Alan Dershowitz is at it again

Chilmark resident says he’s been ‘canceled’ by the Vineyard.

Alan Dershowitz, shown here giving a book talk at the Katharine Cornell, says he has been "canceled" on the Vineyard and is threatening to sue the Chilmark library. — MV Times

Alan Dershowitz continues to claim that his defense of President Donald Trump has gotten him “canceled” on the Island, and he’s threatening to sue the Chilmark Free Library, saying because a library is taxpayer-funded, the library can’t deny him holding a book talk.

Dershowitz has made those claims in a New Yorker interview published on Tuesday, during a recent podcast with Steve Bannon, and in an interview on the right-leaning Newsmax television network.

Ebba Hierta, director of the Chilmark Free Library, told The Times she received hate mail from a Proud Boy after attorney Alan Dershowitz appeared on Bannon’s podcast. 

On Wednesday, Dershowitz was the focus of a New Yorker interview where he claimed his defense of former President Donald Trump has been confused with support for Trump’s politics, and has led to him being “shunned” and “canceled” on the Island. These are claims he’s made repeatedly since 2018.

“It’s not me. It’s the library and the institutions. The library has refused to allow me to speak, and other institutions. People want to hear me speak. This is a McCarthyite black ball. If it was someone who was a liberal Democrat, there would be a lot more concern and opposition to it,” Dershowitz said in an interview with The Times Wednesday. Dershowitz says he always votes and contributes to Democrats, but will defend conservative Republicans when their constitutional rights are being violated, as he says was the case with President Trump. 

After his appearance on Bannon’s podcast, Hierta says she received a hate email from someone identifying himself as a Proud Boy. She felt so threatened she installed “burglar bars” on her bedroom window. “I was frightened. I was identified in the national media by a right-wing hate group,” she said.

Hierta declined to release the email, saying Dershowitz has threatened to sue her and the library. The trustees had called a meeting for Thursday, July 21, at 11 am, but postponed it. The main agenda item: “Discussion of threat by Alan Dershowitz to sue the library if he is not guaranteed a speaking engagement.” It has not yet been rescheduled.

Dershowitz said he was unaware of the hate mail to Hierta, but says it’s something he deals with on a daily basis. “That doesn’t have anything to do with me. Let her call the authorities,” he said of the mail Hierta said she received. “She should get a different job if she can’t take the heat.”

He said if Hierta produced the hate mail, he would condemn it.

As for the threat of lawsuit, Dershowitz said he plans to follow through. He’ll make a decision after Thursday’s meeting of the library board of trustees, which he said he intends to attend. “There’s interest by other organizations if I’m not allowed to speak. The library is a public institution,” Dershowitz said. “They can’t ban me because I defended President Trump.”

Asked if he may also be persona non grata because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz said allegations made against him were unfounded. “Nobody on the Vineyard believes any of that. They know I’m a family man.”

Hierta has been clear. She once welcomed Dershowitz to speak at the library, beginning in 2008. She enjoyed his talks, even if she didn’t always agree with him. “He’s a genius. I admire his talent. He is a master of manipulation. He is the best arguer. He can make an argument better than anyone I’ve ever met,” Hierta said. 

But the crowds were out of control. The meeting room holds 40 people, and he was pulling in 250 people. “It became a public safety hazard. The building was overpacked. Staff were being abused, and unable to deal with patron requests.”

After a discussion with the library trustees, the library changed its policy. Hierta stopped inviting him long before anyone knew Donald Trump as anything but a reality TV host, she said. Something Dershowitz rejected. “If anybody believes that, I have an ocean in South Beach to sell them,” he said.

Hierta said that policy would apply even if another political celebrity, former President Barack Obama, called. “I wouldn’t. I couldn’t. How could I host Barack Obama at the library? I have a meeting room where the capacity is 40. Where would I put them?”

Dershowitz rejected the notion that Chilmark would reject Obama. “I don’t believe that for a minute. They would restrict the crowds,” he said.

In 2018, when Dershowitz asked to speak about his book, Hierta put out a plea to her fellow librarians, and Vineyard Haven stepped up and sponsored Dershowitz at the roomier Katharine Cornell Theater in Tisbury, even as he claimed he was being shunned.

Dershowitz, with a new book released last week, “The Price of Principle: Why Integrity is Worth the Consequences,” asked to give a talk at Chilmark library again this year. Hierta, who had heard complaints about the large crowds in the past, again said no, citing the library’s policy.

“Now we have an entitled bully threatening us,” Hierta said.

Hierta said it’s become a rite of summer. Dershowitz publishes another book and comes knocking. When she says no, he tries to bully her and the library.

“He has threatened me. He has threatened me repeatedly. He’s threatened to destroy the library and my personal directorship. He’s threatened me with a lawsuit,” Hierta said. “This once great man is reduced to bullying a librarian to sell a book.”

Dershowitz claims he only ever sells about 10 books, and donates those funds to the library. It’s not about selling books, he said, it’s about protecting “free speech.”

In the New Yorker piece, Dershowitz claims his fans are being deprived of hearing him speak. He made the same claim to The Times, but asked to produce just one person in Chilmark who is upset about him not being allowed time at the library, he said they wouldn’t want to speak publicly. They don’t want to be “perceived as an enemy of the library,” he said.

The reality, according to Hierta, is that she hasn’t had a single person, other than Dershowitz, contact her to complain that he’s not being allowed to speak. She gave an extended interview to the New Yorker writer, but that’s the only thing he quoted her about. She was disappointed. “He printed about 1/100th of what I had to say.”

Hierta believes that the New Yorker interview will fuel the fire. Like President Trump inciting the rioters on Jan. 6, Dershowitz is inciting some of Trump’s supporters against her and others on the Vineyard, she said.
“My message to Mr. Dershowitz would be: You’re retired, enjoy it,” she said. “I was Facetiming with my brother, and he said, It’s kind of a badge of honor to get hate mail from a Proud Boy… But here I am with burglar bars on my bedroom windows as a result of Alan Dershowitz trying to sell books by attacking a library. There are consequences to what he does. I was fearful.”

In his interviews, including the one with The Times, Dershowitz said giving up is not an option. As he has in other interviews, Dershowitz points out that Chilmark residents have a history of being victims of McCarthyism, and that’s what he believes he is experiencing. “I’m gonna fight. It’s losing me friends, and my wife, who doesn’t agree with what I’ve done and said, is losing friends.”


  1. Cry me a river! Rich entitled man baby! People have a right to abhorrent guests from their parties, get over it!

  2. You know your sun has set when you have to threaten a library to get a speaking gig. And as to hanging out with Steve Bannon and Newsmax — well, as they say, “Lie down with camels, get up with fleas.”

  3. Oh Dershowitz…you are so yesterday’s news. Get over yourself. Some of us don’t want to listen to people who choose to defend predators.

  4. Now, I know some people here don’t like me mentioning 45– but Allen did..
    I have to wonder which of #45’s constitutional rights were violated.
    I don’t know of what Dershowitz speaks.
    Perhaps some conservative commentors could fill me in.

