Alan Dershowitz — the youngest full professor in Harvard Law history where he is now the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, writer of numerous best-selling books including, "The Case Against Impeaching Trump," and his latest, "Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo" — joins Ben to discuss being a civil libertarian, Trump, Obama, Israel, #MeToo, O.J. Simpson, impeachment, going from loved to hated by the Left, and much more.
Subscribe to the Daily Wire to watch the bonus questions! https://bit.ly/2q0wopL
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
The left knows the truth with a capital to the truth is if your white male you're guilty of your women of color you're, a victim Eleazer,
which is one of the most famous legal minds of the last half century after graduating. First,
class me a law school in eighteen, sixty two Dershowitz clerk for Supreme Court, Justice Arthur Gilbert. Just a few years later, at twenty eight, he became the youngest person at the time to ever become tenure
faster at Harvard. He then went on to defend them and most high profile defendants in history, the country,
from Oj Simpson and Geoffrey Epstein to Harvey line skin and MIKE Tyson Ellen Dershowitz is,
the significant role in drafting the defences of major figures accused of a litany of heinous crimes, but the one that is our
only drawn the most controversy is one in which is defended was not accused of any actual crime. In January, twenty twenty during the impeachment trial president Trompe L entered the staged presented here.
Against impeachment Ellen being a lifelong liberal, Democrat and twenty sixteen Hillary Clinton supporter believes everyone has a right to defence in a court of law, even Donald Trump
Ellen, and I will discuss his rules on deciding which quite represent the media deeply misrepresented his case against impeachment fees, new book guilt by accusation, the challenge of proving innocent
Adrian me to as well as whether not only did it
and welcome. Mrs the bench. A bureau shall Sunday special today we are joined by Professor Ellen Dershowitz. Just reminder would be doing some bonus questions with Professor Dershowitz. The only way to get access to that part of the conversation is to pass money and become a subscriber over to daily, where it can become a subscriber. You have access to all of the full conversations with every one of our awesome. Guess, Professor Dershowitz thing somewhat for stopping by pleasure. Thank you. When we start with the obvious question
How did you a defence attorney best known for being a lifelong Democrat and defending who a lot of people would consider on the Republicans I'd be criminals? Have you end up here
of the right. How did this happen? I shouldn't be a hero. The right anymore than I should have been a hero of the left. When I defended many people who were left wingers, I've always been a neutral civil libertarian, sometimes my civil liberty,
lands on the side of the left, and then they love me and then sometimes my civil liberties lands on the side of the right,
and they loved me and the other side hates me. For example, I started right,
a book about impeachment when Hillary Clinton look like she was gonna, be elected and the name of the book was called the case against impeaching Hillary Clinton.
I would have written the same book had she been elected except they would to build. The statue
me on Martha's vineyard, maybe be the hero of the left today. But I
The same argument just change the name of the book from Clinton to Trump, and now I hated by the hard left loved by the right. I deserve neither a civil
rotarian shouldn't be loved your hated by anybody, but people who deeply believe and civil liberties duped
says shoe on the other foot test neutral principles. So do you think that something has happened within the Democratic Party that has changed, because again it wasn't just that you're, a Democrat for from Mozart, where you're still a Democrat, presumably that the real question is
what has changed, such at the hatred for you is so strong that just the association with trumpeted start before that's infusing start a little but before that is, I think, so. I think that today, the Democratic Party, if you want to be a fool on member, you have to buy everything. They say in everything they do.
And I'm just not that kind of a person and I put part politics
way behind civil liberties due process the constitution, and so I think,
In a few years it became obvious- I wasn't there guy and I'm treated like a trader. You know they don't hate, J, Sokolow or or patch lonely biggest or ten store its expected me, I'm a liberal democrat. How dare I defend the president? Bob
I'm yesterday said it was disgraceful that I would defend the worst president in the history of the country as if that fact
even if I believed it to be so what influence my decision I defended lower
Criminals are the worst people I defended,
of Nazis to March through Skokie, I defended the rights of communist. When I was in,
As you know, I hated communism thats what a simple libertarian,
Nobody can be elected amendment as better
I want to ask you want to ask you one second about the about sort of the future.
Credit party, considering that their casting out people like you but first, even though we're talking with Alan Auschwitz. Let me real about this. There's lots of crime watts of crime everywhere, and this is particularly true in lost
Angeles we're governance is terrible. I know my neighborhood, we ve had a series of breaking entering crimes. It's really bad. This is
I I rely on ring to keep my property save. Not only does the ring up allowed me to know when there's crime in my area, but also ring, gives you protection at every quarter and helps create custom, affordable security for your home rings, video doorbells. Let you answer the door and checking on your home any time from anywhere she can protect your family pats property with rings outdoor security cameras. You can check and on every part of your house, so
from this moment ring house you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world and the text motion. When people come onto your property, you get notifications on your phone. You're tablet your pc. You can see here and speak to visitors in real
from anywhere and get peace of mind knowing that your loved ones are safe, get a special offer on the ring. Welcome kit, when you go to ring that calm, Slash Ben Welcome, get includes the ring video doorbell to enshrine prop it's all. You need to start building customs
ready for your home today, just had on over the ring dot com, Slash man, that's ring that calm, slash bed. So, let's talk about the fact that, since you are now an outcast, you ve said but
or that you have a house and Martha vineyard, but no one will talk to you over it Marthas vineyard. Do you think that the Democratic Party has a future if they keep throwing up people who are middle left to our centre, or is it possible that they need
their theory, which seems to be a burgeoning demographic majority based on various victim groups, that they can sort of a glass
together, but that that is actually a strategy for electoral success. Will that would be the worse. The worst thing would be for the democratic world
to succeed as a hard left identity politics into
action now Party,
a combination of people with grievances? That would
the worst thing. I would hope that the Democrats would recognise that the fate and the future of America lies with the centre. I'm writing a new book now.
Why I left the left, but couldn't join the right, the case for a vibrant centre.
You know when the old day I would have conversations like I'm having with you with Bill Buckley, and he called me his favorite liberal. I was his favorite. He was my favorite conservative. We would have good rational conversations, we discrete about fundamental issues, but we could talk to each other, can't do that today with Democrats
When I did my argument in front of the Senate, nobody ever took it on the merits. Larry tribe should it was bonkers
said I was getting senile. People attacked me person. I wasn't a scholar and constitutional law, even though I taught constitutional criminal procedure for fifty years and constant.
Litigation wrote books on the subject. If I had been a Hillary Clinton side, if she had been impeached, I'd be the gray
scholar in the history of constitutional law, according to the left, but then like, where I
down in this case, so they attacked me personally, the hominids or inexcusable. So, let's talk about the case that you made in front of the Senate, which of course brought the full weight of the democratic. The Democrats in the press- but I repeat myself to bear
on you, the the case that you made in front of the Senate is not the case. That CNN said you made in front of the Senate.
He's been CNN said the men from the outset. It was effectively that if a politician of any sort does something
pursuit of their own reelection? Then this is not impossible activity. Now I saw
clip of you- and I immediately not been taken out of context, because first molten, idiotic argument and you're, not an idiot and second
because you were saying a night in vienna- has some problems with, would take people out of context. What does the argument that you?
actually making, and how did they twist and argue personal? It wasn't taken out of context. That's happens all the time
it was doctored? It was as if I said, the Father
let me tell you now what I don't believe I dont believe a president seeking reelection can do anything and CNN ran a president. Seeking reelection can do anything
schooling, the fact that I say this is what I don't believe in a paragraph before the quote that they used. I said if a present
gauges and anything illegal. If the quick
Coco is is illegal that isn't peach. While I talk about corrupt motive, I talk about kickbacks. I said in my whole our intentions speech in the Senate. If the president commits anything which is criminal
akin to treason or bribery. He can be impeached, and so what CNN did
is they took all of that out and they made
sound like I was saying, and then you had these idiots on CNN people like full Bagalia, who said basically
I said the president can do anything illegal. Some said I said a president could shoot his opponent. A present could lock up all the Democrats. The president could tamper with voting machines is exactly the opposite and then just walk art again, another liar
said what I said is like what Messalina Hitler and Stalin would say, and I supported genocide. Look either. They didn't know what I said. I don't think that's the case. I suspect that what happened is in its more than a suspicion. It's based on it
nation that I have is that Zocor, the head of CNN, made a wilful deliberate decision to have me say something there
and idiotic in order to hurt my credit.
Forty on an hour and ten speech that I made in front of the Senate
and they deliberately omitted what I had said about criminal conduct to make it sound. Like I was saying I presume you can do anything.
And then everybody followed suit. Everybody on CNN said that's what their would said and they knew it it,
the point that I immediately knew that you were making me cuz. It's a point that I made myself an is an obvious point, because the counter point is is completely idiotic, which is that if a president does a thing that it was in his legal
you do, and that is tainted by his own self interest, but it isn't legal power to do this thing, but he also has a self interest.
Either a combined motive or secondary motive. That's not a peach, because that's just call politics
Every politician does that wherever timber Oc Obama did anything that was within his power to do with an eye to re election, those cultures first term, and to pretend that that's impeach will act
which is what the Democrats effectively we're doing is not impenetrable. I gave way to give an example. I said: let us
The following President Obama promises he's gonna bomb, syrian military. If they use chemical weapons, they used chemical weapons. His advice
here comes in his wait. A minute before you start bombing think about
it will do to your election. The left will turn against you in an and abolish. Oh, my god, really I shouldn't bomb I'll break my promised. Would that be impossible
of course not, and I dont limited the president's, I said it, any elected official always has mix motives. They care about the net,
the interest, but they always have an eye on their political future and all I said, was if
president, has one eye on his reelect ability to see things as elect abilities in the national interest that can turn innocent conduct within his power.
Or into unimpeachable events. There is nobody who would disagree with that, yet Adam Shift pretended to disagree with it. Nablus pretended disagree with it. Schuman pretended to this
ray with all three of them were lying through their teeth, and I
than in the Wall Street Journal. I got a lot of criticism. How do you challenge the motives of people? Well, I am challenging their motives ended the as soon as this thing broke than the first reaction that I had was that the question in the end was going to be about present. Frumps motives. If it came out that he had said to John Bolton, for example, that Boma testified than he had said openly. The reason that I did this specifically is because I want you not Joe Biden out for prices of the twins
twenty election, then that would have been impossible conduct, but if he had an eye backdoor twenty sixteen and he was saying I want everything. Twenty sixteen looked out because it bothers me, noise me and I think it's in the national interest, and even if that is that was badly informed. As some of that stuff was the crowd strike, stuff and arrest of it, then that is not an
well, that's just what we call bad judgment than he's up for election and that's why we here are due to vote for based on bad judgment, but that's not impeach will conduct. The other example I gave is Joe Biden says unless you fired
prosecutor em with holding a billion dollars? Ninety percent,
his mind, was on the national interest but would have in the back of his mighty said. You know. Maybe it'll help my kid. You works with charisma,
maybe it'll, call off the investigation, wouldn't change his innocent conduct into culpable conduct doesn't matter with the President vice president or anybody else. Every politician always has mixed motives. That's what I said
everybody understood it. They look me in the eye. They knew what I said, and then they deliberately lied about what I said so moving for when it comes to impeachment. Given, given the fact that the Democrats in receipt of single republican vote
page meant! Well, they they got Mitt Romney, I'm one charge, but they didn't they receive any other votes on impeachment. Do you think that impeachment is still a viable power?
the constitution? Would a president really have to do and we caught doing an orderly and beat Richard Nixon. Very simple: he's the only case in american history
where president should have been impeached. He committed repeated crimes.
Even when he was being impatient in favorite his impeachment. I was on an
Nobody board of you and I asked
show to oppose the way, was being treated, they named him as an unindicted co. Conspirator unfair if you're
is an unindicted co conspiracy. You can't fight back and get a trial, so as a civil libertarian who who favorite I oppose that back in the in the 1960s look seventies. You can argue about anything about me, but one thing you can't argue about is my consistency. I've been absolutely consistent since the day I started to be an adult when I fought against censorship of communism,
college, and I fought against censorship during the Vietnam WAR. I never care which side it comes down on right, left, centre. Republican Democrat. I always care about civil liberties
and people understand that, but they pretend that I've changed. Suddenly I become a react
Mary right winger, instead of the liberal left winger that I always met us feel like a difference in moral system that has happened in the United States, I mean I used to be even I was growing up that people would say it's a free country can serve. Do what you want. People Don T know
that phrase too much anymore. It's a lot of talk about things.
You shouldn't say: maybe you should be pushed into saying them or things that you or or the other factors that are supposed to
haven't justice beyond your own individual case. You talked about a lot of this in guilt by accusation, but this cannot most famously during the Cavanaugh hearings. When it's you,
though the evidentiary necessity to prove a case against justice. Cavenaugh was come
we thrown by the wayside by the media. The mere accusation was enough to slime him back.
Obviously he was a white man in a position of privilege and power as opposed,
the woman who, apparently he, u alleged, that he had abused her without not only no evidence, but every single piece of evidence that she tried to stack up immediately fell apart, including people should set up where the party in which he somehow wronged her saying that they want it. That party the party never took place and still wear,
told that Cavanaugh some sort of re right. Well, you know when the Columbia School of Journalism had me interviewed for the Journal of Colombia Journalism most needy in the paradigm, the interviewer said. Would you can't be
victim of a false accusation. Euro white old male mean that's the way. Journalists now approach this problem. It's all identity, politics doesn't matter with the evidence is managed who you are not? Who you are what you are, what your identity is, that determines whether you get
speech whether you have triggered warnings, whether you are silenced, whether you're allowed to speak on campus like the two of us of all kinds of difficulty. Speaking on campus,
nothing to do with our ideas. They refused to take us on based on our ideas. It's all about
who you are, how dare you
size, your white privilege, by coming on campus and telling us what you think. So what do you think the future is for four due process? We that its most basic right, that we have this right of due process, the right to be treated according the circumstance of our case and be judge on the merits of the case, as opposed to.
What you think of me, as a human being and, more importantly, what you think of my group identity as a human being. That seems like it's going completely by the way, some nerve
as I said, I have another full articles written about it because he was a powerful white male. You should not be given due process. You didn't deserve due process and you ve seen
Phoenician of racism itself, morph and change. Formerly people who used to say,
ISM was discrimination on the basis of race? Will now say that its discriminatory intends on the basis of race, combined with power which have
immediately suggest that if your member of that, my group, that you can be arranged raises more sexist or any other, if you can't be
an anti semite either, if you are a member of an oppressed group, know there's no question about that. Look deep down not very many people care about due process, people use due process and free speech for me, but not for the they. Generally tennis,
when it helps their side. When I was growing up, it was the liberals who want to free speech costs the conservatives. The right wingers was suppressing free speech on campus, particularly among a communist. Today is the conservatives who want free speech because their rights are being violated. What we need are a core of people who support due process and free speech, regardless of who met
and who loses the number of those people are are very small. Now I have to tell you, thank God, for conservatives because having concern
is now have come to appreciate more than in the Basque, the virtues of due process, fairness, free speech
dialogue and all the rest of the Catalogue of Liberty
and civil liberties that our group taking for granted set a second. I want to ask you about go by
innovation and the extent of the of the pushing aside of due process, particularly
to movement, that's Levin was second first, let's talk about,
importance of preserving your memories knew that your memories. What are you your memories?
incredibly important to making you who you are as a person and here's the
you can instantly lose those memories. If they're out in your garage have an old film reels, what exactly are those doing out there? You get a bunch of old age S, tapes
have a vcr anymore. That also
but they're getting waterlogged well. Why not take all that stuff it get? It did you
as this is where legacy box comes in legacy boxes. Awaken.
You too easily and affordably digitally preserve your past the process from start to finish its incredibly easy just pack it up and send it over there,
Digitize is everything by hand, and then you receive perfectly preserve digital copies on a thumb, Dr Dvd or the cloud ready to watch share and enjoy, plus they keep up to date with regular email updates throughout the digitizing processed legacy.
Is the world's largest digitized or movies, and photos that have helped over seven hundred fifty thousand families digitally prison.
Their past. I've been using legacy box myself. My parents had a bunch of old stuff on there.
I should like all that, I'm sending it in two legacy boss. I can't wait to see what it looks like once it's done with its digital, preserving
get started preserving a bastard. I gotta legacy box dot com, slash ban to get an incredible forty percent off your first order by today to take advantage of this exclusive offer and then send in when you're ready for legacy box, dot com, slash bent and say forty percent while supplies last ok, let's talk about the meeting.
It's been fascinated to watch the boundaries of the meat you movement move, so I
somebody who is obviously very social number, which is true, I'm very socially conservative. I've always been I'm the purest person. I know when it comes to matters like this has a virgin until I was married, the whole do what
We are the only other one right without a robust unorthodox Gillette's roof. You know we didn't have learners permits for marriage. Like a word the night you were so it with. That said in the kind of general take
of the need to move it, which is that women ought to be treated like human beings and appeal to pieces of meat is something for which I was, of course very sympathetic. But then, as I watched the standards, what meet you constituted move
radically and the wines move radically and the attempt to remove
all gradations of misconduct so making a sexist remark in the office,
now considered akin to rape or,
An accusation was considered pure evidence that this thing happened because
course women don't lie.
This one's genetic there's, a genetic rule that women are born with a predisposition, genetically always tell the truth and men particularly white.
And are born with a genetic predisposition to lie
mean that the believe all women movement- it's like this- is not just first year criminal law, which they do that
of all. Anybody is stupid thing in the world, but its basic logic, of course, you'll, never believe all anybody based on their group identity, you wouldn't believe all rabbis or believe our praise. Why in the world would you believe all anybody, but that has become the basis of the need to move in and its lead to this idea again that, based on your victim group status, in this case the victims being women, particularly that you ought to be,
on the basis of an accusation alone, and obviously, since you are
sporting criminal law. This is incredibly dangerous and when people suggests that there are no bad,
positions of rape or evidence, free accusations of rape or sexual assault or sexual misconduct. That, obviously, is not true. Of course. Now
I never met the woman ever under any circumstances who accuse me. We discovered hidden emails that
He tried to hide with lawyers in which he had met. She never met me a hidden manuscript, which was sealed in which she says she saw me once speaking to Jeffrey Epstein, about business, but never met me told the FBI. She never had sex with me
best friends, she never met me or knew me. Her lawyer on tape recorded says she
wrong, simply wrong. She couldn't possibly have met you and the places she said
met you and FBI report concluded by the former director the F b I Louis
read that the whole story was made.
And it all went away. The judge struck at the lawyers.
Drew it admitted they were wrong and finally it and then allow.
Can there be to movement,
Suddenly, the false accusation known to be false is enough to get me cancelled. Speaking at the ninety seconds,
the ninety seconds required- or I've spoken at me-
more than anybody, but Ellie Weasel suddenly said. I can't speak about my boy,
defending Israel at the ninety seconds, free why
although they know I didn't do anything wrong. There's an accusation and the accusation is trouble and we don't want trouble. So you can't ever speak here again. So what do we do about this
elsewhere, because that's really we're talking about her in the criminal lost, your obviously you're, not in the dock. You haven't been accused
we have anything I wish I were
a road and a bed for the Wall Street Journal saying to the FBI. Please investigate me criminally conduct,
Well it s as the only way I can possibly clear myself. You know the rule is so absurd. Now she can accuse me of anything she can accuse me of having sexual
is two years old. She get accuse me of anything it as long as she does it in papers that our law papers. She is exempt from being sued for defamation, but if I then deny it, she can sue me for defamation because by denying it
I have called her a wire, so we now have a legal system that incentivize is false accusations for money, but the trick is easy
was a prominent person? He'll then deny you saw him and he'll give you money and if I
anything to hide. I pay me
I've known I I've got, I won't pay very. So what would we do exactly about the kind of perversion of of the system, because this
What is happening is that it seems, like the social sanctions are being brought to bear in the non legal sense in single, say. Well, my
for being violator. My speeches being violet though so well, but it's not
you're free to say whatever you want you're free to do whatever you want nobody's, bothering its social saying
Obviously, social sanctions are perfectly legal. The council culture which you're obviously talking about writing second street. Why deciding that you can't speak there, because there's an accusation out there that isn't unsubstantiated not only associated disproved right. Did that that attitude. It doesnt have first amendment consequences in the sense that legal thing, but it obviously has widespread societal consequences, left wishes to ignore those because it of course likes cancel culture as it can be applied to people it disagrees with. But what what do we have to do about that society will? First we have to stand up in fright, most people,
fight back this most people have someone died, even if you falsely accused this, if you have something that you are ashamed of, it will come out at a trial. So the vast majority,
people who are falsely accused can't fight back I'm lucky. I was brought up the ducks like you, I've, never
properly touched anybody in my life, I don't hug, I don't touch. I do any those things for ten years I was
faster and Harvard LAW School as a single man. Never went out flirted, never had a complete fifty years, never a complaint, so I can sue cause, I'm not afraid of being deposed, I'm not afraid of any
the coming up with yet another accuser. If there's another user will be a false. Somebody came to me recently in an extortion attempt
presumably by lawyers offering to sell me pictures of myself having sex? I laughed. I said that can't be a picture of me having sexual anybody, but my wife and they produce the picture or the New York Times.
Reduce the picture. It was a joke. You know it was some old guy that they got off the internet. You look at my wife. Looked at a g, you know she laughed hysterically. My wife laugh when we first when I was first accuse she could
believe it you know, and this woman who accuse me she's accused Al Gore, Al Gore's,
wife of being on options island they ve never on the island. She is accused of Bill Richardson. She is accused George Mitchell she's Accuse Leslie Wechsler
she has accused Marvin Minsk gaiety of men, develop artificial intelligence, she's accuse everybody and she's lie through a teacher said she was fourteen when she met every Epstein. Our own work records
the shoe seventeen and when he allegedly fonder out other people, she was almost ninety, so she's lied about everything, and yet people believe her
because she's a woman- and when I accuse her of lying, I committed a social sin. I accused woman lying how dare you she was victimized. Maybe she was but she's victimized me and I'm going to fight back.
Yeah, I've asked or any sort of what do we do about this? One of the things that that seem so threatenings that, as I say, a lot of this is: is social sphere oriented its pressure that the total talk about backing in democracy in America? Specifically talking about the idea that social pressure could be brought to bear to basic
make it a human being into a dead man, watering forbidden from all public company and all of us going back to the eighteen thirty. So it's nothing, it's nothing new. What what is new is that there seems to
a already happened in places like Britain in Canada to actually change the laws to reflect this sort of
should sidle world attitude, we should change. The law is number one. Nobody should be allowed to defame other people behind litigation, probably because they abuse that they use it. All the time judge could promise. The chief judge of the second circuit is written on.
They're, saying, don't believe what you read from court filings court following zone of the primitive the court there just put in in order to protect themselves from that kind of defamation, so the law does have to be changed. I think
amendment law has to be modified as well take. What's he ended to me, that's not protected by the first amendment and it shouldn't be protected. If Zocor, the head of CNN sat down with his people and said, let's now try to destroy Dershowitz credibility. Is he made a good speech in front of us and it lets Rynch out of context? Let's take out what he said
about criminal gonna. Let's make him say something he didn't say deliberately and wilfully. I don't think that's protected by the first amendment and for that reason, as a first amendment person, who cares deeply about the first member, I am seriously considering the possibility of taking legal action against
CNN, in order to try to level the playing field so that
the media can turn truth teller.
Into liars in a wilful and deliberate. Why tell what exactly the first amendment
they look like under curl. Obviously the first amendment standard particular public figures is extraordinarily burdensome. You have to pay
the and malicious? You have have demonstrated that the person knew that they were set
something that was fully Andrew. True of what happened would see in an absolutely true. They knew what they were doing this. I don't got time actually changing the standard, Brazil here, here's the problem, what they do
They showed me saying certain things and I did say those things. It's like. I said, here's what I dont believe and then they said what I said the leading case and the Supreme Court involves the New Yorker magazine where somebody was accused of taking words out of a quote and this
court said that isn't covered by the first amendment, but we'd have to make new law by saying that, basically,
You used the words that were actually spoken, but you purposely wilfully and with malice
leave out words just before and just after that totally and completely change the meaning, that's not protected by the first amendment, and I think that's right. Ok, succeeds
so that nothing like a fairly minor change that is already basically been prepared by the Supreme Court. You're not talking about widespread changes of the kind that President Trump has referred to on twitter. When he's talking about changing the full on standards of defamation. No, no, I think we
or small, by looking at people who will fully deliberately abuse the first amendment for partisan or personal or financial benefit. That's where you begin, and I think we can do that. So let the other changes that I was talking about when it comes to sort of the the pushing of of social sanction into the into
matters of law. Are these moves that have been made in places like Canada and the United Kingdom with regard to things like hate speech and trained, actually criminalize forms of speech that supposedly victimized protect
class? Madame deeply worried about how united stance on senior legwork a lot of the Democratic Party would do that. Frankly, I I don't know how
me justice is on the Supreme Court would stand against that in its consideration. Obviously, I think that the ones who are appointed by Bush and Trump likely would stand against that. I have no idea
that's only such May. I had no idea about waiting Kagan. I have a fairly
an idea about justice, Ginsburg Lithium angle, the wrong way there, but I dont know what we're that stands. Do you think that the Supreme Court would actually allow without a constitutional amendment, hate speech, regulations be promulgated? The United States depends on the regulation, but I think an outright banning of something called hate speech would not survive Supreme Court review. But,
They chip away at what about new private university. What about in a public university
banning hate speech in the classroom that would probably be approved, but in the open forum I
it's gonna be a matter of degree, but I do think that the banning of hasty,
has more legitimacy today on the left than had ever had before. I don't think the left today would support
the issue use position back many
Here's a gazelle! You doesn't defending the rights of not with Asia. You forget about the issue you on free speech,
the issue is free speech for the left, but not for the right, except once every ten years will defend the Nazi gazettes easy, and that gives us a little bit of credibility. But due process on campus forget about it.
The issue is now the problem, not the solution, the due process in free speech, so I saw
a picture and to ask you about your career before everything from
related and modern politics related.
And I want to ask about your criminal Walker, because, obviously before any of this happened, that's what you're famous form- and that was the thing that media household name Was- was the divine below case
they or the Oj Simpson case things like that, so I've
wanted to ask you about sort of criminal justice and the adversarial nature of the criminal justice systems from the outside at the summit,
like me, I look at it and it seems like they did the act,
Nation was costly, made work and find the best where's wines that that, if you're a in impoverished defendant- and you can't find
why are you basically screwed, but if you're a very wealthy defended and
it agreed just crimes? You can find a good lawyer that person can squirrel
you out of the charges. How much truth is there to that, and does that make the case for a sort of european inquisitorial system as opposed to the? U S, justice system, which is adversarial in nature, United States? That system is not
burial at all ninety seven percent of cases in the federal courts and then guilty place because of what is called the trial penalty.
And the job of the criminal law today is to explain
in the gun, that's being held to the head of the defendant, saying if you dont plead guilty
get ten times the amount of
hail time that you would have gotten a few plead guilty. So what I have to do,
I recommend declines all the time. Look if you go to trial you'll get ten years if you lose. If you please,
guilty. I think I can get you a year now. What
chances of me winning? Well pretty good, I mean I think I got a twenty five thirty percent chance away, not good enough if there's attend to one ratio. So of course be.
Wealth it gives you the advantage legally medically housing, wise, educationally in every other way white. Why should it be different? What with the law
and that's why I do half of my cases pro bono, I represent half of my clients from the big
during the day I started practising law. I've done have of my
his pro bono representing poor people, obscure people, you don't read about those cases and
those cases that have actually more success because you can have more success. Impact
low visibility. Cases and, with famous case, is famous cases you, after winning
court. Now we did win, invite Bulow. We did when O J Simpson. We did when
I didn't when Michael Milkin, who just got a pardon, so maybe we did win out
later in the end. But you know I've law
cases with rich people and I've won cases before for poor people. But having
He is an ipod touch, both ways. It makes it more likely that you'll be prosecuted if you're, very rich and if you're a big prize
but it also makes it more likely. You'll have a chance to win the case, so once economic
the EU, as it is a criminal offence attorney.
Acting in that capacity. How do you sort of square that, with
your perspective on morality. I ask you, then one second, but first, let's talk about sleep quality, I'm there's a lot of things. Sleep is not one of these things and that's why I need a mattress that is made just for me. I need the world's best mattress and that, of course, is a personalized mattress. Personalize mattresses from he looks mattress. These are the best mattresses. In fact, I gotta helix
sleep mattress. For my sister is well for her wedding helix sleep has acquired, it takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences, so the perfect mattress for you, whether
side, sleeper or hot sleeper, whether you like a pleasure from but with helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising he'll sleep?
The number one mattress by Jake You and Wire magazine and CNN calls it. The most comfortable mattress never slept on fact check. True, that's the first, I'm CNN has ever sent anything true, just gonna, helix sleep, dot, com, lifespan, take their two minutes, leap cause and they will Matthew
customize natural that will give you the best sleep of your life
and your warranty yet tried out four hundred nights risk free though even pick it up for you. If you don't love it, but you definitely well here, which is offering up to two hundred bucks off all.
For US orders for our listeners. Right now gives two two hundred dollars off at helix sleep, dot, com, slash ban, that's helix, sleep dot com, slash ban,
some old and from a born you're, a bucket bugaboo, the right right, I'm happy and that quite that yeah, but I'm old enough to remember in the OJ trial
but I'm M willing the tv and my public school classrooms over the reading of the verdict. I think maybe ten at the time and
number than our household. Your name was. It was bit of a dirty word, because you are one of the attorneys de facto just Simpson and of course, as everyone who was mainly
and into the time thought organisms was deeply guilty. So yeah, I'm not going to ask you whether Oj Simpson was guilty because, as hurting client privilege, but with that said, you defend clients and criminal defence journeys
clients knowing presumably orderlies thinking that there are guilty. How do you swear that belief?
that your own client has has done something deeply
or moral and then going
defending them. I think much the same way a catholic priest defends not turning in a penitent who is admitted committing a terrible crime.
Big difference when a catholic priest and lawyers, the lawyer, if a client tells me I've killed some
I am going to go with, do it again or I've beaten my wife and me to go back and beat her, I'm obligated to turn them in, because it's a future priests can't do that. A priest.
Has no I'm going to try to persuade you and talk you out of it or a doctor
My daughter in law is an emergency room doktor. She is almost certainly save. The lives of people have gone out and done terrible things in the future. It's a variant
in part of our legal system that everybody, a defence. I uniquely get the most difficult cases this now. I've had some success and also as a professional can take more of these
is a pro bono, and so I had a lot of people who have strongly suspected were probably guilty in a couple of cases. I was pleasantly surprised that the end formula I was presently
Bryce. But you know you talk about not being able asked me whether or not o J did it when I first in baby.
You knew who have known since his twenty two years old became prime minister.
I was in Israeli invited me, my wife and my daughter to come. Semen is new digs and we we went
and we choose, we took pictures that it took me into the little private rooms it now. I have a question: have always wanted to ask: you did OJ, do it nice Miss premises, question I've always wanted to ask you.
Does Israel have nuclear weapons? I think you do. I get another fund, ok, aid and drop in, and you are score Brazil. With with regard to your that's all,
the reason I ask whether an inquisitorial system would be better one where it doesn't seem to pit one,
in whose now job it is to defend the criminal conduct of somebody who believe do they believe committed a criminal act inquisitorial sustainably.
I think that the US is the best system. Where do you think that a debate is the basis and for the United States? I wouldn't ever try to impose our system on
foreign countries by the way, many of the countries that have become free after the breakdown of the Soviet Union have had an option of going with this.
European system of the european system and many have gone with the american system. You know what Churchill said about democracy. I could say about the adversary system, the worst ever.
Invented, except for all the others that have been tried over time. I think there is
adversarial relationship between a person accused of crime and the state, and you
Berry that adversarial relationship in in in in paternalism or any other kind of,
from is in there really is a conflict, our job as criminal defence. Turning just to get the best deal, Jeffrey Epstein. Look at
I got him a very good deal and I hated for it, but that's my job. If I had
anything less than get him the best deal. I possibly good. I would have been do
something in violation of my oath of office, and so it creates a moral conflict. I don't sleep. Well,
when I defend somebody who, I believe, probably did
I've never had a client whose gone out and
on it again that is committed. A second murderer done something hard
will horrible OJ. Simpson, obviously was convicted of doing something, but it was
fairly minimal, and by the way I don't take case, I don't represent a person twice
I have a rule. I have several rules. I don't represent somebody who was in the business of crime I don't represent. I don't want to be that can sing
really: will crime family and represent drug dealers and resent professional terrorists serve people like that, but I will readily
Anybody once regardless of how serious the crime is. Obviously what I represent a nazi. You killed members of my family, no there'd be a conflict of interests. There are denied once so much to see him convicted. But if I have no personal emotional conflict of interest, I dont
The seriousness of the crime influence my decision, whether they take it so another area where Eve obviously come very well known in their a bunch of different areas, because you're sort of a master of of several different rates
isn't it isn't the pro Israel space and break out? Suggest you actually that you're unpopularity left began with the the intervention, the pro Israel space long before. I think that's really the president from stuff happen. People will know about that, because people who don't follow the pros rosebreast on actually follow the pro israeli space, but assumes wrote the case
Israel, it seemed like the left turned on,
new early up a segment of the left turned on you and fairly
just fashion at right once more. The hard left
norm. Chomsky, commission, Norman Finkel staying to try to find out
poems in the book, and he found a quote from Mark TWAIN which I quoted and attributed to Mark TWAIN, and he said I didn't find it in March
Wayne. I found it in a book by a woman named John Peters Young readers, whose book had been criticized ya. I mean first of all, we both found
the same place. We found it in a little pamphlet, called facts and something or other which was
put out by some pro israeli organization, which you couldn't site, obviously is non libraries, but we both founded in the same place, but you know
It gives me a plagiarism. I immediately went to Harvard University, the president and said I want to study, commissioner, what they appointed. Therefore, the former president of harbour to investigate George plagiarism. You said there was nothing to it, but that was the first attempt to attack my integrity because our supported Israel. So what
you think it is that the hard left his turn so so far against Israel. Lady think, that's being mainstreamed into the Democratic Party, the scale that living hell out of me. Frankly, we start very easily the hard left. The hard hard left turn against the calm turn against his ruin. Communist party turned against says: you're owes a simple as that nineteen sixty two
in Israel, wins the war. The Soviet Union breaks relationships with Israel. The communist parties all over the world turn against Israel because they're taking orders from Stalin, it's a simple, not stone in those days, but the Stalinists in those days it was a simple as that back than than Berrigan. I write about this in my book called defending Israel Berrigan, who is a paragon of left during the Vietnam WAR, calls Israel a criminal community, a jewish criminal community. So you get Berrigan Chomsky
think of sixteen July Mount the hard hard left turn against Israel, and then it creeps into the centre left and you get people like Peter buying heart
will become enemies of Israel, though they proclaim?
there really Zionists J Street, which has never said anything,
positive about Israel in any of its press releases and supported the Goldstone report.
And they have now made it possible for Democrats to say
We're not gonna go to a pack was warrants is unknown
going to a pack, so I think the Democratic Party
We are in danger of seeing the by partisan support for Israel weakened as the result of the left of the democratic party. Adding this is one of the things people are missing. I hear this a lot from Democrats, virtues which the vast majority of Jews are Democrats. Is that the reason that the
crasser turning against Israel is because of Trump and that's completely neglecting the history of the Democratic Party, which was wildly pro Israel throughout at least
the early. Ninety ninety men then began to move and shifting. Since, in the opinion polls and by the time Barack Obama was president, it didn't move fairly fairly solidly into the palestinian camp. At least
in terms of being on parity with Israel in terms of popularity inside the democratic party. This is particularly true among young Democrats and Obama, obviously facilitate
President Obama was not a fan of the state of Israel, who is he hated Prime Minister Netanyahu? Obviously, the attempt to pin that on president trumpet
establishing again, considering that that the Mainstream Democratic Party had been moving in this direction for quite a while labeling Israel, an apartheid stating and no no
about that, and I think President Obama, through my voted twice. I now would reconsider my second vote for him. He began
may he call me into the oval office, and he said I have Israel's back
I didn't realize what he meant is to put a target on it and stabbed him ass. He was leaving office, he ordered his
representative to a duty is to be
a resolution which declared the coattail the Western
while the holiest place a duty is to be occupied territory along with the acts
rose, EMU, university and Adasa Hospital and the jewish quarter,
outrageous? Outrageous and it
legitimate it more and more people in democratic.
Did he say, while we should have a balance of Palestinians who have turned down statehood since thirty, eight four
six thousand seven hundred and ninety two thousand slash two thousand and one two thousand and seven slash two thousand and eight
at a party now,
there is a real danger of losing the bipartisan support. I think there are some many centrist Democrats who still support Israel
people on the left and younger people to a far far lesser extent, and this widespread.
Apple Wild Watch Bernie Sanders trying play on the fact that he's ethnically jewish, as is, though, he's some sort of patriot on behalf of either
Brill or or Jews. I mean it's just its maddening to watch
entering again the man campaigns openly with open anti Semites England as our Sore and Ohio Margaret she did to leave in real life there
one. He went to England and campaign for Jeremy Corpsman, who facilitated
turn the Labour Party into a party that welcomed anti Semites and
Bernie Sanders I went there can paid for and let me too
one? Oh, there is a Democrat. A no circumstances will I ever vote for Bernie Sanders.
Period. I will never vote for Bernie Sanders and I would hope that other Damn
rats will join me in that pledge because he would hurt America terribly and I think in the end he would ferment some anti Semitism, because he would hurt America so badly and for
first jewish president, to hurt our economy and hurt are
standing in the world, I think would be just a terrible terrible thing: I'm not gonna vote against them because he's jewish avi
Lee. Ah, I am going to vote against because his policies are so deleterious to what
Amerika Great America tries at the center
our Great Country Franklin, Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. Cuz avoided.
What's going on in Europe in Europe, you rather communist your fascist, the centre disappeared, ruse veiled in the thirties created a kind of social capital ism which allowed for us to preserve centrist democracy. Sesar is democratic party and I think we're seeing
hurt my new book there. I'm working on why I left the left, but couldn't joined the right the case for the vibrant center. I try to bring us back to centre. Is politics centres, conservative centrist?
broth and avoid marginalize the extremes on both sides but Sanders is the extreme. On the left side,
because of my own personal policies. We spent a lot of time here sort of bashing the Democratic Party in the lab. But what do you think the right gets wrong, because obviously the tale the new book is that you're not joining the right. So what? What do you think that
Well, you know we have differences, you're, unorthodox, religious person. I support a woman's right to choose. I support.
Gay marriage and gay rights. I a strong supporter of
following the science on the environment, a reasonable gun, control of health care as broad as possible, consistent with our economic welfare so
I pretty much go down the liberal agenda when it comes to a social issue.
On the other hand, when it comes to foreign policy, if I were in Britain I'd be,
serve busy for make this. The conservative party in Britain follows many of the social policies that we talked about, but I'm in
great conflict. I love you, then Jellicle Christians is there so supportive of Israel
you're so respectful of me when I speak at Liberty University, and I talk about a woman's right to choose. I get polite applause. When I talk about game,
in Israeli, get a fifteen and a standing ovation, so I feel politically homeless. I feel thrust out
from what run away and said I didn't leave. The Democrats. Democrats left me there
We're leaving me? I don't feel I feel, welcome in the conservative republican Party, but I don't feel comfortable with the social conservatism of so many Republicans. I'd love to see returned to kind of Eisenhower. Republicanism Rockefeller report.
In his but we're not seeing it. So I want to ask about sort of your system- and I see group orthodox right, but obviously you're not orthodox now. So what? What is your sort of religious belief system is obviously a very narrow ledge
Finally, jewish, but obviously you speak in terms of Judea mulatto, so where'd you hold on. I love my Judaism. I'm going to synagogue, I'm a traditional do but am sceptical sceptic about aviation Mama sceptical about God, the guy I am sceptical,
is the jewish God. I'm am sceptical about atheists. I don't call myself anything
agnostic they, I'm not an atheist, goes home to sceptical. I am sceptical about science. I am sceptical. You took my course with sea,
Pingaree a long time ago in orbit. You know that I am sceptical about everything, I'm sceptical about evolution,
explaining everything in biology, I'm gonna die a sceptic, I'm gonna die
not knowing the answers to all these questions, but I hope I'm so healthy,
enough and wise enough to keep asking the question. So my religion, sceptic
So how do you generate a moral system based on sex?
Well, I remember remember asking this question. I think actually raise my hand in our class. I asked this question in specific letter. I wrote a book in answer to your question called rights from wrongs,
an ironic as I was very glad to do so, which is a secular theory of the development of rights through experience in history. My theory is that
rights, grow out of a recognition of the wrongs. If you look historically, the civil rights movement goes out of slavery. The post holocaust
went of human rights around the world. I think that I mean experiential S time. I am a strong supporter,
like him personally, but Oliver Wendell HOMES, the life
laws, not logic, exist. Its experience
you learn from your mistakes, and so I think my theory of rights grows out of
my understanding of how
avoid a wrongs in the world, but I'm not an absolutist. So I got into a lot of trouble when I suggested that, under certain circumstances, a torture warrant might be permissible if, for example,
We had a terrorist who had planted a nuclear bomb in New York were LOS Angeles that you kill ten million,
people and we had the terrorists than we could by use of extreme measures prevent that from happening. I suggested the possibility,
thought you weren't, which got me into a lot of trouble with all my liberal friends. Many of them said we agree with you privately, but don't ever say that publicly, so I'm not an absolutist, but I have a strong presumption against torture against censorship against a range of other.
Miles of civil liberties. Tests are going to ask you about sort of that that perspective on rights forces wrongs, especially because I wonder how you don't
I've been to a sort of historic system. If the idea is that
also the developing and learning from our wrongs. Does that mean
Ripley we're going to get better, because now human history seems to say no, I would ask about then one second. First, let's talk about protecting your internet data, so the reality as you wouldn't leave your front door unlocked at night because somebody might break it, wouldn't leave your car a mark on the street, somebody might break, and why would you like
your internet activity unprotected did you know
sample, the your internet service provider logs every single website you visit. They can sell that information to add companies intact giants who could use that
The target you express Nepeian puts a stop to all of us. It creates a secure encrypted tunnel,
between your device, any internet so that your online activity can be seen
Anyone else expressly paean works.
All your devices, phones, laptops, routers, so everyone who shares your wife, I can still be protected, even if they are not using express nepeian themselves. The best part is using Express GPS is super simple. If you go, try it
really is easy. I've been using it for years myself. So if you're like me and you believe,
that your online activity is your business secure yourself by visiting expression?
european dot com lifespan today use mice.
The link express me, peons outcomes, lifespan, Ex p, R S as Europeans, outcomes, lifespan and you
get an extra three months for free right now, that's express gps dot com. Slash been sown ask about the basis,
of apposite morality, because, obviously, in order to identify the wrong, you do after actually identify the wrong based on something where we see that
happen around the world and people justify them routinely when there has been thousand
here's a bad things happening in most places. Article
Then there are thousands more for you, thousands more for virtually all places on the globe before that
what is the moral system based on other than that you some fundamental points
in other words, that under
how we decide when a thing is wrong. So rubber knows it was one of my closest friends on the fact that the great philosopher
returning is when I gave my draft shortly before he died of my book on rights from wrongs, and he pointed out,
You pointed out. Can you really know what wrongs are without knowing what rights are in? My answer is yes, I think there is a human instinct that really teaches us when something is
and everybody agrees, that now course they didn't overtime. Slavery was wrong. The holocaust was wrong and I get back
thing is wrong, but you never get agreement about. What's right, it's much easier.
Find agreement on. What's a disco, Pia than a utopia, take, for example, a utopia.
On the labour and economic point of view, you couldn't get ten,
will sitting room deciding what the best system of
not a regulation is, but I think most of us today would
The socialism in communism has proved that it's the wrong approach.
So we get a much wider consensus on what's wrong. Then what's right, but look it's a work in progress. I don't think it's a perfect solution when I once argue with Scalia Justice, clear who became friendly with that his system of original is isn't perfect. It doesnt saw Brown versus board of education. He said. Look, it's not perfect, but it's better than the others and it's safe
than the others, and he had a point there and I think my system may be better than the others, but it's not perfect. But what
using beggar system. Is that it? Actually? When we're about right,
this is wrong. She not talking about individual rights versus runs. You talk about moral, that's morally, correct versus morally wrong, and it seems that the American
system. The enlightenment based system is based on not moral right versus more wars,
based on individual rights, whereas the regime of individual rights come in, and what do you think that individuals have rights or is it basically sort of a broken experiential as well? You know, I think that there are elements of of both mean. Are you you had my class would steal, pinker, stiff pink,
really believes that we are moving in the right direction. Is written this brilliant book on how everything is God
I'd better angels, our nature, but you know having lived through the Holocaust. I was a child, but my family with through many little killed. I just don't see it as a direct line, in fact the Jew,
Experience has always been things get better and then they get much worse than they get a little better than they get much worse. You know that the jewish definition of a pessimist is things are so
They can't possibly get worse enough to Missus. Yes, they can, if it so I'm a jewish optimist. I think things could get worse and we have control over our destiny. We determine whether things get better or get worse thoroughly
person in the end it means there that's very little was named minor and Ivan Thinker and say there's no such thing as very well in all the union's Eleanor had now headed by that and religious in the sense of I'm sceptical
I'm gonna get you keeping that I was, but I don't know why I love job is one of my favorite books was Joe Liebermann. Book about shop is how the Jews, having kept the Sabbath, but the Sabbath has kept the Jews. I think the Sabbath is a fantastic invention.
Just was in the synagogue reading from the ten commandments and whoever heard
The commandment that says you have.
Rest one day we could then valiant commandment. It sounds like a labour
Zation platform programme, but it is a commandment and it's a very wise command. So you ve taught at that. The law school for
decades. Have you seen how have you seen a change in the nature of the students were coming through, because one of the great question is I've, been speaking in camps is now for probably twenty years at this point somewhere in the neighborhood fifteen point
and even in the last fifteen years, has seen a massive change in sort of how treatin on campus has has been
I use? Google has begun: campus, no security whatsoever, the right economic, two thousand and ten thousand eleven arrests book at Berkeley in two thousand and fifteen, and it was fine
I came back and twenty sixteen we're quite six hundred police officers in a six hundred thousand dollars security expenditure by the city, murkily in
for about riot rumbled out what what what example? Given that, as you know, it's one word one word truth: the left knows the truth with a capital too, and if you know the truth, why do you need
said: what do you mean opposing points of view? If you know the truth, what do you need due process? What
need to have a system of determining what
we know the truth. The truth is, if you
white male you're guilty if you're women of Color Europe,
victim? We know? The truth. That's what's happened on campuses today and you too
Cities are no longer places where teachers teach you how to think they teach you what did think fifty years of teaching. I think you recognize four of my class. Nobody knew at my personal views, weren't almost anything.
I would raise question after question. It was never right answer in my class. It was simply a method of challenging everything, scepticism back everything today of teachers, lecturing students. What to believe and is
again, it's not education, and it seems to me that when it comes to what's happening on campus, so much of it is focused
on undermining Athens, sort of rights being spent your life defending
Those rights are not seen as a bulwark of a hierarchical system. You see people arguing against freedom of speech. Answer from our principle, Roma accuse them of Frankfurt school philosopher, arguing that that free speech itself was
reinforcement of the hierarchy, because the people who to best advantage of it were the privilege- I remember Marquis Lucy Torrid Brandeis when I started teaching at Harvard and he was propagandizing the students back then against free speech, and now you have professors who was saying
that free speech is a male higher?
Oh, you know all of all the words you just make em up as you go along. That's what they do.
But it's no good. We don't need free speech,
need due process. I've never seen that before on university campuses, even during the Mccarthy period, the people on the right with the apologetic about denying due process that people on our left far unapologetic. They think it's the right thing,
So what do you think is the future of higher education and because I know that we're trying to shovel everybody enter into higher education is seemingly
you two less and less a fact that you think that eventually, people
wake up and realise that this is largely wasting time unless majoring in maths and science as it that's what they're doing that's what they're doing the good students or staying away
from majoring in anything but computer Sciences, math economics in some universities. Basically, universities are two universities now
the serious students who are really interested in learning- and it's mostly in the science I and then you have
students who know Fruit and Harvard you have to work so hard to get a be minus. I mean it's almost impossible. You can't just walk through Harvard and get bees
be places in Asia in everything and then come out with your Herbert agree and learn absolutely nothing if you're a jewish kid. You can
major and jewish studies, and just repeat
what you learn than elementary school in high school. If you're a woman, you can major women studies and have all your proof
to say, while who isn't that great are no criticism at an end, these kind of ethnic studies programmes are so dangerous.
Man mean I would practically have rules and you can have ethnic studies, but if your jewish, you can't take jewish studies, have you been
You can't take black studies very woman. You can't take one sorry, that's available for other people to learn about you. Now. That's nonsense, of course, because obviously, if you're an african American, you have rightly
agriculture in your history, but also how something I mean I should our ocean learn about right, other things as well. You know I went with it as easy as hey met the jewish girls when you're studies, glass well you'll. Like this, the reason I wrote my book the case for Israel as a kid came over me one day and he asked me to give him tuba was during the ten days of repentance. He said because he never speaks out. Conclude
in support of Israel, though he knows a lot. I said why not as it is, I won't ever get a date. So I started a campaign. I said, support Israel data zionist tonight it helped a bunch of Zion is get dates, but it
really help because of its mentioned, your sort of constitutional theory of interpretation? I end
engine justice, Scalia original ism I or textual ism. I think, frankly, that the justice
His mother rationalists then Scalia wiser than I did monochrome. So so what? What is your theory of how the constitution should be interpreted by the supreme? I think there are squeezing the constitution is dead? Tribes is alive, other both wrong part of its dead part of its alive, the part about thirty, five years old. Being present, you couldn't be better than that, of course, is dead. You gave me thirty, four and eleven and take the oath of office due process. The process that is due is an invitation to change what due process means over the years
for example, the framers of the fourteenth amendment? None of them would have said that that means black and white children go to school to go and get married. Oh my god, you
got one vote for that. Of course, due process has to change over time impeachment. I think it's dead, I think impeachment dead. It should never change over time. The framers said
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours, meaning other crimes like treason and bribery. It's dead, it doesn't change. In the nineteenth century. People Ford it needed a crime scene of the Columbia law. School said the weight of authorities in favour of Unita crime, the former gesture.
The spring quoted defended Andrew Johnson. You need a crime. Suddenly we ve gotten, woke and all the professors when trumpets and pay
cross you don't even
The and you can call it abuse of power. Forty of our presidency have been accused of abusing them.
Our they want to normalize impeachment turn it into a partisan weapon to become part of our political system. Exactly what medicine and Hamilton rejected they said. We don't want to turn into a british parliamentary system where president serves at the pleasure of the
legislature and yet that's jack. We would the Democrats try to introduce. I mean I've really was amazed by the weakness of the charges that they brought forth in the house, because I figured that if they were going to actually charged the president will have any cuts in bright.
Very over and over. I don't know why charged with bribery malevolently orchard right if they done that
Argument would have been completely different
although I would have argued, but once they charged with abuse of power, my God obstruction
of Congress. Every lawyer obstructs Congress whenever he demands a court order.
For allowing his quiet to fall into a perjury trap. I know I do that all the time, and so those with too vague, General Madison Hamilton would be turning over in their graves. Moreover, Hamilton said the greatest danger is that impeachment will become partisan. They both want it all of them. Wanted impeachment do occur, only
There was a bipartisan support and we need two thirds in the Senate and all the well meaning national support for impeachment. The only case for impeachment that ever should have gone forward was Richard Nixon, so in the future, do you think that
impeachment gonna happen every couple of years, or does it not every couple of years, but every decade, whenever you get a President one party and a house of another party and the president's controversial theirs,
to be a move to impeach. Remember there will be no impeach Hillary Clinton on day, one Republicans real
lock her up distorted in some ways with the impeachment of Clinton now putting did was accused of a crime perjury, but it wasn't. A high crime was a low cry. It was perjury committed not in his official capacity holding office.
In his personal capacity. So what would that said, and it seems like the countries gain more parsing? You are hoping for a centre do see that emerging anytime, soon or latin. My lifetime, your lifetime, I think, will see the pendulum swings slowly in America and I think the rest of my life will be living in a division country. Look when I turn seventy five. Six years ago I thought I was going.
Such a nice retirement and then I get falsely and then Trump gets a lack did now. My family doesn't talk to me people
the vineyard. Don't talk to me. My wife was mad at me for taking the case you know it's. One of the chapters in my new book is the cost of trying to live a principled life and its very
very hard to do, but I mean I'm too old to change again since I apparently this episode is devoted to be trying to get em from yet before the end of happy that we have to do is get off from shore its they. Don't you, I might the synagogue. I go to Park EAST in New York. The counters, this incredible canter named health, got the rabbis this incredible rabbi, name schreyer and I go there and I like it. I love the melodies. Give the divorce Torah, but I'm a sceptic, but I'm told,
Rabbis room? That's, ok! That's right! You can do that. That's all right, but I do want to ask you one more question. I ask you, since you have
these various legacies in various areas? What do you want? The chief legacy?
of Alan Dershowitz to be but
here, Eleanor Schwartz's answer? You have to be a daily where member so to become
her head on over the daily word. I can't click subscribe, can hear the end of our conversation there or Professor Dershowitz. Thank you so much for
and things what just happened. I really appreciate it
Ben Shapiro shows Sunday Special is directed by make joiner and produced by Mattress water executive producer. Jeremy, boring associate producer case went into our guest our book. I Caitlin made her hostess
is supervised by allocating are editing by Jim nickel. Audio is mixed by my comments here and make up is needed.
Title graphic somebody, Cynthia, Angola, then Shapiro show Sunday Special is a daily where production copyright daily, where twenty twenty.
Transcript generated on 2020-03-25.