0:02

Welcome back to the DIRS show. Big news,

0:04

no surprise, of course, today

0:07

is that President Biden formally announced

0:09

that he will run for re-election

0:12

as President of the United States.

0:16

That announcement carries some legal

0:18

implications in terms of fundraising

0:20

and reporting. But from a news

0:23

point of view, everybody knew

0:25

that was going to happen. And so we now

0:27

have the mano a mano

0:30

face off repeat of 2020. It

0:34

will almost certainly be Biden

0:37

versus Trump. Biden is assured

0:40

nobody's going to run against him, except my old

0:42

friend Bobby Kennedy used to play

0:44

volleyball against him. Boy, he was a tough volleyball

0:46

player. And he and I debated a lot about

0:50

vaccines and stuff. He's running, but obviously,

0:53

if Biden remains healthy, he will

0:55

not win any primaries. Biden

0:58

will be the nominee

1:01

and Trump will probably be

1:03

the nominee, although his numbers are not

1:05

high. Neither are any of his

1:07

opponents numbers high.

1:10

And so the likely face off will

1:12

be a repeat of two

1:15

years ago with each

1:17

of the candidates being four years

1:19

older,

1:20

which raises one issue that I want

1:22

to discuss today. As

1:25

you all know, the Constitution does have

1:27

a minimum age requirement for running

1:29

for President, 35.

1:33

The age of 35, you're a mature,

1:36

mature,

1:37

almost middle aged person. At

1:40

the time the Constitution was

1:42

established, 35 was

1:45

really late middle age life expectancy.

1:48

Was considerably lower than it was today. By the

1:50

way, that's a myth. You

1:52

know, you hear Jefferson obviously lived

1:54

in his 80s, Adams lived into his 80s. And

1:58

who

1:58

knows how long Hamilton would have lived.

1:59

lived, had he not foolishly engaged in

2:02

a duel. But life

2:05

expectancy is measured in two different ways,

2:07

one much more relevant than the other.

2:10

One case, it's life expectancy

2:12

at birth, and that has changed dramatically.

2:16

And back in the day of the Constitution,

2:19

very, very substantial number of children

2:22

born didn't live. They died early, and

2:24

that was factored into life

2:26

expectancy. But

2:28

if you were 35 years old, your

2:30

life expectancy was more than 15

2:32

or 20 years. It

2:35

was higher than that, not

2:37

what it is today. But life

2:39

expectancy is measured by how old you

2:42

are and how many more years you have

2:44

left to live. The Jewish

2:47

expression, of course, is you should live to 120.

2:51

But that's not what the demographic tables

2:54

show. And

2:57

so one question that I want

2:59

to pose to my viewers and listeners

3:01

and hear your views on it in letters, by

3:04

the way, you can send the letters to me right

3:06

now as we talk on YouTube

3:08

and hear your views. Just as there

3:10

is a minimum age requirement

3:13

to run for president, should there be a maximum age

3:15

requirement to run for president? There is

3:17

in some countries. In some countries, there

3:19

are maximum age requirements for virtually

3:22

every office. Dear friend of mine was

3:24

the president of the Supreme Court of Israel,

3:26

Aron Barak, and he

3:28

had to retire at age, I don't remember, 71 or 72.

3:33

And he was in great shape. He's

3:35

now, what, 87 and still fighting

3:37

the good fight.

3:40

The United States, we don't have

3:42

mandatory retirement ages. I retired at

3:44

Harvard at age 75, but I could have gone

3:47

on to 120 if the good Lord had given me

3:50

the

3:50

power to do that. Harvard

3:52

has no mandatory retirement

3:54

age. Some states do. My

3:57

wife's cousin was...

4:00

a judge in South

4:03

Carolina and he was forced

4:05

to retire at 70 and he asked me to

4:07

litigate the case for him and challenge it and

4:09

I did a review of all the cases and found

4:12

that there was really nothing to challenge

4:14

at that time and so

4:18

there are state limitations on

4:20

the age that people can run

4:22

or be appointed and so the question is should there

4:25

be age limitations that you

4:27

can't run

4:28

if you're say going to be 80 on

4:31

the day of the election or the day of the inauguration

4:34

or the day you finish your term if

4:37

it's one term or two terms. There

4:41

are two sides to that issue obviously.

