Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

Alan Dershowitz: Rep. Maxine Waters ‘doesn’t know what she’s talking about’ – Washington Examiner

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz hit back at allegations he is a racist Sunday after saying special counsel Robert Mueller chose to impanel a grand jury for the Russia probe in Washington, D.C., because any resulting trial jury would have an “ethnic and racial composition” that would be “unfavorable” to the Trump administration.

“Being black doesn’t give you a license to call people racist any more than being Jewish gives you a license to call people anti-Semitic,” Dershowitz told Abby Huntsman on “Fox and Friends Weekend.”

His fiery response was triggered by statements from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who on Friday characterized Dershowitz’s analysis as “absolutely racist.”

“She doesn’t know what she’s talking about,” Dershowitz retorted. “First of all, I wasn’t talking about the grand jury. I was talking about the petty jury. Grand jury doesn’t matter. A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor wants it to.”

Dershowitz said Waters was being flippant with the charged term when venue shopping and advantageous jury selection are common legal practices.

“If I had said that race didn’t matter, she’d have called me a racist,” Dershowitz continued. “She throws around the term so loosely and so inappropriately, and it weakens her credibility just by calling everybody a racist by calling me a racist, when she calls real racists racists, nobody is going to believe her.”

Here is the original post:

Alan Dershowitz: Rep. Maxine Waters ‘doesn’t know what she’s talking about’ – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing – Mondoweiss

Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky agree on almost nothing politically but both say that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted at Harvard in the 30s through the 60s. They made this point in very different settings this spring.

Chomsky reflected on anti-Semitism when hereceived an award from the Association of American Geographers in Boston in April:

Lets take anti-Semitism. I mean, Im in my late 80s, so I can remember the 1930s and it waspretty scary. Not just what was happening in Europe, which was terrifying, but what was in ordinary life here. My parents were teachers. So they kind of survived the Depression. They didnt starve Around 1937 I guess my father had enough money to buy a second hand car. We lived in Philadelphia, and my parents decided to take us on the weekend out to the nearby mountains, the Poconos, just to spend a weekends vacation. We had to get a motel.The motels you had to look at carefully, because there were signs on them that said, Restricted. Restricted meant no Jews. You didnt have to say No blacks. That question didnt arise. But, no Jews. Thats late 1930s. I could tell you personal anecdotes of what it was like to grow up on the streets as a young Jewish boy in an Irish Catholic neighborhood. Not very nice.

Butwhen I got to Harvard in the early 1950s, the antisemitism was overwhelming. There was practically no Jewish faculty. In fact, one of the reasons why MIT became a major university is that outstanding people like say Norbert Wiener and others couldnt possibly get jobs at Harvard. Well, that was antisemitism in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. There are problems now, but its nothing like that. Absolutely nothing like that.

Its much better than it was. So its not something to laugh at by any means. Those who have experienced it and lived through the periods of the hideous atrocities in Europe are certainly not going to disparage it. But we have to recognize that its become radically different. By now Jews are one of the most privileged, maybe the most privileged minority in the country. Pretty much the same thing is true of so-called European anti-semitism.

So I think we should certainly not disregard but recognize how far weve come, and not only how far weve come why the progress was made. Thats whats critical. Because those are the things that we can continue to carry forward instead of succumbing to futility and despair.

Alan Dershowitz is 78. He reflected on when he became the youngest professor at Harvard Law School in 1964, in a speech at Young Israel of Scarsdale, May 9:

There were roughly a handful of Jews on the faculty. Today the faculty is at least 50 percent Jewish. It depends on how you define a Jew but 50 percent people of Jewish heritage, at least.When I got there, there were a very small number, and the Jewish faculty were more WASPy, more Brahmin, than the non-Jewish faculty, and when in the 67 war I was collecting funds for Israel and trying to recruit support, Paul Bator who was one of my colleagues who were supporting me for tenure, he said, You know what, Alan, You have a good shot at tenure, but youre wearing your Jewishness on your sleeve, thats not done at Harvard. I said, Paul, Thats who I am. And you have to accept me for who I am. If you dont want me for who I am, there are schools that do. So Im not going to change.

And now Harvard is so Jewish its amazing.

Im 61, a generation younger than these men, and I grew up with the communal expectation that anti-Semitism would affect the course of my life and discovered this was utterly not the case. We were welcomed into the establishment in the 70s and on; we became a significant portion of US elites, with the affluence and status to show for it. That is the central sociological experience of my lifetime as the Holocaust and its shadow were the historical frame for Chomsky and Dershowitz. The intermarriage rate, 70 percent of non-Orthodox Jews, is a gauge of the inclusion I witnessed, and is the reason I do not refer to my tribe, white Ashkenazi Jews, as a minority in opposition to some imagined non-Jewish monolith (part of which is now my family).

I looked up Norbert Wiener and marveled at his powers; the son of an autodidact in Columbia Missouri, Wiener received his PhD at age 17 and helped transform the study of mathematics and as a professor refused to take government money in the nuclear age. The pride in such achievements that both Chomsky and Dershowitz exhibit was also typical of my childhood. Jews were smarter, we believed; my mother said that the greatest contributions to western culture in the previous 100 years were from three Jews, Einstein, Freud and Marx; and everyone, Jew and non-Jew, consciously or not accepted a historical mantra: the society that does not treat its Jews well cannot prosper.That acceptance enabled the rise of Jews into the establishment and the intermarriage rates and the Jewish names on so many institutions. Today the belief in Jewish brains is an anachronism imho, but it is still a powerful idea inside Jewish life. It fuels ideas about Israel as the startup nation and Zionist ideas of the fitness of Jewish supremacy over Palestinians; and it undergirds the entitlement of the Israel lobby.

Yes, things are radically different today, as Chomsky says.

See the rest here:

Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing – Mondoweiss

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Mueller’s DC Grand Jury Might be Bad For Trump

The decision to impanel multiple grand juriesin Washington, D.C. for the government’s Russia probe might be a bad sign for President Donald Trump or anyone else being investigated, attorney Alan Dershowitz said Friday.

Dershowitz spoke with WABC Radio host Rita Cosby and was asked about the existence of a second grand jury in the Department of Justice’s Russia investigation that is being led by special counsel Robert Mueller.

“The second one is important because of where it is. It gives the prosecutor the power to indict in the District of Columbia, which is a district that is heavily Democratic, and would have a jury pool very unfavorable to Trump and the Trump administration,” Dershowitz said.

“So it gives the prosecutor a tremendous tactical advantage. If he wants to bring a case against anybody in the administration, the case now can be brought not in Northern Virginia, which is a swing area, sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, but the District of Columbia, which is always solidly Democratic and has an ethnic and racial composition that might be very unfavorable to the Trump administration.”

Cosby then asked Dershowitz if he thinks the move “stacks the deck” against Trump.

“Yes. Yes, I do,” Dershowitz said. “I think it’s a tactical move designed to send a message that if the prosecutor decides to prosecute, he will have a real advantage with the jury pool where the case will be held, provided there is jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, and there would be generally jurisdiction almost anywhere.”

The existence of a grand jury in the Russia probe was first reported Thursday. It signals that Mueller’s team is continuing to dig into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:

Dershowitz: Mueller’s DC Grand Jury Might be Bad For Trump

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Can the president pardon himself? – The Jerusalem Post mobile website

US President Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters in an arena in Youngstown, Ohio, US July 25, 2017. . (photo credit:REUTERS)

US President Donald Trumps tweets about his broad power to pardon have raised the ultimate question: can the president pardon himself? The answer is crystal clear, and anyone who gives you a different answer is misleading you, because there is only one correct answer. Here it is: nobody knows.

No president has ever tried it. No court has ever ruled on it. The framers of our Constitution never opined on it. History provides no guidance. There is a clean slate.

Yet pundits and academic know-it-alls will express certainty on both sides of this issue. Thats what pundits and academics do. Rarely do they acknowledge they dont know, because as experts they are supposed to know. But this is one question whose answer they cannot know.

They will have opinions, as we all do. But many will deliberately confuse the is with the ought. If they would like the answer to be no, they will pretend the answer is no. If they would like the answer to be yes, they will pretend it is yes. Thats the way some pundits and academics advocate: by claiming to be describing what they are not so subtly prescribing.

This has been the case especially with regard to Trump. Too many academics have said that non-criminal conduct by Trump and his administration is a crime, when they wish it were a crime, so that Trump can be removed from office. But wishful thinking is not a substitute for rigorous analysis, which has been sorely lacking among some of my fellow liberal academics.

So lets rigorously analyze the question of whether a president can pardon himself.

The preliminary question is whether a sitting president can be indicted, tried and/or convicted for an alleged crime committed before he assumed office or while serving in office. The answer to that question probably is no, as most authorities suggest. That has been the Justice Departments view for some time now. It is also the view of most experts that once a president leaves office by his term ending or by impeachment or resignation he can be prosecuted.

If that were the case, there would be no reason for the president to even consider pardoning himself now. He could wait until his last day in office. Why the last day? Because if he can be prosecuted as soon as he leaves office, pardoning himself would protect him from that possibility, if the self-pardon were valid.

Why would he not do it any earlier? Because he might well be impeached if he pardoned himself, and the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. But he couldnt be impeached on his last day or after he leaves office.

If he had doubts about the validity of a self-pardon, he could also make a deal explicit or implicit with the vice president to resign a day before his term was up in exchange for a pardon from the one-day president.

So timing would be everything.

Will we ever know for sure whether a self-pardon is constitutionally permissible? Unlikely.

First, a president would have to pardon himself. The political cost of such an action would be very high. Second a prosecutor would then have to try to prosecute the former president. Third, the former president would have to raise the pardon as a defense. Finally, the courts would have to decide whether, under our system of separation of powers, the courts have jurisdiction to review a presidential self-pardon. This last contingency is interesting, because as Justice Holmes reminded us, the power to pardon is not a mere private act of grace, but rather an important part of our Constitutional scheme of checks and balances and separation of powers.

But the pardon power is not without limit. A president could almost certainly be prosecuted after leaving office for accepting a bribe to grant a pardon. Although he would be prosecuted for accepting the bribe, the granting of the pardon would be the quid pro quo, and thus an essential of the crime. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that no person is allowed to be a judge in his own case. Would violation of this principle bestow jurisdiction on a court to invalidate a self-pardon? The answer to that question remains unclear.

Im relatively certain these contingencies will never come to pass. So we will have to learn to live with the uncertainty of never knowing whether a president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself.

Follow Alan Dershowitz on Twitter: @AlanDersh and on Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz.

Share on facebook

Read the original:

Can the president pardon himself? – The Jerusalem Post mobile website

Fair Usage Law

August 3, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers

A special prosecutor should appointed to deal with the leakers plaguing the White House with daily dumps of inside information to the media, renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

“The culture of leaking is so dangerous to a democracy, it just has to stop,” Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, told host Miranda Khan and Nancy Brinker on Newsmax’s “America Talks Live.”

“I would actually be in favor of appointing a special prosecutor in charge just of leaks, a special council in charge just of leaks to make sure that anybody who leaks is appropriately sanctioned.”

Important: Newsmax TV is available on DirecTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, and FiOS 615. If your cable operator does not have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we will connect you right away to your cable operator!

For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now

Dershowitz said the media “loves leaks, they live by leaks.”

“But in a democracy, when you elect an executive, you elect that person to run the executive,” he told Khan and Brinker. “You don’t elect him or her to run it through leaks, and that’s the way not only this administration but several administrations previously have operated.

“So, I am a strong opponent of leaks, and I think we have to take very aggressive action to stop leaks. If you have something to say, say it publically and directly. If you don’t want to be identified publically, then don’t disclose it.”

Asked about incoming White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s claimhe was the victim of a leak of his financial information and his vow to go to the FBI, Dershowitz said:

“I don’t know the answer about whether or not that was a leak or wasn’t a leak, that would be something for lawyers who know the specific facts, but nothing should be leaked. Even if it’s appropriately release to the public, it shouldn’t be released through a leak.

“If it’s appropriate, then you issue a statement on White House stationery saying here’s what we’re doing, here’s what’s coming out, but the idea of having this continuum of illegal leaks, legal leaks, felonious leaks, non-felonious leaks . . .”

Dershowitz also said he believes the media encourages leaks.

“Not only social media, the social media does, but The New York Times does,” Dershowitz said. “The New York Times prints anonymously sourced damaging material and encourages leaks. There’s a big difference between using leaks that come to you, that’s protected by the First Amendment.

“But encouraging people to engage in illegal behavior, that is not journalistically ethical, and I think that journalists from The New York Times down, or up, depending on where you see The New York Times, have to look in the mirror and ask themselves, are they becoming complicit in illegal behavior by encouraging and facilitating the leaks?”

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers

Fair Usage Law

July 31, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Can Trump, or any other president, pardon himself? – Washington Examiner

President Trump’s tweets about his broad power to pardon have raised the ultimate question: Can the president pardon himself? The answer is crystal clear! And anyone who gives you a different answer is misleading you, because there is only one correct answer.

Here it is: Nobody knows!

No president has ever tried it. No court has ever ruled on it. The framers of our Constitution never opined on it. History provides no guidance. There is a clean slate.

Yet pundits and academic know-it-alls will express certainty on both sides of this issue. That’s what pundits and academics do. Rarely do they acknowledge they don’t know, because as experts they are supposed to know. But this is one question whose answer they cannot know.

They will have opinions, as we all do. But many will deliberately confuse the is with the ought. If they want the answer to be no, they will pretend the answer is no. If they want the answer to be yes, they will pretend it is yes. That’s the way some pundits and academics advocate: by claiming to be describing what they are not so subtly prescribing.

This has been the case especially with regard to Trump. Too many academics have said that noncriminal conduct by Trump and his administration is a crime, when they wish it were a crime, so that Trump can be removed from office. But wishful thinking is not a substitute for rigorous analysis, which has been sorely lacking among some of my fellow liberal academics.

So let’s rigorously analyze the question of whether a president can pardon himself. The preliminary question is whether a sitting president can be indicted, tried and convicted for an alleged crime committed before he assumed office or while serving in office. The answer to that question probably is no, as most authorities suggest.

That has been the Justice Department’s view for some time now. It is also the view of most experts that once a president leaves office by his term ending or by impeachment or resignation he could be prosecuted. If that were the case, there would be no reason for the president to even consider pardoning himself now. He could wait until his last day in office.

Why the last day? Because if he can be prosecuted as soon as he leaves office, pardoning himself would protect him from that possibility, if the self-pardon were valid. Why would he not do it any earlier? Because he might well be impeached if he pardoned himself, and the pardon power does not extend to impeachment.

But he couldn’t be impeached on his last day or after he leaves office. If he had doubts about the validity of a self-pardon, he could also make a deal explicit or implicit with the vice president to resign a day before his term was up in exchange for a pardon from the one-day president.

So timing would be everything. Will we ever know for sure whether a self-pardon is constitutionally permissible? Unlikely.

First, a president would have to pardon himself. The political cost of such an action would be very high. Second, a prosecutor would then have to try to prosecute the former president. Third, the former president would have to raise the pardon as a defense.

Finally, the courts would have to decide whether, under our system of separation of powers, the courts have jurisdiction to review a presidential self-pardon. This last contingency is interesting, because as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminded us, the power to pardon is not a mere “private act of grace,” but rather an important part of our “constitutional scheme,” of checks and balances and separation of powers.

But the pardon power is not without limit. A president could almost certainly be prosecuted after leaving office for accepting a bribe to grant a pardon. Although he would be prosecuted for accepting the bribe, the granting of the pardon would be the quid pro quo, and thus an essential of the crime.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that no person “is allowed to be a judge in his own case.” Would violation of this principle bestow jurisdiction on a court to invalidate a self-pardon? The answer to that question remains unclear.

I’m relatively certain these contingencies will never come to pass. So we will have to learn to live with the uncertainty of never knowing whether a president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published by The Hill.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

The rest is here:

Alan Dershowitz: Can Trump, or any other president, pardon himself? – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers – Newsmax

A special prosecutor should appointed to deal with the leakers plaguing the White House with daily dumps of inside information to the media, renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

“The culture of leaking is so dangerous to a democracy, it just has to stop,” Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, told host Miranda Khan and Nancy Brinker on Newsmax’s “America Talks Live.”

“I would actually be in favor of appointing a special prosecutor in charge just of leaks, a special council in charge just of leaks to make sure that anybody who leaks is appropriately sanctioned.”

Important: Newsmax TV is available on DirecTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, and FiOS 615. If your cable operator does not have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we will connect you right away to your cable operator!

For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now

Dershowitz said the media “loves leaks, they live by leaks.”

“But in a democracy, when you elect an executive, you elect that person to run the executive,” he told Khan and Brinker. “You don’t elect him or her to run it through leaks, and that’s the way not only this administration but several administrations previously have operated.

