Wow.....

[bornaneer]

CNN is accused of banning one of the country’s leading legal minds from its airwaves because he would not conform to its “one-sided presentation” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz made the explosive claim. “I have been right from day one, and almost all the other pundits and professors have just been dead wrong.”

“CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”
Dershowitz continued: “CNN wouldn’t have me on the air because they want a one-sided presentation, and everybody who watches CNN was shocked by the conclusions… no one who watches me was shocked.”

 

[Airport]

CNN is accused of banning one of the country’s leading legal minds from its airwaves because he would not conform to its “one-sided presentation” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz made the explosive claim. “I have been right from day one, and almost all the other pundits and professors have just been dead wrong.”

“CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”
Dershowitz continued: “CNN wouldn’t have me on the air because they want a one-sided presentation, and everybody who watches CNN was shocked by the conclusions… no one who watches me was shocked.”

Heard him say that. Obviously, he didn't say it on CNN.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[Boomboom521]

They “banned” him from the airwaves? Maybe they feel like, liberal or not, Dershowitz is an attention ***** and really weren’t interested in his point of view. I know I can’t stand the jag, ever since he whored himself out for OJ.

 

[moe]

CNN is accused of banning one of the country’s leading legal minds from its airwaves because he would not conform to its “one-sided presentation” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz made the explosive claim. “I have been right from day one, and almost all the other pundits and professors have just been dead wrong.”

“CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that. They didn’t want that.”
Dershowitz continued: “CNN wouldn’t have me on the air because they want a one-sided presentation, and everybody who watches CNN was shocked by the conclusions… no one who watches me was shocked.”

Somehow life will go on. AD has chosen sides and is a Trump homer, not much to be gained by having him on. There's no shortage of lawyers that would love to come on CNN to discuss anything.

 

[bornaneer]

Somehow life will go on. AD has chosen sides and is a Trump homer, not much to be gained by having him on. There's no shortage of lawyers that would love to come on CNN to discuss anything.

Yes.....life will go on....Iv'e tried to make you see that. And life will still go on long after Trump is gone.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Somehow life will go on. AD has chosen sides and is a Trump homer, not much to be gained by having him on. There's no shortage of lawyers that would love to come on CNN to discuss anything.

He’s not a Trump homer. He’s a liberal legal scholar who apparently knows a **** load more about the law than anything parroted on the Pravdaesque networks you watch. He maintained true to his integrity of knowledge during the entirety of this ordeal and he was 100% spot on correct.

 

[bornaneer]

Somehow life will go on. AD has chosen sides and is a Trump homer, not much to be gained by having him on. There's no shortage of lawyers that would love to come on CNN to discuss anything.

Don't think he is a Trump "homer". He voted for and is a Hillary supporter,is very liberal and is a staunch Democrat.

 

[Boomboom521]

He’s not a Trump homer. He’s a liberal legal scholar who apparently knows a **** load more about the law than anything parroted on the Pravdaesque networks you watch. He maintained true to his integrity of knowledge during the entirety of this ordeal and he was 100% spot on correct.

JFC.....guys only integrity lies in his unflinching love for being famous.

 

[moe]

Yes.....life will go on....Iv'e tried to make you see that. And life will still go on long after Trump is gone.

America should expect more than to just survive the Trump presidency and you're right, America will rebuild our honored institutions and relationships with allies that Trump is tearing down for his own personal interests. Trump only cares about himself, his family wealth and his (tarnished) legacy, he doesn't care about this nation.

 

[moe]

Don't think he is a Trump "homer". He voted for and is a Hillary supporter,is very liberal and is a staunch Democrat.

Have you ever been right about anything?

 

[TarHeelEer]

America should expect more than to just survive the Trump presidency and you're right, America will rebuild our honored institutions and relationships with allies that Trump is tearing down for his own personal interests. Trump only cares about himself, his family wealth and his (tarnished) legacy, he doesn't care about this nation.

 

[bornaneer]

Have you ever been right about anything?

Yes...about most things....and certainly my track record is much better than yours. Even though I wavered close to the 2016 election due to the polling.......I predicted from day one that Trump would beat all the repubs and your Gal and win the Presidency.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

JFC.....guys only integrity lies in his unflinching love for being famous.

And the facts surrounding this case, where he was 100% correct. Right?

 

[bornaneer]

America should expect more than to just survive the Trump presidency and you're right, America will rebuild our honored institutions and relationships with allies that Trump is tearing down for his own personal interests. Trump only cares about himself, his family wealth and his (tarnished) legacy, he doesn't care about this nation.

LOL.....you are a real piece of work........it's useless.

 

[moe]

Yes...about most things....and certainly my track record is much better than yours. Even though I wavered close to the 2016 election due to the polling.......I predicted from day one that Trump would beat all the repubs and your Gal and win the Presidency.

that's funny, thx.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[Boomboom521]

And the facts surrounding this case, where he was 100% correct. Right?

1. There was no case of collusion, there was an investigation on it
2. The political fallout of an investigation sucks, but **** happens. There are plenty of innocent people that are damaged by an investigation
3. I don’t know what Dershowitz was right about, I don’t listen to the spotlight addicted windbag.
4. No matter what the 1970’s mustache warrior said, he wasn’t privy to ANY of the classified information that members of Congress and the IC saw that might have prompted the investigation for collusion anyway.
5. Unicorns

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

No matter what the 1970’s mustache warrior said, he wasn’t privy to ANY of the classified information that members of Congress and the IC saw that might have prompted the investigation for collusion anyway.

There wasn’t any to begin with.

 

[Boomboom521]

There wasn’t any to begin with.

No? I guess you’re still rockin that security clearance?

