Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

Newsmax Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz on FBI’s Raid on Trump’s …

Harvard Prof. Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, perhaps America’s leading civil libertarian and constitutional scholar, sounds the alarm Monday after The New York Times and other outlets reported federal prosecutors in Manhattan had executed a search warrant on the offices of Donald Trump’s longtime personal legal counsel, Michael D. Cohen.

Dershowitz said he was unable to come up with a ready precedent for federal authorities raiding the offices of an attorney representing someone involved in a special counsel investigation. The Times reports thatthe FBI conducteda raid at Cohen’s Rockefeller Center office. The FBI’s haul from the office included: hard drives, business and tax records, emails, and at least one phone, according to published reports. Some correspondence between Trump and Cohen was also confiscated, according to the Times.

Read This Newsmax Platinum Article!

Get special, easy access to Newsmax Platinum reports:

Become a Newsmax Platinum Member today!

More here:

Newsmax Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz on FBI’s Raid on Trump’s …

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz Visits White House | The Daily Caller

Pinterest

Reddit

LinkedIn

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reportedly visited the White House on Tuesday and had dinner with President Trump.

Some news Dershowitz has been at the White House for part of today as Trump seeks his input, and hes supposed to have dinner with the president tonight, per WH sources, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted.

Dershowitz has stood out among liberals as a harsh critic of Robert Muellers investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

I dont think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans. But hes a partisan and a zealot, Dershowitz told New Yorks AM 970 of Mueller on Monday.

In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity Monday night, Dershowitz also described the FBI raid of the home and offices of Michael Cohen as an attempt to squeeze the Trump attorney.

Hes the lawyer, hes the guy who knows all of the facts about Donald Trump to get him to turn against his client, said Dershowitz. This is a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations.

Dershowitz also appeared on Hannity Tuesday and talked briefly about his meeting with Trump.

We discussed the Middle East and a range of subjects, he told Hannity.

Follow Scott on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more:

Alan Dershowitz Visits White House | The Daily Caller

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz slams ‘Sex and the City’ star Cynthia Nixon …

Actress and liberal activist Cynthia Nixon, one of the stars of the “Sex and the City” television series and movies, announcedon Mondayshe would run for governor of New York, challenging incumbent Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination and Alan Dershowitz is not pleased.

To really understand Israel and the Jewish word – subscribe to Haaretz

“I love New York, and today I’m announcing my candidacy for governor,” Nixon, 51, said on Twitter.

In the run-up to Nixons announcement, high-profile attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed her Middle East politics in a tweet, calling out what he said was her bigotry in supporting Israel Haters Jewish Voice for Peace and actress Vanessa Redgrave in boycotting Israel.

After she made her announcement he reiterated his belief that Nixon was anti-Israel.

We’ve got more newsletters we think you’ll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

Dershowitz was referring to a September 2010 letter Nixonsigned, joiningtogether with150 American actors, writers, directors and other artists to voice support for Israeli actors who had declared they would not perform in the settlements, refusing to take their productions to a newly-built cultural center in the West Bank city of Ariel.

The petitions signatories included Redgrave – along with actors Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn and playwright Tony Kushner, and was organized by the Jewish Voice For Peace group that supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is on Israel’s BDS blacklist.

A statement by Nixon’s campaign called her a progressive alternative to Cuomo. It said the governor was a “centrist and Albany insider,” mentioning the state capital, and referred to the legal troubles of a number of his aides.

“We want our government to work again, on healthcare, ending mass incarceration, fixing our broken subway,” the statement said. “We are sick of politicians who care more about headlines and power than they do about us. It can’t just be business as usual anymore.”

Cuomo, 60, the son of late New York Governor Mario Cuomo, is seeking his third term this year. The primary is on Sept. 13 and the general election onNov. 6.

Nixon is aligned with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat who is politically to the left of Cuomo. The two men have feuded publicly over issues such as public transit and public housing in the nation’s largest city.

Cuomo has cultivated support in pro-Israel circles in recent years. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, he made a visit during which he declared total solidarity with Israel. Hereturned again in 2017, amid speculation that he was considering a presidential run.

In June 2016, Cuomosigned the first-ever executive order by a governor requiring state agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations that support the BDS movement against Israel.

Reuters contributed to this report

Read more from the original source:

Alan Dershowitz slams ‘Sex and the City’ star Cynthia Nixon …

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz … – Business Insider

Donald Trump. Pool/Getty Images Legal experts were taken back by the level of potential self-sabotage that President Donald Trump committed by tweeting extensively Monday about the controversial travel ban currently blocked by the courts.

Trump, following the London terror attacks over the weekend, tweeted on Monday: “I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” He then took aim at his own Justice Department, saying it “should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version” it will likely soon be arguing in favor of before the Supreme Court.

He also tweeted that the DOJ “should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court & seek much tougher version!” And he called the judicial system “slow and political.”

Both supporters and opponents of the president’s travel ban were stunned by what they saw as comments that could hurt the DOJ’s defense of the executive order.

Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general arguing against the ban in court, tweeted a screenshot of Trump’s Monday morning tweets, commenting that it’s “kinda odd to have the defendant in Hawaii v. Trump acting as our co-counsel. We don’t need the help but will take it!” Ryan Goodman, a former Department of Defense lawyer in President Barack Obama’s administration, said the tweet calling the second order “watered down” showed Trump’s “unconstitutional intent.”

And Jack Goldsmith, a lawyer in President George W. Bush’s administration, Harvard law professor, and cofounder of Lawfare, highlighted a point he made in February after Trump took aim at the judges presiding over travel ban litigation. Goldsmith wrote then that Trump might be intentionally weakening his case to set “the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration.”

“If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls,” Goldsmith wrote. “This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack.”

Perhaps the most surprising reaction came from George Conway, a prominent lawyer who is married to top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

The lawyer, who withdrew himself from consideration for a top Justice Department job, tweeted that Trump’s statements “may make some [people] feel better, but they certainly won’t help” the solicitor general’s office get a majority decision in the Supreme Court, “which is what actually matters.”

“Sad,” he added.

