January 30, 2020
"Watching Dershowitz work, it’s like this: Ink wires itself onto the page, in the wash of his gimpy scrawl."
Nutty caption in the Esquire article, "21 Hours With Alan Dershowitz/Over the course of one week, Tom Chiarella watched Donald Trump’s TV-loving lawyer prepare for his biggest argument to date. He still can’t make sense of it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
Still can’t make sense of it because it is outside of the tortured kind of reasoning Democrats have to employ to remain in good standing with their cult. After all, the mark of a good Democrat is the ability to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Republicans are not perfect, but there is no moral equivalance here when it comes to abandonment of logic, reason, and the rule of law.
Yeah, the problem is with Tom, not with Dersh.
If he was a woodworker people would call him a craftsman. They would be awed by his focus, and his ability to make it look so easy. This is a man who knows his stuff. Or, let's say he knows his craft. He is a craftsman.
This is not only what he does, it's who he is.
If you can't understand someone you should probably not write about them. I can explain both sides' case, even if I think there are flaws.
They have nothing left.
THEOLDMAN
Reminds me of when my FWB watches me cook. "How DO you do that?"
The destruction of Alan D is well underway.
First in the present, and soon after, the past.
They’ll remove him from Nantucket photos before Summer Season begins.
Deplorable by association is a real thing.
It’s like Dersh said “reject first, add some rhetorical bullcrap later”. Or sometihng like that.
“can’t make sense of it because...”
Because Trump!.
It’s not Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)
It’sTSS
Trump Stupidity Syndrome
I am not a lawyer, but I read that it would cause a mistrial in a criminal case if a prosecutor alleged a crime during the trial with which the defendant was not charged. I guess these new critical theory prosecutions Laurence Tribe teaches are different.
Does any straight male still read Esquire ? Just wondering.
Blogger crap x 6 so far 7 8 9 I may be come a lurker. 10
Aunty:
There are circumstances under which a prosecutor may bring forth evidence of prior bad acts by the defendant, factually unrelated to the crime with which he is charged. There are strict limitations upon this, mostly because such evidence can be TOO probative, and the focus of the trial may shift to them away from the actual charges.
The destruction of Alan D is well underway.
First in the present, and soon after, the past.
They’ll remove him from Nantucket photos before Summer Season begins.
Deplorable by association is a real thing.
To the left, there is only personal, never intellectual, Think Alinsky.
Derschowitz is very simple to understand. He has explained it at least three times on TV, that I can remember.
He explains he is not defending President Trump...he is defending the Constitution, not the person. He is defending the law, not the defendant. He is the most prominent person, defending the law. To turn that into personal animus toward Dirschowitz, expose a persons very low intellect.
"here are circumstances under which a prosecutor may bring forth evidence of prior bad acts by the defendant,”
Unproven ones?
A creative writer of fiction doesn't understand a technical discussions about a reality that the creative writer doesn't believe. That's not surprising when you think about it.
The prosecutor presents the evidence of prior bad acts through witnesses and exhibits, subject to the same rules of evidence as any other, and subject to cross examination and rebuttal.
...in the wash of his gimpy scrawl
Is this guy channeling Robert Burns?
"Watching Dershowitz work, it’s like this: Ink wires itself onto the page, in the wash of his gimpy scrawl."
That's how someone writing looks to an illiterate.
And how it will look to our descendants after humanity has finally given up pencils and pens for digital devices.
"The prosecutor presents the evidence of prior bad acts through witnesses and exhibits”
Even if there has been an exhaustive investigation by say... Robert Mueller that found no evidence of the “bad act”? That seems sort of like misconduct to me.
Another trimester another impeachment. There was a similarly acutely phobic response when Trump spoke of social liberal club, with progressive opprobrium as he confronted the domestic, foreign, and governmental status quo.
Later bad acts were brought out when Paula Jones' lawyers cited Monica Lewinsky as evidence of Billy Jeff's sexual proclivities and general behavior pattern.
Dersh showed himself a master of precedent and argument by analogy, the latter is a dangerous game for the less logically prepared.
I'm surprised those "shoe on the other foot" arguments didn't elicit an accusation of "what-aboutism".
There are strict limitations upon this, mostly because such evidence can be TOO probative, and the focus of the trial may shift to them away from the actual charges.
Did you mean prejudicial?
Perceived apostates will be made to suffer. There is only the political agenda for lefties now, nothing else, no honest debate.
I suspect Tribe’s comments are heavily edited to avoid exposing him for the lunatic his tweets show he has become.
