Constitutional norms are unwritten conventions and historical precedents that guide presidential behavior, distinct from the explicit text of the Constitution; debates about whether a president upholds constitutional norms often involve examining whether their actions align with established practices of previous presidents, as well as whether they violate the actual constitutional text, Supreme Court rulings, or the separation of powers between branches of government.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Mehdi Hasan x Michael Knowles: Constitutional Norms Under President TrumpAdded:
That's very awkward.
Does anybody know any good jokes?
We gonna Netti doesn't show up twice at the end of beta.
Thank you guys.
Right. Good evening everyone. My name is Josh Montliski and I'm the events director for the Dartmouth Political Discuss constitutional norms under President Trump. The ZPU is proud to host Michael Mills and Medi Hassan.
Founded in 2018, the Dartmouth Political Union is Dartmouth's preeminent nonpartisan studentled political organization dedicated to fostering open discourse and challenging preconceptions. To this end, we host speakers from across the political spectrum, organize both student and expert debates, and hold campuswide discussions on the issues that matter most. Our event tonight is the eighth in a series of expert debates, the DPU debate series, critical discourse in the age of disagreement. This series puts into conversation some of the most pressing and controversial topics facing our nation, promoting respectful discourse and controver and challenging preconceptions. This series was brought to campus with the support of the office of the president and Dartmouth dialogues. Tonight's event would not have been possible without the support of our donors and the office of student life, particularly president Block and Assistant Dean McKenna. Thank you.
Before introducing our moderator and our debaters tonight, I'd like to share the results of a poll conducted with the in-person audience following the monk debate format. In response to the question, has President Trump upheld the Constitution? 22% of you responded you believe that President Trump has indeed upheld the Constitution whereas 78% of you believe that President Trump has not. Today we are joined by Michael Nolles Husan. Michael Nolles is the celebrated host of the Michael Null show at the Daily Wire. In addition to podcasting, he appears regularly on television. In 2025, he became the first podcaster to attend a White House cabinet meeting. In 2017, Michael published the number one national best-selling book, Reasons to Vote for Democrats. Michael's first book with words, speechless, also reached number one on the National Best SEOs or 2020.
His writing has been featured in the Claremont Review of Books, the American Conservative, Fox News, and other outlets. Michael is a graduate of Yell University and has at universities and research institutes around the world.
Medi Hassan is an award-winning journalist known for riveting one-on-one conversations as well as his clubird of natural politics, current affairs, and global news. Medi is the editor-in chief and CEO of Zateo. Medi has recent was recently the host of the Medi Hassan show on MSNBC and Peacock. He was also a political analyst for MSNBC. Before that, Medi was a senior columnist and host of the podcast Deconstructed at the Intercept and a political commentator and presenter at Alazer. Medi is the author of three books. A biography of former UK Labor Party leader Ed Milliband, an ebook on the financial crisis and austerity economics, and he most recently authored Win every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking.
Moderating tonight's conversation is Ella Klinsky, a 26 from New York City studying politics, philosophy, and economics. Without further ado, please join me sending a warm welcome to Michael Nolles, Maddie Hassan, and Elinsky.
Well, thank you both so much for being here. Um, I can hope only hope that one day I have as impressive an intro as you guys both just had. Um, and thank you so much to the audience and to everyone watching online. Uh today this debate will fun is we will begin by doing a moderated Q&A where I will ask a question directed at one of you. We will alternate who begins every question and you will each have opportunity to give a two-minute response and then whoever started will have time for one minute rebuttal and then after the moderated Q&A we will switch over to audience questions. So start getting them ready.
Um so to start off before being specific issues I would like to start with foundational question. What in practical terms do you believe it means for a president to uphold or deviate from the constitution? And does this differ from upholding constitutional norms? If so, how? We'll start with you, Medie. And you can each give a twoinut response in a one minute rebuttal.
>> Uh yeah, so thank you for having me.
Great to be here. I'm actually disappointed with that vote of 7822 because you know what they say, the only way for me is down. Uh yeah, so good luck to me. Um, I would say constitutional norms very vague. I'm not sure actually what that means, apart from a historical precedent, what other people have done. And I think tonight, uh, I'm guessing, and Michael can tell me I'm wrong, that a lot of Michael's argument will be, well, other presidents did this, a lot of what aboutism, a lot of see what X did, see what Y did, see what Obama did, see what Biden did. And I think we have just have to be very clear here. We're talking about Donald Trump tonight. Donald Trump is suing generous. There has never been a president like him before, certainly not in our lifetimes. uh he's undeniably violating both constitutional norms i.e. presidents, but also the Constitution, the amendments, the articles of the Constitution in this country. He's doing it all the time. Uh, at this point, at this stage, anyone who tells you Donald Trump is not violating the Constitution is gaslighting you and or a member of his kind. Right? That's the facts are very clear. We can go through them in order. I mean, right now, if you look at the Constitution, Donald Trump is violating uh the appropriations clause, the emolements clause, the elections clause, the taxing and spending clause, the take care clause, the declare war clause. He's also violating the first amendment, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment, maybe soon the 22nd amendment as he suggested yesterday. And you know, yes, other presidents, to go back to your question, have violated norms. Other presidents have certainly violated laws of the constitution, but no president, certainly not in modern American history, has launched a multi-pronged acrosstheboard open assault on forget norms, on the amendments and articles of our constitution in the space of less than 18 months, right? Yes, previous presidents have violated perhaps a single constitutional amendment. Sure.
And been called out for it. But none of them none of them said they plan to terminate the constitution as Donald Trump once did. None of them said I don't know when they were asked as Trump was on Meet the Press last year, is it the job of the president to uphold the constitution? I don't know. He said, none of them declared themselves to be a king or a dictator even for a day. None of them were rebuked by their own vice president for trying to violate the Constitution and the rule of law. What did Mike Pence say? I know Michael's a big fan of Mike Pence, so I came specially with a Mike Pence quote. Mike Pence said, "President Trump demanded, I choose between him and our Constitution." If you are pressuring your own vice president to put you above your Constitution, you're not just violating norms, you're violating the Constitution, you're violating your oath of office. And it is very clear tonight, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the Constitution. Forget norms, let's raise the bar. to the Constitution, to the articles and amendments of the Constitution, to our rights and liberties, to our democracy.
And you don't have to take my word for that tonight. Just take Mike Pence's.
>> Okay. Mike, >> the Mike Pence standard uh of constitutional juristprudence. Okay. Uh wonderful to be here. Thank you all for having me. Uh you know, my my father is a Dartmouth graduate, so I hope I don't do the family too much shame this evening, but I don't think I will because we we have to. to Medy's bones have to narrow in on what exactly we're discussing. What does it mean to uphold the Constitution? And I uh certainly hope that my opponent here does not mean some kind of pedantic literalism that merely looks at the text of the Constitution, though we should certainly do that as well. But to uphold the constitution, it would seem to me, would entail upholding the what the constitution has meant, how the constitution has obtained, how it has in fact governed our country from the beginning through the present. And so uh I think my opponent here is is trying to uh break me away from citing historical precedent, how other presidents have upheld the constitution. And I think that's for very good reason. And if I were in your shoes, I would do the very same because when you look at at how the Constitution has in fact been put into effect in the United States, uh no reasonable person could could even suggest that Trump is not upholding it.
Uh you know, if we were to use this very limited, pedantic literalist constitution, then we would we would have to disqualify virtually every single president we've ever had from upholding the Constitution. all the modern presidents who have uh surveiled on on mass. Uh all of the the great presidents who have violated habius corpus who have interned people two two great presidents and two great parties the uh Republican Abraham Lincoln and the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. But going back even further, we would have to disqualify Jefferson for the Louisiana purchase. we would have to we would actually have to disqualify President Washington because President Washington declared neutrality in the French Revolutionary Wars and he was accused of violating the Constitution by no less a man than James Madison the father of the constitution but Madison gets his comeuppance because Madison would be accused of failing to uphold the constitution when he annexed West Florida. So I think when we take a look at what the constitution has meant, how it has been interpreted by the three co-equal government, adjudicated by the Supreme Court, laws enacted by the congress and then of course the executive power in the president, we will find that uh the constitution prevails. The warnings of the histrionic critics of President Trump who have been promising us that he's on the brink of shredding the constitution for about uh 10 years now, any day now, it's coming.
uh I think we will find that President Trump is indeed president and the constitution nevertheless and I think very much for that reason prevails.
Would you like to resp the best thing about social media is uh you can see what's going on in the world. And today I looked at Michael Nulls's tweet advertising this event and underneath the tweet Tim P another podcaster some of you may know posted what looked like a grock generated list of previous presidents who had violated the constitution. So I was able to prep myself for the debate knowing that Michael would all of those examples which he did. Thomas Jefferson Louisiana purchase ratified by Congress. Abraham Lincoln and FDR, Civil War and World War II. I don't see either of those things happening right now. We can go through the list. I've already conceded the previous presidents have done unconstitutional things, but Donald Trump has done it in a way that no other president has in a time frame no other president have without the excuses that other presidents could at least point to. World War II and the Civil War. You think that's what's happening in America right now when he goes after migrants in Home Depot parking lots? No, that is not what's happening right now. And let's just be very clear, Michael. If no one could dispute uh that he's upholding the constitution, he says histrionics. Do you know who Terry Douty and Nancy Brazil and Amy Centiv and Trevor McFaden and uh we go through the list. Daniel Rodriguez, sorry, excuse me, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Adamry, Eric Committee, KL Dudek, Justin Lang. We can go through the list. You know who these people are?
They are Trump appointed judges who have ruled against Donald Trump since last January in key constitutional cases.
