The loathsome Alan Dershowitz is now defending

[pnwmom]

the doctor and associates who allegedly were involved in the genital mutilation of up to a hundred Muslim girls.

Yes, I know everyone's entitled to a defense. But lawyers like Derschowitz get to pick and choose their cases and I think it says something about him that he's taken this on..

ON EDIT: There are a number of reasons I can't stand this person, including his participating in the witch hunt against Amanda Knox, and now his frequent public comments in support of Donald Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/health/genital-mutilation-muslim-dawoodi-bohra-michigan-case.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

As more details emerge about the first-ever charges of female genital mutilation in the United States, the case is opening a window onto a small immigrant community, while stirring impassioned discussion about genital cutting among women who have experienced it.

At a hearing in Michigan this past week, a federal prosecutor said the defendants — two doctors and a clinic manager from a small Shiite Muslim sect — were believed to have arranged cutting for up to 100 girls since 2005. The prosecutor, Sara Woodward, said investigators had so far identified eight girls.

SNIP

Recently, the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an organization overseeing smaller Shiite Muslim sects, hired two well-known lawyers, Alan Dershowitz and Mayer Morganroth, to help the defense, The Associated Press reported.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. He's the scummiest scum that ever scummed!

[RedSpartan]

2. Dershowitz says Trump is innocent.

He also said that about OJ Simpson.

[question everything]

3. Indeed. I could not believe it. He said that a president can stop any investigation!

Great, bring all the criminals and let them celebrate. Wonder whether dementia runs in his family.

[pnwmom]

5. It's not dementia. He's been close to Jared Kushner since Jared

was a freshman in college and Alan was the faculty advisor to a very small Jewish student group on campus.

And they are both connected to pro-Putin groups aligned with the Chief Rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar.

[GreenEyedLefty]

38. Interesting.

The connection is explored in more detail in the Dutch documentary series on Trump:

[link:

|

Why this doesn't have more views is beyond me.

[pnwmom]

39. Thanks! And here's a little more.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029183235

[GreenEyedLefty]

40. Thank you!

I can't wait to read this. It's interesting to me as I live in the heart of an Orthodox neighborhood and a short distance from a Chabad shul.

[Cicada]

12. Article 2 of constitution vests executive power with the President

The view that the President has Final authority about whether to prosecute or not, and can not be overruled, is not a weird theory. Indeed it seems to be required by Article 2 of the Constitution. This view is called the "strong" version of the "unitary executive theory" of Article 2 and has many supporters. I do not think the Supreme Court has addressed this view. I personally think the Supreme Court would support the "strong" version. But experts disagree this.

[question everything]

15. Can you be more specific? I just looked at that section and cannot find this

Most of this article describes the process of the electoral college, process of removal, power to make treaties and to appoint specific office holders.

[Cicada]

20. Article 2 section 1

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Deciding whether to prosecute someone for a crime, or deciding not to prosecute him, is an executive decision.

Who has the power to make executive decisions? Article 2 Section 1 says that that executive power vests in the President.

If the President fails to faithfully execute the laws then he has violated his oath of office which strikes me as grounds for impeachment. But it just looks to me that the final call to prosecute or not to prosecute is within the powers of the President.

But there are brilliant constitutional scholars who agree with me and others who disagree with me.

My point is that Dershowitz has stated a reasonable view. And remember - Dershowitz says he proudly voted for Hillary Clinton. So did I. Trump is a monster but he does have many powers to do monstrous things whether we like it or not.

[Yupster]

30. Really the President doesn't even have to "faithfully execute the laws."

He can use prosecutorial (executive? discretion to not prosecute violators of any laws he wants to.

[ck4829]

32. "Whether we like it or not" Nope, Trump only has the power that we agree that he has

Trump is not a king, his powers aren't divine or genetic, only socially constructed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Any person, including the President, can do legal actions for illegal reasons.

Which makes the action illegal.

Dershowitz's argument completely ignores the President's own admissions of intent.

His argument is too cute by half and doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Ask Executives like Rod Blagojevich about exercising Constitutionally granted powers for illegal reasons.

I wonder if Dershowitz thinks it would be completely legal for Trump to sell Presidential pardons for $1 million dollars per pardon. The President's power to pardon is absolute after all. So why can't he sell pardons?

[Voltaire2]

51. he could do that as long as he didn't sell them to foreign governments

and keep the proceeds. What law would he be violating?

He is currently rather obviously violating the emoluments clause, but note that any federal law violation is subject to presidential pardon. Impeachment really has to proceed a serious effort to prosecute this dangerous asshole.

[question everything]

41. Remember when Nixon told David Frost that

“When the president does it that means it is not illegal?”

