0:02

Welcome back to the DIRS show.

0:05

You can now watch the DIRS

0:07

show live on either Rumble or

0:10

YouTube. If you want to send me messages

0:13

as we're talking, real-time messages,

0:16

it has to be sent to YouTube. I

0:20

can read them on the side. I'll

0:23

try to pick them up as I'm

0:26

talking to you so they can come

0:28

in in real time. Since we spoke

0:30

last week, there have been a lot of media

0:33

developments. You remember the last

0:35

show was my criticism of Fox

0:37

for settling a suit

0:40

that I believe they could have won in the end,

0:42

although they might have lost it at trial

0:44

because the judge seemed to have been very

0:47

biased against their position.

0:50

I think they would have won on appeal. I

0:54

was critical and I said on

0:56

this podcast that it would cause self-censorship.

1:01

My predictions are generally pretty

1:03

right on. So today both

1:05

Fox and CNN engaged in

1:08

self-censorship. Fox

1:11

by firing its

1:13

most prominent online

1:16

presence, obviously Tucker Carlson,

1:19

who had the 8 o'clock slot, the

1:21

most important slot on

1:25

Fox and who had the largest audience, twice

1:27

as large as CNN, MSNBC,

1:30

only about half as large as

1:33

O'Reilly, who also got canned, but for

1:35

I think rather different reasons.

1:39

And then

1:41

at about the same time, probably

1:43

coincidentally, but who knows, Don

1:45

Lemon either got fired

1:48

or got just dismissed

1:50

or was made

1:52

an offer that he didn't accept. It's a little

1:55

unclear. CNN has one narrative. Don

2:01

Lemon has another narrative. I believe Don Lemon's

2:03

narrative. I think he was fired.

2:07

The cases are rather distinguishable.

2:10

I mean, Don Lemon did some things

2:12

that may very well warrant

2:15

firing. I mean, the worst thing he did was

2:18

you remember the case of that guy, what's his name?

2:21

Elon Smollett, the

2:23

Smollett, who was being

2:27

investigated for making up a full story about

2:29

a racial attack. And Don

2:31

Lemon, who's supposed to be only a journalist,

2:34

gave him essentially legal

2:36

advice not to give up his

2:38

cell phone. That's not something a journalist

2:40

should do. It was much, much, much, much

2:42

worse than anything that Chris Cuomo did.

2:44

But

2:45

Chris also was fired.

2:47

This seems to have been the year of the

2:49

season for firing

2:52

very distinguished and very

2:55

longstanding people

2:57

from the networks. So

3:00

Don Lemon also had some other accusations

3:03

of a personal nature that

3:05

may have contributed to

3:08

his termination.

3:10

In the case of Tucker

3:13

Carlson, I think purely political, oh

3:16

yeah, there's one woman who said that he

3:18

created an environment that

3:21

was negative toward women.

3:23

I mean, that's just, you hear that all the time.

3:25

And I don't know what that means.

3:28

A journalism room is a

3:30

tough place. I've been in green rooms

3:33

at CNN and CNBC

3:36

and MSNBC and Fox

3:38

and you name it, I've been at green

3:40

rooms. Although I could write an old book on green

3:42

rooms I've known. And

3:44

they're tough places and people yell at each other

3:47

and there is a hostile environment in

3:50

the media in general. And

3:52

so I don't believe that really contributed

3:54

to the firing of Tucker Carlson.

3:57

I think he was fired because of the settlement. I think

3:59

he was fired.

3:59

fired because Fox

4:02

was worried that they were going to be

4:04

sued again. And by the way, they're still being sued.

4:06

You know, there is another vote counting

4:09

company that wants to get in on the action and

4:11

again wants to make more money suing

4:14

than counting votes

4:15

and lots and lots of lawsuits

4:17

floating through the air about these

4:20

issues. And ultimately

4:23

some of them will get to the Supreme Court,

4:25

including perhaps mine, my

4:28

case against CNN where they doctored a tape

4:30

and made me say exactly the opposite

4:33

of what I said. And the

4:35

judge concluded that what they

4:37

had done was wrong and foolish, et

4:39

cetera, et cetera, but that it lacked malice.

