Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- George Stephanopoulos….

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is a member of the white house legal team from the perspective of constitutional law.  In this interview George Stephanopoulos was in his old familiar role as a political narrative engineer, trying to get Dershowitz to say he did not agree with the President.  The engineering objective was “Trump Lawyer says President Guilty”.

This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

172 Responses to Sunday Talks: Alan Dershowitz -vs- George Stephanopoulos….

  1. snarkybeach says:

    Love how Dersh stands up to Georgie, with facts!

    Liked by 28 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Yes but Dersh, what do you think as an American? Does it differ from your legal opinion?

      Liked by 5 people

      • Raptors2020 says:

        Dersh remains a Democrat; it’s just too big a part of his long-term identity. He’s talked about being shunned by old friends, but he persists in doing the right thing. The law, the Constitution come before partisanship. Alan is a true Liberal: very few remain within the Democrat Party. I fear that if the Left wins the war for the heart and mind of their party, it will little matter what Republicans do. America will be a far different place.

        Too many Republicans think like John Kasich or Nikki Haley: if we just backpedal furiously enough, we can remain where we are.

        Liked by 5 people

        • muckeyduck says:

          What does it matter if he is a True Liberal? Anyone that supports the Devil is an agent of Satan, an enabler of evil.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Linda K. says:

            muckeyduck, the old saying, “never discuss politics or religion” in mixed company is very true, except for the rare exceptions. A liberal or conservative who is intellectually honest and not totally partisan is someone who can bridge the gap and have a discussion on the issues without having a fist fight. Dershowitz appreciates the Constitution and the law more than his political leanings. He wants the law to win over emotions.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Jederman says:

          Given the fact that the “Left,” as opposed to the former Dem party, wants an entirely different governing system than the late liberal dem party, the Left must be stopped. Their enthusiasm for overthrow of our systems warrants, in fact justifies, their removal from American politics. We can argue and make deals over better lives for all citizens under our very unique governing system, but we cannot coexist with a competing system.

          There is no indication the saner elements of the dem party can hold out agains avowed socialists. BTW, I attribute the now openly enthusiastic socialist to the loathsome obama.

          Yes, he tried to talk from both sides of his mouth, he advocates stealth (lie) as opposed to openly calling for socialism but he basically told the country he was (some form of) socialist thereby emboldening the misguided and weak minded lurkers and closet commies. He continues to be nothing but bad news for this country and he likes it.

          Liked by 5 people

        • Tl Howard says:

          What bothers me most about Dersch is that he, more even than you and I, KNOWS how corrupt are the Clintons…yet he remains their defenders and a defender of the Dem Party which they rule.

          Similarly, he is a huge supporter of Israel, yet knows that Obama is NOT such a defender. Still, he doesn’t go after Obama.

          He’s not nearly as brave as I’d like him to be, not nearly as honest with himself as I’d like him to be.

          Liked by 12 people

        • dottygal says:

          I just can see him voting for any of the potential nominees.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Issy says:

            I could see him voting for Biden, but he surely recognizes he is not competent, not that he ever was intellectually. I would really like to hear what his definition of a liberal democrat is.

            Liked by 1 person

    • johnnybiface says:

      Man, that little runt Stephanapolous is a nasty, partisan pig. If President Trump should nickname after EB White’s runt pig, Wilbur.

      Liked by 15 people

    • Dershowitz is a real surprise to me.

      I keep remembering the old Dersh of decades ago.

      The hair on fire liberal typical Harvard crackpot Dersh shouting about everything and sounding crazy.

      This is a very welcome new Dershowitz.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Very true! Except one fact!
      The good professor keeps asserting, in spite of his expertise, that Executive Privilege claims will send the case into the courts. I’d like to know on what authority! The Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from even reviewing the case once it’s completed. The Senate has sovereign jurisdiction over every single issue that arises during trial. There is no authority higher than theirs.
      If this is a Dem strategy (to throw it into the courts) Team Trump, beware! Strenuously oppose any remand to Federal Courts. It would be blatantly unconstitutional!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Issy says:

        I agree, I believe Executive Privilege has been affirmed by the courts, and I don’t know why the senate republicans would allow this case to be mucked up by this challenge. The judicial branch would be interfering in an authority given solely to congress.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ATheoK says:

        Not a clue what you are going on about.

        Constitution:

        Section. 3.

        The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

        Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

        Article III.
        Section. 1.

        The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…

        Section. 2.
        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

        In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

        The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. ”

        Section. 4.
        The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

        Nowhere is the Supreme Court prohibited from deciding jurisprudence issues arising from impeachment.
        Intesd, the Constitution makes it very clear that the Supreme Court is the absolute arbiter of legal and illegal.

        Allowing President Trump, the Senate or any of the senators or President Trump’s legal team to raise legal issues to the Supreme Court. Including whether the alleged impeachment itself is legal.

        Liked by 2 people

        • ATheoK:
          When the House’s managers or the President’s lawyers present their arguments before the Senate they can certainly buttress their arguments citing case law, or prior Supreme Court rulings, but they can not, per the ‘sole power’ clause of the Constitution, submit matters to the Supreme Court for adjudication, if they could, that would imply the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction, which they EXPLICITLY do not have.
          Any other interpretation would entail the Supreme Court’s ability to reverse a Senate ruling or verdict, or to even adjudicate the entire impeachment trial on their own. Such is the absurdity of this interpretation! The Constitution’s clear reference to the Senate’s ‘sole power’ right in impeachment can only be seen as an unconditional absolute.

          Like

      • freepetta says:

        I don’t trust Dersh.

        Like

  2. Can Stephanopoulus sound anymore partisan? lol

    Liked by 22 people

  3. revarmegeddontthunderbird says:

    Georgía Stickanappleuphisa$$ is not as smart as she thinks she is.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. revarmegeddontthunderbird says:

    Georgía Stickanappleuphisa$$ is not as smart as she thinks she is.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      I always thought it was George Snufalupagus, from Sesame Street, LOL

      Liked by 3 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      Who’s the smart guy that brought DERSHOWITZ

      an avowed lifelong Dem that hobnobs with the party elite,

      into the innermost circle of the most important defense in Trump’s political career?

      Mitch’s suggestion…Barr’s advice……or perhaps Pompeo’s work?

      There’s not another qualified Constitutional Expert to choose from?

      Alan’s Martha’s Vineyard neighbors must hardly believe their luck….
      maybe he’s got his hands on the golden ticket to get back in their good graces….
      that is…..if he ever was really out to begin with.

      Epstein’s ex-lawyer sure does say nice things on TV.

      Like

  5. JohnCasper says:

    George Clintonopuulus.

    Liked by 9 people

  6. gretaherndon says:

    Poor Alan. Everyone messes up his book title. Guilt by Accusation not Guilt by Association

    Liked by 3 people

  7. dbobway says:

    If George was a fish,
    I’d throw him back.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. gary says:

    george is using the same angle schiffty will use , orange man bad. the dems will get blown out of the water when their ‘evidence’ is presented.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Tom22ndState says:

    Lil georgy is an irritant, if he wanted an answer to his question there are other members of the legal team that would be happy youI rebut his implied accusation.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. TAS says:

    I prefer…George Sniffanopoulus

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Rich Arcangelo says:

    Idiot is lying, Trump did not seek interference in election..wow do we allow this lie to persist..

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Zydeco says:

    If we let him George will Step On All of Us.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Phil aka Felipe says:

    Stepincrapoulos, like the other network TV Sunday Morning Show hosts, is unwatchable IMHO.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Orson says:

    Hey, anyone remember when the Vice President of ABC News stated that Stephanopoulos would only be an analyst. He would not report the news or question guests? Because, that would be inappropriate.

    Liked by 9 people

  15. Chewbarkah says:

    That was like watching a parrot stuck on “Steffi wants a sound bite.” Awwwk.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. I read his CNN transcript with Toobin and Cooper A. , Toobin was way out of his depth legally and was basically just saying over and over to Alan D: “what’s wrong with you” “why are you doing this?” ,but Alan D. had strong , historical, legally sound arguments against “partisan” impeachments. I wonder what Justice Roberts will do , he knows Alan D has depth and is undoubtedly right on the law and Constitution, will he rule if asked about issues or will he sit there like a lump and let Dems and Schiff/Nadler spew lies and just make up their own incorrect interpretations of Constitution.? I fear the latter, since it really has nothing to do with what is correct
    under the law , it is a political show trial, period and will be decided by politics
    BTW I think the House Dems “over egged the omelet” by stating in their brief that President Trump constituted a threat to national security and the Democracy of the United States . Come on, that seems a pretty tough sell except to perhaps the really demented TDS nuts .

    Liked by 7 people

    • Raghn Crow says:

      Roberts won’t dare to anything except a passable imitation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist when the latter had the same job in the Clinton impeach trial. “I did nothing, and I did it very well,” Rehnquist deadpaned about his role.

      Liked by 5 people

    • freepetta says:

      But but but what about ole Les Parnas? Now doesn’t he sound like the king of all bullshiiit.

      Liked by 1 person

      • G. Alistar says:

        Parnas is hurting the democrats….again. Stormy, Avenatti, Cohen, now Parnas etc. you’d think that after the little boy cried wolf soooo many times, they would be a little skeptical. They hear and see, what they want.

        Liked by 7 people

    • madeline says:

      Dervish will probably sabotage this thing. He should NOT be giving interviews AT ALL. What matters is the Constitution, NOT the trick questions.

      Liked by 5 people

  17. Reserved55 says:

    Liberal Hack

    Liked by 4 people

  18. littleanniefannie says:

    Liked by 22 people

  19. Is that clinton hack still on tv ?

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Loggerman says:

    Notice how desperate Georgie was to get Dershowitz to show his personal feeling? Dershowitz should have turned the question onto Georgie and show his corrupt bias. Stephanopoulis is such a fraud. A Clinton insider type fraud. Amazing how he gets away with it!

    Liked by 10 people

    • BitterC says:

      The narrative has been set and no one on our side pushes back. George’s questions presupposes Trump’s motive for investigating Biden’s corruption…Joe is the leading Dem candidate and thus Trump’s likely opponent, so it was for political gain.

      Does anyone doubt Trump would go after Biden if he wasn’t running?

      I had hoped Dersh would point out the flaw in his question…is it ok to have your DOJ investigate a political rival. Of course, the irony is another matter

      Liked by 2 people

      • Rowdyone says:

        Democrats are literally arguing that if you are running for President you cannot be investigated for anything. Does this mean that Hillary will run if she is investigated by Durham to escape investigation/prosecution?

        Liked by 1 person

        • TarsTarkas says:

          If you are a DEMOCRAT running for President. Trump was running for President (as were a number of other Republicans) and they spied on and investigated the s**t out of them.

          Liked by 6 people

  21. Alleycats says:

    He really is a very small man.

    Liked by 11 people

  22. riverelf says:

    I admit I’m just scanning comments for all the plays on George’s name. Treepers never fail!

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Amy2 says:

    George, he said who he voted for in the LAST election, that’s different than saying who you’re GOING to vote for. Idiot.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Georgie Snuffleupagus sounded very much like a person who has extreme difficulty understanding simple sentences–to wit the simple sentences by Dershowitz about what he was and wasn’t going to talk about.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. peace says:

    I will never understand how supposedly smart people can be so blindly loyal to a political party. People who claim to have always voted democrat or always voted republican are politically deaf. I was sorry to hear dersh make the dem claim and I hope he gets off the plantation and becomes an independent critical thinker.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Rj says:

    Old George is the guy that threatened the MSM when in the Clinton White House and I’m wondering how he would handle someone doing to him what he regularly did ?

    Liked by 8 people

  27. Shyster says:

    Much better discourse:
    George: Do you think that’s okay?
    Dershowitz: I don’t know George, were Clinton’s 13 felonies okay? You tell me?

    Liked by 7 people

  28. freepetta says:

    Just watched the interview. Little Georgie Porgie should have his mouth super glued.
    Dershowitz just gives me the creeps. Something about him just makes my skin crawl.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Paprika says:

    I wish Dershowitz would have said; “George, I think it is as inappropriate for me as a lawyer to state my personal beliefs as it is for you to obviously display your personal beliefs as a supposed unbiased journalist–So I’ll stick to ethical standards, Why don’t you?”

    Liked by 14 people

  30. RJ says:

    Here I am wandering among the trees and rolling hills of Yellowstone where I spot a pack of wolves chasing a herd of elk. What a sight! The elk herd–believe it or not, escapes. I then spot the wolves fighting among themselves, where the beta wolves all gang up on the alpha male.

    What a sight to behold…reminds me of what is going on in Congress!

    Little Georgie snapping at Alan D.is so funny, a midget goes after a giant!

    Better yet, I am going to turn off the computer and turn on my tv to watch “Ford vs. Ferrari” where the American spirit is put to the test.

    Somehow I get the feeling Donald Trump just may be our Carol Shelby! And boy, does he have his work cut out for him!

    Go Donald! Win, win and win!

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Jim Comey is a weasel_Doug says:

    George is a lump of crap stuffed in a suit.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. MitchRyderDetroitWheels says:

    I thought Georgiee and his wife left the country when The Donald got the keys. The guy is lucky Disney owns him. I bet George and Chuck Todd squat to pee.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. gymcy81 says:

    A liberal democrat, that is also an originalist of Constitutional law – and aware of history?
    It seems like a cognitive, disconnect.

    That is a rare combo, these days, years, recent decades.
    And difficult to comprehend how someone could intellectually vote for a liberal democrat – without one compromising one thing, or the other – from time to time.

    So, beware…

    imho

    “prove all things,
    hold fast to that which is good.”

    i.e. do not take any wooden nickels. (whatever the various words, or actions)

    Liked by 2 people

  34. MNBV says:

    To fully appreciate the duplicitous UniParty “Republican” Senators consider this:
    “Senate GOP leaders, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)—the conference chair—say there are not yet enough votes to dismiss the charges altogether from the outset.”

    If the House and Senate Republicans thought they could painlessly remove PDJT and replace him with establishment Pence, the controllable one, they would.
    Not as simple as that for the boys though.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. LouisianaTeaRose says:

    I would never claim to represent an ability to assess or judge a man’s soul. But I will go so far to admit that, from how he has presented himself throughout the Trump Presidency, Alan Dershowitz is one of the most intellectually honest liberals, and only a tiny number at that, to present themselves openly and at great personal and professional peril to themselves and their friends and family. He is deserving of my utmost respect for THAT, regardless of my staunch disagreement of almost everything he advocates and supports.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Jimmy R says:

      The Constitutional conservative who is a liberal Democrat is a weird and rare animal. Gotta love ’em, but they are a strange beast indeed.

      Liked by 3 people

    • davidsstones says:

      God bless Alan Dershowitz. You’re correct Lousianatearose; he champions righteousness without compromise nor is fearful of punitive reprisal by those exposed by truth and fact. Few men evidence such strong character, or have two feet firmly rooted in the Constitution so unique to America. He stays on topic on the narrow path. Importantly, Dershowitz doesn’t involve his personal feelings to bend the Constitution to agree with himself.
      Obama also was touted as a “Constitutional Scholar” at Harvard. During the early days of Obama’s first term his anger at the Constitution was transparent; I am convicted Obama studied it to destroy it, to use the courts to batter it and not to use it as a standard of safety and fairness. It became increasingly evident, I think, Obama’s sensitivity to his race approaches obsession; he may have rebelled to living under a “contract ” of laws governing Rights, which was developed by men of a different race. The contrast to Dershowitz defending the Constitution when his own political party may not succeed reveals a chasam, a void, of integrity between the two men.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mopar2016 says:

      IMO Dershowitz is a big plus for our side. The fact that he’s a lifelong dem also helps.
      The man is super confident and unafraid. He was the youngest tenured professor at Harvard and was there for almost five decades.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Alan as a liberal dim is a big asset to the dismissal of the impeachment.

        He is a life long dem, and big Cankles supporter. However, he is a Constitutional Professor so this is a good role for him to present is the (un)constitutionality of this impeachment.

        Like

  36. billybob says:

    Why is there a whiff of the stench called Clinton hanging around this Impeachment with Pelosi and co looking to bring the Beast to the DNC convention as the only hope of the Democratic Party . It’s a wicked game these democrat power brokers play .

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Val says:

    I’ll take you guys’ word for it. I can’t bring myself to watch it, so I’ll post this clip of President Trump owing lil Georgie:

    “«Published on Oct 28, 2016
    Donald J. Trump goes SAVAGE on George Stephanopoulos – Is there anything Trump regrets?»

    Liked by 6 people

  38. icthematrix says:

    Why the heck put AD out there on these hack Sunday shows prior to the start of the sham impeachment? Not sure how any of this moves any needle. I get that there is a public opinion component to this, but who is really getting opinions shaped by this?

    Liked by 2 people

    • jbowen82 says:

      I think he’s on the team to make the same basic point Toobin did during the impeachment show – “I’m a liberal Democrat, but this use of impeachment for political purposes is harmful to the country, so you Democrats in the Senate should vote this down in the nation’s interest.” It could be persuasive.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Dutchman says:

        jbow,
        Exactly. Advances the first of many arguments, to wit; Even if you were to concede that all the Dem accusations were true, WHICH NO ONE IS,CONCEDING, the impeachment is flawed, Constitutionally, and so you never GET to the issue af facts, witnesses or admissability of evidence.

        Its an important argument to get out there, right at the outset, and into the true jurors minds (American voters).

        We are in the opening stages of this shampeachment, and there will be plenty of time for advancing additional arguments.

        And the fact it comes from a lifelong Dem just as with Toobin, may cause some lifelong dem voters to begin to red pill. Sure couldn’t hurt.

        Liked by 6 people

      • NJMAGA says:

        I think you guys mean Turley not Toobin. Toobin’s the jacka** on CNN.

        Liked by 2 people

  39. gymcy81 says:

    Looking downstream,
    is there a (untold) reason that a liberal democrat wants to publicly be perceived as helping a chief justice (to interpret the intent of the constitution)?

    favor…
    (in exchange for a prior, or future favor? beware …)

    hmmm….

    I do not know
    imho

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ausonius says:

      First Rule of Education: Trust Nobody

      This rule works in many other fields of endeavor.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Dershowitz is defending the Constitution, not Trump. He would not be on Trump’s legal team if he felt POTUS had actually committed an impeachable offense.He knows the dangers of turning impeachment into effectively votes of No Confidence. That is one reason why the Founders devised a bicameral legislature, to forestall a mobocracy. Impeachment and conviction without an underlying crime would effectively turn both the Executive and Judiciary into arms of the legislature (you can betcha judges Kavanaugh and Thomas would be on impeachment watchlists).

      Keep on eye on the situation in VA. It is very very dangerous, it’s like Northam & Co are deliberately trying to foment violence in order to justify tyrannical actions. It may be a test case for how to suppress a popular insurrection. They seem to be ignoring the possibility of a successful insurrection or a descent into civil war with themselves as casualties.

      Liked by 6 people

  40. delmarvajim says:

    Georgie Staphylococcus wouldn’t make a pimple on Dershowitz’s a$$

    Liked by 3 people

  41. Robert VanBrunt says:

    Liberal Runt Hack

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Robert VanBrunt says:

    Liberal Runt Hack

    Liked by 1 person

  43. But also – the Constitution doesn’t say that someone can be thrown out of office based on anyone else’s opinion. It is quite clear that “maladministration” is not acceptable: there must be actual crime, the stuff for which the accused can still be convicted in court and go to jail. And there is no such thing here. There are no crimes in these documents at all.

    Unconstitutional!

    Liked by 4 people

  44. Rowdyone says:

    Dersch made an interesting point today when he pointed out that the impeachment trial of Johnson was similar to today in that there were no charges of breaking any law. Johnson’s acquittal on those grounds may sway some Senators today as precedent setting.

    Liked by 5 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      The Johnson impeachment did involve an actual charge of breaking a law, specifically the Tenure of Office Act, which the Radical Republicans had passed over Johnson’s veto to ensure Johnson could not fire any member of his cabinet without congressional approval. When he did can Secretary of War Stanton, claiming the ToOA was unconstitutional, they impeached Johnson over it.
      The ToOA was later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Linda K. says:

      That precedent may influence John Roberts.

      Liked by 1 person

  45. Ackman419 says:

    There’s a lot of talk and rumor on the inter webs.
    I won’t delve into it here.
    The biggest question I have is :
    Why did Dershowitz jump the fence?
    It’s great to have his brain and optics on our side for this.
    Strictly based on ConLaw, there’s not many better.
    If he can pull off the conscientious objector, more power to him.
    But I worry there will be some underhanded play against him, at some point in this.
    He’s got skeletons, like everyone, that his jilted political lovers will exploit.
    Meanwhile, I enjoy his high level of Con Law defense of Our Lion.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Talkofthetown says:

    I’m thinking his Epstein problems are about to get really bad! Anyone involved with Trumps legal team is about to get dragged through the mud. We all know that rodeo.

    Liked by 3 people

  47. Wanaka01 says:

    As much as I admire Dershowitz’s legal acumen, most of what he said went right over Stephanopoulis’s head. Just as it will over the Senate Democrats. It was F. Lee Bailey and Johnny Cochrane who carried the OJ defense home. Trump needs a street fighter. Someone who will answer every one of their “bombshells” with a MOAB.

    Liked by 2 people

    • steph_gray says:

      I thought his Constitutional point was crystal clear and ought to be so to anyone who can add two and two. No crime, impeachment not valid.

      That is, practically any Deplorable. Or any independent thinker who is on the way to becoming a Deplorable.

      The Constitution was written, unlike legal malarkey today, to be clear.

      Like

  48. hoghead says:

    Yikes! Enough with the short george jokes. Yeah, he’s short, but that’s not my problem with him. Physically, he could be shorter than he is and still be a giant among his peers if he only had some integrity, a moral compass. If he had some degree of those two items in his current profession, he would TOWER over his news brethren. (Of course, abc would no longer need his services, but someone would scoop him up.)

    Liked by 1 person

  49. mylabs5 says:

    I find this simply hilarious. Here we have the guy who covered up crimes for the Clintons going back to the ’92 election, donated to their illegal money laundering enterprise, refused to question the shady dealings and fabrications of Barack Obama sit there and try to manipulate Dershowitz who is a master of manipulation (except this time he’s one our side).
    Absolutely hilarious

    Liked by 3 people

  50. Dersh was breat.
    Little George demeaned himself agaon. His constant lame attempts to put words in the Profs mouth failed, leaving Georgie looking like the CNN female hack tricking Bernie,

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s