Posts Tagged ‘Alan Dershowitz’

Qatar Doubles Down on PR Campaign Appealing to U.S. Jews and D.C. Insiders

January 18, 2018

A visit to the emirate by Alan Dershowitz, meetings with Jewish organizations and promises of a new attitude toward Israel: Qatar is working hard to change its image as a Hamas-supporting state, but some in Washington remain unconvinced

By  

Qatar Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, left, shaking hands with U.S. President Donald Trump in Riyadh, May 21, 2017.
Qatar Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, left, shaking hands with U.S. President Donald Trump in Riyadh, May 21, 2017.Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON – Qatar has recently expanded its public relations effort aimed at improving its image in the United States, including within the Jewish community.

The wealthy emirate, often criticized for having ties to Hamas, has invited influential American public figures – some of them with close ties to the Trump administration – to visit and meet with its senior leadership, which denies providing support to the Gaza Islamist group and other terror organizations.

Last week, prominent New York attorney Alan Dershowitz published an article on the Hill website, following his visit to Qatar at the invitation of the country’s powerful emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Dershowitz wrote that he was surprised to hear the Qatari response to many of the accusations hurled at the Gulf state, and urged the Trump administration and Congress to reexamine the issue.

Also last week, Qatar hosted former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a leading right-wing media commentator and father of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Huckabee tweeted that he found Doha, Qatar, to be “surprisingly beautiful, modern, and hospitable.”

skip – Mike Huckabee tweet

Another recent visitor to the tiny emirate, whose wealth comes from its huge natural gas reserves, was conservative radio host John Batchelor. He took his popular audio show to Qatar last week at the behest of the country’s leadership, where he was joined by Thaddeus McCotter, a former Republican congressman from Michigan.

The emirate has also flown in representatives of various Washington think tanks on Qatar-funded trips.

Dershowitz, Huckabee and Batchelor all seem to be visiting as part of the Qatari leadership’s efforts to change its reputation among American politicians as a “problematic” nation associated with its support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar hosts some of Hamas’ senior leaders and funds the international media network Al Jazeera, whom neighboring Arab countries have accused of supporting Islamist movements and of destabilizing their regimes.

As part of the attempt to push back against these allegations, Qatar has hired the services of Nick Muzin, a public relations adviser who previously worked as a senior staffer to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

skip – Nick Muzin tweet

An Orthodox Jew, Muzin has used his contacts within the Republican Party and the Jewish community to find an ear for Qatar’s arguments in Washington and New York – at a time when the emirate is facing a severe crisis because of attempts by Saudi Arabia to isolate it economically and diplomatically.

When Qatar’s hiring of Muzin’s Stonington Strategies firm was first revealed last summer – for a reported monthly fee of $50,000 – it raised eyebrows in Jewish and conservative circles because of Muzin’s professional background. Cruz, his former boss, has called for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated a terrorist organization, yet Qatar is considered a major Brotherhood supporter in the Arab world.

Who are the good guys?

Muzin’s first attempts to organize meetings for the Qatari emir and crown prince with Jewish-American leaders ran into public opposition and became a source of debate in the Jewish press. Fast forward a few months, though, and it seems the Qatari public outreach effort is slowly beginning to change some minds in Washington and elsewhere.

Dershowitz’s article – titled “Why is Qatar being blockaded and isolated?” – is a good example, especially in light of the author’s reputation as a staunch supporter of Israel.

He wrote he had “just returned from a private visit to Qatar, at the invitation of and paid for by the Emir. I do not represent Qatar’s government and, to be honest, I was initially reluctant to accept his invitation because I had heard that Qatar was contributing to Hamas, which is a terrorist group, and that it was supporting Iran, which is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. But then I did my own research and concluded that the Qatar issue was more complex and nuanced. So I wanted to see for myself.”

Alan Dershowitz, left, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2010.
Alan Dershowitz, left, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2010.עמוס בן גרשום / לע”

One of the first things that surprised him, Dershowitz wrote, was that as soon as he got to Doha, Qatar’s capital, “I was surprised to read that an Israeli tennis player had been welcomed by the Qatari government to participate in a tennis tournament.” Dershowitz compared this recent event to Saudi Arabia’s refusal last month to allow Israeli chess players to attend the world chess championship held in Riyadh. “Moreover,” he added, “Saudi officials criticized Qatar for allowing an Israeli tennis player to participate in its tournament, and for ordering ‘the Israeli flag to be raised.’”

“This episode,” he concluded, “made clear to me that the Saudis were not necessarily the good guys in their dispute with Qatar.”

After going over Qatar’s reaction to allegations that it supports Hamas and other terror organizations (allegations that Qatar’s leadership denies), Dershowitz wrote: “After hearing these different accounts, I observed that Qatar is quickly becoming the Israel of the Gulf States, surrounded by enemies, subject to boycotts and unrealistic demands, and struggling for its survival. I heard a lot of positive statements regarding Israel from Qatari leaders as well as hints of commercial relationships between these isolated nations.”

In a conversation with Haaretz on Tuesday, Dershowitz emphasized that he has “not come to any firm conclusions” about Qatar’s ties to Hamas, Iran and other problematic actors in the region. He did, however, leave the emirate with “somewhat more nuanced” views, as “there appear to be two sides to the story.”

A group of Palestinian women holding Qatar flags and banners during a demonstration in support of Qatar, in Khan Yunis, Gaza, June 14, 2017.
A group of Palestinian women holding Qatar flags and banners during a pro-Qatar demonstration in Khan Yunis, Gaza, June 14, 2017. The gulf state’s support of Hamas remains a big stumbling block.Ali Jadallah / Anadolu Agency

Dershowitz explained that he asked the emir and other senior Qatari officials to assist with the release of two Israeli citizens currently being held in Gaza, as well as the return of the bodies of two slain Israeli soldiers, Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin, killed in action during the 2014 Gaza war. “They told me they’re trying,” he said, stopping short of providing more details on the sensitive subject.

Coincidentally, on Monday – shortly after the publication of Dershowitz’s article and the culmination of Huckabee’s Qatar visit – U.S. President Donald Trump talked with the emir by phone. A White House readout of that conversation stated: “The President thanked the Emir for Qatari action to counter terrorism and extremism in all forms, including being one of the few countries to move forward on a bilateral memorandum of understanding.” It continued: “The leaders discussed areas in which the United States and Qatar can partner to bring more stability to the region, counter malign Iranian influence, and defeat terrorism.”

One person unmoved by Dershowitz’s article was Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the D.C. think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He has written extensively in recent years about Qatar’s ties to Hamas and other terror organizations. “Stick to what you know,” Schanzer tweeted Dershowitz. “Happy to brief you sometime on Qatar. Doha is bad news.” And in a subsequent tweet, Schanzer added: “The man [Dershowitz] defends Israel until he’s blue in the face and then normalizes Hamas’s top patron.”

Dershowitz responded, “Happy to hear facts. Not conclusions. I make up my own mind based on facts.”

skip – Jonathan Schanzer tweet

skip – Alan Dershowitz tweet

Schanzer told Haaretz on Wednesday that “there is nothing wrong with analysts and intellectuals traveling to Qatar to learn about the situation there. The problem is that during those visits, they’re not hearing the other side of the story. They are getting the government line and then they go home. They need to hear also from Qatar’s critics. There is a lot of material they should become aware of about Qatar’s ties to Hamas, Al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and other problematic actors.”

Schanzer previously called to designate Qatar as a state sponsor of terrorism for its ties to these groups. “If you really want to see all sides of the story,” he told Haaretz, “you’re not going to get it in Doha.”

The problem with Qatar

Qatar is not only inviting opinion formers to Doha – it is also working to bring its arguments to Washington. Last week, the Qatari minister in charge of aid and assistance to Gaza, Mohammed al-Emadi, visited the U.S. capital, where he met with, among others, members of Congress and diplomats. Emadi came to Washington partly because he is the rare example of an Arab diplomat who, according to press reports, works on a regular basis with Israeli security officials as part of Qatar’s efforts to help reconstruct the Gaza Strip following the 2014 war. By presenting him to decision-makers and influencers in the U.S. capital, the emirate is hoping to convince them it has a positive impact in Gaza and is working with Israel to improve the situation there.

“The frustration with Qatar,” said an Israeli official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, “is that they do some good things in Gaza. But at the same time, there are problems arising from their use of Al Jazeera and their ties with Hamas. It’s a complicated situation. They are one of the only countries in the world that truly cares about improving the situation in Gaza. They’re also one of the only countries that has ties to all the bad guys in the region – Hamas, Sunni Islamists and Iran.”

A Qatari woman walking in front of the city skyline in Doha, Qatar.
A Qatari woman walking in front of the city skyline in Doha, Qatar.Kamran Jebreili/AP

Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein told Haaretz that he has discussed Qatar’s policies with Muzin, whom he has “known and worked closely with for a number of years – ever since he was an important staffer for Sen. Cruz.” Last September, Klein refused to meet with the Qatari leadership, accusing the regime of funding “Islamic terrorists who aim to murder Jews, Americans, Christians and even fellow Muslims.”

This week, though, Klein said that while he still has many doubts about Qatar’s role in the region, he is open to hearing the arguments being fleshed out by Dershowitz and others. “I think Dershowitz’s article was totally reasonable,” Klein said. “I think we should check out their claims. If they’re true, then there’s no reason not to go there and engage in dialogue with them. But if they’re lying, then we should have nothing to do with them.”

Klein added, though, that Qatar has to stop airing incitement on Al Jazeera if it ever wants to win the trust of the United States and Israel.

With regards to his conversations with Muzin, Klein said the PR maven “made it clear to me that he wouldn’t take on the job of working for Qatar unless he was assured by the leaders of Qatar that their goal is to make Qatar a more free and civilized society, and to do something about the problems with Al Jazeera.”

Qatar still faces significant criticism on Capitol Hill. Last October, two Republican members of Congress published an article titled “It’s Up to Congress to Hold Qatar Accountable.” Reps. Dan Donovan and Brian Fitzpatrick – both members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa – wrote that “Qatar is the master of playing all sides. The same country that served as the U.S. Central Command headquarters during the invasion of Iraq and still hosts a critical American air base today also sponsors Hamas’s anti-Israel agenda, gives sanctuary to terrorist leaders and spreads its wealth to terrorist and extremist groups throughout the Middle East.”

In November, a Democratic consulting firm, Bluelight Strategies, which has also worked with Qatari opposition leaders opposing the country’s regime, circulated a political memo among Democrats in Congress urging them to attack Republicans and the Trump administration for turning a blind eye to Qatar’s ties with Hamas and other terror groups. The memo, titled “Emerging GOP Vulnerability on Terrorism, Iran and Israel,” highlighted the Trump administration’s confusing policy regarding the Gulf crisis, and urged Democrats to speak out on the issue: “The more the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans are called out for embracing Hamas state sponsorship of terrorism, the more the message will penetrate.”

This view of Qatar as a country that tries to have it both ways is still prevalent in Washington and, as of now, it remains the main challenge standing in the way of the emirate’s charm offensive.

A man walking past a branch of Qatar National Bank (QNB) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, June 5, 2017.
A man walking past a branch of Qatar National Bank (QNB) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, June 5, 2017. Qatar is looking to make friends in Washington after the Saudis triggered a diplomatic crisis.\ Faisal Nasser/REUTERS
Advertisements

Leaked memo shows Iranian regime in panic after deadly protests

January 2, 2018

Fox News

Developing now, Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018:

  • Exclusive: A leaked memo shows how the Iranian regime considered stopping recent deadly protests
  • President Trump returns to the White House after holiday break, prepares to tackle new year’s challenges
  • California officially becomes a “sanctuary state” as new law takes effect
  • U.S. Customs system outage stalls travelers in airports for hours across the country on New Year’s Day
  • Florida family and college basketball standout among the newly identified victims of New Year’s Eve crash in Costa Rica

THE LEAD STORY: Leaked meeting notes provided exclusively to Fox News shows how Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met with political leaders and heads of the country’s security forces to discuss how to tamp down on deadly nationwide protests The memo covered several meetings up to Dec. 31 and was given to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) by high-level sources from within the regime. It said the unrest has hurt every sector of the country’s economy and “threatens the regime’s security. The first step, therefore, is to find a way out of this situation.” The notes added, “Religious leaders and the leadership must come to the scene as soon as possible and prevent the situation (from) deteriorating further … God help us, this is a very complex situation and is different from previous occasions.”

BACK TO WORK: President Trump has returned to the White House after a holiday break looking to capitalize on his victories at the end of 2017 … Trump plans to host Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan at Camp David next weekend to map out the 2018 legislative agenda. The president is hoping capitalize on his pre-Christmas success on tax cuts and make more legislative achievements. Republicans are eager to make progress before attention shifts to the midterm elections. The GOP wants to hold House and Senate majorities in 2018, but must contend with Trump’s unpopularity, some recent Democratic election wins and potential voter anxiety over tax reform.

Congress also has to deal with a backlog from 2017: It must agree on a spending bill by Jan. 19 to avert a partial government shutdown; unfinished business on additional aid to for hurricane victims; lifting the debt ceiling; extending a children’s health insurance program and extending protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Trump has said he wants money for a border wall in exchange for protecting those immigrants.

INEVITABLE SANCTUARY STATE SHOWDOWN?: California became a “sanctuary state” Monday, as a bill that Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in October officially took effect … The law bars police in the nation’s most populous state from asking people about their immigration status or participating in federal immigration enforcement activities in most cases. The Golden State is home to an estimated 2.3 million illegal immigrants.

NEW YEAR’S DAY TRAVEL NIGHTMARE: A U.S. Customs system outage affecting airports across the country stalled fliers for hours, triggering headaches for many people just trying to get home on New Year’s Day … Customs and Border Patrol officials confirmed that processing systems were back online after “a temporary outage,” adding that the failure was not “malicious in nature.” In a statement to Fox News, CBP said the disruption began at 7:30 p.m. and lasted for roughly two hours. Additionally, “CBP officers continued to process international travelers using alternative procedures at affected airports,” they said.

MORE AMERICAN VICTIMS ID’D IN COSTA RICA TRAGEDY: The identities of more victims of a New Year’s Eve plane crash in Costa Rica emerged Monday, with a second vacationing family and a college basketball standout listed among the 12 people killed … The small charter aircraft carrying 10 American tourists, including families from New York and Florida, and two local crew members crashed and burst into flames midday Sunday in a wooded area in Guanacaste, northwest Costa Rica on the Pacific coast, the government reported. There were no survivors. Two families, from the New York City suburb of Scarsdale, N.Y., and from Belleair, Fla., accounted for nine of the dead. Their American guide, from Wisconsin, was the 10th U.S. victim. The family from Florida included Drs. Mitchell Weiss, a vascular and interventional radiologist, Leslie Weiss, a pediatrician, and their two children.

IRAN EMBOLDENED UNDER OBAMA: “President Obama made it clear that he was going to stand behind the Iranian regime. He was going to send them lots and lots of money. Of course some of it was their own money, but still they used it to foment terrorism, to export terrorism around the world.” – Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus on “Fox & Friends,” dissecting former President Obama’s strategy on Iran. WATCH

Read the rest:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/02/fox-news-first-exclusive-leaked-memo-shows-iranian-regime-in-panic-after-deadly-protests.html

Related:

Dershowitz: Obama Made It Clear He Was Going to Stand Behind the Iranian Regime

January 1, 2018

Alan Dershowitz believes former President Obama’s strategy with Iran emboldened the Islamic republic, which he said is now poised to become a nuclear threat like North Korea in the next decade.

On “Fox & Friends,” the Harvard Law professor emeritus explained that Obama was willing to give too much in the Iran nuclear deal, and he got very little in return.

The controversial 2015 agreement unfroze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets and gave cash payments of more than $1 billion in exchange for Iran’s pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons for at least ten years.

“President Obama made it clear that he was going to stand behind the Iranian regime,” Dershowitz said. “He was going to send them lots and lots of money. Of course some of it was their own money, but still they used it to foment terrorism, to export terrorism around the world.”

He also noted a recent report that the Obama administration blocked a law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah for fear of jeopardizing the nuclear agreement.

“We’ve learned from North Korea is how difficult it is to negotiate once a country has nuclear power. And if Iran develops nuclear power with its hegemonic interests in the whole Middle East – they want to control all of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon through Hezbollah – and if we let them do that, they will become the most dangerous country in the world, not only to American allies like Israel, but to the United States itself,” Dershowitz said.

President Donald Trump on Monday tweeted it’s “time for a change” in Iran as violent anti-government protests continue in the Islamic republic.

What a year it’s been, and we’re just getting started. Together, we are MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Happy New Year!! pic.twitter.com/qsMNyN1UJG

Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!

 http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/01/alan-dershowitz-obama-made-it-clear-he-was-going-stand-behind-iranian-regime

Watch more from “Fox & Friends” ….

Trump’s New York Co-Chair: Pelosi Will Never Be Speaker Again

De Blasio’s 2018 Salary Increase Amount Larger Than Annual Minimum Wage

Image result for John Kerry and Zarif, photos

US Secretary of State John Kerry (right), speaks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as they walk in Geneva, Switzerland, ahead of nuclear discussions, January 14, 2015. (AP/Keystone, Laurent Gillieron, File)
.
Almost three years later — is anyone better off?

Alan Dershowitz: Debating the anti-Semitic BDS ‘movement’ with Cornel West

January 1, 2018
I recently debated Professor Cornel West of Harvard about the boycott movement against Israel. The topic was resolved: “The boycott, divestiture and sanctions movement will help bring about the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”West argued that Israel was a “colonialist-settler” state and that apartheid in the West Bank was “worse” than it was in white-ruled South Africa and should be subject to the same kind of economic and cultural isolation that helped bring about the fall of that regime.

I replied that the Jews who emigrated to Israel — a land in which Jews have lived continuously for thousands of years — were escaping from the countries that persecuted them, not acting as colonial settlers for those countries. Indeed, Israel fought against British colonial rule. Zionism was the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, not a colonial enterprise. Nor is Israel in any way like South Africa, where a minority of whites ruled over a majority of Blacks, who were denied the most fundamental human rights. In Israel, Arabs, Druze, and Christians have equal rights and serve in high positions in government, business, the arts, and academia. Jews were a majority in Israel, both when the U.S. divided mandatory Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) into “two states for two people,” and at present, although the Arab population has increased considerably since 1948. Even the situation on the West Bank — where Palestinians have the right to vote for their leaders and criticize Israel, and where in cities such as Ramallah there is no Israeli military or police presence — the situation is no way comparable to apartheid South Africa.

West then argued that BDS was a non-violent movement that was the best way to protest Israel’s “occupation” and settlement policies.

I responded that BDS is not a “movement” — a movement requires universality, like the feminist, gay rights, and civil rights movements. BDS is an anti-Semitic tactic directed only against the Jewish citizens and supporters of Israel. The boycott against Israel and its Jewish supporters (to many Palestinians, all of Israel is one big “settlement;” just look at any map of Palestine) began before any “occupation” or “settlements” and picked up steam just as Israel offered to end the “occupation” and settlements as part of a two-state solution that the Palestinians rejected. BDS is not a protest against Israel’s policies. It is a protest against Israel’s very existence.

West argued that BDS would help the Palestinians. I argued that it has hurt them by causing unemployment among Palestinian workers in companies such as SodaStream, which was pressured to move out of the West Bank, where it paid high wages to Palestinian men and women who worked side by side with Israeli men and women. I explained that the leadership of the Palestinian Authority is opposed to broad boycotts of Israeli products, artists, and academics.

West argued that BDS would encourage Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. I replied that Israel would never be blackmailed into compromising its security, and that the Palestinians are disincentivized into making compromises by the fantasy that they will get a state through economic and cultural extortion. The Palestinians will get a state only by sitting down and negotiating directly with Israel. I told my mother’s favorite joke about Sam, an Orthodox Jew, who prayed every day to win the N.Y. Lottery before he turned 80. On his 80th birthday, he complains to God that he hasn’t won. God replies, “Sam, help me out a little — buy a ticket.” I argued that the Palestinians expect to “win” a state without “buying a ticket” — sitting down to negotiate a compromise solution.

The debate in its entirety, which was conducted in front of an audience of business people in Dallas as part of the “Old Parkland Debate Series,” continued with broad arguments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the refugee situation, the peace process, terrorism, and other familiar issues. It can be seen in full on C-SPAN. I think it is worth watching.

The audience voted twice, once before the debate and once after. The final tally was 129 opposed to BDS and 16 in favor. The vote before the debate was 93 opposed and 14 in favor. I swayed 36 votes. West swayed 2. The anti-BDS position won overwhelmingly, not because I am a better debater than West — he is quite articulate and everyone watching the C-SPAN can judge for themselves who is the better debater — but because the facts, the morality, and the practicalities are against BDS.

The important point is never to give up on making the case against unjust tactics being employed against Israel. In some forums — at the United Nations, at numerous American university campuses, in some parts of Western Europe — it is an uphill battle. But it is a battle that can be won among open-minded people of all backgrounds. BDS lost in Dallas. BDS lost in a debate between me and an articulate human rights activist at the Oxford Union. BDS is losing in legislative chambers. And if the case is effectively and honestly presented, it will lose in the court of public opinion.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped up! How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.” This article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

 .
.

Alan Dershowitz Says Trump Cannot Be Charged With Obstruction of Justice — “You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power”

December 4, 2017

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on Fox & Friends Monday morning to co-sign an argument being made by President Donald Trump’s legal team in light of the metastasizing Russia investigation: “you cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice.”

The discussion of obstruction of justice kicked off at the end of last week, when Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and it was reported he intends to fully cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

A number of tweets sent out by the president in response led many to believe he was admitting to attempts to obstruct the investigation — though Trump lawyer John Dowd said that a president cannot be guilty of such a crime.

The focus on obstruction of justice by Trump and his legal team looks like an indication that they believe that’s where Mueller’s probe is headed, and are making early attempts at discrediting his findings.

Dershowitz, a frequent Fox News contributor, agreed with that conclusion on Fox & Friends.

Image result for Dershowitz, fox news, photos

“I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz argued. “You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power the fire [former FBI director James] Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate.”

“There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority,” he continued, before claiming that Sen. Dianne Feinsteinwho said a case that Trump obstructed justice is being assembled, “simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

In case there was any doubt that Trump wants to see the obstruction of justice argument disposed of, he tweeted this out Monday morning:

A must watch: Legal Scholar Alan Dershowitz was just on @foxandfriends talking of what is going on with respect to the greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. political history. Enjoy!

[image via screengrab]

Follow Aidan McLaughlin (@aidnmclaughlin) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Mueller Investigation, Michael Flynn and Alan Dershowitz — Mueller’s look into Russian election meddling has all kinds of twists and turns

November 30, 2017
Image may contain: 1 person, suit
Michael Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner
High praise for Michael Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner, from Alan Dershowitz on Fox News, Thursday, November 30, 2017, in the 1:30 PM time block.Dershowitz said Flynn’s lawyer “knows how to play the game” and is among the best players in the Mueller investigations.

Without mentioning Mr. Kelner’s name, Dershowitz said “he’s got a big sign around Flynn’s neck that says ‘testimony for sale .””

Then he quickly added, “Or for rent.”