First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, 14th Amendment. They've all said Donald Trump, what he's doing is violating the Constitution. These people are not liberals or Marxists. As Steven Miller says, they're not doing histrionics. As Michael says, they are looking at the Constitution. And even as MAGA judges, they're saying, "You've gone too far. You have violated these amendments of the Constitution." One, I mean, it's it's Trump judges saying this, not me. It's Mike Pence saying this, not me. Michael can make these arguments about liberal hyrionics. The problem is now is that people with eyes and ears who are not magapans see what is happening here. Donald Trump is doing things the president not done before, including ignoring a 90 Supreme Court ruling.
>> Okay. Um let's try our hardest in the next question to really adhere to tire regulations.
>> I will right there.
>> Oh, are you I saw it and defied it. You didn't.
>> Thank you so much for those thoughts.
That was really interesting. Um, Medie, I know you mentioned you talked about ICE immigration, and actually in 2025, the Department of Homeland Security reported record-breaking immigration and enforcement actions with over 600,000 deportations. Given this information, should undocumented immigrants have a right to due process under the Constitution? And if so, can deportations at the rate completed in 2025 be carried out without compromising access to hearing and legal representation? We'll start with you, Michael.
>> Uh, sure. Uh yes uh in in most cases theersers who are being deported are entitled to due process of the l. This is not the case necessarily when it comes to revocation of visas which are not some natural or constitutional right but in the case of the people who are being deported uh they are entitled to due process and they are received process actually from uh President Trump. Uh but not all due process is created equal and the immigration and uh nationality act is uh endured for some 60 years and in other forms for longer uh recognizes that there is a role for expedited uh deportations and uh it's not only President Trump who's insisted upon this but it's all of his recent predecessors going back to Bill Clinton and George Bush and Barack Obama who uh he contradicts himself sometimes. The Democrats when they want to appeal to the people who voted for the mass deportations and in the vote, they pretend that Barack Obama deported lots and lots of people, as many as Trump, but then when they want to say the deportations were unconstitutional, he really barely deported anybody. But Joe Biden did the same thing and and Trump as well. Uh my opponent says that no one has acted as quickly in these egregious displays as President Trump. That of course is facially absurd because President Trump is only the second president in American history to win a non-consecutive second term. So he's just had longer than any other president other than FDR who certainly did upset constitutional norms. But regardless, uh they do have due process. He is uh following that at the mass deportations really could be much larger. Uh let's not forget the great Democrat President Truman who deported uh near 3/4 of a million foreigners, Mexicans. Uh he did so with scant scanty uh due process of the law. That was in 52. follow Clint and Eisenhower 1954 deported 1.1 million in operation There was not even really the suggestion that either of those men had violated the law by deporting foreigners who don't really have any right to be here. So, President Trump is very much within the mainstream of of uh the Constitution in his deportations. And frankly, I wish you were more.
>> So, uh just to respond very quickly on on the on the on the main point about deporting foreigners, you said at the end who have no right to be here. Notice the phrasing. deporting foreigners have no right. How do we know they have no right to be here unless they have due process? That's the whole point. When you end up deporting American citizens, do you know they deported American citizens? Uh Terry Douty is a Trump judge who last year ruled that a 2-year-old American child who was deported with her mother against her father's wishes who was in the US. He said, "We just the administration just deported an American citizen without any meaningful process." That was a Trump judge's verdict when he heard what ICE had done. Right. In Minnesota, another Trump judge, her name is Nancy Brazil, appointed by Donald Trump. She said, "The government asserts the right to arrest thousands of people, put them in a overcrowded warehouse, and then deny them their rights to due process."
That's Nancy Brazil ruling against this administration on fifth amendment grounds. Again, Trump judges. Uh Steve Michael seems to be under some illusion that we're here to debate Democrats versus Republicans. Unlike Michael, I'm not a partisan. I'm not here to blindly defend uh Democratic presidents. I don't really care what Harry Truman did.
already conceded. Presidents have done bad things, but no one has done stuff like Trump. Let me give you one example.
18 months he's been in office. 18 months he's defied court cases, defied court orders in one in eight cases. AP just did a story, the Associated Press the other day. 31 court cases that he lost.
He's just ignoring the court orders.
Presidents haven't done that before.
They violated the Constitution. Then a court says, "Hey, you did something wrong." And then they fix it. They don't say f off to the judges. That is what this president does. Let me give you another example on the immigration front. Between October and February of this year, according to a recent study, hundreds of judges across the country ruled 4,400 times. I'm going to say that again.
4,400 times judges across this country ruled that Donald Trump and his administration were illegally detaining migrants in this country without due prison. 4,400 times. You find me another president, I'll wait here all day, who has done that in a 4-month period. 4,400 rulings by judges. By the way, in one in four cases where judges rule against Trump, these are Republican appointed judges. So this argument from Miller and Co. these are all Marxists. No, these are judges, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, saying Donald Trump's violating the law even when it comes to migrants, even when it comes to foreign students who have a right to be here and have a free speech rights under the Constitution. First amendment covers foreign students in this room. I hope foreign students here know that.
I'm a little confused by my opponent's argument because he tells me he's not a partisan and he's not here to debate Republicans and Democrats.
>> Almost defend >> almost the very first word out of his mouth was Mike Pence and appealing to all of these Republican judges. But uh listen, I think the Republican party is the worst party in the United States other than the Democrats. So I'm not here to uh as as my opponent does seem to be to go tit for tat on Republicans versus Democrats. We're here to talk about the Constitution and we can't talk about how the Constitution has actually governed the country unless we talk about the people who have who have uh affected it and those people are Republicans and are Democrats. But I I'm also confused by my opponent's uh reaction be and I think this might be because my opponent here has the misfortune up in a foreign country.
Well, he did not learn proper English.
You know, the United Kingdom, they don't. So maybe maybe he miss misperred when I spoke. But I I answered in the affirmative, of course, uh they're illegal aliens in most cases, have the right to due process, but they don't have the right to lengthy due process.
This has been uh precedent for many decades. And uh in all of those cases, my my opponent here cites the AP. This involves these uh problems with the courts generally involve delays more than outright refusals. And both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have also been guilty of seeing delays. So, uh, I I I I'm happy that in this one case, we are in agreement. The illegal aliens deserve due process, and now that they have it, they >> Dang it, Michael. That's the problem.
>> Okay. Well, again, thank you for that.
Um, remember, we're keeping this a nice, respectful debate. And >> there just preemptively tell you, we're keeping it respectful.
I would love to now talk. It is off of the mind for law and many etc. Um specifically President Trump's operation epic fury targeting Iran was carried out without pro prior offer refusing from Congress. This has reignited a long-standing constitutional debate over war powers. At the same time, President Trump has argued that involving Congress can pose operational risks, citing concerns about leaks and the need for speed in national security decisions. So the question is, how should we balance Congress's right to declare war with the pressful demands of secrecy and rapid response in modern warfare? And was Trump's action significantly different from that of your predecessors? Or does it reset a growing trend among the executive branch? We'll start with you.
>> Um, it's a great question and I'm glad you mentioned the speed issue. Uh, Michael mentioned speed a moment ago when it came to migrants. Uh, there's no speed issue. Donald Trump bombed seven countries last year after claiming to be the the peacemaker and insisting on a Nobel Peace Prize, but he got a FIFA one. Um, bombed seven kus uh which weren't attacking us. He started this year by bombing Venezuela and taking kidnapping the president of that country. Uh, again, not a country that was attacking us. There was no self-defense right, no UN resolution.
You can only go to war in this country uh under international law. Uh, is it self-defense or if it's authorized by the UN. Not the case in Venezuela. Not the case in Iran. Iran obviously was not attacking us. because we're in the middle of negotiations when we attacked them. Um, and Marco Rubio admitted we attacked them because Israel was about to attack them, not they were about to attack us. So, there was no speed. There was no justification and it is a good question about the balance. And again, I suspect Michael is going to say, well, all previous presidents have declared war without uh congressional approval, which isn't true, by the way. George W.
Bush, I'm going to go home and take a shower after this, but I'm going to defend George W. Bush. George Bush went and got an authorization for the use of military force against Afghanistan in 2001. He went and gotten authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.
Now, now I feel disgusting. But George Bush did that, right? Uh Barack Obama, when he was about to bomb Syria, tried to go to Congress, couldn't get the votes, did not bomb Syria. Now, Libya, Barack Obama did go and violate the Constitution and the War Powers Act. I will agree with that. But let me say a couple of things here. Number one, uh Barack Obama, he would argue, let me make the case for why it's different. To go back to your question, um there's no comparison between Iran and Libya.
First, there was a UN resolution for Libya. It was being enforced by NATO operation that the US joined to stop an imminent massacre of people in Benghazi.
That was the stated aim. No UN approval in Iran. No NATO mission in Iran. No imminent massacre of civilians. That happened in Danwi, not when we attacked.
Number two, Barack Obama claimed it wasn't a war because it was a limited military operation because no American troops were at risk and no regional escalation. Well, in Iran, 13 Americans dead, hundreds of Americans injured. Not just regional escalation, but global fallout, right? Americans suffering at the pump because of this war. Uh, and number three, I would say this. Look, this is undoubtedly unconstitutional against Congress. Donald Trump's admitted it. He said, "If I call it a war, I'll have to get approval." And then he called it a war. Um, but I will agree it was unconstitutional under Obama. I think it's unconstitutional under Trump. And I hope Michael will agree that we can both agree that in both cases, neither president was upholding the Constitution. I'll add that to my list of constitutional abuses by Donald Trump tonight.
>> Can you agree? Well, I'm just flat at my opponent uh continues to issue comparisons to past presidents, the tip tap between the Democrats and the Republicans. But you're right. I was going to bring up Libya. Uh because uh this involves not only the Constitution, but for the War Powers Act. One thing it doesn't involve though, I I'm a little little confused. Are we debating tonight UN resolutions? Are debating the NATO charter? I thought we were debating constitutionality, and I suspect Mr. Hassan is uh deferring to these other organizations because there was not a great constitute for what happened in Libya. The war powers act gives the president uh the ability to wage war without the approval of Congress with 60 days and then it can be extended for an additional 30 days to take it to 90. Now the president as the commander-in-chief of the military already has a constitutional predicate to lead the the military. Uh, however, what Barack Obama did in in Libya did not just go for 60 or 90 days. It went for eight months.
