Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

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: The case for a Kurdish state (and the …

Over 90 percent of Iraqs Kurdish population have now voted for independence from Iraq. While the referendum is not binding, it reflects the will of a minority group that has a long history of persecution and statelessness.

The independence referendum is an important step toward remedying a historic injustice inflicted on the Kurdish population in the aftermath of World War I. Yet while millions took to the streets to celebrate, it is clear that the challenges of moving forward toward establishing an independent Kurdistan are only just beginning. Already, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has said: we will impose the rule of Iraq in all of the areas of the KRG (Kurdish Regional Government), with the strength of the constitution. Meanwhile, other Iraqi lawmakers have called for the prosecution of Kurdish representatives who organized the referendum singling out Kurdish Regional Government President Marsouni Barzani, specifically.

It is worth noting that Turkey strongly supports statehood for the Palestinians but not for their own Kurdish population. The Palestinian leadership, which is seeking statehood for its people, also opposes statehood for the Kurds. Hypocrisy abounds in the international community.

While Israel immediately supported the Kurdish bid for independence, Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to extort Israel to withdraw its support, threatening to end the process of normalization unless it does so. It is worth noting that Turkey strongly supports statehood for the Palestinians but not for their own Kurdish population. The Palestinian leadership, which is seeking statehood for its people, also opposes statehood for the Kurds. Hypocrisy abounds in the international community, but that should surprise no one.

The case for Kurdish statehood is at least as compelling as the case for Palestinian statehood, but you wouldn’t know that by the way so many countries support the former but not the latter. The reason for this disparity has little to do with the merits of their respective cases and much to do with the countries from which they seek independence. The reason then for this double standard is that few countries want to oppose Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria; many of these same countries are perfectly willing to demonize the nation state of the Jewish people. Here is the comparative case for the Kurds and the Palestinians.

First, some historical context. In the aftermath of WWI the allied forces signed a treaty to reshape the Middle East from the remnants of the fallen Ottoman Empire. The 1920 Treaty of Sevres set out parameters for a unified Kurdish state, albeit under British control. However, the Kurdish state was never implemented owing to Turkish opposition and its victory in the Turkish War of Independence, whereby swaths of land intended for the Kurds became part of the modern Turkish state. As a result, the Kurdish region was split between Turkey, Syria and Iran and the Kurds became dispersed around northern Iraq, southeast Turkey and parts of Iran and Syria. Though today no one knows its exact population size, it is estimated that there are around 30 million Kurds living in these areas.

In contrast to the Palestinian people who adhere to the same traditions and practices as their Arab neighbours, and speak the same language, Kurds have their own language (although different groups speak different dialects) and subscribe to their own culture, dress code and holidays. While the history and genealogy of Palestinians is intertwined with that of their Arab neighbors (Jordans population is approximately 50 percent Palestinian), the Kurds have largely kept separate from their host-states, constantly aspiring for political and national autonomy.

Over the years there have been countless protests and uprisings by Kurdish populations against their host-states. Some Arab rulers have used brutal force to crack down on dissent. Consider Turkey, for example, where the Kurdish issue influences domestic and foreign policy more than any other matter. Suffering from what some historians refer to as the Sevres Syndrome paranoia stemming from the allies attempt to carve up parts of the former Ottoman Empire for a Kurdish state President Erdogan has subjected the countrys Kurdish population to terror and tyranny, and arrested Kurds who are caught speaking their native language.

But perhaps no group has had it worse than the Kurds of Iraq, who now total 5 million approximately 10-15 percent of Iraqs total population. Under the Baathist regime in the 1970s, the Kurds were subject to ethnic cleansing. Under the rule of Saddam Hussein they were sent to concentration camps, exposed to chemical weapons and many were summarily executed. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 Kurds were killed at the hands of the Baath regime. So restitution is an entirely appropriate factor to consider though certainly not the only one in supporting the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq.

In contrast, the Palestinians have suffered far fewer deaths at the hands of Israel (and Jordan) yet many within the international community cite Palestinian deaths as a justification for Palestinian statehood. Why the double standard?

There are many other compelling reasons for why the Kurds should have their own state. Firstly, the Iraqi Kurds have their own identity, practices, language and culture. They are a coherent nation with profound historical ties to their territory. They have their own national institutions that separate them from their neighbors, their own army (the Pashmerga) and their own oil and energy strategy. Moreover, international law stipulated in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, lays the foundation for the recognition of state sovereignty. The edict states: the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The KRG meets these criteria, as least as well as do the Palestinians.

Moreover, the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq the closest it has come to having its own state has thrived and maintained relative peace and order against the backdrop of a weak, ineffectual Iraqi government and a brutal civil war. As such, it represents a semblance of stability in a region comprised of bloody violence, destruction and failed states. The Kurds have not repeatedly rejected offers of statehood as the Palestinians did in 1938, 1948, 2001 and 2008.

Why then did the United States along with Russia, the EU, China and the UNcome out against independence for one of the largest ethnic groups without a state, when they push so hard for Palestinian statehood? The U.S. State Department said it was deeply disappointed with the action taken, while the White House issued a statement calling it provocative and destabilizing.

