Dershowitz talks about the “shoe on the other foot” test
I was channel surfing last night and came upon a Mark Levin interview with Alan Dershowitz that was riveting. It takes a lot for me to call an interview “riveting,” but Dershowitz almost always has extremely intelligent things to say and he expresses himself in an unusually lucid and fair manner.
One of his most salient traits, and the one I appreciate the most, is how even-handed he is. He doesn’t let politics influence his opinion about the principles to apply – although of course politics very much influences his personal political voting behavior, which tends to be quite different from mine. But when he talks about law and about current events, he tries to apply what he calls the “shoe on the other foot” rule, which I consider extremely valuable and try to apply myself when I write or when I form my opinons.
Here’s a short clip I’ve cued up of Dershowitz explaining the rule. And I don’t think he should limit it to “serious academics“; the rule should apply to everyone opining. And yet its application is very unusual, which makes Dershowitz (and Turley, who is another good example of a practitioner) a rara avis:
And please, do yourself a favor and listen to the whole thing, or at least the first half or so of it:
One of the stupidest and most evidence-free talking points of all the brainless talking heads on CNN and MSNBC is that anyone who seeks in any way to defend Trump from the “witch hunters” is somehow in league with the dastardly Putin and the evil Kremlin. Neither Dershowitz nor Turley (both of whom voted for HRC) cares for Trump, yet both argue far more rationally and knowledgeably about impeachment than the leftwing partisans put forward by the Dems; are they also in league with the the Russians?
The unfair anti-Rep Dem media, and most academics (like the Dem law profs used), refuse to put the shoe on the other foot.
They’re “not serious”, as Dershowitz says. But that’s old school liberal not serious. The new serious is Machiavelli: the end justifies the means, getting Trump isn’t everything, it’s the ONLY thing.
Always astounds me that genuine lawyers would cast a vote for HRC.
Therefore their credibility suffers in my eyes. They would be decent and honorable if they abstained or voted 3rd party.
“…the rule should apply to everyone opining.”
IMHO.
The polite word for such an expectation is …um…er….noble.
The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price on that must include The Bell Curve, and the original APA Dignostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
That’s nice. Did Levin ask him about his buddy Epstein?
CaptDMO: You’re killing me! 😛
Zaphod:
Why don’t you actually watch the video and discover the answer to your question?
Here, I’ll make it easy for you and cue it up to the part where they start talking about Epstein. It’s a long discussion, so watch the whole thing:
My wife and I caught the tail end of it. While we weren’t intending to watch it, we were riveted.
Well, I came to the party too late.
FOX has pulled all the videos for copyright.
j e on December 9, 2019 at 3:34 pm said:
One of the stupidest and most evidence-free talking points of all the brainless talking heads on CNN and MSNBC is that anyone who seeks in any way to defend Trump from the “witch hunters” is somehow in league with the dastardly Putin and the evil Kremlin. Neither Dershowitz nor Turley (both of whom voted for HRC) cares for Trump, yet both argue far more rationally and knowledgeably about impeachment than the leftwing partisans put forward by the Dems; are they also in league with the the Russians?
* * *
Probably,
Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are.
And so is Ted Cruz.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/12/09/it-has-come-to-this-ted-cruz-is-putins-stooge/
Dershowitz and Turley.
There must be others. There MUST be. Surely they cannot be the only purveyors of decency, civility, sanity and sense remaining on the Left….
Or is it “Dershowitz and Turley (and pray for rain)”?
https://sportslifer.wordpress.com/tag/spahn-and-sain-and-pray-for-rain/
I’ve been thinking for quite a while that the impeachment gambit was the Democrats’ preferred method to hurt Trump severely in the polls thereby hurting him severely in the upcoming election; this since they have absolutely no chance to remove him from office in the current cycle.
Now I am firmly convinced that the impeachment farce will be sustained for as long as it takes so as to prepare the ground for the Democrats’ upcoming rabid cri-de-coeur: that because of the impeachment “inquiry” (or accusation, whatever one wishes to call this perverse witch hunt), that Trump will be ineligible to even run in the next elections.
I don’t know if there is legal justification for such an assertion; but even if there is no legal justification for it, the Democrats will stress the “morality” of the issue, the “ethics” of having a person “under such a shadow” “besmirch this great country” so beloved of that party, so in need—dire need—of the protection of true Democratic Party patriots.
(Yes, Democrats spouting morality and ethics, patriotism. And VALUES!)
And this—since there is no chance for actual impeachment—is how it will play out, with the MSM at its most hysterical, banging the drum.
To be sure, for a great many of the faithful, Trump has already been proven guilty over and over again…and has therefore already been, for all intents and purposes, impeached. All that’s missing is the formality of it. (And who—except for “deplorables” really needs that?)
Seem to have found a third:
https://www.newsmax.com/stephenbpresser/ford-nadler-schiff/2019/12/09/id/945172/
H/T: Powerline blog
Here’s hoping a whole slough of ’em will start crawling out of the woodwork.
Their country needs them.
Dammit.
The issue is the governance by laws of the USA, and the triumph of immorality.
This seizure of the House by a thin Democratic majority to impeach a President on the thinnest, most hyperbolic and exaggerated evidence is a grave sign of our national danger. But Comey and the FBI get a walk by Horowitz for numerous secret FISA court abuses because they were “errors”? If I made the error of shooting my neighbor’s dog I assuredly would not get an “error” pass; I’d have cops holding guns on me.It is critical that the ultra-secret FISA courts not tolerate any such errors, none.
The MSM is 100% anti-Trump, the Yale faculty is 100% anti-Trump, the oppressive intolerance grows daily.
A TV reporter was slapped on her butt once lately while ‘covering’ a 10K race somewhere in grubbsville, with her back to the runners, she feels “violated” and the identified runner has been banned from local races for life?
Dershowitz and Turley voted for Hillary despite their intellectual fair-handedness? Are they deaf, dumb and blind?
This is not an America in which I want to live. We have become Sovietized from within.
Our consciences are gifts from God, an internalization of Natural Law, but they must be developed and maintained, and that is simply not happening.
This is probably too late… but hopefully neo will see it and maybe put it up
Alan Dershowitz to Mark Levin: Democrats Are Using Soviet Tactics to Take Down Donald Trump
On the latest episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin” on Fox News Channel, law professor Alan Dershowitz completely destroyed the Democrats’ impeachment case against President Donald Trump. “They’re searching for a crime… There is no case for bribery,” Dershowitz told Levin.
Host Mark Levin asked Dershowitz about the meaning of “bribery.” It has, he said, specific meaning. “It doesn’t mean everything. It just doesn’t necessarily mean this. What does it mean?”
Well, Dershowitz explained, “There are four criteria… We know it when we see it.” For example, “when you pay a government official corruptly to perform an illegal act or an act that is motivated by money. But it can’t operate when you’re the president of the United States and you’re conditioning or withholding money in order to make sure that a country isn’t corrupt, and you’re asking them to investigate. That just doesn’t fit any definition of bribery — common law definition of bribery, statutory definition of bribery. However you define the constitutional word bribery, it just doesn’t fit.”
So, what are Democrats doing, then? “What they’re trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin the dictator — I’m not comparing our country to the Soviet Union, I just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that. Beria said to Stalin: ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ And that’s what some of the Democrats are doing. They have Trump in their sights. They want to figure out ways of impeaching him, and they’re searching for a crime.”
“First they came up with abuse of power,” Dershowitz went on to say, “[which] is not a crime, it’s not in the Constitution. So now they’re saying bribery but they’re making it up. There’s no case for bribery, based on… even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved, which they haven’t been, but even if they were to be proved, it would not constitute the impeachable offense of bribery.”
Dershowitz also wondered why Democrats were allowed to get three expert-witnesses, and Republicans only one. Prof. Jonathan Turley did a fantastic job, he said, but this discrepancy alone is reason for concern. “You know, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper number 65, the greatest danger would be if impeachment turned on the number of people each party had.* If impeachment turns on the fact that the Democrats now have a majority in the House but not in the Senate, that would be a complete abuse of what the framers had in mind.”
It goes without saying that Democrats couldn’t care less what the framers had in mind. They hate the framers. They despise them. They were “slaveholders!” “Racists!” “White men!” The only reason their so-called expert witnesses referred to the framers every now and then during their testimony was to give their coup against President Trump some legal backing.
“Alexander Hamilton is misquoted all the time. He used the word ‘political,’ but he didn’t say the process should be political; he said the crimes — treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors — are political in nature. But the process should be non-partisan. Nobody should be impeached and removed unless there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus,” Dershowitz explained. “I’m not making that up. I’m quoting Congressman Nadler when Bill Clinton was being impeached.”
Dershowitz is right. Democrats are making it up, and they are copying Soviet tactics to get rid of President Trump. It’s truly a shocking sight to behold — and that’s precisely why it’s so important for all conservatives to stand by the president against this Democrat coup.
*Federalist Paper No. 65 can be read here. The literal quote is: “… there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/alan-dershowitz-to-mark-levin-democrats-are-using-soviet-tactics-to-take-down-donald-trump
Artfldgr:
As I said, the interview was riveting and people would do well to watch the whole thing. The part you mention is in the same interview I put up in this post in its entirety, and recommended.
This is not the first time that Dershowitz has made the Beria analogy, either. I wrote a post about it in March of 2018.
Barry, thanx for the Stephen B. Presser link.
Alas, I fear that his clout is trivial, compared to Dersh and Turley.
Amazingly, Wikipedia has no entry on him at all, despite him being a Prof. at a major school (Northwestern).
You’re welcome; but it occurred to me (not long after that posting) that Presser may not be on the—traditionally—Liberal, or even libertarian, end of the spectrum. (There is a biographical link at the top of that post as well as a list of other articles he wrote.)
If this is indeed the case, then my link above is not, alas, very relevant to my point.
(To be sure, it is interesting that he is somehow surviving—I hope—or even flourishing, at Northwestern…)