The Harvard Club of New York is being accused of censorship after abruptly cancelling a book event featuring famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. In a statement, Dershowitz says that invitations were sent out and the event was approaching when he was suddenly told that the Harvard Club would have none of it. He blamed his representation of President Donald Trump for the cancellation.
For a club that bills itself as offering “unique experiences,” it appears that hearing from opposing or different views is not one of them.
Dershowitz has been associated with Harvard for over 60 years and remains one of its best known law faculty members.
I only recently learned of the controversy and reached out to the Harvard Club of New York, which refused to offer any statement or explanation. It simply said that it does not discuss “events,” even apparently non-events, allegedly canceled for political reasons.
The news of the cancellation was deeply troubling for one of the country’s oldest clubs associated with an institution of higher education. Dershowitz is one of the most impactful lawyers of his generation with a long list of famous cases and influential publications. While he has been shunned by many of his former colleagues and friends for defending Trump, many admire him for not just his intellect but his grit and commitment to his principles.
The timing of the cancellation is equally troubling. Harvard has been under attack for its lack of intellectual diversity and its stifling orthodoxy.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
The problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
The school itself has shown utter hypocrisy in firing one House dean (who, like Dershowitz, represented an unpopular criminal defendant) while retaining another who spewed hateful, racist messages against whites.
The Harvard Club of New York is a separate entity but has long presented itself as embodying the values of the institution. Unfortunately, it appears to be doing so all too well. If these accusations are correct, the Harvard Club engaged in the same intolerance for dissenting views that now characterizes much of the campus itself.
Despite recently declaring itself the victim of anti-free speech measures (including some that I have criticized), Harvard continues to show no evidence that it will address its own intolerance for opposing views. Indeed, this allegation suggests that this echo-chambered culture may extend to the Harvard Club of New York.
When accused of raw censorship, one would think that the Harvard Club of New York would owe not just Dershowitz but the public a full explanation. If Dershowtiz was not cancelled for his views or prior representation, Harvard Club of New York can say so and give the content-neutral reason for the change. If this was a case of content-based censorship, Harvard Club of New York should be public and honest about its censorship policies.
Of course, as Tom Lehrer explained after he “returned from his Scrabble Pro at the Harvard Club,” all Harvard graduates rally to the cause. So “Fight fiercely, Harvard” . . . but what exactly are you fighting for?
It looks from a google search that the book in question is called The Preventive State: The Challenges of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Liberty. That was published in April or May of this year.
What I don’t get is, if the Harvard Club of NYC didn’t want him there, why did it invite him? The book has been out long enough for them to know what it says, and Dershowitz himself has been a public figure long enough for them to know who they were dealing with. What changed between the invitation and the cancellation of it?
Either way, to have the Harvard name associated with such a cancellation is pretty disgraceful to a name that is already very battered by the university’s own shameful conduct in so many different ways. This has all been one, long self-inflicted wound. It gives me no pleasure to say that.
Well stated . Seems he is a known factor. Possibly someone with a lot of pull made a scene about the invitation. Just a thought. Hard to discern the thinking in the Olympian Heights of New York City for us rubes out in the wilderness of Kansas and Indiana. Can’t talk long now since I have to get out and chop wood for the fireplace and then hunt for a deer or wild turkey with my musket for dinner tomorrow.
Best wishes, GEB, for a delicious wild turkey! Go Hoosiers!
(My wife’s a Hoosier and my father-in-law of blessed memory was an IU alum and avid IU fan.)
I can also relate to Edward Mahl as my college roommates were alums of Detroit Country Day and taught me about the U-Mich/Ohio State rivalry. No offense to anyone but I find myself rooting for the Wolverines.
Wait ’til next year.
The Harvard Club apparently did not object to Dershowitz helping O. J. Simpson, a double-murderer, escape conviction. But it did apparently object to his consorting with Donald Trump, who has not physically harmed anyone and who has been elected twice (if not thrice) to be President of the United States. Think about what that shows.
Just happened to notice this Harper’s Index factoid: 25% of Harvard Business School graduates in 2024 were unemployed after three months. Think about what that shows.
Creekan,
Interesting. But I wonder how many of them have trust funds and no interest in working?
That was the percentage of “job-seeking” graduates.
Prof. Turley
I part cdompany on you with Respect to Trump’s use of Federal Funds to leverage compliance with the Civial Rights Act and the 14th Amendment Only in so far as ALL government funding to education should be terminated.
Do that and Harvard can do as they please. Or at least as their funders allow.
That is how free markets work.
The first amendment is limited to Government because with REALindividual liberty – limited government, the Market virtually always works toward freedom.
With respect o the Harvard Club cancelling Derschowitz – that is a stupid move on their part. But one they are free to do.
Harvard and other Ivies are ancient and have a stellar reputation earned over centuries. But they are working hard to destroy it rapidly.
I do not “support” that – but I am happy to see lessor schools benefit from the poor choices of the Elite institutions of the US.
Many on the left – including here say that these schools are 99% left wing nut professors because that is what students want – as if children are the ones who are most capable of knowing what they will need as adults.
Regardless, then they have no basis to oppose the rise of institutions that either actively discriminate against left wing nut professors, or that actively incorporate real diversity in education.
I beleive I recall some left wing nuts here ranting over the elimination of left wing nut professors at some “university of New South Florida”.
How exactly is it different for DeSantis to seek to move FL universities back to the center, vs. left wing nuts claiming that it is OK to move the elite schools in the US to the far left ?
The ANSWER is that Govenrment should have nothing to do with those decisions – not in Florida,not via the Trump administration DOE.
JUst get ALL Government out of education.
Then colleges and universities can make their own choices as to their values, and ideology and students and parents can decide if they wish to pay to send their students their and alumni and donors can decide if they want to send their money to these institutions.
We have a supply and demand problem in higher education – the number of college students is declining – both for demographic reasons and because the value of higher education is declining.
NORMALLY that would heavily favor the most elite institutions.
But when the elite institutions drive to an ideology far from mainstream that provides a major oportunity for 2nd and 3rd tier institutions to differentiate themselves from the elites.
And we are seeing that.
So let the free market work.
Get Government out of education.
John Say, your thoughts on a hypothetical:
Iran donates 1 billion dollars to Harvard for an Islamic centered course of study focusing on the deletion of Israel. The degree is in islamic studies. Qatar also donates 1 billion as scholarship money for Islamic students foreign and domestic US.
Is this part of the free market you espouse?
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_The-Corruption-of-the-American-Mind.pdf
a contribution to universities study.
And unreported…
Of course it is. How could it not be? Surely we’re all agreed that the freedom of speech includes Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, let alone to preach their heresy in Cambridge.
The 14th Amendment, being a result of the unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession, the unconstitutional imposition of unconstitutional martial law, the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, the failure to enforce existing statutory immigration law, the prosecution of an unconstitutional war against a sovereign foreign nation, and a plethora of separate unconstitutional acts, was and remains utterly unconstitutional. If current law must be adhered to, the law of 1860 must also have been adhered to. If the goals of an illegal act are achieved, the goals are similarly illegal and must be rescinded, as was the case with Roe v. Wade, which was rescinded by Dobbs 50 years retroactively.
Anonymous (forgetting to log in as either X or George) says: The 14th Amendment, being a result of the unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession, the unconstitutional imposition of unconstitutional martial law, the unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, the failure to enforce existing statutory immigration law, the prosecution of an unconstitutional war against a sovereign foreign nation
Good God! Hillary Clinton and Michele Obama as a pair don’t do as much whining and crying that they were oppressed as our resident Confederate Kluxxer Democrat commie does!
Early gathering of the local chapter of the Democrat Confederate Kluxxers this afternoon, Mad King George X? You and the Kluxxers drank a little too much of that bathtub moonshine? That FAFO you got after your attempted insurrection still burns you to the bottom of your very black heart.
You lost your war of Democrat Confederate Slave State Insurrection – you don’t get to rewrite your lies from the loser’s position. Oh… and your Darkies that you were making no effort to “compassionately repatriate” while you were working them to death are still free:
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States to amend the Constitution.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
Please, I want more leaders that act like 4 year olds.
“The Creeps at the Failing New York Times are at it again,” Trump wrote, followed by a long list of purported accomplishments made during his second term. “Yet despite all of this the Radical Left Lunatics in the soon to fold New York Times did a hit piece on me that I am perhaps losing my Energy, despite facts that show the exact opposite. They know this is wrong, as is almost every thing that they write about me, including election results, ALL PURPOSELY NEGATIVE. This cheap ‘RAG’ is truly an ‘ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.’ The writer of the story, Katie Rogers, who is assigned to write only bad things about me, is a third rate reporter who is ugly, both inside and out.”
You find this sort of diatribe fitting for the leader of the free world?
Quiet, piggy.
Oh me too! I’m so more inclined to have some homosexual wannabe daydreaming of buggering men and spending his post presidency time conspiring on how to subvert a duly elected President from carrying out the will of the American people.
The Democratic Party of 2025 has become the party of (NO!!!!). The NO party preaches anything other than their Utopian Dream requires closed mind thinking, you want what they may say, even to peace in the World, are you kidding, it’s not the type of peace we want. The NO party once said let Viet Nam fail and become Communist, and yet today they say defend against communism at all costs. They remind me of Ken Kesey’s novel, ‘Sometimes A Great Notion’ and the Stumpers motto: “Never Give an Inch”. Arrogance, Obstinance and Obstreperous are just a few words that fit the personality of a NO partisan.
I’ll leave with a small quote from Kesey: “A man has to know he had a choice before he can enjoy what he chose. I know not. That a human has to make it with other humans . . . . before he can make it with himself.”
Regarding peace, just listen to the NO’ers squawking about any proposal so far that has been tendered for consideration, Israel, Ukraine just to name a few, [you are a tyrant for even proposing peace]. The No’ers have been lucky that the Yes’ers have not adopted the NO’ers draconian modus operandi, but if NO’ers don’t modify it may eventually come to that, OH what a sad thought.
Happy Thanksgiving and screw the Harvard NY Club.
You want to know where it is I go?
I’m going to the Fais Do Do. We laugh & dance with the pretty girls & eat anything that goes.
We have had in this country a long history of brave lawyers taking on unpopular clients not because they agreed with their clients but because their belief that everyone deserves a competent legal defense. One of the earliest examples of this occurred in Harvard’s backyard when that robust patriot, John Adams, represented a squad of British soldiers in 1770. The laudable task of these lawyers is to stem the irrational impulses of mob mentality. One does not need to approve of the ideas or actions of either the client or the defending attorney. (John Adams as a president with his Alien and Sedition acts departed from the ideals of American liberty and the British soldiers eventually got booted out.) So yes, Prof Dershowitz has made controversial statements and defended controversial clients.
I suspect, however, that the main reason for canceling the event was that the Harvard club did not want to provide Prof. Dershowitz a platform to expound on a very interesting theme in his latest book, “The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties”. Regardless of the party in power there is a constant tension between liberty and safety that should be discussed and debated. The Trump administrations actions against Harvard is a small case in point. I guess that was hitting a bit too close to home for the Harvard club.
There is no tension between liberty and preventive safety – liberty must always win.
It is ALWAYS possible to envision a threat that requires govenrment to prevent at the expense of liberty.
ALWAYS.
It is virtually impossible to properly limit governments response to such a threat.
In the free market people get fired for making unsafe choices. They also get fired for making too safe choices.
Ultimately they succeed or fail based on the quality of their judgement.
This is what Nasseem Taleb refers to as “skin in the game”.
The quality of the decisions that humans make correlates most strongly to the amount of “skin in the game” they have.
NOT their IQ or education. While there is no doubt that intelligence and education improve decision making – absent skin in the game
the most highly educated and the most highly intelligent make poor decisions.
This is why those in govenrment make poorer decisions pretty much universally than those outside of government.
In MOST of government it is near impossible to get fired, and when you can get fired or your future prospects thwarted that is ONLY when you stick your neck out too far.
We saw this during Covid – there was virtually no restriction on individula liberty that did not occur somewhere in the name of preventive safety.
And many that were near universal. Yet from the start the “experts” KNEW most of these preventive measures were useless, but they had to be seen as doing something.
There were significant numbers of epidemiologists and public health professionals who were RIGHT about nearly everything from the start – nearly all of them were outside of government.
Placing a highly intelligent highly edication person in govenrment cripples their ability to make good decisions.
Because it divorces them from the consequences of their decision.
Traditionally people get off early today to travel to their Thanks Giving dinner party.
Thanksgiving: a time for family, food and football! (The Important Stuff)
This Thursday, Nov. 27, the NFL will play three special Thanksgiving games and a bonus Friday game for Black Friday.
The Green Bay Packers play the Detroit Lions at 1 p.m. ET on FOX.
Then the Kansas City Chiefs take on the Dallas Cowboys at 4:30 p.m. ET on CBS (and streaming live on Paramount+).
Finally, the Cincinnati Bengals will face the Baltimore Ravens at 8:20 p.m. ET on NBC (and streaming live on Peacock).
On Black Friday, the Chicago Bears play the Philadelphia Eagles, exclusively on Prime Video.
https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/article/2025-nfl-thanksgiving-day-games-how-to-watch-full-schedule-streaming-info-and-more-141503009.html
Mr. Turley admires Dershowitz for “his grit and commitment to his principles.”
Only if by “his principles” one makes cavernous allowances for Dershowitz’s political and academic prejudices. For example, his exhaustive attempts to censor and bring ruin to Dr. Norman Finkelstein, even going so far as to appeal to the government (then California governor Schwarzenegger) to stop the University Press from publishing his work.
OSF even far left Wikipedia recounts the Derschowitz Finkelstein affair as of Finkelsteins own making.
Finkelstein alleged plagarism – which a review at Harvard by none other than Elena Kagan discredited
Further Finkelstein repeatedly defamed Derschowitz.
Personally I think it is best to ignore defamation. Regardless defamation is illegal – in some contexts even criminal.
And in fact there is very little doubt that Finkelstein defamed Derschowitz.
While you can chose to agree with the oppinons of either Derschowitz or Finklelstein regarding Israel or chose some intermediate position,
When disagreement turns to defamation – you lose and you should expect your oponent to take legal action.
Derschowitz did not seek to silence Finklesteins advocacy of a different view of Israel,
He sought to stop Finklestein from making defamatory claims about Derschowitz.
That is not censorship.
And if you defame another person – you should expect that they might attempt to bring you to ruin.
That is precisely what those of you on the left have sought to do pretty much all the time.
See Alex Jones or Rudy Guiliani or Trump ro myriads of other conservatives you have sought and sometimes succeeed in bringing to ruin over their views.
While I think the cases against Jones and Guiliani are garbage – the FACT is that defamation law is real,
and if you defame others – you could well be ruined.
The cases against Jones and Giuliani were very genuine. Both of them deliberately told outright lies about other people, for the purpose of destroying their characters and subjecting them to serious harm, and tried to get away with it. Both deserved to lose big, though not quite as big as they actually lost.
Dershowitz is simply getting the same treatment as that other friend of Epstein and Harvard professor, Larry Summers.
This makes Prof. Klarman’s performance in debate with Prof. Turley so much more comprehensible as a desperate struggle for survival in that jungle.
Dershowitz is simply getting the same treatment as that other friend of Epstein and Harvard professor, Larry Summers.
Oh yeah… that must be it. BTW, did you miss that BJ Clinton, champion of frequent flyer miles on Epstein’s Lolita Express was recently welcomed with open arms to speak at the DNC Annual Meeting?
Summers was revealed in the latest in the “Epstein Files” to have been proactively communicating with Epstein for help in what he should do to bed a woman who was not his wife, among other things. He resigned after that. Dershowitz on the other hand, years ago immediately sued a woman and her lawyer who claimed he had been screwing with her at Epstein’s orgy island. Both swiftly retracted the accusations and publicly apologized, saying it was a case of mistaken identity. Nothing new implicating Dershowitz has come out since then or with these latest files.
So that’s the context that you missed providing.
But… so obvious. I guess that’s why this club of allegedly open minded individuals were too cowardly to explain what you just attempted to offer. And waited until invitations had been sent out, etc, to cancel it at the last minute.
I doubt Dershowitz is as offended as Professor Turley. I wonder if Professor Turley would accept an offer of a paid speaking engagement at the Harvard Club now?
@Creekan: “Prof. Klarman’s performance in debate”. If you watched that “debate”, it was NOT a debate. Klarman’s initial tirade (which is supposed to be the opening “pro” presentation of the issue) was nothing more than propagandist hatred which he “logically” tied to everyone he had categorized deserving hatred. Klarman’s “oration”, despite Professor Turley’s quite impressive polite acceptance of his “right to speak”, had nothing to do with the published topic of the debate – which was further compounded and propagated by the “mediators” thereof. Even if reduced to classification as “civil discourse”, such ranting in the opening and continuation in what were supposed to be rebuttals and conclusions, crossed the line to anything more than a classic Fuhrer ranting.
What I was impressed with was Professor Turley’s attempt to restore the discussion back to the topic and attempt to redirect it into a civil debate of issues. But any unguided misreference as a debate is unfounded.
Maybe Harvard decided that they did not need to have a loud mouth egotist spout idiotic drivel.
Well. perhaps. But then “one man’s idiotic drivel . . .” etc.
Projection.
When did they figure that out? After the event was scheduled and invitations went out? Please…..
Then they should shut down.
It is amazing,; the willfully blind hubris of the prog/left. They continue to expose their putrid underbelly and they honestly think that it is virtuous.
It is amazing,; the willfully blind hubris of the right/crazies. They continue to expose their putrid underbelly and they honestly think that it is virtuous.
Go feed your cats.
Out of gas are you…your lack of original thought is also a display of hubris when you convince yourself that you actually have a cogent thought to share.
Perhaps some ACTUAL legal news, rather than this absurdly irrelevant, political non-story, may be of interest on this blog supposedly devoted to legal issues.
A federal appeals court upheld a $1 million penalty against President Donald Trump and his former lawyer Alina Habba for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump’s 2022 lawsuit – which first came in at 108 pages and then 193 pages in an amended complaint – violated federal court rules with tenuous links between a myriad of defendants and legal claims.
“The district court decided that the amended complaint advanced legal theories foreclosed by precedent ‘that the most basic legal research would have revealed,'” reads the 36-page decision.
“Trump and Habba argue that ‘the case law is unsettled or there was a reasonable request for an extension of the law,’ at least for the tolling argument,” the decision added. “Many of Trump’s and Habba’s legal arguments were indeed frivolous.”
While he was out of office following his 2020 election loss, Trump filed the sprawling racketeering complaint over the Russia investigation that dogged his first term, but the appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that he had committed sanctionable conduct with Habba, who is now interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey.
“Trump leaves all these frivolous claims behind, making a total of 11 of his 16 claims he does not appeal,” the court ruled. “Trump and Habba give us no reason to reverse the district court’s ruling that these claims were frivolous.”
Of course, change the subject.
This is supposedly a blog devoted to legal matters.
Turley now spends most of his time writing about stupid political things for the sole purpose of riling up the MAGA mob.
He is obviously a shill for some conservative political group and is probably just auditioning for some role in the Trump administration.
Turley’s idea of legal matters is feeding the maga crazies red meat and bragging about his stats.
Turley’s idea of legal matters is feeding the maga crazies red meat and bragging about his stats.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator of those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or persons. This involves the perpetrator lying, denying events, and other methods used with the intent to have their victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational. Within personal relationships, it is a form of psychological abuse and torture. The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: lying, blame shifting, countering, trivializing and withholding.
