• 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

I wasn't aware ...

The combination of his defense of Epstein, and his pushing to lower the age of consent to 15 makes him look really creepy.
 
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.

Like Trump Giuliani is prone to running his mouth, and that's his weakness. He may well drop Trump in it without even realising.
 
What it means to me is the sort of global "both sides" excuse. Everyone in politics is corrupt, everyone breaks the rules, laws are for little people, all that matters is winning, don't worry about abuses of power because everyone does it.

That's of course a big reason why a lot of us think Trump is so damaging long term. If he does it, his supporters adopt that as the new 'normal' and expected and that's the new standard of behavior.

Perhaps his supporters see in Trump a reflection of themselves and thus assume legitimacy because, 'if The Boss is as much of a **** as I am, where's the problem?' Troubling.
 
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:
What I'm saying is, he should chose his clients a bit better ...
 
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.
Excellent post Jasper, and the bolded I think says it all.
 
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?

Kinda like Hillary going gaga for gang rapists, huh?

But yeah, Dersh is right.
 
Kinda like Hillary going gaga for gang rapists, huh?

But yeah, Dersh is right.

It's just like you to misrepresent the facts in that case, or maybe you're just repeating something you heard from a right wing hack. Not sure...:confused:

And like Dersh, I don't much care about your opinion on impeachment. Thanks for offering it though...
 
He has also been accused of having sex with girls supplied by Epstein. He admitted to a clothed massage by one
And the witness to all these accusations, Epstein, died while in Trump's custody. That is extremely troubling. Extremely.
 
It's just like you to misrepresent the facts in that case, or maybe you're just repeating something you heard from a right wing hack. Not sure...:confused:

And like Dersh, I don't much care about your opinion on impeachment. Thanks for offering it though...

Hillary laughing about violent/deadly gang rapes = No big deal for Democrats

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom