TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @vivamusverum
reSee.it AI Summary
In my latest episode, I dive deep into Alan Dershowitz's revelations about the Epstein list, discussing its contents and the reasons for its withholding. I touch on various topics, including the January 6 events, modern FBI tactics, Tiger King, Julian Assange, and Israel. Alan shares insights about the influential individuals and accusers involved, raising questions about the prosecution's tactics and whether they pressured accusers to perjure themselves to target powerful figures. Stay tuned for more updates!
@vivamusverum - Brady Knowlton
BREAKING NEWS! - EPISODE #2 - ALAN DERSHOWITZ REVEALS MORE ABOUT THE EPSTEIN LIST THAN ANYONE EVER HAS AND THE REAL REASON IT IS BEING WITHHELD! FOLLOW ME! More revelations to come soon! Quick link to chapters below: Epstein (30:50) January 6 (00:01) Entrapment by modern FBI (25:35) Tiger King (27:55) Julian Assange (39:38) Israel (40:35) Alan describes WHAT and some of WHO is on the list. Influential people and accusers. Did the prosecution get accusers to perjure themselves to leverage it against people in power?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alan Dershowitz and his interviewer discuss themes of justice, protest, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dershowitz recounts his own arrest during a protest as a teen, emphasizing the importance of the right to protest. He condemns the targeting of lawyers who defended Donald Trump, calling it McCarthyism.
Dershowitz advocates for common ground between genuine conservatives and liberals, particularly regarding limited government. He advises that Trump sought his advice on pardons. Dershowitz says he would have preferred individual pardons for January 6th protestors, prioritizing those who were non-violent. He argues that the Supreme Court correctly ruled against applying 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) to January 6th defendants. Dershowitz criticizes the grand jury system as a "scandal" and advocates for its abolition.
Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Dershowitz calls for full disclosure of all evidence, stating he has nothing to hide. He believes the government is protecting accusers, even at the expense of the accused. He supports a pardon for Julian Assange. Dershowitz says that Israel is the "Jew among nations" and is subjected to antisemitism. He advocates for destroying Hamas to achieve peace. He says Palestinian education is a "farm league for terrorists." Dershowitz suggests targeting financial penalties toward groups promoting hatred in universities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alan, good to see you, my friend.
Speaker 1: Likewise. See you a free man, not presumed innocent, but declared innocent.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's, you know, with the with the case being dismissed, it's nice to get that off your shoulders. And there is no sweeter taste of freedom than from a man that has been deprived it. So and I appreciate all your help in that matter. It was it it was an ugly fight, and sometimes sometimes you win ugly, but it's still winning.
Speaker 1: It's winning, and you won not only for yourself, but for all Americans who exercise the right of assembly of free speech and protest. You know that that you and I disagree politically, about things, but I admire, your willingness to stand up for your principles, and I condemn the government for having gone after you for standing up for your principles. And so I'm glad it resolved itself in the way it did, not only for your sake, but for the sake of all Americans who will protest in the future. We are a nation of protesters. We started our country by protesting.
The people who signed the declaration of independence were subject to the death penalty as, Benjamin Franklin, said, we will either hang together or we will go hang separately. They were guilty of treason in the in the eyes of the British authorities, and, protests have been part of our history from the beginning of time. I myself have participated in them over the years starting when I was about 15 or 16 years old when I went down to Washington DC to visit just to see Washington. And, the day I was there, Ibn Saud, the king of Saudi Arabia, was being honored by the White House, and there were Saudi flags flying on the Lincoln Monument. And I couldn't bear the idea that a slaveholder's flag would be on the Lincoln Monument.
So I went up and I tore it down, and I got arrested. And that was my first the law. But, fortunately, the park policeman said that next time I should make sure if I do it, nobody is looking. He he clearly put it what I'm doing, and it didn't go on my record. But Well, that's that's the important part of American history.
Speaker 0: That's great. I there's probably a different approach to criminal justice at that time, and it's unfortunate that if you stand up, which is quite necessary for our free and open society, if you stand up that, if you stand up against tyranny or you stand up against the the the administration that you can be put in a situation where you're prosecuted to the degree that some have recently. And so we have a lot to talk about today. And
Speaker 1: One other thing. You're not the only one who is victimized for taking the position you took. The 65, a group of hard left, radical, anti American lawyers, many of them very prominent, started an organization to go after any lawyer who defended Donald Trump, and they filed bar charges against lawyers and including me. And I've had to spend Yeah. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight frivolous bar charges, which they brought against me only because I defended Donald Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment.
So we're seeing this all over. And it's wrong when it's done by the right. It's wrong when it's done by the left. It's just variations of old fashioned McCarthyism.
Speaker 0: And those are some of the topics I wanted to talk to you about. We got a lot to discuss, judicial reform, criminal justice reform. I read the new book. You came in hot on this one, Alan. I've read a lot of your books, and this one is extremely compelling, and I think it is very necessary to the public conversation that is occurring right now on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
I wanna talk about that, and I wanna talk about some of the headwinds that the FBI and the DOJ and the administration have in front of them. You once said let's start with the justice system. You once said that the justice system is like a blind date. Lots of promises, awkward moments and you're hoping just hoping the verdict doesn't leave you crying in the parking lot. And I think a lot of people on the conservative side have now common ground with people that have long been on the liberal side crying for criminal justice reform.
I grew up in a privileged way that I never had any encounters with the justice system. And a lot of conservatives can say the same thing. But after January 6, after what we saw with the abortion clinic protesters and the many people that were prosecuted under the Biden DOJ, We now see that the conservative side is also crying for criminal justice reform because they because they can come they can come after you, and there is so much prosecutorial misconduct. There's no there's no levers in place to properly monitor that and it looks like right now it's not being discussed. So where should they start?
Well, I
Speaker 1: think we start by acknowledging that true conservatives, real conservatives, William Buckley conservatives, Burke conservatives, genuine conservatives are have a lot in common with genuine liberals. They both want small government. They want the government out of their bedrooms, out of their deathbeds, out of their places of worship. They want the government to mind their its own business and to limit itself to John Stuart Mill's notion that the only thing that should ever be criminalized is if you are hurting other people. But it never is a proper function of government to try to make you do something that helps yourself and that makes you a better person.
You know, that's for your pastor, your rabbi, your minister, your wife, your mother, your husband, but not the government. So I think we start by trying to seek common ground between genuine conservatives and genuine liberals. I got that common ground when I had debates over and over again with William Buckley, who was a genuine and thoughtful conservative. He called me his favorite liberal. I called him my favorite conservatives.
I think that we can meet common ground and and be just as strongly opposed when the right, and when the left tried to oppress us in the name of a big government. So we have a a very hard job in front of us because most Americans want results. They don't care as much about process, but true conservatives and true liberals care deeply that the right process, the right procedures are followed. I I think it was Felix Frankfurter who once said the history of liberty is largely a history of following proper procedures. And both the extremes on the right and the extremes on the left over the years, over the generations, over the centuries, have followed, wrong procedures that's led us to extremes on both sides.
So you can be a committed liberal, committed conservative, and still share common ground and fight against a big oppressive government.
Speaker 0: Amen to that. So let's talk about the pardons. So a lot of people are upset, some on both on both sides. Some thought that the blanket pardon for the j sixers, wasn't the way to go, that it it should have been, separated into groups, whether the nonviolent or the violent should have should have received the pardons. What are your thoughts?
I I I feel obviously because I was personally affected that pardons were necessary in this case to the forefathers had intended to give the the executive power the opportunity to pardon unjust verdicts. But what do you how do you feel about the way that the pardons came down?
Speaker 1: Look. First, I agree that pardons are very important part of our system of checks and balances. I had the privilege of advising president Trump in his last term on a few of the pardons. I remember him calling me on the phone. It's it's so interesting to get a call sometimes at, 08:00 at night.
Hey. Hey, Alan. It's Donald. You're tempted to say, Donald who? No.
What can I do for you? And on a couple of occasions, he said, what do you know about, Rod Lavojevich? Is he a good guy? What do you think about his pardon? And and and a few others like that.
So I was privileged to be able to give the president my advice. He didn't always accept it, but at least he was open to to hearing it. So I think the pardon power is a very, very important power. My preference would have been for the president to literally go through all the j six cases and give pardons, to everybody who was not involved who who who were exercising their first amendment rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. By the way, justice Brandeis, one of the great, great liberals of all time, said that, even the right of trespass, can be important under the first amendment.
That trespassing other people's property, although it might be a tort or maybe a minor minor infringement, if you have the right to protest, it also may mean you have the right, in some circumstances, to exercise that right by protesting, in this case, by entering the congress. In your case, of course, we have videotapes of the police welcoming you in so there was no trespass at all. What you did was perfectly lawful. But my preference would have been to first pardon the people who didn't hurt anybody, who didn't confront policemen, and then do a case by case analysis. If people hit back because they were hit, you know, that would be one thing.
But I would rather have seen a blanket pardon for everybody who engaged in nonviolent protests and then case by case determinations of the others. But all things being equal, I think I'm I prefer to see the blanket pardons over the blanket failure to pardon.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I read all 1,500 statement of facts for for those that were prosecuted. And when I looked through a lot of those violent assault on a police officer cases, you saw some very strange things. Stuff like people making contact with the front of a police shield. You saw people that were getting beaten with batons that grabbed the baton that was beating them.
So what do you do when you're trying to communicate this to the public and you try to get them to understand that you can't just lump everyone in and all 1,500 people live with this moniker that they were considered they were part of a violent protest. And many don't understand the fault the incorrect actions of the police as well as the fact that many people were the doors were opened, and we can play that video. The doors were opened, and the police allowed them in and doors that were closed. So how do how do we communicate this to the to the public and break through this the ceiling of of the narrative that has been set by the media?
Speaker 1: I it's very, very hard. I remember once the the joke of a client, saying, well, you know, he he hit he hit my fist with his jaw. You know, it's a matter of perception and and perspective. And and there were some people who were entitled to to fight back against, improper police, conduct, and there were some who weren't, which is why I say a case by case analysis of people who were genuinely charged with really, really serious violence would have been would have been the way to to go. But if you're gonna do a blanket on either way, the blanket pardon was better than a blanket non pardon.
And, of course, we know that this follows a precedent established by the former president Biden when he pardoned and commuted sentences as well, some on a fairly blanket basis, as well as, Obama. So there have been blanket pardons, previously, as well. Of course, famous ones included, people Carter pardoned everybody who, had to go to Canada to avoid, the draft. There were Lincoln's famous speech in his second inaugural inaugural with malice toward none and charity to all. So, you know, these are hard decisions and it's hard and and what you've done a great job and those who have collected the videotapes by showing often a reluctant American public that sees things in black and white that there are gray gray areas here.
And even the people who were charged with violence, many of them were acting, at least in their view, in self defense.
Speaker 0: I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision in the Fisher case under which they said that 18 US c fifteen twelve c two was improperly applied. And this this charge was, as you know, originally put into place in the fallout from the Arthur Andersen and Enron debacle in which executives destroyed evidence to prevent congressional inquiry. And the Justice Department said that people that entered into the capital to protest by virtue of entering had somehow impacted evidence. And the Supreme Court said, unless you can show a direct contact between evidence and their actions, this cannot be applied. Did they get it right?
And and if so, why did they get it right?
Speaker 1: Well, they got it right because Thomas Jefferson said back in, I think, eighteen o one, for a criminal statute to be legitimate, a reasonable person has to be able to understand it if he reads it while running. Can you imagine just the visual? Guy's holding a law book. He's running, and he's reading the statute, and he has to say to himself, oh, yeah. That statute really does cover this conduct.
Now I read the statute you're talking about while sitting. I studied it the way you did. There's no way to interpret that statute as applying to people who came and sat in the House of Representatives gallery. Nothing to do with with evidence. That was such an absurd misapplication of the law that it, you know, it doesn't take a brilliant lawyer to see that, and the Supreme Court sort of threw it in one second.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And now I wanted to get down into some some policy issues and and discussing judicial reform and criminal justice reform. None of the j six pros prosecutions allowed for a change of venue, And even Timothy McVeigh got a change of venue because everyone in the Oklahoma area was somehow affected by the bombing, and many were fact witnesses. We had judges that claimed on the stand that they had seen from their homes or the offices the activities of of, January 6, and they themselves were then fact witnesses. And then we had an unusually difficult time in an area where 92% of the DC population voted for Biden.
You and I know we did three mock trials, and out of I think we pulled over a 20 jurors, and there was only one of all those jurors that stood up and said, this looks like that they were overcharged, and no one could get a change of venue. What what's your thoughts on that, and what can be done about the fact that when the media levels an assault like they had like they did on the on the defendants that just that just precipitated and inundated the the populace with negative attitudes towards the protesters. What can be done to prevent this from happening again? Because now the media is so prevalent, it's nonstop. So you have the judges, the prosecutors, the jury, and the media all prosecuting these people in a way that did not allow for a fair trial.
Speaker 1: No. You're 100 right. And forum shopping has been a part of our legal system since the beginning of time, it's it's wrong and particularly wrong in a case like this. Look. I have friends.
I lived in District Of Columbia. I have a lot of friends who lived in the District Of Columbia. They were all just frightened out of their wits on January 6, particularly those who lived up around Capitol Hill. They were really, really afraid because the media was exaggerating everything, was painting it as an insurrection and a revolution and a revolt and a takeover of government and and all of that and, and and, you know, policemen and people who related to policemen. So, of course, there should have been a change of venue.
The case should have been tried. It could have been tried in Virginia. It could have been tried in West Virginia. It could have been tried in any of of, 15 to 20 states that are a drive or a train or even a short plane ride away from the District Of Columbia. The last place it should have been tried was the the District Of Columbia.
Not only that, but the judges in the District Of Columbia tend to be relatively one-sided. I know I was a law clerk in the District Of Columbia. I clerk for the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals, then I clerk for a justice of the Supreme Court. And, boy, I wouldn't have wanted to be tried in front of a jury of, of DC people. And it was remarkable to me that even one of the mock jurors was able to, objectively look at, the evidence.
I think the vast majority of people in the District Of Columbia, as you say, 92%, maybe even higher, voted, certainly certainly, I think less than 8% voted for Trump. But, the the the numbers are are staggering, and, and many of the jurors would start out with a very strong presumption of guilt from what they saw on television, what they read in the media. And so it was a terrible mistake. And I think it probably would have been reversed on appeal. Remember, there are a whole series of supreme court cases about changes of venue in criminal cases, more traditional cases, you know, where a murder case or a rape case or something like that.
But this is a case in which the government claimed it was an insurrection, and that is that we were all the victims of this. So, you know, the idea that you try it in the capital, in the place where the crime where there were victims, direct victims, is is preposterous and I think would have been reversed had the case gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 0: My favorite comment from all the mock jurors was, I feel like that I would have given them not guilty if they they were not white. That that that's the kind of headwinds that we face there. So I wanted to talk about the grand jury system. So you encouraged us and we made a motion in in my case where you you requested that the government show exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And that was not allowed, and in the grand jury system, many people don't know this, that let's say that someone committed a murder and there's a video of another person actually shooting the victim.
There is no responsibility, no statute that requires a prosecutor to show the exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. And this is something that we've we've gotta address. What are your thoughts on it?
Speaker 1: Well, no. You're absolutely right. The grand jury is a scandal. It it should be abolished. It was intended to protect defendants.
It's now the kindergarten plaything of the prosecution. They can do whatever they want. They can call whatever witnesses. They don't have to call any witnesses. They can use FBI agents who just relate what witnesses said to them.
There's no cross examination. There's no opportunity for a defense attorney to appear in front of the grand jury, and yet the American public seems to think that if a grand jury indicts that somehow changes the presumption of innocence. It doesn't at all because it's completely one-sided. My, you know, favorite story is about a case where a guy was charged with killing his wife, and and his wife showed up. And the grit he didn't even have to know that.
Now, you know, under Jenks and Brady and all of those cases, and Giglio, the government has to turn it over to the defense, but it doesn't have to present it to the grand jury. And since the defense gets no opportunity to present to the grand jury in the federal system, in some states, they do. New York, you can appear in front of the grand jury in a limited number of cases and try to present, evidence. But in the federal system, the grand jury is just completely and totally one-sided and, bears no relationship to justice. It's like the star chamber of, you know, English common law.
And so nobody should take seriously a grand jury indictment. And too many people do, oh, he was indicted by the grand jury. That must mean there's some evidence of guilt. Yeah. But it also may mean that there's evidence of innocence that the grand jury never saw.
Speaker 0: Wanted to talk to you about the suppression of evidence, in regards to the discovery process. You and I both know, a defendant named William Pope that's free state will on X and he was a pro se defendant that did an amazing job at research. And because he was pro se, he got access to some files that were deemed highly sensitive for what reason. There's no good reason for calling these. This is just like the over classification problem we have in the intelligence agents.
And so he's trying to get his PhD. He's trying to clear his name. He's received a part of his case was dismissed. And so he filed a motion to get some more discovery that he knows will help clear his name. And what the the government this is the current government.
This is the the current administration. This is not the Biden administration, but they are still not providing the information. They went one step further and they countered and said, we want to claw back. We wanna pull back all the information that you have already that falls under this highly sensitive classification. But it's information that's pertinent to his case.
He might have a civil case in the future, but this is happening now. This is not happening previous to Trump's inauguration. Why would they do that? And what do you say to the people in the DOJ that are doing this?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, we don't know who's doing it. Remember, most of the people in the DOJ are career people. They didn't switch on January, you know, when when president Trump came into office. Obviously, we have a new attorney general, deputy attorney general, assistant attorney general, and heads soon of each of the divisions. But, line prosecutors are still gonna be line prosecutors, the people who have been in office for many, many, many years.
And so you don't expect dramatic changes. So I would not attribute this failure in the the attempt to claw back evidence and the attempt to deny discovery is wrong. I wouldn't attribute that to this administration. I would attribute it to the transition, and we'll wait and see once the administration and the justice department is fully staffed and, you can then call the right people and get access to the right people and make sure the motions get to the right people, I suspect we may see some different results. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't give up on that.
You know, the the the deep state, I don't like the term, but, obviously, career people who have been in the office, lifers, who have been in the office for twenty, thirty years, many of them are my students. They don't change with administrations. They just continue to do business as usual, and denying discovery is doing business as usual, unfortunately.
