Dershowitz: I Don't See Any Crimes in Mueller Memos.

[Captain Adverse]

Dershowitz: I don't see any crimes in Mueller memos Fox News Published on Dec 7, 2018.




People opposed to the Trump Administration have been commenting and speculating on every anti-Trump news item; from Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations and vague allegation's of obstruction, through alleged violations of the emoluments clause, to contacts with Russia for plans to build a Trump hotel...all under the canopy of alleged conspiracy with Russia to influence (validate it was stolen) the 2016 election.

Every time some new bit of alleged validation pops up, the opposition cheers and says "This is it! This is what will bring him down!" only to find it isn't quite what they hoped. Yet every bit is still hoarded as ammunition in repetitive arguments whenever something new comes up for how the totality of information shows somehow that Trump should never have been elected President.

Now we have the Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort sentencing recommendation letters/memos, and the Opposition is on yet another campaign claiming "the dots are connected/connecting, we will be vindicated!" again.

Then we hear rational arguments about what is really happening, and maybe it is not so damningly supportive of the resistance efforts after all.

Listen to how Mr. Dershowitz explains (again) how the facts don't necessarily equate to anything much at all. That so far there are no Trump "crimes," and really nothing (so far) that justified the Mueller investigation.

Or (as I expect many posts to show) don't listen, since it does not suit the impeachment narrative. :coffeepap:

 

[Hawkeye10]

Dershowitz: I don't see any crimes in Mueller memos Fox News Published on Dec 7, 2018.




People opposed to the Trump Administration have been commenting and speculating on every anti-Trump news item; from Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations, through alleged violations of the emoluments clause, to contacts with Russia for plans to build a Trump hotel...all under the canopy of alleged conspiracy with Russia to influence (validate it was stolen) the 2016 election.

Every time some new bit of alleged validation pops up, the oppositions cheers and says "This is it! This is what will bring him down!" only to find it isn't quite what they hoped. Yet every bit is still hoarded as ammunition in repetitive arguments whenever something new comes up for how the totality of information shows somehow that Trump should never have been elected President.

Now we have the Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort sentencing recommendation letters/memos, and the Opposition is on yet another campaign claiming "the dots are connected/connecting, we will be vindicated!" again.

Then we hear rational arguments about what is really happening, and maybe it is not so damningly supportive of the resistance efforts after all.

Listen to how Mr. Dershowitz explains (again) how the facts don't necessarily equate to anything much at all.

Or (as I expect posts to show) not. :coffeepap:

More evidence that the entire point is to sit on the man the people elected to be our leader.

Trump is not and never was FAILED INTELLIGENTSIA! DEEP STATE approved.

America really does suck this much now.

SAD

 

[Amelia]

This is why rightwingers aren't concerned that Napolitano isn't falling in line on Trump. They still have Dershowitz so all is well in Trumpland.

 

[Fletch]

This is why rightwingers aren't concerned that Napolitano isn't falling in line on Trump. They still have Dershowitz so all is well in Trumpland.

Im sorry, but what is it Mueller has produced with regard to collusion?

(Zero is the correct answer)

 

[Amelia]

Im sorry,

I forgive you.

 

[Hawkeye10]

This is why rightwingers aren't concerned that Napolitano isn't falling in line on Trump. They still have Dershowitz so all is well in Trumpland.

It is the truth that is in the idea that counts, not who speaks it, as you should know.

This is what education was supposed to teach you.

What Happened?

 

[MovingPictures]

Im sorry, but what is it Mueller has produced with regard to collusion?

(Zero is the correct answer)

There's plenty of evidence in the public record that establishes the Trump camp was communicating with Russian nationals, and assessing whether they had stolen documents from the state department and DNC.

And beyond the Mueller memo, the SDNY all but indicted Trump in several felonies.

 

[Amelia]

It is the truth that is in the idea that counts, not who speaks it, as you should know.

This is what education was supposed to teach you.

What Happened?

I suspect that you don't even make sense in Trumpland.

*shrug*

 

[Hawkeye10]

I suspect that you don't even make sense in Trumpland.

*shrug*

Your lack of understanding is on full display.

 

[MovingPictures]

Dershowitz: I don't see any crimes in Mueller memos Fox News Published on Dec 7, 2018.




People opposed to the Trump Administration have been commenting and speculating on every anti-Trump news item; from Stormy Daniels and campaign finance violations and vague allegation's of obstruction, through alleged violations of the emoluments clause, to contacts with Russia for plans to build a Trump hotel...all under the canopy of alleged conspiracy with Russia to influence (validate it was stolen) the 2016 election.

Every time some new bit of alleged validation pops up, the opposition cheers and says "This is it! This is what will bring him down!" only to find it isn't quite what they hoped. Yet every bit is still hoarded as ammunition in repetitive arguments whenever something new comes up for how the totality of information shows somehow that Trump should never have been elected President.

Now we have the Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort sentencing recommendation letters/memos, and the Opposition is on yet another campaign claiming "the dots are connected/connecting, we will be vindicated!" again.

Then we hear rational arguments about what is really happening, and maybe it is not so damningly supportive of the resistance efforts after all.

Listen to how Mr. Dershowitz explains (again) how the facts don't necessarily equate to anything much at all. That so far there are no Trump "crimes," and really nothing (so far) that justified the Mueller investigation.

