Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-35657House OversightOther

Congressional hearing exchange featuring Dershowitz, Rep. Hyde and Rep. Conyers on perjury and rule of law

The passage records a heated dialogue but provides no specific allegations, names of wrongdoing, financial transactions, or actionable leads. It mentions high‑profile individuals (a professor, two con Rep. Hyde and Rep. Conyers react to Alan Dershowitz's criticism of the committee. Discussion centers on differences between perjury types and the rule of law. No concrete accusations, dates, or finan

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017364
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage records a heated dialogue but provides no specific allegations, names of wrongdoing, financial transactions, or actionable leads. It mentions high‑profile individuals (a professor, two con Rep. Hyde and Rep. Conyers react to Alan Dershowitz's criticism of the committee. Discussion centers on differences between perjury types and the rule of law. No concrete accusations, dates, or finan

Tags

political-debateperjuryrule-of-lawhouse-oversightcongressional-hearing

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
4.2.12 WC: 191694 unbelievably wrong-headed statements I have ever heard from a judge, that there is no difference between types of perjury. I challenge anybody to say that there is no difference between a police officer who deliberately frames an innocent man or woman who he knows is [innocent] and subjects that person to false imprisonment or the electric chair, and someone who lies to cover up a private, embarrassing sex act. Congressmen Hyde and Conyers replied: REP. HYDE: I thank you, Professor Dershowitz. I don't thank you for criticizing the motives, saying that we're out to get the president. You haven't the slightest idea of the agony that many of us go through over this question. [W]e are concerned about the double standard. That may mean nothing to you -- MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me. REP. HYDE: -- but it means something to us. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me. (Applause.) [W]hen is the last time this committee has expressed concern about the rights of criminal defendants -- (a chorus of "regular order" from committee members)... It's a sham. REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman? REP. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Conyers. REP. CONYERS: And I thank you for this interchange. [W]e are split totally down the middle in the most partisan fashion that has ever happened. The result is fairly obvious of what's going to happen to anybody with the least understanding of this matter. So for you to be offended by the Dershowitz evaluation strikes me as a little disingenuous. You know what we're going to do here because it's been said repeatedly by every Republican member of the committee! So let's not get offended by the truth at this point in our proceedings. Congressman Hyde then angrily began to lecture me about the rule of law: Does the rule of law -- have you been to Auschwitz? Do you see what happens when the tule of law doesn't prevail? ZIT

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.