you are on your own. we are on our own. justice we believe in and freedom and democracy, and we will leave that movement around the world. lead that movement around -- we will lead that movement around the world. to try to stick to the truth as much as possible. hand tocross on my remind myself that if you tell the truth, it will work out. it may take 2000 years, but if you stick to the truth, that is what you should be doing. you should not compromise on that even in the face of any kind of opposition or attack. host: is this something you do everydaymore of that available e new york times. host: joining us from new york this morning's alan dershowitz,

professor at harvard law school and author of the book the case against impeaching trump. you wrote in reaction to the release of the redacted mueller report, both sides want something and lost something, on balance, donald trump won more. explain. job has been to maintain the rule of law in nature whatever we do is insistent with the constitution. i am a liberal democrat who strongly supported hillary clinton. i strongly opposed the election of donald trump. i read the report very closely. i wrote an introduction to it, which is now available. in the introduction, i make the point of distinguishing between sin and crime. the report is filled with sins allegedly committed by donald trump people around him. it does not cross the line to crime area when it comes to legal vindication, donald trump wins. he wins on illegal conspiracy

with russia. there is no evidence of that. the attorney general, who has the ultimate decision is 30 made the decision he had not crossed a line to obstruction of justice i think he lost on the issue of political sin, and people have the right to take that into account the deciding who to vote for the 2020 election. isant to make sure that line maintained. forve tremendous admiration mr. steyer. his passion is evident. i always propose the shoe on the other foot test. if hillary clinton had been elected, and she were subject to these best editions and impeachment, what would people be saying about her? writeoriginally going to a book called the case against impeaching hillary clinton.

i thought she was going to be elected. republicans have sworn to impeach her on day one. i would have made the same arguments. what tom steyer told her audience earlier. [video clip] in my opinion, the argument is over as to whether this president obstructed justice. if you read the report, he clearly obstructed justice. i believe it is very clear public information that he is corrupt. he takes money through his real estate operations from foreign countries and american companies that are under his jurisdiction. i believe the argument about whether he has met the criteria for impeachment is over. the question that is facing us is what to do about it. the question is, are we going to allow the most corrupt president in american history to be above the law? that is the only question left.

if we do, we are giving up on the idea of equal treatment under the law. host: your reaction? guest: i certainly agree the argument is over. i think it is over the other way. i don't think the case of obstruction of justice has been laid out. need tocrime, you elements. you need the illegal act and the illegal intent. the illegal acts alleged against president trump are all authorized under the constitution. firing comey. it is the same george h.w. bush did. pardoned weinberger on the eve of the iran-contra trial. you cannot obstruct justice if you engage in a constitutionally authorized act. as far as obstruction is

concerned, when the framers of our constitution debated the impeachment criteria, they rejected ideas of corruption and demanded for a president to be preached, he had to be guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. steyer can point to specific high crimes and misdemeanors, they are going to fall into the clinton trap. clinton was wrongly in peace. clinton may have committed a crime, but it was not a high crime. what president trump may have done was maybe high, but it was not a crime. it should be difficult to prosecute somebody for a crime. unfortunately, we have laws like obstruction of justice that are loose and open ended. every civil libertarian should

be concerned about open-ended laws that are capable of being used in a discretionary way against people you don't like. i asked the viewers to ask yourself, if hillary clinton were president, and it came up with comparable evidence, what side would you be on? would you be seeking to expand the law of obstruction of justice. would you be seeking to expand the criteria of obstruction of justice? host: do you see that equation changing as the administration and the president refuses to comply with subpoenas from congress, from these committees themheir chair, suing personally. does the equation change? host: -- guest: this is a good test of

our system of checks and balances. congress clearly has the power under its oversight authority and authority to legislate to subpoena witnesses, including witnesses from the white house. the president also has the authority to invoke executive privilege. it is up to the courts to claims of the legislature against the claims of the executive. i think we will see that. i think many of the subpoenas will be validated. some may not be. i lived through mccarthyism. our member congress exceeding its legitimate authority in the courts stepping in. and the courts stepping in. your purpose is to intimidate, not to legislate or oversight. i think we will see an interplay of the three branches of government. host: edward, go ahead.

edward, you have got to turn down the tv and talk to the phone. caller: thank you. host: go ahead. to mr. my question dershowitz is why doesn't he wait until barr testifies to congress and mueller testifies to congress before he comes to the conclusion on the exception case?tice guest: it's a good point. people have been telling me to wait from day one. i have been waiting. it is the other side that has been calling for impeachment from day one. had there been no call for impeachment, i would have waited. i did way too right my introduction until the mueller report came out. you cannot wait forever to

respond. when people call for impeachment and call for prosecution and claim obstruction of justice, i have to respond. i am prepared to wait with the other side is prepared to wait. i am not going to remain silent while people try to violate the rule of law. i would be as vocal if it were hillary clinton may be more vocal. i supported hillary clinton. i'm a liberal democrat. i want to see democrats win elections. i voted for the democrats in the midterm elections. for me this is not partisan. host: what will you be listening for when the attorney general testifies tomorrow before the senate judiciary committee and possibly we hear from don mcghan or robert mueller? host: the first question for is why did you

get an incomplete? why did he not decide to make a to obstructionas of justice? why did he only do half the job? that is the hardest to obstructn of question robert mueller has to answer. is concerned, he has answer why he came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for obstruction of justice. n will be asked didn't he feel he had a responsibility to protect some of the confidences while he was counsel to the white house. there will be discussion about the episode where he and the president apparently had a disagreement and people will have to make a decision about who is more accurate. was he told specifically to fire mueller? the president had complete authority to fire mueller, just like nixon had complete authority to fire archie.

it was totally lawful. the president under the terry executive has the authority to fire anybody. that was decided by the supreme court after the andrew johnson impeachment that failed by one vote. teve, go ahead. caller: you know, this man was already tainted before we even put him in office. for republicans to complain it is going to cost so much money to pull this man out of office, they never about one minute of wasting $35 million to impeach president clinton. all we received was a large bill and a stained dress in the smithsonian. i agree with you. it was a complete waste of time to impeach clinton.

i think republicans have learned a lesson from it. i think reasonable democrats have learned a lesson, too. that is why nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are resisting calls from extremists to impeach because it will turn out to hurt the democrats. it will cost millions of dollars and raise serious questions under the constitution. vote for who you want to in the 2020 election, but don't try to compromise the constitution. let the constitution do the work that elections were intended to do. host: we're continuing our conversation on efforts to impeach president trump. if you are republican, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. margaret in florida, independent. caller: good morning. i am so excited,, professor dershowitz. i love you.

i think you are such a voice of reason. i recommend everyone read the mueller report. i think an informed public is a safer voting public. i am very disappointed. on. again, mr. steyer comes the conversation about the cross on his hand, are you kidding me? this guy had investments in coal powered things all over the world. he is legislating morality as usual. professor dershowitz, i agree with you. i think it is so dangerous. i do not agree with the impeachment of bill clinton. vote in moral people, we will never have anybody in office. i don't understand why now barr is the target. barr has a great reputation.

he read the report. greta, you put up the facts about the conclusions to do with obstruction of justice. just because those facts were there, he was allowed to fire comey. robbers and state wanted him to fire comey. i am not a lover of donald trump. i think he is arrogant and not humble. i voted for him. i don't think he is evil. i was not a fan of hillary clinton. i think the hypocrites in washington that allow all the things that go on, all the sins, this is a hit job. i respect you. i think c-span is showing its true liberal colors more and more. go ahead. guest: first of all, i disagree. i think c-span does a wonderful job. i think it does strike the

appropriate balance. i wish cnn and others were more like c-span. i think we need c-span all over the country so that people can hear all sides of the issue and can have rational conversations instead of screaming at each other. is concerned, i think he was right on the merits. i wish he had waited to have his press conference until after the report was released so he could be asked questions about the report. my view is that it was a mistake to have the press conference and then release the report. that is a tactical decision. on the merits, i think he was right that the case from structure was not made. people can debate those instances. i just tweeted a challenge to judge napolitano on fox who disagrees with me. i said, let's go on

television and have a reasonable debate. we are lacking that in this country. people will just pick sides. if you say anything that turns out to help donald trump, even though i am a supporter of hillary clinton, you are perceived on donald trump's side . we have to get back to the time when we can agree to disagree about reasonable issues that reasonably divide americans. host: we will go to deborah next, texas, democrat. caller: good morning. my problem is, i have one problem i would like to ask everyone. how does a president in the united states of america can get away with telling 10,000 lies? that is unheard of. i think that alone is impeachable, and something should be done about it. if that had been president, believe me, he would have been out from day one if he had lied

