Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

Dershowitz may say he voted for Biden but he's consistently a shill for Trump.

I mean come on -Worse than anything he's seen in Russia??? You know that's absurd. Putin had his biggest political opponent jailed on actual politically motivated charges, poisoned, and ensured he died in jail. There are countless other Putin critics who have been murdered through poison or balcony mishaps. If that's not a giant red flag to stop listening to Dershowitz then I don't know what is.

 

I don't know if that is false. He is a legal expert. So, what he says carries more weight than any of us. He also was in the court room, which makes him a direct eye witness to the trial. You and I were not.

 

This is exhibit A why he sold out to pander to the right wing media. Helps some people sleep a little better at night about voting for a vile human being.

 

The "Trump shouldn't have been convicted of a felony" defense:

Ok so maybe he had an affair with a pornstar while his wife was at home with their newborn, and then when he was caught on tape saying he could grab women by the p***** he set up an elaborate scheme to pay her off, while falsifying business records in the process, in an effort to make sure voters didn't learn about his lack of character, BUT TECHNICALLY it only should have been a misdemeanor.

 

Damn - forgot to include while explicitly conspiring with a media outlet to plant false, negative stories on his opponents and suppress negative stories being shopped about himself.

 

Re: Dershowitz being a legal " expert".
1. You know what they say about opinions
2. Giuliani is a " legal expert" too ( with all the credibility of whatever is stuck to the bottom of your shoe.)

 

He taught at Harvard Law School. That carries some kind of weight does it not?

 

That in itself does not render him beyond reproach. He' been carrying water for Trump unashamedly for years now. #shill

 

Did it carry weight with y'all when their prez was accused of plagiarism?

 

Yes, with that one person. I don't think that totally undoes or cancels someone's expertise, though. But it is a shame. All of this just seems like an ad hominem attack to dismiss someone's opinion you don't like. Dershowitz is a legal expert whether you like his opinion or not. He also claims he voted for Biden, which is believable given the fact that he was a professor at Harvard. It is very difficult to work your way up in the academic world and not be influenced to the majority of the academy's way of thinking about things. So, I believe he is probably telling the truth there. He probably shares many of the social values of his peers in the academy.

 

Dershowitz also said MSNBC was lying through their teeth about what happened in the court room. He compared them to Pravda. It is kind of scary to think that we have a communist enclave in our country in New York and a communist media will lie through their teeth to cover for them.

 

He also worked for Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Does that carry weight?

 

It's not as if Deshowitz was one of a select few in the courtroom. It was open to anyone including journalists from all the media outlets. It's not at all a secret what happened in there. There were a dozen different journalists live tweeting everything that happened. The court transcripts were published every day, including sidebar conversations between the judge and attorneys that no one was able to hear at the time.

He's an outlier in his opinion and quite honestly you should be skeptical of any claim that the prosecutors and the judge completely misinterpreted or misapplied the law. Could it happen? Sure. But it's extremely unlikely that they would bring a case with this level of scrutiny against the former president based on an incorrect law that would immediately get overturned (or more realistically the defense would be able to appeal and get thrown out). You don't have to be an attorney to understand how unlikely that is.

Edit: the allegedly biased judge even objected on behalf of the defense and then told the defense attorneys they should be objecting more during the testimony of Stormy Daniels. Does that sound like a judge that's completely biased?

 

Dershowitz claimed there were parts of the trial where the media was asked to leave the court room, but he was not asked to leave because he is not part of the media. Some of the parts he was commenting on were when the media was not in the court room.

 

Lies by Dershowitz..

The media was not exclusively told to leave, and regardless, transcripts from when the courtroom was cleared were published. One of which was when the defense witness Robert Costello got a dressing down for disrespecting the judge. Merchan did it in private without the jury to avoid prejudice but the transcript was later published. Here you go:

Read the transcript: Trump judge scolds witness in Monday's trial

 

I do stand corrected at least as far as Dershowitz claiming he was allowed to stay. I have no way to refute that, but the transcript in the link starts on page 252. On page 256 the judge states that the record of the conversation will not be sealed and the press will have access to it.

Doesn't sound like a judge trying to do anything nefarious or hide anything. Nor does Trump's attorney object in anyway when the judge says he'll hold Costello in contempt and strike his testimony. Trump had highly paid attorneys. If that was so blatantly unconstitutional don't you think they may have said something? Alternatively, Dershowitz could just be lying about that point which seems more likely.

 

And this is what another Harvard Law professor had to say about Trump and by the way in addition to Laurence Tribe the article was coauthorized by J. Michael Luttig a well respected retired Federal judge.
The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again
Tribe's opinion on Trump's presidential immunity argument
Laurence Tribe: "If Trump Can Get Away With It, the Rule of Law Is No Longer Tenable"
Tribe's most recent opinion of Trump following the jury verdict

 

As far as opinions of Trump go...I would take that with less weight than his legal opinions. I would take his interpretation of the 14th amendment to be valid. Yes, if Trump attempted to lead an insurrection, then he should not be allowed to be President. But I don't think he attempted to lead an insurrection. That is 1/6 propaganda from American Pravda.

 

To confirm, MTG strongly denying she does NOT worship Trump.

 

If Tim Scott's shoe fits, wear it.

That's the Trump "I'm a victim" "mentality." To society as a whole, it's called justice.