Alan Dershowitz

Well, do you know where this idea all came from? It all came from radical Democratic lawyers who started a project called the Project 65. It started during the Biden administration, and its express goal was to punish law firms and lawyers who had defended Donald Trump. So I wrote an op-ed piece saying, If you go after anybody because they defended Donald Trump, I will defend them pro bono.

So what do you think they did? They filed a bar charge against me. It cost me over $100,000 to defend myself against frivolous bar charges in Arizona and Massachusetts. I won all my cases, of course. But a bunch of lawyers... who were asked to defend Donald Trump said, no, we don't want to be, quote, Dershowitz. We don't want to have happen to us what happened to Dershowitz.

So what do you think they did? They filed a bar charge against me. It cost me over $100,000 to defend myself against frivolous bar charges in Arizona and Massachusetts. I won all my cases, of course. But a bunch of lawyers... who were asked to defend Donald Trump said, no, we don't want to be, quote, Dershowitz. We don't want to have happen to us what happened to Dershowitz.

So what do you think they did? They filed a bar charge against me. It cost me over $100,000 to defend myself against frivolous bar charges in Arizona and Massachusetts. I won all my cases, of course. But a bunch of lawyers... who were asked to defend Donald Trump said, no, we don't want to be, quote, Dershowitz. We don't want to have happen to us what happened to Dershowitz.

So it all started with Project 65, a group of left wing lawyers. And there was no objection from the bar. Indeed, there was cooperation by the bar. And so we're seeing a lot of hypocrisy. I don't like what Trump is doing to law firms. But it all started with liberal Democrats, and nobody cared about it then. So this is, again, the application of a double standard.

So it all started with Project 65, a group of left wing lawyers. And there was no objection from the bar. Indeed, there was cooperation by the bar. And so we're seeing a lot of hypocrisy. I don't like what Trump is doing to law firms. But it all started with liberal Democrats, and nobody cared about it then. So this is, again, the application of a double standard.

So it all started with Project 65, a group of left wing lawyers. And there was no objection from the bar. Indeed, there was cooperation by the bar. And so we're seeing a lot of hypocrisy. I don't like what Trump is doing to law firms. But it all started with liberal Democrats, and nobody cared about it then. So this is, again, the application of a double standard.

Don't stand up against Donald Trump if you are prepared to stand up, if you are prepared not to stand up against the 65 Project. The 65 Project, look it up. It started all this, and it expressly said, It was going after lawyers who defended Donald Trump. So let's understand where this started from. And it's wrong no matter who does it. We should not be weaponizing our legal system.

Don't stand up against Donald Trump if you are prepared to stand up, if you are prepared not to stand up against the 65 Project. The 65 Project, look it up. It started all this, and it expressly said, It was going after lawyers who defended Donald Trump. So let's understand where this started from. And it's wrong no matter who does it. We should not be weaponizing our legal system.

Don't stand up against Donald Trump if you are prepared to stand up, if you are prepared not to stand up against the 65 Project. The 65 Project, look it up. It started all this, and it expressly said, It was going after lawyers who defended Donald Trump. So let's understand where this started from. And it's wrong no matter who does it. We should not be weaponizing our legal system.

We should not be having warfare on either side. But it's understandable when the left uses lawfare, going after Donald Trump in the New York case. was the worst criminal case I've seen in 60 years of being involved in defending criminals. I've never seen a case as bad as the New York case.

We should not be having warfare on either side. But it's understandable when the left uses lawfare, going after Donald Trump in the New York case. was the worst criminal case I've seen in 60 years of being involved in defending criminals. I've never seen a case as bad as the New York case.

We should not be having warfare on either side. But it's understandable when the left uses lawfare, going after Donald Trump in the New York case. was the worst criminal case I've seen in 60 years of being involved in defending criminals. I've never seen a case as bad as the New York case.

So lawfare started, started with the Democrats, and now we're seeing tit-for-tat reprisals by the Republicans. Both are wrong.

So lawfare started, started with the Democrats, and now we're seeing tit-for-tat reprisals by the Republicans. Both are wrong.

So lawfare started, started with the Democrats, and now we're seeing tit-for-tat reprisals by the Republicans. Both are wrong.

Well, let's just go back to Governor Wallace, who made the same kinds of statements back in 1954, 1955 and 1966. He said, we have laws in the state of Mississippi, the state of Alabama that prohibit black students from going to school with white students. And we're going to enforce our laws. And the federal government said no. No, no, no.

Well, let's just go back to Governor Wallace, who made the same kinds of statements back in 1954, 1955 and 1966. He said, we have laws in the state of Mississippi, the state of Alabama that prohibit black students from going to school with white students. And we're going to enforce our laws. And the federal government said no. No, no, no.

Well, let's just go back to Governor Wallace, who made the same kinds of statements back in 1954, 1955 and 1966. He said, we have laws in the state of Mississippi, the state of Alabama that prohibit black students from going to school with white students. And we're going to enforce our laws. And the federal government said no. No, no, no.

We have a constitutional, and in this case, Article 9, Article, you know, all these various titles coming in that are federal law. And under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the civil rights laws, federal civil rights laws, trump state laws. And so there is a legal basis for enforcing federal law over the states. And as I say, it goes back to the 50s when the shoe was on the other foot.