Dershowitz: Trump 100% Right There Never Should Have Been Special Counsel

[DawnODay]

Discussing the Mueller probe, highly respected constitutional scholar and left-leaning Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explained:

First of all, the president's 100% right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel here. There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed. I've seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.​

I. Schwartz, Dershowitz: Trump 100% Right There Never Should Have Been Special Counsel, No Probable Cause, Real Clear Politics (Mar. 21, 2018).

 

[dan_c00000]

And he's wrong right off the bat:

First of all, the special counsel is not investigating “the Trump administration.” He is investigating actions by Russia, the Trump campaign, and, secondarily, efforts by the Trump administration to obstruct the investigation into the latter two.

Dershowitz's legal abilities aside her certainly knows how to get himself into some stuff.

 

[Hypoxia]

And he's wrong right off the bat:

First of all, the special counsel is not investigating “the Trump administration.” He is investigating actions by Russia, the Trump campaign, and, secondarily, efforts by the Trump administration to obstruct the investigation into the latter two.

His orders are also to pursue any other crimes discovered during the investigation. Gosh, all that laundered cash...

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Dershowitz is full of Shit

The first charge of the S.C.:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

So what does Alan know about this investigation? He's not on any Congressional Committee. He is privy to NO classified information.

He knows exactly as much as the rest of us: that it exists.

Therefore he cannot say:

There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed.

because, as he admits himself

I've seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.

That's right, you haven't.

We know very little of what the S.C. took over from Comey. WHat evidence they have, what crimes were being investigated, nothing. That includes Dershowitz.

He's an ignorant, arrogant turd who seems to think he has omniscient powers, when he does not.

 

[KeithD]

But Dershowitz is in good company with some lunkheads posting to this board who, in their stupidity and arrogance, think that because they haven't been personally told (or, more precisely, have chosen not to acknowledge what has already come down in indictments and convictions) of the progress of case building by the Mueller probe, that means it doesn't exist.

 

[coachdb18]

Discussing the Mueller probe, highly respected constitutional scholar and left-leaning Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explained:

First of all, the president's 100% right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel here. There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed. I've seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.​

I. Schwartz, Dershowitz: Trump 100% Right There Never Should Have Been Special Counsel, No Probable Cause, Real Clear Politics (Mar. 21, 2018).

They established the Special Counsel hoping that it would find something. They had no crime to establish the need for the Special Counsel, it was about butthurt for Bill’s impeachment and to try to install Hillary unconstitutionally, as their last ditch effort to take the 2016 election, no matter how many witches they had to hunt.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

They established the Special Counsel to take over the investigation already underway by the FBI when Trump fired Comey.

The investigation started because of George Pappadopolous bragging of the Trump team possibly getting intel from Russia about Clinton, which tipped off the FBI that possible collusion was going on. Plus intercepted phone calls and tips from informants and plenty of other things we don't know about.

You can repeat talking points from the Fox Sewer, but those are the facts.

They established the Special Counsel hoping that it would find something. They had no crime to establish the need for the Special Counsel, it was about butthurt for Bill’s impeachment and to try to install Hillary unconstitutionally, as their last ditch effort to take the 2016 election, no matter how many witches they had to hunt.

 

[Hypoxia]

The investigation started because of George Pappadopolous bragging of the Trump team possibly getting intel from Russia about Clinton, which tipped off the FBI that possible collusion was going on.

Do any of the authorizing documents use the word 'collusion'? I doubt it, because collusion is not necessarily illegal. Conspiracy, and financial crimes, and violating election and privacy and espionage laws, and lying to investigators, are illegal, duh. Team Mueller are chasing crimes, not collusion.

Tromp is quite right about NO COLLUSION. No, he's into conspiracy and treason instead.

 

[colddiesel]

Dershowitz is clever but trustworthy? hmmm mebbe. He was special advisor to the OJ defence and even more interestingly it was alleged that he had sex with a child - paid for by his good friend Mr Epstein (remember that creep?).

He threatened her with various legal sanctions. She called his bluff and sued anyway. Dershowitz backed down and an out of court monetary settlement was agreed - confidential of course!!

The fact is that no-one knows what Meuller has, including Dershowitz. I reckon Dershowitz was touting for business.

 

[Hypoxia]

Dershowitz is clever but trustworthy?

Jeffrey Toobin says his old mentor Dershowitz is off the tracks. When more indictments are handed down, will Dershowitz still insist there's no basis?

The fact is that no-one knows what Meuller has, including Dershowitz. I reckon Dershowitz was touting for business.

Call 1-888-DERSHWZ for the finest legal advice money can buy!

(I hope that's not a real number.)

 

[rae121452]

alan dershowitz was the son of satan to the right as long as he disagreed with them. now, he suddenly says something they like and he's an authority. give me a break.

 

[DawnODay]

alan dershowitz was the son of satan to the right as long as he disagreed with them. now, he suddenly says something they like and he's an authority. give me a break.

That's must be comforting to you to believe, but it isn't the case.

Personally, I have always respected Dershowitz for his strong and consistent stands on civil rights and individual liberties.

So, why don't you actually reply to the substance of his statement?

What crime do you allege the Trump Campaign committed?

Where is the evidence establishing probable cause?

 

[rae121452]

That's must be comforting to you to believe, but it isn't the case.

Personally, I have always respected Dershowitz for his strong and consistent stands on civil rights and individual liberties.

So, why don't you actually reply to the substance of his statement?

What crime do you allege the Trump Campaign committed?

Where is the evidence establishing probable cause?

well, it's nice that you admire him but i don't think anyone has made you the spokesperson for the right. you're welcome to your opinion but he's come under a lot of fire from conservatives over the years.

as to the substance of his statement, that is also an opinion. he's pretty far removed from the whole case, he hasn't reviewed any of the documents as far as i know and no one ever consulted him. he's on the outside, looking in. apparently quite a few of his highly placed colleagues in washington as well as government officials don't agree with his assessment, otherwise there would be no special counsel. there must have been pretty strong evidence to empanel a special counsel, unfortunately i'm not part of that group so i can't tell you what it might be.

 

[dan_c00000]

well, it's nice that you admire him but i don't think anyone has made you the spokesperson for the right. you're welcome to your opinion but he's come under a lot of fire from conservatives over the years.

as to the substance of his statement, that is also an opinion. he's pretty far removed from the whole case, he hasn't reviewed any of the documents as far as i know and no one ever consulted him. he's on the outside, looking in. apparently quite a few of his highly placed colleagues in washington as well as government officials don't agree with his assessment, otherwise there would be no special counsel. there must have been pretty strong evidence to empanel a special counsel, unfortunately i'm not part of that group so i can't tell you what it might be.

Dershowitz very much enjoys being an armchair lawyer and is usually a good quote for any article or news report.

 

[DawnODay]

....

as to the substance of his statement, that is also an opinion. he's pretty far removed from the whole case, he hasn't reviewed any of the documents as far as i know and no one ever consulted him. he's on the outside, looking in. apparently quite a few of his highly placed colleagues in washington as well as government officials don't agree with his assessment, otherwise there would be no special counsel. there must have been pretty strong evidence to empanel a special counsel, unfortunately i'm not part of that group so i can't tell you what it might be.

No, you don't seem to know much (including how to capitalize a sentence), do you?

Let's review what people "in the know" know:

Rep. Adam B. Schiff, who is leading the House Democrats’ inquisition of President Trump, said it “still remains to be seen” whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election....

But Mr. Schiff’s acknowledgment that collusion “still remains to be seen” shows that nearly a year after the House intelligence panel began its investigation, Democrats are left with a relatively small list of Trump campaign-Russia contacts on which to base a grand conspiracy.

The roster of contacts, some of them apparently innocuous, is a far cry from charges in the infamous Russia-Trump dossier. Paid with funds from the Democratic Party, writer Christopher Steele, a former British spy, told of a supposed “extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin.”

Mr. Schiff embraced the dossier from the moment the committee kicked off a public hearing in March with then-FBI Director James B. Comey and National Security Agency chief Adm. Mike Rogers.

