A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died… attorneys don’t have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn’t bad mouth a former client, doesn’t mean they have to keep going on TV years after the fact to try to explain why pedophilia is really a matter of postal code, actually!
Alan Dershowitz seems to not understand that he has this option.
Triggered by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Dershowitz Zoomed into a conversation with Greta Van Susteren, who deserves awards season buzz for (mostly) maintaining a straight face throughout. The Harvard Law emeritus professor has an interest in defending himself, of course, but rather than limit himself to denying any involvement in Epstein’s criminality, he decided to go the pedophilia really so bad? route.
Bruh. No.
Even if “there was no sex trafficking ring,” a claim that even the sliver of files that have escaped Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s active cover up cast in serious doubt, that’s a complete thought without having to delve into defending sex with 16-year-olds. Yes, Dershowitz has had a curious fascination with getting rid of consent laws since the 90s, but that doesn’t mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas.
Per Dershowitz, Epstein clocks in at a “3 or 4” on a 10-point scale of sex offenders. Setting aside that maybe a professor of law should not be issuing Pitchfork scores for sex criminals, this glibly avoids the fact that the federal indictment flagged 14-year-old victims and those who have seen the unredacted Epstein files claim there’s evidence of victims as young as 9.
In a confusing twist, Dershowitz defends Epstein’s associates, claiming they never saw anything wrong because Epstein kept a separate entrance, “up to where, we now know, he did his bad things — and he did terrible things and he was a terrible human being.” So… what does Dershowitz think are the terrible things? If he’s already taking the position that there was no sex trafficking ring and that sex with 16-year-olds shouldn’t be a problem, what exactly amounts to terrible things? Sadly, Van Susteren does not give us the follow up we need here.
Van Susteren does ask about Epstein’s “sweetheart deal” — that Dershowitz has claimed in the past wasn’t sweet enough — and the professor sticks to his guns that he made a bad deal for his client. Which… isn’t usually how lawyers talk about themselves.
Dershowitz pivoted to “McCarthyism” — the last refuge of the scoundrel — his preferred description of the fate of Epstein’s associates. Even though the DOJ is bending over backward, in violation of federal statute, to keep those associates’ names from seeing the light of day. Dershowitz laments that “people have suffered grievously” simply for knowing Epstein.
Really? Grievously? A lot of people have suffered mild social consequences for buddying up to Epstein and earned millions for their trouble. And no one seems to be getting in trouble for asking Epstein for a stock tip.
Dershowitz also complained that the names of “many” Epstein victims have been redacted — which should have been “all” except the DOJ can’t be bothered to even try to comply with the statute — which is making it difficult for him and Donald Trump to sue them. Spoiler… Donald Trump would not sue them. Trump sues people all the time, but he steers clear of anyone talking about this topic. Almost as though he doesn’t want any part of the related discovery process.
Look, man, I get the impulse to defend your past work. Except… you aren’t defending it and instead acknowledging that the client fired you and stopped paying your bills. In any event, Epstein isn’t paying your $3 million bills anymore. You really don’t have to do this. Shutting up is totally free. Just sit back, relax, and get ready to have your annual embarrassing crash out on Martha’s Vineyard.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Does Alan Dershowitz Realize He Doesn’t Have To Keep Standing Up For Pedophiles? appeared first on Above the Law.
A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died… attorneys don’t have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn’t bad mouth a former client, doesn’t mean they have to keep going on TV years after the fact to try to explain why pedophilia is really a matter of postal code, actually!
Alan Dershowitz seems to not understand that he has this option.
Triggered by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Dershowitz Zoomed into a conversation with Greta Van Susteren, who deserves awards season buzz for (mostly) maintaining a straight face throughout. The Harvard Law emeritus professor has an interest in defending himself, of course, but rather than limit himself to denying any involvement in Epstein’s criminality, he decided to go the pedophilia really so bad? route.
Bruh. No.
Even if “there was no sex trafficking ring,” a claim that even the sliver of files that have escaped Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s active cover up cast in serious doubt, that’s a complete thought without having to delve into defending sex with 16-year-olds. Yes, Dershowitz has had a curious fascination with getting rid of consent laws since the 90s, but that doesn’t mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas.
Per Dershowitz, Epstein clocks in at a “3 or 4” on a 10-point scale of sex offenders. Setting aside that maybe a professor of law should not be issuing Pitchfork scores for sex criminals, this glibly avoids the fact that the federal indictment flagged 14-year-old victims and those who have seen the unredacted Epstein files claim there’s evidence of victims as young as 9.
In a confusing twist, Dershowitz defends Epstein’s associates, claiming they never saw anything wrong because Epstein kept a separate entrance, “up to where, we now know, he did his bad things — and he did terrible things and he was a terrible human being.” So… what does Dershowitz think are the terrible things? If he’s already taking the position that there was no sex trafficking ring and that sex with 16-year-olds shouldn’t be a problem, what exactly amounts to terrible things? Sadly, Van Susteren does not give us the follow up we need here.
Van Susteren does ask about Epstein’s “sweetheart deal” — that Dershowitz has claimed in the past wasn’t sweet enough — and the professor sticks to his guns that he made a bad deal for his client. Which… isn’t usually how lawyers talk about themselves.
Dershowitz pivoted to “McCarthyism” — the last refuge of the scoundrel — his preferred description of the fate of Epstein’s associates. Even though the DOJ is bending over backward, in violation of federal statute, to keep those associates’ names from seeing the light of day. Dershowitz laments that “people have suffered grievously” simply for knowing Epstein.
Really? Grievously? A lot of people have suffered mild social consequences for buddying up to Epstein and earned millions for their trouble. And no one seems to be getting in trouble for asking Epstein for a stock tip.
Dershowitz also complained that the names of “many” Epstein victims have been redacted — which should have been “all” except the DOJ can’t be bothered to even try to comply with the statute — which is making it difficult for him and Donald Trump to sue them. Spoiler… Donald Trump would not sue them. Trump sues people all the time, but he steers clear of anyone talking about this topic. Almost as though he doesn’t want any part of the related discovery process.
Look, man, I get the impulse to defend your past work. Except… you aren’t defending it and instead acknowledging that the client fired you and stopped paying your bills. In any event, Epstein isn’t paying your $3 million bills anymore. You really don’t have to do this. Shutting up is totally free. Just sit back, relax, and get ready to have your annual embarrassing crash out on Martha’s Vineyard.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
