Alan Dershowitz - How Trump Can Legally Be President in 2029 - And Exactly How He Does It

Alan Dershowitz explains his book on whether Trump could serve a third term, the 22nd Amendment loopholes, and his views on Epstein, Harvard and Venezuela. 💰 Source hot AI deals in our Investment Club https://lr.academy/ai-investment-club/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_content=40163540&utm_campaign=ic 🏦 Invest in luxury Dubai property https://lr.academy/property-investment-g/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_content=40163540&utm_campaign=pc 🍿 Watch the full interview with chapters and transcripts for free https://londonreal.tv/alan-deshowitz-how-trump-can-legally-be-president-in-2029-and-exactly-how-he-does-it/ Chapters 3:12 Intro: Alan Dershowitz and the third-term question 4:21 Handing the book to Trump 5:44 The 22nd Amendment: text versus purpose 7:21 Why the amendment was passed 14:02 Loopholes and succession scenarios 18:01 Textualists, purposivists and hypocrisy 25:22 Would the Supreme Court block it 27:27 Trump's energy, age and term limits 31:12 The Epstein files 45:21 New York politics 54:28 Harvard, universities and free speech 1:03:47 Venezuela 1:08:02 What is next for Alan Dershowitz

• 0:01Speaker 00

  Trump would like to run for a third term. If the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, he'd be starting his campaign now.

• 0:07Speaker 01

  Let's talk about what the 22nd Amendment says and what are the ways around it, because you can get pretty creative.

• 0:12Speaker 00

  So let's assume that the next president and vice president are killed. The House of Representatives elects Trump to be Speaker of the House, and then ascends to the presidency without being elected. Another one, which is the Electoral College fails to have a majority for any one candidate. Then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives, which chooses not to elect a president. Or the last one, the next president and vice president resigns, and the Republican-controlled House could name Trump as Speaker. And then, according to the statutes, that person ascends to the presidency without being elected. I don't think the Supreme Court would sustain this one, but I do think it would sustain the other scenario

• 0:55Speaker 00

  of an unplanned ascension to the presidency through assassinations or through a deadlock in the Electoral College.

• 1:02Speaker 01

  The Epstein files are what a lot of people are talking about the last few months. You once said, "I know the names of the individuals. I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them."

• 1:10Speaker 00

  It's true. I know the names of the people. I was his lawyer. And then I was falsely accused by some woman, who then retracted her accusation. I didn't do anything wrong. I've never had sex with anybody but my wife since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. And to show you how bad Netflix is, they still have the interview with the woman who claims she had sex with me without indicating, even in the bottom of it. She's now withdrawing that claim. So if it's on Netflix, don't believe it.

• 1:37Speaker 01

  Alan, when you look at your alma mater of Harvard, do you wash your hands of the place?

• 1:41Speaker 00

  They've washed their hands of me. I was one of the most popular professors in modern Harvard history. But the minute I defended Donald Trump on his first impeachment, I was persona non grata at Harvard. In Martha's Vineyard, people won't talk to me. I can't get pierogi at the farmer's market, where everybody should be able to buy and sell everything, because I was wearing a shirt that said "Proud Zionist." This is the kind of McCarthyism that we're seeing from the left these days. And I'm going to continue to fight it.

• 2:17Speaker 01

  Hi, it's Brian Rose from London Real. You probably know that we've just recently been replatformed on YouTube after 25 months completely in the dark. The truth is, I really need your help. What I really need you to do is click on that subscribe button right now, like this video, and maybe even leave a comment or share the link with friends. We're really fighting against an algorithm that's tried to keep us quiet for so long. And the more subscribers we have, the more people watch our content, the better guests we can bring you, the better content, and we can continue transforming lives. We've been doing this for 14 years now. I want to do this for another 14 years, but I really need your help.

• 3:00Speaker 01

  So click on that subscribe button, like the video, leave a comment, share this, and we're going to continue to bring you more and more great content. Thank you. This is London Real. I am Brian Rose. My guest today is Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, constitutional scholar, and one of the most influential legal minds of our time. You have built a decades-long career at the intersection of law, politics, and civil liberties, representing presidents and high-profile defendants alike, and writing bestselling books on justice, constitutional rights, and political controversy. Your latest book, Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term? Tap is one of the most explosive questions in American politics today, whether the

• 3:45Speaker 01

  Constitution's term limits can be interpreted in a way that would allow a president to defy conventional wisdom and serve again after two terms. This argument has implications not only for Donald Trump's future, but for the rule of law, constitutional norms, and the balance of democratic power in the United States. Today, I want to go deep into the constitutional arguments, the political context, the normative questions about democracy and the separation of powers, and what your reading of history and law suggests about the future of the US presidency. Alan, welcome back to London Real.

• 4:19Speaker 00

  Thank you for having me. What a pleasure.

• 4:22Speaker 01

  Great to have you here. I know you recently went to the White House and hand-delivered a copy of your book to Donald Trump. There we go. Amazing. This is something that's been on everyone's mind. Steve Bannon has been saying that Trump will be there in '29. He's been saying that for over a year. What was Trump's reaction to you giving him the book?

• 4:42Speaker 00

  Well, he smiled. I can't really disclose what he told me, but what he has said publicly is it's probably a little too cute. There are bases in the Constitution for allowing him to serve a third term. Look, the reason I wrote this book is if I were back teaching and this issue had come up, I would assign my students this question. I would ask them, write an essay on whether or not, under the 22nd Amendment, a two-term president could ever serve a third term. And I wouldn't grade them based on whether I like their answers or their answers support my political views. I would grade them on the basis of the analysis.

• 5:23Speaker 00

  And I hope my book will be graded on the basis of the analysis as well. It's not a partisan book. It's not a book intended to encourage President Trump to run for a third term or to encourage Barack Obama, a young man, to serve a third term if exigent circumstances arise that allow him to serve a third term. What it out is the deep fallacy of the 22nd Amendment, which doesn't prohibit a president from running, serving, acting, holding office. It simply prohibits a president from being elected to a third term. That opens the door to possible circumventions of what was clearly the intent of the framers of the 22nd Amendment.

• 6:08Speaker 00

  The framers clearly wanted to make sure that two-term presidents stay out of the White House. Very simply put, we don't want them in the White House. We don't want them to be president. We don't want them to be vice president. Let them be elder statesmen. But follow George Washington's lead, Thomas Jefferson's lead. Don't follow Franklin Delano Roosevelt's lead. Be a two-term president. That was the goal. So what happens constitutionally when the purpose of an amendment conflicts directly with the text of the amendment? And that's what happens here. This is not just an accidental omission of the word "serve" or "hold" or "act." Those words were proposed. In my book, I have an appendix

• 6:50Speaker 00

  which lists all the proposals that were made, and Congress rejected an amendment that would preclude holding, serving, or acting. Instead, they adopted a much, much, much, much narrower term being elected. So what should the courts do? What should we do as people in a democracy when you have a direct clash between the text of a constitutional amendment and its obvious purpose? And that's what I decided to write a book about.

• 7:20Speaker 01

  Well, maybe we can dive into that 22nd Amendment. You know, you made a reference in our interview recently, I thought was interesting, in that it's basically impossible to pass a constitutional amendment these days, and yet this one was passed back then. I'm also kind of curious, if FDR had never done three, maybe this would have never come up and then never been a limit. And maybe you could speak on all of those things.

