Dershowitz on the Mueller Investigation
Hardly a friend of conservatives or the President, but man he has some great logic in this article.
Comments
-
Now that makes sense.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/379372-trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointedHardly a friend of conservatives or the President, but man he has some great logic in this article.
"Trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointed." Like it or not, Mueller was. In all fairness, can someone say the same thing about Mr. Trump? He "should never have been" elected? Like it or not, Mr. Trump was. He is President. So, Mr. Dershowitz with all of his "great logic" that "makes sense", get over it! Mr. Mueller was appointed and will do his investigation, like it or not. Haters of truth, in light of his appointment, leave Mr. Mueller alone!
Am I being mean or bias? "Absolutely Positively, not"!
- No one lives Mr. Trump's life for him before becoming President (e.g. porn star/groping/silencing women).
- Mr. Trump definitely runs his own administration. He doesn't trust or listen to anyone, even when it's written in bold cap-print (e.g. Fear distrust of staff, cabinet in disarray, massive turn-overs).
- He wanted "dirt" on Hillary (e.g. Wrote a letter on Air Force One for his son-lying about a meeting with a Russian Lawyer).
- Most of his campaign staff met with Russians at some point (e.g. they lied, Session recused himself, Trump is mad at him).
- He is estranged from the truth (e.g. His own staff leak information to the press).
- Mr. Trump wouldn't give a full-throated acknowledgment of Russia's interfering in the US 2016 Election (e.g. hence, Mr. Bob Mueller--A Republican).
- Mueller has been appointed, empowered, have indictments, guilty pleas, and is doing a good job (e.g. moving in on Mr. Trump).
Like it or not, the investigation will continue. Besides, it's "great logic" that "makes sense." CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Am I being mean or bias? "Absolutely Positively, not"!
Hmmm. "Oh Would some Power the gift give us to see ourselves as other see us."
- No one lives Mr. Trump's life for him before becoming President (e.g. porn star/groping/silencing women).
...or your life or mind. I have quite a pile of stuff God has dealt with from my past. I can't throw stones. Maybe you can throw stones. Even if you can, may I suggest that you don't?
- Mr. Trump definitely runs his own administration. He doesn't trust or listen to anyone, even when it's written in bold cap-print (e.g. Fear distrust of staff, cabinet in disarray, massive turn-overs).
You really know a lot of facts about the president. Can we know that before God you can honestly say you know all that?
- He wanted "dirt" on Hillary (e.g. Wrote a letter on Air Force One for his son-lying about a meeting with a Russian Lawyer).
Well, that is a Democrat perspective. That is the kind of things politicians do. It is the kind of things CM does all over these forums to Trump. That is what CM's posts here are all about. Dirt on Trump. Is there a difference from your point of view?
- Most of his campaign staff met with Russians at some point (e.g. they lied, Session recused himself, Trump is mad at him).
Ya think? Or you know? And if so, you know the content? Want to know dirt on me? I talked to a Russian girl yesterday. And I am not even married to one and don't have any in my family. Better start a dirt thread on me.
- He is estranged from the truth (e.g. His own staff leak information to the press).
Is that your opinion, or are you stating facts you know. Prove it (as Bill would say) because I think your allegations are pure personal balderdash.
- Mr. Trump wouldn't give a full-throated acknowledgment of Russia's interfering in the US 2016 Election (e.g. hence, Mr. Bob Mueller--A Republican).
Which probably would have been an actual lie. Why would he acknowledge what he doesn't believe is true? What if we criticise you for not saying the earth is flat?
Wait, I forget, do you?
- Mueller has been appointed, empowered, have indictments, guilty pleas, and is doing a good job (e.g. moving in on Mr. Trump).
And the entire team has found nothing as far as we know.
Like it or not, the investigation will continue. Besides, it's "great logic" that "makes sense." CM
I guess it does to Democrats, who are cash desperate, because it makes American taxpayers, families, widows, etc. pay for their corrupt politics.
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/379372-trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointedHardly a friend of conservatives or the President, but man he has some great logic in this article.
"Trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointed." Like it or not, Mueller was. In all fairness, can someone say the same thing about Mr. Trump? He "should never have been" elected? Like it or not, Mr. Trump was. He is President. So, Mr. Dershowitz with all of his "great logic" that "makes sense", get over it! Mr. Mueller was appointed and will do his investigation, like it or not. Haters of truth, in light of his appointment, leave Mr. Mueller alone!
