Speaker 1: Up next out loud would Janno called part of the
Speaker 1: English high folks as Jianno Calledwell, here's the second half
Speaker 1: of my fund and encycl interview with legendary defense attorney
Speaker 1: and constitutional scholar and longtime Harvard Law School professor Alan Derschomitz.
Speaker 1: I ask you about the efforts about a Democrats to
Speaker 1: impeach President Trump. I know, it seems like something that
Speaker 1: happened many years ago, not in my life. And my
Speaker 1: life people still don't talk to me because I defended
Speaker 1: the president on the floor of the Senate, and so
Speaker 1: some of my oldest and dearest friends have severed their
Speaker 1: relationship with me because they thought I was a sellout
Speaker 1: and a trader. They don't understand the role of the lawyer.
Speaker 1: I was there defending the Constitution. The Constitution was misused
Speaker 1: by the Democrats. President Trump was impeached unconstitutionally on grounds
Speaker 1: not set out in the Constitution, and asked the argument
Speaker 1: I made. I'm proud of that argument, and I now
Speaker 1: know who my true friends are. Okay, now that's good.
Speaker 1: And as a person who's a conservative and been a
Speaker 1: conservative for over a decade, I've been written a book
Speaker 1: about it. Taken for granted. Uh to as someone who's
Speaker 1: in the black community kind of rejected because of my
Speaker 1: politics and even just a professional position. So I appreciate
Speaker 1: you know what that's like. We're in the same boat.
Speaker 1: We definitely we are. In nineteen I think it was
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties, you hosted a talk at Harvard by
Speaker 1: Malcolm Max on the subject of black liberation. Can you
Speaker 1: tell us that story and how, in your view, rights
Speaker 1: for Black Americans have both advanced installed since then. It
Speaker 1: was an amazing event. I was like a month into
Speaker 1: being the youngest assistant professor in the history of Harvard
Speaker 1: Law School, and I got a call from the Harvard
Speaker 1: Law School Forum saying, we've invited Malcolm X to speak,
Speaker 1: but no faculty member will introduce him, and the rules
Speaker 1: of the asociation require that they'd be a faculty member
Speaker 1: introducing the speaker, otherwise the speaker is not allowed to speak.
Speaker 1: I said, of course, I'll do it. Freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: And so I did get to introduce and have dinner
Speaker 1: with Malcolm X. He had just come back in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, so part of the dinner was spent talking
Speaker 1: about the Israeli Arab conflict and other issues. Malcolm X
Speaker 1: again perfectly perfect example of a mixed picture, somebody who
Speaker 1: certainly raised consciousness about inequality in the black community, certainly
Speaker 1: gave a lot of pride to African Americans back in
Speaker 1: his day. But he was not perfect. His life started
Speaker 1: as a criminal. He did advocate the violence. He died violently.
Speaker 1: We still don't know exactly the circumstances of his death,
Speaker 1: but we do know that Louis Barakont played some role
Speaker 1: in it, and that Elijah Mohammed and others in the
Speaker 1: Black Muzzle movement played some role in it. Mixed picture.
Speaker 1: If you start taking down statues of people who have
Speaker 1: mixed records, you're gonna have to change the name of
Speaker 1: Malcolm X bolva Art in Harlem, because he does have
Speaker 1: a mixed record. But I think we have to understand
Speaker 1: that most great leaders are at least many great leaders do.
Speaker 1: The situation of African Americans in America has so dramatically
Speaker 1: changed in the last fifty years. I went down South,
Speaker 1: and he was between my last year of law school
Speaker 1: work twice last year of law school in my clerkship,
Speaker 1: and in my second year of law school, I trained
Speaker 1: to go down South at Howard University by the n
Speaker 1: A c P. And I went down there and saw
Speaker 1: the horrors that were going on in parts of the
Speaker 1: South with African Americans being beaten if they wanted to
Speaker 1: vote or wanted to sit in integrated encounters. My wife's
Speaker 1: father owned a pharmacy in Charleston, South Carolina, and when
Speaker 1: his best friends was an African American doctor and he
Speaker 1: was not allowed to sit at the lunch counter with
Speaker 1: his best friend in his own pharmacy, he had to
Speaker 1: take Dr Chisholm up to his office where he could
Speaker 1: have lunch with him privately. That's how terrible the situation
Speaker 1: was back then. It is so much better today, but
Speaker 1: it's not close to being good enough. You know, it's
Speaker 1: a work in progress. But let nobody think that we
Speaker 1: haven't made progress with various civil rights acts and voting
Speaker 1: rights accent. The fact that we have had a black
Speaker 1: president now have a Black Lives presidential candidate is not
Speaker 1: alone enough to say there's been a change, but it's
Speaker 1: certainly a manifestation. My Sheldon's generation don't even recognize race
Speaker 1: as a salient characteristic. They just picked people, as Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King said in his famous speech, not based on
Speaker 1: the color of their skin, but the quality of their character.
Speaker 1: I think we're moving in that direction, but we're not
Speaker 1: even close to being there. You know what. What's interesting
Speaker 1: and if I can take you to my kitchen table
Speaker 1: for a moment. Growing up in in Chicago, on the
Speaker 1: South Side of Chicago, internally with not just my family,
Speaker 1: but the entire Black community, I would say we often
Speaker 1: admire the Jewish community in the sect success that we
Speaker 1: often see within. So there's this this old saying that
Speaker 1: you find a lot of wealth in the Jewish community,
Speaker 1: and people have been, like jay Z, have made comments
Speaker 1: about the wealth and the Jewish community as he tried
Speaker 1: to say a complimentary what do you think African Americans
Speaker 1: need to do in order to to ascend to that level?
Speaker 1: There's so much success within your community, is it we
Speaker 1: need to be more cohesive as a community. What should
Speaker 1: we be doing to uh to rise to that level
Speaker 1: of success that we often see in the Jewish community.
Speaker 1: It's so hard to make those kinds of judgments. Look,
Speaker 1: the Jewish community was extraordinarily jealous of the African American community.
Speaker 1: I mean all of our many of our heroes, sports heroes,
Speaker 1: music heroes, you name it Martin Luther King, Barack Omama
Speaker 1: came from the black community. So you know, I would
Speaker 1: rather instead of calling it mutual jealousy, call it mutual admiration.
Speaker 1: We each can learn a lot from each other. Different
Speaker 1: communities at different stages in their history react in different ways.
Speaker 1: And you know, Jews had to accumulate wealth back in
Speaker 1: the Europe. They were not allowed to own land. They
Speaker 1: only could make money by lending money because that's not
Speaker 1: prohibited in Jewish law, and so Jews became bankers and lenders,
Speaker 1: and that's a tradition that has kept up. Also, I
Speaker 1: think Jewish education. That is, my parents were not educated.
Speaker 1: Neither than went to college. My father did graduated high school.
Speaker 1: I was the first person in my family could have
Speaker 1: got to college. My parents lived for me to go
Speaker 1: to college. They would have done anything. Fortunately I lived
Speaker 1: in Brooklyn where there was a free college Brooklyn Call College,
Speaker 1: and a diverse and free college and excellent school. I
Speaker 1: would love to see a return to free public education
Speaker 1: in every state, at least one school that's excellent and
Speaker 1: it's free to give opportunities. I think family education, all
Speaker 1: of those things contribute to the success of a community.
Speaker 1: But we are different communities and we have different values,
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't try to impose one model on any
Speaker 1: other community. I can agree with that assessment. I just
Speaker 1: think that within the black community is important to dig
Speaker 1: within and really pull out the potential that exists, because
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of self doubt that's often
Speaker 1: placed on a community because some of the issues that
Speaker 1: we've seen um comes throughout that country, from slavery, from
Speaker 1: Jim Crow, from any a number of these other issues,
Speaker 1: that people just believe that ascending to a particular level
Speaker 1: isn't possible, and I think that's detrimental to the community
Speaker 1: that professor. I want to follow up with you on that,
Speaker 1: but first we have to take a commercial break. Will
Speaker 1: be right back the switching gears. Following the death of
Speaker 1: George Floyd in the ratio and civil unrest that we've
Speaker 1: seen in erupted cities across the country, how should law
Speaker 1: enforcement change how they operate? Well, first of all, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be defunding the police. We should be increasing the
Speaker 1: funding of police. Who remember who policemen are, They're working
Speaker 1: class people. There are people who get up every morning
Speaker 1: and have one goal, and that is to protect you
Speaker 1: and me and to come home and be safe with
Speaker 1: this family. And they're undefunded, they're underpaid, they're undertrained. We
Speaker 1: don't have enough money for non lethal weapons. Every police
Speaker 1: officer should have a non lethal weapon so that when
Speaker 1: somebody is coming at them with a knife, they don't
Speaker 1: have to shoot them in the heart. They can fire
Speaker 1: the non lethal weapon. Joe Biden said they should shoot
Speaker 1: them in the legs. That sounds a little bit more
Speaker 1: like cowboy movie stuff. But the use of not legal weapons,
Speaker 1: the use of better training, more community control police. But
Speaker 1: I'm in favor of increasing the funding of police rather
Speaker 1: than defunding the police. Defunding the police has become a
Speaker 1: slow agan AOC advocates it, and she's just dead wrong.
Speaker 1: The major victims of defunding the police would be her
Speaker 1: community and the community of people who are vulnerable and
Speaker 1: who aren't protected enough. We need more police and more
Speaker 1: well trained police in communities that have currently have high
Speaker 1: crime rates in order to bring the came rates down.
Speaker 1: And so there's a lot we can do. There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of miscarriages of justice by policemen shooting unarmed
Speaker 1: African Americans, some more than others. The Taylor case does
Speaker 1: not strike me as a case which appropriately calls for
Speaker 1: the level of protests that we've had. That was a tragic,
Speaker 1: horrible situation. Nobody should have ever fired a shot there.
Speaker 1: But the first shot was fired by Brianna Taylor's boyfriends
Speaker 1: at a police officer hit him in the thigh, closed
Speaker 1: profuse bleeding. He could have died, and police are trained
Speaker 1: and would be trained even today to shoot back at
Speaker 1: the source of fire. It was a horrible tragedy. But
Speaker 1: I think the prosecutor in that case, an African American prosecutor,
Speaker 1: came to the right conclusion and did not charge those
Speaker 1: police officers with murder. He did charge one police officer
Speaker 1: with reckless disregard for life by firing kind of aimlessly
Speaker 1: through a window. That might very well if it's people
Speaker 1: in the joining apartment. But it's a nuanced case. It's
Speaker 1: a case that it doesn't fit into the Floyd case,
Speaker 1: where that was a murder. That was just a murderer.
Speaker 1: I mean, the idea that you would put your knee
Speaker 1: on the neck of somebody who was already under control
Speaker 1: and keep it there for all that time. There's just
Speaker 1: no conceivable justification for that, but not all cases are
Speaker 1: the same, not all policemen are the same, and so
Speaker 1: we have to look at every case individually with the
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence. Even police have a presumption of innocence. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with that in Daniel him and the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Kentucky. I I've seen a lot of legal analysis,
Speaker 1: and of course you're the genius here with any and
Speaker 1: all things legal, professor, But it seems as though a
Speaker 1: lot of people came to the same conclusion that he
Speaker 1: made the right decision. But that doesn't that hasn't stopped
Speaker 1: all the hate that he's received from numerous members of
Speaker 1: the black community. So that's and the white community and
Speaker 1: the white community I have friends you have just despised him, uh,
Speaker 1: saying that you know, he's an uncle Tom. It was
Speaker 1: a cover up. They purposely gave it to a black
Speaker 1: prosecutor so that it would have You know, you hear
Speaker 1: all of that. You hear it from people of color,
Speaker 1: you hear it from white people, and again you hear
Speaker 1: diverse views from people in every community. And that's what
Speaker 1: we need to encourage. People should make up their minds
Speaker 1: based on the fact and your identity, whether it be
Speaker 1: black or white, or gay or straight, Jewish or Christian
Speaker 1: or mausoleum. That shouldn't be the determining factor on how
Speaker 1: you analyze the fact of the case. I agree. And
Speaker 1: the district attorney who the case initially went through was
Speaker 1: a white Democrat, So that's interesting that they've not put
Speaker 1: all that fire his particular door, So that that's really interesting.
