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

[Mr Person]

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

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

You're off topic.

How is accusing Jetboogieman of being off-topic you being on-topic yourself? Just wondering.

Note: Adverse liked trix's post. He has not responded to posts 12 and 14, which are in detail and on point. I'm sure that's innocent.




The post trix failed to respond to was post 12 and naturally, he ignored 14.

Post #12:

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?

off-topic.


Note the sniveling cowardice of his post, said sniveling cowardice of the post reflected in its utter failure to address any substantive point. Label, attack, run.

 

[Hawkeye10]

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

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.

It stung him that long time friends stopped talking to him because they dont like what Dershowitz was saying, what he believes is the Truth.

The quality of people has disappointed him.

 

[Mr Person]

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

It stung him that long time friends stopped talking to him because they dont like what Dershowitz was saying, what he believes is the Truth.

The quality of people has disappointed him.

The quality of Dershowitz has disappointed me. I know that he knows better than what he's saying and I'm utterly befuddled as to why, unless perhaps he's thinking of going back into practice and thinking "well, I'll just say any old damn **** and someone will hire me."

If you want to move past fake zen platitudes, address posts 12 and 14 in detail, with citations. Where have I misquoted the appointment letter, CFR, or mischaracterized the DOJ guidelines? Why is Dershowitz right, with legal citations tyvm?

Again, not just platitudes. Not you or adverse, with the ****ing platidudes. Where am I wrong with citations? Where? None of you reply with that, not ever, because you are either lying or bull*****ing, which is only a good idea if you have some fetish about going down with the ship.




Or you know...... QUASAR APPLES! or whatever

 

[Hawkeye10]

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

The quality of Dershowitz has disappointed me. I know that he knows better than what he's saying and I'm utterly befuddled as to why, unless perhaps he's thinking of going back into practice and thinking "well, I'll just say any old damn **** and someone will hire me."

If you want to move past fake zen platitudes, address posts 12 and 14 in detail, with citations.

Where have I misquoted the appointment letter, CFR, or mischaracterized the DOJ guidelines? Why is Dershowitz right, with legal citations tyvm?




Or you know...... QUASAR APPLES! or whatever

If Trump has accomplished nothing else he has shown us that the collapse of America is worse than almost anyone has been claiming. I was called Chicken Little at my last home but you know what, a lot of what I said has now been proven, and America is clearly even worse off than I was claiming.

Hell is coming almost certainly.

I hope to miss it.

 

[trixare4kids]

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

The quality of Dershowitz has disappointed me. I know that he knows better than what he's saying and I'm utterly befuddled as to why, unless perhaps he's thinking of going back into practice and thinking "well, I'll just say any old damn **** and someone will hire me."

If you want to move past fake zen platitudes, address posts 12 and 14 in detail, with citations. Where have I misquoted the appointment letter, CFR, or mischaracterized the DOJ guidelines? Why is Dershowitz right, with legal citations tyvm?

Again, not just platitudes. Not you or adverse, with the ****ing platidudes. Where am I wrong with citations? Where? None of you reply with that, not ever, because you are either lying or bull*****ing, which is only a good idea if you have some fetish about going down with the ship.




Or you know...... QUASAR APPLES! or whatever

Calm down.

 

[Mr Person]

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

Calm down.

Again, posts 12 and 14 are right there. You still have not responded with anything.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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.

So you admit that Trump has for years (decades) been surrounding himself with criminals, but we should ignore that fact because Trump is doing some things you like, and the "special council" has not, to date, issued an indictment regarding Donald J Trump for the specific crimes laid out for investigation? Yet "advisers" have???

Yeah, lots of smoke, but nothing to see here. George Washington was worse, etc.

Really???

 

[trixare4kids]

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

How is accusing Jetboogieman of being off-topic you being on-topic yourself? Just wondering.

Note: Adverse liked trix's post. He has not responded to posts 12 and 14, which are in detail and on point. I'm sure that's innocent.




The post trix failed to respond to was post 12 and naturally, he ignored 14.

Post #12:






off-topic.


Note the sniveling cowardice of his post, said sniveling cowardice of the post reflected in its utter failure to address any substantive point. Label, attack, run.

I am not running.
What was that you were saying to me again?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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

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

You should consider an expert who's less of a desperate hack, like Tribe.

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.

Irrelevant to the fact that these are very serious crimes, something that many members of Trump's inner circle have been guilty of. I'm sure that's just a coinky-dink.

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

Dershowitz has absolutely no idea what crimes Mueller has found in regard the original goal. To maintain that he does is to lie.

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

His mandate fully allows him to go after all crimes he finds in the course of investigation.

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

Another lie. No one but Mueller and his team knows what's been found, and there is an overwhelming number of Trump associates who've lied countless times about their contacts and meetings with Russians for no discernable, rational reason.

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.

They don't need to do so yet. They work at their own pace and schedule.

That some people can't emotionally accept that fact is irrelevant to the veracity of the investigation.

 

[jghiretire]

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.

37 indictments isn't exactly searching for a crime.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/list-of-mueller-indictments-783405/

 

[trixare4kids]

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

Again, posts 12 and 14 are right there. You still have not responded with anything.

Relax and learn how message boards work.
Nobody is on your payroll here, nobody must respond to any post here which includes yours.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

So you admit that Trump has for years (decades) been surrounding himself with criminals, but we should ignore that fact because Trump is doing some things you like, and the "special council" has not, to date, issued an indictment regarding Donald J Trump for the specific crimes laid out for investigation? Yet "advisers" have???

Yeah, lots of smoke, but nothing to see here. George Washington was worse, etc.

Really???

Red herring. I did not admit anything that you state I did. You are trying to deflect by asserting a "translation" and then expecting me to argue for or against it. :no:

Denied! :coffeepap:

 

[Bullseye]

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

37 indictments isn't exactly searching for a crime.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/list-of-mueller-indictments-783405/

How many had anything to do with collusion? Zip.****

 

[Mr Person]

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

Red herring. I did not admit anything that you state I did. You are trying to deflect by asserting a "translation" and then expecting me to argue for or against it. <emoji>

Denied! <emoji>

12 & 14, snips:

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.

14

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







Well?

You keep doing the "coffeepap" thing at people while being smug to them. If you're right you should be able to do a line-by-line destruction of what I said. Where is it?

 

[Airyaman]

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

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?

Because "collusion" is not a real crime, and it was never mentioned in the scope of the Special Counsel's assignment.

 

[Hari Seldon]

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

And now for the Captain Adverse Confirmation Bias Show!

I remember a time when "lying" and "obstruction" were considered really, really bad by conservatives. Oh how times change.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Alan Dershowitz reacts to Roger Stone’s 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.

Listen up - NO ONE is saying "there's nothing there", they're saying "there's nothing there ABOUT COLLUSION"; which is what Mueller was supposed to be looking for. I EVEN bolded it in the post you quoted

 

[Praxas]

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

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

Well when the thread you start is nothing but subjective bull**** why do you bother to start a thread? :coffeepap

 

[Geoist]

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

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

Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer?

 

[Mr Person]

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

Relax and learn how message boards work.
Nobody is on your payroll here, nobody must respond to any post here which includes yours.

You still can't think of even one counter-argument? And you don't think you're....

running

?



Oh well. The point was to make a record of actual facts, posted by someone who is not lying or doing what you are doing, so that any people who might still not understand what is going on can observe the difference between the person stating facts and the people trying to come up with snippy responses that avoid saying anything.

But the facts are still there, if anyone who still insists this is a witch hunt wants to prove that they aren't lying out of every orifice twice over. Till then.....

:shrug:






Posts 12, and 14. They ain't going anywhere. It's true, you aren't required to respond. Neither is Adverse. Neither is anyone. But if you're going to run around claiming witch hunt, claiming it's about "collusion", then the only honest responses you could possibly make are:

1. "I'm sorry, I didn't know" (the virtuous) or;

2. Anything else (the kind of dishonest partisan ship that I guarantee will sink this country, be it 50 or 250 years from now. But we won't be around, so, I guess it doesn't matter?)

 

[trixare4kids]

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

Because "collusion" is not a real crime, and it was never mentioned in the scope of the Special Counsel's assignment.

While collusion was not mentioned, nor is it alone deemed a real crime, the real scope of the investigation is to see if Russia interfered with our elections. I think we have been made aware that they did but make no mistake about it, somewhere along the line, Mueller and his posse have made sure we all know that they are investigating Trump and his campaign's possible complicity with the Russians in their efforts to throw the election to Trump. You don't have to call it collusion, but it is a crime if they conspired to collude to act against the United States.

 

[washunut]

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

While collusion was not mentioned, nor is it alone deemed a real crime, the real scope of the investigation is to see if Russia interfered with our elections. I think we have been made aware that they did but make no mistake about it, somewhere along the line, Mueller and his posse have made sure we all know that they are investigating Trump and his campaign's possible complicity with the Russians in their efforts to throw the election to Trump. You don't have to call it collusion, but it is a crime if they conspired to collude to act against the United States.

I think you are correct that Russia interfered in our election. Pretty sure folks agree they have done so before. We have meddled in other countries elections as well. Obama for example publicly spoke about Brexit before that election.

While Russian meddling probably helped Trump, not hard to say that whichever Russians were working with Steele were in fact working for Clinton. The great Russian achievement is less in electing trump than in sowing the seeds of mistrust in government that have come about due to this. You could say that Mueller is inadvertently doing the bidding of Putin.

 

[trixare4kids]

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

I remember a time when "lying" and "obstruction" were considered really, really bad by conservatives. Oh how times change.

I remember a time when lying and obstruction were considered really, really big nothingburgers by the Democrats during Bill Clinton's time in office.

Yes, how times have changed.
.,

 

[Fruityfact]

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

12 & 14, snips:

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.

14

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







Well?

You keep doing the "coffeepap" thing at people while being smug to them. If you're right you should be able to do a line-by-line destruction of what I said. Where is it?

A for effort.
B for making him your...

 

[Geoist]

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

I remember a time when lying and obstruction were considered really, really big nothingburgers by the Democrats during Bill Clinton's time in office.

Yes, how times have changed.
.,

Lying about a bj and lying about Russian election meddling... which one do you think is a bigger deal?