Essentially, the international community cites the following two factors for its broad rejectionism: 1. That it will cause a destabilizing effect in an already fragile Iraq that may reverberate in neighboring states with Kurdish populations; 2. That the bid for independence will distract from the broader effort to defeat ISIS which is being fought largely by Kurdish Pashmerga forces.

These arguments are not compelling. Iraq is a failed state that has been plagued by civil war for the last 14 years, and the Kurdish population in its north represent the only real stability in that country, while also assuming the largest military role in combatting ISIS occupation of Iraqi territory. There is also nothing to suggest that an independent Kurdistan would cease its cooperation with the anti-ISIS coalition. If anything, the stakes in maintaining its newfound sovereignty would be higher. Additionally, Iraqi Kurds were a key partner for the U.S. coalition that toppled Saddam Husseins regime and has staved off further sectarian tensions in that country.

One thing is clear: if the United States continues to neglect its friends and allies in the region those on the front line in the fight against ISIS the damage to its credibility will only increase.

Israel is the only Western democracy to come out in support of Kurdish independence in northern Iraq. One would expect that the state-seeking Palestinian Authority which has cynically used international forums to push for Palestinian self-determination would back Kurdish efforts for independence. However, while seeking recognition for its own right to nationhood, the PA instead subscribed to the Arab Leagues opposing position. This is what Hasan Khreisheh of the Palestinian Legislative Council said about the referendum: The Kurds are a nation, same as Arabs, French and English. But this referendum is not an innocent step. The only country behind them is Israel. Once Israel is behind them, then from my point of view, we have to be careful. Clearly, there are no limits to the Palestinian Authoritys hypocrisy.

Nor are there any limits to the hypocrisy of those university students and faculty who demonstrate so loudly for Palestinian statehood, but ignore or oppose the Kurds. When is the last time you read about a demonstration in favor of the Kurds on a university campus? The answer is never. No one who supports statehood for the Palestinians can morally oppose Kurdish independence. But they do, because double-standard hypocrisy, and not morality, frames the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Here is the original post:

Alan Dershowitz: The case for a Kurdish state (and the …

Fair Usage Law

November 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: SCOTUS Will Uphold Trump’s Latest Travel Ban

The Supreme Court will likely uphold the Trump administration’s travel ban because it is aimed not at Muslims, but countries that do not have “adequate vetting processes,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.

In an interview with “Newsmax Now” host Bill Tucker, the Newsmax contributor and author of “Trumped Up” conceded the ban is not “the most perfect and artfully drawn ban,” but noted “that’s not the criteria’s constitutionality.”

“It is not a Muslim ban,”he declared. “It is a ban on people coming from countries that don’t have adequate vetting processes for assuring that terrorists don’t come into the country.”

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

For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now

He said the lower court decisions to block the travel ban suggest “politicization rather than [judicial] activism.”

“I think we’re seeing judges impose their own personal views,” he said. “I think they’re honorable people, they’re honest judges. That’s the way they view the Constitution. . . . And they honestly, but in my view, mistakenlycome to the conclusion that this discriminates against Muslims.”

Weighing in on the NFL controversy over players who refuse to stand during the national anthem, Dershowitz said you cannot make the protest a crime.

“But if the employer on his own, without any threat from the government of tax consequences, were to say that every player must stand, that would be perfectly OK and the players couldn’t sue,” he said.

“I always put out the shoe on the other foot test and under our Constitution what’s good for the kneeling players is good for the Klan,”he said. “There’s no constitutional difference between a Klansman and a football player kneeling. So be careful what you wish for because what you wish for for the football players will also be applicable to the Ku Klux Klan, and the neo-Nazis, Antifa, and every other terrible group.”

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Here is the original post:

Dershowitz: SCOTUS Will Uphold Trump’s Latest Travel Ban

Fair Usage Law

October 19, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Liberals in Statue Debate Doing What Stalin …

During an interview with Fox & Friends, Alan Dershowitz slammed the hard left by describing their efforts to tear down Confederate monuments as Stalinist.

Brian Kilmeade began by asking Dershowitz for his thoughts about the news that the countrys oldest monument to Christopher Columbus was recently defaced amidst the pushback against statues. Dershowitz was concerned people might try to tear down statues of Americas slave-owning founding fathers, and he said that erasing national history is not the right way to inform the public about the countrys evolution.

We have to take some of the statues that were put up more recently, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement and perhaps move them to museums where they can be used to teach young students about how statues are intended sometimes for bad purposes, to glorify negatives and to hold back positive developments. But the idea of willy-nilly going through and doing what Stalin did erasing history and re-writing it to serve current purposes does pose a danger, and it poses a danger of educational malpractice, of missing opportunities to educate people, and of going too far.

Dershowitz also went after Antifa for using their opposition to fascism to justify violence and the stifling of free speech. He went on to say that moderate liberals have a responsibility to hold left-wing radicals accountable, but President Trump and centrist conservatives are obligated to condemn hard-right extremism too.

Watch above, via Fox.

[Image via screengrab]

>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter

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

See the original post here:

Alan Dershowitz: Liberals in Statue Debate Doing What Stalin …

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Poster with my face on it was defaced …

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz said Thursday a poster promoting an event of his at the University of California, Berkeley was defaced with a swastika.

“This was posted at the Law School at @UCBerkeley where I spoke yesterday. A swastika is drawn over my face,” Dershowitz, who is Jewish, tweeted. “The poster itself is filled with out of context misquotes. I oppose torture in all forms.”

The lead-up to Dershowitz’s Oct. 11 appearance at UC Berkeley on the topic of “The Liberal Case for Israel” was marred with controversy.

Earlier in October, Dershowitz threatened legal action against the school’s provost after the institution prevented him from speaking about Israel at the request of a student organization because, as a “high-profile” speaker, they didn’t give the administration eight weeks notice.

That requirement is usually waived for guests invited by the school’s departments, Dershowitz told LawNewz.com last month.

“All the departments are all hard left departments,” Dershowitz said. “They are much more likely to invite hard left speakers. That results in content-based discrimination.”

Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor, told the Washington Examiner the school’s policy is “content and perspective neutral, with the criteria that trigger the eight-week advance notice requirement based solely on objective measures, such as audience size.”

The disagreement was eventually settled when the dean of UC Berkeley’s Law School extended Dershowitz an invitation.

See the rest here:

Alan Dershowitz: Poster with my face on it was defaced …

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Antifa is "trying to tear down America …

I dont know how, I dont know when, but Dershowitz is going to end up on Trumps staff eventually, probably in the stable of lawyers doing Russiagate defense work. Trump cant have failed to notice that hes on Fox and CNN regularly defending the president (however well-caveated) and criticizing his enemies. His broadside at Antifa near the end here is both righteous and true, although he cleverly folds it into a sharp critique of Trump himself. I feel obliged to speak out against Antifa, says Dershowitz, because Im a man of the left and they claim falsely to speak in my name. The president had the same obligation with respect to the alt-right after Charlottesville (a point Ive made myself) and he whiffed.

Come to think of it, maybe Dersh wont be working for Trump after all.

His analogy between tearing down Confederate statues and Stalins habit of expunging disfavored politicos from Soviet history sits uneasily with me, although I think hes referring to extreme tactics like rampaging mobs tearing down monuments physically and breaking them up. Stalin wanted to whitewash the collective memory of Russians by excising his political enemies from it. Most critics of Confederate statuary have the opposite impulse they see the monuments themselves as a whitewash of history. Uprooting public testaments to the slave regimes gallantry is a step towards a crisper understanding of the past. But the line is tricky: One could (and some do) make the same argument about statues of Washington and Jefferson, that a reckoning with their slaveholding cant begin until history is cleansed of idolatry towards the Founders. I think the fear of SJWs running roughshod over Lee and stampeding towards Mount Vernon and Monticello is overstated, but American higher education being what it is, its not groundless. The left tends not to worry overly much about discernment when its in idol-smashing mode.

Mike Pence had an interesting suggestion for monument mania:

EARHARDT: Youre in favor of keeping those monuments?

PENCE: I think that obviously, I think that should always be a local decision and, with regard to the U.S. Capitol, should be state decisions. But Im someone who believes in more monuments, not less monuments. What we ought to do is we ought to remember our history. But we also ought to celebrate the progress that weve made since that history.

You know, when I walked back in 2010 across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis, arm and arm, and we remembered Bloody Sunday and the extraordinary progress of the civil rights movement, I cant help but think that, rather than pulling down monuments, as some are wont to do, rather than tearing down monuments that have graced our cities all across this country for years, we ought to have been building more monuments. We ought to be celebrating the men and women whove helped our nation move toward a more perfect union and tell the whole story of America.

Not every monument to Washington or Jefferson requires a prominent reminder that they held slaves, but ones that purport to recount their entire life story like Mount Vernon and Monticello obviously do. I dont think that same principle works with CSA statuary since slavery isnt just part of the story; its the casus belli in a war the Confederacy was created to wage. Its like trying to solve the problem with a statue to U.S. General Benedict Arnold by adding a plaque that begins, Oh, by the way Arnolds treason isnt part of the story, its the main detail in the story. Whether the similar problem with Confederate monuments could be solved by erecting statues to Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, or to American slaves generally nearby, I dont know. Something for the local community to ruminate on.

Read more:

Alan Dershowitz: Antifa is "trying to tear down America …

Fair Usage Law

August 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

How Alan Dershowitz Went From Hillary Donor to Trump’s Attack Dog on Russia – Daily Beast

Alan Dershowitza liberal Harvard law professor and ardent backer of Hillary Clintonhas emerged as one of the Russia probes most vocal critics.

Hes likened the investigation to a KGB hunt, and special counsel Bob Mueller to a notoriously obsessed sailor. Its made him a Fox News fixture, and that has left some of his counterparts in the legal world baffled and skeptical. But those close to Dershowitz say his vociferous criticism of Muellers investigation is the opposite of surprisingand that Mueller and Dershowitz have a history.

Thats according to Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense attorney who has worked with Dershowitz over the years. The two men once represented Jeffrey MacDonald, who was convicted decades ago of murdering his wife and two daughters and who still maintains his innocence. Silverglate and Dershowitz tried to get MacDonald a new trial. As part of that effort, said Silverglate, they met with Mueller at the Justice Department headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C.

This meeting came in the early 90sSilverglate didnt recall the exact yearwhen Mueller headed the Justice Departments Criminal Division. They wanted him to ask the judge who convicted MacDonald to vacate that conviction because of problems with evidence. A report from the time said Dershowitz argued government agents had conspired to frame MacDonald.

Mueller opens up the meeting with the following line, which was so seared into my memory that I will never forget it, Silverglate told The Daily Beast. He looks at usAlan Dershowitz and meand says, OK, gentlemen, I just want to say: Criticism of the bureau is a non-starter.

But criticizing the FBI was exactly what Dershowitz and Silverglate had come to do.

Alan and I both walked away in a little bit of shellshock, Silverglate continued, understanding that there were things to Mueller that were more important than facts, more important than truth, more important than the erroneous conviction of an innocent American, and that is, the reputation of the FBI and his relationship with the FBI.

Dershowitz told The Daily Beast he recalls working on the MacDonald case with Silverglate but doesnt specifically recall that conversation. He didnt question Silverglates account.

As Muellers probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election has gained momentum, Dershowitz has become a staple of conservative media. On Aug. 20, he told New York Republican billionaire radio host John Catsimatidis that Muellers probe threatens American democracy.

The idea of trying to create crimes just because we disagree with [Trump] politically, and target him, really endangers democracy, he said, according to The Hill. [It] reminds me of what the head of the KGB said to Stalin: Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.

And last month on Fox & Friends, Dershowitz compared Mueller and his team to Captain Ahab from Moby Dick.

Theyre determined to get that white whale, he said.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Dershowitz has also criticized Mueller for hiring lawyers who have contributed to Democratic politicians. And he recently released a new book, Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy. Critics say hes a Trump shill. He says thats laughable.

Please put on the record that I am not defending him, that I am only focusing on the issues, he said. And the issues this time happen to come out largely on his sidebut, by the way, not always.

Some suspect Dershowitzs advocacy goes beyond his television appearances. A person familiar with the presidents legal affairs said there are concerns Dershowitz has talked about legal affairs with Trump.

Dershowitz told The Daily Beast this isnt true. He said he and the president have spoken, but never privately. He said the two men spoke at Mar-a-Lago once when Dershowitz dined there with Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, a mutual friend of the two. Trump came over to their table and chatted with them about the travel ban, according to Dershowitz. Trump said he wanted to try to enforce the first version of the travel ban, which federal courts had struck down. Dershowitz said he told the president that would be a bad idea.

Then he took me aside and said, I want to talk to you about the peace prospects in the Middle East because you know Netanyahu, Dershowitz said. I said, Look, Mr. President, I didnt vote for you, but on Israel and the Middle East, I am passionately concerned with that and Im happy to help, 24/7.

Dershowitz said he later met with Jason Greenblatt, Trumps envoy for Israel-Palestinian negotiations, and that he also met with Mahmoud Abbas shortly before the Palestinian Authority president met with Trump at the White House. And he said he criticized Trump for not making Elliott Abramsa foreign policy adviser to George W. Bushthe next deputy secretary of state.

Besides Ruddy, Dershowitz and the president share a number of friends and acquaintances, including Patriots owner Bob Kraft. The two men met years ago in Krafts suite at a Patriots game, he said.

I liked him, Dershowitz said. He was very nice, he was very affable. We talked football.

Dershowitz and Trump also both know Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile who has long been friendly with Bill Clinton, too. Trump once praised Epsteins social life, noting he likes women on the younger side. Epstein was one of Dershowitzs clients. And he isnt the most controversial person Dershowitz has defended; the attorney also represented O.J. Simpson.

Publicly, Dershowitz is never one for understatement. Take his recent comments about Antifa, the far left group:

Antifa is a radical anti-American, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard, hard-left censorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses, he told the hosts of Fox & Friendsreportedly Trumps favorite TV showon Tuesday morning.

He taped that hit from Marthas Vineyard, where he spends the summers.

Im not getting very many invitations to dinner at Marthas Vineyard, Dershowitz said wryly. My life can always be judged by the dinner invitations. They went down to zero when I defended O.J. Simpson, and theyre down considerably now.

But his cable-news invitations are through the roof.

Theres a big difference between inviting you to dinner and inviting you to speak, because I do draw crowds, he said. Whether or not people like me or dont like me, nobody has ever accused me of being boring.

They do accuse him of being opportunistic and intellectually dishonest. Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who practices law in Chicago, told The Daily Beast he believes Dershowitzs defense of the president is so terrible it must be in bad faith.

All of the arguments that are made by Dershowitz appear to me to be highly misleading, and I think that he has enough experience and knowledge as a lawyer to know better, he said. For that reason, Ive concluded that Alan Dershowitz is not giving neutral legal analysis but is instead trying to score political points. I think hes being disingenuous.

Deshowitz vigorously disputes that.

Many serious scholars have told me they agree with these arguments, he said. They are certainly serious and are likely to be given serious consideration by any court. Any defense attorney who failed to raise them would be guilty of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Norm Eisen, the chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sometimes spars with Dershowitz on cable news and on Twitter. And like many of the most prominent legal figures in Washington, he was once one of Dershowitzs students at Harvard Law.

Agree or disagree, hes absolutely consistent in advocating for the narrowest possible reasonable application of criminal law and of the importance of not politicizing it, Eisen said.

Silverglate added that Dershowitz doesnt mind the kind of spats that have drawn scorching criticism from fellow Democrats.

We dont have friends on the right, we dont have friends on the left, he said. And we manage.

View post:

How Alan Dershowitz Went From Hillary Donor to Trump’s Attack Dog on Russia – Daily Beast

Fair Usage Law

August 23, 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

Alan Dershowitz: The case for a Kurdish state (and the …

Over 90 percent of Iraqs Kurdish population have now voted for independence from Iraq. While the referendum is not binding, it reflects the will of a minority group that has a long history of persecution and statelessness. The independence referendum is an important step toward remedying a historic injustice inflicted on the Kurdish population in the aftermath of World War I. Yet while millions took to the streets to celebrate, it is clear that the challenges of moving forward toward establishing an independent Kurdistan are only just beginning. Already, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has said: we will impose the rule of Iraq in all of the areas of the KRG (Kurdish Regional Government), with the strength of the constitution. Meanwhile, other Iraqi lawmakers have called for the prosecution of Kurdish representatives who organized the referendum singling out Kurdish Regional Government President Marsouni Barzani, specifically. It is worth noting that Turkey strongly supports statehood for the Palestinians but not for their own Kurdish population. The Palestinian leadership, which is seeking statehood for its people, also opposes statehood for the Kurds. Hypocrisy abounds in the international community. While Israel immediately supported the Kurdish bid for independence, Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to extort Israel to withdraw its support, threatening to end the process of normalization unless it does so. It is worth noting that Turkey strongly supports statehood for the Palestinians but not for their own Kurdish population. The Palestinian leadership, which is seeking statehood for its people, also opposes statehood for the Kurds. Hypocrisy abounds in the international community, but that should surprise no one. The case for Kurdish statehood is at least as compelling as the case for Palestinian statehood, but you wouldn’t know that by the way so many countries support the former but not the latter. The reason for this disparity has little to do with the merits of their respective cases and much to do with the countries from which they seek independence. The reason then for this double standard is that few countries want to oppose Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria; many of these same countries are perfectly willing to demonize the nation state of the Jewish people. Here is the comparative case for the Kurds and the Palestinians. First, some historical context. In the aftermath of WWI the allied forces signed a treaty to reshape the Middle East from the remnants of the fallen Ottoman Empire. The 1920 Treaty of Sevres set out parameters for a unified Kurdish state, albeit under British control. However, the Kurdish state was never implemented owing to Turkish opposition and its victory in the Turkish War of Independence, whereby swaths of land intended for the Kurds became part of the modern Turkish state. As a result, the Kurdish region was split between Turkey, Syria and Iran and the Kurds became dispersed around northern Iraq, southeast Turkey and parts of Iran and Syria. Though today no one knows its exact population size, it is estimated that there are around 30 million Kurds living in these areas. In contrast to the Palestinian people who adhere to the same traditions and practices as their Arab neighbours, and speak the same language, Kurds have their own language (although different groups speak different dialects) and subscribe to their own culture, dress code and holidays. While the history and genealogy of Palestinians is intertwined with that of their Arab neighbors (Jordans population is approximately 50 percent Palestinian), the Kurds have largely kept separate from their host-states, constantly aspiring for political and national autonomy. Over the years there have been countless protests and uprisings by Kurdish populations against their host-states. Some Arab rulers have used brutal force to crack down on dissent. Consider Turkey, for example, where the Kurdish issue influences domestic and foreign policy more than any other matter. Suffering from what some historians refer to as the Sevres Syndrome paranoia stemming from the allies attempt to carve up parts of the former Ottoman Empire for a Kurdish state President Erdogan has subjected the countrys Kurdish population to terror and tyranny, and arrested Kurds who are caught speaking their native language. But perhaps no group has had it worse than the Kurds of Iraq, who now total 5 million approximately 10-15 percent of Iraqs total population. Under the Baathist regime in the 1970s, the Kurds were subject to ethnic cleansing. Under the rule of Saddam Hussein they were sent to concentration camps, exposed to chemical weapons and many were summarily executed. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 Kurds were killed at the hands of the Baath regime. So restitution is an entirely appropriate factor to consider though certainly not the only one in supporting the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. In contrast, the Palestinians have suffered far fewer deaths at the hands of Israel (and Jordan) yet many within the international community cite Palestinian deaths as a justification for Palestinian statehood. Why the double standard? There are many other compelling reasons for why the Kurds should have their own state. Firstly, the Iraqi Kurds have their own identity, practices, language and culture. They are a coherent nation with profound historical ties to their territory. They have their own national institutions that separate them from their neighbors, their own army (the Pashmerga) and their own oil and energy strategy. Moreover, international law stipulated in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, lays the foundation for the recognition of state sovereignty. The edict states: the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The KRG meets these criteria, as least as well as do the Palestinians. Moreover, the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq the closest it has come to having its own state has thrived and maintained relative peace and order against the backdrop of a weak, ineffectual Iraqi government and a brutal civil war. As such, it represents a semblance of stability in a region comprised of bloody violence, destruction and failed states. The Kurds have not repeatedly rejected offers of statehood as the Palestinians did in 1938, 1948, 2001 and 2008. Why then did the United States along with Russia, the EU, China and the UNcome out against independence for one of the largest ethnic groups without a state, when they push so hard for Palestinian statehood? The U.S. State Department said it was deeply disappointed with the action taken, while the White House issued a statement calling it provocative and destabilizing. Essentially, the international community cites the following two factors for its broad rejectionism: 1. That it will cause a destabilizing effect in an already fragile Iraq that may reverberate in neighboring states with Kurdish populations; 2. That the bid for independence will distract from the broader effort to defeat ISIS which is being fought largely by Kurdish Pashmerga forces. These arguments are not compelling. Iraq is a failed state that has been plagued by civil war for the last 14 years, and the Kurdish population in its north represent the only real stability in that country, while also assuming the largest military role in combatting ISIS occupation of Iraqi territory. There is also nothing to suggest that an independent Kurdistan would cease its cooperation with the anti-ISIS coalition. If anything, the stakes in maintaining its newfound sovereignty would be higher. Additionally, Iraqi Kurds were a key partner for the U.S. coalition that toppled Saddam Husseins regime and has staved off further sectarian tensions in that country. One thing is clear: if the United States continues to neglect its friends and allies in the region those on the front line in the fight against ISIS the damage to its credibility will only increase. Israel is the only Western democracy to come out in support of Kurdish independence in northern Iraq. One would expect that the state-seeking Palestinian Authority which has cynically used international forums to push for Palestinian self-determination would back Kurdish efforts for independence. However, while seeking recognition for its own right to nationhood, the PA instead subscribed to the Arab Leagues opposing position. This is what Hasan Khreisheh of the Palestinian Legislative Council said about the referendum: The Kurds are a nation, same as Arabs, French and English. But this referendum is not an innocent step. The only country behind them is Israel. Once Israel is behind them, then from my point of view, we have to be careful. Clearly, there are no limits to the Palestinian Authoritys hypocrisy. Nor are there any limits to the hypocrisy of those university students and faculty who demonstrate so loudly for Palestinian statehood, but ignore or oppose the Kurds. When is the last time you read about a demonstration in favor of the Kurds on a university campus? The answer is never. No one who supports statehood for the Palestinians can morally oppose Kurdish independence. But they do, because double-standard hypocrisy, and not morality, frames the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Fair Usage Law