Or (as I expect many posts to show) don't listen, since it does not suit the impeachment narrative. :coffeepap:

Sorry to break it to you, but there's no way to spin this as anything but a day the implicates Trump in several crimes.

The SDNY documents establish that Trump directed a subordinate to commit several felonies. Whether you think it's important or not, whether you think it's grounds for impeachment or not, it's something that Trump is going to have to deal with after he becomes a citizen again, and he will himself at that time will be indicted.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry to break it to you, but there's no way to spin this as anything but a day the implicates Trump in several crimes.

The SDNY documents establish that Trump directed a subordinate to commit several felonies. Whether you think it's important or not, whether you think it's grounds for impeachment or not, it's something that Trump is going to have to deal with after he becomes a citizen again, and he will himself at that time will be indicted.

Sorry to break it to YOU, but being implicated does not necessarily lead to actual charges, and charges don't necessarily lead to convictions.

In any case that is a bridge that will not be approached, much less crossed until after Trump leaves office.

Meanwhile, as you already know, MY position is and will always remain INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law...and damn the kangaroo Court of Public Opinion. :coffeepap:

 

[Slyfox696]

Im sorry, but what is it Mueller has produced with regard to collusion?

(Zero is the correct answer)

Hahahahahaha!!!

Trump supporters are now having to flat out lie.

The amount of PUBLIC evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been well-established. The fact you are so willing to post lies about it suggests dishonesty so great it is almost incomprehensible. Hell, just today Mueller filed a memorandum alongside the SDNY about Cohen which clearly shows discussions involving "highly lucrative" projects between Cohen, Trump and Russia, not to mention the fact Cohen discussed with Trump about meeting with Russian officials BEFORE he made the offer to Russian officials.

For God's sake, if you're going to lie, don't be so obvious about it.

 

[OldFatGuy]

There's plenty of evidence in the public record that establishes the Trump camp was communicating with Russian nationals, and assessing whether they had stolen documents from the state department and DNC.

And beyond the Mueller memo, the SDNY all but indicted Trump in several felonies.

Where, beyond your imagination, are those indictments?

 

[Slyfox696]

Where, beyond your imagination, are those indictments?

Hint: "all but indicted" says there are not indictments, but that they have clearly said he violated the law.

Why all the dishonesty tonight?

 

[Taylor]

There's plenty of evidence in the public record that establishes the Trump camp was communicating with Russian nationals, and assessing whether they had stolen documents from the state department and DNC.

It's illegal to communicate with Russians?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Hint: "all but indicted" says there are not indictments, but that they have clearly said he violated the law.

Why all the dishonesty tonight?

Really? Show me. Why all the dishonesty every night? If he violated the law he'd be under indictment. Another FOS propaganda piece.

 

[maxparrish]

This is why rightwingers aren't concerned that Napolitano isn't falling in line on Trump. They still have Dershowitz so all is well in Trumpland.

Napie was always a daffy libertarian leaning blowhard, if anybody had trusted his judgement then they have never tried to read any book of his. Informed right wingers should be concerned, but not because Trump has seriously violated a federal law - but because the investigation is primarily by a guy who thinks his job is "special persecutor" and the system gives any prosecutor the ability to charge almost anyone under almost any pretext.

 

[HumblePi]

Derschowitz is wrong, he claims "it's a circumstantial case based on all the lying that's taking place, a circumstantial for political sieves, but I don't see any crimes."

There are all sorts of crimes here including crimes that land at the president's doorstep. This issue of 'there's only circumstantial evidence' is really silly because prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence all the time. You don't need to have a smoking gun in every case. Here there's witness after witness lining up and they have evidence where there wasn't just suddenly a Tower meeting out of the blue in 2016, but rather conduct between people in Trump's campaign and the Russian government. It's not smoke and mirrors, there's some hard evidence.

 

[maxparrish]

It's illegal to communicate with Russians?

No, but apparently it is illegal to be Donald Trump.

 

[HumblePi]

It's illegal to communicate with Russians?

It's illegal to plot with Russians in exchange for favors to win a U.S. presidential election which is exactly what they were doing. You seem to forget something very important here. Russia is not a friend to the United States, they are not an ally, they are an adversary and not a nice one either.

 

[Slyfox696]

Really? Show me.

Show you what? Where the SDNY clearly stated "In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1"? It's in the Cohen sentencing memo, page 11.

Try reading it. Or reading any news, since it is being reported everywhere.

If he violated the law he'd be under indictment.

You know as well as I do current DOJ guidelines say a sitting President should not be indicted.

Stop with the dishonesty. We know for a fact the FBI has now said Donald Trump committed a felony, even if they have not charged him with it.

Try honesty, thanks.

 

[MovingPictures]

It's illegal to communicate with Russians?

Try reading my posts again, this time try to understand it.

 

[Taylor]

It's illegal to plot with Russians in exchange for favors to win a U.S. presidential election which is exactly what they were doing.

Where's your evidence?

 

[MovingPictures]

Really? Show me. Why all the dishonesty every night? If he violated the law he'd be under indictment. Another FOS propaganda piece.

You don't have a clue.

Presidents and vice presidents can't be indicted, they can only be impeached and removed if the crimes are serious enough. However, once Trump leaves office, he's going to be indicted.

 

[Taylor]

Try reading my posts again, this time try to understand it.

You seem to be stuck on "they were communicating with Russians" - if one walks up to you and claims he has a hot Rolex, does that mean I get to arrest you because you were communicating with him about a stolen watch?