Dershowitz seemed to say that Flynn’s lawyer was trying to entice the Mueller team to make a deal for Flynn’s testimony. But Dershowitz also said thet Flynn is a known liar and would never be considered a capable and truthful witness by the Mueller team…

 

*****************************************

Alan Dershowitz: Mike Flynn ‘will say anything’ to get a deal from Robert Mueller

Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz speculated Tuesday that former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn “will say anything” to get a deal from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation.“It’s not clear that Flynn has anything to offer,” Dershowitz told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “He’s trying to save his son. He’s trying to save himself. He’ll say anything. He’ll not only sing, he’ll compose and create evidence if he has to do that in order to get a deal.”

Dershowitz called Flynn’s credibility “worthless” because he’s been accused of perjury for denying to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Flynn’s lawyers told Trump’s lawyers they will no longer share information about the special counsel’s investigation, signaling that Flynn may be cooperating with Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trump’s lawyers believe Flynn may try to negotiate a deal because Flynn has indicated he’s worried charges might be brought against his son, Michael G. Flynn, who was chief of staff to his father.

******************************************************************

Michael Flynn’s lawyer meets with members of special counsel’s team, raising specter of plea deal

Trump’s legal team confirmed late last week that Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner alerted the team that he could no longer engage in privileged discussions about defense strategy in the case — a sign Flynn is preparing to negotiate with prosecutors over a deal that could include his testimony against the president or senior White House officials.

That process would typically include a series of off-the-record discussions in which prosecutors lay out in detail for Flynn and his lawyers the fruits of their investigation into his activities. Prosecutors would also provide Flynn an opportunity to offer what’s called a proffer, detailing what information, if any, he has that could implicate others in wrongdoing.

When reached Monday, Kelner declined to comment on the nature of his morning visit to Mueller’s offices in Washington, D.C.

Sources familiar with the discussions between Flynn’s legal team and Trump’s attorneys told ABC News that while there was never a formal, signed joint defense agreement between Flynn’s defense counsel and other targets of the Mueller probe, the lawyers had engaged in privileged discussions for months.

Jay Sekulow, a member of Trump’s legal team, told ABC News last week that the break was “not entirely unexpected.”

“No one should draw the conclusion that this means anything about Gen. Flynn cooperating against the president,” Sekulow said.

The New York Times broke the news, calling it an indication that Flynn may be cooperating with prosecutors.

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, suit

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AFP via Getty Images
Michael Flynn Jr. is seen behind his father, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, as they arrive at Trump Tower in New York on Nov. 17, 2016.

Sources familiar with the Flynn investigation have told ABC News the retired lieutenant general has felt increased pressure since prosecutors began focusing attention on his son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked as part of the Flynn Intel Group, the consulting firm founded by the elder Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Michael G. Flynn also traveled with his father to Russia in 2015 for his now famous appearance at a Moscow dinner where he sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Democrats in Congress have told ABC News they forwarded information to the Mueller team alleging that Michael T. Flynn illegally concealed more than a dozen foreign contacts and overseas trips during the process of renewing his security clearances.

“It appears that General Flynn violated federal law by omitting this trip and these foreign contacts from his security clearance renewal application in 2016 and concealing them from security clearance investigators who interviewed him as part of the background check process,” Reps. Elijah Cummings and Eliot L. Engel, both Democrats, wrote in a letter to Flynn’s attorney.

The letter highlights information House investigators collected from executives at three private companies advised by Flynn in 2015 and 2016. The companies were pursuing a joint venture with Russia to bring nuclear power to several Middle Eastern countries and secure the resulting nuclear fuel before Flynn joined then-candidate Trump on the campaign trail.

Flynn is a decorated military officer who served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 until his retirement in 2014. He was out of the spotlight only briefly. He joined the Trump campaign as an adviser in 2016, and Trump later named Flynn as his first national security adviser. He was forced to resign, however, after just 24 days on the job, when it was revealed that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and suit

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
Robert Mueller, special counsel on the Russian investigation, leaves the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 21, 2017.

Cummings told ABC News that Flynn’s foreign contacts — which involved high-ranking foreign officials and business executives — were so numerous they could not have been inadvertent omissions or incidental contacts.

“He has, over and over again, omitted information that he should have disclosed,” Cummings said. “It’s not an aberration, and that’s clear.

Flynn’s lawyer has declined to comment on the letter, and when ABC News tracked down Flynn this summer at a beach in Newport, Rhode Island — his hometown — he didn’t say much more.

“I’m just having a great time with the family here,” Flynn said. “I’m doing good, [but] I’m not going to make any comments.”

The alleged omissions could be a serious matter — and not just for Flynn. While Cummings said intentionally omitting foreign contacts when applying for security clearance can carry a five-year prison term, he acknowledged that penalties are rarely so severe. The leverage the alleged transgressions provide, however, could prove useful to prosecutors seeking to use the threat of prosecution to compel Flynn’s assistance in the broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Former FBI Director James Comey provided a window into that strategy during his three hours of testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this year.

“There is always a possibility if you have a criminal case against someone and you bring them in, squeeze them, flip them, [that] they give you information about something else,” Comey said.

The alleged omissions are just the latest to make trouble for Flynn. He failed to declare a December 2015 trip to Russia, where he sat next to Putin and for which was paid $33,000. In March 2017, Flynn submitted a late filing with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, revealing that the Flynn Intel Group was paid $530,000 for three months of work on behalf of a Dutch firm owned by a Turkish businessman with close ties to the Turkish government.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing and suit

Susan Walsh/AP Photo, FILE
President Donald Trump walks in front of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, left, and after arriving at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., Feb. 6, 2017.more +

Flynn’s work for Turkey remains the subject of additional scrutiny. Of interest to federal agents, according to people interviewed by the FBI, is his alleged role in a bizarre, unrealized proposal first reported by The Wall Street Journal to kidnap Turkish dissident cleric Fethullah Gulen, who is living in exile in rural Pennsylvania and is suspected of involvement in a failed coup attempt.

