Legacy media hosts spent a good part of Sunday morning discussing the hundreds of thousands of pages of photos and documents — all related to the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — that were released to the public on Friday.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
Nearly all of them were concerned that too much information had been redacted, and some were also complaining that the document dump — despite its volume — did not account for the remainder of the information that had been covered under the Epstein Transparency Act.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) — who can be counted among the majority of Democrats who exhibited zero interest in releasing the Epstein files when his party had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House — joined ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl on &#8220;This Week&#8221; to complain about the fact that not everything was released on Friday.
&#8220;I think there needs to be a full and complete explanation and then a full and complete investigation as to why the document production has fallen short of what the law clearly required,&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reacts to the partial release of the Epstein files: “I think there needs to be a full and complete explanation and then a full and complete investigation as to why the document production has fallen short of what the law clearly required.” <a href="https://t.co/edYpn3KR1k">pic.twitter.com/edYpn3KR1k</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2002753628575015170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested that it was a mistake to release any of the files if they were not going to release everything at once: &#8220;Any kind of indication that there&#8217;s not a full reveal on this will just plague them for months and months more. So my suggestion would be, give up all the information, release it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Paul calls the partial release of the Epstein files “a big mistake” for the administration: “Any kind of indication that there&#8217;s not a full reveal on this will just plague them for months and months more. So my suggestion would be, give up all the information, release it.” <a href="https://t.co/ezw1nuZJ40">pic.twitter.com/ezw1nuZJ40</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2002766554379800837?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On CBS News, &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; guest Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) claimed that the Justice Department was &#8220;flouting the letter and the spirit of the law&#8221; with the Friday document dump because it was incomplete and because it was so heavily redacted.
&#8220;I won’t be satisfied until the survivors are satisfied,&#8221; Massie said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Department of Justice is “flouting the spirit and the letter of the law” with its initial release of thousands of new records related to Jeffrey Epstein that include heavily-redacted pages, says Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). He tells @margbrennnan the Trump administration’s… <a href="https://t.co/05MgVtIqrf">pic.twitter.com/05MgVtIqrf</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2002811224153633040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They sent a six-page memo to Congress and they cited pre-existing laws as reasons that they weren&#8217;t going to follow our law,&#8221; Massie added, claiming that he knew of a number of men accused of sex crimes related to Epstein whose names were not included in the released documents, and was unsure as to whether they&#8217;d ever be released.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) says he has been told of at least 20 men accused of sex crimes known to the FBI related to Jeffrey Epstein, but tells <a href="https://twitter.com/margbrennan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@margbrennan</a> he didn’t see the names in the files the Justice Department has released so far and isn’t optimistic they’ll ever be… <a href="https://t.co/xInQWaxKOD">pic.twitter.com/xInQWaxKOD</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2002812237052801150?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Khanna suggested that Congress could hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt over the release, adding, &#8220;I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable and a committee of Congress should determine whether these redactions are justified or not.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) say they’ll take action against the Trump administration for its partial release of the Epstein files, including using Congress’ inherent contempt powers against Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“I believe we’re going to get bipartisan… <a href="https://t.co/0kBoVdCA9V">pic.twitter.com/0kBoVdCA9V</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2002812622324785652?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One of the storylines a number of them fixated on came from early reports that suggested a number of the redactions were made to protect not just victims but people who were considered to be politically connected. This narrative picked up steam quickly as it was revealed that a handful of the photos that were released in Friday were quickly pulled down — a move that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said was made out of concern that some of the women in the photos might need to have their identities redacted.
Of course, the fact that one of the photos appeared to include President Donald Trump quickly became media fodder as well, and host Margaret Brennan asked Khanna about that directly.
&#8220;I am less concerned about that photo,&#8221; Khanna said of the Trump photo. &#8220;I don&#8217;t know the facts. My concern is the major documents that we know are out there that haven&#8217;t been released.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
When asked about 15 images being pulled down from the Justice Department&#8217;s Epstein files website, including a photo of a drawer with a picture of President Trump, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) says, “I am less concerned about that photo.”
“I don&#8217;t know the facts. My concern is the major… <a href="https://t.co/P3ivwYLeRu">pic.twitter.com/P3ivwYLeRu</a>
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) <a href="https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/2002813144784134144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; NBC anchor Kristen Welker asked Deputy AG Todd Blanch directly about the Trump photo — and asked whether any of the redactions had been done because of potential embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.&#8221;
Blanche&#8217;s reply was simple: &#8220;Absolutely, positively not.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NBC: Has anything in the Epstein Files been redacted on that basis of &#8217;embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity&#8217;?
Todd Blanche: &#8220;Absolutely, positively not.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/bwGtieJJgC">pic.twitter.com/bwGtieJJgC</a>
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2002749527623876652?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And on CNN&#8217;s &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — who also showed no interest in releasing the Epstein files until President Trump won reelection — said that he was ready to pull out all the stops in his effort to ensure the Trump administration was held accountable for failing to issue a full and complete release.
&#8220;Everything is on the table,&#8221; he said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Rep. Jamie Raskin: &#8220;Everything is on the table&#8221; to force DOJ to release all Epstein files <a href="https://t.co/cIYBzVrZjm">pic.twitter.com/cIYBzVrZjm</a>
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/2002775268793241749?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Patrick McMullan Archives

Spin Cycle: The Epstein And [Redacted] Files

ABC News

Alan Dershowitz

CBS News

Donald Trump

Ghislaine Maxwell

Jeffrey Epstein

Media

NBC News

Politics

Bill O’Reilly claimed on Wednesday that there was one major piece missing from the virtual tidal wave of media coverage attempting to tie President Donald Trump to the late disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
O’Reilly raised the question during a recent NewsNation appearance, asking why no one was listening to the testimony provided under oath by late victim Virginia Giuffre and convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell — both of whom claimed that Trump was not a key player in Epstein’s activities. But he also wondered why no one was even talking to Epstein’s former attorney, Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: <a href="https://twitter.com/BillOReilly?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillOReilly</a> *HAMMERS* media over Epstein email coverage🚨
&#8220;You have Virginia Giuffre sitting under oath: &#8216;Trump didn&#8217;t do anything.&#8217; And you have Maxwell.&#8221;
&#8220;But here&#8217;s the most important person you have, not under oath: Dershowitz. Dershowitz was Epstein&#8217;s lawyer and… <a href="https://t.co/tIon0gw0zH">pic.twitter.com/tIon0gw0zH</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1988792127388602777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“You have Virginia Giuffre sitting under oath: &#8216;Trump didn&#8217;t do anything.&#8217; And you have Maxwell,” O’Reilly explained.
“But here&#8217;s the most important person you have, not under oath: Dershowitz. Dershowitz was Epstein&#8217;s lawyer and lawyer-client confidentiality ends with death,” O’Reilly pointed out. “Dershowitz went on television today, said, &#8216;I have all of the Epstein stuff and there isn&#8217;t anything. And I asked Epstein directly while I was representing him whether Donald Trump was involved in any kind of untoward activity.&#8217; And Epstein said no.”
“So now you have the three principal players in this case all saying the same thing. Yet the press is so irresponsible, so corrupt, so hateful, they will not even mention that. It’s death by innuendo — that is what they are aiming for,” O’Reilly concluded.
Most recently, media outlets have been having a field day with the release of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dems-drop-new-epstein-emails-in-which-he-claims-trump-knew-about-the-girls">documents</a> that claimed Trump knew about Epstein’s girls.
As The Daily Wire previously reported, Epstein made the claims in a 2019 email to anti-Trump journalist Michael Wolff — just over six months before the convicted pedophile was found dead in a New York City jail cell. His death was ruled a suicide.
“[T]rump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” the email to Wolff states. “[O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine [sic] to stop.”
Epstein’s email appears to be addressing Trump’s move to force him out of his club at Mar-a-Lago. Trump, who was a friend of Epstein’s in the 1990s and early 2000s, <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-facts-and-timeline-of-trump-and-epsteins-falling-out" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> kicked Epstein out of his club in 2007, just months before the wealthy financier pled guilty in Florida to state charges of soliciting a prostitute under 18 years old.

Today – Season 66

Bill O’Reilly Reminds Media What’s Missing From Epstein Coverage

Bill O'Reilly Reminds Media What's Missing From Epstein Coverage

The following excerpt is taken from &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Preventive-State-Preempting-Cataclysmic-Preserving/dp/1641774401/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EwYIZf0ARxwXjihNEAVurqOj_KuaDi1Nt-0DQX0nufJfh9kmaSx4otDskpQnN57lHj0dZWFI_RmUGu0cJPTLedRfLl7N6M-nJd56sP6w6C6da0GbxelDZPS2zE65jH3aCDUigadzpSMXkA252nt9Q06I5xw0MMSWEKrcMRdMWQY.RTvUDiVC9eJQmh-a3qAPRR8n2ni44pG6I_Eobznn194&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;hvadid=716170842428&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvexpln=67&amp;hvlocphy=9010927&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvocijid=8876619063180178686--&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvrand=8876619063180178686&amp;hvtargid=kwd-2424739000475&amp;hydadcr=4601_13415321&amp;keywords=the+preventive+state+dershowitz&amp;mcid=e95ebf25385f3b8f97b53c139b72347d&amp;qid=1753724973&amp;sr=8-1">The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties,</a>&#8221; by Alan Dershowitz (Encounter Books).
* * *
The Secret Service should have five basic responsibilities: (1) short- and medium-term intelligence operations designed to predict and prevent in advance any threats; (2) securing of all venues at which protectees may appear; (3) identifying and preventing immediate threats by suspicious persons at or near the venues; (4) halting the event and the appearance of the protectee if there is any perceived threat; and (5) immediately responding to attacks by protecting the target from further attacks and neutralizing the attacker or attackers.
The first of these responsibilities — predicting and preventing future attacks — is the most difficult (and the most relevant to my book). It will necessarily require many false positives to prevent even one false negative, because attempted assassinations are such rare events over time. Many individuals and groups threaten — either explicitly or implicitly — presidents and other protectees, but very few actually act on these threats. All such threats should obviously be investigated, but not all suspects should be detained. It is a crime to threaten the president — an inchoate crime designed to reduce threats of future harms. But few potential assassins openly threaten and thus violate the statute. Some say and do things that increase the likelihood that they will actually try to attack. But even among those, only a small fraction will cross the line into action. It is the difficult — perhaps nearly impossible — job of the Secret Service to distinguish between true and false positives, while reducing false negatives to zero. It is unlikely that Crooks or Routh could have been identified before the days in question based on their words and deeds — without also identifying many individuals with similar predictive profiles who would never pose a real threat.
<div id="attachment_953155" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-953155" class="size-large wp-image-953155" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Encounter Books" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-01-24-PM-3258-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes=" (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" />Credit: Encounter Books</div>
When I began to research the issues associated with predicting and preventing violence, including assassinations, I came across a category of detainees known as “White House Cases.” These cases involved individuals who sought entry to the government buildings, especially the White House, in order to talk to officials. If they appeared to be mentally ill or “disturbed,” they were referred to the Secret Service, which then sought their commitment to locked wards of mental hospitals. I studied one case that seemed to typify this category.
Bong Yol Yang, an American of Korean origin, appeared at the White House gate asking to see the president about people who were following him and “revealing his subconscious thoughts.” He also wondered whether his talents as an artist could be put to some use by the government. The gate officer called the Secret Service, which then had him committed to a mental hospital. Yang demanded a jury trial, at which a psychiatrist testified that he was mentally ill — a paranoid schizophrenic — and that although there was no “evidence of his ever attacking anyone so far,” there was always a possibility that “if his frustrations . . . became great enough, he may potentially attack someone.” On the basis of this diagnosis and prediction, the judge permitted a jury to commit Yang to a mental hospital until he was no longer mentally ill and likely to cause injury.
This was almost certainly an example of a false positive, who was confined in an effort to avoid even the slightest possibility that if released he would become a false negative — that is, an actual assassin whose deadly act was falsely not predicted and thus not prevented. The calculus for “White House Cases” was that it is better that one hundred or more non-assassins be erroneously detained than even one potential assassin be erroneously released.
The issue of false positives and false negatives also arose in the moments preceding the wounding of Donald Trump. According to reports, a Secret Service sniper aimed at Crooks and could have killed him before he fired at Trump, rather than immediately after. But what if Crooks had turned out to be an innocent twenty-year-old who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His death would have been a terrible false positive. So the sniper erred on the side of not shooting, with the result that it was a near-lethal false negative.
All of this could easily have been prevented if the Secret Service had secured the building, even with its slanted roof, before the shooter got near it. A false positive in unnecessarily securing a building that would not have been used to shoot is no big deal. A false negative in not securing a building that was then used to shoot is an enormous deal. So better one hundred buildings that would not be used be unnecessarily secured than even one building that would be used be falsely not secured.
Another example of how the desire to avoid a trivial false positive resulted in a disastrous false negative was the decision — or nondecision — by the Secret Service not to delay Trump’s appearance on stage until all doubts concerning the person deemed “suspicious” were resolved. There were several people who were deemed suspicious before the Trump shooting, as there apparently are at many events. Each such person should be investigated as soon as practical. Had Trump’s appearance been delayed or even canceled and the suspicious person had turned out to be harmless, that would have been a false positive that caused inconvenience. But failure to delay caused a near-fatal false negative.
Trump has said that “nobody mentioned” the presence of a suspicious person. “Nobody said there was a problem.” He went on: “And I could have waited fifteen—they could have said, ‘let’s wait for fifteen minutes, two minutes, five minutes, something.’”
This raises a related and complex issue. Under current law and practice, the protectee has the power to overrule the Secret Service and make the ultimate decision whether to delay or cancel an event deemed dangerous by Secret Service agents. And history shows that protectees have ignored the expert opinions of the Secret Service in several instances, placing themselves in danger. It must be recognized that when a protectee’s life is endangered by a possible assassin, more is at stake than the life of the protectee. The entire nation — indeed the entire world — is affected by a successful assassination, especially of a president or presidential candidate.
Perhaps the law ought to be changed to reflect this reality. The Secret Service should have more power to delay or even cancel events that in its view pose too great a danger to the nation. This will not be easy to implement in practice, but it could have an impact on the acceptance by the protectee of the more expert opinions of the Secret Service.
To summarize, the preventive intelligence aspect of the Secret Service’s role should favor many false positives — investigative leads that turn up empty — over even one false negative as in not pursuing a lead that could have prevented an assassination. The same is true of securing venues, questioning subjects, delaying the appearance of protectees, and surrounding a protectee. Detaining a suspect for more than a brief period should require some degree of probable or at least plausible cause. Shooting a suspected assassin requires a far different calculation, because it pits life against life.
These are the kinds of judgments that must be made by all preventive law enforcement agencies. The Secret Service has a mixed history in regard to this critical mission. To be sure, we do not know how many potential assassinations were prevented by the Secret Service. Neither do they. It is certainly possible that some of those arrested or detained might have gone on to try to kill a protectee. We know about attempts that were thwarted, as was the attempted shooting of President Ford by Squeaky Fromme, or the attempt on the life of President Truman by a Puerto Rican liberation group. But potential assassins who were deterred, or even those who were prevented by early interventions, are difficult to identify and quantify. The utter failure of the Secret Service to prevent or thwart the shooting of Donald Trump should be evident to all. The resignation of the then director was an important first step in the implementation of significant changes in approach to predicting, preventing, and responding to threats to protectees. These changes should reflect the costs of different types of errors — false positives versus false negatives in differing, but always crucial, contexts.
* * *
This excerpt taken from &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Preventive-State-Preempting-Cataclysmic-Preserving/dp/1641774401/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EwYIZf0ARxwXjihNEAVurqOj_KuaDi1Nt-0DQX0nufJfh9kmaSx4otDskpQnN57lHj0dZWFI_RmUGu0cJPTLedRfLl7N6M-nJd56sP6w6C6da0GbxelDZPS2zE65jH3aCDUigadzpSMXkA252nt9Q06I5xw0MMSWEKrcMRdMWQY.RTvUDiVC9eJQmh-a3qAPRR8n2ni44pG6I_Eobznn194&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;hvadid=716170842428&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvexpln=67&amp;hvlocphy=9010927&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvocijid=8876619063180178686--&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvrand=8876619063180178686&amp;hvtargid=kwd-2424739000475&amp;hydadcr=4601_13415321&amp;keywords=the+preventive+state+dershowitz&amp;mcid=e95ebf25385f3b8f97b53c139b72347d&amp;qid=1753724973&amp;sr=8-1">The Preventive State</a>&#8221; is published by permission from Encounter Books.
Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard University. Mr. Dershowitz has been litigating, teaching, and writing about law and policy for more than 60 years. He has written 55 books and more than 1,000 articles. Many of today’s world leaders are among the 10,000 students he has taught. He has represented and advised presidents, prime ministers, and business leaders. Called “the world’s best-known lawyer” and its most prominent defender of civil liberties, he has litigated and won hundreds of cases in multiple countries. He taught at Harvard for 50 years, where he offered courses on issues ranging from criminal, constitutional, family, and Jewish laws to psychiatry, neurobiology, mathematics, literature, philosophy, and even baseball. His primary academic interest has been on prediction and prevention of harmful conduct, which he developed into a course and taught during most of his career.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-VOTE

On Preventing Presidential Assassinations

assassination

assassination attempt

Books

President Trump

Secret Service

If former President Donald Trump is convicted in the Manhattan hush-money trial, the American legal system will be weaponized and changed forever, according to Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz discussed the trial on the <a href="https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/alan-dershowitz-says-conviction-trump-hush-money-trial-weaponize-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Just the News</a> show &#8220;No Noise&#8221; on Tuesday as closing arguments wrapped up in the case brought against Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The former president is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his alleged attempts to cover up an affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has denied having any affair with Daniels.
&#8220;If there&#8217;s a conviction here, it will change the justice system forevermore,&#8221; Dershowitz <a href="https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/alan-dershowitz-says-conviction-trump-hush-money-trial-weaponize-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;It will weaponize the system. It will mean that both sides will try to use the legal system as a way of winning elections.&#8221;
Dershowitz, often <a href="https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/alan-m-dershowitz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” added that faith in the American legal system can be restored if Trump is acquitted in the trial.
&#8220;If there&#8217;s an acquittal, maybe at least we can say the jury system works,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But if there&#8217;s a conviction or even a hung jury, it will show that the prosecution benefits from bringing a case, which is no crime at all.&#8221;
Dershowitz also blasted Judge Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing Trump&#8217;s criminal trial who donated to President Joe Biden&#8217;s 2020 election campaign.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t know the reason but it&#8217;s obvious that he is not unbiased in this case,&#8221; the lawyer said. &#8220;He wants a conviction.&#8221;
Dershowitz isn&#8217;t alone in his concerns about the Manhattan DA&#8217;s case against Trump. CNN legal analyst and former defense attorney Randy Zelin said on Tuesday that the prosecution &#8220;fell way short&#8221; of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;There is reasonable doubt all over this case,&#8221; Zelin told CNN. &#8220;Where is Keith Schiller? Where is Allen Weisselberg? How did Michael Cohen get away with stealing $30,000? &#8230; He&#8217;s a fixer. If the plumber comes to my house to fix my leak, I could be home, that doesn&#8217;t mean I know how he&#8217;s doing it and what it&#8217;s taking to be fixed.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
&#8220;They fell way short&#8230;There is reasonable doubt all over this case&#8230;&#8221; &#8211; CNN&#8217;s legal analyst on whether DA Bragg&#8217;s team proved beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump broke the law. <a href="https://t.co/6cbzZhGwLR">pic.twitter.com/6cbzZhGwLR</a>
— Francis Brennan (@FrancisBrennan) <a href="https://twitter.com/FrancisBrennan/status/1795520883039338972?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump slammed the prosecution and the judge in the hush-money trial on Wednesday morning, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112524445392177094" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writing</a> on Truth Social, &#8220;KANGAROO COURT! A CORRUPT AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL (ADVISE OF COUNSEL) NOT ALLOWED BY MERCHAN, A FIRST. HIS RULINGS, ON A CASE THAT SHOULD, ACCORDING TO ALL LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS, NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, HAVE MADE THIS A BIDEN PUSHED WITCH HUNT. THERE WAS NO CRIME, EXCEPT FOR THE BUM THAT GOT CAUGHT STEALING FROM ME! IN GOD WE TRUST!&#8221;

Dershowitz: Conviction In Trump Hush-Money Trial Would ‘Change The Justice System Forevermore’

Dershowitz: Conviction In Trump Hush-Money Trial Would 'Change The Justice System Forevermore'

Alvin Bragg

Court

New York

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that Attorney General Merrick Garland had illegally appointed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-u-s-attorney-investigating-hunter-biden-granted-special-counsel-status" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Attorney David Weiss</a> to be the special counsel in Hunter Biden&#8217;s case.
Dershowitz <a href="https://dersh.substack.com/p/garland-illegally-appointed-weiss?utm_source=post-email-title&amp;publication_id=373575&amp;post_id=136117301&amp;isFreemail=true&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shared an article</a> making that very point via his Substack page, citing § 600.3(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations (a section titled &#8220;Qualifications of the Special Counsel&#8221; and noting that according to the law, any special counsel was to be &#8220;selected from outside the United States government&#8221;).
&#8220;This requirement is the law &#8230; There are good reasons for this requirement,&#8221; Dershowitz wrote. &#8220;Special counsel is supposed to be independent of the current government, not an employee who serves as U.S. Attorney for Delaware and can be fired from that job by the president. He is supposed to look at the evidence through the eyes of an outsider.&#8221;
Dershowitz went on to say that while he understood Weiss had already spent a number of years investigating Hunter Biden – and that might, in some cases, be cause for an exception — the fact that Weiss had also been party to the &#8220;sweetheart deal&#8221; that a federal judge threw out at the eleventh hour made him suspect.
That deal – which would have protected Hunter Biden from future prosecution in addition to taking it relatively easy on him with regard to the charges already filed — is the reason many Republicans have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weekend-media-wrap-vol-4-what-you-missed-if-you-werent-glued-to-the-sunday-shows" target="_blank" rel="noopener">objected to Weiss&#8217; appointment</a>, despite calling for a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/those-are-questions-he-has-to-answer-top-gop-rep-targets-doj-special-counsel-investigating-hunter-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">special prosecutor</a> in the case.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-45577">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Obviously, there are concerns,&#8221; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) said last weekend. &#8220;I also looked at the appointment and the appointment seems more narrow than what Bill Barr had given him. … It is limited to the case that was brought before him initially, that that’s the scope, instead of all of the matters related to unpaid taxes.&#8221;
&#8220;The concern here, obviously, with Weiss being Special Counsel is that he was the one that allowed the statute limitations to expire on some very critical felony charges that could have been brought against Hunter Biden,&#8221; he added.

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump Continues

Alan Dershowitz: AG Garland’s Weiss Appointment In Hunter Biden Case Is Illegal

Alan Dershowitz: AG Garland's Weiss Appointment In Hunter Biden Case Is Illegal

Courts

David Weiss

Hunter Biden

Mike Turner

U.S.

Special counsel Jack Smith&#8217;s January 6 case against former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> fails to pass the &#8220;banana republic test,&#8221; according to Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alan-dershowitz">Alan Dershowitz</a>.
During a discussion with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, Dershowitz argued that prosecutors will not be able to prove Trump acted with a &#8220;corrupt motive&#8221; as he allegedly sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election over claims that it was stolen.
Still, the inquiry is escalating as Trump is campaigning as the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/in-first-rally-since-being-hit-with-expanded-charges-trump-calls-on-gop-challengers-to-drop-out">GOP frontrunner in the 2024 race</a> for the White House, setting up a possible general election rematch with President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a>, Dershowitz noted.
&#8220;This just doesn&#8217;t satisfy the banana republic test. In banana republics, presidents prosecute their political opponents and the stronger their political opponents are in the polls, the more likely they are to be prosecuted,&#8221; Dershowitz said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Alan Dershowitz tells <a href="https://twitter.com/glennbeck?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@glennbeck</a>: &quot;This doesn&#39;t satisfy the Banana Republic test. In Banana Republics, presidents prosecute their political opponents and the stronger their political opponents are in the polls, the more likely they are to be prosecuted.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/uTUnom7MPG">pic.twitter.com/uTUnom7MPG</a>
&mdash; TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1686808031831408679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Dershowitz pointed to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/latest-presidential-polls-trump-desantis-in-dead-heat-with-biden">polling showing</a> Trump and Biden virtually tied in a head-to-head matchup. He said any indictment against the former president &#8220;better be the strongest indictment in American history&#8221; with &#8220;smoking gun&#8221; evidence.
The four-count indictment <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-responds-to-latest-criminal-indictment-reminiscent-of-nazi-germany">brought on Tuesday</a> is &#8220;flawed&#8221; and &#8220;filled with speculation,&#8221; Dershowitz said, adding that it does not meet the &#8220;Nixon standard&#8221; established when former President Richard Nixon&#8217;s Republican allies turned against him during the Watergate scandal.
Trump has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He is expected to be arraigned in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Among Smith&#8217;s defenders is former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1686503121470500864">told MSNBC</a> that the special counsel was &#8220;picked as an independent, career prosecutor.&#8221; He said attacks on &#8220;the Biden Justice Department&#8221; for &#8220;going after&#8221; Trump are &#8220;poppycock.&#8221;
On the other side of the argument is George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote an <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/08/02/trump-indictment-2020-election-jan-6-not-legally-sound/70509753007/">op-ed published by USA Today</a> saying Smith aims to &#8220;criminalize false political claims&#8221; in a way that will &#8220;bulldoze through the First Amendment and a line of Supreme Court cases.&#8221;
Trump faces two other indictments in a documents-related case brought by Smith and a hush-money case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. He may also be charged in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/georgia-prosecutor-ready-to-go-with-trump-case">2020 election inquiry in Georgia</a>. Trump has broadly denied any wrongdoing and claims he is the target of a political &#8220;witch hunt.&#8221;
Dershowitz, who defended Trump in his first impeachment trial, previously claimed to Fox Business that Smith&#8217;s documents-related case against the former president <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-trump-indictment-pass-richard-nixon-test">failed to pass the Nixon test</a> and &#8220;may be the most dangerous indictment in political history.&#8221;

Dershowitz Argues Trump Case ‘Doesn’t Satisfy The Banana Republic Test’

Dershowitz Argues Trump Case 'Doesn't Satisfy The Banana Republic Test'

2020 Election

Lawfare

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz warned during an interview over the weekend that the federal indictment against former President Donald Trump is &#8220;much stronger&#8221; than the indictment that he faces from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg&#8217;s office.
The remarks from Dershowitz come after he has repeatedly defended the former president, including as a member of his defense team during his first impeachment trial and as a pundit on cable news where he regularly defended the former president over a variety of issues, most notably against former special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s Russia investigation.
Dershowitz <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-slams-trump-indictment-shares-one-damning-piece-evidence-doj-case">told</a> Fox News on Sunday that he thinks that the indictment was an example of &#8220;targeting&#8221; the former president, but admitted that there was one &#8220;damning piece of evidence&#8221; included in the indictment that could cause serious problems for Trump.
The piece of evidence Dershowitz referred to was the following <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-of-the-most-shocking-allegations-and-details-in-the-federal-indictment-against-trump">allegation</a> in the indictment:
<blockquote>In July 2021, at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey (“The Bedminster Club”), during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher, and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, [Trump] showed and described a “plan of attack” that [Trump] said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. [Trump] told the individuals that the plan was “highly confidential” and “secret.” [Trump] also said, “as president I could have declassified it,” and, “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”</blockquote>
&#8220;There&#8217;s one problem with that, and that is the tape recording in which Donald Trump foolishly waves a piece of paper and says, &#8216;I could have declassified this, but I didn&#8217;t. It&#8217;s secret. Here, look at it,'&#8221; Dershowitz said. &#8220;Now, maybe he didn&#8217;t actually allow the person to read it. But that tape recording, which can&#8217;t be cross-examined, you can&#8217;t say it&#8217;s a flip witness or a witness who shouldn&#8217;t have been able to testify. That&#8217;s a damning piece of evidence.&#8221;
Dershowitz added that attempts to claim that Trump had the right to have the document because the Presidential Records Act allows him to have it are a &#8220;weak defense.&#8221;
&#8220;I think this is a much stronger indictment than the Bragg indictment, but it&#8217;s the product of targeting,&#8221; he claimed.
Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News on Sunday that if even half of the things Trump is accused of doing are true that the former president is “toast.”
“It’s a very detailed indictment and it’s very, very damning,” Barr said. “And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, or a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he’s been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. And I’ve been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He’s not a victim here.”
Barr said the federal indictment is very different from other cases in which the justice system was weaponized against the former president.
“There was no problem or issue underlying the Russiagate claim. It was an effort to knock him out with a false claim,” Barr said. “Here, I think the government acted responsibly. They gave him every opportunity to return those documents. They acted with restraint. They were very deferential to him. And they were very patient. They talked to him for almost a year to try to get those documents and he jerked them around. They finally went to a subpoena, and what did he do? According to the government, he lied and obstructed that subpoena. And then they did a search, and they found a lot more documents.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Brutal analysis from former Attorney General Bill Barr on the Trump classified documents indictment and on Trump&#39;s conduct. <a href="https://t.co/iQNfrkZEtM">pic.twitter.com/iQNfrkZEtM</a>
&mdash; Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1668002899958566912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump Defender Alan Dershowitz: Fed Indictment ‘Much Stronger’ Than Bragg Case, Tape Recording ‘Damning’

classified documents

Robert Mueller

Just before the news broke that former President Trump was indicted on federal charges, famed attorney and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial, <a href="https://www.newsmaxtv.com/Shows/John-Bachman-Now" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blasted</a> the seemingly endless investigations into Trump.
Trump was indicted for allegedly violating the Espionage Act because of the way he handled classified documents. Although some of the charges are under the Espionage Act, that does not mean Trump is accused of spying.
“What I worry about is if it becomes Turkey, or it becomes Iran, or it becomes a country where a suspicion is equivalent to conviction of guilt on one side of the political spectrum, rather than the other,” Dershowitz said in an interview on Newsmax, pointing out the danger of a legal double standard. “But the key is, you have to have one system and one standard of law enforcement.”
“If there is a certain level of evidence of serious crime against anybody on either side — whether it&#8217;s the sitting president, the son of the sitting president, the former president, the same rule has to be applicable to all of them,” he continued. “The Justice Department cannot be allowed to use its enormous power of the criminal justice system to influence political elections.”
“He&#8217;s not acting like most criminal defendants,” Dershowitz said of Trump’s vehement response to rumors of his indictment. “Most of them stay quiet. And that&#8217;s why he&#8217;s gotten in trouble, but he’s exercising his constitutional rights, not only under the First Amendment, but under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.”
“He didn&#8217;t just simply roll over when prosecutors said, ‘We think you&#8217;re in trouble over possession of classified material.’ He fought back. And you&#8217;re allowed to do that,” Dershowitz noted, who also referenced Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg&#8217;s campaign promise to investigate Trump.
“You&#8217;re not allowed to cross lines into criminal obstruction of justice,” he explained. “But those are very hard lines to get evidence on. You have to prove corrupt motive. You have to prove that he went beyond just doing what any defendant is entitled to do, fighting back against what he believes is the government campaign to get him.”
Dershowitz noted that when former President Richard Nixon resigned, he had been urged to do so by members of his own party as well as Democrats. “It should be bipartisan when you’re going after a president, a former president, or a person running for president,” he asserted. “It should be a widespread consensus that he’s crossed the line into criminality. That consensus just isn’t there today.”

US-POLITICS-IMPEACHMENT

Famed Attorney Alan Dershowitz Blasts DOJ, Bragg Over Trump Investigations

Department of Justice

Indictment

Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, who represented former President Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial, insisted that Trump, hit with a felony indictment on Thursday, could not get a fair trial in Manhattan and that his attorneys should move the trial to Staten Island or Upstate New York.
The indictment, filed under seal by the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, was reportedly connected to so-called hush money payments to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
“Any first-year student could win this case if the name wasn’t Donald Trump and if it wasn’t in Manhattan,” Dershowitz said to Fox News host Sean Hannity of the present indictment. “This case has to get out of Manhattan. Will it get out of Manhattan? We don’t know.”
“Would you attempt to get a change of venue?” Hannity asked.
“Of course,” Dershowitz replied. “I would try to move it to Staten Island or some upstate venue. But could you imagine a judge or a juror coming home to their wife and family and friends and saying, ‘I’m the man, I’m the woman who let Donald Trump off.’ Nobody would ever speak to them again &#8230; There’s no possibility he can get a fair trial in Manhattan.”
“He could have indicted him any day over the last seven years,” Dershowitz said of Bragg. “They deliberately violated the statute of limitations because no previous prosecutor would go after him. The very fact that the indictment came down when he was out of state proves that they could have indicted him any time before the indictment came down.”
“This is a totally bizarre, convoluted theory that Alvin Bragg has simply dreamed up, taking a misdemeanor and supercharging it into a felony,” Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett added. “The law doesn’t support that.”
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Jarrett predicted Trump’s attorneys would immediately file a motion to dismiss.
“Bragg would have to prove that Trump was personally involved in falsifying records, and then he’d have to prove that Trump understood the complex campaign finance laws that nobody can comprehend and then intended to violate the those laws,” he explained. “Non-disclosure agreements in exchange for money are perfectly legal; the Federal Election Commission looked at this and they said it’s not a crime. Even if it’s not personal or a commercial reason behind it, it’s still not a campaign donation.”

Trump, Dershowitz

‘Any First-Year Student Could Win This Case’: Dershowitz Says Move Trump’s Trial To Staten Island, Upstate New York

Dershowitz: Move Trump's Trial To Staten Island Or Upstate New York

Manhattan District Attorney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alvin-bragg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alvin Bragg</a>’s possible criminal case against former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> may have derailed this week, according to Harvard Law professor emeritus <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alan-dershowitz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alan Dershowitz</a>.
On Monday, former federal prosecutor Robert Costello testified in front of a Manhattan grand jury over matters related to a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star in 2016. Costello <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/nyregion/costello-cohen-trump-grand-jury.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the jury that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, expected to be Bragg’s main witness in any case against Trump, “couldn&#8217;t tell the truth if you put a gun to his head.”
Dershowitz appeared on Fox News on Tuesday night and told host Sean Hannity that “Bob Costello has changed this case dramatically.”
“I think that Bragg now only has two possible results from that. Number one, he can say, ‘alright, I’m going to try to make the case without Cohen.’ He cannot use Cohen as a witness anymore. That would be unethical because of the testimony that Costello gave,” Dershowitz said. “Or he could say, ‘look, I have to drop the case.’ He may not be able to make it without Cohen. But if he can’t make it without Cohen, he can&#8217;t make it, because no ethical prosecutor is allowed to put on as a witness somebody who has told the lies and has contradicted himself so much.”
Bragg is investigating Trump over an alleged hush money payment the former president made to the porn star known as Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payment was made through Cohen, a longtime fixer for Trump, to allegedly keep Daniels from spreading claims that she had sex with Trump in July 2006 after his wife, Melania, had just given birth to their son. The former president allegedly reimbursed Cohen for the payment in 2017.
Cohen was later investigated by federal agents over the hush money payments. He went to Costello for legal counsel and advice, and the two men spent hours meeting and talking over the phone. In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges involving tax evasion, fraud, and campaign finance violations related to the payment to Daniels and another payment made to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also alleged an inappropriate relationship with Trump.
Cohen has said he made the payments at Trump’s direction. Trump has denied that claim and the allegations of the two women who accused him of infidelity.
Costello told the grand jury on Monday that Cohen had said that the hush money payments were his idea, not Trump’s. Costello also lambasted prosecutors for “cherry-picking” evidence to show the grand jury that gave a false view of what actually happened. “They seemed clearly one-sided and not after the truth,” Costello told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/nyregion/costello-cohen-trump-grand-jury.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a> afterward.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-453076">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
While it’s unclear what actual charges Bragg may pursue, the legal pathway toward getting to an indictment is complicated, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/21/unpacking-alvin-braggs-case-against-trump-00088035" target="_blank" rel="noopener">POLITICO</a>. Bragg’s case likely involves testing a novel legal theory that New York law classifies falsifying business records as a felony if the records were falsified to cover up a federal crime, which in this case would be a campaign finance crime similar to what Cohen pleaded guilty to.
Dershowitz says that Costello’s testimony has, at the very least, slowed Bragg’s movement toward any potential indictment, if not halted it altogether.
“I think that Bob Costello — it&#8217;s a game changer. I think maybe that&#8217;s a reason for the delay here. I think ethical experts are now telling Bragg, ‘wait a minute, you cannot use Cohen,’” said Dershowitz. “But if you can&#8217;t make it without Cohen, you cannot bring this charge.”

‘Game-Changer’ Costello Testimony May Have Sunk Manhattan DA’s Case Against Trump, Dershowitz Says

Crime

One of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims has now said that she “may have made a mistake” in her accusation against lawyer Alan Dershowitz. 
Virginia Giuffre has contended since 2014 that Alan Dershowitz had sex with her when she was a minor. Giuffre also accused Epstein of abuse, which has been verified. When Giuffre accused Dershowitz, he strongly pushed back and said it hadn’t happened. The two have now come to a deal and all lawsuits involved are ended.
“I have long believed that I was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Alan Dershowitz,” Giuffre <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-alan-dershowitz-agree-permanently-drop-lawsuits-against-each-other" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a joint statement. “However, I was very young at the time, it was a very stressful and traumatic environment, and Mr. Dershowitz has from the beginning consistently denied these allegations. I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz. This litigation has been very stressful and burdensome for me and my family, and we believe it is time to bring it to an end and move on with our lives.” 
In the statement, Dershowitz said, “As I have said from the beginning, I never had sex with Ms. Giuffre.”
“I have nevertheless come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said. Ms. Giuffre is to be commended for her courage in now stating publicly that she may have been mistaken about me,” he added. “She has suffered much at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, and I commend her work combatting the evil of sex trafficking. I also now believe that my allegations that David Boies engaged in an extortion plot and in suborning perjury were mistaken.”
On the Megyn Kelly show, Dershowitz announced the end of the lawsuits, adding that no payments have been issued.
“The matter is over,” he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7d1v81h0I4&amp;ab_channel=MegynKelly" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “She has now acknowledged that she may have made a mistake in recognizing me or in identifying me, so I’m very gratified, of course.”
Dershowitz was friends with Epstein in the past and defended him after his first arrest and charge of sex trafficking. In 2008, he reportedly assisted in getting Epstein an easy plea deal. 
Giuffre has been part of several legal actions involving Jeffrey Epstein. She sued Prince Andrew and accused him of raping her when she was in her teens. In February, the lawsuit resulted in a settlement. Prince Andrew <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/nyregion/epstein-victim-giuffre-dershowitz.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement at the time that he “regrets his association with Epstein and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.”
Giuffre was also involved in legal action against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and girlfriend, who was recently given a twenty-year prison sentence.

6CDC2F56-219F-4EC1-B088-20254B63236A_1_201_a

Dershowitz Accuser Admits She ‘May Have Made A Mistake’

Alan Dershowitz Accuser Virginia Giuffre Admits She ‘May Have Made A Mistake’ 

Famed attorney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alan-dershowitz">Alan Dershowitz</a> weighed in on the reported <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fbi">FBI</a> raid on former President Trump’s Florida home at Mar-A-Lago on Monday and slammed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration">Biden administration</a> for weaponizing the justice system.
“A raid is supposed to be a last resort,” Dershowitz pointed out. “But this administration has used the weaponization of the justice system against its political enemies. It’s arrested people, denied them bail, put them in handcuffs – used all kinds of techniques that are not usually applied to American citizens.”
“I suspect it has to do with some investigations leading toward Donald Trump and some of his associates,” he theorized. “Again, the law is clear: You don’t engage in a raid unless you’ve exhausted all of the other remedies, unless you believe that the person you raided will destroy the evidence. Raids are not a first recourse in America; they’re a last recourse.”
“And so the government will have to show a court eventually that they exhausted all other possibilities or they had a reasonable basis for believing that the evidence would be destroyed if it was sought in the normal legal course of events through a subpoena,” he explained. “Raids are a last resort, but today, in many instances, it’s being used as a first resort.”
Dershowitz opined that many raids conducted by current law enforcement are impelled by a desire for celebrity, as he stated, “In order to get on television, they have a lot of these raids where people are arrested, put in handcuffs, sometimes put in leg shackles, bail denied. Presumption of innocence still applies, but it’s applied only in theory, not in practice.”
Referencing the reported FBI raid at Trump’s home, he proclaimed, “Unless there is evidence that we’re not aware of, this is improper, and it is misconduct. We have to find out what the facts are. But we have to make sure the shoe fits on the other foot – that we want to make sure what’s being one here is something that Democrats would not oppose if it were being done to Democratic operatives, as well. I don’t think it passes the test.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L26taXZcDZM" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
In November 2019, Dershowitz was <a href="https://twitter.com/JCats2013/status/1193552789038911494">asked</a> by radio show host John Catsimatidis, “Do the Democrats today think that the American public is so stupid on some of the things they’re doing?”
Dershowitz replied, &#8220;They’re very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.&#8221;

Senate Impeachment Trial Of President Trump

Dershowitz Reacts To FBI Raid At Mar-A-Lago: Biden Administration Has Weaponized Justice System

Mar-a-Lago

Menu