Speaker 0: I I don't I don't like the term deep state. I I prefer the term the bureaucracy state, and I think it's time that we break the bureaus. I think that's all that's left to do. Many people on we've even get some of this now on the other side of the fence. Many people want to see whether or not there was any entrapment type activity on the part of the government.
So after towards the end of the prosecutions, and we learned that there was at least 26 FBI agents undercover and many people don't know this, but you and I know this because we saw the videos that Will provided us. There was undercover capital police that were pushing people up the rafters. They were undercover dressed like protesters and they were encouraging people saying go go go directing them towards the Capitol. We've had a lot of this type activity. We saw it in the Governor Whitmer kidnapping hoax where a couple defendants were found not guilty because the jury thought that they were entrapped.
And this goes all the way back to the DeLorean case. What is your thoughts on the activity of the police from what you you saw and the activity of the government and whether or not there's a claim there on behalf of the defendants?
Speaker 1: Well, I was one of DeLorean's lawyers, so I go back a long time. I had my first entrapment defense case back in the nineteen sixties. That's how far back I go. Entrapment has been a common tool, used by the government in many, many cases, drug cases, etcetera. I'm involved in the case right now where there are issues of entrapment.
I can't discuss them because it's a pending case. But entrapment is a very common tactic, and the law of entrapment favors the prosecution. It basically says you can do anything. You can entrap anybody. You can fool them into it.
You can lie to them. You can do anything as long as they had a, quote, predisposition to commit the crime anyway. So a defendant who had a so called predisposition to commit the crime can't benefit from the defensive entrapment. And the government generally uses it against people who they think had a predisposition. It's pretty easy to prove predisposition for many, many defendants.
So, the entrapment defense, is very, very rarely used successfully. I've had it used successfully in a couple of cases, but it's very, very rare.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a there's another case that's in the news a lot that there was the Tiger King case where Joseph Passage Maldonado was prosecuted for hiring a hitman to kill a woman named Carol Baskin. But a lot of people are upset because it looks like that the FBI informant in that case spent eight months encouraging the defendant to commit the crime. He and he declined for eight months. And then when he finally agreed to do it, there's some dispute over what he was giving the the informant the money for. But that evidence, some of it has been suppressed.
And what are your thoughts on a client that's had an FBI agent encouraging him to commit a crime for for eight months.
Speaker 1: Well, let me tell you what happens because I've had this case over and over and over again. The government sends in the person to entrap. The person has a wire, has a recording device, but he doesn't turn it on. He doesn't turn it on while he's entrapping him. He waits until he's entrapped, and only then does he turn it on to prove the actual crime.
So the defense has a hard time proving what led up to the commission of the crime, leading you know, because, generally, they erase or they don't record the part of it in which the FBI informant or the undercover agent or the flipped witness pleads with the defendant to do the crime. So, there's a lot of destruction of evidence there, and it's a it's a very, very difficult issue. Look, entrapment can be a very valuable tool prosecution. If you have somebody who wants to kill the president and wants to kill some somebody else and and and and you can get him to act it out in a way that allows the government to trap him before he does it, you know, that can be valuable. But I think, entrapment is overused and it's used in political cases.
It's used in, drug cases and money cases, and it's it's way overused. And it's very difficult for a defendant to succeed on an entrapment defense. But we don't want to live in a society where crimes are committed because the government commits the crimes. You know, it was John Donne who said in his poem, oh, what a tangled web we we when first we were to deceive. And, you know, once the government is in the business of deception, all bets are off and they do a lot.
They cover up their own deception. I've been involved in many, many such cases. I've written about such cases in my book, The Best Defense, and other books. So, unfortunately, I'm an expert in government deception.
Speaker 0: I wanna talk to you about another cover up. And you and I did a a previous podcast where you were discussing the the Epstein situation. And you have been completely transparent on this. And I want you to know, I got so many messages saying that he seems he he's so he's so believable. I believe him.
And I I I don't really think the public understands how transparent you've been on this. And I wanted to ask you, since the FBI is facing some serious legitimacy problems right now, and the public is demanding that these files come out, Do you think that they will come out? And if they do, what should we expect?
Speaker 1: They won't come out, and they're being deliberately withheld. I am the only person who's calling for complete and total disclosure of every piece of evidence relevant to Jeffrey Epstein. Why? Easy. I have nothing to hide.
I haven't touched a woman other than my wife since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. This woman who accused me, I never met her, never heard of her, never knew who she was, and we were able to prove conclusively that I couldn't have been in the places where I was alleged to have been when this all happened. So it was very easy for me to be transparent. But the government is now withholding evidence. Let me tell you what they're withholding.
They're withholding evidence that shows that many of the women who made accusations made them fall falsely. They're protecting the women, what they're saying, and they're saying it openly. We're not gonna disclose any information critical of the, quote, victims, But it was the victims. In my case, I was the victim. I was the victim of a false accusation.
And so they're not protecting the victims. They're protecting accusers who may be victims or may be victimizers. And so we're never gonna see that information disclosed. How do I know? Because I have that information.
I know what's there, but they won't release it. They won't release information that raises questions about the credibility of people who claim to be oh, victims. There's also information about other people. I know. I know their names.
I'm not permitted to disclose them who have been accused. Some of their names have been disclosed. Former majority leader of the United States Senate, George Mitchell, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, they were accused of having unprotected sex. Is there any evidence of that? No.
But just on the basis of accusations, it tends to be believed. You say people now believe me because I'm credible. Why shouldn't they believe me? I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and not a single piece of evidence has ever been produced to show I did anything wrong. And yet people say, well, you know, he's been accused.
Who knows? Maybe it's a gray area. No. It is a gray area. It's black and white, false accusation, total innocence.
And, of course, I want everything revealed because if everything is released, it will prove my innocence beyond any doubt. I want every videotape, every audiotape, every document, every redacted FBI file, everything to be released, but it's not gonna be.
Speaker 0: So you believe that they're protect protecting the the accusers. Now on the sides of the the accused, do you feel like that there are people that are being granted protections that other people accused of these type of crimes are not?
Speaker 1: Yes. I know I know of such cases. I know of at least several cases where people have been accused and named, and the courts have covered it up.
Speaker 0: Did you find in a in a I don't know if you can tell me this, but did you find that obtaining the non prosecution agreement in Florida was unusually easy or the prosecutor was overly willing to cooperate?
Speaker 1: Oh, was very, very hard. We faced very, very aggressive prosecutors, but we were able to prove beyond any doubt that, Epstein never traveled in interstate commerce for purposes of having sex with an underage person. And that was a requirement that that's why the government felt they had to accept the plea bargain where he pleaded guilty to state charges that don't require traveling at the state commerce. So it was a very tough negotiation. It took, months and months and months, and we got the best deal we could.
The government thought they got the best deal they could, but, you know, it's been called a sweetheart deal. It was not a sweetheart deal. It was based on lack of evidence of some of the elements of the crimes.
Speaker 0: So the the DOJ is saying saying that the files are that they will release, I think there's supposed to be, some a a dump on April 1, but they're saying that some of it was gonna be redacted for reasons of national security.
Speaker 1: That's not there's no national security. Let me tell you, Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with national security. He was not a spy for the most side. I think he was in Israel once in his life, came to visit for one day. I think he flew out the same day he flew in.
There's just no truth to any of this. He was not an asset. No national security involved. He was, you know, a guy who was a hedonist and did did some awful things, to some people. And, but there's no national security.
Everything should be revealed. Everything should be released. No redactions, period. I waive all of my rights of privacy. Anything that I said, anything I did, any photograph, feel free.
Show it. Do it. It'll prove what I've been saying all along.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that he was killed in prison?
Speaker 1: Well, the question there's no question that he didn't just commit suicide. He may have had helped committing suicide. I've had my doubts about that. He was supposed to have a bail hearing a couple of days after he died, and he had a good shot at getting bail, under the circumstances of the the case and the idea that he would kill himself two or three days before he might have been freed on bail, always struck me as strange. On the other hand, I don't know who would be motivated to kill him.
You know, maybe he had some secrets that I was not aware of. I was his lawyer, so I think I knew most of his secrets. I remember asking him, do you have anything to worry about about a particular person? He said, no. I have nothing to worry about him.
I have so much on him that I have nothing to worry about.
Speaker 0: You don't feel like your life was ever in danger due to your possible knowledge of people who are on the list?
Speaker 1: No. I publicly stated everything. Every everything that I knew about the case, wrote about. I didn't keep any secrets. I wrote a book called Guilt by Accusation in which I named names.
The only names I couldn't name were ones that were sealed. I know some of those, but, most of them are not, particularly high profile or or powerful people. You know, there were other accusers too. There's a woman named Sarah Ransom who, accused, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton of having sex with underage girls. Also accused, the guy who's the head of Virgin Airlines.
Jacques Cousteau's granddaughter, was accused. It's so easy to make an accusation. And all of these people were accused, and the woman, Sarah Ransom, for example, who accused all these people later admitted she made the whole thing up. She told New Yorker magazine, I made it all up. I wanted to have something over Epstein.
But that hasn't come out. That's still being suppressed, the whole history of Sarah Ransom.
Speaker 0: Is Why? Why why why is this all being suppressed?
Speaker 1: Because she alleged she alleges that she's a victim. She was like years old.
Speaker 0: I mean, generally, not just in with respect to a single accuser or why do you think it's being suppressed in the general sense?
Speaker 1: Because if you claim to be a victim, the courts are gonna protect you. They're gonna presume you innocent and the person you accused guilty. That's what the legacy of the Me Too movement has been.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And that's what I titled my book, you know, Guilt by Accusation. If you've been accused, you're guilty. And, I have facts. I know facts that would prove conclusively that some of the accusers are guilty of perjury and, and should be prosecuted and should be imprisoned. And yet the government is protecting them because they don't wanna be perceived as in any way of damaging, people who claim to have been victims even if they aren't victims at all, even if they're victimizers.
Speaker 0: Okay. I wanted to talk to you real quick about Julia Massange. So you you stated once if The US thinks they can lock up Assange for spilling secrets, they'd better better build a prison big enough for every journalist who's ever peaked at a government memo, starting with me. So of course, he's he's he's moved on in life, but, the question remains, should Trump pardon him?
Speaker 1: Yes. I think he should. I I think that Assange is the New York Times. He's not the one who stole the secrets. The people who stole the secrets are guilty of crimes, Chelsea Manning and some of the others.
But Assange is the New York Times, the Washington Post, simply reporting on the fact that there were stolen secrets. And so, yes, I think he should be pardoned, and I don't think that what he's done is wrong under the First Amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's let's get into Israel. In the nineteen eighties, there was a time when American sentiment turned against Israel for a while, and then it seemed like in my and most of my life life that there was much better PR and much better there's much better sentiment in the country towards Israel. But it looks like that the propaganda war is one where they're it's not the kinetic war they're losing. It's that the propaganda war is just a a constant onslaught.
And there's there's there's lots of reasons for that. But I wanted to ask, how can Israel be more effective? Every government you and I are both critical of government. We're we're and and I think that's an important part of the system as people should always be critical of the government and suspicious of power, whether it's America or Israel. But a lot of the sentiment is turning against the Jewish people wherever they are.
What do you think should be done from the on the propaganda side or just on the the media influence side to change that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very hard. Well, I'm 86 years old, so I can't pick up a gun and go and fight and defend the Jewish people in Gaza from what happened on October 7, rapes and murders and beheadings and all of that. All I can do is write books. And so my most recent small book is called The 10 Big anti Israel lies and how to refute them with truth. I printed, no profit to me, a million copies of this.
It's small enough to fit in your pocket. And, and we're distributing them to a million students on college campuses around the country, Columbia and Harvard and all over. And, and we're we've already distributed 600,000 copies on approximately a thousand campuses. And so, I I take on the lies and I try to answer them in the marketplace of ideas. I believe in the first amendment.
I don't think people should be shut down. They should be answered. This, this this thug, who is being deported, who was the leader of the pro Hamas demonstrations at Columbia. You know, he had a right to hold up a sign, accusing Israel of whatever and calling for genocide if he did against the Jewish people. He has a first amendment right to do that, and I have a first amendment right to answer him.
And I'm gonna answer him, and gonna continue to answer them. And I have another book coming out, soon called Palestinianism, which focuses on why everybody is so immersed in the Palestinian issue and focused on Israel's faults when look what's going on in Syria today. Hundreds of thousands of people are subject to possible murder and etcetera. What's happening in Darfur, the world doesn't care. It only cares if, the alleged enemies are are are are Jews.
And it's, you know, part of a long, long history of antisemitism. Israel is the Jew among nations, and so, they are now subjected to the kind of antisemitism that individual Jews were subjected to before there was a Jewish state. But but for me, all I want take this in the marketplace of ideas. Let's have all sides presented. I've offered to debate this at Harvard.
They rejected the offer. Harvard today wouldn't accept the Lincoln Douglas debates. They would say, there were too many people who'd be offended, etcetera, offended by so live in a world where there's debate and dialogue and there's just propaganda, and that's not
Speaker 0: I just finished reading War Against the Jews and it's it's a great piece and I've come to the conclusion that and people need to focus on this, there's not gonna be peace as long as Hamas is in leadership. And we can't discuss any progress till we get to a post Hamas Palestinian leadership. In your book, you pull out
Speaker 1: World War. The second World War, you couldn't have peace with Germany until you destroyed the Nazi party. And once the Nazis were destroyed, then you could have the Marshall Plan. You could have peace, and there was peace in Central Europe until Ukraine for, you know, seventy years. But you can't have peace in The Middle East with a mosque still in control of Gaza.
Speaker 0: I want I wanted to read a little excerpt, out of your book. And using the most vulnerable civilians in this way as as human shields is a mosque tact that goes back many years. As one of its leaders boasted in 02/2008, for the Palestinian people death has become an industry. The elderly excel at this and so do the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women and children.
So many people I don't think they're just aware of how that Hamas leadership profits from the death of these individuals. And this is the plan. The plan is to allow as many people to die because we win on the propaganda front. And in that, as that occurs, Hamas themselves, the leadership, gets enriched. What are your thoughts on on Hamas leadership, and what has to be done to get, to get a new leadership for the Palestinian people?
Speaker 1: Well, look, Sinwar, the guy who was the head of Hamas, who was fortunately killed by Israel, said he wanted more martyrs. He wanted more children, more Palestinian women and children that die because every time a Palestinian woman and child dies as the result of being used as human shield, that helps Hamas, it hurts Israel. So it's very important that we also know that these people at Columbia and Barnard who are protesting are protesting on behalf of Hamas. They believe that what they call Al Aqsa storm, which was October 7, the rapes, the murders, the beheadings, were all justified. And these people are justifying the the murder and rapes of of innocent people.
And then they're condemning Israel for fighting back and doing what United States did in self defense when we were bombed in Pearl Harbor. Yeah. We did bomb Tokyo, and we did bomb Hiroshima and and Nagasaki, and and and and and we did bomb Berlin. And, you know, we did kill Hitler and Goring and Goebbels and all of those people and ended Nazism. You know, people say, you can't end an ideology.
Of course, you can. When The United States, Churchill and Roosevelt destroyed Nazism, that was the end of that ideology. You know, there's sort of Nazis hanging around, you know, places, but there's no such thing as Nazism anywhere, anymore in the world, or what was ruling Japan. It's the same. You can destroy an ideology if you destroy the leaders of the ideology.
That's why Israel has to be given the green light to destroy Hamas completely.
Speaker 0: To that point, Alan with decent Palestinian people. It's important to focus on just at the at the most basic level of what's happening in Palestine. So when you look at what's called Palestinian education, it's not education, it is a farm league for terrorists. They're just teaching the we'll have this generational issue now that they are taught terror from the the moment that they can get into school. And how is it that we can we can change that?
I mean, is there something the international community can do? Because the problem is that we see all these terrible things happen to Palestinian people, which I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for. As you say in your book, the biggest enemy to the Palestinian people is Hamas and this starts all the way at education. If you would just give us a few minutes on what's the plan for it and what can be done to stop this indoctrination?
Speaker 1: Well, the indoctrination comes not only from Hamas, it comes from the United Nations. The United Nations Refugee and Relief Fund promotes a lot of this miseducation. The Palestinian Authority promotes miseducation. We have statutes on the books that prohibit payment of money to any group that promotes this kind of antisemitism. And I think president Trump is gonna enforce that those statutes in ways that they weren't enforced previously.
So I think you're absolutely right. It starts with education. But let's remember too, the Germans and the Japanese during World War two were educated to aid Americans. And once their leaders were defeated and executed and, Nazism ended, the education stopped, and you were able to reeducate quite quickly. And I think we could do that to decent people of of of Palestine, decent Palestinian people who really wanna live in peace with Israel.
So, you know, I'm an optimist. I just think that we can turn this around, but it's gonna take hard work. That's why at 86 years old, I'm still working and writing and trying to, present a different point of view from the narrative that Hamas presents, and that is true for places like Colombia.
Speaker 0: Let's bring it home and we can end on this. So Colombia recently lost $400,000,000 in federal funding for allowing Judas students to to be harassed. And so we have a similar problem here. What's your thought on how we can should should this continue? Should we start depriving universities of the federal funds that are encouraging this type of behavior, which is an an impairment of the civil rights of the students?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the hard question. The hard question is this. How do you selectively cut off funding that's being used to propagandize students and promote hatred of America and hatred of Israel without also cutting off funding for medical research and scientific research and other research. So what we have to do is figure out ways of targeting the financial penalties toward the groups that could be deterred without cutting back on the importance of the kind of research that's that's being done. I think we can do it, and, you have to start somewhere.
And starting with the cutting back of the money from Columbia sent a message. It was a shot across the bow. And I think some schools now should be given a chance to reform and and do a better job, and the government should then do a better job also of focusing specifically on where where the the the the problems are. For example, Barnard College has a women's studies department, which is completely sexist, racist, anti Semitic, and they say right in their right in their website that their goal is to end the patriarchy. Nothing to do about teaching students.
And so if you could start with places like Barnard College and other ideological places, I think that will target the the the violators more specifically than broad, deprivations of funding that could affect the medical and scientific research.
Speaker 0: Well, Alan, thank you so much for your time. It's always a pleasure. These conversations are always illuminating. Look forward to talking to
Speaker 1: you again. It was an honor to be your lawyer. I consider myself, in addition to being your lawyer, your friend. And so let's continue our friendship, but let you never again need me to be your lawyer.
Speaker 0: Amen to that, man. Thank you. Take care.