36 Burst results for "Alan Dershowitz"

Biden can start accessing presidential daily briefing as transition gets underway

Brian Mudd

03:48 min | Last week

Biden can start accessing presidential daily briefing as transition gets underway

"All right, let's talk some election challenges in transition activity. Take it away. Yeah, let's start with the transition activity, which is underway. We know that. As of Monday, the General Services Administration informed President elect Joe Biden at the Trump administration was ready to begin the formal transition process, which in essence is their first step in admitting that President Trump didn't win the Joe Biden did, and we're beginning the process of getting the power and information to the hands of the person that should be taking over come January 20th. So that is, at least to this point in time. We're hearing underway Joe Biden's transition team now talking with all federal agencies. And with that A part of this transition also includes having the ability to access additional office space inside those agencies and the ability to use federal dollars for background checks on Biden's White House staff appointments as well as Cabinet picks, and it also opens the door for Joe Biden. To have the access to the cove in 19 data vaccine vaccine distribution plans and also get the presidential daily briefing. So all of that supposedly began yesterday is going through today here as well. And the interesting part about that is that while that's all underway, President Trump is still saying he is refusing to concede and that he is going to continue to fight. S O yesterday morning. He tweeted that there would be a big lawsuit that would be filed soon. Now we don't know what that lawsuit is. But the president says he's moving full steam ahead still full steam ahead. Now. Today, they're scheduled to be in Pennsylvania Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, meeting that Rudy Giuliani scheduled that is supposed to kind of clarify where things stand in regards to these elections suits that have gone on. We know that when you're just looking at the track record right now, there's only about three active cases remaining right now, out of all of the other cases. They haven't filed a case that the law team for President Trump since November 18th. So all of the lawsuits came between Election Day on November 18th. And since then, the flurry of lawsuits really kind of all concluded bloom. Daddy only three left in one of those, for instance, in Michigan is just all about there being rejected. Defective, improper fire. Wait, That's something that generally you fix real quick. Send it back to the courts and begin the process of hearing that case That hasn't happened with President Trump's legal team. We don't know why was it a mistake? Was it something that planning on doing But we do know that there might be an announcement today after Pennsylvania had their certification of votes yesterday. There might be an announcement today. They're in Gettysburg as to what the next move is going to be for the legal team. In Pennsylvania. I was watching an interview with Alan Dershowitz. And, of course, the Allens Ah, liberal attorney. Very, very bright. He said that the president probably had his best legal footing in Pennsylvania with two or three angles. But so far that really has not come to fruition is you kind of pointed out? Yeah, it's been a situation where you had 19 cases filed by the campaign. 15 have already been denied or dismissed by judges or withdrawn from the campaign itself. Most of that is coming from lack of substantial evidence of voter fraud to back up the claim, so what's left is Not a lot, and also not a lot of time Bloom, Daddy because you're going to have come the 14th of December which, as we're just looking at that calendars here, Thanksgiving wraps up and then they come. Everybody comes back to town. November 30th. The next days. December 1st you've got till December 14th to have electors from each state meet to formally nominate the next president. So if you're going to try to get a legal something battle in you start and finish it before December 14th in order to have any effect on it. Have a sign of that is if you're just trying to work the angle of getting electors to make a decision independent of the state. They represent an independent of the votes that were cast in that state that you also have two weeks to try to get that done here. So I don't know what's going to be able to get done. But these next two weeks between now and December, 14th will be interesting to see cause that will kind of finalize any final nails in the confident you will of the 2020 election.

President Trump Joe Biden Trump Administration Pennsylvania General Services Administratio Gettysburg Biden Rudy Giuliani White House Cabinet Alan Dershowitz Michigan
Fresh update on "alan dershowitz" discussed on Buck Sexton

Buck Sexton

00:10 sec | 19 hrs ago

Fresh update on "alan dershowitz" discussed on Buck Sexton

"Is exploding Biggest ratings growth ever. You've been hearing about news match. I've been watching it. You should be to a new poll finds 30 million Americans watch Newsmax TV regularly. It has the Best coverage on President Trump Newsmax exposing all the election shenanigans. He got great people on Newsmax. You got Dick Morris, Rudy Giuliani, Michelle Malkin, Alan Dershowitz, Diamond and Silk. Mike Huckabee. Greg Kelly reports Every night at seven. Sean Spicer it.

Mike Huckabee Sean Spicer Greg Kelly Rudy Giuliani Michelle Malkin Alan Dershowitz Dick Morris President Trump
'Power' to 'plunge a needle into your arm': Dershowitz says forced vaccinations are constitutional

Howie Carr

01:03 min | 6 months ago

'Power' to 'plunge a needle into your arm': Dershowitz says forced vaccinations are constitutional

"Of audio did you happen to hear and forgive me if I missed it Alan Dershowitz saying that the government has the right to plunge a needle into your arm when he was talking about vaccines did you hear about that I always scrolling social media early today I saw something I didn't have time to check in go back good what are the details what it what did he say this because he's a very kind of you know he he he says it how he sees it he analyzes so give us give us is the sky believe me I I admit I was on the Dershowitz jet train I thought he did a great job talking about the impeachment but he was absolutely right I think he's very smart and I respect him but he's a little bit cavalier with this statement saying that the government has the right to literal and I'm quoting here plunging needle into your arm now I think vaccines if we're talking about vaccines for crown of ours it's great to have that as an option if people want to do the vaccine that's fantastic right but it starts to creep me out when you have Alan Dershowitz saying it's constitutional for the states to come after you and just stab you in the arm in the I guess for public safety

Alan Dershowitz
Reactions to Trump's impeachment acquittal

Red Eye Radio

13:37 min | 10 months ago

Reactions to Trump's impeachment acquittal

"To get it in I mentioned earlier in the show that the the the whole thing with there were so many people in December during the the house during the actual impeachment proceedings that were celebrating on social media believing you know the willfully ignorant believing that impeachment means removal and then you you look at I guess the last couple weeks there've been a few that I've seen it's over for him he'll be he's done and it went from he'll resign by the end of the week to well he's definitely not going to win in November and you and I don't make predictions but you look where the strings are right now with this president you look at what Chris Matthews has said not just about what happened not just about the state of the union or anything else and then van Jones banjo that on that at the last debate and and what he said he didn't see anybody on the stage that night they could be tribe and on yesterday talking about look Democrats have to understand trump is going after the black vote and he may be able to get a significant portion of it I mean you you look at that and the Rasmussen had on in terms of black votes forty two percent and we said okay fine cut that in half favorability rating yet favorability rating of forty two percent cut that in half let's say it's twenty one that's massive I don't remember Republican I'd have to go back and and look at the last Republican that had that kind of support but it it's it's like they're still some that are in denial over what the left has got it I wonder if it's who was it that said her friends during twenty sixteen with just a draw the curtains in and close the doors and turn the TV TV are in doubt burned out yes if there was any negative news about Hillary that would just bury their heads in the sand but it's just on many fronts I'm just talking about the chatter on social media it's very quiet right now by the far left look they hate to guide the make fun of the guy they must they mocked the guy but I don't see them promoting their their some for Bernie there did the burning crowd was there but really I mean there's not the porch there was in twenty sixteen there's not the I don't I just don't see it it it's maybe it comes together but it's not happening right now well one thing that we monitored on the show over the last five months is the number of responses that we got especially after the cross after the house impeachment hearings were done in the articles of impeachment were actually written so the cross examination was done we had Democrats that would speculate in September and in October and November and cut well with that you guys are wrong they're gonna get him today and it never happened in fact the opposite happened when the witnesses came forward in the house but once that was completed our I believe we have had only for phone calls mmhm and that would be since thanksgiving of anybody attempting to defend the the Democrat point I believe three out of those four phone calls because you wanted a moderate because we we were saying to ourselves this is really incredible because we know what the Democrats think that they have a point mmhm and we find it incredible three out of those four we're only saying the only point they had was a talking point well of trump was innocent he let everybody testify which is again the philosophy that you are guilty until proven innocent right that it's it's upon the defense the burden of proof is on the defense not the prosecutor not those making the charges which is false and we had so we had one phone call on the issues and and that fell back real quick I can't remember what point they were trying to make that they made the point and we countered whatever the point was they weren't there was like silence so I'm not you don't anoint there but that's it and that's why we have with confidence said every single Democrat listening right now to the show knows that the impeachment and the impeachment trial was bogus they don't know the articles of impeachment were bogus they all know what every single Democrat senator knows that their vote was bogus they know what was purely political it was not in line with what the constitution has said impeachment should be about they know what you know Eric if you were talking about the fact that Mitt Romney should debate Alan Dershowitz and that we would laugh because it's never gonna have not gonna happen it's the same as climate change yes you had the one thing tank last year attempt to have a debate on climate change they brought in experts and said you know the scientist climatologist that said now look they're throwing on Tuesdays doomsday scenarios and that just isn't the case it's wrong they invited dozens of climate change activists to debate it nobody would show up nobody under cross examination the left does not want to defend what they believe in no no they don't and that's why with confidence we have said we know what we've done this a long time run hundreds and hundreds of the greatest radio stations across the country we know if we make a mistake on something as simple as when we kid about a Hogan's heroes that was the first time member we said about old in zero right or or what we were kidding them bad when we first got together well when we were first in back in two thousand five wasn't while when we started doing the show together and we Kinley said you know use the term the you of the line from animal house word was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor and we were just inundated with people the people on the left you guys secure your your you guys are just wanna be's you're even know who bombed Pearl Harbor we know it was the French exactly so it is so believe me we know we've dealt with that when if we make any type of of mistake you know read something you know but we we get something and we read it and we you know get the number wrong for certain you know if we say trillion instead of billion boom they're they're cheap you guys are no credible you got that wrong saria yeah we did done did mean it because the last thing we want to do is argue something that's not true right we don't need to do that they need to do that and so we know that every single Democrat listening right now knows that the impeachment was bogus they all do yes every single Democrat senator knows it was bogus anybody in the media the paid attention to it knows it was bogus the majority like I said when of response you know email whatever we get if somebody is trying to make the case are actually ignorant on the law ignorant on impeachment or ignorant as to what actually happened I think one of the the one call was talking about the fact that although the witnesses are all testified against trump was no they did no just the opposite no and I've used here is or when the opposite right so you know we know even your Bonaventure when in cross examination I came down what she didn't like the guy yeah she was she was upset that she was fired and and we get to Romney and the discussion on Romney and your work and I were just having a during the top of the hour and you're trying to make the point look he knows it's not constitutional and I agree with you I got you this is this is where you try to get well what's the motivation behind it you just tear down the the what's more what's more what would lead what would be left on the table if you if the knowns take those off the table what's left we know that he knows the constitution we know that right we know that he does this whole thing was bogus we know that so it was about one thing his hatred for the president it's that simple his trolling it's the equivalent of trolling because tell me where the risk is in Utah I'm convinced he's not gonna run for a second term I maybe maybe I'm wrong I believe he's one and done as senator from Utah but tell me where where does that red put everything on the on the table and what's most likely he just has a huge dislike or hatred for this president because he had a story here even as arguments fell apart we claim the trump had withheld vital military funds that you didn't withhold he didn't know what hit them but we didn't eight here's a quote Corp corrupting election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of the oath of office that I can imagine what one well there was no election it was corrupted in no way no national security interest the Wall Street journal here if their analysis no security interests were jeopardized because other senators and advisers persuaded Mr trump to release a military aid all even challenge out from the Wall Street journal I don't know that for a fact no no and now here's the other theory that I that I didn't include go high I know that there were people encouraging him senator Johnson or whatever yes I know this is necessary right but I don't know that that's why he made the ultimate decision I don't know that I don't have the testimony that gets me to that point precisely that I would need though the one theory that I have not put on the table is is maybe the the most obvious that we missed Mitt Romney is a robot what what Linda Hamilton from terminator two you know I believe it and you had that for a long time he has and it because it's true can I get sued for that please sumi Mitt Romney go ahead well and here's what happened I think Adam Schiff reprogrammed his his his explanation was so weak console falls yeah so easy to tear through yeah that you sit there and you say well it can't be it meant more read more Mitt Romney is smarter than this mmhm he was always he was re program right he knows that's not that he's no that's not the truth so you get to the point if it wasn't constitutional and it wasn't legal what drove him to do that exactly is this like for his residence like what do you want to make college dislike hatred ever to whatever I you know I again I can't get in somebody's mind but when you break it down and say but every argument in cross examination of Mitt Romney's explanation you can tear to shreds yeah so then what was it afterwards and so when people come to that conclusion I can understand them coming to the conclusion one thing I can tell you without question without getting into his mind he is wrong constitutionally yes and he's wrong on the facts that he actually stated on the Senate floor as to what happened he was inaccurate in his analysis when when you set aside your critical thinking skills and your knowledge of the constitution and put it behind your distrust your dislike or your hatred I don't know how I don't know how to do that I don't I don't know what drives you to do that because you can see he could still go back to his home state and say look I didn't I think that was not the right call to make I would have done it but it did not rise to impeachment it did not rise to to removal when you start talking about the fact that by the way that he was grappling over it you know that this was this was such a tough decision on I had to make the right decision for my kids when you start talking like that you know you're trying to justify your vote yes I wouldn't have to say that no I would have to bring in my family or anything nope it was easy right what I mean it was tough either he did it a read either he did something that was impeachable or not stand up and be a man don't sit there in a book because my my family and it was tough stock toss what are you teaching your family about the constitution right and where and when he started doing that I said wow he's tried to justify his vote yes because he knows it's bogus yes

Trump survives impeachment: US president cleared of both charges

Post Reports

09:36 min | 10 months ago

Trump survives impeachment: US president cleared of both charges

"That all of this is done what happens now for the trump presidency. I mean for the rest of his term. How're you expecting it to be different than and it might have been well in a way? This is like a turbo charge for president trump because he survived this gauntlet this impeachment proceeding without without having to be removed from office. And therefore he's waking up feeling emboldened and empowered and feels a conviction that everything he does is right. He is at the strongest point politically today that he's been in some time. The Gallup poll has his approval rating at forty percent which is sending shivers through the Spines of Democrats Crafts Around the country there are good feelings in the country about the economy which continues to home along to report to you tonight that our economy is the best I it has ever been. He had a pretty powerful economic message in a state of the Union. Even though a lot of it was exaggerated and he made claims that are not true. Jobs are booming. Income Poverty is plummeting. Crime is falling confidences surging. It was a selling argument. It for reelection and our country is thriving and highly respected again and so we can expect I think the president into continue to to sound teams into seek retaliation against all of those. He felt have wronged him in. It's impeachment process with this acquittal. How is that likely to change the office of the Presidency broadly? It's a good question because the evidence about trump's activity in Ukraine is. There's no dispute dispute about what he did. The evidence is clear the testimony was clear. Trump himself has admitted on camera that he wanted the Ukrainian government to do an investigation into his political political opponent and in fact he called on the Chinese government to do the same so what he did is clear what happened is the Republicans in the Senate made a political calculation about out not removing him from office for it that what he did doesn't amount to an impeachable offense and I spent some time in the last days interviewing historians and they said this is a major watershed moment in our nation's history because the way the founders set up our government setup. Our Constitution was to punish and remove presidents. Who who do exactly what? Donald Trump has been proven to have done with Ukraine. This is a system of checks and balances and what's happened is the legislative branch under Republican. Look in control in the Senate is no longer holding the president accountable they're becoming an instrument to propel his power and perpetuate his power and that's concerning to historians it's concerning to legal experts and it certainly would set a precedent. I would imagine for future presidents who will say look if trump got away with this I can get away with it too and it is just an expansion of that sort of executive power which is troubling to those who study the framers and the Constitution. Do you think I mean with a different president. You know ten years twenty years from now our future executive branches likely to think back to this moment and say I can do this. It's okay I'm not going to get in trouble. You know. They they could and we may not even have to look to future presidents for that. President trump has another ten months seven months in office. He may have another four years beyond that and there's no telling what he might try to do going forward because he's escaped accountability this time in the Russia investigation. You know the Muller Team documented did all of these examples for really proven examples where the president sought to obstruct justice but did not charge him or indict him because he's a sitting president narrow justice assists department guidelines about that. Well the very next day after Robert Mueller testified in Congress about this trump picked up the phone and called the Ukrainian president asking for the favor the political favors so he the conclusion he drew from the Muller Investigation and his lack of any legal punishment in that regard was that he can get away with with what he wants to do. He's the president if he does it so be it and the Republicans in on Capitol Hill or are there to support and protect him. So can you talk us through. How the president's President's own lawyers argued that the Senate basically doesn't have the power to to check the president one of the most striking moments in the president's defense came when one of his lawyers? Alan Dershowitz a noted criminal lawyer you've seen him on. TV for years Came to the floor of the Senate and advanced an argument that a lot of legal experts that said was dubious every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly right your elections in the public interest. He said if the president does something that will help his reelection therefore is in the best interest of the country and if if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest. He cannot be held or rather be impeached for for that action that cannot be the kind of quid pro. Quo that results in impeachment. And so that's a blanket. Excuse use for the president to do what he did with Ukraine but obviously anything else that the president deems to be in the interest of his reelection that is an argument that Dershowitz had to kind of walk back a little bit In in some comments he made the next day and he got a lot of heat from legal scholars who said that's just a completely baloney argument argument with no constitutional grounding but it is indicative. I think of how President Trump himself views his power and views his authority as the president and commander-in-chief founder and chief. Did we see a lot of senators latching onto that argument. A few did Actually the Republican senators of course but a few parroted the Dershowitz line came as a way of defending the president and saying basically he's president he can do whatever he wants for his reelection because getting him reelected is in the best interest of our country. What about the way that? The impeachment trial played out in the Senate. The fact that there were no new documents that there were no witnesses is that likely also to set. Its own kind of precedent for or the way that impeachment is handled in the future. Certainly we've only had an impeachment trial three times in our history and so there's not really a blueprint door protocol. Offer how to go about doing this. And and the Senate leaders along with the chief justice of the Supreme Court to kind of change and adapt the rules as they went along to figure out how this would work mark and the Democrats say this was a complete sham. Trial that Mitch. McConnell designed it from the get-go to move quickly to get to a very fast acquittal to turn the page to save trump into move on with the legislative business not to delve into the details. Not To really scrutinize the evidence. The most surprising thing I think watching the Sahlin fold the last few weeks that John Bolton came forward publicly or at least in the manuscript of his book which leaked out through the media with new information right. He's a first first hand witness to what the president wanted done and Ukraine. He offered to testify before the Senate or at least indicated he would if if asked. Here's somebody who could have come forward to provide a new to account that would have provided new evidence to this case and there was no interest among the Republican majority in the Senate to hear what he had to say. I don't believe the testimony is necessary. The house else managers have a burden of proof a burden of proof to prove their case they had fallen woefully short. We now have allegations from Mr Bolton. I think they would have more credibility if the allegations came from someone else. There is no new information in my opinion based on what John Bolton has known but today in an effort to generate interest in a book have selectively released. Information that that to me doesn't go beyond what we've seen in the seventeen witnesses who've already testify only two. Republican senators voted to allow witnesses. Mitt Romney and and Susan Collins of Maine came to what extent is the Senate giving up the power that they have to oversee the president of provide any kind of check on the president. Give us a sense of the power that's been given up with the smooth you know they've they've been giving up power to this president for three years now in in part because Republicans threat the party live in fear of him. He has such an intensity of support within the Republican base and approval rating among Republicans of eighty to ninety percent and he follows these things very closely and vows to retaliate and shows that he can punish people if they betray him across him. Just ask former Senator Jeff Flake or former senator Bob corker. So there's that fear factor in the Senate and and what they've done to adapt to that is is not to stand up to him not to ever say he's wrong and in turn. They're getting some of their agenda through right. They're getting tax cuts passed. They're getting a lot of conservative. Justices installed hold onto the federal judiciary. They feel like Mitch. McConnell certainly feels like this is an opportunity to advance the conservative agenda but they just need to placate eight trump and played a trump and keep him calm but in so doing they're giving up their power of accountability. And it's certainly not the way that the framers and the founders imagined Dr our system of government working in Democracy Phil Rocker is the White House. Bureau chief for the Post. His new book written with Carol Lennox is called a very stateful genius. Donald J trump's testing of America. It's out in stores now.

President Trump Senate Donald J Trump Ukraine Alan Dershowitz John Bolton Mcconnell Union Mitch Robert Mueller Bureau Chief Muller Investigation Executive Carol Lennox Muller Team Chinese Government Phil Rocker Congress White House
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

09:01 min | 10 months ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"Good Morning America. The catch roundtable. This is John Katzman Kiedis. Wow what's going on in Washington. Well one of the smartest lawyers I know as Alan Dershowitz and he's got his ear oxygen ground with us this morning. Good morning professor. She was. How are you good morning? This week was a good week for the United States Constitution. The constitution one the people who try to abuse the constitution on the Democratic side of the House and Senate lost and all Americans are the victors. Well you know so many Americans can understand What has happened? And and and There's so many lies going on in our country and I understand that nope but none of these people when you were lying. Were put it under oath. Can you explain to the American public. Well I think what a senator lies. It's as if he's under oath and you know Senator Schumer just lied through his teeth when when he described or describe what I said on the Senate floor basically he said that I think the president can do anything he wants Commit crimes till his opponent Tamper Samper with the election. As long as he thinks it's in his electoral interest in the public interest He thinks that I would have opposed the impeachment of Richard Nixon. He was there he heard me say the opposite of willows things president commits a crime can be impeached. I wasn't strongly in favor of the impeachment of Richard Nixon but he and his colleagues got altogether because Mike Senate speech effective and persuaded certain senators and Schumer just decided to lie about it and it shopping to me that Somebody WHO's standing Harvard law school graduate the minority leader. The Senate would stoop so low as to just make up a story and I would challenge him to come on your show with me and to debate and discuss how he wilfully distorted my statement for partisan advantage. He just could never agree Louis to do that because he'd have to admit to the public that he lied through STI. Well it seems the actor so many lies in Washington that the average public can't discern and we would justice Cavallo was being in front of the Senate there were so many lies about the men and they all turned out not to be true on the impeach. My favorite was I had My favorite line was when audience famous off and Ati came forward with another woman against Cavanaugh. Who never even even met the guy like accusation against me? I was accused by by by sleazy lawyers By a woman. I never met and with emails from her committing. She never met me And yet the accusations go forward lies or becoming so common in the American political scene within the metoo movement exploiting people who exploited a good movement to meet to Movement Democrats who are prepared to lie the partisan advantage and by the way. It's going to backfire. It's GonNa hurt the Democrats. I'm a Democrat Democrat. I'm a Liberal Democrat. I WANNA see the Democrats win but the Democrats are in helping themselves. I think they need new leadership I think Schumer and Pelosi has to go Schumer because of his history lying. You Know Pelosi actually call for me to be disbarred as a result of my argument in front of the Senate because I waited some senators i. She wanted me to be disbarred. And then tearing up that speech and and bringing forward impeachment on on constitutional grounds I think the dams need new leaders. They have any chance of returning to power In a two party system. Well I've a Nettie. That was the lawyer in addresses capital. Our case is now in jail as an extra while he's on trial. I think he is in jail. I mean It's horrible that we put in front on every Matrix channel all these characters that are not really telling the truth the vetting anymore much of CNN once calling me in panic Oh my God we have to cancel you tonight. We got avid ninety. We got out of ninety body and now CNN is cancelled forever because I criticize them for The way they mischaracterize my speech in front of the Senate so I'm no longer welcome on CNN. Dan which means the viewers is CNN and the private the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue. They won't hear my views on CNN. I have to go to boxing. Other stations to hear me or on your wonderful the full radio show to hear me but they can't hear me on. CNN anymore because CNN doesn't accept criticism of its coverage on its network now that that it's all over on impeachment democratic Congressman threatening to bring in witnesses or subpoena the John Bolton Yeah they're saying is double jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment and technically it doesn't apply to a peach mint the spirit of double jeopardy certainly should but they're now claiming that they're gonNA call of course Bolton can't testify to anything even if you want you that relates to national security or anything that involves privilege privilege material. So it's not his call whether he testifies it's the call the executive branch of the government which is the president of the United States. So I think we're going to hear here from him mostly through his book not through official testimony. It's it's such craziness on Friday. The Appeals Court dismissed dismissed the Democrats on the Emolument case against President Trump. Is that a big victory. It's it's a ridiculous case in the first place it was contrived. Try by my former colleague. Larry try by the way. My former colleague Larry tribe who supported the nod for president. Really WanNa hear guy with good. Judgement Larry sorry trump supporter avenue. Nadi President of the United States and he put the idea in the head of Pelosi and others to sue the President President under the emoluments clause of the constitution. Nobody's ever done that before. And it's frivolous and the court correctly Dumped it. It's just mind-boggling. What's going on I hear you? You were democratic liberal food or your life and what's going on how is beyond craziness. Why audie moderate Democrats Commonsense Democrats as I call him so afraid to challenge the crazies because the crazies win Look look at Iowa. Yeah well it should never be first. Primary in Iowa. Iowa is not representative of the Democratic Party or of the country Look a wins in Iowa Sanders and They're not a win for president of the United States. And so what happens. Is the primary system. Generally favors extremists On the left In the Democratic Party and as a result of that the Democrats shoot themselves in uh-huh They if they WANNA win the have to move to the center. They have to move to people like Mike Bloomberg or or abiding or closure. Oh sure people who represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party not the most extreme squad elements that will destroy the Democratic Party. Much much the way. Jeremy Corbyn destroyed the Labor Party in England. Think you'd think the Democrats would learn a lesson. Does Michael Bloomberg has a chance of getting a nomination. I think he has a chance. If the convention is deadlocked and if the convention delegates get to really pick who the best candidate would be I think thank you have a chance. I don't think he will win. Enough delegates to get the nomination rope. You know you never know with California New York delegate heavy states they could give him a big boost but I think he wins. If he wins through a tie among the extremists and then the sensible the Democratic leaders figure out a way of getting the convention to nominate Alan Dershowitz. We have a minute left. What would you like to say on a Sunday morning? The American people well ice good The constitution one The American people one with the end of impeachment and the glory of our country's elections so think hard about you vote for that's the key President should be voted for or against In the ballot box not in impeachments in the halls of of of Congress I think the House of Representatives disgraced itself. It's partisan though and I take the Senate did the right thing by protecting the constitution and so I'm proud of America. Our system works and Let's keep it working. I winter. She which thank you so much for talking to the American people are Sunday morning. And we'll catch up with you again real soon. Always great being on your show. Thanks pack you. This is the catch. Roundtable will be right back..

Democrats impeachments president Senate CNN United States Democratic Party Senator Schumer President Alan Dershowitz Richard Nixon Washington Iowa senator Pelosi President President John Katzman Kiedis Larry tribe
Deep Background with Noah Feldman

Solvable

08:31 min | 10 months ago

Deep Background with Noah Feldman

"I want you to hear another show from Pushkin that I think you'll like it's called deep background and it's hosted by Harvard Law. Professor Noah Feldman Minute Noah's been interviewing top. Scientists thinkers and authors to understand the stories behind the news. The episode. You're about to hear is a special one. Because because Noah himself was the newsmaker in the hot seat testifying before Congress. I'll let him pick up the story on deep background. This is a show about understanding the news. And if you like you're about to hear I hope you'll subscribe from Pushkin Industries. This is deep background. The show where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. I'm Noah Feldman joining us for the first time. Welcome if you've missed any of our earlier episodes which used it'd be behind a paywall. You can now get them for free exactly where you found this one a bit about me. I teach constitutional law at Harvard. I love oh well tailored suit and I had a pretty eventful winter break swear or affirm under penalty perjury and the testimony. You're about to give. It is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief to help you got this past December. I was an expert witness called by the Democrats to testify at the impeachment inquiry and the House of Representatives into president. Donald Trump. To be honest with you it was extremely nerve wracking. My job is to study and to teach the constitution solution from its origins until the present. I'm here today to describe three things. Why the framers of our Constitution included a provision for the impeachment agent of the president? What that provision providing for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors means and last how it applies to the question before for you and for the American people whether president trump has committed impeachable offenses under the constitution? The other expert witnesses called by the Democrats were Pamela Carlin. A law professor at Stanford when President Trump invited indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election. He struck at the very heart of what makes makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance and Michael Gerhardt a law professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel. If what we're talking about is not impeachable the nothing impeachable. I recently got the chance to talk to Michael Gerhardt about that day and all that has happened since I was was unfortunately recovering from a slight cold Michael. Thank you so much for joining me. We've spoken on the phone but we actually haven't seen each other. Since December December four th when we both had the opportunity and maybe dubious honor of testifying at the House. Judiciary Committee's hearing on impeachment impeachment. How you been doing since then it's It's been busy Teaching classes and also trying to be part of the national conversation on a very important subject what I would love for us to do in. This conversation is open up for listeners. Some of the the back story in the back scenes of what we experienced that day. How we prepare for it and also sort of bigger picture consequences Of what's been going on. So maybe the way to start is. I had never done this before before so it was a surprise to me but you had done this before. Twenty years previously When they were a group of professors I think twenty one in total? Who testified about Bill Clinton's impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee and not only were you one of them but you are also the only one who is jointly put forward by the Republicans and the Democrats so take us back if you will twenty years and tell us how that happened you know? Nowadays it's almost inconceivable to imagine there being somebody who is acceptable to both sides on twenty years seems longtime ago. It's GonNa the seem even longer when we Put together what was happening back then. It'll seem completely alien to us. So I had spent a fair bit of my academic career studying and writing about impeachment also testifying and consulting with members of Congress that was all known by the time we got to nineteen ninety eight and there was a special moment for me in one thousand nine hundred eight when Jim Leach Republican David Skaggs Democrat called me up on the phone said. Would you come talk to us in Washington generally if members of Congress want to talk to me about something I think. That's a great honor and I went and they said to me. Well what would like you to do after you talk to us right now. Go speak to the entire House of Representatives. The I didn't know that coming into that moment while And they had ring like they want you to speak to the house right. Then yes right then So I thought well wow this is going to be a good test with another another subject matter And so then we walked over to the House and I had to get special permission to walk onto the floor of the house and then behind closed doors with no staff. No press or anything. I then talked to the entire House of Representatives about impeachment spent about two hours doing it at no no cameras fresno nothing knows nothing just nothing is all. Is there a written record of your. Don't think there's a written record. I think it was also amazing. You had a confidential conversation with four hundred and thirty five people hard to say the biggest lecture of my life or one of the big lectures but it was a tried to designed more conversation and it was a very congenial collegial conversation at the end of a Charles candidate Republican. Bobby Scott a democrat. Who happened to be my representative came up to me and said well? If you ever have a hearing on this would you come and I said well sure I'd be honored honored and then that hearing to which you just alluded Happened a few weeks later where I was then. Brought in by both Republicans and Democrats to testify is one of the experts One of the many experts including Alan Dershowitz On the question of Whether or not President Clinton's alleged misconduct rose to the level of being an impeachable offense. And what did you say When I talked about was basically The law of impeachment. I try to kind of lay out the things we knew that that I thought were clear and then kind of talked about some things that were maybe unsettled and said here's what we know about them here. The arguments on both sides and and kind of walked everybody through that and then got questions but there was no personal attack was always very much. You know in this footnote. You said this but now today you're saying that Fair I can try to answer that. Do they actually give you a chance to to answer it. I'd say that has light of our experience. They asked a question and then they actually let you answer it. It's like you know as you said it. Sounds like the Middle Ages. That's right yeah so when we had our hearing there was is no chance to answer it or at least we were giving maybe a second and then that was about it but yes they would then give me a chance to answer it and they they appear to be listening and it was really more of a conversation Than Twenty years later it would be. It's sort of fascinating on many levels but one of the reasons it's so fascinating is that most people at the time identified the impeachment of Bill Clinton that moment as a high point in partisanship the most partisan moment that people can remember the in the United States in more than a century and I think that was actually a fair assessment in historical terms and now twenty years later. It sounds almost like a model of bipartisan and cordiality and collegiality even if they voted along along party lines let me ask you a question Michael so the reason you yourself in that extraordinary position in the Clinton impeachment is it you were and remain the leading expert law professor on the subject of impeachment your guide to the impeachment and processed book you know has come out and I think three additions now why in the world as a young law professor did you get interested in the impeachment as the topic. It was not a hot topic. You know in the late eighties when you must have started diving into it or the middle ladies and you start diving into it. Why did you choose the subject? Well it's a good question I grew up Jewish Alabama in the nineteen sixties. That that that comes with that. That's a big sentence. We're we're in Alabama a mobile on. Okay got it and so I was my entire childhood. aalto was sort of shaped and defined by the Civil Rights Movement at the tail end of that civil rights movement was of course Watergate so like many people of my generation I I watched Watergate. I was kind of thought it was incredible moment to see Congress sort of investigating the president and eventually the President resigned and that that that stuck with me. That was something that I felt. The civil rights movement and Watergate had in common a respect for the rules law. They had in common the idea that law could bring order to chaos and so that was very appealing to me. I had an interest in the law as a

President Trump President Clinton Noah Feldman Congress House Of Representatives Michael Gerhardt Donald Trump Professor Harvard Law Pushkin Industries Alabama Pushkin House Judiciary Committee Civil Rights Movement Perjury Harvard Judiciary Committee Pamela Carlin
Trump Impeachment Trial Winds Down With Closing Arguments

Overnight re-air of day's programming

07:34 min | 10 months ago

Trump Impeachment Trial Winds Down With Closing Arguments

"But we begin with the latest on the Senate impeachment trial and tomorrow's Iowa caucuses the first contest in the race for the democratic nomination the Senate narrowly rejected democratic demands for witnesses but pushed off a final vote to acquit president from till Wednesday the day after he addresses Congress on the state of the union let's bring in Kevin Cork reporting from the president's retreat of Mar a Lago but the latest Calvin Chris just three more days before the White House can finally peers the cloud cover of what they've considered the brazen partisan process the single party impeachment of the president of the United States laughter Monday's closing arguments senators final remarks and then finally Wednesday at four PM the vote on the two articles of impeachment and barring a political earthquake the president's expected acquittal one by the thinnest of definition say defined Democrats still reeling from the Senate's fifty one forty nine vote rejecting demands for additional witnesses if the president is equated with no witnesses no documents acquittal will have no value wedged in between Monday's resumption of activity on the Senate floor and Wednesdays historic vote is the president's state of the union address Tuesday evening theme the great American come back the president is expected to focus on what the White House calls the blue collar economic boom lowering overall healthcare costs and safe legal immigration in a speech sources tell fox news will be both positive and optimistic I tone in sharp contrast perhaps to its we sit overnight by the president shortly after midnight in which she accused Democrats of using the impeachment process as a blazingly political process to damage the GOP and lose their chances Chris in twenty twenty Chris Kaman Cork reporting from Mar a Lago Kevin thank you they are I spoke about the Senate trial with a member of the president's defense team Alan Dershowitz professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the new book guilt by accusations this is George with let's start with the Senate's decision by a vote of fifty one to forty nine not to call witnesses the Republicans have the votes so they won but is there a legal justification a legal reason for not calling evidence when there is substantial new evidence yes as I argued to the Senate if somebody were accused of the crime of abuse of power or dishonesty something it's not a crime what you do is you make a motion to dismiss on the other side has no we want to introduce evidence no no no no you can't is use evidence if there is no legitimate indictment here the articles of impeachment did not charging impeachable offense so the right answer is to dismiss it and cut it off right there no amount of witnesses could have changed that okay but the top Democrats in Congress Nancy Pelosi the house Chuck Schumer in the Senate say that the failure to call witnesses is going to put a taint on any of the weather listen to sure this country is headed towards the greatest cover up since Watergate but he will not be quite as you cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial of course you can be acquitted if you don't have a trial if they don't charge you with illegitimate crime it's the fault of Nancy Pelosi and the others for failing to charge an impeachable offense they're going to say they say he's never going to be truly acquitted because you didn't have witnesses who didn't have new evidence he dismissed it before you even really got to hear what the facts were in a criminal context it would be cool victory a great victory here if they have been charging the fans then maybe he hasn't been acquitted but he also hasn't been charged he's in exactly the same situation you should have been in had they done the right thing and not impeach him at all you've created quite a controversy with something you said in the Senate trial here is which is sad and here's some of the blood does which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest cannot be the kind of that results in impeachment if you can identify something as president that's in your public your political interest and say that's the national interest they're all bets are off is what I don't understand right you have made it clear new and I went out at last week on the question of you say that to be an impeachable offense it's gotta be a crime criminals like behavior of kin to treason and bribery that's what the constitution means when it says treason bribery or other high crimes and get into this question of whether or not the president thanks his re election is in the public interest because you seem to be implying that somehow that gives them an extra level of immunity no no it doesn't I was asked the question by a senator the question was does quid pro quo matter and my answer is it matters is what the president it is illegal or wrong but if the president is something completely waffle the fact that part of his motivation may have been to help his election cannot be the quid pro quo that's what I said I never said I mean and I don't believe that a president can do anything if he thinks it is national interest look I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon he thought that the five crimes he committed our own national interest these folks have totally distorted quite deliberately because they saw that I was having an impact on some of the senators so they deliberately distorted what I said and said even if it's criminal what the president thinks is in the best interest it can't be an impeachable offense nonsense I never said it was three journals as I never said it New York times says I never said it and the fact that Schumer and shifts and CNN say I said it doesn't make it true again I don't even know why intense is an issue and why you got into it as I was but but my point is the activity has what you say is the case if it's criminal or criminal like activity that it can be impeachable if it's not criminal activity it doesn't matter what the motive the example I gave I said there are three levels of motor the sample I gave the president says I'm not giving you money you crane unless you give me a million dollar kick back of course that's criminal and of course he goes to jail Abraham Lincoln said the troops owned Indiana vote for Republicans in the election was that impeachable no matter what it was well it doesn't matter to me but it managed to shift and medicine to the people on the other side they were focusing on motive I was responding to them I didn't put that in my original speech because you're right but I was on the floor to respond to constitutional arguments question and it was wrenched out of context you seem pretty upset about I was very upset about that because it is has has hurt me people think I actually believe the president like Nixon can do anything he wants is exactly the opposite of what I've been teaching arguing in as a civil libertarian believing in the fifty years how dare they deliberately and willfully distort my position and then not give me an opportunity to respond all rights forget impeachment from asking you this and maybe a little agree to do it or not but a thought experiment Alan Dershowitz citizen do you find it troubling problem out at that residence with Lincoln anyway forget is not about I'm not saying it's criminal his support

Iowa Senate President Trump Congress
Impeachment Trial Heads Toward Finish Line After Witness Vote Fails

The Harlow Wealth Retirement Hour

05:28 min | 10 months ago

Impeachment Trial Heads Toward Finish Line After Witness Vote Fails

"All week Democrats pushing for witnesses especially former national security adviser John Bolton who's written a forthcoming memoir The New York Times reporting it says Mr trump told Bolton he was linking military aid for Ukraine with investigations into his political rivals here's ABC news chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl for weeks ago Bolton submitted the manuscript of a book he has written to the White House for a standard review to ensure it does not include any classified information warning to the times Bolton rights president trump told him in August that he wanted to continue with holding military aid to Ukraine Intel officials there launched investigations into trump's rivals including Joe Biden this firsthand account directly contradicts what the president's lawyers argued in defending him during the Senate trial just this weekend there is simply no evidence anywhere the president trump ever links security assistance twenty investigations president trump denied the claims tweeting quote I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats more on the president's response from ABC's Karen Travers at the White House president trump first question why John Bolton didn't raise his complaints about Ukraine while he was in the administration's something former Bolton aides said he did do but now the president is attacking Bolton personally writing on Twitter the Bolton begged him for the position of national security adviser and he appointed him despite quote many saying don't do it Sir the residents slams Bolton for quick mistakes of judgment and said if you took bones advice on foreign policy quote we would be in World War six by now the president's lawyers resting their case in the Senate earlier this week here again A. B. C.'s merry Bruce the trouble legal team closing with a passionate plea and a warning the bar for impeachment can not be said this low danger danger danger these articles must be rejected the constitution requires it justice demands of the president's council J. secular brushed off the explosive allegations from the president's former national security adviser calling them in admissible you cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegations but trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued even if what Bolton alleges is true it's not impeachable nothing in the Bolton revelation which even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power war an impeachable offense that is clear from the history and then another turn the president's former chief of staff John Kelly reportedly now says I believe John Bolton former vice president Joe Biden blasting the president's legal team I find this defense absolutely astounding yeah he did it but it doesn't matter I mean George Washington's rollovers graves for all dressed saying you know the greatest threat to the public to be interfered with by foreign countries senator Kamel Harris of California's summing up the Democrats view here's the deal you cannot have a true acquittal if you've not had a fair

A. B. C. Senator Kamel Harris Vice President Chief Of Staff White House Chief White House Corresponden The New York Times California George Washington John Kelly Alan Dershowitz Bruce Democrats Senate Twitter Karen Travers ABC
Most feel good about the economy but not the state of the country

Joe Walsh

09:35 min | 11 months ago

Most feel good about the economy but not the state of the country

"The president must be brought to heel the nation must be safe I guess the nation must be safe from the lowest unemployment from nineteen sixty nine and the addition of thirteen trillion dollars to the economy I guess we have to save America from that somebody who can help explain what is the logic of the political elites today is perhaps one of the greatest writers we have today a classicist in his own right senior fellow at the Hoover Institution you've seen him almost every night on television he is professor Victor Davis Hanson professor welcome to America first thank you grab the bastion I'm you've written a piece of the fabulous website American greatness called top get trump forever having read it it raised in me a very simple question I see the president's defense team doing sterling work this week we have fabulous America's scholars such as Alan Dershowitz we have former especial councils like Kenneth Starr who have given very solid lectures lectures I would've enjoyed in graduate school very professorial very fact based the history of impeachment and I thought to myself why is there anything that the president's defense team could say that would change the minds of those who wish to remove the duty elected president from the White House are only for the fact that there's four five senators are there is maybe thirty or forty house members who are you know they have been aware of political reality and are in need of states are congressional district don't wanna can put a cold from the congressional district I put my fault publican lost in a Democrat one Republican is one name is way ahead poll hello I I think that's the only thing it's not about actual crimes it's for a variety of one complex reasoning across town wait until November because I take very agreed upon probably blooms Alexian inn for about eight years of the progressive project pretty much junk for generations and they're just not just one tap on powerful so we go to all these **** drummer do not moment calls twenty nine month Michael Kohn Michael I'm not a tax returns impeachment you were just never yonder worn out because the outlook the alternative Sebastian I guess it's Bernie Sanders on the stone for the new green beer or revelations are apologize for young speech by a little more we don't have much our angle control of the catastrophic miscalculation the ball could be able to stay home and I love should clue without thank you hello they may get and then when I got to lose they're not they called while com there do what we did and how it's gonna be bipartisan and you go do whatever we want the United and they will come and get you look knowledge just giving a call out the kitchen sink speeches always been practical moves on on and I'll talk to quit cold cold creams and broadly our public schools the abuse of power right in Congress but that didn't go anywhere and then made a really crowd because your mistake and betting everything on Adam shell because the more you hear in the less you like it he appeared on the number you can't tell the truth and he's been caught so many cons non and I don't think they want I really don't think they want because I think they want to end on Friday and then say it's really a good we did get a chance to call witnesses but the downside I don't think Adam Schiff wants to go up there on the old and then have the whistle blower band on all give Mary versions of how this functionality because are not compatible with talking to press a Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution all for all of of the case for trump you need to read this book you you built your career as a historian historian of military history of of of the ancient civilizations of of the Greeks this is the bedrock of western civilization then let me ask you a very simple question that is my concern there is this theory of of social contract that there there are written and unwritten ways of doing business and and and western civilization is built upon them if one of the two parties in the system not a fringe party not the Libertarian Party not not Ross Perot but one of the two party says that we will impeach the president because we count we in the at the ballot box isn't that the shredding of the social contract or even the original call product on which the Republic was founded what what does this do on the long term for the United States professor Hanson well I think if you read our federal sixty five and sixty circle how we can serve them and other essays at the time about impeachment I thought it would be very where very hard to do that's one name that tune because you have to have it how old six separate crafter and they didn't think it looks to be the opposite they didn't envision that some of the opposition party trickle of the house would be a European Parliament terrible but not that's what it's become and there's a lot of Republicans we believe the appropriate approach doesn't want the Democrats so I imagine that the next time we have a democratic president and there are any legal gonna consider doing that because it's now going to be the most off the laundry vintage one as we know it doesn't exist anymore it's been transmog apart in the dictionary yeah but hi this is the way it is and remember we have no special counsel report no bipartisan support you have no public support need this approach currently W. peaks of the nineteenth century of course come president and will premiere Alexian it was just awesome we have in the basement we are not in the house Judiciary buttonholes intelligence committee to selectively things by Alan ship so we just it's just patently dishonest asymmetrical one and I think they're gonna pay a price for me home is on his way to a seventy nineteen seventy two or nineteen eighty four reelection well that's exactly the mangled that's exactly the next question I wanted to see professor if if nothing else exogenous happens if there's no massive external crisis if the economy state keeps going the way it's going and the president is reelected in two hundred and seventy seven days what do you expect the effect to be the knock on effect on these people will will live suddenly be Damascene moment where they say okay we got it wrong way sorry the media the left and will behave ourselves could it get worse and and really how could it get worse well here is the story we just have to ask what did they do after seventy two when they got the winner should not my government a surgeon on both the Compaq we never we haven't won since JFK and us you have a democratic guy with a southern accent DJ can you call the right and unions kind of a central St eighty four the left four my gosh school's out and they did it again with the caucus and then they they didn't do it again I got a guy with a southern accent so I think they'll be a lot of people who say the A. L. C. when school's out and you want to let you wrecked the blue dogs but I don't I'm not sure the demography and the changing twenty first century landscape allow that to happen the Democratic Party is so the Jacobin party control no quality and I don't know if they they kind of extinguisher liquidate all of the people want in all single barrelled omegle dinosaur the nominee list anymore and the people in there a light might exist like Bloomberg S. inviting has been scouring the exits images from renouncing or the prior cell because I don't know if there's anybody left the use of the for a different one with her late and have to come and say you guys destroyed the Democratic Party it's kind of a lot of one whether the Republicans take the house of course Brian's got fifty fifty chance of doing ten cameras on them as well can a pragmatist with a southern accent save the Democrats about trounced this November we shall see first we have to win the election those who believe in the make America great again agenda with talk to professor Victor Davis Hanson senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of the case for trump will be back with a good professor in a

President Trump America
Testimony coming? Abrupt acquittal? Trump trial edges on

AP News Radio

00:52 sec | 11 months ago

Testimony coming? Abrupt acquittal? Trump trial edges on

"The Senate votes tomorrow on whether they will be witness testimony as Democrats are demanding war in abrupt end of the trial with the president's expected acquittal which is more likely today the focus is on trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz arguing yesterday that a president who believes his reelection is in the national interest is essentially a mute from impeachment for whatever he does in support of that idea Dershowitz now says he was misunderstood but Adam Schiff and Democrats pounced that argument if the president says it can't be a legal fail and Richard Nixon was forced to resign but that argument may succeed here while Democrats argue the president must immediately be removed both from office and the ballots White House counsel Patsy Bologna's warning of the consequences they would tear us apart for generations Sager make on the at the White House

President Trump Alan Dershowitz Adam Schiff Richard Nixon Patsy Bologna Sager White House Senate Donald Trump
Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

Curtis Sliwa

07:03 min | 11 months ago

Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

"Because well the drama in Capitol Hill is whether that vote tomorrow will produce for rebel Republican senators who will say you know what we've sat here we have enabled calm and they read all questions on the cue card Chief Justice Roberts but I think will need to hear a little bit more from Bolton himself maybe some of the documents we don't know what that what that vote will amount to at this point I guess if you were taking action like you would Superbowl action between the chiefs and the San Francisco forty Niners now take fifty fifty it's it's sort of suede it looked like they had the Republicans they will more than four now looks like maybe they don't so we'll see how it turns out but while all that was taking place while McConnell was meeting separately with mark how ski apparently trying to convince a no no you don't want to join Collins said and Romney on that and become the Republican senator number three to jump ship Alan Dershowitz who's considered the legal beagle from Harvey took to the floor in defense of the president of the United States is part of the legal team I made an argument I did not the socks off of people whether your legal experts or you would just pragmatic in common sense no matter what your politics all over the world will watching in fact he talked about the quid pro quo that would be used towards gaining an edge in an upcoming election of a sitting president every public official what I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly right your election is in the public interest in for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment I wish I was I literally went wow if that's that's their defense that's their final word on this that is bad because I need so basically what he's saying is president is a green lit what to do what ever the hell he wants as long as he's saying and the presidential interest me getting reelected is omnipotent yeah infallible and because he's already present he or she should have the right to use a quid pro quo in order to stay in office because it's to our benefit it's the people spend in fact right so that I'm not miss quoting it and will obviously allow all of our listeners to weigh in as to what Alan Dershowitz men on them is one eight hundred eight four eight W. A. B. C. that's one eight hundred eight four eight nine two two two listen to what he said from the well of the Senate yesterday that has people shaking their head light I thought this was the legal lion of Harvard every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly right your election is in the public interest in for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest I cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment the reason our fathers created this concept of impeachment was very simple presidents are not gods they're not kings they're Americans who have been chosen to serve the country not their families not their friends not themselves but the United States of America and our founding fathers understood that man can be a moral man can be corrupt and so they set up a system of checks and balances are and further protected the country with the act of impeachment but now our president's legal team has suggested that anything the president wants to do as long as he claims that it's done in the national interest of getting reelected he can do right yes carte Blanche to behave with unrestrained abandoned if you once and if you're already a sitting president and he seems to imply it's in our public interest that you continue to be present and fulfill the two term limit and if it means dealing with a foreign power in which you do a quid pro quo okay look we're helping you with giving you a I need you to help in terms of digging up dirt on my adversaries my opponents whether they're running against me in a primary like Jimmy Carter remember had primary was primary by Ted Kennedy before he had to run for reelection against Ronald Reagan when he lost think of that think of the ramifications and then naturally everyone was stunned because he remember woozy Alan Dershowitz who was so different during Clinton Bill Clinton's impeachment what happened since nineteen ninety eight is that I studied more did more research read more documents and like any academic older my views so so in in so it's his mind there is there is no such thing as abuse of power when you're president so yes he may have pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt to trash Joe Biden he may have held they have hundreds of millions of dollars allocated money to Ukraine to add to the pressure but it's okay because even using the power of your office to serve yourself is okay if you are president I have to tell you guys this is the GOP's argument and if if you support this if the if the senator support this and they reelect him and his supporters you will be ending democracy as we know and I'll tell you as a former Republican lifelong I'm fairly certain will not go down on the right side of history with this one does she which as a former Democrat solid Democrat right across the board he's basically saying because now he is a supporter of the Republicans that he has a different view but as a lawyer let's face it he didn't say this he's a Hessian he's a mercenary lawyers are trying to argue a case both point at the same time in Los right will look the perfect example kellyanne Conway I'm not picking on her because she's trumps person but she has been she was you early on in the campaigns she was ripping trump apart as was one zero and this is what they do but I mean this is this is all about what's going to happen to this country and the democracy but the country this is a man whose reputation for being bright when it comes to legal matters and giving it to you straight has now been dramatically compromise because he has basically said you know when I was a Democrat I sure did Democrat way now that I support the president and the Republicans because save embrace me I see it the

Dershowitz says his Trump impeachment defense distorted

AP News Radio

00:49 sec | 11 months ago

Dershowitz says his Trump impeachment defense distorted

"Alan Dershowitz told the Senate even if the quid pro quo with Ukraine was proving eats not grounds for impeachment saying most public officials believe their election is in the public interest Jennifer president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment it was a sharp twist from the president's own claim of perfect dealings with Ukraine and shot the Democrats like Joe mansion I couldn't believe it was is preposterous the argument left even trump allies backing away from Dershowitz two days as the argument was mis characterized that he did not argue a president can do anything if he believes a re election is the in the national interest saga remained on the at the White House

Alan Dershowitz Senate Ukraine President Trump MIS White House Jennifer
Trump's defense shifts to not 'impeachable' even if true

AP News Radio

00:39 sec | 11 months ago

Trump's defense shifts to not 'impeachable' even if true

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and Alan Dershowitz argues those officials do what they think is needed to win an election saying it's impossible to know exactly what their motivation was personal or public good or a mix of both and that means their conduct cannot be impeachable it's done the house prosecutors like Adam Schiff if you say you can't hold the president accountable in election year where they're trying to cheat in that election than you are giving them carte Blanche senators will continue asking questions of both sides to date with a vote expected tomorrow one calling witnesses Sager make on the at the White House

Official Alan Dershowitz Adam Schiff President Trump Sager White House Carte Blanche
Trump's defense shifts to not 'impeachable' even if true

AP News Radio

00:57 sec | 11 months ago

Trump's defense shifts to not 'impeachable' even if true

"President trump's lawyers have made a big shift from his claim of perfect dealings with Ukraine arguing he cannot be impeached even if he tied U. S. military aid to political favors trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argues every politician conflates his own interest with the public interest in for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment lead house prosecutor Adam Schiff appeared stunned all could pros are not the same some are legitimate and summer corrupted you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which adding you can ask John Bolton Democrats continue pushing for the former trump national security adviser and other witnesses to testify but Republicans seem intent on ending the trial with the vote to work with the president Sager make Connie at the White House

Donald Trump Ukraine Alan Dershowitz President Trump Adam Schiff Sager Connie White House Prosecutor John Bolton
Dershowitz: Trump pursuing quid pro quo to help re-election is not impeachable

KYW 24 Hour News

00:16 sec | 11 months ago

Dershowitz: Trump pursuing quid pro quo to help re-election is not impeachable

"Mr trump's legal team articulated by Alan Dershowitz supposed this theory well there are situations in which personal benefit was impeachable president trump could have been acting in the public benefit because Mr trump believes that his reelection is in the public

Mr Trump Alan Dershowitz President Trump
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on The View

The View

05:35 min | 11 months ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on The View

"More with you. Thank you the deal ahead. Rod Cities Ilana Glazer shares. How she's getting young? Voters is to dance their way to the polls. We're back with Alan Dershowitz before we get to our next question. I need to ask the audience to pull back back a little bit. Okay Y'all hoop and Holler and we're trying to be respectful. We really are. And so we don't want to appear that we're mocking or dismissing. Okay for Shit Yeah Hello Mister show emphasis Megan McCain. I'm one of those people like you. That thinks the call was iffy. But it's not necessarily enough to impeach is see this process as highly partisan on both sides and everyone sort of made their decisions before hearing the case. How do you think the Democrats can make a better case to the American people Oh and potential skeptics? Well it's not my job to sell. The Democrats had to make a better case. I think they needed evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors look. I'm In this process because I love my country and I love the constitution and I don't WanNa see the constitution weaponized into a political tactic that can be used against against any president at the next President Democrat. If there's a Republican House they will impeach him on abuse of power on the floor of the Senate. I listed forty American presidents who've been accused accused of abusing their power from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to current a president's. You can't use the concept of abuse of power. It's too broad. It's not in the constitution and I'm here to defend the constitution not any particular president. I'm here to defend future presidents as well as the current president. Don't you think the fact that it has become become so partisan I think no matter which Lens you're viewing this through has hurt the case either were against because I think absolutely it's become too partisan you know it was was Congressman said you don't impeach unless there's broad bipartisan support. Hamilton said the greatest danger is that impeachment will turn on the number of votes and the party. You who has the most votes in each house that great dangerous come about you should never have an impeachment unless there's broad widespread nonpartisan support that doesn't exist here. Let me ask you something. Do you think Professor that that trump should go under oath like Clinton did well. You know I'm a lawyer for fifty fifty years. I've never put any of my clients on the witness stand because it's easy to lay perjury chaps for people. That's his decision. He wants to testify and and his lawyers. I'm not among them. I'm not one of his personal lawyers have advised him not to testify Alan. You mentioned that you've been a lawyer for a long time and and you have been a defense attorney Well even with the new Bolton revelations we still don't have a guarantee that Republicans will vote to hear from Bolton and Mike my question is what kind of trial have you seen. That doesn't have witnesses or evidence. I mean as well okay fine. Why not let the evidence and witnesses back him up because in my experience as a prosecutor defendants always have a list of witnesses that exonerate them? Let me ask you a question. You're a prosecutor and you indict somebody for dishonesty not a crime dishonesty I thank. You didn't let me let me. That's my point but if you ever indicted somebody on something. That wasn't a crime. You wouldn't have witnesses. You would have a motion to dismiss the judge would dismiss it. I've had cases like that which I've won based on no witnesses because no crime has been charged. I argue that. No impeachable teachable. Offense has been charged. If I'm right there are no witnesses if I'm wrong then. The rule has to be if one side can call witnesses. The other side must be able to call witnesses. They must have equality. Okay so let's say it went. Megan you've got you've got another question. Oh shall we have one more last time you were on the show. We pressed you about your ties the Jeffrey Epstein you served as lawyer for him in the mid two thousand when he was under federal investigation for possible sex crimes including dozens of underage. Girls you've also been accused of having Sex with underage girls obscene allegedly out to his powerful friends. And now you and that woman have both filed defamation allegations against each other teach your connection action to Epstein give the trump team any pause adding the defense. That's a good question. The first thing I told president trump when he asked me to do this is about those matters and I told them there was no truth to it. I have emails from the woman admitting she never met me. I have a tape recording from her lawyer. Admitting it was impossible for us to meet and that she was simply wrong long I have an FBI investigation from the former director. And I told him that this would be raised and that. He should seriously consider whether he wants me to be his lawyer. Royer look when Bill Clinton wanted me to help in his case back then I had to say to him I was. OJ's lawyer. Do you want the headline to be Clinton picks. OJ's lawyer these are all factors actors that go into consideration but a client should never be held responsible for his clients illegal activities. We're lawyers. We represent them. I I did absolutely nothing wrong in connection with the case. That's why I'm suing. I have nothing to hide. I am awaiting trial where I will prove that. I was framed aimed for money and that I am completely vindicated. Thanks to Alan Dershowitz. He's written a new forward to the constitution. And the United States the declaration Gordon of independence. That's available now. We'll be.

president Alan Dershowitz Megan McCain Bill Clinton prosecutor Ilana Glazer Jeffrey Epstein Holler Senate perjury United States Congressman Bolton Hamilton FBI Washington trump Professor Gordon
Supreme Court greenlights "public charge" immigration rule

Ray Appleton

06:26 min | 11 months ago

Supreme Court greenlights "public charge" immigration rule

"But the Supreme Court has removed the judge's temporary block on the white house's public charge immigration this is so important listen to me this is a rule that steers the awarding of American green cards to be better educated younger healthier immigrants the following yes this is at the January twenty seven five four decision it is a it this is a very big win for president trouble his populist advisers partly because the court also slammed the lower court judges who impose nationwide rules in lawsuits that involve only a few local plaintiffs so the conclusion there obviously is politics is played a heavy hand and I apologize Alan Dershowitz has left the stage and he's been replaced by Adam Schiff do we care B. decision allows the thing called the public charge rule to be applied well the lower court judges say they hear arguments from advocates and critics it's the way I understand it eventually this rule may be blocked by judges black it will operate for sometime to exclude people such as unskilled chain migrants or the elderly parents of immigrants who will likely use welfare or government run healthcare programs this is the deal you know there are so many that come to this country and immediately start taking entitlements those days are at least temporarily over the president wants to go back to something ultimately in the way of sponsorships so if you're coming to this country from a foreign country much as it used to be you have to be sponsored we ran for generations like that and then things changed and loosened up but while we were running like that for years you know years and years ago nobody complained about it they thought it was the right thing to do it made all the sense in the world you know in this with this rule is also a big win for American employers whose wages are being suppressed the employers and employees and the housing costs are rising amid the business back to you know inflow of roughly one million immigrant workers you know these are consumers and renders each year that's who they turned out to be so US investors denounce denounce president trump's public charge this immigration reform which will deny them many extra consumers and workers and it will shrink the taxpayers spending on medical and welfare programs that's the big deal used by the poor the sick so it's it's a good move by the president it's a political victory for him it's a victory for the taxpayers it's a victory for this country we're not trying to be meaningless believe me we're just saying you know like every other country V. days of a free ride are over you have to come into this country and there's certain criteria for you to come in and what's wrong with that you know you have to look at these realistically from the point of view of American children disabled Americans older Americans they're going to be big winners because the rule will likely deal redirect taxpayer support from migrants who are unhealthy an old and poor to those that are American citizens in the same status in two thousand sixteen I think it was the national academies of science and and migrants the said that the migrants consume roughly about of memory here it was fifty fifty five fifty six fifty seven billion in aid of welfare entitlements each year that's a big number that's a big number that should be applied to Americans in need you have to agree to that so the pending lawsuit was filed by the democratic dominated governments in New York Connecticut Vermont as well as several pro migration groups immigration lawyers of course the pro migration groups the immigration lowers the pride to pro diversity advocates you know they just beat Donald Trump on this big time after the Supreme Court handed him his victory terrible news and undoubtedly a political opinion as an individual who's an advocate with the American immigration council adding that the supreme court's record on immigration injunctions in the trump era is completely indefensible there is no defensible arguments that hating the public charge rule is causing irreparable harm to the government none I just went through a ton this guy needs a turn on his hearing aids this is a hugely important policy the targets poor and the working class immigrants who are disproportionately from Africa the carribean in Latin America so says who'll know a Leonard who's a reporter over Mother Jones not the most right leaning organizations publication a District Court judge found in October there was a repugnant see to the American dream democratic legislators also had to get in line you know just beating the hell out of this one this real harms our children our families our communities across the country no it doesn't no it doesn't it hurts our economy in the health care of so many Californians no it doesn't hurting the economy who said this this is California's real yet beyond a shadow of a doubt he'll tell you so Attorney General hobby about Sarah we are a nation of immigrants so we will lean forward in the face of heartless attacks on working families we are a nation of immigrants immigrants that came in following certain criteria at a time when we one of immigrants here following a certain criteria and there was no problem then was there now do you have a sponsor yes I do I'm gonna be staying with the Jones family and they're going to pay my bills until I can get a job cool V. trump administration is now allowed to enforce public charge immigration

Supreme Court White House
Trump team to wrap up impeachment case today

AP News Radio

00:53 sec | 11 months ago

Trump team to wrap up impeachment case today

"As they near the end of their case president trump's lawyers are mostly brushing past allegations in a new book that could under cut a key part of his impeachment trial defense X. national security adviser John Bolton writes the president wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it agreed to help investigate Joe Biden the president and his legal team insist that's not true even if it was that would not constitute an impeachable offense Alan Dershowitz argued yesterday those offenses require criminal conduct anything non criminal including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress the two articles facing the president or not impeachable though that's a view legal scholars largely reject Democrats are demanding Bolton and other witnesses testify and some Republicans say they're open to it cloudy White House hopes the trial will and quickly Sager mag Connie at the White House

Donald Trump John Bolton President Trump Ukraine Joe Biden Alan Dershowitz Congress White House Connie
Impeachment trial: Trump team presents defense amid Bolton revelations

America in the Morning

02:39 min | 11 months ago

Impeachment trial: Trump team presents defense amid Bolton revelations

"Now what senators sitting as a jury in the impeachment trial of president trump have new information to consider Capitol Hill correspondent Jerry bowed line to reports senators are grappling with a new wrinkle in the impeachment trial the claim by former national security adviser John Bolton in the draft of a new book that the president wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it promised to investigate Joe Biden and his son the president's lawyers Dodge the issue for most of the day as they argued the president did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine that there was no linkage between the military aid and investigations and that the house impeachment effort is misguided this is the lead lawyer J. secular we deal with transcript of idents we deal with publicly available information we do not deal with speculation allegations and are not based on evidence free standards at all but later retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz dealt with the matter head on nothing in the Bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power war an impeachable offense that is clear from the history that is clear from the language of the constitution Democrats have been calling for witness testimony for some time and say it's now clear than ever that Bolton needs to testify this is top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer how can Senate Republicans not vote to call that witness Democrats would need at least for Republicans to support calling witnesses for it to happen this is Utah senator Mitt Romney it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton as the president's lawyers rebutted the charges against him one member of the defense team former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi brought up the former vice president and his son hunter she played a number of videos to buttress Republican claims that the president had good reason to bring up the by destroying his call with Ukrainian president all we're saying is that there was a basis to talk about this to raise this issue and that is enough there's been no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong the president's lawyers are set to wind up their opening statements then there will be sixteen hours of questions from senators and then the Senate's expected to vote on whether witnesses like bold and will be allowed to testify a yes vote would eliminate GOP hopes for a quick acquittal of the

Senate GOP Attorney Florida Senator Utah Alan Dershowitz Professor Jerry President Trump Vice President Pam Bondi John Bolton Mitt Romney Chuck Schumer J. Secular Joe Biden Ukraine
White House impeachment team weighs in on Bolton claims

America in the Morning

02:40 min | 11 months ago

White House impeachment team weighs in on Bolton claims

"Now what senators sitting as a jury in the impeachment trial of president trump have new information to consider Capitol Hill correspondent Jerry bold line to reports senators are grappling with a new wrinkle in the impeachment trial the claim by former national security adviser John Bolton in the draft of a new book that the president wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it promised to investigate Joe Biden and his son the president's lawyers Dodge the issue for most of the day as they argued the president did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine that there was no linkage between the military aid and investigations and that the house impeachment effort is misguided this is the lead lawyer J. secular we deal with transcript of evidence we deal with publicly available information we do not deal with speculation allegations and are not based on evidence free standards at all but later retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz dealt with the matter head on nothing in the Bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power war an impeachable offense that is clear from the history that is clear from the language of the constitution Democrats have been calling for witness testimony for some time and say it's now clear than ever that Bolton needs to testify this is top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer how can Senate Republicans not vote a call that witness Democrats would need at least for Republicans to support calling witnesses for it to happen this is Utah senator Mitt Romney it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton as the president's lawyers rebutted the charges against him one member of the defense team former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi brought up the former vice president and his son hunter she played a number of videos to buttress Republican claims that the president had good reason to bring up the by destroying is called with Ukrainian president all we're saying is that there was a basis to talk about this to raise this issue and that is enough there's been no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong the president's lawyers are set to wind up their opening statements then there will be sixteen hours of questions from senators and then the Senate's expected to vote on whether witnesses like bold and will be allowed to testify a yes vote would eliminate G. O. P. hopes for a quick acquittal of the

G. O. P. Attorney Florida Senator Utah Alan Dershowitz Professor Jerry Bold Ukraine Senate President Trump Vice President Pam Bondi John Bolton Mitt Romney Chuck Schumer J. Secular Joe Biden
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

CATS Roundtable

11:56 min | 1 year ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on CATS Roundtable

"False accusations against me regarding the Jeffrey Epstein matter accusations which I have disproved which the former former head of the FBI is disproved wherever a lawyer admitting that she was wrong where emails from her admitting she never met me. But just because there's an accusation out there the decision was made not to use me also because the Republicans are only given one witness if they had been given to and this is probably I would have been used along along with Charlie up Jonah. Throw you to job I would've disagreed with him though he said even though he did a very good job. Defending the president's writes that president it could be impeached for gross abuse of office. And that's just not in the constitution you can't make this stuff up it's Only four criteria for impeachment speech treason. Bribery high crimes and misdemeanors and Abusive Office is not one of them. If you want to amend the constitution to make that a graph from peach but go through the amending process but academics from Harvard and Stanford and other places can't just amend the constitution because they don't like who the president is and and Nancy Pelosi had a news conference today after a couple of days Africa and she gives me them go ahead well. Let's vote for impeachment. Well it's puts Congress of law. Congress is not above the law. They can't just go to impeach. If the constitutional criteria aren't met Alexander Zan. Hamilton would say as he said in the federalist papers. If Congress acts in violation of the constitution their actions are void. Voi- you can't act in violation of the constitution. The constitution's supreme law of the land and the constitution sets out only four criteria for impeachment. We had to amend the Constitution the twenty Fifth Amendment because it didn't include incapacity when somebody has had a stroke or a heart attack is unconscious so the constitution to be amended. Maybe it has to be mended again. I would would not favor of it. But if you want to amend the constitution that's more appropriate than just trying to interpret words like `I crimes and misdemeanors to include anything you want. Want the framers. Rejected things like maladministration or abuse of power. Those were rejected as criteria for impeachment and academics can't put them back back in the constitution. If it goes to the Senate what does Mitch McConnell going to wait. What are your thoughts I think he has various options one if they impeach him on grounds has it or not in the constitution he can say the Senate refuses to go forward on this because the actions of the house avoid They didn't find a constitutional basis. And we're not going the proceed to try a president when he hasn't been charged with an impeachable offense that's one after unlikely that will be pursued. More likely option is that we'll be trial and it will be an acquittal and they put it will be fairly overwhelming remember. You need two thirds to convict Andrew. Johnson was just one vote. Short of being convicted and Bill Clinton was a split. Vote I think my recollection it was fifty fifty. But you need two thirds so it wasn't even a wasn't even close to to conviction so I don't think the president will be removed. Unless you know there's more information more evidence that would come out if it were impeachable offenses look at Richard. Nixon would have been removed had gone to trial trial. That's why he resigned. But on the basis of the current record it would be an abuse of congressional power to impeach on the basis of this record record alone. That'd be that would mean anybody to Congress can get rid of the Supreme Court or compensation getting rid of the president. I mean you one. It's three separate separate bodies. We have three independent branches of government. And that's why the allergies Great Britain is false People talked about framers borrowing the impeachment. I'm from British experience. That's just not correct. Historically the frames didn't WANNA have a British parliamentary type system where the parliament can simply by act of of a vote of Disagreements Get rid of the chief executive. We didn't WANNA parliamentary democracy anymore than we wanted a king. We wanted a republic with a strong wrong president with specific criteria for impeachment. So I think the academics will wrong looking to the British history and selectively quoting from the history and selectively quoting from the federalists tapers from the debates in front of the constitutional convention. I wish I had been there to correct them. I wish they'd been cross examination. That was a big failing at that hearing. Nobody Cross examined. Good lawyer could've taken these academic support and could have pressed them very hard on whether they would say the same thing if Hillary Clinton who says that if she were being impeached if the shoe were on the other foot but there was no cross examination and these folks were just not challenge in their abuse. They can say anything they want Russia. What's the other thing I have heard of is that one of the strategies is he's allowed that are minority of majority leader to keep wall the senators in in for six days and and keep a trial going for a long time? So these senators that are running for president will be a disadvantage well. I hope that isn't done. I don't WanNA see beechman used for partisan purposes it's being used for partisan purposes by the Democrats I don't think the Republicans should retaliate and also use the impeachment process for partisan purposes. There should be a trial. The trial comes before campaigning. And any serious Senator asked to be there for the trial and in fact I think the rules of the Senate require that they be in their seats. They can't even leave except for bathroom. Breaks and stuff There have to be there were other proceedings going on and it's an actual trial and there's a chief justice who presides over the wearing robes and Evidence is has taken and the defendant in the case being the president as the right to call witnesses and to confront his accusers. It will be a real a real trial and and I think the result will be acquittal. Also the the big item that's open Well the the American people just learned in the last few weeks that a congressman or senator could lie to the American people. This staff could lie to the American awesome people while they're on the Senate floor or the congressional floor and that's something that the average American never knew. Well I wrote about Thatta longtime ago when people say the president's above the law no that is the law the president can do certain things like fire The head of the FBI. Yeah I which other people can't do the same thing that Congress is not above the law. There is a provision in the constitution that in the united members of Congress from being criminally prosecutor persecutor or civilly held responsible for most things they do on the floor of the House of the Senate or on the way to and from the House and the Senate the same thing that you've judges judges are immune from criminal or civil prosecution for much of what they do on the bench. So why should it surprise anybody that the president to can't be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while these President United States he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Set A big question. Shouldn is many people believe. That shift has live tremendously. If he's call to the Senate will come and and if he's asked to be put under oath on under oath he'll have to do. I think since he was the chairman of the committee that yet at the evidence he is is a perfectly appropriate witness. And I don't think he can resist a Senate Subpoena He might go to court. That would be ironic. Because they're saying one of the impeachable offenses is that the president insisted on going to court before complying with congressional subpoenas. It'd be interesting to see if a member of Congress refused to comply with a congressional subpoena. I suspect that Adam Schiff testify. I think the whistle bowl testify. It's possible the whistle blower will be shrouded in secrecy winning testify so that his his identity is not revealed. But I can't imagine how he would not have to testify if that's one of the grounds or impeachment under our constitution everybody's entitled to Confront Their Accuser droves but then he lie anymore so it would be a problem for shifts. Well I think The public look will take account of inconsistencies in the Senate will take account consistencies and they will be able to credibility determinations. We've had. We've we've only had two trials in the Senate so there's not a lot of precedent but it'd be interesting recently. I bought a the argosy bookstore in New York great bookstores I bought a ticket to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. I actually owned a ticket admissions which allows me to the balcony to listen to the trial Alexandru Johnson And that was one of the two trials and the other one of course was Bill Clinton and I testified against the impeachment of Bill Clinton in front of the house in this area committee. Now talent you know you have a new book out talent. John Merica by accusation the challenge of Proving Innocence and the age of Metoo. I mean it's really a book for everybody because if I can be falsely accused anybody can be falsely accused. How do you protect yourself? I've lived a life of complete probity. Hey and honestly I tell my students if you WANNA be controversial you have to pay more taxes than you. Oh never flirt. Never touched anybody. I have never flirted touched on anything anything improper sexual fifty years Harvard. Not a single complaint and yet I was falsely accused and then I categorically prove my innocent through the former head of the FBI through emails mails from the person herself many. She never met me her own book manuscript admitting she never and nonetheless and her own lawyer bidding on tape that it would be impossible for me to be and the places. She said she met me and that she was wrong. And yet people still believe at the Ninety Second Street y where I have spoken for twenty five years. I won't allow me to speak defensive Israel at the Ninety Second Street y even though they don't believe the accusations they say they don't want trouble. They don't want controversy controversy so after twenty five years of speaking on behalf of Israel they will not let me defend Israel and talk about my new book defending Israel. The tastes of the story of my relationship with my most challenging client. Shame on the ninety second street Y for engaging in this kind of McCarthyism. There reminds me of what happened when I was a kid in college. And people couldn't speak if they were accused falsely of anything relating to Being Communist me this and I'm being falsely is and that's why I hope people will read the book because it's about not only me. It's about your son your nephew your father your uncle and your sister. Anybody can be falsely accused today. No matter how much evidence you have. You can't disprove it. People think sexual assault so heinous crime that even innocent should not be parents and people have said that to me. If you're accused. You must be guilty. Well it is terrible. What's going on in our country today and let's tells but I'm lameduck? I will stop at nothing to high. That's why I'm fighting that other people who are accused may have something to hide. I have nothing to hide. I agree with hundred percent guilt by accusation. Is the name of the book by Alan Dershowitz. I think everybody should got and you can buy bonds and noble or you could buy the Amazon and And thank you for coming on this morning. Thank you thank you. This is the cats roundtable. We'll be right back..

president Senate Congress FBI Bill Clinton Andrew Johnson Jeffrey Epstein Hillary Clinton Bribery Alexander Zan Senator Nancy Pelosi Harvard President United States Hamilton Jonah Alan Dershowitz Charlie Mitch McConnell
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

Newsradio 700 WLW

04:56 min | 1 year ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

"Counsel the interview done Alan Dershowitz Durst which as I mentioned in the previous story was one of his defenders Dershowitz says he did not know about the extent of the allegations against empty when he defended him in two thousand eight but he said he would be willing to represent a began to try to get an even better deal he also denied in an interview this past evening on CBS news ID he'd ever seen FD with underage girls no no if I had ever seen at fifteen in any appropriate inappropriate situation with an underage girl I would have immediately terminated my relationship and turned to men at the same time though as a criminal lawyer being shocked by an allegation does not mean I won't defend somebody meanwhile the plea deal the dirt sure which Durst which actually helped to broker in two thousand eight coming under fire now yeah we just broke down know what the deal was it was the deal of a lifetime the deal of the millennium but Dershowitz says that that plea bargain was not a bad deal for the prosecution pretty much the same thing the cost of was saying yesterday they got him to be a registered sex offender to bay vast amounts of money to all the women to get him to plead and go to jail and expose him for the world to see as a sex offender I think the feds thought that was the best they could do now he also denied claims from Virginia Roberts got free who claims she was forced to have sex with him and other prominent apps teen associates the same woman that accused me claims to have had dinner with Bill Clinton and two underage girls on EPS dean's island yet claimed to have met Al Gore and tipper gore yes the secret service records show that all of this is fantasy it's all made up yeah with this is a woman with the long long record of lying for money we're trying to get money so apparently even the owner Dirceu which to some extent is B. B. in room rolled into this like we're hearing yes summer saying that there's gonna be some big names then for some people which I believe more or less on the democratic side some people that you really might no we love them they're gonna find themselves doing the purple walk I kinda wonder how long this sort of a thing takes to totally unfold I will assume the investigation been going on for quite some length of time right yeah you don't go in and make an arrest and charge someone yeah and I hear this from the a very in whether it's a a county attorney your district attorney what a day they have to build a case you can't charge someone or you don't charge someone unless you think you've got a case that you can convict them beyond a reasonable doubt yeah prosecutors have to look at these kind of things on a daily basis well we've got this and we've got this okay that is this enough evidence to convince a jury to convict someone they have to make the call if if you don't have a case you don't charge somebody because you know you're going to lose yeah this especially when you're going after someone that's a millionaire billion or I don't know what the hell at Steve's work these days the June knoll was going to have that money to buy the best legal team they put together a of OJ Simpson's Dream Team right yeah they know they're going to be up against that sort of the scenario so this is really interesting about a before the hour get quick time out back into one.

Alan Dershowitz Durst
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on The View

The View

03:06 min | 1 year ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on The View

"We're back with Alan Dershowitz, Megan. Yes, Mr Shaw wits bear with me with this long question. So you have a history of defending some very controversial figures like OJ Simpson Klaus von Bulow, Mike Tyson and Jeffrey Epstein you were Epstein's lawyer when he was under federal investigation for possible sex crimes allegedly involving more than thirty underage girls. He's a man of enormous wealth and very well connected with famous friends like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. He already had plenty of capable wears. What made you say? This is a man I wanted to fend are was the first person that he came to we had no lawyers at that point. He asked me to defend the me told me a story that was very different from what ultimately came out. Look, I do have my cases pro Bono. You mentioned some of the prominent people I defend people on death row without fee. I defend policemen. I defend military people without fee more than half my cases without fee, but I don't turn down very controversial cases. Because I was a professor with tenure. I felt I had an obligation to take on the most unpopular. Cases because I couldn't be fired. And it's a case that was very very difficult and very very painful for me because I saw a real victims out there. I am a very strong supporter of the metoo movement. I think it's very important for men and anybody else to be held accountable for anything they did sexually against a woman. And yet, look I'm also a hate, Nazis communists. I defended the rights of Nazis to March through Skokie. I defended the rights of communist when I was a student at Brooklyn college. So I'm constantly defending people that I fundamentally disagree with. I'm defending the rights of Donald Trump voted failure Clinton. I was a strong support for Hillary Clinton. I don't allow my personal interests and values to intrude on my professional life. I think of myself like a doctor priest if they will somebody Jeffrey Epstein into the emergency ward. Doctors gonna take care of him. If he goes to his rabbi and says, I wanna make a confession the ram is going. Say yes, I wanna help you. And I know that about you, you sort of a true defense attorney in the sense that you defend the rule of law as opposed to defend a process as opposed to the person, and I prosecuted these kinds of child sex crime very effective to continue to brush them benders. Oh to go to prison. I agree. But in this case law enforcement officials had prepared a fifty three page federal sex crimes indictment involving three dozen underage victims for your client that could have potentially sent him to prison for life. But instead he pled guilty to two state charges not federal charges involving prostitution. He ended up serving just thirteen months in a private wing of a Palm Beach county jail for which he had exit privileges that some very fine lawyering on your part. But that's a shockingly light sentence. Professor, look you should complain about the judge and about the prosecutor. Their job is to put people like that in jail for a long time. Our job is to try to get the best possible sends the best possible deal..

Jeffrey Epstein Bill Clinton Donald Trump Hillary Clinton professor OJ Simpson Alan Dershowitz Mike Tyson Mr Shaw Megan Brooklyn college Skokie Palm Beach county prostitution prosecutor attorney thirteen months
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on NBC Meet the Press

NBC Meet the Press

04:13 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on NBC Meet the Press

"And look, let me go ahead and clear up all the news, six-year Nielsen has never asked me to resign. We have a very functional and professional relationship. We talk every day. We are both solely focused on Florence, and let's put some context around this. So these vehicles, I mean, the female ministration position. The position that I hold is incredibly complex, Chuck do not want to trade jobs with me. The the bottom line is, is that these vehicles were designed to support presidential preparedness directive forty. I have a very critical and important role to make sure that this government works on the on the nation's worst day through continuity government. These vehicles are designed to provide secure communications, and the program was actually developed back in two thousand eight Iran for me same way its run for anybody else. And you know, it's my understanding that maybe some policies were not developed around these vehicles that we will get cleared up and push forward. So, yeah, you have no plans to resign. No, I'm here to serve my country everyday. That's all do. All right. And when it's over, you know, whenever it is, you know, I'm ready to go back home, love my family. All right, Brock long. I know you've got to get back to work director, FEMA. Thanks for coming on an answering questions. Appreciate you. All right. By the way, if you want to help the folks who've been hit by hurricane Florence, he, you can hear a four organizations that we are recommending the Red Cross direct relief. Second harvest, food Bank, and the North Carolina disaster fund. All of them are eating people in the path of Florence coming up the big political story of the week. Paul Manafort agreeing to cooperate with special counsel, Robert Muller. I'll talk to democrat Adam Schiff and Harvard law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz when we come back. Welcome back. Paul manafort's guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with Robert Muller gives the special counsel a witness of potentially enormous value metaphor has countless connections that Muller can pro. For instance, he can ask about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer who said she had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Why Manafort was in the room where it happened, then there's Russian oligarch, Oleg der pasta who's very close to ladder Putin and to whom Manafort apparently offered private briefings. Once he joined the Trump campaign, there's manafort's longtime, Russian business partner, Constatine Kalinic, who's an alleged longtime Russian intelligence agent and under manafort's leadership. There's the Trump campaign's mysterious gutting of a Republican platform amendment to send lethal weapons to Ukrainians fighting Russian forces. And of course, there's metaphors first business partner in politics, Roger stone who peers to have talked to WikiLeaks about hack emails. So a lot of dots and. Maybe Muller metaphor connects a bunch of joining me now is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. Adam Schiff of California comes from shift, welcome back to meet the press in q.. So let's start with Muller manafort's cooperating. If you have a chance to ask him questions, what's the what? What are the first series of questions you wanna know in you assume Mr. Muller wants to Manafort is at the confluence of number pernicious. Interests. You've got the president's son trying to get dirt from the Russians at Trump Tower. You've got the president himself asking the Russians for dirt on Hillary Clinton in public statement, you've got Manafort trying to get money from this Russian oligarch trying to get made whole. You have the Russians who want to have a relationship with the Trump campaign. They want to help Trump get elected all those interests converge with Paul Manafort. So basically we want to know what can metaphor tell us about whether any of that was consummated. He's trying to get money. They're trying to get dirt. The Russians trying to help Trump was there a meeting of the minds. So that goes to the heart of the collusion or conspiracy issue. Is it possible that with all the circumstantial evidence, it really is just a bunch of coincidences that Paul Manafort in a desperate move. Donald Trump was afraid of Ted Cruz at the convention stealing the nomination he's told to higher this metaphor guy doesn't do the background check and those Russian connections just happened to be coincidence. What's the likelihood of that based on your investigation? Well, you Manafort is a key person to help us unwind weather..

Muller manafort Robert Muller Donald Trump Trump Tower hurricane Florence Adam Schiff Hillary Clinton special counsel Brock Nielsen president partner Chuck Iran FEMA Alan Dershowitz Ted Cruz Red Cross North Carolina
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

03:17 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"And then they ran the scheme. And Mike, I fell for it and was beaten with an inch of his life. He was paralyzed for months and continue. And so the government's position was we want your guide to testify against the bad guy, right? We and they gave my guy complete immunity. They were. Not interested in the fact that my guy was pretending to be a drug dealer they were not interested in, and this is the crucial part of the case in whether my guy had ever bought or sold drugs or any right. They wanted my guy to testify against a true menace to the community. The problem was my guy gave inconsistent statements and an in. And in particular, what he did was he said at the outset, oh, I've, I've never used dry. I don't even know what drugs are. What drew like, and and that was not credible, and you can understand why he did it right here. Was somebody in custody dealing with, you know what seemed like a hostile government arrayed against him and and you can understand why he did not want to admit to a crime. I met with him and I told him in no uncertain terms, you have immunity, you can admit to any crime you want, and that will never be used against you. I had varying degrees of success and so you know, come without getting into this as a matter of public record. I'm not revealing attorney client confidences. The fact that my that my guy made statements that were arguably inconsistent led the prosecutor in that case to disclose those in. Consistent statements to defense counsel. There was a very, very good argument that the statements were not inconsistent, right? The first time was kind of fake. It didn't matter. The prosecutor immediately disclosed those statements because he's required disclose culpa Tori evidence under Brady versus Maryland, and the trial resulted in a mistrial and I don't know what happened in the second because the second trial proceeded without my client as a witness, and that's stuck with me for a lot of reasons. But there is no doubt in my mind that the prosecutor in that case did not want to win as badly as Alan Dershowitz. The prosecutor in that case, valued his ethical obligations to the point that it prevented him from doing something where he didn't want to win that way now. Right. Does that I don't know what it means for the rest of it. But it does mean that I've sort of come around full circle to simplest explanation and and and it saddens me. So that's my, that's my Allan Dershowitz door. Yeah, no, it must be rough to have somebody that you looked up to for so long be be saying things like this. I just don't even think we covered all the stupid crappy said about Trump, but yene in in a way, went way deeper than that. So very interesting stuff. We're way over time. So much more. More, but we've got.

prosecutor Alan Dershowitz Mike Trump Maryland attorney culpa Tori Brady
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

02:13 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"Again, I I did not know he was a Fox News expert. That's that's horrifying. So when called upon to defend the OJ Simpson verdict, Alan Dershowitz did so in in very, very stark terms right. He said, the verdict in the Simpson case is a wakeup call about police perjury. I believe the. Prosecution put on a case, it knew to be partially false in order to prove what it honestly believed to be the true guilt of the defendant. This is all too typical of what prosecutors often do the differences this time. The jury did not let them get away with it. I am confident that the jury's unanimous acquittal in this case will produce. Sorry, we'll promote truth in the long run by sending a powerful message that business as usual will not be tolerated business as usual, including judges, pretending to believe these lying police witnesses in order to avoid excluding evidence that proves to them that the defendant committed the crime. And then he asked rhetorical question disguised as a prediction of will. This verdict finally persuade law enforcement officials that police perjury is not only dangerous to civil liberties, but his bad for law enforcement. If we were going to do an Alan Dershowitz was wrong segment that prediction from nineteen Ninety-seven has not remotely come true police Testa lying is a significantly bigger problem today than it was twenty years ago or at least if it's the same level of problem, we're more aware of it because of the quickey of cameras. I'm gonna Lincoln article in the show notes, don't have time to get into effect, but blatant police falsehood testimony introduced at trial that said, you know this woman, you know through down her bag of laundry in between us in the door. And I heard a clunk, and when I looked at it, a gun fell out and the the apartment building, she was living in had cameras, and there's a st- still shot, right? But and video from the cameras that shows net never happened that they completely made that what he did was barged into her only know that like Baltimore police had a carried around like fake. Guns to plant on on people and stuff like that..

Alan Dershowitz OJ Simpson perjury Baltimore Testa Lincoln twenty years
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

05:01 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"When you read, what when you listen to Allender, which when you read reasonable doubts, his theory is not that OJ. Simpson was innocent. In fact, he has mocked F Lee Bailey who was also on the defense team for saying, F, Lee, Bailey said publicly. I have a timeline for this and and OJ definitely could not have been there. He is definitely innocent. Alan Dershowitz has made fun of F Lee Bailey for that. Again, he's never said OJ has clearly did it. But what he has said is that the circumstances around it strike are. Raise the question of did the police frame a guilty person, right? And and the key elements that he brought out were the warrantless search of the Simpson home, which was a stencil justified by visible blood on OJ Simpson's Bronco. Right. And the idea in order for that in order to get a warrantless search. Right. You then have to have the four officers show up at the Simpson home, but not show up thinking that OJ Simpson is the suspect, right? So and I was the story that the prosecution put on, right? They said Ono. We went out there because we wanted to inform OJ Simpson. There was a double murder, and we wanted to tell him and then we got there and we saw the blood and that's why we had to to break in without a warrant. Alan Dershowitz is correct. That testimony is not credible. There is nobody on earth who thinks that the because as we saw from the Nile, the nine one one tapes right OJ Simpson had previously been reported, right? Nicole Brown had called the police to report spousal abuse, right? So in any normal circumstance, when a woman is is murdered, you suspect the husband and in particular when there's a history of spousal abuse, it is it it. It is not plausible that the detectives were just Sean it. They were just showing up to OJ a favor. That's not that's not plausible. Then he wrap that around. There was testimony that changed over the course of the trial as to how much blood was drawn from OJ Simpson. It was eight sees in the initial testimony, and that was subsequently changed to six and a half CC's and Dershowitz. Argument. And again, this is what's his argument. But his argument is that that missing one and a half seas of blood was used to plant blood on the sock and that his evidence supporting that is that when it was sent to a lab for testing, the blood contained levels of ADA, which is a preservative or whatever and that you know if it occurred organically on the sock, you would have the preservative in it and the splatter pattern. They introduced an expert who showed that the splatter pattern was consistent. Think about they actually perform this experiment. Red wine put a sock on a flat board and pour wine on it. Right. And it will soak through both sides as opposed to if the socks on your foot and you pour wine on it. Right. It's going to primarily be the side. The port on OJ never set, right? There's no story that says, you know that that explains away the overwhelming mountain of the rest of the evidence, right? And dirty. What's doesn't say that what it says is. Once we got once we introduced the idea that these cops a were at, I mean, Mark Furman. What had Neo Nazi sympathies sympathies, right? I mean, Furman was was a terrible human being. Once we introduced the the motive for these cops ally. Once we introduced evidence prior tapes that they had planted evidence in the past, and we introduced pretty good evidence in again in inertia, view that evidence planting may have gone on in this case that unraveled the whole chain of events. Okay. That's Dershowitz theory of the OJ Simpson trial that is in pursuit of a very, very, in my view, a very pro social end right discouraging. Testa lion discouraging the police from fabricating evidence against people, they believe are guilty. I just want to chime in here real quick by the way, where are they? Now, Mark Furman is frequent commentator for Sean Hannity on Fox News. So crime scene expert for Fox News just that's where awful racists go after after trials. Like these just just chiming and okay back to the that that is that is despicable. I mean, it it is. It is despicable things that Mark Furman said, are things that should be disqualifying from ever appearing in public..

OJ Simpson Alan Dershowitz Mark Furman Lee Bailey Sean Hannity Allender Fox News Nicole Brown ADA murder Testa Sean
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

03:23 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"To be excluded. You will not be denied admission to the bar because you've admitted to smoking pot. I used to. I still. That the reason number I'm repeating anecdote here on the show is because that's tremendously ethical and useful advice and and it stuck with, right. So even before, you know, Dirk came up that was something that that that really stuck with me Alan Dershowitz said, and I forget the time limit he put on, but he told all the students, he said, look, if you're ever in criminal trouble the first couple years, you know before you've made it big and can afford to call my office and I will defend you pro Bono any any situation anytime free of charge. But the thing that really struck me about about tissue, it's when I was going back and reading some of my classroom materials and trying to figure out what what's happened, right? How do we go from this person that I admired so much to carrying water for Donald Trump and dissembling in public, I came across what Dershowitz said about reasonable doubt, and you may recognize this time as what I. Was unintentionally paraphrasing back in our most controversial episode episode one, oh seven, where I was pining on cereal. Here's what her says. Quote. The truth is that most criminal defendants are in fact guilty. Prosecutors therefore generally have the ultimate truth on their side. But since prosecution witnesses often lie about some facts. Defense attorneys frequently have intermediate truth on their side and of Clinton, and then proceeds to talk about parsing the role of truth in in defending a criminal defendant. I said version of that kind of word for word and got called out right the, what do you mean? You know, and and and it is that that second rate. So the first part again, I take as a given right when when when Alan Dershowitz says right, most criminal defendants are guilty. I don't know that we need to to to do much much digging beyond that, but but his justification. For defending criminal defendants is that the prosecution witnesses are lying and it's his job to sort of put that to the test. And you might say, what is that like? We're, where's he getting that lie? Why would why would we think? Yeah, what? Yeah. Why would that be the case? I don't get it and he's exactly right about this. He's been born out multiple times with multiple studies independent commissions and and and and it goes back to a nineteen sixty one supreme court case called map versus Ohio. And this is the case that gave us the exclusionary rule that we have today, right? It was the first time that the supreme court said illegal searches means that the evidence that they gathered is excluded from trial right prior to that, there were still standards right? Still violated your rights, but your remedy was, you know you could sue the cop who illegally searched you are what? Right, and and as you can imagine, that didn't go. So. Oh, well, right. Because you would be convicted of the crime. And then you know, now you have convicted felon suing police officer from, you know from prison. And so you know, we really wasn't any kind of deterrent..

Alan Dershowitz supreme court Donald Trump Dirk Clinton Ohio officer
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

03:13 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"Going. This is exactly what I said. He wasn't right. So that was a, that was a deliberate lie of omission and and so in doing so, right, you were left with a neutral sounding article that said they violated Coen's constitutional rights and that was nonsense right? We we went through of those initial three hundred thousand documents, less than a hundred were even arguably privileged, right. And most of those were communications between Cohen and his lawyer not between Cohen and his clients, right. The the actual number was like a dozen between Cohen and any of his clients and out of three hundred thousand right that clearly does not rise too. So you know. So you have that. You've got this statement. It's tough to say Dershowitz is lying. What you can say is he's carrying water saying something that gives a misleading impression. It's tough dependent down so far with this slippery, you know, he's he's being misleading but has gone. Other than that are you? Are we just calling misleading now. I am what I want to use right as so for folks who are listening to the show, who maybe don't agree with us politically or you want to share this around or their folks that are still falling for the lie that Alan Dershowitz himself is is perpetrating in public, which is why I'm a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton and you know, I'm not carrying water for Donald Trump. Unav- fifth, twenty seventeen and a link in the show notes. He tweeted out Alan Dershowitz tweeted out quote, what statute criminalizes collusion would not be a crime for Trump to collude with Russia or Clinton with DNC, stop accusing each other of crimes. That's an indefensible lying tweet, right? Collusion isn't a crime in the same way that disembowelment isn't a crime credit to that goes to listener. Yours. Bogor's poop sent that out on Twitter, right? Like collusion is. Is a crime because conspiracy is a crime. We've mentioned this over and over again on the show. And in fact, we've linked even recently articles from our buddy Randell Aisin explain it is crystal clear anybody who is a practicing attorney who says collusion isn't a crime is either terrible, terrible lawyer or is deliberately dissembling and Alan Dershowitz is not a terrible lawyer. He knows that he is lying four Donald Trump in in in releasing that tweet. And so that's kinda was was the Genesis for doing this bit. I love by the way the the, the quivalent they're the kind of, oh, whether or not Trump colluded with a hostile, foreign government or Clinton with the DNC. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Has anyone been worried about whether or not Trump and the Aren see have been, you know, like the idea that those are two equal things anyway. Hey, you're right to point up. The false quiver be. It's worse than that because that is a right wing Fox News.

Alan Dershowitz Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Cohen DNC Coen Bogor Fox News Randell Aisin Twitter Unav disembowelment Russia attorney
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

Kickass News

03:10 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

"Defended many of the most famous legal cases of the past fifty years, including OJ. Simpson Anatoly Sharansky Michael Milkin Klaus von Bulow and Mike Tyson. He's the Felix Frankfurter professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author of numerous bestselling books including his latest, the case against impeaching Trump Alan Dershowitz. Thanks for coming on the podcast. Well, thank you so much. I'm a big fan of podcasts and it's a pleasure to have in an intelligent thoughtful conversation about this issue. All too rare these days. Indeed, the pleasure is all mine. Now you, you argue against impeaching President Trump, but your not a Trump supporter per se. You're a lifelong democrat who donated to and voted for Hillary Clinton in two thousand sixteen. So explain why you're taking up this. 'cause I've never voted for. Republican presidential candidate in my life, and I'm strong democrat and a strong liberal. I'm making exactly the same argument I made for President Bill Clinton in the same argument, I would have made had Hillary Clinton been elected president and they were trying to impeach or prosecute her. In fact, make the point. My publisher came up with an alternate cover the same book, the same cover, but it's called the case against impeaching, Hillary Clinton, and it would be exactly the same except that the liberals would love me. They'd be building a statue to me on Martha's Vineyard instead of vilifying refusing to listen to me and important of fact, you have actually criticized number of President Trump's policies over the past year or so. So for you, this is what strictly a constitutional issue strictly constitutional issue. You know, when I was a kid in college, I defended the rights of communist to speak. I hated communism. I suspended the rise of Nazis marched through Skokie. I've constantly all through my life. Defended people I've thoroughly disapproved of in the case of Donald Trump, I disapprove of his immigration policy, separation of families gun control policy, Charlottesville, policy policy toward taxation, healthcare, even mother's milk, my God, the other day, the Trump administration tried to push back on women breastfeeding their children. I'm opposed to virtually everything that this administration does. I just don't wanna see constitutional rights violated, no matter whose rights they are. Well, I have to say that you would be a rare voice of reason than in this current political climate because it seems to me that people's standards for what's right, what's acceptable, even what's legal now seems to be entirely flexible depending on whether there's a deer in our next someone's name. I just always have one test the shoe on the other foot test. What would I be doing if the shoe on the other foot? If the are with the day, the d. with the are, you know, this is not original with me, the great, the legal philosopher John. Rawls came up with a testimony rally in which he said you're in a kind of netherworld behind veil of ignorance. You don't know whether when you're born, you'll be rich or poor tola short, male or female, black or white. You have to come up with a system of morality. That would be good for everybody without knowing where you're going to be. That's the way I come up with my constitutional rules..

Hillary Clinton President Trump Simpson Anatoly Sharansky Mich president Bill Clinton Mike Tyson Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz Felix Frankfurter Skokie Rawls professor of law Martha's Vineyard publisher John fifty years milk
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

Kickass News

02:13 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

"Is there any way that that wouldn't be considered an impeachable offense? And I suppose an illegal campaign contribution. Well, it sounds like it could very well be an illegal campaign contribution, but it didn't occur during the presidency and so we would have to reach the issue in issue. Never before decided by any court as to whether a crime high crime a committed before a person became president. But in order to get him, elected president could be an impeachable offense. I suspect the answer to that would be s. Probably, but don't anybody tell you that it's clear because the constitution just doesn't speak to that issue because the agreement was signed in December twenty seventeen, which would put it into his presidency. December seventeen would put it into his presidency. Yeah, but then it wouldn't be a camp then it wouldn't be in order to help them get elected. So you can't have it both ways. If it helps them get elected, it's before the presidency of it's after the presidency is not to help them get elected. So that sounds a little bit more like the kind of low crime that Hamilton oka- may have committed when he paid off the the husband of the woman with whom he had an affair. But you do seem to indicate in your book that the area where don't Trump might be most vulnerable isn't Russia or obstruction, but these ongoing civil cases involving some kind of sexual impropriety with women what makes those so perilous for him. Same thing that made them perilous for Bill Clinton Bill Clinton, foolishly, and with the advice of lawyer who should have not given them that advice testified. A sex life while he was president and was accused, therefore committing perjury while he was president. I do not think this president will make the same mistake. I think he's learned the lesson of Bill Clinton and would do everything to avoid testifying in a civil case. Now he has no constitutional right according to the supreme court's unanimous decision to refuse to participate in a deposition while he's president. But there are many rights he can invoke, including, I don't think he would ever do this a fifth amendment, right? But if he did answer that question and he answered it falsely, then he's in Clinton land. We're gonna take a quick break, and then I'll be back with more with professor Alan Dershowitz when we come back in just a.

president Bill Clinton Alan Dershowitz Hamilton oka Trump perjury professor Russia
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

Kickass News

03:10 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on Kickass News

"Defended many of the most famous legal cases of the past fifty years, including OJ. Simpson Anatoly Sharansky Michael Milkin Klaus von Bulow and Mike Tyson. He's the Felix Frankfurter professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author of numerous bestselling books including his latest, the case against impeaching Trump Alan Dershowitz. Thanks for coming on the podcast. Well, thank you so much. I'm a big fan of podcasts and it's a pleasure to have in an intelligent thoughtful conversation about this issue. All too rare these days. Indeed, the pleasure is all mine. Now you, you argue against impeaching President Trump, but your not a Trump supporter per se. You're a lifelong democrat who donated to and voted for Hillary Clinton in two thousand sixteen. So explain why you're taking up this. 'cause I've never voted for. Republican presidential candidate in my life, and I'm strong democrat and a strong liberal. I'm making exactly the same argument I made for President Bill Clinton in the same argument, I would have made had Hillary Clinton been elected president and they were trying to impeach or prosecute her. In fact, make the point. My publisher came up with an alternate cover the same book, the same cover, but it's called the case against impeaching, Hillary Clinton, and it would be exactly the same except that the liberals would love me. They'd be building a statue to me on Martha's Vineyard instead of vilifying refusing to listen to me and important of fact, you have actually criticized number of President Trump's policies over the past year or so. So for you, this is what strictly a constitutional issue strictly constitutional issue. You know, when I was a kid in college, I defended the rights of communist to speak. I hated communism. I suspended the rise of Nazis marched through Skokie. I've constantly all through my life. Defended people I've thoroughly disapproved of in the case of Donald Trump, I disapprove of his immigration policy, separation of families gun control policy, Charlottesville, policy policy toward taxation, healthcare, even mother's milk, my God, the other day, the Trump administration tried to push back on women breastfeeding their children. I'm opposed to virtually everything that this administration does. I just don't wanna see constitutional rights violated, no matter whose rights they are. Well, I have to say that you would be a rare voice of reason than in this current political climate because it seems to me that people's standards for what's right, what's acceptable, even what's legal now seems to be entirely flexible depending on whether there's a deer in our next someone's name. I just always have one test the shoe on the other foot test. What would I be doing if the shoe on the other foot? If the are with the day, the d. with the are, you know, this is not original with me, the great, the legal philosopher John. Rawls came up with a testimony rally in which he said you're in a kind of netherworld behind veil of ignorance. You don't know whether when you're born, you'll be rich or poor tola short, male or female, black or white. You have to come up with a system of morality. That would be good for everybody without knowing where you're going to be. That's the way I come up with my constitutional rules..

Hillary Clinton President Trump Simpson Anatoly Sharansky Mich president Bill Clinton Mike Tyson Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz Felix Frankfurter Skokie Rawls professor of law Martha's Vineyard publisher John fifty years milk
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

06:55 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Joy behar on the view is in idiot this is what she said this morning they had alan dershowitz on i know what is alan dershowitz doing on the view i know constitutional scholar author of a million bucks i mean just a brilliant brilliant man alan dershowitz and there he was on a tv set studio set with joy behar whoopie goldberg and whoever else what joy bay they were talking about the supreme court pick brad kevin enjoy bihar asked alan dershowitz straight up question why is it mitch mcconnell in jail for blocking obama's supreme court pick why isn't mitch mcconnell in jail for blocking obama's supreme court pick now you'll recall that in two thousand sixteen after antonin scalia passed away obama nominated a guy named merrick garland and you will recall that mitch mcconnell the leader of the senate majority leader in two thousand sixteen said you know what it's unfortunate that justice scalia passed away we have a presidential election coming up this november it's a really important thing it's an important election the american people ought to speak before we fill this vacancy on the supreme court it's a presidential election we're gonna wait and so mitch mcconnell the senate majority leader delayed the hearings and the consideration of obama's pick merrick garland to replace scalia until after the election let the people speak if they want hillary to be president hillary can get her pick if they want trump to be president trump can get his pick trump did then that was last year neal gorsuch so just understand no matter where you are on what mitch mcconnell did the senate majority leader he used the rules of the united states senate to not even consider obama's nominee now again no matter where you are on that you love what mcconnell did you think it's outrageous and outlandish what mcconnell did i don't know that until joy behar spoke this morning i don't know that i've heard anybody wonder or opine why mitch mcconnell is in jail because what he did jail joy behar wanted to know asked alan dershowitz why isn't mitch mcconnell in jail a sitting united states senator who yeah played politics but use the rules of the united states senate to do what he did vote him out of office i suppose mcconnell censure him if you want if the democrats had taken charge of the senate i suppose they could have held hearings into what mcconnell did i don't know but jail like that's a crime that should compel you to go to jail that's what joy behar wanted to know and alan dershowitz was nice and just sort of ignored that question and got into the politics of brett kevin on on and on and and that's probably a good thing to do when faced with such idiocy now i have a hard time with that i'll be the first to admit i have a hard time with that i have a hard time dealing with people who can be so stupid and i suppose if joy behar had asked me that question if if i were ever on the view and i i don't think i'd ever be on the view i don't think i'd ever have to worry about being on the view because i don't think i'd ever be invited to be on the view but oh my gosh if for some reason i found myself on the view enjoyed bahar asked me that question excuse me former congressman walsh well why why isn't mitch mcconnell in jail for blocking obama's supreme court pick i don't think i could contain myself like dershowitz did i think i'd probably say you're not serious are you know you are serious aren't you you're an idiot joy how how'd you get on this show anyways jenner stanton that that's like a really stupid question why jail and i think probably would've thrown right back interface why jail joy why is that a crime punishable by jail time what a sitting united states senator did politically i think i'd put it right back in her grill so to speak now the problem is joy behar asked a question like that and the crowd applauded and cheered and smile and it tells you and reminds us where so much of this country's at reminds us again that as much as.

Joy behar alan dershowitz
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

KTTH 770AM

04:32 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

"Eight hundred three eight five two four tom i wonder if you have been alan dershowitz he's he's very articulate in his tiki lights his feelings quite well here here his political points very well and as you know he's no supporter of donald trump his unlike him he voted for hillary he gave money to hillary clinton this is someone who gave money to hillary clinton goes on tv and professes his love for democratic party policies gives cash out of his his hard earned lawyer and bookseller money right out of his pocket he hands it over to democrats and he argues for their for their causes he also argues only even though he doesn't like trump he defends his civil liberties anything that is overreaching here's a new book called the case not the case against trump the case against impeaching trump okay and he compares what's going on to mccarthyism what's going on to people who support trump he's saying his case is not the case for make america great again it's not the case for why donald trump's the greatest guy in the world it's the case against impeaching trump he doesn't want to impeach trump he is now being disinvited to parties martha's vineyard now he said that he said they are shunning me this is an article for the week this is alan dershowitz they're shutting me trying to ban me from their social life on martha's vineyard one of them and academic at a distinguished university probably harvard right because he's a harvard guy has told people he would not attend any dinner or party to which i was invited and then he says this is familiar to me since i lived through mccarthyism in the nineteen fifties do you think that is a good comparison i think it's the very definition of mccarthyism is being shunned by people in his social circle for not following the exact political rules that all of his friends are following like i said he's a democrat and he continues to be and gave money to hillary clinton now they're making fun of him even the new york times it's remarkable the way that the groupthink works on this because the new york times should think before they attack but they make fun of him allender schmidt says he was people are shunning him and they put shining in quotes like they use quotes the way that trump does and they they repeat a bunch of tweets in their new york times article that are making fun of alan dershowitz it's outrageous people are shunning alan dershowitz and the social really what the heck took them so long they quote in the new york times and then they reject the comparisons to mccarthyism with blacklists and spears that ruined careers they said the only the they cite his quote the academic editing distinguished university has refused to attend any dinner party where he is present disappears to be as main example of mccarthyism concludes the new york times so they're kind of poking fun of his mccarthyism is it mccarthyism what's happening to trump supporters having them had their hats taken off having sarah huckabee sanders kicked out of restaurants he says he's not whining his response to the new york times is i'm not whining because they call they're saying people are making jokes about vineyard wine w h and the joke is that he's in some kind of privileged place that oh martha's vineyard is a a a little hamlet for the rich and powerful and poor dershowitz can't go to dinner parties anymore so they think that that's funny when in fact that's exactly what happened in mccarthyism in the nineteen fifties you had people who were in the hollywood crowd and they were pushed out of the hollywood crowd of people stopped associated with them pretended they weren't friends with them and more so he said he's not whining i'm proud of taking an unpopular principled opinion that gets me shunned by partisan zealots it's not about me i couldn't care less about being shunned by such people thank you ellen dershowitz he's been on the show by the way and.

alan dershowitz
"alan dershowitz" Discussed on BizTalk Radio

BizTalk Radio

02:20 min | 2 years ago

"alan dershowitz" Discussed on BizTalk Radio

"Great harvard law school professor meritas alan dershowitz telling newsmax that'll be valuable part of the president's national security team i just wanted to say any people out there who will follow his i've interviewed alan dershowitz three times on three books and it's scott into policy and decision making and i mean it's people say who is the greatest interviews while i'm not gonna sit here remain the my daughter before on the show but alan dershowitz i mean he's right up there at the top i don't know i'm not charting these these great guests and i will say and i sat down and i'll say it now alan dershowitz he's he's a liberal and if you listen to you can get pretty angry if you're he's still would support hillary and i'm not going to challenge the man's judgement i mean i one hundred percent agree with him i normally might say well ninety five percents you're given the five percent benefit as if it matters i'm giving him no benefits of of track that i don't know how anybody could vote for that which that demon that that destructive personality and yeah when you debate him or talk with him he is very forthright when he takes views at a diametrically opposed in the far left and i commend him for this he's been forthright and saying trump hasn't committed a crime it also collusion and obstruction of justice i'd crimes therefore let's terminate the special investigation which has been terminated by the by the house let's get the follow up and terminated the other another position alan dershowitz is pretty good but he doesn't care political political right he is a true constitutionalist and it's whatever the law states he follows most a lot of people say well why was he involved the oj simpson case and here we get into a whole thing of ethics what would make a lawyer step away from it but by very system everybody needs representation i'm not looking to change our legal system looking to change the priorities of punishment i think the legal system.

president alan dershowitz trump professor hillary one hundred percent five percent