Dershowitz seems to argue two main things: By PWP contributor Brooks Parola, formerly of Flint Town.

By Brooks Parola: PWP. 

So Dershowitz seems to argue two main things:

1) The entire election was corrupted on many levels, so an independent, non-partisan commission should have been created to look into the election, instead of Mueller, whose focus is strictly on whether Trump colluded with Russia.

2) The laws regarding foreign interference in elections are too vague for anyone to really know if the Russians violated any laws.

Okay, but what he fails to acknowledge is the REASONABLE SUSPICION that existed from the very beginning that Trump might have colluded with the Russians. And good god folks, there was plenty of reasonable suspicion, that justified Mueller’s appointment.

Secondly, what’s Dershowitz’s bias in assuming that Mueller is incapable of knowing and understanding what the laws are, and which of those have been violated? Why is Dershowitz’s desired commission the only ones capable of doing that? And how can he make such assumptions BEFORE Mueller issues his final report?

His entire assumption that Mueller’s very existence is biased is absolute nonsense.