GG75: Alan Dershowitz Turned One Sentence Into A 6 Year Legal Battle

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise to face the jury and harken to its verdicts.

0:00:26 Thomas: Gavel in gavelinos.

0:00:27 Lydia: E -Gavelinas.

0:00:28 Thomas: It's an... No, it's the inclusive of all genders because it's an O ending.

0:00:34 Lydia: Oh, it's, uh -huh, okay, all right. I still don't like it. I don't have to like it, sorry, that was my fault.

0:00:39 Thomas: I just was trying to say something triggering. No, it's fine. How's it going, everybody? I'm Thomas. That's Lydia. That's a gavel. Oh, what? Was it your gavel?

0:00:53 Lydia: No, no, my knee hit the mic stand. Yes, it was a gavel. It was a gavel.

0:00:55 Thomas: Well, in a pinch, a knee can be used as a gavel. It's in the handbook. Emergency gavel.

0:01:01 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, when you become a new judge, I'm pretty sure that's part of like the, you know, the guidebook. Book. You have to practice before you are. Yeah, exactly. You have to do the drills.

0:01:06 Thomas: They make you start with a pretend one. You have to train. There's a gavel like a shooting range, but you have to check your accuracy with your gavel, they're like, oh my God, you don't have what it takes. You need a good grouping. All the hits have to be center of mass.

0:01:20 Lydia: You're not ready. I'm sure that's not accurate, but I'm going to choose that it's accurate. In my mind, that is what happens.

0:01:28 Thomas: No, it is. Yeah. Oh boy. Well, the Supreme Court's been ruining our lives. News is not great. So I thought we could use a treat, you know, just a fun, just a fun treat because one of the decisions that was, I didn't even deserve to be in this batch of bullshit that just came down. But one of the things was Alan Dershowitz losing in the Supreme Court. And by losing, it means they decided to not even, they're like, this is nothing.

0:01:41 Lydia: Just a little one. Yeah. Yeah. Amazing. This is a windy, sir. Yeah? Yeah.

0:02:01 Thomas: Yeah, it's about right. And you might be thinking, you out there could be thinking. I don't even know what that's about. What was he even? What's what's happening?

0:02:12 Lydia: I I didn't know. Yeah.

0:02:12 Thomas: What is Dershowitz? Yeah. Is it that he's in the Epstein files and then was suing? No, it'S not that. Could have been. No, IT dates back to literally to the day, just about. Yeah. To the day. Six months. No math. January to June is five months. Damn. Okay.

0:02:29 Thomas: But anyway, it felt like it. January 29th, 2020. That's when it dates back to.

0:02:33 Lydia: That's okay. Oh, wow. Pre -COVID. Wow.

0:02:33 Thomas: So six years and five months, yep.

0:02:38 Lydia: What a time.

0:02:39 Thomas: That just goes to show, they always say the legal system sucks and we always say that. And there you go.

0:02:45 Lydia: And it does. Yeah.

0:02:45 Thomas: Yeah. Six years, six years in five months imagine if he had been a real person with a case, you know, like where you'd feel bad. I don't feel bad for Alan Dershowitz at all. So it took that long to go through the whole process. And it wasn't like a complicated case. I mean, obviously he has money and he's going to make trouble, but it wasn'T like there's a bunch of like experts and crap, but I wanted to remind us all what in the world this even is about. Do you remember? Do you have any idea?

0:03:07 Lydia: Right. No. No. Okay.

0:03:13 Thomas: It's a defamation suit.

0:03:15 Lydia: Involving Dersh.

0:03:16 Thomas: Yeah. And the incident, the thing he said and the things that other people said about what he said probably all took place on the same day, January 29th, 2020. Any guesses? He was testifying in quotes. He was on the floor of the Senate, what

0:03:18 Lydia: Well, it's pre -GN6. It's, what would it be? I just, oh, well.

0:03:30 Lydia: Oh, geez. I don't remember. No, I don' t remember. Okay. Okay

0:03:40 Thomas: He was talking about. And then the thing he said was in his mind, allegedly kind of misquoted. And that's what the defamation, defamation. The definition, no, the defamation suit was about was he argued that everybody misquoted him after he said this thing. It was, no guesses. I was filibustering for you. No, kind of, no. Actually, Ukraine. Yeah, but you don't remember what that even is. I think that's before the Ukraine war. What happened with Ukraine that

0:04:02 Lydia: About russia about something involving trump ukraine okay okay no I don't because we had a whole covid we had there there was so much uh oh

0:04:21 Thomas: Was significant significant in Trump's first term.

0:04:24 Lydia: Hunter biden okay laptop hunter bide's laptop

0:04:27 Thomas: Warmer, warmer. No, colder. It's not the laptop, I don't think. Well, no, I saw it. I take it back. I guess it is sort of is related to that.

0:04:31 Lydia: Um no but by biden I don' t know just say I got it what was it I don''t remember

0:04:42 Thomas: Isn't that a sign? Because if I were to say, do you remember what Bill Clinton got impeached for or any other president who ever got impeached, which is none? Yeah. Trump is such a piece of shit scandal maker that you can't even remember

0:04:47 Lydia: Right exactly Exactly. I'd be like, OK, yeah, not telling the truth about being sexual with Monica Lewinsky.

0:04:59 Thomas: What this was this is trump's and now I'm gonna sound like an asshole I think it was his first impeachment but now I'm yeah it was his first because the second was january 6th right yeah so it's trump's first impeachment well not russia no it's ukraine he he called he tried to he withhold wait so maybe it was after the ukraine no it wasn't after wait now i'M mixing it up well we'll go through it the The precise timing, TBA. Yeah, no, because we were, I'm just realizing, no

0:04:59 Lydia: I can't. No. OK. OK, Yeah. Yeah. Russia. Not Russia. Oh, oh, that's right. OK yeah yeah yeah. Oh jeez.

0:05:29 Lydia: TPA. The precise timing of this thing that happened in the past to be announced.

0:05:32 Thomas: I had it all, yeah, exactly. I had, I had it all down and then I realized, no I'm right, the thing he was withholding he threatened to withhold arms but then I was realizing, like, the war didn't happen until after he left, right, because it wasn't the whole thing that Russia only struck Ukraine because Trump laughed and it was weak Biden, right?

0:05:53 Lydia: Maybe god I don't remember

0:05:54 Thomas: That's the only part that I'm blanking on. See this is why things are so fucking crazy

0:05:59 Lydia: Yeah all of our brains are fried every single one of ours I'm speaking on behalf of the audience too you guys all your brains are fried right

0:06:02 Thomas: Ukraine war yeah I can't believe this so the actual start of the Ukraine war was in drum roll please oh of course sorry the Wikipedia has to give me the whole fucking history yeah I know I know these people have been at it for a while 2022 yeah okay it wasn't even close so that's the last thing that threw me off is because he threatened to withhold and he did withhold weapons or whatever like military aid in exchange exchange for, he wanted them to investigate Joe Biden so that he could win the election.

0:06:40 Thomas: That was what it's about. And then how does Dershowitz get involved? Well, he was part of Trump's defense and he said something that he argues led to a bunch of defamation. So that's the story. And dann there's a bunch more to talk about. It's a lot of fun along the way. But yeah, what a crazy world we live in because all of that was crap that I thought I had in my brain and then I realized I didn't because I thought the weapons had to be related to the war but they weren't they were just uh yeah but it really is crazy how much the first trump just is like who cares like so

0:06:47 Lydia: God of course he was there are only so many slots we can have in our our brain related to trump nonsense

0:07:14 Thomas: Much of it because it really like it all was the word for anyone if we have any children listening everything trump did in trump one was the most insane never been done before holy shit he's ruining the whole everything that time and then for trump two to come along and it's like okay well that's all priced in so now he has to do it again and he

0:07:35 Lydia: Go above and beyond actually

0:07:35 Thomas: Does everything he does is even worse yeah so we're going to talk about it Dershowitz how he's involved all that stuff uh but we'll take our first break patreon .com gavel pod if you want to time travel like we've been doing in the past right now but forward to be able to hear all this stuff before everybody else and to avoid those ads and to get the uh occasional bonus which I think we had a recent bonus right I might have posted for everybody I don't remember no that was yeah Yeah, no, the broad view stuff that the first readings we did was a bonus.

0:07:58 Lydia: No last month yeah yes yes

0:08:03 Thomas: Oh, yeah. Does anyone know about that? Did I tell people? I forget. Oh, man, there's a whole bonus broad view that was before the broad views you've already heard. Sorry that I didn't tell you. Anyway, patreon .com slash capital pod. We'll be back after this.

0:08:05 Lydia: I don't think

0:08:24 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:08:24 Thomas: Let's go back to the impeachment. Trump pressures Ukraine to announce and to announce, by the way, that's right. It was like, just announce you're investigating. I forgot about that, too. Gosh, the details. To announce an investigation to help him beat Joe Biden using $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting as well as like leverage.

0:08:43 Thomas: So he wants Zelensky, who just was elected at that point, to publicly announce investigations into Joe Biden and Hunter on the theory that, you know, it's the Burisma thing and one into the theory about Ukraine instead of Russia was behind the election interference. I forgot about that. Yeah, that's a weird.

0:08:42 Lydia: So right oh

0:09:03 Thomas: I guess he just wanted to announce that. That's a that's a weird one. I don't really remember that, actually. Yeah. And so Rudy Giuliani was running the like back channel bullshit for it. Yeah, it's all the best. It looks like it, but not. And in mid -July 2019, they froze three hundred ninety one million in aid. They froze it.

0:09:03 Lydia: Weird that's very self-serving that is incredibly self serving oh my god that guy is he dead yet geez I haven't heard about him in a long time Right.

0:09:28 Thomas: Not a thing you can do. Congress had had already approved it. Yeah.

0:09:32 Lydia: Yeah. Appropriated funding.

0:09:34 Thomas: And they were, you know, again, it wasn't like the invasion, but like there was the constantly the conflict with Russia, like that was what it's about, but it wasn'T obviously the full scale invasion that, you Know, that happened later. So then this is, this is the perfect, I was going to say, was this the perfect phone call? He's had a lot of perfect phone calls. I don't know.

0:09:53 Lydia: Might be. Might be?

0:09:53 Thomas: I, or was the perfect call the election find me the votes one I'm actually not sure shit he called them both he called him both okay that just for fun drum roll please

0:09:58 Lydia: Oh, gosh. I don't know. That might be it. That might have been the perfect phone call.

0:10:05 Thomas: I don't know which it was which was trump's perfect phone call yeah drum roll oh it was this one yeah it

0:10:06 Lydia: Yeah. That's my drum roll. My second drum roll of tonight. Oh, okay.

0:10:17 Thomas: Was that's right that's where he first did it I'd like you to do us a favor this is the perfect phone call that stuff a whistleblower complained about it and then the The frozen aid was released two days after Congress learned about the whistleblower complaint. So they're like, uh, nevermind. So the call said, congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance and you ended up winning easily. It's fantastic achievement. Congratulations. So blah, blah, all the unusual Trump nonsense.

0:10:52 Thomas: And then it's always funny when he thinks he's being like coy, you know, like, ah, ah, apropos of nothing. So he says, well, it's very nice of you to say that. I will say, this is Trump, we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk, and I think that's something you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel, she talks to Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European counties are the same way, so I think it's something we want to look at. The United States has been very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's been reciprocal necessarily because things are happening. They're not good. But the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. And Zelensky says, yes, you're absolutely right. Not only 100 percent, but a thousand percent. And I can tell you the following. I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron. I told them that they're not doing quite as much as they need to be doing. Who knows if this is bullshit? He's just having to talk to an insane person, obviously.

0:11:45 Thomas: So Zelenski is probably telling Trump what he wants to hear, that they are doing quite a lot of work. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They they're not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically the European Union should be our biggest partner, technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European union. And I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine, but it's like he's matching Trump's bullshit, but like having to do the kiss ass match of it. That's really interesting. Much more than the European union, especially when we were talking about sanctions against the Russian federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes and then I would like you to do us a favor though trump says because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it I wouldlike you to find out what happened with this whole situation with your pain they say crowd strike I guess you have one of your wealthy people the server they say ukraine has it there are a lot of things that went on the whole situation I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would want you to get to the bottom of it as you saw yesterday that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named robert muller an incompetent

0:13:01 Thomas: Performance but they say a lot of it started with ukraine whatever you can do it's very important that you do that if possible and continues on and continues and continues um and I think he basically zelensky was actually pretty pretty long let's see where it ends here

0:13:15 Lydia: If it was Todd Blanche, she would end with, and I love you, sir.

0:13:18 Thomas: Yeah that's it it's pre -todd blanche times. But yeah, I would like you to do us a favor, though, was the very talked about clip. So Gordon Sondland, and that's a name. There's going to be a bunch of names that barely even remember. Sondeland answers, yes, there was a quid pro quo.

0:13:34 Lydia: And who is he?

0:13:35 Thomas: He was, gosh, oh, yeah, this guy. I barely remember. Why are you asking me? No, I'm just kidding. He is the diplomat, right? Like he was the EU ambassador and he was the ambassador because he donated a million dollars to Trump's inaugural bullshit let's see what he had to say here

0:13:44 Lydia: Like ambassador okay yeah yep that's how it works

0:13:54 Clip: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelenskyy committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians, and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those request directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the right White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements.

0:13:56 Thomas: Oh man I remember this oh yeah I remember this god man I remember that you know if you're wondering why he did that it was I think I know again children listening it was at a time when I think people still had a sense that there were rules and so this was like to a lot of people they're like uh no this is crazy and so even this guy was like I'm gonna go ahead and tell the truth here and then we got bill taylor I mean I mean, there was like, rest assured, I could play a lot of this stuff. Rest assured, the case was solid against Trump. The quote that was interesting from that, and there are a lot, was, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

0:15:29 Thomas: Oh, oh, wait, sorry. And that was a text message to Sondland. So he was testifying about that because people were texting each other like, what just happened? This is nuts. That kind of thing. But Mick Mulvaney, remember him? Gosh, he had a different take.

0:15:37 Lydia: Yeah yeah I do he's not dead yet either

0:15:43 Thomas: Like, he's not even old.

0:15:44 Clip: By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn't, if we didn't pay out the money, it would be illegal, it will be unlawful. That is one of those things that has that little shred of truth in it that makes it We were concerned about, over at OMB, about an impoundment, and I know I just put half you folks to bed but there's a there's the budget control act uh impound budget control impoundment act of 1974 says if congress appropriates money you have to spend it okay at least that's how it's interpreted by some folks and we knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of september or we had to have a really really good reason not to do it and that was the legality of the issue but to be clear what you just described is a quid pro quo it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the into the democratic server uh happened happen as well. We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We're holding up aid at the Northern Triangle of countries so that they would change their policies on immigration. By the way, and this speaks to an important point, because I heard this yesterday, and I can never remember

0:16:54 Clip: The gentleman who testified. Was it McKinney, the guy? Is that his name? I don't know him. He testified yesterday. And if you go, and if you believe the news reports, because we've not seen any transcripts of this. The only transcript I've seen was Sondland's testimony this morning. If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinley said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence and foreign policy. I'm talking to Mr. Carl. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences. And foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. And what you're seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, you know what, I don't like President Trump's politics, so I'm going to participate in this witch hunt.

0:16:49 Lydia: Oh that's so different though

0:17:41 Thomas: Yeah, I think what the person was talking about is trying to help him win his election. That's a different kind of politics. It doesn't mean politics as in, yeah, obviously whoever's president gets to have say over foreign policy. That's like, duh. But what they meant there was the president shouldn't be using foreign policy to try to get another country to help them win the election with a bogus investigation. So, oh, man, there's some other stuff. This is just a blast from the past. You know, John Bolton, Johnolton ended up being like a key person in this, which is, oh man, Fiona Hill. Remember Fiona Hill?

0:18:03 Lydia: Enrich himself essentially yeah yeah yeah totally yes no

0:18:22 Thomas: Oh, I remember Fiona Hill anyway.

0:18:21 Lydia: I'm looking up every single person you name by the way so I can get

0:18:26 Thomas: Yeah. John Bolten was the one who said, called it whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up. Oh the white house blocked bolton from testifying oh yeah that's what he's gone after bolton that whole thing just that's trump has all these grudges a lot of this story explains a lot of the grudging I know like most of us were here for this but it's impossible to remember it all like he has so many scandals and people that like I keep seeing these names I'm like oh yeah this was where we uh were introduced to vindman now did he end up being the whistleblower or he He might have been the whistleblower, actually. Yeah, Alexander Vindman. Interesting. And then I forgot about this. As people were testifying, Trump was attacking them on Twitter, which is obviously witness intimidation.

0:18:36 Lydia: Oh and dragged him over recent years too yeah yep yep oh yeah yeah I think so alec binman yeah that's insane

0:19:16 Thomas: Like, it's not even close. Crazy. Absolutely crazy. I mean, I could go down this impeachment rabbit hole for a while. I didn't mean to even go this far on it, but it's just it's really hard to not want to relive this. Really interesting.

0:19:30 Thomas: Now, these were in the House because the House impeaches. So the House had witnesses, the Senate. This is something I totally forgot about. The Senate voted to not have any testimony, no witness. I guess they had like lawyers do their thing or whatever.

0:19:46 Lydia: And that was just purely because there were more republicans and democrats wow

0:19:49 Thomas: So like, yep, purely because there were more Republicans than Democrats. That's basically it. The only excuses that Trump's side really had was like Zelensky publicly said he felt no pressure, but that was, you know, that was like, Zelenski was in a tough place because like he had to do whatever he could, yeah, to keep this aid. So he's not going to say anything to like piss off Trump. Yeah.

0:20:04 Lydia: Brand new president yeah his country's in a precarious position that gets increasingly more precarious as the days go by

0:20:16 Thomas: And also incumbents usually win presidential elections. So for all Zelensky knows, he's dealing with four more years of Trump right after this, because like you said, this is pre -COVID. So he didn't really have that information as to like Trump's popularity tanking from that. Then Dershowitz had his argument that basically it's fine. Yeah, let's all settle down. It's fine, so this is where Dershouitz comes in because he is for some reason on the Trump team. It seems pretty crazy, but he's not even like a witness, which is what I thought. I thought he was like just an independent legal expert. He's on Trump's freaking team. He tries to like have it both ways. He's like, well, I'm just testifying for the constitution, but like he was on Trump's team, like he's on Trumps defense team.

0:20:38 Lydia: Yeah just everyone grab a pierogi. Okay. Yeah. The Epstein connection.

0:21:10 Thomas: Yeah, probably, probably. So this is where Dershowitz started making the argument that basically if a president does, it's okay. Like it's almost Nixon, but the specific argument, I think it's important now we got to actually hear the specific statements because this is the inciting incident, the statement for what leads to the defamation allegedly and all of that stuff

0:21:32 Clip: The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Legal. Now, we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have. One, a motive in the public interest, and the Israel argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest. And the third, which hasn't been mentioned, would be his own financial interest, his own pure financial interest. Just

0:22:03 Thomas: Yeah imagine that imagine that yeah

0:22:06 Clip: I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is IN the public interests. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

0:22:30 Lydia: Insane.

0:22:37 Clip: I quoted President Lincoln. When President Lincoln told General Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican Party, let's assume the president was running at that point, and it was in his electoral interest to have these soldiers put at risk the lives of many, many any other soldiers who would be left without their company. Would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No, because the president, A, believed it was in the national interest, but B, he believed that his own election was essential to victory in the Civil War. Every president believes that. That's why it's so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a president, to try get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives.

0:22:30 Thomas: But no so dumb sure man yeah uh-huh

0:23:31 Clip: And for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached. How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisors and their pollsters? If you're just acting in the national interest, what do you need pollsters for? What do you political advisors for? Just do what's best for the country.

0:23:53 Thomas: Yeah so he goes on for some time that's very

0:23:54 Lydia: Wow. Wow, yeah. Okay, I mean, like the Lincoln example is that was the constitutional right of those soldiers to be able to exercise the right to vote, right? So it was, let's make sure that they have the opportunity to vote based on the constitution they have the right to do this right yeah

0:24:05 Thomas: Stupid yeah yeah it's also not even necessarily like he doesn't know they're gonna vote for him they're just voting there's There's no like, OK, we'll let you go if you vote for me. There's none of that. That would be probably improper, I would think. And then if it was like any soldiers who aren't going to vote for me, you stay on the battlefield. But I love that, like every public official I know believes that his election is in the public interest. Well, that's great for them. You know, you could also believe it's in the public interest for you to get a bunch of money or

0:24:26 Lydia: You stay on the battlefield exactly don't put that gun down keep working

0:24:42 Thomas: Something like you could believe a lot of stupid things. But the public doesn't have an interest in your election. The public has an interest in elections.

0:24:50 Lydia: Yeah well free and fair elections yeah

0:24:51 Thomas: Yeah. Like they have interest in elections happening.

0:24:53 Lydia: Right and the idea too that like if you are the president even if you have a mixed motive or whatever that Dershowitz is getting on about you have taken an oath to uphold the constitution Like to serve the people of the United States. So mixed motive or not, there is one motive that you can pursue with those sorts of situations and anything else is not appropriate. It's not OK. And it's not part of your job as president. It'S not part OF your duties. And IT'S reasonable for people to question it and say, hey, this seems not ethical. This seems like you are stepping beyond the bounds of something that we want to have in this country.

0:25:35 Thomas: It's a dumb argument for so many. And it's not, it's that dumb. That's not the right word. It is a bad faith results oriented argument. Like he just wants to get to a certain result because it's one thing to say, yes, every politician, literally their job is to do stuff in the public interest that they will hope will get them elected. Like, that's your performance review. Am I doing a good job? Are the things I'm doing leading the country to want to vote for me again? Yeah, but you can't make benefiting your own campaign somehow be something that is in the public good. It's like circular. It's, like, no, the public would elect you or vote for you if you do something for them. You have to do something für the public first. The thing you do for the public can't be helping you get their vote directly or like through campaign research or through torpedoing someone's campaign. No one buys this. So the important thing is, and I think let's see if I have the right clip here. The important thing isthat he thinks in Dershowitz's mind, he thinks the crucial thing is because everyone is basically like, well, this is fucking insane. Like everybody reacts and is like, I don't know what he's talking about. This is stupid. It would be that we'd be a banana republic, all that kind of stuff.

0:26:53 Thomas: And he says the reason that this happened is because CNN aired his clips, but they didn't include the part where he said the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal. He thinks that that's what did it. Yeah. So that first quote, they aired it without this.

0:27:06 Lydia: Oh but that's what the okay yeah

0:27:10 Clip: The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in

0:27:19 Thomas: So I guess he's in his mind because everybody commented like, oh, this would allow the president to do whatever he wants, which side note to that, that is what people said, like, oh, my God. And I'll go through some of those quotes. What's so funny is because of our stupid fucking Supreme Court, that now is true. But back then it was like, well, this is insane. That's an insane argument, because then that would mean the president could do whatever He wants, basically. And now I think, I mean, depending on what it was, I'm pretty sure that's true. As long as the president can frame something as an official act he can do it and so the idiot supreme court later basically made that the law weirdly enough but here's the other thing that's really fucking funny about that is his whole thing was that like they didn't play the part where I said unless the quo is illegal but that doesn't do anything especially because the quo was

0:27:37 Lydia: Could be a king yeah

0:28:14 Thomas: Illegal illegal they were withholding the aid unlawfully now it's not like a criminal law it's you know because we're dealing with like presidents there's not a lot of like criminal codes for like that kind of thing but it was against the law in the sense that the law is when congress says give this money to

0:28:35 Lydia: It must be carried out yep

0:28:35 Thomas: Ukraine yeah you don't get to just not do it it wouldn't make any sense and we went through all the stuff a million times, like impeachment doesn't require a crime. High crimes and misdemeanors. There's a reason it's high crimes and misdemeanors, like misdemeanors are like smaller. It's stuff that is not necessarily crimes, but would be serious abuses of public trust and all that.

0:29:07 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:29:07 Thomas: So again, the quo was freezing the aid. And two weeks before Dershowitz said this, the nonpartisan government accountability office had already ruled that this broke the law they said faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that congress has enacted into law january 16 2020 they did like a little investigation omb withheld funds for a policy reason which is not permitted under the impoundment Control Act.

0:29:39 Thomas: We conclude that OMB violated the ICA. So that was illegal, essentially. Really funny. Now, obviously, that's the GAO. It's not like a binding per se, but it's like pretty good evidence. And they tried to say that, well, it's just a delay, like he was going to give it to him. But again, this all is weak because there's no fucking reason for the delay. Like, it's one thing to say we only delayed it. I think they were trying to say they only delayed it as long as they could before it would technically maybe be, I don't even know if that's true. But the thing is, if your delay is just for the purpose of pressuring them, that's not legitimate. You don't get to like withhold legally enacted aid for a length of time that's entirely bad motives just because it might maybe arguably be within some like

0:30:16 Lydia: Psychological warfare like that's so ridiculous yeah yeah

0:30:29 Thomas: Limit. It's just, it's all stupid. After this, like I said, so many people were like, well, this guy's an idiot. That's terrible. There's a really funny thing here because Dershowitz is old enough to have been around for the previous impeachment that had happened. And he had a somewhat different take back then, which is highlighted in this Washington Post clip.

0:30:50 Clip: Some way illegal you don't need a technical crime that's my position today I've said right from the beginning you need criminal like behavior akin to bribery and treason remember that in that way that's not what he said that

0:31:01 Thomas: This is the now. And here's then about Clinton.

0:31:02 Clip: Certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty you don't need a technical crime the senate refused to remove andrew johnson because justice curtis successfully argued that you need a crime without a crime there can be no impeachment you find offenses that subvert the very essence of democracy uh again for example iran contra going behind the back of staying off the congress you needed proof of an actual crime It needn't be a statutory crime but it has to be criminal behavior criminal in nature. I wasn't wrong

0:31:16 Thomas: And now is now. There's the old one.

0:31:41 Thomas: They made this mashup. It just keeps going back and forth.

0:31:46 Clip: I am just far more correct now than I was then I said you didn't need a technical crime back then

0:31:49 Lydia: My god incredible

0:31:51 Thomas: Anderson Cooper's literally laughing at him.

0:31:53 Clip: I still don't think you need a Technical crime and I think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything I say and trying to pinpoint and nitpick on what I said the

0:32:01 Thomas: He's such a fucking baby.

