Even if Mueller could prove that members of the Trump team had colluded with Julian Assange to use material that Assange had unlawfully obtained, that, too, would not be a crime. What would be a crime is something that no one claims happened: namely, that members of the Trump campaign told Assange to hack the Democratic National Committee before Assange did so. Merely using the product of an already committed theft of information is not a crime. If you don't believe me, ask the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and other newspapers that used material illegally obtained by Assange with full knowledge that it was illegally obtained. Not only did they use information from Assange, but also from Chelsea Manning and from the stolen Pentagon Papers. The First Amendment protects publication by the media of stolen information. It also protects use of such information by a political campaign, since political campaigns are also covered by the First Amendment.Alan M. Dershowitz
Saturday, December 1, 2018
But... what does he know?
Provoking New Crimes Rather than Uncovering Past Crimes: Mueller's Modus Operandi
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
If Trump and the campaign organization worked together with the Russians to alter the outcome of the election, the information obtained was protected by the First Amendment?
Even if the data revealed by the dossier is collusion between the campaign and the Russians? Or even if it is clear evidence of collusion are you saying that it is protected by the Constitution?
Is that what you're trying to say?
We are not lawyers.
I'm just speculating that no matter what information obtained by the Muller investigation shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the candidate Trump directed his campaign to coordinate with the Russians the hacking of the DNC his actions and protected by the First amendment?
I have been saying that no matter what is revealed that you will never believe that the President or candidate did anything wrong, because you hate liberals so badly.
Roger -
Are you literally unable to read or understand what Dershowitz stated?
The only way it WOULD be a crime is if Trump was involved in the actual hacking of the emails. That Trump paid for, coordinated with, or otherwise was involved in the original crime.
Dershowitz is arguing that the first Amendment protects the publication (or in this case the republication) of information that was originally obtained illegally.
Do you have any legal expertise that suggests Dershowitz is wrong or are you just pounding your fist?
So yes Roger.
If Trump was personally involved or personally coordinated with the hacking of the DNC or Podesta emails, then he would have committed a crime. If he was involved in the process of the hacked emails being turned over to Julian Assange, then that too would be a crime. Both the concept of hacking an email account and then the hacker attempting to make those emails public are crimes.
Just like it would be a crime to hack your bosses computer at work. It would be a bigger crime if you personally took information from those emails and attempted to make it public.
So if you have the information, took it over to the local newspaper, and they decided to publish it. You would be the only one on the hook for any criminal acts. The Reporter and the Newspaper is not at risk. This has been confirmed in court on numerous occasions.
Technically most legal experts don't believe that the U.S. Government has a real case against Julian Assange. At least not from the standpoint that they tend to act as if the publishing of damaging information about our Government is a crime. Of course, most people believe that Assange is involved at an earlier time (or that if they could get Assange, they could squeeze him for information). But that is mostly speculation.
What is not a crime (based on judicial precedent) is a third party having nothing to do with the original crime publishing that information. No newspaper would ever get charged, and likewise no political campaign "should" ever get charged.
Oddly though Roger... these emails were going to get dropped by Wikileaks, and then those emails would be republished by people within the media. There would be no need for Trump or anyone else to entice those inevitable releases.
And the suggestion that a coordination of "timing" of said release would constitute a crime is also pretty much out to lunch. The media often times sits on political information until it has the most "news" impact.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I have been saying that no matter what is revealed that you will never believe that the President or candidate did anything wrong, because you hate liberals so badly.
and you don't get to be right and have trump be guilty of something that's not a crime simply because you hate trump so badly.
geezus alky...
you know, i have to tell you that dodging the draft was probably the best thing you could have ever done.
i can only imagine how many more names would be on that wall had you served being as fucking stupid as you are.
