and democrat jennifer wexton will join from virginia's 10th congressional district. she was elected to the virginia senate in 2013. new congress, new leaders. wanted on c-span. -- watch it all on c-span. law school professor allender show nationalirtua shall think your kid -- make your guest: if hillary couldn't and have been elected -- i would've written a book called the case against impeaching him and clinton. the frame errors of the constitution set out criteria for impeachment. you have to be convicted based on evidence of either bribery,

treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors and at least at the moment i have not seen sufficient evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to call for the impeachment of the president, who i voted against. i made the same case when bill clinton was impeached. i did not think they had sufficient constitutional basis for impeaching him. i'm a neutral objective nonpartisan civil libertarian who analyzes constitutional and legal issues without regard to whether it helps or hurts republicans or democrats. that is what i will continue to do. dedication in your book. this book is respectfully dedicated to an endangered species you write, general -- genuine civil libertarians who pass the shoe on the other foot test. guest: simply a variation of the golden rule. what i ask of all my critics is

would you be making these arguments if it were hillary clinton who were being impeached for the emails or benghazi or uranium? i know i would be making the same argument matter who the president was. i've always applied the shoe on the other foot test. i came up with that concept when i wrote a book called supreme injustice and which i railed against the five republican justices who turned the election .f 2000 over two george w. bush i argued i think very convincingly in the book that had the shubin on the other foot , had it been bush who were trying to stop the recount i don't believe these five justices would have voted the same way. i think they failed the test and many of my colleagues who are calling for the impeachment of president trump based on extra constitutional grounds are failing the shoe on the other foot test and i want to see a return to neutral objective

principled analysis of constitutional law without host:.to who was hurt article two section four of the constitution. skip to the final two, to find high crimes and misdemeanors? artist and crimes worst from low crimes. i think bill clinton committed a low crime when he lied allegedly .bout his sexual conduct that was not a high crime. hamilton defined high crime. hamilton wrote the federalist paper that deals with this defining high crime as a crime that deals with the functioning of office. he understood that. when he was secretary of treasury, he was lulled into an affair with a married woman and made to pay and extorted and --

and extorted an amount of money from her husband to keep the affair private. then the husband said we are going to accuse you of stealing the money to pay for this extortion from treasury funds. at that point hamilton wrote an essay embarrassing his family and his wife admitting the affair and the payment but denying and truthfully denying the accusation that the money had come from treasury funds. he understood the difference between a low crime of adultery. paying extortion was a crime. but those were low crimes, not impeachable. had he used money from the treasury to pay for the extortion that would have been a high crime. that is good evidence of what hamilton -- one of the framers who was responsible for the impeachment provision, had in mind. he had in mind, a double criteria, it had to be a high a crime that to be

involves the governance of office i don't think at the moment we have seen any such allegations. they may come out in the report in the southern district investigation i'm not try to make a case for president donald trump. as i said i voted against him. a strong supporter of hillary clinton. i contributed to her. i consider her a friend. i would be doing the same thing if she were elected president and they were trying to impeach her. host: why make this case before the mother report comes out? before we know more. guest: because so many people on the other side were claiming that he is subject to impeachment. literally the day he got into office. the democrats started to formulate letters of impeachment , calling for his impeachment. i document that in the book.

i wish i did not have to write this book. they called for hillary clinton's impeachment before the election. republicans swore that the day she was elected they would move to her impeachment. i would have written the case against the hillary clinton impeachment book. to make the point that i would have written that case, my publisher came up with an alternate cover. the case against impeaching hillary clinton. i would have written essentially the same book. it would've dealt with emails and benghazi and uranium but the legal criteria would have been the same. i think i passed the shoe on the other foot test and iqs many of my critics, friends and colleagues alike of not passing the test. allowing partisanship to intrude on constitutional analysis. one of my colleagues was firm when it was being impeached that a president could not be indicted while sitting in office and now that the president is

front instead of clinton my colleague changed his mind. he saw the truth of reality and now believes a president can be impeached. my views have been consistent over time. if consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds i can be accused of that. but i have been consistent. i've opposed many aspects of the richard nixon impeachment although i hated the man. i introduced into the aclu resolution condemning him being named an unindicted co-conspirator because i thinks that -- i think that violates civil liberties. he cannot try the case and cannot prove his innocence. i've been consistent since the 1970's and i'm too old to change. book theender sho -- this case against impeaching trump. berkeley springs, west virginia, a republican, go ahead. caller: i watch you a lot on fox

and i know you are a liberal but you are a fair-minded liberal, which is rare these days. what i would like to point out is the hypocrisy. this president and presidents of the past. i'm 80 years old. i joined for john kennedy the first time ever voted. in the media if it was up to media they would teach trump today. evenhing i can't deal with on this program some mornings it's nothing but continuously bashing trump. eventually people out here in the real world are going to start believing all this garbage we see on the news. guest: it is a tragedy that the media have become so divided.

today there are trump channels and anti-trump channels. you want the anti-trump you turn to cnbc, the pro trump news, you turn to fox. walter cronkite's are no longer on the major television shows watched. everyone trusted walter cronkite . i'm told walter cronkite did not even vote because he did not want partisanship to intrude on his objectivity. today we have silos. not only on television but in newspapers as well. it's a terrible tragedy. we need a return to objective, neutral principles of law, reporting. donald trump causes many of these problems. his use of extreme language, his putting down of his opponents. he has helped to divide the country. he's responsible for a lot of that division. i would have thought some of the

media would be above that and would at least report more neutrally and objectively. have twond i televisions and we watched the state of the union and then the analysis of the speech afterward . it was as if we and seen two different speeches. you could not find out what was said by the various media already interpreting. the new york times, the lead story was how trump had caused the reduction in the stock market. maybe that is true but that the lungs of the opinion page and it is now called news analysis. it is simply an excuse for putting an editorial on the front page and the division between the editorial page in lessews pages are becoming sharp should be. host: you mentioned there is pro trump and anti-trump media.

is the interest in your commentary from both sides or just one side reaching out to you for your services? guest: more and more i am getting called on only by people who misunderstand and think i'm proud from. -- i will trump -- im pro trump. i am not. hundred for me to get on the antitrust networks, not that i'm craving to be on television -- it has had an impact on which channels seek my services more often. that's a change. i used to be on cnn more often than on fox. i was a regular, just a person that was on all the time debating. i have not been on cnn since the summer. fox calls me all the time. available toe

people who watch all channels. i try to write beds for different newspapers and media. there's no question the point of your question is correct. host: ruby in richmond, virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: i plan to buy your book. i kept telling my friends he can't be impeached. if i read your book i can explain to them. i also watch pbs which i think is pretty fair and c-span. thank you. guest: i agree with that. host: what advice would you get that caller? of all, my view is not the only one. i colleague who had written excellent books saying the criteria for impeachment has been met. i think the group of eight. we should never consider -- i think it is a great debate. we should never consider impeaching a pr president

without great debate. read my book, professor tribe's book. and come to your own conclusion as to who gets the better of the argument. but don't demonize me for having written a book that has helped donald trump when my goal is to make sure impeachment is not used promiscuously against other presidents. today it is trump tomorrow is a who gets impeached. if i had written the case against impeaching hillary , they would have built a statute to me on martha's vineyard. instead my friends on martha's vineyard need trigger warnings. they don't want to be seen in the same room as me because my book has been the case against impeaching donald trump. there are many reasons i wish hillary clinton had been elected president. i would have kept many more .riends if i written that book

i want to emphasize it would have been essentially the same book. host: you mentioned congresswoman maxine waters in your book. he is the case for impeaching trump she made a couple weeks ago. [video clip] >> we cannot continue with a president who lies, caught lying, the president is a criminal. the president worked with michael:, instructed him to pay these women to be quiet, to shut them up. the president is the one who initiated this with his attorney. this criminal, must be brought up by the congress of the united states for impeachment. and if we don't do it we are derelict in our duty. the constitution gives us the responsibility to do that. cohen has lied.

he and manafort have been caught lying. i don't know what else it is they need to do in order to get us to do what we should be doing, protecting our democracy. guest: you know that congresswoman waters also has called for the impeachment of she president pence which believes is there are no criteria for impeachment. that impeachment is whatever the house of representatives says it is an removal is whatever the senate says it is. that ignores the constitution. you constitution that governs and impeachment is extraordinarily radical remedy. we are not europe. in europe or israel if you don't like the prime minister you vote lack of confidence and you can have an election like their having in israel very soon. americans opted against that system. four your transfer president and

no president has ever been impeached and removed. richard nixon would have been had he not resigned. you need to satisfy the criteria and congresswoman waters simply has eliminated criteria. tense asyou impeach well and has set of ugly that there are no criteria, whatever the house says it is, i have a radical suggestion, there is a reason the chief justice presides on the impeachment and trial of only the president because i think the removal of the president was supposed to involve all the branches of the government, not just the legislative branch so that she - presides.justice it ain't each the president for a non-crime, not a misdemeanor, not treason -- if they impeach the president for a non-crime --

the chief justice to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it failed charge of crime. with the chief justice act on that? these are difficult issues. i'm not sure that the answers are one way or the other. the framers never contemplated that. why does the chief justice preside over the removal trial of a president and no other removal trials? that's how seriously the framers took the removal of a president. host: arlene is waiting in clark county. good morning. caller: good morning. yours you haveof no idea. constituteshat misdemeanors that the president could be charged with and removed from office? guest: a great question.

it is high misdemeanors. the word hide modifies both crime in his demeanors and the constitution does not say high crimes or misdemeanors, it's as high crimes and misdemeanors. common-law ahave a capital misdemeanor? you can be executed for committing a misdemeanor. misdemeanors were a species of crime, a genre of crime. you did not have the same consequences generally. its family did not lose fortune. but misdemeanors were a serious genre of crime. some say misdemeanors meant noncriminal behavior, but there's a concept in law called lenity. if you have two possible interpretations of the constitutional or statutory provision and their punitive in forre, you always have to the interpretation which is more favorable to the accused or dependent.

i think the case for arguing misdemeanor means a serious sort of crime is a compelling one. host: peter is in dallas, texas. a republican. caller: good morning professor. i agree with you that if you put the shoe on the other foot i would not agree with trying to impeach clinton. on the other hand you can't really compare them. clinton is pretty straightforward you can see she did something wrong. and she destroyed them. with trump there is literally nothing there with the russian thing. the best evidence i've seen is that he said i hope you can find her emails. that was my point. democrats would take the opposite view and they have. they say there's nothing there with clinton but look at trump.

let's talk about the election campaign law violations. previous callers suggested it. let me tell you what the law is. presidentdate for went to the bank and took $150,000 out of the bank and cash in small bills walked over to ms. mcdougal, the woman who accused him and said i'm giving you $150,000 in cash because i'm really worried that you're going to ruin my election chances, it obviously intended to help my election, here it is cash to shut you up, that would not be a crime. candidates are entitled to spend as much as they want on their own campaign. it bloomberg were to run and decides to spend $1 billion on his campaign that would be legal. this would never happen. if he said let's take 10 million

of that and pay hush money to people who might otherwise come up with information against me. again, hypothetical. that would not be a crime. we talking and variations on that theme. was the money paid by trump, corporation, the campaign? those are important questions. was he directing michael cohen to pay his own money? was there a failure to report? i think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about how campaign finance laws operate in the context of paying hush money. host: what he is a democrat from munro, michigan. caller: good morning. i like you to answer questions for me. you brought up uranium one.

could you tell the american people how many departments have to sign off on uranium one other than hillary clinton? how many people of her have to sign. guest: i completely agree with you. caller: how much uranium makes his way to russia? guest: i think that's a fake issue. i don't think any of the allegations against hillary clinton are substantial. in my book i really against president trump are calling for investigations -- i rail against president trump for calling for special investigations. he constantly did that. i think that is wrong and i called him out on it. this is not a campaign book for donald trump. it's a campaign book four of you of the constitution -- for a view of the constitution that should apply not only in the trunk era but for years to come.

