[W:63]Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

[Captain Adverse]

Yes, it's my "go-to" legal expert when it comes to the Mueller investigation.

His points:

1. The Stone indictment is a "typical Mueller indictment;" very heavy on "stories" but the crimes in the indictment (as usual) all relate to acts that occurred as a result of the investigation.

2. Mueller has found almost no crime regarding the goal of his actual investigation that occurred before he was appointed Special Counsel.

3. That while the things he has indicted people for are crimes, they are not the crimes he was appointed to find.

IMO this is true. What crimes related to "Trump-Russian conspirary to affect the election" have been found? None.

What crimes pre-election have been found? Manafort's money laundering. Cohen's taxi fraud crimes. Cohen's admission of campaign finance violations which were not even charged.

All the crimes that pertain to the investigation itself involve "lying to," or "obstruction of," which are a direct result of the investigation. While this provides grist for the "See, something must be there!" crowd, they have yet to show any actual evidence of the prime purpose of Mueller's investigation.

 

[bongsaway]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Yes, it's my "go-to" legal expert when it comes to the Mueller investigation.

His points:

1. The Stone indictment is a "typical Mueller indictment;" very heavy on "stories" but the crimes in the indictment (as usual) all relate to acts that occurred as a result of the investigation.

2. Mueller has found almost no crime that occurred before he was appointed Special Counsel. He was appointed to find crimes that had already occurred.

IMO this is true. What crimes related to "russian conspirary to affect the election" have been found? None.

What crimes pre-election have been found? Manafort's money laundering. Cohen's taxi fraud crimes. Cohen's admission of campaign finance violations which were not even charged.

All the crimes that pertain to the investigation itself involve "lying to," or "obstruction of," which are a direct result of the investigation. While this provides grist for the "See, something must be there!" crowd, they have yet to show any actual evidence of the prime purpose of Mueller's investigation.

I don't get the point? Is Mueller supposed to come out on a weekly basis and tell the press what he knows, give the american people an update? I'm pretty sure investigations don't work that way. Anything about Mueller is pure speculation.

 

[Airyaman]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Yes, it's my "go-to" legal expert when it comes to the Mueller investigation. <snip>

So you like being purposely misled?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

I don't get the point? Is Mueller supposed to come out on a weekly basis and tell the press what he knows, give the american people an update? I'm pretty sure investigations don't work that way. Anything about Mueller is pure speculation.

The point Dershowitz is making is that this Stone indictment is no different than everything else Mueller has done to date...and nothing he has done to date relates to the purpose of his investigation.

Now...that's not to say that Mueller WON'T come up with something that he is supposed to be trying to find. Dershowitz doesn't say anything about that. He is just talking about this Stone indictment.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

So you like being purposely misled?

If your only point is to deflect with insults, why participate in a thread? :coffeepap:

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

I don't get the point? Is Mueller supposed to come out on a weekly basis and tell the press what he knows, give the american people an update? I'm pretty sure investigations don't work that way. Anything about Mueller is pure speculation.

The problem is, and has been, is that Mueller is an investigator in search of a crime. We know now that the FBI started an investigation on Trump without basis and that evolved into Mueller's task - which is investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign When Mueller has something, anything, he pulls this dramatic early morning door banging and drops an indictment.

 

[bongsaway]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

The point Dershowitz is making is that this Stone indictment is no different than everything else Mueller has done to date...and nothing he has done to date relates to the purpose of his investigation.

Now...that's not to say that Mueller WON'T come up with something that he is supposed to be trying to find. Dershowitz doesn't say anything about that. He is just talking about this Stone indictment.

Again speculation. Mueller doesn't have to show all his cards in the indictment so saying there's nothing there doesn't make it so.

 

[trixare4kids]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Yes, it's my "go-to" legal expert when it comes to the Mueller investigation.

His points:

1. The Stone indictment is a "typical Mueller indictment;" very heavy on "stories" but the crimes in the indictment (as usual) all relate to acts that occurred as a result of the investigation.

2. Mueller has found almost no crime regarding the goal of his actual investigation that occurred before he was appointed Special Counsel.

3. That while the things he has indicted people for are crimes, they are not the crimes he was appointed to find.

IMO this is true. What crimes related to "Trump-Russian conspirary to affect the election" have been found? None.

What crimes pre-election have been found? Manafort's money laundering. Cohen's taxi fraud crimes. Cohen's admission of campaign finance violations which were not even charged.

All the crimes that pertain to the investigation itself involve "lying to," or "obstruction of," which are a direct result of the investigation. While this provides grist for the "See, something must be there!" crowd, they have yet to show any actual evidence of the prime purpose of Mueller's investigation.

Precisely!

 

[Airyaman]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

If your only point is to deflect with insults, why participate in a thread? :coffeepap:

Who am I insulting? I asked a question. If you took it as an insult, I have my answer.

 

[bongsaway]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

The problem is, and has been, is that Mueller is an investigator in search of a crime. We know now that the FBI started an investigation on Trump without basis and that evolved into Mueller's task - which is investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign When Mueller has something, anything, he pulls this dramatic early morning door banging and drops an indictment.

I just don't get how folks can say there is nothing there? Why are people pleading guilty, why are some in and going to jail if there's nothing. How can there possibly be nothing with the amount of contacts with russians from the people surrounding trump without him knowing anything about anything to do with the russians? I find it all very hard to believe.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

3. That while the things he has indicted people for are crimes, they are not the crimes he was appointed to find.

IMO this is true. What crimes related to "Trump-Russian conspirary to affect the election" have been found? None.

Now, Adverse won't respond to this. At least, not without snipping everything that matters, saying something snappy but wrong, and using a coffee emjoi. Hooray for him being too cool to respond to criticism.

