"I don't see ANY CRIMES!" Alan Dershowitz shoots down revelations from Mueller investigation

[Ubiquitous]

Alan Dershowitz is VERY UNIMPRESSED by the revelations in the filings
against Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort today, and he laid it all out
in this pretty informative segment with Tucker Carlson.

Watch below:
https://youtu.be/KYTY3Fvz4W0

OK, so he has a point - there is no crime outlined in what we know
about Russian collusion and the Trump administration. Then he goes on
about his speculation about what the Mueller report will be - he says
that he won't be able to find actual crimes, so he'll lay out a bunch
of "sins" that Trump might have committed, and blur the line between
sins and crimes.

Honestly, that's what both sides have been doing ever since Trump was
elected, of the other side. BUT Dershy has a point. If that's all
Mueller does, then he has NOTHING, and this investigation has pretty
much cleared Trump. BUT, that is all speculation.

It's kind of annoying for Tucker Carlson to run with Dersh's
speculation as if it it's already accepted fact, and then criticize
Mueller for something that he hasn't done yet.

There is ONE discrepancy he doesn't explain. WHY would Cohen lie to the
FBI to protect Trump if there was nothing to protect him from? Did
Cohen just lie for the fun of it? Doesn't quite make sense. But again,
that is also speculation.

SO. as always, no conclusions. Just accusations. Except for Cohen, who
is likely going to jail for a looooong time.

IN any case, the segment really is worth watching because Dershowitz is
a bright guy, and definitely worth listening to, even if you may not
agree 100%.

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[FPP]

On 12/10/18 4:44 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Honestly, that's what both sides have been doing ever since Trump was
> elected, of the other side. BUT Dershy has a point. If that's all
> Mueller does, then he has NOTHING, and this investigation has pretty
> much cleared Trump. BUT, that is all speculation.

No. Campaign finance violations are a FELONY.
A felony *is* a crime. Period.

And Cohen has testified that he was directed to commit those crimes by
Donald Trump.
I don't give a fuck was some has-been bootlicker says. They ARE crimes.

--
TRUMP 2020
20 for Obstruction, and 20 for Treason.

[FPP]

On 12/10/18 4:44 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> BUT Dershy has a point. If that's all
> Mueller does, then he has NOTHING, and this investigation has pretty
> much cleared Trump. BUT, that is all speculation.

It's the 7th inning... and you want to declare the winner already?

So, who won the 2018 Superbowl this year?

[trotsky]

Look what they impeached Clinton on: lying to Congress. Hell, Congress
lies to itself.

[moviePig]

But alas, since Cohen is a lore-yer, Trump can argue that Cohen was
always implicitly supposed to *reject* illegal orders.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Shadow]

And then he opened his eyes and gasped in horror.....
<continues>


On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 4:44:03 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:

....... Something about it wasn't TV related..
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Ubiquitous]

S...@dow.br wrote:

>....... Something about it wasn't TV related..

Baseless assertion noted.
(Here's a clew: Try Googling "Tucker Carlson Tonight")

[FPP]

So it's conspiracy, too!

[FPP]

On 12/11/18 9:58 AM, moviePig wrote:

So what you're saying is that if you can find a lawyer who tells you
it's OK to murder your wife, you're off the hook?

Nope. Ever heard of the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."?

"Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a
Latin maxim which means "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or
"ignorance of the law excuses no one." The rationale of this maxim is
that if ignorance of law was an excuse then any person charged with a
criminal offense or subject of a civil suit can claim that he or she was
unaware of the law in question and avoid liability. The law imputes
knowledge of all laws to all persons within its jurisdiction. The
doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published
and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette,
made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for
sale to the public at affordable prices."

That dog won't hunt...

[moviePig]

Sounds correct, but also awfully like a technicality -- as if Trump told
Cohen, "Murder my wife if it's legal." Don't expect a hearty conviction.

[FPP]

Cohen knew it was illegal... you think he didn't tell his client? You
think a like a really smart person wouldn't know that. You think a
highly intelligent stable genius wouldn't understand?
Someone who only hires the BEST people, and uses the BEST words?

Like "Smocking".

When I go to the store and do my shopping, I don't wear a disguise, and
I don't hide the fact that I shopped.

That's because I know there's nothing illegal or wrong about shopping.
Cohen and Trump, on the other hand, did whatever they could do to hide
what they were doing.

I hardly think it's because Trump was worried about how he'd look.
No... it was because they both knew that what they were doing was to
affect the campaign - and that's illegal.

[trotsky]

On 12/11/18 6:33 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 12/11/18 9:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 12/10/2018 10:38 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 12/10/18 4:44 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> Honestly, that's what both sides have been doing ever since Trump was
>>>> elected, of the other side. BUT Dershy has a point. If that's all
>>>> Mueller does, then he has NOTHING, and this investigation has pretty
>>>> much cleared Trump. BUT, that is all speculation.
>>>
>>> No.  Campaign finance violations are a FELONY.
>>> A felony *is* a crime.  Period.
>>>
>>> And Cohen has testified that he was directed to commit those crimes
>>> by Donald Trump.
>>> I don't give a fuck was some has-been bootlicker says.  They ARE crimes.
>>
>> But alas, since Cohen is a lore-yer, Trump can argue that Cohen was
>> always implicitly supposed to *reject* illegal orders.
>
> So what you're saying is that if you can find a lawyer who tells you
> it's OK to murder your wife, you're off the hook?
>
> Nope.  Ever heard of the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."?

It is at Thanny's house.

[trotsky]

Don't forget the need for a "Boarder Wall" (sic).

[moviePig]

To *me*, of course, your scenario seems quite likely on the relevant
points. But the bar for a conviction, whether by Congress or jury, will
be higher -- as it should be. (I do note that Trump's already calling
for revolt in the event he's unseated.)

[FPP]

Oh, I don't WANT Trump impeached. I want him voted out in 2020, and
then he can be indicted as a private citizen.

He doesn't deserve to be impeached. He deserves to serve time - and not
because I disagree with him politically.

Because he's a fucking crook.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:25:16 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> Sounds correct, but also awfully like a technicality -- as if Trump told
> Cohen, "Murder my wife if it's legal." Don't expect a hearty conviction.

Take a step back: Trump has surrounded himself with criminals.
He promised to drain the swamp, yet brought in a swamp.

from CNN:
The Cohen case gives us a unique window into Trump's mindset,
character and view of the rule of law. To protect his electoral
chances, Trump and Cohen appear to have paid off women in exchange
for their silence about alleged affairs with Trump, in the process
breaking campaign finance laws. Cohen's crimes (though many of
the counts he was convicted on were not connected to Trump) have
implications for Trump that extend far beyond the payment of hush
money. They largely discredit any claim Trump might try to make
about his ignorance of additional potential crimes carried out by
others in his inner circle. The Cohen crimes speak volumes about
the kind of people Donald Trump surrounded himself with.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/opinions/cohen-sentencing-threatens-trump-campbell/index.html