precedent today is for the future. i think it's wrong to rail against hillary clinton for the emails, benghazi. those might -- an important part of the constitution is due distinguish sins from crimes. the criminal justice system should go after only crimes and i don't believe hillary clinton committed any crimes and although i have an open mind i have not seen evidence at this point of donald trump committing any crimes, high crimes. host: what would happen if after an impeachment -- after a conviction in the senate, the president said he would not accept that because he believes the impeachment criteria was unconstitutional? where does that go? guest: i think i'm the first one who raised the question. i raise it in my book and i say the president sat i have the same right to interpret the constitution as congress does.

supreme court is the ultimate authority but between the legislative and executive branches we have the same authority. you think firing comey is an impeachable offense, i don't and i'm not leaving office. it would then go to the supreme court. the supreme court has never considered an impeachment issue on the merit two of the haveces, souter and white, said in an extreme case that could imagine the supreme court getting involved. nobody thought the supreme court would get involved in an election in bush v gore and the supreme court got involved over the objection of many liberal democrats. it's possible the supreme court could get involved and i think the president would have to obey the supreme court and the american people would support overwhelmingly the supreme court if they decided the case. this real problem of partisan is him there. chief justice roberts has appropriately complained about

the fact that the media calls certain judges democratic justices, republican justices, after bush versus gore that is understandable but it is not good for our judicial system to be divided along partisan lines. host: just over 30 minutes left with harvard professor alan dershowitz. the your calls. yaya is waiting in chicago. caller: good morning. the problem here is the republicans are imploding on their hypocrisy and you guys can't handle it. complaining about democrats calling to impeach obama. republicans -- democrats calling to impeach trump, but republicans ran on impeach obama in 2010. all the town halls, that was the rallying cry. guest: terrible. i would condemn.

caller: and you're complaining about the new york times when fox news and jerome corsi are still on tv saying that obama was never born in hawaii. .uest: it's outrageous don't give me you guys. i'm not one of those guys. i voted for obama. i supported obama and campaign for obama. i oppose the notion of an teaching obama over the craziness that he was not born in this country. it did not matter, he could've been born on the moon as long as his mother was a citizen, he's a natural born citizen and could run for president of the united states. .'m on the other side i'm a liberal democrat who supported obama. i've never voted anything but democrats is the first time i kennedyr john hann -- john . i'm not one of those guys. to the democrats as the republicans doing it.

i'm trying to be neutral. very difficult in our age of divisiveness to be neutral. -- where ire i lives live in them trying to remain. host: republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 alan dershowitz with us until the bottom of the hour. conrad, a republican in philadelphia. good morning. caller: a couple of questions. i hear him talk about our founding fathers with the constitution. the constitution was written in 17th-century limited not have electric, gas come email, has brought up bringing up the constitution with modern times? know nothing. -- no nothing. guest: that is a marvelous

question and the constitution has been enduring. some parts are living in some parts are dead and the debate between a living and dead constitution is foolish, the 35ts that say you have to be to be president is dead, you cannot do anything about it. 34-year-old ran for president he could not serve. year old run for president, he can. that is a dead part of the constitution while the living part of due process, equal protection, cruel and unusual punishment, those are subject to interpretation and even conservative justices, justice scalia wrote the opinion on the fourth amendment and whether it covers gps on the bottom of a car.

take concepts like reasonable expectation of privacy and words in the constitution and interpret them according to modern needs. some provisions you cannot interpret. the impeachment provisions are relatively dead. it does not mean being a bad president. , the mostt mean extreme example in my book, let's assume a president decides by takingde a mistake alaska from russia for so little money and he will give it back to russia. aat is the worst possible measure nothing but it would not be treason. butson is a metaphor treason has a specific definition in the constitution. that may give the definition come article three,

section three, treason against united states shall exist in levying war against them or adhering to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort, no person should be convicted of treason testimony of two witnesses to the same act or on confession in open court. guest: the second part, giving aid, has been interpreted as during wartime. there is controversy about that because when the rosenbergs were executed for giving russia allegedly the atomic secrets, there was a debate about whether it could be treason because we were not at war with the soviet union at the time, a cold war but not a hot war. these issues are debatable. host: what does something dead mean? guest: it cannot be changed or interpreted.

