today, are we going to have a hearing on monday? we might. we re not sure. what about wednesday? well, we might. well, what would be the what would be the topic of those hearings, well, we don t know. who would be the witness? we don t know. but we re we probably will have something but we don t know. i mean, this is outrageous. this is what kafka wrote about in the trial. you don t get to know the charges, the witnesses, but we re going keep changing the charges is what they ve done. i have some respect on some people who went to harvard law school or taught at harvard law school. you had alan derschowiz on again tonight. he s terrific. but i couldn t believe the way you have harvard guy sitting there saying, well, i was reluctant, you know, approaching any kind of impeachment, well, somebody s gotten ahold of his twitter account and making him look like an idiot. so, anyway, couldn t believe it. it s outrageous. but we re going to keep fighting
professor alan derschowiz. his brand new book is out. a powerful case he makes as it relates to the epstein case. we ll put that up in a second. legal analyst, greg jarrett. congrats on the book. i don t want to go up against you in a court of law when facts are against everybody. what would you have said, professor, if you l were brought in to testify, what would you have said? i would have said you cannot make the constitution say what you want it to say. the constitution says the criteria are treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, the framers rejected all of the criteria that thera democrats pt forward: bad behavior, corruption, abuse of office. and yet all three of these democratic scholars were going back to what the framers rejected. if you want to change the criteria, you amend the constitution. we did that in the 25th amendment. nothing about when the president becomes incapacitated.
we re not sure. what about wednesday? well, we might. well, what would be the what would be the topic of those hearings, well, we don t know. w who would be the witness? we don t know. but we re we probably will have something but we don t know. i mean, this is outrageous. this is what kafka wrote about in the trial. you don t get to know the charges, the witnesses, but we re going keep changing the charges is what they ve done. i have some respect for some people who went to harvard law school or taught at harvard law omschool. you had alan derschowiz on again tonight. he s terrific. but i couldn t believe the way you have a harvard guy sitting there saying, well, i was reluctant, you know, approaching any kind of impeachment, well, somebody s gotten ahold of his twitter account and making him look like an idiot. so, anyway, couldn t believe it. it s outrageous. but we re going to keep fighting because truth, justice, the
is jerry nadler giving you a heads up of what s next? no, this is sad, the american people ought be outraged with the waste of taxpayer dollars, time, with the schiff show, the nadler circus, we have no idea. i gave him an opportunity in his closing to say, where are we going from here? what is your plan? instead of bringing these academics who don t have anything to do with the show, fact witnesses, people who would be able to testify, that is not what we ve got going on. sean, it s a joke. it s a circus. it s off of the tracks and we need to makee sure that the american people know that. and by the way, i m going to put in one more plug, adam schiff needs to come out of hiding, get some courage and backbone, come to the committee and testify. if he doesn t, he has no voracity in anything that he s written.ba sean: senator collins from the great state of georgia. and jim jordan. joining us,, harvard law
something about this before the show is over. joining us, harvard law professor, alan derschowiz. a powerful case he makes as it relates to the epstein case. put that up in a second. legal analyst, greg jarrett. congrats on the book. i don t want to go up against you in a court of law when facts are against everybody. what would you have said, professor, if you were brought in to testify, what would you have said? i would have said you cannot make the constitution say what you want it to say. the constitution says criteria, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, the framers rejected all of the criteria that the democrats put forward bad behavior, corruption, abuse of office. and yet all three of these democratic scholars were going back to what the framers rejected. if you want to change the criteria, you amend the constitution. we did that in the amendment.