Dershowitz: Democrats' Focus on Trump 'Crimes' Will Backfire

Democrats' focus on determining what crimes can be found against President Donald Trump will eventually backfire on them, just like when Republicans "overplayed" their hand against former President Bill Clinton, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday.

"Democrats don't win by trying to make a criminal out of their president," Dershowitz told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program, noting that when either side overplays its hand, it causes them to forget their positive agendas.

A few weeks ago, some Democrats in Congress were starting to talk about impeaching Trump, but much of the talk has stopped, and people who do not support the president are starting to speak differently, he said.

"Even David Brooks, who was certainly no supporter of Donald Trump, has said in The New York Times the other day 'enough is enough,'" Dershowitz said. "The American people don't want to see our time and energy spent on criminal investigations, there are already investigations."

 

Well at least the politicians are starting to come to their senses, though I doubt the internet based vocal minority ever will. Especially when you've got plenty of folks out there paid to post the same tripe over and over.

 

Dershowitz is a shill. We don't care what he says.

 

Nobody cares about a legal HAS-BEEN'S opinion.

Dershowitz is a has-been.

That said, if Dereshowitz is so worried about Trump's legal fate:

I suggest he VOLUNTEER to join Don's legal team.

Case closed.

 

LOL at has been. You really don't jack about Dereshowitz do you?

 

In 2008 Dershowitz endorsed Clinton for President. That's the same person Donald Trump endorsed in 2008. Maybe they met each other at some Hillary fundraisers and got chummy.

He actually is a very smart man with a really good legal mind. Not so sure about his expertise in politics.

 

What is becoming apparent is 1. Everyone would not be lawyering up if there was incriminating evidence and 2. Conservatives are so angry at Democrats, they end up showing hypocritical traits. Like for instance, if Trump comes out guilty of these crimes, they will give a "Deer in the Headlights" response like Paul Ryan did like "He's just learning on the job." Yet these same conservatives cried out about Clinton being above the law, when we all knew Benghazi as simply a political ploy. Trump is so far looking like a second version of Nixon, just with family accomplices. It's also clear what the Democratic agenda needs to be for 2020.

 

"Democrats don't win by trying to make a criminal out of their president," ? I'll just point out that after 8 years of investigating anything "clinton", it seems to have worked for the right. Those endless investigations actually cost her the Presidency. And I seem to remember the Republicans actually publicly admitting that they needed to keep investigating her so that she would loose the election, and they started that around 2012 right ?

"The American people don't want to see our time and energy spent on criminal investigations..." ........since they are now hurting republicans.......

First off, its laughable of any republican to even say that out-loud. After the last 8 years of endless investigations and no concrete evidence of anything, the right now wants a truce ? The hypocrisy of that statement is so thick its hard to even hear the real words !!!!!

 

Are you sure it wasn't that people were tired of being called racist?
Are you sure it wasn't that people were sick of a growing rift in the United States?
Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with a falling respect for the Left as a whole?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with Bernie supporters voting 3rd party once they all found out the system was rigged against their Candidate?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with her health?
Are you sure it wasn't due to her disastrous decisions to not campaign or conduct their own polls towards the end of the campaign cycle?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with evidence of MSM and DNC collusion?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with Debbie Schultz being found of colluding to promote Hillary, being fired from the DNC, and then hired by the Hillary Campaign within days of each other?
Are you certain that the allegations surrounding corruption of the Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with it?

No, you're stating that it was Comey that did it, right? Comey is what cost her the election. Russians too, I'm sure?

 

He has been teaching US Constitutional law at Harvard since '67. He knows what he is talking about. When he speaks, its a good idea to listen.

 

I already said he's a very smart man with a good legal mind. In fact, right in that very post you quoted. But he isn't talking about legal matters. He's talking about politics. Teaching Constitutional Law doesn't make you an expert on how or why people vote as they do in elections. That's why campaigns hire people who are experts in elections, and hire lawyers when they need legal advice and counsel.

 

Those had an affect but the core problem was that she was a tainted candidate. All of those investigations, accusations, and hearsay made her a bad candidate.

Those constant accusations and the endless investigating of anything she did made her a bad candidate. Nothing concrete, no smoking gun, no trial, just accusation and investigation which tainted her candidacy. Now thats not to say if she ran against a better republican candidate than Trump she would have won, but the constant bombardment of accusation against everything she did absolutely tainted her a a candidate.

