a chance of working :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

"Dershowitz has long been a media whore for hire"...Bent Sailor.

That is a demonstrated fact - if you had been paying attention for the past 40 odd years you'd know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

"Dershowitz has long been a media whore for hire"...Bent Sailor.

If he called him a prostitute would that be less of an attack?

2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Russia Collusion is going to degenerate into a glorified Contempt of Court charge for .

meeting with Russians and trying to cover it up. There a reason you forgot that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

He had an argument in there somewhere? That stuff looked pretty weak to me.

I'll give you this one sentence if you want to debate it: The Times’ headline — “Mueller looking for Obstruction in Trump Tweets” —

Say I am being investigated for a crime on Kent Island. I tweet/say/write "These accusations are a partisan witch hunt and the entire police force and DA's office on Kent Island should be defunded and the island itself should be taken by eminent domain and used as a test range for chemical weapons*". I would bed ignored or perhaps "Dude is nuts" would be added to the charges and my lawyer would probably decide to find a better client.

Now say I am the governor or the president with the power to actually do that stuff or worse. Now we are looking at obstruction.

Or say you tell the neighbor to pick up after his dog or he will be sleeping with the fishes. Big deal except if you are a mafia boss and actually can have this done ;)

* this really did almost happen in real life during WW I :o

Actually his argument is that one is protected free speach the other (the act) is potentially criminal behavior. 

You do realize that the the example you just gave you want to criminalized a  political/personal opinion. Which, if I'm not mistaken and I rarely am, is exactly Dershowitz's point. 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Actually his argument is that one is protected free speach the other (the act) is potentially criminal behavior. 

You do realize that the the example you just gave you want to criminalized a  political/personal opinion. Which, if I'm not mistaken and I rarely am, is exactly Dershowitz's point. 

"Obstruction" seems lost on you. If I threaten to fire all the cops investigating the time I took a dump in your garden *and I am the chief of police*, that is not protected speech, that is obstruction.

I am pretty sure you know that and are just following a Putinbot script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

"Obstruction" seems lost on you. If I threaten to fire all the cops investigating the time I took a dump in your garden *and I am the chief of police*, that is not protected speech, that is obstruction.

I am pretty sure you know that and are just following a Putinbot script.

Reread what you posted.  "These accusations are a partisan witch hunt and the entire police force and DA's office on Kent Island should be defunded and the island itself should be taken by eminent domain and used as a test range for chemical weapons*".

Threats can be criminal. and can be investigated. Opinions not so much. 

 

 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Trump being too stupid to pull off a complicated crime actually has a chance of working :lol:

It’s not a bad line of defence. 

“Members of the jury, look at my client. Do you really believe he has the intellectual capacity to even do half the things he’s accused of”??? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

It’s not a bad line of defence. 

“Members of the jury, look at my client. Do you really believe he has the intellectual capacity to even do half the things he’s accused of”??? 

You mean like being a billionaire, TV star, defeating Hillary (the anointed one) Clinton, appointing two great SCOTUS justices and making America Great Again?

Must really be a dummy. 

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You mean like being a billionaire, TV star, defeating Hillary (the anointed one) Clinton, appointing two great SCOTUS justices and making America Great Again?

Must really be a dummy. 

The man needed picture cards to understand EU trade for fucks sake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

The man needed picture cards to understand EU trade for fucks sake. 

Compared to Hapless Jack he's a stable genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Reread what you posted.  "These accusations are a partisan witch hunt and the entire police force and DA's office on Kent Island should be defunded and the island itself should be taken by eminent domain and used as a test range for chemical weapons*".

Threats can be criminal. and can be investigated. Opinions not so much. 

 

 

I think it is safe to conclude you slept right on through the day they taught Thomas Becket. I'll make it easy for you - Presidents, dictators, and kings *do not have casual ideas that no one acts on*.  If random wino guy in Moscow says "I think it would be great to drop a nuke on Orlando" no one cars. If Putin says that we scramble the fighters and bombers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:
10 hours ago, Dog said:

Seems the only answer to his argument is to attack his character.

