Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Alan Dershowitz, once an esteemed scholar and respected lawyer, has plummeted to new depths. He’s now at Saul Goodman level. I wonder how much farther down he can go?
Dershowitz has evidently lost all self respect — or maybe Newsmax, OAN and the like pay him hefty enough fees to come on the air and debase himself. I have no idea.
What I know is the difference between sophistry and truth. Sophistry is what you will see Dershowitz do in this clip below. It’s using a fallacious argument for the purpose of deceiving. This is not factual. This is Dershowitz blowing away any shred of credibility he may have had left outside the right-wing universe.
Dershowitz: We can hear his words.. and he said, Find me. Those are the keywords. Find me 11 or 12,000 votes. Find has two possible interpretations.. pic.twitter.com/YtxCxdHNCm
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 21, 2023
Trump’s words, which were recorded on tape, were, “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” Trump asked for a specific number of votes.
At not time did he say, I want every legal vote to be counted, nothing like that. This is what he said. It’s been quoted ad nauseum.
“There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, you’ve recalculated,” Trump went on to say. This was mob-speak for come up with something out of whole cloth. And it follows what Trump had said previously. Remember this?
In full context, DJT’s message was CLEAR. The 1/6 committee revealed that 3 days prior to the insurgence, “in 1 phone conversation, according to notes taken by Donoghue, Trump directed Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
— TruthSeekerNMD (@TruthSeekerNMD) February 22, 2023
I wonder if Dershowitz intends to become involved in Georgia, should Trump get named in an indictment. Dershowitz spewing sophistry in the House, during Impeachment I, was a sure deal. He knew the case wasn’t going anywhere, he could just speak drivel, or in tongues, if he had wanted to. Same difference.
But the way things appear to be going in Georgia, baffling ’em with bullshit doesn’t seem to be the way to go. Again, who knows how much Dershowitz gets paid to put on this performance?
Unlike you I don’t have formal legal training. You went to law school and I didn’t. Having said that even if Dersh didn’t articulate his point as well as he might have he stated the general argument Trump’s lawyer will make. And he did note that there might be other evidence that could provide the context needed to support an indictment. Now, he also spews first amendment crap and talks about defining the word “find”, which gave me “It depends on what the meaning if ‘is’ is” but the point is that reasonable legal folks believe that infamous statement is exactly what trials are for. I for one think the context in which that statement was made was Trump ordering Raffensberger to invent votes if he had to. Especially when taken with invalidate enough votes to flip the results stuff is considered alongside it. It’s a question for a jury, with testimony/evidence presented and subject to cross-examination. I think Trump was playing mob boss and knowing others were on the call tried to finesse his point but we ALL know what he meant! Still, Dersh isn’t wrong for pointing out that “find” could have a different meaning than what any objective person would think Trump meant. Maybe he needs some cash and is hoping that Trump will cough up some legal fees for him.
Sorry, denis, but if you’re going to posit that “‘find’ could have a different meaning that what any objective person would think Trump meant,” you REALLY need to offer up some kind of “meaning” that could possibly fit the situation.
Merriam-Webster offers the following definitions for “find” as a transitive verb:
1a. To come upon often accidentally; encounter.
1b. To meet with (a particular reception).
2a. To come upon by searching or effort.
2b. To discover by study or experiment.
2c. To obtain by effort or management.
2d. Attain, reach.
3a. To discover by the intellect or the feelings; experience.
3b. To perceive (oneself) to be in a certain place or condition.
3c. To gain or regain the use or power of.
3d. To bring (oneself) to a realization of one’s powers or of one’s proper sphere of activity.
4a. Provide, supply.
4b. To furnish (room and board) especially as a condition of employment.
5. To determine and make a statement about.
There’s only one definition for its use as an intransitive verb:
To determine a case judicially by a verdict.
Since Trump said “Find me votes” that renders the intransitive use completely irrelevant and moot. (In case you’ve forgotten the rules of grammar, an intransitive verb is one that has no direct object, much less an indirect object. In Trump’s bleating, “votes” is the direct object and “me” is the indirect object.) So, of ALL the transitive uses, by which one would lead “any objective person” to infer a different meaning? I, for one, don’t see how “find me X votes” could possibly mean anything other than what it actually meant.
Dershowitz may be a,.lying traitor, but I doubt he believes Trump.will.pay him th big bucks because he had to.know that unlike a Lannister, a Trump.never pays his debts. About now I cannot help hoping for Tyrion,’s solution with his father. A crossbow could be really useful and completely appropriate considering how much time Fat Donnie spends on his golden throne, his tiny hamster paws working double time on his I Phone
There isn’t a way to look at that phone call and say he wasn’t trying to change the results of that election. Dersh is in CYA mode, and needs to ask himself why he’s working for a criminal.
He and barr need to go back and learn how to comprehend statements/directives given to them, or heard in context. Trump told barr to investigate the investigation, that’s what all that hemming and hawing was about in lying to the committee. Trump told the AG to find enough votes or lie about it so he could declare fraud and himself as the winner.
Both clear as day. Besides it’s nothing to be a legal mouthpiece for evil after raping underage girls when you can’t get laid on your own merits. Martha’s Vineyard is a small island of small hamlets. Of course he won’t be there until the summer anyway. The locals tolerate these asshats but don’t like them.
There is a concept called jury nullification. Possession of marijuana were my cases. Liquor charges were the cases during Prohibition. You cannot argue to a jury that they should not follow the judges instructions. He will hold you in contempt. What do you argue when the instructions will obviously lead to a conviction? Tell them to follow their conscience or some other nebulous term. Argue they never really proved it was marijuana. I could never pull it off. Trump is the king of nullification.