He then launched into a tweetstorm explaining his views and clarifying that he “VERY, VERY STRONGLY” supports Trump, his administration, policies, the executive order itself, “and of course, my wonderful wife.” But he seemed to plead with Trump to stop tweeting about the ban.

“Every sensible lawyer in [the White House Counsel’s office] and every political appointee at DOJ [would] agree with me (as some have already told me). The [point] cannot be stressed enough that tweets on legal matters seriously undermine Admin agenda and POTUS and those who support him, as I do, need to reinforce that [point] and not be shy about it.”

Trump didn’t seem to follow that advice, tweeting again about the executive order later Monday night.

“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” he said.

Renowned lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz told Business Insider on Tuesday that Trump’s continued persistence in going against the wishes of his own legal team is an experience Dershowitz has had “over and over again with clients.”

“You tell them not to talk to the press, you tell them not to call somebody and talk to them, they do,” he said. “When you have a powerful person I represent many powerful people they don’t listen to their lawyers. They think that they know a lot.”

Dershowitz said it’s clear Trump believes his tweeting was at a major reason for his electoral victory in November, and he’s loathe to abandon the habit. Indeed, on Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted that “the FAKE MSM” was “working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media.”

“I think there is a sense that he got where he got by tweeting,” Dershowitz said. “And how dare his lawyers tell him not to. They’re just too cautious and too watery and he’s going to do his own thing.”

“And then of course …. the clients go ‘why didn’t you stop me! Why didn’t you stop me from doing that. Why didn’t you tell me not to!'” Dershowitz said. “So I think it’s a situation where the most powerful person in the world is not going to be told what to do by his lawyers.”

The revised travel ban bars citizens from Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya who do not currently have visas from entering the country for 90 days while the administration reviews its visa policies. It also bars all refugee entry for 120 days. It has been blocked by federal courts, and the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Alan Dershowitz. Reuters/Andrew Innerarity

In upholding a nationwide block on the order, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the executive order “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

The Trump administration had withdrawn its initial travel ban which did not make clear that existing visa holders could enter the country and also included Iraq on the list of banned countries after it too was blocked by the courts.

Trump’s tweets point in a different direction than what his own DOJ lawyers argued in the case, as the Justice Department has tried to distance itself from the original order in defending the new one. Trump has already seen his past statements, and those of his surrogates, used against him in court, particularly his December 2015 call for a temporary suspension of Muslims entering the US.

The Justice Department lawyers defending the order have repeatedly called for Trump’s statements not to be considered when ruling on its legality, instead asking the judges to focus on the text of the document. But that strategy has not proven effective yet, as the courts have taken Trump’s statements into consideration.

Additionally, the lawyers have tried to create distance between the first executive order and the one that replaced it, which likely wasn’t helped by Trump’s tweets about its “watered-down” nature.

But Dershowitz said he believes the latest tweets won’t be a detriment to a Supreme Court case namely because he didn’t write the following two words: “Muslim ban.” He believes that Trump’s statements should not be considered in evaluating the executive order. If Trump’s statements are the reason for the travel ban being ruled unconstitutional, Dershowitz said that creates a scenario where a future president can present the exact same document and have it deemed legal if that leader did not use the same language in relation to the order.

“You can’t judge a statute by what people say about it,” he said. “You have to judge it by its words. And I think the Supreme Court will ultimately come to realize that.”

“But, Trump’s not helping,” he added.

And as it’s become apparent to Dershowitz, Trump’s team is desperately trying to get him to stop shooting himself in the foot.

“I think there are people in the White House wouldn’t be surprised if [Kellyanne] Conway is one of them who are trying everything to try and get him to stop tweeting,” he said, pointing to George Conway’s message as one “that gets to him.”

“At least one would think so,” he added. “Because they have to be trying their best to stop this. And so far, they haven’t succeeded.”

Read more from the original source:

Famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz … – Business Insider

Fair Usage Law

February 22, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: The Nunes FISA memo deserves more …

The memo made public by House Republicans on Friday accusing the FBI and Justice Department of abusing their surveillance powers in investigating a former Trump campaign adviser constitutes probable cause for further investigation.

The memo purports to describe what is in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application that resulted in wiretap warrants being issued against Republican operatives. It is, of course, a secondhand, hearsay, account of what is actually in the application.

Democratic members of Congress have been quick to point out that they see matters differently and that the Republican memo leaves out salient information.

So let the Democrats present their version, which will also be secondhand and hearsay. It will help to level the playing field, but it will not provide the American public with a firsthand look at what was presented to the FISA court.

Subject to real needs of national security, the American public should see a redacted version of the actual FISA application so that we can judge for ourselves whether it unfairly omitted important facts, including the source of the so-called Steele Dossier, which made allegations of misconduct against the Trump campaign, and the credibility of its author, a former British spy.

The Republican memo standing alone raises some serious questions about the process by which the warrants were obtained from the FISA court. The Democratic memo, if it is forthcoming, may purport to answer some of those questions. But it will never be able to answer them definitely without an objective assessment of the actual FISA application itself.

This episode strengthens the view expressed by me from day one of the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election that the entire enterprise of appointing a special counsel was misguided. Instead, Congress should have created a nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate the entire issue of Russian involvement in the election and other claims made by either party about any unfairness surrounding it.

Nor are congressional committees an adequate substitute for a nonpartisan commission. Congressional committees by their very nature are highly partisan, as evidenced by the dueling accounts of the FISA application.

Its not too late for Congress to create such a commission, because the American public has lost faith in the objectivity of congressional committees. Many Americans, though certainly not all, have also lost faith in the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller himself continues to be held in high regard by most Americans, but many of his underlings are widely regarded as partisan.

Mueller did the right thing by reassigning FBI agent Peter Strozk after his anti-Trump communications with his girlfriend were revealed. But Strozk should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation based on his own knowledge of his bias against Trump.

When a president or a presidential candidate is being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation must be Caesars wife above reproach. Several of Muellers appointees do not pass that test.

The Republican memo just released should not be considered the last word on the issue. It is the opening salvo by Republicans. The Democrats are responding in kind. Both sides have partisan agendas. Now it is time for the American people to have their interests considered.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The corollary is that over-classification keeps the infection spreading. Let the FISA application be de-classified, with appropriate redactions, and let the public interest in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies be served.

See original here:

Alan Dershowitz: The Nunes FISA memo deserves more …

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz on the Nunes memo: Republican ‘truth’ and …

The Republicans have now released the memo containing their version of what is in the controversial FSIA application. Not surprisingly, the Democrats have a different version. It should be easy to decide whose truth is more credible: Let the American public see the application itself instead of second-hand, partisan accounts and let us decide for ourselves.

The problem with that obvious solution is that the application is currently classified. But classification should never be used as it often is for political benefit or to protect agencies or individuals from just criticism. Let a nonpartisan expert decide what must be redacted for genuine security concerns, and let the remainder of the application be released.

We, the American people, have the right to know whether the application deliberately failed to disclose to the FISA court that the so-called Steele dossier was commissioned by political operatives seeking dirt on a political opponent. We are entitled to know how much weight, if any, was given to the dossier in the application.

The Republican memo, standing alone, raises questions about the process by which the warrants were obtained from the FISA court. The Democratic memo, if it is forthcoming, may purport to answer those questions. But it will never be able to answer them definitively without an objective assessment of the actual FISA application itself.

This episode strengthens the view I have long espoused that the entire enterprise of appointing a special counsel was misguided. Instead, Congress should have created a nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate all claims made by either party about any unfairness surrounding the 2016 presidential election. Nor are congressional committees an adequate substitute for a nonpartisan commission. Congressional committees by their nature are partisan, as evidenced by the dueling accounts of the FISA application.

Many Americans, though certainly not all, have also lost faith in the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE. Mueller himself continues to be held in high regard by most Americans, but many of his underlings are widely regarded as partisan. Mueller did the right thing by reassigning FBI agent Peter Strzok, after his communications with his girlfriend, an FBI lawyer, were revealed. But Strzok should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation based on his own knowledge of his bias against Trump. He should be fired, not merely reassigned, for not doing so and compromising the objectivity of Muellers investigation. When a president or a presidential candidate is being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation must be Caesars wife above reproach. Several of Muellers appointees do not pass that test.

The Republican memo just released is not the last word on the issue. It is the opening salvo by Republicans. The Democrats are responding. Both sides have partisan agendas.

Now it is time for the American people to have their interests considered. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The corollary is that over-classification keeps the infection spreading.

Partisanship has its role in politics, but there is no such thing as Republican or Democratic truth. Each side has the right to its opinion regarding the significance of the FISA application, but neither side has a right to its own facts. So the next step is for the public to see the application, properly redacted to protect national security, so that we can judge for ourselves.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, atHarvard Law Schooland author of Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy. Follow him on Twitter@AlanDershand on Facebook@AlanMDershowitz.

Read more here:

Alan Dershowitz on the Nunes memo: Republican ‘truth’ and …

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew …

‘Release the Damn Memo’: Geraldo Calls on Congress to Expose Whether FBI Probe ‘Politically-Motivated’

Maine Gov on State ‘Medicaid-to-Work’ Program: I Talked to Trump About It Going National

Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he would not have campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he knew about the future president’s photo op with Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is a “virulent anti-Semite and anti-American,” Dershowitz said on “Fox & Friends.”

“He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being,” he said.

A photographer, Askia Muhammad, showed Fox News’ Tucker Carlson a 2005 picture of Obama and Farrakhan smiling together.

He said that afterward, the Congressional Black Caucus contacted him and demanded to have the photo back.

I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself, Muhammad said.

Muhammad said he thought the CBC was concerned a photo with Farrakhan could hurt the young senator’s future presidential aspirations.

Muhammad added that Obama had Nation of Islam followers working in his Chicago senate office.

Dershowitz said he threatened to leave the Democratic Party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) – who once had connections with Farrakhan – was elected chairman instead of Tom Perez.

“We should have nobody in public office associating with a bigot like Farrakhan,” he said.

Watch more above.

Border Patrol Chief: Impending Immigration Compromise Shows ‘Brilliance of Businessman’ Trump

Ingraham: Trump Has Exposed ‘Dangerous Fanatics’ on the Left

Original post:

Dershowitz: I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew …

Fair Usage Law

January 29, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Do the Jews control the world?

Our secret is out. The Jews control the world! We own the media. Politicians do our bidding. Wall Street is a Jewish shtetl. Hollywood moguls make secret deals in Yiddish. Jewish professors propagandize their students to support Israel. Jewish puppet masters pull the strings and their compliant puppets simply follow.

If you troll the Internet, these are the absurd allegations that you will find repeated over and over again. It reminds me of the old joke about the two Jews in a Vienna caf in the 1930s. One of them is reading the Yiddish newspaper, while the other one peruses Der Strmer, the Nazi propaganda organ. The Jew reading the Yiddish newspapers asks accusingly Why are you reading that Nazi rag? The other Jew responds: I used to read the Yiddish newspaper, and all it talked about was how Jews are suffering, being fired from their jobs, being subject to pogroms, and starving. Now I read in the Nazi newspaper that we control the world. I prefer the good news!

Since the publication of the 19th-century Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the primary tropes of anti-Semitism have been the dual canards that Jews control the world and that all the problems of the world are attributed to the Jews. There is an old Polish proverb that says, If there is a problem, the Jews must be behind it.

The reality, of course, is quite different. Jews are subject to anti-Semitism in many parts of the world, and increasingly on university campuses. Israel is condemned at the UN more than all the other nations of the world combined. There is poverty among many Jews, particularly the elderly. Holocaust denial is rampant on the Internet. The percentage of Jews in the world, already infinitesimal, is shrinking, while intermarriage and assimilation among Jews is increasing.

Whatever successes Jews have achieved have been as a result of their hard work, creativity, and determination. Consider Israel, a nation which until recently had few natural resources or inherent wealth. Yet it has risen to the top of the high-tech world through its inventions and innovations. No country in history has contributed more to the world in proportion to its population and its time as a nation than the State of the Jewish People. Should Jews be blamed for Israels success?

It is true that Jews are represented in large numbers in various professionals such as the academy, finance, and the media. That is not because they are given preferential treatment. It is because they have proved to be successful at these enterprises. Should they be blamed for that?

