As per the classified document case, Trump had the legal right to have them, Biden did not. That's the chief difference. Trump waved a piece of paper around, claimed it was classified, but nobody read it, or saw what it was...bunk accusation. As for OJ, if he was tried in a different district he would have been convicted. It was a tainted jury and they would have found him innocent no matter what. But I've discussed all this before, and have no inclination to repeat myself. The rest of the interview was very good. Thank you.
IS IT DEFAMATOERY TO SAY OR WRITE THAT DERSHOWITZ IS A PEDOPHILE? THE ANNOTATED LEGAL OPINION OF CHAT GPS (my comments in parentheses)
1. Defamation Basics
Defamation involves
*a false statement purporting to be fact
*issued to a third party
*causing harm to reputatiion
*and made with at least negligence or for a public figure actual malice (=known false or reckless disregard for the truth)
2. Public Figure Standard
Defamation requires actual malice to defame successfully
3. Context
Accusations against Dershowitz related to the Jeffrey Epstein case : Dershowitz has denied all wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime regarding pedophilia. He has actively fought back legally, including filing defamation lawsuits himself against the accusing kids and their pro bono attorneys ( and engaging private detectives to undertake intrusive investigations of the kids with a view towards proving the 14 year olds were "prostitutes,liars and thieves"---but this proof could at most go to credibility since a pedophilic act which is age-determined and by definition non-consensual)
4.. Legal Risk
Calling him a pedophile without proof is a serious allegation which may be seen by a court as defamation per se (but despite the comprehensive cover up there is lots of proof about Dershowitz starting with 1) the kids' allegations, then moving on to 2) Dershowitz's behaviour using intimidation and monied influence to shut the girls up and his influence peddling efforts to avoid indictment, resulting in a secret non-prosecution agreement which however violated both the Federal Victims Rights Act and procedural ethics according to the Florida Bar and DOJ. and 3) the cover up by nature and intent covers up evidence further implicating Dershowitz)'
5- General Analysis.
Strong defenses to defamation are
* Truth or
* clearly held opinions within a population without implying undisclosed facts
Conclusion
Callijng Dershowitz a pedopjhile without evidence could be defamation (but we have evidence and can reasonably presume the comprehensive cover up has obstructed production of even more.
Determining Truth in Defamation cases clouded by a comprehensive cover up can be challenging. A cover up is meant to be protective inter alia for Dershowitz. Dershowitz arguably started the cover up with his defamation lawsuits against the kids and their pro bono attorney, and continued them by requiring NDAs in exchange for civil settlements. The Epstein Estate also requires NDAs for any economic compensaion it awards. This of course complicates production of pedo evidence unless Stormy Daniels disregard of an NDA is seen as precedent-making and justifiable in the public interest)
Creativity is useful to prove Truth despite cover ups and pervasive NDAs.
Look for indirect evidence
* witness testimony
* documents
*official records
Motions to compel production of documents Court order subpeona. regarding relevant emails between Dershowitz and Epstein and Dershowitz and anyone else (Pedophilic acts are generally not recorded in documents)
Independent sources
Julie Brown and Carolyn Bruch are investigative reporters who for a time focused on Dershowitz and the kids'allegations against him, Darryl Cooper, Whitney and Bryant
Establish pattern or motive for the Cover Up,Cove4r up as proof of a lager systematic pattern of behaviour
*similar cover ups
*explationsofexperts as to the scale of the cover ups
Public opinion and reputation evidence may support finding Truth. Dershowitz is silent on relevant matters.
In his movie "Reversal of Fortune, the Dershowitz character tells the accused murderer that the criminal prosecution can be stopped on a technicality but that it will be difficult to prove his innocence in the Court of Public Opinion. It seems Dershowitz little interest in the Court of Public Opinion regarding the pedo allegations. He simply does not produce evidence of proof of inncence, not a single alibi, and instead relies on a certain elite to protect him from indictment.).
