Press "Enter" to skip to content

Impeachment trial of President Trump | Jan. 29, 2020 (FULL LIVE STREAM)


>>>WE INTO YET ANOTHER PHASE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. IN ONE HOUR THE SENATORS WILL STICK
CENTERSTAGE THEMSELVES. WELCOME TO LIVE COVERAGE. THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US. THEY GET 16 HOURS SPREAD OUT
OVER TODAY AND TOMORROW. JOINING ME IN THE STUDIO IS
AMBER PHILLIPS AND JAMES HOLMAN. YOU BOTH PUBLISH STORIES IN THE
LAST 30 MINUTES. WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT HOW THEY’RE GOING TO
ASK QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE TOP LINE NEW STORY HERE.
>>I THINK IT IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE CHAMBER.
THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL INTERESTING. THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. THE SENSORS GOING TO AGREE. IT
IS ALMOST LIKE WE FINISHED OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH
SIDES. MAYBE THEY WILL SURPRISE ME. EVERYONE IS REALLY THINKING
ABOUT FRIDAY. THE BIG VOTE TO EXTEND THE TRIAL. WE ARE
WATCHING EXTREMELY CLOSE HE WAS SENATORS ARE SAYING. I AM NOT
ANY CLEAR IF THEY WILL SUBPOENA HIM.
>>WE WILL GET IN THE LATEST NEWS. I’M WONDERING IF THE QUESTION TODAY A
REVEALING ON BOTH SIDES.>>I THINK THE BIG STORY TODAY
IS GOING TO BE THE FULL PARTIES TRANSFER THE LAWYERS ON THE
OTHER SIDE ON TROUGH. THEY WILL BE FASTER PACED THAN
WHAT WE THINK. THEY WILL NOT HAVE A ONE HOUR
LONG SPEECH. YOU ARE GOING TO ALTERNATE BACK AND FORTH. THIS
IS NOT JUST THE SENATORS SITTING AND DECIDING. BOTH OF THEM ARE
PLAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE AMBER IS
TALKING ABOUT. TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM THE FACTS ARE OUT
THERE FOR THE WHAT IS HIS AND MATERIAL. THE TOP STRATEGY IS
THAT REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH THEM OUT OF CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. DEMOCRATS EARLY ON ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO QUESTION THE BOTH THE MANUSCRIPT. WE DID NOT REVIEW THE
MANUSCRIPT. OFFICIALS DECLINED TO SAY THAT
THEY WILL BE THAT POSTURING SEMANTICS. IT IS NOT THE KIND OF THING THAT
MOVES PUBLIC ATTENTION. SHE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALL THE
DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING TODAY.>>THIS QUESTION PHASES WANT TO
BROKEN UP INTO 8 HOUR PERIODS. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS GIVEN
US A GLIMPSE OF HOW HE WANTED THIS TO GO. HE WANTS THE LAWYER
FOR THE PRESIDENTS THINK ABOUT WHETHER THE THE ANSWER
QUESTIONS.>>THE QUESTION CAN BE FULLY AND
THOROUGHLY ANSWERED IN FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. THE TRANSCRIPT
INDICATES THE STATEMENT WAS MET WITH LAUGHTER. NONETHELESS, MANAGERS AND
COUNSEL LIMIT THEIR RESPONSES ACCORDINGLY. WHILE WE HOPE THAT IS WHAT THEY
MAY DO, WE COULD HAVE A VERY LONG DAY. HOW DO THEY SUBMIT
THESE QUESTIONS? THEY HAVE A FORM. THEY HAVE A FEW LINES FOR THE
QUESTION. THE SENATORS THAT KIND OF GROUP
TOGETHER AND ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. HE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE DO NOT HAVE ANY REDUNDANCIES. THE ANSWER PERIOD
IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE
HALLS HERE. BEHIND ME THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG
PROTEST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO CALL FOR WITNESSES TO PUT
PRESSURE ON THOSE REPUBLICANS. WE ALSO KNOW THEY ARRIVED A FEW
HOURS AGO WITH HIS LAWYERS. HE RECEIVED TICKETS FROM THE
OFFICE OF CHUCK SCHUMER. HE CAN NOT GOING TO THE GALLERY OR THE
CHAMBER BECAUSE HE HAS ELECTRONIC DEVICE ON HIS ANKLE. THIS FORM IS NOT THREE PAGES
LONG. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
COORDINATION. LAST NIGHT, HE SAID HE DOES NOT
HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLOCK. RIGHT NOW FEELS LIKE THEY GET
THERE. THOUSAND HAVE THEIR OWN. BASED ON THE RIGHT, THE
HARD-CORE KIND OF LOYALIST. SOMETIMES THEY WANT TO MAKE A
MOCKERY OF THE PROGRESS. HE ACTUALLY COACH FOR JOHN
ROBERTS. THEY ARE TWISTING A LOT OF ARMS.
IS IT THE PROCESS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF PAYING IT FORWARD. DO THEY ASK THE TOUGHER
QUESTION. GOOD THEY FEEL LIKE THEY GOT THERE QUESTION
ANSWERED. YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETELY GO AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.>>YOU GUYS MADE A GREAT POINT
YESTERDAY. IT WAS A REFERENCE TO THE PROCESS. HOW THAT ULTIMATELY
WAS. THEY DID SLOW THINGS DOWN. IT WAS THIS LIMITED EDITION TO
APPEASE CERTAIN PEOPLE. WE ARE TAKING THESE CONCERNS
SERIOUSLY. HOW CAN THEY CALL IT INSECURITY. THIS TIME, WITH THE WORK OF THE WITNESSES
THAT HE WANTED AND THIS TIME THE LEVERAGE HANGOVER THIS BIG
ARGUMENT, LOOK, DO YOU WANT 100 BOND. HE HAS SORT OF BENIGN SOCIAL
MEDIA TIRADES ALL DAY LONG. NO WAY HE DOES NOT GET ONE OF THE
BETTER DEFENSE AFFORDS. IT IS VERY APT. VERY DIFFERENT.
THEY HAVE THAT LEVERAGE TO KIND OF SCARE SOME OF THE MEMBERS FOR
HOLDING TO A REACTIVE PROCESS. HE THINKS THAT THERE IS A LITTLE
BIT OF GAME PLAN. HE DOES NOT. SOMETIMES IT EXPRESSES A LOT OF
CONFIDENCE. I THINK THE PRACTICAL IMPACT IS THERE WILL
BE A BUNCH OF PRESSURE. WHEN SHE WAS TALKING TO US A COUPLE OF
MINUTES AGO. THERE WAS THIS BIG PURGE. I THINK HE ALSO ENVISIONS
THEY WILL GET PRESSURE FROM SOME OF THE TRUMP SUPPORTERS AS WELL.
THIS IS ABOUT LAYING YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE. THE TOP LINE THING
FROM THE MEETING. THEN THEY WERE QUICKLY TRYING TO
WALK THAT BACK. HE IS SAYING HE THINKS HE IS GOING TO GET THERE. DURING THIS MEETING, THEY WRAPPED UP THE ARGUMENT
LAST NIGHT. ALL OF THEM SIT UP AND SAID
LET’S GET THIS OVER WITH. ALL THESE PEOPLE, NO ONE IS TO
BE THERE. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT DEFECTING
AND BREAKING AWAY. THEY ARE SORT OF STICKING TOGETHER. THE ONLY
VULNERABLE MEMBER UP FOR REELECTION.>>I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT
HE GETS HIS WAY. IT IS JUST SO REMARKABLE. CONSIDERING THROWING OUT A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. WE ARE DAYS AWAY. THERE MAY BE REPUBLICANS DE
FACTO. I’M NOT SAYING THAT IS THE MOST LIKELY OPTION. I THINK
IT SPEAKS TO THE POWER AND THE IMPACT OF THAT MANUSCRIPT. I DO
NOT THINK WE WILL BE HERE WITHOUT THAT.
>>THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. IT IS HARD TO OVERSTATE HOW THAT
ACTUALLY FEELS.>>LET’S DO A HEADCOUNT. WHO IS
SAYING THEY’RE OPEN TO HAVING WITNESSES. CALLING FOR WITNESSES
IS ONE THING. WHO ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO
BRING BEFORE THE SENATE. WHO IS A QUESTION MARK.
>>I THINK SHE IS LEANING TOWARDS
WITNESSES. MET RONNIE SAYS HE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM JOHN
BOLTON. SHE COULD GO EITHER WAY. LaMARR I’LL ALEXANDER A BIGGER
QUESTION MARK. FROM THERE I DO NOT KNOW WHO MAY COME IN. TO
YOUR NEXT QUESTION. DO THEY KNOW WHO THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM. I
THINK THAT IS THE BIGGER DEBATE TO HAVE. OUR CALLING MADE A
POINT LAST NIGHT. MAYBE THEY DO HAVE WITNESSES. THE CONSENSUS THAT CAN NEVER BE
SOLVED. THE MAJORITY WANTS A BROAD THING THEY AGREE ON.
>>HE IS RETIRING. SITTING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HE IS THE
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION. HE IS ALSO A INSTITUTION. THE KEY THING ABOUT HIM, MITCH
McCONNELL IS ONE OF HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS. I THINK YOU CAN EXPECT THEM TO
VOTE FOR ONE IS IS. WE DO NOT HEAR A LOT ABOUT HIM. THE DEN ONE CLOSE REPORTERS
APPROACHED HIM, HE DECLINED TO COMMENT. HE IS
NOT SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO DO TO HIM. I THINK AMBER EXACTLY CORRECT.
THERE IS A VERY REAL SCENARIO. THEY PASS THE THRESHOLD. THAT SORT OF FALLS APART. ESPECIALLY WITH THIS SENATE. I AM NOT GOING TO BE DISCUSSING
THE WEATHER SITUATION. I HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS. WE WILL SEE
HOW THE QUESTIONING HAPPENS TODAY IN THIS SESSION. ALSO THEY MAY BE GETTING GASSED
ON THE SENATE FLOOR. THAT IS LATER ON. WE TALKED ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
LET’S GO BACK TO DEMOCRATS. THE SENATOR MENTIONED IS NOW OPENING
THE DOOR TO MORE WITNESSES. THIS IS HOW THEY TALK ABOUT IT
TODAY.>>IS HERE RELATIVE WITNESS?
>>I THINK SO. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM THERE. THIS IS WHY WE
ARE WHERE WE ARE. I THINK HE CAN CLEAR HIMSELF. WHAT I KNOW AND
WHAT I HAVE HEARD. NO MATTER IF YOU’RE DEMOCRATS OR
REPUBLICANS.>>THIS IS SIGNIFICANT. BEFORE WE
ANALYZE IT TOO MUCH, LET’S ANALYZE THE MINORITY LEADER HOW
HE RESPONDED AS A MEMBER OF HIS CAUCUS.
>>WE HAVE HAD TOTAL UNITY ON THE ISSUE THAT WILL BE BEFORE
US. WE ARE TOTALLY UNITED.>>WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THESE TWO LAYERS. JUST KIND OF SETTING ASIDE THIS
BROADER DEBATE. IT IS REMARKABLE TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT. WE KNOW THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA
MACHINE IS LOUDLY TALKING ABOUT THE HUNTER BIDEN FACTOR. AS FOR
A ARGUMENT AS TO WHY HE MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.>>HE SAID HE STOOD BY HIS
COMMENT. HE ASKED IF HE WOULD BE OPEN. THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. ONCE YOU GET THE NAME THROWN IN
THERE.>>IT IS THE DEMOCRAT WHO HAS
BEEN VIEWED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. HE HAS KIND OF TRIED HARD TO
BUILD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS I
SAID EARLIER. THEY MAY HAVE SOME POLITICAL ADVANTAGES. HE IS ONE
OF THREE DEMOCRATS WHO TALKED TO LEADERSHIP AIDES. ONE OF THREE
WHO COULD VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL. THAT IS ABOUT THE SAME MARGIN IN
THAT STATE. ALSO FROM ARIZONA. TRYING TO BRAND HERSELF AS A
MODERATE. THE WITNESS DEBATE ACTUALLY HELPS THOSE DEMOCRATS. EVEN IN A RED STATE. WHEN THEY FINISHED ARGUMENT
YESTERDAY, THE SIDE CONVERSATIONS THAT BROKE OUT. HE
WAS TALKING TO A BUNCH OF REPUBLICANS. OTHER DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS. ALSO THEY WERE GOING UP TRYING
TO COACH THEM ALONG. THERE IS A LOT OF THESE SIDE
CONVERSATIONS. THOSE MATTER IN THESE.
>>WE TALKED BEFORE HOW THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE THE ODD PERSON
OUT. WHETHER IT IS DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.
>>THAT IS SUCH A GREAT POINT. THEY SAID WE’RE GOING TO DO IT
TOGETHER. ONCE HE WAS ALSO WITH THEM. THE EAST AND WESTBOUND OF THE
UNITED STATES. KIND OF JUMPING OFF THE PLANE TOGETHER. I THINK
THAT IS A HUGE POINT. IF THEY AGREED TO HAVE WITNESSES, I DO
NOT THINK YOU WOULD JUST HAVE FOUR. VERY QUICKLY. THERE ARE A
BUNCH OF PEOPLE. THEY FEEL THAT IS THE WAY IT IS
GOING.>>IT HAS SINCE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN. IT IS NOT LIKE A UNSAFE THING TO
DO.>>THEY WERE QUOTING US
ONE-FOR-ONE. NOW HE IS PULLING BACK. IT IS JUST AN IDEA
BASICALLY.>>I THINK IT IS UP FOR
REELECTION IN PENNSYLVANIA. HE HAS TRIED VERY HARD. ONE OF THE MOST OUTSPOKEN
REPUBLICANS FOR GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION. ALSO, THIS GIVES THEM COVER. I
CANNOT MAKE IT WORK. I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT. TOO MANY ALLIES HAVE TOLD OTHER REPUBLICANS. THIS IS
REALLY ABOUT POSTURING. TRYING TO HEAR FROM BOLTON AND
HUNTER BIDEN. >>PUNCTURE AT HOME. LOOK I’M
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING. IF THEY WANT TO VOTE FRIDAY,
THEY DO NOT NEED TO CONVINCE ANYBODY. THEY COULD JUST DO IT. WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO DEAL WITH
DEMOCRATS? I THINK IT SPEAKS TO THEM RECOGNIZING IT IS THE
DIFFICULT POSITION IN TERMS OF PUBLIC OPINION TO DO A SITUATION
WHERE THEY HAVE HUNTER BIDEN.>>HE MAY WANT A ONE-FOR-ONE
SWAP. I WANT TO REVIEW THE PRESIDENCY YESTERDAY. THEY DID
NOT USE ANYTHING CLOSE TO ALL OF THE TIME. THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT
OF EVERYONE. ARGUING DIFFERENT ASPECTS. WERE YOU SURPRISED
YESTERDAY? DID YOU FEEL THEY WERE PIVOTING THE ARGUMENT? I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. SEPARATELY WITH REPUBLICANS. TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL OVERALL
DEFENSE.>>10 MINUTES AFTER THE LUNCH
BREAK. EVERYONE WAS TAKING THEIR TIME. THE ARGUMENT THEY LEFT THE
SENATOR WITH WAS TO LEAVE IT UP TO VOTERS. EVEN IF YOU THINK HE
DID WRONG. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. THAT IS I THINK WHAT THEY WANTED
TO LEAVE PEOPLE WITH. ALSO, WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT HIM. THEY
CONTINUE TO INSIST A BROAD CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE POWER. THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG
ARGUMENTS YOU HEARD YESTERDAY. THAT HE ACTED WITHIN HIS
AUTHORITY. I THINK THE KEY POINT YESTERDAY
WAS THAT HE ACTED WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY. HE HAS THE
PREROGATIVE TO DO WHAT HE DID. I WAS SURPRISED BY HOW THEY KIND
OF CUT OFF. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY. THEY ALL TALKED
FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR. I THINK THEY WANTED TO CREATE THIS IDEA.
THEY WERE LEAVING IT TO THE PEOPLE.
>>THE BIGGER SECOND QUESTION. WAS THE STRATEGY. THEY ARE NOT
REPORTING ON THAT. I DO KNOW THEY BASICALLY IGNORED IT. UNTIL
MONDAY NIGHT. WHEN HE GETS OUT. HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MENTIONS
HIM OUT FRONT. HE SAYS IF HE DID WHAT HE SAID, IT IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE. HIS ARGUMENT COMES DOWN TO ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS
TOO VAGUE OF A CONCEPT. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE REPORTED. WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT. HERE IS THIS ONE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR. JAMES WHAT YOU HAVE ALTERED.
ANYTHING AMBER IS GETTING UP. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST TAKE US
THROUGH THAT. WE SAW SENATOR GRAHAM A COUPLE MONTHS AGO
SETTING ONE BAR OF CONDUCT. NOW THE BAR HAS TOTALLY CHANGED.
>>ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY SAID IN
OCTOBER. HE PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE THIS
MORNING. ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. THAT IS A MASSIVE
CHANGE. THE SENATORS WHO CLIMBED ONTO. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO KNOW
THEY’RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE WITNESSES. THEY ARE TRYING
TO COME UP WITH WHY THEY ARE VOTING AGAINST THE WITNESSES
STIMULATING YES, THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. IT IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE. THAT IS ALL ABOUT BEING ABLE TO
ARGUE HE IS MOVED. WE ALREADY SPECULATED. IT IS A BIG CHANGE FOR OCTOBER.
IT IS NOT JUST HIM. WE SORT OF HEARD ALL. THEN THERE IS THIS BACKGROUND
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS. WHATEVER ORIGINALLY WAS THE
PLAN. THEY HAVE EMBRACED IT AS THEIR STRATEGY. IT IS WORKING
SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS THEIR WAY.>>HE GOT ADDED TO THE TEAM. WE
WERE ALL SCRAMBLING A WEEK BEFORE THE TRIAL.>>HE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR. WHICH IS WHY WE ASSOCIATE HIM WITH O.J. SIMPSON. HE IS A CELEBRITY DEFENSE
LAWYER. HE IS NOT A SCHOLAR ON THE CONSTITUTION. HIS INTERPRETATION IS COMPLETELY
WRONG. HE TAUGHT THERE FOR 50 YEARS. A BUNCH OF THEM HAD THEM IN
THEIR PROFESSION. THEY CAME UP AND WE WERE SLAPPING HIM ON THE
BACK. THIS GUY IS SUPER CONTROVERSIAL. HE WAS THIS GUY WANT TO GO ON
TELEVISION. IT WILL GET ELEVATED.>>I MENTION ALL OF THE SENSORS.>>HE ALSO SHAMELESSLY MADE A
HUGE DEAL THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THEMSELVES. HE IS A REALITY TV PRESIDENT. HE LOVES THE IDEA OF
HIM STANDING UP AND DEFENDING HIM.>>THE ONE WHO WAS PLANNING TO
ATTEND HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COME IN. THE IDEA OF HIM LEAVING COMING
HERE. LEFT HARDEST WE WILL REMEMBER
BACK IN FALL. EVERYONE HAS SEEN IT AND NOT
HEARD SO MUCH FROM. IRAN MIGHT END — REMINDING
SENSORS YOU HAVE SOME WITNESSES OUT HERE WHO HAS SOME VERY
INCREDIBLE DEFENSE. WE KNOW THE TROUBLE THAT EVIDENCE. IT
INVOLVED TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT TRYING TO GET THE AMBASSADOR
OUT. HE IS SORT OF WALKING AROUND HERE AS A REMINDER. I THINK THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY HE CAME IN. HE HAS THAT ELECTRONIC BRACELET.
HE IS SITTING HERE ON THE GROUND.
>>HE MAY SUCH A GREAT POINT. HE IS UNDER INDICTMENT. YOU CANNOT
BRING ELECTRONICS IN THE SENATE.>>HE WAS ALSO INDICTED. THERE WAS A COURT HEARING
YESTERDAY ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARGES. IT BECAME VERY
CLEAR. THEY DECIDED TO GONE RACHEL
MADDOW AND TURN OVER ALL THESE THINGS. THERE IS SOME TENSION THERE. THAT TRANSITION WITH THE REALITY
TV.>>THERE IS DEAFLY NO TALK OF
HIM BEING CALLED AS A WITNESS. HE IS UNDER INDICTMENT. WHEN HE
WAS ASKED ABOUT IT, HE SAID WOULD GIVE NEW YORKERS TICKETS
WHEN THEY ASKED. NOTHING TO SEE FROM MY OFFICE. HE IS WITH JULIANO’S ORIGINAL
76. HE EVENTUALLY GOT WRAPPED IN
THIS SCHEME TALKING TO UKRAINE’S TOP OFFICIALS THAT ALL HAVE BEEN. I WAS THE CENTRAL FIGURE. HERE
IS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS. THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. THEY
APPEARED TO SHOW DIRECT CONSULTATION. UNLESS THAT IS A DIRECT FROM THE
PRESENT. HE HAS NOT PROVIDED DOCUMENTS THEY SAY HE WAS IN ON
THIS.>>WEATHER THEN DEFLATING HIS
EGO. YOU WOULD WENT OUT THE QUESTION. A LOT OF PEOPLE REMEMBER HIM A
FEW WEEKS AGO. REMEMBER, YOU ARE HEADED TO THE AIRPORT.
AGAIN, IT WAS A HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER WITNESS A FEW MONTHS AGO. THE DEFENSE TEAM ARGUMENT YET THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT
SEALED THEIR CASE. WHY NOT CAUSE SOME WITNESSES. I WANT TO PLAY
SOME TAPE FROM THE LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATS OVER IN THE SENATE.
REALLY ADDRESSING THIS CASE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENCY
SHUT DOWN THE CALL FOR WITNESSES. WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. I
REMAIN HOPEFUL THAT MORE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WOULD JOIN
US IN THIS TRIAL. IS IT UP TO FIGHTS AS I HAVE ALWAYS SAID.
THE PUBLIC IS ON OUR SIDE.>>THAT IS SENATOR SCHUMER. AS
HE IS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE, LET’S ASK SOME MORE QUESTIONS
FOR.>>I FEEL LIKE WHAT HE WAS
SAYING. THEY HAD 24 HOURS. TRYING TO
TELL US EXACTLY WHY. WHAT HE DID. HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF
PROVIDING THIS. THEY WOULD ZERO IN ON THE FACT HERE. WITHOUT ENCOMPASSING EVERYTHING
ELSE AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I THINK WHAT I HEARD. HE WOULD
THEN REFUTE THE CASE. OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS. TALKING TO
THEIR CONSTITUENTS. HAVING THAT DOOR MESSAGE CHAIN . YET THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
PROVE THEIR CASE.>>THERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN. THEY KEPT SAYING. THE ARGUMENT WAS WE HAVE
NOT HEARD FROM ANY. REMEMBER ONE OF THE TWO ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. WE DO QUID PRO QUO ALL THE TIME. THREE OTHER PEOPLE THEY WANT TO
HEAR FROM. REPUBLICANS WANT TO SAY WE HAVE HEARD IT ALL. THE WAY THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO
DRIVING ALONG. TWEETING THIS MORNING. THEY WOULD NEVER BE
SATISFIED. THEY ARE JUST GOING TO KEEP
DEMANDING. DEMOCRATS NOT ACTUALLY DISPUTING THAT. WE DO
WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED. EVERYONE THAT HAS
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. COMING INTO THE PROCESS ARGUMENT. WHILE WE DO NOT PLAY THIS OUT IN
THE HOUSE. THERE ARE SOME VARIOUS LEGAL
CASES. YESTERDAY THE HOUSE WENT TO
COURT. HE SAID THIS IS A JURY. YOU’RE THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE
LAND. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THAT CONGRESS IS NOT A
COURT. IF IT IS, AND INTOLERANCE INTO ALL OF THIS
GRAND JURY MATERIAL. WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET TESTIMONY. ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT STRINGS
ARE TIED TOGETHER. DEMOCRATS WANT TO PULL UP THE STRING. THEY
WANT TO SEE WHERE THAT GOES. THEY KNOW IT CANNOT BE AS
HELPFUL TO THEM. HE IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY
PLAY LONG. THEY LEGITIMATELY FEAR. ALL OF THE SUDDEN THE OFFICER
PULLED HIM INTO THE SCANDAL. HE IS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH. WHAT IS HE TRYING TO HIDE.
>>IF HE JUST MAKES A STATEMENT. IF HE IS UNDER OATH, THAT COULD
YIELD SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS WANT. THAT IS THE TIME WHEN YOU
HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT SEEMS LIKE
THEY TRIED TO STAUNCH THE BLEEDING. WHERE DOES IT END.>>THEY WERE SAYING LET’S GET
THIS OVER WITH. WE’RE STILL GOING TO GET ATTACKED BY
DEMOCRATS. HOW DO WE JUSTIFY NOT CALLING HIM. THAT IS PART OF THE
ARGUMENT. WHAT IS THE HARM OF THAT. THERE
FOCUSED ON THE POLITICS OF IT. BEING TIED TO THE PRESIDENT. IN
PLACES LIKE ARIZONA OR COLORADO.>>I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIS
MESSAGING RIGHT NOW. BETWEEN HE HAD EARLY THIS MORNING. THE
DEMOCRATS ALREADY HAD 17 WITNESSES. WITNESSES WROTE TO
THE HOUSE AND NOT TO THE SENATE. ON THAT NOTE LET’S HEAR HIM LAST
NIGHT AT A RALLY IN NEW JERSEY WHERE HE IS PUSHING BACK AGAINST
THESE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.>>WE ARE CREATING JOBS. THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ARE OBSESSED. CRAZY WITH TOM. THE DO-NOTHING DEMOCRATS.
>>PRESIDENT TRUMP THERE. THE LINE IS YOU GUYS HAVE POINTED
OUT. LET THE ELECTION AND THE VOTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. LET
THERE BE A NEW ONE.>>HE WAS GOING TO COME DOWN
HARD. WITH TALK ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS. HE HAS BEEN WATCHING THE
PROCEEDINGS FROM THE GALLERY. ONE OF THEIR COLLEAGUES. SITTING
THERE WATCHING. HE RELIGIOUSLY ATTACKED HIM. YOU’RE EITHER WITH
THEM OR AGAINST THEM. SOME OF THESE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
RETIRING. ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE IS GOING TO
BLAME YOU FOR EVERYTHING. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE STATURE OF A
JOHN McCAIN. TO WITHSTAND THAT CRITICISM. IT IS’S REPUBLICAN
PARTY AT THIS POINT. HE IS MORE POPULAR THAN MITCH McCONNELL.
THAT IS NOT LOST ON ANY OF THOSE 53 REPUBLICANS.
>>I FEEL LIKE HE EXEMPLIFIES THIS. THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE
SURVIVED. THEY HAVE DECIDED I AM ALL IN.
OUR COLLEAGUE WENT TO KENTUCKY TO TALK TO THE REDDEST AREA.
MITCH McCONNELL IS UP FOR REELECTION AS WELL. IS NOT HIM
JUST THINK ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP. HE HEARD FROM VOTERS. THE DEMOCRAT GOT ELECTED. I WANT
HIM TO STAND BY TRUMP. KENTUCKY IS A REDDER STATE THAN COLORADO. TRUMP IS COMPLETELY ENGINEERED. THEY REALLY HAD NO CHOICE. ALSO GOTTEN SOME REAL VICTORIES. THE HOPE CONGRESSIONAL
DELEGATION HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR DECADES. SHE GAVE THIS GREAT
INTERVIEW. ABOUT HOW SHE CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP. SHE HEARD HIM
SAY AT A EVENT. SHE PICKED UP THE PHONE. THEY HAD A CHAT ABOUT
VARIOUS THINGS. THE ENTERTAINMENT ASPECT OF
THIS. THE POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS DOES HAVE A REAL
CONVERSATION. SHE GOT SO MUCH PUSHBACK WHEN SHE VOTED AGAINST
BRAD CAVANAUGH. THERE WAS A REAL THREAT GIVEN TO HER.>>SHE LOST A PRIMARY IN 2010. I
THINK THAT EXPERIENCE. IT IS NOT A EASY NAME TO WRITE DOWN.
