If you read what I’ve written and said about materiality, it is clear that I’m expressing my strong view that when the FBI asks a question for no other purpose than to provide the suspect with an opportunity to answer in a way that is inconsistent with the incontrovertible physical evidence, that lie should not be deemed material. In the quoted OpEd I explicitly say “should” as I did in other of my writings. For example:

"When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability."

In other writings I say this is an important question and that civil libertarians should not want to live in a country in which the FBI is empowered to administer morality tests.

The one case I was involved in where the FBI had a tape of a bribe and got the defendant to deny the bribe, the judge acknowledged our materiality argument but the case was plea bargained and the issue wasn’t decided, though the judge seemed sympathetic to the argument and the probationary sentence may have been influenced by it.

My nuanced views have been deliberately distorted. So whose lying to you.

If you read what I’ve written and said about materiality, it is clear that I’m expressing my strong view that when the FBI asks a question for no other purpose than to provide the suspect with an opportunity to answer in a way that is inconsistent with the incontrovertible physical evidence, that lie should not be deemed material. In the quoted OpEd I explicitly say “should” as I did in other of my writings. For example:

"When questioning any suspect, officials should not ask questions whose answers they already know, for the sole purpose of seeing whether the suspect will lie. If they do ask such questions, untruthful answers should not be deemed “material” to the investigation, because the FBI already knew the truth. The FBI should not discourage the suspect from having his lawyer present during the questioning, if a false answer will subject him to criminal liability."

In other writings I say this is an important question and that civil libertarians should not want to live in a country in which the FBI is empowered to administer morality tests.

The one case I was involved in where the FBI had a tape of a bribe and got the defendant to deny the bribe, the judge acknowledged our materiality argument but the case was plea bargained and the issue wasn’t decided, though the judge seemed sympathetic to the argument and the probationary sentence may have been influenced by it.

My nuanced views have been deliberately distorted. So whose lying to you.

I have submitted a sworn statement categorically denying all of the charges and providing specifics as to why they could not possibly be true. Alan Dershowitz

Tamara Tabo errs when she
says I was not blindsided by the recent, completely false allegation that I had
sex with an underage Jane Doe #3. In previous court filings it was alleged that
I “might” be a witness to the claim that my client was in the presence
of underage girls. I responded to that false charge with the following
letter:

“I
have never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage
females. I do not believe you have any reasonable basis for believing that I
have. If you claim to have ‘reason to believe’, please provide me with any such
reason. I am certain I can demonstrate to you that it is false.”

Ms. Tabo points to “page 14
of the first Epstein complaint” asa evidence that I was on notice of this false
charge earlier. This is what page 14
says:

“38.
EDWARDS’ office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the
depositions of and was subpoenaing:

(i)
Donald Trump
(real-estate magnate and business mogul);

(ii)
(ii) Alan
Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of
EPSTEIN’S criminal defense attorneys;

(iii)
Bill Clinton
(Former President of the United States);

(iv)
Tommy Mottola
(former President of Sony Record); and

(v)
David Copperfield
(illusionist).

39.
The above-named individuals were friends and acquaintances of EPSTEIN with whom
he knew through business or philanthropic work over the years. None of the
above-named individuals had any connection whatsoever with any of the
Litigation Team’s clients, E.W, L.M. or Jane Doe.”

That is a far cry from being
falsely accused of the heinous crime of child rape. That false charge is a
recent concoction of a lying, 31 year old woman trying to line her pockets and
those of her lawyers. I can and will prove that it is made up of whole cloth
and I never met and certainly never had any physical contact with Jane Doe #3
or any other underage person. Alan Dershowitz