Elizabeth Warren, who is quite a few potatoes short of a stew, thinks Alan Dershowitz’s argument is “contrary to law and fact.” She offers no explanation. Her saying it, as a known congenital liar, should be sufficient.
Unfortunately, she messed with the wrong lawyer. He fired back.
Alan Dershowitz’s argument is contrary to both law & fact.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 28, 2020
When she said she “truly could not follow it,” and added that it was “nonsensical” in a tweet, it didn’t jive. If she couldn’t follow, how did she know it was nonsensical?
Dershowitz is truly a brilliant, non-partisan attorney. People can disagree with his argument but it is an established argument in law and fact. The retired Harvard law professor served as part of the President’s team for the constitutional argument only.
He responded back to her and she looks foolish, and I am being kind here.
Warren doesn’t understand the law.
My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2)— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
SHE COULDN’T FOLLOW???
He took her comment about not having the ability to follow his easily followed presentation and said, she “doesn’t understand the law.” She called his argument “nonsensical.”
Warren doesn’t understand the law.
My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2)— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
WARREN LIED
Unsurprisingly, Warren “mischaracterized” what he said. She spoke of “intent’ and he was talking about “motives.”
Warren said, “His characterization of the law simply is unsupported. He is a criminal law professor who stood in the well of the Senate and talked about how law never inquires into intent and that we should not be using the president’s intent as part of understanding impeachment,” said the former Harvard Law School professor, according to The Hill.
“Criminal law is all about intent. Mens rea is the heart of criminal law. That’s the very basis of it. So it makes his whole presentation just nonsensical. I truly could not follow it,” she added.
She knows the law and she deliberately lied.
She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