Mr. Schiff eagerly read Mr. Steele’s felony accusations into the record. Those charges remain unproven, the FBI has told congressional investigators, 17 months after it opened a counterintelligence probe that relied on the dossier. Republicans in Congress also say the dossier’s core collusion charges remain unproven.

For example, there has been no public evidence, as claimed by Mr. Steele, that Trump associates and Russian intelligence worked together to hack the Democrats and spread stolen emails.​

R. Scarborough, Democrats’ case for Trump-Russia grand conspiracy crumbles with lack of evidence, The Washington Times (Dec. 27, 2017).

Further, we now know "that the FBI and Department of Justice used an anti-Trump dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign as the basis for spying on the Trump campaign." FBI Used Tainted Steele Dossier, Paid For By Hillary Clinton, As Reason To Spy On Trump, Investor's Business Daily (Feb. 2, 2018); see, also, H. Carr, Clinton’s dodgy dossier is way worse than Watergate, Boston Herald (Jan. 12, 2018).

So, who was colluding with the Russians?

 

[Antryg_Windrose]

blocking the hounds

Shutting down a criminal investigation of yourself is Obstruction Of Justice, and the innocent don't need to obstruct justice. Tromp firing Mueller is an admission of guilt.

 

[dan_c00000]

So, who was colluding with the Russians?

Trump was. They helped him commit treason. Your year old article from the pathetic Washington Times is almost as sad as you pretending to be a girl on the internet.

Maybe try a real news source.

 

[KeithD]

Postings like Dawn's just emphasize how panicked the Trump chumps are--saying nothing is being shown when it's been jumping out all over the place for a year.

I guess that using bold font, as "she" did in the OP, is supposed to make the post authoritative.

 

[DawnODay]

Shutting down a criminal investigation of yourself is Obstruction Of Justice, and the innocent don't need to obstruct justice. Tromp firing Mueller is an admission of guilt.

You do realize this hasn't happened, right? J. Easley, White House: No discussions about firing Mueller, The Hill (Mar. 19, 2018) ("A senior White House official said Monday that there are no plans to fire Robert Mueller").

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Shutting down a criminal investigation of yourself is Obstruction Of Justice, and the innocent don't need to obstruct justice. Tromp firing Mueller is an admission of guilt.

Like what happened w/Eric Holder?

Postings like Dawn's just emphasize how panicked the Trump chumps are--saying nothing is being shown when it's been jumping out all over the place for a year.

I guess that using bold font, as "she" did in the OP, is supposed to make the post authoritative.

More often than not, Trump chumps see hot air for what it is. They'll either sit back and watch the fireworks or Lib comedy show or walk away to find more constructive things to do.

 

[NickStJohn]

,,,,,

,,,,,

 

[Hypoxia]

Notice that Team Mueller ain't leaking. Drives the Trompniks nutz-o-rama that they've zero hint about the next axe to fall, its target and timing and fallout. Or maybe some *do* have a clue that's driving them even more nutz-o-rama because it's themselves heading for the chopping block. Folks conspiring to interfere with the Federal Elections Commission or other federal agencies ("Klein conspiracy") gonna be in a shitload of hurt. Not collusion -- felony conspiracy, with a side of treason. Who'll hang?

Re: Dershowitz: Many Trompniks and dupes gonna find credibility and career difficulties ahead. We can judge those who align themselves with evil.

 

[DawnODay]

Like what happened w/Eric Holder?

Are you referring to Eric Holder's contempt of congress charges or his refusal to prosecute voter suppression and intimidation?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh, look, there's more:

Rick Gates knowingly worked with ex-Russian intel officer during campaign

Handy recap:

All the known times the Trump campaign met with Russians

All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts

Compared with:

Trump team issued at least 20 denials of contacts with Russia

 

[DawnODay]

Oh, look, there's more:

Rick Gates knowingly worked with ex-Russian intel officer during campaign

Handy recap:

All the known times the Trump campaign met with Russians

All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts

Compared with:

Trump team issued at least 20 denials of contacts with Russia

Then why is there not even a whiff of this in any indictment or any congressional testimony?