How about Joe Biden? Joe Biden waged war in Yemen against the Houthis. That went on for a year. I didn't hear peep from the people concerned about the shredding of the Constitution. But when it comes to the war in Iran, I'll I'll put my on the table. I was skeptical of the war before it began. I was skeptical when it was declared. I remain skeptical of it today. Happily for me, I don't need to convince you to support the war in Iran.
It's a combination of the liberal pronunciation and the conservative pronunciation, Iran and Iran. Uh, I don't need to convince you to support the war. I don't need to convince you to like Donald Trump. I don't need to to convince you this is a good military operation. I just need to show you that what Trump is doing is well within constitutional. It's in fact much more restrained than anything his recent predecessors have done. I'll remind you that the past presidents, George W.
accepted. We think of Ronald Reagan Grenada. We think of George HW Bush in Panama. But we can go back even further than that. We go to Harry Truman who waged a war in Berea that that went on for three years without any formal declaration of war. Uh so we can say that war is very bad and Trump shouldn't be in Iran. But uh the the topic at hand is whether or not Trump is within the constitutional mainstream. And at that he's actually quite moderate.
>> So uh 60 seconds. Let me just quickly respond. Uh number one, the bigger point, let me start with the bigger point, which is Michael's what aboutism tonight, which is keeping pointed to previous presidents. As I pointed out, the analogies work. They're not the same in many of the cases he's citing. And even if they were the same, all that would prove is that previous presidents didn't uphold the Constitution either.
The debate tonight is, is Donald Trump upholding the Constitution? We can all agree he isn't. Michael seems to agree he isn't. His only defense is, well, other presidents didn't uphold it either. Um, let's just deal with some facts. Uh the UN charter uh is not some foreign uh body. The UN charter was incorporated into US law as a treaty in a Senate vote in 1945 by a vote of 89 to2. It is the law of the land. Donald Trump violated the UN charter and violated international law and US law by bombing Iran. He violated Congress uh by bombing Iran and he violated the War Powers Act. By the way, Michael is completely wrong. The War Powers Act does not give you the power to play war without congressional approval. Exactly the opposite. It says if you go to war without congressional approval which is wrong. You have to notify us within 48 hours and then you have 60 days to stop which he hasn't done. He crossed 60 days last week. So he's doubly illegal. In fact Una Hatheraway of Yale University, professor of international law says this war is triply illegal because it's against UN charter. It's against uh US Congress's right under the constitution and it's against the war powers act.
That doesn't apply to Libya by the way.
Uh so Trump is unique there. And this idea that he was following Congress when he bombed Yemen last year, when he bombed Nigeria on Christmas Day, remember that? Probably not, because he bombed so many countries without congressional approval. The idea that he's upholding the Constitution while stealing Congress's right to declare war and bombing multiple countries is absurd.
>> I would like to stay in this foreign policy um avenue and talk a little bit about Venezuela. So, President Donald Trump characterized former Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro as uh quote terrorist and cited his indictment on drugrelated charges as justification for the U US military raid in Karac currently 2026 by framing military a Venezuela as a law enforcement action.
Does that expand presidential power in ways that unfairly bypass Congress or is that a necessary adaption to modern threats? We'll start with you. Uh, no.
It's uh certainly not outside the norms.
It doesn't expand presidential power.
Toppling dictatorships in Latin America is as American as apple pie.
>> Nice fish. I can't help but call out a rather dishonest tactic that my opponent here is using. He keeps me What aboutism? Because I'm making italical comparisons and invoking uh presidents of both parties. I would like to point out my opponent opened the debate. He made the first statement and he began by doing just that. So I and I think it's good that he did that actually because there is no way to understand what it means to uphold the constitution without reference to history. And in the case of Latin America, obviously our history goes goes back a very long way. The Monroe doctrine is a cornerstone perhaps the cornerstone of American foreign policy. And there were uh there was a legal predicate uh with the arrest of Nicholas Maduro. Uh in in the case of President Trump's military actions, by the way, it's worth observing that we never hear why he is engaging in these kinds of actions. In Nigeria, of course, why would you bomb Nigeria on Christmas Day might have to do with the genocide of Christians that is going on in Nigeria and America's role as the the global hegeimon, which again, like it or not, is um is pretty well predicated.
But uh but returning to the specific topic at hand, Nicholas Maduro, he it had been an aspect of American foreign policy for some 26 years to depose the regime in Venezuela. We had a a legal reason to do it. Not only were they stealing our goods, but they were also sending uh criminals into our country, helping to to flood our country, bas break our basic laws, and they were working with designated foreign terrorist organizations. So any way you slice it, we had the right to arrest him. uh um a lawless president would have just blown his head off as we've as we've done before, but President Trump did not do that. Uh Nicholas Maduro is enjoying due process of law in New York City, and it's probably a much nicer place than than Venezuela is. So, I I I look forward to uh I I look forward to uh you know, oil prices going down. I look forward to a flourishing country.
uh and and I look forward to the recognition that uh President Trump's policy in Venezuela is not only out of step with American constitutional norms, it is in fact part of American grand strategy dating back to 1999.
>> Prison in America is a nicer place than Venezuela.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Okay. Um let's just deal with some issues uh that you raised there. Michael made an admission he perhaps shouldn't have made there. Do you notice what he said about Maduro? He said a lawless president. His words. Am I being dishonest? Is that what you said? A lawless president?
>> Not with reference to Trump. A law. But you said a lawless president would have just killed him. That's funny cuz what did we do in Iran on day one of that war?
We kill We killed the leader of Iran. So by Michael's definition, Donald Trump is a lawless president. He went to war in Iran without congressional approval, without a UN Security Council resolution. As we've already discussed, he went to war in Venezuela without a congressional approval or UN Security Council resolution. The idea that he did it because the guy's a drug trafficker is hilarious. I'm no defender of Madura.
Let's see what the court says. But he pardoned another Latin American head of government who was in American prison for cocaine trafficking into the US. He pardoned him. So, uh, real consistency there when it comes to drug trafficking.
As for Nigeria, uh, number one, it's not a genocide of Christians. The first lady of Nigeria is a Christian. The defense minister is a Christian. uh terrorist groups like ISIS in Nigeria uh and Boo Haram kill Muslims and Christians alike.
It's a horrific violence, but it's not a Christian genocide. No one actually believes that. And even if it was, that's not the debate. The debate is did he have the legal right to bomb Nigeria or did he have to go to Congress, which he did not. He never goes to Congress.
And let's take a step back here. Let's get out of the weeds here. What is the common thread tonight? It's not about just migrants or free speech or students or wars. It is about a president who doesn't just test the limit of the law.
He puts himself above the law. Donald Trump doesn't recognize congressional restrictions. He doesn't recognize Supreme Court restrictions. Michael doesn't want to talk about a 90 Supreme Court ruling saying you got to bring you got to facilitate the return of Kilmer Argo Garcia. And Trump says to an ABC reporter, I could, but I'm not going to.
No president has done that before. You want to play whataboutism? And it is what aboutism. Tell me which president said after a 90 ruling, yeah, I'm not going to do it. There hasn't been one.
It's only Donald Trump who does this when it comes to war, when it comes to migration, when it comes to Supreme Court. That is why we're saying he does not uphold the Constitution because the evidence is clear. And if Trump were here tonight, he'd probably say, "Yeah, you're right."
>> Well, my opponent got a great laugh line just now, but unfortunately, he only did so by uh by misrepresenting the facts.
Okay. Uh when when one there's a difference between Venezuela and uh Iran, but uh furthermore, when we look at Iran, uh one, we were not the ones that killed the Ayatollah. That was the Israelis. And my opponent loves to complain about the Israelis. Perhaps he can do it tonight or another time, but that was the Israelis who did it. So we we do have to get basic facts right here. We provided air support. Trump took you know that he's publicly taken credit. If we could avoid the interruption, I just want to point out that your laugh line was based on a complete misunderstanding what actually happened. But I'll try to finish my point. Uh so one uh I I think that gives you a good sense of of where we stand on uh international expertise because also Venezuela is a different country from Iran. Iran has been waging war against the United States for some 50 years now.
They obviously killed over 200 American troops in the Bayroot barracks bombings and uh we have not retaliated for that in in a serious way. Iran since then has killed many American troops throughout the Middle East. There was a very strong legal predicate for uh taking out the Ayatollah even if you think it's not a credential thing to do. Whereas the very different intervention into Venezuela uh involved uh orders from judges involved the commission of crimes and now there will be a trial in in New York. So the the one uh similarity between the two and perhaps we can agree on this is that the the intervention into Venezuela was rather restrained. We didn't actually depose the regime. we just put a gun to the head of the deputy and said play nice or it's going to be you next. And uh I don't know that we're going to depose the regime in Iran either. Uh a a more expansive president might do that as Republicans and Democrats have done.
Trump once again I point out is so restrained here, so moderate, so well within the mainstream that we aren't even seeing regime change in either of those places.
>> Well, I think it was briefly mentioned the idea of emergency acts and extenduating circumstances. And I want to zoom in on that. Uh, President Donald Trump argued that his imposition of tariffs during liberation day was justified under the international emergencies economic powers act or the EA. However, the Supreme Court found the IEA does not authorize president to impose sweeping tariffs such as that of liberation day. With this in mind, how should we think about the limits of presidential authority when it comes to using emergency powers to shape major policy?
>> You. Okay, >> take it away.
>> Uh uh I'm going to cheat before I answer that question. I'm going to go back to something Michael said a moment ago because facts are matter. Uh the war on Iran is a joint US-Israeli operation.
The idea that Israel killed Kami on their own is absurd. If you look at the reporting, Netanyahu came to Trump, Trump's intelligence agency came and confirmed that Kina was in this building this time at this place. Do you want to kill him? So let's just be very clear that we are responsible for that. There was no international legal justification for it. Every international law professor says it was illegal. Every international lawyer says what happened in Venezuela was illegal. we defied.
There's a reason why our own allies don't back us in these places. Um, on emergency powers, uh, a great question.
We can actually talk specifics. You mentioned the Supreme Court. You'll notice, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think, and this is good faith, I swear, I don't think Michael has said the word Supreme Court tonight. Maybe I missed it. But let's talk specifics. I mentioned the 90 ruling by the Supreme Court on Kilmar Garcia. Trump just said f off. Um, the tariffs case in February.
We all knew tariffs are taxes. Everyone knew that. The Trump administration tried to lie to us and say they're not taxes. You know, the Trump administration wants to what's the phrase uh piss on your leg and tell you it's raining, right? It's not it's not a tax. It is a tax. Every economist agrees it's a tax. Every lawyer agrees it's a tax. So, the Supreme Court step in and say, well, you know, the taxing and spending clause says only Congress gets to lay and impose taxes, excises, imposts, and duties. And they strike down 63 63. Not even close. In February, the IEPA use by Donald Trump and say, "You need to refund the tariffs." By the way, the refunds begin next week. and 75,000 businesses have asked for refunds, which is weird because I was told China's paying the tariffs. But anyways, on the specific legal part of this, this is really interesting because Donald Trump used the IEPA, which is an act from the 1970s, 1977, which you can use in an economic emergency. Trump claimed the emergency was fentinel and migration and trade deficits. He claimed there was a national emergency because we have a trade deficit. Okay? And then here's the best part. He uses the act to go after his enemies like he always does. like he goes after his political enemies, he goes after his international enemies. He uses the act completely illegally as the Supreme Court's point out to basically settle scores. And we know this. How do we know this? Because Trump said so. When the Swiss president called him up to negotiate a reduced tariff, he raised the tariff and said, "I did it because she rubbed me up the wrong way." She was annoying. She was aggressive. So, we raised the taxes. The Brazilians prosecuted Y Bolsinaro. Good for them. I wish we had done it to Trump. Trump got mad and raised tariffs on American consumers to punish Brazil.
That's what the founders envvisaged.
That's what the founders thought they were doing when we were getting away from mad King George from my old country. Was that what they thought were doing? Giving the president the right to tax Americans because he gets pissed off by a European leader or a South American government. Of course, it's an abuse of power. Of course, it's completely unconstitutional. Of course, it goes against the vision of the founders. That is very, very clear.
I'm reminded of a meme that I see sometimes in Catholic circles. There's a meme of a guy goes into the confessional box. He says, "Father, I like to hop on one leg while eating a piece of pizza and honking my nose." And the priest says, "My son, that is very weird, but it is not a sin." And that's that's the example that uh Medi seems to be giving here. He says, "I really hate what Trump did on these tariffs." And and by one of the mechanisms by which Trump implemented the tariffs, the Supreme Court rejected and the administration being very well within the constitutional mainstream accepted that and then attempted to use other statutes to implement some other tariffs. Uh but nevertheless, they accepted the Supreme Court's rulings as as they generally do.
And and so uh it you might say I hate tariffs. You might say I don't like the way President Trump conducts diplomacy.
Uh I'm speaking to a group of Ivy League students. Obviously, probably many of you think that. But and there is nowhere that I see that to be unconstitutional.
I mean, for goodness sakes, the Republican party was founded on tariffs.
Uh Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Give me a tariff and I'll give you the best country in the world." The Republican party was protariff through the early 20th century. It flipped a little bit in the mid to late 20th century and now we seem to like tariffs again. Presidents of both parties levy tariffs through a variety of mechanisms. Uh you can say it's bad economic policy, but there's certainly nothing unconstitutional about it. To Medy's point that uh the companies are eating the cost of the tariffs in many cases. That is true. I know this because I own a company called Mayflower Cigars which makes great cigars and I highly recommend them. But we we did eat the cost of a lot of Thank you very much. We we did eat the cost of a lot of the tariffs. That's true. And I do wonder if as a political tactic, the refunds for those tariffs that are forthcoming might actually help juice the economy before the midterm. So, in a way, it's probably a good political tactic. But I've yet to see some argument that the the tariffs would have been unconstitutional. You know, the point that we've observed here is that the Supreme Court struck them down under uh under the the basis of a national emergency and the Trump White House complied. So, what are we even arguing here?
So, Michael, since you were the one who introduced the word a dishonest tactic, let me say it back to you. I think you're engaging dishonest tactics tonight by avoiding the substance of argument every time. It's not whether there's a genocide in Nigeria. The issue is, did Donald Trump have the constitutional power to bomb Nigeria?
No, it's not whether tariffs are good or bad. That's irrelevant to this debate.
Of course, tariffs are totally fine if Congress imposed them, not Donald Trump, because he didn't like the female leader of Switzerland as she spoke to him on the far. That is the key question that we're debating tonight. At every instance, every question that Ella has asked, every topic we've covered, I've pointed out that what he's doing is going against the Constitution, going against Supreme Court, going against Trump appointed judges, going against precedents that you like to cite, and you're dodging it. And you're saying things about, well, tariffs are part of our history. Okay, great. I've This is not about tariffs. It's about what Donald Trump did with tariffs. He took a power from the constitution, the taxing and spending clause, article one, section 8, only Congress shall have the power to lay or collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises, and he arrogated it to himself because he believes there are no checks on his power. He's on the record.
He said in 2019, I have an article 2 power to do whatever I want as president. That is not what article 2 says. He does not have the power to do whatever he wants. The founding fathers did not create America so that they could have another monarch, another king, another dictator. But no one seems to have given that memo to Donald Trump.
And when he lost at the Supreme Court, Michael said he accepted the decision.
Again, dishonest. He actually said that the judges were fools and lap dogs. He said Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch embarrassed themselves in front of their families. And he also said that the Supreme Court justices are weak, stupid, and bad. Again, point to me a president who said stuff like that in the modern era.
>> All right. Well, this is unfortunately our last moderated question before we go to audience Q&A, and I would like to bring it back closer to home. Um, you've both experienced elite higher education, except I would argue your father at Dartmouth experienced the best higher education.
>> And I'm sure you have seen the recent changes and dynamics between US universities and the federal government.
As debates over free speech and ideological diversity intensify on campuses, what role, if any, should the federal government play in ensuring viewpoint diversity? And what would the that role look like within constitutional limits? Um, I believe you started last time, so we'll go over.
>> Yes. I I actually don't love viewpoint diversity. I don't really care for it at all. I know that puts me outside the right-wing mainstream, but I'm perfectly fine with institutions having beliefs and standards and norms, and I think societies ought ought to have that. even the the notion of protecting viewpoint diversity is relatively recent comes from the mid90s in our juristp prudence.
But uh regardless I'm all for uh reforming the universities which are are failing in their chief missions. So I suppose the question is is President Trump suppressing the first amendment?
And uh I know that my opponent here on stage made a bold prediction, a promise really in March of 2024. He said that if President Trump were to be elected again, the the the stakes for the media were very very high. what would happen to the free press under President Trump.
You know, he's already threatening to do it. Uh, last I checked, unfortunately, the New York Times and the CNN CNN still get to publish. Uh, MSNBC has sort of gone downhill, but that's mostly because NBC didn't want to deal with them anymore. Uh, there's been really no threat to free speech whatsoever under President Trump. His critics are are allowed to uh threaten to kill him. I mean, in the case of Assan uh, one of the chief um, uh, critics of President Trump and one of the people who who's instigated violence was exalted by the New York Times just last week uh, after three assassination attempts. So, I I wish that frankly there were more limits on speech under Trump, but there there certainly is not. And then when you look at constitutional precedent, we of course have to remember that our second president of the United States, John Adams, uh passed the Alien and Sedition Acts uh much of which remains on the books today. Uh under Woodro Wilson, Democrat president, he imprisoned his political rival Eugene Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party. But that act has been used to prosecute people for speech for many many years including the uh socialist journalist the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses the leaker of the Pentagon papers and Bradley Manning even under Barack Obama. So uh we've seen a lot of curtailment of uh speech. I think a lot of that is within the confines of the first amendment and I wish that President Trump would tighten it up a little bit especially when it comes to those left-wing universities that receive federal dollars and certainly don't need to.
That is an amazing answer, Michael. Uh, both to deny that there's an assault on the free press and to say you wish that there was a bit more of an assault on the free press. Uh, let's just be very clear. Uh, let's just be very clear about where the facts are on this.
Michael thinks everything's fine. Okay.
Uh, Donald Trump has arrested Don Lemon.
He's raided the home of a Washington Post reporter. Uh, he has blocked AP from the Oval Office. Uh, he tried to defund NPR and PBS. A judge shot it down. Uh he's tried to ban flag burging burning which goes against Supreme Court case Texas versus Johnson from 1989. Uh he's tried to get a late night comedian fired because he didn't like his jokes.
Uh he has uh just go down the list when it comes to the free press. They tried to restrict reporters reporting at the Pentagon. A judge shot that down too saying you're not supposed to prescribe the press. Uh he has threatened the New York Times just the other day. He said they should be guilty of sedition because they reported on his Iran war in a way he did not like. Uh he has engaged in multiple lawsuits to try to intimidate and suppress the press. His defense secretary bragged loudly that CNN will be coming under new Trump Odish proTrump ownership. Um, just go down the list. Students, we talk about universities. We've seen students arrested for their speech, not for violence, for their speech. A Reagan appointed judge said the arrest of students like Mahmud Khal and Osa Og was a fullthroated assault on the first amendment. A Reagan appointed judge William Young said that, not some liberal Marxist. And as for you know threatening people's speech just the other day just a few months ago Donald Trump threatened six members of Congress with death for their speech. He said sedicious behavior punishable by death.
