Next, criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz debates democratic consultant robert shrum on the politics of impeachment, the me too movement and antisemitism. The Beverly Hills temple of the arts hosts the event. Well, tonight should be a humdinger. Im looking forward to it. To moderate, we have nothing less than a judge, judge Alex Kosinski who is seated in the center. Many of you know him, he was appointed to the United StatesCircuit Court for the ninth circuit on november 7th, 1985, and served as chief judge from 2007 to 2014, graduating from ucla and from ucla law school, receiving a jd in 1975. And prior to his appointment to the appellate bench judge kosinski served as chief judge of the United States claims court from 82 to 85 and special counsel to the merit systems protection board. And he retired from the bench in 2017 after 35 years of judicial service. [ applause ] judge kosinski is married to Marcy Jane Tiffany and has three children, yale, wyatt, and clayton, and three grandmother, quinn, owen, and anna. We thank you for being here, judge kosinski. [ applause ] now, we mentioned ucla, so we must give usc equal time. And were really honored to have robert shrum, who is the carmen h. And Louis Warshaw chair in practical politics and director of the usc center for the political future. [ applause ] professor shrum is director of the center. And hes a former strategist and consultant who was described as, quote, the most soughtafter consultant in the Democratic Party by the atlantic monthly. He served as speechwriter to new york mayor john lindsay from 1970 to 71, and speechwriter and press secretary to the late senator Edward Kennedy from 1980 to 84. He served as Senior Adviser to the Gore Lieberman campaign in 2000 and the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. Other clients include Barbara Mikulski and joe biden in their senate campaigns, bob casey in his run for governor and tom bradley in his run for mayor of los angeles. Author and Professor Robert shrum. [ applause ] and were really honored to have with us Alan Dershowitz, professor dershowitz [ cheers and applause ] a brooklyn native who has been called one of the nations most distinguished defenders of individual rights, an international treasure, the best known criminal lawyer in the world, and has been named the jewish states lead attorney in the court of public opinion. He is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law emeritus of harvard law school, a graduate of Brooklyn College and yale law school, and joined the harvard faculty at age 25, becoming a full professor at 28, the youngest in the schools history, and 50 years of teaching over 10,000 students. [ applause ] prolific author, recipient of numerous awards, and i dont know if you remember this, professor dershowitz, but the yeshiva that you went to in high school and that i went to in high school were competing, in what was called the interyeshiva conference. You have went to bta, myself to long island. Were thrilled to have them here tonight. We have a threepart program. Part one, debate. Part two, dialogue. And part three, discussion. Because we have to learn what our differences of opinion are on a whole range of subjects and how we can create Common Ground so that we can communicate with one another and how we are best able to reach one another in this very stratified and divided society we live in. And thats why tonights program will have three parts. Ive asked that part one, which is a debate on the politics of impeachment, that each respondent, professor dershowitz and professor shrum, speak for ten minutes each. Somebody said why so short. When i was taught public speaking by a wonderful teacher who used an analogy related to oil wildcatting, he used to say, if you havent struck oil in ten minutes, quit boring. So were going to hopefully enable you to strike oil very quickly. And then well have a point and counterpoint on this issue. This issue thats been so divisive, that we would like to hear more about. Ill be replacing judge kosinski for part two, which will be a discussion and dialogue on a number of important issues that affect us. And the last part of which will relate to rising antisemitism and the bds movement. So right now ill turn things over to judge kosinski who will begin the program today by asking the First Respondent to discuss the issue of the politics of impeachment. Who would like to begin . Professor dershowitz, you have the floor. Well, im happy to begin. [ applause ] im a liberal democrat who voted for all the people that bob worked for. My political mentors in many ways where ted kennedy. I worked on the mcgovern campaign. I worked on all the democratic campaigns. I worked hard for the election of Hillary Clinton. I worked hard for the defeat of President Donald Trump in an election. But i strongly, strongly, strongly opposed his impeachment. I believe that [ applause ] duly elected president s should be removed from office only, only when there is a broadbased consensus and bipartisan support for impeachment and removal. The only president in American History who was properly subject to impeachment was richard nixon. And it never came to that because it was so clear that he had committed impeachable offences that he voluntarily or maybe not so voluntarily resigned. Andrew johnson was improperly impeached. Bill clinton was improperly impeached. I in fact was part of the bill clinton defense team and testified in front of congress against his impeachment. I was the only person who spoke in the senate against the impeachment of donald trump who also spoke against the impeachment of bill clinton. In fact the only other time i was on the senate floor was when i stood up and defended alan cranston, the great liberal democratic senator of california. So for me, impeachment is never and should never be a partisan issue. I think everybody has to pass what i call the shoe on the other foot test. And what i asked the senators to do, i said to each of them, please, imagine that the person being impeached was of the opposite party, and you are of the opposite party. And ask yourself what neutral principles would justify impeachment. And then i went through what one of my rabbis called a talmudic dialogue about the six words that were the subject of the debate on the senate floor. The six words were and other high crimes or other high crimes or misdemeanors. Everyone knows what treason means, its in the constitution. Everybody knows what bribery means, its a common term that had meaning in common law at the time the constitution was written. But what does or other high crimes and misdemeanors mean . Obviously there is the simple facial meaning of the term. When you have two words, treason and bribery, and then the word other, the word other requires that crimes and misdemeanors be akin to treason and bribery. Thats the obvious intended meaning. So that high crimes, we know that means crimes like extortion, crimes like bribery, crimes like perjury which bill clinton was accused of committing. What about misdemeanors . You go back and look at what misdemeanors meant in common law. Misdemeanors were a species of crime. They were a crime. At common law there was something called a capital misdemeanor. You could actually be executed for committing a misdemeanor. Thats how serious misdemeanors were. And so theres a heavy, heavy burden of proof on those who would defy the plain meaning of the terms or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What happened is a bunch of sophists on the other side tried to give those words a meaning that was partisan in effect and intent. What they said was, well, misdemeanors means what it meant when the british, when the british impeached people, forgetting that the british never impeached a prime minister, never impeached a king, never impeached anybody at a very important level. Impeachment was used in england for very low level or medium level administrators. And then when the framers tried to introduce the british system through the use of the term maladministration, which one of the framers said lets make that a criteria for impeachment, madison said no, no r, we canto that, that would turn the United States, a republic, into a british style parliamentary democracy where the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature, remember, in Great Britain and israel, the president or the prime minister, the head of state, can be thrown out of office by a simple majority vote of the parliament. And madison said, we dont want that in this country, we want a strong executive, not an executive subject to the whim or pleasure of the legislature. The argument was overwhelming in its logic, overwhelming in its historical basis, overwhelming in its epistemology, and yet virtually every professor in the United States rejected that argument. Larry tribe called it bonkers. Others said i was becoming senile for making that argument. And yet if it had been president Hillary Clinton and she had been impeached on the same ground every single one of those professors would have told me how brilliant i was and they would have built a statue to me on marthas vineyard. [ applause ] it was such blatant hypocrisy for them suddenly to switch sides. In the 19 thchlth century when n was impeached the dean of the Columbia Law School said of course you need a crime, the weight of authority is on the side of a crime. The former jufrstice of the Supreme Court who with defended johnson said of course you need a crime, but even if im wrong, even if history were to support the other side, the idea that we dont have a debate about this, that it just results in name calling, that thousands of professors, most of whom have notified what theyre talking about, are prepared to sign a petition saying that my views are wrong, a bunch of professors led by your congressman, congressman in this area, and led by congressman, uh, in new york, and by schumer, actually got up on the floor of the senate and said that i was not a constitutional law expert. Having taught constitutional procedure as part of criminal procedure for 50 years, having litigated over 100 constitutional cases, having written dozens of articles and books about the constitution, they claimed i was not a constitutional expert because i came out on the wrong side of the issue. If i had been defending Hillary Clinton, they would have been praising my constitutional expertise. And then just one more point and then ill sit down. The worst offenders were the two congre congressmen plus senator schumer but the worst offender was cnn. Let me explain why. So [ applause ] and im going to ask for your advice. Im going to ask for your advice here tonight. Heres what happened. Ted cruz through the chief justice asked me a very simple question. What about quid pro quo . Is that an Impeachable Offense . And heres my full answer, and you can see it online, you can hear it, you can see it, not on cnn, you can see it on any honest channel, here was my answer, i said, im very honored to have just come back from the white house where i saw saw theg of the peace plan. I said, what if in the peace plan, i gave a whole series of hypotheticals, what if in the peace plan the israelis were told that unless you stop the settlements youre not getting any money. That would be a quid pro quo. The palestinians were told, unless you start terrorism you arent going to get any money. That would be all quid pro quo. There is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo unless it involves something that is illegal. But if its illegal, then a quid pro quo is impeachable. If it involves corrupt conduct. If it involves self dealing. If it involves a kick back. Then it would be illegal. But if it was not anything illegal, the mere fact that a public figure and i didnt limb limit it to the president , any member of congress, any elected official had, a mixed motive and was thinking not only about the Public Interest but about his own electoral interest, that mixed motive could not be subject to an impeachment without any illegal conduct. So heres what cnn said. They took it out of context. They eliminated the part about criminal. They eliminated the part about corrupt. And they said, dershowitz said, if a president thinks his election is in the national interest, he can do anything, including shoot his opponent, rig the machines, and this was your friend paul begalia who said that, and cnn simply doctored the interview. It was as if i said the following. Let me tell you what i dont believe. I dont believe a president can do anything, and cnn puts on, a president can do anything, dershowitz said, leaving out i dont believe, so my question to you is this, and i leave you with this question, i am a First Amendment believer, i was one of the law clerks who wrote the opinions in the New York Times versus sullivan but i do not believe the First Amendment protects a willful deliberate malicious doctoring of a tape to make somebody Say Something exact opposite of what he said. So my question to you is, should i sue cnn . [ applause ] i must express my admiration for professor dershowitz. He left just enough time within his time to allow for a standing ovation. [ laughter ] mr. Shrum, i expect every bit of a standing ovation. [ laughter ] im a little doubtful of that, because before the event, i was in the holding room, and the reception here, you got it . I got it. I was in the holding room, and there were all of these trump for president buttons. And there was all of these pamphlets from the Republican Jewish Coalition, so i dont think im exactly at home. Im on the west side. Im in Beverly Hills. I think youre kind of an atypical crowd for this part of town. I also have, i also have some bad news for professor dershowitz and for those of you who applauded him, adam schiff will get reelected to congress by a record margin. Were going to talk about civility a little bit later, but i think thats an undisputable fact. Secondly, it was interesting to me, and im not going to argue the legal case at length with Alan Dershowitz, im in no position to do that, i went to harvard law, thank you, that was kind, i went to harvard law school, and the only thing i did of any note was when the ames competition which is the moot court competition, i would note that on these legal issue, and i was told we were going to talk about the political implications of impeachment, which im going to talk about, alan sort of i think rehearsed his speech to the senate, and then added an attack on cnn. He did, he did note that a lot of people disagreed with him. The exact quote from the New York Times is most of the scholars disagree with me. I think theyre wrong. I think theyre right. And we can have a debate about that. But i dont think its fair for example to question the motives of people to the extent of saying that if Hillary Clinton had been impeached for doing what donald trump did, all those people would have necessarily been on the other side. I think when you start using lines, im sorry, guys, you may not want to hear, it but youre not going to like what you hear in nover from the voters either. I think professor shrum, keep it civil, please. I was going to say, im perfectly happy to have a civil discussion here and i do think we should not use words like hypocrisy, we should not use words like questioning peoples motives, and i do not think that it advances public dialogue to join President Trump in quoting cnn and in trashing cnn, and alan, my advice to you, as a nonpracticing lawyer, would be dont sue them, youll lose. Now, during the impeachment trial, and this is the quote i think you were talking about, and i think i have, i think i have what do you want . Whats he talking about . I have no idea what youre talking about . And i may be the better for it. Please, lets have some civility. This is rude. Were here to listen and learn. I apologize. No problem. I sort of knew coming in here that this was going to be like this. But they asked me to do it, so i said id do it. Anyway im giving you an extra two minutes. I dont need if. The exact quote, if a president does something that he believes will do something to help him get elected in the Public Interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Now he explained that statement now but i think it is profoundly off base. In fact, earlier when he used the word extortion as a grounds for impeachment, i think what the president did the ukrainian was exactly extortion. But beyond that, beyond that, he argued that a mere abuse of power was not a grounds for impeachment. Well, what if a president started a conflict in october of the Election Year to get reelected, and he has war making powers, and evidence came out that his motive was purely political . He would have had the power, but we have abused the power. It is exactly in my view what should be impeachable. Now, i want to talk about the aftermath of all of this. If you decide that a president who obstructs justice cant be indicted, and a president who abuses power cant be impeached, then you give the president a license to engage in wholesale abuse. Since the trial, thats what donald trump has done. Weve seen that with roger stone. Weve seen that with the purging of Law Enforcement officials. And you know, i think there are some people who have agreed with