Also there is this...

Being as Dershowitz was a potential subject, witness or other to some of Epstein's acts, should he ethically not face Bar Action for even taking on Epstein as a client?

Regardless of his culpability, guilt, innocence of value as a witness, should a lawyer not recuse themselves from participating in a case where they can see clearly their role may become of question at some point??

If Dershowitz never did anything or saw anything inappropriate (which i tend to doubt), then I see no reason why he would be prohibited from representing Epstein. You are not prohibited from representing a friend, and you are not prohibited from representing a client just because someone alleges that you have a conflict.

But if a court concludes that you have a conflict, you are going to be forced to withdraw, and if the conflict is obvious, the process isnt going to be fun.

The optics of not recusing are pretty bad here, right?

I don’t think Dersh has to worry about optics much these days.

Being involved in this at all is really what is bad optics.

Old, tenured law professors at prestigious law schools arent known for giving a **** about optics as a general rule.

And yeah, Dershowitz has done so much irreversible damage to his reputation over the last 6 or 7 years that there is probably no reason for him to care about additional bad optics at this point.

Txs for the previous post and yes that made me lol too.

OK so it sounds like you are saying that there is standard/expectation where you should reasonably be able to foresee you might be a witness/subject/defendant or other and thus you should be recuse voluntary or you might be forced to pay a price??

For instance (and I know this is not law) but Jim Jordan should have known he was going to be a witness/subject in the Trump House Investigation and thus should have recused himself from participating as one of the investigators when instead he was trying to get on it.

I am thinking of a parallel type lawyer situation.


(and from what I have read I do think Dersh is in that area where he should have recused.)

Recusal is for judges (in the U.S. at least), but yeah, something like what you said.

If you have a real conflict, then eventually your adversary is going to file a motion for disqualification. If you oppose that motion on frivolous grounds, or, even worse, if you lie to the court about the underlying facts, then you are going to get skewered by the court. It isn't guaranteed that you will have to pay money. But sanctions are certainly a possibility, as is referral to the state disciplinary committee if you simply acted as if the ethical rules don't apply to you. And you indisputably will have harmed your client.

Interesting as I thought 'recusal' was a word that defined 'any withdrawal from a process due to an actual or perceived conflict of interest'.

It seems very intuitive to use it that way and just not limit it to the legal arena's.

For instance if I was asked to join a Corporate Board and I had investments in a competitor, I would think saying 'I need to recuse myself for these reasons' would be appropriate.

I would not be surprised if the language expands to encompass the more general use.

There's a question as to whether Prince Andrew and his lawyers know what's in the sealed Giuffre-Epstein settlement and, if so, why.

I have a feeling that they're just floundering about, but we'll see.

I'm not saying that the dictionary definition is inconsistent with your usage. I'm just saying that in an American court, a motion for disqualification would be a request that the judge prohibit counsel from continuing to represent a party and a motion for recusal would be a request that a judge remove himself or herself because of a conflict.

This is my gut instinct as well. They are assuming, probably correctly, that the releases are broadly drafted. They want to get the agreement and see what arguments might be possible based on the language.

Not getting much attention but the trial is on so...

I like to think Ghislaine's name is really pronounced "jizz-lane".

Dead thread, but anyway...







This is IMO PizzaGate.

Leaks about a cabal of rich dudes and celebrities flying on private jets to some island with under age girls in tow who probably, at some point asked for Pizza to be delivered to the jet, hit the game of telephone rumour mill and became a CT about a pizza parlour.

You simply could never keep salacious talk between private airport staff, border security officers and others from boiling up into some whisper rumour CT when the actual details are as dirty as they are here.


The CT does have a very real foundation and this is it. That the CT has weaponized it against liberals only, when it is clear there is no ideological boundary here, is the bigger issue.

And if the prosecution blows this case and she walks the CT's about a deal between her and the Powerful to 'shut up and you will walk' will be endless. And I think, rightly so.

if she walks then its looking like the recent theory that Ghislaine was actually the intelligence handler is true.

this case makes my brain explode that we will never know. seems at its most simple to be some sort of intelligence blackmail scheme. its def far beyond some rich people getting off Eyes Wide Shut style.

Yup potentially and would not be a surprise.

Epstein may have become an Asset for Israeli or other intelligence and it seems like he had a number of very rich men beholding to him who could have ended up being funnels of covert money for secret actions that could not get gov't money directly. Sort of the Iran-Contra type funding that brought down Oliver North but replaced by Epstein and 'insert blackmailed Billionaire _____'.

If indeed Ghislaine was an asset too she might have a promise of getting out from under this especially if she could tear this open like Iran/Contra 2.

When she gets convicted what will the conspiracies be at that time? I think someone (that doomsday guy) said she would 100% be dead in 2020, but then in this thread we learned that being dead usually means not being dead.

If she gets convicted then there isn't an elite pedophile ring used by intelligence agencies for fun and profit and blackmail?

No it just means she got ****ed or she was expendable. Bc there's plenty if evidence at how effed up this is.

But like, imagine going into an Epstein thread and acting like it's all nothing to see here. Who simps for the establishment that hard? Kinda depressing really.

I've been following this trial pretty close.i thought for sure she was getting guilty but the prosecution has been dropping the ball a lot and it's stunning they decided to close so early.

Fun fact, one of the prosecutors ia liberal hero James Comeys daughter.

So the prosecution failing to nail down some stuff and pull some threads and employing such hacks is kinda uhhh....suspicious. I mean it's proly nothing tbh but you never know.

Thing is, nothing cant really compare to Acosta giving Epstein a slap on the wrist and straight up saying it was bc of pressure from above. Dude was state AG of Florida and had tons of evidence that Ep was ****ing kids. And he signs off on a non prosecution agreement with immunity a bunch of stuff and for unnamed coconspirators.

Lol Monterey

thats from wiki lol

whats your theory on this? Im listening.

but like, it sure wouldnt be the first time the state ran a child sex ring for blackmail and fun

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys'_Home

I don't have a theory, but I do know that powerful shadowy figures running pedophile rings is a favourite trope of political extremists and conspiracy theorists, ref: the pedophile ring run by the democrats out of the basement of a pizza parlor which had no basement.

like on the one hand we have Bill Clinton and a bunch of mega elite wealthy and politicians flying with Epstein. we got ****ing royalty in Prince Andrew hanging out with him and ****ing kids. (well, maybe they are just lying whores amirite Monty and d2?)

we got the AG of Florida giving an absurd sweetheart deal with immunity non prosecution despite accusations from 34 accusers. and him saying "Oh ya, he was untouchable bc of higher ups and intelligence". like how much higher do you get than a state AG? and when it comes to this stuff.

we got Donald Trump saying something like "oh hey this Epstein guy likes girls more than me even". and btw some of these kids were picked up from Mar a Lago. one of the victims last week was from there. thats not a conspiracy theory, she ****ing testified to that.

so like, whats more likely? that these were just some lone wolf pedophiles? or maybe they were tied in with the highest echelon of society in some way?

I dunno, I heard Monty won some money off "derps" so he proly knows best.

Right, Epstein was selling sex with 15 year olds to a bunch of pervy old men. I think that part is pretty obvious. You were talking about intelligence agencies and blackmail and all sorts of other intrigue straight out of a John Le Carre novel, which is, you know, a different thing.