Posted on 07/17/2017 6:51:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, told Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro he sees no crime in Donald Trump Jr’s behavior.
“I’m shocked as a civil libertarian, and a criminal lawyer and a liberal at how liberals are, some of them at least, prepared to stretch existing laws, talk about treason, talk about other kinds of crimes that just don’t exist when it comes to the facts as we know them about this meeting,” he said. “So I’m going to keep insisting we stop accusing people of crime when there is no evidence of crime.”
Pirro followed up, asking if receiving valuable information from a foreign national could be prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
“Of course not,” replied Dershowitz. “If it were to be prosecuted the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes. It’s like The New York Times publishing the Pentagon papers case or the Washington Post publishing material stolen by Snowden and Manning. You don’t prosecute the newspaper and you don’t prosecute the candidate or the candidate’s son. If the material was obtained unlawfully you prosecute if you can the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. So you can’t include information under the campaign finance law, that would be unconstitutional."
Pirro then wanted to know if there is any substance to the allegations by some liberals of treason and what, exactly, collusion means.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said last week that after the latest revelations about the meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with a Russian lawyer, that there was now “cold hard evidence of … the Trump family eagerly intending to collude possibly, with Russia … to influence American elections.”
She added: “It’s becoming clear … we have suffered a desecration of our democracy not seen since Watergate.”
Dershowitz offered some clarification.
"Collusion is not a crime unless it’s committing a criminal act. But the treason thing upsets me. When we with wrote our Constitution the British were using treason broadly against their kings. So the writers of the Constitution put a very narrow definition of treason. It is waging war against the United States. It’s inconceivable that anybody with knowledge of the Constitution or American history would argue a private citizen by securing information from for a campaign created treason,” he explained.
“It’s so dangerous to democracy to throw around these criminal law terms and accuse people willy-nilly,” he added.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO (7/15/2017)
So I am too!
“I’m trying to mentally prepare for the day we get handed over to the demonic Dems again”.
That is certainly a very scary thought. They would give us absolutely no quarter.
I believe you are 100% right. I was about to post something similar, but you said it well. Thank you!
“I’m shocked as a civil libertarian, and a criminal lawyer and a liberal at how liberals are, some of them at least, prepared to stretch existing laws, talk about treason, talk about other kinds of crimes that just don’t exist when it comes to the facts as we know them about this meeting,” he said.”
Its all about Leftism, Professor, not liberalism. Those few remaining liberals on Crapitol Hill are siding with the Leftists because they want to survive, politically speaking. They understand (as you apparently do not) that the Dem base is now Leftist and not liberal.
You, of all people, must know that truth and justice are of not even of consideration to the agenda-driven contemporary Left and, in fact, are held in contempt.
Maybe he will turn to the light side of the Force?
Others have done so when they realize that the Democrats are lying to their followers.
Surely he is exempt, lol?.
Hmmm, forgot about that altogether.
It’s not just CNN it’s most of the MSM, it’s getting to the time where they should all be considered as the traitors they are.
“Making up” is the term I would use.
Dershowitz agrees with me!
I posted last week to the Rush Limbaugh Show thread:
The latest argument being floated is that receiving "dirt on Clinton" from Russia could be a campaign finance violation, because the law bans accepting a "thing of value" from a foreign source, and incriminating information on someone would definitely be of "value" to the winning candidate, ergo it is illegal.This strikes me to be an absurd interpretation of what is a "thing of value." Consider this hypothetical example:
Suppose that in 2008, John McCain received a legitimate authenticated copy of Obama's birth certificate from the government of Kenya, which proves that Obama was born outside the United States to a foreign father and an underage mother. This would show Obama to be ineligible to be President under the Natural Born Citizen requirement.Under this new working definition of "thing of value," would receiving this birth certificate from Kenya be illegal because of its obvious value to the McCain campaign?
Are we heading towards a world where knowledge is illegal if it comes from a foreign source and is threatening to Democrats?
-PJ
We could demand that they be removed from our cable providers! 50,000 people would be a good start!
There is a much more important item on the left ‘s minds.
That is the total destruction of all that is Clinton and the stench that will adhere to all leftists as a result. There is no talk at all of the coming assault on the whole rotten shebang. What is will not be. It will be dead.
The hue and cry is where is Sessions? He has no FBI director but must have once that assault begins. The case is so broad and so critical that the depth of the prosecution is without equal in our history.
Good points. Thanks.
Cue Claude Raines
Didn't the GOP try to do the same thing during the O regime?
As I understand it, neither a negative opinion on a blue slip, nor failure to return it, prevents a nominee from being confirmed. Politically, an unfavorable blue slip can have an effect, but a senator who is opposed to a nominee could speak in the senate, go to the press, and vote against, with or without a blue slip.
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.