I could go find it for you if you like. I tend to not want to spend an hour reviewing stuff when people really aren't going to care because they are part of the objective propaganda being spread. I actually had to do that the other night over someone challenging me on something so I had to blow it out of the water for them, took me a bit, I warned them I was once a supporter of Trump and defended him on the matter many a times, don't keep coming at me with he never said that especially since they pay little attention to what he does say and more attention to what the media says he said. I heard him when he said it. After spending a couple hours putting it back together evidently, they didn't like what I had to say because I haven't heard any argument back. Once I put the old and new pieces together I told them I might actually have to reconfigure my opinion on the matter. Not that I was calling him a pedo but he did hire a fifteen year old girl to work in the locker room at Mar A Lago, and said him and Epstein had a fall out over a real estate deal. Said he hadn't talk to him in about fifteen years or so. Given the timeline she said she worked there coincidence with his fall out. So what kind of "real estate" are we talking about here.

Anyway back to Dershowitz. The girl even admitted it was animosity towards Dershowitz as to why she made the claim against him because he defended Epstein. Her whole case fell apart and Dershowitz is confident when the rest of the papers are released he'll be exonerated.

As far as his editorial piece you should have been honest about that. He clearly stated he wasn't arguing the point on moral grounds. I think that if he had added, as he done with a lower age limit, a higher age limit when it came to men also. But he had a valid point that an 18, 19 year old man can have his entire life tarnished by having sex with a 16, 17 year old girl. The argument is more along the equivalent of you can be old enough to die for your country but not old enough to have a drink before you die type of situation.

The thought also didn't escape me that because of his lack of sexual promiscuous involvement those in power could have paid him to be the front guy distraction to the underlying truths. Something of that nature though would involve being in an exceptional bonded marriage with his wife, because something of that nature would involve her approval, strength to endure the backlash of it all. She would have to fully acknowledge the faith in their marriage that the whole thing wouldn't come back to bite them by some solid proof of wrongdoing on his behalf. I am not talking about being paid by Trump or Epstein entirely, if any at that, but I wouldn't put it past the Clintons at all since he's escape culprit- ability his entire life over his sexual promiscuousness.