What did they do? They did a video saying hey military don't follow illegal orders. He said you should be killed for that. This is the most anti-free speech anti-free press viewpoint diversity administration in American history. It's led by a complete snowflake who can't tolerate any criticism from anyone.
Can't tolerate jokes from late night comedians. Think about the countries where comedians are taken out, taken off the airwaves because the leader didn't like their jokes. Are those constitutional democracies? Are those constitutional republics? Are those democracies that we think the Americans have? Think about that when you are when you vote tonight. Think about the kind of place where the president threatens students, threatens media organizations, threaten comedians, and threatens members of the other party while arresting journalists. The whole thing is absurd to suggest he's not an anti-FST amendment president. is actually at the core of my argument for why he's not upholding the Constitution because he's not upholding the First Amendment.
>> Michael, >> I think it's very telling that my opponent objects to the arrest of Don Lemon, uh, which was not in fact for free speech, but was because Don Lemon violated federal law and excuse me, and violated federal law and bragged about it on camera. Uh, he if you'll allow me to finish, I'm trying to engage in my free speech and there seems to be a heckler's ve.
my free speech too.
>> So what Don Lemon actually did was he violated a federal law, the Face Act. He uh walked in with an unruly mob to disrupt a religious proceeding. Uh this this terrorized children. He did all sorts of terrible things. Targeted Christians. No surprise that that would be given a pass from the man who denied the um genocide of Christians in Nigeria tonight. Noticing a touch of a trend.
But to bring us back to the point, the the uh defunding of PBS is somehow a a violation of the first amendment. I thought that the president and the congress had the right to uh well to take care to make sure that the laws are affected and executed and also uh congress has the power of the purse. I didn't know PBS and Big Bird were in the first amendment to the constitution.
That would be news to James Madison. uh when it when it comes to uh the the curtailment of reporters uh no one has been more transparent than President Trump. He answers the phone. He answers the phone when CNN journalists call him.
I would never do any such thing. But the president does that. He has open gaggles very contrary to his immediate predecessor Joe Biden. And so uh yet again uh President Trump has uh uh exalted the first amendment. In fact, he has embraced a free speech. He has embraced a free speech absolutist position. Even when it comes to flag burning, I'll just finish up on this point. My Medi Hassan points out that the flag burning was ruled uh a constitutionally protected right in 1989. Curious that it was in 1889 or 1789. It's a live question debated in American juristprudence. President Trump has issued an executive order to bring that challenge back to the court as he should and we'll all be debating it along the way because President Trump loves free speech.
>> All right. Well, we're going to pivot to audience Q&A. Uh we'll have two mic runners, one on either aisle. I will call on three people um to go to each mic runner. So, six in total. I'll start. I'll do you. Blue shirt, another blue shirt. There's a lot of blue shirts. a white shirt, blue shirt, red shirt, and then green shirt. So, three over there and three over there.
Perfect. If we have more time, we will take more student questions.
>> Great. Are you sure?
>> Yeah. So, thank you guys so much for coming today. Um, a lot of the conversation circulated uh particularly around Trump's second term activities. I was just curious um to the question of not whether Trump upheld the constitution in with regards to January 6th, but did he uphold constitutional norms?
>> Great question.
>> Is that for any one of us in particular?
>> Uh particularly you Michael, but either of you could answer off to Michael.
>> Sure.
>> Two minutes and two minutes.
>> Yeah, sure thing. Uh yes, he did. Again, I'm not convincing anyone that they should like love the horn hat guy.
That's not the basis on which you're voting this evening. Uh but there is a great precedent for uh contested elections in the United States. In fact, that's that's what the 12th amendment is about. Uh we've had a number of contested elections. Uh obviously 1860, the election of Lincoln, the Rutherford behaves which resulted in the compromise of 1876. Uh Bush vGore Al Gore refused to concede for months after that and there and there were some riotous events. So what occurred on at the capital on January 6 was very unfortunate though it's been much lied about. It's worth pointing out that the only person who was killed in political violence that day was a Trump supporter who was killed by a trigger-happy cop.
There's also a special irony to Democrats complaining about January 6th as the worst day in the history of the Sereni Republic. Uh because not only was it not the worst political violence in American history, it wasn't the worst political violence of that year. It followed the little prosecuted BLM riots uh that very same year uh and where Kla Harris and staffers for Joe Biden actually bailed the riers out of jail. But there's a greater irony which is that there have been five or six depending on how you score it attacks on the capital in American history.
Virtually all of them had been perpetrated by radical leftists, a Marxist Harvard professor, Harvard men of course, but then one in in 1971 uh was perpetrated by Bill Ays of the Weather Underground. Billys in whose living room Barack Obama launched his political career. So it's very unfortunate that that uh took place on January 6th. It's unfortunate that there were questions about the 2020 election.
Questions which arose because the election rules were radically changed in the weeks and months before the election in some cases unconstitutionally as in the case of mail and ballots in Pennsylvania. It's also a bit strange that Nancy Pelosi took responsibility for not having sufficient security at the capital that day. She did that on camera. It was actually a film that her daughter made. You can easily go look it up. Uh, and it's very strange that some of the capital police gave the leaders of the insurrection private tours of the capital, notably the aforementioned Horn Hat guy. But regardless, it's it's a great pity that it took place. I hope it doesn't take place again. And uh, unfortunately, it's also not totally out of the norm for the United States going back at least to the middle of the 19th century.
>> So glad you asked that question because January 6 hadn't come up and it was a big issue from Trump's end of his first term. Uh Mike Pence, we talked about Mike Pence, who Michael Why does Mike Pence keep coming out?
>> Because you're a fan of his and he was the vice president who didn't endorse the president for another term because he said he made me do unconstitutional stuff. Uh he wanted me to violate my constitutional oath. That's from Mike Pence's testimony. You want to dismiss it because you know there's comeback for it. You cite Al Gore. Al Gore never incited an insurrection. There is no precedent for January 6. There was We were used to peaceful transfers of power. Richard Nixon agreed even though he's probably robbed by JFK. Al Gore agreed even though he's probably robbed by George W. Bush. Donald Trump actually lost for sure and he still didn't accept it and incited a riot. Michael says, "Oh, Democrats thought it was the worst day in history." Um, do you know who said bar none was the most horrifying day in American politics in my lifetime?
>> Mike Pence.
>> No, I don't. You've guessed him, so I assume.
>> Guess again.
>> It was Ben Shapiro on January the 7th.
He said it was the most horrifying day that I witness in American politics a noted Democrat.
>> But I always said with that on January the 7th. So, let's just deal with some facts here. Uh, the people who attacked the capital were not going on private tours. They were not just a horn hat guy. It was people like Daniel Rodriguez who assaulted Michael Fenone, put him in a stroke, got 12 years in prison. The judge said he was an army of hate and violence. Donald Trump pardoned him. It was people like Andrew Paul Johnson who was just sentenced to life in prison for sexually abusing two children in Florida. Donald Trump pardoned him uh for January the 6th. Uh, he pardoned a neo-Nazi called Bradley Tyler Dyes who did a seek highle salute as he attacked police officers. These are the people Trump pardoned. Michael has never condemned Trump for that. Harry Sison asked Michael on his show earlier this year. Would you condemn Donald Trump for doing that and he wouldn't ask the question? He said, "I'll never condemn Donald Trump." Do you condemn Donald Trump for pardoning neo-Nazis, domestic abusers, pedophiles?
>> Well, well, hold on. Was he condemning?
>> I'm just asking a clarifying question about that guy. Was he one of the neo-Nazis who was getting three million bucks from the SPLC? Or was he a different neo?
>> Nice, nice diversion. Do you I'm not Harry Sison. I'll lose up my time. Do you condemn Donald Trump for pardoning neo-Nazis, violent criminals, people who assaulted 140 police officers on January the same? One last real cler. He won't answer. One one last real cler. I'll ask again. Do you No, no. Simple question.
Do you support pardoning the 600 people who were charged with assaulting police them for Daniel? He pardoned them for assaulting police. Oh, wait. Do you support Do you support three times he has an eye of those assaulting police?
Do you see a better Donald Trump for pardoning? I of 600 people assaulted police officers. Fourth time. Can you do it? I'm happy to I condemn pedophilia and sex will not lie with us.
>> Excuse me. We have a debate format.
We're going to stick to the debate format. We're not going to >> Betty doesn't want to stick to the terms of the question as I'm happy to answer on the substance of behavior.
>> You will do you administer squad cover.
>> So obviously Medie is being very very dishonest. President Trump didn't uh didn't pardon anybody for pedophilia or Nazis or whatever. If you'll allow me to finish. Uh so what what he pardoned them for is because there was a massive prosecution of thousands of people on January 6th that was uh politically motivated that was disproportionate because the federal government had let all of the leftist riers who unlike the January 6th killed dozens of people and resulted in over a billion dollars worth of property damage let them off the hook and in fact raised money to bail them out of out of jail. And so because of the unjust prosecutions where you had Midwestern granny's who were not pedophiles or Nazis, but who were eccentrically excuse me, who walked around the capital despite all of the lies suggesting that police officers were killed. That was not true. The coroners proved that. Uh so he he he recognized that there was disproportionate prosecution. The same goes for the the pro-life granny's who were arrested by Joe Biden who were imprisoned for praying at abortion clinics. President Trump pardoned them.
Now on the pardon power, there are lots of bad pardons that go on. Joe Biden uh took it to an egregious degree, but the pardon power is absolute. And if we're here to defend the Constitution, we would have to defend the plain words of article 2, which say the president has the pardon power.
>> Okay. Thank you both. Um I appreciate the sentiments. We're going to keep interruptions to a minimum. Would you >> Why? To be fair, it wasn't inception. I gave up my time to ask a question. He didn't answer it six times.
