My Father, Who Molested Me in 1995 and 1996, Defended a Child Molester in 1993

      When I was about eight years old - in 1995 - I was in my father's car, being driven somewhere. I remember that my mother was in the car too. My brother might have been; I'm not sure.

     I knew that my father, Richard S. Kopsick, was an attorney. I was asking him some questions about his job.

     I remember asking him either "Have you ever defended someone you knew was guilty?", or "What happens when a lawyer is asked to defend someone they know is guilty?".

     I don't remember what my father's exact response to my question was, but I remember being dissatisfied. I'm pretty sure that he said something related to the duty of a defense attorney to do his best to defend his client.

     I later found out that this duty is referred to as the "duty of adequate representation", and is part of our rights as recognized in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

     Knowing what I know now, it seems fair to conclude that - when the defense knows the defendant is guilty - the duty of adequate representation can only be exercised honorably, if the defense uses mitigation of the seriousness of the crime, rather than outright denial that the crime took place.

     I cannot say for sure that attorney Alan Dershowitz has violated any particular law, or else egregiously violated the code of ethics expected of defense attorneys. But it is difficult to deny the possibility that Dershowitz has been involved in conflicts of interest, and has based a career off of using the duty of adequate representation to justify taking bets - with big payoffs - on clients who (almost always) seem obviously guilty.

     After all, Dershowitz defended Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking charges, even though Dershowitz became a co-defendant, with Epstein, against the charges filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Moreover, Dershowitz wrote a book called The Abuse Excuse, which arguably diminishes the seriousness of sex crimes against minors; and even penned a 1997 editorial in the Los Angeles Times declaring statutory rape to be an "outdated concept".

     http://www.newspapers.com/clip/42705087/statutory-rape-is-an-outdated-concept/

     In that editorial, Dershowitz points to the scandal surrounding Michael Kennedy having a relationship with a former babysitter, whom he met when she was somewhere between 14 and 16, when 16 was the age of consent in Massachusetts. Kennedy died in a skiing accident shortly after the scandal broke.

     I bring up Alan Dershowitz because I certainly don't want the people who are accused of trafficking and molesting children, to be themselves represented in court by possible child molesters; especially not by their accomplices.

     I bring up Michael Kennedy because, when vacationing in Spain together in late April 2019, I talked to my father about several topics related to child molestation, as a way of indirectly venting my frustration about recovering memories of him molesting me.

     During that conversation, we discussed Joe Biden's child groping, and the scandal surrounding Kathy Shelton's claims against Hillary Clinton. At some point, my father named a situation in which the age of consent laws might not apply, and/or in which the relationship of trust no longer exists between the people involved.

     My father named the Michael Kennedy scandal as an example of when that relationship of trust no longer exists, implying that sex was OK between Kennedy and the then 14- to 16-year-old girl. Kennedy was about 34 when the affair began, according to the link below.

     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-05-06-9705050620-story.html

     Due to these facts, I cannot help but feel like my father was, at the very least, taking a page out of Dershowitz's "child molestation defense playbook" by naming the Michael Kennedy scandal, when Dershowitz had done the same.

     At the very worst, my father might have been hitting on me. Why would my father - whom at that point knew that I had told my mother that he had molested me as a child, and had calmed down about it enough to assent to go on a trip with him - start talking about dissolving relationships of trust? If not to teach me about the law, then it's possible that he was suggesting that he and I are no longer bound by the parental relationship because I am now an adult.

     Is that really so implausible? My father grew up in the 70s, and loves the music of the 1960s and 1970s. He is a late Baby Boomer, born in 1957. Baby Boomers, and the hippies before them, grew up with the sounds of the 1960s, which include all kinds of musical acts who... molested children. Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Bill Wyman, and others "slept with" 13-year-olds. "Groupies" as young as 13 and 14 "slept with" (i.e., were raped by) Bowie and Jimmy Page. The excesses of the 1960s rock era, and especially the late 1970s punk era, desensitized Americans to the seriousness of statutory rape.

     Why would Americans notice, amidst all this, that John Phillips, of the Mamas and the Papas, was carrying on a sexual relationship with his own daughter Mackenzie for ten years? When news of this broke, media outlets reported it as if it was consensual.

     http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/mackenzie-phillips-sexual-affair-dad/story?id=8647172

     It's not inconceivable that my father is another touchy-feely wannabe hippie who has no boundaries, and uses that lack of boundaries to desensitize people to unwanted touching of children by adults, and who would be the sort of person to take his son to a foreign country and suggest they engage in "consensual" sex.

     Maybe he was just trying to teach me about the law. Nevertheless, during the first night of that trip, I spent the first few hours in bed just laying awake, knowing that I was sleeping right next to my father for the first time in years, and for the first time since I had confronted him and my mother about the past abuse.

     This is why I am sad to announce that I have discovered something that I have been worried that I would discover, for the last several months. I found proof that my father defended a child molester in the past.

     In 1993, the Chicago Tribune reported that my father, Richard Kopsick, defended a man named Kenneth Hasty, who was charged with initiating an unwanted attempt at sex, at his own home, against a man who was then 19 years old.
     http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-06-11-9306110377-story.html
     http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-08-06-9308060436-story.html

     Hasty was 33 when this incident happened, which means he was 14 years older than the other party. It should be noted that the younger party's age of 19 years, made him a legal adult, but also a teenager, at the time. It's also noteworthy that the "attempt at sex" occurred at Hasty's home; so with that "home advantage" and his advanced age, it's hard to imagine the younger party being the aggressor in that situation.

     Judge Raymond McKoski found Kenneth Hasty guilty of battery. The Chicago Tribune reported that - as of June 11th, 1993 - Hasty faced "up to 7 years in prison". This was for violating probation. Hasty had sexually abused a 15-year-old boy, and was sentenced to probation in 1991. That incident occurred at Hasty's home in Waukegan, and was described by Robert Enstad of the Tribune as "a similar incident". The Tribune reported that Hasty would be sentenced on July 23rd, 1993.

     In summary, the judge in Hasty's case, ruled against my father's defensive argument, which was that the 19-year-old initiated the attempt at sex.

     It's hard to imagine that - as Hasty's defense attorney - my father did not know that Hasty was on probation. My father must have known this fact, given that the duty of adequate representation arguably obligates him to be aware of any negative potential consequences of his client being convicted.

     If my father knew that Hasty was on probation, then he must have known what Hasty was on probation for (which was making unwanted sexual advances towards teenage boys at his house). Therefore, my father must have known that Kenneth Hasty had an emerging pattern of predacious behavior, at least insofar as he had then (in 1993) been accused of the same sort of crime a second time.

     Now, arguably any lawyer should have and would have known this, which is why you can make the case that somebody had to defend Kenneth Hasty. Well, why can't that person be Kenneth Hasty? Why does it have to be a man with a six-year-old and a four-year-old at home? We are guaranteed the right to counsel if we request it. If the laws were simpler, the accused could more easily defend themselves without the help of an attorney.

     Kenneth Hasty was under no obligation - at least - to request or accept assistance with his legal defense. So why must it fall to my father - or anyone else - to defend him?

     The answer to this is the same as the answer to the question, "Why must it fall to Hillary Rodham to defend the man accused of raping Kathy Shelton?" And I asked my father this question, in several forms, in Spain in 2019.

     It all comes back to the duty of the attorney to adequately represent his or her client.

     Well, the last time I checked, nobody told any particular attorney to work at any particular law firm. if you're assigned to a client you know is guilty, and you're being pressured to distort the truth or deny the truth instead of mitigate the seriousness of the crime to get a light sentence, then you can quit that law firm.

     I knew this in my heart as an eight-year-old, when I had that conversation in the car with my dad, but have only been able to articulate it intellectually now.

     I must now struggle to come to terms with the fact that, in 1993, my father defended someone whom he must have reasonably known was a child molester, and then two years later found himself trying to weasel out of his eight-year-old son's question "What happens when you defend someone you know is guilty?".

     I must come to the terms with the fact that I had a better sense of morality, about legal matters, at the age of eight, than my father apparently did at the age of thirty-eight (and evidently still feels the same way).

     I also have to come to terms with the fact that, when I was six, my father defended Kenneth Hasty after he presumably knew Hasty had posed as a basketball recruiter in order to initiate attempts at sex with teenage boys. My brother was involved in youth basketball programs at school, and I cannot remember any point when my father warned me or my brother about people potentially posing as basketball recruiters to entice us into sex.

     It's not that my parents didn't warn us at all about "stranger danger"; they did. It's just that, when we became aware that an old man had gone into the Lake Bluff pool showers in the early 1990s, to try to touch little boys' penises, our mother informed us, but there was an air of "this isn't such a serious issue" in the way people at the pool were talking about it.

     And our parents' warnings about kidnappers never really carried with them, a definite and memorable "kidnappers might want something sexual" lesson. Because of what we knew about kidnappers from television and the Hardy Boys book series, we assumed that kidnappers just wanted money.

     I remember being about seven years old, at my grandfather's house with my grandpa and my dad, seeing a report on TV about a guy who molested a child, who was giggling after saying he'd been accused of touching a girl's "private parts", but for some reason, it didn't even occur to me until I was about thirty that the word "kidnapping" applies to what Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell did. "Kidnapping" involves any incident of child trafficking, or moving or removal of children or minors for the purposes of sex. Why we aren't using the word "kidnapping" more often, to me, reflects apathy and the use of the euphemisms "underage sex trafficking" and "underage prostitution". But "kidnapping" is an inadequate term itself, because it too is a euphemism. "Child rape and abduction" is a better descriptor.

     We must be cautious that the overuse of the specific legal terms for these heinous crimes, should not lead to a desensitization to the crimes. The way we speak of child rape should not make us or our children susceptible to abduction. We must teach our children to use the proper terms for their genitals, so that child molesters cannot easily molest kids by making up pet names for their genitals that are secrets to just the child and the abuser. And we must ensure that the terms we use for these crimes, reflect their horrifying nature, rather than taking the sting out of the crime by covering it up with pleasant language.

     Parents need to be honest with their children, and governments need to be honest with the people.

     I did not become a lawyer, for a reason.

     I have known since I was eight that I would be expected to go above and beyond the scope of duty to defend people I know are guilty. And I have suspected since my early 20s that if I became a lawyer, I would be soon thereafter disbarred for "disrupting" the voir dire (jury selection) process by helping to fully inform potential jurors of their rights as jurors.

     If you are being pressured to study criminal law, then please consider going into political science instead. Or political theory, political philosophy, political ethics, political psychology, economics, history, or other fields in the humanities.

     It is not enough to apply the law, we must also make the law just.

     If nobody chooses to study how to make the law, and lawyers, more ethical, then we will end up being governed by child molesting lawyers who defend child molesters for a living, instead of just being molested, creeped out, annoyed, and milked for money, by them.

     

Written and Published on March 6th, 2021

Edited, and Links Added,
on May 25th, 2021

Alan Dershowitz Cited Ethnicity to Defend His Opposition to Statutory Rape Laws

 

This opinion-editorial was written by Alan M. Dershowitz,

and published by the Los Angeles Times, in 1997.

     Dershowitz served as convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's attorney at least twice before Epstein's reported death in 2019. Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, claims that Alan Dershowitz flew on Epstein's plane "The Lolita Express" and had sex with minors.

     Dershowitz, who is married, maintains that he never took his pants off, and merely got a massage from an old Russian woman. Dershowitz maintains that he never had sex with any children, despite the fact that he has publicly gone on record as being against statutory rape laws.

     In the op-ed, Dershowitz says that he supports prohibitions on sex with very young children. After the op-ed was published, Dershowitz explained that he was making a constitutional argument, not a moral argument.

     However, that does not mean he is morally opposed to having sex with teenagers. In the article, he focuses on teenagers having sex with each other; probably to distract the reader from the fact that eliminating statutory rape laws, or lowering the legal age of consent, would result in adults having sex with teenagers.

     The one thing that Dershowitz and I agree on is that morality certainly doesn't enter into his argument. There are certainly arguments which can be made about statutory rape laws, which are both moral and constitutional. Dershowitz's argument is not one of them. It is odd for Dershowitz to claim that his argument is a constitutional one, when he doesn't even mention the Constitution a single time in the article.

     In my opinion, Dershowitz's goal, with this op-ed, is to use the "constitutional" (or legal) argument which could be made in favor of loosening or eliminating statutory rape laws, as a sort of Trojan Horse. His goal is to cloak the defense of teenagers having sex before they are old enough to consent, in a legal argument, and frame it as a constitutional argument.

     It is important to notice that the very title of the article is "Statutory Rape Is an Outdated Concept". If he were questioning the concept of statutory rape only in a legal sense but not in an ethical sense, then he would have titled the article "Statutory Rape Laws Are Flawed" or something to that effect. He is clearly questioning both the legal and ethical bases for statutory rape laws.
     Dershowitz writes that "It is obvious that there must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group." Dershowitz shows with this sentence that he is either unaware of the idea that teenagers are not old enough nor mature enough to consent to sex, or else he is simply opposed to the idea and wishes to give it no recognition in his article.

     Nothing in this op-ed suggests that Dershowitz is opposed to adults having sex with teenagers. He doesn't even mention it. It's as if he thinks he has no responsibility to, or that adults having sex with teenagers has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It absolutely does.

     Even more shameful in all of this, is the fact that Dershowitz cited the fact that "puberty is apparently arriving earlier, particularly among certain ethnic groups". I do not know what Dershowitz is referring to, but an article published by WebMD in 2002 confirmed that African-American girls begin puberty before white girls. However, they only begin puberty an average of six months earlier. That is not even a full year, and thus is hardly a justification for lowering the age of consent.

     That article can be viewed here: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20021009/girls-menstruating-earlier#:~:text=While%20the%20average%20age%20of,months%20earlier%20than%20white%20girls.

     Considering this small difference, consider what it could mean that Dershowitz is citing ethnicity to justify eliminating statutory rape laws. The argument that "some ethnicities, like African-Americans, 'mature' earlier", is not very different from, and aligns perfectly with the way of thinking that informs the "black girls like wild sex" stereotype. Some African-American women have been exposed to violent sex, and heard their aggressors make the excuse that they had heard that black women liked wild sex. This stereotype is fed by the old idea that Africans are "wild", which is based on the idea that they're sub-human, and basically animals, and need to be controlled. The idea that black girls "mature earlier" is thus a medical fact, but not a noteworthy one considering the probability that the fact is only cited to justify raping African-American teenagers. It also potentially implies that black people immature, an idea which could be used to justify controlling them. And rape is a form of control.

     "If there's fluff on the muff, she's old enough" is not a medical saying. Nor is it a legal saying.

     If getting your period makes you a woman, and that makes it OK to have sex, then by that logic it's OK to have sex with young girls if they experience precocious puberty. Twelve and thirteen years old are not the youngest ages at which a female has experienced menarche (first menstruation). That age is four.

     There should not be a purely biological standard regarding when losing one's virginity is appropriate. Nor should that standard be dictated by "maturity", nor ability to earn money and have a career. There are plenty of talented children, child stars, and children capable of performing labor or investing in stocks. That does not make it OK for adults, or other children or teenagers, to have sex with them. That does not make it OK to marry children. Child molesters will tell teenagers and children that they are mature all day; they do this in order to justify treating them like adults.

     Age must be the standard; not biology, nor race, nor puberty, nor maturity, nor financial independence, nor work capability. If being at a "lowered capacity to consent" makes it OK for two drunk adults to have sex, then the same logic could be used to justify a retarded old man having sex with a little girl. Or getting drunk in order to be "on the same level as" a sober teenager.

     Age must be the standard. We must maintain the purpose of statutory rape laws, which is to place the obligation to prove the younger person's age, upon the older person, if and when there is any question about whether it was legal for the people in question to have sex, given their possible ages.

     We must maintain statutory rape laws and age of consent laws, and improve upon them, to prevent the federal government from unnecessarily and unconstitutionally intervening in child trafficking laws in a manner which causes the lower federal age of consent to trump the state's higher age of consent. (Note: You can learn more about this topic by researching the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.)
     Laws against trafficking children out of state for sex, are useless, as long as the federal government has an age of consent of twelve, with a defense written into the law that basically instructs child molesters to argue that they reasonably thought that the victim was at least 16 years old.

     This country's child sexual abuse laws are a complete mess, and Dershowitz's arguments only help the types of attorneys and other people in the legal professions who would be in the position to read this article. Dershowitz's "op-ed" thus amounts to little more than advice to child molesters and wannabe child rapists - especially those in or connected to the legal professions - who want to use these twisted arguments, and the "black girls mature earlier" argument, to justify having sex with minors which is both illegal and wrong.

     I appreciate the fact that Alan Dershowitz defended Julian Assange on rape charges. I also appreciate that Assange's victim was represented and was able to file charges. Everyone has the right to a defense. But we should be concerned that Dershowitz is leveraging his reputation as the nation's best defender of the "duty of adequate representation" (the duty to adequately represent your client) in order to justify his continued defense of accused child rapists and Israeli spies.

     When you see a Jewish lawyer defend Israeli spy, after Israeli spy, accused of child sex trafficking after Israeli spy after rapist, and see him defend eliminating statutory rape laws in an article in the paper, maybe it's time to wonder whether he's a pedophile. The fact that Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Giuffre, alleges he's a pedophile, ought to suggest that anyone connected to Dershowitz, or anyone who's been following him since 1997, might have been watching him for advice on how to abuse children and get away with it.

     They can certainly go to the U.S. Code section on child sex crimes for similar advice.

Written and published on January 31st, 2021

Edited and Expanded on February 6th, 2021

Trump Doubles Down on "Arabs Celebrating 9/11" Claims

            It’s like Alexander Stille said (although the quote has been misattributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels): “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

            Such is the case with the claim that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been repeating over the last week and a half; the claim that hundreds or perhaps even thousands of Muslims were seen in northern New Jersey on September 11^th, 2001, celebrating the attacks.

            In recent interviews with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and Chuck Todd of CBS’s Meet the Press, Trump has stated that in either Jersey City or Paterson, the town’s Muslim and Arab populations were shown on television, in tailgate-style parties, celebrating the terrorist attack which brought down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

On ABC’s This Week, Trump told Stephanopoulos, “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down”, continuing, “It was well covered at the time”. Trump says he has a clear memory of this, and that many people agree with him, and remember the same thing.

The Anti-Defamation League called Trump’s comments “irresponsible” and “factually challenged”. Chuck Todd responded that Trump has no evidence of this, and that all he has to go on is “re-tweets” and “hear-say”. Stephanopoulos told Trump that the police said it didn’t happen. However, Trump has refused to back down on the claim, and has even doubled down, asking “Why couldn’t it have happened?”. This is certainly no rational scientific basis for proof.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former New York Governor George Pataki, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio – all Republican candidates in the 2016 race for the presidency – have asserted that no such thing happened. To date, Trump has not been able to provide any evidence supporting this claim, although he claims that the Washington Post reported it.

Although it is true that Paterson and Jersey City do have sizable Muslim populations (Paterson has 25 or 30 thousand, and Jersey City has 10,000) – and although it is also true that some 1,100 foreigners were arrested in the United States in the days after the attacks (mostly from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt) – it is fair to say that Trump might be confused.

While many Americans remember seeing televised of images of foreigners celebrating 9/11, those images were of foreigners in foreign countries. Also, it is not clear whether the images were filmed immediately following 9/11, or instead simply footage of Muslims chanting “death to America”, filmed before the attacks.

What seems more likely than what Trump and his supporters seem to remember, is that they have mixed-together in their minds, the images of foreigners overseas celebrating, with what they heard from reports of people appearing to be Arabs seen celebrating the attacks in northern New Jersey.

Shortly after 8:46 A.M. on September 11^th, 2001 – right after the first tower was struck by a plane – a homemaker, identifying herself only as “Maria”, living near Liberty State Park in Jersey City, called the police. She reported seeing three men sitting on top of a white Chevrolet van, which was parked on the roof of the rear parking lot of The Doric Apartments in adjacent Union City, near a waterfront park.

The men were videotaping the smoldering tower, smiling, laughing, cheering, dancing, giving each other high-fives, and posing for pictures. “Maria” wrote down the van’s license plate, and called the police, saying that they were wearing Arab dress, and that she thought the men were Palestinians. She later said “they didn’t look shocked”.

At 3:30 P.M. that day, a B.O.L.O. (“Be On Look-Out”) bulletin was issued to police regarding the call. Around 4 P.M., in the nearby city of East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Officer Scott deCarlo and Sergeant Dennis Rivelli pulled over a vehicle – a box truck – on Route 3 / Route 120, near the former site of the New York Giants Stadium. The five occupants refused to exit their vehicle when instructed, so the officers pointed their firearms at them.

The occupants – Paul Kurzberg, Sivan Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel – were all men in their twenties, and were Israeli citizens who had admittedly served in the Israeli military. In their possession were foreign passports (one man had both an Israeli and a German passport), maps of the New York City area with routes highlighted, socks containing $4,700 in cash.

During the arrest, one of the men was reported to have said “We are not your enemy”, and according to some reports, continued, “the Palestinians are your enemy.” One of the men had booked a flight to Thailand for September 13^th.

The men were held in a federal prison in Brooklyn, spending 71 days in custody, until they were released around Thanksgiving of 2001. The men were questioned; one of the men refused to take polygraph tests, while tests were administered to at least two of them.

The white Chevrolet van that the men were driving was owned by their boss, Dominic Otto Suter, the owner of moving company Urban Moving Systems. The company – based in Bayonne, New Jersey – was located at 3 18^th Street in Weehawken, right across the Hudson River from lower Manhattan, the location of the World Trade Center.

On September 14^th, 2001, Suter left the United States, leaving nobody acting as the company’s agent. He later returned to the U.S., confident that he would never face prosecution. On June 22^nd, 2001 – three months before the attacks – the company received $498,750 from the U.S. Federal Government Assistance Program, an arm of the Small Business Administration. The company’s warehouse was later raided by the F.B.I..

Urban Moving Systems has been alleged to be a front for the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks, commonly known as M.O.S.S.A.D., the State of Israel’s military intelligence agency. While the five men were being held in federal prison, their families were asked to stay quiet, and their parents enlisted the help of then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and then- Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert (who later became the Prime Minister of the State of Israel) for assistance with the case.

Steve Gordon was hired as the men’s attorney in the United States, and Ram Horvitz was hired as their attorney in Israel. Alan Dershowitz also negotiated with the U.S. government on their behalf.

In November 2001, three of the five men later appeared on an Israeli television talk show, and one of them said "our purpose was to document the event", a statement which arguably suggests they had foreknowledge of the attacks. The same man said that the five were questioned regarding their possible connection to M.O.S.S.A.D..

On June 21st, 2002, Barbara Walters reported the story on 20/20, although a video of the report cannot be easily found online.

Additionally, on September 12^th, 2001, at noon, another Urban Moving Systems van was directed to pull over into a rest stop. The vehicle was traveling east on I-80 near the town of York in northern Pennsylvania. The occupants, Roy Barak and Motti Butbul, were charged with having a broken turn signal and a missing fire extinguisher. A box cutter, or multiple box cutters, was found in the truck.

Both men were fingerprinted and photographed, and were incarcerated in York for nearly two months. Barak spent his first week in a cell, and his second in solitary confinement. Barak, a former paratrooper, was given two polygraph tests, and was found to have overstayed a six-month visa in the U.S.. Butbul, a former cook, declined to be interviewed, and was found to have no work permit. Both men, like the five arrested in New Jersey, were Israeli citizens in their 20s. Both men were deported to Israel on November 9^th, 2001.

Out of 1,100 foreigners arrested in the days and months following the 9/11 attacks, sixty of them were Israelis, according to U.S. sources. However, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, between 90 and 100 were Israelis. The Washington Post reported in late 2001 that thirteen of the people arrested by federal authorities in connection to the attacks were from northern New Jersey.

Then- Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Israelis were arrested. Furthermore, in December 2001, a four-part series on FOX News, reported by Brit Hume and Carl Cameron, uncovered more Israeli connections to 9/11, including allegations that Israeli agents posed as art students in Florida, and toy salesmen in American malls.

These facts come in addition to reports that a van full of explosives was pulled over on or near the George Washington Bridge on the day of the attacks, and that a van bearing an image of the Twin Towers on fire was also seen in New York City soon after the attacks.

It is not easy to tell whether these vans were one and the same, but there exists an image of a white van, with a mural painted on its left side, depicting the two towers, with one of them being struck by a plane, and at the top, the words “Urban Moving Systems Incorporated.” Some have pointed out that the word “M.O.S.S.A.D.” (the Israeli equivalent of the C.I.A.) can be found in the name of the company: “urban MOving SystemS incorporAteD”. This adds (ahem) jet fuel to the possibility that Urban Moving Systems was a front for M.O.S.S.A.D..

            It has been said that the outcome of America’s future lies in the country’s response to “Who did 9/11?”.

Although Donald Trump’s supporters tend to be hard-core nationalists and protectionists who oppose political corruption – and, therefore, would be likely to respond with outrage when presented with information that members of any nation were seen celebrating the attacks – Trump’s open admission that his money fuels that corruption (and his past statements that “We love Israel”, and prefers to have his accounting done by “funny little guys in tiny little hats”) seem to assure that his statements about seeing Muslims celebrating 9/11 in northern New Jersey, will most likely not undergo the thorough investigation they deserve.

But if Trump or his people do happen to stumble upon the “dancing Israelis” story – as it is “popularly” known, at least among the 9/11 Truth community – the chances are high that the story will be ignored by mainstream media, and that the Anti-Defamation League would continue to condemn any statements by Trump suggesting an Israeli role in the attacks.

Written on November 30^th and December 1^st, 2015

Edited on February 8^th and 10^th, 2016,
and May 24th, 2019