0:00

Up next out Loud with Jianno Caldwell

0:02

part of the beginning with Facebook

0:05

and Twitter suppresses a news story that's damaging

0:07

to Joe Biden's campaign, The Senate prepares

0:09

to vote on Amy coney Bear's nomination to the Supreme

0:11

Court, and George Floyd and Brianna Taylor

0:14

cases continue to dominate the headlines.

0:16

Today I discussed all of this and much more

0:19

with Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the world's most

0:21

prominent lawyers and legal scholars.

0:23

This is Outlied with Gianno Calledwell. Welcome

0:30

back to Outlowed with Gianno Calledwell. My

0:32

guest is Alan Dershowitz, the constitutional

0:35

scholar and longtime professor at Harvard Law

0:37

School. He has defended numerous

0:39

famous clients, including Mike Tyson and

0:41

O. J. Simpson and a lot of us remember

0:43

that O. J. Simpson case, and he was a

0:46

member of President Trump's defense team during

0:48

his impeachment proceedings earlier this

0:50

year. Professor Dershowitz is also

0:52

the author of literally dozens of books,

0:55

including his latest work, which is just out.

0:57

It's entitled Cancel Culture, Latest

1:00

Attack on Free Speech and Due Process,

1:02

And of course, here at Outlawed with Giano called

1:04

well Well the sworn enemy of PC

1:07

culture. So we're in good company with the professor. Professor

1:09

Dershowitz, thank you for coming on the show. It's a pleasure

1:12

to speak with you. As I said, just this

1:14

week, you're releasing the new book entitled

1:16

Cancel Culture, the latest attack on

1:18

free speech and do process. Would you tell

1:21

us more about the book. Well,

1:23

I grew up as a liberal, loving

1:25

free speech and do process

1:27

and constitutional rights,

1:30

and now I see that many people

1:32

who call themselves liberal and progressives

1:35

are opposed to free speech. Free speech

1:37

from me, but not for thee Trying

1:40

to stop dissenting views from

1:42

being heard on college campuses, trying

1:44

to get social media to censor views

1:47

they disagree with. When it comes to due

1:50

process, they presume people

1:52

guilty if they're charged, if they're accused,

1:55

particularly of any kind of sexual misconduct,

1:58

political misconduct. And so

2:00

it's been so disappointing to me to

2:02

see people on the left becoming

2:05

stalinists, essentially wanting

2:07

to repress freedom and free speech, using

2:11

any means to achieve the

2:13

ends that they want to achieve. Most of those are

2:15

ends I agree with. I would love to see

2:18

more equality and more social justice,

2:20

all of that, more rights for women, more

2:22

rights for people of color. I want

2:24

to see all those goals achieved, but I

2:26

want to see them achieved by means

2:29

consistent with the Constitution. Would do process,

2:31

with free speech and with liberal values. Can

2:35

you tell us why cancel culture? It's

2:37

so dangerous? I think that, as

2:40

we've been seeing these

2:42

past few years, a lot of people lose everything.

2:45

Folks have lose everything just by something

2:47

they may have said twenty years ago. Why is

2:49

this so dangerous to our society now? Well,

2:52

before we get to people who have said or done

2:54

something twenty or thirty years ago, let's talk about

2:56

people who have done nothing wrong. Let's talk about

2:58

me. I was canceled

3:01

by, for example, the nine Street

3:04

Y, which was a liberal bastion

3:06

of Jewish thought for twenty five years.

3:08

I spoke there at least once, maybe twice a year.

3:11

But when I was falsely accused of

3:13

sexual misconduct by a woman I never

3:16

met and never heard of street,

3:19

why, I said, we know you're innocent, we know

3:21

you did nothing wrong, but we don't

3:24

want trouble, and so we're canceling

3:26

you. You can't speak here anymore.

3:28

That reminds me of when I was growing up

3:30

with McCarthy is M. People

3:32

were accused of being communists or supporting

3:36

communism. In my case, I was a college

3:39

uh student president of the student government,

3:41

and I was an anti communist myself,

3:43

but I supported the right of communists to teach

3:46

and to speak, and so

3:48

I was labeled a fellow traveler

3:50

and a leftist and a pinko and all of that.

3:52

So we start with people who

3:54

have been canceled for doing nothing

3:57

wrong, nothing wrong at all, and

3:59

have no opportunity to prove

4:02

their innocence because they're presumed guilty. If

4:04

a woman accused you, how could

4:06

you possibly be innocent? You must

4:08

be guilty. Even if the woman has

4:10

a long history of lying, a long history

4:12

of lying for money, a long history

4:14

of collaborating with extortionists, doesn't

4:16

matter. She's a woman, you're a man. You're

4:19

guilty, and you're canceled. Then

4:22

we get to people who may have done something wrong

4:25

by the standards of their day, it

4:27

may not have been anything. Let's go back

4:30

to really go back in history.

4:32

George Washington. Let me tell you two things about

4:34

George Washington, one bad, one good. So George

4:37

Washington had slaves, horrible, a

4:39

man unimaginable than any

4:41

decent person could own another

4:44

human being could enslave a human

4:46

being. It is just incomprehensible to

4:48

the modern mind. But the

4:50

same George Washington went to a

4:53

Newport, Rhode Island and wrote a

4:55

letter to the Jewish Congregation of the report

4:58

saying, we are they going to be the first kind tree in the

5:00

history of the world not to discriminate

5:03

based on religion. For bigger

5:05

tree, there will be no sanction in America,

5:08

and the children of Abraham will be able to sit

5:10

under the big Tree as long as their good citizens.

5:12

The first time in world history,

5:14

Jews will recognized as equal.

5:16

So you have a man who enslaved

5:19

blacks and who emancipated

5:23

Jews, how do you judge them in history?

5:25

Do you tear down his statute? Do you

5:27

teach students about the complexity of

5:29

human beings that here you can have one

5:31

human being whoso's

5:33

incredible sensitivity towards

5:36

one persecuted group Jews, White

5:38

Jews, to be sure, mostly smartic Jews

5:40

in those days, but still white and

5:43

total intolerance

5:45

towards people who have been enslaved

5:48

against their will. Life's complex,

5:51

Life's full of nuances, and

5:53

cancel culture as a recognized that if

5:56

you've done anything wrong in your life, your statue

5:58

comes down. Your history is a race. You're not

6:00

allowed to speak. It's the end of

6:02

everything. Well,

6:04

I really agree with that assessment. Now,

6:07

I'm really intrigued by if

6:09

you've seen someone a recent cancelation

6:11

that you thought the person actually deserved to be canceled.

6:15

Yeah, I mean you get cases where

6:18

people have done just terrible, terrible

6:20

things. Um, you know, I just think

6:22

of some of my own clients, Jeffrey

6:24

Epstein. He saw what he was

6:26

accused of doing. He certainly, even

6:29

though he's dead and can't defend himself, deserves

6:32

to be regarded by history as

6:35

somebody who did, you know, terrible and awful

6:37

things. But even cancelation

6:39

makes no sense. What you do as you tell the story,

6:42

you learn lessons from the story. He

6:45

who fails to understand

6:47

the lessons of history is doomed to repeat

6:49

it. So, you know, it's interesting. There's

6:51

an old Jewish expression that I

6:54

was taught by my grandmother. Anytime she

6:56

mentioned the name Hitler, she would

6:58

say, after a two ish words,

7:00

yamah shamo means

7:03

his name shall be a race.

7:05

Hitler his name shall be a

7:08

race. And I remember, even as a kid, saying no,

7:10

no, no, I don't want Hitler's name

7:12

to be a race. I want the world to

7:14

understand what hit was did. I

7:17

don't want slavery to be erased

7:19

from our history. I want to content at the concept

7:22

of slavery, of course, but the history

7:24

of slavery should be known to everybody.

7:26

The history of oppression of women

7:29

should be known to everybody, the history of discrimination

7:31

against gays should be known to everybody.

7:34

So so no, nothing should really be canceled.

7:37

People should explain. I'll give you another

7:40

example. Went to the Museum

7:42

a couple of years ago and there was an

7:44

exhibit in honor of Gertrude Stein, the

7:46

great art collector who may

7:48

have discovered Picasso and Matisse. And

7:51

it was a incredibly positive

7:54

rendition of her life, but it left out

7:56

the fact that she loved Hitler.

7:59

She dominated Hitler for the Nobel Peace

8:01

Prize. She talked about him, was one of the

8:03

great people of the century. She collaborated

8:06

with the head of the Gestapo. She's Jewish

8:09

and she lived a free and open life in France during

8:11

the occupation when Jewish children and being

8:13

taken to death camps,

8:15

and so the people

8:18

who saw her exhibit didn't know that. And

8:20

I got the museum to sell

8:23

a book which told the whole story

8:25

strange collaboration by a woman named Barbara

8:27

will and who and

8:29

and to put notes on the exhibit.

8:32

So we didn't censor. We didn't

8:34

have less speech, we had more speech. We added

8:36

to the fact that the people

8:39

knew about her great art taste, the

8:41

fact that here's a woman with such artistic

8:44

sensitivities who thought

8:47

the world of Adolf Hitler and

8:50

wanted to see him get the Nobel Peace Prize.

8:52

The more you know, the more you understand

8:54

the complexities history. So no, I

8:57

I take it back. I don't think anybody should be

8:59

erased. People should have their

9:01

history changed as we learned

9:03

new things about them, but not

9:06

a race. We have to learn from the past, and

9:08

Professor I want to follow up with you on that,

9:10

but first we have to take a commercial break. Will

9:12

be right back now.

9:15

As as a follow up, you mentioned Epstein,

9:18

and it seems as though there's a lot of

9:20

powerful people who fear

9:22

what have come out of the Epstein situation.

9:25

And there's been these theories and

9:27

people can call them conspiracy theories or whatever

9:30

you want to say about that. About his death,

9:32

do you think that he actually killed himself

9:35

or what do you think may have happened there?

9:38

I think he probably killed himself. He was a heatonist.

9:40

He lived for his pleasures, and the

9:42

idea that he would be spending the next thirty

9:45

years of his life in a prison

9:47

cell with no access to any of his pleasures

9:50

was too much for him. So I think he decided

9:52

to kill himself. But I don't think he could have done alone.

9:55

Normally there are cameras. Normally the cellmate.

9:57

Suddenly the cellmate was taken out, the

10:00

cameras disappeared, we turned offful of broken.

10:03

My suspicion is just the suspicion.

10:05

But knowing Epstein, because I was his lawyer

10:08

for a couple of years, knowing

10:10

him, I suspect he may have passed

10:13

some cash around in the prison

10:15

and told people please could be better. If

10:17

the cameras weren't on tonight, that wouldn't

10:19

surprise me. But it would surprise me if

10:21

he were murdered. I doubt that. Look, I

10:24

want the whole truth to come out. I wish

10:26

there were videotapes at every moment of Epstein's

10:28

life, every moment of my life, because

10:30

I didn't do anything wrong, and the video tapes would

10:33

prove that, as I said from day one one, I was falsely

10:35

accused that. I hope there

10:37

are pictures. I hope they're videotapes because

10:39

they'll show that the only person

10:42

I've had sex with since the day I met Jeffrey

10:44

Epstein as my wife is thirty

10:46

four years m that's

10:49

amazing. I'm glad to hear that, professor,

10:52

thank you for cleaning Yeah.

10:54

I don't think many of my accusers and many

10:56

of the lawyers who are accusing me could say that I

10:58

challenged David boy to get

11:00

on your show and say he's had sex with only

11:03

one woman in the relevant period of

11:05

time. I mean, he's well known as

11:07

somebody who couldn't honestly,

11:09

incredibly make that kind of a statement. I

11:11

can well, I'm looking

11:14

forward to challenging him on on that

11:16

place. Switching gears

11:18

a little bit, You're no stranger to the devil's

11:20

advocate position and the point of view

11:23

social justice warrior. Isn't it about

11:25

time that people started paying the price where insensitive

11:27

races or hurtful remarks. Yes,

11:30

and they should pay a price. And the price should

11:32

be criticism in the marketplace of ideas,

11:35

but not shutting them down. Um,

11:37

they should pay a price. And anybody

11:40

who's done anything wrong should

11:42

pay a price. Look and and

11:44

where do you stop take my

11:47

hero Martin Luther King. I

11:49

was there when he made his fantastic

11:51

speech. Um in Washington,

11:54

I have a dream. It's one of the most important

11:56

days of my life. I was there with a federal

11:59

judge who I was clerking for.

12:02

It was absolutely amazing. And you

12:04

know, now we learned that his private life

12:06

was not perfect, and

12:09

there are some tape recordings that are like we

12:11

had come out in twenty years that

12:14

put some negatives. Should he be a race,

12:16

of course, not statue should be built

12:18

him. We should have a day in his honor. And

12:21

if it's turned out to be proved

12:24

that he didn't live the perfect private

12:27

life, that's part of what we want our

12:29

students to know. You know, the great thing

12:31

about the Jewish Bible is none of its heroes

12:33

were perfect. Abraham

12:36

was very, very imperfect. He argued God,

12:38

he broke his father's

12:40

property, he lied about

12:42

his sister David. The terrible

12:45

things the Jewish Bible is filled with

12:47

flawed heroes. Christian

12:49

Bible, on the other hand, and the Muslim Kuran,

12:52

their heroes are without flaw Who

12:55

wouldn't want to have a child that

12:57

lived the perfect life of Jesus or

13:00

Mohammed uh they are without

13:02

flaw. But the Jewish Bible was stilled

13:04

with very important people,

13:07

but who were not flawless in their private life.

13:10

And that's why I always loved the Jewish

13:12

Bible, and that's why I always love stories

13:15

about great heroes and great leaders

13:18

who were imperfect in their lives,

13:20

because that's the world we live in. Yeah,

13:23

and I agree with that in terms of

13:25

disrecognizing that people have the ability

13:28

to kind of say what they wanted to say. And

13:30

here it allow with Giano Calldwell, with a sworn enemy

13:32

of PC culture side, I appreciate

13:34

that take on that. Now, continuing on

13:37

free speech, we're seeing social media companies

13:39

increasingly prioritizing censorship

13:41

over free speech, with conservatives

13:44

often bearing the brunt of that.

13:46

Most recently, we just saw Facebook and Twitter basically

13:48

block users from posting or reading a

13:50

New York Post story on Joe Biden's son Hunter.

13:53

Many conservatives think this was a political of

13:56

course I believe that to be the case as well,

13:58

because this story was damage to Joe

14:00

Biden. How do we hold these social media

14:03

giants accountable for free expression

14:05

while still respecting their rights to conduct

14:07

their own business. It's the greatest,

14:10

the most important free speech question

14:12

of the century, because social media

14:15

is the wave not only of the future, but of the

14:17

present. We have a statute which

14:20

distinguishes social media platforms

14:22

because their platforms from publishers.

14:25

So if The New York Times has an up ed

14:28

in which they accused me of something wrong which

14:30

I didn't do, I can sue The New York Times.

14:32

But if Twitter has tweet

14:35

after tweet after tweet accusing me

14:38

of sexual misconduct, even

14:40

though the evidence has conclusively proved

14:42

that I never met the woman who accused me, her own emails,

14:44

her own lawyer has admitted at all of

14:46

that. But Twitter can get away

14:49

with that because they say, we don't censor, We're

14:51

just a platform. Anything goes.

14:53

So once they start censoring, then

14:56

they no longer are a platform. They're

14:58

now a publisher and they have to be

15:00

accountable because, just to put it very personally,

15:03

if Twitter says we're not going to run the hunter

15:06

Biden stuff because it may not be

15:08

true, and then they run the

15:10

anti Alan Dershowitz stuff. The reader

15:12

says, gee, Twitter

15:14

must have concluded that the Dershowitz stuff

15:17

is true, because if they concluded

15:19

it was not true, they wouldn't have run it the way

15:21

they didn't run the Hunter Biden stuff. So

15:24

they can't have it both ways. There either have to

15:26

be a platform or a publisher.

15:28

If there are a platform, after on everything. If

15:30

they're a publisher, they have to be responsible for what

15:32

they do run and what they don't run. Right now,

15:35

they're getting the benefit of being a platform,

15:37

and they're taking advantage by being a publisher

15:40

and deciding what to publish and what to suppress.

15:44

So with with section to thirty would

15:46

provide a shield to social media companies

15:49

and freed them from litigation. Do

15:51

you think that that needs to be revoked or there

15:53

needs to be a clear interpretation of the law as

15:55

to what Section to thirty really means

15:58

and in order to be able to to be revised,

16:01

it has to be revised. It has

16:03

to be revised, and every social media has

16:05

to check a box and the box

16:07

has to say this, are you a platform or a publisher?

16:10

And If you're a platform, you cannot censor

16:12

anything. You're a taxi cab. The

16:15

first person to wave you down, you have to take

16:17

them to wherever they want to go. Don't matter who they

16:19

are, what they look like. As long as they

16:21

have the money to pay you the fair you

16:23

have to take them. Or if you want to go you're a taxicab,

16:26

that's fine. If you want to be something

16:28

other than that. If you want to be the

16:30

New York Times and decide not to

16:32

publish the post story about Hunter

16:34

Biden but published, then they get the stuff

16:36

of that aland ershu It, then you're no longer a

16:39

platform. You're a publisher. So you

16:41

have to check the box of publisher. If

16:43

you're a publisher, you don't get the immunity

16:45

of Section two thirty. If you're a platform,

16:48

you do. But if you're a platform, you have to act

16:50

like a platform. You can't act like

16:52

a publisher and then claim the benefit of the platform.

16:55

That's the way it should be revised. So

16:58

the New York Post doesn't have any leak recourse

17:01

that would be condigned at this time to to

17:03

provide some litigation towards what the social

17:05

media companies are doing in terms of blocking their stories.

17:08

They don't have any recourse. I think they might. I think

17:10

they might. I think they might if I were their lawyer, if

17:12

they called me, and I would say, yeah, bring

17:14

a lawsuit. Say they're not acting

17:17

like a platform, and

17:19

they are obliged to keep

17:21

your posts up and

17:24

if they don't, they will lose their

17:26

status as a platform under two

17:28

thirty. I think they have some remedies. I think

17:30

mostly it will be a legislative remedies. Be

17:32

interestant to see what happens because the current polls

17:35

suggest, obviously polls are not infallible

17:38

that in the next few months we may have

17:40

a democratic president, democratic Senate, democratic

17:43

Council. They'll get to write the laws, and

17:46

it would be interesting to see if the left rights

17:49

laws that are protective of free

17:51

speech, because today the hard left, particularly

17:55

the squad and people like Heyo seeing others,

17:57

are not particularly tolerative free speech.

18:00

Free speech for me, but not for thee and

18:02

it's conservatives because

18:04

they're being censored by social

18:06

media who are much more sensitive

18:09

to free speech right. So it'd be interesting to

18:11

see what if there is a new

18:13

Congress, the new Congress, the new president do

18:16

about section to thirty and about the social

18:19

media in general. There has to be changed.

18:22

Yes, I agree with that, and Republicans,

18:24

of course have always been against regulation

18:26

of everything, but in this instance, I think Republicans

18:29

have failed and regulating

18:31

these companies because clearly they've become too

18:33

big and too powerful, and now they're trying to change the course

18:35

of an election. So there,

18:38

and I want to switch gears. But first,

18:41

here's a word from our sponsors. As

18:44

we switch gears. Here, I want to

18:46

talk to you about the Supreme Court. So

18:48

we know we have a nominee,

18:50

Amy Cooney Barrett for the Supreme

18:52

Court. And in your new book, Confirming

18:55

Justice or Injustice, you

18:57

lay out a guide to picking um, the

18:59

late Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement

19:02

on the Supreme Court. What do you make of Judge

19:04

Amy Coney Barrett's legal record? Introduce you

19:06

philosophy. Oh, it's beyond

19:08

reproach. I mean, she is one of

19:10

the most highly qualified nominees ever

19:13

to be put before the Senate. She's

19:16

brilliant, she's articulate,

19:18

she has a wonderful private and personal

19:21

story. Everything about

19:24

her is positive

19:26

from the point of view confirmation. Would I have selected

19:28

her? No, she's too conservative for my taste.

19:31

But I'm not the president. I didn't win the last election

19:34

President Trump did. My only concern

19:37

is that Republicans in the Senate are acting

19:39

hypocritically because they would not

19:41

allow and equally qualified, maybe even

19:43

more qualified nominee Merrick Garland,

19:46

who was nominated by President Obama back

19:48

in two tausand and six to

19:51

even get a hearing in front

19:54

of the Senate. They wouldn't proceed because

19:56

they said, particularly Lindsey

19:58

Graham, who's now chair and who's a friend of mine,

20:01

who I know, i'mliked. But he said

20:03

back then that if

20:06

President Trump were to get an opening in the

20:08

Supreme Court within the year of

20:10

the election, he would not let

20:12

it come to the floor of the

20:14

Senate. And he said, you can use

20:17

my words against me. So you know, the

20:19

Democrats and now are using his words

20:21

against them, and he's saying no. There are

20:23

two differences. Number One, we

20:25

controlled the Senate. We didn't control the Senate

20:27

back in two deaths at sixteen or at

20:29

least it was a different president in different control of

20:31

the Senate. Now it's both

20:33

in the same hands. That strikes me as

20:36

simply an assertion of power, not a moral argument.

20:39

And second, he said the way the Democrats

20:42

handled the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

20:45

shows the rules of change. There, he has a point.

20:48

The way the Democrats, particularly

20:51

Kamela Harricks and some of the

20:53

others and find Time treated

20:56

Brett Kavanaugh was despicable,

20:59

in beneath contin and a core violation

21:01

of due process,

21:03

and I was strongly opposed to it.

21:05

Again, I wouldn't have picked Kavanaugh for

21:08

the Supreme Court of if somebody,

21:10

some Democrat president asked me. But

21:13

he was highly qualified. And

21:15

the idea of bringing back things that he

21:18

was implausibly alleged to have done

21:20

when he was fifteen or sixteen years old

21:23

was the height of kind of McCarthy ism

21:26

and and just despicable. And

21:28

to even have women who had probably

21:31

never even met him making some

21:33

of these allegations through the Great Michael

21:35

Ebanadi was

21:39

was beneath contempt. So I understand

21:41

the change rules, but my preference

21:43

would be to have a rule that governs

21:45

all suit cases. And maybe my

21:48

rule would be that the president doesn't get to nominate

21:51

after the conventions, say conventions

21:53

are over in mid August, from mid

21:55

August to early November. If there's

21:57

a vacancy, that vacancy

22:00

he stays on whold. But that has to apply

22:02

equally to both sides. Doesn't matter who

22:04

the president is, what party he's from, where

22:07

she's from, and who's in control

22:09

of the Senate. So we need a simple

22:12

standard, identical rule

22:14

for old parties, the shoe on the other foot

22:16

test, as I call it. But in politics,

22:19

hypocrisy prevails

22:21

over principle. And to that point,

22:24

you mentioned Republicans like Lindsey Graham

22:26

with a hypocritical bad way of what he said,

22:28

but also Democrats said

22:30

with Judge Garland

22:33

that you should be the president should

22:35

have the opportunity to even nominate in his

22:37

last year. Justice Ginsburg said

22:39

that she the president doesn't stop being

22:41

president for in an election year.

22:44

So there's been all these things the Democrats have said previously,

22:47

and now there's change in tune. So

22:49

it seems like both uh can

22:52

definitely you can point the finger in both sides there.

22:55

I think that's right a little bit more at the Republicans

22:58

only because the America Only thing was eight

23:00

months before the election and

23:03

Barrett h confirmation is

23:05

just now two and a half weeks

23:07

before the election. So it's a matter

23:10

of degree. But look, there's enough hypocrisy

23:12

to fill both Houses

23:14

of Congress and the White House with a lot

23:16

extra Hypocrisy is the engine

23:19

that drives politics today. Both

23:21

sides are guilty of hypocrisy and

23:23

putting hypocrisy over principle. I

23:27

agree with you fully there. Let

23:29

me ask you this question because, as you

23:31

mentioned, the polls have suggested that

23:33

Joe Biden is going to win, and

23:36

my argument continue to be bos

23:38

don't vote, people do. So that's

23:40

with that consideration in mind. Let's say that Joe

23:42

Biden happens to win the presidency

23:45

and he hasn't told us where he stands

23:47

on court packing.

23:50

Will happen if he actually is

23:52

elected? Will they packed? Here's

23:56

my view. If he's elected, First

23:59

of all, you'd have to have democratic control of both

24:01

houses before you could have court packing. But let's

24:03

assume, in fact, I have an article that I've

24:05

just written about it. Let's assume that Democrats

24:08

control everything but the Spring Court um.

24:10

Then there's gonna be enormous

24:13

pressure on Biden, and

24:15

probably the Senate in the House will pass

24:17

a court packing plan. They will

24:20

probably pass the statute saying

24:22

the number of justices will go from nine to eleven,

24:25

and we the Democrats, will get to nominate

24:28

the next two justices, and that will

24:30

make the Court basically

24:32

evenly divided, with Chief Justice

24:35

Roberts again perhaps being the swing vote

24:37

if they're eleven. If they're eleven justices.

24:39

So so a bill will

24:41

come to Joe Biden's desk if he's

24:44

the president, having even passed by the

24:46

House and the Senate. And the question that

24:48

I don't think anybody knows the answer

24:50

to, will Joe Biden have the

24:52

courage to veto that bill? We

24:54

know where his heart is. He doesn't support

24:57

court packing. He's not an advocate,

24:59

he said himself, he not a fan. But

25:01

if you get the House and the Senate,

25:04

and particularly the left

25:06

wing of the Democratic Party pushing hard for court

25:09

packing, will he be able to

25:11

resist that and will he

25:13

allow his own principles to govern and

25:16

veto the bill. My prediction,

25:18

yes, he will veto the bill. I don't

25:20

think we'll see court packing because it would just create

25:22

an arms race. Democrats

25:25

get in, they make it eleven, Republicans,

25:27

and then four years from now they win, they

25:29

make it thirteen and the Democrats win and

25:31

it's fifteen. You know, if you get to be the

25:33

size of the Venezuela Supreme Court, which

25:35

is, you know, in the thirties. So it

25:38

would really destroy the credibility and integrity

25:40

and neutrality of the Supreme

25:43

Court. So I would hope that wiser

25:46

heads would prevail and no matter

25:48

what happens with the current nomination,

25:51

that we would not resort to it. Franklin do own

25:53

or Roosevelt tried to do back in nineteen seven,

25:56

and that is packed the Court that failed

25:58

back then. I hope it will l again

26:00

now. So I have to politely

26:02

push back on your argument that

26:04

his heart isn't with pack in the court, and I said

26:07

that only because he was an

26:09

avid supporter of

26:11

Well, he's changed his position, I should say now

26:13

in terms of life, in terms of being

26:16

to one who respects the sanctity of

26:18

life when it comes to abortion. His philosophy

26:20

on that has changed, as a number of his

26:23

other positions, which people might

26:25

have considered him a very moderate candidate

26:27

U some years ago. And I think that was one of the

26:29

things that President Obama or

26:31

then Canada Obama liked about Joe Biden.

26:33

But it seems to be if there's a change,

26:36

especially with our culture of going as far left

26:38

as possible, that we don't really

26:40

know what he may do, and we can't

26:42

look at a necessary absolutely

26:44

right, I don't. We're not disagreeing. I don't

26:47

think you can predict what he's going to do. I can

26:49

tell you what I think is in his heart. I've

26:51

known Joe Biden, not well, but I've known

26:53

him probably so years.

26:55

I met him first through Ted Kennedy, who I was very

26:57

close to. Ted Kennedy and I were

27:00

together a lot of human rights, on civil

27:02

rights, on civil liberties, on criminal

27:04

justice reform. And I met this young

27:06

senator from Delaware back then,

27:09

and I always liked them. I'll never forget

27:11

a story. I was in the White House.

27:13

This is a name dropping story, of course. I

27:16

was in the White House and I was in the Oval Office

27:18

with President Obama. We were talking about the

27:20

Rand deal and my phone rang, and

27:23

the President looked at me said, you shouldn't bring a phone

27:25

when you're speaking to the president. I said,

27:27

you're absolutely right, but my grandson is supposed

27:30

to learn today whether he got into Harvard College

27:32

or not. He's client. He said, all right, take a call.

27:34

So I took the calling Graham, my turning up my grandson

27:37

got into Harvard where he graduated

27:39

from recently, and Joe

27:42

Biden said, well, let me congratulate

27:44

him. He took my phone and turned

27:46

on the record and the video

27:49

and he said, hey, Lyle, great work.

27:51

Uh you got ato Harvard. That's terrific. Now

27:54

be smart to go to the University of Delaware.

27:56

It's a better school.

27:58

I mean, he can be really, really

28:01

nice guy and he has

28:03

a human touch. I'm not campaigning

28:06

or telling you who to vote for. I'm just telling

28:08

you he's a nice guy. Look, I'm no Donald

28:10

Trump too, and I

28:12

haven't known him for as longer as well, and

28:15

he has a lot of very positive qualities.

28:18

What he's done, what President Trump

28:20

has done in the Middle East in foreign policy

28:22

is something that I don't think

28:24

any president belief could happen. I

28:27

know that every president since

28:30

probably Bush first has

28:32

tried to bring about normalization between

28:35

the Sunni Arab countries and Israel, and they failed.

28:38

And President of President Trump has

28:40

succeeded. And he succeeded in moving the embassy,

28:42

which should have been in the first place, move from

28:45

Televis to Jerusalem, and then recognizing

28:48

that Israel has to hold on to the goalon heights.

28:50

These are terrific accomplishments,

28:52

and the president ought to be praised for them. For

28:55

me being a bipartisan, I'm a Democrat.

28:57

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I'm bipartisan

28:59

when comes to issues. For me, being bipartisan

29:02

means you condemned the president voted for, as

29:04

I have President Obama, who I voted

29:06

for twice for the Iran Deal, which

29:09

was a disaster, and you praise

29:11

the president you voted against, namely

29:13

President Trump, but what he's brought about

29:15

in the Middle East. So I tried to be as fair

29:17

as I possibly can an object of the

29:20

neutral in assessing

29:22

policies the presidents who I voted for

29:24

or against. Now,

29:27

there was a lot of criticism of the Obama administration's

29:29

handling of the relations with Israel.

29:32

We know that, um they didn't.

29:34

President Obama didn't have such a great relationship.

29:37

Are you not concerned that, considering the

29:39

fact that Joe Biden was in that administration

29:41

as well, and he's part to blame for

29:44

not having such a great relationship with Israel,

29:46

that if he becomes president that the saint can

29:48

continue. I am

29:50

concerned about it. I do have I do

29:52

know that Joe Biden's personal views

29:54

towards Israel are somewhat more positive.

29:57

He has critical views towards not and

30:00

you who um, but generally

30:02

positive views towards Israel. Look,

30:04

you never know what you're gonna get when you vote for

30:06

a president. You vote not on one issue

30:08

at least I don't. I vote on a variety of issues

30:10

Israel, and one of them a woman's

30:13

right to choose gay marriage, reasonable

30:16

gun control, affordable health. All

30:18

of those are other issues. You know, it's interesting because

30:21

people ask me all the time, how could Jews

30:23

vote so overwhelmingly Democrats

30:25

when the Republicans are better for Israel? And

30:28

they're right, Republicans are better generally

30:30

for Israel. But Jews, like African

30:32

Americans and like Latino Americans,

30:35

don't vote on single issues. They're not all

30:38

together. They're not, you know,

30:40

homogeneous. We are very different.

30:43

And most of my Jewish friends have

30:45

nothing positive to say about Donald Trump.

30:47

I have positive things to say about him, some

30:50

negative things to say about him. The same

30:52

thing is true about my views of Biden

30:54

and Obama. And you know, we live

30:56

in a world the complexity and nuance, and

30:59

nobody should expect every Jew or every

31:01

African America, every let's you know, to

31:03

vote one way or the other and blocked

31:05

step. That's just not what democracy is about.

31:16

Thank you for listening. Tune in for

31:19

part two of our conversation with Professor Alan

31:21

Dershowitz. If you're enjoying the

31:23

show, please leave us a review and

31:25

rate us with five stars on Apple Podcast.

31:28

Thank you to our producer Stephen Calabria,

31:31

researcher Aaron Kleigman, and executive

31:33

producers Debbie Myers and speaker New

31:35

Gingrich, part of the Gingridge three sixty

31:37

Networks,

31:50

part of the Gainers Ree sixty Networks,