10,000 times. guest: i think you ought to suggest amending the constitution and suggest an amendment that allows impeachment and removal for a certain number of lies. i don't know how many presidents would have been impeached under that criteria. lyndon johnson certainly lied to me about vietnam. other presidents have lied over the years. the framers of the constitution rejected those criteria. we have the longest surviving constitution in the history of the world. we ought to respect the constitution. the constitution provides for specific grounds of impeachment and removal. this is a fascinating story in history. alexander hamilton, who helped the constitution, committed a crime when he was secretary of the treasury. andubmitted to extortion

made it a go three. it was not a high crime. accused, he wrote an essay in mating -- admitting adultery. he knew the difference between a low crime and a high crime. i think we should look at that to give us some guidance. host: do you see any action by the president related to the mueller report or unrelated that could be high crimes? guest: i do not. and ite were high crime was obvious like the nixon case. i supported impeachment of richard nixon because he offered oney tooney to -- hush m

federal witnesses in front of the grand jury. it president trump or any other president were to cross those line and move over the into a section of justice or , i wouldr treason favor impeachment. i have been teaching criminal law for 50 years. part of my job has been to distinguish between prologues to crime and actual crime. , everything is legal unless this specifically criminalize. in the former soviet union, everything was illegal unless it was specifically allowed by the law. we don't want to move to a system where prosecutors have discretion on how to expand the law to cover political operators that they oppose.

if this were hillary clinton, what would people be saying? host: republican. caller: good morning, mr. dershowitz. i always wanted to talk to you. you said you read the mueller report. there's two parts to it. the second part is the volume to mostly ofts political results. wroteyou say wiseman forsecond part, flynn the same situation. arthur andersen lost all those jobs for good american citizens. it all looks political. it is all smoke and mayors. it is really getting to me. could you please explain wiseman's contribution to this?

guest: wiseman is a professional prosecutor. i have had cases against him. he is very top. -- tough. i suspect he had a major hand in writing the second volume. my own is that one of the reasons robert mueller did not come down with the final decision on obstruction of justice is that have enormous respect for his staff members who probably did include that the president did not cross the line into obstruction. robert mueller may or may not have believed that. maybe he will be asked that, and maybe he willrobert mueller mayy . wiseman is going to be a law professor. we will see where his career goes. he served in government for many years.

his reputation was as a tough and zealous prosecutor, not only in this case but in many of the other cases. gaithersburg. rights i am a civil lawyer. i am asking a question with regards to why you believe there needs to be a higher standard of high crimes for the impeachment when a misdemeanor is not defined as a high crime, but it is the basis upon which impeachment can be had. when donald trump made intements regarding africa d.c., there is a law, and it is a misdemeanor to disrupt a white

house or any meeting that results in obstruction of a meeting, and that is a misdemeanor. if you are focused on the specific elements of activity, he has already committed many misdemeanors. i'm not clear why you're not focusing on those and are only .ocusing on the high crimes guest: the constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors. virtually every constitutional scholar agrees that high modifies not only crimes but misdemeanors. forcould be executed committing a misdemeanor. any statute and the district of columbia that would prohibit the president from saying the disgusting thing he said about

african countries would be unconstitutional. anybody has the right to describe any country in any words they choose. i don't think the president has ,ommitted any high misdemeanors any impeachable offenses. i think the word misdemeanor has to be understood as it was at the time of the framing of the constitution, which is a serious crime. the word high modifies misdemeanors. it does not say high crimes or misdemeanors. andys high crimes misdemeanors. beverly in california. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things. i hope i have time to be able to express them. one of the things i find during theis that

trump administration there have been so many obvious things that are nonconstitutional, that are violating the constitution. says,etoric, things he his lies. on these things alone, i don't see where there is no constitutional scholar that constitutes him breaking a law. it seems utterly ridiculous. guest: .21. point to a law -- point to one. point to a law he broke. caller: that is what i am saying. for example when he had the russians in the oval office the first week he was in and would not allow any american reporters in the room. i thought how is that even

possible? how is that not a nonpolitical move to do something like that? guest: it is not a crime. caller: he turned the narrative willd one day and said i talk to robert mueller, and yet he never gave testimony. he wanted to answer some questions from but we have not heard what donald trump's testimony was during the investigation. there shall it's disappointing that -- mr. dershowitz is pointing out those are not crimes. guest: you want to amend the constitution. let me throw back at you. i think president obama violated the constitution when he signed the iran-contra -- the iran

nuclear deal. the constitution requires two thirds of the senate to approve a treaty. i believe it was a treaty. notident obama circumvented only the constitutional obligation to have the senate support treaties but circumvented the senate. there was never about by the senate, by the house, by the american people. the president violated the constitution. it was not an impeachable offense. i would never have supported impeachment. caller: he made an executive decision to do that. if you remember, that was the do-nothing congress. they were not signing off on anything he was doing. i'm just talking about with all the constitutional scholars, it has to come down to whether or sayyou committed a crime to

this is inappropriate behavior. guest: inappropriate is not good enough. caller: to not have anyone there to take notes. host: i'm good to have mr. dershowitz jump in. guest: you should amend the constitution. you have to have today bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. just deciding on who you want to vote for our political reasons. none of them constitute impeachable reasons. my job as a constitutional lawyer is to make sure that very important that very important line between political sense and federal crimes is always complied with. because if you can impeach president trump for doing what you suggest, you can impeach a democratic president for the same thing.

every president would be subject to impeachment. remember when hillary clinton looked election she was going to win the presidency, republicans said they would impeach her on one. i wish that had happened because i support hillary clinton, and it would be much more popular with my liberal democratic friends if i had written a case called -- a book called -- the case against impeaching hillary clinton. i wrote the same book, but it is about donald trump. complying withon neutral, bipartisan principles, and that would mean i would make enemies on both sides. i think it is important to maintain the shoe on the other , regardless of who is the president tim, a republican. it is your turn. . caller: good morning. i want to say thank you for your

balanced approach regarding the subject. thaton the left believe their hatred and politics entitles them to impeach mr. trump. this has been going on for two years. i thought after the mueller report, who they said they trusted, would come to an end. it hasn't. now it is turning into them across used type of situation -- turning into a maccarthyist teva situation. the constant drumbeat from the likes of cnn and msnbc that is also like propaganda, that feeds into the narrative of the left has made them disappointed when they finally find out that mr. trump has not colluded, in fact. i would just end by saying -- i think they will find out the shoe was on the other foot and

it will boomerang. the real collusion will come from the other side. and there is much evidence it the futureing out of days to be support -- there is much evidence that will be coming out of the future days to support that? guest: i will defend the other side. for me, the standards always have to be the same. you have to cross the line into criminal behavior, you have to show our criminal act, criminal intent, or impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. i think both sides have weaponize the criminal justice system for political purposes, both sides have weaponize impeachment. and i am there, smack in the middle, to prevent either side from abusing the rule of law and undercutting the constitution. we have a great institution and legal system, let us keep it

intact. let us not let our hatred for particular people on one side of the other under cap our great institution and great rule of law. host: what about robert mueller not interviewing the president himself to get at the question of intent? there was no way the president was going to submit to an interview. his lawyers would never have allowed him to do it. in 55 years of practicing law, i have never allowed a suspect or a person under investigation to speak to a prosecutor or testify in front of a grand jury. it is much too easy to fall into a perjury trap. remember, innocent people can fall into perjury traps. , and someone else, a witness would have been turned against you says y even if x is true, you can be indicted for perjury. him clinton's lawyer walked

into a perjury trap and he ended up eating disbarred and impeached as a result of testifying. he never should have testified i advised him on television not to testify. he rejected my advice. i advised on television, trump, don't fire,fy -- don't pardon, don't treat, and not testify. he listened to three of them, but not the one about tweeting? caller: here i am calling from the middle of america which is not just a place on the mark map, but a place in the heart and mind. i would like to bring up the reference to thinking about central intelligence agency ulles, having said, don't worry, the american people don't read. i would like to put forth three books for mr. daschle woods to respond to, for the american people to begin reading so that

we can restore the republican rule of law. one is called roof of collusion, how trump betrayed america. it goes from the russian collusion aspects to the middle eastern -- guest: as you know, i have fought over and over again with abramson. he is a former student, and we disagree. books and cometh to your decision. that is what freedom of speech is all about. host: what is the second book? caller: it is called house of trump, house of putin. it talks about the russian background and how it intersects with trump's financial background, which is maybe why he is fighting deutsche bank at this very moment and fighting with his taxes. howthird book is red mafia.