PEOPLE HAD BRACES THEY WERE WEARING. THAT EXPERIENCE. FEW
OTHER SENATORS REALLY FEEL. SHE HAD A HARD RACE BEFORE THAT. SHE HAS MANAGED TO SURVIVE.
ALASKA IS A WEIRD STATE. IT IS NOT PREDICTABLE. IT IS NOT
KENTUCKY. WHEN YOU TALK TO HER, SHE DOES FEEL THAT. SHE FEELS
THE PREROGATIVE. HER DAD WAS IN THE SENATE. THERE WAS THAT TIME
EARLY. THEY SORT OF DID SOMETHING THAT REALLY UPSET HER.
I HAVE MORE POWER THAN YOU. SHE SORT OF PUT HIM IN HIS
PLACE. HE HAD TO APOLOGIZE TO HER. IT IS A REMINDER CONGRESS
DOES HAVE A LOT OF POWER. I THINK A LOT OF TIMES. THEY’RE SO
AFRAID OF HIS ATTACK. THEY WOULD GET THAT POWER. THE FATE OF THE PRESIDENT IS IN
THE HAND OF THE SENATORS. THAT IS WHY THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE SO INTERESTING TO WATCH. THE
FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY THIS IS HAPPENING. THESE PEOPLE
ARE JURORS IN A TRIAL. I THINK SOMETIMES THE SENATORS
FORGET THAT. THAT IS WHY THIS TRIAL. IT IS SO
UNIQUE.>>I KNOW THIS BODY. I WE WANT TO
PROCEED HERE. THIS JUST GET HER DOWN. THE NEW CYCLE. THE MAIN ROADBLOCK. JOHN BOLTON.
CERTAINLY FOCUSED ON THAT. THERE IS THIS QUESTION OF RUDY
GIULIANI. HOW HE IS ENTERING THE MIX. LISTEN TO HOW HE TALKED
ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. THIS IS FROM CBS THIS MORNING. HIS MAIN
CRITICISM COULD BE THAT HE IS A BACKSTABBING. THE MAIN COMPLAINT
SEEMS TO BE THAT HE NEVER DIRECTLY CONFRONTED HIM.
>>HE NEVER SAID TO ME I HAVE A PROBLEM. NEVER SENT A LITTLE
NOTE. I FEEL I HAVE A SWAMP CHARACTER.
HE CAME UP TO ME. I WAS SAY YOUR ATOMIC BOMB.
>>JOHN BOLTON SHOULD NOT TESTIFY.>>TRYING TO MAKE A LEGAL
ARGUMENT. ALSO CALLING HIM A ATOMIC BOMB.>>IN THE MINDS OF SOME.
FASCINATING TO HEAR THEM BOTH USE THIS COLORFUL LANGUAGE. HE
NEVER CAME TO ME.>>THERE IS A LOGICAL PROBLEM
WITH THAT. THEY WERE HAVING MEETINGS WITH
THE UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS. THE FACT THAT HE WAS EVEN
INVOLVED AT ALL. TRUMP ON THAT PHONE CALL.
TROUBLED. GIULIANI WAS NOT EVEN SUPPOSED
TO BE IN THIS. TWO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES THERE.
ELIZABETH WORN AT THE TOP. A LITTLE BIT OF A BREEDER THERE
LAST NIGHT. FIRST LET’S BRING IN RHONDA. IS
HE GO ON NATIONAL TELEVISION? DOES THAT HELP THEM?>>IT COULD GO BOTH WAYS. I KNOW DURING THE PUBLIC FACE
TESTIMONY. A LOT OF THEM WERE A LITTLE NERVOUS TO LEARN HOW
INVOLVED RUDY GIULIANI WAS AS THE PERSONAL LAWYER. I THINK
THAT INTERVIEW, POINTS TO THE FACT THAT HE SOMETIMES WORKS ON
HIS OWN. HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE CONTROLLED MUCH BY THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY. I THINK HE DOES MAKE HIS DEFENSE. A LITTLE
NERVOUS. WHEN HE DOES INTERVIEWS LIKE THAT. YOU JUST DO NOT KNOW WHERE HE IS
COMING. WE DID NOT HAVE VERY MUCH. THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT ANY
DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS SUPPOSED TO DO. RELATED TO THE RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION. DESPERATELY WANTED TO BE ON THE
FLOOR. THEY WANTED TO BE ONE OF THE LAWYERS GIVING THE SPEECH. THIS WILL NOT BENEFIT YOUR CASE. IS IT BECAUSE OF THE AUDIENCE IN
THE ROOM? HIS ROLE IN THE WHOLE THING?
>>I THINK IS A WITNESS TO A LOT OF MISCONDUCT. THERE ARE A LOT
OF LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS. PEOPLE ANSWERING UNDER OATH. COULD THEY
WRITE IN THEIR QUESTIONS. HE WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.
>>THAT WOULD BE CRAZY.>>WHAT DID YOU JUST SUBPOENA
RUDY GIULIANI. IT IS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THAT
WAS UNREASONABLE TO ASK THAT QUESTION. WE FOLLOW THE HOUSE
INVESTIGATION WRAPPING UP. HE WAS GOING TO THE UKRAINE. HE BROUGHT THE CREW WITH THEM TO
DO A DOCUMENTARY. HE CAME BACK. CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE SAID, NO THANK YOU. THEY DO NOT TRUST THIS GUY. A
LOT OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS. SOMEONE TESTIFIED. HE WAS A
TICKING TIME BOMB. THEY DO NOT TRUST HIM.
>>HE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR
VARIOUS THINGS. WE DO NOT KNOW FULLY. THERE IS A
LOT OF UNKNOWNS. SOMEONE TESTIFIED. WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? THERE ARE A
LOT OF THINGS WE HAVE NEVER GOT TO THE BOTTOM UP.
>>HE DID NOT WANT TO TRY TO TALK TO RUDY GIULIANI.
>>I DO THINK THE SENATE IS GETTING READY TOGETHER. WE WILL
OF COURSE GO THERE. I WANT TO THANK THEM AS I PARTY MENTIONED.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR DOING DOUBLE DUTY ON SO MANY OF THESE DAYS.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE MANUSCRIPT TO BE
LOOKED AT BY REPUBLICANS. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE IN A
CLASSIFIED SETTING. WHY HIDE THIS AND TREAT IT LIKE IT IS A
CLASSIFIED READ. A BUG THAT WILL BE SOLD. ALREADY BEING PROMOTED. THE MANUSCRIPT. IS THIS THE
CONVERSATION BEING PUT IN PLAY. >>HE KEEPS PUSHING UP. IT IS A
WAY FOR REPUBLICANS TO LOOK LIKE THEY’RE TRYING TO
HEAR HIS STORY. THEY WANT TO GET THE FAX. HE WAS SAYING IT IS A
UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCOUNT. THAT SORT OF TAKES THE BOX A BIT.
ALSO DEMOCRATS RESPONDING. IN THE MEMO. THIS COULD BE ABOUT
SERVING. THAT IS THERE PUSHBACK. I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY ONE
OFFRAMP MITCH McCONNELL COULD TAKE. WE ACTUALLY VOTED TO
SUBPOENA THE MANUSCRIPT.>>ABSOLUTELY. THEY’RE SAYING
THEY WANT TO GET TO THE FAX. YET THEY ARE CHOOSING TO READ A BOOK
INSTEAD OF TALKING TO THE GUY WHO WROTE IT.
>>ONE SOURCE TO ANOTHER SOURCE. HOW DO WE KNOW. THE QUESTION
STILL REMAINS. WHAT THAT JUST COMPEL YOU EVEN MORE. EVEN IF
THE ARE TROUBLING. DIRECTLY RELATED UKRAINE AID TO A
INVESTIGATION. DEMAND BRINGING HIM INTO THE CHAMBER.
>>OPENING THE BOOK. APPARENTLY THERE’S DOZENS OF PAGES. IT HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED BY PEOPLE. HE HAS NOT PUSHED BACK. OR ARE
REPORTING. TURKEY AND CHINA. I AM FASCINATED TO SEE. MORE THAN
A 500 PAGE LONG BOOK. WHAT ELSE IS IN THERE.
>>YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE.>>I THINK REPUBLICANS DO WANT
TO SEE THE BOOK.>>I WANT TO REMIND YOU THIS IS
THE SHEET WE WILL BE SCENE. SHORT AND SWEET AND TO THE
POINT. WHETHER THE NAME IS FOR THE COUNCIL OR THE PRESIDENT OR
THE HOUSE MANAGER. THEN MULTIPLE SENATORS. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH
THE MINUTES YESTERDAY. WE COULD KIND OF TEAM UP. THE WHOLE
REASON THEY HAVE TO WRITE THESE. BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL SET UP
IN THE 1980S. THEY DID NOT WANT THEM FILIBUSTERING. REALLY THE
DEFINITION OF THE SENATE.>>I TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.
THE CLAN DEFENSE LAWYERS SAID THEY HAVE A LITTLE SIGN. THEY WOULD BASICALLY DO A SIGNAL
TO ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. THEY WOULD THEN ALLOW
THE DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE WHATEVER POINT THEY WANTED TO
MAKE. THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHERE IT IS FUN TO
SEE THE DYNAMIC IN THE ROOM.>>NO JOURNALIST HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CAMERAS. THIS IS THE
SENATE THAT IS CONTROLLING THE CAMERAS. WE ARE RELYING ON OUR
COLLEAGUES TO GIVE IS THAT COLOR.
>>I WAS JUST GOING TO PUT A FINE POINT. THEY ASKED THE MEDIA
ORGANIZATION TO PUT CAMERAS IN THERE. THEY SAID YOU CANNOT HAVE
CAMERAS POINTING AT US.>>THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLING THE
CAMERA. IF THEY WERE, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM. EVEN
KNOWING WHO IS SITTING NEXT TO WHO IS SO IMPORTANT. IT IS SO
INTERESTING TO KNOW. SIDE BY SIDE. WHO IS HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THERE’S A REPUBLICAN
APPROACH HIM. ALL OF THAT INFORMS US. WE WILL BE WATCHING TODAY TO SEE
WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES REPORT ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON. 16 HOURS FOR
THE QUESTION SESSION. HALF MANAGERS HAVE COME READY. THEY
WILL BOTH BE FILLING THESE QUESTIONS. I’M INTERESTING TO
SEE IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS A MORE VOCAL ROLE OR NOT.
>>HE WILL HEAR HIS VOICE. HE WILL BE READING THE
QUESTIONS. SO FAR WE HAVE ONLY SEEN HIM CHIME IN ONCE WHICH WAS
INTERESTING. THAT WAS HIS CHOICE. I WOULD CHIEF JUSTICE
HAS TO PRESIDE. MAYBE DOES HE PLAY INTERFERENCE. THAT WAS A
BAD QUESTION. DOES HE CUT PEOPLE OFF? OR, THERE WAS A DEBATE
DURING THE CLINTON TRIAL. WHETHER OR NOT HOUSE MANAGERS
GOT ASKED THE QUESTION. AT THAT POINT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAD TO
BE, HANG ON LET ME HUDDLE WITH THE. HE LITERALLY SAID I
DISAGREE WITH THAT ANSWER. THE VERY NEXT DAY HE END UP CHANGING
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN OBJECT TO A QUESTION. ARE THE PROCEDURAL
MOMENTS LIKE THAT.>>HE READ THE BOOKS ON
IMPEACHMENT. EVERYTHING ELSE. THE KEY THING. HE SERVED IN THE
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. HE ACTUALLY WORKED FOR CAN START AT
ONE POINT IN THE 1980S. HE IS INCREDIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
REPUTATION OF THE SUPREME COURT. HE IS GOING TO GO TO GREAT
LENGTHS NOT TO LOOK LIKE IS TIPPING THE SCALE FOR EITHER
SIDE. HE WANTS TO BE SEEN. HE PUT DURING HIS CONFIRMATION
HEARING DURING 2005. I THINK IS GOING TO BE KIND OF CAREFUL TO
SEE IT AS MUCH IS POSSIBLE. THE TIMES THAT HE DOES INTERJECT
WILL BE ALL THE MORE.>>I KNOW THE SUPREME COURT
WATCHER . IN THE INNER CIRCLE. IN A COUPLE MONTHS HE COULD
DECIDE. WHETHER OR NOT HIS FINANCES HAVE TO GO TO CONGRESS.
IT COULD THEN BE MADE PUBLIC. HE WAS TO BE UMPIRE. REGARDLESS OF
WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.>>TRY TO PRESIDE OVER THIS. NO PREFERENCE. IN EITHER
DIRECTION. I LISTEN TO YOUR PODCAST THIS MORNING. I WANT TO
GIVE A SHOUT OUT. YOU CAN GO TO THE WASHINGTON POST. YOU TALKING
ABOUT THE QUESTION OF JOHN BOLTON. HOW THEY HAVE SHIFTED
THEIR BAR FOR WHAT IS OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DO. I BELIEVE
YOU SAID SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
REPUBLICANS HAVE CHANGED THEIR BAR. AS YOU PUT IT. IT IS NOT
SURPRISING.>>IN 2017. YOU LOOK AT WHAT
REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING. IF THERE WAS ANY CONTACT. SAYING
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CONTACT. IT IS ONE OF THOSE
THINGS. THEY HAVE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS NEW TALKING
POINT. THEY DO NOT WANT TO PULL.
POLITICIANS ARE OFTEN HYPOCRITES. IT IS NOT NEW. YOU HAD A NEW PERSPECTIVE. SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING. IT
IS NOT SURPRISING. HE IS DONE SUCH A EXCELLENT JOB. IN THIS
WHOLE PROCESS. ALMOST EVERY LEGISLATIVE DEBATE THAT HAS COME
UP IN CONGRESS. IT IS A BIG THING THAT I PUT IN HIS CORNER.
FOR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE WITNESSES. THAT IS THE SUCCESS
RIGHT NOW. THE REPRESENTATION. OVER THE PAST WEEK. THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. THEY
KIND OF CONSIDERED. WHETHER OR NOT THE SENATOR CAN CALL THE
WITNESSES. ON THE OTHER HAND THEY WERE SO SCRIPTED. WHO MADE
WHAT ARGUMENT. THE 15 MOST OBVIOUS QUESTIONS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE PROBABLY BEEN ADDRESSED. THERE IS ALSO SOME
UNPREDICTABILITY. I HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED THAT
QUESTION BEFORE. THERE COULD BE A VERY DIRECT
QUESTION. IT COULD PUT THEM ON THE SPOT. THAT LOOKS BAD. IT
GIVES THEM THE COVERS TO NOT VOTE FOR WITNESSES. THOSE
TENSIONS ARE THERE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS TO WATCH. THE
DEFENSE LAWYERS. HE IS CLEARLY IN CHARGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
TEAM. A LOT OF THE PEOPLE ARE VERY HAPPY TO BE THERE. JUST
HONORED TO BE SITTING THERE AT THE TABLE. THE BIG
PERSONALITIES. THE QUESTION TO THE COUNCIL. DOES HE FILLED
THOSE QUESTIONS? WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE GOOD CAMERAS. IT
WILL BE FUN TO KNOW WITH SOME THE CONVERSATIONS WERE IN THOSE
MEETING. THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE OJ TRIAL. THE
DREAM TEAM. WHAT KIND OF EGO TENSIONS ARE
THERE. COMING UP WITH WHO IS GOING TO FILLED SOME OF THESE
QUESTIONS. SOME OF THE WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY COUNSEL. DO THEY
GET HIGHER PROFILES. THERE IS A LOT OF FUN STUFF TO WATCH. 16
HOURS. JUST FASCINATED TO SEE IT.
>>DOES HE GET THROWN ON THE SPOT. HE IS THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL LAWYER. HE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY. JAMES REPORTING SAYS REPUBLICANS
WANT TO MAKE HIM MORE OF A WITNESS. THIS IS A CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING. THIS WILL BE SUPER AGGRESSIVE.>>WON THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL. REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. HE
IS THE ONE. HE IS THE ONE THAT WENT. THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS. THE CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS. HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED. THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THAT. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER. THEY CAN CITE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THAT IS BAD OPTICS TO HAVE THE
SENATOR ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON.>>IF THE JOURNALIST IS OVERSEEING
THIS. LET’S GET YOU BACK ON TASK. HE IS HEADING UP TO THE
LEFT. LIVE AND INTERRUPTED. THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGES HERE.>>LET US PRAY. DIVINE SHEPHERD.
HONOR AND GLORY. POWER. THEY BELONG TO YOU. REFRESH OUR SENATORS. AS THEY
ENTER A NEW PHRASE. OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. MAY THEY
REALIZE. YOU HAVE APPOINTED THEM. FOR
THIS GREAT SERVICE. THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU. EMPOWER THEM
TO LABOR TODAY WITH THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF PLEASING YOU. KNOWING
THAT IT IS NEVER WRONG TO DO RIGHT. GIVE THEM RESILIENCY
IN THEIR TOIL. THEY REMEMBER YOUR PROMISE THAT THEY WILL REAP
A BOUNTIFUL HARVEST. HELP THEM TO FOLLOW THE ROAD OF
HUMILITY THAT LEADS TO HONOR AS THEY FIND THEIR SAFETY IN
TRUSTING YOU. WE PRAY IN YOUR MAJESTIC NAME.
AMEN.>>PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.>>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR
WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.>>THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION.
THE PROCEEDINGS ARE APPROVED TODAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION SO
ORDERED. THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.>>HEAR YE HEAR YE HEAR YOU. ALL
PERSONS ARE COMMANDED. THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE
TRAWL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. EXHIBITED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES. THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>>IT WILL CONDUCT UP TO 8 HOURS. TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. A
REMINDER THE TWO SIDES WILL ALTERNATE AND ANSWERS SHOULD BE
KEPT TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD OFF.
THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE
SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED. I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK. ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. SENATOR
MURKOWSKI.>>THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE
COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT. IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE THAN
ONE MODE OF FOR HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION AND THE
PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTEREST. HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER
MORE THAN ONE MODE OF OF ARTICLE 1.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. IN
RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. THERE IS REALLY TWO LAYERS TO MY
ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FIRST THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS
ONLY ONE MOTIVE. THE ABUSE OF POWER THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED. THE SUBJECT MOTIVE ALONE COULD BE A
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. WE BELIEVE IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
DEFECTIVE. IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO FRAME A CLAIM
OF A DEFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. I WILL PUT THAT TO
ONE SIDE. ADDRESSED THE QUESTION OF MIXED MOTIVE. IF THERE WAS A
MOTIVE OF PUBLIC INTEREST. WITH THINK IT FOLLOWS EVEN MORE
CLEARLY THAT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEBATED FOR A IMPEACHABLE
DEFENSE. THEY HAVE FRAMED THEIR CASE. THEY HAVE EXPLAINED IT WAS
POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM. IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORT. THEY SPECIFY THAT THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO
MEET IS TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A SHAM INVESTIGATION. IT IS A
BOGUS INVESTIGATION. ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE.
THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY HAVE SET FOR THEMSELVES. IN BEING
ABLE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR THEORY OF WHAT A ABUSE OF
POWER DEFENSE CAN BE. THERE IS A VERY DEMANDING STANDARD THEY SET
FOR THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE EVEN SAID THEY CAME UP AND TALKED A
LOT ABOUT IT. THEY TALKED A LOT ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THEY WERE
SAYING THERE IS NOT EVEN A SCINTILLA I ANY EVIDENCE OF
ANYTHING WORTH LOOKING INTO. THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY WOULD
HAVE TO MEET. SHOWING THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE
PRESIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY SMIDGEN OF A PUBLIC INTEREST
MOTIVE. THEY RECOGNIZE THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO A MIXED MOTIVE
SITUATION, IF THERE IS SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT ALSO A
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE IN OFFENSE.
IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO HAVE THEM TRYING TO CONSIDER WAS IT 48
PERCENT LEGITIMATE INTEREST. 52 PERCENT PERSONAL. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE IT THAT WAY.
THAT IS WHY THEY RECOGNIZE IT. EVEN A REMOTELY COHERENT THEORY.
THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO SET FOR THEMSELVES IS ESTABLISHING
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL FOR THESE
INVESTIGATIONS. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS A POSSIBLE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE, THAT DESTROYED THEIR CASE. ONCE
YOUR INTO MIXED MOTIVE LANE, IT IS CLEAR THEIR CASE FAILS. THERE
CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS
TO SOME EXTENT HAVE IN MIND HOW THEIR DECISIONS WILL AFFECT THE
NEXT ELECTION. THERE IS ALWAYS SOME PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE
ELECTORAL OUTCOME OF POLICY. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
THAT. THAT IS PART OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. TO SAY
NOW IF YOU HAVE A PART MOTIVE THAT IS FOR YOUR ELECTORAL GAIN,
THAT IS SOMEHOW GOING TO BECOME A OFFENSE. THAT DOES NOT MAKE
ANY SENSE. IT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM
OFFICE. THE BOTTOM LINE. ONCE YOU’RE IN ANY MIXED MOTIVE
SITUATION, ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING INTO
SOMETHING, JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, THE CASE FAILS AND IT
FELLS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS. THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE TO SHOW
NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST. THEY HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO MAKE
THAT CASE. I THINK WE HAVE SOME VERY QUICK. THEY ARE THINGS THAT
RECENTLY SOME PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IT IT IS
SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT. IT HAS NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED.
LOTS OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES SAID THAT IT APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST. IT IS AT LEAST WORTH RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT
IT. THAT MEANS THEIR CASE ABSOLUTELY FAILS.>>THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ARE
RECOGNIZE.>>THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER ASKED
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO CONTINUE
WITHHOLDING $391 MILLION OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCED
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS TOP POLITICAL RIVAL ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. IS
THERE ANY WAY TO DEVELOP A VERDICT WITHOUT
HEARING THE TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER KEY EYEWITNESSES.>>THANK YOU MR. JUSTICE. THE
SHORT ANSWER IS NO. THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT
WITNESSES. IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST
EGREGIOUS. COMING TO TESTIFY TO LOOK THE
OTHER WAY. I THINK IT IS DEEPLY AT ODDS
WITH BEING IMPARTIAL JURY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN
RESPONSE TO THE LAST QUESTION. IF ANY PART OF THE MOTIVATION,
THERE WAS A FACTOR IN THE ACTION TO FREEZE THE AID. THAT IS
ENOUGH TO CONVICT. HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT
THE MOTIVATION. IT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE
ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE
PRESIDENT. HE WAS HOLDING UP THIS AID. HE WANTED UKRAINE TO
CONDUCT THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. ALL OF THE FACTOR. A SUBPOENA
AWAY THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT MAKES IT VERY
CLEAR. ON JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER THAT PHONE CALL. DONALD TRUMP
SPEAKS TO HIM. THAT CONVERSATION. THE DAY AFTER THAT, IS HE GOING
TO DO THE INVESTIGATION. HE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BURDEN SHARING. HE MAY HAVE
HAD A GENERIC SHARING. HERE, IT WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THE ONLY
QUESTION HE WANTED ANSWER TO. IS HE GOING TO DO THE
INVESTIGATION. BEAR IN MIND HE IS TALKING TO THE AMBASSADOR TO
THE UNION. WHAT BETTER PERSON TO TALK TO. THEN THE GUY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BURDEN SHARING. DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE
THIS AT ALL. YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM HIS FORMER
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. DO NOT WAIT FOR THE BOOK. DO NOT
WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE. YOU WILL FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO
YOUR QUESTION. WAS IT ALL OF THE MOTIVE. WE THINK AS I MENTIONED,
THE CASE IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR WITHOUT HIM. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTION ABOUT IT, YOU CAN ERASE ALL DOUBT. LET ME SHOW YOU A VIDEO. THE
NUMBER 2 SLIDE. THIS HOUSE MANAGERS. REALLY THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO
GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS. THEY’RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING VERY
CONSEQUENTIAL. ASK YOURSELF. GIVEN THE FACT SHE IS HEARD
TODAY. WHO DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS. IMPEACHMENT SHOULD NOT BE A
SHELL GAME. IT IS REALLY ON POINT FOR MR.
BOLTON. NUMBER 3. ONCE AGAIN. NOT A SINGLE
WITNESS. IN THE HOUSE RECORD. THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED
UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES. IT PROVIDED ANY FIRST-HAND
EVIDENCE. THE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TO ANY
INVESTIGATION. ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT SAID HE MAY
CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND
INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THE MONEY WAS LINKED TO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS. HE SAID IN ACKNOWLEDGING A QUID
PRO QUO. WE SHOULD JUST GET OVER IT. THEY ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THEY HAD
TO GO TO THE MIC.>>THANK YOU.>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
COUNCIL.>>TO THE COUNCIL. WOULD YOU
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
JUST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. A COUPLE
OF POINTS. MANAGER SHIFT. HE SUGGESTED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
HE WAS INTERESTED IN BURDEN SHARING. HE DID NOT APPARENTLY
RAISE IT IN THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. THAT HE CLAIMS TO
HAVE OVERHEARD AT A RESTAURANT. LET’S LOOK AT THE REAL EVIDENCE.
AS WE EXPLAINED ON JUNE 24. THERE IS A EMAIL IN THE RECORD. SO ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. THE
SUBJECT LINE. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOLLOW-UP ASKING
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. IT SAYS, WHAT DO OTHER
MEMBERS SPEND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE
FOLLOWING UP ON WITH THE PRESENT. IN THE TRANSCRIPT
ITSELF. THE PRESIDENT ASKED. HE SAYS WE
SPEND A LOT OF EFFORT AND TIME. MUCH MORE THAN THE EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES ARE DOING. WE SHOULD BE HELPING YOU MORE THAN WE ARE.
THEY SAY ALMOST NOTHING FOR YOU. ALL THEY DO IS TALK. IT IS
SOMETHING THEY SHOULD REALLY ASK YOU ABOUT. HE GOES ON TO TALK
ABOUT IT. THAT THEY’RE NOT REALLY DOING AS MUCH AS THEY’RE
DOING. HE AGREED WITH HIM. THERE IS EVIDENCE. SOME
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE. IN THE 2016 ELECTION
INTERFERENCE. HE MADE IT A PRESS CONFERENCE. IT HAS BEEN CLEAR ON
THE RECORD SINCE THAT PRESS CONFERENCE. WHAT HE WAS SAYING
WAS GARGLED. HE IMMEDIATELY CLARIFIED. HE NEVER TOLD ME. SIMILARLY, HE ISSUED A
STATEMENT. MAKING CLEAR AGAIN. THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL. IT IS
RAISING A THIRD PERSON. THEY NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH
THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE. LASTLY ON THE POINT. WHETHER
THIS CHAMBER SHOULD HERE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER WHAT THAT MEANS. SHOULD WE JUST HEAR ONE WITNESS. THAT
IS NOT WHAT THE REAL QUESTION IS GOING TO BE. THE REAL QUESTION
IS WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT GOING TO BE SET. WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE
FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BRING A IMPEACHMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THIS CHAMBER. CAN IT BE DONE.
PARTISAN FASHION. THEY DID NOT EVEN SUBPOENA HIM. THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY TO GET HIS
TESTIMONY. NOW THIS WILL BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY. THIS
BODY WILL HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE DISCOVERY. THIS INSTITUTION WILL
BE EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FOR MONTHS ON END. IT HAS TO SIT AS
A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. DISCOVERY IS DONE. IF THEY’RE
GOING TO BE WITNESSES. FAIR TRIALS. THEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE TO HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS WITNESS. THERE WILL BE
DEPOSITIONS. THAT IS THE NEW PRESIDENT. THAT IS THE WAY ALL
OF IT OPERATES IN THE FUTURE. IN THIS INSTITUTION. THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE WAY. FOR
THE WAY THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO HANDLE ALL THE IMPEACHMENTS IN
THE FUTURE. THEY WILL BE DOING IT A LOT.
THANK YOU.>>THE SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS. SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. QUESTION FROM SENATOR MARKET TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. ON MONDAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED THE
DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED HOUSE NEVER EVEN ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO
TESTIFY. THE RECORD IS ACCURATE, DID THE INVESTIGATORS ASKED MR.
BOLTON TO TESTIFY. >>SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS YES.
OF COURSE WE ASKED HIM TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE. HE
REFUSED. WE ASKED HIS DEPUTY. HE REFUSED. FORTUNATELY WE ASKED
THE DEPUTY TO TESTIFY. WE ASKED HER DEPUTY. WE DID SEEK THE
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON. THEY REFUSED. WHEN WE SUBPOENAED, HE
SUED US. HE TOOK US TO COURT. WHEN WE RAISED A SUBPOENA. THE
ANSWER WAS, YOU SERVICE WITH A SUBPOENA AND WE WILL SEE YOU AS
WELL. WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS IF NOT YEARS TO FORCE
THEM TO COME AND TESTIFY. I SHOULD POINT OUT, I THINK THIS
IS A CENTRAL .2 . THEY DID NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH TO GET HIM. THAT
IS WHAT THEY’RE TELLING YOU. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT THEY’RE TELLING
THE COURT. WE CAN PULL UP SLIDE NUMBER 39. THIS IS THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS IN COURT. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. IT LACKS
ARTICLE 3 TO SUE TO FORCE A CONGRESSIONAL OF SUBPOENA. RELATED TO DUTIES AS EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIAL. IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY. THE DUPLICITY OF
THAT ARGUMENT. BEFORE YOU SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER TO
GET THESE WITNESSES. THEY SHOULD HAVE LITIGATED FOR YEARS. DOWN
THE STREET IN THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE. THEY ARE DOING, YOU
NEED TO THROW THEM OUT. THEY HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE TO FORCE
A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT.
THINK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. IF YOU ALLOW A HOUSE TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT. IF YOU PERMIT THEM TO CALL WITNESSES. THINK ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT YOU WILL BE SETTING IF YOU DO NOT ALLOW WITNESSES IN
TRIAL. THAT TO ME IS THE MUCH MORE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. THERE
WAS SOMETHING EVEN MORE DANGEROUS. SOMETHING YOU ANTICIPATE FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY CAN NO LONGER CONTEST THE FACTS. THE
WITHHELD MILITARY AID. TO DOING THE POLITICAL DIRTY
WORK OF THE PRESIDENT. NOW, THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK. YOU SHOULD NOT HEAR ANY FURTHER
WITNESSES ON THIS SECTION. WE ARE GOING TO USE THE END ALL
ARGUMENT. SO WHAT. HE IS FREE TO ABUSE THEIR POWER. WE’RE GOING
TO RELY ON A CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY. EVEN THE ADVOCATE OF
WHICH SAYS IT IS OUTSIDE THE CONSENSUS TO SAY A PRESIDENT
COULD ABUSE HIS POWER WITH IMMUNITY. IMAGINE WHERE THAT
LEADS. THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY THE
PROFESSOR. NOT ONLY WITH OTHER COUNSEL.
TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE. THAT IS EFFECTIVE NONSENSE. EVEN THE
60-YEAR-OLD DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE 81-YEAR-OLD. FOR A REASON.
WITH THAT CONCLUSION LEAVES US. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO
ABOUT IT. ARE WE REALLY READY TO ACCEPT
THE POSITION THAT THIS PRESIDENT OR THE NEXT CAN WITHHOLD
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MILITARY AID TURNED OUT I AT
WAR. UNLESS THEY GET HELP IN THEIR REELECTION. WOULD YOU SAY YOU CAN WITHHOLD
DISASTER RELIEF UNLESS THE GOVERNOR GOT HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL. THAT TO ME IS THE MOST DANGEROUS
ARGUMENT OF ALL. IT IS A DANGER TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH NO
WITNESSES. IT SHOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA
THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE IN THIS WAY.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK
YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON MY
BEHALF. ALSO JOINED BY THE SENATORS.>>THE SENATORS ASKED FOR THE
COUNSEL OF THE PRESENT. IS THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE
HOUSE A LOWER THRESHOLD TO MEET IN THE STANDARD FOR CONVICTION
IN THE SENATE. HAD THEY MET THEIR EVIDENTIARY BURDEN TO
SUPPORT A VOTE OF REMOVAL.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE
STANDARD IN THE HOUSE IS NOT MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS SIMPLY A
ACCUSATION. THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO
ADHERE TO THE SAME STANDARDS IT USED IN THE SENATE. HOUSE
MEMBERS HAVE SUGGESTED ARTICLES OF WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPROVE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY SHOULD HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE. THERE WAS SOME IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. IT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH EVIDENCE. IT
IS DEFINITELY A LOWER STANDARD. THEY SPEAK IN TERMS OF A
CONVICTION. AS THEY POINTED OUT. EVERYWHERE
IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS SPOKEN IN TERMS OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW. IT IS TREASON AND BRIBERY. THE
CONSTITUTION SPEAKS OF A CONVICTION ON BEING CONVICTED IN
THE SENATE. THE SPEAKS OF ALL CRIMES BEING TRIED BY JURY IN
CASES EXCEPT FOR A IMPEACHMENT. AS WE POINTED OUT, ALL OF THE
TEXTUAL REFERENCES. THEY MAKE IT CLEAR THE STANDARDS OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD APPLY IN THE LAW. IN THE BURDEN AND STANDARD
OF PROOF TO BE CARRIED BY THE HOUSE MANAGER. IT IS VERY CLEAR.
THERE IS NOT ANY REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
SIMPLY FOR THE HOUSE TO VOTE UPON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THERE IS VERY MUCH HIGHER STANDARD AS DAYCARE. AS WE
POINTED OUT. THE MERE ACCUSATION COMES HERE WITH NO PRESUMPTION
OF REGULARITY AT ALL IN ITS FAVOR. BOTH FACT AND LAW. FACTUAL AND
LEGAL ISSUES. THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE HELD TO A STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT OF EVERY ELEMENT OF WHAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZABLE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. HERE THEY HAVE FAILED IN THEIR BURDEN OF
PROOF. THEY ALSO FELT ON THE LAW. ANYTHING THAT ON ITS FACE
AMOUNTS TO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED VERY
CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED FACT. EVEN UNDER THEIR
OWN THEORY. PART OF THE FACT. LEFT OUT THE KEY FACTOR. THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT DO NOT
CHANGE. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 CALL CHOSEN DOING
NOTHING WRONG. HE NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE. HIS
OTHER ADVISORS. THEY DO NOT THINK THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO
QUO. THEY NEVER KNEW IT HAD BEEN HELD
UP UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE. THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WITH
STATEMENTS ON RECORD. THEY REPORT THEY SAID TO THEN THERE
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. WITHOUT EVER BEING DONE RELATED
TO THE INVESTIGATION. THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. THAT IS
WHAT THEY HAD TO RELY ON. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THEY FAILED TO PROVE IT AT ALL.
THANK YOU.>>THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
IS RECOGNIZED. >>I’D SEND THE QUESTION TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THEY ASKED FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGER. THE COUNCIL STATED THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE. IS THAT TRUE?>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE PRESIDENT COUNSEL IS NOT
CORRECT. THEY WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID DIRECTLY TO GET A
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT. THERE IS A FEW POINTS I WOULD
LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE WORDS OF THE ACTING
CHIEF OF STAFF WHO ON OCTOBER 17 2019 DURING A NATIONAL PRESS
CONFERENCE. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE DIRECT CONNECTION. DID HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN
PASSING THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER. NO QUESTION
ABOUT IT. THAT IS WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY. HE WAS REPEATING THE
PRESIDENT’S OWN EXPLANATION RELATE DIRECTLY TO HIM. SECOND
HE TESTIFY BY PHONE ON SEPTEMBER 7. THE PRESIDENT DENIED THERE
WAS A QUID PRO QUO. OUTLINES THE VERY QUID PRO QUO HE WANTED FROM
UKRAINE. THEN HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT HE SHOULD GO TO THE
MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION. THIRD, THE
PRESIDENT’S OWN ADVISORS. INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT
WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE DIRECT CONNECTION. MORE SO ON SEPTEMBER
1. HE TOLD VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. THEY HAVE BECOME TIED TO
THE ISSUE. SIMPLY NODDED. ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONDITIONALITY
OF THE EIGHT. FOURTH, WE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. IN
DIRECT EMAIL AND TEXT THAT IT WAS CRAZY TO TIE THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO THE INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO KNOW THERE IS NO OTHER
REASON. THE ENTIRE APPARATUS. THE STATE DEPARTMENT. IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE OTHER LEGITIMATE REASONS. THE POLICY
DEBATE. THEY WERE ALL KEPT IN THE DARK.
THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS THEY MADE UP AFTER THE FACT HAD ENDED
MONTHS BEFORE DURING THE LAST INTERAGENCY MEETINGS. I WILL
MAKE ONE FINAL POINT. AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY LINGERING
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE. ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING WE
JUST TALKED ABOUT. ANYTHING I JUST RELAYED. THERE IS A
QUESTION TO SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT. YOU CAN SUBPOENA
AND ASKING THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.
>>THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. SENATOR FROM UTAH.
>>I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>SENATOR LEE ASKED FOR THE
COUNSEL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ARGUED AGGRESSIVELY. IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PLACE
SERVING MORE THAN THE CAREER CIVIL SERVICE TO CONDUCT FOREIGN
POLICY.>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. IT IS DEFINITELY THE PRESIDENT’S
PLAN. THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. THEY MAKE IT CLEAR. ARTICLE 2
SECTION 1. THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
STRUCTURE THAT THE AUTHORITY IS VESTED SLOWLY IN THE PRESENT.
THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE EVERY 4 YEARS. THAT IS
WHAT GIVES THEM DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY TO HAVE THE POWERS
THAT HE IS GIVEN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS SOMEWHAT
UNIQUE IN THE VERY BROAD POWERS. IT WORKS. IT MAKES SENSE IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. HE IS
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE PEOPLE. THOSE WHO ARE STAFFERS
IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEY ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMACY OR
AUTHORITY. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE
PRESIDENT SETS FOREIGN POLICY. WITHIN SOME CONSTRAINTS. IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO SOME
EXTENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
TIME AND AGAIN. HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY. IF THE
STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH HIM. THAT DOES NOT MEET THE PRESIDENT IS
DOING SOMETHING WRONG. THAT IS THE CRITICAL POINT. THIS IS ONE
OF THE CENTERPIECES. THE ABUSE OF POWER THEORY. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD LIKE THIS BODY TO ADOPT. THAT IS THEY ARE GOING TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. STOLE ON HIS SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE. THE
OBJECT OF ACTIONS WERE PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE. WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. HIS REAL REASON IF WE GET INSIDE HIS
HEAD AND FIGURE IT OUT. WE CAN IMPEACH THEM. THE WAY THEY HAVE
TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO PROVE THE PRESIDENT HAD A BAD MOTIVE. WE
COMPARE WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO WITH WHAT THE INTERAGENCY
CONSENSUS WAS. I MENTIONED IT THE OTHER DAY. THE PRESIDENT
DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY THE
AGENCY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT IS ONLY THEY WHO CAN DEFY THE
PRESENT. THE CASE IS BUILT ON THE POLICY DIFFERENCE. HE HAS BEEN ELECTED BY THE
PEOPLE TO DO THAT. WHERE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AWAY FROM ANOTHER
ELECTION. WITH THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR
NOT THEY LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE WITH THAT AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO SAY
THERE IS SOME INTERAGENCY. THEREFORE, WE CAN SHOW HE DID
SOMETHING WRONG. EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS PROPOSITION. THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO
GETS TO SET FOREIGN POLICY. THAT IS THE ROLE ASSIGNED TO HIM. HE EVEN COMPLAINED ABOUT THE
JULY 25 CALL. IT WAS ONLY A POLICY DIFFERENCE. IT WAS A
POLICY CONCERN. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT
THE QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>HE ASKED THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS ARGUED THE ALLEGED CONDUCT SET
OUT IN THE ARTICLES DOES NOT VIOLATE A CRIMINAL STATUTE AND
MAY NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS. DOES THIS REASONING IMPLY HE DOES NOT
VIOLATE. SUCH AS ORDERING TAX AUDIT. INDISCRIMINATELY INVESTIGATING
PROPONENTS.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THAT IS THE PRECISION. THE
QUESTION WAS REJECTED. IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S CASE. THE GREAT PREPONDERANCE OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF THE
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT IT IS OCCUPIED IN CRIMINAL
CONDUCT. EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR HAS STUDIED THE ISSUE. MULTIPLE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. PRIOR IMPEACHMENTS IN THE HOUSE. THIS
CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY, TEXT, AND STRUCTURE. IT REFLECTS THE PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES. WHERE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER CAN FIND
INDICTABLE CRIMES. IT IS LIKE 35 SHOWS. FIRST, THE PLAINTEXT OF
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE. THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. THEY ARE DEFINED FUNDAMENTALLY. SOME PUBLIC TRUST. THEY ARE
POLITICAL. THE SOCIETY ITSELF. DIFFERENT FROM THE OFFENSES IN
THE CRIMINAL POST. SOME CRIMES LIKE JAYWALKING. THEY’RE NOT
IMPEACHABLE. IN CRIMINALITY. NEVER BE
ASSESSED SEPARATELY. EVEN THOUGH THE PRECIOUS COMMISSION MAY
FURTHER SUPPORT A CASE OF IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL. THE
IMPEACHMENT CONFIRMS A STRONG MAJORITY VOTED BY THE HOUSE IN
1789 HAVE INCLUDED ONE OR MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT DID NOT CHARGE
A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW. ALTHOUGH HE RESIGNED BEFORE THE
HOUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM. THE
COMMITTEE ALLEGATION. MANY ASK. IN HIS CASE, THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANY THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE
HOUSE. THE ACTIONS DID NOT HAVE TO RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF VIOLATING THE FEDERAL STATUTE. REGARDING
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THE NT DID IMPEACHMENT TO REACH
THE FULL SPECTRUM OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT
THREATENED THE CONSTITUTION. IT ENDURED THROUGHOUT THE AGES. IF WE HAD TO KEEP UP IN THE
TIME. IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE THE FULL SPECTRUM. THEY COULD NOT
ANTICIPATE. EVERY SINGLE THREAT IT MAY POSE. THEY ADOPTED A
STANDARD. TO MEET UNKNOWN FUTURE
CIRCUMSTANCES. >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ALONG WITH
SENATOR BLACKBURN AND SENATOR CORNYN I SENT A QUESTION TO THE
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR COUNSEL FROM THE PRESIDENT. IN THE CASE OF SUCH A QUESTION
ADDRESSED TO BOTH SIDES, THEY WILL SPLIT THE FIVE MINUTES
EQUALLY. THE SENATORS ASK, WHY DOES THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP OFF
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY DURING THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED SENATORS, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. WE DID NOT
CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS RELATED TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE, AS THE PRESIDENT’S OWN
COUNSEL ADMITTED, DURING THIS TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT NEVER
RAISED THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID RAISE WAS THIS NOTION OF BLANKET DEFIANCE. THIS NOTION
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT COULD
COMPLETELY DEFY ANY AND ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. NOT TURN OVER DOCUMENTS. NOT TURNOVER
WITNESSES. NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF INFORMATION. IN ORDER
TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN THE
OCTOBER 8 LETTER, THAT WAS SENT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THERE WAS NO JURISPRUDENCE THAT
WAS CITED TO JUSTIFY THE NOTION OF BLANKET DEFIANCE. THERE HAS
BEEN NO CASE LAW CITED TO JUSTIFY THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY. IN FACT EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT HAS CONSIDERED ANY
PRESIDENTIAL CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SUCH AS THE ONE
ASSERTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS REJECTED IT OUT OF HAND.
>>COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. LET ME FRAME THIS IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID. I WENT TO THIS BEFORE. THE IDEA
THAT THERE WAS BLANKET DEFIANCE AND NO EXPLANATION AND NO CASE
LAW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IS SIMPLY INCORRECT. I PUT UP SLIDES, SHOWING THE
LETTERS, A LETTER FROM OCTOBER 18 THAT EXPLAINED SPECIFICALLY
THAT THE SUBPOENA THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE WERE
INVALID. AND THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
SAYING THAT. THERE WAS A LETTER FROM OMB SAYING THAT. A LETTER
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT. THERE WERE SPECIFIC
RATIONALES GIVEN, CITING CASES, WATKINS, BRADLEY AND OTHERS
EXPLAINED THAT EFFECT. THE HOUSE MANAGERS, MANAGER SCHIFF
DECIDED TO NOT TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THAT. WE PARTED OUT OVER
DEFECTS. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISORS FOR THE
PRESIDENT THAT IS ASSERTED FROM EVERY PRESIDENT FROM THE 1970S.
UNIT HE CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT. WE EXPLAIN THE
PROBLEM THAT AGENCY COUNSEL WERE NOT CHECKED PRESIDENT OF POSSESSIONS. THESE
WERE SPECIFIC LEGAL REASONS, NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE. THAT IS A
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE RECORD. AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE
THAT ADJUDICATED IN COURT. AND THE REASON THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT
IS THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE JUST
IN A HURRY. THEY HAD A TIMETABLE. ONE OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS SAT ON THE FLOOR HERE, THEY HAD NO TIME FOR COURT. THEY
HAD TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION. SO THEY HAD
TO HAVE IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS. THAT IS WHY THE PROPER PROCESS
WASN’T FOLLOWED HERE. BECAUSE IT WAS A PARTISAN THEM AND BELITTLE
IT — AND POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO GET DOWN
AROUND THE TIMING FOR THE ELECTION.
>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL. SENATOR FROM VERMONT.>>SENATOR LEAHY ASKED THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ARGUES THERE WAS NO HARM
DONE AND THAT THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED TO UKRAINE
AND THE PRESIDENT MET WITH ZELENSKY AT THE UN IN SEPTEMBER
AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS TREATED UKRAINE MORE FAVORABLY THAN HIS
PREDECESSORS. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION. CONTRARY TO WHAT
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAS SAID OR HAS CLAIMED, THAT THERE WAS
NO HARM, NO FOUL, THE AID EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, WE
PROMISE UKRAINE IN 2014 THAT IF THEY GAVE UP THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL
THAT WE WOULD BE THERE FOR THEM. THAT WE WOULD DEFEND THEM. THAT
WE WOULD FIGHT ALONG BESIDE THEM. 15,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE
DIED. IT WAS INTERESTING THE OTHER DAY
WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID THAT NO AMERICAN LIFE WAS
LOST AND WE ARE ALWAYS GRATEFUL AND THANKFUL FOR THAT. BUT WHAT
ABOUT OUR FRIENDS? WHAT ABOUT OUR ALLIES IN UKRAINE? ACCORDING
TO DIPLOMAT HOLMES AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR,
OUR UKRAINIAN FRIENDS CONTINUE TO DIE ON THE FRONT LINES. THOSE
WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR US, FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, WHEN UKRAINIANS HAVE
THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND
US. THE AID, ALTHOUGH IT DID ARRIVE
, IT TOOK THE WORK OF SENATORS IN THIS ROOM WHO HAD TO PASS
ADDITIONAL LAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT LOSE
OUT ON 35 MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS . CONTRARY TO THE PRESIDENT’S
TWEET THAT ALL OF THE AIDE ARRIVED AND IT ARRIVED AHEAD OF
SCHEDULE, THAT IS NOT TRUE. ALL OF THE AIDE HAS NOT ARRIVED. AND
LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SIGNAL. WITHHOLDING THE AIDE FOR
NO LEGITIMATE REASON. THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT BURDEN
SHARING BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE GROUND. HOLDING THE AIDE
FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON SENT A STRONG MESSAGE WE WERE NOT GOING TO SEND TO
RUSSIA THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
UKRAINE WAS ON SHAKY GROUND. IT ACTUALLY, UNDERCUT UKRAINE’S
ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH RUSSIA. WITH HIM, AS
EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, IS IN ACTIVE WAR. AND WE TALK ABOUT THE AIDE,
EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, NO HARM, NO FOUL, THAT IS NOT TRUE
SENATORS. AND I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT. THERE WAS HARM. AND
THERE WAS FOUL. LET US NOT FORGET THAT YOU CLAIM IS NOT AN
ENEMY. THEY ARE NOT AN ADVERSARY. THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT IT
QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOES IT MATTER IF
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IS IT TRUE THAT QUID PRO QUOS ARE USED
IN FOREIGN POLICY?>>CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION. YESTERDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF A PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE ISRAEL, PALESTINE CONFLICT. AND
I OFFERED A HYPOTHETICAL THE OTHER DAY. WHAT IF A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT WERE TO BE ELECTED AND CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE MUCH MONEY TO ISRAEL OR THE
PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL,
NO, I’M GOING TO WITHHOLD THIS MONEY UNLESS YOU STOP ALL
SETTLEMENT GROWTH. OR TO THE PALESTINIANS, I WILL WITHHOLD
THE MONEY, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED TO YOU UNLESS YOU STOP PAYING
TERRORISTS. AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, A QUID PRO QUO? IF YOU
DON’T DO IT, YOU DON’T GET THE MONEY. IF YOU DO IT, YOU GET THE
MONEY. THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS CHAMBER THAT WOULD REGARD THAT
AS IN ANY WAY UNLAWFUL. THE ONLY
THING THAT WOULD MAKE A QUID PRO QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF THE QUO WERE
IN SOME WAY ILLEGAL. THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES THAT A
POLITICAL FIGURE CAN HAVE. ONE, A MOTIVE IN PUBLIC
INTEREST. THE ISRAEL ARGUMENT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE SECOND IS IN HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS AND THE
THIRD, WHICH HASN’T BEEN MENTIONED WOULD BE IN HIS OWN
FINANCIAL INTERESTS. HIS OWN PURE FINANCIAL INTEREST. IS
PUTTING MONEY IN THE BANK. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND ONE
FOR ONE MOMENT. EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I KNOW BELIEVES
HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND MOSTLY, YOU ARE RIGHT. YOUR
ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THE PRESIDENT DOES
SOMETHING, WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED DID,
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO
QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT. I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN. WHEN
PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA,
SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, LET’S ASSUME
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS HIS
ELECTORAL AGENTS TO HAVE THE SOLDIERS PUT AT RISK, THE LIVES
OF MANY OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT THEIR COMPANY.
WITH THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO? NO BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT A BELIEVED IT WAS THE NATIONAL
INTEREST AND B, HE BELIEVED HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO
VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT AND THAT
IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO TRY TO PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT
AND GET INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYBODY HAS
MIXED MOTIVES. AND FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT,
BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD BE PERMITTING ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT
TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE —
FOREIGN-POLICY DECISIONS — WHY DO YOU NEED POSTERS? YOU NEED
POLITICAL ADVISORS. JUST DO IT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. THAT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE WHAT
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH WHAT IS IN YOUR PARTY’S
ELECTORAL INTERESTS AND YOUR OWN ELECTORAL INTERESTS, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN FROM ONE TO THE
OTHER. WE MAY ARGUE IT IS NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST PULLED
NUCLEAR PRESIDENT TO GET REELECTED OR SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
AND MAYBE WE ARE RIGHT, IT IS NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR
EVERYONE RUNNING TO BE ELECTED. BUT TO BE IMPEACHABLE IT WOULD
HAVE TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE A DECISION SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF HOUSE MANAGERS, CORRUPT AMOUNT MOTIVES. IT CANNOT BE CORRUPT
MOTIVE IF IT IS A MIXED MOTIVE THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PERSONAL
INTERESTS. AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS
DECISION, THIS QUID PRO QUO, AS THEY CALL IT AND THE QUESTION IS
BASED ON HIGH PALACES, — HYPOTHESIS, THEY NEVER
ALLEGED THAT IT WAS BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL REASONS. IT WOULD
BE A MUCH HARDER CASE EVER HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE TO A HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU BUILD A HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON
IT, AND UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A MILLION-DOLLAR — I WILL
WITHHOLD THE FUNDS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THAT IS PART CORRUPT
AND PRIVATE INTEREST. THAT ACCOMPLICE MIDDLE CASE IS, I WANT TO BE ELECTED. I
THINK I’M THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS AND IF I’M NOT
ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY. THAT CANNOT
BE. >>RECOGNIZING THE DEMOCRATIC
LEADER. >>CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT THE
QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>THE HEAD — QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. >>I WOULD BE DELIGHTED. THERE
ARE TWO ARGUMENTS THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MAKES. ONE IS A VERY
ODD ARGUMENT FOR A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE AND THAT
IS THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND TRIAL
ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S STATE OF MIND, INTENT OR MENS REA. IN EVERY
COURTROOM IN AMERICA AND EVERY CRIMINAL CASE OR ALMOST EVERY
CRIMINAL CASE EXCEPT FOR A SMALL SLIVER THERE ARE STRICT
LIABILITIES. THE QUESTIONS OF INTENT AND STATE OF MIND IS
ALWAYS AN ISSUE. THIS IS NOTHING NOVEL. YOU DON’T REQUIRE A
MINDREADER. IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, I WOULD ASSUME AND EVERY
IMPEACHMENT CASE, YES YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE PRESIDENT WAS
OPERATING FROM A CORRUPT MOTIVE. AND WE HAVE. BUT HE ALSO MAKES
AN ARGUMENT THAT ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE THE SAME AND ALL OUR
PERFECTLY COPACETIC. SOME OF YOU SAID EARLIER, IF THEY CAN PROVE
QUID PRO QUO OVER THE MILITARY THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING. WELL,
WE HAVE. SO THE ARGUMENT SHIFTS TO ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE THE
SAME. WELL I’M GOING TO SUPPLY THE OWN TEST. HE TALKED ABOUT
THE STEP TEST. THE PHILOSOPHER, LET’S PUT THE
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND SEE HOW IT CHANGES PERCEPTION OF
THINGS. BUT I WANT TO MERGE THAT ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER
PRESIDENTIAL COUNSEL’S ARGUMENTS WHEN THEY RESORTED TO THE, WHAT
ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S OPEN MIC. THAT WAS A POOR ANALOGY I
THINK YOU WILL AGREE BUT LET’S USE IT AND MAKE IT COMPARABLE TO
TODAY AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL THIS SCENARIO? PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AN
OPEN MIC SAYS, HEY, I KNOW YOU DON’T WANT ME TO SEND
THIS MILITARY MONEY TO UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTING AND
KILLING YOUR PEOPLE. I WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH. I WANT
YOU TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY. AND I WANT YOU TO
ANNOUNCE THAT YOU FOUND DIRT ON MITT ROMNEY. AND IF YOU’RE
WILLING TO DO THAT, QUID PRO QUO, I WON’T GIVE UKRAINE THE
MONEY THAT THEY NEED TO FIGHT YOU ON THE FRONT LINE. DO ANY OF
US HAVE ANY QUESTION THAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE
IMPEACHED FOR THAT KIND OF MISCONDUCT? ARE WE REALLY READY
TO SAY THAT WOULD BE OKAY. IF BARACK OBAMA ASKED TO
INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENTS AND WOULD WITHHOLD MONEY FROM ALLIES
THAT NEEDED TO DEFEND ITSELF TO GET AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT
ROMNEY? THAT IS THE PARALLEL HERE. AND TO SAY, YES, WE
CONDITIONED IT ALL THE TIME FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS. YES, FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS YOU
MIGHT SAY TO A GOVERNOR OF A STATE, HEY GOVERNOR OF A STATE,
YOU SHOULD SHIP AND MORE TOWARD YOUR OWN DISASTER RELIEF. BUT IF
THE PRESIDENT’S REAL MOTIVE IN DEPRIVING THE STATE OF DISASTER
RELIEF IS BECAUSE THAT GOVERNOR WON’T GET HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL RIVAL, ARE WE READY TO
SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN SACRIFICE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF
THAT STATE OR IN THE CASE, THE PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY? ALL QUID
PRO QUOS ARE FINE AND IT IS CARTE BLANCHE? IS THAT REALLY
WHAT WE ARE PREPARED TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PRESIDENT’S
CONDUCT OR THE NEXT? BECAUSE IF WE ARE, THEN THE NEXT PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF YOU. THEY
CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THE NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY POOR FOREIGN POWER. AND THE ARGUMENT
WILL BE MADE, DONALD TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED FOR DOING THE SAME
THING. THEREFORE IT MUST NOT BE IMPEACHABLE. BEAR IN MIND, THAT EFFORTS TO CHEAT AN
ELECTION ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN PROXIMITY TO AN ELECTION. AND
IF YOU SAY, YOU CAN’T HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IN AN
ELECTION YEAR WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT ELECTION
THEN YOU ARE GIVING THEM CARTE BLANCHE. ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE NOT THE SAME.
SOME ARE LEGITIMATE AND SOME ARE CREPT. YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A
MINDREADER TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS WHICH. FOR ONE THING, ASKS
JOHN BOLTON. >>THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
>>I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>SENATOR GRASSLEY AS COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, DOES THE HOUSE’S FAILURE TO SUPPORT ITS
SUBPOENAS OBSTRUCT — UNPRECEDENTED? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THE ANSWER IS YES. AS FAR AS I AM AWARE THERE IS NEVER BEEN A
PRIOR INSTANCE IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT, EVEN IN THE
HOUSE, AS IN THE NIXON PROCEEDING NEVERMIND THE CLINTON
PROCEEDING THAT LEFT THE HOUSE AND CAME TO THE SENATE, TO
SUGGEST THAT CAN BE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHEN THERE HASN’T
BEEN ANYTHING BEYOND SIMPLY ISSUING A SUBPOENA, GETTING
RESISTANCE AND THROWING UP YOUR HANDS AND GIVING UP AND SAYING,
THAT IS OBSTRUCTION. IN THE CLINTON SITUATION, MOST OF THE
LITIGATION WAS WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. THERE WERE PRIVILEGES ASSERTED
AND LITIGATION AND LITIGATION, AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE POINT IS
THE ISSUES ABOUT THE PRIVILEGES WERE ALWAYS NEGATED AND WERE
RESOLVED BEFORE THINGS CAME TO THIS BODY. SIMILARLY, IN THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT, WITHIN THE HOUSE, A LOT OF INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN
DONE BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THERE WAS LITIGATION OVER
ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGES THERE IN ORDER TO GET THE TAPES,
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE TURNED OVER. BUT AGAIN THERE WAS LITIGATION
ABOUT THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE
GRAND JURY SUBPOENA THAT FED INTO THE HOUSE’S PROCEEDINGS. IT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO
ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY BRING A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION INTO THE
SENATE, WHERE ALL THEY CAN PRESENT IS WE ISSUE THE
PRECEDING SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE LEGAL GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR
THE INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT GROUNDS
THAT — I WILL NOT REPEAT THEM IN DETAIL BUT SOMEWHERE BECAUSE
OF SUBPOENAS THAT WERE IN VALUED AND SOME THERE WAS NO VOTE. AND
WITNESSES WERE IN VALUED BECAUSE SENIOR ADVISORS HAD NO IMMUNITY FOR COMPULSION. SUMMER
FORCING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL. VARIOUS REASONS ASSERTED FOR THE
INVALIDITY AND DEFECTS OF VERY SUBPOENAS. AND NO
ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THEM. NO ATTEMPT TO LITIGATE OUT WHAT THE
VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY MIGHT BE BUT BRING AS OBSTRUCTION CHARGE
IS UNPRECEDENTED. AND I WILL NOTE THE HOUSE MANAGERS, HAVE
SAID AND I’M SURE THEY WILL SAY AGAIN TODAY THAT, IF WE HAD GONE
TO COURT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE SAID
THAT THE COURTS DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE CLAIMS.
THAT IS TRUE. IN SOME CASES, THERE IS ONE
BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW RELATED TO THE FORMER COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, DON BEGAN. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
POSITION, JUST LIKE THE POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS
THAT AN EFFORT BY THE HOUSE TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE 3
COURT IS A NON-JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY . THAT IS OUR POSITION AND WE
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN COURT. THAT IS PART OF WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
LITIGATED. IT DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT HOUSE MANAGERS CAN’T
HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WANT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE AN AVENUE FOR GOING TO
COURT. THERE USING THE AVENUE FOR GOING TO COURT. THEY
ACTUALLY TOLD THE COURT AND ON AGAIN ONCE THEY’VE REACHED AN
IMPASSE WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT THE COURTS WERE THE
ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE. AND AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY
THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR DEALING WITH THESE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS. THE FIRST IS ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.
THEY DIDN’T DO THAT. WE OFFER TO DO THAT IN THE OFF OCTOBER 8
LETTER. THEY DID NOT DO ACCOMMODATIONS. IF THEY THINK
THEY CAN SEE THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT STEP BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION — IN DISPUTES BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. IF THEY THINK THAT THE COURTS CAN RESOLVE THAT
DISPUTE, THAT IS THE NEXT STEP AND THEY SHOULD DO THAT AND HAVE
THAT NEGATED. THEN THINGS CAN PROCEED TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF
CONFRONTATION. BUT TO TRUMP STATE TO IMPEACHMENT AND THE
ULTIMATE COMPETITION DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. IT IS NOT THE SYSTEM THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES. AND IT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU COUNSEL. THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>SENATOR ASKED THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS CARE TO
CORRECT THE RECORD ON ANY FALSEHOODS OR
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE OPENING ARGUMENTS? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. WE BELIEVE THE
PRESIDENT’S TEAM HAS CLAIMED BASICALLY THAT THERE WERE
SIXPACKS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET AND THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. IN ALL
6 OF THE FACTS THAT ARE IN CORRECT. LET’S BE CLEAR ON JULY
25, THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE EVIDENCE. BEFORE US EVEN THOUGH
IT INCLUDES DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF THE PROVIDENT SCHEME. IT WAS
MADE CLEAR ON THE CALL BUT WE HAD EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION
BEFORE THE MEETING, WITH MR. BOLTON, THE TEXT MESSAGE, TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S PEOPLE TELLING THEM HE HAD TO DO THE
INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHAT HE WANTED. ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE
THAT MAKES US UNDERSTAND THE PHONE CALL EVEN MORE —
CLEARLY. THE CLAIM THAT MR. ZELENSKY SAID THEY NEVER FELT
PRESSURED TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION. THEY DIDN’T SAY
IT PUBLICLY, THEY WERE AFRAID OF THE RUSSIANS, FINDING OUT. BUT
ZELENSKY SAID PRIVATELY HE DIDN’T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. YOU WANTED TO RESIST ANNOUNCING THE
INVESTIGATIONS. HE ONLY RELENTED IN SCHEDULING THE CNN MEETING
AFTER IT WAS CLEAR HE WAS NOT GOING TO RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THAT HE NEEDED AND THAT
CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED IN OUR APPROPRIATIONS. THAT IS THE
DEFINITION OF PRESSURE. NOW UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
SAY DID NOT KNOW THAT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL IT WAS PUBLIC. MANY WITNESSES HAVE
CONTESTED THAT, INCLUDING THE OPEN STATEMENT BY — WHO WAS
THEN THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE, THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT’S HOLD ON THE SECURITY MATTERS. AND IN THE
END, EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS PUBLIC AND AFTER WAS UKRAINE SCHEDULED THE TESTIMONY. HEATHER
SAID THE WITNESSES SAID THAT SECURITY WAS CONDITIONED ON THE
— MULVANEY, OTHER WITNESSES TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKEDOWN FOR
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THAT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU
CAN GET A WITNESS WHO TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FIRSTHAND ABOUT
WHAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT HE WAS DOING. ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE
SOME OF IT WAS RELEASED BUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES STILL HAS NOT
OCCURRED. AND WE STILL DON’T HAVE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
BIDENS. GETTING CAUGHT DOESN’T MITIGATE THE WRONGDOING. THE
PRESIDENT’S UNREPENTANT AND WE FEAR HE WILL
DO IT AGAIN. NOW IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED
THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD THE AID.
THAT MISCONDUCT IS GOING ON, ALL THE AID HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED.
AND FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS, THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION,
I’M SURE UNINTENTIONAL. THE PRESIDENT TRULY DOES NOT NEED TO
PUT PERMISSION OF HIS STAFF ON
FOREIGN POLICY. THAT IS GIVEN AS EVIDENCE ON WHAT HE
THOUGHT HE WAS DOING. AND HE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE PURSUING A
POLICY AGENDA. HE APPEARED, FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE TO BE PURSUING
A CORRUPTION. A CORRUPTION OF OUR ELECTION THAT IS UPCOMING. A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR
THAT REQUIRES CONVICTION AND REMOVAL. I YIELD BACK.
>>THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.
>>I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS BOSEMAN, SALLY BLACKBURN,
KENNEDY AND TOOMEY. >>THE SENATORS AS THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL , DID THE HOUSE FATHER TO SEEK
TESTIMONY OR LITIGATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUES DURING THE
MONTHS DURING WHICH IT HELD UP THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES BEFORE
SENDING THEM TO THE SENATE? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, NO,
THE HOUSE DID NOT SEEK TO LITIGATE ANY VILLAGE ISSUES
DURING THAT TIME. IN FACT, THEY FILED NO LAWSUITS ARISING FROM
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THEY WOULD SEEK TO CONTEST THE
BASIS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR
RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS. THE BASIS FOR WHY THE SUBPOENAS WERE
INVALID. AND WHEN LITIGATION WAS FILED BY ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS,
THAT WAS — THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HE WENT TO THE
COURT AND SOUGHT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SAYING THE PRESIDENT
TOLD ME I SHOULDN’T GO. I HAD SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSING I
SHOULD GO. PLEASE, TELL ME MY OBLIGATIONS. AND THAT WAS FILED,
I BELIEVE AROUND OCTOBER 25th, TOWARD THE END OF OCTOBER. VERY
SHORTLY, WITHIN A FEW DAYS, THE COURT HAS SAID THE EXPEDITED
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 10 THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HEAR
BOTH PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO DISMISS BUT ALSO THE MERIT ISSUE. THEY WOULD GET
THE DECISION AFTER HEARING ON DECEMBER 10 THAT WOULD GO TO THE
MERIT OF THE ISSUE. THE HOUSE MANAGERS WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO MOOD OF THE CASE THAT THEY
WOULD NOT GET DECISION. SAID NO, THE HOUSE HAS NOT PURSUED
LITIGATION TO GET THE ISSUES RESOLVED. IT IS AFFIRMATIVELY
AVOIDED GETTING ANY LITIGATION. AND IT SEEMS TO BE, AT LEAST IN
PART, BASED ON, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORT, THEIR ASSERTION THAT UNDER THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT,’S ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE, THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT
THE CONSTITUTION — I BELIEVE THE EXACT WORDS, IT
GIVES THE HOUSE THE LAST WORD, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. AND I
MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, THIS IS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY
THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN THEIR
VIEW IT IS ACTUALLY THE PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OR
IMMUNITIES OR ROLES, EVEN OF THE OTHER
BRANCHES, MOSTLY JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE FALL AWAY. AND THERE’S
NOTHING THAT CAN STAND IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT. IF THE ISSUE UP TO SUBPOENA THE EXECUTIVE HAS TO
RESPOND AND IT CANNOT RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND IF YOU DO THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF
COURTS. THE COURSE HAS NO ROLE. THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS A DANGEROUS CONSTRUCT FOR OUR
CONSTITUTION. IT SUGGESTS THAT ONCE THEY FLIP THE SWITCH ONTO
IMPEACHMENT THERE IS NO CHECK ON THEIR POWER IN WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED. THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, WHEN THERE ARE INTERBRANCH CONFLICTS
THAT THERE BE AN ACCOMMODATION PROCESS. THAT THERE BE ATTEMPTS
TO ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES. AND IF THE HOUSE HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION IN ANOTHER LITIGATION THEY ARE TELLING THE
COURTS THAT THE COURTS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
AND THEY BROUGHT THAT CASE TO IN AUGUST. THEY HAVE AN APPEAL IN THE D.C.
CIRCUIT. IT WAS ARGUED JANUARY 3. THE DECISION COULD COME ANY
DAY. THAT IS PRETTY FAST FOR LITIGATION. BUT THEY DECIDED IN
THE IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO DO LITIGATION. AND
AGAIN, IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAD TIMETABLE. ONE OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ADMITTED ON THIS FLOOR THAT THEY HAD TO GET THE
PRESIDENT IMPEACH BEFORE THE ELECTION AND HAD NO TIME FOR THE
COURTS, FOR ANYONE TELLING THEM WHAT THE RULES WERE. AND THEY
HAD TO GET IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS, THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. THEN THEY
WAITED AROUND FOR THE MONTH, BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE. AND I
THINK THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT IS REALLY BEHIND THE CLAIMS
OF, IS URGENT, IT IS NOT URGENT, IT IS URGENT WHEN IT IS OUR
TIMETABLE AND NOT URGENT WHEN WE CAN WAIT FOR A MONTH BECAUSE WE
WANT TO TELL THE SENATE HOW TO RUN THINGS. IT IS ALL A
POLITICAL CHARADE. AND THAT IS PART OF THE REASON, A MAJOR
REASON THE SENATE SHOULD RETRACT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. >>THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>>THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT THE
QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. PLEASE ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL’S ARGUMENT
THAT HOUSE MANAGERS SEEK TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2016
ELECTION AND THAT THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
BE LEFT TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.>>THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
FIRST I WANT TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL JUST
SAID. NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST FOR LITIGATION IN THE COURTS.
SADLY, I AGREE WITH THAT THAT NINE MONTHS ISN’T BACKED PRETTY FAST AND WE DON’T HAVE A
DECISION YET. ONCE MORE THAT IS THE CASE THEY ARE ARGUING AS I
QUOTED EARLIER THAT CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO COME TO THE COURTS
TO FORCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. SO HERE WE ARE, NINE MONTHS
LATER AND LITIGATION THAT THEY SAID WERE COMPELLED UNDER
CONSTITUTION AND THEY ARE SAYING IN COURT YOU CANNOT BRING THIS
AND IT IS NINE MONTHS AND WE DON’T HAVE A DECISION. I THINK
THAT TELLS YOU JUST WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM. IT ALL GOES
BACK TO THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTIVE, DESPITE ALL SUBPOENAS
AND THEY ARE. DIXON WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED FOR FAR LESS
OBSTRUCTION THAN ANYTHING THAT DONALD TRUMP DID. THE ARGUMENT, IF YOU IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT, YOU ARE OVERTURNING THE RESULTS OF THE LAST ELECTION
AND YOU ARE TEARING UP THE BALLOTS IN THE NEXT ELECTION. IF
THAT WERE THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE
CONSTITUTION. BECAUSE BY DEFINITION IF YOU ARE
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT THAT PRESIDENT IS IN OFFICE AND HAS
WON THE ELECTION. CLEARLY THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN
MIND. WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND IS IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, YOU MUST REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. IT
IS NOT VOIDING THE LAST ELECTION, IT IS PROTECTING THE
NEXT ELECTION. THE IMPEACHMENT POWERS PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION
NOT AS A PUNISHMENT. THAT IS WHAT THE CRIMINAL LAWS ARE FOR.
BUT TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY. IF YOU SAY YOU CAN’T IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION, WHAT YOU’RE REALLY
SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN THEIR
SECOND TERM. THAT WERE GOING TO BE THERE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT THE FOUNDERS WOULD’VE PUT INTO THE
CONSTITUTION, A PRESIDENT CAN COMMIT WHATEVER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS HE WANTS AS LONG AS IT IS THE FIRST TERM. THAT IS
CLEARLY NOT WHAT ANY RATIONAL FARMER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AND
INDEED THEY DID IN. AND THEY DID IT FOR A REASON. THE FOUNDERS
WERE CONCERNED THAT IN FACT THE OBJECT OF WHATEVER A PRESIDENT’S
CORRUPT SCHEME MIGHT BE TO CHEAT IN THE VERY ACCOUNTABILITY THEY
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ELECTION. COUNSEL HAS CONTINUED TO
MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT THE MANAGERS HAVE SAID. THEY WERE
NOT SANG TO HURRY TO IMPEACH BEFORE THE ELECTION, WE HAD TO
HURRY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT
ELECTION. AND THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL IS, WELL, YES, IT IS TRUE THAT IF A
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO CHEAT AND ELECTION, BY DEFINITION THAT IS
PART OF THEIR REELECTION AND BY DEFINITION THAT IS APPROXIMATE
TO AN ELECTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, EVEN
THOUGH THE OBJECT IS TO CORRUPT THAT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. THAT
CANNOT BE BUT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND. WHAT I SAID AT THE VERY
OPEN OF THIS PROCEEDING IS, YES, WE ARE TO LOOK TO HISTORY. YES,
WE ARE TO TRY TO DIVINE THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS BUT WE ARE
NOT TO LEAVE COMMON SENSE OF THE DOOR.
THE ISSUE ISN’T WHETHER THIS IS THE FIRST TREMOR THE SECOND. IT
IS A WHETHER THE ELECTION IS WHEN YOU’RE AWAY OR 3 YEARS
AWAY. THE ISSUE IS, DID HE COMMIT A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR? IS IT A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OF A TO AN ALLY AT WAR TO GET HELP, ELICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION? IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS, IT
DOESN’T MATTER WHAT TERM IT IS. IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW FAR AWAY
THE ELECTION IS. BECAUSE THAT PRESIDENT REPRESENTS A THREAT TO
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. MORE THAN THAT A THREAT TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY. AS WE HAVE SHOWN, I WITHHOLDING THE AID,
AND I KNOW THE ARGUMENT, NO HARM, NO FOUL, WE WITHHELD AID
FROM AN ALLY AT WAR. WE SENT THE MESSAGE TO THE RUSSIANS WHEN
THEY LEARNED OF THE HOLD THAT WE DID NOT HAVE UKRAINE’S BACK. WE
SENT A MESSAGE TO THE RUSSIANS, AS ZELENSKY WAS GOING INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEWTON TO END THE WAR THAT ZELENSKY WAS
OPERATING FROM A POWER OF WEAKNESS BECAUSE THERE WAS A
DIVISION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
UKRAINE. THAT IS IMMEDIATE DAMAGE. THAT
IS DAMAGE DONE EVERY DAY. THAT DAMAGE CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
THE DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT DOES IN PUSHING OUT THE RUSSIAN
CONSPIRACY THEORIES OR IDENTIFYING THE HOUSE PROCEDURES
AND YOU HAVE HEARD IN THE SENATE AS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE
PROPAGANDA, THE DANGER THAT THE PRESIDENT POSES BY TAKING
VLADIMIR PUTIN PROPHESIED OVER HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, THAT IS A
DANGER TODAY. THAT IS A DANGER THAT CONTINUES EVERY DAY HE
PUSHES OUT THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. THE FRAMERS, IF THEY MEANT
IMPEACHMENT ONLY TO IMPLY IN THE SECOND TERM, WOULD HAVE SAID SO.
BUT THAT WOULD’VE MADE THE CONSTITUTION A SUICIDE PACT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND NOT HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT.
>>THE SENATOR FROM OHIO. >>YES, THANK YOU.>>THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. GIVEN THAT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE
PRIVILEGED IN THE SENATE AND LARGELY PREVENT OTHER WORK FROM
TAKING PLACE, WHILE THEY ARE ONGOING, PLEASE ADDRESS THE
IMPLICATIONS OF ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO PRESENT AN INCOMPLETE
CASE TO THE SENATE AND REQUEST THE SENATE TO SEEK TESTIMONY
FROM ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THIS BODY
FACES, GIVEN THESE CALLS TO HAVE WITNESSES.
BECAUSE HOUSE MANAGERS TRY TO PRESENT IT AS IF IT IS JUST A
SIMPLE QUESTION, HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES.
BUT IN RELITIGATION, NO ONE GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT DOING
DISCOVERY. NOAH GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT HAVING HEARD FROM THE
WITNESSES FIRST. YOU DON’T SHOW UP AT TRIAL AND THEN START
TRYING TO CALL WITNESSES FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND THE IMPLICATION
HERE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR TRYING TO RUN
THINGS IN UPSIDE DOWN WAY WOULD BE VERY
GRAVE FOR THIS BODY AS AN INSTITUTION. BECAUSE AS THE
SENATORS QUESTION POINTS OUT, IT LARGELY PRESENTS
THIS CHAMBER FROM GETTING OTHER BUSINESS DONE, AS LONG AS THERE
IS A TRIAL PENDING. AND THE IDEA THAT THE HOUSE CAN DO AN
INCOMPLETE JOB IN TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WITNESSES THERE ARE,
HAVING THEM COME TESTIFY, TRYING TO FIND OUT THE FACTS, TO RUSH
SOMETHING THROUGH AND BRING IT HERE AS IMPEACHMENT AND THEN
START TO CALL THE WITNESSES, MEANS THAT THIS BODY WILL END UP
TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATORY TASK AND ALL THE REGULAR
BUSINESS OF THIS BODY WILL BE SLOWED DOWN, HINDERED, PREVENTED
WELL THAT GOES ON. AND IT ISN’T A QUESTION OF ONE
WITNESS. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING RIGHT
NOW ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. BUT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS WITNESSES AS A MATTER OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. AND THERE WOULD BE A LONG LIST
OF WITNESSES IF THE BODY WERE TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION IT WOULD
MEAN IT WOULD DRAG ON FOR MONTHS. AND PREVENT THIS CHAMBER
FROM GETTING ITS BUSINESS DONE. THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO
THINGS AND IN UPSIDE DOWN WAY OF DOING THINGS. AND TO HAVE THE
HOUSE NOT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT IS THOROUGH AND COMPLETE,
AND TO JUST RUSH THINGS THROUGH IN A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL
MATTER AND DUMP IT ONTO THIS CHAMBER TO CLEAN EVERYTHING UP
IS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY,
WHATEVER IS EXCEPTED IN THIS CASE BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL. AND
IF THIS CHAMBER PUTS ON THE PROCESS, THAT IS THE SEAL
OF APPROVAL FOR ALL TIME IN THE FUTURE. AND IF IT BECOMES THAT
EASY FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DON’T ATTEMPT TO SUBPOENA
WITNESSES, NEVERMIND LITIGATION, IT TAKES TOO LONG, BUT THEN
LEAVE IT TO THIS CHAMBER — AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, REMEMBER, WHAT DO WE THINK WILL HAPPEN IF
SOME OF THE WITNESSES ARE SUBPOENA NOW? THAT THEY NEVER
BOTHER TO LITIGATE ABOUT? THEN THERE WILL BE LITIGATION NOW,
MOST LIKELY. THEN THAT WILL TAKE TIME, WHILE THIS CHAMBER IS
STUCK SITTING AS A COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO DO THINGS. AND IT WOULD
FOREVER CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE
IMPEACHMENT OPERATES. IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE
CHAMBER TO CONSIDER WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO START HAVING
THIS CHAMBER TO ALL THE INVESTIGATORY WORK AND HOW THIS CHAMBER WOULD BE
PARALYZED BY THAT. AND IS IT REALLY THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT
THE WAY THIS CHAMBER WANTS EVERYTHING TO OPERATE IN THE
FUTURE? ONCE YOU MAKE IT THAT MUCH EASIER — WE HAVE SAID THIS
ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS FOR
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND ALSO IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT IS
USED IN THE HOUSE. YOU MAKE IT REALLY, WAY TOO EASY TO IMPEACH
A PRESIDENT THAN THIS CHAMBER IS GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE
TIME. AND AS MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER POINTED OUT, AT THE TIME
OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HE WAS PROPHETIC , AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
POINTED OUT, ONCE YOU START DOWN THE PATH OF PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT, THEY WILL BE COMING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND
IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER THEY WILL COME EVEN MORE FREQUENTLY. THIS
CHAMBER IS GOING TO BE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME DEALING WITH
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND CLEANING UP INCOMPLETE PROCEDURES, RUSHED
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT FROM THE HOUSE. IF THAT IS THE SORT OF
SYSTEM THAT IS GIVEN HERE. THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT REASON FOR
NOT ACCEPTING THAT PROCEDURE AND NOT TRYING TO OPEN THINGS UP NOW
AND THINGS HAVEN’T BEEN DONE RAPIDLY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. THANK YOU. >>COUNSEL?>>THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
>>CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT SUBPOENAING WITNESSES OR
DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY PROLONG THE TRIAL. ISN’T IT TRUE
THAT DEPOSITIONS OF THE THREE WITNESSES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL
WERE COMPLETED IN ONLY ONE DAY EACH? AND ISN’T IT TRUE THAT THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, AS PRESIDING OFFICER IN THIS TRIAL, HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE ANY CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR OTHER WITNESS
ISSUES WITHOUT ANY DELAY?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE ANSWER
IS YES. WHAT IS CLEAR, BASED ON THE RECORD THAT WAS COMPILED BY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WERE UP TO FIVE DEPOSITIONS PER
WEEK WERE COMPLETED, THAT THIS CAN BE DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS
FASHION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE RECORD THAT EXISTS
BEFORE YOU, RIGHT NOW, CONTAINS STRONG AND UNCONTROVERTED
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN
AS PART OF A SCHEME TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION AND SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. THAT IS EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES WHO CAME
FORWARD, FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING
INDIVIDUALS LIKE AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR. WEST POINT GRADUATE.
VIETNAM WAR HERO. INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS LIKE BASSITT OR
SONDLAND WHO GAVE $1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S INAUGURATION. RESPECTED NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS
LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN. AS WELL AS
DR. FIONA HILL. 17 DIFFERENT WITNESSES, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
EMPLOYEES, TROUBLED BY THE CORRUPT CONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE
AS ALLEGED AND PROVEN BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. BUT TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES, IN YOUR MIND, THIS
IS A TRIAL. A TRIAL INVOLVES WITNESSES. A TRIAL INVOLVES DOCUMENTS. A
TRIAL INVOLVES EVIDENCE. THAT IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON FOR THIS
DISTINGUISHED BODY. THE SENATE, IN ITS HISTORY HAS HAD 15
DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. IN EVERY SINGLE TRIAL THERE WERE
WITNESSES. EVERY SINGLE TRIAL. WHY DOES THIS PRESIDENT GET
TREATED DIFFERENTLY, HELD TO A LOWER STANDARD? AT THIS MOMENT
OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY? IN FACT, IN MANY OF THOSE
TRIALS, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WHO HAD
NOT TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE. THAT WAS THE CASE,
MOST RECENTLY IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL. IS CERTAINLY WAS
THE CASE IN THE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, 37 OUT OF THE
40 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WERE KNEW. 37 OUT OF
— WHY CAN’T WE DO IT IN THIS INSTANCE? WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH
HIGHLY RELEVANT WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON WHO HAD A DIRECT
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID BECAUSE HE WANTED THE PHONY
INVESTIGATIONS? COUNSEL HAS SAID THAT THE GREATEST INVENTION IN
THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH HAS BEEN THE VEHICLE OF CROSS
EXAMINATION. LET’S CALL JOHN BOLTON. LET’S CALL IT MULVANEY.
LET’S CALL OTHER WITNESSES AND SUBJECT THEM TO CROSS
EXAMINATION AND PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. >>CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT THE
QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>THANK YOU. >>SENATOR CORNYN ASKED THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT,
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRESIDENCY IF THE PRESIDENT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IS THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE
ADVICE OF THE PRESIDENT CAN EXPECT FROM SENIOR ADVISORS IF
THE SENATE SEEKS TO RESOLVE CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
FOR SUBPOENAS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT ANY
DETERMINATION BY AN ARTICLE 3 COURT >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU
SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL, IT KEEPING THE COMMUNICATIONS
CONFIDENTIAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING
GOVERNMENT. IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED STATES THE COURT
EXPLAINED THE PRIVILEGE IS GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE, FOR THIS REASON. IN ORDER TO
RECEIVE CANDID ADVICE, THE PRESIDENT HAS TO BE ABLE TO BE
SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE SPEAKING WITH HIM HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT
THEY SAY IS NOT GOING TO BE REVEALED. THAT THEIR ADVICE CAN
REMAIN EVIDENTIAL. IF IT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL THEY WOULD TEMPER
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. THEY WOULD NOT BE CANDID WITH THE PRESIDENT
AND WOULDN’T BE ABLE — THE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
GET THE BEST ADVICE. AND IF THE SAME CONCERN THAT HAS THE
PROSPEROUS ASPECT OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. EVEN IF IT ISN’T COMMUNICATION DIRECTLY WITH THE
PRESIDENT. IF IT IS DELIVERED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE WITH THAT COMING UP WITH THE DECISION TO
PROBE WHAT THEIR WAYS MIGHT WORK TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND
DISCUSS THEM CANDIDLY AND OPENLY, NOT FEELING THE FIRST THING THEY
WILL SAY WILL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WASHINGTON POST THE
NEXT DAY. IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING IS GOING TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL YOU WILL NOT BE
CANDID. YOU WON’T GIVE YOUR BEST ADVICE. THAT DAMAGE IS TO THE
DECISION-MAKING, BAD FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND BAD FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CAN’T FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. SO THERE IS A CRITICAL NEED FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE THESE PRIVILEGES AND PROTECT THAT. THAT IS WHY
THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED
STATES. AND POINTED OUT THAT THERE HAS TO BE HIGH SHOWING AS
NEED FROM ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IF THERE’S GOING TO
BE ANY BREACH OF THAT PRIVILEGE. AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS AN ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS. WHEN THE
CONGRESS OR LEGISLATURE SEEKS INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE
AND EXECUTIVE HAS CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST, BOTH
AVERAGE BRANCHES TRY TO COME TO ACCOMMODATION TO ADDRESS THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES. BUT IT IS NOT THE SITUATION OF
SIMPLY THE CONGRESS IS SUPREME AND CAN DEMAND INFORMATION FROM
THE EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE MUST PRESENT
EVERYTHING. THE COURTS HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR. THAT WOULD BE
DAMAGING TO THE FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT. SO HERE, IN THIS
CASE, THERE ARE VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE. AND IN ONE OF THE
POTENTIAL WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE RAISED AGAIN AND AGAIN IS
JOHN BOLTON. JOHN BOLTON WAS A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT. HE HAS ALL OF THE NATION’S SECRETS FROM THE TIME
HE WAS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. THAT IS PRECISELY THE
AREA, THE FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED IN THE
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING
APPROACHING ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT. TO FEEL THAT NATIONAL
SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AS THE CROWN JEWEL OF THE EXECUTIVE
GLITCH. SO TO SUGGEST THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR — WE
WILL SUBPOENA HIM, HE WILL COME IN AND THAT WILL BE EASY, THAT
IS NOT THE WAY IT WOULD WORK BECAUSE THERE IS VITAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AT STAKE. AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
THE INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, FOR EVERY
PRESIDENT TO PROTECT THAT PRIVILEGE. ONCE PRESIDENT STARTS
TO BE SET , IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS, I WILL
INSIST ON THE PRIVILEGE, I WILL LET PEOPLE INTERVIEW THAT PERSON
AND NOT INSIST ON IMMUNITY, THAT IS SITTING PRESIDENT. THE NEXT
TIME WHEN IT IS IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE PRIVILEGE, THE
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN WEEKEND AND HAS FOREVER BEEN WEEKEND. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE TO
CONSIDER. IT IS IMPORTANT IN THE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE CLEAR FROM
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. AND THERE WOULD BE GRAVE ISSUES
RAISED, ATTEMPTING TO HAVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO
THE PRESIDENT COME UNDER SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY. IT WOULD
ALL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH AND THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE
THINGS WOULD CONTINUE. THANK YOU.
>>COUNSEL? >>THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE TASK. >>>THE ANSWER IS YES. THEY ARE
WELL-ESTABLISHED PROCESSES AND AGENCIES IN PLACE TO PURSUE
VALID AND LEGITIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN THE UNITED
STATES. LIKE THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. AS AN
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON. MANY OTHER FOLKS WITHIN THE STATE
DEPARTMENT. AS WE HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED OF THE LAST
WEEK, NONE OF THOSE FOLKS OR NONE OF THOSE AGENCIES WOULD
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED REVIEWING THAT EVIDENCE HAVING THAT
DISCUSSION WERE INCORPORATED INTO ANY TYPE
OF INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS DURING THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME WE’RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE. FROM THE TIME OF THE PRESIDENT’S CALL ON JULY 25. TO
THE TIME THE HOLD WAS LIFTED. THOSE AGENCIES WERE IN THE DARK.
THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING. MORE SO NOT ONLY WERE
THE IN THE DARK. THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE LAW. EXECUTING HIS SCHEME. NONE OF THAT SUGGEST A VALID
LEGITIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVE. MORE SO, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND HIS
COUNSEL IS BRINGING AT ISSUE THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS. IF OVER
AND OVER AGAIN AS WE HAVE HEARD IN THE LAST FEW DAYS THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS SIMPLY PURSUING A VALID LEGITIMATE POLICY
OBJECTIVE. THIS WAS A SPECIFIC DEBATE ABOUT POLICY. A DEBATE
ABOUT CORRUPTION. A DEBATE ABOUT CORRUPTION SHARON. THEY MUST
HAVE THE DOCUMENT TO SHOW THEM. LET’S HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES
THAT WOULD SHOW THEM. THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WE HAVE
SHOW THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER
DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL. IF HE IS ARGUING THERE IS EVIDENCE. A POLICY DEBATE. I
THINK EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE TO SEE. THOSE DOCUMENTS. THEY WILL
LOVE TO SEE THE WITNESSES AND HEAR FROM THEM DIRECTLY. WHAT
EXACTLY WAS BEING DEBATED.>>THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.>>THANK YOU.>>SENATOR GRAHAM AND SENATOR
CRUISE POST THIS QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. IN THE HYPOTHETICAL, THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD
EVIDENCE THAT MITT ROMNEY SON WAS BEING PAID $1 MILLION PER
YEAR BY A CORRUPT RUSSIAN COMPANY AND MET ROMNEY HAD ACTED
TO BENEFIT THE COMPANY, WHAT OBAMA HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK
THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION BE INVESTIGATED.>>FIRST OF ALL, THE
HYPOTHETICAL IS A BIT OFF. IT RESUMES THAT HYPOTHETICAL
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY. EVIDENCE HE WAS
ACTING CORRUPTLY WITH RESPECT TO HIS SON. LET’S TAKE A
HYPOTHETICAL ON ITS TERMS. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE IF
BARACK OBAMA HAD TRIED TO GET THEM TO DO A INVESTIGATION OF
MET ROMNEY WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS JUSTIFIED OR UNJUSTIFIED. THE
REALITY IS, FOR A PRESIDENT WITH FULL MILITARY AID. OR
HYPOTHETICAL TO WITHHOLD IT TO BENEFIT THE ADVERSARY. TO TARGET
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT IS WRONG AND CORRUPT. PERIOD. END
OF STORY. IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO
RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT. RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE
SECURITY TO BENEFIT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT HIS
OPPONENT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY A FOREIGN POWER. THAT IS
IMPEACHABLE. IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO THINK THAT
ANY PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE, THERE IS
LEGITIMATE WAYS TO HAVE A INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED. I WAS
SUGGEST THAT FOR A PRESIDENT TO TURN TO HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
THAT I WANTED TO INVESTIGATE MY POLITICAL RIVAL TATE WHATEVER
INVESTIGATION THEY DO. THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF
ASKING THEIR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE
RIVALS. THEY OUGHT TO HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCE FROM THE POLITICAL
DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY DO HAVE A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES SPEAKING QUITE OPENLY URGING HIS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS PERCEIVED
ENEMIES. THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE POLICE EITHER. UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU GO OUTSIDE OF YOUR
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER
TO INVESTIGATE ARRIVAL. YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT INVITE A
FOREIGN POWER TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION TO YOUR
BENEFIT. IT IS REMARKABLE TO ME THAT WE EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION.>>IT HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR. IF WE WERE APPROACHED WITH A
OFFER, WE SHOULD TURN IT DOWN. WE SHOULD NOT SOLICIT A FOREIGN
COUNTRY. WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THERE IS GROUNDS. THE IDEA THAT
WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN COUNTRY HOSTAGE WITHHOLDING AID TO A
NATION AT WAR. TO EITHER DAMAGE OUR ALLY OR HELP OUR ADVERSARY.
THEY WILL CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. I CANNOT IMAGINE
ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. IS SOLICIT FOR HELP IN ELECTION.
CAN HELP THEM CHEAT. THAT IS OKAY. THAT WOULD DRAMATICALLY
LOWER THE BAR. FOR WHAT WE EXPECT IN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I WOULD SAY IT IS WRONG FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE ASKING FOR POLITICAL
PROSTITUTION DOORS — PROSECUTION. WRONG TO ASK A
FOREIGN POWER TO ENGAGE IN A INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL. PARTICULARLY AS WE HAVE SHOWN HERE, THERE IS NO MERIT
FOR THAT INVESTIGATION. YOU KNOW THERE IS NO MERIT TO IT BECAUSE
HE DID NOT EVEN WANT THE INVESTIGATION. IF BARACK OBAMA
SAID I DO NOT EVEN NEED YOU TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, I JUST
WANTED TO ANNOUNCE IT. THAT BETRAYS THE FACT THAT THE WAS NO
LEGITIMATE BASIS. HE DID NOT EVEN NEED THE
INVESTIGATION DONE. HE JUST WANTED ANNOUNCE. THERE IS NO
LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION FOR THAT. EXCEPT HE WANTED HIS HELP IN
TREATING THE NEXT ELECTION.>>THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
>>I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
PETERS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. DOES THE PHRASE OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES IN MISDEMEANORS IN ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 OF THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRE A VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CRIMINAL CODE OR A
BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. PLEASE EXPLAIN.>>THE CHAMBERS WERE VERY CLEAR
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. EXPLAINING
WHY THE CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW IMPEACHMENT. HE WARNED THE
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSING HIS
POWER. ALEXANDER HAMILTON DESCRIBED HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS. PROCEEDING FROM THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION. THEY
ALSO DESCRIBED WHAT IT MEANT. IT WAS IMPEACHABLE FOR A PRESIDENT
TO ABUSE. TO SHELTER PEOPLE. A SUSPICIOUS MANNER. HE SAID THE PRESIDENT WILL BE
LIABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT. IF HE HAD ACTED FROM SOME CORRUPT
MOTIVE OR IF HE WAS WILLFULLY ABUSING HIS TRUST. AS WAS LATER
STATED, SUMMARIZING CENTURIES OF COMMON LAW. ABUSE OF POWER. ENTRUSTED WITH THEFT HOWARD. THE
BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. OR FRONTALLY EXCEEDING THEM. WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS,
ABUSE OF POWER WAS IMPEACHABLE, IT WAS NOT JUST A EMPTY
MEANINGLESS DAY. THE FOUNDERS HAD BEEN PARTICIPATING WITH
OVERFLOWING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. A KING WHO IS NOT
ACCOUNTABLE. THEY INCORPORATED THE APPEASEMENT POWER INTO THE
CONSTITUTION. LATE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY DELIVERED GIVEN THE PRESENT MANY POWERS. THAT THOSE POWERS TO BE TAKEN
AWAY. THE PRIOR ARTICLE THAT THE CONGRESS HAS HAD DID NOT INCLUDE
SPECIFIC CRIME. PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CHARGED WITH ABUSING HIS
POWER. TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS. ENGAGING IN A
COVER-UP. SOME OF THAT WAS CLEARLY CRIMINAL. THERE WAS ALL
IMPEACHABLE. IT WAS CORRUPT AND ABUSING HIS POWER. IN THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE HAD WITNESSES CALLED BY BOTH
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. THE REPUBLICAN INVITED LAW EXPERT
TESTIFIED. UNEQUIVOCALLY IT IS POSSIBLE TO
ESTABLISH A CASE THROUGH IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A
NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER. EVERY PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT INCLUDING THIS ONE HAS INCLUDED CONDUCT THAT
VIOLATED THE LAW. EACH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT HAS
INCLUDED THE CHARGES DIRECTLY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A SPECIFIC CRIMINAL LAW
VIOLATION WAS NOT IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDERS. IT WOULD NOT
MAKE ANY SENSE TODAY. YOU CAN HAVE A CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION. YOU COULD DEFACE A PO BOX. THAT
WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. WE WOULD LAUGH AT THE IDEA
THAT IT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS NOT ABUSE
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER. IT MAY BE A CRIME. YOU CAN HAVE ACTIVITIES
THAT IS SO DANGEROUS TO OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT WOULD BE
CHARGED AS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS WORRIED
ABOUT. THAT IS WHY THEY IMPEDE. FRANKLY BECAUSE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, NO EXECUTIVE WOULD DARE EXCEED THEIR POWERS.
REGRETTABLY THAT PREDICTION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVING ABUSED HIS POWERS TO THE DETRIMENT OF
OUR NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE. HIS OWN
PERSONAL INTEREST.>>THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF.>>SIGNATURES AS COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESENT. DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL THAT ALL SUBPOENAS
ISSUED. PRIOR TO THE HOUSE RESOLUTION. THE EXERCISE OF
INVALID SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.>>THANK YOU SENATORS FOR THAT
QUESTION. AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY. THIS IS BASED ON A
PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT CASES.
EXPLAINING THAT THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES POWERS TO MEET HOUSE OF
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. IN PARTICULAR THE LANGUAGE OF
THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR IN ARTICLE 1. THAT THE SOLE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS A
BODY. IT IS NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY
COMMITTEE. ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE. THE UNITED STATES VERSUS
WATKINS. THERE ARE DISPUTES ABOUT SUBPOENAS. MOST
SPECIFICALLY IN THE IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT. THEY ESTABLISH A
GENERAL RULE THAT WHENEVER A COMMITTEE OF EITHER BODY OF
CONGRESS ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO SOMEONE. THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE
. IT HAS TO BE TRACED BACK TO SOME
AUTHORIZING ROLLER RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THEMSELVES. THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE THE SUPREME
COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IS THE CHARTER OF THE COMMITTEE. IT
GETS THE AUTHORITY SOLELY FROM ACTION BY THE HOUSE THAT
REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE HOUSE. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE COMMITTEE
BY RESOLUTION OR BY ROLE THE STANDING AUTHORITY OF THAT
COMMUNITY. IF THE COMMITTEE CANNOT TRACE
THE AUTHORITY, TO A ROLLER RESOLUTION, THEN THE SUBPOENA IS
INVALID. IT IS MADE CLEAR IN THOSE CASES. THERE ARE NO AND
VOID. THEIR BE ON THE POWER TO ISSUE IT. OUR POINT IS VERY
SIMPLE. THERE IS NO STANDING ROLE IN THE HOUSE. IT PROVIDES THE COMMITTEE THAT
WERE ISSUING SUBPOENAS HERE. THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER. RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE. EDIFIES THE LEGISLATIVE
JURISDICTION. IT DOES NOT MENTION THE WORD IMPEACHMENT
EVEN ONCE. NO COMMITTEE WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY. IMPEACHMENT
PURPOSES. THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. IN THE HISTORY OF THE
NATION. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE FIRST
TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE
ATTEMPTING TO ISSUE THE COMPULSORY PROCESS. IN THIS
CASE, THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE. IT REMAINS WITH
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SHE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY
MERELY BY TALKING TO A GROUP OF REPORTERS SEPTEMBER 24 TO GIVE
THE POWERS TO ANY PARTICULAR COMMITTEE. THE SUBPOENAS THAT
WERE ISSUED WHERE INVALID WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED. THEN FIVE
WEEKS LATER ON OCTOBER 31, WHEN THE HOUSE FINALLY ADOPTED THE
HOUSE RESOLUTION, THAT AUTHORIZED FROM THAT POINT THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
NOTHING ADDRESSED THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED.
THE ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED WERE GOING TO TRY TO
RETROACTIVELY GIVE AUTHORITY TO THAT. QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT
THAT’S COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. THE DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO. THIS
IS EXPLAINED IN THE OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
WHICH IS OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM. THIS IS VERY DETAILED AND
THOROUGH. IT EXPLAINS ALL OF THIS. THE
BASIC PRINCIPLE. THE HISTORY THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS
WAY. THE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION. THE FACT THERE WAS NONE HERE. THAT MEANS 23 SUBPOENAS WERE
ISSUED WHERE INVALID. LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE
STATE DEPARTMENT. IN VERY SPECIFIC TERMS. THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE
SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID. THANK YOU.>>THE SENATOR FROM
PENNSYLVANIA.>>THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
HOUSE MANAGERS. ALEXANDER HAMILTON WRITES THE
SUBJECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE THOSE OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED
FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF MEN OR IN OTHER WORDS THE ABUSE OR
VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST. COULD YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO THE
DUTIES OF BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT AND HOW YOU BELIEVE THE ACTIONS
HAVE VIOLATED THIS TRUST.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE. HE USED HIS OFFICE TO INTERFERE IN OUR
ELECTION FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT. MANY OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN HIS
ATTEMPTS TO INVESTIGATE HIS ABUSE OF POWER. THE KEY PURPOSE
OF THE IMPEACHMENT WAS TO CONTROL ABUSES OF POWER BY
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THAT IS TO SAY CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED THE PUBLIC
TRUST. ACCUSATIONS OF CONDUCT VIOLATING
PUBLIC TRUST. THEY INTENDED TO CAPTURE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO SHOWED NO RESPECT FOR THEIR OATH OF
OFFICE. HE IGNORED THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO
GAIN POLITICAL FAVOR. IT ALSO PROHIBITED HIM FROM USING HIS
OFFICIAL. RATHER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. IS LEGALLY
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID. UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OPPONENT. IN THE WORDS OF ONE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR. NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. THAT IS
PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT. CREATING A CONSTITUTION
INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT. I WANT TO ADD. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE BY SOME OF THE PRESENCE COUNSEL A FEW MINUTES
AGO. THEY TALK ABOUT SUBPOENA POWER. TO ACT PROPERLY. BECAUSE
THEY SAID THE HOUSE DID NOT DELEGATE BY RULE WILL HAVE A
RESOLUTION. THE HOUSE IS GENERALLY DELEGATED
ALL SUBPOENA POWER TO THE COMMITTEE. IT WAS NOT TRUE 15
YEARS AGO. IT IS TRUE NOW. THE HOUSE SO POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE MATTER OF THIS EXERCISE MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED FROM OUTSIDE. WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE
CONVICTED UPON OUR ACCUSATION IS A QUESTION FOR THE SENATE. IT IS
A MATTER SOLELY FOR THE HOUSE. THIRD WE TALKED ABOUT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. THEY POINT TO THE NIXON CASE. THE PRESIDENT HAS A
RIGHT TO CANDID ADVICE. THEREFORE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS ESTABLISHED. DOES THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
CANNOT BE USED TO HIDE WRONGDOING. HE WAS ORDERED TO
TURN OVER ALL THE MATERIAL. THIRDLY, THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF WAIVER.
YOU CANNOT USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IF YOU WAVE IT. THE
MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT HE WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAID THE PRESIDENT TOLD
HIM OF THE IMPROPER QUID PRO QUO. HE WAVED THE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. HE KIND OF CHARACTERIZE THE CONVERSATION.
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. CLAIMING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. HE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. HE HAS CLAIMED INSTEAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE
RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE THAT HE HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM ANY
QUESTIONING. A CLAIM REJECTED. FINALLY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS
PRESIDENT THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. THIS PRESIDENT TOLD
US IN ADVANCE. WHATEVER THE NATURE. I WILL MAKE SURE THEY
GET NO INFORMATION. I AM ABSOLUTE. CONGRESS CANNOT
QUESTION WHAT I DO. I WILL MAKE SURE THEY GET NO INFORMATION. THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF ARTICLE 2
OF THE IMPEACHMENT.>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.>>TWO MORE QUESTIONS ON EACH
SIDE. ONE MORE QUESTION. I HAVE BEEN
CORRECTED. AS I FREQUENTLY THEM. ONE MORE QUESTION ON EACH SIDE
AND WE WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.
>>THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS.>>QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL.>>SENATOR ROBERTS ASKED WOULD
YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE
HOUSE MANAGEMENT MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS. DIRECTED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. I WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE. FIRST TO THE
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AS IT RELATES TO WITNESSES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE WITNESSES
THAT GAVE TESTIMONY WERE WITNESSES THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN
INTERVIEWED BY DEPOSITION IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. THE WITNESS WAS NOT BEING
CALLED. THAT IS BEING CALLED TO THE HOUSE IN THE PROCESS. MOVING
FORWARD WITH A FULL INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS ANOTHER
STATEMENT THAT WAS RAISED. REGARDING THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO
MAKE A DETERMINATION ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WITH NO
DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDING
OFFICER TO DETERMINE A WAIVER OR THE APPLICABILITY OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE WOULD BE QUITE A STEP. THERE IS NOTHING HISTORICAL THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY. THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE. IF WE GET TO THE
POINT OF WITNESSES, FOR INSTANCE, FOR ONE OF THE
WITNESSES TO BE CALLED. THE ROLE BASICALLY OF KEN STARR.
HE PRESENTED A REPORT AND MADE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ABOUT 12 HOURS OF QUESTIONING.
IF REPRESENTATIVE SHIFT WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS, WHAT EFFECT
ISSUES OF SPEECH AND DEBATE BE LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER OR WOULD HE GO TO COURT. MAYBE THEY WOULD WAIVE
IT. THOSE WILL BE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT WOULD BE VERY
SIGNIFICANT. SENATOR GRAHAM PRESENTED A HYPOTHETICAL WHICH
THEY SAID IS NOT REALLY THE HYPOTHETICAL. IT IS ACTUALLY
THAT. HYPOTHETICALS. LIKE THEY WERE STARTING A
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION. I AM THINKING TO MYSELF. THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI ENGAGED IN A
INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. THAT IS WHEN THEY STARTED THEIR OPERATION CALLED
CROSSFIRE HER AGAIN. HE SAID IT WOULD BE TARGETING ARRIVAL.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE WITHIN THAT. IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. IT HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED. THE FUSION
GPS. IT UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. TO PUT TOGETHER A DOSSIER. HE
RELIED ON HIS NETWORK OF RESOURCES AROUND THE GLOBE
INCLUDING RUSSIA AND OTHER PLACES. YET IT WAS THE BASIS. THEY OBTAINED THE ONCE. THIS WAS
IN 2016. AGAINST ARRIVAL CAMPAIGN. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO
HYPOTHETICALS. THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION. TO TAKE IT A
ADDITIONAL STEP. THIS IDEA THAT A WITNESS WILL BE CALLED THAT
THIS BODY DECIDES TO GO TO WITNESS. THAT A WITNESS WILL BE
CALLED WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRACTICE. IF
WITNESSES ARE CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THROUGH THAT
MOTION, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES AS WELL WHICH
WE WOULD. THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK
YOU.>>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
HARRIS’S FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT
MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID WHEN YOU’RE A STAR, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING. AFTER HE WAS
ELECTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION
GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT.
THE STATEMENTS SUGGEST EACH OF THEM SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT IS
ABOVE THE LAW. REFLECTED IN THE IMPROPER ACTIONS THEY TOOK TO
AFFECT THEIR REELECTION CAMPAIGNS. IF THE SENATE FAILS
TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISCONDUCT, HOW WOULD THAT
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY.>>THIS IS EXACTLY THE FEAR. I
THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATTERN IN THIS PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT,
WHAT YOU SEE IS A PRESIDENT WHO IDENTIFIES THE STATE AS BEING
HIMSELF. THEY TALK ABOUT PEOPLE REPORTING
HIS WRONGDOING. WHEN HE DESCRIBES IT WHISTLEBLOWER. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF
SOMEONE REPORTS WRONGDOING AS COMMITTING A CRIME IS IF YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH THE COUNTRY. IN A REPORT OF
WRONGDOING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS A TREASONOUS ACT. IT IS THE
KIND OF MENTALITY THAT SAYS UNDER ARTICLE 2 I CAN DO
WHATEVER I WANT. I AM ALLOWED TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS. COUNSEL HAS
GIVEN A VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS. THEY MIGHT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE
ARGUMENT IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAD GIVEN HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS
BUT RESERVED SOME OF THEM. OF COURSE THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS
ON THE. WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS A SHIFTING SERIES OF
EXPLANATIONS. SOME MADE IN COURT. THEY MADE THE ARGUMENT THE
SUBPOENAS ARE NOT VALID BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOLUTION. ISSUED
AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTIONS. THOSE ARE NO GOOD EITHER. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. YOU ARE NOT A KING. THAT MAY BE
THOUGHT OF WITH FAVOR BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS. THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR THAT EITHER. DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING
RELEASED RIGHT NOW. HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO GET
DOCUMENTS TO THE FREEDOM OF REGULATION ACT. IF THEY WERE
OPERATING IN ANY GOOD FAITH, WOULD THAT BE THE CASE. THE
ANSWER WOULD BE NO. WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD, YOU CAN CLAIM ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY. EVEN THOUGH THAT DOES NOT EXIST. THEY SAID THEY WITHDREW THE
SUBPOENA. WHY WOULD THEY WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA WHEN HE
WAS ONLY THREATENING TO TIE YOU UP IN COURT. WE SUGGESTED THAT IF THEY HAD A
GOOD FAITH CONCERN. IF THIS WAS REALLY GOOD FAITH
AND WAS NOT JUST A STRATEGY TO DELAY. IT WAS NOT JUST PART OF
THE PRESIDENTS WHOLESALE AT ALL SUBPOENAS. THERE WAS ACTUALLY
ALREADY A CASE IN COURT INVOLVING THEM ON THAT VERY
SUBJECT. IT WAS RIGHT FOR DECISION. HE SAID LET’S JUST AGREE TO BE
BOUND. THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT. IT BECAME OBVIOUS. AGAIN
THE COURT SAID THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. IF YOU THINK
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE
SOMEHOW I MEAN, YOU’RE NOT. NOW I HAVE THE COMFORT I NEEDED. THE
COURT HAS WEIGHED IN. THE ANSWER IS OF COURSE NOT. THEY MIGHT
HAVE GOTTEN A QUICK JUDGMENT. IN THE LOWER COURT. DO ANY OF YOU
BELIEVE FOR A SINGLE MINUTE. TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME
COURT STRUCK DOWN THE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT. WE’RE GOING TO CLAIM
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THAT IS A SIGN OF THE PRESIDENT
WHO BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. THAT ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERS
THEM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. IF YOU ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, YOU
ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CAN TELL YOU TO POUNCE IN WHEN HE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE HIS
WRONGDOING. THERE WILL BE NO FORCE BEHIND ANY SENATE SUBPOENA
IN THE FUTURE. IT STARTED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU ALLOW A PERSON TO
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO COMPLETELY IN A WAY THAT NIXON AND NEVER
HAVE CONTEMPLATED. YOU WILL EVISCERATE YOUR OWN
OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.>>THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED. >>I SUGGEST WE RESUME AT 4 PM.
SO ORDERED.>>YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE SENATE IS IN RECESS. THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS. WE WILL BRING IT TO YOU LIVE
WHEN THEY RESUME. I AM JOINED IN THE STUDIO. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE. YOU TAKE AWAY SO FAR OF HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT.
WE DEAFLY ARE SEEING A RHYTHM AND A PATTERN.>>WE ONLY IN MAYBE THE 3rd HOUR
OF WHAT I THINK IS SUPPOSED TO BE 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONING. WE
AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS. SO FAR WE ARE NOT
SEEING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. DIFFICULT FOR BOTH SIDES TO
ANSWER. THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS NEED TO BE AIMING THEIR QUESTION
AT THE HOUSE MANAGER. THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR SEEMS TO BE
LARGELY AIMING THEIR QUESTION AT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. IT
SEEMS LIKE THEY’RE WORKING TO KIND OF TEA UP THERE TALKING
POINTS FOR EACH SIDE. IT SORT OF SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE ANSWERS
WERE ACTUALLY PREWRITTEN. THEY SEEM TO BE GOING UP WITH ANSWERS
THAT HEART ARTERY BEEN PREPARED. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INTERESTING
POINTS MADE. I WANT TO BRING RHONDA IN ON THIS QUESTION. YOU
GET THE SENSE THAT ONE SIDE IS LOBBING UP A GENTLE BALL. JUST
WAITING FOR THEIR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. GO AHEAD AND TAKE A
SWING AT IT.>>ALSO TO ADD. I FEEL LIKE THIS
FIRST THREE-HOUR PORTION IS SHOWING THAT IT IS BOLTON.
