General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDershowitz argued last night that the Trumps are not in violation of 52 U.S. Code 30121
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
(102,276 posts)Even Jeffrey Toobin has been effective
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)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
(90,339 posts)... something wrong with that if the information is someones personal information.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)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
(90,339 posts)... the whole law and a twisted redacted version.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)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
(53,778 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)W_HAMILTON
(7,866 posts)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
(11,885 posts)It must be something good.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)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
(4,533 posts)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 hes wrong sometimes. But on something like this point of law I would never bet against him. His argument also makes sense to me.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)he is not a constitutional law expert like Laurence Tribe
Sure, of course he knows the constitution, but that's not his specialty.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)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
(90,339 posts)... 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
(4,533 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)... emails different.
Would whistle blower protection make the Pentagon Papers different?
Thx in advance
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)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
(90,339 posts)... "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
(4,533 posts)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
(56,828 posts)lame54
(35,290 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Like Trump, like Giuliani. Like a moth to a flame.