america by mob -- the late great robert friedman. there is a time in their where wholieutenant of -- intersects between russian and israeli crime networks has his whenenant in trump tower the fbi's look at for him. i urge the american people to find out what is really going on here, and they will not get it from either the mainstream media or the alternative media. i appreciate the time, and i as the american people to get their information. guest: i think you have to read skeptically and critically. . you can't only read one side of the issue. the problem is that so many people read only on one side. i wonder if the caller has

read my book -- against impeaching trump -- or maybe she doesn't want to read against his narrative. for every three books recommended on one side, there should be three others recommended on the other side, so you can approach the problem in a balanced way. host: mr. dershowitz wrote his book before the mueller report -- the case against impeaching trump. the also wrote the intro to the mueller report, which you can find as well. gloria in chestnut ridge, missouri. democratic line. ? caller: hello. mr. dershowitz, i would like to our democrats and our democrats and/or republicans can make laws like -- like open borders and not let us vote on that. it causes all kinds of problems

like distribution of land, allocating money to them without us voting for it. we have no say so. if our government is supposed to represent us and then asks us not to vote on this, i think that is illegal. what do you have to say. ? guest: of course you get to vote on it. you get to vote for your congressman or woman, for your senator, and your president. of us for a person is a vote on an issue. you should vote for people who support your point of view. every two years, you get the right to do that. if you stay home, you can't complain. if you vote, you had input. we don't have a referendum on everything. it is rare federally to have any kind of referendum. california has referendums all the time, there are arguments for and against referendums, but you get to vote for members of congress. and if anybody tries to stop you from voting, that in itself is a

crime covered by voting rights law. i wish the supreme court would be more aggressive in protecting the right to vote. unfortunately, the trump administration has cut back on some of the protections on the right to vote, i oppose that. i oppose many policies of the trump administration -- it's a immigration policies, tax policies, policies on a woman's right to choose, on gay marriage. down the line, i am a liberal democrat on virtually every issue, but i don't allow my partisan politics to intrude on my analysis on the constitutional rule of law. host: what questions do you have for the attorney general barr, when he testifies tomorrow morning before the senate judiciary committee? guest: i would like to know what went into his decision to conclude there was not enough to charge the president with obstruction. i would like to know the process

he went through with rod rosenstein. the other question i would like to ask is whether or not he believes rod rosenstein should have been recused from the case. he was an essential witness. in the report, rosenstein comes out fine because they minimize his role in the firing of comey. i think people are entitled to ask whether that is an accurate role,ment of rosenstein's because he played a role in overseeing the special counsel's report and he had a stake in how his. role as described i think the ise of rosenstein something that should be andessed to all witnesses, i hope rosenstein himself will be asked the question of why he did not recuse himself when he knew he would be a central witness. if the president had been charged with obstruction for firing comey, which i don't believe he could be, but if he had been charged, rosenstein might have been charged as a

co-conspirator. if you are a potential witness, how do you serve as the acting attorney general and don't recuse yourself? i think he was more recusable than the prior attorney general who recused himself. it remains a ver ♪ announcer: c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, we get your reaction to the attorney general william barnes testimony before the senate judiciary committee. joined the conversation all morning, with your phone calls, facebook comments, and your tweets. restricted watch washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. here's a look at our live coverage wednesday. on c-span, the housemates at 10:00 for general speeches with noon.ative business at

members begin work on a bill that requires the president to develop a plan to fight climate change. on c-span2, the senate is back at 10:00 a.m. to consider nominations for districts in texas and alabama. c-span3, attorney general william barr testifies at two hearings on the mueller report. with us is anthony a dragnet, energy and environment issues for political. what are some of the key elements in this legislation?