This is ridiculous. The American people elected President Trump fair and square. Quit being a sore loser.
Am I being mean or bias? "Absolutely Positively, not"!
Yes, you actually are biased.
- No one lives Mr. Trump's life for him before becoming President (e.g. porn star/groping/silencing women).
Clinton, Kennedy....
- Mr. Trump definitely runs his own administration. He doesn't trust or listen to anyone, even when it's written in bold cap-print (e.g. Fear distrust of staff, cabinet in disarray, massive turn-overs).
Not the first president to do that...
- He wanted "dirt" on Hillary (e.g. Wrote a letter on Air Force One for his son-lying about a meeting with a Russian Lawyer).
Just like Hillary paid for Russian dirt on Trump...hmm.... double standard?
- Most of his campaign staff met with Russians at some point (e.g. they lied, Session recused himself, Trump is mad at him).
This is not true. Just simply not true.
- He is estranged from the truth (e.g. His own staff leak information to the press).
???
- Mr. Trump wouldn't give a full-throated acknowledgment of Russia's interfering in the US 2016 Election (e.g. hence, Mr. Bob Mueller--A Republican).
Except he has.
- Mueller has been appointed, empowered, have indictments, guilty pleas, and is doing a good job (e.g. moving in on Mr. Trump).
Hardly a good job. It's a ridiculous investigation.
Like it or not, the investigation will continue. Besides, it's "great logic" that "makes sense." CM
What is great logic that makes sense? Certainly not the investigation.
-
- Mr. Trump wouldn't give a full-throated acknowledgment of Russia's interfering in the US 2016 Election (e.g. hence, Mr. Bob Mueller--A Republican).
@davidtaylorjr said:
Except he has.
I'm curious as to what qualifies to you as a "full-throated acknowledgement" of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, David. To my definition of that term, the president has never given one, but that's because for me, "full-throated" means clear, robust, unconditional, and not subject to misinterpretation. Off the top of my head, I can't think of such a statement from the president.
As recently as last month, according to CNN, Trump remained "unconvinced" that the Russians meddled.
Then there were the handful of times he said Russia "might" have meddled, or probably did, but other countries might have or probably did, too. (we won't soon forget his infamous reference to a "400 pound" hacker on his or her bed)
I recall some tweets earlier this year in which he referenced Russian "meddling," but those references were a means to the end of criticizing Obama ("why didn't Obama do more?") I know of no tweet whose subject was the president's conviction that the Russians meddled. I know of no tweet in which he condemned the Russians for meddling. I know of no tweet in which he called for tougher sanctions on Russia for its meddling (he has yet to enforce ALL of the sanctions Congress passed last summer, and this year, made little or no public comment about the limited sanctions the Treasury Department announced). And he has CERTAINLY made no public comment condemning Vladimir Putin for the Russian government's role in the meddling.
All that's to say, in my view, the president has never issued a "full-throated" acknowledgment of Russian meddling. Will you quote for us a couple of Trump's comments which in your view were "full-throated" acknowledgements?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
- Mr. Trump wouldn't give a full-throated acknowledgment of Russia's interfering in the US 2016 Election (e.g. hence, Mr. Bob Mueller--A Republican).
@davidtaylorjr said:
Except he has.
I'm curious as to what qualifies to you as a "full-throated acknowledgement" of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, David. To my definition of that term, the president has never given one, but that's because for me, "full-throated" means clear, robust, unconditional, and not subject to misinterpretation. Off the top of my head, I can't think of such a statement from the president.
As recently as last month, according to CNN, Trump remained "unconvinced" that the Russians meddled.
Then there were the handful of times he said Russia "might" have meddled, or probably did, but other countries might have or probably did, too. (we won't soon forget his infamous reference to a "400 pound" hacker on his or her bed)
I recall some tweets earlier this year in which he referenced Russian "meddling," but those references were a means to the end of criticizing Obama ("why didn't Obama do more?") I know of no tweet whose subject was the president's conviction that the Russians meddled. I know of no tweet in which he condemned the Russians for meddling. I know of no tweet in which he called for tougher sanctions on Russia for its meddling (he has yet to enforce ALL of the sanctions Congress passed last summer, and this year, made little or no public comment about the limited sanctions the Treasury Department announced). And he has CERTAINLY made no public comment condemning Vladimir Putin for the Russian government's role in the meddling.
