0
0
A couple of riddles (with a common theme):
Question: What two things do Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump have in common?
Answer: 1) They are all despicable excuses for human beings. 2) They were all defended by a certain Brooklyn-born, Harvard-bred lawyer, formerly welcomed on Martha’s Vineyard.
Question: What’s the difference between Alan Dershowitz and human scum?
Answer: Not much.
So I’ve always accepted that in addition to having a reputation as a world-class legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz is a world-class character, a person who maniacally seeks the limelight and likes the idea of defending celebrities. Having gotten a whiff the kind of personal celebrity that writing legal opinions and even pop-legal best-sellers could never give him, the man who got up and told us that OJ Simpson, Leona Helmsley, and Roman Polanski were all innocent, has now taken on his greatest challenge.
An innocent man, he is, the Trumpster. Constitutionally, that phone call was perfect. How could anyone possibly think that withholding millions of dollars of military aid to an ally threatened by Russia—until that country investigated a personal political opponent—violated the Constitution? How could anyone possibly believe that instructing government officials to disregard Congressional subpoenas isn’t exactly what the framers had in mind when they laid out the powers of the Presidency?
A statement accompanying an explanation of why this sycophant has joined the Trump defense team indicates that Dershowitz has jumped aboard this sinking ship ”…to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous precedent.” Strangely enough, with the exception of a single apparent typo, this almost perfectly describes the very reason to impeach Donald Trump: “…to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous president.”
Alan Dershowitz. What a pity you missed your chance to defend Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer. After all, they were, constitutionally, your kind of innocent defendant. But your new client, without ever taking a knife in hand (except to cut a well-done steak), has taken a sledge hammer to over two hundred years of democracy. Innocent, your Honor. As innocent as all of my former celebrity clients.
Intellect? Values? Character? Disposition? I’m not sure on which dimensions you are most lacking, Mr Dershowitz, but this is serious stuff. As terrible as your former clients were, the impact of this person’s crimes go further and deeper, and it is unconscionable to think that you are attempting to help him escape responsibility. You are a true disappointment, a person of whom we might have expected better.
Shame on you. I like to vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. There’s a certain purity of the island that your presence defiles. Forget about not inviting you to dinner parties. We’re not selling you a ticket on the ship any more.
And let us not forget Prof. D’s defense in the 80’s of that paragon of virtue, Claus von Bulow. D is now on tv claiming that he is not defending Trump but the Constitution. The argument is that neither of the two articles of impeachment attains to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the level, that is, of treason or bribery, the only two impeachable crimes specified in the Constitution. This is disingenuous: the first article, “abuse of power,” alleges actions that precisely constitute an attempt to bribe a foreign nation for the President’s political interest. D’s argument against… Read more »