you cannot get -- interpret 35 years old or every state gets two senators. when the 13 colonies were --ablished, they had roughly you did not have this disparity you have now between california, the eighth largest economy in the world, and wyoming. but you cannot change that. dead, two senators from each state. other parts of the constitution are living. host: philip, democrat, oklahoma. you said something about age of the president when they can be elected. i do not think it is age but should be in the mentality of a president. this man has no mentality to be the president. you go to mcdonald's and fill out an application and they want

you to have experience. experience and there has been nothing but turmoil ever since day one he has been president. you have made a good argument for voting against him and why nobody should've voted for him but those are political arguments. there is nothing in the constitution that requires you have experience. a small townln was lawyer who ran for office a couple of times and lost and became probably the greatest president in the history of the united states. herbert hoover had enormous experience, saving europe from starvation after the first world war and was not a great president, maybe for circumstances beyond his control. constitution sets up minimum criteria and if you do not like him, amend the constitution. itis difficult but they made

deliberately difficult, that is why there are so few amendments to the constitution but it has endured longer than any written constitution in the world. john marshall, the fourth chief justice, was largely responsible as he understood what judicial review was and the limitations on the judiciary and he was the framer of the role of the supreme court, particularly in using the constitution and making it a document for the ages. host: jack, independent, salt lake city, utah. caller: i have loved following you and love your position on the constitution. something has bothered me for so many years going back to the o.j. simpson trial. you were on "crossfire" and said

it was reasonable for the defense to live in a tribe -- lie in a trial because the prosecution lies. guest: i would never say that. that is never proper for a defense attorney to lie. what i said was, i think some defense attorneys do live because they see -- lie because they see prosecutors lie and think that is the way to level the playing field. i disagree. the ase, we did not -- case, we only put on scientist where the other side put on witnesses with .uestionable p under no circumstances can a

criminal defense attorney ever lie in court and i believe they should not lie out of court. you can refuse to answer questions and say it is privilege but a defense attorney should never lie. host: what do you expect from the robert mueller report? guest: i have said and was attacked for saying that it will be devastating politically. it will put together circumstantial evidence that the president has surrounded himself with people who have lied and committed perjury. people who have committed other crimes and there is a improperntial case for context with russia -- contacts with russia. it will not be criminal liability. one virtue james comey has had is that there has been few links

from his office, that is difficult as prosecutors leak all the time. i do not think we know what will be in the report. what i think is essential is that, before the mueller report is released to the public, the donald trump defense team should have an opportunity to review it and rebut it. the report should come out simultaneously. the mueller report and the trump report so the republic can decide. the robert mueller report should not be made public until the trump side camera but. but.s see -- can re host: how long will the process take? before the 2020 election? i think it should come

out in the first half of this coming year. the robert mueller report is presented to the attorney general, hopefully a confirmed attorney general, he should turn the report over to the trump team and give them a short time to come up with their rebuttal. i am sure they are working on it right now. and simultaneously release the reports. that is what basic fairness requires. opinion of william burr? guest: i have had a good opinion, a distinguished former attorney general. i have seen his work in the private sector. he is very distinguished. wrote that hashe been controversial reflects my views completely.

i think he is correct. he did it discreetly and turned it over to the deputy attorney general and did not make it public. it was leaked by somebody else. he is qualified to be attorney general of the united states and we should have a permanent attorney general. i do not like that we have an acting attorney general who was not confirmed and if that continues for a long time, it raises constitutional questions. time becausert when somebody leaves office, you have to have an interim appointee and generally they are subordinate to the same department. nothing in the constitution that requires that. host: a book, the case against impeaching trump. bob from houston, texas, a republican. i wanted to thank you for having integrity and standing up for what is true

regardless of your political position. cruz was running, you came to his defense and talked about what a good student he was when they were trying to label him a racist. he --mber you saying that they debated and he had a jamaican roommate that would debate all day and you came to his defense. i have been a big fan of yours ever since for just having integrity. people say, how can you say that, you are a democrat? but you say it because it is the truth. thank you for what you are trying to do for trump because it is the truth. guest: i am not trying to do anything for trump.

ted cruz was an able student in my class. the first day of criminal law he had his right hand up and did not put it down all semester. that is an exaggeration but he was a great student, he disagreed with virtually everything i was saying and what other members of the class were saying. but to call him a racist was absurd. his close friend and roommate was a brilliant jamaican student who ultimately went on to do great things. i disagree with many of ted cruz's conclusions but we should tell the truth about him. he was one of my best students. racism.saw a hint of just because you disagree on issues, does not allow you to name call. i have come to the defense of anybody who is improperly accused.

i was born to be a defense attorney. maybe the reason i am defending some of trump's writes is because i havets been doing this for 60 years, defending people accused and always coming down on the side of the accused, whether i agree with them or not. that is a policy i have followed for many years. host: democrat, montana, paul. caller: i have a comment and a question. surprised that newsmax tv, using your device and counsel -- advisingd counsel in people about their constitutional rights, that blows my mind. do you really think that the democrats are pursuing the correct course by even lifting

one finger to try to impeach donald trump? i think it is a waste of time and that the democrats can have ultimate revenge against donald trump and the republicans if they establish their own unity, get themselves together and start legislating. doing legislation for infrastructure, border security, and many other needs of this nation. don't you believe they are wasting their time trying to impeach donald trump? 100%. i agree with you i think nancy pelosi agrees with you and i think chuck schumer agrees with you, and the leaders of the democratic party do not want to see their majority in the house frittered away by an

impeachment that will fail. but there are radical elements within the democratic party that are pushing the leaders. nancy pelosi is running for speaker of the house. at this point, she does not want to alienate members of the democratic caucus. i suspect, once elected, she will, strongly against using their power to impeach rather than to the good things you have suggested that they should do. host: the closest vote for impeachment in american history in the 1800s, president johnson is removed by the senate with one vote short of the two thirds required for conviction. did that impeachment satisfy the criteria for impeachment? guest: absolutely not. the supreme court agreed with me. he was impeached for firing the secretary of i think war.

stanton, i think. in violation of the tenure of office act which congress passed saying if they can from somebody, they have to unconfirmed them. he was impeached for filing that law -- for violating that law and then the supreme court said johnson was right, you cannot have a law that prevents the president from firing somebody, even if he has been confirmed by the senate. but wasas resigned fired early and we accept that as good constitutional law. the johnson impeachment was absolutely wrong. the clinton impeachment was wrong. the only impeachment that was correct never came to fruition, het is nixon, because engaged in destruction of evidence, paying hush money to

.itnesses, a woman and telling his subordinates to lie to the fbi, independent crimes and not within the president's authority under article 2. that was the only appropriate case for impeachment and he would have been impeached had he not resigned. host: is there a concise definition for absorption of justice -- obstruction of justice? guest: no. it is an open-ended statute that can be expanded, a dangerous statute and i would never approve on an object -- statute,on of justice i want them to say what constitutes a crime, namely destroying evidence, etc. there is no definite definition. i go back to the principle i talked about earlier, when you

interpret a criminal statute, you have to interpret it as ambiguity in a way that favors the defendant and not expansion of the statute. one thing not covered by instruction of justice is presidents exercising their constitutional authority under article 2. there can be no circumstance where firing a member of the executive branch, within the authority of the president, by itself can be a fraction of justice any more than pardoning can be the obstruction of justice. george h.w. bush, a great man, pardon casper weinberger and five other people on the eve of their trial for the purpose of preventing them for testifying against him. that is not me talking, that is the special prosecutor accusing bush of ms. using the pardon power but nobody talked about obstruction of justice because

that is within the authority of the president, just like firing. you cannot be convicted of obstruction of justice for doing what the constitution allows regardless of content. it does not call for psychoanalyzing the mental state for a president if he or she acted properly under article two. i think that is the better view from a civil liberties point of view. host: 10 minutes left with alan dershowitz. jason in montgomery, alabama, independent. caller: good morning. -- i understand he feels his position is truthful and honest and neutral but i wonder how he feels about outlets like fox news using his 7500ion to suggest that

lies president trump has told our hysteria by democrats when the truth is that, as an attorney, specifically a person on a jury, you are told if a person lies about one thing, you can dismiss their entire testimony because they are being deceptive. usedo you feel about being as the reason to cover up bad behavior on the part of the president? you can put an impeachment to decide but in general of the bad behavior we know the president and people around him engage in. guest: it is a great question. i try my best not to let fox do that to me when i am on the show as i have railed against many of their commentators. i made news because i shook my

finger at tucker carlson for what he said about immigrants. i criticized to his face sean hannity. i criticized laura ingraham. i will continue to do that if fox has me on when i disagree with something on a show i am on, i will let them know. i can't help what they do when i am off. same thing when i am on any channel, they can misuse what i say for their purposes but i've never tried to defend president trump's policies or misstatements. i shook my finger at him when he , iarated families, on fox said you cannot do that, unconstitutional, that is wrong. i stick to my own positions. i would like to be as many channels as possible so people cannot misuse my statements. i cannot be responsible for how my statements are misused except

that i will corrected them on indications. host: you said what the president did was unconstitutional but you do not think it is impeachable? guest: unconstitutional acts are not crimes. every president has been found by the court to engage in unconstitutional conduct. even if it is found the president violated the emoluments clause, not a crime. if it were, it would be impeachable. the framers were careful about what criteria employed for impeachable offenses. we have to take the constitution language seriously. that is not a conservative or liberal view, just the constitutional's point of view. you have to it by by the concert -- you have to abide by the constitution. host: ohio, republican, go ahead. guest: i appreciate your --

caller: i appreciate your observations and opinions, professor. i am 88 years old and have seen a lot. i served as a medic during the korean war. one of my activation -- --ervations is we need donald trump has been a catalyst in waking up the american people , more people are involved and aware. even though we are a country of laws, our country of laws were made by people, by men, we are a country of people as well as bylaws. -- by laws. we have been freed from this idea and restrictions of human behavior in our country. party,rmer democratic which used to be very very conservative in many ways, the

antagonism towards this ansident, there will be uprising among the american people that will not tolerate this. the american people are coming together and seemed there is a value to america first and pride in america and the constitution and bill of rights. it is worth fighting for and always has been. god willing, there will be peace in our congress coming up but if not, i am fearful. we have to be aware and god bless america. guest: thank you for your service to america during the korean war. when you talked about an uprising, we are a nation of laws written by human beings. of course they are. but we have to abide by the laws and uprisings can be used as a metaphor but i would not favor any uprising that could involve physical force, whether from the left or right. we see people on the hard left saying violence is except double

in situations that are so bad -- violence is except double if the situation is so bad. president trump talked about the second amendment people preventing the supreme court from being a liberal institution, that at least could be misinterpreted to be a reference to guns. we should all agree to disarmament. not allowing our politics to become in any way violent, either on the left or right. let's decide everything at the ballot box and have decisions by the supreme court whether we win or lose, that is the nature of democracy, you follow the law and the election returns. host: roz in beverly hills, california, a democrat. you, alanllo, thank dershowitz, i am a liberal

democrat and have admired you for years. i am going to a seniors class in santa monica, california where i strongly agree with you on the high level of evidence needed for impeachment. here comes my however, my however is -- two things, one of the things is, i think that there is a possibly thin line between barbary and blackmail -- bribery and blackmail. it disturbs me when i see the president in his relationship with saudi arabia, turkey, russia, and china. the robert mueller investigation will find this all out. if there was not impeachment, i would not concentrate on high crimes and misdemeanors and what they are, i think the dangers

could possibly be in the bribery and blackmail area of the constitution. that, then to you is line between bribery and blackmail. what i washing is, concerned about -- i was concerned about your timing of writing your book because i think you knew ahead of time, as everyone would, that this process would take a long time to be resolved. i am wondering if you think that you are going to have the time, if and when it is meant -- impeachment comes out, and you are convinced there is evidence for possible impeachment and conviction, would you have the time to write a second book on the case for if easement of

president trump -- impeachment of president trump? guest: there are new publishers, mine was published by a publisher who got the book out in six weeks from the time i finished it and it was on the stands. today you can publish quickly and i will follow the evidence. you have my word. for any president. and state what i believe is a truthful analysis. i was opposed to the appointment of a special counsel, i thought the better approach would be to pick a nonpartisan commission, high-level commission like the 9/11 commission. comprised of brilliant people toh experience, nonpartisan, look into the relationship between russia and the election. i am convinced russia tried to influence the election and a nonpartisan commission would have been better able to obtain evidence in real time because it

would have been open. the discussions would have been open. mueller, everything is in secret. it has been years and we will not learn anything. it will be run cited report -- it will be a one-sided report whereas an independent commission would have allowed the american people could have decided, more consistent with democracy than having behind closed doors grand jury's investigate in a one-sided way. i want to make sure both sides are presented when he mueller report is presented to the public. ado not think we needed special counsel, it could've been investigated in virginia and sdny. special counsel's have a target on the back of an individual and let -- and unless they have evidence against their target, they fail.

critic ofn a longtime special investigations, i was with clinton and i think what is going on now confirms my point that we would have been better off with a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. host: last call in new hampshire, independent, ron. misdemeanor, at the time the constitution was written, met ill behavior, short of a crime. if congress wanted to, they could say the president lied to the american people and that is our article of impeachment. if the senate convicted him, he is out. guest: i do not agree with that and let me tell you why. there was a specific proposal to make ill behavior an impeachable rejected byh was

the constitutional convention. , andad, misdemeanor between crimes and misdemeanors. looking at the intention of the longer makes for much argument that misdemeanor was intended to be a genre crime rather than what they rejected, namely maladministration of office. host: the book is the case against impeaching trump and the author is alan dershowitz. will have all democrats in the new congress. mr. raiders is a businessman and attorney. he and his wife opened a

homeless shelter for families when they lived in ohio. katie porter and the 35th district oversaw the implementation of a $25 billion on behalf of the state of california. she is a law professor at the university of california-irvine. the levin was elected to 49th district. his work in environmental law and the clean energy industry throughout most of his career. a navy veteran has been laid off recently from his job in 2010 260 $6 million in the mega millions jackpot. he and his wife used some of the money to establish scholarships and then educational foundation. democrats picked up a fifth seat in the los angeles area, katie

hill elected to the 25th district north of the city. she used to run a nonprofit for the homeless. at 31, mrs. hill will be the youngest member of california's congressional delegation. the 21sts elected to district south and west of fresno in the san joaquin valley. he has a engineering degree and worked for a time as a mining engineer. he received a business degree and opened several businesses in the area, including two companies that process locally uts.n n the 10th district is further north in the san joaquin valley. he is a venture capitalist and talk business at a local community college. new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span.

>> the united states senate in 1789.out duties on wednesday, c-span takes you inside of the senate, learning about the legislative body and its informal workings. >> arguing about things, kicking them around, having great debates is a thoroughly american thing. you are in the senate the more you will appreciate the cooling nature. >> we look at the history of conflicts and compromise with original interviews, key moments in history, and unprecedented access allowing us to bring cameras in the senate chamber during a session. follow the evolution of the senate into the modern era. from advice and consent to the

role in impeachment proceedings and investigation. : conflict and compromise, a c-span original production exploring the tradition, history, and role of this uniquely american institution premieres on wednesday at 8:00 p.m. is jan & on c-span. go online at c-span.org/senate to learn more and watch original full length interviews with farewell speeches from long serving members, and tour the inside of the senate chambers, and other exclusive locations. >> now an interview with ayanna pressley of massachusetts. this is about one hour and 10 minutes.