but i have to admit, i do have friends among the house republicans who were less than courageous when standing up and saying hello. i wrote a column. i think ten days after the election saying all this hubbub is not going to change outcome of the election because no election, no statewide election in modern american history, that has been reversed, was had more than couple of hundred votes contested, less than a thousand votes. you should have seen. donald trump sent me that day. but, you know, i understand politics is practical and some of my friends were like, you know, i'm ducking and i'm not going to blame them for ducking. but when it comes to the presidency, i want to i want somebody to go out there and demonstrate that they unite the party, that they have a and optimistic vision for the future, the country, and that, by god, they're going to get in there and get us back on the right track. well, on january six, i wrote a column six 2021 that afternoon, i wrote a column that was titled impeach and convict right now, if republicans had taken my advice, the party would be in a

whole lot better shape it is today. welcome. how wonderful to see many of you who have come to hear the brilliant calendar us. thank you. i promise you two things. number, we'll have a little bit of time at the end for q&a. just a very bit of it. we will have it so if someone is burning with a question here. now, make sure you get that hand up. and the second thing is that i also promise that although we will not begin this phase, that i promise alan will tell you some tales of trial. i want to. first of all, by telling you how i know alan which he doesn't even know and, then i want to

talk about a topic that is dear to my heart that he's written about. i only brought one book that i purchased yesterday because this was alan's 50th book, 50 earth, and now there is 51st. alan has it just out there are five books for sale in the bookstore and they are really extra ordinary. alan when i was practicing law in boston before i went into television about the law. alan a house in cape cod in a town called truro and he has shared that house with a man named jim hamilton. right. and i had heard of alan as, i think forever, but as long as i had been interested in the law and i rented that summer house from jim hamilton for a few weeks. and that's how i know alan which

he may not even know. so what i wanted to start with is this is the price of and a that is very close to the price of principle is another book called the case against the new censorship. and they tie in together because you are and you are known as one of the most principled people of let alone advocates in the country and a result of your living by principle, you wound being a victim of cancel culture right. in moore, the most recent times you became a victim of cancel culture because you dared to represent donald trump and your liberal friends or so-called friends decided that they didn't

want you around. so want to ask you first, how did you come to represent him? it's a great question. well, first of all, thank you so much for inviting me this. has been an incredible conference i think there has never so many great writers unite in in one place since thomas jefferson sat alone in his study. this story of my representation of is really quite interesting in summer of 2016, let's remember hillary clinton's way ahead in the polls. i write my publisher and i say, they're trying to impeach hillary clinton before she even gets into. there are all kinds of republicans moving in that direction. one of them said on the day of inauguration will impeach her. i said, let me write. a book called the case against impeaching hillary clinton. and he said and they actually produced a cover.

well, something happened on the to the forum and the wrong person got elected i voted very much against him voted for hillary clinton campaigned for her contributed to her. and then, of course the democrats impeached. trump and i had done all the research charity and and the research had persuaded me that the framers of the constitution i read every word of the constitution conventions and every word of the constitutional conventions that they would only allow impeachment if a president had engaged in treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors and by other other other high crimes, misdemeanors, they meant criminal activity akin to treason, bribery. that's what they impeach trump on. they might have. and if they had, wouldn't have defended him. but they impeached him on the grounds of obstruction congress and abuse of power. now, those are vague terms that

could be applied to almost every president, and it worried me greatly that it doesn't pass the shoe on the other foot tests that if the democrats start that and the republicans start doing that, alexander hamilton's greatest in the federalist papers was impeachment would be used based on who had more votes in, the congress. so i decided over the strong objection of my wonderful wife who's sitting here today and still hasn't forgiven me for that. and many members of my family that my principles the same principles that had me defend bill clinton when he was impeached, the same principle that had me defend ted kennedy when he had his problems in, chappaquiddick, the same principles led me to defend tom sharansky, who was in prison in the soviet union. vaclav havel, who had imprisoned in the former czechoslovak larrakia. nelson mandela i had represented all of those people and i couldn't no to donald.

i never mentioned the name donald trump in my 68 minute argument in the senate, i talked about defending the presidency and the constitution, and i did it purely on principle and now nobody in the town of chilmark, martha's vineyard, is willing to talk to me larry david came to me and said, you're despicable. you're disgrace. i hate to say this because there are kennedys here. caroline kennedy was seated next to me, who i like. and i always admired at a dinner party. and she said to me, if i knew you had been invited, i wouldn't have come. she's now the ambassador. they're supposed to talk to people in china. and she wouldn't talk to me because of who i represented. and so my wife and i. i have a thick skin. she has been the victim. my children have been the victim. my grandchildren been the victim. but my intention is to fight back the library in chilmark, the public library in chilmark

banned me from speaking and banned my books. this is a writer's conference and. it's amazing how liberals people on the left can become mccarthyite. and the reason is obvious. they honestly believe and they may be right, that trump extraordinarily dangerous america and that i was a of trump but let's remember that who did john think the most dangerous people in the were in 1770 the british and he defended the people accused of the boston massacre and thurgood marshall defended murderers and rapists and you name it and so you know think the principle that everybody must get a zealous defense and the constitution must always be defended has to come before my personal ease of life it's been difficult for us on martha's and other places

thank god not people have been so nice here. but in places that order better cancel culture prevailed. thank you. i want read you one paragraph from this book. i love this book. the price of principle the price principle is high. i am the price i ask no one to feel sorry for me. i chose my way of life but the punishments principle and the reward for unprincipled part partizanship transcend me and. my family. they reflect a corrosive societal trend, endangers the cohesion of our nation under the rule of law. i will continue to fight for princip's no matter how high the personal price. i salute you. well, thank you much. this year.

you pay that price in various ways before or. yeah, you've represented some very unhappy, popular people, deservedly so, deservedly unpopular people. when i look at as a lawyer, i look at you as a purist, i think that anyone can come into your office, explain their charges against them or that they anticipate may be leveled against them. and my thought is, right or wrong, that if you have the time and the case interests you, that you will take that case right. i envy you that because i don't think when i practiced that i was as as you and i think that what makes system work is it's

an adversarial that you must have people who ethically and properly prosecute and defend. and if one of those goes away, we don't live in the united states, america. so when you look back at your career where besides donald trump, who do you think of your clients really a difficult person in the public eye for you to represent or after you? well, first you were a phenomenally good lawyer in boston. you were the you know, the queen of the criminal defense bar. and and for good reasons, you just taller. you got people you got people acquitted who. if i were a judge, i would have wanted a sentence 30 and 40 years in prison. if i were a judge, i'd be the toughest judge in the world because it's a different role.

that's power prosecutor. i'd be a tough prosecutor. attorney job is very different. i started my career. i never practiced law. i became an assistant professor at harvard 25 and a full professor at 28. and i had no experience when. my first case came along. it was a neighbor in brooklyn who was accused of capital murder. he belonged to an organization called the jewish league, and they planted bomb in the office of saul yurok, who was bringing soviet talent. and these were -- who didn't want to soviet talent. and the young woman who, brother in law, happened to a billionaire who contributed buildings to harvard and who threatened stop giving to harvard unless i was fired. so in any event, she was killed and the neighbor couldn't get a lawyer. and and so the neighbors father said, well, if if we can't get a real lawyer, why don't go to dershowitz? he's a professor. maybe he can help. and and so i turned to my former

harvey silvergate and i said, harvey, can you show me how to get to the courthouse? and together we worked and we obtained acquittals for all defendants in my first extraordinarily controversial case and particularly the jewish community who hated the jdl, the jewish defense league, meir kahane and, the radicals. they did. my mother didn't talk to me for a while as a result of that, a case. and that's how it really that was a pro bono case my first case, i would say 60% of my cases over my lifetime and causes have been pro. i never when i when the students used to have students who would evaluate the thousands letters i get every year asking me to defend. i would say the one thing i don't want to know is whether they're paying clients. you're not paying clients. i want to make the decision based on the merits and the constitution of the case. now, when the name is leona, you know, it's not in form a

porpoise and and so you know something but when the name is john smith, you don't know. and my rule is been because i had tenure at harvard and because i have no excuse for not defending people, i didn't have to make a living. i was making a good living as a professor. i couldn't be fired. my first criteria was take on the most controversial cases that nobody else will take on. and that's why i was called the lawyer of last resort. in fact, when an israeli newspaper interpreted lawyer of last resort, this was the time i was representing leona helmsley and our hotels. they interpreted as dershowitz was the last lawyer for resorts resorts. not quite what i had in mind and so if nobody else will take the case and i think the primary examples are people obviously jeffrey epstein one of the most

despicable in american history and of course i know anything about that i was introduced to him by lady rothschild and then and entered and the president of harvard told me to become acquainted with him and go to his seminars because he was contributed contributing this money. none of us know anything about it. he met the and the queen had with him and met me and my wife and and then i represented him and. i got a deal. he he almost fired me and refused to pay the fee because he said the deal was terrible. everybody else said the deal was too good. and, you know, nobody's ever happy with with that kind of thing. but, you know, i've represented some of the most popular people in the world who could be have more pride than representing nelson mandela. and i'll tell you the story about my representation in this mandela place so my job was to try to get a spy swap involving

nelson mandela and a totally who was then serving his eight year in a soviet prison for nothing fact for nothing i'll tell you the story of it i learned all these stories soviet dissidents. so a new comes to the gulag and he got ten years in prison and the prisoners yell at him, what do you do to get ten years? and he goes, i nothing. they all go wire for they only give you five years. so so, you know, i represented these folks and and the million dollar case, we i went i spent day one year away from my family in east germany and in other places working with a guy named wolfgang vogel, who was the spy trade. if any of you saw the bridge the the the the about he was the guy so i dealt with him and the goal was we had arrested the united states had arrested a east

german spy and i and i got a call from the ci vogel and said it would be good you could have somebody represent him who we can negotiate with. so i got jean baker and harvey silver guy to represent him to fax all this fabulous lawyers and. the goal was to get an exchange mandela and sharansky for this east german guy. and another guy who was in the south african prison from the soviet union and mandela said, no. and i said, we can get you out. and mandela said, no, i'm not a spy. i'm not a of a trade. i am walking only when both and the segregationists and the apartheid government in south africa lets, me walk out, i'm walking out as a political not as a spy. he refused to be involved in the deal. we sharansky out in fact sharansky his wife, when she called me, he had just been arrested. he was about she was about 30

years old at the time, and she was crying on the phone. and she said, i have only one wish. get him out in time for him to give me baby. and i got him out when she was 39. she had two children. i am essentially their godfather and. you know, those kinds of cases give you tremendous, tremendous pride. you sleep well at night. but when you represent people who you wish you were prosecuting. but that's not the job were assigned. you have to do everything in your power ethically, zealously, legal way to try to make the best defense. and sometimes when you win, you go home. you have that glass of scotch, and then you have that glass and saying, why did pick this profession? why wasn't i a doctor? well, i guess that brings me to the question how did you feel when oj simpson was acquitted? oh, i felt very good about that i'll tell you why.

and one of my heroes, bill bratton, is in the audience. they'll appreciate this. we didn't win the o.j. simpson case. the police in los angeles lost, that case, it was an open, shut case. you wouldn't need a prosecutor reagan crime and two, to win that case. his blood is found at scene. he has a motive. it's the easy case in the world to win. and the idiot policeman, a guy named orpheus of van adder, decided the case may have been too weak because the glove had a lot of the evidence and the glove was found illegally. what happened is the officer jumped over the fence, made up phony story, said he was there to warn simpson that maybe they were going to try to kill him. they found the glove. everybody thought the glove would be suppressed. so what did they do? they man you factual a piece of evidence. what happened is o.j. simpson was wearing socks at the time and the socks were found on the foot of the bed in the search. and i actually saw the socks i

didn't see anything on them. and then discovered that there on the socks, the blood of the victim in, o.j. simpson. wow. what could be a better piece of evidence? nothing, except we discovered that van had or had taken stockholm unauthorized and taken the blood files, and we were able to prove that he had poured the blood on the sock. how did we prove that? two ways. number, if you pour blood if you if you are running through a crime scene and you have blood sprinkled your sock, it's going to be on one side of the sock. and then there will be a mirror image on the second side. there will not be a mirror image on the and fourth side because the leg intervened this sock. four mirror images and the jurors all believed us that they were framing a guilty person.

the police knew as far as they were concerned he was guilty. they didn't want him to get away with it. and so they quote enhanced the evidence and. we prove that to the jury. nine of the jurors afterward who were interviewed essentially said that we if we couldn't trust the sock, how could trust everything else? look, maybe the the beating that occurred previously in los angeles had an impact. the racial we don't know i did not the fact that johnnie cochran who i loved was a wonderful, wonderful lawyer i did not like the fact that he played the race card. i called him on it. he was the chief counsel. i couldn't stop it. i don't think that was fair. and bob shapiro said, pulled the race card and he pulled it out of the of his deck. so i don't want be associated with that part of it. but it was exactly what we should have done. the police and prosecutors should not win a case with

tampered evidence. the it's interesting i wound up going into television because of that case. remember that i was hired by court tv specifically to anchor the o.j. simpson case. and you, barry scheck and peter, who were the dna guys who we used to call fondly, the science weenie guys? let me interrupt you for one second. i got them on board. i brought them into the case. and if lee bailey tried to keep them out of the case, saying there are two new york, but barry did a they were really phenomenal. and so what you're saying, in essence, is looking at the evidence, the sock on, let the glove which of course had because it had been wet and if it couldn't fit on your hands,

johnnie cochran hands, it certainly could have fit on o.j. simpson's big hand. yeah, that science really won that case, that my specialty has been over the 50 years now. it's almost 60 that i practice criminal law has always science i was hired at harvard as the end professor course i taught had an end law and psychiatry law and dna law and literature. well, i actually caught a chance. taught a course called law and baseball. i'm going to ask you all a question. then you can come over after it and tell me, how do you get for outs in an inning. i'm going to answer the question. you too lose sleep. how do you actually get for and i used to start my class on law and baseball by asking of the students one of those questions. then i realized they were not paying attention to the class. they were trying to figure it out and so i ended my with that instead of starting my my class with that. i'm sorry. no, no, no, no. it's great to listen your tales,

class von bulow before get to class from you. have one more story, please. so, carolyn and i are in israel. i was writing a book called the genesis of justice about the book of genesis. and we get a call from the then newly elected prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. hello. my question for you about that to so who who i had met when he was 22 years old and a student at mit and he said, alan, bring your wife, bring your daughter. the the equivalent of the oval office and we'll schmooze little, talk a little and we'll just say, so we go there and then he says, alan, i have a question really needed to ask you. this is 1996 a question i really needed to ask you. i thought it would be very i thought it would be about the palestinians takes me into his little private office is absolutely soundproof and he says alan, did o.j. do it so i said, mr. prime minister, does israel have

nuclear weapons? he said, you know, i can't tell you that. i said, you know, i can't tell you that. and i will get back to von bulow. but you're mentioning netanyahu, who israel brought you into the news recently, right and there is a whole question. it goes back to principle you're a staunch defender of israel and you been very public about your support and now there are actions occurring having to do with a legislature for using a us term. the legislature and the judiciary ari that you do not approve. explain that and you know it's a it's a conflict. what carol and i were in israel for five weeks. a few weeks ago, and i met with the prime minister. i met with the president, met with everybody and i had a very contentious talk with bibi, who i've known, as i say, for over a

half a century. and i said, look, i support you on iran. i support you in a lot of things. you're just wrong on the judiciary. the supreme court of israel should the last word on issues of civil due process, free speech. there shouldn't be an override by the knesset and. what's happening in israel is exact only what's happening in the united states deeply divided country. in order for bibi to become prime minister, he has to make deals with the devil and met the devil. when i was there. just like mccarthy to become speaker the house, he had to make deals with the devil. i wish neither them had done it, but they did. they're both democracies and pendulum swings wildly. now, you know, it's right in israel. it's left in the united states. it'll change but as long as both countries maintain democratic character, i'm i'm happy. and really believe that. and i share your by the way that the idea that a legislature can

overrule the high court is very dangerous it's very dangerous. and i told them that. and i'm jake tapper. just two nights ago, i didn't see it, but about ten people told me, jake tapper interviewed on cnn bibi and one of his first questions was even alan, who's your friend and who defends israel, is against this override. how do you defend it? so know i'm being used against the government and i'm perfectly content with that. as you say. for me, it's a question of principle. my principles always come before my personal friendships. so now i'll get back to von bulow. sure. very, very controversial figure. yeah. people certainly believe that he did it. yeah tell us about your relationship or your involvement, that case. so i get a call on april 1st and the guy with a british accent.

i am klaus von bulow. and i said, april fool's day to you too. who is this? is it? no, it's really klaus von bulow and i have a death penalty. i said no. i read about it in. the newspapers, it's 30 years. no, no, it's a death penalty case, he said. in britain, when you're convicted of 30 years and you're a gentleman they give the gentleman an opportunity to go into a private room with, a gun and resolve the matter in a way appropriate to him. he said i said, you're using fancy words, but you're telling me if i don't win the case, you're going to commit suicide? he said yes, and i don't whether he was bluffing or not, but i decided to take the case. i together an incredible team of students and faculty. susan estrich was part of my team. oh, i'll tell you the great season, esther story. so i finally get to argue the case i was i was single the time, although i was dating

carolyn, i was single at the time and. i had a big house, rented house in and everybody the team played in the house played basketball and we worked on this brief together. so we argue the case and it's i'm given a half an hour for my main argument, 10 minutes for rebuttal. and it's the first case on television, first live appeal ever on. so people are watching it all over. and i do my first 15 minutes. i think i did a really job. who knows? i didn't know for. and then the state gets up and does its job and you know, i was happy and and i had 15 minutes. so i get up and i say, mate, you know, please. the court i had my 15 minutes of rebuttal. in rebuttal was always the important part of the case. you get the last word. suddenly i feel a hand on rear end down my belt. like, you know, like today it would be sexual harassment. it's susan estrich saying, sit the f down.

you won the case. shut up. and i listened to her and i said, you know, haltingly with her hand still there, your honor, as if you have no questions. i think i'll take my seat. and so they had no further questions and just four weeks later they came down with their united mis decision reversing and then went back for a new trial and we had developed all this new evidence, all the evidence that it was an insulin that, you know, very scientific evidence that and then like an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury unanimously science again science again. and i'm sure that you understand the hardest thing on earth for a trial lawyer and appellate lawyer is to sit down and be quiet, let me just tell you one more quick science. so represented a man, a woman who was accused of killing her

husband. you may know the husband name his he banyan bed. he ran the casino in nevada that had the world series of poker and her then minion binion and and he fell lust with an 18 year old or a 19 year old stripper. and married her. she, of course, had a boyfriend down the side. he was rich and old and she ended up dead. he up dead and and the great pathologist, michael michael barden was. the lawyer was the expert witness and he proved miraculous brilliantly that they had burnt him to death. king is a term coming from a john a stevenson story called burke and hare, where they would kill people by compressing their chest and not allowing them to

breathe. and he was able to prove it because found a button mark on the skin which was exactly same as the button on his shirt that clearly demonstrated he died this way. i took over the case. i didn't do the trial. i took over the case. i look at the button mark and i'm having my doubts the body is, of course, no longer around. it's just photographs i take photograph to dr. nims, who is the of pathology at mass general hospital. and i say i would like you to examine that of that that mark and i showed him the photographs and everything and he comes with this amazing conclusion. no, it wasn't a bruise from a button. it was a preexisting birthmark. and then he did that through the vehicle and everything. we then went to pictures of him as a young man. sure enough, it was the birthmark and we won the case. so it's a great postscript. we that trial on court tv, i say

that trial this is you have to understand the mentality of trial lawyers and appellate lawyers where we love trials that the general would say what's wrong with look what happened those people mike tyson mike was one of the nicest guys you'll ever want to meet gentle soft spoken. he invites me to come and him and and don king in the hotel room the night before he was about to go to prison. would i do the appeal? and he was kind of giving me, you know. i was i was interviewing for the appeal and and he gives me he gives me the facts of his version of the facts. and, you know, went to a hotel room with a young woman we had met and three in the morning, and they had sex. he said consensual sex. she no. and he gives me the story. and he says so alan, you think

i'm innocent or guilty? and i said, mike, i can't tell that. i mean, i have to read the whole record i have to read the transcript. i can only tell you i'll give you the best possible defense as. all right. all right. and never that lawyers talk. oh, what? me? what kind of a person do you think i am? i said, mike, you're asking me for a question. i'll give you the exact answer. you're a schmuck, he says. he stands, mike. that i think is going to punch me. what do you mean a schmuck? well, you call him a schmuck. i said you're a schmuck. i said, going. been one of the most famous in the world, going to a hotel room at 3:00 in the morning without witnesses, with somebody didn't know you're a schmuck. he curses people and he says, why didn't you tell me i was schmuck? he's right. you're hired. he's. i can't tell you how much i wanted. try that case. yeah, well, if you had. we would have won. he had a terrible trial lawyer.

don king hired tax lawyer from williams and connolly, who to represent him the guy hated simpson so much he wouldn't even sit next to him. he wouldn't be seen next to him. the jury saw that and and he had a terrible, terrible trial, a terrible trial lawyer mcdonald. that's the that's i've like, i don't know, 28, 27 murder attempted murder, homicide cases. i've lost a couple of them. and jeffrey mcdonald i didn't i was involved in the i was involved in the appeal. i was involved in like the third heartbreaking part, the third habeas corpus and sick heartbreaking, but the guy may well be innocent and and there is somebody there was somebody out there, a woman named stokely, who fit the description. and it was terrible. and i had a really bad experience in the fourth circuit. i argued the case and

unsuccessfully and the judge chief judge said to me you know this is the third habeas that have been brought on behalf. i'm telling you now, mr. dershowitz, do not bring another case in front of this court. habeas. i said, your honor, with all due respect, you have your job. i have my job. if the evidence warrants it. i will bring case. and if you want to sanction me, that's your job. but don't tell me how to do my job. and i did bring a fourth motion. we lost it again. he's still in jail. it's a tragedy there are very few cases like that that i've lost. i've had a really good in homicide, particularly because their science, all the cases are science. and if you want to be a lawyer, if any of you have children, grandchildren want to be a lawyer, major in science, learn about dna, learn about you know, you can learn about law in law school, but become an expert in the science. that's what wins and loses

cases, even in our post fact world juries listen to facts and if you can give them the facts enough to cause reasonable doubt, they will acquit. chicago. oh boy, that tough your remember the case that was the 68 convention every hoffman jerry rubin all of those guys and i. i did the legal stuff in that case. and then i also represented bill kunstler, who had held in contempt that was a pro bono case. it was very, very difficult case because the clients were impossible. abbie hoffman if the word schmuck appeared in the dictionary and they were to one would be mike tyson. the other would be abbie hoffman. do you think there's a reason that were involved with these? i don't know. in any event it was it was difficult. you know, we prevailed. i don't know whether we'd

prevail today in a time matters timing is everything. i think i've won some based on science. sometimes you win your cases based on the era. what year is and a good lawyer has to know that what worked in the past wouldn't work in the future. and look today, let's turn to the elephant that's always every room that i'm in. the false accusation against that i had had sex with a woman i never met, never heard of that resulted from the jeffrey epstein case. and it was part and i wrote a book about it. it's part of it is part of the whole metoo movement. the book is called guilt accusation and, and it has on it. it just recently reintroduced with her quote, i now recognize that i may have made a in identifying alan dershowitz. thank you. eight years later and that that was virginia giuffre is her name

and that naming of alan dershowitz as someone who had assaulted her was hearing charges for your whole life and my family and my children and my grandchild and as part of the metoo movement, my grandkids were in college at the time and people were saying, oh, your grandpa's a rapist every single day to this, i get emails, tweets, other kinds of messages you're a pedophile, you're a child, you're all of that. this is i never met, never heard of so this is a book i don't stand by everything in this book. everything is changed now, obviously, she's made her statement. we had depositions. i deposed for four days. she was deposed and, you know, people have to judge for themselves about about what what the real facts are. but, you know, i was canceled by 92nd street y as a result of the

accusation i was canceled by temple emanuel in new york by the rama's school and particularly the jewish the leadership of the jewish community treated me horrendously here. i was one of the most prominent spokesmen for israel speaking up on behalf of the jewish community, but they became scared as the head of the temple, emanuel said to me, alan, i know you didn't do this. i know you had nothing to do with this, but we don't want trouble and. i said, that's what people said during the mccarthy period. exactly. don't want trouble because dealing with the whole issue, which you bring up in both price of principle. but also in the case against the new censorship is if people are silent, if people don't protest, if people don't speak truth, then the result of that is being, as you were in instances, virginia giuffre, who was said

to be sexually assaulted by jeffrey epstein. ghislaine maxwell and she named a number of other people who are very prominent in the political world and allen and she was not going to let go of this accusation against allen and of course she is named prince andrew. and she then say i may have made a mistake. and the reason i was able to fight back, unlike some of the other people i have never sex or improperly touched a woman in my since the day i met carolyn my wife and so i had nothing to hide i was perfectly willing to sit down to a deposition and say anything not everybody can do that even if you're innocent of the crime i don't want to get specifically into prince andrew but you know his nickname was randy andy mine was not oh and.

so the situation is very different and. so i thank you, carolyn, for always standing by me being my one and only. yes. so sweet and true to. we have exactly 3 minutes and 55 seconds left. so i you a little q&a and if you have something please raise your hand. yes. career has been at through the lens of current events and with the heat of emotion. i was to know what you desire for your legacy. after time has worn away the heat of those emotional question questions. i wish i thought of that. i think i think i think ricki gave the legacy that i've always lived the life of principle that i always tried to do the right thing that i lived what my parents and family taught me. and i grew up very poor in brooklyn, went to non paying

college. i worked my way up and that tried never to deviate from my principles. obviously nobody say they never have, but that would be that would be my legacy principle. yes anyone yes sir and follow me say a few words about trying cases. reporters. yeah. so it's my, my wife can probably to this better than i might one of my early cases in the supreme, i defended pro bono boys on death row who were totally innocent. their father had committed this horrible, brutal murder of five people, two boys on death row and argued the case pro bono and scalia had just been put on the court and scalia loved questioning people and taking people on and particularly other professors scalia was not a professor at harvard. he was a professor chicago. and he had to prove he was smarter than me.

and i, you know, let him, prove it. but carolyn was there, shivering there because they, you know, nine justices throwing questions at you won two. and they're not they don't care about the answers. they're throwing the questions at you to make points with their other colleagues. so, you know, arguing in front of the supreme court is daunting difficult and, you know, nothing is more fun and. i've argued free speech cases and the death penalty cases and so it's you know, it's been a thrill of my life to be able help people. i've never lost anybody on death row. i did have a not a case, but like a day before he was be executed, carolyn came to me and said, please, donald trump and ask him to stay the execution of this man. this is a man who engaged in a horrible murder when he was 18, he was now 40 and had real militated. and i spent 20 minutes on the phone with donald trump trying to persuade him to spare him.

i failed, he said, look, i would have done it, but i've already told the parents of the victims and they're on the way in the car on the way to the execution. and i'm sorry, just can't do it for you. and that's when i can't sleep at night. people ask me often, how do you sleep at night? defending. i sleep well, but when i fail in an effort to try to save somebody's life is the only time that ever. i wasn't his lawyer. i didn't know that much the case, but i failed. it just was devastating. i didn't sleep for three nights after that. i just all i was doing is dreaming about this young man whose life was taken from him, who could have spent his life helping other people, helping prisoners. and that's why i'm so strongly against the death penalty. well, i think you want to join me in thanking and really learning. thank you. really to share as you. thank