The Flynn plea deal; and he's got an opinion - nothing to see here, move along. Perhaps that op-ed is correct in part on the main theme of it, but wait, there's more, an added opinionated bias-bonus:
The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.
Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.
Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.
As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.
[italics emphasis added] So an opinion on Trump, on Flynn, and as an added bonus a critique of Obama apart from where he was born, rather having the Alan Dershowitz memorial crying towel out over how could Obama have insufficient love for Bibi and Israel. Agree or disagree with the opinions, but please do not deny the man is opinionated with enjoyment coming from having his opinions prominent in the media of the nation.
What now, should we seek a Dershowitz opinion piece online opining about Roy Moore and the youngsters as a news item? Professor Dershowitz, have you any thoughts or slants or special insights into such allegations? Would you enlighten us as to impacts Moore faces and such?
Is silence golden, or merely prudent?
That question arises in light of Dershowitz's personal history, a story breaking a couple of years before it might have grown legs in today's mood over butt grabbing or not by Franken, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Admittedly I lack a direct access channel to the inner workings of the Dershowitz mind over any things about which he chooses to remain silent. As always, circumstantial inferences can be drawn from facts where fact-based inferences might be correct or incorrect, but with likelihoods. Motive and intent underlying an act or declining to act, speaking on an issue or being silent, are shown in circumstances and contexts with a bottom line being that probabilities can be guessed from known past facts.
My inference is Dershowitz is smart enough to spot a "step onto a third rail and perish" opportunity and to avoid it where a history of contention and denial exist: e.g., reporting over the last couple of years, here, here, here, here, and most interestingly, Vivia Chen writing here and here; this screen capture from the second item:
Did he, or didn't he, what is the guess among readers?
...................
A hat tip to Gary Gross for his LFR blog post linking to the above cited/quoted Dershowitz op-ed. Gary's online post titled "The Flynn Indictment" noted the thread of the argument that nothing really wrong happened until Flynn lied to FBI personnel about contacts, at which point an ancillary statute kicked in which applied independent of whether any lied about underlying facts were evidence of a crime, or not. His post caused a closer examination of Dershowitz's online opining, with websearch then uncovering earlier Dershowitz-related contentions, litigation, and settlement.
A websearch return list. One item listed there.
Presumably Mr. Dershowitz would cheerfully op-ed his heart out, contending that this stuff would advance a "fair peace" between sides in the promised land.