Gov is a strange one. 

irony-alert-ironic.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Dersh is a Cablenewsian" 

 

 *A person paid to argue a side of a staged "argument" which the producers feel would be entertaining enough to keep people from channel surfing over to something else...like QVC.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington (CNN) White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday President Donald Trump's tweets are indeed official statements.

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States," Spicer said, when asked during his daily briefing how they should be characterized. Spicer did not indicate whether that included both of the President's Twitter handles: @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Dershowitz, and Toobin square off on CNN was one of the highlights of my 6 weeks in the hospital/rehab center this summer.

 Teacher Vs. Student. Watching the teacher wince every time the student stabbed him with his own tutorial sword, was almost worth the 15 pounds I lost due to foul food in those places.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is Happy talking about this Dershowitz?

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Mueller Report Will Be "Politically Very Devastating" for (President) Trump

That sounds like there is a bit more there than the "dry kindling" Jack is hoping for.

Trump can outright lie and his followers like Jack simply do not care.

"Politically Devastating", my ass.  There is not a single thing that man could do that would be "Politically Devastating."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

Trump can outright lie and his followers like Jack simply do not care.

"Politically Devastating", my ass.  There is not a single thing that man could do that would be "Politically Devastating."

 

Besides going Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2018 at 11:58 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Reread what you posted.  "These accusations are a partisan witch hunt and the entire police force and DA's office on Kent Island should be defunded and the island itself should be taken by eminent domain and used as a test range for chemical weapons*".

Threats can be criminal. and can be investigated. Opinions not so much. 

 

 

Slightly off topic.

Jack’s got e lawyers on call.  Tread lightly guys....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still haven't had a visit by the SS or FBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

That doesn't lead where you think it leads.

Where do I think it leads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Besides going Democrat.

Exactly.  As long as he doesn't join the True Enemy, he's fine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Where do I think it leads?

It leads me to an article about high gas prices Obama vs. Bush. Where does it take you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It leads me to an article about high gas prices Obama vs. Bush. Where does it take you?

Whoops.  Screwed up my link.

Try this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer Shitfight!

OK, so they're kind of drawn out and boring. Here's a fun clip:
 

Quote

 

To be sure, "collusion" (whatever it may mean, precisely), or using stolen information, is not always a crime. But that's not what he said; he said - three times in one paragraph - that it is not a crime when in fact, in certain circumstances, it may well be. And we don't yet know, because Mueller has not completed his investigation, whether those circumstances did, or did not, pertain in connection with the 2016 election.

I can think of any number of very plausible "collusion" scenarios, based on (and consistent with) everything we now know about the actions of Trump campaign officials during the 2016 campaign, that would indeed constitute federal and/or state crimes. For instance...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dershowitz? a sleazy old media whore that sleeps with a 16 year old procured by a billionaire creep. and  he repeatedly helps the billionaire creep get away with  the billionaire creeps pattern of molestation. and he still says he's a personal friend of the billionaire creep. Fuck him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers who studied under Prof D. tell me pretty much the same thing- he is a radical civil rights attorney, and that puts him outside of what you might think of, normally, as R or D.  

Think about Dershowitz’s statements concerning Trump, and try to put them in the context of protecting Trump’s civil rights, if you can ignore his personal conduct:lol:. It’s an intellectual viewpoint of what he is doing, informed by the constitution as he sees it.  

He’s different, and always has been.  God, the stuff he was doing in the late 60’s and 70’s could be baffling, judged by political standards.  I don’t claim to understand his legal philosophy very deeply, but he apparently has some major legal chops.....I think even Tribe would admit that, but it exists in the rarified air of Harvard Law.  

Whether Trump understands it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has he renounced his Jewishness?  Heresy.  Send him to the lions or kittens if so be.  (Mel Brooks fan, I'guilty.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Has he renounced his Jewishness?  Heresy.  Send him to the lions or kittens if so be.  (Mel Brooks fan, I'guilty.).

Kittens!  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this