The Great America Show - June 13, 2023


DEMS’ RABID McCARTHYISM ON TRIAL

Hosted by
Lou Dobbs John Fawcett
Mentioned
Donald Trump Alan Dershowitz Hunter Biden Alan Dersowitz Richard Nixon Jack Smith Hillary Clinton James Comer Joe Biden Milley Anna Paulina Luna Ku Klux Klan Tony Bobulinski Vladimir Putin Roger Jackson Elaine Connors Bob McDonnell Beryl Howell Lois Lerner Andy Ogles and 4 more
TRUMP IS RIGHT ON DOCUMENTS MARXIST DEMS ARE THE CRIMINALS

Episode Stats


Length

27 minutes

Words per minute

152.67

Word count

4,267

Sentence count

296

Harmful content

Misogyny

5

sentences flagged

Toxicity

2

sentences flagged

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Alan Dershowitz gives his thoughts on the latest indictments against President Trump and Joe Biden, and why they are just as bad as the ones against President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Join us as we discuss the latest developments in the case and the implications for the future of the Trump administration.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 First Republic, PacWest, Silicon Valley Bank, just a few of the latest casualties in the banking crisis.
00:00:06.400 Don't wait for the email reading, sorry, your account has been frozen.
00:00:10.140 Your accounts aren't safe.
00:00:11.660 Call American Alternative Assets at 866-3USA-GOLD to claim your free gold and silver guide today.
00:00:20.800 Once again, call now, 866-387-2465.
00:00:26.200 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs, and this is The Great America Show.
00:00:33.320 Great to have you with us.
00:00:34.760 It's Tuesday, June 13th, 2023, and this is a day born in the corruption of the Biden regime and the federal judiciary.
00:00:43.880 This afternoon, President Trump will be in federal court for arraignment in Miami.
00:00:48.560 After the Marxist-Dim special counsel, Jack Smith, indicted President Trump on 37 counts related to Trump's handling of classified documents.
00:00:59.960 This indictment is the second criminal indictment President Trump faces as he runs for the presidency.
00:01:06.060 Two politically motivated indictments, both clearly intended as interference with the presidential election of 2024.
00:01:13.580 Today, we'll be joined by leading constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz to get his take on the indictment and the case against President Trump.
00:01:23.440 But first, this development on the man who's managed to escape indictment for years, Joe Biden.
00:01:29.740 Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, revealing the FBI informant file that the FBI was forced to turn over to the House Oversight Committee chair,
00:01:38.260 James Comer, James Comer, last week, confirms President Biden is the so-called, quote, big guy.
00:01:45.380 The reference to big guy was seen multiple times in Biden documents as millions of dollars were paid to, quote, the big guy,
00:01:54.500 first mentioned publicly by Tony Bobulinski, Biden business partner.
00:01:58.700 And as all of this is unfolding, Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles introducing articles of impeachment against Joe Biden.
00:02:06.820 Ogles filed the articles accusing President Biden of weaponizing the presidency, both as president and vice president,
00:02:14.940 to, quote, shield the business and influence peddling schemes of his family from congressional oversight and public accountability.
00:02:23.540 Ogles also accuses Biden of acting in a, quote, manner contrary to the public trust and subversive of constitutional government,
00:02:31.240 to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, end quote.
00:02:40.800 Joining us now is attorney, legendary law professor and bestselling author.
00:02:45.880 His newest book is Get Trump.
00:02:48.660 Alan Dersowitz.
00:02:49.660 Alan, great to have you back with us on The Great America Show.
00:02:52.720 Thanks for taking the time.
00:02:54.360 I know you're busy as always, so let's go to the case itself.
00:02:57.700 Your assessment of the indictment.
00:02:59.540 Well, it's much stronger, for example, than the indictment that came down in the New York case with D.A.
00:03:06.440 Bragg, which was about the weakest indictment I've ever seen.
00:03:09.540 That was a clear example of somebody being targeted and then after being targeted, coming up with a very, very weak indictment.
00:03:17.820 This is very different.
00:03:19.520 Here you have a special counsel appointed and the special counsel is appointed only to go and get the the this particular person.
00:03:30.700 So it's targeting, but it's a different kind of targeting.
00:03:33.220 It's a targeting that's more lawful.
00:03:35.580 And then, you know, he does the investigation.
00:03:38.780 And as a result of it, Trump does some unfortunately foolish things with his lawyers and makes a recorded interview about some classified material.
