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 abou