 

[TarHeelEer]

No matter what the 1970’s mustache warrior said, he wasn’t privy to ANY of the classified information that members of Congress and the IC saw that might have prompted the investigation for collusion anyway.

There wasn’t any to begin with.

There was a very telling quote yesterday. "Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was"

Everyone thinks he's talking about Mueller. I think he's talking about the initial intel from 5 eyes.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

No? I guess you’re still rockin that security clearance?

You need to read more. It’s been stated through transcripts of testimonies released, Mueller’s report confirmed it through Barr’s assessment, etc.

There “wasn’t a there, there”

 

[Boomboom521]

You need to read more. It’s been stated through transcripts of testimonies released, Mueller’s report confirmed it through Barr’s assessment, etc.

There “wasn’t a there, there”

To investigate Russian influence? ********

 

[TarHeelEer]

To investigate Russian influence? ********

You just went from collusion to Russian influence on our election. Those are two very different topics.

 

[Boomboom521]

You just went from collusion to Russian influence on our election. Those are two very different topics.

Not when it pertains to Mueller’s investigation. He was charged to investigate Russian efforts to infiltrate the election and any potential collusion from the Trump campaign
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

Read the opening paragraph explaining the reason for the appointment

 

[mule_eer]

You just went from collusion to Russian influence on our election. Those are two very different topics.

Part of the issue is a pattern of behavior. It was denial of the Russian influence, lies about meetings with Russians, etc that led to an investigation to begin with.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Not when it pertains to Mueller’s investigation. He was charged to investigate Russian efforts to infiltrate the election and any potential collusion from the Trump campaign
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

Read the opening paragraph explaining the reason for the appointment

Circular logic. You all just assumed Trump was dirty and just had to be involved. Mueller could have been appointed and done the analysis without involving the Trump organization as there was zero evidence to suggest he and his administration were involved. That was DNC propaganda that triggered his involvement into the SC. Mueller’s report through AG Barr’s assessment confirms that.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Part of the issue is a pattern of behavior. It was denial of the Russian influence, lies about meetings with Russians, etc that led to an investigation to begin with.

He was under official investigation before that started occurring.

Intel ops were being run against multiple Republican campaigns 6 months prior. That's what I want to know about.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Part of the issue is a pattern of behavior. It was denial of the Russian influence, lies about meetings with Russians, etc that led to an investigation to begin with.

Oh, well that settles it. Equivalent of Stop and Frisk.

 

[Boomboom521]

Circular logic. You all just assumed Trump was dirty and just had to be involved. Mueller could have been appointed and done the analysis without involving the Trump organization as there was zero evidence to suggest he and his administration were involved. That was DNC propaganda that triggered his involvement into the SC. Mueller’s report through AG Barr’s assessment confirms that.

Release the FISA app and I might agree with that. And him being the beneficiary of the Russian efforts warrants some type of investigation anyway. Investigating someone doesn’t impose upon their rights......now, you want the political influence dealt with (or at least balanced) fine, Trump’s installed 2 different AG’s.

 

[mule_eer]

Oh, well that settles it. Equivalent of Stop and Frisk.

If you act like you are hiding something, the police are going to make assumptions. I'm simply saying that those who act like there was no reason to investigate aren't looking at this objectively. I'm glad that Trump came out clean on this. That's good news for all of us. Using hindsight to say that no investigation was needed isn't dealing in reality.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Isn't Dershowitz involved with that child rapist Epstein along with that Trump admin official? I'd keep him off the airwaves if I was any "News" network.

 

[Boomboom521]

Oh, well that settles it. Equivalent of Stop and Frisk.

That’s fvcking ********

 

[dave]

Have you ever been right about anything?

Tell me more about collusion.

 

[dave]

Isn't Dershowitz involved with that child rapist Epstein along with that Trump admin official? I'd keep him off the airwaves if I was any "News" network.

He was a defense counsel for a defendent. Crucify him.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

If you act like you are hiding something, the police are going to make assumptions. I'm simply saying that those who act like there was no reason to investigate aren't looking at this objectively. I'm glad that Trump came out clean on this. That's good news for all of us. Using hindsight to say that no investigation was needed isn't dealing in reality.

We’re not looking at it objectively? Yet Mueller’s 2 year investigation confirmed there wasn’t anything there. No evidence. Zero.

If after 2 years of a SC investigation and no evidence was found, perhaps, there shouldn’t have been an investigation to start with as there was a lack of evidence to trigger it?

 

[bornaneer]

We’re not looking at it objectively? Yet Mueller’s 2 year investigation confirmed there wasn’t anything there. No evidence. Zero.

If after 2 years of a SC investigation and no evidence was found, perhaps, there shouldn’t have been an investigation to start with as there was a lack of evidence to trigger it?

Not only the SC investigation....but also the House,Senate and the FBI investigations.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

He was a defense counsel for a defendent. Crucify him.

He's accused of a touch more than that, but sure....give him a pass for speaking highly of Him. Again, I'd keep him off my "news" channel.

 

[mule_eer]

We’re not looking at it objectively? Yet Mueller’s 2 year investigation confirmed there wasn’t anything there. No evidence. Zero.

If after 2 years of a SC investigation and no evidence was found, perhaps, there shouldn’t have been an investigation to start with as there was a lack of evidence to trigger it?

You missed the point.

 

[Boomboom521]

We’re not looking at it objectively? Yet Mueller’s 2 year investigation confirmed there wasn’t anything there. No evidence. Zero.

If after 2 years of a SC investigation and no evidence was found, perhaps, there shouldn’t have been an investigation to start with as there was a lack of evidence to trigger it?

Talk about circular logic