The last minute rumors

[Doc]

OJ.
Tyson.
Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That that list tells me everything I have ever needed to know about the guy. It doesn’t tell me his intelligence or his politics (don’t care). It doesn’t tell me he’s some wholesome civil libertarian who stands up for the accused (he’s not). It tells far more. And now Trumps name is on that list forever more.

It tells me he represents those who hire him, just like every lawyer. Every person is entitled to a defense, unless you are Donald Trump, and that is what lawyers do. Personally I find it funny when they will argue one thing this week because their client is "A" and next week take the opposite position because their client is "B" however that says nothing about them personally. I would expect a lawyer to argue my side if I hired him. However one thing that is consistent is his (Dershowitz) stance on civil liberties. He does not waver.

[CitizenBBN]

OJ.
Tyson.
Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That that list tells me everything I have ever needed to know about the guy. It doesn’t tell me his intelligence or his politics (don’t care). It doesn’t tell me he’s some wholesome civil libertarian who stands up for the accused (he’s not). It tells far more. And now Trumps name is on that list forever more.

He's defended a lot more people than that. To somehow put down Trump by association of other people he's defended is a logical fallacy at best, and simply disingenuous smear at worst.

It's like putting down the ACLU for having defended the nazis. It doesn't mean you agree with them, they act on grounds of protecting civil liberties, and often the most likely times those go out the window is in cases with lots of emotion over someone who is hated.

[Catfan73]

We should know if he won or not sometime next week.

Hahahahaha

[ukpumacat]

He's defended a lot more people than that. To somehow put down Trump by association of other people he's defended is a logical fallacy at best, and simply disingenuous smear at worst.

It's like putting down the ACLU for having defended the nazis. It doesn't mean you agree with them, they act on grounds of protecting civil liberties, and often the most likely times those go out the window is in cases with lots of emotion over someone who is hated.

Again, defend him at your own risk. He is a media/trial whore and a slime ball that did far more than just defend Epstein. My statements about him are not political at all. They are very personal.

[CitizenBBN]

Again, defend him at your own risk. He is a media/trial whore and a slime ball that did far more than just defend Epstein. My statements about him are not political at all. They are very personal.

And if that's the case I hope it comes out and he's punished like so many others tied up with Epstein.

I didn't defend him as a person. I don't know him from Adam. Maybe he beats his kids, what do I know?

I only defend his legal reasoning.

What you are doing is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the messenger and not the message. Dershowitz is absolutely one of the last civil libertarians left, a man who defends the rights of Nazis as a Jew. And he is also right to do so, as civil liberties are the foundation stone of our liberty.

But is he also a personal dirtbag? Maybe, and if you know he's one then OK, I'll accept it. But that doesn't dismiss his position on Trump or anyone else.

Bill Clinton is certainly a misogynist and possibly a rapist at one point. He was also an effective President. Trump is an ass and I bet working with him is a nightmare, but he's also proving effective at his job.

Lots of people in history were outstanding at their profession and also horrible people. Maybe Dershowitz is one of them, but it doesn't change the correctness of his arguments in this situation.

As for seeking the media and big name trials, that's not exactly grounds for being disbarred in that profession. lol. Now, a doctor turning down patients they could help b/c they don't like how it will make them look, that I get, but lawyers taking cases b/c it's good for their career and profile isn't even noteworthy.

And big name people seek him out b/c he also gives them credibility and cache. That's pretty typical as well.

By your approach we can dismiss the Declaration of Independence b/c the author was also a slaveholder. I dismiss that argument as a fundamental flaw of logic. The person can be flawed and still be insightful and right on an issue.