Alan Dershowitz Becomes the New Roy Cohn: The Tikvah Trumpscum Nihilist Jews Ignore Anti-Semitism, Vigorously Promote “Whataboutism”
David Shasha
Alan Dershowitz Becomes the New Roy Cohn: The Tikvah Trumpscum Nihilist Jews Ignore Anti-Semitism, Vigorously Promote “Whataboutism”
We have already seen the Tikvah Trumpscum Lysol enablers in action on the FBI Mar-a-Lago court-authorized search and seizure of official documents not permitted to be removed from the White House:
https://groups.google.com/g/Davidshasha/c/qTn2b4psB2U
Bari Weiss went full-on FOX News and Trumpscummed the FBI:
Even worse Trumpscumminess came from the truly vile Alan Dershowitz who wrongly insisted that the DOJ should have subpoenaed the stolen Top Secret Classified documents, when we now know they already had:
He then doubled-down on his Insurrectionist Sedition by once again attacking Merrick Garland as a violator of the Rule of Law!
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18809/trump-double-standard
It is a classic Lysol Projection that makes a decent person sick.
Adding to the antinomian circus was our dear friend Self-Hating Sephardi David Suissa, who held one of his scintillating Jewish Journal Roundtables, with the whataboutism Lysol question: “Are Trump’s Documents Worse Than Hillary’s Emails?”
The first article, naturally, was a WSJ piece by Dershowitz himself:
The complete Dershowitz article defending that sacrosanct Legal Category whataboutism follows this note.
He is now fully consumed by Trumpworld Nihilism, as he continues to act as a Mob Shyster:
https://groups.google.com/g/davidshasha/c/WRor_KOJpV0/m/XaRuICVpBAAJ
It confirms that he has truly become the New Roy Cohn:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/opinion/roy-cohn-trump.html
Michelle Goldberg’s excellent column on Trump and Cohn follows this note.
The WSJ article is a truly fascinating example of debased Ashkenazi PILPUL, which completely ignores the a priori illegality of Trump’s theft of the documents, as it uses Hillary Clinton – whose case has been fully adjudicated by both the DOJ and Congress – and which was used to undermine her presidential bid because of Trump’s Assange COLLOOSION – in order to create a false equivalence between the two cases.
First, Trump has been treated as if he is Above the Law for decades now:
Here are all the Trumpcases currently being litigated:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/feb/07/donald-trump-list-legal-cases
He has received unprecedented legal protection from Attorneys General and the DOJ more generally:
A process that has largely been continued by his now-nemesis Merrick Garland:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/merrick-garland-donald-trump-rape-allegation.html
It is of course impossible to argue these points with Dershowitz, because his PILPUL “definitively” establishes that his point is absolutely “correct,” and “evidence” is then “marshalled” to “prove” that point, regardless of whether it does or not:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522
But in order to do it, he must ignore the basic principle of what the Rule of Law means, and the actual purpose of a Constitutional Democracy and the rights of its citizens – meaning the Americans whose rights have been violated by Trump and his criminal cabal for so many years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Dershowitz, naturally, denies that any of it is Impeachable conduct:
https://groups.google.com/g/davidshasha/c/09lTuiBau_w/m/u9K3sdm8EwAJ
https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-impeachment-1012672
He shamelessly wrote a book confirming his lawless ideas:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Impeaching-Trump/dp/151074228X
So, rather than marking Trump as a criminal and traitor to this country, the Neo-Con Jews have bent over backwards for the Zombie Orange Pig by echoing his criminal Talking Points.
This is connected to the violent Alt-Right Insurrection threat against the FBI and DOJ, which continues on Trump’s media site “Truth” Social:
As I have already noted, there has already been one documented Trumpscum Fascist attack on the FBI:
In the following post I sought to review the deafening silence of those Tikvah Fund Jews when it comes to addressing the New Fascism:
https://groups.google.com/g/davidshasha/c/kFtyMsNyKGs/m/tfPq4-DQBQAJ
We will recall that both Dershowitz and Weiss are very big on attacking Anti-Semitism:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-BDS-Anti-Semitic-Anti-Peace/dp/1984956698
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fight-Anti-Semitism-Bari-Weiss/dp/0593136055
“Alan Dershowitz Takes Anti-Semitism Very Seriously Indeed”!
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/alan-dershowitz-takes-anti-semitism-very-seriously-indeed
And then, of course, there is the Tikvah Tablet-informed Anti-Semitism documentary by Andrew Goldberg which provides the Zalman Bernstein perspective in granular detail:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GRObunZBnMD5tOWeQ7v6bQwEDiJo1a_jzUZZDmeZ8eE/edit
But when you put those two things together, Attacking Anti-Semitism and Defending Trump, you get another Trumpscum Jewish SHANDA:
The complete article follows this note.
Bruce Reinhart is the Federal Judge who issued the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/9/23297734/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-fbi-raid
The warrant was unsealed pursuant to Merrick Garland’s savvy gamesmanship against Trump:
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/fbi-search-trump-mar-a-lago-08-12-22/index.html
Breitbart helped move things along for the Trumpscum thugs by publishing the names of the FBI agents in the warrant:
Trumpscum Idiot Lawyer Christine Bobb released Reinhart’s name and immediately smeared him:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/fbi-dozen-boxes-mar-a-lago-trump-lawyer-00050730
As is the Lysol tradition:
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican
All this has furthered the toxic environment of Trumpscum violence that is now being directed in an Anti-Semitic fashion against Judge Reinhart, which is then linked to the avalanche of lies that Trump and his nihilist allies have been throwing out there, like pissing in the wind.
It is a set of excuses, none of which are legally tenable, which shift with the wind:
Talk about dementia PILPUL!
It is worthwhile to note that there seems to be nothing politically partisan about Reinhart:
But he is Jewish, and this has led to Anti-Semitic attacks on him.
And, once again, Weiss and Dershowitz – like the rest of the degenerate Jewish Trumpenablers – are silent about it.
The Reinhart situation for Weiss is very different than the Salman Rushdie attack:
I responded to Weiss’ HASBARAH -oriented instant article with a more nuanced reading of Rushdie’s literary career:
https://groups.google.com/g/Davidshasha/c/BUWEjxoU76Q
We know that both Dershowitz and Weiss are punctilious when it comes to speaking out immediately when it comes to addressing things that concern them.
But when it comes to Trumpist Anti-Semitism and the destruction of the Rule of Law, they have been AWOL.
Anti-Semitism is thus a relative thing for these people, depending on who it is that is perpetrating it.
When it comes to perceived Left Wing Anti-Semitism, the Neo-Cons are all over it.
But when it comes from Trumpworld, not so much.
Indeed, we have just seen Trumpscum Dershowitz attack the Jewish Democratic Council for not being Jewish!
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18772/jewish-democratic-council
We would expect nothing less from the White Jewish Supremacist PILPUL masters.
The degenerate spirit of Roy Cohn lives on in Alan Dershowitz!
David Shasha
‘But Her Emails’? A Defense of ‘Whataboutism’
By: Alan M. Dershowitz
Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material? Mrs. Clinton herself mocked that question by sporting a baseball cap with the logo “But her emails.”
Her hat is intended to deride the argument made by Trump supporters and some civil libertarians that the investigation of Mr. Trump’s alleged security breaches should be evaluated against the way in which earlier cases were handled. Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials—he by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state. Berger was administratively fined, and Mrs. Clinton was rebuked by James Comey, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which might have cost her the 2016 election. But neither was subjected to broad search warrants or criminal prosecution.
Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of “whataboutism.” But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.
The facts, especially the degrees of culpability, may be different; and if so, that would provide a good answer to the “what about” question. But if the facts are similar and the treatment is different, Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised. The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans.
So the question “What about her emails?” is an appropriate one. Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliché “two wrongs do not make a right.” A second wrong doesn’t justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong.
The “whataboutism” argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren’t handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.
“Whataboutism” is a new word for an old idea. There’s a 19th-century Yiddish expression: “a for-instance is not an argument.” Yet sometimes it is. If a pattern of nonenforcement can be demonstrated—as with the Logan Act, under which nobody has been prosecuted since 1852—it will be difficult to prove equal justice if it is suddenly and selectively invoked to target a political enemy. If, on the other hand, violation of the Classification or Records Acts were routinely prosecuted and alleged violators subject to a search warrant, then the case for equal application of the law will have been made.
Perhaps presidents should be treated differently. It is often argued that presidents aren’t above the law, but neither are they beneath deserving fair treatment, as Bill Clinton can attest. Mrs. Clinton should take off her hat. Just as her actions don’t excuse Mr. Trump’s, his don’t excuse hers. Her treatment of the emails and server were wrong even if they didn’t constitute a crime. Mr. Trump’s removal of possibly classified information might have been wrong too. Such two wrongs should encourage Congress to tighten up the laws governing such information and the Justice Department to enforce them equally and fairly, as Mr. Garland assured us it does.
But until Mr. Garland fully and specifically answers the hard questions about what appears to be unequal application of rules and practices, “what about her emails?” will be a pertinent question.
From The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2022
Roy Cohn Is How We Got Trump
By: Michelle Goldberg
Near the beginning of “Where’s My Roy Cohn?” the new documentary about the lawyer and power broker who mentored Donald Trump, an interviewee says, “Roy Cohn’s contempt for people, his contempt for the law, was so evident on his face that if you were in his presence, you knew you were in the presence of evil.” He wasn’t being hyperbolic.
The film, which opens in New York and Los Angeles on Friday, will likely be of wide interest because of how Cohn helps explain Trump. In the attorney’s life, you can see the strange ease with which a sybaritic con man fit in with crusading social reactionaries. You see the glee Cohn derived from being an exception to the rules he enforced on weaker people. From him, Trump learned how, when he was in trouble, to change the subject by acting outrageously, to never apologize and always stay on the offense. When the Justice Department claimed that apartment buildings owned by the Trump family were discriminating against black renters, it was Cohn’s idea to countersue the Justice Department for $100 million.
In the 1950s, as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Cohn wasn’t just a key player in the anti-Communist witch hunts of the time. He also persecuted men in the State Department who were suspected of being gay, despite being a closeted gay man himself. Later, he became a consigliere to New York’s mafia families, some of whom also had ties to Trump, even as he ranted about law and order.
The film’s title comes from something Trump said when he was frustrated with then Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Cohn was Trump’s template for what a lawyer is supposed to be. (In Attorney General Bill Barr, he seems to have found someone who satisfies him.) “Roy was somebody that had no boundaries,” a lawyer in his firm says in the film. “And if you were on the right side of him, it was great. And if you were on the wrong side of him, it was terrible.”
But what I found most striking about “Where’s My Roy Cohn?” wasn’t its insights into the thuggish president, whose particular brand of malevolence has been theorized to death. It was its reminders of just how decadent, in every sense, New York society used to be. Cohn was manifestly despicable, but he was embraced, rather than shunned, by New York elites. For a time, he had a sham engagement to Barbara Walters. He hung out with the famed artist Andy Warhol and was a regular at the oft-mythologized nightclub Studio 54.
Warhol is only briefly mentioned in the film, but his diaries mention Cohn’s parties repeatedly. “And when you go to these Roy Cohn things all everybody says is, ‘It’s so amusing, it’s so interesting, because you never know who you’ll find at these things,’” Warhol wrote in 1982. In 1985, he described Cohn’s birthday party at the New York nightclub The Palladium. TV monitors showed Cohn’s anti-Communist speeches from the 1950s. “And that was exciting, it was the best thing,” wrote Warhol.
To understand the milieu Cohn moved in is, I think, to understand at least some of the generation gap among elites over what’s sometimes called “cancel culture” or “call-out culture” or even just “political correctness.” If you are under 35 or 40, it’s probably hard to grasp just how much depravity used to be tolerated in fancy circles, and, further, how tolerating it was itself taken as a sign of sophistication
During Warhol’s heyday, the amoral celebration of fame was considered glamorous and edgy, and genuine outrage was deeply uncool. Similar values still predominated when I moved to New York almost 20 years ago, when figures like Harvey Weinstein seemed to rule the city.
It wasn’t until the intertwined ascents of social media and millennial progressives that the zeitgeist really turned, and jaded acceptance of the status quo fell from fashion. Younger people, scarred by the wreckage of the financial crisis, looked at the world they’d inherited and felt wide-ranging moral indignation. Unlike their elders, they hadn’t watched the radical promise of the late ’60s curdle into violence and farce, and so weren’t disillusioned with the left.
Today, wealth and power can still buy horrible people a degree of social acceptance. Sean Spicer lied to the American people for a living and is now on “Dancing With the Stars.” Ivanka Trump is still reportedly invited to celebrity weddings. But the left has far more cultural power than in the past, and some on the left have used that power to re-moralize the public square. Sometimes that means ostracizing people, or, as they say on the internet, canceling them. A more decent society would have done that to Cohn.
Still, it’s easy to see why the way the left deploys its influence feels, to some, inquisitorial. The religious right, of course, hates the new cultural mores because it wanted to re-moralize America on its terms. But plenty of liberals are nostalgic for a less sanctimonious era, where, at least in certain cosmopolitan precincts, being amusing and interesting were more important than being upright. Sometimes I feel this nostalgia myself; if you came of age in a culture that celebrated transgression, norms that demand sensitivity can feel restrictive.
But to see the way Cohn was accepted among artists, socialites and the demimonde of New York night life is to be reminded how warped the city’s values used to be. That’s why, for so long, Trump was able to thrive here.
In the end, the social world in which Cohn could be at once a right-wing dirty trickster and a celebrity bon vivant did have rules, and he ran afoul of them. In 1986, after a lifetime of skirting consequences for his corruption, Cohn was disbarred for cheating his clients. (At one point Cohn allegedly dressed up like a male nurse to get a dying multimillionaire client to sign a document making him a trustee of his estate.)
Unable to practice law, his power evanesced. In “Where’s My Roy Cohn,” an old friend explains how, every year, Cohn held a private dinner for his intimates. After the disbarment, the friend arrived at one such dinner. “When I get there, this long table was set, and nobody came,” he said. At the same time, Cohn was dying of AIDS, though he refused to admit it. Trump, his protégé, cut him off. New York wasn’t more forgiving back then. It was just more forgiving of certain people.
From The New York Times, September 20, 2019
Florida judge who approved FBI search of Mar-a-Lago faces barrage of antisemitic online attacks
By: Matt Dixon
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida federal magistrate judge who approved the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach County residence has faced an onslaught of antisemitic attacks and threats online, some of which targeted the synagogue he belongs to.
Magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart, a board member at Temple Beth David in Palm Beach Gardens, has seen sustained antisemitic attacks on right wing message boards and other social media platforms like 4Chan since his name surfaced as the judge who signed off on the FBI’s warrant to search Mar-a-Lago.
Republicans, too, have been heavily critical of the judge, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who questioned Reinhart’s impartiality during an appearance on Fox News earlier this week when he claimed: “They found some Obama donor judge, not even a judge, a magistrate, to give them the search warrant.”
No Republican elected official has called for violence against Reinhart, and on Friday afternoon Rubio posted on Twitter that anyone threatening violence over the search should be arrested.
Reinhart had previously donated to President Barack Obama’s campaign but also contributed to Republican Jeb Bush when the former Florida governor was running for president during the 2016 cycle.
Major Paul Rogers with the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department told POLITICO that they are “aware of the threats” and are working with federal law enforcement. The U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal judges, declined to comment in detail.
The threats against Reinhart highlight the contentious nature of the search of Trump’s residence. On Thursday, police shot and killed a man, identified as Ricky W. Shiffer, in Ohio after he tried to break into the FBI office in Cincinnati, authorities said. The New York Times reported that a person with an account bearing the same name posted on Trump’s “Truth Social” social media platform that people should kill federal agents in Florida.
Aryeh Tuchman, a senior associate director for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center for Extremism, said his organization is “monitoring the increased level of threat language generally, and also towards the specific judge.”
“I think it’s fair to say certainly where the judge is concerned, reports of vitriol directed at him and the synagogue have increased,” he said.
Tuchman said that the synagogue Reinhart belongs to has additional security in place and Temple Beth David had to cancel an outdoor service due to concerns of violence. Officials with the synagogue did not return a request seeking comment.
Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday said he approved the search of Trump’s resort and moved to unseal the search warrant. He also defended federal agents and prosecutors who have been heavily criticized by Republicans and others, saying he will not “stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants.”
Leading Republicans initially defended Trump and claimed the FBI search was an example of the federal government overstepping its authority and the Biden administration targeting political opponents. But some have taken softer stances after it was reported some of the documents could relate to nuclear weapons.
A search warrant viewed by POLITICO indicates that federal authorities are investigating Trump for potential violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of an investigation and removal or destruction of records. Some of the documents recovered were marked “TS/SCI,” one of the highest levels of classification by the government.
Few, however, have made public statements about threats made toward Reinhardt, even as conservatives on various social media sites and message boards have directly attacked him over being Jewish and over the fact that in 2009 he served as a defense attorney representing employees of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Fox News in particular received a backlash after airing a doctored photo of Reinhart receiving a foot massage from Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker and a longtime companion of Epstein. On Friday, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade posted a mea culpa of sorts, saying the depiction “never took place & we wanted to make clear that we were showing a meme in jest.”
“Right wingers are weaponizing the synagogue affiliation of a judge who was doing his job,” said Jeffrey Salkin, a rabbi and columnist for Religion News Service. “They are slurring the social justice commitments of contemporary Judaism. Their bigotry is appalling, and I would welcome the protests of the Republican Jewish Coalition.”
From Politico, August 12, 2022