  5. Alan,

    You wrote an op-ed in the LA Times saying the age of consent show be 15.
    You were accused by one of Epstein’s underage victims of raping her
    You have vigorously defend Epstein and his entourage

    Hate to break it to you but nearly EVERYONE on the Vineyard believes the allegations.

  6. “Asked if he may also be persona non grata because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz said allegations made against him were unfounded. “Nobody on the Vineyard believes any of that. They know I’m a family man.”

    I’m on the Vineyard, and I believe the girls and women victimized by Epstein and his friends, especially those willing to bully and silence them with lawsuits and intimidation.

  7. I’ve never heard a person who plays the victim card better than Alan Dershowitz. For decades, now, too. Threaten a librarian? Sounds very dersh to me. Did I make up a new word? Maybe Dersh can take some comfort in that this summer.

  8. “IM BEING SILENCED! IM BEING CANCELLED!” he whines on national TV and newspapers every day. And BTW, I believe the women who accused him. Having a family doesn’t preclude you from being an abuser. What’s the matter Al? Run out of serial predators to defend?

  9. Voltaire’s tolerance finds its highest expression in the famous sentence of his letter to Helvetius: “I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    Why wouldn’t people want to hear what others have to say? How can we as a society learn if we don’t question or disagree. If someone makes a fool of themselves, let them. Make a counter argument without making things personal. Or better yet just don’t go and listen if you don’t agree.

    • I certainly agree, Carl. But Alan is very very loudly letting everyone hear what he has to say. Who can miss it? He’s broadcasting his opinions and thoughts in The New Yorker, on NewsMax, on right-wing podcasts, and now here in the Martha’s Vineyard Times. You can’t throw a stick without hitting one of his thoughts.

      That said, Alan is not invited to speak at the library because, as he well knows, the library does not have the capacity to host the crowds he draws. Alan is just trying to keep his name in the news.

  10. It is so worrisome that a librarian on this island is being bullied by anyone, let alone by a behemoth like AD. Just shocking that he does not understand how much this behavior lowers his ethos and credibility even more. Honestly, to say that a librarian at what is essentially a quiet, rural library, albeit an excellent one, should “get a new job if she cannot take the heat” is just outrageous. I am sorry, but Attorney Dershowitz needs to look within. He is cancelling himself.

  11. The headline says “Dershowitz accused of bullying librarian.” But story talks about threatening to sue the library (not the librarian). What did he do to “bully” the librarian?

    • Since this is an article about libraries, I find it odd that commenters have not actually read the article first, which clearly states:

      “He’s threatened me with a lawsuit,” Hierta said. “This once great man is reduced to bullying a librarian to sell a book.”

  12. Since our insane SCOTUS has declared that he US is now governed by Survivor law, can’t we just vote this putz off the island already?

    • Wow! I’m not surprised by Dershowitz’s behavior. This is nothing new, but perhaps worse now that the sun is setting on this narcissistic, high classed ambulance chaser. His involvement in the OJ Simpson case was an attention seeking ploy. If one were to psychoanalyze this pathetic individual my guess one would find an extremely fragile and inadequate persona. Like his fellow narcissist, Trump, he strikes back with lawsuits. So unbecoming, Alan!

  13. “She should get a different job if she can’t take the heat.” That statement cuts two ways. If defending a racist, misogynistic, liar who tried to bring about the downfall of our democracy under the guise of defending free speech is causing such angst, maybe Dershowitz should try farming.

    • Agree. I also don’t think “Chilmark Librarian” is one of those jobs that should require you to endure “heat.” In fact, it’s exactly the job I might go for to avoid public feuds and shaming.

  14. Last summer I saw Dershowitz cut in line at the farmer’s market to get some Salt Rock Chocolates. It was a very long line and everyone else was waiting patiently. I say, shun this self-entitled narcissist. Ebba is a stand-up librarian and a credit to the island. To drag her name so that he can drum up news coverage is the worst kind of behavior. Shameful.

  15. “Dershowitz said he was unaware of the hate mail to Hierta, but says it’s something he deals with on a daily basis. “That doesn’t have anything to do with me. Let her call the authorities,” he said of the mail Hierta said she received. “She should get a different job if she can’t take the heat.” Really? a librarian should get another job if she can’t take threats from a violent hate group? What universe do you live in, Mr Dershowitz? Oh, I know, the Trumpian/Bannon Universe. As for your feeling “canceled”, (the great catch word for people like you), get over it.

  16. He is a man baby who cannot take the heat. Perhaps he should summer in Bedminster, NJ with you know who! Why am I not surprised he cut the line for Salt Rock Chocolates! What a jerk!

  17. Simply put, why would anyone want to listen to something we’ve heard over and over again ??? Mr Dershowitz is a whiner, and why would any reasonable person want to listen to an associate of J Epstein?

    Good that Ebba has good sense! 3 cheers for the Chilmark Library!

  18. Why give the whining man-baby a voice? He deliberately defends the worst scumbags just to get his face on TV. Cut him off I say. And BTW Alan…we haven’t liked you since you got VanBulow and OJ off. Two guys that belonged in jail.

  19. Perhaps all his whining and consequent following by the media is simply the old belief that all publicity is good publicity. Let’s not pay any more attention to this man. Sorry for his wife, though.

  20. I support Ebba as I am sure all of us in Chilmark do.
    We should never let a whining and entitled bully defame an honest, hardworking and dedicated librarian. He no longer belongs in our community.

  21. More of Dershowitz jerky behavior.
    Why not use your skills to defend people who need to be defended instead of criminals and scoundrels who use the resources of all of our taxpayers to bend rules in their favor.
    That’s right, pull down somebody who’s better than you so you make yourself look great to yourself!
    Nice try!

    • “Why not use your skills to defend people who need to be defended ”

      Yes, like the Palestinians whose homes are being bombed and bulldozed.

  22. On Bannons podcast of all things. We really don’t love you Alan. Keep your pants up. Er your chin up.

  23. So the New Yorker interview was like an episode of Da Ali G. Did he not realize he was being made a fool of? Mocked. Ridiculed. And then he doubles down in the MVTimes interview?

    [H]e said of the mail Hierta said she received. “She should get a different job if she can’t take the heat.”


  24. I say let him speak as long as the public has equal time to ask questions. I’ll be there.

    I do think Alan is foolish to support mobsters and right wing propagandist and then try and fit into a liberal location. That’s not evidence of a high IQ.

  25. Leave it to Alan Dershowitz to unify the normally-polarizing comment section of the MV Times

  26. Personally, I like to hear both sides of an argument, why not let him speak? Kindness and Consideration?

    • he was offered a bigger platform….the Chilmark Library only hold 40 people. He’s just whining.

  27. No, Alan, she shouldn’t get a different job if she can’t take the heat. Ebba is a librarian! She shouldn’t be getting threats or hate mail at all. Instead of attacking a treasured library, why not refocus and defend libraries from those trying to ban books. Doing that might even get you a few up-island dinner invitations.

    • Kate makes a good point, Dersh. And she is quite popular at libraries. Might be worth taking her advice.

    • Dersh should take his own advice and move to Texas or Florida where he can be with fascists like himself and spare those of us that live here and are long long over this whining infant man baby!

      • So everyone in Texas and Florida are fascists? Does that mean everyone here on MV is without faults? Look at these comments. It’s like a modern day burning at the stake. I get it that you don’t like the guy but please don’t fool yourselves that you are any better than he is by acting the way you are acting. For a place that has so many peace signs on bumpers of cars I sure an not feeling the peace.

        • Carl– everyone in France is not French, but if you want to hang out with French people, speak french and eat french food while drinking french wine in a french cafe, it’s easier to just go to France rather than try to do it in New York’s Chinatown.
          And no one said that the fascist in Florida , of which I think you will agree there are some, are always at fault no matter what they do.

        • The majority in both Florida and Texas are IMO. Agree/disagree I couldn’t care less. The majority on MV are not IMO.

          • Yup, that’s the problem in a nutshell. I don’t care what you think even if I’m wrong. Got it!

      • I’m a liberal democrat and I live in Texas and there are thousands of liberal democrats in my city and millions in my state. We are not fascists and we don’t want Dersh. Please don’t send him to us! We respect our librarians. Oh and here is a breakdown of political party population size in the State of Texas. I’m sure it’s confusing but here goes:
        TX Republicans TX Democrats
        5,890,347 5,259,126

  28. Dersh should give his reading at the MSPCA.
    The dogs and cats there could use the entertainment.

  29. Alan,
    I say, have a big community music party in your house, or on your land!
    Woodstock weekend ‘71 began with fields filling up, slowly.
    Then, the word got out.
    When and if you want your word to get out: I say speak it in your own time and on your own land, and not in our public Library system.

    Have a music party to get your message out.
    Do you have a message that everyone will want to hear?
    What is it? Let’s hear it!

    • If he doesn’t want people to come to his house to listen to him, he could rent a hall like, maybe, the Whaling Church and charge admission. It would be interesting to see who would show up.

  30. Dersh, if you haven’t noticed, women just lost a critical constitutional right. How about getting over your sulk and defending that one?
    I am very sorry Ebba. You are a civic treasure and we are all with you. Like John Daley, I’m thrilled that for once we can all agree on something.

  31. The Dersh thinks he is “cancelled”?
    Why don’t we ask Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman their opinion?
    Oh, wait, they were really really cancelled!
    Nice job, Dersh.

  32. If you’re “cancelled” because so many are disgusted by a lifetime’s repugnant/repulsive/narcissistic words/actions/behaviors and persona,
    well, you’ve earned it. At 83, maybe scrape down low for some humility/introspection/regret and remorse. Still a smidge of time for an apology tour. Or, just disappear.

  33. “She should get a different job if she can’t take the heat?” Exactly what heat should someone considering the library sciences expect to take? Is threat management part of the curriculum? Along with not having enough funding, “I don’t wanna pay my overdue fine!” should be about as bad as it gets. I’m so sorry that this has happened to such a wonderful, hardworking woman.
    Complain all you want, Alan, but hands off our librarian!

  34. The absence of self-awareness is staggering. Clinically significant. New England Journal of Medicine level.

    In the 80s/90s, when he was in his forties/fifties, our family with young children would sit on Lucy Vincent Beach every day. As if it were a game, the kids would say “there he goes” as Dershowitz walked by with his mesh bag on his way to the nude beach. I am sure the young women enjoying a lovely day were awaiting his arrival with dread. Ew, just ew.

    Another shout out to Ebba — you are now a cult hero!!!

  35. You want him to go away? Totally ignore him. Stop the news articles, stop the letters, don’t go to his talks.

  36. Good morning. We have a lot of new commenters weighing in on this, which is great. However, if you come back and don’t find your comment it means you most likely didn’t use your full name or a real name. We only accept comments from people using first and last names. So please resubmit following that simple rule. We do appreciate you reading and interacting with The Times.

  37. Wow I can’t believe how many anti-semites there are in the comments. Alan is one of the chosen people. Have some respect! Liberal lunacy on this island.

    • Anti-semites? Seriously? Please point out the comments where anyone’s religious beliefs were mentioned.

    • Barry– anti semites ? Dersh is Jewish ? I didn’t know.
      Are you hallucinating comments where someone, anyone said anything about his religion ?
      Or do you just make stuff up ?
      I also didn’t know that being Jewish made you immune from criticism for being a Derschbag .
      Or are you just trying to “cancel” the comments of normal decent people by trying to make them feel guilty ?
      Poor play, buddy– I’m sure they would love your comment on “truth” social, or at Bannon’s war room.

      • First of all don’t try to play ignorant about Alan’s heritage. Second of all of course I would ISRAEL STANDS WITH TRUMP.

    • Gobsmacked at such a cretinous comment…where, oh where is there an anti-semitic comment?!?
      Walk east until your hat floats, Dersh.

      Hold the fort Ebba!

    • Ridiculous, no one here made any comment even remotely anti semetic. You are just being absurd, seems like you think any criticism of a person with jewish heritage is anti semitic. Do you apply this same fooling logic when it comes to Bernie Sanders?

    • Interesting how I mention anti semitism and now my comments are not being approved by moderation. Unbelievable. On Martha’s Vineyard of all places. MV might as well be renamed to little Israel at this point. Figure it out MV Times. You’re better than that.

      • You’re new to the forum. We don’t have someone monitoring comments 24/7. We have one moderator and this is just one of his many jobs. You had one comment that crossed a line and was not approved.

  38. So, the poster boy for the hopelessly self absorbed who sets the gold standard for narcism
    is feeling canceled. The only one canceling him is himself with his reprehensible legacy
    of crafting a sweet heart deal for Jeffrey Epstein, the most egregrious predatory child sexual offender of our generation. Dershowtze’s biggest fear is a loss of relevance – and it’s exactly what’s happening.

  39. I just read Dersch’s letter to the editor where he claims a post here is untrue.
    Who am I gonna believe — ?
    I don’t know if David Small is a liar, and absent of any way of knowing, I will accept his word. Now Dersch on the other hand has a known record of untrue utterances.
    Sooooo— hmmmmm …
    Probability leads me to believe Mr. Small.

    That’s 12 up votes for “girls and women” ( thank you Ms. Norton for your poll 😉
    One for Mr. Small

    None for Dersch …

    Poor Alan — Just because he defends one of the most pathological liars the world has ever seen no one believes him.
    Imagine that…

  40. I came here for the comments. I was not disappointed.

    Well done. Very well done. Scorched in fact.

  41. Dershbag is being cancelled on the vineyard for a variety of valid reasons. Alan, don’t you wish there was a wailing wall in Chilmark against which you could bang your head a thousand times, knocking some sense into you. Not going to happen because he considers himself an entitled celebrity. Wrong, nothing but a small little jerk

    • Since when is there a valid reason to cancel anyone? And when is the last time you were called a whiz kid? Speak of yourself.

  42. I second Kate Feiffer and Geraldine Brooks. Alan Dershowitz is not reading the room, but I don’t mean this on the dimension of so-called cancel culture, although moral judgment is definitely a factor. The stakes are not a high level defense of constitutional rights, but a selective defense of men who inflict violence on women. Toxic masculinity is more a apt descriptive keyword at play than cancel culture. You would think it would be pretty self-evident post-Trump what this selective defense represents: reinforcement of entitlement if not an outright endorsement of violence towards women. These is what is actual at stake, the elephant in the room. He implies a binary structure, “us/islanders” vs ‘him/cancelled”, which is telling of the real issue at hand. I suggest Dershowitz would definitely stoke interest with a dialogue on the stakes for women, specifically addressing his responsibility via his defense work and public debates.

    • Can’t say I agree with this comment.
      To the extent that I can understand what is being alleged.

      Re “outright endorsement of violence towards women,” when did he endorse this? I am not a Dersh fan, but I am not aware that he has outright endorsed violence against women.
      That would be a quote of some kind.

      • Kathleen, I am referencing his highly publicized defense cases. OJ: murder and abuse of his wife; Epstein: sex trafficking of under-age girls, Trump: etc. I suggest Alan Dershowitz might find a more receptive audience if he addressed his responsibility to the issues so volatile in his famous defense case. This is relevant because he is intentionally generating publicity based on persecution for his defense cases, and highly relevant to our current issues of women rights. He bases his defense for his defense on defending the constitution, thus bringing into play the idea of rights and, by implication, entitlement. Further, his strategy of a binary opposition references the patriarchal structure for presenting women rights issues. Honestly, isn’t this kind of obvious?

        I appreciate that he is expressing vulnerability in his complaint of friendship betrayal by a sector he apparently is emotionally invested in, yet also note that he is implicitly addressing a very elite sector. My overall point is that the lives of everyday, unknown folks are the stakes right now especially.

        Personally, I would like to see Dershowitz explore the notion of vulnerability and responsibility, as one who engages so publicly with the media on an essentially shallow level yet with volatile issues. He might consider this in the context of a critical discussion, personal, profession, an intersection of all (best, to me).

        • Susan,
          You do understand one of our bedrock principles is the right to a competent defense. As a person who thinks I’m strong on law and order I would never go along with a system where people are not allowed to give a defense. If you took all these comments and put them at the feet of President 44 you would be calling for heads to roll. They are despicable and I’m no fan of this man. But the hypocrisy…. Yikes.

        • Yes, Susan, I understood that you were labeling Dersh’s work on these cases as “outright endorsement of violence towards women.” No need for further explanation.

          However, you are wrong.
          Taking on a legal case is not an “outright endorsement of violence towards women.”

          In the USA, everyone has the right to legal representation. Also people accused of crimes that may have involved violence toward a women (but this of course remains to be proven, which is why we have a legal justice system in the USA). These are civil rights enjoyed by all.

          Taking on a case is not an outright endorsement of anything.

          Only actual statements endorsing violence toward women are . . . . outright endorsements of violence toward women, such as “I approve of violence toward women.” Or “I enjoy thinking about violence toward women.” Or “I think violence is a good way to handle women.”

        • You are categorizing Trump with OJ and Epstein? You guys — I mean those here who hate (or something) Donald Trump have no who or what he is.

    • I have a hard time understanding this word salad…” The stakes are not a high level defense of constitutional rights, but a selective defense of men who inflict violence on women. Toxic masculinity is more a apt descriptive keyword at play than cancel culture”. “outright endorsement of violence towards women.”

  43. Dear Alan Dershowitz,
    Quit badgering the poor library and the Community Center.
    Rent a hall.
    Rent a great big tent from Tilton or Big Sky, and find a field.
    Advertise, post your event on social media. You could even charge!
    Then tell us what it is you want to say and move on.

  44. We’ve seen the controversy over the obligations of libraries and universities to provide space for people or groups with objectionable views play out extensively over recent years. The pressure on librarians has taken its toll and there is a recent study on the trauma and stress on frontline library workers.

    I did my own internet research on this momentous decision this afternoon, studying law cases and many articles and policies put out by the American Library Association, etc. Unfortunately, my views are clouded by Mr. Dershowitz’s 1997 LA Times op-ed arguing for the age of statutory rape to be lowered to 15, his defense of Epstein, the accusations of his own sexual transgressions with minors at Epstein’s den, his endless hyperbolic drivel, and, worst of all, the possibility, which he denies, that he cut in line at the Farmers Market, an entirely believable accusation.

    There are no easy answers and, as I pored over documents, I was reminded of the words of the Dude about the case of his missing rug in The Big Lebowski, a movie I fall back on for moral and intellectual guidance. “It’s a complicated case, Maude. Lotta ins. Lotta outs. And a lotta strands to keep in my head, man.” I don’t think the library board should make a precipitous decision. Instead, it should explore the ins and the outs and sort through the strands. It’s likely to take six months to reach a conclusion. If they do rule in favor of Mr. Dershowitz, I may try to attend, if the roads have been plowed. If they rule against him and he sues, I imagine the size of the GoFundMe account for defense costs and the line of Harvard Law Professors lining up to offer their services pro bono could make the national news.

    • MV Times nominee for the best comment award for the Big Lebowski quote goes to Gil Sanborn!

  45. I am a Conservative, and I love everything about Martha’s Vineyard except it’s being a self-described “liberal enclave,” which doesn’t mean that I don’t like and on some points agree with
    friends who are liberals. When I decided to move to the island I contemplated wearing a Savage Nation cap when on errands to express my objection to the closed-mindedness and lack of logic of the false form of liberalism that has created cancel culture. I don’t agree with his politics and am aware of everything that is and possibly could be imperfect, annoying, unlikeable, or wrong about Alan Dershowitz. I didn’t like his representing OJ or Von Biulow, either. But he is a lawyer and many of his critics, as critics of lawyers who do not understand or appreciate lawyers (until they need one themselves) often do, fail to understand the logic, value, nature, and purpose of the law in the United States, which grants everyone the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and to the best possible defense, and requires an
    attorney to stand by his or her client to the point of being willing to go to jail for them, regardless of and totally apart from his or own personal viewpoint. I haven’t seen one comment here, and if I missed it I apologize, that notes the integrity Mr. Dershowitz has
    displayed, as any lawyer should and which should be instructive, in standing by and standing up for what is true and correct under the Constitution regardless of his own personal political
    affiliations. That is what his book, according to its title, is about and that its message be heard
    and understood is critical to the survival of this nation and of the civilized state its laws have enabled us to enjoy until recently. We are, I or any other competent professional astrologer can tell you, at a critical turning point, and this nation and its freedom and benefits are either going to cease to exist or be reborn. If someone getting beaten up on the beach for reading a
    book to whom the assailant objects is any indication, and it is, the former will prevail. Some of those whose minds are not as well trained and/or acute as Mr. Dershowitz’ fail to understand and appreciate his courage and integrity and the crucial importance of his message. It is not about the size or location of a lecture space or whether a librarian feels threatened by a lawsuit and by a Proud Boy to the point of putting bars on her windows. In fact, the very nature and purpose of a public library suggest that if its space is insufficient, its staff should arrange one more adequate somewhere else in the community to enable airing and exchange of ideas that arise from the publication of a book (libraries being all about such things, after all, and that is why there would be merit in the terrifying lawsuit. He is right about the McCarthyism, which he points out even when it is directed against his own historical political opponents. In fact, he is being a true liberal when those who claim to be are not. If Larry David is upset with him and no longer wishes to speak to him because he believes the allegations connected with the Epstein scandal to be true, that is one thing, and the views of women who have commented here and believe those allegations to be true, rightly or wrongly, are understandable as well.
    But if Mr. David and others want nothing to do with him because they consider him a traitor to
    their political views, they are making no more sense than the claim that abortion is a constitutional right or that overturning Roe v. Wade has forbidden it in the whole country does,
    and brilliant as Mr. Sanders’ impersonation of Bernie Sanders was, he should know better. The
    issue at hand is not whether people like him, his beach habits, his perceived shopping behavior, his personality, his shortcomings, etc,; it is his right to be heard, and the right of
    those who might want to hear, debate with, and learn from him to do those things; but in many of the comments above the former have obscured the latter. If you don’t like him, fine. If you disagree with him, fine. But neither justifies cancelling him, and especially when he is calling out cancel culture, and rightly.

