• 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!

Alan Dershowitz: If FBI Raided Hillary Clinton's Lawyer the ACLU Would Be Raising Caine.

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
22,609
Reaction score
32,940
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is what Mr. Dershowitz thinks about the FBI Raid on Cohen's offices.


A definition of Attorney-Client privilege:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney–client_privilege

Now it is not absolute:


I agree with Mr. Dershowitz's statement that Mueller is not being partisan in his actions, but he is just "determined to get his target" and the target is on the back of Mr. Trump.

That means he presumes the target has something to be "gotten" and he has to find it or none of the costs of the investigation can be justified.

Anyone over the age of "innocence" (i.e. my definition as the age when a child is not really cognizant of good or bad, right or wrong), accumulates some level of "wrongs" in their lifetimes; the older they get, the more skeletons in the closet.

IMO that's why we expect anyone facing such depths of scrutiny to be revealed as somehow "bad" eventually, and pushing for this scrutiny creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I also agree that instead of the FBI being allowed absolute access to ALL Cohen's files, that a Judge be appointed to determine which, if any of the files, applies to a criminal investigation and rules it accessible to the investigators.
 
Last edited:
Alan Dershowitz has shown himself to be a complete buttwipe over the last couple of years. Screw him (and the limo he bought with the OJ money) that he rode in on.
 
If an attorney and client are engaged in a conspiracy or illegal activity that's out the window.

You can rest assured that Mueller is going by the book. There's no way in hell he'd let 45 be his downfall and besmirch his reputation.
 



Shouldn't this be in the \conspiracy theory section?

It sure isn't news, barely history You guys must be terrified watching the Great White Wonder get dragged through ****.
 

Raising Kaine. Couldn't resist.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Shouldn't this be in the \conspiracy theory section?

It sure isn't news, barely history You guys must be terrified watching the Great White Wonder get dragged through ****.
Click to expand...

I deleted the Hillary Clinton section. Please review final post.

It is not "news" it is General Political discussion. :shrug:
 
I expect the FBI is fully aware of the issue of attorney client privilege. I certainly expect the FBI and the judges involved in approving the warrant understand fully that if the warrant violates it they will be out of a job
 
haymarket said:
Alan Dershowitz has shown himself to be a complete buttwipe over the last couple of years. Screw him (and the limo he bought with the OJ money) that he rode in on.
Click to expand...

Why? Is it because he's not an unethical partisan loony Democrat?
 
What Dershowitz should be asking is why Mueller’s investigation leads to a rat’s nest of liars, money launderers, fraudsters, and foreign agents and entities to find the truth.
 

Any information gathered in such a way and used to support a prosecution would be tossed out by a judge. It was and is a high risk decision that would have been approved with great reluctance i am sure. If they are wrong their jobs are gone.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I deleted the Hillary Clinton section. Please review final post.

It is not "news" it is General Political discussion. :shrug:
Click to expand...



Don't you think it's time to let the Hillary thing go?

I can't be responsible for what you delete later, as long as you're defending that prick in the White House and using Hillary as a whipping post you're going to hear about it.

There's a criminal in the White House, the sooner you acknowledge that the sooner the country can begin to heal. Th way you're going you'll be three countries in a few years.
 
If the above happened, most of the people complaining now wouldn't be complaining then. They'd be cheering the FBI on because it was 'Crooked Clinton' and I doubt old "OJ is innocent" Dershowitz would say a thing to his friends on the right.
 

(Sigh)

Have I ever commented about the antics of your current Prime Minister? :roll:

That said, you are entitled to your opinion, but as I pointed out in my OP...everyone has skeleton's in their own closet which is why people typically presume someone as deeply and relentlessly scrutinized as Mr. Trump will eventually produce a few bones.

The only difference between how one views who and how much of such scrutiny should occur regarding him and persons on the opposite side of the debate often depends on their political viewpoint.

How successful such scrutiny is all depends on how rabid the opposition is and how strongly entrenched in the systems of power those who oppose such scrutiny are.

Trump is hated because of the psychic shock of his election. IMO had Hillary been elected...none of her issues (including possible collusion with ??) would have created more than a peep from the current opposition, or much effort on the part of the established "swamp." :shrug:
 

I was going to post that if no one else did.
He mentions a couple of things that I noted yesterday ...

Since there's that pesky attorney/client privilege thing, it would seem that the only way a search warrant would be issued for a person's attorney is if there's evidence of their (the attorney) criminal culpability.
It's been said that the FBI gathered up and removed anything and everything so they better have had that evidence.
If they didn't then they'd be in trouble.

On the other hand, the FBI would still be in possession of the work product of the search which might in and of itself be reason enough to have pulled this off.
Now I think all the material still has to be reviewed for relevance by an independent legal entity but before that happens maybe someone like Andrew Weissmann will be able to take a look at it.
That could open up entirely new vistas for the Special Counsel that could stretch this bad boy out until after the election.​

And I pretty much agree with your comment as well.
 
Seth Abramson commented on Twitter that Dershowitz was his law professor way back, and now his A+ in Criminal Law is looking tarnished!
 
Napoleon said:
What Dershowitz should be asking is why Mueller’s investigation leads to a rat’s nest of liars, money launderers, fraudsters, and foreign agents and entities to find the truth.
Click to expand...

Except for that "money launderers" thingy I thought you talking about some of the more famous FBI personnel we've been hearing about.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Seth Abramson commented on Twitter that Dershowitz was his law professor way back, and now his A+ in Criminal Law is looking tarnished!
Click to expand...

Weeeellll, if Seth Abramson said it then that pretty much settles it, huh.
 

She needs to go first, but of course she does not have that good of an ear that she would know that she needs to retire from the public square, in shame.
 

If the FBI raided Clinton's attorney's office, I would think she did something really bad. And so would you. Don't lie about it.
 
Dershowitz is about half a loon point better than Joe Digenova. Give Alan a few conspiracy theories and you couldn't tell the diff between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…