The essence of anti-Semitism is to believe that everything positive about Jews should be interpreted negatively. Consider the hard-lefts absurd accusation against Israel of pinkwashing. Those who accuse Israel of pinkwashing acknowledge that Israel has among the best records in the world of supporting the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people. Certainly they have the best record in the Middle East.

Yet the anti-Semites who accuse Israel of pinkwashing claim that the only reason Israel supports the rights of sexual minorities is to cover up to whitewash, or in this case pinkwash how badly they treat the Palestinians. This perverse accusation fails to consider the reality that Israel supports these rights because it is the right thing to do. Indeed, within Israeli society those who support gay rights are more likely to support Palestinians than those who oppose these rights. But these facts are irrelevant to the anti-Semites who believe that the Nation State of the Jewish People can do nothing good, except for bad reasons.

The other lie that follows from The Jews control the world is that individual Jews who happen to have succeeded and are in positions of authority always work together on behalf of Jewish control of the world. The reality is quite different.

Consider, for example, the alleged Jewish control of the media. It is true that Jewish families have ownership interests in the New York Times and other newspapers. But those newspapers dont promote Jewish control of the world. Indeed, they are often at odds with Jewish public opinion. The same is true of Wall Street, Hollywood, and academia, where individual Jews hold diverse opinions on issues of Jewish concern. But to the anti-Semite, all Jews are the same and their goal to control the world is identical.

So, no Jews do not control the world. Many contribute to the world through their individual accomplishments, but that is true of members of every religion, ethnic, and racial group. The world would be a poorer place intellectually, artistically, charitably and in many other ways if there were no Jews. Many European countries that were complicit in ridding themselves of their Jewish populations have come to regret their actions. So lets make sure that Europes remaining Jews remain safe from the anti-Semites who spread the lie of Jewish control of the world.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” This article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

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

More:

Alan Dershowitz: Do the Jews control the world?

Fair Usage Law

January 24, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Don’t diagnose Trump — respond to him | Fox …

Is President Trump mentally ill, suffering from dementia, or both? Some mental health professionals and others are arguing that he should be removed from office because the answer to at least one of those questions is yes. I believe this is a dangerous course to follow.

A Yale psychiatry professor has suggested the possibility that President Trump might be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Others have proposed that he be required to undergo psychiatric or psychological testing. Still others have suggesting invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and declaring the president incompetent.

For more than 25 years I taught courses on law and psychiatry, and related subjects, at Harvard Law School. I co-edited a basic text in the field. And I have written numerous articles regarding the ability and inability of psychiatrists to predict future conduct.

On the basis of my research and writing, I find it unprofessional, unethical and absurd for any mental health professional who has not examined President Trump to offer a diagnosis or psychiatric prediction about him.

We are all entitled to our opinions regarding the presidents political and personal qualifications to serve. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election because I felt she was more qualified than Donald Trump to be president. That is my right as an American voter.

But psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have no more right to pathologize a President or a candidate because they disagree with his or her political views than do prosecutors or politicians have a right to criminalize political opponents.

I have been writing in opposition to the criminalization of political differences for decades, because it is dangerous to democracy. It is even more dangerous to pathologize or psychiatrize ones political opponents based on opposition to their politics.

Getting mental health professionals to declare political opponents mentally ill was a common tactic used against political dissidents by the Soviet Union, China and apartheid South Africa. Perfectly sane people were locked up in psychiatric wards or prisons for years because of phony diagnoses of mental illness.

The American Psychiatric Association took a strong stand against the use of this weapon by tyrants. I was deeply involved in that condemnation, because I understood how dangerous it is to diagnose political opponents instead of responding to the merits or demerits of their political views.

It is even more dangerous when a democracy like the United States begins to go down the road of pathologizing political differences. Its one thing to say your opponents are wrong. Its quite another to say they are crazy.

Questions about President Trumps mental health arose even before he was elected. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, some of his most extreme critics were not content to say they disagreed with his policies or thought he was unqualified because of his temperament, background, or skill set. Instead, they questioned his mental health.

I am old enough to remember the last time this happened. The 1964 presidential election was the second in which I voted. President Lyndon Johnson, who had succeeded the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, was running against Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.

I didnt like either candidate. Johnsons personal characteristics were obnoxious, though he had achieved much, especially in the area of civil rights. Goldwaters personal characteristics seemed fine, but I disapproved of his conservative political views.

I was shocked to read an article in Fact magazine based on interviews with more than 1,100 psychiatrists that concluded Goldwater was mentally unstable and psychologically unfit to be president. It was Lyndon Johnson whose personal fitness to hold the highest office I had questioned.

Goldwater seemed to me to be emotionally stable, with excellent personal characteristics, but highly questionable politics. The article was utterly unpersuasive, but in the end I reluctantly voted for President Johnson because Goldwater was too conservative for my political tastes.

Goldwater went back to the Senate, where he served with great distinction and high personal morality. President Johnson got us deeply into an unwinnable war in Vietnam that hurt our nation and claimed more than 58,000 American lives. The more than 1,100 psychiatrists, it turned out, were wrong in their diagnosis and predictions.

The misdiagnosis of Goldwater should surprise no one, since none of the psychiatrists had ever examined, or even met, the Arizona senator. They just didnt like his politics. Indeed, some feared that he would destroy the world if he had access to the nuclear button.

The most powerful TV ad against Goldwater showed an adorable young girl playing with a flower. Then the viewer hears an ominous voice counting down from 10, the camera zooms into a tight close-up of the little girls eye, and you see the horrific mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion, implying that electing Goldwater would bring about a nuclear holocaust. It was an effective ad. It influenced me far more than the psychobabble in the Fact article.

Following the Goldwater-psychiatrist debacle, the American Psychiatric Association declared it to be unethical for a psychiatrist to offer any kind of a diagnosis on a public figure without having examined that person.

Now, more than half a century later, numerous psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are violating that sound ethical principle by diagnosing President Trump, who they have never examined. They are offering diagnoses, ranging from Alzheimers, to narcissistic personality disorder, to paranoia and more. This is irresponsible, in my view.

We should continue to debate the merits and demerits of President Trumps policies, effectiveness, personality and other factors that are relevant to his presidency. Those who oppose the president are of course free to criticize him, to work for the election of a Democratic Congress in 2018, and to support another candidate for president in 2020. Thats how democracy works.

But lets leave diagnoses to doctors who have examined their patients and not remove a duly elected president of the United States from office on amateurish speculation that he is mentally incapable of functioning in office.

Link:

Alan Dershowitz: Don’t diagnose Trump — respond to him | Fox …

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Newsmax Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz on FBI’s Raid on Trump’s …

Harvard Prof. Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, perhaps America’s leading civil libertarian and constitutional scholar, sounds the alarm Monday after The New York Times and other outlets reported federal prosecutors in Manhattan had executed a search warrant on the offices of Donald Trump’s longtime personal legal counsel, Michael D. Cohen. Dershowitz said he was unable to come up with a ready precedent for federal authorities raiding the offices of an attorney representing someone involved in a special counsel investigation. The Times reports thatthe FBI conducteda raid at Cohen’s Rockefeller Center office. The FBI’s haul from the office included: hard drives, business and tax records, emails, and at least one phone, according to published reports. Some correspondence between Trump and Cohen was also confiscated, according to the Times. Read This Newsmax Platinum Article! Get special, easy access to Newsmax Platinum reports: Become a Newsmax Platinum Member today!

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz Visits White House | The Daily Caller

Pinterest Reddit LinkedIn Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reportedly visited the White House on Tuesday and had dinner with President Trump. Some news Dershowitz has been at the White House for part of today as Trump seeks his input, and hes supposed to have dinner with the president tonight, per WH sources, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted. Dershowitz has stood out among liberals as a harsh critic of Robert Muellers investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. I dont think he cares whether he hurts Democrats or Republicans. But hes a partisan and a zealot, Dershowitz told New Yorks AM 970 of Mueller on Monday. In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity Monday night, Dershowitz also described the FBI raid of the home and offices of Michael Cohen as an attempt to squeeze the Trump attorney. Hes the lawyer, hes the guy who knows all of the facts about Donald Trump to get him to turn against his client, said Dershowitz. This is a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations. Dershowitz also appeared on Hannity Tuesday and talked briefly about his meeting with Trump. We discussed the Middle East and a range of subjects, he told Hannity. Follow Scott on Facebook and Twitter.

Fair Usage Law

April 10, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz slams ‘Sex and the City’ star Cynthia Nixon …

Actress and liberal activist Cynthia Nixon, one of the stars of the “Sex and the City” television series and movies, announcedon Mondayshe would run for governor of New York, challenging incumbent Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination and Alan Dershowitz is not pleased. To really understand Israel and the Jewish word – subscribe to Haaretz “I love New York, and today I’m announcing my candidacy for governor,” Nixon, 51, said on Twitter. In the run-up to Nixons announcement, high-profile attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed her Middle East politics in a tweet, calling out what he said was her bigotry in supporting Israel Haters Jewish Voice for Peace and actress Vanessa Redgrave in boycotting Israel. After she made her announcement he reiterated his belief that Nixon was anti-Israel. We’ve got more newsletters we think you’ll find interesting. Please try again later. The email address you have provided is already registered. Dershowitz was referring to a September 2010 letter Nixonsigned, joiningtogether with150 American actors, writers, directors and other artists to voice support for Israeli actors who had declared they would not perform in the settlements, refusing to take their productions to a newly-built cultural center in the West Bank city of Ariel. The petitions signatories included Redgrave – along with actors Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn and playwright Tony Kushner, and was organized by the Jewish Voice For Peace group that supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is on Israel’s BDS blacklist. A statement by Nixon’s campaign called her a progressive alternative to Cuomo. It said the governor was a “centrist and Albany insider,” mentioning the state capital, and referred to the legal troubles of a number of his aides. “We want our government to work again, on healthcare, ending mass incarceration, fixing our broken subway,” the statement said. “We are sick of politicians who care more about headlines and power than they do about us. It can’t just be business as usual anymore.” Cuomo, 60, the son of late New York Governor Mario Cuomo, is seeking his third term this year. The primary is on Sept. 13 and the general election onNov. 6. Nixon is aligned with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat who is politically to the left of Cuomo. The two men have feuded publicly over issues such as public transit and public housing in the nation’s largest city. Cuomo has cultivated support in pro-Israel circles in recent years. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, he made a visit during which he declared total solidarity with Israel. Hereturned again in 2017, amid speculation that he was considering a presidential run. In June 2016, Cuomosigned the first-ever executive order by a governor requiring state agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations that support the BDS movement against Israel. Reuters contributed to this report

