tank and spreading christmas cheer to sharks. he's going to be doing this until the end of the year, once santa heads back to the north pole group of mermaids will replace him. and that's fox report this saturday i am john scott seo tomorrow.

it is a truly political process. did the framers give illimitable power to the house of representatives? >> of course not and maxine walters a said the same thing. and then she said there is no law. in other words she is above the law, congress is above the law.

congress may be able to get away with that but this confuses what congress can get away with what what congress is sworn to uphold. any member of congress who votes to impeach president trump without a finding that he is guilty of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors is violating their oath of office and abusing their power. maybe they can get away with it, but they are acting in an unconstitutional fashion. levin: there seems to be this idea, i was watching some of these law professors, honestly i fell asleep there half of it. i was watching some these law professors the other day and they sounded like members of congress. i'm just being honest about it. and they were talking about abuse of power, there talk about bribery and so forth. i was listening to this. so i want to turn to you, this word bribery, and really has a specific meeting and it doesn't have the meaning people suggested have. it doesn't mean anything and

everything. and doesn't necessarily mean this. what does it mean? >> there are four criteria. we know it treason mean because as defined in the constitution. bribery, you know it will me see it. when you pay a government official corruptly to perform an illegal act or an actor that is motivated by money. but it can't operate when you're the president of the united states, and your conditioning withholding money in order to make sure a country isn't corrupt. and you are asking them to investigate. that just doesn't fit any definition of bribery, common law, statutory, however you define the constitution were bribery, it just does not fit. what they're trying to do, what the kgb under barry is said to stalin, the dictator, i am not comparing our country to the

soviet union, i just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that. he said to stalin show me the man and i'll find to the crime. and that's what some of the democrats are doing. they have trump in their sites, they want to figure out a way of impeaching him, and they are searching for a crime. first they came up with abuse, it's not a crime. so another saying bribery, but they're making it up. there is no case for bribery based on, even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved which they have it meant. but even if they were approved, it would not constitutes the impeachable offense of bribery. levin: i understand this is not a criminal case, you have been involved in some of the highest profile cases in the nation during the course of your career. no one is saying this is a criminal case. but we do things like the magna carta coming forward, the whole motion and enlightenment of due process. give a right to confront your

accuser, for witnesses to look at evidence. so much of this is been obliterated by this committee. >> and the judiciary as well, they have four representatives three of them to represent the democratic party. in only one witness was given to the republican party and it was a democrat who voted for hillary clinton. as jonathan turley who did a very good job. why did they get three witnesses in their public and only get one. why not equality? alexander hamilton said the greatest danger would be of impeachment turned on the number of people each party had. if impeachment turns on the fact that dickerman democrats now have a majority in the house but not in the senate, that would be a complete abuse of what the framers had in mind. alexander hamilton is misquoted all the time. he use the word political, but he didn't say the process should be political. he said the crimes treason, high crimes, misdemeanors are political in nature.

but the process should be nonpartisan. and no one should be impeached a removed and less as an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. i am not making that up, i am quoting congressman nadler when bill clinton was being impeached. i opposed bill clinton's impeachment for the same reason i opposed donald trump's impeachment. there was no widespread consensus. there was no clear high crime. what bill clinton committed was a low crime. a crime to protect his personal life. much like alexander hamilton. you know he was secretary of the treasury and he committed adultery and then he paid extortion money. but when the extortionist said we are going to pay you using government funds, he said no no no no, that will be a high crime to use government funds to pay extortionist. so he wrote a paper admitting that but denying he used government money. levin: let me ask you a question. let me go through some of these examples and get your take on

this. more than one of the professor said this week, is not just them, other people too. that if this is not an impeachable offense, this of phone call -- john adams arrested journalist. abraham lincoln suspended avery's corpus shutdown theater newspapers and civil war. arrested and joe are journalist. edgar wilson a ration racist he re- segregated the government. he locked up socialist opponents. and locked up critical journalist. the espionage act. fdr, japanese-americans upheld by the supreme court by the way. also use the irs contain a break in the inquiry with newspapers. kennedy and the irs. and not just democrats, lbj tapped the phones of his

political opponent. tapped the phones as vice president. and we have republican examples too. is this a joke that the phone call by donald trump is the worst example that these professors and others could come up with? if that's not impeachable nothings impeachable. under that theory everyone of these men should have been impeached. >> they have created open ended criteria which does not go along with the constitution itself. and if president trump is impeached, it will set a terrible precedent which role weaponize impeachment and the next democrat gets elected will be impeached. because they will find it abuse of power. it's hard to find any president whether a modern president or an old president that can't be accused of abuse of power. it may give you another example franklin wrote written roosevelt, he instructed his generals saying i don't want them tried civil and i want them electrocuted. telling the attorney general how

to try the case. lincoln much the same with suspension of the habeas corpus. opponents of a political leader, especially during times of crisis can always find abuse of power. if you go to the lexicon of political opposition over the years, you'll find abuse of power use used by virtually every opponent to a president. yet the other day when they had these hearings, all we heard about was abuse of power, abuse of authority, putting personal and partisan interests over national interest. how many foreign policy decisions have been made by presidents over the years in order to help them get reelected. if we start making that an impeachable offense, there'll be no presidents left. and we will have the english system which is what james mattis said we didn't want. in the english system the prime minister serves at the will of the parliament. the men at the parliament says that we don't have any faith in you he is gone. vote of no-confidence. that is exactly what we didn't want to empower the congress to

do. it's b5. levin: we don't want him basically the president to be neutered by the house of representatives. >> and we don't want to serve at the will. we don't want the british parliamentary system. we want a republic. and a republic requires a strong president who has to run for reelection every four years. that's the ultimate protection, he has to run for reelection. he can only now served two terms. but if you want to amend their constitution to include abuse of power, we have to amend the impeachment because it didn't include impact capacity when woodrow wilson had his stroke. he could not govern and there is no procedure to remove him. to the 25th amendment now has a procedure. if you want that i met amendment to include abuse of power, i wouldn't go along with that. but don't make it up as you go along. i think jonathan turley had a great phrase this is not

improvisational jazz. you cannot make it up. you have to look at the work of the constitution. in the words of the constitution are as clear as can be. for criteria if they are not met congress does not have the power or the authority legitimately to impeach a president. now i am not a supporter of donald trump politically. i voted for hillary clinton. you know what the original title for my book was? i eventually wrote a book about the case against impeaching from also the house impeaching john. i started to write a book to talk about hillary. to the original title for my book the case against impeaching hillary clinton. it's just the changing of names. i went to the book and change some things. if i had written this book, the case against impeaching hillary clinton the liberals would love me. but now since the same arguments are used in favor of president trump who i didn't vote for, i'm a pariah among liberals and radicals on and the left.

levin: i want to ask you about this. there's almost no talk about legislative tyranny. can the legislature beecher ran a cold? >> absolutely and they have been to remember mccarthyism that was legislative tierney's before if they impeach the president and denied due process that will be acting terrifically. >> i believe if they impeach the president on this record they will be abusing their power and their oath of office. maybe they can get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing. levin: when we return i'm going to ask you this. doesn't the president have a right to confront, or his lawyers to confront vegas to the senate in the trial, the accuser who began all of this? the so-called whistleblower. are we going to actually impeach the president have a trial without him ever knowing officially who his accuser is?

i'm gonna ask you about that when we return. ladies and gentlemen don't forget you can watch me most week nights on levintv can call 84 for levintv, 844 levintv. later in the program we can talk about this fascinating book as well. we'll be right back. man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! how did you find great-grandma's recipe?

we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered.

at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. man: that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we'd like you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.

ultimately the chief justice will have to rule on that. because he presides. he presides over the trial in the sentence of only the president. if anybody else's mpg don't have the chief justice. they give a judicial element so that all three branches of the government are involved in the

removal of a president. so i think it would be inconceivable that we would have a trial in the senate without the present being able to see his accuser. levin: you been an expert in the a lot of the spirit he looked at the history, i looked at the history. they were concerned the framers were concerned you could have an out-of-control house. it turns over every two years and a look at this senate and they set up this elaborate systems of the trials and the other body. you need to third super majority vote to convict. it's going to be seen by the chief justice of the supreme court. so there was some concern whether they were debating about impeachment, first they didn't want it, then they said we need to have it. but to have a check on the house of representatives wasn't there. >> no question, we were terrified framing foundation leaders were terrified of a runaway democracy. that's why they originally had a senate that was not popular popularly elected. it was essentially appointed by the state legislatures.

we needed an amendment to change that. but the senators were supposed to be the wise old men, they were all men in those days. the wise old men who would serve as a check, even within the legislative branch on the elected members of the house of representatives. there is a debate whether or not to perhaps put the removal of the president and the supreme court. but some of the framer said no that would not be right because you could try a president after he's been impeached for the crimes. and if you did that it would not be fair to have the same institution, the courts try him after they've already impeached him. so they decided to put it in the hands of the united states senate. levin: i want to ask about this issue of subpoenas. through most of our history, if congress issued a subpoena or the equivalent of a document for request. the branches would work it out somehow someway. we've now reached a.where we have a committee of congress, the house intelligence committee, before that the house

judiciary committee, not even the whole house with a whole congress. we issued a subpoena mr. president and you better respond share it you better do everything we ask without questions. you better give us your white house counsel, everything you want, we don't want to hear attorney-client privilege separation of powers, you give us a way want. does that make it constitutional law? >> no quite the opposite. i had a case many, many years ago where they subpoenaed my client in front of congress to review lawyer client prove privileged information. the committee said there's no such thing of lawyer client in front of congress bird we prevailed we took a before the courts, and according to hamilton the courts are the umpires between the excesses of the legislative branch and the executive branch. when the legislature issued a subpoena, a president is absolute entitled to say no go to court. you have to get authority from the court. i'm clay being privilege. if the privileges to broad as one of the judges recently said,

you lose. but you can't be impeached for invoking the separation of powers in our system of checks and balances. that would punish essentially exercising your own constitutional authority over article 12 and three of the constitution. we have a three-part system of government equal, coequal separate branches in the courts of the umpires. levin: but what i seem to be hearing today from these committees, and these professors is, we don't have three coequal branches of government. we want trump out so today we have one all-powerful branch of government. tomorrow maybe we'll have coequal branches of government. but the fact that the president asserts his rights, he's not the first president to do this. he is not the first president -- she's not defying a court order. he is defying a request, demand by another branch. he sang almond and duke it out with you.

they are saying impeach of offense that's another account. has this ever been done before? >> no and it's extremely dangerous to do that. it denies the executive branch the power granted to it under the constitution as a coequal branch. to challenge legislative excessive. when i was growing up it was the liberals like me and the libertarians who were opposed to congressional overuse of subpoenas. it was called the mccarthy period. at least civil libertarians constantly challenge congress. we took them to court and won a lot of those cases. to eliminate the excesses of legislative power during the mccarthy period. today the issues on the other foot and some people on the left saying legislative power, legislative power, no executive power. to everything there is a season. in the constitution was written for all seasons not for just today or the mccarthy. levin: where of the civil libertarians gone.

>> they have disappeared the aclu has abandoned its mission. i was on the board and the proud member of the aclu. during the nixon impeachment, which i favored. the aclu should be in there defending nixon's procedural rights. i was one of those who advocated the aclu to have knox nazis march. i said mama mom the side of the constitution hit she said mom i'm your mother don't talk to me that way. you've got a pick your side the jews of the nazis. no, we picked the constitution. so the list sybil libertarians are gone. the aclu is dead in the water. they should be deeply involved in this issue, defending the rights of the presidents to do process, free speech, you know they're claiming now the president now had impeachable offense of bulls by tweeting, writing, and talking about how he disagreed with the ambassador to the ukraine. look, i think she's a great

woman i don't agree with the president. but i certainly defend his right to criticize and abbasid are into fire and ambassador. the president has a right to call the ambassador and say yeah you contributed money to my campaign, i've got someone doing 2 million now. you're gone he's in. that's how bad it is get set up. but to talk about how to's set up ambassadors to hire and fire is not in line with the constitution. levin: we'll be right back.

live for america's news headquarters on john scott. new orleans to clearing a state of emergency wire was hit by his suspected cyber attack. authority's a ransom ware was found mixed computer system yesterday forcing the government to shut down all of its city computers and offices. they say most public services and the 911 system are still running. mayor latoya cantrell says no information has been compromised, but it is unclear as to who's behind it. the cities investigating incident along with the fbi. and president trump was in philadelphia this afternoon attending the 120th army-navy game. wearing a keep america great hat, the commander-in-chief participated in the coin toss at midfield and visited both locker rooms before kickoff. it was the president's third appearance at the annual matchup. the navy won the game 31 to seven. i'm john scott, back now to life, liberty, and live in.

levin: professor gertz a rich, you said the president is is impeached on this record, it's unconstitutional. >> that's right. levin: now does the president have recourse to the courts at that.does he recourse to the courts if there's a trial and conviction which is very unlikely? >> dancers crystal clear. we do not know. there are arguments on both sides. alexander hamilton says in federalist 75 any active congress that is in violation of the constitution is void and he talks about judicial review. on the other hand the constitution says the house shall be the sole, and the senate shall be the sole. there are two justices white and souter who in dissent have suggested that in an appropriate case there would be judicial rule. for example if the senate was to

say we don't have two thirds. let's just change it to 55%. there would clearly be judicial review. the president would leave, he would say you would need to thirds and you don't have two thirds, i am not leaving. or what if the head of the senate which we assume is controlled by the democrats we don't like the chief justice. when i can have them preside. you cannot count change the constitution. i don't see any difference in not laying the chief justice preside on one hand or reducing from 13 thirds to 55%. and ignoring the criteria in the constitution. they are all unconstitutional. greg: four but this is a minority view. >> it is very much a minority view but it would not be the same with hillary clinton was being impeached. the same people who are attacking my position would be espousing my position if hillary clinton was being impeached. had another? because many of them took that view and bill clinton was being impeached. they fail what i call the shoe

on the other foot test. if you are good to be a serious academic pic, you always have to pass the shoe on the other foot test. you have to say the same thing you'd be saying if the political dimensions were shifted. if it was a democrat being impeached by the republicans. unless you are can pass that test you are not legit. levin: since the house of representatives has denied this president but past presidents who have faced in hageman's have had basic fundamental fairness and with witnesses, transparencies, and not secret testimony in the dungeon or wherever taking place. would it be your argument that he has a case now? >> i think will be a mistake to bring the case now. i think he would have a better shot of getting judicial review if he waited and established a better record and found a clearer violation. right now we don't even have an impeachment. if the impeachment goes forward without any of the four

criteria, that might be an appropriate time. which i don't think is going to happen. so i think it's much of a hypothetical of this. levin: the houses made have basically made up the rules of the gone along. bending the rules under peter rodino and the democrats for they abandon the rules that were in place with henry help hide and the republicans in clinton. there is no president in the american history has been treated like this is there? >> no and of course the house does have the authority to make up the rules as they go along as long as the rules comply with the basic due process. due process as part of the constitution, every citizen from the lowliest of the present united states has the right to be treated fairly and has a right to a process that is due him. so there are limits to how far congress can go when making up as they go along. levin: you said something earlier that causes me to it wonder. this process, is so partisan, so

abusive that it's going to have an impact and is having an impact on our culture. and on the greater body politic that the myopic thinking of nancy pelosi and the democrats right now, has pulled all the republicans together, i've never seen their republicans us united. you can see whether it's watching the news on tv or wherever it is, they are driving a wedge in this country, honestly that i have not seen really since the 1960s and so forth do you agree or disagree customer. >> no i agree i grew up during mccarthyism i came of age during the vietnam war. i've seen division but i've never seen division where people can't talk to each other. people have to have separate thanksgivings. "missus, and hanukkah's. you can't touch her relatives and friends. i am a pariah on martha's vineyard because i take views

that are inconsistent with the majority view. i've never seen a situation where there is been so much division. the clinton impeachment, cause division, but not like this. and look, there's a lot of fault to go around. i think the president is the visiting devising he uses words that divides as well. he fights back. he is what he is. he was elected, everybody knew who he was he didn't surprise anybody what is done in office. but there is so much division on both sides, that i hope we can begin to yield. and i don't see the healing process being furthered by an impeachment. i think will further divide the country. levin: don't forget you can see me most nights on levintv just 844 levintv, or go on the internet go to blade tv/mark tv, would love to have you. as a struggling actor,

i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

as a doctor, i agree with cdc guidance. i recommend topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu.

levin: professor dershowitz, you've written a book guilty by accusation, the challenge proving innocence in the age of me to it. you spent your entire life defending people, you've been accused of criminal activity. some of the biggest cases really in the world. now you have to defend yourself. in this obscene matter. tells what this is about. >> it is remarkable, i mean i have 50 years and never had a complaint. i have a wonderful marriage, since the day i met jeffrey epstein i was introduced by a very distinguished lady. lady love child. rothchild's wife, he was very active at harvard, he had an office at harvard. he had academic connections we didn't have much of a personal friendship. i didn't know whether he had a brother or mother, it was an academic friendship.

and suddenly, i get accused by a woman i've never met, and this is a woman who told the fbi who she had wished, not me. told her boyfriend she did not have with me told her best friend she did not have with me. the fbi investigated the former director of the fbi, and found that she was not telling the truth. her own lawyer in a tape-recorded conversation said it would be impossible for you to have been in the play she said she met you. she is wrong simply wrong. levin: will missus allegation made? >> it was made the last day of 2,014. she claims that she remembered after telling everyone she didn't have with me. she had an exchange of e-mails and what she said she never met me. she never met me. and then she meets her lawyers, and suddenly she remembers not only having with me, but on seven occasions and places i never was during the relevant

time period. even including in a car in front of my house where she then claim sheila into my house or my wife has an office, she's a psychologist, my daughter had an old pair we had video surveillance. totally made up stories and i can prove it conclusively. the question asking my book are twofold. how do you protect yourself from a false accusation? i used to tell my students if you're going to be controversy you can get close to lines. pay your taxes, don't flirt, don't touch anybody. i lived by those standards. i never flirt. i never touch anybody. i never had an accusation. and now i'm accused. how do you protect yourself? and once cues how do you protect yourself? no one has ever prove their innocence more compellingly than me. this is the only case where the accuser never met the accused. every other case the is consensual, its harassment, maybe not. i have never met this woman and

there is evidence that i we were never in the same place at the same time. but yet people believe it. that's why were going to trial. we are going to have a major trial why i'm in a calm massive numbers of witnesses including our own lawyers. this is all part of an extortion plot against leslie wexner. levin: they are the owner. >> the owner of victoria's secret. the plan was to accuse me publicly and privately go to wexner and say hey what happened you don't have happened to you it happened dershowitz, there are ways of resolving this. and now we know the same lawyer who did this in a new new york times reported recently was engaged in another plot which sounds very similar. to try to sell fake photographs of prominent people like ehud barack to show nettlesome for money. and so this is all going to come out of the trial. levin: you filed suit.

you have or you are? >> i already have an eye against the woman who accused me and i plan on filing to others. levin: you know you reach a.in your life. eve got this long career, you've written a zillion books. you have your reputation. and then as you're getting into your retirement years, you have to defend yourself. what's that like? >> it's terrible it's terrible for me it's terrible for my family. let me give an example. for 25 years i was the main most popular speaker at the 92nd street. this year i have a book called defending israel, the story of my relationship with my most challenging client. of course you think they would on me to it talk about my book. levin: they are a jewish organization? >> right they know i'm innocence they have acknowledge there is no evidence for this ai have been a accuse that's enough for

us we don't want trouble. we don't want protests. so they have canceled me. there are tv shows that won't have me on, they say in accusation is enough. that's why i entitled the book guilty by accusation. if you are cues today it is impossible to defend yourself. there are people who think sexual assaults is such a crime that even innocent should not be a defense. now think about that. innocence not a defense? what could be more un-american than having somebody found guilty based on an accusation. the woman who accused me has a long history of lying. she remembers vividly seeing al gore and to gore on epstein's island. they were never there. she members vividly bill clinton being flown on a helicopter by a new pilot and secrets urgent agents and meeting to underage girls and epstein's house. secrets records prove she was never there. she started out saying she met

up soon she's 14, 15, 16, and it was over 17 enclosed in 19 when she claims she had with people. so this is a woman with a long history of lying. i have a long history of credibility yet people come and she has no evidence and i have overwhelming evidence. the judge of the other day said he said she said. no, it's she lied he prove conclusively his innocence. it's not he said she said. i have overwhelming evidence. i've always my travel records proving i could not have possibly been in places she said i was and her own lawyer went over the track of travel records and concluded in a tape-recorded conversation that would have been impossible for me to it have been in the places and she is wrong, simply wrong. you would think that would be enough to persuade people. but no, an accusation trumps evidence. levin: and now you have to bring a lawsuit to clear your name. >> and it's costing me over million dollars to prove it.

my insurance premiums have skyrocketed. people of canceled events. it is as if i'd been found guilty of something. i called for an fbi investigation. i immediately took the case of the u.s. attorney's office to the district attorney's office, enter the fbi. asking them to investigate me and to investigate my accuser. one of us is committing perjury. and the fbi should decide which one of us is committing perjury and charge that person. and that's what i've asked have done. because there is no process. levin: any response yet? >> will see the schedules trialed for next year end perjury will be committed in court in front of a federal judge. and then is not intolerable situation. the fbi should commend and resolve who is telling the truth. i know who's telling the truth and she knows just telling the truth. levin: we'll be right back. what'd we decide on the flyers again? uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%

or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

that's why xfinity mobile lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network, designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you say "bring my own phone" into your voice remote.

that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today.

levin: you know professor, one of the things i see, one of the problems as lawsuits are filed. when it's a case like this or a divorce case, or whatever it is. the media room with a lawsuit as

if it's an opinion of a judge. this is a problem. >> it is great a great judge in the first second circuit wrote the opinion warning the media not to do that. they say anybody can put anything in a lawsuit and you can commit perjury and nobody goes after you. and you are immune from a lawsuit. so the tactic these lawyers are used against me was that they accused me in court papers, they leaked it to the press, and they will not deny did they didn't suit me for defamation. claiming there was no right under the first amendment to deny your guilt and proclaim your innocent. imagine what the first amendment would have left if you couldn't publicly announce your innocence after you've been accused in court papers. and i hope this case will begin to uncover and remedy this terrible situation where they can accuse you under the protection of the litigation privilege and court papers, and then not allow you to respond in public. that's just unfair and i think the framers of the turning over in their graves. thomas jefferson will be saying that is not with the first

amendment was intended to protect. levin: you're not getting a lot of support and isn't it also because of your principal positions on impeachment. >> there's not a question about that. i get e-mails every day saying we thought you might be innocent, but now that we see you're supporting tron you have no morality and therefore you're guilty. or we hope you're guilty because that will diminish her voice. or i've heard a website said we hope gratuitous guilty because he is too powerful and to articulate a voice on behalf of israel. and if he's guilty of this, it will diminish his voice in israel. and they are right. look at the 92nd street wine. they diminished my voice on israel. they do not allow me to it defend israel at the 92nd street y because of a false accusation which they know is false. and so accusations today can be weaponize by your political enemies. funny story, guy came up to me on the porch and i'm not gonna

do it on television but gave me the finger. and i walked over to him and i said you know that's pretty articulate, what was that for? was it epstein? tron? israel? he looked at me while all three i guess. but clearly, people are trying to attack me on the epstein thing because they don't like my views on israel, they don't like my views on trump. and they don't like the fact that i defended epstein, that i was a lawyer for somebody who turned out to be a pretty awful person. levin: this is where family is important. the urine man on your own island. >> my family and friends have been very supportive everyone who knows me knows i don't flirt and i'm totally lawyer to my wonderful wife who is stood behind me in every way. my children and my grandchildren to it's tough for my grandchildren they are in their 20s and they live among people who believe that an accusation

is the same thing as guilt. but they have been very strong. they know me. if you know me you know i didn't do this. levin: we'll be right back. damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we want you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. all: the chevy family!

get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief.

oh, what a relief it is! so fast! ♪ mark: so, professor dershowitz, in the end now, what is your greatest concern? >> the death of civil liberties, the fact that the hard left, particularly people who have causes, have turned against fundamental liberty. every cause starts as a movement, ultimately it degenerates into a racket. and i'm trying to protect the me too movement from becoming a wrap it. and i want to -- racket. and i want to protect due process. that's why i'm standing up for president trump's rights. i think we live in an age where the end justifies the means. if you're a radical democrat, you know if he's president trump, he must be guilty. is so we have to fight to

preserve our basic due process and our basic and fundamental concern for free speech. mark: i think you've been wrongly described over the decades. i think i would describe you as a libertarian constitutionalist -- >> i think that's an absolutely accurate, i'm a liberal, civil liberty libertarian -- mac mark but you're a classical liberal. >> i want to fight the extremists on both sides, both of whom deny due process and free speech. i think we have to keep our constitution sacred. mark -- >> certainly in academic life x that's the future. today's students that are being propagandized by hard left teachers to diminish the importance of due process are our future leaders. mark: ivan -- i've got to bring you back to discuss that. it's been a pleasure.

>> thank you. mark: see you next time on "life, liberty and levin." ♪ ♪ jesse: welcome to "watters' world", i'm jesse watterer wate. the democrats have their two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction. the articles might as well be we hate you and we can't beat you. they've been trying to impeach trump since before he was the republican nominee. in march 2016 the new york daily news wrote this: impeach trump, it's not too early to start. then right after trump was elected president, the media started salivating. >> my prediction is, based on my gut, that there's a very is good chance that donald trump could face impeachment. jesse: then the day