0:32:06 Clip: The allegations in the Johnson case were much akin to the allegations here.

0:32:10 Thomas: He's just such a fuckin' baby.

0:32:11 Clip: Abusive conduct, obstructive conduct, and that lost. So I am making an argument much like the argument made by the great Justice Curtis. And to call them absurdist is to, you know, insult one of the greatest jurists in American history.

0:32:27 Thomas: Oh, boy. So, yeah, he's just such a fuckin' baby, and he has been for a very long time. But, yeah. Obviously, completely, completely, I'm much more correct now. It's so funny. Yeah, exactly.

0:32:38 Lydia: I wasn't wrong then but I'm more correct now is the most insane narcissistic take yeah

0:32:44 Thomas: This is why people hate lawyers. And so some people, I mean, I've got a collection here, some of the many bad reviews that this stupid fucking argument got. Frank Bowman, law professor, said he's never been a scholar ever. He's a defense lawyer with a sinecure at Harvard. What Dershowitz did, did, and this is Frank Bowman again, what Dershowitz did was stand up and be a guy with Harvard attached to his name and spout complete nonsense that's totally unsupported by any scholarship anywhere. Yeah, Lawrence Tribe had some good ones. What an idiotic argument I thought he was making. The Alan Dershowitz narcissist defense puts even the Twinkie defense to shame.

0:33:12 Lydia: Interesting we know other people like like that too wow wow

0:33:23 Thomas: Someone, I don't know, this is Renato Mariotti said, Dershowitz's view is as indefensible and rejected by scholars as climate deniers, essentially. So not good reviews. And naturally, Dershowitz reacted in a completely chill way to all this criticism.

0:33:39 Lydia: Yeah very very cool very chill you know just went over to Martha's Vineyard and did his little farmer's market moment and he was fine he was fine

0:33:47 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. He cannot handle having anyone criticize him. And it must have been very hard for him. I imagine it must've been. Yeah. Yeah.

0:33:55 Lydia: Well especially if you've never been wrong in your entire life you're just more correct now but you were never wrong then either like what would people have to correct you

0:34:00 Thomas: He's never been wrong. He's just been different shades of correct. Sometimes it's a lighter correct. Sometimes darker correct. Just depends. Oh, man. So good. So now I will say this and I'm not just trying to be a clickbaity asshole. There were some criticisms that did seem to completely ignore that he did say, well, if the quo was illegal, then it would be illegal. And I still think saying if the quote is illegal, then it would be unlawful is kind of like circular and it like it is I guess it's kind of something but it also doesn't really do it it's kinda fucking stupid cuz like if the quote needs to be illegal for this to be a problem then whatever that thing is would be a problem anyway it's sort of saying like okay the only time a quid pro quo is unlawfull is if what I'm doing is some already unlawfully thing and then trying to get something for it. But it doesn't really make sense. It's sort of like saying if I were to threaten you for something, but it's within my power to do, I don't know, maybe I work for the IRS. I'm like, hey, give me money or else I'm going to like flag your return for an audit. That's fine. But if I say, give Me Money or else, I'm Going to Shoot You With This Gun, gun, then that's unlawful because shooting someone with a gun is unlawfully. It's like, it doesn't really do much. Cause like, yeah, well shooting someone With a gun is the thing that's Unlawful there. That's like two bad things. You know what I mean? Like it doesn'T make the quid pro quo be bad all of a sudden, just because the pressure you're using is also unlawfull because the Pressure you're using really what is important is, is it pressure to the person

0:35:29 Lydia: Exactly yeah

0:35:49 Thomas: Like that's why blackmail is bad like think about blackmail you can't blackmail somebody even if it's like say they did a crime and you know about it you can't be like hey give me ten thousand dollars or I'm turning you into the police even though like the thing you're doing turning them into the police that's fine you can do that right and they're the criminal so yeah naturally I'm just trying to get criminals off the street it's like, no, that's bad. You can't do that. You're not allowed to do that to people.

0:36:19 Lydia: Yeah and again to your earlier point too it's not just high crimes and misdemeanors right like it's this idea that if actions are so unbecoming of the literal top leader in our country that congress and the people of this country have a right to look into it and say are we okay with this being our president is this the kind of person we want to have as our president based on the conduct that we've been seeing and that should be enough of course he

0:36:47 Thomas: Dersh disagrees. And he also thinks that everybody, so here are some of the quotes that were more along the lines of what Dershowitz alleged was like defamation. And like I said, by the time we get to the end of this, it's not crazy to wonder if some of these were like, well, maybe that is like kind of over the line. And in the end, we already know what's going to happen is that the standard is impossible to meet, pretty much.

0:37:19 Thomas: For a public figure, the New York Times v. Sullivan is pretty much impossible. And there are people, including a few on the Supreme Court, who don't like that and want to get rid of that or modify it. I mean, I could see a good faith argument. And again, I'm not a lawyer, but like we've dealt with this issue like a lot specifically. And I could see a good faith argument for like some sort of modification or like some amount of like slightly reduce the burden because the things you are allowed to say just because someone's a public figure or even a limited public figure it does feel like it's a little bit overbroad but I wouldn't at all trust like these people

0:37:19 Lydia: Does yeah

0:37:57 Thomas: To do it like I wouldn't want our Supreme Court to be touching that at all right now yeah well and you know that Dersh will be on the other side of it next time anything demands him be on the other side of it. He doesn't actually have beliefs other than whatever is convenient for him at that time, because he's just a liar. He'll say whatever he wants. But, you know, it's not crazy, some of these. So this is someone named Joe Lockhart, who was apparently the White House press secretary for Bill Clinton.

0:38:01 Lydia: Or dirge to be on the committee to draft the legislation related to this yeah yeah

0:38:26 Thomas: And this is the comments that Dershowitz alleges are defamatory.

0:38:31 Clip: Having worked in about a dozen campaigns, there is always the sense that, boy, if we win, it's better for the country. But that doesn't give you license to commit crimes or to do things that are unethical so it was absurd and what I thought when I was watching it was this is un-american this is what you hear from stalin this iswhat you hear from mussolini what you're from authority from hitler from all the authoritarian people who rationalized uh you know in some cases genocide based on what was in the public interest it was a startling and I still can't believe he went on the floor of the Senate and made that argument I wasn't wrong I am just

0:39:14 Thomas: The parts where he says it doesn't give you license to do something illegal or whatever, commit crimes, Dershowitz is like, well, wait a minute. I said that you can't commit crimes. So, I mean, but he also said, or do things that are unethical. So like, that's kind of right. I mean that's pretty much covers it, doesn't it?

0:39:34 Thomas: And the funny thing, I don't know if you remember this little tidbit. I might've gone over this lawsuit at some point. I can't remember in something.

0:39:27 Lydia: Yeah I think

0:39:41 Thomas: It's been a million years, but Dershowitz put a YouTube link in his complaint, like an actual YouTube link. That's so weird.

0:39:41 Lydia: So yeah may I direct the court to

0:39:51 Thomas: Yeah. Should I click on it with my finger or something? I mean, in some ways it's like, okay, I guess people are going to read this in a format when they could like paste it into a browser, but it's still funny. Another one was a column by Paul Begala who said, I did not go to Harvard Law, but I did go to the University of Texas School of Law where I studied criminal law and constitutional But never dreamed a legendary legal mind would set them both ablaze on the Senate floor. The Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their reelection effort. Campaign finance laws out the window. Bribery statutes gone. Extortion no more. This is Donald Trump's fondest figurative dream to be able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. And you could see how that one, because that one does pretty much not acknowledge that Dershowitz said, well, if the quo is unlawful, then, you know, because if he's saying like this allows the president to do whatever he wants, this one I could almost see. Yeah.

0:40:57 Lydia: I guess but like what's the line though extrapolating and you extrapolated a little too far from dirsh's specific comment there like I don't

0:41:09 Thomas: So what Dershowitz is trying to say and quoting from his complaint based on, you know, his comments, it is clear, therefore, that Professor Dershowitz expressly stated that a president could be impeached and removed from office if what he did was, quote, somehow illegal, regardless of his motive to be reelected. And then he's saying that everybody basically the CNN did not include that little part and they all talked about things like okay so he keeps going following the airing of that clip over and over again the host together man did he write this complaint actually I'm curious hold on no he didn't okay because it sounds

0:41:23 Lydia: Know well he might have ghost written it yeah.

0:41:46 Thomas: Like it maybe he did yeah it might be ghostwritten he says the host together with their panel guests including CNN employees and paid commentators exploded into a a one-sided and false narrative that Professor Dershowitz believes and argued that as long as the president believes his re-election is in the public interest, that he could do anything at all, including illegal acts, and be immune from impeachment. The very notion of that was preposterous and foolish on its face. And that was the point, to falsely paint Professor DERSHOWITZ as a constitutional scholar and intellectual who had lost his mind. With that branding, Professor DERSHOWITz's sound and meritorious arguments would then be drowned under a sea of repeated lies with that portion of Professor Dershowitz's words played without his words that preceded that sentence that's a shitty god if he didn't write this he has the worst lawyer ever it was an easy sell to CNN's viewers that the respected Alan Dershouitz believed that the president of the United States could commit illegal acts as long as he thought it would help his re -election and that his re-election was in the public interest even though it was the opposite of what he had said well I wouldn't say it was the opposite

0:42:23 Lydia: Oh, my God. So dramatic. Okay. Mm -hmm.

0:42:51 Thomas: Of what he said the only way right. Well, he's repeating himself now. It's funny how badly written this is. The only way to fool its viewers into believing that Professor Dershowitz actually said and meant what the CNN hosts and panel guests knew was the exact opposite of what he said was to deliberately omit, quote, the only thing that would make a quid pro quo is somehow illegal.

0:43:09 Thomas: Maybe I'll have you read because my voice is getting rough.

0:43:11 Lydia: Yeah. Without question, CNN understood that allowing its viewers to hear those words spoken immediately before, underlined, CNN's selected video portion, would cause its viewers to categorically reject the conclusions of its hosts and panel guests. In fact, no panel guest would have even considered embarrassing himself or herself on national television with their false conclusions had the video clip properly included the part where Professor Dershowitz unequivocally and unambiguously stated that an illegal act would prevent a quid pro quo from being lawful.

0:43:45 Thomas: Yeah, man, like this is the classic narcissist bullshit mind where he's like, no, you just didn't hear the part that I said that's awesome. Because, like, I think they all heard you say that. Like, yes, technically CNN, like I think he isolated a time when they didn't play the first part. But like I'm pretty sure they all probably most of them heard it. Like, I'm sure they were watching. And even so, to your point earlier, it's like they're also extrapolating by the fact that the thing you're saying is stupid.

0:44:13 Thomas: Like the thing you're saying stupid so therefore if it would make bribery fine as long as the thing you're doing to bribe them wasn't illegal then in a sense it is making crime fine because bribery loosely speaking is a crime you know what I mean like I think that's another way you know people are taking it but do we'll see does he have any point I don't know we'll see do you have any uh good points that is

0:44:37 Lydia: Let's see. The phrase that included the word quote illegal was an essential part of his argument and that is precisely why CNN decided to omit it. It is evident that the decision to omit the portion in question was no accident or simple negligence on the part of CNN

0:44:45 Thomas: I doubt it now note that this is something he has to say to even have a complaint here so So yeah. They have to be aware of what they're doing.

0:44:56 Lydia: Right the malicious intent yeah immediately after Professor Dershowitz presented his argument CNN employees Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper played the entire clip properly so cnn knew for certain that Professor Dershowitz had prefaced his remarks with the qualifier that a quid pro quo could not include an illegal act That portion then disappeared in subsequent programming.

0:45:22 Thomas: So, as you said, he has to prove the, what's the phrase again? I always blank on it. It's not malicious intent. It's something close to that. Actual malice. That's what it is. So, it has to be actual malice standard, which is, it can't just be something inaccurate. It can't blah, blah, bla. It has to be a defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Okay, now on its face, what he's trying to do there is say, oh, I know that they knew he's trying to prove the actual malice by saying they knew this was bullshit. But his proof is it's evident that the decision to omit the portion in question was no accident or simple negligence, because immediately after Professor Dershowitz presented his argument, CNN employees Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper played the entire clip properly so CNN knew for certain that Professor Dershowitz had prefaced his remarks so he's saying is they played it like it might not have been when he wanted

0:46:18 Lydia: Every single time that they played the clip. Yeah.

0:46:21 Thomas: Them to yeah but it's kind of weird to be like ah I know you knew better because you like usually when you're trying to prove actual malice you're usually pointing again I'm not a lawyer but we've we've read about this a lot it's like you're starting to point to like well there was a text where someone said like I I don't care if it's a lie, print it anyway. You know, like it's like some sign that they actually knew what they were doing was wrong. It's hard for that to be public. Like, it's hard to be like, okay, the thing they printed was, hey, this might be a lie. But well, then they're saying it like that's not, then it's fine. You know what I mean? Like it kind of has to be, it has to be like almost secret evidence that, because it has to be knowledge of its falsity.

0:47:03 Thomas: But if you're printing something saying like, well, this is false, then you're just, you know what I mean? It can't both be evidence that you knew better and part of the defamatory thing. That doesn't make any sense, I think, to me. It seems to me, but anyway. Now, I know we have experience, especially on this show, reading complaints, and they tend to be circular or repeat themselves, rather, but that's usually because they have those different sections where it's like, here's the facts. Here's the fact pattern. Here's a thing. This one just repeats itself over and over for no reason. Just scan down from where you were.

0:47:28 Lydia: And then have to repeat it. Mm-hmm.

0:47:35 Thomas: It's like the same, that's exactly what CNN did when it knowingly omitted the portion of professional, blah, blah. Again, paragraph 11, the decision to omit the crucial word illegal. You already said all this, but there's some good stuff that I think he's just padding, like just trying to, you know, fill it out. Read that second sentence in paragraph 11.

0:47:53 Lydia: Totally when a network sets in motion a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience and does so at the expense of another's reputation masson recognizes that such behavior is

0:48:05 Thomas: Imagine again, this is the sign of a narcissist. Do you think the network that day, the meetings were like, all right, here's what we

0:48:06 Lydia: Actionable defraud its own audience

0:48:11 Thomas: Got to do. We are going at this guy. Yeah, they put Dershowitz's picture up on the board. Yeah, a guy circles Dershowitz's face. This is our target.

0:48:13 Lydia: Opportunity of a lifetime, opportunity Yeah, mm-hmm.

0:48:21 Thomas: He is the person around which our entire universe revolves. We must do everything we do today because of this person. It's like, okay, man. There's some other choice quotes here that were really funny.

0:48:36 Lydia: Oh yeah, let me just keep going in paragraph 12 the aftermath of that barrage of defamatory programming was its ripple effect throughout the entire media industry from other news outlets to talk show hosts and social media trends CNN's deliberately false narrative spread like a disease with each other forum replaying solely that portion of the tape and mimicking CNN's malignant conclusion that Alan Dershowitz believes that a president could commit crimes and escape impeachment as long as he subjectively believes it is in the nation's interest that he be re-elected.

0:49:15 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:49:15 Thomas: All right, well, we're going to leave it there because there's so much more to talk about. And Dershowitz goes to Washington. Washington. Dershowitz turning one sentence into a six and a half year legal battle.

0:49:27 Lydia: Nuts.

0:49:27 Thomas: There's still so much narcissism, too much narcissism to fit into one part. So we had to pack it into two. So coming up next in part two, which as always, patrons can get right away. Normies gonna have to wait a sec. Dersch gets to go all over and like argue about people leaving out his sentence. And then that still won't be enough.

0:49:47 Thomas: All right. Well, thanks so much for listening, everybody. Thanks for supporting the show. Share the show, skip the ads, do the Patreon, all the stuff. And we'll see you for more narcissism next episode.

0:50:20 Lydia: The precise timing of this thing that happened in the past to be announced.

0:50:26 Clip: Far more correct now than I was then