The day Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, before her body was even cold, Mitch McConnell announced he’d cram a new Justice into her seat before the election, an election that has already begun as voters go to the polls in many states. His reprehensible lack of sympathy for the loss of one of America’s greatest […]
Shooting from the hip on national broadcasts , Dershowitz was confronted with facts on CNN, later excusing his misstatements of U.S. Constitutional history, because “I didn’t do the research back then.” First, everything he states in public, as a self-proclaimed Constitutional law authority is stated as if he is the authority the public should believe. How can his weak excuse for misleading us leave him with any credibility? His lack of scholarly judgment reveals his bias concerning Trump Second If he’s researching constitutional history on the fly, how could or should anyone take him seriously on constitutional matters? Any serious scholar would not have to do research before making claims concerning U.S. Constitutional law. As time has past, Dershowitz has joined a posse of Trump-serving advocates who have abandoned objective truth to become Trump apologists, consistently laboring to justify everything Trump says and does. The posse began with intellectual lightweight, Kellyanne Conway, who defended Trump’s constant lies as “alternative facts.” She famously spoke of the Bowling Green massacre, an entirely made-up occurrence. She was joined by Rudy Giuliani, a personal lawyer for Trump who has made numerous outrageous statements which cause one to question his present mental acuity. They, in turn, have been joined by Bill Barr, whose conduct since he was appointed the Attorney General of our Justice Department has been that of a Trump personal attorney. Dershowitz is now the fourth musketeer, whose predictable conduct is consistent with the other three. Defensive Trump bias is the bond among them. Dershowitz’ relationship with Trump has become closer. In 2017, Trump designated his unqualified son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestine issue. Upon the predictable finding that Kushner was making no progress, Trump brought in Dershowitz, who is well-known to be very pro-Israel. No progress was made toward resolution, but Dershowitz advised the Trump administration to formally recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Instead of seeking a resolution of the Palestine-Israeli conflict, Dershowitz sought to advance Israel’s objectives. Dershowitz involvement did not go without objection from former White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, Richard W. Painter, who viewed the choice of Dershowitz as “insane.” He explained that Trump should look to experienced diplomats and experts in the State Department–Dershowitz knows nothing about Mid-East policy. There is another issue with Dershowitz trying to strike a bargain with representatives of Palestine. Dershowitz is known to be a close friend and ally of Benjamin Netanyahu and is deeply involved in Israeli politics. How could he be more biased? Why was Dershowitz writing the Introduction to the DOJ’s version of the Mueller Report that was available to the public? He is not a DOJ lawyer. He is not Rob Rosenstein. He has no reason to be involved. His introduction precedes Barr’s spin on the contents of the Report, all designed to get readers to take their word for it. After all, Dershowitz is a Democrat and a liberal, alongside the Republican AG, so it must be true that the Report exonerates Trump. It appears that Trump, Barr and Hannity are all using Dershowitz. Their new ally can flash his two badges, the Harvard and liberal Democrat badges, helping the Trump team’s credibility. And Dershowitz loves the limelight. How would this have happened? One explanation is that Dershowitz auditioned for […]
Publicity hound Alan Dershowitz is starting another media blitz, defending Trump against impeachment with his biased, half-baked analysis of the U.S. Constitution. Start with the fact that Dershowitz is not now, nor ever has been, one of America’s great Constitutional scholars, several of whom appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. His very recent, contorted Constitutional defense of President Trump was not dignified by our irrefutably greatest Constitutional scholar, Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School. Professor Tribe simply referred to Dershowitz as “wacko.” In other media interviews on C-Span and CNN, Dershowitz claimed that there cannot be a Senate trial until grounds for impeachment are established. In the world according to Dershowitz, there are none in the House impeachment articles: abuse of power, not impeachable, obstruction of Congress, not impeachable. To him, the Senate is not obliged to begin a trial. On CNN, Dershowitz rambled on about abuse of power not being a basis for impeachment, according to the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of our Constitution. He was dead wrong and corrected by Jeffrey Toobin. Toobin schooled the so-called objective scholar, pointing out that the Dershowitz’ argument was confusing abuse of power with mal-administration., which was deemed by the Founders as too broad. Dershowitz finds no obstruction of justice in Trump’s behavior, despite the President’s blanket refusal to allow any witnesses in the executive branch to testify or allow provision of any relevant documents. Dershowitz’ tainted reputation in his long-standing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and law suit by Virginia Giuffre for sex with her when she was an under-age girl should, alone, disqualify him from any role in the impeachment process. ************** Legacy in Ashes: Part I Alan Dershowitz “I kept my underwear on.” – Alan Derschowitz: A precipitous fall from grace for a respected law professor, legal scholar and prolific author to a diminished publicity hound who is shunned on Martha’s Vineyard, disparaged by relatives, severely criticized by Harvard colleagues, trashed on social media under the hashtag #creepyDershowitz and recently defensively protested his innocence in sex with underage girls at the mansions of sex slave trafficker, Jeffery Epstein, with the public statement “I kept my underwear on”– a repulsive word-picture, indeed. Who would have expected a formerly revered scholar to be reduced to that plaintive defense? Alan Dershowitz did not grow up in a wealthy family nor in an affluent community. He grew up in Brooklyn and attended Brooklyn College. His academic discipline and high intellect enabled him to excel. He graduated first in his class from Yale Law School and held the prestigious position of Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal. At 28 years old he was the youngest full Professor at Harvard Law School. Professor Dershowitz has authored many books and legal articles over his career. Known for his scholarly mind and accolades received for his work by those who are familiar with him, he has been held in high esteem. He has long championed civil liberties and proudly professes that he is often controversial, challenging the thinking of others. More recently, however, he has been asked, what happened to you? Why have you changed? His self-absorbed answer is that he hasn’t changed, the people who are so critical of him have changed. He disparages Americans who are too left leaning, politically. In his view, he is the same old […]
“Gentlemen, we have to save our phony baloney jobs.” Mel Brooks Politics aside, the majority of Americans live their lives as honest, hard-working people who expect their values to be reflected in those who represent them in Congress. Their disdain for self-serving Senators and Representative is what got Trump elected in 2016. Congressional power and monetary gain are the primary motivations– all too commonly–on both sides of the aisle. The evidence of Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction is compelling–and you don’t have to have gone to school to understand it. Our life experience informs us, giving us a clear picture of right and wrong. Trump has not helped average Americans. His great achievement was his tax plan, which only helps the very rich. I have always loved Robert Fulghum’s book, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” Our families, religious institutions and early teachers taught us our values, what our parents and our fellow citizens expect from us as children and adults. Perhaps, except in the military, honor is an old-fashioned idea, but still a respected virtue. Honor is something you do for yourself, because it defines who you are. Common Courtesy doesn’t cost a thing. A helping hand that is extended to our friends and neighbors is common in our communities. Our values, together as a country, define what America stands for. Anyone who is a chronic liar, and always for his personal benefit, would be ostracized in our communities. Anyone who cheats, whether it’s at golf, cards, or a contest of any kind would be repulsive to average Americans because it reveals a lack of character. How many of us have had an abusive, unfair boss who took advantage of authority over subordinate workers for his/her own benefit or denying bonuses and job promotions ? How many of us have been fired because we spoke out against something that was unfair or wrong in the workplace? We wouldn’t tolerate such behavior from a “friend” or neighbor or in the