Ep 192 | Alan Dershowitz DESTROYS Legal Arguments for Trump Indictments | The Glenn Beck Podcast

This episode is brought to you by US Cellular.

Hey, real quick, when was the last time you got something that was fast, reliable, and affordable?

Like almost never, right?

Well, US Cellular Home Internet is breaking that streak.

You get fast speeds, a rock-solid connection, and a super sweet price.

Just $39.99 a month when you bundle it with a wireless plan.

That means you can stream, scroll, shop, and binge without lag or crazy bills.

It's not magic, it's just really good internet.

Check out US Cellular Home Internet today.

Build for us.

Terms apply.

Visit USCLuler.com for all the details.

Today's guest sees the legal war on Donald Trump as one of the most significant court cases in American political history.

What's at stake is the future of all presidential elections.

By trying to disqualify Trump, they want to disqualify you and me and steal your right to vote for who you want to vote for.

He lays out a defense of Trump in his latest book, Get Trump the Threat to

Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.

He also happens to be Trump's most prestigious advocate.

Top of his class at Yale, editor of the Yale Law Journal before his stint as a Supreme Court clerk.

He became an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, and then he was 25, I think, when that happened.

He earned tenure by 28.

When he defended Trump in front of the Senate, there were 10 former students among the 100 senators.

He's described Ted Cruz as one of his most brilliant students that he ever had.

Over the past five decades, he's established himself as one of the greatest constitutional experts of our time.

He has written about half a dozen books on the subject and litigated 100 cases on the Constitution.

He's admired and feared by political giants of every kind.

Bill Clinton described him as hopeful and wise.

Benjamin Netanyahu calls him a defender of truth.

He worked with and for Bobby Kennedy.

He knew a young Barack Obama.

They were neighbors, actually.

And Obama even refused to come to today's guest's 75th birthday because he wouldn't disinvite Geraldo Rivera.

He has defended communists, Nazis, and pornographers.

He's engineered some of the biggest court cases of our time, from Jim Baker to Mike Tyson, Julian Assange, Mike Lindell.

He's on that case now.

He's also defended some of the most unpopular people of our time, Harvey Weinstein, O.J.

Simpson, Roman Polanski, and Jeffrey Epstein.

But the one he says has destroyed his life, the most notorious client by far, according to his then friends, was Donald Trump.

He's continued to support Trump, not voting for him.

He's never voted.

In fact, he's voted against him twice.

But his support for the principles of the Constitution has cost him friendships, alliances, privilege, honors.

And as you'll find out, it even led to a weird altercation with Seinfeld creator Larry David.

But he has never been spooked by controversy or pushback.

He defies partisanship, no matter the cost.

He's defended Al Gore in 2000 and ready to do the same for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And even though he's one of Trump's strongest allies, he voted against Trump twice and was able to vote against him, he says, hopefully a third time.

Since retiring from Harvard, he offers his legal and political expertise on the podcast The Der Show.

He turns 85 tomorrow and he is as sharp as attack.

Please welcome Alan Dershowitz.

Before we get to Alan, sometimes it seems like there's a running battle between cyber criminals and the government to see who can steal most of the money from the largest number of people.

I think it's the government that wins most of the time, but the competition is fierce.

Take home title theft, for instance.

It's one of the fastest growing crimes in America right now, and there's a very good reason for that.

As it turns out, most victims of home title theft don't realize they're a victim until it is way too late.

I'm going to tell you about one homeowner.

She pulled onto her street one day and she saw a bulldozer demolishing her home.

Can you imagine?

There it was, being torn down right in front of her eyes.

She was a victim of a devastating crime of home title theft.

Criminal just forged his way onto the deed to her home, sold it.

Now the new owner was just tearing it down to rebuild.

Your home, your property, your equity, your most valuable assets.

Gone.

Protect them with home title lock.

Home title lock.

Home title lock.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

Home TitleLock.com.

Promo code Beck.

First of all, happy birthday tomorrow.

Well, thank you.

85 years young.

Yeah, 85.

You know,

we are looking at Mitch McConnell having some sort of neurological issue.

Yeah.

And

people are saying, you know, you can't make an issue of people's age.

I don't.

I'd vote for you.

At 85, you're sharp.

You're just the same man as you've always been.

But it's not about age.

It's about ability.

And I don't know what's happening to us where we don't, is there no one that says, hey, this is

our country.

We wouldn't give the keys to our car to these gentlemen and ladies.

Why are we giving them the keys to our country?

Well, we are, you know, we have a geriatric agency where we have, you know, a senator from California that's obviously unable to make decisions.

We have people

in high positions.

We've had that before.

Woodrow Wilson served as president while largely unconscious, and that caused us to create the 25th Amendment, fortunately.

But we have a right to judge people on their ability, not on their numbers.

Right.

I mean, 85 years.

What's the first

memory of America that we would relate to that you had?

Oh, very clear, very clear.

VE Day and VJ Day.

Wow.

I was seven years old.

Both VE Day was particularly important to my family because I had several uncles serving abroad,

involved in the invasion of Germany, involved in France, and it meant they were coming home when they were alive.

We had joyous, joyous celebrations.

And then I had no relatives in the Pacific Theater, but I remember vividly VJ Day, victory over Japan Day, dancing in the streets.

Just, it's hard to put yourself back in a position where our friends, our relatives, our dear ones were risking their lives for freedom and it was over and we won.

Of course, not all of us won.

I lost my entire family in the Holocaust.

I have a picture on the cover of my book, Just Revenge, of a family gathering gathering in 1938, and every single person in that picture, children and the elderly, except for one, was slaughtered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

So

it was a victory for Americans, but a terrible, terrible defeat for the Jewish people.

Half the Jewish people in the world were murdered.

This is not what I planned on talking to you about, but I've been wrestling with something lately as I go back and I look at our history and where we've gone wrong and where we've gone right, et cetera.

And

I'm really,

I'm stuck at Operation Paperclip,

where we took some of these scientists and many of the doctors as well, and we just brought them in and whitewashed them.

Werner von Braun, he absolutely had to have known what was going on in his factories.

He was there.

Did we do the right thing

or not?

Should those people have all gone to prison?

Well, it's a very, very difficult moral question.

I've actually written about it and talked about it, and I've written about the double-edged sword called the Marshall Plan.

After all, Hitler said to the German people, if you kill the Jews, you will be better off economically.

And so they killed the Jews.

They lost the war, and the Marshall Plan made them better off economically.

They were better off than England.

They were better off than France.

We rewarded Germany because we were fighting against communism.

And you fight today's wars, not yesterday's wars.

But it came with an enormous moral cost.

The vast majority of hands-on Nazis lived good lives.

They died at age 80 and 85 with their grandchildren sitting next to them without anybody holding them accountable for their hands-on participation.

Do you know that when I went back to Germany in 1964, I discovered that people who were in the SS put it on their resumes.

Oh, my God.

Whereas Jews who had been in the camps

hid their numbers, their tattooed numbers.

People were proud.

People were proud to have been in the Gestapo.

There was no accounting in Germany, and

we said never again.

But after the Holocaust, it happened again and again and again and again, Darfur or Pol Pot, again and again, because everybody knew if you kill one person, you get executed, but if you kill six million, you can get praised.

And so we did not learn the lessons of the Holocaust.

We didn't learn the lessons of the Japanese army raping and murdering Chinese civilians.

We rewarded Japan.

Do you know what happened about two years ago?

There was a poll, a general poll, just to ask a question.

What are the best countries in the world?

They didn't define it.

What are the best countries in the world?

The answer, number one, Germany, number two, Japan.

Those were the two best countries in the world.

And they may very well be today among the best countries in the world because they didn't pay a price.

We look too much to the future and not to the past.

And morality requires balancing the past and the future.

It is.

I would love to.

I don't want to get on track here, but I would love to sit down in a podcast and just kind of review the things that you've seen and done.

Would you be willing to do that with me?

Of course, of course.

It's been a good long life with ups and downs.

You know, until age 75, I was honored.

I was getting honorary degrees.

They were going to name a professorship after me.

I had never been sued, never sued.

And then a woman,

stimulated by corrupt lawyers, accused me of having sex with her.

I never met her, never heard of her.

And ultimately, she recanted and said, Oh,

I may have confused them with someone else.

But that changed my life.

And from age 75 to 85, I was fighting for my reputation.

And then I defended Donald Trump on the floor of the Senate, and all my friends turned against me.

And I'm now involved in so many lawsuits.

I'm suing CNN.

I'm being sued.

My life has turned around because of, and I wrote a book about it called The Price of Principle, Why Integrity is Worth the Consequences.

But the last 10 years of my life have been fighting and fighting and fighting.

You're supposed to have a golden age of retirement, but I've been deprived of that.

I guess the good Lord put me here to be a fighter, not to be an honor getter.

And so I'm going to go down at the end fighting for justice and fighting for the rule of law.

Why is it worth it?

Because I think there's a lot of people that are making, it's not hard yet for most people.

I think most people are making the decision now now that I don't want to get involved.

I don't want the school to be harsh with my child or whatever.

Why is it worth standing up and saying what you believe and saying what you believe to be true?

Well, it's worth it if you're the only one who gets victimized.

But in my case, my wife has been victimized.

My children have been victimized.

And so, you know, you ask the question, is it worth it?

Some people think it's been selfish of me to live on my principles and to put my wife and family, and children particularly, through the burden.

As my son said to me once, and it was really hurtful.

We used to be so proud to bear the name Dershowitz, and now it's sometimes a difficulty, a burden, an embarrassment among friends because you represented Donald Trump, and that's unacceptable in America.

You know, I think of myself as trying to follow in the footsteps of John Adams, who risked his life and his career and his reputation to represent people he despised, British soldiers who were trying to kill American civilians.

I think of so many lawyers in the past, Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster and Thurgood Marshall and so many others who've risked everything.

Thurgood Marshall had bullets whizzing by his head as a lawyer.

He was threatened with being lynched.

But if there are no people to stand up for principles and for the rule of law,

we're in deep trouble.

But I wish people would just pick on me.

I can fight back.

I wish they'd leave my wife and my family alone, but they don't.

I've had very similar conversations with my family, and I've wrestled back and forth.

Is it worth it?

I mean,

it's one thing for me, but I am affecting my children's future because they bear my name.

And

it's hard.

I can just only do what I think is right.

And I think in your case, you are going to be remembered as a great man and a great fighter for liberty.

You know, Alan, you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, I'm sure.

But

you're somebody who is, you are the John Adams.

And he was wildly unpopular when he was alive as well.

So rest assured, I think you will be remembered quite well.

Well, I'll be remembered by some, but unfortunately, we live in a world today where everything is divided.

You have to pick a team.

And, you know, I think of an analogy to sports.

I was a fanatical Brooklyn Dodger fan, and then I became a Red Sox fan when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles.

But anytime I went to a ball game and the opposition player came up, whether it would have been Ted Williams back in the day or Joe Joe DiMaggio or Jeter or Mariano Rivera, I would always get up and cheer the opposing team.

Because although I was a strong supporter of my team, I understood the greatness of people on the other team.

I wouldn't just say, oh, they're Yankees,

they're the enemy.

No, no, we're all Americans.

And I admire you enormously for what you've done and what you've stood up for.

We can disagree.

I used to have these great debates with William Buckley.

They're all on, you can get them on YouTube.

We debated everything.

We disagreed about everything.

And we would end up putting our arm on each other's shoulders and going out and having a drink.

We even disagreed about what we were going to drink.

But

in the end, we agreed that we both wanted America to be great, and we had different conceptions of how to make America great, but no difference in the result that we wanted.

And we both wanted to devote our lives to seeing that happen.

Right.

My father used to always say, I strongly disagree with so-and-so, but I'll fight to the death for his right to say it.

And we've lost that ability.

If you had to compare this time

on any other time in American history that you have seen, lived, or know a lot about, what are we repeating, if anything?

Well, I lived through McCarthyism.

I was president of the student body at Brooklyn College in the early

1950s, in the mid-1950s, during the height of McCarthyism.

And the president of Brooklyn College, who had been appointed to get rid of the little red schoolhouse, because Brooklyn College, City College, had a lot of socialists and communists.

And so they were firing professors.

And the man who was instrumental in

firing a lot of the professors I became friendly with.

He was the chairman of the Department of Romance Languages.

You may have heard of his son.

His name was Eugene Scalia.

And I first met Nino Scalia because I knew his father.

And Nino Scalia and I fought.

I hated communism.

I was a virulent anti-communist, but I defended the right of communists to speak at Brooklyn College.

But during McCarthyism, that was not acceptable.

I wanted to hear them.

I wanted to boo them.

I wanted to answer them.

And the school

wouldn't let me do that.

I wanted to march on Washington for desegregation when I was president of student government.

And the president of the college said, if you do that, I won't write you a recommendation for law school.

And I did it, and he didn't write me a recommendation for law school.

But I got in anyway.

But this, I have to tell you, I'm writing a new book.

It's called The New McCarthyism, Why the Current Woke Version is Worse Than the Original.

Worse than McCarthyism.

Why?

The McCarthyism of the past, which I lived through, was old people who were on the way out.

McCarthy himself,

but many of the people who supported McCarthyism were the old guard, and they were focused on the past, were people communists in the 1930s.

The new McCarthyism, which we're living through today, is all about the future.

It's about young kids in colleges and universities who in 10 years will be the editorial board of the New York Times, the head of various networks, members of Congress, and in 20 years, President of the United States.

So I'm so worried that the new woke McCarthyism, intolerance for different points of view, intolerance for due process, intolerance for the rule of law.

We want our results, we want them now, and we don't want anything to stand in the way.

We want to make sure Trump can't run for president.

We don't care how much of the Constitution we have to compromise to get there.

We only care about that.

That's what the people said during the McCarthy period.

Communism is so dangerous and so bad.

They're going to take over the world.

They're going to bury us.

We don't care about civil liberties.

We don't care about free speech.

There have been many times in our history we thought it's different now.

It's different.

And therefore, the Constitution should be ignored.

It's never different.

They said it was different when they put 110,000 Japanese Americans in camps.

No, the Constitution was designed to protect against that.

And it's not different today.

I don't want Trump to be elected.

I'm going to vote against him.

But I have to tell you, seeing him elected would be a lot less bad than seeing the Constitution destroyed in the name of preventing him from preventing the public from deciding who the next president should be.

Running a business means I wear lots of hats.

Luckily, when it's time to put on my hiring hat, I can count on LinkedIn to make it easy.

I can post a job for free or pay to promote it and get three times more qualified candidates.

Imagine finding your next great hire in 24 hours.

86% of small businesses do.

With LinkedIn, I can also easily share my job with my network.

No other job site lets me do that.

Post your free job at linkedin.com/slash achieve.

That's linkedin.com/slash/achieve.

Terms and conditions apply.

So you've heard me talk a lot about the Jace case from Jace Medical and what that is.

It holds, I think, four or five of the most important antibiotics for emergency use.

We took it when we went overseas recently as a family.

We took the Jace case with us just so we had the antibiotics and we didn't have to go to a hospital or a doctor overseas.

Well, I'm happy to announce they are launching a new product.

It's called Jace Daily.

If you are a prepper, especially, this is the one piece of the puzzle I could never make fit.

What about our prescription medicines?

I take high blood pressure medicine.

My daughters both take anti-seizure medications.

What do we do if the world breaks down or if we just kind of have another breakdown of society like we did with COVID?

This allows you to have a 12-month backup of your supply of your prescription medication just in case.

It covers almost everything, cholesterol, diabetes, heart health, blood pressure, mental health, pretty much everything.

Your order is reviewed by a certified healthcare professional, delivered right to your door.

It is a way for you to sleep at night knowing that you are covered and your whole family is covered in case there's some sort of disruption.

JaceMedical.com, JaceMedical.com, use the promo code Beck at checkout.

You and I can disagree on, let's say, Donald Trump, but both of us are trying to seek the truth, which I thought,

especially in academia, that's what this was all about, seeking the truth.

And, you know,

the phrase, the truth shall set you free, I always like to follow it with, yes, but it'll make you miserable at first.

You're absolutely right.

Right.

If you look at the truth and you don't like it, then you either go off the rails and say, well, I'm rejecting that truth, and that changes you, or you look at that truth and say, okay, I don't want to accept it, but I will.

And it takes you in another direction.

Sure.

Look, I could quote Voltaire, but I'll quote Jack Nicholson.

You can't handle the truth.

That's really the problem.

A lot of people can't handle the truth.

Now, you and I may disagree about that.

I don't believe there's one truth in the world.

I believe in what I call the truthing process, the process of getting to the truth, the marketplace of ideas.

And I think the problem on the woke left today is that they think they know the truth, capital T, capital T.

And if you know the truth, you don't need dissent.

You don't need due process.

If a man is accused by a woman, of course he's guilty.

What do you need a trial for?

That's what the radical woke left is saying.

If somebody on the right is saying you should vote for Trump, we don't need free speech.

We know that's wrong.

Now, I'm not voting for Trump, but I support anybody's right to publicly support Trump or anyone else.

And if I defended the right of a communist to run, if I defended the right of a Nazi to march through Skokie, Illinois, you think I won't defend the right of Republicans or conservatives who I disagree with?

I think a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion during at least the earlier part of her pregnancy.

Many of people I know disagree with that.

Let's argue it.

Let's debate it.

Let's ask the right question in democracy.

Not does a woman have the right to choose.

That's a personal opinion.

Who decides?

Is it the government that makes that decision?

Is it the doctors that make that decision?

Is it the state that makes that decision?

Is it the federal government?

Is it the Constitution?

In a democracy, the key question is always who gets to decide?

And rights, when you decide something is a right like free speech, then the majority doesn't get to decide it.

If you have one person in a society who says, I'm going to speak up for the earth being flat, he has or she has the right to say that.

And the majority, look, I remember growing up in Brooklyn, in Borough Park, which was a completely Orthodox Jewish neighborhood.

And every Friday, the Jehovah's Witnesses would come by and try to persuade us to reject our religion.

Otherwise, we'd go to hell.

And let me tell you, it scared the heck out of people.

And I stood there and I defended the right of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

And my grandmother was furious at me.

And I said, grandma, if these people don't have the right to speak, you're not going to have the right to speak.

Well, you know, she came from Poland as a 15-year-old.

She didn't have the experience of democracy, but even she understood better than people on the left, woke part of our society understand today.

All right.

Let me get to.

Let me get to

all of these cases against Donald Trump.

I don't think anybody is following.

There's not a

you don't you don't necessarily know what any one of them is about and where there's good points and bad points.

And honestly.

Well, it's easy to find out.

It's easy to find out.

Just get my book, Get Trump.

In Get Trump,

I describe every one of the cases.

I predict, I predicted.

I wrote this book a couple of months ago.

I predicted each of these indictments.

I analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of each of the indictments.

And when the trials begin, I'm going to be putting out a new version of this book called The Primer

on the Trump trials, in which, on a daily basis online, I go through

all of the strengths and weaknesses of the case.

The other day in my podcast, I made a mock opening argument both for the government against Donald Trump and for Donald Trump against the government, and let my viewers decide which was the stronger of the terms.

Can you give us a snip of that?

Can you give us pithy

both sides argument?

Sure.

You know, the government's arguing is, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a difficult case to bring because the man who's in the dock is running for president of the United States, and everybody has the right to vote for who they want to see as president, but the rule of law must prevail.

And we're going to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump actually knew he had lost the election and engaged in conduct which was criminal based on his knowledge.

And, you know, basically I'll go on from there.

But the defense argument is, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, imagine for one moment that Donald Trump was right and that the Georgia election had been stolen from him.

I don't believe that.

You may not believe it, but imagine it for one second.

If he were right, then everything he did was not criminal.

He tried to get an alternate slate of electors.

He tried to persuade.

He tried to do what the lawyers for Al Gore did.

I was was one of them.

I was the lawyer for the Palm Beach County voters against the butterfly ballot.

We did everything the same way.

We lobbied legislatures.

We lobbied the Secretary of State.

Professor Tribe talked about alternate

slates of electors, talked about not having the results final until January 6th.

You have to ask, put yourself in the mind of Donald Trump.

And if you conclude that he knew he had lost the election, that's one thing.

But look, I don't believe he knew that.

I think he talked himself into the fact that he had won the election.

I think to this day, he believes he won the election.

I do too.

I believe he's wrong, but that doesn't make him a criminal.

Which one of those wins, Alan?

I mean...

Oh, the one that wins is what I call the smoking cigarette butt.

Why do I call it a smoking cigarette butt?

It's smoking.

It's him waving the paper in front of the reporter and the publisher.

It's on video saying, I could have declassified this when I was president.

I didn't.

It's still secret.

That does constitute a smoking something of guilt.

On the other hand, what is it?

It's not a gun.

It's not even a whole cigarette or a cigar.

It's a cigarette butt.

It's such a minor offense.

I believe every single office holder of high office, president and vice president, has taken with them classified material.

And we don't ever prosecute that.

And nobody claims that Trump was trying to sell it to the Russians or give it to the Russians or undercut our national security.

He was just being a blowhard.

He was being Donald Trump.

Hey, look what I got.

I got secret material I can show it to you because I was president.

A slap on the wrist, the cigarette button.

That's the one strong case.

Everything else depends on his state of mind.

The New York case is not even worth discussing.

It's intellectually not even worth a minute of time.

It is the worst indictment I have ever seen in 60 years of practicing law, and virtually everyone admits that now.

And this one.

And now that we have the number indictments, we admit that the first one was wrong.

Hang on, that's the Bragg.

Is that the Bragg indictment?

Dormie Daniels one?

There's so many.

Let me tell you.

Let me tell you what that indictment says.

That indictment says that Alexander Hamilton should have been put in jail for paying hush money to the woman who had an affair with him while he was the Secretary of Treasury.

He paid hush money, paid $1,100, which was a fortune in those days.

But nobody said he had to put that on a disclosure form.

What Bragg is saying is when you pay hush money, which is designed to keep a secret, then you immediately have to disclose the secret by putting it on a corporate form.

Never in the history of the world has that been done.

That indictment.

But yet the New York Times, when it first came out, said, wow, what a strong indictment.

My former student, Norm Eisen, who has been part of the Get Trump Brigade, wow, what a strong indictment.

He was my student.

He should know better.

He was in my class in criminal law.

There's never been a weaker indictment.

But now that there have been other indictments, even the Get Trump Brigade has been saying, oh, well, the Bragg indictment is no good.

Maybe you should drop it.

Certainly it should come later.

It shouldn't have come first.

It was really a weak indictment.

It was such a weak indictment.

And then you have the two indictments about January 6th, which pose problems for Donald Trump.

They do pose problems.

So let's take the D.C.

one.

First of all,

as a conservative, I don't think I could get a fair trial in D.C.

I just think.

Are you kidding?

Think?

There's no way you could.

There's no way I could get it.

I'm a liberal and I can't get a fair trial in D.C.

Right.

Because I defended Donald Trump.

I would immediately, if I were indicted for something in D.C., move to change the venue to Virginia or West Virginia or somewhere where there's some purple to be seen.

Here it's 95%, 96%.

And the important thing is not that 96%

of Washingtonians voted against Donald Trump.

It's that 80% hate his guts with a passion.

And they will do anything to make sure he's not elected.

And you can't expect a fair trial with that kind of a jury.

So first question, will it be moved?

Is anybody making it?

No, but it should be.

You know, here, what should happen is his lawyers should move immediately to have a change of venue.

And then if they lose that, they should appeal that.

There is a mechanism called interlocutory appeal or writ of mandamus where you can challenge a judge's order.

There are two orders that should be challenged in D.C.

Number one, the location of the trial, and number two, the timing.

The timing.

You know, the judge in that case, I have to tell you, if she ever was in my class and she said some of the things she said from the bench,

I'd flunk her out of law school.

I mean, she, first of all, talked about the right of the public to a speedy trial.

There's no such thing.

There's only the right of a defendant.

The public has the right only to a fair trial, not a speedy trial.

And so the idea of trying this case within six months of the indictment with 12,700,000 pages of material.

And you know what the judge basically said?

The prosecutor said, oh, the defense doesn't have to read it all.

Just skim it a little bit.

No, I'm a lawyer.

I've done this for 60 years.

I read every word the government gives me.

You know why?

Because the government plays a game.

It's called Needle in the Haystack.

They give you 12,700 pages of garbage.

And buried in that garbage is 200 or 300 pages of gems and jewelry and nuggets.

And you have to go through the 12 million pages.

If you did it every single day, you'd have to read, I think it's 17,000 pages.

No, no, we did the math.

I think it's six.

To make it at this time, I think it's 60,000 pages a day

you'd have to read.

Yeah.

I mean, it's ridiculous.

It depends how fast you're doing.

And, you know, here's the problem.

When you are looking

at a speedy trial, there are people that were charged for January 6th a year, two years ago, that still haven't

had their day in court.

There's still people who are in the past.

And that's because it's such a complicated case.

There you have videotapes.

It's a yes or no thing.

There's no 12 billion pages.

I'm representing one of the defendants in the case, a young law student who went in peacefully.

He listened to the president, who said, I want you to have your voices heard peacefully and patriotically.

That's what he did.

Then he was waved in by the police.

He stayed there for a few minutes.

Then the police told him to leave and he left and he's been indicted for a felony.

His law school diploma has been withheld.

Oh my god.

And his life is upside down.

So I'm defending him.

And

his trial hasn't taken place yet either.

The idea that

12 million pages of material can be gone through, it's like asking a brain surgeon to do a delicate brain operation without seeing the CAT scan without studying the blood results without looking at the pharmaceuticals if I were a lawyer I have to tell you I go up to the judge and say your honor you have a robe I don't but you can't make me do unethical things you can't make me provide my client with ineffective assistance of counsel you can't make me commit malpractice I refuse to try this case in six months get another lawyer who's prepared to commit malpractice.

You can't make me do it.

Judge might hold me in contempt, but I would do it.

I would do it.

I would not try a case in six months.

Then that lowers the chances of Donald Trump having another choice of a lawyer.

I mean, lawyers.

Well, first of all,

you can't get the best lawyers for another reason.

There's this project called Project 65, a bunch of woke, radical, left-wing, anti-Trump haters who have decided that their goal in life is to disbar and discipline any lawyer who had anything to do with Donald Trump.

So as soon as they announced that, I wrote an op-ed saying they're a bunch of McCarthyites and they are violating the norms of the legal profession.

So what do you think they did?

They filed a bar charge against me.

I now have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars defending myself in Massachusetts

against a bar charge brought by this organization of thugs, that McCarthyites, who want to make sure.

And the purpose, the reason they went after me is they want to make sure I can't defend Donald Trump or anybody,

anybody accused along with Donald Trump, because if you have a bar charge against you, then it's difficult to get admitted to a state other than your own.

So it's a tactic, a McCarthyite tactic, designed to prevent lawyers like me from becoming involved in these kinds of cases.

And tragically, it's working because the legal profession isn't fighting back.

The legal profession fought back against McCarthyism, but they're not fighting back against the new anti-Trump McCarthyism.

Why?

Why?

Because they're cowards and because they,

as one of them put it, we don't want to be Dershowitz.

We don't want to have happen to us what happened to you.

We don't want our families to be affected this way.

Also, they're zealots.

When Larry David, an old friend of mine who I helped his daughter get into college, and I, you know, he used to work out in my little gym and come to my house for dinner.

When he saw me on the porch of the Chilmark store, which is where we hang out

on Martha's Vineyard, he starts screaming at me, you're despicable, you're disgusting.

The veins in his head popped.

And

it was as if he was speaking to Heinrich Himmler, who had just come from defending Adolf Hitler.

That's the way he thinks of.

I had another friend on the Vineyard who talked about Donald Trump being worse than Hitler.

I said, you know, that's a form of Holocaust denial when you say that.

And, you know, people are willing to make such extreme statements about Trump.

I'm not going to vote for him, but if he's win, if he wins,

I'll recognize his election just as I did the election of 2016.

I was a big Hillary Clinton supporter, but I worked with Donald Trump on the various issues relating to Israel because you know how much I love Israel and support Israel.

And when Trump asked me to help out on Israel, I said, yes, you're the president.

I'm going to work with you in support of American values and in support of Israel.

And I work with him on that.

Tires matter.

They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road.

Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack.

Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy.

Fast, free shipping, free road hazard protection, convenient installation options, and the best selection of Michelin tires.

Go to tire rack.com to see their Michelin test results, tire ratings, and reviews.

And be sure to check out all the special offers.

TireRack.com, rack.com the way tire buying should be remember the day when you could do all of the normal things that you wanted to do in a day you could go golfing whenever you wanted and you could golf all day and you didn't feel like you were made out of broken glass remember when you didn't have to decide whether or not it was worth it to do it

because it's probably going to really hurt is it am i going to pay for this for three days living with pain is no joke and it's the kind of thing that can wreck your life I know I've been there.

Fortunately for me, my wife told me you're taking Relief Factor.

I didn't think it would work for me.

If you're dealing with pain in your life, you feel like you've tried everything, maybe it's time to give Relief Factor a try.

If it works for you, you get your life back.

Three-week quickstart, 1995.

It's trial-packed.

Millions of people have already tried it.

70% of them now have gone on to order more.

800 for Relief.

8004 Relief, ReliefFactor.com.

We're looking at two January 6th

trials.

One is in D.C., and that one can go to sedition, right?

They're saying that

he engaged in sedition.

Well, they didn't charge him with that, but, you know, the statute, you know, even in Florida, you know, the statute under which he was charged is called the Espionage Act, but he didn't commit espionage.

He didn't commit sedition.

But they're trying to invoke the 14th Amendment.

They're trying to get convictions in D.C.

or in Fulton County so that they can then say the 14th Amendment operates.

The 14th Amendment says that if you engaged in sedition or rebellion or et cetera, it was designed for the Civil War, obviously, then you cannot be the President of the United States.

And

if you've engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, the Constitution, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof, Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, could remove such a disability.

But you're not supposed to, I mean, really?

Rebellion?

I guess maybe they're going for the aid or comfort to the enemies?

They are, but remember, too, that Republicans could come back and say sanctuary cities, the people who are involved in sanctuary cities, are involved in rebellion and insurrection.

They're saying we will not obey the law of the United States.

We will rescue our immigrants.

And, you know, I am emotionally supportive of that.

But you can argue that's an act of insurrection or rebellion.

It's a refusal to apply federal law and to follow federal law.

You can say that the acts that were done after the horrible shooting of George Floyd, some of the violence that took place on the West Coast, were acts of insurrection and rebellion.

The problem with that 14th Amendment argument is there's no mechanism.

There is a mechanism for undoing it, but there's no mechanism for actually concluding whether or not President Trump gave aid and comfort to an insurrection or rebellion.

Professor Tribe, my former colleague, says, well, it's self-enforcing.

Any Secretary of State can do that.

So the Secretary of State of Michigan can decide who the next president of the United States is by keeping Trump off the ballot?

It's absurd.

The framers of the Constitution would never have tolerated something like that.

They made it so hard to impeach.

You think they're going to make it easy to

prevent somebody from serving as president?

No.

So

what is the strongest and the weakest?

And how do you think this one in Washington, D.C.

will fall?

What's the strongest point and weakest point of it?

Well, there's only one strong point in Washington, D.C., and that's Washington, D.C.

That is, they will convict a ham sandwich if its name is Trump.

So the key point in that case case is going to be the instruction the judge gives.

If the judge says to the jury, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, even if you believe that Donald Trump honestly believed that he had won the election, even if you come to that conclusion, you must convict unless you also believe that that belief was reasonable.

In other words, you have to conclude not only that Trump himself believed he won the election, but that that was a reasonable belief.

If they get that instruction, they win the trial, but they lose on appeal, in my opinion.

The other instruction would be, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump himself actually knew he lost the election.

But the problem is he didn't.

He talked himself into the fact that he had won it.

He told everybody there is no smoking gun.

They're not going to be able to produce a videotape or even a witness who says, oh, well, Donald Trump told me that he had lost the election and was just doing this in order to do that.

And he believes it to this day.

To this day, to the core of his being, he believes he won the election.

Well, they've come up with a new alternative.

The New York Times had an op-ed piece, a clever op-ed piece, which said, no, you don't have to prove that he actually knew he had won, he had lost, if you can show that he willfully blinded himself to that information.

But to show that he willfully blinded himself, you know, it's the three monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Trump didn't do that.

He watched the movie 2000 Mules.

He listened to the people on his side of the story.

He also heard the people on the other side.

We know that because he reacted to it.

He was furious at

Fox News for

declaring Biden the winner.

So we know he heard all sides of the argument, but he concluded, erroneously in my view, but

what is the difference between this and what Hillary Clinton said?

Or honestly, what you, the case you made in Bush versus Score.

I mean,

it is your right to question it.

At some point, you know, you should move on,

you know, unless it is corruption and that has to be vetted.

But at some point, the system does move on.

But you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe.

When did this become a crime when we've been hearing this for 25 years?

Well, I wrote a book on it called Supreme Injustice, where I declared in my book that I believe that

the 2000 election should have gone and did go to Al Gore.

I believe more people in Florida wanted to vote for Al Gore than wanted to vote for

President

Bush.

The Supreme Court said I was wrong.

I still think I was right.

I maintain that view.

The argument that the Get Trump posse is putting forward today is that they didn't just say it, but they put up a slate of fake electors.

Well,

that's exactly the way you're supposed to do it.

You're supposed to put up alternate electors and let the Congress decide which slate of electors, that Tilden Hayes that happened in the 1960 election.

Jamie Raskin was pushing in that direction.

Lawrence Tribe in 2000 said that the state of Florida had the right to recount up until January 6th.

And now he denies that that applies to Donald Trump because for Professor Tribe, the Constitution means only what he believes it means in behalf of his candidates, his ideology, and his party.

But reasonable people will say if that argument was valid in Bush versus Gore, it was valid here as well.

So it's going to be a controversial case.

Ultimately, it'll get to the Supreme Court, but the goal of the Get Trump posse is to get a down and dirty conviction before the election, knowing that it very likely will be reversed after the election.

But by that time, the election will have been influenced by the conviction.

That's the strategy.

That's why you have Jack Smith moving for a January 2nd trial.

That was his original claim.

They put it off to March 4th, but January 2nd, to get a down and dirty conviction before the primaries, before the election, influence the election, and then it'll be reversed on appeal, but we don't care because that'll be after the election.

This is what I expected the Soviet Union to be like when I was a kid.

That you couldn't believe the newspapers, that the trials were all rigged.

It was

show me the man.

I'll find the crime.

I'll show you the crime.

And

just recently, we have said, the press has said, we don't want to say anything about this.

The FBI, we don't do anything before an election because we don't want to influence everything.

You know, the two judges fought over, what was it, March 4th?

There were two judges that wanted to put that in the middle of the day.

Well,

there are now three trials scheduled for March and one for May.

Look, we're not Russia.

Our president doesn't shoot down the plane carrying his political opponent.

He doesn't kill lawyers like Mesnitsky who are in jail representing people.

We're not there.

On my podcast, I have a podcast called The Dirt Show.

I award bananas and I started with just one banana.

Ten makes you a banana republic.

But I have to tell you, after these three trials were scheduled for March, I am now up to six bananas.

We're getting close, unfortunately, and we have to stop it from being a banana republic.

When you go after the man running against the incumbent president, you better have the strongest case imaginable.

They don't.

And you better have the fairest process imaginable.

They don't.

They have a weak case with an unfair process, a denial of due process, and that's banana land.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

What

do you think about all the attorneys being arrested?

Well, that's scary.

I have a whole chapter in my book, Get Trump.

You are the best marketer ever.

What are you going to do with all this money?

Well, I'm not making any money on this.

Let me tell you what happened.

No bookstores will carry Get Trump.

They don't want to, independent bookstores won't carry it.

Even though it was number one nonfiction bestseller on Amazon, the local bookstores won't carry it.

So I write not to make money.

I write to have people read my views.

And if you want to read my views on these trials, read Get Trump.

So I'm not going to be bashful about promoting it.

I just can't get it in a bookstore.

And I fight against censorship.

Still, I love it.

But I talk about the lawyers.

They're going after the lawyers.

Shakespeare's villain said, first, let's kill the lawyers.

Mao Tze Tung put them in pig farms.

Stalin killed the lawyers.

Pol Pot killed the lawyers.

Castro killed the lawyers.

When you go after lawyers, when you arrest lawyers, imprison lawyers, name them as unindicted co-conspirators, as they did in D.C., and indicted co-conspirators in Fulton County, you're creating a real problem.

First, you're telling other lawyers, don't become lawyers for Donald Trump.

And a lot of lawyers are listening.

They don't want to be on the wrong end of an indictment.

They don't want to be on the wrong end of a bar complaint, as I am now on the wrong end of a bar complaint.

And

going after the lawyers is essentially the way you destroy the rule of law.

You can't have the rule of law unless you have lawyers.

You know, there's that great scene from A Man for All Seasons when

Thomas Moore is asked,

would you give the rule of law to the devil?

And he says, yes, because otherwise there'll be no rule of law for the rest of us.

And that has to be the current approach, but it's not.

So

as I understand it, and please help me understand.

As I understand it,

they are co-conspirators because, for instance, Mark Meadows, because he got a phone number that the president asked him to get.

And

I mean,

that seems like a pretty big stretch there.

And it's a pretty good question.

Well, the issue is now before a court in

Georgia, federal court, because Mark Meadows is saying, look, I was the chief of staff.

My job was to sit in and listen to the president's phone calls.

And I did.

And the president said to the Secretary of State rafsenberger uh we need to find find

uh enough votes to turn the election in my favor he didn't say concoct he didn't say manufacture he didn't say make up he said discover discover means they're there fine they're there to be found and it's what did mark meadows do wrong listening to that phone call there's an op-ed in today's times saying oh he should have gotten off the phone he should have put his letter of resignation on the desk well that's your opinion but failure to do that doesn't make you a criminal.

It is absolutely consistent that Donald Trump would say it if you read the transcript.

He's saying we have 400,000 votes

that are out there.

There's only 11,000 that are needed to turn this the other way.

Look at the 400,000 votes.

Find just 11.

You don't have to find all 400.

We did the same

thing

completely.

We did the same thing in in Burst versus Gore.

We needed 570 votes or something like that.

I guarantee you that the lawyers for Al Gore were on the phone saying we want the recount in this county because maybe we can find enough votes to put us over the top.

We don't want a recount in that county because that won't help us.

Correct.

They were very selective in which recounts they wanted.

And that's what the Supreme Court ultimately pointed to in rejecting recounts.

But if you go back and look at everything that the Gore lawyers did in 2000, you'll see striking similarities.

Go back and read the memo.

You want to hear the irony?

You know who wrote the memo for Al Gore?

The same guy who wrote the memo for

President Trump.

His name is Cheeseborough.

He was Larry Tribe's research assistant.

When Tribe wrote that memo in 2000, now he's under indictment for essentially making very, very similar points.

You know, the Torah says in instructing judges, lo takir punim, do not recognize faces.

You must do justice blind.

You can't know who the person is before you.

That's why we have the statue of justice with the blindfold.

But now everything turns on: is your name Trump or is your name Gore?

Are you a Democrat?

Are you a Republican?

Are you conservative?

Are you liberal?

Are you Trump?

Trump, Trump, Trump.

That's the name of the game.

It's in violation of the Bible.

It's in violation of civil liberties.

It's in violation of the Constitution.

But the get-Trump brigade couldn't care less.

They'll violate anything to make sure Trump can't run for president.

Sweat moves you forward.

Degree antiperspirant is here to make sure it never holds you back.

Clocking in, sweat.

Lunch meeting, sweat.

Biking home, sweat.

Degree Advanced is for the hustlers who put in the sweat.

The world's number one antiperspirant with up to 72 hours sweat and order protection.

Degree, here for sweat.

Try it today.

All right.

Before we get back to the final portion of Alan Dershowitz,

let me tell you, I'm a huge fan of the concept of buying things from people that don't hate my guts.

Buying things from people that are ethical, moral, trying to do the right thing.

And the

cream on the strawberries, if you will, is somebody who is trying to do it in America.

That's really hard, really hard.

I don't mind spending my money for things like that.

There are several companies that are building their companies with those kinds of values, your values.

One of them is Grip 6.

You're getting true American values.

You are also supporting the American ranchers that grow the wool.

And this especially bred sheep that produce this kind of wool that that the American manufacturers can take, wash it, process it, and weave it into socks.

They make great socks.

They make great belts.

Wallets are unbelievable, but they're all made here in America.

They're all made by Americans.

Check out Grip6 today.

That's grip6.com slash Beck.

Let me take you to the Florida case.

The Florida case with the documents.

My first question, and maybe you would know,

is this normal that you would have a grand jury in

that would convict a ham sandwich, as you have said, in D.C.,

and then turn that case over to the state in which it was, the crime was supposedly committed?

Isn't the grand jury supposedly

subject to appeal?

They got the legal rulings from friendly D.C.

judges, and then they took the case down to Florida.

And by bifurcating the case that way, they sought to get an advantage.

Now look, the Justice Department has a slogan right in front of the building.

Justice is done not when the government wins, but when justice is done, when we have a fair result.

They're not supposed to be seeking every possible unfair tactical advantage.

They're supposed to be doing justice.

Justice, justice shall you pursue, again the Bible.

And the Justice Department today is not doing that.

They are seeking political partisan advantage in scheduling these trials, in

the kinds of indictments, in the use of unindicted co-conspirators, in going after lawyers.

That's not justice.

That's weaponization and partisanship.

I'm sorry, isn't the Florida case a case that you thought was fairly strong that might cause him some?

I think that one instant is very strong, the waving of the document in front of that's a strong evidentiary case, but it's not a smoking gun.

It's a smoking cigarette, but because it's not that serious a case.

Although they call it espionage, there's no allegation that he turned the material over to an enemy or made money off it.

He was just showing off, hey, I used to be the president.

I could have declassified this.

I didn't.

It's still secret, but I'm showing it to you.

You know,

it's braggadicio, but it's not, and maybe it's technically criminal, but it's, it's a butt.

It's a cigarette butt, not a gun.

So

when you look at this and you say their objective is to

make sure that he can't run or be president again,

I'm not so sure.

I think they actually would like to put him in jail if they could.

I think

the hatred is so great that they want to see him in jail.

See, I don't think there's a they.

I think there are many who would like to see him in jail.

Yes.

People I know, friends who want to see him in jail.

There are others who would be satisfied if he made a plea bargain.

There was an article just the other day proposing a plea bargain.

If he drops out of the race, they'll drop the charges or they'll drop the threat of imprisonment.

He's not going to do that.

No.

Donald Trump is not going to do that because

nor should he.

No.

It's not depriving him of being president.

It's depriving you of the right to vote for who you want to vote for for president.

I defend your right to vote against my best interests.

You know, democracy doesn't assure you an outcome, it only assures you a process.

That process is voting.

Every American should vote.

Every eligible voter should vote.

The Electoral College should then decide who is the next president, not some Secretary of State in Iowa, not some judge in the District of Columbia, a judge whose background is completely anti-Trump and completely pro-Democrat, a judge who worked for one of the most corrupt law firms in America, got her education at the knees of corruption,

and it's just unfair.

And the case has to be taken away from her and has to be taken out of the District of Columbia to a fair place where justice can be done.

Again, if you're going after the man running against the incumbent president, you have to be Caesar's wife.

You have to lean over backwards.

You have to make sure that every I is dotted, every T is crossed.

They're doing it exactly the opposite way.

They're doing it in a way that wouldn't be fair to anybody.

It certainly isn't fair to the American public who wants to vote for Donald Trump.

Okay, let me change now to

the other side.

When

Trump was being impeached, I told my staff, look, I want you to put the blindfolds on.

I don't care if we like Trump or hate Trump.

I want the truth as much as we can find, okay?

So the truth of our understanding.

Go and get as many documents and pieces of evidence and let's put this together.

And we came to the conclusion that this is actually what Biden and Burisma and

Newland, et cetera, they were kind of,

they were involved in some nevarious things, at least in my opinion with Newland,

and that there was massive corruption going on.

And it looked to me like it was,

you know,

Pot calling the kettle black, trying to make sure that nobody was seeing these things.

So I've been on this story for several years.

I've been watching it, and

I know many of the facts, but I said at the time, time, this isn't a court of law.

I can't tell you that these things absolutely happened.

This is where the evidence leads me.

However,

right?

However, we are now getting to a point to where...

You know, you have the 70 red flags

from banks to the treasury.

You have the shell companies, all of the kids and family getting money.

Him saying he didn't meet with the business or oligarchs, and then we find out that he did, and the pseudonym emails, which we don't know anything about yet.

The State Department, that memo where it says, give them the money, they've done enough, and then

Biden saying, I'm not giving you the money because you're not qualified for it, which is exactly what his son needed.

And then, and the latest, and this is not something that you can convict over, but Shokin

actually saying, yeah, yeah, I mean, I don't have evidence, but I think this is exactly what was going on.

What do you make of this?

What I make of it is that there is probable cause.

There is enough to appoint a special counsel, and that is essential.

Now, already Biden has a special counsel, but only looking at the classified material, again, the cigarette butt.

Here we need a special counsel to look into Barisma, to look into China, to look into all the relationships between Hunter Biden and people.

Was President Biden or Vice President Biden at the time?

Was he there when that email was sent?

Was he on phone calls?

All of that has to be looked at by a special counsel.

That special counsel should be somebody who's above reproach, a former judge, a former justice, a former president of a university, somebody who's not political, somebody who doesn't come from the Justice Department, a totally outside person.

Remember, the rules require that it be somebody outside the government.

They violated that rule when they picked Weiss to be the special counsel.

But to go after the president, look, I hope Joe Biden did nothing wrong.

I've known Joe Biden since 1980.

I like him personally.

He's a nice man.

I don't believe he's corrupt, but I have an open mind.

And I'm not the one who makes that decision.

The decision should be made initially by a special counsel appointed to look into President Biden.

It's an important step and it's a controversial step, but it must be done.

You cannot allow Merrick Garland to make that decision.

Merrick Garland serves at the pleasure of the president.

It has to be somebody who doesn't serve at the pleasure of the president, who isn't appointed by the president, who doesn't owe anything to the president.

Until we do that second step of appointing a special counsel, it's going to be speculation, and that's not healthy for America.

You know what this election is going to boil down to

in a year from now?

Who's the worst criminal family, the Biden family or the Trump family?

That's not how we should be electing presidents of the United States.

We should be able to put all this behind us and decide the presidency on foreign policy, on the economy, on jobs, on the climate, on a range of issues that every American cares about.

You optimistic that we weather this storm?

You know, in Israel, they say a pessimist is Somebody says, oh, Yvette, things are so bad they can't get worse.

And the optimist says, yes, they can.

So

I have mixed views of that they could get worse.

They could get much worse.

And I think long term, they're going to be worse because of the new McCarthyism of the woke generation.

But we can survive this.

Our Constitution was built.

to survive this, but we have to apply the rule of law.

The biggest disappointment are the lawyers, the lawyers who have not come to defend the rule of law, the lawyers who have not come to defend lawyers, the lawyers who have taken sides and

are in favor of disbarring and disciplining people who are on a side different from them.

They're the biggest disappointment.

And when the lawyers fail to perform their job in doing justice, we're in deep trouble.

You said a little while ago that, you know, when we have a whole bunch of 10 bananas, we have a banana republic.

You said you have six of them now.

That's four left.

Are they just bananas that you'll know when you see them, or are they specific things you're looking for?

Well, I'm hoping to reduce a banana or two if the Court of Appeals strikes down the

scheduling, the unfair scheduling.

And I think it's possible that a Court of Appeals will say, no, no, no, March 4th, you can't read 12 million pages by March 4th.

They lose a banana if that happens.

If, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals upholds it, they gain a banana.

So,

you know,

we're in very vulnerable territory.

What I'm afraid of today,

I'm disappointed with the lawyers.

I'm also disappointed with moderate Republicans, people like Judge Lutek, who are Federalist Society people, who generally support the conservative side, but they hate Trump with such a passion that they're prepared to give up.

their commitment to constitutionalism.

The Federalist Society has been a very important source of constitutionalism, but many in that society have fallen prey to the get-Trump posse and say, look, we're conservatives, we're Federalists, and we're saying that this trial, you know, a bunch of lawyers from the Federalist Society filed a brief with the court in D.C.

saying the trial should be January 2nd.

January 2nd.

That's three months from now.

Four months from now.

That's ridiculous to the idea you can read 12 million pay or the idea that you shouldn't read them.

You know what's going to happen.

If he gets convicted, they're going to then say there was a violation of Brady.

They didn't disclose certain material.

And the government's going to say, oh, we disclosed it.

We gave you 12 million pages.

And on page 11,376 in footnote 16, if you looked at that, you would have seen there was the exculpatory material.

That's the game they play.

I've seen it.

I've argued that.

And that's what's going on here today.

12 million pages, and you expect either them not to read it or to read it.

Neither is acceptable.

Alan, I wish we had been neighbors and

my children would have grown up sitting around your table or my table hearing these discussions over a meal.

You're a well, we can still do it.

We do it on television.

So that's almost as good as over a meal, but it would have been nice growing up as a neighbor.

I don't know how you would have fit into Brooklyn, but I think it would have been a pretty good job.

I would have liked it, but I don't know if I would have fit in.

Alan, as always, thank you so much.

Happy birthday again.

And hopefully we'll get you down here to

just tell me the stories of the things you have witnessed because you have witnessed

a great deal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

God bless.

Thank you.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.