• 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!

First Rudy and now Alan Dershowitz

Lutherf said:
In the past six months or so this Mueller thing has become more and more overtly political. When the SDNY jumped in the political bent became not just open knowledge buy a rallying call for new appointees. The primary was run on the promise to make the "investigation" as political as possible.

We're no longer operating under a system of Constitutional justice. We're operating under a system of political "justice" and that's a REALLY bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think they've opened Pandora's box.
 
apdst said:
You brought it up.
Click to expand...

I brought up Dershowitz, the topic.
You brought up Clinton, then asked a bait question about Clinton as follow-up.

And you're baiting again, claiming I brought up Clinton.
 
NeverTrump said:
I bet Derzo****z is going down too!
Click to expand...

For what? Sullying his reputation as a great lawyer by using the "collusion isn't a crime" gambit when he knows full well what the appointment letter and Code of Federal Regulations actually require Mueller to look into?

I mean, at the very least Harvard shouldn't let him teach anymore. If an attorney fell for the "collusion" line I couldn't trust their opinion on anything, because the attorney knows what I just said and if they didn't know it, they know how to find out about it.

But going down in the Mueller investigation? Hey wait a minute.... maybe you meant that bout Dersh in a different sense, and in regard to Trump.
 
Mr Person said:
For what? Sullying his reputation as a great lawyer by using the "collusion isn't a crime" gambit when he knows full well what the appointment letter and Code of Federal Regulations actually require Mueller to look into?

I mean, at the very least Harvard shouldn't let him teach anymore. If an attorney fell for the "collusion" line I couldn't trust their opinion on anything, because the attorney knows what I just said and if they didn't know it, they know how to find out about it.

But going down in the Mueller investigation? Hey wait a minute.... maybe you meant that bout Dersh in a different sense, and in regard to Trump.
Click to expand...

Brennan said well known names are going down in the next 60 days. I have no doubt that Derzo****z is on that list. Possibly in connection to Epstein. How that relates to Mueller as of now, I don't really know, but there's connections within the Trump business world and it'll make you wonder why Derzo****s went for Trump in the first place. It's more and more that there is no genuine support in the elite media for Trump save for a few Fox News hosts, the rest are criminals he has blackmail on.
 
Mach said:
I brought up Dershowitz, the topic.
You brought up Clinton, then asked a bait question about Clinton as follow-up.

And you're baiting again, claiming I brought up Clinton.
Click to expand...

You brought up people connected to Epstein. I brought up people connected to Epstein. :lamo
 
apdst said:
You brought up people connected to Epstein. I brought up people connected to Epstein. :lamo
Click to expand...

Wrong, the thread is about Dershowitz's inexplicable, shameful defense of team-Trump.
I brought up Dershowitz's connection to the Trump administration that could be cause for such insanity (via Acosta and the Epstein case).

You brought up other people, unrelated to the OP, connected to Epstein, because you're gas-lighting as usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom