tv Alan Dershowitz The Case Against Impeaching Trump CSPAN August 8, 2018 12:08am-1:11am EDT
>> now we take you to new york city for a conversation on the book the case in teaching donald trump came out last month. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. a longtime libertarian and author of 37 books, one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberty in america by politico. in his latest book the case against impeaching donald trump, for the same standard he has continued to uphold for decades the wall of the united states of america as established by the constitution. professor dershowitz is joined
with the senior editor at insider anofinsider and host ofw -left-brace & her and all the presidents lawyers. without further ado please join me in welcoming a alan dershowitz and josh barro. [applause] >> hello everybody, thanks for coming. thank you for coming all the way from the vineyar vineyard for u. [laughter] i know you had to leave under a cover of darkness showed that shows a high level of
dedication. [laughter] i did create a new cover for the book. it is a brown paper cover the kind we used to use as kid when we were reading dirty books. you can read it on the beach without knowing what they are reading. [laughter] >> first i want to talk about the book and the questions in the book because that is sometimes lost in these conversations and it's a very interesting book with arguments. i want to start with the title the case against impeaching trump. it feels premature. my preferred title would have
been the case regarding impeachment. that's what it's really about. but also my publisher wanted trump in the title. probably nobody would have bothered if it had my title, but this isn't a brief for donald trump at all in fact if he were to commit an impeachable offense i would've been the first to call for it. the first essentially i is angee anybody can be removed and the pecans diffusion, you have to have an actual crime whether it be treason or bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors but you cannot impeach a president because you don't like the policies or that he, quote, colluded with russia. that isn't a crime, or fired comey or other things.
i'm against the policies and separation of families and i'm against his tax policies. i'm against the health policies and even his opposition to women breast-feeding their children. the latest crazy thing this administration did is opposing the international policy. so don't try to get me to defend donald trump. >> there are two claims in the book. one is that it has to be rejected the idea congress gets to decide. it has to be a literal crime. then the second claim is not that it will never be discovered that he's committed a crime, but
the prominent thing people discuss, this idea that he's obstructed justice by asking him to go easy on michael lind or the idea that they are not crimes and the things that are described are not crimes by him even though other people that taxing e-mails commit crimes. the things people tend to talk about in the contention is they are not crimes. >> i wish that you were reviewing the book because if you ask my friends wit what thek is about it would have a completely different point of view. the first 20 pages please don't completely and very clearly that those are contentious. a vast number of scholars completely disagree. 1986 i disagreed with myself. [laughter]
i wrote that it was a broad criteria and then when i went and did the research i advised president clinton on his legal case. i did the research plan and came to the conclusion and everybody loved me for that when i said you need to have a crying to impeach. but saying the same thing gets me in trouble. so in fact i had my publisher do something interesting. they need an alternative cover to illustrate what i would have written had hillary clinton been elected or subject to impeachment. it would have been called the case against impeaching clinton.
[laughter] >> i would like to take this crime part of it. then we can get to trump and his wrongdoings. one person that disagrees with you is your harvard law colleague. >> and i think everybody else on the faculty. >> i used to that. there've been several of these books. by the way they are terrific books i recommend them. it is excellent but it's wrong to. he doesn't really take a firm position on these things and it lays out the analysis that they are all worth reading. >> one thing that does take
direct opposition on the question whether it requires a crime so i want to ask a little bit about the case on why you can't impeach someone and then explain why he's wrong. to step back, the question is about this provision that says he may be impeached or other high crimes and misdemeanors. the most important thing your contention is basically it means crime. he goes back through the history starting in the 16 hundreds in the debate among the founders of the constitution he says he found quite a lot of examples where a misdemeanor is not a crime. one example is an unofficial who was impeached if you enter a
treaty that can be a misdemeanor and then in the american context he quotes james madison over ratifying the constitution and an example one is you need two thirds of the senate to ratify. so only a few local senators were in town and the state was inspected and 90 to use that to approve a treaty that most of the states didn't like. if they were to commit anything so atrocious and the states he would be impeached and convicted in a majority would be affected. >> that is exactly what they d did. they refuse to allow the case to go forward and there are some democrats who are thinking about the possibility of every democrat leaving the halls of the senate so there would only be 50 senators present and that
is just not an impeachable offense and i will tell you why. what happens is the british of course have a broad definition of misdemeanor and there was a debate about that. some members of the drafting committee said h we should have impeachment for a a range of other things. we don't want a parliamentary system or the president to be able to be removed by a whim of congress. we are almost the only country in the world as a president that can't be removed if a majority of the legislature wants him ton advance for what they did is they introduced the two-tiered system. there has to be a high crime or misdemeanor and it has to be of the kind that madison and
hamilton talked about. so that i think is the appropriate way of looking at it but i don't even have to rely on that argument. you look at the constitutional text you never get to the intense of the framers unless the words of the constitution are ambiguous. they say treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. even larry tribe says you can't look at the framers. almost nobody thought about these provisions. there was no debate in the state legislatures and you don't look at the intent of one or two people. you look at the intent of the understanding. and you can't get much out of that at all so you have to look at the text and here's an interesting example. he quotes justice scalia.
when you see things together you have to see what they have in common so he cites the following example. joe dimaggio and other great competitors. you want to say sam walton is included on the list has a great competitor but the list is obviously limited to great athletic competitors. what do the terms treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors have in common? they are all crimes. the other is called leniency that means when you are construing statute or the provision that has a punitive impacts, you have to construe it in the narrow possible way with
all doubts resolved against a broad application. its assume hypothetically madison and hamilton say what they said and the framers had in mind a broad position. that is an what was ratified. it was the word of the constitution. when you look at the words and apply principle, you cannot conclude the commission of a crime is not a prerequisite. once you can prove the commission of a crime you have to introduce other factors. the political situation has to be such that it can go forward. the political element comes in after the high crimes and misdemeanors are decided so for example if lincoln had done something terrible and it was an
impeachable offense to the senatsenate would've decided noo remove him even though he was subject to removal on political grounds. >> they are not entitled to do is what they did when linking was shot and replaced by andrew jackson. he didn't like him and that they were right not to. he did horrible things to america. he said that reconstruction. he fired the secretary of the war even though congress said you can't fire him without congressional approval. >> this is part of the book that frankly doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. it uses the words that are not
ambiguous or found after the hearing that says they have to be tried by the senate and convicted based on two thirds of the vote. >> even if the individuals are government officials being subject to impeachment i don't understand what the rights are because the presidency is an office privilege it's not a right and specifically you are not allowed to impose a judicial punishment and in prison in someone. you have to separately tried them so it seems to be. you can't imprison them you can try them for the crime suggesting strongly. >> i think it weakens the
argument because the reason to have this in favor of the rights of individuals to avoid wrongfully imprisoning people because there is an enormous cost to the judicial punishmen punishments. so since the process is designed the president cannot be subjected to the punishment i think it weakens that concern if you have to balance it against the concerns. the reason you have the stewards the defendant innocent until proven guilty it's because it is weak and the state is strong. here it seems to me the president is the one being protected by this provision. it's not clear to me why you would apply a parallel standard. >> it's an interesting parallel argument but remember under the constitution as well you can't take away peoples rights eve pen if it is a property right. the right is not to be impeached
or removed. >> it is an office, but there are two rights. you have to be elected, but once you are in office, the stigma never has the president been removed. it is such a serious matter you would think at least you don't do it unless you resolve all doubts in favor of the criteria. let me give you another example. the president committed all these crimes and the president who has held on and taking money and committed all these horrible crimes that because you only get 60% of the senators voting against them.
would anybody in the world suggest that you could remove ththat president with only 60% rather than 67 and two thirds? though because the constitution says you can't. assume there is such an overwhelming case against him as a president in the room while he is committing treason and he recorded the conversation in which he was committing treason. it requires two witnesses. here you have one witness and an unchallenged tape recording and there isn't a scholar in the world. the constitution says two witnesses. let's assume you have the most brilliant of the world of 34-years-old and he runs for president. nobody would allow him to serve as president because it says 35-years-old. you can't tinker with the language. justice scalia and justice brennan and others have this
debate. for the constitution is living. the 35-year-old is dead an and purposes due process equal the part that says due process equal protection is living because you can't know what the process does unless you look at what is going on in the world. you can't change other provisions. we live a lot longer. when we had tenure for judges they were appointe appointed hio account for 55. the average served for five years and now we are appointing in the hope that they will serve for 90 years. republicans don't care. nobody intended for them to serve 50 years. this is the way you change the constitution. >> nobody would say that you can contacconvict with less than two
thirds. >> you can without committing treason, bribery or other misdemeanors. >> is a living phrase or death rays. it's laid out in the book the idea that it's changed over time. why couldn't that continue to be the cas case quite >> what has changed over time is the distinction between misdemeanors and felonies. today, nothing turns on whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. it meant your family lost its wealth and you could actually become addicted to the capital misdemeanor. it lists the number of cases you could be executed for committing a misdemeanor. suggested very strongly a certain type of crime. you get general ford and maxine
waters who say there's no criteria. there is a majority, that's it. that surely is not the law. where the debate is whether or not you can include things that are not criminal and i think the better reading of the constitution is first you have to have a misdemeano misdemeanoe and then before you can remove, you also have to show -- many of you have seen the play hamilton. i wrote about this before the play they had a terrible incident in his life he was seduced by a woman while he was married, you will know that from the plate. play. and it was all set up. the woman of the husband went to
him. it embarrassed his wife to no end o that the reason he wantedo write the essay is because he was accused of using treasury funds to pay the extortion. he admitted the payment but categorically denied and disproved the fact he paid treasury funds. he understood the distinction between high and low crimes. if he had used treasury funds it would be a high crime he could be impeached for. he understood the distinction. when i looked at what he said i certainly had that in mind and they read the statement with that personal history in mind and that helped convince me when he said it needed to be something that corrupted the government that was in addition, not instead of.
let's assume you are 100% right and i'm 100% wrong. why are people accusing me of not only of being wrong but being badly motivated, motivated by money, by greed. somebody even said it was because i wanted to be on the supreme court. i'm turning tv in a month or. >> his sister was a terrific judge otherjudge because only om the constitution statute precludes a president from appointing a close relative to the position. there's there is a dispute abour a judge counts but i would think this point why are people so insistent on questioning my motives. maybe you've won this argument
tonight. it isn't a sin to put forth yor best argument into the wrong. i want to ask one more thing on this sheet -- [applause] on whether impeachment requires a crime, which is to say you believe you have the right readings here but who is the authority that gets to decide. one of the planes is that it combines all of the branches of government. if people in congress have a disagreement about whether you are right in your reading of the constitution and they wish to impeach him for something that is not a crime and they say we are with some steam and we think we are entitled to do this that is most likely up to congress. >> when you have three branches of government, so the president is removed without it being a crime because congress believes
you don't need a crime, the president believes you do. he says i'm not going anywhere. you violated the constitution. you didn't appropriately remove me. congress doesn't control the army. at this point the case goes to the united states supreme court. there is no other alternative so i argue to avoid that kind of constitutional crisis that congress ought to read this to not create a conflict with the executive branch. if it does it's going to be up to the supreme court to decide who's right and the two prior justices already said if this conflict arises and congress acts improperly than the supreme court might very well intervene and decide the case.
i lay all of that out in the book as a possible scenario. i am not advising president trump if he were to be impeached and removed not to leave. i'm just saying certainly is a reasonable possibility when you have three branches of government and two of them disagree on the interpretation of the constitution. in the end that has to be decided by the supreme court. >> that would be very unlikely to end up being a problem. as you know you need two thirds to convict in the senate even when there's a question about whether it was a crime you have a bipartisan coalition of senators who voted to convict him which would only arrive in a mixing type of situation where the president is standing with the public and has so degraded that members of his own party they feel compelled and politically free to go against him and convict. so in that circumstance it would
be very implausible the court would weigh in on the present site because what would have been? >> they wouldn't even have to reach the merits. they would say this isn't a question and then congress decides. this is the john roberts court. roberts didn't want to overturn obamacare because he shared the idea he would step int she woule middle of this dispute between the legislature -- >> he is presiding at the trial. remember to impeach and remove a president, only the president of the chief justice presides. he's not an empty suit, he's not just an empty robe. he's going to be sitting there making rulings. you were the presiding judge here. this bill doesn't charge a crime i hereby make a motion to
dismiss a. they specifically made you preside. you have a job to do. what do the judges do? may have to rule on the motion to dismiss. now let's assume the judge does rule and he says you are right and the senate says no we overrule and we are going to rule against you. these are all hypothetical possibilities. i have a license to create hypotheticals. i've been doing it for 53 years. >> roberts said the senate isn't just a journey it is a court. wouldn't that imply that it's up to the senate to make those rulings ultimately?
>> the clerks have also legal obligations. let's assume the senate votes because it has a majority they vote for 60%. they can do that even if the senate wants to. whawhat you can see that they remove somebody with 60% said it would go to the supreme court? >> if you concede that and it's only a matter of a degree if there is no crying charge it would go to the supreme court. it's not going to charge anybody is not a crime. remember david and charge him with firing multiple. they didn't fire george w. bush when he fired caspar weinberger and explicitly and very specifically with a corrupt motive to avoid caspar
weinberger testifying against him. nobody suggested that. if they were to impeach any president i think the congress would go out of its way. the other issue is with the evidentiary requirements are to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that if they charged and does the two witness rule applied in an impeachment? i don't know the answer to that and i say that very clearly in the book. >> this is a good time to talk about the specific allegations because the key distinction of what would have been in an impeachment circumstance you could imagine two things. one, you could imagine an article against the president for an act everyone concedes is not a crime. if the president moves to london and stops doing his job for six months, you could impeach the president for that. >> that may be amendment 25 is about. if he leaves his job, or you
might find he voluntarily left. i have another ample let's see what you think about this. russia invades appalachia and says just like we took back crania we are going to take back russia. we were selling and it was a bad deal. it's invalid. i'm taking back alaska. the president doesn't do anything. he says they think you are right. it probably does legitimately belong to you. that would be the most horrible thing. he would never be elected again. his party would be utterly devastated. it's not an impeachable offense. they didn't think about that. we can't rewrite the constitution. >> where i'm going with this
basically the circumstances and going to be that it is over something congress would agree up front is not a crime, it's that they would over something like seeking to obstruct justice through things that the firing of james comey and that would be a dispute whether it was a crime or not. >> and i leave that possibility out in the book. >> this happens in criminal trials all the time where every legitimate civil libertarian by which i mean to exclude the aclu from every legitimate libertarian would say you cannot expand these statutes. you can't use obstruction of justice to target people. when nixon was impeache impeachs on the board of the aclu. they watched -- they were all in favor of impeaching the sop butt they did and with the special tl
prosecutor get away with anything. today the aclu has made $130 million in contributions as a result of trump being elected. they've abandoned civil liberties and if they were of supporting certain basic left-wing ideological positions they've abandoned free speech on campus. they've now set in a new priority we are not sure we are going to defend free speech the aclu has lost its way. i am the only civil libertarian in the country that is prepared to make these arguments. shame on the rest of the civil liberties community. [applause] all of these arguments being made up of hillary clinton, how she objected to justice by destroying e-mails, she obstructed justice, she tried to
get dirt. every civil libertarian would say you can't expand these statutes. i have one test in my life and it's called the shoe on the other foot test. you have to ask if your shoe were on the other foot, where would you be and i believe almost everybody who's arguing for the impeachment of president trump be arguing against the impeachment based on the same facts and the same information. that is scandalous if that is true. [applause] >> let's talk about if it would constitute a stretching of the obstruction of justice. >> i want to get to something first. i want to apply the same standards. maybe it wouldn't be a stretch but if the civil libertarians thought the same after clinton, then they should be arguing the other way even if they are
wrong. the aclu is often wrong but it always used to defend civil liberties and used to argue you don't stretch obstruction. >> but it's not on trial. >> it is. the aclu failed in its mission. [applause] >> your contention basically about the theoretical obstruction case involves a number of official acts that he's undertaken or might undertake asking the fbi director if he can go easy on michael flynn, firing a director making several indications he did that at least in part because he was upset about the russia investigation. >> your contention is because these are constitutional powers it cannot be a criminal act. >> it is utterly inconsistent to have a constitutionally
authorized act such as president bush pardoning caspar weinberger. thomas jefferson was determined to come back aaron burr treason. he told his attorney general you must prosecute him and he told the chief justice of the united states john marshall if you don't convict him i'm going to get you impeached. he arranged witnesses to come to the white house and made deals if you are willing to testify they will give you a pardon. there is no such thing as immunity in those days and if you are unwilling to testify i y about how my attorney general to go after you. historically, we have unitary objective. he didn't have to appoint an attorney general. attorney general isn't in the constitution. he could make himself attorney general.
a president can appoint himself attorney general, he can appoint himself secretar secretary of tr and if he does that he can do all these things. this is a terrible system. i'm against it. >> i don't understand why that would mean an official act authorized couldn't be obstruction of justice and i want to give a similar example. but suppose we have election documents in the white house they are my property and i'm entitled to do whatever i want. >> that you're the president righright? i'm not making the statement that they can be the basis. i am saying a constitutionally authorized act has a special status and you can't go down probing the motives of the president. if we can start doing this but me tell you what you'll find. why di did president obama do certain things? because he's the patriarch. he's a partisan, democrats. because he wanted to write a book, he wanted to go down in
history positively and do favors for certain people. i'm talking that any president. >> this is about the people. motive is a key element. they have to have a corrupt intent behind their act. [inaudible] shredding my documents is not illegal. it is that i'm doing it for the corrupt purpose of interfering in an investigation. >> but the act of shredding documents -- >> it's my right to property. >> there's a statute, there is a law that says if you've been subpoenaed or expect to be, it is a crime to shred documents. if you shred your documents isn't a crime even with a corrupt motive you are right. if i go home today and say no, i have some documents here, i will give an example let's assume you go online and you access some movies and don't feel like
having people know so you go home and figured out a way, i wouldn't even know how, but you get rid of it. if you do that by yourself, that isn't a crime but if you have been subpoenaed or expect to be by somebody who's charging you with something, that is a crime. so the actual destruction is a crime. you cannot find for me a case anywhere in our history where a president has been tried, prosecuted, impeached for constitutionally authorized act. if we ever tried to give it, every little would be jumping up and down if it were a democratic president or liberal president that we are trying to be creative now. one thing you cannot see is creative. it's against the constitution to be a creative prosecutor. you have to be a boring
prosecutor who only looks at the statute books and books at the press event and only prosecute people for crimes. [inaudible] turned to stalin and the sad you show me the man and i will find the crime. we don't ever want america to turn that way. ththe crime has to be there for all to see. there is a very famous case abouofthat. justice holmes in 1920 something. a statute said anybody that transports a vehicle, i think it said a motor vehicle in intrastate commerce is guilty of a crime. it was written before airplanes. the first guy stole an airplane, transported across state lines and was prosecuted. he stole the vehicle. it had a motor and he was prosecuted and they said no it isn't clear enough by motor
vehicle at the time it was written with was contemplated was something that drives along the ground. if congress wants to change that statute and apply it to airplanes, which they did the next day, that's fine. don't be creative. >> what you leave out seems contradictory to me in that you warned about how it is a problematic system to invest so much power in the president if you are going out of your way to read into this idea because the president has certain constitutional powers that places him in what seems to be a unique position where we cannot read into the motives and that may be done. the constitution gives senators and congressmen in unity. are they above the law? that says you can't question a
senator. >> it's the same that gives judges in unity. we are talking about an impeachment trial. >> i thought we were talking about whether you could prosecute, whether it is a crime. >> we are talking about the standard. >> first we have to ask is it a crime. so, a corrupt judge somewhere in the south, a ma south, a man whs friend comes to him and says my daughter is being sexually promiscuous. i don't remember but i think there may have been a racial element to get she was white and the man was maybe black. i'm terrified she's going to get pregnant. what i want you to do is i want us to get together and i want to come in and speak permission from you to have her have an appendectomy. shshe won't ever know thought or
tubes are being tied. so they bring the young woman in and her tubes were tied and she then meets a wonderful man for a different guy, marries him, she can't have children, goes to the doctor and find south and sues the judge. can you imagine anything more horrible than a judge doing that asked the united states supreme court unanimously rules judges or anyone. he could have been impeached for that. >> only if there is a statute that says you can be impeached for non- criminal behavior. so if there were such a statute he could be. he was a state judge. maybe the state law permits each month. federally he could not be. it wasn't a crime. >> it was battery. >> then why does he get in unity? >> it would have to be a crime [inaudible] >> it was a stretched argument
that it was a conspiracy. spent if you arrange for somebody to have a surgery they did not intend you should be charged with a crime. >> it certainly should be. and perhaps it is. the point is a very different one for. every branch of government has immunity. >> dot you couldn't criminally try the president for something [inaudible] that you could impeach him for an act like that. >> said he is immune but you could still impeach him. >> if you have the president committing a crime of course you're right about that. nixon is the perfect case. you could prosecute for paying hush money and telling subordinates to fly, destroying evidence and doing all the things he did.
the president can't be prosecuted but you could impeach him. i agree, i'm not conceding the point. as long as it is a crime, but the point i was making is that doesn't put the president above the law. it's the lathe law that sets oue restrictions for the senators and congressmen and all of them can be impeached if they committed a crime they just can't be prosecuted or impeached unless they committed a crime. >> i know we talked about the shunning on martha's vineyard which it sounds like it isn't as severe as maybe it's been reported in the press. >> it's very simple. i was minding my own business and everybody on the vineyard started telling me there were a bunch of people, it turned out to be a handful, that would not attend any event i was invited to. for the film society they would
cut off funding from them if they invited me and a series of other things like that. so how do you respond to that? i wrote about it. i'm not embarrassed about it. i wrote about it and mostly people on the vineyard were very critical of those who took that position. i got invited to more dinners and parties and the end result is a few people stayed away. it doesn't affect me at all. it affected my life a little bit because she has a social circle and friends and i wouldn't win any popularity contests today if i were writing the same book about hillary clinton it would be a statute of me in the middle of the beach. [laughter] [applause] >> obviously there is an unusually high level of political chang, but i think part of why people are having
this reaction to you and i would like your reaction to this, people think you are kind of being h. role, that you are doing this for the sake of being contrary and. >> my whole life i've done things for the sake. that's what i do. i'm a professor, i'm a teacher. i always take position positionr people won't take. i think i'm performing an extraordinarily valuable function by dealing with the aclu should be doing. [applause] if the shoe were on the other foot and everybody were trying to push safari clinton into jail you haven't called me h. role if i took a contrary and position so yes, contrary and. >> this isn't the principle. sometimes the reason everybody thinks something is and that there are things that need to be challenged.
>> you may have won tonight's discussion people think you are right -- >> it isn't a competition. >> but why is that a bad thing for me to state a position --.com in clas--.com and classie --.com in class i would state positions that were outrageous just to get students thinking and talking. for example, students didn't know that i've been devoting my life to opposing the death penalty. in class i defended the death penalty because i couldn't get students until ted cruz became a student of mine, then it's as is easy -- [laughter] i had the devil in my class himself. [laughter] but before that, i gave students essays written by southerners during the pre- civil war period that justified slavery of the most horrible thing imaginable. how could anybody justify
slavery? but when you read it it makes you think about it so i would give students that and in the end it's strengthened their positions against slavery but i always presented these views. that is what it's about. that's why you were given tenure aat a university to express vies nobody else is willing to. if you acknowledge it's important to have a debate about this issue, whether or not a crime is required as a condition come if it is, nobody else is taking that position. and maybe in the end i'm wrong. i think i will prevail in the court of public opinion but that up to you, not me. but why do you call me h. role just because i'm stating a position that i believe in deeply. it's the same position i've been taking for 50 years. i don't support president trump.
i'm certainly not acting on his behalf by any means at all. he doesn't like the fact that i suppose his policies and his way that he approaches the supreme court, but i'm sticking to my principles. so i think troll is a little harsh. >> i want to use the past few minutes to ask questions from the audience. some asked if you considered writing nantucket. >> i prefer to be among democrats that hates me rather than republicans who love me. [laughter] is a question about the role and inspector general could play in investigating and it relates to something that you discuss in your book that you argue the attorney general is a mess design position dot to be split into for the prosecutor that the president couldn't fire or there would bweatherat the strong urg. >> if i could write the law i
would say that it should be like england and israel where you have a director of prosecution that isn't under the control of the executive branch, totally independent than yo then you haa minister of justice is supposed to be loyal to the president and an adviser. we merged them into something called the attorney general and it creates and inherent conflict of interest. >> in a circumstance like that for the prosecutorial office. ..
>> >> and make eating his activities are not usually criminal in nature? the fact they are nobody would have found them but it is the same thing that is true half of the people are indicted that were permitted after they were investigated those are called crimes that are aided by the very fact you are going
through their stuff. they are but not for the special counsel. if they were prosecuting landor manafort it would be a failure to make he was the national security advisor. >> how many people here believe in the presumption of it? manafort is now solitary confinement 23 hours a day day without being convicted of any crime. he has not been convicted of any crime. he has been indicted. indicted. you can indict a ham sandwich. there are tens of thousands of minority young people today in prison without being any crime.
the indictment is up to walk somebody up in rikers and if you don't think rikers is punishment then go visit that someday this is a scandal. how many people today are in jail before there is a conviction? there is something very wrong with that whether paul manafort or a 20-year-old black kid who cannot raise the veil. >> and what decision and to specifically and then build to intensify in the civil suit over sexual harassment that involved president nixon. do you think, i think judge kavanaugh's writing has been not cleared up because he
talked about legislative. >> that was that wrong? >> absolutely. and i'm opposed when it happened of course the president should have to testify in a deposition after he leaves office. the statute of limitations should be postponed if you burden a president with every civil suit anybody could bring it seems to be it imposes an extraordinarily difficult burden. but that is a policy argument to make either way it was not decided on constitutional grounds but simply and then with the normal civil suit.
the macro legal basis for the job as president. courts have discretion that's not a big deal. no civil cases ever be tried in court. it should be by alternate dispute resolution. and the way the deposition work today destroys our legal system. there is probably litigators here settle my god they are taking away our business but 99% never get to courts. it is foreplay without intercourse. it is all depositions and preliminary. you never get to the climax. and that can be inseparable. i don't think judge kavanaugh was appointed because he will help the president he takes a
completely different view on that criteria that you could impeach for a dastardly act can you imagine the criteria how many people have a dastardly act what does that mean? with this level of discourse is impeachment? he would have been one hell of a lot better off than cavanaugh who has a mixed record. after serving on the star commission he has experience more than the nine justices. and it was up to him he would have legislation not make them immune but postpone these proceedings. that seems to be in the spirit