    is a lawyer,

  46. I don’t know why the lines of print above don’t justify. Fixable? and sorry, Mr. David, whose impersonation of Bernie Sanders was that good.

  47. Also I notice that more than one of his critics here has asked him to contribute his expertise to one cause or another. Which is it? This is why Michael Savage once said that his head hurt because he had been trying all day to think like what passes today for a liberal but they have no logic.

    • I am so tired of conservative crap about how liberals aren’t logical. You’re just looking for excuses to defend your points of view. So let’s talk logic. You think the supreme court was correct for overturning Roe v Wade. The basis was that there was no historical right and no explicit right in the constitution for an abortion. Let’s use that logic on slavery. The constitution explicitly did not grant the right to not be a slave. In order to get that right, a constitutional amendment was passed. Now try to think out of the box. Suppose that amendment is repealed (we’ve done it before with prohibition). Suppose we repeal the 13th amendment. Does that mean that slavery is now allowed? If you don’t think slavery would now be allowed, why not? The constitution allowed it. Or do you believe that there are some fundamental rights (as mentioned in the 9th amendment) that are critical in a free society. I, as a liberal, would argue that one of those fundamental rights is bodily autonomy. Hence, the right for a woman to control her own body. How about the right for a woman to vote? Can we repeal the 19th amendment and not allow to women to vote? Or is the right to vote a fundamental right, even though explicity denied by the constitution. It’s amazing that conservatives, who used to call themselves “small government” now believe that people have no rights, except for what the government decides to grant them. I, as a liberal, disagree. We the people have fundamental rights. That is the spirit of the constitution and I believe in that spirit. Do you believe in slavery? Because if you follow the court’s logic, all we need to do is repeal the 13th amendment and we can bring back slavery.

      • Flawed argument. Those things you mentioned are/ were constitutional issues. Abortion is not. RBG said it herself. So let’s get working and protect a woman’s right to choose. Now the hard part. At what point in the pregnancy will it be ok? But something has to get done.

      • We don’t need excuses to defend our point of view. That is what your tortuous rationale here is, though, I can say now that I have had time to read it more fully, looking forward to having my mind exercised. But I still applaud your being in the camp of what liberals used to be by making an argument and ostensibly being willing to debate an issue. Note that it is far more common for Democrats and liberals to convert to Republicans or Conservatives than vice-versa. Why is that? The only exception I can think
        of is Arianna Stasinopoulos, who is an opportunist. Perhaps you can tell me of others.

        • Recall is Alan made himself unlikable on the porch of the General Store during George W’s administration. I understood it was because Alan spoke over everyone, presented arguments as true that were based on his personal beliefs rather than law, common description he was full of himself.

          Alan has not grown up since. But we have in Ianthe an heir apparent. She (or he, if this is Alan under a pen name) speaks over everyone, presents arguments I know from living on this planet are false, and she’s full of herself. She has the right to speak, she has done so in abundance.

          A reminder we are not required to listen or to respond. I suggest she’s earned the same response given Alan on the porch of the General Store.

  48. Dershowitz…read your letter to the editor…you are such an egotist it doesn’t occur to you that nobody wants to hear why you defended Trump. We’re just not that into you.

    • It’s clear by the comments it’s very clear why we need to hear why he defended Trump. For the same reasons why murderers rapists and all people who are accused of something. It’s the bedrock of our principles. In this county we get to put on a competent defense. This is mob rule by any other means. The New York Times just came out and said they got the Russia Investigation all wrong. Sure wouldn’t want this group sitting on my jury and by the likes of these comments would anyone?

      • I agree with you, Carl.

        For years now, those who raise questions about any number of issues—from Russiagate to covid inoculations to immigration policy—have been shut up with the accusation that they were “Trump supporters.”

        Invoking Trump’s name has been the second-most popular way—after “conspiracy theory!”—to avoid flexxing the gray cells to engage with the multiple points of view on important issues.

        We really need to get past this.

        I have to say that, as in the case of Donald Trump, with Dersh public ridicule has often filled in for actually engaging with his ideas and (in the case of Trump) those of his supporters (admittedly both men have made this easy).

        In the run-up to the 2016 election, there was no coverage (that I was aware of) on the part of either of our local papers with the points of view of people who planned to vote for Trump. The assumption was that there could only be prima facie “bad” reasons, such as racism or “populism,” for supporting Trump. In this way those who planned to vote for Trump were “othered,” as we now call it. This one-sided coverage was, IMO, disrespectful of the members of our community who supported Trump, plus, intellectually dishonest, because their reasons for doing so remained unexplored or were caricatured.

        It is a fact that newspapers traditionally have very clear political alignments. But I believe it would be considered a liberal Democratic value that there should be a distinction between whom they endorse on the editorial page, and how views in the community are covered. Isn’t it possible that one-sided coverage actually induces mental laziness and a “shouting down” mentality?

        If I missed some respectful, serious coverage of Trump voters’ views in either of our newspapers in 2016, I take it all back!

        Meanwhile, I am now curious to hear what Alan Dershowitz has to say about Trump.

        • Katherine. If you can Google, “Why Dershowitz supports Trump”, you and anyone else can hear or read exactly what Dershowitz has to say about Trump and why he has defended him– even though he never voted for him and never would. There are many articles and videos.
          Here’s one:

          Here’s another:

          And another:

          I’m surprisingly agreeing with the few against this increasingly nasty pile-on here, and I regret my small part in suggesting that Dershowitz deserves this level of ridicule. He does not. There are many lies about Dershowitz here, including that he cuts in line anywhere. That simply does not happen. He is a very polite and nice person, in person. He also devotes much time to pro bono work. He works for free and always has for a good portion of his time, for people on death row and those who cannot afford legal defense. The earlier suggestion, from you, that he should defend Palestinians whose houses have been bombed, is, I hope, simply a matter of being ignorant of Dershowitz’s views on Israel. He supports a separate Palestinian state and is against the territories being Israeli occupied, since the 60s. Israelis do not support him! What he also supports, which many countries and antisemites do not like or agree with, is Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself.

          Yes, there is a lot wrong in this comment thread.

          By the way, comparing a brilliant, accomplished mind and his views and opinions to an uneducated con man’s, is silly and a waste of time. Trump cheated his way to the top, Dershowitz earned his way the old fashioned way. The two outsized egos that don’t know when to shut up, however, could go head to head (pun intended) and I don’t know who’d come out on top or bigger. The bragging and self-aggrandizing is awful in humans, whether based in reality or lies.

          It is extremely sad to see a brilliant life dedicated to the law, teaching it and practicing it and writing about it, be reduced to this circus this late in a man’s life, here, in a place he and his family have loved for over 50 years. But who brought it up? Again? He did. Knowing when to shut up is a talent. I’ll leave it at that, with one last link about the subject that in my view has put the nail in Dershowitz’s reputation, fairly or unfairly, I honestly don’t know: his social relationship with Epstein, (not his legal defense of him).

          • PS I hope he drops this hurtful, egotistical nonsense against our library. It would be the right thing to do.

      • Carl– you must really dislike that Katherine agrees with you while mentioning #45 by name 8– count ’em EIGHT times in one comment expressing her support for your comment.
        I know how you feel about that subject
        Just sayin’ –:)

        • I’ve been kicked around by Jackie for the last two weeks but I have to give it to her on this last comment. I agree with a large majority of it. She may take it back if she knows how I feel.

          As for Katherine, she makes it hard to disagree with. But Lanthe has a gift!

  49. Dersh! Save rowe-wade sue the Supreme Court and those stupid bastards who think they can tell women what they can do and doctors what they cant do. YOU CAN DO IT!!woweee I bet a lot of people would change their tune. I would …….enough said…get off the porch go to work

    • Trip – You make a great point. But when does Dersh work for free? OJ? No. Von Bulow? No. Epstein? No. He wants his name in bright neon to feed his ego and so those who can afford him see the bright lights. Cash is king for him when it comes to clients.

  50. Given the expected “overwhelming” crowds, if he wants to speak, it should be held at his grand residence on his own property and let him arrange parking, security and the livestream feed.

  51. Thank you and vice-versa re your comments. I have never met him and can only imagine what it must be like to be the guy everyone wants to call on to help the causes they deem worthy, to help themselves when they are most desperately in need of defense, and when their cat is up a tree, but the expression, “A man is never a prophet in his own home” comes to mind. And then: “Consider the source.” I know that he was hardly universally popular on Martha’s Vineyard, or in the world at large, years long since, and I do understand why, but when a retired law professor cannot be cordial to a former student without Larry David, to whom I’ve given every benefit of the doubt, making a fool only of himself by reacting to that as he did, and when he has been cancelled on the island as the result of Trump hatred, which, like
    hatred per se since it is hatred, is mere sickness and insanity, which has a point of intersection with lack of logic and clear thinking just as evil has a point of intersection with incompetence, jealousy, and hatred, and when the opportunity to pile on him in gleeful trollery is seized upon as it has been in many comments thus far in a manner reminiscent of immature junior high school, sorority, or adult cliques, something is not right in Denmark, and it is part of a danger that he sees and the sheep who are willingly part of it, who do not even realize that he is about protecting rights to which they feel entitled and are deliberately eroding for all of us while smug in their conviction that their views are superior, do not see, not realizing even that their calling him a narcissist is the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe he is a narcissist, or not, but if he is, that is not the point. Certainly, like everyone, he is imperfect and has much to learn, but that is not the point either. Th real problem is that when someone comes along with superior intelligence and ability and right intention, those who lack his talent, wiilingness to work, and wisdom feel uncomfortable and hate him based on his personality and his flaws rather than focusing on and appreciating and benefitting from — and allowing others to benefit from — what he does have to offer. That seems to be part of human nature in a certain portion of the population, and it has plagued mankind and civilization, leading to catastrophe after catastrophe, throughout history, just as it does constantly in everyday life. My father told me often, in the last years of his life, with great sadness, that in my lifetime I would see come to pass in this country what happened in Germany in the years before the last world war. I see it.
    A lot of people see it. Mr. Dershowitz sees it. Those who don’t are in just as much peril as the rest of us, and as has happened before, are going to wake up too late, and for their own sake as well as everybody’s need to learn to think critically, grow up, stop harping on the negatives like children who expect parents to be perfect, and adopt, develop, and practice mature positive attitude. They would then discover that true liberalism and the conservatism they claim to hate and despise are not as far apart as they think, and discover that what what they think are their own viewpoints are not the only valid opinions, and that they only thought that they were because they had not developed their own intellect and strength of mind. But they are not going to have the opportunity to do this in a world where Alan Dershowitz and what he has to say by those who don’t like HIM and are angry that he doesn’t follow the party line they thought he did, like a child whose identity is threatened upon discovering an aspect of a parent
    which they were not yet secure enough in their own to understand. They THINK that they are everybody, as the adolescent comments above claiming that the island is”united” against Alan Dershowitz reflect, but in fact a good strong ten of us who have commented here disagree, and considering the nature of the comments, the ratio does not favor the mean girls, who are only proving Dershowitz’ very point. I know this sounds harsh, and I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings. But if enough people don’t stop hating and learn to trust and appreciate their own capacity to think more clearly, there isn’t going to be a United States with freedom and a beautiful place like Martha’s Vineyard any more, and then there really will be something to complain about and no one to heed the complaints. That is what he is trying to warn us about
    for everyone’s sake, it is totally distinct from his real or perceived shortcomings, which are totally irrelevant to it, and instead of showing capability of critical analysis and separating wheat from chaff, taking ore from mine, river, or pan, or any other metaphor, the cancellers are already playing the role of those who won’t listen. And he has every right to complain about that, as do we all.

    • No. This windy exhaustive comment is just untrue. For one, what gives you the knowledge that opposition to Mr. D is from less capable and intelligent persons ? And why on earth do you believe that he’s being hated for his personality and flaws ? As opposed to the conscious choice he’s made to build a career representing heinous and odious human beings, to satisfy his own innate insecurities and narcissistic needs. Your comments are a true insult to most commenters here, who display a far greater understanding of emotional intelligence, as well as a much deeper respect for humanity.

      • Mike… serious question. Do you not believe that every person has the right to competent legal representation. Lanthe makes excellent points about differentiating between the honoring the legal cannons that layers swear to uphold and personal beliefs. That’s what lawyers do. They have to represent people that they may not like and even despise. But it’s their job. And I can’t believe I’m sticking up for lawyers.

  52. Not sure if I made a mistake with my last comment or if it somehow “crossed a line” by being 100% factually true. Mr Dershowitz has stated publicly and unequivocally that he supports torture. Torture has been used by many totalitarian regimes. These regimes include those of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Stalin in the former USSR, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and many others. Why should we give time to someone who supports such barbaric practices? Talk about being canceled. I’d say supporting state sanctioned torture is about as bad as cancel culture can get!

    • Please supply a link or documentation of Dershowitz’s public comment.
      Did he say he supports torture by the USA government?
      The Israeli govt?

      It is a fact that the CIA practices torture.
      There is a feature film about it.
      Starring Jessica Chastain.
      Showing that Americans are more “moral” in the way they decide to apply torture.
      Doese Dershowitz agrees with this view? If so, there is no reason to invoke torturing by foreign govts. We have enough to worry about here.
      The CIA also supports regimes that practice torture, many of them put in place by the CIA and the State Department via regime change “interventions.”
      And trains goon squads here in the USA in how to apply torture in support of those regimes.
      Furthermore, the UK govt, at the behest of the American govt, is torturing the journalist Julian Assange.

      • Ms Scott you have no basis for your claim that Assange is being tortured at the behest of the the US government. If you think solitary confinement is torture then you are correct but no one believes that.

        • andy– nice to see you jump in –I was getting worried that… never mind—
          Dersch says ” Asked if he may also be persona non grata because of his association with Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz said allegations made against him were unfounded. “Nobody on the Vineyard believes any of that. They know I’m a family man.”

          Read some early comments here–
          It seems a lot of people believed that…

          And then of course, you bring up the red herring that no one has mentioned here– “Solitary confinement” Given how it is applied, I for one could call it that . I am sure others might also .But you offer no defense as to whether it is torture if his fingernails are being pulled out. Dersch seems to think that’s ok in some situations.
          So you don’t really know what’s going on with Assuage do you ?
          Neither do I — I will agree that solitary in and of itself does not constitute what we commonly think of as torture when applied as a disciplinary tactic. Putting a child in their room for 5 minutes as a “time out” for instance. But putting Assuage in a hole for years is a little different.
          I wonder if you think a guy lie Epstein felt tortured when he was in solitary.. He apparently did, as he chose suicide over solitary confinement.

  53. Jonathasn Chatinover, your argument is really interesting and it is refreshing to see a real liberal these days actually exercising logical thought processes. I’m not talking about what you are doing, which allows another person to consider, reflect, debate, engage, and vice-versa, and nurtures thought process on both sides. I’m talking about blind adherence to positions and opinions that have been adopted without real independent thought and/or because one wants what one wants regardless of cost to anyone, and about conviction that one’s side is so superior to the other side that debate is beneath one and that one is part of the right clique, and entitled to hate of the other side. That is what passes for liberalism these days, which refuses to engage in debate because it has no logic. I may or may not agree with your position, but you have gone to the trouble to raise points of possible enlightenment, give me something to think about, and raise points in response. I’m talking about closed-mindedness and refusal to engage in civilized discourse, to which Mr. Dershowitz is referring regarding the behavior of Larry Sanders, which typifies what passes for liberalism today. Incidentally, conservatism has an analogous problem; how and why religion got into it and there came to be a “religious right,” I don’t know, but I don’t like it and I think it’s a real problem. “You have to
    be a Republican if you’re a Christian” is in its way just as bad. I happen to consider conservatism simply a matter of common sense, adherence to the Constitution, and others, including the government, minding their own business and not interfering in one’s life. As for abortion, which was not a matter even contemplated by the framers of the Constitution at the time, I don’t think it should be matter of consideration by the law or the government at all; slavery involves persons already in existence, and when it comes to personhood, I believe that non-human animals deserve certain rights of personhood. Which is — surprise — more consistent with the so-called “liberal” stance. It’s very simple; if a woman, or for that matter the man in the situation, would do or wants done such a thing, they should not be reproduced. But shrieking like hysterical dumb females that overturning Roe v. Wade is a blow to women’s rights and makes it impossible for a woman to get an abortion anywhere in the country is just plain illogical and reminds one of why there was objection to women even having the right to vote.

    • Livadas. Much of the Democratic party line supports things evangelical Christians eschew. It is therefore absolutely logical that Most Christians are republican because they don’t like gay marriage and identity politics and abortion on demand and so on. If one believes in biblical inerrancy, one’s corporate residence is in the Republican Party. Biblical Scripture even guides us on forensic issues like tax and finance and economics. Being of Greek Orthodox persuasion surely you understand.

      • I was about to say how good it was to see what you said about Mr. Dershowitz and the both shameful and shameless piling on him here, and it was good, but I don’t think it’s right to blame him for objecting to being cancelled; he didn’t start it; the cancellers did, and it’s not even only about him; that’s what they do. He is forcing light onto a universal problem. In and around my home town of Rochester, New York, not long
        ago the State University at Brockport sponsored a speaker who calls himself a political when the reason he spent years in prison was his having murdered two police officers, one of whom begged for his life as the guy pumped bullets into him. Ooh, the libs wanted to air and hear what the great man had to say. And if community outrage had not prevailed, he would have been paid a hefty stipend to speak as well. But when a group of Trump supporters wanted to do a program at the Auditorium Theater, the owner of the theater was harassed until he had to tell the group that they could not use his venue. It’s a real problem. As for his acquaintance with Epstein, whom he represented, Epstein made a point to try to become acquainted with as many high-profile, successful, famous, etc. people as he could, in order to have access to their resources and advance himself, and Alan Dershowitz is quite a “resource” to try to get access to for someone who is walking on the wrong side of the line while wanting to continue to enjoy a life of luxury. It is likely that whatever talent Epstein had for getting access to many others he used on Alan Dershowitz. That is the way social climbing works. Of much more valid concern is how did Mr. Dershowitz faii to see through Larry David iand why was he willing to have anything to do with him in the first place?

      • Andrew, how familiar are you with Christianity? It is not a monolith. Not all Christians are evangelicals. There are some, of what denomination I don’t know, who say you have to be a Republican if you are a Christian, which I know because a midwestern woman of my acquaintance who is a Democrat told me that she was getting harangued with that line by women at her church. Catholics sure aren’t heavily Republican; they are heavily Democrat and into “social justice.” If you want to see that kind of liberalism, look at Catholic Charities. You think that because their theology emphasizes sanctity of life they haven’t helped women get abortions? Or inflicted euthanasia on helpless elderly who wanted to live? You should see what they have done to families, the literature the Vatican has put out endorsing plug-pulling. Did you ever hear of Catholic Workers and what they do? Helping the poor is a big part of the Catholic ethos. And Protestants — Dear God, have THEY gone liberal and Democrat and on and on about social justice. In other words, it’s not how you thought. Not at all.

    • Lanthe– you were doing ok trying to present a reasonable and coherent argument until your last sentence.

      • I was about to say how good it was to see what you said about Mr. Dershowitz and the both shameful and shameless piling on him here, and it was good, but I don’t think it’s right to blame him for objecting to being cancelled; he didn’t start it; the cancellers did, and it’s not even only about him; that’s what they do. He is forcing light onto a universal problem. In and around my home town of Rochester, New York, not long
        ago the State University at Brockport sponsored a speaker who calls himself a political when the reason he spent years in prison was his having murdered two police officers, one of whom begged for his life as the guy pumped bullets into him. Ooh, the libs wanted to air and hear what the great man had to say. And if community outrage had not prevailed, he would have been paid a hefty stipend to speak as well. But when a group of Trump supporters wanted to do a program at the Auditorium Theater, the owner of the theater was harassed until he had to tell the group that they could not use his venue. It’s a real problem. As for his acquaintance with Epstein, whom he represented, Epstein made a point to try to become acquainted with as many high-profile, successful, famous, etc. people as he could, in order to have access to their resources and advance himself, and Alan Dershowitz is quite a “resource” to try to get access to for someone who is walking on the wrong side of the line while wanting to continue to enjoy a life of luxury. It is likely that whatever talent Epstein had for getting access to many others he used on Alan Dershowitz. That is the way social climbing works. Of much more valid concern is how did Mr. Dershowitz faii to see through Larry David iand why was he willing to have anything to do with him in the first place?

  54. Harrison Holmes, that is very high-minded, and if you have been in the military or somehow otherwise have seen the barbarism involved in such conflict it is even more high-minded, but as far as I know, what Mr. Dershowitz said, in essence, that if there has to be a choice between torturing someone who is apt only under torture to provide information that will prevent our own innocent and vulnerable citizens, e.g. Mrs. Jones down the street, from being blown up and torturing the informant, ugly though the choice is, waterboard the s.o.b. If you would rather see Mrs. Jones down the street, or yourself for that matter, blown up, kudos to your sensitivity, but this is not about a dictator abusing a country’s own citizens; it is about a government protecting its own citizens and their country’s existence and freedoms. Survival is not and cannot always be pretty.

  55. Reading these 115 posts but for a few is torture. They show us the unbridled animus and intolerance of the island. Yeah its sanctioned torture.

    • Richard– you must have missed that weekend a few years ago, when the filtering software failed and the moderator was off for the weekend.
      There was an article about then president Obama coming to the island.
      All comments went through and were posted on this forum. Apparently the “conservative” community caught on quickly and told us what they really thought about America’s first black president and how to deal with him.
      That unfettered 30 hours or so had more hate than all the trump rallies in the deep south.
      A lot of people seem to dislike dersh, but no one is suggesting his entire family should be lynched or burned alive.

      • 1. I don’t know any Conservative who ever suggested such a thing or even disliked Obama because his father was black. We have plenty of reasons for objecting to his presidency regardless of his race, just as we do re Biden or
        Hillary. You are talking about racists, not Conservatives. We are not a monolith of everybody who isnt a liberal, but you guys seem to perceive us that way. And remember, it was the Democrats who supported slavery and Jim Crow and who opposed civil rights in the south. 2. A comment I addressed to Jackie Mendez appears to be headed to coming up on here addressed to you. I don’t know how that happened. I had clicked on reply to her. 3. There is so much on here that it is hard to weed through it and I think sometimes replies come up out of sequence. Which post of mine did you mean when you said that the last sentence wasn’t logical?

  56. Things must be really slow right now Up-Island. Hard to fathom the level of vitriol and personal attacks on display here. I don’t get any of this. Alan Dershowitz doesn’t need any more money. Nor fame. Nor audience, especially in an overcrowded room in the Chilmark Library. I think he’s simply trying to make a point: more speech is preferable to less speech. It’s not like he needs a job or anyone’s approval or adoration. As to the endangerment of the Chilmark Library Director, any threat necessitating the installation of prison bars on ones’ bedroom window should be treated as serious enough to be an endangerment to the actual library building and library population themselves — because any true lunatic or political psycho would almost certainly view the library (the institution itself) as an inviting target. So has the hate letter that prompted the installation of prison bars been shared with the Chilmark Police? Or the State Police? Or the FBI? Or even the library Board? As a Chilmark resident and taxpayer of 24 years, recently relocated off-Island, I think Chilmark residents and other Island residents should be given reassurance by law enforcement that any danger associated with using the library is minimal to non-existent in their view. Investigation, please. Let’s not wait for one of the Proud Boys to hop a ferry, for gosh sakes.

    Charles Furlong
    Naples, Florida (formerly of Chilmark)

  57. Press item from off Island: Alan Dershowitz is threatening to sue the local library in Martha’s Vineyard for not inviting him to give a book talk.

    From the Mouth itself: “People refuse to attend events if they know I’m gonna be there and that’s why several friends of mine have who have invited me for years to events in their home or concerts that they’ve sponsored have apologetically said: ‘We’re sorry we can’t invite you because if you come everybody will leave.’”

    Reduced to a sentence: Alan is suing because people don’t want to see or hear him.

  58. Dershbag claims that during the first impeachment trial, he was defending Rump’s constitutional rights, which he claims were being violated, therefore, we must all remember the crimes Rump committed that got him impeached:
    1) Violations of the Impoundment Control Act;
    2) Solicitation of a Bribe; cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment and removal;
    3) Solicitation of Covert Propaganda; this is illegal for any U.S. office holder to do;
    4) Witness tampering;
    5) Witness intimidation;
    6) Violations of Whistleblower protection laws.
    There is no constitutional right for a president to break laws.
    Somebody should honk a clown horn in Dershbag’s face.

  59. Mike Keifer and Andrew Engelman, neither one of you knows what you’re talking about. You are both so far off that I wouldn’t waste time trying to figure out where to start correcting you, and as far as Andrew’s assumption that I am Greek Orthodox, you guessed my ethnicity correctly, but assumption violates the first rule of logic, which is not to assume. Yes, I was
    christened when I was unable to have any say in the matter, and if I were to get married I would consider using its very good ceremony and want to live among Greeks, but although it is the original and finest of Christian denominations, and there is much goodness in Christianity, it is incompatible with the Greek psyche and is the worst thing that ever happened to Greeks, Yes it is part of modern Greek culture and was a kind of bulwark against Turkish oppression, but I’m fine with the Olympians and the mindset that invented them. I don’t believe I was born in sin or have to feel guilty or in miracles and immaculate conception and thus that Jesus even
    existed, and if he did, you don’t want to know what I think of him. And don’t get me started on
    Roman Catholocism. I am a classicist. I know why Chistianity got started and if people want to be weaklings who need to believe that Jesus saved them, fine, but me, when I see old movies with Christians being thrown to the lions, I cheer for the lions. Because I value what came BEFORE Christianity. You were REALLY wrong on that one. Now the Christians here who hate Trump (wouldn’t that be like oxymoron?) may think that naturally a blasphemer would be on
    his side. I can’t do anything about that, but remember, we have freedom of religion in the U.S., and Donald Trump really does love this country and want to protect it and its freedoms. If you
    didn’t know that, it’s because you’re a blind sheep. You wanted Biden? You got him. You wanted the guy who was vice president to a president who wouldn’t and didn’t endorse his own vice president to succeed him and said (which renders any argument that he would have had not Hilary been in the picture untenable): “Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to —- things up.” How logical is that?

Comments are closed.