Is "The Truth" the Truth When It Comes to Prosecutors?

Very good article. Very IMPORTANT article.
A must read for all politicians and lawyers.
Thank you, Mr. Dershowitz.

If only, the president would clean up the DoJ, FBI, CIA a.o.,
we could have the correct and responsible 'rule of law' back again.

Idiot or savant? President Trump is either shrewder than the proverbial fox, playing the game "Will He or Won't He hold a conversation with Mr. Mueller" to stir up his base to vote in the mid-term elections, by demonstrating how he's being persecuted by the "Deep State," or he's an idiot to even entertain the idea. I hope he's a savant.

It's what the jury of your peers believes. It doesn't matter at all what a prosecutor believes.

I have no problem with Dershowitz's use of legal jargon to justify his position on legal tactics - however, if he maintains that such tactics are used legally to entrap innocent people he must cite examples. If he is attempting to suggest such tactics will be used against Trump, he is simply using conjecture to solidify his view - not appropriate for counsel of his stature. From a different viewpoint it seems that the investigations in process have been successful in findings of guilt on the part of the accused, either by self admission or by a jury of their peers. Far cry from a "witch hunt " !

The problem with your reasoning is that Mueller's witnesses are the former director of the FBI and Donald Trump's personal lawyer who has taped conversations that potentially expose the crimes on audio. Not exactly jailhouse snitch testimony like you insinuated.

Amazing that libs want to believe what they want, but then complain that the criminal system is putting so many innocent people behind bars.

Mr. Dershowitz seems to be implying that prosecutors will solicit perjury to convict a target of perjury. It is as if they were running around screaming in a similar fashion to the 'Island of Dr. Moreau, "What is the law?"

I smell many rats in the Mueller investigation. He has engaged in excessive invasions of privacy and disregard for attorney/client privilege. His current investigation was founded in serial official misconduct by Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence officials. But why? His zealousness seems in stark contrast to the Russian bribery, Rosatom/Uranium One deal, and Ghost Stories spy ring events. A question might be asked as to whether Mueller communicated through or was aware of Hillary's server and other devices in her cavalier disregard of national security.
His career and reputation would be at stake under those circumstances.

I remain persuaded that Alan Dershowitz is the last remaining sane liberal in America.

I don't always agree with Mr. Dershowitz, but I respect him for always searching for the most honest and objective position he can find on any issue.

I have seen far too many cases where Justice Was NOT done and because of High Paid lawyers with connections and charisma. Rarely have I seen a FAIR trial. We need Justice REFORM badly.
The worst that comes to mind is Zimmerman (whose father was a re-tired judge and the Jury was not even told all the evidence. Even his Lawyer later let on he KNEW his client was guilty! But his Job was to get him off and he did) Our Trials are rarely fair. Just passing big money around)

Alan, it may be just as you say. For that matter, Bill Clinton may have meant to make a serious point when he said "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Who knows or cares at this point? What matters is they each served up a perfect tag line that does their cause no good whatever, and will haunt them personally to the grave.

Thanks to Alan Dershowitz for condemnation of the Mueller cabal. The lineage of this extralegal Mueller and Democratic Party special prosecutors political attack is from the Clintonian and Obama network, with complicity of the top level DOJ and FBI functioning as new left and Democratic Party operatives. It is a better bet that the Soros and high ticket donor combine are the secret agent against our government than that Putin and the Russians are. The Mueller outfit affords a shield of protection afforded the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party from prosecution for their profiteering and corruption, the least of it their attack on Trump campaign and Presidency. That is the real attack on civil liberties. Contrary to Dershowitz claim, Trumps enforcement of immigration laws and the reforms to better control our immigration and improve security are in fact protection of civil liberties and well being of our legal citizens.

Rudy Gulliani makes a good point: your version of the truth, what actually happened and what they want us to believe, three different things and based on their agendas against the president are not the same. The DNC was so hopelessly compromised, and the security on their computer netowrk so weak that Russian hackers could've walked in and got the data but they're blaming the other side because its convenient for them.

What might have started out as a genuine enquiry was based on rumour, supposition and accusations by the dems who not only lost the election turning them into bad losers but also it seems, have far more to hide than trump and his campaign and know far more about what's actually going on including their involvement with Russia, for example the recently revealed Uranium One scandal that isn't being treated as a scandal, that had the grubby footprints of the dems while in office. There are many others, and what Mueller or someone like should be investigating is all of that behaviour of officials while in office.

