Best of The Program | Guests: Dr. Robert Malone & Alan Dershowitz

Take the next 30 seconds to invest in yourself with Vanguard.

Breathe in.

Center your mind.

Recognize the power you have to direct your financial future.

Feel the freedom that comes with reaching your goals and building a life you love.

Vanguard brings you this meditation because we invest where it matters most in you.

Visit vanguard.com slash investinginyou to learn more.

All investing is subject to risk.

Welcome to the podcast.

Make sure you rate and review this podcast.

Five stars is the appropriate number of stars.

You can do that for this program as well as Stew Does America.

We have a new podcast coming out today.

We're here all week doing wonderful shows for you.

Today, on this podcast, you're going to get Dr.

Robert Malone one more time.

He has been on the show the last couple of days talking about

what he believes is the issues with the way the government is communicating,

issues surrounding the coronavirus and the vaccines.

We'll get into that a little bit.

Rudy Giuliani is on.

He is a little upset at the way the government is handling his legal career, which seems to be over at the moment unless something changes.

And Alan Dershowitz is here as well to talk about the issues with the government and the way they're coming after attorneys and disbarring them if they had anything to do with Donald Trump.

We get into all of that today.

Make sure to subscribe at blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Promo code is Glenn.

You'll save 10 bucks off your subscription to Blaze TV.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

Well, I think this advertisement is, this approach to the NFL is going to be wildly successful, and I, for one, am proud proud of the NFL.

They've just released some new verbiage for the NFL.

Do you have the NFL music?

Let me just give it to you.

Football.

Football is lesbian.

I'm not making this up, by the way.

This is their actual.

Football is lesbian.

Football is beautiful.

Football is queer.

Football is life.

Football is exciting.

Football is culture.

Football is transgender.

Football is queer.

Football is heart.

Football is power.

Football is tough.

Football is also bisexual.

Football is strong.

Football is freedom.

Football is American.

Football is accepting.

Football is everything.

Football is for everyone.

Oh, that is...

This fantastic.

And I, you know, I think the NFL diversity director

told Outsports, I'm proud of the clear message this commercial sends to the NFL's LGBTQ Plus fans.

This game is unquestionably for you.

I'll be playing that first line over and over in my head all season.

Football is lesbian.

Okay, all right.

I didn't know that the game had sexual preferences.

Actually, Football Glenn is known as the most lesbian of balls.

It's a fact.

Huh, okay, all right.

You know, I think that

the football fan could be lesbian, straight, queer,

you know, non-binary.

The football fan can be anything, but football itself is a game.

Football is a game, and it should remain that way.

I'm just thinking.

Well,

you can't say football is a game without gay.

Well, yes, you

can't.

I forgot that.

There's no why in gay.

Game,

Glenn.

Game.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

No, it is not.

They've been planning this forever.

I actually do think, especially since it's not spelled anywhere close, you know, you'd have to get rid of the M and the E, get rid of the me in football game, and then add a Y for you.

Football is for you.

Well, you know how they used to spell women, W-O-M-Y-N?

You can do G-A-Y-M-E.

It's a

game.

This is so

ridiculous, isn't it?

Oh, it's so dumb.

I was watching, I was on Twitter yesterday, and you know how Twitter gives you ads,

you know, serves me ads based on my algorithm.

And apparently, my algorithm is telling them, I want to see ads about Pride Week from Procter and Gamble.

Or Pride Month, excuse me, about Procter and Gamble.

So the makers of Tide and Cascade are telling me about love,

and they go through this whole thing.

In the very end, there's this guy who's like, you know, I just, I just wish there was a time where we just didn't have to say all this.

Yeah, you've arrived.

You've arrived in the time.

It's here.

Congratulations.

We don't need to be, we don't need to hear every little itty-bitty detail of what goes on in your bedroom.

I don't care about it.

I don't want to know about it.

You don't have to tell me about it.

The people who make detergent don't have to tell me about it.

Just stop telling me about it.

You know,

may I go a step further?

I have a lot of, you know, I have a lot of gay friends who think that straight sex is icky.

So, you know what we don't talk about?

Sex.

Okay?

We don't.

And

I think that's pretty universal.

I don't want to hear about sex.

I don't want, I mean, now maybe it is

different in the,

you know, in the Tom Brady realm, where everybody is a beautiful person.

But

I've been to America and that's not the way it generally is.

And so I just think we should stop talking about what you're doing in your bedroom.

Because like Stu, I not only don't care,

I find it icky.

You know, and that could be straight sex.

You know,

let me tell you, boy, the wife and I had.

We tied one on last night.

I don't want to hear it.

I don't want to hear it.

Yes, we exist here to try to forget and not picture what you're doing in your bedroom, whether you're straight or gay or whatever.

Just stop talking about it.

Let's all hope that I almost just kind of want to forget.

That's how we reproduce.

Let's just forget about it completely.

I don't want to hear anything about it.

It really is an icky process.

I mean, you could go into this is

wow, really?

God had to make it feel really good.

Otherwise, everybody would be like, I'm going to do what?

No, I don't think so.

That's so true.

It doesn't make any sense.

It is a terrible idea.

If it didn't feel good, you wouldn't be doing it.

You just wouldn't be doing it.

You're like, what are you taking your pants off for?

Go, stop it.

Keep them on.

Keep them on.

It's hot.

People are sweaty.

People are smelly.

Just keep everything on.

Everyone, we bundle up.

You know, maybe we've criticized Islamic extremists before, but maybe they've got something on where you can't see anybody's human body.

I mean, there's something to the idea that we all just kind of cover ourselves and can only see eyes.

I've walked around the United States of America, been through many malls over the years.

In Texas, it's 117 degrees.

Everyone's sweaty and wearing really tight things.

Just stop.

Wear maybe a tarp.

Let's go to the Homer Simpson Moo Moo thing and just embrace it.

It was a good look.

I think we should do it.

Look, yesterday I told you I was...

I was going to be doing interpretive dance on how

racist the Constitution is.

If you missed yesterday's show, go back for the podcast.

In hour three,

I read the actual report from the National Archives saying that the

National Archives saying that the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is confusing and shows our racist history.

And their solution is to have interpretive dance happening when you go to try to see the Declaration of Independence.

And so I said yesterday,

I'm all for interpretive dance.

In fact, I'm going to do one.

And the reason why I said that is because you don't even want to think about me doing,

you know what I mean?

There's like when my daughter was in ballet, my son and I were like, you know, I think

you could put a piece of sliced toast in that guy's butt cheeks.

You know what I mean?

You could just put a slice of toast right there and he could hold it the entire day.

Me, you could put an entire toaster oven between my cheeks.

You know what I mean?

And so it's not good.

It's not good.

Nobody wants to hear it.

Period.

Can we move on?

Because I'm uncomfortable.

Jake Tapper,

wow,

has lost 75% of his audience since January.

I wonder why that is.

Wonder

why that is.

I have the answer.

Do you want to hear the answer?

Sure.

Racism.

In other news,

you know, some bigots might say it's things like what was said on MSNBC last night.

Listen to this.

Why do you think we're seeing an uptick in crime happening right now?

I think it's a combination of things, and we have to understand that police officers are the backbone.

Patrol particularly are the backbone of any police department.

And this reminds me of back in the day when I was on LAPD, when officers' feelings were hurt, and they had the term blue flu, where officers openly talked about slow response to radio calls.

You can break a police chief if response time is low, if you're not clearing crimes, if you're not responding to high-priority calls, shootings in progress, murder, robbery.

And so, officers now we see across these 18,000 police departments are butthurt because you know they can't run willy-nilly through a police department and abuse with reckless abandon.

So they're stepping away from specialized units, too cowardly to quit outright the department, but they're stepping away.

Wow.

So they're cowardly now police

hurt because they can't

just get away with all their racism.

Could I just remind everyone

that Derek Chauvin

was never

didn't even bring it up in court.

Even the holy corrupt Keith Ellison didn't say that this was about race because there's no case that that was about race.

And yet,

George Floyd is being held up as the hero that finally turned things around for the bigoted racist cop.

In the court of law, race was not brought into this argument.

So, how is this happening?

And by the way, it's not that the police are butthurt.

You've beaten the police back.

You've beaten them down.

I don't know.

I might learn a lesson and not put myself into a situation where I'm going to go to jail.

I'm going to lose my family.

I'm going to lose my reputation.

I'm going to be known as a bigot racist throughout all of American history because

you have an agenda.

That's not butthurt.

That's smart.

That's smart.

That's self-preservation.

Yeah, and we went through a study a week or two ago about Black Lives Matter and what has actually happened with it, where they say the study basically said they had saved 300 lives between 2014 and 2019 of potential police shootings.

Unfortunately, they caused between 1,000 and 6,000 murders by civilians against other civilians.

So many more black lives were lost because of Black Lives Matter than were saved.

But in there, they talk about the effect,

what they call the Ferguson effect, which is, in some ways, seemingly what she's trying to allude to here.

And

the idea is basically that police get sick of being called genocidal maniacs every Tuesday and decide, hey, I'm going to, you know, look, unless I really have to jump jump into something, I'm not going to jump into it because every time we jump into something, we get accused of these terrible things and our lives get destroyed when we're trying to help people.

So they don't jump in unless it's a super serious crime.

So we're seeing signals of this all around the country where murders and rapes and the most serious of crimes are going way, way up, while many property crimes are not because the police are hesitant when they know a life might not be on the line to jump into any of these situations because they don't want to expose themselves to a situation that's going to escalate out of control.

So they're jumping into less of fewer of these situations because of that.

That's a huge problem.

You know, I mean, and what happens when you vilify an entire class of people that are trying to help you,

results are usually negative.

And we're seeing that the results all around the country are really negative.

It's not because they're cowards.

It's because they're intelligent.

By the way, police, I think it was in Portland over the weekend, had to come out and beg, no violence, no violence.

The person that was shot was white.

No violence, no violence, no violence.

Nobody cared about what happened.

They didn't say, hey, well, this shooting happened and it was justified.

They didn't care.

They only cared what color the person was.

That's a sign of a deep, deep problem.

By the way, Rudy Giuliani and Alan Dershowitz in our number three today.

You don't want to miss any of today's show.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

As days go by and events unfold around the world, I fear what we have talked about has been right all along and it's coming.

You'd think more people would at least try to listen to what we're all saying, but the latest in computer hackers, which showed us that gas lines and beef shortages are not a conspiracy theory in America.

Doesn't matter.

Most people don't act.

They react.

What about you?

Are you going to act now while you have the chance and before it's too late or react later?

I'm talking about getting yourself a stockpile of emergency food from the nation's number one leader in preparedness.

It's my Patriot Supply.

I trust My Patriot Supply and so can you.

Just go to preparewithglen.com right now, and you'll save 25% off their four-week emergency food kit.

It's preparewicklen.com.

The food lasts for 25 years in storage, provides minimum required 2,000-plus calories a day.

So go now to preparewicklen.com and you'll save 25% off the absolute bare minimum you should have, the four-week food kit.

Act, don't react.

Preparewickglenn.com.

Coming up in half an hour, Rudy Giuliani and Alan Dershowitz to talk about what's just happened to Rudy Giuliani, and it's never happened before, and it should concern people a great deal.

And I'll let Alan and Rudy explain it.

It is,

it could affect all of us.

If you don't like the client, you don't go after the attorney.

And it's never been done before.

In fact, the head of

the

ACLU in New York, who hates Rudy Giuliani, just joined the team to push back on this because he said this is one of the biggest violations of rights.

