23 Burst results for "Professor Dershowitz"
The Charlie Kirk Show
"Get Trump," No Matter the Cost With Alan Dershowitz
"Indicate that this week, Donald Trump will be arrested in New York. No better guests to help us talk about how this is outrageous, then the author of the book get Trump the threat to civil liberties due process and our constitutional rule of law, Alan Dershowitz, New York number one, New York Times Best Seller. Professor Dershowitz, welcome back to the program. Well, you have to admit my timing is pretty good. This book was did you guys did you have an inside source or something at the DA's office and you just timed it up with publication date? No, I just know who the DA is and that he wanted his 15 minutes of fame, but I didn't know when he would indict. You know, ironically, this is the weakest of the four cases that they're investigating against Trump. The weakest politically, the weakest legally, the weakest factually, and yet Bragg wants to be the first out there. Hopefully he's going to think of trying to get money for reelection from George Soros. But in any event, this is one of the weakest cases I've ever seen in my 60 years of practicing law. You know, they work for months and months and months and months and went through every statute and they produced a mouse called Mickey. This is a Mickey Mouse case.
Dennis Prager Podcasts
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on Dennis Prager Podcasts
"So I have had three big dialogs with the famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Oh, yes, Harvard Law professor. That's right. He's a Harvard Law professor exactly and he is a lifelong liberal lifelong Democrat. He's not a leftist. And he's very courageous and he's lost all his friends because he's not a leftist. He's a liberals who are true to liberalism are anti left. That's the way it works. But anyway, so we dialog in New York City in Miami and in LA. The first one was in New York City. This is at least 20 years ago. And it was about, should you be liberal or conservative? And the issue arose about belief in the Torah, the central book of Judaism and of Christianity for that matter. And that's the first 5 books of the Bible. So at some point, I said, ladies and gentlemen, I just realized the biggest difference between Alan Dershowitz and myself. When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he thinks he's right. Right. And a tour is wrong. And when I differ with the tour, this is you speaking, I think I'm wrong in the tours, right? Yes. You said that in your commentary. In which commentary. And your genesis commentary. Oh, oh, did I? Yeah, you quoted that. I thought that was great. So did I write in the commentary what his reaction was? He said that's absolutely right. Yeah, so the first type that I did is that I agree. I highlighted that, I mean, of course I highlight everything. I'm sorry, it's a compliment, but it's true. I highlight everything in that commentary. But I really appreciated that because I identify with that so much. I feel the same way when it comes to religion or to my elders, people who are older than I am, of course, I don't just blindly follow my parents, but I am happier knowing that I am not as wise as the
Dennis Prager Podcasts
There Is No Such Thing as Your Truth
"So I have had three big dialogs with the famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Oh, yes, Harvard Law professor. That's right. He's a Harvard Law professor exactly and he is a lifelong liberal lifelong Democrat. He's not a leftist. And he's very courageous and he's lost all his friends because he's not a leftist. He's a liberals who are true to liberalism are anti left. That's the way it works. But anyway, so we dialog in New York City in Miami and in LA. The first one was in New York City. This is at least 20 years ago. And it was about, should you be liberal or conservative? And the issue arose about belief in the Torah, the central book of Judaism and of Christianity for that matter. And that's the first 5 books of the Bible. So at some point, I said, ladies and gentlemen, I just realized the biggest difference between Alan Dershowitz and myself. When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he thinks he's right. Right. And a tour is wrong. And when I differ with the tour, this is you speaking, I think I'm wrong in the tours, right? Yes. You said that in your commentary. In which commentary. And your genesis commentary. Oh, oh, did I? Yeah, you quoted that. I thought that was great. So did I write in the commentary what his reaction was? He said that's absolutely right. Yeah, so the first type that I did is that I agree. I highlighted that, I mean, of course I highlight everything. I'm sorry, it's a compliment, but it's true. I highlight everything in that commentary. But I really appreciated that because I identify with that so much. I feel the same way when it comes to religion or to my elders, people who are older than I am, of course, I don't just blindly follow my parents, but I am happier knowing that I am not as wise as the
Mike Gallagher Podcast
Alan Dershowitz: The Jan. 6 Committee Is Not a Fair Committee
"Check out Alan Dershowitz, the famed law professor talking about the real impact of the January 6th select committee. Here he was yesterday with newsmax's Greta van susteren. Well, it's not a fair committee, obviously. It's like the Boston Celtics going to play the warriors and the NBA says only the Celtics can go on the field, not the warriors. One team on the field, not the other team. Nobody should pay attention to the conclusions of this kangaroo committee. Of course a committee can make a recommendation. So can you make the recommendation to Congress, but to the Justice Department, the adjustment won't follow it. President committed no crimes. His speech was constitutionally protected. Ill advised to be sure. But constitutionally protected. I put it in the same category as Chuck Schumer's speech, both ill advised, both constitutionally protected. You know, that's an interesting takeaway from professor Dershowitz. Chuck Schumer arguably incited a would be assassin to show up at Brett Kavanaugh's doorstep.
WGN Radio
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on WGN Radio
"Comes Donald And he spins boom around and then throw the throw it away The round celebrating on the new side It goes to LA Donald had two sacks on the night as LA's defense sacked borough a Super Bowl record tying 7 times 6 of them in the second half For the rams it was their first Super Bowl title since 1999 and the first football championship for the city of Los Angeles since 1951 I'm John stoll this No there you go It was a pretty good game It was enjoyable to watch I thought and again the commercials didn't do much for me and a halftime show was so so in my view but I'm happy to hear your thoughts as well at one 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo when 866-505-4626 is suffice it to say that the game really was good Wants to talk about of course it will get to some of the more serious stuff in a moment but I just wanted to unburden myself of a few things About the less serious side of things Gil calls in from Manila the Philippines hello gill Yes Hello Jimbo Listen to the game on the radio It was fun An early morning and a morning thing for you Yes It was our starting around breakfast time For sure For several hours And I had my avocado guacamole and my tostitos from Frito lay Very good Well anyhow What I want to say is the bingo didn't really lose because the rams didn't cover the point spread So I Actually won That's true Then that's a big thing sports betting has never been bigger so I hear you go ahead Okay Well someday I'll tell you how I walked away from a betting addiction that I had but anyhow first of all I want to be the second person to wish you happy Valentine's Day Oh well thank you Your last guest beat me to it And I wanted to comment on something that she said And I have something else I think that the big problem with people spending time online of course there's a problem with kids But I think the big problem is adults It makes it so easy for people who are in committed so called committed relationships marriage Whatever and to find somebody else on the slide And that's happening a lot from what I understand When I first got married here we've been together 8 years my wife found inappropriate text that a former woman I knew or sent me and she took care of that by taking the sim card out of my phone and flushing it down the toilet That's a direct approach Yeah She can be very forceful when she when she needs to be And she doesn't understand maybe I'm addicted because every day from ten to one I'm got two show on And I wish and I don't always call but I feel comfortable doing so But there's so much so that one day she made the comments that I for you more than I love her and I think that's not true That's not true I love you both the same That wasn't that wasn't the correct answer No that was not the correct answer though I'm sorry I've had that joke in my pocket for you for a while I thought Valentine's Day was a good time to tell Oh perfect Yeah the timing was even better than the actual statement I trust you've done something nice like flowers or chocolates or something to smooth that over Oh yes When we have disagreements flowers here are very easy to get and I have to rate the disagreements by a 6 rows disagreement a 12 rows disagreement and a two dozen rows confrontation If you understand what I'm saying I do understand that And if you go past two dozen roses the next level is see the jewelry chart My wife well that's a problem I don't have because my wife is Sevent-day Adventist and they don't wear jewelry No earrings or wedding rings or anything like that We often chat with professor Dershowitz and will sometimes talk about things Hebrew Here in the Philippines the adventists keep to the traditions of orthodoxy in Hebrew tradition No pork products You can't travel on the weekend on Saturday on the Sabbath just a lot of things you can't do on the savage And I found out I didn't find this out until recently but many of the adventists here refer to themselves as Jewish because of the life choices that they make in show and so they're faith So you might find that interesting I do find that quite interesting as a matter of fact All right sir I appreciate your thoughts Thank you for the Valentine's Day wishing to more calls to come at the one 8 6 6 5 O Jimbo one 8 6 6 5 O 5 four 6 two 6 will be back in just a moment.
The Charlie Kirk Show
Lawyer Alan Dershowitz on the Rittenhouse Prosecutors' Violation of the Constitution
"Right now, the jury is deliberating or there arguing over many different kind of technical aspects or issues of evidence being provided. You know, professor Dershowitz, you are the expert on this. Have you ever seen a prosecution act like this prosecution did, especially in regards to potentially challenging the Fifth Amendment rights of Kyle, the defendant? Do you think that was an intentional tactic to try to trigger a mistrial? What's your take on that with all of your experience? Tragically I've seen this happen over and over again, prosecutors constantly violate the constitution and judges let them get away with it. Discharge has been criticized, because he hasn't let them get away with it. If the shoe were on the other foot, if this were a black lives protester who had killed and was being charged and was claiming self defense, the hard left media would be taking exactly the opposite. You know, it'd be praising the judge et cetera. So this is clearly a violation of the constitution, what the prosecution did. And I said, from day one, because this case is going badly for the prosecution. They may win. I can't predict the outcome of the case. But because they thought the case was going badly, they may have deliberately tried to get a mistrial without prejudice so that they could start all over again and do a better job. The same thing happened in the O. J. Simpson case. When the O. J. Simpson case wasn't going well, the prosecution tried to get rid of jurors. And go below them 12 numbers in order to do it again. I actually argued that aspect of the case went to LA and prevented them from doing that, but prosecutors will do that from time to time.
