President in the senate trial . I cannot really comment onib any possible conversations ive had with the white house. Id am certainly strongly opposed impeaching the president on the two grounds judiciaryy the committee. Neither of them is found in the constitution. They are the kinds of broad general, vague openended criteria that can be weaponize against virtually any president when the opposing party has the majority in the house of representatives. Its hamiltons nightmare. Hamilton said that the one thing he feared most was that impeachment would turn on the number of votes each party had rather than on the guilt or innocence of the person being impeached. And madison worried about open ended criteria, making a president serve at the will of congress and turning us into the kind of parliamentary democracy that we fought against in the revolution. We did not want a parliamentary democracy in which a president can be thrown out of office for a vote of nonconfidence. So i am strongly opposed to the true criteria for impeachment. But i cant comment on any conversations ive had about playing a former role in the senate trial. Are you playing an informal rolele in advising the president . I dont advise him directly. I write about it, ive written two books and probably 50 articles. The president is free to read them. I speak on programs like this and so you could say, i have given advice to the president , i am not in a lawyer client relationship with either the president or his lawyers. I had even advised president s going back in time to bill clinton, and barack obama. And any president of the United States who asked me for advice, for example i have advised the president and his team on the middle east peace process. On the recent executiveddt order. But when it comes to legal advice, i am not in a lower lawyer client relationship either formally or informally. Wt and what has the white house reached out to udall . Have you had any conversations with them . I was at the white house a week ago for the hanukkah party. I met with various people in the white house, we primarily discuss the executive order. But i am in touch with the white house as i have been with others white houses over time. But again no formal, legal relationship exists at this. In time and i am not free to content ofut the those conversations that i have had with the white house. You have a new book comic guilt by accusation. What is this book about . And are you worried, as you told the newas york post that you could be kept from representing the president or having some sort of role because of epstein accusation, Jeffrey Epstein accusations against you . Im proud to write this book. In this book i prove categorically that i never met with this woman and she emails to a friend and a taperecorded conversation said it was impossible for me to it have met her. That she is wrong, simply wrong. A former fbi director did a study and concluded that there is no basis for the charge. She told the fbi the names of people with whom she had, did not include me. Older best friend. I have been completely exonerated. There is nothing to the charge against me at all. This is a woman who was falsely a close typical or al gore, lots of people and being epstein style. I have no fear, im an open book. I have lived a completely honorable life. So i am not concerned about that. But when i was asked to testify on behalf of of the republican side, there were some who said g this accusation is out there, maybe we shouldnt have been testify. Thats why i wrote a book, guilt by accusation. There isof no evidence of guilt, there is only accusation. An accusation is enough to maybe keep you from testifying representing the president. We are moving through an age with that ism grew up with when you are accused of having any association with communism you are proven guilty. Ive written my book, i have never refused to answer question because i am an open book. My life is been very honorable, 50ye years at harvard with not a single complaint or suggestion of impropriety. I have not done anything wrong and i am not going to act like i have anything to hide. It was unveiledtr yesterday for the parameters of a senate trial. He wants Mick Mulvaney the acting chief of staff and bolton to testify. Should they have to testify . Will the first question is are there sufficient allegations to justify a trial. Remember the analogy is a grand jury, the houses a grand jury commie the senate is a jury. If the grand jury has indicted forin something thats not a crime. For a grand jury indicts a man woman for marrying each other and they are in different races, that would be as constitutional. You wouldnt have a trial, w would make a y motion to be dismissed. And here we have to allegations that are not in theon constitution. They are the kinds of allegations of the framers of the constitution were very much against. So i think the first issue is whether there should be a trial at all. Or whether the allegations fail on their face. And i think that decision has to be made before you introduce any evidence. The hypothetical i was given about having a married couple would take no evidence on that purity be unconstitutional to have a trial. The first step has to be to determine whether the impeachment allegations satisfy the criteria. Take for example obstruction of congress. Obstruction of congress is because the president , as head of the executive branch demanded that before any people in the executive branch complied with the subpoena they had to be a judicial order. Just friday, the Supreme Court reviewed associate review in three cases in which they said we arere going to look at that issue. So obviously that is a very plausible issue. And that cant be ground forul impeachment. So i would strongly recommend that the democrats who are now on the fence, or live in districts where they know their constituents are not strongly in favor of impeachment, should at the very leastth strike the obstruction of justice from the charges. There is just no basis for that in the Supreme Court. I think you pull the rug out from under the democrats in the decision on friday to grant review of cases involving him the power to sabrina and whether the president has the right to invoke privileges. On the abuse of power. Do you believe the president asked a Foreign Government to interfere in our election . I am not involved in the facts of the case. I think the evidence has to be looked at, but i dont think that would be grounds for impeachment. I think president s constantly take actions that are designed to help their electoral prospects. If you go back to abuse of power, if you allow that to be a criteria for impeachment, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Franklin roosevelt can find a hundred and ten japaneseamericans in detention centers. John kennedy authorized the tapping of Martin Luther kings telephones. Every controversy of president has been accused of abuse of power. And so i dont even get to the factual issues, abuse of power is simply not a criteria. If the framers wanted abuse of power to be a criteria for removing the president , it would have been simple, just put it in the constitution. Treason, bribery, high crimes or abuse of power. They didnt do that, and they did not do obstruction of congress. And as Jonathan Turley aptly put it, this is not a jazz concert will improvisation of congress is to be accepted. That has to be a violation of the specific terms of the impeachment provisions in the constitution. And thats just not been well ledge. If it has not been alleged, with the facts are is not significant. You first have to decide if there has been an allegation of an Impeachable Offense. And i think the answers been theres not been an allegation of ebb and Impeachable Offense. Im surprised the democrats did not put bribery in there. They talkedd about it, but they left bribery out. That would at least satisfy the words of the constitution. Then they wouldve had to prove the elementsns of bribery, which i dont think they couldnt do so is why they left it out. But to go toth too vague criteria is obstruction of congress and abuse of power, is hamilton and madisons nightmare. And the 600 page report that was released by houseni judiciary democrats last night, they do say bribery. They. To bribery and say this apresident solicited a bride by asking the ukraine leader to call for an investigation into the bidens in exchange for a white house meeting and that military aid. So why dont they put that is one of the allegations that is to be voted on by the Judiciary Committee and then voted on by the house . You cant just throw things in there. And accused peopleeo of things. If your going to make an accusation, put it as one of the charges and then that can be debated. But you cant have it both ways. You cant charge abuse of power and obstruction of congress is the only two Impeachable Offenses, and then saved by the way, bribery in this other thing is well. You have to really decide what you were going to charge the president with. Thats the minimum required by due process ofd law. So you dont think the abuse of power, that the democrats allegation that he solicited a bribe is an abuse of power . No, the. Im making is a very different. That is abuse of power is not in and of itself criteria for impeachment. Even if they were able to appeal the bruce of power, that may be, a reason to vote against somebody in the election. But abuse of power is just too broad of a concept. I can give you 20 president s throughout history that had been accused of abuse of power by the opposing party. Most recently obviously when president bush went to war and iraq, he accused of democrats of abuse ofe power. President obama was accused of abuse of power for the fast and furious. Its a cliche they gets thrown around, politically is the last thing you want to be a specific criteria for impeachment. Abuse, what does abuse mean . And so its just too vague and openended. Its exactly what madison said. He said you dont want an open ended vague criteria that can be used against any president by the opposing party and in hamiltons terms that was in turn impeachment into the most votes. And thats exactly what youre seeing. This is the first impeachment in history thats ever to go strictly along party lines. And that is again, what the framers very strongly opposed to. Thats why they required two thirds vote in the senate, presiding the chief justice. I wish they always also required a two thirds vote in the house. They analogized it to grand jury. But you need unanimous jury to convict. Gym and Fort Collins Colorado democratic color. Thank you mr. Durer which for your very, very good review of what were going through. I have a real interesting question does the impeachment process the hearings that weve had are those subject to judicial review . What a great, great question and the answer is clear we dont know, we just dont know. Sue justices souter and whites have suggested that in an appropriate case, and might be subject to judiciary resume. Let me give you an example. Lets assume the senate decides g2 thirds is too much. We have 60 , but we have made 67 . Lets change the rule. Lets permit impeachment based on 60 . That is subject to judiciary review. Or the senate says we dont like the chief justice we dont him to preside over the trial of the president. That would be subject to judicial review. So the next question is what if the house and peaches grounds is not in the constitution. Is that subject to judicial review . We just dont know. Nobody has tried it, i doubt the Supreme Court would grant review at this stage in the case. But it might. I mean the constitution has two conflicting points of view. On the one hand it says the senate should be the sole judge and the house shallll be the sole judge. That suggests no judicial review. Within hamilton and 78 said every act of congress, thats unconstitutional, should be subject to judicial review. In our system they judiciary is the umpire between the branches, the executive and the legislature. So the answer is, we just dont know and we may never find out. Allen in appleton wisconsin. Good morning greta, mr. Dirks or which, also greta, what is president s side on the u. S. Senate en masse information and data also spying on phone calls for the allies and they also weaponize. [inaudible] allen we have a hard time hearing you. I think he is referring to the first part the ig report that came out last week. Will the ig report really suggests that we have a problem with the pfizer court. The pfizerh court isnt ex parte in court that they dont hear two sides of the issued they will rely on the credibility of the information provided by the fbi. And the ig report, the ig is a nonpartisan guy, a career who is did have some serious criticisms by which the pfizer report, which allowed spying on an american citizen was permitted. I have a proposal, i would like to see fisa appoints a devils advocate committee of three prominent lawyers, former judges for prosecutors who have security clearance and can present the other side. So that when an application is made to spy on an american citizen, both sides are heard. And the fisa court can then be assured that they are hearing all the evidence. With this fisa application, obviously they were denied crucial evidence not only in the initial application, but in the renewed applications after the fbi agents had information strongly suggesting that the information they originally provided was not valid. And they did not inform the pfizer court of that new intervention. Donald kalamazoo michigan. Good morning, i have just a couple of questions. Im not very good aty this adlibbing, but i want to know whether people make mistakes on purpose or the people sometimes do sloppy things on purpose. That would explain a lot of what happened with the fbi. I would also like to know why the democrats arent all upset when clinton was elected with 43 of the popular vote. They didnt seem to have a problem with that. And out of this gentleman knows, im sure he knows a whole lot about history, but i would like to read just a Little Something that i rode up. If you words about iraq and war. For this is in doubt, firsthand accounts go to a book without hesitation by general huge sheldon, hes retired. He was chairman and chief of staff during the clinton restoration. And what im going to say is iraq invaded kuwait, the un got the u. S. Into war to get iraq out. It was a ceasefire agreement signed by the un so required the u. S. To honor the nofly zone. In 2000 there were 366 iraq he attempts to shoot down u. S. And butte british planes. They shot back. In the dictionary war is ours the hostility between nations. Question . The dictionary is correctbu how could bush started a war in iraq when their admin war for some years . Thats a good. And of course the constitution requires explicitly that no war can be conducted without the approval of congress. But weve since the second world war, weve had no declarations of war and so president s have assumed without Necessary Authority to the either right to start wars, engage in military activities, these are very hard quittance. Of course clinton only to get a minority of the votes, but remember theres a Third Party Candidate in that case. Until he got a substantial more votes than his major opponent. Whereas of course in the most recent election in 2000 election the winning candidate got fewer votes than the losingor candidate, but more looked oriole votes. But thats how the system works. And you never know. If we had abolished the Electoral College, with those Candidates Campaign more new york and california inc. Canada lost the popular mowbray will could have won the popular vote. So we planned by the rules of the rules are the rules of the Electoral College and the President Trump wanted a completely legitimate election. I voted against him i am a democrat and i do not challenge the legitimacy of his election. President Trump voted out before nine read the transcript folks, its the greatest con job, the fake news and Democratic Party are working overtime making the replicant parties difficult as possible. Se this should the president play a role in his defense . Absolutely not. I have defended people for 55 years and i never ever allow my clients to play a role. They all want to, they all want to assert their innocence. Butce the burden is always on the other side to prove guilt and generally i have advised mys clients to play a passive role in their own trials. There been rare occasions where i had a client take the witness stand and testify, but the fear of a perjury trap is far too great. And rebuke in voluntary perjury trap by telling the truth. If you tellet the complete, honest, gods truth, completely, and the other side has a witness who has a different assessment and comes forward, you could be indicted for perjury. And i have seen that too often to ever recommend to a client and a highly highly controversial case, to participate factually and actively in his or her and own defense. Have you spoken to the president about this directly . I cant comment on any conversations ive had with the president. I have had conversations with every c president since certainly bill clinton. In my conversations with the president s have to remain confidential. Even other not covered by the lawyer client privilege, they are just confidential. If i was subpoenaed and there is no executive privilege out fully have to testify. Have you talked to the white House Counsel . I have met with white house canceling met with him for the first time at the hanukkah party. Seemed like a very nice terrific guy. One of my former Research Assistants works for him andas introduce me. I think the president s had some wonderful wonderfule people working for him. The white House Counsel works for us, the people. Jay secular who is one of the great lawyers of our country, works for the president , and so is very, very good legal team. And who do you think will be representde in the present and the senate trial . I dont have an answer and that i think that white House Counsele will have a role to play as the white House Counsel did in the clinton case. I did advise president clintons legal team, during that impeachment and i was on the National Board of several liberties unions board when nixon was impeached. I took the view, even though i favored nixon, i didnt think they should support nixons impeachment. I thought they should defend his procedural rights and safeguards to make sure the constitution wasst complied with. So ive taken the same consistent position about impeachment since the early 1970s. You think its appropriate that the majority leader, Senate Majority leader senator mcconnell is discussing the impeachment when he supposed to behi a juror with the white house . We know that happened during the clinton impeachment as well. I wish the whole process of impeachment was less partisan and political and morear judicial. But both sides have weaponize and made itde into a partisan debate. It happened as i said during the clinton impeachment, and its happening now. It would be b far better in general if the process were more judicial and less partisan. How do you assess the white house strategy so far . I think there are many white house strategies. I think the president strategy is to tweets. And reasonable people can disagree with that. It got him elected president , but is also created some problems. I think the white house strategy has generally been fairly effective, fighting fire with fire. But we s will wait and see what happens with the impeachment and then the trial. You willu judge results only after theyre completed. Will go to michelle in georgia. Yes, mr. Durso which, i am very upset with you this morning. Because i am an africanamerican can see that you are letting this man who is in that white house get away with anything that he wants to get away with. Now he madead a statement that he could take a gun and shoot African Americans anybody else he wants to shoot. From that. On i opened the gun shop. And my guns have flew off among African Americans. We hate and despise this man. He is a klansman. He is the only one that can go out to these rallies and they are white nazis in the audience. And tell them what he can do to africanamericans. What we are not going to have it, and we prove that we can beat him. Whos the governor of kentucky . If not let bevin. His the governor of louisiana . Its not the man they had. So we turned virginia blue. We won in bucks county and pennsylvania. We won in delaware so dont sit here and tell me demographics dont matter. Lets let him respond. I am certainly very happy that there are large numbers africanamericans who vote in our primaries and elections. I think africanamericans can have an enormous impact on the outcome of this election and dominantly africanamericans vote democrat. Of course there many africanamericans who support trump and vote and support from. Thats the nature of our country. No one speaks for all africanamericans just like known speaks for all jews are all protestants. The president never said he could take a gun and shoot africanamericans. I think quite foolishly he said even if he took a gun on fifth avenue and shot somebody he can still be elected president. That was bragging and boasting. But i dont see how that could be interpreted as having a direct targeting of africanamericans. But africanamericans should vote, and they should vote their interest, and they should vote in large numbers. Africanamerican voting certainly contributed normatively to the election of democrats in the past. Th and i encourage africanamericans to vote in large numbers in both the primary and the election. Thats what american democracy is all about. Thank you very much for taking my call. I want to explain something to these guys think they are so smart i just understand. If we let this thing go with trump, seller listing foreign powder powers to interfere with our elections. Thats the same thing that happened in my last election. Our elections are going to be tainted forever. He is going to cheat. And this is going to destroy her democracy right there. Okay, another. I want to make, that 75 to 80 of the people know that trump did some wrong. They agreed he did something wrong. Even though they dont agree with impeachment, i think its a dirty process and it looks really bad. Ea but it doesnt mean those other people are not going to vote, i mean they are going to vote for trump just because they dont think he should be impeached. I think the democrats are making a big mistake there. You can see it from the last election. They are going to vote trump, and dont turn me off leave me on. The other. I want to make. That trump was so crazy about investigating and getting the truth out here and being transparent. Then white didnt we investigate his kids to have parents of the white house. I think thats very, very dangerous. Why dont you have somebody investigate him and what is and it turned his tax record. If he gave away syria to the russians, he wouldve given away ukraine to a russia if it would never come out. Can you imagine this man in office . America you have to wake up our democracy is at stake. Youve made some very, very strong arguments why youre gonna vote against trump and why people should vote against trump. People should take all that into account. Nobody is saying that the president should not be accountable for his actions. But impeachment is not a substitute for elections. Impeachment as you yourself suggested is a political game. And it should be reserved only for extreme extreme cases. With only had two impeachments in American History which both failed to secure convictions. One did not go to impeachment with president nixon resigned. And the questions for all americans is that the conduct of what you disapprove, rise to the level of an Impeachable Offense . My view is that the framers set out criteria for impeachment and none of them have been met in this case. But that doesnt mean the president should not be held accountable for his elections politically at the poor. Those four are treasonous defined in the constitution. Bribery basicallysi people know what that means. High crimes which are crimes of governance. And ill give you an example of history. When Alexander Hamilton was a secretary of treasury which is an Office Available for impeachment. He had a serious crime of adultery. And then he paid hush money to quiet it down. But then when he was accused by the same extortionists of using treasury funds to pay the hush money, thats when he wrote his essay admitting the adultery, admitting the hush money, but denying the treasury funds. Because that wouldve been a high crime. Adultery was a low crime. What president clinton did was a low crime, so we have to distinguish low crimes from high crimes. The hard word in the constitution is high misdemeanor. The word other is a high misdemeanor must be of a kind of like treason and bribery. Tand my view is that the framers intended certainly criminal type behavior, misdemeanor is a species of crime. And i just dont think the criteria are met by broad allegations such as obstruction of congress and abuse of power. Heres what the house Judiciary Committee wrotet in their report on the abuse of power. Justice jackson widely observed that constitution was not only to grant power but to keep it from getting out of hand. Nowhere is that sure than the presidency. As the framers created a formidable chief executive, they made clear that impeachment is justified for serious abuse of power. Edmund randolph was explicit on this. And explaining why the constitution must authorize president ial impeachment, he warned that quote the executive will have great opportunities of abusing power. Madison to stated that impeachment is necessary because the president might pervert his administration into a scheme of oppression. This echoed through the ratifying conventions advocating that new york ratify the constitution, hamilton set the standard for impeachment and added a quote abuse or violation of some public trust. So heres how it really works. There are two issues. What was the reason . There is a debate whether we should have a debate at all. One of the reasons was abuse of power undoubtedly. That is completely separate. The reasons are completely separate from the criteria. And so at the framers decided on, they had broad reasons for having impeachment. That very narrow criteria. In order to impeach, you had to defined treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Not abuse of power. Once you found those, what that is the prerequisite, but then you can say was that an abuse of power. President bill clintons high crime, or low crime was not an abuse of power, so that was erroneous. An erroneous use of impeachment power. Re so there is confusion between the reasons framers wanted to have impeachment which included abusing power and the criteria they settled on. This is striking a compromise between broad terms in the kinds of narrow terms that would restrict the power of congress to remove a duly elected president. To the criteria strict the reasons are broad, and both have to apply. In other words finding a high cry is a necessary but not sufficient treachery for removal. What you need is a high crime, one that shows an abuse of power. And thats exactly what hamilton said in federal 65 where he described the four criteria and then he said all of these partake of violations of public trust which could be called political and terms like abuse of power. But we should never confuse the reasons for why we have impeachment with the criteria that are specific and set out for impeachment. So the House Democrats it said i the criteria is bribery. That they act a former foreign power. Thats what they should have acted in what theys simply alleged that they are charging him with three offenses. Abuse of power, jeff shouldnt of congress and bribery. But they did not include bribery. Ib the democrats it made a decision to exclude bribery. They didnt listed as one of the criteria. And the most elemental aspects of due process as you cannot put somebody on trial for something you havent explicitly charged him with. It in context of a criminal case. Lets assume someone is charged with abusing authority, which is not a crime. And then the evidence they introduce is bribery. But that would not be enough. Youd move to strike the indictment. Any judge would dismiss the case because he hadnt been charged with the bribery. In an statement has to contain all the ailments of the crime and a grand jury indictment has to charge specific crimes. The same would be true with the impeachment of the house of representatives. Lets go to fort worth to texas with tom. Thank you for taking my call, i will try to be brief. I think mr. Durso which is correct. There is no impeachable crime or offense. Heres my question. This anybody know if joe and hunter biden have been investigated by United States Government Agency . Government agency investigated them . Were they proving innocent . Can i see the report that exonerated them. If theres no investigation then theres a n possibility that they are guilty of something, i would expect the president to look into the matter. It doesnt matter if joe biden is running for president or not. I think youre making the same mistake the democrats are making. Youre sick we need to look into see if theres any crime. Thats not how American Government works. Thats how stalin worked. He said show me the nano finds a crime. I dont want to see hunter biden investigated to atermine whether there is crime. I see no evidence that hunter biden committed any crime. Did he take it vantage of his fathers status as Vice President become member of a board and get all that money . Sure. Is that a political session . Yes. Is it crime . I just dont see it. And i dont want to see the criminal Justice System weaponize either against democrats or republicans. Thebl criminal Justice System should be reserved for obvious crimes that jump out issue. What crime would biden have committed, hunter biden. Lets assume he did something wrong in ukraine. Crimes are committed against the United States of america. Yes, we have the federal corrupt actions act. But now that is limited. So i just think it would be a mistake to start, at this. Investigating hunter biden. Now the issue of whether or not joe biden who i can tell you someone ive known for many, many years and admire, whether or not he did the right thing by saying to b the Ukrainian Authority that he wants to make sure certain things were done, that would belo worth looking into. Because he is after all the former Vice President of the United States and a spresident ial candidate. But at the moment, i dont see any criminal behaviors. But politically, if youre running for office, you open yourselves up to all kinds of investigations. Political investigations rather than criminal investigations. But i dont want to see the criminal Justice System weaponize against either party. Got among gonorrhea with jimmy. Hi thank you this is the first ive gotten through. Please give me a moment why try to get my thoughts together. It would be interesting to know, and i know you said criminal law defender, i dont want to get into the president and added tax just because i dont appreciate your opinion. My. Is that you said that, the reasons for impeachment are incorrect. And that ishm your opinion. But which you are entitled to. But the reason bribery was not included, and the indictment if you will, is because the president has obstructed the people that actually helped the congress prove that case from testifying. So its interesting that on one hand you spoke this opinion i wish that the framers had done such and such, but you cant define, im going to try to define high crimes and misdemeanors, but its whatever the Congress Says that is. I have watched the democratic prosecutors and investigative committee, and then the Judicial Committee they haved made their case. And they couldnt make the case for bribery because the president obstructed the people from testifying under oath that would have made that. Okay two points in response. Number one the president th did not obstruct anything. The congress simply could have gone to the courts and asked the courts to or issue orders compelling them to testify. Then the president would have had to comply her there would have been an obstruction of justice. But they didnt do it. They said they didnt have the time to go because they are rushing. They have o plenty of time and you can get expedited judicial orders as they did in the nixon cases and in the clinton case. And your view that Impeachable Offenses whatever the hell says it is, Maxine Waters said that too. And said there is no law. She is just wrong, completely wrong. You take an oath as a member of the house of representatives to comply with the constitution. C the constitution sets out these four criteria. The house cant just make it up. Forho example, what if the house impeach someone on maladministration. Thats a nice word, maladministration. That word was put before the Constitutional Convention and it was rejected. Can the house say were smarter than the framers of the constitution . We now accept as a criteria for impeachment what the framers explicitly rejected. No they cant do that. That would violate their oath of office. Could they get away with it . Maybe if this new judicial review, maybe they could get away with it. But it would be unconstitutional to have is a criteria for impeachment something the framers explicitly rejected. And thats why believe is happening here. Jeremy from lawrence kansas. Thank you for taking my call. In terms of understanding this current political moment on the apparent level of criminology were dealing with. Idke like to quickly bring up some books. The authors and content of with cspan should seriously consider featuring, especially in relationship to featuring a guest like alan and his background and personal commitments. Number one the house of trump, the house of putin the untold story ofst donald trump and the russian mafia. It really gives a background of the Trump Organization is amending Laundering Organization fits into the actual russian deep state. Thats also chided organized crime. Number two read mustsee. [inaudible] and number three the set of boots proof of collusion how trump betrayed america and now proof of conspiracy how trumps collision is threatening americas democracy. And then finally i would ask mr. Dershowitz which to also address the topic of zeb shall live the narrative for the israeli news executive producer. And whitney webb who has reported that Jeffrey Epstein was being run by Israeli Military and. Intelligence has disclosed, and the allegation in the book Robert Maxwell is a real superspy that his father Robert Maxwell was a kgb and Israeli Intelligence agent who works with the red mostly at lave its to set up moneylaundering instruments around the world. So mr. Dershowitz which, your background and defending parlor it and then sp might be you might be an agent of israeli activists. [laughter] from a Jewish American perspective. Okay thats just paranoid dribble that i am a russian agent and i was in raleys agent. I am an independent person. I represent of because his sentence was way way obsessive and the idea that russian and israel combined, they are basically enemies. Russia supports syria, russia supports iran, russia supports indirectly i has below. People whoe are dedicated toel the complete destruction of israel. Russia votes against israel than United Nations on almost every occasion. Im very proud of my career as criminal defenseen lawyer. I have defended some of the most controversial people in history. I think of myself as a tradition of john adams who represented the boston massacre soldiers who were recused. I think of myself in the tradition of so many other defense lawyers who have history, and have endured criticism foror defending the most unpopular people of their age and generation. I am 81 years old, i hope to continue to defend people you dont like. And people who most americans dont like. Because the need for aus defense attorney to stand up to excesses of the prosecution, and paranoid excesses of the kind you have expressed in your views about epstein working for the them, what Intelligence Agency would trust Jeffrey Epstein to work for them . These are just allegations that are being thrown out there. There is no truth whatsoever to any of them. And certainly not truth that i have ever been an agent for any foreign country. I am a loyal patriotic american, my grandparents came here to get away from the depressions of eastern europe, we love america, we are patriotic and im going to with theto do american constitution demands of me. Defendant people who have been accused wrongly or rightly of serious matters. Villas going from west bend wisconsin. Thank you for taking my f call. So i have a question. Were they wanting an investigation about what happened in 2016 . Was it a confusing question is it 2020 coming up . Okay the biden thing, hes a candidate, so maybe they presume that was going for 2020. Our was he asking for an investigation of the past election in 16 . Bill your. Of asking that question . Was the president talking about 2016 or 2020. Whats your. . Thats it people are saying he tried toto corrupt the 2020 election or was he just looking for information on what happened in 2016. To distinguish the two. And then my other question is adam schiff, was he right . Or is there anything wrong with what he did by releasing telephone data onto the Telephone Company on his own . And collecting that data, and then my other question is on this impeachment thing. Why would they take and have secret meetings, interrogations is what i collect, to me s it seems like they are trying to trap the witnesses into saying what to say and how to say it. American people were not involved in that, no cameras. And then all of a sudden they opened it up to the public, after words and if i was donald trump i wouldve been upset. Hey if youre going toha investigate me, keep open on that. Transparency is obviously important and theres a impeachment proceeding. But the intelligence committees do have the power to have sessions that are subject to closure because of National Security material and summation. So as far as weathers 2016 or 2020, who knows. I mean the6 conversation was vague and general. And i think the democrats realize there is not enough in the conversation to charge anything specific, which is why they went to abuse of power. And jerry in portland ohio. Good morning greta, youre beautiful. Its been two years seven trying to get on your line and talk to you again. Im glad you got on the line jerry. Okay alan, i listen to you, and zero shoot i forgot their names now, the one that testified in the hearings and livein, all three of you guys are pretty much on the same page and i have learned some things this morning that i had never heard before that you brought out. That i really respect. But my thought is this impeachment thing. Congress, the underlying thing i see here, Congress Wants to limit the power of the presidency. They also want to limit the power of the judicial system. Is there reason they would not let these judicial system say whether these guys had too testify or not. I think thats right. That went too fast without enough insight in it, the republicans have question six or eight witnesses, but they only got two. I agree with you completely. And i think what shouldve happened is congress should have precipitated the witnesses that they wanted. John bolton, whoever else they wanted. Got to court. And bolton, as he said wouldve complied with the judicial order. If the court said you have to testify, he wouldve testified. And if he said no youre the National Security advisor to the president he has executive authority to keep you from testifying, he wouldnt testified. I believe they could have gotten expedited consideration of that judicial request. But instead congress wanted to circumvent the courts and argue that a president who fails to comply with this subpoena of congress, by that very factng is obstructing congress. Thats i just wrong as a matter ofng law, its a mat wrong is an separation of power, checks and balances. The obligation is to go to the court getl a judicial order, then if the president fails to comply with the judicial order thats an obstruction of justice. Deborah and columbia missouri. Yes i have a question, how is abuse of power different from a difference in policy, thats first. Then if biden wasnt running, could investigation take place . And third, how can information from make foreign influence affects our elections if our ballot boxes are secure . An un tampered with . Will first of all the abuse of power is something that could be used as a kind of symbol of disagreement over policy. In fact if you listen carefully to the testimony in front of the intelligence committee, which i listen to very carefully, it was largely an argument over differences in policy. How we should approach the ukraine. Whether or not the president was satisfied with the ambassadors to the ukraine. All of that. I didnt think it rose to the level of an Impeachable Offense. I worry very much about a concept like abuse of power, as i said. Virtually every controversial president has to be accused by the opposing party of abuse of power. Im try to member to third poweres your third question was. There are many ways a Foreign Government can influence our election. Through social media, not direct access to the ballot c box, we can secured into those hopefully, but there are other ways for which Foreign Governments can try to influence our elections. By the way we have tried to influence foreign elections. I have no doubt in mind that president obama worked very hard to try too get benjamin defeated when he ran for Prime Minister last time around. I think probably other governments try to influence our elections, we try to influence their elections. Theres a big difference in influencing them publicly. For example we know that sanders went to london and campaign basically for the losing candidate for Prime Minister. We know that other people were strongly supportive of boris johnson. N. So people think that its in the American Interest have certain people win, certain people lose, and foreign elections. Its not surprising their efforts to do. The question is whether they are legitimate efforts. And if tampering with the ballot would be illegitimate. Hiding who you are my be a legitimate, but having a press conference and saying we think we would be better for britain if soandso worn. Or better for the United States of soandso one. Thats a very different matter. Isnt legitimate then to do as the democrats charge that the president asked for foreign interference for his own political gain . While i think that very many president s take action and Foreign Policy for their own elect oriole gain. We know decisions were made about bombing cambodia, or stopping this actiont. Or not, looking at the ballot box. Looking at the implication for whether or not it would help or hurt an election. So ifon you try to make that a grounds for impeachment, a president thinking how some decision will influence his electoral prospects, i think that would be far far too broad. Look, you could make it a crime if Congress Passed the statute to ask a Foreign Government to invest a political opponent. It is not currently a crime, and so thats why you have to use vague terms like abuse of power. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Here in ccn tonight the communicators is next with democratic congressman mike doyle of pennsylvania. Thats followed by a discussion on the role congress has in overseeing National Security issues. And later, ill ask Alaska Governor mike dunlevy talks about the state budget and fiscal outlook. created by cable in 1979 cspan is brought to you by your local table or satellite provider. Cspan your unfiltered view of government. Congressman mike doyle is a chai
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.