Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

Alan Dershowitz Calls on Not Prosecuting Trump or Clinton …

On Monday night, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz attempted to address the toxic political climate that has consumed numerous investigations.

He agreed with Laura Ingraham that the DOJ inspector general should release the anti-Trump text messages of FBI investigatorPeter Strzok and that he should have recused himself from the very beginning.

What Im concerned about in your monologue, youre doing to Hillary Clinton exactly what the Democrats are trying to do to Donald Trump, Dershowitz told Ingraham. Youre trying to criminalize political differences.

Dershowitz insisted that the former Secretary of State didnt commit any crimes and that she was in fact extremely careless, which he noted was ultimately decided by then-FBI Director James Comey and not just Strzok.

But I think we have to stop criminalizing political differences on both sides, Dershowitz continued. Hillary Clinton shouldnt be locked up. Donald Trump shouldnt be prosecuted for any crimes. If you dont like what they did, dont vote for them. Thats the answer; democracy.

Ingraham pushed back, saying that people in the military are prosecuted for mishandling classified information on a regular basis and people at home ask why do the Clintons get special treatment. Dershowitz responded by saying that no one in American history in a position as high as Clinton was in had ever been prosecuted.

When youre in a position like Secretary of State and you have a lot of underlings working beneath you, Dershowitz elaborated, its very different than if you are your own officer in the army and you take things home in a clear violation of rules.

Dershowitz ended by calling for a cease-fire on both sides of the aisle.

Watch the clip above, via Fox News.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Read more:

Alan Dershowitz Calls on Not Prosecuting Trump or Clinton …

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz | HuffPost

ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ is a Brooklyn native who has been called the nations most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights, the best-known criminal lawyer in the world, the top lawyer of last resort, and Americas most public Jewish defender. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.While he is known for defending clients such as Anatoly Sharansky, Claus von Blow, O.J. Simpson, Michael Milken and Mike Tyson, he continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and takes half of his cases pro bono.

Dershowitz is the author of 20 works of fiction and non-fiction, including 6 bestsellers. His writing has been praised by Truman Capote, Saul Bellow, David Mamet, William Styron, Aharon Appelfeld, A.B. Yehoshua and Elie Wiesel. More than a million of his books have been sold worldwide, in numerous languages, and more than a million people have heard him lecture around the world.

His most recent nonfiction titles are Trials of Zion (October 2010, Grand Central Publishing), Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (November 2004, Basic Books), The Case for Israel (September 2003, Wiley), America Declares Independence, Why Terrorism Works, Shouting Fire, Letters to a Young Lawyer, Supreme Injustice, and The Genesis of Justice. His novels include The Advocates Devil and Just Revenge. Dershowitz is also the author of The Vanishing American Jew, The Abuse Excuse, Reasonable Doubts, Chutzpah (a #1 bestseller), Reversal of Fortune (which was made into an Academy Award-winning film), Sexual McCarthyism and The Best Defense.

More:

Alan Dershowitz | HuffPost

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing …

BY: Charles RussellDecember 5, 2017 10:02 am

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice for exercising his authority under the Constitution to pardon or fire someone.

Dershowitz joinedCNN’s “New Day” to discuss the issue of whether the president can obstruct justice after Trump s attorney John Dowd defended a tweet sent by the president’s account and said Trump could not obstruct justice. When Chris Cuomo asked if Dowd’s claim was accurate, Dershowitz said in response that the president could obstruct justice “if he engages in acts beyond what Article II of the constitution allows him to do.”

“Of course a president can be charged with obstruction to justice if he engages in acts beyond what Article II of the Constitution allows him to do,” Dershowitz said. “President Nixon and Clinton were both impeached for obstruction justice by telling witnesses to lie.”

The law professor explained why, however, he thinks we shouldn’t jump to obstruction of justice charges.

“My point is that the president cannot be charged for simply exercising his authority under the Constitution by pardoning people, by firing people he’s allowed to fire, without regard to what his subjective intent’ may be,” he said.

Dershowitz argued that if a president’s behavior is unlawful,it could likely fall under a different charge.

“You can convict the president of bribery; you can convict the president of telling witnesses to lie. What you cannot convict the president of is simply and merely exercising his Article II authority by pardoning somebody or by firing somebody,”Dershowitz said. “That’s my point. You cannot do that. You may be able to impeach him for misuse of his power, but you cannot prosecute him for exercising his constitutional authority.”

Dowd toldAxios Mike Allen on Monday that the president cannot obstruct justice because he has every right to express his views of any case under Article II of the Constitution.

The “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” hesaid.

Dowdwas responding to a tweet sent from the president’s account over the weekend, a tweet Dowd admits drafting.

“I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!” the tweet read.

The president’s advisorstands by the tweet, saying it “did not admit obstruction” but he is “out of the tweeting business” and “did not mean to break news.”

“The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion,” Dowd said.

Originally posted here:

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing …

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

‘Hope Over Reality’: Dershowitz Doesn’t See Obstruction of …

Tucker: Flynn’s Guilty Plea Doesn’t Prove Collusion

Judge Nap: How Flynn Plea Deal Could Lead to ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz disagreed with claims that there is an obstruction of justice case building against President Donald Trump, calling it “hope over reality” from some Democrats.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on “Meet the Press”that a Senate investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election has revealed possible obstruction.

“I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. Thats obstruction of justice, Feinstein said.

On “Fox & Friends,” Dershowitz countered that Trump had the constitutional power to fire FBI Director James Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.

“If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz said.

He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate “clearly illegal acts” on Trump’s part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying “hush money,” telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.

“There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States,” Dershowitz said, adding that he hopes Special Counsel Robert Mueller understands that before he considers bringing an indictment or recommending that the matter be referred to Congress.

“And Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about when she says it’s obstruction of justice to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.”

He added that if Trump truly wanted to impede Mueller’s investigation, he could have pardoned Gen. Michael Flynn to prevent him from cooperating.

“The president would have had the complete authority do so and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him,” said Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat.

On “America’s Newsroom,” Judge Andrew Napolitanocame down on the side of Feinstein.

He explained that if Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Flynn for a non-corrupt purpose – such as if he felt sympathy for his former national security adviser or he wanted the bureau to use its resources on more important matters – it’s not obstruction.

However, if Trump did it for a corrupt purpose – such as trying to protect himself or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from what Flynn might say – then it is obstruction and there is no presidential immunity, Napolitano said.

“Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who commits it, if done for a corrupt purpose. It’s also an impeachable offense,” he said, adding that the charge is “intentionally not easy to prove” for a prosecutor.

On “Outnumbered Overtime,” Dershowitz said Mueller charging Flynn with lying to the FBI is actually a show of weakness, not strength.

He explained that if Flynn had strong evidence against Trump, then Trump would have pardoned him, instead of allowing him to make a deal with Mueller.

“The deal is not a particularly good one for the special counsel, because he had him indicted for lying,” Dershowitz said. “That makes him a worthless witness.”

See more from Dershowitz on “The Ingraham Angle” tonight at 10:00pm ET on Fox News Channel.

Hurt: Mueller’s Attempts to Incriminate Trump ‘Like Lucy With the Football’

Sen. Cruz: Flynn Guilty Plea Is ‘Disappointing and Disturbing’

Judge Nap on Flynn Plea: ‘Monumental’ Reduction of Charges Doesn’t Come for Free

Read this article:

‘Hope Over Reality’: Dershowitz Doesn’t See Obstruction of …

Fair Usage Law

December 7, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge …

Editor’s note: this originally appeared in The Hill.

The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

Despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength.

Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.

Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn’t been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude – a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades – it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.

If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran’s ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton’s peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison.

So there was nothing criminal about Flynn’s request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials.

