Listened to about 5 minutes of his post. He went through the sorry history of sedition laws. (used against people who protested WWI and disagreed with foreign policy in first couple of presidencys) He says he disagrees with using sedition laws to weaponize dissent. (about 5:58) Dems are using criminal statutes to wage war. Where are sedition prosecutions against Antifa. https://rumble.com/v1y4sw6-are-oath-keepers-guilty-of-sedition.html
Alan Dershowitz Doesn't Agree that oath keepers were guilty of sedition
- Thread starter dailybuck777
- Start date
Ex wife doesn't like ex-husband. LOL. Talked about the children of their marriage as "my" children. Don Lemon interview. Typical Leftie mush.
Good for Alan Dershowitz. Wonder how many pre-teen girls he boinked on Epstein’s island.
Pathetic smear job by someone not able to counter Dershowitz legal arguments. His accuser has recanted. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media...z-accuser-retracts-i-may-have-made-a-mistake/
Meantime the Joe Biden rape accuser, whose claim is supported by circumstantial evidence as well as her own statements, is ignored and Joe Biden is the leader of the Dem (grifter) party.
Typical Buck post. The conservative sympathizer didn’t do it (“She lied”), but the Democrat did it. Fer sure.
Man, you and your obsession with pre-teen boys and girls......
The worst lawyer ever can't refute the facts of Dershowitz's claim.
Typical Lafayette. Bear.No facts and the fact that the Accuser recanted has no bearing on the innocence or guilt of the accused. also, I didn't say that Biden did it, I said that there was significant evidence that maybe he did. The point was you are throwing out wild smears and ignoring stronger evidence of sexual abuse by your president.
Don't know. But what has that got to do with the price of rice in China?
He wasn't on the Jury so what he says has no relevance.
Absolutely ridiculous post. Dershowitz knows way more about the law than the jury does. if so inclined, he could also read the transcript.
- You don't know that happened
- It has nothing to do with what he's saying
That doesn't mean diddly squat. He had no say in the verdict and is basically an apologist for right wing media (that can't be trusted).
Anyone remotely knowledgeable about the law knows that juries make mistakes all of the time. Also, not the least bit unusual for trial judge to incorrectly instruct the jury with respect to law. This is mainly what Dershowitz was talking about.
Jesus, what an ignorant post. Arguably, one of Harvard's greatest law professors. Argued in front of the SCOTUS. An expert in Constitutional and criminal law. But hey, what would he know?
Compared to 12 people pulled off the street who are not allowed to take notes and do their own independent study to make sure they understand the law.
So - the premise of what Dershowitz is saying here is fine. Sedition laws shouldn't be weaponized and used for politicization or to stifle legitimate protest.
The problem is his conclusion that it is being weaponized in this situation, is based on two false premises.
First, he says that "he thinks" that this was just a protest that "got out of hand." Okay, maybe that is accurate as far as a large segment of the protesters, but it doesn't address the specific facts of these 2 Oath Keepers. And, bottom line is, here the facts support way more than a mere protest that "got out of hand." There were texts/messages, testimony, etc. that supported that this was a premeditated act with the intent of harming people or worse and taking over Congress (what their long term plan was here assuming they succeeding in stopping the count, I have no idea). In any event, the only ones who are in a position to weigh these facts and determine whether it was a a "mere protest that got out of hand" or something more sinister was the jury -- not Dershowitz. And they made their decision based on the facts presented.
Second, Dershowitz compares this to some of the BLM riots around George Floyd and the Antifa protests. He has a point there too. The government needs to be super careful in seeking to enforce these laws against one side, but not the other - because it's a dangerous precedent to set. It's weaponizing the justice system for political gain, and once one side does it, it's a slippery slope. That's all fine, and correct - but we are really dealing with an unprecedented event here. You can make certain comparisons between the BLM/Antifa riots and 1/6, but the bottom line is the BLM/Antifa protests/riots did not deal with a premediated attack on the Capitol during the electoral vote count with the intent to take over Congress (you can disagree with that interpretation of the facts, but that's essentially what the jury found with regard to these two individuals at least). And, I'm not trying to diminish BLM/Antifa riots. They were terrible, and I fully believe the wrongdoers should be held fully accountable. But 1/6 generally (and these two Oath Keepers' acts specifically) is really on another level, and unprecedented. And, if you can't charge these Oath Keepers with sedition, then arguably, no conduct would rise to that level - and why even have the laws.
Lastly, everything Dershowitz says here should be taken with a grain of salt, since he is representing one of the protesters. Clearly, he can't speak in favor of the sedition laws or how they were used here - as it would likely harm his own client.
The problem is his conclusion that it is being weaponized in this situation, is based on two false premises.
First, he says that "he thinks" that this was just a protest that "got out of hand." Okay, maybe that is accurate as far as a large segment of the protesters, but it doesn't address the specific facts of these 2 Oath Keepers. And, bottom line is, here the facts support way more than a mere protest that "got out of hand." There were texts/messages, testimony, etc. that supported that this was a premeditated act with the intent of harming people or worse and taking over Congress (what their long term plan was here assuming they succeeding in stopping the count, I have no idea). In any event, the only ones who are in a position to weigh these facts and determine whether it was a a "mere protest that got out of hand" or something more sinister was the jury -- not Dershowitz. And they made their decision based on the facts presented.
Second, Dershowitz compares this to some of the BLM riots around George Floyd and the Antifa protests. He has a point there too. The government needs to be super careful in seeking to enforce these laws against one side, but not the other - because it's a dangerous precedent to set. It's weaponizing the justice system for political gain, and once one side does it, it's a slippery slope. That's all fine, and correct - but we are really dealing with an unprecedented event here. You can make certain comparisons between the BLM/Antifa riots and 1/6, but the bottom line is the BLM/Antifa protests/riots did not deal with a premediated attack on the Capitol during the electoral vote count with the intent to take over Congress (you can disagree with that interpretation of the facts, but that's essentially what the jury found with regard to these two individuals at least). And, I'm not trying to diminish BLM/Antifa riots. They were terrible, and I fully believe the wrongdoers should be held fully accountable. But 1/6 generally (and these two Oath Keepers' acts specifically) is really on another level, and unprecedented. And, if you can't charge these Oath Keepers with sedition, then arguably, no conduct would rise to that level - and why even have the laws.
Lastly, everything Dershowitz says here should be taken with a grain of salt, since he is representing one of the protesters. Clearly, he can't speak in favor of the sedition laws or how they were used here - as it would likely harm his own client.
Last edited:
I don't know what these guys did or didn't do. It sounds like they were involved in some sort of premeditated activity but I don't know their end goal.
I believe that anybody involved in violence or vandalism should be held accountable but I have no idea how they would have overthrown the government. Maybe disrupt some proceedings but what evidence exists that it was more than that?
Go google the texts and recorded messages and witness testimony. These guys were nuts and there was a lot of evidence that they intended to take over Congress. They had weapons brought and stashed away. They had "quick reaction forces" ready to go, there was evidence of "pre-strike reconnaissance" and starting Civil War. Again, have no idea what their long-term plans were (suppose they were hoping their efforts would help Trump remain in power and they would be heroes), but at least as far as these two individuals - this wasn't just a protest that got out of hand (as Dershowitz put it).
I'm not defending these guys.
I don't have the energy to go through emails and transcripts. So tell me, how were they going to overthrow the government? I think I recall hearing that they had weapons stashed where they were staying but I don't recall them entering the Capitol with guns and even if they did they would be overwhelmed by Capitol police.
His yapping won't change the verdicts. Maybe he should try being a judge. Talk is cheap. The verdicts are correct because those asses Oath Keepers tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power with force and killing. Their ideas are truly whacko and often treasonous - may they rot in prison.
They were trying to take hostages and even lynch our VP. 5 people died as a result of their activities. They wanted to have Trump declared the winner of the election even though he lost in a landslide. They were going to make all votes meaningless and install a loser as President.
Do some research, watch the tv coverage, listen to all the Congress Critters who feared for their lives because of the violence, and read the trial transcripts which include the words of the accused where they talk about overthrowing the government. They were violent, their intentions were bad, peole died - guilty by verdict of their peers. The American way, not with guns and violence..
You can't be that naive to think they weren't intent on violence and mayhem. The testimony at their trial says it all. They wanted to overthrow the rightful winner and install their man - sedition.
- sedition ( sɪˈdɪʃən) n 1. speech or behaviour directed against the peace of a state 2. (Law) an offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state 3. (Law) an incitement to public disorder 4. archaic revolt [C14: from Latin sēditiō discord, from sēd- apart + itiō a going, from īre to go] seˈditionary n, adj
You need to tell that to all the Hollywood democrats who were begging electors to be faithless on prime time TV back in Dec 2016 and Jan 2017. They most certainly were trying to stop the peaceful transition of power.
Typicall Laffyseal post. The conservative did it. The lib was framed.
Your lack of awareness is stunning at times. Wait, no it isn't.
I don't recall any of them storming the Capitol with weapons and bad intentions. There is adifference you know between words and violent actions. A false equivalent by a long stretch.
What aboutism is really not the point, stick to the issue at hand not historical items.
It doesn't matter. Trying to overturn a free and fair election is any number of things - seditious, traitorous, immoral, un-American...... And then trying to undermine the duly elected president is the same. And you did that for four years.
No false equivalence at all. The only difference was 10,000 vs. 70,000,000 people.
You are a dishonest POS 2lyin.
I looked it up to refresh my memory:
- Sicknick died the next day due to issues unrelated to 1/6 according to the medical examiner.
- Babbit was an unarmed protester shot by police.
- Greeson was not at the capitol. He was on the phone with his wife when he collapsed due to heart issues.
- Phillips also died of heart issues unrealted to 1/6 according to the medical examiner.
- Boyland died because of amphetamine intoxication.
This is why we can never have a constructive dialog. You don't care about facts. You must spend all day watching Joy Reid. No wonder you're so messed up.
The interpretation is exactly what Dershowitz was talking about. You don't think the summer riots after George Floyd would qualify as "speech or behaviour directed against the peace of a state". Those rioters shot and killed people and they set a police station on fire.
Sadly you're just a lemming that repeats the party line. You're not able to think on your own.
Not even close. What aboutism arguments mean you have no facts to support your position. The world doesn't work that way.
Why don't you and Dershowitz get those verdicts reversed if they were bogus. The criminals were found guilty and that is how the system works.
Alan Dershowitz should have volunteered to be their lawyers, maybe next time. Defendants mistake for getting the wrong lawyers.
No facts? Are you suggesting leftwing Hollywood elites did not go on national TV and beg electors to be faithless thereby handing the presidency to Hillary who did not win?
Are you suggesting leftwing nuts in government didn't lie to try to frame Trump? For the only reason that they didn't like him..... Hello McFly.....
THIS ^^^^. Horsewanker was correct in noting that Dershowitz WAS one of Harvard's greatest professors. The operative word there is WAS.
The Dersh sold out to Trump Cultism, probably after one of Epstein's or Trump's minions obtained exceedingly compromising photos or video of him on Pedo Island. His ensuing stream of ridonkulous assertions on behalf of Trump and other RWNJ's effectively tanked his credibility, and with it his career and public image.
It's pretty entertaining watching RWNJ's like Hermy and Horsewanker attempt to prop him up.
