Im looking forward to tonight. You have nothing last a judge. Many of you may know him. He was appointed to the United StatesCircuit Court november 7, 1985. Served as chief just judge from 2007 2014. Graduated from ucla and from Ucla Law School in 1975. Prior to the appellate bench, he served as chief judge of the United States claims court from 82 85 and special counsel to the protection board and he retired in 2017 after 35 years additional service. [applause] hes married to marcy and has three children. He and three grandchildren. We thank you for being here. [applause] now we mentioned ucla but we must give you this. [applause] we are really honored to have ronald trump, practical politics. [applause] director of the usc center for the political future. [applause] professor sean as director of the center and a former strategist and consultant who was described as the most sought after consultant in the Democratic Party by the atlantic monthly, he observed speechwriter and new york mayor john lindsay from 1970 71. George in 1970 press campaign. The late senator Edward Kennedy from 1980 84. He served as Senior Advisor to the lieberman campaign in 2000 and for Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. Other clients include Barbara Mikulski and joe biden and their senate campaign. Run for governor tom bradley has run for mayor of los angeles. [applause] author and professor, robert. We are honored to have with us alan dershowitz, a brooklyn native. Who has been called one of the nations most distinguished defenders of individual rights. International treasure from of the bestknown criminal lawyer of the world. Named the jewish state attorney and the court of public opinion. A professor of law at harvard law school, a graduate of Brooklyn College and yale law school. During the harvard faculty at age 25, becoming a professor at 28, youngest in the schools history. Fifty years of teaching over 10000 students. [applause] recipient of numerous rewards and i dont know if you remember but where he went to in high school and where i went to work competing in what she called the i wife, the conference. The highlight in the Hebrew Institute of long island. We are thrilled to have them here tonight. We have a threepart program. Part one, debate. Part two, dialogue. Part three, discussion. We have to learn when our differences of opinion are in a whole range of subject and how we can create Common Ground so we can communicate with one another and how we are best able to reach one another in this very stratified and divided society we live in. Thats why tonight there are three parts. Ive asked that part one, which is a debate on the politics of impeachment, that each respondent speak for ten minutes each. Somebody said why so short . When i was taught public speaking, they used an analogy related to oil wildcat in, he used to say if you havent struck oil and ten minutes, quit pouring. [laughter] so we are going to hopefully enable you to strike very quickly and well have a Counter Point in this issue. Its been so divisive but wed like to hear more about it. Ill be replacing judge for part two, which will be a discussion and dialogue on a number of important issues that affect us and the last part which will rise to antisemitism and the movement. Right now, ill turn things over to the judge, who will begin the program today by asking the First Respondent to discuss the issue of the politics of impeachment. Would like to begin . Im happy to begin. [applause] im a liberal democrat who voted for all the people who bob worked for. My political mentors in many ways, i worked on the government campaign. I worked on all the democratic campaigns. Only, when there is a broadbased consensus and bipartisan support for impeachment and removal. At philly president in American History it was properly subject to impeachment, was richard nixon. He never came to that because it was so clear that he committed Impeachable Offenses that he voluntarily or maybe not so voluntarily, resigned. Andrew johnson was improperly image credit bill clinton was improperly impeached. And i was in fact, part of the defense team for bill clinton. I justified against his impeachment. I was the only person who spoke in the senate against the impeachment of donald trump who also spoke against the impeachment against bill clinton in fact the only other time i was on the senate floor, was when i stood up and defended the great liberal democratic senator of california. In store for me, impeachment should never be a partisan issue i think everybody has to pass what i call the shoe and the other foot test. I would ask the senators to do is listen to each of them, please imagine that the person being engaged was of the opposite party and you are the of the opposite party and ask yourself, what neutral principles would you justify, impeachment and then he went through what one of my rabbis call, a dialogue about the six words that were the subject of the debate on the senate floor. This is worth more and, other high crimes or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Everybody knows what treason means. Its in the constitution. Everybody knows what bribery means, is a common term that had a meeting at common law at the time the constitution was written. But what is or high crimes and misdemeanors mean. There is a simple facial meaning of the term when you have two words, treason and bribery. Then you have the word other and other high crimes and misdemeanors. And the word other the akin to treason and bribery. It is the obvious intended meaning. So that i crimes, we know that means crimes like extortion, crimes like bribery time, crimes like perjury which bill clinton was accused of committing. What about misdemeanors. When you go back and look at what misdemeanors spent two common law. Misdemeanors were a species of crimes. They were a crime. And common law, both capital misdemeanor. If you could actually be executed for committing a misdemeanor. That is how serious misdemeanors work. There is a heavy burden of proof on those who defied the plane of the terms or of the high crimes, and misdemeanors. And what happened is a bunch of sophists on the other side led by other democratic leaders, gave an interpretation of those words that were simply partisan. In effect and in intent. What they said was, misdemeanors, it means what it meant when the british, impeached people forgetting that the british never imaged a Prime Minister. Never impatient king or anybody, and a very important level. Impeachment