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

[trixare4kids]

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

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

Lying under oath; Clinton?

 

[Mr Person]

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

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

I wish it mattered, though. I really do. I know "tl;dr" is so common in the Twitter Age. So too is not bothering with even one single sentence.

I'm worried. I took this internet board thing for fun when I started up with it around 2000 (before, chatrooms). I kind of wanted to learn about politics or what people were saying about politics, my own learning my own research elsewhere. Later, I wanted to try to see if there was any way to talk to people who didn't want to listen. Say, if they were judges or juries who don't like you or your client for some reason.

Now, there are definitely some things I learned about that. But ever since about 2007, there's a group I cannot talk to in any way. They see facts and just.....don't. They don't do anything with the facts.

Juries listen mostly. Judges have to listen, or at least pretend they are then show it in a decision. But the last ten years on debate boards have worried me. If this really is how people think, this country really does not have that much longer. The only way this **** works is with a critical mass of people, that mass a certain percentage of the total participating voting population, that wants to understand what's going on.

Don't get me wrong. We - as in "America calling itself a country" - can go on quite a while. We're the richest. But we as a proper republican democracy? Not if we spitefully piss on the norms that make us.

The mass:mass ratio gets skewed, and....it breaks.

 

[roughdraft274]

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

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

Well put and well reasoned. The thread should have ended after this post as it cut through every layer of bull****.

Very good job.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Geoist]

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

Lying under oath; Clinton?

You said lying. Plenty of Trump's minions have lied under oath and that is why they are either now indicted or serving in prison. You have every right to think that lying about a bj is a bigger deal (lol). And we have every right to think that is absolutely loony.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

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

Ad hominin, attacking Dershowitz and not his argument.

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.

Well...

I know the law exists making it [inserted for clarity: "lying to investigators"] a crime. Still, IMO it IS a "silly crime" because an inadvertent or unintentional misstatement (ex. stating that you didn't say or do something because you don't remember saying or doing it) which had nothing to do with the matter being investigated can result in criminal penalties.

Moreover, in order for perjury to append it must generally be shown that someone has made a legal promise to tell the truth, and made a false statement or told a lie on purpose.

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

No, just like you and everyone else, Dershowitz has a right to an opinion on what is public and to speculate on what might or might not be made public. Otherwise every time you've "opined or speculated" you have self-confessed to the same thing you've attributed to Dershowitz.

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

Of course it does. However, it seems that so far when it come to his MAIN remit, Dershowitz is on the money...i.e. the "crimes" are due to the investigation and not pre-existing without it.

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.

My my, you certainly are free with that term lie. Is it not true that NONE have been announced and therefore anyone is "free to speculate" as to whether or not they exist? Your side has been fairly free with asserting what you expect to be found out when Mueller "announces" his results. Have people on your side been lying all this time too since they don't know what Mueller has found either?

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.

Again, asserting something not being stated. Dershowitz is talking about what has been charged so far, he has not stated they are not crimes nor that Mueller will NOT announce actual investigation based crimes.

It is you who has misinterpreted both the OP and what Dershowitz was talking about. :coffeepap:

 

[Mr Person]

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

Well put and well reasoned. The thread should have ended after this post as it cut through every layer of bull****.

Very good job.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Thank you, but I guarantee you that within one week, I will have to consider risking a spam violation by posting it or something very much like it again. Maybe tomorrow, even.

I'm worried about this country.

 

[roughdraft274]

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

Thank you, but I guarantee you that within one week, I will have to consider risking a spam violation by posting it or something very much like it again. Maybe tomorrow, even.

I'm worried about this country.

This is nothing new. Humans dont like admitting mistakes and changing minds. Tgats why republicans were still all over nixons dick right up until there were tapes of him saying the stuff that he had already been accused of saying by 5 or 6 people already. Trump followers will follow that path. Unless they see a tape or hear a recording of him personally telling putin "help me out with those emails and ill return the favor". It is very scary though. I see exactly what you mean.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Person]

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

This is nothing new. Humans dont like admitting mistakes and changing minds. Tgats why republicans were still all over nixons dick right up until there were tapes of him saying the stuff that he had already been accused of saying by 5 or 6 people already. Trump followers will follow that path. Unless they see a tape or hear a recording of him personally telling putin "help me out with those emails and ill return the favor". It is very scary though. I see exactly what you mean.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

What I find so worrying is not so much stupid claims, dishonest claims, or the like. It's the move of challenging established reality: what actually happened, be it in speeches by politicians, be it in how bills were voted on, be it in who said what two pages before in the thread.

