{"id":150648,"date":"2026-05-07T13:34:57","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T21:34:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/07\/does-alan-dershowitz-realize-he-doesnt-have-to-keep-standing-up-for-pedophiles\/"},"modified":"2026-05-07T13:34:57","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T21:34:57","slug":"does-alan-dershowitz-realize-he-doesnt-have-to-keep-standing-up-for-pedophiles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/07\/does-alan-dershowitz-realize-he-doesnt-have-to-keep-standing-up-for-pedophiles\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Alan Dershowitz Realize He Doesn\u2019t Have To Keep Standing Up For Pedophiles?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died\u2026 attorneys don\u2019t have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn\u2019t bad mouth a former client, doesn\u2019t 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!<\/em><\/p>\n

Alan Dershowitz seems to not understand that he has this option.<\/p>\n

Triggered by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick\u2019s closed-door testimony<\/a> 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\u2019s criminality, he decided to go the pedophilia really so bad?<\/em> route. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Alan Dershowitz on Epstein & Ghislaine: “There was no sex trafficking ring\u2026They said he\u2019s a pedophile because he had sex with a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. That would mean he was a pedophile in Florida, but not in England.”He then says Epstein’s a “3 or 4” on a scale of 10 for sex offenders.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social)<\/a> 2026-05-06T20:42:35.227Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Bruh. No. <\/p>\n

Even if \u201cthere was no sex trafficking ring,\u201d a claim that even the sliver of files that have escaped Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche\u2019s active cover up<\/a> cast in serious doubt, that\u2019s 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<\/a>, but that doesn\u2019t mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas.<\/p>\n

Per Dershowitz, Epstein clocks in at a \u201c3 or 4\u201d 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\u2019s evidence of victims as young as 9. <\/p>\n

In a confusing twist, Dershowitz defends Epstein\u2019s associates, claiming they never saw anything wrong because Epstein kept a separate entrance, \u201cup to where, we now know, he did his bad things \u2014 and he did terrible things and he was a terrible human being.\u201d So\u2026 what does Dershowitz think are the terrible things? If he\u2019s already taking the position that there was no sex trafficking ring and that sex with 16-year-olds shouldn\u2019t be a problem, what exactly amounts to terrible things? Sadly, Van Susteren does not give us the follow up we need here. <\/p>\n

Van Susteren does ask about Epstein\u2019s \u201csweetheart deal\u201d \u2014 that Dershowitz has claimed in the past wasn\u2019t sweet enough<\/a> \u2014 and the professor sticks to his guns that he made a bad deal for his client. Which\u2026 isn\u2019t usually how lawyers talk about themselves.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Dershowitz says Epstein’s guilty plea “wasn’t a sweetheart deal at all,” claiming he “got a longer sentence than anybody ever in the history of Palm Beach County for having sex with a, I think, 17 and eleven-month-old young woman.”He then complains about “McCarthyism” impacting Epstein associates.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social)<\/a> 2026-05-06T20:50:27.277Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Dershowitz pivoted to \u201cMcCarthyism\u201d \u2014 the last refuge of the scoundrel \u2014 his preferred description<\/a> of the fate of Epstein\u2019s associates. Even though the DOJ is bending over backward, in violation of federal statute, to keep those associates\u2019 names from seeing the light of day<\/a>. Dershowitz laments that \u201cpeople have suffered grievously\u201d simply for knowing Epstein. <\/p>\n

Really? Grievously? A lot of people have suffered mild social consequences for buddying up to Epstein and earned millions for their trouble<\/a>. And no one seems to be getting in trouble for asking Epstein for a stock tip. <\/p>\n

Dershowitz also complained that the names of \u201cmany\u201d Epstein victims have been redacted \u2014 which should have been \u201call\u201d except the DOJ can\u2019t be bothered to even try to comply with the statute \u2014 which is making it difficult for him and Donald Trump to sue them. Spoiler\u2026 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\u2019t want any part of the related discovery process.<\/p>\n

Look, man, I get the impulse to defend your past work. Except\u2026 you aren\u2019t defending it and instead acknowledging that the client fired you and stopped paying your bills. In any event, Epstein isn\u2019t paying your $3 million bills<\/a> anymore. You really don\u2019t 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\u2019s Vineyard<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Does Alan Dershowitz Realize He Doesn\u2019t Have To Keep Standing Up For Pedophiles?<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Mark Wilson\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died\u2026 attorneys don\u2019t have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn\u2019t bad mouth a former client, doesn\u2019t 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!<\/em><\/p>\n

Alan Dershowitz seems to not understand that he has this option.<\/p>\n

Triggered by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick\u2019s closed-door testimony<\/a> 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\u2019s criminality, he decided to go the pedophilia really so bad?<\/em> route. <\/p>\n

Bruh. No. <\/p>\n

Even if \u201cthere was no sex trafficking ring,\u201d a claim that even the sliver of files that have escaped Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche\u2019s active cover up<\/a> cast in serious doubt, that\u2019s 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<\/a>, but that doesn\u2019t mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas.<\/p>\n

Per Dershowitz, Epstein clocks in at a \u201c3 or 4\u201d 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\u2019s evidence of victims as young as 9. <\/p>\n

In a confusing twist, Dershowitz defends Epstein\u2019s associates, claiming they never saw anything wrong because Epstein kept a separate entrance, \u201cup to where, we now know, he did his bad things \u2014 and he did terrible things and he was a terrible human being.\u201d So\u2026 what does Dershowitz think are the terrible things? If he\u2019s already taking the position that there was no sex trafficking ring and that sex with 16-year-olds shouldn\u2019t be a problem, what exactly amounts to terrible things? Sadly, Van Susteren does not give us the follow up we need here. <\/p>\n

Van Susteren does ask about Epstein\u2019s \u201csweetheart deal\u201d \u2014 that Dershowitz has claimed in the past wasn\u2019t sweet enough<\/a> \u2014 and the professor sticks to his guns that he made a bad deal for his client. Which\u2026 isn\u2019t usually how lawyers talk about themselves.<\/p>\n

Dershowitz pivoted to \u201cMcCarthyism\u201d \u2014 the last refuge of the scoundrel \u2014 his preferred description<\/a> of the fate of Epstein\u2019s associates. Even though the DOJ is bending over backward, in violation of federal statute, to keep those associates\u2019 names from seeing the light of day<\/a>. Dershowitz laments that \u201cpeople have suffered grievously\u201d simply for knowing Epstein. <\/p>\n

Really? Grievously? A lot of people have suffered mild social consequences for buddying up to Epstein and earned millions for their trouble<\/a>. And no one seems to be getting in trouble for asking Epstein for a stock tip. <\/p>\n

Dershowitz also complained that the names of \u201cmany\u201d Epstein victims have been redacted \u2014 which should have been \u201call\u201d except the DOJ can\u2019t be bothered to even try to comply with the statute \u2014 which is making it difficult for him and Donald Trump to sue them. Spoiler\u2026 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\u2019t want any part of the related discovery process.<\/p>\n

Look, man, I get the impulse to defend your past work. Except\u2026 you aren\u2019t defending it and instead acknowledging that the client fired you and stopped paying your bills. In any event, Epstein isn\u2019t paying your $3 million bills<\/a> anymore. You really don\u2019t 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\u2019s Vineyard<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died\u2026 attorneys don\u2019t have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn\u2019t bad mouth a former client, doesn\u2019t mean they have to keep going on TV years after the fact to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":150619,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Headshot-300x200-DUqY8H.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150648","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150648\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/150619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}