was used in england for very medium level administrators. And then when the framers tried to introduce the british system to the use of the now administration which one of the framer said, lets make that a criteria for impeachment. Medicinenet said no. You cant do that. It would turn the United States of a republican to a british style democracy where president serves at the pleasure of the legislature. Israel, the president of the Prime Minister, the head of state, can be thrown out of office by a simple majority vote. Of the parliament. In medicine said, we dont want that in this country. We want a strong objective, not a subject to the whim or pleasure of the legislature. The argument was over wyoming in the logic overwhelming in his historical basis overwhelming in the system apology and yet, virtually every professor in the United States rejected the argument. Some said it was bonkers. Others said it was senile for making the argument. And yet if hillary was present and she had been impeached. Every one of those professors would have told me how brilliant i was and they wouldve built a statute of me on marthas vineyard. [applause]. It was such blatant hypocrisy for them to suddenly switch sides when johnson was impeached the colby law school, said of course you need a crime. The weight of authority is on the side of the crime. The former justice of the Supreme Court who defended johnson said of course you need a crime. But even if i am wrong. Even if history were not your work to support the other side, the idea that we dont have a debate about this, that a just result in namecalling, thousands of professors, most of whom have no idea what theyre talking about are prepared to sign the petition saying that my views are wrong and a bunch of professors led by your congressman, in this area and led by congressman in new york and by schumer, actually got up in the floor of the senate and said, that i was not a constitutional law expert. [laughter]. Having taught constitutional procedures as part of criminal procedures for 50 years, having litigated over hundred constitutional cases, having written dozens of articles and books about constitution, they claim that i was not a constitutional expert because it came out on the wrong side of the issue. If i had been defending hillary clinton, they wouldve been praising my expertise and then just one more point. Then i will sit down. The worst offenders were the two congressman. Plus senator schumer but the worst offender was cnn. The me explain why. [applause]. And i will ask for your advice. Heres what happened. Ted cruz, chief justice asked me a very simple question. What about quid pro quo. Is that an impeachable defense. You can see my full answer online. Not on cnn. You can see it on any honest channel. He was my answer. I said i am very honored to have just come back from the white house where i saw the enrolling of the plan. What is an impeached plan. I give a whole series. The israelis were told that unless you stop the settlements, youre not getting any money. Unless you stop terrorism, youre not going to get any money. That would only quid pro quo. Theres nothing wrong with it unless, and involves something that is illegal. But if it is illegal, and a quid pro quo is impeachable. If it involves correct conduct or selfdealing or a kickback. Then it would be illegal. But if it was not anything illegal, the mere fact that a public figure, any member of congress, any elected official, had a mixed motive, and was thinking not only about the Public Interest but about his own electoral interest, that mixed motive, could not be subject to win impeachment without any legal conduct. So heres what cnn said. They took it out of context. They eliminated the part about criminal. They limited the part about corrupt. And they said that they said if the president think their collection is in the national interest, he can do anything, including shoot his opponent, rank the machines and this was your friend, who said that. In cnn, simply doctored the interview. It was as if i said the following. Let me tell you what i dont believe. I dont believe, the president can do anything and cnn Center President can do anything. Leaving out, i dont believe. So my question to you as this. And i leave you with this question. Im a First Amendment believer. I was one of the lockers who wrote the opinions in the New York Times. But i do not believe the First Movement protects a willful, deliberate, malicious, doctoring of the case to make some money Say Something of the exact opposite of what he said. So my question to you is should i still cnn. [applause]. Should i sue. [applause]. I must express my admiration, he left just enough time within his time to allow for the standing ovation. [laughter]. I expect every bit of the standing ovation. [laughter]. Im a little doubtful about that because before the event, i was in the holding room and the reception, while going to have to move out now. I was in the holding room, and there were all of these trump for president buttons. [applause]. And work all of these pamphlets from the republic jewish coalition. So i dont think i am exactly at home. [laughter]. Im on the website, i am in beverly hills, i think youre kind of an atypical crowd for this part of town. [applause]. I also have some bad news. For the professor here and for those who view who plotted him pretty adam schiff will get reelected to congress by record margin. We will talk about stability a little bit later. But i think, is not indisputable fact. Secondly, it was interesting to me and im not to argue the legal case with alan, i am no in position to do that. I went to harvard law. [applause]. Thank you that was kind. I went to harvard law school. [applause]. And the only thing i did many note was when the competition which is the move towards competition, i would note that on these legal issues, and i was told we were going to talk about the political implication it of inpatient which i am going to talk about. Ellen sort of, i think rehearsed is speech to the senate and then added that attack on cnn. He did, know that a lot of people disagree with him. The exact over the New York Times is most of the scholars disagree with me. I think they are wrong. I think they are right. And we can have a debate about that. But i dont think that is fair for example, to question the motives of people to the extent of saying that if hillary clinton, had been impeached for doing what donald trump did, all of those people wouldve necessarily been on the other side. I think when you start using lines. I am sorry guys, you may not want to hear event youre not going to like what you appear in from the voters either. [inaudible]. I was in say, i am perfectly happy to have a civil discussion here. And do think we should not use words, like hypocrisy. We should not use words like questioning peoples motives. I do not think that advances public dialogue to join President Trump including cnn and trashing cnn, and alan, my advice to you as a nonpracticing lawyer would be dealt to them, you will lose. During the impeachment trial, and i think this is the quote you are talking about. What do you want. [applause]. I have no idea what youre talking about. And i may be the better for it. Please, this is rude. I sort of knew coming in here that this was going to be like this. But i was asked to do it so i said i would do it. I think,. I will give you an extra two minutes. I dont need it. I think this was the exact quote, if a president does something which he believes will have them get elected in the Public Interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo results in impeachment. Now hes explained that statement now but i think it is profoundly offbase. In fact earlier, when he used the word extortion, as a grounds for impeachment. I think with the president dead in the ukrainians was exactly extortion. But beyond that, he argued that abuse of power, not grounds for impeachment. One of the president started a conflict in october of the election year. In evidence came out that his motive was purely political. He wouldve had the power that he wouldve abused the power. Its exactly in my view, it should be impeachable. I want to talk about the aftermath of all of this. If you decide the president who obstruct justice, cannot be indicted, and a president who abuses power cannot be impeached. Who gives a president to engage in wholesale abuse produces the trial, thats what donald trump has done. We have seen that with roger stone, we have seen that with the purging of Law Enforcement officials, i think there are some people who would agree with me. And the actual listened to the professor. I am perfectly happy to take any of your questions and any point. And perfectly happy to debate any of you but i am going to make my case. [applause]. Losing the purging of Law Enforcement officials and others who testified in the impeachment proceeding. It demands for reexamination. A statement that he has the right to interfere, and the Justice Department criminal cases and i saw an interview that the proposal gave on radio credit he said, obama did this. I hold in my hand, three oh two, 302 that indicates that will be a lawsuit about this. But he did not say with the lawsuit was pretty he gave no evidence, we dont know what would be in that lawsuit and it reminds me of just as much earthy, it was West Virginia and virginia i hold it in my hands on the names of 200 officials from the state department who have communist interest. That is really good. You calling me mccarthy. I said that was a mccarthy tactic. What is the case. You will find out about it very soon. [inaudible]. I have a client to represent who has not given me the authority to disclose the specifics. But i will with mccarthy when he didnt do. I have a 302 which i will be happy to show you. Which pinpoints, the fact that the president of the United States started the investigation. Be back by the way he is not mccarthy. It. He said this was done on behalf of of george. That is one of the worst right wing man that we have going around this country today. Students but it is true. [applause]. Alan, you and donald trump are under the mistaken assumption that if you believe something is true. This has to be settled in the court of law and you will lose. Politically, one of the consequences of all of this. In the poll, 55 40, voters say acquittal did not clear trump of wrongdoing. Among independents, it is 55 40. In the president s approval is at 43 percent. It is not i am sorry. So youre going to in the real clear politics and was at 45 percent. They want to talk into the mic. [inaudible]. 29 percent of people that agreed that impeachment was the right thing to do and only 41 percent discrete. Only 39 percent that the president was innocent of the charges brought against him. So i would like to look at that in terms of the 2020 election. And first i would like to recite in the year 2000 with the clinton impeachment. After the trial, after he was acquitted, hannah very high job approval. Any had a very low personal approval. If you went out and talk to focus groups, they just wanted an old to be gone. The kids and seen things on television they did not want them to see. And open the way for george w. Bush, and ensure the people in the Republican Coalition here will find this to run, on the proposition that it was going to change very little, he was going to have tax cuts to share the prosperity. But is going to preserve it the budget surplus. He would restore honor and dignity to the white house. That was all about the clinton impeachment. I think the same overhang is likely for trump. Is the only president since pulley began to never be above 50 percent approval. An impeachment reverse the public reaction to continue president ial misconduct. His actually broken the historic connection so far between approval and the economy and job approval and general. Its about 20 percent higher job approval for him on the economy and there is job approval in federal pretty and i will conclude by saying, my view is that trump cannot win the election. [inaudible]. But the democrats can lose the election. [inaudible]. Do you guys visited the synagogue every week pray actually for example, the healthcare question, and medicare for all. Medicare for all couldnt bear the democratic advantage in healthcare. Where issues like preexisting conditions, help drive the Democratic Victory in 2018. Trump will run a campaign against the democratic nominee and if that is nominees positions or record, will repel but was otherwise inclined to vote democratic, trump could be reelected. Before his virtues. If i can use that word. But because democrats once again, lose the unlivable election. [applause]. I know you have a number of thing to respond to. Many of the question i didnt understand something. You made a distinction between the impeachment of the president whom you defendant. And again i am unsure of this. President clinton was in fact, was a felony. And i am just wondering, if, i have a very simple question. What clinton had was a low crime. It was a crime of personal misconduct. The crime of governmental just misconduct. It was much like what happened to alexander hamilton. You may remember, scholar history, if using the play, was seduced by a woman when he was secretary of the treasury. On the womans then came and demanded extortionate payments when she paid. Those were not Impeachable Offenses although adultery was a felony at the time. But then extortionists went over to hamilton and send in less you pay me more money, i will see that the money from the treasury department. And use that money to pay the extortion pretty and of course he did not get the money from the treasure deep department in the history of that which was very embarrassing to him and his family, in which he admitted the affair in the extortion but paid the money personally. And he paid the money from his wifes funds which made it ironic of course. And all the framers, they all married very rich women and he was one of them in his wife did not know she was paying extortion money. But the point is that clinton prevented a low crime. On asking this question very directly. If a public official, and 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. Is that a crime or impeachable clip thing. Of course it is not. This is a rhetorical question. And that is exactly what i said. And you have totally distorted when i said pretty limit read you what i said. You did not quote me. You did not quote me. What you did is you left the words. If you put me is saying is this is what i dont believe, the president can do anything and you quoted me as saying the president can do anything. If you did exactly what cnn did. You left out the following words,. [applause]. If the could throw quote were illegal, quid pro quo were illegal, you let those words out in what it says is, if the president does something illegal, if i had said that, which he believes will help him get elected, that would be the issue. Know what i said was if the president does something perfectly legal, which he believes will get him alecto elected. Shame on you for committing the sins of and repeating the same sins of cnn. You make a persuaded me, because you have indulged it in the same kind of gutter politics as cnn has, then i may very well have to sue cnn to make sure that people like you can never repeat that i said a president can do anything. If i challenge you to read my entire quote to the audience. Not do what cnn did. Go ahead. Here is the quote. Read it. Not just the expert, read the quote. [laughter]. Listen guys, beginning to have a discussion and we can be civil which alan just was not. Or i can respond in kind. I find it shameful, this and when i admired for years, represented the single most reprehensible person ever to sit in the oval office as president of the United States. Vote. Talk about. [inaudible]. I did not interrupt used to dont interrupt me. Secondly when you listen to the explanation about that quote, i define anyone in this audience to figure out what the he was saying. The quote says, that is exact, if a president desk which he believes will happen get elected to the Public Interest, that cannot be the kind of quick quid pro quo. I know he is saying, he says they would have to commit a crime. I do not agree with that. I dont think high crimes and misdemeanors, means crime and conventional sense. I think of a piece of power is not an Impeachable Offense, then democracy in this country is a terrible terrible trouble. Obviously, its a rhetorical question that alan aspirated for public official says to himself, i will look this way. It isnt going to give myself reelected. Obviously, thats not an impeachable question pretty. Thats exactly what i said. Island, would you like to have the state to yourself. I think he would love it. So let me finish. I would like to hear truth from the other side. Alan, you think that you have the truth just like donald trump thinks he has the truth. But guess what, be quieter i wont say a word. We can have a dialogue, know your choice is 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 it is comments on on the other side of the podium. If a public official, does that, i dont think its an Impeachable Offense but if congress has appropriated money that is supposed to go to ukraine, for his military defense and the president withhold that money, the signals are sent to the ukrainians that they are not going to release it until there is an investigation of joe and hunter biden, i do think that is an Impeachable Offense. Lets just remember one thing that trump said and that is it is despicable that i was the lawyer for the president of the United States. It is the most mccarthy statement that ive heard. I grew up during that time. When the employers, were held responsible for their clients. The next thing you will say is that was despicable that i represented michael. It was despicable that i am trying to help benjamin. [inaudible]. Now its despicable that a lawyer represents the Prime Minister of israel. Or represents the president of the United States. And has a new meaning to mccarthyism. [applause]. He is declaring the stage. You were promised a very good debate and i think you got it. [applause]. Thank you. I dont think there is enough stuff in california. Thats a little calming now on this issue. On as the audience, i know there are a lot of passionate and will get to the issue of passion and politics in the breakdown of communication much unfortunately we are seeing a little bit of appear on the stage. Peoples reputations and their personal reputations, then built over her lifetime a very precious and valuable so i left as both of you to stick to the issues of the issue at hand. I want to transition to now is the subject of the me to movement. Many of you know that the professor wrote a book by accusation, guilt by accusation. Metoo movement. Some cases were of occurred where women were abused by people that they put their trust in. In cases of harvey weinstein, bill cosby, many of you seen that women have in the subject to significant abuse and i guess some would be as old as the casting couch in hollywood but the fact is that we live in a different era now. Womens rights are in the forefront and theres been this tremendous explosion that is built up over i think decades of people feeling abuse. Women feeling abused by men of power especially men who are creditors in the question for me becomes and i would like both of you to comment on this. Has the pendulum swung too