Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Triggered by This Post
When I was a teenager in the early 90s, I was walking with my older brother along Lucy Vincent Beach when we stumbled upon Dersh in his full birthday suit. I hadn't thought about that painful memory for many years before I clicked on this post. Thanks a lot. Happy 4th!
I don't know which aspect of
I don't know which aspect of that beach is worse: the possibility of seeing that, or the fact that nonresidents aren't allowed in even on foot.
Fun fact!
Alan Dershowitz, when I was a lad of 16, was the first of many impotent nimrods I have encountered to utter the phrase:
That was 40 years ago.
About 10 Years Ago
Restaurant in Cambridge. Friend of friend talking about recent personal injury. On the way out the door, Dershowitz - who was eavesdropping from 2 tables away - intercepts her and sticks his card in her face to call his office if she wants to sue. The general reaction = This guy really is shameless, isn't he?
Sheesh!
That is so fucking weird! Alan Dershowitz was clearly looking for money, but that's a hell of a way to go about it!!
Remember the proper reply next time
"Don't you know who I am?"
"Hey everybody! We have a gentleman here who does not know who he is. Can someone please call an ambulance?"
Actually...
the best response I ever saw anyone give to some twit who asked that question came from the doorman at the Hard Rock in Vegas.
"Sir, if you have to ask, then no one knows who you are".
Yo D!
Hey Dersh: you're a really smart, very important, dick.
Who cares?
Dershowitz is not even a human being. He's nothing more than loud mouthed maggot who has attached himself now to the body politic after seemingly being abandoned by the same class of rich idiots who now worship at the feet of Trump, but aren't as stupid or needy for publicity or favor from the Nazis running DC now as Dershowitz clearly is.
You know, the people in the Black Dog shirts who complain about housing for temporary summer workers? Those are the people who have scorned this idiot.
Fuck him.
"Dershowitz is not even a human being."
Noooiiice!
Wait a minute! You may not like Alan Dershowitz,
but that doesn't mean that he's not a human being! Come on, now.
Not wanting to eat dinner with a guy
Yeah, that's totally like McCarthyism.
Was
Was behind him in line boarding a train at Penn Station. He pushed people and was rude to the Amtrak ticket lady. People notice this sort of thing, Dershowitz.
Cant possibly imagine why...?
Graham is Never Trump.
How does that make sense?
He was
before the election. He's "mostly Trump" now.
Thoughts and prayers.
n/t.
I don’t like the guy, but I feel for him
He’s got a good point. Say the roles were flipped. Say Clinton won, and the chattering classes were clamoring for impeachment based on questionable reasoning. Would it be right for someone to be shunned for saying the shouts of, oh, I dunno, “lock her up” are wrong? I do believe such talk of locking her up was dismissed as a danger to democracy, which it was (and somehow continues to be). Dershowitz is just being intellectually consistent. That’s his crime. That he’s an overbearing twit is old news. If people were okay with it in 2016, they should be okay with it in 2018.
I don't know how long you've lived here...
but Dershowitz is so despised, he couldn't even run a Jewish deli profitably in Harvard Square.
Ever eat there?
I'm not a Harvard Square guy
And I'm more in the Bulger circles than the Dershowitz circles, so in a sense, I wouldn't have been eating dinner with him 20 years ago.
That said, there were people who put up with his BS who somehow can't now.
Dershowitz may be an arrogant, overbearing twit at times, but
this:
is a good point that's well taken.
Who was okay with Dershowitz
Who was okay with Dershowitz in 2016? Well okay, the rich white goons on MV were, but he was NOT okay to any ethically consistent person long before that. Dershowitz has been abominably self-serving, classless, and shameless in the name of the Constitution and his blind loyalty to Israel no matter what for decades.
I think back then
the politically correct terminology was "brave defender of civil liberties."
But yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing.
friendship
Comparing anything Clinton
Comparing anything Clinton did, however ill-advised, to what Trump and his team were up to with Putin's ilk, tells me you don't quite grasp the severity of the latter.
And that post tells me
you don't quite grasp the severity of the former.
Bbbbbuttt emailz!1!
