Tue Aug 7, 2018, 01:58 PM
Goodheart (3,275 posts)
Dershowitz argued last night that the Trumps are not in violation of 52 U.S. Code 30121
because the information they sought from the Russians was not the sort of thing intended by "other thing of value" written into that statute. But even if it WAS intended then the statute, itself, is unconstitutional because there can be no restriction on a citizen merely seeking and receiving information.
To which I'd say to Mr. Dershowitz's face "you're not very smart in your old age, are you?" His theory is laughably full of holes.
|
24 replies, 1584 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Goodheart | Aug 2018 | OP |
hlthe2b | Aug 2018 | #1 | |
zipplewrath | Aug 2018 | #2 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #13 | |
marylandblue | Aug 2018 | #17 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #18 | |
zipplewrath | Aug 2018 | #24 | |
brush | Aug 2018 | #3 | |
marylandblue | Aug 2018 | #4 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #14 | |
W_HAMILTON | Aug 2018 | #5 | |
duforsure | Aug 2018 | #6 | |
NewJeffCT | Aug 2018 | #7 | |
Cicada | Aug 2018 | #8 | |
NewJeffCT | Aug 2018 | #9 | |
Cicada | Aug 2018 | #21 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #15 | |
Cicada | Aug 2018 | #22 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #23 | |
Goodheart | Aug 2018 | #16 | |
uponit7771 | Aug 2018 | #19 | |
Cicada | Aug 2018 | #20 | |
NewJeffCT | Aug 2018 | #10 | |
lame54 | Aug 2018 | #11 | |
kwassa | Aug 2018 | #12 |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:01 PM
hlthe2b (84,116 posts)
1. he should never be allowed to spew without a competent counter...
Even Jeffrey Toobin has been effective
|
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:01 PM
zipplewrath (15,767 posts)
2. Stolen information
He best consider whether the family knew, or had reason to believe, that the Russians had obtained it illegally. Which immediately generates the question, "how could they even obtain it legally?"
|
Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:37 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
13. Dershowitz argued even stole information is usable in public and protected by the 1st, there's seems
... something wrong with that if the information is someones personal information.
|
Response to uponit7771 (Reply #13)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:51 PM
marylandblue (12,337 posts)
17. Hmm. he just killed the Copywright Clause of the Consitution
The Copywright Clause authorizes Congress to make copywright laws. Apparently they immediately changed their minds in the First Amendment by prohibiting Congress from abridging free speech through protecting the words found in someone else's book.
I think I'll plagiarize one of his books and see how feels about that. |
Response to marylandblue (Reply #17)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:52 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
18. LOVE the fact there's some smart people on this forum !! You're right, I figured he wasn't telling
... the whole law and a twisted redacted version.
|
Response to uponit7771 (Reply #13)
Wed Aug 8, 2018, 07:11 AM
zipplewrath (15,767 posts)
24. Not if you "colluded" (conspired) to obtain it in the first place
It's one thing if they receive information that was obtained illegally. However, if they were involved in the pursuit and collection of that information by illegal means, then there is a problem.
|
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:02 PM
brush (33,930 posts)
3. Yep, that lurch to right has caused something to go wrong upstairs.
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:05 PM
marylandblue (12,337 posts)
4. So it's constitutional to steal your credit card information?
Response to marylandblue (Reply #4)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:38 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
14. Then give it to a campaign so they can repeat it in public. Yeah, I figured D's argument wasn't soun
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 02:09 PM
W_HAMILTON (4,273 posts)
5. He was so stupid.
Using his rationale, no one can be charged with perjury or lying to the FBI because it would be violating that person's free speech.
I haven't followed him much, but he was apparently respected at one time. I wonder what it takes to cause someone like that to transform into the embarrassment that he is today? |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:01 PM
duforsure (10,925 posts)
6. Wonder what trump has on Ders?
It must be something good.
|
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 03:12 PM
NewJeffCT (56,485 posts)
7. I believe Asha Rangappa
put him in his place on that issue (if you're talking about them being on with Chris Cuomo last night)
She's terrific most of the time. |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 05:42 PM
Cicada (4,224 posts)
8. I would be slow to claim Dershowitz is wrong
I read a book with about a hundred Dershowitz columns. I am conceited, just full of myself in many ways. Perfect scores on some entrance exams. I went to fancy schools and did well competing against the very best. But Alan Dershowitz is a lot smarter than I am. I think he’s wrong sometimes. But on something like this point of law I would never bet against him. His argument also makes sense to me.
|
Response to Cicada (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:01 PM
NewJeffCT (56,485 posts)
9. Dershowitz is a criminal law expert
he is not a constitutional law expert like Laurence Tribe
Sure, of course he knows the constitution, but that's not his specialty. |
Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #9)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:01 PM
Cicada (4,224 posts)
21. The logic of law applies in many different applications
The idea that law should support public good is valid for criminal law and for election law. An informed electorate is a public good.
|
Response to Cicada (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:40 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
15. Me too, I'll be honest but he seems to leave shit out. Stolen information used by a campaign can't
... be protected.
Like Trump steeling or accepting stolen credit card information and then telling the public the credit card numbers Somethings not lawful there. I'm thinking the information has to be relative to the context for it to be "a thing of value" |
Response to uponit7771 (Reply #15)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:02 PM
Cicada (4,224 posts)
22. Pentagon papers were stolen
Response to Cicada (Reply #22)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 09:13 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
23. I'm thinking its who they were taking from and were handed to and why that makes taking stolen email
... emails different.
Would whistle blower protection make the Pentagon Papers different? Thx in advance |
Response to Cicada (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:47 PM
Goodheart (3,275 posts)
16. On this he is obviously wrong.
Suppose, for example, that that information was stolen user names and passcodes to a sensitive website. You are not legally entitled to solicit nor receive that information.
|
Response to Goodheart (Reply #16)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:54 PM
uponit7771 (74,572 posts)
19. +1, then spout the information during a rally and claim 1st rights. I'm thinking in regards to ...
... "a thing of value" it has to be contextual also.
It's valuable to get information about a candidate during a campaign in a presidential election but not if it was given to 2nd graders. I'm thinking the "a thing of value" is going to still bite Benedict Donald in the azz |
Response to Goodheart (Reply #16)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:54 PM
Cicada (4,224 posts)
20. Some information is useful in elections, even if other information is not
There is value in the public knowing many things and we should encourage that knowledge. So it seems logical for a court to avoid punishing its acquisition. Some information is not useful for good government so I agree that information need not be protected.
|
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:04 PM
NewJeffCT (56,485 posts)
10. Here are the videos of Dershowitz debating Rangappa
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:27 PM
lame54 (29,689 posts)
11. Then why hide it and then deny it
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Aug 7, 2018, 07:33 PM
kwassa (23,340 posts)
12. Dershowitz will say anything to get attention.
Like Trump, like Giuliani. Like a moth to a flame.
|