How ‘The New Yorker’ conducts journalistic assassinations
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.
The resulting hit piece reads more like a one-sided indictment than the product of a fair trial in which both sides have an equal opportunity to present their case. There is nothing really new in the article. She recycled old accusations by two women with long histories of lying for money about prominent people. One of them admitted that she deliberately made up stories about having sex tapes of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Richard Branson. The other has made up stories about Al and Tipper Gore, as well as Bill Clinton, for money.
Even Bruck acknowledges that these witness are “imperfect” because of their history of making up false stories for money. The lawyer for these witnesses has admitted in a recorded conversation that his client is “simply wrong” in accusing me, and her best friend has confirmed that reality. Currently sealed emails and a book manuscript by the main accuser prove that she never had sex with me. And an investigation by the former head of the FBI confirms that conclusion.
My false accusers have accused me only in court filings that immunize them from defamation suits. They have refused to repeat these demonstrably false accusations outside of court filings. The US Court of Appeals recently warned against uncritically believing accusations made in court papers:
“Our legal process is already susceptible to abuse. Unscrupulous litigants can weaponize the discovery process to humiliate and embarrass their adversaries. Shielded by the ‘litigation privilege,’ bad actors can defame opponents in court pleadings or depositions without fear of lawsuit and liability.
“[C]ourt filings are, in some respects, particularly susceptible to fraud. For while the threat of defamation actions may deter malicious falsehoods in standard publications, this threat is non-existent with respect to certain court filings .... Thus, although the act of filing a document with a court might be thought to lend that document additional credibility, in fact, allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than those published elsewhere.
“We therefore urge the media to exercise restraint in covering potential defamatory allegations, and we caution the public to read such accounts with discernment.”
That is precisely the case with regard to the fraudulent claims made against me and repeated by The New Yorker.
I end this article with a categorical statement: I never met my false accusers. There is not, nor will there ever be, any evidence that I had sex with them. They are lying for money. No one should believe them.
Follow the writer on Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz.