America’s most “tolerant” intolerant have turned their back on one of their own. World famous liberal attorney, professor, and TV commentator Alan Dershowitz has done the unthinkable in the view of the far left; he provided an opinion outside of the box.
The feisty former Harvard Law Professor and defender of O.J. Simpson spoke out of turn with the far left agenda and provided his opinion that differs from the non-stop Trump-hating mantra of the “tolerate” intolerants. That does not sit well with the machine-like 24/7 conspiracy-driven hard left and its compliant media brothers.
Thus, Dershowitz’s name is mud with his usual saddle pals at The New York Times. God forbid any lefty speaks out of turn before reviewing that day’s talking points on Russian collusion and the next big idea for impeachment of the president. According to the Washington Examiner, the Times aren’t speaking with Alan.
It seems Dershowitz is doing the unthinkable. He is actually looking at the flimsy legal arguments of the left in terms of Trump’s predicament on a variety of fronts. He is not being sidetracked by hysteria and goose-stepping dictums from his liberal buddies. There is no ideological emotion.
Dershowitz is violating political correctness. He recently tried to publish an opinion piece in The New York Times about the hated President Trump. The opinion was not in sync with the Times editorial staff, thus not worthy of their “balanced” editorial page. The professor dared to suggest the president likely did not attempt to obstruct justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey.
That is blasphemy in the world of political lemmings. Dershowitz told the Washington Examiner over the phone that the Times had “no response” to his submission. He provided his usual disclaimer that he is still an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, just to keep the lights on in liberal-land. But he felt compelled to respond to an op-ed in the Times that argued Trump could be charged for criminal conduct in Comey’s firing.
He suggested the unthinkable to the “tolerant.” He thought that maybe the readers of the Times might like to hear the other side of the argument. What?
The Professor Emeritus of Harvard Law School said, “And I really do think The New York Times does not want its readers to hear an alternative point of view on the issue of whether or not Trump administration is committing crimes.”
For a man of his brains and background, this is a revelation?