• 7:42Speaker 00

  Yeah, well, there's no question that would have happened. When the framers of the Constitution met back in Philadelphia, there was a big debate about whether to have term limits. Hamilton was involved in the debate, Madison, and after a lot of discussion, they rejected several proposals. One proposal was for a single seven-year term. One term can't be reelected. A second proposal was, leave it to the people. Let the people decide. If you want Washington to serve three terms, four terms, five terms, hey, that's democracy. Ultimately, what prevailed was simply setting out that the term of the president is four years, but it doesn't mention anything about whether he can be reelected. In some countries,

• 8:27Speaker 00

  for example, you can't serve more than two consecutive terms. But if you are not consecutive, you can serve a third term. And of course, Trump lost the election of 2020. So if that proposal had been adopted, he could serve a third term. But no, they left it alone. And then Roosevelt defied convention. And what happened, interestingly enough, he was very popular in 1932, very popular in 1936. When he ran in 1940, even though Europe was at war, England was at war, and it was a time of great crisis, he got many, many fewer votes. And in 1944, he got even fewer votes when we were in the middle of the war, because a

• 9:11Speaker 00

  lot of people didn't want him to defy the convention of a two-term president. But he did, and shortly after he died, and Truman was president, they decided to invoke a constitutional amendment. Now, since that time, there have been some proposals, maybe we should amend that amendment to make it clear that a president can't serve a third term. Trump would like to run for a third term. If the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, he'd be starting his campaign now.

• 9:42Speaker 01

  Let's talk about what the 22nd Amendment says and what are the ways around it, because you can't get creative.

• 9:48Speaker 00

  So let's assume that a potential Trump third term president and vice president are killed for an amendment. Now, it's very hard to amend the Constitution of the House, but it's much easier to amend the presidency without being elected. Another one, which is we pass a stupid constitutional amendment prohibiting the same one candidate, then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives, which chooses not elect a president. For the last one, the next president and vice president resigns. And women's rights, allowing 18-year-olds to vote. Those fail through the statutes. That person ascends to the presidency without being elected. I don't think the Supreme Court would sustain this one, but I do think it would sustain

• 10:29Speaker 00

  the other scenario of an unclined ascension to the presidency through assassinations or a deadlock in the Electoral College.

• 10:37Speaker 01

  The Epstein files are where a lot of people are talking about the last few months. He once said, "I know the names of the individuals, I know why they're being suppressed, I know who's suppressing them."

• 10:46Speaker 00

  It's true. I know the names of the people. I was his lawyer, and then I was falsely accused by some Mormon who then retracted her accusations. I didn't do anything wrong. I've never had sex with anybody, but my wife's a barrier. And to show you how that Netflix, they still have the interview of the woman who demanded equal rights for all, but the constitution didn't even in the bottom of it, promote equal rights for all. So if it's on Netflix, don't believe it. Alan, when you look at your alma mater of Harvard, you wash your hands of the place. They washed their hands of me. I was one of the most popular professors in modern Harvard history. We didn't have equality. The minute I defended Donald Trump on his first impeachment, I was persona non grata at Harvard.

• 11:28Speaker 00

  Relatively recent, people won't talk to me. I can't get parodied at the farmers market where everybody should be able to buy and sell everything. Because I was wearing a shirt that said Proud Zionists. This is a kind of amendment which is seen as anyway controversial. If it's not controversial, it's just, you know, solving a problem that's obvious to everybody, then it could sail through.

• 11:52Speaker 01

  How did they sell the 22nd Amendment? Was it that we're America and we're not going to have a dictator? Because I've heard a lot of people say that if we're in a true democracy and the people want someone to serve for eight, 12, 16 years, then the spirit of democracy is that they shouldn't have that limitation put by other people. So I'm just kind of curious how they got that through and what do you make of that argument?

• 12:18Speaker 00

  Sure. I think it's a strong argument. But look, Winston Churchill was the great savior of Great Britain during the Second World War. What happens immediately after the Second World War, he gets thrown out of office by a nobody who gets elected because of unemployment problems. On the other hand, the former prime ministers of Germany and the current prime minister of Israel get elected over and over and over again. And there's nothing undemocratic about that. And not to news case, of course, he was elected, then he was unelected, then he was elected, then he was unelected, and who knows whether he'll be elected again. But why not let the people make those decisions? I don't think

• 13:02Speaker 00

  that multi-term executives are inconsistent with democracy if the elections are

• 13:09Speaker 00

  Fair and open if the elections are like the ones that occurred in Venezuela. Though that's different, obviously, but even a one term president elected Venezuela style or Cuba style or Russian style or Iran style. Um, that's not consistent with democracy. So as the great just judge learned at hand once said, democracy isn't dependent so much on the law as what exists in the hearts and minds of the citizens. And, and that's true, but amendments and law can help promote democracy. And I think the framers of the 22nd amendment felt that there was a risk that the next person running for a third or fourth term won't be Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who'll be more like Stalin

• 13:52Speaker 00

  or Hitler, and we have to prevent that through law. So that was the debate. It was very much influenced by Roosevelt's term in office.

• 14:02Speaker 01

  Okay. All right. Well, now, now let's dive into the loopholes and you said that's kind of why lawyers exist because it is all about the loopholes. And like you said, you would assign this to your students. And so let's talk about what the 22nd minute says can and can't, can't happen and what are the ways around it because you can get pretty creative.

• 14:20Speaker 00

  Yeah. Well, let me tell you first what won't happen. Uh, nobody's going to run for a third term. Uh, there are all kinds of barriers to that because states determine who's on the ballot. And there would be enough states to say, look, if you've had two terms, look at 22nd amendment, we're not going to let you run. But that, there are many ways in which that can be circumvented. Let me give you a potential example. We live in an age of terrorism. It is not beyond the possible range of possibility that a president and vice president could be assassinated at the same time. Uh, we already have what's called the designated survivor. When we have the State of the Union message, the cabinet is in the Congress, but one member of the cabinet stays

• 15:04Speaker 00

  home, uh, and is surrounded by guards in case, God forbid, there's a massive explosion and everybody is killed, you still need to have a president. So let's assume the president and the vice president are killed and then, uh, the, the current Speaker of the House is incompetent, either very old, or of a different party, or no experience. And so the House of Representatives elect somebody, you don't have to be a member of the House to be elected Speaker of the House, elects Obama to be Speaker of the House, or Clinton to be Speaker of the House, or Trump to be Speaker of the House, and then according to the statutes, that person ascends to the presidency without

• 15:44Speaker 00

  being elected. That's probably the most likely scenario that could occur. Another one, which is much, much less likely, is you have a second-term president who runs and loses in the Electoral College, or even wins in the Electoral College, but he tells his electors not to vote for him. So on the first ballot, the Electoral College fails to have a majority for any one candidate, then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives, which chooses, not elects a president. And we've had that happen in the past, where the House of Representatives, Jefferson, others, were chosen to become president by the House of Representatives

• 16:28Speaker 00

  rather than the Electoral College. In my book, I catalog a series of possible ways. They're thought experiments. They're not designed to tell people what to do in the real world, but as a law professor for 50 years, I specialized in creating hypotheticals for the students to address. And the reason to have a hypothetical is when you have a hypothetical, you don't know the name of the person. It's behind a veil of ignorance. You're addressing a systemic problem under the Constitution without knowing who will benefit and who will lose. That's what I try to do in the book. I'm not seeking partisan advantage. You know, I'm for 60

• 17:12Speaker 00

  years, I've been a Democrat. I did vote against President Trump, both in 2016 and 2020. My wife will not allow me to reveal who I voted for in 2024, so to preserve my marriage, I'm keeping that a secret. But I'm not a rep- I'm not a partisan and so the book is not designed to help anybody serve a third term. It's really designed more to get the 22nd amendment to be amended to make sure that the will of the people and the will of Congress is reflected in the statute because we've never really had a case where you have a clear statute that says clearly a person can be serving a third term if he's not elected and you have clear intention.

• 17:57Speaker 00

  No, he shouldn't be allowed to be serving a third term. So when you have that direct clash between the text and the intention, you have different schools of thought. You have the textualist school that says absolutely, just look at the words of the Constitution. You have the purpose school that says, no, you look behind the text, you look at the purpose. Um, we have the kind of living constitution school that says, ah, purpose, ah, it doesn't matter text. Whatever is best for the people today, let's interpret the Constitution that way. And so this problem and this book is a perfect way to address in an abstract sense, the conflict between the different schools of thought. Now, the other thing it exposes is hypocrisy.

• 18:42Speaker 00

  Many people in Clinton served a second term. Many Democrats figured out ways to have him serve a third, serve a third term. These same people are now against it for Trump and the same people who are against it or in favor for Trump were against it for Clinton. So you have to think about the problem in a non-partisan way, otherwise we're just uh, doing partisan politics under the rubric of the Constitution.

• 19:08Speaker 01

  So Alan, I did a little Monte Carlo simulation in my head and thought about what this action might look like in practice. And, and let's say, for example, that you're right, maybe Trump wouldn't be silly enough to run because maybe uh, places like Colorado, which almost didn't let him run last time, would specifically prohibit him being on the ballot, making it more difficult. But let's say the game plan was a Vans Rubio ticket, which in my opinion will be the 28 ticket with this agreement that once we get in boss, we're gonna move you to the top. Once we resign, uh, I guess it would be uh, President DPN, Secretary of State would all resign and then it would go to the House and they could elect Trump. Uh, I'm gay.

• 19:45Speaker 00

  It wouldn't work that way. The way it would work, it's close, but the way it would work is the president and the vice president resign, then it would be the Speaker of the House and the Republican-controlled House could name Trump as Speaker and then he ascends to the President. It doesn't have to go to the House of Representatives. It could if you couldn't get an Electoral College victory, but in the book I address that because obviously that's Steve Bannon's approach. He says that's what should be done. It should be overt. The next election should be about.

• 20:16Speaker 02

  How do you get out of a rat race? How do you create wealth not only for yourself, but also for the generations to come after?

• 20:22Speaker 03

  I am absolutely amazed with the quality of companies that we're getting exposure to.

• 20:27Speaker 04

  We go on to Zoom calls with the innovators and the folks who are building new applications in metaverse, blockchain, artificial intelligence, decentralized finance.

• 20:37Speaker 05

  What's going on everybody? Thumbs up if you can see me. We are focusing on early-stage investment.

• 20:44Speaker 03

  And the quality of people that we're getting exposure to, whether it be Dan Tapia with OneRT, Jason Ma from Open, Ayatsu from Anamoka.

• 20:52Speaker 04

  This has been a phenomenal experience thus far. It has far exceeded my expectations.

• 20:57Speaker 05

  We are focusing on cutting-edge technologies.

• 21:01Speaker 04

  I view it now as the best investment I have ever made. The upside I view is unlimited.

• 21:07Speaker 03

  And as a retail investor, I would never get this exposure anywhere else outside of Investment Club.

• 21:13Speaker 02

  See you in the Investment Club.

• 21:15Speaker 00

  Whether or not Trump should serve a third term and Rubio and Vance will just be puppets. You'll vote for them, but you know you're really voting for Trump. I don't think the Supreme Court would sustain that one because that's such a clear circumvention. But I do think the Supreme Court would sustain the other scenario of an unplanned ascension to the presidency through presidential assassinations or through a deadlock in the Electoral College. So I think there's a difference between running for President a third term, which I think the Supreme Court and the states would create barriers to, and serving that

• 21:59Speaker 00

  third term through an unanticipated tragic event. What I pose in my book is that

• 22:06Speaker 00

  There is a massive terrorist attack on the United States at the same time it has another pandemic. And so we have the perfect storm and none of the people qualified to take over are able to do it. And so the public demands that one of the prior two-term presidents who's very popular serve as president, would the 22nd Amendment ban that? And my answer is probably not. Probably that would happen, but not, not the calculated Steve Bannon approach. I think that would fail.

• 22:41Speaker 01

  And, you know, maybe that would be the right thing. It was so much uncertainty, you know, you'd think it would be great to have someone that people felt confident that could actually run that country. You know, when I was game planning the, um, the Vance Rubio scenario, either overt or covert, I also thought that once you got to that day, that they might just stand up and say, you know what, the old man's 84 now or 83, um, we're just gonna not do what we told you we were going to do. You know, when's the next time I'm necessarily going to get elected president? JD could think in four years, I'll take it, but you might not. And they might just, um, you know, kivash the plans to move him into power. And that, it seems to me that could happen very easily if, if less have some type of

• 23:26Speaker 01

  covert plan and hard to guarantee even with the most loyal people.

• 23:29Speaker 00

  I agree with you, and that's why when you have a constitutional amendment, it should be written in clear and certain terms. It shouldn't be ambiguous. You know, it's not like the First Amendment, Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's vague. Uh, what is freedom? What is the freedom of speech? What is due process? What is equal protection? Those are all subjective debate. But you have constitutional qualifications like 35 years. It's not 34 and 11 months. It's 35 and it's not 33, but very mature. It's 35. I guess the worst part of the constitution, the one that nobody can understand is in the Bill of Rights and the Seventh Amendment, when it says in any case involving $20 or more, you get tried by jury.

• 24:13Speaker 00

  What does $20 mean? $20? Back in 1793, or $20 today, which would be $500 or $1,000. No constitution should ever have that kind of specificity of $20. In fact, when Madison wrote that amendment, he left the numbers blank. And then Congress filled in stupidly $20. So, you know, there's something wrong with the Constitution that's too specific. But there's also something wrong with the Constitution that's too vague. You don't want to say, "A person has to be old enough to be mature to run for president." You should say 35 years. Now, you might want to amend that because at the time of the Constitution, 35 was pretty old.

• 24:55Speaker 00

  You don't, you didn't, people didn't live beyond 50 or 55. Today, 35 is a kid. Who wants a 35? Look, we have a 34-year-old mayor of New York, and I'm not happy with him. And people aren't happy with him. So, you know, you want specific criteria for who is president. And one of the specific criteria should apply to whether you can have a third term. And the 22nd Amendment fails that test.

• 25:21Speaker 01

  It's interesting how you said that you think the Supreme Court, even a conservative-leaning one, might block it if they thought the intention was to specifically circumvent, you know, that amendment. I didn't realize that would come into play potentially.

• 25:36Speaker 00

  I think so, but you can't be absolutely sure. There would be a couple of justices who say, "Text is text. We're not going to fool around. You know, we're not lawmakers. We're law enforcers." But I suspect that even this court, you'd get a pretty clear majority, 7 to 2, 6 to 3, perhaps not 9 to 0, saying, "This is too obvious, the circumvention of the intent of the 22nd Amendment. We're not going to permit it." Now, would the Supreme Court really prevent the person from serving for president? Remember what happened in Andrew Jackson's day when the Supreme Court made a ruling that was extremely unpopular. President Jackson said, "All right, they made the ruling. Now let them enforce it. I'm not going to."

