All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
29:44
Alan Dershowitz - April 6th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
It is an ongoing case, and I've been very clear about that.
And I never thought anything like this could happen.
The only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it.
So far, he's just giving his normal list of grievances.
We don't consider that necessarily newsworthy, and there's a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your city.
Going to play our guitars and saying you will come to sound.
Sean Henny.
The new Sean Hannity show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show, toll-free.
It's 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, a lot of news made by a friend of this program for a long time, Professor Alan Dershowitz, about his prediction that Donald Trump, in spite of this Noah Punant,
well, actually Pun intended, a Trumped up charge, this novel legal theory of Alvin Bragg, this nonspecific crime that nobody knows what the hell he's talking about in the 34, you know, with the 34 indictments that he has.
But he's been ahead of the curve on all of this.
And he's, you know, I've been talking about what is a legal tsunami that the left is trying to push onto Donald Trump.
Some people believe maybe they really want him to be president, and this is all about bloodying him up as much as possible, letting him survive and letting him be the candidate.
But people saying, oh, it's just too much, and, you know, et cetera.
I don't know if I buy that theory, but it's out there.
The one thing Professor Dershowitz does, his book is called Get Trump.
It's a number one New York Times best-selling author.
It's a bestseller right now on its own.
The threat to civil liberties, due process, and our constitutional rule of law.
If you're a regular listener to the show, you know that we've been talking about this a lot.
Professor, welcome to the program.
And I know, as you know, you have been quoted quite a bit in the last 24 hours.
And you were on my TV show last night.
You echoed sentiments that you had made earlier in the day.
And that is that you believe Donald Trump will be convicted in a New York City courtroom.
Just like I believe that civil rights workers who spit on the sidewalk or put their cigarettes out of the sidewalk in 1962 at Selma, Alabama would be convicted by an all-white Ku Klux Klan-oriented jury.
It doesn't take a lot of legal talent to know that when the jury pool is rigged, you're going to get a conviction.
Here you have 12 jurors, most of whom, maybe all of whom, will have voted for Bragg on a campaign to get Trump.
You think they're going to vote to acquit the man they voted to get?
I just don't think that's possible.
And I don't think judges are going to want to go to their clubs or their fancy places and have people point at them and say, that's the judge that freed Donald Trump.
Look what happened to me when I just defended Donald Trump.
I didn't even free him.
I just defended him.
By the way, I don't even think you even voted for him, did you?
I voted against him.
I voted for the Democrats.
I don't know who I'm going to vote for next time, but my vote has nothing to do with my constitutional analysis.
I do not believe that in the borough of Manhattan, I'm in the borough of Manhattan now.
I love the borough of Manhattan.
By the way, you can keep the borough of Manhattan.
It's a hellhole to me, but go ahead.
Well, I live right on the East River, which is really nice and quiet.
But I don't think you can get 12 jurors fairly selected.
First of all, you think the judge is going to let any defense attorney ask the jurors, did you vote for Bragg?
Were you aware when you voted for Bragg that his campaign was to get Trump?
Did you vote to get Trump?
Can you serve on, you know, how do you get a jury?
Move it to Staten Island, move it to Rockland County.
Okay, let me stop you there.
Do you think the change of venue motion will succeed?
Because I'm not confident it will.
No, it won't succeed because that judge is not going to be willing to subject himself to what I was subjected to and what he knows he would be subjected to.
Look, this judge should have accused himself a long time ago.
There are all kinds of, we have to look now into it, but all kinds of allegations about the contributions he made, family members, his own attitude.
Did he vote for Bragg?
If he voted for Ragg on the campaign promise that Bragg would get Trump, it doesn't seem right.
The appearance of justice is not satisfied when you have people who are so biased.
And by the way, it's not just a bias.
It is such a hatred.
People look at me.
Larry David, my old friend, walks up to me.
He won't talk to me out, Larry.
Can we talk?
No, you're disgusting.
You're despicable.
You know, he thinks that I'm Goebbels and that I helped Hitler get elected.
That's his mindset.
And you get a lot of people in New York who believe that with passion.
You cannot have a fair trial in New York.
I can tell you that if John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster were defending Donald Trump in front of an all-Manhattan jury, they would not win their case.
All right.
But you do think it'll be overturned on appeal, but that judge would be facing the same potential criticism, being ostracized.
All of that is true.
Certainly it did happen to you, especially in Martha's Vineyard.
But it's happened to me in many places which are liberal enclaves.
I don't think I can speak at Harvard University today without it being disrupted, even though I taught there 50 years because I defended Donald Trump.
You defended the principle.
You defended the Constitution.
You're showing a level of consistency that, frankly, your peers are so intellectually dishonest fail to ever show.
I agree with you, but that's the reality.
When you're a lawyer, you have to be a realist.
You have to ask yourself, what kind of arguments can I make that will appeal to 12 jurors who voted for?
So the best, can I say this, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, that the best hope Donald Trump would have with a New York City jury is a hung jury that one or two people are just not going to be convinced?
I mean, because there's so much.
Now, first of all, the statute of limitations, I think, by any objective measure has passed.
We know New York state law, this is a misdemeanor.
Never before has a prosecutor attempted what Alvin Bragg is trying to do here, and that is marry it to a federal law, keeping in mind, by the way, if it's federal election law, that the FEC looked into this case and said there was no violation of the law.
The DOJ looked into it.
Bragg's predecessor passed on it.
Mueller passed on it.
And Bragg himself early on seemed to pass on it himself.
And that resulted in people quitting, one guy writing a book.
The ethics of that is, to me, something that's questionable.
And then was pressured into doing this.
And then he writes an indictment, and I've got it here in front of me.
And he's not identifying the very specific charge that Donald Trump is going to be defending against.
And by the way, a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Yeah, but by the way, he has leaked to the New York Times one of the bases, which is even weaker than the Stormy Daniels.
The New York Times had a story the other day saying, aha, now we really have Trump.
Because the reason that he filed this false corporate statement was because he was planning two, three years in the future that maybe he would cheat on his taxes by taking the $130,000 as a business expense rather than a personal expense, even though he didn't do it.
That's one of the theories now that he was planning to cheat on his taxes for a nickel based on Donald Trump's net worth for a nickel in a couple of years.
It's just absurd.
You know what it means?
It means you're having dinner and you go to a fancy restaurant and you take out your credit card and you say, you know, I'm having dinner with somebody who may give me some business someday.
Maybe I'll take it as a tax deduction.
I don't know.
I'll put it on my credit card.
Two years from now, I'll figure out whether or not I'm going to take it as a tax deduction.
That's enough.
That's enough for Bragg to say that you signed the thing with the possible intention of cheating on your taxes.
That, to me, is the wildest of the allegations, and that's the new one that's just been put in.
But you also, in my mind, and tell me, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have a timeline problem.
But that timeline, how important is it in your legal mind?
Oh, it's crucial because the timeline has two purposes.
Number one, you can't prove that a person made a campaign contribution when he's sitting in the Oval Office.
And that's number one.
Number two, even when they try to stretch the timeline, they still don't come within the statute of limitations, certainly not the misdemeanor statute of limitations, but even not the Telene limitations.
A decent, honorable, neutral judge would throw it out the first day, but he's not going to do that.
He's going to say, no, we'll leave that to the Court of Appeals.
And, you know, most judges don't like to be reversed by the Court of Appeals, but not in the Trump context.
In the Trump context, they don't mind blaming it on the judges up in Albany, as long as they don't have the blame for freeing Trump.
You can't overestimate how important the psychology is.
Look, I'm a realist, a legal realist.
Judges are human beings.
They come home at night.
They have friends.
They have family.
And they do not want to be perceived as the person who helped Donald Trump.
I know that from my personal experience.
That's a scary thought, Professor, because you're saying we have judges that are influenced by politics and not by the Constitution and not by the rule of law that is supposed to govern society.
And that, to me, is the direct threat to that document.
In many ways, I think you could argue that you're shredding the Constitution.
And friends of mine have said, we're prepared to shred the Constitution to get Trump.
Getting Trump is more important than the Constitution.
People have told me that to my face.
They've said to me, Alan, everything you're saying is correct under the Constitution, but can't you just shut the, and then a curse word up.
Why do you have to speak out?
Why do you have to help Trump?
Do you know what this does to that country if you help Trump?
And I keep saying it's the Constitution stupid.
My wife got me a shirt, actual shirt that I wear that says it's the Constitution stupid, and they don't care.
They respond, but it's Donald Trump stupid.
Don't you understand that he's going to destroy the country and therefore it's worth destroying the Constitution again?
By the way, with all due respect, the country's getting destroyed under Joe Biden, not under Donald Trump.
I don't think you can point to a single policy that is effective on the economy or on foreign policy.
I've never been more afraid of what's going on on the world stage.
I call it a new axis of evil with China, Russia, Iran, China brokering deals with the Saudis and the Iranians, now the Syrians and Iranians.
President Xi saying that he's preparing for war after a massive military buildup.
Quick break more with Alan Dershowitz, Professor Dershowitz, his brand new book out, Get Trump, the threat to civil liberties, due process, and our constitutional rule of law.
By the way, it's on amazon.com, Hannity.com, and major bookstores around the country.
You're going to love this book, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right.
All right, we continue now with Professor Alan Dershowitz's brand new book.
It is well written.
It is well thought out.
He takes on every charge, legal charge against Donald Trump and debunks it all.
It's called Get Trump, The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, Our Constitutional Rule of Law, Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores everywhere, at least major bookstores.
As we continue with Professor Dershowitz, let me ask you, why is your book not in bookstores?
Because independent bookstores generally don't want to carry a book called Get Trump.
I have to tell you, I got an email yesterday, though, from the owner of Shakespeare and Company, which was one of my favorite bookstores.
And I had complained that they weren't carrying it.
And she apologized and said, whoa, we're going to correct that.
So maybe it'll have some impact.
But what about the big stores, Barnes and Noble, et cetera?
Books a million.
The independent small stores are not carrying it.
The big stores are.
Barnes and Noble is, and it's done very well in Barnes and Noble.
But I want to make sure we get this, that the president of El Salvador wrote a tweet yesterday saying, don't ever dare lecture us about democracy anymore.
Yeah, this is about two or three days ago.
Yes, I saw that.
Yeah, yeah.
It's an amazing thing that a district attorney in one borough of New York, one borough, can hurt the credibility of the United States in trying to bring democracy to the world.
I've been trying to bring democracy to the world with the Soviet Union, with China, all of my life.
And now you have...
Well, let me ask this.
It's a...
It's a political question.
Do you agree with my analysis that they're trying to create a legal tsunami, bury Trump in legal motions and court appearances and charges so that he can't successfully devote his attention to running for president?
Or is it to get him in jail?
Or is it we're going to charge him, we're going to make his life a living hell and bloody him up as much as possible so that he loses if he is the nominee?
Well, why not all three?
I mean, clearly they want to stop, and there are different people.
Some people would like to see him get the nomination because they think they can beat him.
Some people don't want him to get the nomination.
But there's no doubt that the whole thing is political.
If his name was not Donald Trump, people would laugh at an indictment, a statement effect, like that.
So the purpose is completely political.
And just ask Bragg.
He campaigned on it.
Just ask Letitia James.
She campaigned on it.
Why get Trump?
You get Trump to have an impact politically.
We can argue what the impact is politically, but nobody should ever, ever indict somebody for political purposes, whether you're doing it to help him, to hurt him.
Do you think they'll indict him in Georgia?
Do you think they in Fulton County?
Do you think they will, the special counsel has an indictment that's going to come out of nowhere?
Well, in my book, Get Trump, I go through all four of the charges, and I disprove every single one of them.
In Georgia, you cannot get a conviction based on a telephone call which says find, find, find, not make up, not concoct, not invent, fine, find means that they are to be found.
Well, yeah, it also has to be put in context.
I've read the transcript.
It's a long transcript, Professor.
And there were very specific areas where Donald Trump believed that Georgia did not do proper due diligence in terms of election integrity.
Whether you believe him or not, it doesn't matter.
Absolutely.
He believed it.
And he was saying, I have 18,000 votes here.
I wanted a signature verification in Fulton County, not Cobb County.
But, all right, the book is called Get Trump, a threat to civil liberties, due process, our constitutional rule of law.
By the way, I'm a little mad at you because I had to stay up late one night and I read the whole thing and I couldn't stop reading it.
That's how good a book it is.
It's really well done.
Professor, it's up on Hannity.com, Amazon.com, and big bookstores everywhere.
I hope people get a copy of it.
Get Trump.
We appreciate you being with us, Professor.
Always a pleasure.
Thank you.
800-941-Sean as we continue.
All right.
I know a lot of you want to weigh in on Professor Dershowitz and all the issues we've been talking about.
Anyway, let's say hi to TJ.
He's in the free state of Texas.
TJ, how are you?
Glad you called, my friend.
Doing good, sir.
Glad to be able to speak to you.
Thank you.
Glad you called.
Yes, sir.
I just wanted to say something about your conversation with Mr. Gingrich when y'all were talking about Trump maintaining his, or I guess Mr. Gingrich talked about Trump maintaining his composure with everything that's going on.
I just wanted to call in and say how powerful I think that is if everybody stops and pays attention to, you know, let the left froth and rage and want to see a mugshot and an orange jumpsuit and let Trump just stay over there and sit calm and not respond to that.
Number one, it makes him look good.