BUT, lawyers like Dershowitz know or knows how to find out some very important things. They are, simply:

1. The appointment letter defines the investigation's main course. Nothing else anyone else said does. (Hence, "collusion" is a big misdirection. Kudos for Adverse to not mentioning collusion, but shame for not crediting me for drilling into his head in prior posts).

2. The CFR ("Code of Federal Regulations") massively expands all special counsel investigations. This not only includes expansion to all obstruction-like federal crimes, but among many provisions, one grants ever special counsel the full power and duty of a United States Attorney. They cannot ignore a crime they come across while they are pursuing their appointment letter goals without violating legal, ethical, and professional requirements.

2a. Again, a special counsel cannot ignore a crime they come across while they are pursuing their appointment letter goals without violating legal, ethical, and professional requirements.

2b. Again...ok you get it.

3. The DOJ guidelines further regulate special counsel behavior. (For example, a sitting President most likely cannot be indicted, DOJ guidelines say NOT to indict a sitting President because they cannot, and thus for example Trump cannot be a "target" - you have to be a putative defendant among other things - only a "subject" so long as he sits)

4. Captain Adverse and Dershowitz know that lines like the following are stupid dishonest crap: "Mueller has found almost no crime regarding the goal of his actual investigation that occurred before he was appointed Special Counsel."

This is a lie.

It is a lie because Adverse and Dershowitz know full well that they have no reason to expect to have heard of such a crime by now. Trump will be the very last Mueller goes after, and he will be gone after via report because of Point 3. They know this. And thus, their spin is the worst kind of spin: devious because it is knowing, intelligent because it bets that YOU ALL can't work all of this out without far more effort than they could.

Again, if you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, this **** is easy. They bet you don't and don't know how to work out what exactly to look for with any reasonable speed.





SEE POST 14 ALSO

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

Dude's lying. I don't think I need to tell you that, but I wanted to say it again. See above.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Now, because I already put a dangerous amount of words up and too many people want to issue very important-sounding opinions without bothering to know what the **** they're talking about - the television beckons! My apps! Facebook! The dog needs to walk! - I'm putting this separately:



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

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

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.


28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a):

(a) . . . The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted

So, again, that's PART of the appointment letter, and ONE PART of the first of SEVERAL CFR regulations governing this, and does NOT even include the DOJ guidelines





tl;dr folk:
1. It's way broader than "collusion"
2. Mueller is not looking for "collusion"
3. Adverse lied. Again.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

And the fallacious deflections continue. :coffeepap:

 

[Fruityfact]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And the fallacious deflections continue. :coffeepap:

Be patient. The most successful special investigation ever underway is still underway, well ahead of schedule and under budget. Be patient.

 

[GDViking]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

So you like being purposely misled?

Clearly, he does use a self described entertainment channel for information rather than actual news...

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Again speculation. Mueller doesn't have to show all his cards in the indictment so saying there's nothing there doesn't make it so.

sigh...

This indictment against Stone refers to...Stone. Nobody has said that Mueller has to show anything about Trump in this indictment. Dershowitz is only talking about this Stone indictment and how it's just like all the other indictments that Mueller has come up with to date; none of them have anything to do with Trump. They are all a result of stuff that happened in the course of Mueller's investigation...process crimes.

That's not speculation on Dershowitz's part. That is his analysis of the Stone indictment.

 

[trixare4kids]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

You're off topic.

 

[Airyaman]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Clearly, he does use a self described entertainment channel for information rather than actual news...

I was unsure what Dershowitz was doing at one time. Why would a "liberal" lawyer support Trump's unlawful ways?

Then it dawned on me.

Nobody else wants Alan except Fox, who can claim that a liberal lawyer supports Trump.

So now a washed up lawyer can get a gig from time to time.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

I am looking for Dershowitz to come out stronger on how the American people and the justice system are being abused for political gain.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

And the fallacious deflections continue. :coffeepap:

^
Note the coffee emoji

Note the only response thus far was to a snappy jab, not #12 or #14. Strange. One would think someone who does what Adverse claims he does could go toe to toe on every point.




Oh well.... guess it's more hit and run bull**** from adverse.

deflections

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

I am looking for Dershowitz to come out stronger on how the American people and the justice system are being abused for political gain.

He is a criminal defense lawyer. He's said plenty of things about tough on crime laws being designed to **** over minorities so politicians could use the extra arrest stats and the like to parade around. Hell, one colleague (sort of) interned with him when he did the whole disproportionate death sentence application thing.

He seems to have lost his way a bit. SAD!




The world has moved on. I guess that's what Trump does.

 

[Amelia]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

If only Trump and his buddies didn't lie so much and otherwise act so guilty.

It's as if they never heard of anyone being taken down for a cover-up which was worse than whatever crime these poor innocent lambs may have accidentally committed.

 

[trixare4kids]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s indictment.

Now, because I already put a dangerous amount of words up and too many people want to issue very important-sounding opinions without bothering to know what the **** they're talking about - the television beckons! My apps! Facebook! The dog needs to walk! - I'm putting this separately:



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

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

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.


28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a):

(a) . . . The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted

So, again, that's PART of the appointment letter, and ONE PART of the first of SEVERAL CFR regulations governing this, and does NOT even include the DOJ guidelines





tl;dr folk:
1. It's way broader than "collusion"
2. Mueller is not looking for "collusion"
3. Adverse lied. Again.

Anything you say that some might consider newsworthy or valuable is lost in the translation because of the incessant ad hominem personal attacks.

Btw, if Mueller is not looking for collusion, why are the taxpayers on the hook?