The new move I see is simply announcing that reality is X when in fact it is A, never budging, and then have X% of other people 'agree' or 'like' that declaration.




Edit: I worry that if there ARE tapes, they really will say but he was trapped, its not fair, its a crime but not collusion

And I bet they'll say "but Dems didn't vote against Clinton over perjury"! Well, yes, Clinton perjured and obstructed. He should have been impeached. I was busy getting all ****ed up at that wild time of life and I couldn't have voted against him anyway since it was his 2nd term so....um...right. But they'll say it no matter who they are talking to and no matter where that person is in life, as if it somehow justifies them blinking at anything Trump did - IF HE DID ANYTHING.

I use capslock to signal to the capslock folk that I'm not actually assuming he's guilty of anything. It's possible, but unlikely, but possible that all these people around him did all this **** and that much of it was Russia-related without him, himself, actually knowing what he was doing. Possible. But he's also a slimeball.

Either way....oy...I tire. This wears the soul thin.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

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

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

The fact that Republicans found nothing regarding Benghazi didn't stop them from trying to lock Hillary Clinton up for poor email security.

At least Derschowitz is consistent. He defended Hillary.

Mueller hasn't filed his report so I don't understand the claim that he hasn't found anything. We don't know what he has found.

And the scope of the investigation is not just crimes but all kinds of possible Russian influences in the Trump campaign.

For example, if the alleged pee tape was found it wouldn't be a crime but it certainly would be impeachable because it proves the Russians had leverage over Trump. Same with the Trump Moscow project. It's not a crime but it's proof of Russian leverage over Trump.

And if they didn't do anything wrong then why all the lies that have led to so many prosecutions? They're not merely innocent or accidental omissions. These are intentional attempts to deceive a government investigation. Are you going to just ignore willful and intentional attempts to deceive investigators? Often the coverup is worse than the crime.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

The fact that Republicans found nothing regarding Benghazi didn't stop them from trying to lock Hillary Clinton up for poor email security.

At least Derschowitz is consistent. He defended Hillary.

Mueller hasn't filed his report so I don't understand the claim that he hasn't found anything. We don't know what he has found.

I'll take personal responsibility for misusing the word "found". It should have been "charged," or perhaps "announced."

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Has anyone asked Dershowitz why people lied? Veeeerrry Interessting!

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

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

This is nothing new. Humans dont like admitting mistakes and changing minds. Tgats why republicans were still all over nixons dick right up until there were tapes of him saying the stuff that he had already been accused of saying by 5 or 6 people already.

Yes, but about half of Nixon supporters still supported him even after the tapes. About 25% of voters still supported Nixon. So 25% is the rock bottom. That may still be enough to be the majority of Republican voters.

 

[Gina]

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

Moderator's Warning:

Stop playing mod. Stop talking about each other. Be productive in the thread and stop snarking as well.

 

[GDViking]

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

Nah he's just the same as Larry King, someone you once respected but now wouldn't buy them a drink because you know they will try to sell something...

 

[Mr Person]

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

Nah he's just the same as Larry King, someone you once respected but now wouldn't buy them a drink because you know they will try to sell something...

*super edited*

My complication is that, well, I looked up to him in some ways, quite a while ago. He did a great job as criminal defense lawyer. This is necessary, if "freedom" is to mean anything.

Even if everyone thinks the defendant is scum who is obviously guilty - even confessed - defend him to the hilt. That said, don't discredit yourself with moronic defenses (unless your client, as is his glorious right, controls his own defense by commanding you to say some very stupid things that make him go to jail; and if he commands you to lie, there is a procedure for not speaking on his behalf and letting him lie, whereupon, he loses).


But now this ****ing... "Collusion isn't a crime"? Knowing misdirection. Out of all people, Dershowitz knows. Disgrace.

 

[OscarLevant]

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.

#3 is wrong. The mandate specifically states (paraphrased) " [investigate Russian collusion] and crimes arising from the investigation", it doesn't specify when the crimes were committed.

 

[marke]

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.

Mueller is a dog. He is vicious. He is cold. He is blatantly liberal. And he is in the business of creating crimes based upon objections to the fake investigation, not crimes which actually occurred before the investigation.

Flynn did nothing wrong except for not get his story completely straight when recounting something casual in front of FBI investigators pretending to just be doing routine background checks. The crime was not talking to foreigners. That was not illegal. The crime was failing to remember every exact detail when talking about what he did that was not illegal.

All Americans should bge fed up with this Mueller circus and blatant perversion and miscarriage of justice.

 

[yankintx]

A couple weeks ago Dershowitz claimed
Muellers report would be devastating politically to Trump. The Right was calling him all sorts of names, now they are quoting his latest comments to validate Stones perjury. Dershowitz will say what ever he is paid to claim, just ask Claus Von Bulow and OJ. The man has a long history of keeping guilty folks out of prison. Explains why Trump hired the guy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

#3 is wrong. The mandate specifically states (paraphrased) " [investigate Russian collusion] and crimes arising from the investigation", it doesn't specify when the crimes were committed.

Yes, I commented on that in a thread a while ago when this first came up about the authorization memo. That is a pretty standard "catch-all" addition, designed to allow for just what Mueller has been doing.

I also pointed out in that thread Trump was obviously never advised about it so he could have instructed the author to limit the investigation to the allegations of wrongdoing. That was also a valid possibility, probably ignored or not even considered by Trump because he believed he would get a fair shake since he knew he did not do anything like he was being accused of.

IMO both bad/inattentive advisors, and more fool he in this regard.

 

[Captain Adverse]

A couple weeks ago Dershowitz claimed
Muellers report would be devastating politically to Trump. The Right was calling him all sorts of names, now they are quoting his latest comments to validate Stones perjury. Dershowitz will say what ever he is paid to claim, just ask Claus Von Bulow and OJ. The man has a long history of keeping guilty folks out of prison. Explains why Trump hired the guy.

I was not one of those calling him names. Recall, this is not an investigation to find Trump "innocent," it is designed to find something criminal.

I believe he is right on the money in his predictions. IMO Mueller's document will be designed to be as devastating as he can make the actual facts portray, written as much to justify his efforts as to show actual criminal activity. It's what special counsel's (read prosecutor's) do.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Has anyone asked Dershowitz why people lied? Veeeerrry Interessting!

Why should anyone ask Dershowitz that? He doesn't know and neither do you?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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. :no:

Denied! :coffeepap:

The question was rhetorical. Trump has surrounded himself with criminals for decades; that fact remains.

 

[MACS-24]

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.

This is what bothers me the most about this and that it could happen to any candidate, any political lean. It seems to throw cold water on any decent candidate thinking about top public service and the risk of the new level of dirty politics.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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

Ad hominin, attacking Dershowitz and not his argument.



Well...



Moreover, in order for perjury to append it must generally be shown that someone has made a legal promise to tell the truth, and made a false statement or told a lie on purpose.



No, just like you and everyone else, Dershowitz has a right to an opinion on what is public and to speculate on what might or might not be made public. Otherwise every time you've "opined or speculated" you have self-confessed to the same thing you've attributed to Dershowitz.



Of course it does. However, it seems that so far when it come to his MAIN remit, Dershowitz is on the money...i.e. the "crimes" are due to the investigation and not pre-existing without it.



My my, you certainly are free with that term lie. Is it not true that NONE have been announced and therefore anyone is "free to speculate" as to whether or not they exist? Your side has been fairly free with asserting what you expect to be found out when Mueller "announces" his results. Have people on your side been lying all this time too since they don't know what Mueller has found either?



Again, asserting something not being stated. Dershowitz is talking about what has been charged so far, he has not stated they are not crimes nor that Mueller will NOT announce actual investigation based crimes.

It is you who has misinterpreted both the OP and what Dershowitz was talking about. :coffeepap:

Nah, that's not what Dersh was talking about. He was offering empty speculation and irrelevancies. And you're trying to pass those off as somehow, magically, material.

Yet again, you're not fooling anyone, nor is he.

 

[Mach]

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

Why should anyone ask Dershowitz that? He doesn't know and neither do you?

That's part of the reason why there is an investigation, consciousness of guilt is evidence. So you support the investigation, to understand those answers?
Why are they obstructing the investigation?
That's another bit of evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Why are they willing to lie to congress..break the law, just to hide what they were doing?
Yet more reason to continue investigating.

Why has Trump not sat down with investigators to tell him his side? Instead, he stonewalled for over a year, and then only agreed to a handful of written questions?
Yet more reason they have to investigate, they are getting no direct help from Trump.

Why are they attack the investigation, the investigators, trying to tamper with witnesses, etc?
Yet more reason to investigate.

I could go on.