00:03:51.000 And he comes up with some some some indictable offenses.
00:03:55.900 And so the question is, if the process by which the evidence came out was deeply questionable process, is the result justifiable to go forward?
00:04:08.060 I'll give you an example, an analogy that may be far fetched, but it's a useful analogy.
00:04:12.460 Let's assume in the South, in the 1930s, a racist Ku Klux Klan prosecutor pledges that he will go and investigate only crimes committed by black people, but not by white people.
00:04:25.060 And he does the investigation and he comes up with a crime committed by a black person. 0.99
00:04:29.300 Would it be justified to prosecute him, even though he's never looked for crimes committed by any white people? 0.71
00:04:35.780 Now, this is different.
00:04:36.800 This is obviously political, not racial.
00:04:38.740 But the issue is, to what extent is targeting permissible and the results of targeting justifiable to bring a prosecution?
00:04:51.440 That's the issue, the moral issue that's raised by this case.
00:04:55.300 The moral issue, to me, is also it's a little more expansive than that.
00:05:00.960 This is the same Department of Justice that has demonstrated political, that has demonstrated its capacity for political persecution over the course of seven years of a man who has been innocent.
00:05:14.260 The only wrongdoing has been on the part of the prosecutors, the people who were putting together the evidence, the people who were quite obviously trying to frame him, the people who constructed around a Hillary Clinton campaign initiative, if you can call it that kindly, a conspiracy to overthrow a president is what it became.
00:05:33.080 This is the same, in my opinion, led by the same, in my opinion, Marxist-dim party.
00:05:39.340 It's outrageous on its face that this would be permitted.
00:05:43.340 And the judge, now this is something I have to ask you, I can't even imagine a judge not throwing this out on that basis alone.
00:05:51.620 Well, the law does not really give judges authorities to have a roving commission to see that justice has been done generally.
00:06:02.200 Judges look at a case.
00:06:03.800 Now, the defendant may raise this issue in some form by arguing that you have a situation where it's been targeted and where equal protection of law and equal justice has been denied.
00:06:20.080 That may come before a judge, possibly, but not clear that the law supports that.
00:06:29.540 It's more an argument for political and moral concerns than legal concerns.
00:06:37.420 Now, if it involves race or religion and there's discriminatory application of law, the law responds to that.
00:06:45.720 But it's not as responsive when the issue is political.
00:06:48.900 So we'll see.
00:06:50.520 You know, you say completely innocent.
00:06:52.580 The tape-recorded conversation in which Trump waves some material in front of a writer and says, I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
00:07:03.460 It's secret.
00:07:04.140 I shouldn't show it to you.
00:07:07.040 That really does not sound like innocence completely.
00:07:11.760 It may be that he was huffing.
00:07:13.460 We know Trump does that.
00:07:15.240 Maybe there wasn't any classified material in the paper.
00:07:17.500 We just don't know.
00:07:18.360 And, of course, the government doesn't have the document.
00:07:21.180 So it will be up to surmise, and maybe the judge could throw it out on that ground.
00:07:26.500 But the more interesting issue here for me as an academic, as somebody who sees the Constitution first and partisanship much later, to me the issue, what if an improper process targeting has produced evidence of a real crime?
00:07:47.460 Do you go forward and prosecute that real crime?
00:07:50.540 Well, you wouldn't do it in the racial context.
00:07:52.920 The question is, do you do it in the political context?
00:07:55.200 And if not in the racial context, I would say then the law should make room for greater moral judgment and process.
00:08:04.920 The issue to me is this waving this piece of paper around whatever it was, whether it was top secret, whether it was secret compartmentalized highest form of intelligence security, whatever it may have been, no one saw it.
00:08:24.200 And the document doesn't exist, as far as the court is concerned, right now, at least.
00:08:30.340 Right.
00:08:30.700 And no harm was done to the national security.
00:08:32.900 That's what I was just going to.
00:08:34.160 All of the judgments about intent and everything else go away to me if we find out that, for example, that piece of paper ended up in the hands of Vladimir Putin.
00:08:45.940 OK, that then becomes a different case.
00:08:48.880 There is not one instance here of harm having been done to anyone.
00:08:52.800 There is not one single instance of, in any case, that the president had any intent that was unlawful, immoral, whatever, because all of these documents.
00:09:06.000 Go ahead.
00:09:07.240 Yeah, there's an additional element in that is it looks from the context that maybe General Milley had already disclosed the conflict, the controversy.
00:09:18.140 You know, who wanted to bomb Iran?
00:09:19.680 Who didn't want to bomb Iran? 1.00
00:09:21.160 Whose fault is it?
00:09:22.180 All of that.
00:09:23.560 It may be that that the debate was out there already and that what Trump added to it by waiving a document didn't amount to very much.
00:09:35.080 That's another possible argument.
00:09:36.920 Yes. 0.62
00:09:37.540 And an interesting one, because we know Milley was basically, you know, it would be the first time that it made, if I may use a non-legal term, made a horse's ass of himself by suggesting that Trump would not be
00:09:49.540 reacting appropriately to provocation, we're talking with Alan Dersowitz, we'll be back with this country's legend of law in just a moment.
00:10:02.240 Stay with us right after these words from our sponsor.
00:10:04.180 This is a warning, my fellow Americans.
00:10:10.720 The news just broke and it's grim.
00:10:12.440 The banking collapse of 2023 is now more devastating than the banking collapse of 2008.
00:10:20.000 First Republic, PacWest, Silicon Bank, just a few of the latest casualties in this banking crisis.
00:10:26.600 And don't wait for the email reading, quote, sorry, your account has been frozen, end quote.
00:10:31.860 Take action now to protect what we've all worked so hard to build.
00:10:36.600 Believe me, you can protect your wealth by utilizing a straightforward tax loophole that's entirely legal.
00:10:43.220 Call my friends at American Alternative Assets.
00:10:46.180 Ask them for your free wealth protection guide.
00:10:49.340 Call 866, the number 3, USA Gold.
00:10:53.360 That's right.
00:10:53.960 Call now.
00:10:55.140 866-386-2465.
00:10:58.800 This invaluable guide will outline the precise steps you need to take immediately to transfer your IRA or 401k into precious metals, all without tax consequence.
00:11:11.060 Call American Alternative Assets at 866, the number 3, USA Gold, to claim your free gold and silver guide today.
00:11:20.600 Once again, call now.
00:11:22.680 866-387-2465.
00:11:28.800 We're back talking with Alan Dersowitz.
00:11:30.720 And you're concerned about a number of elements in this indictment, Alan.
00:11:35.600 On its, just on its face, I have to say, 37 counts.
00:11:41.040 This looks like the way they treated, the Justice Department treated, hundreds of people are still political prisoners of the Biden regime.
00:11:49.260 And that is simply overcharge.
00:11:52.020 And if you then get a conviction, over-sentence.
00:11:57.580 Your thoughts?
00:11:59.120 There's no doubt about that.
00:12:01.100 And, you know, I wrote a book about this whole thing called Get Trump, which starts right from the beginning where they go after him and they target him.
00:12:08.600 And in my book, I go over every single one of the allegations against him in Fulton County, in D.C., in New York, and in Florida.
00:12:19.420 And I say in the book, I predicted that the strongest case would be an obstruction of justice case in Florida.
00:12:26.960 The other cases were very weak.
00:12:28.460 We now have seen the New York case, which is extraordinarily weak, the weakest indictment I've seen in 60 years of practicing law.
00:12:35.060 So it's all part and parcel of the same thing.
00:12:39.600 And one has the right to look at all these cases in context and ask the question, could any American survive the kind of scrutiny that Donald Trump has gotten?
00:12:52.540 And if the same resources were used against anybody else, any other former president, current president, political figure, as Robert Jackson, a justice in the Supreme Court many years ago, said,
00:13:06.980 any prosecutor could rummage through the books and rummage through the evidence and find something to pin on somebody if you look hard enough and if you target that person.
00:13:17.820 And, you know, he didn't like that.
00:13:19.680 And I don't like it.
00:13:20.520 He had been the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg.
00:13:22.660 He saw what could happen under those circumstances.
00:13:25.840 And we all know the story of the head of the KGB telling Stalin, show me the man and I'll find you a crime.
00:13:32.360 And that's what this targeting is about.
00:13:34.620 They show you the man.
00:13:36.000 The man is this.
00:13:36.700 In this case, it's Donald Trump.
00:13:38.000 In some other case, it could be you, me or President Biden.
00:13:41.620 It could be anybody.
00:13:43.680 And you devote unique resources and you may come up with something.
00:13:48.620 Maybe that's something will be a valid case.
00:13:51.140 Maybe it won't be.
00:13:52.000 But it raises very, very troubling problems about the American justice system.
00:13:58.000 The American justice system is has been shredded at this point, in my opinion.
00:14:03.580 And I think the public opinion polling is showing there is no trust in either the Department of Justice or the FBI.
00:14:09.640 People are talking serious.
00:14:11.240 People talking seriously about dismantling the FBI because of its operation as the political arm, if you will, the military arm of the Marxist party.
00:14:25.160 It's come to that point.
00:14:27.240 I just like to get your sense of, given all that is happening, we have five, six years in which there's been no justice for Hunter Biden.
00:14:38.100 There has been every disinformation.
00:14:39.900 Fifty-one intelligence veterans, if you will, perjured themselves by their insistence.
00:14:47.100 Well, they weren't under oath.
00:14:48.320 Of course, they weren't.
00:14:49.460 But I'm using that.
00:14:50.680 Yeah, yeah.
00:14:52.320 Trust me, Ellen, I'm keenly aware I'm not in a court of law, but rather one of opinion.
00:14:56.780 The reality is that the Democratic Party, the permanent bureaucracy, if you will, the interagency, has proved themselves to be politically activist and dishonest.
00:15:13.140 We hear, by the way, once we find out that the judge in Florida will be holding this.
00:15:19.380 She's a woman who was conducting a trial for President Trump earlier, lost on a special master to the appellate court's judgment.
00:15:30.280 She was right about that, by the way.
00:15:32.260 She was right about that.
00:15:33.160 That's what I was going to ask you.
00:15:34.080 Appellate courts were wrong.
00:15:34.820 Yeah.
00:15:35.260 No, appellate courts were wrong on that.
00:15:36.920 They could be unanimous.
00:15:37.960 I don't care if nine justices of the Supreme Court say that.
00:15:41.260 When you rummage through a person's personal papers and you get a bunch of lawyer-client privilege information, as there was in that case, you do not let the Justice Department set up a so-called taint team to separate out the lawyer-client privilege from the unprivileged.
00:15:59.620 You don't allow people who sit and have lunch next to each other, who go to the bathroom with each other, who socialize with each other.
00:16:06.560 One of them becomes the taint team and doesn't tell the other what he's found.
00:16:11.820 That's just not right.
00:16:13.460 Appointing a special master was absolutely the right approach, and she's getting a lot of flack.
00:16:18.540 You know, the interesting development is that liberals and conservatives have changed sides.
00:16:23.700 In the beginning, the FBI was strongly opposed by liberals and strongly supported by conservatives.
00:16:30.240 The Espionage Act was strongly opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives.
00:16:35.520 Now, everything's switched.
00:16:37.620 Now, it's the liberals who want to preserve and strengthen the FBI and make law enforcement stronger.
00:16:43.800 It's the liberals who want to expand the Espionage Act that put dissidents in prison for years, and the conservatives are being the civil libertarians.
00:16:52.980 And, you know, it's such an interesting switch of perspective, and I see it among my own colleagues.
00:16:59.060 People who I've known for years who have been liberal, suddenly, when it comes to Donald Trump, they forget about the Constitution.
00:17:04.820 They don't care about the Constitution.
00:17:06.640 It's just get Trump, get Trump, get Trump.
00:17:09.360 And I document that in my book, Get Trump, over and over again to show you how many people who call themselves liberals have turned reactionary when it comes to criminal justice and Donald Trump.
00:17:21.420 And it's very disturbing.
00:17:22.900 This is nobody out there to defend him.
00:17:25.560 As far as I know, I'm probably the only anti-Trump person.
00:17:29.180 I voted against him twice.
00:17:30.300 I plan to vote him against him a third time.
00:17:32.820 I demand my own constitutional right to vote against him and not to have some prosecutors tell me I can't vote against him.
00:17:38.660 Amen, brother.
00:17:39.340 There are very few people out there, but there are very few people out there who are not Trump supporters, but who support his constitutional rights and all of our constitutional rights.
00:17:49.540 And I pride myself on being one of those, even though it's gotten me into a lot of trouble with former friends and even relatives.
00:17:57.260 We're talking with Alan Dersowitz.
00:17:59.100 He's the author of the book, Get Trump.
00:18:01.780 And no, it was not a blueprint for the Marxist left.
00:18:05.540 It is a brilliant work by a brilliant professor of law, Alan Dersowitz, with whom we continue our conversation in just moments.
00:18:15.260 We'll be right back.
00:18:16.120 We're back now with Alan Dersowitz.
00:18:23.880 And Alan, I want to turn to what some are saying is the pivotal point that the president's court case will turn on the Presidential Records Act.
00:18:36.500 What do you think there is also an executive order out there, a 13-526, pertaining to the presidential records and his powers?
00:18:48.880 Your thoughts?
00:18:50.640 Well, I was surprised that the indictment never mentioned the presidential record attack.
00:18:54.420 It's obviously relevant.
00:18:55.720 It gives the president the right to possess materials, and it provides a procedure which is not criminal, but a civil procedure for resolving disputes between the National Archives.
00:19:06.500 And the president or the vice president of the United States, and it's incumbent on the prosecution to at least consider that and to understand that, at least at the beginning, this was a civil dispute that got turned into a criminal charge.
00:19:24.980 Now, he has a lot of defenses.
00:19:27.420 The problem is going to be getting lawyers to make them.
00:19:29.960 I can tell you, I know from personal experience, that two of the very, very best lawyers, maybe three best lawyers in Southern Florida turned down the case.
00:19:40.880 They'd love to do it, but they know that there's a project out there called a group out there called Project 65, which is a group of radical leftist lawyers who have promised to go after the bar certificates and disbar and discipline any lawyer who defends Trump.
00:19:57.940 And when they first said that, I wrote an op-ed saying, I will defend any lawyer who Project 65 goes after and files a bar charge against.
00:20:07.520 So what do you think they did?
00:20:08.840 They filed the bar charge against me and other people.
00:20:13.440 And so lawyers have told me they would love to be part of the Trump defense team, but they can't afford to.
00:20:20.800 They can't risk their license.
00:20:22.560 They can't risk their being disciplined by the bar.
00:20:25.880 So we're seeing a rabid form of McCarthyism coming from the left, the hard left in this case.
00:20:33.380 And the solution will be in one part to see whether or not President Trump can get a fair trial on these charges by a man, Jack Smith.
00:20:44.360 This is the man, by the way, in terms of public corruption.
00:20:47.200 This is the fellow who went after Bob McDonnell, the governor of Virginia, and lost before the Supreme Court nine to nothing.
00:20:58.180 He is a man who has shown egregious excess in the extension of prosecutorial power.
00:21:05.460 He has done so again.
00:21:06.740 Your assessment of the chances, I mean, he created the template for crying out loud with Lois Lerner of weaponizing the federal government, in this instance, the IRS going after conservative groups.
00:21:20.580 Your assessment of what it will take to reverse this awful, awesome Marxist takeover of our government.
00:21:30.620 Well, you may not, and you're right, but let's assume that I'm right and tell me what I should do.
00:21:41.400 Well, first of all, let's wait to see if he can get a fair trial.
00:21:44.840 I think that Jack Smith did the right thing and did the smart thing by moving the case away from the District of Columbia, where he got a lot of good legal rulings on his behalf about lawyer-client privileges.
00:21:55.080 But he moved the trial itself down to Palm Beach County, which is a much more divided area than, obviously, in the District of Columbia.
00:22:05.220 And by the wheel, it fell to the job.
00:22:06.620 If I may interrupt, Alan, you said something very important.
00:22:11.020 He got rulings on client-attorney privilege that were heinous.
00:22:16.680 Terrible rulings.
00:22:17.920 Terrible rulings.
00:22:18.860 Destructive of the Constitution legal process.
00:22:23.160 And my God, now he goes to Florida to conjure up a pretense of it.
00:22:27.420 It was a very smart move to get the legal rulings, to win on those legal rulings, to appeal and then move the case down to Florida.
00:22:35.740 Florida, because he was afraid that if he tried to venue it in the District of Columbia, there'd be a challenge.
00:22:43.100 And that challenge would make it up to the Supreme Court, even before the trial on venue.
00:22:47.860 And it might delay the trial for a long, long period of time.
00:22:51.240 So he bit the bullet and decided to send it to Palm Beach.
00:22:55.340 He didn't decide to send it to Miami, which he might have.
00:22:59.580 But Palm Beach is likely to get him a slightly fairer jury veneer.
00:23:06.120 And I think the judge who was picked seems to be an honorable judge.
00:23:11.420 Yet the left is arguing, oh, my God, appointed by appointed by by Trump.
00:23:17.760 But when when there were other cases where the right complained that, oh, they were appointed by Obama or appointed by Clinton or appointed by Biden, the left.
00:23:29.200 Oh, you can't attack judges.
00:23:30.980 That's just not right.
00:23:32.180 And of course, now the left is attacking this judge without knowing anything about her, except that she had this one opinion that was reversed by the 11th Circuit, erroneously reversed, in my view.
00:23:43.100 Well, I want to just say in terms of this judge, it's interesting, a woman judge. 1.00
00:23:51.320 There's a woman judge in D.C., by the way. 1.00
00:23:53.700 She happened to be the head judge, Beryl Howell.
00:23:56.580 She was the chief judge. 0.73
00:23:58.400 She had jurisdiction over and influence over the 2016 election challenges.
00:24:04.960 She had jurisdiction over the 2020 election challenges.
00:24:08.800 She had jurisdiction over almost everything that happened, including, as you're suggesting, the demise of attorney-client privilege.
00:24:19.180 It's outrageous what she did. 1.00
00:24:21.100 Not a peep from the left.
00:24:23.120 And this woman in Florida, Judge Elaine Connors, she's getting all sorts of publicity. 0.97
00:24:31.080 Very quickly, as we wrap up here, Alan, and I appreciate your time.
00:24:35.280 What are the president's chances of prevailing?
00:24:37.000 Well, I think the president will either win or get a hung jury on some of the counts, particularly the obstruction of justice counts.
00:24:48.620 However, the tape recording is a difficult one to overcome, and he may very well get convicted on that.
00:24:55.920 Then there'll be an appeal.
00:24:57.780 For me, the biggest question is timing.
00:25:00.440 When will this thing go to trial?
00:25:02.260 If it goes to trial a year from now, which is usually how long it takes for a complex federal indictment to go to trial, it'll be just as the conventions are starting.
00:25:11.000 And it will have a major impact on the election.
00:25:15.080 So maybe it'll be postponed to the election.
00:25:17.760 We're not sure.
00:25:18.580 If Trump were to be elected and he had been convicted, then the issue arises, can he pardon himself, or could he leave the presidency under the 25th Amendment for a few days and allow the vice president to pardon him?
00:25:33.440 These are all complex constitutional questions.
00:25:36.160 The first impression, nobody ever contemplated we get to a position where a man running for president against the incumbent is indicted.
00:25:45.460 And if you're going to indict your political opponent that way, it better be the strongest case in history.
00:25:51.420 And this case doesn't meet what I call the Richard Nixon standard.
00:25:54.320 Richard Nixon was indicted for destroying evidence, bribing witnesses, and Republicans wanted to see him removed from office.
00:26:02.000 I don't see that happening here.
00:26:03.400 I don't see bipartisan support.
00:26:04.900 And I don't see the kind of case that resulted in Nixon's leaving office.
00:26:10.560 But, you know, we have to keep an open mind.
00:26:12.720 And, oh, one more thing I want to make a point of.
00:26:15.900 This case should be on television.
00:26:18.380 The arraignment tomorrow should be on television.
00:26:20.680 The case should be on television.
00:26:22.160 The trial, the appeal.
00:26:23.820 The American public has the right to see how their criminal justice system operates, particularly in the context of a political case like this.
00:26:33.300 And it's a mistake to have it filtered through MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.
00:26:41.340 People will not get a correct view of what's going on in court.
00:26:45.440 They'll get a distorted view.
00:26:46.680 So I'm pushing very hard to get this case televised.
00:26:50.140 Well, as you should, and I would suspect you as one of the country's great leaders on law to do so,
00:26:58.480 I would also say that I think the American people have made their determination right now about the state of justice in America.
00:27:05.240 It is woeful, it's obscene, and it is corrupt.
00:27:09.040 And that is what this court will have to overcome on behalf of the judicial system.
00:27:15.080 I wonder if it's capable.
00:27:16.880 Well, Alan Dershowitz, the book is Get Trump, timely and most apt titled book I've seen in a long time.
00:27:26.960 Alan, thanks so much for being with us here.
00:27:29.440 Well, thank you.
00:27:30.160 And God bless you.
00:27:31.260 Thank you, you too.
00:27:32.400 Alan Dershowitz, brilliant legal mind and author.
00:27:35.260 His new book couldn't be more on point.
00:27:37.680 The title, Get Trump.
00:27:39.020 We recommend it to you highly.
00:27:41.180 Our guests here tomorrow will be attorney and founder of the Article 3 Project, Mike Davis.
00:27:45.440 He's been right on the FBI, DOJ, and the documents from the very beginning.
00:27:50.620 Please join us here tomorrow.
00:27:52.060 Until then, thanks for being with us.
00:27:54.600 God bless you, and may God bless America.
00:27:56.900 Thank you.