workplace. How can we, as Americans, tolerate such abusive, characterless behavior from our President? So, what’s different about these politicians? Too many of these politicians have a higher priority than Americans’ demand for good moral character and patriotism. They will compromise their values to get reelected. Upon taking office in the House and Senate, to many of them, their primary goal is getting reelected–Day1–and they have yet to do a single thing for their constituents. A number of them admit they work on their reelection campaign from the time they start. In the midst of the impeachment process, many of these politicians are afraid to act on principle, based on the evidence. That takes righteous conduct, courage to act and the wisdom to realize the critical danger we face to our democracy. Let’s start with Democrats For a number of them, this is not a matter of evaluating the evidence and voting to save our Constitution, the backbone of our American Democracy. The question for those who face reelection in 2020 is whether they can vote their conscience and impeach without losing the power and perks of office? Saving our way of life isn’t as important as saving their own asses. Stand the hell up and be counted; get a real job if it costs you reelection. If you are a stand-up person, Americans will respect you for it. […]
Alan Dershowitz Makes Himself A Laughing Stock w/New Interpretation of James Madison, Which Exculpates Trump
I don’t know if there is a writing genre called “legal fantasy” but if there would be, Alan Dershowitz would be it’s premiere man of letters. He bends and twists the law in ways that are exercises in imagination and creative writing far more than they are legal analysis and commentary. On his latest outing in his quixotic quest to defend Donald Trump from impeachment, in a Wall Street Journal op/ed, Dershowitz goes over constitutional impeachment provisions and the phrases “high crimes and misdemeanors” and he concludes that members of Congress should be “reasonable and conscientious” in applying the words. So far so good. Then he goes south. Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg: But he goes badly wrong when he tries to interpret the phrase in a way that immunizes Trump. “As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive.” Dershowitz may be referring to the firing of James Comey or to reports that Trump has promised pardons for aides if they break laws while following his orders. Or he may merely be establishing the principle that Trump can’t have committed an impeachable act of obstruction while exercising his constitutional powers. But that can’t be right. James Madison said during the Virginia ratifying convention that the Constitution provided “one security” against a president who urged a crime and then pardoned it: impeachment and removal. […] He proceeds to issue another grant of immunity, which also falls apart under scrutiny. “Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage,” he writes, “a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.” (While he never gives specifics, Dershowitz is clearly saying Trump should not be impeached for pushing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.) […] The question Dershowitz raises, then, is whether our reasonable and conscientious member of Congress should hesitate to vote against a president for conducting foreign policy for personal advantage because it requires making a judgment – because it necessitates acting on a standard that cannot be articulated in the mechanical way we would ideally want a legal rule to be. This is where Dershowitz gets in and twists and turns his legal argument every which way, not with the ideal of figuring out exactly what the Constitution says and how it should be applied, which is what any legitimate lawyer, let alone legal scholar would do. No, Dershowitz is looking, once again, to use the Constitution as fodder to go on Fox News and spin, for the sole purpose of exculpating Trump and keeping him in power. I recommend that you read both Dershowitz’ Wall Street Journal op/ed and the Bloomberg critique, both linked to herein, in their entirety. Then you will once again ask yourself the $64,000 question: How did a once reknowned and respected legal scholar degenerate to these depths and become the lackey of one such as Donald Trump? This is an issue that I have researched in depth and believe that I have the answer to and that is the substance of the rest of this piece. As time has passed, Dershowitz has joined a posse of Trump-serving advocates who have abandoned objective truth […]
The Stunning Saga Of How A Civil Liberties Icon Came To Head The Posse For An Authoritarian Thug: The Fall Of Alan Dershowitz Part...