And politicians on the right publicly admitted that was their strategy

 

I'm unsure what you're saying here. Are you saying the investigations are political? Kafka wrote on this issue. Perhaps MSM and yourself should seek Kafka's advice on the subject. If you want legal opinions, Dershowitz is worth a listen.

Cheers

 

I didn't say anything about investigations. Not sure why you thought I did.

 

David Brooks is a fake conservative who they hired so they could say, "Even David Brooks...." left and right all the time. This so called Conservative has views to the left of most Democrats. If he is conservative, my 3 inch thick pizza with the sauce on top is New York style.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what "crimes" we're talking about. Seems to be a moving target. Collusion seems to be last week's news. Now we're on to obstruction, but I'm not seeing it. So where to next?

The core problem was that she was a candidate who needed to be told what her positions were on any given issue. A candidate who was the darling of the mainstream media, even while having problems with a good chunk of the American electorate. A candidate who needed to be provided debate questions because she couldn't be bothered to prepare for such a trivial matter. A candidate who needed help from the DNC to take care of the nomination challenge posed by a seventy-something socialist. Perhaps it wasn't the constant bombardment of accusation that was the problem, perhaps it was erasing tens of thousands of emails from her server, or having classified documents on an unsecured server, or thinking anyone who disagreed with her was deplorable. Or maybe she's right, it's all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Who said anything about David Brooks being conservative? The quote says that he isn't a Trump supporter, and no, he isn't a Trump supporter.

 

The collision part I think goes beyond Trump, like the visits to Moscow Carter Page made in July last year. Or the big payout from Ukraine Manafort got. The obstruction part is if Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation Comey was initiating. Trump openly admitted Russia was on his mind when he fired Comey. I don't think the idea Trump was going to fire Comey anyway, or that Comey was fired over the handling of the Clinton emails holds any water. The timing, for starters, is too stark in contrast, and Trump initially decided he was going to keep Comey (we all have seen that clip of Comey walking up to Trump in the oval office, Trump whispering in Comey's ear, "I look toward to working with you"). Then, of course, there's having the Russian ambassador and photographers in the oval office, all the while banning any American press from being in the room. And then you have Trump's lawyers flip-flipping each time Trump blabbers on Twitter.

 

His job at the NYT is to be the token Republican. He is about as Republican as Joe Scarborough, who has a similar token Republican job, and regularly argues positions from the left against moderate Democrats that are to his right.

 

Right. Maddow is the source of all knowledge.

 

A shill for the Democrat party? You know he is a Liberal Democrat, right?

This clip where he notes he "enthusiastically voted for Hillary" might educate you a bit:



Also at 4:30 he describes people like you, and the heat he takes from both sides for not being suitably partisan, in their view.

 

I'll stick with Laurence tribe who's taught there since 68 after clerking for a Supreme Court justice.

 

[/QUOTE]

^ This from a self proclaimed politician? Who is the shill here?

2nd Amendment and gun control[edit]
Dershowitz is a strong supporter of gun control. He has criticized the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, saying that it has "no place in modern society".[56] Dershowitz supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."[57]


Animal rights[edit]
Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights.[68] In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004), he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the "somewhat arbitrary decision" to single out our own species for different and better treatment. "Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights."[69]

Sounds like a Bible-thumping Evangelical Southern Baptist with a Jewish name to me, how about you?


Sorry, you do not pass go, do not collect $200. An alligator will take your hand off if you even think about trying it.

 

That's what the mainstream of America wants the deranged anti-trumpers to do, STFD and **** and accept the decision of the Electorate.

But they hate the American People, they hold us in disdain and they think they have the divine right to rule us. Only problem is, WE rule US.

 

"I'm not going to listen to the most famous law professor in the world, because he disagrees with me. I'm going to listen to another guy nobody heard of, because he supports my views."

This is basically what you are doing. Also, why not listen to his argument, and make a critique of it yourself? Credentialing is no substitute for your own well thought out opinion. This is, after all, a discussion forum. Why be afraid to say WHY you think Dershowitz is wrong? We won't bite....hard.

 

What's laughable is that you would call Dershowitz a Republican. He is a life long Liberal and supporter of Democrats who "voted enthusiastically for Hillary".