- If you read the paper,

you find that a number of Democrats

are saying that they ought totry to impeach the President.

That if they take back congress,

can they do it and if not why not?

Well there's a book called

The Case Against Impeaching Trump

written by Professor Alan Dershowitz

and he says impeachment is a big mistake.

- [Crowd] Trump, traitor, treason

- [Reporter] President Trump had only

been office a few months

when the calls to impeach him began,

and they haven't stopped.

- We believe that President Trump has

violated the Constitution

and we've introduced fivearticles of impeachment.

- [Reporter] But as the drumbeat for impeachment grows,

one prominent defender ofcivil liberties in America

Alan Dershowitz says not so fast.

He says in the fervor toimpeach President Trump,

his political enemies have ignored

the text of the Constitution.

Dershowitz lays out the reasons

why those pushing forimpeachment should think again

in a new book The CaseAgainst Impeaching Trump.

- Well attorney andprofessor Alan Dershowitz

is joining us right now on Skype.

Professor it's delightfulto have you with us.

You've written a book

tell me what the Constitutionsays to start off

what grounds do you haveunder the Constitution

for an impeachment againsta sitting president?

- Well I think Pat both of us learned

at Yale Law School thatthe first place you look

when you're asked a questionabout the Constitution

is to the text of the Constitution.

And the text says that inorder to impeach a president

you have to convict him on atwo-thirds vote in the senate

of either treason or a bribery

or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And the framers meant what they said.

They rejected a provision that said

you can impeach a presidentfor mal-administration

or being a bad president.

You need to show that hecommitted an actual crime.

And there's just no evidence at the moment

that President Trump hascommitted an actual crime.

Now some Republicans arepulling into the same trap

because they want toimpeach Rod Rosenstein

and Rod Rosenstein hasn'tcommitted any crime.

So I'd be against impeaching Rosenstain.

I'd be against impeachingour President Trump.

And if Hilary Clinton were president,

I'd be against impeaching her.

I just don't think you can impeach

based on disagreements and policies.

You have to prove theexistence of an actual crime.

- What is a high crime of misdemeanor?

Has that been defined carefullyby the legal scholars?

- I would say it's been defined carelessly

not carefully.

The framers had in mindsomething very interesting.

They didn't mean any ordinary crime.

I'll tell you a storyabout Alexander Hamilton.

It really explains thisbetter than anything else.

When Hamilton wasSecretary of the Treasury

a man and a woman decided to set him up,

a married couple.

And so they sent the womanto seduce him and she did.

And then the man demanded extortion

and he paid it in order tokeep it secret from his family.

But then the man accusedhim of using treasury funds

to pay the extortion and he denied that.

And he wrote an essay

posing tremendousembarrassment to his family

admitting the affair which was adultery

which was a serious crime

and admitting paying the extortion

but denying that he usedthe funds from the treasury

because he knew that using treasury funds

would be a high crime.

A crime involving governance

whereas simply committingadultery was a crime

but it was a low crime,

not a crime warranting impeachment.

And I think that's the difference

that Hamilton and others.

Hamilton afterward wrote thepart of the Federalist Papers

that dealt with impeachment

so I think he knew whathe was talking about.

- Will you point out that the

there's a rule that we have established

about coming against sitting officials

doing their Constitutionallyappointed offices.

Can you talk about that?

- Sure we can not eitherimpeach or prosecute a President

for acting under ArticleTwo of the Constitution.

Under Article Two he'sentitled to fire anybody

he wants that was heldby the Supreme Court.

He's entitled to pardon anybody he wants.

That's an absolute power.

He's entitled to tellprosecutors who to investigate

and who not to investigate.

It's not a good idea to do that

but Thomas Jefferson did that,

John Kennedy did that.

Many presidents have toldprosecutors who to prosecute

and who not to prosecute.

And you cannot be charged with anything

criminal or impeachable

when merely exercising your authority

under Article Two of the Constitution.

- Well what about thisthing about collusion?

Is there such a thingas a crime of collusion?

- You know if two businesspeople get together

and collude to violate the anti-trust law,

that's a crime.

That's the only crime of collusion

in the entire federal criminal code.

But if a candidate hasa meeting at his home

with his son or whoever,

in order to get dirt onan opposing candidate

that's not a crime.

That may be collusion.

I don't think you wouldeven use the word collusion

to define that kind of meeting

getting dirt on an opponent.

But even if there were collusionit wouldn't be a crime.

You'd need to show a specific violation

of federal election laws.

You'd need to show some kindof bribery or extortion,

some real crime.

But simply colluding with another country,

even a country we don't like

is not in violation of anything

in the federal criminal code.

- You were talking about yourpost to the special counsel.

And you've come up witha very unique concept

of how we should deal withthis Russian involvement.

What do you suggest we do?

- Well it wasn't all that unique.

We did it after 9/11.

We appointed a non-partisancommission of experts

to look at how to prevent a future 9/11.

That's what we should've done here.

We should've appointedJustice David Souter,

a former of the Supreme Court,

Justice O'Connor, other experts,

former heads of the FBI, the CIA

to look into the whole issue

of Russian involvement of our election.

Russia did try to intrude in our election

and they're gonna try to do it again

and that's a serious problem.

But you should have had acommission doing it in the open

with transparency.

Instead we have aspecial counsel operating

behind the closed doorsof a grand jury room

and we're not gonna learn very much.

And he only hears one side.

He only hears the prosecution side.

He doesn't hear the defense side

or President Trump's side.

So I think it was an ill advised method.

I was opposed to special counsel

when it was appointed toinvestigate White Water

and that turned into an investigation

of both Clinton's sexualactivities in the Oval Office.

So I've never thought specialcounsel is a good idea

and I don't think it's been a good idea

in this case as well.

- You have an interestingchapter in this book

about Whitey Bulger thathis involvement with the FBI

and Mueller was head of the Boston office.

Was that tainted?

What did they do wrong?

- Oh they did everything wrong.

It was the worst timein FBI modern history.

There was this guy Whitey Bulger who was

a real hit man murderer.

He had a brother who wasthe head of the Senate

in Massachusetts.

And in order to protect the Bulgers

who it turned out WhiteyBulger was an informer

with a guy named Rifleman Fleming,

they accused four peopleof committing murders

that were in fact committedby this Rifleman Fleming

who was an informer.

And for years they kept theseinnocent people in prison.

Two of them died in prison.

Two of them finally got out.

They brought a lawsuit.

They collected tens of millions of dollars

from the government for this cover up.

But you can't ever get your life back

if you've been sent to prison improperly.

And Mueller was the US Attorney in Boston,

he was the head of theJustice Department's

unit in Washington and the head of the FBI

while all of this was happening.

He was also head of the FBIwhen they were searching

for Whitey Bulger and theywere not searching very hard.

He was in plain viewliving in Santa Monica

and reportedly walking in the streets

and even there was one report

that he used to go to a Red Sox bar,

a bar in Santa Monicathat has Red Sox fans.

And he would sit in a special back room

and watch the game and people knew.

People knew.

There were shirts that were printed

saying I saw Whitey. I saw Whitey.

But the FBI, the greatFBI couldn't find him.

And a lot of people thinkthey weren't looking very hard

because they didn't want to find him

because he could have madethe FBI look very bad.

Look the FBI is a wonderfulinstitution with great people,

agents who put theirlives at risk every day,

men and women who we shouldbe so proud of the FBI

but there is some bad apples.

And the question is who are the bad apples

that allowed this terriblescandal to go ahead

both in Boston and inSanta Monica, California?

- Would you advise Trump tosit down and talk to 'em?

Or do you think the counselis correct in saying

don't do it under oathit'll get you for perjury?

- Uh oh, listen to your lawyer.

You know I said on television once,

I have four pieces ofadvice for the President.

Don't Tweet, don't pardon, don't fire,

and don't testify.

I think the last oneis the most important.

You know they're gonna askhim what his motive was

for firing Comey andhe's gonna give an answer

and it may be a truthful answer,

but somebody else willgive another answer.

Or he'll be asked whetherhe knew about the meeting

in the Trump Tower and he'salready said he didn't.

And you'd have Cohen,Michael Cohen saying he did.

So you never allow aclient to say anything

that will be contradicted by anybody else

that's called a perjury trap.

Even if he's telling the truth,

the prosecutor may choose to believe

the person who is testifying differently.

So I would not advise him to testify.

I'd advise him to fightthe subpoena in court.

In 53 years of practice,

I have never had a client sit down

with a prosecutor and testify.

Prosecutors aren't trying to help you.

They're trying to getyou to commit a crime.

Ask Martha Stewart.

She learned that lessonin a very hard way.

- So well I hope the President will listen

to what you're saying on this program.

But professor thank youso much for being with us.

It's a tremendous book

and I recommend it to our audience.

And thank you so much for writing it.