“Jeffrey Epstein Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Registers as Republican After 67 Years in Democratic Party”
It’s hard to get blacklisted on Ethics Alarms. Snopes, MSNBC, Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, The Smoking Gun, Media Matters and The Daily Beast all managed to do it through repeatedly dishonest, biased and misleading stories. In other words, a site has to be even more biased and untrustworthy than Fox News, the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post to end up on mu blacklist.
Mediaite was once barely tolerable when the able Joe Concha worked there as a counter-balance to the mostly knee-jerk leftist propagandists like–-yecchh—Tommy Christopher. Joe is long gone, however, and what is left is unethical human dreck like whoever approved that headline.
The technique is called “poisoning the well,” and it is recognized by journalism ethicists, if there are any now, as a slimy tabloid tactic. Dershowitz authored an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal announcing that he was leaving the Democratic Party and why, despite pretty much opposing most conservative and Republican positions—even, he says, “immigration.” The Dersh” likes open borders? Wow. He also things abortion is swell.
The GOP might want to throw him back, like a three-eyed fish.
Ethics Alarms 
Dershowitz publicly announced on The Dershowitz Show a few years ago and he stated why back then, and he also made it very clear at the time that he wasn’t joining the Republican Party. So, unless Dershowitz specifically wrote or stated that he’s now officially joined the Republican Party in the op ed the Mediate title is fake news.
I can’t read the quoted op ed, it’s behind the paywall. If the Dershowitz quotes in the Mediate article are accurate, it looks like Dershowitz might have changed his mind about joining the Republican Party. The quotes sound a lot like what Dershowitz said on his The Dershow podcast a few years ago. He’s a very liberal Democrat that’s publicly opposing the Democratic Party because of how extreme the Democratic Party has become, it’s his way of publicly protesting the party. I predict he’ll stick with his public position but he’ll likely vote like a dutiful Democrat anyway, anyone with a (D) after their name, because he agrees with the majority of the Democratic Party platform just not the extremist rhetoric; yes it’s hypocrisy, but that’s how Democrats have been trained to vote.
No, it’s true. I read the editorial in the WSJ and he just can’t stomach the Democratic Party’s stance on Israel. He also said he really hopes they’ll mend their ways (I’m paraphrasing) and let him and others return to the fold. I’m not holding my breath, though. He’s been pretty scathing for quite a while on this subject.
Erg, the headline is doubly deceiving. I was entirely unaware of Dershowitz representing Epstein. I assumed the headline meant he was presenting Epstein at the time of his death, where Dershowitz’s involvement in the case might be relevant to current affairs. However, you state Dershowitz was involved in the first case, rendering the association as nothing but cognitive dissonance fodder!
Incidentally, I think you should use Blinky to illustrate the article. 😉
And I’m sure that Mediaite wanted to make sure people knew he’d represented Epstein and hoped they would think he’d represented him more recently than he did.
I took a quick look at the headline of this post and “Epstein Lawyer” didn’t even register with me. Strange. I focused on the unlikelihood of Dershowitz becoming a Republican.
ABA Model Rule 1.2(b): A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
The CA Bar Association seems to disagree as they stripped John Eastman’s license to practice law due to his representation of Donald Trump.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/16/california-bar-strips-john-eastman-of-livelihood-for-representing-a-client-with-views-it-dislikes/
Post coming. It was always clear to me that these disciplinary action were political and partisan, and I think courts will agree.
What we need are retaliatory disciplinary actions against their side.