The Charlie Kirk Show
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"With us right now, is Alan Dershowitz who I don't think needs no introduction and does a great job on a variety of different topics and we've had Allen on the show before. Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining the program. My question is what's your take on the Kyle rittenhouse drama and kind of I read an article that said, you believe he should be acquitted, please, the floor is yours. Well, not only do I think he should be acquitted, but I don't think he got a fair trial, whether he's acquitted or convicted. The media has put not a thumb on the scale, but an elbow on the scale. They have told everybody, particularly CNN, New Yorker magazine, MSNBC, they've already told the public, this guy is a white supremacist, a vigilante. He's no good. This will send a terrible, terrible message and a precedent. They have basically tried to take the self defense issue away from the jury and broaden the crime into him being there at all. He never should have been there, you never should have had a gun. He never should have confronted any of these other people. But that's not what he's charged with. He's charged with murdering two people and attempting to murder another. His defense is self defense. And the issue should be limited to the minutes leading up to the shootings and the moments after the shootings. And he should not be put on trial for his activities that whole day, whether we like or don't like what he did that whole day and I don't like it. I wish he hadn't commented, which he hadn't brought his gun. But that's not what he's on trial for. And so the jury has been distracted, I think, from the focus by the prosecution's case, and by the outside influences of the
The Charlie Kirk Show
Analyzing the New 'Trial of the Century' With Alan Dershowitz
"With us right now, is Alan Dershowitz who I don't think needs no introduction and does a great job on a variety of different topics and we've had Allen on the show before. Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining the program. My question is what's your take on the Kyle rittenhouse drama and kind of I read an article that said, you believe he should be acquitted, please, the floor is yours. Well, not only do I think he should be acquitted, but I don't think he got a fair trial, whether he's acquitted or convicted. The media has put not a thumb on the scale, but an elbow on the scale. They have told everybody, particularly CNN, New Yorker magazine, MSNBC, they've already told the public, this guy is a white supremacist, a vigilante. He's no good. This will send a terrible, terrible message and a precedent. They have basically tried to take the self defense issue away from the jury and broaden the crime into him being there at all. He never should have been there, you never should have had a gun. He never should have confronted any of these other people. But that's not what he's charged with. He's charged with murdering two people and attempting to murder another. His defense is self defense. And the issue should be limited to the minutes leading up to the shootings and the moments after the shootings. And he should not be put on trial for his activities that whole day, whether we like or don't like what he did that whole day and I don't like it. I wish he hadn't commented, which he hadn't brought his gun. But that's not what he's on trial for. And so the jury has been distracted, I think, from the focus by the prosecution's case, and by the outside influences of the
The Eric Metaxas Show
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
Newsradio 600 KOGO
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO
"Not testifying on Jack. Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation for the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to her requests for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House likes is Jared Helper and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram angle. The president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Ah budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof. Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor grain of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan..
77WABC Radio
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"I'm Jack Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation from the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to her requests for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House looks is Jared Helper and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram angle. The president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Ah budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof. Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan. Is becoming the party. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Okla. America is listening to Fox News. In the Fox News Podcasts Network..
KTOK
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on KTOK
"From Oko Tank 10. I'm not testifying on Jack. Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation for the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to our request for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference in the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House socks is Jared Helper and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram angle. The president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Ah budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof. Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party.
News Radio 920 AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on News Radio 920 AM
"I'm not testifying on Jack Kelehan. Fox News former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation for the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to her requests for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House locks is Jared Helper and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram Angle, the president's former president is making the right move. He doesn't believe that the Senate has jurisdiction over four The 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor grain of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan. Becoming the party. Marjorie tell a green Okla..
KNST AM 790
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on KNST AM 790
"I'm Jack Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation from the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to our request for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House locks is Jared Helper and lead House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram Angle, the president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan..
WJR 760
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on WJR 760
"The deluge Jr were Detroit comes to talk. I'm not testifying on Jack. Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation for the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to our request for testimony from House impeachment managers, arguing there is no such thing as a negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys. Disputed allegations made by the House likes Jared Helper and leave House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram Angle, the president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference. Professor Dershowitz says he agrees the proceeding is some constitutional As the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Ah budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof. Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan. Becoming the party. Marjorie tell.
WMAL 630AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"A Cumulus station news now not testifying on Jack. Hello hand Fox news. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation for the houses. Impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week, Trump's legal team responded to our request for testimony from House impeachment managers arguing there is nose Such thing is that negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial. After a filing from the former president's attorneys disputed allegations made by the House. Lots of Jared Helper and leave the House impeachment manager. Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram Angle, the president's former president is making the right move. He doesn't believe that the Senate has jurisdiction over a form of president. He's right about that. He believes they have no jurisdiction over a constitutionally protected speech, and he's right about that. He's right not to testify. You can't throw any kind of negative effects. Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution declaring upcoming coronavirus relief package. Ah budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof. Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP. The party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan is becoming the party of Marjorie. Tell a green Okla. America is listening to Fox News..
KSFO-AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Or Google to play Ks up, not testifying on Jack Hello hand. Fox News. Former President Trump sending his regrets to an invitation from the House impeachment managers. Former President Trump will not testify during his impeachment trial in the Senate next week. Trump's legal team responded to our request for testimony from House impeachment managers arguing there is no such thing is that negative inference and the unconstitutional proceeding. Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager for House Democrats, invited Trump to testify before or during the trial after a filing from the former president's attorneys, disputed allegations made by the House likes of Jared Helper and leave House impeachment manager Congressman Jamie Raskin says the failure to testify will be held against the former president. Harvard law professor Americus. Alan Dershowitz tells Fox is the Ingram Angle, the president's former president is making the right move. 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. You can't throw any kind of negative inference, Professor Dershowitz says he agrees The proceeding is some constitutional as the calendar flips to Friday in Washington, the Senate is still at its considering a resolution to declare an upcoming coronavirus relief package. Budget reconciliation bill that would make it filibuster proof Republicans attempting to load up the resolution with amendments to force Democrats into uncomfortable votes on the minimum wage, immigration and reopening schools, Among other things. The House voting yesterday to strip Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor green of her committee assignments over old social media postings on conspiracy theories. Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern. Lasted the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan. Becoming the party. Marjorie tell.
600 WREC
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on 600 WREC
"That's Lifelock dot com or 804 40 48 33 Andy in Clarksville, Indiana. Glad you waited, Sir. You're next. Hello. Great to have you here. Hello, Russia. I love your show, and I've been listening to it for years and Just pray and In my my heavenly father and Jesus Christ and you be healed this second And my question is Is One of these governors in the Democratic state able to walk around Trump's executive orders and No, I don't understand why the Republicans states a great point, a grateful I mentioned this. I think it was the week before Last I'm going to Andy. I'm so glad you reminded me of this. The point I made wise whenever Trump Try to do anything. Be an executive order. What happened? Democrats found some lackey judge In Washington state or in Hawaii. To issue an injunction. Preventing Trump's executive order from going into effect so Trump would rewrite it based on the judge's objections and resubmitted, and I asked the question last week. How long will it be before the Republicans do the same thing? How long before the Republicans go find a judge anywhere? To grant an injunction against any of Biden's executive actions or executive orders. And guess what? And he hasn't happened, has it? No, it has it. But the thing is, is the Republicans need to gross. Imagine, Remember that we are one republic One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for rolling and I think Americans forgot that. Well, we all e. Well, uh, I don't know. I'm sure Many of them think that this is this is a matter of pure politics. This is Illustrate they don't want to go to the trouble. It may be a lot of it may be a hassle to go out and try to find a friendly judge. And then ask the judge for an injunction against the Biden executive order. I'll guarantee you Well, I'll get us close to guarantee you as I can. That the Republicans don't want the hassle of the media rip him to shreds for doing it because I guarantee you Again. If the Republicans did this, the media would cream um Now back. When the Democrats went out to find friendly judges. To invoke injunctions against the Trump executive orders the media praised the judges praised the Democrats made them out to be great heroes. Republicans know that if they try the same thing, the media is gonna rip him to shreds and they just don't want to have to deal with it. So that is I'm so glad that you're reminded me because this is another great illustration of how They use power, even when they don't have it. They were doing this in 2017 after There. You lost the 2016 election. I do believe that Um In Texas. I do believe a judge in Texas put a temporary stay on Biden's executive order ending deportations. And I think I think that's Greg Abbott. The governor. I just have the story in the stack here. Uh, a Yeah, I put it the back of the second. It was the age it was agent. Okay, packs in the A G Did it? I'm not surprising it's happening in Texas. But it I'm glad that it happened. I'm glad you reminded me of that. I've seen that in the stack and I had forgotten it, but still The Democrats did it with every Trump executive action every trump executive order so we'll see Andy, Thanks for the call, and I really appreciate your Your prayers. Everybody's prayers more than you know. Ladies and gentlemen, I have something I want to get into here before the hour ends, and therefore the program ends. There is, as you well know, there is growing evidence. That the capital assault on January 6th. Was planned. It was something that Was in the works long before Trump made a speech that day. And the point is That the evidence that the capital assault the protests were going to call it was planned weakens. The incitement case against Trump, which weakens the impeachment. It undermines these claims that rioters were responding spontaneously. To Trump's speech that was never true. It was never the case. Trump did not encourage any of the behavior that happened. He didn't ask anybody to do anything that those people did. The Democrats didn't care. They knew this. They know the timeline doesn't work, but they were going toe. We're gonna bull rush this and stampede this thing and make sure that they could impeach him so he couldn't run again ever. The short version of this is At the FBI. Is going to bail the Democrats out on this impeachment. This impeachment may not actually happen. As Professor Dershowitz s. O. The professor Dershowitz said if Trump didn't know about The attack on the Capitol if they planned it without him. Then you're missing the causal relationship. It would have happened without his speeches. Well, So that would be relevant on the issue of causation, and they're not going to be able to link Trump to this. And his lawyers are gonna make sure that this is known. For the Trump speech to Meech to meet The threshold of incitement. A speaker like Trump. Must first indicate a desire for violence. And second, the speaker must demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence. This, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and former principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. In Trump's case. Said Kevin Brock. There were neither. So the FBI Is asserting itself here and basically telling the Democrats you don't have causation. For Trump's speech. To meet the threshold of incitement. Trump must indicate a desire for violence. He did the exact opposite. Trump asked people to go do what they were gonna do peacefully. And then to go home. Second The speaker. I eat, Trump must demonstrate a capability. Or indication of capability to carry out by what he did None of this and so the spokesman for the FBI Former assistant director of intelligence. Deputy director, National counterterrorism Center Kevin practicing Trump. Did neither. So this is the FBI signaling the Pelosi And Schumer that you don't You don't have causation here. You can't link Trump to the violence because it was planned. It was planned long before Trump made his speech. It began while Trump still was speaking. And we know that many of the people involved were antifa. And other saboteur is trying to make themselves look like maggot people when they weren't So just keep a sharp eye on this. Um, they don't have the votes to convict anyway. It doesn't mean Pelosi again. Don't give up, but it's going to get More difficult and problematic for them, which is always Woz. The center.
860AM The Answer
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"My 400 affiliates. I'm pleased to welcome back Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Like having on Senator Palmer. We can agree on things. And I want to thank him for offering is his motion yesterday to dismiss the article of Impeachment is Improvidently delivered an unconstitutional that a fair description Senator Paul of what you attempted to do yesterday. Exactly. Here. The thing is, is that to impeach former presidents means that we could impeach Any private citizen really? And our founding fathers didn't want that. I mean, the British would do that to former officeholders in Latin America. They still do that. Every president of Guatemala is elected and fanfare and then goes to jail when he leaves. You know if that's the kind of thing that happens in a in a third World country, but we don't want that to happen in our country. And so I think it was important to put people on record. The other reason I did the vote Woz. This basically essentially by the vote yesterday, says that the impeachment trial is dead on arrival and that it's going to be a partisan thing with the Democrats can have fun with their you know, Eric Swalwell and all his, you know, famous Spider. Um He will be all they'll be able to make critical points, but basically the actual Idea that this is a real impeachment is over. Now. I want to read some headlines, Senator Paul just so people understand the Financial times. Nearly all Republicans back Trump in early impeachment tests. United Kingdom's Telegraph Democrats hope of convicting Trump Fayed is only five Republican senators back holding a Senate trial. The Times of Israel. Republican senators mostly vote against holding Trump impeachment trial The Wall Street Journal. Most Republican senators reject constitutionality of trump impeachment It goes on and on. I think 45 is now the ceiling. For, um are actually the floor for votes against it. They might, you might gain some of the five Republicans who actually voted to proceed by virtue of the due process, arguments and lack of of evidence. Does everyone generally agree that this thing is a sham now? I think so. But there's another question that really some people have bought into that. I think needs to be discussed and needs to be discarded, and that's the idea of incitement to violence, the president said. March peacefully and patriotic Lee. He said, Go fight for your country. Well, I defy anybody. I asked yesterday any Democrat to stand up and say they've never used the worst fight. Figuratively and a political speech. Every politician of Republican or Democrat or any stripe uses those kind of words all of the time figuratively, But I also pointed out that Democrat. Words have been very specific and insightful. The most alarming was probably when the gunman shot 45 of us is a baseball practice, nearly killing Steve Scalise and said This is for health care. What the Democrats were saying at the time. That was insightful. They were saying, Oh, the Republican plan for health care is you get sick, and then you die. Can you imagine if you had a child with leukemia that was dying or died at that time, and you think? Oh, my goodness. The Republicans killed my son. And they they want my son to die so you could see how that could be insightful. But you know what? Not one Republican called for the impeachment of Bernie Sanders because we didn't think that was fair. In fact, I downplayed This guy was a Bernie Sanders supporter. But now you've got all these Democrats saying that they think the president should go to jail for inciting an armed direction when he said March peacefully and patriotic Lee to the capital. I've been teaching double standard. I've been teaching Brandenburg vs Ohio for 25 years and you must have the president, tension and capability of causing a riot. I do not believe they will find evidence for that. But even if they do, there's a due process Argument Senator which is the House did not produce evidence and simply passed a resolution and and previously impeachment trials have been limited to the record assembled in the house, which the president did not have a chance to contribute to This is this is a miscarriage of justice on every level that we Americans understand. Professor Charlie came and spoke to is it launch yesterday and he's a constitutional expert as well. And he said basically that this doesn't pass the smell test with Brandenburg that no jury in the country or no judge would countenance this argument in a real court of law that there's not a chance in hell that this could actually be proven in court. And so they really, But the thing is, is the left wing media repeated so often that now it is the absolute truth. And if you question that you probably should be D platforms if you say that he did not incite a violent insurrection at the Capitol. If you believe that reason say that you probably should go to a camp somewhere to be deprogrammed. That's that's how bad it's getting. This group think that there is only one truth and if you don't agree to it anymore, you're not going to be allowed to speak. Now, Senator, I want to read to you a tweet from my friend Jonah Goldberg, who is not a member of the left. You very thoughtful, very smart, conservative or liberal fascism, for example, and many other fine books, But he wrote in response to my argument that it was unconstitutional. Hugh. If it were a secret vote, a majority of the House and Senate GOP would vote to impeach him Remove they aren't taking this position out of fidelity to the Constitution. I doubt even Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul believe what they're saying. Your response, Senator. You know, I think that's completely untrue. Look, I voted against de certifying the electors. I believe that I'm a consistent believer in states right that I do think state decide the elections and send the electors. I think there was fraud, and I think some of the states could've done a better job. But I wasn't to get four of Congress overturning this with regard to criticizing him for this. Do I think that he should have called on the vice president overturn it? No, I think that's a ludicrous thing to do. I think these were inappropriate political things that disagree with the policy of willing to call him out, and I think that's where it goes. But I'm not willing to say that a political speech that you're responsible for a bunch of nuts that showed up in a riot. And and created a riot. If we do that, every politician in the land would be responsible for a lot of crazy. People show up it right to know I do absolutely. Look at this on the constitutional basis. I think it's a bad idea. To impeach a former president or a private citizens. And I think when the Constitution said that you And removed from office and disqualify. I think there would, Alan Dershowitz has said on this is correct. If talking about both is talking about removing from office and disqualifying, it's not talking about removing from office or disqualifying. If you're not in office, Impeachment isn't appropriate in this whole thing is a farce. I do. I do believe that Judge Lady has made the conclusive argument supported by Professor Dershowitz. I understand that there are others, including conservatives like Seema Calabrese at Northwestern who disagree with us, But I am nevertheless, Con's convinced on the plane reading of the Constitution. It is not constitutional center. I want to ask you about your exchange with George Stephanopoulos. I like George have been on his show. I do not believe he understood the point you were making, which is he had moved from being a journalist to being an advocate. I am now of the opinion that almost all American media has divided into left or right. Some of us are transparent about it. I'm a center right conservative. Many deny that what do you think is the situation of American media today as illustrated by your exchange with George Stephanopoulos Sunday You know, I think it's gotten so much worse, and I think it's a reaction to Trump. I don't think it's Trump's fault that the media got To the point where they can't hear two sides to an argument anymore, And they inject themselves into the debate and a journalist. You know if you're an opinion at her or talk show host like yourself, you don't have to say. I'm completely neutral. You have a point of view. He's trying to be a journalist and run a Sunday news program. He's not supposed to be an opinion editor. I don't think and so he should try to hear from both sides and be more neutral with it. We've got a lot worse. Yeah, I used to go on MSNBC. I used to go on CNN. I was one..
KLBJ 590AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM
"Means. That's just Another step. That the left is taking and trying to control people. I mentioned earlier that the Democrats are going to have to hurry if they want this impeachment article Trumps the mean anything. Here's Professor Dershowitz this morning. Newsmax. TV National report Question Mitch McConnell said that he would not rush the trial in the Senate before the president leaves office. It would have been after Biden is inaugurated. This might sound like kind of odd question, Professor. But when Trump is no longer president, can he still be impeached? Categorically? No. The Congress only has authority over sitting president. The Constitution says that impeachment is to see if the president shall be removed. If the president can't be removed. Congress has no jurisdiction if they could do that they could impeach you in May. I'm over 35. I can run for president. So can they hold me in front of the Senate impeachment and say Now, Dershowitz, you could no longer run for President. Can they now impeach Barack Obama and they now impeach Bill Clinton. It's absurd. Well, that's what they're trying to say they can do, But that's why I said they're gonna have to hurry. Because Dershowitz is right here. You can't impeach Look at the Constitution. The whole impeachment section does not talk about X President. Former president, They can't do it. That's why I say Pelosi had better hurry. But here's the turtle cocaine. Mitch says that there isn't gonna be a trial before Biden is inaugurated, which means that all this is nothing but academics. Yeah, That's true. Governor Qiu Ball Governor lightweight know that the cities New York, Chicago, Seattle, Portland probably going to be bailed out. By the Democrat Congress. Biden's proposal. Listen, What is it? $2 trillion In new spending. The vast majority of that goes to bailing out Democrats. It is you knew this was gonna happen. Which is why Biden can't even agree that with $2000 check Only $1400 because they've got to have the money, which we don't have any way to bail out the cities. Never mind. Biden promised $2000 throughout his campaign. $2000 to every American now stands at 1400. Because they've got to bail out these Democrats. Cities were very loyal and did everything they were asked to do in terms of damaging, harming destroying Donald Trump. Be right back. This is the Rush Limbaugh radio program where I never get tired of being right on the EI. Be network. I'm Stephen Investor Insights with steeple Chief investment Officer Michael O'Keefe. Michael Markets lately seemed to be struggling to find their footing between positive and negative. Yesterday, most indexes open in positive territory than ended the day down modestly. The Dow Jones industrial average was down 0.2%. Have the S and P 500 fell. 5000.4% and the NASDAQ declined 0.1%. But the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies, stocks rose over 2%. We do have big news on a big fiscal stimulus package proposed by the incoming administration. Indeed, President elect Biden laid out a proposal totally $1.9 trillion, which includes a direct payment of $1400.2 individuals and an extra $400 a week in unemployment payments. The package also includes $350 billion to state and local governments. $50 billion for covert testing. And support for a national vaccine program. Some Republicans must agree for the legislation to pass so we're back to negotiation and likely lower package as people..
WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"But there are still um, rights constitutional rights that he, even as the president of the United States maintains, and I think that's what Professor Dershowitz we'll argue later on when we have him on the program later this later this evening. It is it becomes, I think dangerous. Let me ask you should've. We barred Hillary Clinton from ever running for office when she said Donald Trump's election was illegitimate. He's an illegitimate president from You know, from literally the moments after the election of 2016 get you get into some areas there which is very, very You don't practice? Probably. I think you know, practically. I think. Yes, of course. You couldn't impeach Hillary Clinton, Um, in the way that you compete with your bar. Could you borrow him? Could you borrow her for running a farm office? You know, file a piece of legislation as a presidential candidate. She didn't You know, I just thank you. You're getting into some areas here. That Nick that may sound good. I think I think the problem of Trump is going toe resolve itself. Do you think that Trump Has any possibility. To run again in the Republican Party. I really don't know. I'm less optimistic in terms of his, uh, lasting legacy in the party that I was, you know, we could go. But I you know, talking to people just anecdotally. He looms over this party like nobody else has in this party in the Republican Party's history. And before I hang up, I just have one question for you. Can we agree that the people the senators, the house of the members of Congress that supported this deluded or just outright cynical attempt? Um, to either boost themselves or actually overturn the results of the election should be primary. Well, I think that's up to the to the various states and in the sense that I thought you were going to ask a different question. I thought you're gonna ask a question whether or not they should be. You know, they're calling for resignations and all this, by the way. They were impractical as well. There was no way I mean, this has been attempted before it was attempted. In 2000. They were members of the house who objected. And what did electoral votes to be discounted? You know that you're enough of a student history to know that 2000 and 2016 to 2016? Absolutely on. Also in 20, or four there was objections to what happened in Ohio. Now, most of us Would not remember that vividly as we will vividly remember this because obviously it was done differently, But the same percentage was used by the sitting president of the United States. Then is the difference. Nobody that's a huge difference. Absolutely. It's a huge difference, but, um, I do do I think That that is that it's up to the Republicans in Missouri or in Texas to primary Ted Cruz or Holly or whomever That's the decision of the people in the In those various states make its assed. Far as I'm concerned they were. I think this is a time where the party needs to reassert itself is the institution and sort of overrule the base that it's got a little bit. But this Russian look, I'll tell you, I would just say this in 1964 and again in 1972 people predicted the end of the Republican Party after Goldwater and then Nixon and Watergate in 1974. On after McGovern in 72. People said, Hey, the Democrats are gone. They're gone. They never have elected president again. Four years later elected Jimmy Carter. Oftentimes the demise of these parties are somewhat overstated. Um and I think we need to political parties in this country or Or will become a country that will be ruled by simply one party. Just like we have one party rule in Massachusetts. See how it's worked here. Not you. Well, um Yeah. Dan, Thanks for the time. I really appreciate you and Nick Doctor soon. Great. Called 617254. 10. 30 Triple 8929 10 30 coming right back or night side. It's night side with Dan Rare.
KSFO-AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"We'll get to your calls next half hour. 809 41 Shawn is our number. Maria. Bartiromo's with US. She host the morning show on the Fox Business Network, and also Sunday futures hit show on the Fox News Channel. What do you make of here? We are nine days left in the trump presidency articles of impeachment that the Democrats would be putting forward. I don't even think they have the time to do it, trying to invoke the 25th amendment, etcetera, etcetera. Where do you think this goes? And what do you think the endgame is here? Well, I think that because Pelosi wants to impeach President Trump so that she could ensure he doesn't run again. You know, I think that right now it's pretty clear that there's no way to have an impeachment trial because there's no time and you know Alan Dershowitz resolved with me on Sunday and said, Look, the first opportunity to even take this file would be one o'clock on January 20th an hour. Joe Biden is inaugurated. So I ask you Is this what Joe Biden wants to do with his time in his kick off to his new presidency? This will be very selling. By the way. Let's see how the talk is generated in the Senate on day one of Joe Biden's new presidency really be impeaching President Trump. Or Will it be trying to move the needle on his agenda and beginning the work of the American people? I don't know, but you know there is a clause The parent played that if you were to get impeached when you can't run again, I mean that some people believe yes, by the way, and Jonathan Turley has been very clear on this, too. And Professor Dershowitz also saying that you can impeach somebody after they get out of office, which is others have proposed that idea. Um, Ondo again, It would be for the very reason that you are saying, you know, when you think back, um, I've gone back and I've looked at the president's speech on January, 6 was some of it hot intern. Was of Yeah, the president wanted to support the effort for a 10 Day. Ah, official look into the issues that he and his supporters have been raising the whole time. That's really all the provisions Woz, the Ted Cruz and Josh Hollywood pushing, and but he actually used the word peaceful protesters Peaceful Patriots, he said those words in the speech, But yet everyone's claiming he said he's was inciting people to violence. How did they get from that? Point to this? You know what? What? What? Struck me is unfortunately, many people have been used to seeing some of these scenes, and we've been watching these sheets all year. You had a very good montage on the show the other night, which I was glued to Hannity when I was watching you on Fox News the other night where we saw the pictures of the chop zone in Seattle, where we saw the pictures of the military cocktails thrown blown up. It's cops faces and bricks be thrown in people's windows smoking. This is windows, forcing them to board up and there was not a peep out of any of these people about any of this. Look, Obviously it was a heinous situation. It should never have happened. It was just dreadful. What those people did Do I know who was in those crabs? No, I'm sure it was out of it. Soup of lunatics who would break into the capital? No one would advocate such a thing. But that wasn't the vast majority of people that showed up in Washington. Just like just like the vet. It's like all the people that pro tested in the case. I was outraged. Every American was outraged. What happened in the Floyd case and that can happen and it worked peaceful protesters. But then you had the people you know, taking over city blocks, burning police stations, arson, riots, looting and everything else that took place and there was there was a reluctance of resistance. I never understood to criticize them. One thing that the Trump supporters and President Trump has stood for this entire term. For years, it has been the rule of law and law and order. Trump supporters have been all about that. That's why they work horrified by that, you know, chop zone and what went on this summer. But, look, I think that at this point, you know they very using whatever they can use against this president to get him out. And, you know they don't want any peaceful trends and they wanted a peaceful transition. They would just have the next nine days and have a peaceful transition. The one go toe Studies pursued every remedy, and that's it. There's nothing left to pursuit. He asked people to be peaceful. But of course that never gets reported by anybody, except for people like us. Thank you, Marie. Appreciate it. 809 41. Sean is a number When we get back, we'll hit the phones. Our phones are burning off the lines here. I know a lot of you want to weigh. It will do that. Next. Glad you're with us. Don't Miss Hannity. We're gonna montages. You will want to record 90 stood on the Fox News channel set. Your DVR will continue. Oh, taking a look at KSFO traffic..
