stairs and gradually moved upwards. the second generation, and so on. but india of it -- india took the elevator, because they entered a tech boom and it expanded, so it moves much faster. they came with higher skills and it boomed much more. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. of the book "the case against impeaching trump," professor emeritus from harvard. thank you for joining us.

guest: i think they will answer their effective arguments made by my law student jamie raskin. jamie raskin made a clever argument. he said the senate has already decided to have jurisdiction. you senators have no right to consider that your vote. you must vote as if the senate had jurisdiction. that is just wrong. it is clever but wrong. the senators have a right to vote to acquit on either ground. either on the ground they don't agree the senate has jurisdiction or on the ground even if it has jurisdiction, the speech was protected and all the speeches were protected by the first amendment. in the famous belknap case where a cavity memory was put on trial, 23 senators who voted the senate did not have jurisdiction voted for acquittal on the ground the senate did not have

jurisdiction. they repeated their original vote. most of them thought belknap was guilty as could be as the impeachment from the house was unanimous. they repeated the vote there was no jurisdiction. if i the president's lawyers i would emphasize the fact there is no jurisdiction. i read from the constitution. the president and all civil officers shall be removed by impeachment. that seems very clear the senate has jurisdiction only over the president. trump is not the president. the chief justice asserted that when he refused to preside over the trial. the senate has no jurisdiction. i would focus on that argument and move to the first amendment argument. the one argument i would stay away from is the augment senator cassidy just raised on your show, namely the election was stolen or not stolen.

they would lose that. the election was not stolen. trump was wrong. i don't defend trump's speech at all. i think it was an appalling speech but i defend his right to make an appalling speech under the first amendment. they should not fall into the trap of trying to defend trump on the merits of his speech, only on the first minute. i think it will get there one third plus one that precludes a conviction by the senate and precludes his being disqualified. host: over the last two days, did they make their case for incitement? guest: no, i think they made a case for as many of them said that the president invited the people to go to the white house. there's a big difference between inviting and inciting. incitement is shouting fire in a crowded theater. everybody leaves. that is not a message to the mind, it's a message to the legs. the president spoke to thousands of people. some went and someone home.

of those who went, some broke in and some didn't. some committed violence, some didn't. that is not incitement. that's an invitation. when the president said peacefully and patriotically, it makes it clear what he was doing was asking them to protest with their voices. what happened in the capital was inexcusable. there is no justification for that. the people arrested cannot defend themselves on the ground that he made me do it or the president maybe do it. the other points the democrats keep making is the keep referring to trump as our commander-in-chief. as a matter of constitutional law, the president is not our commander-in-chief. he's only the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. he cannot tell you to do anything. if a president says wear our mask, you can say i don't want to wear a mask. you should wear a mask, but the president has no authority to command anybody but the armed forces. he is not our

commander-in-chief. in totalitarian societies presidents are the people's commander in chief. we are own conscience. the legislature can pass laws, the president can't. he's only the commander-in-chief of the army. if people followed what he said, they did it of their own free will. host: for republicans --(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. -- four democrats. -- for democrats. what stops them asking with impunity just before resigning? guest: the constitution. let's take the best either side agent. the best precident leaves

is aaron burke. he left office and started an insurrection. they prosecuted him for treason. they had a great trial presided over by john marshall. he was acquitted. there is no january exception. the president can be prosecuted for his speech if he violated the first amendment. the president can be violated for his call to georgia. all that is possible. there is no january exception, but also know trump exception to the first amendment. what trump said was covered by the first amendment. we cannot twist and turn the first amendment to create a trump exception. host: let's hear from jim from silver spring, maryland, democrats line. you are on with alan dershowitz. caller: thank you very much. good morning, jenna meant. what a privilege to speak with you. i would like to introduce myself. my great-grandfather was the

last signer of the declaration of independence. he was chief justice of the supreme court of pennsylvania. he was the first jeffersonian governor of the u.s. i have two questions. one relates to the house of representatives. did the house err possibly in not raising the impeachment on the point of dereliction of duty? number two, can the senate simply move to a billet disqualification -- bill of disqualification and just go to disqualification? guest: those are great questions. to the second, no. they have to convict before they can disqualified. they have to vote by two thirds to convict. the house has not made a mistake. dereliction of duty is not a constant to should know --

constitutional basis. madison said no, that would have the president serve at the pleasure of congress. that is the english system where the parliament can simply have a vote of no-confidence. the introduced four qualifications for being impeached. treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. by other, they admit crimes and misdemeanors -- the framers meant crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power, obstruction of congress. none of those are grounds for impeachment and removal. i argued that successfully last, wrapped about a year and two weeks ago. i proved conclusively the framers had in mind criminal type behavior akin to treason and bribery. maladministration or any of these other criteria that could result in anybody else being

fired does not apply to a duly elected president. he has to be impeached and satisfy his criteria. host: wilhelm in missouri on the republican line. caller: yes. donald john trump, what he said on january 6 -- i was watching all of this on cnn. donald john trump told his people to go march down to the capitol. he should never do that. people should not be marching on the capitol. republicans need to understand donald john trump is a businessman. a businessman does not belong in the white house. he owns property. he owns hotels, casinos, golf courses. the white house does not belong to donald john trump. guest: you make a good argument

for not voting for donald trump. i did not vote for donald trump. i am not a republican. i am a liberal democrat. i am not a trump supporter. i did not like his speech. you are right. he should not have made it but he was entitled to say march on the capitol. fight back with your voices. many people have said that. it's a very common argument. i have defended -- i'm a lawyer that defended virtually every important first amendment case in the last half of the 20th century. the pentagon papers tears, the wikileaks case, the chicago seven case. they yelled blood on the streets in the bruce franklin case. all these cases, the aclu supported the right of free speech. the arguments you make are very

strong arguments for why trump should not be president. that is why we have elections but that's not why we have impeachments. we have impeachment and removal only if the four criteria are met. hamilton and the federalist 65 said the greatest danger to our constitution would be from impeachment to turn on who has the greatest number of votes rather than on whether the constitutional criteria for guilt has been met. if i've are writing a book about this impeachment, i would call it "hamilton's nightmare." since the time bill clinton was improperly impeached, and i consulted with his legal team, ever since bill clinton was impeached the impeachment has been weaponized for partisan purposes. removing an absolutely -- we are moving in absolutely the wrong direction. it will become a normal part of the political process. whenever a controversial president is elected, there will be movements towards impeachment. that is not with the framers had in mind. host: regarding this trial in

case, give your thoughts on the due process. was that satisfied in the lead up? and the lack of witnesses we are expecting not to appear in the process. guest: this was the quickest impeachment in history. all prior impeachments had hearings. i testified as a witness against the impeachment of bill clinton. this one was a snap impeachment. it was just done quickly, probably because it was towards the end of his term. he was denied due process. as far as witnesses, the defense is making a motion to dismiss. the speech was -- the speeches before that were all covered by the first amendment. the democrats played into trump's hands when they broadened the context to show he was making speeches like this since the day of the election. that proves this was part of a political protest. political protests are

permissible. jamie raskin protested the 2016 election. i protested the 2000 election. i wrote a book about it called "supreme injustice." i did not think the 2000 election was fair and i'm entitled to make that argument. jamie raskin was entitled to make his argument about 2016. donald trump was entitled to make his argument about 2020. host: donna, hampton, virginia. caller: i have a couple of questions for you. as far as this riot supposedly, it is not a riot. it is five years of people that have been dumped on and not be able to hear their voices. their votes were not counted. i know you don't believe that but i believe that. i am an 80-year-old independent who has voted both ways.

i feel the anger has built up so bad it is not going to end. i do believe in the 22 and 24 elections that the republicans are going to gain back a lot of seats because of it. you won't let people hear the evidence. i have not heard journalists say anything about it. newsmax has had mike lindell on with the document terry called -- documentary called "absolute proof." have you watched it? it is absolute proof. if they let the courts listen to these cases, we would have never had this disaster. host: that is the one question for mr. dershowitz. what is the second? caller: i would like for journal to have mike lindell on and have them take questions about this.

have you seen " absolute proof"? it's on youtube, facebook, newsmax over again and you have never mentioned it. guest: everybody is entitled to present their views on the election. i am unpersuaded the election was stolen or unfair. even if it had been, that doesn't justify what happened at the capitol. it was a riot. it was not terrorism. it was the other things any are saying it is. it was a riot, a violent ri ot. the people who participated should be prosecuted even if they had good reason for believing the election was stolen. that does not justify violence. does not justify breaking into speaker pelosi's office or trying to stab a policeman with an american flag. the republicans are going to

win, god bless them. i'm not voting for them but that's the prerogative of every voter. impeachments are reserved only for situations where presidents have committed one of four specified crimes and still in office. there are two core violations. putting a private citizen on trial, a bill of attainder says you cannot put private citizens on trial in the senate or the house. not only that, you are putting him on trial for first amendment-protected speech. the constitution says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. no law has been interpreted to mean no action. you cannot impeach a president or former president for making a speech protected by the first amendment. i know 144 scholars disagree with me. they are wrong, i'm right. i'm happy to debate any one of them.

i offered to debate them. not a single one has been prepared to debate me. >> coming up saturday morning, heritage researcher joe griffith. watch c-span's "washington journal live saturday morning, and join the discussion with phone calls, texts, and tweets. >> the final day of the impeachment trial of former president tromp begins tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. here closing argument on the house managers and the former president's lawyers.

senators will vote on whether to convict or acquit former president trump of inciting and insurrection. watch our live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. if you missed any of the senate impeachment trial, watch on-demand at c-span.org/impeachment. the city club of cleveland hosted a forum on the direction of the republican party the trump presidency. they talked about the split in the gop over former president trump and future party leaders. they also discussed the ohio republican party in the wake of rob portman's announcement that he will not run for reelection. >> hello and welcome to the city club of