July 29, 2019

"Dershowitz felt like an outsider at law school. He has written that, when he gave his first presentation, his 'accent was openly laughed at'..."

"... as was his 'non-preppy garb, which included Bermuda shorts with a Phi Beta Kappa key ostentatiously dangling from a pocket.' He kept kosher, which meant that he couldn’t eat in the common dining room, and he didn’t drive or work on the Sabbath. When he was being considered for the position of editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, classmates asked if his religious observance would interfere with editorial responsibilities. He got the post anyway. During his second year, he applied to some thirty Wall Street law firms for a summer job and was rejected by all of them... Dershowitz graduated at the top of his class... [clerked] for two esteemed liberal judges... was hired as an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, and at twenty-eight became a full professor."

There's much more than that in "Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate/The noted lawyer’s long, controversial career—and the accusations against him" by Connie Bruck (in The New Yorker), but I haven't read it all and it's too much to summarize.

99 comments:

mccullough said...

This is the Boise hit piece.

Should be good.

Bay Area Guy said...

Dersh is the last of a dying breed -- an honest liberal.

He has been excellent on this Russian hoax stuff. Also, excellent:

Joe DiGenova (Former US Attorney - DC)
Andrew McCarthy (Former US Attorney - NY)
Jonathan Turley (Law Professor).

Compare these 4 to excitable knucklehead, Larry Tribe.

n.n said...

A yesteryear liberal. Perhaps classical. An anachronistic artifact of progress.

traditionalguy said...

As a lawyer you have to respect the sharp legal arguments he presents with controlled passion. That equally impressed Judges, Trial and Appellate. Tough man to beat.

Nonapod said...

Huntsman read a statement from Giuffre: “My abusers have sought to conceal their guilt behind a curtain of lies. My complaint calls for the accounting to which I, and the other victims, are entitled.”

“She’s right. She’s entitled to an accounting,” Dershowitz said. “I have—”

“Alan,” Goldberg said. The segment was running out of time.


“—invited the F.B.I. to the trial—”

“Alan, you gotta stop.”

“—so that—”

“Alan! You want me to give the book away? We’ve gotta give the book away.”

Dershowitz recovered his composure and smiled for the camera. Before the show cut to commercial, he got in a last word: “My reputation is more important than my book.”


This is why I despise the TV talk show format for any debate. The Host(s) can cut you off at any time and you're at the mercy of the segment clock. Cunning hosts will take advantage of the timing to present a last word without any opportunity for rebuttle. It's pretty obvious that they intended to have that quoted statement be the last word without any rebuttle or response from Dershowitz.

doctrev said...

Give the New Yorker clicks? Lolgf. I must say, just from what Althouse quoted I wonder how strong the "KILL THE JEW!" sentiment is going to be against Dershowitz as an apotaste who dared to support Trump.

tim maguire said...

I like Dershowitz, but if his twitter feed is anything to go by, he's at best 5 years behind Larry Tribe in crazyhood.

Leslie Graves said...

I've loosely followed Dershowitz for a long time so I feel some obligation to actually read the article even though the thought of reading it feels like doing homework.

Rick said...

It makes a lot of sense to highlight the Dershowitz experience since the modern left is still fighting the 1950s establishment.

Bay Area Guy said...

I make it a point to only skim, not slog thru, tedious, humorless New Yorker articles.

But I will read this one -- to see whether they evidence against Dersh, or whether it's just a hit job, because he departed from dogmatic leftism.

Narr said...

BAG@106: Dollars to donuts it's door number two.

Narr
Let me know!

Leland said...

He defended the Orange Man, so the long knives are out. Yet no one knew or would speak openly of the mental state of Mueller until he testified.

sykes.1 said...

Epstein to Wexmer to Dershowitz to ... Pizzagate.

Yancey Ward said...

Bay Area Guy,

I just read the entire article- there really is no evidence other than hearsay against Dershowitz. Given that the writer of the article does at points disclose some exculpatory evidence, I suspect that Dershowitz is probably being lied about (he allowed the author to view and listen to some evidence he has in his possession)- also, he did obtain from Boies a statement in the previous settlement that the sexual allegations should not have been made- now, this section of the article was very odd- the lawyers for Giuffre seemed to try to retract that as a mistake, but I just don't see how the mistake described changes the actually meaning of the statement itself, however, see it for yourself.

The good thing, though, is that there might actually be a court test on all of it- Dershowitz was sued for defamation by Giuffre- if he has solid evidence that he has been falsely accused, then we will see it then.

J. Farmer said...

Now you see obviously why Dershowitz feels so comfortable on the left. He still harbors a grudge over ethnic resentments from almost 60 years ago. Nothing new here. Matthew Weiner was basically driven to create Mad Men out of anti-WASP resentments over country club admissions.

jg said...

I like Dershowitz. That said, this burnishing of 'victim' credentials every time he chose not to partake of the cultural mainstream is pathetic. To his credit, he went far in spite of (and also because of) his self-imposed social handicaps.

mccullough said...

The WASP sort of died off awhile ago in the public mind. Maybe Patty Hearst put an end to it.

There are definitely still some old money families in the US. But it’s really hard to conjure the WAP image up anymore.

readering said...

My favorite line from the article: Dershowitz complained he'd stopped getting requests to accept honorary degrees.

readering said...

If the victim says he had sex with her, her statement is not hearsay, just like his denial is not hearsay. It will be interesting to see who has the better corroborating evidence if it goes that far.

bleh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bleh said...

"But it’s really hard to conjure the WAP image up anymore."

That's a funny typo in the context of the rest of your comment.

steve uhr said...

Don’t understand why he sees nothing problematic with the president instructing White House counsel to create fake government documents to conceal efforts by the president to fire mueller. Other than that I generally agree with his views.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

“My favorite line from the article: Dershowitz complained he'd stopped getting requests to accept honorary degrees.”

With your advanced education you should have understood that if it weren’t for bias against Dershowitz, it could have been written "Dershowitz noted that he'd stopped getting requests to accept honorary degrees.” It was just another subtle smear, I know your a big fan, but noting that he no longer gets honorary degrees is further evidence for his arguments.

But you prefer smears over engagement, as you have noted yourself in other threads.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

“ president instructing White House counsel to create fake government documents to conceal efforts by the president to fire mueller.”

That sounds pretty bad, do you have a cite for that?

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Not what you said:

What Mueller found: “Evidence indicates that by the time of the Oval Office meeting the President was aware that McGahn did not think the story was false and did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.”

If it’s all so bad on its own, why do you guys have to lie and exaggerate?

doctrev said...

Don't bother, AAT, because it's bullshit. If there was a Trump ANYONE accused of handing in fake documents to the Mueller team, they'd be under a jail right now. Whereas the head of the DNC can hand over fake servers to investigators and misrepresent them as the real deal, hey no biggie.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/memo-house-democratic-caucus-server-disappeared-when-
it-became-evidence-in-awan-probe/

I don't actually care what lies are offered in response, I'm happy because more and more Americans see the FBI on the same level as trust and impartiality as the KGB. It's not about winning elections, it's about -destroying- the enemy. First step is destroying their institutional reputation.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Of course Mueller never should have been hired in the first place to investigate a charge whipped up out of whole cloth by the Hillary campaign. But by any means necessary to get rid of Trump and overturn an election and put the deplorables back in their place.

He had stopped investigating collusion for quite a while and had turned his operation, run entirely by partisan Democrats and we now know, headed by one of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers, an operation to manufacture an obstruction charge.

We knew that all previous democratic norms in the US were thrown out the window by the Mueller cabal when they raided Trump’s lawyer’s office and began to squeeze him on unrelated charges.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I guess the whole charge of directing him to make a fake document, even if you accept the premise arguendo, goes to Trump knowing that McGahn had made up his mind over what Trump may have had a different recollection of.

It’s like the charge that "Trump lied about his reasons for firing Comey."

steve uhr said...

Section l of vol ll. My characterization is accurate

Michael K said...

I wonder how strong the "KILL THE JEW!" sentiment is going to be against Dershowitz as an apotaste who dared to support Trump.

Of course ! And Trump's grandchildren are Jewish.

Steve, that dog won't hunt. You go right ahead, though. The OIG is coming and boy is he pissed !

effinayright said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Szoszolo said...

One of the last principled liberals ... they seem to be a dying breed.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"Section l of vol ll. My characterization is accurate”

Your characterization of the opinion of a cabal of lawyers and fixers for Hillary Clinton is debatable.

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for their removal.

Mueller testified that the investigation was actually being run by a lawyer for Hillary Clinton who defended one of her staff who had deleted evidence under subpoena and taken a hammer to physically destroy devices under subpoena.

It’s banana republic stuff.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

And Mueller mostly played dumb only when asked pointed questions by Republicans

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/29/7-times-robert-mueller-played-dumb-congress-partisan-advantage

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I would be ashamed to be defending this attempt at overturning an election, but you guys threw out shame a while ago.

effinayright said...

readering said...
If the victim says he had sex with her, her statement is not hearsay, just like his denial is not hearsay. It will be interesting to see who has the better corroborating evidence if it goes that far.
**********************

It's not hearsay? Then what is it?

If she took her claim to court she would have to offer evidence under oath to support it. Not having done that yet, it's....pure hearsay.

And if she can't offer supporting evidence in court, the case will be thrown out. Then Dersh could sue her for making false and defamatory statements. He might not win because of Times v. Sullivan, but he could cost her a great deal of $$$.

Also, what corroborating evidence would Dersh have to provide? SHE made the claim, so SHE has to prove it. HE doesn't have to prove anything.

MikeD said...

If interested (recommended to Althouse 2013, believe she wasn't interested) https://smile.amazon.com/Taking-Stand-My-Life-Law-ebook/dp/B00CGI3DW6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

daskol said...

Hmm...

The article creates in the reader an impression that Dershowitz has asserted in public that he'd like to challenge Giuffre, but that in actual court proceedings has shied away from such confrontation. My initial feeling after reading through it all was that Dershowitz's frantic machinations in public while settling a case privately suggest a guilty man, desperately using the media and his time-worn tactics of manipulation to advance his own cause. But then, isn't that precisely the impression one would try to create if one were writing a hit piece, and had nothing serious to pin on Dershowitz? The almost offhanded way Ransome's accusation of Dershowitz gets thrown in towards the end of the article is confusing: if two women are accusing Dershowitz, why not mention that earlier?

If guilty, Dershowitz has every reason to fire every gun he's got in this confrontation: he has nothing to lose that he hasn't already lost by being so accused. If he can create the impression among enough people that he's innocent, that will salvage his reputation at least among those of us skeptical of the media (and maybe even among his close friends and family). On the other hand, he'd be justified in pursuing the same course if were innocent of Giuffre's accusations.

readering said...

Hearsay is when someone reports someone's statement. Not when someone makes as statement about conduct they witnessed or participated in. She needs nothing more than her own testimony about what happened with him to go to trial. She may have credibility problems if he makes a forceful denial or he has witnesses or other evidence to corroborate his version, but she can go to trial with her statement unless no reasonable juror would believe her based on overwhelming evidence she is lying. (Such as proof they were not in the same place on the dates she said they were together.)

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

In an irony so rich I am surprised that Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to tax it, all of this dudgeon about obstruction comes from a crew of people who never blinked an eye when Hillary Clinton, as testified to by Huma Abedin under oath, destroyed federal records of her meetings as Secretary of State in State Department burn bags.

Of course, at this time she was collecting hundreds of millions of dollars for her personal foundation from people with business before the State Department.

None of that bothers you an iota steve uhr, but if Trump suggested that an investigation he knew to be baseless should end already! Impeach and remove!

Otto said...

Bermuda shorts were very preppy back then.
He is now a secular Jew, so he obviously rebelled against keeping Kosher.
I think the author is putting up a phony strawman - The bad WASP. The WASP was gone by 1960, but as always it was a great punching bag for a few decades after that. Sort of what the term racism is today.

narciso said...

in the 90s I grew very cynical about defense attys notable in the menendez and oj simpson case,

http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2019/07/sidney-powell-last-december-mueller.html

narciso said...


https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/29/media-democrats-trump-dni/

readering said...

Mad Men opens in spring 1960, Dershowitz's first year at Yale. It shows WASPS still going, even if the writing was on the wall.

traditionalguy said...

Remember Dersh is a fighter lawyer for his client so joe takes risks to win. The winner in court has the best story woven into a legal point to control that case. Truth is not the aim, rather winning the case.

You might say Dersh is an honorary Scots Irish lawyer. He never surrenders. And he never beats himself.

narciso said...

we bury our own, and slap the adversaries on the wrist,


https://quillette.com/2018/11/11/charlie-kirks-campus-battlefield-a-review/

Virgil Hilts said...

I didn't have AD as a prof at HLS, but would go to his lectures. He was terrific and entertaining. To paraphrase -- "95% of my criminal defense clients are guilty - yes, and I don't want to live in a country where only 60% or 80% are guilty and the government is railroading everybody else. My obligations as a defense attorney are to make the government jump through all the hoops. Will a lot of my clients get convicted despite my best efforts - sure, absolutely. Will some get off because the government doesn't do a good enough job proving its case - sure, absolutely."
He really cut through the BS. I was at HLS when AD was defending Claus von Bülow on appeal, which was pretty damn wild.

effinayright said...

readering said...
Hearsay is when someone reports someone's statement. Not when someone makes as statement about conduct they witnessed or participated in. She needs nothing more than her own testimony about what happened with him to go to trial. She may have credibility problems if he makes a forceful denial or he has witnesses or other evidence to corroborate his version, but she can go to trial with her statement unless no reasonable juror would believe her based on overwhelming evidence she is lying. (Such as proof they were not in the same place on the dates she said they were together.)
********************

So by broadcasting her unsupported statements, you are committing hearsay.

Got it.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

WASPs lasted until 1967 when Gilligan's Island was cancelled.

readering said...

One does not commit hearsay. Hearsay is an objection that can be made in court to the admission of certain evidence. There are lots of exceptions. Like admissions against interest. So if Dershowitz said something to Giuffre, she can seek to admit it into evidence, but can object if tries to do the same with the same statement. (There being exceptions like with all evidence. A very complicated area of the law.) And same if positions reversed.

rcocean said...

Never understood the Deshowtiz love. He's an obnoxious piece of shit who's gotten a lot of guilty people off, and was a long time ACLU/Leftist creep.

The fact that he supports Trump now is probably because he thinks Trump is "Good for Israel" or he's gotten rich enough to turn Republican. Its hilarious we're supposed to feel sorry for this elitist (Harvard Law Prof @ 28) because some Wall Street WASP's didn't give him an internship 60 years ago.

narciso said...

no he'll still vote democrat, he's said as much, he's been consistent since the Clinton era, as well in as a number of other matters, the notion is you disqualify the messenger, you do so to the message,

Drago said...

rcocean: "The fact that he supports Trump now..."

Wrong.

Dersh does not support Trump. Dersh supports a set of legal principles which the dems are violating and Dersh is speaking out against it.


Nothing more

Yancey Ward said...

Readering,

Hearsay is reporting what someone said. From the reader's point of view, it is all hearsay. There is no documentary evidence described in the article- no photographs, no documents of any kind. Now, if Giuffre wants to go on television and say these things, then it is one step up in evidence.

Yancey Ward said...

The difference is that I have heard and seen Dershowitz deny the allegations himself. I have only read other people's quotes of Giuffre and Ransome. In other words, the allegations are all hearsay at this point.

narciso said...

of course boies is representing Harvey Weinstein, who has as troubled a trackrecord as Epstein, in some ways,

Birkel said...

Let's forget about the first person who made these sorts of allegations against Dershowitz.
She recanted and admitted she had lied.
Fabricated the whole non-event.

The second accuser is, I would wager, also a liar.

The Mike Pence rule looks wiser and wiser.

Michael K said...

"95% of my criminal defense clients are guilty -

I enjoy good lawyering and have spent a lot of time in court as a witness or expert witness (not the same) in my career.

The most fun I had was when a guy came home, found his wife giving a blowjob to another man in his bed, The husband shot the other guy with a shotgun that he had armed himself with before climbing the stairs. I took care of the shootee and sent him home to his wife.

About a year later, the lawyer for the shooter called and wanted take me to lunch. I rarely turn down a free lunch, especially if a lawyer is paying. He told me he planned to defend the shooter on thew grounds of self defense. It was fun to watch him do it.

An essential ingredient in his plan was an affirmative action ADA. He told me, "I am a bleeding heart liberal, but this is business."

readering said...

If you want to go that route, documents and photos are hearsay too. Then we get into the exceptions. But that's not how I understood your use of the term. For now, either you believe her or you believe him. He said-she said.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left hates Dersh now because he is: (a) pro-Israel and (b) anti-Mueller Russian Hoax.

He said he would vote for Biden, but he sticks to his principles in nailing Mueller's bogus investigation. I like the guy.

narciso said...

properly authenticated documentation is not,


https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1155942922409271296

hearsay masquerading as intelligence is something else,

readering said...

It can fit into an exception to the hearsay rule. It starts as hearsay.

readering said...

Kinda straying. But whatever. Keep those insults coming.

Quaestor said...

For now, either you believe her or you believe him. He said-she said.

Given the Left's track record of staging fake hate crimes and making false accusations of sexual assault, a fair-minded person would tend to disbelieve the accuser.

Quaestor said...

A fair-minded prosecutor would not take this matter to trial based solely on the woman's testimony. But we're running short of those, aren't we?

Yancey Ward said...

The insults come, readering, because you play stupid almost all the time. It is tiresome.

The documentation Dershowitz offered countering the allegations are unauthenticated for now, but at least the writer claims he has some some- his accusers don't as far as the article is concerned, and this is particular impressive because the writer of the article is definitely no friend of Dershowitz.

Qwinn said...

readering: "Keep those insults coming."

I read this thread backwards, so I saw that right away. I kept it in mind as I read the whoooole thing, with near certainty that I would not find a single statement that could fairly be considered ad hominem or an insult against readering.

I was right. Nothing even remotely close to an insult.

But when victimhood is the coin of the realm, at least for liberals, victimhood will be minted at an ever accelerating rate.

Michael K said...

If you want to go that route, documents and photos are hearsay too.

Verified, they are evidence. Accusations are not. Juries decide.

narciso said...

ot, this the firm mueller would accept 50k in honoraria from, a year before he became independent council, and they paid a 100 million dollar fine,

https://narconews.com/docs/ontrial.html

Yancey Ward said...

There was one particular incident described in the article that caught my eye- he apparently got into some hot water with students in a law class when he described defending men accused of rape- the incident was described by three different people in the class, and seemed to corroborated by Dershowitz himself. It wasn't a big matter in my opinion, everyone deserves a vigorous defense in a criminal trial, and this can sometimes involve attacking the accusers- it is a vital, if harsh, part of the process. However, one of the students then relayed a class story about Dershowitz saying that men buying prostitutes shouldn't be prosecuted, but that the prostitutes should prosecuted. Now, this wasn't supported by other students or Dershowitz, though I am sure the writer probably did ask, but she doesn't say whether she did. It is this sort of thing that bothers me about journalism- either a lack of curiousity, or just outright omitting key things if they don't fit the narrative. I am suspicious because it seems unlikel a civil libertarian like Dershowitz would have said that prostitutes should be prosecuted.

readering said...

Even if a document is authenticated (legal term for verified) it is not necessarily admissible, since it's still an out of court statement, and if being offered for the truth of the statement contained in it needs to fit into one of the exceptions for hearsay.

readering said...

I guess I am sensitive:

With your advanced education you should have understood that if it weren’t for bias against Dershowitz, it could have been written "Dershowitz noted that he'd stopped getting requests to accept honorary degrees.” It was just another subtle smear, I know your a big fan, but noting that he no longer gets honorary degrees is further evidence for his arguments. But you prefer smears over engagement, as you have noted yourself in other threads.

So by broadcasting her unsupported statements, you are committing hearsay. Got it.

hearsay masquerading as intelligence is something else

Spiros Pappas said...

Like Socrates, Mr. Dershowitz is on trial for corrupting the youth and (im)piety.

readering said...

I don't know if Dershowitz was first in his class, but as editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal and a clerk to Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg, a year ahead of Stephen Breyer, he was a terrific law student.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Do you even read your posts readering?

readering said...

They do have typos.

cubanbob said...

I see some some not so subtle anti-Semitism in the comments in this thread. If AD was a Protestant would his religion be mentioned?
Readering tell us why you believe this woman without the slightest bit of corroborating evidence?

readering said...

I didn't say I believed her. My one comment indicated that Dershowitz is an egotistical ass, but otherwise I was just countering the point made here that there is no evidence against him. Her statements of having sex with him constitutes evidence. Saying that is not playing stupid. I haven't weighed in on relative credibility, but remember it's not a criminal case against him. She sued him for defamation, so she has the burden at trial, but it's not a huge burden. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the claims by both sides to have evidence supporting or undermining each side, but she does have very talented lawyers in her corner who say they have evidence supporting her and undermining him.

The New Yorker article doesn't purport to carry the day for her, but it does paint a picture of Dershowitz as (a) a guy who craves being looked at, (b) spent a lot of time in the company of a procurer of young girls, and (c) someone who reminds me of Icarus.

But who cares what I think? I know who comments on the comments here. I'm here to comment because AA lets us, not to persuade folks who see "readering" and think, oh I hate that guy (now that they've been informed it's a guy).

Ann Althouse said...

"This is the Boise hit piece."

Took me all day to realize you meant Boies.

On first read, I just assumed Boise, Idaho was somehow involved.

readering said...

They can't even get it right in his home county paper:

https://yonkerstimes.com/westchester-super-lawyer-david-boise-represents-epstein-victims/

Michael K said...

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the claims by both sides to have evidence supporting or undermining each side, but she does have very talented lawyers in her corner who say they have evidence supporting her and undermining him.

The left, which you represent, is going to get far more violent as the election approaches. Nobody would care about Dershowitz if he had not been seen as supporting Trump somehow. This weekend, Ted Cruz was harassed in LAX terminal by leftist agitators. We were in LAX last weekend and I am glad we missed it. This will get worse and worse.

I fully expect violence on the Portland model but worse as they realize they are losing. Dershowitz is collateral damage.

readering said...

I'll tell my people to back off Ted.

Drago said...

readering: "..but otherwise I was just countering the point made here that there is no evidence against him."

No you weren't as it is all more politically inspired lefty lies just like the lies you and your pals pushed against Kavanaugh.

readering said...

Chapter and verse?

readering said...

By the way, I read one of Dershowitz's first books, which came out soon after I got out of law school: For the Defense. Terrific. And in 1998 he wrote a book a lot of folks here would hate: Sexual Mccarthyism: Clinton, Starr, And The Emerging Constitutional Crisis. But also I think he went off the rails defending OJ.

Drago said...

The Party that lionized Michael Avenetti and pushed hilariously transparent hoax gang rape lies would like for you to give credence to their latest wave of politically inspired hoax claims targeting political opponents.

Discuss.

Bay Area Guy said...

Has Avenatti been disbarred yet? I reckon not - the presumption of innocence still holds for the accused.

Dersh should hire Avenatti to defend him; and then vice-versa.

daskol said...

It's possible Dersh is getting Avenatti'd by Boies.

readering said...

The Dershowitz-Giuffre-Boies business predates 2016 election.

readering said...

One item in th New Yorker piece is about an old Dershowitz op-ed on statutory rape laws. Just read it. Not sure I agree with all of it, but perfectly sensible. Of course most folks here would hate it because it suggests linking age of consent to age of right to abortion without parental consent.

Bruce Hayden said...

Doc we know hired Dershowitz for a lot of money. He was very happy with the result. The final agreement for this guy was a stiff fine, and six months probation, and it didn’t affect his medical license. The Feds had been pushing this guy around a lot, with his previous lawyers. This stopped immediately when he hired Dershowitz.

The whole prosecution stank. Insurance companies bought a bogus investigation with political donations. The Feds were successful flipping some other guys with sweetheart deals for income tax violations. But that ended when this guy hired Dershowitz. He really was that good. And this was a great example of why good defense attorneys are good for our legal system. I can see why Dershowitz has been appalled by the Mueller investigation. There is a lot more prosecutorial malfeasance by federal prosecutors than most of us realized until watching what happened with the Mueller investigation of Trump.

Drago said...

readering: "Of course most folks here would hate it because it suggests linking age of consent to age of right to abortion without parental consent"

LOL

I dont believe it is possible for you to be more wrong more often.

Dershowitz' position on age of consent/underage abortion without parental permission is logically coherent though many on the conservative side would oppose in a linked way the ability of underage gals being allowed to get an abortion without parental consent.

But we all know how much the dems like abortion as a "sacrament" in the Church of Leftism, not to mention the baby body parts revenue streams.

readering said...

Oh, you believe it alright. LOL

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

“not to persuade folks who see "readering" and think, oh I hate that guy (now that they've been informed it's a guy).”

I like and respect your comments a lot more now that you have moved away from the drive by smears.

Phil 314 said...

So why do you all praise Dershowitz as an “honest liberal” meaning he’s still politically liberal in viewpoint but can praise Trump or Trump admin sometimes yet despise a conservative who is still conservative in viewpoint but can criticize Trump. Example : Jonah Goldberg.

Tina Trent said...

Funny, I don't remember Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker getting incensed over Dershowitz using the race card to get OJ Simpson off for murder.

Even though mass riots could result and many more lives be lost.

But that was a liberal-leftist appropriate victim-offender matrix, so Dershowitz was a hero, despite the injustice and dishonesty, which he bragged about. He was abjectly and loudly proud of his role in lynching two murdered people.

What a sick bunch. Boies, Dershowitz, Epstein -- all of them.

Drago said...

Phil: "yet despise a conservative who is still conservative in viewpoint but can criticize Trump. Example : Jonah Goldberg."

LOL

Goldberg is part of the faux conservative Surrender Brigade.

He can't wait to virtue signal at the drop of every hat and genuflect to his dem pals whereas Dershowitz' stand is taken upon a clearly defined objective standard regardless of who is involved.

That's the difference.

And its an obvious one.

Drago said...

Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, as we speak, are in a desperate search for a lefty billionaire to back their next "conservative" venture....some sort of pathetic newsletter that will provide continuing cover for the dems/left.

Similar to far lefty Pierre Omidyar "owning" Bill Kristol and deadbeat dad Charlie Sykes and the rest of the Bulwark Cuck Crew.

Those lefty billionaires know precisely what they have purchased.....

Ali Zaidi said...

In my opinion, there needs to be specific state laws allowing Agents protection under Taylor v. Taintor. There also needs to be weapon laws that are specific to Bail Fugitive Recovery. Many Agents are harassed by local law enforcement due to their lack of knowledge of the laws Agents operate under. law homework