We now know it's a witch hunt that is motivated by hatred of Trump.

That is precisely why Giuliani made the remark that the "truth is not the truth" when he was interviewed. Each of us have their own belief system but when it comes to Liberals and liars, the system diverges widely from we Conservatives believe the truth to be!

No any kind of deal with Mueller. That man has the mentality of a Scorpion.

As for him, Mueller, testifying before Congressional Oversight Committee, one would swear that Mueller is in another world. Asked any question by a congressman, Mueller's usual response is "I'm not aware of that," "I'll have to investigate it," "I'll review that and get back to you." I think that the Oversight panel already expects nothing from Mueller, but they just want the American people to see what kind of person he is. How he ever gained the compliment of being honest and loyal to justice has to be an overblown reputation, he's a rogue, a ghoul, a disappointment.

How he ever came as far as he did in the DOJ exposes the fact that the "Powers to be in the DOJ" do not serve the interests of the American people, but rather the "Good Ol' Boy" network. Is he in earnest about justice, or does he just hunt for victims to "trip up" with questioning, after advising them that one mistake on their parts, may cause him to recommend a prison sentence? Case in Point: General Flynn was advised of harsh sentences if he would not cooperate. After Flynn had lost whatever he earned in Lt. General's retirement, was broke, he was intimidated to take blame, rather than to leave his son to Mueller's threats. Mission accomplished, victim (witness) took responsibility for his trespasses!

Once again, justice wins! Or, in this case, Mueller wins!

Isn't this sad. The America that we who are old, all knew back in the 40's and 50's is not even one sintella of what it is now. How did we change the law so much in 1/2 a decade?

As the expenses near $30 million, do the Democrats and the MSM feel more confident now that President Trump will end up pilloried, so then they can resume their quest be going after VP Pence? Is that their trajectory, welfare for the all of the Democrat lawyers on the Mueller team? Justice in this case is NOT blind...which should make all citizens of America very ashamed.
You, average citizen, could be next, pick a reason.

Dershowitz is exactly correct here in this very clear exposition. President Trump has everything to lose. Such is the way the Special Council operates, and considering their main objective is removing the President by foul means, Trump must refuse to answer any question for, as Deschowitz says, they will believe the liars Müller has lined up, and truth counts for nothing in his eyes. Corrupt is a mild word for what this shyster is doing to the country.

Is Professor Dershowitz really "disappointed...that so many liberals, civil libertarians and defense attorneys are unwilling to criticize this tactic when it is directed at a President of whom they disapprove," as he said in conclusion? If so, one would wonder where Professor Dershowitz lives. That is the reality, not just of Trump and the liberals, but of America. Today everyone understands that the battle is not over an issue or two, rather, it is existential. Each side feels it is fighting for its values and its way of life. Indeed, one would have to be shocked and amazed if the professor's expressed disappointment were not literally true.

More likely, however, Professor Dershowitz is not expressing surprise at all. Rather, he mourns for a time when both sides strived for truth, and when compromise and coexistence took precedence over ideological victory. That time has passed, and it will not return during our lifetimes. The experience defense attorneys he consulted all expressed the reality – the president cannot rely on the integrity or good will of his detractors, and he must not agree to be questioned as part of Mueller's investigation. Larry M. Goldstein

Professor Dershowitz explained that he wrote this article for Gatestone on FOX last night. The public, most of whom have never had experiences with the legal system or many of the issues that Gatestone addresses, were well-informed. It was a very good 'plug' for Gatestone. My legal background allowed me to see first-hand coercion, perjury, and collusion galore: Excellent article.

I am astounded by Prof Dershowitz' revelations. I am a Trump supporter and am grateful to Prof Dershowitz for at least inadvertently helping me to understand Mr Trump's equivocation over meeting Mr Mueller.

This is a serious problem whenever the federal government acts against an individual. They have virtually unlimited resources and time to cook up whatever they need to convict someone on one or more counts of something, no matter how irrelevant.

Given the facts and Mueller's overt partisanship, there really is no further reason to explain why the President should not submit to more of the senior FBI's DNC partisanship and sniping.

It seems the establishment will stoop as low as necessary to nail Donald Trump, and use any questionable tactic they can to get their man one way or another, and the establishment media, which is almost universally against Trump, are eagerly waiting to feast on anything that may bring about his downfall.

As an Australian resident, I believe Trump, despite his warts was elected because the average voter has had a thorough gutsful, of the Washington establishment and vested interests that view the governance of the USA as their exclusive preserve, and for their benefit. especially the wealthier metro liberals.

Trump has his faults and indiscretions, but Trumps indiscretions are unlikely to be as serious as Bill Clinton's indiscretions, but then Clinton was a Democrat President, so it was not quite as essential to remove him.

The aspect of Trump, I find hard to fathom is his endless tweeting, he demeans the office of President by doing this, but with a predominantly hostile liberal left media it is possibly the only way he can get his point of view across.

The matter I found interesting was how during the primaries and run up to the 2016 Presidential Election, the considerable dirt on the Clintons available in the public arena was conveniently ignored (Whitewater, Mena etc) while anything that could be dig up on Trump received maximum airing. The lack of media impartiality was blatantly obvious, and in spite of this Trump still won.the Russian Republic actually managed to manipulate the US Presidential election as claimed, then it says volumes about the strength of American democracy. Conversely, the United States has not hesitated to interfere in other nation's internal affairs and elections. The USA can hardly claim "Innocens mánibus" if Trump has proven to be good to his word so far, his successes have come in the face of establishment opposition. As an outsider, my impression of American politics, is that Obama, was a President who failed to achieve anything lasting or concrete and certainly did not leave the US or the World a better place than when he assumed office. Possibly his greatest achievement was to make Jimmy Carter seem dynamic.

What Trump's administration may achieve is too early to say, but certainly Internationally he is making a mark and if he can seal a lasting settlement in Korea, he will go down as na effective President internationally.

I would suggest that Americans should give Trump a fair go, certainly the storm of opposition to his Presidency is counter productive, both at home and abroad.

We were brought up to believe that the police, FBI, Justice Department were interested in the truth and in facts. Now we learn that this is a game of entrapment and deceit. Mueller and his associates are pathetic and have sabotaged the entire law enforcement mystique.

I wish they would just drop this witch hunt. Obama did worse and no one is trying to burn him at stakes for treason. What about Obama and him trying fix the Israeli elections against BiBi.

As a Libertarian I have been a believer in the honesty and integrity of Dershowitz since the Von Bulow case. I admire his bravery in fighting for legal justice and alerting Americans (regardless of race, culture, wealth or lack thereof) of the corruption of the judicial system. On the other hand I don't understand how he could have voted for Hillary, matriarch of the most perverted, corrupt family in the history of American politics. He should have abstained, regardless of party affiliation, there is no excuse for voting for that evil woman.

A Grand Jury can indict but not try. The "proof" of a grand jury becomes preliminary evidence in a preliminary hearing of a real court. Once Allegations reach a real court they are then held to a higher standard of evidence than in a Grand Jury. The credibility of testimony accepted by a Grand Jury may not be considered evidence in a real court.

For example, Mr. Muller issued an indictment for Russians but everyone knows it will never reach a real court because there is no real evidence. So, it is an exaggeration to say that testimony of a someone who is plea bargaining is accepted prima face as evidence in a real court before a real judge.

Thank you Mr. Dershowitz for speaking candidly as a non partisan with regards to Mr. Mueller's investigations. Please continue to speak out on behalf of truth in spite of your own political inclinations.

I remember well when George W. Bush signed the law making it a crime to lie to police, prosecutors, etc. At the time, I thought it evil, stupid, dangerous and unconstitutional -- a statute that could be used to bully and bludgeon people into saying whatever unscrupulous prosecutors want them to say (truthful, or otherwise) -- a catch-all crime that they can convict almost anyone of, if they have nothing to prove any real crime. This law gives police and prosecutors almost unlimited power to coerce and/or imprison people who have done nothing illegal -- it has done far too much damage to the rule of law already, and needs to be repealed before it does more.

The scales of American justice need to be re-calibrated. What happened to the corroborating evidence of two or more witnesses for an investigation and/or a conviction? Producing just one, especially of doubtful character is hearsay only.