alan dershowitz in massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk. well, thank you so much.ay, we saw several records broken. one record, the obvious one, that the president was impeached for the second time. but the more important record is that congress violated more provisions of the constitution in one day than any congress in the history of the united states ever did. they violated the first amendment freedom of speech. they violated the criteria for impeachment. they violated due process by not giving the president an opportunity to be heard. they violated the 25th amendment by sending a message to the vice president to violate the constitution. and they violated the bill of attainder clause by saying that a president can be put on trial after he leaves office in violation of the constitution. what a record for congress in one day to violate five provisions of the constitution. well, you certainly speak with great certainty, professor dershowitz, but obviously those members of congress who looked at what has happened in the united states over recent days reached a very

you are a professor -- let's take a break alan dershowitz.. ♪♪ for every trip you've been dreaming of, expedia has millions of flexible booking options. because the best trip is wherever we go together. maria: welcome back, we are back with alan dershowitz and glenn greenwald, alan, there's a campaign building at harvard to rescind and revoke degrees of trump officials and allies including white house press secretary kayleigh mcenany and dan crenshaw. your reaction? >> i will represent pro bono any harvard graduate who has degree rescinded based on politics. the great danger is this was coming from our future leader. it has to be fought at every turn. we cannot allow free speech for me but not for thee which is what we are seeing at harvard and other institutions. maria: it's just terrible, glenn, all anybody wants is truth. the president is looking for further pardons, do you think he should pardon julian assange? >> i think two people who had done more to expose the truth of the very agencies that donald trump says he's been victimized by a

alan dershowitz to weigh in alan dershowitz to weigh in is that net carbs or total?...fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. with nutrients to help support immune health. maria: welcome back, after 4 hours of debate the house voted to impeach president trump for a second time charging him with incitement of insurrection, speaker nancy pelosi expected to send the article of impeachment to the senate some time this week. but according to my next guest none of it matters because it is unconstitutional to hold a trial once the president has left office. joining me right now alan dershowitz, harvard professor who is also part of president trump's impeachment defense team. he also has a wildly popular podcast the dersh show. also joining uses glenn greenwald, libertarian, won a pulitzer for breaking snowden story, surveilling citizens under the obama administration. alan, let me kick it off with you, your reaction on what we may see th

senator ted cruz, senator ted cruz is a principled conservative harvardto educated lawyer, alan dershowitz has said probably the best student he ever said. or josh hawley. that fact that they wanted an audit that they now say could be classified, they could be classified as domestic terrorists and the put onto a no-fly list because they supported attending audit? keep in mind, senator cruz, senator hawley wanted to ensure the integrity of our elections. reading the polls where 83% of republicans according to gallup didn't like the results. i guess be banned from any commercial flights, that would be insane. that is called overreach and that would be would be fundamentally unfair. if we apply the same standards based on things maxine waters said and many other democrats, we'll remind you if you like to know, not one single republican lawmaker ever i heard ever wouldn't want to riot, nobody wants that. every single conservative, they condemned immediately what happened at the capitol, we condemn to those people all summer long breaking the law. some in democrat a party that don't want to ack

scholar alan dershowitz on whether the senate can actually impeach a former commander in chief.s, breaking news this morning on a string of executive orders that we are expecting by the new president in the first ten days. former director of national of national --intelligence ric , pulitzer prize winning glenn greenwald. all that and more as we look ahead right here right now on sunday morning futures. maria: first this morning a few page turned in america as the peaceful transfer of power will take place wednesday morning with the inauguration of president elect joe biden. biden's aides say he will take executive action within first ten days to return the united states to paris climate accord and put new mask mandate in place after spending trillions with that blow outspending package announced last week. joining me right now with reaction to the new president and policies, south carolina senator lindsey graham. will yo be going to the inauguration and what should we expect? senator: we should expect peaceful transfer of power. i will be there. i think it's important that i sh

considering a potential defense team that would likely include rudy giuliani and possibly alan dershowitz. new arrests as authorities hunt down riot suspects. federal charges were just filed against the man seen carrying speaker nancy pelosi's lectern as well as another man who wore a bearskin headdress during the riot. let's go to our senior congressional correspondent manu raju. manu, walk us through these really fast-track developments on the timetable for impeachment. >> reporter: yeah, it was moving very fast and expecting a vote could happen in just a matter of days. the one concern some democrats have is the precedent they would set by moving so quickly on impeachment. typically, an impeachment inquiry takes months, but this could take a matter of days. and democrats say the reason why they're moving so quickly is because the matter is urgent and they say the president is a concern to the american public's safety in the aftermath of what happened on wednesday and the president inciting violence that led to the deadly mob attack against the u.s. capitol that led to the death of one

alan dershowitz has had probably the best student he ever had. josh hawley, the fact that they said they wanted an audit. they can be classified as domestic terrorists and put on a no-fly list? because they supported a ten day audit? huh? senator cruz and senator hawley wanted to ensure the integrity of the elections. 83% of republicans according to gallup didn't trust the results. in the case of josh hawley, lost a book deal and now i might he guess be banned for many commercial flights. that would be insane. that is called overage. that would be fundamentally unfair. what if we apply the same standards based on things maxine watters said in many other democrats. we will remind you if you'd like to know. not one single republican lawmaker ever i heard ever would want a riot. nobody wants that. every single conservative republican i know, they have condemned immediately what happened at the capital. we repeatedly condemned and we condemn all summer long all those people that were breaking the law. we have some people now in the democratic party t

alan dershowitz, legal scholar, host of show.at to see you, alan, thank you very much for joining us. i know that you're talking about this on your podcast, first, let me ask you your reaction on what we heard from devin nunes. can someone bring criminal charges on big tech for trying to squelch any business of parler? >> i think that they can bring a challenge to the application of section 230, the other thing they can do is go on alternate sites like rumble which hosts my shows. let's fight monopolyies as well as marketplace of ideas and in court of law and legislative chambers. they are violating the text of the first amendment, the culture and the spirit of free speech and we who have been fighting for free speech in my case since 1960's, we have to fight back. maria: yeah, that's the point, alan. they haven't addressed rumble but rumble may well be next. they are taking down parler, you heard from john matze, the ceo, not only removing from app stores but canceling from the servers. i have to get your thought on the 25th ame

harvard law professor alan dershowitz is here on the potential vote this week.lus, senator marco rubio on the deadly breach at the hospital and the continuing fallout. why he says the chinese communist party is watching. happily. was dirty tricks, bullying and hate, which sent at least two democrats into the arms of the republican party. georgia state legislator vernon jones on why he did this week what congressman jeff van drew did a year ago, leave the republican party, they join us on the unity joe biden said he will lead with 10 days until inauguration day. all that right here, right now as we look ahead on sunday morning few churns. ♪ -- futures. ♪ maria: and first this morning we have breaking news of yet another devastating blow to free speech. just 24ta hours after twitter pm permanently suspended president trump, google, apple and amazon have banned parler from app stores which experts say could destroy the company financially. before the removal, parler surged to number one in apple's app store with 1.5 million downloads on saturday alone. joining me n

let's have a listen to what alan dershowitz had to say. have a listen. >> joining me is alan dershowitz, harvard president emeritus and part of president trump's impeachment team. >> if you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the congress to try ordinary citizens. it is plainly unconstitutional. >> okay. so, again, who knows if he's on the team. it seemed like he kind of confirmed it. anyway, what standing does alan dershowitz have and this argument that if you can impeach anyone who's not a sitting president, there are no limits to the powers of congress. give me a break. if you can't impeach a president or convict a president who incited an insurrection on the u.s. capitol, then why shouldn't any other president coming up behind donald trump consider themselves to be above the law? >> well, alan dershowitz has lost any standing he had as a constitutional scholar. the president of the united states, donald trump, he is the sitting president, was impeached. now the question is, can you try

come to dramatically different conclusions legal scholars like professor turley and professor alan dershowitz both of whom condemned the president's statements believe that his statements are not impeachable i know other scholars have different points of view given this difference of opinion should we have a better process than this should we have a chance to examine witnesses discuss the matter with legal scholars and consider this in committee on a matter as grave and consequentialism pietschmann shouldn't we follow the same process we have used in every modern impeachment rather than rushing to the floor on behalf of generations of americans to come we need to think more clearly about the consequences of our actions today the fact of the matter is mr speaker there is no reason to rush forward like this other than the very obvious fact that there are only 7 days left until a new president takes office but what's worse as professor dershowitz has pointed out because of the senate rules the case cannot come to trial in the senate until 1 pm on january the 20th one hour after president trump l

sources tell cnn his team would include his personal attorney rudy guiliani, and possibly alan dershowitz. meanwhile, new arrests of people believed to have been involved in the attack on the capitol. they include a west virginia law maker, the ceo of the chicago company. the man seen on video carrying house speaker nancy pelosi's lectern and another man wearing a bear skin head dress. let's get more on the impeachment that's rapidly dramatically gaining speed right now. our chief political correspondent dana bash is joining us. dana, this is truly unprecedented at so many levels. >> on so many levels and not the least of which is the house speaker. and how much she, how much push she is getting from her rank and file. already, they have 180 co-sponsors to the one article of impeachment, the draft of it was released yesterday and they have that many people in their caucus signing onto it. listen to what the house majority jim clyburn said about the feeling inside the house democratic caucus. >> they don't have one day left. let's move forward and get this done and it will send a signal to

. >>> speaking sunday, dershowitz said that he doubts a trial will happen. and he defended what the president said wednesday before the riot. >> in a leading case from ohio, an unanimous decision, the supreme court basically said, as much as i disapprove of it and many people disapprove of it on merits is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. core political speech. to impeach the president for exercising his first amendment rights would be so dangerous to the constitution. >> dershowitz dismissed the option of impeaching the president after his term saying that the constitution never mentions a former president. new details about the investigations into wednesday's riots and suspects. now the capitol hill police chief says that officials in the house and senate delayed his effort to call for help. andrew dymburt has the latest. andrew, good morning. >> reporter: mona, good morning. the efforts to find some of these rioters is ramping up, but in the meantime the outgoing capitol police chief his force could have stopped the mob if federal agen

dershowitz might like to get up and posture and speak a lot of grand words about his friend and client who ordered a murderous armed attack on the u.s. capitol to try and overturn the election, there may not be much need for that. i don't know if anybody ever seriously questioned frankly the right of the president to go out and say whatever crazy things he wants to say and to whip up a mob. he's always had that right and he used that right. the question is what the rest of us will do about it. alan dershowitz, of course, is reverting to titan and doing what he's always done these last four years, try and find a way to defend donald trump no matter how outrageous his actions. >> sofia, we just heard suzanne say there are some republicans close to the thought about impeachment. you wrote about republicans in the grio. republicans are hypocrites and must own what transpired at the capitol. this wasn't activism, it was full blown anarchy. it's important to hear from you because you are a former republican and you have specific feelings towards the party. why did you -- why did you leave th

. >> sean: and as harvard attorney and professor alan dershowitz is taking it a step further, callingaded weapon that would be so dangerous to our constitution. here with reaction, fox news legal analyst along with alan dershowitz, professor, you said -- pointed out a couple of things, it would be so dangerous to the constitution and you said that the senate wouldn't ever be able to hear a trial because the president will be out of office at the time and then you further went on to say we will do it after he leaves is not constitutional either. >> here's the tactic. but the democrats want to do is simply impeach him. they can do that. all you need is to have the votes, the majority in the morn against impeachment by simply having the majority but they don't want to actually bring it to trial. they just want to have the accusation hanging over him, indicting somebody for a serious crime. not going to give you a trial where you can prove your innocence. some democrats are saying we will give a trial but only after he's left office but there's no jurisdiction. congress doesn't have the p

and professor dershowitz's argument is also not supported by history., then-president grant's secretary of war, a man named william bellnap, resigned from his position when there was evidence of corruption. and the house and senate went on to impeach him after that. but there is also just a common sense argument for allowing impeachment afterwards. there's no grace period to be able to commit crimes into the last days of office. and if, for example, you discover evidence of very serious crimes, let's take the example of treason after the person leaves office, you have to have a way to create political accountability, and important the impeachment process also allows for the punishment of prohibiting the person from ever running -- or ever holding an office again. so, i think that professor dershowitz has to make the best argument he can. i think if that's the one he's making, it's an uphill battle. >> even if president trump leaves office and then the articles go over to the senate, what would being convicted in the senate mean at that point? what type

>> i know alan dershowitz, he was my professor 35 years ago. that's not true, you can't go into a movie theater and yell fire. you can't make statements that cause danger. as the leader. free world you can't encourage violence at the capitol. there's no first amendment right. the last i saw professor dershowitz was when we were both on the floor of the senate and he was claiming the president could never be impeached for influencing the election. ironically, other than him nobody is denying the president engaged in constitutional crimes because there can be no question that he attacked the very core of our democracy. the debate is should they go forward. as i said, i think there are many reasons going forward. >> you brought up a refusal to appear in the last exchange of the 201 impeachment. is there a plausible scenario in which the president during the trial in the senate does not send attorneys to defend against the articles? if he's not in office and he believes that he can pressure or brow beat enough republicans not to side with democrats

professionally and mr dershowitz was a professor of mine at harvard law school ken starr sat on the court of appeals here and was solicitor general they're the top notch lawyers he's recruited a lawyer from south carolina probably a friend of lindsey graham that nobody knows about at 8 here who probably has no background or familiarity with the facts of the case which is a and you're of desperation that mr truong can no longer get even his close team including pat simple only his. white house counsel jack 2nd jay secular hope those who are at least on the margins of defending him the 1st case to defend him anymore so i think we can expect that the trial will proceed not waiting 21 days it'll really be up to the democrats to decide how quickly and how the length is going to be up to the democrats to they will decide how many witnesses if at all to call the length of the arguments permitted to both sides the length of cross-examination my own view is that it ought to be longer rather than shorter there's no need to rush this and it's wrong to think that the american people should not

alan dershowitz will not be part of this.one part of this for sure is rudy giuliani, who at times has spread false information. the defense will be about free speech and arguing this was a political hack job and witchhunt against the president, which is what he said in that video he released today. judy: yamiche alcindor reporting on the reaction at the white house. thanks so much. ♪ judy: we will hear from members of congress about how they voted in the second impeachment trial of president trump. joining me first is adam kinzinger of illinois, one of 10 repuicans who broke from their party to vote in favor of impeachment. thank you very much for joining us. explain why you decided to vote for impeaching president trump. rep. kinzinger: this is a heavy day for america, but it has been really heavy for america prior to the election, but more importantly, after the election, when the president used four years of this argument and saying democracy does not work, the election was stolen. i had predicted violence leading up to th

alan dershowitz said the same on this program this week. what was today's impeachment trade all about? a number of things. first, democrats are now going to be able to brag to all their friends and families, we did to! we did a! president trump is the first president to be impeached twice. we are so great, incredible, right? the second, this gave democrats one last opportunity to scream and yell at the president. they even changed at the house rules, the democrats did, so they can go after the president personally. they changed it just for the occasion. take a look. because he had the hats on, the army of mega dominic maga which is what i refer to as make amera great again. >> we've been asked to turn a blind eye to the criminality, and disrespect of rule of law by the president and the white house. because the president of the united states and cited this insurrection, this armed rebellion against this country. he must go, he is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love. >> racism played a direct role in this incitement. th

i heard alan dershowitz on maria bartiromo's sunday morning futures show, tom cotton pointed out he will be a private citizen by the time this takes place. if you can impeach a private citizen, you're opening a pandora's box of political retribution. the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting official from his office. president trump will no longer be in office. he will be a private citizen. and dershowitz's point, is if that's possible, democrats could impeach a republican running to challenge a democrat in a presidential race. if you can impeach a private citizen, where does that stop? howie: you anticipated a later question. we'll come back to that point. i want to get sue sahn in on this. -- susan in on this. what is your take on the tone of the coverage given that many news stories flatly say president trump, who incited an insurrection at the capitol, dot, dot, dot. >> well, i'm pretty critical of the media coverage so far because it does not -- it's not balanced and the argument the media is making, the most -- the biggest voices in the media is there shouldn't be any balan

the white house is interested though in tapping alan dershowitz for the trial. on fox across america, dershowitz said he is not yet on the team but what happened to president trump yesterday as a travesty. >> they impeach the president of the united states without a single bit of evidence, lawyer defense. it wasn't any kind of trial, it was just a vote. >> one of the big questions is whether or not it's constitutional to try a president on impeachment charges after he has left office. former appellate court judge jay marco loud egg argued it is not. once trump's term in office ends on january 20th, congress loses it's constitutional in authority to hold impeachment causes. the only power on the constitution is to convince -- convict rather, or not, and incumbent president. he was supposed to present the medal of freedom to patriots bill belichick. in the days of this administration, and you can now count them on one hand, the white house has prepared remarks for the president on a number of accomplishments including rebuilding the military but the president is s

dershowitz told fox news today that trump can't be impeached after january 20th because he's no longer president of the united states. the house majority whip jim clyburn says they could wait until after biden's first 100 days for example in office to actually send the house impeachment articles over to the senate for a trial. even though he's long gone, he's then a former president of the united states. what do you think on that? >> well, it's not quite clear from the constitution, which says you can through impeachment remove an officer, remove the president from office. so it does seem to go in line with the notion that if you're to remove someone from office they would have to actually be in office. however, you're talking about a very novel legal concept that's never been tested, and it would really run antithetical to the idea of justice, the idea of a president being above the loll or not above the law if he can just run out the clock, if he can just simply wait until just enough time and escape as if there's no accountability whatsoever. what if somebody found out in the very l

it's obviously in hiring guiliani and dershowitz he's a little concerned, so i think that as ted says, very capable of moving quickly and practice to do just that, pamly. >> what would it do practically. you said it would be a shot against the pow, but if the house hypothetically passed articles of impeachment against the president and the senate did not convict him or vote to remove him from always, what would be the implication of this? >> well, it's always a very, very negative mark to be impeached by the house, so historically, it's going to certainly be something he doesn't want on his record. will it effectively remove him? no. it looks like the clock will run out before mitch mcconnell will take it up in the senate, but we also have to remember mitch mcconnell might not be in charge much longer. next week it's possible, since the georgia races are just about to be certified, that two new senators -- democratic senators could arrive in washington and change the balance of power and mitch would no longer have control of the floor and schumer would. that could expedite things. he

he's looking at rudy giuliani and alan dershowitz to represent him in that potential senate impeefmei impeachment trial. he won't be represented by the white house counsel who represented the president during that first impeachment trial. we need to talk about this moment where the president is because he's perhaps at his weakewea weakest point in his presidency. isolate bid the resignations within his own administration but the calls for his resignation by, including by some republican lawmakers over on capitol hill. the president now facing losing h i twr twitter account leaving him without the avenue to vent and misinform his supporters across the country. the president isn't doing much reflecting inciting that mob just a few days ago. president is having second thoughts about this and that is that video that he recorded after pressure from some of his own advisers in which he conceded that he will not be president after january 20th and which he called for healing and reconciliation. pretty remarkable that is the thing the president is having second thoughts about. >> there's some

you know, professor dershowitz or turley one of them, i think dershowitz said this would set a terriblecedent but really how often do we think a president will do what president trump did out there? elizabeth: jim what is your response to what sol just said? >> i don't think sol and i are that far apart. i have a different standard what i think should be the basis for impeachment. but i'm not standing here and say i like the way the president reacted or he did the right thing in terms of shutting down the possibility of a riot. there is so much we do not know yet in terms of the actual peoples involvement, the leadership, the communications, the premeditation. there is a lot of things to explore before we reach a snap decision that holds the president accountable when he doesn't overtly say let's go commit crimes. that is where i hesitate. but i'm very concerned like sol is about the overall state of the union when it comes to something this historically bad. elizabeth: it is about rehabilitating the civic infrastructure as rand corporation said. thank you so much, jim trusty, sol wisen

. >> reporter: victor, we ne that president trump is considering rudy giuliani and alan dershowitz tooin his legal defense team for impeachment. it's notable because rudy giuliani has played a leading role in promoting the conspiracy theories that are at the heart of the reason why trump is being impeached in the first place. this legal team will look different than the one that defended him before the first impeachment. people like jay sekulow and white house counsel pat cipollone are not expected to participate. cipollone is considering resigning after this week's events. this is a very real threat to the president. different from last time given that we know some republicans are even considering joining the democratic effort to impeach him. >> sarah westwood at the white house. thanks so much. >>> also new this morning, house speaker nancy pelosi is telling lawmakers to prepare to return to washington next week. that is of course another sign that house democrats most likely are going to move to impeach the president. >> cnn national correspondent susan malvo is on capitol hill. th

what do you make of alan dershowitz's comments, basically saying an impeachment trial in the wake ofweapon" for both political parties to use in the future, that would be dangerous to the constitution? would you agree with him? >> in part. i certainly agree with him that what the president said under long-standing supreme court case law does not constitute a crime. there is no question of that. that goes back to brandenburg versus ohio. there has to be an advocacy of imminent lawless action that is likely to result in that, and the words, if you just look at the words of the president, it just isn't there. as to his second point that it would be a loaded weapon, i don't think we've ever had a situation, and i hope we never have a situation in the future, where the president of the united states is talking to a crowd like that and encouraging them to go over to the senate building where the senators and representatives are performing a solemn constitutional function. to act like this was just a clearly protected activity if engaged in by private citizen, doesn't necessarily answer the

. >>> still to come, sources tell me president trump is considering rudy giuliani and alan dershowitz for his defense team in a possible second impeachment trial. when we come back i'll speak to ben ginsberg, the former election lawyer for republicans. at capella university, we know the world is pretty smart. wicked smart. so we built an education just as smart. so smart it can work at my speed? yep. with flexpath, you can finish your bachelors degree on your terms and budget. capella university. don't just learn. learn smarter. stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on... ...with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred... ...as have certain cancers, includin

what's worse, as professor dershowitz pointed out, because of the senate's rules, the case cannot come to trial in the senate until 1:00 p.m. on january the 20th, one hour after president trump leaves office. this is an ill-advised course in my opinion, mr. speaker. even senator joe manchin, a democrat, agrees. many senator manchin is quoted this week as saying, quote, i think this is so ill-advised for joe biden to be coming in trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all of the people who are going to be so divided and fighting again. let the judicial system do its job, unquote. so what then is the point of the rush to impeach? we're coming off a horrific event that resulted in six deaths. we have an opportunity to move forward but we cannot if the majority insists on bringing the country through the trauma of another impeachment. it will carry forward into the next president's term, ensuring he will struggle to organize his administration. what's worse, it will continue to generate the bitterness so many of us have opposed. why put us through that when we can't actu

among the names that have been floated, rudy giuliani, alan dershowitz. i spoke with alan earlier today. i've been speaking to him frequently to try to get a sense of whether he's had any contact with the trump administration and he says so far no one from the trump orbit has even reached out to him about a potential senate trial, andrea, all while behind the scenes we know that the president has been focused on trying to rehabilitate not only his brand but frankly his legacy. that is what drove him to the border earlier this week when he touted the border wall. we understand that he is contemplating giving at least one, maybe two other speeches that will focus on highlighting what he sees as his key accomplishments. but, andrea, this puts him in history in a way that he would never want to be, the first president to be impeached twice. even though ten house republicans joined with democrats on the impeachment effort, it was still the most bipartisan impeachment in u.s. history. now, polling shows that republicans broadly still support president trump, bu

constitutional scholars like jonathan turley, alan dershowitz and others have said there was not an incitementriot. and you've got to have an impeachable offense and, cleary, there was not one -- clearly, there was not one. even if there was, to impeach a president who's going to be out of office at noon next week on wednesday makes no sense. you cannot impeach a private citizen. the moment donald trump ends his tenure is the moment he's no longer subject to a senate trial. and so any attempt to do it forces this to go to the court, the court will dismiss it, and it's all a waste of taxpayers' time and money. gerry: so what do you think should happen in i mean, again, as you said, there are those who say the president didn't directly incite violence, but he was challenging the results of the election, he was asking his supporters to go to capitol hill and pressure mike pence, the vice president, to do something he couldn't do. clearly, the whole thing ended as it did. should the president face any kind of censure at all, or do you think everything he did was absolutely fine? >> well, i don't t

alan dershowitz -- people can agree or disagree.f by positions he took in the last impeachment. rudy giuliani is the worst pick possible for a couple of reasons. first of all, he's part of this. he stood in front of the crowd moments before they went to the capitol and said, trial by combat. he was one of the biggest factors behind pushing the lie that drove this whole thing, the lie that the election was stolen. not to mention, rudy giuliani is under federal investigation right now. might be in a position where he wants a pardon. he's got conflicts of interest all over the place. the president can choose who he wants but rudy giuliani would be a ridiculous decision for him. >> elie, thanks for coming on. >>> social media companies pulled the plug on president trump and he is furious. coming up, new cnn reporting on how trump intends to hit back. stay with us. it's time for the lowest prices of the season on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. what if i sleep hot? or cold? no problem, with temperature balancing you can sleep better

what is worse, as professor dershowitz pointed out, because of this senate's rules, the case cannot come to trial in the senate until 1:00 p.m. on january 20th. one hour after president trump leaves office. this is an ill advised course in my opinion, mr. speaker, even senator joe manchin, a democrat, agrees. senator manchin is quoted this week as having said, quote, i think this is so ill advised for joe biden to be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all the people, when we're going to be so divided and fighting again. let the judicial system do its job. unquote. so what then is the point of the rush to impeach? we're coming off a horrific event, that resulted in six deaths. we have an opportunity to move forward, but we cannot if the majority insists on bringing the tu country through the trauma of another impeachment. it will carry forward into the president's next term, ensuring he will struggle to organize his administration. which worse, it will continue to generate the bitterness so many of us have opposed. why put us through that when we can't ac

>> sandra: alan dershowitz says it would provide a loaded weapon to both sides and will be so dangerouse constitution. he warns. listen. >> the leading case, the unanimous decision the supreme court basically said what president trump said on wednesday as much as i disapprove with of it and many people disapprove of it on its merit is protected by the first amendment of the constitution. it comes with core, political speech and to impeach a president for exercising his first amendment rights would be so dangerous to the constitution. >> sandra: so he says dangerous to the constitution and jonathan turley who we often speak to on this program said it would be a rushed impeachment, script impeachment would damage the constitution. and you go on to further say what? >> i absolutely agree with that. i think that you can look at the president and what he said since the election and say, you know, i'm not comfortable with that red brick. it could be negligent, reckless and there are crazy people out there to do crazy things but is it intentional? right, you can say i don't agree with how the

james: on the other side of the argument, veteran lawyer alan dershowitz defended mr.defended president trump in his previous impeachment trial. here is his view this time. >> we should not compromise free speech and the interest of ending a term for five days earlier. this will be a horrible president. james: can republicans broke from their party to vote for impeachment this time. remember that nondefective during the first impeachment. if mr. trump is convicted by two thirds majority in a senate trial, a subsequent vote could then bar him from ever holding public office again. will any of this happened before mr. trump leaves office on january 20? no. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says given rules and president governing presidential impeachment trials, there is no chance a serious trial could conclude before president-elect biden is sworn in. mr. mcconnell says we will not convene the senate until january 19. it requires at least 17 republicans to vote guilty in order for mr. trump be convicted. to tells about the likelihood is our correspondent, gary o'do

who's going to represent the president right now we're hearing things like rudy giuliani and alan dershowitz so then they would have this this trial then they would vote they would need all the democrats are not 17 republicans to make sure that the president is impeached and then it would have consequences he would lose his health care he would lose his more than $200000.00 pension so that he would be the 1st president to actually be impeached. with that removed because god but that step will have been taken so the house is likely to take it up this week and i can tell you i think one of the factors here is that we're starting to realize just how close members of congress came to being attacked by the mob because we're starting to piece together exactly what happened and the anger is just getting worse and worse here in washington getting was the relationship between the news vice president seems pretty much strained right now how is that impacting the functioning of the government and the white house. doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of functioning in the white house right now ever sin

instead the president has been telling people to talk to attorney alan dershowitz who represented thesident in the last impeachment trial. you'll remember the speeches on the senate floor that the president has told people what saved him that time around from having a slew of republicans come forward. that's the only effort made so far. there's no comprehensive strategy happening behind the scenes. the president is basically invisible today. he doesn't have anything on his public schedule. right now we're not planning to hear from him. we can't hear from the president like we normally do on social media, whether it's twitter or facebook or even now youtube. the president has been suspended in some form or fashion. we're now learning a very interesting development which is that jared kushner is one of several officials who recently intervened in an effort to get the president on some fringe social media platforms since he can't get on the major ones. this is an effort by the personnel chief trying to get the president on sites where extremists go. that was a consideration and under way

and in half an hour, stephen sackur speaks to lawyer alan dershowitz, who was part of president trump's