Alan Dershowitz

For the first time in memory – and perhaps in history – an American president has attended a Supreme Court argument in person. I recall attorney general Robert Kennedy attending an argument back when I was a law clerk in the early 1960s. But I have seen no record of presidential attendance. Not that there is anything wrong with that, even if it was intended to convey the president’s strong belief in his side of the argument. Any fear that President Trump’s presence would influence the justices was immediately belied by the nature of the justices’ questions – which suggested some hostility to the Solicitor General’s argument limiting birthright citizenship.

I have been going to the farmers market in Martha’s Vineyard for nearly half a century. I buy corn, tomatoes and homemade products. Until last week every vendor at the market treated me with respect and loved to have my business. I spent about $100,000 on farm and home products over the years, so I was shocked when one vendor refused to sell me their pierogi. It turns out that this particular vendor, Krem Miskevich, doesn’t approve of Zionism – that is support for Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. To be a Zionist does not require agreement with Israel’s policies or actions – just its right to be. I strongly believe in Zionism. It is an essential aspect of my religion.

From the time I was first falsely accused of having sexual contact with someone I never heard of, I asked that every bit of evidence relating to Jeffrey Epstein be disclosed. Indeed, I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal asking the FBI to open a criminal investigation of me so that I could prove beyond any doubt that the charges were made up. I agreed to waive any and all privileges if such an investigation were conducted. I continue to demand that every bit of evidence be disclosed, because I know with 100 percent certainty that the evidence, if completely produced without exceptions, exculpates me, for the simple reason that I did nothing wrong. But much of the evidence has been withheld — and for no good reason. Only the guilty are protected by the withholding of evidence.

The mixed verdict delivered by the jury in the Donald Trump civil rape case will be interpreted differently by those who support and oppose the former president.   On the main count that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll, the nine-person jury unanimously found that he did not. The plaintiff could not even satisfy its low burden of proof, namely proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In so finding, the jury apparently disbelieved at least part of the plaintiff’s testimony. She was very specific about being raped, not merely sexually abused or molested, as the jury did find.   It’s a strange verdict.

Dominion did not lose three-quarters of a billion dollars from Fox's alleged defamation. It’s unlikely they actually lost very much at all; indeed they probably gained considerable credibility and additional business. This was especially so since the judge made findings favorable to Dominion’s professionalism. Had the case gone to verdict, and had Fox lost, the network probably would have been required to pay a relatively small amount of damages — certainly nothing approaching the amount for which they settled. Moreover there was a substantial chance that Fox could have won this suit, either at trial or on appeal. Dominion had a heavy burden to demonstrate that Fox was guilty of actual malice, that is, a reckless disregard for the truth.

My wife and I were introduced to Ghislaine Maxwell by Sir Evelyn and Lady Lynne de Rothschild, and we subsequently met her on several occasions — generally in the presence of prominent people such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, presidents of universities, and prominent academic and business people. We never saw her do anything inappropriate. We knew her only as Jeffrey Epstein’s thirty-something girlfriend. Now she stands accused of serious crimes allegedly committed a quarter of a century ago. Like every other arrested person, she must be presumed innocent. Many in the public however, will presume her guilty because of the portrayal of her in the Netflix series about Jeffrey Epstein.