Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change |399|

Here's some of the questions if I'm interested in exploring with y'all:
- Epstein -- what do you make the guy in general? what about the evil question? smart enough to use sexual blackmail for huge profits as well as other personal interests. do you think it would be possible for someone to be close friends with him and not we aware of his "lifestyle?" he was said to have had dozens of a pornographic pictures hanging on the walls of his house. any of these turned out to be girls. police also recovered high school transcripts of some of the girls he was trafficking.

- Dershowitz (hope somebody picks up on this because I think it's super interesting. allow me to tip my hand:
Alan Dershowitz Says Martha's Vineyard Is 'Shunning' Him Over Trump) I think he's one of the most interesting characters in this drama / tragedy. I love how his friends on Martha's Vineyard shunned him for supporting Trump. I mean, there's so much to pull apart that I almost don't know where to begin. first off, the guy didn't "support Trump" he just didn't hate Trump enough for their liking, but the real issue for me is they didn't care anything about any of the stuff we're talking about here. no one shunned him for taking advantage of a sixteen-year-old girl who was a sex traffic victim of his billionaire buddy.

- Trump -- where there is smoke there is fire? innocent until proven in a court of law? Guilty in the court of public opinion? Boys will be boys. Young Rich and Powerful in New York that was ages ago. any chance of draining the swamp is long gone... he's too far in it.

- Josephus -- the Christian mind control thing never ceases to amaze me.

- Climategate -- a good litmus test for lefties.

- Jacques Vallee -- this was a jaw-dropping point for me in the interview

- Satanic Ritual Abuse (Satanic Panic?) -- Ed has made a great contribution investigative reporting in this area. I can dig into it more if anyone's interested, but I won't bother if no one is. the larger point is it appears to me that Ed's Evangelical Christian beliefs allow him to be a good researcher in this area, but crippled him in other areas.
 
Here's some of the questions if I'm interested in exploring with y'all:
- Epstein -- what do you make the guy in general? what about the evil question? smart enough to use sexual blackmail for huge profits as well as other personal interests. do you think it would be possible for someone to be close friends with him and not we aware of his "lifestyle?" he was said to have had dozens of a pornographic pictures hanging on the walls of his house. any of these turned out to be girls. police also recovered high school transcripts of some of the girls he was trafficking.

- Dershowitz (hope somebody picks up on this because I think it's super interesting. allow me to tip my hand:
Alan Dershowitz Says Martha's Vineyard Is 'Shunning' Him Over Trump) I think he's one of the most interesting characters in this drama / tragedy. I love how his friends on Martha's Vineyard shunned him for supporting Trump. I mean, there's so much to pull apart that I almost don't know where to begin. first off, the guy didn't "support Trump" he just didn't hate Trump enough for their liking, but the real issue for me is they didn't care anything about any of the stuff we're talking about here. no one shunned him for taking advantage of a sixteen-year-old girl who was a sex traffic victim of his billionaire buddy.

- Trump -- where there is smoke there is fire? innocent until proven in a court of law? Guilty in the court of public opinion? Boys will be boys. Young Rich and Powerful in New York that was ages ago. any chance of draining the swamp is long gone... he's too far in it.

- Josephus -- the Christian mind control thing never ceases to amaze me.

- Climategate -- a good litmus test for lefties.

- Jacques Vallee -- this was a jaw-dropping point for me in the interview

- Satanic Ritual Abuse (Satanic Panic?) -- Ed has made a great contribution investigative reporting in this area. I can dig into it more if anyone's interested, but I won't bother if no one is. the larger point is it appears to me that Ed's Evangelical Christian beliefs allow him to be a good researcher in this area, but crippled him in other areas.

My suspicion about Epstein is his role, not in blackmail for money but black mail to control government officials.

For a long time the only way I could explain what I saw happening through out the Federal government was that most of the officials were controlled, including representatives, senators, and judges,

The link below is dead, it once pointed to a very interseting video. In the excerpt from the video below, Catherine Austin Fitts describes how a top level government official was blackmailed with "sexual dirt" in 1989, and how she was harassed with fake accusations.

What is extremely relevant, Alex, to this thread is that she says, if they don't have real dirt, they make it up. (Like the Russia collusion hoax was made up, like the Trump groping accusations were made up, like Dershowitz with the underage girl was made up, like the accusations against Kavanaugh were made up).

https://solari.com/blog/solari-stories-scandals-control-files-and-blackmail/

So, it was several days later, I got called into the Secretary's office and he said, "Have you found a way to do this?" And I said, "No. There's no legal way to do this. You can't"​
And he was, litterally - I have never seen a man that frightened in my life - he was scared to death. And I was sure just from watching him that he was under extreme political pressure and I believe blackmail. And he just looked scared to death. And I went back up to my office and one of my deputies pulled me aside and he said, "You know you have to be very very careful" he said, "because you know there's real sexual dirt on the Secretary. So you have to be real careful."​
...​
That was the same time the Franklin scandal hit the Washington Timesheadlines.​
...​
Even if you don't have a control file, you know I always encourage all of our subscribers to watch the movie Enemy of the State because it's a perfect example of, you know, Will Smith plays a totally clean lawyer in Washington and so he's got nothing in, his control file is empty, and yet the intellegence agencies are able to persuade his own family that he's corrupt when he's not, his own partners he's corrupt when he's not.
I went through a similar process and so people are not only afraid of what's in their control file, but they're afraid of spending eleven years in litigation proving that there's nothing in their control file.
You have a situation where, I always get very frustrated with citizens who think, oh lets just go talk to our senator. Well your senator is subject to these kinds of powers and controls that are very invisible but are very real.​
...​
We're literally watching a government that is being run by coercion whether it's the blackmail or control file or physical violence. If you don't do what you're told, there's really issues of physical violence now.​
It's not just one person doing this, it requires a huge organization, like a Federal Bureau of ..., to organize something like this.
 
Last edited:
Dershowitz is saying they are shunning him because he expressed an opinion about the law. His ex friends think he should shut up if the truth hurts their partisan political objectives.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...ters-does-not-speak-for-democrats-or-liberals
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 06/27/18 08:45 AM EDT
...
The divisions have gotten so bad that many on both sides refuse to speak or listen to those on the other side. Either you are for Trump or against him, and that is all some people need to know to make judgments about you.

I know this because I have experienced this firsthand on Martha’s Vineyard. I am not a Trump supporter nor am I member of the Trump administration. I have strongly and publicly opposed his immigration policies, ranging from the travel ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court to the zero-tolerance policy that led to the separation of parents and children at the border. I oppose other Republican policies as well. I voted for, and contributed handsomely, to Hillary Clinton.

But I have defended Trump’s civil liberties, along with those of all Americans, just as I would have defended Hillary Clinton’s civil liberties had she been elected and subjected to efforts of impeachment tor prosecution. My book, “The Case Against Impeaching Trump,” could just as easily have been the case against impeaching Hillary Clinton. Indeed, I wrote such a book about Bill Clinton, “Sexual McCarthyism: Clinton, Starr, and the Emerging Constitutional Crisis.” I am opposed to appointing a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and I was against it for Trump. I am a liberal Democrat in politics, but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution.

But that is not good enough for some of my old friends on Martha’s Vineyard. For them, it is enough that what I have said about the Constitution might help Trump. So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha’s Vineyard. One of them, an academic at a distinguished university, has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited. He and others have demanded “trigger warnings” so that they can be assured of having “safe spaces” in which they will not encounter me or my ideas. Others have said they will discontinue contributions to organizations that sponsor my talks.

This is all familiar to me, since I lived through McCarthyism in the 1950s, when lawyers who represented alleged communists on civil libertarian grounds were shunned. Some of these lawyers and victims of McCarthyism lived on Martha’s Vineyard. I never thought I would see McCarthyism come to Martha’s Vineyard, but I have.
 
Last edited:
Dershowitz did not rape a 16 year old girl. This has been established in court where he produced travel records proving he could not have committed the crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-2016-4

Lawyers admit it was a 'mistake' to claim Alan Dershowitz had sex with an underage girl tied to a notorious financier​
...​
One of America's most famous lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, has settled a drawn-out legal battle with two lawyers who alleged he had sex with an underage girl who was allegedly being exploited by one of his clients.​
...​
Meanwhile, Edwards and Cassell noted in their statement Friday that Dershowitz had produced travel records to establish he couldn't have been present during the supposed misconduct, in addition to other allegations to refute the claims against him.​
 
Last edited:
... if they don't have real dirt, they make it up
probably true. but it would also seem that there's no substitute for real dirt. it seems pretty clear that J Edgar Hoover was compromised by a mafia sexual blackmail scheme and later became a large scale perpetrator.

Trump's Mentor, Roy Cohen was known for being a sexual blackmailer. Clinton, podesta, are implicated in different schemes.

I used to believe something like "draining of the swamp" was possible. I don't believe it anymore.

In the case of Epstein it pretty seems pretty clear that he was playing this game really really hard. I don't see any reason to think that he wasn't playing it for business reasons as well.
 
Dershowitz did not rape a 16 year old girl. This has been established in court where he produced travel records proving he could not have committed the crime.
this is a head-fake. Ed Opperman got it right. Read carefully and you'll see that the cases that were mutually dismissed were the defamation lawsuits that the two opposing lawyers had filed against each other. the main case is still going forward.

dershowitz was identified by Virginia Roberts as someone she was told to have sex with on six occasions. she may or may not be Jane Doe number 3, but Virginia Roberts continues to be a very strong witness. dershowitz's alibi re only getting a massage from a middle-aged Russian woman at Epstein's mansion is laughable.
 
probably true. but it would also seem that there's no substitute for real dirt. it seems pretty clear that J Edgar Hoover was compromised by a mafia sexual blackmail scheme and later became a large scale perpetrator.

Trump's Mentor, Roy Cohen was known for being a sexual blackmailer. Clinton, podesta, are implicated in different schemes.

I used to believe something like "draining of the swamp" was possible. I don't believe it anymore.

In the case of Epstein it pretty seems pretty clear that he was playing this game really really hard. I don't see any reason to think that he wasn't playing it for business reasons as well.

I always thought draining the swamp would be huge because in my mind it involves reigning in rogue intelligence operations. I am not optimisic either. But I think there could be things happening out of public view.

I didn't mean to imply Epstein wasn't making money.

But multinational corporations who want to buy a vote in congress can pay him a lot more for dirt than a freshman congressman can pay to suppress it.
 
Last edited:
this is a head-fake. Ed Opperman got it right. Read carefully and you'll see that the cases that were mutually dismissed were the defamation lawsuits that the two opposing lawyers had filed against each other. the main case is still going forward.

dershowitz was identified by Virginia Roberts as someone she was told to have sex with on six occasions. she may or may not be Jane Doe number 3, but Virginia Roberts continues to be a very strong witness. dershowitz's alibi re only getting a massage from a middle-aged Russian woman at Epstein's mansion is laughable.

The opposing lawyers admitted Dershowitz provided proof (travel records) he could not have been there with jd3

Why would they produce fake accusations and open themselves up to legal action if they had any real evidence?
 
this is a head-fake. Ed Opperman got it right. Read carefully and you'll see that the cases that were mutually dismissed were the defamation lawsuits that the two opposing lawyers had filed against each other. the main case is still going forward.

dershowitz was identified by Virginia Roberts as someone she was told to have sex with on six occasions. she may or may not be Jane Doe number 3, but Virginia Roberts continues to be a very strong witness. dershowitz's alibi re only getting a massage from a middle-aged Russian woman at Epstein's mansion is laughable.


I don't know the details of the case but I am not persuaded by "weak alibi's". What is the evidence against him, is it just the word of one person? I live alone and am retired. Anyone could make fake accusations against me and I would never have any alibi or evidence to prove where I really was at the time.

I have no real interest in defending Dershowitz. But, JD3 is sufficient to support the point I am trying to make - which is that a lot of this "evidence" is fake - Kavanaugh, Trump, Dershowitz, Russia, - all of this fakery is not coincidence or accidental, there is an organization behind it.
 
This is always interesting to me. Almost all of my friends disagree with me on a number of issues. I don't care and I get along with them anyway.

I think overcoming our differences of opinion and learning to work together is vital if we’re to change the world, if indeed changing our world is part of the plan. It is quite easily achievable, but it will take some raising of consciousness. At this point I think there is too much fear and not enough compassion.

It is interesting that you brought this topic up, as I have used you as an example of a seemingly paradoxical individual. You and I ended up discussing George Bush by PM and it became obvious that you are a big fan. Yet your vegan and other green habits didn’t seem to fit the picture! I found that very interesting.
 
I don't know the details of the case but I am not persuaded by "weak alibi's". What is the evidence against him, is it just the word of one person?
at the end of the day all we have is the evidence we have... and I get that what we have right now might not meet your threshold, but I point out that the threshold isn't illegal one, or even a civil court one, it's a threshold of believability in the court of public opinion, and in that respect I think the case is a slam dunk against dershowitz.

the testimony offered by Virginia Roberts, and the circumstances surrounding it remain unchallenged. against that we have the weak " I was there but I didn't inhale"" alibi of a high-profile inside player who has absolutely everything to lose. this latest stunt whereby he claimed that defamation suit he brought against the opposing attorney was somehow a vindication of the accusations against him do not strengthen his credibility.
 
I get your point, but just for fun let me play around with the other side of this. God, good, evil are no more undefinable then a lot of the other stuff science has meandered into. we measure pain. we measure depression. we measure happiness. of course, we don't measure them very well, and some would say the science we generate is junk science, but we measure them none the less.

And I'd go one step further and suggest that the greatest contribution materialistic science has made is to point out that we can't really measure anything without factoring in Consciousness / spirituality. maybe it's not that we can't measure God, but that we can't measure anything without God :)

Ah, yes - the issue which distinguishes ignosticism from nihilistic atheism is in 'measurement' standing as the crux of our knowledge. This to the ignostic, is the irritating amateur insistence of the nihilist. An irritation we all share. :) The reason we can measure such things as pain, depression, happiness and other forms of human experience is not because they 'can be measured' (perhaps they cannot be) - rather that they bear definition... i.e. by Wittgenstein, they are Comprehensible, Describable, Intelligible... the three first foundation stones of the pyramid in the chart below.

Then and only then can they be Observable (Measurable). So pain, joy, happiness or ardor are all defined in the human experience - even though the challenge exists that they may not indeed be suitably 'measured'.

God, good, heaven, spirit - are not Comprehensible, Describable nor Intelligible. Measurement is a moot point. This is how ignosticism distinguishes itself from Nihilistic Atheism. The Nihilist Atheist has presumed a grasp with respect to such constructs, of the first three levels of the Wittgenstein chart below... and that is what Nietzsche cited as their ludicrous mistake in claim.

(but the nasty little secret is... with ignosticism we are free therefore to chase hunches and even adopt a belief, despite its adefining. Which is why I am here. ;) The nihilist is free to do none of this...)

the-wittgenstein-thresholds-of-knowledge-copy-copy.png
 
this is a head-fake. Ed Opperman got it right. Read carefully and you'll see that the cases that were mutually dismissed were the defamation lawsuits that the two opposing lawyers had filed against each other. the main case is still going forward.

dershowitz was identified by Virginia Roberts as someone she was told to have sex with on six occasions. she may or may not be Jane Doe number 3, but Virginia Roberts continues to be a very strong witness. dershowitz's alibi re only getting a massage from a middle-aged Russian woman at Epstein's mansion is laughable.

at the end of the day all we have is the evidence we have... and I get that what we have right now might not meet your threshold, but I point out that the threshold isn't illegal one, or even a civil court one, it's a threshold of believability in the court of public opinion, and in that respect I think the case is a slam dunk against dershowitz.

the testimony offered by Virginia Roberts, and the circumstances surrounding it remain unchallenged. against that we have the weak " I was there but I didn't inhale"" alibi of a high-profile inside player who has absolutely everything to lose. this latest stunt whereby he claimed that defamation suit he brought against the opposing attorney was somehow a vindication of the accusations against him do not strengthen his credibility.

On 12/2/18 Dershowitz said the evidence (travel, phone, credit card and TV appearance records) proved he was not there with Virginia Roberts.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article222532470.html

BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ DECEMBER 02, 2018​
In its series on the Jeffrey Epstein case, “Perversion of Justice,” the Herald quotes an affidavit by Virginia Roberts — a woman I never met — claiming she had sex with me on Epstein’s island, ranch, plane and mansion. It then simply says I “denied” it.​
In fact, I disproved it. I produced my travel, phone, credit card and TV appearance records, conclusively proving that I could not have been and was not in any of these places during the time Roberts knew Epstein. The former FBI director, assisted by a former assistant U.S. attorney and a chief federal marshal, reviewed these records and the other evidence and concluded that, “The totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations.”
There is other evidence, currently under seal, that directly establishes my innocence. I am seeking to unseal emails between Roberts and a journalist, a book manuscript by Roberts and a legal brief that are smoking guns showing that I was “deliberately framed for financial reasons.”​
 
The reason we can measure such things as pain, depression, happiness and other forms of human experience is not because they 'can be measured' (perhaps they cannot be) - rather that they bear definition... i.e. by Wittgenstein, they are Comprehensible, Describable, Intelligible... the three first foundation stones of the pyramid in the chart below.

Then and only then can they be Observable (Measurable). So pain, joy, happiness or ardor are all defined in the human experience - even though the challenge exists that they may not indeed be suitably 'measured'.

God, good, heaven, spirit - are not Comprehensible, Describable nor Intelligible. Measurement is a moot point. This is how ignosticism distinguishes itself from Nihilistic Atheism. The Nihilist Atheist has presumed a grasp with respect to such constructs, of the first three levels of the Wittgenstein chart below... and that is what Nietzsche cited as their ludicrous mistake in claim.

(but the nasty little secret is... with ignosticism we are free therefore to chase hunches and even adopt a belief, despite its adefining. Which is why I am here. ;) The nihilist is free to do none of this...)

I dust off my copy of Lao Tzu to find that such intangibles were traditionally measured by their opposites, or by what they were not i.e. pain by pleasure; joy by sadness; good by evil, etc. I believe this was also the case throughout most of Eurasia prior to monotheism, which introduced our current mass belief in a single "objective" good.

This is also the approach that I've seen taken by some of the Protestant Christian response to Materialist Atheism. First, they try to force an admission that there is indeed an "objective" evil in the world. From there, it's easy to assume the existence of an "objective" good. However, in this the Monotheists are not being strictly honest with themselves, because when they say "objective" they really mean "absolute" in the sense of single universal good i.e. god.
 
Last edited:
https://skeptiko.com/ed-opperman-trump-epstein-why-beliefs-do-not-change/
"Ed Opperman: Well, Dershowitz was actually friends with Epstein, before he was an attorney and Epstein was donating huge amounts of money to Harvard Law School. In fact, he’s seen walking around in a Harvard T-shirt all of the time. So, there’s that and also Virginia Roberts, she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz as well, she says, and that while she was servicing Epstein, Dershowitz was right there in the same room, just having a conversation, just a natural conversation."​

Considering my previous post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Ed Opperman is not the most reliable source of information.
And that maybe more of his allegations including what he says about Trump are wrong too.

Maybe there is something I am not aware of that can put Dershowitz's claims in doubt but for the moment I'll take this as a opportunity to reiterate this:

When studying a controversial subject, I find it very useful to look at what both sides have to say on the subject and try to follow the debate back and forth and see how they reply to each other. Sometimes you can tell when one side is being disingenuous, making weak arguments, twisting things out of context etc.

For example, this link replies to accusations of Trump being a racist.
https://blog.dilbert.com/2018/06/10/why-democrats-hear-a-secret-racist-dog-whistle-and-republicans-dont/

The "Trump mocked a disabled reporter" has also been shown to be wrong.
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/

The whole fake Russia Collusion - Fake dossier - FBI insurance policy witch hunt is another area where the Trump's opponents have been shown to be wrong.

Remember Judge Kavanaugh? The accusations against him were all fake. But they were made to look credible.

So I hope people will understand if I say I am not impressed these new (at least new to me) allegations made by Opperman about Trump and that I assume they are no different that the constant stream of wrong information that has been propagated about Trump over the internet and by the mainstream media.
 
https://skeptiko.com/ed-opperman-trump-epstein-why-beliefs-do-not-change/
"Ed Opperman: Well, Dershowitz was actually friends with Epstein, before he was an attorney and Epstein was donating huge amounts of money to Harvard Law School. In fact, he’s seen walking around in a Harvard T-shirt all of the time. So, there’s that and also Virginia Roberts, she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz as well, she says, and that while she was servicing Epstein, Dershowitz was right there in the same room, just having a conversation, just a natural conversation."​

Considering my previous post, it seems reasonable to conclude that Ed Opperman is not the most reliable source of information.
And that maybe more of his allegations including what he says about Trump are wrong too.

Maybe there is something I am not aware of that can put Dershowitz's claims in doubt but for the moment I'll take this as a opportunity to reiterate this:
I get yr position... this is certain not clear cut. but for me, the more I keep digging, the more it looks like a Rich, powerful guy who will do/say absolutely anything to cover his crimes. BTW prince Andrew said all the same s***. adamantly denied that he ever knew Virginia Roberts. then the photos emerged. and I'm not even going to bring up the Franklin scandal, but anyone who dares to look we'll see what these guys will go through once the spotlight is turned on them.


from Salon:
Dershowitz has vehemently denied the accusation, telling the Herald that he never met Roberts and never saw Epstein with any underage girls (doesn't this say it all... isn't it clear that he's just lying his ass off... I mean, everyone, EVERYONE acknowledges they knew Epstein was into young girls... but, of course, Alan dershowitz can't do otherwise... I mean, his life is over if he loses). In a letter to Salon after the original publication of this article, Dershowitz wrote that documentary evidence proves he was not in any of the places Roberts claimed he was, and that a judge in the Epstein case had struck Roberts' affidavit from the record and sanctioned her attorneys for filing it.

The Miami Herald article reports that legal history with a different emphasis, writing that Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, the lawyers who represented Roberts and other alleged Epstein victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, had sued Dershowitz for defamation and he had countersued, with the parties settling out of court and Dershowitz saying he had been vindicated.
Edwards and Cassell admitted making a “tactical mistake” in filing the accusations against Dershowitz as part of a lawsuit not involving him. But they emphasized that the settlement had no bearing on the veracity of Roberts’ allegations.

The judge for the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit agreed that the affidavit was misplaced in that case, and it was dropped.

again, it's incredibly scammy for dershowitz to misrepresent this as some kind of vindication against the charges Virginia Roberts.

During his tenure as Epstein's lawyer, Dershowitz was accused of attempting to undermine the case by hiring private investigators to gather background on the girls, their families and the police. According to the Herald, "Police reports show that Epstein's private investigators attempted to conduct interviews while posing as cops; that they picked through [Palm Beach Police Chief Michael] Reiter's trash in search of dirt to discredit him; and that the private investigators were accused of following the girls and their families. In one case, the father of one girl claimed he had been run off the road by a private investigator, police and court reports show."

Dershowitz denied these allegations, as well, telling the Herald that "he had nothing to do with gathering background on the girls — or in directing anyone to follow the police, or the girls and their families."

"I'm not an investigator," he continued. "My only job was to negotiate and try the case when it comes to trial."

Still, the newspaper (the freak'n Miami Herald who in this case is about as close as we're going to get to neutrality) alleges that Dershowitz convinced then-Palm Beach state attorney Barry Krischer that the girls "would not be credible on the witness stand."
 
Last edited:
Is This What ‘Exoneration’ Looks Like To Alan Dershowitz?
Columnist Tamara Tabo opines on the deposition of Alan Dershowitz in his litigation with Paul Cassell.
By TAMARA TABO

Oct 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM
64SHARES
Righteous-Indignation.jpg
[I’ve posted the transcripts from the depositions of Alan M. Dershowitz and Paul G. Cassell. Readers can review the evidence and decide for themselves whether they agree with my opinions below.]
Accused by Virginia Roberts of having sex with her while she was an underage sexual servant of financier Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz has insisted for months that he can can prove his innocence “conclusively with documentation,” “without any doubt.” He told Nancy Grace, for example, “I can prove conclusively that I didn’t do it, I couldn’t have done it, I wasn’t in the places she says I was at the relevant points in time.”
In interviews and in his recent deposition, Dershowitz has claimed that he was able to round up all the documents necessary to exonerate himself within an hour of first hearing the accusations.
After the deposition, though, it looks like Dershowitz might not even know what the documents produced so far look like, much less how they they manage to exonerate him.
The following exchange between Jack Scarola, representing Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards, and Dershowitz (on page 242 of the transcript) may be one of the most revealing passages:

SCAROLA: Well, having placed such substantial emphasis during the course of your public appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it would certainly seem logical that one of the things that you would want to review would be all of the available — all of the available flight logs, right?
DERSHOWITZ: No.
SCOTT (COUNSEL FOR DERSHOWITZ): Objection, argumentative.
DERSHOWITZ: No.
SCAROLA: No?
DERSHOWITZ: No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane with any underage females under any circumstances. I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I’m sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, they would, of course, exonerate me because I am totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of these charges.​
-------
One example: December 11, 2000, through December 14, 2000.

On December 11, the flight logs show that Jeffrey Epstein flew from Florida to the New York City area. The plane left New York on December 14. The manifests for both flights include a passenger referred to as “Virginia.”

A notation in Carolyn Dershowitz’s calendar places Alan Dershowitz in New York at the same time, while she does not appear to be there. Also, on December 12, there is a 1:30 meeting with “Jeff” on the Dershowitz calendar. On December 13, a calendar entry shows a 10 o’clock massage scheduled for “AD,” presumably referring to Alan Dershowitz.
-------

Dershowitz either can’t see or won’t acknowledge the differences among concepts like conclusive proof, or exoneration, and support. In the deposition, he doesn’t just argue that the opposing side has failed to prove his wrongdoing, so much as he keeps arguing that he has affirmatively proved his innocence. The former is hotly debatable; the latter is, in my opinion, laughable.
 
Ah, yes - the issue which distinguishes ignosticism from nihilistic atheism is in 'measurement' standing as the crux of our knowledge. This to the ignostic, is the irritating amateur insistence of the nihilist. An irritation we all share. :) The reason we can measure such things as pain, depression, happiness and other forms of human experience is not because they 'can be measured' (perhaps they cannot be) - rather that they bear definition... i.e. by Wittgenstein, they are Comprehensible, Describable, Intelligible... the three first foundation stones of the pyramid in the chart below.

Then and only then can they be Observable (Measurable). So pain, joy, happiness or ardor are all defined in the human experience - even though the challenge exists that they may not indeed be suitably 'measured'.

God, good, heaven, spirit - are not Comprehensible, Describable nor Intelligible. Measurement is a moot point. This is how ignosticism distinguishes itself from Nihilistic Atheism. The Nihilist Atheist has presumed a grasp with respect to such constructs, of the first three levels of the Wittgenstein chart below... and that is what Nietzsche cited as their ludicrous mistake in claim.

(but the nasty little secret is... with ignosticism we are free therefore to chase hunches and even adopt a belief, despite its adefining. Which is why I am here. ;) The nihilist is free to do none of this...)

the-wittgenstein-thresholds-of-knowledge-copy-copy.png
I like the chart :)

but I was driving at something else. I believe our emerging, broader understanding consciousness leads to scientifically-based acceptance of extended Consciousness realms. I really don't see how anyone can argue against this once one makes the leap from "Consciousness is an illusion." so once we accept extended Consciousness realms it's pretty hard to deny agency. I mean, all indiactions are that spirits can do s***. this marks the end of science as we know it. Carl Sagan used to joke about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but what if that becomes a legitimate scientific question?

 
I get yr position... this is certain not clear cut. but for me, the more I keep digging, the more it looks like a Rich, powerful guy who will do/say absolutely anything to cover his crimes. BTW prince Andrew said all the same s***. adamantly denied that he ever knew Virginia Roberts. then the photos emerged. and I'm not even going to bring up the Franklin scandal, but anyone who dares to look we'll see what these guys will go through once the spotlight is turned on them.


from Salon:



again, it's incredibly scammy for dershowitz to misrepresent this as some kind of vindication against the charges Virginia Roberts.

The opposition lawyers admitted "Dershowitz had produced travel records to establish he couldn't have been present during the supposed misconduct, in addition to other allegations to refute the claims against him."




Dershowitz did not rape a 16 year old girl. This has been established in court where he produced travel records proving he could not have committed the crime.

https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-2016-4

Lawyers admit it was a 'mistake' to claim Alan Dershowitz had sex with an underage girl tied to a notorious financier​
...​
One of America's most famous lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, has settled a drawn-out legal battle with two lawyers who alleged he had sex with an underage girl who was allegedly being exploited by one of his clients.​
...​
Meanwhile, Edwards and Cassell noted in their statement Friday that Dershowitz had produced travel records to establish he couldn't have been present during the supposed misconduct, in addition to other allegations to refute the claims against him.​
 
Back
Top