4:46

That would be unconstitutional to do today

4:49

because the constitution is specific. There

4:51

are only these

4:53

small number of requirements to be president.

4:55

You can serve whether you're in prison, you

4:57

can serve while you're at trial

5:00

and you can serve when you're 120 but there should that be

5:03

changed so that's question number one. Related

5:05

to that question

5:07

is something that is being proposed

5:09

now clearly directed

5:12

at Joe Biden,

5:14

not specifically but is clearly directed

5:16

at Joe Biden and that is mandatory

5:19

testing for competence. I'm

5:22

not in favor of that. I'm certainly

5:24

not in favor of disqualifying anybody

5:27

on the basis of a test who would make that

5:29

decision, who

5:30

would decide who is qualified and who's

5:33

not qualified.

5:36

Was Ronald Reagan mentally

5:38

astute enough

5:40

during his last run

5:42

for office? Certainly

5:45

by the end of his second term there are real

5:47

questions. We know that Woodrow Wilson

5:50

was not competent to serve. He had a stroke

5:53

which was hidden from the public and his wife essentially

5:56

governed in the last year or so of

5:58

his term.

5:59

We've had other situations

6:02

like that, not only for the president, but we had

6:04

a secretary,

6:06

I can't remember which defense, I think secretary

6:08

of defense, the name was Forrestal, who

6:11

was completely insane. While

6:14

secretary of defense and his

6:16

paranoid delusion was pretty relevant

6:18

to his job, he believed the Russians were about

6:21

to send planes to destroy America.

6:24

He then jumped out of the hospital

6:26

building that he was in and killed himself.

6:28

He should have obviously been impeached

6:31

and required to

6:33

leave office. That raises really hard questions

6:35

because he

6:37

wouldn't have committed a pitiable offense,

6:39

but he could have been removed

6:42

by the president. You don't have to be impeached if

6:44

you're the secretary of

6:46

defense. That would have been the preferred

6:49

route out. We've had such cases

6:52

and we've had cases of justices and

6:54

judges who have been approached by their

6:56

colleagues and told, look,

6:59

your time's up. If you don't leave,

7:02

we'll make sure

7:04

that you are made to leave. Certainly

7:07

several handfuls over the history of time of

7:11

members of the judiciary have left under

7:13

pressure like that. So

7:16

the two questions raised by this race

7:18

of octogenarians, whoever

7:20

wins, will be the oldest president

7:24

in history when

7:28

they leave. And there

7:31

are questions. As I

7:33

said

7:33

before, I'm 84 and a half. I

7:36

think I'm on top of my game. I think I'm

7:38

confident. I think I could serve

7:40

in any capacity, but I'm not the best person

7:43

to judge that. That's

7:47

why we have elections. We

7:49

would hope that

7:51

before the elections, there would be

7:53

debates, not just one debate, but

7:55

debates where the public would

7:57

be the best test to see whether

7:59

I'm

7:59

not the person was qualified.

8:02

And the people asking him or her

8:04

the hard questions would

8:06

be part of the testers. But what I would

8:08

not favor would be a commission

8:12

of psychiatrists who render

8:14

a judgment as to whether or not a president

8:17

is competent. The

8:19

most I would be willing to accept would be

8:22

a mandatory test designed

8:24

by real experts with the results

8:27

being published for the public to evaluate

8:29

and judge but then vote but

8:32

no disqualification. Of course, we have the 25th

8:35

amendment.

8:35

And if a person is completely incompetent

8:38

as Forrestal

8:40

was, for example, but we didn't have the 25th

8:42

amendment at the time of Forrestal, he

8:44

could be removed without being impeached. You don't need

8:48

treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors

8:50

under the 25th amendment you need

8:52

and it's very hard to get a whole

8:55

series of procedural and substantive

8:59

red lines that have to be

9:01

crossed. And so that's

9:05

one question that's raised by the announcement

9:08

today. Another question,

9:10

and this is a very serious one, is

9:12

we have to be 100% certain

9:16

that the next election is fair

9:18

beyond dispute. We saw

9:21

Tucker Carlson was dismissed

9:24

and there have been lawsuits

9:26

and the Dominion case

9:28

and the Fox case

9:30

all about whether or not the election

9:32

of 2020 was fair.

9:34

You know my view, I think it was basically

9:37

fair. I think Pennsylvania violated the Constitution

9:39

but it wouldn't have made a difference. But there are

9:41

millions and millions of Americans

9:43

who don't trust machines, who

9:45

don't trust early voting

9:48

away from ballot

9:51

boxes that are supervised

9:53

except in cases of the military or people

9:56

who have hardship. And so what

9:58

are we going to do?

9:59

between now and November

10:02

of 2024 to assure that no

10:05

one has any doubts about the

10:08

integrity of the next election. It

10:10

is absolutely

10:11

crucial to democracy

10:14

that people have trust in the

10:16

process. And I have to tell you, people

10:19

do not have trust in the process.

10:22

And the Dominion case didn't increase

10:25

that trust at all, if anything.

10:27

It decreased it. And so

10:30

I'm hoping that the United States

10:32

will adopt what some European countries

10:35

have, what Israel has, what other countries have,

10:37

and that is an election commission,

10:40

a group of incredibly distinguished,

10:43

unchallengeable people, former

10:46

justices or judges, former presidents

10:48

of universities, rabbis, ministers, and

10:50

priests, you name it. And

10:52

it's always difficult to decide who would be on such

10:54

a commission. And electoral

10:57

complaints can be brought to that commission in

11:00

real time, in real time, not

11:02

after the election complaining

11:04

by the loser, but in real

11:07

time so that when the butterfly ballot

11:09

happened in Palm

11:11

Beach

11:12

during the 2000 election, an election

11:14

commission could have been called in to examine and

11:17

change the ballot and make sure it was done

11:20

absolutely properly. I don't

11:22

think we're going to get an election commission. I

11:24

think we're going to continue down

11:26

the path of if there is a loser,

11:29

the loser will bring a lawsuit. The lawsuit will go

11:31

before a judge who was appointed by the winner or

11:33

by the loser, and nobody will

11:35

trust the process. So I'm very

11:37

worried about the integrity of the

11:40

next election. So

11:42

that's the second thing I wanted to talk

11:44

about. Now, you know,

11:46

I'm a Democrat. I'm a liberal Democrat.

11:49

And so all things being equal, if nothing changes,

11:51

I'm going to vote for Joe Biden

11:53

again the way I voted for him the first time. Am I 100%

11:57

thrilled about everything?

12:00

today with the numbers the way they are, this

12:03

election, like the Hillary Clinton

12:06

defeat by Donald

12:08

Trump 2016, is

12:10

likely to be an election

12:12

in which people vote against rather

12:15

than for, in which people say

12:17

to themselves, who would be a better president? I

12:19

don't know, who would be a worse president? Well, maybe

12:21

this person would be a worse president, so I'll

12:24

vote for that person. I'm

12:27

not saying that's the way I feel about it, I'm saying

12:29

a lot of Americans will

12:31

feel that way. I

12:34

don't want to devote the rest of this program

12:36

to telling you why you should vote one way or

12:38

another. I'm trying to do a kind of an objective

12:41

analysis of the problems here

12:44

and the issues here. On the issue

12:46

of who would make a

12:48

better president,

12:49

I think it's fair to say that many

12:52

Americans think that Biden

12:54

would be better on domestic affairs and Trump

12:56

would be better on foreign affairs.

12:58

The foreign policy of the United

13:00

States seems to have been stronger

13:03

under Trump than under Biden and domestic

13:06

policy seems to be better

13:09

and stronger under Biden.

13:11

I'm not saying that's anybody in

13:13

particular's view, but polls seem

13:16

to demonstrate that and so some

13:18

of this will turn on whether you think

13:20

domestic or foreign policies are

13:22

more important. Historically, domestic

13:24

policies have been more important in

13:27

who people vote for

13:28

than foreign policies.

13:31

We're going

13:33

to see issues along those

13:35

lines. Here's one issue of domestic

13:40

policy, largely, which I think will

13:42

have a big impact on the election,

13:45

abortion.