Gulen, who has denied involvement in the coup attempt, has lived legally in the Pocono Mountains since 1999, and the Turkish government has been financing efforts to persuade the U.S. government to return him to Turkey for years.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey confirmed for ABC News he was at a meeting in which Flynn allegedly raised the idea.

“It became clear to me that they were seriously considering a kidnapping operation for Gulen, and I told them then that it was a bad idea, it was illegal,” Woolsey said. “I won’t say that they had firmly decided to do that. But they were seriously considering it.”

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, took the rare step of publicly refuting those assertions, saying there was no such discussion and calling them categorically “false.” In mid-July at a press conference, the Turkish ambassador to the U.S. also denied the notion of a kidnapping plot.

“There’s no truth to that,” he said, adding that the Turkish government was following “traditional” procedures to have Gulen extradited “through the legal channels.”

ABC News’ John Santucci contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-flynns-lawyer-meets-members-special-counsels-team/story?id=51412187

Alan Dershowitz: An Anti-Semitic Characature of Me Gets No Criticism From Berkeley hard left

October 30, 2017

BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ
 OCTOBER 30, 2017 05:50

It is shocking that this vile caricature – which would fit comfortably in a Nazi publication – was published in “the official paper of record of the City of Berkeley”.

Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz at the Jerusalem Post Conference in New York, May 7, 2017. (photo credit:SIVAN FARAG)

I was recently invited to present the liberal case for Israel at Berkeley. In my remarks I advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state and a negotiated end of the conflict. I encouraged hostile questions from protesters and answered all of them. The audience responded positively to the dialogue.

Then immediately after my address, a poster was plastered outside Berkeley Law School with a swastika drawn on my face.

.
The dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Cherwinsky, sent a letter condemning the swastika. It read: “Several of our students expressed their disagreement with him [Dershowitz] and did so in a completely appropriate way that led to discussion and dialogue. I was pleased to hear of how this went, but then shocked to learn of the swastika drawn on a flyer that someone had posted about him.”

Shortly after, The Daily Californian – Berkeley’s student newspaper – published an antisemitic cartoon, depicting an ugly caricature of me sticking my head through a cardboard cut-out.

Behind the cardboard I am portrayed stomping on a Palestinian child with my foot, while holding in my hand an Israeli soldier who is shooting an unarmed Palestinian youth. Above the cardboard cut-out the title of my speech – ‘The Liberal Case for Israel’ – is scrawled in capital letters.

In a Letter to the Editor, the university’s chancellor, Carol Christ, wrote the following: “Your recent editorial cartoon targeting Alan Dershowitz was offensive, appalling and deeply disappointing. I condemn its publication. Are you aware that its antisemitic imagery connects directly to the centuries-old “blood libel” that falsely accused Jews of engaging in ritual murder? I cannot recall anything similar in the Daily Cal, and I call on the paper’s editors to reflect on whether they would sanction a similar assault on other ethnic or religious groups. We cannot build a campus community where everyone feels safe, respected and welcome if hatred and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes become an acceptable part of our discourse.”

It is shocking that this vile caricature – which would fit comfortably in a Nazi publication – was published in “the official paper of record of the City of Berkeley” (according to the editor.) The cartoon resembles the grotesque antisemitic blood libel propaganda splashed across Der Sturmer in the 1930s, which depicted Jews drinking the blood of gentile children. Canards about Jews as predators – prominently promulgated by the Tzarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – were antisemitic back then and are still antisemitic today, whether espoused by the extreme Left or the extreme Right.

This sequence of events – sparked by hard-left students who originally protested my right to speak at Berkeley– confirmed what I’ve long believed: that there is very little difference between the Nazis of the hard Right and the antisemites of the hard Left. There is little doubt that this abhorrent caricature was a hardleft Neo-Nazi expression.

These antisemitic displays against me were in reaction to a speech in which I advocated a Palestinian state; an end to the occupation and opposition to Israeli settlement policies. Many on the hard-Left refuse to acknowledge this sort of nuanced positioning. That is because their hostility towards Israel does not stem from any particular Israeli actions or policies. Even if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, destroy the security barrier, and recognize Hamas as a legitimate political organization, it would still not be enough. For these radicals, it is not about what Israel does; it is about what Israel is: the nation state of the Jewish people. To many on the hard Left, Israel is an imperialistic, apartheid, genocidal, and colonialist enterprise that must be destroyed.

Nonetheless, just as I defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, I defend the right of hard-left bigots to produce this sort of antisemitic material, despite it being hate speech. Those who condemn hate speech when it comes from the Right should also speak up when hate speech comes from the Left.

The silence from those on the Left is steeped in hypocrisy. It reflects the old adage: free speech for me but not for thee.

To be sure, the students had the right to publish this cartoon, but they also had the right not to publish it. I am confident that if the shoe were on the other foot – if a cartoon of comparable hate directed against women, gays, blacks or Muslims were proposed – they would not have published it. There is one word for this double standard. It’s called bigotry.

The best response to bigotry is the opposite of censorship: it is exposure and shaming in the court of public opinion.

The offensive cartoon should not be removed, as some have suggested. It should be widely circulated along with the names prominently displayed of the antisemite who drew it and the bigoted editors who decided to publish it. Every potential employer or admissions officer should ask them to justify their bigotry.

Joel Mayorga is the antisemitic cartoonist.

Karim Doumar (Editor in Chief and President), Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks (Managing Editor) and Suhauna Hussain (Opinion Editor) head the editorial board that oversaw the decision to publish it. They must be held accountable for their reprehensible actions. I challenge them to justify their bigotry.

It will not be enough to hide behind the shield of freedom of speech, because that freedom also entails the right not to publish antisemitic expression, if they would refuse to publish other bigoted expression.

After I submitted my op-ed, the Daily Cal tried to censor my piece in a self-serving way by omitting my characterization of the cartoonist as an antisemite. As far as I know they did not edit the offending cartoon. Also, the editor claimed that the intent of the cartoon was to expose the “hypocrisy” of my talk. Yet, the newspaper never even reported on the content of my talk and I don’t know whether the cartoonist was even at my talk. The cartoon was clearly based on a stereotype not on the content of my talk.

Follow Alan Dershowitz on: Twitter: @ AlanDersh, Facebook: @AlanMDershowitz

.

Free speech in the digital age: Prager University sues YouTube in free-speech case

October 24, 2017

Conservative nonprofit says site is restricting its content and infringing First Amendment rights

Prager University argues in its lawsuit that Google’s YouTube should be treated as a public forum.
Prager University argues in its lawsuit that Google’s YouTube should be treated as a public forum. PHOTO: MICHAEL SHORT/BLOOMBERG NEWS

LOS ANGELES—Prager University, a nonprofit that produces short, educational videos from conservative perspectives, is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, claiming the tech giant is illegally censoring some of its content as part of a wider effort to silence conservative voices.

A lawsuit filed Monday evening in federal court in San Francisco says YouTube’s more than 30 million visitors a day make the site so elemental to free speech in the digital age that it should be treated as a public forum. The suit argues the site must use the “laws governing free speech,” not its own discretion, to make decisions about what to censor.

The nonprofit, known as PragerU, alleges that by limiting access to some of its videos without clear criteria YouTube is infringing on PragerU’s First Amendment rights.

YouTube said it didn’t have immediate comment because it hadn’t yet reviewed the suit. The site is owned by Google, part of Alphabet Inc. GOOGL -1.94%

The suit heightens a debate over tech companies’ increasing influence on public opinion and how they should police content on their sites. With the internet enabling the spread of misinformation, hate speech and foreign propaganda—especially around the 2016 U.S. election—politicians, academics and the media are increasing scrutiny on the role a handful of tech giants play in modern society.

Since last year, more than three dozen PragerU videos—on subjects including the Korean War and Israel and Palestine—have been restricted by YouTube. As a result, those who use YouTube in “restricted mode,” including students at some universities and children whose parents have put parental control filters in place, are prevented from seeing the videos; all potential ad revenue from the videos is also cut off.

YouTube hasn’t pulled the videos from the default version of its website or mobile app, which are how the vast majority of users access videos.

YouTube has long championed itself as an open platform for ideas and is more often criticized for its reluctance or delay in removing objectionable content. “We believe everyone should have a voice,” YouTube said in a blog post in March. “Since our founding, free expression has been one of our core values.”

PragerU’s suit fits into more recent criticism from YouTube-video creators of the site’s push to remove ads from certain videos—prompted by a backlash from advertisers.

“There’s a difference between the free expression that lives on YouTube and the content that brands have told us they want to advertise against,” YouTube said in the March post.

PragerU was founded by conservative radio host Dennis Prager in 2011.

In email exchanges with PragerU, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, YouTube declined to offer specific explanations about why most of the videos were restricted, saying that they “aren’t appropriate for younger audiences.”

In those emails, a YouTube representative told PragerU officials that some of the videos that were censored were reviewed “manually” by humans, not solely by an automated system.

One of the videos that was initially restricted by YouTube featured Kimberley Strassel, a Wall Street Journal columnist who writes for the Journal’s opinion pages. The restriction of the video was later lifted.

The lawsuit lists videos on similar subjects by other content creators—including Al Jazeera and The Daily Show—which weren’t restricted, and argues that PragerU was targeted solely for its conservative views.

“Google/YouTube uses their restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from ‘inappropriate’ video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU,” the complaint says.

The suit escalates a battle between YouTube and content creators over how much control the tech giant should exercise over what is posted on the site.

YouTube faced a firestorm earlier this year when news reports revealed the site was running ads on extremist and racist videos, causing a series of big brands to pull spending from the site.

The backlash prompted YouTube to better police content on its sites, pull more ads from “hateful, offensive and derogatory” videos and give advertisers more control over where their ads appear. Those changes include technology to automatically screen videos as well as more human reviewers to pull ads from objectionable videos.

Some advertisers still remained off the site even months after the changes.

As a result, many of YouTube’s most popular video creators have complained of a drop in their ad revenues.

There are also signs that YouTube is trying to move away from the fringe content that attracts many of its viewers—but also creates headaches with advertisers. After searches on YouTube about the mass shooting this month in Las Vegas surfaced videos peddling conspiracy theories, the site said it was tweaking its search algorithm to promote more authoritative news sources.

The lawsuit alleges that the criteria YouTube uses to restrict videos is so broad that it effectively allows the company unfettered discretion, with no objective standard at all.

In addition, the suit says that the standards the company does use are being applied unfairly to PragerU.

Pete Wilson, a former governor of California who is representing PragerU in the suit, said the restrictions on the nonprofit’s videos were part of a wider effort to limit conservative speech.

“Just as on many college campuses, there has been a refusal to allow conservatives to speak,” Mr. Wilson said. He added of YouTube, “They have incredible reach, and that really sets them apart from almost any other entity.”

Write to Ian Lovett at Ian.Lovett@wsj.com and Jack Nicas at jack.nicas@wsj.com

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prageru-sues-youtube-in-free-speech-case-1508811856

.

***********************************************

Image result for hands tied by computer cord, photos

Google/YouTube vs. Conservative Speech 

By Dennis Prager

Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to our universities?

Last week, the Wall Street Journal wrote the following editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos — down from 21 — created and posted online by my non-profit educational organization, Prager University: “YouTube thinks Dennis Prager’s videos may be dangerous.”

Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don’t do much to avoid looking censorious. . . .  Dennis Prager’s “PragerU” puts out free short videos on subjects “important to understanding American values” — ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State. The channel has more than 130 million views. . . . As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content.

But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube. . . . This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering — say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” . . .  PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed.

“YouTube is free to set its own standards,” the editorial concluded, “but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for ‘free expression.’” It is a good sign that Google/YouTube’s censorship of respectful, utterly non-violent and non-sexual videos made it to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is very bad sign that it had to.

And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, but not the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

To understand what Google/YouTube has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to. Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one five-minute video presentation online.

