It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thursday on MSNBC, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz stated that President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen being wiretapped by federal investigators meant America was “moving closer and closer to the surveillance state.”
Dershowitz said, “I think we are moving closer and closer to the surveillance state where phone calls are tapped, where emails are secured without a real basis. I think prosecutors should not be seeking wiretaps on lawyers’ offices and search warrants and subpoenas for lawyers’ email files unless they have very substantial evidence of very serious crimes—campaign contributions don’t qualify for the kind of crime that should justify the wiretapping of a lawyer. Remember that when you wiretap a lawyer, you are wiretapping his clients and you wiretapping conversations between a lawyer and the client and you are searching for emails. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union on this? Where are civil libertarians? We live in such a partisan atmosphere, get Trump at any cost that we are prepared to give up our basic civil liberties in exchange for getting Trump.”
He continued, “These rules are only as good as the people who enforce them and only as good as the motives of the people who are behind them. And I have to tell you. I do not trust the government. I do not trust judges. I do not trust prosecutors when they are zealously seeking to go after a particular target, in this case, Donald Trump. Nobody would have been going after Michael Cohen if he weren’t Donald Trump’s lawyer. That’s the reality. People don’t investigate campaign contribution lapses or campaign law violations generally about people who aren’t in the public life. And I just worry that when you have somebody with a target on his or her back, whether it is Hillary Clinton, who could have been elected and the same thing would have been happening to her, or Donald Trump, that civil libertarians ought to express concern. That’s all I’m doing is expressing concern and distrust of government. I don’t want to live in the surveillance state, and I want to do everything in my power, no matter who the target is, to prevent this from occurring.”
He added, “It is so easy to get a warrant. It is so easy to persuade a judge to give you a wiretap warrant. That simply doesn’t protect American citizens. And any civil libertarian who was exposed to what’s going on here today—if Hillary Clinton were the subject—would be taking exactly the opposite position. There is so much hypocrisy, partisan hypocrisy out there. I don’t mind if conservatives take the view we ought to trust government, or former prosecutors take the view we ought to trust government. My gripe is against civil libertarians, and criminal defense lawyers are always on the side of challenging the government. The ACLU has suddenly lost its way and forgotten what they’ve preached for 50 years because it is Donald Trump they’re after. We’re on the road to losing our civil liberties when you allow our civil liberties to be compromised because you are going after one particular person.”
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: toysforadults
Unstable people do not become billionaire presidents that solve international crisis
No they don't. You'll let me know if that ever occurs.
In this case by unstable I mean a client who won't take the advice of his counsel.
originally posted by: UnBreakable
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Wayfarer
and likely the reporter who messed this up is/should get the axe.
People make mistakes. We are all human.
What separates us from one another is how we handle those mistakes and unless the reporter has a history of making these sorts of mistakes, to call for their firing is just too much, in my opinion.
That’s good to hear. So if Trump made a mistake with the Stormy Daniel’s issue, I’m sure you’ll extend to him the same tolerant empathy.
originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
a reply to: Bob350
Well said.....I personally could care less what he does or did, before he was president, in his bedroom....this all seems like such a waste of time...jmo
There is no such thing as intent being important as to whether classified info was improperly handled. That is a LIE from Comey to protect Hillary - there is nothing in the statute about intent. Which is exactly why she is 100% guilty.
First off, I have seen many lawyers say the president cannot obstruct justice by firing a subordinate for any reason - It is in his power to do that regardless of the reason.
Second - I am not a lawyer, but if you are correct than there is something very wrong with the legal system. People should not be punished for non crimes.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
Oh Silly....Thank you so VERY very much for YOUR thread.
I just read through it...beginning to end...and savored every moment of it.
Oh you guys are gonna have a field day
originally posted by: projectvxn
This never happened. Liberals made up another lie.
NBC originally said that at least one phone call between the White House and a line associated with Cohen was monitored. It has since updated its story to note that one call was logged.
originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Sillyolme
Stop posting fake news.