Beyond the enduring shame of the long-term relationship Dershowitz had with Jeffrey Epstein that has tainted him, another puzzling relationship has emerged in recent years–his indefatigably aggressive defense of Donald Trump. Even Trump’s messaging spills from Dershowitz’ lips, like “witch hunt” and “perjury trap.” Right-wing Trump sycophant, Sean Hannity, has Dershowitz as a regular guest. As Hannity told him on Fox, “You have more people like Sean Hannity that you are more aligned with on civil liberties.” Rush Limbaugh has said, “I don’t know what happened to Professor Dershowitz… but whatever it is, I like it.” Dershowitz sounds more and more like Trump’s endless apologist, the ever eyebrow-raising Kellyanne Conway. With Conway’s mindless and incredibly biased defenses of Trump, Dershowitz is, and should be, disgraced by the legitimate comparison. Dershowitz has carried his pro-Trump, anti-Mueller banner to every talk show where he can get an audience. Two of his favorite forums are Fox, especially Hannity, and The View because they coddle him and show him great deference. Given the length of this article, it will be presented in two segments. In Dershowitz’ endless public appearances on any forum that will give him airtime, his statements and “authoritative” conclusions, which he expects viewers to take as gospel, reveal that his reasoning is strained, biased and ignores any laws or compelling Constitutional arguments that don’t fit his narrative. In this section, his inferior Constitutional arguments in defense of Trump will be addressed. Dershowitz is not a Constitutional scholar, far from it. His Constitutional arguments will be contrasted with those of America’s greatest Constitutional scholar, Professor Lawrence Tribe of the Harvard Law School faculty. His shameless abandonment of his previous protection of civil liberties will be exposed. In section two, to be published tomorrow, Dershowitz’ extreme bias in favor of Trump will be explained and a highly plausible answer will be provided to the question that many commentators have asked: What has happened to this long-time liberal Democrat? Trump’s Scandal in the Ukraine There is much to be addressed, but the current and important matter of Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian President requires attention. Trump, himself, released an initially redacted transcript of his telephonic conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky, the new President of the Ukraine. Since the transcript’s initial release, the unredacted version has been obtained by Congress. Both the substance of the conversation and the context, the juxtaposition of Trump’s comments, are significant. First, the Trump administration delayed release of over $300 million in military aid to the Ukraine. As the conversation between the two leaders began, Zelensky raised the fact that his country needed the aid. Trump immediately asked Zelensky for his help, a “favor.” The logical conclusion for the Ukrainian President was that the military aid was tied to the favor. Michael Cohen, in his most recent testimony in Congress, stated that Trump is careful not to make explicit demands that could be used against him, but he gets his point across. Cohen has had years of experience working for Trump and understood the meaning of Trump-speak. Trump threatens by clear implication. Trump went on to reveal his agenda for the call. He urged Zelensky to “look into” Democratic front-runner, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, who had worked for a Ukrainian gas company. Trump’s second agenda item was CrowdStrike, a California-based cybersecurity […]
“There Is No Room For Emotion In Espionage.” Was Jeffrey Epstein Killed by Intelligence — Theirs Or Ours?
Very powerful people have been squirming since Epstein was charged a second time for sex trafficking under-age girls–at least until he conveniently died. Enough has leaked to cause havoc in Buckingham Palace, complete with abject denials and outrage. Two American Presidents are under suspicion. Multiple elements of the rich and powerful are yet unnamed but hideously vulnerable. The Epstein scandal is the most widely exposed and most likely pervasive sex trafficking case in memory, yet just how far-reaching it is may never come to light. Many questions may never be answered. The Sting First, were Epstein’s decades-long sex parties and orgies with under-age girls just his own perversion or was it a well-orchestrated blackmail scheme designed to create leverage on political leaders and the fabulously wealthy power elite? No matter how much of a sex-craving pervert Epstein may have been, how many young girls would one man need to satisfy his erotic, kinky desires? A pedophile keeps his disgusting deeds to himself. He doesn’t brag about them with anyone else unless he is enticing others with his openness to enjoy their perverted fantasies with him, feeling safe in an environment where they were all secret participants together. It is not possible that these well-planned sexual adventures, at the expense of manipulated young girls, did not have devious purposes. The cameras and microphones in his residences are, alone, ample evidence of that. Epstein hired multiple recruiters to find dozens of under-age girls, often desperate and homeless victims. Epstein would have many girls for his guests to choose