(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27136080)

Q: Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers bringing this suit, has a history of legal entanglement with Epstein, as does his former partner Scott Rothstein, who's now in prison for his role in a Ponzi scheme. But the other lawyer in this case, Paul Cassell, is a former federal judge and a law professor. Why is he getting involved?

A: Everyone is shocked that he would be part of this. I think he's always hated me because I'm his opposite. I'm the conventional liberal he hates: I'm against the death penalty, I'm pro abortion rights, pro gun control.

Q: Seems risky to bring a lawsuit for just ideological differences.

A: No one can understand Cassell's motive. Either he will be disbarred or I will be. And if I knowingly had sex with a sex slave then I would deserve disbarment.

Q: What about the reaction? Do you feel you've been treated fairly by the press and the public?

A: I've been treated particularly harshly by lawyers and law professors. They are so quick to say that I might be guilty. They're getting too much pleasure out of this. There's a dose of schadenfreude.

Q: Why do you think people like getting you upset?

A: I'm controversial and more famous than they are. There's a lot of jealousy.

Q: I gather you're talking about legal academia.

A: Yes, it's a cesspool of jealousy. People in it lack courage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27139091)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27139119)

LJL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27139365)

LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27141559)

(Guy with "Die Juden" sticker on his bumper)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27141519)

Media wld not even report it. The French POTUS got caught banging some mistress and it was NBD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27139596)

she's kyoot though, i could believe it:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aatJZJEgPzA/TWthq-R71gI/AAAAAAAARW4/8WnaapQI4Mc/s1600/Andrew.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27139953)

*plane was technically owned by an LLC controlled by Epstein.*

shit like that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27149760)

fucking lol at how right chomsky is:

Chomsky: You really can't. There's no way to respond. Slinging mud always works. Again, it's partly institutional, but in this case partly personal, too. In the case of the Berkeley professors, the letter came out about six weeks after I was there, and it was a letter, remember, to bookstores, saying that they should not allow this stuff to be heard. I've also been told, although I'm not certain, that there was an attempt to get them to withdraw my books from the stores. I think that's very understandable and I appreciate it. These are people who know perfectly well that they don't like what I say. They know that they don't have either the competence or the knowledge to respond, so the only thing to do is to shut it up, prevent it from being heard because you can't respond to it. Therefore you say I supported the PLO, etc. Most of them probably don't know what I said about anything. But the author of the letter, Robert Alter, knows perfectly well that I condemned the PLO for those atrocities, probably more harshly, certainly more knowledgeably than he did. But that doesn't matter. Facts are irrelevant.

Turning to Dershowitz, there's partly the same story. Again, he knows that he can't respond to what I say. He doesn't have the knowledge or the competence to deal with the issues. Therefore, the idea is to try to shut it up by throwing as much slime as you can. There's a famous story attributed to Sam Ervin, a conservative Senator, who once said that as a young lawyer he had learned that if the law is against you, concentrate on the facts. If the facts are against you, concentrate on the law. And if both the facts and the law are against you, denounce your opposing counsel. Dershowitz is not very bright, but he understands that much. If you can't answer on the facts and if you can't answer on the principles, you better throw dirt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27149768)

We call this total war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#27149787)

right, and neither was Hitchens nor anyone else who disagreed with you on any topic, Mr. Chomsky. now tell us again how you use well thought out arguments and reason as opposed to your opponents who just say things like, uh well, "X is not very bright"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2784857&forum_id=2Reputation#33634169)