"Get Trump": The Rosetta Stone of 2023 with Alan Dershowitz, Donald Trump Jr., and Ben Bergquam
Nobody predicted the course of politics in 2023 better than Alan Dershowitz with new latest book: "Get Trump" is the guiding principle of the entire left now. Prof. Dershowitz joins to explain why Trump's federal charges are more danger than Alvin Bragg's joke of a case, but still a clear-cut case of a biased prosecution. Plus, Donald Trump Jr. reacts to most other GOP contenders abandoning his father, and Charlie checks in with the MAGA crowd in Miami.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Trump's Indictment Analysis00:09:48
Hey everybody, Tan the Charlie Kirk Show.
Alan Dershowitz joins us for his analysis of the Trump indictment.
We ask a lot of questions.
And then we have Donald Trump Jr. for his immediate reaction as well on this dark day for America.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast.
Open up your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk Show.
Get involved with TurningpointUSA at tpusa.com and attend our Turning Point Action Action Conference with President Trump, Tucker Carlson, and more.
That is tpaction.com, tpaction.com.
Check it out.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
Joining us now is Donald Trump Jr. on this unfortunate day for our Republic.
Don, welcome back to the program.
Thanks for making time.
Don, top of mind thoughts, what's going through kind of your mind and the family's mind?
We're with you 100%.
Don, walk us through it.
Well, we appreciate it, Charlie.
Listen, it sounds crazy to say it, but at this point, it just sort of feels like ordinary course of business.
Just another day, another corrupt regime going through the motions.
You'd never think you could actually see this stuff happening in the United States of America.
This is the stuff that would make Stalin and Mao blush, and yet it's happening before our very eyes.
You have prosecutors with terrible, corrupted track records.
You have a war crimes prosecutor prosecuting something that literally it seems every president in the last half century has done.
But of course, you know, there's a different standard for Donald Trump than there is for Bill Clinton.
There seems to be a very different standard for anyone in the Democrat Party versus really the rest of us.
We're seeing that unfold, and it's just a really sad state of affairs.
Yeah, Jack Smith was overturned 9-0 at the United States Supreme Court for the whole, I believe it was Terry McAuliffe situation that he was involved in.
And so there's I think it was, yeah, it was the governor versus the...
Oh, there's Bob McConnell or something.
Yeah, Bob McCullough.
Bob McDonald's.
Bob McDonald.
And yeah, 8-0, I guess someone had to recuse themselves that day or was absent.
But it was, you know, those are the tactics.
And if you look at the prosecutor actually trying the case down in Miami, she is someone that had to resign from her role in the DOJ for literally wiretapping the defense while prosecuting a crime.
Wiretapping the attorneys on the other side.
I mean, think of how corrupt you have to be.
But that's what it is, Charlie.
You have credible evidence of Biden and bribery and whistleblowers and all of the Hunter Biden stuff that no one can explain why he's making millions from the countries that Joe Biden has power of.
And all of a sudden, magically, he transforms into an international man of business from Crackhead.
Doesn't happen all that often, but I guess there could be exceptions.
And no one wants to look into it.
The alleged person looking into that is totally missing.
And it's probably a Biden person that's not going to do anything, but it's under the guise of pretending to look into something.
Of course, nothing will happen.
We've seen this play out before.
But it's a sad state of affairs.
When I spoke to my dad yesterday, he was in really good spirits.
I guess it's not a normal response, but I guess you just, at this point, you're just used to it.
We shouldn't have to be, but you are because that onslaught's been going on for seven years.
So, Vivek Ramaswamy, Don is the only candidate of the field that is there in Miami.
What do you think this teaches us about the Republican field?
This is not about Trump.
This is much bigger.
This is about our system of government.
This is about our traditions.
And yet, Don, most of these Republicans are nowhere to be found.
What do you think that teaches us?
Listen, it teaches us that they're out for themselves.
And again, by the way, one day, if they ever get some sort of power, this stuff will be used by Democrats against them.
In the meantime, they're perfectly fine weaponizing our government to take out the one guy that's going to win, where they have zero chance.
You saw that with DeSantis last month where, oh, that's not really a big deal.
It's a sham right before this stuff started hitting.
It's a shame that those guys are so weak, that they're so controlled, because I really wish we had a deeper bench.
I truly mean that, Charlie.
I wish we had other Republicans that had some guts.
And we don't.
And that's been clear.
The second it looks like they have some guts, their donors get a hold of them like they did with DeSantis in Ukraine when he flip-flop and couldn't make up his mind.
I mean, they're just controlled opposition.
They don't have any guts.
They don't have any independent thought.
They do what their consultants or what their donors tell them.
And otherwise, they're robots.
And they're perfectly content allowing this great miscarriage of justice to go forward as long as it allows them to amass a little bit of power.
Because honestly, that's what we've seen from the uni party.
It's all about power, right?
You don't see anyone actually stepping out and fighting these things that are actually from that system because they've done very well with that system.
That system has allowed otherwise very average individuals to thrive, to attain a lot of power, to get wealthy, to get on boards.
These are people that have been nothing but bureaucrats.
It's a shame to see it.
Yeah, so Don, what is then the attitude and the kind of vibe within the campaign right now?
President Trump went on Roger Stone's program and said, I'm not going to drop out under any circumstances.
I mean, you've known him for a while.
When his back's against the wall, he only fights harder.
Tell us, you know, the plan, the strategy, despite the most power ever thrown at a presidential candidate.
You guys continue to fight.
Walk us through it.
Well, listen, whether it's for better or worse, it's just the way we're made up, right, Charlie?
I mean, I think that's why he's the guy to go back to D.C. He's the guy now with the inside knowledge, with the understanding of how those systems really work, right?
In 16, you didn't have any idea.
You know, now we know.
Now we've seen the people who are good, the people who are terrible.
And you can go back and clean house because that's what you need to do.
So, you know, fighting, you know, and people don't necessarily always love it about Trump, but, you know, he's always going to fight.
And I think, you know, looking at it now, you know, through this lens, you understand why you always have to fight.
You understand why Trump has the attitude that he has.
I mean, they've gone after him.
They've gone after his family.
They've gone after his businesses.
It never stops.
But we actually need someone who's willing to fight.
And, you know, again, unfortunately, because I actually believe in this stuff, I wish we had a much deeper bench.
I wish we had a lot more Republicans that were willing to fight.
Frankly, you know, for me, as a business guy from the Trump Ward perspective, as a father, hey, it'd be a lot easier if he didn't do this, but we need him to do this because he's the only one that can clean up this very broken and very corrupted system.
That is exactly right.
And I mean, it's just very telling right now where you got cameras galore and these candidates are nowhere to be found.
And so the.
No, it's crazy.
And again, and no one's asking the questions about the corruption.
I had Kash Patel on my triggered podcast last night.
And he was a criminal defense attorney down in Miami dealing with the same people in there.
Plus, obviously, as deputy director of national intelligence, understood the deep state side as well as sort of the Miami prosecutor side.
I think you get a real good breakdown of all of the details, just how insane this is.
Again, using a corrupt war crimes prosecutor to go after a documents case.
You have the Bill Clinton examples where it's like literally the only precedent out there.
And it's like, hey, totally fine.
It's totally clear.
He's this.
They want to throw Trump away, Charlie, just so we understand.
Like, this isn't like a couple of weeks and a slap on the wrist with the charges put forth, 37 charges and 450 years behind bars.
I mean, you know, that just shows you the insanity that we're dealing with.
So I break that down in the podcast pretty heavily.
If people want the details, you know, they can go check that out.
But, you know, it's ludicrous.
It's never been done before.
You know, but I think if they do it now and they have success, I imagine this will become the modus operandi for the people in power.
This is the stuff that our media, our government criticizes when it happens in a place like Russia with Putin or in China.
And yet it's happening right here in the United States.
And they're totally content with it because Trump is the one threat to the hegemony that they have and the control and power that they've amassed for no good reason over such a long period of time.
Supporting The People00:07:35
We would sanction countries.
We would introduce resolutions at the United Nations and potentially even invade them for what we are now doing domestically.
Makes you think.
Don, thank you so much.
And check out his show on rumble.com.
Don, thanks so much.
Thank you, Charlie.
Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
Every day, the parallel economy grows bigger and bigger.
It's powered by everyday Americans who are sick and tired of all the woke nonsense being jammed into every product they consume.
Big mobile companies are no different.
For years, they've been dumping millions into left-wing causes, and we had to take it because you need a cell phone and probably thought that there was no alternative.
But there is.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
They proudly offer dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks.
Stop using woke wireless as they fund Pride Month and all this stuff.
When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending a message that you support free speech, religious liberty, the sanctity of life, Second Amendment, and our military veterans and first responder heroes.
Their 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
Just go to patriotmobile.com/slash Charlie or call 878-PARTIOT, get free activation today with the offer code Charlie.
Ask about their coverage guarantee while you're there.
Get the same dependable service and take a stand for your values and make the switch today.
PatriotMobile.com slash Charlie or call them at 878-PATRIOT.
Ben Berkwam is with us live from Miami, Florida.
Ben, what are you hearing and seeing on the ground as things start to heat up there?
Hey, Charlie.
Well, we've got a crew out here, Real America's Voice.
And here's what do you guys think of Charlie Kirk?
Charlie!
And what about Trump?
We want Charlie!
We want Trump!
They're not shy about it, Charlie.
They're not shy about it.
And actually, I've got a friend of yours out here.
We actually, I was walking around.
Saw these lovely ladies over here, and I looked over and I was like, wait a second, turning point action in the house.
She was actually at that young ladies' leadership, young women's leadership summit.
Talk to me about that.
So it was a great weekend with a lot of patriotic ladies.
Well, I'm back home, and now we're getting to work.
We're making sure that people that want to see change actually make it happen by getting involved in your local county GOP.
And the way to do that is by becoming a PC or a precinct person.
So I've met a lot of people out here today that are frustrated by what's going on in the country, what's going on in the party, even, and they are happy to sign up to be a precinct committee person and really make a voice and make a change.
To that point, let me go over here.
What do you guys think?
We were Charlie, you and I were just talking about this.
What do you think that Vivek was the only Republican candidate that came out today?
What do you think about DeSantis not being out here?
Any of these other Republican congression or presidential candidates not being out here?
Well, if it happens to Trump, it could happen to anybody.
So this is about the justice system to correct what's going on, to have not a different status for everybody.
Everybody, everybody is the same.
So why not investigate Biden, Hunter, Hillary, and everybody that's from the other side?
And they should be here to support, to support our nation, to support the country, to support their party, to support their party.
You know what I mean?
And so that's why we're here.
We're here to support the party.
We're here to support with the people.
We're here to see Make America great again.
I come from Cuba, so I know what communism looks like.
And, you know, this lady was saying we're from China here.
Cubans, Venezuelans, we're from all over the world, Colombia, people that have left communism.
And that's what we're here.
We want a free country here in this United States of America.
That's it.
That's it, Charlie.
I have people from all over.
I got people with a lot of Cuban Americans, obviously, down here in South Florida.
A lot of Venezuelan Americans down here as well.
But again, you got a lot of Chinese here as well from China, now American citizens that are saying they did it to us, they destroyed us.
And if they do it to America, there's nowhere else to go.
Same playbook.
The playbook of the tyrant doesn't change.
Ben, can you ask somebody there?
And by the way, Drianna's doing a great job with us at Turning Point Action.
I don't see the RNC there, but I see Turning Point Action.
Yeah, I see Turning Point Action in the trenches, in the weeds.
That's what Turning Point Action is all about, building the actual opposition party.
But Ben, ask somebody around, does this make people support Trump more?
And what are they hearing or seeing just because the media makes it seem as if, oh, Trump's support is going to collapse because of this?
Two minutes, Ben.
Yeah, let me ask you: does this make you support President Trump more or less by what they're doing to him?
Absolutely more.
Because that is really recognizing that the judiciary system against their opponents, it's really never happened in this country before, and it's not supposed to be that way.
So I think...
Where are you originally from?
I'm originally from China.
Yeah.
Down at the CCP.
I'm a Charlie's friend.
Charlie, I'm a Professor Wong.
You remember me.
I donate a lot to turning point USA.
I go for your cause.
I think you're the future star.
And I think, you know, I like the way you say in your interview with Megan Jolly.
I totally 100% with what you think about DeSandos.
I'm the same, exactly, the same opinion with you.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, real quick, guys.
Does it make you support him more or less, President Trump?
100%.
100% more.
100% more, Charlie.
100% more.
Anyone, does it make anyone support President Trump less by what they're doing to him?
At least with the group we have here, Charlie.
Not at all.
In fact, everyone that I've spoken to, they're pissed off.
And again, the message is if they can do it to President Trump, they can do it to anyone.