Then leave. Your not hear at gunpoint.
Your free to stay, Your free to go.
Your free to rant about whatever it is that Turley thinks to write about.
But you come off as a fool.
One of the core topics of this blog is free speech.
The Harvard Club attemplting to censor one of its most prestigious members is an appropriate topic.
You can take the issue of Freee Speech away from MAGA by returning to the free speech roots of the left.
Derschowitz was one of the great left wing champions of free speech.
That you have disowned him is on you.
The Free Speech movement in colleges began at UC Berkley byt Mario Savio – this was a major principle of the left then.
You have abandoned it.
You rant about MAGA – but Many of MAGA’s values used to be values of the left.
Free speech not censorship.
Fair Trade not free trade.
Peace not War
Good jobs for working Americans.
While we are not seeing the political parties flip 180.
We Are in the midst of a major political realignment,
The left is distancing itself from more than half the values it held in the past.
And the right is embracing values its past support of was at best tepid.
MAGA is becoming the party of the working class.
Democrats are becoming the party of the old stuffy elite and the billionaire class.
You want to pi$$ on MAGA – fine, but you should look to your own past or atleast that of your party.
You are giving up what was best about the left in return for much of what was worst about the right
I wonder what news service this came from?
Perhaps one that reports news with a degree of impartiality and objectivity? So, not Fox then, I grant…
Would you approve of CNN & CBS who both have a long history of lying.
However “frivolous” these 11 claims might be, they do not approach the groundlessness, slander, harm or public waste of the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax. You might remember, Mr. Anonymous, that Hillary Clinton and James Comey pushed that hoax.
ATS – is there the slightest debate in the world that Hillary Clinton is the author of a MASSIVE defamation against Donald Trump ?
All you have done is proven the 11th Cirtcuit court of appeals is overrun by Clinton appologists.
Not only should the fine be dismissed but the case should be reinstated.
The claim that Clinton Defamed Trump is not rooted in some absurd legal theories – it is based on the FACTS.
We are Way past the collusion delusion today.
NEarly everyone KNOWS that it was a clinton perpitrated Hoax.
But what you have here is a whole array of left wing nut judges saying that the largest defamatory political hoax in US history can not be punished.
While Trump has won numerous defamation cases totaling over 100M dollars so far for far less egregious defamation.
Trump has almost won as much money for defamation related to the E Jean Carrol affair as she has won from him.
With the exception that the claims by Carrol are still being litigated – and she could still lose most or all of her awards – while the media has settled with Trump – and he has the money in pocket.
My point is there is nothing unusual abotu the defamation claim filed by Trump against Clinton.
It should not have been dismissed by a Clinton crony judge. There certainly should have been no fines for filing a case with clear merit.
What there should have been is a huge judgement against Hillary.
She is responsible for the collusion delusion hoax.
Not only should she have to pay Trump a fortune,
But honestly she owes the country far more than the judgement against Alex Jones.
At this point we can be reasonably certain that this “John Say” character is in reality nothing more than a very poorly programmed bot, probably originating from somewhere in Eastern Europe. The very poor grammar and multitude of spelling errors indicate a foreign source for this bot.
We have noted that the comments made by this bot are just a jumble of random disconnected statements that are only marginally and peripherally connected to the issue at hand. The comments are uniformly absurd, illogical, irrational and often self-contradictory.
Today, in this comment about the dismissal of Trump’s defamation case, we note a glaring inconsistency and contradictory statement that reinforces our belief that this is actually a bot.
In this comment at 2:03pm the bot decries the dismissal of the case and demands that it be reinstated and that Hillary “should have to pay Trump a small fortune”. The bot also goes off on absurd tangents about how wonderful it is that Trump has extracted a lot of money from people and organizations with other defamation suits.
However, we also note the bot’s comment at 1:53pm that “Personally I think it is best to ignore defamation”.
These obvious contradictions, along with the poor grammar, spelling and completely disjointed and disconnected thoughts are clear evidence that “John Say” is nothing more than a bot.
We should simply ignore it and hopefully it will just go away, or perhaps it will eventually crash and burn because of the very poor programming.
Huh? Where’s the contradiction?
Ano
poor grammar, spelling
__________________
I just laugh when you cry babies throw this out.
I have read many of ANO posting and they too have errors.
Yeah, it happens when you are posting a comment. Get over your-self.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump’s 2022 lawsuit – which first came in at 108 pages and then 193 pages in an amended complaint – violated federal court rules with tenuous links between a myriad of defendants and legal claims.
Too many swigs during too much day drinking leads to posts like this. Because apparently the “Trump-Russia Dossier” was actually true, rather than a felonious political forgery created and “leaked” with the specific intention of ruining Trump’s life, not just his political career.
Oh yes! Go ahead and bet your welfare check that this court won’t be overturned on this!
The Harvard Club of New York is independent of the university and has no obligation to uphold the free speech ideals of Harvard. As its remit is the alumni residing in the City of New York, it is entirely rational to choose to host events that align with the City’s politics, as unsavory as they may be.
As a moderate alum, I have been several times, for weddings and other events. But to chastise the Club for exercising its free speech rights is absolutely ridiculous. This is like writing an article, whining that the NRA won’t host a gun control activist event. What a nothingburger.
Welcome to MAGA world.
ANON is a member of the DIM(DEM) cult!
Did Harvard teach you to use such an irrational apples to oranges comparison? It does sound good but does not actually work as a 1:1 rational.
If they do remit to “the alumni residing in the City of New York,” they certainly can cater to those alumni. Dershowitz is a distinguished faculty emeritus and renowned attorney. You would think that alumni would be fully supportive of such an individual bringing light and insight and improving the reputation for all alumni (I know I want my own alma mater to constantly improve which improves the value of my own degree).
Not that the Club can’t do what it did, or even shouldn’t do what it did, simply that your attempted comparison is disingenuous to the extreme.
Why is it apples to oranges? Both are private organizations.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. They have the freedom to make these decisions, whether you think they are sound or not.
By the way, when I was at Harvard (2007-2022), Dershowitz was a big proponent of safe spaces and censorship. He was in a feud with another professor, J. Lorand Matory, free speech proponent over whether Harvard should host then-Iranian President Ahmadinejad. He said, “No” because he was Holocaust denier. Matory, on the other hand, took your position – that the university should be fully supportive of such a distinguished individual – a foreign head of state.
Here is Dershowitz’s Harvard Crimson article from 2007: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/11/20/the-free-speech-agenda-at-harvard/
sorry, 2007-2011. I was not in college for that long… unfortunately.
OOOOOOOOOOOO no! Ano many a error. Where are the rest of the ANO to jump on this?
Hmmmmmmmmm
+100
By the way, when I was at Harvard (2007-2022), Dershowitz was a big proponent of safe spaces and censorship.
WELL, aren’t you special! As they say: How do you know a Harvard Man? Easy – he’ll make sure he tells you he is!
Now tell us: was Harvard back then following through on anybody’s calls for censorship – including those from Dershowitz? Allowing students to attack Jewish students and harrass them? (I suppose it is possible: you got to Harvard just in time to bask in the glory of Bolshevik Barack’s presidency where he showed us what he meant by being a president for all Americans).
One shouldn’t have to tell a genuine, for real, Harvard Man that there is an enormous difference between voices calling for censorship and a body like Harvard or this club actually engaging in censorship.
Oh, how far Harvard and Harvard Men have fallen since Bolshevik Barack introduced us to “systemic white racism”!
And I carry no water for Dershowitz – he would happily eliminate the 2nd Amendment if he could do so. But it is not the man: it is the principle. And I doubt Dershowitz suffered much from this. But this Harvard club definitely exposed their asses once again to the world.
Being a “foreign head of state” doesn’t make someone distinguished. Every despot of history was a foreign head of state. Foreign heads of state as a class are typically disgusting lowlives who should not be hosted at any decent venue.
“Why is it apples to oranges? Both are private organizations.”
Apples and oranges are both fruits. They both grow on trees, there are manythings they have in common.
We still use apples and oranges for poor comparisons
And that is appropriate judgement on your remarks.
The NRA is an advocacy group – what connects its members is gun culture.
The Harvard Club is a prestigious alumni group.
It is NOT an advocacy group. Its members now and in the past have reflected numerous different views – Members often passionately advocating for them – but While listening to the debate The Harvard Club has not in the past until now strongly identified itself with anything but Harvard.
By inviting and then dis-inviting Derschowitz, they are acting like an advocacy group when they are not.
Justice Roberts is also a distinguished Harvard Alum, as was Scalia.
Harvard is associated with putting out the best and the brightest – NOT the most left wing nut.
The mission of the Harvard Club is to promote the fellowship of Harvard alum’s not to pi$$ on its best and brightest.
The NRA’s mission is to protect the gun culture in the US. Nothing it its mission suggests it would hold gun control events.
Of course it’s independent of the university. But it does have an obligation to uphold that institution’s values, because that is its entire purpose, which it has advertised for its entire existence. It raises all its revenue based on that advertisement. To depart from those ideals makes its entire existence a fraud.
The club invited Derschowitz and then disinvited him.
They are free to do that – though it is not a first amendment right, it is more of a property right.
No it is not like the NRA not hosting a gun control activist event.
First Derschowitz was invited to speak – not run an event.
I have no idea if the NRA would consider allowing a gun control advocate to speak.
But if they do invite one, disinviting them later is rude and it is a form of censorship.
Next Derschowitz is a member of the Harvard Club, and he is possibly the most distinguished living Harvard Alumni.
He should be someone the left is proud of. Once upon a time not that long ago Derschowitz represented nearly all that was good about democrats and the left in this country.
Derschowitz has not changed.
YOU have.
The Left and Progressives are incapable of having debate. They are religious zealots to their politics and need to burn anyone at the stake who is an apostate. They also aren’t smart enough to evaluate other ideas than the orthodoxy they’ve bowed and kneeled down to. They are luddites.
highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman,
Well said. We have no problem with debating as proven by Charlie Kirk. We occasionally see it here on the good professor’s blog when there are honest attempts at actual debate. We have seen some between OLLY, S. Meyer, OldManFromKS, Lin, JJC, Daniel and several others.
An honest debate is something leftists cannot have. Their points of view fall apart when put to the test, as Charlie Kirk proved time and time again. That is why lefitsts had to murder him. They had to silence him. That is what they do.
Please do not equate yourself with Kirk. You are the opposite of what he stood for.
So, lets start an “honest debate”, shall we? But clarify “honest” and “debate”?
“Please do not equate yourself with Kirk. You are the opposite of what he stood for.”
Please never stand in front of a mirror. It is your personal kryptonite.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
It is amazing how strong your desire is to tell others what is wrong, while at the same time, you cannot tell others what is right, define the issues, or provide a policy opinion.
You espouse today’s talking points, not caring if that talking point conflicted with the one you repeated the day before.
The rights and conservatives are incapable of having debate. They are religious zealots to their politics and need to burn anyone at the stake who is an apostate.
Ever read the comments here?
Often, upstatefarmer and hullbobby are the worst.
The rights and conservatives are incapable of having debate. They are religious zealots to their politics and need to burn anyone at the stake who is an apostate.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Harvard is simply exhibiting a precursor model for larger Socialist Society. Two thirds of students feeling uncomfortable speaking their views on campus is actually far TOO high. If it can be razed to a tenth or less, then we’d see better results for a Great Leap Forward or some such Leftist delusion. Democracy/majority rule is a useful tool for this mid-stage portion of the Movement. We may surmise that the 1/3 comfortable with speaking are effective at intimidating the others into shutting up, shying away, and not participating, so let’s give them a solid C+ in Socialist Studies for the moment, until at some point 95%+ may be silenced and submit even their thoughts and self-talk to the supreme ideals.
…we live in a “socialist” society.
Are you going to burn your social security check?
About 35.5% of Americans receive some form of government assistance.
@Anonymous
Sure, because there’s no difference between a socialized program and a socialist governed country. Knucklehead.
Ok, it’s true. 20% of the population must provide assistance to 80% of the people. The question is- how will the productive 20% do that.
Now that 80% of the consumers have taken the reins of the economy will the cost of bread rise to 100 dollars per loaf as happened in Germany pre war?
Are you going to burn your social security check?
The one I get for 30 years of having part of my pay check deducted to be put into Social Security? No. I paid into it because I had to, and this is what I EARNED. Now tell all the normal Americans why Democrat communists think this is a rational way to argue for Democrat communism?
When will you start telling those living on welfare and entitlements to join everybody who’s working, rather than living from cradle to grave on government socialism?
Ano
We has SS forced on us by DEM, and it’s going broke.
The lizard brain only understands fight or flight. Curiosity is not a part of its nature.
It spends its days in fear trying to recognize any change in its environment.
How would any lawyer want to defend anyone who might possibly be guilty if he knows that he will be ostracized by so called American schools of the law. In the eyes of the authoritarian the right to be defended in a court of law and a speedy trial is to be discarded along with right to speak freely.
Welcome to Soviet Harvard boy. You don’t know how lucky you are boy. Just like in the USSR boy. You don’t know how lucky you are boy. Back back back in the USSR.
Is Harvard really a an elite university anymore? Harvard’s grade inflation is so prolific they even know it is a joke.
Question please? What are your educational credentials? Harvard man?
Yours would be???????????????
You’re the guy with the “collage” degree right?
YES………… Two of them. Jealous I bet.
Prove it. Haven’t seen anything that one could call an educated comment coming from you.
Projection. Look it up
UpstateFarmer is probably one of those foreign accounts like so many of the MAGA X accounts.
Upstate-
I suspect you are right to question Harvard’s elite status. I suppose it is still good for social and political connections, like belonging to the right club, but a Harvard degree seems no longer to signal intellectual attainment. For actual learning look to places like Cal Tech or, maybe, the new University of Austin.
On the other hand, Harvard still has professors like Steven Pinker and David Reich, so there is that.
Generally, though, a Harvard diploma seems to be a signal of radical mediocrity. Apparently the Harvard Club is reaching for the same degraded status.
Young,
What is the difference between grade inflation and what public schools in cities like Chicago, who just pass students along who cannot read or do math? Did that Harvard student actually do the work deserving of a A? Or was it more like C work, but the professor just slapped an A on it?
Knowing what we do know, really the students/grads just paid a lot of money for a piece of paper with the word Harvard on it.
Upstate- “What is the difference between grade inflation and what public schools in cities like Chicago, who just pass students along who cannot read or do math? ”
NONE
The fact that the Prof. described Harvard as “..an institution of higher education” rather than ‘an institution of higher learning’ points out that, any more, Harvard’s elite status is only as a political institution.