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz … – Business Insider

Donald Trump. Pool/Getty Images Legal experts were taken back by the level of potential self-sabotage that President Donald Trump committed by tweeting extensively Monday about the controversial travel ban currently blocked by the courts. Trump, following the London terror attacks over the weekend, tweeted on Monday: “I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” He then took aim at his own Justice Department, saying it “should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version” it will likely soon be arguing in favor of before the Supreme Court. He also tweeted that the DOJ “should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down Travel Ban before the Supreme Court & seek much tougher version!” And he called the judicial system “slow and political.” Both supporters and opponents of the president’s travel ban were stunned by what they saw as comments that could hurt the DOJ’s defense of the executive order. Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general arguing against the ban in court, tweeted a screenshot of Trump’s Monday morning tweets, commenting that it’s “kinda odd to have the defendant in Hawaii v. Trump acting as our co-counsel. We don’t need the help but will take it!” Ryan Goodman, a former Department of Defense lawyer in President Barack Obama’s administration, said the tweet calling the second order “watered down” showed Trump’s “unconstitutional intent.” And Jack Goldsmith, a lawyer in President George W. Bush’s administration, Harvard law professor, and cofounder of Lawfare, highlighted a point he made in February after Trump took aim at the judges presiding over travel ban litigation. Goldsmith wrote then that Trump might be intentionally weakening his case to set “the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration.” “If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls,” Goldsmith wrote. “This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack.” Perhaps the most surprising reaction came from George Conway, a prominent lawyer who is married to top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. The lawyer, who withdrew himself from consideration for a top Justice Department job, tweeted that Trump’s statements “may make some [people] feel better, but they certainly won’t help” the solicitor general’s office get a majority decision in the Supreme Court, “which is what actually matters.” “Sad,” he added. He then launched into a tweetstorm explaining his views and clarifying that he “VERY, VERY STRONGLY” supports Trump, his administration, policies, the executive order itself, “and of course, my wonderful wife.” But he seemed to plead with Trump to stop tweeting about the ban. “Every sensible lawyer in [the White House Counsel’s office] and every political appointee at DOJ [would] agree with me (as some have already told me). The [point] cannot be stressed enough that tweets on legal matters seriously undermine Admin agenda and POTUS and those who support him, as I do, need to reinforce that [point] and not be shy about it.” Trump didn’t seem to follow that advice, tweeting again about the executive order later Monday night. “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” he said. Renowned lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz told Business Insider on Tuesday that Trump’s continued persistence in going against the wishes of his own legal team is an experience Dershowitz has had “over and over again with clients.” “You tell them not to talk to the press, you tell them not to call somebody and talk to them, they do,” he said. “When you have a powerful person I represent many powerful people they don’t listen to their lawyers. They think that they know a lot.” Dershowitz said it’s clear Trump believes his tweeting was at a major reason for his electoral victory in November, and he’s loathe to abandon the habit. Indeed, on Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted that “the FAKE MSM” was “working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media.” “I think there is a sense that he got where he got by tweeting,” Dershowitz said. “And how dare his lawyers tell him not to. They’re just too cautious and too watery and he’s going to do his own thing.” “And then of course …. the clients go ‘why didn’t you stop me! Why didn’t you stop me from doing that. Why didn’t you tell me not to!'” Dershowitz said. “So I think it’s a situation where the most powerful person in the world is not going to be told what to do by his lawyers.” The revised travel ban bars citizens from Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya who do not currently have visas from entering the country for 90 days while the administration reviews its visa policies. It also bars all refugee entry for 120 days. It has been blocked by federal courts, and the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court. Alan Dershowitz. Reuters/Andrew Innerarity In upholding a nationwide block on the order, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the executive order “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The Trump administration had withdrawn its initial travel ban which did not make clear that existing visa holders could enter the country and also included Iraq on the list of banned countries after it too was blocked by the courts. Trump’s tweets point in a different direction than what his own DOJ lawyers argued in the case, as the Justice Department has tried to distance itself from the original order in defending the new one. Trump has already seen his past statements, and those of his surrogates, used against him in court, particularly his December 2015 call for a temporary suspension of Muslims entering the US. The Justice Department lawyers defending the order have repeatedly called for Trump’s statements not to be considered when ruling on its legality, instead asking the judges to focus on the text of the document. But that strategy has not proven effective yet, as the courts have taken Trump’s statements into consideration. Additionally, the lawyers have tried to create distance between the first executive order and the one that replaced it, which likely wasn’t helped by Trump’s tweets about its “watered-down” nature. But Dershowitz said he believes the latest tweets won’t be a detriment to a Supreme Court case namely because he didn’t write the following two words: “Muslim ban.” He believes that Trump’s statements should not be considered in evaluating the executive order. If Trump’s statements are the reason for the travel ban being ruled unconstitutional, Dershowitz said that creates a scenario where a future president can present the exact same document and have it deemed legal if that leader did not use the same language in relation to the order. “You can’t judge a statute by what people say about it,” he said. “You have to judge it by its words. And I think the Supreme Court will ultimately come to realize that.” “But, Trump’s not helping,” he added. And as it’s become apparent to Dershowitz, Trump’s team is desperately trying to get him to stop shooting himself in the foot. “I think there are people in the White House wouldn’t be surprised if [Kellyanne] Conway is one of them who are trying everything to try and get him to stop tweeting,” he said, pointing to George Conway’s message as one “that gets to him.” “At least one would think so,” he added. “Because they have to be trying their best to stop this. And so far, they haven’t succeeded.”

Fair Usage Law

February 22, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: The Nunes FISA memo deserves more …

The memo made public by House Republicans on Friday accusing the FBI and Justice Department of abusing their surveillance powers in investigating a former Trump campaign adviser constitutes probable cause for further investigation. The memo purports to describe what is in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application that resulted in wiretap warrants being issued against Republican operatives. It is, of course, a secondhand, hearsay, account of what is actually in the application. Democratic members of Congress have been quick to point out that they see matters differently and that the Republican memo leaves out salient information. So let the Democrats present their version, which will also be secondhand and hearsay. It will help to level the playing field, but it will not provide the American public with a firsthand look at what was presented to the FISA court. Subject to real needs of national security, the American public should see a redacted version of the actual FISA application so that we can judge for ourselves whether it unfairly omitted important facts, including the source of the so-called Steele Dossier, which made allegations of misconduct against the Trump campaign, and the credibility of its author, a former British spy. The Republican memo standing alone raises some serious questions about the process by which the warrants were obtained from the FISA court. The Democratic memo, if it is forthcoming, may purport to answer some of those questions. But it will never be able to answer them definitely without an objective assessment of the actual FISA application itself. This episode strengthens the view expressed by me from day one of the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election that the entire enterprise of appointing a special counsel was misguided. Instead, Congress should have created a nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate the entire issue of Russian involvement in the election and other claims made by either party about any unfairness surrounding it. Nor are congressional committees an adequate substitute for a nonpartisan commission. Congressional committees by their very nature are highly partisan, as evidenced by the dueling accounts of the FISA application. Its not too late for Congress to create such a commission, because the American public has lost faith in the objectivity of congressional committees. Many Americans, though certainly not all, have also lost faith in the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller himself continues to be held in high regard by most Americans, but many of his underlings are widely regarded as partisan. Mueller did the right thing by reassigning FBI agent Peter Strozk after his anti-Trump communications with his girlfriend were revealed. But Strozk should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation based on his own knowledge of his bias against Trump. When a president or a presidential candidate is being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation must be Caesars wife above reproach. Several of Muellers appointees do not pass that test. The Republican memo just released should not be considered the last word on the issue. It is the opening salvo by Republicans. The Democrats are responding in kind. Both sides have partisan agendas. Now it is time for the American people to have their interests considered. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The corollary is that over-classification keeps the infection spreading. Let the FISA application be de-classified, with appropriate redactions, and let the public interest in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies be served.

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz on the Nunes memo: Republican ‘truth’ and …

The Republicans have now released the memo containing their version of what is in the controversial FSIA application. Not surprisingly, the Democrats have a different version. It should be easy to decide whose truth is more credible: Let the American public see the application itself instead of second-hand, partisan accounts and let us decide for ourselves. The problem with that obvious solution is that the application is currently classified. But classification should never be used as it often is for political benefit or to protect agencies or individuals from just criticism. Let a nonpartisan expert decide what must be redacted for genuine security concerns, and let the remainder of the application be released. We, the American people, have the right to know whether the application deliberately failed to disclose to the FISA court that the so-called Steele dossier was commissioned by political operatives seeking dirt on a political opponent. We are entitled to know how much weight, if any, was given to the dossier in the application. The Republican memo, standing alone, raises questions about the process by which the warrants were obtained from the FISA court. The Democratic memo, if it is forthcoming, may purport to answer those questions. But it will never be able to answer them definitively without an objective assessment of the actual FISA application itself. This episode strengthens the view I have long espoused that the entire enterprise of appointing a special counsel was misguided. Instead, Congress should have created a nonpartisan commission of objective experts to investigate all claims made by either party about any unfairness surrounding the 2016 presidential election. Nor are congressional committees an adequate substitute for a nonpartisan commission. Congressional committees by their nature are partisan, as evidenced by the dueling accounts of the FISA application. Many Americans, though certainly not all, have also lost faith in the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert MuellerRobert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE. Mueller himself continues to be held in high regard by most Americans, but many of his underlings are widely regarded as partisan. Mueller did the right thing by reassigning FBI agent Peter Strzok, after his communications with his girlfriend, an FBI lawyer, were revealed. But Strzok should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation based on his own knowledge of his bias against Trump. He should be fired, not merely reassigned, for not doing so and compromising the objectivity of Muellers investigation. When a president or a presidential candidate is being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation must be Caesars wife above reproach. Several of Muellers appointees do not pass that test. The Republican memo just released is not the last word on the issue. It is the opening salvo by Republicans. The Democrats are responding. Both sides have partisan agendas. Now it is time for the American people to have their interests considered. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once put it, Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The corollary is that over-classification keeps the infection spreading. Partisanship has its role in politics, but there is no such thing as Republican or Democratic truth. Each side has the right to its opinion regarding the significance of the FISA application, but neither side has a right to its own facts. So the next step is for the public to see the application, properly redacted to protect national security, so that we can judge for ourselves. Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, atHarvard Law Schooland author of Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy. Follow him on Twitter@AlanDershand on Facebook@AlanMDershowitz.

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: I Wouldn’t Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew …

‘Release the Damn Memo’: Geraldo Calls on Congress to Expose Whether FBI Probe ‘Politically-Motivated’ Maine Gov on State ‘Medicaid-to-Work’ Program: I Talked to Trump About It Going National Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz said he would not have campaigned for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he knew about the future president’s photo op with Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is a “virulent anti-Semite and anti-American,” Dershowitz said on “Fox & Friends.” “He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being,” he said. A photographer, Askia Muhammad, showed Fox News’ Tucker Carlson a 2005 picture of Obama and Farrakhan smiling together. He said that afterward, the Congressional Black Caucus contacted him and demanded to have the photo back. I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself, Muhammad said. Muhammad said he thought the CBC was concerned a photo with Farrakhan could hurt the young senator’s future presidential aspirations. Muhammad added that Obama had Nation of Islam followers working in his Chicago senate office. Dershowitz said he threatened to leave the Democratic Party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) – who once had connections with Farrakhan – was elected chairman instead of Tom Perez. “We should have nobody in public office associating with a bigot like Farrakhan,” he said. Watch more above. Border Patrol Chief: Impending Immigration Compromise Shows ‘Brilliance of Businessman’ Trump Ingraham: Trump Has Exposed ‘Dangerous Fanatics’ on the Left

Fair Usage Law

January 29, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Do the Jews control the world?

Our secret is out. The Jews control the world! We own the media. Politicians do our bidding. Wall Street is a Jewish shtetl. Hollywood moguls make secret deals in Yiddish. Jewish professors propagandize their students to support Israel. Jewish puppet masters pull the strings and their compliant puppets simply follow. If you troll the Internet, these are the absurd allegations that you will find repeated over and over again. It reminds me of the old joke about the two Jews in a Vienna caf in the 1930s. One of them is reading the Yiddish newspaper, while the other one peruses Der Strmer, the Nazi propaganda organ. The Jew reading the Yiddish newspapers asks accusingly Why are you reading that Nazi rag? The other Jew responds: I used to read the Yiddish newspaper, and all it talked about was how Jews are suffering, being fired from their jobs, being subject to pogroms, and starving. Now I read in the Nazi newspaper that we control the world. I prefer the good news! Since the publication of the 19th-century Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the primary tropes of anti-Semitism have been the dual canards that Jews control the world and that all the problems of the world are attributed to the Jews. There is an old Polish proverb that says, If there is a problem, the Jews must be behind it. The reality, of course, is quite different. Jews are subject to anti-Semitism in many parts of the world, and increasingly on university campuses. Israel is condemned at the UN more than all the other nations of the world combined. There is poverty among many Jews, particularly the elderly. Holocaust denial is rampant on the Internet. The percentage of Jews in the world, already infinitesimal, is shrinking, while intermarriage and assimilation among Jews is increasing. Whatever successes Jews have achieved have been as a result of their hard work, creativity, and determination. Consider Israel, a nation which until recently had few natural resources or inherent wealth. Yet it has risen to the top of the high-tech world through its inventions and innovations. No country in history has contributed more to the world in proportion to its population and its time as a nation than the State of the Jewish People. Should Jews be blamed for Israels success? It is true that Jews are represented in large numbers in various professionals such as the academy, finance, and the media. That is not because they are given preferential treatment. It is because they have proved to be successful at these enterprises. Should they be blamed for that? The essence of anti-Semitism is to believe that everything positive about Jews should be interpreted negatively. Consider the hard-lefts absurd accusation against Israel of pinkwashing. Those who accuse Israel of pinkwashing acknowledge that Israel has among the best records in the world of supporting the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people. Certainly they have the best record in the Middle East. Yet the anti-Semites who accuse Israel of pinkwashing claim that the only reason Israel supports the rights of sexual minorities is to cover up to whitewash, or in this case pinkwash how badly they treat the Palestinians. This perverse accusation fails to consider the reality that Israel supports these rights because it is the right thing to do. Indeed, within Israeli society those who support gay rights are more likely to support Palestinians than those who oppose these rights. But these facts are irrelevant to the anti-Semites who believe that the Nation State of the Jewish People can do nothing good, except for bad reasons. The other lie that follows from The Jews control the world is that individual Jews who happen to have succeeded and are in positions of authority always work together on behalf of Jewish control of the world. The reality is quite different. Consider, for example, the alleged Jewish control of the media. It is true that Jewish families have ownership interests in the New York Times and other newspapers. But those newspapers dont promote Jewish control of the world. Indeed, they are often at odds with Jewish public opinion. The same is true of Wall Street, Hollywood, and academia, where individual Jews hold diverse opinions on issues of Jewish concern. But to the anti-Semite, all Jews are the same and their goal to control the world is identical. So, no Jews do not control the world. Many contribute to the world through their individual accomplishments, but that is true of members of every religion, ethnic, and racial group. The world would be a poorer place intellectually, artistically, charitably and in many other ways if there were no Jews. Many European countries that were complicit in ridding themselves of their Jewish populations have come to regret their actions. So lets make sure that Europes remaining Jews remain safe from the anti-Semites who spread the lie of Jewish control of the world. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” This article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

January 24, 2018   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Don’t diagnose Trump — respond to him | Fox …

Is President Trump mentally ill, suffering from dementia, or both? Some mental health professionals and others are arguing that he should be removed from office because the answer to at least one of those questions is yes. I believe this is a dangerous course to follow. A Yale psychiatry professor has suggested the possibility that President Trump might be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Others have proposed that he be required to undergo psychiatric or psychological testing. Still others have suggesting invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and declaring the president incompetent. For more than 25 years I taught courses on law and psychiatry, and related subjects, at Harvard Law School. I co-edited a basic text in the field. And I have written numerous articles regarding the ability and inability of psychiatrists to predict future conduct. On the basis of my research and writing, I find it unprofessional, unethical and absurd for any mental health professional who has not examined President Trump to offer a diagnosis or psychiatric prediction about him. We are all entitled to our opinions regarding the presidents political and personal qualifications to serve. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election because I felt she was more qualified than Donald Trump to be president. That is my right as an American voter. But psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have no more right to pathologize a President or a candidate because they disagree with his or her political views than do prosecutors or politicians have a right to criminalize political opponents. I have been writing in opposition to the criminalization of political differences for decades, because it is dangerous to democracy. It is even more dangerous to pathologize or psychiatrize ones political opponents based on opposition to their politics. Getting mental health professionals to declare political opponents mentally ill was a common tactic used against political dissidents by the Soviet Union, China and apartheid South Africa. Perfectly sane people were locked up in psychiatric wards or prisons for years because of phony diagnoses of mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association took a strong stand against the use of this weapon by tyrants. I was deeply involved in that condemnation, because I understood how dangerous it is to diagnose political opponents instead of responding to the merits or demerits of their political views. It is even more dangerous when a democracy like the United States begins to go down the road of pathologizing political differences. Its one thing to say your opponents are wrong. Its quite another to say they are crazy. Questions about President Trumps mental health arose even before he was elected. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, some of his most extreme critics were not content to say they disagreed with his policies or thought he was unqualified because of his temperament, background, or skill set. Instead, they questioned his mental health. I am old enough to remember the last time this happened. The 1964 presidential election was the second in which I voted. President Lyndon Johnson, who had succeeded the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, was running against Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. I didnt like either candidate. Johnsons personal characteristics were obnoxious, though he had achieved much, especially in the area of civil rights. Goldwaters personal characteristics seemed fine, but I disapproved of his conservative political views. I was shocked to read an article in Fact magazine based on interviews with more than 1,100 psychiatrists that concluded Goldwater was mentally unstable and psychologically unfit to be president. It was Lyndon Johnson whose personal fitness to hold the highest office I had questioned. Goldwater seemed to me to be emotionally stable, with excellent personal characteristics, but highly questionable politics. The article was utterly unpersuasive, but in the end I reluctantly voted for President Johnson because Goldwater was too conservative for my political tastes. Goldwater went back to the Senate, where he served with great distinction and high personal morality. President Johnson got us deeply into an unwinnable war in Vietnam that hurt our nation and claimed more than 58,000 American lives. The more than 1,100 psychiatrists, it turned out, were wrong in their diagnosis and predictions. The misdiagnosis of Goldwater should surprise no one, since none of the psychiatrists had ever examined, or even met, the Arizona senator. They just didnt like his politics. Indeed, some feared that he would destroy the world if he had access to the nuclear button. The most powerful TV ad against Goldwater showed an adorable young girl playing with a flower. Then the viewer hears an ominous voice counting down from 10, the camera zooms into a tight close-up of the little girls eye, and you see the horrific mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion, implying that electing Goldwater would bring about a nuclear holocaust. It was an effective ad. It influenced me far more than the psychobabble in the Fact article. Following the Goldwater-psychiatrist debacle, the American Psychiatric Association declared it to be unethical for a psychiatrist to offer any kind of a diagnosis on a public figure without having examined that person. Now, more than half a century later, numerous psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are violating that sound ethical principle by diagnosing President Trump, who they have never examined. They are offering diagnoses, ranging from Alzheimers, to narcissistic personality disorder, to paranoia and more. This is irresponsible, in my view. We should continue to debate the merits and demerits of President Trumps policies, effectiveness, personality and other factors that are relevant to his presidency. Those who oppose the president are of course free to criticize him, to work for the election of a Democratic Congress in 2018, and to support another candidate for president in 2020. Thats how democracy works. But lets leave diagnoses to doctors who have examined their patients and not remove a duly elected president of the United States from office on amateurish speculation that he is mentally incapable of functioning in office.

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2018   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."