Professor Alan Dershowitz says that there’s no statutory violation whatsoever with regard to Trump & Russia collusion.  Watch the whole thing.  It’s completely devastating to all of the impeachment hopes being peddled by the mainstream media these days.

I have to say that I’ve always given Dershowitz a tremendous amount of credibility.  He has a brilliant legal mind and is extremely good at explaining these complex legal issues in such a way that simpletons like me can understand them.  Even better, he manages to put politics aside while doing it.

It’s fascinating to me because, like Carlson, I had never really thought about the question of what specific crime would have been committed even if it were proven that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.  When we discuss this topic here at RVS, I’m not sure we’re all talking about the same thing.

You know, it makes me think that most of us who have debated this issue are as confused as Carlson appears to be on the video.  We all argue about whether Trump or his associates “colluded with Russia”, but what does that mean?

If someone asks me what I think needs to be proven to show “collusion with Russia” on Trump’s part or his campaign’s, I mean that the accusation means they directly conspired with Russian agents to hack the DNC servers and Podesta’s Gmail account.  The hackings were criminal acts and any US person who assisted in carrying them out or helped plan them would be guilty of conspiracy.

I’ve been confidently saying that there’s nothing to these allegations because there has been zero evidence that anyone on the Trump campaign had anything to do with the hacking.  That Roger Stone knew what Wikileaks had often gets brought up, but Wikileaks didn’t carry out the hacking.  Neither did Stone.  There’s absolutely nothing illegal about Stone knowing what Wikileaks was going to release.  That seems to be more in line with what Dershowitz is speaking about.

Do any of you think that Trump or any of his associates had anything to do with the hacking, rather than the leaking?  I’m under the impression that there’s been a misunderstanding between us because some of you will show that Trump’s people knew of the leaks and claim that’s collusion while I’m more interested in the hacking.

What would you consider to be a crime there that Dershowitz doesn’t?  Even if it’s not criminal, would finding out that Trump somehow colluded with Russia (or that his campaign did and he knew about it) lead you to vote against him in 2020?  Would it change anything for you at all with regard to your opinion of Trump?

I agree with Dershowitz’s points about Comey’s firing and likely obstruction wholeheartedly.  Those conform with viewpoints I’ve heard elsewhere and I don’t doubt that Trump is quite safe as far as that goes.  What I really wonder about is how you guys define “collusion with Russia”.

23 comments

  1. I asked that question towards the beginning of all of this hullabaloo but figured someone somewhere had determined there was illegal activity…perhaps somewhere in campaign laws in regards to foreign governments or something. It’s an interesting that Dershowitz makes.

    This, while taken with a grain of salt at this point, is also interesting.

  2. Yeah, I’m in wait-and-see mode with the Seth Rich stuff. I’m dubious about Kim Dotcom. If he delivers though….whoa.

  3. I think any evidence of bribery or other corruption would be impeachable. Unfortunately for the Dems, there’s scant evidence of that here. The Russians hacked both parties, and if they were trying to influence the popular vote they didn’t do a good job of it. The voting machines themselves would have had to have been hacked on site. Trump may well do something impeachable in his first term, but I don’t think this is it.

    Also, the Orb has now become the newest Internet sensation…

  4. I think there are two areas – one would be taking money from the Russians the way Flynn and Manafort did and then acting based on that. The other would be lying about the money or other contacts with the Russians.
    I believe that it’s also illegal for Trump or his people to have promise the Russians anything in exchange for the hacking, like a lifting of sanctions…

  5. Well it sounds like there’s something – even Lyndsey Graham has referred to it as a ‘criminal investigation’ – which means there’s some crime in there. (I suspect it’s Flynn though)

    I’d guess that the ‘crime’ would be if there were payments involved and not disclosed – that’s the usual route.
    I guess (and I’m no lawyer) it’d be a ‘conspiracy to’ type deal. Like Trump didn’t have to personally sit at the computer and hack into the network to do the crime, but if he was involved in the planning?

    Even if it’s not criminal, would finding out that Trump somehow colluded with Russia (or that his campaign did and he knew about it) lead you to vote against him in 2020?

    What I don’t get is how this is even a question. How can you be ok with a President who would ‘owe’ something to a foreign Government? Would you be OK with the Dems colluding with Russia to hack the Whitehouse in 2020, if it wasn’t technically illegal? How about colluding with the Norks? Or ISIS?

  6. Somethings happened in Manchester – explosion at an Ariana Grande concert – confirmed fatalities

  7. What I don’t get is how this is even a question. How can you be ok with a President who would ‘owe’ something to a foreign Government?

    Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

    Asking for “space” during his re-election campaign so that he would have “more flexibility” after the election in regards to negotiations on missile defense, etc. didn’t even get a blip from the Left during the 2012 election. And that was caught on camera, no investigation necessary.

  8. I’m not a US citizen, but I would have.

    So I see that as a different thing. He was caught on a hot mic negotiating with the Russians with regard to policy. It wasn’t in return for anything. (The right lost their shit over that, by the way..)

    If he’d been caught asking for ‘help in getting re-elected’ – then that would be the same thing (in the hypothetical).

    So I’ll ask it another way – if (hypothetically) it’s proved that the Russians helped Trump get elected, and that the Trump Campaign at least knew about it – you’re comfortable with that. Even if the Russians decide that they want to help Bernie next time? Maybe the Russians could help Trump, and then MI6 could help the Democrats. Mossad could be in the tank for the Libertarians, and Sweden for the Greens. It could just be a big competition to see how many foreign powers you can rally to your side.

  9. I can understand not wanting to throw in the towel when things look dire but this is just wishful thinking in the face of hopeless outcomes. Lmao

  10. So I see that as a different thing.

    Of course you do. Because you give Obama the benefit of the doubt, whereas you don’t offer Trump the same. Witnessing ones own bias is interesting, isn’t it?

    It wasn’t in return for anything.

    What is the “space” he asked for then in return for being “more flexible”? I’ll help you out. He was in the middle of a hotly contested election. Being “flexible” with Russia during the election would have not played well in our country at the time considering he was in the middle of ridiculing the opposing candidate for pointing out that Russia was still our primary geopolitical foe. So he asked for “space” until after the election, Asking Russia to not make missile defense a big deal at the time like they could have done. This was apparently in exchange for giving them “flexible” terms after the election. If you don’t see that…well, witnessing our own bias, again, is an interesting thing. Often times we refuse to do it.

    (The right lost their shit over that, by the way..)

    As they should have. If Trump was found saying anything even close to that on a hot mic, not only would the Right have problems with it, the Left would be calling for his death for treason, let alone impeachment.

    If he’d been caught asking for ‘help in getting re-elected’ – then that would be the same thing (in the hypothetical).

    That’s essentially what he did without using the words. If Russia had made a big deal at the time over missile defense, it would not have helped him get re-elected. Thus asking for the opposite is in essence asking for help in getting re-elected.

    if (hypothetically) it’s proved that the Russians helped Trump get elected, and that the Trump Campaign at least knew about it – you’re comfortable with that.

    Nope. I’m not. Just like I wasn’t fine with what Obama did.

  11. My reading of it was that ‘space’ would have allowed him to get a deal done, rather than it would have helped him get re elected. But fine – I guess maybe thats where our biases show.

    If Trump was found saying anything even close to that on a hot mic, not only would the Right have problems with it, the Left would be calling for his death for treason, let alone impeachment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

    I look forward to your outrage.

  12. Trump bloviating in a press conference to act tough in front of the media, and take a jab at Hillary’s criminal act is the same thing as Obama as the sitting President promising to be flexible with the Russians in return for them giving him space until after his re-election in what he thought was an off-the-record conversation? If you honestly believe that, you’re more loony than I ever thought.

  13. Ah I see. your bias is different to my bias. Got it.

    So what you’re saying is that if it was proved that Trump colluded with the Russians, you’d be against it, but it’s going to be very hard to convince you that he colluded with the Russians. Because you give the benefit of the doubt to the Federal Government to always be doing the right thing, as is the proud tradition of the right wing.

  14. WASHINGTON ― The former head of the CIA said he has seen intelligence about interactions between President Donald Trump’s campaign associates and Russian officials that made him believe there was a need for the ongoing FBI investigation into possible collusion.

    “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign,” former CIA chief John Brennan told lawmakers on Tuesday during a House Intelligence Committee hearing. By the time he left the CIA on Jan. 20, Brennan continued, he had “unresolved questions” as to whether the Russians were successful in getting Americans “to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion.”

    Brennan told lawmakers he could not say with certainty whether the president’s campaign associates colluded with Moscow. “But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the [FBI] to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring or colluding with Russian officials,” he testified Tuesday.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-brennan-cia-intelligence-trump-associates-russia-fbi-investigation_us_59245a35e4b094cdba57f744?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

  15. Wow! Woody AND Buzz? Well your powers of debate are far too great for me. I guess I’ll just sit back and lick my wounds from that Sick Burn.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: