Allan Dershowitz continues being fair
Fairness is so unusual these days, especially among Democrats (which Dershowitz still is), that it is worthy of special note. I’ve become more and more respectful of Dershowitz in recent years for his devotion to principles over party, as in his latest efforts at correcting falsehoods:
Before this claim [that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen, a claim that has been stated by many Democrats] is repeated so often that people assume it is true, let me state categorically that Trump is not an unindicted co-conspirator and that it is wrong to characterize him as such. An unindicted co-conspirator is someone against whom a grand jury has found probable cause, on the basis of evidence, that he or she is guilty of being a co-conspirator in a crime. But as far as we know there has been no grand jury indictment in this case, because Cohen waived the grand jury and pleaded guilty to “an information” prepared by a prosecutor, not a grand jury…
Unlike President Richard Nixon, who had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment handed down by a grand jury, Trump has not been accused by a grand jury indictment of anything thus far. Cohen’s guilty plea and allocution cannot turn the president into an unindicted co-conspirator. Only a grand jury can.
The following in particular is one of the reasons I admire Dershowitz—his consistency:
When President Nixon was named “unindicted co-conspirator” in 1974, I yelled foul, even though I voted against Nixon and was critical of most of his policies. I thought it was unfair to designate the president as an unindicted co-conspirator since a person in that status has no right to defend himself, because he is never brought to trial. I urged the ACLU, on whose board I then served, to challenge this misuse of the grand jury and to protect our political enemy’s civil liberties.
So Dershowitz isn’t some recent convert to defending the rights of accused presidents, he’s been doing this for at least 44 years. It’s somewhat of a mystery why Dershowitz is still a Democrat, but I believe it has something to do with what Zell Miller once likened to a birthmark—an identity that for some people is so deep that it would take something truly cataclysmic to change it.
Dershowitz adds:
In the rush to weaponize the law against a president they despise, too many Democrats and liberals are becoming incautious about improperly throwing around the loaded accusation of unindicted coconspirator against Trump. Unless and until Trump is named or identified in a grand jury indictment as an unindicted coconspirator, he should not be so characterized.
Are becoming incautious? That’s where Dershowitz needs to take a good long look at his own party and recognize that they’re not just becoming anything; they’ve been this way for a long time.
And “incautious” is way too mild a word for it. The “unindicted co-conspirator” accusation is a premeditated misstatement with malice aforethought. Some ignorant people may indeed play along with it, but many of those who perpetrate it know full well what they’re doing.
Dershowitz is foolish if he thinks they will listen to him. He’s a pariah at this point for stating the truth and defending people they consider the enemy.
Who, then, might they listen to?
Asking for a friend.
AVI:
My point was that the perpetrators who know full well what they’re doing certainly won’t listen to Dershowitz or anyone else and have no intention of stopping.
Those who are more moderate and ignorant could be swayed. But in my experience they are far more likely to just discount Dershowitz. A belief system is an edifice, and for most people it takes a lot to tear it down.
For a few, it might start a process that will lead to a political change. But just a few.
I suspect Dershowitz remains a Democrat because he remains aligned to the higher purpose and goals of liberalism, to which the Democratic party is arguably aligned. He publicly takes on these sorts of issues – decrying these despicable actions and talking points from Democrats – as a way to, in part, defend the liberalism he cares so much about. Look at the Nixon & ACLU example: he’s defending the idea of civil liberties rather than the person of POTUS Richard Nixon.
Alan cannot fail to see the derangement and its consequences all through his (former?) party. Even so, were he to change party identification now, he may feel that his words would carry zero weight with the Democrats, some of whom he hopes are still persuadable.
steve walsh said it well.
But Dershowitz is living in the past.
His party has “left” him.
From the first quote by Dershowitz:
First of all, it’s nice to hear someone actually define the term.
But according to the old cliche, a prosecutor can go before a grand jury and indict a “ham sandwich.” So the unindicted co-conspirator is once removed from the ham sandwich, related by mere probable cause from a jury that has only heard the prosecutor’s side of the case.
Upon examination, this big bad accusation of unindicted co-conspirator reduces to very little, not much more than guilt-by-association of the potato salad on the plate beside the indicted ham sandwich. Big f-ing deal.
I am respectful of honest liberals. I can disagree with their policy ideas but respect honesty and open-mindedness. I only wish more of them were honest and open-minded.
I see “The other Gary” said what I was going to say.
If Dersh is right, sounds like Trump is something worse than an unindicted co-conspirator, whatever the proper term for his status might be.
Dershowitz I suspect is a Democrat out of family history, professional identity, and because he favors the general run of policy prescriptions which have a constituency in the Democratic Party. What he isn’t is someone enamored of the opportunistic lawfare that’s being undertaken (he was ferocious about Kenneth Starr’s crew). He’s also someone of the older generation who doesn’t use certain markers to differentiate in groups and outgroups. His self-understanding has a different basis and one which incorporates some fixed principles rather than mere improvisations. When something like Corey Robin accuses conservatives of having only ‘improvisations’ which provide apologetics for appetites, he’s projecting, which is what younger generations on the portside do.
I don’t think Ronald Radosh has ever affiliated with the Republicans, though he’s published in starboard publications from time to time. An independent critical stance like that of Radosh or RM Kaus or Martin Peretz or Thomas Reeves may be where Dershowitz ends up in the future.
How long till a Grand Jury declares Trump to be an “unindicted co-conspirator”? I’m a bit surprised it hasn’t happened already…
I suspect that if Dershowitz ever leaves the Marxist party, he’ll end up a RINO.
“If Dersh is right, sounds like Trump is something worse than an unindicted co-conspirator, whatever the proper term for his status might be.” manju
Thank you for that example of ‘a complete departure from reason’… and the proper term for Trump’s ‘status’ is “innocent” not having been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
and the proper term for Trump’s ‘status’ is “innocent” not having been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, first you have to identify a crime…
For a few, it might start a process that will lead to a political change. But just a few.
If my personal circle is any guide, Bernie Bros don’t take much of an interest in the day’s disinformation. They have actual policy preferences in which they take an interest. For most Democrats, it’s status games and hatred all the way down.
Art Deco,
Trump’s very existence is considered a crime… I’d guess by a majority on the left.
I believe [being a Dem] it has something to do with what Zell Miller once likened to a birthmark—an identity that for some people is so deep that it would take something truly cataclysmic to change it.
The classic labels are/were “yellow (or blue) dog democrat.” There are a couple references here and here. From the latter,
“The name ‘Blue Dog’ originates from the long-time tradition of referring to a strong Democratic Party supporter as being a ‘Yellow Dog Democrat,’ who would, ‘vote for a yellow dog if it was listed on the ballot as a Democrat.’ Leading up to the 1994 election the founding members of the Blue Dogs felt that they had been ‘choked blue’ by the extremes of both political parties.”
Something cataclysmic, like being choked blue. Of course, it’s figurative not literal.
Liberalism is such a big and important word. I’d like to say it had nothing to do with what happened in the ’60’s which was mostly about subversive Marxism. That’s not quite fair, since much of the early civil rights was real liberalism.
Interestingly, Warren G. Harding tried twice to push comprehensive civil rights legislation through the Senate only to be stopped by Democrats, in the early 1920’s. Then, the Dems were unquestionably the party of racism.