far. Or is it acceptable. I would tell you a couple of quick examples that i would like to hear your take. One example is the number of men in the congregation telling me i am just not hiring women anymore. Im going to hire guys. I dont want to take a chance of a Sexual Harassment lawsuit because of something i said. I complement a womans appearance and told by my Legal Counsel that you can do that. You can say you have a beautiful dress on today if you cannot say you look beautiful. As rabbi recently had an experience three months ago, when the women who works in the office, when i came in was on the phone crying. I said amy, would happen. My father just died. I went over and gave her a hug. Carla hard labor lawyer said you cant do that. You have to ask permission, may i give you a hug. Has this one too far. Are we at the point, curb your enthusiasm episode work larry davis let his camera down and his iphone on the table, as he was beginning to kiss estate and sent i want to make sure youre in complete agreement with mate going ahead and kissing you. So the question i want to ask both i will start with the professor, has the movement swung too far. Im in a place in society we can get accused and convicted and where the fear of the womens retribution is making people do things like not hiring women and hiring men for positions that are perfectly capable to do. Perfect present have to say this is ironic that there are three men up here on the stage discussing it. There should be women appeared discussing this. Secondly, i have to observe that letter to your friend that if hes got a pattern and practice of not hiring women, he is in violation of federal civil rights rights law. In any better be careful. Third, i think it has been and i understand the frustration some people have. Understand the people can be falsely accused. I think that is happened. Focus on info memorial, women have not been believed. Women have not been pleasant to come these claims have been brought rushed off. I think the me to movement, the Metoo Movement is good for our society. I think it will make the country a better place pretty and do i think that those things. Thank you pretty do i think that those things in the element of that can be carried too far. Of course. Do i think the merit accusations but should make someone guilty. Of course not. But we also are in the situation and this just isnt the Metoo Movement for example, where it in a situation in the Catholic Church were there are circumstances which there are many accusations. A cascade of accusations. There may it be a statute of limitation for you cannot find out whether this happened. So you go forward in their is the church is finally done for example in the case of cardinal. Two basically defrauded him into an amount to someplace in kansas. Or finally, it took forever. Is been true forever that we have downgraded women. I think it is wrong and we have to change it. We cannot get those to the point where we say everybody is guilty similar because one person accused him of something pretty you need to investigate it. You need to find out. But to look at roger, and finally the dam broke, i do know how many of you saw the movie. But finally the dam broke. And fox an investigation he was clearly guilty. There was no criminal process. There was not even civil process. Although there have been a series of lawsuits settled. And he was fired. I think it was the right thing to do. So i would not rollback this movement. I would continue to insist that people ought to be treated in a responsible way. Someone accusation, that unsubstantiated does not prove whole case against somebody. Thank you. And a great. I agree with much of what bob said. I support the Metoo Movement. Nothing is too little too late many ways. I think its more important than we take womens accusations very serious. And because start is movement but because of a business and then a racket. What we are seeing now is our our lawyers with highly questionable legal ethics by david boyce was made a business and a falsely accusing people. I was one of his victims. He set up a complete shake down plans, in which a woman i never had heard of, never knew existed, falsely accused me after telling the fbi that she did have with me after telling her best friend she never met me and for writing emails that she never met me. All of which were known to the lawyers. After which she wrote lawyer recorded tape recording said to me, its impossible they could have been in the places they use she said. She is doubly wrong. After getting the former head of the fbi to do a complete independent investigation and concluded it was wrong. They are still coming after me even though it is clear and no doubt that i never had any contact with this woman. I was the second most frequent speaker in the history. In 90 seconds, is now canceled me as i can never speak there again pretty cannot speak on behalf of israel. In a new book called defending israel and i wanted to speak there. That is why you are here pretty. Youre better than 90 seconds. But within 90 seconds, what i said is we know youre innocent. We dont want trouble. If your cues, we do not want trouble. See you cannot speak here anymore. The same thing is true on college campuses. I am fighting back. I am lucky, i have nothing to hide. And then with my wife who is here tonight, since the day i met. [applause]. Jeffrey epstein, and never touch another woman. Into a hug. I dont flirt. With people people i dont do any of that. And nonetheless, i was picked. Why was a pig. Because i am a famous guy and because the lawyers understood that they accused me publicly, they could then go to leslie, the owner of the victorias secret and the owner of the limited to and say to her, the same woman that accused dershowitz publicly seven times as he gives you seven times. Including making her wear lingerie and there are ways of resolving this. They had a meeting with leslie, the lawyers and after the meeting, her name disappeared from all of the court pleadings. He was never accused, the lawyer said we believed leslie, we think he is telling the truth. Well if you believe the person, that means you believe your own client has made up stories about him. And so all of this is coming out now. All of this will come out in the report and what is most despicable is that david and the other lawyers, are destroying me to movement, the Metoo Movement. The 24th accusations know or should know are absolutely false. That discredits truthful people. Shes not a hero in the