Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hey, thanks for listening to this Erskine podcast at Erskine Radio.
It's an honor having with us tonight. Alan Dershowitz. He
became the youngest full law professor nineteen sixty seven at
twenty eight years of age. His legal career forced focused
on lawyer of last resort in criminal cases. Some of
(00:25):
the people he covered and some of the people he defended,
Patty Hurst, Harry Briems. That was an amazing case there,
Leona Helmsley, Jim Baker. I mean you covered the Gabbit,
Michael Milligan, O J Simpson, and Jeffrey Epstein, plus Harvey
Weinstein and then Julian Assange. You're a civil libertarian, a constitutionalist,
an avid supporter of Israel. We'll discuss the FISA court
(00:49):
impeachment and much more. You're the author of the case
against the Democratic House impeaching Trump, defending Israel Guilt by Association.
That's your latest book, The Challenge of Proving Innocence at
the Age in the Age of Hashtag me Too, plus
over forty works of fiction and nonfiction, including seven bestsellers.
Your website Alandursherwitz dot com. It's amazing you have played
(01:14):
the Devil's Advocate. I watched the movie last night in
order to challenge students thinking, and one of the things
that I've noticed is you are one of the people
who realize it's something that most people should learn law
school fundamentally, that law is based on two things constitution
and precedents. I think those are the two issues that
(01:34):
they need to think about. And you are a strong constitutionalist,
aren't you.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, yeah, thank you, I do. I believe in the
Constitution over politics, and I never picked my cases based
on partisanship or politics. The one case you didn't mention
was I also defended Bill Clinton when he was impeached.
I testified on his behalf in front of Congress, and
I consulted and advise with his legal team. So I
(01:59):
don't pick cases or pauses based on politics. I picked
them based on support of the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
One of the things that you said, I'm going to
a quote of yours. Each of these defendants has virtually
unlimited quantities of some things such as money, power, access
to sex, or power. They, like everyone else, also had
unlimited quantities of other things life, health, duration of career, reputation,
time with family, etc. They got in trouble by putting
(02:28):
at risk what they had limited amounts of in order
to increase the quantities of those things they had unlimited
amounts for.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Well, that's true, that's absolutely true when you get people
like Mike Tyson, who you know, women were jumping into
bed with him, and then he went three o'clock in
the morning under circumstances where he could be accused or
Bill Clinton what he did. And it's interesting, though, that
(02:55):
doesn't always work that way. I am the most cautious
person in the world. I have had sex with one woman,
my wife, during the entire relevant period of time. I
don't flirt, I don't go out with people, I don't
touch people. And yet I was falsely accused by a
woman I never met. And that's why I wrote the
book Guilt by Accusation, because if it happens to me,
(03:16):
it could happen to anybody. And I also waived my
royalties and made it available for a dollar ninety nine
on kindle. You know the course of the Candy Bar,
so anybody can read it and really learn how to
protect yourself against false accusations, because it could easily happen
to your son in college, to your nephew, to your
(03:37):
father at work, to your husband. I have a friend
now who's a former student of mine, who's a lawyer
in Los Angeles. She's writing out checks on behalf of
her clients daily almost because people come in and say,
you know, he touched me wrong, he propositioned me, and
in order to avoid any negative publicity, they just spent
(03:58):
the money. And so we're seeing the me too movement,
which starts as a really good movement, turning into a racket.
It was a philosopher, Eric Kaffa, who said every cause
starts as a movement and it becomes a business and
ultimately a racket. And I'm trying to stop it from
becoming a racket by fighting back against false accusation by
a woman not only never met me, but sent emails
(04:19):
and got emails indicating that she never met me, told
the FBI she never had sex with me, told her
best friend, her own lawyer says in a tape recording
conversation that it was impossible for me to have been
with her, and that she's wrong, simply wrong, and yet
people believe it even though she falsely accused typical or
al Gore, Bill Clinton, a range of other people. People
(04:41):
still believe her because she's a woman and women don't lie.
You know, when people say women don't lie reminds me
of the Deep South, where if a white woman or
a white man said anything negative about a black man,
the philosophy was white people don't lie. I mean, this
is just as bigoted say, women don't lie, white people
(05:03):
don't lie, Jews don't lie, Muslims don't lie. You know,
you can't just generalize about people.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
This is no and people people die, people get killed
over statements like that. They really do. Now where do
you go to regain your reputation?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Well? In to court hopefully, and to write a book.
I mean, I wrote this book. People said to me,
don't write the book, because.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
You had to. You had to write the book, right.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I think. So, I want to bring more attention to
the case. I'm a victim, and victim should speak out.
I want this woman in prison where she belongs. She
made up a story, she says, pressured by her lawyers
in order to get a billion dollars. If leslie, Wexner
was part of a shakedown plot, and people who engage
in shakedown plots are to end up behind bars and
(05:52):
their lawyers ought to be disbarred.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
You spent your whole life, You spend your whole life
doing the right thing, and one woman comes up and
does this. Now you're his name was in Epstein's book,
But if you look at this book, you were not
in the front. In the front, he had his customers
in the back. He had people who he called in
case of emergency. There were two sections to that book,
(06:14):
and I've seen it reported that Yes, Alan Derscherwitz is
in Epstein's book. Yes it was, but you had to
look at where it was in the book.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Not only that. Sure, I was on his plane, I
was his lawyer. He called me every single day. I
saw him repeatedly while I was negotiating his case. Other
people in his book are the president of Harvard, the
President oft Donald Trump, the Dean of Harvard, David Gergen,
(06:43):
multiple professors, Noam Chomsky who actually visited him after he
was convicted. That's the big difference. Once he was convicted,
once it was clear what he had done, my relationship
with him totally terminated and ended. But others didn't. Mit
took money from him. Professor from Harvard visited him in prison.
And yet I'm the one who singled out. But it's
(07:06):
just just totally untrue.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
It didn't take me a lot of effort to look
that there were different names in the front of the
book than we're in the back of the book. The
back of the book were attorneys and people who you
need to set up a dinner or something like that,
and all sorts of different things. And you were in
the back. You weren't in the front where his clients were.
And why they.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Would just put that out, Yeah, I know, it's absurd. Also,
who wasn't in the book? Al Gore and Typogre aren't
in the book, and yet he claims to have She
claims to have been with al Gore and Tipogore on
Epstein's Island. We have absolute categorical proof from sequel service
and other records that Typical or Algor or Bill Clinton
(07:48):
never set foot on the island. Bill Clinton was on
his airplane, but you know, people were associated. I met
him through the Lady Rothschild, an eminent woman married to
the Lord Child, who told me that he was a
beneficiary of Harvard, a friend of the president and the provost.
And I went to seminars that he conducted at Harvard
he had an office at Harvard. Of course I met him,
(08:10):
so did everybody at Harvard. They were Nobel Prize winners.
At these conferences people from Maybe he kind of.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Gathered scientists, didn't they. That was one of his things,
gathering up scientists, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah? Yeah, And I enjoyed those sessions with the scientists,
and I participated. My subject has always been law and science,
so I was a, you know, a completely comfortable at
these sessions. I'm not a scientist, but I teach, taught
law and science for many, many years, and that was
(08:44):
my specialty, and I wrote about it, and so for
me it was good to have met Jeffreys. In retrospect,
I wish I had never set eyes on him, because
he has turned around my life for the last five
years based on this totally provably full accusation, which I
will disprove in court. I'm lucky to say keep travel records,
(09:04):
I don't throw them out, and.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
You disproved it in the book and.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Single day during the two years that this woman knew
Jeffrey Epstein, I couldn't possibly have been in the exotic
places if you.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Think, if you want to see the exoneration of Alan
Dershowitz read Guilt by Accusation at Dollar ninety eight at
Kendall Book. He's making it available for you. It proves
the inogen innocence in the age of hashtag me too
tough thing to do in this age. We're going to
take a short break right now. We'll be right back
with the amazing Maven Alan Dershowitz right here on Erskine Radio.
(09:41):
Remember that's all archived at erskinradio dot com. We're talking
with Alan Dershowitz, and we talked about his affiliation with
mister Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, probably one of the most despicable
people of our lifetime. But you wrote another book I
wanted to talk about, and this is the case against
(10:02):
the Democratic House impeaching Trump. I haven't found that there
was actually a high crime or misdemeanor that they went
after him, abusing power and this type of thing. This
doesn't qualify to me. They were searching for the crime
and the entire thing. Give me a little recap of
(10:22):
what you think about the impeachment. I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
From day one after he was elected, they were trying
to find the crime. Look, it would have happened if
Hillary Clinton got elected, they would have been looking for
a crime against her. Actually, the original title for my book,
which became the Case against Impeaching Trump of the House
Impeaching Trump, was the Case against Impeaching Hillary Clinton, because
I thought she'd get elected twenty sixteenth, and I thought
(10:46):
she'd be impeached, and so I don't make partisan decisions.
I wrote the book beginning focused on Hillary Clinton when
she wasn't elected he was. I changed the title and
I changed some of the paragraphs in the book. It's
essentially the same book, and I would be taking the
same position if she were currently the president, and will
take the same position if say Biden is elected president
(11:08):
and a Republican House decides to impeach him if there's
not high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution is very specific
only for criteria for impeachment treason, bribery, high crimes, or
high misdemeanors, right, and none of those have been laid out.
Abusive Congress, abusive power, obstruction of Congress, those are just
(11:30):
made up. They're not in the Constitution, and they're not
a constitutional basis for impeachment.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Let me let me get another question. The pis at Court.
The fis a court. In my opinion, I'm not an attorney.
You are one of the pre eminent attorneys in the
United States period. The pis a court to me, seems
to be a star chamber of the person who's in
(11:57):
charge of the Supreme Court is supposedly in charge of
the start of the Pisa Court.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Chief Justice Roberts.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
He appoints Roberts, and he appoints him. He should have
had control over this when they were bringing in some
of these things that they brought in that were noticeably
false documents. Uh on, mister Trump, they Chief Justice Roberts
should have stepped in. I don't think we have questions
about court.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Question points to the people. He has no power to
step in. The problem is with Congress. Congress enacted a
statute which gave this PIZA Court incredible authority over American
citizens and without the usual Fourth Amendment protections. And what
should happen is the PVISA Court should be reconstituted, and
(12:44):
it should include a full time defense attorney who has
security clearance and who would be shown all the information
and be able to argue against issuing the warrants. Right now,
it's all one sided the government comes in, The FBI
comes in, says we need this year's their information, and
there's nobody on the other side saying no, no, no,
wait a minute, you left out this, You left out that,
(13:06):
you misinterpreted, that this is not true. What we need
is an adversarial system where at least one person can
serve as the devil's advocate, can serve as the lawyer
against the issuing of the warrant. I think if that
had existed, this PHIZA warrant that's so controversial now never
ever would have been issued.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
No, it never would have. Will the PIZA be renewed?
Are they going to keep this fiz a court? I
have some major problems with that.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
I do too. I hope they change it dramatically now.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
While the other things that happened was a friend of mine,
Sidney Powell, wrote a book called License to Lie. In
that book, she talks about mister Weisman, who was the
what would you call him, the leed dog with mister
Mull and his He had exculpatory evidence to put people
in prison, and't put people in prison without showing them
exculpatory evidence. Destroyed Arthur Anderson company, Mueller. They had four
(14:05):
people who are sent to prison in Boston, and they
all had exculpatory evidence about them. Two of them died
in prison.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Scan that was a real skin.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Now, when you've got a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
I live in Boston, so I followed that very brightly
and I wrote about that, and I was very criticized
by a former judge because she said Muller had no
knowledge of their innocence. But he was both ahead of
the FBI and the U S Attorney during irrelevant periods
of time, and he has to bear some of the responsibility.
(14:38):
It was a horrible miscarriage of justice. Two of them
died in prison something they didn't do, and everybody knew
in the end that Billy Bulger had done it. I'm
sorry Whitey Bulger had done it, and and but they
didn't want to break his cover, and so they let
innocent people languish in prison for something they didn't do.
That is so un American.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Now, now, the Wiseman did the same thing with the
Ron case, did the exact same thing there where he
had took people from Merrill Lynch, had exculpatory evidence, sent
them to prison. How do you rein in an overly
aggressive prosecutor who does something like this, Is there some
law that we can bring in.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
It's very important for the judges to do that, and
most judges don't. There are a few judges that do,
former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kazinski, Judge Stephen Trot. They
really hold the government accountable, Judge Judge Emmett Sli the
Second Circuit. But many judges just close their eyes to
(15:42):
prosecutorial on misconduct. Why because many judges of former prosecutors.
Almost none of them are former defense attorneys, and so
they have a prosecutorial perspective. I remember arguing my first
case ever. I was a young kid. It was a
multiple murder case in New York and I accuse the
federal government of fact impromptly. The judge rebuked me, saying,
how dare you call my old office where I used
(16:04):
to work improper? I said, you're honor. If you have
a point of view about that, you shouldn't be sitting
on this case. You should go out to being a prosecuted.
We won the case eventually, but it took the Court
of Appeals to rule in our favor.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
You've got other judges like Emma Sullivan, who's extremely good.
He calls us Spade to Spain, calls him out where
the way it's happening. And you've got a number of
good judges. But we've got to change this because prosecutors
have way too much power in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
No question, no question. And I've been arguing that for
fifty five years. And it's interesting because when I first
started arguing it, I had the liberals on my side
and the conservatives were against me. Right today, the conservatives
am I shide and some of the liberals are against me.
So I don't change. I stick to my guns. I'm
boringly consistent. It was Emerson who said consistency is the
(16:54):
hobgoblin of small mind. I plead guilty to consistency.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
When I was younger, I've got to say, I really
didn't approve of some of the things to you and
people you were defending. And the more older I got,
the more I saw what you were doing, the more
I saw that you understand that people, everyone deserves a
good defense, and you did that. You don't judge people.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Thank you for having me on your show to explain
me myself and to also persuade people that they shouldn't
believe these false accusations against me. And if you just
read my book, no one who's read the book has
ever written me and said we're not convinced. Everybody who's
read the book has been absolutely persuaded. And so I
urge you to please read the book about ninety eight
(17:36):
The Course of a Candy Bar and it's only one
hundred and thirteen pages, so you can read it quickly.
The rest of it is the documents, the emails, the
travel records, all the things that prove what I say
in my book is trip.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
We're seeing a breakdown of law and order in this country.
We're seeing a breakdown where you can't be prosecuted for defecation,
you can shoplift up to nine hundred and fifty dollars.
There's no got sanctuary cities for illegal immigration. When law
breaks down, we have anarchy, don't we.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
And that's what the Constitution was all about. I just
was reading the debates over the Constitutional Convention and or
that's what they were talking about law, how law must
prevail over politics.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
And that's thank you for being on.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
I We're happy to come on with you again sometimes.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yes, and don't forget all of our interviews are archived
at erskine radio dot com and please thank you for
going up to Twitter at erskine radio. Hey, thanks for
listening to this podcast. We got lots more, so be
(18:39):
sure to come back
Hey, thanks for listening to this Erskine podcast at Erskine Radio.
It's an honor having with us tonight. Alan Dershowitz. He
became the youngest full law professor nineteen sixty seven at
twenty eight years of age. His legal career forced focused
on lawyer of last resort in criminal cases. Some of
(00:25):
the people he covered and some of the people he defended,
Patty Hurst, Harry Briems. That was an amazing case there,
Leona Helmsley, Jim Baker. I mean you covered the Gabbit,
Michael Milligan, O J Simpson, and Jeffrey Epstein, plus Harvey
Weinstein and then Julian Assange. You're a civil libertarian, a constitutionalist,
an avid supporter of Israel. We'll discuss the FISA court
(00:49):
impeachment and much more. You're the author of the case
against the Democratic House impeaching Trump, defending Israel Guilt by Association.
That's your latest book, The Challenge of Proving Innocence at
the Age in the Age of Hashtag me Too, plus
over forty works of fiction and nonfiction, including seven bestsellers.
Your website Alandursherwitz dot com. It's amazing you have played
(01:14):
the Devil's Advocate. I watched the movie last night in
order to challenge students thinking, and one of the things
that I've noticed is you are one of the people
who realize it's something that most people should learn law
school fundamentally, that law is based on two things constitution
and precedents. I think those are the two issues that
(01:34):
they need to think about. And you are a strong constitutionalist,
aren't you.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, yeah, thank you, I do. I believe in the
Constitution over politics, and I never picked my cases based
on partisanship or politics. The one case you didn't mention
was I also defended Bill Clinton when he was impeached.
I testified on his behalf in front of Congress, and
I consulted and advise with his legal team. So I
(01:59):
don't pick cases or pauses based on politics. I picked
them based on support of the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
One of the things that you said, I'm going to
a quote of yours. Each of these defendants has virtually
unlimited quantities of some things such as money, power, access
to sex, or power. They, like everyone else, also had
unlimited quantities of other things life, health, duration of career, reputation,
time with family, etc. They got in trouble by putting
(02:28):
at risk what they had limited amounts of in order
to increase the quantities of those things they had unlimited
amounts for.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Well, that's true, that's absolutely true when you get people
like Mike Tyson, who you know, women were jumping into
bed with him, and then he went three o'clock in
the morning under circumstances where he could be accused or
Bill Clinton what he did. And it's interesting, though, that
(02:55):
doesn't always work that way. I am the most cautious
person in the world. I have had sex with one woman,
my wife, during the entire relevant period of time. I
don't flirt, I don't go out with people, I don't
touch people. And yet I was falsely accused by a
woman I never met. And that's why I wrote the
book Guilt by Accusation, because if it happens to me,
(03:16):
it could happen to anybody. And I also waived my
royalties and made it available for a dollar ninety nine
on kindle. You know the course of the Candy Bar,
so anybody can read it and really learn how to
protect yourself against false accusations, because it could easily happen
to your son in college, to your nephew, to your
(03:37):
father at work, to your husband. I have a friend
now who's a former student of mine, who's a lawyer
in Los Angeles. She's writing out checks on behalf of
her clients daily almost because people come in and say,
you know, he touched me wrong, he propositioned me, and
in order to avoid any negative publicity, they just spent
(03:58):
the money. And so we're seeing the me too movement,
which starts as a really good movement, turning into a racket.
It was a philosopher, Eric Kaffa, who said every cause
starts as a movement and it becomes a business and
ultimately a racket. And I'm trying to stop it from
becoming a racket by fighting back against false accusation by
a woman not only never met me, but sent emails
(04:19):
and got emails indicating that she never met me, told
the FBI she never had sex with me, told her
best friend, her own lawyer says in a tape recording
conversation that it was impossible for me to have been
with her, and that she's wrong, simply wrong, and yet
people believe it even though she falsely accused typical or
al Gore, Bill Clinton, a range of other people. People
(04:41):
still believe her because she's a woman and women don't lie.
You know, when people say women don't lie reminds me
of the Deep South, where if a white woman or
a white man said anything negative about a black man,
the philosophy was white people don't lie. I mean, this
is just as bigoted say, women don't lie, white people
(05:03):
don't lie, Jews don't lie, Muslims don't lie. You know,
you can't just generalize about people.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
This is no and people people die, people get killed
over statements like that. They really do. Now where do
you go to regain your reputation?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Well? In to court hopefully, and to write a book.
I mean, I wrote this book. People said to me,
don't write the book, because.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
You had to. You had to write the book, right.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I think. So, I want to bring more attention to
the case. I'm a victim, and victim should speak out.
I want this woman in prison where she belongs. She
made up a story, she says, pressured by her lawyers
in order to get a billion dollars. If leslie, Wexner
was part of a shakedown plot, and people who engage
in shakedown plots are to end up behind bars and
(05:52):
their lawyers ought to be disbarred.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
You spent your whole life, You spend your whole life
doing the right thing, and one woman comes up and
does this. Now you're his name was in Epstein's book,
But if you look at this book, you were not
in the front. In the front, he had his customers
in the back. He had people who he called in
case of emergency. There were two sections to that book,
(06:14):
and I've seen it reported that Yes, Alan Derscherwitz is
in Epstein's book. Yes it was, but you had to
look at where it was in the book.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Not only that. Sure, I was on his plane, I
was his lawyer. He called me every single day. I
saw him repeatedly while I was negotiating his case. Other
people in his book are the president of Harvard, the
President oft Donald Trump, the Dean of Harvard, David Gergen,
(06:43):
multiple professors, Noam Chomsky who actually visited him after he
was convicted. That's the big difference. Once he was convicted,
once it was clear what he had done, my relationship
with him totally terminated and ended. But others didn't. Mit
took money from him. Professor from Harvard visited him in prison.
And yet I'm the one who singled out. But it's
(07:06):
just just totally untrue.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
It didn't take me a lot of effort to look
that there were different names in the front of the
book than we're in the back of the book. The
back of the book were attorneys and people who you
need to set up a dinner or something like that,
and all sorts of different things. And you were in
the back. You weren't in the front where his clients were.
And why they.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Would just put that out, Yeah, I know, it's absurd. Also,
who wasn't in the book? Al Gore and Typogre aren't
in the book, and yet he claims to have She
claims to have been with al Gore and Tipogore on
Epstein's Island. We have absolute categorical proof from sequel service
and other records that Typical or Algor or Bill Clinton
(07:48):
never set foot on the island. Bill Clinton was on
his airplane, but you know, people were associated. I met
him through the Lady Rothschild, an eminent woman married to
the Lord Child, who told me that he was a
beneficiary of Harvard, a friend of the president and the provost.
And I went to seminars that he conducted at Harvard
he had an office at Harvard. Of course I met him,
(08:10):
so did everybody at Harvard. They were Nobel Prize winners.
At these conferences people from Maybe he kind of.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Gathered scientists, didn't they. That was one of his things,
gathering up scientists, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah? Yeah, And I enjoyed those sessions with the scientists,
and I participated. My subject has always been law and science,
so I was a, you know, a completely comfortable at
these sessions. I'm not a scientist, but I teach, taught
law and science for many, many years, and that was
(08:44):
my specialty, and I wrote about it, and so for
me it was good to have met Jeffreys. In retrospect,
I wish I had never set eyes on him, because
he has turned around my life for the last five
years based on this totally provably full accusation, which I
will disprove in court. I'm lucky to say keep travel records,
(09:04):
I don't throw them out, and.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
You disproved it in the book and.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Single day during the two years that this woman knew
Jeffrey Epstein, I couldn't possibly have been in the exotic
places if you.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Think, if you want to see the exoneration of Alan
Dershowitz read Guilt by Accusation at Dollar ninety eight at
Kendall Book. He's making it available for you. It proves
the inogen innocence in the age of hashtag me too
tough thing to do in this age. We're going to
take a short break right now. We'll be right back
with the amazing Maven Alan Dershowitz right here on Erskine Radio.
(09:41):
Remember that's all archived at erskinradio dot com. We're talking
with Alan Dershowitz, and we talked about his affiliation with
mister Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, probably one of the most despicable
people of our lifetime. But you wrote another book I
wanted to talk about, and this is the case against
(10:02):
the Democratic House impeaching Trump. I haven't found that there
was actually a high crime or misdemeanor that they went
after him, abusing power and this type of thing. This
doesn't qualify to me. They were searching for the crime
and the entire thing. Give me a little recap of
(10:22):
what you think about the impeachment. I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
From day one after he was elected, they were trying
to find the crime. Look, it would have happened if
Hillary Clinton got elected, they would have been looking for
a crime against her. Actually, the original title for my book,
which became the Case against Impeaching Trump of the House
Impeaching Trump, was the Case against Impeaching Hillary Clinton, because
I thought she'd get elected twenty sixteenth, and I thought
(10:46):
she'd be impeached, and so I don't make partisan decisions.
I wrote the book beginning focused on Hillary Clinton when
she wasn't elected he was. I changed the title and
I changed some of the paragraphs in the book. It's
essentially the same book, and I would be taking the
same position if she were currently the president, and will
take the same position if say Biden is elected president
(11:08):
and a Republican House decides to impeach him if there's
not high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution is very specific
only for criteria for impeachment treason, bribery, high crimes, or
high misdemeanors, right, and none of those have been laid out.
Abusive Congress, abusive power, obstruction of Congress, those are just
(11:30):
made up. They're not in the Constitution, and they're not
a constitutional basis for impeachment.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Let me let me get another question. The pis at Court.
The fis a court. In my opinion, I'm not an attorney.
You are one of the pre eminent attorneys in the
United States period. The pis a court to me, seems
to be a star chamber of the person who's in
(11:57):
charge of the Supreme Court is supposedly in charge of
the start of the Pisa Court.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Chief Justice Roberts.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
He appoints Roberts, and he appoints him. He should have
had control over this when they were bringing in some
of these things that they brought in that were noticeably
false documents. Uh on, mister Trump, they Chief Justice Roberts
should have stepped in. I don't think we have questions
about court.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Question points to the people. He has no power to
step in. The problem is with Congress. Congress enacted a
statute which gave this PIZA Court incredible authority over American
citizens and without the usual Fourth Amendment protections. And what
should happen is the PVISA Court should be reconstituted, and
(12:44):
it should include a full time defense attorney who has
security clearance and who would be shown all the information
and be able to argue against issuing the warrants. Right now,
it's all one sided the government comes in, The FBI
comes in, says we need this year's their information, and
there's nobody on the other side saying no, no, no,
wait a minute, you left out this, You left out that,
(13:06):
you misinterpreted, that this is not true. What we need
is an adversarial system where at least one person can
serve as the devil's advocate, can serve as the lawyer
against the issuing of the warrant. I think if that
had existed, this PHIZA warrant that's so controversial now never
ever would have been issued.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
No, it never would have. Will the PIZA be renewed?
Are they going to keep this fiz a court? I
have some major problems with that.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
I do too. I hope they change it dramatically now.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
While the other things that happened was a friend of mine,
Sidney Powell, wrote a book called License to Lie. In
that book, she talks about mister Weisman, who was the
what would you call him, the leed dog with mister
Mull and his He had exculpatory evidence to put people
in prison, and't put people in prison without showing them
exculpatory evidence. Destroyed Arthur Anderson company, Mueller. They had four
(14:05):
people who are sent to prison in Boston, and they
all had exculpatory evidence about them. Two of them died
in prison.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Scan that was a real skin.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Now, when you've got a prosecutor.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
I live in Boston, so I followed that very brightly
and I wrote about that, and I was very criticized
by a former judge because she said Muller had no
knowledge of their innocence. But he was both ahead of
the FBI and the U S Attorney during irrelevant periods
of time, and he has to bear some of the responsibility.
(14:38):
It was a horrible miscarriage of justice. Two of them
died in prison something they didn't do, and everybody knew
in the end that Billy Bulger had done it. I'm
sorry Whitey Bulger had done it, and and but they
didn't want to break his cover, and so they let
innocent people languish in prison for something they didn't do.
That is so un American.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Now, now, the Wiseman did the same thing with the
Ron case, did the exact same thing there where he
had took people from Merrill Lynch, had exculpatory evidence, sent
them to prison. How do you rein in an overly
aggressive prosecutor who does something like this, Is there some
law that we can bring in.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
It's very important for the judges to do that, and
most judges don't. There are a few judges that do,
former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kazinski, Judge Stephen Trot. They
really hold the government accountable, Judge Judge Emmett Sli the
Second Circuit. But many judges just close their eyes to
(15:42):
prosecutorial on misconduct. Why because many judges of former prosecutors.
Almost none of them are former defense attorneys, and so
they have a prosecutorial perspective. I remember arguing my first
case ever. I was a young kid. It was a
multiple murder case in New York and I accuse the
federal government of fact impromptly. The judge rebuked me, saying,
how dare you call my old office where I used
(16:04):
to work improper? I said, you're honor. If you have
a point of view about that, you shouldn't be sitting
on this case. You should go out to being a prosecuted.
We won the case eventually, but it took the Court
of Appeals to rule in our favor.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
You've got other judges like Emma Sullivan, who's extremely good.
He calls us Spade to Spain, calls him out where
the way it's happening. And you've got a number of
good judges. But we've got to change this because prosecutors
have way too much power in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
No question, no question. And I've been arguing that for
fifty five years. And it's interesting because when I first
started arguing it, I had the liberals on my side
and the conservatives were against me. Right today, the conservatives
am I shide and some of the liberals are against me.
So I don't change. I stick to my guns. I'm
boringly consistent. It was Emerson who said consistency is the
(16:54):
hobgoblin of small mind. I plead guilty to consistency.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
When I was younger, I've got to say, I really
didn't approve of some of the things to you and
people you were defending. And the more older I got,
the more I saw what you were doing, the more
I saw that you understand that people, everyone deserves a
good defense, and you did that. You don't judge people.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Thank you for having me on your show to explain
me myself and to also persuade people that they shouldn't
believe these false accusations against me. And if you just
read my book, no one who's read the book has
ever written me and said we're not convinced. Everybody who's
read the book has been absolutely persuaded. And so I
urge you to please read the book about ninety eight
(17:36):
The Course of a Candy Bar and it's only one
hundred and thirteen pages, so you can read it quickly.
The rest of it is the documents, the emails, the
travel records, all the things that prove what I say
in my book is trip.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
We're seeing a breakdown of law and order in this country.
We're seeing a breakdown where you can't be prosecuted for defecation,
you can shoplift up to nine hundred and fifty dollars.
There's no got sanctuary cities for illegal immigration. When law
breaks down, we have anarchy, don't we.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
And that's what the Constitution was all about. I just
was reading the debates over the Constitutional Convention and or
that's what they were talking about law, how law must
prevail over politics.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
And that's thank you for being on.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
I We're happy to come on with you again sometimes.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yes, and don't forget all of our interviews are archived
at erskine radio dot com and please thank you for
going up to Twitter at erskine radio. Hey, thanks for
listening to this podcast. We got lots more, so be
(18:39):
sure to come back
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.