Posted on 06/06/2019 4:32:08 PM PDT by SJackson
In an interview with FOX News Channel's "MediaBuzz" host Howard Kurtz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz weighed in on the conclusion of the Mueller investigation and wondered if Mueller "knew he could not indict a sitting president under Justice Department regulations," "why did we have a special counsel at all?"
HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS: Joining us now is Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor who wrote the introduction to the Mueller report, the final report of the special counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and collusion. Let me ask how the media have covered Robert Mueller, especially in his televised appearance this week, as an upstanding figure trying to get to the truth?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, I think what happened is the media always substitutes wishful thinking for careful analysis. If there had been a Mueller report about Hillary Clinton or a Democrat and Mueller had done the same thing he did here, that is basically say, look, if the information had proved he was totally innocent we would have said so, many in the media would have attacked that as beyond the proper scope of a prosecutor. The media does not pass the "shoe on the other foot" test. If the political parties were reversed the media would not be consistent. It would always accept its ideology over reporting and I think particularly pundits. The reason so many pundits have been wrong in predicting things and the reason I have been right in predicting almost everything is not that I'm any smarter, but I don't substitute wishful thinking for careful legal analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Why does Alan say he’s a dem.
If he is, he is absolutely considered a traitor.
$30 million dollar question.
Why? To create a perjury and obstruction of justice trap for the President.
almost any trained attorney knew that
(without need of any internal policy memos, too!)
Mueller had nothing. If he had proof of collusion or obstruction of justice, he could have presented it, and the Democrats would have impeached Trump.
I believe the Special Counsel was part of the coup.
“Why? To create a perjury and obstruction of justice trap for the President.”
Why don’t you ask Rosenschmeckel? That effing little Capo was the “enabler” of all of it thanks to the actions of that other waste of skin, Jeffrey Beauregarde Sessions, the Alabama Crapweasel taking a walk on our President! While we are putting a list of those who need to be tried for Treason, found guilty, and executed, let’s not leave out these two POS! Just think of what the past two years could have been (and despite Trump’s trials and tribulations, they have been miraculous) if Mueller had never happened! Trump ( and by extension the country) should get two additional years as compensation for all the $hit he’s had to endure!
My question too when Mueller blamed the OLC for his inaction.
There is no answer that includes an ethical reason for it.
I think about that frequently. One has to imagine a Congress who also believes in America First. Apparently that's a unicorn fantasy.
“Mueller couldn’t indict a sitting president” is a red herring way too many are gobbling up and swallowing without thinking. If Trump was guilty Mueller could have said so, like Ken Starr did eleven times. Mueller didn’t do that, because Trump wasn’t guilty.
Mueller and Hillary’s lawers made million$. Milk it.
They needed a pathway for bribe and hush money. And they never use their own money. Millions was given to contracting companies. My wild guess anyway.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.........the swamps equivalent of a gold watch retirement party to loyal employees.
The guy admits that he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. That right there tells me he’s got something very, very wrong with him even if he’s right on some things.
Alan IS a lib and a democrat. He’s just not a moonbat, at least when it comes to the law. His belief in the law and the American Judicial system is stronger than any misguided libtard notion of “win at any cost.” Law is his first love and when he sees leftists abusing it, even in the name of lib/dim agenda, he calls it what it is...BS. (That’s in my words, but that’s basically what I’ve heard him say. And it makes sense.)
In everything else he’s as lib as they come.
But he votes for EVERYTHING that will destroy our great country so he’s a POS at the end of the day.
Why defend him?
??? I’m NOT defending him. Jeez...buy a vowel. Big difference between answering your question and defending him.
HE’S EVIL!!!!!!!! ALL DEMS ARE EVIL!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AH!!!!!!!!!!!
Apologies :)
There are old folks I know that are dems that are not monsters.
Just backwards or maybe living in a different era.
But you have to admit, if we saw a well known R doing this kind of stuff against Rs, we would tar and feather him.
Though I don’t know where to get tar and feathers around where i live :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.