Yeah..emails just for one example. If you, me, or anyone not named Hillary Clinton did it and then covered it up the way she did, Jim Comey would not go out of his way to cover for you.
oh honey
Seriously - the FBI investigated the e-mails, Comey went way off the rails at a critical time and ... well NOTHING was found that was of actionable interest.
I'm sorry that you lack the evidentiary and critical thinking skills to match your communication skills.I'll pray for you.
What Hillary did
is, in most companies, referred to as "doing an end run around the IT department", and is generally regarded by co-workers as necessary, admirable, and sometimes even heroic. In most organizations today the IT department operates most efficiently as the IP, or Information Prevention, department. In organizations that are very security-conscious, like the Federal government, there are additional layers of often incoherent security requirements. These are administered by a diffuse bureaucracy under poorly-defined congressional mandates. It's hard to work efficiently under such constraints, and fudging the rules is commonplace. A lot of people have been caught violating the letter of the law, including several members of the current administration.
In my job I have occasional dealings with a Federal agency that requires me to take security training once a year. This training is conducted via a Flash web app. The use of Flash is now forbidden in many corporate environments, and disabled by default in some operating systems, because it is considered insecure.
Nah, the best part
About the fake Hillary email scandal is that many members of Trumpski’s administration are currently using private email for public business.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/the-brazenness-of-j...
There are some people
you agree with, and some people you disagree with, and even some people that you disagree with, but who might possibly be capable of changing your mind. But there are also people you just don't think are worth listening to. I'm sure it's inconceivable to Dershowitz that anyone could place him that last category, so when people ignore him he regards it as persecution. Yes, Alan, people are avoiding you, but it's not because you're a pariah, or a martyr for the truth. It's because you're boring at parties.
Sums it all up, eh?
What's the matter, Trump's parties are no fun anymore?
I've been all set with this whore since he penned a nasty little defense of torture in the early days of the Infinite War on People-Who-Look-Like-Terrorists.
The Trump administration is one of the most corrupt in history, and Trump himself one of the most personally immoral and reprehensible characters to ever appear on the national political stage. The clod-in-chief does something every day that would get him rapidly impeached in a more civilized time. And if you're sociopathic enough to seek and obtain a position in his loathsome administration, you should be prepared to hear the many legitimate grievances of the governed. There's still a right of free speech in this country, after all, which Douchekewitz would respect if he was really a "civil libertarian" instead of a kiss-ass tool of the rich and powerful.
How does the old saying go?
You lay with the dogs, you're going to get fleas?
And we all know how the Old Money types abhor fleas in their manses.
So,
Maxine Waters DOES speak for Democrats and liberals (progressives)?
In case you hadn't noticed
Ms Waters speaks for herself and is basically telling liberals fuck your feelings, the time is now.
Put succinctly...
...Dershowitz has been dragging himself through the mud for decades - not being dragged by others; he's been doing it all on his own for fun and profit. It's no wonder people don't want the stink in their nostrils.
Want to stop fascism in America? Stop inviting fascists and their apologists to your barbecue. Name them, shame them, shun them. As long as they can behave in an antisocial manner free of any social sanction, THEY WILL DO SO.
Enemy of the people
That is a direct attack on the 1st Amendment. Why isn't Alan howling about that direct attack agains the Constitution?
Trump forcibly imprisons children into cages separating them from their parents. Why isn't Alan howling against this crime against humanity?
Is it possible that Alan is so full of himself that he can not longer see the difference between right and wrong? But instead is stuck on some mental Ferrris Wheel where his thinking is limited to just a few functioning cars? Cars what are named with the same names that he used to defend but now are just empty vessels for him to whine on.
His whine about not being welcome at parties on Martha's Vinyard is embarrassing. Here is a man, retired from full time work, wealthy enough to live on Martha's Vinyard and who will never lack the funds or resources of medical care, housing or food.
If he is unhappy with how his fellow Vinyarders are treating him then maybe Alan should hang out at Pine Street Inn where Alan can learn the full impact of feeling rejected by society.
What a selfish twit.
I think you are missing something
Dershowitz is not a fan of Trump's policies, foreign policy possibly excepted and definitely excepted in the case of Israel. He didn't vote for Trump. He donated money to Clinton because Clinton's values and his values dovetail. His only "crime" is questioning people's rush to impeach the President. His view is that he is being treated akin to those who questioned why other people's lives were being ruined in the 1950s due to tenuous links to communism. With hindsight, things like the Hollywood blacklist are considered horrible, so his historical analogy might have a point.
