Skip to main content

tv   Right Side With Armstrong Williams  ABC  July 31, 2017 2:00am-2:30am EDT

2:00 am
>> armstrong: alan dershowitz is our guest today. we are going to discuss all the legal issues facing the trump administration the travel ban with one of the fairest people on this topic, the great alan dershowitz, up next. ♪ ♪ ♪ so alan dershowitz welcome to show and than
2:01 am
>> guest: thank you, it's always a pleasure being on with you. >> armstrong: why has the president created a shooting gallery of li litigation targets all around him? >> guest: two reasons. the democrats started to adopt the forum that the republicans used with bill clinton when they tried to get him impeached and when they went after him criminally. they figure if they can tie a president up by making criminal charges against him, that will make it more difficult for him to carry out his program. think the republicans are, you know scared of that in the end of the clinton administration. now the democrats are using the same tactic. i don't think that they really believe that donald trump can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice or extortion or any of the other crimes that they have alleged against him, but i do think that they can keep him preoccupied, and keep his agenda from being satisfied. i suspect we are going to see this continue even
2:02 am
counsel mueller decides that there's no criminal offenses that he can prosecute. >> armstrong: at what price are the democrats being do to do that. at the price of the american people having mr. trump deliver on miss promises and defeating him on the midterm election, and ultimately at the general election. have we lost all respect we the people, that these things are thinks that, it's it makes america look weak at home and abroad. >> guest: i think that is true, i think both parties have done that. number one democrats want to defeat donald trump and defeat the republican the midterm and they believe that their policies is bad for america. for example, undoing obamacare, the travel ban, and they think genuinely and i would have to agree with them in many respects that these are not good policies, and therefore they think they are doing god's work by preventing e
2:03 am
administration from carrying out its policies. even though i disagree, i don't like the tactic. i don't like the idea of criminalizing political differences whether it's used with hillary clinton whether it was used against thomas or rick perry against bob menendez, against senator stevens. this is a terrible precedent that is being set that if you don't like somebody politically, you go after them, criminally. they're doing it now with bernie sanders. i don't like bernie sanders, but i don't think the evidence shows that they committed fraud or other crimes. my focus has been on making sure that you can't criminalize political differences. if you don't like what somebody stands for, vote against them, contribute against them, but don't try to turn noncriminal conduct to criminal conduct for your own agenda purposes. it's bad for america, and bad
2:04 am
for both parties. >> armstrong: but what price do you think the democrats will pay for this tactic, and what price is the media paying for their obsessiveness with these practices? >> guest: well, you know never know what price they will pay. the democrats didn't pay -- the republicans didn't pay a heavy price when they went after bill clinton. they got the republican candidate elected and they won several the midterms when he this were doing this. it's not clear that they're going to pay a price. the people who hate trump like this tactic. and the people who love trump hate this tactic, and it's not so clear that there are very many people like me who voted hillary clinton but don't like this tactic. those are the people that will impose a price, but i don't know how many there are. only about -- about civil liberties and democracy who put america before they put their politi
2:05 am
that is a dwindling number of people. we live in an age of extremism, parties and extremism. people either believe that donald trump belongs in jailor deserves a nobel peace prize. these are extreme approaches to politics, that are not in the interest of democracy. >> armstrong: what message do you think that the president is sending with visiting poland, which is against the european union and assimilated refugees come their country and they don't have the crime and the chaos that these other countries that are witnessing, that are really threatening their own existence? >> guest: well, i think there's another reason, too. i think that poland along with hungry, slovakia are experiencing the same kind of populism, and nationalism that got trump elected, so i think that he will feel at home in some of the eastern european contras thaconnecticut trees tht
2:06 am
that are coming back to their ways. with the growing of anti-semitism. and antimuslim feelings in some of these countries as well. i don't know. trump is the president, he is entitled to make foreign policy, and visit what countries he chooses to vis i it's interesting to see what he says when he goes to poland and whether he criticized some of the recent violations of human rights. there's a movement against the increasing growing of the church on politics and the growing of extreme nationalism on politics. it will be interesting to see whether or not president trump makes any comments about that. >> armstrong: how important was his decision to accompany the new president of france on their -- on their bastille day in the recent trip before he visits the summit. >> guest: yeah, i think that a good thing. the new president of france so far has done a
2:07 am
seems to be a stabilizing influence. there are three stabilizing influences in europe today. merkel and germany, and akron in france, and i don't think he is going to last he have long and now we're seeing the emergence of who is a ter terrible, terrible person with horrible racist views who may become the next prime minister of our strongest ally, england. so i think that to the extent that we can help encourage established in the european countries, that is good for america, and that is good, i think generally for the world. >> armstrong: we will take a quick break, and get our guest commentator in on this conversation. we will have questions from the examiner. alan
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
♪ ♪ >> armstrong: welcome back to the broadcast. attorney alan dershowitz is our guest with this breaking news reporter with the wash examiner. she will be asking questions. first, did the nine supreme court decision immigration in texas, did that bother you? did it set a precedent? what does it tell us where the country is going? >> guest: , you know, well, youi think the country is very concerned about immigration. it's a big issue, the supreme court will have something to say
2:11 am
argument in october. you know, we have to remember our country is immigrants, my grandparents came over here. they stayed my family from the holocaust, many of the most productive citizens of our country have been immigrants. statistics shows that immigrants have contributed enormously to this country. i hope we have a policy of concern for refugees and we still have to protect our borders. that is the area where the president. the supreme court and the congress have to strike the appropriate balance. >> just a quick question for you, i'm curious how you feel the president's tweets play into the current debate, and the eventual argument foreseeing the supreme court in the october 2017 term. obviously, there was discussion of the lawyers using his tweets in
2:12 am
you for see the president as creating a problem for himself? >> guest: well, he has already created a problem for himself. some of the -- candidates talking about a muslim band were used by the lower courts to rule against him. i don't think the supreme court will give as much weight to those prepresidential statements. i think that they will judge the merits of the order by its own words, not by what the president said. he doesn't help himself when he says, for example, that wishes that the other first order was still in effect, and he regrets having let the water down for the politicalcally correct version to implement. i think he would have lost on first issued order. lost or would have been a different decision. i think it helped his case to make the distinguish did distinction between
2:13 am
people who don't have ties to america. that is the what helped the decision move through. >> armstrong: i think, the bona fide relationship as you saw the supreme court say further that it could invite further litigation. i think justice clarence thomas said that there could be additional legislation because of how the administration interprets that. >> guest: i think we can see additional legislation starting in hawaii. you have terms of bona fide, those could be included in different ways. if you're grad parents, if you're a grad parents. grandparents, and ihave a closed bona fide relationship to my grandson. ki see. it would have been better if the supreme court would have been clear. i think what the administration does is borrow in the cl
2:14 am
i think we will see litigation, but it won't major. there won't be any major decisions until after october when the supreme court hears the case. there's one possibility the supreme court may never hear the case. remember that this is a temporary travel ban. it expires on its own terms after 90 or 120 days. by the time the case comes to the supreme court, unless the president renews it or makes it permanent, we may see reports simply say the case is mute and it can't be further litigated in the supreme court. we just don't know. >> armstrong: how much do you think when you see what has happened with cnn and they are terminating three of their reporters on a bogus russian story and some of the stories coming out of new york times where they also have to make retractions. how much does this damage the credibility of what could be in some ways legitimate concerns to make people think that this is a witch hunt and the media will do anything to get headlines, and they retract and eventually
2:15 am
the reporters that cover the stories. if there's any new source, it helps them. the fact that they were prepared to retract. the president doesn't often retract and he has made mistakes, too. i think we're seeing generally in america less of a focus on truth, and more of a focus on ideology, and when you're agenda driven, you tend to be a critical eye on facts. when you say 17 intelligence agencies concluded that there were interferences by russia and you learn that it wasn't 17 agencies and it was far fewer, and you have to retract. people are prepared to go with their stories much more easily if their stories support their agenda. i wish the news, media would go back to objectively reporting the news. you know, the of walter conkrite, when we had no idea where he stood on any issues. we just knew to trust him and respect him on every issue. those days, i
2:16 am
gone, and we're hearing a lot of kind echo chambers by the media that represent their own agenda and their own point of view. unfortunately, my children are coming in by ferry so i have to go pick them up. but it's always a pleasure to be on with you. you always ask the most probing and good questions, i hope we will have a chance to do this again, soon. >> armstrong: thank you, attorney dershowitz. your thoughts. he makes an interesting point. we both are in the media, what price is the media really playing when they lose credibility on these stories? >> it's a matter of trust that your audience has in you. i went to journalism school. one of the things you learn is that you hold a huge responsibility, sort of being the gatekeeper on a lost information for your awed -- a lot of information for your audience whether on television or on print or online. think that unfortunately some the
2:17 am
on cnn i read the associated press this morning speaking to what mr. dershowitz was saying, had to make a correction of sorts, regarding the number of intelligence agencies that believe mettled in the election. those are hurt our credibility. we are in an interesting age of media and the information that is at our finger stipulates is just incredible -- information that is at our finger tips. people can turn on the news site to get the news that they want. if they ray fan of president trump, they can go to bright parts and read about trump's agenda and read what he is doing to combat illegal immigration. if they want, perhaps somebody that is not a fan of mr. trump, they may turn to cnn or a new york times or go to a slate sore salon or other news organizations that lean far to the lef. people have so many
2:18 am
news that they want. unfortunately, though as being one of those gatekeepers it's a huge price to pay when you get something wrong. >> armstrong: we are going to come back with more laser focus on the media and their role. i'm armstrong williams. and melissa queen breaking news with the examiner. we'll be right back.
2:19 am
>> armstrong: i'm armstrong williams, and this is the "right side forum."
2:20 am
♪ ♪ ♪ >> armstrong: you know, the media is also under the microscope. >> guest: uh-huh. >> armstrong: and they've lost a lot of credibility, in our reporting, television, writing columns, and radio, we have never had to retract anything, because we would rather wait for the facts instead of reporting something, that is not factual and lose your credibility. i think the question, melissa, that is not often asked enough, but you hear it rumbling, is whether you believe the press is intentionally printing and reporting these bogus stories? there's so many stories, there's so much going on with the white house, i mean w
2:21 am
one day is normally what happens in two months that they normally cannot keep up with it and they get it wrong. is it intentionally or sloppy journalism? >> guest: i don't think it's intentional. i think the president has made charges, that potentially, very, very respected reporters from our history news outlets, the washington post, the new york times are making up sources and are making up bogus facts, things that just aren't true, making up quotes. that is journalistic malpractice, and perhaps, maybe i'm a little too optimistic, and i do really feel like those reporters at those highly esteemed news organizations that i have a lot of respect for, personally would not commit that level of journalistic malpractice. >> armstrong: do not you sense they have a disdain and an undermining of this president that you have not seen before. >> guest: i would say there's a healthy,
2:22 am
skepticism toward everything that president trump does. >> armstrong: skepticism. they don't believe he tells the truth. >> guest: we didn't see that during the obama administration. >> armstrong: we have haven't seen it anywhere. >> guest: so we're seeing two, very, very different means of treating the person in the oval office during the obama administration. i think a lot of reporters, genuinely liked president obama. he was a likable guy. >> armstrong: but he was also a democrat. they gave him a pass at a level of trust and respect that they won have given president trump. >> guest: i will say that there are fewer journalist like the walter conkrites who you would not know their political leanings. i think the way that reporters speak on twitter and on facebook. it's obviously much more unfiltered. the president has said he uses that to his advantage. i think some reporters as well. perhaps maybe push it a little bit too far and injecting their own personal bias and opinions to what they're firing off in
2:23 am
there's a war between the president, and the oval office. >> guest: uh-huh. >> armstrong: that is unprecedented and there will be no winners and no good outcomes. >> guest: only casualties, it's been interesting to see how that war has played out. obviously this president and members of his communications team and the administration have a disdain for a number of reporters, and i'm not one to say whether or not he has a right to that to you know, have a dislike of the media. i think what we saw from the president in his tweets about the msnbc morning show hosts on thursday. >> armstrong: very personal. >> guest: took that war to another level that we haven't seen that before and it drew criticism from both sides. >> armstrong: it's sad. we're going to take a break. melissa quinn, breaking news reporter with the examiner. we will hear the words of wisdom with pastor bernard and then we will wrap
2:24 am
2:25 am
it is our knowledge and practice of scripture that sets us apart, that distinguishes us, that gives us distinction from
2:26 am
makes us different, and let me say this to you. our difference from the world is our significance in the world. but our difference from the world is our significance in the world. how we are salt and light it because of our knowledge and practice of scripture. >> armstrong: and welcome back. your final thoughts we have a minute left. >> guest: i think that we were sort of us asking this a little earlier. >> armstrong: i see you are torn. >> guest: i am very torn. i see both sides where we saw a a point at the
2:27 am
know if there were scandals that were never uncovered while he was in office. he is out of office. >> armstrong: we do know that he did not do enough to stop the russians from interfering in our election. we know that as a fact. >> guest: and that is something that the president trump has a big issue about it. >> armstrong: and the press allowed it, and they try to hold trump to a different standard. is there a website. >> guest: washington examiner.com. and melissa, we want to thank the legendary attorney alan dershowitz or joining us. news channel 8. i'm arm stoppin armstrong willst our website. have a good day.
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am
good morning. i'm diane macedo. >> i'm kendis gibson. australia is now on high alert after a terror plot. investigators say the plan involved taking down a plane with poisonous gas. four men were arrested. u.s. intelligence officials are following these developments very closely. at least ten people have been killed across venezuela in clashes between police and protesters. it comes amid a vote to grant nichololas maduro sweeping powe and rewriting the constitution. nine people were killed as a van plowed

14 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on