← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Legal Showdowns of Trump’s 2nd Term: Alan Dershowitz Breaks It All Down
00:39:50
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
Jillian Michaels
Who doesn't love the good things in life? I mean, I enjoy a little luxury, but it doesn't mean I want to spend crazy amounts for it. And then I discovered Quince. Quince is straight up my go to for luxury essentials at affordable prices. Quince offers a range of high quality items at prices within reach, like 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters for only 50 bucks. Washable silk tops and dresses. You don't have to spend a ton on dry cleaning, organic cotton sweaters, 14 karat gold jewelry. And the best part is that all Quint's items are 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And they do this by partnering directly with Top Factory. So they cut out the cost of the middleman and they pass the savings on to us. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices. Premium fabrics and finishes that I love. Team Did I mention I'm obsessed with my Mongolian cashmere sweater? So give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince. Just go to quince.com jillian and you'll get free shipping on your order. Quarter and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Jillian.
- [01:19]
Today I'm joined by a legal heavyweight, someone who's shaped the landscape of constitutional law for decades. Alan Dershowitz is a renowned defense attorney, Harvard law professor emeritus, and the author of numerous bestsellers on law, politics and civil liberties. He's argued cases before the Supreme Court, defended high profile clients like the President himself, and remains one of the most outspoken voices on legal controversies in America. So today we're diving into all things legal when it comes to the Trump presidency, from whether or not Doge can exist with Elon Musk at the helm, emergency powers and executive orders, mass firings and corporate overreach, the First Amendment, media bias, and so much more. You're not going to want to miss this one. Let's get into it. Keeping it Real with Jillian Michaels, the illustrious Mr. Dershowitz. How are you, sir?
- [02:17]
Alan Dershowitz
Hey, I'm doing great. Thanks for having me on your show.
- [02:19]
Jillian Michaels
Oh, thank you so much for coming on. I need your help desperately. I hear every single day from my friends on the left that Trump is an authoritarian dictator. But to me, I see so much hypocrisy because a lot of the things they accuse him of, the left has done themselves. And in my opinion, it's like he's dismantling the axis of insanity. Whether he's going after, you know, biased media or people in the FBI who, who buried the laptop story, dismantling the deep state. And the list goes on and on. So I wanted to start with the one that I think has sparked the most outrage and see if you can help me understand whether this is legal or not. Doge, sir, is this allowed? Yes or no?
- [03:12]
Alan Dershowitz
Of course. Al Gore did the same thing during the Clinton presidency. He was assigned to, tried to cut back on government waste and fraud. And he did it. He did it more with a scalpel than with the Buzzsaw. And I think you can criticize this administration for instead of saying radiating fire, they often say fire radiating. And maybe some of the cutbacks were too general. And I think we'll get back to a situation where, where they'll be more targeted and more specific over time. So I think the criticism can be one of timing, but not of substance. Legally, he's perfectly within his authority. For example, Constitution says that Congress can declare war, but if Congress declares war and the President doesn't think it should be fought, he's not gonna send troops. And the same thing is true with allocation of funds by Congress. The executive branch has the authority, some authority at least, to determine how legislatively authorized expenditures are actually, actually implemented.
- [04:20]
Jillian Michaels
Could you explain to me the Elon Musk piece? He's appointed, but he wasn't confirmed by the Senate and therefore he's not elected in any capacity, so he shouldn't be there. Whereas I could, I could look at something like usaid, for example, which I believe was created by Kennedy in the same way Trump created Doge. But then everybody jumps to Elon Musk and he wasn't elected and Congress didn't confirm him. And this is outrageous and he has no right to be there, is he?
- [04:56]
Alan Dershowitz
The vast majority of people who make decisions in the government are not confirmed. What, maybe 1% of government employees are confirmed. For example, White House counsel, who has a very, very important role, a chief of staff of the President. None of them confirmed. And they make major decisions. You want to get to talk to the President, you got to go through the chief of staff, a non confirmed member of the White House. So many of the most important positions in government are not confirmed. So that again, is something both Democrats and Republicans do. And each side complains when the other does it, but without any basis in law or history, okay?