I wonder if your post comes from a foreign country like so many of the X MAGA posts.
“Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”
??
-g
It’s another Harvard experiment. It’s called- sows ear.
52 billion endowment and much from foreign nations such as the Middle East. No foreign investment could be tried but it would easily be laundered.
Dershowitz is my favorite for blind justice. It’s Harvard’s loss and the Harvard Club. Perhaps club has a new meaning.
Enjoy your families this holiday season.
Harvard can have anyone they want to speak. They even have to right to not have fascist friendly, pedophile adjacent lawyers speak there.
That may be true, but really not the point.
It is actually precisely the point.
Based on what? (pedophile)
Proof would sure help. Which you didn’t add.
And we have the right to criticize the Harvard Club’s decision and your defamatory description of Dershowitz. So, you see that Harvard having the “right” to make the decision is NOT the point as Mr. Welch said. The point is what the decision says about Harvard. THAT is the point that is debatable.
At 8:43 Anonymous the know it all says that Harvard is not dependent on public money. A quick Google search of the subject states otherwise. Yes, Harvard receives significant federal funding, primarily for research, though it has faced recent challenges and reviews related to this funding. For example, federal research grants for Harvard total over $600 million annually, and students receive federal financial aid.
Anyone who reads the comments by know it all Anonymous should always keep in mind that she is a know it all and indeed is a legend in her own mind. A narcissist always thinks that you’re too stupid to look it up because they are convinced of their own superiority. Another symptom exposed.
Wait for it. She’s going to call me a poo poo head again.
google search. BTW, Trump cut funding.. Big thing in the news this past summer.
Suggest you get your nose out of googles arsch and think things through on your own.
“Suggest you get your nose out of googles arsch and think things through on your own.”
Where did you learn to spell? Harvard? You should sue them for giving you an A where clearly you actually flunked.
@Upstate
‘Where did you learn to spell? Harvard?’
Now, that, THAT cracked me up. Good one! And too spot on. 😂👍🏼
James,
Thank you!
For some reason, this anony moron seems to conflate education with intelligence. That is not always the case, as the anony moron proves to us, everyday.
@Upstate
Agreed, and though hubris that is not new and in itself a badge of ignorance, Obama definitely turned up the temperature with his rhetoric and grifting regarding universities. It’s been an all-out race to the bottom since.
I have often found the overeducated the easiest to intellectually disarm due to their broad levels of insularity. They can quote others like gospel; original thought tends to not call their brains ‘home’.
Right on. Look at how the stable genius talks, Obviously a highly intelligent person. Who else would point their finger into a persons face and yell…”Quiet. Quiet! Piggy”?
The German word “Arsch” primarily translates to “arse” or “ass” in English, with “arse” being the British English variant and “ass” the American English equivalent.
Just learned something eh?
Trying to sound like an intellectual, eh? You failed.
Failed? And yet here you are. Did you learn something?
No one will ever call you an intellectual.
I have never claimed to be an intellectual.
@Anonymous
Oh, I’m sure you love your German. Does your attack dog only understand commands in zee Deutsch, too? DNC über alles.
Anonymous, you previously stated that Harvard received no federal funding. Google is simply stating what is common knowledge that contradicts your previous statement. Trump did try to cut funding to Harvard but was unsuccessful in doing so. Your statement plainly stated that Harvard is receiving no federal funding so it can it can do whatever it wants. Harvard is still receiving federal funds to the tune of 600 million bucks a year. The difference between you and me is I do use reputable sources to substantiate my claims while you never sight other sources to prove your point. If it’s in your head it must be true. You speak of Google as if it’s not a source of information respected around the world. The eternal child fascinated with bodily orifices speaks again. My mistake, you do often source the ideas of Karl Marx in your opinions.
Anonymous just let another verbal fart.
And your lips were in the right place to catch it.
Another left-wing child entered the chat room.
Good going Ano. You just made a fool of yourself!
With that comment.
At 52 billion endowment its an industry. 🤔 I’ll have to Google their portfolio. Is it published? Find where they invest.
^^^ 10 second search– Harvard Management Corporation (HMC) , CEO Narv Narvekar currently, has taken a different approach by dismantling internal and outsourcing investment entities. The endowment is 52 billion. Narv is looking at long term gains Google says.
Is this corporation paying taxes? I’m no longer interested.
Tell a family member how much you love them especially those in need.
PT, yes, free speech nor the Constitution hold as any shiny thing for the progressives.
*. Take a look at the Harvard Management Corporation , HMC, Board of directors. Blackstone, Ford, global Equities,Jain, Chae, Vantedge others. HMC began in 1974 and skyrocketing performance.
PT, this is where you’ll find geniuses working at Harvard. It’s not in classroom.anymore.
This would be an interesting investigation. Of peons can’t invest in Blackstone. That the lower and lower middle-classes are taxed at all is scandal.
My dears, this isn’t Kansas anymore. Don’t get too close to the edge of a cliff.
God luv ya.
It’s ^^