These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers — some very well-known, some not. The list includes dozens of professors at, among other universities, MIT, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point; a black member of the South African Parliament; comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff; two former prime ministers (Spain and Denmark); three Pulitzer Prize winners (George Will, Bret Stephens, and Judith Miller); Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Arthur Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Alan Dershowitz, Nicholas Eberstadt, Larry Elder, Steve Forbes, Walter Williams, Christina Hoff Sommers, George Gilder, Victor Davis Hanson; Bjørn Lomborg, Heather Mac Donald, Eric Metaxas, Amity Shlaes, and the commander of British troops in Afghanistan, among many others. I also present some videos.

Any responsible person, left or right, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable, non-bomb-throwing list of presenters — hardly conducive to censorship.

What videos did YouTube place restrictions on?

On Race (2): “Are the Police Racist?” “Don’t Judge Blacks Differently”

On Islam (6): “What ISIS Wants” “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” “Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do” “Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?” “Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology” “Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?”

On abortion (2 — the only two offered): “Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?” “The Most Important Question about Abortion”

On Israel (2): “Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army” “Israel’s Legal Founding” (Alan Dershowitz’s video was reinstated after much publicity) On America (3): “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” “Did Bush Lie about Iraq?” “What is the University Diversity Scam?”

On politics (1): “Who NOT to Vote For”

On men and women (1): “He Wants You” (a video I present about men and women) Obviously, then, the explanation is not algorithms’​ that catch violence and sex. Think of these topics and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn’t want your minor child to view?

The only possible “yes” might be to the video titled “He Wants You.” Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet still most wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples. Obviously, then, the explanation is not algorithms that catch violence and sex.

Rather, Google/YouTube doesn’t want effective (each video has at least 1 million views) conservative videos. Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? They don’t have to. Left-wing viewers simply “flag” our and others’ videos as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest. I have never devoted a column to PragerU. I have done so here because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU — after a major editorial in the Wall Street Journal and coverage in the New York Post, Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review, and many other places, and a petition signed by over 70,000 people (the petition is at prageru.com) — what will happen to other conservative institutions?

For the probable answer, see your local university.

The question, then, is this: Will Google and YouTube do to the Internet what the Left has done to the university?

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com. © 2016 Creators.com Editor’s Note: This article has been emended since its original publication.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441400/google-youtubes-prageru-censorship-prager-universitys-conservative-videos-censored

Trump says N. Korea diplomacy has failed, ‘Only one thing will work’

October 8, 2017

AFP

© AFP/File / by W.G. Dunlop | President Donald Trump has engaged in an escalating war of words with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un, trading insults amid rising tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Donald Trump said Saturday that diplomatic efforts with North Korea have consistently failed, adding that “only one thing will work.”Trump has engaged in an escalating war of words with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un, trading insults amid rising tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

“Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid,” Trump tweeted.

It “hasn’t worked, agreements violated before the ink was dry, makings fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only one thing will work!”

Trump returned to the theme when he appeared on former governor Mike Huckabee’s show on Trinity Broadcasting Network television on Saturday, blaming previous administrations for not having adequately addressed the issue before.

This “should have been handled 25 years ago, it should have been handled 10 years ago, it should haven been handled during the Obama administration,” the president said, referring to his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

The US has not ruled out the use of force to compel Pyongyang to halt missile and nuclear tests, and Trump has threatened to destroy the country.

The mercurial American president also told journalists at a recent gathering with military leaders to discuss Iran, North Korea and the Islamic State group that the current period “could be the calm before the storm,” declining to clarify his remarks.

In recent days, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson flew home from meeting with top Chinese officials, Trump tweeted that his envoy was “wasting his time” in trying to probe North Korea’s willingness to talk.

– Insults and threats –

The message came after Tillerson had revealed there were backchannels between US and North Korean officials.

Secretary of Defence James Mattis later expressed support for the diplomatic track in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The Defense Department supports fully Secretary Tillerson’s efforts to find a diplomatic solution, but remains focused on defense of the United States and our allies,” Mattis said.

In his debut speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if it threatens the US or any of its allies, deriding Kim as “Rocket Man” and warning he is on a “suicide mission.”

Kim responded by calling Trump a “mentally deranged dotard.”

Trump’s administration has also been at the forefront of a drive to impose a series of sanctions against North Korea in response to its sixth nuclear test — the largest yet — and the firing of two missiles over Japan.

North Korea’s main economic partner China has signed up to the sanctions, including restrictions on imports, as has Russia.

The United States fought a bloody conflict in Korea from 1950-1953 that ultimately ended in stalemate and the continued division of the peninsula after hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops entered on the side of the north, turning it into a war of attrition.

A renewed military conflict on the Korean peninsula would come with devastating consequences: in addition to its nuclear weapons, North Korea has a conventional arsenal that could wreak havoc on the South Korean capital Seoul, which is located near the “demilitarized zone” dividing the two countries.

by W.G. Dunlop
.
Related:
.
.
See also:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Alan Dershowitz: Trump’s ‘Calm Before the Storm’ Is Warning to Iran, North Korea

October 7, 2017

Fox News

Image result for Alan Dershowitz, Fox News, photos

Alan Dershowitz weighed in on President Trump’s ominous “calm before the storm” comment that has the media buzzing.

“I think what he’s saying is the current status quo is unacceptable,” the Harvard law professor emeritus told “Fox & Friends” on Saturday.

President Trump remarked at a dinner with military leaders Friday night that the gathering might represent “the calm before the storm.” When pressed by reporters he said “You’ll find out.”

The president’s comment was a warning to North Korea and Iran, Dershowitz said.

“Iran is going to get a nuclear bomb in ten years if they comply with the deal. North Korea is only getting worse. We cannot allow this to continue.”

The lawyer warned that America must renegotiate the Iran deal so that nation is not allowed to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles or designs capable of being used for explosives.

“There’s going to be a storm. What the storm is nobody knows.”

Includes video:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/07/trumps-calm-storm-warning-iran-north-korea-alan-dershowitz