http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/05/18/dershowitz-special-counsel-bad-idea/
I guess Drumpf threatened him with a tax audit.
I guess Drumpf threatened him with a tax audit.
9/11 did something to him. In spite of calling himself a civil libertarian, his defense of torture is appalling.Dersh has been on CNN alot this week. His opinion of the Special Counsel and the Trump investigations in general is a negative one. He seems to have become an angry old man.
old angry liberal? Is there any other kind?Dersh has been on CNN alot this week. His opinion of the Special Counsel and the Trump investigations in general is a negative one. He seems to have become an angry old man.
I'd tell him, "Come on in. The water's fine!"Dersh has been on CNN alot this week. His opinion of the Special Counsel and the Trump investigations in general is a negative one. He seems to have become an angry old man.
Obstruction of justice is a crime. Does he seriously need this explained to him? Dershowitz is more far gone than I thought."What is the crime?"
(Being pompous and stupid is not a crime.)
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...purpose-of-special-counsel-what-is-the-crime/
Obstruction is indeed a crime and always has been. Out and out treason is a possibility. In any event, we will not know without an investigation, which is the reason for Mueller's appointment. Dershowitz is not making sense, IMO...Obstruction of justice is a crime. Does he seriously need this explained to him? Dershowitz is more far gone than I thought.
I'm not saying there's evidence to properly support that charge, but the possibility that a crime was committed is there, and Dershowitz should know that.
unfortunately, there is a rather large market for this.Obstruction is indeed a crime and always has been. Out and out treason is a possibility. In any event, we will not know without an investigation, which is the reason for Mueller's appointment. Dershowitz is not making sense, IMO...
That's why he's on CNN and cited by Breitbart. Opposite ends of the political spectrum but both are useless to those who actually use critical thinking.unfortunately, there is a rather large market for this.
Pardon my ignorance, but would it also be treason for a military or other non-elected government employee to tell heads of other states to withhold information from the commander and chief? Just curious...Obstruction is indeed a crime and always has been. Out and out treason is a possibility. In any event, we will not know without an investigation, which is the reason for Mueller's appointment. Dershowitz is not making sense, IMO...
Remember that the prime allegiance is to the constitution itself - NOT the commander in chief. So, the correct answer is "not necessarily." However, if it can be proven that an individual in a high post was representing the interests of a foreign government, rather than those of the US, well, people are sitting in federal prison for that right now. Proof is the issue. If anyone can come up with the true facts, it's Mueller. If I were Trump, I'd try to hire Comey back, not that he'd come and not that President Double-Down could ever do that. Remember that Nixon was also "Commander in Chief."Pardon my ignorance, but would it also be treason for a military or other non-elected government employee to tell heads of other states to withhold information from the commander and chief? Just curious...
Doesn't treason require two witnesses to the alleged treasonous act?Remember that the prime allegiance is to the constitution itself - NOT the commander in chief. So, the correct answer is "not necessarily." However, if it can be proven that an individual in a high post was representing the interests of a foreign government, rather than those of the US, well, people are sitting in federal prison for that right now. Proof is the issue. If anyone can come up with the true facts, it's Mueller. If I were Trump, I'd try to hire Comey back, not that he'd come and not that President Double-Down could ever do that. Remember that Nixon was also "Commander in Chief."
It does, and, if the act were treason, there were more than two witnesses. As I said, "proof" is the problem...Doesn't treason require two witnesses to the alleged treasonous act?
Remember we are talking about two different people with obstruction and treason and also "witness" does not mean that both have to be present at the same time or that they be eyewitnesses. There have been many books written on this and it can't be handled in a bulletin board thread. For starters, the terminology of the constitution comes straight from the British Treason Act of 1695, so, presumably, it means the same. Happy reading...Doesn't treason require two witnesses to the alleged treasonous act?
I do teach at a high school, so I guess I have summer reading picked out...Remember we are talking about two different people with obstruction and treason and also "witness" does not mean that both have to be present at the same time or that they be eyewitnesses. There have been many books written on this and it can't be handled in a bulletin board thread. For starters, the terminology of the constitution comes straight from the British Treason Act of 1695, so, presumably, it means the same. Happy reading...
We all may...I do teach at a high school, so I guess I have summer reading picked out...