Mueller report will be 'devastating' for the president: Frequent Trump defender

[Cow Poke]

Mueller report will be 'devastating' for the president: Frequent Trump defender

Alan Dershowitz, a frequent defender of President Donald Trump, said special counsel Robert Mueller’s report will be “devastating” for the president.

The Harvard Law professor emeritus told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that he believes the president will have to navigate the political impact of a potentially damning final report from the special counsel.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and I know that the president's team is already working on a response to the report,” Dershowitz said on "This Week" Sunday.

Dershowitz added that he believes the report, although it will have a strong political impact, is unlikely to result in criminal charges.

“When I say devastating, I mean it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating. I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case,” Dershowitz said.

This could prove to be very interesting.

[Mountain Man]

Dershowitz does defend Trump, but he's also known to spout off many of the left's approved talking points. If Trump has proven anything it's that he's effectively impervious to political attacks.

[carpedm9587]

Dershowitz does defend Trump, but he's also known to spout off many of the left's approved talking points. If Trump has proven anything it's that he's effectively impervious to political attacks.

...to his base.

[Mountain Man]

This has nothing to do with his "base". The reason it seems like Democrats are beating their heads against the wall when it comes to Trump is because they keep treating him like your typical pushover Republican.

[Terraceth]

What is Alan Dershowitz's rationale for this belief? Is he privy to it in any way, or is this just speculation on his part? The article doesn't say.

[Charles]

Very interesting.

Dershowitz says he thinks Mueller is going to lay out the facts. So when he is talking about this being “politically very devastating” he seems to be talking about a fact based description of what went on.

It is interesting to note that Dershowitz who usually supports Trump seems to be in the know about what is coming (he also knows that Trump’s layers are already working on an answer) and obviously finds it very devastating.

And it is also interesting to note why he does not think it is going to make a criminal case:

"When I say devastating, I mean it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically very devastating," he said. "I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case, because collusion is not criminal." https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/25/p...ing/index.html

[Mountain Man]

Dershowitz doesn't seem to have any inside information. He's just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do.

[Charles]

Dershowitz doesn't seem to have any inside information. He's just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do.

How do you know he is just speculating? Do you know that he has not got inside information?

And all his defenses of Trump were also "just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do" or was that somehow different?

[carpedm9587]

This has nothing to do with his "base". The reason it seems like Democrats are beating their heads against the wall when it comes to Trump is because they keep treating him like your typical pushover Republican.

...or because he has been protected by Republican majorities in both houses...

But then again, you're kind of assuming "beating their heads against the wall." Trumps approval rating has not budged much in months, the Democrats just retook over 500 state and federal offices nationwide, and they made significant inroads in rural and suburban areas.

Not exactly "beating against the wall..."

[Mountain Man]

How do you know he is just speculating?

Because of how he phrases his comments. He says nothing specific or definitive about the actual content or ramifications of the report.

And all his defenses of Trump were also "just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do" or was that somehow different?

Congratulations. You just figured out the role of a political ommentator. Dershowitz is really no different than Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity in that respect.

[Mountain Man]

...or because he has been protected by Republican majorities in both houses...

But then again, you're kind of assuming "beating their heads against the wall." Trumps approval rating has not budged much in months, the Democrats just retook over 500 state and federal offices nationwide, and they made significant inroads in rural and suburban areas.

Not exactly "beating against the wall..."

Presidential approval ratings are just another public opinion poll, which are

As for the recent election, Democrats performed at or below historical averages, and they failed to retake the Senate which was a huge victory for Trump. One wonders if the Democrats would have even taken the House if Republicans hadn't effectively conceded when a bunch of them fell for the "blue wave" scam and decided to retire.

[carpedm9587]

Presidential approval ratings are just another public opinion poll, which are

Yes - they are...and since the public votes in this country...

As for the recent election, Democrats performed at or below historical averages,

Without a doubt. Operation Red Map coupled with Democratic arrogance pretty much ensured that the pendulum would swing far to the right this time. And it did, with the final coup happening on 2016. And now the pendulum is swinging back. It has not yet hit the center point, but there is a decent chance of that happening in 2020. The only question is - how far left will it continue to swing?

and they failed to retake the Senate which was a huge victory for Trump.

Also without a doubt - but then again, that was pretty much what was expected. We knew the Democrats taking the house was an extreme long shot before the elections. We knew even holding their numbers was a long shot. They were defending 25 seats to the Republican's 8. Several of those were in deeply red states. And the Senate is always going to be a challenge for the Democrats because we have more rural states than urban ones, hence far more red states than blue ones. It's an expected victory, and it's not clear it has much to do with Mr. Trump. In 2020, the situation is reversed, with Republicans defending far more seats than Democrats. Still...it will be a challenge to take the Senate. Personally, I hope they take the Senate and WH, and lose the House.

One wonders if the Democrats would have even taken the House if Republicans hadn't effectively conceded when a bunch of them fell for the "blue wave" scam and decided to retire.

The retirements started well before the prediction of a blue wave, and many of them had more to do with fear of being primaried than fear of being beaten from the left. As for the "scam," there is little doubt there was a "blue wave" in 2018 - though each side is arguing about just how high it was. As with many things, I find people are not looking at the right numbers. The elections showed a major shift to the left in almost all districts. Obviously it was not enough to widen the gap in the house even more. After all, some districts need a 15-30 point shift to elect a Democrat, and the average shift was just under 8 points. But it's not the House that should be worried - it should be Trump. He won a narrow victory in 2016 by winning the electoral college in three states by less than 80,000 votes. Those three states (PA, WI, MI) just elected Democrats for the governorships, lieutenant governorships, and U.S. Senate. As for the U.S. house - let's look at those:

Michigan - Before the election: 9 Reps, 4 Dems, 1 Open; After the election: 7 Reps, 7 Dems
Pennsylvania - Before the election: 10 Reps, 6 Dems, 2 Open; After the election: 9 Reps, 9 Dems (of course, reversing gerrymandering was a significant factor)
Pennsylvania - Before the election: 5 Reps, 3 Dems; After the election: 5 Reps, 3 Dems (no change)

And, again, even in the seats that went Rep, the margin was a lot narrower than it was in 2016. So...if I were the president...I would be nervous...

[Sparko]

How do you know he is just speculating? Do you know that he has not got inside information?

And all his defenses of Trump were also "just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do" or was that somehow different?

What is your source that he has inside information?

[Cow Poke]

What is your source that he has inside information?

Maybe Charles has inside information that Dershowitz has inside information. Ever think of THAT?!?!?

[Charles]

What is your source that he has inside information?

Where is my claim that he has inside information? I don't need to support a statement I never made. MM said: "He's just speculating and driving ratings and page views. It's what he's paid to do." It is on MM to defend the claim. And while you are absolutely free to ask questions I have the feeling you would have called me nanny for asking that type of question.