Sure, he's a selfish twit, but once again, that's a decades long character flaw. It's the same flaw he had before Trump took office. If it didn't bother people before, why should it bother people now?
Maybe you've never noticed....
but Dershowitz has been a joke and an asshole to people who saw through his act years ago.
Only now he's thrown in with racists and traitors to up his own image with the poorly educated and uses the Constitution to defend his obsequiousness to traitors and criminals.
You're missing the point
He hasn't changed. If you liked the shtick in 2016 or 2008 or 1998, you wouldn't be surprised at the vintage 2018 shtick. That you, me, and most of the people who visit this website wouldn't want to spend more than 10 seconds with the guy is beside the point. With all his warts, he's been consistent in his constitutional views. That those who would as recently as two years ago put up with him now have an issue speaks badly of those people.
So how is his criticizing the Mueller investigation consistent?
Because to me, I can't find the logical consistency. What I can find is him acting as a goon on behalf of Trump.
You can't find the consistency because of a bias
I don't know how old you are, but remember when the main takeaway from the Whitewater investigation was that President Clinton lied to the Grand Jury about cheating on his wife, a fact that had nothing to do with Whitewater itself? I myself see the sense of investigating whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to smear Hillary Clinton, but perhaps little Alan sees the excitement over a possible Trump impeachment (and elevation of Mike Pence to the Presidency) as a bit premature and wonders why the assumption of guilt when no evidence has been unearthed. I mean, the guy made his name to the masses by defending Claus von Bulow, so being a defense attorney is in his blood. Presumption of innocence and all that.
Remember his feud with Billy Bulger?
Unless I have the whole thing wrong, that started when Alan Dershowitz publicly accused Whitey's loyal brother of having accepted a bribe, which Bulger responded to with threats of a libel suit and a lot of sanctimonious over-the-top rhetoric. I think in the end there turned out to be scant evidence if any that the particular accusation had merit (there were never any charges filed), so you can't necessarily say that Dershowitz has always been the one presuming innocence. Anyway, if the man ever wants to get some credibility back he should spend more time volunteering with the innocence project or something and start attaching his face and celebrity to one or more of the probably thousands of imprisoned poor people who are actually innocent, having been framed by police or set up by prosecutors, or who just didn't get fair trials for one reason or another.
To be fair
Dershowitz was being a dick when he made the accusation. I never said he wasn’t a dick, just that everyone should have known that by the time he voted for Clinton in 2016.
Mid 80s
So I was relatively young during the Clinton years. However, in more recent memory I remember watching a Dershowitz/Chomsky debate on YouTube regarding Israel & Palestinian borders and the former being a complete idiot about the debate. Dershowitz doesn't have a good track record in the last ten years, at least.
Regardless, none of that excuses his behavior over the current Mueller investigation. It's not about impeachment, it's about finding the facts. The facts might lead to impeachment, but that's in the future and completely dependent on partisanship in current or future elected offices.
If it's not about impeachment
Why are so many people clamoring for impeachment?
Heck, people have been calling for impeachment before the Electoral College met.
Right now, I don't see a basis for impeachment. That said, things could change, and one must keep an open mind. As I said to a conservative friend on way too many occasions between 2009 and 2017, being a bad President should not be grounds for impeachment. It should be grounds for losing reelection.
Being a bad enough president MUST be grounds for impeachment
Impeachment is written "as if" it were a judicial crime, but it's not. It's the only way to remove a sitting president, and sufficient incompetence or malevolence is the essential basis for impeachment.
This isn't a bbq on Martha's vineyard, a disagreement about wearing white after Labor day -- this is big boys' politics, with the lives of possibly millions depending on the results. This isn't OJ getting off on a technicality which can be justified on the precedent and thus consequences of cutting corners here. This IS the case for which you've saved up all powder.
If impeachment isn't the response to vast incompetence and a danger to the republic, what are you left with? A coup? The Federalist papers were pretty clear that Congress had the power to deal with such breakdowns instead of taking the authoritarian turn.