>> Okay. First off, Maddie, big fan. Big fan. I love your work. uh to Michael I would like to say so there is a new I think then with your uh assault on free speech and how we should in your words tighten uh there's a new act proposed by Congress the Mamani act if are you familiar with that >> I'm not but I like this >> so it is the it is the measures against uh measures against Marxism's defenders and noxious Islamists act uh and it and it essentially extends the power of the federal government especially by Trump to deny citizenship to deny uh entry and to essentially deport to go to these ICE, you know, horrible camps any person who is an radical Islamist or a communist or any other sort of leftist gives very broad powers. Do you support that? And is that constitutional at all?
Well, I love the acronym and I I take it from your description of the act when you mentioned that this would be a way to uh deport people, to deny them visas, to deny them entry to schools or that the the people we're talking about here are not American citizens. So, it's really crucial to to recognize here a point that has been glossed over, which is that when Medi Assange says that the Trump administration is arresting students for stating their opinions, even if they're radical leftwing opinions, he's not arresting American citizens, what the Secretary of State came out and said is that they are going to revoke or deny visas to people who have views that are contrary to the American national interest, which is not only entirely constitutional, that is just plain common sense. So you don't want to bring in foreigners who have no right to be in your country who who actively undermine your society. I mean that's the most basic charge of immigration. So and and then to your point you say uh we're going to even deport some people. Well to deport those people implies that they have no right to be here. That is they're not American citizens. And in that case yes I favor deportations quite broadly. And uh the fact that it has that beautiful acronym is a cherry on top. I am calling with with very little knowledge beyond what you've just suggested about the act. I am calling on Congress today to pass it to pass it twice. Can I respond? Um so yeah, it's interesting that Michael again says Betty Assan thinks uh foreign students having their rights deprived.
No, William Young, a veteran Reagan judge, said it was a fullthroated assault on the First Amendment. He said, "I'm going to answer the constitutional question posed here, which is, do legal immigrants have the same constitutional rights to free speech as citizens? Yes, they do." He said, "These are his words.
Yes, they do. There is no invidious distinction that Trump makes. His words, jurist prudence, history does not back that." In fact, go back to 1945 Bridges versus Wixon famous Supreme Court case where they said, "Immigrants here in the country have the same first amendment rights as everyone else." And these are not students who are, you know, trying to undermine America. Romea Osterk is a student from Turkey who wrote an op-ed in a newspaper saying, "I think my university should divest from Israel."
That's what she wrote. Said nothing about the United States of America. So nothing violent. Masked men grabbed her off the street. Have you seen the video?
It's one of the creepiest things you will ever see. A bunch of masked men with no IDs grabbed this young woman off the street and they imprisoned her. And my goodness, it's totally constitutional. Actually, the law that Rubio is citing, it's 1952 law obscure amendment. Do you know who said it was unconstitutional? A woman called Judge Marian Trump Barry. Donald Trump's late sister is the only judge to ever adjudicate on this. And she said, "I think it's unconstitutional." Never reached the Supreme Court, but it's the only time an American judge has looked at it and they think what Marco Rubio is doing, Trump's late sister thinks it's unconstitutional. A Reagan judge thinks it's an assault on the First Amendment.
So, let's not stop pretending this is about the left and about Muslims and about socialists. No, it's not. I've already pointed out Mike Pence disagree with you. Ben Shapiro disagrees with you. Reagan judges disagree with you.
Trump judges disagree with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And I hope the audience tonight disagrees with you.
respond.
>> Yeah, I maybe Mike Pence should have come here tonight. I don't know. Why am I just to clarify like I like Mike Pence as much as the next guy, but I'm not like he's not my bosom buddy. I don't know. We don't sit up text. I don't know why he >> was only the vice president for four years.
>> Medi keeps bringing Donald Trump.
>> But anyway, I guess the question I would ask for Medy and just as just as you offered me some of your time, I'll ask you this. Do you think that foreign students who would apply for a student visa to the United States, do you think that they have some right to that visa?
>> No, I don't think they have the right to the visa, but I agree with the question.
But I agree with the question. Hold on.
No, I'm not claiming my time.
>> No, it's not. We're not in Congress. I'm answering the question. No, it's not a right to have a visa, but it is right to have free speech once you're in the country under the First Amendment. Per Justice Murphy's ruling in Bridges versus Wixon 1945. Once you're in the same rights you're taking up my time attempt because you're filibustery we're not >> as you did it your question do you support do you Donald Trump's part of >> res seven time >> we will reset your time conservative the >> appreciate that this is why you know just to loop back a little bit this is why it's so funny that Medi Hassan takes issue with the arrest of Don Lemon because Don Lemon was arrested claiming first amendment rights but you don't have a first amendment right when you were actively violating the first amendment rights of others which is something that Medi is clearly very familiar with uh in in Medi has just admitted the point and he keeps dishonestly trying to conflate legal immigrants in the United States with students who are here on visas from some foreign country and but he's already granted the premise and he's granted the point which is that the students do not have a right a constitutional right >> couple words in my mouth they do I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm telling the truth to the students that the a foreign student who would like to study in the United States at Dartmouth or elsewhere has no right to do so. No natural right, no constitutional right, no legal right to that visa. That visa is a privilege granted to the United States. Medi and others might want to uh blow open our borders and tell every other >> that they're permitted to come here. You already granted the point Medi that a foreign student who wishes to come here does not have a right to >> one state and I they have first amendment of rights which you keep ignoring because the Supreme Court is against you Michael as it has been all night.
>> All right. Thank you for your time. In the in the interest of time, we're going to move on to the next question.
>> Hello. Um, I have a couple Well, I have one main question, but I think that it lends to a lot of what this argument has been about and I think a lot of where the argument has gone instead of maybe where it should have been. I'm been really interested and I'm curious to know because Medi as you pointed out there are some moments where the argument has moved as opposed to does the president have the right is it constitutional that the president say take Nigeria for example did he have the right to strike Nigeria instead the question has become is there a genocide in Nigeria should the president have you know stricken Nigeria I'm curious to know whether or not it is constitutional. If there is a matter say in Nigeria or elsewhere where the president might personally view um there to be some kind of situation, do you believe that the president does have the right or in some cases should in your personal opinion violate the constitution? Do you believe that there are moments where the president has that right or should?
And following that, what is the point of the constitution if you believe that the president should or has the right to violate it?
>> Was that question for me or Medie?
>> Uh maybe for you, but >> yeah. Yeah, sure. Well, I I suppose I just disagree with the premise, the suggestion that the pre the president taking a military action around the world uh violates the Constitution. It does not. In the case of an intervention in Nigeria, one could make an argument that it pertains to American interests because we're the global empire and we have interests around the world. But but one could also just make that it's a humanitarian intervention. And indeed that was much of the argument that uh presidents have made for for many decades now. Uh Barack Obama made it, Bill Clinton made it. Um and furthermore, uh you know, the the Monroe Doctrine, which we were discussing earlier in the case of Venezuela, which has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since the early 19th century, uh does not have a a a literal direct uh constitutional predicate. And yet, no serious person would suggest that it's somehow contrary to the constitution. So, I I I think it would be it would be contrary to the constitution if the president went toppled the regime in in Nigeria and made it the 51st state, which I don't think any of us want to do. uh or if the military action went on for more than 60 or 90 days without authorization from Congress as we saw in the cases of Barack Obama and and Joe Biden. But uh a relatively minor military action for national interest or even for humanitarian reasons is is well within the constitutional mainstream. There's nothing prohibiting the president from doing that and and indeed he is he has the right to do that as the commander-in-chief of of the military.
Um, you know, I guess one issue, one topic that we haven't really gotten to, but it it does sit at the at the foundation of a lot of the debate tonight is is what the executive really is. Uh, and and so this gets back to article 2, section one, which in the very first line explains what the executive is. And and our our framer said that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. Uh, the courts have ruled on this many times. Um, you know, there are all sorts of interesting discussions about inspectors general and all all uh other branches of government trying to involve themselves in the executive branch. But time and time and time again, we recognize that the executive has broad authority. And uh in our day and age, a lot of people are worried about an overreach from the executive. But I I don't think that's really serious. Uh first of all, Congress gave away a lot of its authority by establishing the agencies in the executive 100 years ago. But furthermore, if any branch is going to be uh overstepping, it's probably going to be the the judiciary. So, he has a constitutional predicate to do it.
Again, we can we can disagree over the prudence of a strike on Nigeria, but that's not the topic on which you're voting tonight. The question is very basic. Is Trump within the constitutional mainstream? And the answer is yes.
>> That's not the question of if he's within the mainstream. It's is he upholding the constitution? Yes or no?
And he's clearly not. Uh what's interesting is Michael again made a weird concession there. He said he hasn't gone over 60 days in the case of Nigeria, but he has in Iran.
>> He hasn't.
>> He has in Iran. Crossed he crossed it last Friday, >> but I know I know I struggle with British English. You maybe struggle with math. Don't worry. Ces was last Friday.
>> We crossed it.
>> Donald Trump wrote a letter saying hostilities are terminated. And then on Monday there was an exchange of fire between America and Iran, which is a reminder of what a lie and a fooly is.
Um so no, he crossed 60 days. It's an illegal war. It was already illegal war.
Now, it's a doubly illegal war under the War Powers Act. Um, and J, I'm glad you raised the issue of executive power. I'm glad you raised the question of what is the Constitution for. I'm not a I'm not a blind fan of everything in the Constitution. No one is, and we shouldn't be. There's amendments for a reason, Michael. You want to change the flag burning thing, right? You want an amendment to change it.
>> We don't need an amendment to change it, >> but you want to you want to get rid of that mind if there were clarification here and and many of us on the left would like some reinterpretation of Second Amendment, some kind of I think that's fair to say. Um, but the point is you do it the right way. I'm not saying that Joe I I'm not a fan of Second Amendment. doesn't mean Joe Biden can come and just strike down the Second Amendment. By the way, Donald Trump came in and said, "You can't have guns," he said after Alex Prey was killed. Can you imagine what Michael would have said if Joe Biden had said, "You can't have guns." By the way, notice that Republicans are always fine with executive power when it's a Republican in the White House. When it's a Democrat in the White House, they're screaming from the hilltops about overreach. Uh Ted Cruz called Barack Obama a tyrant.
Mike Cuckabe called him a dictator. Uh Donald Trump said Biden was leading a Gestapo administration. They said Obama did too many executive orders. Biden governed by executive order. Well, Donald Trump has done a hundred more executive orders in 18 months than Joe Biden did in four years. He's done almost as many executive orders in 18 months as Obama did in 8 years. So, this nonsensical position that we're fine with executive power. No, you're not.
You're fine with a Republican dictator.
You just don't want Democrats to have any power. And I think you should be honest about that. People would have more respect for your views on the Constitution if you were consistent and not just a partisan. Well, it's interesting that Medi brings up President Trump's executive orders because I seem to recall a journalist by the name of Medi Hassan who in early 2021 was begging on television for Joe Biden to issue many many more executive orders. Yeah. And I I believe the the Mr. Hassan was was asking him to follow the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt who issued thousands of executive orders which were so relentlessly >> and your side was attacking Biden for that. That's my point that he wanted more from him. But Trump has exceeded Biden and Obama and you were the guys you want more. You're saying like what dare you say judges overstepped but do you want more in22 when a Florida judge shot down the mask mandate co mols tweeted since we're quoting each other Michael Nolles tweeted on 2022 the hero judge struck down Biden's mask mandate.
When you're a Republican judge who strikes down a Democrat's policy you're a hero. When you're a Republican judge who strikes down a Republican president as many have. I've named them all tonight. Oh then it's judicial overreach. See the double standard.
Yeah, this is once again Michael's time defending the first amendment yet again.
Uh so anyway to to the point I was saying Medi was very very upset that Joe Biden wasn't wasn't issuing more executive orders and he said he has to follow FDR who issued thousands which were so relentlessly struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional that FDR promised to uh totally reconstitute the court for the first time in 70 years and o only because a judge backed down uh was was that averted? Uh, nevertheless, you make a good point.
Yes, Republicans and Democrats are different. Uh, their policies are different. Some are good, some are bad.
I want more of the good ones and fewer of the bad ones. But, uh, on the issue of executive authority here, there's really no question. You say, "I'd like to amend the Constitution." I don't think we really need to. And on this point on the unitary executive on the on the fact that the executive power is vested in the president of the United States that is clear as day from the uh constitution from now 250 years of jurist prudence almost 250 years of jurist prudence and then all the way up to even the postwatergate reforms inspector general act which which acknowledges that very fact and to supreme court cases since then. So the the executive does have a lot of authority. I don't like it when Democrats win it and and affect it, which is why I think we need to win elections.
>> Thank you for those thoughts.
Right. The next question.
>> Hi, Michael Amedi. First of all, I want to say thank you so much for coming uh up here to handover to debate. Um this question is directed at you, Michael. I wanted to say that as a Republican, I am naturally inclined to agree with you that Donald Trump has acted within uh constitutional norms, but for his behavior leading up to but not including January 6th. And I wanted to ask you, how do you reconcile his behavior, particularly with regards to trying to influence uh Brad Raffensburgger and secure electors from Georgia uh with the constitutional uh separation of powers between the state and federal government, especially with the right of states to um conduct their own elections? Yeah, a really good question because again, happily, my uh I hope impending victory in the debate does not rest on what you think of any of these individual actions. Uh it it's really just a question of is Trump upholding the Constitution and what that even means, which is of course how the Constitution is obtained throughout history. And so there there was a lot of uh predicate for this for contested elections. I guess the first question you have to ask is was there reason to be a little skeptical of the presidential election in 2020? And I think the fact that they changed all the voter rules and took away a lot of the safeguards and in some cases violated a state constitution as we saw in Pennsylvania and then delayed the counts and I I think there was at least reason a reasonable person might have some questions about about the election. Uh was this the first time in American history that there were lawsuits over presidential elections? Certainly not.
Was this the first time in presidential history that there was a question over who the legitimate electors would be?
Certainly not. Indeed, our constitution uh preempts that and and recognizes that there will be questions. That's the the whole point of the 12th amendment. So, uh uh again you know the President Trump's rhetoric was much more moderate actually than he's given credit for even on the day of January 6th himself. Part of the reason that the the Democrats kept failing in all of these cases. One, he was obviously exonerated his at his impeachment trial over this. But then two, they couldn't kick him off of the ballot when they tried to uh undermine democracy on the this insurrection point. Uh that that too was thrown out because he he didn't do it. and uh his words were very clear which is he said you should peaceibly assemble. This was well within the Brandenburgg uh uh standard on on speech and violence and uh so you know his his actions uh could be uh imprudent. His actions you could say were reckless. You could say his actions did not have a reasonable probability of success. Uh you could say all of those things and all of those criticisms are perfectly fine to make.
The one thing you can't say is that it's it's out of the norm for for constitutional uh behavior in the United States.
>> Can you imagine going back to January 6, 2021 and hearing Michael say that? No one in America believed that. The Republican party didn't believe that.
Kevin McCarthy didn't believe that. He said it was an insurrection.
>> What did Mike Pence?
>> Mitch McCanded that I put the Constitution above Donald Trump. He he became the first modern vice president not to endorse the president because that's what he thought of as a threat to the Constitution. Ask yourself, who knows Trump better, Michael Nolles or the people who served within much of his first cabinet who refused to endorse him a second time.
His chief of staff, his defense secretary, his national security fire, >> his vice presidents. He also appointed them and said they were amazing when he appointed them. Um, so let's talk about January 6th. In the run-up to January 6th, there was a fake elector scheme.
Multiple people indicted. Trump's own lawyer was convicted for that. Michael says, well, people in, you know, it was thrown out of court. Let's be clear, Donald Trump never saw the inside of a courtroom for his crimes on January 6 because Joe Biden and Merrick Garland were not like Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and didn't go after their political opponents. They were super slow. They dragged their feet. They appointed Jack Smith 667 days after they came to office. Compare that to Donald Trump who's gone after John Brennan and Jim Comey and you all the rest. Tish James, all thrown out by judges saying this is ridiculous. Um this is the difference.
Democrats weaponizing government. Some of them say we wish Trump got away with it because he never saw the inside of a courtroom. Jack Smith had to end all that because Trump got reelected and DOJ guidelines say you can't indict a sitting president. So we don't know. But we saw the evidence. We know that Trump was lying. Trump knew he was lying. If you and I called Brad Raffensburgger and said find us 11,000 votes, we'd be in prison. Let's just be very clear about that. The only reason he's not is because he's Donald Trump. He committed multiple crimes in the run-up to January 6. He told his DOJ, he wrote a note to his DOJ, just say it's corrupt. say it's stolen and me and the Republicans in Congress will deal with it. That's on the record, right? People around him say, "We told him it wasn't stolen." He knew it wasn't stolen. Kellyan Conway has said that. And yet he still did this. He still incited a riot at the capital and 140 police officers were injured. And Michael will not say tonight whether it was wrong of Donald Trump to pardon 600 people who were charged with a talking granny.
>> He's not wrong. I totally support the pardon.
>> You support pardoning men who assaulted police officers like Daniel Rodri? I >> I support the pardons for January 6th.
Do you support pardoning Daniel's pedophilia? I oppose beating your Daniel Rodriguez. Do you support pardoning Daniel Rodriguez who assaulted a police officer?
>> I support for January.
>> Why? Why do you support pardoning Daniel Rodriguez?
>> Well, as I explained in my room, >> you talked about granny's. I'm talking a man who was sentenced coming to rescue eight times. I tried.
>> Yeah. And I answer your many will allow me to have my minute. Uh so Medie just said something that the Q&A is before. We always >> the other two can go to you first.
>> Yes. They have too many questions for me is the problem. So uh the the even just said something yet again that is not true. Medi just said that President Trump never saw the inside of a courtroom for his actions on January 6th. Medi must be suffering from a little bit of amnesia because last time I checked, President Trump was indeed tried for his supposed crime on January 6th. He was tried in precisely the way a president of the United States is tried.
He was impeached for it and then he was exonerated. He was not convicted for the crime at the the Senate trial. But to your point, but to your point to your point, uh once he left office, he was once again he was once again prosecuted for this. Jack Smith went after him as you rightly point out. But you're conflating two cases because then he was it also went to trial one more time when the states tried to kick him off the ballot for supposedly committing an insurrection. Both of those cases flopped just like the impeachment flopped where he was exonerated. So three times this was brought this was brought to courts, one being the special court of the impeachment court. Three times it was brought to courts and all three times >> there was never a trial. Michael, you are lying. If you say there was a trial of John on January, >> you might not be familiar with our Georgia and in Washington Divas and in Florida there were no trials. It is a lie to say there was a trial.
>> Wait, we have time for two more audience Q&As's. We'll start with Medie. Um I think we're going to start over here.
>> Awesome. Yeah. And I think we might be nearing one question. Yeah. And um Okay. Well, >> uh, Medisov, it's a privilege to see you speak here in person. Uh, my question given the president very recently, Donald Trump posted a picture of himself, an AI generated picture of himself depicting himself as Jesus. My question to Michael first, giving the Senate judiciary hearing recently. Do you believe that Donald Trump can run as for a third term and be elected as president? Yes or no given the 22nd amendment? And the response I'd love from Medi is what would bypassing said amendment look like given the president said what was sorry what would bypassing said amendment look like given the president said by this administration >> and sorry just before you guys answer can we also have people fill out the post debate poll as we talk um to debate the winner. Thanks so much.
>> The my greatest fear is 22nd amendment violation. I've said that for a while.
I'm on record. I'm not saying Donald Trump will do that. I don't do predictions anymore. I said he wouldn't win in 2016. I was wrong. I don't do political predictions. But that's my greatest fear. It is it is it a possibility that he will do it? Sure. I take him literally. I take him seriously. He said it just again on Monday. Oh, he's just joking. They say and then he goes on meet the press. He says, "I'm not joking. There are ways to do it. There are ways to do it. It's a violation of the 22nd amendment." Steve Bannon says, "We're working on a way to do it." Look, this is my big fear that this guy is a wannabe dictator. To quote Judge Michael Ludy, one of the most famous conservative judges in America, he is a wannabe tyrannical king. He wants to stay in power. He thinks he is God's gift. Uh he literally Michael earlier very shamefully tried to insinuate I'm anti-Christian because I don't accept there's a Christian genocide in Nigeria and yet he supports a man who literally portrayed himself as Jesus blasphemously sacrilegedly. A man who attacks the pope. Michael, are you Catholic?
>> I am.
>> Yeah. Man who attacks the pope. I've never attacked the pope like Donald Trump has. But such is partisansship. A hell of a drug as they say that he won't criticize Donald Trump ever for attacking the pope, but he'll attack me for supposedly being anti-Christian.
Trump literally portrayed himself as Jesus. Then pretended, said, "I thought I was being a doctor." Okay. Uh, biggest liar in the world. Attacked the Pope, lied about the Pope. You know what he said on Monday? He said, "The Pope says he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
I wonder, will Michael condemn Trump for lying about the Pope? The Pope has never said Iran wants to have a nuclear weapon. Donald Trump lied on Monday. You can see if Michael will answer that question tonight. I suspect he won't.
Cult. He can't criticize the dear leader. So, it's a real problem that we have a president who's attacking Christianity because he sees himself as Lord God. He once said, uh, I'm the he once tweet retweeted someone and say he's the king of the Jews, the lord of the world, or whatever it was. Uh, he's putting out pictures of himself as Jesus. And yes, the 22nd amendment is an issue. A man who did not accept a peaceful transfer of power in January 2021. Why would he accept it in 2028?
Every time he's ever lost election, he claims fraud. When he lost to Michael's good friend Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucuses in 2016, he said Ted Cruz stole it. He accuses everyone. I don't know what happened in his childhood, but he really cannot handle any kind of defeat.
He's a migant narcissist. He's power crazy. And yes, there is a very real risk that just as in 2021 he tries to stay on an office in 2028. The fact that we even having this conversation is a reason why you should vote against this motion and say he's not upholding constitution because he's considering violating the 22nd amendment. That itself should be enough for Michael to lose this debate.
>> I'm trying to track what the question was because media took us on a journey.
It involved the pope. It involved me.
The question might add Christianity to the 22nd amendment.
>> 22nd amendment. That's >> oath. Oath was in the question. I know you don't want to talk about the pope.
>> I no well I was very pres I was very glad when the president took down the uh the image ai you know being a little confused about things tonight seems to think I won't criticize the president. I did specifically uh point out that that was a sacriigious.
>> Did he lie about the popes at one had a right time to answer? Are you afraid that I'm going to >> Did he No, you didn't answer my question. Did he lie about the pope?
>> I'm answering wants nuclear weapon.
>> I'm not answering your question. is going to criticize Trump for that.
>> So anyway, as I just pointed out, I very publicly criticized President Trump over that post and was actually featured in the international media for it and very happily uh very happily President Trump took down the post. I was I was very glad with that. He's also moderated his his comments on the Pope which I think is the right thing to do though. May I ask to speak ever in this debate? Mr. Hassan, >> you've actually spoken more of you.
>> It's unbelievable. So anyway, uh there have been uh many tensions between emperors and popes going back to at least Pope Galacius the 1 in the fifth century. So I'm not surprised that the president's fighting with him a little bit and I think the president's Presbyterian maybe will make him Catholic by the end. To the actual question that was asked before Medy's very rude interruption. Uh the question was will President Trump violate the 22nd amendment and Medi who's made many very false predictions including that the free press would disappear were Trump re-elected. Uh Medi says that he's he won't leave office. And uh I' I'd just like to point out we know that he will because he did he did leave office.
This is not an academic question or hypothetical. He did he left office on time. He contested a dubious election and then he just left office on time and it was all just normal. And uh to the point of the 22nd amendment, there's one president who's who violated the spirit of that amendment and maybe the spirit of the constitutional norm. And that is a Democrat president FDR uh who did make himself the American monarch and stayed in power till he died. But but I don't know that we even really need to knock FDR for this. If the debate were did FDR violate constitutional norms, I guess we would say he did. But it's about Donald Trump and uh it's a fact that at the end of his life, President Reagan was openly campaigning in the pages of the New York Times to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
You'll recognize it's the 22nd amendment. It wasn't in there at the beginning. It's relatively recent. I think that we do have term limits. The term limits are at the ballot box. And I actually think that that the 22nd amendment is contrary to American democracy. But much as I would like President Trump to have a third, fourth, or fifth term, I don't think that it's going to happen. We will not get Octavian Augustus Baron Trump to come in after him. Uh President Trump will leave office at the end of his term. Uh because that is very much in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which I hope I've demonstrated to you. President Trump has upheld.
>> So, a couple of things. I never said you didn't criticize the Pope about the image. I I see your tweets. I know you did that. I said you won't criticize him for lying about the Pope yesterday. Do you agree he lied about the Pope on Monday and said he wants Iran to have nuclear weapons? Do you agree that's a lie? The Pope doesn't want Iran to have >> I don't think that the Pope wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. So, Trump lied.
>> I think that President Trump and the Pope are having a disagreement from the within the basis of >> Don't do it. This is what the definition of a cult is. Ladies, ask me to criticize Barack Obama's lies. I will happily >> I've just pointed out a but he's not lying because I think he believes it.
>> Okay, he doesn't believe it.
>> I think he does believe it.
>> This the great Trump defense for 10 years. Um since we're doing predictions, I already admitted my predictions are bad. But relevant to this conversation, you had a great prediction in the summer of 2024. You tweeted, "There's no reason to believe. There's no evidence to suggest that Donald Trump won't accept the results of this election. The same can't be said about his opponents." That take aged like milk in a hot desert as we saw in January 6. The idea that oh, he left. Yeah, he left after exhausting every violent and nonviolent option.
There were guardrails. There was a guy, we haven't talked about him tonight, called Mike Pence who actually stood up to him. You think JD Vance is going to stand up to Donald Trump in 2028? You think the man who threw his own wife under the bus is going to th stand up to Donald Trump in 2028? No. There are no guardrails this time. There's no Jim Mattis. There's no John Kelly. There's none of the people from the first time who were semi adults in the room.
There's Cash Patel, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and JD Vance. If that fills you with confidence on January the 6th, 2029, go for it. Some of us will still be skeptical about a man who completely utterly is obsessed with power. Says, "I have a second amend. I have a article 2 right to do whatever I want." Reposts quotes from Napoleon saying, "If you save your country, you violated no laws." Yeah, you have. You're not above the law. Who says stuff like, you know what he said to New York Times earlier this year when he was asked about international law? He said, "My mind, my morality, that's the only thing that can stop me." Who talks like that? Autocrats talk like that. Dictators talk like that. If Barack Obama had talked like that, these guys would have gone nuts.
But you know, he saluted a military guy while selling your coffee and that was a huge scandal. He also Barack Obama, right? And >> Donald Trump has compared himself to God. In fact, he's reposted people and he posted an image of himself as God.
Classic Michael. Oh, he took it down.
But why did he put it up? You'll never criticize him for the original ad.
You'll praise him for taking it down.
And Pope is a good example. He cannot handle any criticism. If it's a Supreme Court justice, they're a lap dog and a fool. If it's the Pope, he wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. He recognizes no opposition. That is why he is so generous. That is why George Bush recognized opponents. Have to take a second shower tonight. George Bush recognized political opponents. Donald Trump doesn't recognize any power other than his own. That is why you should vote against this motion tonight.
Thank you both for sharing your time and your thoughts. Uh we all really appreciated it. We just can close this out.
>> All right. Please join me in thanking Michael Nolles, Medie Hassan, and of course, Ella Klinsky for providing us with such an engaging debate tonight.
>> Well done. Well done. Well done. naked every now at this time. Please remain seated while our guests leave. And while you are all filling out the poll, um I'd like to thank you all for coming. Having supporters like you is what empowers the DPU to continue its mission of promoting the free exchange of discourse. Thank you to Michael Nolles and Medie Hassan again for being great debate partners.
And I want to thank the office of the president for its continuous support.
>> Yeah, I did too. I thought weights.
>> And don't worry, we'll make sure you guys know the results of the poll shortly. Now, I'd like to take this opportunity while you finish playing out the painful. I need to know what did he get me to >> Oh, stay se commissioners Daryl Lindenbomb and Alan Dickerson and hold him once. The following evening or meet Dylan, class of 1989 will be visiting for a moderated Q&A at 5:00 p.m. Thursday, May 14th, right here in Cook Auditorium. Once again, stay tuned for more events throughout the spring. And before I begin sharing polling results, we'd like to remind everyone to stay seated even though our guests have left. With that said, the results of our poll are almost in. As a reminder, before the debate, 22% of the room thought that Trump had upheld the Constitution and 78% thought Trump had not upheld the Constitution.
Now when asked the same question after the debate, 28% think he has upheld the constitution and 72% think he has not.
So a little couple of converts to thinking he has upheld the constitution.
I'll also ask again that you remain seated for one more minute and once again please join me in giving Michael Nolles and Medi Hassan a round of applause. Thank you all.
Okay, everyone's free to go. Thank you.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
