Tel-Chai Nation

Alan Dershowitz wrote of his experiences being smeared by New Yorker "journalist" Connie Bruck, all because he supports Israel, Netanyahu and Trump:

The New Yorker has published a so called “profile” of me by a journalistic assassin whose goal is to silence me, because she disagrees with my defenses of President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel. Like any good assassin, Connie Bruck acted in stealth until the moment she was ready to pounce. She began her “research” by accessing a Holocaust-denial website that specializes in disseminating false stories about prominent Jews. She then relied on “facts” that appear only on this neo-Nazi site.

In March of this year, after months of secretly gathering negative “information” about me, she wrote an email to one of my publishers seeking to reach me about a biographical article “drawn largely from his books.” Sounded innocent enough. Indeed, it sounded like she really didn’t want to speak to me but was obliged to make the effort. After all, I’m the easiest guy in the world to reach. My email is on my website and on Harvard’s. Every criminal defendant seems to be able to reach me directly but Connie Bruck had to ask one of my publishers whether I wanted to respond.

My publisher wasn’t sure I needed to speak to her if the article was being drawn from my books. But I suspected she was not being truthful, because I knew of her reputation for journalistic assassinations, especially of prominent Jews and supporters of Israel. Among her previous targets were Michael Milken, Haim Saban, Len Blatnavik, Sheldon Adelson and AIPAC. And of course she was being entirely deceptive when she claimed her article would be based largely on my books.

I asked her how she could complete a profile without even interviewing me. She replied that she had written many profiles without interviewing the subject. I asked her whether in all of those situations, the subject refused to be interviewed. She sheepishly admitted that was true. Mine would be the first and only profile she ever completed without interviewing a subject who was willing and anxious to sit down with her. She had interviewed mostly people who disagreed with me. She was fed – and accepted uncritically – false information by lawyers who are involved in litigation against me and who would benefit from a hit piece.

She was interested in hearing negative views and stories, no matter how biased. When associates tried to reach her to present a more balanced perspective, she said she didn’t have time to talk.

I REPEATEDLY asked to sit down with her so she could hear my story. This was, after all, supposed to be a biographical profile. She refused. She never even conducted a real interview over the phone. She just made accusations and asked for my responses (which she didn’t publish). She wasn’t interested in my life, my philosophy, my accomplishments, my feelings or my family. She didn’t ask me anything that demonstrated a desire to know me. She didn’t ask about my extensive pro bono work on behalf of women and men. Her questions were more like those in an adversarial deposition – trying to trap an opponent – than they were a search for truth.

I should think he has grounds to sue for defamation, and he honestly should. That the New Yorker would employ somebody that corrupt and dishonest - who relies almost deliberately on falsehoods to smear people - does a grave disservice to their image. But then, this has long been par for the course at the New York Times as well, so no surprise there. Bruck doesn't belong in the business if this is all she's interested in doing.

Labels: anti-semitism, dhimmitude, islam, Israel, Moonbattery, msm foulness, United States