“So, I am a strong opponent of leaks, and I think we have to take very aggressive action to stop leaks. If you have something to say, say it publically and directly. If you don’t want to be identified publically, then don’t disclose it.”

Asked about incoming White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s claimhe was the victim of a leak of his financial information and his vow to go to the FBI, Dershowitz said:

“I don’t know the answer about whether or not that was a leak or wasn’t a leak, that would be something for lawyers who know the specific facts, but nothing should be leaked. Even if it’s appropriately release to the public, it shouldn’t be released through a leak.

“If it’s appropriate, then you issue a statement on White House stationery saying here’s what we’re doing, here’s what’s coming out, but the idea of having this continuum of illegal leaks, legal leaks, felonious leaks, non-felonious leaks . . .”

Dershowitz also said he believes the media encourages leaks.

“Not only social media, the social media does, but The New York Times does,” Dershowitz said. “The New York Times prints anonymously sourced damaging material and encourages leaks. There’s a big difference between using leaks that come to you, that’s protected by the First Amendment.

“But encouraging people to engage in illegal behavior, that is not journalistically ethical, and I think that journalists from The New York Times down, or up, depending on where you see The New York Times, have to look in the mirror and ask themselves, are they becoming complicit in illegal behavior by encouraging and facilitating the leaks?”

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Follow this link:

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers – Newsmax

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

DershowitzFinkelstein affair – Wikipedia

The DershowitzFinkelstein affair was a public controversy involving academics Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein and their scholarship on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict in 2005.

Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel, by Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein alleged that it was “a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense.”[1] Finkelstein further derided the book, remarking, “If Dershowitz’s book were made of cloth, I wouldn’t even use it as a schmatta… his book is such garbage.”[2] Finkelstein charged that Dershowitz had engaged in plagiarism in his use of Joan Peters’ book From Time Immemorial.[3] Dershowitz has denied the charges. Former Harvard president Derek Bok, following a review requested by Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[4][5]

In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, published by University of California Press on August 28, 2005, Finkelstein aimed to debunk The Case for Israel. Dershowitz had written letters to both the The New Press and to the University of California Press to prevent its publication, claiming it contained massive libel and stating that the book should not be published.[6] Dershowitz responded in his book The Case for Peace and alleged a politically motivated campaign of vilification spearheaded by Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Alexander Cockburn against several pro-Israel academics.[7]

The bulk of Beyond Chutzpah consisted of an essay critiquing the “new antisemitism” and longer chapters contrasting Dershowitz’s arguments in The Case for Israel with the findings of mainstream human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, asserting that Dershowitz had lied, misrepresented and fabricated many of his points in order to protect Israel and hide its record of alleged human rights violations. Finkelstein maintained that “the real issue is Israel’s human rights record.”[8]

In addition, Finkelstein provided what he claimed is evidence of plagiarism in instances where Dershowitz reproduced the exact errors found in Peters’s citation of original sources, and thus argues that Dershowitz did not check the original sources he cited, a claim that Dershowitz adamantly denied.[9]

Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within as many pages, Dershowitz used some of the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used, largely in the same order. Several paragraph-long quotations that the two books share have ellipses in the same position. Finkelstein claimed that in one instance Dershowitz refers to the same page number as Peters, although he is citing a different (1996) edition of the same source, in which the words appear on a different page.[10] Finkelstein stated: “It is left to readers to decide whether Dershowitz committed plagiarism as defined by Harvard University’passing off a source’s information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them.'[11] According to a book review of Beyond Chutzpah, written by Prof. Michael C. Desch in The American Conservative, “Finkelstein does not accuse Dershowitz of the wholesale lifting of someone else’s words, but he does make a very strong case that Dershowitz has violated the spirit, if not the exact letter, of Harvard’s prohibitions of the first three forms of plagiarism.”[12]

Noting his perception of Dershowitz’s lack of knowledge about specific contents of his own book during an interview of the two men by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, Finkelstein also charged that Dershowitz could not have written the book and may not have even read it.[1] Later, he cited such allegedly “unserious” references as the Sony Pictures website for Kevin Macdonald’s documentary film One Day in September[13] and an online high-school syllabus from Teaching the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Unit for High School Students, by Professor Ronald Stockton,[14] in his criticism of the book.

Dershowitz threatened to bring a legal action against the University of California Press in response to the charges in Finkelstein’s book.[15] Dershowitz claimed to have written every word of The Case for Israel by hand and to have sent the University of California Press his handwritten manuscript. He says there is not a single phrase or sentence in it that was plagiarized, and accused Finkelstein of knowing this and making the charges in order to garner publicity.[16] Dershowitz offered to produce his handwritten drafts (he does not type) to debunk the claim that The Case for Israel was ghostwritten and claimed Finkelstein has not asked to see them.[17]

Dershowitz also asked California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to intervene in order to prevent the University of California Press from publishing the book.[18] Schwarzenegger’s legal advisor responded, however, that the governor would not intervene in issues of academic freedom.[6]

As a result, when Beyond Chutzpah was published, it no longer used the word “plagiarize” in its argument that Dershowitz inappropriately borrowed from another work, nor did it include the claim that Dershowitz did not write The Case for Israel,[4] because, the publisher said, “[Finkelstein] couldn’t document that.”[19] “Dershowitz has said he cited sources properly, attempting to check all primary sources and citing Peters when she was his only source.”[20]

Dershowitz said that Finkelstein has invented false charges in order to discredit supporters of Israel: “The mode of attack is consistent. Chomsky selects the target and directs Finkelstein to probe the writings in minute detail and conclude that the writer didn’t actually write the work, that it is plagiarized, that it is a hoax and a fraud,” alleging that Finkelstein has leveled the same kind of charges against many others, calling at least 10 “distinguished Jews ‘hucksters,’ ‘hoaxters,’ ‘thieves,’ ‘extortionists,’ and worse.”[21]

Dershowitz’s subsequent book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Case for Peace, contains a chapter rebutting Finkelstein’s charges, which Dershowitz has made available on his web site.[7]

Finkelstein argued in a letter to the Harvard Crimson published on October 3, 2003, that Dershowitz reproduced exactly two of Peters’ mistakes, and made one relevant mistake of his own.[22] In quoting Mark Twain, Finkelstein argued, “Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain’s book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages.”[22] While still quoting Twain, although Dershowitz cited a different edition of Twain’s Innocents Abroad than Joan Peters cites, Finkelstein continues, “the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain’s book that Dershowitz cites.” Finkelstein points out that these quotations do, however, appear on the pages that Joan Peters cites as her edition of Innocents Abroad. Finkelstein asserted: “Quoting a statement depicting the miserable fate of Jews in mid-19th century Jerusalem, Peters cites a British consular letter from ‘Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning.’ Dershowitz cites the same statement as Peters, reporting that Young ‘attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem’ to pervasive anti-Semitism. Turning to the original, however, we find that the relevant statement did not come from Young but, as is unmistakably clear to anyone who actually consulted the original, from an enclosed memorandum written by an ‘A. Benisch’ that Young was forwarding to Canning.” He concluded: “It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source[s] to make the[se] error[s].”[22]

In response to the general charge of plagiarism, Dershowitz had characterized the excerpts as quotations that historians and scholars of the region cite routinely, such as Mark Twain and the reports of government commissions.[23]

In “Statement of Alan M. Dershowitz” featured on a faculty webpage at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz writes:

I will no longer participate in this transparent ploy to gather media attention for Finkelstein and his publisher. I answer all of his charges fully in Chapter 16 of my forthcoming book The Case For Peace, to be published by Wiley in August. My book deals with important and current issues, such as the prospects for peace in the immediate future. Finkelstein’s deals with the irrelevant past that both Israelis and Palestinians are trying to put behind them. Let the marketplace judge our books. As far as I’m concerned, the public controversy is over and I will comment no further on the false charges leveled by Finkelstein and the UCP. Let them henceforth pay for their own publicity, instead of trying to get it on the cheap by launching phony attacks against me. I will not debate Finkelstein. I have a longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers. Nor is a serious debate about Israel possible with someone who acknowledges that he knows “very little” about that country. I will be happy to debate any legitimate experts from Amnesty International or any other human rights organization. Indeed, I have a debate scheduled with Noam Chomsky about these issues in the fall [2005].[7]

Dershowitz strenuously denied that he did not credit Peters’ book adequately in his own book, and Harvard University supported him in that position in exonerating him against Finkelstein’s charges that he committed “plagiarism”.[7][24][17]

In their joint interview aired on Amy Goodman’s radio program Democracy Now!, Dershowitz responded to Finkelstein’s various arguments.[1]

During the joint interview of Dershowitz and Finkelstein in a 2003 Democracy Now! broadcast, host Amy Goodman alluded to an appearance on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country in which Dershowitz made a challenge to “give $10,000 to the PLO” (Palestine Liberation Organization), playing a clip from the other program. In the headnote to the transcript, Goodman wrote:

On MSNBC’s Scarborough Country on September 8, 2003, renowned appellate lawyer, Harvard Law professor and author Alan Dershowitz says: “I will give $10,000 to the PLO… if you can find a historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false.” The book Dershowitz refers to is his latest work The Case For Israel. Today author and professor Norman Finkelstein takes him on and charges that Dershowitz makes numerous factual errors in his book. Dershowitz denies the charges. Finkelstein teaches at DePaul University and is the author of four books including The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

The segment of Democracy Now! appears in the included transcript of the program:

Amy Goodman: …we were intrigued on watching Scarborough Country when you debated, the offer that you made [….] just play it for a moment.

Alan Dershowitz: Tell you what, I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue it to the Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, every word in my book is accurate and you can’t just simply say it’s false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now that is false?

Amy Goodman: Okay. Let’s go to the book. The Case for Israel $10,000.[1]

On Democracy Now! Finkelstein replied to that specific challenge for material errors found in his book overall, and Dershowitz upped it to $25,000 for another particular “issue” that they disputed.[1]

Finkelstein referred to “concrete facts which are not particularly controversial,” stating that in The Case for Israel Dershowitz attributes to Israeli historian Benny Morris the figure of between 2,000 and 3,000 Palestinian Arabs who fled their homes from April to June 1948, when the range in the figures presented by Morris is actually 200,000 to 300,000.[25]

Dershowitz responded to Finkelstein’s reply by stating that such a mistake could not have been intentional, as it harmed his own side of the debate: “Obviously, the phrase ‘2,000 to 3,000 Arabs’ refers either to a sub-phase [of the flight] or is a typographical error.”[1] In this particular context, Dershowitz’s argument is that Palestinians left as a result of orders issued by Palestinian commanders: “If in fact, 200,000 were told to leave instead of 2,000, that strengthens my argument considerably.”[1]

In his review of Beyond Chutzpah, echoing Finkelstein’s criticisms, Michael Desch, political science professor at University of Notre Dame observed:

Not only did Dershowitz improperly present Peters’s ideas, he may not even have bothered to read the original sources she used to come up with them. Finkelstein somehow managed to get uncorrected page proofs of The Case for Israel in which Dershowitz appears to direct his research assistant to go to certain pages and notes in Peters’s book and place them in his footnotes directly (32, col. 3).[12]

Oxford academic Avi Shlaim had also been critical of Dershowitz, saying he believed that the charge of plagiarism “is proved in a manner that would stand up in court.”[26]

Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez concluded in an opinion piece that he can find “no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters’ From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source,” as Dershowitz claimed.[27] Dershowitz has replied briefly to this charge, in an exchange with Menetrez.[28] Menetrez has also said his belief that “neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue.”[27]

In Desch’s review of Beyond Chutzpah, summarizing Finkelstein’s case against Dershowitz for “torturing the evidence,” particularly Finkelstein’s argument relating to Dershowitz’s citations of Morris, Desch observed:

There are two problems with Dershowitz’s heavy reliance on Morris. The first is that Morris is hardly the left-wing peacenik that Dershowitz makes him out to be, which means that calling him as a witness in Israel’s defense is not very helpful to the case. The more important problem is that many of the points Dershowitz cites Morris as supportingthat the early Zionists wanted peaceful coexistence with the Arabs, that the Arabs began the 1948 War to destroy Israel, that the Arabs were guilty of many massacres while the Israelis were scrupulous about protecting human rights, and that the Arabs fled at the behest of their leaders rather than being ethnically cleansed by the Israel Defense Forcesturn out to be based on a partial reading or misreading of Morris’s books. Finkelstein documents these charges in exhaustive detail in Appendix II of his book and the preponderance of evidence he provides is conclusive.” (3031)[12][29]

As Desch acknowledges in his book review of Beyond Chutzpah, “In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigationthe details of which were not made publicthat… vindicated Dershowitz” (32, col. 3).[12]

In September 2006, Alan Dershowitz sent members of DePaul University’s law and political science faculties what he described as “a dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions that… are not incidental to Finkelstein’s purported scholarship; they are Finkelstein’s purported scholarship,” and he lobbied professors, alumni and administrators to deny Finkelstein tenure.[30][31] De Paul’s political science committee investigated the accusations against Finkelstein and concluded that they were not based on legitimate criticism. The department subsequently invited John Mearsheimer and Ian Lustick, two independent academics with known expertise on the Israel/Palestine conflict to evaluate the academic merit of Finkelstein’s work. Mearsheimer and Lustick came to the same conclusion.[31] In April 2007 the De Paul University Liberal Arts and Sciences’ Faculty Governance Council had voted unanimously to send a letter to Harvard University expressing “the council’s dismay at Professor Dershowitz’s interference in Finkelstein’s tenure and promotion case.”[30]

In early 2007 the DePaul University Political Science department voted 9 to 3, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee 5 to 0, in favor of giving Finkelstein tenure. The three opposing faculty members subsequently filed a minority report opposing tenure, supported by the Dean of the College, Chuck Suchar. Suchar stated he opposed tenure because Finkelstein’s “personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, and the holocaust authors Eli Wiesel and Jerzy Kosinski” were inconsistent with DePaul’s “Vincentian” values.[32] In June 2007 a 43 vote by DePaul University’s Board on Promotion and Tenure (a faculty board), affirmed by the university’s president, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, denied Finkelstein tenure.[33][34] Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the 20072008 academic year (the remainder of his contract with DePaul), his sole course having been cancelled.[35] However, in announcing his decision, Holtschneider said the outside attention “was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case.” On September 5, 2007, Finkelstein resigned after he and the university reached a settlement; they released a joint statement on the resolution of the conflict.[36][37][38][39]

In The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein questioned Elie Wiesel’s claim to have read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in Yiddish. According to Finkelstein, no translation of the work existed in Yiddish at the time.[40] Dershowitz responded that this was not so: he alleged that one had been published in Warsaw in 1929, and claimed that he had seen a copy at the Harvard Library.[24]

Finkelstein described this latter claim as false and inept, writing that the only work by Kant in Yiddish owned by the library was a partial translation of the Critique of Practical Reason, a completely different work than the one referred to by Wiesel and Dershowitz.[41]

During a clash with members of J Street at the 2010 American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, Dershowitz chastised J Street for pandering to anti-Israel activists and asked, “Why are you so popular with Norman Finkelstein?” Both J Street and Finkelstein[43] rebuffed Dershowitz’s claim.

Link:

DershowitzFinkelstein affair – Wikipedia

Fair Usage Law

July 27, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Cashman: Dems just ‘crying wolf’ with claims of collusion – Boston Herald

Jared Kushner claims he never colluded with Russia. So what if he did? There is a long history of incoming administrations colluding with allies and adversaries. Well-known Democrat and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz begs his party to stop crying wolf.

Kushner is guilty of marrying Donald Trumps daughter and helping him win the White House. Thats the real crime Democratic politicians are trying to nail him for.

Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law professor, joined Boston Herald Radio while Kushner was being grilled by lawmakers behind closed doors yesterday.

Collusion is not a crime. There is no such crime as collusion, Dershowitz told us on our Morning Meeting show.

Ronald Reagan colluded with the Iranians prior to becoming president to postpone the release of the hostages so he would get credit for it, he said. Virtually every incoming administration colludes with some ally and, sometimes, some adversary.

Kushner was before Senate Intelligence Committee investigators to answer questions about a meeting he, Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had last summer with a Russian lawyer and others.

Reading from prepared remarks outside the White House without taking questions from reporters, Kushner said, I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government.

The meeting reportedly was aimed at getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. Opposition research is as common in campaigns as kissing babies. Everyone does it.

Dershowitz is spot on when he argues that this is not a legal issue but a political one.

The Democrats are crying wolf. … They are yelling, crime, crime, criminal offense and treason. … Somehow if there were a crime committed, even though I am not predicting that, they would have no credibility because they keep yelling wolf.

For the last six months, Dershowitz has been trying to draw the sharp distinction between what is a crime and what is a political sin.

He said the media are fueling the misconception. He claims the New York Times, which once welcomed his Op-Eds, is no longer interested in his views.

The New York Times will have five Op-Eds on alleged crimes committed by the Trump administration. When I ask to write one Op-Ed showing maybe the leaders should understand there are no crimes committed, they would not even respond. They dont want their readers to hear the other side of the issue, Dershowitz said.

Stay tuned for Dershowitzs new book, Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics Is Dangerous to Democracy, due out next month. We can only hope that by then politicians in both parties will have recognized the difference between crime and politics, and will get back to work on issues that actually matter.

Follow this link:

Cashman: Dems just ‘crying wolf’ with claims of collusion – Boston Herald

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Rep. Maxine Waters ‘doesn’t know what she’s talking about’ – Washington Examiner

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz hit back at allegations he is a racist Sunday after saying special counsel Robert Mueller chose to impanel a grand jury for the Russia probe in Washington, D.C., because any resulting trial jury would have an “ethnic and racial composition” that would be “unfavorable” to the Trump administration. “Being black doesn’t give you a license to call people racist any more than being Jewish gives you a license to call people anti-Semitic,” Dershowitz told Abby Huntsman on “Fox and Friends Weekend.” His fiery response was triggered by statements from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who on Friday characterized Dershowitz’s analysis as “absolutely racist.” “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about,” Dershowitz retorted. “First of all, I wasn’t talking about the grand jury. I was talking about the petty jury. Grand jury doesn’t matter. A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor wants it to.” Dershowitz said Waters was being flippant with the charged term when venue shopping and advantageous jury selection are common legal practices. “If I had said that race didn’t matter, she’d have called me a racist,” Dershowitz continued. “She throws around the term so loosely and so inappropriately, and it weakens her credibility just by calling everybody a racist by calling me a racist, when she calls real racists racists, nobody is going to believe her.”

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing – Mondoweiss

Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky agree on almost nothing politically but both say that anti-Semitism was deeply rooted at Harvard in the 30s through the 60s. They made this point in very different settings this spring. Chomsky reflected on anti-Semitism when hereceived an award from the Association of American Geographers in Boston in April: Lets take anti-Semitism. I mean, Im in my late 80s, so I can remember the 1930s and it waspretty scary. Not just what was happening in Europe, which was terrifying, but what was in ordinary life here. My parents were teachers. So they kind of survived the Depression. They didnt starve Around 1937 I guess my father had enough money to buy a second hand car. We lived in Philadelphia, and my parents decided to take us on the weekend out to the nearby mountains, the Poconos, just to spend a weekends vacation. We had to get a motel.The motels you had to look at carefully, because there were signs on them that said, Restricted. Restricted meant no Jews. You didnt have to say No blacks. That question didnt arise. But, no Jews. Thats late 1930s. I could tell you personal anecdotes of what it was like to grow up on the streets as a young Jewish boy in an Irish Catholic neighborhood. Not very nice. Butwhen I got to Harvard in the early 1950s, the antisemitism was overwhelming. There was practically no Jewish faculty. In fact, one of the reasons why MIT became a major university is that outstanding people like say Norbert Wiener and others couldnt possibly get jobs at Harvard. Well, that was antisemitism in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. There are problems now, but its nothing like that. Absolutely nothing like that. Its much better than it was. So its not something to laugh at by any means. Those who have experienced it and lived through the periods of the hideous atrocities in Europe are certainly not going to disparage it. But we have to recognize that its become radically different. By now Jews are one of the most privileged, maybe the most privileged minority in the country. Pretty much the same thing is true of so-called European anti-semitism. So I think we should certainly not disregard but recognize how far weve come, and not only how far weve come why the progress was made. Thats whats critical. Because those are the things that we can continue to carry forward instead of succumbing to futility and despair. Alan Dershowitz is 78. He reflected on when he became the youngest professor at Harvard Law School in 1964, in a speech at Young Israel of Scarsdale, May 9: There were roughly a handful of Jews on the faculty. Today the faculty is at least 50 percent Jewish. It depends on how you define a Jew but 50 percent people of Jewish heritage, at least.When I got there, there were a very small number, and the Jewish faculty were more WASPy, more Brahmin, than the non-Jewish faculty, and when in the 67 war I was collecting funds for Israel and trying to recruit support, Paul Bator who was one of my colleagues who were supporting me for tenure, he said, You know what, Alan, You have a good shot at tenure, but youre wearing your Jewishness on your sleeve, thats not done at Harvard. I said, Paul, Thats who I am. And you have to accept me for who I am. If you dont want me for who I am, there are schools that do. So Im not going to change. And now Harvard is so Jewish its amazing. Im 61, a generation younger than these men, and I grew up with the communal expectation that anti-Semitism would affect the course of my life and discovered this was utterly not the case. We were welcomed into the establishment in the 70s and on; we became a significant portion of US elites, with the affluence and status to show for it. That is the central sociological experience of my lifetime as the Holocaust and its shadow were the historical frame for Chomsky and Dershowitz. The intermarriage rate, 70 percent of non-Orthodox Jews, is a gauge of the inclusion I witnessed, and is the reason I do not refer to my tribe, white Ashkenazi Jews, as a minority in opposition to some imagined non-Jewish monolith (part of which is now my family). I looked up Norbert Wiener and marveled at his powers; the son of an autodidact in Columbia Missouri, Wiener received his PhD at age 17 and helped transform the study of mathematics and as a professor refused to take government money in the nuclear age. The pride in such achievements that both Chomsky and Dershowitz exhibit was also typical of my childhood. Jews were smarter, we believed; my mother said that the greatest contributions to western culture in the previous 100 years were from three Jews, Einstein, Freud and Marx; and everyone, Jew and non-Jew, consciously or not accepted a historical mantra: the society that does not treat its Jews well cannot prosper.That acceptance enabled the rise of Jews into the establishment and the intermarriage rates and the Jewish names on so many institutions. Today the belief in Jewish brains is an anachronism imho, but it is still a powerful idea inside Jewish life. It fuels ideas about Israel as the startup nation and Zionist ideas of the fitness of Jewish supremacy over Palestinians; and it undergirds the entitlement of the Israel lobby. Yes, things are radically different today, as Chomsky says.

Fair Usage Law

August 6, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Mueller’s DC Grand Jury Might be Bad For Trump

The decision to impanel multiple grand juriesin Washington, D.C. for the government’s Russia probe might be a bad sign for President Donald Trump or anyone else being investigated, attorney Alan Dershowitz said Friday. Dershowitz spoke with WABC Radio host Rita Cosby and was asked about the existence of a second grand jury in the Department of Justice’s Russia investigation that is being led by special counsel Robert Mueller. “The second one is important because of where it is. It gives the prosecutor the power to indict in the District of Columbia, which is a district that is heavily Democratic, and would have a jury pool very unfavorable to Trump and the Trump administration,” Dershowitz said. “So it gives the prosecutor a tremendous tactical advantage. If he wants to bring a case against anybody in the administration, the case now can be brought not in Northern Virginia, which is a swing area, sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, but the District of Columbia, which is always solidly Democratic and has an ethnic and racial composition that might be very unfavorable to the Trump administration.” Cosby then asked Dershowitz if he thinks the move “stacks the deck” against Trump. “Yes. Yes, I do,” Dershowitz said. “I think it’s a tactical move designed to send a message that if the prosecutor decides to prosecute, he will have a real advantage with the jury pool where the case will be held, provided there is jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, and there would be generally jurisdiction almost anywhere.” The existence of a grand jury in the Russia probe was first reported Thursday. It signals that Mueller’s team is continuing to dig into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

August 5, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Can the president pardon himself? – The Jerusalem Post mobile website

