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

[Nickyjo]

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

Which is essentially nothing but speculation. Yes, your guesses are right in line with that stuff.



You don't think Dershowitz needs to come up with any answers, yet you are the one who thinks he should be asked the question. :doh



I don't know...and I really don't care...but I speculate that some of it is due to Mueller's despicable "investigative" techniques.

They lied because if his techniques? Who can argue with that?

 

[Grokmaster]

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

They lied because if his techniques? Who can argue with that?

Withholding exculpatory evidence, and threatening one's family?

I CAN ARGUE WITH THAT....

 

[Nickyjo]

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

Withholding exculpatory evidence, and threatening one's family?

I CAN ARGUE WITH THAT....

Thought it was Trump who was threatening families... Look, this will all come out eventually. Mueller is a republican appointed by a republican to investigate a republican president. Naturally Trump supporters are trashing him. What else they got? Jarred and Ivanka could be heading the investigation and they would demonize them.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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

If the police raid a house looking for drugs, are they to ignore the dead body they see in the basement? After all, the warrant said nothing about searching for dead bodies. The police weren't expecting a dead body, should they therefore not investigate? Determine the cause of death (to determine if a crime has been committed?)

In the course of the investigation, they find some spent bullet casings and the fingerprints on the bullets match someone associated with the house, are the police obligated to tell this person that their fingerprints were found before they ask this person if they know anything about a gun or the body?

If the person realizes the police have their fingerprints and they then change their story, can the police properly charge them with making false statements? Even if it turns out the body didn't have bullet wounds? Why would they lie about a crime that they were not involved in? Why would they obstruct?

I bring this up because quite often in an FBI investigation, the investigators will ask questions of people that they already know the true answer. They do this specifically to see if that person will lie. If that person does lie, is that evidence of guilt? Or, is it an attempt to protect someone else from being implicated?

Flynn was asked questions the answers to which the FBI already knew the truth. He lied. That is a crime. Why did he lie? We're going to find out soon enough. Flynn apparently did more than lie, because he cut a deal in which other charges are dropped pending his cooperation. He's just one of many. What are they trying to hide? Mueller is finding out.

 

[Mycroft]

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

They lied because if his techniques? Who can argue with that?

Yes, it is very hard to object to those techniques, but Dershowitz makes a very good try in that interview.

 

[vesper]

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

Caveman mentality.

"Someone from my tribe got in trouble, therefore, someone from the other tribe must get in trouble as well, in retribution".

Since when did equal justice under the law become "Caveman mentality"?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

1. All of the current charges are a result of attempts to thwart the Mueller investigation.

2. We don’t know what we don’t know. Only Mueller and his team know the whole story. What we the public, including Dershowitz, know is what’s been made available. Dershowitz’ speculation is just that, speculation.

3. Professor Dershowitz should reread Mueller’s appointment letter. Mueller was given the latitude investigate any matters he comes upon during the investigation.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

I find it interesting that many of those same people who are ready to immediately find guilty and incarcerate people from one party before all the evidence is in, go out of their way to give benefit of the doubt to those from another political party. Double standard much? A primary reason I disdain party loyalists.

 

[JackA]

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.

It ALL “relates” to the investigation. The criminal lies in the indictments are lies told to imvetigators seeking information about Trump campaign contacts with Russian operatives. Mueller presumably wants to know, and may know already, why all these people are lying at the risk of prosecution and what they are lying about.

 

[Taylor]

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

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).

Wow, one need only read point #1 here to conclude that you have no effing clue what you're talking about. The appointment letter defines the investigation's "main course" in the same way "head west" provides directions from New York to San Diego. It is an overgeneralized memo written for public consumption providing no real detail on what Mueller was asked to investigate. The absence of the word "collusion" in that memo is utterly meaningless.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

How long do you think Mueller needs to prove the Russians stole Hillary's election? Don't you think that if such had been the case, after all he's done for however long it's been, he would have found evidence?

Who do you know that was persuaded by Russian influence to vote for Trump?

This has been nothing but political theater since it started. God only knows what congress might have accomplished if it were not expending so much energy on this nonsensical proposal.

 

[bongsaway]

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

How long do you think Mueller needs to prove the Russians stole Hillary's election? Don't you think that if such had been the case, after all he's done for however long it's been, he would have found evidence?

Who do you know that was persuaded by Russian influence to vote for Trump?

This has been nothing but political theater since it started. God only knows what congress might have accomplished if it were not expending so much energy on this nonsensical proposal.

The dems have only been in control of the house for a few weeks and the government was shutdown when they were seated so I guess you'll have to ask the republican controlled congress what the problem is.

 

[MACS-24]

LOL. New level of dirty politics???

Bill Clinton was investigated for some business dealing he had before he was elected. It was the Whitewater investigation. They found nothing except an affair he covered up. Republicans voted to impeach him. Republicans voted to remove him from office but they didn't have enough votes.

Hillary Clinton was investigated over the Benghazi controversy. They subpoenaed her emails and dug through them but found nothing about Benghazi. They did find that she had mishandled her email security. They wanted to throw her in prison.

If we followed the Republican standards of the past, Trump would already be impeached. Conservatives are acting like little children. One minute they're shouting "lock her up! lock her up!" full of enthusiasm for political prosecution. Now suddenly, when its one of their own, they change their tune?

Grow up.

This a little old but I'll reply anyway. Grow up? This post does not address anything I said. It doesn't at all address the problem that through "opposition research" so many campaign members are being indicted on charges absolutely nothing to do with campaign malfeasance. You don't think that puts a damper on good people wanting to get involved in politics or running for office for fear of similar treatment?