"ater bad acts were brought out when Paula Jones' lawyers cited Monica Lewinsky as evidence of Billy Jeff’s”
That stuff was proven, not partisan allegation only.
Constitutional scholar Stephen Colbert found that Dershowitz made many mistakes in law and logic, and humorous ones at that.
Did you mean prejudicial?
Yes, although probative is not incorrect. That's what I get when I'm doing stuff off the top of my head. Thanks.
"If you can't understand someone you should probably not write about them. I can explain both sides' case, even if I think there are flaws."
I think the Left just mostly pretends to not be able to understand, but there are days that I have my doubts.
A few months ago, maybe at Legal Insurrection? I read About another college being sued. The Plaintiffs (I think student) was/were trying to get the head of the college to testify but that person was so so busy could not make it to court at all and the defense attorney the college hired didn’t “understand” a legal term and he used that defense that he did not understand a legal term that the judge said to avoid getting the college president to appear.
This is how far the legal profession is sinking. And he graduated from a pricy law school.
If I was the judge on that case.....
This is the coldest takedown I have ever seen done to Dershowitz. It is Jeffrey Tobin, on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show, with Dershowitz as a guest. And Toobin, without a word from Cooper, sets up the question; Toobin recounts the disgraceful incident between Mike Pompeo and NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly. (Stop right here, Trump cultists, Dershowitz seemed to agree that it had been disgraceful treatment of Kelly.). Then Toobin prepares to go to the video of Trump crowing to his West Wing audience about how “Mike... did a number on that reporter...”
As they go to the video, Toobin urges Dershowitz to “watch closely, Alan. Because you’re in it.”
The video shows the moment of Trump’s taunting, and then cuts to Pompeo in the audience and — I had missed this when I first saw it — Dershowitz, seated directly behind Pompeo in the audience, reaches forward and pats Pompeo on the shoulder.
Following the video, comes Toobin’s inevitable question: why pat Pompeo on the back for that nasty little incident? Why show him approval in that moment?
I will let you readers figure out Dershowitz’s completely incredible answer.
I have always thought of Dershowitz as being articulate, learned, and a crafty arguer of sometimes unlikely causes. I have never thought of him as a foolish liar. Until this segment:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/politics/2020/01/29/alan-dershowitz-pompeo-pat-on-back-toobin-ac360-vpx.cnn
the earlier travismockasham,
https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1222768704674361346
Toobin's "takedown" was based on a lie.
Toobin (speaking to Dershowitz): "you patted him [Pompeo] on the back when the President was praising him for attacking the reporter."
But if you look at the video Toobin is referring to, this is what happened:
Trump: "That was very impressive. That reporter couldn't have done too good a job on you yesterday."
Dershowitz then leans forward and gives a quick pat on the back to Pompeo.
Trump: "Think you did a good job on her actually."
So the pat on the back came before the President mention Pompeo's reaction to the reporter. Toobin just lied.
so we have fraudulent investigations of general Flynn, for the reasons suggested above, as well as carter page, who is suing the relevant agencies, we know there was fraud in the Ukraine matter, including probably the 'so called black ledger'
they have no shame, nor anyone who abets said lies,
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/30/carter-page-sues-dnc-steele-dossier/
What a horrible read that was.
I give the Dersch demerit points for letting that "reporter" into his home, injecting all sorts of bizarre observations into that piece that reveal barely containable contempt.
A little sample:
2:15 p.m.
Dershowitz retrieves the pages from the fax in his wife’s office, which takes up the pantry of their apartment. He then sits in a leather recliner and calls Kelley. He does a read-back with her, with his phone volume turned up to “Old Man.”
Yes, Mr. Majestyk; Dershowitz patted Pompeo on the back in clear reaction to Trump’s having said, “That reporter couldn’t have done too good a job on you yesterday.” At that moment, Dershowitz patted Pompeo on the back. And Dershowitz visibly laughed at Trump’s next line, suggesting that Pompeo had done a job on the reporter.
What I’d like to do in light of Dershowitz’s plainly dishonest answer is (since he’s a guy who is on tv all the time) is to see him asked, “Since you so strongly disapproved of Pompeo’s treatment of the reporter, what have you said to Pompeo about that matter? What have you said to, or about the President in light of his own apparent encouragement of that treatment of a reporter?
A long line of questions going into the disgusting and disgraceful behavior of Trump, in the esteemed opinion of Alan Dershowitz.
IMO, Dershowitz ably deconstructed the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" when the Constitution was written.
But I had a further thought: Does "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" really mean High Crimes and Misdemeanors or High Crimes and HIGH Misdemeanors? I thought logically it must mean the latter. But where's the data?
Here, in Wikipedia:
High misdemeanor
"High misdemeanor is an archaic term in English Law for a number of positive misprisions, neglects and contempts. A good example of this is treason. The most important example may be that of maladministration in high office.
Contents
1 Examples in English Law
2 See also
3 Notes
4 References
Examples in English Law
A number of United Kingdom Statutes refer to particular crimes as being high misdemeanors:
Discharging or aiming firearms, or throwing or using any offensive matter or weapon, with intent to injure or alarm the Sovereign [1]
Where a Roman Catholic advises the Crown on the appointment to offices of the Established Church [2]
Where a Jew advises the Crown on the appointment to offices of the Churches of England, Ireland and Scotland [3]
Blackstone describes a number of offences as being high misdemeanors, for example:
treasonable words
receiving stolen goods
prison break
maladministration of high office
firing of one's house in a town..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_misdemeanor
So the founders really did mean High Misdemeanor, but with the specific exclusion of the "maladministration of high office" thingy.
btw, Mr. Majestyk; the substantive “reactions” involving Pompeo occurred before the day of that West Wing event. Pompeo:
1. Cut off the Kelly interview because she was asking him hard questions, then;
2. Called her into his office lounge without her recorder to berate and curse at her and to tell her that Americans don’t care about effing Ukraine, and;
3. Had his aides help him with the blank map stunt, and then;
4. Lied about supposed preconditions and terms for the interview, and tossed out the notion that “Bangladesh” is what Kelly identified on the blank map (but not even saying so clearly or with any evidence to support the claim).
5. Ultimately kicked another, uninvolved NPR reporter off the State Department plane for the trip to Ukraine. You know, just cuz ‘guilt by association is such a good look for the Secretary of State for the leader of the free world. And not some tinpot dictatorship.
Racist fopdoodles are having delusions of mediocrity again.
Xim literally believes Xe can force people to answer Xis questions.
In real life people would just ignore Xour lying ass.
FIGHT me, bro.
Chuck hangs hat on He said, she said account.
Because..Truuuuuuump!
Blogger Birkel said...
Racist fopdoodles are having delusions of mediocrity again.
Xim literally believes Xe can force people to answer Xis questions.
In real life people would just ignore Xour lying ass.
Yeah, I heard that for myself in the recorded portion of Kelly’s interview of Pompeo. Pompeo and his ilk can always say, “I’m not answering that. Fine. That too is an answer.”
It’s not like Pompeo can hide; he’s the Secretary of State. And it’s not like Dershowitz wants to hide; he’s Alan Dershowitz. Doing non-stop interviews, book tours and his own talk show on right-wing tv.
Leland said...A creative writer of fiction doesn't understand a technical discussions about a reality that the creative writer doesn't believe. That's not surprising when you think about it.
--
He's really spreading his wings since:
How to Kiss...Well
A four-step instructional guide, as long as you're asking for it.
By Tom Chiarella
Jan 9, 2018
Blogger walter said...
Chuck hangs hat on He said, she said account.
Because..Truuuuuuump!
Pompeo’s statement was in writing; Kelly had emails with Pompeo’s staff confirming the interview and any limits.
Pompeo didn’t have the balls, or the decency, to actually claim that Kelly identified “Bangladesh” as Ukraine. But he did seemingly confirm that he tried a map test on her.
And as always, if this is, “He said, she said,” I am all for Pompeo saying his piece. In a lengthy, unlimited interview.
Yes, because the best way to serve a nothing burger is to reheat it over and over.
I've got the balls.
FIGHT me, bro.
Irrelevant Chuck.
It appears that LLR-lefty Chuck (he of US Economy is Equivalent to End Stage Soviet Union Economy "fame") has moved on from impeaching Trump to now calling for the impeachment of Pompeo!!
It is absolutely true that LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved far left hack "journalist" moron could not identify Ukraine on a map.
This is very very very uncomfortable for LLR-lefty Chuck because Chucky went all in on his hero Don Le-Mons "joke" that all Trump voters are people who couldn't find Ukraine on a map.
Cue Sad Trombone for Sad Sack and Amateur Economic Historian LLR-lefty Chuck.
It’s easy to find Ukraine on a map, it’s right where Teapot Dome used to be.
mary Kelley's girl reporter, cracked a nuclear smuggling plot masterminded out of Pakistan, which recquired the silencing of a key witness, that was pawned off as a suicide, and there is a brennan like character who is the accessory after the fact,
Chuck, you ignorant fuck! Patting someone’s back is a lie!?
Post a Comment