So if you have the information, took it over to the local newspaper, and they decided to publish it. You would be the only one on the hook for any criminal acts. The Reporter and the Newspaper is not at risk. This has been confirmed in court on numerous occasions.
you know it's ironic...
roger fancies himself the leading historian on this blog, but what he's denying is basically the same thing that happened with daniel ellsberg and the pentagon papers
You believe that no matter how or what happened to influence the outcome of the election is protected by the first amendment?
Proving that the outcome of the election is simply impossible.
So that absolutely nothing matters or was illegal?
You believe that no matter how or what happened to influence the outcome of the election is protected by the first amendment?
Sure Rog...
It's a classic testimony to your cognitive abilities that this is your takeaway from this conversation.
TDS!
That's the argument you have been making.
Was obtaining the information and using it to influence the election legal in your mind?
You believe that no matter how or what happened to influence the outcome of the election is protected by the first amendmendment?
Oh dear.
Post the US Criminal Code Pres. TRUMP WILL BE CHARGE WITH.
TY.
Was obtaining the information and using it to influence the election legal in your mind?
What exactly are you talking about?
Again. Ty.
Proving that the outcome of the election is simply impossible.
Not sure what this even means...
But I believe what you are arguing here is that just because under normal circumstances it's not illegal for the Media or a Political campaign to publish stolen information (because of first amendment protections).
That the overriding factor is whether or not the election outcome was altered.
While I find it easy to believe that your legal logic is twisted enough to believe that the laws and constitution must change based on political considerations... I still find it amazing that you expect "others" to go along with this ridiculous concept.
Do you think that nothing was wrong? Legally speaking?
I wanted to build a building, give some space away to help it happen, u never actually gave the space away, nor did I actual build that building.
What US Criminal Code did I violate?
Halfbaked knows.
Was obtaining the information and using it to influence the election legal in your mind?
Well Roger.
Let's all pretend that your brain still works?
Shall we?
I normal person with working cognitive abilities would understand that these are two distinctly different things.
1) Obtaining the information (Illegal).
2) Media or Campaign publishing the information (Not Illegal).
Now obviously you are in no frame of mind anymore to understand the distinction. But everyone else will understand it.
Not sure what this even means...
We don't know how people decided to vote for or against.
Geez you don't understand even the simplest things.
We don't know how people decided to vote for or against.
Which is no more or less relevant to the conversation than trying to determine why someone had cereal for breakfast instead of eggs.
It literally doesn't matter as to whether or not a third Party publishes stolen information is or is not protected by the First Amendment.
Of course.
1) Obtaining the information (Illegal).
2) Media or Campaign publishing the information (Not Illegal).
You seem to believe that number two excuses number one. And the President is not guilty of collusion. Because the free press released the information.
You dance in circles around the actions of the candidate although illegally obtained the public release by the free press did nothing wrong or broke any laws.
You believe that no matter how or what happened to influence the outcome of the election is protected by the first amendment?
yeah, only because noted constitutional scholar law professors and case law back it up. what the fuck do they know?
your gripe is with those who phished podesta's emails. and that was not trump or anyone associated with his campaign. and don't tell me that's yet to be proven. we're 30 months and $40 MILLION into this circle jerk. and all you have are crimes that have occurred AS A RESULT of mueller's appointment.
it's high time that all you assholes grow the fuck up and accept the result of the 2016 election. but you won't. lil schitt and golden corral nadler need this to continue til 2020 because it's your only hope of beating trump THEN.
this is how fucking pathetic your party has become alky. your only hope to beat trump rests completely on a fucking fairy tale made up at the spur of the moment by robby mook to explain away the worst and most devastating defeat of a "sure thing" presidential candidate in modern history.
Or even if he did, so what? He won and move on.
I'm just speculating that no matter what information obtained by the Muller investigation shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the candidate Trump directed his campaign to coordinate with the Russians the hacking of the DNC his actions and protected by the First amendment?" 2nd generation Alky.
Answer : No not protected , yes it is a crime.
Now prove it.
Roger...
I agree that obtaining the information (the literal hacking) is illegal. Nobody (I know) has ever argued differently.
But you have to quite literally prove that Trump had something to do with the actual hacking. At the point that Guccifer 2.0 (or whoever) hacked those emails or at the point that those hacked emails went from the person who hacked them to someone with the ability to publish them.
Once that has been done, Roger... once the hackers got that information to wikileaks, the criminal action was completed.
Nothing done beyond that is illegal. No amount of media, campaign, wikileaks coordination is going to be illegal at that point.
Politically unseemly? Perhaps. But not illegal.
The problem is that you quite literally want to lump the obtainment of the emails and the political use of them into one thing. You would like to believe that if these emails were used for political purpose that whoever did so committed a crime.
Come back to me when there is any evidence that Trump or anyone from his campaign was involved in the initial hacks or involved at all "prior" to Assange getting his hands on them.
Because bitching about what happened after those emails were in Wikileaks hands... is barking at the moon.
Hacked DNC.
When, Hillary was not hacked.
Pedesta was not hack.
Debbiewasaman was not hacked.
Whole cloth argument.
You seem to believe that number two excuses number one.
on the contrary. number two does not excuse number one in any way, shape, manner or form.
you're problem is that you desperately NEED number one to be tied to trump. and again - after 30 months and $40 MILLION you clowns have not been able to make that connection.
You dance in circles around the actions of the candidate although illegally obtained the public release by the free press did nothing wrong or broke any laws.
more psychological projection. you're not only dancing, you're playing a game of twister to get from the phishing of podesta's and the DNC's emails to reach the conclusion that trump and or his associates were involved.
you NEED trump to be involved, you WANT trump to be involved, but the evidence after all this time and all this $$$$$ just can't get you there no matter how hard you wish for it.
this should end. if mueller had a shred of integrity he'd end it himself. but this is not about justice, it's about politics.
this is about 2020.
and then trump beats your ass again.
heh.
just think alky, considering the shape you're in you may go to your grave* with trump as your president. and i'm sure you'll be one of those assholes who leaves one final dig at trump in your obituary.
what a bitter and pathetic existence you lead.
*not a wish for your demise, alky. simply an observation.
"Because bitching about what happened after those emails were in Wikileaks hands... is barking at the moon."
Or with 2nd Generation Alky, Pink Elephants.
New Excuse of why Hier Muller has zero evidence on Pres. TRUMP.
The witnesses are liars, if, they would tell the truth then Mueller would be able to have real evidence.
New Excuse of why Hier Muller has zero evidence on Pres. TRUMP.
The witnesses are liars, if, they would tell the truth then Mueller would be able to have real evidence.
you know, that's really where we are.
mueller is actually getting pissed that the folks he's chasing REFUSE to lie in order for him to charge them.
this is so fucked up it's making scooter libby and 'merry fitzmas' look legit.
Who knows exactly what Mueller is up to. I think there are three distinct possibilities.
1) That he honestly has nothing on Trump. That he is digging under every stone (pun intended), and looking in every nook and cranny because he knows if he leaves anything unturned, the left will have a fit if Trump goes unscathed.
2) That he is looking to cover his own butt by charging as many people as possible with as many different crimes as possible, because it works to his political advantage. Under this circumstance, it is very likely that he will be putting together less of a "legal" report, and more of a political one (where he provides evidence of ethically questionable political issues).
3) That he is hoping to take a bunch of otherwise legal actions and attempt to make a determination that there is some form of "treason" or "conspiracy to defraud". This, of course, would be the most toxic, and I am not sure that it would make it out of the DOJ and into the courts.
well, it looks like the alky has lots of prominent company falling for that NPR lie -
Donald Trump Jr. used Twitter to hit back at NPR and other critics, including Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, after an NPR report falsely accused him of lying in Senate testimony.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/30/trump-jr-npr-leahy-swalwell-report/
Maybe if the leftist keep fucking with.
"Who are France's 'Yellow Jacket' protesters and what do they want?
"The forgotten middle class" has taken to the country's streets. "They feel like the political elite is forgetting about them," one expert said.
