Alan Dershowitz claims he saw the names on the Epstein client list, now suppressed, because he had the right of discovery while defending himself against Virginia Giuffre

 

Dershowitz claims he's seen files, docs suppressed to protect elites...

Dershowitz: Judge Juan Merchan in Trump trial is totally biased against Trump and is out to get him, but there are no TV cameras to show it

 

 He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn. Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution. ...

I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again. That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense. It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing. Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness. The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty. ...

I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.

More.

Fine people on both sides hoax in the news: Biden says bad people on both sides lol

 Dershowitz: Biden Made "Same Moral Equivalence He Complained About In Charlottesville" On Hamas Protests

Scott Adams spearheaded exposure of the hoax from the beginning. There is hardly a constituency left in this country for preserving the statues and history of The Confederacy, except maybe in Donald Trump and people like YT.

Meanwhile the anti-Trump right like Stephen L. Miller and his ilk are happy to use fine people on both sides against Biden:

False accusations of rape occur at rates 2 to 6 times higher than for other false accusations, over 40% of accusations recanted

From SEX, LIES, AND RAPE:

It is a primary tenet of “feminist jurisprudence” that women never lie when complaining of sexual abuse. This delusion is as ludicrous as the notion that all women think alike.

Any man who states the obvious, however, puts his career at risk. Even liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz was accused of sexual harassment just for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations. In 1993 Dershowitz told author David Horowitz that he began videotaping classroom lectures on the subject for his own protection, and that other experts in the field stopped teaching rape law rather than take the risk.

According to a report of the Defense Department Inspector General released in 2005, approximately 73% of women and 72% of men at the military service academies believe that false accusations of sexual assault are a problem. But military officials keep pretending that the problem does not exist. 

Yesterday Rush told us a crime was necessary to impeach Rosenstein, but today no crime's necessary to impeach Trump

Ah, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Once again, since misdemeanors are "minor wrongdoings", The Constitution cannot be made to say "high minor wrongdoings" in the sense of "severe", as in "severe minor wrongdoings", which would make no sense. "High" refers to where they occur, in federal office, not to their severity. Crimes are severe in and of themselves compared with misdemeanors, which by definition are not. Therefore, "crime" alone is not necessary for impeachment. A minor wrongdoing will do, committed in high office, that is, in the federal government.

Impeachment is the political remedy for both in the political context, i.e. in the federal government.

Once again, Rush is confused, and the House dropping impeachment of Rosenstein is probably a good thing, politically, because Trump could be impeached for almost nothing at all, as long as there is support for it. Best not to get everyone together on that by going after Rosenstein for a misdemeanor.

This is politics, people!

Here yesterday:

Anyway, Professor Dershowitz said this would be a very, very bad precedent because impeachment is always a remedy for criminal activity, criminal behavior. And it’s very risky here to go out and try to impeach Rosenstein simply ’cause he won’t turn things over to you. It’s kind of a tough case to make that Rosenstein’s behaving in a criminal fashion simply because he will not respond to subpoenas that the House leadership and Devin Nunes have demanded to see some documents.

But here today:

I mean, everything [Mueller has] come up with he’s given to some other jurisdiction to prosecute or do with what they will. And impeachment, you have to understand something about impeachment. This is what this has always been about. The effort here has always been to drive Trump’s approval numbers down. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.

It’s political. You can impeach a president if he hadn’t committed any crime. You can try it. High crimes, misdemeanors. They are hoping to drive Trump’s approvals numbers down with all of this.

Dershowitz meets with Trump, accuses Mueller of laundering info he's not allowed to pursue to SDNY

Reported here.

Levin calls for Sessions to step down as AG in wake of FBI raid on Trump's personal attorney

Says Trump "can put Dershowitz in there for all I care."

Dershowitz for his part called the raid dangerous for the future of attorney-client privilege.

The whole thing makes us want to puke. The affair is completely out of control, and there's no one in the amusement park to turn off the ride.

Five 9th Circuit judges say fellow 3-judge panel usurped Trump's constitutional presidential rights

Here:

Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s [sic] abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin. The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.