Speaker 1: Next question for you, and I know you gotta go,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna wrappy it really soon. How do you
Speaker 1: assess the threat posed by Antifa and how should local,
Speaker 1: state and federal law enforcement respond. Well, you know, there's
Speaker 1: an interesting article today in um Anaeli newspaper. I think
Speaker 1: it's Arts or or the juicelim Posts, I can't remember.
Speaker 1: I read it this morning about the man who wrote
Speaker 1: the book on Antifa, and he's a Rutgers professor and
Speaker 1: he justifies violence. He says you need to use violence,
Speaker 1: and you know the idea, and I've heard it from
Speaker 1: the Vice President I'm sorry, Vice President Biden and others.
Speaker 1: Antifa is not an organization. It's a content nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: like Black Lives Matter. It is an organization that has
Speaker 1: many sub organization sans within it. It's a concept, yes,
Speaker 1: anti fashionist concept. Black lives matter is a concept. But
Speaker 1: I know because I have been attacked by antifa in
Speaker 1: places like Berkeley and other places. They don't want to
Speaker 1: hear me speak because of my centrist, liberal pro Israel
Speaker 1: views and my defense of against the imputure of the
Speaker 1: President Trump. So it's not just that they try to
Speaker 1: stop fascists. They define fascist as anybody except them, and
Speaker 1: by their definition, I'm a fascist by their definition, euro fascist.
Speaker 1: By their definition, Shapiro is a fascist, and other conservatives
Speaker 1: are fascists. So I have nothing but contempt for Antifa.
Speaker 1: If we did have listening of domestic groups as terrorist groups,
Speaker 1: I think Antifa would qualify as a terrorist organization. And
Speaker 1: it can't hide by the fact that it doesn't have
Speaker 1: an elected president, vice president and board of directors. And
Speaker 1: any given community, you know who the ANTIQUA members are.
Speaker 1: You know that they get called out, You know that
Speaker 1: they're coherent, and they stick together and they join in
Speaker 1: mobs and riots, and again their goals. Sure, who wants fascism,
Speaker 1: but their means is what's so so a questionable. So
Speaker 1: with Black Lives Matter, do you come to a similar
Speaker 1: conclusion and I know that there's a difference between the
Speaker 1: movement of people who are like my friends, who go
Speaker 1: with the slogan black Lives Matter, and they they use
Speaker 1: the hashtag. But then there's an organization which is getting
Speaker 1: all this funding, no one knows where the money is
Speaker 1: going going to. And then of course the founders, at
Speaker 1: least one of them is a train. Mark says, there's
Speaker 1: there's a lot going on there that people don't really understand.
Speaker 1: I agree completely. Look, I support the concept black lives matter.
Speaker 1: I have for the last fifty or sixty years. I
Speaker 1: devoted a lot of my life to bringing about equality
Speaker 1: based on a race. But I cannot support any organization
Speaker 1: that has in its platform singling out of one country,
Speaker 1: just one country, the nation state of the Jewish people, Israel,
Speaker 1: calling it genocidal, calling it apartheid, not a single mention
Speaker 1: of the Philippines where policemen gunned down innocent people on
Speaker 1: the street, Venezuela, you'an where gay people hanged, nothing about
Speaker 1: any other country in the world, just the nation state
Speaker 1: of the Jewish people. And when you single at the
Speaker 1: nation state of the Jewish people and call a genocidal,
Speaker 1: when it's tried to defend itself and killed fewer Palestinians
Speaker 1: in seventy five years then the Jordanians did in the
Speaker 1: very short period of time called Black September. You know
Speaker 1: that you're crossing the line to anti Semitism. So I
Speaker 1: cannot support the organization that has as its platform ending
Speaker 1: age Israel because it's a genocidal apartheid state singling out
Speaker 1: only Israel. So that's where I stand in Black Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: support the concept, support the idea, opposed the organization that
Speaker 1: has that in its platform. I wrote back two years,
Speaker 1: four years ago, urging them to change the platform. Apparently
Speaker 1: they consider changing it, but I haven't heard any results
Speaker 1: that would indicate that they did change it. I want
Speaker 1: to thank you so much for your time, because you're pleasure.
Speaker 1: You're a great host, and you're a great questions Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for that, and I want to
Speaker 1: switch gears. But first here's a word from our sponsors.
Speaker 1: Now on the issue of the election, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: we don't know what direction is gonna go. The post
Speaker 1: say this, the enthusiasm is on Trump side, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Then we have all these mail in ballots. As an example,
Speaker 1: in the state of Pennsylvania as an example. In two
Speaker 1: sixteen they got about eighty thousand absentee votes, and this
Speaker 1: year during the primary they got one point five million
Speaker 1: mail in ballots back in. So we know that in
Speaker 1: numerous states is gonna be a mail in election all
Speaker 1: across the country which may change the outcome of the election.
Speaker 1: If you look at some people's home, some folks a
Speaker 1: seat over a dozen ballots, which I assume the voter
Speaker 1: fraud can actually happen. I think any reasonable person can
Speaker 1: come to that assessment. Who knows if there's enough enough
Speaker 1: to change the course of an election? What do you
Speaker 1: think happens the day after the election? Do we know
Speaker 1: who the president is? Does it go to the courts?
Speaker 1: Did voter fraud have a really big impact? And if
Speaker 1: it does, what do we go from there? Well, all
Speaker 1: of the above. If it's a close election, it will
Speaker 1: go to the courts. I think a lot of people,
Speaker 1: whether their Democratic Republican, are hoping that the election will
Speaker 1: be decided by people who go to the polls and
Speaker 1: that you won't even need to count the mail in ballots.
Speaker 1: But probably that won't happen, at least in some contested states.
Speaker 1: The outcome may very well be determined by ballots that
Speaker 1: are written in. The question is what's worse having a
Speaker 1: little bit of fraud or having a lot of voters
Speaker 1: disenfranchised because of the COVID threat. I, for example, I've
Speaker 1: always voted my whole life in person. I love voting,
Speaker 1: I love pleading five to six years old. This year,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm going to vote by mail. This year,
Speaker 1: I'm eighty two years old. I'm vulnerable. I've been, you know,
Speaker 1: living relatively in isolation, and for the first time since
Speaker 1: I voted for John Kennedy, I'm voting by by mail.
Speaker 1: But I'm very careful how I'm going to vote by mail.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make sure it's done right, not prodinently. And
Speaker 1: I think I argued a few months ago that Congression
Speaker 1: set up a bipartisan commission to assess the voting, a
Speaker 1: fair bipartisan so it doesn't have to go to the courts.
Speaker 1: But I suspect we'll see a lot of activity in
Speaker 1: the courts. And here is the the one scenario that
Speaker 1: scares a lot of people. But in the case goes
Speaker 1: to the courts and it becomes like Bush versus Gore
Speaker 1: ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, and the vote is
Speaker 1: five to four, with the deciding vote for President Trump
Speaker 1: being cast by the woman he nominated to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court just a month before the election. Will the American
Speaker 1: public accept that the way they accepted Bush versus Gore
Speaker 1: to though that was on partisan grounds, but would they
Speaker 1: accept the five to four vote with the deciding vote
Speaker 1: being cast by the President's nominee. I hope they would
Speaker 1: accept it, but I think there would be some questions.
Speaker 1: We I guarantee you ANTIFA would not accept it. I
Speaker 1: guarantee you AOC would not accept it, and I guarantee
Speaker 1: there are people on the hard left who would never
Speaker 1: accept it, and probably the same being is true in
Speaker 1: the hard right. If the shore on the other well,
Speaker 1: I mean in the election, one can argue that they
Speaker 1: still not accepted it. And I know I said that
Speaker 1: was my last question, but really promised this is the
Speaker 1: last one. Do you con I'm promise you I'll be done.
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think COVID nineteen was really
Speaker 1: sent by way of China? Well, I think the Chinese
Speaker 1: could have done a lot more to have prevented it
Speaker 1: and let the world know what had happened in one,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it's the fault of the
Speaker 1: Chinese people. Certainly not. I would not call it the
Speaker 1: Chinese virus, but you know, we had aimed other viruses
Speaker 1: after countries. Look, you go back in history the Black
Speaker 1: plague that was not named after black people. The Black
Speaker 1: plague was blamed on the Jews that many ministers preached
Speaker 1: from the pulpit that it was the sins of the
Speaker 1: Jews and not accepting Jesus that caused God to bring
Speaker 1: about the Black plague. So we shouldn't use plagues to
Speaker 1: make racial or ethnic or discriminatory statements. We should devote
Speaker 1: all of our attention to fighting the virus and hope
Speaker 1: that there is a vaccine. I grew up in the
Speaker 1: age of polio, and our heroes were the two people
Speaker 1: saving and Sauk who invented, who was discovered the vaccine
Speaker 1: that stopped the score j of polio. I hope that
Speaker 1: we will have the same and we will be able
Speaker 1: to celebrate great scientists who put an end to this
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen. That's my hope for the year two thousand
Speaker 1: twenty one. Well, Professor Dersheritz, I want to thank you
Speaker 1: so so much for given us that out loud what
Speaker 1: Giano called Wall York Time. I mean, you've en lightened everyone.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that, and I personally look forward
Speaker 1: to purchasing your book, Cancel Culture, the latest attack on
Speaker 1: from speech and do process, and I hope every one
Speaker 1: of my listeners will do so as well. Thank you
Speaker 1: for going to appreciate that. There's there's one other book
Speaker 1: I hope people will look at. You can get it
Speaker 1: free on Kindle. It's called Guilt Play Accusation, and it's
Speaker 1: the book that proves that I never even met the
Speaker 1: woman who falsely accused me, and it's an attack on
Speaker 1: her and her lawyers for concocting this case against me.
Speaker 1: And you know I wrote it not only for myself
Speaker 1: but for everyone who has been falsely accused. So you
Speaker 1: can get that free untended Fuel Play Accusation. So thanks
Speaker 1: for mentioning my books. That absolutely and you take the
Speaker 1: royalties out so you can ensure people can get it free. Okay,
Speaker 1: I get no royalties to that. Thanks a lot, and
Speaker 1: all of your books will be on my web page.
Speaker 1: So thank you again, professor, And uh yeah, that would
Speaker 1: be nice. But keep doing good things. This is a great.
Speaker 1: This is a great podcast. I really enjoyed being thanks.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna make a commercial out of that,
Speaker 1: so hopefully that's free of charge. Right Hey, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you're gonna make your commercial out of me praising your podcast.
Speaker 1: I also have a podcast now. It's called The Dirt Show,
Speaker 1: like the name D E R S h O W.
Speaker 1: You can get it on Spotify and YouTube and all
Speaker 1: the arrest of the places. I don't have as many
Speaker 1: listeners as you do, but we're beginning. Were just beginning. Well.
Speaker 1: I look forward to checking out your podcast as well. Again, guys,
Speaker 1: please get the Professor's books. I mean, it was the
Speaker 1: honor of a light time to be with you. This
Speaker 1: is Out Loud with Gianno Calls Us. Thanks again to
Speaker 1: Professor Alan Dershowitz for an incredible two part interviews. Tune
Speaker 1: in next week from our interview with veteran and Foxing
Speaker 1: Friends Weekend host Pete Hetseth. You don't want to miss it.
Speaker 1: If you're enjoying the show, please leave us a review
Speaker 1: and rate us with five stars. Apple Podcast. Thank you
Speaker 1: to our producer Stephen Callabria, researcher Aaron Kleigman, and executive
Speaker 1: producers Debbie Myers and speaker New Gingrich part of the
Speaker 1: Gingridge three sixty network, part of the Gainer's three sixty
Speaker 1: New