Dershowitz: Jan. 6 Panel 'Doctored the Tape,' Edited Out Trump's Words

Any committee members who are members of the bar who participated in doctoring the evidence and deliberately splicing out Trump's exculpatory phases, should be referred to the bar for disciplinary proceedings.

 

"He kept on his underwear, totally credible". That is an answer worthy not so much of Kafka but Lewis Carroll!

 

EVERYBODY KNOWS: Honest Liberals Know Trump Is Innocent and the J6 Hearings Are a Sham.

You stoop to falsify evidence and concealing exculpatory evidence when you are in the grips of the worst parts of your personality and you cannot support your Trumped up charges on the real world facts.

​

"Any objective person can see that the Democrats are merely exploiting the Capitol riot with primetime hearings in an effort to distract the public from the nation’s economic woes."

Yes, we see it.

Honest Liberals Call Them Out:
“Pelosi’s decision to shred the long tradition on balanced committees was a signature muscle play,” said liberal law professor Jonathan Turley on Twitter. “The Jan. 6 Committee was stripped of any pretense. It was as subtle as her ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union speech on the House floor. The Committee can now deliver precisely what Pelosi demands: politics unburdened by process. The shame is that it could have been so much more if the committee were balanced and allowed a broader scope of inquiry.”

Even "liberal professor Alan Dershowitz used an analogy to explain how unethical the committee is."
“I’m wearing my [Boston] Celtics shirt today,” he began. “Not only in preparation for the great match-up tonight, but to make an analogy. It’s as if the [Golden State] Warriors came out yesterday [in the NBA Finals] and started shooting toward the basket, but the Celtics were kept off the court, and all we saw was one team scoring one after the other, missing a few layups, missing a few jump-shots, but no defense, no stealing of the ball, no rebounds. That’s what we saw last night.”

 

An article about the balance of the committee which ignores McCarthy pulling his 5 GOP members from it because the democrats rejected 2 who actively supported the actions they were supposed to investigate, is pretty worthless.

 

A review of all of the political activities which took place prior to the first meeting of the special committee is worth while.

The question which such a review will answer is this: Did the Republican Party do more to set up a committee with impartial, open-minded members or did it try to establish grounds to try to discredit the committee?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

Deflecting from the multiple reported facts and flaming is expected from one without core values. Are you disputing "Trump controlled and Russia owned" Dersh is above the law and hence, his Lolita proclivities are acceptable? If so, why?

 

In our Constitutional Liberal Democracy, Legitimacy requires not only that impartial Justice be done, but that impartial justice is observed being done.

"In 1924, Lord Gordon Hewart famously declared, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The lord chief justice of England, he believed that even a small allegation of possible bias by a court clerk meant justice was not seen to be done and, thus, was not done."

"Nancy Pelosi broke from long tradition "and blocked two Republican committee members selected by GOP leaders. In response, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled his other committee nominees, and Pelosi then seated two staunchly anti-Trump Republicans — Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger."

​

"For 230 years, Congress maintained the need for bipartisan membership. That was the case with the Watergate committees, the House Committee on Assassinations, the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions and other investigations. It would have been easy to stack the decks and limit the members by party on each of those committees, but past congressional leaders understood that the credibility of such investigations required balance, including opposing views."

A Frame Up Hit Job:
"Countervailing evidence was edited out. Thus, Trump was shown calling for the protesters to “march” on the Capitol — but not his additional words to do so “peacefully.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/...an-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/

That you do not understand why people of integrity would NEVER lend their reputations to falsification of this level during official proceedings of this gravity is a potential area of such personal growth for you that I'm excited at how uplifting this will be for you once you understand it.

Be assured that every element of our long traditions of Due Process formed on the backs of a tragedy; a rush to judgment, a brutal sentence carried out by a hasty angry crowd fully confident that justice was being served, followed by the revelation of additional facts that proved beyond any doubt that in the grip of passions that what was served up was gastly and unjust and unfortunately unchangeable. Those the mob broke, could not be made whole or restored to life or health, so the best that could be done is the unbreakable commitment that going forward that procedures would solemnly followed that would allow for a full examination of the facts evaluated in the most dispassionate means humanly possible, fearlessly examined under an adversarial proceedings where the accused had sufficient opportunity to bring forward evidence, witnesses and advocates on their behalf.

There are two ways to achieve balance, internally and with off setting extremes. A committee seeks both. And no, they do not preemptively remove folks that will question assumptions or introduce disconfirming evidence.

In your mind, what was this point of this; to hang Trump, or to determine why Congress lost control of the Capitol for those many terrible hours?

 

Well said.

 

I simply wrote that the article was pretty worthless if it didn't acknowledge history of how the committee came to be. Nothing you write here has anything to do with that point.

 

Yes because there's no evidence for any of it and a great deal against as legal expert Dersh established when he took on his accuser, causing her to drop all charges against him.

 

She was paid off, go figure, Dersh confessed to "keeping his undies on", use some critical thinking instead of posting partisan rot.

 

If you going to accuse others of partisan rot, you'd better have good evidence for your own claims. So far, you don't.

 

Adam Schiff gave it to Hunter Biden for safe keeping.

 

Common sense. It's all over the forum. Dersh is a controlled schill.

 

Yeah, everyone thinks their position is common sense. Not a good enough reason.

 

Let's put it this way, critical thinking is a skill, give it a shot, you should have a measure of the OP players.

 

Veiled insults isn't a great look.

 

It's pretty obvious that seeking attention has it's ups and downs. Look before you leap.

 

You are justifying doctored evidence?

 

Compete non sequitor.

 

Who should the committee interview to get the "other side" of the story? Why won't they come forward? Is "show their voices patriotically and peacefully." all there is to the other side?

 

Yes exactly why the dems yet again f'd it up. If they would have allowed cross examination and allowed main stream republicans or even anyone who wasn't already antiTrump on the committee, their findings would be way more believable. As of now it's obvious they set up a partisan anti Trump committee who's whole goal is to damage Trump enough he can't run. I'm all for that by the way and view it as a wasted great chance of a gift from this committee but they f'd it up and most see it as a half backed sham.

 

They did allow mainstream Republicans in the 1st attempt to set up the committee. But they didn't allow 2 people who had a clear conflict of interest because they had been involved in the efforts to overturn the election. Then Meadows withdraw all 5. That's not the democrats' fault.

 

LOL so they put two ANTITRUMP Republicans on the committee that have open beefs with Trump. Yea makes sense, and not believably nonpartisan, which pisses me off. Now all they did was delegitimize their f'ing findings, dumba$$es. Unfortunately, your dealing with Pelosi's house, which is the most idiotic, not trustworthy group in modern times.

 

Blame McCarthy (sorry, not Meadows): he withdrew the moderates from the committee, and I suspect it was exactly to create this bogus reason to delegitimise the committee. It is skewed towards the left because of him, not Pelosi - she accepted the more moderate Rs.