US President Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters in an arena in Youngstown, Ohio, US July 25, 2017. . (photo credit:REUTERS) US President Donald Trumps tweets about his broad power to pardon have raised the ultimate question: can the president pardon himself? The answer is crystal clear, and anyone who gives you a different answer is misleading you, because there is only one correct answer. Here it is: nobody knows. No president has ever tried it. No court has ever ruled on it. The framers of our Constitution never opined on it. History provides no guidance. There is a clean slate. Yet pundits and academic know-it-alls will express certainty on both sides of this issue. Thats what pundits and academics do. Rarely do they acknowledge they dont know, because as experts they are supposed to know. But this is one question whose answer they cannot know. They will have opinions, as we all do. But many will deliberately confuse the is with the ought. If they would like the answer to be no, they will pretend the answer is no. If they would like the answer to be yes, they will pretend it is yes. Thats the way some pundits and academics advocate: by claiming to be describing what they are not so subtly prescribing. This has been the case especially with regard to Trump. Too many academics have said that non-criminal conduct by Trump and his administration is a crime, when they wish it were a crime, so that Trump can be removed from office. But wishful thinking is not a substitute for rigorous analysis, which has been sorely lacking among some of my fellow liberal academics. So lets rigorously analyze the question of whether a president can pardon himself. The preliminary question is whether a sitting president can be indicted, tried and/or convicted for an alleged crime committed before he assumed office or while serving in office. The answer to that question probably is no, as most authorities suggest. That has been the Justice Departments view for some time now. It is also the view of most experts that once a president leaves office by his term ending or by impeachment or resignation he can be prosecuted. If that were the case, there would be no reason for the president to even consider pardoning himself now. He could wait until his last day in office. Why the last day? Because if he can be prosecuted as soon as he leaves office, pardoning himself would protect him from that possibility, if the self-pardon were valid. Why would he not do it any earlier? Because he might well be impeached if he pardoned himself, and the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. But he couldnt be impeached on his last day or after he leaves office. If he had doubts about the validity of a self-pardon, he could also make a deal explicit or implicit with the vice president to resign a day before his term was up in exchange for a pardon from the one-day president. So timing would be everything. Will we ever know for sure whether a self-pardon is constitutionally permissible? Unlikely. First, a president would have to pardon himself. The political cost of such an action would be very high. Second a prosecutor would then have to try to prosecute the former president. Third, the former president would have to raise the pardon as a defense. Finally, the courts would have to decide whether, under our system of separation of powers, the courts have jurisdiction to review a presidential self-pardon. This last contingency is interesting, because as Justice Holmes reminded us, the power to pardon is not a mere private act of grace, but rather an important part of our Constitutional scheme of checks and balances and separation of powers. But the pardon power is not without limit. A president could almost certainly be prosecuted after leaving office for accepting a bribe to grant a pardon. Although he would be prosecuted for accepting the bribe, the granting of the pardon would be the quid pro quo, and thus an essential of the crime. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that no person is allowed to be a judge in his own case. Would violation of this principle bestow jurisdiction on a court to invalidate a self-pardon? The answer to that question remains unclear. Im relatively certain these contingencies will never come to pass. So we will have to learn to live with the uncertainty of never knowing whether a president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. Follow Alan Dershowitz on Twitter: @AlanDersh and on Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz. Share on facebook

Fair Usage Law

August 3, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers

A special prosecutor should appointed to deal with the leakers plaguing the White House with daily dumps of inside information to the media, renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday. “The culture of leaking is so dangerous to a democracy, it just has to stop,” Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, told host Miranda Khan and Nancy Brinker on Newsmax’s “America Talks Live.” “I would actually be in favor of appointing a special prosecutor in charge just of leaks, a special council in charge just of leaks to make sure that anybody who leaks is appropriately sanctioned.” Important: Newsmax TV is available on DirecTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, and FiOS 615. If your cable operator does not have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we will connect you right away to your cable operator! For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now Dershowitz said the media “loves leaks, they live by leaks.” “But in a democracy, when you elect an executive, you elect that person to run the executive,” he told Khan and Brinker. “You don’t elect him or her to run it through leaks, and that’s the way not only this administration but several administrations previously have operated. “So, I am a strong opponent of leaks, and I think we have to take very aggressive action to stop leaks. If you have something to say, say it publically and directly. If you don’t want to be identified publically, then don’t disclose it.” Asked about incoming White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s claimhe was the victim of a leak of his financial information and his vow to go to the FBI, Dershowitz said: “I don’t know the answer about whether or not that was a leak or wasn’t a leak, that would be something for lawyers who know the specific facts, but nothing should be leaked. Even if it’s appropriately release to the public, it shouldn’t be released through a leak. “If it’s appropriate, then you issue a statement on White House stationery saying here’s what we’re doing, here’s what’s coming out, but the idea of having this continuum of illegal leaks, legal leaks, felonious leaks, non-felonious leaks . . .” Dershowitz also said he believes the media encourages leaks. “Not only social media, the social media does, but The New York Times does,” Dershowitz said. “The New York Times prints anonymously sourced damaging material and encourages leaks. There’s a big difference between using leaks that come to you, that’s protected by the First Amendment. “But encouraging people to engage in illegal behavior, that is not journalistically ethical, and I think that journalists from The New York Times down, or up, depending on where you see The New York Times, have to look in the mirror and ask themselves, are they becoming complicit in illegal behavior by encouraging and facilitating the leaks?” 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

July 31, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Can Trump, or any other president, pardon himself? – Washington Examiner

President Trump’s tweets about his broad power to pardon have raised the ultimate question: Can the president pardon himself? The answer is crystal clear! And anyone who gives you a different answer is misleading you, because there is only one correct answer. Here it is: Nobody knows! No president has ever tried it. No court has ever ruled on it. The framers of our Constitution never opined on it. History provides no guidance. There is a clean slate. Yet pundits and academic know-it-alls will express certainty on both sides of this issue. That’s what pundits and academics do. Rarely do they acknowledge they don’t know, because as experts they are supposed to know. But this is one question whose answer they cannot know. They will have opinions, as we all do. But many will deliberately confuse the is with the ought. If they want the answer to be no, they will pretend the answer is no. If they want the answer to be yes, they will pretend it is yes. That’s the way some pundits and academics advocate: by claiming to be describing what they are not so subtly prescribing. This has been the case especially with regard to Trump. Too many academics have said that noncriminal conduct by Trump and his administration is a crime, when they wish it were a crime, so that Trump can be removed from office. But wishful thinking is not a substitute for rigorous analysis, which has been sorely lacking among some of my fellow liberal academics. So let’s rigorously analyze the question of whether a president can pardon himself. The preliminary question is whether a sitting president can be indicted, tried and convicted for an alleged crime committed before he assumed office or while serving in office. The answer to that question probably is no, as most authorities suggest. That has been the Justice Department’s view for some time now. It is also the view of most experts that once a president leaves office by his term ending or by impeachment or resignation he could be prosecuted. If that were the case, there would be no reason for the president to even consider pardoning himself now. He could wait until his last day in office. Why the last day? Because if he can be prosecuted as soon as he leaves office, pardoning himself would protect him from that possibility, if the self-pardon were valid. Why would he not do it any earlier? Because he might well be impeached if he pardoned himself, and the pardon power does not extend to impeachment. But he couldn’t be impeached on his last day or after he leaves office. If he had doubts about the validity of a self-pardon, he could also make a deal explicit or implicit with the vice president to resign a day before his term was up in exchange for a pardon from the one-day president. So timing would be everything. Will we ever know for sure whether a self-pardon is constitutionally permissible? Unlikely. First, a president would have to pardon himself. The political cost of such an action would be very high. Second, a prosecutor would then have to try to prosecute the former president. Third, the former president would have to raise the pardon as a defense. Finally, the courts would have to decide whether, under our system of separation of powers, the courts have jurisdiction to review a presidential self-pardon. This last contingency is interesting, because as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminded us, the power to pardon is not a mere “private act of grace,” but rather an important part of our “constitutional scheme,” of checks and balances and separation of powers. But the pardon power is not without limit. A president could almost certainly be prosecuted after leaving office for accepting a bribe to grant a pardon. Although he would be prosecuted for accepting the bribe, the granting of the pardon would be the quid pro quo, and thus an essential of the crime. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that no person “is allowed to be a judge in his own case.” Would violation of this principle bestow jurisdiction on a court to invalidate a self-pardon? The answer to that question remains unclear. I’m relatively certain these contingencies will never come to pass. So we will have to learn to live with the uncertainty of never knowing whether a president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published by The Hill. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Name Special Prosecutor to Nail Leakers – Newsmax

A special prosecutor should appointed to deal with the leakers plaguing the White House with daily dumps of inside information to the media, renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday. “The culture of leaking is so dangerous to a democracy, it just has to stop,” Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, told host Miranda Khan and Nancy Brinker on Newsmax’s “America Talks Live.” “I would actually be in favor of appointing a special prosecutor in charge just of leaks, a special council in charge just of leaks to make sure that anybody who leaks is appropriately sanctioned.” Important: Newsmax TV is available on DirecTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, and FiOS 615. If your cable operator does not have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we will connect you right away to your cable operator! For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now Dershowitz said the media “loves leaks, they live by leaks.” “But in a democracy, when you elect an executive, you elect that person to run the executive,” he told Khan and Brinker. “You don’t elect him or her to run it through leaks, and that’s the way not only this administration but several administrations previously have operated. “So, I am a strong opponent of leaks, and I think we have to take very aggressive action to stop leaks. If you have something to say, say it publically and directly. If you don’t want to be identified publically, then don’t disclose it.” Asked about incoming White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci’s claimhe was the victim of a leak of his financial information and his vow to go to the FBI, Dershowitz said: “I don’t know the answer about whether or not that was a leak or wasn’t a leak, that would be something for lawyers who know the specific facts, but nothing should be leaked. Even if it’s appropriately release to the public, it shouldn’t be released through a leak. “If it’s appropriate, then you issue a statement on White House stationery saying here’s what we’re doing, here’s what’s coming out, but the idea of having this continuum of illegal leaks, legal leaks, felonious leaks, non-felonious leaks . . .” Dershowitz also said he believes the media encourages leaks. “Not only social media, the social media does, but The New York Times does,” Dershowitz said. “The New York Times prints anonymously sourced damaging material and encourages leaks. There’s a big difference between using leaks that come to you, that’s protected by the First Amendment. “But encouraging people to engage in illegal behavior, that is not journalistically ethical, and I think that journalists from The New York Times down, or up, depending on where you see The New York Times, have to look in the mirror and ask themselves, are they becoming complicit in illegal behavior by encouraging and facilitating the leaks?” 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

DershowitzFinkelstein affair – Wikipedia

The DershowitzFinkelstein affair was a public controversy involving academics Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein and their scholarship on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict in 2005. Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel, by Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein alleged that it was “a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense.”[1] Finkelstein further derided the book, remarking, “If Dershowitz’s book were made of cloth, I wouldn’t even use it as a schmatta… his book is such garbage.”[2] Finkelstein charged that Dershowitz had engaged in plagiarism in his use of Joan Peters’ book From Time Immemorial.[3] Dershowitz has denied the charges. Former Harvard president Derek Bok, following a review requested by Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[4][5] In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, published by University of California Press on August 28, 2005, Finkelstein aimed to debunk The Case for Israel. Dershowitz had written letters to both the The New Press and to the University of California Press to prevent its publication, claiming it contained massive libel and stating that the book should not be published.[6] Dershowitz responded in his book The Case for Peace and alleged a politically motivated campaign of vilification spearheaded by Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Alexander Cockburn against several pro-Israel academics.[7] The bulk of Beyond Chutzpah consisted of an essay critiquing the “new antisemitism” and longer chapters contrasting Dershowitz’s arguments in The Case for Israel with the findings of mainstream human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, asserting that Dershowitz had lied, misrepresented and fabricated many of his points in order to protect Israel and hide its record of alleged human rights violations. Finkelstein maintained that “the real issue is Israel’s human rights record.”[8] In addition, Finkelstein provided what he claimed is evidence of plagiarism in instances where Dershowitz reproduced the exact errors found in Peters’s citation of original sources, and thus argues that Dershowitz did not check the original sources he cited, a claim that Dershowitz adamantly denied.[9] Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within as many pages, Dershowitz used some of the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used, largely in the same order. Several paragraph-long quotations that the two books share have ellipses in the same position. Finkelstein claimed that in one instance Dershowitz refers to the same page number as Peters, although he is citing a different (1996) edition of the same source, in which the words appear on a different page.[10] Finkelstein stated: “It is left to readers to decide whether Dershowitz committed plagiarism as defined by Harvard University’passing off a source’s information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them.'[11] According to a book review of Beyond Chutzpah, written by Prof. Michael C. Desch in The American Conservative, “Finkelstein does not accuse Dershowitz of the wholesale lifting of someone else’s words, but he does make a very strong case that Dershowitz has violated the spirit, if not the exact letter, of Harvard’s prohibitions of the first three forms of plagiarism.”[12] Noting his perception of Dershowitz’s lack of knowledge about specific contents of his own book during an interview of the two men by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, Finkelstein also charged that Dershowitz could not have written the book and may not have even read it.[1] Later, he cited such allegedly “unserious” references as the Sony Pictures website for Kevin Macdonald’s documentary film One Day in September[13] and an online high-school syllabus from Teaching the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Unit for High School Students, by Professor Ronald Stockton,[14] in his criticism of the book. Dershowitz threatened to bring a legal action against the University of California Press in response to the charges in Finkelstein’s book.[15] Dershowitz claimed to have written every word of The Case for Israel by hand and to have sent the University of California Press his handwritten manuscript. He says there is not a single phrase or sentence in it that was plagiarized, and accused Finkelstein of knowing this and making the charges in order to garner publicity.[16] Dershowitz offered to produce his handwritten drafts (he does not type) to debunk the claim that The Case for Israel was ghostwritten and claimed Finkelstein has not asked to see them.[17] Dershowitz also asked California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to intervene in order to prevent the University of California Press from publishing the book.[18] Schwarzenegger’s legal advisor responded, however, that the governor would not intervene in issues of academic freedom.[6] As a result, when Beyond Chutzpah was published, it no longer used the word “plagiarize” in its argument that Dershowitz inappropriately borrowed from another work, nor did it include the claim that Dershowitz did not write The Case for Israel,[4] because, the publisher said, “[Finkelstein] couldn’t document that.”[19] “Dershowitz has said he cited sources properly, attempting to check all primary sources and citing Peters when she was his only source.”[20] Dershowitz said that Finkelstein has invented false charges in order to discredit supporters of Israel: “The mode of attack is consistent. Chomsky selects the target and directs Finkelstein to probe the writings in minute detail and conclude that the writer didn’t actually write the work, that it is plagiarized, that it is a hoax and a fraud,” alleging that Finkelstein has leveled the same kind of charges against many others, calling at least 10 “distinguished Jews ‘hucksters,’ ‘hoaxters,’ ‘thieves,’ ‘extortionists,’ and worse.”[21] Dershowitz’s subsequent book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Case for Peace, contains a chapter rebutting Finkelstein’s charges, which Dershowitz has made available on his web site.[7] Finkelstein argued in a letter to the Harvard Crimson published on October 3, 2003, that Dershowitz reproduced exactly two of Peters’ mistakes, and made one relevant mistake of his own.[22] In quoting Mark Twain, Finkelstein argued, “Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain’s book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages.”[22] While still quoting Twain, although Dershowitz cited a different edition of Twain’s Innocents Abroad than Joan Peters cites, Finkelstein continues, “the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain’s book that Dershowitz cites.” Finkelstein points out that these quotations do, however, appear on the pages that Joan Peters cites as her edition of Innocents Abroad. Finkelstein asserted: “Quoting a statement depicting the miserable fate of Jews in mid-19th century Jerusalem, Peters cites a British consular letter from ‘Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning.’ Dershowitz cites the same statement as Peters, reporting that Young ‘attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem’ to pervasive anti-Semitism. Turning to the original, however, we find that the relevant statement did not come from Young but, as is unmistakably clear to anyone who actually consulted the original, from an enclosed memorandum written by an ‘A. Benisch’ that Young was forwarding to Canning.” He concluded: “It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source[s] to make the[se] error[s].”[22] In response to the general charge of plagiarism, Dershowitz had characterized the excerpts as quotations that historians and scholars of the region cite routinely, such as Mark Twain and the reports of government commissions.[23] In “Statement of Alan M. Dershowitz” featured on a faculty webpage at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz writes: I will no longer participate in this transparent ploy to gather media attention for Finkelstein and his publisher. I answer all of his charges fully in Chapter 16 of my forthcoming book The Case For Peace, to be published by Wiley in August. My book deals with important and current issues, such as the prospects for peace in the immediate future. Finkelstein’s deals with the irrelevant past that both Israelis and Palestinians are trying to put behind them. Let the marketplace judge our books. As far as I’m concerned, the public controversy is over and I will comment no further on the false charges leveled by Finkelstein and the UCP. Let them henceforth pay for their own publicity, instead of trying to get it on the cheap by launching phony attacks against me. I will not debate Finkelstein. I have a longstanding policy against debating Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers. Nor is a serious debate about Israel possible with someone who acknowledges that he knows “very little” about that country. I will be happy to debate any legitimate experts from Amnesty International or any other human rights organization. Indeed, I have a debate scheduled with Noam Chomsky about these issues in the fall [2005].[7] Dershowitz strenuously denied that he did not credit Peters’ book adequately in his own book, and Harvard University supported him in that position in exonerating him against Finkelstein’s charges that he committed “plagiarism”.[7][24][17] In their joint interview aired on Amy Goodman’s radio program Democracy Now!, Dershowitz responded to Finkelstein’s various arguments.[1] During the joint interview of Dershowitz and Finkelstein in a 2003 Democracy Now! broadcast, host Amy Goodman alluded to an appearance on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country in which Dershowitz made a challenge to “give $10,000 to the PLO” (Palestine Liberation Organization), playing a clip from the other program. In the headnote to the transcript, Goodman wrote: On MSNBC’s Scarborough Country on September 8, 2003, renowned appellate lawyer, Harvard Law professor and author Alan Dershowitz says: “I will give $10,000 to the PLO… if you can find a historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false.” The book Dershowitz refers to is his latest work The Case For Israel. Today author and professor Norman Finkelstein takes him on and charges that Dershowitz makes numerous factual errors in his book. Dershowitz denies the charges. Finkelstein teaches at DePaul University and is the author of four books including The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. The segment of Democracy Now! appears in the included transcript of the program: Amy Goodman: …we were intrigued on watching Scarborough Country when you debated, the offer that you made [….] just play it for a moment. Alan Dershowitz: Tell you what, I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue it to the Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, every word in my book is accurate and you can’t just simply say it’s false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now that is false? Amy Goodman: Okay. Let’s go to the book. The Case for Israel $10,000.[1] On Democracy Now! Finkelstein replied to that specific challenge for material errors found in his book overall, and Dershowitz upped it to $25,000 for another particular “issue” that they disputed.[1] Finkelstein referred to “concrete facts which are not particularly controversial,” stating that in The Case for Israel Dershowitz attributes to Israeli historian Benny Morris the figure of between 2,000 and 3,000 Palestinian Arabs who fled their homes from April to June 1948, when the range in the figures presented by Morris is actually 200,000 to 300,000.[25] Dershowitz responded to Finkelstein’s reply by stating that such a mistake could not have been intentional, as it harmed his own side of the debate: “Obviously, the phrase ‘2,000 to 3,000 Arabs’ refers either to a sub-phase [of the flight] or is a typographical error.”[1] In this particular context, Dershowitz’s argument is that Palestinians left as a result of orders issued by Palestinian commanders: “If in fact, 200,000 were told to leave instead of 2,000, that strengthens my argument considerably.”[1] In his review of Beyond Chutzpah, echoing Finkelstein’s criticisms, Michael Desch, political science professor at University of Notre Dame observed: Not only did Dershowitz improperly present Peters’s ideas, he may not even have bothered to read the original sources she used to come up with them. Finkelstein somehow managed to get uncorrected page proofs of The Case for Israel in which Dershowitz appears to direct his research assistant to go to certain pages and notes in Peters’s book and place them in his footnotes directly (32, col. 3).[12] Oxford academic Avi Shlaim had also been critical of Dershowitz, saying he believed that the charge of plagiarism “is proved in a manner that would stand up in court.”[26] Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez concluded in an opinion piece that he can find “no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters’ From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source,” as Dershowitz claimed.[27] Dershowitz has replied briefly to this charge, in an exchange with Menetrez.[28] Menetrez has also said his belief that “neither Dershowitz nor Harvard, however, has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue.”[27] In Desch’s review of Beyond Chutzpah, summarizing Finkelstein’s case against Dershowitz for “torturing the evidence,” particularly Finkelstein’s argument relating to Dershowitz’s citations of Morris, Desch observed: There are two problems with Dershowitz’s heavy reliance on Morris. The first is that Morris is hardly the left-wing peacenik that Dershowitz makes him out to be, which means that calling him as a witness in Israel’s defense is not very helpful to the case. The more important problem is that many of the points Dershowitz cites Morris as supportingthat the early Zionists wanted peaceful coexistence with the Arabs, that the Arabs began the 1948 War to destroy Israel, that the Arabs were guilty of many massacres while the Israelis were scrupulous about protecting human rights, and that the Arabs fled at the behest of their leaders rather than being ethnically cleansed by the Israel Defense Forcesturn out to be based on a partial reading or misreading of Morris’s books. Finkelstein documents these charges in exhaustive detail in Appendix II of his book and the preponderance of evidence he provides is conclusive.” (3031)[12][29] As Desch acknowledges in his book review of Beyond Chutzpah, “In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigationthe details of which were not made publicthat… vindicated Dershowitz” (32, col. 3).[12] In September 2006, Alan Dershowitz sent members of DePaul University’s law and political science faculties what he described as “a dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions that… are not incidental to Finkelstein’s purported scholarship; they are Finkelstein’s purported scholarship,” and he lobbied professors, alumni and administrators to deny Finkelstein tenure.[30][31] De Paul’s political science committee investigated the accusations against Finkelstein and concluded that they were not based on legitimate criticism. The department subsequently invited John Mearsheimer and Ian Lustick, two independent academics with known expertise on the Israel/Palestine conflict to evaluate the academic merit of Finkelstein’s work. Mearsheimer and Lustick came to the same conclusion.[31] In April 2007 the De Paul University Liberal Arts and Sciences’ Faculty Governance Council had voted unanimously to send a letter to Harvard University expressing “the council’s dismay at Professor Dershowitz’s interference in Finkelstein’s tenure and promotion case.”[30] In early 2007 the DePaul University Political Science department voted 9 to 3, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee 5 to 0, in favor of giving Finkelstein tenure. The three opposing faculty members subsequently filed a minority report opposing tenure, supported by the Dean of the College, Chuck Suchar. Suchar stated he opposed tenure because Finkelstein’s “personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, and the holocaust authors Eli Wiesel and Jerzy Kosinski” were inconsistent with DePaul’s “Vincentian” values.[32] In June 2007 a 43 vote by DePaul University’s Board on Promotion and Tenure (a faculty board), affirmed by the university’s president, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, denied Finkelstein tenure.[33][34] Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the 20072008 academic year (the remainder of his contract with DePaul), his sole course having been cancelled.[35] However, in announcing his decision, Holtschneider said the outside attention “was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case.” On September 5, 2007, Finkelstein resigned after he and the university reached a settlement; they released a joint statement on the resolution of the conflict.[36][37][38][39] In The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein questioned Elie Wiesel’s claim to have read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in Yiddish. According to Finkelstein, no translation of the work existed in Yiddish at the time.[40] Dershowitz responded that this was not so: he alleged that one had been published in Warsaw in 1929, and claimed that he had seen a copy at the Harvard Library.[24] Finkelstein described this latter claim as false and inept, writing that the only work by Kant in Yiddish owned by the library was a partial translation of the Critique of Practical Reason, a completely different work than the one referred to by Wiesel and Dershowitz.[41] During a clash with members of J Street at the 2010 American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, Dershowitz chastised J Street for pandering to anti-Israel activists and asked, “Why are you so popular with Norman Finkelstein?” Both J Street and Finkelstein[43] rebuffed Dershowitz’s claim.

Fair Usage Law

July 27, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Cashman: Dems just ‘crying wolf’ with claims of collusion – Boston Herald

Jared Kushner claims he never colluded with Russia. So what if he did? There is a long history of incoming administrations colluding with allies and adversaries. Well-known Democrat and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz begs his party to stop crying wolf. Kushner is guilty of marrying Donald Trumps daughter and helping him win the White House. Thats the real crime Democratic politicians are trying to nail him for. Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law professor, joined Boston Herald Radio while Kushner was being grilled by lawmakers behind closed doors yesterday. Collusion is not a crime. There is no such crime as collusion, Dershowitz told us on our Morning Meeting show. Ronald Reagan colluded with the Iranians prior to becoming president to postpone the release of the hostages so he would get credit for it, he said. Virtually every incoming administration colludes with some ally and, sometimes, some adversary. Kushner was before Senate Intelligence Committee investigators to answer questions about a meeting he, Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had last summer with a Russian lawyer and others. Reading from prepared remarks outside the White House without taking questions from reporters, Kushner said, I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. The meeting reportedly was aimed at getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. Opposition research is as common in campaigns as kissing babies. Everyone does it. Dershowitz is spot on when he argues that this is not a legal issue but a political one. The Democrats are crying wolf. … They are yelling, crime, crime, criminal offense and treason. … Somehow if there were a crime committed, even though I am not predicting that, they would have no credibility because they keep yelling wolf. For the last six months, Dershowitz has been trying to draw the sharp distinction between what is a crime and what is a political sin. He said the media are fueling the misconception. He claims the New York Times, which once welcomed his Op-Eds, is no longer interested in his views. The New York Times will have five Op-Eds on alleged crimes committed by the Trump administration. When I ask to write one Op-Ed showing maybe the leaders should understand there are no crimes committed, they would not even respond. They dont want their readers to hear the other side of the issue, Dershowitz said. Stay tuned for Dershowitzs new book, Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics Is Dangerous to Democracy, due out next month. We can only hope that by then politicians in both parties will have recognized the difference between crime and politics, and will get back to work on issues that actually matter.

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."