All that's to say, in my view, the president has never issued a "full-throated" acknowledgment of Russian meddling. Will you quote for us a couple of Trump's comments which in your view were "full-throated" acknowledgements?
I'm not going to play the game. He acknowledged it and that is full-throated enough for me.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
All that's to say, in my view, the president has never issued a "full-throated" acknowledgment of Russian meddling. Will you quote for us a couple of Trump's comments which in your view were "full-throated" acknowledgements?
I'm not going to play the game. He acknowledged it and that is full-throated enough for me.
Thanks, David.
If I read your response correctly, the adjective "full-throated" is superfluous in front of "acknowledgement" because every acknowledgement is "full-throated," perhaps in the way "dirty" is not needed in front of "dirt" since all dirt is dirty. Our disagreement seems to be that for me, not every acknowledgement is a "full-throated" acknowledgement, while for you, it is.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
All that's to say, in my view, the president has never issued a "full-throated" acknowledgment of Russian meddling. Will you quote for us a couple of Trump's comments which in your view were "full-throated" acknowledgements?
I'm not going to play the game. He acknowledged it and that is full-throated enough for me.
Thanks, David.
If I read your response correctly, the adjective "full-throated" is superfluous in front of "acknowledgement" because every acknowledgement is "full-throated," perhaps in the way "dirty" is not needed in front of "dirt" since all dirt is dirty. Our disagreement seems to be that for me, not every acknowledgement is a "full-throated" acknowledgement, while for you, it is.
He acknowledged it. What more do you want? I mean really? He acknowledged it, he had nothing to do with it, move on with life.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
He acknowledged it. What more do you want? I mean really? He acknowledged it, he had nothing to do with it, move on with life.What I wanted was an example of Trump's full-throated acknowledgement of Russian interference in the 2016 election, since that's what you claimed he's given. But that issue resolved when we discovered that for you, "full-throated acknowledgement" is redundant, whereas for me, it's not.
One new question. You say "he had nothing to do it." Who had nothing to do with what? I don't know whom or what you're referring to with those words.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
He acknowledged it. What more do you want? I mean really? He acknowledged it, he had nothing to do with it, move on with life.What I wanted was an example of Trump's full-throated acknowledgement of Russian interference in the 2016 election, since that's what you claimed he's given. But that issue resolved when we discovered that for you, "full-throated acknowledgement" is redundant, whereas for me, it's not.
One new question. You say "he had nothing to do it." Who had nothing to do with what? I don't know whom or what you're referring to with those words.
Trump had nothing to do with Russian meddling. I don't think Interference is a proper term. Influencing yes, interference no.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Trump had nothing to do with Russian meddling. I don't think Interference is a proper term. Influencing yes, interference no.Last month, U.S. intelligence officials testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian government-backed hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states in an effort to undermine confidence in the concept of "free and fair elections." No vote counting systems were actually affected by the Russian efforts, but the fact that they targeted state voting systems - not just social media content, for example - says to me they intended to interfere with our elections, not just influence them.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Trump had nothing to do with Russian meddling. I don't think Interference is a proper term. Influencing yes, interference no.Last month, U.S. intelligence officials testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian government-backed hackers targeted voting systems in 21 states in an effort to undermine confidence in the concept of "free and fair elections." No vote counting systems were actually affected by the Russian efforts, but the fact that they targeted state voting systems - not just social media content, for example - says to me they intended to interfere with our elections, not just influence them.
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.As you know from reading the article to which I provided a link, "the hackers successfully copied data from some states 'to understand what it consisted of' and to plan future attacks."
How can a foreign actor's hacking into official state voting systems so as to copy data for use in future attacks NOT reflect an intention to interfere in our elections, David?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.As you know from reading the article to which I provided a link, "the hackers successfully copied data from some states 'to understand what it consisted of' and to plan future attacks."
How can a foreign actor's hacking into official state voting systems so as to copy data for use in future attacks NOT reflect an intention to interfere in our elections, David?
I notice that you are referencing one line in which only a few words are an actual quote. I'm gonna need something more reliable than the LA Times.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.
A FOLLOW-UP:
From the transcript of the June 21, 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing:Chairman Burr: In 2016, we saw voter data stolen. How could Moscow potentially use that data?