Metoo Movement. It is the villain of the Metoo Movement. Now we are having bosses. Were both suing each other for defamation. The woman is now claiming director even though i never met her. And the idea of how i returned, she admits she says, the was consensual. Which it didnt happen. But she says that because i know, that she was being enslaved by others, even if i had only the consensual conduct that would constitute rape. Emotions not to dismiss that but the idea that somebody pet have never done anything wrong ever ever ever, i have never a person, i have never even told that joke. None of those things. When it comes to this aspect of my life, i can say i somebody says perfect attendance, i have been perfect. And yet, i am being accused and people still believe that. Ive been accused by lawyers should note that they are making false accusations. So be aware of the Metoo Movement successes. People who are exploiting the Metoo Movement and turning it into a racket. [laughter]. And if you want to read about obviously, my bug guilt by accusation, has all of the documents. A dollar 95. Can read the whole thing. And youll see there isnt any evidence that in any way supports these false accusations little counterpoint and then move onto the next subject to have have anything you would say perfect is probably not thorn i want to use given is been used a lot recently to describe something that was entirely imperfect. Im not here to say what happened on what did it go on but i understand, is acute sensitivity here. And i no judgment about the outcome of this situation. I know david. I have not seen him in years. I know him to be an honorable person i dont believe, you dont know him. I understand youre on his side but i know him to be an honorable person. I dont believe they lied. The denial of Public Forums is a much more difficult thing. I think if the public forum was denied, to alan, at the 92nd civil because it said, we dont think he did anything but it would be trouble. I think that is wrong. [applause]. I also think that whether people are invited to speak on the campus, whether it relates to this issue or some other, and in many cases, people are making their individual judgments based on very specific cases. The 92nd street, if they did this as i said, just because there would be trouble, that is a mistake. If they did it because they worry it might be true i want to be careful here. They understand that. Finally, i think everybody is entire to a lawyer. Got very upset because i said it was despicable that he rep. Of the worst president in history. I actually think of something that no line in the law, that everybody is entitled to a lawyer. Theyre not tired are entitled to just lawyer. This relates to the Metoo Movement. I think one of the things that is happen to this professor, is because he represented jeffrey epstein, and because he got a very good deal for a very bad guy, people assume he must be guilty of this other stuff. I think i was wrong. I think lawyers when they go to fight for a client, once they choose to represent the client commodified as hard as they can and hard to get as good of the deal is the can. But i think that is partly wife he is brought up in this. Entitled to a lawyer. Youre entitled to me because living to you why. In china thanks for many years at harvard. It taught 10000 students that youre entitled to a lawyer. How can i bend without being a hypocrite, said that youre not entitled to me. My job is to represent the most unpopular, the most despised some of the people that have very great difficulty in a lawyer pretty present tenure. I cannot be fired. Im still going to get union in the 70s. All of this people because they could not get lawyers in the soviet union. [applause]. And i will continue to represent the most despised, the most unpopular, and you know what, the second most critical appraisals, was not the oj simpson case. It was one point represented bill clinton. A lot of people said, what a disgraceful thing. You representing the most horrible, president in terms of his personal life. And we did in the oval office, i got such horrible accusations for helping bill clinton, so again, shoot has to fit comfortably on both feet. [applause]. I would have to say i would not compare the sky to donald trump. I would like to go to this issue of guilt by accusation but something that troubles me which is guilt by association. Just because you represent the president of the United States, should not make you as it has for him insert service, we all have a right to be heard in a right to be defended in court and we all have a right to appropriate, with the policies of the president s who may find odious. But a lot of people headed in for bill clinton, a lot of people headed in for barack obama, and being on the side of one of those president s should not have made you one way or another. The guilt by association is very troubling it made me think of circumstance, last night we had a professor here. Host the professor was from sanford university. The professor steadied primates. In the jungle and he also studied human behavior. And let me tell you, he studied republican and democratic primates. And what he found and what he found was something really fascinating, even though there is a tendency to consider someone of a different color alien, when the person puts on a baseball cap, and youre from la, and it says los angeles dodgers, they spoke at the says san francisco, the skin color goes out the window. There actually can even very areas which he described in an episode in world war i soldiers got out of the trenches during Christmas Eve and started celebrating together they didnt want to go back and fight each other the next day until her Commanding Officers force them to go back into battle. So my analogy is if i am driving down the road, and i see a family or group of people broken down car. And the car has assigned, i will stop and have that family. I dont care what the mega sign says. And i see the Bernie Sanders sticker on the car, i will stop and help that family. And i think on a level of human compassion, we have to start putting aside, this guilt by association tendencies that seem so prevalent. [applause]. In our society that would ban people from speaking mmn people from an opportunity expressing their opinions. Bob director, is mike murphy. The republican political consultant with whom i waged many campaigns but on opposite sides. We managed to maintain a friendship throw through that. We have speakers on campus is varied as jeff who you just gave interview two. And stephanie cutter, nancy pelosi, i guess the rabbis words were not heard. [laughter]. Nancy pelosi, and mark short, with the chief of staff to the present Vice President of the United States but i had the warmer president of the National Rifle association and we had a perfectly civil conversation. If i can use the word perfect. I do not agree with him. A lot of the students did not agree with him but nobody said he had no right to speak. And i utterly oppose, same people had no right to be. Alan who had all these people, people trying to get donald trump elected. Did you ever call them despicable. When he said it was despicable for me to represent the president of the United States pretty come back why do you draw employees be tween calling me despicable because i was a lawyer standing up for the constitution of the United States but its okay. [applause]. To be not called despicable, people are actually trying to get trump elected. Im not trying to get him elected. Im trying to leave it to everybody to decide who to vote for pradip im trying to defend the rights of all americans. [applause]. And you call that despicable. Spent. Bob that is not a question. That is a speech. You did not defend the constitution of the United States pretty you kicked it into the gutter. I feel that very strongly. This way i said it was despicable. You did not have to choose to represent this man. He does not come up to the standard of the kind of powerless people that you are talking about representing 34. I know people here dont disagree with me. Me but im not giving an inch on this. Alan please note shouting. They can agree to disagree pretty and they can say in defending an interpretation of impeachment in the constitution, does not necessarily take you with a red brush of guilt. And i think that is for mate the distinction that is significant. Here at the theater, but we a great have this forum, we received a lot of facebook postings, how dare you. How dare you have this professor dershowitz in an debate or dialogue. What was interesting is when we had Rachel Maddow here on her new book, unchallenged, and we had Bernie Sanders speaking on his book, unchallenged, we dont get those facebook posts. We dont get those negative comments. So i am deeply troubled that the idea of having this kind of conversation heated as it has become, is something that we should not do. That to me, is not acceptable. Bob , you should do it and i was right to do it when lisa asked me if i would do this. Newest if i should do this. I suggest i would do it. I think that makes sense. I thought we had moved on from our earlier discussion about impeachment. Toot 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 here which may be you will ask. Were talking about how everybody should be able to speak in these Public Forums and on campus. What about the bds movement. It. Alan thank you very much. Thats perfect segue and transition. Now i know you why you are a speechwriter. Lets move on to that subject. Because the campus is also an issue where freedom of speech is very much under saw. A lot of forms will be incurred people from different political persuasions, seek to speak their voices have been silenced. There is a movement has many of us have studied it. Is been underway for over a decade. Its called the bd s boycott it was a planned, conservative orchestrated premeditated moment to isolate israel rated and there been a lot of people who have said, im not really attacking the jewish people. And just attacking israel. Lets get to mention that happens to be the state of the jewish people. And so they are making this distinction that for a lot of us, does not add up. It does not make sense. So what has been your experience mr. Dershowitz on campus in terms of rising antisemitism in the bds movement. Alan is anti free speech. How do i know thats. At the university, me the oxford union, the oldest in society in the world, to debate bds, they invited the head. And he refuses to debate dershowitz because he is it subject to a because he is jewish scientists. Started out with bds is an anti speech movement. Support the right of people to advocate bds. Assess for the right of people to advocate not renting houses to black people, jewish people, women and gay people. You have a right to advocate anything. But if you dare not to write to a black person as you said, are you dear not to rent to a gay person, you have committed a crime. So what i do is i opposed the fact that bds is discriminatory in fact, bds is not advocacy, and is we will discriminate. We will not buy goods from, we will not allow universities to Work Together with this really universities. It is the act of discrimination. Problematic. Its why the bds movement itself, is anti civil liberties, as i freaked speech and bound by the end type somatic. Why is it anti somatic it only selects one country. There is no such thing as the bds movement or the gay movement or the feminist movement. It does not apply to china, it is not apply to a ron. It is a tactic directed only against the nations state of the jewish people and only against the jewish residents in israel. And does not apply to arab or muslim or christian residents. It literally applies to jewish residents. And so i am in favor of banning the act of discriminating based on National Origin and based on religion, but i am not in favor banning advocacy of bds as long as bds is not actually practicing is not actually the demonstration is not by the. Anti feminism, anti gay, all of the other bigotry that was included. But i insisted, and i did not have to fight for this. Everybody agreed. The law should say in the executive order should say, and must be interpreted consistent with existing law which means the First Amendment. So nothing in the executive order, anyway undercut the First Amendment. So i support the First Amendment. It comes before anything else. But the First Amendment does not protect actual acts of discrimination which is what bds is. Speedo i was going to say, i entirely agree with that. And surprise all of you. I have a couple of other comments about it. Bob first of all, i entirely disagree with bds. I do not and cannot imagine ever supporting it. Under any circumstances. [applause]. I have been to israel with 40 or 50 times, im not jewish. I did campaign when he defeated benjamin should probably while alan fails. I dont think what is wrong with bds is just about one country. The movement, to boy scout south africa was just about one country. I think bds is wrong on the merits. It is wrong on the whole notion that somehow or other we will dictate the policy of the state like israel, single them out, south africa deserves to be single lofgren israel does not deserve it. [applause]. I think there are harder cases in wellington to be a free speech absolutist, and i can remember debating with my fair friend larry, when are not the should be permitted to march in muskogee is course that was a public street. I think it becomes a much more complicated question when you get to universities. I dont know the answer fully. I certainly would not be party to inviting someone like that to speak at the university of california. Or a holocaust denier to speak at the university of southern california. Soy do think that we have to draw some lines. Bds is not in that category. I dont agree with them. I do think theyre wrong. I think the comments of professor jewish, was completely wrong. But we do have to say some lines who we do not have to wind farm two. Alan see this commonality in agreement here. Miracles do occur. Type. Bob having worked on that executive order with the president , can you getting to reverse his decision to repeal his banning order gate by federal contractors pretty stomach. Alan i do think it should be reversed. Absolutely. There should be no toleration for discrimination based on sexual orientation. I will do anything in my power to avoid got to make sure that does not happen. Many many Many Democrats voted in a way that appeared at least to some not to be against pbs and part of it was pushed by the four new members of the squad all whom clearly favor pbs. What was the legislation . It was legislation it was complicated. A clear vote 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 that kind of a referendum on israel but let me stick to the squad. What do you think the democratic Attitude Party leadership attitude should be toward the squads strong support for pbs . One i think the resolution was incredibly complicated and as a litmus test a complete mistake and two i think the squad represents a singularly minority view of the Democratic Party very narrow view of the Democratic Party. Think democrats are proisrael and will continue to be proisrael. You know guys you were kind of hopeless. We will continue to stand up for israel had much to your regret the democratic nominee will probably get 70 to 75 of Jewish Voters in november. Could you support Bernie Sanders for president . I will support any democratic 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 again back around the circle but let me say this about the squad. I was involved in holding a fundraiser for new york congressman eliot engel here in los angeles and when eliot engel after the antisemitic comments that elon omar boldly refused to criticize her in front of the Foreign Relations committee which he chaired and furthermore refuse to kick her off that committee i called eliot engel and i said elliott, how is it possible you couldnt find a way to stand up and condemn him on the omar who is on your committee . [applause] and his answer sadly bob 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 theres a lot of intimidation going on here and that goes back to the point i was making about intimidation and guilt by association. Is being challenged anyway. Civic isnt interesting basically what you said is engel has committed what would be an Impeachable Offense to begins he took into account his own political electability and change the position that would otherwise have been a position against her but because of his own election, his own electability he changed his mind alan is a bit monomaniacal here. What we are talking about in the case of trump was congress appropriated the money and the people of the Budget Office said you have to get the money. He refused to give the money he held it up as black male against hunter biden and joe biden. Thats my view. Id like to stop talking about impeachment. I think its ridiculous to keep going back to it and we have had nothing from professor dershowitz. Alexandria ocasiocortez got elected with 10,000 votes. How did she get elected . Joe crowley who was the party leader in queens and you have that district for many years first got it when it was an Irish Catholic district. The district changed. To get for granted and he paid no attention and they lost in a very low turnout primary. I think the press is fascinated with aoc. I think she is a big player in the Democratic Party. He did not think she will become a major force in the party. She loves standing there with Bernie Sanders and i think as we look down the road all that is going to dissipate. Democrats have always been proisrael. I know the Republican Jewish Coalition is here. The democrats have been proisrael and it was not for example democrats who sold war planes to saudi arabia when they were mortal enemies. He was the Reagan Administration so lets not partisanized this. Thats the jewish in america and israel are so much better off when they dont become a partisan issue between the two parties. I agree with that but its an issue because more than the for democrats are now showing a very different attitude to this war and wont come to aipac. Bernie sanders went to england and campaign for Jeremy Corbett who was a virulent antisemite. Let me announce i have never ever in my life voted against the democratic candidate for president. I will not vote for Bernie Sanders no matter who. I could not pull the lever for a man who has supported an antisemitic candidate in britain. He went there, he endorsed them, he campaigned for him and he has forever lost my support. [applause] s b. A lot of people share, a lot of people share that opinion but let me say this. I like to wrap it up with a wonderful quote and you know this from jewish tradition but its one that i have heard echoed by many friends of mine who are catholic priests. It is common decency precedes the bible. Common decency precedes even the bible the way we talk to one another communicate with one another and even when as rabbis can violently disagree on points of law the actual term common decencys dems 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 and i want to thank both of my guests here tonight. Lets give them a nice warm thank you and please shake cant. Thank you very much. Thank you. [applause] we can violently disagree i think we have some common respect for each other. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. [applause] [chanting]