And number two, that's what a leader does.
Well, look, I'm just telling you, I've known this man for decades, and I know the strength that he has, and it's fairly unique.
And I know that he doesn't run away from a fight.
And for that, I got to give him a lot of credit, a real lot of credit.
And, you know, it's to me, it's just one of those things that I think Donald Trump takes up more space in more liberals' minds than any other single person alive.
He just gets to them because he's constantly fighting back.
And a lot of people say, Hannity, you got to tell your buddy Trump.
He's got to calm it down a little bit.
Well, we've had that discussion, and his answer is actually very good.
He goes, okay, well, if you're being investigated for something you did not do for three long years and you have the entire media mob establishment and you have the entire sewer of Washington investigating you and you never colluded with Russia at all in any way whatsoever.
And it ultimately turns out to be based on a dirty Russian disinformation dossier that his opponent in 2016 paid for and that the FBI that couldn't verify it used it to spy on him and Carter Page and said to a FISA judge, it's verified when it was unverifiable.
It's now totally debunked.
Then you go through impeachment one, Ukraine, a phone call telling Zelensky, don't waste our taxpayer dollars.
That was the quid pro quo, ostensibly.
And then ignoring Joe Biden, you better fire the prosecutor or you're not getting a billion dollars.
And that prosecutor was fired within six hours.
Ukraine got their money and the investigation into Barismaholdings and his son Hunter stops.
You know, that's not equal justice or application of our laws in this country.
And that is the constant fire that Donald Trump is under.
And then impeachment number two.
I noticed during the impeachment hearings, they never brought up the words, many of you will now peacefully and patriotically march to the Capitol so your voices will be heard.
I don't, I didn't, we didn't see the January 6th committee investigate what NBC News has now reported, which was that there was very specific intelligence, actionable intelligence in the days and weeks leading up to January 6th that they should have been sharing with law enforcement that would have prevented all of what happened that day from happening.
That's a big deal.
You know what that would have resulted in?
That would have resulted in changes to prevent something like that from ever happening again.
Or the police chief, the Capitol Police chief who I interviewed on this very program, who said he was begging for the National Guard both before, during the January 6th, rioting that took place.
People unlawfully entering the Capitol.
That's our institution.
That's the people's house.
We have a duty to protect elected officials.
We have a duty to protect our institutions.
And they failed miserably, even though the intelligence was overwhelming and actionable.
So they don't even doubt that, but that wasn't included.
You know, they never investigated the 574 riots in the summer of 2020.
That's not equal justice.
We have videotapes of people in the summer of 2020.
You know, we can identify them quickly.
Where's that committee?
Where are those arrests?
And again, it's not equal justice.
They can't benefit politically from it.
Why bother?
And now he's under heavy, heavy legal fire.
And I think these people are serious.
I think that they won't be happy until they get him in an orange jumpsuit and in a jail somewhere.
That's what I think their goal is.
Although there is a strong argument to be made.
Some people think, well, Democrats want to bloody him up, make sure he doesn't go to jail, but damage him just enough so that he's not going to be viewed by independents as a viable candidate.
That might be true, too.
I don't know.
Yeah, but the whole damaging him and making him look bad, if he just maintains that composure, that smugness of I'm right because he knows that he didn't do these things, that's what's going to win him today in the end.
And that's what's going to make him the next good leader.
If Donald Trump was not running for president, Alvin Bragg wouldn't have touched this case.
That's a fact.
He ran on a campaign promise to go after one man, one organization, and one family.
And he's fulfilling his promise.
And you know what?
You might as well take the Constitution, bring out a shredder, because it's meaningless right now.
Anyway, I appreciate it, TJ.
God bless you in the great state of Texas.
We appreciate it.
Well, let's stay there.
Let's say hi to Tom in Texas, the free state of Texas.
Tom, how are you?
Where are you in Texas?
I'm doing good.
I'm in Northeast Texas, about two hours through east of Dallas.
And it's an honor, sir.
And thanks to you and your staff for doing what you do every day.
Thank you.
To follow a tremendous guest, as Professor Dershowitz, but if I may dare and only add one thing to what he said, too, I mean, I said, because, and as you outlined the three or four points of what they hope to accomplish, I will tell you for people like myself and those that are around that I speak to who are otherwise ardent supporters of Trump, I think one goal is that is just too much noise to withstand.
And I think they want to push people to the point to where they just can't stand to hear anymore.
And so they start looking for another suitable candidate as DeSantis or others.
So I just pray that we stay the course and we stay on the Trump train.
It is somebody that we desperately need right now.
Listen, I got to tell you something.
I think the country's teetering.
I think that when you look at Putin and China, and we know their territorial ambitions, but their overall ambitions, now that Joe Biden has abdicated America's role as the leader of the free world, they want to take full advantage of it, and they're doing so in real time.
And they have both determined beyond any doubt that Joe Biden is cognitively compromised, and now is the perfect time for them to pursue all of these ambitions.
They even want to replace the dollar with Chinese currency.
Their ambitions go farther further than Taiwan, its other continents.
They're moving into Africa, Latin America.
They want their sphere of influence now to overshadow that of America.
And this is what happens when you elect a weak president that is more beholden to Green New Deal dealists and the climate alarmist cult, religious cult members.
And that's what's happening right now before our eyes.
They have all determined.
Never mind his horrific economic, his horrific energy policies that are killing the average American today.
Two-thirds of the countries live in paycheck to paycheck.
Then you got 25% that are food insufficient, meaning they don't have enough money for food.
You know, you look at food banks around the country.
So many of them, you know, they're seeing need they have not seen in decades of people needing assistance because nobody anticipated that Biden inflation would cost the average American household $10,000 on average a year.
And these are very, very tough, unpredictable times.
I'm just hoping that America sees that a weak cognitive mess as a president cannot be an option moving forward.
It can't.
I don't know what's going to be left next.
I think we are now a vulnerable country and China is on the move and Russia is on the move and the Iranian mullahs are on the move.
And here we are.
That's why the Saudis decided we're not going to remain allies of the U.S. Why do you think they raised the price of or reduced the production of oil with OPEC 1.3 million barrels a day?
Because they want to raise the price, maximize their profits, and they don't give a damn about the U.S. because they were part of a U.S., Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Emirates coalition, but they don't want to be lost in the mix here.
They picked a winner and they picked China and Russia and Iran.
That's what the Saudis just did.
They're looking out for their own interests here.
And they have determined America is not a reliable ally in large part because who is the president?
Scary times.
All right, quick break right back to your phone calls, 800-941-Sean as we continue.
All right, let's get back to our busy phones.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program today.
Andrew in Georgia, what's up, Andrew?
How are you?
Hey, Sean.
Good afternoon.
Thanks for taking my call, sir.
Thank you.
Glad you called.
Hey, there's a couple things I would like to mention.
First thing, your Election Day strategy.
I do like what you propose about early voting, voting by mail, but I do believe we're missing one key critical piece of the puzzle.
And that was what we learned from Trump in 2020 and Kerry Leake just a couple months ago is vote counting.
Because as we figured out that we can embrace all this stuff, the vote by mail and everything, but if we don't...
Well, that's what I mean when I say chain of custody controls.
In other words, when a precinct in any part of the country receives mail with ballots in them, all of that has to be on videotape and available to the people in that precinct 24-7 so that there can be no shenanigans.
You know, there's a reason I mentioned chain of custody command.
There's a reason I mentioned updated voter rolls, a reason for signature verification, for voter ID, partisan observers observing the count start to finish.
There's a reason for all of this.
And, you know, would I prefer paper ballots, Election Day being a national holiday, same-day voting with a few exceptions for the elderly, the sick, and our military?
Sure.
Outside of that, everybody's got to go to the polls.
You have in every precinct partisan observers.
If you're on the ballot, you have an opportunity to watch every precinct and all the voting that takes place.
Then you got, when the polls close, you watch all the vote counting take place.
And then at the end of the night, we declare a winner.
It's that simple.
Yeah, versus what we have been seeing where it's like vote counting takes, where it's like you say repeatedly, where it's not election day anymore.
It's election week.
And so it's becoming election month.
So, yeah, it's definitely something needs to be done.
And unfortunately, as you said before, nothing will change if we don't start winning these elections.
Well, and then ultimately, you know, in the meantime, you got to have, in my view, voter ID, signature verification.
And if you're going to keep the system you have, you've got to match what the Democrats are doing because they're not campaigning.
They're not debating.
They're not shaking hands, kissing babies, taking selfies, doing press surveilles or town halls.
They're hiding.
They're spending millions of dollars in negative ads.
And they have legal, depending on what the state law is, they have legal ballot harvesting.
And Republicans have rejected early voting, voting by mail, and getting into the ballot harvesting, the legal ballot harvesting game that the Democrats are playing.
And they need to adopt it and they need to match it and beat it.
You can't start Election Day down 100,000, 500,000, or a million votes and expect to win.
And that's a big mistake that they have made.
Anyway, got to run.
Andrew, Georgia, we appreciate you being here.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection