Thread 🧵: I must now take this article by Alan Dershowitz apart. He is VERY selectively sharing facts and deliberately leaving out others in such a way as to drastically alter the perceived meaning of those facts.
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1946645216892473764
1st he mentions that names of alleged perpetrators, obtained thru FBI interviews with alleged victims, have been redacted. He does not mention that many accusations (and names of accused) are already a matter of public record.
He states that he has seen nothing that would suggest anything improper about Trump. But Dersh would be well aware that one alleged victim did explicitly accuse Trump of crimes that occurred when she was 13, through filing a sworn affidavit, which is public.
He also deliberately leads the reader to assume that the FBI interviewed all of the alleged victims that they knew of and took their statements. However, the FBI did not do this. Juliette Bryant, for instance, never had her statement taken by the FBI.
Dersh does not wish to inform or remind anyone that all victims who participated in (received funds from) the Jeffrey Epstein Victims Compensation fund waived all their rights to sue the estate or related entities further.
He also does not wish to inform or remind anyone of the non-prosecution agreement that he helped broker which prevented a federal prosecution of Epstein, nor how unprecedented it was given the severity and magnitude of his crimes + damning evidence amassed
Yet he does vaguely refer to it as the "sweetheart" deal which was somehow, as he claims, not as good as the deal they COULD have gotten him had they known of any connection between Epstein and the intelligence community:
His rationale for why Epstein could not have been connected to intelligence is that he would have gotten a BETTER deal than the one that boggles all minds who know the details of it. Epstein not being "satisfied" with it is offered to justify that.
Don't just glide over that: Epstein, a conscienceless criminal, who didn't think he should have had any punishment whatsoever - his not being satisfied with his slap on the wrist, is offered by Dersh as evidence that he is not connected to intelligence.
Dersh also says that allegations that Epstein was connected to intelligence "likely emanate" from the fact that Ghislaine's father was a Mossad agent. However, Dersh is absolutely 100% aware of the mountains of other evidence pointing to Tucker's conclusion.
Now let's get to the most falsifiable, blatant and bald-faced lie of Dershowitz's article: his claim that "I am not aware of" hidden cameras in guest bedroooms. Multiple credible, public reports confirm that Epstein installed hidden cameras ....
...throughout his properties, including bedrooms and bathrooms. Not only firsthand eyewitness testimony, but police raid reports, and investigative records and reporting. Court and DOJ filings reference binders of CDs and hard drives...
containing sexual photos and videos, suggesting the two things could be related. The chances of Dershowitz not being aware of all this are ZERO.
The idea that anyone would be inclined to accept Alan Dershowitz as a credible source of wisdom on this topic is truly a gut-punch. The reasons, which seem so self-evident and self-explanatory, apparently have not fully penetrated public awareness:
1. He was on Epstein's legal defense team. In that capacity he participated in the very corruption and miscarriage of justice that allowed Epstein to continue violating his victims for years. This legal team took extreme measures to harrass...
...and intimidate witnesses. The non-prosecutorial agreement he helped procure, which could not be termed anything other than a criminal conspiracy, was literally illegal as well, as it violated the Crime Victims Rights Act.
On top of that, Dershowitz was not only a close friend of Epstein and a frequent traveler on his infamous plane, he himself was accused of illicit sexual acts by multiple victims. Their reports look very credible. Dershowitz first denied any contact,
Later admitting to a massage in which he "kept his underwear on." He also claimed that his wife was on Epstein's flights with him, but she does not appear on the flight logs. He also wrote an op-ed in the LA times saying that age of consent should be 14.
He has been publicly caught red-handed in flagrant lies numerous times by numerous people in numerous contexts. When it comes to lying, he has no scruples whatsoever. In addition, his own ties to prominent figures in Israeli government and intelligence...
...and his explicit and extremely well-known bias toward Israel should make it clear that he would do anything in his power to run interference for that government and tightly guard any fact that might prove incriminating or even unflattering of Israel.
I guess I just can't understand how a person as strongly and notoriously implicated in unethical, if not illegal behavior, could possibly viewed by the public at large as anything but a co-conspirator aiding and abetting, if not committing, serious crimes.
I believe this points to how uninformed the public is on the Epstein case - not only the general public but even pundits and commentators who do nothing but analyze current events. And it's a damned disgrace. That is all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