And if we go down here and allow this to stand, we're in

big, big legal trouble in the future.

Each of us are.

So we're going to talk about that coming up in about half an hour from now.

Right now we're talking to Dr.

Robert Malone, and I want to play this audio of the bioethicist

for you, doctor, so you can hear what he's talking about inserting and

making us repel

meat.

Listen to this.

So I'll give two examples.

So one is that people eat too much meat, right?

And if they were to cut down on their consumption on meat, then

it would actually really help the planet.

But people are not willing to give up meat.

Yeah, you know, some people will be willing to, but other people, they may be willing to, but they sort of, they have a weakness of will.

They say, wow, this steak is just too juicy.

I can't do it.

I'm one of those, by the way.

But so here's a thought, right?

So it turns out that we know a lot about, so we have these intolerance to,

so I, for example, I have milk intolerance.

And some people are intolerant to crayfish.

So possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case that we're intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of

bovine proteins.

And there's actually analogs of this in life.

There's this thing called the long start tick, where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat.

I can sort of describe the mechanism.

So that's something that we can do through human engineering.

We can kind of possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

Isn't that

be terrifying?

That's a mic drop moment.

Yeah, that's clearly crossing the line.

Engineering humans is the key.

You didn't mention that part before.

So he's talking about engineering you and me,

not engineering the cow.

That's where

I was going to say,

well, I think the core of what you're talking about is,

does the rights of the society trump the rights of the individual?

Do the ends justify the means?

And we already settled that.

We had the Nuremberg trials, right?

We said no.

And here in the States, and I think all all of your listeners

are aligned with me on this, we're a free society of free people that have free will to make their own decisions.

And

this,

I hope that the speaker was saying this in jest, just to illustrate a point.

Because the idea of engineering humans, number one,

it's naive.

As somebody who's been in the gene therapy space for a long time, we can talk about these fancy ideas, but implementing them turns out to be wicked hard for the very reason we started talking about that, you know, there are all kinds of barriers to getting stuff into our DNA.

It's hard to do.

What concerns me is it feels like

some scientists are now like, yeah, yeah, eugenics didn't work, but the idea was good.

And we're just going down the same road with new technology

from

1900 to 1940.

Yeah, no, and this is I suspect this is always going to be the case.

I can tell you that

among my peers, there are always those who feel like if we can do it, we should do it.

And

it's often real hard to check those people.

I mean, this gets this is the same kind of issue as the gain of function mutation research that's at the core of the controversy about the origin of this virus, there are people in my space, you know, in my contact list,

that are kind of wired to say, I'm really smart, and if I can do this, I should be allowed to do it.

And those people are really hard to control, but they're out there, and they will always be out there.

And somehow the rest of us got to put a clamp on them and make it clear that that's not okay.

But it's not easy to do, I guarantee.

It's not easy to do, and it feels like medicine in some way is going off the rails.

I know the AMA just said that they're going to start now including critical race theory in medicine.

And I thought that critical race theory, like it, don't like it, that's political.

We cannot put political onto medicine.

Yeah, the assumption that the American Medical Association represents most physicians in the United States is false,

not only by numbers, but also by logic.

So please don't paint us all with that brush.

Just because a bunch of folks sitting in an ivory tower in Chicago happened to say that,

a lot of us find the AMA has led us down the garden path to where our lives are controlled by accountants and

people with MBAs.

They kind of sold us out.

I don't know that medicine, you're right, medicine today is not what I signed up for when I went into medical school.

And a lot of my colleagues are really disillusioned with it.

That's a big thing.

We're facing

these are the kind of things that keep me up at night.

We're facing times

that are coming at us so fast, and it doesn't seem like, for instance, I have a daughter who

has cerebral palsy, and she had horrible, horrible seizures.

She was having them all all the time.

And she just had this miraculous brain surgery.

She hasn't had a seizure since January.

That's

she's 31 or 32 years old.

That's that is a miracle.

And I know that Elon Musk is developing what's called Neurolink, and his idea is that you'll be able to, you know, if you have strokes, which she had,

it will be able to

jump

over any of the scarring or anything else.

And I think this is fantastic, but I also see what it could become, and I don't know where the line is.

Is anybody talking about these things?

You're right to be wary because the history is that

every one of these breakthroughs always comes with a good side and a bad side.

And there's always military applications.

there's always these kinds of control applications, and

there's always folks that are willing to exploit it, particularly if they can make a buck.

And

this is the battle that we are going to have to wage forever.

But is there anybody in your business leading that battle?

That's a good question.

Is there I'm not there must be institutes and think tanks that are I can't imagine there isn't, but the field of bioethics seems to be often fairly focused on

just the pragmatic parts of how do we do a clinical trial and

develop drugs and stuff like that and not on these big picture issues.

These are more psychology and sociology kind of and

big think tank, Rand institute kind of questions you're asking and i i i hope that there are folks out there but they're not in my world my world people tend to be pretty focused on the mission and uh you know how do we protect the warfighter how do we uh respond to bio threats i mean the thing that has my world spooked is these new recombinant technologies like

CRISPR-Cas9 that that you know in the and garage biology you can engineer some wicked nasty stuff these days in your garage and that's that's in a way that you didn't used to be able to and that's what's got

pretty simple most people don't don't even know what crisp is can can you explain that quickly not very well i don't know it i don't practice it it's a new technology that allows very precise recombination which is to say insertion of new genetic material in place of existing genetic material and it makes it kind of child's play.

It used to be really hard.

And now, by use of these sequences that are found in some prokaryotic bug

microbial systems, you're able to circumvent a lot of the old, kind of more clutchy stuff and just make genetic swaps wherever you want.

And that's complemented by the fact that you can, I mean, I could write out a new gene that I want right now on my computer and send it off to a shop shop in the U.S.

or China, and they would send me back a package with that gene synthesized.

It's that trivial.

And this is a technology that now allows you to take that and drop it into

your favorite genome.

It's not yet

so efficient that the problem with all of this for humans, for big animals, to get it into all of your cells, we're not there yet.

We're a long, long way from that.

But to do it in one cell,

or modify a virus or modify a bacteria,

that's now trivial.

And that's kind of the thing about the argument that, just to bring it home, that SARS-CoV-2, some people say, well, there's no footprint of classic genetic engineering.

Well, with CRISPR-Cas9, there are no footprints.

It just goes in clean.

So

that argument, you know, we can't, it changes everything because you can't track stuff in the same way.

And it becomes pretty easy to do stuff.

So that's a little spooky, right?

Yeah,

we're entering a whole new world, just a whole new world.

Dr.

Robert Malone, thank you for spending the time over the last three days being on in the program.

I find you

find you really refreshing that you haven't brought politics into any of it, just reason and common sense.

Thank you so much.

God bless.

My pleasure.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I heard Alan Dershowitz talk about Rudy Giuliani Monday on the Megan Kelly podcast.

And

I just thought he made such good points, and I wanted you to hear them.

But I also had a couple of questions for Mr.

Dershowitz

on this particular case and what it means if it's not repaired.

Welcome, Alan Dershowitz, host of the Dersh Show.

How are you, sir?

Well,

I'm doing good, but I'm very concerned.

You know, I've been a lawyer for 60 years.

I taught legal ethics for about 35 years at Harvard.

I have never seen a case like the Rudy Giuliani case.

First of all, they deny him an evidentiary hearing.

They say you have to prove not only that what he said was false, but knowingly false, that he knew it was false.

He denies that, and yet they didn't take evidence.

They just suspended him, saying that the suspension is likely to become permanent without any kind of an opportunity for him to respond.