- [05:36]
Jillian Michaels
And then when they complain, as you mentioned, that Trump is not going to fund things that Congress voted to fund. And you mentioned that there's a precedent where this doesn't have to happen. Didn't Biden cease to fund Trump's wall and didn't Congress vote to fund that? Like this is. This is something that I'm really struggling with. Is that what the Democrats seem to so outraged about? I feel like we could point to so many different things that they have done that are identical. Or is there some sort of difference there that I'm not picking up on?
- [06:15]
Alan Dershowitz
Well, there's a difference in ideology and politics. Take, for example, the decision whether to extend the government beyond the date it expires. The Democrats of the year said, you know, don't. And government spending. Now, of course, they're voting to do exactly that. So, look, our motto shouldn't be E pluribus unum because we're not together. It should be hypocrisy prevails. And hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to politics in Washington. I've often expressed what I call the shoe on the other foot test. Before I approve of anything morally, I want to make sure that it applies equally to both sides, that the shoe fits. But that test has been abandoned. I wrote a whole book about it. And today in Washington, we just don't see equal application. Each side wants to win and will do anything to win. And loves the Supreme Court when it sides with their views and hates the Supreme Court when it goes against their views. Everybody is result oriented. And there are very few people today in government who are really principled, who put principles first and results second.
- [07:25]
Jillian Michaels
The law is the law here, so they can go crazy all they want. And you're saying Doge has every right to exist and Elon Musk has every right to run it. We can criticize how he's doing that, but legally this is free and clear.
- [07:40]
Alan Dershowitz
He has every right to make recommendations. It's the president who makes the decisions. You know, we have a tripartite system of government. There are nine justices in the Supreme Court. There are 500 and some odd members of Congress. One president. We have what's called the unitary executive. He is the only person who is authorized to make actual decisions of the executive. And so Elon Musk is giving him advice. He's a very smart man, Mosque, very successful businessman. Occasionally his rockets blow up. Sure. Occasionally loses money, but he's the richest man in the world. I know how much President Trump admires people who are very wealthy. I was once sitting with him and the Emir of Qatar, and the president talked so much about how wealthy The Emir of Qatar was. And of course, the Emir of Qatar inherited it, whereas Elon Musk earned it through the ingenuity and creativity on his own. So I'm not surprised that President Trump admires Elon Musk and takes his advice. But he has no obligation to take his advice. He has the right to take it, and he has the right to decide whose advice he wants to take. He occasionally calls me on the phone. It's always interesting to get a phone call saying, hey, Alan, it's Donald. You know, I'm tempted to say, Donald, who? Yes, Mr. Brett, and I do feel. Well, who's from the Supreme Court. He'll ask me advice about a range of issues relating to Israel to lawfare to the Supreme Court. Does he take my advice? Sometimes yes, sometimes not. I'm not obviously a member of the government. I'm just ordinary citizen. President is right to seek advice from anybody he wants.
- [09:28]
Jillian Michaels
Well, speaking of the cuts that you mentioned, I wanted to look at some of the mass firings. So. Okay, sorry, sir, I have quite a few notes for you, and I'm now skipping the order here. So, since the commencement of President Donald Trump's second term, January 2025, his administration is undertaking extensive measures to downsize the federal workforce, aiming to reduce government spending, streamline operations. Okay, so we've got the Department of Veteran affairs, approximately 80,000 positions were terminated. The IRS, 7,000 terminations, the National Park Service, a thousand Department of Health and Human Services, 5200. And then a coalition of 20 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Trump seeking to stop him from doing this and keep him from doing more firings and reinstate people that he's fired legally. Is this allowed? Is it not allowed? Isn't it up to him? What's the legal position? Because ultimately, as mentioned, it all boils down to that, correct?
- [10:34]
Alan Dershowitz
You can sue anybody for anything, but these suits will not prevail. President has the right to spending. The president has a right to decide that he wants a smaller government. And as long as he does it pursuant to the law, he can't fire certain civil service people because there are statutes prohibiting that. But generally, he can do what he has done. And there'll be challenges. The challenges will fail. The ones that might succeed are, for example, what persons have already earned the money, say, for example, aid where they have spent the money. And now the president says, well, we're not going to pay them for what they've earned. The courts will probably say no to that right. They'll say no to other things. But, you know, our system of checks and balances is working well. It's saying to the president, yeah, you can do most of the things you want to do, but occasionally you go too far. And it was a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court the other day, including one of the justices who he appointed, Justice Barrett, who said, no, you've gone too far. That's simply the system working okay.
- [11:42]
Jillian Michaels
And in what capacity, though, did he go too far? That was by not paying people who've already done the work, you're saying that was the gone too far piece.
- [11:50]
Alan Dershowitz
That's one of the elements. If you have something where Congress, for example, specifically authorizes payment in a certain way, and it creates a mechanism for how the payment can be stopped and the executive doesn't follow through. But in general, the courts are going to find that the president has the authority to make cuts in big government. They're going to uphold the vast majority of what the president does, as they have throughout history. They did it during the New Deal. They've done it during other periods of time when there have been challenges to presidential elections. We have a very strong presidency in the United States and more than many other countries with parliamentary systems. And the president can't be impeached except for treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. I know that because I defended President Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment back several years. And the framers of the Constitution rejected the British system, which would have given Congress more authority to end the presidency of a president who was guilty of maladministration. Congress, the framers of the Constitution, said, no way. It has to be treason or bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, and that's the law.
- [13:08]
Jillian Michaels
See, this makes me more. Way more sympathetic to the president because of what he has been through. And what I mean by that, sir, is obviously, we've seen a biased media. Of course, you know, listen, both sides of the media are biased, but the sides of the media are like 80% left, 20% right. You know, you've seen Citibank, Deb. I think it was Capital One, debank, the Trump family. Now Eric Trump is suing them, which I find fascinating. And you've got Trump going after capital1, after CBS. I want to ask you, what do you think? Oh, sorry, sir. Say that again.
- [13:53]
Alan Dershowitz
I lost you after some of the law firms as well, that went after him. So, you know, President Trump goes after people go after him. One of the most important groups that have gone after the president, 95%. And that is academia, where I spent 70 years of my life in higher education. And you can't find anybody who. Very few people who will make the case for Donald Trump or make the case against the use of lawfare against Donald Trump. When I did that and when I wrote my books, I was not a supporter of Donald Trump politically, but I was a supporter of the Constitution legally. I got canceled by many academic institutions that used to invite me to. To give lectures and speeches and get freeze. But once I defend the Trump, forget about it. I was Persona non grata in academy. And the other thing about the academy is if you want to predict what the country will be like in 20 years, you look at the students today because they'll be our leaders in 20 years. And the kids who are demonstrating on university campuses, locking down the campuses, blocking access to Jewish Zionist students. These are gonna be members of Congress in 20 years, and these are gonna be the editors of the New York Times and the senior partners in Goldman Sachs. So you can predict what the country will look like if you look hard at what the academy looks like today.
- [15:14]
Jillian Michaels
I am seeing a counter movement to that, though. Myself, my son, many of my friends, their young sons, are moving far more right because I believe they've felt emasculated, they've identified with the president, if that's even possible, and seen gross injustice where he's concerned. I was just talking to a friend of mine who's doing my hair and makeup. We've been friends for 20 years. She's got two boys that are my children's age, and they just went to go see Charlie Kirk. They're 12 and 14. I was blown away. I'm not saying it's here nor there, but I do think that there is a counter movement to this WOKE ideology, which I'm. Which I'm grateful for. But I want to ask you a little bit about the legalities of that. Do you think President Trump can win a case of election interference against CBS for editing that Kamala Harris interview?
- [16:15]
Alan Dershowitz
They have a constitutional right to be wrong, and they have been wrong, wrong, wrong. But there's a constitutional right. So I don't think he'll win that. That lawsuit. His appeal from the New York criminal conviction, he's won many of the other cases. And I think, by the way, one of the reasons he won the popular vote in the election, one of the reasons was that there was a reaction. People just think he had been treated fairly.