Mr. Priestap (Bill Priestap - Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Division, FBI): They could use the data in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, in this setting I can't go into all of them. First of all, I think they took the data to understand what it consisted of, what's there, so that they can in effect better understand and plan accordingly. And when I say ``plan accordingly,'' plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future elections and/or targeting of particular individuals, but also by knowing what's there and studying it they can determine if it's it something they can manipulate or not, possibly, going forward.
That sounds like an intention to interfere to me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.
You are determined not to accept that the Russians wanted to interfere with our elections, aren't you? And I haven't even addressed the issue of the potential insignificance of the difference between foreign nation "influence" and "interference" when it comes to elections!
The more people who take your line, David - which is effectively to minimize what the Russians did - the easier it will be for the Russians to do it again in future elections.
I've added a link to the Senate Intel hearing.
**:
Chairman Burr: In 2016, we saw voter data stolen. How could Moscow potentially use that data?
Mr. Priestap (Bill Priestap - Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Division, FBI): They could use the data in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, in this setting I can't go into all of them. First of all, I think they took the data to understand what it consisted of, what's there, so that they can in effect better understand and plan accordingly. And when I say ``plan accordingly,'' plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future elections and/or targeting of particular individuals, but also by knowing what's there and studying it they can determine if it's it something they can manipulate or not, possibly, going forward.
That sounds like an intention to interfere to me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.
A FOLLOW-UP:
From the transcript of the June 21, 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing:Chairman Burr: In 2016, we saw voter data stolen. How could Moscow potentially use that data?
Mr. Priestap (Bill Priestap - Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Division, FBI): They could use the data in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, in this setting I can't go into all of them. First of all, I think they took the data to understand what it consisted of, what's there, so that they can in effect better understand and plan accordingly. And when I say ``plan accordingly,'' plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future elections and/or targeting of particular individuals, but also by knowing what's there and studying it they can determine if it's it something they can manipulate or not, possibly, going forward.
That sounds like an intention to interfere to me.
Actually that proves my point. It didn't say at all what the LA Times tried to portray. That sounds like they want to use the data so they know how to influence more like they already have. You got nothing.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Targeted how? What exactly did they do? What was their aim? Those questions need to be answered before you can say they interfered.
You are determined not to accept that the Russians wanted to interfere with our elections, aren't you? And I haven't even addressed the issue of the potential insignificance of the difference between foreign nation "influence" and "interference" when it comes to elections!
The more people who take your line, David - which is effectively to minimize what the Russians did - the easier it will be for the Russians to do it again in future elections.
Yet the US does the same things.... Apparently it is fine when we do it but when other countries do it we get up in arms?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually that proves my point. It didn't say at all what the LA Times tried to portray. That sounds like they want to use the data so they know how to influence more like they already have. You got nothing.The FBI rep said the Russians want to "impact" elections, "target" particular individuals, and pursue possible "manipulation" of data - DATA THEY STOLE BY HACKING INTO STATE ELECTION SYSTEMS!
As I said, David, you are determined not to believe what the Russians did was all that bad. In fact, from your second response, you think we do the same kind of thing (please provide a link to information that the U.S. has ever hacked into foreign nation electoral systems) You're wrong, David, but I know you won't be convinced. Your Trumpster loyalties have given you indefatigable resistance to the idea (recall that as recently as last month President trump expressed doubt that the Russians tampered with our election; he's resistant, too) but what the Russians did was serious, VERY serious.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually that proves my point. It didn't say at all what the LA Times tried to portray. That sounds like they want to use the data so they know how to influence more like they already have. You got nothing.The FBI rep said the Russians want to "impact" elections, "target" particular individuals, and pursue possible "manipulation" of data - DATA THEY STOLE BY HACKING INTO STATE ELECTION SYSTEMS!
It doesn't say manipulate the data. You added that in. You made an assumption based on a preconceived idea.
As I said, David, you are determined not to believe what the Russians did was all that bad. In fact, from your second response, you think we do the same kind of thing (please provide a link to information that the U.S. has ever hacked into foreign nation electoral systems) You're wrong, David, but I know you won't be convinced. Your Trumpster loyalties have given you indefatigable resistance to the idea (recall that as recently as last month President trump expressed doubt that the Russians tampered with our election; he's resistant, too) but what the Russians did was serious, VERY serious.
I am not saying that it's not bad to meddle in other countries elections. And I'm not a Trumpster. Trust me I held my nose voting for him. I wanted Ted Cruz. I just don't think what the Russians did is as serious as you and the Democrats try to claim.