What is the difference, then? Unless we've added something to the Constitution since then? I really would like to know.

As others have posted here, we intutively know that the President is not a monarch or an absolute ruler to determine who should be prosecuted and who should not. So where, or who, draws the line?

Others wonder the same thing

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/%E2%80%98when-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal%E2%80%99-where-in-article-ii-is-that-line

[DeltaLitProf]

45. That is the hole in the Constitution that allows for an emperor

Any illegal act done in the name of a president who wishes to be an emperor can therefore be left unprosecuted or even pardoned. Taken to extremes, this can be the means by which a president enables his own paramilitary organization of violent thugs to force Congress or the courts or state governments to yield on any question.

So your interpretation, while sound, would essentially be the end of democracy if a president chooses to abuse it.

[geek tragedy]

16. That issue was decided when we decided to have a President instead

of a King.

Dershowitz disagrees with that decision. He's also a publicity hound.

[Cicada]

22. Unlike a King the President has limited powers.

But he absolutely has some powers. That does not make him a king. He has the absolute right to commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning, an action I strongly support. Personally I also think he has the absolute right to prevent the US Govt from prosecuting General Flynn, an action I strongly disagree with. In our system of government the President is extremely powerful but that does not mean he is a king who would possess ALL powers.

[geek tragedy]

23. Under Dershowitz's formulation a President may declare the law null and void

as it pertains to him and his associates. He can simply order federal law enforcement to ignore any and all crimes committed. Dershowitz does not see that as grounds even for impeachment.

[DeltaLitProf]

46. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what Dershowitz

. . . was saying during Watergate? I'm betting he was not playing this tune back in those days.

[Voltaire2]

52. Kings frequently have limited powers.

The difference is primarily term of office and succession. Kings serve for life and the position is inherited.

[jaysunb]

4. He's just looking for a job. n/t

[pnwmom]

6. He has the job. He's on the defense team for the accused. n/t

[pbmus]

7. Add that to his list of murderers, rapists, and child molesters...

Seriously, why do we listen to this guy...he is simply a sensationalist....

[pnwmom]

9. Well, he's turned into a Trump apologist, and people here need to understand

that he's lost whatever credibility he might have once had.

[BigmanPigman]

10. My blood pressure rises significantly whenever he's on TV...really!

He has the same effect on me as Kellyanne, Jeffrey Lord and Ann Coulter. I have to change the channel immediately for my physical health.

[ck4829]

24. Why do we listen to this guy? I don't, he's a creepy torture loving ghoul

[C_U_L8R]

8. He's been repeating this 'move along' nonsense for weeks

This is clearly someone who seems interested in brushing the Russia collusion/crimes aside rather than bringing them out into the bright daylight of justice. What's in it for you, Alan?

[hlthe2b]

11. He lost me many years ago (yes, AFTER OJ) when he staunchlly defended torture.

He's despicable as far as I am concerned..

Give me Laurence Tribe any day.

[Cicada]

26. He didn't staunchly defend torture

He said the government will torture those we consider terrorists whether we consider it legal or not. He then said that we should pass laws making torture subject to limits and subject to judicial supervision. His point was that the only practical method to minimize the horrors of torture is, oddly, to legalize it. So that judges have power to minimize its harm.

[hlthe2b]

31. He most certainly DID defend the legality of Bush* torture policies despite Tribe & the near

Last edited Sun Jun 11, 2017, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

entirety of the legal profession arguing to the contrary. And, in fact the policies were NOT legal.

[ck4829]

49. People reference him when it comes to the insane ticking time bomb scenario too

This scenario has been nothing but poison when it comes to the debate around torture... which there shouldn't have been a debate to begin with at all.

[Cicada]

53. He does support torture in one narrow case

He said he supports torture only if we know there is a ticking bomb about to go off, that a person knows where it is but will not say where and will talk within minutes of being tortured. And that there is no other way to stop the bomb. I could not find by search Dershowitz saying Bush torture was legal. I did find him saying everyone tortures even when it is illegal. I would appreciate a link to evidence he concluded torture was legal.

[ck4829]

50. Pretty sure though that those on the receiving end would never be named Dylann Roof or Jason Dalton

[TomSlick]

13. I'm just a country lawyer but in my humble opinion

Professor Dershowitz is overthinking this. The question is not whether a criminal case against Trump could survive a directed verdict motion. We are not headed for a criminal charge of obstruction of justice. We're headed - I hope - to an impeachment case where obstruction of justice is not defined by the criminal code. In an impeachment case, obstruction of justice means whatever the Congress says it means.

That being said, I think we would remove some confusion if we stopped talking about obstruction of justice and started calling it abuse of power.

[diva77]

19. what are the legal ramifications of abuse of power?

please forgive my ignorance!

[TomSlick]

42. Not ignorance. I'm parsing too fine legal point.

I think Trumps supporters are trying to confuse us with the definitions of the federal crimes of obstruction of justice. The point is not whether Trump has committed a crime for which he could be convicted in federal court.

A "high crime or misdemeanor" under Article II means whatever Congress says it means. Trumps supporters are trying to confuse the issues by arguing that a prosecutor could not make a conviction stick. We could take the wind out of their sales if we quit talking about obstruction of justice and talked in terms of an abuse of power. If you look at article 2 of the Nixon articles of impeachment, it reads like abuse of power without reference to any specific crimes.

[diva77]

44. thanks for following up - lemme see if I understand you correctly...

that "abuse of power" can be as broad or narrow as Congress deems it; but "obstruction of justice" is very specific and narrow and therefore more difficult to prove? am I getting it yet?

[TomSlick]

47. I think you're mostly right.

What I'm suggesting is that we're letting Dershowitz and others confuse the issues.

"Obstruction of justice" is a defined term under the US criminal code but only as used in the criminal code. IMHO, Dershowitz is wrong. (I know, pretty bold talk for a small town yeoman lawyer.) His argument is based on "strong executive" theory. It's a byzantine argument that only an ivory tower law professor would love. It seem clear to me that if a President attempts to stop a criminal investigation for corrupt purposes, i.e. the protection of his friends (or more likely himself), it makes out the crime of obstruction of justice. However, I'm not quite arrogant enough to guarantee that a given federal judge would agree with me.

I have two points. First, Dershowitz, et al are clouding the issue (I think intentionally) by talking about obstruction of justice as a crime. Since it is very unlikely that Trump will be criminally charged, whether or not he could be successfully criminally charged, the definition of obstruction of justice in the criminal code is irrelevant. "Obstruction of Justice" in an article of impeachment means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

What I am advocating is that we take this issue away from Dershowitz and his ilk. Let's quit talking about obstruction of justice and start calling what Trump has done "Abuse of Power." Again, IMHO, this term not only removes a silly issue but more accurately describes what was done.

I apologize that all of the foregoing was - in typical lawyer fashion - unnecessarily wordy (not to mention obtuse).

[diva77]

48. Thanks for further elaborating

and no apologies needed!

[tavernier]

14. He seems to always have his toe somewhere in shit

including alleged scandals that personally involve him.

[oasis]

17. Dershowitz has been on a steady slide downward for over a decade.

A once brillant attorney sold himself out to the dark side.

[JI7]

18. DershowitzZell Miller

[DFW]

21. Dershowitz is the legal version of Frank Luntz

They are in it for the money, offer their services to the highest bidder, and get paid well because they are good at what they do. We think of them as slimy. They think of themselves as rich. They are both verbal mercenaries who will work for the highest bidder, and since we all know who has the most money, well..........

[Cicada]

27. Dershowitz could have made five times as much in private practice

Teaching, even with jobs on the side, pays less than Wall Street law firms. In addition most of his outside income paid for pro bono work for the indigent. There are many valid complaints about Dershowitz but he has not acted solely to get rich.

[ck4829]

29. Maybe Dershowitz isn't exactly the most rational person

When Dershowitz has the RWNJs calling him a "liberal they like" and saying "Hey, all you liberals should agree with him", then maybe it's time to question how much of an ally he actually is.

[pnwmom]

35. Teaching a class at Harvard allows him to make plenty of money

on the side, and the position helps him recruit more customers.

So I doubt if he has sacrificed much by being there.

[DFW]

37. He has always had top-paying clients on the side

I only met him once, and somehow the discussions got around to Martha Stewart, who was having legal difficulties at the time, and he said he had to drop out of the conversation as he couldn't discuss a client he was actively representing. I'm sure he knows perfectly well how to juggle.

Luntz, on the other is not encumbered by such banal drives as a desire to teach. For that matter, there isn't much that Luntz does that I'd WANT him teaching anyone else. But he did once tell a friend on the DNC that the only reason he worked for the Republicans is that they paid more. His loyalty is to their money, not to them. Of course, with pockets as deep as those of the Kochs, Adelson, Mercer, etc etc, I'm sure Luntz will will be filthy rich for as long as his fingers can manipulate a keyboard, and the Republicans will not lose any sleep over the possibility of a defection.

[ck4829]

25. Loathsome is right

[Gothmog]

28. I trust Prof Tribe on this

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F10029181604

[pnwmom]

36. Thanks for the link!

[calimary]

34. Probably on the payroll now.

[smirkymonkey]

43. Dershowitz has been a scumbag for ages.

I just hope karma comes to bite him in the ass sooner rather than later. He disgusts me.