If Alan Dershowitz had a shred of credibility left amongst intelligent people, after this rant of his published as an op/ed in right-wing Newsmax, espousing a conspiracy theory that New Yorker editor David Remnick is out to get him, it’s gone now. Dershowitz starts out by saying that Remnick has “commissioned” a “hit piece” against him, and that the New Yorker, under Remnick’s editorial control, has devolved from a literary magazine to a bastion of left wing politics. Alan Dershowitz, Newsmax:
The New Yorker’s reputation for objectivity, fairness and scrupulous fact checking has been replaced by a growing awareness that nothing it publishes should be taken as true without rigorous independent checking, especially when it comes to Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump. The same is true when it comes to public figures Remnick believes are supporters of his sworn enemies. I know, because Remnick has arranged for a like-minded attack journalist named Connie Bruck to target me in a mendacious hit piece designed to still my voice on Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump.
Bruck is so emotional in her hatred toward those who say anything positive about Trump, that when her own stepson came out for the president, her family — according to the step-son — “singly excluded” him from family events “when the rest of the family was invited.”* Bruck’s antagonism toward Israel is reflected by the fact that the only Harvard Law School professor that she interviewed about me is a virulently anti-Israel radical, whose one-sided course on the Israel-Palestine conflict I strongly criticized.
Another academic she interviewed is Robert Trivers, who compares Israel to Nazi Germany.
Remnick’s decision to have this biased reporter to profile a man who has vigorously defended the legal rights of both Trump and Netanyahu makes it clear that he was commissioning a one-sided screed, rather than an objective profile.
Then Dershowitz makes the inevitable leap from conspiracy theory to martyrdom, accusing Remnick of trading on the past credibility of the New Yorker to “destroy a public intellectual with whom they disagree.” And how is Remnick doing that? You got it — Epstein.
Four years ago, a woman who I had never met was “pressured” — her word — by her lawyers to falsely accuse me of having underage sex with her. They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed we had met. She also claimed to have met Al and Tipper Gore, as well as Bill Clinton, on the island, but Secret Service and other records proved she had made up that story as well. She also made up stories about having underage sex with prominent political leaders — senators, ambassadors, prime ministers and other heads of state — but her own employment records prove conclusively that she was well above the age of consent when she falsely claimed to have met these men.
My records led her own lawyer to admit in a recorded conversation that it would have been “impossible” for me to have been in those places and that his client was “simply wrong” about her accusations. An investigation by a former head of the FBI concluded that the accusations were disproved by the evidence. The judge struck the accusations and her lawyers withdrew them, admitting it was a “mistake.” […]
But The New Yorker picked on the wrong innocent victim, because I have the will and resources to fight back against the falsehoods he is directing at me and those who want hear my voice. The truth is my weapon in this war of words, and the truth is unequivocally on my side.
Dershowitz then accuses the New Yorker of going “into the gutter and using the lead of an anti-Semitic website” which he says alleges that Dershowitz beat and murdered his first wife. Apparently, the Forces of Evil have been after Dershowitz for quite some time.
Here’s Dershowitz’ bottom line.
So when you read The New Yorker attack on me, read it with an understanding of its source, motive, and methodology. Remember that you are not reading The New Yorker of old that had well-earned credibility. You are reading a glossy version of the National Enquirer, with partisan and personal agendas. Only the clever cartoons are the same. On second thought, you might just want to skip the partisan articles and jump right to the cartoons.
Alan Dershowitz is one to talk about credibility. He lost all of his when he sold out his once-impressive reputation for a berth on Fox News, where he became a talking head and shameless defender of Donald Trump. At one point in time, Dershowitz was an east coast intellectual and respected figure in the legal community, but that has not been the case for years. Most probably the New Yorker article will chronicle this decline.
One thing is certain: When Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, I predicted it would be a seismic event in Trumpworld. This screed on the part of Dershowitz is a fore shock, for a whole lotta shakin’ that you may depend upon happening in the near future. Newsmax published it, because no sane or reputable outlet would touch it with a ten foot pole. Disproving libel before the libel has even taken place, by libeling the guy who supposedly is going to libel you, is quite a reach.
Consider this: just on it’s face, the New Yorker broke the Harvey Weinstein story, and only after great deliberation on its part, as chronicled by journalist Ronan Farrow, who went on to win a Pulitizer Prize for the piece. It stands to reason that the same care and deliberation that went into that expose last year will go into whatever profile the magazine is doing on Dershowitz. But clearly, that has not crossed his mind, because he’s in deep defensive mode and battling a dragon that hasn’t yet even left its cave. But this is who Alan Dershowitz is these days, apparently. Right now he’s a legal figure on par with Jeannine Pirro.