Transcripts For CSPAN Alan Dershowitz Bob Shrum Impeachment Debate 20240713

Program will have three parts. I have asked that part one, it debate on the politics of impeachment, that each respondent, professor dershowitz and Professor Bob strom speak for 10 minutes each. Some he said why so short . When i was taught public speaking by a wonderful teacher who used an analogy related to oil, he used to safe you havent struck oil in 10 minutes, quit boring. Enable you tolly strike oil very quickly, then we will have a court point and pointer point and counterpoint on this issue. Judge be replacing kaczynski 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 bbs of men. I will turn things over to judge kaczynski who will begin the the first asking respondent to discuss the issue and the politics of impeachment. It would like to begin . I wouldnt happy to begin. Who a liberal democrat voted for all of the people that bob worked for. My political mentors in many way where ted kennedy. I worked on the mcgovern campaign. I worked on all of the democratic campaigns. I worked hard for the election of Hillary Clinton. I worked for the defeat of President Donald Trump in an election but iser prop strongly opposed his impeachment. Believe that duly elected president s should be removed from office 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. It never came to that because it was so clear that he had committed Impeachable Offenses that he voluntarily resigned. Andrew johnson was improperly impeached, bill clinton was improperly impeached. I 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 spoke against the impeachment of bill clinton. The only other time i was on the senate floor was when i stood up and defended at alan cranston, the great liberal democratic senator of california. Me, impeachment is never and should never be a partisan issue. Passnk everybody has to the shoe on the other foot test. When i asked the senators to do i said imagine that the person being impeached was of the opposite party, and ask yourself what neutral principles would justify impeachment. Then i went through what one of music collect towel a town medic dialogue about the six words on the senate floor. The words were and other high crimes or misdemeanors. But he knows what treason means. Everybody knows what bribery means. Its a common term that had a meaning at the time the law was written. But what is more of a high crimes and misdemeanors mean. There is the simple facial meaning of the term. When you have two words treason and bribery in the word other, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thatord other requires high crimes and misdemeanors be akin to treason and bribery. That is the obvious intended meaning so that high crimes means crimes like extortion, bribery like perjury which bill clinton was accused of committing and what about misdemeanors . You look at what misdemeanors meant and common law. Misdemeanors were a species of crime. In common law there was some thing called a capital misdemeanor. You could be executed for committing a misdemeanor. There is a heavy burden of proof on those who would defy the plain meaning of the terms. What happened is a bunch of sophists on the other site tried to give an interpretation of those words that was simply partisan. Partisan in effect and intent. Hat they said was misdemeanors means what it meant when the british impeached people, forgetting that the british never impeached a prime minister, never impeached a king or anybody impeachment was used in england for very low level or medium level administrators. The framers tried to introduce the british system through the use of the term maladministration, madison said we cannot do that. That would turn United States into a british style parliamentary democracy where the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature. Primeat britain, the minister 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 a not an executive subject to or pleasure of the legislature. The argument was overwhelming in its historical basis, overwhelming in its epistemology, yet virtually every professor in the United States rejected that argument. Tribe called it bonkers. If it had been president Hillary Clinton and she had been impeached on the same grounds every single one of those professors wouldve told me how brilliant i was, they would build to me at marthas vineyard. It was such blatant hypocrisy for them to switch sides. In the 19th century when johnson 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 the crime. But the justice from the Supreme Court who defended johnson said of course you need a crime. But even if im wrong even if history work to support the other side, the idea that we dont have a debate about this, that it just results in namecalling, that thousands of professors, are prepared to sign a petition saying that my views are wrong a bunch of professors led by your area, led byn this congressman 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. Defending Hillary Clinton they wouldve been praising my constitutional expertise. Offenders were the two congressman plus senator schumer. The worst offender was cnn and let me explain why. Advice here. Your ted cruz through the chief justice asked me a simple question. Is thatut quid pro quo an Impeachable Offense. Here is my full answer and you can see it online, you can hear you can see it not on cnn but any honest channel. Have come honored to back from the white house where i saw the unrolling of the peace plan. I said what if in the peace plan , the israelis were told that unless you stop the settlements are not getting any money. That would be quid pro quo. The palestinians were told unless you stop terrorism youre not getting any money. There is nothing wrong with quid pro quo unless it involves something illegal. If its illegal, then a quid pro quo is impeachable. If it involves corrupt conduct or selfdealing, or a kickback. If it was not illegal, the mere fact that a public finger public figure or any member of congress or any elected official had a mixed motive, and was thinking not only about the public but his own interest, that mixed motive could not be subject to an impeachment without any illegal conduct. It out of context, eliminated the part about criminal and dershowitz said if it president things his election is in the national interest, he can do anything including shooting his opponent, reading the machines, this is your friend 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. , i amtion to you is this a First Amendment believer. Opinion 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 some buddy say the exact opposite of what he said. My question to you is should i sue cnn . Leftause] mr. Shrum he just enough time within his time to allow for the standing ovation. Mr. Shrum i expect as many standing ovations. A little doubtful about that because before the event i was i willding room have to move it out. I was in the holding room and there were these trump for president buttons. There were all of these pamphlets from the republican george coalition. I dont think im exactly at home. Im on the west side, i am in beverly hills. I think you are in a typical crowd for this part of town. Have some bad news for professor dershowitz and those who applauded him. Will get reelected by a record margin. We will talk about stability a little bit later. Civility a little bit later but i think that its a fact. Im not can argue the legal case at length with dershowitz. I am in no position to do that. You, that wasnk kind. The only thing i did of any note was when the mood court competition. On these legal issues, and i was told we would talk about the political locations of impeachment. Mr. Dershowitz rehearsed his speech to the senate and added an attack on cnn. Peoplenote that a lot of disagreed with him. The exact quote from the New York Times is most of the scholars disagree with me. I think theyre wrong. Right k they are most of the scholars think im wrong. I think theyre right. I dont think it is fair to question the motives of people to say that if Hillary Clinton had been impeached for doing what donald trump did that all of those people would have necessarily been on the other side. Im sorry, guys. Hear itay not want to but youre not gonna like what you hear in november from the voters either. Im perfectly happy to have a civil discussion. And i think we should not use words like hypocrisy. We should not question peoples motives. That it not think advances public dialogue to join head President Trump as quoting and trashing cnn. My advice to you as a nonpracticing lawyers dont sue them, you will lose. During the impeachment trial, and this is the quote you are talking about, what do you want . I have no idea youre talking about. I may be better for it. Please, lets have civility. This is rude. We are here to listen and learn best and learn. I knew coming in here that this was going to be like that. I said i would do it. You an extra two minutes. Think this is the exact quote from professor dershowitz. If a president does something that he believes will help him get elected in the Public Interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. He has parsed that statement now, but i think it is profoundly offbase. Earlier when he used the word extortion is grounds for impeachment, i think with the president did to the ukrainians was exactly extortion. That, he argued that a mere abuse of power was not grounds for impeachment. What if a president started a conflict in october of the Election Year to get reelected because he has warmaking powers, and evidence came out that his motive was purely political . He wouldve had the power but he wouldve abused the power. That is exactly in my view what should be impeachable. President ide that a who obstructs justice cannot be indicted and a president to abuses power cannot be impeached, then you give the president a license to engage in wholesale abuse. Since the trial that is what donald trump has done. We have seen that with roger stone and the purging of Law Enforcement officials. I think there are some people who agree with me and they listen to professor dershowitz. Im perfectly happy to take any of your questions, and happy to debate any of you but i will make my case. We have seen the purging of Law Enforcement officials and others who testified in the impeachment proceedings, demand for reexamination of the Michael Flynn case, a statement that he had the right to interfere and Justice Department criminal cases. And i saw an interview that professor dershowitz gave on breitbart radio where he said obama did this, and i hold in my hand 302 that indicates that theres going to be a lawsuit about this, but he didnt say with the lawsuit was, gave no evidence. It reminds me of Joseph Mccarthy going to West Virginia and saying i hold in my hand the names of 200 officials in the state department who have communist ties. Were not questioning motives but recalling me mccarthy. You called mey mccarthy i said that is a mccarthyite tactic. Whats the case. You will find out about it so. Isnt that great. I have a client to represent to has not given me the authority to disclose the specifics, but i will which mccarthy did not do. I have the 302 which i would be happy to show you which