35 Burst results for "Dershowitz"

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

07:18 min | 2 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Walking back. Alan dershowitz has left the building. Alan dershowitz is an amazing mind. Amazing thinker principled person. Lot to say about what we just talked about. First of all we are both astonished. Yeah that it's possible that that he's convinced that biden won fair and square. I mean i would think the most sober-minded person would have to at least say that it's not clear there's a lot of Reason to believe that the election was was messed with. The question is would it be. Would it affect the outcome. But the idea that he's just sort of mouthing. The party line is a little surprising. I guess for him but also he says i think biden's the right man for the job this time i think. Can you imagine these bringing peace or something. He's bringing calm to the nation that's biden first of all biden is at the at best incompetent at best Anyway that's another story but what he was just talking about in case. People aren't getting the references. He mentioned chilmark. I mentioned edgar town. He summers on martha's vineyard an island off the coast of massachusetts Nantucket is another one. Martha's vineyard of the two is is famous for being liberal Walter cronkite lived there and he mentioned lillian hellman. I mean lillian hellman. It doesn't get more liberal than lillian. Hellman the famous Writer and i went there in one thousand nine hundred eighty five. I guess it was. This is all in my book. This is for me to plug my book. Fish out of water in fish out of water. I talk about when. I'm talking about right now but basically When i was at yale my writing teacher was john hersi. John hersi is famous for. He got a pulitzer prize for his book. A bell for a donohoe written right after the war. He wrote hiroshima which was The kind of the new report. Taj about what happened in hiroshima hiroshima and It was published published as a small book About what happened after the bomb horrifying obviously but beautiful journalism and so he was one of those liberal artists who lived on. Martha's minute he was my professor. So i i went to visit him. I guess the year or so after. I graduated and he was the kind of person who have dinner with lillian hellman They would have dinner with ralph ellison another stalwarts of the artists The the left. And it's so interesting because i really do believe. Even though they were left lefties they believed in what alan dershowitz talking about. They believed in these principles. And i think that all of that has devolved to you know where we are today which is to say A kind of fascism a kind of big state ism the fundamental principles of america. They they have left the building so interesting to hear. Somebody like twits. Talk about being snubbed. at the country club people won't talk to his wife. He's on invited to these things because they think it's unconscionable that he would stand for these things in Contravention of what they believe has to be right. And that's where we are folks. And i say this because i think that those of us who are more on the conservative side we have a responsibility not to go down that path ourselves. In other words when cuomo was resigned. I was the first one To post my shod and freud on social media and to to say you know one down one to go and p- p- post a picture of him newsome so that's kind of the fun part but then you have to think. Are we applauding things that are wrong and just as islanders which was talking about people that believe the woman. What a filthy. why when. An anti biblical anti-american concept that forget about due process. We're going to believe these people because they're better. We're gonna believe blacks over whites we're gonna believe women are what an offensive racist sexist idea but again it comes down to power in other words if you believe in principles and are willing to let the principals adjudicate situations or you just say i want to win and i don't care how i win. I don't care if we have to use dirty politics. It's poetic justice if If cuomo goes to jail for this but not for sending people to their deaths who cares. It's poetic justice. I would say we should be careful about that. I think we have to care about what is actually right. And so that's why it's important to talk to to liberals like alan dershowitz or naomi wolf. Anyone we can so that we remind ourselves that it's not about winning it's about justice it's about fairness it's about freedom and these kinds of things don't love what he talked about. Buckley and himself debating then going out and having a beer because they both were in different sized but they both respected the law and rule and order. And just well. It's like you have a principled opponent to you know that you can actually get someplace and you're not hating each other. I i hate you. And i hate your ideas. It's like i wanna. I wanna talk to you about those ideas because i think they're wrong but you can have them. It's all right and actually I mentioned mike lindell. There is no question that there's a chilling affect a lot of people. I know have been sued by dominion and the fact is that it's my idea right. I'm pretty sure this is the whole thing behind. It is that they have a lot of money and they're spending their money to quiet. People silence people to send out a chilling effect. Like the careful. Don't talk about this. don't talk about that. So you have fox news refusing to air. Mike lindell's commercial for the cyber symposium. Because they you know they've got a different corporate culture. They're not in it for what they believe in. They're in it for the corporate culture so they become part of the problem. And i just think it's important for us to talk about that on this program. I just wanted to take a minute here since we had the time. We didn't normally do this but it just really really It is important We on this program as you all know have been attacked. We've been knocked off of youtube. That's a big deal. I'll keep saying it because it is a big deal that they did that What did we do. What did we say on this program. it's obvious that we didn't do anything or say anything that innumerable people haven't done and they were not off youtube so it's become very political Okay before we go. I want to remind you We have a campaign on with food for the poor one of the project managers managers. Marcus frisch when we come back. I wanna play a quote because Well before we go to break let me just remind you go to metaxas. Talk dot com. You'll see.

alan dershowitz biden lillian hellman hiroshima chilmark john hersi John hersi Martha Walter cronkite cuomo Hellman ralph ellison Nantucket lillian edgar martha Taj massachusetts newsome mike lindell
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:03 min | 2 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Do you think you believe biden was was actually elected and i'm i'm fairly certain we're going to see information to the contrary soon. Everybody will have to look at it. But let's say he was the question that i have because i know you have to go. Do you think that he and his administration genuinely care about free speech. Because i don't get the impression that he that that he in the office of the president who has this tremendous bully pulpit that he gives a fig about what we are talking about right now. I don't think it even crosses his mind with the minds of the people as administration. I think they're making it work for them. Which to me is the greater scandal. Well i know. Joe biden for now. It's forty years. I like him as a person. I think he the right man for the job at this point in time. He's helping the combination. But no president kicker free speech. Thomas jefferson before he became president said given a choice between a government without newspapers or newspaper without governments. I would surely pick newspapers without government. Then he was president and then he issued a different statement. He said if nobody read newspapers. We'd be better off in smarter and fairer than if people read newspapers. So no incumbents like the media particularly and joe biden himself. I think we'll support free speech. But they're going to be people in his administration. He's appointed some people who are radically on the left just the way Republicans have appointed. Sometimes people are radically on the right. We need to move more to the center. We need to move more to all the old debate between genuine liberals in genuine conservatives. Both of whom bull we freedom of speech. I used to debate bill buckley. All the time on his television she was a conservative. A liberal enjoyed each other. We ran for a drink after we got along. There was no cancelled culture. I crave for the days of bill. Buckley versus alan dershowitz. Instead of the kind of cancel culture we're experiencing

alan dershowitz biden lillian hellman hiroshima chilmark john hersi John hersi Martha Walter cronkite cuomo Hellman ralph ellison Nantucket lillian edgar martha Taj massachusetts newsome mike lindell
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:45 min | 2 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"I mean when the columbia faculty administration did not have the guts to stand up to the students who were just thugs spoiled thugs who took over the president's office in other words this goes back fifty plus years where you have a a leading class. That simply doesn't have on. Somebody called it the cultural confidence to say no get out this. It's a privilege to be here. It seems to me that that the leadership class in america whether it's university presidents or whether it's people who own sports teams or any of that stuff they don't seem right understand these fundamentals. No you're absolutely right. I look the free speech movement. Berkeley i was there when it happened. It was not free. Speech is free speech for me. Not for the free speech for the left. A look. what's going on now with ben and jerry They're boycotting israel. But they're they're the company that owns them. Unilever sells to iraq to cuba to china to belarus. They have a a company in belarus. They are among the worst human rights enablers and focusing on only on israel. It's a it's a corporate disgrace. I will never again eat that. Fat filled cholesterol well. I haven't forgiving. We're gonna break folks are going to be right back with alan dershowitz copay get off. Did not folks and talking to alan.

columbia faculty administratio belarus Berkeley america israel Unilever jerry ben cuba iraq china alan dershowitz alan
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:48 min | 2 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"I mean though a is simply that the people that are animated whether on the left or on the right or any of these issues there at least paying attention even if they're on the wrong side but but it strikes me that the moneyed classes don't seem to think that this affects them in other words. The reason we are where we are is because those people typically have stepped back. They think that everything's fine. There isn't a battle for fundamental freedoms in america. They're wrong because their children are going to college and college. Today has become a propaganda mill for the hard left. And today you cannot your mind in a class or if you're a faculty member many american universities if you express views that are not politically correct. You are threatened. You won't be promoted. You won't be giving classes to teach. You won't be hired by other universities. I've written a new book called the case against new sensors five censorship by big corporations universities each and there are small never people in universities who want speech want to have a very very. Don't think speech codes. Who want to make sure that professors and students can't express users Their views and the administrators aren't doing very much about it. They talk about free speech but when it comes down to it they don't do very much to protect it on many college campuses so the rich and the elite who was sending their kids to princeton and yale and harvard in chicago and then they really do have something to worry about because they're sending them into place where they're not getting educated. They're getting propaganda is they're not being too how to think that being told what the

Frisch marcus frisch honduras america Mark metaxas New york
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:54 min | 2 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Keep my christian faith strong and for entertaining me in my car but please can you please suggest a different podcast for me to try because my wife is getting tired of me coming home and saying i heard this great guest on the eric metaxas show. And where's my check book. We need to free a slave or feed some children. Thank you well. You know That's what we do on this program. We pray guests and often we ask for your help which we just did a few minutes ago because they really are while. We're joking around their kids in this world. Who don't have food Their slaves in the sudan who need freeing so obviously We will always do that. And it's a privilege to do that. Which i didn't expect to end here but and i won't end here but i want to remind you please go to metaxas talk dot com today or if you prefer to use your phone call one eight hundred eight four four eight six three eight four four eight six three. Hope we really do. Need your help seriously And i'll keep reminding you. But i just wanna say regarding suss quashes in this wonderful letter that we got We're a pro sasquatch podcast so we may not be an all sasquatch all the time podcast right toward were a pro sasquatch. Podcast and i would. I would interview assess squash. I mean any day. You bring him here and it's always him because the the lady suss quashes I don't have a very strict rules. Just the guys can do media. But they They're old fashioned. I wanna tell you that we did About four years ago we did a sasquatch week. We did bigfoot week on the erc. Metaxas show. I remember that. And i don't know if that's still in the archives but we didn't. We need to do it where we might have not. We might. how all right well anyway. Thanks for the letter. Love your letters. And i and i do want to say people always say to me. You have such great guests on so this reminds me to remind you. Please go to Follow us on social media. Follow me on social media please. but Sign up for my newsletter. Because i know that if you're hunting around for a guest if you get the newsletter it comes to your inbox your email and you can see all of the videos and we even put some from past weeks so you don't have to go hunting for them We do that because when we got cancelled from youtube. It's much tougher for people to find us. And so we need you to step up. Go to eric. Metaxas dot com and. Please do sign up the newsletter. Sign up your friends. sign up your family sunup. Up your book club. Maybe if your church director you have all those emails. Put them in there. You'll be blessing them. Yeah and soupy sales when he says please go and go into your mother's purse and you see some corinne paper mail that to me at this address. Yeah anyway okay. Where the time we were the day alan dershowitz will be on. It's going.

eric metaxas Metaxas sudan erc squash youtube eric alan dershowitz
The Me Too Movement is Gendering Justice

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:50 min | 2 months ago

The Me Too Movement is Gendering Justice

"Professor dershowitz. Can we talk just a moment about the strange cuomo scandal. My understanding is that things have just gotten so nasty and so political in america that were more concerned with whether he has touched women inappropriately than what he's done with his policies. I mean a lot of people are genuinely upset. that he that he sent a covert patients into these nursing homes. That's of course infinitely more horrifying as a concept than Whether somebody would Be doing what. He's alleged to have been doing d. Do you have any sense of why that is. Do you have any opinion on that or her. We have our priorities. If you see a doctor dressed in a doctor's white and you say to her boy you make those doctors whites look good. That is regarded as a worst sin than what happened in the nursing homes. Because there's nobody there fighting for the nursing home patients but the me too movement is on top of any deviation One of the things charged in this outrageous report done by letitia. James is that cuomo looked women up and down and he looked at parts of their body. My god if that becomes an impeachable offense or a crime Many many men and women will be in trouble. Forget remember that letitia. James who's now probably going to run for governor started it basically her report by saying believe women Essentially don't believe man that there should be a thumb gender on the scale of justice. And if you have two witnesses one man one woman in their equally credible she says believed the woman because she's a woman that reminds me of what happened in the south in the nineteen twenties. Believe whites don't believe blacks. You cannot generalize like

Professor Dershowitz Cuomo Letitia America James
No President Cares About Free Speech - Joe Biden Included

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:03 min | 2 months ago

No President Cares About Free Speech - Joe Biden Included

"Do you think you believe biden was was actually elected and i'm i'm fairly certain we're going to see information to the contrary soon. Everybody will have to look at it. But let's say he was the question that i have because i know you have to go. Do you think that he and his administration genuinely care about free speech. Because i don't get the impression that he that that he in the office of the president who has this tremendous bully pulpit that he gives a fig about what we are talking about right now. I don't think it even crosses his mind with the minds of the people as administration. I think they're making it work for them. Which to me is the greater scandal. Well i know. Joe biden for now. It's forty years. I like him as a person. I think he the right man for the job at this point in time. He's helping the combination. But no president kicker free speech. Thomas jefferson before he became president said given a choice between a government without newspapers or newspaper without governments. I would surely pick newspapers without government. Then he was president and then he issued a different statement. He said if nobody read newspapers. We'd be better off in smarter and fairer than if people read newspapers. So no incumbents like the media particularly and joe biden himself. I think we'll support free speech. But they're going to be people in his administration. He's appointed some people who are radically on the left just the way Republicans have appointed. Sometimes people are radically on the right. We need to move more to the center. We need to move more to all the old debate between genuine liberals in genuine conservatives. Both of whom bull we freedom of speech. I used to debate bill buckley. All the time on his television she was a conservative. A liberal enjoyed each other. We ran for a drink after we got along. There was no cancelled culture. I crave for the days of bill. Buckley versus alan dershowitz. Instead of the kind of cancel culture we're experiencing

Joe Biden Biden Thomas Jefferson Bill Buckley Alan Dershowitz Buckley
Alan Dershowitz on How Colleges Have Become Propaganda Mills for the Hard Left

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:48 min | 2 months ago

Alan Dershowitz on How Colleges Have Become Propaganda Mills for the Hard Left

"I mean though a is simply that the people that are animated whether on the left or on the right or any of these issues there at least paying attention even if they're on the wrong side but but it strikes me that the moneyed classes don't seem to think that this affects them in other words. The reason we are where we are is because those people typically have stepped back. They think that everything's fine. There isn't a battle for fundamental freedoms in america. They're wrong because their children are going to college and college. Today has become a propaganda mill for the hard left. And today you cannot your mind in a class or if you're a faculty member many american universities if you express views that are not politically correct. You are threatened. You won't be promoted. You won't be giving classes to teach. You won't be hired by other universities. I've written a new book called the case against new sensors five censorship by big corporations universities each and there are small never people in universities who want speech want to have a very very. Don't think speech codes. Who want to make sure that professors and students can't express users Their views and the administrators aren't doing very much about it. They talk about free speech but when it comes down to it they don't do very much to protect it on many college campuses so the rich and the elite who was sending their kids to princeton and yale and harvard in chicago and then they really do have something to worry about because they're sending them into place where they're not getting educated. They're getting propaganda is they're not being too how to think that being told what the

America Princeton Yale Harvard Chicago
Caller Concerned Not Enough Pastors Are Standing up for Freedom

Mark Levin

01:38 min | 2 months ago

Caller Concerned Not Enough Pastors Are Standing up for Freedom

"Uh, I've been fortunate to get your book. That was an early quarter and on the heels of Reading another book by Dershowitz or was rather And reading yours. I'll tell you. Here's what bothers me. I'm a senior pastor Mark had been for Almost 38 years, and as I read this stuff, and I see what's going on. I just am astounded. That there aren't more pastures. Freedom lovers, Truth lovers that are not standing up and saying, Do you guys not see what's happening here? I don't know whether to be angry to cry, to be honest with you. It's very disturbing. I'm not sure that we've got to grab our pitchforks. And then that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying, we're the voices who predominately, haven't looked at to proclaim the truth. Why are they not proclaiming the truth? And I'm not expecting to have the answer, But I'm just saying it's very disturbing to me. But can I say one thing, Pastor? I've been wondering this myself. Why isn't this embraced by more and more pastors and more and more churches? Explaining what's going on in this country. This is a war and family a war on faith. This is Incredibly pernicious. We need as many people as we can. The pushback, particularly our churches and other people of faith. And maybe that's happening here and there, But I'm not getting a sense yet. I'm getting a sense that the movement is building. I know this is a matter of fact. But I'm not getting a sense that the pastors have actually jumped in on this yet. Maybe I'm totally wrong.

Dershowitz Mark Pastor
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Glenn Beck Program

The Glenn Beck Program

05:43 min | 4 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Glenn Beck Program

"Giuliani and alan dershowitz to talk about. What's just having rudy giuliani. And it's never happened before and it should concern people a great deal And i'll let allen and rudy explain it it is. It's it could affect all of us if you don't like the client you don't go after the attorney And it's never been done before. In fact the head of the l. The aclu in new york hates reduce. Liani just joined the team to push back on this because he said this is one of the biggest violation of rights. And if we go down here and allow this to stand We're in in in big big legal trouble in the future. Each of us are so we're going to talk about that coming up in about half an hour from now right. We're talking to dr robert malone and i wanna play this audio of the bioethicist for your doctor you can hear what he's talking about inserting and and making us repel meet. Listen to this give two examples so one is that people eat too much meat right and if they were cut down on consumption meat than they would would actually really help the planet but people are not willing to give up meet. Some people will be willing to but other people they may be willing to sort of. They have a weakness of will say well. This is too juicy. i can't do. I'm one of those. So but so. Here's a thought right so it turns out that we know a lot about so we have these intolerance too so i for example i milk intolerance and there's some people are intolerant to crayfish so possibly we can use human engineering to make the case. That were intolerant. Certain kinds of meat so certain kinds of bovey bovine proteins and. There's actually analogs in light. There's this thing called lone star tick where it bites you. You will become allergic to meet. I can sort of the skype the mechanism. So that's something that we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world. Problems through human engineering. Isn't that wouldn't that be terrifying shop moment. Yeah that that's clearly crossing the line engineering. Humans is the key. You didn't mention that part before. So so he's talking about engineering. You meet Not engineering the cow That's that's where it up. I i was gonna say Wh- well i think the core of what you're talking about is Does the rights of the society trump the rights of the individual right to the ends justify the means and we already settled that. We had the nuremberg trials. Right we said no and here in the states. And i think all of your listeners in our line with me on this. We're a free society of free people that have free will to make decisions and This this. I hope that the speaker was saying this ingest just illustrate a point of engineering humans number one. It's it's naive as somebody who's been the gene therapy space for a long time..

Liani alan dershowitz rudy allen rudy giuliani Giuliani Each one skype two examples robert malone new york nuremberg about half an hour dr violation
"dershowitz" Discussed on The Glenn Beck Program

The Glenn Beck Program

02:09 min | 4 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on The Glenn Beck Program

"Time he has been on the show the last couple of days talking about What he believes is the issues with the way. The government is communicating issues surrounding the corona virus. And the vaccine's. We'll get into that a little bit. Rudy giuliani is on. He is a little upset the way the government is handling his legal career which seems to be over at the moment unless something changes and alan dershowitz is here as well to talk about the issues with the government and the way. They're coming after attorneys and disbarring them if they had anything to do with donald trump. We'll get into all of that today. Make sure to subscribe at blaze. Tv dot com slash. Glenn promo code is deleng. You'll save ten bucks off your subscription to blaze. tv. Here's the podcast. Think.

donald trump Rudy giuliani alan dershowitz Glenn today ten bucks blaze. last couple of days tv
"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

03:51 min | 4 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"Of the time they talked about other restrictions. But i think that it's the end and we ought to understand and accept that obama healthcare is with us whether you like it or not. It's with us going to change it. Change legislator with the other very important supreme court decision was a catholic adoption agency. That doesn't provide adoption for gay couples. Look that's religious right I believe in gay adoption. But i'm catholic and There are probably the most docs jews. You don't believe in it But the constitution requires that we strike a balance between religious freedom and public policy and the supreme court unanimously ruled that a catholic adoption agency as the right to limit. Its adoptions to what its own religion oh calls for our catholic. I would wanna be open up. And and and and and have. More adoptions that went across A sexual orientation lines. But i'm not a member of that faith and so i have no right. Tell catholics what to do. And the first amendment says that the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited so this was a rare nine to nothing decision. I think it also tells us how the cake cases going to come out. Remember that case where. A baker refused to use his baking artistic abilities to bake a cake for a gay couple. Now there's another case involving a transgender person. I think the supreme court has signaled that ultimately it's gonna ruling favor that baker and say that you can't make an artist baker somebody else Do something that is clearly in violation of their religious principles. I don't agree with it was religious principles but again i'm not the bigger and better took the last question i'm going to ask you got a minute. How do you think the supreme rule if a team up the supreme court about cringe gender issue in sports and as a boy. That is such a hard question. That is such a hard question You know i. I see both sides of the issue on one hand. You don't want to discriminate on the other hand if you get people who used to be men and were born men and have testosterone and have the muscles of men and they're beginning to dominate Women's sports and making it much harder for women to compete. One can understand why there's concern about that. I think we have to see how serious the problem is. Whether it's just a one off or a few small problems and you know you just you just You say look. It's more important that we have equality and that we have a no discrimination but if it becomes much more serious problem and if people begin to to transition in order to get the engine sport obviously that will change it so. I think this is an issue. That won't come to the court for a while and by the time it comes to the court. I think we'll know a lot lot more. But i think the courts bias will be generally in favor of Equality equal treatment for everybody. Although i understand the problem that causes it look wives complicated and it becomes more complicated. And when you get issues like this so wait-and-see professor alan dershowitz. Thank you for your sense. Thank you for your wisdom and thank you for trying to save america like we all are trying to catch up again during the week. Thank you so much. This is the cast roundtable. I'll be right back..

alan dershowitz both sides jews first amendment one hand america couple catholic nine one One couples obama catholics
Attorney Dershowitz Sues Netflix for $80M Over Epstein Show

AP News Radio

00:40 sec | 5 months ago

Attorney Dershowitz Sues Netflix for $80M Over Epstein Show

"I might cross your reporting attorney Alan Dershowitz sues Netflix attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is suing Netflix for eighty million dollars for his portrayal in the series filthy rich about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court contends Netflix intentionally misled Dershowitz regarding his appearance in the series the lawsuit also claims Netflix defamed Dershowitz by falsely asserting he had sex with one of Epstein's victims Virginia to fray Dershowitz who once represented abstain has denied accusations from two free that they had sex Epstein died in August twenty nineteen at a New York jail in what was ruled a suicide hi Mike Rossi up

Netflix Alan Dershowitz Dershowitz Jeffrey Epstein Miami Federal Court Harvard Epstein Virginia New York Mike Rossi
"dershowitz" Discussed on Mornings With Gail - 1310 KFKA

Mornings With Gail - 1310 KFKA

04:16 min | 6 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on Mornings With Gail - 1310 KFKA

"As star. Alan dershowitz a certainly a powerhouse. -solutely brilliant and legal minds in the timing. That interview couldn't have been better. Write this as you had the stars chamber Yes the supreme court of facebook. Has alan dershowitz calls it well waving their magic wand and yup continuing that ban of donald trump from facebook comes as no surprise to anyone particularly in a day of cancel culture. But wow just absolutely brilliant. T is by the way If you're interested in a copy of his new book you can certainly find that on amazon and well until he gets canceled on his website as well all right. Eight fifty four now thirteen ten. Kfi a thirteen ten k. f. k. a. dot com. But it does beg the question as to whether the antidote to that speech i mean you want some nameless faceless group of people you don't know what their qualifications are. Who are they to shut any one. Down based on well nebulous A infractions of some sort of community code. What the heck is that and the thing. That is even more troubling boy. I wish i had about an hour to talk with him now. Alan dershowitz have probably about a week. Who would be much better. But what is so troubling. He alluded to the fact that you had many outlets across the board taking down anything that was counter to the accepted narrative when it comes to covert at you had dr mccarey saying for example Scott atlas there's another one dr scott atlas being essentially once again by what a an algorithm or a by this group of a self styled speech police because well they weren't putting out the information that certain politicians wanted t here about covid nineteen even though guess what they were right but they were summarily. Shut down so could it be argued that in a time and we are in a tumultuous time to be sure but during such a time where we are grappling with so many issues. Isn't the antidote to those problems to those disagreements being something that is is so foundational to our nation. Don't we need more speech. You tell me nine. Seventy three five three thirteen ten. Drop me a text on our thirteen ten. Kfi a text line by the way new text line number for you who are joining archaic k. A. texting cohort nine seven four seven eight thirteen a ones as texts. Kpfk to that number the first time you use it a fifty six now. Thirteen ten kfi the power trip weekdays. Eleven thirteen ten. Kfi day in the nuggets. Get back to the western conference. Finals listened to the whole show for the latest denver. Sports stories on thirteen ten. Kfi more trouble for peleton saying today. It's recalling its tread and tread plus treadmills reversing course. After its ceo earlier urged the owners of those machines only to check safety warnings following the very tragic death of a child in an accident. Thank you ryan. Kelly technical producer. Great job this morning noko now coming up next..

donald trump Alan dershowitz alan dershowitz ryan nine amazon fifty six facebook today this morning Eight fifty four first time Thirteen ten kfi thirteen ten Eleven thirteen ten a week denver nineteen nine seven Seventy three five three thirt
"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

02:41 min | 6 months ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"Good morning america. This is the trump castle. Tc his sunday morning. What's going on in america. I mean i have people coming up to me and say i feel like i'm in east berlin. Other people say. I feel like i'm in moscow because of some situations especially would rudy giuliani who works with wabc radio of monday through friday from three o'clock to four o'clock and one of his attorneys that is consulting with him. And he'll tell. Us is one of the classiest smartest attorney in the country. Alan dershowitz fifty years at harvard. As common sense and the voice of reason out the morning. Alan dershowitz how today. Well i'm very upset about what's going on with you honey. Banana republics and castro's cuba in many parts of the world candidate loses for president. They go after the candidate to go after his lawyers. They go after it was friends. Didn't happen in america. And that's happening in america. Now they're going through usually on either going after the turia tensing. Who knows who will be next. And they're going after him in inappropriate ways a search warrant on a lawyer or a doctor or a priest. You don't use search warrants when people have privileged information on their cell phones in their computers. You use the subpoena search one is like night and day the subpoenas. The lawyer gets a request. He's told to turn over certain documents. If you expect privilege to court they have it out. They have a decision. It's not ex-party party. It's not just one side but here. They're going after him this searching. They're taking everything from his cloud from his computers including privileged information is just not constitutional. And that's why when who'd he called me yesterday. I said sure. I'll help out. I'm in favor of the constitution is mind boggling. The fact that it's what rudy said to me is. He had some dealings with the president of the united states and he was president sawyer. They even took information on him being a lawyer conversations with the president of the united states. I mean at that point who safe in the country me. You're absolutely right. I mean that's privilege not only end. The lawyer client privilege also privileged under executive privilege. And the idea that they're gonna take all their break into his apartment six in the morning. mafia guy or like. He's a terrorist. Or you know like he's somebody who's gonna destroy evidence..

Alan dershowitz rudy giuliani yesterday trump east berlin fifty years today four o'clock monday friday three o'clock one sunday morning america cuba president one side wabc radio harvard rudy
Is This Ancient Biblical Forgery Actually Real?

Kottke Ride Home

05:48 min | 8 months ago

Is This Ancient Biblical Forgery Actually Real?

"So close to a century and a half ago. A man named moses wilhelm shapira found fifteen manuscript fragments in a cave near the dead sea. They were written in an ancient hebrew script and contained. What shapiro claimed was the original book of deuteronomy blitz despite interest from the british museum to the tune of a million pounds. The manuscripts were found to be forged. Shapiro was disgraced and the documents disappeared but now a scholar named don dershowitz is questioning. If those documents might have been real all along so while the british museum was examining the manuscript fragments for authenticity themselves. Back in the nineteen th century. A few of the fragments were also on display to the public already attracting tons of visitors. The news of the possibly oldest ever discovered biblical manuscript had made headlines around the world. While awaiting the museum's official decree of authenticity. Someone else decided to take matters into their own hands. Charles simone clermont. Is you know who the times describes as a swashbuckling french archaeologist and longtime nemesis of shapiro's end quote examined the fragments for a few minutes and immediately went to the press to say that they were fake. The risk he played on his cursory examination paid off when the british museum experts agreed. Shapiro was humiliated by this and ended up. Tragically dying by suicide a few months later. The documents were sold at auction for a fraction of what they were originally expected to sell for. And most people soon forgot about the whole thing now. Dershowitz from the university of potsdam germany has published a new paper and companion book making the case that the manuscript was real all along quoting the new york times but dershowitz makes an even more dramatic claim the text which he is reconstructed from nineteenth century transcriptions and drawings is not a reworking of deuteronomy. He argues but a precursor to its dating to the period of the first temple before the babylonian exile that would make it the oldest biblical manuscript by far and an unprecedented window into the origins and evolution of the bible and biblical religion dershowitz. His research closely guarded until now has yet to get broad. Scrutiny scholars previewed his findings at a closed-door seminar at harvard in two thousand nineteen are divided. A taste of fierce debates likely to come but of dershowitz is correct. Some experts say it will be the most consequential bible related discovery since the dead sea scrolls in nineteen forty seven and quotes the times. Sagely points out that it's much tougher to prove something authentic than it is to prove. It's fake but there's an additional hurdle to be jumped. In this case the physical fragments themselves may no longer exist so back in eighteen eighty three there was a mad rush at the time to find biblical artifacts that would prove or disprove various points of contention emerging in biblical scholarship moseley around the documentary hypothesis. The idea that the first five books of the bible or the pentateuch were actually written by various authors. Not just one traditionally thought to be moses. It was in this climate of aggressive archaeology that shapiro. I established himself as an antiquities dealer in jerusalem and during which time he and clermont no became enemies. After camacho correctly denounced a collection of pottery. That shapira had sold to the german government. It's also important to note that shapiro was a convert to christianity having been raised jewish in russia so he was viewed with some skepticism from the other biblical scholars and archaeologists and also faced intense antisemitism after the deuteronomy manuscript was denounced. Fast forward to now. Dershowitz says one of the main reasons he thinks the fragments could have been real is because their contents differs quite a bit from the deuteronomy in the bible and many of those differences lineup with discoveries that were only made when the dead sea scrolls were found in nineteen forty seven sixty four years. After chapitoulas discovery of the fragments dershowitz also investigated. Some of shapiro's personal notes archived at the berlin state library and found three. Handwritten pages of shapiro trying to decipher the fragments. Filled with question marks and transcription errors. Dershowitz said quote if he forged them or was part of a conspiracy. It makes no sense that he'd be sitting there trying to guess what the text is and making mistakes while he did it end quote while some scholars of the evolution of biblical text or undershoots side cautiously believing the deuteronomy fragments may be genuine. Most pig refers people who study inscriptions are the ones that usually authenticate documents. Most of them aren't convinced they say the original fragments bear the hallmarks of modern forgery. That they agree with the notes made by the experts who examined them at the time and since no one has the fragments to examine physically now. It's a closed case and as for the content being impressions christopher rolston leading pig refer at george washington university said quote. Forgers are pretty clever with regard to content and they've been very clever for twenty five hundred years and quotes despite dershowitz his published paper and companion book. The jury is still out and who knows if it will ever truly be born ounce. It would have some pretty huge complications. If it does due to some of its key differences for example. It's missing all of the laws of the deuteronomy were familiar with in the bible. Ones upon which traditions and entire libraries have been founded. It would also bolster the theory that are tons more stories and traditions out there than just the ones that have been preserved in the hebrew bible.

Shapiro Dershowitz Moses Wilhelm Shapira Don Dershowitz Charles Simone Clermont University Of Potsdam British Museum German Government Sagely Chapitoulas The New York Times Berlin State Library Moseley Shapira Camacho Germany Harvard Clermont
Trump will not testify or provide any statement at impeachment trial, lawyer says

Houston's Morning News

00:39 sec | 9 months ago

Trump will not testify or provide any statement at impeachment trial, lawyer says

"Second impeachment trial Donald Trump starting next week, House Democrats Guess what. They sent a letter asking, asking Trump to testify under oath, and Trump said No. One of his lawyers from the first trial, Alan Dershowitz, told Fox that Trump was right to turn down the Democrats. If he hasn't been subpoenaed, and he doesn't believe that the Senate has jurisdiction over former president. He's right about that, and he believes they have no jurisdiction over a constitutionally protected speech, and he's right about that. He's right not to testify. Yeah. Dirk's was called the letter that Democrats sent to trump nothing more than showboating, but they're going to use it to smear

Donald Trump Alan Dershowitz FOX House Senate Dirk
Dershowitz nominates Kushner, aide for Nobel Peace Prize

Chris Plante

01:24 min | 9 months ago

Dershowitz nominates Kushner, aide for Nobel Peace Prize

"Harvard law professor emeritus. That's right, Alan Dershowitz that nominated Jared Kushner for the Nobel Peace Prize because, after all, he was able to cobble together four separate Israel peace deals in the Middle East with the United Arab Emirates and with Bahrain with Sudan and with Morocco, and if President Trump had remained in office, Saudi Arabia was next in line. But Biden will get back to bombing and war and dying because that's what the Democrats do. You know they inflicted how many things that they inflict upon us A whole lot of things. I think whole lot whole bunch. Unbelievable harmony. The um you know, they bombed the Obama. Biden People Libya into oblivion. It's a failed state to this day. Pretty amazing stuff. They bomb and bomb and bomb and they get the Nobel Peace Prize. And no problem, not a not a thing they target missed last night American citizens and they got the Nobel Peace Prize. The Trump Administration for Mideast peace deals Historic each and every one of them and in combination historic on an epic scale and was President Trump will have President Trump was nominated actually four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not by anybody in the United States, but good for Alan Dershowitz for doing the right thing

President Trump Jared Kushner Nobel Peace Prize Alan Dershowitz Biden United Arab Emirates Harvard Bahrain Sudan Morocco Middle East Saudi Arabia Israel Trump Administration For Midea Libya Barack Obama United States
Cornyn calls Trump impeachment trial ‘bad idea,’ warning of precedent for future ex-presidents

Rush Limbaugh

00:20 sec | 9 months ago

Cornyn calls Trump impeachment trial ‘bad idea,’ warning of precedent for future ex-presidents

"Out that it would set a bad precedent that could be used against other future former presidents. He also quoted Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who suggests It would make it harder for the US to hell. If Trump were convicted, not to mention such a move is likely illegal and unconstitutional. Wasn't invited, making a lot of sweeping changes in his first day in office, but he's keeping at least one trump

Alan Dershowitz Harvard Donald Trump United States
Law professor breaks down options for holding President Trump accountable

WBZ Midday News

01:20 min | 10 months ago

Law professor breaks down options for holding President Trump accountable

"Talk of an impeachment trial in the Senate, happening after President Donald Trump leaves office and becomes a civilian because of the calendar right now for the Senate. They are apparently in recess until the day before Inauguration Day. But here's a question is an ex post facto impeachment trial. Legal under the Constitution for a civilian Donald Trump will former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended the president during his first impeachment trial. Says No. What they want to do is just impeach him. And then have it hanging over him without giving him an opportunity to have a trial and defend themselves while he's still president. Does the schedule doesn't permit it? So there are two options? One? The impeachment? Nothing happens. It is they just having hanging over him is is if somebody's indicted and they don't give him an opportunity to go to trial and defend themselves, or the other possibility is they will try to put him on trial in the Senate. After he leaves office. We can't do that. The Constitution on Lee provides for impeachment for people who are in office, Dershowitz on night side with Dan right, indicating he would be willing to defend the president again in any second impeachment trial. Again. There is no precedent for president being impeached or tried after leaving office and again,

President Donald Trump Senate Alan Dershowitz Donald Trump Harvard Dershowitz LEE DAN
Federal prisoner Brandon Bernard executed despite pleas from celebrities, jurors

Morning Edition

06:20 min | 11 months ago

Federal prisoner Brandon Bernard executed despite pleas from celebrities, jurors

"Administration carried out its ninth federal execution of the year. Last night. Last minute clemency pleas for Brandon Bernard were rejected celebrities and a former U. S prosecutor had taken up his cause. George Hale from member station. W F I U has more fans flooded Donald Trump's Twitter account for a week after Kim Kardashian West asked for help trying to save Bernard's life. But late Thursday it was the mother of a murdered youth minister of plotting the president's decision to let the execution go forward. The family have Todd Bagley would like to thank President Donald J. Trump. Attorney General William H. Bar and the Department of Justice. Todd and his wife, Stacy, were visiting Texas in 1999 when a group of young men kidnapped them, hoping to empty their bank accounts. Hours later, the couple was locked in the trunk of their car when the gang's ringleader fatally shot them. Both. Bernard was a low ranking member of the gang and followed orders to set the car on fire. Federal officials executed shooter, Christopher V. Alva in September. They also moved to set an execution date for Bernard. Supporters of Bernard insist he had no idea the all the planned to shoot anyone. He was also only 18 at the time. That wasn't part of the original kidnapping. But prosecutors managed to convince a mostly white jury to send us both young black men to death. The majority of surviving jurors later changed their minds about Bernard. So did Angela Moore, a former U. S prosecutor who helped defeat Bernard's appeal. Mr Bernard was not planning on any kidnapping or killing to happen. Mr Real of Awas More wrote in an op ed in the Indianapolis star detailing her objections to Bernard's execution. That's when Kim Kardashian West got involved tweeting the essay to her nearly 70 million followers. Trump listens to West before he once hosted her in the White House alongside prisoners he had granted clemency. The Stars Support offered rare hope to an inmate scheduled to die under a Supreme Court stacked with death penalty supporters. Hours before the execution, Bernard's defense, added attorneys and Trump backers Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to the team. They sought a 14 day stay to review the case. But any hope of Trump intervening, faded late Thursday. As prison officials gathered witnesses and the execution went forward Kardashian West took to Twitter soon after our system is so eft up, she said. The next federal execution is set for tonight. For NPR News. I'm George Hale and Terra Haute, Indiana.

Bernard Kim Kardashian West Brandon Bernard George Hale Todd Bagley President Donald J. Trump Attorney General William H. Ba Christopher V. Alva Donald Trump Angela Moore Mr Bernard Mr Real Department Of Justice Stacy Todd Twitter Texas Indianapolis Ken Starr
Biden can start accessing presidential daily briefing as transition gets underway

Brian Mudd

03:48 min | 11 months ago

Biden can start accessing presidential daily briefing as transition gets underway

"All right, let's talk some election challenges in transition activity. Take it away. Yeah, let's start with the transition activity, which is underway. We know that. As of Monday, the General Services Administration informed President elect Joe Biden at the Trump administration was ready to begin the formal transition process, which in essence is their first step in admitting that President Trump didn't win the Joe Biden did, and we're beginning the process of getting the power and information to the hands of the person that should be taking over come January 20th. So that is, at least to this point in time. We're hearing underway Joe Biden's transition team now talking with all federal agencies. And with that A part of this transition also includes having the ability to access additional office space inside those agencies and the ability to use federal dollars for background checks on Biden's White House staff appointments as well as Cabinet picks, and it also opens the door for Joe Biden. To have the access to the cove in 19 data vaccine vaccine distribution plans and also get the presidential daily briefing. So all of that supposedly began yesterday is going through today here as well. And the interesting part about that is that while that's all underway, President Trump is still saying he is refusing to concede and that he is going to continue to fight. S O yesterday morning. He tweeted that there would be a big lawsuit that would be filed soon. Now we don't know what that lawsuit is. But the president says he's moving full steam ahead still full steam ahead. Now. Today, they're scheduled to be in Pennsylvania Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, meeting that Rudy Giuliani scheduled that is supposed to kind of clarify where things stand in regards to these elections suits that have gone on. We know that when you're just looking at the track record right now, there's only about three active cases remaining right now, out of all of the other cases. They haven't filed a case that the law team for President Trump since November 18th. So all of the lawsuits came between Election Day on November 18th. And since then, the flurry of lawsuits really kind of all concluded bloom. Daddy only three left in one of those, for instance, in Michigan is just all about there being rejected. Defective, improper fire. Wait, That's something that generally you fix real quick. Send it back to the courts and begin the process of hearing that case That hasn't happened with President Trump's legal team. We don't know why was it a mistake? Was it something that planning on doing But we do know that there might be an announcement today after Pennsylvania had their certification of votes yesterday. There might be an announcement today. They're in Gettysburg as to what the next move is going to be for the legal team. In Pennsylvania. I was watching an interview with Alan Dershowitz. And, of course, the Allens Ah, liberal attorney. Very, very bright. He said that the president probably had his best legal footing in Pennsylvania with two or three angles. But so far that really has not come to fruition is you kind of pointed out? Yeah, it's been a situation where you had 19 cases filed by the campaign. 15 have already been denied or dismissed by judges or withdrawn from the campaign itself. Most of that is coming from lack of substantial evidence of voter fraud to back up the claim, so what's left is Not a lot, and also not a lot of time Bloom, Daddy because you're going to have come the 14th of December which, as we're just looking at that calendars here, Thanksgiving wraps up and then they come. Everybody comes back to town. November 30th. The next days. December 1st you've got till December 14th to have electors from each state meet to formally nominate the next president. So if you're going to try to get a legal something battle in you start and finish it before December 14th in order to have any effect on it. Have a sign of that is if you're just trying to work the angle of getting electors to make a decision independent of the state. They represent an independent of the votes that were cast in that state that you also have two weeks to try to get that done here. So I don't know what's going to be able to get done. But these next two weeks between now and December, 14th will be interesting to see cause that will kind of finalize any final nails in the confident you will of the 2020 election.

President Trump Joe Biden Trump Administration Pennsylvania General Services Administratio Gettysburg Biden Rudy Giuliani White House Cabinet Alan Dershowitz Michigan
'Power' to 'plunge a needle into your arm': Dershowitz says forced vaccinations are constitutional

Howie Carr

01:03 min | 1 year ago

'Power' to 'plunge a needle into your arm': Dershowitz says forced vaccinations are constitutional

"Of audio did you happen to hear and forgive me if I missed it Alan Dershowitz saying that the government has the right to plunge a needle into your arm when he was talking about vaccines did you hear about that I always scrolling social media early today I saw something I didn't have time to check in go back good what are the details what it what did he say this because he's a very kind of you know he he he says it how he sees it he analyzes so give us give us is the sky believe me I I admit I was on the Dershowitz jet train I thought he did a great job talking about the impeachment but he was absolutely right I think he's very smart and I respect him but he's a little bit cavalier with this statement saying that the government has the right to literal and I'm quoting here plunging needle into your arm now I think vaccines if we're talking about vaccines for crown of ours it's great to have that as an option if people want to do the vaccine that's fantastic right but it starts to creep me out when you have Alan Dershowitz saying it's constitutional for the states to come after you and just stab you in the arm in the I guess for public safety

Alan Dershowitz
Reactions to Trump's impeachment acquittal

Red Eye Radio

13:37 min | 1 year ago

Reactions to Trump's impeachment acquittal

"To get it in I mentioned earlier in the show that the the the whole thing with there were so many people in December during the the house during the actual impeachment proceedings that were celebrating on social media believing you know the willfully ignorant believing that impeachment means removal and then you you look at I guess the last couple weeks there've been a few that I've seen it's over for him he'll be he's done and it went from he'll resign by the end of the week to well he's definitely not going to win in November and you and I don't make predictions but you look where the strings are right now with this president you look at what Chris Matthews has said not just about what happened not just about the state of the union or anything else and then van Jones banjo that on that at the last debate and and what he said he didn't see anybody on the stage that night they could be tribe and on yesterday talking about look Democrats have to understand trump is going after the black vote and he may be able to get a significant portion of it I mean you you look at that and the Rasmussen had on in terms of black votes forty two percent and we said okay fine cut that in half favorability rating yet favorability rating of forty two percent cut that in half let's say it's twenty one that's massive I don't remember Republican I'd have to go back and and look at the last Republican that had that kind of support but it it's it's like they're still some that are in denial over what the left has got it I wonder if it's who was it that said her friends during twenty sixteen with just a draw the curtains in and close the doors and turn the TV TV are in doubt burned out yes if there was any negative news about Hillary that would just bury their heads in the sand but it's just on many fronts I'm just talking about the chatter on social media it's very quiet right now by the far left look they hate to guide the make fun of the guy they must they mocked the guy but I don't see them promoting their their some for Bernie there did the burning crowd was there but really I mean there's not the porch there was in twenty sixteen there's not the I don't I just don't see it it it's maybe it comes together but it's not happening right now well one thing that we monitored on the show over the last five months is the number of responses that we got especially after the cross after the house impeachment hearings were done in the articles of impeachment were actually written so the cross examination was done we had Democrats that would speculate in September and in October and November and cut well with that you guys are wrong they're gonna get him today and it never happened in fact the opposite happened when the witnesses came forward in the house but once that was completed our I believe we have had only for phone calls mmhm and that would be since thanksgiving of anybody attempting to defend the the Democrat point I believe three out of those four phone calls because you wanted a moderate because we we were saying to ourselves this is really incredible because we know what the Democrats think that they have a point mmhm and we find it incredible three out of those four we're only saying the only point they had was a talking point well of trump was innocent he let everybody testify which is again the philosophy that you are guilty until proven innocent right that it's it's upon the defense the burden of proof is on the defense not the prosecutor not those making the charges which is false and we had so we had one phone call on the issues and and that fell back real quick I can't remember what point they were trying to make that they made the point and we countered whatever the point was they weren't there was like silence so I'm not you don't anoint there but that's it and that's why we have with confidence said every single Democrat listening right now to the show knows that the impeachment and the impeachment trial was bogus they don't know the articles of impeachment were bogus they all know what every single Democrat senator knows that their vote was bogus they know what was purely political it was not in line with what the constitution has said impeachment should be about they know what you know Eric if you were talking about the fact that Mitt Romney should debate Alan Dershowitz and that we would laugh because it's never gonna have not gonna happen it's the same as climate change yes you had the one thing tank last year attempt to have a debate on climate change they brought in experts and said you know the scientist climatologist that said now look they're throwing on Tuesdays doomsday scenarios and that just isn't the case it's wrong they invited dozens of climate change activists to debate it nobody would show up nobody under cross examination the left does not want to defend what they believe in no no they don't and that's why with confidence we have said we know what we've done this a long time run hundreds and hundreds of the greatest radio stations across the country we know if we make a mistake on something as simple as when we kid about a Hogan's heroes that was the first time member we said about old in zero right or or what we were kidding them bad when we first got together well when we were first in back in two thousand five wasn't while when we started doing the show together and we Kinley said you know use the term the you of the line from animal house word was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor and we were just inundated with people the people on the left you guys secure your your you guys are just wanna be's you're even know who bombed Pearl Harbor we know it was the French exactly so it is so believe me we know we've dealt with that when if we make any type of of mistake you know read something you know but we we get something and we read it and we you know get the number wrong for certain you know if we say trillion instead of billion boom they're they're cheap you guys are no credible you got that wrong saria yeah we did done did mean it because the last thing we want to do is argue something that's not true right we don't need to do that they need to do that and so we know that every single Democrat listening right now knows that the impeachment was bogus they all do yes every single Democrat senator knows it was bogus anybody in the media the paid attention to it knows it was bogus the majority like I said when of response you know email whatever we get if somebody is trying to make the case are actually ignorant on the law ignorant on impeachment or ignorant as to what actually happened I think one of the the one call was talking about the fact that although the witnesses are all testified against trump was no they did no just the opposite no and I've used here is or when the opposite right so you know we know even your Bonaventure when in cross examination I came down what she didn't like the guy yeah she was she was upset that she was fired and and we get to Romney and the discussion on Romney and your work and I were just having a during the top of the hour and you're trying to make the point look he knows it's not constitutional and I agree with you I got you this is this is where you try to get well what's the motivation behind it you just tear down the the what's more what's more what would lead what would be left on the table if you if the knowns take those off the table what's left we know that he knows the constitution we know that right we know that he does this whole thing was bogus we know that so it was about one thing his hatred for the president it's that simple his trolling it's the equivalent of trolling because tell me where the risk is in Utah I'm convinced he's not gonna run for a second term I maybe maybe I'm wrong I believe he's one and done as senator from Utah but tell me where where does that red put everything on the on the table and what's most likely he just has a huge dislike or hatred for this president because he had a story here even as arguments fell apart we claim the trump had withheld vital military funds that you didn't withhold he didn't know what hit them but we didn't eight here's a quote Corp corrupting election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of the oath of office that I can imagine what one well there was no election it was corrupted in no way no national security interest the Wall Street journal here if their analysis no security interests were jeopardized because other senators and advisers persuaded Mr trump to release a military aid all even challenge out from the Wall Street journal I don't know that for a fact no no and now here's the other theory that I that I didn't include go high I know that there were people encouraging him senator Johnson or whatever yes I know this is necessary right but I don't know that that's why he made the ultimate decision I don't know that I don't have the testimony that gets me to that point precisely that I would need though the one theory that I have not put on the table is is maybe the the most obvious that we missed Mitt Romney is a robot what what Linda Hamilton from terminator two you know I believe it and you had that for a long time he has and it because it's true can I get sued for that please sumi Mitt Romney go ahead well and here's what happened I think Adam Schiff reprogrammed his his his explanation was so weak console falls yeah so easy to tear through yeah that you sit there and you say well it can't be it meant more read more Mitt Romney is smarter than this mmhm he was always he was re program right he knows that's not that he's no that's not the truth so you get to the point if it wasn't constitutional and it wasn't legal what drove him to do that exactly is this like for his residence like what do you want to make college dislike hatred ever to whatever I you know I again I can't get in somebody's mind but when you break it down and say but every argument in cross examination of Mitt Romney's explanation you can tear to shreds yeah so then what was it afterwards and so when people come to that conclusion I can understand them coming to the conclusion one thing I can tell you without question without getting into his mind he is wrong constitutionally yes and he's wrong on the facts that he actually stated on the Senate floor as to what happened he was inaccurate in his analysis when when you set aside your critical thinking skills and your knowledge of the constitution and put it behind your distrust your dislike or your hatred I don't know how I don't know how to do that I don't I don't know what drives you to do that because you can see he could still go back to his home state and say look I didn't I think that was not the right call to make I would have done it but it did not rise to impeachment it did not rise to to removal when you start talking about the fact that by the way that he was grappling over it you know that this was this was such a tough decision on I had to make the right decision for my kids when you start talking like that you know you're trying to justify your vote yes I wouldn't have to say that no I would have to bring in my family or anything nope it was easy right what I mean it was tough either he did it a read either he did something that was impeachable or not stand up and be a man don't sit there in a book because my my family and it was tough stock toss what are you teaching your family about the constitution right and where and when he started doing that I said wow he's tried to justify his vote yes because he knows it's bogus yes

Trump survives impeachment: US president cleared of both charges

Post Reports

09:36 min | 1 year ago

Trump survives impeachment: US president cleared of both charges

"That all of this is done what happens now for the trump presidency. I mean for the rest of his term. How're you expecting it to be different than and it might have been well in a way? This is like a turbo charge for president trump because he survived this gauntlet this impeachment proceeding without without having to be removed from office. And therefore he's waking up feeling emboldened and empowered and feels a conviction that everything he does is right. He is at the strongest point politically today that he's been in some time. The Gallup poll has his approval rating at forty percent which is sending shivers through the Spines of Democrats Crafts Around the country there are good feelings in the country about the economy which continues to home along to report to you tonight that our economy is the best I it has ever been. He had a pretty powerful economic message in a state of the Union. Even though a lot of it was exaggerated and he made claims that are not true. Jobs are booming. Income Poverty is plummeting. Crime is falling confidences surging. It was a selling argument. It for reelection and our country is thriving and highly respected again and so we can expect I think the president into continue to to sound teams into seek retaliation against all of those. He felt have wronged him in. It's impeachment process with this acquittal. How is that likely to change the office of the Presidency broadly? It's a good question because the evidence about trump's activity in Ukraine is. There's no dispute dispute about what he did. The evidence is clear the testimony was clear. Trump himself has admitted on camera that he wanted the Ukrainian government to do an investigation into his political political opponent and in fact he called on the Chinese government to do the same so what he did is clear what happened is the Republicans in the Senate made a political calculation about out not removing him from office for it that what he did doesn't amount to an impeachable offense and I spent some time in the last days interviewing historians and they said this is a major watershed moment in our nation's history because the way the founders set up our government setup. Our Constitution was to punish and remove presidents. Who who do exactly what? Donald Trump has been proven to have done with Ukraine. This is a system of checks and balances and what's happened is the legislative branch under Republican. Look in control in the Senate is no longer holding the president accountable they're becoming an instrument to propel his power and perpetuate his power and that's concerning to historians it's concerning to legal experts and it certainly would set a precedent. I would imagine for future presidents who will say look if trump got away with this I can get away with it too and it is just an expansion of that sort of executive power which is troubling to those who study the framers and the Constitution. Do you think I mean with a different president. You know ten years twenty years from now our future executive branches likely to think back to this moment and say I can do this. It's okay I'm not going to get in trouble. You know. They they could and we may not even have to look to future presidents for that. President trump has another ten months seven months in office. He may have another four years beyond that and there's no telling what he might try to do going forward because he's escaped accountability this time in the Russia investigation. You know the Muller Team documented did all of these examples for really proven examples where the president sought to obstruct justice but did not charge him or indict him because he's a sitting president narrow justice assists department guidelines about that. Well the very next day after Robert Mueller testified in Congress about this trump picked up the phone and called the Ukrainian president asking for the favor the political favors so he the conclusion he drew from the Muller Investigation and his lack of any legal punishment in that regard was that he can get away with with what he wants to do. He's the president if he does it so be it and the Republicans in on Capitol Hill or are there to support and protect him. So can you talk us through. How the president's President's own lawyers argued that the Senate basically doesn't have the power to to check the president one of the most striking moments in the president's defense came when one of his lawyers? Alan Dershowitz a noted criminal lawyer you've seen him on. TV for years Came to the floor of the Senate and advanced an argument that a lot of legal experts that said was dubious every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly right your elections in the public interest. He said if the president does something that will help his reelection therefore is in the best interest of the country and if if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest. He cannot be held or rather be impeached for for that action that cannot be the kind of quid pro. Quo that results in impeachment. And so that's a blanket. Excuse use for the president to do what he did with Ukraine but obviously anything else that the president deems to be in the interest of his reelection that is an argument that Dershowitz had to kind of walk back a little bit In in some comments he made the next day and he got a lot of heat from legal scholars who said that's just a completely baloney argument argument with no constitutional grounding but it is indicative. I think of how President Trump himself views his power and views his authority as the president and commander-in-chief founder and chief. Did we see a lot of senators latching onto that argument. A few did Actually the Republican senators of course but a few parroted the Dershowitz line came as a way of defending the president and saying basically he's president he can do whatever he wants for his reelection because getting him reelected is in the best interest of our country. What about the way that? The impeachment trial played out in the Senate. The fact that there were no new documents that there were no witnesses is that likely also to set. Its own kind of precedent for or the way that impeachment is handled in the future. Certainly we've only had an impeachment trial three times in our history and so there's not really a blueprint door protocol. Offer how to go about doing this. And and the Senate leaders along with the chief justice of the Supreme Court to kind of change and adapt the rules as they went along to figure out how this would work mark and the Democrats say this was a complete sham. Trial that Mitch. McConnell designed it from the get-go to move quickly to get to a very fast acquittal to turn the page to save trump into move on with the legislative business not to delve into the details. Not To really scrutinize the evidence. The most surprising thing I think watching the Sahlin fold the last few weeks that John Bolton came forward publicly or at least in the manuscript of his book which leaked out through the media with new information right. He's a first first hand witness to what the president wanted done and Ukraine. He offered to testify before the Senate or at least indicated he would if if asked. Here's somebody who could have come forward to provide a new to account that would have provided new evidence to this case and there was no interest among the Republican majority in the Senate to hear what he had to say. I don't believe the testimony is necessary. The house else managers have a burden of proof a burden of proof to prove their case they had fallen woefully short. We now have allegations from Mr Bolton. I think they would have more credibility if the allegations came from someone else. There is no new information in my opinion based on what John Bolton has known but today in an effort to generate interest in a book have selectively released. Information that that to me doesn't go beyond what we've seen in the seventeen witnesses who've already testify only two. Republican senators voted to allow witnesses. Mitt Romney and and Susan Collins of Maine came to what extent is the Senate giving up the power that they have to oversee the president of provide any kind of check on the president. Give us a sense of the power that's been given up with the smooth you know they've they've been giving up power to this president for three years now in in part because Republicans threat the party live in fear of him. He has such an intensity of support within the Republican base and approval rating among Republicans of eighty to ninety percent and he follows these things very closely and vows to retaliate and shows that he can punish people if they betray him across him. Just ask former Senator Jeff Flake or former senator Bob corker. So there's that fear factor in the Senate and and what they've done to adapt to that is is not to stand up to him not to ever say he's wrong and in turn. They're getting some of their agenda through right. They're getting tax cuts passed. They're getting a lot of conservative. Justices installed hold onto the federal judiciary. They feel like Mitch. McConnell certainly feels like this is an opportunity to advance the conservative agenda but they just need to placate eight trump and played a trump and keep him calm but in so doing they're giving up their power of accountability. And it's certainly not the way that the framers and the founders imagined Dr our system of government working in Democracy Phil Rocker is the White House. Bureau chief for the Post. His new book written with Carol Lennox is called a very stateful genius. Donald J trump's testing of America. It's out in stores now.

President Trump Senate Donald J Trump Ukraine Alan Dershowitz John Bolton Mcconnell Union Mitch Robert Mueller Bureau Chief Muller Investigation Executive Carol Lennox Muller Team Chinese Government Phil Rocker Congress White House
"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

09:01 min | 1 year ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"Good Morning America. The catch roundtable. This is John Katzman Kiedis. Wow what's going on in Washington. Well one of the smartest lawyers I know as Alan Dershowitz and he's got his ear oxygen ground with us this morning. Good morning professor. She was. How are you good morning? This week was a good week for the United States Constitution. The constitution one the people who try to abuse the constitution on the Democratic side of the House and Senate lost and all Americans are the victors. Well you know so many Americans can understand What has happened? And and and There's so many lies going on in our country and I understand that nope but none of these people when you were lying. Were put it under oath. Can you explain to the American public. Well I think what a senator lies. It's as if he's under oath and you know Senator Schumer just lied through his teeth when when he described or describe what I said on the Senate floor basically he said that I think the president can do anything he wants Commit crimes till his opponent Tamper Samper with the election. As long as he thinks it's in his electoral interest in the public interest He thinks that I would have opposed the impeachment of Richard Nixon. He was there he heard me say the opposite of willows things president commits a crime can be impeached. I wasn't strongly in favor of the impeachment of Richard Nixon but he and his colleagues got altogether because Mike Senate speech effective and persuaded certain senators and Schumer just decided to lie about it and it shopping to me that Somebody WHO's standing Harvard law school graduate the minority leader. The Senate would stoop so low as to just make up a story and I would challenge him to come on your show with me and to debate and discuss how he wilfully distorted my statement for partisan advantage. He just could never agree Louis to do that because he'd have to admit to the public that he lied through STI. Well it seems the actor so many lies in Washington that the average public can't discern and we would justice Cavallo was being in front of the Senate there were so many lies about the men and they all turned out not to be true on the impeach. My favorite was I had My favorite line was when audience famous off and Ati came forward with another woman against Cavanaugh. Who never even even met the guy like accusation against me? I was accused by by by sleazy lawyers By a woman. I never met and with emails from her committing. She never met me And yet the accusations go forward lies or becoming so common in the American political scene within the metoo movement exploiting people who exploited a good movement to meet to Movement Democrats who are prepared to lie the partisan advantage and by the way. It's going to backfire. It's GonNa hurt the Democrats. I'm a Democrat Democrat. I'm a Liberal Democrat. I WANNA see the Democrats win but the Democrats are in helping themselves. I think they need new leadership I think Schumer and Pelosi has to go Schumer because of his history lying. You Know Pelosi actually call for me to be disbarred as a result of my argument in front of the Senate because I waited some senators i. She wanted me to be disbarred. And then tearing up that speech and and bringing forward impeachment on on constitutional grounds I think the dams need new leaders. They have any chance of returning to power In a two party system. Well I've a Nettie. That was the lawyer in addresses capital. Our case is now in jail as an extra while he's on trial. I think he is in jail. I mean It's horrible that we put in front on every Matrix channel all these characters that are not really telling the truth the vetting anymore much of CNN once calling me in panic Oh my God we have to cancel you tonight. We got avid ninety. We got out of ninety body and now CNN is cancelled forever because I criticize them for The way they mischaracterize my speech in front of the Senate so I'm no longer welcome on CNN. Dan which means the viewers is CNN and the private the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue. They won't hear my views on CNN. I have to go to boxing. Other stations to hear me or on your wonderful the full radio show to hear me but they can't hear me on. CNN anymore because CNN doesn't accept criticism of its coverage on its network now that that it's all over on impeachment democratic Congressman threatening to bring in witnesses or subpoena the John Bolton Yeah they're saying is double jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment and technically it doesn't apply to a peach mint the spirit of double jeopardy certainly should but they're now claiming that they're gonNA call of course Bolton can't testify to anything even if you want you that relates to national security or anything that involves privilege privilege material. So it's not his call whether he testifies it's the call the executive branch of the government which is the president of the United States. So I think we're going to hear here from him mostly through his book not through official testimony. It's it's such craziness on Friday. The Appeals Court dismissed dismissed the Democrats on the Emolument case against President Trump. Is that a big victory. It's it's a ridiculous case in the first place it was contrived. Try by my former colleague. Larry try by the way. My former colleague Larry tribe who supported the nod for president. Really WanNa hear guy with good. Judgement Larry sorry trump supporter avenue. Nadi President of the United States and he put the idea in the head of Pelosi and others to sue the President President under the emoluments clause of the constitution. Nobody's ever done that before. And it's frivolous and the court correctly Dumped it. It's just mind-boggling. What's going on I hear you? You were democratic liberal food or your life and what's going on how is beyond craziness. Why audie moderate Democrats Commonsense Democrats as I call him so afraid to challenge the crazies because the crazies win Look look at Iowa. Yeah well it should never be first. Primary in Iowa. Iowa is not representative of the Democratic Party or of the country Look a wins in Iowa Sanders and They're not a win for president of the United States. And so what happens. Is the primary system. Generally favors extremists On the left In the Democratic Party and as a result of that the Democrats shoot themselves in uh-huh They if they WANNA win the have to move to the center. They have to move to people like Mike Bloomberg or or abiding or closure. Oh sure people who represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party not the most extreme squad elements that will destroy the Democratic Party. Much much the way. Jeremy Corbyn destroyed the Labor Party in England. Think you'd think the Democrats would learn a lesson. Does Michael Bloomberg has a chance of getting a nomination. I think he has a chance. If the convention is deadlocked and if the convention delegates get to really pick who the best candidate would be I think thank you have a chance. I don't think he will win. Enough delegates to get the nomination rope. You know you never know with California New York delegate heavy states they could give him a big boost but I think he wins. If he wins through a tie among the extremists and then the sensible the Democratic leaders figure out a way of getting the convention to nominate Alan Dershowitz. We have a minute left. What would you like to say on a Sunday morning? The American people well ice good The constitution one The American people one with the end of impeachment and the glory of our country's elections so think hard about you vote for that's the key President should be voted for or against In the ballot box not in impeachments in the halls of of of Congress I think the House of Representatives disgraced itself. It's partisan though and I take the Senate did the right thing by protecting the constitution and so I'm proud of America. Our system works and Let's keep it working. I winter. She which thank you so much for talking to the American people are Sunday morning. And we'll catch up with you again real soon. Always great being on your show. Thanks pack you. This is the catch. Roundtable will be right back..

Democrats impeachments president Senate CNN United States Democratic Party Senator Schumer President Alan Dershowitz Richard Nixon Washington Iowa senator Pelosi President President John Katzman Kiedis Larry tribe
Deep Background with Noah Feldman

Solvable

08:31 min | 1 year ago

Deep Background with Noah Feldman

"I want you to hear another show from Pushkin that I think you'll like it's called deep background and it's hosted by Harvard Law. Professor Noah Feldman Minute Noah's been interviewing top. Scientists thinkers and authors to understand the stories behind the news. The episode. You're about to hear is a special one. Because because Noah himself was the newsmaker in the hot seat testifying before Congress. I'll let him pick up the story on deep background. This is a show about understanding the news. And if you like you're about to hear I hope you'll subscribe from Pushkin Industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. I'm Noah Feldman joining us for the first time. Welcome if you've missed any of our earlier episodes which used it'd be behind a paywall. You can now get them for free exactly where you found this one a bit about me. I teach constitutional law at Harvard. I love oh well tailored suit and I had a pretty eventful winter break swear or affirm under penalty perjury and the testimony. You're about to give. It is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief to help you got this past December. I was an expert witness called by the Democrats to testify at the impeachment inquiry and the House of Representatives into president. Donald Trump. To be honest with you it was extremely nerve wracking. My job is to study and to teach the constitution solution from its origins until the present. I'm here today to describe three things. Why the framers of our Constitution included a provision for the impeachment agent of the president? What that provision providing for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors means and last how it applies to the question before for you and for the American people whether president trump has committed impeachable offenses under the constitution? The other expert witnesses called by the Democrats were Pamela Carlin. A law professor at Stanford when President Trump invited indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election. He struck at the very heart of what makes makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance and Michael Gerhardt a law professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel. If what we're talking about is not impeachable the nothing impeachable. I recently got the chance to talk to Michael Gerhardt about that day and all that has happened since I was was unfortunately recovering from a slight cold Michael. Thank you so much for joining me. We've spoken on the phone but we actually haven't seen each other. Since December December four th when we both had the opportunity and maybe dubious honor of testifying at the House. Judiciary Committee's hearing on impeachment impeachment. How you been doing since then it's It's been busy Teaching classes and also trying to be part of the national conversation on a very important subject what I would love for us to do in. This conversation is open up for listeners. Some of the the back story in the back scenes of what we experienced that day. How we prepare for it and also sort of bigger picture consequences Of what's been going on. So maybe the way to start is. I had never done this before before so it was a surprise to me but you had done this before. Twenty years previously When they were a group of professors I think twenty one in total? Who testified about Bill Clinton's impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee and not only were you one of them but you are also the only one who is jointly put forward by the Republicans and the Democrats so take us back if you will twenty years and tell us how that happened you know? Nowadays it's almost inconceivable to imagine there being somebody who is acceptable to both sides on twenty years seems longtime ago. It's GonNa the seem even longer when we Put together what was happening back then. It'll seem completely alien to us. So I had spent a fair bit of my academic career studying and writing about impeachment also testifying and consulting with members of Congress that was all known by the time we got to nineteen ninety eight and there was a special moment for me in one thousand nine hundred eight when Jim Leach Republican David Skaggs Democrat called me up on the phone said. Would you come talk to us in Washington generally if members of Congress want to talk to me about something I think. That's a great honor and I went and they said to me. Well what would like you to do after you talk to us right now. Go speak to the entire House of Representatives. The I didn't know that coming into that moment while And they had ring like they want you to speak to the house right. Then yes right then So I thought well wow this is going to be a good test with another another subject matter And so then we walked over to the House and I had to get special permission to walk onto the floor of the house and then behind closed doors with no staff. No press or anything. I then talked to the entire House of Representatives about impeachment spent about two hours doing it at no no cameras fresno nothing knows nothing just nothing is all. Is there a written record of your. Don't think there's a written record. I think it was also amazing. You had a confidential conversation with four hundred and thirty five people hard to say the biggest lecture of my life or one of the big lectures but it was a tried to designed more conversation and it was a very congenial collegial conversation at the end of a Charles candidate Republican. Bobby Scott a democrat. Who happened to be my representative came up to me and said well? If you ever have a hearing on this would you come and I said well sure I'd be honored honored and then that hearing to which you just alluded Happened a few weeks later where I was then. Brought in by both Republicans and Democrats to testify is one of the experts One of the many experts including Alan Dershowitz On the question of Whether or not President Clinton's alleged misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense. And what did you say When I talked about was basically The law of impeachment. I try to kind of lay out the things we knew that that I thought were clear and then kind of talked about some things that were maybe unsettled and said here's what we know about them here. The arguments on both sides and and kind of walked everybody through that and then got questions but there was no personal attack was always very much. You know in this footnote. You said this but now today you're saying that Fair I can try to answer that. Do they actually give you a chance to to answer it. I'd say that has light of our experience. They asked a question and then they actually let you answer it. It's like you know as you said it. Sounds like the Middle Ages. That's right yeah so when we had our hearing there was is no chance to answer it or at least we were giving maybe a second and then that was about it but yes they would then give me a chance to answer it and they they appear to be listening and it was really more of a conversation Than Twenty years later it would be. It's sort of fascinating on many levels but one of the reasons it's so fascinating is that most people at the time identified the impeachment of Bill Clinton that moment as a high point in partisanship the most partisan moment that people can remember the in the United States in more than a century and I think that was actually a fair assessment in historical terms and now twenty years later. It sounds almost like a model of bipartisan and cordiality and collegiality even if they voted along along party lines let me ask you a question Michael so the reason you yourself in that extraordinary position in the Clinton impeachment is it you were and remain the leading expert law professor on the subject of impeachment your guide to the impeachment and processed book you know has come out and I think three additions now why in the world as a young law professor did you get interested in the impeachment as the topic. It was not a hot topic. You know in the late eighties when you must have started diving into it or the middle ladies and you start diving into it. Why did you choose the subject? Well it's a good question I grew up Jewish Alabama in the nineteen sixties. That that that comes with that. That's a big sentence. We're we're in Alabama a mobile on. Okay got it and so I was my entire childhood. aalto was sort of shaped and defined by the Civil Rights Movement at the tail end of that civil rights movement was of course Watergate so like many people of my generation I I watched Watergate. I was kind of thought it was incredible moment to see Congress sort of investigating the president and eventually the President resigned and that that that stuck with me. That was something that I felt. The civil rights movement and Watergate had in common a respect for the rules law. They had in common the idea that law could bring order to chaos and so that was very appealing to me. I had an interest in the law as a

President Trump President Clinton Noah Feldman Congress House Of Representatives Michael Gerhardt Donald Trump Professor Harvard Law Pushkin Industries Alabama Pushkin House Judiciary Committee Civil Rights Movement Perjury Harvard Judiciary Committee Pamela Carlin
Trump Impeachment Trial Winds Down With Closing Arguments

Overnight re-air of day's programming

07:34 min | 1 year ago

Trump Impeachment Trial Winds Down With Closing Arguments

"But we begin with the latest on the Senate impeachment trial and tomorrow's Iowa caucuses the first contest in the race for the democratic nomination the Senate narrowly rejected democratic demands for witnesses but pushed off a final vote to acquit president from till Wednesday the day after he addresses Congress on the state of the union let's bring in Kevin Cork reporting from the president's retreat of Mar a Lago but the latest Calvin Chris just three more days before the White House can finally peers the cloud cover of what they've considered the brazen partisan process the single party impeachment of the president of the United States laughter Monday's closing arguments senators final remarks and then finally Wednesday at four PM the vote on the two articles of impeachment and barring a political earthquake the president's expected acquittal one by the thinnest of definition say defined Democrats still reeling from the Senate's fifty one forty nine vote rejecting demands for additional witnesses if the president is equated with no witnesses no documents acquittal will have no value wedged in between Monday's resumption of activity on the Senate floor and Wednesdays historic vote is the president's state of the union address Tuesday evening theme the great American come back the president is expected to focus on what the White House calls the blue collar economic boom lowering overall healthcare costs and safe legal immigration in a speech sources tell fox news will be both positive and optimistic I tone in sharp contrast perhaps to its we sit overnight by the president shortly after midnight in which she accused Democrats of using the impeachment process as a blazingly political process to damage the GOP and lose their chances Chris in twenty twenty Chris Kaman Cork reporting from Mar a Lago Kevin thank you they are I spoke about the Senate trial with a member of the president's defense team Alan Dershowitz professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the new book guilt by accusations this is George with let's start with the Senate's decision by a vote of fifty one to forty nine not to call witnesses the Republicans have the votes so they won but is there a legal justification a legal reason for not calling evidence when there is substantial new evidence yes as I argued to the Senate if somebody were accused of the crime of abuse of power or dishonesty something it's not a crime what you do is you make a motion to dismiss on the other side has no we want to introduce evidence no no no no you can't is use evidence if there is no legitimate indictment here the articles of impeachment did not charging impeachable offense so the right answer is to dismiss it and cut it off right there no amount of witnesses could have changed that okay but the top Democrats in Congress Nancy Pelosi the house Chuck Schumer in the Senate say that the failure to call witnesses is going to put a taint on any of the weather listen to sure this country is headed towards the greatest cover up since Watergate but he will not be quite as you cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial of course you can be acquitted if you don't have a trial if they don't charge you with illegitimate crime it's the fault of Nancy Pelosi and the others for failing to charge an impeachable offense they're going to say they say he's never going to be truly acquitted because you didn't have witnesses who didn't have new evidence he dismissed it before you even really got to hear what the facts were in a criminal context it would be cool victory a great victory here if they have been charging the fans then maybe he hasn't been acquitted but he also hasn't been charged he's in exactly the same situation you should have been in had they done the right thing and not impeach him at all you've created quite a controversy with something you said in the Senate trial here is which is sad and here's some of the blood does which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest cannot be the kind of that results in impeachment if you can identify something as president that's in your public your political interest and say that's the national interest they're all bets are off is what I don't understand right you have made it clear new and I went out at last week on the question of you say that to be an impeachable offense it's gotta be a crime criminals like behavior of kin to treason and bribery that's what the constitution means when it says treason bribery or other high crimes and get into this question of whether or not the president thanks his re election is in the public interest because you seem to be implying that somehow that gives them an extra level of immunity no no it doesn't I was asked the question by a senator the question was does quid pro quo matter and my answer is it matters is what the president it is illegal or wrong but if the president is something completely waffle the fact that part of his motivation may have been to help his election cannot be the quid pro quo that's what I said I never said I mean and I don't believe that a president can do anything if he thinks it is national interest look I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon he thought that the five crimes he committed our own national interest these folks have totally distorted quite deliberately because they saw that I was having an impact on some of the senators so they deliberately distorted what I said and said even if it's criminal what the president thinks is in the best interest it can't be an impeachable offense nonsense I never said it was three journals as I never said it New York times says I never said it and the fact that Schumer and shifts and CNN say I said it doesn't make it true again I don't even know why intense is an issue and why you got into it as I was but but my point is the activity has what you say is the case if it's criminal or criminal like activity that it can be impeachable if it's not criminal activity it doesn't matter what the motive the example I gave I said there are three levels of motor the sample I gave the president says I'm not giving you money you crane unless you give me a million dollar kick back of course that's criminal and of course he goes to jail Abraham Lincoln said the troops owned Indiana vote for Republicans in the election was that impeachable no matter what it was well it doesn't matter to me but it managed to shift and medicine to the people on the other side they were focusing on motive I was responding to them I didn't put that in my original speech because you're right but I was on the floor to respond to constitutional arguments question and it was wrenched out of context you seem pretty upset about I was very upset about that because it is has has hurt me people think I actually believe the president like Nixon can do anything he wants is exactly the opposite of what I've been teaching arguing in as a civil libertarian believing in the fifty years how dare they deliberately and willfully distort my position and then not give me an opportunity to respond all rights forget impeachment from asking you this and maybe a little agree to do it or not but a thought experiment Alan Dershowitz citizen do you find it troubling problem out at that residence with Lincoln anyway forget is not about I'm not saying it's criminal his support

Iowa Senate President Trump Congress
Impeachment Trial Heads Toward Finish Line After Witness Vote Fails

The Harlow Wealth Retirement Hour

05:28 min | 1 year ago

Impeachment Trial Heads Toward Finish Line After Witness Vote Fails

"All week Democrats pushing for witnesses especially former national security adviser John Bolton who's written a forthcoming memoir The New York Times reporting it says Mr trump told Bolton he was linking military aid for Ukraine with investigations into his political rivals here's ABC news chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl for weeks ago Bolton submitted the manuscript of a book he has written to the White House for a standard review to ensure it does not include any classified information warning to the times Bolton rights president trump told him in August that he wanted to continue with holding military aid to Ukraine Intel officials there launched investigations into trump's rivals including Joe Biden this firsthand account directly contradicts what the president's lawyers argued in defending him during the Senate trial just this weekend there is simply no evidence anywhere the president trump ever links security assistance twenty investigations president trump denied the claims tweeting quote I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats more on the president's response from ABC's Karen Travers at the White House president trump first question why John Bolton didn't raise his complaints about Ukraine while he was in the administration's something former Bolton aides said he did do but now the president is attacking Bolton personally writing on Twitter the Bolton begged him for the position of national security adviser and he appointed him despite quote many saying don't do it Sir the residents slams Bolton for quick mistakes of judgment and said if you took bones advice on foreign policy quote we would be in World War six by now the president's lawyers resting their case in the Senate earlier this week here again A. B. C.'s merry Bruce the trouble legal team closing with a passionate plea and a warning the bar for impeachment can not be said this low danger danger danger these articles must be rejected the constitution requires it justice demands of the president's council J. secular brushed off the explosive allegations from the president's former national security adviser calling them in admissible you cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegations but trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued even if what Bolton alleges is true it's not impeachable nothing in the Bolton revelation which even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power war an impeachable offense that is clear from the history and then another turn the president's former chief of staff John Kelly reportedly now says I believe John Bolton former vice president Joe Biden blasting the president's legal team I find this defense absolutely astounding yeah he did it but it doesn't matter I mean George Washington's rollovers graves for all dressed saying you know the greatest threat to the public to be interfered with by foreign countries senator Kamel Harris of California's summing up the Democrats view here's the deal you cannot have a true acquittal if you've not had a fair

A. B. C. Senator Kamel Harris Vice President Chief Of Staff White House Chief White House Corresponden The New York Times California George Washington John Kelly Alan Dershowitz Bruce Democrats Senate Twitter Karen Travers ABC
"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

11:56 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"False accusations against me regarding the Jeffrey Epstein matter accusations which I have disproved which the former former head of the FBI is disproved wherever a lawyer admitting that she was wrong where emails from her admitting she never met me. But just because there's an accusation out there the decision was made not to use me also because the Republicans are only given one witness if they had been given to and this is probably I would have been used along along with Charlie up Jonah. Throw you to job I would've disagreed with him though he said even though he did a very good job. Defending the president's writes that president it could be impeached for gross abuse of office. And that's just not in the constitution you can't make this stuff up it's Only four criteria for impeachment speech treason. Bribery high crimes and misdemeanors and Abusive Office is not one of them. If you want to amend the constitution to make that a graph from peach but go through the amending process but academics from Harvard and Stanford and other places can't just amend the constitution because they don't like who the president is and and Nancy Pelosi had a news conference today after a couple of days Africa and she gives me them go ahead well. Let's vote for impeachment. Well it's puts Congress of law. Congress is not above the law. They can't just go to impeach. If the constitutional criteria aren't met Alexander Zan. Hamilton would say as he said in the federalist papers. If Congress acts in violation of the constitution their actions are void. Voi- you can't act in violation of the constitution. The constitution's supreme law of the land and the constitution sets out only four criteria for impeachment. We had to amend the Constitution the twenty Fifth Amendment because it didn't include incapacity when somebody has had a stroke or a heart attack is unconscious so the constitution to be amended. Maybe it has to be mended again. I would would not favor of it. But if you want to amend the constitution that's more appropriate than just trying to interpret words like `I crimes and misdemeanors to include anything you want. Want the framers. Rejected things like maladministration or abuse of power. Those were rejected as criteria for impeachment and academics can't put them back back in the constitution. If it goes to the Senate what does Mitch McConnell going to wait. What are your thoughts I think he has various options one if they impeach him on grounds has it or not in the constitution he can say the Senate refuses to go forward on this because the actions of the house avoid They didn't find a constitutional basis. And we're not going the proceed to try a president when he hasn't been charged with an impeachable offense that's one after unlikely that will be pursued. More likely option is that we'll be trial and it will be an acquittal and they put it will be fairly overwhelming remember. You need two thirds to convict Andrew. Johnson was just one vote. Short of being convicted and Bill Clinton was a split. Vote I think my recollection it was fifty fifty. But you need two thirds so it wasn't even a wasn't even close to to conviction so I don't think the president will be removed. Unless you know there's more information more evidence that would come out if it were impeachable offenses look at Richard. Nixon would have been removed had gone to trial trial. That's why he resigned. But on the basis of the current record it would be an abuse of congressional power to impeach on the basis of this record record alone. That'd be that would mean anybody to Congress can get rid of the Supreme Court or compensation getting rid of the president. I mean you one. It's three separate separate bodies. We have three independent branches of government. And that's why the allergies Great Britain is false People talked about framers borrowing the impeachment. I'm from British experience. That's just not correct. Historically the frames didn't WANNA have a British parliamentary type system where the parliament can simply by act of of a vote of Disagreements Get rid of the chief executive. We didn't WANNA parliamentary democracy anymore than we wanted a king. We wanted a republic with a strong wrong president with specific criteria for impeachment. So I think the academics will wrong looking to the British history and selectively quoting from the history and selectively quoting from the federalists tapers from the debates in front of the constitutional convention. I wish I had been there to correct them. I wish they'd been cross examination. That was a big failing at that hearing. Nobody Cross examined. Good lawyer could've taken these academic support and could have pressed them very hard on whether they would say the same thing if Hillary Clinton who says that if she were being impeached if the shoe were on the other foot but there was no cross examination and these folks were just not challenge in their abuse. They can say anything they want Russia. What's the other thing I have heard of is that one of the strategies is he's allowed that are minority of majority leader to keep wall the senators in in for six days and and keep a trial going for a long time? So these senators that are running for president will be a disadvantage well. I hope that isn't done. I don't WanNA see beechman used for partisan purposes it's being used for partisan purposes by the Democrats I don't think the Republicans should retaliate and also use the impeachment process for partisan purposes. There should be a trial. The trial comes before campaigning. And any serious Senator asked to be there for the trial and in fact I think the rules of the Senate require that they be in their seats. They can't even leave except for bathroom. Breaks and stuff There have to be there were other proceedings going on and it's an actual trial and there's a chief justice who presides over the wearing robes and Evidence is has taken and the defendant in the case being the president as the right to call witnesses and to confront his accusers. It will be a real a real trial and and I think the result will be acquittal. Also the the big item that's open Well the the American people just learned in the last few weeks that a congressman or senator could lie to the American people. This staff could lie to the American awesome people while they're on the Senate floor or the congressional floor and that's something that the average American never knew. Well I wrote about Thatta longtime ago when people say the president's above the law no that is the law the president can do certain things like fire The head of the FBI. Yeah I which other people can't do the same thing that Congress is not above the law. There is a provision in the constitution that in the united members of Congress from being criminally prosecutor persecutor or civilly held responsible for most things they do on the floor of the House of the Senate or on the way to and from the House and the Senate the same thing that you've judges judges are immune from criminal or civil prosecution for much of what they do on the bench. So why should it surprise anybody that the president to can't be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while these President United States he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Set A big question. Shouldn is many people believe. That shift has live tremendously. If he's call to the Senate will come and and if he's asked to be put under oath on under oath he'll have to do. I think since he was the chairman of the committee that yet at the evidence he is is a perfectly appropriate witness. And I don't think he can resist a Senate Subpoena He might go to court. That would be ironic. Because they're saying one of the impeachable offenses is that the president insisted on going to court before complying with congressional subpoenas. It'd be interesting to see if a member of Congress refused to comply with a congressional subpoena. I suspect that Adam Schiff testify. I think the whistle bowl testify. It's possible the whistle blower will be shrouded in secrecy winning testify so that his his identity is not revealed. But I can't imagine how he would not have to testify if that's one of the grounds or impeachment under our constitution everybody's entitled to Confront Their Accuser droves but then he lie anymore so it would be a problem for shifts. Well I think The public look will take account of inconsistencies in the Senate will take account consistencies and they will be able to credibility determinations. We've had. We've we've only had two trials in the Senate so there's not a lot of precedent but it'd be interesting recently. I bought a the argosy bookstore in New York great bookstores I bought a ticket to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. I actually owned a ticket admissions which allows me to the balcony to listen to the trial Alexandru Johnson And that was one of the two trials and the other one of course was Bill Clinton and I testified against the impeachment of Bill Clinton in front of the house in this area committee. Now talent you know you have a new book out talent. John Merica by accusation the challenge of Proving Innocence and the age of Metoo. I mean it's really a book for everybody because if I can be falsely accused anybody can be falsely accused. How do you protect yourself? I've lived a life of complete probity. Hey and honestly I tell my students if you WANNA be controversial you have to pay more taxes than you. Oh never flirt. Never touched anybody. I have never flirted touched on anything anything improper sexual fifty years Harvard. Not a single complaint and yet I was falsely accused and then I categorically prove my innocent through the former head of the FBI through emails mails from the person herself many. She never met me her own book manuscript admitting she never and nonetheless and her own lawyer bidding on tape that it would be impossible for me to be and the places. She said she met me and that she was wrong. And yet people still believe at the Ninety Second Street y where I have spoken for twenty five years. I won't allow me to speak defensive Israel at the Ninety Second Street y even though they don't believe the accusations they say they don't want trouble. They don't want controversy controversy so after twenty five years of speaking on behalf of Israel they will not let me defend Israel and talk about my new book defending Israel. The tastes of the story of my relationship with my most challenging client. Shame on the ninety second street Y for engaging in this kind of McCarthyism. There reminds me of what happened when I was a kid in college. And people couldn't speak if they were accused falsely of anything relating to Being Communist me this and I'm being falsely is and that's why I hope people will read the book because it's about not only me. It's about your son your nephew your father your uncle and your sister. Anybody can be falsely accused today. No matter how much evidence you have. You can't disprove it. People think sexual assault so heinous crime that even innocent should not be parents and people have said that to me. If you're accused. You must be guilty. Well it is terrible. What's going on in our country today and let's tells but I'm lameduck? I will stop at nothing to high. That's why I'm fighting that other people who are accused may have something to hide. I have nothing to hide. I agree with hundred percent guilt by accusation. Is the name of the book by Alan Dershowitz. I think everybody should got and you can buy bonds and noble or you could buy the Amazon and And thank you for coming on this morning. Thank you thank you. This is the cats roundtable. We'll be right back..

president Senate Congress FBI Bill Clinton Andrew Johnson Jeffrey Epstein Hillary Clinton Bribery Alexander Zan Senator Nancy Pelosi Harvard President United States Hamilton Jonah Alan Dershowitz Charlie Mitch McConnell
"dershowitz" Discussed on 600 WREC

600 WREC

02:02 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on 600 WREC

"That the GOP is not letting Dershowitz testify all you mean that hard core conservative yeah that conservative legal hack yeah Alan Dershowitz yeah yeah a guy who is first of all voted for Hillary Clinton is obviously known liberal and one of the preeminent legal scholars of our time yeah yes let him that he's a hacking yes but he probably was molesting small children with abstinence heights I get I get to see any evidence other than just an accusation that was seemingly intentionally leaked yes in in a graph from a court document and and he again of course you've heard on the show put possibly he's absolutely defended himself and says he's completely innocent I mean who knows with this stuff obviously we weren't there until the legal document about us we weren't we weren't on the island at any point besides you know it's it or so you would have us believe we have the situation here in this country and maybe Dershowitz would understand this is a legal scholar it's call innocence until you're proven guilty and that kind of was the standard for awhile does not seem to be the standard anymore well wasn't in Salem Massachusetts why should be now that's true I guess the the real old if we were really conserving writings from the past we would go with it all right like this so let's see if the votes that's all we have to wager she was floats high a giant rock come round him throwing me into the river if he floats he's a witch if he doesn't he's fine them we know his innocence what we know is that he's dead but we was innocent yeah name would be cleared you know why he won't submit to that kind of inquire re is beyond me why not you don't want your name cleared anyway this is this is the reason why they're not letting Dershowitz testified this week because they think that the Democrats will just make it all about Jeffrey.

GOP Hillary Clinton Salem Massachusetts Jeffrey Alan Dershowitz
"dershowitz" Discussed on News Radio 810 WGY

News Radio 810 WGY

02:05 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on News Radio 810 WGY

"Boy you have you seen that the GOP is not letting Dershowitz testify all you mean that hard core conservative yeah that conservative legal hack yeah Alan Dershowitz yeah yeah a guy who is first of all voted for Hillary Clinton is obviously known liberal and one of the preeminent legal scholars of our time yeah yes but let him that he's a hack yes but he probably was molesting small children with abstinence heights I get I get to see any evidence other than just an accusation that was seemingly intentionally leaked yes in in a graph from a court document in hand and he again of course you've heard of on the show put possibly he's absolutely defended himself and says he's completely innocent I mean who knows with this stuff obviously we weren't there until they leak a document about us we weren't we weren't on the island at any point besides you know it's it or so you would have us believe we have the situation here in this country and maybe Dershowitz would understand this is a legal scholar it's call innocence until you're proven guilty and that kind of was the standard for awhile does not seem to be the standard anymore well wasn't in Salem Massachusetts why should be now that's true I guess the the real old if we were really conserving things from the past we would go a little right lactis should see if he falls that's that's all we have to wait Dershowitz floats high a giant rock around him and we throw him into the river if he floats he's a witch if he doesn't he's not and then we know his innocence what we know is that he's dead but we I was innocent yeah his name would be cleared you know why he won't submit to that kind of inquire re is beyond me why not you don't want your name cleared anyway this is this is the reason why they're not letting Dershowitz testified this week because they think that the Democrats will just make it all about Jeffrey.

GOP Hillary Clinton Salem Massachusetts Jeffrey Alan Dershowitz
"dershowitz" Discussed on KTOK

KTOK

02:03 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on KTOK

"Boy you have you seen that the GOP is not letting Dershowitz testify all you mean that hard core conservative yeah that conservative legal hack Alan Dershowitz yeah yeah a guy who is first of all voted for Hillary Clinton is obviously do own liberal and one of the preeminent legal scholars of our time yeah yes let him that he's a hacking yes but he probably was molesting small children with abstinence heights I get I get to see any evidence other than just an accusation that was seemingly intentionally leaked yes in in a graph from a court document in hand and he again of course you've heard of on the show put possibly he's absolutely defended himself and says he's completely innocent I mean who knows with this stuff obviously we weren't there until the leak a document about us we weren't we weren't on the island at any point besides you know it's it or so you would have us believe we have the situation here in this country and maybe Dershowitz would understand this is a legal scholar it's call innocence until you're proven guilty and that's kinda was the standard for awhile does not seem to be the standard anymore well wasn't in Salem Massachusetts why should be now that's true I guess the the real old if we were really conserving writings from the past we would go a little right lactis should see if he falls that's all we have to wait there she was floats high a giant rock around him and we throw him into the river if he floats he's a witch if he doesn't he's fine them we know his innocence what we know is in his dad but we always innocence yeah his name would be cleared you know why he won't submit to that kind of inquire re is beyond me why not you don't want your name cleared anyway this this is the reason why they're not letting Dershowitz testified this week because they think that the Democrats will just make it all about Jeffrey.

GOP Dershowitz Hillary Clinton Salem Massachusetts Jeffrey Alan Dershowitz
"dershowitz" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

Newsradio 700 WLW

04:56 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

"Counsel the interview done Alan Dershowitz Durst which as I mentioned in the previous story was one of his defenders Dershowitz says he did not know about the extent of the allegations against empty when he defended him in two thousand eight but he said he would be willing to represent a began to try to get an even better deal he also denied in an interview this past evening on CBS news ID he'd ever seen FD with underage girls no no if I had ever seen at fifteen in any appropriate inappropriate situation with an underage girl I would have immediately terminated my relationship and turned to men at the same time though as a criminal lawyer being shocked by an allegation does not mean I won't defend somebody meanwhile the plea deal the dirt sure which Durst which actually helped to broker in two thousand eight coming under fire now yeah we just broke down know what the deal was it was the deal of a lifetime the deal of the millennium but Dershowitz says that that plea bargain was not a bad deal for the prosecution pretty much the same thing the cost of was saying yesterday they got him to be a registered sex offender to bay vast amounts of money to all the women to get him to plead and go to jail and expose him for the world to see as a sex offender I think the feds thought that was the best they could do now he also denied claims from Virginia Roberts got free who claims she was forced to have sex with him and other prominent apps teen associates the same woman that accused me claims to have had dinner with Bill Clinton and two underage girls on EPS dean's island yet claimed to have met Al Gore and tipper gore yes the secret service records show that all of this is fantasy it's all made up yeah with this is a woman with the long long record of lying for money we're trying to get money so apparently even the owner Dirceu which to some extent is B. B. in room rolled into this like we're hearing yes summer saying that there's gonna be some big names then for some people which I believe more or less on the democratic side some people that you really might no we love them they're gonna find themselves doing the purple walk I kinda wonder how long this sort of a thing takes to totally unfold I will assume the investigation been going on for quite some length of time right yeah you don't go in and make an arrest and charge someone yeah and I hear this from the a very in whether it's a a county attorney your district attorney what a day they have to build a case you can't charge someone or you don't charge someone unless you think you've got a case that you can convict them beyond a reasonable doubt yeah prosecutors have to look at these kind of things on a daily basis well we've got this and we've got this okay that is this enough evidence to convince a jury to convict someone they have to make the call if if you don't have a case you don't charge somebody because you know you're going to lose yeah this especially when you're going after someone that's a millionaire billion or I don't know what the hell at Steve's work these days the June knoll was going to have that money to buy the best legal team they put together a of OJ Simpson's Dream Team right yeah they know they're going to be up against that sort of the scenario so this is really interesting about a before the hour get quick time out back into one.

Alan Dershowitz Durst
"dershowitz" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

05:09 min | 2 years ago

"dershowitz" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"As we continue with Gregg Jarrett, and professor Alan Dershowitz, I, you know, I guess, at this point in professor. Dershowitz, I on this. I don't see how those people I look at this, they had, it's all premeditated to me, if you're warned about the dossier, you purposely hide the where it came from that didn't put a big Hillary Clinton paid for this, and they knew it, and they're acted there testifying in that application that it is verified and corroborated, and it's not, and they do it because of political agenda. And we know the people involved had a political agenda against Donald Trump. In this particular case, you're talking about really an attempted coup in an against the president of the United States or candidate at first, then a president elect, a president am I stating that. No. I think you're also talking about. On the court, and it's so important to emphasize that the FIS a court take its applications, exporting that is this, no appetite system. So the other side, never has a chance to respond. That's why people who file occasions for five warrants have a special obligation special obligation more than they would at a trial more than they would in other proceedings where the other side has a chance to respond to be completely candid completely thorough to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and never did deny the court negative information that might impact on a decision not to grant a warrant. That's what's so important. And why this is such a violation of civil liberties, and why it's important to the attorney general is the general look very, very hard on this and also for the FIS court, so look very, very hard on this and perhaps think about some contemporaries. Greg. I mean how many felonies can we possibly be talking about here? Well fraud on the court conspiracy to defraud deprivation of rights under color of law could be, you know, perjury. I mean, they signed their names to this or the very least, you know making a Fulton misleading statement, it's also -struction of Justice. They're actively interfering in a judicial process by concealing evidence into see judges. So I affi- six felonies in my book, there could be more, but these are very as professor. Dershowitz points out. These are very, very serious violations. It is almost comical, now that James Baker. The former general counsel, the BI is out there, trying to rationalize, what are to me corrupt acts and I don't think anybody's buying it mean especially since Milanese guys can seem to get their stories straight either pointing the finger of blaming each other Komi and Clapper. And brennan. But it you know as I but worse than that you've got then you've got struck in page pointing, right? Loretta Lynch saying she Brig investigation. Yeah. But you're saying nobody's buying this people are buying it. People have taken partisan due of this. And if the goal was to get Trump, then everything, and we don't care. We're not interested in civil liberties or what happened. And so people are buying it. And I think it's very important to keep emphasizing the court must misled, and how they fail to provide all the information necessary for the court to make the kind of decision. It's supposed to make on the next party basis. Greg, what's your response to that? Yeah. Ee, you know, the professors. Right of the mainstream media seems to be buying. What James Baker is peddling. Democrats are certainly buying it. But I don't think that a judge would by the Pfizer court would buy it and, and I don't think an inspector general has bought it tonight think he's probably finished his investing. Gatien and when John Durham reviews, it, I'm completely confident. He ain't gonna buy it. So I think there will be criminal referrals. All right. I wanna thank you, both for being with us professor Dershowitz. Thank you. Greg jarrett. Thank you, Greg units. Stay with us as we continue and talk about the Russian Intel operations expert. We're going to talk with Scott. You'll injure, who's gonna join us next as we continue, and much more straight ahead. So you sit down, and you do your budget, and you look at all your monthly 'cause your bills, your income, and it seems like there's never quite enough, you know, it would help we would really help finding five hundred dollars a month to help balance things out. And that is the typical savings five hundred dollars a month.

Alan Dershowitz professor Greg jarrett Donald Trump James Baker president Gregg Jarrett Pfizer court Hillary Clinton United States Intel John Durham general counsel Loretta Lynch Fulton brennan attorney perjury fraud