https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/william-barr-reacts-to-latest-trump-indictment-legitimate-case/
Former AG William Barr said the Department of Justice is not abusing power in its case against Trump.
“They’re not attacking his first amendment rights, he can say whatever he wants he can even lie and tell people the election was stolen when he knew better, but that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech,” he said. “Free speech does not give you the right for fraudulent conspiracy.”
Barr said he wasn’t sure initially, but has since “come to believe that [Trump] knew well that he had lost the [2020] election.
“And, now, what I think is important is, the government has assumed the burden of proving that. The government, in their indictment, takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn’t stolen through fraud,” Barr told Collins.
nonsense this is obvious the burden of proof on the government is that Trump was well aware he was spreading lies and undermining the system with fake electors
ReplyDeleteDershowitz is a ready source of legal nonsense such as any president can not be committing a criminal as long as he does it for the greater good. So trump's actions to retain power which he thought was an altruistic act - can not be criminal
Dershowitz is a professor of Law. He is not saying Trump is a tzaddik, but that there is not a legal basis to prosecute.
ReplyDeleteYou can't describe it as nonsense, it is parshanut. The judge will need to decide if his legal argumentation is valid.
ReplyDeleteThere is no specific definition of what is impeachable -so even Dersho's detractors are presenting their own constructed interpretations.
He is a professor of law who spouts nonsense in trying to defend Trump against clear and fully evidenced Since when do you rely on arguments based solely on authority?!
ReplyDeleteso ex AG Barr is not an authority?
ReplyDeleteDersho is presenting his reading of the law. I am not relying on anyone, since I am not in the prosecution or impeachement.
He's one of Israel's biggest defenders as well. Is his lack of intelligence selective?
ReplyDelete> Since when do you rely on arguments based solely on authority?!
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the entire definition of Daat Torah?
I have no problem with appeal to authority but KA usually does
ReplyDeletecould be!
ReplyDeleteSo your point is that you just discovered that some disagree with the main stream understanding?!
ReplyDeleteeilu v eilu
ReplyDeleteSome learned people, not talking about am haartzim
ReplyDeleteIn a professional capacity, a senegor has to bring arguments against the kategor.
ReplyDeleteI don't always reject authority, but I bring alternative views, eg Raavad vs rambam; ibn Ezra vs Rashi, Arukh hashulchan vs the MB, or even the Rema vs the SA.
ReplyDelete“he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn’t stolen through fraud” No. SCOTUS ruled “a conspiracy to commit wire fraud had to involve a scheme to deprive someone of money or actual property” from WSJ “A Rare Justice Department Mea Culpa.”
ReplyDeleteMy case is still undecided Aranoff v Aranoff 2023-398. I wrote 8/2/2023:
4.TIAA manages all aspects my TIAA pension when I started teaching at Fordham University until today when TIAA paid me $995.89 on August 1, 2023 and paid Susan $1,217.20 on August 1, 2023. TIAA's payment to Susan August 1, 2023 $1,217.20 belongs to me. TIAA 1s not allowed to pay Susan 55% of my pension. This is embezzlement, stealing. I quote The Ten Commandments Deuteronomy 5:18 “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's wife; neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.” Hertz Chumash comparing Deuteronomy 5:18 to Exodus 22:8: “There is also a new mention of 'his field', an appropriate addition for a people about to enter the inheritance of their Land.”
Wow the tenth Commandment states "neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's." Fits well with the SCOTUS ruling politicians lying is not a crime unless part of a scheme of depriving a neighbor of money or actual property. Surely in USA divorce battles, lying not a crime unless part of a scheme to deprive the other of money or property.
Of course lying under oath violates the third commandment ”Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” In a USA divorce court between 2 parties and public statements only a scheme to deprive the other of money or actual property is relevant,
True for the 45th president Trump: did he scheme to deprive someone of money of actual property?