4:42

So we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about

4:44

that if it ever gets to the Supreme

4:46

Court. But

4:51

Fox stock went down 5% as

4:54

the result of Tucker Carlson's firing and

4:56

probably won't go up again. I don't think these things

4:59

tend to have a big impact on valuation.

5:02

They fired some of their

5:04

biggest stars previously as did

5:07

CNN. And generally

5:09

their fortunes tend to be

5:13

more likely to be affected by

5:15

news

5:16

and

5:18

by their developments outside than

5:21

by the hiring and firing and also by

5:23

their advertising. I mean, there was some indications

5:26

that Tucker Carlson was losing

5:29

some of his advertisers as a result of boycotts.

5:32

Again, I don't think that had a significant

5:34

impact on the decision. Look,

5:37

the decision may well be a decision

5:40

by both of these corporate

5:43

giants, CNN and

5:46

Fox, to clean up their act a little

5:48

bit and to

5:50

make their

5:52

shows more centrist.

5:55

Neither is going to become Walter Cronkite. You can

5:57

be sure of that. There is no

5:59

Walter Cronkite.

5:59

Cronkite today on any of the networks

6:02

or anywhere else, but some are closer than

6:04

others, and Fox and CNN

6:06

are not close at all. So there

6:09

may have been a decision. CNN has a new

6:11

ownership. Fox seemed

6:14

to have been turning over something of a new

6:16

leaf, and maybe they both decided

6:19

independently that

6:23

it would be better to report

6:25

the news a little bit more objectively,

6:28

with the extremism

6:31

that was reflected by

6:34

some of the commentators

6:38

and some of the

6:40

anchor people.

6:42

I wish the New York Times would take that view

6:44

as well. They

6:47

have become the most predictable media,

6:50

even more predictable than Fox and

6:52

CNN, with their editorials

6:55

and putting their news on the editorial

6:57

page, and with people like

6:59

Charles Blow, who just read the first

7:01

line, you don't have to read the rest of the column.

7:04

You know where he's going. You know that everything

7:06

in the world has to be seen

7:08

through the lens of racism, and

7:11

that everything

7:12

America does has to be understood

7:14

as racist. And you see a lot

7:16

of that in the New York

7:18

Times. New York Times has

7:21

gone so far as to say the other day they had

7:23

a list of the 100 best restaurants

7:26

in New York,

7:27

and the number one restaurant

7:29

was a Caribbean, African-American

7:33

restaurant. And the review said

7:36

almost nothing about the food, and maybe

7:38

it's the best restaurant in New York. I'm

7:40

going to go taste it and make my own judgment. What

7:43

they said was, oh, we're so

7:45

thrilled to be able to

7:47

list a black restaurant

7:51

as the best restaurant in New York. I mean, the

7:53

impression they gave, it was such

7:55

a negative general impression,

7:57

was

7:58

we're not really telling you. I don't know if I'm

8:00

going to tell you the foods that great, but boy,

8:02

is it commendable that we can

8:04

make the number one restaurant

8:06

in New York a black restaurant.

8:10

It's gone very, very far. Again,

8:13

I'm going to try the restaurant. It may be the absolute

8:15

best restaurant, but we'll,

8:18

we'll, we'll, I'll make my own judgment

8:20

about that. I know some

8:22

of the other restaurants on the list and some of

8:25

them are very good and some of

8:27

them really suck. I know some of the people on the list, some of the restaurants

8:30

on the list that walked out of. So

8:33

I'm not sure the Times is the best judge of

8:35

good restaurants, but

8:38

I make the point only to point

8:41

out the fact that not

8:43

everything in the world should be seen through the,

8:46

through the lens of race. I mean, Martin

8:48

Luther King will be turning over

8:51

in his grave today with this focus

8:53

on racial and identity

8:55

politics and the character of

8:59

the character of the character. And I'm more than sure to

9:01

in any way bring his dream to fruition

9:05

of a day when his children would be judged by the quality

9:08

of their character rather than by the color of

9:10

their skin. We're moving further and further

9:13

and further away from that. And

9:16

I'm moving further and further and further away from the

9:18

theme of this show, which is what is the

9:20

implication of the firing of these two

9:22

great stars? I've

9:25

been on both of their shows on

9:27

numerous, numerous occasions

9:30

and I've fought and argued with them. I don't

9:32

agree with either of their positions

9:35

on many issues.

