Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz pulled a Giuliani on television this weekend by claiming bombshell evidence in his possession but refusing to disclose it. On Fox News, Dershowitz claimed that he has conclusive proof that Barack Obama “personally asked” the FBI to investigation someone “on behalf of George Soros,” the wealthy liberal donor. However, Dershowitz mysteriously referenced future “litigation” where all of this would be disclosed.
Dershowitz was responding to allegations of political influence exercised by Bill Barr in the Stone case. Ironically, Dershowitz’s defense (like his widely rejected impeachment theory) seemed more damaging than helpful. He argued that plenty of presidents have used the Justice Department for political purposes — hardly a moral high ground. He insisted “There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that.” However, he then dropped this bombshell:
“I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I’m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”
Dershowitz also harkened back to his impeachment argument with the ‘shoe-on-the-other-foot test” reference:
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department. The difference: This president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it. And, I don’t think these 1,000 former Justice Department officials would pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Maybe some of them would, but a good many of them wouldn’t.”
The first assumption for many was that Dershowitz was referencing the Epstein litigation where he has been at the center of cross lawsuits against lawyers and Epstein victims, including women who allege that Dershowitz was one of the men who had sex with underaged girls. These lawsuits continue to expand. However, it could be an entirely separate lawsuit. The only connection that I know of between Soros and the Epstein matter was the appearance of the nephew of Soros in the phonebook of Epstein.
Previously, others like Joe diGenova have said that they have evidence that Soros was involved in the Ukrainian scandals and added “Well, there’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NOG’s, work with NGO’s.
What was clear is that the discovery referenced by Dershowitz includes field “302s” which many of us acquire in discovery in criminal cases. When pressed, Dershowitz stated
“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah. That is not unusual. People whisper to presidents all the time; presidents whisper to the Justice Department all the time. It’s very common; it’s wrong, whoever does it — but it’s common, and we shouldn’t think it’s unique to any particular president. I have in my possession the actual 302 [witness report] form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”
His statement that he is “not free to disclose it” is curious since he is disclosing part of its content, albeit without names other than Soros and Obama. That makes it sound as if it could still be under a court seal. I would think that a court would look with displeasure on a pending or later motion to unseal if the document has been raised in interviews on an unrelated subject.
I am not keen on such opaque references alleging serious improprieties. It sounds a bit too much like Wimpy promising “I’d gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” He is alleging that a Obama asking for an investigation at the behest of a Hungarian billionaire into an individual in the United States. That is pretty serious, if true. However, without some details, it is toying with a matter of great national importance — or yet another defamation lawsuit.