the stories we all have in us, those small memories are what make us who we are. it's not the eight years in the white house that define me. that just happened to be part of my journey. so much more of who i am comes in the first three sections of this book and i wanted people to understand that. >> does a portion of the talk in washington. watch for more coverage of the book tour saturday december 15 at 8 p.m. and sunday december 16 at 10 p.m. on booktv. good morning miami. good morning! welcome to the 35th annual miami book fair. we are so delighted to host a game at miami dade college.

we ask that you please acknowledge all of our friends please raise your hand for making this possible. [applause] we are also very grateful toer e college and the support of the knight foundation and the bachelor foundation. i'm the dean of the honors college at miami dade college and one of the hundreds of volunteers helping to make this possible so please let's give a teund of applause for all of the volunteers. [applause] this morning's session promises to be a very exciting one. we ask that you please turn off your cell phones at this moment and also the session will go on for about 45 minutes. we will have q-and-a and at the right moment i will appear to and the session. i ask that you transition at the

appropriate time the book signing will take place to the right of the elevator. at this time, i have the distinct honor to introduce our extraordinary panelists. first, we have alan dershowitz, one of then most famous and celebrity lawyers in america. he was a professorou at harvard but he's now the felix frankfurter professor of law, the author of numerous best-selling books from the best defense to the reversal of fortune into the case for israel. he's devised and defended many of the legal cases over the m pt 50 years including o.j. simpson, michael milken and mike tyson. he's the author of the case against impeaching trump. please join me in welcoming alan dershowitz. [applause]

joining him will be david kaplan whose books include silicon boys the accidental president and mines bigger. a graduate of cornell and a university school otheuniversite teaches courses in journalism, ethics and nyu in the tradition of the brother in the most dangerous branch inside thehe supreme court assault on the constitution takes us inside the secret world of the supreme court please join me in welcoming david kaplan. [applause] does your book belonged to the

right of mine? [laughter] it all depends on one's perspective. this is a great group and my first miami book fair and i am just totally impressed. the lineup of speakers and to see so many readers of books and people who appreciate books is fantastic so thank you to the miami book fair for having us here. we talked a little bit about how to proceed, and i think we are each going to talk for five or six minutes and then argue with each other and go to questions and answers. his book is about impeachment and mine is about the supreme court, but we have something in common in that both of these books are contrarian on their respective topics. alan and i have each kind of been voted off of our respective islands. he quite literally with his

former friends up on martha's vineyard. i think i've read inn the paper they didn't like his independence and contrarian is some infamy i'm not invited to martha's vineyard that often, but my own wife pretty much a type of. [laughter] or at least half of my book. hello to her if she's listening at home since she's probably not because she's sick of listening to me talk about my book. [laughter] she is my best reader and first reader and when i gave her a copy of an early draft she says i don't agree with half of your book and i said i didn't ask i just want you to make it better and she said i don't want to make it better because they don't agree. so let't me give you a brief summary of my book. it attempts to do two things. one, it is an inside look at the

justices. whether it is chief justice roberts sanity or clarence thomas still being raised over his confirmation hearings from years ago or how you were did the impossible and nobody likes him -- [laughter] or how kegan is the hardest working of the justices and of course the arrival of brett kavanaugh after his recent unpleasantness at thehe confirmation hearings may be the book will t have questions on tt and i'm happy to talk about that but i think what i would like to focus my few minutes on is the argument in the book that it's too involved in

american life. it's too powerful and interventionist p p and acts bee it can and not because it should. that isn't a liberal perspective or conservative perspective. in my book it criticizes the court in roe v. wade which constitutionalist the right to abortion and criticizes bush v. gore which results in the presidential election and criticizes the gun control ruling in 2008 that said it was the right to own a handgun and criticizes citizens united on the campaign and shelby county, which gutted most of the civil rights act of 1965 and more tentatively suggests the ruling declaring the rights to same-sex marriage. while probably correct that might have been put off by the court and allow the legislatur

legislatures. my own views are liberal. that decision is best made by legislatures. for the legislatures and the court and i argue that for all those other cases as well. the constitution itself calls for the resolution in congress and we can talk about any number that is the but thrust of the book and it's not merely a theoretical argument.

look who's president and look who's in congress but shorton of making the monitor i entrust the fate of democracy than the unaccountable judges. it'if the rights we talk abouthe course have to often inserted itself. that's bad for the court's reputation and in congress. they said they were voting for who they were voting simply because of who they thought the

candidates were on the supreme court and w that was borne out d i think it also leads in part to the confirmation that we have because the stakes are so high and a single vote can mean so much. you have the senate voting and producing the kind of results that we had. i want to give the floor over but he might not give it back. let me throw the question who thinks roe v. wade was a good exercise of sports power raiseer your hands?

who thinks bush v. gore was an exercise ofh the power and all the hands come down? to convince you that is wrong andd hypocritical >> in 2,000 i wrote a book in which i argued that roe v. wade was the predecessor to bush v. gore and i support a woman's right to choose. it was largely political and basically led to the supreme court's hyper activism in bush v. gore but i'm not here to talk about your book.

it's not a story about me it is about hyper partisan. this wasn't the original title. i started to think about writing this book when we all knew hillary clinton would be elected president and when the republicans were battling on the day she was inaugurated that they would move to impeach. remember the cries of the convention so i started to draft and think about writing a book called the case and against impeaching hillary clinton and my publisher came up with a cover to make that point this was the case against impeaching hillary clinton when donald trump got elected and as somebody that strongly believes in the shoe on the other foot

test i decided to take the research that i have done on the case and apply it to donald trump who i voted against gore campaigned against. had i written the case they would have built a statute of me in martha's vineyard that i wrote the same book substituting the word and now they don't want to see mewh anywhere near. >> texas is now divided. i'm happy in florida which is also very deeply divided and to make it clear how upset people were about me writing the book and the case against impeaching i came up with a plain brown

wrapper of the kind we would use when we were reading dirty books in high school. they don't want to be ostracized and they can put this cover on so it is just an illustration of how divided our society has become. my case is over using the power of impeachment. i am a constitutionalist. i believe in the living cons to cushion and the constitution means what it says and when it says you cannot impeach except for treason, bribery or other high crimes and a misdemeanors e can impeach anybody as a house of representatives she wants to

impeach vice president might wdepend into those might want o impeach justice kavanagh for what he did when he was 17-years-old for the testimony in front of the senate. forg exercising his constitutional authority in the case the supreme court said was in his favor. it was richard nixon properly subject to the impeachment because he created obstruction of justice had destroyed evidence andnd bribed witnesses. he paid hush money and had people lie to officials and he would have and should have been

impeached and anyone else that is now subject to the constitutional criteria. maybe the evidence will emerge in the southern district investigation which is a far more serious risk to president of trump because th the m-mike müller investigation he has constitutional defenses to the obstruction of justice or collaboration o with russia. constitute the offense is that the but they mae indictable offenses after he i leaves office because i don't believe a president can be invited. that is the thesis of my book as you say they are both contrary and books. i think we are both kind of neutral objective civil libertarians who have different views in the mainstream about results we look at the process

rather than resolve and tell me what you think what happened with me pose a question to you to start a conversation. what is president of trump were impeached and removed by the senate but for matters that were not constitutionally authorized and what if the president said it's interesting the senate convicted me but i'm not going anywhere because i believe he acted unconstitutionally do you think they would or should at that point aside to avoid a constitutional crisis refusing to accept impeachment and removal. >> do you still get to ask me questions? >> if people don't ask me questions i will get to ask you

questions. >> this is probably where we differ. we would argue the court has a role in math question about what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor and i do not. i think this would be the classic question that the court should stay away from. do i think the court would intervene, i'm not sure. most of the people i interviewed back in 2000 when i was covering bush v. gore nobody thought the court would go anywhere near bush v. gore. it's everything to stay away

from. itig could be a high point. i would deny the premise that if you had a president they would say they are impeaching me for something that isn't impeachable i'm not sure such a president would abide by the supreme court ruling and of course the notion of not leaving office when you're supposed to, which would present a crisis not like a moth to a constitutional crisis alleged on table each night leaving aside what if a president after four or eight

years sayssi i'm not leaving and nothing to do with impeachment so you could have a scenario where the president doesn't leave town whennt supposed to bt it probably would be left to the other branches to figure out. >> if congress said obstruction of justice is a high crimes misdemeanor under the constitution that the supreme court would leave that interpretation up to congress i was talking about a different situation maxine waters or gerald ford situation where a president was removed for something that didn't even pretend to be treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors just the administration of office they rejected a proposal by some of the people in the convention calling for impeachment to be permissible for the administration of justice and of the congress

decided to ignore the constitution, i think that the supreme court would and should decide that issue and the president, takes trump for example said i'm not leaving because the congress actedoo on con traditionally and i have the same authority to interpret i think he would have support of his base but if he then decided to defy the supreme court decision he would lose the support of the american people just like you would lose the support of the american people if he decided not to leave office after his eight-year te term. they do not believe in barbaro versus madison and i suspect the

ocriticism support. to establish the court's ability to strike down the act of the unconstitutional. it is making the law. you have to interpret these sometimes conflicting clauses. it is interpreting the law in the same way claims to be a judicial activist.

i would summarize to them and they would ask where the book was about and the response was i have to agree with the position. they would agree and in truth the courts believe in its own supremacy on so many different issues at the expense of the other branches is astonishing. i would argue that the public it's possible it would dwindle after the court had ruled that i'm hardly sure that it wasn't the case in the public opinion

in bush v. gore. >> the president might be watching. >> notifying the morning shows are on now. the democrats take the presidency and the senate and the house and get their act together and get better. they've never been very good at being bad. republicans are very good at being bad. democrats say we are going to pass the court. fdr tried it but it was knocked iswn resolutely by both sides of the aisle. we live in different times. the democrats say we are going to add two seats to the courts there's plentyy of room we will

have 11 justices and take back the seat was denied and we are going to undo all it takes is an act of congress signed by the president it doesn't make a constitutional amendment. any problem withen that? >> i would defend the president's power to sign such a bill that i would strongly oppose it as i would have if i had been alive during the 1930s when president roosevelt for a very good intention tried to back the court to make sure that the new deal could be put in place. it was just as a terrible precedent that in order to save thee constitution -- >> the supreme court is operating. i've never been a complete supporter of anything the court

has done. the debate over whether it is alive living constitution or the constitution is an absurd debate. i used to fight with my friend antonin scalia since he was a law professor he did talk about it as if it were a dead constitution and my response was you are partly right there are parts that are dead. if you are 34 and ten were the most brilliant published person in the world you can't be president and you are 117 and senile you can be president. there's no prohibition against it. how can you see the part of the constitution that talks about equalon protection or due proces were cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require interpretation even justice

scalia wrote a a decision about whether or not the fourth amendment applies tort the gps that is put on the bottom of cars so that you can track people. so they have some living parts of the t constitution and everybody sees some of the dead parts that are easy. nobody disagrees with that. they didn't want impeachment to be done for reasons other than criminal conduct. nothing has changed. there are no new gps's. the reasons that they argued about are the issues we argued

about today so i think that is the better part of the constitution and i don't think we should try to be creative when we are accusing people of crimes and removing him from office. ii would argue it's closer to those places like the due process and equal protection. let me tell a story about high crimes. it's a story about alexander hamilton while he was the secretary of the treasury he had an affair with a woman and it turned out that the woman was sent to him by the extortionist to seduce him into having the affair and then demand demand

extortion payments and he paid them and then he said i need more money or else i will accuse you of taking the money to pay me out of the treasury. they helped draft the position and decided to write an essay and harassing his wife terribly admitting the affair and paying the money but denying that it came from the treasury. it didn't come from the treasury. why did he do that if he understood the difference between the high crime and low crime a crime as adultery which is a felony punishable by substantial prison terms. that was a crime bu that he didt acknowledge that he committed a high crime because he understood the difference between a high crime and ordinary crime and the framers understood that. >> we are getting a signal we should allow questions.ow

>> i'm not sure i answered the question about marberry. i'm not agreeing that they don't have any of the luster when they sized marberry against madison they shouldn't be able to declare the law of the congress unconstitutional you can't have it both ways. on that we can agree.

>> i heard your interview on npr and this question is for you. on your opinion for term limits for the supremee court and if o do you think there's something that citizens can do to start the ball rolling on that? >> term limits returne written e constitution probably made sense once upon a time in my view it makes no sense there is an act in the academy.

it would never happen. >> you could retch collectively apply to the justices who are now setting there are no limits on what they can do. >> that the party in power will never agree. the lobby representatives in most cases is adopting such an amendment but the more likely reform is to apply pressure. >> the senate should refuse to confirm and the idea that we are now appointing to the supreme court in the hope that they will

live 120 years is a distortion ofeys the process and somebody o just turned 80 i think wisdom comes with age. i don't want to be on the supreme court that the american bar association won't recommend or wouldn't recommend somebody over 60 is absurd. oliver wendell holmes some of the greatest justices went on to consider people in their early 30s and 40s makes very little sense. >> one federal judge did note that perhaps having a bar mitzvah might be sufficient qualification. >> there was nothing about a young age limitation. you have to be 35 to be the president that you can be a justice of the supreme court.

since the governor signed the legislation which says that it will not do business to the entities that engage with people who boycott strategic partners what is the universities responsibility with regards to its students and professors in light of the professor and graduate students refusal to write a letter of recommendation for those -- >> a professor refused to write a recommendation when he found out the students that were prepared to write the recommendation was going to israel. you have the right to advocate. that is a first amendment right that i think historically, legislation has always forbidden the actual boycotts. there's all kind of legislation permitting these back in the 60s and 70s there was legislation forbidding the companies from joining the

boycott in israel and so i think that as long as it doesn't ban advocacy it is constitutional and michigan took the right decision disciplining the professor not for what he thought or believed or said for discriminating against students based on the country that the students wanted to go to. to recommend someone to go to an african country because he disagreed it would be hell to pay and i think michigan put the shoe on the other foot in their policy. ask the >> i have a comment andqu a question. i would like to point out that pollution doesn't appear in the criminal i code from what i understand it would be prosecuted as conspiracy to

commit treason. >> that is the only crime defined in the constitution and it is narrow. even the worst enemies of donald trump would realize you cannot charge the president with treason, conspiracy or anything relating to treason. the charge would be conspiracy to what, affect the election or something like that. i am against the crimes whether they are democrats or republicans. >> my question is related to that i would like to ask what your opinion is related to the criminal code in light of what you brought up on how adultery used to be illegal and stuff it does change and we've now abolished the adultery of the crime that is the way that it should have been but we shouldn't be looking to the

criminal law for the creative solutions. it's always a step behind. for example they can't keep up with the internet and it has to keep playing catch-up that is the right approach refusing to apply the criminal law and the matters that occur before the conduct was criminalized. i find you to be terribly persuasive than they hoped to agree with you on a lot of your points. but unfortunately i agree on many. that was a terrible decision. >> i agree completely. >> if it is to complete the phrase of his high crimes and misdemeanors you don't have to

extend your judgment too far to realize they could include many of the activities trump has taken why has he chosen to cut the phrase short? >> they were very serious crim crimes. the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony involves the attainment of blood and your family would suffer at the misdemeanors was a serious crime at the time of the framing and so i do include misdemeano misdemeanors. remember it is and high crimes or misdemeanors at this and misdemeanors. i take that seriously. >> thank you very much. it's been fascinating. my question is you mentioned you don't believe a sitting president can be indicted. can you please elaborate on

that? >> the justice department has the office of legal counsel that have a ruling years ago saying a sitting president can't be prosecuted. the impeachment provisions seem to imply that they can be once he leaves office and once he is impeached and then it would seem to be he can't be indicted and prosecuted while in office. my colleague used to take that position when clinton was president and now he has evolved into view leaves the president can be indicted and prosecuted while in office and my position has remained. >> i would only way into the extend that it became a legal issue there was an indictment i could see that kind of case.

i don't want the supreme court out of everything but it seems to me the question of impeachment is a classically political matter and that's how the constitution started and i thinkk the attempt to move into the judicial system is displac displaced. >> why do they say that you cannot remove a president a from office if only a president unless the trial in the senate is presidedef over by the chief justice of the united states that is a clear intent to add a judicial element to an otherwise political process. he's there because he has to respond to legal challenges and if i were donald trump's lawyer the first function i would make

this a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the state is no stated in teachable offense and thee chief justice as a judicial officer would have to resolve that issue with the caveat that my predictions are wrong. i cannot imagine they are going near that question. i think any chief justice would take as a given that the house of representatives decided. this chief or all of the opinions he's written that i've criticized would show his in i y view the greatest moment when he upheld the affordable care act. in my book report he had big problems with the statute and its constitutionality, and eventually he did vote and conference, private gathering of the justices. he did vote to strike down the

statute onut the commerce claus. but they went back and asked the clerk's for the opinions when that would strike down the statute on the ground and that would uphold on the taxing power and when baseball the opinions they decided as the judges say one of them didn't write the commerce clause argument didn't make sense and he also in the best use of the word judicial politics, not partisanship decided the court was left out of the maelstrom and the court struck down obamacare the court would have been a central issue in the presidential election and i think roberts, whatever he thought about the affordable care act decided that for the good of the court and the institution it was better to keep the court out.

ii think it is possible, and he has been railed at five conservatives and republicans including in 2016 of the things that surprises me about the book i would have assumedld his view was you are going to be gone in two or four or six years or maybe a few us. and i will still be the chief justice i could be here for 20 years, but it bothered roberts. i think it is possible that he's now the swing vote on the court. he's not a moderate or the middle of the road maybe kennedy was on vacation. it's possible he will try to put the brakes on the court on issues important to him like racial preferences or campaign-finance. i thinkce it is possible the chf

justice will say that it's bad for this institution to be in the center so to your question if he is o phenomenal presiding officer, someone has to have the gig. >> you could have found somebody sitting only in the impeachment of- the president. if not for the good of the nation, for the good of my book. >> i found your example but trump not leaving the presidency in any event chilling and you probably couldn't say that as an example for any other president but for this one, i could see it happening. there are thoseer who say --

>> there is an argument he wouldn't leave if it was unconstitutional. >> i think al gore performed a service to the country when he conceded at a time he didn't have to. he could have caught on. it was unjustified in my view and he could have fought on politically but he decided for the best interest of the country he would accept the supreme court's decision. >> the only thing i said in terms of the advice on the president i would give you four pieces of advice, don't pardon,mu don't

commute and don't testify. he wasn't following very many of those. this could go to another civil war and what i'm asking you is do you believe that it's possible? >> the structures of the checks and balances in the country is secure and this is a constitutional challenge not a constitutional crisis. we are a stronger country surviving the constitutional challenge for the american public and this will pass. i hate to be agreeing with alan on the final vote as we end but i do think that a lot of this chicken little sky is falling view that you see on cable these days are a bit much. whether it is two months, two years or eight years, this too

shall pass. >> that is a perfect way to end the panel. thank you. [applause] if you are interested in a book signing copies exit to the elevator to the right. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

former president w. bush read from his collection of letters, memos and entries. impression to red square and is fresh in my mind we were close to the front. when the arm swinging elite marched in my first fall hospital troops in hospital power. we had a little weight and i watched the guard and looked at the faces and i saw my son and yours, mike and ron, i saw them say for the immediate family i saw a funeral without god and thought how sad and lonely. and i can't speak for george

shall for the total joy sharing these responsibilities but let me say two things now. thanks for sending us on this unforgettable mission and second we must exceed in the quest for peace. former president h. w. bush died friday. he was 94-years-old.

. [applause] >> well you know looking around at the auditorium at the filled seats i can see the "new york times" was right. in a recent article about our esteemed guest this evening it said bernie sanders can still get a