It did not impact the results, no votes were changed. At the end of the day Americans made the decisions.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
It doesn't say manipulate the data. You added that in. You made an assumption based on a preconceived idea.From the testimony I quoted earlier, when asked how Moscow might use the data they stole:
"And when I say "plan accordingly,'' plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future elections and/or targeting of particular individuals, but also by knowing what's there and studying it they can determine if it's it something they can manipulate or not, possibly, going forward.
They want to find out whether they might be able to manipulate data in the future. The "it's" in the phrase "whether it's something they can manipulate or not" is clearly stolen data - NOT the 2016 data they stole! but future stolen data. The clear meaning of the testimony, David, is that the witness believes Moscow might, after studying the stolen data, conclude Russia could manipulate that kind of data in future elections. How in the world does that NOT reflect an intention to interfere in our elections?
I am not saying that it's not bad to meddle in other countries elections. And I'm not a Trumpster. Trust me I held my nose voting for him. I wanted Ted Cruz. I just don't think what the Russians did is as serious as you and the Democrats try to claim.
When a foreign nation tries to hack into 21 U.S. state voting systems - whether it succeeds or fails - to me, that's very serious. You apparently believe that's "bad" but not "as serious" as I and others believe it is.
Had the Russians breached election systems in all 50 states, would that have been serious to you? Please give me a sense of what "serious" election meddling would have looked like in your view. Is election meddling serious only when votes are changed and results are impacted? [But given the sophistication and reach of Russian social media campaigns - all those "fake news" stories about Hillary Clinton that they created and lots of people believed - it's really hard to say with certainty that "no votes were changed" well before voters got to their polling places]
-
By the way, the USA does meddle in elections:
-
Unless we have a Dave-ian theology that man has no free will and votes as directed by God, then we are stuck with the plausibility that meddling, Russian or otherwise is kind of a silly worry. Data is data, facts are facts, lies are lies, whooop--deeeee--diddle--dooo. I wouldn't vote based on that junk anyhow.
I am beginning to pity a little though, to think that the kind of people who would worry about such things could surely only be the kind of people who are swayed by such things. Either that or the howl in the forest is just that--a howl in the forest because it feels good when a people are just plain fist-pounding mad at the world, God, and themselves.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
By the way, the USA does meddle in elections:So that makes it alright for Russia to meddle in America's Elections? David, this is a two-year-old reasoning. "Tit-for-Tat: You Kill my Dog I’ll your Cat". I sure you heard it in American School Yards. Mr. Trump doesn't really believe Russia did anything. He believed it was "a 400-pound man, on the side of his bed, in a basement somewhere." "Head in the sand", after 17-U S Agencies affirmed the meddling. Who's in denial? Love Trump, but face reality!
Regardless, America is investigating it, all the more, if there is any truth to the above report. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
By the way, the USA does meddle in elections:So that makes it alright for Russia to meddle in America's Elections? David, this is a two-year-old reasoning. "Tit-for-Tat: You Kill my Dog I’ll your Cat". I sure you heard it in American School Yards. Mr. Trump doesn't really believe Russia did anything. He believed it was "a 400-pound man, on the side of his bed, in a basement somewhere." "Head in the sand", after 17-U S Agencies affirmed the meddling. Who's in denial? Love Trump, but face reality!
Regardless, America is investigating it, all the more, if there is any truth to the above report. CM
You really need to cut the rhetoric and read what I actually say, not keep harping your liberal democrat talking points.
-
I know a lady who once accused my wife of stealing toothpicks from her kitchen cupboard. It was quite a blow-up, partly because I couldn't stop laughing, which didn't help matters at all. My wife wanted me to defend her against such ludicrous accusation (but to my shame, all I could do was snort and blow coffee) and the other lady, a true, blue Sister, was deeply offended by whom she thought was a lying thief.
I know my flaws and have duly repented and my wife has forgiven me--our marriage was soon restored to happiness. My wife remains accused of stealing toothpicks and the accuser is sadly estranged from my wife by her belief.
I think this is pretty much the same kind of deal as the accuser above makes against Trump.
BTW, the story above is true.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You really need to cut the rhetoric and read what I actually say, not keep harping your liberal democrat talking points.
I don't know what "liberal democrat talking points" are. What do know is Dershowitz is wrong in his assessment. The Mueller Investigation is not going to stop until it's completed. You can cry into your decaf until it cools, the investigation continues. Hey, send "coffee boy" for a fresh cup. CM