- [16:41]
Jillian Michaels
Yes.
- [16:42]
Alan Dershowitz
And you're moving to the right. I see that, but I also see a movement to the center from both sides. And I want to see a return to when genuine conservatives and genuine liberals had more in common with each other than they did with the extremes on the other side. I am a genuine liberal. I hate the radical left. I like genuine conservatives because we both believe in limited government. We believe in keeping the government out of our bedrooms, off our deathbeds, out of our churches and synagogues. And, you know, we believe in freedom and liberty. And that's a conservative and liberal point of view which is rejected by the extremes, the real extremes on both sides, 100%.
- [17:26]
Jillian Michaels
Sir, can you speak to me about some of these independent agencies? So hold on, forgive me, let me find my notes on that, because I'm jumping around in the order as mentioned. So he went after guys that run the ftc, the epa, the fcc, the sec, for example. This is one I'm seeing a lot about in the news. This guy, Hampton Dellinger, who is appointed by Biden as head of the Office of Special Counsel, who's supposed to protect federal whistleblowers. Now, I mean, obviously people would want to protect federal whistleblowers, but I can also understand why Trump would want to instill his own guy. Now, here's my thing. Now you could say, well, that's not fair. He has a five year term. And I'm with you all the way, right. He's not allowed to do it. But Biden did the exact same. Peter Robb, general counsel of the national labor of Relations, was appointed by Trump and Biden wanted to get rid of him. Then you've got, I mean, there's a list of these guys. Sharon Fast Gustafson, general counsel of equal employment appointed by Trump, dismissed by Biden. So they both do it. Are they allowed?
- [18:36]
Alan Dershowitz
This goes back almost 200 years. It goes back to the impeachment of Andrew Jackson, who succeeded President Lincoln and who fired people. And the Supreme Court ultimately said, look, the President has the right to fire these people. Even the head of the FBI who has tenured can be fired by the President short of the end of his term. So terms are guidelines, and they're not necessarily binding. Every term, every one is different. But in general, the President acts with his authority. When he changes some of these Alphabet agency heads, what we're seeing essentially is a revolution, a counter revolution against the revolution that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s with the creation of the Alphabet agencies by the New Deal. And we're seeing what's called the Chevron doctrine, other doctrines in which the courts are saying the executive is headed by the president. And the bureaucracy is not part of our Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution about these Alphabet agencies. They were created by Congress and they can be uncreated as well, or they can be limited in their power by the President. So we're seeing a mini revolution going on. But it's all lawful. It's all done within the law. And if there are challenges to it, the courts will decide how to come out on particular cases. So the system is working.
- [20:02]
Jillian Michaels
Then why are they saying he's an authoritarian, he's getting rid of all oversight agencies. He just wants loyalists. He's a dictator. I mean, the insanity behind this paranoia.
- [20:18]
Alan Dershowitz
Everybody wants loyalists. Who did John Kennedy appoint to be the Attorney General? His brother. Who Biden. Who did Ronald Reagan appoint? This private lawyer. Who did Obama appoint? One of his best friends. So, you know, everybody wants loyalists. And President Clinton appointed somebody as Attorney General who wasn't a loyalist and he suffered through her for eight years.
- [20:48]
Jillian Michaels
Yes.
- [20:48]
Alan Dershowitz
And he has said privately and publicly that, you know, he wishes he hadn't appointed her. So, yeah, of course presidents want loyalty. You know, the Attorney General of the United States has an impossible job. On the one hand, they're supposed to be loyal to the President, they're in the cabinet, they're trying to get him reelected, trying to make sure his party prevails. On the other hand, they're supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer who decides who to prosecute. And those are incompatible jobs. And so we're one of the only countries in the world that combine those two jobs in the Attorney General. Most other Western democracies separate them. There's a Minister of justice who's in charge of advising the President politically. And then there's an Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions who decides who to prosecute. That's a non political job. But we merge them and that makes it very, very difficult for the Attorney General.
- [21:39]
Jillian Michaels
But I've never heard the outrage when Reagan did it or when Clinton did it or when whoever the heck appointed loyalists. And we've all seen Trump get burned by people like Christopher Wray, for example, who, you know, they shoved Christopher Wray down his throat and man, he lived to regret it. But again, I guess for me, it's the hypocrisy that you speak of that makes me skeptical at this point. Of all of it. Where was the outrage? Is it just Trump?
- [22:10]
Alan Dershowitz
No, you should be skeptical. And there's a double standard of outrage. And the hypocrisy is prevalent. And we ought to be the ones. People who have podcasts like you and people who write articles like me, who call them out for it. And that's what we're both doing on this show.
- [22:29]
Jillian Michaels
Okay, security clearances. This is my next question. So. All right. He revokes the security clearances of the 51 former intelligence officers who in 2020, signed the letter saying Hunter Biden's laptop was a hallmark of Russian misinformation or Russian information operation. Then you've got Anthony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. He took away Perkins Coie, the law firm who created the Steele dossier. But here's my question. The Steele dossier turned out to be false. The Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian propaganda. So shouldn't they pay a price for those gigantic fabrications?
- [23:24]
Alan Dershowitz
I have a radical idea.
- [23:26]
Jillian Michaels
Please.
- [23:26]
Alan Dershowitz
Nobody who is not working in the government should ever have a security clearance. Once you're out of the government, your security clearance should end for everybody. I don't like is the selective ending of security clearance. Oh, yeah, you're not going to get it because you said something I didn't like, or you're going to get it because you said something. I don't see why anybody who's not in the government at this point in time should have access to new secrets now. They have access to old secrets, obviously. And if the president wants somebody's advice, you can call them in and give that person security clearance for the advice. Take, for example, if a president wanted me to advise him on Israel, I don't have security clearance. My advice be less valuable than somebody who used to have security clearance and still maintains the security clearance as an anachronistic holdover from his prior job. So I would like to see an end to all security clearance for all people who are no longer in the government, with exceptions that can be made to give them security clearance. If it's necessary to have them give advice on current affairs, that's the way I would handle this.
- [24:38]
Jillian Michaels
But do you see this as retaliatory? Because not only would I revoke their security clearance, I would go after them for fabricating a Steele dossier or for trying to, quite honestly. I mean, why would you say that the laptop story was not true if you weren't trying to influence the election?
- [24:58]
Alan Dershowitz
Well, we go after them politically. You can go after them in the court of public opinion, but you can't go after them legally unless they've done something that's a crime. And most of the things that you're describing are not crimes. They are political. They show bad judgment. The 55 intelligence officers, they are. That is shocking to me particularly because I know some of them and they were. The ones I know are decent people. Why would they have done something like that? I mean, it was so clear, even to me as an outsider, that there were real questions about the Steele dossier. We have seen security being manipulated for partisan political purposes, and that doesn't serve the interests of any Americans.
- [25:46]
Jillian Michaels
How does that stop, though? Is there a legal pathway to stopping that, sir?
- [25:51]
Alan Dershowitz
There is, there is. I mean, what is it again? You can cut security clearance off for anybody in the government. There are things that can be done, but most important is to stop this partisan approach to everything. Everything today in America is partisan. And, you know, you can't have debates, you can't have discussions. You know, Harvard University today probably wouldn't even want to host the Lincoln Douglas debates. They would say, ah, half the people don't want to listen to Lincoln. Half the people don't want to listen. People don't want to hear opposing points of view. Why podcasts popular? Because you can pick the point of here. And that's why Walter Cronkite couldn't get a job today on national television, because he's too objective and too unbiased. What you want to hear is the CNN approach or the Fox approach. You know, people want to be in their own little, you know, areas and not get the opposing points of view. You know, as somebody who wants to hear every point of view, I'm so busy flipping the channels all the time and I still can't find out what the truth is. You know, you have to do your own research to get to the bottom of things.
- [27:01]
Jillian Michaels
It is virtually impossible, arguably by design. Which is why I was so desperate to have this conversation with you. Because the buck ultimately stops with the law, correct? How much of that is interpretation, though, is that like, well, how come five justices say one thing and four say another? Is it what? Where is the nuance in the differences of opinion in those kinds of decisions?
- [27:28]
Alan Dershowitz
You know, you all seen pictures of the British judges. They all have wigs, they wear the same, they look exactly the same. And of course, they were all men and they were all white. And the purpose in those days was to create an impression that there is no human input into the law, that it's just a bunch of automatons who are sitting and applying the law. But we know differently now. We know that the law is a living being and can be interpreted differently. And so you do get five to four decisions. What People don't realize that the vast majority of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are not five to four. Many of them are unanimous. The famous ones tend to be 5 to 4, 6 to 3. But many of the others, just ordinary cases, unanimous. You get people from both sides of the political spectrum agreeing that this is the law. But when it comes to issues like abortion, for example, which is not in the Constitution but derived perhaps from a right of privacy or a right of equality, then you have different points of view as to whether or not you can read that into the Constitution. There are certain things you can't read into the Constitution. You have to be 35 years old to be president. You can't be 34 and a half. You have to be 35. And it has to be by American counting, not by Chinese county Chinese counting. You're one the day you're born, so you'd be 34. You could be the president, but not in the United States. You have to have been born 35. There's nothing ambiguous about that in the Constitution. But when you have the due process of law, what is due? What does the process mean? What is the interpretation of that phrase? Or cruel and unusual punishment, what does that mean? Or the freedom of speech? Does it include hate speech? Does it include incitement to violence? These are all issues of interpretation that are currently playing out all over the world.
- [29:31]
Jillian Michaels
Yes, yes, I certainly see it all over the world without question. And it makes me grateful every single day to be an American, I can tell you that. Speaking of the Constitution, can you talk to me a little bit about this Birthright citizenship piece? Because this is another one that I. Oh, my gosh. I have to go to California quite often because my mother lives there and Bill Maher's studio is here. I work for Bill and tell Bill.
- [30:02]
Alan Dershowitz
To have me on a show because he and I, we're both kind of center liberal, and I admire him a lot, admire his show. And I hate bad comedy and I like good comedy. And so Bill's a good. So tell him to have me on the show.
- [30:18]
Jillian Michaels
I will, Vaz. I absolutely will. But Bill might be one of those people that thinks it's outrageous. I don't know. I haven't gotten his personal opinion on this, but thinks it's outrageous to end birthright citizenship. Here's my question to you. If I was to interpret this and try to make the case to do such a thing, my argument would be, if you were born here, your parents were here legally, whether they were citizens or not, that would be My interpretation of it. What is the. Is there a pure legal definition or is there this kind of interpretation of that part of the Constitution that everybody is outraged about? But I understand why he wants to do it because it's incentivizing illegal immigration. What are your thoughts on this one?
- [31:11]
Alan Dershowitz
I don't like birthright citizenship. I don't like it as a matter of principle. I don't think that the accident of where you're born should determine whether you're a citizen. It should be determined by where you find a commitment, what country you feel committed to. But it's in the Constitution. But the Constitution is a little vague. It says, born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction. Now, what does that mean? Can Congress change who is subject to the jurisdiction? Could Congress pass a law now saying that if you are born in the United States and leave immediately, or you were just born accidentally in the United States or your parents were not illegally and they're deported, could they pass a law saying you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, therefore don't come within the provision of birthright citizenship? That's a question that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide. There is an old case from the 18, from the 9th, from the 1800s that says, yes, even if you were born to somebody who was not here lawfully, birthright citizenship gives you the right to be a citizen. But, you know, that case was very particular and very specific, and we don't know how it would be decided. Now, I do think that without congressional authorization, probably the President alone can't abolish birthright citizenship. But probably with the help of Congress. If Congress passes a law limiting who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, there's a plausible argument that it could be done.
- [32:44]
Jillian Michaels
Wow. Okay.
- [32:45]
When you think about companies with healthy sales like Chubby's or Alo Gymshark, Magic Spoon Skims.
- [32:52]
Sure, you think about a great product.
- [32:54]
An attractive brand, and marketing that lifts a heavy load. But an often overlooked secret is actually the business behind the business making, selling and for shoppers, buying. Simple for millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, period. Home of the number one checkout on the planet. And the not so secret secret with shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling on the web, in your store, in their feed, and everywhere in between. Businesses that sell more, sell on Shopify, upgrade your business and get the same checkout Chubby's uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com Jillian all lowercase. Just go to shopify.com Jillian to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com Jillian I have a bit of a love hate relationship with undergarments because on one hand you get a bra and the underwire is jabbing you. It's poorly fitted. And then you get the gaping cups which suck and look terrible under a T shirt. Or they're too tight around your rib cage and it makes you look like you have back fat. Or underwear that don't breathe and ride up the crack of your rear end. But team not with skims. You get none of the bad and all of the good. You get the support and the shape and the boost from the Fits everybody push up bra and with the Fits everybody boy shorts. It covers up any cellulite in areas you don't want it and it doesn't.
- [34:43]
Ride up your backside. It doesn't get better than this, people.
- [34:47]
So shop skims best intimates including the Fits Everybody collection and more@skims.com and skim stores. After you place your order, be sure to let them know we sent you. Select podcast in the survey and select our show in the dropdown menu that follows. And it really helps us out.
- [35:06]
So if you could do it, we would appreciate it.
- [35:08]
Thanks so much guys. Have a great holiday.
- [35:10]
Get your underwear today. Speaking of what the President can do alone, executive orders. Okay, I don't understand. How far does this reach? And I'll give you an example of one specifically that I'm confused about. And this has to do with the transgender athlete debate. And while this may be considered a fringe issue, it's an 8020 issue. 80% of the country thinks that, yes, transgender people have the right to live with dignity and freedom and respect. However, there are fairness and safety issues, and their participation in sports alongside biological females presents significant concerns due to an equal playing field and safety. So Trump does an executive order, right? I'm not gonna give funding to people who allow this or allow biological males to play alongside biological females. And the governor of Maine says, f you, I'll see you in court. Now, here's what really confuses me is that how come Biden can change or reinterpret the language in Title 9, which was meant to protect girls, opportunity for biological girls. No one's outraged. Like, did he find a loophole in the law? Is Trump allowed to do this with an executive order? What do Executive orders actually encompass with regard to states rights or states ability to make their own laws.
- [36:39]
Alan Dershowitz
Well, there are so many different issues. Number one, you have to ask the question, is this a question of federal law? State law.
- [36:45]
Jillian Michaels
Okay.
- [36:45]
Alan Dershowitz
And are a question of state law, not federal law? Of course, sports are national. We have the, you know, NCAA and all that, NBA and all that. But the best resolution of this would be legislative. To have Congress pass laws about, you know, transgender men playing in women's sports, you could then do it in a nuanced way. It depends on the sport. In ping pong, I don't care if.
- [37:15]
Jillian Michaels
You'Re a man or a woman.
- [37:18]
Alan Dershowitz
On the other hand, volleyball, you saw what happened when a man smashed the face in of a young woman. So, you know, we have to do it in a case by case basis. But the president has some authority, but Congress has more authority and the states have some authority as well. You know, you can withhold federal funding, but issues, for example, President wants to send education back to the states. He said that wants to abolish the Department of Education and send it all back to the states. Well, if you send education back to the states, you're also going to send sports back to the states. So, you know, Maine is going to get its way. It's very complicated. Be careful what you wish for. If you think it all goes back to the states, it's going to be hard to parse. All right, arithmetic goes to the states. But who gets to play volleyball? That's a federal issue. That's going to be a very difficult and interesting issue. We only have a couple more minutes, so ask me your hardest questions.
- [38:21]
Jillian Michaels
Oh, gosh. What is the most alarming to you when you, when you look at the landscape right now? Is there something that you would significantly be concerned about where you'd say, like, President Trump, don't do this. You know, like, is there something that you find deeply concerning that I, I'm just.
- [38:40]
Alan Dershowitz
Yes.
- [38:41]
Jillian Michaels
To what?
- [38:41]
Alan Dershowitz
Higher education. It's higher education and high school education. Because the best predictor of the future is what students are doing today. And I worry deeply about the bigotry, bias, one sidedness, radicalism of so many students today on so many high school and college campuses that I worry about our future. That's what keeps me up at night. I don't worry about Donald Trump. I don't worry about our system of checks and balances today. It's working. It's working. I don't think that we have to be concerned some kind of tyranny or the End of democracy. I think that's all crying wolf. I think we have to be concerned about the future.
- [39:21]
Jillian Michaels
What about Trump deporting students that are not citizens who were leading these? I quite honestly, I haven't done my homework. I don't know if it was pro Hamas, which is very different than pro.
- [39:34]
Alan Dershowitz
Palestine Khalil, and he was the head of the pro Hamas demonstrations at Columbia. Now, the problem is he is not just a visa holder. If he's a visa holder, snap your fingers, he's out of here. But he's a holder married to an American citizen who's eight months pregnant. So it's a more sympathetic case. And so the government is going to have to prove either that he committed crime of moral turpitude or that somehow the national interest is affected. This is going to be a very, very close case. What I can't abide is, are all these people glorifying this guy. This guy is like the Ku Klux Klan. He should be treated like a Nazi. Yeah, Nazis have free speech rights. The Klan has free speech rights. But nobody should be glorifying this guy. This guy supported what's called the Al Aqsa Wave, or whatever flood, which means raping of women, murdering of children, killing innocent people. And he was seemingly in support of all of that. So I have nothing good to say about him. He may have free speech rights, so did the Nazis marching through Skokie. But let's treat him like a Nazi, let's treat him like a Klansman. Let's not glorify him. And that's what's being done today on college campuses.
- [40:50]
Jillian Michaels
But you would allow him to stay in the country because legally, there's no real way to get rid of him.
- [40:55]
Alan Dershowitz
It depends on what the evidence is. If he's committed crimes of moral turpitude, et cetera, that would be one thing. So I want to see what the evidence says. But even if he's allowed to stay in the country, he should be a pariah, and he should not be a hero.
- [41:07]
Jillian Michaels
Understood? Do I get one more question? I know you need to go. One more question. Okay. Can you talk to me about packing the court? And I want to understand this simply because the Democrats were so outraged. And I understand this, I'm very sympathetic to this about Roe v. Wade. But yet, didn't they have the opportunity to pack the court and reverse that decision or not? Am I misunderstanding what that means?
- [41:34]
Alan Dershowitz
Packing the court requires legislation. You can't pack the court. You can't add justice to the Supreme Court through presidential actions. It has to be through Congress. It started in the 1930s when the Roosevelt administration wanted to pack the court to preserve the New Deal. Ultimately, that was defeated. Then there were efforts to pack the court more recently, and they've been defeated. And I think we will not see a packed court, because if you pack the court today with 12 justices, tomorrow it'll be 15, then it'll be 20, then you're going to need a bigger, bigger room to have all the. We're going to see court packing.
- [42:13]
Jillian Michaels
We have to build a new building. Mr. Dershowitz, thank you.
- [42:19]
Alan Dershowitz
Our system is working, and as you said earlier in the show, we'll be thankful for Americans. We live in the best country in the world. We make our mistakes like any other country makes its mistakes. But basically, we're good people, decent people, and we come to essentially the right conclusions. And so thank you so much for having me on your show.
- [42:39]
Jillian Michaels
Thank you, sir. Where can people find you to get more?
- [42:43]
Alan Dershowitz
Well, I, you know, I have a podcast myself. In fact, I'm going right now to do it. It's called the Dirt. Oh, the Durst Show. You can get it on all the podcast stations, and I talk about current matters. It's on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday live, where you can get it the rest of the time. I've written 57 books. You can find them in any library except the ones that have banned me, but most have not. So you can get my books and me through Google. Yeah.
- [43:13]
Jillian Michaels
Thank you so much. You've shed a tremendous amount of light. I am grateful and I'll be tuning in.
- [43:18]
Alan Dershowitz
Thank you. Be well. Bye.
- [43:21]
Jillian Michaels
Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please, like, comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.