Alan Dershowitz reputation is shot to hell

Dershowitz is bizarrely arguing that Trump can do whatever he wants as long as he believes that his re-election is in the best interest of the American people. 

Dershowitz reputation, which he presumably has spent his life building,  is shot to hell because he just had to become a Trump toad. 

Inexplicable. 

Yet all the people proven wrong by Trump's success are still credible? We heard it all, "Trump will never be president", "the stock market is going to crash", "we are going to war". Yet you wonder why people distrust the liberal media. Ha!

mediaite

Alan Dershowitz , who spoke in President  Donald Trump’s  defense at the impeachment trial this week, was at the White House today for the president’s Middle East peace plan announcement.

At one point during the event, Trump  praised Secretary of State  Mike Pompeo  for berating an NPR reporter because of her questions about Ukraine.  Mary Louise Kelly  said after the interview, Pompeo erupted and yelled at her and asked her if she could point to Ukraine on a map. She said she did. Pompeo issued a stunning statement in response that insinuated she pointed to the wrong country.

On CNN tonight, Dershowitz and  Jeffrey Toobin  got pretty heated over the impeachment trial before Toobin took a moment to ask Dershowitz why he gave Pompeo a pat on the back as Trump praised Pompeo over that confrontation.

“Why are you patting Mike Pompeo on the back?” Toobin asked.

“Because I like Mike Pompeo’s views on the Middle East,” Dershowitz said. “I thoroughly disapprove of the way he has reportedly treated a reporter. I don’t think reporters should be treated that way, in any way, and I don’t think presidents should say that it’s a good thing to treat a reporter like that.”

“You patted him on the back when the president was praising him for attacking the reporter,” Toobin said.

“I think you’re reading too much into that. I had patted him on the back a dozen times when we talked about the Middle East. That’s what my pat was intended to encourage,” Dershowitz responded. “If he can help to bring about peace in the Middle East, I’ll forgive him his rudeness toward a reporter.”

You can watch above, via CNN.

I watched the video that comes with this story. As Trump praises Pompeo for berating and screaming at the female NPR reporter, most of the audience is laughing along with Trump. As is Alan Dershowitz, who reaches out and taps Pompeo on the back at the same time.  Such a gesture, of course, means something like , "you did good". 

When asked about it by Jeffery Toobin, Dershowitz says he likes Pompeo so he patted him on the back. He likes Pompeo because Pompeo is very pro-Israel and anti-Iran. 

Here we see what I have been saying for months, and Buzz says I have been exaggerating or imagining.  Dershowitz admitting that he bases his current political beliefs on what the politicians involved can do , or not, for Israel. 

This has caused Dershowitz to write columns for an Islamophobic publication, pat Pompeo on the back while Trump praises him for bullying a woman reporter,  and stand in front of the nation at the impeachment and say Trump can do whatever he wants as long as Trump thinks his re-election is in the best interest of the country. 

What's next? 

Just one more TDS (Trump DENIAL Syndrome) sufferer debasing themselves as they worship at the altar of Crooked donnie.

I can hardly believe I am seeing some of this stuff come out of this man's mouth.  he is really losing it , and is being blasted mercilessly on social media. 

"He doesnt get invited to the same parties anymore, he is shunned bu old colleagues, no one will offer him honorary degrees or make him commencement speaker."

"I can hardly believe I am seeing some of this stuff come out of this man's mouth.  he is really losing it , and is being blasted mercilessly on social media."

Because he had the CHUTZPAH to defend the President of the United States - YOUR president, like it or not.  Well, I guess if he was able to defend satanic criminals like Von Bulow and OJ Simpson, as a lawyer he is capable of defending anyone.

The only two criminal trials I ever was counsel for was an English nanny who stole stuff from the family who had hired her and a biker who was caught with an illegal gun.  I lost both cases, but I defended criminals, so now you can shit on me too.

According to the article, apparently it's disgraceful to defend the State of Israel, so there's another reason to shit on me. 

and is being blasted mercilessly on social media

I doubt very much he cares. His self esteem doesn't seem to come from that kind of thing.

According to the article, apparently it's disgraceful to defend the State of Israel, so there's another reason to shit on me. 

So non logical defense of Donald Trump is now defense of Israel?  No, although I agree that Dershowitz might think so. Dershowitz is making a fool out of himself, as anyone does who abandons their previous beliefs to defend Donald Trump. He is hardly the only one. 

Six months ago you were saying Dershowitz is not a Trumpster. Now that he is saying that Trump can do whatever he wants because he believes it is in the best interest of America that he be  re-elected, what do you say now? 