• 26:19Speaker 00

  And there were those in the South in 1954. I remember this. I was 16 years old and... In high school, there were those who said, you ruled that schools must be desegregated. All right, desegregate them. We're not going to get involved in that. But Eisenhower did and made sure that the Supreme Court's ruling, which he didn't necessarily agree with completely, was implemented. So there's always going to be a dispute between the rule of law and the rule of politics, between the text of a constitutional amendment and what its real purpose is. And this book tries to explore all those issues in a nonpartisan intellectual way.

• 26:59Speaker 00

  It's the kind of, if you wanted to be at a Harvard seminar on the Constitution and you didn't get to get to go to Harvard, this book will give you a pretty good sense about what a seminar that I taught, at least, would have been like. There are no right answers or wrong answers necessarily. There's just better analysis and not so good analysis. And that's what I try to promote in this book.

• 27:26Speaker 01

  Well, it's going to be interesting to see what happens. You know, Trump seems to be demure now. He actually doesn't seem to be entertaining this. And it seems as if, I wouldn't say he's tired, his pace is incredible. But then again, you fast forward to three years. How does anybody walk away from that office? It just seems like it's possible.

• 27:46Speaker 00

  And I can tell you, I was with Trump in the Oval Office a couple of weeks ago. You know, 25 minutes alone, basically. The man is a bundle of energy. He'd love to serve a third term. I have no doubt about that. If the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, I have absolutely no doubt. He'd be starting his campaign now. He'd be running for a third term. It would depend a little bit on the midterms, but the midterms generally go against the incumbent president. Maybe, I think it'll be split this time. The Senate will stay in the hands of the Republicans, the House may or may not. And that means he won't be able to get his programs through for the next two years. And that would incentivize him to run even more. Because if he ran, he would probably carry with him the Senate and the House.

• 28:31Speaker 00

  And he'd have another, at least two years, to implement his program. So I have no doubt. That Trump would like to run for a third term. But he believes that it would be too cute for him to try to do it directly. But if he were appointed, um, you know, two years into retirement, he'd be 90 years old. But hey, I'm 87 and I'm doing a pretty good job here today. So, uh, um, you know, let's not be ageist.

• 28:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, he turns 80 in June, I believe. That's where he is right now. Yeah, yeah. Uh, and again, like you said about age, uh, you know, you could argue another 100 years from now. You know, we're all going to be living much longer as well. So, um, this question becomes even maybe more relevant.

• 29:14Speaker 00

  I agree.

• 29:15Speaker 01

  Someone can say that.

• 29:16Speaker 00

  And I think not only living longer, but they're living longer and healthier. And, um, you know, David Ben-Gurion served as Prime Minister of Israel, uh, well into his 80s. Uh, of course Biden didn't do so great, uh, and, and, and neither did Reagan into their old age. So we have examples on, on all sides and, uh, people should be judged based on their individual ability. One problem is as you get older, um, you can seem really, really, really, uh, very, very wise one day. And then, you know, within a week or two weeks, your mind diminishes a little bit. Uh, obviously that could happen with younger people too, but it's much more likely to happen with older people.

• 30:00Speaker 00

  So there have been those, by the way, who have suggested age limitations on the top. That is, you have to be at least 35, but you can't be over 75, uh, to run or serve as president. Um, that's been, uh, not accepted so far, but maybe someday as we get older and older and older and people begin to run as octogenarians, uh, maybe we will see an amendment that imposes age restraints on the top. States have it. States have it. I remember getting a call from the Chief Justice of South Carolina who turned 70. And he was on the top of his game. He was golfing every day. He was, you know, doing great things and they made him retire.

• 30:41Speaker 00

  And he wanted me to bring a challenge to mandatory retirement age, but I did the research and discovered that there was really no basis uh, to challenge that. That would be up to the states. And so he went on to become a multi-billionaire practicing lawyer instead of being, uh, a judge making a hundred and $25,000 a year.

• 31:00Speaker 01

  Right. Well, Trump's pace is incredible to watch. It just really is. And I don't know many people half his age that could keep up his pace for a year straight now. So, yeah. To be determined, to be continued. You mentioned Mont Domi. I'd like to get to that. But you know, the Epstein files are where a lot of people are talking about the last few months. You've been talking about them for years. We famously had you on the show a year or two ago, where we talked about them. And I think there was the Netflix series coming out and you had fought back and been exonerated about any of those charges. Then we saw all these files dropped. And then we saw a couple that seemed to be redacted. And then I've heard that maybe you believe that Maxwell should be granted immunity for her testimony.

• 31:42Speaker 01

  Where are, what do you think right now of the files? And what is your brief history with Epstein?

• 31:50Speaker 00

  Well, my history is that I was his lawyer. And then I was falsely accused by some woman who then retracted her accusation and said, ah, she may have confused me with somebody else. She may have misidentified me and she dropped all of her lawsuits and claims against me. Look, but that led me to a conclusion that I feel very strongly about. The file should not be redacted because if they're redacted, what happens is the accusation is out there. But the material that shows questions about the credibility, the accused is not out there. Let me give you two examples. It's a woman named Sarah Ransom. She accused everybody. She accused Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Trump,

• 32:32Speaker 00

  Richard Branson, you name it. She accused everybody. She said she had videotapes of them having sex with children. And that became a story. And then eventually it turned out she was lying. She didn't have anything. She made up the whole story. If you have just the accusation and you withhold the credibility issues because you call them victims or survivors, many of them are victims and survivors. Some of them are fake. Many of the women who collected $50,000 from Epstein never met him, never saw him. Their lawyers just said, come on, just say you were there. You were living in Palm Beach at the time. Go collect the 50,000. And they did. Woman named Farmer, who claimed that she was the first person to file a notice with the FBI.

• 33:16Speaker 00

  Yeah, but read what she said. What she said essentially is Jeffrey Epstein never touched her, she was never raped, she was never assaulted. He stole a photograph from her that was used as an art photograph for modeling. So that would seem to cut against her claims. Also, she's a woman who denies the Holocaust. She said all Jews are pedophiles and all pedophiles are Jews and they're all under the control of the Rothschilds and, you know, Israel's behind all this and you get all of that. And so my feeling is you have to turn out everything. You can't just say we're going to protect anybody who says they're a victim or a survivor.

• 34:01Speaker 00

  If they are a victim, if they are a survivor, okay, but we have to be able to determine that. Otherwise, it becomes a new form of McCarthyism. There was recently a number of congressmen who said, we're going to get up in front of Congress and we're going to read the list. We're going to read the list of the people who are accused. We're not going to say anything about who the accusers are. We'll give the people on the list the right to challenge it. We're just going to read the list. That's exactly what Joseph McCarthy did. He would stand up in front of the Senate and say, I have a list of 70 communists that are now serving and here are the names and they all lost their jobs. Some of them were communists, some of them were socialists, some of them were ordinary people who are not even in politics, but they never had a chance to defend themselves.

• 34:46Speaker 00

  So I'm worried that the new Epstein-McCarthyism has not been opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, by other groups, because people are terrified to be called victim shamers or Epstein supporters or anything like that. It's become toxic and it really hurts civil liberties. So I want, as I've said from day one, full and complete, unredacted disclosure of everything so that the American public can make up their own mind about who's telling the truth and who's not telling the truth.

• 35:19Speaker 01

  You know, Trump has always said that this was suppressed by Democrats for many years and then they were then pushing for it, but a lot of the people implicated, I mean, including the former, you know, president of the Democratic Party. So.

• 35:37Speaker 01

  Is it, is it strange to you that, that it seems to be a talking point of the left to keep, release the files, release the files, release the files when ultimately it might be a lot of them being incriminated?

• 35:48Speaker 00

  Well, I don't think anybody's gonna be incriminated. I think what we already know is all there is. There's gonna be more about Clinton flying on the plane. We know he did that. He flew to Asia with, with Epstein. We, we know that Trump knew Epstein in the early 90s. We know that I was his lawyer who got him the deal that people think was a sweetheart deal. That's what lawyers are supposed to do, we're supposed to get the best possible deal we can for our clients. So I don't think there's gonna be much coming out, but whoever the party in power is, the other party is gonna take advantage of that and say, oh, they're suppressing, they're suppressing. And when the Democrats are in power, the Republicans say they suppressed.

• 36:31Speaker 00

  And, you know, everybody suppressed because they're afraid to say, let's put everything out there. Because nobody knows exactly what's in the files. And, you know, I know what's in the files because I know what I did and what I didn't do. So I was the one who was right from the beginning, so I turned everything out. That's very selfish of me because, you know, I didn't do anything wrong. I've never had sex with anybody but my wife since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. So I have nothing to be concerned about. But, you know, Prince Andrew had something to be concerned about because even if he didn't do what he was accused of doing, he was known as Randy Andy. He was known as somebody who did have sexual relations outside of his, his, his marriage.

• 37:16Speaker 00

  That's not a crime, but it's enough to put a person who's a prince in, in, in harm's way. And I think foolishly he settled the case and that was probably at the pressure of his mother because I now think that had he gone to trial, he probably would have won.

• 37:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, you might be right on that. I think you once said a quote, "I know the names of the individuals. I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them." Unquote.

• 37:45Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's true. I know the names of the people, and they include very prominent people. And most of them are false, and I know who's trying to suppress them. I have one case, for example, of somebody who's not very well-known. But he was accused of going to the island for three days with one of the women and having sex with that woman. It was described in great detail. And he has succeeded in managing to suppress his name because he has a good lawyer. But nobody will care when his name comes out because nobody's really ever heard of him. But there are probably other instances of that as well, where lawyers have managed to suppress

• 38:30Speaker 00

  negative information about people. And so for me, you can't turn out half the material. You can't have redacted disclosures. You have to have either no disclosures, which is not consistent with democracy, or full and complete disclosure. I think it was Brandeis who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this needs a lot of disinfectant. And so I'm hoping that everything will be turned out. Will it include a couple of emails from me to him when I was his lawyer, in which I told a joke or something like that? Who knows? Maybe. It's possible. I don't care. You know, I didn't do anything wrong. So let it all be out there. I don't think anybody should be trying to suppress anything.

• 39:13Speaker 01

  Is it coming out still? I mean, they released a lot of video, and they released a lot of pictures. Is this something that is still going to be released, or do we know yet?

• 39:22Speaker 00

  No, they will be more released. There's no question. Apparently, the Southern District of New York has a million documents, including...

• 39:31Speaker 00

  My lawsuit, I had a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York and I was deposed and my accuser was deposed. I want all that out there. I have never claimed privacy, lawyer-client privilege, anything. I want it out there, but a lot of people, in my case, the opponent didn't want it out there. And I understand why. But, but let's get it all out there and let's put this behind us. You know, Epstein...

• 39:58Speaker 01

  Peter Thiel took a half a million dollars and turned it into a billion dollars using the exact same techniques we're using inside the investment club. He met a CEO, his name was Zuckerberg, he pitched him the deal, and he said, "Okay, I'll give you a half a million dollars." Mark went public and sold the shares to people like you. Well, what happened to Peter? Well, he exited and got a 2,300X return. The wealthy invest in early-stage companies, folks. The public markets are for suckers. It's a rigged game. By the way, this happens in crypto as well. It's called pre-sale tokens. This is Solana. Does anybody know this chain? They sold pre-sale tokens for 4 cents, and you can see the date on there, April 5, 2018. Look at Solana today, folks. That thing's up over 1,000X. The media

• 40:42Speaker 01

  and Wall Street and all these hype people get you to buy the top. Meanwhile, they put their clients in at the bottom and they use you for liquidity to make their clients rich. You can play this same game. You just have to have the financial education and the deal flow. That's it.

• 40:58Speaker 00

  Is a distraction from the real needs that our nation and the world faces. And I think we've had enough of Epstein, but apparently the media, particularly CNN, can't get enough of it. That's, that's all they seem to want to talk about, as if there are some great national security secrets. For example, the absurd notion that Epstein worked for the CIA or worked for the Mossad. It's insane. He, he never had any connections to any intelligence agencies. If he had, who do you think the first person he would have told that? Me, when I was his lawyer. It would have helped to get an even better deal. I asked him, "Epstein, what can you tell me? Can you tell me anything about Trump? Can

• 41:40Speaker 00

  you tell me anything about Clinton? Can you tell me anything about intelligence agencies?" And he told me everything he could. And I got him the deal, helped him get the deal, but I would have gotten a much better deal if we could have said that he worked for intelligence agencies. But he didn't, and I'm sure that's why he didn't tell me.

• 41:59Speaker 01

  And how did he die?

• 42:00Speaker 00

  Boy, I don't know the answer to that. He was not suicidal. He was a guy who loved life and lived it to the full. And he was also about that Monday or Tuesday to be arguing for bail. And remember, at the time, a lot of this stuff hadn't yet come out, he might very well have gotten a bail. And, and so the case for his suicide is a weak one. Why kill yourself on the eve of perhaps getting released? You could kill yourself anytime. You know, if you're in prison, there's no way of stopping an intelligent person from killing himself. So on the one hand, I don't believe he was suicidal. And I think the case for suicide is a weak one. And the medical examiner in New York, who is this great

• 42:45Speaker 00

  medical examiner, Michael Bodden, said that the ligatures and stuff around the neck were inconsistent with suicide. On the other hand, what's the alternative theory that somebody got to him in a federal prison and managed to kill him? That's also a weak theory. So I'm a skeptic. Um, you know, my favorite song in history is from Porgy and Bass, "It Ain't Necessarily So." And I've lived my life by "It Ain't Necessarily So." I doubt everything. I question everything. So as to the suicide, it ain't necessarily so.

• 43:22Speaker 01

  It's interesting, I heard Akash Patel speak about it in detail, and apparently he's actually very familiar with that facility, you know, through his, his past. And, you know, he just came on and said, I just don't see how anybody could have done that to him.

• 43:36Speaker 00

  I'm very familiar with that facility.

• 43:37Speaker 01

  The answer, anybody wanted to hear from him, you know?

• 43:40Speaker 00

  Yeah. Look, I'm familiar with that facility. One of the worst things about being a criminal lawyer, maybe the worst thing about being criminal lawyer is you have to go to prison and jail all the time. And I've been on more death rows and more prisons and more jails than any innocent person should ever be at. And I've been at the Brooklyn and Manhattan Houses of Detention, and they're hellholes. They're terrible places, but the security is unbelievable. I mean, I remember one-

• 44:08Speaker 00

  Having to go to a prison and they took my shoes off and they confiscated my right shoe. Because it had some metal in it. I don't know anything about metal. And sure enough, I had stepped on a nail. And the nail, small nails didn't affect my foot, but was in the shoe and they caught it and they got it. Um, and so the idea that somebody could get into a prison and kill Epstein. If it was a killing, it was an inside job, obviously.

• 44:41Speaker 01

  And do you think Masra should be given immunity for her testimony?

• 44:43Speaker 00

  Well, I think she should be released. I think she's serving his prison term. Um, whatever she did, didn't deserve 20 years at all. Uh, had he stayed alive, she probably never would have been prosecuted, but somebody had to be prosecuted. And so they gave her his prison term and I think she's serving it. So I do believe she ought to get uh, a commutation or a pardon, not a pardon necessarily, but a commutation to time served or to a lesser sentence, five years or something like that. But the sentence she got is way disproportionate to what she was accused of doing.

• 45:21Speaker 01

  All right, let's talk about Mamdammi, New York City. He's been mayor now for a week or so. Um, what do you see happening here? How do you feel about the election? Were you surprised that he was elected?

• 45:34Speaker 00

  I was surprised. I was surprised at the fact that between 20 and 30% of New York City's Jewish residents uh, voted uh, for him. These are young, uh, left wing Jews who want socialism. And they're willing to tolerate socialism, um, uh, and tolerate his bigotry. Uh, to elect somebody from the left. This was a victory of the hard left. It was also a defeat for the center. Had, um, There'd been only one candidate running against him. It would have been a much closer election. He probably still would have won, but he wouldn't have won with a mandate. And, you know, he is the mayor and he will be the mayor.

• 46:16Speaker 00

  And we who care about civil liberties and about equality, you have to keep an eye on him. If he tries to arrest Netanyahu when he comes to New York, I will be at Netanyahu's side. I've been Netanyahu's lawyer for a long time. And we will file a lawsuit in federal court immediately to prevent that from happening. If he tries to get federal agencies to engage in BDS boycotting only Israel, not boycotting Iran, not boycotting China, not boycotting Cuba, not boycotting Venezuela, but boycotting only Israel, that's against New York law and against federal law. So we will be bringing, so I think I'm going to be a busy lawyer with Mamdami as mayor.

• 46:57Speaker 00

  But look, the people spoke and it was a fair election. He did a very, very good job as a candidate. You got to give him credit for that. Let's see if he does a good job as mayor.

• 47:07Speaker 01

  You know, he had that famous meeting with Trump where, you know, they, they kind of buddied up a bit. But then ever since his first day in office, it seems as if he's using the office of the mayor of New York to be kind of the voice of the Democrat Party. And he's calling out global events and calling out, you know, the Venezuela grab, et cetera. And he really is using that not just to run New York City, but really to be the voice of private party. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that.

• 47:40Speaker 00

  No, and he's a very smart guy. He understands that if you are really nice to President Trump and if you're saying nice things about him and go to the Oval Office, you know, Trump judges people not based on what others say about him, but his own impression. And he managed to persuade Trump that he'll be a decent person. Whether that will last over the next years. Nobody knows, but, uh, but right now, they seem to have a tolerable, a tolerable relationship. Um, but it worries me because I think that the Mondani phenomenon is not

• 48:19Speaker 00

  limited to New York. It will apply in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It will apply in Chicago, probably San Francisco. It will not be statewide or nationwide. I don't think Mondani can win a statewide election in New York. Uh, neither could AOC. Neither of them could. I mean, Mondani is disqualified from running for president. Maybe he can hire me to find a loophole in the constitution to say, well, natural born doesn't really mean that he has to have been actually born in the United States, Uganda.

• 48:50Speaker 01

  Would you take him as a client, Alan? Of course you would.

• 48:53Speaker 00

  Uh, no, not, not on that issue because it would be frivolous. If he were convicted of a crime, of course I would take him as a client. I don't choose my clients based on whether I like them. Believe me, if you've seen my list of clients, they are not the most likable people in, in the world. But, um, um, you know, I followed the tradition of, uh, of John Adams when he represented the British soldiers accused of the Boston massacre and won the case and, uh, you know, was much criticized by some, um, people in Boston for doing it. Um, and he set a bar that Abraham Lincoln followed and, uh, Thurgood Marshall followed and others followed, and I'm trying to follow in their footsteps. I've

• 49:34Speaker 00

  defended many, many people who I hate. Uh, I had a client named Leona Helsley who was so obnoxious that I told her I would never meet with her in public because she did terrible things. And, but I'll represent her in court. Uh, it's like a doctor. Um, or it's like a priest. When priests have to give absolution to sinners, uh, they don't pick and choose which sinners they give absolution to. Anybody who wants to come back to Christ, uh, before his death, a good priest will, will do that and will keep the secrets. And a good lawyer is the same.

• 50:09Speaker 01

  Yeah, look, I think you're right about Mumdani. First of all, he is an excellent politician. I've watched him answer questions and he really knows how to play the part. And I think we will see more of this, especially in those large cities who tend to go left and tend to respond to the messaging of this, you know, tax the rich and we're gonna spend all this money and really play up the woke card. I actually ran to be mayor of London in 21 and 24. And the current candidate, who by the way, says he wants to be mayor for the next 20 or 30 years. You know, he's doing a very similar thing there where it's, you know, the largest city in London, probably responsible for 20% of the tax revenue, and yet he can play up against all of those usual

• 50:53Speaker 01

  things that you can in a large city and continue to get reelected.

• 50:56Speaker 00

  And remember, poor people like this, not only do the poor people support him, but the children of the very rich support them too. The trust fund babies, people who have never had to work for a living, the most privileged people in the world are the ones who say, oh, we're against privilege and we're gonna support Mumdani. If you look at the demographics of who voted for Mumdani in New York, you'll find that. You'll find the poorest people and the richest people. He got a lot of votes in the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side. He got almost no votes in, you know, really ethnic districts where people have made it on their own. He got no votes

• 51:37Speaker 00

  virtually from Italian Americans, Irish Americans, and other ethnic Americans. But for some reason of self-hatingness, he got a lot of support from the Jewish community, even though he is so virulently and thoughtlessly anti-Israel. One other example about Israel. He thinks it's okay for Jordan to be a Muslim state, for Saudi Arabia to be a Muslim state that bans non-Muslims, for Qatar to be a Muslim state that doesn't allow a Christian Bible to be sold, but to have Israel be a Jewish state with equal rights for Arab citizens, that's unacceptable to him. So he applies a different standard to a Jewish state than to

• 52:19Speaker 00

  Muslim stated, that's antisemitism, that's out and out bigotry. And I wish I could debate him on some of these issues and I think I would expose him for a deep seated antisemite, not just an anti Zionist, he uses anti Zionism as a cover for his antisemitism and that's what makes it so surprising that so many Jews voted, voted for him, but he is, as you say, a very, very able politician.

• 52:46Speaker 01

  Yeah, I saw him on probably a left leaning network and they were trying to goad him into taking shots at Trump and taking shots at this and that and he was just even he'll wouldn't take debate either side and I saw for a young man, you know, he's an incredible politician, which is what I always say of my, my opponent and the mayor. I can say a lot of bad things about him, but you know, these people know how to survive.

• 53:10Speaker 00

  But remember that some of the great dictators of history have been great politicians as well. So just because a person is slick and a good politician, you know, Stalin was beloved. People had pictures of him hanging in the walls and Yasser Arafat and others, Mussolini. Some Jews voted for Mussolini in early elections in Italy. So, you know, people can be fooled by good politicians, but it's important for people to get behind the facade and look at what these people really stand for. Democratic socialism has never, ever worked. What happens is this. Either you compromise

• 53:53Speaker 00

  the democratic part of it, the way Venezuela did and Cuba did, or you compromise the socialist part of it, which is what most Scandinavian countries and Israel did. Israel started as a socialist country. Ben-Gurion was a socialist and Shimon Peres was a socialist. But is Israel a socialist country today? No. Is Scandinavia socialist? No, not really in the true sense of the word. So I've never seen a successful democratic socialist country that preserves both full democracy and full socialism. I think they're incompatible.

• 54:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think so too. Staying on the same note, Alan, when you look at your alma mater of Harvard and kind of the way it behaved a few years ago, even when I look at my alma mater, MIT, I was shocked that we were, you know, right behind you when it came to really not taking action on the anti-Semitic behavior on campus. And you also see the Trump lawsuit and the pressure he's putting on them. What do you make of all of that? Do you go back? Do you visit? Do you wash your hands of the place? Or do you hope that it's going to change?

• 54:59Speaker 00

  They've washed their hands of me. They have not, you know, I was one of the most popular professors in modern Harvard history. I would have hundreds of students line up to get into my classes. But the minute I defended Donald Trump on his first impeachment, I was persona non grata at Harvard, never yet been invited back to the Harvard Law School, where I served for 50 years. I was invited back to the Kennedy School once, and I was invited back by a Jewish organization, Chabad. But Harvard has basically terminated its ties with me because of my representation of Donald Trump. What kind of a message does

• 55:38Speaker 00

  that send to the students? I wrote a book about that. It's called Trump to Harvard, Go Fund Yourself, Harvard to Trump, Let's Make a Deal. And what I tried to do is assess both sides. I think Harvard's current president is terrific. He's a wonderful man. He's trying very hard. I think MIT's president is good. I think Brown's president is good. A lot of the presidents are good, and they're trying to strike an appropriate balance between defending academic freedom. But, you know, you get a professor recently at Cornell, who calls on an Israeli student, and the Israeli student says something, and the professor says, well,

• 56:22Speaker 00

  I'm not going to let you be in my class, makes the student come to a master class, and, you know, Cornell suspended the professor, fortunately. But there are a lot of professors who believe their job is To propagandize students to instill their values into the students. In fifty years of teaching at Harvard, I never once expressed a personal view in class, never. I told my students, I'm not here to teach you what to think, I'm here to teach you how to think. Whatever your views are, I'm going to challenge them. Whatever my views are, you should challenge them. You want to get an A in the class? Write an exam or an essay that fundamentally disagrees with me and shows that I'm wrong. You want to get a C in the class?

• 57:06Speaker 00

  Just parrot everything I've said in the class. You'll get everything right and you'll get a C. That's a mediocre grade for a mediocre performance. So, I don't think we're seeing enough critical teaching at universities. I think we're seeing too much propaganda inside the classroom. I'm not talking about outside the classroom. Professor has academic freedom outside the classroom. A professor does not have academic freedom in the classroom to try to propagandize students to that professor's point of view. The classroom is a sacred place. You have to be neutral and objective. The Chicago Principles, that are followed more in theory than in practice, say universities must be neutral. They are the forum for disputed views to be put forward.

• 57:51Speaker 00

  But when you have a class like in Cornell about Gaza, apartheid, and genocide, and you won't allow an opposing point of view to be expressed in the class, and the teacher says, "I have academic freedom to use the class to try to persuade people that Israel is engaged in genocide," that's not teaching, that's propaganda.

• 58:13Speaker 01

  Wow. Do you expect the president to make some change?

• 58:18Speaker 00

  I think it's a process. I think Harvard is fighting back. I think the Harvard administration would like to settle the case. I think President Trump would like to settle the case. I think there are extremists on both sides. Some faculty members who don't want the case settled, they want this to be a fight. And some within the administration that don't want it settled. They think that Trump benefits from having a fight. So I think we'll see whether or not, uh, wiser minds prevail and the matter is settled the way it has been. Most or many universities, Brown settled it, other schools settled it. And I think there are settlements that are really possible. But the settlements must entail making sure that universities remain neutral

• 59:01Speaker 00

  and and and and prevent intimidation of students, prevent violence against students, while allowing freedom of speech outside the classroom. But inside the classroom, a professor is constrained to be kind of a moderator and not a promoter of a particular political ideology.

• 59:21Speaker 06

  What the London Real Investment Club actually does for you, it gives you the keys to open that door to the inside deals. In the last three weeks, I've participated in three incredible deals. A layer two Bitcoin protocol, an incredible AI protocol. The deal flow is beyond what I expected. I don't think I've ever seen a model like this that just gives average folks the opportunity to be behind the deals, and that's exactly what we've done. Not only that, you get to hang out with Brian Rose every week. And for me, that was huge because I look at Brian as somebody who's not only an expert in the space and I think is on the leading edge, but just the leading edge of thought with London Real and the work he's doing there. To anyone who's taking a serious look at this, I know it's a big decision. It was a big decision for me and my family,

• 1:00:06Speaker 06

  and it is one of the best decisions I've ever made. So I wish you all the best and hope you come join us.

• 1:00:17Speaker 01

  And to be clear, the only reason they're doing this is because Trump is withholding federal funding. Otherwise, they might not even bother.

• 1:00:24Speaker 00

  Well, I think, yes, I think that probably is what stimulated it. But I think that today, some board members and some donors are also having an impact on on on universities. And and, you know, what I decided to do once October 7th occurred is to basically put a little pause on my serious books. I've written 55 serious books. And I decided to promote a series of pamphlets to be given out free on college campuses. So the first one was. The ten big anti-Israel lies and how to refute them. The second one was the GoFundYourself. Then there's one called Palestinianism. And the final one that's just come out is Jewish blood is no longer cheap.

• 1:01:10Speaker 00

  We're giving these out free on college campuses. I would never ever dream of assigning any of these pamphlets to a class. Or even telling the students about the pamphlets in a class. Uh, not in the class. In a class, I take the opposite point of view. For example, I've been a lifelong opponent of the death penalty. Uh, since high school. When I was a law clerk on the spring court, I helped write an opinion against the death penalty. In class, I would be the devil's advocate supporting the death penalty because nobody else would. I would be making all the arguments in favor of the death penalty. So as to challenge the students to come up with better arguments against it. And if I ended up with students who were strongly in favor of the death penalty and had better arguments, I did my job.

• 1:01:54Speaker 00

  In fact, one of the people who was most, uh, powerful in, in promoting the death penalty was a former student of mine. And he used my arguments outside of class to promote the death penalty. And although, you know, I wish I had changed his mind outside of the classroom. That's my job to make you a better thinker. If you're a conservative, I want you to be a better conservative, a liberal, a better liberal, a centrist, a better centrist. That's the job of the teacher.

• 1:02:21Speaker 01

  Well, I hope we can get our universities back to where they should be. Um, you know, I was at MIT from eighty-nine to ninety-three. And when I saw kind of what was going on last few years, it's just shocked me because it, especially for that institution, it should not be a place where anyone ever feels uncomfortable to say anything. And I mean, no, no, it's such a shame. But, um, I really hope that they get back on track.

• 1:02:45Speaker 00

  The two people I met in MIT at the same time were Benjamin Netanyahu, who was a student there in the nineteen seventies, and Noam Chomsky. Um, and you couldn't imagine two more different people, but they were both very closely identified with MIT. And that's the way it should be. Schools should not be uh, breeding grounds of one particular ideology over, over another.

• 1:03:07Speaker 00

  They that that's what communist schools do. That's what happens in the Soviet former Soviet Union, Cuba. Uh, it's what happens in Iran today. That's what happens in the Palestinian Authority, Berzit University. Um, in in the Palestinian Authority, you can't go there and make a case for for Israel or for a two-state solution. You have to be down the line, accepting what Berzit University wants to do, but at Hebrew University, you can make the case for Palestinian state, you can make for a case against Zionism. You can do whatever you want, because that's a true university. And I think we have to get back to having universities that are forums for diverse points of view.

• 1:03:47Speaker 01

  Yes, I do, too. I just want to finish on your thoughts on the actions in Venezuela over the weekend. And then maybe the subsequent uh kind of deals or uh proclamations we've heard afterwards, whether Trump's running it or they're giving away their oil. And is it also true that you're going to be representing Maduro in the Southern District?

• 1:04:06Speaker 00

  No, no, I don't think that's true. Um, I don't, uh, he has a good lawyer. He has a good lawyer and um I would not turn down uh, a case just because I disagreed with a person's uh, politics. Um, I think the Venezuela thing, I have a split decision on that. I think the decision to go in and arrest an indicted defendant who can't be extradited is completely consistent with not only international law, but precedent, the best precedent, of course, was Obama's decision to go in and take out Osama bin Laden. Now, the difference is that Obama issued a kill order. He didn't want him arrested, he wanted him killed, he wanted him taken dead, not dead or alive.

• 1:04:49Speaker 00

  Um, that is much more questionable than sending in troops to bring him out alive to have him tried in New York in front of an excellent judge, uh, where he'll get due process, represented by excellent uh lawyers. So I think that part was was perfectly acceptable morally, legally, and in every other way. When you get to we're running um Venezuela, uh, you have to wait and see what that means. Uh, it it should be returned to its status as a democracy. It was a great democracy for many years, it was really a shining light of uh, of South America, now it's a place where people escape from. Many of my neighbors, I live in the winter in South Florida in Miami Beach,

• 1:05:32Speaker 00

  and the place is now filled with Venezuelan emigres who left the country, Cuban emigres who left the country. I mean, you can tell a country by who leaves it and who wants to come to it. The greatness of America is represented by the fact that everybody wants to come to America. Everybody wants to be a citizen. Nobody wants to stay in Cuba. Nobody wants to stay in Venezuela. Nobody wanted to stay in the Soviet Union. Nobody wants to stay in Iran. So people vote with their feet, not only at the ballot box.

• 1:06:05Speaker 01

  Last question, are you still having a hard time getting pierogi at Martha's Vineyard?

• 1:06:09Speaker 00

  Well, I have, I can't get pierogi at Martha's Vineyard. The guy won't sell me pierogi because I'm a Zionist. But I have to tell you, so many people have offered me free pierogi, which has been so much better. There's a store in Florida that says I'll have free pierogi for life, and they're Polish pierogi, which are absolutely phenomenal. When I was in Poland recently, I ate pierogi, they were great. So I'm, you know, it was an important event, because here you have a city-sponsored farmer's market where everybody should be able to buy and sell everything, and this bigot wouldn't sell me a pierogi because he didn't like my Zionism. I was wearing a shirt that said Proud Zionist, and I was probably wearing this pin, which I still wear,

• 1:06:53Speaker 00

  for the one hostage body that hasn't been returned. So I'll continue to go back to the farmer's market, where I've been going for 50 years, and I'll buy products that I liked, but I won't buy pierogi anymore. I'll get my pierogi from better, more authentic pierogi makers. But, you know, that's life. In Martha's Vineyard, people won't talk to me. Some of them won't talk to my wife. My wife got excluded from a club recently, a feminist club. A feminist club that claims that they have judged women on the basis of their merit, not the men in their life. And they basically accepted my wife until she filled out a form disclosing who her husband was.

• 1:07:38Speaker 00

  And as soon as it was disclosed who her husband was, she was told not to apply to the club, that they wouldn't accept her as a member. This is a feminist club. This is the kind of McCarthyism that we're seeing from the left these days, and I'm going to continue to fight it.

• 1:07:53Speaker 01

  Yeah, I believe you are. What's next for you? Obviously, publishing this book on Trump. I'm sure you got a few other books up your sleeve. You're broadcasting regularly on your channels. What's next for you, Alan?

• 1:08:04Speaker 00

  Well, I have a new book coming out on July 4th, celebrating American independence. And it's a book, it's called Founding Fathers and One Jewish Mother. And it compares the founding fathers of America with the founding fathers in Golda Meir of Israel. And it's based on my own document collection. I have original copies of the Declaration, the Bill of Rights. Great books. I have original copies of Herzl's The Jewish State. And so this is a coffee table book that illustrates these great documents of history. And I have an essay on each of the, on each of the documents. And then I just spoke to my wife last night about this. We just came back from seeing Porgy and Bass on the Metropolitan Opera.

• 1:08:48Speaker 00

  And I said, you know, it ain't necessarily so has been my motto throughout life. I think I'm going to write a book entitled, It Ain't Necessarily So, Why I Question and Doubt Everything. This is a general philosophy book about the need for us to be doubters and questioners about every aspect of life.

• 1:09:09Speaker 01

  I love that. What about a Netflix movie about your life?

• 1:09:12Speaker 00

  Well, Netflix won't have anything to do with me. They did Netflix thing of Jeffrey Epstein. And they still, by the way, to show you how bad Netflix is, they still have the interview with the woman who says, who claims that she had sex with me without indicating, even in the bottom of it. She's now withdrawing that claim and she now says she may have. We've asked Netflix to just put a little note at the bottom, quoting what she has said, and they refuse to do it. So if it's on Netflix, don't believe it. Somebody gave me a shirt the other day that said, was it on CNN or is it the truth? I would now change that to, is it on Netflix or is it the truth? You know, problem, you can't avoid watching Netflix because it has some, you know, pretty good shows.

• 1:09:57Speaker 00

  But when they do their own documentaries, be very doubtful. It ain't necessarily so.

• 1:10:04Speaker 01

  Amen to that. Would you ever do a movie about your life?

• 1:10:09Speaker 00

  Well, somebody did, Canadian broadcaster did one, it's called The Trials of Alan Dershowitz, and it showed in film festivals and, and stuff, it is pretty good. It, uh, you know, it's critical, but it's very accurate about who I am and what I've done and what my values are. So, yeah, they've done that. And of course, there was an Oscar-winning movie called Reversal of Fortune, which my son, um, produced and, uh, which was widely watched, and it showed one part of my life, representing Klaus von Boulogne.

• 1:10:41Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's when I first heard about you as a young boy. So, um, Alan, uh, keep fighting, you're a legend, uh, just appreciate everything you do, and looks like nothing's slowing you down. So, uh, thanks so much for the input, and I look forward to having you back on again.

• 1:10:55Speaker 00

  Thank you, because you're a great interviewer. You really, really get to the bottom of issues, and you give the interviewer an opportunity to express himself, and it's great. So, I, anytime you want me back on your show, you got me.

• 1:11:06Speaker 01

  All right, you got it. Thank you, Alan. We appreciate you. And, uh, we'll see you next time. Thanks, everybody at London Real. Follow this man. And, uh, until then, bye-bye. Hi, it's Brian Rose from London Real. You probably know that we've just recently been replatformed on YouTube after 25 months completely in the dark. The truth is, I really need your help. What I really need you to do is click on that subscribe button right now, like this video, and maybe even leave a comment or share the link with friends. We're really fighting against an algorithm that's tried to keep us quiet for so long, and the more subscribers we have, the more people watch our content, the better guests

• 1:11:49Speaker 01

  we can bring you, the better content, and we can continue transforming lives. We've been doing this for 14 years now. I want to do this for another 14 years, but I really need your help. So, click on that subscribe button, like the video, leave a comment, share this, and we're going to continue to bring you more and more great content. Thank you.