WE, THE PEOPLE, WE MAKE THE

FINAL DECISION.

JOINING US NOW WITH MORE AUTHOR

OF THE BOOK BEST SELLER GUILT BY

ACCUSATION, HARVARD LAW

PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ TEXAS

CONGRESSMAN AND ALSO

LOUIE GOHMERT IS WITH US, GOOD

TO SEE YOU BOTH.

PROFESSOR I WILL START WITH YOU

TONIGHT.

OKAY, THE SUPREME COURT, WHEN

THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE

JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH, I

WILL DEFER TO YOU, PROFESSOR.

IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SIX

REMEDY LIKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THE COURT DECIDES TO TAKE IT UP.

I WOULD THINK STINKING STOMACH

SEEKING REMEDY IN THE COURT IS

THE CONSTITUTIONAL THING TO DO.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT FOR THE

COURT'S DECISION WHICH I WOULD

ESTIMATE SOMETIME IN JUNE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK PROFESSOR?

>> ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

CHECKS AND BALANCES IN

SEPARATION OF POWER REQUIRES THE

PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY IN THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS ASKED TO

DISCLOSE MATERIAL COVERED BY

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS AN

OBLIGATION TO SAY NO TO THE

PARTISAN HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE.

AND SAY, LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO

HAVE A SUBPOENA RECOGNIZED, GO

TO COURT.

GET THE COURT TO VALIDATE IT.

THAT IS WHAT THEY DID IN THE

NIXON CASE AND OTHER CASES.

BUT TOLD A PRESIDENT IMPEACHABLE

ON OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS FOR

SIMPLY EXERCISING HIS

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS HEAD

OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TO

IMPOSE AND INVOKE CHECKS AND

BALANCES AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

WOULD MAKE ALEXANDER HAMILTON

TURNED OVER IN HIS GRAVE.

HE SAYS, WHEN YOU HAVE A

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO

BRANCHES, THE UMPIRE IS THE

JUDICIAL BRANCH.

SO THE DEMOCRATS AND THE HOUSE

SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT AND

THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT ON AN

EXPEDITED BASIS.

AND SORT REVIEW AND SORT

ENFORCEMENT.

THEY PROVE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE

WON BECAUSE THAT IS AS THE

PRESIDENT SAID IN THE INTERVIEW,

A EXAMPLE OF EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE.

GETTING ADVICE FROM YOUR

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR,

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, THE

COURT WOULD GENERALLY UPHOLD

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T.

BUT YOU CANNOT EXPECT THE

PRESIDENT AND THE EXECUTIVE

BRANCH TO SIMPLY CAPITULATE TO A

PARTISAN MAJORITY ON A COMMITTEE

OF CONGRESS.

>> Sean: LET ME ASK YOU

LOUIE GOHMERT, BECAUSE I READ

THE CONSTITUTION AND I WILL

DEFER TO YOU AND PROFESSOR

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, BOTH LAWYERS.

BUT MY READING IS IT IS THE SOLE

POWER OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES TO IMPEACH.

THAT IS THEIR ROLE.

THAT IS THEY ARE ONLY.

THE TRIAL I MADE IS THE

CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE U.S.

SENATE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE

THAT WILL PRESIDE OVER THE

HEARINGS.

NOW, THEY HAVE IMPEACH THIS

PRESIDENT.

THEY WILL HAVE MANAGERS PRESENT

THEIR CASE TO THE SENATE.

OKAY.

NOW I KNOW SOME REPUBLICAN

SENATORS MAY BE SAYING, MAYBE WE

SHOULD CALL OTHER WITNESSES.

BUT IF IT IS THE HOUSE WAS ROLE

TO IMPEACH, MY QUESTION IS, WHY

WOULD THIS SEND IT TO NOTHING

BUT EXCEPT LISTEN TO THEIR CASE

AND NOT TO THE TAKEOVER OF THE

ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JOB

OF THE HOUSE?

CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT?

>> WELL, OF COURSE, YOU ARE

RIGHT ABOUT THAT AND PROFESSOR

DERSHOWITZ HAS MADE IT CLEAR

TOO, THE ONLY REAL ABUSE OF

POWER IS BY THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES AND DEMANDING

THAT THE PRESIDENT NOT PROTECT

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

AND NOT GO TO COURT TO GET IT

DEFINED.

SO YEAH, THE HOUSE DID NOT DO

ITS JOB ON IMPEACHMENT.

THERE WAS NO HIGH CRIME.

THERE WAS NO MISDEMEANOR.

THERE WAS NO TREASON, BRIBERY.

THEY DROPPED ALL OF THOSE

THINGS.

SO WE KNOW AND YOU AND I HAVE

TALKED ABOUT IT, SEAN, WHEN THE

DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING THE

PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS HAVE

DOING SOMETHING, THAT IS EXACTLY

WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS

PROJECTING.

THE ABUSE OF POWER AND

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THAT IS

EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN

DOING.

AND ALL OF THE GARBAGE ABOUT

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, WE

HAVE GOT TO ACT NOW!

WE HAVE GOT TO VIOLATE OUR OWN

RULES AND NOT ALLOW THE PARTY TO

HAVE WITNESSES.

WE HAVE GOT TO MOVE FORWARD AND

THEN SIT ON IT FOR A MONTH OR

SO, THAT JUST SHOWS THE

HYPOCRISY.

AND THE MAJORITY HAS NOT DONE

HIS JOB IN THE HOUSE.

YOU ARE RIGHT.

THE TRIAL -- CLOSE >> Sean:

>> SeanPROFESSOR, A QUICK 15

SECONDS, DO YOU AGREE WITH LOUIS

ON THAT AND WITH ME ON THAT?

>> YES, I DO AND FEDERAL 65 SAID

YOU NEED A SPEEDY TRIAL.

YOU NEED TO HAVE A TRIAL RIGHT

AWAY, IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL

ARE PART OF THE SAME PROCESS.