By the way, the article is in no way a criticism of Israel. 

"Dershowitz is bizarrely arguing that Trump can do whatever he wants as long as he believes that his re-election is in the best interest of the American people." 

"Now that he is saying that Trump can do whatever he wants because he believes it is in the best interest of America that he be re-elected,"

Those are YOUR interpretations of what was said in the article, which are not the same as what was said. 

I never said it was a criticism of Israel.  I felt it was a shot at Dershowitz's defence of Israel, and since it's pretty well established that I defend Israel, then it was a shot at me as well. You have also called ME a trumpster because the only thing I've appreciated that Trump has done is his support of Israel.

Your comments indicate an uncanny ability to twist what others say into meaning what YOU want them to mean. 

Those are YOUR interpretations of what was said in the article, which are not the same as what was said. 

I wrote the article Buzz. Maybe you are referring to Andrea Mitchell's tweet about Dershowitz, which I included. 

You have also called ME a trumpster because the only thing I've appreciated that Trump has done is his support of Israel.

YES !  Your appreciation of his support for Israel has caused you to excuse every other thing he does, JUST LIKE DERSHOWITZ DOES. 

Every US president has supported Israel. Every one. This idea that only Trump can protect Israel is bizarre. 

"He's not YOUR 'president' buzz.  What do you care?"

I thought the motto of this site was "Speak your mind".  Are only Americans entitled to do so?  In any event, the topic was Dershowitz, not Trump and my references were about Dershowitz. 

"Who cares what criminal trials you presided over?"

It was a simple contrasting comparison to make a point. 

"Who's shitting on you?"

I never said anyone WAS shitting on me.  Read again carefully what I said.

I am pretty sure the Israelis didn't appreciate Obama's idea of support. In fact I know they didn't.

Of course it is OK for the US to interfere in another country's election, even an ally's, so long as they have that all coveted D behind their name.

"YES !  Your appreciation of his support for Israel has caused you to excuse every other thing he does, JUST LIKE DERSHOWITZ DOES". 

I'm really tired of repeating over and over again and you know damn well that I have criticized Trump for what has affected me personally, has cost me money, such as his bullying Trudeau to give up some of Canada's NAFTA benefits and his trade war with China. As well I've said he was a fool for trusting NK's Kim. Why should I be concerned about him if what he does doesn't negatively affect me, Canada, Israel or China - he's not MY president.  That does not mean I excuse every other thing he does just because I don't waste my time posting diatribes about him like you do, so your accusation is INSULTING.and AGAIN is putting words in my mouth.

"Every US president has supported Israel. Every one. This idea that only Trump can protect Israel is bizarre."

I never said that only Trump can protect Israel.  AGAIN you are putting words in my mouth.  However, maybe YOU don't think so, but he has been more supportive of Israel than any other POTUS has been, and do I actually have to tell you how?

I will be turning off my computer for the night now as it is after 10 p.m. here, so if you intend to put more words in my mouth I won't be able to correct you until after breakfast.

Buzz, you have defended Trump many times here on many issues. 

I am hardly the only one on Newstalkers that has noticed it. 

Well, I guess if he was able to defend satanic criminals like Von Bulow and OJ Simpson, as a lawyer he is capable of defending anyone.

The problem with that Buzz is that Dershowitz has stated multiple times that he is NOT a member of the 'defense team' and that his part is to share his expert knowledge as a Constitutional scholar. 

You took issue with paraphrasing his statement so how about you address the quote of his actual statement:

 “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Do you think that's kosher Buzz? 

I suppose that in your mind not openly agreeing with your daily damning of your president means disagreeing with it.  

I have no idea - I'm not an American Constitutional lawyer, and have never even read your Constitution right through, so how could I post an opinion on it?  I would take Dershowitz's opinion on it, since he is an American Constitutional lawyer, and I trust his opinion. I'm sure that many of your liberal friends did (as admitted above by JR) UNTIL his opinion on the POTUS's rights under your Constitution conflicted with their hatred of Trump. 

I'm sure that what I just said will be considered by JR to be a support of Trump although it is NOT specific to him, but is a generalization that would apply to ANY POTUS.

I'm sure that many of your liberal friends did (as admitted above by JR) UNTIL his opinion on the POTUS's rights under your Constitution conflicted with their hatred of Trump. 

The issue is that Dershowitz flip flopped on his opinion on the POTUS's rights under the Constitution when it conflicted with his support of Trump. 

Have you never in your lifetime changed your mind about something?  One of the most recent times I did is that when pre-POTUS Obama spoke at the Democratic Convention before he threw his hat in the ring I thought he was amazing and should run for POTUS.  He did, and when he made his inaugural address, and I saw on TV Oprah cry with joy, so did I, and then I learned what he wrote in his book that in the event of a conflict he would side with the Muslims, which he PROVED when he stabbed Israel in the back at the UN in his waning POTUS days, I despised him, just as I now despise Trudeau for being the first Prime Minister to vote AGAINST Israel at the UN. Give me a reason to change my mind and my feet are NOT buried in concrete, like so many others are.

Have you never in your lifetime changed your mind about something? 

Sure, but NOT on something set in stone like the Constitution. 

I learned what he wrote in his book that in the event of a conflict he would side with the Muslims, 

Did you bother to LEARN the CONTEXT of that statement Buzz?

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]:

Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

That's some pretty horrible shit right there isn't it Buzz? /s

which he PROVED when he stabbed Israel in the back at the UN in his waning POTUS days, I despised him,

How did he do that? 

Oh and was it stabbing Israel in the back when, in the 'waning days' as POTUS he proposed and signed the BIGGEST aid package to Israel EVER to become law in the US? 

How did he do that?  He abstained and refused to vote at the UNSC against the resolution denying Israel's rightful legal claim to Judea and Samaria (which I have backed up more than once with a number of intelligent legal opinions) which allowed the resolution to pass. When is the last time that an anti-Israel UNSC resolution was allowed to pass by an American President?  Of course he did that when he no longer needed or wanted the Jewish vote and Jewish campaign funds. 

And there is this...(the link is in my following comment - sometimes when I post links they simply refuse to register)

.

jpost

(as usual sometimes my quoted links refuse to register)

Your link works.

Your link works fine Buzz. It has nothing to do with Judea or Samaria though...

I wasn't specific enough. It had to do with the construction of Jewish settlements on Judea and Samaria.  It's been recently reported that after at least two years of study the US government lawyers have determined that Israel has the legal right to Judea and Samaria, and recently Pompeo declared that there was no problem with Jewish settlements being built there. 

So what was your link about if it's about construction of Jewish settlements? I mean the topic of you link is right in the title. 

Forget it. I give up (but that does not mean I agree - I just have become bored with going around in circles)

 I just have become bored with going around in circles

No circles here Buzz. Just asking you why you posted a link that has nothing to do with an issue that YOU brought up. Hell I didn't even ask you for a link. 

'Oops wrong link' and posting a relevant link could have put you in line with your own posit. But hey, you be you. 

He's talking about things that aren't otherwise treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. It's not like he's saying the president can do absolutely anything he wants to get elected.

But a memo or something went out that everyone was supposed to be outraged at Dershowitz, so here we are - dutiful outrage.

But he is helping Trump!  That is the unforgivable sin to the left.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Excuse me...but didn't Richard Nixon do something similar (cover-up of DNC office break-in)? And what happened to Mr Nixon?

Those "White House plumbers" broke into the DNC headquarters to bug their offices to get ahead of them on the campaign/election of 1972. Nixon may not have ordered it (I think he did) but he certainly covered it up. He did something that he believed would get him elected again...

He did something that he believed would get him elected again...

Yeah but they were actual crimes. Nixon was accused of things like making false statements to an investigative officer, counseling witnesses to give false testimony, interfering with a justice department investigation (aka Obstruction of Justice), conspiring to bribe witnesses, violating the civil rights of American citizens through his abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. There's more, but that's a pretty good list of things that are all actual crimes. I do think there are some specific allegations in the Nixon articles that arguably amounted to maladministration, but almost all of it was criminal and would be criminal whether it had something to do with the election or not.

By contrast, what is Trump charged with? Start with Article II, Obstruction of Congress. Not only is that not a crime for the President, simply declining to cooperate with impeachment or threatening to invoke executive privilege are his constitutional rights. They can't be crimes. If the Executive and the Legislature disagree about the exercise of his rights, the Judiciary is available to adjudicate the matter.

Looking to Article I, what did he allegedly do? He temporarily withheld aid. He's allowed to do that. He even had a legitimate reason, as we see in the testimony. Did he also have a self-serving reason? Maybe, but that doesn't turn into a crime the exercise of a legitimate presidential power.

He is also accused of asking the leader of a foreign government to interfere in an election. Factually, though, that's not what he asked. He asked that leader to investigate a case of corruption in his own country that involved not just an American citizen, but a man who was Vice President of the US at the time. He's allowed to do that, too. The fact that that might also impact our election does not turn it into a crime.

And again, even if you think he is exercising these legitimate powers in a way that he shouldn't, he can be taken to court to resolve the matter. That has been done already several times with his immigration policy. Thankfully, no one tried to impeach him for building a wall or putting limits on immigration from terrorist countries. But it would have been just as wrong.

The aid only flowed once Trump was caught.  Get that through your head. 

Why didnt Trump ask the Department of Justice to investigate Biden?  Why didnt he suggest it to his allies in Congress that they investigate Biden?  Because Trump knew there was no basis . He didnt care with Ukraine because he didnt care if there was an investigation. He wanted the appearance of an investigation, the announcement of an investigation that he could use every day during a campaign against Biden. 

Your idea that Trump has wholesome motives is absurd based on everything we know about Trump. 

Its incredible to read this stuff day after day, it really is. 

Why didnt he suggest it to his allies in Congress that they investigate Biden?  Because Trump knew there was no basis . 

So do his 'allies in Congress'.

Paul, Barrasso, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Perdue and Risch ALL participated in a 2015 hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee Chaired by Corker where the they were told that the 1 B in loan guarantees were 'pegged' to corruption reform. Corker in his opening statement praised the resignation of Sorkin because he was corrupt. They also talked extensively about Biden's actions in Ukraine during that hearing. 

Unless ALL of those Senators have amnesia, they know damn well that that Biden was doing in Ukraine was in the best interest of the US AND the Ukraine. 

BTFW, not ONE of those Senators made a peep about the loan guarantees being pegged to forcing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor general. NOT ONE. 

The aid only flowed once Trump was caught.  Get that through your head.

Even if true, so what? Presidents suggest or try doing things all the time and then someone complains that they can’t do that or they get taken to court and then maybe change course. Every president has set out to do some thing, seen a bunch of people howl about it, maybe accuse him of “abuse of power” and then they give in to the pressure. You don’t go straight to impeachment over it.

Do you want see a list of things we could have impeached Obama over based on your ridiculous standard?

Why didnt Trump ask the Department of Justice to investigate Biden? . . . He wanted the appearance of an investigation

They aren’t mutually exclusive. He could have the appearance of an investigation by having DOJ do the investigation. He could have the appearance of an investigation by asking anyone to do it. So your implication that who he didn’t ask is important doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter who he asked or who he didn’t ask. He has the prerogative to ask anyone he wants. And it doesn’t need to be based on a justification you agree with.

Its incredible to read this stuff day after day, it really is. 

Its incredible to read your stuff day after day, it really is. 

They aren’t mutually exclusive. He could have the appearance of an investigation by having DOJ do the investigation. He could have the appearance of an investigation by asking anyone to do it. So your implication that who he didn’t ask is important doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter who he asked or who he didn’t ask. He has the prerogative to ask anyone he wants. And it doesn’t need to be based on a justification you agree with.

Its incredible to read this stuff day after day, it really is. 

Its incredible to read your stuff day after day, it really is. 

Your comments on this topic are completely nonsensical Trumpster. 

Presidents suggest or try doing things all the time and then someone complains that they can’t do that or they get taken to court and then maybe change course. Every president has set out to do some thing, seen a bunch of people howl about it, maybe accuse him of “abuse of power” and then they give in to the pressure. 

Trump didn't 'suggest or try' he ordered and did so clandestinely, usurping the law. Mutilple people in the DOD and to OLC documented that the hold was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. 

You don’t go straight to impeachment over it.

Oh I AGREE.

The House should have held more hearings and every time a new FOIA document dump happened they should have called every person mentioned in the documents. Not everyone would come but a couple at a time is just fine. 

They should have waited until Bolton's book came out so they could read it in the hearings.

They should have called the 2 people from the DOD/OMB that quit rather than carry out illegal orders.

They should have held seperate hearings in the House Foreign Relations Committee and called the same witnesses that were at the March 2016 hearing in the Senate where Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Risch, Barrasso, Perdue and Paul were told that the 1 billion in loan guarantees was 'pegged' to corruption reform and how Biden had done Yeoman work to get the corrupt Prosecutor General to resign but the pressure had to stay on to get the Ukraine's RADA to accept his resignation. 

THEN they should have Impeached him in August/September in the heat of the election and see just how those Senators would vote after being outed as having full knowledge TRUE of the events. 

Oh and if Trump REALLY believes any of the bullshit he's spewing about the Bidens and Ukraine meddling, I want someone to tell him that those Senators could have done something about it in March 2016, BEFORE the election and they didn't. 

For whatever reason, he has been arguing the last 3 maybe 4 years about what the law should be rather than what it actually is. Of course it has all been couched in the tones of an 'authoritative voice'. He has become in effect, a 'situational legalist'. Much to the happiness I am sure to 'situational ethicists'.