• 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!

Allan Dershowitz says no crime

S

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
19,350
Reaction score
3,656
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
YouTube

One of the most respected legal minds in the world, and certainly not biased toward republicans, says there was no crime, and this may hurt the dems.
 
What info does he have?
 
Impeachment isn't about criminality.
 
Simpletruther said:
YouTube

One of the most respected legal minds in the world, and certainly not biased toward republicans, says there was no crime, and this may hurt the dems.
Click to expand...
The bolded is highly debatable. I used to think that of him once, too. But then at one time I also believed Giuliani was "America's Mayor", and admired him so much that I bought his book.

Nothing stays the same, and sometimes our heroes fall ...
 
Simpletruther said:
YouTube

One of the most respected legal minds in the world, and certainly not biased toward republicans, says there was no crime, and this may hurt the dems.
Click to expand...

He's respected as a criminal defense attorney. He was on the O.J. team. He got Claus Von Bulow off after he was convicted for murdering his wife.

I respect Alan Dershowitz but I don't agree with is views and I doubt you do too.

Since Trump is a criminal, he should hire him. He would do a much better job than Guiliani who is clueless.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
He's respected as a criminal defense attorney. He was on the O.J. team. He got Claus Von Bulow off after he was convicted for murdering his wife.

I respect Alan Dershowitz but I don't agree with is views and I doubt you do too.

Since Trump is a criminal, he should hire him. He would do a much better job than Guiliani who is clueless.
Click to expand...

Allegedly, he did try to hire him. But dershowitz wouldn't work for free.
 
Chomsky said:
The bolded is highly debatable. I used to think that of him once, too. But then at one time I also believed Giuliani was "America's Mayor", and admired him so much that I bought his book.

Nothing stays the same, and sometimes our heroes fall ...
Click to expand...

Remember that Dershowitz is a Democrat and he also defended Hillary Clinton. His view is that presidents should have broad latitude. He believes that the system won't work if presidents are constantly being accused of committing crimes. So, he thinks they should be immune from criminal prosecutions and these issues should be settled at the ballot box.

I disagree with this view. It would allow a president to act criminally in ways to maintain his power and affect the ballot box. Look at Russia. Look at the Philippines.

There's nothing worse than having a president who uses the power of his office to have his opponents and critics investigated. It already happens all over the world.

It's surprising that these small government conservatives are not horrified by this.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
He's respected as a criminal defense attorney. He was on the O.J. team. He got Claus Von Bulow off after he was convicted for murdering his wife.

I respect Alan Dershowitz but I don't agree with is views and I doubt you do too.

Since Trump is a criminal, he should hire him. He would do a much better job than Guiliani who is clueless.
Click to expand...
You're evaluating Giuliani as a lawyer, when in fact he has two purposes for Trump:

1] Bagmen/Fixer

2] Sowing FUD & distraction, and muddying the waters.

Even just recently it's been reported that Trump is happy with him, and likes the work he does. To that task, I believe Giuliani is reasonably effective.
 
Simpletruther said:
YouTube

One of the most respected legal minds in the world, and certainly not biased toward republicans, says there was no crime, and this may hurt the dems.
Click to expand...

I know this is an ad hominem attack, but the guy defended Epstein, and got him a sweetheart deal. I don't really care what he has to say. He's got an opinion like a lot of other people and I'd rather hear from someone whose ethics aren't clearly for sale to the highest bidder.

Most of what he says is political opinion. Who cares? What campaigns has he run? What offices has he been elected to?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It's surprising that these small government conservatives are not horrified by this.
Click to expand...

They'll change their minds as soon as they start up another Benghazi type ie about the next president after Trump gets his ass kicked in 2020.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Remember that Dershowitz is a Democrat and he also defended Hillary Clinton. His view is that presidents should have broad latitude. He believes that the system won't work if presidents are constantly being accused of committing crimes. So, he thinks they should be immune from criminal prosecutions and these issues should be settled at the ballot box.

I disagree with this view. It would allow a president to act criminally in ways to maintain his power and affect the ballot box. Look at Russia. Look at the Philippines.

There's nothing worse than having a president who uses the power of his office to have his opponents and critics investigated. It already happens all over the world.

It's surprising that these small government conservatives are not horrified by this.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
JasperL said:
I know this is an ad hominem attack, but the guy defended Epstein, and got him a sweetheart deal. I don't really care what he has to say. He's got an opinion like a lot of other people and I'd rather hear from someone whose ethics aren't clearly for sale to the highest bidder.

Most of what he says is political opinion. Who cares? What campaigns has he run? What offices has he been elected to?
Click to expand...
Exactly. We can't forget this is the guy that helped get Epstein off-the-hook. And now he's lobbying for Trump, who ironically is one of Epstein's partying buddies.
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly. We can't forget this is the guy that helped get Epstein off-the-hook. And now he's lobbying for Trump, who ironically is one of Epstein's partying buddies.
Click to expand...

He defends criminals. He serves a useful purpose as a force fighting against wrongful prosecution. The world needs both prosecutors and defense attorneys.

But the OP fails to understand that Dershowitz is very biased in favor of criminals. He defended O.J. Simpson.

Moreover, we should keep in mind the Dershowitz thinks like a criminal defense attorney but impeachment is a political process. The standard of proof is much lower.
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly. We can't forget this is the guy that helped get Epstein off-the-hook. And now he's lobbying for Trump, who ironically is one of Epstein's partying buddies.
Click to expand...

Wait, you mean we can't forget that he did his JOB as a defense attorney?

What do you think a defense attorney is supposed to do, tie up their client with a bow and hand them over to the prosecution?

Don't blame the Defense for the poor work of the Prosecutor, or the even the rulings in law of the Judge.

Sweetheart deals require the agreement of the Prosecutor, they don't just "fall out of the sky."

You'd better hope you have a defense of the caliber provided by Dershowitz if you ever find yourself facing criminal charges, regardless of your actual guilt or innocence. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Wait, you mean we can't forget that he did his JOB as a defense attorney?

What do you think a defense attorney is supposed to do, tie up their client with a bow and hand them over to the prosecution?

Don't blame the Defense for the poor work of the Prosecutor, or the even the rulings in law of the Judge.

Sweetheart deals require the agreement of the Prosecutor, they don't just "fall out of the sky."

You'd better hope you have a defense of the caliber provided by Dershowitz if you ever find yourself facing criminal charges, regardless of your actual guilt or innocence. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

I think you missed his point.

The OP uses Dershowitz defending Trump as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong.

Chompsky is pointing out the Dershowitz also defended Epstein. (and also O.J. Simpson)

Conclusion: Just because Dershowtiz defends you doesn't mean you're innocent. Dershowtiz has spent his life defending suspected criminals.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I think you missed his point.

The OP uses Dershowitz defending Trump as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong.

Chompsky is pointing out the Dershowitz also defended Epstein. (and also O.J. Simpson)

Conclusion: Just because Dershowtiz defends you doesn't mean you're innocent. Dershowtiz has spent his life defending suspected criminals.
Click to expand...

What is your problem with that? It doesn't mean you are guilty either.

Are you of the Chinese school of thought, a person is guilty until proven innocent?

I have spent part of my life as a Public Defender "defending suspected criminals." Everyone deserves a good defense, and "suspected" does not mean one IS a criminal. That is what the criminal justice process is all about.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What is your problem with that? It doesn't mean you are guilty either.

Are you of the Chinese school of thought, a person is guilty until proven innocent?

I have spent part of my life as a Public Defender "defending suspected criminals." Everyone deserves a good defense, and "suspected" does not mean one IS a criminal. That is what the criminal justice process is all about.
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest there was anything wrong with it? I think what Dershowitz does serves an important function in society. I support the ACLU. Do you? Conservatives tend to hate the ACLU.
 
JasperL said:
I know this is an ad hominem attack, but the guy defended Epstein, and got him a sweetheart deal. I don't really care what he has to say. He's got an opinion like a lot of other people and I'd rather hear from someone whose ethics aren't clearly for sale to the highest bidder.

Most of what he says is political opinion. Who cares? What campaigns has he run? What offices has he been elected to?
Click to expand...

Those who run campaigns and get elected are called, "Clients."
 
Chomsky said:
Even just recently it's been reported that Trump is happy with him, and likes the work he does. To that task, I believe Giuliani is reasonably effective.
Click to expand...

It's also been reported that people around Trump think that this whole mess is Giuliani's fault. And they're correct. Guiliani seems to be prone to conspiracy theories. Trump has the same weakness. Together they're going around chasing baseless conspiracy theories around the world. All they have to show for their efforts is an ugly impeachment.

I think Guiliani is singlehandedly destroying Trump's presidency. I applaud his work.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Where did I suggest there was anything wrong with it? I think what Dershowitz does serves an important function in society. I support the ACLU. Do you? Conservatives tend to hate the ACLU.
Click to expand...

Cut me a break. :doh

Your entire response was one big ad hominin, attacking Dershowitz's character citing all those "bad people" he has defended.

Then you deflect to the ACLU? Asking me for MY "Liberal credentials?"

How about stopping with all the character assassination efforts and just discuss the issue? Otherwise, tagline time. :coffeepap:
 
Captain Adverse said:
What is your problem with that? It doesn't mean you are guilty either.

Are you of the Chinese school of thought, a person is guilty until proven innocent?

I have spent part of my life as a Public Defender "defending suspected criminals." Everyone deserves a good defense, and "suspected" does not mean one IS a criminal. That is what the criminal justice process is all about.
Click to expand...

Dersh is a defense lawyer and naturally views the law in favor of the rights of defendants. That's fine. He's got an opinion. Prosecutors have a different one, because their focus is to conclude crimes were broken and prosecute them, not find ways NOT to prosecute. That tension is a good thing!

What it doesn't mean in Dersh's case is we should award his opinion any particular weight. He said he sees no "quid pro quo" but if he's talking about what can be proved in a criminal trial for purposes of conviction and jail, and just using the contents of that call, that's of no particular relevance. Impeachment is political, it's not a criminal trial, and the burden of proof for impeachment is in the big picture "corruption" or "abuse of authority" versus criminal. It doesn't matter whether he sees a prosecutable and criminal quid pro quo but what Congress and implicitly what the American people see.

This member of the public doesn't see that any quid pro quo is necessary, at least on that call. Such an arrangement can be conveyed 100 different ways outside that call. We know those calls typically or often are arranged to confirm understandings reached informally by subordinates after days or weeks of negotiations, and the call (or the face to face meeting) is just the formal closing of the deal, the equivalent of signing the contract. Trump mentions follow up by Barr and Rudy a half dozen times. There was extensive contact with Rudy before that call. If there's a quid pro quo, or not, that's where it will be expressed. Trump just put his considerable weight as POTUS behind those agreements, or to future demands by Rudy/Barr.

What's deceptive about Dersh is he knows that but ignores it. If he wanted to inform, he wouldn't ignore the factors that as defense counsel he fully recognizes would be critical even in a criminal setting, much less in impeachment proceedings.
 
Hondo said:
Those who run campaigns and get elected are called, "Clients."
Click to expand...

I'm not aware he holds himself out as an attorney for campaigns in any capacity, much less as strategist, which is what he was opining on in most of that piece. He said that impeachment was a political loser for Democrats. Why should I care more about his view than yours, or mine?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Remember that Dershowitz is a Democrat and he also defended Hillary Clinton. His view is that presidents should have broad latitude. He believes that the system won't work if presidents are constantly being accused of committing crimes. So, he thinks they should be immune from criminal prosecutions and these issues should be settled at the ballot box.

I disagree with this view. It would allow a president to act criminally in ways to maintain his power and affect the ballot box. Look at Russia. Look at the Philippines.

There's nothing worse than having a president who uses the power of his office to have his opponents and critics investigated. It already happens all over the world.

It's surprising that these small government conservatives are not horrified by this.
Click to expand...

Because there is no such thing as "small Govt. Conservatives". They only say that when Dems are in power. Just like with deficits. They actually want more powerful Govt that can overrule the will of the people which they despise.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Cut me a break. :doh

Your entire response was one big ad hominin, attacking Dershowitz's character citing all those "bad people" he has defended.

Then you deflect to the ACLU? Asking me for MY "Liberal credentials?"

How about stopping with all the character assassination efforts and just discuss the issue? Otherwise, tagline time. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Feel free to point out where I assassinated Dershowitz's character. I respect him because he applies his beliefs consistently. He's a Democrat but he'll defend Hillary and yet still defend Trump. I understand his viewpoint and I respect his consistency.

I also explained pretty clearly why I disagree with his view that presidents should have this wide latitude and be nearly immune from criminal prosecution. So, clearly, my criticism is not an ad hominem.

The OP offers no argument other than, well "Dershowitz thinks he's not guilty." Well, OK, but Dershowitz also defended OJ Simpson. I would hope he didn't defend a man he believed was guilty of murdering his wife.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom