AND IN AMERICA NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE TEAM
CALLING THE IMPEACHMENT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HERE’S ALAN DERSHOWITZ, A MEMBER
OF THE LEGAL TEAM, LAYING OUT
PART OF THEIR STRATEGY EARLIER
TODAY.
TODAY. >> MY CONCLUSION WHICH I WILL
PRESENT IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY IS
THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION DID NOT PERMIT
IMPEACHMENT ON GROUNDS LIKE
ABUSE OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. THEY REJECTED OPEN-ENDED VAGUE
CRITERIA THAT COULD BE USED FOR
PARTISAN PURPOSES.
PARTISAN PURPOSES. THEY YOU AREN’TINTRODUCED SPECIF
BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
MISDEMEANORS. >> WHAT DOES IT SAY ACTUALLY
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT? WENT TO PHILADELPHIA TO FIND
OUT.
OUT. >> 229 YEAS, THE NAYS ARE 128.
ARTICLE 2 ADOPTED.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. >> PURSUING AN ILLEGAL, INVALID
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL [ BLEEP ]
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. >> THEY HAVE RENDERED THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ITS WORDS
MEANINGLESS.
MEANINGLESS. >> ON THE ONE HAND, SOME
REPUBLICANS SAY THIS WHOLE
PROCESS HAS BEEN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. >> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER WANTS
TO WRITE A COMPLETELY NEW SET OF
RULES FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> BUT ON THE OTHER, THE
DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
ACTIONS MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. >> WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR
CASE THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS
IMPEACHABLE.
IMPEACHABLE. >> WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION
ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
>> I WENT TO PHILADELPHIA.
THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, FOR SOME ANSWERS
FROM THE FOUNT -- WHATEVER THE
HOUSE AND SENATE SAY GOES, AND
THE COURTS ARE NOT GOING TO
SECOND-GUESS IT.
SECOND-GUESS IT. THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAYS THAT
PEOPLE CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR
TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND OF
COURSE THE QUESTION OF WHAT THAT
MEANS IS HOTLY CONTESTED.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. SO THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T SAY
MUCH ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AT ALL.
WHY INCLUDE IT IN THE FIRST
PLACE?
PLACE? >> THE FOUNDING FEERLGTSS WERE
CONCERNED NOT TO HAVE TYRANTS
RULING AMERICA AND THEY HAD
BEFORE THEM THE MODEL OF KING
GEORGE WHO HAD THREATENED THEIR
LIBERTIES.
LIBERTIES. WE KNOW ABOUT ALEXANDER HAMILTON
AND HIS DEFENSE ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR
POLITICAL CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST
THE STATES.
THE STATES. WE KNOW THAT JAMES MADISON, THE
MAIN FRAMER OF THE CONSTITUTION,
INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT
MALADMINISTRATION THOUGHT WAS
IMPEACHABLE.
IMPEACHABLE. THEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD SERVE
AT THE PRESSURE OF THE CONGRESS.
SO AS A RESULT, THE LANGUAGE WAS
REFINED.
REFINED. GEORGE MASON STANDING BEHIND US,
HE CAME TO VIRGINIA, VERY KEEN
ON THE IDEA THAT WE MUST PROTECT
OURSELVES FROM FOREIGN
CORRUPTION, FROM A CONNIVING
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD CONSPIRE
WITH A FOREIGN PRINCE OR PO TEN
TAI, HE WAS CERTAIN IMPEACHMENT
WOULD IC THAT THAT IMPOSSIBLE.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND
GIVING THE AUTHORITY FOR THE
HOUSE TO THE IMPEACH AND GIVING
THE AUTHORITY TO THE SENATE TO
TRY?
TRY? ?
? >> THE HOUSE IS THE PEOPLE’S
HOUSE.
HOUSE. THEY’RE LIKE A GRAND JURY.
THEY CAN DECIDE THAT THE
PRESIDENT’S COMMITTED
PRESIDENT’S COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BY A
MAJORITY.
MAJORITY. BY THE SNOOT SENATE IS THE WEISS
THOUGHTFUL ONE.
THOUGHTFUL ONE. A CONVICTION HAS TO BE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
REASONABLE DOUBT. >> NOW WE HAVE THE BASICS OF HOW
THE FOUNDING FATHERS THUT BA
IMPEACHMENT, TREASON, BRIBERY,
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
ALL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
BUT WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT LOOK
LIKE?
LIKE? >> THE FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN’T
DEFINE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANEERS, BUT THEY SEEMED
TO BELIEVE THAT NOT EVER
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WAS A LEGAL
CRIME AND NOT EVERY LEGAL CRIME
WAS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE BEST DEFINITION COMES FROM
FEDERALIST 65 WHERE HAMILTON
SAYS THEY’RE POLITICAL CRIMES,
CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THE
PUBLIC INTERESTS.
PUBLIC INTERESTS. >> AND OF COURSE THERE IS ONE
THING THE FOUNDING FATHERS
DIDN’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, HAVING
A HUGE IMPACT ON IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS TODAY.
PROCEEDINGS TODAY. >> THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION HAD ONE BIG BLIND
SPOT THAT THEY DIDN’T
ANTICIPATE, AND THAT WAS THE
RISE OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
>> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSE
SPEAKER PELOSI AND MITCH
McCONNELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE SAID?
>> JAMES MADISON CONSIDERED
PARTIES FORM A FACTION,
IMPEACHMENT ALONG SURELY PARTY
LINES WASN’T SOMETHING THEY WERE
CONTEMPLATING.
CONTEMPLATING. >> THE FOUNDERS MIGHT NOT HAVE
CONSIDERED PARTISANSHIP BUT
THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR IT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP JOINS TWO OTHERS
IN BEING IMPEACHED, ANDREW
JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON.
>> WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTION?
THE CONSTITUTION? >> CENTRAL THING WE LEARNED IS
THAT THE CONSTITUTION SETS A
VERY HIGH BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT,
BOTH THE JOHNSON AND CLINTON
IMPEACHMENTS FAILED.
IMPEACHMENTS FAILED. SO THAT TELLS US THAT IT’S
REALLY TOUGH TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT AND THAT ORDINARY
POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS SHOULD
NOT BE THE BASE IS FOR
IMPEACHMENT EVEN WHEN THEY’RE
PRESENTED AS TECHNICAL
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.
THAT’S NOT ENOUGH.
YOU NEED SOMETHING HIGHER TO BE
A HIGH CRIME.
>> SO BACK TO THE ULTIMATE
QUESTION.
QUESTION. WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL?
CONSTITUTIONAL? >> IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT ITSELF IS
SET OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE HOUSE AND SENATE THEMSELVES
HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.
SO FOR BETTER OR WORSE, OUR
FAITH IS ENTIRELY IN THE HANDS
OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE,