From my SubStack:

I wanted to share this with you all in full. Sorry if you don't like long, cuz it is. 🤣

You know, it's very hard to say or believe, but I think Dersh might be O.K. I know I know the Virginia Guifre thing and Lolita Express but here's the thing. He's been pretty forthcoming about it and I haven't seen where action against him has been pursued by Guiffre or any other victim. We've just been discussing 9/11 and Larry Silverstein comes into the picture there, which presents a complicated relationship between him and Trump if you're looking at things honestly.

I don't know how we can really achieve all the goals of a 'Great Awakening' in earnest if we aren't willing to forgive and forget a bit. In no way am I suggesting that we forgive known and notorious pederasts... but what if someone was caught up in a wrong time wrong situation sort of thing and maybe made a few mistakes? Is there no tolerance and no lines that can be crossed, that later can be forgiven if someone is earnest and repentant for their actions?

If you have ever been 22 or 23 in college and met a girl at college party, who claimed to be one thing but really she wasn't, and say you fool around but nothing seriously inappropriate or in a state of undress, is that something we're ready to burn people at the stake for?

Now you might say I'm comparing apples and oranges there, but as a person of considerable wealth and influence, you have to understand that temptations of every kind are thrown at these people from all over the place. More or less isn't that what Epstein was doing, to some extent? There's no doubt that a great many passengers on the Lolita were repeat customers who wanted to be there and enjoy the dark pleasures on offer, but we can't know every event or circumstance for sure without specific witness testimony. And I really think circumstances matter A LOT.

We don’t really know what side anyone is on honestly. We have been told explicitly and implicitly that deals will happen. Disinformation and misinformation will be put out, not to confuse us but to mislead the enemy. People on both sides of this information war have defected and infiltrated on behalf of the other side. Even Virginia Guiffre has had questionable and ulterior motives in how they moved forward against Maxwell. Trump himself is a type of infiltrator, having moved in the circles of the most wretched and compromised in order to help reveal them to us in the public later on. Situations and motivations change; anyone could be working for anyone truthfully. For that reason I think it’s best not to label anyone in the large swatch of gray we have as one thing or another unless there’s something to show it beyond a doubt. If we do that, honestly are we better than those we are fighting back against? Giving everyone a fair shake, or ‘their day in court’ as it were, is sort of what this whole thing is all about isn’t it? Trump himself has endorsed dubious characters and been proven both right and wrong for it. Yes, sometimes he's ended up paying the price, but if we don’t accept others into this movement based solely on what they did or thought before, not only are we limiting our own potential, but also lowering ourselves to the ruthless and clandestine procedures of the enemy we want to see removed from power.

I will therefore say to let God judge Alan Dershowitz and whatever crimes he may or may not have committed or been privy too, because I can't know for sure and I am not going to play God and make assumptions. What I know is that he is a great lawyer and he seems to want to help and has helped DJT already and suffered mightily for it.

His last book is about the consequences he suffered as a result of representing Trump. He and his whole family have basically been castigated by Democrats, he is more or less unwelcome in his own community on Martha's Vineyard, not allowed even to speak at a local public library. Kids and grandkids refused job and college opportunities, his wife uninvited to gatherings, and so forth.

Now you might think that all that is a pittance to go through for someone rich and famous, but I can assure you it has effects. The people who used to cheer you on and buy your books are now pushing you away and have excommunicated you. The side you have helped support legally out of your principles doesn't agree with you either.

Dersh has thus become a sort of man without a country. He's not being accepted by MAGA because of his politics and his past, but his own folks have washed him away totally because he had courage enough to stand up for his principles, even if it meant representing the other side!

It’s a little like a relationship: you have to have trust between you and trust in the other person. Ironically, some of the least trusted people at times (Bannon) have shown themselves deserving in time, while others (Barr, Pence) have turned on us at the biggest possible moment and shown their true colors they sported all along. People like Christopher Miller are still seen and discussed like heroes in certain Anon circles despite their surface level actions not reflecting that AT ALL. If we took everything to mean EXACTLY what it looked like, we wouldn’t be the kind of people needed to understand and push for this movement and the changes we want to come with it!

It’s been surprising and utterly unpredictable from where we are sitting to know who was going to prove out and who wasn’t. But giving over our trust to those who have helped and supported Trump and the movement, only to be proven wrong in time doesn't make you foolish! Rather it means that the person themself was unworthy, compromised, ultimately undeserving of the wealth of riches and adulation coming to them had they remained steadfast and faithful. The same thing goes in a relationship: if you cant keep yourself from temptations and danger, it doesn’t mean that I am weak or foolish but rather I just trusted the wrong person who was undeserving of my love and my time. Once you’ve proven that and life moves on, the solution is NOT to never open yourself up again or remain dubious at all times because of those past mistakes; doing that would effectively close you off to love and good partners entirely. Instead you just get smarter and more careful, knowing what to look for in others that gives a good or bad signal to minimize the chances of another heartbreak.

The MAGA movement has been uncommonly inclusive and diverse for this exact reason, while the Democrat numbers fetter away lower and lower because they reject the exact principles we embrace by demanding TOTAL adherence and loyalty and punishing a single indiscretion with total excommunication; which happens to be the exact position they’ve but Dershowitz in, simply for being a principled person.

It's funny actually because I just did a deep dive in my personal time on the author David McCullough, probably most famous for his biographies of Truman and John Adams in particular. I actually never read the book, but I can remember in the early 00s spending time at Barnes and Noble and Borders (each generation did some odd things during their teenage years, I guess you'd say... but that's how it was) and always seeing that book cover, with the ugly little portrait of John Adams below the blood red title which was in the style of his actual signature. It was eventually made into an HBO series starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney and was quite excellent!

So in these talks with David McCullough I'd been just recently watching, he touched on the series and what he liked about it. He recalled that the first episode starts with a very significant episode of John Adams' life that happens a bit later in his book: the aftermath of the Boston Massacre and ensuing trial of the soldiers.

The British soldiers responsible for firing on the crowd in Boston (a.k.a. Boston Massacre) are going on trial and all the locals including Johns own cousin Sam Adams (Sons of Liberty) are expecting and advocating a swift hanging by the neck 'till dead to punish them. However, they are owed some sort of trial and legal representation as a matter of procedure and adherence to the laws before their sentence can be meted out. No practicing lawyer in the whole of Boston will take on the unenviable task of defending them however; so were they hated and maligned for their crimes.

So at last, when no one will come forward to represent them, John Adams does the unenviable task having already defended the very principle of allowing them a trial which conflicted with the will of the leadership and locals of Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time of the circumstances. Adams argued that they must rise above it lest they show the British crown that they were barbaric thugs, even though they had been set upon in exactly that way.

John Adams thus set about the task of representing the British soldiers in a trial with their lives on the line. In private talks and written correspondence with friends and his wife Abigail Adams was very certain he would be personally and professionally ruined by taking the case on. Even though his personal loyalties lied with the colonists he still made the best case possible against the direct punishment of the soldiers by the local authorities; causing, to be sure, his loyalties to be strongly questioned and even direct attacks on his person.

But as McCullough recounted in interviews, it truly was a credit to the intelligence and understanding of the people at that time there in the colonies, that eventually, they came to understand and even accept the higher principles that Adams spoke to and put into practice, so much so that he gained considerable notoriety from the trial and in time was unquestioned as one loyal to the colonies. His wife Abigail had pushed him along to continue, insisting that people would understand his reasoning in time, and almost unbelievably, she was proven right!

Not only that, but John Adams in his legal defense of the soldiers eventually acquitted them from guilt and won the trial! Like, can you imagine this? To recap: After the Boston Massacre, John Adams like many colonists wanted to see these British soldiers hang for their villainy and wanton murder of innocent citizens. However, he understood that they deserved a trial despite their guilt being certain, and was successful in his petition for that. When no one would come forward to represent them legally, he took on the unenviable task, certain that he would be ruined for doing so, but also certain of his principles.

At trial, he spoke to those principles, and of how the colonists should aspire to those same higher principles, to show the monarchy they would not stoop to their level. Eventually the colonists understood that showing mercy and sending the soldiers back would be smarter and have less repercussions than a local hanging of the Crown's Men and so begrudgingly they were released. And John Adam's was not ruined by the trial but rather actually became known as a great Patriot for it....

Like how awesome is that sequence of events!?

Okay so sorry for getting lost in history but I'm sure my point is coming out now. Dersh is standing up for principles here when he does this and showing that other lawyers should not be afraid of the resistance they will take for representing America's highest ideals even if they disagree politically with their clients. This has been a big problem and MAGA and Trump have not had adequate legal support at times because of this cowardice.

So I actually give Dersh some credit for standing up for those higher ideals. I may not agree with you but I will fight for your right to have and express that opinion. THAT IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT. I know this will get downvoted but I want to put it out there. It's a patriotic thing he is doing and we should respect that much at least. Alliances and double agency is everywhere in this whole saga and we won't know the truth, maybe even after the dust settles. So don't be afraid to credit someone on our side willing to help us, because putting principle into practice is what the whole system is missing right now.