9:37

Tucker Carlson is far to the right of me

9:40

and Don Lemon is somewhat

9:43

to the left of me on some of these issues.

9:46

And I don't know anything about their personal

9:49

lives. I've never had any negative

9:52

experiences with them.

9:55

With Tucker Carlson, I did say something

9:58

quite negative about his views. regarding

10:00

immigration and I reminded

10:03

him that his grandparent

10:05

on one side, I forget which side, came

10:08

from a typical

10:10

immigrant family that

10:13

made America great. He

10:16

didn't have me on the show for quite a while

10:18

after that and I fought with

10:20

Don Lemon about a number of

10:22

issues but this is not about

10:25

those arguments. The real argument

10:27

is this, the real concern

10:30

is this,

10:33

if these networks are really

10:35

making decisions now based on the fear of

10:37

lawsuits,

10:39

where is it gonna

10:40

take the viewer? I mean is the viewer being

10:42

taken into consideration as I've said over

10:44

and over again.

10:48

Thurgood Marshall wrote and actually

10:50

he was emulating another great

10:54

African-American lawyer

10:56

that had written this

10:58

back a hundred years earlier

11:00

when he said that the

11:02

First Amendment has two components,

11:05

the right of Tucker Carlson

11:07

and Don Lemon to express their

11:09

their views

11:11

and the right of the viewer and

11:13

the listener to hear. Now you might say wait a minute,

11:16

Tucker Carlson has no right to express

11:18

his views

11:21

on a private television station.

11:24

The First Amendment only protects against government actions

11:26

and that's true but just remember

11:29

what happened a few days before Tucker

11:31

Carlson was fired,

11:33

namely Chuck Schumer, one

11:35

of the four or five most powerful people

11:37

in the United States, the majority leader of the

11:39

United States Senate,

11:41

one of the three branches of government urged

11:45

Fox to fire him and

11:47

if Fox was in any way influenced

11:50

by the actions of this government

11:52

official, we're

11:54

beginning to get close to some

11:56

lines about governmental

11:58

interference with

11:59

free speech. We've

12:02

already seen that with the internet. We've already

12:04

seen some of the emails

12:07

that Elon Musk revealed

12:11

involving the thumb, or

12:14

maybe even the elbow, of certain

12:16

government agencies on social

12:18

media. And that's not

12:21

a healthy development. Will

12:24

we see more firings? Yeah, I

12:26

suspect we probably will.

12:28

I think it really depends on

12:31

whether this is being done

12:33

simply as a reaction to this ill-advised

12:36

settlement,

12:37

which is of

12:39

course partly, partly responsible,

12:43

I'm sure, for it. Or is it being done

12:45

in a legitimate effort to try to move

12:49

both stations to

12:51

the center? And in my

12:53

view, both are equally guilty of providing

12:57

news that their view is

13:00

one here.

13:02

I would much prefer to have one channel

13:05

I could turn to and

13:06

have both sides presented the way

13:09

that used to be presented when I would debate people

13:11

like William Buckley and others when

13:14

there was real debate on

13:18

shows that

13:21

were shown on both cable

13:23

and regular networks. Those days are gone

13:25

forever.

13:27

Today, if you want right-wing news, you turn to Fox.

13:29

If you want left-wing news, you turn to MSNBC

13:32

or CNN. And they're equally biased.

13:35

In fact, I think CNN is

13:37

far more guilty because it does

13:39

it in a more subtle way.

13:42

Again, I'm suing CNN, so take

13:44

that into account. In evaluating

13:46

it, but my view is that CNN

13:48

is much more subtle in its

13:50

bias, but much more effective

13:53

in presenting only biased points

13:55

of view. And the other difference is CNN

13:57

is always wrong.

13:59

whenever they make predictions about the law, they

14:02

are always wrong. If

14:04

they were batters in Major League Baseball,

14:07

they

14:07

would be batting like 120. Whereas I'm batting

14:10

about 600, maybe 800. Not

14:14

because I'm smarter than the commentators

14:17

on CNN, but because I

14:20

don't allow my personal views to influence

14:22

my predictions. They do.

14:25

Their predictions are wishful thinking.

14:27

Speaking about people being fired, Jeffrey Tubman was

14:31

another one who was fired. He and I used to be on

14:33

CNN together.

14:35

We had our whole shtick.

14:38

He was my former student.

14:40

He would complain about me and I would complain about

14:42

him. It was, by the way, very popular

14:44

with the viewers.

14:45

And then they canceled me.

14:48

Maybe

14:50

that played a role in the cancellation of Jeffrey

14:52

Tubman. He didn't have his

14:55

opponent to fight with. In

14:57

any event, he's gone. Lemon's

14:59

gone. O'Reilly's gone. Tucker

15:03

Carlson's gone. Megan

15:05

Kelly, who is I think one of the great

15:07

broadcasters in modern

15:09

times, is no longer

15:12

on Fox

15:14

or NBC. She now has her wonderful,

15:17

wonderful podcast, which I'm on from

15:19

time to time and enjoy very much being

15:21

on. Of course, podcasting has

15:23

taken over a lot of

15:26

what used to be on network television.

15:28

I'm proud to have

15:30

a podcast as I approach 85.

15:32

I'm not guaranteeing you how many

15:34

more years I'm going to be

15:36

willing to do this on a three

15:39

time a week basis. I'm supposed

15:41

to be retired, but it hasn't

15:43

taken. I enjoy

15:46

this podcast and I enjoy getting your letters

15:48

and I enjoy any interaction

15:52

with you. And I

15:53

enjoy to the extent I'm teaching

15:55

you and you're teaching me, it reminds

15:57

me of the 50 years I spent.

16:00

at Harvard teaching some of our

16:02

most important leaders, some of whom

16:05

I'm very proud of, others of whom,

16:07

not so much. But

16:11

we'll see what happens with network

16:13

television. I suspect that

16:15

this lawsuit, the Fox

16:18

lawsuit, will have a

16:19

lingering influence on

16:22

the presentation of diverse views.

16:26

Now, the word diversity, of course, has become the

16:28

most popular word in college

16:30

campus today. Diversity, equity, and inclusion.

16:33

None

16:36

of those people want diversity. They just want

16:38

more of themselves. If they're

16:41

radical leftists, they want more radical leftists.

16:43

If they're black,

16:45

they want more black people. If they're Jewish, they

16:47

want more Jewish people. If they're gay, they

16:49

want more gay people. That's their definition of diversity.

16:53

For me, diversity is diversity

16:55

of opinion. I want universities to

16:58

be even more diverse than they are today.

17:01

But the way to do it is to

17:03

not look only at superficial

17:07

qualities, but to look more deeply

17:09

and

17:10

to bring people to universities

17:12

who have different points of view from

17:15

the main narrative at

17:17

the university. And we're just not seeing

17:20

that. We're seeing universities becoming

17:22

more homogeneous, just like television stations

17:25

becoming more homogeneous. And

17:27

today you pick your college or university

17:30

again, based on

17:31

which propaganda you'd rather be

17:34

exposed to. And

17:36

some universities are well known

17:38

for espousing only

17:41

leftist causes and some for

17:43

espousing only conservative causes. So

17:47

they become like television stations. And

17:51

it's not a healthy development. I'm

17:54

told now that the same thing is happening with book

17:56

publishers.

17:57

One of my former

17:59

friends who was one of those who canceled

18:02

me on Martha's Vineyard is now complaining

18:04

terribly. This is ironic, complaining

18:07

terribly that he's been canceled by publishers

18:09

because he's a white male.

18:11

And he's trying to write

18:13

a book about how African

18:16

Americans thought about particular

18:18

subjects in the South. And people are saying,

18:20

no, no, you can't do that. You're a white male.

18:23

And worse

18:25

comes to worse. I think he's a white Protestant

18:28

man. A wasp, oh my God,

18:30

who could be more privileged than that? It

18:32

doesn't matter that your parents might've been poor,

18:35

but if you're a wasp, it's white privilege.

18:38

And so he's complaining now that he's

18:40

been canceled at the

18:42

same time that he won't talk to me or

18:45

have interactions with me or support

18:48

my claims against the local library, which

18:50

won't allow me to speak as to who I defended. So

18:54

hypocrisy is everywhere.

18:57

It's everywhere. And

19:00

we're not gonna CNN to it. We're

19:02

gonna see more of it. And

19:05

I think that the Fox decision

19:08

to fire, Tucker

19:10

Carlson, along with previous decisions

19:12

to fire and CNN's

19:15

decision to fire, marks a

19:17

weakening of freedom of speech. Now, not

19:20

necessarily the First Amendment to the extent that government

19:23

officials have an influence. Yes, the

19:25

First Amendment to the extent that

19:27

they're just plain ordinary business decisions.

19:30

The First Amendment is not directly implicated,

19:33

but freedom of speech is implicated and freedom

19:35

to hear is implicated and

19:38

freedom to be exposed to

19:40

diverse views, which you just don't

19:42

get on most channels. I have to tell you, I really

19:44

enjoy being on Newsmax myself

19:47

because Newsmax conservative

19:49

channel, but they enjoy having

19:51

me present my liberal view. I've never been

19:53

asked once to change my view and

19:56

to express the views of the Newsmax

19:58

management. I don't even know what they are. I mean,

20:01

even there, there's diversity of views, but

20:03

it tends to be right, right

20:07

to right. Where's my abuser? Our

20:09

center left, or center liberal,

20:12

center libertarian. And

20:14

so

20:16

don't celebrate, you know, don't do

20:18

what the five did today

20:20

on television. They cheered and they jumped up

20:22

and down and the audience was clapping

20:25

when they announced that Tucker Carlson was fired.

20:28

Hey, members of the five, you're

20:30

next.

20:31

You're next. Soon

20:33

they'll come after you. You know,

20:36

it doesn't stop with Tucker Carlson.

20:39

It doesn't stop with Don

20:41

Lemon. It's going to get

20:44

everybody on television, everybody

20:47

in the media.

20:48

It's you know, it's,

20:50

it's, it's a new form of censorship.

20:54

And it's more subtle and more difficult to fight

20:56

against. And it's part of

20:58

the larger picture of the

21:00

new McCarthyism, which I think we're experiencing

21:03

today, which I never dreamed after

21:06

going through the old McCarthyism as a young

21:08

man. I just never thought

21:10

we would see a return of it. And

21:12

I surely never thought we would see a return

21:15

of it from the left,

21:16

but we're seeing it and stay tuned.

21:19

I've worked on a book called the new McCarthyism. So

21:21

you'll be able to read my views on

21:23

that in the next months

21:26

to come. All right. Let's

21:28

see if there are any letters that have come

21:30

to me on, on the,

21:33

let's

21:34

see, the media

21:39

foolishly being subverted. You

21:42

mean the view. Ah, you're right. See,

21:44

correction. That's great. I said the five.

21:47

It's not the five. The five is on Fox.

21:51

The view, which has what four or five

21:53

people, which I've been on too,

21:55

which is very woke and

21:58

progressive. Thank you. great

22:00

virtue in having immediate progression

22:03

correction only You

22:06

and Ralph Nader could save us from

22:08

the new McCarthyism. Well, I

22:11

used to like Ralph Nader

22:13

When I first came to Harvard he had just graduated

22:16

Harvard and we had some Connections,

22:20

I agreed many of the things he

22:22

was doing but then he turned so Furiously

22:25

anti-israel that I no longer have

22:27

anything to do with him But if

22:30

he can help bring about an end to the new McCarthyism,

22:32

I'm with him Okay, so

22:35

let's go to some of the print

22:37

letters. Oh, here's one is interesting

22:40

This came before the firing of

22:43

Tucker Carlson and it says Fox

22:45

will be hyper cautious after this You're

22:50

right. Alan. I disagree that Fox

22:52

was the big loser We the people

22:54

were the biggest loser in this entire sad

22:56

story We lose because now

22:59

there are people's opinions and news stories

23:01

That we will never hear because the network

23:03

are afraid of being sued and that's true Look

23:06

one of the big things and maybe one of the reasons

23:09

that Tucker Carlson was fired It was certainly speculated

23:12

about in the press today as he was

23:14

willing to put on the air some

23:16

of the videos of January

23:19

6th,

23:20

which showed policemen

23:23

welcoming some of the protesters

23:25

into the Capital and and he was

23:27

criticized for that. Hey, that's journalism.

23:30

That's good reporting I'm representing one

23:32

of the people who was welcomed in

23:35

by the police and we're going to use some of that

23:37

footage In court to defend them.

23:39

So thank you tucker Carlson for

23:42

for that and there

23:44

will be things that will not be shown on

23:46

television as the result of

23:49

These firings and as the result of of

23:52

the settlement, so you're absolutely correct In

23:54

the last show or the show before that we talked about capital

23:57

punishment. So here's a long

23:59

long letter. Capital

24:01

punishment is absolutely and unquestionably

24:03

a deterrent, as it absolutely deters

24:06

that murder from ever murdering anyone

24:09

else again. That's a misuse of the term deterrent.

24:12

Deterrent means preventing

24:14

other people from doing it for fear

24:16

of what's going to happen. Of

24:18

course, if you execute somebody, they can't do it again.

24:20

If you lock them up for life, they can't do

24:23

it again except to people in

24:25

prison.

24:28

Then it goes on, and the criminal gave

24:31

up their life when they chose to took another. Capital

24:33

punishment merely finishes the act. But

24:35

here's the interesting point. He says,

24:37

I would agree with a total ban on capital

24:40

punishment in exchange for a total

24:42

ban on abortion. That

24:44

would be a major net gain in spared life.

24:47

It's interesting because years and years and years ago,

24:49

I wrote an article for a

24:53

Catholic magazine

24:56

called Something Life or

24:58

the Protection of Life, in which I

25:01

argued that people who are opposed

25:03

to abortion ought to be more active

25:05

in the campaign against capital punishment. Of

25:07

course, there are a lot of letters and responses. Big difference.

25:10

The fetus is innocent. The person subject

25:13

to capital punishment is guilty.

25:15

But the Catholic churches now really changed

25:18

its views, and it is adamantly

25:20

opposed to capital punishment,

25:22

except in the most extreme circumstances.

25:25

It's not

25:26

an obligation of every

25:29

Catholic to take that view, but the church's

25:31

position is that Catholics

25:33

should seriously consider

25:36

being opposed to the death

25:38

penalty. It changed a lot of people's

25:40

views. In Massachusetts, the death penalty

25:43

was outlawed by one vote of a legislature

25:45

who said that his vote was decided

25:48

by being a Catholic and by the views of the

25:50

Vatican

25:51

on the death penalty, which is interesting.

25:55

If only you could be cloned, Professor.

25:58

I'm a staunch constitutional conservative.

25:59

of it. And I dare say it as much on which we disagree.

26:02

However, when it comes to the law and the constitution,

26:04

there's no one who can hold a candle

26:06

to you. You're an honest broker and a national

26:09

treasure. Thank you so much. That's interesting. This

26:12

is one about Ethel Rosenberg. Remember

26:14

I said she was innocent. She didn't

26:17

deserve death penalty. She was being held to hostage.

26:19

Roy Cohn told me that the

26:22

goal was to have

26:24

her husband be so concerned

26:26

about her being executed and leaving their two children

26:29

as orphans, that he would flip

26:31

and turn on his communist

26:33

handlers. He never did. And they were both executed.

26:36

She may not have deserved the death penalty, but

26:38

she was at least complicit with

26:41

her husband's espionage. I don't

26:43

know what that means. She knew about it. Yes,

26:46

she knew about it, but that's not legally

26:48

complicit. Was Roy Cohn

26:50

really that callous? He said

26:52

he would have pulled the switch. And yet Buckley

26:55

was a character witness in Late of Life for

26:57

him, as was I. I actually

27:00

wrote a letter to the Barr Association in the

27:02

last days of Roy Cohn's life.

27:05

I was not a supporter of Roy Cohn or a defender,

27:08

but I thought the Barr was picking on him and he

27:10

was dying. And I wrote a character

27:12

letter for him talking

27:15

about the associations I had with

27:17

him. I defended Klaus von Bülow and he defended

27:19

Klaus von Bülow's

27:20

daughter. So you

27:23

can be a character witness for somebody who's

27:25

dying and who's being bullied and picked on and

27:27

still think that what he did was

27:29

wrong. And that's kind of my

27:32

view. Okay.

27:34

Hey, can you do a video about Alec

27:36

Baldwin? Very strange that suddenly they dropped

27:39

all criminal charges. Some same

27:41

strange feeling when I heard

27:43

Fox settle with Dominion. No, the two

27:45

cases are very different. I don't think

27:47

they ever had a case against Alec Baldwin.

27:49

He was an actor. He was handed a

27:52

gun. He was told it was unloaded. It

27:54

reminds me very much of the case

27:56

of Kim Potter, who's now finally

27:59

being freed from

28:00

prison. I'm glad to bring you that update.

28:02

This is the woman who was totally innocent.

28:05

She committed no crime whatsoever.

28:07

Remember, she was the cop who was

28:10

firing what she believed was a Taser and

28:12

a fleeing felon who endangered the life

28:14

of her fellow police officer and

28:17

pedestrians on the street, but she pulled

28:19

the wrong gun and she shot and killed

28:21

a

28:21

young person who

28:24

had been stopped. That's

28:26

not a crime. That

28:29

may not even be a tort. It depends, but

28:31

if it's a tort,

28:32

that's financial. But not only

28:34

was she sentenced to a long prison term,

28:37

she was denied bail, even though any

28:39

good lawyer could have won the case on appeal,

28:42

I believe. And

28:44

I offered my help in the case, but nobody

28:47

took me up on it. But she's

28:49

finally getting out. And I'm glad

28:52

to hear that. By the way, I offered my help pro bono,

28:55

but the lawyers in the case had

28:57

no interest, probably because they had made

29:00

a plea bargain and got a

29:02

certain

29:02

sentence and probably were

29:04

sure that she'd be out after a certain time. And now

29:07

she is out. So I'm not being critical of a lawyer. Okay.

29:13

Why didn't Fox hire Alan Dershowitz? Sounds

29:15

like he could have saved them $750,000. Well, I would

29:17

have charged them quite a bit to save them

29:19

the $750,000. So maybe it was worth it not hiring me. I do

29:24

think that the case was winnable,

29:27

no guarantees and there's no guarantees

29:29

in life. But when you're paying $700,000, there should

29:31

be a guarantee that you're going to lose that. I

29:36

just don't understand

29:37

what the damages were in

29:39

the case. You know, there's

29:42

no indication, the indications

29:44

where their values went up.

29:46

Fox's attack

29:48

on them didn't hurt them particularly.

29:51

And the judge made findings that were very positive

29:54

toward them. So I just don't think there

29:56

was any damages in the case.

29:58

And I don't like the fact that you can.

29:59

you can pay money to somebody

30:02

as a windfall. And

30:04

so, you know, again,

30:07

I'm critical of Foxford. Having

30:09

done that, I'm critical, I don't know enough

30:11

to be critical of Foxford having fired

30:13

Tucker Carlson, but I do know that it

30:15

will not

30:16

serve freedom of speech in America

30:19

well. I'm sure we'll be talking about this in other cases.

30:22

I'm always interested in talking about freedom of speech.

30:25

So see you tomorrow.