(1 of 3)To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago, I am correct today. During the Clinton impeachment, the issue was not whether a technical crime was required, because he was charged with perjury.
(2of 3Therefore, I didn’t research the issue; I relied on the academic consensus that a crime was not required. In Trump impeachment, on the other hand, that is the critical issue, because abuse of power and obstruction of congress are neither crimes nor criminal- like behavior.
(3 of 3)So I have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime with all the elements may not be required, criminal like behavior akin to treason and bribery is required.
(3 of 3 cont) To the extent therefore that my 1998 off-the-cuff interview statement suggested the opposite, I retract it. Scholars learn to adapt and even change old views as they do more research.
If Dershowitz has any trouble finding, “criminal like behavior akin to treason and bribery” in the actions of Donald Trump, he will be the only one.
As I listen to the arguments of the Trump team of lawyers in the Senate, I can’t decide whether to be disgusted at their duplicity and ineptitude or to be outraged that we have elected a president who would choose this bunch of idiots to represent him in so solemn a proceeding
Now personally I think that if Trump would just pull random names out of the Martindale-Hubbell directory of attorneys that he’d probably get a better defense team — at least he’d get no worse.
Wow. This says everything about what kind of lawyer you truly are: "I didn’t research the issue …." Who knew that one could be a law professor at Harvard and admit that on an issue as grave as impeachment of a President "I didn’t research the issue"?
Sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.” This is exactly who Dershowitz and the others are, a bunch of sophists, who are putting together every false argument that they can, just as long as it might sound good to the uninformed, in the hopes that they can bullshit their way to a plausible sounding acquittal. You heard soundbites, not law, in the Senate today. There’s no defense there, just talking points. Well, one thing is for certain: Dershowitz isn’t going to be getting any invitations on Martha’s Vineyard after this. Maybe he can just start his own colony of expatriot shysters on Belize, or the like. It’s absolutely true that everything Trump touches dies. The latest apple to fall from the tree, rotted, is former Professor Dershowitz.
6 Comments on "From Scholar To Shyster, Alan Dershowitz Does Revisionist Law, Disowns His ‘1998 Off-the-Cuff Interview’"
Trump doesn’t have the wherewithal to know how to choose a lawyer. All he cares about is how they look and sound on tv. Oh, how the mighty have fallen, now Dershowitz is on the level of the rest of the Trump entourage.
Dershowitz had already morally sunk to the slime-level of the tRumpists when he became Epstein’s enabler and accomplice. Nothing like putting your talents and education to work for a child-sex trafficker.
He’s also ignoring that GAO ruling that Himself DID break the law. And all the witnesses who have said he was trying to get a personal favor from Ukraine, which is also illegal.
I saw an interview with Dershowitz, where he tried every which way to downplay his participation in the hearings. He looked very nervous!
Shorter Dershowitz: Clinton had not committed a crime, but we wanted to convict, so an actually crime is not necessary. Trump has likely committed crimes, but we want to acquit, so an actual crime is necessary.
Fashion Accessories, Jewelry Sets, Key Chain, Mony Clip - Minggui Jewelry,https://www.jewellrylove.com/