Dershowitz argued last night that the Trumps are not in violation of 52 U.S. Code 30121

[Goodheart]

because the information they sought from the Russians was not the sort of thing intended by "other thing of value" written into that statute. But even if it WAS intended then the statute, itself, is unconstitutional because there can be no restriction on a citizen merely seeking and receiving information.

To which I'd say to Mr. Dershowitz's face "you're not very smart in your old age, are you?"

His theory is laughably full of holes.

[hlthe2b]

1. he should never be allowed to spew without a competent counter...

Even Jeffrey Toobin has been effective

[zipplewrath]

2. Stolen information

He best consider whether the family knew, or had reason to believe, that the Russians had obtained it illegally. Which immediately generates the question, "how could they even obtain it legally?"

[uponit7771]

13. Dershowitz argued even stole information is usable in public and protected by the 1st, there's seems

... something wrong with that if the information is someones personal information.

[marylandblue]

17. Hmm. he just killed the Copywright Clause of the Consitution

The Copywright Clause authorizes Congress to make copywright laws. Apparently they immediately changed their minds in the First Amendment by prohibiting Congress from abridging free speech through protecting the words found in someone else's book.

I think I'll plagiarize one of his books and see how feels about that.

[uponit7771]

18. LOVE the fact there's some smart people on this forum !! You're right, I figured he wasn't telling

... the whole law and a twisted redacted version.

[zipplewrath]

24. Not if you "colluded" (conspired) to obtain it in the first place

It's one thing if they receive information that was obtained illegally. However, if they were involved in the pursuit and collection of that information by illegal means, then there is a problem.

[brush]

3. Yep, that lurch to right has caused something to go wrong upstairs.

[marylandblue]

4. So it's constitutional to steal your credit card information?

[uponit7771]

14. Then give it to a campaign so they can repeat it in public. Yeah, I figured D's argument wasn't soun

[W_HAMILTON]

5. He was so stupid.

Using his rationale, no one can be charged with perjury or lying to the FBI because it would be violating that person's free speech.

I haven't followed him much, but he was apparently respected at one time. I wonder what it takes to cause someone like that to transform into the embarrassment that he is today?

[duforsure]

6. Wonder what trump has on Ders?

It must be something good.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I believe Asha Rangappa

put him in his place on that issue (if you're talking about them being on with Chris Cuomo last night)

She's terrific most of the time.

[Cicada]

8. I would be slow to claim Dershowitz is wrong

I read a book with about a hundred Dershowitz columns. I am conceited, just full of myself in many ways. Perfect scores on some entrance exams. I went to fancy schools and did well competing against the very best. But Alan Dershowitz is a lot smarter than I am. I think he’s wrong sometimes. But on something like this point of law I would never bet against him. His argument also makes sense to me.

[NewJeffCT]

9. Dershowitz is a criminal law expert

he is not a constitutional law expert like Laurence Tribe

Sure, of course he knows the constitution, but that's not his specialty.

[Cicada]

21. The logic of law applies in many different applications

The idea that law should support public good is valid for criminal law and for election law. An informed electorate is a public good.

[uponit7771]

15. Me too, I'll be honest but he seems to leave shit out. Stolen information used by a campaign can't

... be protected.

Like Trump steeling or accepting stolen credit card information and then telling the public the credit card numbers

Somethings not lawful there.

I'm thinking the information has to be relative to the context for it to be "a thing of value"

[Cicada]

22. Pentagon papers were stolen

[uponit7771]

23. I'm thinking its who they were taking from and were handed to and why that makes taking stolen email

... emails different.

Would whistle blower protection make the Pentagon Papers different?

Thx in advance

[Goodheart]

16. On this he is obviously wrong.

Suppose, for example, that that information was stolen user names and passcodes to a sensitive website. You are not legally entitled to solicit nor receive that information.

[uponit7771]

19. +1, then spout the information during a rally and claim 1st rights. I'm thinking in regards to ...

... "a thing of value" it has to be contextual also.

It's valuable to get information about a candidate during a campaign in a presidential election but not if it was given to 2nd graders.

I'm thinking the "a thing of value" is going to still bite Benedict Donald in the azz

[Cicada]

20. Some information is useful in elections, even if other information is not

There is value in the public knowing many things and we should encourage that knowledge. So it seems logical for a court to avoid punishing its acquisition. Some information is not useful for good government so I agree that information need not be protected.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Here are the videos of Dershowitz debating Rangappa

she broke it down into two parts.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[lame54]

11. Then why hide it and then deny it

[kwassa]

12. Dershowitz will say anything to get attention.

Like Trump, like Giuliani. Like a moth to a flame.