Scott is on the list of liars who say the President is innocent.
It will cost you about $100,000 to join Trump National Golf Club here in Washington. Plan on setting aside $200,000 to join his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach. But put your money away if you want inside Trump’s most exclusive club. The only way into Trump’s liars club is to shoot your mouth off for him.
The current membership includes criminal confessed liars, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who lied to Congress, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump policy aide George Papadopoulos, and former Trump campaign official Rick Gates, all of whom lied to investigators. In the Trump liars hall of fame, you can find Paul Manafort, who appears to have lied to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators after signing a plea agreement in which he promised honest cooperation. Jerome Corsi, whom investigators believe lied repeatedly to them about his role in seeking the WikiLeaks caches of Podesta emails, and stands to be indicted soon, could be a member in time for the holidays. (Corsi says he did not lie intentionally.) Meanwhile, long-time Trump advisor Roger Stone, implicated in Corsi’s lies, has zig-zagged on questions about his knowledge on WikiLeaks’ inner workings and has repeatedly said he expects to be indicted. Donald Trump Jr. is a member by virtue of nepotism. But he may have earned his way in if he lied to Congress about what he knew about the Moscow deal. Junior, who had said the deal was long dormant, faces new legal exposure now that Cohen has admitted that the Trump Organization were developing a Trump project in Moscow until June 2016
Politico
It's not surprising that Roger sides with the most abusive prosecuted this side of Joseph McCarthy. Seems old Rog doesn't mind fascism as long as it's fascism for his cause.
Let’s keep this last one short and sweet: What five-word sentence best describes the 2018 midterms?
“Anti-Trump Democratic wave sweeps suburbs.”
I am counting “Anti-Trump” as one word!
The abuse of the justice department is Trump trying to indict Clinton because she won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
You and Alex Jones believe that the FBI/DOJ practice partisan investigations.
Idiot
Actually Rog...
According to polls (including the exit polls of the past elections) a pretty healthy majority of Americans believe that the Mueller probe is partisan.
It's actually so obvious that I am not sure how you can even suggest differently.
But then again, this is coming from someone who couldn't believe that NPR would flat out lie about Donald Trump Jr. Someone who still believes that Trump is guilty of and should be impeached for treason, even if Mueller doesn't find any evidence at all.
s of the past elections) a pretty healthy majority of Americans believe that the Mueller probe is partisan.
IOW's opinion, not fact based....Funny how trump says something....and the slurpers believe and fall for the trumpian trolls....idiots!!!
Well it's a poll of the opinion of about 1500 people that is suppose to represent America as a whole. So what's your point?
Am considering the absences of a crime (other than what Mueller manufactured through his perjury traps) much less any evidences of wrong doing it's hard to come to any other conclusion.
It's actually so obvious that I am not sure how you can even suggest differently.
i can...
...invincible ignorance.
Denny
Simple point. It's all an opinion based on your own personal ability to take facts, judge them, and make reasonable conclusions.
Roger ignores fact, prejudges things, and comes to unreasonable conclusions.
Let's be clear. The appointment of special counsel provided Mueller with only the authority to investigate one political candidate and those associated with him... while providing no authority to investigate the other political candidate or anyone associated with her.
This decision was made 100% because of the political howling of those losers who voted for the loser, and were mad because the loser lost because not enough loser voted for said loser.
Simple point. It's all an opinion
Yes lil Scotty....you are simply inane......keep digging!!!! The biggest fraud here is not Roger, it is you falling for the constant lies and stupidity that come from trumps mouth/tweets...His whole regime does nothing but lie as evidenced by the guilty pleas of all his henchman and resignation of staff for being crooks and liars....see Price and the HUD furniture.....sad you keep being so gullible to get the judges you want while the core of democracy is being crashed by the ego in chief......Mueller has got the goods....the shoe will soon fall all around trump and there is nothing Nunes or Gowdy can do to hide it!!!!
Post a Comment