And if they can do it to America, the world is gone.
Ben, you are a professional.
You're the best of the business.
And I'm curious just more about the absence of these other candidates.
What a missed opportunity.
Days like this don't come along very often.
People ask me all the time when I travel about Strong Cell.
Charlie, is Strong Cell legit?
Charlie, do you really believe in the anti-aging properties of NADH?
Well, it's not a matter of whether or not, if I believe it, it's the science.
You guys could check it out.
Fact check me, look at NAD and see what it could do for you.
Well, look, I take NAD every single day.
Strong Cell is a scientific breakthrough in cellular health replenishment that combines NADH, CoQ10, and marine collagen to boost your body's cellular function.
I personally take Strong Cell every day, and so do a ton of Kirk listeners.
Go see the reviews for yourself.
If you are someone who relies on caffeine or sugar to get yourself going, then you have to give Strong Cell a try.
I only have one important request as I recommend this life-changing product.
You've got to give it at least four weeks to realize the best results.
It takes a little time to re-engineer your body's NADH.
Think about it.
It's been on decline in your middle-aged body for a year or so.
So check it out.
Go to strongcell.com forward slash Charlie and read the personal testimonies for yourself.
Then use promo code Charlie to get a special 20% discount on your order.
Joining us now is Professor Alan Dershowitz, author of the very timely book, Get Trump.
Professor, I joke around last time you were on.
You happened to write the right book for the right time, my friend.
I think you have more, just let's say, commentary to give on this book than you probably could have imagined.
This indictment I have right now, you have called on this program the most serious of all the potential indictments against Donald Trump.
Do you still feel that way now actually reading the indictment itself?
I do, especially the provision in which Donald Trump foolishly waved some paper in front of a reporter while he was being recorded by his own staff.
And he said, I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
So it's still secret.
And it has to do with a battle attack plan for Iran.
It's not a smoking gun, but it's surely a gun with Trump's fingerprints on it.
And his lawyers will have to explain that away.
They may argue, look, it was just puffery.
He didn't really show them anything.
He just waved it in front of them.
But it seems like it's an admission that he had material that he knew he had not declassified.
So it's the hardest piece of evidence to overcome.
On the other hand, clearly he was targeted.
They never would have come up with this piece of evidence if they had treated him equally under the law.
Remember, the special prosecutor wasn't asked to look into everybody who may have mishandled classified material.
He was tasked only with getting Trump.
He was tasked, get him in Florida.
If you can't get him in Florida, get him in Georgia.
If you can't get him in Georgia, get him in D.C.
This followed Alfred Bragg saying, I'm going to get him or else don't vote for me for election.
And he came up with the worst possible weakest indictment ever.
But this indictment is stronger and his lawyers will have a hard time challenging.
And he's having a hard time getting lawyers because we have this Project 65 out there, a bunch of radical McCarthyite lawyers who are threatening to disbar any lawyer who represents Donald Trump.
And many lawyers, I've spoken to them, won't take the Trump case because they are fearful that they will be disciplined by the Bar Association if they do.
This is a really important point, Professor.
I just want to zero in on this.
The 65 project is basically a sword of Damocles that has been created over any lawyer that might come in Donald Trump's orbit.
It's organized with a very specific intention, which is this.
The 65 Project is a campaign targeting lawyers who aided attempts to try and represent Donald Trump.
So people are afraid that they might get disbarred and their reputation, full-out intimidation, Professor.
Let me add one thing.
It's not the sword of Damocles because it's already dropped.
For example, I wrote an op-ed in which I said, if you go after any lawyers, I will represent them pro bono because this is such an important attack on the Sixth Amendment.
And what do you think they did?
They filed a bar charge against me.
And now I have a bar charge against me.
I've had to hire a lawyer.
You know, it's an absurd bar charge, but it's against me.
And I've spoken to at least three lawyers recently who knew that and understand that they will be attacked and their bar certificates will be questioned if they represent Donald Trump.
Can you ever get a fair trial under those circumstances?
I don't think so.
And then there's this other issue.
It is alleged, and I haven't seen the proof, but it's alleged that one of the prosecutors for the special prosecutor said to the lawyer for the co-defendant, the young Navy man, look, I know you're up for a judgeship in the District of Columbia.
Maybe you'd have a better chance of getting the judgeship if you flipped your witness and have him cooperate with us.
If that's true, it should result in the charges against the co-conspirator being dropped.
So there's a lot of investigative work that has to still be done.
You know, in my book, Get Trump, I go through every one of the charges, and I prove conclusively this is all part of an effort to try to prevent him from running for president.
Now we know that Rachel Maddow and some Democrats have urged the prosecution to make a deal with him to drop the charges in exchange for him not running for president.
What could be better proof that at least as to those people, this is purely partisan and political?
Now, just really quick as a side note, Professor, is there an effort to try to disbar lawyers if they represent murderers or the Unibomber?
Or I'm just curious.
No, I've been praised and honored for representing O.J. Simpson and Klaus von Bulow and people on death row.
It's only Donald Trump.
And when I defended Donald Trump on the floor of the Senate, I was banned from the library in Chillmark, Massachusetts.
My books were banned.
I was banned from the community center.
I was banned from my local reform synagogue.
And lawyers know this.
And lawyers have told me, I don't want to be dershowitz.
It's a verb now.
I don't want to be attacked the way you were for having presented a constitutional defense for Donald Trump under the impeachment clause of the Constitution, a correct constitutional defense.
So, Professor, if you were representing Donald Trump, how would you go about defending this?
What do you think is the weakest parts of the indictment?
You highlighted the strongest potential piece of evidence, which was this on-camera moment of braggadocia, if you will, by the president.
What do you think are the weakest parts?
And if you were leading the defense team, how would you go about compartmentalizing and one by one defending if Donald Trump was your client?
Well, I would be making constitutional arguments about the lawyer-client privilege.
The lower court in D.C., selected, obviously, by the special prosecutor to go to D.C., where he expected to get a more sympathetic court, ruled that conversations between Trump and his lawyers were not covered by the lawyer-client privilege because they were excluded by the crime for an exception.
I would challenge that if it were possible to challenge that.
I would focus a lot on the jury of the year, try to find a jury that would be more objective and more sympathetic.
I would focus on the moving of the boxes, which seemed to me to be pretty weak evidence.
He didn't destroy.
He could have easily destroyed the evidence the way Richard Nixon did.
This case doesn't meet the high standard that was met by Richard Nixon, which led Republicans to call for Nixon's impeachment and removal.
We're not hearing that from Republicans here, at least from very many Republicans here, because they understand that maybe Trump did things that were wrong, but so did the Department of Justice.
I read an article yesterday called, What if Both the Department of Justice and Trump are guilty?
How should the courts resolve that?
It's an interesting conundrum.
So, Professor, you mentioned the kind of piercing of the veil of attorney-client privilege.
In your career, have you ever represented a client where either your privilege with a client or somewhere that you've dealt with, that was done?
I'm told it's extremely rare.
Have you ever dealt with a situation like this before?
I have many times, and I won the leading case, two leading cases on that.
In my own case, when I represented Klaus Von Bulo and wrote a book about it, there was an argument that my writing the book broke the privilege, and the courts ruled that that wasn't true.
The privilege prevailed.
I won the case.
And then I had another case, not so different, on behalf of a client.
It's very rare for an indictment to be based as extensively as this one is on conversations and notes between an attorney and a client.
Look, clients, when they come to an attorney, often say silly things like, Oh, wouldn't it be better if the witness disappeared?
Wouldn't it be better if I went off to Brazil?
Wouldn't it be better if there was no document?
And then you say to them, No, it wouldn't be better.
They'll catch you, and I won't participate in that.
I'm a lawyer, not a criminal.
And so those conversations occur, and generally they're not a basis for voiding the lawyer-client privilege.
Yeah, I mean, some of that could also just be emotional bluster, or it could just be venting, right?
And so asking questions.
Yes.
You know, asking questions.
Lay people aren't expected to know the answers to these questions.
They ask the lawyers, the question really depends on what the answer is.
If the lawyer says no and the client obeys it, hey, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Yeah, and so is this one of the more extreme cases you've seen then of attorney-client privilege being violated?
Okay.
It is.
It's one of the more extreme cases.
And of course, the special prosecutor did judge shopping to get the right result.
He should have brought those arguments in Florida where the case was going to be tried.
But instead, he broke the case into two and he made the legal arguments in the District of Columbia, expecting a more sympathetic hearing.
And then he went to Florida where he had to go because that's where the venue in the case is.
By the way, that's what I would challenge too.
I would challenge bringing those issues in Florida as judge shopping and forum shopping and say that the results in that case shouldn't be collateral estoppel or however you want to call it in in the Florida case.
I don't know that that's a winning argument, but it's an argument I have.
Well, I think it's a brilliant point, which is they were able to go venue shopping to get a judge to be able to pierce the attorney-client veil that otherwise would not have been approved, maybe in Florida, to build up the case.
And then they actually file the charges, and so they broke it into two parts.
I hadn't heard anyone say that before.
To me, that doesn't pass the smell test.
So we'll see.
I'm not going to be his lawyer.
Obviously, I've been asked by many people to do it.
But my role is I generally represent somebody once.
But I hope he'll get a good lawyer.
Ultimately, three lawyers I spoke to recently won't take the case because they're fearful of being attacked and losing their bar and losing their family and friends.
This has been real McCarthyism.
I lived through McCarthyism, where lawyers who defended people who were accused of being communism were canceled in every possible way.
And now current lawyers, even lawyers like me who are not pro-Trump, who voted against him twice, and who insist on my constitutional right to vote against him a third time, I don't want that interfered with by prosecutors or judges or juries.
I want the right to vote against him on the merits for the third time.
So, Professor, I want to ask you about one of the components here.
What do you have to say about the potential defense that Trump can declassify any document and he decides to remove the Presidential Records Act component of this?
What is your legal take on that?
Well, there are two issues.
There is the declassification issue, which he's right about.
If he had announced that he had declassified ABCDEFG, they'd be declassified.
There's no second-guessing that.
The question is: who has the burden of proving it?
If he says he declassified, will the government have to disprove it?
So, classification is one thing.
The President's Records Act is something else.
It has to do with personal records.
Now, you can have personal records that are also classified records, and the President's Record Act doesn't contain any criminal penalties.
It contains a civil way of resolving disputes.
But it doesn't really directly, directly impinge or say anything about the Espionage Act, which is, of course, a misnamed act.
There's no espionage here.
Nobody's charging anybody with conveying secrets to our enemies.
So there's going to have to be some good research done on the relationship between the Records Act and the Espionage Act.
The Records Act, of course, is passed years, years after the Espionage Act.
So that has to be taken into account.
But the other side will argue that it has to do only with possession of personal records.
It really doesn't have to do with obstruction of justice and with maintaining control over classified materials.
So it will complicate the matter, but we'll have to wait and see whether it provides a defense.
Additionally, there is another defendant they're calling a co-conspirator, Waltine Noda.
I mean, in your experience, Professor, are they trying to use him as a way to get to Trump?
Well, there's absolutely no doubt about that.
This is a typical prosecutorial ploy.
You indict the young, poor kid who doesn't have any money, and you then tell his lawyer, this is the allegation.
Prosecutorial Ploys Explained00:01:58
Well, if you really want to get your judgeship, you should flip him.
And you tell the young kid, look, you're facing years in prison.
Everybody else has flipped on Trump.
You should flip on Trump.
There's absolutely no doubt.
The only reason they went after him is because they think they have an opportunity to flip him and turn him into a government witness.
I don't know if they do or don't.
And of course, jurors look askance on flip witnesses because they know that prosecutors can coerce witnesses not only into singing, but into composing and making up lyrics and music sometimes.
So jurors are very skeptical of flip witnesses.
Finally, is there an equal protection claim here that other people in similar positions were not criminally indicted?
Does that fall on deaf ears to a judge if there was a motion?
Please tell me.
Yeah.
Generally, it does.
If you do it on racial grounds, no.
If you do it on religious grounds, no.
But if you argue that, you know, Hillary Clinton should have been indicted and Joe Biden should have been indicted, that won't work because the facts are very, very different.
It works in the court of political opinion, but not necessarily in a court of law.
But those motions will be made.
Maybe they'll be looked at seriously, but they'll be made as much to appeal to the public as to appeal to a court.
Professor, the book is Get Trump.
In closing, do you anticipate more indictments as the summer continues against Donald Trump?
I do.
I think there'll be more indictments.
I think they won't be as strong as this one.
I think this one will be the strongest.
If Jack Smith was smart, he would not have more indictments, but we'll have to wait and see.
Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much.
Check out his book, Get Trump.
We'll have you on it soon.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts.
As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.