November 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: SCOTUS Will Uphold Trump’s Latest Travel Ban

The Supreme Court will likely uphold the Trump administration’s travel ban because it is aimed not at Muslims, but countries that do not have “adequate vetting processes,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Wednesday. In an interview with “Newsmax Now” host Bill Tucker, the Newsmax contributor and author of “Trumped Up” conceded the ban is not “the most perfect and artfully drawn ban,” but noted “that’s not the criteria’s constitutionality.” “It is not a Muslim ban,”he declared. “It is a ban on people coming from countries that don’t have adequate vetting processes for assuring that terrorists don’t come into the country.” Important: Newsmax TV is available on DirecTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, and FiOS 615. If your cable operator does not have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we will connect you right away to your cable operator! For more places to Find Newsmax TV Click Here Now He said the lower court decisions to block the travel ban suggest “politicization rather than [judicial] activism.” “I think we’re seeing judges impose their own personal views,” he said. “I think they’re honorable people, they’re honest judges. That’s the way they view the Constitution. . . . And they honestly, but in my view, mistakenlycome to the conclusion that this discriminates against Muslims.” Weighing in on the NFL controversy over players who refuse to stand during the national anthem, Dershowitz said you cannot make the protest a crime. “But if the employer on his own, without any threat from the government of tax consequences, were to say that every player must stand, that would be perfectly OK and the players couldn’t sue,” he said. “I always put out the shoe on the other foot test and under our Constitution what’s good for the kneeling players is good for the Klan,”he said. “There’s no constitutional difference between a Klansman and a football player kneeling. So be careful what you wish for because what you wish for for the football players will also be applicable to the Ku Klux Klan, and the neo-Nazis, Antifa, and every other terrible group.” 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

October 19, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Liberals in Statue Debate Doing What Stalin …

During an interview with Fox & Friends, Alan Dershowitz slammed the hard left by describing their efforts to tear down Confederate monuments as Stalinist. Brian Kilmeade began by asking Dershowitz for his thoughts about the news that the countrys oldest monument to Christopher Columbus was recently defaced amidst the pushback against statues. Dershowitz was concerned people might try to tear down statues of Americas slave-owning founding fathers, and he said that erasing national history is not the right way to inform the public about the countrys evolution. We have to take some of the statues that were put up more recently, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement and perhaps move them to museums where they can be used to teach young students about how statues are intended sometimes for bad purposes, to glorify negatives and to hold back positive developments. But the idea of willy-nilly going through and doing what Stalin did erasing history and re-writing it to serve current purposes does pose a danger, and it poses a danger of educational malpractice, of missing opportunities to educate people, and of going too far. Dershowitz also went after Antifa for using their opposition to fascism to justify violence and the stifling of free speech. He went on to say that moderate liberals have a responsibility to hold left-wing radicals accountable, but President Trump and centrist conservatives are obligated to condemn hard-right extremism too. Watch above, via Fox. [Image via screengrab] > > Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Poster with my face on it was defaced …

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz said Thursday a poster promoting an event of his at the University of California, Berkeley was defaced with a swastika. “This was posted at the Law School at @UCBerkeley where I spoke yesterday. A swastika is drawn over my face,” Dershowitz, who is Jewish, tweeted. “The poster itself is filled with out of context misquotes. I oppose torture in all forms.” The lead-up to Dershowitz’s Oct. 11 appearance at UC Berkeley on the topic of “The Liberal Case for Israel” was marred with controversy. Earlier in October, Dershowitz threatened legal action against the school’s provost after the institution prevented him from speaking about Israel at the request of a student organization because, as a “high-profile” speaker, they didn’t give the administration eight weeks notice. That requirement is usually waived for guests invited by the school’s departments, Dershowitz told LawNewz.com last month. “All the departments are all hard left departments,” Dershowitz said. “They are much more likely to invite hard left speakers. That results in content-based discrimination.” Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor, told the Washington Examiner the school’s policy is “content and perspective neutral, with the criteria that trigger the eight-week advance notice requirement based solely on objective measures, such as audience size.” The disagreement was eventually settled when the dean of UC Berkeley’s Law School extended Dershowitz an invitation.

Fair Usage Law

October 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Antifa is "trying to tear down America …

I dont know how, I dont know when, but Dershowitz is going to end up on Trumps staff eventually, probably in the stable of lawyers doing Russiagate defense work. Trump cant have failed to notice that hes on Fox and CNN regularly defending the president (however well-caveated) and criticizing his enemies. His broadside at Antifa near the end here is both righteous and true, although he cleverly folds it into a sharp critique of Trump himself. I feel obliged to speak out against Antifa, says Dershowitz, because Im a man of the left and they claim falsely to speak in my name. The president had the same obligation with respect to the alt-right after Charlottesville (a point Ive made myself) and he whiffed. Come to think of it, maybe Dersh wont be working for Trump after all. His analogy between tearing down Confederate statues and Stalins habit of expunging disfavored politicos from Soviet history sits uneasily with me, although I think hes referring to extreme tactics like rampaging mobs tearing down monuments physically and breaking them up. Stalin wanted to whitewash the collective memory of Russians by excising his political enemies from it. Most critics of Confederate statuary have the opposite impulse they see the monuments themselves as a whitewash of history. Uprooting public testaments to the slave regimes gallantry is a step towards a crisper understanding of the past. But the line is tricky: One could (and some do) make the same argument about statues of Washington and Jefferson, that a reckoning with their slaveholding cant begin until history is cleansed of idolatry towards the Founders. I think the fear of SJWs running roughshod over Lee and stampeding towards Mount Vernon and Monticello is overstated, but American higher education being what it is, its not groundless. The left tends not to worry overly much about discernment when its in idol-smashing mode. Mike Pence had an interesting suggestion for monument mania: EARHARDT: Youre in favor of keeping those monuments? PENCE: I think that obviously, I think that should always be a local decision and, with regard to the U.S. Capitol, should be state decisions. But Im someone who believes in more monuments, not less monuments. What we ought to do is we ought to remember our history. But we also ought to celebrate the progress that weve made since that history. You know, when I walked back in 2010 across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis, arm and arm, and we remembered Bloody Sunday and the extraordinary progress of the civil rights movement, I cant help but think that, rather than pulling down monuments, as some are wont to do, rather than tearing down monuments that have graced our cities all across this country for years, we ought to have been building more monuments. We ought to be celebrating the men and women whove helped our nation move toward a more perfect union and tell the whole story of America. Not every monument to Washington or Jefferson requires a prominent reminder that they held slaves, but ones that purport to recount their entire life story like Mount Vernon and Monticello obviously do. I dont think that same principle works with CSA statuary since slavery isnt just part of the story; its the casus belli in a war the Confederacy was created to wage. Its like trying to solve the problem with a statue to U.S. General Benedict Arnold by adding a plaque that begins, Oh, by the way Arnolds treason isnt part of the story, its the main detail in the story. Whether the similar problem with Confederate monuments could be solved by erecting statues to Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, or to American slaves generally nearby, I dont know. Something for the local community to ruminate on.

Fair Usage Law

August 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

How Alan Dershowitz Went From Hillary Donor to Trump’s Attack Dog on Russia – Daily Beast

Alan Dershowitza liberal Harvard law professor and ardent backer of Hillary Clintonhas emerged as one of the Russia probes most vocal critics. Hes likened the investigation to a KGB hunt, and special counsel Bob Mueller to a notoriously obsessed sailor. Its made him a Fox News fixture, and that has left some of his counterparts in the legal world baffled and skeptical. But those close to Dershowitz say his vociferous criticism of Muellers investigation is the opposite of surprisingand that Mueller and Dershowitz have a history. Thats according to Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense attorney who has worked with Dershowitz over the years. The two men once represented Jeffrey MacDonald, who was convicted decades ago of murdering his wife and two daughters and who still maintains his innocence. Silverglate and Dershowitz tried to get MacDonald a new trial. As part of that effort, said Silverglate, they met with Mueller at the Justice Department headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. This meeting came in the early 90sSilverglate didnt recall the exact yearwhen Mueller headed the Justice Departments Criminal Division. They wanted him to ask the judge who convicted MacDonald to vacate that conviction because of problems with evidence. A report from the time said Dershowitz argued government agents had conspired to frame MacDonald. Mueller opens up the meeting with the following line, which was so seared into my memory that I will never forget it, Silverglate told The Daily Beast. He looks at usAlan Dershowitz and meand says, OK, gentlemen, I just want to say: Criticism of the bureau is a non-starter. But criticizing the FBI was exactly what Dershowitz and Silverglate had come to do. Alan and I both walked away in a little bit of shellshock, Silverglate continued, understanding that there were things to Mueller that were more important than facts, more important than truth, more important than the erroneous conviction of an innocent American, and that is, the reputation of the FBI and his relationship with the FBI. Dershowitz told The Daily Beast he recalls working on the MacDonald case with Silverglate but doesnt specifically recall that conversation. He didnt question Silverglates account. As Muellers probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election has gained momentum, Dershowitz has become a staple of conservative media. On Aug. 20, he told New York Republican billionaire radio host John Catsimatidis that Muellers probe threatens American democracy. The idea of trying to create crimes just because we disagree with [Trump] politically, and target him, really endangers democracy, he said, according to The Hill. [It] reminds me of what the head of the KGB said to Stalin: Show me the man, and I will find you the crime. And last month on Fox & Friends, Dershowitz compared Mueller and his team to Captain Ahab from Moby Dick. Theyre determined to get that white whale, he said. Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t). Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason. Dershowitz has also criticized Mueller for hiring lawyers who have contributed to Democratic politicians. And he recently released a new book, Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy. Critics say hes a Trump shill. He says thats laughable. Please put on the record that I am not defending him, that I am only focusing on the issues, he said. And the issues this time happen to come out largely on his sidebut, by the way, not always. Some suspect Dershowitzs advocacy goes beyond his television appearances. A person familiar with the presidents legal affairs said there are concerns Dershowitz has talked about legal affairs with Trump. Dershowitz told The Daily Beast this isnt true. He said he and the president have spoken, but never privately. He said the two men spoke at Mar-a-Lago once when Dershowitz dined there with Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, a mutual friend of the two. Trump came over to their table and chatted with them about the travel ban, according to Dershowitz. Trump said he wanted to try to enforce the first version of the travel ban, which federal courts had struck down. Dershowitz said he told the president that would be a bad idea. Then he took me aside and said, I want to talk to you about the peace prospects in the Middle East because you know Netanyahu, Dershowitz said. I said, Look, Mr. President, I didnt vote for you, but on Israel and the Middle East, I am passionately concerned with that and Im happy to help, 24/7. Dershowitz said he later met with Jason Greenblatt, Trumps envoy for Israel-Palestinian negotiations, and that he also met with Mahmoud Abbas shortly before the Palestinian Authority president met with Trump at the White House. And he said he criticized Trump for not making Elliott Abramsa foreign policy adviser to George W. Bushthe next deputy secretary of state. Besides Ruddy, Dershowitz and the president share a number of friends and acquaintances, including Patriots owner Bob Kraft. The two men met years ago in Krafts suite at a Patriots game, he said. I liked him, Dershowitz said. He was very nice, he was very affable. We talked football. Dershowitz and Trump also both know Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile who has long been friendly with Bill Clinton, too. Trump once praised Epsteins social life, noting he likes women on the younger side. Epstein was one of Dershowitzs clients. And he isnt the most controversial person Dershowitz has defended; the attorney also represented O.J. Simpson. Publicly, Dershowitz is never one for understatement. Take his recent comments about Antifa, the far left group: Antifa is a radical anti-American, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard, hard-left censorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses, he told the hosts of Fox & Friendsreportedly Trumps favorite TV showon Tuesday morning. He taped that hit from Marthas Vineyard, where he spends the summers. Im not getting very many invitations to dinner at Marthas Vineyard, Dershowitz said wryly. My life can always be judged by the dinner invitations. They went down to zero when I defended O.J. Simpson, and theyre down considerably now. But his cable-news invitations are through the roof. Theres a big difference between inviting you to dinner and inviting you to speak, because I do draw crowds, he said. Whether or not people like me or dont like me, nobody has ever accused me of being boring. They do accuse him of being opportunistic and intellectually dishonest. Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who practices law in Chicago, told The Daily Beast he believes Dershowitzs defense of the president is so terrible it must be in bad faith. All of the arguments that are made by Dershowitz appear to me to be highly misleading, and I think that he has enough experience and knowledge as a lawyer to know better, he said. For that reason, Ive concluded that Alan Dershowitz is not giving neutral legal analysis but is instead trying to score political points. I think hes being disingenuous. Deshowitz vigorously disputes that. Many serious scholars have told me they agree with these arguments, he said. They are certainly serious and are likely to be given serious consideration by any court. Any defense attorney who failed to raise them would be guilty of ineffective assistance of counsel. Norm Eisen, the chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sometimes spars with Dershowitz on cable news and on Twitter. And like many of the most prominent legal figures in Washington, he was once one of Dershowitzs students at Harvard Law. Agree or disagree, hes absolutely consistent in advocating for the narrowest possible reasonable application of criminal law and of the importance of not politicizing it, Eisen said. Silverglate added that Dershowitz doesnt mind the kind of spats that have drawn scorching criticism from fellow Democrats. We dont have friends on the right, we dont have friends on the left, he said. And we manage.

Fair Usage Law

August 23, 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."