If it's not grounds -- we need to get rid of the presidency and go to a parliamentary system. No system can depend on someone holding on to power 4 years after losing an effective political mandate because of an electoral interval. This has been an obvious lesson of presidential systems throughout the world which fail to have any mechanism other than an authoritarian turn to deal with a lost mandate --- and the fact that the US hasn't gotten lucky and been able to use back room deals to avoid crises before doesn't make the US exceptional. Just very, very lucky.
The point of the special investigator
Is to investigate potential crimes. This isn't very hard.
But the charge is too broad
Now we’re talking about payments to porn stars, not collusion with the Russians. Just like Monica’s stained dress.
Not as defined by Rosenstein
"Any matter that arose..." where any is the key word.
Campaign finance violation fits that scope. However, it's not yet a charge.
Speaking of bias, it seems yours may be showing.
Again
You are making Dershowitz’ point.
My bias is for the truth. I had an issue in the 90s with an investigation about a corrupt land deal becoming an investigation into blow jobs. Same thing here.
5 impeachable offenses (before Trump Russia is complete)
What matters is whether Trump—or any president—is held to account for alleged transgressions in gaining office, and then, once in it, abuse of its powers.
Friday the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report that confirms what the intelligence services have already said, Putin put Russian assets to work to get Trump elected. Trump says that's not true, he cites Putin as his source.
On multiple occasions members of the Trump family, campaign and transition met with agents of the Russian government seeking opposition research on Hillary, to discuss business deals such as Trump Moscow, and to discuss US foriegn policy to Russia, such as recognizing occupied Crimea as Russian territory and inserting new language in GOP platform limiting US arms sales to Ukraine.
When Flynn went down so did the repeal of Russian sanctions, which was Putin's top goal.
Destabilizing Europe is another top goal, Trump has called NATO useless and put tariffs on European countries. Next he'll try to divide France and Germany. When Trump broke the Iran deal he also announced resuming sanctions on countries that do business with Iran. He intends to punish the countries with whom we created that multi-national agreement (US, UK, France, China and Russia and Germany.) who have subsequently found export market in Iran. Why does he want to punish our closest allies 2x, tariffs in trade war and sanctions for doing business in Iran?
Trade wars preceded WW1.
As Donald Trump delivered his presidential inaugural address January 2017, his national security adviser Michael Flynn told a former business associate in text messages that a private plan to build nuclear reactors in the Mideast was “good to go” and that U.S. sanctions hobbling the plan would soon be “ripped up,”
Trump dropping join military exercises with South Korea was a request of Putin, not Kim Jong Un. We got nothing in return from Putin.
Manafort did for Trump what he did for the 4th president of Ukraine, he got him elected. In Ukraine, he had a Russian oligarch feeding campaign cash via a money laundering scheme that involved selling natural gas to a distributor in Ukraine at a deep discount who gave revenue from the markup to the campaign. One of Manafort's employees was a GRU agent. The lawyer who offered Trump Jr Hillary oppo was a GRU agent.
If this was one-sided, only Trump benefited and never colluded I'd say lucky guy. Now they're squeezing the people who know to make them talk so we'll know. But like I said, if there was a Congress that would move to impeachment hearings, there are five plain as day already without Trump-Russia.
Personally, I'd wait for at least one charge based on Trump benefiting and the country losing. That may be the only things Trumpists would object to, who am I kidding? They're zombies.
You can’t reason with someone
Who already has their mind made up.
Are you looking in a mirror?
QED.
Nope
Because I'm keeping an open mind.
An open mind
To what, exactly? You don't seem to have an open mind that the scope of all of the guilty pleas to the current investigation could be interconnected. Spare us, bud.
The People
Don't decide this. The House of Reps. decides if there's probable cause. The senate tries the case. Chief Justice Roberts would president over the trial in the Senate.
Oh, I'm aware.
(n/t)
Yes, he's changed ...
In his rant, he says he lived through the McCarthy era and that he's now vacationing on an island full of McCarthyites.
What a putz. Surely, somebody of his expanded hat size can recognize the difference between people having their livelihoods taken away and their lives destroyed by a fascist demagogue and an entitled professor peeved because colleagues no longer want to have dinner with him, and that anybody who says the two are equivalent is just shrilly whining because he's run out of legitimate arguments, no?
Lawyer who defends Trump and
Lawyer who defends Trump and OJ is a snowflake.