Moreover, I have never seen a case where lawyers have been disciplined, not necessarily for what they say in court.

Some of the allegations are what he said in court, but others of the allegations are what he said on television, on Fox, on Newsmax, on podcasts.

Why is that not protected by the First Amendment?

I think everybody will concede, the court will concede, that everything Rudy Giuliani said would be protected by the First Amendment if you weren't a lawyer.

What's the difference that he's a lawyer?

I mean, I watch lawyers on TV all the time.

Just, for instance,

in the Chauvin case, I've heard the lawyers talk about how this is all about race, and yet when they got into the court, there wasn't one word about race.

Well,

was he

right?

Should he be suspended?

Well, I can tell you, many, many thousands of lawyers would be suspended if this decision by the appellate division in New York were applied across the board universally.

There's a famous case where a prosecutor held up a pair of underpants saying it belonged to the defendants and that the red on it was his blood when the prosecutor knew it was pink.

The guy got sentenced to death.

Ultimately, it was reversed, but the lawyer wasn't disciplined or disbarred i've experienced myself probably two dozen cases where lawyers have made misstatements to the court i filed a grievance i filed a grievance against david boys a prominent lawyer the senior partner in boys killer who has had many ethical complaints against him in the feranos case in the winston case you name it in other cases he says to me on tape on tape i have it on tape he says to me the woman who accused you is wrong simply wrong You couldn't have been in the places she said you were in when she claimed to have sex with you.

He says that on tape.

And then just a short time later, he files a complaint saying she's telling the truth and everything she says is truthful.

He knows that that's false.

And I filed a complaint with the same

disciplinary board that disciplined Giuliani, and they wouldn't even consider the complaint.

They wouldn't even investigate.

That's how selective this prosecution is, and it's unfair.

They're going after Giuliani not because of what he said, but because of who he defended and because they don't agree with his politics.

So

here's the scary thing, Alan.

We know that it would not be universally applied

because

it never works out that way, strangely, because it's about politics.

However, this should shock every attorney

to know that if you fall on the wrong side of an issue, you can be suspended.

But also, this goes to something else.

We have, I have one of the,

had one of the best First Amendment attorneys in the country from

Washington, D.C.

battling with us.

I've had them for 20 years and battling with them, et cetera, et cetera.

We're in the middle of something and we get dropped.

and the reason why we're dropped is because it will cause problems with some of the other cases and the partners that we have.

Excuse me?

You're now make they were making political calculations on who they were going to represent.

Alan, if this kind of stuff continues, if you're unpopular, you're not going to get an attorney.

Well, I remember this from the 1950s.

I was you're too young to remember to know this, but I was in college when McCarthyism was rearing its ugly head.

And no lawyer would dare to represent somebody who was accused of being a communist or a fellow traveler or too far left.

Yesterday, it was the left that was complaining against the right.

Today, it's the right that's being victimized by the left.

And you know what's going on in this world today?

The hard left has become the enemy of free speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws.

And they call themselves progressives.

They don't want equality.

They want identity politics.

They don't want due process.

If a woman says it's true, it must be true.

Why have a hearing?

They don't want free speech.

If we don't agree with you, you shouldn't be able to say it.

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

What has happened to the hard left and the Constitution?

They see the Constitution as the enemy of their utopia.

They don't realize that without these constitutional rights, every utopia turns into a dystopia.

If you don't believe that, look at Castro's Cuba, look at Mao's China, look at Stalin's Russia, and you'll see historically it's always been the case when you end these rights, you end freedom and liberty, and we have to fight against it.

I'm a liberal Democrat.

I voted for Joe Biden.

I voted for Hillary Clinton.

I voted for Barack Obama.

I voted for Bill Clinton.

I voted for every Democrat.

And I'm just as concerned as if I were today a Republican.

And they can come after me tomorrow because I defended President Trump in front of the United States Senate.

And I'm suing CNN because they totally distorted what I said.

And I won the first round of my case against CNN.

And I think I hope I will win the subsequent rounds as well.

We cannot allow this attack on the Constitution to continue.

But, you know, I wish there were more liberals like you.

I mean, this is what a liberal used to be.

And I don't know where those people are hiding.

I don't know if they don't exist.

They don't see the threat or they're afraid to say anything or that Donald Trump was so bad that, you know, ends justify the means.

I don't know where they are.

That's what I think many of them say.

That's what they tell me.

You know, people don't talk to me anymore on Martha's Vineyard.

They don't talk to me in other places, mostly Marsha's Vineyard.

These are people whose kids I wrote recommendations for for college, whose kids I got up at 3 in the morning and helped get out of jail when they were picked up with

drugs or with alcohol.

These are people I have done things for over the years.

Today, they won't talk to me because I defended the President of the United States, and Trump is different.

Nothing applies to Trump.

The Constitution is suspended when it comes to Trump.

That's the road to tyranny.

Wow.

Let me ask you this.

The ex-FBI lawyer that lied to the FISA court.

I mean,

he changed documents.

He got a one-year bar suspension.

Rudy Giuliani is facing a life suspension.

This guy gets a one-year suspension from the bar.

Doesn't that seem a little light for somebody who went into court, knowingly changed documents to have it say the exact opposite in a FISA court?

Yeah, especially a FISA court because there's no other side of the FISA court.

The FISA court isn't an adversarial system.

One side is presented.

And so that side is expected to present everything fairly in a pristine manner because they have a special, special responsibility.

Look, I think what that guy is accused of doing is far worse than anything that Giuliani is accused of doing.

Oh, I got you.

So hard on Giuliani.

I would like to have somebody go and go through all the cases where the Appellate Division of New York or

the Disciplinary Board of New York has refused to take action against lawyers.

For the most part, they take action against lawyers who steal money from clients.

They very rarely take action against lawyers who lie in court.

I have had so many cases in the Southern District of New York where prosecutors have said things that are clearly untrue.

And I've written books about it.

And I've

argued appeals based on it, but I've never seen any lawyer disbarred because of it.

I don't want to see lawyers disbarred.

I don't, I'm against the weaponization of the justice system for political partisan purposes, but I don't want to see Giuliani treated to a double standard and denied due process and denied free speech rights.

But wait a minute,

you should get in trouble if you're lying in court.

Yeah, shouldn't you?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

You have

to be candid with the court.

But you have no obligation to be candid on Fox television or in Glenn Beck's radio show.

I'm always going to be candid because that's who I am.

I have never deliberately said anything that's untrue on any radio or television show to my knowledge.

And I'm going to continue to maintain that standard for myself.

But I don't want to see the government have the power to determine whether what I've said to you is true or false.

Once you give the government that power, and Bar Association, disciplinary groups are the government,

you give them the power to chill advocacy, to chill free speech, and you give them the power to selectively enforce the law.

And that's so dangerous.

You know, one of the dictators of South America famously said, for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law.

The law is so powerful.

You can use it so effectively against your enemies.

And what we're seeing right now is a banana republic style attempt to try to go after former President Trump and his family and his company and his associates.

And that's what happens again in banana republics.

When you undo a government, you go after the former government.

You put them in jail.

You kill them.

You do all those things.

That's what determines whether it's a tyranny or democracy.

In America, we generally applaud our former office holders.

We don't go after them.

But here you have in New York, the Attorney General of the state of New York runs for office without seeing a bit of evidence, runs for office on the campaign pledge that she will get Trump.

It's not what an Attorney General should do, and that's not a fair way of approaching criminal justice.

From the Dersh Show, Alan Dershowitz.

You can grab his podcast, wherever you get your podcast.

As always, Alan, thank you very much for your honesty.

I know we disagree, I'm sure, on a lot of things, but on telling the truth and

standing up for what is right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right, Alan, thank you so much.

God bless.

You bet.