13:47

If the Supreme Court thought that by

13:49

overruling Roe versus Wade, it was doing

13:51

any favors

13:52

for the president who appointed them

13:55

or for the Republican Party, the rural Republicans,

13:58

they were sadly mistaken.

13:59

The Barnes decision helped

14:02

the Democrats in the midterm elections

14:04

in 2022. And

14:08

by 2024, I think there will be

14:10

a Supreme Court decision. We have just

14:13

a holding decision

14:16

a couple of days ago about

14:19

the FDA and the abortion

14:21

pill and the Supreme Court allowed it to go

14:23

forward over two descents. It doesn't tell us

14:25

how the Supreme Court would decide

14:27

the case. And we're going to talk about that either tomorrow

14:29

or in weeks to come. How

14:32

the Supreme Court will decide when

14:34

a state legislature says, uh-uh,

14:37

no, no, no, we're not allowing the

14:39

morning after pill,

14:40

the week after pill or the month

14:43

after pill. No pills that perform

14:45

abortions are to be permitted

14:47

at all. Now the polls are very clear on that.

14:50

The vast, vast, vast majority

14:52

of Americans

14:53

favor abortion at the earliest stages

14:55

of pregnancy and do not favor abortion

14:58

at the latest stages of pregnancy, unless

15:00

the life and health of the mother are

15:03

at stake. And so if

15:05

a state

15:06

and that with will happen, some

15:08

are already in the process of making it happen.

15:12

When a state

15:13

passes a statute saying

15:15

no abortion pill, even during the

15:17

first month or the first week of the first day, no,

15:20

no morning after pills, no early

15:22

abortion pills, it's

15:24

out. There is a right to life. The right to

15:26

life begins the moment of conception,

15:29

zygotes, you know, before

15:31

fetuses and all of that. We're

15:33

going to the mat. We're going to the extreme.

15:36

Will the Supreme Court uphold that? If you

15:38

take to its logical conclusion,

15:41

the Barnes decision and judge Alito's

15:44

opinion in it, of course the answer

15:47

has to be yes, the state can ban it. What they said

15:49

is there's no constitutional right to

15:51

abortion period. And if there's no constitutional

15:53

right to abortion period, then

15:56

the state can do what it pleases. And

15:58

that would include banning.

15:59

the morning after pill, the week

16:02

after pill, the month after pill. The

16:04

case previously didn't involve the morning after

16:06

pill, so we're not completely sure

16:09

about all of that. But

16:11

if that were to happen, I

16:13

have to tell you that would really hurt the Republicans.

16:17

There are many mothers out there and fathers out

16:19

there who are less ideological

16:22

and more concerned about their daughters. And

16:24

their 16-year-old daughter comes home after

16:27

a terrible experience with a man who

16:30

raped her or with a relative

16:34

who raped her and is

16:37

three days pregnant or a week pregnant or

16:39

a month pregnant.

16:40

The vast majority of Americans will

16:43

not want to vote for a candidate

16:46

that won't allow their daughter to have an abortion

16:48

at that early stage.

16:50

They're not thinking theology. They're not thinking

16:53

politics. They're thinking, my daughter, my

16:55

daughter is my 16-year-old daughter,

16:57

really capable of going through

17:00

nine months of pregnancy and bearing

17:02

a child. That will hurt the Republicans.

17:05

Now, there's something that will hurt the Democrats. Three

17:08

letters, very easy, AOC, the

17:11

squad. The incredibly

17:15

radical woke

17:17

members of the Democratic Party

17:19

who basically

17:22

would like to turn America into a socialist

17:25

utopia, which would be, of course, a dystopian, not

17:27

a utopia, and who don't care about freedom of speech and don't care

17:29

about freedom of

17:32

assembly, who don't care about due process,

17:34

who don't care about rights at all. All they care

17:37

about is getting their way. And there are too many

17:39

of them. And

17:40

they're too influential in the

17:43

Democratic Party. And

17:45

when you have the former

17:47

head of the Democratic House, an American House,

17:49

Nancy Pelosi, posing their

17:51

arm around Ilhan Umar,

17:54

a viciously anti-Semitic, anti-American

17:57

bigot

17:58

from the squad. that

18:01

doesn't help the Democrats. People

18:03

have to remember, we are

18:05

a nation of moderates.

18:07

We are a centrist nation. And

18:10

the party that presents itself as

18:12

principled and centrist is

18:15

going to win this election.

18:16

And it's going to win this election no matter who the candidate

18:19

is because although people

18:22

vote for the candidate, they vote

18:24

not for the platform

18:27

or the program of the party, they

18:29

also vote for kind

18:31

of the approach and the attitude. And I get asked

18:33

all the time, how can I be a Democrat still

18:36

with the squad in there? Everybody knows I hate the squad.

18:38

I hate the squad

18:39

on the hard left, even more than I

18:41

hate people on the right. I

18:44

don't include Nazis and fascists on

18:46

the right, but the people on

18:48

the hard right. I

18:51

really despise those people.

18:53

One of the reasons I remain a Democrat is I want

18:56

to help push the Democratic Party

18:59

into the center and to help them marginalize

19:02

the extremists. I threatened

19:04

publicly to quit the Democratic Party. When

19:07

a person ran, Ellison,

19:10

to be the head of the Democratic Party who had

19:13

extremist views and anti-Israel

19:16

views and views of that kind, and I said, if you

19:18

were elected head of the Democratic Party,

19:21

you can have my car and I'll be an independent.

19:23

Well, it didn't happen. He lost, and

19:26

I didn't have to end in my car. I

19:28

really am an independent more than anything

19:30

else, but to vote in primaries today, you have

19:32

to declare a party and I declare Democrat

19:35

because I want to have influence to make sure

19:38

that the hard left of the Democratic

19:40

Party doesn't take

19:42

over the party and ultimately take

19:44

over the country. So what

19:47

I'm trying to do today is what I often

19:49

do and

19:50

to do an analysis of what

19:52

the upcoming election is going to be. This is

19:54

not polemical. You can disagree.

19:56

You can agree.

19:58

But judge me not.

19:59

on who I support because

20:02

that didn't really figure into the analysis

20:04

I've given you today. But judge me on whether

20:06

you think I'm right or wrong in

20:09

my analysis about various

20:11

things from age to ideology.

20:14

So let's turn now to some

20:16

questions. Let's see if we have any

20:18

questions

20:20

that are coming

20:22

in live. There are a couple coming in live. Let's

20:24

see if there are any. I can read. Could

20:28

Trump beat RFK Jr.?

20:31

Yes. Trump could beat RFK Jr.

20:36

But Tucker is no longer with Fox. The

20:38

media has maintained radio silence

20:40

on this.

20:41

When the media is silent on something, I

20:44

am suspicious. Well, media hasn't

20:46

maintained silence. Newsmax has been very vocal

20:48

about it. Fox has been pretty

20:50

quiet about it. CNN's jumping

20:53

up and down with joy, but they're not talking much about

20:55

Don Lemon. And of course,

20:57

that group of women,

20:59

what's the name

21:03

of that show again, Elon?

21:05

The women, the one I mistook

21:07

for the five yesterday. The view! The view! They

21:09

were jumping up and down with joy. When

21:13

Tucker Carlson was fired and probably not jumping

21:15

down with as much joy when Don Lemon

21:18

was fired.

21:19

So let's

21:21

look at some other questions that came in yesterday.

21:25

Tucker's voice isn't going away. He'll soon be

21:27

on a new platform and more popular than ever.

21:30

Fox News, though, is history. I

21:32

don't think so. I think Fox News will continue

21:34

to have a very important place in

21:36

America. I don't know who will replace

21:39

Tucker Carlson at 8 o'clock. They

21:42

may just shift around some people and put

21:44

Hannity there. Who knows? But Fox

21:47

is going to maintain its position

21:49

as a very strong voice on

21:52

news and opinion. God

21:55

bless Dersh. Alan called the shots

21:57

spectacularly within the last two weeks. I was

21:59

on the phone. old enough to remember very spirited

22:01

debate on these opinion shows when

22:03

Bill O'Reilly and even Tucker Carlson

22:05

in the early days, they would have guests on

22:07

the opposite side of arguments. They disagree,

22:10

but they hear on both sides. My

22:12

son, Elon, today sent me a debate,

22:14

an old debate,

22:15

between William Buckley and

22:17

Noam Chomsky. And that was really interesting

22:20

to hear. They were both very young at

22:23

the time. And underneath that, there was a

22:25

debate between Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand.

22:28

She had come to a class when I was a student

22:30

at Brooklyn College, and she was this great libertarian.

22:33

But in those days, there were great debates.

22:36

Today, Lincoln-Douglas debate could not occur.

22:39

Half the country would try to prevent

22:41

Lincoln from speaking, and the other half of the country would

22:43

try to prevent Douglas from

22:46

speaking. That happened at NYU just this week.

22:48

A great woman, a moderate

22:51

from Israel, tried to speak at the NYU

22:54

Law School when there was signs,

22:56

Zionists are not welcome here. Zionists

22:59

go home and they shouted her down. Fortunately, she

23:01

was able to speak over some of them, and

23:03

at least some of the students

23:04

were able to hear her

23:06

views. Alan,

23:09

great show. I enjoy your discussion of legal issues.

23:12

If I become president, you will be on my shortlist

23:14

as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. But

23:16

you better become president very

23:19

fast, because I think the oldest

23:21

person ever appointed to be a justice was

23:23

Alva Wendell Holmes. And

23:25

he was 60, so nobody is appointing

23:28

an 84-year-old to the Supreme

23:30

Court. And

23:33

probably you're not going to get elected president. I

23:35

hate

23:35

to break the news, but that's

23:38

the reality. All kidding aside,

23:40

your predictions, since I've started with your

23:42

station, have been very accurate. No,

23:44

I'm very proud of that. And again, I say

23:46

my predictions are accurate, and they have been extremely

23:49

accurate. My predictions are accurate, because I

23:51

don't allow my ideology. I'm

23:54

like a bookie

23:55

who makes

23:57

his money by being able to predict correctly.

24:00

the outcome of a game. Bookies don't

24:02

root for the Yankees or the Red Sox. Bookies

24:06

analyze the situation and

24:08

set the odds according to

24:10

their analysis of the situation. That's what I

24:12

do. Tell them your nickname for you. What?

24:15

That's a good nickname for me? Durs

24:16

Tridamus. Oh, yeah, my son

24:18

has come up with a new nickname for me. Durs

24:22

Tridamus. No Tridamus

24:24

with the Durs in the beginning. No,

24:27

I don't look to any external

24:29

source to make predictions.

24:31

I just use my 60 years of experience.

24:34

I've seen it all.

24:35

I know the judges. When people ask me, client,

24:38

will I win or I lose the case? I'll

24:40

say, tell me you're the judges. And I'll tell you whether you're going to win

24:42

or lose the case. That's pretty cynical, but

24:44

it's pretty accurate. So predictions

24:49

have to be based on data and have to be based

24:51

on experience. And not based on wishful

24:53

thinking. Great news about

24:55

Kim Potter. She never should have gone to jail.

24:58

I hope she will be okay. She is let

25:01

out today. After a year

25:03

in prison, a year too long, she

25:05

did nothing criminal whatsoever.

25:08

And my only regret is that she

25:11

didn't

25:13

pursue this vigorously. Maybe

25:15

she will. Maybe the appeal is still pending. I hope

25:17

it is. And maybe she'll be vindicated.

25:19

Where will she go to get the year back? Where will

25:22

she go to get her reputation back? The criminal

25:24

justice system is not a search for truth.

25:27

If it were a search for truth, Kim

25:29

Potter would be reprimanded for making

25:32

a terrible tragic mistake of

25:34

pulling a wrong gun. Maybe she'd be subjected

25:36

to a training program. Maybe her

25:38

lethal weapon would be taken away. All of those

25:40

are reasonable responses

25:43

to what happened to her.

25:45

But putting her in jail for a year? No, no

25:47

way.

25:48

No way. No more than actors

25:52

who make mistakes like we

25:54

have seen now should be put

25:56

in jail for honest

25:58

mistakes. It is not

25:59

a crime to make a mistake.

26:02

It's not a crime to be

26:05

merely negligent. And there's

26:08

no indication that either of them

26:10

were actually negligent. Usually

26:12

negligence is defined as voluntarily

26:15

undertaking an act that you have reason

26:18

to believe might very well cause

26:21

an untoward result. And I think

26:23

in either of those cases, Alec

26:26

Baldwin or Kim Potter, was that

26:28

true. So I'm glad that Baldwin

26:31

is not being prosecuted. I'm glad that

26:33

Kim Potter is free. I

26:35

wish

26:35

she hadn't gone to jail at all.

26:37

And that's too bad. Don't

26:40

ever retire, Dershowitz. We need

26:42

you. I don't even know how to retire.

26:45

I tried to. My

26:48

definition of retirement basically is

26:50

I don't have to put on an alarm clock in the morning. And

26:53

for a few days a week, not always

26:56

today I had to and other days I have to. But

26:58

the days I don't have to put on an alarm and

27:00

I can just sleep when my wife and I

27:03

wake up naturally, that

27:05

to me is the beginning, the beginning

27:08

of retirement. Professor,

27:10

is that a portrait of Franz Kafka on the wall

27:13

over your right shoulder or Picasso? That's

27:15

Franz Kafka. That's

27:16

the other side. That's Franz Kafka

27:19

and that's a lithograph

27:22

done by Warhol. Warhol did a lithograph

27:25

of the 10 prominent Jews of the 20th

27:27

century and Warhol

27:30

selected the 10 and

27:34

most of them you've heard of. The Marx Brothers,

27:36

my son, owns that one.

27:39

Kafka, Freud, Golda Meir

27:45

and others. Gershwin, are

27:49

among the 10. I used to own all 10

27:52

but that's when I lived in my big house in Cambridge,

27:55

Massachusetts once we moved from a big house

27:57

to small apartments. I

27:59

had

27:59

to sell

28:02

most of the Warhol 10 prominent

28:05

Jews. I also had the endangered

28:08

species lithographs and I had had

28:10

redoity and I

28:13

had to give all those up. And so you know

28:15

for me you don't own art, you rent

28:17

it. You use it, you use

28:20

it as long as you can, you then give it to your

28:22

children if you can. I'm looking forward to

28:24

my children taking some of my

28:26

art and some of my historical documents,

28:29

but that's Franz Kafka who

28:32

is more relevant today than ever before.

28:35

Everybody should go back and reread

28:37

the trial by

28:39

Kafka and you will see

28:42

how much what went on during

28:44

the trial resembles

28:46

what is going on in

28:48

today's trials

28:51

and it will make you wonder

28:53

very much about the American legal

28:56

system. Professor,

28:58

you're a frequent guest on conservative

29:00

media outlets

29:02

for a

29:02

lot of reasons, one of which is

29:05

non-conservative media outlets won't have me.

29:07

I used to be a regular guest on CNN. I'm obviously

29:10

canceled there. I'm canceled on MSNBC.

29:12

Canceled on a lot of the

29:15

left-wing media outlets even though

29:17

I myself am a liberal. I saw you

29:19

often invited to Newswax and given your

29:21

input on some legal issues which they seem to

29:23

appreciate. I even saw you on Ben Shapiro

29:26

in that context, but there are plenty of issues you

29:29

and them strongly disagree on, so why can't you get

29:31

together sometimes and discuss these issues

29:33

as well? I'd love to. I would love to see

29:35

more and more and more honest

29:38

debates, real debates, Lincoln Douglas

29:41

type debates. I think the American public

29:43

would very much appreciate them. All right, last question.

29:46

Professor, if a member of the president's cabinet lies

29:48

while testifying before a congressional committee,

29:51

would that be considered perjury? Yes, absolutely.

29:54

There's no immunity for a presidential

29:57

appointee. There is an immunity for members of

29:59

Congress.

29:59

Would such perjury constitute an impeachable

30:02

offense? Yes, it would be. Perjury

30:05

would be a high crime and

30:07

misdemeanor. If it was about

30:09

government activities, I don't think the

30:12

perjury allegations that were made against Bill Clinton,

30:14

that had to do with his

30:17

private sex life constitute

30:20

an impeachable offense, but it would constitute an impeachable

30:22

offense if you needed to impeach. But of course, remember

30:24

the cabinet doesn't have to be impeached. All the president has

30:27

to do is snap his fingers in the sky. All

30:29

right, see you tomorrow.