Monday, July 22, 2019

Alan Dershowitz Statement

Analysis to follow...

I recently learned, from a source close to The New Yorker magazine, that its editor, David Remnick, has commissioned a hit piece against me for the explicit purpose of silencing my defense of President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the State of Israel. Remnick despises Trump and Netanyahu, and is well known for his strong anti-Israel bias. Remnick explicitly told people that I must be silenced because mine has been the most persuasive voice in favor of what Remnick feels pose dangers to values he holds dear, and that he will use the credibility of The New Yorker to accomplish this goal.
The New Yorker used to be a great literary magazine. I read it for its short stories, profiles of literary figures, film and drama reviews, humorous vignettes, and clever cartoons. But since David Remnick took over as editor, left wing politics have trumped non-partisan literature. Profiles have become personal attacks on Remnick's political enemies and hagiographies of his political friends.
Among Remnick's most persistent enemies are Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Ad hominem attacks on the Israeli Prime Minister include mocking his name ("Netanyahoo") and calling him a "mendacious mouse." Remnick consistently singles out Israel for condemnation, while ignoring real violations of human rights.
An op-ed in the Jerusalem Post observed that "under Remnick's reign, The New Yorker, and particularly Remnick himself, repeatedly and obsessively focuses on what Remnick perceives to be the failings of the state of Israel," accusing it of "medievalism," "apartheid" and "xenophobia." Its one-sided views have been "posted prominently on the website of "Intifada – The Voice of Palestine."
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has characterized Remnick's writings as "almost frantic agitation" against the Netanyahu government. Israel and/or its leaders are scorned for being "bigoted," "arrogant" and "stubborn," and for displaying "ineptitude" and a penchant for "fantasy." The Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, are "moderate and constructive." Remnick's attacks on President Trump are even more ad hominem, calling him "unhinged," "chaotic," "corrupt," "infantile" and comparing him to Nero.
The New Yorker's reputation for objectivity, fairness and scrupulous fact checking has been replaced by a growing awareness that nothing it publishes should be taken as true without rigorous independent checking, especially when it comes to Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump. The same is true when it comes to public figures Remnick believes are supporters of his sworn enemies. I know, because Remnick has arranged for a like-minded attack journalist named Connie Bruck to target me in a mendacious hit piece designed to still my voice on Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump.
Bruck is so emotional in her hatred toward those who say anything positive about Trump, that when her own stepson came out for the president, her family — according to the step-son — "singly excluded" him from family events "when the rest of the family was invited."* Bruck's antagonism toward Israel is reflected by the fact that the only Harvard Law School professor that she interviewed about me is a virulently anti-Israel radical, whose one-sided course on the Israel-Palestine conflict I strongly criticized.
Another academic she interviewed is Robert Trivers, who compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
Remnick's decision to have this biased reporter to profile a man who has vigorously defended the legal rights of both Trump and Netanyahu makes it clear that he was commissioning a one-sided screed, rather than an objective profile.
The New Yorker apparently got the idea of using false allegations of sexual misconduct to silence me from another like-minded web attacker of pro-Israel advocates named Phillip Weiss, who wrote the following on his Mondoweiss website: "We have picked up news about the sexual allegations against Alan Dershowitz because Dershowitz is such an outspoken defender of Israel and the matter has inevitably affected his influence in the foreign policy arena." Remnick has made similar statements about the need to reduce my influence and silence my voice.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with what I've been saying about Trump, Netanyahu, and Israel, every American should be outraged at this partisan effort by a giant of the media to stifle the marketplace of ideas by exploiting the past credibility of The New Yorker to try destroy the reputation of a public intellectual with whom they disagree. Let them publish articles challenging my views on their merits, instead of disseminating defamatory attacks that will be believed by partisans, regardless of overwhelming evidence that the accusations are false. This is the latest weapon in the partisan warfare that divides our nation. It is a misuse of freedom of the press to stifle the freedom of speech of those with whom one disagrees.
But The New Yorker picked on the wrong innocent victim, because I have the will and resources to fight back against the falsehoods he is directing at me and those who want to hear my voice. The truth is my weapon in this war of words, and the truth is unequivocally on my side. So here are the indisputable facts that The New Yorker will either not publish or will distort.
Four years ago, a woman who I had never met was "pressured" — her word — by her lawyers to falsely accuse me of having underage sex with her. They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed we had met. She also claimed to have met Al and Tipper Gore, as well as Bill Clinton, on the island, but Secret Service and other records proved she had made up that story as well. She also made up stories about having underage sex with prominent political leaders — senators, ambassadors, prime ministers and other heads of state — but her own employment records prove conclusively that she was well above the age of consent when she falsely claimed to have met these men.
My records led her own lawyer to admit in a recorded conversation that it would have been "impossible" for me to have been in those places and that his client was "simply wrong" about her accusations. An investigation by a former head of the FBI concluded that the accusations were disproved by the evidence. The judge struck the accusations and her lawyers withdrew them, admitting it was a "mistake."
Having seen the initial accusation demolished, her lawyer told people he was trolling for a second accuser because "two is better than one." This time they "found" a real doozy: a woman who had tried to get the New York Post to publish her claim that she had sex tapes of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson. She also wrote hundreds of pages of emails accusing several prominent people of having sex with her when she was in her 20s, but I was not among them — until she met the ethically challenged lawyer David Boies. I had never met this false accuser either, but her lawyer allowed this obviously mendacious or hallucinatory woman to submit a perjured affidavit accusing me.
Two provably false accusations by women with long histories of lying about famous people are not better than one, especially when both were engineered by the same lawyer. Sometimes smoke does not mean fire; it means arson.
So this is where the story stood: I had disproved these false accusations both in the courts of law and public opinion. No reasonably objective person examining the evidence would possibly conclude that I was guilty of any wrongdoing. The matter was closed. Until The New Yorker decided to resurrect these false allegations in an effort to silence me. He commissioned the hit piece from Bruck, who actually completed her article, subject only to fact checking, without even interviewing me or anyone who might say something positive about me. She ignored or minimized the evidence of my innocence. She relied on interviews with the lawyers of my false accusers and my political enemies. She did not question my accusers, simply accepting the unchallenged words of proven liars, taking them from court documents that are privileged and thus not subject to a defamation suit.
I have been advised that The New Yorker's policy, as expressed by Remnick, is that the magazine will not publish sex allegations against someone unless there are three credible independent sources. My source heard this directly from Mr. Remnick. Yet the proposed article doesn't even come close to meeting that standard. In the first place, there are only two sources. They are anything but independent, since both women were groomed by the same lawyers to lie about me for financial gain. Moreover, both sources lack credibility. They each have documented histories of telling false stories about well-known people for financial gain.
In every other "#MeToo" accusation reported by The New Yorker and other media, there was some corroboration or admission of the external facts: they had sex; they worked together; they knew each other. In my case there is absolutely no evidence I ever met these false accusers, because I did not.
The question thus arises why The New Yorker is willing to violate its own standards by publishing false accusations against me that have no credibility or corroboration and are refuted by indisputable documentary evidence. The answer is obvious to those familiar with Remnick's political misuse of his magazine to destroy his enemies, regardless of what compromise he must make with journalistic standards.
Not content to falsely accuse me of sex crimes, Bruck trolled the internet and came across a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial website called, which both the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have declared to be anti-Semitic. This site accused me of beating and murdering my first wife. It showed "pictures" of her and my children, which were not them, but stereotypical Jews with long noses. No one would believe anything on this hate site — no one, that is, except a journalist prepared to use any dirt, regardless of its source and absurdity, against her target. Bruck has admitted using this discredited site as the original source for claiming in her article that I abused my first wife and "stripped" her of custody of my two sons. She even used the same words she found on the Holocaust denial site. The truth is that my first wife and I, who were married when I was 20 and she 19, grew apart. There was no abuse, and the court granted me custody based on the report of the social worker, and on his explicit finding that I committed "no misconduct." But that boring story would not achieve The New Yorker's goal of destroying me. So they went into the gutter and followed the lead of an anti-Semitic website.
This is not journalism; it is defamation motivated not by a search for truth but a determination to destroy and silence a political enemy. Bruck's reckless disregard for the truth has become all too typical of The New Yorker under Remnick. So has taking revenge against political enemies, especially those who have the temerity to fight back against The New Yorker.
Since completing the first draft of this hit piece, Bruck has been given many documents and much information that disproves her thesis. Perhaps this will cause her to alter her false narrative in the final version. I have offered to meet face to face with her, but she has refused. I have told her that in a few days, the court will be unseating emails and a book manuscript that proves conclusively — in my accuser's own words — that she never had sex with me. But The New Yorker refuses to wait to include these exculpatory documents in her story.
I fully anticipate that Remnick and Bruck will redouble their attacks against me for calling them out. Bruck has already attacked me in emails for earlier public criticism I leveled against her. I expect more vengeful responses in the pages of the magazine.
So when you read The New Yorker attack on me, read it with an understanding of its source, motive, and methodology. Remember that you are not reading The New Yorker of old that had well-earned credibility. You are reading a glossy version of the National Enquirer, with partisan and personal agendas. Only the clever cartoons are the same. On second thought, you might just want to skip the partisan articles and jump right to the cartoons.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


MizzMarple said...


I look forward to your Analysis of Deshowitz's statement.


Also, Dershowitz made some interesting comments recently on Fox News. Below are some snippets of his statement from an article that was in the New York Post:

Alan Dershowitz brags about ‘perfect sex life’ during attack on David Boies

By Lia Eustachewich

Alan Dershowitz, the prominent lawyer who once represented convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, bragged about his “perfect sex life” in defending himself against allegations he had sex with one of Epstein’s alleged victims.

The gratuitous tidbit came in response to longstanding allegations that Dershowitz was sexually involved with Virginia Giuffre, the woman who has accused Epstein of keeping her as a sex slave when she was a minor.

“I have had sex with one woman since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein,” Dershowitz told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Thursday.

Then the Harvard Law professor unleashed an attack on Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies.

“I challenge David Boies to say under oath that he’s only had sex with one woman during that same period of time. He couldn’t do it,” the 80-year-old Dershowitz railed. “He has an enormous amount of chutzpah to attack me and challenge my perfect, perfect sex life during the relevant period of time.”

Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in his sweetheart plea deal with Florida prosecutors in 2008, has long denied Giuffre’s allegations.

The two high-profile lawyers have been at war for years — but it escalated in April, when Boies filed a defamation suit against Dershowitz on behalf of Giuffre, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“He’s doing it for money,” Dershowitz said on Fox. “I’m going to beat him and I’m going to beat him bad.”

On Thursday, Epstein was ordered held without bail in his child sex-trafficking case.



Interesting, IMO.

General P. Malaise said...

not quite as long as Gov. Christie rambling need to persuade but it has a lot of elements to make a good illustration of what a reliable denial is not.

" — in my accuser's own words — that she never had sex with me." he should sign up for training, then he would say "the accuser" not "my accuser" while not to hang the too much on the possessive "my" it doesn't help.

Mizzmarple said...

Dershowitz is a high profile, criminal defense attorney.

One of the first pieces of advice criminal defense attorneys advise their client is to keep their mouth shut - do not speak to media LE, etc.

Dershowitz should heed his own advice.

His responses are very defensive, considering his occupation.

Brigid said...

I’m really tired of jews. I’m tired of hearing about everything we do for Israel. And I’m tired of the attacks on White Christians.

Lara said...

The Vatican has a secret underground vault of the bones of missing children! How much sicker can this evil get!?

Trigger said...

I have always enjoyed what the witty Alan Dershowitz has to say about the laws and other lawyers He is a breath of fresh air in a political environment filled with stale smoke and recurring theatrical gasps.

If an accuser is to be believed, there has to be evidence that can be verified by supporting factors. Jeffery Epstein has been charged not Mr. Dershowitz.

Statement analysis will get to the truth.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

KTVB Special Report: DeOrr Kunz Jr.'s parents speak candidly about their son's disappearance

KTVB's Kim Fields sat down with DeOrr Kunz Jr.'s parents and a volunteer that went looking for him to dig deeper into what exactly happened on July 10, 2015. Four years ago on July 10, 2015, two-year-old DeOrr Kunz Junior disappeared from Timber Creek Campground near Leadore, Idaho. In the countless searches for the missing toddler since then, not a single trace of him has been found.

SF said...

I just watched the video.

All 4 were involved.

I have always gotten a satanic vibe off this case like it was some kind of satanic ritual chikd sacrifice kind of thing.

The Dad used the term “condemning him to be dead” in relation to Deorr. I wonder of this is leakage of what happened to Deorr.

I notice neither parent ever mentions God or praying which almost every parent of a missing child frequently mentions God, praying etc

The mother mentions “bath”.

I get the feeling i was a satanic ritual child sacrifice done previous to the camping trip, prob done somewhere in the woods on the way there

lynda said...

Wow..a lot of explaining going on but, if he can't say..I DIDN'T DO IT, we can't say it for him, can we? I became bored even reading this rant. Poor, poor Alan, boo-hoo.
I have a feeling he's going to go down with the filth that is Jeffrey Epstein. I hope EVERYONE involved with Epstein..whether it's him, trump, clinton, whoever... I don't care. Political parties do NOT matter. Anyone involved, or anyone that had knowledge of what Epstein was doing and did nothing to stop it, needs to be IN JAIL for the rest of their lives as far as I'm concerned. Heinous crime. Absolutely heinous and they all involved should pay.

Anonymous said...

You are right, lynda, with this disgusting stuff their political party does not matter.

It is a vice of the elites, all the way up to the Royals, and they hold no allegiance to anyone but each other.

Anonymous said...

"They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed WE had met" We means united in purpose or common action/common goal. I'm interested to see how this factors in to the analysis!

Habundia said...

Today Epstein was found wounded in his cell, it was in the news here in NL

lynda said...

Anonymous said...
"They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed WE had met" We means united in purpose or common action/common goal. I'm interested to see how this factors in to the analysis!

Once you investigate this further, you find that what Alan is stating as FACT, is indeed, NOT fact. He's implying that he proved it, but there has been no public proof shown. He is saying that the "facts" are proven in another court case and those records are sealed. I don't like that..I don't like that he is stating this as a fact when as of now, it's a fact only in Alan's mind. Alan has always been slimy in my book, always defending the blatantly guilty..O.J. Milken...Leona Helmsley...Jim Bakker...ugh. This whole statement attacked other people.

Anonymous said...

"....I could not have been on the Caribbean Island...." isn't I wasn't on the Caribbean Island. He did an interview on Glenn Beck recently where he directly said "I didn't do it" but that was after this printed statement. Instead of a statement that sounds like a closing argument on the theater of a court, he should actually issue reliable denials if he in fact "didn't do it"!!

Anonymous said...

”This site accused me of beating and murdering my first wife. It showed "pictures" of her and my children, which were not them, but stereotypical Jews with long noses. No one would believe anything on this hate site — no one, that is, except a journalist prepared to use any dirt, regardless of its source and absurdity, against her target. Bruck has admitted using this discredited site as the original source for claiming in her article that I abused my first wife and "stripped" her of custody of my two sons. She even used the same words she found on the Holocaust denial site. The truth is that my first wife and I, who were married when I was 20 and she 19, grew apart. There was no abuse, and the court granted me custody based on the report of the social worker, and on his explicit finding that I committed "no misconduct."”

Here, seemingly out of the blue (i.m.o.), Dershowitz introduces pictures of children. Children that are his (“my children”) but “which were not them”. Is this leakage? Is he concerned about pictures of himself with children (not being his own)? The “long noses” is also an interesting detail. What is the relevance? In the subsequent sentences - talking about his first wife and getting custody of his two sons - he says words like “discredited”, “abuse” (2x), “custody”(2x), “misconduct”. It’s total speculation but could he be subconsciously signaling that there are pictures of him with children which would discredit him because they are of an abusive nature and that he should be taken in custody for such misconduct? The word “stripped” is also interesting in this context (provided Dershowitz didn’t copy it from “the Holocaust denial site” or Bruck’s article).

I also watched the following video: Body Language: Alan Dershowitz’s Response to Virginia Giuffre

In it, Dershowitz asserts Bill Clinton was never on the Epstein island. How can he state that with such certainty? Also: why does a person so righteous as Dershowitz always defend the Clintons (e.g. arguing against investigating HRC)? Maybe they have something over him?


Anonymous said...

The NY Times has excellent coverage of Epstein and his partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell was sued by Virginia Roberts and reached a settlement with her.

The soon-to-be-released records were part of that case.

According to Meghan Twohey of NYT:

"...At least as we understand it, in the first batch, there’s going to be as many as 2,000 records released. And these are records in which there are allegations made not just against Maxwell, but also against other powerful, well-known people — against Prince Andrew, against Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in his criminal case in 2008, as well as unnamed, quote, “numerous American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister and other world leaders.”

Perhaps finally the public's right to know is outweighing the elite's right to have their dirty crimes covered up.

Alan Dershowitz (named by Roberts at link) says he welcomes the release, that his name will be cleared.

We shall see, should be interesting.

crucibelle said...

I think several of you in this comment section need to leave the statement analyzing to Peter, because you all completely suck at it.

Anonymous said...

Is this analysis still coming? Am I the only one checking daily? I wonder, why it isn't here, yet.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


Nadine Lumley said...

Yeah. I wonder why Peter decided not to post it. Alan wud go insane with nuisance lawsuits.


A currie said...

JASON: Oh professor Dershowitz thank you for calling back
ALAN: Who is it?
JASON: it’s Jason Goodman
ALAN: From?
JASON:. Er... from crowd-sourced the truth. I was just wondering if you have a comment about judge Preska’s ruling yesterday or the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell?
ALAN: Well no I dont I(ve? Inaudible) i dont approve of destroying relevant evidence (pause) especially when the evidence might well contain (pause) exculpatory proof in this case that ah false accuser made up the story about me. so we would like to see the evidence preserved. I did nothing wrong so I’m in favor of all the evidence coming out.
JASON: why do you think judge preska gave this opinion?
ALAN: well I think she thought she was leveling the playing field by making them destroy the information because we hadn’t had access to it . the problem is they’ve already read it and we haven’t.
JASON: How will this affect your case?

ALAN: well we’re we’re pursuing our legal remedies and we’ll see.
JASON: do you think the arrest that has just been announced of Gillian Maxwell has any impact?

ALAN: (inaudible utterance)I dont havent i dont care I can’t imagine that it does um I’ve met her on a few occasions always in the presence of prominent people um like Lady and Lord Rothschild and um and you know prominent professors. I personally never saw her do anything ah wrong or question(ed/able? Inaudible) um she was just you know with Epstein as his either girlfriend or or secretary um but um I I ah I don’t I I dont have any information that would in any way support any wrongdoing on her but I I just don’t know.
JASON: Were you surprised by judge Preska’s comments that you might be brazen in releasing sealed materials, I mean that was strange for her to say it wasn’t it?
ALAN: I didn’t release any sealed materials I’ve never done that. What happened is Julie Brown the reporter for the um um ah Miami Herald asked me to release um sealed material and I refused and I can prove that.
JASON: the New York Post is saying that judge preska was concerned that you might be tempted to be more cavalier with sealed materials to help defend your Reputation. Where would she get that Impression?

ALAN: I have no idea. I don’t. It’s not true. I’ve never revealed sealed
information. I’ve never broken the law to my knowledge, and I don’t intend to. I intend to follow the law and prove my Innocence. I have all the evidence I need, I have her own um emails, and I have her own manuscript in which she acknowledges she never met me, she’d never heard of me.
JASON: lawyers for Maxwell have done things to to try to seal material from this civil Suit, do you see any relationship between this civil suit and the criminal prosecution against Ghislane Maxwell?

ALAN: I just don’t know I just dont know you’ll have to ask her lawyer.