endpoints the fact that the president of the United States started the investigation. He said this was done on behalf of george soros. Thats one of the worst rightwing memes we have going around this country today. But it is true. You and donald trump are under the mistaken assumption that if you believe something it is true. This has to be settled in a court of law. It will. And you will lose. Politically, what are the consequences of all of this . In the quinnipiac poll, voters say acquittal did not clear trump of wrongdoing. The president s approval is at 43 . Im sorry. Will cite the gallup pole. In the real clear politics averages approval is at 45 . Pole myeuters if sos 45 agreed that impeachment was the right thing to do and only 41 disagree. Only 39 thought that the president was innocent of the charges brought against him. In terms look at that of the 2020 election. I would cite the clinton precedent and what happened in the year 2000. After that impeachment, after the trial, he had a very high job approval, and he had a very low personal approval. If you talked to focus groups, they wanted it to be gone. The kids were seeing things on television that they didnt want them to see. That opened the way for the people for george w. Bush to run on the proposition he was going to change very little, but he was going to have a tax cut to share the prosperity, but he was going to preserve the budget surplus. But he would restore honor and dignitys the white house. I think the same overhang is likely for trump. Sincethe only president polling began never to be above 50 approval. If it reinforces the public reaction to a pattern of continuing president ial misconduct. Hes broken the historic connection so far between approval on the economy and job approval in general. Is it when he percent higher job approval on the economy then there is job approval in general. That trump cannot win the election. Democrats can lose the election. The health care questioned medicare for all. Medicare for all could invert the democratic advantage on health care where issues like preexisting realize theelp to Democratic Victory in 2018. Trump will run a scorchedearth campaign against the democratic nominee and if those positions are record repel voters otherwise and cloned to vote democratic trump could be reelected. Not for his virtues if i can use that word, but because the democrats lose the on lose a ball election. I know that you have a number of things to respond to, but i have a question because i didnt understand. You made the distinction between the impeachment of president clinton and President Trump. What president clinton was im of doing wondering i had a very simple answer. The constitution says high crime and what clinton did was a low crime. It was a crime of personal misconduct, not a crime of governmental misconduct. It was much like what happened with alexander hamilton. You may remember if you are a scholar of history or have seen the play, he was seduced by women was secretary of treasury. In the womans husband came and demanded extortion it payments which he paid. Those were not Impeachable Offenses although adultery was a felony at the time, but then the extortionists went to hamilton and said in less you pay me more i will see you got the Treasury Department and use that to pay the extortion, and of course he didnt get the money from the Treasury Department, any issued a pamphlet which was embarrassing to him and his family in which he admitted the affair, but said he paid the money personally. He paid the money from his wifes fund which was ironic. All of the founders had one thing in framers had one thing in common, they married rich women. Backt through a question at my distinguished opponent. Public official or elected official says to himself, i want to take an action, i want to vote in a certain way, i think it will help the national interest, but i think will also help my election. Crime or Impeachable Offense . Because of course it is not. That is exactly what i said. You have totally distorted what i said. I quoted you. He left out the words before and the words after. You quoted me as saying this is what i dont believe, a president can do anything and you quoted me as saying a president can do anything. You did exactly what cnn did. Wordsft out the following , if the quid pro quo were illegal. He deliberately left out those words. In, whatt those words it says is if the president does something illegal which he believes will help them get elected, that would be the issue. What i said is if the president does something perfectly legal which he believes will get him elected. You for repeating the sand of cnn. Persuaded me because you are an odd ascent and decent man whose motives i challenge, butt because you have indulged in the same kind of gutter politics as cnn that i may have to sue cnn to make sure that people like canard never repeat the that i set a president can do anything. I challenge you to read my entire quote to the audience had not do what cnn did. Heres the quote. Excerpt, read the quote. Listen, we can either have a discussion and we can be civil, which alan was not, or i can respond in kind. I find it shameful that some when i admired for years represented the single most reprehensible person ever to sit in the oval office as president of the United States. Secondly, talk about mccarthyism. Im going to talk. I didnt interrupt you. Dont interrupt me. When you listen to his expo nation about that quote. Audienceybody in this to figure out what the hell he was saying. The quote says if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the Public Interest that cannot be the type of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. He sang he has to commit a crime. Dont agree with that. I dont think president clinton should have been impeached at all. I dont think high crimes and misdemeanors means crimes in the if abusenal sense, and of power is not an Impeachable Offense than democracy is in terrible trouble. Question thatcal alan asked, if a public official says to himself im going to vote this way because im going to give myself reelected and thats in the national interest, obviously thats not an Impeachable Offense. Would you like to have the stage to yourself, i think you would love it. Let me finish. Would like to hear truth. You think you have the truth just like donald trump thinks he has the truth but you dont get to decide. So either be quiet im not going to say a word. We can have a dialogue. That is your choice. Commit your choice is to shut up and maybe the judge can get you to shut up. My final point which i was making, and i dont think in the balance of time that there is any inequity here, if there is its on the others the podium. That,ublic official does i dont think its an Impeachable Offense, but if congress had appropriated money that is supposed to go to the ukraine for its military defense and the president withholds that send and this signal they to the ukrainians is that they are not going to release it until there is an investigation of joe and hunter biden, i think that is an Impeachable Offense. Lets remember one thing that trump said, that it is despicable that i was the lawyer for the president of the United States. Mccarthyitemost statement i have ever heard. When lawyers were held responsible for their clients. The next thing he will say is that it is despicable that i others, that i am trying to help Benjamin Netanyahu. Mccarthyism squared. Now it is despicable that a lawyer represents Benjamin Netanyahu, despicable that a lawyer represents the president of the United States, that is a new meeting to mccarthyism. We promised you an exciting debate and i think you got it. Applause. A round of thank you, judge kaczynski. I dont think theres enough california ton give us calming on this issue, i want to ask the audience, and i know there are a lot of passions, we will get to the decision of passion and politics and the breakdown of communication, which unfortunately we are seeing a little bit of on the stage, but , thee as cuba reputations bit they have built over a lifetime are very precious and valuable, so i would like to ask both of you to stick to the issue at hand. What i want to transition to is the subject of the me too movement. Many of you know that professor dershowitz wrote a book called guilt by accusation. Im sure that Professor Bob shrum has seen some of the cases that have occurred where women were abused by people whom they put their trust in. The cases of harvey weinstein, bill cosby, many of you have seen that women have been subject to significant abuse. Old asuld say it is as the casting couch in hollywood, but the fact is that we live in a different era where womens rights are in the forefront and there has been this tremendous explosion that has built up for decades of people feeling abused. The question for me is as the , or is itwung too far acceptable . A couple quick examples and then i would like to hear your take. One example is a number of men in the conversation telling me im not going to hire women anymore, i dont want to take a chance of a Sexual Harassment lawsuit because of something i said, i complement her appearance and im told by my Legal Counsel that you cant do that, you can say you have a beautiful dress on but you cannot say you look beautiful. As a rabbi i recently had an experience where three months ago, one of the women who works in the office was on the phone crying, i said what happened . She said my father just died. I gave her a hug. The labor lawyer says you cant do that, you have to ask permission, may i give you a hug . Has this swung too far and are we at the point that it was caricatured in the curb your enthusiasm episode where larry david put his camera fought deck put his camera down on the table as he was beginning to kiss his date and set i went to a group want to ensure you are in complete agreement with me kissing you . Moment swung too far . Are we in a place in society where we can get accused and and the fear of womens retribution is making us do things like not hiring women and hiring men for positions that they are perfectly capable of fulfilling . It is ironicrst that there are three men on the stage discussing this. There should be women appear discussing this. Observe that you had better tell your friend if he is a pattern and practice of not hiring women he is in violation of federal civil rights laws and had better be careful. Understand the frustration that some people have, i understand that people can be falsely accused. I think that has happened, but for time immemorial, women have not been believed, women have not been listen to, these complaints have been brushed off , and i think that the me too movement is good for our society. I think it makes the country a better place. Things canthat those be carried too far . Of course. Do i think that mere accusation should make someone guilty . Of course not. Situation, this is not just the me too movement, this is for example the catholic church. We are in a situation where there are circumstances under which there is a cascade of accusations, a cascade of accusations. You cannot find out in a criminal Court Whether this forward aso you go the church has finally done in the case of the cardinal, to defrock him and sent him out to someplace in kansas. Finally. I agree. It has taken forever but we have denigrated women and denigrated their complaints and i think it is wrong and we have to change where went just go say everybody is guilty because one person accuse them of something. You need to investigate and find out. Look at roger ailes. Finally the dam broke. I dont know how many of you have seen the movie, finally the dam broke and fox conducted an investigation, and he was clearly guilty. There was no criminal process. Fired. Was i think that was the right thing to do. I would not rollback this movement. Thatld continue to insist people should be treated in a responsible way, that one accusation unsubstantiated does not prove a whole case against somebody. I believe with much of what bob said. I support the me too movement. I think it is too little too late in many ways. I think its important that we take womens accusations. Cause starts as a movement and then it becomes a business and ultimately a racket. Lawyersare seeing is with highly questionable legal efflux who have made a business out of falsely accusing people. I was one of his victims. He set up a complete shakedown plan in which a woman that i never met, never heard of, never knew existed falsely accused me and after telling the fbi she didnt have sex with me, after afterg her best friend, all of which was known to the lawyers, after which her own lawyer said to me, it is impossible that you could have been in the place she said that you were. After getting the former head of the fbi to do a complete independent investigation to conclude it was wrong, they are still coming after me, even though it is clear without any doubt that i never had any contact with this woman at the 92nd street y at which i have spoken in the last 25 years. Canceled me and said i can never speak there again. I couldnt speak on behalf of israel. Mr. Shrum thats why youre here. Mr. Dershowitz the 90 seconds we watch said we know you are innocent, but you are accused. We dont want trouble. You cant speak here anymore. The same thing as true today on college campuses. I have nothing to hide. Wife who iswith my here tonight since the day that i met Jeffrey Epstein airing the relevant period. Ive never touched another woman, i dont hug, i dont flirt, i dont go out with people. Picked. Ess i was why . Because im a famous guy and the lawyers understood that if they accused me publicly they could go to leslie wexler, the owner say therias secret and same woman that accused dershowitz publicly seven times has accused you seven times, including making her wear victorias secret type lingerie, and there are ways of resolving this. David boys had a mesic had a meeting with leslie wexlers lawyers and after the meetings name disappeared from all of the court pleadings. The lawyer said we believe him, we think he is telling the truth. If you believe him that means you believe your own client has made up stories about him. All of this is coming out now. What is most speakable is that david boys and the other lawyers are destroying the me too movement. They are putting forward accusations that they know or should know are absolutely false, and that discredits truthful people. He is not a hero of the me too movement, he is a villain of the me too movement. Now we are having lawsuits and im suing him for defamation, and other woman is claiming that i raped her, even though i never met her, and the idea that she admits she says that it was happen,al, it didnt but she says that because i knew that she was being enslaved by others, even if i had only consensual conduct combat would constitute rape. Hasidea that somebody who never done anything wrong sexually ever i have never harassed a person, ive never even told a bad joke. When it comes to this aspect of withfe, like somebody perfect attendance, i have been perfect. I have been accused and people still believe that, and ive been accused by lawyers who should know that they are making false accusations. Excesses, of the people who are exploiting the movement and trying to turn it into a racket. If you want to read about it, my book called guilt by accusation lays out the whole thing. 1. 95 on kindle. You can see that there is not an iota of evidence that supports these false accusations. We will go Point Counterpoint and move on. Mr. Shrum im not here to adjudicate what went on with professor dershowitz or didnt. I understand his acute sensitivity here and i make no judgment about the outcome of this situation. I know david boys. I havent seen him in years. I know him to be an honorable him, i yall dont know understand that you are on professor dershowitzesque beside. I know him to be an honorable person and i dont believe that he lied. Ae denial of Public Forums is much more difficult thing. I think of a public forum was simplyto Alan Dershowitz because they said we dont think he did anything but it would be trouble, i think that is wrong. That whether people are invited to speak on a campus, whether it relates to this issue or some other that in many cases people are marrying very individual judgments based on very specific cases. If the 92nd street y did this because he would be trouble, i think thats a mistake, and if they did it because theyre worried it might be true and i want to be careful here, i understand that. Tohink everybody is entitled a lawyer, and i left out one thing. Very upset because i said it was despicable that he represent the worst president in American History. Line inink of an old the law that everybody is entitled to a lawyer, but they are not entitled to this lawyer. This relates to the me too movement. Things that has happened to professor dershowitz is because he represent a Jeffrey Epstein because he got a very good deal for a very bad guy, people assume he must be guilty of this other stuff. I think that is wrong. When lawyers fight for a client, once they choose to represent that client they should fight as hard as they can to get as good a deal as they can but i think thats partly why hes kind up in this. Entitled tooure me. I taught legal ethics for many years at harvard. I taught 10,000 students you are entitled to a lawyer, how can i without being a hypocrite so you are not entitled to me. Mostb is to represent the despised, the most unpopular. I had tenure, i couldnt be fired. I was in the soviet union in the 1970s representing those people because they could not get lawyers in the soviet union. Im going to continue to represent the most spies, the most unpopular. The second most critical appraisal was not the o. J. Simpson case, it was when i represented o. J. Simpson. A lot people said what a disgraceful thing. You are representing the most horrible president in terms of his personal life. I got such horrible accusations for helping bill clinton. Comfortably to fit on both feet. Mr. Shrum i have to say i would not compare sharansky with donald trump. Bys idea of not guilty accusation but guilt by association. Just because he represent the president of the United States should not make you as it has for professor dershowitz, persona non grata in certain circles. Right to associate with the policies of a president whom we may find odious. A lot of people headed it in for bill clinton. A lot of people headed in for barack obama. Being on the side of one of those president s should not make you a pariah. For me the guilt by association is very troubling, and it made me think of a circumstance. Professor, we had a here from stanford, university. He studied primates in the jungle, and human behavior. Mr. Shrum should have been here tonight. Mr. Dershowitz he studied republican and democratic primates. Somethingund was fascinating. He found that even though there is a tendency to consider someone of a different color alien, when that person puts on a baseball cap and you are from l. A. And it says los angeles dodgers, or a baseball cap that says san francisco, the skin color goes out the window. Areasere can even be which he described in world war i where soldiers got out of the crest trenches during Christmas Eve and started celebrating together and they didnt want to go back and fight the next day until their Commanding Officers forced them to go back to battle. Drivinggy is if im down the road, and i see a family or a group of people in a broken down car, and the car has it, i will help that family. If i see a Bernie Sanders sticker on the car, i will stop and help that family, and on a level of human compassion, we have to start putting aside this guilt by Association Tendency that seems so prevalent in our society that we ban people from speaking and we ban people from the opportunity of expressing their opinion. I think thats absolutely right. I am the director at the usc of something called the tenter for political future. Codirector is someone with whom i have waged many campaigns on opposite sides and we have managed to maintain a friendship in spite of that. We have had speakers on campus as varied as the man you gave an interview to on breitbart, pelosi. E cutter, nancy i guess the rabbis words were not heard. Short, thei and mark chief of staff for the Vice President of the United States. Of themer President National Rifle Association and we had a perfectly civil conversation if i can use the wordperfect stop i didnt agree with him, a lot of students did not agree with him but nobody said he had no right to speak. And i am utterly opposed to saying people have no right to speak. Mr. Dershowitz i have a question, you had all these people, the Vice President , people trying to get donald trump elected president , did you ever call them despicable the way you said it was despicable for me to represent the president of the United States . Why do you draw lines between calling me despicable because i was a lawyer standing up for the constitution of the United States, but it is ok to not call despicable the people trying to get trump elected . Im not trying to get trump elected, im trying to leave it to everybody to decide who to vote for. Im trying to defend the constitutional right of all americans and you call that despicable . Mr. Shrum that is not a question, that the speech. Defend the constitution of the United States. You kicked the constitution of the United States into the gutter and i feel that very strongly and thats why i said it was despicable. You did not have to choose to represent this man, he does not come up to the type of standard of the powerless people you were talking of representing before. I know that people here dont agree with me, but im not giving an inch on this. Reasonable people can agree to disagree and can say that defending an interpretation of impeachment and the constitution does not necessarily paint you with a red brush of guilt. For me that is the distinction that is significant, at the theater when we agreed to have this forum, we received a lot of facebook postings, how dare you have professor dershowitz in a debate or in a dialogue or a discussion, how dare you . When we had Rachel Maddow on her when we, unchallenged, had Bernie Sanders speaking on his book, unchallenged. We didnt get those facebook posts, we didnt get those negative comments. Thatam deeply troubled just the idea of having this kind of conversation, heated as it has become is something that we should not do. Mr. Shrum you should do it and it is right to do it. When lisa asked me if i would do it and you did i did not pause, i said i would do it. I thought we had moved on from our earlier discussion about impeachment to talking about other issues. So i dont want to go back over all of this again, i think we both had our say. I do think there is an interesting question which maybe you will ask. We are talking about how everybody should be able to speak in these Public Forums and. N campus what about the bds movement . That was a perfect transition. Mr. Dershowitz the campus is an issue where freedom of speech is under assault. In a lot of forums where we have heard people from different political persuasions seek to speak, their voices have been silenced. That hasa movement been underway for over a deco for a decade called the bds movement, boycott, divestment, and sanctions, which was a premeditated movement to isolate israel. There have been a lot of people who said, im not really attacking the jewish people, im just attacking israel. Thatforget to mention happens to be the state of the jewish people. They are making a distinction that for a lot of us doesnt add up. Experience inyour terms of rising antisemitism and the bds movement . First of all the antifreak the bds movement is an anti free speech movement. When Oxford University invited bds, they invited the head of the bds movement. He said he refuses to debate dershowitz because he is a jewish zionist. I support the right of people to advocate bds. I support the right of people not to advocate not renting houses to black people, jewish people, gay people. You have the right to advocate, but if you dare not to rent to a black person or a gay person, you have committed a crime. That bds is fact discriminatory its not , we will it is discriminate. We will not buy goods from, we will not have speakers from, we will not allow universities to work together. It is the act of discrimination. Not the advocacy of discrimination which is problematic. Which is why i think that the bds movement itself is anticivil liberties, antifree speech and antisemitic. Why is it . Because it only selects one country. There is no such thing as the bds movement, it doesnt apply to china. It doesnt apply to iran. It doesnt apply to belarus. It is a tactic directed only against the nationstate of the jewish people and only against the jewish residents of israel. It doesnt apply to arab residents, muslim residents, christian residents. Banning the act of discriminating based on National Origin and religion, but i am not in favor of banning advocacy of bds as long as it is not actually practiced. Of thed the president drafting of his recent executive order which was a great boon to antisemitismng on campus akin to a antifeminism, antigaia, all of the other bigotrys. But i insisted, and i did not have to fight for this, everybody agreed that the law should say this executive order must be interpreted consistent with existing law which means the First Amendment. Nothing in the executive order can in any way undercut the First Amendment. I support the First Amendment. I think it comes before anything else but the First Amendment does not protect actual acts of discrimination which is what it is. Mr. Shrum i was going to say i entirely agree. Have a couple of other comments about it and then a question. All, i entirely disagree with bds. I cannot imagine ever supporting it under any circumstances. When he defeated Benjamin Netanyahu which is why i hope alan fails when he deals with that yahoo . But its not just about one country. The movement to boycott south africa was just about one country. I think ads is wrong on the merits. Notionong on the whole that somehow or other we are going to dictate the policy of a state like israel, single them out, ache them the bad people. South africa deserved to be singled out. Israel does not deserve to be singled out. Are harder cases. While i tend to be a free speech absolutist, and i can remember debating with my friend years iso whether or not the naz should be permitted to arch in skokie, which is a public street, think it is more complicated question when you get to universities. I dont know the answer fully, but i certainly would not be toty to inviting a nazi speak at the university of southern california. I would not be party to inviting a holocaust denier to speak at the university of southern california. So i do think we have to draw some lines. Bds is not in that category. I dont agree with them. I think they are wrong. I think the comment to professor dershowitz was wrong, but we do have to draw some lines and say there are some people who do we do not have to lend a form two. His miracles. You see this commonality in agreements here . Miracles do occur. The question of for you. Having worked on that executive order with the president , can you get him to reverse his decision to repeal the executive order banning discrimination against gay people and . Employment by federal contractors . I think it should be reversed, absolutely. I think there should be no toleration for discrimination based on sexual orientation. I will do everything in my power to avoid, to make sure that doesnt happen. But i want to throw a back to you. You are against bds. Do you think the Democratic Party, particularly with the emergence of the squad, do you think the Democratic Party can today be counted on as it used to be able to be counted on, to fight against the bds . Remember there were votes in the house and votes in the senate. The votes in the house, many, Many Democrats voted to in a way that appeared to some not to be against bds. The of that was pushed by 40 members of the squad, all who clearly favor bds. What was the legislation . Complicated. But it was clear that all the proisrael people voted one way, and a lot of the nonproisrael people voted the other way. It was a kind of referendum on israel. But let me stick to the squad. What do you think to the Party Leadership attitude should be toward the squads strong support for . Bds . One, i think the resolution andincredibly complicated to use it as a litmus test is a complete estate. Singularsquad is a view in the Democratic Party. I think democrats are proisrael, will continue to be proisrael. Stand up for to israel, and much to your regret, the democratic nominee will probably get 7075 of Jewish Voters in november. Could you support Bernie Sanders for president . Any democraticrt nominee, not because i necessarily think they are all great, but because i think donald trump is the single worst, most dangerous president in American History. We are back around the circle. Let me say this about the squad. I was involved in holding a fundraiser for new york congressman elliot ingle here in los angeles. Engel, after the antisemitic comments of ill hunt omar, refused to boldly size her boldly criticize her in front of the Foreign Relations committee and refused to kick her off the committee, i called him and said, elliott, how is it possible that you couldnt find a way to at least mar, who and condemn o is on your committee . In his answer, sadly, was very telling. He said 50 of my constituents are of puerto rican origin, and aoc said if i do that, she will personally come in and campaign for my defeat in my own district. So there is a lot of intimidation going on here, and that goes back to the point i was making about intimidation and guilt by association. Isnt it interesting that what youve just said basically is that ingle has committed what would be an Impeachable Offense, because he took into account his own political electability and change a position that would otherwise have been a position against her, but because of his own election, his own electability, he changed his mind . [indiscernible] alan is a bit monomaniacal here. The Budget Office said you have to give money. He refused to give the money. Blackmailem up as against hunter biden and joe biden. Thats my view. I would like to talk i would like to stop talking about impeachment. I think it is ridiculous to keep going back to it. Had nothing from professor dershowitz about what the political impact will be. Alexandria ocasiocortez not elected with 10,000 votes . . How did she get elected joe crowley who had the district for many years first got it when he was in Irish Catholic when it was an Irish Catholic district. He took it for granted, he paid no attention and he lost and very low turnout primary. I think the press is fascinated with aoc. I think she is a bit player in the democrat party. Do not think she will become a major force in the party. She loves standing there with Bernie Sanders, and i think that as we look down the road, all of that is going to dissipate. Democrats look, democrats have always been proisrael. I know the Republican Jewish Coalition is here, but democrats have been proisrael. It was not, for example, democrats who sold warplanes to saudi arabia when they were mortal enemies of israel. It was the reagan administration. Ize this. Not partisan eye jews in israel are so much better off and they dont become a partisan issue between the two parties. That, but theh democrats are now showing a different attitude. Liz warren moon come to aipac. Bernie sanders went to england and campaign for Jeremy Corbyn who was a virulent anticement. That we announce here today, i have never in my life voted against the democratic candidate for president. I will not vote for Bernie Sanders, no matter who his opponent is payment i could not has the lever for man who supported and antisemitic candidate in britain. He didnt have to go to britain. He went there, he endorsed him, he campaigned for him, and he has forever lost my support. A lot of people share that opinion, but let me say this. I would like to wrap it up with a wonderful quote. You know this from jewish tradition, but its one i have heard echoed by many friends of mine who were catholic priests. Precedes they bible. Common decency precedes even the bible, the way we talk to one another, communicate with one violentlyven when disagreeing on points of law. The actual term common decency stems from the way of the earth. Its the way of the earth for us to be able to communicate with one another, especially when we disagree. I want to thank both of my guests here tonight. Lets give them a nice, warm thank you as we shake hands. Thank you very much. Thank you both. We can violently disagree, but i think we have some respect for each other. Yes, we do. Thank you. Here are our live programs on monday across the cspan networks. On10 15, we joined a form the future of the Persian Gulf Region and the u. S. Policy there. At 230 p. M. , a look at global vaccination and a musician efforts on cspan2. P. M. Enate meets at 3 00 with wisconsin senator Tammy Baldwin reading washingtons farewell address. Later the Senate Continues work on a judicial nomination. Oncspan3, a conference policy held by the National Association of business executives, starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government, created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. Next, highlights from the latest sitting of australias house and senate during a session of australias parliament. Prime minister Scott Morrison along with members of his cabinet answered questions on