This is the way The New York Times has put it: “Mr. Flynn’s discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump’s aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn’s plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.”

If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime.

So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller’s criminal investigation if they were not about crimes?

The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying.

A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied – whether or not to cover up a crime – is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he’s made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only “singing for his supper” but that he may be “composing” as well – that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A “bought” witness knows that the “better” his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That’s why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can’t “buy” a witness; you can only “rent them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so.

I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president’s exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn.

The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers.

View original post here:

Alan Dershowitz: Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge …

Fair Usage Law

December 7, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Mike Flynn ‘will say anything’ to get a deal …

Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz speculated Tuesday that former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn will say anything to get a deal from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation.

Its not clear that Flynn has anything to offer, Dershowitz told Fox News Laura Ingraham. Hes trying to save his son. Hes trying to save himself. Hell say anything. Hell not only sing, hell compose and create evidence if he has to do that in order to get a deal.

Dershowitz called Flynns credibility worthless because hes been accused of perjury for denying to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Russias ambassador to the United States.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Flynns lawyers told Trumps lawyers they will no longer share information about the special counsels investigation, signaling that Flynn may be cooperating with Muellers investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trumps lawyers believe Flynn may try to negotiate a deal because Flynn has indicated hes worried charges might be brought against his son, Michael G. Flynn, who was chief of staff to his father.

More here:

Alan Dershowitz: Mike Flynn ‘will say anything’ to get a deal …

Fair Usage Law

December 1, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Mueller Is ‘Going Well Beyond His Authority …

Dana Loesch: Franken Deserves Chance to State His Case, But ‘I Would Love to See Him Go’

Country Singer Neal McCoy Talks About New Song ‘Take a Knee, My A**” About NFL Players

Alan Dershowitz warned that the special counsel appointed to investigate the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia is turning constitutional actions into crimes.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is “going well beyond his authority as a prosecutor,” the Harvard law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat told “Outnumbered Overtime” on Monday.

Mueller has requested documents from the Justice Department regarding the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia probe. He is scheduled to interview several White House officials.

“The president is entitled to fire the head of the FBI,” Dershowitz said. “The president is entitled to direct his attorney general who to investigate, who not to.”

“That’s what the law has been since Thomas Jefferson,” he added, saying that if we want to change it we must do so in the legislative arena, not through a prosecutor.

“I don’t see that the prosecutor should have a right to turn a constitutionally protected act of the president into a crime by speculating on what his motive might have been,” he stated.

“These are political sins if they are sins at all. They are not crimes.”

“He’s going to do the domino game,” Dershowitz predicted. He explained that Mueller will indict someone close to the president on an unrelated matter and then press them for more information about Trump and Russia.

This is dangerous because sometimes those targeted in such a way exaggerate, Dershowitz said, because they know that “the better the evidence, the sweeter the deal.”

The lawyer said he believes no investigation into either President Trump or Hillary Clinton is warranted, but a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian influence on elections is.

Roy Moore Accuser: ‘It Took Years to Regain Sense of Confidence in Myself’

Trump on Death of Border Patrol Officer: ‘We’re Going to Have the Wall’

Excerpt from:

Alan Dershowitz: Mueller Is ‘Going Well Beyond His Authority …

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient …

Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know the Israeli legal system treats children more leniently than adults. Now 10 Democrats belonging to the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to give terrorist leaders yet another reason for using young people to murder even more innocent civilians.

Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., introduced legislation Nov. 14 co-sponsored by nine other Democrats calling on the State Department to prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli militarys ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children.

In a news release about the proposed legislation, McCollum said: This legislation highlights Israels system of military detention of Palestinian children and ensures that no American assistance to Israel supports human rights violations . Peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. Congress must not turn a blind eye the unjust and ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation.

It is well established that recruiting and using young Palestinians to wage terror on Israeli civilians is part of the modus operandi of Palestinian terrorist leaders. For decades, members of the radical Palestinian political and religious leadership have been stirring up young people to wage war against the Jews and the Jewish State.

This was seen in the gruesome intifada that began in 2000, in which Palestinian teenagers committed dozens of attacks against Jewish Israelis on buses, in cafes and at nightclubs.

The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minors transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.

More recently in what has become known as the lone-wolf intifada children as young as 13 have stabbed Israelis with scissors, screwdrivers and knives.

Legislation proposed by the 10 Democrats is titled the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. The bill does not explicitly define at what age a person moves from childhood to adulthood.

While noting that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are held and prosecuted by Israeli military courts, the bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens.

Consider the terrorist attack that took place over this past summer in Halamish, about an hour outside Jerusalem. A Palestinian in his late teens from a nearby village controlled by the Palestinian Authority chose a Jewish house at random and fatally stabbed three members of a family as they ate their Sabbath dinner.

The Palestinian child murderer also wounded several other family members, while one mother hid her young children in an upstairs room until the terrorist left.

The triple-murder is reminiscent of a similar attack that occurred only six years earlier when two Palestinian teens armed with knives broke into the Fogel family home in Itamar as they slept on Friday night. The children butchered the mother, father and three of their children including a 3-month-old baby as she slept in her crib.

As a result of such deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinian teenagers, Israel has had to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In August 2016, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a bill allowing imprisonment of terrorists as young as 12.

The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minors transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances.

In introducing the bill, Knesset Member Anat Berko said: This law was born of necessity. We have been experiencing a wave of terror for quite some time. A society is allowed to protect itself. To those who are murdered with a knife in the heart it does not matter if the child is 12 or 15. Weve witnessed numerous cases where 11-year-old children were suicide bombers. Perhaps this law will also do something to protect these children from being used to slaughter people.

In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation, Rep. McCollum argued that peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children.

McCollums hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for the rights of children. Yet she refuses to acknowledge or condemn Palestinians who perpetrate acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks on Jews.

McCollum expressed no outrage when Palestinian leaders were caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to stab Israelis.

And the Minnesota member of Congress failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps under the mantra Vanguards of Liberation aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel. Nor did she speak up when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited by the Hamas leadership to build collapsed on their bodies.

So I ask: What do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would the Democrats protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not.

No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists.

Israel has a right according to international law to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, including those committed by young Palestinians. It actually has an obligation to do so.

If Israel is punished for trying to protect its citizens from teen terrorists, this would incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their goal of wiping the Israel off the map.

But rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as terrorist pawns, the 10 congressional Democrats chose to single out Israel for punishment.

People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and the Jewish State.

For Shame on this group of biased anti-Israel Democrats, which includes the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: Andr Carson of Indiana: John Conyers of Michigan; Danny K. Davis of Illinois; Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon; Raul Grijalva and Luis V. Gutirrez of Arizona; and Chellie Pingree of Maine. They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.

See the article here:

Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient …

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: ‘Mueller Is Going Well Beyond His Authority as a …

by Ian Hanchett23 Nov 20170

On Mondays edition of the Fox News Channels Outnumbered Overtime, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz reacted to Special Counsel Robert Mueller ordering the Department of Justice to turn over emails regarding Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and FBI Director James Comeys firing by stating Mueller is going well beyond his prosecutorial authority.

Dershowitz said, Mueller is going well beyond his authority as a prosecutor, and is trying to make a case that the president might have engaged in obstruction of justice by engaging in constitutionally protected acts. The president is entitled to fire the head of the FBI. The presidents entitled to direct his attorney general who to investigate and who not to. Thats what the law has been since Thomas Jefferson directed his attorney general to go after Aaron Burr.

Dershowitz also argued there shouldnt be any legal investigations into Hillary Clinton.

Follow IanHanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett

2016 Presidential Race, Breitbart TV, Alan Dershowitz, Bob Mueller, Robert Mueller

Continue reading here:

Dershowitz: ‘Mueller Is Going Well Beyond His Authority as a …

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz Calls on Not Prosecuting Trump or Clinton …

On Monday night, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz attempted to address the toxic political climate that has consumed numerous investigations. He agreed with Laura Ingraham that the DOJ inspector general should release the anti-Trump text messages of FBI investigatorPeter Strzok and that he should have recused himself from the very beginning. What Im concerned about in your monologue, youre doing to Hillary Clinton exactly what the Democrats are trying to do to Donald Trump, Dershowitz told Ingraham. Youre trying to criminalize political differences. Dershowitz insisted that the former Secretary of State didnt commit any crimes and that she was in fact extremely careless, which he noted was ultimately decided by then-FBI Director James Comey and not just Strzok. But I think we have to stop criminalizing political differences on both sides, Dershowitz continued. Hillary Clinton shouldnt be locked up. Donald Trump shouldnt be prosecuted for any crimes. If you dont like what they did, dont vote for them. Thats the answer; democracy. Ingraham pushed back, saying that people in the military are prosecuted for mishandling classified information on a regular basis and people at home ask why do the Clintons get special treatment. Dershowitz responded by saying that no one in American history in a position as high as Clinton was in had ever been prosecuted. When youre in a position like Secretary of State and you have a lot of underlings working beneath you, Dershowitz elaborated, its very different than if you are your own officer in the army and you take things home in a clear violation of rules. Dershowitz ended by calling for a cease-fire on both sides of the aisle. Watch the clip above, via Fox News. Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz | HuffPost

ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ is a Brooklyn native who has been called the nations most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights, the best-known criminal lawyer in the world, the top lawyer of last resort, and Americas most public Jewish defender. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.While he is known for defending clients such as Anatoly Sharansky, Claus von Blow, O.J. Simpson, Michael Milken and Mike Tyson, he continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and takes half of his cases pro bono. Dershowitz is the author of 20 works of fiction and non-fiction, including 6 bestsellers. His writing has been praised by Truman Capote, Saul Bellow, David Mamet, William Styron, Aharon Appelfeld, A.B. Yehoshua and Elie Wiesel. More than a million of his books have been sold worldwide, in numerous languages, and more than a million people have heard him lecture around the world. His most recent nonfiction titles are Trials of Zion (October 2010, Grand Central Publishing), Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (November 2004, Basic Books), The Case for Israel (September 2003, Wiley), America Declares Independence, Why Terrorism Works, Shouting Fire, Letters to a Young Lawyer, Supreme Injustice, and The Genesis of Justice. His novels include The Advocates Devil and Just Revenge. Dershowitz is also the author of The Vanishing American Jew, The Abuse Excuse, Reasonable Doubts, Chutzpah (a #1 bestseller), Reversal of Fortune (which was made into an Academy Award-winning film), Sexual McCarthyism and The Best Defense.

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing …

BY: Charles RussellDecember 5, 2017 10:02 am Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice for exercising his authority under the Constitution to pardon or fire someone. Dershowitz joinedCNN’s “New Day” to discuss the issue of whether the president can obstruct justice after Trump s attorney John Dowd defended a tweet sent by the president’s account and said Trump could not obstruct justice. When Chris Cuomo asked if Dowd’s claim was accurate, Dershowitz said in response that the president could obstruct justice “if he engages in acts beyond what Article II of the constitution allows him to do.” “Of course a president can be charged with obstruction to justice if he engages in acts beyond what Article II of the Constitution allows him to do,” Dershowitz said. “President Nixon and Clinton were both impeached for obstruction justice by telling witnesses to lie.” The law professor explained why, however, he thinks we shouldn’t jump to obstruction of justice charges. “My point is that the president cannot be charged for simply exercising his authority under the Constitution by pardoning people, by firing people he’s allowed to fire, without regard to what his subjective intent’ may be,” he said. Dershowitz argued that if a president’s behavior is unlawful,it could likely fall under a different charge. “You can convict the president of bribery; you can convict the president of telling witnesses to lie. What you cannot convict the president of is simply and merely exercising his Article II authority by pardoning somebody or by firing somebody,”Dershowitz said. “That’s my point. You cannot do that. You may be able to impeach him for misuse of his power, but you cannot prosecute him for exercising his constitutional authority.” Dowd toldAxios Mike Allen on Monday that the president cannot obstruct justice because he has every right to express his views of any case under Article II of the Constitution. The “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” hesaid. Dowdwas responding to a tweet sent from the president’s account over the weekend, a tweet Dowd admits drafting. “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!” the tweet read. The president’s advisorstands by the tweet, saying it “did not admit obstruction” but he is “out of the tweeting business” and “did not mean to break news.” “The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion,” Dowd said.

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

‘Hope Over Reality’: Dershowitz Doesn’t See Obstruction of …

Tucker: Flynn’s Guilty Plea Doesn’t Prove Collusion Judge Nap: How Flynn Plea Deal Could Lead to ‘Constitutional Crisis’ Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz disagreed with claims that there is an obstruction of justice case building against President Donald Trump, calling it “hope over reality” from some Democrats. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on “Meet the Press”that a Senate investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election has revealed possible obstruction. “I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. Thats obstruction of justice, Feinstein said. On “Fox & Friends,” Dershowitz countered that Trump had the constitutional power to fire FBI Director James Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate. “If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz said. He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate “clearly illegal acts” on Trump’s part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying “hush money,” telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal. “There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority. That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States,” Dershowitz said, adding that he hopes Special Counsel Robert Mueller understands that before he considers bringing an indictment or recommending that the matter be referred to Congress. “And Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about when she says it’s obstruction of justice to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution.” He added that if Trump truly wanted to impede Mueller’s investigation, he could have pardoned Gen. Michael Flynn to prevent him from cooperating. “The president would have had the complete authority do so and Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him,” said Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat. On “America’s Newsroom,” Judge Andrew Napolitanocame down on the side of Feinstein. He explained that if Trump asked Comey to end the investigation into Flynn for a non-corrupt purpose – such as if he felt sympathy for his former national security adviser or he wanted the bureau to use its resources on more important matters – it’s not obstruction. However, if Trump did it for a corrupt purpose – such as trying to protect himself or his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, from what Flynn might say – then it is obstruction and there is no presidential immunity, Napolitano said. “Obstruction of justice is a crime no matter who commits it, if done for a corrupt purpose. It’s also an impeachable offense,” he said, adding that the charge is “intentionally not easy to prove” for a prosecutor. On “Outnumbered Overtime,” Dershowitz said Mueller charging Flynn with lying to the FBI is actually a show of weakness, not strength. He explained that if Flynn had strong evidence against Trump, then Trump would have pardoned him, instead of allowing him to make a deal with Mueller. “The deal is not a particularly good one for the special counsel, because he had him indicted for lying,” Dershowitz said. “That makes him a worthless witness.” See more from Dershowitz on “The Ingraham Angle” tonight at 10:00pm ET on Fox News Channel. Hurt: Mueller’s Attempts to Incriminate Trump ‘Like Lucy With the Football’ Sen. Cruz: Flynn Guilty Plea Is ‘Disappointing and Disturbing’ Judge Nap on Flynn Plea: ‘Monumental’ Reduction of Charges Doesn’t Come for Free

Fair Usage Law

December 7, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge …

Editor’s note: this originally appeared in The Hill. The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation. The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong. Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle. Despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East. As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today. Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn’t been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude – a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades – it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech. If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran’s ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton’s peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison. So there was nothing criminal about Flynn’s request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials. This is the way The New York Times has put it: “Mr. Flynn’s discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump’s aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn’s plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.” If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime. So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller’s criminal investigation if they were not about crimes? The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying. A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied – whether or not to cover up a crime – is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he’s made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only “singing for his supper” but that he may be “composing” as well – that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A “bought” witness knows that the “better” his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That’s why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can’t “buy” a witness; you can only “rent them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them. So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so. I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president’s exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn. The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers.

Fair Usage Law

December 7, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Mike Flynn ‘will say anything’ to get a deal …

Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz speculated Tuesday that former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn will say anything to get a deal from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation. Its not clear that Flynn has anything to offer, Dershowitz told Fox News Laura Ingraham. Hes trying to save his son. Hes trying to save himself. Hell say anything. Hell not only sing, hell compose and create evidence if he has to do that in order to get a deal. Dershowitz called Flynns credibility worthless because hes been accused of perjury for denying to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Russias ambassador to the United States. The New York Times reported Thursday that Flynns lawyers told Trumps lawyers they will no longer share information about the special counsels investigation, signaling that Flynn may be cooperating with Muellers investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trumps lawyers believe Flynn may try to negotiate a deal because Flynn has indicated hes worried charges might be brought against his son, Michael G. Flynn, who was chief of staff to his father.

Fair Usage Law

December 1, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Mueller Is ‘Going Well Beyond His Authority …

Dana Loesch: Franken Deserves Chance to State His Case, But ‘I Would Love to See Him Go’ Country Singer Neal McCoy Talks About New Song ‘Take a Knee, My A**” About NFL Players Alan Dershowitz warned that the special counsel appointed to investigate the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia is turning constitutional actions into crimes. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is “going well beyond his authority as a prosecutor,” the Harvard law professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat told “Outnumbered Overtime” on Monday. Mueller has requested documents from the Justice Department regarding the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia probe. He is scheduled to interview several White House officials. “The president is entitled to fire the head of the FBI,” Dershowitz said. “The president is entitled to direct his attorney general who to investigate, who not to.” “That’s what the law has been since Thomas Jefferson,” he added, saying that if we want to change it we must do so in the legislative arena, not through a prosecutor. “I don’t see that the prosecutor should have a right to turn a constitutionally protected act of the president into a crime by speculating on what his motive might have been,” he stated. “These are political sins if they are sins at all. They are not crimes.” “He’s going to do the domino game,” Dershowitz predicted. He explained that Mueller will indict someone close to the president on an unrelated matter and then press them for more information about Trump and Russia. This is dangerous because sometimes those targeted in such a way exaggerate, Dershowitz said, because they know that “the better the evidence, the sweeter the deal.” The lawyer said he believes no investigation into either President Trump or Hillary Clinton is warranted, but a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian influence on elections is. Roy Moore Accuser: ‘It Took Years to Regain Sense of Confidence in Myself’ Trump on Death of Border Patrol Officer: ‘We’re Going to Have the Wall’

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Ten congressional Democrats want lenient …

Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know the Israeli legal system treats children more leniently than adults. Now 10 Democrats belonging to the Congressional Progressive Caucus are trying to give terrorist leaders yet another reason for using young people to murder even more innocent civilians. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., introduced legislation Nov. 14 co-sponsored by nine other Democrats calling on the State Department to prevent United States tax dollars from supporting the Israeli militarys ongoing detention and mistreatment of Palestinian children. In a news release about the proposed legislation, McCollum said: This legislation highlights Israels system of military detention of Palestinian children and ensures that no American assistance to Israel supports human rights violations . Peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. Congress must not turn a blind eye the unjust and ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation. It is well established that recruiting and using young Palestinians to wage terror on Israeli civilians is part of the modus operandi of Palestinian terrorist leaders. For decades, members of the radical Palestinian political and religious leadership have been stirring up young people to wage war against the Jews and the Jewish State. This was seen in the gruesome intifada that began in 2000, in which Palestinian teenagers committed dozens of attacks against Jewish Israelis on buses, in cafes and at nightclubs. The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minors transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances. More recently in what has become known as the lone-wolf intifada children as young as 13 have stabbed Israelis with scissors, screwdrivers and knives. Legislation proposed by the 10 Democrats is titled the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act. The bill does not explicitly define at what age a person moves from childhood to adulthood. While noting that children between the ages of 12 and 17 are held and prosecuted by Israeli military courts, the bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens. Consider the terrorist attack that took place over this past summer in Halamish, about an hour outside Jerusalem. A Palestinian in his late teens from a nearby village controlled by the Palestinian Authority chose a Jewish house at random and fatally stabbed three members of a family as they ate their Sabbath dinner. The Palestinian child murderer also wounded several other family members, while one mother hid her young children in an upstairs room until the terrorist left. The triple-murder is reminiscent of a similar attack that occurred only six years earlier when two Palestinian teens armed with knives broke into the Fogel family home in Itamar as they slept on Friday night. The children butchered the mother, father and three of their children including a 3-month-old baby as she slept in her crib. As a result of such deadly terrorist attacks by Palestinian teenagers, Israel has had to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. In August 2016, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a bill allowing imprisonment of terrorists as young as 12. The new law allows for leniency. The courts can not only postpone the convicted minors transfer date from a closed holding facility to prison, but can also shorten or cancel the prison sentence altogether, if warranted by the circumstances. In introducing the bill, Knesset Member Anat Berko said: This law was born of necessity. We have been experiencing a wave of terror for quite some time. A society is allowed to protect itself. To those who are murdered with a knife in the heart it does not matter if the child is 12 or 15. Weve witnessed numerous cases where 11-year-old children were suicide bombers. Perhaps this law will also do something to protect these children from being used to slaughter people. In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation, Rep. McCollum argued that peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children. McCollums hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for the rights of children. Yet she refuses to acknowledge or condemn Palestinians who perpetrate acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks on Jews. McCollum expressed no outrage when Palestinian leaders were caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to stab Israelis. And the Minnesota member of Congress failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps under the mantra Vanguards of Liberation aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel. Nor did she speak up when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited by the Hamas leadership to build collapsed on their bodies. So I ask: What do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would the Democrats protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not. No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists. Israel has a right according to international law to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, including those committed by young Palestinians. It actually has an obligation to do so. If Israel is punished for trying to protect its citizens from teen terrorists, this would incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their goal of wiping the Israel off the map. But rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as terrorist pawns, the 10 congressional Democrats chose to single out Israel for punishment. People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and the Jewish State. For Shame on this group of biased anti-Israel Democrats, which includes the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan of Wisconsin; Earl Blumenauer of Oregon: Andr Carson of Indiana: John Conyers of Michigan; Danny K. Davis of Illinois; Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon; Raul Grijalva and Luis V. Gutirrez of Arizona; and Chellie Pingree of Maine. They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: ‘Mueller Is Going Well Beyond His Authority as a …

by Ian Hanchett23 Nov 20170 On Mondays edition of the Fox News Channels Outnumbered Overtime, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz reacted to Special Counsel Robert Mueller ordering the Department of Justice to turn over emails regarding Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and FBI Director James Comeys firing by stating Mueller is going well beyond his prosecutorial authority. Dershowitz said, Mueller is going well beyond his authority as a prosecutor, and is trying to make a case that the president might have engaged in obstruction of justice by engaging in constitutionally protected acts. The president is entitled to fire the head of the FBI. The presidents entitled to direct his attorney general who to investigate and who not to. Thats what the law has been since Thomas Jefferson directed his attorney general to go after Aaron Burr. Dershowitz also argued there shouldnt be any legal investigations into Hillary Clinton. Follow IanHanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett 2016 Presidential Race, Breitbart TV, Alan Dershowitz, Bob Mueller, Robert Mueller

Fair Usage Law

November 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."