Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Alan Dershowitz And Me

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Alan Dershowitz And Me

Post by Bryce » Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:58 am

I have been referred to as the king of "Whataboutism" several times. Well, as Mel Brooks once quipped, "It's good to be king."


Alan Dershowitz agrees.
Excerpts from his Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is a decent man, and he said the right things in his statement regarding the search of Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago: “All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.”

It is what he didn’t say that raises disturbing questions about the process. Why didn’t the Justice Department seek to enforce the subpoena it apparently had issued, rather than seek a search warrant? Was this consistent with the “standard practice” Mr. Garland articulated in his statement—“to seek less intrusive alternatives to a search” whenever possible?

Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material?

Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of “whataboutism.” But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.

Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised. The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The “whataboutism” argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren’t handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Alan Dershowitz And Me

Post by Rate This » Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:06 am

Bryce wrote:
Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:58 am
I have been referred to as the king of "Whataboutism" several times. Well, as Mel Brooks once quipped, "It's good to be king."


Alan Dershowitz agrees.
Excerpts from his Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is a decent man, and he said the right things in his statement regarding the search of Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago: “All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.”

It is what he didn’t say that raises disturbing questions about the process. Why didn’t the Justice Department seek to enforce the subpoena it apparently had issued, rather than seek a search warrant? Was this consistent with the “standard practice” Mr. Garland articulated in his statement—“to seek less intrusive alternatives to a search” whenever possible?

Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material?

Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of “whataboutism.” But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.

Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised. The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The “whataboutism” argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren’t handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.
There are major difference’s especially as regards the content of the information. He’s the only one with the Top Secret / SCI information. Clinton and Berger had nothing on that. It’s a false equivalency and Alan Dershowitz is not credible. He’s become a partisan hack.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic