20 Episode results for "Professor Dershowitz"

House Dems Release New Documents From Giuliani Associate; Pres. Trump Reveals His Impeachment Defense Team; Pres. Trump Vs. U.S. Generals

Anderson Cooper 360

44:57 min | 1 year ago

House Dems Release New Documents From Giuliani Associate; Pres. Trump Reveals His Impeachment Defense Team; Pres. Trump Vs. U.S. Generals

"Good evening president. Trump said the former ambassador to Ukraine would would go through some things she told Congress she felt threatened. Now there's breaking news new documents documents including text messages just out from the House Judiciary Committee they add to others this week. They further suggest them. Rea- Vich may have been under surveillance before her ultimate Before her ultimate departure from Kiev a line in one of the messages reading quote. It's confirmed we have a person inside. That's just a portion of an exchange between in an unknown sender with a Belgian number and trump donor and congressional candidate named Robert Hide in addition to being just playing ominous the messages cast doubt on hides claim about another similar text exchange with Parnassus. I thought we were playing Parnis of says that he thought the whole thing was a joke. Seen as Pamela Brown has been looking at the new evidence and joining us now with details. So what are you learning from these newly released Lipponen documents later. These newly released text messages. Shed fresh light on apparent and attempts to reveal the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Ivanovich. They were sin between PARNIS associate. Robert Hide in an unidentified number from Belgium about her movements is in Ukraine and in one message the Belgian number since height a screen shot at of an official photo of your Banovic writing quote. My contacts are checking adding. I will give you the address next week to which hydroplane awesome and then there's also this text from that same number with the address for the Ukrainian embassy. The next text sent two minutes later Anderson says she has been there since Thursday. Never left the embassy so these messages indicate her movements were being tracked over the course of at least several days. He's adding more evidence to these texts between Hyde and parties about trucking Nevada. High claimed he was just joking around about now for context Rudy Giuliani and his associates. Associates have been pushing the president to fire Ivanovich because they believe she was getting in the way of their efforts to dig up dirt on abidance. She was ultimately pulled from her post last spring when she says she was told she needed to return to the US immediately because of great concerns that we should note after forty hours of silence Anderson Mounting pressure to respond Secretary Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo said today that state will investigate this matter of the Ukrainian bastrop potentially being surveilled. We're showing images of president trump at with event that left standing next to him talking with them. The documents also show cornices alleged communications with congressional staffer right. So the these new documents. Also show these efforts by an aide to Congressman Nunez Devin Nunez to dig up dirt on trump rivals and in these newly released text text messages. The Nuneza tells Parnis he needs to gather material and con conduct interviews in Ukraine and this effort to dig up dirt on the Biden specifically by its role in firing gene Ukrainian prosecutor. There were several exchanges on this matter between the two men. At what makes this so significant is that they draw Nunez even further into efforts undertaken by Giuliani and his associates in Ukraine. Last month. As you'll recall Anderson House Democrats release phone records showing calls between Nunez and part as and noon as admitted earlier this week. Just speaking on the phone with a key figure in the Ukraine scandal after previously saying such a conversation would have been very unlikely and Lebron. Thanks very much. Appreciate the White House whether or not senators consider this or any new evidence that the impeachment trial at all remains to be seen today. The number of people who defending the president grew by three Clinton impeachment special counsel so Kenneth Starr his successor Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz who joins US shortly. Interestingly the president has not always had a high opinion of star listen to what he said. What about him during the Clinton impeachment? I think Ken Starr's a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster I hated the way the president handled. It was a long on and terrible process. I I really think that Ken Starr was terrible. That's an all being to Geraldo Rivera. The time he calls star quote a total Wacko but that was then he certainly known to say things. He doesn't mean at war to change his mind. In fact just a couple of weeks ago he was claiming to want witnesses at the Senate trial. What's fair and we'll be fair in the Senate? I would love to have my I have mixed. I'd love to have repaired. Her people as of now no witnesses will be called. Dershowitz joins US now. He's Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. A former member of the OJ Simpson Legal Defense Team and bestselling author. His latest book is titled The Case Against Removing Trump also joining us another bestselling author and our chief legal analyst. Jeffrey Jeffrey toobin any former student or Professor Dershowitz professor. So what exactly is your role here. You're going to be delivering arguments on behalf. The president on the Senate floor talking the Constitution. You say you're not a formal part of the legal team. How so well? I've been asked to prepare and deliver the case the constitutional case against impeachment that benefits the president. It's the same argument I would have made if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected and being impeached. It's similar to the arguments I made when I testified provided a witness against impeachment of Bill Clinton and when I consulted with the Bill Clinton legal team. I'm there only to argue about the constitutional criteria reaffirmed which I've written about extensively and why these two articles don't rise to the level of an impeachable offense I will go into the history of the formulation. Russian in the Constitution and the history of how these words came to be and leave it to others to argue the facts to make strategic decisions nations about witnesses that's not within my jurisdiction Alan were you playing these semantic games. Whose side are you on your part of the defense team? Were you embarrassed. I you sound like my mother when I said I would I look at our Jeanne. Well you wish I said. I said that I was defending the right of Nazis to march through skokie. And she said to me son. Are you for the Jews. Are you for the Nazis. Had MOM for the Constitution. She said I'm your mother. Don't tell me that you have have to pick. Sides the Jews of the Constitution look or the Nazis very interesting. What's going on in Amman against I'm against impeachment? I'm clear about that. I think it would be unconstitutional. Set a terrible precedent for this president to be impeached for these alleged articles of impeachment. So I feel very strongly. I will make a strong argument against impeachment. But I'm not part of the REGULA team that will be making strategic decisions and participating in questions about whether there should be witnesses or not that's going to be left to others. Are You satisfied all just specifically. How do you get paid for this that that hasn't been discussed but if I were to be paid all the money would go to charity? I will not take a single penny of payment a book that I would keep based on what I'm doing. I'm doing this because I strongly believe in the constitution. I strongly oppose the impeachment. I worry about the weaponization of impeachment and it can be used in other cases. I join James Madison. who was very concerned that using open ended phrases could create A way in which Congress should have too much power over the president. I join join Alexander Hamilton. WHO said the greatest danger is when impeachment turns on the number of votes? Each party can get so. I'm there to try to defend the integrity concentrated benefits president trump case. Well listen I I think anybody everybody should have the best defense possible on any courtroom. Jeff Toobin what do you make professors. which has the argument about the constitution? Not I think it's wrong. I mean Alice position. And I don't want to mischaracterize it. Is that a president that impeachment should only apply to criminal offenses. No no it's not like well. Why don't you say what it is because I don't want him okay? My position is clear that the framers said treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors other refers to matters that are close in kind and professor Dr by the way agrees with me on this part of the analysis so oh the peachable offenses. They don't have to be specific criminal offenses but they have to be criminal like they have to be like treason they have to be like broad. Abuse of power is not is not abused. Power was one of those things that was mentioned by the framers as a reason why we need impeachment but then rejected it was widely discussed it could easily have been accepted as one of the constitution and quite another example. Let let let me just let me just talk for a second. I mean Federal Federal Sixty five Alexander Hamilton. which would you write about? He specifically says that abuse of violation of some public. Trust is why Is is is an impeachable offense and this. He doesn't say that he says that's why we have impeachment and that's why crimes like treason and bribery. Glory are abuses of power and if they are abuses of power but the criteria have to be met. Let me give you an example Madison in calling for impeachment says we need need to make sure that the president doesn't become incompetent. That's a good reason. But then when the criteria were debated incompetence was not included because it was too broad we needed to amend the Constitution Institution to include that if you want to include abuse of power in the Constitution won't get ten votes in Congress because half the president of the United States have been accused by their political local opponents of abuse of power. It's much too open ended and too broad and it will turn us into a parliamentary democracy and would have been violating the power. That's not an impeachable offense. It could have been. They discussed it but they didn't put it in the constitution. They put in crimes that violate the public trust that is treason. Reason and bribery. Violate the public transit. But as you know there was would violate the public. There was no federal criminal code in the latest right. That's that's why I say you don't need specific crimes. You need criminal like behavior. Everybody knew what bribery was. Treason is defined in the constitution. And if somebody and here where I disagree with trump if somebody would murder somebody by the way We did have a vice president who did murder Alexander Hamilton. While he was vice president and he he wasn't impeached. Because in those days a dual even though it was illegal was not regardless murder. Let me just can't let jeff talk a little bit. Yes Jeff Jeff. What do you think the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors is and how much open to interpretation of course open to interpretation like like any provisions vision of why they don't cover every circumstance but the point of impeachment is misconduct and bad conduct that that only a president can do Alan? You and I can't withhold aid from from the Ukraine. Be to advance our political political interests. Election let me finish. Only the president agree has the power to abuse his power in that way and anti idea that the only remedy for that is to have an election down the line. This is so far outside what we expect of of the presidency entities. I agree with all that. But the framers didn't make it an impeachable offense and they could easily have done Jeffrey. Let me ask you wonder question. You admit these. These are arguable points. Don't you think it's important for the president to have a constitutional lawyer like me making those points in a nonpartisan way in a way I would have been making that for Hillary Clinton Clinton and introduce a non-partisan constitutional element into the discussion. Look listen to your I gotTA listen to mine. I gotta get a break. cliff-hanger Jeff answered that question when we when we come back also ahead tonight. One of the jurors will be listening to Professor Dershowitz in our Tammy. Baldwin joins US later my conversation with lead Parnis Ernest plus more on the new documents from house. Democrats raising new questions tonight for the White House. Hey Kristen ludlow and I'm candace Parker we've got a new podcast properly called lead low and parker on our show you'll hear our takes on the NBA league that we both eat sleep and breathe every day listening listening in on one of the League's most plugged invoices in Kristen and not to mention getting to perspective from a two-time WNBA MVP and one of the most decorated athletes to ever play the game in Kansas. We talked to some friends from around the game pop culture and more search ludlow and Parker and subscribe today. Hi everyone when I'm poppy harlow. We're out with a new boss files episode Fashion Designer Eileen Fisher she sees her brand as a platform and her employees incursion. Kurt stand up on social issues including climate chain. She's a leading voice on environmental sustainability in the fashion industry. Also her take on profit featuring she owns sixty percent of her company and her employee's own the rest plus her advice for all of us as parents out there. What she wishes ashes? She'd done differently as a mother. And how Eileen Fisher uses meditation the Guide her work and her life here at all. I'm in Boston. Subscribe today. Talk Tonight about the impeachment case against the president as well as the case against that case the constitutional arguments agreements for and against the politics has new documents coming to light to that specific point. We'll hear more from love Parnassus shortly back with Jeff Toobin and Alan Dershowitz who right before the break ask Jeff Whether the president in fact deserve to have a topnotch attorneys such as Dershowitz exploring constitutional questions and issues during the trial. What about that he he he absolutely is entitled to the Best Constitutional Defense? He can get what he's not entitled to is Allen Pretending like he some sort of neutral observer instead of what he is which is Donald Trump's lawyer for some reason you don't want to admit that and that's that's up to you but you you're sort of. You're pretending that there is some sort of perfect constitutional sweet spot. It doesn't have to be a crime but it can't be simply being a bad president that there is some magical area in there that is an impeachable offense and I think straightforwardly that abusive power. It's the the the framers recognized it. That's what's the issue in this case and the senators are perfectly capable of determining whether what the president did is is a violation of his oath. Well that's like saying judges perfectly capable of determining something without an advocate on any side. Look let me be clear. I'm an advocate. I'm an advocate against impeachment. Yeah but I'm politically neutral. That is I would make the same argument if it was a Democrat or Republican. I don't let my political preferences interfere with my constitutional analysis. Look Jeffrey would. It'd be good if you presented your argument on behalf of the Democrats your partisan on that side. They would hear arguments from you. They would hear arguments from me but I think the Senate around the country are helped when they hear from somebody like me who is a Liberal Democrat who has always voted Democrat. Who has strong views on impeachment? I had strong views even when Nixon was impeached too. Although I save is impeachment I urge the ACO you not to take a position but instead to defend his civil liberties when he was named as an Unindicted Co Conspirator. I took the same position when Bill Clinton was impeached. I'm taking this position now. I think it's very valuable for the Senate to hear that Kinda point of view and then let it make its decision you the nonpartisan invoking like I would do this for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton didn't behave this way Clinton if if she did behaved as well. We're we're into like magical hypothet- just saying no I'm just saying I'm not partisan I don't take take my cases based zone whether it's a Democrat or Republican. I passed the shoe on the other foot tests no matter what it is. The same facts were for a Democrat or Republican. I would make the same arguments. I don't think think that's true of all of my colleagues. Are All the folks on CNN. Well I can and all I'm talking about is the facts here and the rule in the constitution and the rule in the constitution which I have always understood in which I think is by far the majority view. Notwithstanding your view is that abusive power a president doing something that is not a violation of criminal law but a serious and threatening threatening us of presidential power. That's exactly why we have twenty. Here's your view and my view. The framers agreed with my view. Not Yours they could veasley abuse of power into the criteria for impeachment. It was discussed. It was never accepted. Let the Senate here are points of view but don't criticize Guinea you for stating my position. Don't say I've changed Jeffrey. I've been I don't know whether you insistent nineteen seventy-three I have changed. Not at all all. Were the big rap on me is that I don't change. Well I have a small mine. I'm the HOBGOBLINS. 'cause I'm so consistent. I think you have changed my my views on impeachment. But I'm just some guy on cable you are going into the United States Senate and telling the senators how to vote that that to me is a very big deal and the others me is that you are doing that pretending like you're some sort of outside objective observer. ETA advocate you WANNA say name. That's who you are part of the strategic legal team. I am a constitutional analysts. I want the impeachment to fail. But it wasn't we'll record. It wasn't a constitution. WHO calls you up and ask you to do this? It was it was the way obvious first of all. I've been writing about it and making this point on your show and others since well L. before anybody on the other side called me. I think it's the right thing to do. I would be doing it no matter what the circumstance I have no issue. I think I think everybody heap as I said. I think everybody should have the best defense possible. Jeff's point is you're working for the president whether working for the constitution beneficiary. This time happens to be the president last time it was President Clinton time before it was President Nixon. I am not working for anybody. What I'm doing is making a constitutional argument on behalf of President? Trump's team against impeachment. Very clear about that. I'm against impeachment. I think it would be a very bad thanks to happen. I'm very happy that the Senate will hear my view. Let me tell you. What do you think there should be witnesses to persuade some Democrats? I WANNA pursue. And if I can't persuade Democrats to agree with me I will have failed. I suspect we'll fail. I don't think I'll persuade Democrats but I want Democrats with open minds to be persuaded and it would be very nice. If Republicans with open minds would hear both sides. I would love to see a real trial that really involve people who hadn't made with my question Russian. Do you believe there should be witnesses. If you want to a witnesses for one side there have to be witnesses for the other side. You have witnesses. So shouldn't he would have witnesses for the defense. That's up to the Senate. I would have no objection if after the opening arguments and closing arguments. The Senate voted to have witnesses. You think there should be. I mean your argument is arguing constitution constitution. I have just outcome server. The constitution doesn't speak to that. If they do call Bolton then we have constitutional issues because Bolton will want to testify the president will vote executive privilege. It will probably have to go to court and it will result in just the kind of delay trials that the Democrats Kratz did not. Oh let me tell you if I were a lawyer. A real lawyer. I couldn't hope for somebody better than life partners to be testifying against my client. You couldn't imagine anybody who would be more open to effective cross examination than Leav- partners so I I don't I predict here your left corner. This will not be called as a witness because he has so much baggage and so much liability. I don't think ever be called Bolton might be called but he might not ever end up testifying because it's not his decision with professor. What does it what does it say? That Rudy Giuliani and according to life partners president trump were relying Parnis to be the face of this extortion scheme or this foreign policy scheme or this. Just it's an investigation and if there is any criminal conduct it should be charge. It also may lead people decide to vote one way rather than another but it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense and it's not even charge as part of the impeachable offenses so you know we can disagree and agree. There's a a lot will agree about. We'll agree about what went on with left Parnasse and all of those people is very very disagreeable but he have to ask a distinction between political critical sense crimes and impeachable offenses and those are the distinctions. I WanNa keep in the forefront. I'M GONNA make my argument. I'm not telling the Senate what to do. I am presenting or you meant. I hope they accept my argument. I guess my goal would be to get some Democrats to accept my argument. I would love to see more bipartisan as in the impeachment process so as both Hamilton in Madison one. Because I'm not a lawsuit at all so correct me where I'm wrong here. But it says high crimes and misdemeanors in the constitution. Yes yes does it spell spell out what a high crime and misdemeanor is no it spells out with treason is wire ibew alleging that you know what a high crime and misdemeanor is. Because US I've gone back and I've read all the debates I've read the history and I read the words of the term for days and say history doesn't does say presenting. I'm presenting an interpretation tation. You've left out one word. It says other high crimes and misdemeanors the other referring back to bribery and treason and high crimes. MM Two misdemeanors has a meaning. We all agree about what high crimes mean. Clinton was wrongly impeach because he committed a low crime not a high. What does everybody else commodity? What's a high crime? Yeah we you know the crime these low crime like treason and bribery by. I mean in a high position position. Where what does that mean Ryan? Extortion extortion if it should have been charged. There's nothing in the articles of impeachment that charge extortion if you wouldn't extortion extortion. You aren't a lawyer I can tell I'm not power. You're not extorting God. Fires extortion requires specific elements. And if any of those crimes were to be charged the house of so representatives had a duty to do it and then the Senate would vote on extortion instead of voting on abuse of power. You're not a constitutional. You're mixing Xingu Max matching modern concepts and old concepts. You're saying well. He has to meet all the elements of extortion. There was no so no no on the eggs. Zack say that sure that it is not that this idea that you you say it doesn't have to be a crime but then anytime you mentioned anything other than a crime you say. That's not good enough and I'd say is that this is why we have one hundred jurors one hundred juror like people in the judges at your as quoting to whatever your call. Whatever you call them they are people who in whom the founders have have reprised have put their trust? Ah Judgment Jeffrey. Let me ask you a hard question. What if the Senate in a what if the house impeached? Then the Senate voted to remove on grounds that he had committed committed Mel Administration. Now now that's chested. I read the debate. Assume this is my point. They implicitly rejected abuse of power because they discussed it and didn't put it in the constitution. But we detected maladministration was not the same as abuse of power. Maladministration is not what it says you. It's very close this map. Bad Administration maladministration abusive power. When you abused power you're guilty of maladministration? When you engage maladministration the the point is the framers didn't want open ended criteria capable of being weaponized for partisan political purposes by people who had more votes than the other side present these arguments? I will be questioned about it. I'll be asked all these questions. My only point is don't criticize me as some have done for agreeing to play this role. I think it's an important role. This is historic event. I'm honored to have been asked to play it. I will pay fairly we. I will play it in a dignified way for the represent. My is you know I was I. I would want you on my defense one thing. I certainly learned from you in Criminal Law Class. Is that every lawyer should represent unpopular clients or or popular clients in. You should never criticize a lawyer for for taking on an unpopular however. They shouldn't pretend that they're not letting the client opposed. I have opposed to the removal. And that's my position again. We're going to see if we can just continue just one more one more block which is gonNa take a quick break. We'll be right back. We're talking to Jeff Toobin Alan Dershowitz Professor Dershowitz. It's the latest addition to group seven advocates who argue on the president's behalf. What many have in common the pure a lot on television and also professor Dershowitz? This case has a long AH career. Defending people have all different points of view to that point Professor Dershowitz. Who Do you think when you look at the president's the three my name's name today yourself? Ken Starr and Robert Ray. Do you think the president picks people in part because of how they defend him on. TV I don't no no. I was surprised that he selected the to prosecute a special prosecutors in in the Clinton case because they've been popping up obviously here on CNN but also also on Fox day they both argued that abusive power is a constitutionally permissible criteria for impeachment. So we will have some a disagreement about that. I'll tell you what we won't have any disagreement and that's on the second article and that is obstruction of Congress. The idea that the president can be impeached for simply telling the executive authorities not to submit to legislative subpoenas that are issued in that he believes was in a partisan manner without getting the courts to order that. That's simply part of our system of checks and balances and it's so dangerous and doesn't appear anywhere. The constitution there was no discussion of it in the Constitution. It's just a made up charge obstruction of Congress The president could they could easily have gone to the court and got a ruling on whether a Bolton who was the national security advisor can be compelled this story. You know what's in the second article. The second article is not about a single example of the president not of producing a witness. We we talk to finish. Let me finish. It is not about a single example or even two examples about the president of the United States saying to Congress. I will not cooperate with any subpoenas for any documents or any individuals and ask me no but I mean just to say you know. I don't think a president has the right to say to another coordinate branch of government. I won't do anything in the court's force me to do it. The respect three are among the three branches of government read Federalist Paper Number Seventy eight where Hamilton specifically says that the courts are there to serve as umpires between the executive and the legislative branch when the legislative branch does something that the president regards is utterly political and improper. Whether he's right or wrong about it and he says look let the courts decide that can't be an obstruction of Congress. It can't be an impeachable offense. All he's doing is saying I want a legal response to this and if the courts say I have to comply I will comply. He's not the first president president to have done that. He wanted his way. He did it in a blanket way and quickly so that this and remember what this whole controversy diversity is about. This is about the attempting to control the outcome of the two thousand election so the position the president is taking taking take take months and months in court so I can continue doing what I'm doing until the election happens. I don't know as as well as I do that courts when they're told that this involves the impeachment of president. We want to ruling this week. On whether or not Bolton can invoke exact Zack can be made to invoke executive privilege they would have gotten a very quick ruling now. Took them a month to send the articles through. I mean Look Allen again. There are facts here judge Richard. Leon who was the judge in the Kupperman case which is the case where the deputy national security adviser. He didn't even schedule a hearing hiring for for for three weeks as landing combat works. Well that's right but but the the president has to invoke short. George shouldn't be held hostage to to to the courts when the president is issuing blanket. Denials of their rights is a coordinate guy as a criminal defense lawyer. If my client's somebody's asked to come and testify and I claim his client privilege. I will invoke a blanket. Thank you say no. He's not going into court. You get a court order now. The house used to have a way of enforcing their own orders. They have a little cell in the basement. They haven't used that in years now. They go to the courts it may take time. That's part of our system of checks and balances. Our government was always there for its efficiency. I know but the impeachment has to be based based on an impeachable offense. Well not something made up like obstruction of Congress wary find obstruction of Congress. It's not in the criminal. Statutes is not in the constitution is just made up out of whole cloth and it would be extremely dangerous if that went for it. I'm very happy to make the argument against abuse of power now when we get back to abuse of the power rather than obstruction of Congress Congress considered a lot of words. They considered Pecu- Latian why we should have impeachment. They said dishonesty malpractice a practice abuse of power. All of those are reasons. We should have impeachment. None of them were ultimately decided upon as grounds for impeachment. There's a big big difference for why you need to have impeachment because there you don't have to balance it against anything but when you call them up with the grounds you'll worried about congress abusing it's power so you have to strike a balance in the balance was struck with those four words those four concepts the MMU and now you have Evan interpretation of present and your tickets you know when when I was your student you represented Klaus Von Bulow brilliant living the Rhode Island Supreme Court and you've got his conviction overturned. Were you representing Klaus von Bulow or the constitution in that case Klaus von Bulow Koroma's from because here he has seven or eight lawyers. Each of us have different roles. My role is to present the constitutional. Oh case I am not going to be involved in the discussions about tactics or witnesses. That's not part of my role my rose to make the constitutional argument and that constitutional argument is being made against impeachment and the beneficiary of that is going to be Donald Trump. If I will I hope to get some Democrats onboard Professor Dershowitz Awards. I appreciate your time. Jeff Toobin as well up next. We're GONNA talk to one of the jurors in the impeachment. Trial Senator Tammy Baldwin her take on what we just heard plus the news. We reported the top or documents suggesting the formulas investor Astra to Ukraine Maria. Ivanovich may have been under surveillance we just heard from Alan Dershowitz switched speaking before the Senate on the president's behalf the Constitution one element Democrats may be interested in presenting. It's our breaking news this evening. More documents suggesting that Maria Vich may they have been under surveillance before she was recalled as embassador to Ukraine as we reported earlier tax released by House Democrats shown Americans associated of parnents got him Robert Hyde texting a Belgian number that person or persons and hide a photo of former. US Ambassador to Ukraine. YVONNA VICH and says they'll give hide her address next week. Hide response quote awesome. Awesome joining me. I was Democratic senator. Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin. WHO's the jury in the Impeachment Trial Center Baldwin? Thanks for being with us. What your reaction is to this new shell? That house. Democrats Democrats released tonight from left. Porn is more communications about alleged surveillance former. US Ambassador Ivanovich. Obviously there's been a lot of discussion since since the house. Intelligence Committee started releasing some of the documents that he had shared with the committee And I think it should be Considered among the pieces of evidence that I hope we'll get a chance to review. We're anxious to have a full fair and honest trial and as you know there's still an ongoing dispute about whether there will be any witnesses or any opportunities to view new documentary evidence and frankly I don't know how it can be a full fair and honest trial unless we get those opportunities and This has sort sort of heightened the interviews that partisans done is sort of heightened the interest in In getting that sort of information before the Senate but it also points back to our strong need to hear from the four witnesses that we have been pushing for now for weeks former national security adviser. Sir John Bolton Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Robert Blair and Michael. Duffy who high-ranking White House officials officials with firsthand direct knowledge of All the president's conduct that's being alleged in these articles of impeachment. The the one of the I think the Professor Dershowitz who was saying well if the Democrats get witnesses they WANNA have that. Republicans should be able to have witnesses as well and there's been indications from some Republicans all begins that they would like to have one hundred Biden or vice president Biden. Does that make sense to well. The articles are very specific abuse of power referring of course to the president soliciting foreign assistance to for his personal benefit vent and political benefit In the upcoming election and obstruction of Congress. And I know you've discussed those articles. I have no idea what relevant relevant and first hand information. Somebody like Hunter Biden could provide That would provide any clarity on the two articles of impeachment spent And so I don't see a reason why they would want to a bring a witness that forward Given what we're you're listening to and what we want to get to the bottom of But you know right now. We don't have any witnesses and I am going to be pressing as hard as I can and and hopefully joined by several Republicans so that we can have a real trial a full trial an honest trial. Do you think that there are enough. Republicans to want that. I mean I've heard estimates manure from three to four would be would be needed. You know the. There's a new tally every day. It strikes me that just a week ago. Pitch McConnell was saying that he had the votes of the Republican caucus to not allow witnesses. But I think that there will probably be more than one debate about. `Bout witnesses when we convene on Tuesday And I think when we do we'll be solemn and serious as the day we had Yesterday when we were sworn in as essentially senator sitting as jurors I think we'll have a debate on the conduct conduct of the trial and it may not be the last word I do know that Our leader Chuck Schumer will have the opportunity to amend any motion or resolution that Mitch McConnell brings forward about the conduct of the trial. I expect us to debate and I certainly hope enough off of my Republican colleagues. Want to see from a want to hear from a John Bolton WanNa hear from Mick Mulvaney and Robert Blair and all of these witnesses Michael Duffy who have first hand direct knowledge of the president's conduct. That's being alleged and frankly I assume that the president may want to bring witnesses. This is a time where he can present his case and he chose really not too during the house impeachment inquiry. And you know that's the president's choice but I think that it would behoove him now that he has his full legal team announced to be thinking about the case that he's going to present senator. Tim I appreciate your time. Thank you appreciate yours. Thanks senator. Thanks coming off allegations the president. Call the nation's how military commanders quote bunch of dopes and babies details ahead really's been reported on many times but new details about it if true or quite extraordinary and disturbing the high level meeting took place in July two thousand seventeen between president trump and his top military chiefs new book written by to Washington Post reporters details the meeting. It's titled Very stateful Genius the Book Donald J Trump's testing of America according to the authors. The meetings goal was to educate the president what was felt were gaping holes gaping holes in his knowledge of history but but the tutorial poorly developed very quickly in an extra publish. Today they write. That has the meeting war on the president lashed out of the military brass saying quote. You're a bunch of dopes babies yes he also reportedly said to them. You're all losers. You don't know how to win anymore. In the meetings. Aftermath and secretary of state REX Tillerson was reported to have called president trump. A bleeping Moron joining us now is former defense. Secretary William Cohen Security Cohen. I read this section of this new book and though this has been reported on in the past in and other books and articles the new details on this are particularly troubling and the whole thing is really I gotta say it was frightening to read the level of the inability of the president to concentrate and to actually drove understand what he was being. Talk to about well again. I haven't read the book. I read just a brief excerpt of the book and it is demeaning to every every person who wears the nation's uniform for for president trump as commander in chief of to say that Secretary of Defense. Jim Mattis Chairman the Joint Chiefs Joe Dunford Our baby's or sissies or incompetent It's to me. It's a stunning. That he would say okay that someone who has not won the uniform himself I think you need to take care and pay the appropriate respect to the people who have the other thing. It's in the book. Is that He he is turning our military in his mind. We are a mercenary of organization. Our military. It's all about making making money. He wants everybody to pay for American troops to go places he wants to take. I mean this ludicrous. Idea of taking other countries oil which is something he talked about during the campaign and I mean I talked about it and I thought it was just insane at the time and you know a violation of just every every. We're not vikings like trying to pillage a country. The notion that anyone joins up to serve our country is in it for the money is absurd. He is obsessed with making money in fact one or the excerpts He said if you were running a private company go bankrupt. Well there's a supreme irony since he has gone but the Pentagon on the Defense Department is not run as a private entity a profit making enterprise. It is organized and funded in order to protect our national security already and we are deployed globally. Not as a favor to any other country we deploy to those countries that share our interests and our ideals and that protects fix our national security in his mind we have to do is bring everybody home. Let everybody else fend for themselves. That is a very Darwinian world in which I think think we are inviting conflict on a massive scale so our people have been deployed honorably and without compensation that anywhere that nears. Here's what he has in mind in terms of business operation and they're willing to sacrifice life and limb on our behalf. I just entertained a The youngest living having a medal of honor recipient Carl Carpenter who fell on a hand grenade in order to protect his comrades head his body blown apart and peace back together over for years. This young man was not doing it. In order to make money he was doing it. In order to protect his comrades and his country and for the president to suggests that bunch of sissies bunch of of incompetence if really betrays the notion of our military service that the men and women who rendered to this country three as commander-in-chief has I think he has an obligation to instill pride respect for their Patriot patriotism and sacrifice. He does does anything but that when he goes in to the Pentagon or in the situation room and says you're a bunch of Incompetence your loses. You've never won anything anything. Well they've they've been in the blood in the mud and they've fought in that on behalf of the country. I have four four star generals in my office And I know these are the proudest people I have met with the most patriotic and I would fight beside them any time and the president said he wouldn't have any one of them fight a AH with him I would say I'll take them any day of the week as the commander-in-chief yeah I mean like the president would it is to fight anywhere The the other thing was so just you know honor honorable about the people in the room at the time the military personnel is especially the lower ranking officers who were on the side of the room in this briefing. They just they sat there listening to what the president was saying and some according adding to the reporter. Who did this book? Some fought about walking out but they sat there. They put their heads down. They just continue to do their jobs. Despite bites what the president was saying they are trained To obey the chain of command the pros of the United States sits at the top of that chain and so by their their culture and tradition and obligation. They are. They're not to challenge the president and to criticize him on his very first meeting but to rather listen to what he has to say to to listen to his response to what they're briefing is rather than be demeaned so I I don't fault them for that. And according to the book was Secretary of State Tillerson who raised the MR president. You can't talk about Secretary William Cohen. I appreciate your time. Thank you news continues. One Hundred Chris Cuomo Primetime.

vice president president Donald J Trump Senate Democrats Professor Dershowitz Congress US Hillary Clinton Clinton Jeff Toobin Alan Dershowitz Professor Ders President Nixon Ukraine senator Bill Clinton Jeff Jeff professor Kenneth Starr Jeffrey
GSMC Television Podcast Episode 263: Good Fight Sued By a Famous Fan

GSMC Television Podcast

1:07:35 hr | 1 year ago

GSMC Television Podcast Episode 263: Good Fight Sued By a Famous Fan

"Watching, TV has changed over time. Streaming has become the new norm. That's why golden state media concepts television podcast dives headfirst to the world of cord cutting wants to be on Bloomberg what's hot and Netflix or if it's not a preference what about original shows in Hulu, we've got you covered join us as we fill the blank and talk about movies to stream and what show you should be binging. This is golden state media concepts, television podcast. Keep Baseball. It's done. Hello and we're back again with another episode of the GMC television podcast. GMC. PODCAST network and I'm you're trying not to morph into Howard beale host, Howard? Fletcher. And I'm joined is always well my trusted engineer. Jack. The black. Pug. Positively honored and thrilled and excited to be here with you once again. If you new to the show, I'd like to give you a very warm. Welcome. Thank you for giving us a try. There's a bunch of stuff you could listen to instead of me. So we appreciate you for choosing to spend some time with us and we aim to please stick around I'm sure you'll hear something that you like at least. That's what I hope. and. We want you to keep coming back, and if you're one of our loyal listeners listen, you know how we feel about you. You are truly the reason I'm here. So let's have some together today. We have another jam packed show for you to day. Alan Dershowitz. He's gotten himself a lawyer for good fight. I'll analyze some of the emmy award nominees and I'll tell you some of the people and the shows that some of the media. Variety especially have suggested were smoked and I will go over that. American idol is going virtual. So we'll see how that works and I'll bring you news as a break. You know I love breaking news and I will have some more news. On? Tenant. Just a moment. and. It also goes along with kind of what I said last show. But I here. Let's get started with some breaking Caesar Fleekerman News. Stanley, Tucci. One of my favorites he's headed to AMC. By way of Spain. The Hunger Games and big night actor will star in a limited series called Lav for tuna. Which AMC STUDIOS IS CO producing with Spain's movie star and Maud Pictures. The thriller comes from Director Alejandro. Dahbar. I hope I'm pronouncing your name, right. I'll Alejandro. He's director of open your eyes and the others, the Nicole. Kidman movies. And who co created the series with Alejandro Hernandez. So to Alejandro with their heads together and came up with La Fortuna. Inspired by the graphic novel. I'M GONNA screw this up to I'm sure L. to. Did she as Negro? Which? Means in English the Treasurer of the Black Swan I said that correctly La Fortuna centers on Alex Ventura. He's a young Spanish diplomat who unintentionally becomes the leader of a mission to recover sunken treasure stolen by Frank. Wild. And Frank and Stanley. Tucci. Plays Frank Wild. He's a notorious adventurer. and. Polo Varosha Osa. Also stars as Lucia Alex's colleague in work and adventure. In quote I, guess production this weekend Spain and will move to North America next year with a premier date targeted for later and twenty twenty. Here's a quote. These days shooting a series such as this one is a big challenge at our team takes on with an enormous amount of enthusiasm responsibility. Said Alejandro, the director because I screw up his last name, but I'm not going to do that anymore. La Fortuna is fundamentally about. Them and will the will to fight Alex Ventura's journey is also hours. We aim to fully succeed. But above all, we hope to offer the audience a good dose of excitement and entertainment next year in quote. CAST also includes Clarke Peters. That's my man who's in the wire, also a podcast that I'm doing right now. And he's recently was in the five zero, spike, Lee fill that you can find on that flakes. Not. A Car Allah Handy My. Manalo Solo Blanco, poor need poor portfolio in Pedro Casado blunk without the discuss blunk. So. Alejandro is going direct all six episodes of that and I apologize for all the names I've grown up. But I thought you wanted to hear about Stanley. Next Project I know I'll probably be looking for it. Now here we go with some more. Tenant is GONNA make. It's money back news. Tenet announced Wednesday that it has passed government approvals for theatrical release in China, an indication that an official release date is now on the horizon. The film has released a poster. Chinese swapping the English tagline time runs out for Clarion, call to return to cinemas that roughly translates to make every second count, invade the theaters. They're going try and not to be subtle, they WANNA, get your butt in the theater. Chinese cinema's reopened in regions at low risk for Covid nineteen on July twentieth. Taking in twelve point, six, million in their opening weekend, currently around forty four percent of its cinemas or business. But they've been required to operate a just thirty percent capacity to allow for social distancing as well as reduce their total number of screenings to half their usual tally. Additionally guidelines to reopening released by the national film. Bureau requested that cinemas not screened films that are over two hours. Long I mentioned that last podcast, which could potentially pose problems for tenant, which runs at two hours and thirty one minutes like most Christopher Nolan movies. Now this directive was soon contradicted. By, Chinese authorities subsequent approval of a number of films longer than two hours. Four nationwide theatrical release. Now, these films that they approved include Harry. Potter, and the sorcerer's stone. And Nolan's own interstellar. Currently scheduled for theatrical reruns starting, August second. which as of this recording is tomorrow I'm recording this on August I. As. Well, as local blockbusters already in play, like Operation Ritzy. Until the guideline is more formally lifted, it appears cinemas in different regions under different levels of Covid nineteen threat. have been given varied amounts of leeway. or at least have been variously willing to stick their neck out and and program longer films. All eight of the Harry Potter films run over two hours all. Trust me, but they're all currently screening is part of the Shanghai. International Film. Festival. Yet at least two cinemas in Beijing with the capital said Wednesday in private chats posted to social media that due to the confusion. They currently didn't dare program approved available titles over one hundred and twenty minutes long even the Patriotic Blockbuster Wolf Warrior to which runs hundred and twenty three minutes. So they're not even willing to go three minutes over. I'm sure. There are some theaters in China that are. Concerned about government interference if they run the wrong length film so. Elsewhere in China. However, the film's Rerun has already made one point, one, million dollars since cinemas reopened on Monday. Tenant had to reschedule release numerous times through the covid nineteen before Warner Brothers this week set along the unconventional plan of debut internationally before hits North American. I, reported on that. Last. PODCAST. It is now prepared to open in around seventy countries abroad starting on April twenty sixth including the UK Australia. Canada, France Germany Italy Japan Korea and Russia. It will then premiere in select US cities over Labor Day weekend from September third. China is far and away the most important foreign market for ten director Christopher Nolan Films Repeat that China, is foreign away the most important foreign market for tenant directors. Christopher Nolan's films. The Chinese box office for almost every film, he's made as either director or executive producer has blown away earnings other territories by a large margin. The only exceptions are dunkirk and the Dark Knight rises for its China was the second largest market globally behind the UK and Batman begins. which hit the Middle Kingdom all the way back in two thousand five when its box office was still comparatively nascent. Of the Nolan directed films done. Curtain. Made Fifty, one, million dollars in China in twenty seventeen. While Interstellar Growth One hundred and twenty, two, million dollars they in two, thousand fourteen. The dark. Knight. Rises. Grossed Fifty two eight million in twenty twelve in inception sixty, eight, point, four, million in two, thousand, ten. Films executive produced by Nolan, have also seen strong showings in the country. They include Batman v Superman dawn of justice with ninety, six, million dollars, justice league with one, hundred, six, million dollars. Let me repeat that Justice League with sucked. Made one hundred and six dollars in China transcendence may twenty million dollars and man of steel made sixty, three, million dollars. Now, obviously, I'm GonNa talk about ten on this show because as I said, last on, is my my baby stories however. This is why this is really important. By on the TV podcast again, let me tell you why. because. Last show, I. said that If. They could get China opened day meaning A. WanNa brothers and the film people if they were those markets were open to them along with this huge international opening that they have targeted for next month for this month now for Aug.. What will happen is in my opinion. We're going to see tenant on video on demand in this country. Very soon, before Thanksgiving I, say probably before Halloween. That's what I believe. If. In fact, the virus does not blow up overseas and they and their numbers continue to stay stable. Even go down and more people go to the theater, and this is this is. Primarily important and this is an assumption. Okay. Just because I like Christopher Nolan and he's done well. But unless tenant is an absolute bomb and it's a terrible movie, which is always a possibility. But let's just say it's the same caliber as all the rest of his movies, most of them to date. Then I think it's going to approach. The one, hundred and fifty million total mark. Let's just let's just use that for number. I just think it's going to be a number of that's going to be closer to two, hundred, million approaching two, hundred, million dollars then not approaching two, hundred, million dollars, and if it's approaching two, hundred million dollars as as we're heading into mid, October. Look for tenant on Vod, near you. On video on demand and. Look for it to be part of an advertised Hbo Max pack going into. Christmas. because. That's what's going to happen folks. And again tenant on the A. Tenant and probably on because I know Disney Disney. Reported last show about this Deal universal made with AMC. Disney was one of the the. Producers. Now granted. Disney something. There's two. They weren't so happy with that deal, and I won't get into all of that of the the reasons for that nevertheless. My Disney up because Disney I. believe he went to the same thing we're long. If tenant takes off overseas and it looks like they're going to at least make their money back. Then look for Milan to be right behind him. And number lawn probably won't make as much money overseas as ten. Maybe. So the Chinese. Will See. What it does may do better in China. And tenant will see I do know this or I do predict this. That when this is said and done when they look back on this year. They're going to look on tenant not again. This is the assumption, I. This is all based on the fact that it on the assumption that tenant is a good movie. If ten at the bad movie, all bets are off so bad movie, and this is just this is just been an unfortunate year for Christopher Nolan and Warner brothers all the way around. But let's just say it's a good movie. I still don't think in any possible way. They're going to make type of money they could have made. Had it this pandemic never shown up. This virus never shown up. But what tenant will be. To for is not as a failure or a movie that didn't make the money, you could have made. It might be known as the movie that save theaters. Might be the one, be the movie that got people to go back into the theaters. Still. Backing off my paradigm shift preaching. I'm just saying that if there's going to need to be a movie of substance, a spectacular movie, a movie that people will. Take. Telling me I'm. GonNa? SAY THEY'RE GONNA risk their life to go see, but they're not going to go see. UNHINGED into theater okay. I just that just debuted over in. London by the way, they're not gonNA, go see. Russel Crowe in hinged. You're not gonNA take go take your date there and mask up. You're not going to do that. You might do that for tenant and you might do that for Milan if you're a big fan of that story. But I think that's what they're going to be thought as in the case study. Is the movie. That helped save. The concept of going to going to the movies. Well. Okay. So that's it for the story now. I've gotten that out of my system for now, you might public up before the end of the show next, I'm going to talk about the Emmy awards again. But since you already know who the individual nominees are. Going to talk about how the different networks or cable channels did as far as the number of nominations they received and variety ran an article of their snubs. There's always going to be this article that comes out of who got snubbed or what show got snubbed and surprises. They called the snubs and surprises over there snubs and surprises, and I'll tell you whether I agree or disagree with them, and I may give you a couple of mine too. I'll be back in a few go. Do whatever you do during the break. Please listen to our sponsors. 'CAUSE that's how we pay our bills. and. A Barry Beck, thanks for listening. Yeah. New York. Okay Emmy awards after we're GONNA talk about. Well, I gave you the nominees last week. Let me tell you about the I. Mean I, mean. Do some summing up here. The Emmy smackdown Netflix and HBO has taken another dramatic turn. As. The Television Academy announced it Seventy Second Primetime Emmy award nominations on Tuesday morning as you heard last. PODCAST. Net. flicks came out on top swinging with wapping. One hundred and sixty nominations followed by rival HBO in Second One, hundred, seven not. Although they came in number two. HBO So I had reason to celebrate. As Limited Series Watchmen scored twenty nine not the most of any program on the comedy side. The Marvelous Ms Mazel maintained its well marvelous showing at the Emmys garnering twenty nominations the same as last year. The leading dramas were Netflix. Hbo Succession both of which pulled eighteen nominations. Now this is the second time that Netflix has at HBO in two, thousand, eighteen, the streamer ended HBO Seventeen. Year Emmy nomination domination. By landing. One, hundred twelve nods to HBO's One Hundred Eight. So. I'm bringing this up because as I say, say time and time again. Is becoming the king of the small screen. and. While HBO. I, they make the best television in my. For my taste I think they're the best of the prestigious television. Net flicks is not to be trifled with they are the king. Hbo Mac as the Great White Shark. Last year. Hbo Grabbed Crown Back Thanks in particular game of thrones, which helped the network pulled down one hundred and thirty seven nominations, twenty nineteen, the most ever in the network's history. The previous record had been on hundred and twenty, six, twenty, fifteen, but last year even with the silver medal. netflix still scored one hundred and seventeen nominations, and that was the most ever in its history. So netflix is for real and they are actually the reigning king because I believe streaming is king. Now. But with no thrones this year HBO was bounded decline from that peak. Continues to ramp up its volume. We help explain its rapid rise from only thirteen nominations in twenty thirteen till now. Last year's drama and comedy series winners. HBO's game of thrones and Amazon prime's videos, fleabag ended their runs, and therefore they're award plays for twenty nineteen leaving some key ballot spots open for the twenty twenty Emmy Awards. But. That's not all that stood to shake up the nominations this time around the corona virus pandemic shifted the awards calendar leaving the voting members of the TV Academy fewer than two weeks to sort out a record length program performer and artisans valid to make their selections. There are a lot of television this year folks. And later on, I'm GonNa, talk about some snubs. There's really none of room to put all these people on the. denominate everybody. There was some really quality television out there. And those selections were far from ordinary while a number of repeat nominees and winners still made the ballot from Amazon prime videos. The Marvelous Mrs Mazel to Hulu is the handmaid's tale. Almost every major category came up with a surprise so. Here is something that I pulled from a variety article variety broke down snow enterprises or their snubs and surprises of the seventy second annual Primetime Emmy award nominations. So here we go. Here's a snob according to variety pose the show The second season of the ballroom culture drama did not score a second consecutive nomination, this year lead actor, and last year's emmy winner reporter did however the series nab some key creative award nominations as well. Unfortunately, though it looks like airing its second season a year ago, hurt the show's visibility with the voting members of the academy. Especially considering its third season could not finish production in air this summer as planned due to the coronavirus pandemic. While I'm not opposed hater at all. I'm not opposed fan I watched the beginnings of the first season and I kind of out didn't hold my attention. I really can acknowledge production value. It just didn't grab me. I, think a show like pose. and. This is based off of like I said, only watch one half season of it. I. Think that it. I will put it in a category of like as four to make an analogy with the academy, awards like the artist or slumdog millionaire. When. You first come out of the movies they. Wow, that was different. Give it the best picture of the year, and then a year later. You find yourself turning away from those movies when they end up on cable, how many times have you seen the artists since it won the Academy Award Not that much I think post. This is as much of a one hit wonders that. But. I do think of benefited from the novelty factor. In that voting. The surprise this year according to variety is the man delorean. Disney plus broken into the emmy race in a bigger way than many thought possible. The Drama Series Nomination for Star Wars. Universe show. It must be the power of the forest because while it was expected to nab creative arts nominations, beat out some heavy hitters and much long running series for this coveted spot. Well. I don't know. I. Think the SCI fi genre very rarely gets. Recognized for being best drama show, but the producers behind this, the main delorean. Pretty. Big names attached to its production, and so it's not surprising to me that it came under serious consideration. A SNOB and I think this is the biggest now of the Oscars. Is Ria. Seahorn for better call Saul. Now here's something that I thought was very curious. I didn't realize I read this article. SEAHORN has never been nominated at the EMMYS. But this seemed like it was sure going to be her year after a season of the breaking bad prequel that put her on a more equal ground with Bob Odin Kirks, titular character, Saul, she navigated some tough emotional material, own kirk. Himself spent much of his emmy for your consideration interviews and campaigns chatting up, she should have been recognized and I was shocked that I didn't see rea- horns name there. The surprise they said in that category was in out for euphoria. The star of the HBO Teen, drama has some serious fresh new talent for the television emmy voters. Playing the drug addicted Ru. Showed off the former Disney stars range like no other role could and she was rewarded securing a coveted lead drama. Actress nomination. Even over premium emmy winners such as the Coal Kidman Elizabeth, Moss. Well good for than day. I. I did I saw maybe two episodes of euphoria I thought he was good and it was nice to see someone new. Snub they think was reese witherspoon? Witherspoon had a trio of opportunities to be nominated this year, he could have been nominated for big little lies for the morning show and for little fires everywhere. But she failed to score any acting emmy nominations. She did get one because she is an executive producer on little fires everywhere, and that show was nominated in its category. On three very good shows and she was good in big little lies of the three shows she was on I was the only one that I watched all the actresses on that. You're very good. Snub I. Think might be Hitler heavy handed, but I'm sure she was she was disappointed because he had a lot of opportunities. The surprise they thought was Linda Cartolini dead to me. my sister watches that show he said it was very good. I have not watched it yet. From what I hear she and Christina applegate. Go off I mean that they are they. Both are very good on that show. applegate did get nominated and I think that she might just be one of the people that they're just there's just a lot of talent out there and it's not her year I guess. That's one of the reasons why aggregate is my dark horse in that category because I think just might be her year. And a snub surprise a put this on both categories is the show the morning show the Apple TV. Plus drama scored a few coveted emmy nominations including the drama actress. For Jennifer Aniston, Lee, drama actor for Steve, Steve Carell and supporting drama actor for Billy crude up. But it did not pick up a drama series. Nomination growls nomination also came as somewhat of a surprise prognosticators. Thought he had a better chance of getting nominated for space. Force, which he co created with Greg Daniels. About that. But. Warning show did get some good reviews. Again does not enough room for everybody. So you know you can't nominate everybody. So that was the day of now. There's a prize was what we do in the shadows. The fx vampire comedy broke into the comedy series race for the first time with its second season, although beloved by the audience and most critics is seemed like a longer shot for a nomination given, the stacked race of returning nominees, still eligible I. think that this is one of those where it just could not be denied, and it probably will not win. I picked it as a dark horse, but it probably will not win, but they couldn't leave it out because when they ever looked at, it said, it's just it's just too good to leave out. And one of the owners and creators jemaine Clement has been not say snubbed but not recognized for flight of the conchords or the work he did on Legion and I think all those things together and 'cause it was on fx and fx shows traditionally Kinda get ignored all of that put together made it. The right time to nominate that, show the snub if anything is a snub. Snub Russell. Crowe in the loudest voice. Here's their blurb the. Golden. Globe winner was completely unrecognizable when playing. Roger. ailes in the Showtime Limited series unfortunately though that proved not to be enough to follow the Hollywood foreign, Press Association love with an Emmy Nam well. Russell Crowe did. Win I. Think a Golden, Globe. For that role, which I thought was a surprise. Even to a bad job, and he said he was unrecognizable is just because he had so many so much makeup and prosthetic on day was unrecognizable I. Don't think he's unrecognizable because of his acting. His acting was good enough. But it was a little over the top. I. It was. It was what it was. It was it was the costume performance. Wasn't like Christian Bale, Dick? Cheney. Vice. But you know if you want to compare it, but it's just okay, he didn't get. He got a Golden Globe way to go Russell. He also went on to make unhinged. Let's tells you something about to me. Tell me something about his art artistic integrity. The surprise is Paul Colin. Normal. People. The. Newcomer won the heart of audiences after bringing the role of connell from solid Rooney's novel. Normal people to life or Hulu is limited series and it turned out much of that audience where Emmy voters. He's scored a freshman nomination in the extremely competitive lead actor category. This year okay, good snub. Erin Paul, they said like Witherspoon Paul had multiple opportunities where he could have been nominated. He was favourite for one the limited series TV, movie, El, Camino, which he returned to the beloved role of Jesse Pink. Man. Which I thought. WAS I. He didn't he? He wasn't westworld and I thought he. He's also on this other thing called truth. Be told I didn't watch truth. Be told did. Watch westworld. Yes I'm still a rabid fan of that show and I will say this, I didn't have confidence. An Aaron Paul would be able to hang. He actually was one of the best things on that. Show this season. So while I don't think it was necessarily emmy. Worthy. I, think of all those shows I think his performance on with road was the best, and if he had any chance, it should have been that, but I don't think that that was an overall worth nomination. As they thought a snub was the leading ladies of unbelievable. Though the Netflix, limited series received a nomination Caitlyn deavere and Mary. Weaver. Did Not. They may have canceled each other out because Toni Collette did pick up a nomination supporting despite garnering love during the winter award season in a timely tale that elicited extremely emotional performances. Emmy, voters did not follow the trend well. I didn't watch unbelievable. I am sorry to say I've saw the I. Almost all of the first episode. It was. Little, troubling, not not because it was bad. It was the subject matter high never went back to it and. I have to because it's supposed to be very good. And I don't know maybe a voters. I'm not one obviously. Did. The same thing I don't know. They're probably right about the two lead actresses cancelling each other out and Tony Coletta just good and everything she does. So that's it. That's varieties, snubs and surprises for the Emmy. Awards. I told you agreed and disagreed. I think it's just a very strong field of television shows in general and actors. Up and down this year and the more content that comes on television. The more quality content comes on the more. These actors get these production companies. They start making the stories that they wanna make, and they can put together these teams of high quality press these. Kill Makers I. Don't call them this solely filmmakers, but they're not features, but Siri know show runners, I, think the Emmy awards are going to get harder more competitive. Not that's a bad word more and more competitive because the quality of television is just going up and up. Next I'm going to talk about how the coronavirus pandemic has affected. Or is affecting American, idol be back in a little while we're gonNA pay some bills. Thanks for listening. Tired of searching the vast jungle of podcasts now, listen close and here's this out. There's a podcast network that covers just about everything that you've been searching. The golden state media concepts. PODCAST network is here nothing less than podcast bliss with endless hours of podcast coverage. From News Sports, music fashion, looking entertaining fantasy football, and so much more. So stop alerted around and go straight out to the golden state media concepts. PODCAST network guaranteed to build that podcast. Whatever it may be, visit us at www dot gs MC podcast, dot com. Follow us on facebook and twitter, and download on I, tunes, soundcloud and Google play. WHO. Tough deal. That's all topless. We're back on. We're GONNA talk about American idol right now. And how the coronavirus pandemic has affected that show or the things that they're going to try to do to work around it American idol, they're resuming their auditions, the audition phase of the show with going to be amid the coronavirus pandemic and they will be held remotely. ABC announced on. Friday. This allows the usual idol across America tour to expand out, include all fifty states plus Washington DC for the first time since the shows and -ception. Auditions for the upcoming fourth. season. On the alphabet network begin on. August tenth. and. This time around hopeful contestants can perform across any official audition date, I. Don't know. They're going to sort these folks out. Seems like they're gonNA. Get. swamped. Those auditioning will still receive facetime with a show producer. Just digitally. This allows everyone still receive feedback in real time. The show will use custom built zoom technology to host this nationwide search for the next singing sensation. while. This is the first time. The show will be holding auditions. This way idol is no stranger to remote production having finished most of its recent season that way. Contestants performed from their various homes with the show's crew and technicians working to make sure that each person had an equal singing field as possible as equal of the thing in field as possible despite being spread out geographically and having different access to technology. let alone internet speeds for streaming and uploading. The. AD. Home Finale helped ABC rank as number one, the number. One network. of May. Sunday nights winning the coveted eighteen to forty nine age demographic in drawing the most viewers tuning in at that time, which was seven point, three, million viewers. while. Well last. For those of you who watched or care the winner, last season was just Sam and that is capital J. Just Sam I don't know that means the person's name I. Don't know if that person the. Male or female. 'cause might be a woman named just for the last name of Sam or it could be someone named Sam who decided to put just in front of his name, but that person one. This is interesting because they brought us some things that I didn't think about it, but obviously are going to be or issues because not everybody. Not all Internet is equal and not all. Going to be recording at home. Not, all of your equipment is going to be equal. So you might be very talented but southbound, bad because of what you're using. or how the JAZZY CD you? If you have a bad camera or your, you know, you just have an old computer or slow internet speed, you might freeze up or something. So That's interesting. Also, I you know even though I know from my path doing of American idol which trust me you all was. About fifteen years ago I. Think he's private last time I saw American, an episode of American idol, especially, one of these vases. Even though they had it at just a few cities or a number of cities across the country, they seem to attract a lot of contestants. And I would imagine that because of travel challenges. They didn't get as many people as they possibly could have. So when it's a deal where you just have to sit down at your computer. And get online to audition I. Think they're going to be swamped. Which you know, I? Don't know it depends how. Much manpower they have, and how quickly they can we through this thing? Might be first-come-first-served. Somehow in you get cut off, be interesting to see, I would think the erratically the more talent they have the larger, the pool, the better that contestants. Let's see if that pans out that way, I won't see because I probably won't be watching, but let's see if this round of American idol brings us. The next. Kelly, Clarkson or Jennifer Hudson or. All right. This is a story I've been waiting to discuss. Let's break for some good fight breaking news. Alan Dershowitz. Legal. Scholar. Dream. Team member of the OJ squat. and. Harvard law. School professor. Emeritus is a fan of the show. The good fight. But, the famed attorney is preparing to sue Viacom CBS and the producers of the CBS access legal drama for referring to him in the final episode of the show's fourth season as a shyster in connection with his representation of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein. Was Convicted of soliciting sex with underage girls in two, thousand and eight. Committed suicide last year in quotes. I put those gourds there. While in federal prison as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges. Dershowitz lawyer. On July seventeenth. Sent a letter to CBS. Good fight creators and show runners Robert, king, and Michelle King and others connected with the show demanding that CBS all access stop airing the content in question. And they retraction of the statement and a public apology for it. Now, just just as an aside. I, wonder what? It's like to Alan Dershowitz, his lawyer because anyone if any of you all are familiar with Dershowitz and he's become. Kinda ubiquitous over the years, it's Kinda hard to follow. Legal Television and not see. Who it somewhere along the way. He is somebody like most very good attorney seems to be an A. Type Personality and thinks. This or appears to believe he is the smartest man in the room. So I wonder if it's difficult challenging to be his representative. I wonder if he's coaching you all the time telling you what to do. Even, though you might be giving them different advice I don't know. It's just something I've thought about here is a quote quote. Clearly, the dialogue and the context in which it is made, the words loaded with Innuendo such as massage. Epstein. And the Virgin Islands in combination with the word schyster. Falsely suggest that Professor Dershowitz engaged in sexual conduct i. e a massage in quotes with an underage girl associated with Epstein, and this crooked scrupulous in lying about it, I e a schyster on sorry road now on. Sorry is his attorney. Professor Dershowitz that is. Jonathan and SCHNELL VIACOM CBS media networks, executive vice president in general counsel responded with a letter. He sent on July twenty eighth that outlined. CBS. Is Defense of the episode and it's references to Dershowitz. Here's the quote. Quote. In. Other words as one might explained to a small child. The series, it's characters and the things they say are all make believe. People don't watch the series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else and show wrote. In quoque or end quote angel. In the episode. The gang discovers who kill Jeffrey Epstein, the title of the episode which debuted on May Twenty seventh. Fictional criminal defense attorney character. Benjamin Defoe played by guest Dr David Gilford is depicted as having previously represented. Epstein. Before. Dershowitz. The. Episode makes several references to Dershowitz in connection. With Epstein. On Saris letter focuses on one exchange that the defoe character has with his lawyers Diane Lockhart. That's character played by Christine Baranowski. In Liz Rettig, and that's played by Audra. McDonald about. Losing Epstein as a client. In the most Meta legal sense, the dialogue anticipate real life legal action from Dershowitz. Now. Here's the statement from the character in question defoe. Quote, probably, the time he did St- me for Dershowitz at least I didn't get a massage like that shyster and for the purposes of my potential lawsuit, schyster is just my opinion, not a statement of fact, and quote that's the defoe character says in the episode. Dershowitz told. Variety, that's where I got this part of my reporting or they're reporting. Dershowitz told variety that. The good fight, the show and other contemporary dramas that we fictional characters and real life. Public figures into their stories are trading on very shaky ground when it comes to definite deflation concerns. Quote The idea that a fictional character can get away with defaming somebody is really a new one. End. Quote Dershowitz said. Dershowitz continued. You either. Have to have an entirely fictional account in which they make up the names of everybody or truthful account. You can't make the genres when you mix the genres, the law of defamation applies end quote. Now on Saris letter remember on Saris Dershowitz. Attorney. Is Letter notes that the decision to include a just my opinion into the defoe characters dialogue. Only adds to the argument that Viacom CBS and the show was aware that the statement was defamatory. Here's a quote. It is indicative that CBS knew that the statements were defamatory. He had sought albeit weakly to skirt liability, and it is akin to showing a consciousness of guilt and sorry wrote. Now and shells. Letter notes that Dershowitz himself has acknowledged that he wants received a massage at of Epstein's homes. Here's a quote. In fairness Professor Dershowitz claimed that he kept his underwear on during the massage. A more benign mental image than what the mind might otherwise conjure. So at least there's that. and quote. That's what I wrote in his. Response. Letter. As, for the use of the term, shyster and chill defended it as spoken by fictional character and expressly fe phrased as an opinion. He sight as legal support. The recent dismissal of a lawsuit against fx networks brought by movie legend, Olivia the Havilland who objected to her depiction in the 2017, Limited Series Feud Bette and Joan. Levied the heavily just passed by the way for those y'all don't know. Here's a quote. We are confident that no viewer would conclude that Professional Dershowitz is a shyster based on the one line, of opinion from a fictional character on the series as opposed to the real life factual publications that have called him exactly that and so wrote. Dershowitz noted that the legal issues stemming from a blend, of fact and fiction. Are also the crux of a lawsuit filed in March by the former Manhattan prosecutor Linda Fairstein against Netflix's over her depiction in twenty nineteen limited series when they see us about the wrongful convictions, of Fi, black man who became known as the Central Park. Five? Dershowitz said that he will take his battle against the good fight to court. If CBS Viacom continues to balk at his demand for an apology and retraction, even though he is generally a fan of the stylist drama revolving around. Legal Eagles in Chicago. Quote my family and I have watched it enjoyed it. Dershowitz. said. Dershowitz has come in for strong criticism in his association. With Epstein who faced horrifying allegations, he was a serial Predator of underage girls. Dershowitz has been sued by an obscene victim who accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has vehemently denied. Last November Dershowitz countersued Virginia Guthrie. I believe that's how you pronounce your name. Excuse. Me, Miss Virginia. If I'm mispronouncing your last name, saying her claims had caused him severe emotional distress. Dershowitz vowed to press his case against Viacom CVS and the good fight as a matter of principle quote. I am an honest and honorable lawyer who represents controversial clients that people don't like Dershowitz says. Nobody's going to call me a shyster and get away with it. If the people at CBS or decent people, they will issue an apology with draw the episode or that part of the episode if they don't, I'll see them in court. and quote. Well. I think there's GonNa be a very interesting case. At somebody who is. Not, a lawyer I work with contracts. Real Estate Bill, I have several attorneys in my family several friends who are attorneys have an interest in law. This I mean as much as I am. Just as a matter of my personal ruling I believe. Right now behind to lean on the side of CBS Viacom. I understand that this is not a frivolous lawsuit. I think that Alan Dershowitz does have a case that he can make in court. I. Don't hope that this case wins because ironically. This is the type of case that, Alan. Dershowitz, take on behalf of CBS Viacom to forward their ability to express themselves artistically, and you know somewhat. You know this could come under. It's not so much if this people misunderstand the First Amendment Freedom of speech. Has To do with you being able to express yourself without coming under the thumb of the government being able to say Alan Dershowitz is. Something any type of name. and. Unless you're making a threat on the life or to harm Alan Dershowitz, you're able to say that without going to jail, but we have a civil court that allows Alan Dershowitz to sue you for saying that that doesn't come under First Amendment. So the First Amendment on the Playa here, however, I want artists to be able to express themselves this way. With real public figures if they come if they're mixed in with fictional characters and especially a character like Alan Dershowitz, who said all kinds of things said about him in the press. By real people. So. I don't see why this fake person. This false Bursa can't be able to say, but it'll be interesting to see how how this ruling goes forward I think again, this is one of these situations where. Alan, Dershowitz and clients. He has. Represented in Chorley represent. Tried to throw their weight around in their influence to try to intimidate people. Into doing things that they don't want to do? So we'll see what happens. But anyway I thought that was interesting case. We'll see what happens next. I'm going to talk about guess what. I'm GonNa talk about movies, next year, and how what has happened to the schedule this year how it's GonNa. Affect next year, and possibly your streaming options don't go away, go get some refreshments I'll be back after we pay some bills. Thanks for listening. Happened like being sued by a lawyer. Yeah Party, we're back. This is. Last segment and we got a lot of stuff to cover. Got A special announcement at the end. Setting theatrical schedules has never been simple in the movies as you know from the thing to me on this podcast. But as the pandemic pushes releases into twenty, twenty one and beyond distributors say it's like playing fourth dimensional chess on acid. On, March. Fourth MDM's James Bond Film. No time to die became the first Hollywood ten tentpole in the COVID nineteen era to delay if the release, the twenty fifth installment of the spy franchise moved from early April to Thanksgiving, and at the time decisions seem drastic. Theaters were still open in the US and the World Health Organization hadn't declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic. But the move proved to be a bellwether for the coming chaos theaters in the US soon, shuttered. Cinemas in China where the pandemic began had gone dark in late January. But studios rushed to rearrange their slates and what had been the biggest disruption to the release calendar in Hollywood history. The migration, which is ongoing. It's still happening. We'll have implications for years to come and will make twenty twenty one particularly crowded. Choosing movies date is a vital part of the process. It's common for the fiercely competitive studios to selected date two or three years out for their bigger films and sometimes even farther into the future. No one could have imagined the calendars carnage as theaters remain closed amid the devastating surge of cases across the US in some overseas territories. On July twenty four, th Disney said it was taking tentpole Moulana off the calendar, pushing back its Avatar and star wars films by year. Through. Twenty twenty eight. Avatar to moves from. December, twenty, twenty, one to December, twenty, twenty, two. A few days earlier warner. Brothers had likewise removed Christopher Nolan's tenant before announcing that the tent pole will begin in Overseas Rollout August twenty sixth followed by select US cities. September third paramount made a major announcement July twenty fourth, saying it was pushing more key titles a quiet place part two from Labour Day to April and top gun maverick from Christmas to June. topgun maverick could be pushed all the way to twenty twenty-eight SARS. I'm concerned. Here's a quote. We've never faced such uncertainty which has resulted in the most fluid dating situation ever says Chris. Aronson president. Of domestic distribution paramount. He continues the whole supply chain has been impacted. Another. Top distribution executive with a little bit more colorful in his description of the complicated climate saying if like playing four dimensional chess on acid. Which I said before. Now under normal circumstances usually when you move a movie. Suddenly or. Within weeks or months of its release, it means that something's wrong with the movie. You know they're either going to do re-shoots or if just bombed and you know focus groups or something. But. That's hasn't been the case here. Mulan intended. Each has moved no fewer than three times because of the pandemic quote up ended everything, we know about the sanctity of the release calendar says Paul Do Djerba Ron, Ofcom. Score. com. Score is a company that is a consulting firm. So media consulting firm that. Tracks. Things like release dates and other marketing information to make a long story short? That's what they do. That's what their opinion is. Important. Release date changes for huge movies have become commonplace. And, barely raise the blood pressure everyone has come to expect that everything is uncertain sources. Say it was preferable to unscheduled tenant and Milan for now instead of announcing new dates and having to move them again, quote I think everything is in flux until ten it goes says Eric Handler Wall, street analysts with 'em km partners. He continues other studios for wash to see how many people show up. That could cause some more delays. And that's my point about tenant. In Milan, I think when the case studies done about this time. Tenet Moulana. Movies that will have prime the pump for what's left of the theatre going public or the theater industry, but. They're also going to be movies that didn't do as well as they could have given that they're good movies again, that's the given I'm assuming at least ten is. If they're bad movies. Bad movies. Remaining twenty, twenty, ten polls on the calendar. Include Wonder Woman Nineteen, eighty-four, black widow. No time to die. Free Guy, which is science fiction comedy with Ryan Reynolds He's producing that movie as well. Because now he's a player after deadpool. And Steven Spielberg's west side story. Now, as far as more lawn, it's not clear yet when Disney plans to release that. Early in the pandemic, many twenty, twenty epic pictures gave up on this year including the terminals, ghostbusters afterlife, which I think is going to be a bomb to. The venom sequel. Let there be carnage F nine. That's one of the fast and furious pictures, millions of grew in the heights and jungle cruise, all of which are now set for the first three quarters of two, thousand, twenty one. Next year has become incredibly crowded. But we don't know if the film set toward the end of the year, we'll be able to finish production said handler. The clock is ticking with every day that goes by. With a quiet place to top gun maverick. Now, in the twenty, twenty, one mix competition will be even fiercer. So the guy from com score Derg are BGN. And I'm mispronouncing his name again, I mispronounced it earlier. But that's we worked for COMP score. He says that next year is fast becoming a cage match. And I would agree with them. But I don't think top gun maverick is going to be one of the players in cage match. Meanwhile. Twenty twenty two might not provide much more breathing room because you see this thing as a ripple effect. Avatar to. The next installment in the four Doctor Strange and Indiana Jones Franchises. been pushed into that year. Okay. Just like Maverick I think the Indiana Jones Franchise one. That's not really a player either I think that one's bomb anyway. However, industry experts studio execs expect that some smaller and mid range titles will continue to go straight to premium. vod. With video on demand or streaming in order to lighten the calendar. Those of you who listeners podcasts know that you bore, right? Here's been saying that since this thing started. Okay. But I don't only think they're going to go to the OD or video on demand streaming because there's not going to be a lot of Rome. In the market I think they're going to go there because there's going to be way too much room in the theaters. You know I think that people are going to. WanNa. Watch movies at home more and that going to the theater is going to be more of a tentpole situation. So I'm going to go back to a quiet place to, and I'm not bragging on a quiet place to I. thought it was a very good. A quiet place was a good movie. But a quiet place to doesn't need to be seen in the theater. People are going to watch that movie in the darkness of their basements where it will be really scary and they can eat better food for less money. That's what I believe. They're gonNA WANNA, see probably nine or four or any of these other movies on large grains because they have sensational. Special effects and sound design, and it'll be a lot better to see them on a big screen. Even bigger movies because see shorter runs. On July. Twenty eighth mega chain AMC theaters said, it will allow universal titles. We made available on pre premium video on demand after seventeen days, I reported that last. Show. Here's a quote. There's going to be a redefinition of what is the? What is not says one top executive who spending more time than ever reviewing slot. Sounds like he's spending more time than ever listening to this podcast. He. Says that a proliferation of twenty twenty three dates are being snatched up for untitled event films. Think, of it as insurance. Says one movie executive. Well, I'm saying that. They're going to have to start. Scheduling. These big. What they call tentpole movies out farther farther because they're gonNA need space in between them and but I think they're going to be able to do that because like this is article in like I've been saying for months now, these smaller to mid size films and I'll put a dollar value on sixty million dollars in less are going to go to video on demand and streaming. Especially, if they don't need that big venue, they don't need to be you know. A big screen and huge speakers to be appreciated. My prime example is a quiet place to. And Right. Before I started recording this segment, the BAFTA award winners were announced release. I got them in my email box. So I'm going to go over. Some of this information since net flicks and Hulu and other streaming services are not bringing as more British content than ever before I thought I would cover some of these awards in the interest of time. However, I selected the programs that are more familiar to American audiences. And, I know I have many international listeners. So I want to emphasize doing this in the interest of time. And over half my audience. American. So I want to mention things that everyone could relate doing shows that most people have seen or at least hurt out. Hbo And Sky Atlantic's Chernobyl and channel. Four's staff. Let's flats and I. Know Some of you Americans have not heard of that and channel four and Netflix's ended the F. Ing World emerge with two BAFTA as peace at this year's. Chernobyl one for miniseries and leading actor for Jared Harris. Adding to prizes to its existing hall of Seven Awards at the BAFTA TV craft awards earlier this month meanwhile Baptist leading actress award was won by Glenda Jackson. For her performance in the BBC's Elizabeth Missing, her first television role for more than twenty five years in the second BAFTA of her career. Her first BAFTA was four Sunday bloody? Sunday. In one, thousand, nine, hundred, seventy, two. Meanwhile. Cana four and Netflix's and the F. Ing. World. Also received prizes for drama series and best supporting actress for first time nominee I owe me Aki. Now, she was in the second season which I've yet to see the first season was fantastic and I will be watching the second season will sharp another first time winner won for his performance in BBC and Netflix's Gre- Haji in the supporting actor category. While Mo- Gilligan won his first BAFTA for entertainment performance for the latest show with Mogi elegant. and. First Time nominee signed Clifford one in the female performance in a comedy program for Playing Clare The older sister in Fleabag, which I have yet to watch also. Able do rene won her second. BAFTA for career for when they see us the US crime drama series based on the true story of the central five. In the international category. It follows with her win for thirteenth, which won best documentary at the twenty seventeen British Academy Film Awards, and she got an honorary BAFTA for that. Leaving Neverland received a BAFTA for factual series while the last survivors. One Single Documentary and the Yorkshire ripper files a very British crime story. One specialist factual. I. Love British awards because we would never have award here called specialist factual which I really like. The special award was presented to Idris. Elba, in recognition of his exceptional career in his commitment to champing diversity in new talent in the industry, the actor writer director and producer received video messages from Matthew mcconaughey. drowsy. P. Henson. And Ruth Wilson among others, and those are the only awards Ivanenko over. But I thought it was interesting because a lot of these productions I would have never heard of if it weren't for Netflix. And that's why I think Netflix is and will remain the kings for a little while because quite a little while because of their. Embracing. The world. Market for entertainment I. Think they've done a fantastic job I've said several times on this podcast and my special announcement is this. Show is now going to be going to from twice a week show to once a week show and it's going to drop. It will now be dropping just once a week on Saturdays instead of on the normal Tuesday and Fridays as an has been and I know this is heartbreaking news for some. Others are probably like saying, yeah, once is enough our but because some professional commitments that I have, I will only be able to produce one show a week. In. So that's why it's happening. If we hire another host to produce the second, let you know. So we may have to television podcasts a week, but right now it's going to be once a week on Saturdays. So I really appreciate your listenership and I will miss doing this twice a week because I really enjoy this show. And with that, that will be it for the GMC television podcast this week brought to you by the GMC podcast network. I'd like to ask that you please remember to subscribe to the show, right? It's a nice review. We like. You know it'll help the show grow and we would appreciate it. If you did give us five stars if you have some feedback for me and it can be negative as you want it to be. You can email me at podcast Howard mail gmail.com. Please, keep it as clean as possible. 'cause I re all email on air good or bad. I appreciate the feedback. I listen to it all and I try to do the best. I. Can to keep you guys coming back. Listen. I. Know We're some strange and challenging times right now, trying to pull through this together folks. We're at a worldwide pandemic. This virus seems to be changing a lot and we're still trying to figure out how it's transmitted and spread at least in the good old USA. We are. The rest of you guys seem to figured it out worldwide. So. Please, we do know this. You should wash your hands off and please limit your close up and personal interaction when people. If he can wear a mask if you when you go out of the house or when you're up close talking to people, they're saying now you should maybe wear goggles or protect your eyes if at all possible for you to do. But please. Do the best you can, and we'll get through this together. Until we, meet again please dream. With. CARE. Jack and I love you guys be kind to one another and I'll see you on Saturday. A good week. Bye. Bye. You've been listening to the golden state media concepts, television podcast part of the Golden. State media concepts, podcast network. You can find this show and others like it at www dot Jesus, MC podcasts, dot com download our podcast on itunes stitcher soundcloud, and Google play just type in Jesus Mc to find all the shows from the golden state media concepts, podcast network from movies to Music Sports Entertainment, and even Weird News. You can also follow us on twitter and on facebook. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed today's program.

Professor Dershowitz Emmy Awards Netflix Disney China Christopher Nolan HBO Alejandro Hernandez CBS HBO AMC theaters Hulu executive attorney Jeffrey Epstein twenty twenty director Warner Brothers Russel Crowe
Alan Dershowitz 6-2-19

CATS Roundtable

10:59 min | 2 years ago

Alan Dershowitz 6-2-19

"Good Morning America. This is the catch roundtable, chime Katzen mckee's here. What's going on in Washington, my God? What a mess with us. This morning is one of the smartest attorneys. I know from the Harvard School of law is aims, Alan Dershowitz. Good morning, professor. Dershowitz. How are you? Oh, good morning. I'm always it's always a pleasure to be on your highly intelligent show. How thank you. It's a mess in Washington. Tell us. Mullahs had a press conference the other day that five minutes after half an hour after the press conference. Everybody says, what was the purpose of the press conference? Tell us about it. You know you have spoken on behalf of the liberal side of, of our country. You're smoking behalf moderate side of our country. Tell us why did mullet do this. And what are you, what are your thoughts? Until he did that I was really a defender of Muller's integrity and nonpartisanship. I thought it was a mistake to appoint him as a special counsel. But I never attacked him personally in terms of his integrity. But that press conference, just showed his partisanship not only put his thumb on the scale against President Trump. He put his elbow on the scale, and he did it improperly. You know, a prosecutor is supposed to decide whether or not is sufficient evidence to indict, if there isn't he supposed to shut up, he's not supposed to say anything. We learned that from a Komi when Komi went beyond his mandate after deciding, there was insufficient evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for her emails. He then went on to express his personal view that she was extremely careless in how she handled a national security material. And he was much criticised for that. And then Muller is that exactly the same thing. But worse because Muller implied that there is evidence of guilt by Donald Trump, when he said, if there were no clear evidence of, of. Of guilty. Would've he would've said, so that's just the wrong thing for a special counsel. Tip say he also said that there's another institution of government that should deal with this, namely congress, and it's not the job as, as attorney general bar correctly said it's not the job of special counsel to carry the water for congress to do the investigation for congress. If congress wants to investigate in impeach, it's its responsibility to do that. And it must bear the political responsibility to do that have Muller conduct the investigation for him distorts our system of separation of powers and checks and balances. So Washington is a mess. And I hope the final lesson. This is let's end the office of special counsel, no more special counsel, no more special prosecutors. You know, we ended the office of special prosecutors after the ask over Bill Clinton now. We have to ask over Donald Trump. Let's end the office of special counsel it to ordinary prosecutors. Line. Prosecutors career people decent people to decide who to prosecute not prosecute. Let's not create a special office, which has the target on the back of the president or other people who are in the sights of the special counsel. I it's become completely politicized and it's and it's worse than a third world country. What did you tell them Erkan citizens? Well, I hope it's not worse than the third world countries, we do have our checks and balances we ever supreme court that will not allow congress to go too far or the president's go too far. So I, I don't think it's like a third world country, but I think it shows the worst of our system when we have special council who appoint people to investigate almost all room where highly bias against the person they were investigating it would be as, if a bar appointed Rudy Giuliani to is special counsel to investigate the role of Hillary Clinton. Whether all. The Democrats nobody would accept that you need unbiased people and Muller made a terrible mistake, and who we selected to conduct the investigation, he conducted people who had victory parties for Hillary Clinton. I had a victory party, Hillary Clinton but are not the prosecutor. I'm just very American citizen. And so I think that he has conducted this investigation in a way that shows we should no longer have special counsel. Please Steele dossier that was out in everything started with that. And the Pfizer court approved it because everybody signed off on it any idea what it really says, is that has happened. We'll find out. We'll find that out. We'll find out everything through hopefully the inspector general's report. What we know is it contained material that was unverified. We know it contains salacious material that on its face seep untrue. And yet it was presented the FIS as if it were the holy. Grail without Pfizer, being advised on a continuing basis about questions that were raised concerning the credibility of the report. And I think the spectre general will look into that. I also think the attorney general will look into that the FIS accord is a special court it can intrude on the rights of American citizens based on just exporting applications by the government. The, the other side never has a chance to present its side. And so the government has to be scrupulous and make sure it presents everything, so that the FIS the courts and evaluate the credibility of what it's acting on and they failed in that regard. And it created a real problem of civil liberties, and unless something is done. This could be a terrible precedent lying around, like a loaded gun to be used against political enemies in the future. Now, we talked about, you mentioned, the inspector general and the last few days, I understand, inspector general said that he discovered a certain FBI agent. He did not state his name that leaked a whole bunch of stuff to newspapers, and he didn't do these specter general that nothing about it. He says, I'm referring it back to the FBI for their disposition. Is that right? Well, he expect the general doesn't have thority actually to do anything except to investigate and reveal enforcement does lie with other aspects of the Justice department and one hopes that its followed up. But look, even revelation is important inspector general everybody calls matter known personally is a very distinguished, and very honorable person and his job is to simply make the public aware make the Justice department aware of problems and, and leave it to the enforcement mechanisms to act on those and I suspect that attorney general are will act on them once he has an opportunity to see the entire report, which is becoming out soon in June until. Professor Dershowitz, one other important thing that has certainly started some turmoil in our country. The, the ability to pick and choose a federal judge. And, and go out let's say to California pick out a certain drudge in the Lao him to stop the president of the United States worldwide from doing certain things. Was that is that what it's meant to be? Well, you know, there was a great debate about the power of judges when the constitution was enacted Jefferson was very much against the power of judges Adams, and Hamilton were in favor of the power of judges. And we've never resolved that today Americans love judges when they rule in their favor and are critical of judges when they really can't them. I do think there's a problem of a single federal judge having the ability to stop a nationwide activity. Of course, the other side in this case, the president can immediately appeal it not only to the court of appeals. But to the United States Supreme court and get a stay and that's happened on a few occasions. But I do think it's worth thinking about whether a single judge should have such extraordinary power, especially as you correctly point out that opponents of the president, judge shop, they picked their judges. They can't pick this specific judge except in rare cases, normally you can just pick the district. Now, sometimes they figured this wish there's only one or two judges, and so you're essentially, picking the judge. But when you go to California, you're throwing yourself into a relent wheel of dozens of judges. Some of whom are Republican appointee some of them are democratic appointees and the circuit courts are changing even the ninth circuit, which reputation of being the most liberal of the judges of the courts has lost two of its most distinguished liberals recently in those seats are being filled by by conservative. So you know, we see. The pendulum swinging. It's terrible thing that we have to think about judges as liberal conservative, or appointees of one president or another, the theory is that judges is supposed to be above politics. Chief Justice Roberts says there's no such thing as a Republican judge democrat judge, I wish you were right? Realistically, we know that, who the judges can have a bigger impact on the case in the law, and the facts. And so picking judges has become an art and an art that. That really has an effect on the outcome of cases. I have one last question for you Julian Assange. What's going to happen to this, this person? Well, I think the Trump administration's overplayed its hand, so the Justice department they had a very strong case for extradition against him when they initially choose him of trying to break into a password and get classified material. That's prime but publishing material, that's very different. That's the New York Times, and the Washington Post. And I think that Great Britain is going to have a lot of difficulty extraditing Assange to the United States to stand trial for merely publishing material stolen by him, but by others. So, I think we're in, we're in for a very interesting. I is probably the most interesting first amendment case involving national security since the Pentagon papers, I was one of the lawyers that pending on this case, I represented Senator Mike gravel who read the Pentagon papers on the floor of congress. And we took that is all the way to the supreme court of the United States. I suspect that's where this case is headed as well. Virtuous professor Harvard Law School. Thank you so much for coming on semi morning, and filling in all Americans what's going on. I appreciate it. It's always a pleasure to be on with you. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll catch up soon. This is the cats roundtable. We'll be right back.

special counsel Muller congress president Hillary Clinton President Trump Professor Dershowitz Washington attorney Justice department Harvard Law School prosecutor United States professor California Julian Assange Bill Clinton United States Supreme court Katzen mckee Pfizer
Senators wrap up first day of impeachment trial questions; Senators question house managers and Trump lawyers; White House threatens to block publication of Bolton's book; Trump lawyer says he can't say when the President first discussed Bidens and Ukrain

Anderson Cooper 360

46:45 min | 1 year ago

Senators wrap up first day of impeachment trial questions; Senators question house managers and Trump lawyers; White House threatens to block publication of Bolton's book; Trump lawyer says he can't say when the President first discussed Bidens and Ukrain

"Let me tell you about. Blankets blinked takes the need to know information from nonfiction books and condenses them down into just fifteen minutes that you can read or listen to from self help and business into health and history bestsellers and classic nonfiction books like becoming by Michelle. Obama gamonal intelligence the four hour workweek and thousands more you get unlimited limited access to read or listen to a massive library all the books you want for one low price. Try It free for seven days. GO TO BLINK DOT COM slash. CNN and the day is done good evening after another late night in the impeachment. Trial the Senate wrapping up the first of two days of questions for both sides. Some of the answers have made news. Alger switch today advancing the claim that quote if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected in the public interest. That cannot be the kind of quid pro quo. Hello that results in impeachment as you might imagine. His argument did not go without rebuttal. Also today the Question of John Bolton's manuscript now being reviewed by lawyers and perhaps others the White House do the parts that might be relevant to the trial also contained information to secret to reveal to classified clash over that today and of course what's the question of Bolton's testimony or any testimony for that matter that battles still being waged that votes still uncertain plus from to moderate Republicans. A question that appeared to stump one of the president's it's attorneys namely had the president ever shown any interest in the Biden's before Joe Biden launched his presidential. Run plenty to talk about some of the players as well as their own political legal team. I want to catch you up on the The highlights for very long very consequential day. Here's C. N.. N.'s Athena Jones. Senators apparently have been heard enough as day. One of questions and answers slid into the late hours Wednesday that three Republican senators who have publicly said they could support calling witnesses setting the tone for the day asking trump's lawyers if president trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct such as the pursuit of personal oh political advantage rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interests. How should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article record won their response? Once you're into mixed motive land. It's clear that their case fails and if a president does something which he believes. We'll help him get elected. In the public interest that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results else in impeachment. After days of strategizing both parties use dozens of leading often loaded questions to push their sides case. Republicans lukens honing in on hunter by. What did Hunter Biden do for the money that Barista Holdings paid him? Hunter Biden did attend one board meeting in Murrah. AW IN MONACO. One question. Trump's lawyers couldn't answer whether trump ever mentioned concerns about the Biden so Ukrainian or American officials before the the former vice president entered the twenty twenty race. I'm limited to what's in the record. And what's in. The record is determined by what the House of Representatives sought. So so I can't point to something in the record that shows president trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Democrat stressing the need to hear from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton who said he is willing to testify before the Senate if subpoenaed subpoenaed if you have any lingering questions about direct evidence any thoughts about anything. We just talked about anything. I just relayed or that. We've talked about the last week. There is a way to shed additional light on it. You can subpoena Ambassador Bolton and ask him that question directly the Senate can get to the truth you can get to the truth by calling witnesses. Who can testify that trump teams response and the idea that the house can can do an incomplete job in trying to find out what witnesses there are having them come testify trying to find out the facts just rush something through ruined bring it? Here is an impeachment and then start trying to call all the witnesses and it would forever change the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate in terms of the way impeachments operate Linda particularly fiery moment listing the witnesses. They would call one Adam Schiff. I one hundred nine. I want Joe Biden I want I want the whistle blower I want to. I want to also understand. There may be additional National People within the House Intelligence Committee that have had conversations with that. Whistleblower I'd get anybody. We want and delivering a stark warning to the senators. By the way. If we get anybody we want where we'll be here for a very long time. Trump's team also making the case for protecting executive privilege does suggest that the national security adviser. Well we'll just subpoena him. He'll come in and that'll be easy won't be problem. That's not the way it would work because there is a vital constitutional privilege at St. They're Democrats arguing. Trump waive that privilege pitch with this. tweet he kind of characterized the conversation and that and put it into the public domain and then claim executive privilege against it trump's team also urging senators to let the voters decide. The president is the one who gets to determine policy because he's been elected by the people to do that and we're right now. Let me a few months away from another election where the people can decide for themselves whether they like what the president has done with that authority already or not and shifts spilling out the consequences of not removing trump from office. Bear in mind that efforts to cheat in election election are always going to be in proximity to election. And 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 Athena Jones. CNN Washington Long Day another one tomorrow hours of questions including from moderate Republican senators today. Who say they want to hear from witnesses hours of answers as well arguing both sides the matter since Phil Mattingly was there in the chamber for it? He joins US now. Did anyone you heard. Move the needle on either side when it comes to witnesses. Yeah I think Anderson you hit on a key. Point is the questions from the moderate Republican senators. There was the question from Senator Susan. Collins and Lisa Murkowski related into whether or not the president had shown any interest in Ukraine issues specifically before vice president. Joe Biden decided to run for president. Patrick Philbin the White House counsel did not have an answer to that saying it wasn't within the record and he didn't feel like you could go into that. Also Mitt Romney who clearly wants witnesses at this point in time asking if there was a specific date on win the president decided I had to put the hold on the UK Crane Security Assistance for the Philbin. Also not able to answer that question specifically I think those were what we keep them. But in terms of moving the needle Anderson. I will tell you you behind the scenes. The Movement here has been towards Mitch. McConnell having the votes to block witnesses. It's not locked up yet. I'm told but over the course of the last twenty four hours. There has been a clear lear move by Republicans to get those votes in place to be able to essentially move this trial to an end by the end of this week and that seems to be the direction it's headed. Obviously we have another day. Have questions tomorrow. But that's where it's going right now. I know this is a minor point but it is fascinating to me that after all of this Mitt Romney's question I thought was really interesting interesting. They can't we still don't know when the president decided to withhold aid and and whom he talked to like we've seen there's been no documents Kamenz. I mean it's kind of remarkable that a a foreign policy decision was made and we still have no idea when it was actually made. Yeah that's exactly right. I think INC for those of us who were covering it every step of the way. The House impeachment inquiry the documents that were able to see the witnesses that we were able to hear from. You heard various dates over the course of win. The president may have gotten interested in this win. The Office of Management and Budget informed other agencies and departments that they hold was actually in place at times between July when the Ukrainians actually found out about added and no firm date but I think it also underscores another point. This is what Democrats were pointing to throughout the course of the day. As if you want answers to these questions there's a way to get them. Bring in witnesses. This is and I'm not sure that's moved the needle to actually get them the votes to make that case but Democrats also made the point. Look if we don't hear witnesses in these questions remain unanswered. You will pay for this politically in the future feature. We will be able to point to this trial that just simply wasn't fulsome and therefore this is on you kind of either way at this point is you've got some reporting about Senator Rand. Paul's question was rejected and named the alleged whistle blower. What more do you do? You know. Yeah this was a fascinating behind the scenes kind of series of events that are going on. Nobody was really able to see it. Unless you paid attention into Senator Rand Paul during the first break during their first breaks in Iran. Paul walked up to a Republican staffer who was very clearly frustrated. Essentially saying if I have to force my way to get my question asked I will. Here's what was actually happening. I'm told behind the scenes. RAMPAL has a question about the quote unquote origins of the investigation. In that question he. He explicitly names the alleged whistle blower. And that's been out there for a period of time. Now here's the back story. Over the course of the last couple of days it has been communicated to senators in both parties. That John Roberts the chief justice will not entertain or read because he has to read all of the questions submitted by senators any question that names discloses enough information to be able to be able to. who identify the whistle blower? That's where Rand Paul Ran. Afoul essentially the red line. The chief justice true and why. That's extraordinary is we haven't really seen this before. Obviously only the third impeachment human trial we've had but it's chief justice traditionally plays a very reluctant role here more of a traffic cop a procedural cop that actually weighing in on things what I can tell you right now is is. This isn't over yet. Senator Paul has made clear. He's very frustrated. He believes he has every right to ask his question. Even if the chief justice doesn't want to read it aloud and there's still a chance he may they try and ask it again tomorrow. It hasn't been resolved but kind of a fascinating back story that was going on as these eight hours of questions. We're going through. Throughout the day Anderson. We're seeing house. Managers saw Kim Jeffries Congressman Adler as well leaving Early Response Center Langford Phil Mattingly. Thanks joining us right now. One of the Jurors Senator Birch Blumenthal Democrat of Connecticut and our Blumenthal Minority Leader. Schumer said today that at least at this point it seems likely. There won't be witnesses. Do you think he's right stolen uphill battle to get witnesses but I feel goes kinds of questions that we saw today from the moderates. When was the whole put on this aid? When was interest I expressed by couldn't be answered because because we don't have witnesses who could testify to it or documents black and white and the documents? Don't lie that the American people deserve Europe to see. That's the kind of evidence that is basic to any trial and I think any moderate really any juror would demand that kind of evidence and very strikingly those two questions. Were only a couple of questions that couldn't wouldn't really be adequately answered based on this record because of the defiance the blanket blocking of those documents not just this now but repeatedly in the past in the course of this investigation and my Republican colleagues. Can't complain about not seeing anything if they I put blinders on and history will haunt them sinners largely use. Their question answer time to ask questions of their own side. Republicans Republicans Democrats Democrats why that approach that why why not use the time to challenge the other side's arguments. Well one of my questions was to the other side about when they knew in effect about the book and whether they were discouraged from telling us about it what they did in response. I think that's still an area where we I need further questioning and they were in my view possibly vague in their response they said there was no consultation between the NFC staff and the White House counsel. But I am going to be demanding for answers. I asked about also a statement by the other side which was really astonishing that a candidate for political office can accept aid from a foreign government or individual anything of value under the current law is really prohibited and yet of course the president has said he would accept it and in fact has invited China and Ukraine to investigate a political rival and and yet they were saying and we challenge them through the house managers on this point which is so fundamental because we know foreign interference in our elections is is a real threat and ongoing and increasing threat in the next election. I want to get back to that in just a moment but but just learning something you just said a moment go. Do you worry that the White House president trump others around him or would put pressure or are putting pressure on the National Security Council staff to slow walk any classified examination of Bolton's book. I deeply worry about it. I am alarm. Because of the polarization polarization in fact the weaponization of national security for political purposes by this White House. And we've seen from this investigation and others that the national security staff is subject to pressure on matters less consequential president than this one. That's so-called publishing. Date is march seventeen and I would not be surprised at all if the censorship by the White House and its review extend well beyond on that date and Bolton is forced to go to court to challenge the review and the censorship and the delay. So they're going to keep it under wraps as long as possible. No but that's just one element of course of the cover up that we're seeing unfolding in real time. Professor Dershowitz is argument today. That quote if the president does something that he thinks with help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro. Quo that results in impeachment. If I'm no I'm not a lawyer at all I do. Do not understand that argument if that is the standard. What does that? Open the door to if you can do anything just because you believe. It's so important that you get elected and that it's in the public public interest. Isn't that opening the door to all sorts of potentially inappropriate behavior. It's more than opening the adore. It is kind of throwing it wide for all kinds of abuse. Anything that's done for reelection. Purposes is Okay Josh. That can't be the law and in fact it isn't the law and yet professor. Dershowitz is in effect arguing if there is an abuse of power and it AIDS in reelection and it doesn't violate a specific technical criminal law. It's okay and I think that is one of the most astonishing statements. I have seen on the floor of the United States Senate whether an impeachment trial or any other kind of preceding. But let me just express my alarm. How where it goes and the lowering of the bar? The expectations the standards to which it leads. Because I think the bar already has been set low enough for political campaigns and this kind of statement is is deeply damaging to our democracy and that's why we're challenging granted. There is no specific charge of bribery in the articles of impeachment on abuse of power but the elements of bribery have all been charged. I have urged that bribery be regarded as having been proved already because the president clearly sought something of Value Investigation smear of his political opponent in return for something that he had the power to do namely the release of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer military funds to a foreign governments struggling to survive. And I think that saying that there's no abuse of power. Nothing wrong as long as the president feels it AIDS. Him In his reelection is absolutely absolutely reprehensible and irresponsible senator. Blumenthal appreciate your time. Thank you thank you got much more ahead. Sign including more the president's words for John Bolton choice words lots of them plus. There's there's a second recording the president and that's just one headline from our exclusive interview with Love Parnis. He joins me ahead. How do you judge someone not by what they say by what they do? We're a nation of worse. What's Mike Bloomberg about doing things? A middle class kid worked his way way through college. Ben Entrepreneur Bloomberg built a global news and information business from scratch mayor of a diverse progressive city. Mike Bloomberg rebuilt after nine eleven of creating nearly five hundred thousand jobs improving health care and public schools. So now he's running for president. And Mike's the change. We need from chaos to steady leadership from lies to someone who believes in facts and data from divisiveness to someone who builds teams nurtures good ideas and hold himself accountable eligible for results. Mike Bloomberg knows how to lead to build to deliver to do. He'll win and unite this country. Mike will get things done. I'm Mike Bloomberg candidate for president. And I approve this message because we need to deliver on the promise of the American dream paid for by Mike Bloomberg. Twenty twenty postage postage rates have gone up again. THANKFULLY STAMPS DOT COM eases. The pain with big discounts off post office retail rates like five cents off every first class stamp and up to a forty percent off shipping rates. That kind of savings really adds up especially for small businesses. You can forget about inconvenient trips to the post office to since dams dot com is completely completely online. Use Your computer print official. US postage for any letter package or class of male anywhere. You want to send once your meals ready. Drop it in the mailbox or handed to your mail carrier. It's that simple not to mention. It's a fraction of the cost of expensive postage meters and there's no equipment to lease or long term commitments C.. Y. Over seven hundred thous small businesses already used dams dot com listeners. Get a special offer that includes a four week. Trial plus free postage and a digital scale. Go the stamps. Dot Com. Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type. CNN THAT STEMS DOT com enter CNN prison from spend much the day tweeting about the impeachment trial and trashing the man. He once called his National Security Adviser John Bolton quoting now and it's quite a long sentence quote for a guy who couldn't get approved the ambassador to the the united to the UN years ago couldn't approve for anything since Beg since Beg me for a Non Senate approved job which I gave him. Despite many saying. Don't do it sir. Takes the job armistead says Libyan model on TV and many more mistakes judgment gets fired because frankly if I listened to him we would be in world war six by now and goes out and immediately writes nights a nasty and untrue book all classified National Security. Who would do this? The commander-in-chief assessment of his former top national security officials joining us now with or the reaction reaction to sixteen hundred Pennsylvania. Avenues Galen College. What does the day look like? They're feeling well. Essentially it's been the president and his aides lashing out at John Bolton trying to discredit him and and given that tweet from the president it's worth pointing out. He just had one in November where he called John Bolton a Patriot and said he did not think he would tie the military aid freeze to those those investigations. He wanted on the Democrats. Which of course is now with the New York Times as saying that Bolton is doing in his manuscript so essentially what they're doing is trying to discredit him telling telling the Republicans that he doesn't need to be called as a witness? It's going to drag out this a trial happening on Capitol Hill if he does. And you saw the president's attorney arguing just they were closing out these questions for tonight saying that. It's not as easy as just issued a subpoena for John Bolton and having him show up he was essentially sending a message to those senators who were who were on the fence about having witnesses that if they do do that they're still going to be a fight coming from this side of Washington. If they do the the White House counsel was asked about the prison. Soliciting foreign interference gave an answer that we really hadn't heard before what what was that. Yeah that was Pat Philbin. He's Pat Sip Bologna deputy. He's been the one answering a lot of these questions here today today. And he was asked by Senator. Chris coons about the president's public and apparent attempts to try to solicit information from foreign governments on his political rivals. You'll remember the ABC. You see news interview where the president said. He didn't think it was a problem to take information from foreign governments on rivals or when he was on the south of the White House and call it on China to investigate the Biden's and Pat Philbin gave a pretty broad defense and the Democrats in the room. Were not happy about that. At least the ones sitting at that table the ones that have been prosecuting and making their case this week Pat Philbin said Mir information is not something that would violate campaign finance law. He said that taking a foreign contribution of course would violate that law and getting information and having. He's not campaigning for interference. For credible information to be brought to light now. That is something that really stunned those Democrats. That's because shortly after you saw Zoe lofgren one of the house. Managers Get up and say that it was news to her for the president to now be able to get information from foreign governments on his domestic arrivals and that be okay so that was really an interesting moment. It's really in lockstep with what you've heard from the president saying he thinks it's okay but it'll be interesting to see what Republicans can have to say about that. Answer from the Deputy White House Counsel Kaitlan Collins. Thanks very much. WanNa bring the political legal and historical team tally Bernie Williams Carson powers and Mike Shields Elliot. What she was just alluding to also kind of back would dershowitz is argument? was which was that. Essentially the president can do as long as is the president things. What he's doing is in the public interest in and the public interest is him getting reelected? He can do virtually anything I want to play. I don't want to misquote awards. So let's play what he said. Every public official would I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly. You're right you're election is in the public interest and if a president does something which he believes will help him get get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro. Quo that results in impeachment. uh-huh does that argument. Make sense to you know. Here's the thing you know what was also in the public interest. According to a candidate wire tapping topping the Democratic National Committee as Richard Nixon. Did you know what the president could also say was in the political interest or in the public interest basements election lying about an affair that could have harmed the Democratic Party. Obviously President Clinton wasn't running for reelection in two thousand but it would have been certainly embarrassing the Democratic Party and he could have made the argument that it is in our interest for me as the leader of the nation to lie to engage of makes Donald Trump. The the state it it is it is a march to monarchy. It is literally behavior that would allow the president to say that anything any kind of misconduct engages in if he thinks well. It's good for the country because I am the state that he can go play shift Made that argument right. I mean Mike does. Did you believe that argument. No I think that when President Obama said to Medvedev just lay off for a while and hot Mike moment layoff me for. I have a better negotiating position after the election and he said I'll communicate that to Mr Putin this same thing applies. That's why I was wrong about trump because brock Obama was was wrong to do that as well. I think the Obama Administration was wrong to open up an investigation on their political rival. They could have said that's in the public interest as well so no I disagree with Dershowitz on that. You can't you can't say that your own election is the public interest that is not in the that is your that is a campaign and there there has to be a separation of that. I think that AH rephrase I was going there and tell them how he should phrase this argument it would be. We have to be very careful when people do acts on behalf of the government that are also so politically advantageous to them because every leader does that every leader carries out an act of four policy. Act that the public likes so you can say well. Where was that a political decision motive to help me get reelected? That's a fair argument. I found it interesting that nobody can answer. When the president decided which allegedly was something which is the according to Republicans in the national interest and is an actual policy decision which is to hold off aid to Ukraine? That was voted by Congress. The fact I mean that's like a historic short. You'd think there is a historical record that that would be it was known on June fifth decision was made we have no idea. Yeah that would be information that you would want. That would be the kind adam information you could get if you've got witnesses but the Republicans aren't really interested in getting more information. I think I just WANNA say quickly. Barack Obama didn't do anything wrong in that situation. He was just negotiating foreign policy so to try to compare that to what Donald Trump has done in. You know where he has again trying to get another another country to do his dirty work so he can get reelected and attack. A political rival is the same thing as what broad reference the election trump never referenced the elections. He said I'll have burned to go shooting room after he's action in a sense back off Russia and don't mess with me in the actually used that example today. Ah Let's play that if we have it. President Obama on an open Mike says to Medvedyev. Hey Medvedev I know you don't want me to send this military money to Ukraine because they're fighting and killing your people. I want you to do me a favor though. I want you you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney and I want you to announce you've found dirt on Mitt Romney. And if you're willing and to do that quid pro quo. I won't give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the frontline. Do any of us have any question. That Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct. I think it's a great argument because what he's not saying dirty my rival. He's saying lay off of me during the election. Don't make me look bad to the American people foreign policy until the election is over and then we can. And he's the point is that's a rabbit hole when you start going down. That is very dangerous and I think it does apply to. There's nobody in. This country was voting for Barack Obama or not voting for Barack Obama on Russia policy. That didn't happen okay. What he was doing is basically saying? I'll have more flexibility after the election. That is a totally normal thing for a president to say it is not the same thing as saying. Do this for me or I will not give you your aid. It's it's just that's not what Biden and this is. This is the crazy making thing of this is that we've had to listen to this all day. Long over and over claiming leeming that Biden basically put pressure on the Ukrainians. What did he say when tries to try to get them to not investigate a company that his son works when it was the position of the of of the United States that was the position of every international entity? Involved I mean Biden is the only one kind of pushing for this thing the UN. I mean they were pulling. What did you make today's arguments particularly Dershowitz saying that? Anything President does is in the public interest absolutely. Look I think we are watching in real time a cover up by the Republicans in the Senate enabling the president to cover up his abusive power. First the ball. Let's go to the phrase abuse of power which Professor Dershowitz says is not room. It's never been grounds for impeachment. And it's article two of the Nixon impeachment impeachment Am I right. Guys is abuse of power but more than that. We now have in Bolton for the first time let's look at him. Being perhaps the equivalent of John Dean meaning he was in the Oval Office. We now have the ability to find out the truth and to have a real trial all along. Republicans have been telling us. We don't have any witnesses here. We have the ultimate witness who can give us the information. We need eight and one of the reasons that the president is so frightened of John. Bolton is maybe John Bolton knows about other instances as did John Dean and but we need to hear from him but this is a cover up. Tim Neftali a urine the Nixon Library. I'm wondering if the trump library will there be any documents because there seems to be no historical record. Heard that we're going to be able to look back on to know when things actually. Oh I was just thinking about what the museum exhibit is going to be for this particular event for the for the trial. I just I actually wanted to say something about The letter that that we found out about today from the White House the letter was signed by the Senior Director of the directorate dread in the White House that oversees the management records signed by Ellen. Night I know Ellen night I don't know her personally and I haven't talked to her for nine years but she worked for me in the sense that she worked. She was supervised by my supervisor. she worked in the Nixon tapes. She did a brilliant job she is is committed to openness and transparency. After she worked for the Nixon Library she went to an entity. Created by Congress called the Public Information Declassification Board which is dedicated to try to winding accessed information. So she's involved in this narrative but she someone who's committed woman he's worried about pressure there by president. Yes would offer national skirt. How with all due respect to Senator Dole? I heard that question today and it was way too. Huawei vague. The determination of whether something is top secret or secret can be made by the director. But it's also made by the senior directors in the National Security Council. And the question that has to be asked is whether the office of General Counsel or counsel's office played any role whatsoever in the determination and the timetable of review. According to the letter Mr Cooper who is Bolton's attorney should the beginning a timetable. The next few very shortly the key for the Senate is to ask. When is the timetable for review to come to the lawyers? Okay that's more on this. LISTEN WE'RE GONNA take a quick break a lot more to discuss about what we heard today from both house managers and the President's defense team also the latest on whether we will hear from witnesses when we return. Hi I'm David axelrod host of the X.. Files everyone one has a story and on the x files dig deeper than the sound bites. I spoke with justice. Sonia Sotomayor about the withering poverty discrimination she overcame to reach the nation's nations highest court and to President Barack Obama about the impact of his valiant mom to learn more about the show visit. CNN dot com slash X.. Files or. Find US wherever you get your podcasts. At the making of history. CNN presents the story story. The world's most famous royal family but windsors inside the Royal Dynasty premiers Sunday February sixteenth at ten on CNN before the break presidential storyteller giving us a look inside the process by which John Bolton's manuscript will be clear for publication or won't be such as the case may may be With the concerns of her new cover up being voiced by Carl Bernstein and others today on the Senate floor back with me now our political and legal analysts just in the time we have. I JUST WANNA quickly run through for everybody. Do you think Witnesses or actually going to happen. I don't think they'll happen. And I think surely thereafter they'll be vote for acquittal. So it could you. I think it could be done Friday bar. I don't know the procedural votes are that allow that but as soon as you don't have witnesses. This thing is effectively over and I think both parties are going to say. Get me out of here. Yeah I mean from the beginning I think has been unlikely that they were going to get witnesses with the John Bolton News it looked like maybe possibly there would be but I it just seems like the Republicans don't have the appetite to see this through and they don't have the interest and really getting to the bottom of this and having a legitimate trial. You Know Cory. Gardner is not voting for witnesses. He announced it today. So basically based on what we heard today it sounded like Collins Rakowski. Romney might might be even amenable to it but even there. It wasn't clear if they were just asking questions for the purpose of senatorial socratic dialogue or not. It doesn't look like you're going to get the four that would be. We needed to move there. And what do you think the impact of that is Carl. Democrats for Republicans. I think the impact of this is going to be that Republicans if they shut this down are going to have to live with this for a very very long time. There is the ability even now to have a non-partisan trial by admitting witnesses. Witnesses let see what those witnesses say and then perhaps given the explosive nature of what Bolton and others in documents might show some of these Republicans might might become offended at the president's behavior and there might be some votes for conviction not could not get convict them altogether. But it's possible to have a non-partisan nonpartisan trial if Mitch McConnell and Republicans stopped covering up for the pressure. Tim just would documents. That are now not being sent over to Congress. Will they ever see the light of day. How does how well? Yes and this is one reason why this they will. But this is one reason why this has to be done so carefully. This is why subpoenas astill are important. You've got to protect those documents. And there is there is a the how should consider a special law similar to the Nixon Law even though it won't pass the Senate but one more thing because the Bolton manuscript exists. I'm not sure that this is done so I think that that is such a problem for the swing senators that this isn't over yet they can now say it's out there read. It's not it's not out there. The point is it's a a paraphrase of a paraphrase argument. They're using. I'm with you on this. Just by normally the classification is done by this office with this part of the National Security Council correct. Yes so but is it is outside pressure are they. Well first outside pressure okay for so very quickly just because they said their top secret stuff doesn't mean it's top secret stuff about Ukraine. There's a lot of stuff that that falls below that level. Sure he might have talked about. Turkey might have talked to the Kurds Kurds for goodness sakes and that's top secret so we don't know yet but what I can tell you is a document is going to be going to Bolton's lawyers which is going to stipulate what he has to do and I bet you he can do that and still have material that would be useful in this trial you also know so much about classified information. It surprises me that he would even put stuff in there which is going to get. The book mucked up Thanks everybody interview with Parnassus. The former associate of Rudy Giuliani. He and his attorneys were in Washington today kind of wandering around on Capitol Hill trying to get attention. We'll talk to them about what they were doing. Their thoughts about Republican arguments against witnesses and more just ahead with the no-holds-barred election right around quarter. Take a look back at some of the most hard foot presidential racist throughout history the CNN original series race for the White House is back for a brand blue season starting Sunday February sixteenth at nine on CNN hey there it's poppy harlow the host of CNN's boss files. PODCAST are you Hungary. Have you ever had shake shack or latest. Episode is with the men behind the Burger business. Founder Danny Meyer and CEO Randy Garate shake shack. Who is born if you didn't know as a hotdog cart in two thousand one and the whole thing actually started? Danny Meyer says by accident so we dive into into that. What's the story behind? What is now a publicly traded company? And what are they trying to do. When it comes to equality and wages and their experiment with four day workweeks also? Are they planning to offer plant based items on the menu. That is a big question. Also some of their favorite memories like when President Obama came to eat checkup boss files subscribed today live. Hornets was in Washington from the impeachment. Trial the former associated with the president's. TV lawyer Giuliani had to get permission to be there from federal prosecutors prosecutors. He got tickets from the office of Senator Chuck Schumer but his court order. GPS Ankle Bracelet Monitor the Monitor. He wears prevented him Entry the room Where the testimony was being given electric devices or prohibited still? He says he wanted to be in Washington today. I spoke to him and his attorney earlier. About why also about at other evidence in another recording they say they have the president In their possession New York to get special permission from a judge to go go to Washington today to try to attend the trial. Why did you want to be there? Well I think it's important That the the truth it gets out With this get called and I thought that it would. It would just put a little extra pressure on some of the senators of The see me there knowing that you know one one of the crucial with the witnesses to this whole thing. Did you speak to any Republican senators. And you happen to to run into any and if you didn't what what would you say to Republican Senators I didn't get a chance to speak to any of the Republican senator. They can get chance to bump into them. Because I was I'm not able to go into the actual Senate but I was hoping to and if I would bump into especially some of them that I've known Over the years I would definitely tell them to vote with their conscience. Have you donated money to any of the senators. Who are who are deliberating on this? He's absolutely absolutely One of the Senators as Rick Scott. He was their hometowns. Senator he was running for Senate and Florida Gorda and through some of the Super Pacs. I know we've been on the campaign trail with Senator Lebron's We mean regional. Yanni went to visit him in Indiana for when he was running for office Who Else Senator Lindsey Graham I Haven't had any contact with but because of my relationship with Rudy Giuliani I. I have a lot of information Asian about his dealings and it was like. Surreal then to watch Lindsey Graham up there sit there. He's out there talking about all this stuff That this is not the this is a hsieh have. They should go away one at the end of the day. He was in the loop just like everybody else. He was very good relationship with Giuliani. He was aware of what was going on. is going back to at least two thousand eighteen maybe even earlier and then A few I recall he was supposed to be the one that Rudy Giuliani was supposed supposed to bring the two Shaq into on the visa. Got The night and I think he was even if we check the records evolved and you know getting requests for the visa somehow. Say you're saying Senator Senator Graham Lindsey Graham knew about you and Mr Giuliani's efforts in in Ukraine. Absolutely just like I said First of all Senator Graham was involved before even I got involved with Mayor Guiliani so he had to have been in the loop and of non. What's going on otherwise you know? There's that was what Giuliani every day. I mean that was what was happening. You firmly believe that Lindsey Graham knew that you you and Giuliani or at least that Giuliani was undertaking. This effort to dig up dirt on the Biden's in Ukraine one million percent Rudy told me not once on several occasions. that He spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation that Lindsey was always aware again. I don't know how deeply involved I didn't speak to Lindsey Graham right. I don't have text messages with him within interact. So I can't speak only speak from what Rudy told me as of now. Obviously that we don't know if there's enough votes on the Republican side to call witnesses in this trial do have more evidence that you could would release or will release or turn over to house. Investigators that might change the calculus at all. We turned over some more materials. Recently there was another round of production included in that round production. Another little less than forty minute recording the president at more Lago with Pete sessions and with with Not sure what the House might might Make public We might make another recording in public and to the extent that we have any other information that comes in that's responsive to let us congressional subpoena. Our intent is always to comply Anderson. You're saying another recording in addition to the one that you just mentioned at Mar-a-lago did you turn over house investigators There's more law go that we turned over. And this is one one of the recordings the one that was publicized. Last week was the dinner recording of April thirtieth twenty eighteen so yes there is another recording. That's it's out there. I think the data that is about April twentieth two thousand eighteen. I soon though if there was something significant on that recording you would have already made it public. That's correct absolutely just in response. There are other recordings as another recording. We might release. I don't know if the Intel Committee will make it public nick and there's a trove of other materials that we've given over to the Intel Committee that has not yet been made public. I'm not sure whether those will be incorporated into the record record or or not. Do you have any recordings of Guiliani. there's Several recordings I just haven't gone through yet. The you know I've been going through a lot of the stuff right now. that I've just been finding but are those things turned over the to to Investigators yes do you think. Is there anything of significance Giuliani. I mean I don't know what you mean significantly. I mean it was everyday conversation of things that just like text messages same thing. We had voice mails and But dials and recording. I mean when you say recordings I've never recorded or did anybody. I wanted to make a very clear I have never recorded The President I've never recorded any of these. These recordings were done By partner you go from an and they were sent to me and I found them on my I cloud account when I was searching through it. So it's not like I recorded. Anybody have recordings news of personally me. I do have Text messages I have here but dials plenty of dials. When I say recordings that Ruth sent me and he has several different conversations on their when he's not realizing it that he held me like for one minute? One Minute Twenty minutes they big names You could say that again but would you. Is it fair to say that that you believe the most significant material is material. You have already publicly discussed or Or released I think that's fair to say yes and I I think it's fair to say and the big question is really. Can we somehow manage to have a fair trial where the evidence comes out. It's heard by both sides. Witnesses across examined under oath about that evidence that a photo taken reports just bundy. Thank you very much thank you. We'll be right back. Hey Kristen ludlow and I'm candace Parker her we've got a new podcast properly called low and parker on our show you'll hear our takes on the NBA league that we both eat sleep and breathe every day listening in. On one of the League's most plugged invoices in Kristen and not to mention getting the perspective from a two-time WNBA MVP and one of the most decorated athletes to ever play the game and candice. Landis we talked to some of our friends from around the game pop culture and more search for Lebanon Parker and subscribe today once upon a time. This was the news. The Earth is flat devil Israel and that is everything that we know exactly reckless semi dark ages a miracle Workers Anthology CICI's at ten thirty thirty nine thirty central on TBS impeachment trial coverage continues. Turn things over now to Chris. Cuomo Chris are you interested in learning how enterprise scale companies drive organic traffic traffic to increase their online visibility than download. The voices of search podcast from the heart of Silicon Valley Research Metrics Inc CEO Jordan. Kuni delivers livers actionable insights into how data to navigate. The ever changing landscape of Google Apple Amazon the voices of search podcast arm search engine marketers owners and business analysts with the latest news and insights. They need to navigate the ever changing landscape of search engine optimization and content. Are you ready to learn. I use search data defined strategic insights about your competition and your industry as a whole then search for voices of search wherever you download your guests. That's three simple simple words voices of search to learn the secrets of search engine and content marketing.

president President President Barack Obama Ambassador Bolton United States Senate Hunter Biden Senator Ukraine White House CNN White House Professor Dershowitz Mitt Romney vice president attorney US Senate Senator Rand Paul Donald Trump
Ep. 6 - The Bolton Bombshell

Verdict with Ted Cruz

27:53 min | 1 year ago

Ep. 6 - The Bolton Bombshell

"What a day John? Bolton throws impeachment into chaos president trump's legal team comes out swinging on their first full day of arguments. And the senator of this very podcast drives at least one journalist completely Awa- this verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. Thank you so much to all of the listeners. Who have kept this show at the top of the charts again now into our second week? What a big day? It started as a crazy day before the impeachment trial even began Dan because of a leak from the new memoir of John Bolton the former national security adviser leaked to the New York Times and it alleges that President President trump tied Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Biden's quid pro quo. He's guilty as charged. Isn't that right well. Today was a a big and consequential day and yeah you're right. It started off crazy. We all had off yesterday. So I flew home with home with my family. Then came back to DC at the crack Don walked into the capital capital. The press was going nuts they were in a total tizzy. The New York Times had broken the story that Bolton says there was a quid pro quo and I got to say when I sat down on it at lunch today before we started the trial that were a lot of Republican senators. Who Feel a little rattled by it? I mean it. It was designed to shake people up in it in and it had a little bit of that effect. I'm actually somewhat surprised that this shook up Republican senators because the story itself made all of these headlines of big splash and and yet it seems to me just reading about it and especially given our previous conversations on how the quid pro quo is not really a big deal. That it's a lot of sizzle and no steak. Well that's exactly right. And and and one of the most important things for people to understand. It does not matter if there was a quid pro quo or not. It does does not matter. It doesn't make a difference for the issues before the sentence. Something we talked about last week in the in in our first couple podcasts. Look quit pro. Quo Sounds scary. It's a Latin phrase. I don't know what it means. But it sounds really bad all quid pro quo means you exchange one thing for another and this is not an exaggeration every president. Yeah from George. Washington today has done quid pro quos by the hundreds and foreign policy. Does it every single day so whether or not it's it's a quid. Pro Quo doesn't matter. The question is did the president commit high crimes and misdemeanors and inadequate pro. Quo Is not whether it is or not is is not the constitutional stance so then. Why is this such a big headline because that was my reaction to us at hold on? I got to talk to the senator about this last week. I can see through the headline. Why is everybody making such a big deal about the John Bolton leak? Well look part of it. Was that the defense team on Saturday. Had some fun pointing out that the evidence was contradictory victory whether it was a quid pro quo or not so. They leaned in a little bit. Saying there wasn't clear evidence there was a quid pro quo and so that let the New York Times say goodness us now. We have someone saying there was. It doesn't matter because look quid. Pro Quos Obama's Iran deal is a quid pro quo right Russia sanctions. I just passed last month sanctions on the Nord Stream. Two Russian gas pipeline blind if a company builds the pipeline they get sanctioned. That's a quid pro quo. You build the pipeline you get sanctioned you're admitting to a quid pro quo right. I and Venezuela sanctions where telling Venezuela today that Nicolas Maduro steps down from Venezuela will lift sanctions. And we do by the way carrots and sticks all the time where where I give you aid we'll impose sanctions. That's how we conduct foreign policy. So the the Bolton leak the quid pro quo news. That doesn't matter to the argument for impeachment itself and yet surely surely it matters to the impeachment trial because now we're hearing more reports that we could drag this thing out weeks and weeks and finally here from the witnesses witnesses which the Democrats have been asking for now for weeks so I think the chances of the Senate hearing witnesses and of the trial being dragged on the those chances of increased we will vote probably on Friday whether or not additional witnesses will be brought in all forty-seven Democrats will vote. Yes if four Republicans join them at fifty one republican. Ah fifty-one senators vote. Yes them we're going to have additional witness do you. Do you think that those four Republican senators will go over and now vote for the witnesses. I'm not certain about that. I think there are a couple who have been pretty clear they will. I don't know if we get to four okay and and you know one of the striking things. I don't know that I have seen to Senate meals more different than lunch today and dinner today. How how what's the difference all right so lunch today? Everyone just gotten back act. They were there. The press was all in a frenzy about John. Bolton and we're talking about Ho- gotTa have witnesses quid pro quo not sure what pro quiz and then we ahead this afternoon where. The trump defense team finally got to put on their arguments and their evidence. And listen as you know. I have been begging them. I am put on systematically clearly the evidence of Burri SMA and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden all of the evidence of corruption. That's what matters that the central question in this trial is whether a president can investigate corruption. And the answer to that is obviously. Yes if they're real and credible allegations Sion's of corruption with hunter and Joe Biden embarrassment that there was enormous evidence of corruption. We finally heard that today and by dinner time the Republican Publican senators happy. Relax read it was totally different because we just gone through several hours of the actual you'll defense in the case which finally got to be able to put on. Okay well I WANNA get into those arguments than because this was a pivotal day. We got a little preview of the trump teams arguments on Saturday but today it was the first full day last week. The Democrats make their arguments and then this week. The trump team gets to do it. It opened up with Ken. Starr who was the star of the Clinton Clinton impeachment trial back in the nineties. Then it went on to some of president trump's other lawyers toward the end you get Alan Dershowitz very famous lawyer a professor of of yours. I believe you know him. Well Me Criminal Law one. Oh One my first week in law school. I've known him to twenty five thirty years so I hate to put you on the spot because you know one of the law. Well you know multiple lawyers who who were arguing today. How did they do they did very well? This was a very good day for president trump. This was a very bad day for the Democrats. I I've got to say watching Democrats at Counsel Table When when when Pam Bondi got up so Pam Bondi is one of president? Trump's lawyers and Eric Hershman who are two of the lawyers for president trump. They both got up and they laid out the evidence of Berea SMA. The Ukrainian Natural Gas Company that was built in corruption. That was paying hundred Biden. A million bucks a year and they finally showed the tape of Joe Biden bragging about out how you want to talk about quid pro quo so on Donald Trump. The evidence is conflicting on whether there's a quid pro quo. There is some evidence that some testimony said there was was some testimony. Said there wasn't doesn't matter. Do you know the one undisputed quid pro quo in this in this entire proceeding Joe Biden. We saw it on video. Joe Biden on video. He said he told the president of Ukraine. He would block a billion dollars aid unless he fired the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating investigating Barista which was paying his one hundred two million bucks a year. And as you know Biden Lens it with with going well son of a bitch they fired. That's a quid. Pro Quo in writing not only admits to it. He brags about it. He's proud and I got to say playing that. I think the trump team did a good job laying it out. I think they walk through the evidence but but I spent a good chunk of just watching the house. Managers faces I I gotta say Adam Schiff was Ashen realize that their faces were horrified. Because because we couldn't see that I I certainly didn't see that on the east bank so you would see him kind of a smile and like puff up his chest and that sorta slumped down but the interesting thing is as they knew. This was coming. Why several days ago I said the house managers through Joe Biden under the bus because when they spent several hours hours of their presentation making the case there is zero evidence to investigate Burrito more the Biden's for corruption which is a laughable proposition? They knew due to a metaphysical certainty that today would happen. In other words they knew they knew about the son of a bitch video. Let me it's not like they're living in a cave right and they set it up. They eighteen up through. We played last week on the podcast where we're ABC S. Hundred Biden. Would you have gotten this job. Paid a million bucks a year. I if your name one one bite and he's like no I mean they knew that was coming but it was still painful but did you know that the trump team would be so aggressive. Because I going into it. I had this fear fear and we talked about it on the show that the trump team would play it. Cautious play it safe simply answer the Democrat accusations from last week and instead they got pretty aggressive aggressive. Well I I think. They heard from a lot of voices that they needed to affirmatively presents. The t the president's defense that the president is innocent and there's a reason and he's innocent India's perfectly okay and in fact. The president's got a responsibility if there's credible evidence corruption to investigate that evidence. Yeah and an and I. It was striking. You remember the first couple of days. Jerry Nadler one of the house managers. He said out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies companies. Why would trump interested in this and the screaming answer is well as far as I know? It's the only Ukrainian company company that was paying the son of the vice president. A million bucks a year and the point is not about some abstract interest in Ukrainian corruption. It's not like the president's worried about someone knocking off seven elevens in Ukraine right. This is about American corruption. This is about the prospect of a corrupt foreign company effectively. Bribing the vice president of the United States so that may not be the case. I'm not saying that happened. But there's more than enough evidence to investigate it and find out whether other did so you think that the trump team did a good argument. Ken Starr Alan Dershowitz. Everybody in the middle. I actually think that the biggest fireworks of the day were. We're not presented by the trump legal team. I think they were presented by you when you were talking to the press because during one of these breaks you had a press gaggle. You were answering their questions and speaking to them you more than anybody. That I've seen have been very aggressive on this saying that. This impeachment is about Burris MMA. It's about corruption in. Joe bought a potential attention corruption by Joe Biden in the Obama Administration. Go after that. I think you got under the presses skin so much that at one point one one of these reporters suggested throwing your nine year old daughter in jail. Do we have the clip. Basically hundred job the president. That's a crime. Then you shouldn't have of your children being present. My my children are nine and eleven. I'm sorry that you want to throw a nine year arose in prison but at this point my third grader plays basketball and softball at her school. So stop playing the nasty note. No stop playing the in that nasty Washington game attacking a nine year old. I love the jute. You kept your cool there and you kind of laughed it off. But that is pretty deranged for a reporter to say they WANNA throw your kid in jail. Well it shows it's the desperation of the press corps so trump has had a lot of consequences for America many of which have been fantastically good in terms of policy in terms of substance. One of which has been also really really good is exposing the rampant bias of media examined. Donald Trump has broken the media in their role. Right now is desperate to be the defenders of the Democrats and so I I had just finished standing up and saying today with devastating for the house managers and walking through a little bit of the evidence of corruption that was laid out. The media doesn't want to cover any this so with that guy was doing. I mean he was trying to say well everybody everybody does it. Come on your kids do it. And they're desperately okay so I got news for the media. Know everybody doesn't do this. Promise you I if there's anybody anybody else in Washington that that that has a kid making a million bucks a year from a corrupt company and that is getting favors from the vice president United States. That ain't something everybody does. Look I mean I. It's they're trying to cover it up as oh it's uncle Joe. It's no big deal. This is bad stuff. This stinks I you know one of the things. The the trump's defense fence team did today it is played from the ABC clip with Hunter Biden negate component. We still don't know by the way how much money Hunter Biden mate will we know he was driving around Hollywood and a very expensive ends of Porsche so I think he did pretty well. ABC asked him. So how much did this corrupt Ukrainian Natural Gas Company pay you while Your Dad was vice president and why while he was leading in Ukraine policy for the Obama Administration and he said well. I'm not going to tell you I don't have to be open Komodo. Do you know that nobody knows how much he was paid. We know it was at least eighty three thousand dollars a month but he's never answered that and the House. Managers have no desire to know the answer to that. Well what's so shocking to me about many of these interviews and that clip in particular is the media have been going after not just you but a lot of Republican senators and they've been assailing you'll for not being objective active and completely without an interest in this impeachment trial because you know your Republicans of course impeachment trials different than other trials right. You're you'RE GONNA have interests on both sides. The one group that is supposed to remain disinterested objective is the media and the moment you get over the target of what what this impeachment is all about. They clearly lose their minds. Well Judge Ken. Starr started the argument today and he did a very good job of pointing out so a lot of folks in the media like to say Oh. The senators are jurors. That's not in fact right. Let an anti Clinton impeachment trial A Democratic senator objected to senators being called jurors and chief justice rehnquist sustain the objection starbucks. She put it very well. The Senate is a court which means the Senate where the judges were. The jurors were deciding questions of law and fact and we're not supposed to be disconnected from the process. We the framers knew what they were doing when they handed handed it to the upper chamber of Congress. But you know what's what we do need to do is keep the focus on the actual legal question. which is whether high crimes or misdemeanors were committed? And it's why look the the fundamental answer. The reason the house managers case fails fails and the president will be acquitted is because president. It's not an impeachable offense to investigate credible evidence of corruption by the way it would have been very different if trump had said to Ukraine. Hey would you concoct some fake and bogus material on Joe Biden and fraudulently accused him of something. Look we'd have a totally different case there. But that's not what he said. All of the evidence one hundred percent of it said investigate what happened. This is bad. Baden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired. It is not an impeachable offense to investigate credible evidence of corruption. That's the issue shoe that matters and the press is going to try to change the subject. You know what this this. This Bolton bombshell today won't be the last bombshell we'll see another one one coming up later this week and actually a bunch of us on the judiciary committee who went through Cavenaugh. Yeah we were saying. We're kinda steel to this because we saw remember day after day. Hey there was another revelation by the end of it. They had him in high school like drugging people and like participating in you know all sorts of it got remember. Michael Avenue debrief briefly. The the media wanted him to be the democratic was lawyer who would go on. CNN this was during during now justice. Kavanagh's confirmation in hearings to the Supreme Court. It was the timing of every big scandal bombshell it seemed so perfectly coordinated. And that's what that's I mean. That is the big news of the day. Is this Bolton bombshell. I'm sure you're right. It won't be the last but for those of us who don't know the inner machinations how this was leaked who leaked it. WHO's GonNa leak the next one? I I guess the question all of us have is what happens next. Let's say that. Because of this bombshell from John Bolton we we now get witnesses in this trial drags on well past Saturday. Maybe for weeks and weeks. What are we going to look forward to next? So we don't know for sure tomorrow will be the last day of arguments opening arguments for the trump legal defense team. Okay so they'll start tomorrow at one o'clock go as long as they go then the next two days. We're going to have questions from senators eight hours a day for two days. We ask questions but we don't get to ask him ourselves. We write them down and the chief justice asked them for so I will say eight to the folks listening to this podcast if you have questions that you want me to ask either. The House. Managers or trump's legal defense team suggests them you. Can you can tweet them. I'm at Ted Cruz and just put Hashtag verdict and we are looking at. What's what's what's online on twitter and looking for questions that will help help focus on the issues that matter after the questions are over then at the end of the week we're gonNA vote? Upper down or additional witnesses necessary if we get fifty one senators who say yes then. Frankly it's Katie bar. The door E- if it ends up that therefore Republicans Publican's joined the Democrats and say okay. We need to hear from John Bolton. I think that's possible. I will give you some good news if that happens. I'm extremely confident. We will also hear from hundred Biden Haydn so you don't think there's a world in which they vote for witnesses but the only witness who is called is John Bolton zero zero and the Democrats terrified right about that. You Know Chuck Schumer's no no. We can't call eight hundred and you're seeing Democratic senators go nano. Don't call Hunter Biden. Look today's testimony revealed if there's one witness that it was called it should be hunter Biden because he's right at the center and remember. The issue is not Hunter Biden. I don't know the guy that looks like he's led to pretty troubled life. The question is not even about whether whether he's involved in corruption. It's about whether his father the vice president who was making the Obama Llama Administration's policy and leading it whether he was involved in corruption. And that's a question that goes right to the heart of trump's asking it to be investigated did and and I want underscore point. We said last week because it it people may not have focused on on its importance in it. It's about to become very very important. Yeah if we have witnesses which is hundred Biden is called as a witness. If we subpoena one hundred he will almost certainly plead the fifth. Almost certainly come in and say I refuse to answer answer questions and he has a right under the under the bill right. He doesn't WanNA testify and admit to committing a crime. Here's a piece almost. Nobody Dino's if he does that there is a statute that explicitly gives the Senate the power to give him testimonial immunity. Which means he he would be immune from being prosecuted for what he says in his testimony? Why does that matter? You may think gosh immunity sounds like a good thing for him. It's it's actually not because immunity means we can force him to testify because we wanna get the evidence of what your dad no. You don't want any interesting things that we heard today. So Hunter Biden had to business. Partners skied Devon Archer was also on the border Barista Yup and then John Kerry son-in-law what a coincidence or not son-in-law Stepson rather okay and his stepson when his two business partners joined the board he sent an email to the State Department that to his to his stepfather's chief of staff saying Devon and Hunter of joined the Board Abrasive. I don't know why they did this but I got nothing nothing to do with it. And he broke off doing business with them because of their poor judgment in in getting paid millions from this corrupt company you know we actually got got a mailbag questions specifically about the ability of the Senate to force a hundred nine testify and the question comes from Susan if the Senate Forces Hunter Biden to testify by granting him immunity would he also receive immunity if he perjured injured himself during the testimony. So if you'd is now so immunity does not does not immunize your from perjury and it doesn't even unites you from the underlying crimes but it does it does prevent any prosecutor from using your testimony evidence against you while the and there's a similar follow up by the way the way the statute works is the Senate Senate fifty-one. Senators vote to grant immunity. We then have to go to a Federal District Court and file that but the district court has to grant right. It's mandatory into the statute that I I feel. I've seen that nowhere in the press. Obviously I think Hunter Biden's probably sweating about that and the Democrats in the House are probably sweaty Biden sweating more. And by the way I'll tell you some of the happiest faces in that Senate we're Bernie Warren and char already present. I mean they this. This was a bad bad day for the house. Democrats case but also for Joe Biden. This was this was not pretty. So let's say president trump gets off off the hook. He is not removed from office. Matthew asks does the Fifth Amendment regarding double jeopardy attach should the Senate exonerate the president. Can the president be tried again for the same articles. I don't think we've ever seen that situation in history. So impeachment and Prosecution for criminal fence are two different matters. So yes you you can be tried separate now. You got to prove a crime you got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and amazingly enough the house managers have an alleged hd crime. It's one of the things. Actually Alan Dershowitz Professor Dershowitz at the end did a really good job walking through the constitutional history. That you can't high crimes crimes or misdemeanors requires that you prove that. The president has committed a crime on the order of treason or bribery. Because that that's what the Constitution Institution said and it and it was a very interesting. Professor Dershowitz walked through a couple of other provisions the constitution which almost no one knows who looked at this. So you know the impeachment claws ause but there are two other places where impeachment is referenced in the Constitution beyond beyond the power of impeachment of the tribe used the impeachment close just saying that the Congress has has the power to impeach the president and the Senate will conduct the trial and actually the constitution use word soul twice says the House has the sole power of impeachment and the and the Senate Senate has the sole power to try impeachment so the only times the word. Sol E is used in the constitution concerns impeachment but there to other references number one in article cool to concerns the presidency. It gives the president the power to grant pardons and reprieves for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment. So the president can't pardon right impeachment but it also says offenses against the United States which are crimes in article three of the constitution which concerns the judiciary the constitution says trial of all crimes except in cases uses of impeachment shall be by jury. Now what does that imply. Impeachment are crimes run so the House Democrats have admitted there. They are alleging crime time so this is a a unique historical situation in as much as we have the impeachment going on but when the congress impeach the president they did not accuse him of a crime. So are you saying. We're just in uncharted territory. We are it is never happened in history that president has been impeached. Without the articles nichols alleging East committed a crime and actually something can star said. That was really powerful. We have never before in history saint a president impeached on pure partisan vote. Only Democrats voted for it and and Ken Starr made a great point you know. The constitution requires for conviction to remove a president. Two thirds of the Senate impeachment was supposed to be a consensus a national census that this crosses a high threshold there. Ain't that consensus and so fighting. This is just estate. Partisan battle the way the Democrats are doing is wrong. You know the conclusion I draw from all of this is one of anxiety because we are in uncharted territory here. I think it's going to make the question time on Thursday so important so pleased to all of our listeners. Get your questions in tweets them at Ted Cruz use the Hashtag verdict verdict and we will try to get those questions asked during the impeachment trial. Then you can come back here afterwards. You know. This is an early night. It's not even midnight yet you've made it over from the capital and we we will go through all of it. Then thank you to follow up on quickly because I have been given an assignment okay. So last week you'll recall. I mentioned that I brought up with Caroline. My eleven eleven year old daughter. Yeah when we had risen to the number three podcasts in the country I called her and told her and she says dad. I really don't care so I got home Saturday night Sunday yesterday today I was home and and told caroline you know we rose from number three all the way. I thought that was Kinda trying to get my daughter to think. That's cool all at. And she said I know. And you passed Joe Rogan. And she said and Joe Rogan interviewed Robert. Downey Junior. And that's the coolest thing in the world. Carolina is obsessed with iron man and she's like if he interviewed Robert Downey Junior. I don't know how you passed him dead. I don't know how that happened. But that's really cool. That's six degrees of Kevin Kevin Bacon and I gotta say for any debt of an eleven year. Old Eat is really hard to like. Impress an eleven year old with anything so I thought it was very cool Passing Joe Rogan did it with Caroline crews and and that that made me pretty. And there's a coincidence. We passed Joe. Rogan's show with this show verdicts with Ted Cruz. Just about a day or two. After Joe Endorsed Bernie Sanders. Is that a coincidence. I look I think it's causing effect but let me say to everyone listening if you haven't subscribed and and and and signed up for this podcast going forward please do because because this We're having fun. We really appreciate it. And it looks like with everything uncertainty. I'll probably being stuck in D._C.. For quite a while now so be sure to tune back. I'm Michael Knowles. This verdict with Ted Cruz.

president President trump S. Hundred Biden Hunter Biden trump vice president Senate John Bolton senator Ted Cruz Ukraine Joe Biden Joe Biden Ken Starr prosecutor Alan Dershowitz Professor Ders John Senate Senate
Ep. 486 - The Left Loves Humanity, Hates Humans

The Michael Knowles Show

47:26 min | 1 year ago

Ep. 486 - The Left Loves Humanity, Hates Humans

"CNN's Don Lemon and to talking heads sidekick spend nearly a minute and a half of airtime laughing about how stupid they think half of Americans. Are we examine Zaman white leftists humanity but always seemed to hate actual humans then Liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz demolished house. Democrats impeachment case in a little under three minutes. Let's Liz Warren throws a Hail Mary. Hillary threatens to run again heaven for fend and drag Queens Story. Hour is coming to a public school near you. I'm Michael Knowles. And this is the Michael Null show so if you ever wondered what the mainstream media media really think of you you need to look no further than CNN's Don Lemon. I know we were always knocking the mainstream media and those left wing cable news news networks and maybe sometimes people think it's unfair. We're a little too harsh on them. We're not we're not. They hate your guts and C. N.. N.'s Don Lemon and finally admitted it in a segment. It lasted almost a minute and a half of them just laughing at trump supporters at half of America calling them rubes calling them idiots they could barely get the words out because they were laughing so hard. Here's just the first part of it. He also knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn't find Ukrainian a map. If you had the letter you and a picture of of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is an an administration defined by ignorance of the world and so that's partly him playing playing to their base and playing to their audience You know the the credulous boomer Rube Demo that backs. Donald Trump Wants to think that that doc trump's a smart one and they're all gonna lead us all right now. There's the turn right so it the very beginning Don Lemon cracks that he cracks up so much his head. He puts his head down on the desk. He just keeps laughing. He keeps laughing and the person who was speaking there. Rick Wilson is a kind of fake Republican. He is a former Republican. Strategist I who then in two thousand sixteen was so offended by trump. He worked on that independent candidate. Evan mcmullan's campaign he was colloquially referred to as the egg mcmuffin campaign rain and He ran that obviously didn't go anywhere and now he spends all his time knocking Republicans and Conservatives on CNN so it starts out he makes us thing he says it's defined by ignorance. Republicans couldn't even find Ukraine on a map. Now just a little note here. Republicans know a lot about maps. Because for instance we found Wisconsin on a map in two thousand sixteen which is why trump won. Hilary lost. I digress. He makes the point. And then Rick Wilson is going to go on but Don Lemon is the one who keeps the joke going. Don Lemon is the one who is encouraging this whole thing. And that's the real problem here. When the commentators come on when the guests come on these these talk news shows they often go a little further than the anchor does right? That's kind of their purpose there. Is they come on. And they have more personality personality they inject more opinion into it and the anchor is supposed to be there to be the anchor but on CNN. It's exactly the opposite. CNN is the one encouraging this to break breakdown. I mean Don Lemon here is breaking down and behaving in this childish way in a play for ratings. He's done this many many times and it does play for ratings in the the same way that a screaming child gets attention but in the long run. That's not the kind of attention you want. These people are not going to take you seriously ultimately that wears pretty thin so he encourages him and this is where the segment really really looks bad for CNN and really looks bad for the left and gives us a little glimpse into why the left left loves humanity and hates actual humans. Because as Don Lemon is laughing Rick Wilson thinks he's got play audience now so he puts on this southern accent. Want to show the dumb rube idiot. Trump voter who can identify nothing on a map or nothing right so he goes on with this and then the third I I watch a hot Haji. I'll umbrellas name correctly. He goes on and he he starts getting on the joke as well. The latest. With your geography and your maps and your spelling even though my wrath ear eaten yeah you're reading you know your geography known other countries. Threes all those lines on the map. All elitist nowhere Ukraine is sorry. I apologized but I blame eric. uh-huh but now. Why did you hot Ali? He's the only one of these three who actually realizes this doesn't look good of all these three knuckleheads on CNN Jehad Ali Ali is the one who after he makes this the same joke right. It's just the same joke over and over. which is that? Trump supporters are stupid. Half of America's stupid he says all I can't find anything on a map they can't spell we'll Haha has the same joke but he realizes gosh it doesn't look good if a bunch of us from CNN these media elites are going on condescending ending and making fun of half of America doesn't look so he says hey. Hey Rick started at not me okay. Rick started it. I blame rick and then he starts to move on as though they're going gonNA continue the segment but they don't even let it go there. Don Lemon finally gets it together at the end but they keep laughing. Ah Sorry hold on hold on hold and that was good. Sorry good what I needed that. Okay the funny thing about it was that it wasn't actually a good one. It was fine. I'm not saying it's it's kind of a basic joke but it's the joke right it's A. It's a chuckle joke. It's not a guffawed joke. It's not a laugh for ninety seconds joke it's Alexa Velho okay. Moving on they dragged did out so far the reason that they're laughing. This much is not because the joke is ninety seconds. Funny it's about nine seconds seconds funny. The other eighty one seconds of laughing is not because the joke. It's funny it's because of how much these guys in the media. Yeah despise conservatives despise half of America they truly do not like you you do not like half of their countrymen and they're mocking them that much because of it now at first Wahat Ali the guy on CNN the only guy on CNN who sort of understood it wasn't a great look. He doubled down so he tweeted quote. I in response to an article that said Wajahat Ali and Rick Wilson Jason and Don Lemon trash trump supporters is ignorant rubes. He said we did not going to apologize for it. Either if you're willing to believe and promote these absurd and dangerous lies well you deserve to be mocked for it. He doesn't identify what the absurd dangerous lies are but he owns it. He says yes we were mocking and trashing trump supporters as ignorant rubes. He got a lot of Chris criticism for that when that didn't work he did. What leftists always do? He played the victim so he tweeted out right away. Quote trump trump tweeted or CNN clip from two days ago. Friends are now concerned about my safety. I refuse to be intimidated and bullied by bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood whining about a harmless silly thirty second clip while endorsing trump cruel Bulgarian. Who debases everyone nothing about what he just tweeted out was is true? First of all wasn't a thirty. Second Clip was a ninety second GLIMP- but also who's worried about your safety. That's not what happened at all. That's not what happened at all. You mocked half of America America and you thought it was really really funny and then some people on twitter mocked you and you cried and you wind and you pretend that you are in physical danger. Give me a break. There are some big takeaways. He's here that the left would do well to consider but I think really helps the right understand the way that the left thinks about us but I I've got to thank our friends over at Tacoma's cowboy boots it's old man to cove cowboy. It's a new and wonderful and timely sponsor because I just launched a podcast with a certain senator from Texas. So you know no I had to get some cowboy boots to coves cowboy boots or handmade with high quality full grain. Leathers by world-class boot makers. They are built to be comfortable right out of the box. This is the biggest the thing for me. I haven't worn cowboy boots a whole lot in my life but I saw the Toco vis cataloging. I just thought they looked absolutely phenomenal. They looked so so cool. So I order or this pair I. I didn't have to break them in at all. They were just comfortable right out of the box now. They've really cool ambitious leather. So if you want you can get like ostrich leather. I think that one looks incredibly cool but all their leathers look really really great. Do what I did. Get yourself a pair of Tacoma's cowboy boots today at Tacoma's dot com slash knowles. I love it handmade really really high quality and because they're selling direct to you they can give you prices that you are not going to get in retail stores just really tremendous product. That's two coves. T. E. C. O. V. A. S. DOT COM Slash Knowles Canada L. L. E. S. two kovas dot com slash knowles. Absolutely great boots. Get yourself a pair okay. Big Takeaways here that clip from CNN. On Don Lemon show was not from last night. That's a two day old clip. So why is it only making the rounds now it. It took two days to percolate because no one watches. CNN Okay we have people. We have left wing media operatives who watch and listen to this show along with every other daily wire show along with virtually every other conservative show on the air every single day. They're watching it all the time. Why are they watching watching it? Because the conservative shows matter the conservative shows are engaging audiences. I mean again not not to toot my own horn and really the vast majority of it was Senator Ted Cruz. We launched this podcast verdict with Ted Cruz. The other day it immediately jumped to the top of the charts number number one in the country. You don't see CNN podcasts. Jumping to number one in the country because nobody's watching. CNN The only people who watch CNN or the people who are forced to do that in airports otherwise otherwise. It's a nobody at all. It just doesn't doesn't matter as much for them so finally makes the rounds and it comes out here and they doubled down on it. I mean that's support. That's so crazy to me. They realize it's not a good look but they doubled down the they had the opportunity to apologize and they didn't and then Jehad Ali when doubling down didn't work he plays as the victim and somehow when you go on national television and mock half your countrymen as a bunch of dumb idiots who are not even worth talking to because they can't even spell somehow that makes you the victim according to leftist logic because according to left-wing logic the liberal the progressive the leftist can never be the oppressor or the tyrant. It's simply not possible there. The ones trying to go toward progress. So anything they do has to be good and therefore or if there ever getting negative feedback for something they say it has to be that they are the victim. I wish Wajahat Ali would just maybe consider for a moment the alternative option sandwiches to apologize. And if you don't Wanna apologize just keep your mouth shut for two days and don't pretend that one guy on twitter being mean to you or a number of guys is on twitter being mean to you is putting you in physical danger. It's just not true. You see actually another example of this in the media it happened not specifically with regard to conservatives but it happened in the Washington Post right after the death of Coby Bryan Felicia Sonmez is a national political reporter for the Washington Post on Sunday hours after the news breaks Kobe Bryant and his daughter and seven other people were killed tragically in his helicopter crash. She tweets out an article article about Kobe. Bryant's rape case. It's headline Coby Bryan disturbing rape case the DNA evidence the accusers story and the half confession. Now this refers to a case in two thousand three Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. He was never convicted of rape. Because the woman who accused him withdrew the the charge. She refused to testify. Kobe Bryant maintained his innocence the whole time that he ended up coming to some sort of settlement and he apologized to her for what he continued to maintain. Detained was consensual. Sexual encounter. Obviously not a good. Look if you're married anyway but he he's still there's there's really no evidence here that he he raped somebody and and this is this is before his bodies even cold that this this reporter decides in the whole life of this man. She is going to go after him. For the worst accusation you could possibly put up against him. This is a theme with the Left. They've been doing this for at least two hundred fifty years. We're going to be discussing this very topic back on an upcoming episode of my prager. Show the Book Club. Because there's a whole book about this called the intellectuals but going all the way back to the first leftist ever Sean Jacques. Rousseau so the back in the eighteenth century all the way up through Karl Marx through Jumps Archer and the twentieth century. All these very prominent leftists the thing you notice about about them is the judge everybody else by those people's worst moments worst flaws they ever had and yet they never ever apply that same standard to themselves. They judge themselves by their best intentions. It they can do no wrong and it's the same on CNN. N. It's the same in the Washington Post. We'll get to that in a second. I gotTa thank our friends over at carshield. Oh my gosh. Do I wish that I had carshield about three months ago. This was before I knew about carshield before carshield came on the show and I put a lot of money into my car and my car kept on breaking down and I hi did not have the right coverage that I should have cars today the thing he got understand they are like computers on wheels. Okay it's not like the old days when you can just go out with a wrench and And fix up your car by clicking this. Do Hickey or that. I don't know I've never worked on a car in my life. But that's what my father and my uncles. Tell me you used to be able to do from electrically controlled transmissions to touch screen displays to dozens of sensors oldest tech very very expensive to fix if and when it breaks carshield old has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands for a covered repair including computers. GPS Electronics and more with carshield. You get to choose your favorite mechanic or dealership shipped to do the work and carshield takes care of the rest. I Love Them. I really really trust these guys right now. Head on over to CARSHIELD DOT COM and enter the code knowles that's Keno W. L. E. S.. Make sure you do that. Do not wait until your check. Engine light goes on. You can also car eight hundred call eight hundred a car six thousand and mentioned the Code Knowles when you call and you will save ten percents carshield dot com use. The Code Knowles save ten percent at his carshield. Dot Com Code Knowles deductible may apply. The left has been doing this all the time. If you look at the most prominent it leftists in history all the way back to Rousseau and marks and Spencer and all these guys they're always terribly cruel to the people around them or always terribly cruel to acquaintances all while professing love of humanity. They always seem to think that. Everyone's gotTa follow the rules. Accept Them Waxahachie. Ali can go on. CNN and just cruelly mock half of the country. I mean it's not even in that funny away it's one joke. It's a one note joke and then the minute anybody goes and makes a joke about him. It's the end of the world. He's in trouble double he's vulnerable. He's in physical danger. GimMe a break. They've always been doing this. Journalists like Felicia Sonmez want to judge people on the worst thing as you could possibly accuse them of but they always judge themselves on their best intentions. That's why they want to impeach trump for possibly doing for possibly belief thinking about doing what we know for a fact Joe Biden. Actually did it comes all right back to this impeachment trial in this impeachment. The House Democrats are impeaching Donald Trump. For maybe thinking about engaging in a quid pro quo and withholding Ukrainian aid in exchange exchange for a Ukraine investigation of Joe Biden. Now that didn't actually happen. We know for a fact that didn't happen. We don't offer effect. Trump was even thinking but the whole reason trump would have been been calling for that investigation in the first place is because Joe Biden actually withheld American aid threatened to withhold American aid. If Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor who is investigating gating as crook son and yet the left can say perfectly straight faced. Yeah we need to impeach trump for that but Joe Biden perfectly fine he might be our presidential nominee. They can say that they love humanity while not really hating or well not really loving humans because really they just love themselves and conservatives are pretty much the exact opposite conservatives. Don't really like humanity that much. I'm very skeptical of humanity. I think that human nature is is broken. I think it is flawed. We are never ever going to perfect it however I love actual humans a really like individuals that really like talking the actual humans. I if I can. I'd like to help them out. It's like a perfect flip. You see this president trump show this just the other day. President trump was driving up. He was in his motorcade okayed and he saw that. There were a bunch of firefighters waiting to salute him so he pulled on over and got out of his car and you consume. It's kind of a obviously a little bit hard to hear the clip. You can see any pulls rupture the secret service or completely freaking out here. And he walks up to them. They just start shaking their hands and you can hear you can hear one of the firefighters say like Oh that's so cool that's so right and he doesn't it gets back in his car and he leaves now look. Trump is a good retail politician. And it's cool that this clip went viral and it was good retail politics but you see this with trump a lot. I'm not sure that trump loves humanity all that much but but when he's talking to individual humans he really seems to like them. I mean he finds a way to like Kim Jong Hoon in North Korea. He finds a way to make friends with enemies. You know people that he would would scream at and call horrible names on the campaign trail but then they kind of get along and they can. They can be friends later. On one of the other very similar moments from Donald trump trump was getting onto marine one. He was getting onto the helicopter. And the Marines hat fell off his head and trump just casually leans down picks up the hat for him. This is a minor thing to do. I don't think trump preplanned it. I think it's part of some grand strategy. It's just the way that people interact. One of. The criticisms of trump's administration Asian is not strategic abstract and cold enough. It's too much about relationships. I think that's that's the conservative instinct. And frankly I'd much rather have an instinct in politics of really liking engaging with individual people even if it messes up your theories than an instinct to love humanity in theory and hate them in real life now. Speaking of president trump the impeachment trial still underway. His legal team is still making their arguments. We heard from Ken. The Star we heard from his other lawyer Pam Bondi we heard from a bunch of the trump team lawyers. I think one of the lawyers working for trump's legal eagle team. Alan Dershowitz may be better than anyone. Shot down the Democrats impeachment case in about three minutes and Alan Dershowitz who has been on my my show and He's been on other shows that I've guest hosted you know I mean He. He goes on the media a whole lot. I think part part of the reason why he was so able to ticky late. This case is one. Because he's very media savvy and to because he's actually been the professor for many of the senators who were in that chamber or you know he's a very well known Harvard law professor. He's got a relationship with these senators including Senator Ted Cruz. WHO's hosting the PODCAST that I'm co hosting verdict? He gets up there and in three or four minutes shoots down the whole thing. I he shot down this idea that John Bolton's book Doc. Leak is a bombshell yesterday. We heard that the former national security advisor for trump John Bolton in his book accused trump of engaging in a quid. Ed Pro quo throw impeachment. Chaos Alan Dershowitz gets up there and makes the point. No one else had made which is not to dispute the L. alleged claims and John Bolton's book but actually just to get up there and say. Hey even if everything John Bolton said is true it's still is not an impeachable offense demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective in politically malleable phrase abuse of power as a constitutionally permissible criteria criteria for the removal of a president. Now it follows it follows from this that if a president any president were to have done with the Times Times reported about the context of the Bolton manuscript that would not constitute an impeachable offense. Let me repeat nothing. In the Bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abusive power or an impeachable offense that is clear from the history that is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit. Thank you thank you for saying that. The reason that this leak came out right now right before. The Republican senators are going to a vote on whether or not to require more witnesses to testify impeachment potentially dragging this whole impeachment farce out for weeks and weeks rather other than letting it just die on Friday or Saturday. The reason it happened now is because the Democrats failed they failed to get trump. They failed to get trump on Russia. They failed to get trump on his taxes. They failed to get trump on stormy daniels they try. They failed to get trump on Ukraine. The way they had a whole house investigation of Ukraine they had three potential impeachment articles vague abuse of power vague obstruction destruction of Congress and bribery. They had one actual crime. They were accusing him of. They dropped that article because they knew they didn't have him so now now they're just trying to grasp any straw can and wait for the most convenient moment to set these leaks to try to pretend like it's a big deal with Alan Dershowitz says is not a big deal even if this is true and we don't know if it's true even if it is still not an impeachable offense then what Professor Dershowitz does very well is just dismantle the whole argument. Because he showed that if we adopt the house is new standard for impeachment which is basically if House Democrats. Don't like the cut of your Jib. You're gone how that would have caused many many American presidents to be impeached all the way back to George Washington. We'll get to that in a second. I I think our friends at rock auto. You know I said that I I really wished I had heard of some of my sponsors back when my car just broke down months ago rock auto is one of them. That could save me a whole lot of money and fortunately can save me a lot of money right now. ROCK AUTO DOT COM a family business that has been serving auto parts customers humor's online for twenty years which means they've been serving autoparts customers online pretty much since there's been an online okay you can go to rock auto dot com. You can shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers and they've got everything they've got engine control modules brake parts to tail lamps Motorola L- even new carpet it for everything whether g classic Carson Daley drive you can get all of it in a few easy clicks. Now what I love about. It is when I go to to an actual like brick and mortar auto parts store. They never have my part what they do is they. They go online. They probably go to ROCCO DOT COM. And then they get it in and then they charge me a whole lot of money but when I go to Rocco Dot Com. Even I don't know anything about cars. I can easily navigate advocate. I can find exactly the parts that I need and then you can do that too so right now. HEAD OVER TO ROCK AUTO DOT COM include the the word Knowles Canada W L E S in there. How did you hear about US box so that they know we sent you you will always get reliably low prices? These are great guys family. The business to work with and so easy to NAVIGATE ROCCO DOT COM right in Knowles Canada. W Les and there. How did you hear about box so very important? That professor Dershowitz knocks down the John Bolton argument especially because senators like Mitt Romney Susan Collins the squishy ear Republican senators. They've been using the Bolton bombshell as an excuse to try to drag out impeachment and Dershowitz says. There's really no a reason to do that. You don't like the president then. He knocks down the houses entire argument their entire new standard for impeachment by showing the chaos. Hey us that it would have wrought in American politics all the way back to George Washington. I will now give you a list of presidents who in our history have have been accused of abusing their power who would be subject to impeachment under house managers view of the Constitution George Washington refusal to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty John Adams signing and enforcing the alienist edition laws. Thomas Jefferson purchasing using Louisiana without congressional authorization. I'll go on John Quincy Adams Martin. Van Burn John Tyler Arbitrary Despotic and corrupt use of the veto power. Doc James Polk here I quote Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln accused poke of abusing his power of his office contemptuously disregarding the Constitution usurping the role of Congress agresson assuming the role of dictator. He didn't seek to impeach him just saw the defeat. Him Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln was accused of abusing his power for suspending suspending. The writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War President Grant Grover Cleveland William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt. William Taft Woodrow Wilson Franklin Glenn Roosevelt. Harry Truman Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan quote concerning Iran. Contra he goes on goes on more presidents even after or that they would all have been subject to impeachment if we adopted this new fantasy of the constitutional requirement that the House Democrats are coming up with. Now I've been saying this since the very beginning of impeachment. You know there are some conservatives out there who say that. We don't use impeachment enough that actually truly the House of Representatives should impeach more presidents. They should take more power back into the house. I don't want that. I think that's a terrible idea. I don't think that we need to give more more power to the legislature. I think we've given a lot of power to the legislature and frankly the legislatures given a lot of that power away we cannot. We should not get into a situation where the president is serving at the pleasure of the House of Representatives. Some of the greatest presidents perhaps all of the greatest presidents in American history would have have been thrown out of office because of that. We must have order in this country. You know the argument that some conservatives make for using impeachment more is that it gives us more. Liberty House of Representatives has more accountable to the American people because they're elected every two years. They know their districts and so therefore before we should give more power to them. That's not a real kind of liberty you know the only way that we can enjoy the blessings of liberty as we call them is if we have a stable government. You don't get to enjoy blessings of liberty if you don't have a stable government and if you get into a situation where we're just impeaching every president the minute that a different party gets into the House of Representatives. If you get in there to that situation you are not going to have any kind of stability whatsoever now. Now speaking of the presidency and we have a lot of twenty twenty news to get do but first while the pro-abortion activists are shouting their abortions on national TV and referring to pre-born babies as parasites recites pro-lifers are fighting back. All of us here at the daily wire have spoken out for life last year. Ben Shapiro addressed a crowd of one hundred thousand at the march for life in Washington. DC WE are advertisers as a result of those actions were targeted by left-wing fake media. Watchdogs operatives and we lost a lot of revenue from that. This is a constant battle to protect pro-life advocacy from the forces of abortion. Other group that has experienced live action. Live action is one of the most important voices in the pro-life Life Movement. They have helped to expose planned. Parenthood and other abortion clinics for the horrific crimes they commit pro-abortion activists targeted live action and censored them on social media platforms. When they don't succeed kicking them off all together that's why our daily wire members are so important? Your membership helps keep our cameras on. It keeps microphones anchor. Phones turned up. Even when the left is pressuring our sponsors. You can keep the pro-life message from being canceled from now until January thirty first a portion of any daily daily wire dot com membership will be donated to live action with the Promo Code. Live action so head on over to daily wire dot com sign up and make your voice heard heard head over to daily wire dot com. We'll be right back with a lot more all right twenty twenty News Elizabeth. Warren is is probably coming to the end of the line. Here poor old Leioa just not gonNa make it over the finish line if the polls are to be believed and I think Liz Warren knows that too. She knows her campaign campaign is in serious trouble. She's way down in Iowa. She's way down in the Hampshire if she pulls an upset then she's back in the race but if she really gets clobbered in both those states. It's hard to see how she comes. Comes back especially New Hampshire which is right in her backyard right near Massachusetts so this could be the end. Liz Worn is throwing a hail Mary here. She's pretending that she has already ready won the nomination and she is launching an ad directly against Donald Trump. He grew up in a mansion in New York City. She grew up appear in Oklahoma. He got millions from his DAD's real estate empire. Her Dad ended up a janitor. He scammed students at his for profit. School she got Debts forgiven for students. who were scam? When someone shows you who they are believe them? Trump's life taught him how to get rich on the backs of others. Elizabeth Elizabeth Warren. We'll be a president who works for you. I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. So this would be a desperate play regardless of how the actual actual content of the ad turned out. But how tone deaf to make the thesis of the Ad when someone shows you who they are believed them. Okay well is Elizabeth Warren a Cherokee who submits recipes for how. Oh no she's a liar and a fraud to end the whitest woman in America who pretended to be a minority for decades to advance her own career at the expense of Minorities When Elizabeth Warren tells you that her kid goes to public school. Don't believe her because she's lying to you when Elizabeth Warren Dell's your she was fired for being pregnant as a teacher. Don't believe her because she lied about that too. Oh and she lies about just about everything. It's a really pathetic ad campaigns. Do this when they get to the end of the line when they need to throw a hail Mary. So what they'll they'll do is pretend to be very confident you know. You'll see candidates start running ads against the general election opponent. You'll see them talking about their cabinet that they're gonNA fill or they're running made or the and you do it because you need something you need any momentum to try to stave off what is usually the inevitable and it would seem to be inevitable for Elizabeth Warren. Nobody's happier about that than Hillary Clinton who I think would probably have to go get Liz Warren Epstein if Warren became the first female President President instead of Hillary so Hillary Clinton is making the rounds. Right now she's promoting a documentary about herself for favorite subject and she is attacking Bernie Sanders. She's saying you know she's trying to downplay the attacks on Bernie a little bit. But she's still getting them in there and interviews. She's saying initially she said. Nobody likes Bernie Zander and he's never accomplished anything in his life. Now she's just saying I think it's important to look at somebody's record and look at what they've gotten done and see whether you agree with them or not and then of course the question comes to her. Is She going to run for office and she cannot possibly quill for urge to be president. I know that you're not running. But do you ever feel the urge that like. I could beat him if I were or I wish I I certainly feel the urge because I I feel like the two thousand sixteen election was really an odd an odd time and add outcome and the more we learn the more that seems to be the case. But I'm going to support the people who are running now and do everything I can to help elect the Democratic nominee classic. Ask Hillary she's implying here. Not so subtly that. The two thousand sixteen election was rigged and illegitimate what she means by odd and she says the more we learn them the otter it seems which is just not true initially they said that trump conspired with Russia to steal the election and that was completely disproven by two and a half year. Thirty two million dollar investigation that you and I paid for anyway. I digress. The reason that Hillary is able to get these kind of hints in. She's able talk about how she really wants to run for president now the reason that reporters are even asking her about it is because the Democratic field is so weak. Because they don't really have anybody Elizabeth Warren who once considered a bright star in this field is really fading. She's fading in the polls. She's fading in the minds of the elites who were promoting her on television vision and elsewhere so she's thrown the hail Marys Pete Buddha judge he's also dropping in the polls. He's not doing very well. We spoke yesterday about how he's really not ready for prime time. Now it's coming down to Bernie and Biden and Biden the house. Democrats pretty much threw him under the bus the other day during the impeachment trial. It's Biden just doesn't have what it takes Biden's eyeball all is exploding. This teeth are falling out on the debate. Stage doesn't really set you up and that's that's before you even look at his record. Which is pretty unimpressive? He's run for president twice lost. Both Times was one time. Had to drop out for being a plagiarist and a liar. So that leaves Bernie Sanders who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Nearly eighty years old videos of him singing communist folk songs with the RUSSKIES shirtless willing vodka in the Soviet Union. So they're really in a terrible spot and Hillary Clinton is a fairly attractive candidate in this spot now. We're all hoping that she runs because it would be so so incredibly funny to beat her again but unfortunately finally I think she knows that that ship has sailed as well onto the culture beyond the politics onto the culture and maybe back into the politics then drag Queens Queens story hour is coming to a public school near you. Those of us who pay attention to the culture predicted this. We told told you it would happen. We were told that we were being hysterical. That with a ridiculous argument. It's just a couple of libraries. It's not going to schools. It's going to schools tells the left wingers and the squishy right-wingers initially said this is no big deal. Some people even said that drag Queen Story we our which is this phenomenon of drag Queens working for little toddlers at libraries. They call it a blessing of liberty. Don't know what kind of blessing the thing that would be. But that's what they said. More tradition minded conservatives knew that was bs that is never how the culture works it never stays contained and it always spreads the leftist culture. War always starts from a position of individual rights and privacy. So what would they usually begin with his. They say. Hey what people do behind closed doors. That's none of your business okay. What people do in their own bedrooms? That's none of your business. Then the private quickly becomes the public all of a sudden. Hey what people do in their local library. That's not your business. Hey what people do in all the libraries and San Francisco s money your business. Hey what people do in states all around the country. That's none of Your Business Pretty soon. It's the whole culture. The private becomes public. The left left told us this in the nineteen sixties. One of the slogans of the feminists in particular but many of the left wing radicals in the sixties was. The personal is political. Which means at the private is the public? What is private and personal to me is actually a political statement and that is politics can be fought because that will affect what we do in public? So that's what happened with with so-called gay rights right it turned quickly from an acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality which was the argument in the nineties and the two thousands into you fundamentally redefining marriage. And if you don't accept this radical redefinition of marriage your big it. You could lose your job. You could be excluded from public life. Life happened with transgender ideology. Initially it was. Hey be nice to people be nice to men who wear dresses. I don't think anyone disagreed with that. All of a sudden it became came. Abolishing same-sex bathrooms abolishing the girls locker room. Little girls have to change next two grown men now very quickly. Same thing is happening with drag queen in story our same exact formula. The left proposes a radical change conservatives point to the slippery slope than the left mocks us for talking about the slippery slope and before you know it not five minutes later we are way way down that slippery slope were exactly where we said that we would be drag Queen Story our starts in San Francisco in two thousand fifteen gene starts because a queer author. self-described I'm not using any sort of epithets. Michelle tea organized the first drag Queen Story our in San Francisco so now drag Queens story hour on its website boasts of forty five independently operated chapters across the US New York Washington Chicago many any other cities. Now it's leaving the libraries and it's entering schools entering schools all the way up to twelfth grade and all the way back to pre pre K. earlier than kindergarten one teacher who's had drag Queen Story our in his school said quote Drag Queen Story Story. Our gave my first raiders a fun and Interactive Platform to talk and think about social and emotional issues like acceptance being yourself and loving who you are not necessarily a bad thing. I think he goes on. During our debrief students were preaching the incredible lessons they had learned like it's okay to be different. Okay depends on what we mean by different. It's not okay to the evil. It's not okay to punch your classmate that'd be different but it's okay to certainly be a different color be different sex be different personality pretty sure okay and the teacher goes on. There's no such thing as boy and girl things no such thing now. Well that's a little bit different. There's no what do you mean. There's no such. You're saying there's no such thing as boys and girls then if there's no such thing as things that pertain to boys and girls. And there's no such thing as is boys and girls that's pretty radical stuff. It's both untrue and psychologically potentially very very damaging to kids we're three and four years old and that is the agenda of drag Queens story our as I and many others have been telling you for months now as the left and end the squishy conservatives were mocking US beyond the drag Queen Story. Here's a lesson. A lesson plan from a public school in Brooklyn just reported in the New York Post. This is from from pre K. Preschool at PS fifty eight quote. Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind everyone. Everyone gets to choose if they are a boy or a girl. Were both. Were neither or something else. That's from a lesson plan at a public school in in Brooklyn now the usual conservative responds here is not enough because the the ears the usual conservative response at at least in the kind of libertarian. Conservative culture we live in the left pushes a radical agenda and then conservatives rather than pushing back retreat into their own private spheres so for instance the left pushes this radical agenda into the public schools. And what are conservatives do do they duke get out on. The field of the public school know they retreat into private school where they retreat into homeschool the private school home school movement. Great thing all for it but you also have to fight the actual battle that's being waged. which is in the public schools? If you don't then the left simply dominates the culture often conservatives are fond of saying politics is downstream of culture which is true however politics also affects wchs culture. Politics has a big effect on our culture. Look at how economic policies can affect culture. We see that we saw the Soviet Union. We see this after Ronald Reagan liberalized the the economic policies in the United States we had flourishing we had thriving so listen the great society the economic policies in the nineteen sixties and seventies wrought crazy effects all over the culture. It is not enough to say. Hey Hey conservatives can just private school they can just go to home school. Do you know how many students are home schooled in America one point six million. That's cool. I mean good for them glad. Hopefully they're are getting good education. Glad that people have more control over their own kids education. Only one point six million. You're not going to private school. Five point eight million Ryan. It's good it's more obviously more than go go to home school still five point eight million. Do you know how many students go to public school in the United States. More than fifty million one point six five point eight fifty you million so if conservatives if all we do is a retreat into our own little culture into our own little institutions and seed all the big institutions institutions to the left. The that will be the fastest way to lose the culture and it's been our strategy for at least fifty sixty years now and it hasn't worked out well and the left's argument is BS anyway. Here's how you can fight the argument. The PRO dragway in story our type. People say that we need to let dragging story our into the public schools because that's just neutral you know that's just exposing students to new ideas and we want students to be exposed to all sorts of ideas. We don't teach them what to think. We teach them how to think which is a completely meaningless statement and bs you cannot teach someone without teaching them what to think you cannot teach history without teaching people what to think about history you can present different arguments but ultimately one of those arguments is going to be more persuasive than the other. You can't teach people mathematics without teaching them what what to think about mathematics. You can't teach people language without teaching them what to think about language okay. They start from that premise. It's just neutral. Just let that idea in. Okay well what do you think they would say if you suggested teaching the Bible in schools or if you suggested opening school each day with a prayer rare as we did throughout the United States until about sixty years ago do you think they would say Oh of course. Well Yeah because we have this neutral ground and absolutely we want all these is ideas. We don't want to limit any buddies exposure to ideas. I mean especially the Bible which is the single most important book ever written and without which you can't understand anything else in our culture do you think. Do you think they would say that. I don't think they would say that. I think they would do as they've done for fifty sixty years and get both of those things straight out of the public schools. Their argument is disingenuous. The key here is that liberalism is not neutral. We need to fight back and stop seating these institutions Russian's and arguments to the left. The left does not have your best interests at heart. They might prattling on about how much they love humanity. But they don't seem to care very much for actual humans and you and your children are the actual humans who could be harmed by this leftist culture. If we don't fight back we're just GONNA find ourselves further and further and further down that slippery slope. I don't have to see there. That's our show. We got a lot more to get to. But you know we'll get to it tomorrow. We'll also get to it later on tonight on on the number one podcast in America verdict with Ted Cruz which I have the wonderful opportunity to co host. So we'll see there. We'll see you back here tomorrow. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles. Well show if you enjoyed this episode and frankly even if you didn't don't forget forget to subscribe and if you want to help spread the word please give us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple podcasts. spotify and wherever wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out the other daily wire podcasts. Including the Ben Shapiro. Show the Andrew Klavan show and the Matt Walsh show the Michael Knowles show is produced by Ben Davies Director. Mike joyner executive producer. Jeremy Boring senior producer. Jonathan Hey supervising producers snapface glover and Robert Stirling Technical Producer Austin Stevens Assistant Director Pavel Wisneski editor and associate producer. Danny D'Amico audio audio mixer. Robin Henderson hair and makeup just over production assistance McKenna waters and Ryan love. The Michael Knowles show is a daily wire production copyright daily Wire Two thousand twenty. If you prefer facts over feelings aren't offended by the brutal truth and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle. Well tune into the Ben Shapiro. Show we'll we'll get a whole lot of that and much more see their.

Donald Trump CNN president Don Lemon America Liz Warren Professor Dershowitz Michael Knowles Jehad Ali Ali Ukraine Senator Ted Cruz Hillary Clinton Joe Biden Tacoma John Bolton House of Representatives Ben Shapiro twitter Washington Post
20200230 Nicole Sandler Show - Impeachment Questions Day 2 and it's Thursday with Howie Klein

The Nicole Sandler Show

1:01:43 hr | 1 year ago

20200230 Nicole Sandler Show - Impeachment Questions Day 2 and it's Thursday with Howie Klein

"The following program contains graphic material including offensive language. Your discretion is advised. The Nicole Sandler DOC questioning authority daily. That could be very reason why you do is upset. Hey you do the music venue here beneath my boys from broadcast sound library that I pay for an Hamlin receipts so that your toppy right violation right here and now here's Nicole. Oh Man oh man oh man so so here we are. It's Day two of the question and answer session of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump yesterday today when we came on the air. We told you that Mitch. McConnell had announced to his conference that they didn't have the votes to To stop witnesses from testifying. I don't know that that's The case anymore I I'm feeling a bit dejected and depressed we're we're GONNA get to the Qa going on today in a moment. I don't know about you I could use some funny this. I'm GONNA play for you a video that I pulled pulled off of twitter last week and I just haven't had a chance to play before you yet. It got pulled off of twitter because of a copyright violation relation. Go figure I have no idea what they were operating. It was put together by a guy. Oh shoot I forgot his twitter handle. It's like not real elmo or something like that so you can guess yes it is Elmo and he's got a few things to say about Donald Trump and the impeachment. So we'll do this. Yes I apologize for those of you listening audio only singing is not the best but listen to the words because there's meaning behind them all right here we go. Let's talk about on. No cystic fibrosis. Assis- without how Bossa and Gordon Pompilio to I in terms of so desperate so call your call tribes John Lewis. Starting all your burn. He goes to bed lie. How `bout now find that server to love and take it and take ranking member? A bad transcript Okay so it ends loops. It ends rather suddenly I just I give the Guy Credit because the lyrics were great. The the singing was off but it was Elmo what you expect anyway. Hope you got a little giggle out of that. I hope your I see okay so here we are. I'm I mean I'm going to bring up the the the audio how. It cuts Thursday. Howie Klein will be here in just a little while at the bottom of the hour I do want to because what's going on is history in the making and So let me share with you. we'll bring up some of the QNA for now. Hopefully they'll do like they did yesterday and take a break around the bottom of the hour at which time we'll bring on Howie Klein but let's get to what they're saying now just because it's such a shit storm in two thousand. Eighteen real wages have gone up by eight percent for the low income. We're question is does. The president have the best interests of America and his citizens in Mind Ryan ridiculous questions so it's propaganda I'm not. I don't even know who this is. Obviously one of trump's lawyers. I am not going to. I'm not going to Torture you with that so while this this guy is talking whoever he is. I don't know Let me share with you. A couple of things that have happened today. We know the impeachment trial. Donald Trump entered this new phase yesterday. A senators began questioning trump's legal team in house managers mostly about the allegation. That trump withheld support in aid due to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Joe Biden. And his son hunter in what was probably the most surreal argument of the entire trial. So far Alan Dershowitz remember Alan Dershowitz is the guy who represented. OJ Simpson represented GE- Epstein what's his name Epstein and You know probably Had his way with a lot of teenage girls at Epstein's scenes behest this guy. Donald trump has arguing his case. But okay so you keep put that aside for a moment Alan on Dershowitz said that the president could basically do anything even trade military aid for political favors to help him win reelection as long as he thought that getting reelected was in the national interest and it wouldn't be impeachable. Here's a sample of hold on. Let me move this over here. what here's a little bit of of Dershowitz is Argument which was was quite. Why am I having? I'm having. I'm having computer issues. I'm not supposed to have computer issues. This is the new flawless computer. All right so here's a little bit did of d'oro you know what now. I think the Democrats are coming up again. I'll bring it back up when the Democrats talk And I will turn it off when when they're are you know when they're filibustering when the Republicans are lying to us and what you know what while we're waiting for the next question. Let me play for you. Just the thirty seconds of. Here's Alan Dershowitz. Basically saying that the president can do anything that would be anything to win reelection. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest Haley. You're an official in the public interest and if a president and does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid rid. Pro Quo that results in impeachment. So Alan Dershowitz goes on the floor of the US Senate during the impeachment trial of the president to basically say what Nixon said was right at my sound clip flip if the president does. It doesn't means it's not illegal. I don't know why that clip is missing all right Let's go back to the the trial because jerrold Nadler speaking now. Let's let's hear what this is about. We have voted to impeach the president for among other things article. Two of the impeachment is total defiance science of House subpoenas and the president announced in advance. I will defy all the subpoenas. What does this mean? It means no information to Congress. It means a claim. Aim of Minorca dictatorial power. If Congress has no information it cannot act if the president can define he can dispute certain specific acidic claims you can claim privilege etcetera but to defy categorically all subpoenas to announce in advance. You're going to do that and to do. It is to say that that Congress has no power at all only executive has power. That's why article two is impeaching him for abusive Congress. Yeah that's swipe for much lesser degree of offense Richard. Nixon was impeached for abuse of Congress for the same Defiance of any attempt to buy the Congress to investigate but this is and what are the consequences the consequences if this is to be To get away with it. Is it any subpoenaed. You vote in the future any information from any future president. Maybe denied you absolutely absolutely no excuses. None announced in advance of the Filo. The subpoenas eviscerates Congress and Establishes Department the Executive Department is a total dictatorship Asia. That's the consequences. That is now talk about the motives. The motives are clearly dictatorial. But I want to also take appoint since the floor to answer a question comment and a question that Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski yesterday and they asked about the question of mixed motives. What if how do you define? How do you deal with a with a with a deed with President who may have a corrupt emotiv and a fine motive and teddy deal with it? Yeah and Professor Dershowitz said well you have to look at the you have to mix you have to weigh the cat balances. Nonsense Anson's nonsense. We never in American law look at decent motives if you can prove a corrupt motive. If I am offered a bribe and I accept the bribe now for corrupt motives. I will not be hurt in defense to say. Oh I would would vote for the bill anyway. It was a good bill. You don't inquire into other Modi's maybe you had good motives but once the corrupt motive and the corrupt act was established tablist. There is no comparison. All of this is just nonsense to point away from the fact that the president has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt defenders. Don't even bother really to defend. They just come out with distractions. He's been proven beyond a reasonable to have abused abuses power by violating the law yet to withhold military aid from a foreign country to extort that country into helping his reelection campaign by slandering his opponent. Hello corrupt no question. No question violation of the law. No question factually no question. They don't even make real attempt to deny everything's distraction and the One chief distraction is once you prove a corrupt act. That's it you never measure your degree of maybe decent motives to Professor Dershowitz and talking about that in talking about the absolute power of the presidency residency was absent to American law or any kind of worse than you think. Yes he was. Thank you Mr Manager. What's up nats? Let's senator from Georgia. I sent a question to the desk for the President's council on behalf of myself senator earn some center rolling. Thank you we may. We may cut away from this one all right so now this whole process talk about wasting time for some reason they have the senator say. I'm sending a question Da. Then they have to walk the question down from the seats to the chief. Justice says who then reads the question the question from Senator Purdue Ernst and Barosso A re For for the president is follows. Please summarise the House of Representatives three stage investigation and how the president was denied due process stage. But what I reject the premise of the question because the president was not denied due process at all the the the lies that they're telling by way of these questions are so frustrating. So here's what I WANNA do. I WANNA go back to I played for you Before we were interrupted Bipolar Nadler. I played for you. A little bit of Dershowitz is bullshit statement yesterday that basically the president can do anything anything he wants to do if it's in the service trying to trying to paraphrase. This is difficult because it's such bullshit if it's as long as it's in the service of getting him reelected because it's in the public's interest seriously so here's what I tried to play before you're able to do this moving things around on my computer here. So Alan Dershowitz was arguing the Richard Nixon argument when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. That's exactly by definition exactly again again. Here's what Dershowitz said. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly. You're right. Your election is in the public interest and if a president in your mind 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. Okay so Adam Schiff thankfully responded and and by the way Adam Schiff is doing most of the talking today which is a good thing. Because he's the most he's the best I ask it of of the seven on the House manager side. Here's how he responded a little bit of how he responded to Alan Dershowitz ridiculous argument legitimate reasons. You might saying to a governor of a state. Hey Governor of a state you should chip and more towards your own disaster relief but if the president's real motive in depriving state of disaster relief is because that governor won't get his Attorney General to investigate the presence political rival. Are we ready to say that. The president can sacrifice the interests of the people of that state or in the case of Med venue of the people of our country because all pro quos are fine. It's carte blanche. Is that really what we're prepared to say With respect to this president's conduct or the next because if we are then the next person I states can ask for an infection investigation of view. Yup they can ask for help and their next election from any foreign power power and there are relayed. Donald trump was acquitted for doing exactly the same thing therefore it must not be impeachable. Now bear in mind that efforts to cheat and election are always going to be in proximity to an election. And 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 so all could pros are not the same some are legitimate and some are corrupt. And you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which for one thing you can ask Sean Bulletin. Oh for one thing you can ask John Bolton. Yeah you can and so here. We are so that was a clip from yesterday. Adam Schiff responding to Alan Dershowitz. I which is ridiculous assertion basically that the president can do anything in service of getting reelected because he believes it's in the best best interests of the nation. Are you fucking kidding me. This guy is a Harvard law professor Harvard. You need to do some house cleaning. The man on is sick in the head. They're arguing. Everything is this is opposite world. We're in opposite world and we see the republic crumbling before for our eyes. I my stomach is a not thinking about where this is heading. It's sickening by the way then Alan Dershowitz hearing all the the you know the the the criticism he's getting he says the media twisted my words. Well it's hard to twist your words when it's aired their aired live live MSNBC CNN C. Span to name a few all carried it live. We heard exactly what Alan Dershowitz Ashort said. There was no misconstruing. We heard what he said. Today he's trying to walk it back. So he says one thing on the floor of the Senate and another thing in interviews afterwards. It's it doesn't work that way a wait a minute. I guess it does because we are in this weird nether world where in his out and up up is down and nothing fucking makes sense so yesterday the chief justice blocked question from rand. The Paul in which he named the alleged whistle blower who's complained about trump's call with Ukrainian president prompted this entire investigation to begin in with so rand. Paul was warned. Don't go there. Guess what he did today he did it again he. He presented a question John. Roberts I said. I'm not reading that question so that happened all right. Here's another question coming up. Here's John Roberts. The hold on aid to Ukraine was meant to be kept up secret until the president could gather internal US government information on Ukraine corruption and European cost-sharing. Then is there any any documentary. Evidence of this for example. Is there any evidence that the president was briefed on those issues by the NFC dod the State Department during the period of the hold in the summer of two thousand nineteen or any evidence that he requested specific information on on anti corruption reform measures in Ukraine prior to releasing the aid on September eleven. Twenty nineteen did the president or any changes to administration policy to address corruption in Ukraine or burden-sharing with our European allies. Of course not because this had nothing to do with corruption in Ukraine. It all it had to do with was donald trump wanting to smear joe biden wanting to have the new president president of Ukraine's Alinsky said they saying they opened an investigation into that question. Here's let's just take a moment and it's not Adam Schefter Jeff responsible for the Democrats. This is Jason have looked like because yes we've already established as President's Council has conceited and we've as conceited as is this does happen right. There is a legitimate policy process for review and for determination on hold because there is indeed legitimate policy reasons to hold eight. We've never said the corruption is not one of those or burden-sharing wouldn't be one of those. What we're saying is is there is no evidence that what we are talking about today that the president was concerned or engage that process? So what would normally happen is Congress would come together as we did. We passed appropriations bills made a determination. That funding was appropriate for the eighth which eighty seven members of the Senate did this past year the president would then rely on the advice of government experts parts from the National Security Council the Department of Defense the State Department and the Office of Management and budget regarding that aid. That's the interagency process. We've talked so much about the inner agency process that we went through earlier last year and at the conclusion of that interagency process it was determined termine that it had met all the conditions for the aid and all the agencies determined that it should go forward the president would then seek permission from Congress city intended to would normally. If there was a reason the president would go back and seek permission from Congress to hold the aid so let me repeat that if there were a a reason to hold it. The president and president trump has done this. They need to go back to Adam. Schiff President Obama and prior presidents would go back to Congress Congress under predisposed processes and make sure that they're not violating the impoundment control act and seek permission to hold it. That did not happen happen. Congress within weigh in on the request by either approving or denying the president's request and then unless Congress specifically approved the president's request the aid must be made available. Of course none of that happened. In this instance a hold was put in place. We don't know exactly when because the president now they don't question yesterday that that the Republicans couldn't answer the question in fact the only one within the United States government who apparently only knows why that hold was put into place is President's council who tried to tell us last night why he thinks the whole was put into place but nobody else knows. So yes yes the answer is if there was a legitimate policy process put in place. There will be a lot of information about burden-sharing about corruption option but any of the other concerns which we have no evidence and if burden-sharing to the last point of the question was a concern sern then the person who should have been asked to discuss those concerns with the EU and our European partners would have been ambassador Sunland because he is the United States Ambassador to the European Union and not once once the president trump ambassador sunland and say discuss these issues with the EU and the European saying they need to provide more. The money not once did that happen. Didn't wasn't wasn't the real concern. There you go. All the evidence shows the president withheld tax payer money foreign aid to our partner at war to coerce them to start a political investigation to benefit his twenty twenty twenty election campaign. That is what the evidence shows. And that's why we are still here and there is one person that can provide additional information on that embassador Bolton. Oh Oh yes yes still a good time. It's ready to go figure both Mr Manager. He will testify MR chief jets. Oh God it from Holland's send a question to the desk gumby myself and senators crepeau rent blunt and and Ruby Up. Oh okay this should be interesting so now it's going to take thirty seconds to walk the Damn Question from Susan Collins Desk Up to Chief Justice John Roberts so he you can read it but I guess. The reason is apparent in the rand. Paul thing. Because I'm Paul had been allowed to read his question. He would've out Senator Collins and the other senators senators from both parties. Are there legitimate circumstances under which a president could request a foreign country to investigate investigate a US citizen including a political rival who who is not under investigation by the US government. No if so what are they and how do they apply to the present case. Good question and I so. So they are asking this of both sides so each side gets two and a half minutes to answer the question in the house. Managers go first and it looks like Adam Schiff as back. Good Chief Justice Senator it would be hard for me to contemplate onto play circumstances where that would be appropriate. We'll be appropriate for the president United States to seek a political investigation of an opponent. One of the most important post Watergate reforms was to divorce decisions about specific cases specific prosecutions from from the White House to the Justice Department to build a wall. A one of the many wall blew lover of this presidency is that wall has been obliterated where the president has this affirmatively aggressively sought to investigate his rivals. I cannot conceive of circumstances where that is appropriate It may be appropriate for the Justice Department acting independently and in good faith to initiate investigation process for doing that. We heard testimony about that. You can make AAC requests under the mutual legal systems tree the process when a foreign country has evidence involving a criminal case involving A. US person. There is as a legitimate way to do that. That didn't happen here. In fact when bill bars name was first revealed when that transcript was brought to light the the Justice Department immediately said we have nothing to do with this. We have nothing to do with this Here this particular domestic political Aaron was being done by the president's personal lawyer lawyer. I wanted to just follow up also while I can send Haris comments in terms of mixed motives if you conclude the president acted with mixed next motives some of them corrupt. Forbidden some legitimate. You should vote to convict. That principle is deeply rooted in our legal tradition. It is commonplace in civil and criminal. Komo law going back. Centuries for example in describing the standard for Krupp motive of obstruction the seventh circuit rejected any requirement that defendants only or even main purpose was to obstruct the due administration of Justice Insert the instead the court explained. Defendant is guilty if his motives included any any corrupt forbidden goals that case United States. We quit toe which I cited earlier is not only relevant here but that that case was argued by Professor Dershowitz he lost and made the argument. He's made in the presence worship made today they lost that case and for good reason. It's contrary contrary to the history or legal traditions if someone and this is the founders were concerned for example that president might be charged with bribing members of the Electoral College. Now has times up all right so I actually want to hear the Republicans answer to this question. The question was is there any reason a president should ever forgo to a foreign entity to get dirt on a political opponent. This this guy's going to Michigan State Senators. Thank you for the question. Every time they sit. Thank you for joining. The questions assumes that there is a request for an investigation into foreign of the United States person there was just just like to bring it back though forget it transcript never mind. I'm not even gonNA listen because it wasn't a transcript of the phone call. It was a memo about the phone call and I'm not can listen to a him. Lie It is. Today is Thursday that it's a day that we is talk with Howie Klein so this is going on. We'll go back to it if necessary Just so you know this is going to go on all day and probably late into the night. What's GonNa a happen here? Let me see if I can get this for you. If I if I can find my notes on it before how he comes on A AH IF I can find it No I can't find my notes but basically what's going to happen is this is going to go all day they're gonNA FINISH THEIR QA one A.. And then tomorrow they move into here. It is They'll move into well. Okay the debate over whether they should call witnesses actually early tomorrow is going to go really late. I don't know how late it's GonNa go today. I guess we'll find out sorry. I'm a bit discombobulated because this is also disconcerting. It's it's we're watching our republic be demolished. We're watching it Be dismantled oh piece by piece by these Republicans who put party ambition over the constitution over the country. And it's really you know. Look you know if you've been listening to this program for a while you know I went through a really rough time after after trump was elected or after he took office I guess is the more accurate way to put it and it took everything in me to sort sort of scratch and claw my way back to some semblance of sanity. I'm not saying I'm fine. I it's it's I take day-today our to our and my psyche is pretty fragile. And I'm not alone. There are millions of people in the same boat. I'm in and now watching this all unravel the way has it's all coming back so I'm doing my best to hold my shit together but I really fear for what what will happen tomorrow onward anyway with that. I don't know about you but I could actually use use a dirty debbie right about now are multi-national corporation. Hungry for a treat will come on down. The schmucky Jackie's where you will personally be seated by. I took uber himself so many dishes. And they're all fresh. You'RE GONNA love our Blue Dome special the Dino `but because we say so good hamburger during French fries and every burger comes with a side order of grits. I love grits. I love anything with corn. It's Corn Oh for only fifty thousand awesome dollars. Wash it all down with dirty Debbie nine tenth ward or one tenth oranges after a week or two. You drink this two hundred calories in it's a scenic and wipe your mouth out with a tissue print of glass steagle for Dessert Dryer. DNC tarts who cookies tell the quality of that most restaurants give you a mid. But at Schmucky Jackie's you get complimentary sweet and low. Who picks up the TAB for all this find out now with Howie Klein Down with tyranny dot com on the Nicole Sandler show? Oh my goodness. Hi Howie Klein alone Nicole. Are you watching this stuff. Are you watching the the the the question and answer sessions. I know a little bit of it last night. It's it's really frustrating. Because the the gas lighting that we've seen for the last last three years is on. I mean it's happening on the floor of the United States Senate Allen Derr she did you see any of enters yesterday. Yesterday I mean it's opposite. World he's arguing Nixon's argument well if the president does it. It's not illegal. It's it's truly. The Democrats are arguing with Republicans. said I mean it's all like so that's why I'm not watching it. It's just such bullshit that I can't take it You know You reminded me of something when When trump said During the campaign I can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue. Shoot somebody might supporters. Wouldn't wouldn't care and get away with. Yes absolutely at that time. Did we were fifty if you free. Republican senators. That agreed with that. I thought there had to be somebody with integrity even on the Republican side who would stand up and and say hold on a minute. The emperor's got no clothes and none of them are willing to do it and them blows my none of them. I mean certainly not not. I think they need four to call witnesses. They don't have that off though running around here. Everybody that witness things over the not Kony Raziq going right to the cover of tonight. That's it and the thing is they would've needed for if they could count on all the DEMOC so called Democrats sticking together and all voting in lockstep the way the Republicans do but as you have a piece up down with tyranny dot com right. Now Howie it's titled Will the Three Worst Democrats in the Senate vote to acquit trump. They want to not only would they vote to acquit trump. The first step is is to say. Now we don't need no stinking witnesses. Now I gotTa Say Doug Jones from Alabama. Who'd been making those noises did come out yesterday and said no we need to hear witnesses? How do you? I mean it's easy to ask witnesses when you're when they're not going to happen anyway so you know. That's not a real problem with Doug. Jones he's not I know or I feel that in his heart he would like to do the right thing but he's up for reelection in this. I'm not making an excuse by the way. But he's up for reelection in Alabama in November if he votes For impeachment he's out he. There's a good chance who's GONNA lose the seat however again impeachment. He's going to depress the Democratic turnout and it's not like Democrats Democrat's GonNa turn out and vote for trump. They're just not gonNA come to the to the polls to vote for him. That's what I think You know maybe he's counting on the fact that they'll come to the polls because it's a presidential presidential election so it doesn't matter but I think he'd liked unlike the other two Joe Manchin and Carson Cinema I think Joe I think the Jones would like to vote for impeachment but Dumps not not impeachment but for conviction right but he He he's just really torn up by the politics six involved. Which is why people should be thinking about doing? What's right easy enough for me to say but But they should. I'm both sides. They should be thinking about about. What's the right thing to do? What really You know why. Why should trump be impeached? That's what they should think. Is there evidence impeach this guy. That's what they should be asking themselves instead of making political calculations which is they're they're all doing Republicans and Democrats not only not only members of Congress but regular people voters are are trying to make political calculations. Well this one can win. This one can't win. Throw that all away. Hey because look at the last. Three presidential elections first of all. Nobody thought Barack Obama could win did you. I didn't I was worried. I didn't think America was is ready to elect a black man. President thankfully I was wrong. I mean thankfully but we can get into that in a minute Donald. Nobody thought he had a chance in hell. Hell of winning no way the Republicans were GonNa let him get through the nominating process. No way the American people would vote him in and and frankly. They didn't the Electoral College. But but these were the he. Didn't he won the majority. Also Donald Trump. Oh so you're talking about Obama. Sorry Donald I'm I'm talking now. I'm talking about trump. He He. He didn't win the popular vote but the electoral college elected him. So he legitimately even though we can argue the legitimacy of the Electoral College. That's the way it works here or doesn't work as the case may be but so so this whole trying to figure out who can win. It's such such bullshit. People need to just vote their hearts in the primary. Vote who you most agree with vote who you would like to see in the Oval Office in the primary. Mary deal with the General. After but in the primary you shoot for the moon you go for the your your fantasy you go for who the best person in your viewpoint would be and too. Many people are won't go there because Oh he can't win and what you're saying you can only true of of Of Presidential Elections which I know is is the context of you. Bring it up. But it's also of congressional elections. You know people do the same kind of trying to game it out Saying well I really like her. She's great but she didn't have much chance because people don't want to vote for a woman or because she's to liberal and then they vote for the conservative and there's no guarantee that conservatives GonNa win anyway so you know it's a problem both in in presidential actual races and in congressional races and that's why you should vote especially in a primary but anytime you should vote for what you really want and really believe in and and you know poll after poll after poll showing nobody wants Biden. Nobody outside of the very rich and the very Misinformed nobody wants Biden but they think well he has the best chance to win. But that's insane. I think Biden is the least electable of any any of the top Democratic candidates. Literally the least electable. I need more electable. Tulsi Gabbard but that's about it. No I agree totally I totally. I agree and I see people making qualifications somewhat old sage Joe in the chat room set out of the popular votes in in forty nine states excluding California and trump did barely when you can't exclude California California. I don't get it too. I don't understand why somebody in your chest say that okay. So what California. What's what's the what's the game? He's playing I have no idea. He's he's echoing the right wing propaganda uh-huh California is part of the United States. They deserve more than more representation in Congress in the Senate then. North Dakota who has is the same representation in the Senate with with. I don't know about a tenth of the population and I just pull that number out of thin air but you know come on no not not attempt much less right. I made basically. North Dakota has as many people as my neighborhood. That's right and you're not not exaggerating so you can't exclude California and using that argument. I'm sorry your friend of the show in the chat room but that's a bullshit argument. You're echoing going right wing talking points and it doesn't make sense. I mean I mean I don't know this guy is really is really making the argument for sake of argument. But if he's if he's speaking from a point of goodwill but what but what he is doing is making appoint for no reason. It makes no sense. I I don't know what's behind it. It just doesn't make any sense like excluding California. How about excluding Texas? I mean what is that. Well that's why I brought it up because you know don't don't do that anymore. Okay so back to back to the the piece that you have down with tyranny Howie Oh yeah about the three worst Democrat. So you mentioned Doug Jones Then of course there's Joe Manchin worse I I meant worst in general not not just worst about trump and impeachment every democrats on a on every day in every way when it comes to voting. They have the worst voting records records. Do so so Joe Manchin. We've known all along you look. He's in West Virginia. There's a question about what he can realistically do do. But he's popular in West Virginia isn't he can't turn the Democratic Party into Joe Mansion Party here there's now wow There are a lot of efforts right now to regain the Democratic Party and is a this West Virginia can't wait movement. Now which is is trying to say you know. The Democratic Party isn't what it used to be West. Virginia in our lifetimes is GONNA call not not in ancient history. But while we were cinch it shouldn't beings in in high school West Virginia was the most dependably reliably democratic State in the whole United States. I mean it was always west. Virginia Arkansas. That gave the Democrats the most votes. And now they're they're they're not even contested anymore and the Democratic Party in In West Virginia is just a Joe. Manchin vehicle that's all it is period nothing else and It's really a shame because this is a working working class state a blue you know. Basically a blue collar state and that Democrats should be winning. And they're not but they're not putting up a fight there because you don't have Democrats. You have the Joe Mansion Party right right so so that's this morning. Likely Not GonNa ever run anything again. Right you know. I don't I don't see that happening. So he can really vote his conscience. I think is conscience telling him To vote with trump. Yeah well Oh. He even said he'd although they made a very good case no they didn't. I missed much of their case until I just couldn't take it anymore. I mean I'm sorry. Ken Starr Alan Dershowitz and Pam. Bondi are you fucking kidding me. The case I don't get it. Yeah no I know I deal whatsoever. So that's Joe Manchin. The third one Kirstin cinema. Who how you've been warning about cure you've been warning warning us about for years? And the thing is she won't she's like very close left about where she stands on anything so we have no idea where she is or do we. Well well we. We know what she does. So you know. She's not species not saying what she's going to do but you look at her record and you know what she she does. So when for example when it came time to To confirm or deny William Bar every every Democrats said this is this is the worst horrible thing on the on the planet even really really conservative Democrats. This is terrible. This guy is absolutely not fit to be attorney general. He has proven himself unfit but yet carson cinema voted for him she was. I mean when you think about all of the damage. Josh that William Bar is doing now just think about Carson cinema saying yeah it'd be attorney general it it's kind of it's it's stomach turning it is returning and remember there were Democrats Real Democrats who wanted to run for that Senate seat in Arizona last cycle and Just cleared the field for her. He got rid of everybody. He told everybody that they couldn't run. Including a congressman who wanted to progressive congressman and Chuck. Schumer take your life. Your political life will be over if this that's Chuck Schumer right and now he's got this situation where he's trying to Roy. Oy seems to be trying to find trump guilty and remove him from office. And who's the first and the worst person who Who has to deal with? And it's Kirsten cinema right so we don't know on well Doug Jones says the first question is going to be voting on witnesses is tomorrow. And it's looking like you know Mitch. McConnell has the votes to say sorry no witnesses This is not a real all. The Democrats are going to vote for witnesses do you do. The Democrats will stick together on witnesses. Cory Gardner those three will then vote to acquit. Okay but cory Gardner came out yesterday and said he doesn't think we need to hear from witnesses. He's GonNa Voting Cory Gardner. Is You know you know I have a post that I finished up. And it's coming out of this evening at five Pacific Time and talked about how trump bribes people and one of the first persons. I people sorry that trump successfully bribed in the Senate Cory Gardner honor is just a little shit. It a coward politically coward. Yeah and he you know he was at first. He was testing the waters. You know when trump I got in you know maybe he should oppose trump since the state opposes. Maybe he's Colorado back them down. A few times and Cory Gardner went and hid under a chair for a year. And then reinvented rented himself as a TR- A pro-trump and that's what he is. Now he's GonNa lose his seat But he's making a calculation that trump is gonNA help them so from has trump sent out a a fundraising letter for the guy So so the way. Trump is judging. This is by this. Because we'll be talking about this in a minute. He they have a resolution that Republicans either sign onto. Don't sign onto in that resolution says there should be no witnesses and trump should be exonerated and with no witnesses. So that's an actual resolution that the Republicans have and trump has been very very clear if they signed the resolution. He will help them financially if they don't if they don't find the resolution he will not help them. Susan Collins has said she's not signing. She's getting no help from him Cory Gardner couldn't wait to knock people over to get at this. Get his name on that resolution and he got a letter fundraise you let it roll that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and trump is going around the country in doing fundraising events. Where people like David Perdue in Georgia? David do is is Very very very vulnerable. He could very well lose his seat and he's got a really great Candidate up against him. Theresa Tomlinson the former mayor of Columbus and she could beat them good. He's yeah he should lose the terrible you when I talk about. How Bad Kerstin Cinema? Joe Manchin are I mean David David Purdue as much worse right but I brought up though how I brought up Cory Gardner for a reason because we were talking about chuck. Schumer foisted wasted Kirstin cinema on us well in Colorado. It should be a no brainer to get rid of Cory Gardner but Chuck Schumer is pushing Franken. looper on us. When there's there's a perfectly good candidate that he's doing everything in his power to sabotage right in fact the candidate who's in the primary who's running against since fracking birth is Andrew Romanoff the former speaker of the house in Colorado great aggressive candidates? He'd be wonderful senator and there's no reason why he shouldn't get a fair shot but Schumer is going around telling everybody he could tell me labor unions and other groups allied relied on the Democrats. Don't do anything to help. Romanov and they're going to their Financial their financial financial supporters. And saying our friend is Franken looper not romanoff and you know I mean why not. You know didn't he ever learn. This is how this is how. Oh care since cinema got in. And he's going to do the same thing he's GonNa try to do the same thing with with Hickenlooper and it's really a shame. Hickenlooper is terrible is a really bad record. And he's a liar and he he he said it himself better than anybody that he would make a terrible senator. Now he didn't think he'd ever be running for Senate when he when he said that but he said he would not make a good senator and he was right he wouldn't make a good senator. He's not if he gets in and he's going to be you know. Be You right up there with Joe Manchin and Care Cinema as one of the worst senators there is and that's just suits Schumer. Just fine fine just fine and and there is really no question that if Romanoff got the Democratic nomination that he he would be Gardner. You know I think take a little bit. I think either one of them would but why not let the dental the Democrats in Colorado make that decision. Not Chuck Schumer. Well that's what it should be and so imagine my surprise when I get. I don't know how I got on the D. Triple C's email lists because I've never signed up for it. Every time they add me I I report them for spam. Damn unsubscribe but there was again. Two days ago I get an email from the d triple c about their red to blue campaign and how Christie. What's Christy Smith? In California's twenty fifth added to it. I'm sorry there is a big primary out there. How does the party stick their finger on the scale for any candidate in a primary? That's not their role right so it used to be the I mean. They've always been doing but it used to be they would they would sneak they. They do it in a sneaky way. They admit they were doing it. They know we ain't do that. We don't do that now. They don't even they don't even try to hide it anymore now. They just right out flat doing it. They're saying that you know this is their party. Meaning it's not our Party and they they will do what they think is best. And if you don't like it go screw yourself or as Joe Biden would say go vote for somebody else right. Send do you believe he does that. That video I just everything about what's going on is so disconcerting from this impeachment appeasement charade because you know what I agree with trump. It's a charade but for a totally different reason the way the Republicans are treating it. It is gas lighting in to the nth degree. They lie about everything they said. It's just it's so upsetting and then seeing the Democratic Party push these Republican light candidates. All around the country is what to what end. I guess they want trump to have another term. Well it just would say something to a lot of us who are progressive. That if you look at the Triple C's list just look at the red to blue program who they're supporting there. Were no progressives on it. Now there's one or two people who are not terrible but basically but no one is progressive. There's one or two okay people. Okay just okay. Yup but everyone else horrible horrible absolutely the worst crap and they're in lie Christy Smith Therein Competitive Primaries Harry and the D triple C puts his finger on the scale and it's never for progressive. It's always for a conservative. And the thing that history has taught us is that when they do that and they helped to elect these conservatives It it takes one or two midterms and they're gone literally them. That's what happened in twenty any ten the Rahm Emanuel v Triple C.. Work really hard to get all these blue dogs in new DEM's elected and every single one of them was defeated in the next midterm. Every one of them not even one state now and yet the progressives who Rahm Emanuel de triple. It didn't work for. They didn't lose this. It's it was all the conservatives that to brew the brains at The v Triple C's we'll see the only these people can win right. It isn't true people can't win. And when Democrats figure out who they are and independence for your out who they are and what they are they don't vote for them. I'm not saying they wrote for their opponents they just don't vote for them. So Republicans come to the polls vote and drove Democrats. Sit sit it out. And they're horrible incumbent Right right and and here we are again by the way for those wondering the The the question and answer session there on a short break now supposedly supposedly they'll be back in about ten minutes or so so That's going on I was just GonNa make a point totally just flew glue Outta my mind but I. I'm sure it will come back when when I'm not trying to think about it but at zone I I mentioned earlier. Obama and I started to go here yesterday and we've only got five minutes so I probably shouldn't starred but I will anyway. I really think the reason we're in this mess right now. Automate one of the main reasons is because Barack Obama had no balls. Can you imagine if if if God God forbid something happened to one of the Supreme Court justices. I'm not even going to name names because I don't want any bad Karma but something happened in Donald trump gets another NOMINEE KAMINI nominee. Can you imagine if if Chuck Schumer even if they had control if Democrats had the majority in the Senate would deny. Didn't I even a hearing for for a new nominee for trump nominee. That he would stand for it. Think back Barack Obama suffer. Asa Thank you. Don't need them to away. Oh no they dangerous on America didn't even hold hold a hearing on Miracle Orland. They held that seat open for almost a year. While Barack Obama was still president do you think Donald Trump with let the Democrats get away with that. No no Barack Obama did not fight back. He didn't stand up. He didn't fight back he he. He rolled over to the Republicans because he wanted everyone to like him. He wanted to make a grand bargain. He wanted to to be bipartisan and post part post-partisan and post racial and You know and they were never going to play ball with him. Donald trump at least is playing hardball and doesn't won't give an inch Bronco again with Joe Biden. I know I know they're not gonNA play ball with anybody but I would like someone with some balls. WHO'S GONNA stand up to them? We'd be nice wouldn't it. Yeah I just want to get into like You know thinking about how disappointing Obama was. Although I think we see I tie on that You know it could have been a lot. Worse could have been a lot better but it is what it is Kinda got shocked. Me Is people who think that he was like you know the bee's knees the president of our lifetime. Well say that's not saying much. But he really wasn't. He didn't stand up. Yes we got the affordable care act and and for that. I'm forever grateful. It's probably the only reason I'm alive today. However he didn't fight back against Mitch McConnell Mitch McConnell Donald ran over him and I really think it's because they didn't fight back that we're being rolled today by Donald Trump? Yep and and you know you. He didn't say he didn't fight back. It wasn't just not fighting back against Mitch McConnell. He didn't fight back against anything. I mean when the Democrats moved in to take out the You know what would've would've put us on the road to Medicare for the aren't again when you keep when you can buy into the public option. He said no way he gave it away. He didn't fight back against that too. He could have stopped that that could have happened. Yeah Yeah but that that and I'm just using that as an example but you know time after time after time Obama disappointed progressives who didn't really pay close attention to his record I mean he was never really a progressive he was in the state legislature later he had a record in the state legislature. He was okay. You know right in the middle a Middle Centre Democrat. Yeah when you got into the US Senate same thing right. It was right in the middle and the thing is they. The Republicans called him the most liberal senator in the Democratic Party it was bullshit and for those people who are freaking out. Well they're gonNA THEY'RE GONNA go Bernie Sanders Socialists. And the Social Democrats doesn't matter whom you run run a right wing Democrat would call them the most liberal in the history they'll call Joe Biden a socialist. They'll say l.. Say the same things about him as the say about Bernie Sanders. It doesn't matter same things no question about it because it's what they do that's right that's the only way. No yeah but but but the whole smear campaign is on because Bernie is now surging in the polls so not only has the right jumped on him but the Democratic Party. The party elders are all over his shit. Here it's history repeating itself yet again. Absolutely they're running. ADS slandering Bernie everywhere fortunately it's not working You know I mean it's not working with Democrats and let's hope it doesn't work with independents and Republicans but they are They're they're now slandering Bernie smearing him every Ev- you know spending you. I mean there's already been one SUPERPAC already. Put seven hundred thousand dollars into primary states. Just lying Bet Bernie and trying to paint him into something. That's an other. Yeah I am not one of us. He's an other. Yes yes exactly. And they're doing it again just when you thought. Maybe they learned a lesson from what happened in two thousand. He's sixteen no they didn't and Michael Bloomberg who turns out of both sides of his mouth and said in one breath. Oh if I don't win the primary I will all put my whole machine behind whoever the candidate as I'll spend a billion dollars to defeat Donald trump and then behind closed doors. He says I'm really in this to keep Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination really yet. Really God so screwed Howie Klein any any words of wisdom to get us. I'm really worried about tomorrow. I think tomorrow is going to be one of the darkest days in American history. How do we get through this? Is President Okay all right. Well we can. We can fantasize for a while longer about ten months or so anyway. Howie Klein as always thank you? So much fine. How at down with tyranny DOT COM and support the candidates that he's endorsed at Blue America? Thanks Howie Talk to you next week next week by and tomorrow just so you know tomorrow we are. I've been trying to get Eliana stall all back on the program. He's if you're not following him on twitter he's been live tweeting these hearings that the the the trial the impeachment trial and he's amazing and now he's writing full-time time for the nation. LMS Doll is a national gem. He I believe is going to join us at some point tomorrow. I'm Lisa Graves. who was the chief counsel for that? Senate Senate Judiciary Committee. This is her thing. She's had a throat infection and it has been on bedrest and voice rest for over week now so she hasn't been able to talk. I think the doctor last night cleared her. She also will join us tomorrow. We may do an extended show tomorrow. We may come on like an hour early. So Yeah just letting you know we just might so come. Check out the Youtube Channel and extreme early because we've got a lot of territory to cover all right with that we're done. I don't think the Senate is back yet. They will be shortly. Yeah so I will say goodbye. I and I'll see you tomorrow. Heads up everyone. Call Your senators to two four three one. Two one two zero two two two four three three one to one tell them we need witnesses. Not that it's going to do any good at this point but call them anyway because they're not getting enough phone calls all right with that. I'll see you tomorrow. Everyone thanks for listening. Good Luck Brad. Friedman says good luck world.

president Donald Trump Democrats US Senate Schiff President Obama senator Professor Dershowitz Joe Biden Congress Joe Manchin US Mitch McConnell Mitch McConnel Mitch McConnell Senator Collins Democratic Party Chuck Schumer Howie Klein Richard Nixon Alan Dershowitz Ashort America
The Impeachment Non-Trial with Elie Honig

Words Matter

51:17 min | 1 year ago

The Impeachment Non-Trial with Elie Honig

"Welcome to words matter with Katie. Barlow and Joe Lockhart welcome to words matter. I'm Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said had everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts. Words have power and words have consequences. Our guest is a former state and federal prosecutor with extensive experience leading and managing criminal trials and appeals us as a state prosecutor New Jersey and a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York l. e. haunting directed major criminal cases against street gangs drug trafficking organizations illegal firearm traffickers corrupt public officials child predators and white collar. Criminals Elliott also serves who says a rutgers university. Scholar is a CNN legal analyst as featured on cross exam a staple at CNN on the weekend Elian welcome looking back towards matter. Glad to be here. We have much to discuss. Yes so it's all over now in the sense of the trial. I don't know that it's all over. Intense of the political fallout. How do you think the house managers did in their case? What did they? Where did they score? And where did they miss. So overall I have to say I'm not just impressed but really in awe of the job that the house managers to date this back to the beginning of the House investigation first of all to pull together the case that they pulled together on such short timeframe a complex case with they had subpoena power but it was largely elite defied with very limited subpoena power and to still put together a case that I think was understandable and compelling the way they did it was remarkable and with respect to the performance during the trial and to some extent this goes for the trump's lawyers as well to some extent and carve out some exceptions but I thought the quality of the lawyering wearing an advocacy especially over the. Qa portion was remarkable the thoughtfulness the precision of the responses the preparedness. Nobody got caught off guard the level of rhetoric. I thought it was really persuasive. Now Look Adam. Schiff is obviously gifted attorneys gifted at this this is a perfect perfect setting for him. I thought came Jeffries and And Representative Crow. Were really good. I thought vow demings. She's the only one who's not a lawyer. But I thought that she was effective as well and Sylvia Garcia was good Nadler. I don't think is very good just in terms of the presentation on the other side. Let's put aside for a second these shading of truth and that kind of thing but I thought Philbin got once he got. His bearings was really effective impressive as well and simple loan to a lesser extensible and was a little bit looser with the truth. And then you have your whole other category for the sideshows which I'm sure we'll get to that. They're Schuetzen. Ken Starr's worked disasters. We'll get to that. This is very different than a trial. That's in any court state federal appellate where there are definitive rules. Rules of evidence of what's Germain and telling the truth. It was my sense that if there was a judge in the room. Several of the White House defense lawyers would be held in contempt. Talk about that. Yeah one of the things that was so different about this his trial from a normal criminal trial. It's just the flow in the rhythm because when you're doing a criminal trial there is a very natural back and forth. You almost never get an uninterrupted interrupted platform Generally speaking you'll have openings. One side goes then. It'll go an hour. Then the other side goes then. Call your witnesses. Its examination cross examination and warrior even doing your examinations or or your jury addresses. You're getting objected to so there's a constant check on you as a real trial case as a lawyer. If you say something that's a little bit outside the record if you say something that's not been properly admitted in evidence even if you don't sometimes other side just wants to throw you off. There's a constant I guess I would say natural check on everything that's being said in a criminal trial here. It was three days uninterrupted for each side. I mean that boggled my mind is is a trial lawyer. There was no objection. There was no objection. Your honor that's not in the record of objection. misstates the testimony so Yeah I think I think by and large. It's hard to think of anything to me off the top of my head that the house managers said or did that was out of bounds or or really pushed the boundaries of truth Bruce but there were some examples coming from the defense team. For example. I mean early onset Malone said well. Republicans weren't allowed in the skiff. Obvious Sustainment and I think that hurt his credibility but even some of the ways that the facts are argued later the can for example the continued insistence Ukraine. Didn't know there's tons of evidence yet. They knew so they stepped a little bit farther over line and there was no way to check them. Yeah I mean I think the best examples how they treated Victor Shokhin the corrupt prosecutor later they they continued to say that he was investigating Burris MMA right in fact the opposite was true right so this is where and it will be the crux of our conversation station here politics and legal theory and legal practice merge but LEMme throw one more at you Monday morning quarterbacking order backing Is there something. The house managers could have done differently in constructing the articles and making the argument in holding ending them. Not Holding them all of those things. That would have made a difference to things that I can think of. First of all I think the number one thing that they'll be second guessed on. This is what we do now. It's a little hard for me to second. Guess because there's a little bit of an ethic with prosecutors of they're the ones who are in the battlefield but look the the big one is should they have charged crimes alleged crimes in in the articles of impeachment. They could have done so with two little or no cost they they still should have led with abuse of power as they did constitutionally usually you can impeach for abuse of power but they could have either had subsections within abuse of power saying we alleged abuse of power including but not limited to the following a bribery. Be The extortion. See for an election or they could have gone for separate articles of impeachment for each of those crimes or one of those crimes and I think the reason they did not do that is early on in this whole process. People were really having a hard time with the concept of quid pro quo and I think the calculation was. Let's not get get pulled into the weeds of arguing over legal concepts elements of crimes like quid pro quo corrupt exchange. We don't want this to look like a jury instruction instruction where the order to find Article One. You must find the following three elements I think they wanted to keep it high level. In general the problem though is is a couple of things one it opened up this whole argument to what Donald trump aptly called impeachment light. I don't mean it's an APP phrase but I mean sometimes he has a good turn of phrase that I think resonates with people and I think the idea of impeachment light and then look a lot of the debate that we saw at the trial was about the fact that there's no crime here and we know that's not really the law but does it resonate resonate with people and it opened the door to this Dershowitz. The defense of the abuse of power as alleged is not impeachable which we saw a lot of Republicans then take shelter Tur- under including in their vote for no witness so I think that's one big tactical decision that was made the other one is in an ideal world where time wasn't a factor after the house could have gone to court to enforce it subpoenas and this goes to article to the obstruction of Congress. One of the main objections from Republicans. And I think with with some with some heft to it. was you serve subpoenas. We didn't we believe they were effective legally defective but you never took us the cord on it and and so you just jumped right to impeachment and I would have taken away that argument be maybe they would have gotten some of this evidence. Maybe if they fought for Bolton we would have heard from Bolton under oath and same with Mulvaney lenience in with pumping oil. I think they would have won in the courts but the practical the practical problem is they just didn't have time and we saw Jerry now. They're get strung out for months on this and I think that shift didn't WANNA go down the same path so because Katie Wasn't able to join us this weekend. Because we've seen sort of the back and forth house managers manager's time and White House time we're GonNa do something a little bit different here today which I'm going to yield the floor. Now you're now the The prosecutor like yield to the gentleman yield. What's I just healed for? The Guy does yield to the guy across from me and I will have to answer your questions. Okay number number one. Was this whole incident. A plus or minus for Joe Biden in terms of twenty twenty prospects. Let me answer that two ways. Is it going to be yes. And No No I think the answer is Will certainly no better once people caucus in Iowa. And because of the way podcasts work. Some people download this the day after but my my view is it's a net plus us for a couple of reasons one is we live in a tribal society whether it's your political party your religion your ethnicity and it's Democrats are And this goes for Republicans to Democrats are okay with other Democrats criticizing them but they're not okay with Republican rate getting being into their business and I think this all started and came out at a time where Biden was floundering and there was some prospect of Kinda falling off the map. And I think there's been a little bit of a rallying around the second and more important thing is Democrats are enraged and they're enraged enraged by the fact that Donald Trump has not been held accountable and that raises the stakes in this election and it moves away from do I idealogical. We believe in candidate a versus candidate B to the point of the only thing that matters is feeding Donald Trump right and I think that helps Joe Biden widen. I don't know that that helps Joe Biden in Iowa which is a unique place. And maybe even New Hampshire but it will definitely I think over the long run boost his candidacy so so net plus the second way I look at this is is I look at it. From Trump's point of view in some ways trump got exactly exactly what he wanted. He wanted to smear Joe Biden. He wanted the crane needs to do it form. They wouldn't they were willing to do it. He just happened to get caught. Then any got The United States Senate to do it and he he got what he wanted but he's painted enormous price for the idea. That impeachment will rally people people around him. I don't think he'll say this. The people who support have always supported them. They didn't go anywhere but I don't see independence and conservative. Have Democrats looking at the entire process. Particularly with the way the cover up was engineered as saying. Yeah I'M GONNA rally round my president right now so idly like in the real estate business. He got the building that he wanted but he's so overpaid for it and make collapses entire Empire uh-huh well that leads perfectly into my next question. What do you see for the Republicans in the future like? Let's let's think post trump whether it's twenty twenty or twenty four. And how do you see that party going. And who you see. Sort of emerging as the leader of that party. I have for some time thought that the Republican Party was the equivalent dead man. Walking it had major challenges facing demographic point of view the people under thirty five I think very differently than people over thirty five in this country. And that's really bad. News for the Republicans given their ideological base. And I hate to say EH. The people over thirty five Are Going to get older and die and the people under thirty five. We're GONNA get older and be alive and that's that's bad news for both. Yeah we're worse news for me but there you go so I think that was already a challenge. In the Republican Party felt that and they were faced with the choice a moderating their point of views modernizing the party particularly on social issues. Things like gay marriage things like climate. Where young young people have very very strong views it is a tolerant generation and a future oriented generation or they could hang on for dear life to some of the things that sustain them and that's were trump comes in? There was an interesting explanation. I heard the other day that if you think of Republicans Republicans like an endangered species. What happens as a species? Begets appointment. Danger is they either evolve and survive. who talk or they cling so hard to the things that have gotten them where they are they become extinct and I think that's what's going on with the Republican Party so post trump? The really interesting thing to look at is not what's going on in this election. It's what's going on in the next election and you already. We have Nikki. Haley and Mike Pompeo who particularly Nikki Haley. We could have gone the more moderate modern road. She's a young woman who may differences with trump known when she was at the UN and both her in POMPEII. Oh have gone all Liane on. I'm more trumpy than trump. And that tells you that the instincts of survival have taken hold within the Republican Party and and this evolutionary theory applies to politics. It will lead them to be an endangered species. I think if you will twenty years out you're going to have to political critical parties because we're set up as a two and one of them is going to look like what I'd call. The Joe Biden Democratic Party. That will be the Conservative Party and one of them will look quake the Bernie Sanders. AFC party which will be akin to Democratic Socialism. That's where the country's going it's not there now by And I I don't believe Bernie Sanders can get elected because of that because we're not there yet but we will go from being a center right country to a centre-left country and and if you WanNa look for some good news in what's happened over the last three. That's good news because a progressive agenda is much better for average Americans than a conservative agenda. I was GONNA ask you if you were retained by the RNC as a consultant. What would your prescription be? But I think you I think you kind of answered it right there in terms of moving the party ahead for you know for next phases. There were there was a time in which the Democratic Party could not win a national election. Shen Jimmy Carter won a national election because of the Nixon pardon. The Nixon fallout Democrats didn't win again again. It's all nine hundred ninety two and that was because Bill Clinton as a charismatic figure pulled the Democratic Party back towards the middle and made the Democratic Party electable Republicans. Need that kind of person. The problem is is we were just talking about is the charismatic figures in the Party. And I think Nikki Haley is one one and I think as much as Mike pompeo makes me WANNA pull my hair out has real skills as a politician. They're going in the other direction they're going in the direction you know of the the Dodo bird that could have survived but took the wrong path. And now it's tanked. I just compared my compared with Doto. I like it works. What do you see as the impact of this impeachment process? We just went through on some of the down ballot races including the Senate races coming up. Who Do you see as endangered? What do you see happening to the balance of power in the Senate in particular? Yeah that's a really good question. I think if I'd make one prediction out of what happened last last week is I still don't know whether Donald Trump can get reelected or not. It's an open question in my mind. I think as of today the Democrats will retake the Senate. Well I think Susan Collins will lose news. I think Cory Gardner will lose. I think Martha mcsally who I will lose and one other. I don't know who it is I will lose and I think the Democrats will hold their. It's Doug Jones being probably the most vulnerable but Republicans are deciding between the damage. Jeff sessions down there and a pedophile. So let me let me just build off of that answer one of the questions. I get a lot if the Democrats turned the Senate in two thousand twenty could they re impeach Donald Trump and the the short answer to me is legally sure but politically no way and by the way that was a common answer. I think that that I gave to a lot of questions that came up in this impeachment. Legally sure but politically and practically. It'll never fly the one thing that you can say about Donald Trump is. You never know what's going to be the cliffhanger hangar at the end of his reality season. What's the episode one of season? Four or five. I wouldn't rule anything out. He is broken so many malls and if he went I obviously. I don't think there'll be an impeachment. another impeachment before Election Day but if more information and comes out and there are other more serious violations of his oath of office I wouldn't rule it out really. Could you see Pelosi. Green lighting another impeachment of him. It depends what he does. Some of this is there will be a lot of pundits who'll say policy. We'll have his putting her tail between her wag sort of drifting off and this was a failure. I don't think she thinks she failed. I think she's sick. She believes she succeeded and I agree with her. This is about a very simple concept politically. which is our leaders accountable? Our leaders above the law does absolute power absolutely corrupt. She's she's on the right side of all of those questions so I wouldn't. I wouldn't put back. Let me turn it back on you the way can I just has one Pelosi thing because you and I had a lot of discussions about Pelosi and the pattern has always been I say. Why is she doing? This makes no sense and you say she knows what she's doing it turns out it works for but has she really been pushed by that sort of greater good because one thing that is hard for me to get my mind around us. How she she wanted to kill the muller impeachment right? I think we agree on. She did not believe that it was the right move either politically critically or in terms of her constitutional duty or otherwise to impeach based on the Muller reports. She was obviously trying to slowly. Take it away from Nadler and let it go away until this transcript came out. So what changed. Did it just become that. She had no choice. That something else changed. No I think there was a fundamental change in this for better or worse my evolution on all these issues happens to have been documented in the New York Times Over and over again. But I think and again I have not talked to her about this so but I think our thinking is very similar because of the way. Bill Bar mischaracterized the Muller report and because of Bob mowers unwillingness to take a position on almost anything beyond this happened. This happened this kind of there. There wasn't a sense among a lot of Democrats including Nancy Pelosi. I'm not trying to put us on the same level but we agreed. That impeachment wasn't the right political move. What changed is is very simple thing and that Friday night when atom shift came out and did that late night press conference it changed instantly in my mind once I knew what he was talking about more was about something that had already happened? It was two thousand sixteen as much as I believe particularly the wikileaks stuff could have turned the election. You could just as easily argue that James Comey turned the election or you could just disease. You can't win. That argument in the legal slash political world Ukraine was about the next election. This was about the president. Has It took shift a little while to get to this. But when he finally did you heard it over again is about the prisoner cheating right. This is about the president trying trying to rig the next election in his own favor and using our government and our taxpayer dollars to do it. That left Democrats. I believe with no choice to stand there and say. Hey don't worry about it. We'll just wait to. The election was not an option. My guess is she decided it as quickly as most. Oh so that people in the caucus did because remember a good section of the caucus didn't WanNa do it with just more and it was an avalanche once this came out of of members in her caucus. That wanted to do this so it is as simple as not really getting the past which politically I think. Would've I've been neutral at bass negative at worst to debating where we are going as a country so I think she was in the right place before Ukraine and in the right place after Ukraine so let me put my prosecutor hat back on God talk about the legal implications going forward. Our president's going forward going to take the view article two now supersedes Article One and that congressional oversight is neutered and a whether it's trump or its president haley or president cory booker or whomever it is. They've just decided that what happened last week. With the vote settled the separation of powers debate in this country I think one of the long lasting impacts of what we just went through who is that. The balance of power has shifted. I think the executive branch is stronger now than it was and probably will remain stronger for the next the generation and I think Congress has been weakened and we can sort of run through the ways but a lot of the checks on the presidency. I think have been compromised or lower first of all impeachment itself. Now Look We. We know prior patriots are not necessarily binding precedent. But just boil it down. If this is an impeachable what is we can all think of. Worse scenario is worse outrageous scenarios taking a bag of cash from Ukrainians to influence policy or something but as realistic realistic scenarios. Go it's hard to think of a more. Obviously impeachable and removable conduct than this so that that is one important thing but yes. The subpoena battle is really important here. And we don't have all the answers yet because Congress served a whole slew of subpoenas over on the the executive branch the executive branch said you can pound sand on all of them across the board. That's unprecedented no present including Richard. Nixon has ever just said no to everything everything. Nixon said you get some of it. You don't get others and he still got impeached for obstruction of Congress and a weird wrinkle here is we're not going to get resolution the only case it's actually Lee wending. Its way through the courts right now is Don mcgann. And that's that's not even executive privilege at this weird absolute immunity argument which I believe is it failed and disaccord. I think it's GONNA to fail all the way but that was always a fringy extremist theory that presidents had never really actually exerted in court anyway. But if you're put try to put yourself in the shoes of the next president whatever party and let's say Congress Senate or House controlled by the other party digs into you. Why would you comply with any subpoena and and there's no ultimately where this will be corrected is in the courts but we're not gonNA get anything or not? We're not going to get much in the courts because the Democrats never did go to the court really on the bulk of these cases now I will say one thing. The Republican attorneys did well or may have just been fortuitous. Is Leveraged the political political timeline versus the legal time line. If you didn't have political considerations if you didn't have to worry about twenty twenty election and primary and you're running the show for Democrats you go so we're going to take six months more to investigate this. We're going to go to court. We're GONNA FIGHT FOR BOLTON WE'RE GONNA fight for Mulvaney. We're going to fight for those documents. I you would take a year more. You're but you can't as a practical matter because you've got the twenty twenty election looming and I think as a result. We have some bad loans bad precedent. Now it's GonNa take years and years to undo. Yeah the irony of all of the Republican complaints. About how rush they were in the houses. They did the trial ten days. Let's put that aside talk about what I thought was. How's jaw-dropping mind boggling? Crazy wego theory. Alan Dershowitz Hobo. So first of all I have to say. I used to put into get into Professor Dershowitz his class every semester. They had a lottery system for it and I never got in. I was Oh for six semesters of getting into his class and and boy do I regret that now He was an embarrassment and he was. I think really made a fool of himself both in the way he contradicts terms himself. Sure from nineteen ninety eight to now. He's contradicted himself while the he used to say you don't need a crime turned around. I'm trying to keep up with the many turns of Alan Dershowitz and and now he says there has to be a crime but he was turning himself around day by day throughout this process at one point he said well. I've studied my opposition and I realized I more right now than I was. Then I mean what. It's almost like like a stand up. Comedian came up with that line but his his last salvo was this idea that ah it can't be an impeachable quid. Pro Quo an impeachable exchange as long as the president has some intent. Some good intent with good intent being. I need to win this election. Because I'm the best person for the job I mean that is a nutso standard. I'll tell you how you can tell he cites nothing. Nothing and nobody Alan. Dershowitz has been studying this stuff for his whole career for decades and decades. There's no end on the number of scholars and Practitioners Titian IRS. Who can be studied Dershowitz cites from the book of Durhush? And that's it that's chapter and verse and there's real hard what he did to. It's not just offensive to watch what he did. You don't just go. Oh He's wrong. The problem is he provided cover for for Republicans but a special kind of cover not just is cover to vote not guilty but covered vote. No on witnesses because his theory was perfectly tailored to allow the Republican senators to say well. The professor says even if the worst alleged is true even if John Bolton comes in and testifies to the worst of Donald Trump's imagination Asian. It's not impeachable. And all they needed was a thin little hook and they gotta he gave it to him. Yeah and he played a pretty cynical game just by being there he. He sold himself as someone who was not in trump's campaign he did not care about the facts and he was a constitutional scour our when in fact he's a defense attorney. I mean he said over and over. I don't represent Donald Trump. I represent the constitution. First of all get over yourself at dickey's second of all the guy wrote a book called the Case Against Against Impeaching Donald Trump in twenty eighteen before any Ukraine thing happened. That is a ridiculously Self aggrandize position to take think he alienated a Lotta people but look I think people in trump's can't seem as a hero he came in and did he lent his name and he let the weight of his own background reputation and even to an extent. Harvard law school to this theory that I think helped trump he was gonna get acquitted and in all likelihood either way but even dodge witnesses one of the things that struck me when President Clinton went through Impeachment was. He had two sets of wires. He had his own private lawyers. Who represented the president as a human being a person? And then he had his White House counsel who represented the presidency and they were very different and they often often at odds on strategy on how to make the argument so much so that Charles. Ruff the president's White House counsel refused the show President Clinton his opening statement. I in fact he called me into his office the night before. Said I want to show you this. The opening statement. I want you to look at it as a non lawyer and and see if there's anything that jumps out said I'm not gonNA show it to you unless you promise you won't tell the president and I promise that I saw it in this trial. There didn't seem to be any distinction action. It seemed like everybody there. No one was representing the presidency. They were just representing Donald Trump. The person it's a great point to make and so people understand pats at Bologna and Charles. Roth held the same position. They were White House. Counsel when you're White House counsel your client is not Donald John Trump or William Jefferson. Clinton your client is the presidency. The institution of the presidency and some people did not play simple is out there like an attack dog and there's no regard for the presidency itself. It's it's there's no distinction. There was no distinction in his function or performance or ethic as between Pat. Simple only White House counsel and Jaysekulow. Hello private counsel and I think in sadly I think that may be a relic. I mean I didn't know chuck rough but I I worked at the firm Covington burling where he was at started there right around around the time he died and he was revered and if you look back in history the way he handled that position I mean I almost wonder if that would even happen now in the post trump world somebody somebody could say yes. I'm the White House counsel. Yes I understand this act of taking might not be your individual best interest but I think it's necessary for the office I mean what what a what a Sort of noble view of the job but unfortunately also potentially extinct one. And do we do. We think going forward harking back on presidents who no longer feel subject to oversight or any accountability to Congress. Do you think future presidents will view the attorney general as their private attorney. Do you think they'll view the White House counsel was their private attorney and the US government as a reservoir for their own fortunes as opposed to you for the country's well if you're strictly following precedent and your mindset. Was I wanna get away with everything. I can possibly get away with then. Sure I guess the idealistic slash naive side of me thinks well the men and women who will become president after Donald trump whatever that may be from whatever party will be of a bit of higher higher moral bearing and have concerns beyond that but one of the one of the long lasting pieces of damage done by all this damage to DOJ and bill bar. It's hard to overstate state. Just how destructive bill bar has been to the institution of DOJ to the point where lifers doj vets like me who always give DOJ. The benefit of the Dow always presumed. The best intentions have lost that now with respect to bill by the way he's used the OJ. Throughout this has been entirely to protect heck donald trump every step of the way from the from the moment the whistleblower complaint came out and the law says if the whistle blower complaint is deemed credible. All an urgent it shall be forwarded the Congress bill bars DOJ came up with this cockamamie legal position that no it doesn't because it's the president he tried to keep that whistleblower complaint blink from ever seeing the light of day on through refusing to open up even take a look at an investigation on anything you by the way we all know. The president cannot be indicted. It'd Rudy Giuliani can be indicted mick. Mulvaney can be indicted for bribery for extortion. If the facts fit we don't have quite enough of the facts about them but the fact that the OJ wouldn't even take take a look. I mean we all take it for granted now that everything bill bar is going to do and has done is done in no different capacity than if the president's private attorney Randy OJ. And I really hope that changes I mean. I think it's going to be a long long time before we see another Janet Reno become attorney. General did things that were often contrary to the interests and bill. I remember I remember so one of my special projects over the last five or six months primarily in the Green Room at CNN is to work without determine him from being something of a political novice into a seasoned political cynic. We've weeds working we we. We've had quite a few conversations stations where I've had to come to La. After the argument a couple of days later and say see I was right you know. Don't don't argue with me about but usually really do it in a in a in a more biting way. Now that you are a seasoned political cynic go ahead. Ask Me some questions to just do the Horse race game. Because it's kind of fun. These impeachments have a way of being becoming career and legacy defining so. Who Do you think who's involved in this in any way uses this as a springboard who do you see emerging out of? This is a real future weather. It's contender for president or some enormous difference making position. Well I think there are two stars on. The Democratic side Died Adam Schiff who could be elected to anything of. Just Democrats voted right now. The question is what does he want. and I have the idea what the answer to that is. Does he want to run for President in two thousand twenty four two thousand twenty eight depending on how the this election plays out the other interesting character and all all this and I think his Rising Stars came Jeffrey. Such Akeem. Someone I've known for a long time so I'm a little biased. Because I have a lot of respect and affection for him but he's he's got a choice right now. He has to decide whether he's going to take the risk and stay in the house. Go through leadership and one day become the first I African American speaker of the House or if he looks at his old colleague Joe Crowley and says you know at any point this can blow up and Hi odds-on favourite to be the next mayor of New York. I if he decided he wanted to do that I think he could win. That Going away so he has some Choices to make but but I think they stood out. I think everybody on the house managers team I did well. But they're the two who have the widest political options and choices to make Adam. Schiff might decide that he'd like to be speaker. I mean Nancy policies. You know it's reasonable that within the next one or two cycle she she'll retire not because she's pushed out just because everybody's time comes eventually and right now. He has enormous power within that caucus. He may decide that. That's not the job. He wants that he would rather run a committee rather than to be the policy. And the enforcer of the caucus so I think those are on the democratic side of the big winners on the Republican side died. There's clearly some people who came out of this process that raise their profile us as an example. If she wins re-election she's on track to be a rising star within the Republican Party. She may not win reelection though. Democrats hurt district are energized. I look look more on the Republican side and find some losers and there is a thread that runs through all of them. And I'll list them in order rudy. Giuliani emme Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and all of them are losers because they were in this for the wrong reasons. They weren't in this for the national interest. They weren't born in this to support their president. They weren't in this to take body balls for the president they were in this to just be relevant. And there's there is a pathetic quality to not knowing when it's time to step aside and get off the stage and all three of them have I think terminally an elite damaged their reputations Particularly Guiliani But I would say the same for star Dershowitz because more than anything. They wanted people to pay attention. They wanted people to say you're the smartest person and I'm the one the president talks to and look at me. Look at me. Look at me and they are they I think are the big losers here. It's an open question and it's going to be what we debate for the next seven or eight months on trump in some ways he got something out of this he got to smear biden he got to solidify this whole base argument of. It's US against them. They're coming after you. I'm the only thing that can keep you protected from on them. Just powerful political argument but he's paid an enormous price and the Democrats opened a window onto his corrupt nature and it'll be malpractice of they can't drive a truck through so two more questions for you. Both relented cheers. You're SORTA past Ken Starr I know I know I wanted to set up a lockhart cam on the day when when Ken Starr was speaking why on earth do you think they brought him in. I get why he wanted to. Who Do this? Well I think you just talked about that. But whose interest was it in to bring him in was it. In trump's interest was in simple loan officers was just the ultimate troll troll move. What what do you think was behind that decision to bring him in? Before we had the Internet quit call it something like it was just the ultimate poke in the eye right now. It's troy that's really all it was it was the hero of the right was gonNA come out ride from the sunset for one last. Stand his argument him. It was unintelligible. I started with a sense about Ridge and by the end I had almost a little sympathy for him. Because he was pathetic he was a defeated small man on the giants had once stood and it was a ploy and it was a ploy that backfired on. That's it didn't change fed the result. It's it's not that important but it. It is indicative of politicians now who only care about up themselves and people only care about themselves and where they fit as opposed to the people again the giants in the Senate who used to put The country first. And that's the lesson of this you know and this is where I thought Adams the most memorable thing Adam Schiff said was in his wrap. Wrap up I WANNA say on Thursday night in there. They was the second to last night so it wasn't his final push but the most memorable and things that I the thing we'll stick with me forever was when he talked about. You can't trust Donald Trump. You can know you trust you know you can't and you can't trust trust him to put the country's interests ahead of his own because winning there's a choice he'll always choice and I don't think his message was about Donald Trump. His message was to the one hundred senators the room of are you like that. Are you like Donald Trump who will always put your party's interests ahead of your country who always always put your own personal interests ahead of your country and he challenged them to be better and they failed so one last question for you. Is it even possible to identify a sort of conventional wisdom on impeachment or does it just depend so much on who the person is and what the conduct is because the Mehtar how do you compare Donald Trump doing what. He's was impeached for with Bill. Clinton and what he was impeached for two completely separate but is there any common threat. The the threat may not flow cleanly. But you've you know this is what we do. We try to figure out. What have we learned what what about? How does this compare to the last time? And there's no doubt that on one level the Republicans approaching one thousand nine hundred eight backfired on them. They they lost a midterm election. That had one hundred and fifty years since they someone lost an election. In that way Clinton went to seventy three percent job approval they was the country rallied around him him on the other hand. Bush beat Gore In two thousand was that a hangover from was Gore was was the election you know. Oh stolen was Gord. Not The best candidate who knows and we could talk forever on that. So let's put that aside. I think there's there's no way to compare the two but let me focus on one difference as what I I'll be looking for from the Public Bill Clinton from the from some two days after he was deposed took a very distinct approach to any time he was asked about this. He'd say I did it. I'm sorry sorry I take full responsibility. And you'll remember the day that he was acquitted. He walked out and he he said. I'm sorry I take responsibly. They said something remarkable. I think he said and I'm sorry. I put the country through this and everybody in I think in the country thought yes you did. And I'm pissed and I. I really wish you hadn't but thank you for acknowledging that you've kind of screwed up everybody's lives for the last ear. Trump takes the opposite approach. Trump it's perfect. Everything I did. They're out to get me. It's all about me. Don't worry I I can. I know what's best for you. Just just stick with me. I think that's going to have a very big impact on the the political fallout here. And I think it's going to keep trump from expanding his base to getting the necessary boats to be reelected and therefore his entire campaign won't be about why people should vote for him. He'll be about why they shouldn't vote. For Joe Biden Naming Charlie Smith warned Bernie Sanders whoever Mike Bloomberg whoever whoever that is and it sets up a very ugly campaign Very bitter your campaign and campaign that trump only has one route to win. And I think it's going to be tough because there's no sense of humility. There's no sense of regret. There's no sense of responsibility and I think a lot of people who've been through this and Are Tired of this and tired of the show in the fatigue that goes with the trump drama would look at him differently. If he just wants said. Hey I get it i. This is not the way I wanted it to go and I take responsibility for some of this and that's where I think you can't compare them and I wouldn't expect just because Clinton got a political boost out of being a peach and then acquitted. I don't think you can expect the trump. We'll have the same thing because his reaction is so different. Can you imagine. Can you imagine if he if he showed some contrition. Well I mean I my reaction would be similar to watch and Ken Starr in the floor of the Senate rake the opposite argument that he made Twenty years ago. Yeah let's finish with One last a question. It's a broad question so you can take it any way you want and not being a lawyer. I look at the White House and the presidency. We now kind of this way. This is the argument they've made. They've made the argument very loudly and clearly that the president can't be indicted. They've gone into court and said the president can't be investigated they have then went into the The the House and the Senate and said that the president can't be impeached. Are there any guardrails left legal guardrails there are and I agree that this is closer to the imperial presidency so to speak than we've been in a long time maybe ever but to me their their two primary guardrails the more practical tangible on the courts themselves and I think a lot of these disputes that are winding their way through the courts will. We'll come out against the president and I think the courts will set things straight for example. This argument that the president cannot be investigated criminally. That's now going up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Supreme Court has taken that case they have to reject that they have to and by the way footnote to all this. Let's see how do we constituted court handles it right there. Some concerned with now cavenaugh gorsuch. But I think that that I can't even be investigated. Argument will be firmly rejected. I think if and when the issue of congressional subpoenas gets it's fully litigated and we're seeing it to some extent with the Magangue case we could have seen others and we may see others. There's other reasons that congressional subpoenas may be issued I think the courts will restore some of the balance back over to Congress now because these again. These assertions of executive privilege is broad defines. Most that is never been litigated. The other big factor I think is is simply ably again. Maybe I'm slipping back into being naive or idealistic but just the idea the concept of norms. Just the idea of norms being respected. I mean Donald Trump is part of the reason people hate him. Part of the reason people love is a norm breaker and he has defied norms ranging from hiring having his daughter and son-in-law work in senior positions in the White House to not turning over his tax returns to little things like going to the White House correspondents dinner and I think whoever takes that job next I hope from from whatever party respect some of those and if not by the way the law can evolve as well we can pass laws. CLARIFYING ANTI NEPOTISM EPA dismal requiring someone to turn over their tax returns. So I think those are sort of the two big takeaways. I do think if you were a graph the power of the presidency and the executive branch. It's said a high point right now but I think the natural gravity built into our system will pull it down. It'll take years or decades but but I think it will come back L.. Thanks so much for joining us. I look forward to cultivating your political cynicism as years. Go go by. I know you'll be back soon. we really appreciate your time. Thank you John is always great to have Leon. Every time I talked to him which lately he's been every morning in the Green Room at CNN. An and I learned something about how the law works and what the Constitution means. It's not very often and I think people who listen every week. We'll get get this that I met. I lost for words but I am somewhat at a loss for words right now and. I don't want to sound outraged aged and alarmist but at the risk of doing that last week was a very very dark moment in the United States Senate and in our democracy the Republicans in the side with the the cheerleading of the president have removed important guardrails. And it's not hard to imagine looking forward for eight ten years and seeing the world's best experiment in democracy and governing move towards a more authoritarian dictatorship where the president is imperial and the president can do no wrong and I think for some people I get that that may sound like a bitter response to getting the results. You didn't want but I think it's very real when a president can and and one of the most so-called distinguish lawyers in the country can go on the floor on of the Senate and essentially said the president can do whatever he wants and when the president gets up and says I have article too. I can do whatever I want. And when you need two-thirds of majority to hold the President Accountable and the Republican Party says the president can do anything he wants the path that the slippery slope away from democracy it becomes very clear. And I think that's where we are and I think people like Doc Zander Mitch. McConnell had perverted the idea of public service. That Lamar was injured. Came into office and he. He was elected governor in Tennessee in nineteen seventy eight and he ran against corrupt governor and he had to be sworn in three days early. Because the corrupt Governor Ray Blanton was selling pardons and the legislator run by a great southern politician. And mcwhorter said. We've got to get with this new governor. And even though he's in the party opposite because the guy in there now is selling pardons and he came in as a corruption fighter and he's leaving as a lamb damn. He's leaving as a member of a political party that is subservient to a corrupt leader. A cult leader. AH IN DONALD TRUMP. And that's dangerous. So there's there's really two things we can do. As concerned citizens this one is decide. Screw IT systems raked. I'M NOT GONNA bother. I'm busy enough. Let the Crooks and criminals around the government government and we'll just hope for the best the second thing in what I would hope people do is throw the crooks out and we're only nine months away from election. It's very simple on election day. Donald trump either get a second term in rewarded for everything he's done or he'll be thrown out in a movement that's of the people on by the people and he will face the consequences of being an ex president who's also also someone who use the power of the office to enrich himself and to corrupt the entire process. We can't do that by saying screw it and going back to war wise. We've got nine months. We know we have to do. Thank you for listening listening. To words matter please. Rate and review words matter on apple podcasts and other podcast providers.

Donald John Trump president Party Senate President Clinton Joe Biden White House Republican Party White House Congress CNN Professor Dershowitz Ken Starr Adam Schiff prosecutor United States Ukraine John Bolton Katie Barlow
Impeachment Latest: White House Continues Opening Arguments, Bolton Makes Claims In New Book

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

47:42 min | 1 year ago

Impeachment Latest: White House Continues Opening Arguments, Bolton Makes Claims In New Book

"From NPR and WBZ. You are Boston. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti and this is on point day. Three today for the president's legal team to argue. Oh you his defense against impeachment last night especially in prime time. The president's lawyers argued that whatever he did none of it was wrong. Here's Alan Dershowitz. Do Abuse of power our obstruction of Congress constitute impeachable offenses. The relevant history answers that question clearly in the negative will last week as the house. Managers laid out their case. We talked to to constitutional scholars about how they're watching the impeachment trial. What they're looking for how they're judging the arguments so today we'll do the same analysis of of the President's defense this hour point examining the public efficacy and the legal merits of the president's case? And you can join us. What stands out for you in what you're hearing hearing from the White House legal team? What do you need help understanding about what's happening in the Senate Chamber this week? We are going to hear from a couple legal scholars today. But let's begin again with Jonathan Turley. He is legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University. He testified before the House Judiciary Committee on December fourth for Republicans impeachment proceedings in the House against President. Trump professor Turley. Welcome back to on point. Thank you very much so first of all tell us. What are your first impressions of what you've heard heard from the White House or the president? I should say legal team over the weekend. And yesterday in their defense of President trump. They've done a fine nine job in in a number of respects. I thought that Alan Dershowitz did outstanding job last night. I think that the most success they've had is demolishing article two which is the obstruction of Congress article. I was highly critical of that Article in my testimony to the house. I I but I thought that the team did particularly well and showing why that article is pretty much. Dead as dillinger. I I just don't i. I'm still surprised that they went forward with it. Why okay so tell us more about why in from a legal perspective you you think that well as I said Ah when I testified in the House I oppose for articles of of impeachment clean bribery extortion? Those four ultimately were rejected by the committee and I said there were two legitimate articles. One is abuse of power one is obstruction of of Congress. But the record was incomplete that they they could not submit this record in good faith to the Senate particularly on article go to and the reason is this the shortest impeachment investigation of a president history. And what they were saying is that you have to turn over this material during during this abbreviated period. And if you don't you're going to core you're challenging are authorities itself a high crime and misdemeanor meaner and in my view that was itself quite abusive and to make matters worse. They had arguments to make. That is the White House. I think that they may to really laid out nicely. How these subpoenas were issued without the traditional vote giving the authority for the subpoenas the that's not a frivolous argument? That's a missing one of the many missing elements that existed in this. Would I refer to as a slipshod investigation. This this was not done the way earlier investigations were done in the White House had legitimate challenges to make and why would concern me most. Is that that if you start to say that. President who challenges Congress's authority and Coord- is an impeachable offense than virtually any president in our lifetime could would've been impeached. And what's important to note. Is that both Clinton and Nixon were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court to Challenge Congresses grises Or the Penta Councils right to evidence and after the Supreme Court ruled Nixon resigned and ultimately Clinton was impeached. So but isn't there a difference though between an independent counsel and Congress. I actually think whatever difference. There is works against Congress. Congress in this respect I I you know the the objections being made by the White House were not frivolous. I raised this issue back in January. Rewi the house. Judiciary didn't simply get a vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry and I encourage them to take people like John Don mcgann to court which richly alternately did and won but they never got that vote they never got the base authority that I encourage them to get and that came back to really haunt them. This was very improvisational for impeachment. It's like Nancy Pelosi going to press conference and simply announcing we're now in an impeachment inquiry is if the speaker of the House has that authority So tell me then I mean if you were We did this last week when we spoke to To couple legal scholars. There's about the house managers case. I asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the president's defense and how they would argue against what they had been hearing from the house managers. I'll I'll ask you the same thing. Now Professor Turley like if you had been Adam Schiff last week. What is the argument that you would have made that would counter balanced or counteracted? The defense you're hearing from President Trump's team this week well. I think that they did make the best argument with regards article. One disagree agree with my friend. Alan Dershowitz we always have on this issue. Not Always get. He actually changed his view from the Clinton Trial but I. I've I've disagreed with him. On the fact that impeachable offenses require crimes. I don't believe that that is true. Testified in the Clinton impeachment and the trump impeachment impeachment dealt with that theory in both of those impeachment hearings. I just don't believe it's sustainable. And I thought that Adam shifted a very good job. I think shifted well overall. He was my opposing counsel. The last impeachment. I represented the judge in last impeachment and I thought very highly of his abilities and I think that you saw that the house managers. I think the White House made mistake to craft so much of their defense around this controversy will theory of Professor Dershowitz. Well Professor Turley. Hang on here for just a moment because I'd like to bring in another voice into the conversation joining us now. Kate Shaw. She's with us from New York. She's a law professor research at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva University. She worked in the White House. Counsel's office as a special assistant to the president and associate counsel to President Barack Obama. She also clerked for justice. John Paul Stevens at the. US Supreme Court so professor. Shar welcome to you. Thanks so much for having me so you heard of a professor Shirley just said about that. He he sees. The president's legal team has having demolished that obstruction of congress charge. Do you agree agree. Disagree what do you think I do disagree you know. I think that Jonathan is right that there may have been legal arguments at the White House had to offer in the context of the house proceedings. precedings but I think that what the White House was doing in terms of the blanket resistance to the enterprise of requesting documents and requesting testimony wasn't consistent with with past practice it is true that both Nixon and Clinton resisted to some degree efforts by both independent counsels and Congress to turn over documents percents But I'm not sure we have any example in our history of a White House so thoroughly refusing to engage in the process of negotiation and accommodation. I as the trump White House did and so I think it was a defensible choice for the house to simply say we're getting nothing. So you have essentially withdrawn from the constitutional process of you know a back and forth about what kind of entitlement we have information and so rather than trying to fight you on the margins. We're going to draft an article of impeachment around this conduct now. I do think that there may have been some tactical error in not pursuing the John Bolton testimony in court and at the same time moving forward with the impeachment. But but I don't think that the conduct of the White House here is as consistent with previous presidents conduct as Jonathan suggests tells more about that though because as as Professor Turley said Ed the hurried nature. What felt like the hurried nature of the decision making in the house? He sees as part of the problem as you just said If the if the House has had waited for legal proceedings around testimony from Bolton at all would that have cleared up that issue you know so shift is always taking in a position that you know. It took the Congress and Judiciary Committee Subpoena eight months to get even a district court ruling In the Don mcgann case and and I think they looked at the pace of those proceedings and made the I think defensible judgment that they they just weren't confidence that they'd be able to get any definitive resolution. Listen you know especially from the Supreme Court rate the highest resolution of this case Fast enough to actually do the responsible thing which is not to have an impeachment right on the eve of a presidential election. I actually think it was something that involves some consideration of the national interest in having this resolved one way or another before August or September or October of an election year and then to the extent of the president's team can sing you know they're interfering with an election that those arguments have much more have to. It's actually the eve of an election so so I think that that that that was part of it now I think that it is right. That expedited resolution of particular class in the courts is a possibility. So there you know I. It's it's it's an open question whether they might have been able to really oppress hard occasionally federal courts when they're doing things resolving disputes around elections. Right where there's a deadline and they absolutely. You have to move fast. And of course you know. In the Nixon Tapes Case Litigation proceeded very quickly in the District Court they skip the intermediate appellate court and it was three weeks between the oral argument and the decision that President Nixon was was required to turn over the tapes so it can happen and so maybe it would have been wise to proceed that way but I also think it was a little bit of an assertion of congressional supremacy that these these house managers were involvement with to say you know we. We don't need to run to the Courts to vindicate our right to these kinds of materials like we ourselves as co equal as a CO equal branch of government can make these demands and those are as legally binding as a judicial ruling of course courts in our system to have the last word. But it's kind of an assertion of the primacy primacy or at least the equality of that brand that I think implicitly Congress or the House manager are making here. Yeah so professor Turley. Get your response to that because that that is at heart so one of the core constitutional questions here like who should should congress not assert its its coat equal nature to to the executive all. I am a great fan of Congress asserting its authority. I've testified a dozen times begging them to Push back on executive privilege and executive immunities. He's but in this case. I think this history will show that this was a historic blunder on the part of the House leadership. I I there is expedition that occurs with impeachment. I when when Adam Schiff said it took eight eight months to get John mcgann even without an impeachment. I I am imprimatur He was wrong That's not true. It took four months. I it is the actual issue was put in front of the court. The court fort without the expedition of an impeachment took four months and it would move much much faster but the idea of we have to get this resolved. Does Not much of an answer. If you're going to bring something something dead on arrival. And that's what they did when they handed their case over to the opposing party and the other house. Well Professor Jonathan Turley a Professor Kate. Shaw standby we are. You're bringing some analysis to the president's defense as it's being laid out this week in the Senate Chamber and we want to know what your question is. What helped you need understanding understanding? What's happening in the Senate today? This is on point. What's it take to start something from nothing? And what does it take to actually build it. I'm Geyer is every week on how I built. This speak with founders behind some of the most inspiring companies in world. NPR's how I built this. Listen now this is on point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti Eighty. We're talking this hour about the president's defense in the impeachment trial currently going on in the United States Senate and we're we're doing an illegal analysis of the defense it's being offered By the president's lawyers it's the mirror image of what we did last week when the house managers presented their case and in order to help us. Today I'm joined joined by professor. Kate Shaw She's a law professor at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva University. She worked in the White House. Counsel's office as a special assistant to the president and associate it counsel to President Obama Professor. Jonathan Turley also joins us at as well. He is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and testified as a witness in the house impeachment proceedings against President Trump back in December. And I WANNA play for both of you a moment From the president's Vince Defense. So here is White House. Counsel Pat Simple looney talking about how he sees Democrats are arguing. The Democrats have not come close to meeting the burden burden of proof required in an impeachment case like this and he went on to say that the impeachment process itself in his view and obviously in the president's view as well was was essentially election interference and the fact that they came here for twenty four hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they don't really believe in the facts of their case that this is for all their talk about election interference appearance. They're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history history. And we can't allow that to happen. White House counsel Pat Sip Baloney Kate. Shaw I have two questions about about what you just heard their first of all when when simple Oni says hid evidence from you that the house managers hid evidence from the senators. What is he referring to? You Know I. I'm not sure what Kim right before that clip. I imagined that There were few accusations that there were sort of selective excerpts from some of the witness testimony that house managers played during their three three days of argument. And so I think a few points. The president's defenders argued that the select that the that the choices made about what clips to play Concealed the context or what came before. So perhaps that's what he was suggesting there or potentially you additional details regarding you know well-founded sort of concerns about corruption and Bismah there are a few different places where I think the president's team Believed that the house managers were shading the facts expert of course in a legal proceeding or even quasi-legal preceding which is what this is each side emphasizes the facts that they believed to be favourable to their ultimate case and so so. I'm not sure that he really. We landed any punches With any of that. I mean his first Kind of the beginning of his case action the first day in the Senate simple Loney I think was criticized across the aisle for having incorrectly suggested that in the house proceedings that shifts Republican colleagues were denied access to these skiff. Right at this facility in which the initial depositions were taking place so he was obviously subject to accusations of of misleading or potentially incorrect statements himself on the Senate floor so those accusations. I think have been coming outside those little. Follow up on that then because it's not necessarily the same thing when a in the of course of a legal proceeding that council decides to focus on one set of facts versus another. That is not the same thing as In in beforehand during the impeachment inquiry of the White House to simply not allowing or not not offering or allowing people to testify. We're offering documents I mean for for for those of US outside the legal world. How are we supposed to understand these two behaviors? Well I mean. According to the to the point I was making earlier. I think that kind of the in the house. The White House's total refusal to participate in the proceedings so that the you know the defense is ends up mounted sorta such as it is by The Republicans on both the intelligence and the judiciary committee but the President's team was absent and have made repeated allegations in the Senate trial they were excluded from the process. And I think is one of the most serious mischaracterize characterizations of the record that somehow they were Prevented from any participation And you know it is true that under House Rules Sa- Agency Council was denied a presence at a particular early stage of the proceedings proceedings but the president's council was very much entitled to participate and opted not to I think because they preferred to mount their case and what they understood to be more favorable venue which is of course the Republican controlled Senate so that that I think that I think is quite unfair characterization of the house proceedings I so One more question than and professor trivial than turn back to you but the laughs that simple looney said in that In that little bite there where he asserts that the impeachment is quote unquote the most massive interference in an election. In American history and end quote doesn't get to what we were all discussing a little earlier that that both the president's defense team and the president supporter would see any the impeachment before November twenty twenty as extremely political extremely partisan and. What was the harm? What was the harm? I'm in waiting until after the election right. Well a couple of answers to that one. I think that any well okay. So most impeachments by definition if successful in the ultimate sense right if they result in removal in some way undo a democratic decision Now that's of course that's not quite true about Andrew. Johnson the first presidential impeachment because he was never elected elected president he was the vice president and then ascended to the presidency but anytime you pursue impeachment against A president if it is ultimately successful that une does a democratic process presents impeachment is a constitutional process it is pursued and then decided by constitutionally elected and democratically accountable officials both in the House and Senate and then the last thing I'll say is that if it is successful in the sense of resulting in conviction and removal from office. What what happens? The president's hand picked number two ascends to the presidency so it just feels like a real whole the simple loney rhetoric and a lot of the rhetoric from. I think the president's team team throughout have created the impression that if if sixty seven senators vote to convict president trump then Nancy Pelosi becomes the president right or Adam Schiff becomes the president. And that's not at all how it works. The president's number two the vice president of the United States Mike Pence would become the president and that is also consistent with you know the You know expressed preferences of the sixty three million Americans that the president's team continue invoke. It feels to me like it's you know it's scrambling a little bit The sort of the political meaning of this process to suggest that it is fundamentally undemocratic or election interference. Jonathan Turley. What do you think well? I don't think that the the issue was between pushing this to the Senate. I had a record pace or waiting till after the election. what I strongly and repeatedly encouraged urge the house judiciary to do is to wait a couple of months in order to get some of these witnesses get favorable court orders. All of that could have been done That's why hi this is such a baffling blunder on the part of the House. Leadership they were obsessed with Impeaching the President before Christmas which is an arbitrary decision they made in. It cost them dearly. Because the minute they voted Effectively the record was closed when they hand this case over to the other body. They're in a position. They are now of begging not just the other house but the opposing party. To complete their case It was really incredibly moronic and I couldn't believe that they were actually doing it. I mean the the idea that we really have to rush to get an incomplete and effectively dead case to the Senate Is is rather bizarre. But then they destroyed their own narrative by stopping on a dime after they did it and waiting a month and so none of this makes makes any sense at all. I don't like a lot of the rhetoric that came out of the last couple of days. I thought the first day which was the shortest was the best day For the White House you know. They knocked down a number of arguments in. I thought some of them were embarrassing for the House. Managers you know they. House managers kept on saying that the president never complained about about corruption in any other country. And that also was demolished. I mean they. They gave plenty of examples where the president has held back aid to other countries based I expressly on his concerns about corruption or sharing the cost with allies. And that's that's another sort of blunder. I think the house managers also blundered entered with some of their rhetoric. Both Schiff and Nadler Got pushback on saying that. The Republican senators were part of a cover up and suggesting they are afraid that they would have their heads. Put on pikes. Well two of the four senators that they were trying to secure for witnesses. Immediately objected acted Susan. Collins sent a note to the chief justice and he admonished both sides. I and those types of blunders. You really can't afford you. No in law school one of the things that you tell students that you can insult on occasion your opposing counsel. The defendant may even the judge but you can never insult the jury if you really want a verdict and I'm not convinced that either side is working. That hard for a bipartisan verdict. It seems to me that this is a strategy. That is not geared ear towards changing minds. So what is the strategy geared for them. It sounds like the strategy is geared for November. Twenty twenty well. Well I think it it it may be and this. I think kate and I agree. I think the election is irrelevant. There's never a good time to impeach President You know with Andrew Johnson of the vote on the articles was suspended. They voted on the first article and then they took a break. They took a break because they went to the Republican convention to pick the next candidate for president so the fact that these occurred during political periods is not particularly new. Do but I think both sides can be criticised Democratic senators talk often about the need for the Republican colleagues to show bipartisanship But they don't show much bipartisanship. I mean article too is deeply flawed. I haven't seen many a democratic senators. Say you know what I might vote against that So I think in both sides are really floating on a sea of Hypocrisy K.. Child you want to respond to that. I think that it's they're both sides. Do seem fairly dug into their partisan positions. But that's of course not new when it comes to impeachment. I mean you have had historically you've had a couple of Defections actions in favor of acquittal. But I'm not sure in either. Clinton ordered Johnson cases. You ever had members of the President's Party Voting to convict. And so this would be consistent with those. If in fact it's a party line vote on conviction I mean I think the the the key questions are into seed into the ultimate conviction question. Estrin because you know in in in in the Clinton case for example. There was a kind of bipartisan agreement. Not a kind of partisan truly bipartisan agreement around things like the the trial process Which resulted in these depositions being played as opposed to live witnesses coming in You had some defections from the President's Party in terms of voting to dismiss Smith's the articles at an early stage of the proceedings and so So actually think if what we saw in the very first day when there were votes about whether to call witnesses at the outside if we see this kind of real hardening into partisan camps around the witness votes that I think we're likely to have on Friday of this week If that happens then I think thank you really do have pretty definitive evidence that We are seeing playing in the votes in the Senate that kind of hyper polarization of the moment reflected even more than in the already quite partisan presidential impeachment of our history. Well let's just go to a caller here while we can. Let's go to Michelle. WHO's calling from lockport New York Michelle? You're on the air. Hi thanks for taking my call. I did find two arguments I listened yesterday to the President's defense team Particularly compelling and I would like so experts to comment on it if they would The founding fathers concern that impeachment would be used as a political weapon and they cited two examples bowls of kind of the similar things going on during the Obama Administration Where President Obama withheld documents and did not provide provide information and what has become known as fast and furious and the clip of Vice President Biden seemingly bragging about not providing aid to Ukraine Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor that the Obama Administration wanted fired? But we had a Democrat majority In the House I believe at that time time so there was no talk impeachment. Now we have the opposing party majority in the House so a president does seemingly the exact same thing that the prior administration administration did and everybody jumps all over it and he must be impeached so I just found those two arguments to stand out and I wondered how the experts felt about those Michelle. Turn it back to our professors here in just a second. But about the The withholding of aid to Ukraine. I mean I mean isn't the question of in whose interest right because because I think if it's done in the interest of the United States as a whole that's different thing than what what John Bolton is saying now reportedly saying in his book that he he believes. There's he has first-hand information hearing it from the president himself that he that the president wanted to withhold the aid in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden for political purposes. Isn't that the kind of core question here. I understand that but the prosecutor ASA cuter. I believe that Vice President Biden wanted fired was going to investigate the Biden's or was currently actively investigating. He was not the the issue was not investigating them enough. That's I think what the United Concern. The United States had at the time I had heard from several sources that it was does the opposite concern that they did not want to be a part of a corruption investigation. So I just feel that we. We have two examples of something the thing that's very similar to what President trump is being impeached or has been impeached for and You know there. There was no talk of impeachment back then especially during fast and furious but again the political party that had the majority and the house was the same party as that of the presidency presidency. So my concern. Is that moving forward anytime we have opposing majority in the house and the PRI the political party to which the president belongs. There's a threat that impeachment is going to come up a perhaps the political weapon. I just wondered how the experts feel about that. We'll let me turn her to write back to them. So Michelle thank you so much for that call. I mean Jonathan Turley. This is something that the president's defense team was saying vociferiously yesterday that we you know in Ken Starr's language. We've entered the age of impeachment. Well I agree with Michelle that they landed both those punches. I the fast and furious issue. Something I dressed in my testimony in the House Judiciary You know the Obama Administration adopted as extreme position As the trump administration and by the way the trump administration's ends position on the fact that these subpoenas were invalid is identical to the position of previous administrations. They were not arguing anything That was just you know created for this administration but in fast and furious. The judge not only turned down President Obama's sweeping claim of executive authority. But she said that it was not she would not be able to maintain that argument within our very system of separation of power. She said it would defeat the very basis of our constitutional system very strong language English so this is not the first ministration to make these arguments with regard to Hunter Biden. I think they didn't land the punches. I've said For weeks that eight hundred pounds irrelevant witness. I mean he's not relevant to making the prosecution's case he's a defense witness. You know it's under the federal rules. I'm a criminal. Amel defense attorney. I would expect to get Hunter Biden because he has relevant information to the theory of the defense that if the president is maintaining as he is that he raised this issue out of concern for corruption Then the Hunter Biden contract and Hunter Biden himself is relevant and and the Democrats have to be very careful when they cross that Rubicon for witnesses they may find hundred Biden waiting on the other side. Well Kate shall give you chance to respond when we come back from a quick break. We're we're talking with to legal scholars about their view of the president's defense as it's currently being laid out in the United States Senate. We'll be right back. This is on point. They do eat. This don't eat that if you feel like it's time to finally the end your war with food this is the podcast for you food. We need to talk. Subscribe Apple podcasts. Or wherever you get your podcasts this is on point I magnin Taco Bardy. Were talking this hour with a pair of legal scholars. And they're giving us their analysis of the president's defense as it's unfolding in the United States Senate in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump. I'm trying to buy Kate Shaw. She's a law professor at Cardozo Law at Yeshiva Sheva University. She's with us from New York. Jonathan Turley also joins us. He's a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and Keeton Jonathan last week we spoke with a pair of legal scholars when the house managers were giving their arguments and one of those one of those legal scholars Laurence tribe from Harvard University. And he he made he sort of described what the house managers were doing. Is Painting a picture. And if there were any holes in the picture in holes in their argument. It's because the White House as as we've discussed hadn't given over requested documents or allowed witnesses to testify during the house inquiry. And then Laurence tribe said Ed following the house managers arguments regarding those potential gaps. It's now up to the presence defense team and here's more of what he said the burden. Now how falls to the president's team to fill in the gaps and therefore they're the ones who ought to be asking for Bolton's and Malvinas testimony. So that was Larry tribe job last week. And of course in the interim we've had these reported revolutions from John Bolton's book about Bolton saying that the president indeed did want to withhold that four hundred million dollars from Ukraine rain in exchange for a an investigation into vice president Joe Biden and we also have reports. Now that The that Dr Don Boulton was also concerned that the president might be handing out favors for autocratic leaders according to his book so in the wake of all that. Here's Senator Mitt Romney reacting acting to this news. He told reporters that he wants to hear more from John. Bolton in the Senate impeachment trial I can't begin to tell you how John John Bolton's testimony would ultimately Play on a final decision but it's relevant and therefore I'd like to hear it and what impact that might have would be dependent upon on all the facts associated with it. We hear from obviously prosecution and defense as to what was relevant and what was said and how that might influence our final vote. But I can't begin to tell you how that would be resolved. As indicated I see myself as a senator juror in that capacity I will maintain impartiality to the ecstatic. So Kate Shaw before the break. Jonathan Turley was talking about how Democrats might want to tread lightly because if they crossed this witness Rubicon they might find nine hundred Biden on the other side. What what's your thoughts about that? Yeah I mean if I could a little bit respond to the last caller magnetic short I do think that I on the fast and furious issue. Uh Issue It's of course right that every White House has asserted prerogatives to keep some documents From disclosure whether to independent counsel or to Congress but tens of thousands documents were produced in fast and furious litigation was over a subset of documents at the White House continued to claim privilege over. And I think we'd be in a different place. If the trump White House had given some documents givens you know access to maybe some witnesses and a back and forth that ensued. So I do think that those circumstances are are different but To the second part of our question and to your question about a hundred Biden right and I mean you know I think that whether or not the White House it has successfully made the keys that there was some legitimate concern about corruption involving Hunter Biden. I mean I just it feels like there's as deep question which is you know was there. How could it ever be appropriate for the president to in secret solicit assistance of a foreign government in investigating the conduct of a US citizen right? You know we have this vast law enforcement apparatus and if there were any genuine concern about about this sort of corruption that the Justice Department in the State Department are the right institutions institutions to go to and you know in a transparent way I mean I suppose you don't need to pick a press coverage. Have you want investigation but certainly not this kind of phone call With a foreign leader so it just feels like that that is a gaping hole. Even if you do take The White House at its word that there were these genuine corruption concerns intimating the president. That just seems it's like You know serve definition an improper and potentially abusive way to proceed in the face of of even say they were genuine concerns. No Jonathan Turley the they actually. There's something that Kate has said. A couple of times in the course of this conversation that I just WanNa turn directly to you at and I'm I'm not sure I have yet so let me just do that. McCain has made the point multiple times that it's the totality of the lack of cooperation from the White House in the course of the houses investigation documents and witnesses that is is demonstrably different than impeachment moments. In of the past. The first of all do you do you think. Do you agree with that analysis and second will well if you do does not. Doesn't that in and of itself provide kind of concerning precedent for For A for a branch inch of governments complete unwillingness to cooperate at all with a CO equal branch. Well first of all I. I did not agree with the position of the White House and refusing losing to turn over any of these documents But I think it is fair to raise the White House perspective They're they're pointing out that. No no impeachment in history has proceeded without the authority to issue subpoenas that is there objection on the face of this and it is an objection that is is I think. A good faith is that the there was no underlying authority given to this committee to issue these subpoenas and the reason why it was such a blanket and broad refusal is because they were challenging that critical factor not being present and also there there. What they've said is that the house really didn't engage in much of a given take in the past you've had other administrations refuse witnesses and in documents and there's been negotiations in some cases it's been litigation most occasions there's been a resolution In this case the House refused to to respond to that in the same way that the White House has drawn a line in the sand. Ideally this could have gone to the courts but of course there's always rushed it forward and they decided to go forward on this incomplete record With regard to Hunter Biden. I would simply responded into that It's it's it's not enough to simply say this is an influential impeachment and we'll just decide all inferences against the president it might co-witnesses witnesses at the hearing admitted that this was largely influential case. Because they didn't they didn't go after these direct these witnesses with direct Evidence but you can't can't just simply say I'm just going to resolve inferences against the president. He has a defense there. Were there were stories before that call that highlighted Hunter Biden and the corruption allegations in Ukraine. That contract was ongoing in two thousand nineteen it was going on during the trump administration. In so uh-huh I've said I thought it was inappropriate for him to raise the Biden's but just as I don't believe that Alan Dershowitz is right that indictable synonymous with impeachable. I also you don't think objectionable is synonymous with impeachable. I don't think this comes close to what we're looking for for the removal of a president. Kate response to that. Well so you know I I think that. And this is maybe a segue into the kind of John Bolton question which is this infrared and circumstantial case That the house has largely built. And I think that there's plenty any of direct evidence but of course it's right that the people who are closest to the president were prevented from giving their direct accounts And so that is a gap and in the last seventy two hours hours or so. We know that there is someone who is in the finger of John Bolton WHO claimed to have this first hand information About the president explicitly linking this the military aid to investigations into the Biden's and potentially other Democrats. That's not quite explained in the New York Times reporting but there is a suggestion that maybe there were more investigations. Maybe it's just the server and the Clintons and then charisma and the Biden's but it's just not totally clear And you know one way or another. There is a fuller picture. Picture that could emerge if John Bolton permitted to tell a story in particular in the context of Senate testimony. And so you know I the question of sort of burden the clip that you. He played from professor tribe from last week. You know I'm not sure who's I you know. I don't think we're a little bit. It's all little uncharted. Who bears what burden here is it? The case is that the burden shifts to the White House to fill the gaps. I I'm not sure that's right but I also don't think it's right that the house managers have a criminal burden right. That's improved beyond a reasonable doubt standard But either way there are gaps in both accounts and it would seem like from the perspective of the public having a fuller account of what transpired in the Senate. The senators being able to make an informed judgment. Everyone should want more information to to to come forward. Let's go back to our colors. Go to Matt. WHO's calling from Framingham Massachusetts? Matt you're you're on the air. Hi thanks for taking my call My question really. Is You know the Republican argument is no do overs And in in their arguments they said that impeachment inquiry itself was a sham. And that you know. They weren't allowed to pre president wasn't allowed due process. But just you know Innov- itself it seems is that the impeachment inquiry is just the investigation into whether or not they can bring our goals of impeachment to the Senate. So how can how can these Republican lawmakers saying no do overs when part of trials to actually cross examine the witness and a lot of the president's team to cross examine the witnesses that were you know Prospects amador talked to during an investigation. So where's argument there that this is a do over somehow because they didn't subpoena people during an investigation. They gathered enough information that they felt it was feasible to spend to the Senate. Yeah well so matt. Thank you for your call and I'll turn to Jonathan Turley for a response to that. What do you think I think matt raises a good point? The the perspective of the senators is that they're creating president of another kind. You know I warned the House judiciary that this was the thinnest thinnest record of any impeachment. History I it is ridiculous. How thin this record is and and more importantly what could have been in the record You know one one of the members that does this look thin waving around a notebook. Well if you were to try to wave around the record and Clinton you'd need an eighteen wheeler I mean they need the two vans to convey just that part of the record That's the difference in how slim this record is now. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't call witnesses in fact if if you buy back I wrote a piece in the Washington Post suggesting that in my view senators have legitimate concern. That if they let this go forward and let the how and call witnesses that the house should have called as part of its investigation. It creates bad precedent. What I suggested is that what they should do? They should shoot article too as the the penalty for what the House did and House made a mistake. This is a bad way to go about impeaching a president. Then I think they should allow witnesses on Article One and in that way they convey the view of the Senate that this is not acceptable but they also accept as Matt noted that they have a separate obligation regardless of what the House did wrong. Well in the last couple of minutes that we have I mean obviously every everything that both of you said we could dig into individually per for an hour. But we've down down to five minutes and I just WANNA play a couple of moments from what we heard the president's defense team yesterday so here first of all is is a White House counsel Pat Sip Baloney sort of talking about how he might see impeachment proceedings. I I wouldn't maybe put it differently. I would maybe call it. The golden rule of impeachment for the Democrats the Golden Rule could be do unto Republican says you would have them do unto Democrats and hopefully really we will never be in another position in this country where we have another impeachment but vice versa. For that Rule White House counsel Pat Sipalawini in in two thousand and twenty wondering. If in his mind he invoked nine hundred ninety eight at all. Here's Ken Starr who back in the late. Ninety s was the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton. And here's what he said. Why core impeachment is hell or at least presidential impeachment? PITCHMAN is how those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment cluding members of this body. I'm full well understand that. A presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic. Were a bit thankfully protected by our beloved first First Amendment a war of words a war of ideas but it's filled with acrimony divides the country like nothing nothing else can star in the Senate yesterday. He did give a nod their to the Clinton impeachment which he was thoroughly bound up in But Kate in Jonathan. I wanted to play those clips because I think for a lot of citizens watching this process over the past many months anyone with any kind of historical whole memory is hearing political. Echoes from the late nineties. And it's kind of driving US crazy. I mean there's no to me it it there's little doubt as to why why there's such little trust amongst the American people in political proceedings of happened in Washington so let me just start with you for the sanity. Check question here when we're talking about impeachment right now and you know quote unquote the success of impeachment. Honestly what does that really mean mean yet. Such a great question so I think there are people right now for sort of saying There's a lot of very serious evidence of presidential misconduct and yet he is. The presence is almost sure to be acquitted. And all that means is that or one of the things that means. Is that the impeachment process Is Not up to the task of this. Hyper polarized moment in which party loyalty transcends everything institutional loyalty you know to your to say Congress You know loyalty to constitutional expectations Asians or oaths or anything else So you know I guess a little bit depends on what we think. It means for impeachment to work right. Does it only work if it is possible. All under some circumstances for sixty seven senators to vote to convict and remove a president. I mean that's a very high bar to get to And in some ways as Colonie and star their arguments yesterday That is what I kept thinking. They sort of said it is. It is dangerous for impeachment to be normalized and they suggested that It's important that the Senate sent a message. That's not going to happen here. And that that will somehow head off future impeachment and it also you know. Maybe there's like a veiled suggestion imbedded in some of the comments that you know the next Democratic president is shorter. Be Impeached And maybe there will be a normalization of impeachment. Maybe it's going to be the case that in the same. Parliamentary commentary systems there. Are these routine. No confidence votes against a prime minister impeachment in the House will come to sort of routinization that I think is actually could be quite dangerous in that it means you could not it. Actually impeachment loses its meaning couldn't be deployed and effectively used to remove a president Who profoundly violates? An Oath of office in say endangers the country. Well Jonathan Turley really of got about thirty seconds left wondering if you have an answer that question too. Well I think there's a reason why the soap operas On TV are pulling twice the audience of the impeachment trial and is shocking is this may be. It's because the drama seems more real A lot of viewers view the impeachment trial is baked in on both sides. Both the senators are saying things opposed what they've said before and so they're switching over to the young and the restless Because it seems more authentic and that's an indictment of everyone then of course. There's the question in that if if not impeachment. What tools do we have in the constitution perhaps elections or the only remaining one but Jonathan Turley professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington in university? Thank you so much for joining us and Kate Shaw Law Professor at Cardozo Lot Yeshiva University. Thank you so much for being with us. Thanks for having us. I'M MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI thirty. This is on point.

president White House United States Senate Professor Turley Kate Shaw President Donald Trump President Barack Obama White House US professor Congress Professor Hunter Biden Bill Clinton vice president Professor Jonathan Turley House Judiciary Professor Dershowitz
Report: McConnell doesn't have votes to block witnesses

The Beat with Ari Melber

45:11 min | 1 year ago

Report: McConnell doesn't have votes to block witnesses

"We begin tonight with some major new developments in the Senate trial of president trump. Donald Trump's defense lawyers finishing their arguments today and now Senate Republicans emerging from from a closed-door meeting and Mitch McConnell's office and we have fresh reporting on this. I'm going to get right into it right now. There's no public resolution on what these Republican senators will do next in the fight to allow witnesses if McConnell has gotten close to securing fifty one votes. He's not saying yeah which is important because if he did that which would be a big procedural victory very big victory for the White House. You might have heard about it on the news. But if he hasn't the rules provide for another day or two before this is all tested on the Senate floor. So here's what we know. The meeting lasted about about an hour one center who was inside telling NBC News. There was no official. Whip count meaning no announcement. But then there's this new reporting morning right here on the Wall Street Journal as we came on the air the Journal reporting at this meeting that I have this year. I'm GonNa read from it that. GOP leaders told their conference. They currently don't would have the votes to prevent witnesses from being called and that quote McConnell says the vote total wasn't where it needed to be unlocking witnesses adding quote according one of the sources. I'm reading from this. They say quote he had a card with yes no and maybe marked on it. Apparently a whip count so that means as of this hour the Wall Street Journal joining other reports suggest. This thing is wide open. These witnesses are still the big fight and McConnell is not where he wanted to be by now remember. He said after after the opening arguments will be the time to discuss it and his position was no witnesses. NBC I should mention has not yet confirmed the Wall Street Journal Account. This is all very fluid. There are other reports stressing McConnell's trying to quell potential rebellion brewing as this march of bone revelations has roiled even Republican allies of trump to say nothing of the others breaking with trump trump beyond the chamber. Donald Trump's own chief of staff former chief of staff. Now saying he believes Bolton's telling the truth which means that John Kelly thinks donald trump is Li- by the Republican senators. Pushing for Bolton are not going that far to be sure but they do want to hear from someone who is publicly contradicting trump. I'd like to hear from John Bolton. Are we discussing this absolutely. That would be helpful for us. Ella figure out how we might be able onto very likely bed. I'm going to conclude that yes. We do. Need to hear from witnesses as for trial. Oh strategy if McConnell had a slam dunk he could keep running this race to finish as fast as possible instead. He's engineered this pause tonight. And if you follow this trial you may know. This is the first such pause on a weekday since they've begun with a question session now reconvening tomorrow time for senators to reflect of course as well on the trump lawyers closing today there is no violation of law. There's no a violation of the constitution. There is disagreement on policy decisions. That is not what the framers intended. And if you lower the bar that way danger danger danger overturning. The last election Shen and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the United States into our the country. The Senate cannot allow this to happen. We urge the Senate to reject these articles of impeachment. You know yesterday yesterday. If Donald Trump's TV lawyers were wacky and sometimes week today what you just saw. Trump's lawyers played a perhaps tough hand pretty effectively. They tried to deflect away from this key witnessed John Bolton and make an argument at a much higher altitude. That whatever happened. Is this really something. The Senate wants to remove president over on this fast time line over. They argue amounts to at worst attempted abuse of power and short term obstruction of Congress. This is our first full episode of the beats since this trial began in later. I will have a breakdown for you on the arguments and the implications of everything up until tonight. Also I'm thrilled. Tell you a newsmaker house impeachment manager. Jerry Nadler will be on the beat live live later tonight but to get right to the latest news including this Wall Street Journal Report. I'm joined by Pulitzer Prize. Winning Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson and former prosecutors mile widely and and John flannery both of whom have experienced as calculus for elected officials. A sometimes you come on the gene and its same day same hour. Same aim stuff. Tonight is different. You have the Wall Street Journal With a real firsthand account they say from inside the room. We haven't confirmed it. It's all fluid. The Journal says here we are Macau's and have the votes yet. And this is the first account that I've seen the represented itself as having come from inside the room so Look it's completely fluid. I have a feeling this rest for some senators is not going to be restful at all because being pummeled in the Senate whips to try to get back in lie as a student of Washington. When you read this part you have it here? I'll take this literally. We came running out to do. This is how it really works. This line that McConnell in front of his peers Has this card that says quote yes no and maybe is marked on it. The Journal calls that apparently a whip whip count and says he won't show the Whip Count Two senators. We're getting into real real senate deal making. What are you seeing this detail? Well could mean almost anything. You mean the fact that he won't show it to them. could be you know McConnell place everything close to the vest. He's he's not really open open transparent guy but it also could mean that they're like more. Maybe more people actually considering maybe we. I need to hear from Bolton than he expected and then he would like and He needs to do some work. That's what it that's what it could mean. I mean I want to hear some more reports from From inside the room and we have to remember that this is a snapshot right now. What's IT GONNA look like tomorrow on Sunday on Sunday afternoon? I thought there was no chance that would possibly be witnesses and this would be over. You know by Friday at the at the latest Then Sunday night. We had the revelation New York Times. Aw yesterday Monday. That was just yesterday. I thought Gee it looks like there might be witnesses now today. It seemed and to maybe pull back from that a bit but from this report. Maybe it didn't so we we. This is a changing changing situation. It's very fluid. Because I worked as a Senate staff once by the time my my recollection of this. It wasn't impeachment. Trial going on is if you have one of these if you have a yes card to give Mitch McConnell. Whoever your leader is could be tumor could be Daschle and they say I want it by tonight because he said he wanted this thing resolved? Remember once we heard opening arguments. If you're Mitch McConnell and Senator Ivy yes I'm GONNA come in and say here you go. I'm I'M GONNA give it to you. I'm giving I'm giving this to you because you want to give it and say we're in this together. I got you so what I read into this. I'm offering my view and for your analysis and reaction is some number of senators and may not be many but it sounds like four or more who wants it they feel this pressure and something is holding them back. That's not easy that tells me. They're not just wavering. They might be wavering away from yes I agree with you. And I'm keeping myth for future use. It is it would be astonishing. Jonah Shing for them not to have a hard time saying yes to McConnell when the latest poll is that seventy five percent of Americans. I think that a trial means witnesses. And and that's part of the Problem Right Mitch. McConnell is battling against the American people people can try to get the two yes and I I think when we think about what the lawyers did in their defensive donald trump they kept saying over in over and over again. You have not heard from anyone with direct knowledge about what Donald Trump fix what he thought about Ukraine. What his intent was not one witness? That's not really true because there was Gordon. Sabato put that aside that that you haven't heard anyone who said talked to Donald Trump and he said I want the quid pro quo and what we've heard from Bolton if if he says what we are hearing his his manuscript says he saying I'm that Guy I'm the guy who had the conversation with trump where trump's Oh yeah we're going to hold this aid until we get those those investigations announced that makes it extremely hard to argue to the American public. Why you would say no witness one thing? You pointed out that Quinnipiac poll that came out seventy five percent in favor of witnesses. That was coming out just as a senators. We're going into that room. And so the question that was asked on our air by our colleagues on the air at timeless Do they know about this when they're you know they're going into this. This little room Mitch has control. They're not gonNa be you know. Are they going to be able to use their devices. Are they gonNA know about this. If this report is true true I think they probably do you know they found out about that. Yeah it's really fascinating. Jelly bringing John Flannery for a moment. Who's WHO's with from Washington? You've advised congressional investigations instigations. You know a little bit about how that works in those back rooms and I want to be judicious as we always are with all of the information. This is the latest story and I can tell you people people in Washington and people in the White House reading it and respond to it like we are right now but it's not the only story this story breaking at about five fifty pm east coast earlier this afternoon afternoon. Politico had a piece with a very different flavor it said quote Senate. Republicans calmed down after Bolton panic a reporter. They're saying yes. There was panic that swept through. The Republican publican ranks but by Tuesday quote a feeling of calm and been restored the Republican conference. So there's all kinds of reaction and as always spin based on your time on the hill. What are you re is happening? What I read is at the center of desperation if you will with these revelations are something that doesn't happen in other nations where dictators have show trials and deny documents and witnesses and the witnesses are sometimes in peril after that in fact what they can't handle is the fact that power can't pardon the expression trump truth and they know that there's there's GonNa be a story tomorrow and the next day about Bolton and disclosures from the book or something else they cannot run away from this and so the maybes. If that's what we we have and the the the desperation and the reservation reflects a political intellect that says we're cornered we. We have have to make a choice here. And if we don't vote for witnesses the seventy five percent or more out there who want those witnesses and what a real trial they're gonNA come back on us and McConnell on some level is A. He's a bean counter. He's GonNa Count it. I wonder if there were recriminations for what they know about out Boltzmann and when they knew about I mean if the White House had it on December the thirtieth and it's hard to believe that the house the the White House counsel Astle didn't know about it simple oni at the head of that pack then There there has to be some tough talk among the senators about. Why did you hold all this from us because you put us in this hospital send it comes out of this? Well an echoes through things. You mentioned counting the beans the the beans. I can be pressured right. The beans can be fried and refried and one reason one layer. This is given what you just said that. The white eight house put McConnell in a bad position that he made the rare public statement to confirm that he didn't know about it which was his way of telling everyone. Hey if this look sloppy it's not for me and and this may be in the Wall Street Journal tonight because he's letting everyone know Donald trump his aides the assorted allies and people who have levers of power in the Republican -firmative saying I'm doing doing what I can't. I don't have fifty one if somebody has pressured to call in a favor to call in if there is a ride come help me do it. Which would be also very Mitch McConnell? And that's stacked up against something. I want to play for you. which is Adam Schiff? Invoking what I mentioned Donald Trump's own former chief of staff basically calling him a liar today. Take right it's clear. I think today that they are still reeling. From the revelation of John Bolton's book general. Kelly has stated added that he believes John Bolton and more importantly and that is extraordinary in and of itself that the president's own former chief-of-staff believes believes John Bolton And by implication does not believe the president of the United States that he worked closely with for such a long time general. Kelly would would figure in here. I believe as a rough analogue of a character witness John. What kind of character? Witnesses he right now for the president fighting for his his job. Well he's He's he's doing real damage to trump and as we suspected he was staying in that position to protect the nation against trump. The biggest irony that I find fascinating is that here. We have an impeachment involving a shakedown of a foreign leader. And and we have a Senate under McConnell that was going to protect the president from that shakedown while it's being shaken down by the president to give him an acquittal acquittal that has not deserved by the facts and the law. That's beautiful and and there's I don't know if you've read the article by buoy but I went to read the article that Mister Dershowitz Cites John. Of course you did. Of course I did. And in the article the author says this interpretation reputation this remains the dominant one hundred and fifty years later namely you do not need a crime and they have put their entire defense today by Secolo on this thin read as if this means anything there was a was a shell game string card monty. I don't know if you've ever seen this on the street. But that's what I believe. Both Secolo and Dershowitz doing yesterday under which of these things is the P.. And it's always a deception and that's what we have here. We have a legal deception and we have them running for the hills because they don't have the facts to defend the president and they don't know what to do about it because they've been cut short information probably by the White House withholding this essential information from them. I appreciate you fact checking out Dershowitz in detail to paraphrase Annie Hall you know nothing of my footnotes and how you became an impeachment. Each with lawyer is beyond me as a good one. All right. Let me quote Seneca to you okay you. You are now becoming coming an advocate of Seneca. Because we've been teaching you on the air here learning more than my net. You're one of my favorite ones is the fates lead you to your destiny or drag you to two and the Senate is being dragged destiny and the question is will it accept it or not. I do think that applies and whether Mitch McConnell is being dragged to the point gene Robinson also so put it very well the night. He doesn't want to show his cards. He didn't show the count. According to the report from inside the room credited the Wall Street Journal but somebody got word to the Wall Street the journal that hey send help. But we're going to be dragged into witnesses which Mitch McConnell Donald Trump don't want. It's quite a night in this trial to fit in a break so I wanNA thank John Flannery in Washington thank gene. Ian Robinson has been a big part of our coverage of course throughout. My Wiley stays with me when I come back to you later. In the hour. Coming up house impeachment manager. Jerry Nadler is here live. We're going to get into all this including his reaction to this breaking story also with the opening arguments now formerly finished my breakdown on the prosecution defense arguments in the implications. I want to tell you which evidence this is breaking through. And how and later we'll dive deep in today's action and the rising pressure on Republicans over witnesses and how everything might be about to change or not the only way to know. Just keep keep staying where you're watching the beat on MSNBC. If you don't know your numbers you don't Know Your Business. Most companies don't have a clear picture of their business and that's why many businesses struggled to grow net suite by Oracle is here to solve that problem as a a business owner. Are you really confident. You're making the right business. Decisions Serious entrepreneurs and financial teams run on net sweet. The world's number one cloud business system net sweet offers a full picture of your business. Everything in one place. Finance inventory H. R. N. customers. No more guessing no more worrying. Run Your Business with confidence. Grow successfully on net sweet like Ring Hint Bollandbranch and over nineteen thousand other businesses net. Sweet business grows here schedule. Your free product Arctic tour right now and receive their free guide seven key strategies to grow your profits at net sweet dot com slash. NBC set up your free product door and get your free guide. I today at net. Sweet dot com slash NBC net sweet dot com slash NBC. In Ukraine. To look into the by the transcript script WANNA move quickly the president from office. We're going inside. Impeachment with the reporters of NBC. News article two inside impeachment did by Steve Connect Search Nail wherever you're listening subscribed. I think you've heard a lot from our side and I think we've made our case and just like that. The presence legal team finished defending his conduct and his job today wrapping up early leaving roughly six and a half hours on the table. This is a process. That's been unavoidably repetitive. At times like any trial but today featured these new complications for trump lawyers after mostly ignoring the biggest developments in this case John John Bolton uncorking his eye witness account of trump's alleged abuse of power and then trump owned former chief of staff. John Kelly siding with Bolton saying he believes him well. It was a lot of pressure. We're seeing that unfold tonight and stop and just take it in in the middle of this trial over the president's conduct while trump says Bolton's lie Donald Trump's own former chief staff publicly sides with Bolton telegraphed to the world. The president is lying about his defense in this impeachment. Trial listen to Bolton so huge setback for the President President that in any other administration would of course be the biggest story all week and then remember on top of all that it is still John. Kelly's replacement Mick Mulvaney also size with the Bolton part of the case earlier when he admitted the Ukraine plot in his infamous White House press conference colloquially known as we do it all the time. So you take that altogether and today trump lawyer j secolo switch gears under this pressure to address the mustache. The room these Bolton revelations the bulletin revelations of John Bolton said this it was only to sell a book the content of John Bolton's manuscript responding to an unpublished rushed manuscript. That may be some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says. I'm that's what I mean. That's what the if you WANNA call that Eh. But it's I don't know what you'd call that I call it in invisible but that's what it is Mr Sekula Times more effective and grounded in the arguments of trump's TV lawyers can start L. Dershowitz what he just said there. It's not his call. Whether Bolton's testimony is admissible he knows that and so does his primary primary audience. These Senate jurors. They could vote as early as this week on the steps towards calling Bolton this afternoon you had the Republican senators heading to Mitch McConnell's Office for and this was an interesting interesting way to put it. Perhaps the most important moment of the trial happening behind closed doors according to Bloomberg reporter and as we come on the air tonight. We've been hearing all about the pressure. McConnell who reportedly doesn't have the votes at this hour why well partly in reaction to this trial. That's the point I want to share with you now that we've had time to let the opening inning arguments sink in it. Is those arguments and the evidence and the missing edits that is moving people. Republicans like Senator Murkowski welcoming Bolton in public blick. Just today probably. That would be helpful for us to figure out how We might be able to. It is very likely bed. I'm going to conclude that yes. We do. Need to hear from witnesses and top Democrats arguing the GOP resistance to Bolton itself is at Tel reading between the lines of their defense. It's basically yeah. He did it we know he did it. The president knows he did it. We just don't want the American people to see any more evidence that he did it. So where are we now. A weekend of the trial opening arguments done. This is the famous moment. Mitch McConnell touted as the time to decide on. Witnesses is the case for witnesses stronger now. Legally with Bolton's Iowa eyewitness account with trump's own lawyers emphasizing the role of witnesses to resolve. What the president did yes? The legal case the trial argument is now even stronger. If the evidence and the witnesses and the process press towards adding witnesses and some Republicans are saying so in public as Mitch. McConnell says he still doesn't have the votes will do the White House have a plan for rebutting all this. Yes in trials. You don't always fight evidence. Evidence with evidence. Sometimes offense doesn't have good evidence so then you fight evidence with not evidence. Meaning you say that no matter what the evidence is is is alleged conduct is not a crime so just go away and that is why I remember. Take it all in on cue in the president's last night of Primetime defense. The White House went full. Durch I have gone back and read all the relevant historical material Israel as nonpartisan. Academics should always do the great fallacy of many contemporary scholars pundits and with due respect members members of the House of Representatives is that they failed to understand the deployment of this powerful weapon. Weighed pro quo. Alone is not a basis basis for abuse of power. If you don't like the president's tweets find somebody who doesn't tweet that might switch in attitude purely academic purely Wurley. Non Partisan purely academic. Everyone can judge for themselves but one of the strangest part of the process has been to see this overlap of trump trump defenders. And what you might call news nihilists agree and say you know this whole thing probably doesn't matter. I want to tell you having watched now a week of this trial this whole thing does matter. That's why there's this pitched battle in the Senate it's why Donald Trump pulled out all the stops adding all of his TV lawyers to who is team. It's why even Republican hours trump are struggling to even land on the position that Mitch McConnell's demanding or explain where they're headed it matters that Donald trump trump has joined the small sad embarrassing club of presidents who go on trial during their tenure to find out if they can even stay in office. It matters that he's now in a club all by himself as the only elected president to go on trial during his first term. And you know how it goes. One is the loneliest number. You'll ever do to be as bad as what trump nixon the only presents to face abuse of power allegations for election misconduct. The case that they abused power I would undermine democracy itself so all of this it matters and there are signs some of its breaking through from conservatives increasingly noting the damning evidence on air to our nation's comics finding ample punch lines that don't divide the audience but united. I've convicted people on a lot. Less evidence than there is a quid. Pro Quo here. I guess it's just constitutional nonsense really I don't know how Senate Republicans can justify not hearing from Bolton now Republicans are simply requesting a fair trial. No witnesses no. Evidence imagined an eyewitness to murder wanted to testify in the judge just refused. And they'll just just like I. I saw this man and I saw the crime first. Hand up no spoilers. No spoilers wasn't done by the Justice Department because the Justice Department Vermont views to carry out there get your but how do you get your facts straight in the Senate or the whole country unless you have all the evidence. We're going to turn next to house manager and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler when we're back in just thirty seconds. We're back with news. It was breaking because we first came on the air at six. PM Eastern Mitch. McConnell reportedly telling and colleagues he doesn't have the votes to block impeachment witnesses and take a look Washington Post now also adding to that reporting New York Times telling the same story that I broke broken. The Wall Street Journal Tonight Mitch McConnell Telling Gop Centers in their closed-door meeting he currently as of this hour does not have the votes to block these high profile. high-stakes witnesses that Democrats want to call. It is a big development in the story. That's moving fast. And we have someone in the center of the Action House Impeachment Manager and Judiciary Committee Committee Chairman Congressman Jerry. Nadler thanks for joining me. You're welcome good to be here good to have you. What is your reaction to this reporting now in multiple pull outlets that Mitch? McConnell does not have the votes to block the witnesses you as house managers have been seeking. Well it's very good news. I mean obviously. Obviously if you're going to have a fair trial you have to have the witnesses any ten year old knows that if you can have a trial witnesses you have documents. It was a heck of a nerve serve for Mitch. McConnell and others try to block witnesses because they knew that these witnesses would condemn the president and the fact that now with the Bolton revelations McConnell says he doesn't have to vote doesn't have the votes as is very good news his attempted cover-up maybe unraveling if he still doesn't get these votes then. As early as the end of this week there could be a floor. Vote to begin a process of calling witnesses. There's there's been so much talk about John. Bolton House manager when the if that process goes there who are the witnesses. You'll you'll see your side will be seeking John Bolton certainly what's his name. Dunleavy the Mick Mulvaney. Rather the president's chief of staff for some of the other witnesses who who have heard had firsthand information certainly and maybe and maybe now John John Kelly John Kelly. You would wanNA call giving his remarks about Bolton's veracity. Yes that would seem to indicate that he has knowledge of what Bolton's instead of trying to very interesting. Would you be sure that you get up or down. Votes on each of those individually. Or how do you pursue that. Well well hopefully we. We'll get a vote to permit all witnesses and if not we'll seek Individual individual votes depends on how the Senate votes have you discussed the idea of calling General Kelly with with other managers or senators seems pretty obvious. Your name mm-hmm of course came up on the Senate floor. Take listen to trump lawyer J Secolo here in the trial. I have been critical manager. Nadler's executive privilege and other nonsense. Let's not start calling constitutional rights other nonsense lumping them together. Of course this is from from a House of Representatives actually believes attorney. Client privilege doesn't apply in a similar vein. One of the senators arguing to as you know Senator Collins said had this quote I was stunned by Congress. Now there's approach if we were in normal debate strike the words of a senator quote imputing another senator. She talked about how she wrote a note and she was glad. The chief justice admonish both sides. I wanted to give you the chance to respond to all of the above. Well the fact is that I was the first one that was the Secolo said quote. I've been critical of manager. Now there's there's executive privilege and quote other nonsense. Yeah well all right well. What I said was that there were certain? Nonsense about executive privilege that executive privilege is a limited privileges. Supreme Court decided in nineteen seventy-three That executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and anything else to be said about. It was nonsense that then. Frankly what the impeachment. The president's people have been saying about all these things nonsense. There is no right to shield evidence from a court. There's no right to shield evidence from the Senate. There is a limited. It'd right for the president to get candidate information under executive privilege. But that must surrender. As the Nixon case of the Supreme Court said nine hundred seventy for the most surrendered when there's an accusation of wrongdoing. And the fact. Is that if you if you agreed with what. The president is claiming with what people are saying about executive privilege with an absolute immunity than Congress has no right to get any information at all. This would deny all information to Congress which in effect would lead the executive all powerful because Congress cannot act without information and the president. And that's why we put this article of the of the impeachment inquiry. The president has asserted the right. He said it was the night all subpoenas and he has denied all subpoenas or requests for information besides sides being self serving. This is an attack on the ability of Congress to function. It's an assertion that the presidency or to be a dictatorship. I'm also curious your view of how the trump lawyers arguments on the floor evolved. Because you and your colleagues made a full throated argument that witnesses are essential it would. It would seem from this new reporting tonight. That Mitch McConnell is struggling with the weight of your argument and as you know and our viewers know from watching a lot of this the first two days it seemed like they mostly ignored that they tried to just pretend it wasn't there and then yet today on day three. They seem a little more shook by your argument. And we've shown tonight they tried to sort of come up with some rebuttal to Bolton. I'm curious what is your view of that. Do you think they shimmy and go ahead. My view is that their attempt to maintain a total cover. Up is being being undermined by Bolton's testimony. We've said all along with suspected pulled was going to say they didn't want to hear it and they didn't want to hear anything anything that might be critical. The president was a total attempting to cover up and I suspect what is happening now. Is that in view of Bolton's public. The airing the public airing of what Bolton has said and presumably would say in testimony send the McConnell is unable to hold his own troops behind total cover up and lastly and perhaps briefly. I'm just curious. I have to ask you congressman. Do you think Ken Starr was a net gain or a net loss For the president's side I don't know I I. I think the the argument he was making was so absurd absurd. It's hard to credit. His argument essentially was that a private sexual affair are legitimate subject of impeachment but undermining constitutional structure of government undermining the use of government power to the illicit use of of manpower by the president for private personal gain to try I to Riggan. Election is not subject to impeachment. They're trying to to cheat on election trying to enlist the foreign governments to cheat on an American election. That's not impeachable achievable. If proven but private sexual affair is impeachable. It's absurd in the extreme absurd extreme. There you have it congress I appreciate you. You take it all the questions at a busy time for you sir. You're quite welcome. Thank you sir. I want to tell our viewers before we take a quick break. Senate Minority Leader Chuck. Schumer will be on hardball. Our ball tonight it could be quite a newsworthy interview. All of this breaking news. That's hardball night. Seven PM Eastern. When we come back we have a deeper look at arguments on both sides with two acclaimed claimed lawyers including the man who used to run the famed Southern District of New York prosecution office when we come back? Welcome back to the beat. We're covering the breaking developments here in the trump senate trial three outlets since. We've come on air now all reporting this blockbuster news that Mitch. McConnell is crying at least for now uncle telling fellow Republicans he does not have a critical vote. He's been seeking to a block witnesses tonight. That could change. But those are the headlines and I'm joined now by former. US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. David Kelly and former civil prosecutor in that. Same Office Maya Wiley Wiley. Nice to see you both new. I want to do something with you that we haven't always had time to do during the trial. Which is actually breakout? These lawyers arguments both of you quite quite accomplished attorneys to do the assessment. Let's begin with Professor Dershowitz discussing his changing views last night during the Clinton impeachment I stated in an interview that I did not think technical crime was required but that I did think that abusing trust could be considered. I said that at that time I had not done the extensive research on that issue because it was irrelevant to the Clinton case I have gone back and read all the relevant historical material as nonpartisan. Academics should always do and have now concluded that the framers did intend to limit the criteria for impeachment to criminal type David. What's he doing there? And does that work. No I don't think so. You have to look at the context here whether or not you're in a quarter lore you're in a in a bit of a circus circus ship it may resonate with some in a court of law. I think this would be a bit of losing argument so real problem when you make an argument that your expert witness doesn't agree with their expert witness at trial. I mean at in the house process when they were deciding what to charge John. Curley said no abuse abusive powers towers impeachable. The question is whether you have enough evidence to would have been a better argument to make arguably and so therefore he was unsupported by his own expert right and that and that would seem to be a problem. Which is wider? She had to go out of his way to even reconcile it. Someone who did not reconcile their past Ken Starr. I want to be clear. We've been discussing tonight. How fluid this is because people who say they know how it's ending well all of a sudden Mitch? McConnell doesn't have the votes which would suggest that what happens on the Senate floor matters and we've reported on the fact back then. It didn't seem that Ken Starr was helpful to the president's case particularly if you're a moderate potentially swing Republican voter. The Senate voter take a listen to him last night. We are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment like war. Impeachment is hell. It divides the country like nothing else. Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment understand that a deep and personal way. David do you find that. Mournful recollection of history by Ken Starr to be persuasive. While I'm not not really and I think one of the things if you're in a court or advocating position a lot depends on your own credibility and the people who were hearing and it's kind of difficult to listen listen to him who promoted a completely political agenda on a much less serious offense if you will many years ago to stand up and now act as though we're that we're terrible place that the Democrats have brought us. Oh credibility doesn't really resonate with me. You mentioned his agenda. And he's drawing attention into it right and if you look at the Senate as many votes perhaps established and then one question remaining about witnesses. It was putting it in. Everyone's wants face that donald trump picked someone perhaps to entertain or to to excite beyond the room when the people in that room are very close to the history. We put something together and I want to say in advance. We didn't do this to make. Ken Starr Look Inconsistent. He did that all by himself. Passed the House of Representatives with all due respect in these two articles of impeachment charged a crime violation of established law or not whether the president's it's actions are in fact grounds for an impeachment or some other sanction is a decision in the sole discretion of the Congress. The profound danger after that a presidential impeachment will be dominated by partisan considerations that the president has misused the privileges the villages available to his high office like war. Impeachment is hell no one is above the law. My so there you have it. It's all after he didn't do it. Alan Dershowitz did at least Alan Dershowitz explicitly. Listen tried to deal with the fact that he had taken the opposite position before standing in the Senate well today yesterday and what we have here is in in Ken Starr some who didn't do that. I mean we could've come and said look. I learned from the Clinton impeachment I learned from this process and Said said you know I feel like we went too far and now I feel like we have to dial it back and I'm sharing my experience because I did that. That would have been much more. Credible what he did was not so. We looked at a few questionable moments. I want to show something that seemed more effective by one of the lesser known. Perhaps lawyers and and David. I'm sure when you were prosecuting cases. New York you've seen this where people will try to concede something for that very reason. You mentioned earlier credibility. Mr Ray is one of the first trump defenders. I've seen who just up and out and said look. We didn't begin this whole Ukraine plan the best way. But that doesn't mean it's an impeachable high crime bob. Let's take a look and take a serious look at this part of the defense. That would have been better in attempting to spur. Action by a foreign government government in coordinating law enforcement efforts with our government to have done so through proper channels while the president certainly enjoys the power to do otherwise there is consequence to that action as we have now witnessed after all. That is why we are all here. How about that David kind of curious about what? The proper channel would be to withhold money allocated by Congress and to initiate. She ate an investigation for political gain against your political opponent. So I'm not quite sure what he's referring to there and what the proper channels would be fair directing your power against a political opponent. That's there would be. I agree with David. I suppose that to give it its best gloss. He would argue that. This whole thing would have been better if Giuliani were not involved. I'm baffled by how we how and why Giuliani is involved. And I don't know why you know what's he doing there. Where is he if he's the president's personal lawyer you know what what what exactly is his realm of authority to do what he did? Well and also want to ask you because as I remind viewers you and rudy ran the same office that not many people have that it's a big job rudy publicly lobbied to be a part of the Senate trial defense. The president rejected him. What does that say about where he's at doesn't have anything good to say? Ed Look if somebody does the same thing with Bolton if somebody is really trying hard turn themselves in a pretzel to keep somebody from testifying. You don't do that for somebody who's going to help you and I think that if Rudy Giuliani despite what he says in public where to get understand and really be you know put in the crucible of a courtroom and cross examine effectively actively. I think you'd see what everybody has seen that this whole biting conspiracy thing in the corruption is a bunch of hogwash. And in fact if it wasn't why hasn't the Senate picked up and conducted. Graham started an investigation of Barack Obama. He hasn't done that. They were quick to jump on Benghazi in the house conduct an investigation. But all this noise about the Biden corruption. And it's the only person who's holding that information is Rudy Giuliani Johnny. And if it was to be taken seriously I think Congress would react differently than it has. What's interesting when you put it like that? Notwithstanding the substrate ethical issues you're making a strategic point which is with Benghazi. Godsey was committee after committee. They wanted to chase the car without catching here as you point out. They're not even chasing the car. They have subpoena power in the committee's all really interesting points from our a two lawyers. David Kelly a quick break. And I'm GonNa tell you. Speaking of Giuliani. He just actually has responded to a lot of this bulletin news. We'll bring you that a whole lot more when we come back. Everyone is either talking about John. Bolton getting nervous about John Bolton over at the White House with at this story. That's been dominating tonight Mitch McConnell saying he doesn't have the votes to block them right now and then comes to Rudy Giuliani speaking out about Bolton and what's alleged in the new book take a listen. He is a personal friend. I thought so. Here's the only conclusion I can come to. And it's a harsh one and I. I feel very bad about it. He's a backstabber. Has a serious thing. I'm not sure it's true if your friend was complaining about you behind your back and didn't have the guts to come up to your face and tell you I think SCREWING UP Catherine. That'd be a backstabber. That's classic backstabber. Classic backstabber Tabar didn't have the guts. It's my job of course to remind everyone the facts. You may be familiar with President. Trump Rudy Giuliani John. Bolton Mick Mulvaney these are all people who have been prevented from going face to face and sharing their testimony and that could change the way. Maybe he wants that to change so no one has to to do anything behind anyone's back we'll be right back with one more thing that does it for the B. Tonight. I'll see you back here tomorrow. At Ten am eastern. So you WANNA be president. I've watched many candidates for their party's nomination but only a few knew how to get it for this microphone. My My podcast is about what it takes to get the nomination. Six episodes six timeless themes that separate the few winners from the many losers. The hope still lives and the Agreem- Shell never die. So you WANNA be President with Chris Matthews and M._S._N._B._C.. PODCAST search now wherever you're listening and subscribe I two episodes available now.

Mitch McConnell John John Bolton Senate president Donald Trump Wall Street Journal John John Kelly John Kelly trump White House John Bolton Congress Jerry Nadler senator Professor Dershowitz chief of staff GOP John flannery House of Representatives White House
Alan Dershowitz | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 85

The Ben Shapiro Show

1:05:11 hr | 1 year ago

Alan Dershowitz | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 85

"The left knows the truth with a Capital T. The truth is if you're a white male you're guilty if you're a woman of Color Your Victim Ellen. Dershowitz is one of the most famous legal minds of the last half century after graduating first in class in the law. School in Nineteen Sixty. Two Dershowitz clerked for Supreme Court. Justice are Goldberg just a few years later at twenty eight. He became the youngest person at the time to ever become a tenured professor at Harvard. He then went on to some of the most high profile defendants in the history of the country from Oj. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein's Harvey Weinstein and Mike Tyson. Alan Dershowitz has played a significant role in crafting. The defenses of major figures accused of a litany of heinous crimes but the one that his arguably drawn the most controversy is one in which is defendant was not accused of any actual crime in January. Twenty twenty during the impeachment trial of president trump. Alan took the stage to present the case against impeachment Allen being a lifelong Liberal Democrat and it's Twenty Sixteen Hillary Clinton supporter believes. Everyone has a right to defense in a court of law even Donald Trump Ellen and I will discuss his rules on deciding which clients represent how the media deeply misrepresented. His case against impeachment. Is New Book Guilt by accusation the challenge of Proving Innocence in the age of me to as well as whether or not Oj did it and welcome. This is the Ben Shapiro. Show Sunday special today. We are joined by Professor Alan Dershowitz just reminder. We'll be doing some bonus questions with Professor Dershowitz. The only way to get access to that part of the conversation is to pass money and become a subscriber go delaware dot COM becomes subscribing of access to all of the full conversations with every one of our awesome guest Professor Dershowitz. Thanks so much for stopping by Jules. Thank you when we start with the obvious question. How did you a defense attorney? Best known for being a lifelong Democrat and defending who a lot of people would consider on the Republican side to be criminals. How'd you end up a hero of the right? How did this happen? I shouldn't be a hero the right anymore than I should have been a hero the left when I defended many people who were left wingers. I've always been a neutral civil libertarian. Sometimes my civil liberties lands on the side of the left and then they love me and then sometimes my civil liberties lands on the side of the right and they love me and the other side hates me for example. I started writing my book about impeachment when Hillary Clinton looked like she was going to be elected and the name of the book was called the Case Against Impeaching Hillary Clinton. I would've written the same book. Had she been elected except they would have built the statute of me on Martha's Vineyard and I'd be the hero of the left today but I make the same argument. Just change the name of the book from Clinton to trump and now I hated by the hard left loved by the right I deserve. Neither a civil libertarian shouldn't be loved or hated by anybody but people who deeply believe in civil liberties due process shoe on the other. Foot test neutral principles. So do you think that something has happened within the Democratic Party? That has changed because again. It wasn't just that you were a Democrat for for most degrees still a Democrat presumably The the real question is what has changed such that. The hatred for you is so strong suggest. The association with trumpeted star before that it feels like start a little bit before that. I think so. I think that today the Democratic Party if you want to be a full on member you have to buy everything they say and everything they do. And I'm just not that kind of a person and I put po politics way behind civil liberties due process the constitution. And so I think within a few years it became obvious. I wasn't there guy and I'm treated like a traitor. You know. They don't hate Jay Sokolow or or Patch Baloney because or ten store. It's expected me. I'm a Liberal Democrat. How dare I Defend the president of Bob shrum yesterday that it was disgraceful that I would defend the worst president in the history of the country as if that fact even if I believed to be so would influence my decision. I've defended the worst criminals the worst people I defended the right of Nazis to march through skokie. I defended the rights of Communist when I was in college even though I hated communism. That's what a civil libertarian. I know now Bernie is going to be elected. That was a bad decision but in any case I WANNA ask you in one second about the About sort of the future of the Democratic Party. Considering that they're casting out people like you but I even though we're talking with Alan Dershowitz Lemme real about this. There's lots of crimes lots of crime everywhere and this is particularly true in Los Angeles where governance is terrible. I know in my neighborhood. We've had a series of breaking entering crimes. It's really bad this is why I rely on rings. Keep my property not only the ring APP allowing me to know when there's crime in my area but also ring gives you protection at every quarter and helps create custom affordable security for your home rings video. Doorbells play you answered the door and check in on your home anytime from anywhere. C can protect your family. Pets property with rings outdoor security cameras. You can check in on every part of Your House. So you'll never miss a moment ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world and motion when people come onto your property you get notifications on your phone your tablet your PC. You can see here and speak to visitors in real time from anywhere and get peace of mind knowing that your loved ones are safe. Get a special offer on the ring. Welcome Kit when you go to ring dot com slash Ben. Welcome kit includes the ring video doorbell to and try and pro. It's all you need to start building custom security for your home today just head on over to ring dot com slash man. That's ring dot com slash. Ben Let's talk about the fact that since you're now cast you've said before that you have a house on Martha's vineyard but no one will talk to you. Over Martha's Vineyard. Do you think that the Democratic Party has a future if they keep throwing out people who are middle left or center or is it possible that they that their theory which seems to be a burgeoning demographic majority based on various victim groups that they can sort of agglomerate together? That is actually a strategy. For the electoral success would be the worst. The worst thing would be for the Democratic Party to succeed as a hard left identity. Politics Intersection Analogy Party combination of people with grievances. That would be the worst thing I would hope that the Democrats would recognize that. The fate in the future of America lies with the center. I'm writing a new book now called why I left. The left. Couldn't join the right. The case for a vibrant center. You know in the old day I would have conversations. Like I'm having with you with Bill Buckley. And he called me his favourite liberal. I was his favourite. He was my favorite conservative. We would have good rational conversations. We disagreed about fundamental issues. But we could talk to each other. Can't do that today with Democrats When I did my argument in front of the Senate. Nobody ever took it on. The merits Larry Tribe said it was bonkers of people. Said I was getting senile People attack me personally. I wasn't a scholar and constitutional law even though I taught constitutional criminal procedure for fifty years and constitution litigation wrote books on the subject if I had been Hillary Clinton side if she had been impeached. I'd be the great scholar in the history of constitutional law according to the left. But they don't like where. I came down in this case so they attacked me personally. The AD hominem inexcusable. So let's talk about the case that you made in front of the Senate which of course brought the full weight of the Democrats the Democrats in the press but our myself to bear on you the the case that you made in front of the Senate is not the case that CNN said you made in front of the Senate the case that CNN said the front of the Senate was effectively that if a politician of any sort does something in pursuit of their own reelection than this is not impeachable activity now. I saw that clip of you and I immediately knew had been taken out of context because first of all it's an argument and you're not an idiot and second of all because CNN was saying it. And I and CNN has some problems with taking people out of context. What is the argument that you're actually making? And how did they twist? That argument wasn't taken out of context. That's happens all the time. It was doctored It was as if I said the following. Let me tell you now what I don't believe. I don't believe a president seeking reelection can do anything and CNN ran. A president seeking re election can do anything excluding the fact that I said this is what I don't believe in a paragraph before the quote that they used. I said if a president engages in anything illegal if the quid pro quo is illegal. That isn't peachable. I talked about corrupt motive. I talked about kickbacks I said in my whole hour and ten minutes speech to the Senate if the president commits anything which is criminal like akin to treason or bribery. He can be impeached. And so what? Cnn did is. They took all of that out and they made it sound like I was saying. And then you had these idiots on CNN. People like Paul Begala. Who said basically what I said is a president can do anything illegal. Some said I said president could shoot. His opponents of president could lock up all the Democrats. The president could tamper with voting machines. It's exactly the opposite and then Joe Wockhardt Again another liar. said What I said is like what miscellany Hitler and Stalin would say and I supported genocide. Look either they didn't know what I said. I don't think that's the case. I suspect that what happened is and it's more than a suspicion. It's based on information that I have is that Zuqar. Cnn made a willful deliberate decision. To have me say something that sounded idiotic in order to hurt my credibility on the an hour and ten speech that I made in front of the Senate and they deliberately omitted what I had said about criminal conduct to make it sound like I was saying a president can do anything and then everybody followed suit everybody on CNN said that's what Dershowitz said and they knew. I did think that the point that I immediately knew that you were making. Because it's a point that I've made myself in his an obvious point because the counterpoint is completely idiotic. Which is that if a if a president does a thing that is within his legal power to do and that is tainted by his own self interest but it is legal power to do this thing but he also has an self interest as either a combined motor a secondary motive. That's not impeachable because that's just called politics and every politician does that. We're everytime Barack Obama did anything that was within his power to do with an eye toward reelection. Now it's called his first term ends. Pretend that that's impeachable activity. Which is what the Democrats effectively we're doing is not impeachable example. I gave that example. I said let's assume the following President Obama promises. He's going to bomb Syrian military if they use chemical weapons. They use chemical weapons. His adviser comes in. It's Oh wait a minute before you start bombing think about what it will do to your election. The left will turn against you and and and Obama. Oh my God really. I should bomb. I'll break my promise. Would that be impeachable? Of course not. And I don't limit it to presidents. I said it. Any elected official always mixed motives. They care about the national interest but they always have an eye on their political future. And all I said was if a president has one eye on his re- electability because he thinks his elect abilities and the national interest that can turn innocent conduct within his power into an impeachable offense. There is nobody who disagree with that. Yet Adam Schiff pretended to disagree with it Nadler pretended disagree with it. Schumer pretended to disagree with it. All three of them were lying through their teeth and I wrote that in the Wall Street. Journal. I got a lot of criticism. How dare you challenge the motives of people well? I am challenging their motives and the the as soon as this thing broke the the first reaction that I had was that the question in the end was going to be about president trump's motives if it came out that he had said to John Bolton for example that boom testified and he had said openly. The reason that I did this specifically is because I want to knock Joe Biden out for prices of the two thousand twenty election. Then that would have been impeachable conduct but if you had an eye backward twenty sixteen and he was saying. I want everything in two thousand sixteen looked at because it bothers me annoys me and I think it's in the national interest and even if the if that was badly informed as some of that stuff was the crowd strike stuff and all the rest of her. Then that is not impeachable. That's just what we call bad judgment. Then he's up for election and that's why we decide who to vote for based on bad judgment but that's not impeachable conduct. The other example I gave is Joe Biden Says unless you fire. The prosecutor withholding billion dollars ninety percent of his mind was on the national interest but in the back of his mind. He said you know. Maybe it'll help my kid. He works. Roberta's Ma. Maybe it'll cough the investigation. That wouldn't change his innocent conduct into culpable conduct doesn't matter what the president vice-president or anybody else. Every politician always has mixed motives. That's what I said. Everybody understood it. They look me in the eye. They knew what I said and then they deliberately lied about what I said so moving four when it comes to impeachment given given the fact that the Democrats didn't receive a single Republican. Vote on impeachment Well they they got Mitt Romney on one charge. But they didn't. They didn't receive any other votes impeachment Do you think that impeachment is still a viable power under the constitution? What would a president really have to be caught doing in order to be impeached? Richard Nixon? Very simple he's the only case in American history where president should have been impeached. He committed repeated crimes even when he was being impeached favored his impeachment. I was on the National Board of the ACO. You and I asked the ACLU to oppose the way he was being treated. They named him as an unindicted. Co-conspirator unfair if your name is an unindicted co-conspirator you can't fight back. You don't get a trial. So as a civil libertarian. Who FAVORED IS IMPEACHMENT? I oppose that back in the nineteen sixties. Look Seventy S. You can argue anything about me but one thing you can't argue about is my consistency. I've been absolutely consistent since the day. I started to be an adult when I fought against censorship of Communism at Brooklyn College and I fought against censorship during the Vietnam War. I never care which side it comes down on right left center Republican Democrat. I always care about civil liberties and people understand that but they pretend that I've changed. Suddenly I become a reactionary right winger instead of the liberal left winger that I always that does feel like a a difference in moral system that has happened in the United States. I mean it used to be when I was growing up that people would say it's a free country. You can sort of do what you want. And people don't tend to use that phrase too much anymore a lot of talk about things that you shouldn't say maybe you should be pushed into saying them or things that you or the other factors that are supposed to attend to justice beyond your own individual case you talk about a lot of this in guilt by accusation. But this most famously. During the cavenaugh hearings when it seemed as though the evidentiary necessity to prove a case against justice. Cavanaugh was completely thrown by the wayside by the media. The mere accusation was enough to slime him. Because obviously he was a white man in a position of privilege and power as opposed to a woman who apparently he who alleged that he had abused her without not only no evidence but every single piece of evidence that she tried to stack up immediately fell apart including people. She said that were at the Party in which he somehow wronged her saying that they weren't at that party and the party never took place in still. Were we're told that Kavanagh's some sort of right right? Well you know when the Columbia School of Journalism had me interviewed for the Journal of Columbia. Journalism is supposed to be the you know the the paradigm the interviewer said women. You can't be a victim of a false accusation. You're a white old male. I mean that's the way journalists now. Approach this problem. It's all identity. Politics doesn't matter what the evidence is. Madison who are not who you are what you are. What your identity. Is that determines whether you get free speech whether you have triggered warnings whether you are silenced. Whether you're allowed to speak on campus like the two of us have all kinds of difficulties speaking on campus It has nothing to do with our idea. Is they refuse to take us on based on our ideas. It's all about who you are. How dare you exercise your white privilege by coming on campus and telling us what you think? So what do you think the future is for due process? I mean that that's the most basic right that we have is this right to due process the right to be treated according to circumstance of our case and be judged on the merits of the case as opposed to what you think of me as a human being more importantly what you think of my group identity as a human being. That seems like it's going completely. By the way as I say about Kevin there were full articles written because he was a powerful white male he should not be given new process. He didn't deserve due process. And you've seen the definition of racism itself more and formerly people who used to say. Racism was discrimination on the basis of race will now say that it's discriminatory intent on the basis of race combined with power. Which of course suggests that? If you're a member of victimize group that can be arranged racist or sexist or any other you can't be An Anti Semite either. If you're a member an oppressed group no there's no question about that. Look deep down. Not Very many people care about due process. People use due process and free speech for me but not for the they generally tend to support it when it helps their side. When I was growing up it was the liberals who wanted free speech because conservatives. The right wingers were suppressing. Free SPEECH ON CAMPUS. Particularly among a communist today is the conservatives who want free speech because their rights being violated what we need are a core of people who support due process and free speech regardless of who benefits and who loses. The number of those people are are very small. Now I have to tell you. Thank God for Conservatives. 'cause I think conservatives now have come to appreciate more than in the past. The virtues of due process fairness free speech dialogue and all the rest of the catalog of liberties and civil liberties that I grew up taking for granted. So the second I WanNa ask you about guilt by accusation and the extent of the of the pushing aside of due process particularly in the metoo movement. That's nothing once I can I? Let's talk about the importance of preserving your memories out your memories. What are your memories are incredibly important to make you who you are as a person. And here's the problem. You can instantly lose those memories if they're out in your garage a bunch of old film reels. What exactly are those doing out there? You got a bunch of old VHS tapes you don't even have a VCR anymore. You've got old photos. But they're getting waterlogged. Well why not take off stomach digitize? This legacy box comes in legacy boxes away for you to easily and affordably digitally preserve your past. The process from start to finish is incredibly easy. You just pack it up and send it over. Their team digitises everything by hand. And then you receive perfectly preserved digital copies on a thumb drive. Dvd or the cloud ready to watch share and enjoy plus they keep up to date with regular email. Updates throughout the digitizing process. Legacy box is the world's largest digitize her of home movies and photos they've helped over seven hundred and fifty thousand families digitally preserve their past. I've been using box myself. My parents had a bunch of old stuff out in the garage. Took off sending it in to legacybox. Can't wait to see what it looks like. Once it's done with digital preservation get started preserving your past today go to legacybox dot com slash Ben to get an incredible forty percents off your first order by today to take advantage of this exclusive offer and then send in when you're ready go to LEGACYBOX DOT COM SLASH. Ben and say forty percent while supplies last. Okay let's talk about the metoo movement. It's it's been fascinating to watch the boundaries of the METOO movement. Move so I am somebody who obviously very social embryologist Ju. I'm very socially conservative. I've always been. I'm the purest person I know when it comes to matters like this. I was a virgin until I was married like the whole do well. You're the only other one right. We've had true you know. We didn't have learner's permits for marriage life to learn the night you. So why would that said you know the kind of general take of the Metoo Movement? Which is that women ought to be treated like human beings and pieces of meat. Is Something for which. I was very sympathetic. But then as I watched the standards what meets who constituted move radically the lines. Move Radically. And the attempt to remove all gradations of misconduct so making sexist remark in the office was now considered akin to rape or accusation was considered pure evidence that this thing happened because of course women don't lie genetic this genetic rule that women are born with a predisposition genetically. Always tell the truth and men particularly white men are born with a genetic predisposition to lie. I mean the women movement. It's like this is not just first year criminal law which they believe all anybody is the stupidest thing in the world but it's basic logic of course you'd never believe all anybody based on their group identity. You wouldn't even believe all rabbis or believe all priests. Why in the world would you believe all anybody that has become the basis of the metoo movement and it's led to this idea again that based on your victim group status in this case victims being women particularly that you ought to be believed on the basis of an accusation alone and obviously since you are the expert in Criminal Law? This is incredibly dangerous and when people suggest that there are no bad accusations of rape were evidence free accusations of rape or sexual assault or sexual misconduct. That obviously is not true. Of course now. I never met the woman ever under any circumstances who accuse me. We discovered hidden emails that she tried to hide with her lawyers in which he admits. You never met me. hidden manuscript which was sealed in which she said. She saw me once speaking Jeffrey Epstein about business but never met me told the FBI. She never had sex with me told her best friends. She never met me or knew me. her lawyer on tape recorded says she's wrong simply wrong. She couldn't possibly have met you in places. She said she met you an F. B. I. Report concluded for the former director of the FBI. Louie Freeh that the whole story was made up and it all went away. The judge struck it. The lawyers withdrew. It admitted they were wrong. And filing it and then along came to me too movement and suddenly the false accusation known to be false is enough to get me cancelled speaking at the ninety second street. Y The ninety second street. Y where I've spoken at more than anybody. But Ellie Weasel suddenly said. I can't speak about my book. Defending Israel at the ninety second street y because all. They know. I didn't do anything wrong. There's an accusation and the accusation is trouble. And we don't want trouble so you can't ever speak your again. So what do we do about that in the social sphere? Because that's really what we're talking about here in the criminal lost here. Obviously you're not in the dock. You haven't been accused formerly of anything. Who were you know I wrote an op Ed for the Wall Street Journal saying to the FBI? Please investigate me. Criminally conduct a criminal investigation. That's the only way I can possibly clear myself. Do you know the rule is so absurd. Now she can accuse me of anything. She can accused me of having sex alert. Which is two years old? She get accused me of anything as long as she does it in papers. That are law papers. She is exempt from being sued for defamation. But if I then deny it. She consumed me for defamation because by denying it I have called her a liar so we now have a legal system that incentivizes false accusations for money. The the trick is easy accused. Prominent person he'll then tonight used to him and he'll give you money and if I had anything to hide I pay money I've died. Of course I won't pay a penny. So what do we do exactly about the kind of perversion of of the system? Because this is what is happening is that it seems like the social sanctions are being brought to bear in a non legal sense. And so you'll say well. My rights are being violated. My speech is being violent. They'll say well. But it's not. I mean you're free to say whatever you want your free to do whatever you want. Nobody's bothering social sanctions. Obviously social sanctions are perfectly legal. The cancel culture which you're obviously talking about ninety second street. Y deciding that you can't speak there because there's an accusation out there. That is an unsubstantiated. Not only issue to disprove right that that attitude I it doesn't have first amendment consequences in the sense not a legal thing but it obviously has widespread societal consequences left wishes to ignore those because it of course likes cancel culture because it can be applied to people it disagrees with. But what we have to do about that as a society. Well first we have to stand up and fight. Most people can't fight back. Most people have something to hide. Even if you falsely accused of this if you have something that you are ashamed of it will come out at trial so. The vast majority of people who have falsely accused can't fight back. I'm lucky I was brought up. Orthodox like you I've never improperly touched anybody in my life I don't hug I don't touch. I didn't do any of those things for ten years. I was professor at Harvard. Law School as a single man never went out flirted. Never had a complaint fifty years never a complaint so I can sue. 'cause I'm not afraid of being deposed. I'm not afraid of anybody coming up with yet another accuser. If there's another accuser will be false accused of somebody came to me recently in An attempt presumably by lawyers Offering to sell me pictures of myself having sex I laughed. I said the can't be a picture of me having sexual anybody. But my wife And they produced the picture or the The New York Times produce the picture. It was a joke. You know it was some old guy. that they got off the inter- did you look. My wife looked at it and she you know. She laughed hysterically. My wife laughed when we first when I was first accused She couldn't believe it. You know and this woman who accused me. She's accused Al Gore Al Gore's wife of being on epsteins island. They never on the island. She is accused of Bill. Richardson She is accused George Mitchell. She's accused Leslie Wexner. She has accused Marvin Minsk The Manu developed artificial intelligence. She's accused everybody and she's lied through a teeth. She said she was fourteen when she met. Epstein our own work records show issue seventeen and when he allegedly armed her out to other people she was in nineteen so she's lied about everything and yet people believe her because she's a woman and when I accuse her of lying I committed a social sin. I accused woman wine. How dare you? She was victimized maybe she was but she's victimized me and I'm gonNA fight back so I've asked already sort of. What do we do about this but one of the things that seem so threatening as I say? A lot of this is is social sphere oriented. It's pressure that the Tocqueville talked about back in democracy in America specifically talking about the idea that social pressure could be brought to bear to basically make a human being into a dead man watering forbidden from all public company. And all of this going back to the eighteen thirties. So it's nothing. It's nothing new. What is new is that there seems to be a push and it's already happened. Plays like Britain and Canada to actually change the laws to reflect. This sort of they should seidel. Should change the laws number one. Nobody should be allowed to defame the people behind litigation privilege because they abuse it. They use it all the time. Cabrera's chief judge of the Second Circuit has written about that saying don't believe what you read from court filings court filings. Don't have the imprimatur of the court just put in in order to protect themselves from that kind of defamation so the law does have to be changed. I think the First Amendment Law has to be modified as well take what. Cnn did to me. That's not protected by the First Amendment and it shouldn't be protected if Zuqar the Head of CNN sat down with his people and said let's now try to destroy Dershowitz as credibility because he made a good speech in front of the Senate. Let's wrench out of context. Let's take out what he said about criminal conduct. Let's make him say something he didn't say deliberately and wilfully. I don't think that's protected by the First Amendment and for that reason as a first amendment person who cares deeply about the first amendment. I am seriously considering the possibility of taking legal action against CNN. In order to try to level the playing field so that the media can't turn truth tellers into liars in a willful and deliberate way. So what exactly the First Amendment Center then look under current law obviously the First Amendment Standard particularly public figures is extraordinarily burdensome. You have to prove willful malicious. You have to demonstrate that the person knew they were saying something that was fully unruh drew of what happened with CNN absolutely true. They knew what they were doing these. So you don't actually. You're not talking about actually changing the standard for you here. Here's the problem. What they did is they showed me saying things and I did say those things. It's like I said here's what I don't believe. And then they said what I said. The leading case in the Supreme Court Involves New Yorker magazine where somebody was accused of taking words out of a quote and the Supreme Court said that isn't covered by the first amendment. But we'd have to make new law by saying that basically if you use the words that were actually spoken but you purposely willfully and with malice leave outwards just before and just after that totally and completely change the meaning. That's not protected by the First Amendment. And I think that's right okay. Since he's so that that seems like a fairly minor change. That is already basically been preapproved by the Supreme Court. You're not talking about widespread changes of the kind. That president trump has referred to on twitter. When he's talking about changing the full on standards of defamation. Oh No I think we start small by looking at people who willfully and deliberately abused the First Amendment for partisan or personal or financial benefit. That's we begin and I think we can do that. Okay so the other changes that I was talking about when it comes to sort of the the pushing of social sanction into the into matters of law are these moves that have been made in places like Canada and United Kingdom with regard to things like hate speech trying to actually criminalize forms of speech that supposedly victimized a protected class and that. I'm deeply worried about happening in the United States and a lot of the Democratic Party will do that. Frankly I I don't know how many justices on the Supreme Court would stand against that in in its current generation. Obviously I think that the ones who are appointed by Bush and trump likely would stand against that. I have no idea about Sonia. Sotomayor I have no idea about Elena Kagan. I have a fairly decent idea about justice GINSBURG. I think may go the wrong way there. But I don't know where where that stands. Do you think the Supreme Court would actually allow without a constitutional amendment hate speech regulations? Promulgated in the United States depends on the regulation but I think an outright banning of something called hate speech would not survive Supreme Court Review. But you know they chip away at it What about the Private University? What about in a public university Banning hate speech in the classroom. That would probably be approved but in a open forum. I think it's going to be a matter of degree but I do think that the banning of hate speech has more legitimacy today on the left than it ever had before. I don't think the left today would support the ACO US position back. Many years doesn't defending the rights of not with. Aco You forget about the Aclu on free speech the ACLU was free speech for the left. But not for the right. Except once every ten years will defend the Nazi cause. That's easy and that gives us a little bit of credibility due process on campus. Forget about it The ACLU is now the problem not the solution to due process and free speech so I want to shift topics here now and ask you about your career before everything. Trump related and modern politics related. And I WANNA ask you about your criminal awkward because obviously before any of this happened. That's what you're famous for him. And that was the thing that made you a household name was was the case or the or the Oj Simpson case things like that. So I I've always wanted to ask you about sort of the criminal. Justice system the adversarial nature of the criminal justice systems from the outside. Somebody like me I look at it. And it seems like the the accusation was constantly whoever can find the best boyer wins that that if you're a an impoverished defendant and you can't find a great lawyer you're basically screwed but if you're a very wealthy defendant and you've committed egregious crimes and you can find a good lawyer. That person can squirrel you out of the charges. How much truth is there to that. And does that make the case for a European inquisitorial system as opposed to the US Justice System? Which is adversarial in nature. United States system is not adversarial at all ninety seven percent of cases in the federal courts and then guilty pleas because of what's called the trial penalty And the job of the criminal lawyer today is to explain the gun that's being held to the head of the defendant saying if you don't plead guilty you're GonNa get ten times the amount of jail time that you would have gotten if you plead guilty. So what I have to do is now recommend the clients all the time. Look if you go to trial you'll get ten years if you lose if you plead guilty. I think I can get you a year Now what's the chances of me winning? Well pretty good. I mean I think I got a twenty five thirty percent chance of winning not good enough if there's a ten to one ratio so Of course being wealthy gives you the advantage legally medically housing wise educationally and every other way. Why why should it be different with the law? And that's why I have my cases pro bono. I represent half of my clients from the beginning. The day I started practicing law. I've done half of my cases. Pro Bono representing poor people obscure people. Don't read about those cases and those cases I've had actually more success because you can have more success sometimes with low visibility cases and with famous cases famous cases. You have to win in court now. We did win Von Bulow. We did win Oj. Simpson we did win I didn't win Michael Milken. Who just got a pardon So maybe we did win ultimately in the end but You know I've lost cases with rich people and I've won cases for for for poor people but having money is a knife that cuts both ways. It makes it more likely that you'll be prosecuted if you're very rich and if you're a big prize and but it also makes it more likely you'll have a chance to win the case so one second on ask you as a as a criminal defense attorney a acting in that capacity. How do you sort of square that with with your perspective on morality on ask you that in one second but first let's talk about sleep quality? I'm good at a lot of things. Sleep is not one of these things. And that's why I need a mattress that is made just for me. I need the world's best mattress and that of course is a personalized mattress. Personalized mattresses from Helix Mattress. These are the best mattresses. In fact I gotTa Helix Sleep Mattress for my sister as well for her wedding. Helixsleep has acquitted. It takes two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences so the perfect mattress for you. Whether you're aside sleeper or hot sleeper whether you like a plush from bed with Helix there's no more confusion and no more compromising. Helixsleep is rated the number one mattress by G. Q. Wired magazine and CNN called it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on fact check true. That's the first time. Cnn has ever said anything true just go to helixsleep dot com slash. Ben Take their two minute sleep quiz and they will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life. They've got a ten year warranty. You get to try out for one hundred nights risk-free they'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it but you definitely will hugh which is offering up to two hundred bucks off all mattress orders for our listeners. Right now get up to two hundred dollars off. Helixsleep DOT com slash. That's helixsleep dot com slash Ben. Some old enough from your bucket. Bugaboo the right right. I'm not quite that young but I'm old enough to remember when the OJ trial happened. I remember them willing the TV into my public. School classrooms with the reading of the verdict. I think I was maybe ten at the time. And I remember the household your name was was a bit of a dirty word because you're one of the attorneys defend OJ Simpson and of course as everyone who was mainly sent into the time thought OJ. Simpson was deeply guilty. So yeah I'm not going to ask you whether Oj Simpson was guilty because attorney client privilege but with that said you defend clients in criminal defense attorneys have defended clients knowing presumably or at least thinking that they're guilty. How do you square that believing that your own client has has done something deeply evil or moral and then going into defending them on it? I think much the same way. Catholic priests defends not turning in a penitent who was admitted. Committing a terrible crime. The big difference between a Catholic priest and the lawyers of a lawyer. If a client tells me I've killed somebody. I'M GONNA go do it again or I've beaten my wife and I go back and beat her. I'm obligated to turn him in because it's a future grab a priest can't do that. A priest Says No. I'm going to try to persuade you. Talk you out of it or a doctor My daughter-in-law's emergency room doctor. She is almost certainly saved. The lives of people who've gone out and done terrible things in the future. It's a very important part of our legal system that everybody get a defense I uniquely Get the most difficult cases because now I've had some success and also as a professor I can take more of these cases of pro Bono and so I've had a lot of people who is strongly suspected were probably guilty. In a couple of cases I was pleasantly surprised at the end. Klaus von Bulow. I was presently surprised but you know you talk about not being able to ask me whether or not Oj. Did IT When I first When be beaten not to new who I've known since he's twenty two years old became prime minister. I was in Israel. Invited me my wife and my daughter to come see him in his new digs and we we went and we schmoozing. We took pictures and then he took me into the little private room and Alan. I have a question I've always wanted to ask you that. Oj Do it. And I said Mr Prime Minister is a question. I've always wanted to ask you. Does ISRAEL HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ALBUM THERE? Okay so yeah. You grew up in a Jewish school so with regard to this is the reason I asked whether an inquisitorial system would be better one where it doesn't seem to pit one person who's now job is to defend the criminal conduct of somebody who believes. Do they believe committed a criminal act inquisitorial system and do you think that the US is the best system or do you think that. I think it's the best system for the United States. I wouldn't ever try to impose our system on foreign countries by the way many of countries that have become free after the breakdown of the Soviet Union have had an option of going with the American system with the European system and many of gone with the American system You know as Churchill said about democracy I can say about the adversary system the worst ever invented except for all the others that have been tried over time. I think there is adversarial relationship between a person accused of crime and the state. And you can't bury that adversarial relationship in in in in paternalism or any other kind of euphemism. There really is a conflict. Our job is criminal. Defense attorneys just to get the best deal Jeffrey Epstein. Look at that. I got him a very good deal and I hated for it. But that's my job. If I had done anything less than getting the best deal I possibly could. I would have been doing something in violation of my oath of office and so It creates moral conflict. I don't sleep well at night when I defend somebody who I believe. Probably did it. I've never had a client who's gone out and done it again. That is committed a second murder. Done something horrible horrible. Oj Simpson obviously was convicted of doing something but it was fairly minimal. And by the way I don't take case I don't represent a person twice. I have a rule. I have several rules. I don't represent somebody who is in the business of crime represent. I don't WanNa be the conciliatory will. Crime Family in represented drug dealers representing professional. Terrorists are people like that but I will represent anybody wants regardless of how serious the crime is now. Obviously what I represent a Nazi who killed members of my family. No there'd be a conflict of interest there you know. I want so much to see him convicted but if I have no personal emotional conflict of interest. I don't let the seriousness of the crime. Influence my decision whether to take it so another area where you've obviously become very well known in their bunch of different areas because you're sort of a master of several different trades isn't the a Pro. Israel space. I would suggest you actually that you're unpopularity on the left began with the intervention and the pro Israel space long before the president trump stuff happened. People don't know about that because people who don't follow the pro Israel sprays don't actually follow the pro Israel space but as soon as you wrote the case for Israel. It seemed like the left turned on you or at least a segment of the left turned on you and fairly vicious fashion. It's more the hard left Noam Chomsky Commission Norman Finkelstein to try to find problems in the book and he found a quote from Mark Twain which I quoted and attributed to mark Twain and he said I didn't find it in Mark Twain. I found it in a book by a woman named John. Peters eaters whose book had been criticized. Ya I mean first of all. We both found it in the same place. We found it in a little pamphlet. called Faxon something or other which was put out by some pro Israel organization which you couldn't cite obviously because it's not in libraries but we both founded in the same place. But you know he accused me plagiarism. I immediately went to Harvard University. The president and said I want to study commissioned what they appointed air faulk the former president of Harvard to investigate in charge of plagiarism. Said it was nothing to it but that was the first attempt to attack my integrity because I supported Israel. So why do you think it is that the hard left is turned so so far against Israel? Why do you think that's being mainstream of the Democratic Party? The skill living hell out of me. Frankly we start very easily. The hard left the hard hard left. Turn against the COM- the turn against Israel. One of the Communist Party turned against Israel. It was as simple as that. Sixty seven Israel wins the war. The Soviet Union breaks relationships with Israel the Communist parties all over the world turn against Israel. Because they're taking orders from Stalin. It's simply not stolen in those days but the Stalinists in those days it was as simple as that back then then Baragan. I write about this in my book called defending Israel Baragan who is a paragon of the left during the Vietnam War calls Israel A- criminal community a Jewish criminal community so you get Baragan trump's key Finkelstein de la. That's mon the hard hard left. Turn against Israel and then creeps into the centre-left and you get people like Peter Beinart Who become enemies of Israel though? They proclaim that they really Zionists Jay Street which has never said anything positive about Israel in any of its press releases and and supported the Goldstone report and They've now made it possible for Democrats. Say we're not going to go to APEC Liz warrants that. I'm not going to APEC so I think the Democratic Party. We were in danger of seeing the bipartisan support for Israel weakened as the result of the left of the Democratic Party. I think this is one of the things people are missing. So I hear this a lot from Democrats who are Jews. Which is the vast majority of Democrats? Is that the reason that the Democrats are turning against Israel is because of trump and that's completely neglecting the history of the Democratic Party which was wildly pro Israel throughout at least the early nineteen ninety s and then began to move shifting and see this in the opinion polls and by the time. Barack Obama was president. It didn't move fairly fairly solidly into the Palestinian camp at least in terms of being on parody with Israel in terms of popularity inside the Democratic Party and this is particularly true. Among Young Democrats and Obama obviously facilitated that President Obama's not a fan of the state of Israel who hated Prime Minister Netanyahu the the attempt to pin that on President. Trump is pretty astonishing again. Considering that that the mainstream Democratic Party had been moving in this direction for quite well labeling Israel an apartheid state and and no no doubt about that and I think President Obama for whom I voted twice now would reconsider my second Vote for him. He conned me. He called me into the Oval Office. And he said I have Israel's back and I didn't realize what he meant is to put a target on it and stab him as he was leaving office. He ordered his representative to the UN to not veto resolution which declared the Kotel the Western Wall. The holiest place of Judaism to be occupied territory along with the access roads Hebrew University and the DASA hospital and the Jewish quarter was outrageous outrageous. And it just legitimated more and more people in Democratic Party saying well we should have a balance the Palestinians who have turned down statehood since thirty eight forty eight sixty seven ninety two thousand two thousand one two thousand seventeen thousand so I think the Democratic Party. Now there's a real danger of losing the bipartisan support. I think there are some many centrist. Democrats who still support Israel but people on the left and younger people to a far far lesser extent. On this way it's driving wall. Watch Bernie Sanders. Try and play. On the fact that he's ethnically Jewish is as though he's some sort of Patriot on behalf of either Israel or Jews. I mean it's just it's maddening to watch considering again that. The man campaigns openly with open anti-semites Linda Sarsour in L. Had Omar. Rashid had to leave. And we left out one. He went to England and campaign. For Jeremy Corbyn who facilitated turn the Labor Party into a party that welcomed anti-semites and Bernie Sanders a winter campaign for him? Let me take one. Here's a democrat. A no circumstances. Will I ever vote for Bernie Sanders period? I will never vote for Bernie Sanders and I would hope that other Democrats would join me in that pledge because he would hurt America terribly and I think in the end he would foment some anti-semitism because he would hurt America so badly and for the first Jewish President to hurt our economy and hurt our Standing in the world I think would be just a terrible terrible thing. I'm not gonNA vote against him because he's Jewish Obviously I am going to vote against him because his policies are so deleterious to what has made America Great America thrives at the center We are great country. Franklin Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents because he avoided what was going on in Europe in Europe. You either communist or fascist. The center disappeared. Roosevelt in the thirties. Created a kind of social capitalism. Which allowed for us to preserve centrist Democracy Cesaris Democratic Party. And I think we're seeing that Hurt my new book that I'm working on why I left the left but couldn't join the right the case for the vibrant center. I try to bring us back to center. Politics centers conservative centrist Liberal F- and avoid marginalized the extremes on both sides but sanders is extreme on the left side so because of my own personal politics spends a lot of time here sort of bashing the Democratic Party and the left. But what do you think the right gets wrong because obviously the title of the new book is that you're not joining the right. So what do you think the right gets? We have differences. You're unorthodox religious person. I support a woman's right to choose. I support gay marriage and gay rights. I A strong supporter of following the science on the environment of reasonable a gun control of healthcare as broad as possible consistent with our economic welfare. So I pretty much go down the liberal agenda when it comes to social issues on the other hand when it comes to foreign policy. If I were in Britain I'd be a conservative easy for me because the Conservative Party in Britain follows many of the social policies that we talked about. But I'm in a great conflict. I love the Evangelical Christians. Is there so supportive of Israel? And they're so respectful of me when I speak at Liberty University and I talk about a woman's right to choose. I polite applause when I talk about gay marriage polite applause when I mentioned Israel. I get a fifteen minute standing ovation so I feel politically homeless. I feel thrust out from what Ronald Reagan said. I didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me. They are quickly leaving me. I don't feel I feel welcome in the conservative Republican Party. But I don't feel comfortable with the social conservatism of so many Republicans. I'd love to see return to kind of Eisenhower. Republicanism Rockefeller Republicanism. But we're not seeing it. So I want to ask you about sort of your system and I see grow up Orthodox but obviously you're not Orthodox now so what is your sort of religious belief system because obviously you're very not only identifiably Jewish but obviously you speak in terms of Judaism mowatt. So where do you hold on this? So I love my Judaism. I love going to synagogue. I'm a traditional Ajuba am skeptic. I'm a skeptic abate atheism skeptic about God the God I'm skeptical about the Jewish God I'm skeptical about atheism. I don't call myself anything. Nonstick atheist easiest to skeptical. I'm skeptical about science. I'm skeptical. You took my course with Steven pinker along time ago at Harvard. You know that I'm skeptical about everything. I'm skeptical about evolution explaining everything in biology. I'M GONNA DIE SKEPTIC. I'm GonNa Die Not knowing the answers all these questions but I hope I'm still healthy enough and wise enough to keep asking the question. So my religious skepticism. So how do you generate a moral system based on skepticism? I remember I remember asking this question. I think actually raise my hand in our class. Nasty this questions specific wrote a book an answer to your question called rights from wrongs and I read it because I it was very class right. So it's a secular theory of the development of Rights through experience in history. My theory is that rights grow out of a recognition of the wrongs. If you look historically the civil rights movement goes out of slavery the Post Holocaust Movement of human rights around the world I think that I'm a strong supporter. I didn't like him personally. But Oliver Wendell Holmes The life of the law is not logic. It's experience and you learn from your mistakes and so I think might theory of rights grows out of my understanding of how to avoid a wrongs in the world. But I'm not an absolutist so I got into a lot of trouble when I suggested that under certain circumstances a torture warrant might be permissible. If for example we had a terrorist who had planted a nuclear bomb in New York or Los Angeles that kill ten million people and we had the terrorists than we could buy. Use extreme measures prevent that from happening. I suggested the possibility of torture warrant which got me into a lot of trouble with all my liberal friends. Many of them said we agree with you privately. But don't ever say that publicly so I'm not an absolutist But I have a strong presumption against torture against censorship against a range of other denials of civil liberties since taking on to ask you about sort of that that perspective on rights versus wrong. Especially because I. I wonder how you don't slip into a sort of historicism if the idea is that we're constantly developing and learning from. My wrongs does that mean inevitably. We're going to get better because human history seems to say no. I want to ask you about that in one second first. Let's talk about protecting your Internet data so the reality is you wouldn't leave your front door unlocked at night because somebody might break in and you wouldn't leave your car unlocked on the street. Somebody might break in. Why would you leave your Internet activity unprotected? Did you know for example? The your Internet service provider logs every single website you visit. They can sell that information to add. Companies and tech giants who could use the data to target you expressly? Pm puts a stop to all of this creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet so that your online activity can't be seen by anyone else express. Vpn PM works on all your devices. Phones laptops routers so everyone who shares your wife can still be protected even if they are not using express themselves the best part is using expressed. Ian Is Super Simple. You go try. It really is easy. I've been using it for years myself. So if you're like me and you believe that your online activity is your business. Secure yourself by visiting express. Vpn DOT com slash. Ben Today. Use My exclusive link express. Vpn Dot com slash Ben E. X. P. R. E. S. S. VPN dot com slash Ben. And you can get an extra three months for free right now that's xpress. Vpn Dot com slash Ben. So and ask about the basis of positive morality because obviously in order to identify the wrong you do after actually identify the wrong based on something where we see bad things happen around the world and people justify the routinely. I mean there's been thousands of years of bad things happening in most places on the globe thousands more for thousands more for virtually all places on the globe before that. So what is the moral system based on other than they have to be some fundamental precepts in other words that undergird how we decide when a thing is wrong so Robert knows. It was one of my closest friends on the faculty. A great floss for libertarianism. And I gave him a draft shortly before he died of my book on rights from wrongs and he pointed out as you pointed out. Can you really know what wrongs are without knowing what rights are in my answer is yes? I think there is a human instinct that really teaches us when something is wrong. And everybody agrees that now. Of course they didn't over time slavery was wrong. The Holocaust was wrong. Anti Gay bashing is wrong but you never get agreement about what's right. It's much easier to find agreement on what's a dystopia than a utopia take for example a utopia from a laborer economic point of view. You couldn't get ten people sitting in a room deciding what the best system of economic regulation is but I think most of us today would agree. The socialism and Communism has proved that. It's the wrong approach so we get a much wider consensus on. What's wrong and what's right but look it's a work in progress. I don't think it's a perfect solution when I once argue with Scalia Justice Scalia who? I became friendly with that. His system of originalist isn't perfect. It doesn't solve Brown versus board of Education. He said look. It's not perfect but it's better than the others and it's safer than the others and he had a point there and I think my system may be better than the others but it's not perfect. What's interesting that your system? Is that it. Actually when we're talking about rights versus wrong sir. She not talking about individual rights versus. You're talking about moral. That's morally correct versus morally wrong and it seems that the American system the Enlightenment Bay system is based on not moral right versus moral wrong based on individual rights. So where does the regime of individual rights come in and do you think that individuals have rights or is it basically sort of Berkey and experiential as well you know I I I think there are elements of of both of you know you you had my class with Steve Pinker? Steve Pinker really believes that we are moving in the right direction. He's written his brilliant book on how everything has gotten better angels nature. Yeah but you know. Having lived through the Holocaust I was a child but my family lived through it. Many of them were killed. I I just don't see it as a direct line In fact the Jewish experience has always been things get better and then they get much worse than they get a little better than they get much worse you know. The the Jewish definition of a pessimist is things are so bad. They can't possibly get worse than an optimist says yes they can so. I'm a Jewish optimist. I think things could get worse And we have control over our destiny. We determine whether things get better or get worse Sarah religious person in the ad I mean. That's that's pretty religious. Say there's no such thing as free will and it's all it's all in her head and all of that by that and at religious In the sense of I'm skeptical about every I'm GonNa get you keeping hunter. I Love Shabbat One of my favorite books was Joe. Lieberman's book about Chavez how the Jews haven't kept the Sabbath but the Sabbath is kept the Jews I think the Sabbath is a fantastic invention just was in the synagogue Reading from the Ten Commandments. And whoever heard of a commandment that says you have to rest? One day a week it doesn't allier commandment it sounds like a Labor Organization. You Know Platform Program but it is a commandment and it's very wise commandment so you taught at you know the the law school for decades have you. Have you seen a change in the nature of the students who are coming through because one of the great question is I've been speaking on campuses now for probably twenty years at this point? Somewhere in that neighborhood fifteen twenty years and even I in the last fifteen years has seen a massive change in sort of how treatment on campus has has been. I used to be able to speak on campus. No security whatsoever two thousand ten two thousand eleven. I remember spoke at Berkeley in two thousand and fifteen and it was fine. I came back in two thousand sixteen record six hundred police officers and a six hundred thousand dollars security expenditure by the city of Merkley in order to prevent riots. Remember the what what. What exactly is it's one word. One word truth. The left knows the truth with a capital TV. And if you know the truth why do you need to send? What do you need opposing points of view? If you know the truth what do you need due process? What do you need to have a system of determining what happened? We know the truth. The truth is if you're a white male you're guilty if you're a woman of color your victim a we know the truth. That's what's happening on campuses. Today and universities enroll longer places where teachers teach you how to think they teach you what to think fifty years of teaching. I think you'll recognize for my class. Nobody knew what my personal views were. And almost anything. I would raise question after question. There was never a right answer in my class. It was simply a method of challenging everything skepticism about everything. Today you have teachers lecturing students what to believe and It's propaganda it's not education and it seems to me that when when it comes to what's happening on campus. So much of it is focused on undermining exactly the sort of rights that you've spent your life defending those rights are now seen as a bulwark of a hierarchical system. You see people arguing against freedom of speech on sort of Macusi in principle. The herber mark used for school philosopher arguing that that free speech itself was a reinforcement of the hierarchy. Because the people who took best advantage of it were the privilege? I remember Marcus. He taught at Brandeis when I started teaching at Harvard and he was propagandizing. The students back then against free speech and now you have professors. Who was saying that free speech is a male hierarchical like you know all all all the words you could just make them up as you go along because that's what they do But it's no good. We don't need free speech. We don't need due process. I've never seen that before on university campuses even during the McCarthy period the people on the right would be apologetic about denying due process. The people on the hard left aren't apologetic. They think it's the right thing. So what do you think is the future of higher education? That because I know that we're trying to shovel everybody into into higher education seemingly to less and less effect but you think that eventually people are going to wake up and realize that this is largely wasting time unless you're majoring in maths and sciences. That's what they're doing what they're doing. The good students are staying away from majoring in anything. But Computer Sciences Math Economics. In in some universities basically universities are two universities. Now have the serious students who are really interested in learning and it's mostly in the science side and then you have the students who know for in Harvard. You have to work so hard to get a B minus. I mean it's almost impossible. You could just walk through Harvard and get bs and B pluses and as in everything in that. Come out with your Harvard. Agree and learn absolutely nothing. If you're a Jewish kid you can major Jewish studies and just repeat what you learn the elementary school in Highschool. If you're a woman you can major in women's studies and have all your professors say wow. Whoo isn't that great aren't no criticism And these kind of ethnic studies programs are so dangerous. I mean I would practically have a rule saying all right. You can have ethnic studies but if you're Jewish you can't take Jewish studies. If you're black you can't take black studies woman you can't take women study that's available for other people to learn about you. Now that's nonsense of course because obviously if you're an African American you have a right learn about your culture and your history but also making me contribution to learn about other things. Well you know when when I met the Jewish girls who wants to Jewish studies class. You'll like this. The reason I wrote my book the case for Israel as a kid came over to me one day and he asked me to give him to was during the ten days of repentance. He said because he never speaks out in class and support of Israel though he knows a lot and I said why not. He's just I won't ever get a date so I started a campaign. I said support Israel data Zionist tonight. It helped a bunch of Zionists get dates but it really help because it. So you mentioned Your constitutional theory of interpretation I N E mentioned Justice Scalia. Originalism or textual. Ism I think frankly that the justice Thomas more of an originalist than Scalia was. I think. So so what? What is your theory of how the Constitution should be interpreted by the supreme? I think there are you know. Squeeze the Constitution's dead tribe says it's alive They're both wrong. Part of its dead part of its life. The part about thirty five years old being president. You couldn't be better than that. Of course it's dead. You can't be thirty. Four in eleven. Take the oath of office Due Process the process that is do is an invitation to change what due process means over the years for example the framers of the fourteenth amendment. None of them would have said that. That MEANS BLACK AND WHITE. Children go to school together and get married. Oh my God you wouldn't have got one vote for that. So of course due process has to change over time impeachment. I think it's dead. I think impeachments dead. It should never change over time. The Framer said treason. Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors meaning other crimes. Like treason and bribery. It's dead it doesn't change. In the nineteenth century people thought it needed a crime. The Dean of the Columbia Law School said the weight of authorities. In favor of you need a crime the former justice to the Supreme Court he defended Andrew. Johnson you need a crime. Suddenly we've gotten woke and all the professors when trump isn't pizza crime. You don't even need a sin. You can call it. A abuse of power. Forty of our presidents have been accused of abusing their power. They want to normalize impeachment turn it into a partisan weapon to become part of our political system. Exactly what Madison and Hamilton rejected. They said we don't want to turn into a British parliamentary system where a president serves at the pleasure of the legislature. And yet. That's exactly what the Democrats try to introduce. I mean I. I was amazed by the weakness of the charges that they brought forth in the house. Because I figured that if they were going to actually charge the president and they kept saying bribery over and over. I don't know why charged with bribery. Let me your should right If they done that my argument would have been completely different. I don't know that I would have argued But once they charge them with abuse of power my God obstruction of Congress. Every lawyer Obstructs Congress whenever he demands a quarter before allowing his client to fall into a perjury trap. I know I do that all the time. And so those were too vague General Madison. Hamilton would turn over in their graves. Moreover Hamilton said the greatest danger is that impeachment will become partisan they both wanted. All of them wanted impeachment to occur. Only when there was a bipartisan support. That's why you need two thirds in the Senate and overwhelming national support for impeachment. The only case for impeachment. That ever should've gone forward was Richard Nixon so in the future. Do you think that impeachment is going to happen every couple of years and I think not every couple of years every decade whenever you get a president of one party and a house of another party and the president's controversial there's going to be a move to impeach remember they were GonNa Impeach Hillary Clinton on day one Republicans were yelling. Lock her up this some ways with the impeachment of Clinton now Clinton did was accused of a crime perjury but it wasn't a high crime who's a low crime it was perjury. Committed not in his official capacity holding office but in his personal capacity so with that said and it seems like the country's getting more partisan. You're hoping for a center. Do you see that emerging anytime soon or not in my lifetime your lifetime. I think we'll see the pendulum swing slowly in America and I think the rest of my life will be living in a developed country. Look when I turned seventy five six years ago I thought I was GonNa have such a nice retirement and then I used falsely and then trump gets elected now. My family doesn't talk to me. People on the vineyard. Don't talk to me My wife was mad at me for taking The case You know it's One of the chapters in my new book is the cost of trying to live a principled life. And it's very very hard to do but I'm GONNA. I'm too old to change well again since I apparently this episode is devoted to me trying to get from yet before the end. GonNa be popular. All you have to do is go from show. It's the synagogue I go to is Park East in New York Kanter is this incredible cantor named health. Got The rabbis. This incredible rabbi named Schneier. And I go there and I like it. I LOVE THE MELODIES. I give the Davar Torah But I'm skeptic But I'm told rabbis that's okay. That's all right you can do that. That's all right. Well want to ask you one more question. They ask you since you have all of these various ladies in various areas. What do you want the chief legacy of Alan Dershowitz to be but if you want to hear Ellen which his you have to be a daily wear members so to become a member head on over to daily wire dot com click subscribe. You can hear the end of our conversation there professor Dershowitz. Thank you so much for your time and thank you so much for stopping by really appreciate to the Ben Shapiro Show. Sunday special is directed by Mike Joyner and produced by mathes glove executive producer. Jeremy Boring associate producer case Winterton. Our guests are booked by Kaitlyn made. Her Post. Production is supervised by Alison Garowe. Editing is by Jim Nichol audio is mixed by Mike Carmina hair and makeup is by Nico Geneva Ted Graphics by Cynthia and Golo the Ben Shapiro. Show Sunday special daily wire production hoppy right daily wire twenty twenty.

president Israel Democrats Democratic Party CNN Professor Dershowitz OJ Simpson United States Senate Harvard University President Obama professor Hillary Clinton Baragan trump Jeffrey Epstein America attorney Bernie Sanders Supreme Court
Trump served summons for impeachment trial

The Beat with Ari Melber

45:24 min | 1 year ago

Trump served summons for impeachment trial

"We're covering these major developments side in the trump trial the president officially served with a summons as he now adds New People to argue on the president's behalf. Half as the trial hits next week plus a key witness revealing this new information could arise in the trial and there are signs. Impeach managers will be working well through the weekend. I can tell you there briefs do tomorrow at five. PM and the White House may respond by Monday. That is a fast schedule for all the big issues on the table and the White House has has helped reports of several lawyers joining team including famed Clinton Prosecutor Ken Starr and the Prosecutor who succeeded him. Both lawyers have been on this very show. Plus they've added former Florida attorney. Any General Pam Bondi among others. These additions show the White House adding people with very clear public advocacy and TV experience. They're being Added to a cast of lesser known government lawyers including the White House counsel meanwhile Rudy Giuliani's indicted associated love. Parts who clearly up ended this whole debate when he finally broke his silence despite awaiting trial himself. Well that has already led some senators to call for Mr Parnell as a new witness. Some Democrats saying he should go above and beyond the group of four that Chuck. Schumer's been pushing. Well he is back with more bombshells this from a second new part of his MSNBC interview. Alleging Rick Perry was in on the plot to extort the Ukrainian president to help trump get reelected. Perry says I spoke with the landscape. I got him to agree. I got him to agree to announce the investigation against the announced. But did they didn't announce that see that's the whole they would constantly every time somebody would meet skeet agree and then they will walk it back. Giuliani blew his lid on that. Saying that's not what we discuss wasn't supposed to be corruption. Invested announcement has to be about Joe Biden and the reason he said the name by needs to be spoken with always now. Rick Perry denying that the White House also has continued to stress partners earnest is an indicted defendants seeking any way to avoid jail. Parnes also alleging Donald Trump was actively involved in another plot. That set up a lot of what was supposed. Go Down with Ukraine. The ousting of the diplomat who might have blew the whistle on the whole thing fire probably lead to my knowledge at least four or five times. Use Two different even had a breakdown and screamed. Fire to Madeleine has assisted to secretary before he fired and she said Mr the president. I can't do that. He was directing the State Department to remove her in. The State Department was refusing incorrect. Now to bring in. I WANNA bring it Harvard Kennedy School Professor Lee Right regarded or as well as former. US Senator Robert Torricelli and take a look at this from the archives. You can see him right here signing the oath to do impartial justice walking up to that historic table. That was in the Bill Clinton impeachment twenty one years ago With that in mind senator. How does it look today? How does it compare to the senators who sworn in just yesterday and how they're approaching that same oath you took? I think the the the principal differences is that They don't go into this. Astride on a bipartisan way. Having agreed to a set of rules how to proceed they're not approaching it as a body and and probably that is because of the second point. This is the first impeachment in American history with a president running for reelection so as much as it is a trial all it is also part and parcel reelection campaign and that was bound to make it different You mentioned the reelection hanging over this lia the person who helped Donald Trump get elected the first time it was the running the the party and then running the White House's first chief of staff trotting out a defense. We may hear more of Ryan's Priebus just on Fox snooze take a listen sometimes the best defense is the so defense which is everything. The Democrats said is true through. It's still not impeachable. If everything leads Parnassus it is true. It's still not impeachable Leah. Why do you think it's important for some of the president's outside side defenders priebus having his differences but being clearly a trump person in that in the way that he ran the White House arguing this sort of rearguard strategy which is oh even even if these witnesses do get to? The Senate floor do provide disturbing facts. Even that's not impeachable so the president has offered a strategy energy. That is you're either with me or you're against me. So that part and part means not acknowledging no wrongdoing so saying I did nothing wrong. Everything that I did was perfectly fine. You know I had I done something wrong. Perhaps we see it there but no this is a witch hunt what somebody like previous doing is offering essentially a back door escape patch Particularly only four senators for Congress for Republican loyalists who have no choice but to support Donald Trump. Who can say well look all right? Maybe he did do something wrong. And maybe if all of this is true in an all comes out it's still not impeachable because by that at least they can justify and it was something that Congressman a Republican Congressmen. Were debating over really trying trying to push with Donald trump that he refused to accept but it appears to be on the street at least what Republicans are going to stand by. He did something wrong. But you know what this is. Not Impeachable teachable. So that may be the kind of out that they have right here. Well that also goes senator to exactly where America is headed. This has gotten very real very quickly. There's new reporting tonight night that we'll touch on a little later in the hour about Donald trump being unnerved being nervous yelling at people the thing that he claimed he didn't care about he actually cares a lot about he hates it. The defenders saying saying well even if the facts come out next week. Don't worry about it Susan Collins and a few other senators suggesting maybe they will back witnesses. I'm curious senator. What you think about the prospect of a Senate a trial providing a close up of the actual governing of the United States under Donald Trump? I know that sounds a little bit like well. Hey hasn't everyone heard a a lot of stories about this president but I'm talking about the substantive the national security the parts that might not have gotten through to everyone because what we've heard from some of your colleagues is in the Senate was when they zeroed in on the Clinton activities and the trial. A lot of people were disgusted but few thought that this was a high crime. I wonder whether zeroing on this might leave. Some Americans people concerned about security and the governance of the country. Saying wait a minute. Is this a crime by someone high office. I think I think the lessons of the Clinton trial having lived through this so closely to be watched here where I when when the articles of impeachment where I voted the house. The media reported that Bill Clinton was never going to be convicted. Never removed from office. The party was united in the Senate. The fact is that wasn't true. who were real divisions in the Democratic Caucus for a while there it was a little touch and go? What what Clinton pause? Let me pause on that for you. It really underscores. You just said something really huge. which is you were one of the hundred and you were on the inside and went all the smart? Saudi people fully admit fully guilty here in the newsroom. Said Oh we know where this is going. We were wrong. Basically in the hundred people privately talking and there was actually more unpredictability after the first Tuesday. Lunch when the Democratic Caucus met Tom Daschle. Ask a variety of senators Stan and give their reaction to the articles of impeachment Peach Mint and I will protect that meeting and the names involved but a number of people stood and we were stunned that they were not as resolute as we. We thought I saw the president that next Sunday morning and said to him you know. I'm not so sure we've got all the votes. We think we've got what followed from that. What was the Republicans completely overplaying their hand the behavior Glenridge and hide in the managers? And and and of course star himself the way he and ray had conducted themselves all put together tend to unify the Democratic Caucus. And then I and this is where the president's made a mistake today. I think he thinks that sending star and Ray. There is a cute bit of television and isn't as entertaining that argument game. It will matter the difference between the Tuesday lunch right thought weakness in the Democratic Caucus and every Democrat standing together in part was tremendous this presentations by Dale Bumpers. On the Senate floor and Cheryl Mills. Who was the president's Council? They carried the day with the argument. The I I don't care. How partisan is how divided it looks the strength of the argument Madam and even more here? We have a president running for reelection. He needs to carry the argument limit. And I I if I were to look for two people in America today who could not carry the trump argument that the FBI was corrupted and making false filings that you had partisan prosecutors that it's a partisan witch hunt if I were to look for two lawyers who have no credibility to make that case aged it's Ken Starr and ray well. It's so for exactly that argument. It's fascinating hearing you. Lay that out particularly well. We don't usually get to to see the private waverings. We don't know which Republicans might feel that way that we wouldn't know about it in real time you're sort of educating us on that and then you're mentioning that two senators arguments matter bumpers a former senator. Who took it seriously mills? You mentioned former deputy White House counsel. We actually showed some of that earlier this week and one of our special reports and then of course the other folks you mentioned on the prosecution side who now are partying like it's nineteen ninety nine. They're back in the game. Let's take a little look at you as so you were dealing with all this at the time senator in ninety nine. We know when everybody has to say. They've testified under oath. They have all all been cross examined. We have to reach a judgment. Is there a definable reachable. Impeachable offense that has been committed here. How does the set it affects? Assessed that at the end of this when they will have heard from so many witnesses. Some of whom from the house side from what's been publicly presented. Even if no one technically testifies in the Senate who live set including the president's employees there was a quid pro quo and everyone was in the loop like you. I'm a lawyer. Look at these facts and you think yourself if I were in that situation. What would I be arguing? I think Donald Trump can't win that argument. There is too much now in the the body. Politic about what happened in Ukraine too much yet to come. There's too many negative fax. I would do what previous suggested I go to the Senate. And I'd stipulate relate to the facts. I was concerned that there might be a corruption in the Biden relationship. I wasn't convinced that it was. I did withhold aid you so you can say that it was not good policy. You can even say that it was unethical but it does not reach the bar of an impeachable offense much as indeed a Bill Clinton. The had lied under oath but it wasn't a material fact and we argued it did not reach an impeachable offense. I don't frankly know what strategy the president's pursuing because that's the only way that gets him out of a series of of negative facts and raises the argument to the nature of an impeachable offense and then then finally this. If I were arguing this floor this argument and the floor of the Senate it would be simply this. This is our third visitation with the prospect of impeachment in a generation after nearly two hundred years of not doing it. What you're risking here is political stability in America? You can disagree with the president you can think gate was unethical but if this is where the bar is going to be on impeachment we are going to risk political stability in America virus lawyer. That's what I would be arguing professor. Yeah so I think what the trump strategy their strategy right now is to play this out in the court of public opinion which right now the majority of the country believes that Donald Trump did something wrong. They believe that there should be an impeachment trial and so this is part of his reelection campaign to say either. The strategy number The backdoor strategy. which is I did nothing wrong or to the the front strategy? which trump team is doing? You know this is a witch hunt and I have all of these razzle-dazzle stars around me and I don't want testimony and I'm going to block witnesses but I'm going to say I'm not being given a fair trial because we don't have witnesses and because we don't have the team People testifying that we want in front of us. I don't think Donald Trump is so much concerned with the Senate. He's concerned with the Court of public opinion. Because that's how Donald Trump thinks everything is a trump rally every everything is a political moment so keeping that in mind even though the Senate may not be important for somebody like trump. It's deeply important for people that care. Karen Accountability it's deeply important for Democrats who hope to win in November twenty twenty because their arguments due to matter they do have to use the time and space they have to show what Donald Trump did wrong and that they really believe that it was an impeachable offense you both lay out any signs that Oh maybe they wanna run from this and make it as quick as possible. Anything can happen is we've showed him the rules. But the president just uncorked a bunch of more people including people who've been through this for decades televised L. advised advocates and others with extensive experience. which suggests they are to at least be ready for a lengthy and full battle in public very interesting stuff professeur reverse editor? Sally thank you coming up. We have new reporting on the president's state of mind nervousness and it's trial and then we have the lawyers argue on trump's behalf before the senate and the nation and preview to understand exactly where this trial strategy is going and what we can glean from all of that then we have an insider on all of the Senate arguments something that you may not see anywhere else. We're very excited about it. That's tonight as well. I'm watching the beat on. MSNBC HI everyone Steve Kornacki here host of the podcast article local to inside impeachment. It is official president. Donald Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives and faces a trial in the Senate. We've witnessed incredibly credibly historic moment. So what does it mean for us for our politics and for our country with a politics of impeachment change. What can the lessons of past impeachments teach us about the future of this process? I answer these questions and more on article two inside impeachment search now wherever you're listening and subscribe. Thanks for listening new reporting the president trump is increasingly anxious over over his impeachment. Trial The New York Times. It's become increasingly unnerved by this trial and he was grilling his aides at a meeting yesterday. On how voters actually view this impeachment and repeating. He can't even believe this is happening and he's in a predicament like impeachment. Meanwhile as his team complains about all of this the idea that we're clearly only hearing is a due process argument that maybe trump has been missed treated which is interesting because it's also donald trump who has publicly called for the prosecution and of his enemies. And then look at this New York Times report. The Justice Department in an unusual case digging up a years old leak that appears to focus on on Komi the time reports. This is quote highly unusual and feeds concerns that trump has officials quote politicizing investigations. I'm joined now by Gilani. Kaba Kaaba Professor at Columbia University and a writer for the New Yorker and MSNBC analyst for us here good to see you when we look at all of this it would be easy to lose lose track of it Mr Komi. Whatever one thinks of his choices and we've reported critically on some of them has been cleared twice by exhaust of internal reviews? And yet here. We see him with a bullseye again. Right exactly so I think the thing is that when you look at this. There's been this question about the institutions and their ability to rain and Donald Trump. And this is I. Think the the deal Jay a perhaps outside the State Department institution that you really were most worried about maintaining its integrity of these. Circumstances is now doing something in which appears to be. If it's not it looks a lot like a kind of politically mandated investigation life at the bidding of the president. And it's the same sort of thing that we saw the rebranding of the mother report before anyone had the chance to actually there is on it and it's the kind of thing that we look at exactly the sorts of things that donald trump was complaining about with Jeff Sessions Shins. This is the person that he really wanted. This is the kind of DOJ that he really wanted at that point in time. So it's hard to say the other side of this. which is the kind of vast hypocrisy? I think we have reached the event horizon of hypocrisy. Because there's no way to even catalogue appleaday. This is all demands for justice being made by a person who was rebuked by New York state for their renting of a charity. That can't run a charity already. In New York state charities you know been shuttered by for financial malfeasance. You say the event horizon of apostasy right. That is really something because we also know from history that you do not need to actually win a conviction or imprison someone know how the abuses that led to for example. Some comedy surveillance rules that were found by the church others involved arguing of journalist of critics of war protesters of black civil rights leaders and just the investigative function over them for years was seen itself is not only a constitutional abuse but effective effect. I'm glad you brought the church committee because no one has has really talked about that in the context of we talked about McCarthy. We've talked about some of the things but the church committee is also one of the really important pivotal points because because the intelligence community being reined in to the first time in the really since it got carte blanche in the Cold War people saying we have all these things surveilling Martin Luther King. We're under the name of national security able to do anything the excesses and abuses of J.. Edgar Hoover is really a kind of you. Don't have the kind of reputation and that. The intelligence community enjoys bipartisan fashion. In two thousand mile prior to this administration. You didn't have that kind of of in respect for that community. Were it not for the church community committee reigning them and from some of the excesses prior to that. So let me play something for you. In the context of Donald Trump's uh-huh looming impeachment and the type of defense. He's getting because we make it right over the hypocrisy horizon. I'm not sure you'll tell us what you think. This is some of the Republicans we've seen now complaining about the miscarriage of Justice in the trump trial take a look let the accuser determine what is relevant to the one being accused. The people of America see through this. The people of America understand due process and they understand when it is being trampled in the People's House. This this is Soviet style rules baby in the Soviet Union. You do things like this this why we came here to serve to trap on due process rights to issue more subpoenas than loss. Yeah I mean one I would. Caution cautioned him to take another look at their Soviet history. History Soviet Union did not have a kind of organized systematic way in which people were supposed to be brought up for. Justice is the women is exactly the opposite. The more Soviet side of this is what we're seeing happening in the White House and so the other part of it is at the weird due process argument. That's being made simultaneously saying that. The president is a victim of I guess maybe a show trial kind of idea of justice but the presidency. The executive branch has been withholding information refusing to comply with subpoenas making sure that no none of the information that would be relevant to due process could be available. And so you can't have it both ways and it's really also as a historian. It's one of those things that you think about saying this. This is not going to age. Well when people look back at this. I think that there will be a fairly reasonable expectation that a president president should not invite a foreign government to interfere an election as he did prior to the election that he wanted two thousand sixteen. Yeah and as you as you stay. One of the questions is when the exposition of that by his own aides or whistle blowers deemed credible label by the intelligence community. which we've just been discussing this whole segment leads to an accounting that is then accused of as a perversion of justice? When in fact that would seem to be a fact-finding act finding measure how the system is designed without taking a position on a trial ultimately the public and watch and make up their own minds about? So it's all it's all really fascinating. Jilani Cobb we like having in your big picture on the horizon as you say on nights like this. Thank you for being here really appreciate it. One of Donald Trump's just named trial lawyers making news when we're back back in thirty seconds. Hey It's Chris as you know sometimes it's good to just take a step back from the day to day onslaught of news and take take our broader. Look at the issues. That's doing each week on my podcast. Why is this happening? Were exploring topics ranging from school segregation to climate change. Well the way that I think of it is this. Climate Change will be to the twentieth century. What maternity west of the nineteenth century? It'll be the central subject of questions about economic justice. Everything you care about in the world will be affected by climate and and digging deep with guests uniquely qualified to analyze issues from mass incarceration to race relations as you know for the first time in our history at the national level whites are on the verge of losing being their majority status in twenty years and I think it's no coincidence that our politics are getting more tribal. Join me for wise's happening new episodes every Tuesday. Wherever wherever you get your podcasts? Today we are learning brand new information about the president's legal defense and who will make the case at trial one name. You may recognize Alan Dershowitz will help make the case defending the president of New York Times The Washington Post on NBC. All reporting. Alan Dershowitz will be joining. Trump's legal team team dershowitz posting today about his quote oral arguments. That will be offered. Alan Dershowitz the Harvard Law. School professor emeritus one of the most preeminent criminal defense attorneys in the nation in haven't tried over two hundred cases. He joins me now via skype at a busy time. Thank you for being here. Sir Thank you. It's two hundred fifty appeals. I'm not actually a trial. Trial lawyer only tried A small number of cases. I'm an appellate and constitutional. Two hundred and fifty appeals cases and effective when you're in the courtroom Let's let's get into what you're you're doing. President trump publicly admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Biden. Will you and this team argue that. The president can legally condition the kind of requests on foreign aid. Let me be very clear. What my role is I will not be involved in the facto aspects of the case in tactical issues about whether or call witnesses witnesses? My sole responsibility is to analyze and present the constitutional arguments against impeachment based on the two articles of impeachment impeachment. I will present the history of the constitutional impeachment provision the history of the impeachment that have gone on the three in our history and make a broad argument. I am not a full fledged member of his legal team in the sense that I have a limited role I will up here one day in the Senate. I'm not the kind of bridging one argument. Will you make the Constitution supports. What the president as I mentioned has publicly admitted or addition addition what? He's been accused of question what the Constitution supports. It's what the constitution requires prohibits. The constitution sets out four criteria for impeachment. Treason charge bribery. That's not in charge or other high crimes misdemeanors in the high crimes and misdemeanors are obstruction of Congress. which which is completely made up? President invoked is executive already separation of powers checks and balances s an extremely dangerous articles of impeachment and the other one abuse of power virtually half of American presidents from Adams Jefferson to Lincoln to Roseville have been accused of abuse of power. The framers explicitly rejected. Do those kinds of broad open ended criteria they will fearful. It'll empower congress to turn the presidency into the prime ministership of England. The prime minister can be his. Tenure ended by simple voter confidence. That's not with framers wanted. They wanted specific criteria for impeachment. Then none of those criteria in my view of I will lay out that argument. Well how do you. How do you make that argument though without dealing with some of these facts right I mean certainly one could imagined an abuse abuse of power that would meet the standard? I'm sure you and I would agree on that in theory and so the abuse. Actually we don't agree on that we don't let me play for you. Let me I get your response. Let me play for you. The president admitting the investigation that will get your response with that's an abuse ears. Donald Trump on the White House lawn the president. Well I would think that if they were honest about it did start a major investigation into the vice. The abuse of power allegations that requests conditioned on money that was federally mandated under the law for a different purpose is the abuse well but abuse of power even if crude is not an impeachable offense. That's exactly what the framers rejected. They didn't want to give Congress the authority to remove a president because he abused his power theft proof treason after prove bribery with after proof other crimes mismanaged made his other refers to crimes of the kind such as treason and bribery interesting. So let me make sure I understand for viewers. Because we're here making news here about what you will argue. On the president's we have trial the news. You're making as I understand it. Is that quote. Abuse of power in your argument does not not constitute as a high crime under the constitution. That's exactly right. And that's exactly what the framers said when they reject remember the initial criteria material for removing the president was now administration malpractice and range of other kind of vague open-ended criteria and what Hamilton Tin said is the greatest danger would be to empower congress to impeach based on how many votes you have in one side or the other. That's why after they finish debating whether there should be impeachment they went to the criteria and Madison. WHO's very much in favor of impeachment? Wanted Jerry Limit Syria and if they wanted to put abuse of power and they let me give you another example. Madison talk a lot. About what if a president becomes incapacitated. But they didn't put incapacitation as grounds for impeachment. We had to amend the constitution to do that prostitution to have abusive powers criteria that nobody will vote for well accused of abuse of power from the beginning beginning of time. Very interesting. Getting your expertise in what you plan to argue on the president's behalf I also WanNa play for you something that would seem to also create high crimes problems. which is that is true? Mr Giuliani who is not currently publicly slated to be a part of the team that you're on arguing in the Senate has been out there saying the president sent him off to do these things abroad some of these things at least the Patriot managers. The Democrats argue are crimes Take a listen to how that conflicts with what the presidency I said. Here we go. What was really Giuliani? Doing in Ukraine. On your behalf. Where you have to ask that to rudy but rudy? I don't I don't even know you know. He was going to go to Ukraine in direct him to go there on your behalf. The narrative right now is that you looked into Ukraine because is biden was running for president. Complete lie I've looked into Ukraine because it was thrown at me put on my lap. Does it matter that they're contradicting each other. Does it matter if the president did direct Giuliani. He has said publicly to do anything abroad. That might involve you've a high crime or a federal felony will sure it matters for when you decided to vote for Hillary Clinton Liberal Democrat and all of these things will influence. It's my decision who to vote for none of them. Rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors if you wanted to charge him with a crime. That's what they did. In the Clinton each month they charged him with specific the crimes. And that's what they did with Nixon but they didn't hear they haven't charged him with specific crimes as art of the articles of impeachment just two articles of impeachment abuse of our and obstruction of Congress. Neither of those rise to level costume offensive. It's not just a question of drafting. It's a question of what the senators have to vote on the senators vote yea or nay the president abuses power and when struck Congress constitutionally permissible criteria and professor. When you make this claim which you're previewing what the trump trial strategy will be so? I'm sure a lot I don't know what my let me be very. Let me let me Sir let me let me ask you a question. And then I'll get get into. We'll get into that point when you make a lot of people are listening. I was saying that in a good way it's quite relevant and newsworthy. Will you then have to argue against some of the founders founders and some of the federalist papers that do talk about abuse of power being impeachable federalist sixty-five abuse of the public. Trust is the type of thing that you compete for. Of course I will take that on and of course you're totally and completely one hundred percent wrong. That's not what better paper sixty five says would federalist paper sixty fifty five says. Is that if you look at the TYRIAN for impeachment treason. Bribery high crimes and misdemeanors. Those are crimes that involve the public and they are political in nature. Hr that's very different than saying that abuse of power by itself is criteria for impeachment. There is a great confusion between whether to impeach which was a great debate. People use terms like abuse of power in the decision whether to impeach then they came to a very different decision what criteria should be and then in Madison. who was very hawkish on impeachment became very dovish when it came to the criteria? I'm not sure that a question itself could be one hundred percent wrong along because they question seeks information providing the question was questionable questionable. I appreciate your your your criticism. You've been more in the time we have I did. I did WANNA show history here when we had you on and you were discussing some other issues we you did ask about whether you did or would defend the president legally to join my team. Take a look sure. Have you provided had any formal council donald trump or his aides or accepted any money or would you consider providing counsel them. What an insulting question? I mean they have accepted accepted money for. I'm a Liberal Democrat. I take it that no. Please don't stop try to insult my integrity by suggesting. Somehow somebody's these pockets but you're you're you're very celebrate attorneys taking on a lot of different cases. Is that a no that you this is not a case you would consider at this time. I'm a civil libertarian. Sometimes my statement help Democrats sometimes it now the Republicans. And what you're doing you are going to be half of the president and the Senate in this trial very clear. I'm arguing behalf of the Constitution. Arguing to avoid a terrible precedent being set for future presidents. I am not somebody buddy who is strategizing with his legal team. I won't be involved in the decision whether to call witnesses. I won't be involved in fact what I'm doing is precisely consistent with what I've said I'm standing up for. What I believe is the proper are doing the same thing? If Hillary Clinton bill you will be doing doing a lawyer for president trump. I am doing it as a lawyer. I am doing it as a lawyer. Who is not in a lawyer? Client relationship with anybody I am I am. I am presenting the constitutional argument. That in this case happens to help. President trump people in America professor. By what authority would you step out on the Senate floor. Witnesses have not been cleared the only people on the floor or the senators and the council for both sides the impeachment manager manager. I am and the president's lawyers. I am part of the legal team. A very specialized role my specialize roles to present the constitutional argument. The same argument I would present very Clinton had been elected and she would being impeached the same argument I presented in three books. And maybe thirty five or forty articles articles and so I fully intend to re presenting an argument basically on behalf of the constitution. Yes the person being impeached and being removed remove is President Donald Trump. Who voted against? But I'm trying to present a very non artisan view of student and I think it'd be refreshing to have nonpartisan Buick introduced on the Senate floor in this highly partisan impeachment and removal. So I'm proud to be presenting a non-partisan do unto sure Professor Dershowitz. We've always appreciated having on in the past and now and hearing about your views of all of this. I appreciate your time. Sir Thank you thank you and we should mention. Your new book is the case against removing trump. That's out now. I WANNA turn some more experts to give us context and commentary. MSNBC legal analyst and former Civil Prosecutor Maya widely Andrew Finlay who is a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has an extensive understanding of how you defend individuals At trial even when there might be all kinds of evidence there a great to have you both here at work my. What did you think of the professors remarks? I thought they were incredible. And what I mean by that is that there are a large number of constitutional scholars. We heard three of them testify before before the house. Judiciary Committee who said abusive power is absolutely something that you can. President can be impeached for and by the way the constitute fourth constitutional scholar who was called by the Republicans. Jon Turley also conceded that a president could be impeached just for a piece of power. His argument was that there was insufficient evidence. Which is different argument from Alan Dershowitz and yet and yet professor Dershowitz Servicing thinks something that we know for a fact? It's so it will come up at this high stakes trial. which is there was a debate over whether to include bribery viewers of this show that we discussed that reported on it and they went with abuse of power? He says that there is absolutely no way to support abuse of power as you mentioned there Korea and there's a text on that but is it interesting to you given his his real experience in courtrooms that he seizing on that. And he wants to make this a high sort of constitutional textual debate about. Maybe maybe you picked the wrong thing. Maybe it's not even a high crime. Well a strategy. I think it can help. Serve the argument that these aren't impeachable offenses. If it turns to being an evidentiary standard which I would find ironic because we have an obstruction. Ah I also found that argument. Implausible that a president can assert executive privilege over every single shred of everything in government and then somehow not obstructing Congress when that's not even the way the a privileged functions and then briefly before I turned to drew. I'm curious because we've been through so many of these stories from Iowa. What did you think Professor Dershowitz who I know does things for a reason and has a strategy? What is his interest and an emphasis on trying to distinguish his role? I mean we got him to finally could see he will be going out on that floor. Is that trump. There's no other people allow there's no guests. There's no plus ones the Senate trial. What is he getting out there and trying to say he's different than the other lawyers? Go well I think it's two things I think one there are. There is some y ability to having an Alan Dershowitz as your defense attorney because he's been implicated in it not implicated in the sense of being charged. Just WanNa be clear. I'm not saying they're sufficient facts. But Alan Dershowitz is someone who was implicated in some relationship with Jeffrey Epstein Administration controversial for the administration. Not a good look but it's also just one last point quickly it's also that it enables him to be to be seen as an independent analyzer. which is an argument? He's making when in fact. Actually we'll be zealous advocate your view. Well there's just too much to to calm and over. I tried alternate and I look at Alan Dershowitz speaking and think about how he would be cross examined and he ended by talking about how partisan the proceedings have been to date that shows that he's walking into this with a political opinion secondly a he has a book on this subject. If you were going to be cross examined by a real trial lawyer he would be eviscerated because of those two things. Secondly he knows the federal rules he understands that there's a thing called abuse of trust and there are a lot of people particularly former politicians in jails all over America virtually federal jails because of abuse of trust and he knows that on the last thing that he is a well aware of is what we call four four B and that is past acts prior bad acts and he is got to walk into his analysis. And say when you're the President United States you have to think you have an understanding of article two of the United States constitution so he needs to look at the president and all his activities in the past and see what he's exhibited in understanding of what's constitutionally permissible admissible right. What is not and he was a lawyer? You didn't want to get into the facts. Because he's going to be doing that other type argument we've got to fit in a break. We went along with all. This drew my thank you so much. We have a lot more. Tonight's show and we come back on the beat so it's time to fall back and it is going down on the I am joined by multi-platinum sailing rapper yoga known for hits. DM's rake it up and many things that have taken off in in pop culture. Take a look at it. Do grade down in around. There's a famous song. It's going down in the d. m. that refers to what happens with direct messaging goes down the song he's everywhere and has worked with all kinds of names. You know like Little Wayne. Kanye West Nicki Minaj. Reagan Stallion Travis. Scott he's gearing up to drop his tenth studio video album this month also teaming up with Jay Z.. Right now to try to hold the Mississippi Department of Corrections accountable. We'll get into that and also with us. NBC News Own. Harry I Smith a veteran newsman. And you may remember for twenty five years at work at CVS take a look interviewing everyone from act. Wow that was a fun to president. Barack Obama great to have both of you together on the be nice to see Harry. Let's start with you you and with the news. What's on your fallback Lewis when you know people are complaining a little bit about the formality of what's happening in the process of the impeachment as the the trial is about to get underway and I say fallback This this needs to be taken seriously. It's mad right. These guys wrote this stuff couple of hundred years ago to a lot of things into consideration there following the letter of the constitution to do this the way it ought to be done it should be a sober moment sober and in shows. Ideally no one's above the law. I'm curious what's on your list and the work you're doing I want to hear about With but these prisons my father would be Mississippi prison system. A lot of food people sleeping on a florals also living inhumane conditions. They gotTa Fall Big with and we've seen multiple deaths in the law. They will call in custody deaths in five five which is worse because they're in control so they have these people locked down. The guards have control the building and yet people keep dying a some people saying you know allegedly prison responsible for what are you trying to achieve with this lawsuit and you're busy doing a lot of things. Why are you doing this is important pointers? Mississippi's Beg your of Memphis Tennessee. As you can pay anyone street and being safety also personally I I have family members grew up in the prison system. T's falls as brothers and I understand it. These human beings somebody brotherly. Somebody's so somebody father father and his women who is going to from what I hear. So somebody models solstice so like regardless of them being in in prison if it'll be for rehabilitation we should begin. Locked up in a big time in pre go ahead. Well let me ask you. This what Yo Gotti saying And these are people. These are still people right. That's a constitutional principle. Even if they've done something wrong adjudicated by the court they have rights and so many of our prison resume systems are conveniently underfunded which is what it really sounds like is happening in Mississippi because one of the things they said this is not the guards in there right. Yeah exactly so. It's interesting how we decide to deal with different populations of people say well they just don't matter or that much what else is on your list. Very how should people fall back. You know what I want to go back to the original final. If you don't mind about this whole process you know what we call that we call that a Remix who sample little sampling spinning. Or what are you doing just trying to stay might doing the DJ agree. But it's your time you know just the whole thing of what we've witnessed thus far there's been so much showmanship. There's been so much grandstanding. There's been so much what's this. What's that interpretation? There's little to be interpreted here. One of the things that I think is most amazing is the silence that's required. I think about that. Trial Senators actually have to listen to evidence a thought when I mentioned in your introduction. You work with so many people we talked about what you're doing one in the prison system with Jay Z with ROC nation. But you've worked with all these other artists everyone recognizes. How does that happen? I mean if somebody's watching this thing. How have you come to work on champions the Travis Travis Scott Khania have you worked with so many big people? How does that have the creative talent? Mean musicians worked to get out of time speaking one another. You want to cleverly if it makes sense if it's time between they make sense we do regular hopefully come out and be hits special. Is it harder. If it's it's a lot of big a list Alpha's on one track like champions. I mentioned it doesn't matter because you guys live together. I don't think maybe bill because maybe the competition take time to you so you feel that energy. I do yoga listening to you. Learn a little bit about what you're doing appreciate you coming on the beats appreciate you. Thank you very much. Harry always good to have you back. We'll see the cafeteria my Wiley Alan Dershowitz Yoga. We fit in as much as we could on a Friday. Thanks for watching as always. I'll be back here Sunday night. Nine PM Eastern for that impeachment special brand new. I hope you'll join US guys. Willie geist here this week. On the Sunday sit down. PODCAST I get together with Ed Harris to talk about his prolific career from the right stuff to westworld and now to kill a mockingbird on Broadway. Get our conversation now for free wherever you download your podcasts.

president Donald Trump Senate Bill Clinton senator Professor Dershowitz America United States Ukraine White House Joe Biden Congress professor White House bribery State Department Jay Z Clinton Hillary Clinton Rudy Giuliani
Democracy Now! 2020-01-30 Thursday

Democracy Now! Audio

59:02 min | 1 year ago

Democracy Now! 2020-01-30 Thursday

"In front of the Sundance Film Festival in Park City Utah this is Samantha. Say now for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public. Interest cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment in an extraordinary claim of executive give power president. Trump's lawyer Alan Dershowitz says a sitting. President can take any action to boost his reelection chances if he feels his three elections in the public interest. We'll get the latest on the historic impeachment trial with former acting solicitor. General Neal Katyal author RAV impeach the case against Donald Trump then coded bias. Look at a new film that exposes the racial and Gender Prejudice Dayton. The ART official intelligence in one test Iran Amazon recognition. Evening filled on the face of Oprah Winfrey labeling her male personally I've had to resort to literally wearing a white mask have my face detected by some of this technology all that and and more coming up. Welcome to democracy now democracy now dot Org Org the Warren Peace Report. I mean Goodman President. Trump's legal team offered an extraordinary new defense during the president's Senate impeachment trial Wednesday attorney. Alan Dershowitz said sitting. President could take any action to boost his reelection chances. If he feels re election is in the public interest 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. Meanwhile Democrats are trying to secure enough votes to get trump's former national security adviser John Bolton to testify Bolton is written in a forthcoming book that trump personally told him he wanted to maintain in a freeze on military aid to crane until Ukraine turned over materials related to trump's political rival former vice president. Joe Biden the White House is attempting stink to halt publication of Bolton's book claiming it contains classified information. This is Virginia Democratic senator. Tim Kaine before. There's a vote on on conviction or acquittal. There's GonNa be a vote on whether this is a trial or a sham. That's what the votes going to be likely on Friday. Is this trial trial. Or is this a sham. Hundreds of protesters descended on Capitol Hill Wednesday to demand the Senate co-witnesses as part of trump's impeachment trial. This is Reverend Reverend. William Barber. Speaking at the protest seeing in the United States Senate is as bad as what we saw Jim Crow hidden give other does just. We'll have more on the impeachment which meant trial with former solicitor. General Neal Cacho after headlines. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to ratify the BREXIT withdrawal agreement. Meaning in Britain will formally withdraw from the European Union Friday at midnight Brussels time this is Michelle Pontiac had the European Commission's UK Task Force. It is obviously a very sad and serious and feel that way about it. Because for both sides separating will make us weaker commodity the divorce the World Health Organization meeting again today to decide whether to declare the corona virus and international public health emergencies. The death toll continues unused to mount over. One hundred. Seventy people have died. In China. Over seven thousand cases have been confirmed worldwide. Sixteen Airlines have now cancelled all or many of their flights in and out of China in election. News presidential candidate senator. Amy Klobuchar is facing calls to suspend her campaign over the case of Mayan Burrell. An African American American teenager who was sentenced to life in prison over the two thousand and two murder of eleven year old Edwards Kluber short lead the case against my own Burrell when she was Hennepin county's district district attorney but a new Associated Press reports says she may have mishandled. The case in that parole could be innocent. The Associated Press report shows how prosecutors had no DNA or fingerprints fingerprints tying Burrell to the murder and they relied on jailhouse informants. Some of whom have since recanted their testimony. We're Ellas always maintained his innocence. The Minneapolis N.. Double A. C. P black lives matter twin cities and other racial justice. Groups are calling on clever shark to suspend her presidential campaign in France. Thousands of protesters poured board into the streets of Paris Marseille nine plans to lose and Bordeaux Wednesday in the latest mass demonstration against French President Emmanuel. The Collins proposed pension overhaul in Paris. Thousands of pro testing firefighters clashed with riot police. French workers and unions ends have staged mass demonstrations for months to protest the pension. Overhaul this is one of the protesters new. It's scandalous. They're putting us in a whole situation with ordinances and executive orders. mccrone is presenting an incomplete. Bill we say Francis not a dictatorship but it starts to seem that way. If that's the way it works a Cuban man died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami Monday marking the six WCHS immigrant to die and ICE custody since October. He was the second immigrant to die in ice custody in the past week alone after British man man died inside the Baker County Detention Center in Florida. On Saturday retired Salvadoran general one Rafael was steel. Has acknowledged acknowledge for the first time that Lee United States trained forces were responsible for carrying out the nineteen eighty-one elmo's apptime massacre in which nearly nearly a thousand unarmed villagers were killed most of those tortured and murdered by the US troops. Were women and children this comes this is the. US State Department has been thirteen former Salvadoran military officials from entering the United States after they allegedly orchestrated the the extra judicial killings of six Jesuit priests their housekeeper and her daughter in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine like the L. Mazzotta massacre. The killing of the priests was also carried out by the soldiers trained by the United States. In South Dakota the Republican controlled House so representatives has passed a bill that criminalizes gender affirming surgery for transgender youth. Lawmakers voted forty six to twenty three in favor of how spill ten fifty seven which would make it a felony for doctors to provide anyone under the age of sixteen with puberty blockers hormones MOANS and other transition related healthcare parents and health professionals say the bill will take away life saving treatments for transgender youth. You doctors involved with this could face ten years in prison go to democracy now dot. Org to see our full coverage of house spill ten fifty seven with the ACO US chase strange you and the Oscar nominated director. Yancey Ford the first openly transgender director nominated for Academy Award and publisher Flatiron. Books has cancelled the author tour of the controversial novel American dirt after the book face massive criticism and backlash for its stereotypical inaccurate portrayal of Mexicans and the current may gration crisis. The the book by Janine Commons tells the story of the Mexican mother and her son fleeing cartel violence before its release it was heralded as the the next great American novel and Flatiron Books Paid Commons. WHO's not Mexican seven-figure advance? But a slew of Latino writers say the book is Poorly Research Search Caricature of Mexico and have slammed the publishing industry for ignoring Latino writers who are telling their own stories of migration and displacement. This is author and writer. Miriam Girba speaking with Maria Hinojosa on NPR about reading American dirt while in Mexico. It felt insulting that I am in a country with a tremendous cultural history and a tremendous literary history. And I'm reading a book with an introductory letter from a publisher that argues that this Author is going to give a face to the faceless and I'm looking around at my Mexican family and we all have faces and faces and voices matter in my family. The books critics also say American. Dirk completely erases Central Americans who actually make up the largest number number of asylum seekers currently fleeing to the US Mexico Border Mariam Gerber now. They're Latino writers launched a campaign called Dignidad literary or literary dignity in order to promote Latino writers and those are some of the headlines. This is democracy now democracy now DOT ORG the Warren Peace Report. I'm maker and I've never been share. Welcome to our listeners and viewers around the country and around the world president. Trump's legal team offered an extraordinary new. You defense during the president's impeachment trial on Wednesday attorney Alan Dershowitz said that a sitting president could take any action to boost his reelection chances if he felt his reelection was in the public interest 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 Dershowitz has claimed came during the portion of the trial where senators were given a chance to submit written questions to trump's legal team and the house impeachment managers. Manager's the question and answer period continues today the impeachment trial could end as soon as Friday if the Senate Republican leadership succeed in blocking Democrats Hans from cooling any witnesses. Democrats are hoping to secure enough votes to get trump's former national security adviser John Bolton to testify Bolton's written Forthcoming Book. That trump. Personally told him. He wanted to maintain a freeze on military aid to Ukraine until Ukraine turned over materials related to his political rival former vice president. Joe Biden the White House is attempting to halt publication of Bolton's book claiming it contains classified information on Wednesday Democratic Senate Minority Leader. Charles Schumer submitted. A question about whether there can be a fair Senate trial without key eye witnesses such as John on Bolton this is house impeachment manager Adam Schiff though the short answer. That question is no. There's no way to have a fair trial without witnesses. Mrs And when you have a witness who is plainly relevant as John Bolton who goes to the heart of the most serious and egregious of the presence misconduct looked who has volunteered to come and testify to turn him away to look. The other way I think is deeply at odds with being an impartial juror. Sure White Lighthouse speedy counsel. Patrick Philbin disagreed on the question. About calling witnesses. The point of whether whether this chamber should hear from Ambassador Bolton and I think it's important to consider what that means because it's not just a question of well should should we just hear one witness. That's not what the real question is going to be for this institution. The real question is what is the president it in that is going to be set for what is an acceptable way for the House of Representatives to bring an impeachment of president of the United States to this chamber and can it be done in a hurried half-baked partisan fashion. In a moment we will go to Washington into DC where we'll be joined by neil cocktail former acting. US Solicitor General in the Obama Administration. He's a professor at Georgetown and author author of the Book Impeach the Case Against Donald Trump. In a minute. Thank you yeah. Yeah thank Take it high now by the soul rebels. This is democracy now democracy now dot Org the Warren Impeach report. I'm Amy Goodman with nermeen shake and we're joined in Washington DC by Neil cocktail former acting US solicitor general and the Obama Administration the station Supreme Court lawyer and Georgetown University law professor. Neil Cacho is also the author of the book impeach the Case Ace Against Donald Trump. Welcome to democracy. Now Neil Caccia. We want to go right to well. That explosive claim by President. Trump's lawyer our Alan Dershowitz his claim of executive power. That says a sitting president can take any action to boost his reelection chances if he feels Alice's reelection is in the public interest. If you could start off by weighing in on that and then talk about the significance of half what happened even yesterday where we moved to that period of sixteen hours of the senators asking questions through the chief justice of the United States. John Roberts who's presiding over the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Okay so amy thanks. It's great to be on your show so and with respect what you're saying about Professor Dershowitz you called it a claim Bhai Professor Dershowitz. I think the technical legal word is a joke That is nobody. Nobody no responsible constitutional scholar in two centuries agrees with Dershowitz And you can't like chuck them all up as biased. Ask politically or something like that. You go back decades. You'll never find a serious scholars saying anything like what he said yesterday. And that's for a very simple reason. Impeachment is the people's check against an abusive president was laced into our constitution by our founders. And the idea that the president can simply say oh. I think my reelection is in the national interest therefore I can do whatever I want is stupid. I mean it's just a ridiculous Silas argument It would mean for example that President Nixon when ordering the Watergate break into the DNC headquarters didn't commit an impeachable offense it. It would mean that the president could use the army to go threaten Democrats who voted for Democratic candidates instead of voting for him. It could even mean that the president could shoot his opponent and say hey you know. My reelection is in the national interest so I can do whatever I want You know this is not even good concert. This is not even bad constitutional. Lawyering it's atrocious constitutional lawyering and You know in in and say one more point about this. This lawyer. Dershowitz is hired hired by the president. So he's going out there and advocating. What the president wants him to advocate and any president? Who has these views has to be? uh-huh I mean that is the definition of why you have impeachment in there because he doesn't believe in the rule of law he thinks that he's above it as long as his motivations wins for reelection are pure and he's in the national interest in our founders. Whole idea you go back to the federalist Papers Federal fifty-one men aren't angels? That's why government is necessarily. That's why the double security of checks and balances. His unnecessary Madison. Says all of that is being destroyed in this moment by the president's arguments meal could chew also talk about how trump's legal team more generally has been dealing specifically with Bolton's a book revelations which are quite explosive first they ignore them then said there it inadmissible then Dershowitz saying it doesn't matter if they're true or not because it would not quote rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. Yes so let me first back up so all your listeners in watchers know what's going on so article. One of the presidential impeachment articles tells says that the president abused power essentially says that he tried to cheat in the twenty twenty election by trying to coerce a foreign government to announcing bouncing investigation into his chief political rival. Joe Biden now the president has said. Oh No I was just fighting corruption. And that's what I was trying to do. And that's why with how the aid which has always been kind of ludicrous argument on its facts. Because he can't name a single other place in the world where he actually cared about corruption and in response for for example yesterday to Senator Collins Question His lawyers couldn't come up with an example. Any explanation of how trump only magically cared about corruption after Biden entered the presidential race. and not before so it's always been weak but what Bolton did is destroy it because Bolton according to the Times Times revelations about his book say that's not why trump did it. He wasn't trying to fight corruption. He was doing it for his political campaign. So that's why the Bolton testimony CBS so important and that's why trump is so scared scared to daylights. That Bolton will testify frankly that anyone in the executive branch will testify which is why. He's tried to gag every executive branch employees so what trump's lawyers are doing to get to your question is they're trying basically an a game of misdirection they're like look over here. Look at what the House did wrong. Look over there. Look at what the Democrats did wrong and this and that but at the end the central thing is this and this is what I hope the house managers today focus on that trump has produced no evidence at all zero evidence to exonerate him the house managers by contrast contrast it produced a over a dozen witnesses that all point the finger directly at trump The transcript itself points a finger directly at trump. He has no now evidence to the contrary because he's afraid to put any evidence in the record any witnessed any document and in a world in which you've got evidence on one side and nothing on on the other except a lawyer's argument in conjecture like his lawyers yesterday trump's lawyers yesterday. I don't think this is frankly very close and it would be a a grave grave disservice to try to quit the president on the basis of this record it would be obviously in contravention of their oath to do impartial. Social Justice on Wednesday Chief Justice John Roberts read questions submitted by Democratic Senator. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. This is chief justice Roberts followed by. Well trump attorney Alan Dershowitz. The House has repeatedly impeached and the Senate has convicted officers for high crimes and misdemeanors that were not indictable crimes. Even Mr Dershowitz said in nineteen ninety eight. That an impeachable offense misquote certainly doesn't have to be a crime and quote. What has happened in the past? Twenty two years to change the original intent of the framers and the historic meaning. Meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors what happened since nine hundred. Ninety eight is that I studied more. Did more research read more documents. And unlike any academic altered my views. That's what happens. That's what professors what to do. So that was Alan Dershowitz responding to Senator Mansions question. Read through the Supreme Court justice. John Roberts Neil Kochav if you can talk about the substance of the question and answer and then. Let's let's talk a little about Chief Justice Roberts and how much he can bring his justice experience. How much she can weigh in? It's so unusual. What has taken place right now? Chief justice of the United States presiding over the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Thank you I'm not gonNA impugn Professor Dershowitz motives or anything like that. I don't know only he knows what's in his head but I'd like to hear about what sources he actually studied. Because as I was saying a moment to go no responsible constitutional scholar not just now but for the last two centuries Says anything like what he said. Yesterday I mean the only scholar that I suppose he could find is a guy named Richard Nixon who said it back in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven even David Frost but But really no serious. Scholar says so and for good reason. you know there's lots of stuff that's impeachable but that isn't a crime You you know. Just take the example. You know Per suppose the president's really upset at Justin Trudeau for dissing him at a global conference and so the President Decides to Nuke Canada that is not a crime. There's no criminal law that prevents it but it's obviously impeachable or to take an example that it might be a little bit closer to reality suppose Putin decides to invade Boston and New York tomorrow and the President doesn't put up a defence That is again not not a crime. But it's obviously impeachable behavior and so You know crimes have never been the standard which is as I. I think Senator Manchin said in his question. They've never been the standard both before nine hundred ninety eight nor after now your second part of your question had to do with the role of the chief justice send you know. I'm fortunate. I argued forty one cases before our chief justice You know he's far more conservative than I am. But he's always fair. I disagree agree with some of the rulings. But they're based on a sense of law and a sense of justice. I think Americans should be glad that he's presiding over this trial And yesterday night Representative Chef did something which I've been expecting for awhile which is to say. Look we think this whole witness question should be. I decided by the chief justice as I wrote about in the New York Times. I think there's a easy case that the chief justice can decide whether or not witnesses it can be subpoenaed. There's a harder question about whether a requires fifty one senators to overrule him or two thirds of the Senate to overrule him And and I acknowledge her a bunch of debate about that. But I don't think there's any serious debate that the chief justice system the first stint since can authorize subpoenas of these witnesses in John Roberts is a real judge who's presided over so many cases he knows that you can't have a trial without witnesses. There's no such thing and so so You know I think that represented shifted the right thing yesterday. In saying he's going to try and leave this and the chief justice's hands and I hope the Republicans do the same thing I mean I think all Americans should have faith in this chief justice well on Wednesday. The first question came from Republican senators. Susan Collins Holden's of Maine Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah. They're the Republicans considered most open to voting in favor of allowing Witnesses they ask trump's legal defense team to explain if trump was culpable. If he had mixed motives. This is trump attorney Patrick Philbin responding. And if there's both some personal motive but also legitimate public interest motive. It can't possibly be an offense because it would be absurd sir to have the Senate trying to consider well it was it forty eight percent legitimate interest and fifty two percent personal inch or was was it the other way was it fifty three percent and forty six. You can't divide it that way Neil Patel. Could you respond to that. Yeah I think the most central thing is that the president if he thinks it's fifty two percent or forty eight percent or even ninety percent or whatever over in the public interest. He's gotta come out and testify in say-so right now there's witness after witness who testified under oath in in the Congress that the president did this because he was trying to get Paula. WHO's trying to get political points and to announce and to get an investigation announced announced not even the substance and a real investigation but just one announce against Joe Biden by the cranium government so if the president really believes he has mixed motives yes he's got to have the guts to go in? Tell that to the American people and in particular to the Senate of the United States until that it's just a bunch of lawyer talk and he is a holy persuasive. Can you talk about the Republican. Saying reciprocal witnesses. If if The Democrats get Bolton the Republicans get big Joe Biden Hunter Biden. They get someone for each one that the Democrats. Let's get talk about the significance of this. What is material witness and ultimately who decides well? It's very frustrating. Because as you know I I think the Democrats in the house. Managers have really approached this from the standpoint of trying to get a search for the truth treating the Senate as effectively a court court of law and trying to get witnesses who are relevant and material meaning that they have information that's pertinent to the allegations against them and the senators senators by the Republican senators contrast keeps on threatening. Oh we're GONNA call Joe Biden and it'll be bad for your political stuff and I just think that they're talking to different foreign languages. The House is really talking. The language of the rule of law in the Senate Republicans are really talking. The language of politics which is I think? An enormously destructive force look if they want to make a case that you know Hunter Biden or Joe Biden's truly relevant to this great but I as you were just saying a moment omen ago. I thought the President's defense was that he had mixed motives in his own head. And there's only really one true witness says who can explain that defense. What's in his head and that's Donald Trump and until he goes and says so on the stand? All of this has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. There's really nothing to it in particularly when you have witness after witness saying You told me your motivation was something else and you know that is exactly what Ambassador Bolton according to The New York Times said in his book and the idea that we could you know come to any sort of resolution on this central all set of allegations without hearing from him is like it's a mockery of American justice. It's much more like the Soviet system and I don't think it's going to work. I think if the Senate it really voted tomorrow to not have any witnesses and to rush to acquittal of trump I think all that's GonNa do is force a rolling impeachment of this president the houses houses then going to go back and call all these witnesses and they'll all come forward and the Bolton book will come out and these Republicans lukens who voted for no witnesses will have the blood of the constitution on their hands. Meal up one of the arguments as you know that trump's lawyers have been making. Is that by calling witnesses that will automatically lead to endless litigation. Could you respond to that. You recently wrote a piece saying that trump's lawyers are in fact wrong in making that argument. Yeah this is a real easy when I wrote in The Washington Post yesterday with Josh Belcher the reason and so In the house. It's true that if they tried to call Bolton Alton or other folks the president had said he was going to try and fight this in the courts through executive privilege but in the Senate. It's a whole different thing. Because the chief justice presides presides over the Senate impeachment trial. And he's right there and can decide any executive privilege question and indeed the United States Supreme Court in a case about twenty twenty years ago said that the federal courts have no business in impeachment trials. Reviewing what's going on they called it non-justiciable so you can't make make a federal court case out of impeachment and so the chief justice is going to be the last word and that's exactly what representative shift said lightly last night on on the floor of the Senate and so we're talking about days not months or years but days to have an executive privilege claim. you know Invoked and resolved. Now it's not even clear to me. The president would invoke executive privilege. He never has when you invoke executive privilege. You've got to actually show the documents arguments or or the testimony that you want to be privileged And here I think the president is quite afraid to show those documents because they show Oh that he's guilty And you know there's any number of other problems at the executive privilege claim the fact that he's waved it by talking about all this stuff ahead of time In the like so. I think it's a bogus claim and they'll be easily resolved and no senator should be worried that this is going to delay things in any serious fashion. Shen Neil Konczal. We're you know asking you a lot about what happened yesterday. which was the beginning of the senators asking questions through the chief justice? WHO's presiding over the trial? Oh John Roberts but overall the Senate impeachment trial that has been taking place. I mean you wrote a book on impeachment. That just came out. What has surprised you most? What information did you not realized? Has Anything changed your mind and do you think it's possible. If Hunter Biden for example were forced to take the stand. That new information would come out so I wrote the book which is called impeach as a kind of citizens guide to impeachment. It's a hundred and fifty pages long and it goes through the history of impeachment starting with the Philadelphia Convention and brings us up to the present day in the allegations against president trump. And your question. I don't think anything that's come out out his changed Anything that I wrote in the book since it came out about a month and a half ago if anything it's just the case against trump has become stronger because each week week there's new revelations whether it's the Bolton book this week or the Left parties testimony last week or the Office of management or the Gao General General Accounting Office saying what the president did with Ukraine is illegal the week before so you just have more and more evidence and the trajectory of this all points in in the president's guilt there's no new evidence that's come out ever since the whistle blower report in September. That says the president is innocent. It all points. It's in that same direction and you asked me what I was surprised about since I wrote the book. I guess I'd say one thing you know. The beginning of the book talks about what I call the yardstick stick rule which to me is the essence of what the rule of law is about. which is it doesn't matter who the parties are before you? The whole idea of law is that justice is blind aligned. That's why Lady Justice in the statues is blindfolded. You get the same justice whether you're a man or woman or Republican or Democrat and so in the book I you say as a thought experiment just pretend that this these allegations about Ukraine were against President Obama instead of against President President trump. How would you vote? And I said each senator should look in the mirror in the morning and ask themselves that very simple question and it just as much true for Democrats as is Republicans and you know for me. At least I believe the answer is very clear. I don't care. I loved President Obama but if he did this I'd be the first one to March each down there and say you're out of there and it's surprising to me that the Republicans have marched in lockstep so much so they're afraid uh even have witnesses. It's kind of become a party of the three monkeys and seeing though evil and hear no evil and just you know willfully closing their eyes and ears anything to the contrary and that is a really really sad thing for me is an American. I believe in a party system. I believe in vibrant debate. And what I'm seeing right now. is the collapse of the Republican Party. They stand for nothing if they can't stand for the most simple basic precepts of the rule of law. which is you know heck? We don't want a president who cheats in his reelection. Neil who would you like to see as the Senate impeachment. The trial continues. Who would you like to see testify? And what kinds of documents do you think should be brought in as evidence. So I think that there's you know a basically two groups of people who like to testify outline that and then I'm going to have to go so the first is I think the most important person as we were talking about a moment ago is president trump himself. His whole defense is I had pure motives. I did nothing wrong long. I wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine. If he really thinks so go tell it under oath to the American people and let's see how what they think of that explanation the nation so I think he's the most important witness given the defense given all the allegations against him including now by his own National Security Adviser John Bolton and then second the witnesses with firsthand information that the president has blocked so far from testify. So it's John Bolton the former national security advisor her Mick Mulvaney who is the acting chief of staff John Duffy. WHO's the office of Management and budget official and secretary might bow secretary state? Mike Pompeo you so I think it's that group of five witnesses and the documents that they had in relation to the Ukraine situation that we'd like to see Neil Cacho going to thank you so much for spending this time with us former acting solicitor general in the Obama Administration. Georgetown University law off professor. Michio Kaku is the CO author of impeach the case against Donald Trump when we come back coded bias. A A new film has premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival taking on racial and gender bias in artificial intelligence. Stay with US mation on the Black Guy John. They just as long as it gets Declaration dude soon and JUST ISLAM LACK GUIDE LOSE BY ESTHER PHILLIPS. This is democracy now democracy now DOT ORG the Warren Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman with nermeen shake and we're broadcasting from the Sundance Film Festival in Park City. Utah from Park City TV. Where a new? Oh film looks at the racial and gender prejudice baked into artificial intelligence technology like facial recognition. The film is called called coded bias earlier this month. Cambridge Massachusetts voted to ban facial recognition joining a growing number of cities in the US including shooting San Francisco that have outlawed the artificial intelligence software citing flawed technology a recent study found facial recognition identified African American and Asian faces incorrectly. Ten to one hundred times more than white faces. The study by the National Institute of Standards and technology found a photo auto database used by law enforcement incorrectly identified native Americans at the highest rates the danger of flawed artificial intelligence and it's increasing armed presence in daily life is the focus of the new film coated bias. The film begins with joy and we need a researcher at the MIT media lab who discovers that most facial recognition software does not recognize darker skinned or female faces when she has to wear a white mosque to to be recognized by a robot. She herself is programming. She goes on to reveal that artificial intelligence is not in fact a neutral scientific tool but instead reflects the biases and inequalities of wider society. This is joy testifying before Congress. In May I'm an algorithm make bias researcher based at Mit. And I've conducted studies. That show some of the largest recorded racial and skintight biopsies in a system sold by companies like IBM Microsoft and Amazon. You've already heard facial. Recognition and related technologies have some flaws in one test Iran Amazon recognition. Evening filled on the face of Oprah Winfrey labeling her male personally I've had to resort to literally Shirley wearing a white mass to have my face detected by some of this technology coating in Whiteface is the last thing I expected to be doing at. MIT Not an American epicenter of innovation. Now given the use of this technology for mass surveillance not having my face detected could be seen as has a benefit but besides being employed for dispensing toilet paper in China the technology is being used to track wieger Muslim minorities beyond on being abused. There are many ways for this technology to fail among the most pressing are misidentification that can lead to false arrest and accusations mistaken. The identity is more than an inconvenience and can lead to grave consequences. That's joy Leney. WHO now joins us here here in Park City at the Sundance Film Festival along with Shalini Cantata the director of the film coded bias? That's premiered here at the Film Festival we welcome you both democracy now so take it from there joy I mean how did you end up testifying before Congress and take us on your journey away from Mit discovering that your face is one that would be recognized so many any fewer times when artificial intelligence technology is used. Then there's I mean maybe that's protection who knows absolutely so my journey started as a Grad Grad student. I was working on an art project that use face detection technology and I found that it didn't detect my face that well until I put on a white right mask and so it was that white mask experience that led to questioning. Well how do computer see in the first place hells artificial intelligence being used and if my face isn't being detected in this context is it just me or other people. Can you also go step back. What even does artificial intelligence mean? What is a I mean? Sure so A. I is about giving machines what we perceive to be somewhat intelligent from a human perspective so this can be around perceiving the world so computer revision giving computers is it can be voice recognition it can also be about communication so think about chat bots writer think about talking to Siri or Alexa and then another component to artificial intelligence is about discernment or making judgments and this can become really dangerous if you're deciding how Risky somebody is or if they should be hired or fired because these decisions can impact people's lives in a material way. Can you talk about the origins regions of artificial intelligence. You go over it a bit in the film coded by an and Shala need does a great job of really taking it. All the way back to Dartmouth off where you had a group of who affectionately. Call Pel. Mel's coming together to decide what intelligence might look like and here. You're saying if you could play chess. Well that's something that looks like intelligence. The thing also about artificial intelligence is what it is changes so as machines get better at specific the kinds of task you might say. Oh that's not truly intelligence so it's a moving line so Shalini. Why don't you talk about how you came up with the idea for for coded by US joy a central figure of course of this film and take the fishery further? Well basically I was sort of like a science fiction and fanatic and so I like reading about technology and imagining the future and I think so much of what we think about. Artificial intelligence comes from science fiction. It's it's sort of this stuff of blade runner the Terminator and then when I started sort of reading and listening to Ted Talks by joy and another another mathematician named Cathy. O'Neil other women like Meredith. BUSSARD UP TO FAQIH. I realized that Artificial intelligence was something entirely different in the now it was becoming a gatekeeper. Making automated decisions about who gets hired who gets health care and who gets into college and and when I discovered joys work I was jus- captivated by this young woman who was disrupting the disrupters. So let's go to the clip from your remarkable film coded by us. This shows police in London stopping a young black teen. This young black kids in school uniform. Go stop to resolve. That took him down street just to one side. Very thoroughly searched him because of his four plainclothes officers. Who stopped in fingerprinted him after? Bob Like maybe ten fifteen minutes of Searching and checking his details incident came back and said I am coaching position against competing against facial. Otherwise shower accumulates competing against this technology today and And then you just can stop because of that. They misidentified identify drinking. He's the details. He was a bit shaken. His friends were there. They couldn't believe what happened to them. Mis Mis identified by their systems. And they stopped you and you start to stop and search. This is an innocent young fourteen year old child who's been instill by the police as a result of face recognition misidentification along so that's a clip from bias. Enjoyable Amorini explain further. What took place here the misidentification the identification some might perversely say? It's better editor for this technology to fail so that people can't be identified but this is the opposite case absolutely so you were saying earlier maybe not being identified as a good thing but then there are the misidentification that have a real world impact so in the clip and in the film you actually see the work of Big Brother Watch. UK and in this particular scenario big brother watched U. K.. was able to trap. What was going on in London and one of the things they showed in in their study faceoff was he had false positive match rates of over ninety percent? So you see this one example here but they also had reports where more than two thousand four hundred innocent people were mismatched. So it's not just a case of. Oh you're not detected that might be sometimes but you could be misidentified is identified as somebody you're not in the consequences can be gray and we're playing this clip. At a time. When The New York Times reports police department London's Police Police Department said it would begin using facial recognition to spot criminal suspects with video cameras as they walked the streets? Adopting a level of surveillance that is rare outside China. The technology London deploying goes beyond many of the facial recognition system used elsewhere which match photo against the database. The new technology use a software that can immediately identify people and Police Watch list as soon as they're filmed on video camera joy and I think you might need to say attempt to identify because oftentimes the claims that are made about these technologies. Don't necessarily match up to the reality earlier. You spoke about the National Institute of Standards and Technology's studied. They studied more than one hundred. Eighty nine algorithms from ninety nine different companies and and so this is the majority of the facial recognition technology. That's out there racial bias gender bias age bias as well so if you have a face you you have a place in this conversation and we all need to be concerned so I think it's highly irresponsible to deploy technologies that we already know have off significant flaws that we already know can be abused. I it's common sense to place a moratorium until we're at a better place. Well Shannon another Place that you profile in The documentary is China. And you speak to this woman at some length a so a couple of questions first. How did you get access and your response to the fact that she actually supported the credit What is it the social credit system? Don't explain what that is how it works there And what your sense is of the kind of support that this system has in China and and then joy along the same lines as what you were talking about earlier in places like China where the artificial intelligence and facial recognition the technology ag is developed. There is there a similar bias and if so what what is it but first Johnny while I got access through local production in company in China and I feel that this woman kind of gave us insight into this social credit system that is coming up in China. Ah to sort of where they're using facial recognition in tandem with the social credit system. So if you basically they're tracking you. They're watching you surveilling you and they're scoring you and not only what you do impacts your score but what your friends do impact your score and this young woman who I who is featured in the film says that you know in fact we don't have to trust our own senses says anymore that we can rely on this sort of social credit score to actually have integrity and who we trust and we don't trust and I think in the film we sort of want to think that that's sort of a galaxy far far away from the US. But in the making of this film I say all kinds kinds of parallels of of that type of scoring that's happening here in the US and other places around the world how you see that it's comparable or could be well. As as as Amy Webb says so poignantly in in the film. We're all being scored. All the time from our Uber. Scores to our facebook. Likes all of that. Information is is being tracked and analyzed all of the time and so we're all being rated all of the time and so that kind of tracking can impact how much we pay for insurance. What kind of opportunities are shown to US online and sue very much? It becomes sort of an Algorithm Algorithm determinism android. So to the question of how are the systems working in China in our first study called gender shades we looked at IBM Microsoft but we also looked at face. Plus plus billion dollar Tech Startup in China and we found similar racial bias engender bias but overall when they've done studies on AI systems developed in China they tend to work better on Chinese faces and those developed often western nations tend to work better on Western faces as well one thing. I didn't WANNA bring up. Related to China data collection is this data colonialism that we're starting to see so you have reports of Chinese companies going to African nations providing Facial recognition or surveillance technologies in exchange inch for something very precious the biometric data of the citizens so now parallel to what we had with the slave trade right where you're extracting bodies now you're extracting digital bodies in service of a global trade because even when you talk about what's going on in London they're using technology from a company called any see that's based in Japan and so you have to really think about the global context for how these technologies spread around the world and just to add to that China has unfettered access to data it is now been mandated that if you want to access the Internet in China you must submit to facial recognition so so That has that that is the basis for which they're building this kind of scoring system. I wanted to go to another clip from coded. By this is the author of the Book Algorithms of oppression. The way we know about our impact is by looking at the outcomes. uh-huh for example when Americans are bet against and selected and optimized as for failure. So it's like looking for a particular profile of people who can get a subprime mortgage and kind of betting against their failure and then foreclosing on them and wiping out their wealth. That was an algorithm game that came out of Wall Street. mm-hmm during the mortgage crisis. You hide the largest wipe out of black wealth in the history of the United States. Just like that. This is what I mean by algorithm make oppression the tyranny of these types of Practices of discrimination have just become opaque. That's Safia Noble than I want to go to another clip now. Coded Oded bias which features a woman from Philadelphia who is subjected to a recidivism Risk Algorithm which judges and probation officer use us to calculate the risk of a person re-offending scoring system was investigated and found to be racially biased. This is Tania Myers and her lawyer. Mark Holden Bullets Samah tells me I have to report once a week. I'm like did you see everything that I just accomplished like. I've been home for four for years. I got game employment. I just got to citations one from the city council Philadelphia one from the late. Are you seriously GONNA put meal report in every week for what I don't deserve to be on high risk probation was at a meeting with the Probation Department. They were just mentioning that they have this algorithm that labeled people high medium or low risk. And so I knew that the algorithm decided what risk level your the education me enough to go back to my show and be like you mean to tell me. You can't put an account anything positive that I had done to counteract the results with this algorithm is sane. Seems like No. There's no way this computer overrode the discernment of Judge and Appeal Together. And my labeling you hiring and requiring you to report in person could have lost your job and that could have made you high-risk that's what hurts the most knowing that everything would I build up to the moment and I'm still looked at risk I feel like this for nothing for Joint Shallan E. Kentucky Is Director of coded bias that clip those clips. We just played Xolani as we wrap up. What about regulation? These algorithms are are impacting. All of us in the most in our civil rights and we need legislation. We need we need meaningful legislation around algorithms rhythms and the explanation of Algorithms and just twenty seconds joy for us non-scientists yes so algorithms are essentially processes that are meant to to come to give or solve a particular task and when we talk about. Ai We're talking about systems that can perceive the world that can communicate. And most importantly make determinations and these determinations impact our lives. Well thank you so much for being with us. Joy Volume Weenie is researcher at the MIT media lab and founder under of the Algorithm mic justice. League we're GONNA linked to her speeches and her congressional testimony of democracy now dot org and Shalini Cantata is director director of the new film. That's just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival cold coded bias and that does it for our broadcast on Friday at two PM. I'll be speaking here in park city. Utah at the museum right next to Dali's bookstore about impeachment and elections is next Tuesday February fourth. They'll be in Washington. DC just before The State of the Union. Avi Interviewing Lonnie Bunch. Founding director the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History in culture at six o'clock at busboys and poets in Washington DC And next Friday February seventh at noon near main shade will be moderating panel channel with a squad at Howard University. Alexandra Cossio Cortes or she did to leave ill Omar and Ion Presley. The four Congress members will be within their main at Howard University today at noon February seven. You can go to old details at democracy now dot ORG also democracy now. We'll be broadcasting Senate impeachment trial at Democracynow Dot Org. I made me Goodman with near me.

President Trump president United States Senate Ambassador Bolton Democrats Joe Biden Hunter Biden Professor Dershowitz trump senator executive China John Roberts Park City Utah attorney President Nixon Amy Goodman trump
"Apples to Clouds"

The Investigation

36:58 min | 1 year ago

"Apples to Clouds"

"Welcome to the investigation on craigslist. Oh senior executive executive producer. ABC News also joined by my co host ABC News. Reporter Catherine Walters who covers the White House and Capitol Hill. It's gearing up to be a busy and historic week here in Washington. It's the Senate. Impeachment trial of president. Trump commences the president's defense team deepening their bench last week announcing that former independent counsel Ken Starr. And it's deputy Robert Ray along with constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz who actually did the talk show circuit last week making his case. Why why he thinks this impeachment should not continue in its should be dismissed but joining us now? Paul Rosenzweig served as a senior counsel Ken Starr during the Whitewater investigation. Welcome Paul thanks for having me a second impeachment in the last twenty one years What are your thoughts about this impeachment in a very general? Yeah well I think it is likely to be viewed as a watershed moment in American history. History I don't say that lightly but how we approach this Eastman what its ultimate result is and whether or not this impeachment becomes a pure political. Football work can be resolved in some way that is more more solemn and reflective of the seriousness of the allegations. Being made is something that's going to resonate in American history for the next thirty to fifty years to see we. We actually had a conversation last week with some of our colleagues. Where we we're? We're we mentioned the Nancy Pelosi and the Republicans are kind of treating. This may be perhaps like a highway. Bill not say the solemness of an impeachment kind of a president. Would you agree. I certainly agree with respect to the house. Republicans who who have not covered themselves with glory? I think that the lack of even the Patina of bipartisanship even as to the process involved has radically colored the way in which the American public perceives this impeachment. Perhaps it's just asking too much in this time of trump to seek a more nuanced and balanced view of what's happening but I I tend to agree that the aura of round the impeachment is far more reflective of divided government than was even the impeachment of Clinton which was pretty darned divided. But that's what I was going to go to because I remember it. Well well I lived in every day and I and I always felt like there was extreme partisanship twenty. One years ago during Clinton I mean what what do you see the differences and similarities of of the past impeachment. Well I in there. There are lots of differences and that you could name I guess the most obvious is is that even back then Some people crossed party lines to vote on the the articles of impeachment and the Senate wound up coming together a hundred to nothing on its organizing resolution for how it would conduct the hearings ring and And resolve impeachment itself. I see no prospect for that in the offing in the current Senate trial More fundamentally though I think the American public is far more Polarized arised in ribbon than it was in the Clinton impeachment. Maybe it's just that things like the Internet have revealed the divide more starkly than it has has been in the past but I have a sense that even back then there were you know people who were dismayed an angry with the president. I remember Joe Lieberman of calling for the President's censure and condemning him in no uncertain terms in a way that no Republican publican. Senator would speak about trump today so maybe something in American culture has changed. Maybe it's broken. I mean I remember twenty years ago and we league basically knew what the outcome was going to be. Then as well as we do now and do you think that kind of lessening what impeachment is all about it may be that that impeachment is becoming normalized and will be to routine apart of of the American in political scene. I certainly hope that's not true and to be honest with you. I don't feel as though that. What the trump impeachment is his You might have made an argument about that. With respect to Clinton it's one I wouldn't agree with but there was at least least a reasonable case to be made by the president's defenders I at this point see president. Trump's response bonds to the impeachment as completely outside of the box of normal discussion right. His seven-page response was not An argument on the merits about the facts. It wasn't even an argument on the merits about the law. Reads like nothing so much as a one. My friend set the screen green of a wounded animal of raging against the time I would have thought that the allegations against the president would have actually merited merited serious consideration by the Senate and by Republicans in the House but apparently we are going to reduce impeachment to on nothing more than I mean I think you said it well A partisan fight over a highway bill and should be something more and now you guys are touching Ching on this a little bit but what we're hearing from Republicans up here on on Capitol Hill is that this is the Clinton impeachment model. We WanNa do it. The same way House Democrats Democrats are saying. This isn't anything like the Clinton impeachment model because we're in an unprecedented time. The the administration has been blocking documents. They won't allow witnesses. Where do you come down on that particular argument? I don't think that the comparison to the Clinton model is very apt at all of the Clinton impeachment came mm-hmm after nine months criminal investigation at which during which every assertion of executive privilege was eventually overcome and all of the documents arguments questioned by the independent counsel Starr were received by him and reviewed and put into his report. Bill Clinton himself testified before the a grand jury and even went so far as to give DNA evidence so when star produced his report and gave it to Congress. He essentially gave them a a completed package and the facts were not really terribly in dispute today. By contrast the the Ocean investigation was stymied at every turn by president trump who has turned over almost no documentation. It all who tried to stop every witness from testifying who did not testify himself and refused to do so both to Muller and to the Congress And so we in a different place. Now where additional factual development is necessary. And that is to be the province of the Senate the comparison. I think is kind of apples to clouds. So you talk about the additional factual developments here so again. There's obviously some witnesses. John Bolton has said that if he's subpoenaed he'll come testify. He's a central player in this but but the other the thing that I think is going to be interesting to see play out up here. Is that new evidence. That's coming in from that. Giuliani associate love. Parnasse who's sharing this with the House intelligence agents committee who is releasing on a rolling basis as they get it from him now. Republicans as you know don't want this Evidence and at least sources are indicating from the White House side of it that they will attempt to a block. This new evidence now explained us kind of how this works. Should that evidence be included. If there's more evidence that comes out during the trial should should they be taken into account or should it. Just be that evidence that came out before. Those articles were formerly transmitted from the House to the Senate side. That's never never been the case in any other impeachment. I don't know why we would restrict ourselves to the cold record of the House now. Every other impeachment that's ever happened in history has had witnesses Mrs and new evidence there were I was going back and reviewing the Andrew Johnson trial from one hundred years ago when there were over a dozen fact witnesses called to testify at by the Senate You know plus it. It just doesn't make sense logically what we're going to ignore were new. I what if tomorrow Yo A smoking gun bit of evidence that has has was a tape recording of the president. Saying Yeah I did it and I don't care and I'm GonNa do it again no matter what if that came out with the Senate seriously consider ignoring it. Just don't see that nonsense argument but don't you think though the Democrats should of subpoenaed these people in the the house and that way yes it would have taken some time but we would get to the truth then. Don't you think that was a maybe a calculated mistake. I would have wanted did them to try. And fight the subpoenas more quickly but the courts were not being very very helpful in the courts have still not ruled on the on the House Ways and Means Committee's request for trump's tax records in in some ways the the the courts bear as much blame for the Place Nice that we're in. Is anybody else. It would have been much better for the president's frivolous claims of privilege to have been overruled by the cords words expeditiously unfortunately You know that just didn't happen and if you really are serious about waiting around for that. That in effect disables the house altogether. 'cause they they work on a two year cycle. And you know they started pretty promptly. Maybe they could have started in March instead of in in in May with the first investigations The whistle blower didn't come in until September and they were done by December. So that's pretty darn quick nick Of given what they could work with a fight over the whistle blowers Allegations and the testimony of John Bolton would not have been resolved before the end of middle of this coming year on the eve of the election. You also brought up Andrew Johnson and over the weekend Alan Dershowitz show. It was on this week. And he's making the argument for trump although he is He has said repeatedly a Hillary Clinton supporter and he brought up Andrew Johnson. Let's listen onto him right now. Well it's the same position that was successfully argued by Former justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson was impeached teached in part for noncriminal conduct and Curtis who was the dissenting judge in the dread Scott case one of the most eminent jurists in American history made the argument that has been called absurdist namely that when you read the text of the constitution bribery treason bribery or other high crimes. And misdemeanors other really means that crimes and misdemeanors must be of kin akin to treason and bribery and he argued very successfully successfully winning the case that you needed proof of an actual crime. It needn't be a statutory crime but it has to be criminal behavior criminal all in nature and the allegations in the Johnson case where much akin to the allegations here abusive conduct obstructive conduct. And that lost. So I have a limited role in the case only in the cases of council on the constitutional criteria for impeachment. I'm not involved in this strategic decisions. Decisions about witnesses or facts but I will make a strong argument. The Justice Curtis was correct and the Congress was wrong and impeaching for these two articles. And what do you make of this Paul. His argument It's really hard to Take Professor Dershowitz. I would seriously I'm sorry What he what he's saying is essentially nonsense If you read the record of the of framing of the constitution the entire thrust of what the were opposed to was abuses of power at the time they pass the impeachment. Pause there were no federal crimes So because the first statute that adopted them was passed afterwards. President Nixon was the articles of impeachment against him involved abuses of power. Ken Starr His Co. Council recommended impeachment of Bill Clinton for abuses of power of mid justice. Curtis made that argument. There is no that that's why the senators voted to acquit indeed. If you WANNA be realistic about it probably the best evidence is one of. The centers was bribed to change his boat. But let's leave that aside and give him the credit for what it was due They may very well just thought that it was not worth Disrupting the nation for that dispute. But they did not say that no abuse of power Could ever be an impeachable offense and indeed you know. The historical record is abundantly. Really Clear For that to anybody. WHO's listening who wants to read more about it? I recommend Frank Bowman's excellent book high crimes and misdemeanors that that reviews the history of this going back to the English Par Parliamentary precedents on impeachment. None of which ever said anything. Like what Professor Sir. Dershowitz has said Paul. I've been skimming through this White House trial brief that they released Monday ahead of Ahead of the Trial resuming and and it's it's interesting. They say there's a header that they say it would have been appropriate for a president trump to ask presidents alinsky about the Biden in Barista affair They lay out the series of facts but but they also in their formal trial brief. They don't really deny that the president pressure Ukraine to announce these investigations is but then also a referendum those witnesses and depositions. WHO said there wasn't pressure? It just this strategy in from you working with You Know Ken Starr closely knowing him. Well what do you think we'll be their strategy here. All I think they're strategies energy is is very simple To move as fast as they can because they know they have the votes of white as much evidence as possible. Don't engage on the backs. 'cause the facts don't really Support them give the give the senators of Patina of law To to hide behind like Dershowitz argument we were just talking about and move as rapidly as possible to avoid as much coming out as possible to avoid the embarrassment spent voting to acquit on conduct. That none of them would support. It had been conducted by a Democrat. And you know Ken Starr. Why do you think can starts doing muscle? I I really couldn't speculate you'd have to ask can that I find I don't see. His current position is consistent with the arguments he made about Clinton so So I assume he's changed his mind. You don't think we're GONNA see witnesses in there right like John Bolton even though he said he's GonNa come like a d. Do you see that happening. I know stranger things have happened. And you could have some of these. Senators vote to haul in these witnesses. But you know how do you see that playing out. My guess is that the Republicans will hold tight that they will vote in lockstep that the president there will be no witnesses and the president will be acquitted. Quitted my guess is that the wind up paying a price for that in In the elections I think Senator Gardeners GONNA lose. Senator couns is probably probably GONNA lose We'll see I mean but yeah that predictions worth what you paid for it. Well listen I think that's a perfect way to end in. That was actually very fascinating. Thank you very much pleasure. We'll be right back with our chief White House correspondent John Carl and he'll tell us what he's hearing from the president and his defense team. Hey everyone it's ABC's Paula fairest. I I'm the host of journeys of faith as you know all too well. We are in an election year so on this season. We're talking to twenty twenty presidential candidates and other political figures about how their faith and religion influence their person and their politics. Before you tell me about your religion for show it to me and how you treat other people you can call all God by many different names but we are worshiping the same God though checkout journeys of faith wherever you're listening now welcome back to the investigation. I'm Chris Chris Placido along with my co-host ABC News reporter Katherine Faulders who covers the White House. And Capitol Hill and now joining us is chief. White House correspondent respondent giancarl. He's also host of the podcast powerhouse politics and John. We just talked to Paul Rosenzweig. He worked on Ken. Starr's teen back twenty one years ago and he was extremely critical of the White House's argument back to the House I I think he called it completely outside the box of normal discussion. He called trump's argument the scream mm-hmm of a wounded animal. Wow yeah that's tough and that's tough stuff. So what do you make of that. What what is the White House strategy for for this impeachment? Well above all the White House wants to challenge the legitimacy of this and say that you know the president wasn't really impeached Because it was a sham champ process and it didn't you know didn't go along the lines of what the founders had in mind with impeachment and it wasn't fair and you know I mean you know litany the of of of words like hoax witch hunt That's not really a strategy but but that's That's how the White House wants to to wants to frame this. As an impeachment was entirely partisan which was and does not have legitimacy which actually does have legitimacy to house forty to impeach him. There's nothing in the constitution that says the vote must be bipartisan So that said when you look at what happened after Nancy Ansi Pelosi turned over the articles of impeachment to To the to the Senate and you saw that first presentation on the Senate floor you're and you see the chief justice of the Supreme Court being sworn in and you see all one hundred senators. Actually there were ninety. Nine there at at At the time seated in their seats and then going up And signing in that book their oath to be to do impartial the justice to see them raising their hands in and saying I do that oath. As as it's red by the By the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that it does not look like a sham hoax. Witch hunts that looks like a very serious somber maybe the overused word word historic Event this looks deadly serious You know the House says impeached now. The Senate has in its power the ability to remove an elected president so in the face of all that I think that that that the White House Doesn't want to give it that sense of legitimacy and seriousness and weightiness and wants to portray this as some kind of a you know now a of a sham. But it's hard to do when you see you know you see this playing out exactly as as it was Envisioned by the founders. But do you think thank though even with all this solemnity of the event and at the end of the day they're not enough Republicans that are going to break ranks so so we know what the outcome is right. Yeah as you know is it depends said this is like watching a baseball game. Or you know the final score It's it's it's virtually impossible to To envision maybe even impossible envision a scenario where there are sixty seven senators voting to remove the president. But you know the this is a beginning of a process the Democrats are. Are you know pushing into to see this as a trial as a real trial To to bring in witnesses some of those witnesses we have not heard from. I mean obviously John on Bolton but to see Mick Mulvaney under oath answering some of the questions that we asked him in the briefing room You know could things spiral out of control. It's hard to imagine but but Look you remember. Well Chris I I was at CNN at the time you were at ABC During the the last impeachment trial there was nobody who thought that there was a chance That Bill Clinton was going to be removed from office. There was a thought that there could be some democratic defections There could be a majority that would vote to remove him Now would have been politically potentially devastating to to Bill Bill Clinton but there was there was no real sense then that there was any chance that he was actually going to be removed. Though there was more part of bipartisanship talked to roll a little bit more a little little bit more. I mean here. It seems dug in and John. This is really the first time that we're going to see this. Legal argument from the President's attorneys is about why he shouldn't be removed from office. Of course they stonewalled The House investigation so they filed a hundred and ten page brief. But what. What was striking about? That defense is they essentially Argue that even if he did do it it would have been okay. If the president did raise the issue you of Biden or Barista in the course of engaging with Ukraine. There wouldn't have been anything wrong because the president was seeking to advance the public interest. That's that's what they're briefs says and it almost feels you mentioned Mulvaney in your exchange with their Like a Mulvaney argument in way even though he walked it back like Oh even if he did do it it would have been okay. Is that the sense. You're getting from sources over there. Yeah it's it's it's the You know get over. It always happens. There's politics and foreign policy and the idea of using the leverage of of aid You know to to get what you want Out of a foreign government is is that that's called foreign policy so yes so so that that that is is part of the arguments you have you. Have you have a few loud one more. So so so the the the first part of the argument is this is all completely ridiculous and and and does not have legitimacy. That's kind of hard to argue when the chief justice's is sitting at a presiding and all one hundred senators or You you know silently Listening to the arguments so the second thing is well. The allegations here are not impeachable so even if he did it he You know you can't impeach him over this And then the third is Well he never dated he never really there were there was never any quid. Would pro quo despite what we saw during the During the house hearings and what Mulvaney said to us In in the briefing room. They're actually never was. was you know. The bottom line is The the investigation. The the cranial never actually opened the investigation and they got the money. So where's is your quid pro quo. So they've got a series of arguments but you know it'll be interesting to see how it plays out because it's the they haven't haven't really gone chapter and verse on the substance of this at all yet now that we're at the trial you know. We got to think that part of the White House presentation is going to be Eh. You know answering the allegations Not Not simply arguing the law but also arguing the facts. But don't you think I as Paul Rosenzweig this question. Don't you think that the Democrats made a mistake. Not subpoenaing these witnesses during the House hearing. Well I think that Did that is something that will be debated for a long time. We we know why they didn't do it because if they had gone through and they'd had a subpoena battle. Aw over over you know over these witnesses it would have been a court battle that would have gone on potentially for for many months. Even the better part of a a year would have gone to the district would have been appealed. It would have gone to the Supreme Court We quite possibly could have had a situation where A A and they felt confident that they would prevail. The Democrats felt that they would that they would ultimately prevail even at a at a Supreme Court Art with Conservative Supreme Court with two justices Who are on that court? Because of Donald Trump they felt that they that they they ultimately at a very good chance of prevailing on this. But it wouldn't have happened until the fall. You could have a situation where you're almost simultaneously had An impeachment richman trial Getting underway just as we were gearing up free fall election John. What's your sense on just internally from sources you're speaking to in the White House your sense on witnesses here we know how they feel publicly about it? They don't feel that the White House doesn't feel they need these witnesses They want this to go quickly but also the the president has also shifted his. Turn on this from you know a month or so ago saying that he'd be happy to let these people testify then he was asked about his Former the national security adviser John Bolton More recently I think you might have talked to him at that time and then he said I'd like to testify but then there's these issues of privilege and and now he's tweeting On Monday that the House didn't want John Bolton they were in too much of a rush now they want Them all in the Senate not supposed to be that way. So he's kind. Ah evolved here I mean what's your sense from. You know privately whether he feels like Bolton would be you know would. I'd say bad would would testify in necessarily help them or do you get the sense that he actually wants these people sitting here. Well McConnell Mitch. McConnell Republican leader has spend completely consistent on this. He is said you know no witnesses. No witnesses no witnesses. But I can tell you that as a McConnell was laying that out I would and I'm sure you as well Catherine go to go to WIREHOUSE officials involved in preparing for this for this trial and say so so The White House on board with McConnell admonition no witnesses and the answer I got his. I can't really give you an answer on that yet. Because the the only person that can determine that as donald trump now the president's legal team is on board with that but but trump is as as has gone back and forth as he doesn't many many many things like the relationship between McConnell and trump. So far we've seen the White House publicly and privately defer defer to McConnell in fact as you know they The White House wanted those house members on the defense team Who could you know? Ardently defend the president. And then he uh he McConnell said I don't want that and they did an end up having it but at the same time you mentioned you know the relationship between the two of them they they feel private privately very different about this and I can't. I'm interested to see how that relationship plays out during the trial and if it actually does stay cordial well I am too and I I have to say my this is off from my read of trump of having followed him for for so long I I think that the whole process On some level actually freaks him out because you have a situation where he is truly not in control and the ultimate the ultimate moment in that is when it comes time to vote on the verdict removal or acquittal and and this is a moment where it's all in the senators hands and and he has no control of sixty seven senators decide. He is was removed from office. There is no appeal. There's nothing he can go out and hold a thousand rallies if he wants but he is out of the White House He can go out and I think I think it's too on a level. Just kind of not that. He thinks that's going to happen. Nothing anybody thinks that's going to happen. But it is a moment where he is not in the driver's seat. Somebody else truly controls his fate. So if you look at the way as active over the last several onces became clear that we were headed towards a trial I have to say a few sickness with which he has praised lavished praise upon Upon Republicans in the Senate and the restraints that he has shown When you thought that he might have lashed out after one or another of the Republicans go in a different direction has been remarkable? I was just last week when he did Did an event with a a large urge number of of senators In the In the East Room in the White House. And he's and he's going senator by Senator and just talking about how John Soon we'll have never really heard. Donald trump talk much about John. Thune of the Great State of South Dakota made it sound like he was like you know Henry Clay or something. Um It's just before that impeachment. Yes as hard as before just before. They were almost simultaneous to the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate So you know I. I think that this is part of why you see him. Deferring to McConnell he knows that McConnell McConnell you know on some level really really controls fate now I have to say if you go back earlier last last year I know there were serious. Discussions among People close very close to the president about whether or not and to endorse when the president should endorse Mitch. McConnell's primary opponent in in Kentucky connel's up for reelection In in Kentucky Talky and he's faced a primary you know Matt Bevin Chart Challenged him in the past and there were discussions About that I don't think the president. I don't know if he ever seriously consider doing that. But like this. This president never been close to McConnell McConnell was one of the last Republicans to get on board and twenty any sixteen really only after it was done and And he's surrounded by people who the president who don't like McConnell. I mean Mick Mick. Mulvaney is not a is not a Is Not a Mitch. McConnell Guy for instance and that's an understatement I saw but but now you know I think there's a recognition certainly by the president's legal team and by the president himself Did they need McConnell. John What do you think the effect effect on the voters will this have on Democratic voters. I mean for the four senators that are sitting in the the the room is it. It can affect their Iowa and New Hampshire if the trial's going on simultaneously absolutely I mean you know it's it's the the pressure sure to be there and to be present Is Is is great and these senators For every day that they are they're her sitting in the chamber At at a impeachment trial they are not on the campaign trail and by the way sometimes times. If you're held back to Washington near a senator running for office it can be a good opportunity because you have a chance to show you know to to to get attention to WHO to to become associated with 'cause If there are some big supreme court confirmation battle or if there's something that something that gives you a platform they don't have any platform at all because they have to be silent so it doesn't do any good and you're not even on camera for the most part you're just sitting there in a chamber stock When you when you when you should be out on the campaign trail now I have to say Chris. I I don't know if you remember this but I I was in that chamber for a lot of days. I remember in ninety nine and I remember there were often ninety nine senators there and the senator who was absent the most was was John McCain because McCain calculated that it was more important to be getting ready for his presidential campaign. He ran in two thousand And he he often skipped it and didn't really take any heat for it but it seems to me like you know Bernie. Sanders has made it clear. The they've made it clear that they feel responsibility to be At this trial I think I think the I think they all will be. Here's your prediction. How long do you think this is GonNa GonNa last? I think it ends up being on the short side Which means two weeks or less and the reason why? I think that that that happens happens. Is I think. There's actually a confluence of interest Both the Democrats and the Republicans despite you know the push the Democrats will make For witnesses and screaming about the process and screaming. This is not thorough enough. They actually don't want Ah Trial it's going to drag on any more than the White House does and you know that's largely because of what it does to their to their presidential candidates but but it's also because you know Chris the the there is there is already before this started. There is impeachment fatigue in the country and those that are fired up for this. WanNa see it drag out and want to see it all go on. They're already they're already not voting for Donald Trump as well so this doesn't politically it's not a it's not a winner in a and that's not necessarily the way you should look at it but we're we're in a political world and so I think that while Republicans clearly want a quick trial l.. And get this over with. I think that actually ultimately Democrats want that to all right a perfect way to end. Thank you John and I'll see it in in washing all right. Thank you remember. It's powerhouse politics or with Rick Klein and we come on my podcast now. Of course Thanks a lot. Well that's all for today's episode. Thank you for listening. Be sure already hit subscribe as a special edition. Episodes may post in your podcast feed. Is the Senate. Impeachment trial of the President gavels in. I'd like to thank thank our producers Trevor Hastings Caitlyn fomer for Katherine faulders myself. Thank you for joining us. And we'll see you back again soon for another edition of the investigation

president Donald Trump Senate White House Democrats Bill Bill Clinton Ken Starr Senator Paul Rosenzweig McConnell McConnell White House John Bolton John Professor Dershowitz Chris Chris Placido Andrew Johnson ABC News Clinton
Morning Joe 1/28/20

MSNBC Morning Joe

41:22 min | 1 year ago

Morning Joe 1/28/20

"New Year New View Star Twenty twenty with a fresh global perspective and a sharper focus on what matters with the economist. The Economist is a weekly magazine. That offers there's insight and opinion on International. US News Politics Business Finance Science Technology Arts and the environment and gives you a closer look at the forces. Shaping your future future. They're broad range of topics. Means that there's something in the economist for everyone. I just read an article about how chapels in Vegas are. Now offering a range of non-legally binding signing ceremonies due to the forty percent drop in actual marriages and another about how impeachment works in countries outside America The economist is the smart guide to the forces. Impacting impacting your world. Let it be your spark for new ideas throughout twenty twenty for free print copy of the economist. Just text. MJ pod. All one word to nine nine lines zero zero zero one more time text. M J pod all one word to nine nine zero zero zero for your free print copy of the economist. Not a single witness Eh. Testify that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation insecurity assistance presidential meeting or anything else. Jaysekulow meet John. Bolton The New York Times is reporting that trump told Bolton last August that he wanted to continue new freezing critical military aid to Ukraine until government officials there helped with investigations targeting. Joe Biden his son Hunter and other Democrats and good morning and welcome to morning. Joe It is Tuesday January twenty eighth along with Joe William Alien Me We have Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of a Washington Post and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson author and former Republican looking. Strategist Rick Wilson joins us this morning and NBC News and Msnbc Law analyst and editor in chief of l'affaire Benjamin witness. He's CO author of the new book on making the Presidency Apple Trump's war on the world's most powerful office so a lot going on we heard Jay Sokolow's approach which to defending the president namely pretending John Bolton doesn't exist there was Ken Starr who lamented the acrimony involved in financial impeachments I know. Then that was Alan Dershowitz who says even if every single thing is true the president should still. They'll remain in office. There was former Florida attorney. General Pam Bondi. Who spent her time attacking the Biden's and then there was trump lawyer? Jane Raskin who defended Rudy Giuliani's escapades in Ukraine. As Joe asked on twitter. How can it be that? After three years of Donald Trump Republicans Republicans sync offense continue to drag themselves to such new lows. That they're shamelessness still carries with it the ability to shock the arguments put forward by trump lawyers and GOP senators. Today were just ridiculous. Yeah sort of the team of. I don't know what I mean. He had a confederacy of dunces defending him an impeachment Arguments absolutely stunning. Let's start with the argument that Rudy. I have a quote here. Mr Giuliani is just a minor player player. That's shiny object designed to distract you of course earth to trump legal team Donald. All trump said in that not so perfect not so transcript wizard. Giuliani is a highly respected man. Donald Trump said to the president of view crane. He was the mayor of New York City. A great mayor and I would like you to call him. It was Giuliani his minor player. They talked without their ran. That drug deal. He ran what John Bolton called the drug deal. It's just unbelievable and Willie aware. Do we begin with Ken Starr. If irony weren't already dead and buried years ago it was Ken Starr or yesterday talking about how how. Abusive power is not sufficient to impeach a president. You need it crime. He literally dragged the corpse Of Irony out of the great taking US Lee tied the corpse's neck bone to the back of a tractor. He ran that tractor throughout the Graveyard of stupidity and ran over every headstone. Before once again the core survivor being again putting its bones on by how everybody does Kim Star say with a straight face. 'cause I was there when he he said he'd capstone of impeachment for Bill Clinton is abuse of power and then yesterday and so sad added mournful this is so terrible how wide we're starting to have a culture of impeachment of abuse of power. That's not enough away. I said it was the capstone you are wrong you are a Ken Starr. You are a flashing billboard a Godly printed in Sandwich Board. Signed dumbing down Times Square. Saying we're done. We're all AW secrets we all making fools. Of course Willie geist. I haven't even gotten gotten there. Pam Bondi is now Bam Bam burnt argument. No no no is tissue can I. Can I get some help up. Pam Bondi home the Lord. I could somehow preach Pam Bondi says the JOE I. I bragged about fire in the prosecutor because he was prosecuting Peres. Ma and it was all sort of this insight. Hey Rupert Burke Murdoch's Wall Street Journal called that Afars months ago. Every major newspaper called force months ago we're really Meiningen demanded. The removal of the corrupt prosecutor. The Western world demanded the removal of the prosecutor. The Obama Administration Tall Joe Biden to go over there and remove the prosecutor securer. Oh wait one more thing Pam Bondi just one more thing and for the trump team and for all you stupid people out there are actually. You're not stupid. You think we're all stupid you think. Donald Trump supporters are all stupid. You think conservatives are stupid like Donald Trump who thinks southerners are stupid repaired. We're not we're not. You have the Ukrainians who said themselves that the prosecutor her head stopped investigating Barez my at that time. It was one of the complaints on. Why Willie this guy was was in the tank? You know what you know what I need. I like James Brown. I've done my thing with the blanket. I gotTA GOTTA walk off stage. I've thought often come. This is all I can handle this kid. Since yesterday. I serious these people volt lowered the collective to not only of America the foot of the Western world by at least twenty four points re our. They spoke them this in the same way. You don't WanNa follow James Brown onstage. Don't WanNa follow that rant from Joe Scarborough here. I am left with that that task this morning you can do it. I would added into Jay sekulow argument to the extent that they even address. This defense team the bombshell from John. Bolton's book it came from Dershowitz saying that that was not impeachable double but it also came from J Seco- saying that's just an allegation in a book. It's not evidence so let's get your metaphor again. You can play it into evidence. But in spite calling John Bolton as a witness but the White House is blocked them and John Bolton has said he would testify so one more dead body in that irony wilderness. This that you were describing a few minutes ago but let's go back to Pam Bondi the job as you said of going after Joe Biden and his son Hunter fell to the former Florida attorney general. What's listened to her case when the house managers gave their presentation when they submitted their brief? They repeatedly referenced Hunter. Hunter Biden embarrassment when the house managers gave their presentation when they submitted their brief they. Repeatedly referenced Hunter Hunter Biden embarrassment. They spoke to you for over twenty one hours and they referenced Biden or Barista over four hundred times and when they gave these presentations they said there was nothing. Nothing nothing to see it was a sham. This is fiction. The reason they needed to do that. What is because they're here saying that? The president must be impeached and removed from office for for raising a concern. And that's why we have to talk about this today. Hunter Biden had no experience in natural gas no experience in the energy sector no experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. As far as we know he doesn't speak Ukrainian so so naturally the media has asked questions about his board membership. Why was Hunter Biden on this board? In response to those attacks from from Pam Bondi the Biden campaign released a statement that reads in part. We didn't realize Breitbart was expanding into Ted talk knockoffs here on planet Earth the conspiracy the theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted the diplomat that trump himself appointed to lead his Ukraine policy has blasted it as self serving and not credible well. Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan. An international anti-corruption victory. It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to president. Trump's Rick Wilson. The former prosecutor let Sankoh who is the prosecutor at the time said quote Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws. At least as of now We do not see any wrongdoing but the list goes on as Joe said the IMF the EU others were worried about what that particular prosecutor. This wasn't a Joe Biden directive active. He was a notoriously corrupt prosecutor. You know and it loops back by the way into the whole trump world of Paul manafort and everything else. This was part of to the previous regime. And the fact is a universal demand to push him. However this is also the one of the great master Pretoria Fantasies of the trump campaign? Right now is that they're gonNA make Hunter Biden a major issue in the twenty twenty election and Pam Bondi was out there playing to one audience and that was Fox and trump. That's all they cared about. That's all they were trying to accomplish and she goes way back with Donald Trump. She left office under a cloud when she when she left the officer Attorney General in Florida because she had taken basically a twenty five thousand dollar bribe from trump to cover up his trump university scandal and drop the lawsuit in Florida so they go way back. He likes that kind of one millimeter deep shallow presentation and she she delivered in spades in that regard but it was a it was a laughable example of how she was reading from the trump script that requires you to suspend logic the ability to read a time line and a calendar and and the ability to look at the global dislike for this guy who was a part of the cancer of corruption Ukraine as opposed to the people that replaced him. We're trying to clean it up all right Ken. Starr the independent counsel at former president. Clinton's impeachment trial tried to On ironically ironically warn of the dangers of impeaching president significantly in this particular juncture in America's because history the Senate is being called to sit as the High Court of impeachment all too frequently Huntley and deed. We're living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment like war are impeachment is hell or at least presidential impeachment is how those us who lived through the Clinton impeachment including members of this body. Full well understand that. A presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic where I'll be thankfully protected by our beloved First Amendment a war of words in a war of ideas But it's filled with acrimony and it divides the country like nothing else been with is this is Studi Collins would saying isn't isn't it rich This is a man after all who ooh and I know it's a family show but hopefully the kids are still asleep. Your kids are watching if you can cover their ears right now so this is a man and put in jail. No who put in the impeachment report allegations of quote Oral Anal. Yeah yeah no no hold on a second hold on can store did court justice did. That's what they put in their Eric Impeachment report and we're talking now about a president who's not only asking a foreign power to interfere interfere and the holding up power. He then goes on national. TV A week later and asks China to interfere. In America's America's democratic elections a RISK THE DONALD TRUMP ZONE INTEL agency say is the greatest threat to American democracy and Ken Starr is lecturing lecturing America about taking impeachment too lightly when I told you what he filled his impeachment The report with it. It's just it's it is preposterous especially on the legal marriage saying that there is no way that a president can be impeached because of abuse of power when he called that quote the capstone of his impeachment argument against Bill Clinton. Yes so I was sitting with a colleague Ali yesterday watching Ken Starr's presentation and she turned to me and said just Ken Starr no he's Ken Starr what you know captured. There was little self awareness in the highest presentation of the dangers of hyperactive impeachment. And you so you kind of watched it saying. Do you know who you are in this conversation. Do you know have any understanding of the role you played and if there is single person in the country who stands for the kind of defining impeachment down. It is Ken Starr we are and for him to. I'm not going to try to replicate your irony is dead rant but you know if there's a single person who represents the ills that he's talking about he is it and for him to stand on their without any apparent awareness of that is genuinely bewildering. You know the other aspect of Star and Professor Dershowitz his presentation. That is more serious and also very upsetting. Is this attack on the idea that an abuse of power can be an impeachable offense without criminality associated with it and I just like to respond to both of them with the following Hypothetical Imagine Donald Trump announced that he was not going to do his job anymore as president. He was just going to play golf and spend all his time in the White House Bowling Alley. 'cause that's actually more fun than the presidency. No one would say that he had committed a crime. I presidents allowed to play golf. He's allowed to go bowling. They even built an alley for it in the White House and yet are they really saying that that that would not be impeachable And so you know the the basic defense here is it didn't happen. It doesn't matter if it did and Joe. Oh Biden sucks and that's not you know not. None of those elements are persuasive. And the the the idea that this material if true couldn't form the basis of an impeachment is really a dangerous degradation. I should of the idea that that the president has these awesome powers and we should judge him for how he uses them. The Tech Darling Darling. We work was the poster child for a new economy. It's charismatic founder. Adam Newman had an intoxicating vision for the company but never matched up with reality from wondering the makers of business wars and dirtyjohn comes. We crashed the rise and fall of we work a story of hope and Hubris. We crashed appeals. Back the layers to show how newman's call personality shaped every square foot of we work and how that same powerful personality destroyed it search for wherever you're listening right right now and subscribe and make sure you stay tuned for a special preview at the end of this episode. If you don't know your numbers you don't Know Your Business. Most companies. Don't have a clear your picture of their business. And that's why many businesses struggled to grow net suite by Oracle is here to solve that problem as business owner. Are you really confident. You're making the right business. Decisions Serious entrepreneurs financial teams run on net sweet. The world's number one cloud business system nets offers a full picture of your business. Everything in one place. Ace Finance Inventory H. R. N.. Customers no more guessing no more worrying. Run Your Business with confidence. Grow successfully on net sweet like Ring Hint Bollandbranch and over nineteen thousand other businesses net. Sweet business grows here schedule your free product or right now and receive their free guide seven the key strategies to grow your profits at net sweet dot com slash. NBC set up your free product door and get your free guide today at net sweet dot com slash NBC Casey net sweet dot com slash. NBC So to add to this dunst defense. Eugene Robinson. It seems to me that most of what we heard yesterday especially from Ken Starr Pam Bondi and this description of Rudy Rudy Giuliani's rolling. All of this is taking on. The assumption is is perhaps counting on that every member of the Senate is stupid Lupe to and doesn't remember history and doesn't remember the Clinton impeachment and doesn't remember everything that Ken Starr stood for and wrote in his book. This is kind of this is a big ask that they are that stupid grow. I don't know how big advocate is actually back to go back to a Joe with Ken Starr on the tractor dragging the corpse of irony eragny through the fields of liberty time to. Let's bring in the crop duster of truth and and sort of you know 'cause we need some. We need some serious pesticide here. I mean it's Ah. It was. It was astonishing was absolutely astonished to hear Ken. Starr topped only by the astonishment of of listening to Pam Bondi and which was absolutely surreal. I've read by the way that she Collected elected something on one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars a month from from Qatar for unspecified. Lobbying duty so I guess. She's a fluent when Arabic speaker and and much more qualified to do that than a hundred Biden was to do what he did in Ukraine but But that aside aside this is beyond the you know throw spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks defense. I mean because this isn't even real real spaghetti. It's just that they're making up making a fax making up law making up the entire defense and and the Republican senators sitting out there. I don't know if they had their ear buds in noise canceling ear buds. or or if more likely they're all thinking about the Bolton Book and wondering and feeling blindsided and wondering. What's coming next next from the Bolton book so I think that's probably what they were doing rather than listening to all this nonsense Job Post Bolton book revelation? We heard from Mitt Romney yesterday. Saying it's probably time to hear from witnesses. Heard Susan Collins saying maybe we should hear from witnesses. We'll see if we get to that point the only a couple more votes beyond that. But we've laid out already see this morning and very colorful metaphors all the holes in the defense but I think rick made a very important point. which is that if you are a Fox News viewer if you listen to certain radio or you just listened to Donald Trump as gospel everything you heard yesterday made sense to you? which is that this is a sham? which is that? Joe Biden is corrupt. Corrupt this lined up with everything you've been told now for months and months and months it doesn't line up with the facts as we've said again but for roughly half the country. The story that was told on the floor yesterday made sense. Yeah maybe so I have a little more confidence and half the country. Maybe it was thirty percent of the country maybe thirty five five percent of the country's who were such low information voters at the only thing they do is watch new shows and you could say Fox News but there are times on Fox News of course and they go after the break so it requires them to watch Fox News and then changed. Oa or or whatever that are K.. Or whatever that they have to change that channel and then if they say something then they they have to change. You know they have to go. I don't know to the WE G board so you really have to work hard uh-huh to void the facts. Yeah that that that Donald Trump even trump song lawyer said yesterday it. It wasn't a perfect call. So maybe they had to change the channel at that point. I mean you know there. Trashing John Bolton now by I late afternoon yesterday. The president's and out the word I guess to trash John Bolton so everybody is now just trying to destroy John Bolton's reputation a among conservatives which this thing johnny boy just listen to me if you think he can go halfway here. You're kidding yourself. They're going to try to destroy you. You got to tell the truth Johnny or you're not and if you think that you know if you think that you can go halfway you also so think that you're going to be on the cover of g the sexiest man alive next year and you are making that that magazine cover you with your mustache and me with this. You go all in and you tell the truth or you don't but I think Rick Wilson he's trying to be too clever. I think. Just be darn earn it. I hate it when that happens to. They're so afraid of Joe Biden that's my big takeaway is. This is like unbelievable. Their entire fire day was focused on their number one fear. Well that's really. That's exactly what I was gonNA bring up to Rick Wilson. Then when he gets his feedback back we can continue their. It looks like it. Looks like they have a beautiful sunrise coming up over Tallahassee those orange skies either that or a post apocalypse glow glow. But but think about this and this so when I ran the first time I prayed that like front runners that incumbents the people in power. We're GONNA attack me. Donald Trump has shown from the very beginning of this process. He fears Joe Biden so much that he is willing to risk impeachment to dig up dirt and even yesterday on the Senate floor. They kept attacking attacking Joe Biden. That is a godsend for Joe Biden in Jeopordy Joni Ernst. I felt sorry for. She actually thinks what they did on the floor. Yesterday is going to hurt hurt. Joe Biden those confederacy of dunces attacking Joe Biden. That's only going to help him in Iowa. His only going to help him. I mean through the rest of of his campaign because trump has shown one thing through all of this that he is absolutely petrified of running against Gats Joe by yeah and that's the case that the Biden campaign makes I mean what is this all amount to it amounts to the fact that the President United States so fierce Joe Biden that he went to these lengths got himself impeached. Because he didn't want to run against Joe Biden that makes a pretty strong case. Let's go up to Capitol Hill Real quick bringing bringing MSNBC correspondent Garrett Hake and White House Bureau chief at The Washington Post and political analyst for MSNBC AND NBC. News Phil Rucker. He's the CO author of the new book. A very stable able genius. Donald J trump's testing of America Phil. Let me start with you. Actually here in studio with us and talk about how the White House is feeling this morning with the revelations from the Bolton Book and from what they saw on the Senate floor there's a scramble underway inside the White House right now to figure out how to deal with these revelations from that are in the book you know outside of the National Security Council staff. People in the White House claimed that they didn't know about this book or at least didn't know the revelations what was contained inside of it even know bulletin brought that manuscript to the White House at the end of December. And right now there's a recalibration of the legal strategy but also a scramble to deal with witnesses the trump lawyers and I'm an political folks in the White House assumed that this trial could wrap up this week that the president could be easily acquitted by the end of this week by the Republicans in the Senate now that's cast into doubt because there could be these four or more Republicans to vote for witnesses. which would extend the trial and present a whole host of challenges for the president? So what's the suspect. We'll be the defense from the White House. If John Bolton is national security advisor not a peripheral player not second hand knowledge and everything else with some of these other. Witnesses is the guy who was in the room and called it a drug deal if he testifies to what he's written in this book. What's the defense while it's really damaging in part because Bolton is such a credible narrator here? He's somebody who understands the bureaucracy to detailed notes much to the president's Chagrin and it's respected by a number of Republicans in the Senate. He's been around the block much longer than trump's been president and he's a real challenge for the White House not just respected by a number of Republican senators. I mean he's an idol for the first for the Republican hawks in the in the Senate Lindsey Graham and the Tom Cotton's in the Marco Rubio's I mean they they they love John Bolton who by Whoa by the way has a pack that gives money to their campaigns. And it's you know there's a there's a connection there so it there's a lot of these. Senators are not inclined to get up and call John Bolton Aligarh. The White House will do that but but these are his France going back many years and people who who really admire him so Garrett. We had Mitt Romney yesterday. Up on the hill saying quote I think it's increasingly likely that other Republicans lukens will join the those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton Susan Collins out a statement saying Bolton's manuscript strengthens the case for witnesses. Here will there be more or will it. Just be again that small group and if the answer is no how do you not call John Bolton if you claim to have an honest and fair trial after what you've read in in this manuscript that's an increasingly challenging question for Republicans. I mean Phil talked about a scramble at the White House. There was definitely a scramble in and around the Senate floor yesterday on the Republican side. The Mitch McConnell. WHO's said he's been trying to coordinate hand in glove with the White House? We're told he was not aware about this manuscript being in the White House's possession he was caught off guard as well and you saw some of this come out in the freelancing that Republican senators were doing yesterday with reporters offering trades for different witnesses kind of talking about different hypothetical scenarios. The the mood shifted so dramatically from Saturday afternoon and Republican senators all left for their short weekend feeling like they would have this thing wrapped up up by the end of this week to Monday. Now we're nobody really knows where this goes and jeans point. I mean there's so much general positive feelings towards Bolton among among Republican senators generally. It's going to be very difficult for them to try to to try to you. Know discredit him. Prematurely to try to get out in front of this so you're looking at the possibility of either calling him or going towards the defense that you heard from some of the White House lawyers yesterday which is however bad. You might think this is. It's not impeachable. It seems like that's probably the only thing you can fall back on. If Bolton does come right out and confirm what's been at the heart of this in terms of the president ordering these investigations so been with as let's do some counter programming coming here for getting the miserable display by the trump attorneys yesterday. What would be their best argument today? What would be their best argument moving forward for acquittal for the president you know? I think their best argument has always been the one that the president disallowed them from using which is Hey this was not best practices. This was not a good show. The president is really sorry. But do you really want to remove president over this. It would be a prudential argument not wholly unlike the one that Bill Clinton made during the the Bill Clinton impeachment. which was? Hey I'm sorry I get this was bad it was wrong. But it's not worth impeaching and removing over and the problem with this argument is that trump has doubled down on it and said the call was perfect. which is a message edge that you're not allowed to criticize it in any way and by the way not only should Ukraine investigate the Biden's but China should too so I'm doing it again in public and that makes the actually best argument for his position politically roughly akin to saying you know the president did wrong which is something that trump has basically disallowed members from doing and so I think they're kind of not allowed to make what is really the best argument in their quiver by the way not a good argument but the I think the best one they've got people people may be thinking well watching the show right now? Well he's going to be acquitted anyway but if you look at the polls that are out there. Even Donald Trump a couple of days ago he. He was reduced to having the quote from a poll. All that showed a skyrocketing number of independence supporting his impeachment and removal and a majority of Americans supporting his impeachment and removal at at the same time polls that we've seen over the past few days showing that support for impeachment and removal in Wisconsin in in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Also starting to go up in this poll nationally. At fifty percent Wisconsin Fifty Michigan fifty not Pennsylvania forty-nine Ohio even Ohio forty seven percent so just for caused Republicans that our politicians Titians in Washington. DC beep maybe making fools of themselves and their lawyers may be a confederacy of dunces at least playing that role on television. It doesn't mean gene. Voters aren't paying close attention and even his followers and his folks on Fox in this constant teno watching people people who have broken the loyalty oath and and watch how they get so easily tossed out. I mean the slandering now of Bolton all of a sudden he's the enemy all of a sudden you hear people on Fox trashing him it. It's so unbelievably transactional and shallow. That I would think that trump's followers even some some of them might feel a little unnerved watching these people constantly failing the loyalty oath and getting talk again. You better believe that there are some some people in Fox who will actually be defending John Bolton why because John Bolton has been a part of the conservative movement his entire adult life thank Donald trump just four five years ago was giving checks to Hillary Clinton Charlie Rangel Anthony Weiner named Eliot Spitzer. He gave a check in. Two Thousand Fourteen Tacoma Harris. I mean this guy has been a lifelong Democrat supporter supportive Democratic candidates and here. You have a conservative John Bolton than it's been a hero of certain part of the conservative Movement for very long time to I think every attack against Bolton actually is going to have a backlash in certain corners of of the conservative movement. Benjamin thank you so much Garrett Hake and Philip Rucker thank you both as well great debut all on the show this morning and still ahead on morning joining Joe. The lead impeachment prosecutor Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Congressman Adam Schiff plus the second ranking Democrat in the US Senate Illinois's choice. Dick Durbin but I remember this. Everybody Thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable. Right but we put together a Benghazi Special Committee a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why she's untrusting but no one would have known? Any of that had happened happened. Had we made a grant Congressman Kevin McCarthy said the quiet part out loud back in twenty only fifteen and it sure seems like Senator Joni Ernst just did the same thing in Iowa caucuses. Are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today. Hey Informs and influences the Iowa Caucus voters those democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting president. Vice President President Biden at this point home. God really get over him. He's Rick Wilson. How are you back? Yeah he's fired backstories ice not now. Oh my God just in time here. Joni Ernst Sale. I mean who are these people she says out allowed I keep inside her head. which is that this is all? It's Raido her. Joe Biden in Iowa Woah and in the early states rick. The trump team and Republican senators could not have worked any harder if they wanted to due to elevate Joe Biden and make him look like a giant killer. They are petrified of him. Donald trump even allowed himself to be impeach each over his fear. Joe Biden correct and look yesterday Pam. Bondi came out by making this about Joe at Hunter Biden by I put on this very formative act about Joe one hundred Biden. She made this into an admission. First off the president committed impeachable offenses and second off the perfect framing. Here's the here's the way out. He doesn't worry about Bernie Sanders. He's not worried about Pete but a judge. He's worried about Joe Biden. He's he's sent his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and the cast of minions over to Ukraine to try to to corruptly influence the synthroid a US ambassador. He's gone through a year now of impeachment. It's like don't touch the hot stove Donald but I want to touch the hot stove. Why does it hurt? They're gonNA keep doing this. And now you've got Joan Susan a state that is not as red as it once was and is breaking different direction. Who's got a little bit of trouble ahead of her going full trump and as they say in the classic Tropic Thunder you never go full fall trump where you know in Joni Ernst is she came out yesterday rambling on and on saying things that she shouldn't be saying admitting that that this horrid conspiracy this whole extortion? This whole scheme was to hurt Joe Biden and the early caucus states in the election and this is the same woman who would did not answer a constituent in a town hall meeting a few months ago when the constituents said where do you draw the line. Are you not going to criticize the president for publicly demanding that China interfere in America's elections. Johnny said no answer. She was mute. It is the fear they live under. Donald Trump and his twitter feed and of his followers is so intense and this idea that that that if they break from from him in any way whatsoever or if they deviate in any way whatsoever it leaves them to behave like that and it leads them to behave with this silence yesterday and you are both aware. These guys are motivated by fear of primaries fear reelection I mean thankfully the filing deadlines are passing. Hopefully some of them will realize that they're not gonNA get primary by by somebody if they if they wait a few more weeks wchs but at this point that the Republican senators are betting their entire political future in their reputations. On the fact that nothing worse I will come out until yesterday when the when the Bolton things are hovering over them they thought they might get away with this. I don't think they're going to get away with it at this point a bit because something worse always comes out and by the way even finish this impeachment hearing quickly at between now and the election things are going to keep coming out and they're going to have to look back at what they did during impeachment and they're gonNA going to be held accountable the last week and people say wait a second. We've learned all of this stuff and you guys wouldn't let witnesses speaking speaking. You wouldn't let John Bolton speak and you wouldn't take more evidence as well. Lyrical Psyche. Learned this growing up when you you debt your parents car. You don't hide it just it just gets worse and here we are. We're GONNA take a much closer. Look Joe Biden with Mark Leibovich coming up in. Just a moment Wilson.

Donald J trump Vice President President Biden president John Bolton Ken Starr Pam Bondi Hunter Biden Joe Ken Starr Joe Biden Rick Wilson Rudy Rudy Giuliani Ukraine prosecutor Senate Bolton White House America Bill Clinton attorney Professor Dershowitz
Source: McConnell made clear he does not yet have enough GOP votes to block witnesses; Trump team rests case as Dems push for witness testimony; next step: Senators have 16 hours to ask written questions; Remembering the 9 victims of the California helico

Anderson Cooper 360

51:43 min | 1 year ago

Source: McConnell made clear he does not yet have enough GOP votes to block witnesses; Trump team rests case as Dems push for witness testimony; next step: Senators have 16 hours to ask written questions; Remembering the 9 victims of the California helico

"Hiring is challenging. But there's one place you can go. Were hiring is simple fast and smart and growing businesses connect to qualified candidates cafe alturas COO COO Dylan. Moskowitz experienced how challenging hiring can be after unsuccessfully searching for a director of coffee for his organic coffee company but then he switched to Ziprecruiter and saw an immediate difference. And you can too by signing up for free at ZIPRECRUITER DOT com slash. CNN pod Ziprecruiter doesn't depend on on candidates finding you it finds them for you and its technology identifies people with the right experience and invites them to apply to your job so you get qualified. Candidates handed it's faster in fact after posting his job to Ziprecruiter. Dylan's said he was amazed by how quickly great candidates were applying and found his new director of coffee in. Just it's a few days with results like that. It's no wonder four out of five employers. Who Post on Ziprecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day Ziprecruiter Ruder? The smartest way to hire see. Why ziprecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes trust Ziprecruiter for free at our web address? ZIPRECRUITER DOT COM SLASH CNN pod. That's ziprecruiter dot com slash C. N. N. P. O. D. Giving new reporting tonight. That Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell does not and yet have the votes to block impeachment witnesses. We begin tonight keeping them honest with the question. We'll Republican senators embrace the responsibility that comes with their sole power to conduct impeachment trials. Or will they shrink from it today. They have throughout the trial lawyers. The president all but urged them to do the second and far from taking umbrage plenty of senators seem happy to oblige. Hi gene either echo or amplify those arguments for essentially Declining their role is fact. Finders and truth seekers which sounds like an odd position to tape because nobody benefits fits from widespread public suspicion. The president was either removed from office or acquitted in a mockery of a trial. Or so you might think new Quinnipiac polling out today seems was to reinforce the idea that people know what a real trial looks like and they wanna see one registered voters by seventy five to twenty margin say the witnesses should be allowed to testify witnesses. Witnesses like fire national security adviser John Bolton whose upcoming memoir reportedly says the president directly tied military aid to Ukraine to investigating the Biden's remember just a few days ago the president's legal team which arguing that the president should be acquitted because not a single witness testified ride that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance. A presidential meeting or anything anything else so. That was Saturday on Sunday. The Bolton News hit and just like that the first hand recollection that the ambassadors testimony could provide if called began transforming forming into this. Today you cannot impeach a president an unsourced allegation unsourced. He said while arguing against calling the source themselves to talk about the arrangement he reportedly referred to at one point. There's a drug deal of course on the same day. Jaysekulow was saying that another member of the team. Pat Philbin was saying this. How are we supposed to get the proof of what's inside the president said? How are we supposed to get the proof of what's inside the president's head? We'll talk to John. Bolton under oath is one way perhaps Mick Mulvaney he as well. There are also documents emails notes in which some of those same people may have written down. Exactly what the president said and win bulletin for one is known to take detailed notes and a force sore general who worked with him. The White House John Kelly. The former chief of staff for the president just said that he believes bolted. The president's attorneys today had another reason that Bolton should not be called Bolton revelation which I thought that was kind of really discussed fairly last night by Dershowitz that you you can't get that to rise to the level of impeachment Senator Mike Braun. Let's call the argument number three. Maybe the president did say it but it doesn't mean he should be impeached over. It doesn't rise the level level of high crime or misdemeanor. Three basic arguments given by the president's attorneys no evidence the president linked to aid to dirt on Biden's Bolton's allegations or unsourced and well even if he did link aid for political dirt. It's not impeachable. There've been other arguments as well. It's too soon to vote on witnesses. It's too late to call them because the house was supposed to all end up in the course and take too along but at the end of the day central Graham may have set it all. Here's where I'm at on witnesses. I am ready to make my decision based on the record established in the house The House chose not to pursue witnesses that were available to. I don't want to start a president Ariston of just doing it half ass in the House and expect thin it to fix it. Constitution says the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachment. They have the way. Hey the will is what seems to be lacking joining us now. And the president's defenders Alan Dershowitz who just were forward to a new dish of the Constitution Declaration of Independence is also as you know Professor Grammar at Harvard Law School where he wants had seen chief legal analyst. Jeffrey Toobin as a student both join us now. Professor Dershowitz the argument that you put forward that even if the allegations answer Bolton are true it's still doesn't rise. The level impeachment How do you come to that conclusion? I mean it's an interpretation of the law what what is the basis of it well. The president was charged with abuse of power. Let's assume hypothetically instead. He was charged with maladministration which by the way according to many scholars is the equivalent of abuse of power power. Let's assume he was charged with maladministration and they came fourth with lots and lots and lots of witnesses. You'd still dismiss it because maladministration is not a high crime and misdemeanor. How do I know that? The framers introduced administration. James Madison objected to it was so vague that it would lead to a president serving at the pleasure of the Senate right and so was expressly rejected and so if they impeach him on the ground that was expressly rejected. Then obviously nothing that anybody says as a witness would rise the level of the impeachable offense you have to look at the charge and the same thing is true with abuse of power which is very much like maladministration. So that's how I get to my conclusion. I make a purely constitutional argument based on the history of the constitutional convention. What the scholar is basically said back then? Remember number that Dean Dwight of the COMU- loss the weight of authority. Meaning the professors the judges back in eighteen sixty seven. The weight of authority is in favor of requiring a crime. That can't be an argument that simply dismissed if the weight of authority much closer in time to win. The constitution was adopted adopted favored that interpretation. Jeff and what do you make of the of that argument. I mean Alan. You're equating maladministration with abuse of power. You are the only scholar who does that again. You're wrong no I'm not wrong. Let me give you a site. Today's New York Times a Professor Nicholas Bowie. He says that almost exactly. He says that maladministration abusive office abuse of power. Read it in the New York Times. Yeah hands I'd is read that he's on me and let me let me finish quote before you say all scholar Nicholas Bowie in that article. Says you are wrong. That's right and that's why it makes his argument so much stronger he thinks I'm wrong. And yet he agrees with me that maladministration abusive power our an abusive office are essentially the same. I'm not quoting his conclusion in quarter of collusion. I'm quoting him for the point that you just made saying no scholars. I think that abusive power is the same as men administration. So the best you can do is quote a scholar. Who thinks you're wrong that's right? I can quote nope blackstone. I can quote the history in England where abuse of power was rejected. As a criteria maladministration gration was rejected as across Syria. What do you mean? Of course it wasn't. It was one of the grounds that the British used extensively for. Actually argh is not not the accusation. Here our is no different than maladministration their own end virtually every American. The president has been charged with abuse of power really understands intersecting. Jeff why is abuse of power and impeachable offense because impeachment is about what the president can do wrong. It is about abuse of the office of President. This is the difference difference between the Clinton impeachment and this impeachment. Anybody can lie about sex in the grand jury. Only a president can withhold aid from a congressionally authorized tax payer money in return for dirt for his political enemies. That abuse of presidential power is exactly what Alexander Hamilton was talking about. Federal number. Sixty five is an enormous consensus. That abuse of power is an impeachable offense. That Burnley you and the president's lawyers think is not an impeach. Let me make a categorical statement. If Hillary Clinton were under impeachment today for abusive power virtually all of the scholars that say that abusive power is an impeachable. Offense would be on the other side. They do not pass the shoe on on the other foot tattoos. You know because I know these people I've been. We know every law five years. I know many of them who signed that petition and I am absolutely certain. Now I want you to look me in the eye Jeffrey and tell me you think that Larry tribe would support the impeachment of Hillary Clinton on abuse of power. No Way Allen this show is is not what we're talking about here we're talking about the constitution and we're talking about Donald Trump and whether it is an impeachable offense to take tax payer payer money and say the only talking with that's already about whether abuse of power is constitutionally permissible liberal criteria that is the charge against him abusive power. That would be as if you were charged with quote dishonesty and then list of dishonest used. I think he is not as power. I don't think we get to that issue. I don't think we get to the issue whether he abused his power. Do I think George Washington abused his power. I gave a list if I am not saying anything from I gave a list on the floor of the Senate of I think. Thirty presidents who've been accused of abuse of power not a single one of them was ever impeach impeach which shows how broad vague it was why Madison would've rejected it. And why it's so dangerous to give Congress the weapon of abuse of power to us in a partisan way selectively against presidents when the Congress is controlled by one party and the presidency by another party. That's the great danger that I'm there to try to prevent. I wasn't there to defend a particular individual I was there I said because I love our country and love our constitution so they want to protect protected from partisan misuse and weaponization. That can be used next time against Democratic president when there's a Republican majorities in the House of Representative Times Times article just for people at home that you're referring to with the title was like don't be confused by trump's defend rats. What makes my point so strong buoy is completely against my view but in the article in passing he says that the abuse of power criteria is very similar to abusive office? Roche of power and maladministration. When a person who's against me makes a point in my favor that strengthens the credibility of my argument? No it does and it. It just says you're wrong. He says you're wrong. I don't understand how you can possibly your simple logic when there's somebody on one side who's making an argument against you and he could seeds something which is critical that concession gets more strengthened more power because it came not from inadequate advocate on my side but from somebody against me. That is a simple point of logic. Jeffrey that you would completely agree with if the shoe were on the Alan. The whole point of the article is is to say you're wrong. What difference does it make about? What about what else he says he says you are wrong and lease? He's the only scholar you have ever excited. Who agrees with you is not true and let me tell you also says in the article that he agrees with me? That crime is required where he disagrees with me me. He says abuse of power is a crime. He's wrong about that. He can't cite a single statute about that. It's a common law crime and there is no such thing in common law crime states. They just want to quickly get to the White House today for the president's announcement about a mid east plan there's a lot of people say look. It can't be viable plan without bringing Palestinians the table. What would reported that the goal is to bring the Palestinians threw the table through the Saudis the Emirates there were representatives three Arab countries? There today it is a great planet gives the look. I've been involved in this peace process. Nineteen sixty seven when I helped Justice Goldberg draft to four two at the UN. This is the best peace plan for for the Palestinians be for the Israelis and see for the region. The Palestinians should at least come to the table. Think about it. They now have three or four years. There's a peace plan on table. Let them consider it seriously. Let them come to the table. I'm very proud that I played a small role in helping construct. This peace plan the credit it of course goes to the people in the administration that did it but they called for my advice and consultation. That's how I met the trump people over the peace plan. And that's I'm so happy I was there here today. I want to ask you about something that went on at at the meeting as you know a couple of days ago Secretary Estate Pump Peyot berated a national public radio reporter for asking appropriate journalistic questions and then yesterday he through National Public Radio off his plane for his next trip. That came up in the president's comments and watch the video carefully. 'CAUSE you're in at how is very impressive. That reporter couldn't have done too good a job when you yesterday. I think you did good job and her. It's good thank you my why are you padding Mike Pompeo on the back because I like mom Pompeii views on the Middle East. I thoroughly disapprove of the way. He is reportedly treated a reporter. I don't think reporters should ever be treated that way in any way and I don't think president should say that it's a good thing to treat a report tempted to do that but I like mom Mike Pompeo's views on the Middle East you him. aww You patted him on the back when the president was praising him for attacking the reporter. I think that's reading too much into that. I had patted him on the back of dozen times when we talked about the Middle East. So that's what my pat was intended to encourage not be precise being criticized. I WANNA show my support. Because he's a great secretary of state and he's done great things for the peace process in the Middle East that if he can help bring about peace in the Middle East. I'll forgive him his rudeness toward a reporter. Alan Dershowitz appreciate your time. Jeff Toobin as well. We'll see jeff shortly as our coverage continues coming up next more in the vote count. I'm I'm calling John. Bolton and perhaps others it's been back and forth all day also speak with one of the jurors in Angus King of Maine also tonight conversation with the husband of Christina Mouser. Who Lost Lost Her life in the crash that killed Kobe Bryant and his daughter as well as seven other people on board? That helicopter ever been locked down. You know suffered a setback. Fired left out it happens. It happens and Mike Bloomberg middle class kid worked. His is way through college. Got A job started a family boom fired at thirty nine would it. Mike do a lot of students. We've got backup dove back in. He he had an idea designed a new computer able to quench data and process information in a unique way he built it he sold. He built more. He sold more. He built a eighteen. You built a company created twenty thousand jobs. Bloomberg is a Dur. This is Michael Douglas. I've played a president and movies. This is real world world. This is our World Mike. Bloomberg has what it takes to win unite the country find some common ground between Democrats and Republicans and then lead the lay a leadership. Michael get it done. I'm Mike Bloomberg candidate for president. And I approve. This message paid for by Mike Bloomberg. Twenty twenty postage rates have gone up again thankfully stamps dot com eases. The pain with big discounts off post office retail rates like five cents off every first class last damp and up to forty percents off shipping rates. That kind of savings really adds up especially for small businesses. You can forget about inconvenient trips to the post office to sin in stamps. Dot Com is completely online. Use Your computer to print official. US postage for any letter package or class of male anywhere. You want to send once you're males ready drop. Drop it in the mailbox or hand it to your mail carrier. It's that simple not to mention. It's a fraction of the cost of expensive postage meters and there's no equipment to lease or long term commitments. CYO Why over seven hundred thousand. Small businesses already used dams dot com listeners. Get a special offer that includes a four week. Trial plus free postage and a digital. It'll scale go to stamps. Dot Com Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type. CNN THAT STAMPS DOT COM enter CNN. We're now on the breaking news that we touched on at the top. The question of impeachment trial witnesses and the state of the vote. Count Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell according to a source of the meeting late today telling his members at the votes oats are not yet there to block witness testimony over another Senate. Republican source tells us that leadership came away from the meeting more confident they would be able to defeat the witness vote. Try to get a sense of the state of play I spoke just before airtime was Senator Angus King Independent of Maine as you know. He caucuses with Democrats. And of course he shares a constituency with means other Senator Republican Publican Susan Collins. WHO's very much lawmaker on the spot tonight? Will Senator King yesterday. You said that you thought there would be five to ten Republicans who would vote for witnesses and documents. I know you talked to Dana Bash. Today you said it's going to be a very tight vote. What change I just was talking to some of my colleagues Last night and I just got the feeling that the that the Republican leader was really putting the pressure on although It now looks like they're maybe maybe enough votes. I don't know how many there will be Originally I was being optimistic simply because I thought it was so obvious. I don't know how you vote not to hear from somebody who has appears to have evidence about the central issue in the case and I couldn't believe anybody would vote against those hearing at least from John Bolton I'm getting all kinds of conflicting signals tonight but I thought he was going to be a fairly straightforward then The signals. They what I was hearing the sort of mood was no. We're not going to let any witnesses in I think we're just GONNA have to wait and see. It's going to be on Friday Anderson and I think you know it it is. It's either going to be a very close vote or I think it will be five or ten. We'll have to wait so you could be as many as as five or ten because I think ah three four is what's needed fours. What's needed? I mean my thinking is and I don't want to be a you know prognosticator here but my thinking is once they get to four or I think some other people are going to want to say. Okay I don't want to go home and explain to my constituents. Why didn't WanNa hear from John? Bolton the idea from Senator James Langford to allow senators to read embassador bulletins manuscript in a classified setting before making the decision on witnesses. Is that something you would agree to. I like James Langford. I think he's a very creative guy I just think that's an unnecessary step I've been saying before any of the revelations of last weekend and that we should hear from him. I mean he's the guy that knows this. Here's what this case is all about You you remember Anderson in the Nixon impeachment. It was about what did did the president know. And when did he know it. In this case. It's what did the president do. And why did he do it. that's really the the that's why Bolton is so relevant relevant because he can talk to the question of. What was the president's motivation in doing? This I mean Bolton was given a boast despite. There's now obviously an onslaught of from folks on Fox News uses former former colleagues over there and elsewhere against him but former White House chief of staff. John Kelly saying that Bolton says is in a book says in his book that the president told him. UKRAINA was conditioned on investigation to put rivals that Kelly would believe Bolton. I'm wondering if those comments hold any way with with your Republican colleagues. Have you heard anyone talk about. UH-HUH I have not. You're going to have to ask them. I mean bolden is a controversial character. As you know but I've never heard I've heard people criticize his policy views. I have myself itself but I've never heard anybody question whether he was straightforward and honest. And you know part of this process. Is you attack the credibility credibility of the witness but I think we're just GONNA have to hear from him. Now one way to rebut. This would be for the president himself to sit down for under oath televised all of is a deposition as as President Clinton did twenty years ago. But right now and by the way I I don't want to practice law. You know too much right here but I think the president wave the executive privilege Argument last night when he said Bolton is lying once the president starts talking about that conversation station then the conversation is is available To be to be discussed so we'll have to see how that goes about John Bolton's credibility ability. That's a question of course But also he was in the room where it happened. I think that's the name of this book and finally the question portion of the trial starts tomorrow. I'm wondering hiring is have you submitted questions for that. Do you know how it's GonNa work or what you're interested in. I can give you an outline of how it's GonNa work. I have submitted questions As I understand handed it's sixteen hours eight hours tomorrow. Eight hours the next day and a this two sides will alternate the chief justice today said he was admonishing the lawyers and by the way the questions are through the chief justice to the house managers or the White House lawyers. They're not to each other. This isn't a debate and we don't even get to ask the questions. The the deal would be the chief. Justice would say senator King I'll stand up and say I have a question MR chief justice of for for you to Put the house managers and the page will take the question up. He'll read it and we'll alternate back and forth and that's how I understand the the process will unfold. Do you want to tell. That's what you're GONNA ask no. I didn't think you would. It's your job to ask. I don't have to answer. That is certainly the case Senator King. I appreciate your time. Thank you thank. Thank you Anderson. Canoes ahead as well as our preview of the next phase of the trial before any votes on witnesses or political legal team standing by Bareback at the making of CNN presents. The story of the world's most famous royal family the windsors inside the Royal Dynasty premiers Sunday February sixteenth at ten on CNN. Hi I'm David axelrod host of the X. Files everyone has a story and on the X.. Files I dig deeper than the sound bites. I spoke with justice. Sonia Sotomayor about the withering poverty discrimination she overcame to reach the nation's highest court into President Barack Obama about the impact of his valiant mom to learn more about the show visit. CNN dot com slash X.. Files or find US wherever you get your podcasts. The stage is set for senators to begin asking their impeachment questions tomorrow afternoon as we've also been reporting the stages not set on witnesses joining us. Carl Bernstein cheap. She's legal analyst. Jeffrey toobin his back also with a USA USA Today Columnists and CNN senior. Political analyst Cureton powers and former George W Bush aid and CNN. Political commentator Scott Jennings a report that Mitch McConnell told his caucus he doesn't have the vote you heard angus king thinking maybe it seems like the pendulum for him has swung both ways these things maybe now they do have the votes. Do you see this. I mean how do you see this playing. Well I mean obviously. We don't know what's going to happen but it does seem like the John. Bolton News has has shifted things a little bit and I think before when the witnesses were people first of all who who didn't hear directly from the president and so that that could be dismissed Smith secondhand information and also frankly were people that were from the diplomatic corps which there's no love lost between Republicans and the diplomatic corps. Here we have John Bolton Who is somebody who has been a core member of the right wing and tell them out right but I mean but he really the senators? I know that this is somebody who is you know. A rock ribbed conservative. He's not just a Republican. He's somebody who really has has been reliable and I think as Angus King said you know he's he's not somebody you can criticize his policies. But nobody's really suggested he's a fabulous just makes up things In terms of you know he would make up a conversation with the president. You have John Kelly the former chief the staff obviously he's highly respected and who knows both players so he's not just saying that I believe John Bolton because i John Bolton he's saying in a scenario where Donald trump is saying one thing and John Bulletin this saying another thing I believe John Bolton's got wondering what you're hearing from Republicans. Well I think it's too early to predict what's going to happen on on Friday. I mean obviously some people are still making up their minds. I do think the Cuban period apparently for some of them is GonNa GonNa make a difference in in what they do on Friday. I will say this I think if they go down on the path of witnesses. What I've heard is that it's going to be witnesses as far as the I can see because if you're dreaming of a scenario where you just hall Bolton in there and that's it that's it's not going to happen that the Republicans are going to want to let the White House call their own witnesses and that could be Biden's it could be at shift it could be the whistle blower and apparently what I was told they? They have a long list of people they might call. That would essentially plunge the Senate into some sort of no man's land of indefinite witness calling and so I think that's actually a pretty good argument against doing doing it at all. If you're trying to keep your conference just to is that you think possibly why the White House is making that argument. That they're saying I mean just as they said there'd be a long I'm nasty court battle. There's some who've said you know that could be just trying to game this There's reasons the White House wouldn't want along nasty court battle over this because it could. Actually you know the judge could declare that there was a crime that was committed. I think for for many reasons the White House and the Senate Republican leadership would like for this to be over And I think what point right that McConnell will make and other Republican senators are making this as if any of these witnesses We bring if they're not going to change your opinion about whether the president should be removed from office whether it's it's because you don't think it rises to the level because it's an election year or whatever your reason is why prolong what's going to happen and we can do this now. Why prolong this several months and let this cloud continue to hang over Washington? We'll do they care about the fact that now seventy five percent of people now this Quinnipiac poll are saying there should be witnesses. I mean it doesn't matter them to them at all. Is that playing into their huge chunk them Republicans and I can assure you. They don't want to hear from Bolton they want to hear from the Biden's they wanNA hear shift. And They WanNa hear from the whistle blower so if you if you put it that sure. Everybody wants witnesses but again making all in terms of what they're you know witnesses whether it's witnesses all kinds of witnesses but it doesn't matter to the threat to throw this whole thing into a total mess for the country. Perhaps the Democrats Democrats auto accept the challenge and look this is supposed to be a trial one to get it to truth. When that didn't work we have the new catechism resume of the new legal Oracle Dershowitz illegal characters that nobody has ever embraced of stature In which I whoa. That was one of the most astonishing pieces television. I think I've ever seen the two of you. But what was most astonishing was Dershowitz. His invention of legal. I covered the courts. I'm not a lawyer. This is a grievous offence that the president has committed and that there now is acknowledgement that he is committed. It is grievous to enlist a foreign power to interfere with our. Dr Election is not about maladministration maladministration is one thing and what has occurred here is his grievous is a huge offence against the people of this country got in our democratic process. Don't you think that that threat is completely the empty threat from the White House. I say let's have. We're going to have a month long trial if you if you agree to witness. Do you really think the White House wants a one a month long trial. Even if the Biden's are testifying I think McConnell has to stop this thing altogether or else. It's a big problem. And my general rule will is you never bet against Mitch McConnell and so I think he is going to figure out a way to keep this thing under fifty votes because he'd the White White House does not want a long trial under any. I don't care who's testifying. I don't know if it's an empty threat I mean. Apparently they do have a list of people that they would call. I think your bit is is most of the time a good one I think in this particular case. It's truly unknown because you obviously have had some senators express an interest in hearing from Bolton. You've had other senators come out and express confidence and what's going to happen so I don't really think anyone knows what's going to happen on Friday. I do the only thing we know for sure hundred percent. They're not going to convict the president. And so I actually think the best argument the McConnell or anyone else could make is. Why are you going to prolong the inevitable here? Would it be better for the country to put this behind us and get on about the business of the people to me. That's the most appealing political argument for any Senate. The only the only other thing I think we know one hundred percent is that if Bolton dozen testify this trial is a travesty. This trial has no credibility at all when you don't don't call the single most important person who has the knowledge that is at issue in the case. The president has denied what is at stake daycare to Bolton. would be if you don't get called. You can a press conference. The you know the house as far as I know is still a functioning piece of the legislative legislative branch. They can call him anytime and reopen the here. We have a trial going on in which we are supposedly wanting the truth to be established and here here we have a witness who has the best obtainable version of the truth. That we know of he might even have other witnesses. Let's get the truth and then make a decision acquit. You WanNa quit after you know the truth fine. But let's establish the facts that with a real witness everybody. I just had the latest from investigators on the helicopter lacob crash in L. A. County Sunday. That killed nine people including Kobe Bryant. Also the husband one of the victims joins me to talk about how how he is dealing how his three children are dealing with the death of their mom with a no-holds-barred election right around in quarter. Take a look back at some of the most hard-fought presidential races throughout history the CNN original series race for the White House's back for a brand new season starting Sunday February sixteen at nine on CNN. Hey Kristen ludlow and I'm candace Parker we've got a new podcast properly called lead low and parker on our show you'll hear takes on the NBA a league that we both eat sleep and breathe every day listening in. On one of the League's most plugged invoices in Kristen and not to mention getting the perspective Burma two-time WNBA MVP and one of the most decorated athletes. Ever play the game in Kansas. We talked to some of our friends from around the game pop culture and more search for Ludlow and Parker and subscribe today. The National Transportation Safety Board says the helicopter that crashed into the side of a mountain killing nine people including Kobe. Bryant MS is clearing that mountain by twenty to thirty feet aboard were Kobe. Bryant his daughter Jonah members of the Altobelli family. John his wife carrying their daughter. Eliza Sir Eric Chester and her daughter Payden were on board the pilot. Ara Zambian and Christina. Moser we WANNA spend some time tonight remembering her. Christina was handpicked can pick by Brian himself to coach at his Mom Sports Academy she let clinics there for the WNBA players according to the La Times and also coach at a private school attended by Brian's daughter Christina leaves behind only husband but also three children her husband Matt Mazar joins US tonight to talk about how he and his family are coping with this incredible a loss. First of all. Just how. Where are you in terms of how you how are you dealing with this well? emotionally I'm torn is like a roller coaster ride and a lot of ways as you know I'm up I'm down. I cry for no reason whatsoever and Dan. I'm okay like I woke up this morning and I said I mean I hadn't slept left for two days and so I woke up this morning. I said I'm okay. I think I'm okay and then I walked out and I started to cry so and then I saw my kids and I started to cry but I'm just trying to be open to not judging myself if if I'm hurting or if the kids are hurting not judging them just loving them and and loving other people around me. That are hurting as well. Because I know a lot of people are hurting. So can I to be honest with you that having other people feel grief along kind of really helps because there was a lot of people that are in pain right now and They main I love love. Love lost somebody that they love like I did that was in their family. But they're still hurting. I I was actually in Orange County last night and and Speaking in front of a group several stop by I mean had I know and I I would but but I I it was a group of probably three thousand thousand people and I can't tell you how many of those people Came up to me and talked me about about your family and all the other families and I can tell you there was a room with three thousand people who you and your kids and Christina and everybody else onboard. The helicopter was foremost in their minds and And everybody was talking and thinking about you that that's there's millions of people around the world who are thinking that as well keep telling me a little bit about based enough they went. How'd you meet Man Well we we met in the most wholesome of places bar there in Huntington beach and She walked up and she knew who I was. I'm I'm a I'm in a band and She asked me when I was going back up and we started talking and she asked me what what was her tight. What was my type and I looked and I said you're my type and that was it? I I read that that you and then he played one on one basketball with her early on and on date. Is that true. Oh man so we started dating in you know I've a basketball hoop in my front yard practice. I played basketball most every other day. And I thought it was pretty good and I got on the dry with her and man. I had never experienced anything like Christina. She was quick Strong powerful she could dribble in penetrate. Come back and shoot laid up. I mean hit from anywhere anywhere. She's deadly three-pointer. Pointer unstoppable with their pivot moves. She could hit free. She'd never miss. I think she had like a record. And a high school for for a free. Throw percentage free-throw percentage. She was just a a stud and I didn't know how I felt about it. I I really want to date a girl. That's better than me about let's give all And and then I thought and I went. Oh Man I liked her even more. I just fell in love with her and I and you coach together and I guess that's how incorrectly if that's how you came across met Kobe Bryant and his daughter was at the school I understand they used to call Christina. The mother served defense as a coach M. O. D.. That's what they called her on the Team M. O. D.. Yeah the girls came up on the Mamba team. The girls came up with her. Are you know codename M. O. D. Mother of defense. Yeah in Kobe Bryant. He saw that he saw her skill. He knew he he identified. NFL that right away. Oh God so. Kobe was incredible at Rick recognizing talent and he called me and he said I want to offer Christina job and I said she can't do that. She says she's running my shoes running my music. She's running she's got three kids. She's teaching full time. I go she can't he goes okay. I'll call her so he was pretty persuasive. And and You have three kids. I if uh I think you have a three year old and nine year old. An eleven year old is that right. Yes three nine eleven. My Dad died when I was ten and I'll never forget the night. My mom came in to tell me that he that he was gone. How do you I mean how are your kids? How I mean sounds like academia? Don't question as You know but it's the ultimate question They're doing okay my little one. Her birthdays next week. That's hard part is going to be four and so her birthday is on the fourth and So I'm trying to navigate that and she's kind of doesn't understand but she does know she used to. I mean I'd walk in and she would call for mom. Where's where's mom I want? Mom Mommy Mommy and now I walk in and she doesn't call for her so it's bittersweet because I wanted to still call for her mom but it's hard to put her down when she's calling for Moms so I think she gets it. She knows where grieving she says. Don't cry and then My son is a little more quiet. He has outbursts is very sensitive so I try to do physical activities with him. I let him hit pillow. I kinda let him get it out and I hold him and hugged him and kissed him. I tell him mom loves you and I love you. Give them a hug for mom and I give them a hug for for me and move on and then my daughter is. She's eleven in her friends are really important. So that's that's nice. Because she played on Kobe smaller team team the Mamba Little Mambas so she knows the whole she knows everybody as well and my Koby Astros lutely loved my daughter. They had a secret the handshake they. He called her pen pen. He came they her seventh grade team. She's in sixth grade for the school. She plays and they won the championship this year. They had wanted wanted. And since I believe since the eighties and We made a big bobble head from my daughter in Kobe. GimMe that bobble head. And he stood up and sort of waving the bottle ahead and they came from behind and they had a last minute victory. It was like it was the last. You know it's one of them. Well the happiest moments of in my life having him there and my wife and watching my daughter was very surreal. But I just thought Addison Day by day you know I had a friend of mine. A fellow person who lost her husband a few years back. She has three kids where I taught she was here yesterday. I I just came home from a walk and there is she sitting there and I said what do I do and the vice she gave to me was wake up up. Just wake up. I guess that's all you can do. my mom used to say that Sometimes all you can do is just you know. Put One foot in front of the other or you know if you're not feeling like doing that you just you know. Just keep breathing minute by minute even second by second. Yeah yeah I play the thing that hurts me. The most the thing that the thing that gets me the most are the you know. It's not the big thing. I'm just not how good she was at basketball. You know all of those things are wonderful. The things that I miss the most are the little tiny little things my wife. Four's not just focused on the big things. My wife is focused on the little things and the attention to detail you you know about what kind of foods to give our kids doctors. You know how how she would research every disease that was out there. She was you you know. She was relentless and she was organized and detailed and and how she treat people. That weren't important. That was my wife would always treat the person who you would. You wouldn't expect anybody to treat. Well she would always treat them the best she was kind she she was funny or goal is to make each other laugh every day. And my wife She liked me because I made her laugh every day and I was like why are you like me. You know our first date she. I made her laugh so hard. We're listening to. I can't go for that by hauling odes goofing on the song and she just started role and I remember the first time. I've never heard anybody laughed this hard. She would laugh so hard and she couldn't stop and I missed that I missed those just the little things. That's the hardest that I I I'm just so sorry and I I I hope you have family and friends around you and and You know the one thing I I was thinking about grief is that feels really lonely and isolating and it's actually You know it's a bond that unfortunately a lot of people share a lot of people have experienced and I know it's easy to feel very alone in this right now but it's there's a lot of other people out there who have gone through are going through it and and I hope you are surrounded by people who you can talk to that and that I'll be honest with you. Today was the first day I started to feel that I unfeeling support. Now for two days I felt extremely low and it was very dark. The first day was brutal but today we have a little bit of a Santa Ana coming out in the sun came out. It's been foggy last a couple of days or cloudy in the morning and stuff like that but today it's been sunny and I maybe that's a sign you know that's hopefully going to get easier. You know like I said it's it's good and bad. There's good times and bad times and just Mo- like your mom says one foot in front of the other. Yeah there's no ideally thing. My mom used to say which is that. There's no timeline for grief that you know people who think okay. Well you'll be over this at some point in but it's obviously different for everybody everybody and it's you know it's never the same but it it gets better. Sounds like you had a pretty good mom Anderson and I did. Your kids have a very good dad. Well they had a good mom to an had a really good mom In touch with you and But I appreciate you talking tonight and I'd like to get your information in and reach out to you if that's okay. Heck yeah man maybe we can have a little more fun. If you could do shots on new years. That would be much rather hang with. You're doing that all right. Don't ask me play basketball. Though all right man not good at all or just neither was I. Oh God bless you. It was really. It was an honor. I really appreciate it Just and keep them in and out and And please give our best your kids and let them know. I know they know everybody's thinking about so. I hope that helps a little bit. And we'll do. I appreciate it if you'd like to help them out of your family. There's a gofundme page. You can see the link at the bottom of your screen Right now it's go fund me dot com slash F slash Mouser Family Support Fund. Chicken Christy. What he's working on for? Cuomo time Chris was wife. Christina had an expression and level up when someone was down or off balance or out of kilter you know dealing with something she'd say level up. I heard that from her brother who obviously is going to support report. His brother-in-law very much in the two girls and their son. But you know the loss is so tremendous young family like that especially in. There was so much loss loss in this one ship. This one helicopter these three these three kids their parents so it is good to tell their stories and it's good to recognize is how this death of Kobe Bryant and his daughter is making so many of us. Think about how we should be living right now and we'll talk about that tonight as well as well as is looking at impeachment and the obvious case for witnesses. It's been true all along especially now all right. We'll see in about six minutes from now in a moment and emotional tribute to the lake. Kobe Bryant from his former teammate. Shaquille O'Neal hey everyone Andrew Aydin here host of the brand brand new podcast from down the hill the Delphi murders. This is the story of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. They were typical teens into arts softball ball snapchat and in February of two thousand seventeen. They went for a hike on a warm day in Delphi. Indiana and vanished nearly twenty four hours after that hike doc. Their bodies are found in the woods. They've been murdered and the police began working a crime scene. They say they'll never UNSEE also found libby cell phone which has video and audio of the killer who three years later remains on the loose down the hill the Delphi murders begins on February fifth. Subscribe now wherever you get your podcasts Hey there it's poppy harlow the host of CNN's boss files podcast. Are you hungry. Have you ever ahead shake shack. Our latest episode is with the men behind the Burger business. Founder Danny Meyer and CEO Randy Rudy shake. Shack was born. If you I didn't know as a hotdog cart in two thousand one and the whole thing actually started. Danny Meyer's says by accident so we dive into that. What's the story behind? What is now a publicly traded company? And what are they trying to do. When it comes to equality and wages and their experiment with four day workweeks also? Are they planning to offer plant based items on the menu. That is a big question. Also some of their favorite memories like when President Obama came to eat checkout boss files subscribed today our sister network. TNT continued the morning for Kobe. Brian Tonight with a special program event honoring his career and life motions clearly still raw for this brotherhood Brotherhood particularly those of his former Laker teammates. Shaquille O'Neal felt the pain sharp in a while forty seven years old To Rose Two grandmothers close to Sarge lost my sister and now I will also little brother. We names will be attached together for what we did. You know just makes me think that an life sometimes holding back certain things we should just do. We appear we work a lot and I think we take stuff for granted. I don't talk to you guys as much as much as the fact that we're not going to be able to Joe get his hall of fame ceremony. What I'm going to be able to say I ah got five? You got four the fact that we're not going to be a if we would stay together we could have ten. Total Change can't get back from afar but my sister and my only wish I could just say something to them again. Talking about Tolkien was when we were here it is to get fifty and he got sixty spoke and I just wish you know so police changes me. You can read more about Kobe. Bryant all the victims of the crash scene DOT COM. We'll return eleven. PM Eastern for special edition dishes three sixty. Let's hinder Chris. Cuomo prime-time Chris. Are you interested in learning how enterprise scale companies drive organic traffic to increase their online visibility. The download the voices of search podcast from the heart of Silicon Valley here search metrics. INC's CEO Jordan Kuni as he delivers actionable insights into how to use data data to navigate the ever changing landscape of Google Apple Amazon. The voices of search podcast arms search engine marketers and business analysts with the latest news and insides. They need to navigate the ever changing landscape of search engine optimization and content. Are you ready to learn to use search data defined strategic insights tobacco competition and your industry as a whole and search for voices of search. Wherever you download your podcasts? That's three simple words voices of search to learn the secrets of search engine and content marketing.

president Senate John Bolton CNN Jeffrey Toobin Mitch McConnell John Christina Mouser Kobe Bryant Professor Dershowitz Senator King White House White House John Kelly Bolton News Anderson CNN Middle East president Ariston
446 - Reversal of Alan (8/17/20)

Chapo Trap House

1:02:58 hr | 1 year ago

446 - Reversal of Alan (8/17/20)

"The. He defied public opinion but I might sonnet was the most beautiful divorcee in the world One of the wealthiest Mary me for my money than you demand to work. Nor the prince perversion flaunted the privileges of his wife's money I'm involved with someone who falls beyond the parameters of Agreement. That must be better for you than what you've had to put up. Until his own family accused him of trying to kill her. Now a world renowned Harvard lawyer. I should tell you that I have the greatest respect for the intelligence and integrity of the Jewish people. Not a hired gun. Got Feel this moral constitutional issue at stake. But absolute innocent and a team of law students. We have to completely obliterate every single aspect of the state's case of the only ones who believe in him claus scapegoat. He's obviously guilty of something pretty despicable insolent because almost everyone else believes my lady's not diabetic but anyone with so much to gain you do have one thing in your favorite. Everybody hates you. That's a stock. Must have something to hide in Europe. Gentleman is given the opportunity to end things properly. Very strange, man. Lap No idea. Glenn. Close. Jeremy Irons I'm not afraid of. The chips fall where they may Ron Silver Swat an innocent man would say. I. Now. Reversal of fortune, the mysterious case of Klaus von Bulow and the story that shocked the nation. Hello. Everybody Chabot back again coming out this week it's. Me Met and Felix talking to you right now. And you know for this week's episode, we're going to take a break from the drudgery of politics, the election, Calvin la mention of generally covering all those things in the near future but we decided to take a breather for this week and talk about a movie that we all watched together and this is an interesting Chop Oh, film series because. I don't know it would be a sort of like in my opinion up there with is wide shut in a movie that's very interesting and Let's just say throbbing. III Mogi to watch certainly in light of recent events and everything we know now but it's also movie that I regard is genuinely good and Directed By and starring People I think turned quite a quite good and interesting Phil. However, the film in question is. Known is called reversal of fortune, but it would be better known as the Alan Dershowitz. Story I. I really. So this was my idea I've been on a recent kick of self improvement and education. I'm currently reading two books but to pad the knowledge, I'm just reading the random wikipedia is for movies I haven't seen one of those wicked pedis I stumbled upon was reversal. knowing about the club you locates I was like hey. This is a friend of the show. Good old Alan. Why don't we do this I. Actually you know watching this movie, you can't help feel a little four. Lord. They don't make movies like this movies with the mid to low budget that are. Pretty exciting dialogue driven and the hero is hideous. Jewish man. So this is reversal of fortune. All the hideous got plastic surgery and. Reversal of Fortune made in Nineteen Ninety starring. Ron Silver as Alan Dershowitz Jeremy Irons as clouds von Bulow who's go on. He would go on to win the best actor Oscar for his portrayal of class von Bulow and Glenn close as the dearly departed sunny von Bulow or rather she is in a persistent vegetative state throughout the entire film except in flashbacks but she does provide the narration for the whole movie, and of course, this is based on Alan Dershowitz, his book of the same name reversal of fortune. This was produced by Allen Dirt Swishes Son Ilan Dershowitz and written by Nicholas Kazan, son of Ilia Kazan. So there's a lot of a lot of interesting creators threads that have come together in this movie none more interesting to me than the director Barbados Schroeder who is You know I've always loved his film see he's directed one of my other favorite films of all time Barfly, the Mickey Rourke Charles Bukowski film which I would highly recommend, but he's also directed. A number of sort of like. Kind of like ninety s sort of like. Thrillers like single white female and then more recently, he did that movie with Sandra Bullock and Ryan gosling called murder by numbers and he's sort of like a a directed straddle sort of like work for hire and more like artistic stuff like I. Think he didn't win the palm the Oricon for for Barfly but also crucially for this movie and My. Understanding of it and the case I'm GonNa make for it. He's also the director of to absolutely fabulous documentaries that I would highly recommend watching the the first and most important of them is called General mean data like a self portrait or an autobiography or something, and this is a movie he made. That is a documentary about Idi Amin when he was. In charge of Uganda and essentially, he sold the movie to mean as kind of like heroic self portrait and was given access to his cabinet meetings day to day life and all of these sort of like contrived events and sort of. I guess I don't know whistle-stop tours of the country where people would cheer him in applaud him and he would. There's a senior. He goes along the river boat. He's there on a boat going down the river and he's looking at crocodiles and he's like see even the crocodiles know me they all like me and it is a insane film. It is bizarre because it is like this completely unfiltered look at a you know a fucking madman just a quick. About The GD mean movie he released two versions of it. One was released in Uganda, and then there was a director's cut was released everywhere else in the world. Mean asked Moammar Kadhafi to send his personal in Britain to watch the film and write a full transcript of its contents as soon as he found out what the director's cut included, which has made it pretty clear that this was the. Presented essentially as the diary of a madman. Rounded up two hundred French citizens in Uganda, and can find them into a hotel which he surrounded by the Ugandan army giving each of them, Barbacia odors, home telephone number to call him and explain that their release was conditional on Schrodinger Schrodinger. Re Cutting in rereleasing the movie to means. Wishes which eventually then did do and then when after I mean fell from power, he restored the original cut but the point is like you he's he's playing with them. The Ego of this, like this powerful lunatic and you know Evil Madman to. Flatter his ego to be just like essentially put a camera in front of like you know tell us tell us how great you are, and you give someone like the complete full rein to present themselves as they think, is our portrait portrait. What you get is often the most revealing and. Chilling aspects about their personality, the second of which is another very good documentary called terror's advocate, which is a movie that came out in two thousand and four. That is a very long feature about the life and career A. Shock Jess, who is a a French attorney. WHO Represented in the seventies like Carlos, the Jackal, the biter biter, Meinhof terrorists, many of the Algerian bombers and terrorists, and then eventually, and most famously the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie. When he was extradited back to France to face trial for his warcrimes committed during the occupation of Leon but I mean again like it's a very slippery figure he's he's like you know there's there's a lot going on and he again he gives his subject free rein to present a a portrait of themselves that he that they think is flattering and there's many like there's just so many different sub and in all of his films are. Always, an undercurrent of like coldness and perversity to everything. So keeping that in mind, how do we view this film reversal of? Fortune, which is based on Alan, which his book of which Alan Dershowitz is the main character and essentially hero of the movie. But why I like reversal of fortune so much is that there is that surface level reading I read into it. A second layer that cuts back like cuts against the surface interpretation of it were essentially wits is villain this movie and that like the heroic self portrayal that comes across in this movie is very strange and it gets stranger given what we know of Alan. Dershowitz now and his current public persona gentleman. What do you think of that? I could see that I. Think there are a few. Key moments in a few specially lines of dialogue that are very interesting. Knowing what we know now about Dershowitz I I don't know I fear. It may be confirmation bias however it's true. It's true. Yeah I mean I mean it's hard even though you could make a movie about Alan Dershowitz and really try to make it a worshipful picture of judicial heroism and still have people watch it and go actually this is about this how this guy is a complete scumbag and pervert because of just how grotesque his whole thing is it's unavoidable his vibe he's got a bad vibe it's unavoidable. There is a the mark of the pervert on Professor Dershowitz. Yeah, he's just got a stench of perv wafting off of him at all times. So for those who don't know like I mean. This this case is really what made Alan Dershowitz this was like with I think probably more than anything brought him into the national consciousness. This was before the Oj case and certainly before. Any of the things that we've discussed on this show, but essentially the clouds von Bulow case involved this guy who was convicted of killing his wife. He was this very like just sort of like old. European. Like just sort of like Weirdo and as dad was a Danish Nazi collaborator during World War Two and it was this case in like the You Know. He was took place during one, thousand, nine, hundred eighty and it was thing that became kind of a a media sensation was like a a big trial this Guy who everyone thought like you just like you look at him, you hear him talk and you're guilty like this guy absolutely killed his wife and when it revolved around is like you know. To separate incidences separated by about a year, I won in nineteen, seventy nine, and then the second, the fatal one, thousand, nine, hundred, eighty of. His wife Sunny slipping into a coma essentially while he was in bed next to her and not telling anyone about it. Until the first time she was revived and then the second time definitely not. Then, like you know. Her children from her first marriage to like the count von Habsburg von. Imagine eight fucking names together of European royalty like these people come from started their own have a private investigator in their own attorney look into the case because they basically always suspected that he he was the kind of guy that would definitely kill their mom for her money. And then he was convicted of this, and of course, the movie is about how Klaus von Bulow retains the services of Alan Dershowitz to for his appeal and that appeal of course ends up working very famously and Klaus von Bulow got a second trial in which he was acquitted and this was like the first big case of a career define in large part by for Alan, Dershowitz of helping very wealthy men murder their wives may I mean maybe he did murder her what maybe didn't the movie leaves it very ambiguous and so so does the book itself but based on the merits of the case he got this guy out of. Jail Stretch. So you want to just start like just sort of go through the movie. As a place out. Yeah. All right. So like I said, it begins to this like you know. Von Bulow family like they're you know they're in, they're in Westport at Newport Rhode Island like it's just they live in like astonishing wealth and like I said at the beginning like it begins like after Klaus von Bulow played by Jeremy Irons has been convicted of murdering his wife. He then reaches out to Alan Dershowitz who is introduced in one of the funniest scenes. Maybe ever portrayed NFL the first we see of Alan Dershowitz again played by. Fellow Hollywood conservative run silver, which is another very interesting angle to this because like Ron, silver became like the go-to like after nine eleven like right wing Hollywood guy who is just like in nine Ele- I used to be a liberal but nine eleven changed everything and now we have to wage war on Islam, which does. Mirror. Dershowitz views to uncanny degree but Dershowitz is interviewed in his driveway in cut off jeans and converse high tops just hooping by himself. He's doing the dribble, but he's doing the style where like instead of dribbling between your legs do a crossover. He dribbles Tina's legs by lifting up one leg to pass the ball under it and just sort of like you know do fake pull out jump shots and stuff like that bouncing around in his driveway just that. I think I think it is the one that early kind of establishes the theory of you're making about the counter reading because the very first image we get of him is playing basketball by himself couldn't get a friend to post up against just playing horses one man trying to dribble between his legs. I I had a different reading that scene and the I at first I thought that like they're making fun of this character by saying he has no friends but I thought the other reading of it is who does he talk to rate after he's done making his and one mix tape against himself? Son That means his son was in the house. cicilline is later shown to also best balls much as Allen at least. And that means that there was a conscious choice by Alan to be like, no I'm not playing with my son I'm hoping. Which shows him to be the bad doors even love Solo outdoor summer even weirder even weirder with your college and being like, Hey dad, you wanNA play a quick game Tony won no are okay. What you doing the ball I'm playing. No you're doing. Man and also is that was early on in the film that like the the other case that she's working on Pro Bono. The case of these two, these two like black kids in Alabama, her on death row because they help break their father out of prison and in the Commission of their dad killed someone and then they were convicted of that same murder and they're facing the electric chair in Alabama and it's just was you know he's this crusading Harvard professor who's taking on their their appeal pro bono and is like that. That's what. He's really working in dedicated on in the titles in the movie they do let you know that those two people were still on death row at least as far as when the movie was released and Klaus Von Bulow of course was walking around the upper east side doing whatever the fuck it is that he costs buelow died like very recently like he died in ninety two again, we're losing too many people. And then he gets a call and like his sons like Oh this guy says, he's Klaus von Bulow and he's like no I don't want to say it's probably the media or whatever, and he gets on the phone. He's like Oh in is Klaus von Bulow and classes like, Hey, like I want you to come to New York and I want you to consider taking on my case. So durst travels to the upper east side. And you know walks into to Bulos like amazing. Fifth Avenue Apartment and one of the first things Jeremy Irons says to him is he says. You know I I. I just would like to let you know that I've always loved and respected the integrity of the Jewish people. That is what both of you say to me before. And you know like I obviously you know this case was already very highly publicized and like his name was synonymous with wife-killer like an obviously guilty guy who you like the conviction was based around like an insulin needle that was found in a bag he owned and the idea is injected his wife with insulin to cause this coma that she went into that. Basically, you know put her into a persistent vegetative state and you know so he started breaking it down to a and what what what Dir says von Bulow is like look. I'm not a hired gun like if I take on a case like I'm a professor like I'm not a lawyer like. Putting out my shingle here if I if I take on a case, it's because I need a strong moral reason I need to like you in some way and I think like I read this is like his strong moral reason is looks like, Oh, here's another guy killed his wife. I mean like I said I feel you brother joked about it before the show but Google Alan Dershowitz his first wife it is a very much its own reversal of fortune story about like maybe maybe not I don't know like I mean she did kill herself and then like he made it very impossible to find out anything about her or look into that and of course, his first marriage. Is Not mentioned even once in this movie or it is obliquely later in a way that is I think the most telling point in the movie but like the fact is that like the movie doesn't mention it, all Alan Dershowitz is tragic first marriage and he's just like, Oh, I, need a strong compelling reason to defend your take on your appeal Mr von Bulow, and then it's just like well. He's a guy. He's a was guy accused of killing his wife basically. Beginning beginning to add up in my mind another another interesting facet of the movie they were watching it when we were watching it is like it takes place in the eighties and like the motivation here is that on his own. Klaus von. Bulow is worth about a million dollars, but his wife Sunny and her family is worth fourteen, million dollars. So we're talking about someone who's worth fourteen million dollars and the fucking like the wealth and splendour that they live in was like kind of inconceivable to me for that amount of money like like the the mansion in Newport, the sailboats, the apartment on the upper east side, the other. House in fucking Westchester like I was just like, wow, this is what being a millionaire in the eighties was like and we were talking about this was sort of like a pre billionaire era in America of like the way of what wealth was and what wealth could get you mad pointed out. There were very few billionaires in the country at this time there was the hunts the bay the masses. Rockefeller descendants Henry Kravis, a curly ECON, other sorted corporators, but it wasn't no like people just didn't have that back. Then the flip side of that though as we saw, the movie was the activities that the von Bulow family did were awful. We have a way higher standard of living than. In Their twenty thousand square foot mansion. They would watch Robinson crusoe on a twelve inch. TV Cold Room. There was no point of being a millionaire really until about I'd say nine, hundred, ninety nine, and you know what? The lack of heating in there. fucking mansion becomes a crucial part of this of this murder stories well. How fucking cold that is in sunglasses bedroom an integral part of whether this was a suicide and accident or murder. We'll say that's not an easy thing. That's a cultural thing I one of my friends Minnesota. They're very wealthy wasps and their house was so cold that they would just. Keep Butter. On the kitchen counter. It's just as good as keeping the refrigerator and I was like what the you just leave butter out. He's like, yeah what is your house so hot that you can't leave butter up Your supposedly outfield. So you're not. buttering. Thing if you. The butter dish and you it's because you leave butter out because. It's In. The Fridge you can't fuck I don't want to read cold butter on A. Zip Yeah. That seems insane. I think you're wrong. Well. Through having our, we're having our own version of the culture clash between Jesse. Gentle. William von Bulow. Yeah you can't handle butter one way or the other what differences you Wretched stomach had a butter. Butter inclusive lunch. I'm GonNa Watch you drink a milkshake and see what happens. I think I. would have a good time that sort of thing would happen. And so they said the movie does sort of play up this kind of. I wouldn't say unlikely friendship between these two guys. But like you know, I think they are like somewhat boys by the end of the movie. But like, yeah, this culture clash between. The sort of the the wild haired liberal crusading a Jewish attorney played by Dershowitz and and Klaus von Bulow. WHO's like a fucking a fucking alien who comes from like just like a world that is just like so different than not just like jewish-american life. But like Americans in general like the world to fucking like wealth and gentility, he comes from and also in one of their first or second meetings, it also becomes clear. That while he was living in London. Klaus von Bulow was rumored to have murdered his own mother and aunt. Let's it. He's like, yes there were rumors that I killed my aunt. Only. By name in German means woman killer. Fi Yeah you've got me. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. On woman murderer of the year in one thousand nine, hundred, seventy three. Yeah if you really. WanNa. Fuck and know and also rumors that he's a NECROPHILIAC as well. I mean a cold fish this guy really strange and like again I I have to I have to stress how fucking uncanny Jeremy Irons is in this role, like he pushes the Jeremy Irons things like as far as it can fucking go if he's like his his icy sort of like perverted like there's just like undercurrent is like I said something very. Both refined but also completely perverse him. He has these little lines where he says to like Alan. Captains of our own souls then like he's like just just smoking and like the. Smoking. Cigarettes, which also becomes a big part of his motivation will explain that later in the movie but so like it because her Dershowitz. This dilemma like. Here's a juicy case. But like is there anything here? Should I stick my reputation on this and he's talking to his son And he says. He says you know. It reminds me of my Hitler dream. Were like okay. What What's the Hitler dream and he goes? Yeah. Hitler. He comes in my often he's office and he says, you know I need a lawyer and I have to think to myself to take the case or do I kill him, and then like he's just like, yeah, I would take the case and then I would kill them but like you know the This is what he's looking for a year. You know like this is the terms in which he's thinking of class one build, but also very telling about his own his own psyche. So then like so e e agreed to take the case and then he begins assembling his team of of law students about how they're gonna how they're going to go. After this appeal you know like like you know like the project is what we're going to do, and then there's a scene where we're one of them one of his law students played by Felicity Huffman. In the room just sort of like stands up in protests and she's like you know what I think. This is bullshit like this guy's guilty. He's like a rich guy like like, why are you helping this rich guy like he's been tried he's been convicted like why? Like you know we're supposed to be like crusading legal advocates for the underprivileged and and And you know not people like Klaus von Bulow who are like rich perverts who have murdered their wife and probably also their mother aunts in Christ, knows who else and esp if you add the whole family and let's just the whole Nazi collaborator angle like she's just like look this is gross and I don't want to be a part of it. And then, Ron Playing Dershowitz. Gives her you know he fucking. Shit. And he's just like you know maybe this isn't just as simple as your your personal bullshit moral conundrum like I got on this case because I'm pissed off I'm pissed off because the family hired brought in a private prosecutor in private investigators unacceptable unacceptable and if we let them get away with this then like the rich in the future, the rich are going to be completely exempt from the law and order, and they're just going to have their own prosecutors and they're going to decide what evidence they give over to their state. Again, here, very interesting very interesting in wretched like watching this film in Two Thousand Twenty thinking about Alan Dershowitz, and then of course, you know he completely windsor over and. He says, and then he also he also makes a big point about like like the system. Well, I'm a lawyer and like Wi fi four like the system is for the one innocent person out there whose wrongfully accused and then he goes into this whole thing of being like, okay. You know imagine you get divorced tomorrow and then like and then you're accused of molesting your son and happens all the time he happens all the. Everyone's looking at even the mailman will look at you everyone flees from you everyone thinks you're guilty. You're lawyer is the one person you have in your corner when you're falsely accused of molesting your son in a divorce proceeding, he just says it happens all the time very interesting. The first dozen many interesting scenes. Happens all the time. That was a big one. Private bring in a private lawyer, a private prosecutor also interesting when you know about the legal warfare between David Boies, how do I pronounce that name? Okay it's like John Boys, John. David. And Allen Concerning the Epstein case just imagine you're just you're just a kid from Brooklyn. You're just a kid from coney island you're a manager. You're just you're nobody and then out of nowhere everyone against you I'm the one guy who's going to help you and your appeal. Imagine you're just a simple man who lives in palm, beach going on and then. Like As they begin to look into the case becomes more and more clear that Sunny von Bulow played by Glenn close was also a true piece of work. who was you know just she would take something she would smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and pop something like thirty aspirin time or like. She just popping aspirin and pills of every kind all day long and she describes her daily routine, which is like a get up at nine like have a light breakfast go shopping, and then be back in bed by three of which will she'll stay in bed for the rest of the day eating chocolates and smoking cigarettes even though she was hypoglycemic. Like. All of these other things that were like point that like this woman could have dropped at any fucking woman regardless of what her husband did or didn't do. Very Unwell Person I. Okay. I had you're reading on Sunny von Bulow that she's a real piece of work before I saw the scene with TV and then when I saw their Shitty TV and the only other thing they can do for fun is like yeah, read a book on Land Surveying practices the hundreds it's like, why wouldn't you just try to kill yourself with candy and barbituates? She's right. Yeah no and like Oh yeah there's also she twenty four laxatives a day as well and and wouldn't let anyone in her bathroom which, of course, we're lady love to shit what let's what they found her body. She probably Pinson alot he probably left really thin elegant loafs. That's what they teach you and European paper like calligraphy. Little Cigarillos. So yeah like know but as it goes on, you know like Dershowitz gets more and more involved in the case in he keeps telling clouds over and over again don't tell me your story like I don't WanNa hear your side of the story. That's the worst thing a client can do for a defense attorney because the more you tell me like the more I'm constricted to defense that I can make on your behalf. So the tell me. The bare minimum I don't WanNa hear your side of the events because then I'm locked into into defense that I might not be confident about. But as it goes on, he begins to sort of convince himself that like I actually do think he's innocent and I do think he may be was framed or set up by his stepchildren and there're prosecutor and private investigator they were looking for a way to get rid of him and not vice versa. And then it becomes this thing about like. You know how can I stake my reputation on this man that I don't understand or that have questions about in some way and you his whole thing like he's saying like you know my clients are the people I care about with again. OJ Simpson. Jeffrey Epstein. These are these are his friends. You know like you said, I take a case when I get pissed off and that's I guess that's why he took. Jeffrey Epstein's case is because this is a guy care about and I'm pissed off that he's being railroaded by. Overzealous Prosecution. Yeah. The politically power lobby of thirteen year olds is coming for this man and then. Also, what's her name? Annabelle. She also is in this movie and she plays like one of his former students own attorney and they've had a prior romantic relationship and he brings her on board the team and she's like I want this to be strictly professional allen that part of the movie probably pissed me off than anything else if I. If I, fully believe on Beulah was guilty and they. Bought us out of it it would be less enervating then Alan Dershowitz dating Annabel's Yorio. Legislation. One. Of the hottest actresses ever and just like really highlights. You're talking to fricken Totti's. She sees a guy with like clown hair who's like I I didn't kill my wife. She's like I got. dammit. I still love you. Like that angered me deeply Yeah. there. There's a scene where they have an argument over over a legal issue or a question of strategy in the case, and he's a braiding her banging the drum he's like. I know this brady violation, but we can't argue it on a technicality la La, and then she just goes. Allen, you always have to have the last word. Don't you again though so it's like, Yup. That's Allen. He needs to have the last word. That's why he's still on TV every fucking night instead of just I don't know going away or shutting the fuck up. He's still on Hannity every night going like I've never not worn a bathing suit when I was little Saint James. There's literally just it's like a segment in Tucker show. Now it's like Jon Stewart the moment. All right last ten minutes to show you know what that means and then there's just a side swipe at Dershowitz Schwarz's already talking and he's like and there's another thing if somebody if somebody's wearing. Thinking nail paint it's not like they're hand is touching you Virginia Geoffrey. You will you pay nails? It's like Andy Rooney on sixty minutes. And now, Alan Dershowitz and it's like Allen's quarter is like. Grinding my gears for. Les Wexner. Looking to that guy. David that the day that. They picked Kamala as jobs writing mate, and like they're like, literally a hundred thousand posts about it like four against by Maga- people by Biden people by people and then just like the. The heat waves in the background of the Universe Ellen Dershowitz, who is in the middle of a forty tweet long thread where he's like I shell I, Challenge Les Wexner to prove that I've ever kissed anyone but my wife. And like thank you Allen. That was awesome. So A. Cool aspect of this movie as like a lot of unfolds in flashbacks as Klaus and other people tell their their their version of the events leading up to like I said. The. The one near death experiences sunny, and then the second fatal one both involving her just like fucking like her body like curled up in her bathroom after like. Twelve hours of being ignored by Klaus and being told, no, we need to get her a doctor and they're like why not he said Sonny detested doctors and then there is one of the because they both both these events happened owner around Christmas and he was just like sunny always love, Christmas, who is the most important part because she loved giving more than anything and she didn't usually drink. But on these occasions, she got fucking south off thirteen glasses of Eggnog Someone who is someone who normally doesn't drink and is hypoglycemic, and then she like you know they, they help her like stagger into the bedroom is just like I I can walk on my own touch me give me a scotch and water and fifteen aspirin the today. and. Then of course, cloud does it for her and her she's just like well, if he was in this state like, why did you get her another drink and he just goes thing you have to understand about sunny is that she always got what she wanted. And then like what you really, it's just like there's the tensions in their relationship between Klaus and sunny about clauses, basically open infidelities with the daughter of one of their friends. Who like a much younger soap opera? Who's WHO's been openly carrying on an affair with for a while? And then like he broke things off with her and then like prior to the the final fatal incident, she had a delivered returned to him all the love letters that he wrote her to their house but not addressed to him. So that sunny found them and them all and you know like even knowing about the affair is one thing but like you know reading about it is another but then like the real source of tension and and the bizarre one. Is that it's revealed that like Klaus kept pushing to get a job like that's all he wanted was to go back into the key he'd worked for Getty Jump Getty in London, and he wanted to get back into the oil business as a lawyer which should involve spending some time away from the house, and then she's just like she doesn't understand why she's like you don't need to work. This is just your ego. Your fragile masculinity can't handle it. You know, why do you need why do you need a job like you WanNa leave me or like all this very protective she's very. AFRAID OF HIM Seeking employment or like having a career or doing anything you know like as European nobility and the thing we could like read into this is that essentially All Klaus von Bulow wanted was a different room to smoke cigarettes in every day and not do anything because this is what he does in. The whole movie is just he's smoking cigarettes in different rooms he's walking he's bringing. He's bringing pills and fucking ice cream Sundaes the sunny like while she's in bed all day and smoking cigarettes. That's what He. Does and I think like yeah. This is what being a rich person was like until about nineteen ninety nine you just wanted another place to go to smoke cigarettes and look out a window and that's what having a job is if you're like from royalty or like old European ability that'd be funny if he'd been like I to manage a pop is Yeah I Yeah, really until ninety nine. That DVD's in base jumping and all that and rich people got into that snow Yeah. That was all you could do. You just smoke cigarettes in a room with other like former. Habsburg princes or whatever, and do legal busy work and talk on a rotary phone I had a lot of sympathy for the von Bulow character. Perhaps, he was a product of his own environment and that's why he got into wife killing. You can only smoke so many Benson and hedges so many rooms. And there's also these moments were like he he very much toys with and likes his celebrity. Even if it's a negative celebrity about being a fucking wife murderer like the first meeting, he has dershowitz he like he takes him to lunch at DELMONICO's and explains that you know I've always had a table here but I've never had this table like the right at the front like one of the best tables in the house and he's like ever since this pleasantness I always get sat here because now I'm a celebrity and he said in Europe it's all. About, class but in America, it's about celebrity and like his his his notoriety notorious nece is his celebrity. It's it's getting his ticket punched in America, in a way that even his wealth and title and class doesn't really mean shit in this country. But as soon as he started getting his name in the press as like the wife killer, he's getting seated at the best tables and he has this certain cachet and he has this perverse way of joking about it and playing with it like there's a scene where they all go out to this Chinese restaurant. Bulow is like meets with Dershowitz in his full team like his whole team of legal students and investigators and lawyers who are working on the case for the first time, and they all sit down to dinner and as an icebreaker. Klaus, goes. What do you get the wife? Who has everything? A shot of insulin. And they're all just like. Oh. Okay. All? Right. Just just a disability humour is this just some late humor to spice things up here Ever, do exciting announcement since killing my wife, I've gotten a lot of exciting opportunities. I'm now a writer for Beau Jack Horsemen to could hurt. Very humbled. I'm notice a lot of people have been retweeting my old tweets from twenty twelve where I say I can't wait to kill my wife these. This was the comedy of the day but I've learned in grown. Also I did a thing I killed a new wife. And also like so like, yeah, he has the mistress, the daughter of their friend, and then he breaks things up with her, and then by the time Dershowitz comes to his apartment he has he has a new paramore played by Christine Brodsky. WHO's like this ridiculous fucking stereotype of an upper east side wasps and she's just like I've met sunny after the trial and he's just it's been a whirlwind romance and I've dedicated myself to his legal defense and I'm the one who said I told him immediately higher the Ju-. Get the Jew from Harvard Klaus. But. Yeah like like so just goes on. The more the more Dershowitz, like he he like he more he stakes on this case. While he's doing the case, there are scenes of him like being on the phone with like the the death row inmates that were he was originally like dedicating his life do that again. I. Don't know whether moves implying like based on what it seems like. He seems like he's almost completely forgotten about them except when they call him the like please I don't WanNa die and he's like listen you're not GonNa die we'll take supreme court by the way. What do we have on the insulin? Do you run the tests on those needles? Dershowitz is shown to just be working by himself on those two kids case whereas when it comes to von Bulow, he has twenty people living in his house working around the clock on it. The only thing he does for the kids is like there's on the phone call him and he's like, don't cry. He says. So he says when he's on the phone at one point, he says like he's like he's Like this'll be a lot easier for me if you don't cry. It's like, yeah usually a week away from the electric chair or something but he's like, of course, you know Von bulows legal fees are, of course, all all paying for his his very noble pro bono work. So like healing realizes like he's taking more and more of his professional reputation and life on for some reason believing Klaus von Bulow even though he knows even the famous line in the movie he's like it's hard to trust someone you don't understand. You're a very strange man Mr von Bulow, and as he's getting into his Rolls Royce he just sort of like peers out from her the window and goes you have no idea. It's very hot to trust someone you don't understand. Very. Strange man. You'll have no idea. And it just like I said like the movie is is is always playing with this this this sense of moral ambiguity in on both the characters and the audience is that and it doesn't really. Provide for you like a big like shh. Shh courtroom moment where like you know on the witness stand or like you know like they triumph for like the smoking gun that shows that this was all a setup he really was innocent. But like in the case like it does show that the original the original conviction of him. Of similar to the Oj case, like you know regardless of innocence or guilt was very improperly handled to the point of like maybe even corruption. Okay. So let's get to what I think is is the most fucking like jaw-dropping like is out of your head moment in this movie. That looking back on it is again, pretty fucking. Pretty fucking tight. There's a scene where. Like Alan is is, is he sort of like he's feeling down? He feels like they're probably GONNA lose the case and he's just sort of bent over and he's like, I don't know what to do and he's talking to. The the Rhode Island, Council that they've hired like have standing in front of the Rhode Island Supreme Court and he says to him. You know why? Everyone's so fascinated with this case you know what's really going on here. It's because deep down inside. Every single man. has fantasized about killing their wife just like Klaus. Every single man has thought of a way that they could kill the when they wanted to kill their wife and thought who way they could get away with it, and that's why. Everyone. ME. is so invested in this case. and. SORTA similar like when he told when he tells the law student like imagine your your husband divorces you and accuses you of molesting your son and happens all the time in the same thing with this is like, yeah literally, every single man has tried to concoct a scenario where they could surreptitiously kill their wife and make it look like a she fell into a coma or died of natural causes. Okay. That's The thing is not just the kind of what they wanNA kill their wife. It's like no, they have pace the number of yards it's GonNa, take them to have to like walk in turn around. So they can plausibly have an alibi or whatever the hell. That's the whole different thing and that as a crime of passion but something you spend years thinking about waiting for the perfect opportunity to do so which. kind of seems like Klaus von Bulow did with these two different fucking Komo's that his wife fell into and like knowing or all of her medical conditions and like you know. And then I guess at the movie eventually implies is that it's like it's very likely that Sunny von Bulow tried to kill herself, and that's what did her end but it is also equally likely that clouds knew that and had an opportunity to save her or call the an ambulance or essentially like allowed her to kill herself or put her in a situation in which that was an inevitable outcome and that he he all he would have to do with simply look the other way for her to die like that's essentially the the case that the movie mix. Another great line. Allen says about this case about Klaus von Bulow is like well, you know everyone was like, well, you know he's a he why did he act so guilty after the second coma and Allen says. Any man would feel guilty if their wife was suicidal. Google Alan Dershowitz his first wife on that one folks any man would feel guilty if other people thought is wife was suicidal. So basically you know they make they make their appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court and they persevere the case is overturned and it is later revealed that the the notes that the private prosecutor took regarding what they gave to the prosecution vastly different from the story that was told in court about nobody like the issue of the insulin needle was concocted after the. Fact or it was not mentioned or discovered in their initial investigation of it was sort of like after the fact, legal justification that was given premade to the prosecution despite evidence essentially being manufactured or like a chain of custody or WHO's insulin needle it was or how and why it was found was tainted and like I said, he was acquitted in his second trial So they win and there's a scene where Dershowitz his back in back in class teaching and he goes they're. Giving his little homespun legal stuff and he goes. They. Call it the death penalty, but it is not a penalty you are out of the game and then he goes listen the the law is cudgel. It's not a rapier I am not a rape. Watson. Pick that. Soared Allen. There's you know there's an EPI cutlass broad sword. Yeah. No. SCALPELS scalpels he goes yeah. Good scope will be perfectly law is not a rapier. I just imagine Alan Dershowitz going on Tucker like I just wanted to be clear I'm not a rapier in. The law is not a wife Kilyos. What's ahead Alan Odom Roman? And then you know so so he wins essentially and. The fortunes of cross on bulow are reverse e gets away with baby killing his wife or maybe he wasn't innocent man that would have been sent to jail for thirty years of not having killed his wife. But you know they the last moment that they talk together like you know Jeremy Irons was like this right news Allen Great News and just next I may maybe we can get lunch and just be granted I would love to talk to you. I would love to play Radel with you. And you know before he gets on his like you know the private elevator to leave his. House and he turns job and he says, you know Klaus one thing he's like you know this was legally this wasn't important victory. Marley. We're on Euro. And that's kind of like the final statement of the film in its ambiguity about you know the role of a lawyer, the role of Dershowitz and like how we're supposed to feel about Klaus von Bulow is that like maybe like on the surface like a lawyer like it it did have merit and he was right to get off. But like morally were all on her own like truly like the only the only real law is what we can live with ourselves and if we get away with it, you know so you'll he says morally Klaus you're on your own but. Also. Kind of a reflection on Alan Dershowitz himself morally you're on your own. Well that morally on your own was interesting. Because he was basically saying like I'm not going to hang out with you after this cases. Yeah. because. The legal reading is but I know what morally like you fucked up. So what was different about Jeffrey Epstein Yeah Alad Hung Out with him a lot. All the time they would be in each other's top eight on my space. There on the interlink and those those twitter I mean, honestly difference this is like we'll one. Epstein had a fuck load more money than Klaus von Bulow, or any of his family's ever did close been awesome like pro level killing your wife but you don't get Lebron money for that sport. But, also, like I've seen was a guy who was like you know a Jewish kid from Brooklyn. Didn't. He wore sweatsuits everywhere like you would. He dressed like a bum in like. Also Never. Graduated College and Shit our no. Maybe it was easier to hang out with Epstein than it was at bulow because. Like, like Alan says bulow like you know it's it's hard to trust someone that you don't understand well, and I think you I think he did understand Jeffrey very well. Okay. So that's why. Yeah. That's why like Bohemian Grove is so beautiful. When the Clinton should be lauded for their international child sacrificing because usually. When people sacrifice children, Tamala, and fuck them and all these ceremonies they just stick to their own race like. Epstein, he's doing Dershowitz allegedly The UK parliament they're are only doing it with each other with only other Anglos I assume it's that way in every other country culture but Bohemian Grove brings in people from all around the world to do it, and that is the message of this movie that if you're going to sacrifice children and kill your wife, you should do it should be with progressive stack should be with everyone and that's how. Overcome all our differences and that is we need to we need to let the hoi of the the meritocratic strivers of the of the ethnic groups. be intermingled with. Our. Our. Wasp. Traditional ruling class so that the system strengthened itself over time rather than become imbredded and brittle. And Lake again like the. About his relation to Epstein it's like Yeah. All these people are like, yeah. Klaus. Von Bulow fucking Weirdo like dude like yeah. Like I guess I'll take I guess you know yeah I'll work on his case but the I don't WanNa to hang out with them but then you think about like all these people that were like one over by Epstein like whether like. was he any less fucking insane and bazaar or like the rumors? Pussy. Seen like von Bulow is just like a weird European vampire you should yeah. One of those people you mean real life who's like was Your Dad Dracula? What the Fuck Dude. was just like a dumb ass and that y'all relatable like he just yeah like a, it's a really dumb guy thing to do to be like, I'm going to get the best scientists and you get like Steven pinker. Yes, be you get all the best scientists you're like y'all can I would if I made a clone of myself and he became a police officer. He was a fucking dolt that's the coolest thing about this whole thing is that obscene was just like? I guess you would say clever but like. Intellectually just very dull and the lake. I we were actually talking about this after the movie how you Matt pointed out there only like four billionaires in America during the Eighties Epstein thing the shows clever. Intellectual. Saying, in the eighties that he only manage the money, a billionaires which limited him to like seven client. Yeah. No. Interesting tell it interesting del If you're considering, getting into these sport of wife Killing Definitely Watch this movie. I like this at the very end where Klaus von. is going he he he's like Oh, I'm going to move to London because they have more favorable laws for wife killing but. He goes he goes to dangle and he's on the front page of oppose being sold at the at the data and he's like good I have two taxes did pedophile menthols or whatever dracula's smoke and ones like, yeah, you go and he goes oh and. Could I have a needle of insulin? Yes she looks at him like what the fuck any gestures to the picture of himself on the front page of the post and she's like. He's like just kidding he killed my wife buys. His. His his intensely unsettling. In lip smile and nod of the head to this like this clerk lady who's just like what what? Do you packs of Benson and hedges and a shot of insulin. And he's just like Yep that's me on the paper. But I I do have to say i. wish they still made movies like this they don't make movies like this or Michael They don't make like mid tier or even high my glade legal thrillers that are like a medium budget anymore it sucks man it's ass. Like the only movies we get our like a movie about a comedian where like I don't know you fuck in his wife s imposter syndrome or marvel movies. There should be just make a movie about allender like make a Alexander Payne movie about Alan Dershowitz now, and the other thing I was talking about is like you know like all of these scenarios that that Dershowitz in the movie sketches out about how you know our legal system is for the one innocent person who everyone else's has decided is like the most evil scum imaginable and they've been abandoned by their friends family, the public the media they've been ostracized, and if you're innocent person or even if you're not in that situation, like our legal system is such that like everybody deserves it offense in and like your lawyer. Is the only person who will truly be in your corner in that situation. And I was just thinking that in later those like articles that came out like a year ago. That wasn't even about Dershowitz disconnection to Epstein. They were just about his relentless shilling, Donald Trump and the peach case and his like going on Fox News all the time to like make some spurious legal argument in Defensive Donald Trump, and it was just all about how he was like a profile like highly featured about him about how no one is friends with him in Martha's vineyard anymore. And I was wondering like W- we're like were they fringed you like they knew about all this fucking like Epstein Shit Dude and apparently he was like a notorious horn dog on Martha's vineyard to and like would walk around the beach with a Kubota out like all the time. You didn't ever. Read. Yeah look. Was Martha's Vineyard for me Let me see I was seventy eight years old. My name is Alan Dershowitz five four were a bathrobe at all times and had the worst head Oh instead of a mouth. Both my parents are Jeffrey Epstein, Long Story? God just did a hard on. That's pretty impressive. Is Age because he blue customer I don't know but like I. Like I said like I films interesting in and of itself I wouldn't really call it a legal thriller. It's it's really more of a procedural with the movie is really about is this kind of state of of moral uncertainty and ambiguity that we all live in like like it comes to foreign trial I can never really be resolved by any case if you like the. More you look at like any case or really investigated like the less sure you are about anything and like you can never really be in England closes narration of the movie is like you know by the end, it's like it's never really one hundred percent totally resolved what happened to her but like in her sort of from beyond the grave narrations, he says like you know. like this is the bad I am in. I will always be in you now know. Like, like all that you ever will know and you never will until you where I am right now and that's kind of like the final statement on it and I thought it isn't it's Very. Interesting procedural like I said that his shot through with these very like. Sly I think slyly subversive and perverse flourishes in its portrayal of these two men, Alan Dershowitz and Klaus von Bulow that I think come from Barbados Schroeder's Sensibility. I think you can sort of draw out of his other other film like is is other over his Canon of work but like also just like Dershowitz is now basically in the position that caused phone bulow was in the eighties like his name is about a shit. Thinks he's. Celebrity. Him. His name is now synonymous with. I'll just be as. Charitable as possible and say, going way way out of his way to defend his friend, the serial pedophile human trafficker. And like you just make it was intimately involved in crafting the plea deal that kept him out of doing any real jail time. The first time he fucking got arrested for this year has there was a very serious legal principle. Solicit. Clients Choose No I yeah. I recommend everyone watch this for the for themselves through the myself today. But then also like about like after von Bulow like his next most famous thing was the fucking Oj case. which is like kind of like maybe even more clear-cut example of helping a rich guy killed his wife. Well. But again, if you, if you look at that actual case, the prosecution did end the cops completely fucked it up, and like you may like, you know you could have made a case like if you're on that jury to acquit based on how badly the fucking like the handle the evidence although the witnesses they use like you know they created that reasonable doubt for what you know. Let's be honest. Here was almost certainly a guilty man. But Alan Dershowitz you know like. The celebrity that came from it like the feeling of of doing the impossible. But again, it always like again standing up for the principle over like you know you're your amidst your immediate moral judgment. It does seem a pattern forming here of finding that important legal principles make a stand on on behalf of guys that kill their wives or sex traffic children or have driven an earlier wife to suicide maybe perhaps allegedly. Do you love and you'll never work a day in your life. Postscript for this movie. There we go. will be back to covering the the INS and outs of politics and upcoming conventions which I think the democratic. Convention can started today. Gentlemen I believe I believe we're GONNA try to do twitch coverage that convention tomorrow or or ongoing yeah. Yes. I think we can go ahead and announce that I will figure out some way to get us all wired in and and watching all those beautiful zooms speeches. And clowning over them. Yes. So hopefully, we'll be a tune in with us tomorrow. At some point we'll be we'll be watching the Democratic convention all week long covering it on twitter Tuesday and Wednesday nine to eleven. The are the Times that we're going in. There we got we got to see cast we got to see Biden We got to see Dr his wife Dr Joe Biden gave her speech wonderful. No John. CASICK will be given a full hot neil for his speech Merrick cited for the man. He's just he's just get out there on the center vittles finally she just get out there and do muck bang stuff on on. Just a whole gigantic chicken sandwich. That's what we want to say from case but look at his face when they brought up that possible I still remember it. So so happy like in that scene in the groundhog day when Bill Murray tries to help the Hobo and he's at the diner and he's passes over his His soup and this is just turn into fucking quarters. We'll be back like I said, covering the convention and originally regularly discussion regularly scheduled breakdown of all. The hijinks in the INS and outs of this presidential election and American politics and culture but until then checkout. Barbara. Schroeder reversal of fortune starred Ron Silver Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close for an interesting film and certainly an eye opening one in light of recent events considering concerning its main character the dirt. Until Next Time Gentlemen bye-bye. Do. Anything else. Yes violence.

Klaus von Bulow Ron Playing Dershowitz Professor Dershowitz Alan Harvard Klaus Allen Sunny von Bulow Jeremy Irons Jeffrey Epstein Fortune attorney von Bulow William von Bulow murder Von Bulow Alan Dershowitz Jeremy Irons America prosecutor London persistent vegetative state
The Impeachment Special

Slate's The Gist

35:21 min | 2 years ago

The Impeachment Special

"Hi, I'm Mike Pesca. We've got a great show for you today, but before we launch into it, here's a word from our first sponsor, support for this podcast and the following message. Come from Google veteran. Mitch Hoyt founded skinny sticks maple syrup and he's showing that veteran Mitch Hoyt founded skinny sticks maple syrup and he's showing that small businesses can do big things, Mitch started making syrup from a few trees in his Wisconsin, backyard, and is now connecting with customers worldwide with help from Google tools skinny sticks is one of the millions of small businesses using Google to grow. Learn how Google is helping businesses in your state at Google dot com slash economic impact. This podcast may have explicit content and also has this implicit request. If you follow me on Twitter, why not follow the gist at slate gist. It's Monday may twenty seventh two thousand nineteen from slate as the gist, I Mike Pesca Monday may twenty seven three thousand nine hundred that is it is. We're living in Memorial Day. And we don't usually put out an episode on such holidays. But today, I'm going to, and it will be throwback episode. I've been thinking a lot, maybe you have to about impeachment, and we have done a lot of discussions about that subject in general that subject, specifically the removal of president, so you'll be hearing to previously are just interviews on the topic of impeaching, Donald Trump is possible. Should it be done, and they're not really that old? The first interview with former congresswoman Liz Holzman aired on December seven twenty eighteen the second with David priests. Aired a few weeks later on January second two thousand nineteen it was our first interview of the year, we sensed all these things coming now because they're old you might. Some references to the Muller report being in the future. It is, of course, in the past, and yet still might dictate our future. So enjoy these two conversations we will be back tomorrow. Of course with an interview about impeachment, but the impeach e in question is Andrew Johnson historian? Brenda wine apple. We'll be talking about mister Johnson. See then? We all put off doing things we know we need to do. I mean, we know we need to organize the garage for the junk drawer. But something always gets in the way getting home security can be like that. You know, it's a good idea. No, whatever, say, no, I don't want to protect my home. But still, you don't protect your home. Enter simply safe home security. Simplisafe believes nothing should come between you and protecting your home. So they've gotten rid of the reasons not to do it. So no contract, no price markups. No installation windows. We'll be there from six AM to mass twenty twenty as I work for you. None of that. The systems engineer to do, one important thing to protect you and your family with SimpliSafe, you're always ready for anything. So get a jump up protecting your home at SimpliSafe dot com slash gist. No time like the present. Right. That's SIM. P. L. I. S A F, E dot com slash gist to protect. Tech your home and family today. With simply safe, SimpliSafe dot com slash gist. The youngest woman ever elected to the house of representatives beating an incumbent from borough of New York, and the democratic primary going on to win office causing a sensation. You'd think you know who I'm talking about. But you don't I'm talking about Elizabeth Holtzman, or as I knew her all those years, growing up, New York, Liz Holzman, she's now, the author of the case for impeaching Trump. She served on the judiciary committee that did just that or recommended the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman joins me. Hello. Thank you. Well, thank you for having me. So I, I'm going to get to impeachment, but I want to ask you a question or two, when you join the house of representatives, how many women were there. I think they were fewer than twenty. Yeah. So were you treated, your member congress? You should be afforded all the rights and status, but were you were there elements of discrimination because you were a woman. Well, I'll tell you when I was. Lobbying not to get on the House Judiciary committee. I wanna be on the committee, even though turned out to be really the right committee to be on. It didn't seem like a plumber assignment at the time evidently not. I went to one of the members of the ways and means committee, who was instrumental in making this election of committee assignments, and he looked at me and he said, now, MS Holtzman, just because you're a woman and a Jew, you don't have anything to worry about it. You want to know something he was right? Just to give you really upset by that comment. But he turned out to be right. Because in the end the seniority system, which was at work allowed me to move up in your system, and I became chair of a subcommittee, on top of that, because of my work on the House Judiciary committee, which during the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, which won the respect of the American people. My colleagues in the house for very grateful. All of us who served on that committee, because we restored, the reputations as Representative. So I got a little extra, I might have deserved it. Got a little extra respect and support in the house. Okay. Let's get onto the impeaching or the case for impeaching Trump. It starts off with an argument against those like Alan. Dershowitz, your former professor, who would say that, while we might find Trump's actions objectionable or immoral. The remedy is not an impeachment remedy. It's if you wanna vote. Vote them out vote them out. Or if you want to oppose his policies. Why do you say Dershowitz is wrong? Dershowitz is wrong for several reasons of framers of the constitution actually had this very debate. Should there be impeachment to remove the president from office? Some people said, we don't need impeachment. We've got elections every four years. What do we need payment? For others came back and said think about the damage a president can do until the election takes place during the four years of office. That was the argument that one the framers understood they needed to deal with a rogue president in office. And then there were serious conversations and debates about what the grounds were for impeachment. The framers trying to walk a fine line. They didn't want the congress to control the president. They wanted a strong president on the other hand, they wanted to be able to preserve democracy, and they knew a president could destroy democracy in many ways. And so they created three grounds from impeachment tree. Season which is defined in the constitution bribery, which is a pretty well, understood term, and then something called high crimes and misdemeanors, high crimes and misdemeanors is very obscure term. Most people have no idea what it means and said to say, professor Dershowitz, doesn't either because a high crime and misdemeanor doesn't talk about a normal crime. It means a crime committed by somebody in political or public off. Right, people, maybe hear that phrase, and say, oh, serious crimes and misdemeanors. But then think about it. Why would the word misdemeanors be put in there if you meant Syria? So high refers to the office, but opens a door, and I know that you, quote professor black, and, and Kasan Stein, does high crimes and misdemeanors in your estimation is the definition of that anything congress wanted to know that's what Gerald Ford said when he was trying to impeach Justice. William Douglas, he's of course. Congress can impeach anybody for any grounds. I mean, I guess congress can do what it wants to do. But if is hearing to the law. And not abusing its powers than it has to adhere to the definition. Well, that's what in a way I'm doing. Dershowitz has worked for him. He does say a president should be only comp- impeached for criminal acts, but that's wrong bodily wrong. But then if he would be impeached for noncriminal action, what is the definition for finishing? But that was that was not accepted that time, and we created a pretty good definition during the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, which one not only respect from all the members of the house of representatives. And from the Senate, there's no question that Nixon resigned, rather than be actually convicted by the Senate removed from office. But the definition was one that people could understand they namely, it's an grievous misuse of the power of the office of president, that threatens the democracy, the rule of law or the civil. Liberties of Americans. That's a I know it's not a precise standard, but it's a pretty strong standard in eliminates spitting on the sidewalk getting a traffic ticket. It focuses on the p- using the powers of the presidency to subvert the constitution to oppress, the people that to create great endangers offenses. The framers did not want to limit themselves to crimes. In fact, there wasn't at the time they voted for the constitution. There wasn't a statute book yet. So how could they have said it's gonna be crimes not to be Donald Trump's defense attorney, because Mr. Giuliani is doing a job. I don't know if it's a job, but, you know, if there was no underlying crime or misdeed, and maybe even if he doesn't perceive to be an underlying crime or misdeed his statements calling it a witch hunt. His perhaps, you could even argue his removal of an FBI director, who seemed unbelieveab- szeswith that many of his actions if they. I don't actually stem from actual misdeeds, I think he would argue are excusable, but you don't think so first of all, I want to go back to the House Judiciary committee, and the president, that we set I wanna make it very clear, the House Judiciary committee, which is the only con the action against Richard Nixon, the only impeachment effort that has withstood the test of time and historical scrutiny. It's now almost fifty years, or about fifty years, half a century because it doesn't and the one against Clinton doesn't. But what we sabotaged as a standard is that it doesn't have to be a crime Richard Nixon was never charged with a crime in the articles of impeachment. I in my book, I had the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, you will not find any reference to a statute. You will not find any reference violation of the criminal law. But you will find is abuse of power, and what you will. Find is grievous misdeeds by the president. So let's. Get away from criminal conduct. We don't need that. What we need is in serious agrees abuse of power by the president. What is this book's relationship with the pending Muller report? I assume pending is it a case of Diana? Oh, it would this alone is good enough even without the on. No, I don't say that. There's a ground from peach them, the only specific around I think that there is now that we don't really need thorough investigation of is the pardon offer. But what investigation would show would be, how many other offers were made at Trump's behalf of pardons to keep people quiet would it be better for our democracy, if he were impeached based on essentially the case, you've made no further smoking guns that Muller, unearth. So basically, the knowledge that we have now, so with that's one set of facts, or for some reason, the votes aren't there something or impeachment, but not conviction happens. And then the president President Trump has roundly defeated at the polls, what would be better for. Mccready best for the democracy is for us thoroughly to examine the abuses the apparent abuses of power and apparent misconduct by the president of the United States. That's what has to be done congress was given under the constitution. The framers put the power of impeachment which they felt was necessary not for years for an election. Not that Dershowitz argument or whoever's making that argument, but that we have to have impeachment who has the power, and who therefore has a responsibility to act. It was given to congress because it's closest to the people. The house of representatives is where it start so tha-. That's what has to happen. Congress has to act here congress has given the responsibility to preserve the democracy. We have a president who seems on the face of it to have abused the power and committed possible impeachable offenses. Congress has to conduct the investigations at the investigations produce the evidence in has to move towards impeachment. I don't know if you think that Ronald Reagan should have been impeached over. Iran contra those articles were drawn up to. But if we look back at every Republican president since Nixon, if you are recommending impeachment to most of them does that call our interpretation of Yukon. I just look the fact of the matter is that congress has been very timid, why they didn't go after Bush. I don't know. I mean, they were people in the house of representatives who participate in decisions about torture. I mean so they could have been a self interest involved. So I, I don't know why congress didn't do it. I think what we have now in the United States is an imperial presidency. That's not what the framers wanted. We tried to correct that in connection with Nixon, when there were actually not only crimes, but egregious abuse of power member. Nixon was also named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate grand jury. They wanted to indict him the Watergate grand jury. We know wanted to indict Richard Nixon crimes that his is as. Were indicted for and the special prosecutor said he couldn't. So the fact that congress didn't act appropriately to hold other presidents in check. It's a sad commentary about congress, but that doesn't mean that we should let this power that congress was given and not just the power. But the responsibility go to waste and and be like an old rusty sword. That's never used it was designed by the framers, there were these poignant debates. Why do we need impeachment? We've got the, you know, the election system. No, they said it's not enough and I want to be fair. I don't want to allege that you are the boy who cried wolf. It might well be the case that there really was a wolf in all those past. Well, I never called for the impeachment of around. Reagan, I never called for the impeachment of George Bush. I mean, I think what we had with regard to forty three. George W Bush was was very serious taking the. To war on base of deception, I was there for the I was in congress. But I lived through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. How many thousands, sixty five thousand Americans died in the Vietnam, war Johnson should have been impeached for that, basically. I think that was a horrific thing and here we have George Bush, basically, the same thing weapons of mass destruction. They knew they were they were fiddling with the evidence and they were manipulating the evidence and they were manipulating the CIA member. Dick Cheney went down to the CIA headquarters. So the fact that you have or haven't cold for the murder prosecution of other murderers doesn't mean that you can't call for the murder prosecution of someone who's committed murder in front of your face. That's a ridiculous argument. The most important thing is congress has a responsibility under the constitution and they can't shirk it now Elizabeth Holtzman, former US congresswoman from Brooklyn, her new book is the case for impeaching Trump. Thank you so much. Thank you. So mornings are hectic, your trying to get out of the house, but still eat correctly. But then things come up. Maybe someone you lived with puts on their sweatpants backwards. Maybe someone else you've lived with has recently transitioned from velcro sneakers to lace sneakers, maybe you don't live with those kind of people, but it's you. But you like to blame it on people. You live with anyway, daily harvest solves all of those hectic nutrition problems. Nothing about the sweatpants. But with daily harvest is, is a bowl of nourishment directly into your body breakfast can be completely transformed when you sign up for daily harvest I'd say before daily harvest became an advertiser on this show. They were a presence in my freezer. The smoothies, which all you have to do is pour some milk, or almond, quote unquote milk or even water into a fill line in a Cup, and then blend them and you got a great smoothie those worked well, and I did not know until the became advertisers, that they offered. So. Much more than smoothies. They offer these carefully sourced chef crafted, savory bowls overnight oats. With daily harvest, but just adding a little milky type product or water of your choice. Go to Delhi harvest dot com and enter promo code gist tree, get three cups free in your first box. That's promo code just for three free daily harvest cops at daily dash harvest dot com. Daily dash harvest dot com. I do. So love my cats. Let me tell you a little bit about them. Oliver. He he's definitely going to be the one to protect us from the squirrel outside when the squirrel shows up near a window that guy, he's got his hackles raised and he's ready to fight. Thank you, Oliver downside when he's hungry. He'll jump on your face Layla on the other hand, she's great with the licking of the face. Lots of looking at the face. That's both a good thing in a bad thing. Yeah. Looks both ways. But there is one thing about the cats. I don't love so much. It's the litter box, which is why arm and hammer created new cloud control litter. There is no cloud of nasties when you scoop it is one hundred percent dust free free of heavy perfumes, and help reduce airborne gander from scooping. So what happens in the litterbox stays in the litterbox, new cloud control cat, litter by arm and hammer. More power to ya. Peanut butter. Well, that's how to get rid of gum in the hair, a tomato juice bath, that is how to get rid of when you get sprayed by a skunk or when you're a golden retriever does, but how to get rid of president. They've tried guns and bombs and flying an airplane into the White House. They actually kind of tried that was thwarted. They've tried impeachment. They've tried freezing. The president out. They've tried denying the president of renomination and everyone's favourite. President loses at the ballot box. A new book called how to get rid of a president is subtitled histories guy to removing unpopular unable or unfit chief executives, the author is David Hello. David. How are you? Hello. How are you, so, which president would be tomato juice bath? Who would that apply to, you know let's go with one of the lesser known ones. Got no one will be able to call us out. Let's say Franklin Pierce. That's his thing. So I loved the parts about Tyler and Taylor. And this is just. A strong legislative branch. And you know, even earlier even maybe Monroe, a strong legislative branch. Just denies the guy is agency. But with the presidency becoming more powerful is that even possible anymore. It is possible. There's no reason that we can't revert back to the article one legislature doing its job. And it's been an aberration for a while. We have the imperial presidency and all of these powers, both being taken by and being green to, to the executive branch but there's no reason it has to be that way. In fact, some people thought with the election of two thousand sixteen that we would institutionally see that happening. Hasn't worked out, but nothing stopping it. What about the Andrew Johnson lesson is that so far away as to be inapplicable to today? Yeah. The, the backstory on Andrew Johnson quickly was that he came into office when ABRAHAM LINCOLN was shot and killed. But he was from a different party, and he was generally an asset. He didn't treat people well even his own friends. Call Joe faces, but you the technical term was asset. We we'd have to find the primary sources, but I believe that's the connotation, and he definitely didn't get along with anybody, including people, he needed to get on his own side, people who are inclined to believe in him. Still he alienated them. So he ended up becoming the first impeached president because he just couldn't seem to get along with anybody. Now that was a case. Yes of congress exerting itself. I mean, they they impeached him they came Dame close to removing him, but it was also a case of institutional restraint, because the Republicans had a two thirds majority in the Senate, which is enough, according to the constitution to remove a president who has been impeached, and they still didn't do it, because they thought that they could do, just as well, if he was in office for a few more months, and then they get their own guy in is the failed conviction, so impeachment failed conviction did that in any way change the conception of the threshold to impeach president. And what I specifically mean is there was no underlying crime? There were misdeeds and he was terrible. President and hated. But, you know, it's kind of vague in the constitution as to the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. So did this change anyone's mind about the threshold for impeachment? You know, it didn't seem to iphone some of the contemporary accounts that talked about why some of the representatives and senators later regretted their votes one way or another, but almost always they regretted in terms of impeaching him. And then voting to convict, but it didn't seem to change the national conversation about impeachment. It was still seen that the impeachment by the house of representatives itself was a stern rebuke, and it was thought that very impeachment led to a change in the behavior of Andrew Johnson. He was a little bit less of a jerk after this. It seemed like this was his wakeup call, not to mention that he made some promises about things he would do better in order to avoid conviction, and removal, but it didn't seem to change the notion of impeachment itself as a rebuke that came much later with Bill Clinton's impeachment. You know you. Mentioned there in that answer that the impeachment itself, I think, with President Clinton, it was seen as a failed process that there was an impeachment in no conviction. And you know what a what a what a shame that was. And what on the face? Congress had, and it would just be seen as I guess, an indictment no conviction in the prosecutor would get embarrassed. But back then it wasn't seeing that way. It seemed to have worked, and also the founding fathers. I guess there's some evidence that were that process to play out, even the founding fathers would say, well, that's fine. That's what we had intended. Absolutely impeachment doesn't seem to have been intended as only worth it. If you get a conviction, the idea was the impeachment itself is a slap across the face. Bill clinton. Politically was a master of this, which is he found that he could use the impeachment as a rallying point his popularity ratings rose during his impeachment and his trial in the Senate, such that he had higher popularity rating at the end than he did at the beginning of that process. So where does that leave us in the modern sense? Everyone who has a memory of that including some senators who are still on Capitol Hill. Now, they have the memory of if you bring impeachment and you fail to convict. It is a political loss and you look foolish. Okay. That changes the dynamic even in the house of representatives to bring impeachment. There's no doubt in impeachment. Resolution could pass on January fourth. I, I think the votes would be there. If people were voting what they thought should happen with this president. But that's probably why the house leadership ain't going to bring it up on the house floor because they see they also have to have the goods to deliver for a conviction in the Senate. Okay. But how much is Bill Clinton, actually, how much does he actually fit in with the thesis, because the book is removing unpopular unable or unfit chief executives, he was none of those things. This was an attempt to remove someone who was popular and got a lot more popular and certainly able and fit. Right. I tell you, he was not unpopular. If you go based on polls, he was not unable to do the job. But a majority of the house represent. Gives thought he was unfit for the office within fitness be country with the grand jury fitness then at that point becomes just a self-fulfilling prophecy fitnesses. Once once we decide you're unfit, it becomes true. Well, that's it. I mean, high crimes and misdemeanors, you mentioned aren't well defined in the constitution. But it seems to be that impeachment is a remedy for an unfit president, somebody who is harming the political fabric itself things like committing perjury. Things like abusing power things like obstructing Justice definitely fall into that category, and have been used as articles of impeachment for everybody from Lyndon Johnson. I'm sorry. Andrew Johnson through dick, Nixon through Bill Clinton. That is what impeachment is about now. The fact is the Senate didn't agree that there was worthy removal. Why because of that, that word high and with Bill Clinton? We gotta be careful how we use that where the idea was that the high in high crimes and misdemeanors has to do with, whether it affects matters of state, and they said, yes. Bill Clinton committed perjury. Yes. Bill Clinton obstr-. The Justice, but he was doing it to cover up a personal affair. He wasn't doing it. In order to exploit the government for his own pocket book or to actually destroy the government in some way. So that's I think how senators came down on it and said, yes, the things he did were porn, personally. He shouldn't have done it. But you don't remove a president for doing those things when it's about a personal issue. Okay. And that is why they're in the last week. There was a question or a debate question or they'd throw a hypothetical to, you know, a newsman with a hypothetical to a pundit, you think this what we know about. Donald Trump paying off a porn star to, to subvert campaign finance laws. You know, is that alone impeachable? And then the debate if you want to say, yes, you would talk about the threat to democracy and how it also there was the attendant blind eye to any Russian interference that went along with it. And if you want to say, no, you would analogize it too. To Bill Clinton, maybe John Edwards. But since Clint was president, you'd find enough overlap. Oh, it's about the embarrassment of an affair. Now, I don't think it's even worth getting into the hypothetical because I think a lot of other things are going to come out so that we won't be asking ourselves. Oh, is this. F E C violation, sufficient to impeach the president. But what do you think of that question? Right. It really goes back to a line that I found from Gerald Ford before he was president, he was involved in the house representatives with impeachment of a judge. And he said, you know, high crimes and misdemeanors. And therefore impeachment is whatever the house of representatives decides it is, and that is, it's left up to each individual member to decide does this rise to that threshold while I gotta tell you, there's a difference between lying about a personal affair because you're embarrassed if it gets out and lying about an affair by paying money when it comes to an election campaign, trying to silence someone during the election Cam. Pain for the purpose of getting elected that changes things a bit doesn't it? I mean that, that's a different dynamic for why you're doing it then. Oh, I'd be embarrassed, if somebody finds that I like women who aren't my wife. Well, there was plenty of proof of that. And Donald Trump does not appear to be ashamed by any of that side of it, it appears to have been linked to the campaign at self so that, that is something that some people on the hill could interpret. But that's only one thing, and there are several other things that sure looked like the kinds of things the founders were talking about in terms of corruption getting into office, or in terms of abusing the power of the office to protect oneself against criminal investigations. Those are the things that honestly I'm interested in two things going forward. One is what the special counsel investigation finds because the investigatory tools that the special counsel has are well beyond what we've seen in public reporting. And then number two, I want to see the actual articles of impeachment, because if they have specific acts that are no kidding obstruction of Justice. That's gonna be a lot harder for people just to. Excuse the way and to get to let our audience in on this, how many times have you sat across a desk or a table or touch knees with Robert Muller. Oh, I did not count the times, but it was five or six days a week for more than a year when I was his daily intelligence briefer I was CIA. He was director of the FBI, and I got to know the way he thinks, really well and know how he approaches complex issues and things like this, and I have no shortage of faith based on evidence of working with him that if there's somebody who will not let any stow-n-go unturned, it's about Muller. Okay. I have two more questions. One is a recent polls show that sixty two percent of Americans think that Trump has been untruthful about the Russian probe and what might say, oh, that's a clear majority. And I might say what the hell's wrong with the other thirty eight percent. Because history happens, we think it's inevitable. And I'm really familiar through slow burn and other reading really familiar with how late in the game. It was for the public to turn on Nixon. What's the usual course of public opinion? Is it late to the game are right now? We in a position where surprisingly significant part of the public is still. Not seeing what is in clear sight about the unfitness or inability of the chief executive, and therefore he's not as unpopular as he needs to be. Yeah. We get into some issues of psychology and framing here in terms of our people seeing it and excusing, it away are people seeing it, but not understanding it or people literally not seeing it that is, they don't see because of the polarized me, right there, silent in their indie. Literally don't see these things I was shocked just recently to see that when Michael Flynn was in court, and there was supposed to be a sentencing going on. It was the headlines on virtually every media outlet out there. And then I saw on Fox News, the, the main story was about whether cookies are male or female, and I thought, now I'm beginning to understand that sixty to thirty eight percent. Because when you've got people who aren't seeing the news, as it is reported through most outlets. If they're only getting their news through one or a few primary outlets that don't cover that same information. Well, they're literally not seeing. The situation the same way as the rest of us. We haven't had a president who from beginning to end which is the way it's looking has had this low of a floor. The, the issue is how come it hasn't moved lower with some of these revelations coming out. And that, that's hard to say information by we in a unique position in terms of here. Let us compare this president to the amount of evidence that has been presented to argue for his inability to do the job compare it to other presidents at this point is this president doing better. He's doing better in that he still has in a sense, part of that polarized media and even part of this party he hijacked to, to support him now. What does that mean though? Well, either you have what we would call the elites saying, you know what we realized that the general public is an all seeing the same information and so insane. Comeback upon us in. Let's say an impeachment hearing, or then the conviction trial in the Senate. It's incumbent upon us to look at the actual information. Rather than the media spin. Okay. So that's job one but Jim Qomi said it in April of this year earlier as you referred to. He said, short of something that is catastrophic. We should not impeach the president because that's a decision that belongs with the American people, and they need to be responsible for doing this directly instead of having it done for them indirectly. Well tell you what sixty two to thirty eight percent would put this in one of the most catastrophic elections in history. If those numbers are somewhat relevant to how the election turns out, right? And here's my last question in the past, when we have gotten rid of the president by non-violent means when we've decided we ve our elected officials got together and decided, well this win poorly has America actually flourished as a result. I know the lesson of Watergate. And then after Watergate, there were all these sunshine laws and reform swept through congress and our national politics. But what about the other times, I gotta tell you in writing this book? I felt like I was. Going to a very dark place. I was writing about presidents who had severe depression were incapacitated unable to make decisions including ABRAHAM LINCOLN for part of the time. He was in the White House. I was writing about people who were actually taken out by us asan's. I was writing stories about presidents, who lost their own parties and got kicked out of their own party while president. This is a dark political history. But by the end I realized, wait a minute, I'm looking at this the wrong way the story here isn't about all the bad presidents. We've had the story here is how we have survived as a country, even thrived as a country because we have actually gotten through some crappy leaders and the system has worked, what makes us unique isn't the fact that we elect leaders, every country, selects a leader. Somehow will makes us unique is we have a method every four years, and sometimes not for years less or more, but we have a system by which through several means we can get rid of presidents without going into a civil war, or a coup, every single time that leaves me feeling. What up to mystic that when we go through a time like this? We ended up getting stronger as a result. Even if the process itself doesn't feel that way. All right. I know I said, I was done with my questions, but I just have one more, because you raised it our cookies male or female, I think cookies are whatever you want them to be. You can make that cookie. It's, it's one of those where you project onto the cookie what you need the most at that moment. And I've had some, some really good cookies that I honestly didn't know. And I didn't care. Sweet David Preece is the author of how to get rid of a president histories guides removing unpopular unable or unfit chief executives. I enjoyed it very much. Thank you. Thanks for the Chad, who was fun. And that's it for today's show. There must be fifty ways to remove a president. Yes. Fifty ways to remove a president just producers Pierre. And Daniel Schrader know that you just push him over Grover, you, call the Popo, Woodrow TD Raphael senior producer of slate podcast says you give them some spoilt sherbert Herbert. And listen to me, the gist you arrange for his ruin Martin van Buren. Let your Senator separated for. And thanks for listening.

president President Trump congress Richard Nixon President Clinton Representative Senate mister Johnson professor Dershowitz chief executive Robert Muller Andrew Johnson House Judiciary committee Liz Holzman Elizabeth Holtzman Senator White House Mike Pesca George W Bush
Ray for the Defense

Skullduggery

1:21:51 hr | 1 year ago

Ray for the Defense

"A Michael ISIKOFF chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News. And I'm Dan Kleinman editor in chief of Yahoo News and a quick reminder that you can follow us at skulduggery pod and and by the way. If you've got any questions thoughts ideas you wanNA share tweet right out us now. Let's get on with the show and you know you can't trust this president. Do what's right for this country. You can trust he will do. What's right for Donald Trump? He'll do it now. He's done it before he'll do it for the next several months. He'll do it in the election if he's allowed to this is why if you find him guilty you must find that he should be removed because right matters because right matters and the truth matters otherwise we lost that was congressman. Adam Schiff delivering his closing arguments Thursday night in the impeachment trial of president trump. He came at the end of three days and nights of presentations by house managers that laid out their case that the president used the powers of his office is to coerce a foreign government to launch investigations. That had only one purpose to sully a political rival aid is twenty twenty reelection campaign the presentations where by all accounts powerful and compelling at times none more so and shift was center. Stage skillfully weaving excerpts from emails and video clips from the testimony Dimona before the House Intelligence Committee in what seemed to many like a master class oral argument but starting Saturday. It's the president's defense team's turn. How will they counter the house? Managers case in persuade key moderate Republicans that there's no need to call witnesses or subpoenaed documents that the White House has refused to turn over. We'll talk to one of the President's lawyers Robert Ray about what to expect and will speak to Ken. Gormley a constitutional scholar and author of a book on Bill Clinton's Impeachment Mint on this episode of skulduggery because plus people have gotta know whether or not their president's well. I'm not a crook. I told the American people did not trade arms for hostile my heart to my best intentions still tell me. That's true. True but the facts and the evidence it is not I did not have sexual relations with that there will be no allies. We'll honor the American people with the Truth and nothing else. I'm Michael ISIKOFF chief. Investigative correspondent for Yahoo News. And I'm Dan Kleinman editor in chief of Yahoo News and we are joined as we have many times before by our colleague Jon Ward Who's been sitting in on the Senate trial welcome. John goes so quite a week with some very a strong presentations particularly by schiff although also a lot of repetition a lot of seeing the same clips Over and over again you're in the chamber. You're watching the senators. How are they reacting? There is an ebb and flow to it. And I wrote Tuesday. You know about how schiff came in with his afterburners on full right from the get-go and I think that really he caught the president's team by surprise they came in their thinking. Tuesday was going to be arguments. Just all about procedure and rules. And how we're going to you know make this thing. Work Pats at Bologna. The president's lawyer literally spoke for three minutes at the very beginning and then gave the Florida shift who then spoke for. I think over two hours and was it just really on point. So there's an ebb and flow though because that was the same day they went till two. AM and so at the end of that. Day of the senators are Staggering out of the chamber. And so you get to Wednesday. which was two days ago now? Shift starts again does very well but by the mid afternoon things are dragging and it does sound repetitive. I actually thought yesterday. Thursday was more interesting than Wednesday because they got into some of the particulars of the article the first article of impeachment which is abuse of power and they started doing some free bottle to the expected attack by the Republicans by trump's team on John. Hunter Biden Joe Biden and all of the sort of whisper campaign about why Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire process. Some some commentators out there have suggested that actually it was a tactical air on the part of the of the Democrats because it really opens the door to the Republicans going on about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden when they get to make their presentation. I'm a little skeptical of that because I think they were going to do that anyway. Okay but Mike. I think you brought that look when when Sylvia Garcia one of the house managers started talking about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden. Did nothing wrong. I thought that was a real gaffe on her part. Because that's not going to play with Republican senators. I mean clearly just on. Its face the whole arrangement that Hunter Hunter Biden had to WHO with Boris MMA. While his father was the point person for Ukrainian policy was ethically questionable from the the get go and I think even he is admitted it was a mistake for him to take that job so I thought that was a a misstep. I was in the chamber when when that happened. and Lindsey Graham Cam was had a Cheshire cat grin on his face. As soon as Hunter Biden's name came up. This grin almost like the grinch kind of spread across his face he went on as Garcia. RCA spoke to sort of act like a kid in the back row of a high school. Chemistry class with with Senator Barossa started like ribbon each other every time she would say well. This person person said hunter by and did nothing wrong or that Joe Biden did nothing wrong him in Barossa look at each other and raise their eyebrows and raise their hands as if to say oh it must be true. We'll do they have have anything. Other than what. Hundred binds already acknowledged which was that it was a an error in judgment for him to take that. If you look at what Graham said he talked Hunter Biden before things even got started yesterday. But he didn't say he had any information he said. I don't know anything about Joe Biden and Ukraine. He said I know a lot about trump's family and their business loans. I don't know a lot so it's not as if he has allegations. He's just sort of raising questions. The fact is every All of the best sort of reporting out of Ukraine about the timeline of Joe Biden's pressure on Ukraine to fire Victor Shokhin and the state of an investigation into the charisma owner by Ukraine prosecutors. Everything indicates that everybody in Ukraine. Says that Biden's pressure to fire. Shokhin made it more likely likely that Barack Obama would be invested rather than trying to get pressure off of it because the Shokhin who was the deputy prosecutor didn't do anything even after the Brits froze the twenty three million dollars in an asset to the owner of Burris Mer whatever it was look there is a we're talking about the Senate. The hundred injured members of the Senate being the jury. But there's really a jury of about ten. Republican moderates altogether moderates and Conservatives but people who have not actually shown their hand yet and both sides are going to be targeting and have been targeting. Those Senators Susan Collins. Cows Ski Mitt. Romney and you know the cast of characters so any sense that you've gotten from being in the Chamber of where those critical senators are at this point. Well I think there are two senators who are up for reelection this year in sort of swing states that we thought coming into this might be up for grabs Martha mcsally and Thom Tillis from Arizona North Carolina. They've both made very clear. They are firmly on team. Trump Cory Gardner from Colorado has been very attentive and very quiet is giving no clues as to where he is. I guess he's going to stick with trump to. I was just going to ask. You're watching these senators. I mean what are you seeing. As to how they are absorbing absorbing this how much attention they're paying they taking notes are they following the arguments or they're definitely following it. There's some characters like GRANDPA. Aw who are kind of bringing in a crossword puzzle and kind of flouted dismissing it but collins and Murkowski Ashley. Sit next to each other. They're the most interesting to watch to me. Because cons is is like this meticulous notetaker always johnny down notes. mccaskey is the most actually attentive. She has sat there everyday that seen her with their hands in her lap with a very very focused look on her face she seems to be taking it very seriously so right now. The president's defence team starts Saturday array. I guess under abbreviated session. And then they'll and they might start earlier might start earlier. Apparently all right and then Monday and Tuesday. They will will continue making their case diligent as they might only take. Today is right right okay. And then there's the questioning and then the crucial vote right witnesses and documents. When do we expect that? Vote and right now. How do you see it playing out and be Thursday? Friday of the president's team takes all three days of Friday Friday. I don't have a good sense of it. I mean you could argue it either way. I did see that. I think Chris Murphy. The Democratic Senator from Connecticut said he's less optimistic now than it was a week ago. Just because McConnell has a way of sort of you know getting these people actually centers raises an interesting point someone We were having a conversation in the office about why McConnell chose to wait until halfway through the trial before holding that vote on whether there ought to be Senate witnesses because he could have done it at the beginning and the thinking was well you know why would he wait. Let The let the Democrats put on their case put more pressure on moderate Republicans. The vote for witnesses. I think it's Kinda McConnell strategy of kicking the can down the road and he probably understood that like people watching this for hours on end. Yeah on television. It was going to get you know for a lot of people boring and it would lose some steam and some of the kind of energy and that would be That would help him rather it. Well look if if the vote is going to be Thursday or Friday on witnesses this can go one of two directions they vote you know. This trial could end very quickly. There could be the motion to dismiss Friday or Saturday Friday or Saturday and the whole show is over before the Super Super Bowl but I'm before our caucus and before the offices and the state of the Union and the State of the Union if not but if not you can go for weeks leaks and maybe months because that's our witnesses that's right because if there are witnesses then you get the White House invoking executive privilege then it goes to court. Litigated did and it goes. We've got a member of the president's legal team about to join us. Who hopefully can shed some light on this so let's get to it? Oh Robert Ray was the last I independent counsel to investigate Bill Clinton's exceeding Ken Starr and he's now a member of the president's legal team along with Ken Starr and he's with us today. On skulduggery Bob. Welcome to skulduggery Nice to be with you all right so a lot of anticipation after. We've heard the days and nights of arguments from the house managers. It's going to be your turn starting on Saturday. What should we expect well? That's that's what it looks like. I do think that on Saturday. Don't know for sure because obviously that matters in the control of the Senate but I think they don't don't intend to spend an entire day at it. I suspect that it may be just a couple of hours so probably just the first one or two members of the trial team. Uh for the President's defense will present on Saturday and I think then the senators are likely to call it a day and for the weekend and we'll be back at this on Monday or do you expect that you're GonNa take the full twenty four hours. It had been a lot of hard to say but I think that's unlikely I think what we're looking to try to accomplish since there's already been a number of hours spent and I think probably some fair criticism that it's been repetitive. I do think that will make a real effort with The senators not to try their patients consent to be as efficient and avoid being duplicate of to the extent that that's possible obviously it's a coordinated effort their number of people that will be presenting but the the object is to persuade and what we're trying to accomplish his to persuade in a number of different ways why the articles of impeachment do not want the president's removal. I WanNa get into your specific arguments but just before we do that. We're recording here on Friday morning. After Adam Schiff the lead house impeachment manager gave a closing closing argument last night. That's gotten a lot of attention craze kind of a summation to the jury in a way and I was just wonder you got a chance to watch it. I saw some of it in as you might imagine busy preparing over the course of last five days. All of this week from Monday through Friday trying to get my first object here is to make sure that I and prepared to do what I have to do. and not worry so much about what other people are doing but I just wonder I know that a lot of people said that these proceedings have been boring in some ways it gone on for a long time. There's been on a lot of repetition but just in terms of the craftsmanship the legal skills as a lawyer. How do you think Schiff has done is? Has he been a worthy adversary raid. You think he's been effective just in terms of his lawyering his public presentation look the president. I think himself has always said that. Adam Schiff is very smart he he has prosecutorial experience which I think is helpful and relevant for anyone in connection with proceedings of this type. I mean I will say with regard to presentations -tations. They are kind of a strange feature of this whole process. Because in some sense while it has been characterized as an opening argument in many ways. It's an opening and the closing and also the presentation of evidence all rolled into one which is not usually the way things are done. If you're talking about for example what I'm familiar with. which would be criminal trial proceedings both the prosecutor and then also I've spent the last? I don't know almost fifteen years in my capacity as a white collar defense lawyer all right so two questions questions first of all. What's your case here at the House? Managers have presented some pretty compelling arguments that the president was pressuring and the Ukrainians to launch these investigations against his political rival. Joe Biden Men two thousand sixteen election interference and that this was was primarily about benefiting his twenty twenty reelection campaign. You deny that's what was. That's what the evidence shows or you can present some evidence that contradicts it. Do you have any new evidence to show the senators that we have already seen that is going to undermine the case. The House Democrats have made Michael. That's why we have trials why we have you on the podcast. You get no free previews news but look you can expect a full throttle defense on the law on the facts and also on the constitutional issues. Is that these articles of impeachment Raise for the first time in our history. We have articles that do not alleged crimes. That's a significant and substantial issue. I think Mr Durr Professor Dershowitz will have probably the most to say about that issue but you can expect that a number of the other other of us will as well including myself. There is still the core conduct to address. I mean that is the essence of the House case. The rough transcript the president's own words the testimony of his own National Security Council. Staffers who viewed what he was doing as a political. We'll Aaron who viewed the pressure being put on the Ukrainians as improper. How do you rebut that? Well you say it's compelling but ultimately of course assists for members of the Senate to decide and if it were so compelling as things once were for example in a case that you're well familiar with which would be Watergate Watergate you would have expected Whitewater Watergate as well sure I. I didn't cover it but I followed it very closely fair enough. We're all some of us are old enough to remember. I remember and the significant distinguishing feature of Watergate is that it was so compelling and other words clear and unmistakable evidence that crimes were committed that the matter in the House of Representatives enjoyed bipartisan support. In the House Judiciary Committee there is significant Republican support as well as unanimity among Democrats that warranted and in their view the removal all of the president from office. And that's why ultimately the signal that was sent resulted in the president's resignation from office. So you can say compelling but it's not so compelling that had ever enjoyed here meaning our current times bipartisan support and even in the case of Bill Clinton in connection with the Whitewater investigation investigation but specifically what became the Lewinsky piece of that investigation. There was bipartisan support. That understood would that crimes had been committed. The only question was whether or not those crimes were such high crimes constituting an abuse of the president's oath of office there was sufficient to warrant the president's removal but Bob. What is your side single? Best piece of evidence. That crime is required for impeachment and removal level. Because I call by the way the Clinton impeachment that Lindsey Graham who has a house manager e prosecutor at the time stood up and said a crime is not required now there there were crimes being alleged in that case but he explicitly said that a crime was not required. So what is the best evidence that you have of to show that a crime is required. How about the constitution? It doesn't say that yes. It does where. What's the part which part about treason bribery? And other her or other. High Crime and misdemeanor is unclear because all the scholarship Most of the scholarship suggests okay. That does not what the founding fathers talk well that that's a very convenient view of Louis Lindsey Graham's view. Well it's very convenient as you asked about constitutional scholars that's a very convenient view among constitutional scholars. Now I think if you go back and you look at those same constitute or many of those same constitutional scholars during the Clinton Peach Mint. I think you will find to the contrary that they were very clear about the fact that while the focus was on look what President Clinton did here does not constitute an abuse of power. Everybody recognized the premise was and understood. Would that what was the foundation of the impeachment bribery and obstruction of justice. So the debate wasn't about whether or not you needed crimes committed in order to want the president's removal from office. The only question was were these the right kind of crimes high crimes that warranted a view that as a last resort. The president's removal was warranted because they were the type of crimes constituted a violation of the president's oath of office there was a disagreement about that and ultimately the resolution of that in the Senate and the judgment of the Senate which has been accepted by history is that while the conduct was bad and it was illegal it. It wasn't sufficient to warrant. The president's removal from bribery and obstruction was perjury and obstruction. which were the charges against Clinton? He wasn't charged with craving anybody. But look I do. Is that what I said. I didn't mean to say that I meant to say perjury and obstruction of justice. Yes okay so look. Here's I think the fundamental question. The House argument is is that the President's intent here was corrupt because it was only about his political re-election that's that's that's why he made the request but my I get that argument and and you sort of focus in on half of it which is corrupt intent is a relevant eleven consideration in connection with an impeachment. Often what we think about when we think about that of course is corrupt intent for example the basis of which would be for a bribery charge corrupt intent sort of in a vacuum as the house. Democrats have presented. It gets much more to sort of this fuzzy concept about. Well we're going to impeach. It's the president because we think his motives were improper relative to trying to benefit himself in connection with the two thousand twenty election. That is their argument. I I we'll have that I can give you have much to say about that issue that that is a standard list basis for an impeachment and that's not sufficient. Because it's not a high high crime and misdemeanor you WanNa talk to me about whether or not bribery was committed. Then we can talk about that and if the Democrats thought it was so persuasive. That bribery was shown here. Why did and they charge it? And the reason they didn't charge us because there's insufficient evidence to show. The bribery was committed. Okay we'll have much to say about you except that. The president's motivation here was to benefit his reelection campaign. There aren't wasn't broader discussion in about corruption in general in Ukraine and it gives me careful about that because I think you know. Look the the problem without argument is again. If we start impeaching presidents based upon upon motives and we started impeaching presidents related to motives that anything that they do the potentially benefits them in connection with a political campaign. I think you have a real problem about. It's sort of like where where's the line in that one and I think also look you want. You could argue mixed motives and that's a legitimate argument but what the House Democrats are arguing is. There were mixed motives here. It was all about the president's personal political. That's an argument that they're free to make AAC but Daniel the question. That's a question about whether or not truly that's it's clearly and unmistakably so sufficient to warrant the president's removal from office and particularly in the the face of the fact that the president in effect is being impeached for doing something indirectly that he's entirely permitted to do directly which is to say if there's is a foundation for it there's nothing wrong with the President United States through appropriate channels of commissioning and investigation of anybody including a political candidate. Look Investigations have consequence. I get that and they have collateral consequence in the political process. I investigated someone. Who is a candidate handed it for a principal office in the year? Two thousand that was that was that was Hillary Clinton. Don't you think that that investigation had some potential impact on her candidacy. Sure sure the question is how you handle that and whether you do so in an appropriate way that doesn't adversely or unfairly impact and election those those are all legitimate emma questions but to get back to the underlying premise. It's a little odd to be talking about an impeachment when the president is entitled to do that directly and you're saying that because he did it indirectly because has he had rudy Giuliani involved. Somehow or not that's impeach so conduct so it's me and is kind of going back to my first question. It sounds to me like you're was everything thing you've said so far suggests that your argument is almost entirely if not exclusively constitutional threshold argument a lot about facts entire entire well but I would say but I would say this. You have to start with the constitutional argument because if that argument prevails I think is Professor Dershowitz now has already said. I don't know any a number of times recently. If his argument prevails. There's nothing else to talk about talking about fashion about about motives question. I have is. Where do you dispute the basic basic facts that the Democrats have laid out in the last one but what aspect to the phone call did is there is there? Is there any possibility of construing that Phone Call as an explicit quid pro quo that would be sufficient to show bribery and a crime that would otherwise warrant president's removal from office. The answer is no so. That's your patients. Nations that doesn't rise to the level we are. We are in fact about interpretations here because there's a trial that's why we do this all right. Look there's going to be a very key. Vote next week throat witnesses and documents and the polls show. We have a dispute about FACS ax. We have a dispute about what happened here and we have key witnesses and documents. That could shed light and resolve that at dispute. How do you argue that? It's not worthwhile for the Senate to get the testimony of those key. Witnesses says who have not testified so far and hear what they have to say starting with the John Bolton while you have to go back into all of the premises of the question that you just asked asked in a standard list impeachment that charges articles that include abuse of power and obstruction of conduct. I suppose does that. Any facts are in dispute. If what's your object is as I'd like to know more about something that is standard lists in order to decide whether or not that warrants the president's removal from office Let me let me put it to you this way. Simply and plainly the issue about whether or not there will will be witnesses and documents is a matter to be decided by the Senate. Of course I don't tell the Senate what to do they will make that judgment judgment but I would argue that. I shouldn't right but I would suggest to you. That documents and witnesses are only necessary to the the extent that you're unable to decide whether or not what from what has already been presented whether or not the president's removal from office is warranted if you can and make that judgment without documents and witnesses. I imagine there will be senators. Who will arrive at that conclusion and that will be the end of it but but I will? You know concede the point. Wait that there may be other senators who think to the contrary. And there's a that's a reasonable debate to have but ultimately the body will decide whether or not they need this isn't just a factual resolution exercise for the purposes of determining that I would like to have answers to things and resolve facts. This is not an oversight. Hearing this is a matter where the question to be decided isn't your can. I have more facts because I'd like to know more information to decide. I'd rather not certain things happened ultimately. This question isn't so much about guilt or innocence as it's about whether or not what is charged here warrants the president's removal. Oh from office and if you can make that judgment without I submit to you without witnesses and documents than it would seem to me that that would be the end of your your threshold. Argument argument here is that there was no quid. Pro Quo because the transcript rough transcript doesn't show a quid pro quo. The testimony of the witnesses who have appeared before before the House Intelligence Committee don't explicitly prove there was a quid pro quo. The House Democrats argue that it's pretty two plus plus two equals four. You take the circumstantial evidence that we have on the table. They also pretty clear all right. But you also argue that it's extortion and that you you know the pressure. The pressure was overwhelming. Obvious notwithstanding the fact presidents Alinsky said there wasn't any pressure and that was seconded by other Ukrainian government. Officials doesn't mean you can you can ignore some of the facts but of course the point of the trial is to have all of those facts on the facts and shouldn't though all of the facts include the testimony of people who directly spoke to the president about this issue who can but Michael Nicole is not every single fact that she would like again. This is is not an oversight. Hearing if there are sufficient facts they are looked every trial was about certainly a threshold matter. Of How many facts do you need before. You can make an informed decision about what it is. You're being asked to decide and what I'm suggesting to you is. It's not so much about guilt or innocence. Although obviously what. The President's presidents team is seeking is a judgment of acquittal ultimately. But it is. I suggest to you based upon our history principally the question of whether or not the conduct as charged warrants the president's removal from office. And if you can do that without having witnesses and documents I'm not telling the Senate that that's what they should do. That's ultimately silently their decision. Decide whether or not that's what they need. They'll know what they need. Do you have any idea what John Bolton would say if he's called to testify that's not my my my task here okay. My my my mind might might task any idea not. I'm not well look I. My task here is to deal with the existing record. Okay there will not be. Va Record with regard to what Jolt John Bolton might testify to until such time as the Senate in its wisdom decides that it needs to hear from John Bolton and what happens if if the Senate does vote that it wants to hear his testimony and we'll we are prepared for all contingencies including a trial with witnesses. It's necessary we don't. I think it is necessary and we will make that argument at the appropriate time next week before the Senate but ultimately it will be his job to decide whether or not. They think they need that. In order to resolve these impeachment articles that if the Senate votes for witnesses John Bolton is subpoenaed right now sitting here on our podcast you think get is more likely that the trump defense team will of the trump White House will invoke executive privilege or more likely that they will not and he will come forward. He didn't testify. and Are you getting prepared to litigate. An executive privilege claim. The president himself has signaled that. That's what's likely to occur. I don't speak for the president with regard them his lawyer but ultimately it's the president's call as to whether or not executor privileges asserted. I mean that's that's that's his judgment to make and I think you have some experience litigating. These claims previous independent short. And you know look. The president is also suggested even though in some fashion. It's not always necessarily in his best interest to do so. You do have to respect on. I know you know in today's world is always everybody's motives are always questioned. But you know there's a legitimate don't question with regard to executive privilege where the need to assert. It is not about just protecting this president and this president's White House in this president's executive branch but protecting the integrity of the assertion of executive privileges for all presidents every president has had that in mind. And it's been something that has been of concern to President's residents going all the way back to President Washer. Look the issue is how you deal with. Executive privilege claims and If John Bolton is called the testify you could do it in a closed-door store deposition question by question and if you want to invoke executive privilege to some questions you can there are other questions presumably. That would not invoke that would did not rise to the level of need to invoke executive privilege. Is that a compromise arrangement. You could accept. You know let's okay. Let's go to the testimony. Mony will sit in if we think that there are some questions that the that Bolton can't Answer will invoke executive privilege at that time. Michael There are too many ifs. It's in that question that this doesn't become an issue until such time as the Senate decides that they're going to be witnesses which is something they have not yet decided. Allies is the optics of invoking executive privilege to shut down key. Testimony is not great. I'm familiar with optics. Going all the way back to the the Whitewater Whitewater investigation several independent counsel investigations in the One thousand nine hundred. I'm familiar with it. From history. And also farming viewed it myself in connection with the the Watergate proceedings so it looked. This is not news to me. I understand all about optics but you know the question is really. We've got an impeachment article here here which accuses the president of obstruction of Congress largely as the result of his assertion of executive privilege which he he was entirely permitted to to do and was prepared and did litigate the issue and because the house chose to sort of pull the plug on that prematurely they did not only that but they and then turned around and chose to to impeach him for it. It's kind of ironic position to take. Since the principal evidence in this case that has resulted resulted in his impeachment is the call transcript which the president declassified and released. Well speaking of optics do you. What about the optics of Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell publicly saying that he was coordinating impeachment. Planning with the White House. He is now sworn an oh th to be an impartial juror was at appropriate. And this I mean honestly I think a lot of that was overblown. I mean you know is it shouldn't be of any mystery to anybody With regard to the procedural mechanics not substance that you would be engaged in planning and coordinating with the White House with in connection with an impeachment trial. I don't know why that's we'll have you ready. Norma surprise to anybody have you or any of the other members of the trump legal defense team been talking to McConnell or his staff a defense. I I can tell you that I can only speak for myself. I have not all right. So if there are witnesses you got some. You're GONNA call always ever perset about witnesses is if the Senate decides and makes a determination that they need to hear from witnesses that it should be fair okay so you can expect that if there were witnesses were called. It's not going to be just a situation where the house managers to get to call the witnesses. They want in fairness to the president. which is all? We've we've ever been seeking through all of this including from when we were back in the House of Representatives our position has simply been. You can't hear from witnesses from just one side. This is from both sides based on the case that the Democrats have presented and they spent a lot of time yesterday talking about Joe Biden and Hundred Biden right is would vice president biden be a legitimate legitimate witness to call. I think it's premature to be able to make that determination But I will say that the argument by many of the house managers and many others that testimony with regard to the Biden's meaning both the former vice president and his son as has there characterization. Completely irrelevant seems to sort of beg the question. If you're big contention here is that there is an improper motive. Owed by President Trump. In pursuing this conversation with presidents alinsky relative to investigation of the Biden's it seems to me your views about that are colored or affected by whether or not you think there was merit to such an investigation seems to me. That's relevant evidence. And after all who's the defendant on trial L. in this matter the president. He's entitled to a defense. It's rather odd concept to say. Oh no you can't present a defense with regard of the Biden's that's irrelevant. Really the the president gets to present a defense as he sees fit six. That Biden that Vice President Biden would be a legitimate omit witness and that if witnesses if the Senate votes to allow witnesses that you should call him well that's up to the Senate right. I mean ultimately. Oh the question of whether they're going to be witnesses up to the Senate but who gets called is up to well. Even who gets called is is clearly their determination. I mean we could make we can can make proposal as who we'd like to call just because we propose something doesn't mean that Senate has to accept it. I mean you're familiar with that. That issue in connection with the the Clinton impeachment. It wasn't you know there was a decision in determination that they would hear from three witnesses. That was a a determination that was made by the body so just because just because we want them. It doesn't necessarily mean that we get them. Wouldn't you also concede that from your perspective as as a defense lawyer that Vice President Biden might not be an ideal witness in terms of the optics. He's a pretty popular guy he's matters. Are there consequences and political considerations to a lot of these things. Of course you know no and I you know my role here is a trial lawyer. Defending the President United States in connection with an impeachment. I don't get to make all of those determinations. There's a lot of other things. Is that way into that. My job is to get the president safely through these proceedings to a judgment of acquittal period. That's my job you know there. I'm not suggesting that there aren't important. Other considerations involve But my focus is on doing and performing as well as I can't ah in the task at hand. That's my task. Hunter Biden Bull. It's the same point you know. Would he be at the top of your list. I think people have already spoken to that. That's not for me to say and you can you. You know you can direct those kinds of questions to the to the head of the trial team who would be The White House counsel witnesses. Who would they? Maybe Hunter Biden. Joe Biden the whistle blower. Anybody do you have somebody else told you rattled off all the ones that you could potentially think of that you have been discussed the whistle blower lower The I guess junior whistle blower the device vice president Potentially hundred by look I you know we it depends ha also. We're not even through the house managers presentation what's wanted. We all. Just be patient and wait until they're done. We have a defense case by way of opening winning. And we'll see where we are and then the you know the Senate is going to take that up. What will at the threshold question is again? I hate to hearken back or you know repeat I repeat myself but I mean House Democrats. They'd plenty of that so before before we ever get to that. They're still has to be a determination as to whether or not witnesses witnesses and And and further documents really truly would be helpful in terms of the Senate's ability in order to resolve the matter at hand and doc matter is whether or not this is going to the president's removal from office which requires as you know bipartisan support in a two thirds. Vote if you're not going to get there all all the questions that you might have can be resolved later on. It seems to me oversight capacity this is not the purpose of impeachment trial. You just go back back to the point I was making before. There's a core factual dispute. was there a quid pro quo or not and there may not have any actual factual dispute because you would have expected in order to tee that up here that a quid pro quo would have been alleged in an article of impeachment. Not only was it. Not alleged not only was bribery. Not alleged but there's no rest arrested macron's argument whether it's the thrust the question is whether it's charged you know. The president has a right to defend himself against something that should not be characterized arises. Some sort of roving charge articles of impeachment into which you can pour anything that you want basic fairness we know this in the criminal process. You don't have to defend against it's an indictment that just sort of a nebulous thing subject to variance. You're entitled to a defense in which you you can meet. What in fact? The charges charges are. That's one of the problems with having a standard lists impeachment is that the articles are vague. And they don't charge a criminal offense and and yes I know you know you WanNa talk about bribery and quid pro quo. It would have been nice that the articles actually charged that and they didn't and there's consequence to that to what what what role is president trump playing his defense other than tweets and public statements. Has He meeting with his defense team. Have you met with him. Is he making Suggestions about the defense strategy. I I would love to be able to help you there King I'm a lawyer representing client and unfortunately my my communications with the president meetings with the president. Anything else are subject to decide the president. Can you just give us some. Shed some light on how the president's legal team MS is working. I mean. Are you guys meeting every day conference calls. How are you dividing things up? I'm sorry Michael. I'm not here to give you a window into to how the the president's defense is being organized and orchestrated and the and the subject of the conversations as interesting as that would be and maybe the someday when this is all over to a limited degree. I may be able to do that but I can't do that. Let me just ask go ahead go ahead try to take a second down and eh speaking. The answer is going to be no answer. Ask Your questions that makes news year because my question is in the way that the president referred to the phone phone call with Dolinsky as a perfect phone call. Would you say that the president is the perfect client changed the question. What I said was I'm not going to answer? The question is not that the answer was no look I have I have said whatever you and I said so publicly whatever your views are about whether or not the call was perfect or not I have commented previously. That look it would have been better since it led to this impeachment. And I've always been a firm believer in this. You know running things through the ordinary processes of government Are Done for a reason. They insulate you from justice sort of criticism in the political process. I'm a great believer in the department urban of justice and its processes. And you know look if it had been left to me I would have. I think been better to have done it that way and largely. That's kind of where we largely. That's larger where we are now. I mean John. Durham has an investigation. It's been specially commissioned by the Department of Justice through the Attorney General and the president's entirely permitted to conduct foreign policy and farm relations through whatever means he determines are appropriate My my only point has been that You know look at it When you do that and you and you don't run them through the usual channels it subject to just the sorts of criticisms that we have seen here that it's motivated not on the merits but for partisan political advantage? That's why you avoid doing that. I mean the bizarre. The thing is if the president really thought there was something wrong with what the Biden's had done or what the Ukrainians had done. He could've asked his own government in his own Justice Department to conduct those questions asking a foreign government a foreign government which by the way you know has had this history of corruption on its own own to to the investigation for him. Seems like a really weird way to get at the facts that would have credibility with the American public. They're looking for ways to go about doing that. We have trees including a treaty with Ukraine. Some mutual legal assistance tree but looking alternately. We get there and I think things are are now in the hands of the Justice Department. Where they where they should be? Justice Department is investigating the Biden's investigating Ukrainian interference a supposedly. It's Ukrainian difference. Either there are there are matters. We don't know that it's we. We have an entire picture about what it is John. Durham is investigating. But but I think about John Dory but I think things are where they should appropriately be and that's a good and healthy thing but you know to get back to my original point I mean. Are you seriously about trying trying to impeach a president again for doing something indirectly that which he was permitted entirely to do directly. That's my only point. You keep saying that this is something the president could have done directly by that. Do you mean he could have ordered his own government to do these investigations are. That's is that what you're saying. Hey can ask the Justice Department to look into it but he didn't. I understand that but then you just missed my point. You're then saying that it that it's an impeachable offense for him to do something that he did that he could have done directly you. You also said that you were respect justice across the season. It sounds like you're saying that. But ideally that would have been better and that by the way that's just one person's person view having spent a career in law enforcement and have been been a part of this you know I'm not the president of the United States the president decides how he wants to conduct Foreign Policy Elsie and also who he wants to use as as as adviser. You might have Rudy Giuliani well. It wouldn't be the first time though that the president has conducted Dr Foreign Policy through somebody who's outside of the foreign policy establishment or outside of the of the Justice Department. I'm not suggesting as you might imagine. Imagine that there aren't consequences to doing that. I'm just suggesting that it's another thing altogether to claim that that's impeachable conduct. That's all so I think you indicated you. You are going to go Monday night. I want to be careful about that because I don't know we will not all trials you can say what you think the schedule Wiz. I've lived long enough and tried more than thirty five or more cases when I think I know what the schedule somehow it always has a way of changing but yes I expect that. They'll be limited limited presentation on Saturday to begin the president's defense and then I think the bulk of the defense is likely to go forward on Monday where I expect that I will. I will speak this time. What is your particular role in presenting that defense We know Dershowitz is going to do the constitutional argument. What's Ken Starr GonNa do? What what are you? Are you going to do what cell I'm not gonNA. I'm not giving any free peaks at what will do but look at you know. It's obvious there. There has been some caretaking to The selection of the president's team based upon different experiences that that people have had and I'm sure that you can expect that at least part of what I'll have to say well reflect on those past experiences and how they are relevant into the president's defense last question. I WANNA go back for a second to the previous conversation that we were just having a right before bill. Clinton's impeachment trial I. I don't think think you were on. The Star came afterwards actually. Yeah but before he did go on national television and he acknowledged that he was wrong. He showed some contrition. I can say he was forced to do that But but he did. Donald Trump has conceded nothing. It was a perfect call. He's victim Tim. This is a witch hunt. It's totally illegitimate. I guess my question just tactically from your point of view as a lawyer. Wouldn't it be better her for you. Wouldn't it make it easier to present your your case if the president acknowledged that it wasn't a perfect call that if he could do it again he might do some of these things differently. Wouldn't that be helpful to your case. Wouldn't you like him to do that. I'm not the President I'm His lawyer defending him at an impeachment. Trial you know. Stay retuned the You mean in apology. You know the look. The president has ample reason to be concerned. Learned not just for himself and this presidency but for all presidencies with regard to the articles of impeachment that have been advanced by the House of Representatives sensitives. But he may have staved off impeachment. Had he done that. That would have helped president. I think that is incredibly politically naive to think so well on that. I know we will be staying tuned as you get your moment in the sun next week and we will. We'll see how this turns out. Thanks very much. Look forward to To it I am very pleased and proud to represent the president. It's an exciting opportunity for me personally personally but an important one for the country to thanks for joining us. Thanks thanks for having me Lou We now have with us. Ken Gormley the President of Duquesne University. A constitutional scholar the author of the death of American Virtue Clinton versus Starr about the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And he's also writing and studying. The trump trump impeachment Ken Welcome to skulduggery. It's a pleasure to be with both of you so a lot of comparisons are being made this week. Comparing the trump impeachment to the Clinton impeachment the Nixon Saga and the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You were here in town for the opening day of the trump impeachment trial. What leaps out at you as a constitutional scholar about this and how it compares to our past experiences? Well the you know I did have the chance to attend the opening day of the Clinton Clinton impeachment trial had written a book on Watergate on Archibald Cox Watergate Special Prosecutor. So I you know naturally actually kind of segues into that project the thing that jumps out at me is at during the Clinton Saga and Michael. You covered that time thoroughly and we're running the leading voices on that as well. There was in the Senate. It was one of the things I was proud of and relieved of. Is that the Senate. Unlike the house proceedings manage to quickly figure out how all to work together and I interviewed senator. Trent Lott the Republican leader and also Tom Daschle the Democratic leader immediately after the House Impeach Clinton they were on the phone talking about how to work together so the Senate ins is an institution was protected and was not dragged into a melodrama. And as you know Senator Teddy Kennedy a Liberal Democrat and Senator Phil Gramm Conservative from Texas. Got Together at a meeting of both sides agreed to agree. They didn't even know the details of it but they agreed that they were going to work together. And not have this turn into a circus. This sadly was the polar opposite. You know to see Senator Mitch. McConnell standing there and I have great respect for him. My Dad Dad was from Kentucky but to stand there and outlined procedures that the Democrats had had no say in that excluded them really really and that was the opposite of something that had been worked out together and to refer to it as Clinton Rolls. The Clinton roles were bipartisan. We will work together together and agree on things. This was the opposite and that that was kind of the takeaway and the tone of the day as you heard. Some of the attacks was more vitriol in the room more sensitive posturing for television cameras than the reflected the seriousness of the occasion. And and frankly honestly I was pleased. When Chief Justice Roberts later in the evening after I'd left really rebuked both sides for this is a serious moment and it wasn't being entreated completely like that and so do you? What do you attribute The differences to is it just the kind of increasing polarization in our political culture. Sure or does it have to do with personalities involved and I think there is an. I think I'd like we should get into this. Because if you then compare Watergate and of course I. There wasn't a an impeachment vote. There wasn't a trial but if you compare that period to the Lewinsky Clinton impeachment and then the trump impeachment preachments. There is a it seems like there is a kind of a deterioration sort of all the way through so. I'm just curious how you see the kind of evolution in kind sl historical time or develop delusion right. Yeah Well you know. I spent a lot of time on the Archibald Cox book with Archibald Cox who had been in my law professor at Harvard and with Elliot Richardson to Great Public Figures in American history and there were and I interviewed. Robert Robert Bork. Who actually came grew up in Pittsburgh and you know I think even though he was viewed as villain by some he was in a different position and then some of the other folks in the when when it came to the Saturday night massacre but at that time in Watergate you still had people who viewed public public services a sort of sacred profession and if he were forced to do something? You didn't agree with you. Resigned like Richardson. It did and and Cox had done earlier in his career in the Truman Administration. It's hard to find those people you know as we start moving forward now when you got to the Clinton Clinton impeachment as I said fortunately in the Senate you still had that sense of. How do we protect this institution of government and the good of the whole country tree? What started sliding there was the kind of making it personal which began in the Clinton Soga? I witnessed it firsthand as you did. People started treating others evil people if they took a different position even among the public you go into the grocery store to people would be shouting and pointing fingers. There's a big part of it. Sadly is You know rely relates to the evolution of the media. I think I remember as you do. Michael Michael the big story. The Lewinsky story was largely broke. I believe broken by the drudge report. Matt drudge and people said who is this. What as the Internet after our editors at Newsweek decided not to run it exactly? Do you remember that well. You could have been retired tired by now and they make a movie after but You know unfortunately we've evolved in a way that I hadn't expected where you have these silence media sources and I also think it's just you know the way we've evolved with television where it's okay to shout at people and be disrespectful and just you know shout over people as college president as you know. I'm not president of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. I have a program. Grammy each year on civil discourse and this year will be the topic of politics contentious elections in civil discourse. I want our students to learn that. It's not appropriate. In the way you learn to be leaders to refrain from doing that and treat others with respect even when you disagree with them but I do think sadly the you know the way media has evolved. And it's not Donna. Evolving has contributed to that what I saw on display even in the Senate. The other day looked like people appearing in front of their their favorite. TV show with people who all agree with them you know kind of making their points and trying to lash out at the other side. It's a far cry from what used to be the respectful way. The things were handled but in these serious situations and you need to look no further them. Walk Across the street. Were Chief Justice Roberts presides in the morning to see what a Supreme Court liberal argument looks like and if anyone behaved like this they would be held in contempt and thrown out if they treat anyone with disrespect bike that also it seems to me that Another dimension of this is the extent to which truth and objective facts have been kinda valued in the culture that we are in an era of of alternative facts and one thing. That's striking to me is how hard it seems to be for the Democrats in prosecuting their impeachment. Taste against trump for the truth to kind of breakthrough in the example. I was listening to one of the impeachment. Managers talk about you know this idea that you you know. It was the Russians who interfered in the two thousand sixteen election not the Ukrainians. There isn't a server. That's gone missing in Ukraine as the president and his supporters have alleged the so called crowd strike theory. And how hard is it today to actually make a case for impeachment even when no one can agree on on the facts. Well I agree with that completely. It's it's very difficult and it's one of the odd things in my way about in many ways about this proceeding because there is no person whose you know again holding someone in contempt if they lie in front of the presiding judge or whatever. He's really just an umpire here but it does make it very difficult because ultimately all the you know White House team has to do is so enough doubt in the minds of the senators who were on the fence to their on the side side of acquitting. They've done their job and I understand. I mean their goal is to defend the client the president but when you don't can't agree on the facts and are prepared to use whatever fax suit you thought does create real issues news and and ultimately it's hard also for the American public to be able to make valid judgments later on about whether they want to return people to office as you know the other thing that leaps out at me is the hypocrisy on both sides in which You know people are making arguments that are are almost the exact opposite of what they made twenty years ago during the Clinton impeachment. We've all seen the clips of Lindsey Graham. Talking about the need need for witnesses at the Clinton trial position exactly the opposite of what he has today and by the same token the arguments the Jerry Nadler and other Democrats made about twenty years ago about the dangers of a partisan impeachment in which there's no national consensus dances behind it and how that is something that The country needed to avoid. I'm just wondering when you listen to the arguments today and NC how They are the precise opposite of the arguments that were being made by the same people twenty years ago. What goes through your mind? Well now it kind of shakes my faith in the whole system. I have to say it's particularly hard for me. Listening to people who I talked ought to and trusted and believe that they were acting. Yeah with totally out of their sense of conscience to see sudden reversals. That don't seem to add up and let me make clear. In many cases there are distinctions that allow a a person in good conscience to think that the situation is different. One example for instance is on the issue of witnesses. I have to say I've come to to believe that. The Democrats are in a much stronger position on that issue. The problem is you can't have the president of the executive that could have brand saying you can't have these witnesses you can't have evidence as was done in the house and then get to the Senate and say well. Last time he didn't need any anymore. Witnesses well that was true last time however the the White House cooperated and provided the things in advance President Clinton was on a TV screen testifying in front of the grand jury. Kind of forced to write rain. I recognize he was forced is to He. Well he was forced to but My only point is at that trial. They had the witnesses and evidence evidence that they wanted to be able to move forward. It's a lot different. If you preclude the Democrats here from having it to then say well. You should've could have called the witnesses earlier. You didn't have that ability. So some of the differences in their positions are driven by the fact that there is also father last cooperation and this set of proceedings and there was twenty one years ago. Let me you're a constitutional scholar and we have this debate. Going non in the midst of this trial as to what constitutes an impeachable offense and the Democrats you know go back to the founding fathers and Alexander Hamilton and James Madison Making essentially an originalist argument which I find kind of ironic in many ways because because originalism was the was the hallmark of Antonin Scalia and other conservatives on the Supreme Court and was roundly criticized by liberals who said no we have a living constitution. We can't be bound Roy. Eighteenth Century Statesman wrote in a twenty first century America and it seems to me that got the experience. We've had with impeachment. Although the impeachments of Johnson and Nixon use the language of abuse of Power Bay also did specifically quickly alleged violations of the law and certainly that was the basis for the Clinton impeachment. So give us your thinking on this us as to. It seems to me that this is the first presidential impeachment that doesn't specifically allege as an article of impeachment a violation relation of the law and that that is a break from precedent Give us your analysis of that of that action. Yeah I'm not sure I agree with. That's one of the arguments of my former professor. Alan Dershowitz who I respect a lot. But you know I spent a lot of time studying this back back. In Nineteen Ninety eight ninety nine I wrote an article for the Stanford Law Review. I read all of the historical records of the at at the time of the drafting of the constitution and the early founders. I do believe that impeachment was not at all meant to be limited to crimes and that the language that people are quoting from Alexander. Hamilton is indeed what they had in mind an abuser violation of some on public trust and in fact it goes the language goes back to the thirteen hundreds in England where there were high misdemeanors high crimes and misdemeanors demeanor. There is such a thing as a high misdemeanor and that had to deal with you. Know conduct the threatens the well being of the state. It doesn't necessarily have to be a crime and you know people haven't talked about this but At the time the Constitution was framed. There wasn't a crimes code. I mean you know so. This clearly was not limited to crimes crimes that that that that was the original originalist intention of the founding fathers. I'm just making the point that if if you look at the actual specific presidential impeachments we have had. They all revolve around violations of the law. Aw and there's a reason to do that. which is that it is much easier to prove a violation of a law? Then you know the more more amorphous standard of abuse of power because you're abuse of power could be my elbow while just to although the amorphous standard is still there in in the sense that it can be you can establish a violation of the law or Nixon or it could be a violation of the law that doesn't rise to the level of impeach Clinton. Yeah exactly I if you look at the Johnson impeachment. It was based as you know on the tenure violation of the tenure of office act and that provision yes technically was couched as a crime but it was really an abuse of power. It crime is what it was that they weren't allowed to president. Couldn't do this without permission of Congress and contempt of Congress for my research. Research is a crime. I mean there was a criminal law passed in eighteen fifty seven and they use that for instance in the Teapot Dome Scandal when the attorney general enrolled docherty's brother wouldn't to respond to a subpoena and they sent a A A deputy serjeant at arms to Ohio and arrested him and it went up through the Supreme Court and they said that was permitted. You don't have a litigant in a judicial case determine what the Make the ruling on. What is the crime nine here? That's why the argument has been made and I happen to agree. That had the Democrats gone to court and Gotten even one judge on one of these witnesses they say is essential Israel to the case. That would be much stronger position on that second article obstruction of Congress. I do agree with that. I think that was a tactical error. Are although it doesn't help. When president makes a blanket declaration that no one is is going to cooperate and that is unprecedented as well? I was just just teaching my students with my book on the President's and the Constitution yesterday talking about George Washington was asked to turn over documents relating to the yeah a military and his administration that we're embarrassing but he did it from the very first presidency recognizing that you have to respect the power of that Independent branch and so. When you have a chief executive say you can't have any witnesses? You can't have any documents that throws a monkey wrench into it and I can tell you that is not what the framers the key moment in this when we look back on it. Maybe when the House Democrats withdrew who their subpoena for Charles Koppelman they said they were before Judge Richard Leon In in DC and Leona even laid out a whole schedule for arguments on a on a fast track in December. But I think they were worried at Leone. A Bush appointee was going to rule against them and and so they withdrew the subpoena and as a result and by the way all. WHO's the witness? They're all seeking so avidly here for good reason Had said his lawyer Kupperman in Bolton and they will abide by what the judicial ruling is on this but had Leone ruled against them which I think is what shift was worried about that would have totally undercut the article of for obstruction of Congress because the only official ruling on the On its face relating into this impeachment proceeding would have been against them. Yeah Fair enough and I agree. That was a tactical error. However I think the other part of the calculation was? There's there's no way we're going to this is going to work. Its way through in time for the impeachment trial because of course even if the federal judge ruled in that way the other side five with the why did they have to suspend the impeachment proceeding they could have still continued to impeach him and voted articles impeach. Just like the House judiciary did under Nixon. They didn't wait for the Supreme Court ruling on USA. I agree with that yes I I agree with that but it. It wouldn't have resolved the issue in this trial. We still have the same issue. Can you had some interesting observations. On how these individual presidents have dealt the impeachment or a Nixon case looming impeachment and particularly the issue of contrition or or lack thereof. And in fact you wrote a fascinating piece for us For for Yahoo News about trump. And where he might stand now if he had shown some contrition that in essence sir you argue that his the impeachment might have essentially collapsed. So talk a little bit about that. And what some presidents have done and others have not done well in the in the Nixon cases you know President Nixon viewed himself as a fighter who is constantly under attack and so he did not agree to any wrongdoing. And I've done a lot of work on the Ford Pardon of Nixon. I learned twenty five years ago. uh-huh and event here are some years ago that President Nixon. I try to not even accept the pardon from President Ford because he learned that there was a case that said acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt and he didn't WanNa do it. That strategy did not work well. He just refused to ever take responsibility to the bitter end. Bill Clinton on the other hand early on now. He didn't do it. Initially as you remember Michael but once the Jig was up. Monica was cooperating and the the blue dress was in the possession of the Independent. Counsel's office president. President Clinton did begin the slow process of admitting fault and and his team along Started that process. I I mean the Democrats around him so there was an open acknowledgement. This was bad judgment. It was a bad thing. No excuse for it however it it did not rise to an impeachable offense and I think that worked very well in Clinton's favor told the story of Six foot none. Who was the principal Eh? The score my kids were and she pulled me aside and said you know the guy admitted he. He made a mistake. They should leave him alone and just let them mm-hmm run the country and so when I interviewed President Clinton I told him I knew when you got the six foot none. You aren't going to get removed but you know the the American public is very forgiving and if asked to give forgiveness that they give generously. I think it's been a mistake on the part of president trump. Tom and his team. I know it tends to be his way of doing business and has probably been that way for many many years but I do think a little contrition would go a long way if he were prepared to say you know on reflection. This wasn't the greatest idea. I don't plan on doing it again. I I didn't do it with any motive to do anything wrong. I thought there was some bad stuff going on there but I yeah. I made a mistake. Reagan did that if you remember in Iran Contra ultimately ultimately the public I think would be on his side and that would be the best possible strategy right now. It's a very difficult thing. I think for the White White House team to have to be defending conduct. That it's pretty clear. People don't think is a great idea what he did and the legal arguments are are a bit stretched. But that's what you have to do if if you aren't prepared to acknowledge any missteps at all. Well I I'd say I agree with you that that it would be a smart strategy. would be the right thing for trump to do It it doesn't seem like it's in his character but the other thing thing I would say is you know. He's a president who has a stranglehold on on his party and it's a lot easier for him. It seems to me to resist apologizing or or contrition when nobody around him nobody really in his party. Nobody in the Senate is out there saying Mr President. You made a big mistake. Your call was not perfect right and and and you can watch Fox News every night. He told you're one hundred percent right and the other side is one hundred percent wrong so why why bother apologizing for anything. Yeah well I agree in that. That is the problem. The question is long term. And we'll have to wait for another ear to have that conversation rotation with the weather that proved to be a winning strategy. Long-term you also wrote an interesting piece in politico a couple of weeks ago in which you started Out with a somewhat historical perspective as the impeachment reading it now as the impeachment machine grinds toward a Senate trial history tells us that it will be time. Consuming bruising wrenching shing and divisive causing the country become dangerously distracted and leaving untold wreckage in. Its wake and then you cite the trials of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and then then you actually made an interesting proposal that both sides should suspend trial and pass legislation that would ban presidents from seeking foreign interference in an election. I still think that would be the best possible outcome you know. I begin with the proposition. Opposition that people of good faith can take different views on whether the president should be removed for misconduct. Even if they I think it was unwise and I think we have to be respectful of people and we recognize these are the people we go to church with and and live in communities with. They're they're good people. They're not that people we shouldn't just be hurling inductive at at Everyone in big categories. And Yeah I do think that ultimately you have to stop and think what is the best thing for the country. Well the best thing for the country is to figure out how to resolve this going forward word. We don't have this issue again. I don't think people believe it's a good idea for presidents to be getting foreign governments to involve themselves in manipulating. US elections you. Can maybe debate whether president trump did that. Fine let's not keep debating. Let's fix it. I future I do think if there was a way to accomplish that that would be a perfect outcome where both sides could declare victory and get on with work work. I do worry that the more time we spend on this I think of Chief Justice Roberts sitting there and he's presiding over the one branch of government in the morning. They had oral arguments this week and having to do this in the you know into the late at night and how much we're losing our focus on what we should be doing as a country and as you know go. The last time around I talked to a number of the Ken. Starr's deputies who were stunned after nine eleven and realized that while they were working on the Whitewater case which culminated and all this and worried worried about the blue dress people inside and outside our country were plotting are attack so yeah this is serious business and I do think that ultimately if we could switch focus from trying to just win for our side and figure out a path forward that was beneficial for the country but didn't just blow up the whole thing. That would be much better but it involves respecting the other side. And that's where unfortunately we've had difficulty. Well those Zor wise words but can I wanted to ask you. You mentioned the Star Team and Ken Starr was a main character of your book about the Clinton impeachment. You spend many hours interviewing him. What do you make of him coming back to another impeachment but in this case as the president's Defense lawyer well. I have great respect respect for Ken Starr. I actually became a friend after working with them and as I did with many people on both sides of the whole Clinton Saga. I think it's a mistake steak. He spent four years of his life or however long it was adamantly pursuing President Clinton and you know Oh invoking moral grounds for doing so and raising the exact going to your point earlier of switching positions switching ching positions dramatically. It seems in this case you know I would think that there are better ways to use his time than to to do something. I don't know that it really will benefit the president and the end even and I think he's fabulous lawyer and I. I think it's a smart move in some ways by the trump team name because he can speak to a lot of those senators and to Chief Justice Roberts and he's one of the greatest Oro advocates in the country having been solicitor general but but he brings with him the baggage of that whole Clinton Saga. And the you know they're they're certainly is A big incongruity about it I noticed Paul Rosenzweig. One of his top deputies voiced that concern and I I'm with him I I I really think that in the end for Ken Starr. I'm not sure it's a great thing to you. Know Appear in this movie in the exact exact opposite role. Okay one last question. We are expecting a vote on witnesses next week. If there is a fifty fifty tie and there could be can chief justice Roberts break that tie can devote at all can even sign the subpoena given that the White House has made clear. The president has made clear that if John Bolton is subpoenaed to testify they will go to court to invoke executive privilege and that this case could end up before the Supreme Court of the United States presided over by chief. Justice Roberts. Yeah that would be a lot of fun. Wouldn't it. Yeah I think what would be interesting if we got to that point. I think that the first step would be to see. If Chief Justice Roberts could broker some chum compromise and he's very good at that I have for respect for taken out of the role that Chief Justice Rehnquist pioneered during the Clinton trial of doing as little as possible. I think that's his goal but he may not be able to do that at a certain appointee chief justice rehnquist didn't face an impasse like that. For instance one compromise as you know could be having a witness like John Bolton come in and give testimony in private with just the senators and the chief justice or even provide a and the White House is lawyers and the managers perhaps and see if there are national security issues. kind of like the in camera part of things. We're having in camera review by the Chief Justice With the ability of the White House to weigh in on it and make a decision. If there's a way to allow certain witnesses just talk about specific the topics because as you know executive privilege is not absolute even if it exists So there I could conceive of some ways that he might be the able to broker some kind of a deal. I think we're in total. You know total new territory here because each impeachment trial is something of its own and If it came to that I think that he might try to resolve it. Ultimately he's not going to overturn and what the Senate decides collectively well can. I may be a little too reasonable for polarize times but I really appreciate you joining us in hearing your insights. Thanks thanks for being with well. It's a pleasure talking to both of you and We'll we'll stay tuned and see where things aren't two weeks okay. Okay thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Thanks Robert Ray. A member of President Trump's defense team and Ken Gormley Constitutional Law Scholar and president of Duquesne University joining us on this episode of skulduggery. Don't forget to subscribe to skulduggery on Apple podcasts. Or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Tell us what you think. Legal Review the latest episode is also on Sirius. Xm On the weekend. Check it out on channel twenty four on Saturdays at three PM Eastern time and with replays on Sundays at one A._M.. And three P._M.. Short a follow us on social media at skulduggery pot. We'll talk to you soon.

president Senate President Trump Hunter Hunter Biden President Clinton senator Ukraine President United States vice president House of Representatives bribery Michael Hunter Biden Bull White House Mr Durr Professor Dershowitz Clinton Adam Schiff executive Joe Biden
Ask Charlie Anything 49: Mike Lindell, the Questions I didn't Ask Alan Dershowitz, Transgender Sports and More

The Charlie Kirk Show

33:32 min | 5 months ago

Ask Charlie Anything 49: Mike Lindell, the Questions I didn't Ask Alan Dershowitz, Transgender Sports and More

"And this episode is brought to you by our friends who can protect your data. An anonymous is your activity at express. Vpn dot com slash. Charlie e. x. p. r. e. s. s. vpn dot com slash. Charlie protect yourself against big tech big brother. Hey everybody mike lindell and so much more brought to you by all of that. Support us at charlie kirk dot com slash support. If you wanna get behind us and this program has blessed anyway. Please consider supporting us at charlie kirk dot com slash support. It's asked me anything monday. I take your questions that you emailed me freedom at charlie. Kirk dot com buckle up. Everybody here we go. Generally what you've done is incredible here. Maybe charlie kirk is on the college campus. We are lucky to have charlie baker. Charlie kirks run the white house. I want to thank. Charlie's an incredible guy his spirit. His love of this country's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organisations ever created turning point. Usa he will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries destroyed lives and we are going to fight for freedom campuses across the country. That's why we are here when running a business. Hr issues can kill you. Wrongful termination suits minimum wage requirements labor regulations and more. Hr manager salaries are never cheap. They're an average of seventy thousand dollars a year. Bambi spelled b. a. n. b. e. was created specifically for small business. You get a dedicated. Hr manager craft hr policy and maintain all your compliance for just ninety nine dollars a month with bambi. You can change. Hr from your biggest liability to your biggest strength your dedicated hr manager's veil by phone email a real time chat from onboard determinations they customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employs day today all for just ninety nine dollars a month month. No hidden fees. Cancel anytime. you didn't start your business because you want to spend time on. Hr compliance let bambi helped. Get your free. Hr audit today. Go to bambi dot com slash kirk right now to schedule your free. Hr audit that's bambi dot com slash kirk spell bam to be dot com slash kirk. Hey everybody happy monday. Hope you are doing well and hope you had a wonderful weekend enjoying the super bowl as always on mondays. We give you an ask me anything episode brought to you by all of you. That support us at charlie kirk dot com slash support. So thank you for supporting us. And i want to get right into your questions. The number one question that we got over the weekend was around my friend. Mike lindell and a documentary that he released over the last couple of days called absolute proof so i have not watched the entire documentary Been getting a lot of messages about it. And but i will say this mike. Lindell is a patriot. Mike lindell is a devout christian. And he's someone that has always said what he believes. And i believe he's a man of integrity and honesty. I've watched about the first forty five minutes of the documentary. A lot of which that was being discussed in the documentary are things that we talked about earlier in the charlie kirk show back in november and december when it came to voter registration irregularities signature requirements and more. There were other things that i would like to have more information. more data there are some interviews. that were very interesting and somewhat compelling. But i would like to see some more evidence behind this idea. That iran and china directly interfered in the election. I'm not saying it's not true nor my saying it's one hundred percent true and it's not about mike lindell at all instead when you have a couple of guests that come on and make some claims. That's the servers are stored overseas. Which is something that the voting machine companies are now suing in court. If you say that. I'd like to see some more evidence about it. I'm open minded. I'm going to embrace. My david hume but i will say this. Mike lindell deserves credit for being relentless and having perseverance. Mike lindell is someone that is never afraid to take on the tough fights and he is going to continue to have this very important conversation and discussion when it comes to voter integrity and finding out what happened in the two thousand twenty election with that being said i think that if you watch the mike lindell documentary It is important to ask questions. Just say that this is enough evidence to overturn the election. There was not enough evidence in that documentary to overturn the election. You had a couple pieces of interviews and data that was mentioned the first part of the documentary that was brought to you by the armistead project. That is very much disputed by the secretary of state's office is now is a possible. The secretary states offices are lying and misleading. Of course however a lot of what was presented in this documentary will be thrown out of a courtroom almost instantaneously. So we're gonna keep our eye on that. But i know a lot of you are looking for ways to try and support mike lindell and i think that mike lindell is one of the most energetic and quite honestly honorable people i've ever met in my life. He's always been someone that has said. Yes when i've asked him to speak at our events and it definitely took a lot of courage to produce this documentary. And i i refuse to say one word negative about mike lindell. I might not say that everything in that documentary has been vetted thoroughly and i will say that must. It's not true. I'm just pushing back against some of the claims of the international service. Because i've seen no evidence of that whatsoever nor have i seen evidence that the servers are stored in frankfurt germany with these seidel rate with that being said. I'm not saying that they're wrong. I'm just saying that. I need more evidence to support that. I am going to watch the documentary in its entirety. However i did just want to be very clear that i think mike lindell's an honorable person. He has full of integrity. I encourage you to check it out and watch it for yourself. However there is a need for more evidence and data behind some of the claims that were being made not saying that they're not true but in order for them to actually materialized in courts acting upon them. There's going to have to be some revealing of what happened in these machines. Were they really tapped into the internet. Were they actually going to forward servers and barcelona but i remain open minded and willing to entertain any sort of factual and evidence based discussion that occurs. So you guys want to check it out. I think it's at mike lindell's website and also if you want support. Mike lynn down. If you believe that he's being courageous. And you also want to support our show alongside of it you can go to mypillow dot com. Use the promo code kirk when you check out all right. Let's get to the next question here. Hey charlie turning-point. Usa utah quite often about reforming higher education. Do you think we should get rid of all higher education or should we just go to vocational schools. Thanks so much carly from indiana while carly congratulations. You win a signed copy of the magazine doctrine and You emailed us prematurely. Kirk dot com with your question and you are selected. No i do not believe that education higher education should be eliminated. In fact i think that in its ideal form. Higher education is totally necessary for our country it has just digressed into indoctrination camps and training centres to create the next generation to be bitter and angry about the country. They live in fact. Every person that graduates from college today should be getting a degree in in. Gratitude is basically the underlying component of higher education college which really means partnership partnership between the students and the faculty a partnership it goes back to its original. You go back to original greek or latin meaning. The word college comes from partnership it should be about creating students to be stronger to be more alert more aware and the teach them how to be hillsdale college. A great job with this. I've talked about hillsdale a lot. In fact i learned a lot from their constitution. One oh one course online. I encourage a lot of people to check it out. However hillsdale is a rare exception. Hillsdale is nuts. How most colleges are across the country. Most colleges are about pursuing a very perverted type of diversity carrying about how people look not how people act caring about what people look like. Not how people think you see colleges become a place where they want everyone to look different but think the same college is supposed to be about a journey to get to the bottom of this to pursue truth. And how do you do that while people say quite often. We are living in unprecedented times. It's never been as bad as today. People say that america's are racist bigoted homophobic. Were more racist than we ever have been. Will you only know that if you study history history is both a reference point a roadmap a thermometer amir and a compass. It tells you where you are in relation things that became that came before you. Let's chart your path forward. It lets you take the temperature of where you actually are right now. You can look at yourself and say i really living up to standards of what it means to be a complete person to live with character and delivered with integrity. You see the academy. Higher education does not do that anymore. That is why. I believe that college should be more about career. Preparation than ideological exploration with an aspect. If you can find a college that will actually teach you the classics if you teach college. That is affordable that will actually allow you to explore these ideas while also preparing you for a career. That is what higher education should be. But it isn't anymore. In fact i encourage people to do that. Auto dialectically the word auto didactic basically needs self taught you can go through online curriculum. Such a hillsdale online curriculum. You can go through youtube lectures. You can study the great books you can study. Plato or aristotle thomas aquinas because pursuing truth is the most important thing that you can do in a confused world. Aristotle said there are two intellectual virtues knowledge of the things that change practical knowledge stuff around you. What's the capital of indiana. How large is montana was. America founded that information is important but that is practical knowledge. But then aristotle said the ultimate intellectual virtue is knowledge of things that never change newtonian physics the laws of nature human nature. Those are the things that are worth pursuing. Wisdom is worth pursuing. Now people say how do you find wisdom while the reason why we consider people that are older to usually be wise is because wisdom is the reasoning of all things eternal. It takes time. Wisdom is not about how much information you know. Wisdom is not about how many facts you are able to recite. Wisdom is not about your ability to be able to recite the ninety five thousand different reasons. Why you think. America's racists no wisdom is the reasoning a things that do not change and that is the furnishing of the mind. Now that is not happening. In most colleges across the country most colleges do the exact opposite. They don't spend any time on wisdom and the great expression. Dennis prager says this often is that without god. There is no wisdom. They've removed god from the university's therefore there's no wisdom people say that men and women are exactly the same people say that borders do not matter america's awful country and then you kind of get into a set of circumstances where without wisdom you get into chaos and so yes. I am in favor of a traditional small l liberal education. I can't find it. Most schools most schools in fact ninety nine point. Nine percent of schools will not teach socrates plato and aristotle thomas acquaintance. David hume edmond. Burke thomas paine rene descartes immanuel kant john locke jean jacques rousseau in its correct framing not teach any of those things it will not teach thomas hobbes. It definitely won't teach thomas. Jefferson won't teach james madison george washington. John adams john quincy adams james monroe. Teddy roosevelt calvin coolidge. Dwight d eisenhower ronald reagan. Instead you'll learn about jacques derrida you'll learn about how bigoted racist and backwards america is. That's no way to furnish the american mind in fact that creates activists college in its ideal. Form should be about teaching people how to be not what to destroy and that's where college has become that we tried to nurture and foster that form a community at turning point usa. And i encourage all of you to check it out at teepee. Usa dot com. Teepee usa dot com. Because there's so much beauty in the world to learn how to be. How do you act. That is something. I tell young people all the time. I say we're a lot less about what kind of job you're going to get and worry about how you're going to act how you are going to be worried about the things that are eternal the rest will sort itself out and yes. If you are going to go to college you should go to college for a good reason. If you're going to go to one of these liberal indoctrination camps at least get a skill that you are able to use in the marketplace. Because they are not going to teach you how to be at a university instead. They'll teach you the opposite and you'll get no skill and a lot of debt as the only thing to show for it but yes checkout turning point. Usa usa dot com great question in our fast paced world. It's tough to make reading a priority. At least it used to be at thinker dot org. They summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy. Give you access to an entire library of great books in bite sized for him read or listened to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes from old classics like dale carnegie's how to win friends and influence people to recent sellers jordan. Peterson's twelve rules for life. I learn something new every single day. Which is a challenge that we have post to you. How do you learn something new every single day with you want to challenge your preconceptions expand your horizons and become a better thinker to thinker dot. Org that's t. h. I n. k. r. dot. Org start a free trial today. And that's thinker dot org. Ken henderson from phoenix. Congratulations you win. A signed copy. Maga- doctrine says charlie when conservatives interview. Alan dershowitz i always feel like there's an elephant in the room about which no one will speak. It's the fact that he's still a democrat. I like alan and now. He's a wealth of knowledge benefits people who get to hear him question on the issues. But i can't help but wonder why nobody ever looks the man in the eyes and respectfully ask professor dershowitz given the changes of the democrat party. Ten fifteen years and giving your staunch defense of the bill of rights and our constitution. How can you still be democrat today. Were you tempted to ask this. And if so is there a specific reason. You didn't thanks for your work. And god bless. I responded the kent and complimented him. It is a great question in fact good enough for me to answer it on air. I probably should have asked that but it wasn't really the topic of our conversation. In fact i encourage you to check out our conversation with alan dershowitz. I believe that dropped on thursday or friday. So check it out and make sure your subscribed to the charlie kirk show while you do that but i will say this l. Dershowitz is a traditional liberal. Alan dershowitz believes diversity is about thoughts. Values the spirit not about skin color. Alan dershowitz believes that markets are generally a force for good. Alan dershowitz believes in freedom of speech. Alan dershowitz is civil libertarian. In fact he has done phenomenal. Work defending people when it comes to civil liberty issues. Alan dershowitz is not a leftist. The democrat party more and more is being represented by leftists. It's being represented by people that do not believe. Markets are good way to solve problems. They do not believe in civil liberties. Instead they believe into talibanism you see when we studied to tell one of the things and one of the attributes that pops out is how they do not want opposing ideas to be spread. You see what's so amazing about speech. But so amazing about learning so amazing about words. If i could just be as simple as possible is. That speech can crumble. A- tyranny this is exactly why zhijie ping this is exactly. Why benito mussolini why stalin. They were always most worried about the writers. The authors the dissonance. They weren't as worried about the people that had weapons to use against them. They always felt either bigger gun. I have a bigger infantry our military. I'll be able to eliminate you know. Dictators are afraid of words. Alan dershowitz respects this and believes in this alan dershowitz in every single way is someone that thinks that the more speech the better why he's still a democrat. I don't know. I don't think he actually has. I think that he continues to identify as a democrat. Because i think it actually gives him more credibility when he speaks out on many of these issues when he speaks out about the illegal impeachment coming after president trump as a democrat who defended oj simpson as a democrat who defended the chicago. Seven democrat who speaks in favour of freedom of speech issues. He has more credibility at the same time though. Alan dershowitz has a lot of work to do within his own party. The democrat party is no longer a party of free. Speech is exactly why they had to remove people from twitter. Facebook and google understand this that the right words can crumble dictatorship and the matter of hours right phrasing that might just immediately mesh with our spirit mesh with our desire to be free. The right words communicated clearly to the masses can crumble the chinese communist party. That is why. America has relatively stayed free over the last couple of hundred years despite many attempts by different movements on authoritarians to take away our freedom and liberty as long as we can speak than we remained free remember. There are two ways of governing. People we talk about this quite a lot on our program. But it's one of the takeaways that i hope you tell people all the time and it's in some form or fashion of charlie kirk originally got this one little element from dr larry arnn from hillsdale but i kind of added to it. Which is there are two ways to govern people you govern them by force you can govern them by the military can cover them by having a bigger stick or a bigger gun or you can govern people using words. You can govern people by persuasion. You can govern people by winning them over. You can win them over on values issues. You can win them over on ideas. So that is why. Allah dershowitz is such a committed defender to freedom of speech. Alan dershowitz understands. And i don't say this lightly the existential threat the suppression of ideas and speech poses to the united states of america and so we should continue to embrace people like alan dershowitz. Alan dershowitz was nice enough to come on our program. In fact again. You download the episode. You will learn a lot about the constitution. you'll learn a lot about due process. You'll learn a lot about it on our program. Police check it out Great question and Thank you a signed copy of the doctrine so we are partnered with our buddy mike lindell and he's under fire right now. And if you want to support mike lindell and get great. Made in america products. Go to mypillow dot com slash kirk. That's my pillow dot com slash kirk for the special promo code so go to mypillow dot com. Use the promo code kirk. Help out mike lindell. He's under a lot of fire from the liberal mob. Let's stand up together with him and go to mypillow dot com promo code kirk. Do it right now. It'll help out mike and help our country. Here's a question here from sheila from rhode island. Hey charlie my professor. At an unnamed university says winston churchill was one of the worst people of the twentieth century. How'd i respond to this. I know you're a big fan of winston churchill. You speak about him quite often. Was he really that bad. Thanks so much. Sheila from rhode island. Congratulations sheila from rhode island. You in a signed copy of the magazine doctrines. Secondly you get involved turning point. Usa usa dot com winston churchill was one of the greatest human beings ever to live immensely flawed full of problems. But still one of the greatest people ever to live winston. Churchill became a hero for winning a war that he spent decades trying to prevent churchill was a master of statesmanship churchill. Wrote over fifty books. I encourage you to go pick one of them. Churchill served in almost every theatre of war imaginable from the boer war to the middle east to africa to afghanistan winston churchill stepped up courageously and with clarity when almost his entire civilization the british empire. One of the surrender. To the nazis winston churchill won a nobel prize in literature. Winston churchill was always somebody that was pushing the united kingdom or britain to excellence. The churchill was hated before he became prime minister loved while he was prime minister and hated after he became prime minister. Winston churchill called world war. Two the unnecessary war it's because winston churchill for decades about ten years is probably about what he say about ten years was warning about the threat of nazi germany. He kept britain together under relentless bombing of germany winston. Churchill refused to surrender famously saying we shall never surrender. You know how easy it would have been to be like neville chamberlain and go to peace talks with the nazis. Instead winston churchill had an unbreakable strength a commitment to this idea of western civilization of freedom of speech religious liberty founded on christian virtues and values and he looked evil right in the eyes and he refused to surrender because if you would have surrendered and they would of went to peace talks america very well might have been next and europe might never have been reclaimed. Might still be under perpetual the towel rule to this day but it was a small island nation thanks to winston churchill that stood up to this evil the first nation to do it. France was divided. There was a creation of a group of french military called the vichy. French actually collaborated with the authoritarian. Totalitarian national socialist worker parties and winston churchill did. Everything could keep france in the war and he was left alone and the bombing of london nearly broke the entire country. The blitz is what they call it. The luth wafa versus the british petitionary air force the spitfires dunkirk the near obliteration of almost all british troops in france. At the time they're able to be evacuated to britain and then pearl harbor rolled around and as pearl harbor happened winston churchill smile and he said this is the day we have won the war. America will get involved there. Industrial might will be activated and we will win this war. It's easy to judge. Churchill based on his negatives some of the military interventions that he sponsored some of the questionable decisions that he encouraged towards indigenous people. I think all of that can happen. In a spirited discussion. And i'm not going to justify and i'm not gonna apologize for any of that what i will say. Though is that the gift that weren't winston churchill gave is your ability to remain free today standing up to the authoritarian holocaust. The only reason it was interrupted was because of winston churchill if he would've acted like neville chamberlain and rolled over and surrendered. Our entire planet would be indifferent would be in a different set of circumstances because of one guy who refused to surrender rallied. Britain together walked the streets of london when it was full of rubble. Death blood chaos despair and he said very firmly. We shall never surrender in fact. Let's play some tape right here. Winston churchill same we shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the streets. We shall fight on. The hill is one of the greatest pieces of historical audio out there. I want you to think about this. How easy it would have been to peace terms because the nazis they never wanted to fight britain. Initially you see. Hitler wanted paris. He found it to be the cultural capital of europe. Going back further into history. Hitler was a racist. He cared about skin color. Hitler actually cared about what people looked like. Hitler cared about where people came from. And if you actually study the ancestry of the people of britain and the people of germany. They're the same bloodline that is why. People of england are typically called anglo saxon saxon of course being one of the regions of germany near bavaria. So hitler never considered britain to be a primary concern but as he realized churchill was bringing troops into france to stop his expansion and churchill wasn't gonna surrender. He made him an enemy. And then after the nazis bombed london churchill then retaliated embalmed berlin an all night bombing campaign halfway across europe. And as they say. The rest is history. The nazis would've preferred just to focus on. Russia considered the kasichs and the people of russia to be racially inferior. That was their concern. The soviet union was always his greater concerns similar to napoleon got distracted with churchill and pride took over and it wasn't quite honestly solved till the fall of berlin. But listen to this tape of will listen to the urgency in his voice would have been so easy to give up play tape. We go onto the end fighting right on the season ocean. We should fight. We'd growing confidence and growing strength in the we should defend our island. Whatever the cost. Maybe we should fight on the beaches fight on the landing ground fighting the fields and do the streets. We're still fighting the hill. We shall never surrender. And if i do not for a moment. Believe it's an island or large part of it which subjugated stabbing empire beyond the seed. And god he is a freak would carry on the struggle. Until in god's good time the new world with all its power might steps falls to the rescue and deliberation deal so to finish your question. The man is a hero. Statue should be built in his name. Not being torn down. Schools should be called the winston churchill center for higher learning the winston churchill. Elementary school instead. We're renaming them or tearing it down eliminating him from history. Not just us. The united kingdom is when an insult to a great man. That truly is next. Question from jeff is talking about the time magazine article. Now i think a lot of people that listened to our podcast. The last couple of days might have missed that episode. Police go back just a couple of episodes in addition to the dershowitz episode. And listen to our episode we did. It's an hour long episode. We went into depth into the time magazine article that was the shadow campaign that pulled off the two thousand twenty election. And it's called. How they did it. We posted an on saturday morning. So make sure you check it out how they did it. The conspiracy defeat donald trump. Make sure you check it out. We're going to get more questions here. Freedom at charlie. Kirk dot com. This question from lente what happens after the election. Fraud has proven well. Joe biden is president. There's no undoing that and even if we're able to prove election fraud in the courts there will be no recourse or measure to undo. Joe biden president united states. To answer your question. I don't know. I don't know what the steps forward are. I do know that. Once the constitutional provision put in place and the electoral college and certified and in it's recognized by the congress on january six then those steps afterwards are unknown to me then. Those steps afterwards are very clear. Joe biden becomes president. And then after that we do not know. So thank you for your question outlets the next one here. Here's a question from david charlie. Why don't they just give trans people. Their own league let them compete against each other. Seeing as how gender and biological differences don't matter this have no problem playing against each other and all types of different sports. I actually think it'd be pretty entertaining to watch like hockey or basketball. Game with a bunch of guys and girls. Playing with each other could be interesting. Well david you bring up a good point because we are seeing the death of female sports and women's sports in our country because of ideologues because people that are pathologically focused on not truth not biology but on politics and unfeeling. So why are more feminist. Not standing up for female sports wire more feminist. Not standing up to the girl in the track meet that now has to compete against a guy. There are high school athletes out there right now. That are men that can beat the world record holder in the one hundred meter dash. That is the difference between men and women when it comes to physical competition instead. We are not doing anything to protect these women's sports and so for local school districts. People say well charlie. How do i get involved. Run for school. Board under the one topic under the one thing of men will not be allowed in women's locker rooms and men will not be allowed in female sports. I actually think it's a much more popular position than the political correct. Tyrants allow you to believe. I'm in warning against this trans issue for quite some time. I have a lot of videos on this topic that you can check out on our youtube channel or on our instagram feed where i went to university of oregon and just opened up shop and started talking to liberals in the open. Quad at the university of oregon. You can watch that video in full. Where a young lady basically says gender does not matter at all and see indoctrination that this young woman. Yes i will call her a woman despite her being resistant any sort of gender terms with stunning the opposite of the pursuit of truth the opposite of the appreciation of how god made us. So when you remove. God there is no wisdom when you remove god and you don't believe you're made in the image of god then you will devolve into chaos. I wanna thank you guys. So much for our program at charlie kirk dot com slash support. We live in the greatest country ever to exist in the history of the world. And this podcast. This program is all about the preservation of this country. This podcast is all about education and activation. So if you have questions email us as always freedom charlie kirk dot com. And if you want to get behind our program and our team of editors that worked very late after the super bowl just to make sure you guys had this podcast on monday morning. Then please do that at kirk dot com slash support. Thank you guys so much for listening. God bless speak to you so.

mike lindell charlie kirk Alan dershowitz Mike lindell America winston churchill kirk hillsdale Charlie charlie Charlie kirks Kirk democrat party Mike lynn carly charlie baker aristotle socrates plato