As per the classified document case, Trump had the legal right to have them, Biden did not. That's the chief difference. Trump waved a piece of paper around, claimed it was classified, but nobody read it, or saw what it was...bunk accusation. As for OJ, if he was tried in a different district he would have been convicted. It was a tainted jury and they would have found him innocent no matter what. But I've discussed all this before, and have no inclination to repeat myself. The rest of the interview was very good. Thank you.
I would love to see you with Victor Davis Hanson
Everyone is entitled to competent representation.
IS IT DEFAMATOERY TO SAY OR WRITE THAT DERSHOWITZ IS A PEDOPHILE? THE ANNOTATED LEGAL OPINION OF CHAT GPS (my comments in parentheses)
1. Defamation Basics
Defamation involves
*a false statement purporting to be fact
*issued to a third party
*causing harm to reputatiion
*and made with at least negligence or for a public figure actual malice (=known false or reckless disregard for the truth)
2. Public Figure Standard
Defamation requires actual malice to defame successfully
3. Context
Accusations against Dershowitz related to the Jeffrey Epstein case : Dershowitz has denied all wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime regarding pedophilia. He has actively fought back legally, including filing defamation lawsuits himself against the accusing kids and their pro bono attorneys ( and engaging private detectives to undertake intrusive investigations of the kids with a view towards proving the 14 year olds were "prostitutes,liars and thieves"---but this proof could at most go to credibility since a pedophilic act which is age-determined and by definition non-consensual)
4.. Legal Risk
Calling him a pedophile without proof is a serious allegation which may be seen by a court as defamation per se (but despite the comprehensive cover up there is lots of proof about Dershowitz starting with 1) the kids' allegations, then moving on to 2) Dershowitz's behaviour using intimidation and monied influence to shut the girls up and his influence peddling efforts to avoid indictment, resulting in a secret non-prosecution agreement which however violated both the Federal Victims Rights Act and procedural ethics according to the Florida Bar and DOJ. and 3) the cover up by nature and intent covers up evidence further implicating Dershowitz)'
5- General Analysis.
Strong defenses to defamation are
* Truth or
* clearly held opinions within a population without implying undisclosed facts
Conclusion
Callijng Dershowitz a pedopjhile without evidence could be defamation (but we have evidence and can reasonably presume the comprehensive cover up has obstructed production of even more.
Determining Truth in Defamation cases clouded by a comprehensive cover up can be challenging. A cover up is meant to be protective inter alia for Dershowitz. Dershowitz arguably started the cover up with his defamation lawsuits against the kids and their pro bono attorney, and continued them by requiring NDAs in exchange for civil settlements. The Epstein Estate also requires NDAs for any economic compensaion it awards. This of course complicates production of pedo evidence unless Stormy Daniels disregard of an NDA is seen as precedent-making and justifiable in the public interest)
Creativity is useful to prove Truth despite cover ups and pervasive NDAs.
Look for indirect evidence
* witness testimony
* documents
*official records
Motions to compel production of documents Court order subpeona. regarding relevant emails between Dershowitz and Epstein and Dershowitz and anyone else (Pedophilic acts are generally not recorded in documents)
Independent sources
Julie Brown and Carolyn Bruch are investigative reporters who for a time focused on Dershowitz and the kids'allegations against him, Darryl Cooper, Whitney and Bryant
Establish pattern or motive for the Cover Up,Cove4r up as proof of a lager systematic pattern of behaviour
*similar cover ups
*explationsofexperts as to the scale of the cover ups
Public opinion and reputation evidence may support finding Truth. Dershowitz is silent on relevant matters.
In his movie "Reversal of Fortune, the Dershowitz character tells the accused murderer that the criminal prosecution can be stopped on a technicality but that it will be difficult to prove his innocence in the Court of Public Opinion. It seems Dershowitz little interest in the Court of Public Opinion regarding the pedo allegations. He simply does not produce evidence of proof of inncence, not a single alibi, and instead relies on a certain elite to protect him from indictment.).