WCBM 680 AM
"professor dershowitz" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"He's leaving right after the show today in studio he is contesting election, the state of Nevada. And your calls and comments are welcome here on before we get there. You told me a story off the air and incredible story on. Actually, I thought Pelosi lost by seven votes. One by seven. Yeah, No, no one by seven. Excuse me on. You're telling me that is actually much closer than that? That's right. So so the way the way the rules one and the vote was to 16 for Pelosi, 209 for McCarthy. But you had five other people who voted otherwise. It s 05. People have voted president or voted for someone else. Those air added to McCarthy's votes when you because So the vote was actually 2 16 2 to 14 to 16 for her to 14 against her had been too 15. She would not have won. It would been to 15 to 15. So if one person, one Democrat had flipped She would not be the speaker today now. What came out was that we looked up in the corner of the chamber and up in the gallery. There was a plexiglass booth built, which we subsequently found out was built on the morning of the third. And it was to allow potentially Democrats who potentially were in quarantine. Remember, we don't we don't have access to this information goes of hip, but we don't know who's in quarantine who's not, but it was built expressly so that if a Democrat was in quarantine, they could come in and vote for Pelosi on the floor. Well up in the gallery opening up in that plexiglass booth. And, of course, when, more than this big controversy because she announced December 28th that she tested positive and yet she voted in person walking on the floor of the house on the third. Did she vote in the Plexiglas knows? No, she she voted on the floor of the house. So you know, we're asking like, hey, What's the deal here? You know we had to. We had to Republicans who stayed home. Because they were in quarantine who didn't vote had they come in and voted Uh, McCarthy. Well, wouldn't be McCarthy speaking. But wouldn't be Pelosi because the Democrats would go on caucus and find someone else, but she won by one vote. And to do that. She potentially violated the CDC guidelines, which you know which is laughable because, of course she is. She's requiring us on the floor literally for the only person on the floor. We have to wear a mascot, the microphone and this is theater to save us from from the crown of ice. And yet she apparently and allows people in quarantine get now to get to that plexiglass booth. You have to walk through the capital. Of course, of course. Yeah. I mean, it's like that's nice night. Well, I'm the co chair of the doctor GOP Doc Cox. We wrote a letter to the attending physician like by the way Did you approve this plexiglass booth? Don't By the way, How is the people going to get to that plexiglass booth without violating quarantine? She was desperate, but this is the way the Democrats operate. You know, there's one rule for the and a different rule for me, so Republicans were not allowed to use. We weren't we weren't told about it. They weren't told about it. We have to look up and see it because otherwise we would have asked our two members Now I don't know if we would have. We might have just made a big fuss and said Look, Quarantine is quarantine. You can't do it. But we weren't even told about it. That's the way Nancy Pelosi operates. And I can't understand why we have somebody email again, saying We're just like a banana republic husband truly just I'm shocked. Look, there's another story here. Steady. Hoyer, one of our sitting senators. Says the president's call to the Georgia secretary of state he wants he wants a serious investigation and what he calls criminal behavior. What's the criminal behavior that was involved with the criminal behavior was the potential destruction of ballots in Georgia, but that's not the criminal behavior he's calling to investigate. He's going to investigate the president saying, Hey, wait a minute. I heard by the way that there were thousands of ballots and by the way, there actually is some evidence that trump ballots were destroyed, systematically destroyed and Biden ballots up. Counted instead. That s O. The president says, Yeah. Look, you've got to find those ballots. What happened? Those ballots. That's not finding that's not inventing the ballots, T o show that he won. It's actually finding the evidence. There was nothing illegal about that phone call. This is all ridiculous the way the press reported it look. Anybody who believe you know, the Baltimore Sun went to find the votes? No, it's actually to find the ballots that Aaron question the question will balance and we should have done this weeks ago, there were over 12,000 the votes that were switched from Biden from Trump to Biden, right, And that's That's according to data scientists that actually proved to see the ballot. That's all but but no standing where he didn't call for an investigation into that, professor Dershowitz said. The perfect person is calling for the investigation started. Would set perfectly legal call. It is totally legal. It's just unbelievable. You know the grasping at straws that Democrats have.