Alan Dershowitz (law professor), NOT a conservative.. defends Trump against indictment

[schmidlap]

He is not an apologist for trump or anyone else.

The record clearly shows otherwise.

Dershowitz is an 84-year-old media performer with no standing in the adjudication.

 

[Blaster]

The record clearly shows otherwise.

Dershowitz is an 84-year-old media performer with no standing in the adjudication.

You are an ill informed person posting on a message board.

 

[Blaster]

Dershowitz also told us OJ was innocent

The glove didn't fit.

 

[mamooth]

Alan Dershowitz draws a big salary from Trump's top donors.

Nobody defends Trump unless they're being paid very well to do so. Or unless they possess a fanatical ideological devotion to fascism.

 

[berg80]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in DOJ's case

'Sunday Morning Futures' panelists Alan Dershowitz and Matthew Whitaker discuss the second indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

This was awesome, what Dersh said

There was one moment i wondered about, however...the very end where he says it is would novel to deal with the issue of whether... as John Ratcliffe (former DNI) called it.. (something like) Committing crime to prosecute a crime (which seems to be what these POSes are doing) See Maria Bartiromo video

What is novel about that? It seems that is what attorneys routinely call Fruit of the Poisonous tree...

If something illegal is done in order to prosecute someone, that poisonous tree thing should mean the case is tossed...(?) or ..and/or

if some certain piece of evidence is presented in court, but it was illegally obtained, it is dismissed, the jury can't see that fake evidence

The phone call seems to be fake evidence... can't cross-examine it. ..

Al, like Jonathon Turley, likes to see his face on TV. They'll say anything to do so. Al just proved it.

 

[schmidlap]

Dershowitz is an 84-year-old media performer with no standing in the adjudication.

You are an ill informed person posting on a message board.

If you fantasize that 1) Dershowitz is not 84-year-old, 2) not a media performer, and 3) does have standing in this adjudication, make your case.

You can't, can you?

 

[Blaster]

If you fantasize that 1) Dershowitz is not 84-year-old, 2) not a media performer, and 3) does have standing in this adjudication, make your case.

You can't, can you?

Sure I can but you would disagree so why even try?

 

[debbiedowner]

For some reason or another this "groomer" gets a free pass. People who have absolutely no reason to be condemned get condemned but Dershowitz continues to get a free pass.

Does it have to do with defending Trump? That's all one has to do to get a free pass?

Despite widespread attention to his role in the Epstein case — and a defamation suit from one of his accusers — Dershowitz has no intention of laying low. For instance, he continues to publicly criticize age-of-consent laws — most recently on Twitter, earlier this week.

Alan Dershowitz helped Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal. Now he’s tweeting about age of consent laws.

He should move to WVa.

I would imagine after both he and Trump have known each other for many, many years that Trump has some juicy dirt on him.

 

[schmidlap]

Sure I can but you would disagree so why even try?

You can just honestly admit that you can't refute the facts that Dershowitz is 84-year-old, a media performer, and does not have standing in this adjudication, you know.

Is truth so upsetting for you that you can't acknowledge it?

 

[DudleySmith]

Alan Dershowitz draws a big salary from Trump's top donors.

Nobody defends Trump unless they're being paid very well to do so. Or unless they possess a fanatical ideological devotion to fascism.

lol ^^^'TRump Cheats cuz he can afford lawyers!!!!' lol

 

[Billiejeens]

Fox News’ Turley: Trump could face ‘terminal sentence’ if DOJ proves even one count

Barr 'shocked' by Trump indictment details: 'If even half of it is true, then he's toast'

John Bolton Calls on Trump to ‘Immediately Withdraw’ from
Presidential Race over Second Indictment​

I am concerned that Trump might not be the GOP nominee for President in 2024.

I wouldn't worry puke.

 

[SavannahMann]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in DOJ's case

'Sunday Morning Futures' panelists Alan Dershowitz and Matthew Whitaker discuss the second indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

This was awesome, what Dersh said

There was one moment i wondered about, however...the very end where he says it is would novel to deal with the issue of whether... as John Ratcliffe (former DNI) called it.. (something like) Committing crime to prosecute a crime (which seems to be what these POSes are doing) See Maria Bartiromo video

What is novel about that? It seems that is what attorneys routinely call Fruit of the Poisonous tree...

If something illegal is done in order to prosecute someone, that poisonous tree thing should mean the case is tossed...(?) or ..and/or

if some certain piece of evidence is presented in court, but it was illegally obtained, it is dismissed, the jury can't see that fake evidence

The phone call seems to be fake evidence... can't cross-examine it. ..

You need to read the article. The evidence was damning to Trump. Not Smith.

 

[tahuyaman]

For some reason or another this "groomer" gets a free pass. People who have absolutely no reason to be condemned get condemned but Dershowitz continues to get a free pass.

Does it have to do with defending Trump? That's all one has to do to get a free pass?

Despite widespread attention to his role in the Epstein case — and a defamation suit from one of his accusers — Dershowitz has no intention of laying low. For instance, he continues to publicly criticize age-of-consent laws — most recently on Twitter, earlier this week.

Alan Dershowitz helped Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal. Now he’s tweeting about age of consent laws.

His connection to the child sex dealings with Epstein has been proven to be fiction.

 

[pknopp]

His connection to the child sex dealings with Epstein has been proven to be fiction.

He didn't defend him? He didn't help get him the initial slap on the wrist sentence? He didn't say what is quoted in my article condemning age of consent laws?

 

[Rumpole]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in DOJ's case

'Sunday Morning Futures' panelists Alan Dershowitz and Matthew Whitaker discuss the second indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

This was awesome, what Dersh said

There was one moment i wondered about, however...the very end where he says it is would novel to deal with the issue of whether... as John Ratcliffe (former DNI) called it.. (something like) Committing crime to prosecute a crime (which seems to be what these POSes are doing) See Maria Bartiromo video

What is novel about that? It seems that is what attorneys routinely call Fruit of the Poisonous tree...

If something illegal is done in order to prosecute someone, that poisonous tree thing should mean the case is tossed...(?) or ..and/or

if some certain piece of evidence is presented in court, but it was illegally obtained, it is dismissed, the jury can't see that fake evidence

The phone call seems to be fake evidence... can't cross-examine it. ..

Alan 'I wore my underpants' Dershowitz, sadly, has drifted into the 'outlier' region, of late, ever since he made the controversial legal argument that a president could engage in a quid pro quo for personal political benefit as long as the president believes his or her reelection is in the public interest. Seems Trump can do no wrong for this guy.

And Dershowitz is also wrong here:

"He [Jack Smith] was assigned only one job – to get Trump," he said on "Sunday Morning Futures."

I am totally taken aback that a man of Dershowitz's resumé would say something like that.

If he were anything less than disingenuous, he would, should, and probably does in fact know that it's not the SC's job to 'get Trump', it's the SC's job determine if facts and applicable law warrant an indictment. If he found out there wasn't sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment, that would have been a successful investigation, If he found out there was, that would still be a successful investigation. The only failure possible is to not come to any determination (or, perhaps, to come to a determination prematurely).

Dershowitz is also making the bogus 'Stalin, find me a man, and I show you the crime' argument, which omits one key, but insurmountable detail. Stalin acted as the prosecutor, judge, and executioner (metaphorically speaking, though he is using the softer version; the Justice Robert Jackson version, but it's essentially the same argument), but in America, these are separate, you need a jury of 12 peers ot convict, separate judge to uphold the case, and so on, so his point falls flat on it's face, especially, given Garland's tossing out two Jan 6 contempt referrals, it's clear that Garland is the type of AG who wants tons of evidence, when it comes to politicians, so as to not appear 'political' (though he will be so accused, anyway, but he'll try and keep it to a minimum, if possible, and the way to do that is tons of evidence, the point being, even if Smith were a zealot, Garland won't allow an indictment without plenty of evidence, and, of course, there is, far more than anyone expected, as a matter of fact).

10 years ago or so, I would have taken him seriously, but no longer.

 

[Rumpole]

His connection to the child sex dealings with Epstein has been proven to be fiction.

Oh yeah, because, you know, like Alan said 'I wore my underpants'.

 

[tahuyaman]

Oh yeah, because, you know, like Alan said 'I wore my underpants'.

Idiot.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Bill Barr says Trump is ”Toast”

I will listen to him more than Dershowitz

Leftist when Trump appointed Barr

Barr is a Nazi Racist Bigot lying Hater!

Now.

We trust Bill Barr!

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in DOJ's case

'Sunday Morning Futures' panelists Alan Dershowitz and Matthew Whitaker discuss the second indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

This was awesome, what Dersh said

There was one moment i wondered about, however...the very end where he says it is would novel to deal with the issue of whether... as John Ratcliffe (former DNI) called it.. (something like) Committing crime to prosecute a crime (which seems to be what these POSes are doing) See Maria Bartiromo video

What is novel about that? It seems that is what attorneys routinely call Fruit of the Poisonous tree...

If something illegal is done in order to prosecute someone, that poisonous tree thing should mean the case is tossed...(?) or ..and/or

if some certain piece of evidence is presented in court, but it was illegally obtained, it is dismissed, the jury can't see that fake evidence

The phone call seems to be fake evidence... can't cross-examine it. ..

Dershowitz always defends Trump.
You guys do the same thing with Jonathan Turley. “ liberal, progressive left wing Jonathan Turley defends Trump for the 2653th time this year!”

 

[tahuyaman]

Dershowitz always defends Trump.
You guys do the same thing with Jonathan Turley. “ liberal, progressive left wing Jonathan Turley defends Trump for the 2653th time this year!”

Dershowitz defends the constitution and rule of law.