• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘What Is the Crime?!’ Dershowitz

V

volsrock

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, during a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

“Let’s assume that’s true,” he exclaimed. “Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!”

?What Is the Crime?!? Dershowitz Goes on Wild Rant, Says Mueller?s Powers Limited | Mediaite

This Clinton voter gets it....Dershowitz knows the law
 
Last edited:
This isn't about crime. It's about power.

The election of Donald Trump was a shot across the bow of big government and big media. It toppled a very carefully crafted self image these entities had of themselves and they are scrambling to recover. It's kind of like watching your alcoholic uncle deny his drinking and the destruction he caused even as he stands there swaying and pissing his pants. Like what we're seeing in government and media, he'll deny everything and blame everyone for his problems.

The one thing they'll NEVER do is admit that they have a problem.
 
volsrock said:
Well, during a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

“Let’s assume that’s true,” he exclaimed. “Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!”

?What Is the Crime?!? Dershowitz Goes on Wild Rant, Says Mueller?s Powers Limited | Mediaite

This Clinton voter gets it....Dershowitz knows the law
Click to expand...

Isn't hacking against the law?
 
volsrock said:
Well, during a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

“Let’s assume that’s true,” he exclaimed. “Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!”

?What Is the Crime?!? Dershowitz Goes on Wild Rant, Says Mueller?s Powers Limited | Mediaite

This Clinton voter gets it....Dershowitz knows the law
Click to expand...

Does it have to be a crime to be wrong? That's not asking much of your highest government officials. Your standards have fallen off a lot, just in my lifetime. You sound willing to accept any wrongdoing, just so it's your guy and it's not actually indictable.
And that's just a lawyers opinion. In every legal case, another lawyer, maybe just as 'famed' will present the opposite opinion.
Bottom line- lawyers and judges might have their hands tied by the law but voters have more freedom of choice. Mid-terms coming up...
 
Grand Mal said:
Does it have to be a crime to be wrong? That's not asking much of your highest government officials. Your standards have fallen off a lot, just in my lifetime. You sound willing to accept any wrongdoing, just so it's your guy and it's not actually indictable.
And that's just a lawyers opinion. In every legal case, another lawyer, maybe just as 'famed' will present the opposite opinion.
Bottom line- lawyers and judges might have their hands tied by the law but voters have more freedom of choice. Mid-terms coming up...
Click to expand...

Already the liberals are admitting that "it's wrong". If "wrongdoing" is the standard there's cheating to win the primaries and then getting fed questions by Donna Brazile during the general, which btw is 100% confirmably against the law. Please, no Trump hater has a right to talk about wrong doing.
 
volsrock said:
Well, during a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

“Let’s assume that’s true,” he exclaimed. “Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!”

?What Is the Crime?!? Dershowitz Goes on Wild Rant, Says Mueller?s Powers Limited | Mediaite

This Clinton voter gets it....Dershowitz knows the law
Click to expand...

It's the cover up. And, Trump telling the Russians that the pressure is off now because he fired Comey is basically a confession to obstruction of justice. It's always the cover up that gets them in the end.

Maybe next time elect someone who knows the game. :roll:
 
reinoe said:
Please, no Trump hater has a right to talk about wrong doing.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this? Plenty of people who don't like Trump also don't like Hillary, and thought what she did was wrong.
 
reinoe said:
Already the liberals are admitting that "it's wrong". If "wrongdoing" is the standard there's cheating to win the primaries and then getting fed questions by Donna Brazile during the general, which btw is 100% confirmably against the law. Please, no Trump hater has a right to talk about wrong doing.
Click to expand...

"Butbutbut Hillary!"
See what I mean? See how low you've dropped the bar? You measure your President against the lowest standard you can come up with, someone you say ought to be indicted and jailed, and say he's not so bad because he's not as bad as Hillary.
When the hell, how the hell, did your expectations fall so low? Hillary Clinton is the standard you measure your boy against?
What a screwed-up election. Here you are, saying syphilis isn't so bad because leprosy is worse.
 
Lutherf said:
This isn't about crime. It's about power.

The election of Donald Trump was a shot across the bow of big government and big media. It toppled a very carefully crafted self image these entities had of themselves and they are scrambling to recover. It's kind of like watching your alcoholic uncle deny his drinking and the destruction he caused even as he stands there swaying and pissing his pants. Like what we're seeing in government and media, he'll deny everything and blame everyone for his problems.

The one thing they'll NEVER do is admit that they have a problem.
Click to expand...

The news media's credibility with the electorate is already shot.
It is only present in their own minds when they are interviewing other journalists of the same mind and mind set.

About as much credibility as 'Rosenstein threatened to quit over Comey memo'
(Rosenstein said he didn't).

About as much credibility as 'Comey was going to ask for more money for Russian collusion investigation'
(McCabe testifies to congress the investigation properly resources)

About as much credibility as 'Trump obstructed justice by telling Comey to stop investigation of Flynn'
(Comey testifies before congress that no one interfered or obstructed the Flynn investigation)
(If Comey felt obstructed in his investigations, it would be a felony for him NOT to report it to his superiors in DOJ. He never did).

Trump gave classified secrets to the Russians during their White House meeting
(McMaster later game out and no that didn’t happen, and he WAS in those meetings)

Face it. Today’s ‘news’ media is little more than leftist propaganda from their echo chamber’s talking points, and should be credited with the credibility there of.
(which is to say none at all)

They may wake up and smell the coffee and come to this realization, or they may not. I'm betting not.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
"Butbutbut Hillary!"
See what I mean? See how low you've dropped the bar? You measure your President against the lowest standard you can come up with, someone you say ought to be indicted and jailed, and say he's not so bad because he's not as bad as Hillary.
When the hell, how the hell, did your expectations fall so low? Hillary Clinton is the standard you measure your boy against?
What a screwed-up election. Here you are, saying syphilis isn't so bad because leprosy is worse.
Click to expand...

You're the one with low standards. Impeachment is "High Crimes and Misdeamenors". You're the one who says "wrongdoing" (which is subjective) should be the standard for impeachment. If you don't like low standards then don't talk about them. Nowhere did I mention Hillary. Nowhere. Pathetic. How can you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome at the same time?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Why do you think this? Plenty of people who don't like Trump also don't like Hillary, and thought what she did was wrong.
Click to expand...

Most of the Trump folks cannot grab that simple concept. They wrongly assume that just because somebody may have voted for Hillary, that they are as blindly loyal to her as they are to Trump. Many of us simply hold the individual accountable regardless of party affiliation.
 
volsrock said:
Well, during a pretty wild little segment on CNN, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz let it be known that he doesn’t think Mueller has any jurisdiction when it comes to investigating potential collusion between Trump and the Russians over election interference. Why? Because Dershowitz doesn’t think that is a criminal act.

“Let’s assume that’s true,” he exclaimed. “Show me the criminal statute. I still sit here as a civil libertarian. I don’t want us ever to become what Stalinist Russia became when Stalin was saying, show me the man I’ll find you the crime. What is the crime?!”

?What Is the Crime?!? Dershowitz Goes on Wild Rant, Says Mueller?s Powers Limited | Mediaite

This Clinton voter gets it....Dershowitz knows the law
Click to expand...

Then Dershowitz can kindly explain how Archibald Cox investigated Nixon.
 
eohrnberger said:
The news media's credibility with the electorate is already shot.
It is only present in their own minds when they are interviewing other journalists of the same mind and mind set.

About as much credibility as 'Rosenstein threatened to quit over Comey memo'
(Rosenstein said he didn't).

About as much credibility as 'Comey was going to ask for more money for Russian collusion investigation'
(McCabe testifies to congress the investigation properly resources)

About as much credibility as 'Trump obstructed justice by telling Comey to stop investigation of Flynn'
(Comey testifies before congress that no one interfered or obstructed the Flynn investigation)
(If Comey felt obstructed in his investigations, it would be a felony for him NOT to report it to his superiors in DOJ. He never did).

Trump gave classified secrets to the Russians during their White House meeting
(McMaster later game out and no that didn’t happen, and he WAS in those meetings)

Face it. Today’s ‘news’ media is little more than leftist propaganda from their echo chamber’s talking points, and should be credited with the credibility there of.
(which is to say none at all)

They may wake up and smell the coffee and come to this realization, or they may not. I'm betting not.
Click to expand...

But, but...they have this unnamed source that says it's all true!
 
Vetplus40 said:
Then Dershowitz can kindly explain how Archibald Cox investigated Nixon.
Click to expand...

You may recall that the Watergate episode began with an actual crime. There was a break in and that's a bona fide criminal act which is just fine to investigate.
 
Lutherf said:
You may recall that the Watergate episode began with an actual crime. There was a break in and that's a bona fide criminal act which is just fine to investigate.
Click to expand...

In the beginning, there was no link between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. If the public had accepted the same "witch-hunt" claims that Trump is putting out now, the Watergate investigation would have never yielded anything of substance.

The Watergate case came about because of two diligent "media" reporters and one "unnamed source" that did not agree with Nixon's abuse of power. Both of which happen to be two things of which the Trump supporters are crying about now.

that said, obstruction of justice - which Trump may well have committed - is indeed a criminal offense.
 
Vetplus40 said:
In the beginning, there was no link between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. If the public had accepted the same "witch-hunt" claims that Trump is putting out now, the Watergate investigation would have never yielded anything of substance.

The Watergate case came about because of two diligent "media" reporters and one "unnamed source" that did not agree with Nixon's abuse of power. Both of which happen to be two things of which the Trump supporters are crying about now.

that said, obstruction of justice - which Trump may well have committed - is indeed a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

We get it, we have to investigate, prefferebly until Trump leaves office be that through force, resignation or election loss in case there IS a crime. Facinating.
 
we should not take any side in conflict between Trump and war profiteers (CIA/DoD: rumsfeld, cheney, McCain, kellog, etc)... they attack Trump because he refused their wanted war with Russia.
 
reinoe said:
You're the one with low standards. Impeachment is "High Crimes and Misdeamenors". You're the one who says "wrongdoing" (which is subjective) should be the standard for impeachment. If you don't like low standards then don't talk about them. Nowhere did I mention Hillary. Nowhere. Pathetic. How can you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome at the same time?
Click to expand...

What does this, from your post I replied to, refer to?
"cheating to win the primaries and then getting fed questions by Donna Brazile during the general,"
That's you, not mentioning Hillary?

And nowhere did I mention 'imoeachment'.
 
Vetplus40 said:
In the beginning, there was no link between Nixon and the Watergate break-in..
Click to expand...

They were investigating the break in,.. A CRIME and during that CRIME investigation they found it was linked to Nixon....


What CRIME are they investigating now?
 
volsrock said:
They were investigating the break in,.. A CRIME and during that CRIME investigation they found it was linked to Nixon....


What CRIME are they investigating now?
Click to expand...

None at all. An FBI counterintelligence investigation which had been going on since last summer, relying on FISA warrants, aimed at foreign nationals, and using no prosecutor, has illegitimately been converted into a criminal investigation with a special prosecutor, aimed at Americans.

Professor Dershowitz was right to use Beria's quote to characterize this witch hunt: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
 
Vetplus40 said:
In the beginning, there was no link between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. If the public had accepted the same "witch-hunt" claims that Trump is putting out now, the Watergate investigation would have never yielded anything of substance.

The Watergate case came about because of two diligent "media" reporters and one "unnamed source" that did not agree with Nixon's abuse of power. Both of which happen to be two things of which the Trump supporters are crying about now.

that said, obstruction of justice - which Trump may well have committed - is indeed a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

What CRIME are they investigating now?
 
Vetplus40 said:
Dream on....lol...The public is already wanting the press to provide more coverage of the investigation.
Click to expand...

In the same sense people slow down to see a traffic accident. Doesn't mean that there's any trust or belief in the biased, ideological and agenda driven news coverage.

Silver explained the dip in trust has largely corresponded with a “general distrust for large organizations and large institutions” over the same period of time.


“On top of that,” he said, “there seems to be a more specific distrust generally in the media and the media agenda. People who are generally politically conservative tend to think the media has a liberal agenda, that journalists are inherently liberal and want to advance a liberal cause. And if you look at very liberal people, they believe journalists are kind of slaves to the corporate entities that own media organizations.”


As the Gallup poll shows, however, the rate of declining trust in American mass media accelerated in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Rich Noyes, research director of the conservative-leaning Media Research Center, cited several examples he believes contributed to the increased perception that mainstream news coverage was skewed in favor of Democrats.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-crisis-truth-deficit/
Click to expand...

As belief in the fake news media continues to plummet, there's going to be less and less traction that that news coverage is going to have with the electorate, and specifically less in the ability to influence votes with the news media's political propaganda.
 
While I respect Dershowitz's skill, at least, I do have to wonder why he demands someone cite him a statute and say specifically who committed a violation of it, how, etc., as a prerequisite to investigating whether or not there was a violation by the target of the investigation.

Sounds the way one might expect if he'd taken on the case. He does say he says it as a "civil libertarian", so I suppose the reason why he would put it that way makes sense. But what he said still doesn't make sense.



We don't need to know who done it and we don't even need to know what exactly it is to investigate. Never has. PROVE IT, someone yells? Ok. Building burns down. People die. Is it murder by arson? Is it accident? Is it non-criminal negligence that someone takes up later in a civil suit?

BUT WE KNOW THE BUILDING BURNT THERE! Yeah. Duh. I was making up the analogy on the fly. Perhaps I ought to have made it about insider trading. The bottom line should be obvious to anyone willing to see a bottom line: we have never required the specifics before we launch an investigation because investigations are about finding the specifics out.

Imagine that.










(Although just a little bit different, I don't recall anyone saying "we need to investigate Benghazi because we suspect we'll find out Clinton had a private email server).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom