Brian Rose (3:11)

Thank you. This is London Real. I am Brian Rose. My guest today is Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor emeritus constitutional scholar and one of the most influential legal minds of our time. You have built a decades long career at the intersection of law, politics and civil liberties, representing presidents and high profile defendants alike and writing best selling books on justice, constitutional rights and political controversy. Your latest book, could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term? Tap as one of the most explosive questions in American politics today whether the Constitution's term limits can be interpreted in a way that would allow a president to defy conventional wisdom and and serve again after two terms. This argument has implications not only for Donald Trump's future, but for the rule of law, constitutional norms, and the balance of democratic power in the United States today. I want to go deep into the constitutional arguments, the political context, the normative questions about democracy and the separation of powers, and what your reading of history and law suggests about the future of the US Presidency. Alan, welcome back to London Real.

Alan Dershowitz (4:19)

Thank you for having me. What a pleasure.

Brian Rose (4:22)

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

Alan Dershowitz (4:43)

Well, he smiled. I can't really disclose what he told me, but what he has said publicly is it's probably a little too cute. There are bases in the Constitution for allowing him to serve a third term. Look, the reason I wrote this book is if I were back teaching and this issue had come up, I would assign my students this question. I would ask them write an essay on whether or not under the 22nd Amendment, a two term president could ever serve a third term. And I wouldn't grade them based on whether I like their answers or their answers support my political views. I would grade them on the basis of the analysis and I hope my book will be graded on the basis of the analysis as well. It's not a partisan book. It's not a book intended to encourage President Trump to run for a third term or to encourage Barack Obama, a young man, to serve a third term if exigent circumstances arise that allow him to send a third term. What it out is the deep fallacy of the 22nd Amendment, which doesn't prohibit a president from running, serving, acting, holding office. It simply prohibits a president from being elected to a third term. That opens the door to possible circumventions of what was clearly the intent of the framers of the 22nd Amendment. The framers clearly wanted to make sure that two term presidents stay out of the White House. Very simply put, we don't want them in the White House, we don't want them to be president, we don't want them to be vice president. Let them be elder statesmen, but follow George Washington's lead, Thomas Jefferson's lead. Don't follow Franklin Delano Roosevelt's lead. Be a two term president. That was the goal. So what happens constitutionally when the purpose of an amendment conflicts directly with the text of the amendment? And that's what happens here. This is not just an accidental omission of the word serve or hold or act. Those words were proposed in my book. I have an appendix which lists all the proposals that were made. And Congress rejected an amendment that would preclude holding, serving or acting. Instead, they adopted a much, much, much, much narrower term, being elected. So what should the courts do? What should we do as people in a democracy? When you have a direct clash between the text of a constitutional amendment and its obvious purpose. And that's what I decided to write a book about.

Brian Rose (7:21)

Well, maybe we can dive into that 22nd Amendment. You made a reference in our interview recently I thought was interesting in that it's basically impossible to pass a constitutional amendment these days, and yet this one was passed back then. I'm also kind of curious. If FDR had never done 3, 3, maybe this would have never come up and then never been a limit and maybe you could speak on all of those things.

Alan Dershowitz (7:42)

Yeah, well there's no question that would have happened. When the framers of the Constitution met back in Philadelphia, there was a big debate about whether to have term limits. Hamilton was involved in the debate Madison and after a lot of discussion, they rejected several proposals. One proposal was for a single seven year term. One term can't be reelected. A second proposal was leave it to the people. Let the people decide if you want Washington to serve three terms, four terms, five terms, hey, that's democracy. Ultimately, what prevailed was simply setting out that the term of the president is four years, but it doesn't mention anything about whether he can be reelected. In some countries, for example, you can't serve more than two consecutive terms, but if you are not consecutive, you can serve a third term. And of course, Trump lost the election of 2020. So if that proposal had been adopted, he could serve a third term. But no, they left it alone. And then Roosevelt defied convention. And what happened? Interestingly enough, he was very popular in 1932, very popular in 1936 when he ran in 1940, even though Europe was at war, England was at war, and it was a time of great crisis. He got many, many fewer votes. And in 1944 he got even fewer votes when we were in the middle of the war because a lot of people didn't want him to defy the convention of a two term president. But he did. And shortly after he died and Truman was president, they decided to invoke a constitutional amendment. Now, since that time there have been some proposals. Maybe we should amend that amendment to make it clear that a president can't serve a third term. No matter. Trump would like to make it a term. If I wish 22nd amendment didn't start.

Brian Rose (9:42)

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

Alan Dershowitz (9:48)

The next president and Vice Brunen are killed. The House of Representative. Now it's very hard to amend the Constitution of the House, but it's easier to amend president without being elected. Another one, which is we passed constitutional amendment prohibitor candidate. Then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives for the last one. The next president and Vice president resigns, you know, women's rights allowing those. And then according to the statutes that being elected, I don't think the Supreme Court, not this one, but I do think it's certainly impossible. The other scenario of unclaimed assassination will be on the Electoral College as the

Brian Rose (10:38)

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

Alan Dershowitz (10:46)

It's true. I know the names of the people. I was his lawyer and then I was falsely accused by some woman. We've been trying for years. I didn't do anything wrong. Sex with anybody but my wife barrier. Of course we should have and show you how bad Netflix is. They still have the declaration of the woman who claimed that equal rights without indicated even in the bottom of it promotion. So if it's on Netflix fractional don't believe it. Mostly non.

Brian Rose (11:13)

When you look at your alma mater harbor

Alan Dershowitz (11:19)

one of the most popular from modern Harvard history. The minute I defended Donald Trump and of course women, I was Persona non grata relatively. Recently people weren't talking. I can't get at the farmer's market. Well, everybody should be able to. This is the kind of partheism which is seen from anyway controversial. It's not controversial. It's just, you know, solving a problem that's obvious to everybody. Then it could sail through.

Brian Rose (11:52)

How did they sell the 22nd amendment? Was it that we're America and we're not going to have a dictator? Because I've heard a lot of people say that if we're in a true democracy and the people want someone to serve for 8, 12, 16 years, then the spirit of democracy is that they shouldn't have that limitation put by other people. So I'm just kind of curious how they got that through. And what do you make of that argument?

Alan Dershowitz (12:17)

Sure, I think it's a strong argument. Look, Winston Churchill was the great savior of Great Britain during the Second World War. What happens immediately after the Second World War? He gets thrown out of office by nobody who gets elected because of unemployment problems. On the other hand, the former prime ministers of Germany and the current prime minister of Israel get elected over and over and over again. And there's nothing undemocratic about that. In Netanyahu's case, of course, he was elected, then he was unelected, then he was elected, then he was unelected. And who knows whether he'll be elected again. But why not let the people make those decisions? I don't think that multi term executives are inconsistent with democracy. If the elections are fair and open, if the elections are like the ones that occurred in Venezuela, though that's different, obviously. But even a one term president elected Venezuela style, or Cuba style, or Russian style, or Iran style, that's not consistent with democracy. So as the great judge Learned hand once said, democracy isn't dependent so much on the law as what exists in the hearts and minds of the citizens. And that's true. But amendments and law can help promote democracy. And I think the framers of the 22nd Amendment felt that there was a risk that the next person running for a third or fourth term won't be Franklin Dolan or Roosevelt, who'll be more like Stalin or Hitler. And we have to prevent that through law. So that was the debate. It was very much influenced by Roosevelt's term in office.

Brian Rose (14:02)

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

Alan Dershowitz (14:20)

Yeah, well, let me tell you first what won't happen. Nobody's going to run for a third term. There are all kinds of barriers to that because states determine who's on the ballot. And there would be enough states to say, look, if you've had two terms, look at the 22nd Amendment, we're not gonna let you run. But there are many ways in which that can be circumvented. Let me give you a potential example. We live in an age of terrorism. It is not beyond the range of possibility that a president and vice president could be assassinated at the same time. We already have what's called a designated survivor when we have the State of the Union message. The Cabinet is in the Congress, but one member of the Cabinet stays home and is surrounded by guards in case, God forbid, there's a massive explosion and everybody is killed. You still need to have a president. So let's assume the president and the vice president are killed, and then the current speaker of the House is incompetent, either very old or of a different party or no experience. And so the House of Representatives elect somebody. You don't have to be a member of the House to be elected. Speaker of the House elects Obama to be speaker of the House, or Clinton to be speaker of the House, or Trump to be speaker of the House. And then according to the statutes, that person ascends to the presidency without being elected. That's probably the most likely scenario that could occur. Another one which is much, much less likely is, you have it, second term president who runs and loses in the Electoral College or even wins in the Electoral College, but he tells his electors not to vote for him. So on the first ballot, the Electoral College fails to have a majority for any one candidate. Then it gets thrown to the House of Representatives, which chooses not elects a president. And we've had that happen in the past where the House of Representatives, Jefferson, others, were chosen to become president by the House of Representatives rather than the Electoral College. In my book, I catalog a series of possible ways. They're thought experiments. They're not designed to tell people what to do in the real world. But as a law professor for 50 years, I specialized in creating hypotheticals for the students to address. And the reason to have a hypothetical is when you have hypothetical, you don't know the name of the person. It's behind the veil of ignorance. You're addressing a systemic problem under the Constitution without knowing who will benefit and who will lose. That's what I try to do in the book. I'm not seeking partisan advantage. For 60 years, I've been a Democrat. I did vote against President Trump both in 2016 and 2020. My wife will not allow me to reveal who I voted for in 2024. So to preserve my marriage, I'm keeping that a secret. But I'm not a Republican. I'm not a partisan. And so the book is not designed to help anybody serve a third term. It's really designed more to get the 22nd amendment to be amended to make sure that, that the will of the people and the will of Congress is reflected in the statute. Because we've never really had a case where you have a clear statute that says, clearly, a person can be serving a third term if he's not elected, and you have clear intention, no, he shouldn't be allowed to be serving a third term. So when you have that direct clash between the text and the intention, you have different schools of thought. You have the textualist school that says, absolutely, just look at the words of the Constitution. You have the purpose school that says, no, you look behind the text, you look at the purpose. We have the kind of living Constitution school that says, ah, purpose, it doesn't matter. Text, whatever is best for the people today. Let's interpret the Constitution that way. And so this problem in this book is a perfect way to address, in an abstract sense, the conflict between the different schools of thought. Now, the other thing it exposes is hypocrisy. Many people, when Clinton served a second term, many Democrats figured out ways to have them serve a third term. These same people are now against it for Trump, and the same people who are against it or in favor for Trump were against it for Clinton. So you have to think about the problem in a nonpartisan way. Otherwise we're just doing partisan politics under the rubric of the Constitution.

Brian Rose (19:08)

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

Alan Dershowitz (19:45)

It wouldn't work that way. The way it would work close, but the way it would work is the President and the Vice President resign. Then it would be the speaker of the House and the Republican controlled House could name Trump as Speaker and then he ascends to the President. It doesn't have to go to the House of Representatives. It could if you couldn't get an Electoral College victory. But in the book I address that because obviously that's Steve Bannon's approach. He says that's what should be done. It should be overt. The next election should be about how do you get out of a rat race, how do you create wealth not only for yourself, but also for the generations to come after. I am absolutely amazed with the quality of companies that we're getting exposure to. We go on to zoom calls with the innovators and the folks who are building new applications in Metaverse, blockchain, artificial intelligence, decentralized finance. What's going on, everybody? Thumbs up if you can see me. We are focusing on early stage investment and the quality of people that we're getting exposure to, whether it be Dan Tapiero with one rt Jason Ma from Open A Yatsu from Animoca.

Brian Rose (20:52)

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

Alan Dershowitz (20:57)

We are focusing on cutting edge technologies.

Brian Rose (21:01)

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

Alan Dershowitz (21:07)

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

Brian Rose (21:13)

See you in the investment club.

Alan Dershowitz (21:15)

Whether or not Trump should serve a third term and Rubio and Vance will just be puppets. You vote for them, but you know you're really voting for Trump. I don't think the Supreme Court would sustain that one because that's such a clear circumvention But I do think the Supreme Court would sustain the other scenario of a president of an unplanned ascension to the presidency through presidential assassinations or through a deadlock in the electoral college. So I think there's a difference between running for president a third term, which I think the Supreme Court and the states would create barriers to, and serving that third term through an unanticipated tragic event. One I pose in my book is that there is a massive terrorist attack on the United States. At the same time it has another pandemic. And so we have the perfect storm. And none of the people qualified to take over are able to do it. And so the public demands that one of the prior two term presidents, who's very popular, serve as president. Would the 22nd Amendment ban that? And my answer is probably not. Probably that would happen, but not the calculated a Steve Bannon approach. I think that would fail and, you

Brian Rose (22:42)

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

Alan Dershowitz (23:30)

I agree with you. And that's why when you have a constitutional amendment, it should be written in clear and certain terms. It shouldn't be ambiguous. You know, it's not like the First Amendment. Congress don't make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's vague. What is freedom? What is the freedom of speech? What is due process? What is equal protection? Those are all subject to debate. But when you have constitutional qualifications like 35 years, it's not 34 and 11 months, it's 35. And it's not 33, but very mature, it's 35. I guess the worst part of the Constitution, one that nobody can understand, is in the Bill of rights in the 7th Amendment when it says in any case involving $20 or more, you get trial by jury. What does $20 mean? $20 back in 1793 or $20 today, which would be $500 or $1,000? No constitution should ever have that kind of specificity of $20. In fact, when Madison wrote that amendment, he left the numbers blank. And then Congress filled in stupidly $20. So you know there's something wrong with the Constitution that's too specific. But there's also something wrong with the Constitution that's too vague. You don't want to say a person has to be old enough to be mature to run for president. You should say 35 years. Now you might want to amend that because at the time of the Constitution, 35 was pretty old. People didn't live beyond 50 or 55. Today, 35 is a kid who wants a 35. Look, we have a 34 year old mayor of New York and I'm not happy with him and people aren't happy with him. So you want specific criteria for who is president. And one of the specific criteria should apply to whether you can have a third term. And the 22nd Amendment fails that test.

Brian Rose (25:22)

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

Alan Dershowitz (25:36)

I think so. But you can't be absolutely sure. There would be a couple of justices who say text is text. We're not going to fool around. We're not lawmakers, we're law enforcers. But I suspect that even this court, you'd get a pretty clear majority, 7 to 2, 6 to 3, perhaps not 9 to nothing, saying this is too obvious a circumvention of the intent of the 22nd Amendment. We're not going to permit it. Now, would the Supreme Court really prevent the person from serving for president? Remember what happened in Andrew Jackson's day when the Supreme Court made a ruling that was extremely unpopular? President Jackson said, all right, they made the ruling, now let them enforce it. I'm not going to. And there were those in the south in 1954. I remember this. I was 16 years old in high school. There were those who said, you rule that schools must be desegregated. All right, desegregate them. We're not going to get involved in that. But Eisenhower did and made sure that the Supreme Court's ruling, which he didn't necessarily agree with completely, was implemented. So there's always going to be a dispute between the rule of law and the rule of politics, between the text of a constitutional amendment and what its real purpose is. And this book tries to explore all those issues in a nonpartisan, intellectual way. It's the kind of, if you wanted to be at a Harvard seminar on the Constitution and you didn't get to get to go to Harvard, this book will give you a pretty good sense about what a seminar that I taught, at least, would have been like. There are no right answers or wrong answers necessarily. There's just better analysis and not so good analysis. And that's what I try to promote in this book.

Brian Rose (27:26)

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

Alan Dershowitz (27:46)

And I can tell you I was with Trump in the Oval Office a couple of weeks ago, you know, 25 minutes alone, basically. The man is a bundle of energy. He'd love to serve a third term. I have no doubt about that. If the 22nd Amendment didn't exist, I have absolutely no doubt he'd be starting his campaign now. He'd be running for a third term. It would depend a little bit on the midterms, but the midterms generally go against the incumbent president. Maybe. I think it'll be split this time. The Senate will stay in the hands of the Republicans. The House may or may not. And that means he won't be able to get his programs through for the next two years. That would incentivize him to run even more, because if he ran, he would probably carry with him the Senate and the House, and he'd have another at least two years to implement his program. So I have no doubt that Trump would like to run for a third term, but he believes that it would be too cute for him to try to do it directly. But if he were appointed, you know, two years into retirement, he'd be 90 years old. But, hey, I'm 87 and I'm doing a pretty good job here today, so, you know, let's not be ageist.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (28:58)

Yeah.

Brian Rose (28:58)

He turns 80 in June. I believe that's where he is right now. Yeah. Yeah. And again, like you said about age, you know, you could argue another 100 years from now, you know, we're all going to be living Much longer as well. So this question becomes even maybe more relevant for how many someone can, and

Alan Dershowitz (29:16)

I think not only living longer, but they're living longer and healthier. And, you know, David Ben Gurion served as prime Minister of Israel well into his 80s. Of course, Biden didn't do so great and neither did Reagan into their old age. So we have examples on all sides and people should be judged based on their individual ability. One problem is, as you get older, you can seem really, really, really very, very wise one day. And then, you know, within a week or two weeks, your mind diminishes a little bit. Obviously, that could happen with younger people, too, but it's much more likely to happen with older people. So there have been those, by the way, who have suggested age limitations on the top. That is, you have to be at least 35, but you can't be over 75 to run or serve as president. That's been not accepted so far. But maybe someday, as we get older and older and older and people begin to run as octogenarians, maybe we will see an amendment that imposes age restraints on the top. States have it. States have it. I remember getting a call from the Chief justice of South Carolina who turned 70 and he was on the top of his game. He was golfing every day. He was doing great things, and they made him retire. And he wanted me to bring a challenge to mandatory retirement age. But I did the research and discovered that there was really no basis to challenge that. That would be up to the states. And so he went on to become a multi billionaire practicing lawyer instead of being a judge making $125,000 a year.

Brian Rose (31:00)

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

Alan Dershowitz (31:50)

Well, my history is that I was his lawyer, and then I was falsely accused by some woman who then retracted her accusation and said, she may have confused me with somebody else, she may have misidentified me, and she dropped all of her lawsuits and claims against me. Look, but that led me to a conclusion that I feel very strongly about. The file should not be redacted, because if they're redacted, what happens is the accusations out there, but the material that shows questions about the credibility of the accuser's net actor. Let me give you two examples. It's a woman named Sarah Ransom. She accused everybody. She accused Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Trump, Richard Branson, you name it. She accused everybody. She said she had videotapes of them having sex with children. And that became a story. And then eventually it turned out she was lying. She didn't have anything. She made up the whole story. If you have just the accusation and you withhold the credibility issues because you call them victims or survivors, many of them are victims and survivors. Some of them are fake. Many of the women who collect the $50,000 from Epstein never met him, never saw him. Their lawyers just said, come on, just say you were there. You were living in Palm beach at the time. Go collect the 50,000. And they did. Or there's a woman named Farmer who claimed that she was the first person to file a notice with the FBI. Yeah, but read what she said. What she said essentially is Jeffrey Epstein never touched her. She was never raped. She was never assaulted. He stole a photograph from her that was used as an art photograph for modeling. So. So that would seem to cut against her claims. Also. She. She's a woman who denies the Holocaust. She said all Jews are pedophiles, and all pedophiles are Jews, and they're all under the control of the Rothschilds. And, you know, Israel's behind all this. And you get all of that. And so my feeling is you have to turn out everything. You can't just say, we're going to protect anybody who says they're a victim or a survivor. If they are a victim. If they are a survivor, okay. But we have to be able to determine that otherwise it becomes a new form of McCarthyism. There was recently a number of congressmen who said, we're going to get up in front of Congress and we're going to read the list. We're going to read the list of the people who are accused. We're not going to say anything about who the accusers are or give the people on the list the right to challenge it. We're just going to read the list. That's exactly what Joseph McCarthy did. He would stand up in front of the Senate and say, I have a list of 70 Communists that are now serving and here are the names. And they all lost their jobs. Some of them were communists, some of them were socialists, some of them were ordinary people who are not even in politics. But they never had a chance to defend themselves. So I'm worried that the new Epstein McCarthyism has not been opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, by other groups, because people are terrified to be called victim shamers or Epstein supporters or anything like that. It's become toxic and it really hurts civil liberties. So I want, as I've said from day one, full and complete unredacted disclosure of everything so that the American public can make up their own mind about who's telling the truth and who's not telling the truth.

Brian Rose (35:21)

You know, Trump has always said that this was suppressed by Democrats for many years and then they were then pushing for it. But a lot of the people implicated, I mean, including the former, you know, president of the Democratic, you know, you know, of the Democratic Party. So is it, is it strange to you that, that, that it seems to be a talking point of the left to keep release the files. Release the files or release the files when ultimately be a lot of them being incriminated?

Alan Dershowitz (35:48)

Well, I don't think anybody's going to be incriminated. I think what we already know is all there is, there's going to be more about Clinton flying on the plane. We know he did that, he flew to Asia with, with Epstein. We know that Trump knew Epstein in the early 90s. We know that I was his lawyer who got him the deal that people think was a sweetheart deal. That's what lawyers are supposed to do, is supposed to get the best possible deal we can for our clients. So I don't think there's gonna be much coming out, but whoever the party in power is, the other party is gonna take advantage of that and say, oh, they're suppressing, they're suppressing. And when the Democrats are in power, the Republicans say they suppressed and you know, everybody suppressed because they're afraid to say, let's put everything out there because nobody knows exactly what's in the files. And you know, I know what's in the files, cuz I know what I did and what I didn't do. So I was the one who was right from the beginning, saying, turn everything out. That's very selfish of me because, you know, I didn't do anything wrong. I've never had sex with anybody but my wife since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein, so I have nothing to be concerned about. But, you know, Prince Andrew had something to be concerned about, because even if he didn't do what he was accused of doing, he was known as Randy Andy. He was known as somebody who did have sexual relations outside of his marriage. That's not a crime, but it's enough to put a person who's a prince in harm's way. And I think foolishly he settled the case, and that was probably at the pressure of his mother, because I now think that had he gone to trial, he probably would have won.

Brian Rose (37:36)

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

Alan Dershowitz (37:45)

Yeah, it's true. I know the names of the people, and they include very prominent people, and most of them are false, and I know who's trying to suppress them. I have one case, for example, of somebody who's not very well known, but he was accused of going to the island for three days with one of the women and having sex with that woman. It was described in great detail. And he has succeeded in managing to suppress his name because he has a good lawyer, but nobody will care when his name comes out because nobody's really ever heard of him. But there are probably other instances of that as well where lawyers have managed to suppress negative information about people. And so for me, you can't turn out half the material. You can't have redacted disclosures. You have to have either no disclosures, which is not consistent with democracy, or full and complete disclosure. I think it was Brandeis who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this needs a lot of disinfectant. And so I'm hoping that everything will be turned out. Will it include a couple of emails from me to him when I was his lawyer in which I told a joke or something like that? Who knows? Maybe it's possible. I don't care. You know, I didn't do anything wrong, so let it all. Let it all be out there. I don't think anybody should be trying to suppress anything.

Brian Rose (39:13)

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

Alan Dershowitz (39:22)

No, There will be more release, there's no question. Apparently the Southern district of New York has a million documents, including my lawsuit. I had a lawsuit in the Southern district of New York and I was deposed and my accuser was deposed. I want all that out there. I have never claimed privacy, lawyer, client privilege, anything. I want it out there. But a lot of people in my case, the opponent didn't want it out there and I understand why. But let's get it all out there and let's put this behind us. You know, Epstein, Peter Thiel took a

Brian Rose (39:59)

half a million dollars and turned it into a billion dollars using the exact same techniques we're using inside the investment club. He met a CEO. His name was Zuckerberg. He pitched him the deal and he said, okay, I'll give you a half a million dollars. Mark went public and sold the shares to people like you.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (40:13)

Well, what happened to Peter?

Brian Rose (40:15)

Well, he exited and got a 2,300 extra turn. The wealthy invest in early stage companies, folks. The public markets are for suckers. It's a rigged game. By the way, this happens in crypto as well. It's called pre sale tokens. This is Solana. Does anybody know this chain? They sold pre sale tokens for $0.04.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (40:33)

And you can see the date on there, April 5, 2018. Look at Solana today, folks.

Brian Rose (40:38)

That thing's up over a thousand X.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (40:41)

The media and Wall street street and

Brian Rose (40:43)

all these hype people get you to buy the top.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (40:45)

Meanwhile they put their clients in at

Brian Rose (40:47)

the bottom and they use you for

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (40:49)

liquidity to make their clients rich. You can play this same game.

Brian Rose (40:54)

You just have to have the financial education and the deal flow.

Alan Dershowitz (40:57)

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

Brian Rose (41:58)

And how did he die?

Alan Dershowitz (42:00)

Boy, I don't know the answer to that. He was not suicidal. He was a guy who loved life and lived it to the full. And he was also about that Monday or Tuesday to be arguing for bail. And remember at the time a lot of this stuff hadn't yet come out. He might very well have gotten bail. And so the case for his suicide is a weak one. Why kill yourself on the eve of perhaps getting released? You could kill yourself anytime. You know, if you're in prison, there's no way of stopping an intelligent person from killing himself. So on the one hand, I don't believe he was suicidal, and I think the case for suicide is a weak one. And the medical examiner in New York, who was this great medical examiner Michael Biden, said that the ligatures and stuff around the neck were inconsistent with suicide. On the other hand, what's the alternative theory? That somebody got to him in a federal prison and managed to kill him? That's also a weak theory. So I'm a skeptic. You know, my favorite song in history is from Porgy and Bass. It Ain't Necessarily so. And I've lived my life by It Ain't necessarily so. I doubt everything, I question everything. So as to the suicide, It Ain't Necessarily so.

Brian Rose (43:22)

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

Alan Dershowitz (43:35)

I'm very familiar with that facility.

Brian Rose (43:37)

Answer anybody wanted to hear from him,

Alan Dershowitz (43:39)

you know, yeah, look, I'm familiar with that facility. One of the worst things about being a criminal lawyer, maybe the worst thing about being criminal lawyers, you have to go to prison and jail all the time. And I've been on more death rows and more prisons and more jails than any innocent person should ever be at. And I've been at the Brooklyn and Manhattan Houses of Detention and they're hell holes, they're terrible places, but the security is unbelievable. I mean, I remember once having to go to prison and they took my shoes off and they confiscated my right shoe because it had some metal in it. I don't know anything about metal. And sure enough, I had stepped on a nail and the nail, small nail, it didn't affect My foot but was in the shoe and they caught it and they got it. And so the idea that somebody could get into a prison and kill Epstein, if it was a killing, it was an inside job, obviously.

Brian Rose (44:40)

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

Alan Dershowitz (44:43)

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

Brian Rose (45:21)

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

Alan Dershowitz (45:34)

I was surprised. I was surprised at the fact that between 20 and 30% of New York City's Jewish residents voted for him. These are young left wing Jews who want socialism and they're willing to tolerate socialism and tolerate his bigotry to elect somebody from the left. This was a victory of the hard left. It was also a defeat for the center. Had there been only one candidate running against him, it would have been a much closer election. He probably still would have won, but he wouldn't have won with a mandate. And he is the mayor and he will be the mayor. And we who care about civil liberties and about equality, you have to keep an eye on him. If he tries to arrest Netanyahu when he comes to New York, I will be at Netanyahu's side. I've been Netanyahu's lawyer for a long time and we will file a lawsuit in federal court immediately to prevent that from happening. If he tries to get federal agencies to engage in bds, boycotting only Israel, not boycotting Iran, not boycotting China, not boycotting Cuba, not boycotting Venezuela, but boycotting only Israel, that's against New York law and against federal law. So we will be bringing. So I think I'm going to be a busy lawyer with Mamdani as mayor. But look, the people spoke and it was a fair election. He did a very, very good job as a candidate. You got to give him credit for that. Let's see if he does a good job as Mayor.

Brian Rose (47:08)

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

Alan Dershowitz (47:40)

No. And he's a very smart guy. He understands that if you are really nice to President Trump and if you say nice things about him and go to the Oval Office, Trump judges people not based on what others say about him, but his own impression. And he managed to persuade Trump that he'll be a decent person. Whether that will last over the next years, nobody knows. But. But right now, they seem to have a tolerable. A tolerable relationship. But it worries me because I think that the Mamdani phenomenon is not limited to New York. It will apply in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It will apply in Chicago, probably San Francisco. It will not be statewide or nationwide. I don't think Mondame could win a statewide election in New York. Neither could aoc. Neither of them could. Tom is disqualified from running for president. Maybe he can hire me to find a loophole in the Constitution to say, well, natural born doesn't really mean that he has to have been actually born in the United States, Uganda. Would you take him as a client, Alan?

Brian Rose (48:52)

Of course you would.

Alan Dershowitz (48:53)

No, not on that issue. Because it would be frivolous if he were convicted of a crime. Of course I would take him as a client. I don't choose my clients based on whether I liked him. Believe me, if you've seen my list of clients, they are not the most likable people in the world. But I followed the tradition of John Adams when he represented the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre and won the case and was much criticized by some people in Boston for doing it. And he set a bar that Abraham Lincoln followed and Thurgood Marshall followed and others followed, and I'm trying to follow in their footsteps. I've defended many, many people who I hate. I had a client named Leona Helsley who was so obnoxious that I told her I would never meet with her in public because she did terrible things. But I'll represent her in court. It's like a doctor or it's like a priest. When priests have to give absolution to sinners, they don't pick and choose which sinners. They give absolution to. Anybody who wants to come back to Christ before his death, a good priest will, will do that and will keep the secrets. And a good lawyer is the same.

Brian Rose (50:09)

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

Alan Dershowitz (50:56)

And remember poor people like this, not only do the poor people support him, but the children of the very rich support them too. The trust fund babies, people who've never had to work for a living. The most privileged people in the world are the ones who say, oh, we're against privilege and we're going to support Mamdani. If you look at the demographics of who voted for Mandami in New York, you'll find that you'll find the poorest people and the richest people. He got a lot of votes in the Upper west side, the Upper east side, he got almost no votes in, you know, really ethnic districts where people have made it on their own. He got no votes virtually from Italian Americans, Irish Americans and other ethnic Americans. But for some reason of self hatingness he got a lot of support from the Jewish community even though he's so virulently and thoughtlessly anti Israel. One other example about Israel, he thinks it's okay for Jordan to be a Muslim state, for Saudi Arabia to be a Muslim state that bans non Muslims, for Qatar to be a Muslim state that doesn't allow a Christian Bible to be sold. But to have Israel be a Jewish state with equal rights for Arab citizens, that's unacceptable to him. So he applies a different standard to a Jewish statehood than to Muslim statehood. That's antisemitism, that's out and out bigotry and I wish I could debate him on some of these issues. And I think I would expose him for a deep seated anti Semite, not just an anti Zionist. He uses anti Zionism as a cover for his anti Semitism and that's what makes it so surprising that so many Jews voted for him. But he is, as you say, a very, very able politician.

Brian Rose (52:46)

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

Alan Dershowitz (53:10)

But remember that some of the great dictators of history have been great politicians as well. So just because a person is slick and a good politician, you know, Stalin was beloved. People had pictures of him hanging in the walls and Yasser Arafat and, and others Mussolini. Some Jews voted for Mussolini in early elections in Italy. So, you know, people can be fooled by good politicians. But it's important for people to get behind the facade and look at what these people really stand for. Democratic socialism has never ever worked. What happens is this. Either you compromise the democratic part of it, the way Venezuela did and Cuba did, or you compromise the socialist part of it, which is what most Scandinavian countries and Israel did. Israel started as a socialist country. Ben Gurion was a socialist and Shimon Peres was a socialist. But is Israel a socialist country today? No. Is Scandinavia socialist? No, not really, in the true sense of the word. So I've never seen a successful democratic socialist country that preserves both full democracy and full socialism. I think they're incompatible.

Brian Rose (54:27)

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

Alan Dershowitz (54:59)

They've washed their hands of me. They have not. I was one of the most popular professors in modern Harvard history. I would have hundreds of students line up to get into my classes. But the minute I defended Donald Trump on his first impeachment, I was Persona non grata at Harvard. Never yet been invited back to the Harvard Law School where I served for 50 years. I was invited back to the Kennedy School once, and I was invited back by a Jewish organization, Chabad. But, but Harvard has basically terminated its ties with me because of my representation of Donald Trump. What kind of a message does that send to the students? I wrote a book about that. It's called Trump to Harvard. Go Fund Yourself. Harvard to Trump. Let's Make a Deal. And what I tried to do is assess both sides. I think Harvard's current president is terrific. He's a wonderful man. He's trying very hard. I think MIT's president is good. I think Brown's president is good. A lot of the president presidents are good. And they're trying to strike an appropriate balance between defending academic freedom. But, you know, you get a professor recently at Cornell who calls on an Israeli student, and the Israeli student says something, and the professor says, well, I'm not going to let you be in my class. Makes the student come to him after class. And, and, and, and, you know, Cornell suspended the professor, fortunately. But there are a lot of professors who believe their job is to propagandize students, to instill their values into the students. In 50 years of teaching at Harvard, I never once expressed a personal view in class. Never. I told my students, I'm not here to teach you what to think. I'm here to teach you how to think. Whatever your views are, I'm going to challenge them. Whatever my views are, you should challenge them. You want to get an A in the class? Write an exam or an essay that fundamentally disagrees with me and shows that I'm wrong. You want to get a C in the class? Just parrot everything I've said in the class. You'll get everything right and you'll get a C. That's a mediocre grade for a mediocre performance. So I don't think we're seeing enough critical teaching at universities. I think we're seeing too much propaganda inside the classroom. I'm not talking about outside the classroom. Professor has academic freedom outside the classroom. A professor does not have academic freedom in the classroom to try to propagandize students to that professor's point of view. The classroom is a sacred place. You have to be neutral and objective. The Chicago principles that are followed more in theory than in practice say universities must be neutral. They are the forum for disputed views to be Neutral put forward. But when you have a class like in Cornell about Gaza, apartheid, and genocide, and you won't allow an opposing point of view to be expressed in the class, and the teacher says, I have academic freedom to use the class to try to persuade people that Israel is engaged in genocide, that's not teaching. That's propaganda. Wow.

Brian Rose (58:14)

Do you expect the president to make some change?

Alan Dershowitz (58:18)

I think it's a process. I think Harvard is fighting back. I think the Harvard administration would like to settle the case. I think President Trump would like to settle the case. I think there are extremists on both sides. Some faculty members who don't want the case settled, they want this to be a fight. And some within the administration that don't want it settled, they think that Trump benefits from having a fight. So I think we'll see whether or not wiser minds prevail and the matter is settled the way it has been. And most or many universities. Brown settled it, other schools settled it, and I think there are settlements that are really possible. But the settlements must entail making sure that universities remain neutral and prevent intimidation of students, prevent violence against students, while allowing freedom of speech outside the classroom. But inside the classroom, a professor is constrained to be kind of a moderator and not a promoter of a particular political ideology.

London Real Investment Club Member (59:21)

What the London Real Investment Club actually does for you, it gives you the keys to open that door to the inside deals. In the last three weeks, I've participated in three incredible deals. A layer two bitcoin protocol, an incredible AI protocol. The deal flow is being beyond what I expected. I don't think I've ever seen a model like this that just gives average folks the opportunity to be behind the deals. And that's exactly what we've done.

Brian Rose (59:46)

Not only that, you get to hang

London Real Investment Club Member (59:48)

out with Brian Rose every week. And for me, that was huge, because I look at Brian as somebody who's not only an expert in the space and I think is on the leading edge, but just the leading edge of thought with London Real and the work he's doing there. To anyone who's taking a serious look at this, I know it's a big decision. It was a big decision for me and my family, and it is one of the best decisions I've ever made. So I wish you all the best and hope you come join us.

Brian Rose (60:17)

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

Alan Dershowitz (60:24)

Well, I think, yes, I think that probably is what stimulated it, but I think that today some board members and some donors are also having an impact on universities. And what I decided to do once October 7th occurred is to basically put a little pause on my serious books. I've written 55 serious books, and I decided to promote a series of pamphlets to be given out free on college campuses. So the first one was the ten Big Anti Israel Lies and How to refute Them. The second one was the Go fund yourself. Then there's one called Palestinianism. And the final one that's just come out is Jewish blood is no longer cheap. We're giving these out free on college campuses. I would never, ever dream of assigning any of these pamphlets to a class or even telling the students about the pamphlets. In a class. Not in the class, in a class. I take the opposite point of view. For example, I've been a lifelong opponent of the death penalty since high school. When I was a law clerk on the Supreme Court, I helped write an opinion against the death penalty. In class, I would be the devil's advocate supporting the death penalty because nobody else would. And I would be making all the arguments in favor of the death penalty so as to challenge the students to come up with better arguments against it. And if I ended up with students who were strongly in favor of the death penalty and had better arguments, I did my job. In fact, one of the people who was most powerful in promoting the death penalty was a former student of mine, and he used my arguments outside of class to promote the death penalty. And although I wish I had changed his mind outside of the classroom, that's my job, to make you a better thinker. If you're a conservative, aren't you going to be a better conservative? A liberal? Better liberal. Centrist. A better centrist. That's the job of the teacher.

Brian Rose (62:21)

Well, I hope we can get our universities back to where they should be. You know, I was at MIT from 89 to 93, and when I saw kind of what was going on last few years, it just shocked me because especially for that institution, it should not be a place where anyone ever feels uncomfortable to say anything. And I mean, no, it's such a shit. But I really hope that they get back on track.

Alan Dershowitz (62:45)

The two people I met in MIT at the same time were Benjamin Netanyahu, who was a student there in the 1970s, and Noam Chomsky. And you couldn't imagine two more different people, but they were both very closely identified with mit. And that's the way it should be. Schools should not be breeding grounds of one particular ideology. Over another. That's what communist schools do. That's what happens in the former Soviet Union, Cuba. That's what happens in Iran today. That's what happens in the Palestinian Authority. Berezit University in the Palestinian Authority, you can't go there and make a case for Israel or for a two stage solution. You have to be down the line accepting what Bearsneet University wants to do. But at Hebrew University, you can make the case for a Palestinian state, you can make for a case against Zionism. You can do whatever you want, because that's a true university. And I think we have to get back to having universities that are forums for diverse points of view.

Brian Rose (63:47)

Yes, I do, too.

Alan Dershowitz (63:48)

I just want to finish on your

Brian Rose (63:49)

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

Alan Dershowitz (64:06)

No. No, I don't think that's true. I don't. He has a good lawyer. He has a good lawyer. And I would not turn down a case just because I disagreed with a person's politics. I think the Venezuela thing, I have a split decision on that. I think the decision to go in and arrest an indicted defendant who can't be extradited is completely consistent with not only international law, but precedent. The best precedent, of course, was Obama's decision to go in and take out Osama bin Laden. Now, the difference is that Obama issued a kill order. He didn't want him arrested, he wanted him killed. He wanted him taken dead. Not dead or alive. That is much more questionable than sending in troops to bring him out alive, to have him tried in New York in front of an excellent judge, where he'll get due process represented by excellent lawyers. So I think that part was perfectly acceptable, morally, legally and in every other way. When you get to we're running Venezuela, you have to wait and see what that means. It should be returned to its status as a democracy. It was a great democracy for many years. It was really a shining light of South America. Now it's a place where people escape from many of my neighbors. I live in the winter in South Florida, in Miami beach, and the place is now filled with Venezuelan emigres who left the country, Cuban emigres who left the country. You can tell a country by who leaves it and who wants to come to it. The greatness of America is represented by the fact that everybody wants to come to America, everybody wants to be a citizen. Nobody wants to stay in Cuba, nobody wants to stay in Venezuela, nobody wanted to stay in the Soviet Union, nobody wants to stay in Iran. So people vote with their feet, not only at the ballot box.

Brian Rose (66:05)

Last question. Are you still having a hard time getting pierogi at Martha's Vineyard or is that.

Alan Dershowitz (66:10)

I, I have. I can't get pierogi on Martha's venue. The guy won't sell me pierogi because I'm a Zionist. But I have to tell you, so many people have offered me free pierogi, which has been so much better. There's a store in Florida that says I'll have free pierogi for life. And, and they're Polish pierogi, which are absolutely phenomenal. When I was in Poland recently, I ate pierogi. They were great. So I'm, you know, it was an important event because here you have a city sponsored farmer's market where everybody should be able to buy and sell everything. And this bigot wouldn't sell me a pierogi because he didn't like my Zionism. I was wearing a shirt that said Proud Zionist and I was probably wearing this pin which I still wear for the one hostage body that hasn't been returned. So I'll continue to go back to the farmer's market where I've been going for 50 years, and I'll buy products that I like, but I won't buy pierogi anymore. I'll get my pierogi from better, more authentic pierogi makers. But, you know, that's life in Martha's Vineyard. People won't talk to me. Some of them won't talk to my wife. My wife got excluded from a club recently, a feminist club. A feminist club that claims that they have judged women on the basis of their merit, not the men in their life. And they basically accepted my wife until she filled out a form disclosing who her husband was. And as soon as it was disclosed to her husband was, she was told not to apply to the club, that they wouldn't accept her as a member. This is a feminist club. This is the kind of McCarthyism that we're seeing from the left these days. And I'm going to continue to fight it.

Brian Rose (67:53)

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

Alan Dershowitz (68:04)

Well, I have a new book coming out on July 4th, celebrating American independence. And it's a book. It's called Founding Fathers and One Jewish Mother. And it compares the founding fathers of America with the founding fathers in Golda Meir of Israel. And it's based on my own document collection. I have original copies of the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, great books. I have original copies of Herzl's the Jewish State. And so this is a coffee table book that illustrates these great documents of history. And I have an essay on each of the, on each of the documents. And then I just spoke to my wife last night about this. We just came back from seeing Porgy and Bessel in the Metropolitan Opera and I said, you know, it ain't necessarily so has been my motto throughout life. I think I'm going to write a book entitled It Ain't Necessarily so why I Question and Doubt Everything. Just a general philosophy book about the need for us to be doubters and questioners about every aspect of life.

Brian Rose (69:09)

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

Alan Dershowitz (69:12)

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

Brian Rose (70:04)

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

Alan Dershowitz (70:09)

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

Brian Rose (70:42)

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

Alan Dershowitz (70:55)

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

Brian Rose (71:07)

All right? You got it. Thank you, Alan. We appreciate you and we'll see you next time. Thanks, everybody. At London Real, follow this man. And until then, bye bye.

Brian Rose (Intro/Outro) (71:16)

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

Brian Rose (72:10)

Thank you.