Alan Dershowitz: Why I am Defending Mike Lindell

See Alan Dershowitz’s Op-Ed: Alan Dershowitz Explains Why He’s Representing Mike Lindell in Hardee’s Drive-Thru Phone Seizure Brouhaha

Alan Dershowitz explains why he, a Democrat, is representing the Trump-supporting MyPillow guy.

New York Sues Trump (Beck/Shapiro/Dershowitz)

New York Sues Trump … Over This? After years of investigations, including by intelligence agencies across the world, New York Attorney General Letitia James is suing former President Trump … for allegedly misleading banks. If that’s all they could accuse “the most investigated person in the world” of, Glenn says, then that’s not half bad. Glenn reviews this latest attempt to take down Trump and wonders if this insanity will ever end…

New York Attorney General Letitia James goes after Donald Trump. This is an overreach.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ FLASHBACK

Alan Dershowitz: Letitia James ‘Undignified,’ ‘Disgrace’ to Law

 

 

Gregg Jarrett & Alan Dershowitz On The DOJ’s Abuse of Power

Gregg Jarrett and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz joined ‘Hannity’ to weigh in on the FBI raiding the home of former President Donald Trump.


MIKE DAVIS BONUS


Mike Davis- President Trump declassified and took his copy of the crossfire hurricane records Russia collusion records and those are damming for the Biden Obama Hillary Clapper Susan Rice the FBI the intel community – that is what has terrified them- that is what has precipitated this


KASH PATEL BONUS


BOOM! Kash Patel: This Entire Raid on Mar-a-Lago Was to Prevent Disclosure of Declassified Russiagate Documents that Implicate FBI!

Mar-a-Lago: Jarrett, Dershowitz, Solomon, Hanson

Okay, these videos are the best explainers to the move against Trump. I will include my thought as well. First up, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz joined ‘Hannity’ to weigh in on the FBI raiding the home of former President Donald Trump.

GREGG JARRETT and ALAN DERSOWITZ

ALAN DERSHOWITZ


Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz reacts to the breaking news of the FBI raiding Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and more – via Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt Tonight

JOHN SOLOMON

John Solomon discusses the imbalance of Justice regarding Mar-a-Lago.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

The original file is here – “Jim Jordan, Harmeet Dhillon, Victor Hansen Laura Ingraham FBI Raids POTUS Mar-a-Lago Estate” — but I isolated VDH! He hit it out of the park!

ME

Here is my winded comment on a reason why…

Biden’s Racial Litmus Test for SCOTUS Unconstitutional

Alan Dershowitz explains why Joe Biden excluding potential Supreme Court nominees on the basis of their race and gender is almost certainly unconstitutional.

More via RED STATE:

Alan Dershowitz went on with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures today to talk about the upcoming retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, and Joe Biden’s illiberal promise to exclude thousands of qualified potential replacements specifically and only on account of their race or gender or both.

It’s a litmus test that clearly isn’t keeping with the Constitution and is probably (definitely) legally unconstitutional. Disallowed. You know, un-American.

Look you can brag all the long day that you’re trying to be inclusive, but that won’t change the facts that you’re actually being exclusive, Joe. This is just one more time Biden’s letting the far-left wing control the Oval Office, which Bartiromo mentions in the clip…..

(READ IT ALL)

Big-Pharma Pressured Journals Regharding HCQ: Philippe Douste-Blazy

Just so you know this is an excellent example of “CONY-CAPITALISM.”

Let me just say — as a bit of a warning — I cannot find any of the below other than on questionable websites. Even the source Prager is reading from is a conspiracy laden sight. And even though Prager mentioned putting this up on his site… it never showed up — making me think his people thought the same as I have. ALSO, since I do not know French, I cannot confirm what Philippe Douste-Blazy is actually saying. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I wanted to share this now, and just know I might update the news as I either confirm or deny it’s validity.

Basically, the study Dr. Fauci used to support his claims regarding Hydroxychloroquine’s dangers has been pulled a while back, HOWEVER, the fall-out continues! But one should also be aware that Hydroxychloroquine has no patent and can be produced for pennies. GATEWAY PUNDIT has a YouTube debate between Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy Jr. about the Covid-19 vaccination. In it Kennedy says:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that. 

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

The article Dennis Prager is reading from is from HEALTH IMPACT NEWS — I am not sure the site as a whole is solid, but much of the info surrounding the story Prager is reading from is confirmed.

Here is the older interview (May 24, 2020) with Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.

Here is the full transcript of the above:

Apolline de Malherbe (French broadcaster) But it’s hard to understand why scientists would voluntarily give bias to studies

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Exactly! That’s the great question. That the great question we are all asking ourselves, finally, and you know those Chatham House lectures in London.

Apolline de Malherbe:   Remind us what is this all about? This is extremely interesting.

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are meetings that are completely behind closed doors, only with experts. No one can record, no one is taking any pictures. It’s only between experts.

Apolline de Malherbe:  Top secret.

 Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Top secret. But still. there was a meeting the other day, of the directors of scientific journals, like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine…

Apolline de Malherbe: The Lancet, which is that journal which published this study we are talking about…

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are extraordinary journals. When it’s written in Lancet, it’s “written in Lancet”. So that’s why… Here, we’re talking about something very important this discussion that happened. And it ended up leaked: The Lancet’s boss, Horton, said: “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude… This is very, very serious!

Apolline de Malherbe: But what you are telling us is very serious! That would mean that it is the pharmaceutical companies that are putting pressure on, including financial pressure, I guess on the scientific results! But you understand, who can we trust anymore today?

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Indeed, that’s why I allow myself to tell you about it, because it is one of the greatest subjects… never anyone could have believed. I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that and the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was “criminal”, the word was used by them. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID, in reality, there are people… us, we see ‘mortality’, when you are a doctor or yourself, you see ‘suffering’. And there are people who see ‘dollars’, that’s it.

This first article on this I found at NIKI´S OPINION FORUM, I do not know much about this site — I would just be cautious about the rest of the site as I do not much about it:

Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, a cardiologist and former French Health Minister who served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; he was a candidate in 2017 for Director of the World Health Organization.

In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.

He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.

He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.

[….]

He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:

“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”

Dr. Douste-Blazy supports the combination treatment – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) for Covid-19 recommended by Dr. Didier Raoult. In April, 2020

Dr. Douste-Blazy started a petition that has been signed by almost 500,000 French doctors and citizens urging French government officials to permit physicians to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients early, before they require intensive care.

The issue has become highly politicized; the left-leaning politicians and public health officials are adamantly against the use of HCQ, whereas those leaning toward the right politically are for the right of doctors to prescribe the drug as they see fit.

The journal SCIENCE described the response to French President Emmanuel Macron trip to Marseille to meet Dr. Raoult who prescribes the combination drug regimen and he has documented their effectiveness.

However, public health officials, academic physicians and the media – all of who are financially indebted to pharmaceutical companies and their high profit marketing objectives – vehemently oppose the use of HCQ, and use every opportunity to disparage the drug by derisively referring to President Trump as its booster.

Trump’s Legal Team, Day One (PLUS: Footnote 565)

What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:

PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:

10. Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
9. Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations
8. Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld
7. Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo
6. Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’
5. Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board
4. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest
3. Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’
2. Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma
1. George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated


ARI MELBER


RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:


JOHN BARRASSO


This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”


PATRICK PHILBIN


LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”


JONATHAN TURLEY


Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:


FOOTNOTE 565


And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:

Video Description:

Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)

(Click To Enlarge)

(Text with Links)

President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565


565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019).


ARTEM SYTNYK


This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!

It’s a Process — Impeachment (Alan Dershowitz)

THE BLAZE catalogs the debate between Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe via NEWSMAX. The best book written on the subject is the one pictured here… it delves into the debates over this PROCESS well.

I here reproduce the arguments I think the Founders clearly noted in their deliberations about the impeachment clause:

“It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people,” he added.

[….]

“President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.”

[….]

Dershowitz concluded that to deny Trump the “fundamental right” of a speedy trial “might serve the temporary interests of the Democratic Party, and academics who support it, but would do violence to the rule of constitutional law that is supposed to serve all Americans, regardless of party or ideology.”

This echoes leftist Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified on behalf of Democrats in front of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, essentially saying President Trump isn’t actually impeached until the Pelosi sends the articles to the other side of Capitol Hill. Feldman argues this point in a new piece for Bloomberg titled, “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate.”

  • According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote. If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”(TOWNHALL)

Dershowitz Called It From Day One…

(See a previous post detailing some of his arguments, HERE) Mar. 25, 2019 | Former Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says Robert Mueller was wrong for not completely ruling out a case for obstruction of justice in his Russia report.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the lack of a decision on obstruction in the Mueller report.

 

Alan Dershowitz on Christine Blasey Ford’s Inquisition

Alan Dershowitz discusses the earlier “prerequisites” to testify. Professor Dershowitz calls on the ACLU and other civil libertarians tp publicly reject the idea that the accused goes first — LIKENING it to the Inquisitions. A great commentary by a man who leans Left.

GATEWAY PUNDIT notes (as do I):

…Blasey Ford went public with her allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh last week. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES WHO HAVE CONFIRMED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S ACCUSATIONS!

NOT ONE!