from, plenty of “young pussy” as they would likely comment, as disgusting as that is to say. A number of victims have said that these events were well choreographed and others were certainly involved in the planning and preparation of these parties. No, Epstein had devious motives for these extravagant gatherings. It has been reported that some of Epstein’s wealthy “friends” contributed to his “foundation” offshore. Blackmail to gain money is the kind of blackmail that most of us understand, but money is not the only possible motivation. Influence among powerful people is a major motivation for such an operation. Based on what we know today, this was a well-financed and elaborate blackmail scheme. The remaining question is–for whose benefit? Alex Acosta, disgraced as he already is, was a stone liar, at least to the American public. Exposed for lying to the public, he had previously told a Trump vetting team that Epstein was with “intelligence.” During Acosta’s appearance before Congressional committees before his appointment as Secretary of Labor, he did not state that he was told that intelligence was involved with Epstein. Hard to trust anything from a characterless liar, but his intelligence explanation has a ring of truth to it. Along with Les Wexner, Epstein has been reported to have long-term connections to the CIA, going back to the 1980’s with Southern Air Transport, a CIA business involved in transporting arms to the Contras during the Iran-Contra controversy. The airline moved from Little Rock, Arkansas to Columbus, Ohio, the location of Les Wexner’s residence and corporate headquarters. Reports have alleged that Wexner and Epstein also had connections to Mossad. It is entirely possible that the CIA and Mossad were involved in the scam. Epstein “Suicide” I addressed the death of Epstein in the Politizoom […]
Legacy in Ashes: Part I Alan Dershowitz “I kept my underwear on.” – Alan Derschowitz: A precipitous fall from grace for a respected law professor, legal scholar and prolific author to a diminished publicity hound who is shunned on Martha’s Vineyard, disparaged by relatives, severely criticized by Harvard colleagues, trashed on social media under the hashtag #creepyDershowitz and recently defensively protested his innocence in sex with underage girls at the mansions of sex slave trafficker, Jeffery Epstein, with the public statement “I kept my underwear on”– a repulsive word-picture, indeed. Who would have expected a formerly revered scholar to be reduced to that plaintive defense? Alan Dershowitz did not grow up in a wealthy family nor in an affluent community. He grew up in Brooklyn and attended Brooklyn College. His academic discipline and high intellect enabled him to excel. He graduated first in his class from Yale Law School and held the prestigious position of Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Journal. At 28 years old he was the youngest full Professor at Harvard Law School. Professor Dershowitz has authored many books and legal articles over his career. Known for his scholarly mind and accolades received for his work by those who are familiar with him, he has been held in high esteem. He has long championed civil liberties and proudly professes that he is often controversial, challenging the thinking of others. More recently, however, he has been asked, what happened to you? Why have you changed? His self-absorbed answer is that he hasn’t changed, the people who are so critical of him have changed. He disparages Americans who are too left leaning, politically. In his view, he is the same old Alan, a beacon of light to civil liberties, frequently comparing himself to a doctor or priest. Really? When he looks in the mirror, he sees the ultimate knight in shining armor, a characterization he would likely embrace. Somewhere along the line, Dershowitz became more enamored with being a celebrity than a professor. Although he states without data that 50% of his representation of clients has been pro bono, without payment for people who cannot afford counsel, other clients are more informative. He leveraged his Harvard credentials, in 1982, gaining a highly visible, fabulously wealthy and newsworthy client, Claus von Bulow, a Danish-British aristocrat who had been convicted of killing his heiress wife, Martha von Bulow. Dershowitz got Bulow’s conviction overturned and he was acquitted upon retrial. News on the von Bulow case was everywhere in the media. Dershowitz, personally, received great publicity and followed up with a book about his success, “Reversal of Fortune.” Dershowitz had become a celebrity. Although Professor Dershowitz was financially comfortable, by most people’s standards, visiting von Bulow at his expensive and well-adorned New York residence, gave Dershowitz a glimpse at serious wealth. Some colleagues on the Harvard Law School faculty who knew Dershowitz well saw how drawn he was to the very wealthy and very famous. Dershowitz went on to become involved in many high publicity cases involving wealthy defendants: Reverend Jim Baker, who was convicted of defrauding parishioners. Leona Helmsley, heiress to the Helmsley fortune, who was convicted of tax fraud. O.J. Simpson, perhaps the most publicized murder trial in our lifetime, where he was an appellate adviser (should the case have to be appealed). Although he said on The View that he won […]