MULTIPLE TIMES. THE QUESTIONS TRY TO TARGET
BRINGING WITNESSES IN. EVEN AT THE TOP OF THE MORNING. HIS
QUESTION WAS JUST FOR THE RECORD. COULD YOU LET US KNOW IF
THE HOUSE DID CALL. WE DO KNOW THE ANSWER. YES WE DID CALL HIM.
HE DID NOT COME. THERE WAS ALSO A MOMENT AFTER HE WAS FINISHED
WITH HIS ANSWER, HE SAID BY THE WAY, IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS WE COULD PROBABLY BRING HIM IN TO ANSWER THEM. IT
JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT IS REALLY THE UNDERCURRENT HERE. BOTH
SIDES ARE TRYING TO GET AT IT. REMEMBER IF YOU GUYS GET A CALL,
WE WILL CALL THE REPUBLICAN WITNESSES AS WELL.
>>THE SPRING IN THE EDITOR TO JOIN THE TABLE. THE VERY FIRST
QUESTION CAME FROM A TRIO OF EDITORS WHO ARE VERY CLOSELY
WATCHED. WE CAN PLAY THAT TAPE IN JUST A MOMENT. WHAT DID IT
SAY TO YOU. SENATOR COLLINS.>>IS SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF
STRATEGY. THEY’RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE ABOUT THE
COVER THEY NEED. THE QUESTION THEY ASKED WAS SO FASCINATING.
IT BECAME INTERMINGLING OF MOTIVES. IS ACTUALLY MOTIVATED.
A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. ALSO THE PERSONAL INTEREST. OBVIOUSLY
THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ARE GETTING VERY TO HUMANLY. WE SAW
HIM MAKE EVEN A MORE TO HUMANLY ARGUMENT. EVEN THE PURE INTEREST
IF HE FELT HE WAS ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY. IT
WAS REALLY A REMARKABLE STATEMENT. I WANT TO PLAY THAT
TAPE. THE QUESTIONABLE MOTIVE. IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO HOW
REPUBLICANS MAY GET THEMSELVES SOME COVER. ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS
WERE JUST FASCINATING.>>I STAND TO QUESTION THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. SENATOR ROMNEY. IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT. SUCH IS THE
PURSUIT OF PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. ROOTING OUT
CORRUPTION AND THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTEREST. HOW SHOULD
THEY CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE. THE STANDARD THEY HAVE
SET FOR THEMSELVES. ESTABLISHING THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC
INTEREST AT ALL. IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY. SOMETHING THAT
SHOWS A POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE PRESIDENT CAN HAVE
THAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE. THAT DESTROYED THEIR
CASE. ONCE YOUR INTO MIXED MOTIVE LAND. THERE CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL.
>>LET’S GO TO RHONDA TO GET HER TO REFLECT ON NOT JUST THE
QUESTIONS BUT ALSO THE ANSWER.>>MOTIVE IS AT THE HEART OF
THIS ENTIRE SCANDAL. YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICAN SAME. HIS MOTIVE
WAS PURE. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO WANT TO INVESTIGATE AND STAMP
OUT CORRUPTION. THAT IS REALLY WHAT THIS CALL WAS ABOUT. IF YOU
REMEMBER A COMMON REFRAIN. THE TESTIMONIES. THEY SAID YOU
REMEMBER WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAID. COULD YOU HELP HIM OUT. MEANWHILE, YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS
SAYING THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL. ON TOP OF THAT HE ALSO
JEOPARDIZED NATIONAL SECURITY. GO BACK TO HOW THE PRESIDENT’S
COUNSEL DEFENDED ITSELF. COULD THE MOTIVE BE MIXED. GOING EVEN
FURTHER WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. HE CANNOT BE GUILTY IF
HIS MOTIVES WERE POLITICAL.>>WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THEY CAN
VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. WOULD THAT BE A UNLAWFUL QUID
PRO QUO? NO IT WOULD NOT. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST. HE BELIEVED HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL.
EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS.
TRYING TO PSYCHOANALYZE A PRESIDENT. THE INTRICACIES OF
THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYONE HAS MIXED MOTIVES. FOR THERE TO BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT
ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED. I WELCOME JAMES TO
THE TABLE. >>WE’RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THIS. LET’S TALK ABOUT MIXED MOTIVES. HOW CAN YOU EVER TRULY
KNOW THE MOTIVATION. THIS IS PART OF A PATTERN WITH
TRUMP. ARTICLE TO LET YOU DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. THAT IS NOT
WHAT ARTICLE TO SAYS. ABUSE OF POWER. WE’RE TALKING IN THE
CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 1. IT IS RELATED TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS. WE DO NOT WANT TO. HE IS
CLIMBING FURTHER OUT ON THE JURORS COULD PERSPECTIVE. TED CRUZ WHO ASKED THE QUESTION
WHO PROMPTED THAT ANSWER. HE SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF THE
OBAMA PRESIDENCY. WANTING TO BE EMPEROR AND KING. TO HAVE THEM
APPROVINGLY GETTING HIM TO SAY THAT EVERY PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS
POWER IS KIND OF A REMARKABLE THING. IT REFLECTS THE MOMENT. JUSTIFIED TO VOTE TO EQUIP.
>>THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE IT UNLAWFUL IS IF IT IS
SOME WAY ILLEGAL. THE PUBLIC INTEREST. HIS OWN FINANCIAL
INTEREST. DOING SOMETHING IN YOUR
POLITICAL INTERESTS WILL BE ULTIMATELY IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. I USE WHATEVER LEVERAGE THE POWER. IT IS FOR
YOUR GOOD. WINNING REELECTION. THAT IS MOVING THE BAR. FOR WHAT
MOTIVATION MEANS.>>IS SORT OF RAISES THE
QUESTION UNDER THAT STANDARD. WHEN WILL THERE EVER BE A
IMPEACHABLE ACT. IF YOU COULD BASICALLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT. IF
YOU BELIEVE YOUR REELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC GOOD. THEY GIVE
YOU LICENSE TO DO A LOT OF THINGS. WHAT IS THAT END. WHERE
IS THE BOUNDARY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY INTERESTING IF WE
HAD A DIFFERENT FORM. THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH. THAT IS
OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE CONFINES. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT
KIND OF INTERPLAY. I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING TO SAY THE
REPUBLICAN SENATORS SITE THE ARGUMENT LIKE THEY DID THE
HUMANLY FOR THE REASON WHY THERE IS NOT.
>>AS THEY LAID IT OUT, THE OTHER WOULD BE FINANCIAL
INTEREST. THAT SEEMED TO SET THIS NEW STANDARD. WHAT WAS HE
REALLY BENEFITING. WE CAN ALL IMAGINE FINANCIAL
BENEFITS. WE CAN ALL ASPIRE AND RELATE TO. SEEM LIKE THAT WAS
THE DIRTY ONE. DOING SOMETHING IN THE POLITICAL INTEREST. PART
OF WHAT IS INTERESTING. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE
CONFRONTED EVERY DAY AROUND THE COUNTRY. OBVIOUSLY WITH THE
IMPEACHMENT. IT IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD. SORT OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH A
QUID PRO QUO. THAT IS THE HEART OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH A
BRIBERY. IT IS ONLY LEGAL IF YOU’RE ASKING OUT OF A FINANCIAL
MOTIVE. IT IS ONLY LEGAL IF YOUR MOTIVE
IS ENTIRELY PERSONAL. I BELIEVE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE MIXED MOTIVE. IF YOU CAN
ESTABLISH THAT. YOUR ESSENTIAL MOTIVATION IS A
CORRUPT ONE. THAT CAN ESTABLISH CRIME. EVEN IF THE THINGS YOU
ARE DOING ARE ALSO MOTIVATED BY SOMETHING MORE PURE ALONGSIDE
YOUR CURRENT MOTIVATION. >>I WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT HOW
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUSH BACK ON IT. SHE HAS A FEW MINUTES IN
BETWEEN LISTENING TO THIS Q&A. I AM FASCINATED BY HOW THE
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN GROUP. WHO HAS BEEN ALIGNING THEMSELVES TO
ASK QUESTIONS. WHAT ARE YOU NOTICING IN THE PATTERNS IS
JOINING TOGETHER TO ASK QUESTIONS.
>>I THOUGHT THE FIRST QUESTION RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. TALKING
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES. AS WE KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THREE
WHO ARE CONSIDERED THE MOST IN PLAY. POTENTIALLY SUPPORTING
WITNESSES. PERHAPS TO MAKE THAT CASE. A LOT
OF THESE ARE VERY INTERESTING. THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT A
BIPARTISAN QUESTION. THE MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN. IT IS GIVING THESE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE SIDE TO REPEAT THEIR CASES. THE SENATE DEMOCRATS TO THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. MAKING THE CASE WE’VE ALREADY
HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THIS WEEK. YOU HEAR THAT A LOT IN
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. FOR WHAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY MORE
CONTENTIOUS QUESTIONS. WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING FOR. IN TERMS THAT
RELATES TO WITNESSES.>>SPECIFICALLY REPUBLICANS WHO
MAY BE ON THE FENCE ABOUT WHERE THEY MAY BE LEADING. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE SENATOR WHO IS NOT ONE WE ARE WATCHING VERY
CLOSELY. HE HAS RAISED THE STEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS AND
PROCEDURE. HE HAS ASKED THE QUESTION. HE ASKED EARLIER IN
THE TRIAL. HOW MUCH LONGER TO THIS TRIAL DRAG OUT. YOU ALSO HEARD HIM. HELPING THEM MAKE THEIR CASE. IT
COULD ALSO DRAG THIS OUT. KIND OF MAKING THAT PUBLIC CASE.
LISTENING TO THIS TRIAL. ALSO TO RAISE THIS QUESTION. SHE PAIRED
UP WITH ANOTHER CALLING. ABOUT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF
THESE SUBPOENAS. RATING AS TO WHERE THEY MAY
LEAD.>>FINALLY. SOME COLOR FROM
INSIDE THE CHAMBER. THEY MAY HAVE SEEN ADAM SHIFT. FUTURE
MANAGERS BEING CUT OFF OF IT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE. NOT SO MUCH
ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TEAM. THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS
THAT SOME OLD-FASHIONED OLD-SCHOOL WAYS OF KEEPING TRACK
OF THE TIME.>>THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ON THEIR
SIDE. THE PEOPLE ON THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM HAD BEEN
HOLDING UP LITTLE CARDS. BASICALLY TIMES UP. FIVE MINUTES
THEY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IT CAN GO PRETTY QUICKLY. ALONG THE
ARGUMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP
BETTER TRACK OF THE TIME.>>WE WILL SAID THEY COME WITH
THE NEW STRATEGY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE INTERESTING THING
ABOUT HOW THEY DO PLAN AHEAD TO HELP KEEP TRACK OF TIME. FROM
THE OWNER VANTAGE POINT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF
MOTIVE. THE LEGAL TEAM WHAT HE IS ARGUING. A BIT SURPRISING. PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO. IT IS
ALSO INTERESTING. THEY’VE BEEN HOLDING UP THE STANDARDS JUST A
COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. I THEY PUSHED BACK AGAINST US. ADAM
SHIFT USED IT TO REBUFF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL AND URGED
SENATORS TO CALL FOR WITNESSES.>>HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT HIS MOTIVATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT HIS
MOTIVATION, IT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN
WHO SPOKE. HE WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS
THAT WOULD HELP THEM IN THE NEXT INVESTIGATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT IF IT WAS A FACTOR. THERE IS A WITNESS AND A
SUBPOENA WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>>D GET THE SENSE THEY’RE MAKING ANY CALLS FOR WITNESSES
TODAY? >>I THINK ACTUALLY WHAT WE SAW
IS MORE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT WAS ALL. THERE
HAS BEEN A ENORMOUS PUBLIC PUSHBACK AGAINST BOLTON FROM THE
RIGHT. PROBABLY TAKEN HIM BY SURPRISE. A WILLINGNESS OF
REPUBLICANS TO GO AFTER HIM. WE SAW LINDSEY GRAHAM SUGGEST THAT
IS POSSIBLY NOT HELPFUL. I THINK WE ARE ALSO SEEING SENATORS ECHO
THE WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS. MORE WITNESSES WOULD DRAG THIS
OUT. WHERE IS IT GOING TO STOP? I THINK RIGHT NOW, THAT IS
REALLY A JUMP BALL QUESTION. WE HAVE YET TO SEE IT AROUND THAT.
>>WHAT CAN YOU TELL US? >>WE JUST LEARNED TODAY THERE
WAS A LETTER SENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE COUNSEL JUST LAST
WEEK. INDICATING THEY HAD BEGUN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE
MANUSCRIPT THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THEM. THEY FOUND
WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A LARGE QUANTITY OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. THAT IS WHY HE HAD SUBMITTED TO
THEM. HIS LAWYER HAD TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE HE HAD WRITTEN IT
PERFECTLY NOT TO INCLUDE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. THE WHITE
HOUSE CLAIMS IT INCLUDES A WHICH COULD DELAY THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOK. IT COULD ALSO DEEPLY ANGERED JOHN BOLTON IN PART
BECAUSE IT MAY DELAY THE PUBLICATION OF HIS BOOK. WE WILL HAVE TO SEE THE EXTENT
TO WHICH HE MAY TRY TO STRIKE OUT ON HIS OWN IN ORDER TO
ENSURE THE PUBLIC DOES HERE.>>WE SAW FOXNEWS, MYSELF. AFTER
CRITICIZING HIM. HOW IS THE MANUSCRIPT AND
TESTIMONY. >>THIS IS THE INTERESTING
FIGURE. HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. HE WAS ALSO
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION. HE SORT OF HAS A CONNECTION WITH
THESE NUMBERS. HE HAS KIND OF A OWN REPUTATION. HE IS CLOSEST TO
THEM. HE IS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO HELP
SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL GET THESE VOTES AGAINST WITNESSES.
THE FACT THAT HE ASKED THAT QUESTION. HOW LONG WITH THIS
DRAG OUT. HE HAD TO REMEMBER IN THE PRACTICAL WAY. THEY ARE ON
JURY DUTY. THEY HAVE BEEN SITTING THERE. I THINK THERE WAS
POLITICAL ARGUMENTS. WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO DRAG ON. THERE IS
ALSO A PERSONAL ARGUMENT. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE HER FOR WEEKS
MORE. HOW LONG DO YOU WANT THIS TO DRAG OUT. I THINK HE IS
TRYING TO MAKE BOTH ARGUMENTS. HIS AUDIENCE WHEN HE IS DOING
THAT. KIND OF THE AUDIENCE AT HOME.
>>THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE RELEASED A STATEMENT DESCRIBING A CONVERSATION HE HAD
WITH JOHN BOLTON. IT’S A TOLD HIM TO LOOK INTO THE REMOVAL OF
THE FORMER UKRAINE AMBASSADOR. WHY ARE WE ONLY HEARING ABOUT
THIS NOW.>>I BELIEVE HE HAS SAID THAT HE
KEPT QUIET ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE
HOUSE OVERSIGHT PROCESS. HE DID NOT WANT TO DISRUPT THAT BY
MAKING A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT. HE HAS PUT IT OUT NOW. THE
PRESIDENT TWEETED TODAY OR YESTERDAY CLAIMING HE HAD NEVER
MADE HIS CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE KNOWN. SORT OF A LATE IN THE DAY
COMPLAINT. HE IS POINTING OUT THAT HE DID VOICE SOME CONCERNS.
THE DAY AFTER HE LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE. THE PRESIDENT HAS CRACKED
OPEN THE DOOR. NOW IT FEELS LIKE IT IS OKAY FOR HIM TO RESPOND?
>>THAT IS THE ARGUMENT HE IS THINKING. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WONDERING WHY HE MENTIONED TO HIS COLLEAGUES IN
THE HOUSE. THAT THEY HAD UNDERWAY. I DO NOT THINK IT IS
GOING TO HELP JOHN BOLTON AND HIS IN TENSES SITE THAT HE HAD.
THAT HE ACTUALLY CALLED THE DEMOCRAT AND SUGGESTED THEY AREA
FOR OVERSIGHT BY THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS
QUITE INTERESTING. HE BELIEVES THERE WAS SOMETHING SO
DISTURBING ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE AMBASSADOR WAS CALLED.
HE BELIEVES SOMEONE NEEDED TO LOOK INTO IT.
>>IT DOES RAISE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY HAD WITH OTHER
PEOPLE THAT MAY COME TO LIGHT. EVEN AS WE’RE HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD BECOME THE WITNESS. THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT WOULD BE PROCESSED OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL.
WE WOULD HEAR MORE AND MORE CONVERSATION HE MAY HAVE HAD
WITH FORMER OFFICIALS. I DO NOT THINK HE IS GOING AWAY.
>>WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE LISTENING FOR AS THIS CONTINUES.
>>I THINK WHAT THEY ALLUDED TO. WHEN THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONS
CHANGE. RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE BEEN PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP CLEAN UP.
THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS THEM TO
RESPOND. THERE ARE 16 TOTAL HOURS FOR QUESTIONS. I LOVE THE
IDEA THAT THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ARE MAKING
FLASHCARDS. THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS, A LOT OF THE RESPONSES
FELT PRACTICE. WE ARE GENERALLY GOING TO GET
THIS QUESTION. THAT IS WHY THEY WERE STILL HAVING SLIDES THEY
WERE REFERRING TO. ONCE YOU START GETTING OPTIMAL QUESTIONS,
THEY COULD GO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. THEY COULD BE LESS
PREPARED. MORE RAW OR MORE DIRECT. MORE AS WE TALKED ABOUT
PUTTING THE LAWYERS ON TRIAL. WE HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH OF THAT.
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. THE TELEGRAPH THERE WOULD BE A MAJOR
THING. THERE WERE STILL A LOT OF TIME FOR THOSE THINGS TO PLAY
OUT. I THINK THAT WILL BE THE DIRECTION IT GOES IN A COUPLE OF
HOURS.>>WHAT WOULD YOU BE LISTENING
FOR COMING UP?>>VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT HE SAID.
I AM LOOKING FOR MORE DIRECT QUESTIONS. THE FIRST FEW HOURS
WE HAVE SEEN A STOP ON QUESTIONS ON AT THE HOUSE MANAGER. I THINK
WE MAY HEAR MORE DIRECT QUESTIONS IN THIS NEXT PHASE
UNLESS THEY DECIDE TO END IT EARLY. I THINK THIS IS MOVING
MORE DIRECT. MAYBE A FEW MORE CONTENTIOUS QUESTIONS. I’M ALSO
LISTENING OUT FOR A FEW OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO ASK A
FEW QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT IS INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THEY’RE
FOCUSING ON. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS I’M LOOKING FOR.
>>I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING. MATT ROMNEY
ACTUALLY TWEETED QUESTIONS THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED. SOME OF HIS
QUESTIONS WERE QUITE CHALLENGING. PARTICULAR TO THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. THEY STARTED TO GET INTO THE MORE THE
FACTS OF THE CASE. NOT ONLY THE THEORY OF IMPEACHMENT. I BELIEVE
ONE OF THEM WAS DESCRIBING THE PRESIDENT FIRST DECIDED. HOW HE
MADE THAT DECISION. IT IS SORT OF A GLASS BOX WE HAVE NOT
LEARNED ABOUT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE
THAT WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL TO DESCRIBE THE FACT OF
THEIR UNDERSTANDING. WE CAN BE CHALLENGING QUESTIONS.>>THERE ARE A FEW SURPRISES IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIAL. THOSE ARE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS
THAT ASK THEM TO REALLY CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE OR THE FACTS WHICH
WE HAVE NOT SEEN A GREAT DEAL SO FAR.
>>ANYTHING THAT GETS MORE TO THE MEAT OF THE NARRATIVE WOULD
BE REALLY FASCINATING. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS
THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL. ONE OF THE REASONS THEY HAVE GONE TO
THAT PLACE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONTESTING THE FACT. I DO THINK THAT WOULD BE
FASCINATING TO SEE PEOPLE WRESTLE WITH THAT QUESTION. WHEN HE IS SAYING HE HAS A
PUBLIC INTEREST IN SEEKING THE INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN. WHY
WAS THAT THE ONE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS NATIONAL INTEREST. I
THINK HOW THE DECISION CAME TO WITHHOLD AID WOULD BE
FASCINATING TO UNDERSTAND. REALLY HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE
TO RELEASE IT. THE DEMOCRATS ARGUE THE REASON IT WAS RELEASED
WAS BECAUSE OF SHIPMENTS THEY GET CAUGHT. WHAT WAS THE
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR THAT.
>>THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FLUSH OUT
THE MEAT AND THE BONES. KIND OF GET INTO THE PRESIDENT’S STATE
OF MIND.>>YOU MENTIONED WE MAY SEE ADAM
SCHIFF’S NAME BROUGHT UP. WHAT IS THE STRATEGY OF THAT. WHO IS
THAT REALLY APPEALING TO.>>WE HIT JOSH ALLEN. ON THE
SEAN HANNITY TONIGHT. IT PLAYS WELL. WHAT ABOUT IT TO SOME DEGREES.
WE HEARD ABOUT LISA PAGE YESTERDAY. WE HER THROUGHOUT HIS
DEFENSE PRESENTATION. ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. I THINK SOME OF
THAT IS PLAYING TO THE AUDIENCE FOR SURE. SOME OF IT IS PLAIN TO
THE CONSERVATIVE BASE. SOME OF IT IS MONEY IN THE WATER. SOME
OF IT IS GETTING TO THE IDEA OF MOTIVATION. WHAT HIS LAWYERS
SAID ON MONDAY. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE HE IS COMING
FROM. YOU JUST KIND OF SUFFERED THEY WANTED TO RUN DOWN THESE
RUMORS HE WAS HEARING ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE. I THINK IT DOES GET INTO THE
PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES. SEEM LESS THAN CORRUPT.
>>ONE INTERESTING THING WE HAVE HEARD.
>>WE ACTUALLY BACK ON. THANK YOU SO MUCH. LET’S GO BACK LIVE
TO THE SENATE CHAMBER.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. IT IS COSPONSORED BY
SENATORS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
SERVICES.>>THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH,.
OKLAHOMA EXCUSE ME. THE SENATORS ASKED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION. AS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE, WE LISTEN INTENTLY WHEN HE WAS DEFENDING
ONE OF HIS AMENDMENTS TO THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION LAST WEEK
AS HE EXPLAINED HOW HE HAD FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE BEING
DENIED MILITARY AID WHEN HE NEEDS IT DURING HIS SERVICE. AS
YOU KNOW, UNDER THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
CONFIRMED THE AID PROVIDED TO UKRAINE LAST YEAR WITH FUTURE
AID. WHICH WOULD YOU SAY HAD THE GREATER MILITARY IMPACT?
PRESIDENT TRUMP TEMPORARY PAUSE OF 40 DAYS ON FUTURE AID THAT
WILL NOW BE DELIVERED TO UKRAINE OR PRESIDENT OBAMA’S STEADFAST
REFUSAL TO PROVIDE LEGAL AID FOR THREE YEARS. MORE THAN 1000 DAYS
WHILE THEY ATTEMPTED TO HOLD BACK THE RUSSIAN INVASION.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK YOU
SENATORS FOR THAT QUESTION. IT WAS FORMER SERIOUS AND JEOPARDY
FOR THE DECISION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO NOT USE THE
AUTHORITY THAT WAS GIVEN BY CONGRESS. THAT MANY MEMBERS
VOTED FOR. GIVEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE AID TO THE UKRAINIAN. THEY DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT
AID. MULTIPLE WITNESSES WHO WERE CALLED IN THE HOUSE TESTIFIED THAT THE UNITED STATES POLICY
GOT STRONGER UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. IN PART LARGELY
BECAUSE OF THAT AID. OTHERS ALSO TESTIFIED THAT U.S.
POLICY PROVIDING THAT AID WAS GREATER SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE THAN
WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THEY EXPLAINED
WERE LETHAL AND WOULD KILL RUSSIAN TANKS AND CHANGE THE
CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION FOR THE RUSSIAN IN THE REGION OF THE
EASTERN PORTION OF THE CRANE WHERE THAT CONFLICT IS STILL
ONGOING. IN TERMS OF THE TEMPORARY PAUSE, THE TESTIMONY AND THE RECORD
CERTIFIED WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THEIR
SPECULATION AND THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE DENIED AID. THE
TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS THAT THIS TEMPORARY PAUSE WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT. AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED THE BRIEF POLS WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT. UNDER THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS,
THIS WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE. NOT TO KEEP THE ARMY GOING NOW. THIS
IS NOT MONEY THAT HAD TO FLOW EVERY MONTH. IT WAS FIVE YOUR
MONEY. IT WAS THERE FOR FIVE YEARS. A USER TAKES QUITE A BIT
OF TIME TO SPEND ALL OF IT. 55-48 DAYS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU
COUNT THEM. THIS WAS DENYING CRITICAL ASSISTANCE RIGHT THEN.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THEY HAVE TRIED TO PIVOT AWAY FROM THAT.
THEY KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE. IT WAS A SIGNAL OF LACK OF SUPPORT THAT
THE RUSSIANS WOULD PICK UP ON. HERE AGAIN IT IS CRITICAL. THEY
EVEN DID NOT KNOW THE AID HAD BEEN POLS. PART OF THE REASON
WAS THAT THEY NEVER BROUGHT IT UP, THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED.
REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT BRING IT UP TO THEM. THEY DID NOT WANT
ANYONE TO KNOW. THEY DID NOT WANT TO PUT OUT ANY SIGNAL THAT
WILL BE PERCEIVED. IT WAS KEPT INTERNAL TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT. THEY POINTED TO SOME EMAILS . WHERE THEY RECEIVED FROM THE
UNNAMED STAFFERS SUGGESTING THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE
AID. HER TESTIMONY WAS SHE CANNOT EVEN REMEMBER WHAT THE
QUESTION WAS. THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE IN ANY DECISION-MAKERS
IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND KNEW ABOUT THE POLS. JUST THE
OTHER DAY, ANOTHER ARTICLE CAME OUT. EXPLAINING THAT WHEN THE
POLITICAL ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 28, THERE WAS PANIC
BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY REALIZED. THAT WAS NOT
SOMETHING THAT WAS PROVIDING ANY SIGNAL. IT WAS NOT KNOWN. TWO
WEEKS LATER IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT IT WAS RELEASED. THE PAUSE
WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. IT WAS FUTURE MONEY. IT WAS RELEASED
BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. THERE
IS SOME PERCENTAGE THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR. AGAIN IT
IS FIVE YOUR MONEY. IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS A GOING TO BE SPENT
IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS ANYWAY. THE FACT THERE WAS A LITTLE FIX
CONGRESS PASSED TO ANOTHER $35 MILLION TO BE SPENT. SOMETHING
SIMILAR HAPPENED ALMOST EVERY YEAR. IT WAS NOT AFFECTING
CURRENT PURCHASES. IT WAS NOT JEOPARDIZING ANYTHING AT THE
FRONT LINES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT IN THE
RECORD. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE. >>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH
SETS OF COUNSEL. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KING’S
FROM THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF HAS REPORTEDLY SAID I
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. SUGGEST BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY SAYING IF
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS EITHER
INNOCENCE OR GUILT, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE HEARD. DO YOU AGREE
WITH GENERAL KELLY THAT THEY SHOULD BE HEARD. IT IS YOUR TURN
TO GO FIRST.>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THIS WAS A BIT OF THE TOPIC I DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. THAT WAS
THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT IN THE NEW YORK TIMES PIECE ABOUT
WHAT IS REPORTEDLY IN THE BOOK BY AMBASSADOR BOLTON. AS I HAVE
SAID, THE IDEA THAT A MANUSCRIPT IS NOT IN THE BOOK. THERE IS NOT
A QUOTE FROM THE MANUSCRIPT IN THE BOOK. THIS IS A PERCEPTION
OF WHAT THE STATEMENT MAY BE. THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FORCEFUL
STATEMENTS. NOT JUST FROM THE PRESIDENT BUT FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATED THAT WHILE HAS
NOT REVIEWED HIS MANUSCRIPT, THE NEW YORK TIMES ACCOUNT OF THIS
CONVERSATION GROSSLY MISCHARACTERIZES WHAT THEY
DISCUSSED. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF PERSONAL FAVORS OR
UNDUE INFLUENCE ON INVESTIGATIONS NOR DID THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE THE PRESIDENT’S CONVERSATIONS WERE
IMPROPER. THAT GOES TO SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE IN THE
ARTICLE. THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID THE SAME THING. HE SAID EVERY
CONVERSATION WAS PREPARATION TO OUR TRIP TO POLAND. THERE IS ALSO INTERVIEW THAT HE
HAD GIVEN IN AUGUST ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WHERE HE SAID IT
WAS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION. AGAIN, TO MOVE
THAT INTO A CHANGE IN PROCEEDING. I THINK IT IS NOT
CORRECT. THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. THE
ACCUSATION THAT IF YOU GET INTO WITNESSES. IF WE GET DOWN THE
ROAD, LET’S BE CLEAR. IT SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE THAT
THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET JOHN BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT’S
LAWYERS GET NO WITNESSES. WE WOULD EXPECT WE WOULD GET
WITNESSES. THOSE WITH THEM. JUST TO BE CLEAR. THAT CHANGES THE
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
>>THANK YOU COUNSEL.>>WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING THAT HE BELIEVES
JOHN BOLTON. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE PRESENT. THAT JOHN BOLTON
SHOULD TESTIFY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS NOT WHETHER OR
NOT I BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON OR WHETHER GENERAL KELLY BELIEVES
JOHN BOLTON. BUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. WHETHER
YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM JOHN BOLTON.
THERE ARE A FEW ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST THIS. SOME ARE RATHER
EXTRAORDINARY. IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE WITNESSES
AT A TRIAL. WHAT A EXTRAORDINARY IDEA. AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
SAID, IT WILL BE EXTRAORDINARY NOT TO. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY THEN EVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF YOU
DECIDE YOU DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM ANY. YOU SIMPLY WANT TO
RELY WHAT WAS INVESTIGATED IN THE HOUSE. YES WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO CALL WITNESSES. SO SHOULD THE PRESENT. THE PRESIDENT SAYS YOU CANNOT
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. LET THE PRESIDENT CALL HIM. ANOTHER
RELEVANT WITNESS WITH FIRST-HAND INFORMATION. IF HE IS WILLING TO
SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE IS WRONG. LET HIM COME AND SAY THAT UNDER
OATH. WE ARE NOT SAYING JUST ONE SIDE GETS TO CALL. BONSAI GUEST
CAR RELEVANT WITNESSES. THEY ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS
GOING TO TAKE LONG. WE HAVE TO WARN YOU. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE
TIME. I THINK THE UNDERLYING THREAT. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE
THIS REALLY TIME-CONSUMING. THE DEPOSITION TOOK PLACE VERY
QUICKLY IN THE HOUSE. WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF JUSTICE
BEHIND ME. THE PRESIDENT HAS WAIVED ANY CLAIM ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY. BY TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF. BY DECLASSIFIED THE
RECORD. WE’RE NOT INTERESTED IN ASKING ABOUT VENEZUELA OR OTHER
PLACES. JUST UKRAINE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE
THESE RELEVANT QUESTIONS. YOU CANNOT HIDE WRONGDOING OF
THE CHARACTER.>>SENDING A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO THE
COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT. IS IT TRUE THAT THE ALLEGED
WHISTLEBLOWER DETAILED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DURING
THE SAME TIME PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 2017 AND THE PRESENT. DO
YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNOW EACH OTHER. DO YOU
HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THE ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER
COORDINATED TO FULFILL THE REPORTED COMMITMENTS TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT THE PRESIDENT.>>THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT I
HAVE COMES FROM PUBLIC REPORTS. I GATHERED THERE IS A NEWS
REPORT IN SOME PUBLICATION THAT SUGGESTS A NAME FOR THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. SUGGEST WHERE HE WORKS. THAT HE WORKED AT THAT
TIME. WHY DID TELLING THE STAFF. THAT THERE WERE OTHERS WHO
WORKED THERE. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OTHER THAN
WHAT IS IN THIS PUBLIC REPORT. I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT. IT IS SOMETHING OF UNKNOWN EXTENT MAY
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN’S COMMITTEES. THAT CONTEXT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. CONTEXT BETWEEN MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF AND THE
WHISTLEBLOWER ARE SHROUDED IN SECRECY TO THIS DAY. WE DO NOT
KNOW WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE STATUS
CONTACT WAS HAVE BEEN. IT IS SOMETHING THEY SEEM TO BE
RELEVANT. SINCE THE WHISTLEBLOWER STARTED THIS
ENTIRE INQUIRY. I CANNOT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE
ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS SUGGESTED IN THE QUESTION. WE
KNOW THERE WAS A PUBLIC REPORT SUGGESTING CONNECTION. PRIOR
WORKING RELATIONSHIPS. NOT SOMETHING I CAN COMMENT ON.
SAYING THERE IS A REPORT THERE. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY
DISCUSSED. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TOLD BY THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. OTHER PUBLIC REPORTS ABOUT INACCURACIES IN
THE REPORT. WE DO NOT KNOW THE TESTIMONY ON THAT. WE DO NOT
KNOW THE SITUATION OF THE CONTACTS AND COORDINATION. THE
ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGER SHIP. IT ALL REMAINS UNKNOWN.
SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY GETS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE MOTIVATION.
HOW THIS WAS ALL CREATED. IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE RELEVANT.
THANK YOU.>>THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>WHEN DID THEY FIRST LEARNED
THE MANUSCRIPT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR
REVIEW. HAS THE COUNSELOR ANYONE ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY TO PROHIBIT OR DISCOURAGE JOHN BOLTON OR HIS
PUBLISHER FROM PUBLISHING THIS BOOK?>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. AT SOME POINT, I DO NOT KNOW OFF
THE TOP MY HEAD THE EXACT DATE. THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. IT WAS WITH THE STAFF FOR REVIEW.
COUNSEL WAS NOTIFIED IT WAS THERE. THEY HAVE RELEASED A
STATEMENT SAYING IT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE. HASN’T BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO
PREVENT THE PUBLICATION? I THINK THERE WAS SOME MISINFORMATION
PUT OUT IN THE PUBLIC REALM EARLIER TODAY. I CAN READ FOR
YOUR RELATIVELY SHORT. IT WAS SENT FROM THE STAFF TO CHARLES
COOPER WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR MR. JOHN BOLTON ON JANUARY 23.
IT WAS LAST WEEK. IT SAYS DEAR MR. COOPER, THANK YOU FOR
SPEAKING. THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE
MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY YOUR CLIENT. FORMER ASSISTANT
PRESIDENT JOHN BOLTON FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW. BASED ON
OUR REVIEW, THE MANUSCRIPT APPEARS TO CONTAIN CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT SOME DECLASSIFIED
INFORMATION IS AT THE TOP OF THE LEVEL. IT IS DEFINED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER. THE HAS INFORMATION THAT COULD BE
EXPECTED TO CAUSE GREAT FUN TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES IF DISCLOSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. UNDER
FEDERAL LAW, AND THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, THE MANUSCRIPT MAY NOT BE
PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSED WITHOUT THIS CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION. THE MANUSCRIPT REMAINS UNDER REVIEW TO DO OUR
BEST TO ASSIST YOUR CLIENT. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING
THE PUBLICATION DID NOT HARM THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH YOU TO ENSURE YOUR
CLIENTS ABILITY TO TELL HIS STORY. WE WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH
YOU SHORTLY WITH MORE DETAILED GUIDANCE REGARDING NEXT STEPS
THAT SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO PROVIDE THE MANUSCRIPTS AND MOVE
FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POWERFUL. IT IS WITH THEM DOING THEIR
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW. HE WAS NOTIFIED THE MANUSCRIPTS HE
SUBMITTED CONTAINED INFORMATION INCLUDING THE TOP SECRET LEVEL.
IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT CANNOT BE PUBLISHED. THEY WILL BE WORKING WITH THEM
AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE PROVIDING GUIDANCE SO CAN BE
REVISED. THAT WAS THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT. THANK YOU
COUNSEL.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >>THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
>>I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE
SENATORS.>>>>THE SENATOR’S QUESTION IS
DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. IS IT TRUE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION APPROVED SUPPLYING ANTITANK MISSILES TO
UKRAINE. IT IS ALSO TRUE THIS DECISION CAME ON THE HILLS OF A
NEARLY THREE-YEAR DEBATE IN WASHINGTON OVER WHETHER OR NOT
THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE WEAPONS TO COUNTER FURTHER
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE. BY COMPARISON, THE PRESIDENT OBAMA
REFUSED TO SEND WEAPONS OR OTHER MILITARY GEAR TO UKRAINE. WAS
THIS DECISION AGAINST THE ADVICE OF HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY AND
OTHER KEY MILITARY LEADERS. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. THEY MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE ANTITANK
MISSILES. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DEBATE ABOUT THAT
FOR SOME TIME. AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS. MANY
OF YOU VOTED FOR THAT AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THE ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT
TO PROVIDE THAT. IT WAS ONLY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE
THAT ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDINGS AT HIS POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS
ACTUALLY STRONGER. THEY EXPLAINED THAT AMERICA’S
POLICY HAD BEEN STRENGTHENED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP. EACH STEP
ALONG THE WAY. THEY GOT TO THE MISSILES BEING PROVIDED. WAS
MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS
STRENGTHENED A RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAID THAT THE
ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDE LEAD THE WEAPONS IN OUR POLICY ACTUALLY
GOT STRONGER OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. SHE CAUGHT IT VERY
PERSISTENT. ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE. IN
RELATION TO THIS. THE TEMPORARY PAUSE THAT TOOK PLACE OVER THE
SUMMER IS SOMETHING THAT THE UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER
DESCRIBED AS BEING SO SHORT THEY DID NOT EVEN NOTICE IT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLICY ACROSS THE BOARD HAD BEEN STRONGER THAN
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION IN PROVIDING DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY
TO THE UKRAINIAN. I THINK THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. THE SPECIFIC
PART OF THE QUESTION. WHETHER IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF
THE DEFENSE SECRETARY AND OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT IS
ACCURATE. IT WAS AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE. IT WAS HIS TO PROVIDE THE ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU COUNSEL. SENATOR FEINSTEIN?
>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I CAN TAKE THE QUESTION TO THE
DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR HARPER. TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF. THANK YOU.>>THE OTHER SENATORS IS TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT
THERE SHOULD BE NO WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN RESPONSE TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. IS
THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS BLANKET REFUSAL TO COOPERATE AND
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES THE SENATE ACCEPTS THIS POSITION
HERE.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATOR. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN THE EXTREME MEASURE TO
HIDE THIS EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS. NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER
ISSUED A ORDER TO DIRECT A WITNESS TO REFUSE TO COOPERATE
IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. DESPITE HIS FAMOUS ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL
THE MOST DAMAGING EVIDENCE, EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. NOT ONLY DID HE ALLOW THAT, HE
TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL
RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY. PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A BLANKET
ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO WITHHOLD ALL
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IT WAS
CATEGORICAL. IT WAS DISCRIMINATE. UNPRECEDENTED. ITS
PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS DUTY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. HOLDING THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. TELLING EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS IN EVERY
DEPARTMENT AGENCY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT’S JUST NOT
PRECEDENT. IT WAS NOT ABOUT SPECIFIC NARROWLY DEFINED
PRIVILEGES HE NEVER ASSERTED. THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE HAD SOME KIND OF REASON. BECAUSE
OF THE SUBPOENAS. WE ADOPT RULES ABOUT SUBPOENAS IN THE HOUSE.
THE SENATE IS A CONTINUING BODY. IN JANUARY, WE ADOPTED OUR RULES
. IT ALLOWED THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. HE REFUSED. COMPLYING WITH THOSE
SUBPOENAS. NOT BECAUSE HE EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. HE
DID NOT LIKE WHAT WE WERE DOING. HE TRIED TO SAY IT WAS INVALID.
IT WAS VALID. HE ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE THE
ARBITER OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE
ARBITER OF THE RULES WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT. THIS
REFUSAL TO GIVE TESTIMONY IS STILL GOING ON. WE STILL HAVE
FORMER OFFICIALS WHO ARE REFUSING TO TESTIFY. HE WILL NOT
ALLOW THIS. IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT. A FAMILIAR SAID I AM NOT GOING
TO ANSWER YOUR SUBPOENA, THEY WOULD BE DEALT WITH. HARSHLY. IF IT WAS TO COVER UP MISDEEDS
AND CRIMES AS WE HAVE HERE. THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO TO JAIL FOR
DOING THAT. IF WE ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO AVOID
ACCOUNTABILITY BY SIMPLY REFUSING TO PROVIDE ANY
DOCUMENTS OR ANY WITNESSES UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT
WHO PRECEDED HIM, WERE OPENING THE DOOR NOT JUST ELIMINATING
THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION. TRY DOING
OVERSIGHT. TRY DOING OVERSIGHT. WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT IN
THE HOUSE. IF HE CAN JUST SAY WE’RE NOT SENDING ANY WITNESSES.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO. WE DO NOT LIKE YOUR PROCESS. WE HAVE A
WHOLESALE REJECTION OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING. THAT IS NOT THE
WAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED. WHERE EACH BODY HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY. THE SHARING OF POWER. I KNOW YOU CHERISH THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE. THAT WOULD BE EVISCERATED IF THE
PRESIDENT COMPLETE STILL WALK IS ALLOWED TO PERSIST
AND BE ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY. YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS
MOMENT. I YELLED BACK.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >>THE SENATOR FROM WEST
VIRGINIA. >>I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. >>THE SENATOR’S QUESTIONS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. YOU SAID THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID
NOT KNOW ABOUT THE POSITIVE LEAD INTO AUGUST 28, 2019 WHEN IT WAS
REPORTED IN POLITICAL. THEN LORD COOPER SAID THAT MEMBERS OF HER
STAFF RECEIVED QUERIES ABOUT THE AID FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY
ON JULY 25. DOES THAT MEAN THAT UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID EARLIER THAN THE POLITICAL
ARTICLE?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. IT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT. AS WE EXPLAINED ON SATURDAY. THE OVERWHELMING BODY
OF EVIDENCE INTEGRATES AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. THEY ONLY BECOME
AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THE
AUGUST 20 ARTICLE. I ADDRESSED ON SATURDAY. EACH OF THOSE
COMMENTS THAT WILL STAND. THE EMAILS FROM THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TESTIFIED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. WHAT SHE HAD SAID WAS THAT HER STAFF
HAD GOTTEN EMAILS FROM SOMEONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO HAS
SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT SOMEHOW
RELATED TO THE AID AT A TIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 20. SHE DID NOT
KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THE EMAILS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY
MENTIONED REVIEW OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. SHE EVEN SAID
HERSELF THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE EMAILS
MEAN AND CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT THEY WERE ABOUT. I
PRESENTED ON SATURDAY THE EVIDENCE WHICH AGAIN REFERENCED
THE COMMON SENSE THAT WOULD BE IN PLAY HERE. THIS WAS SOMETHING
ON AUGUST 28 CAUSED A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY AMONG THE HIGHEST
RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. NEVER BEFORE DID THEY RAISE ANY
QUESTIONS AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS THEY HAD WITH THE HIGH-RANKING
U.S. OFFICIALS THROUGH JULY AND AUGUST. THERE WERE MEETINGS ON
JULY 9 AND JULY 10. JULY 26. NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS. HOWEVER, AS SOON AS THE ARTICLE
CAME OUT, ON AUGUST 28 WITHIN HOURS, MR. YOUR MAC TEXTED THE ARTICLE
TO THE AMBASSADOR AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH HIM. THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE FINDING OUT ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEY HAVE ALSO MADE STATEMENTS
THAT THEY LEARNED ABOUT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEN MR. FELDMAN
JUST REFERENCED A ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY. IN THE DAILY
BEAST. IT WAS THE INTERVIEW WITH MR. VENABLE. WHO AT THE TIME
WAS A VERY HIGH-RANKING DEFENSE OFFICIAL. THIS IS INTERESTING.
I’M GOING TO READ THIS ARTICLE. I SUGGEST TO THE SENATE IF THEY
WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS. HE
SAID HE FIRST FOUND OUT THE U.S. WAS WITHHOLDING AID BY READING
POLITICAL ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 28. U.S. OFFICIALS AND
DIPLOMATS INCLUDING THE COUNTRY’S FOREIGN MINISTER HAS
SAID PUBLICLY THAT WERE AWARE OF PROBLEMS AS EARLY. THAT IS THE
ARTICLE THEY MENTIONED THAT THE HOUSE MEMBERS MENTIONED. I WAS
REALLY SURPRISED AND SHOCKED. JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO
THAT, ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING WITH JOHN BOLTON. WE HAD
EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS. THE LAST THING I EXPECTED TO READ WAS A
ARTICLE ABOUT MILITARY AID BEING FROZEN. AFTER THAT I WAS TRYING
TO GET TO THE TRUTH. HE SAID IT WAS A PANIC. AFTER THE INITIAL
NEWS BROKE. SAYING HE WAS CONVINCED THERE HAD BEEN SOME
SORT OF MISTAKE. THEY END UP PUTTING IN CALLS TO THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL. ASKING OTHER OFFICIALS WHAT TO MAKE OF THE
NEWS. AGAIN ON AUGUST 20. THE NEXT TIME WE MET IN SEPTEMBER,
IT WAS IN POLAND FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF THE SECOND
WORLD WAR. THERE WERE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. ADDING THAT HE MET WITH HIM ON
THE SIDELINE FOR COMMEMORATION. I HAD MY SUSPICIONS. THERE WAS A
SPECIAL SITUATION WITH ONE OF OUR DEFENSE COMPANIES. THE U.S.
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. HE ACTUALLY MADE THE PUBLIC COMMENT
ABOUT THIS AS WELL. SOMEHOW I LINK THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
MAYBE THIS COULD BE RELATED. NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT KNOW TO AUGUST
28. WHEN THEY DID FIND OUT, THEY DID NOT LINK IT TO ANY
INVESTIGATIONS. WHERE IS THE QUID PRO QUO. IF THIS IS THE
FOREFRONT OF THEIR MIND, SUCH PRESSURE ON THEM. THEY HAVE TO
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID. WHEN THE AID WAS HELD
UP, THEY DO NOT THINK IT WAS CONNECTED TO THE INVESTIGATION.
>>THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR BALDWIN AND MYSELF. THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGER. IS THE WHITE HOUSE CORRECT IN ITS TRIAL
MEMORANDUM AND PRESENTATIONS OF ITS CASE THAT PRESIDENT ZELINSKI
AND OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN PAUSED. BEFORE SEEING PRESS
REPORTS ON AUGUST 28 2019 WHICH IS MORE THAN ONE MONTH AFTER THE
JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE 2 PRESIDENTS.>>THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS NO. THE EVIDENCE DOES
NOT SHOW THAT. THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25
SAYING IT WAS ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE. HE BROUGHT
UP THESE EMAILS JUST NOW. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE SENATE
SUBPOENAED THOSE EMAILS SO WE CAN ALL SEE FOR OURSELVES WHAT
EXACTLY IS HAPPENING. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE CAREER DIPLOMAT
STATED SHE WAS VERY SURPRISED AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY
COUNTERPARTS TRADECRAFT AS IF TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT VERY EARLY ON
OR MUCH EARLIER. THAT TESTIFIED BY MID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND THERE SHOULD BE.
WE ALL KNOW THAT DELAYS MATTER. IT MATTERS A LOT. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD
FOR IT. THIS IS NOT JUST A 48 DAY DELAY. UKRAINIANS WERE
CONSISTENTLY ASKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WAS URGENT. THEY
NEEDED IT. YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS ASKING FOR IT? AMERICAN
BUSINESS. THE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING THIS.
THERE WAS A PIPELINE. MY ESTEEMED ARMED SERVICES KNOW
VERY WELL. PROVIDING A DOES NOT LIKE TURNING OFF AND ON THE
LIGHT SWITCH. YOU HAVE TO HIRE EMPLOYEES. YOU HAVE TO GET
EQUIPMENT. YOU HAVE TO SHIP IT. I HAD TO COME TOGETHER AS A
CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW TO EXTEND THAT TIMELINE BECAUSE WE WERE AT
RISK OF LOSING THEM. TO THIS DAY, $18 MILLION OF THAT AID HAS
STILL NOT BEEN SPENT. THIS JUST ASSUME FOR A MINUTE. ALSO
BROADLY SPEAKING. THE PRESIDENT COUNTER ARGUMENT THAT SUPPORT
HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER THAN IT IS TODAY. UNDER THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE THE STRONGEST ALLIES THEY HAVE SEEN
IN YEARS. JUST ASSUMING FOR A MINUTE THAT ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE.
IT KINDA MAKES OUR OWN ARGUMENT. WHY WITHHOLD THE EGG? WHY HOLD
THE AID? NOTHING HAD CHANGED. NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 18. ONE
THING HAD CHANGED. THAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT JOE
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. LASTLY THE QUESTION BEFORE MY
SERVICES CALLING. IN TERMS OF THE MILITARY IMPACT. THEY ASKED
WHAT WAS GREATER. NOT PROVIDING LEGAL AID. LET’S NOT FORGET THE REASON FOR
THE DELAY. A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT THE TECHNICALITY OF
THE DELAY. THAT THE PRESIDENT’S MENTALITY OF MINDSET DOES NOT
MATTER. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE.
IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO. THEY DESERVE TO GO TO BED EVERY
NIGHT KNOWING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF . THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION EVERY NIGHT HAS THE
BEST INTEREST OF THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. NOT THE BEST INTEREST
OF HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >>SENATOR. I SENT THE QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI.>>THE QUESTION AS TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESENT. WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT UKRAINE
WAS A CORRUPT COUNTRY. BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY
ENTERED THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL RACE IN APRIL 2019. THE
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION JOE OR HUNTER BIDEN IN CONNECTION
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TO THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. PRESIDENT TRUMP CABINET MEMBERS
ARE TOP AIDES OR OTHERS. IF SO, WHAT DID HE SAY TO WHOM AND
WHEN.>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK
YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO FRAME THE
ANSWER. LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN RECORD. WHAT IS IN RECORD AS
DETERMINED BY WHAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THOUGHT. THEIR
PROCEEDINGS. THEY WERE THE ONE TO CALL THE WITNESSES. PART OF
THE QUESTION REFERS TO CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND OTHER CABINET MEMBERS. IT IS NOT SOMETHING IN THE
RECORD ON THAT. IT WAS NOT PURSUED IN THE RECORD. I CANNOT
POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS HIM AT AN EARLIER
TIME MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR
HUNTER BIDEN. IT IS IN THE RECORD HE SPOKE TO HIM TWICE
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. BOTH IN JUNE OF 2017 AND IN
SEPTEMBER OF 2017. THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE AND IN THE RECORD. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE AND UNDERSTANDING WHY IT WAS THAT
THE INFORMATION RELATED CAME UP WHEN IT DID. THE ONE IMPORTANT
PIECE OF INFORMATION. HE WAS THE PERSON THAT JOE BIDEN HIMSELF
WENT TO TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR FIRED. AS LONG AS HE WAS STILL
IN CHARGE, HE WAS A PERSON THAT JOE BIDEN HAD SPOKEN TO TO GET
HIM FIRED WHEN HE WAS LOOKING INTO PUBLIC REPORTS. AS LONG AS
HE WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT, QUESTION THE UTILITY OF RAISING
THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE WAS THE ONE. TAKEN THE DIRECTION. FIRING
THE PROSECUTOR. WE HAVE A ELECTION IN APRIL 2019 AND A NEW
PRESIDENT, IT WAS RUN ON ANTICORRUPTION
PLATFORM, IS SHE REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THINGS. IS THERE GOING TO
BE SOMETHING NEW? IT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO START LOOKING
REALLY AT THE ANTICORRUPTION ISSUES AND RAISING QUESTIONS.
THE OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS TO UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT RUDY
GIULIANI. WHAT WAS HE INTERESTED IN. AS WE KNOW IT HAS BEEN MADE
PUBLIC. THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THE UKRAINE
DATING BACK TO THE FALL OF 2018. IN NOVEMBER 2018, HE SAID HE WAS
GIVEN SOME TIPS ABOUT THINGS TO LOOK INTO. APRIL 25. THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE FROM
JANUARY. IT GOES THROUGH. EXPLAINING THAT
HE WAS REMOVED. HE HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING. IN
THE HUNTER WAS ON THE BOARD. IT WAS MR. GIULIANI AS THEY
EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY. THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. LOOKING INTO WHAT WENT ON IN
UKRAINE. IS THERE ANYTHING RELATED TO 2016. OTHER THINGS
RELATED THERE. START PURSUING THAT. RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE. IT SEEMS FROM THAT GETTING
INFORMATION TO MR. GIULIANI. MUST BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED HIS
CANDIDACY, MR. GIULIANI IS LOOKING INTO HIS ISSUE. GETTING
INFORMATION ABOUT IT. IN MARCH 2019. ARTICLES BEGAN TO BE
PUBLISHED. BY THE NEW YORKER AND THE WASHINGTON POST.>>I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE
DESK.>>THEY ASK THE HOUSE MANAGER’S.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING THE AMBASSADOR TO GET RID OF HER. I
DO NOT CARE. GET HER OUT TOMORROW. TAKE HER OUT. DO IT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP GET THIS ORDER. TWO MEN WHO CARRIED OUT HIS
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN THE UKRAINE AT THE DIRECTION OF RUDY
GIULIANI. IF THEY DO NOT PURSUE EVIDENCE,
THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT AFTER THE
SENATE RENDERS A VERDICT.>>THE ANSWER IS YES. WHAT WE
HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE
ARTICLES IS THAT EVERY WEEK OR SOMETIMES EVERY DAY THERE IS NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT. WE KNOW THERE’S GOING TO BE NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT ON MARCH 17 WHEN THE BOOK COMES
OUT. IF THEY ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN REDACTING IT OR PREVENTING
MUCH OF ITS PUBLICATION. ON THAT ISSUE, I DO WANT TO MENTION ONE
OTHER THING. I LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MAYBE YOU LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY THAN I DO.
I THOUGHT I HEARD THEM SAY WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT.
THE STATEMENT WAS VERY PRECISELY WORDED. THE NSC UNIT DID NOT
SHARE THE MANUSCRIPT. THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHETHER
OR NOT THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FIND OUT WHAT WAS IN IT. YOU DO
NOT HAVE TO CIRCLET THE MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE SOMEONE WALK
OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAY YOU DO NOT WANT JOHN WANTED TO
TESTIFY. YOU DO NOT WANT HIM TO TESTIFY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ
HIS MANUSCRIPT. IT WAS A VERY CAREFULLY WORDED ONE. I DO NOT
KNOW WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS NEW. THEY DID REPRESENT
TO YOU REPEATEDLY THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD THE WITNESS
THAT HE WAS FREEZING THE AID TO GET UKRAINE TO DO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS. WE KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE KNOW THAT FROM THE
WITNESSES WE ARE HE HEARD FROM. WE ALSO KNOW AT LEAST IF THE
RECORDING IS CORRECT, THAT JOHN BOLTON TELLS A VERY DIFFERENT
STORY. THERE GOING TO BE CONTINUED REVELATIONS. MEMBERS
OF THIS BODY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ENTER QUESTION EACH TIME IT
DOES. WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT WHEN IT WOULD HAVE HELPED. EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN THE LAND.
YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND OUT. AGAIN WE ARE NOT A COURT OF
APPEALS. WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE RECORD BELOW. COUNSEL SAYS
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER BROUGHT
UP THE HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM. SAYING WE ARE CONFINED TO THE
RECORD BEFORE US. YOU ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE RECORD IN THE
HOUSE NOR IS THE PRESENT. THE PRESIDENT COULD CALL WITNESSES.
THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THEM. TOMORROW WE’RE GOING TO
CALL SUCH AND SUCH. THEY WILL TESTIFY THAT DONALD TRUMP CAUGHT
HIM UP. THERE WAS NOTHING PROHIBITING
HIM FROM DOING THAT. THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE COME OUT ALL OF THE TIME. AMONG
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS GOING TO
BE. THE EFFORT TO SUGGEST. THIS PRESIDENT WAS STRONGER THAN HIS
PREDECESSOR. WE KNOW FROM THE JULY 25 CALL. WE KNOW THE MOMENT
THEY BRING UP THE JAVELINS. HE SAID HE WANTS A FAVOR. THE QUESTION IS WHY DID HE STOP
THE EGG? WHY DID HE STOP THE AID THIS YEAR. WAS IT MERELY A
COINCIDENCE. WAS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT HE WAS RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE COMPANIES AND
LAND. OF ALL THE LAND IN THE UKRAINE THAT IT WAS JUST HUNTER
BIDEN WALKING INTO THIS ONE. >>THE SENATOR ASKS COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS UNDERSCORED THE ONGOING ANTICORRUPTION FOCUS
WITH OUR ALLIES. AT WHAT POINT DID THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
DEVELOP CONCERNS IN RELATION TO CORRUPTION AND CONCERNS WITH
RUSSIA?>>THAT QUESTION, I THINK IT
BEARS ON THE ANSWER I WAS GIVING TO THE LAST QUESTION. THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT BECAME, OF COURSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, THE
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US, IT BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF THINGS HE BROUGHT
UP BURDEN SHARING SPECIFICALLY AND HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF
CORRUPTION INTO SPECIFICS. THE SPECIFIC CASE OF POTENTIAL
UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, WHICH HE HAD HEARD
ABOUT AND ASKED ABOUT. AND THE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE FIRING OF
A PROSECUTOR WHO ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING
INTO THE COMPANY THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT SON WAS ON THE BOARD
OF. AND THAT WAS THE PRESIDENTS WAY OF PINPOINTING SPECIFIC
ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION. SO WHEN DID IT BECOME THE
PRESIDENT’S CONCERN, THOSE ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION
WITH UKRAINE? WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT EVERYONE IN THE
GOVERNMENT, THOUGHT THAT ANTICORRUPTION WAS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR U.S. POLICY WITH
RESPECT TO UKRAINE. WHEN THERE IS A NEW PRESIDENT ELECTED,
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, THAT BROUGHT THE POSSIBILITY OF REFORM TO THE
FOREFRONT. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM RUDY GIULIANI, HE SPOKE IN THE OVAL
OFFICE, RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE, TALK TO HIM. HE WAS
EXPLAINING TO THE DELEGATION THAT HE JUST RETURNED FOR THE
INAUGURATION FOR THE PRESIDENT, THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT
UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT, HE KEPT SAYING IT WAS A
CORRUPT COUNTRY, THEY TRIED TO GET ME IN THE ELECTION. THERE IS
HIS SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION. HE KNEW
FROM THE PUBLIC REPORTS, THE POLITICAL ARTICLE THAT’S
BEEN REFERENCED MANY TIMES, IN JANUARY 2017, EXPLAINS A LAUNDRY
LIST OF UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT
THERE ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND
SPREAD MISINFORMATION, OR BAD
INFORMATION, OR ASSIST IN DIGGING UP DIRT ON THE MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN. MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING THINGS RELATED TO
UKRAINE IN 2016 AND WAS LED TO THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SITUATION AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVING THE
PROSECUTOR FIRED. IT WAS IN JANUARY THAT HE HAD THESE
INTERVIEWS THAT HE TURNED OVER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN
MARCH, THEN THERE WAS THE ARTICLES PUBLISHED. RUDY
GIULIANI TWEETED ABOUT IT IN MARCH, THERE WAS AN ABC STORY IN
JUNE, THERE WAS A TWO-PART STORY IN JULY, THEN JULY 22 THE
WASHINGTON POST HAD AN ARTICLE AND EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY SO
THREE DAYS BEFORE THE CALL, THE PROSECUTOR BELIEVED IT WAS
BECAUSE THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY, REFERRING TO MARIE’S
MAMA BURISMA, SO I THINK THERE IS A
REASONABLE INFERENCE, AS THERE WHERE THESE ARTICLES BEING
PUBLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE TIME, THIS WAS INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, AND IT BECAME AVAILABLE TO HIM IS
SOMETHING THAT WAS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF POTENTIALLY SERIOUS
CORRUPTION. REMEMBER EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED, WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT IT DOUBT IT
SEEM LIKE THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, EVERYONE TESTIFIED
YES, THERE IS AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST, AND I THINK IT WAS AFTER THE INFORMATION HAD COME
TO MR. GIULIANI, LONG BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, THAT HE CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
PRESIDENT AND BECAME SOMETHING WORTH RAISING. BECAUSE AGAIN,
THE PRESIDENT FIRED THE PROSECUTOR, AND WHILE HE IS
STILL THE PRESIDENT, IT’S NOT THAT MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF
RAISING THAT. SO IT WAS IN THAT TIMEFRAME THAT IT CAME TO THE
PRESIDENT’S ATTENTION THAT’S WHY IT WAS RAISED IN THE TIMING,
THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE, I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL ASKS, DID
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE TELL
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE THAT
PUBLICATION OF THE BOLTON BOOK WOULD BE POLITICALLY PROBLEMATIC
FOR THE PRESIDENT?>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THANK YOU SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. NO ONE FROM INSIDE THE
WHITE HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD US THAT THE
PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK WOULD BE AUTOMATIC FOR THE PRESIDENT. WE
ASSUME THAT MR. BOLTON WAS DISGRUNTLED, AND WE DIDN’T
EXPECT THAT HE WOULD BE SAYING A LOT OF NICE THINGS, NO ONE TOLD
US ANYTHING LIKE THAT.>>SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
>>I SENT QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MORAN
AND HOLLY, A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THE QUESTION FROM THE
SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, ON AUGUST 26, 2019, THERE WAS A
LETTER FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DISCUSSING THE SO-CALLED
WHISTLEBLOWER STATED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IDENTIFY SOME
AND DISHY OF ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS IN FAVOR OF A RIVAL
POLITICAL CANDIDATE. MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTED THAT THIS
LIKELY REFERRED TO THE WHISTLEBLOWERS WORK WITH JOE
BIDEN. DID THE SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER WORK AT ANY POINT
FOR OR WITH JOE BIDEN? IF SO, DID HE WORK FOR OR WITH JOE
BIDEN ON ISSUES INVOLVING UKRAINE AND DID HE ASSIST IN ANY
MATERIAL WAY WITH THE QUID PRO QUO IN WHICH IT THEN VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS ADMITTED TO CONDITIONING LOAN GUARANTEES TO
UKRAINE ON THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING
BURISMA. >>THINK THE SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION, I
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW TO ANSWER, SO AS NOT TO DISCLOSE OR
GIVE AN INDICATION THAT MAY ALLOW OTHERS TO IDENTIFY THE
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
WHY WE ARE MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE EFFORT OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. IF YOU COULD PUT UP SLIDE 48. THIS SLIDE SHOWS, AND IT MAY BE
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO READ, SO LET ME TRY TO, IF YOU
CAN HAND ME A COPY OF THAT AS WELL. SO I HAVE A CHANCE TO
DISTRIBUTE THAT TO EVERYONE . IT’S NOT JUST THAT WE VIEW THE PROTECTION OF
WHISTLEBLOWERS AS IMPORTANT, MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE ALSO
MADE STRONG STATEMENTS OF JUST HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT
WHISTLEBLOWERS. SENATOR GRASSLEY SAID THIS PERSON APPEARS TO HAVE
FOLLOWED THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS, AND TO BE HEARD
OUT AND PROTECTED WE SHOULD ALSO ALWAYS RESPECT WHISTLEBLOWERS
REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY. SEMINAR ROMNEY SAID
WHISTLEBLOWERS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO CONFIDENTIALITY AND
PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY PLAY OF VITAL FUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY. SENATOR BURR, WE PROTECT
WHISTLEBLOWERS, WE PROTECT WITNESSES AN HOUR COMMITTEE. THE
>>WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND WILL WILL PROTECT
THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PEOPLE AT ALL COST. IT’S BEEN UP
BIPARTISAN PRIORITY, ONE WE’VE DONE OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN. I
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL, BUT LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SEVERAL
THINGS, FIRST OF ALL I DON’T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, I
HAVE NOT MET THEM OR COMMUNICATED WITH THEM IN ANY
WAY. THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT WRITE THE COMPLAINT OR COACH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT TO PUT IN THE COMPLAINT . THE COMMITTEE STAFF DO NOT SEE
THE COMPLAINT BEFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL. THE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING THE STAFF DID NOT
RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT UNTIL THE NIGHT BEFORE ACTING DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, WE HAD AN OPEN HEARING WITH THE ACTIVE
DIRECTOR ON SEPTEMBER 26, MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AFTER THE LEGAL
DEADLINE BY WHICH THE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE
COMPLAINT. IN SHORT, THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, WHICH I THINK
WAS OUTLINED EARLIER, THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COLLUDED WITH THE
INTEL COMMITTEE STAFF TO PATCH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FICTION.
THIS WAS I THINK CONFIRMED BY THE REMARKABLE ACCURACY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT,
WHICH HAS BEEN COOPERATED BY THE EVIDENCE WE SUBSEQUENTLY
GATHERED IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS. SO I WILL NOT GO INTO
ANYTHING THAT COULD REVEAL OR LEAD TO THE REVELATION OF THE
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE MY
STEPS NAMES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS PROCEEDING, THAT MIGHT
STAFF ACTED AT ALL TIMES, WITH THE MOST COMPLETE
PROFESSIONALISM. I AM VERY PROTECTIVE OF MY STAFF, AS I
KNOW YOU ARE. AND I AM GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE SUCH GREAT,
HARD-WORKING PEOPLE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK TO PROTECT THIS
COUNTRY. AND WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COMMITTEE SO WELL. IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE THEM
SMEARED, AND SOME OF THEM MENTIONED HERE TODAY HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY, AND ONLINE THREATS TO MEMBERS OF MY
STAFF AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE SMEARS THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED
AGAINST THEM. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS NO ONE WHO CAN
UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF INVESTOR YVONNE OVICH MORE THAN
SOME OF MY STAFF THAT HAVE BEEN TREATED BY THE SAME KIND OF
SMEARS AND HEALTH CONCERNS OVER THEIR OWN SAFETY. THEY HAVE
ACTED AT ALL TIMES WITH THE UTMOST PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY . YOUR CHAIRMAN CAN TELL YOU THAT
WE ENCOURAGE WHISTLEBLOWERS TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE, AND SO DO
WE. AND WHEN WE DO WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE COMPLAINT
WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. IF IT
IS, THEN WE SUGGEST THEY GET A LAWYER, AND TALK TO THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE WHISTLEBLOWER DID
EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD, EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT IS
UNFORGIVABLE, BECAUSE THEY EXPOSED THE WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT,
AND IN THE PRESIDENTS VIEW THAT MAKES THEM A TRAITOR OR A SPY.
AND IF THE PRESIDENT TELLS US THERE WAS A WAY WE USED TO TREAT
TRAITORS AND SPIES. YOU WONDER WHY WE DON’T WANT TO CALL THE
WHISTLEBLOWER, FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW FIRSTHAND WHAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WROTE SECONDHAND IN THE COMPLAINT, THERE’S NO
NEED FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER ANYMORE EXCEPT TO FURTHER
ENDANGER THAT PERSON’S LIFE. THAT TO ME DOES NOT SEEM A
WORTHWHILE OBJECT FOR ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER, THE
OVERBUILDING OR ANYWHERE ELSE.>>THINK YOU MR. MANAGER.
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND. >>CHIEF JUSTICE ON MY OWN
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, BOOKER, KLOBUCHAR,
MARQUIS, PETERS AND U-HAUL, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.>>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
WHITEHOUSE AND THE OTHER SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE MISSING
WITNESS RULE WHICH DATES BACK TO 1893 SUPREME COURT CASE GRAVES
VERSUS UNITED STATES, ALLOWS ONE PARTY TO OBTAIN AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE AGAINST THE OTHER TWO FAILURE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS FOR
THE PARTIES CONTROL WITH MATERIAL INFORMATION. THE
PRESIDENT HAS PREVENTED WITNESSES WITHIN HIS
CONTROL FROM TESTIFYING OR PROVIDING DOCUMENTS. TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE
SENATOR SHOULD APPLY THE MISSING WITNESS RULE HERE, AND IF SO,
WHAT ADVERSE INFERENCES SHOULD WE DRAW ABOUT THE MISSING
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS >>WE DO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD
DRAW AND ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE PARTY RESISTING THE
TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON. COURTS HAVE
LONG RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN A PARTY HAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE,
WITHIN HIS CONTROL THAT HE FAILS TO PRODUCE, THAT FAILURE GIVES
RISE TO AN INFERENCE THAT THAT EVIDENCE IS UNFAVORABLE TO HIM.
COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCES WHERE A PARTY
ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OR PRECLUDE WITNESSES
FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS BAD
FAITH WHEN COUNSEL COMES BEFORE YOU AND SAYS THAT IF YOU REALLY
WANTED THESE WITNESSES YOU SHOULD HAVE SUED TO GET THEM IN
THE HOUSE AND GOES INTO THE COURTROOM, DOWN THE STREET AND
SAYS YOU CAN’T SUE TO GET WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE. BUT
THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, AND YOU ARE I THINK, NOT ONLY
PERMITTED, BUT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD DRAW AND ADVERSE INFERENCE, THAT
WHEN A PARTY IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
COURTHOUSE, THAT THE EVIDENCE THOSE WITNESSES WOULD PROVIDE
RENTS AGAINST THEM. NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, NOT
ONE, A SINGLE DOCUMENT, THAT’S EXTRAORDINARY. THEY CAN ARGUE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,
MOST OF THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF THESE DOCUMENTS, NOT A WIT. THERE’S NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
FROM PROVIDING DOCUMENTS. THE VAST MAJORITY DON’T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRIVILEGE, AND IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE
REDACTION’S, SPECIFIC REDUCTIONS, NONE OF THAT
HAPPENED. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AND ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE
REASON WHY THE PRESIDENTS TEAM, WHO HAS POSSESSION OF THOSE
EMAILS, REGARDING INCREASE BY UKRAINE AS TO WHY THE AIDE WAS
PRESENT, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN INFERENCE IF THEY WILL NOT
SHOW YOU THOSE EMAILS. THEY WILL CONFIRM THAT UKRAINE KNEW THE
AIDE WAS WITHHELD JUST LIKE THE FORMER DEPUTY OF UKRAINE, THAT
PUBLICLY, WHEN SHE TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, YES WE KNEW , THIS IS THE DEPUTY FOREIGN
MINISTER AT THE TIME. WE KNEW THE AIDE WAS FROZEN BUT I WAS
INSTRUCTED NOT TO MENTION IT. I HAD A TRIP PLANNED TO WASHINGTON
AND I WAS TOLD NOT TO GO, WHY, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT IT PUBLIC. ARE YOU ENTITLED TO DRAW
AN INFERENCE THAT THOSE RECORDS THEY REFUSED TO TURN OVER, ALL
THE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE FACT THAT THEY WON’T ALLOW
JOHN BOLTON’S NOTES TO BE TURNED OVER, OR AMBASSADOR TAYLORS
NOTES TO BE TURNED OVER, YOU ARE DARN RIGHT YOU SHOULD. THEY SAY
WELL THE PRESIDENT ONLY TOLD SANS LYNN, NO PREQUEL CALL QUID PRO QUO. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WROTE DOWN THE
NOTES OF THAT CONVERSATION. THAT TOOK PLACE RIGHT AFTER THE CALL
WITH THE PRESIDENT. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE ON THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE AMBASSADOR
TAYLORS NOTES? ON THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE
AMBASSADOR TAYLORS, YOU ARE DARN RIGHT YOU SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE. FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO WHO HAS BECOME A CENTRAL WITNESS
HERE, I THINK THE ADVERSE INFERENCE SCREAMS THAT YOU AS TO
WHY THEY DON’T WANT JOHN BOLTON. BUT YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON AN
INFERENCE HERE, NOT WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WILLING TO COME
FORWARD. THERE IS NO NEED FOR INFERENCE HERE. THERE IS JUST A
NEED FOR A SUBPOENA.>>THINK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>>CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA, QUESTION SENT TO
THE DESK.>>THANK YOU.>>THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS
OR ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS JUST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE
PREVIOUS QUESTIONS? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU
SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. I HAVE NOT READ RECENTLY THE CASE THAT
WAS EXCITED ABOUT THE MISSING WITNESS RULE, SO I CAN’T STATE
SPECIFICALLY WHAT’S IN IT. BUT I’M WILLING TO BET THAT THE
MISSING WITNESS RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THERE’S BEEN A VALID
ASSERTION OF A PRIVILEGE OR OTHER IMMUNITY FOR KEEPING THE
WITNESS OUT OF COURT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY TRIED TO
SUBPOENA THE DEFENDANT’S LAWYER, AND THE DEFENDANT SAID WAIT, I
HAVE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, YOU CANNOT SUBPOENA HIM, THEY WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO GET AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THAT. THAT IS CRITICAL,
BECAUSE AS I’VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE TIMES, WE KEEP GOING
BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, THEY KEEP REPRESENTING THAT THERE WAS
OF BLANK DEFIANCE AND NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL BASIS FOR
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING. IT’S JUST NOT TRUE. THERE WERE
LETTERS BACK AND FORTH, I PUT THEM UP ON THE SCREEN. THERE WAS
SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES ASSERTED, THERE WAS SPECIFIC LEGAL EFFICIENCIES IN THE SUBPOENAS
SENT. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TURNING SQUARE CORNERS AND
PROCEEDING BY THE LAW MATTERS. AND FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO
COME HERE AND SAY IT WAS BLANKET DEFIANCE, UNPRECEDENTED,
SO YOU HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE
THEY DIDN’T RESPOND TO ANY OF OUR DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS, ALL THE
DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. MAYBE
THEY DISAGREE WITH US, BUT THEY CAN’T JUST SAY WE PROVIDED NO
RATIONALE, AND YOU HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. THERE WAS
SPECIFICALLY A RATIONALE PROVIDED. THEY DID NOT TRY TO
ENGAGE IN THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND THEY DID NOT TRY TO
GO TO COURT. AND YES, IT’S TRUE, OUR POSITION IS THAT WHEN THEY
GO TO THE COURT , ARTICLE 3 COURTS DON’T HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THAT. THEIR POSITION IS THAT ARTICLE 3
COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT. THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN GET
A COURT ORDER TO REQUIRE US TO COMPLY WITH A
VALID SUBPOENA. BUT THEY NEVER TRIED TO ESTABLISH IN COURT THAT
THE SUBPOENAS WERE VALID. WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF ILLEGAL
EFFICIENCY ON ONE SIDE, THEY THINK IT’S DIFFERENT, THEY
DON’T WANT TO GO TO COURT TO GET IT RESOLVED. WE HAVE THE
ASSERTION OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION
FROM SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT, IT’S BEEN ASSERTED BY
VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON. THEY TRY TO SAY OH IT’S
PREPOSTEROUS, IRRELEVANT, WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON, VIRTUALLY, HAS ASSERTED THAT.
IT’S ONLY BEEN ADDRESSED BY TWO DISTRICT COURTS. THE TRIAL LEVEL
COURT, THE FIRST ONE REJECTED IT, AND IT’S DECISION WAS STAYED
BY THE APPELLATE COURT. WHICH MEANS THEY THOUGHT PROBABLY YOU
GOT IT WRONG OR AT THE MINIMUM IT’S A REALLY
DIFFICULT QUESTION, WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. THE SECOND
DISTRICT COURT DECISION IS BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE
LITIGATING IT. AND WHEN THEY SAY WHEN CHARLIE COOPERMAN WENT TO
COURT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING REASONABLE TO SAY OH
WELL WE DON’T WANT TO LITIGATE THIS WITH YOU, YOU SHOULD JUST
AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE McCANDLESS DECISION. WHY
SHOULDN’T CHARLIE COOPERMAN GET TO ARGUE ON HIS BEHALF, THAT’S
WHAT HE WANTED, HE DID NOT WANT TO SAY I WILL TRUST IT TO THE
OTHER PEOPLE. I WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. BUT
THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THAT, SO THEY BOOTED OUT THE CASE, THEY WENT
THROUGH THE SUBPOENA TO MOVE OUT THE CASE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT
WANT TO GO TO THE HEARING ON DECEMBER 10. THEY HAVE ALSO
POINTED OUT AS IF IT’S SOME OUTRAGE, THAT DOCUMENTS HAVE
BEEN MORE READILY PRODUCED UNDER FOIA THAN IN RESPONSE TO THEIR
SUBPOENAS. WHEN IT ACTUALLY SHOWS, WHEN YOU TURN SQUARE
CORNERS AND FOLLOW THE LAW AND MAKE A REQUEST TO THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT FOLLOWS THE LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS
THE LAW AND RESPONSE, AND THAT IS RIGHT. THE DOCUMENTS WERE
PRODUCED, INFORMATION CAME OUT, BUT THEY DID NOT GET IT BECAUSE
THEY DID NOT TRY TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENAS. IF YOU ARE
GOING TO BE SLOPPY AND ISSUE INVALID SUBPOENAS, YOU WILL NOT
GET A RESPONSE. BUT IF SOME PRIVATE LITIGANT FOLLOWS FOIA,
THEY GET A RESPONSE. BUT TO ACT LIKE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
HAS DONE SOME BLANKET DENIAL OF ANYTHING, IT’S SIMPLE AND
INACCURATE. THERE’S NO ADVERSE INFERENCE, BECAUSE THERE IS A
SPECIFIC BASIS NOT TO PRODUCE SOMETHING.
>>THANK YOU COUNSEL, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THANK YOU. >>THE QUESTION IS FOR HOUSE
MANAGERS, DID Mc MULVANEY WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN HIS
OCTOBER 2017 PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE STATED THAT THERE WAS
“POLITICAL INFLUENCE” IN THE TRUMPS ADMINISTRATION DECISION
TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION. Mc MULVANEY HAS WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE HAS
NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IN FACT, THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY HAVE NOT
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ONCE. PRESIDENTS COUNCIL SAID WHEN WE
MADE THAT POINT DURING OPENING ARGUMENTS, THAT WAS TECHNICALLY
TRUE. NO, IT IS TRUE. IT’S NOT AN ALTERNATE FACT, IT IS A FACT.
YOU HAVE NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IN
CONNECTION WITH Mc MULVANEY’S TESTIMONY, OR ANYONE ELSE. IT
WAS NOT ASSERTED AS IT RELATES TO ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED. BOTH OF WHOM TESTIFIED PUBLICLY. THE OTHER
PHONY ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED, RESPECTFULLY, ARE THAT THE HOUSE NEEDED TO
VOTE. IN ORDER FOR THE SUBPOENAS TO BE VALID. THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES THE FULL HOUSE TO VOTE. NOTHING
IN SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS,
NOTHING UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR THE HOUSE RULES. IT WAS A PHONY
ARGUMENT. YET, THE HOUSE, AFTER THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE
INVESTIGATION, DID FULLY VOTE, AND FULLY VOTED
ON OCTOBER 31. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, Mc MULVANEY WAS
SUBPOENAED THEREAFTER. NOT BEFORE, THEREAFTER, AFTER
THE HOUSE HAD VOTED. SUBPOENAED ON NOVEMBER 7, HERE
IT IS, THE NEXT DAY, THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDED. THEY RESPONDED
WITH A TWO-PAGE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8 . THERE IS NO MENTION OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE NOVEMBER 8 LETTER, BUT HERE IS WHAT IT DOES
SAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ADVISED ME THAT MR. MULVANEY
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE. FROM COMPELLED CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE
AS THE SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT. WHAT’S INTERESTING
ABOUT THIS LETTER IS THAT IT DOES NOT CITE A SINGLE LEGAL
CASE FOR THAT OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSITION. A SINGLE LEGAL
CASE. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT MICK MULVANEY ABSOLUTELY
IMMUNE. THERE IS NO LAW TO SUPPORT IT. THE PRESIDENT TRIED
TO CHEAT, GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.
THE SENATE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH. YOU CAN GET TO THE TRUTH BY
CALLING WITNESSES WHO CAN TESTIFY. AND ANY PRIVILEGED ISSUES CAN BE
WORKED OUT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A
FAIR TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, THE
CONSTITUTION DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, THAT INCLUDES MULVANEY,
THAT INCLUDES BOLTON, THAT INCLUDES OTHER RELEVANT
WITNESSES.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>SENATOR FROM ALASKA. >>CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, THE QUESTION IS TO BE
DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES. >>THE QUESTION DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS, THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT SPECIFY THE STANDARD APPROVED TO BE USED IN TRIALS OF
IMPEACHMENT, AND THE SENATE HAS NOT ADOPTED THE UNIFORM STANDARD
BY REAL, THUS , THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS
ARGUABLY A QUESTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SENATOR. IN THE
CLINTON TRIAL, AND NOW WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT APPEARS THAT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS APPLIED DIFFERENT STANDARDS
DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS A MEMBER OF THEIR
PARTY. WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE USED IN TRIALS OF
IMPEACHMENT ? PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
CLEAR AND CONVINCING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND WHY? I
THINK IT’S THE TURN OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO GO FIRST. >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THERE IS NO COURT CASE ON THIS. THE HOUSE NEEDS STRONG EVIDENCE,
BUT IT’S NEVER BEEN DECIDED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS SUGGESTED. AS THE QUESTION
NOTES, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFY EITHER THE HOUSES EVIDENTIARY
BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE SENATES. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITSELF TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING
STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE NIXON MATTER , WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE
EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PROBABLE TO
BE TRUE THAN NOT, AND THAT THE TRIER OF FACT MUST HAVE A
FIRM BELIEF IN THE FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE HE. IN THE CLINTON
CASE, THE HOUSE DID NOT COMMIT TO ANY PARTICULAR BURDEN OF
PROOF, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST INCLUDING AN EXPRESSED
STANDARD. IN STAND LIKE IN THE CLINTONS, SIMPLY FINDING THE
FACTS, AND ANY INFERENCES FROM THOSE FACTS WITHOUT LEGAL
TECHNICALITY. IN THE END, IT IS UP TO EACH SENATOR TO MAKE A
JUDGMENT, AND I THINK THERE IS MUCH TRUTH TO THAT. YOUR OATH
HOLDS YOU TO FOUNDING OF IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
AND I TRUST THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU IS HOLDING THAT OATH
VERY DEAR TO YOUR HEART. IT WILL FIND THE FACTS AND LEAD TO A
JUST RESULT OR OUR COUNTRY, THE CONSTITUTION
AND FOR A FUTURE THAT IS HOPEFULLY AS FREE AS OUR PAST
HAS BEEN. >>THANK YOU. >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THE
CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR, IN THE TERMS THAT IT SPEAKS OF
IMPEACHMENT, FOR ALL RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL
LAW, IT SPEAKS OF AN OFFENSE, IT SPEAKS OF CONVICTION, IT SPEAKS
OF A TRIAL AND SAYING GRIMES SHOULD BE TRIED BY A JURY IN
CASE IT’S THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS AN ISSUE OF
BREATHTAKING IMPORTANCE FOR THE COUNTRY AND COULD CAUSE
TREMENDOUS DISRUPTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT. BOTH COUNSEL IN
FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL STANDARD PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
AND IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, SENATORS, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED IN FAVOR OF THAT STANDARD. AND
SENATOR FEINGOLD SAID IN THIS MAGNITUDE IT IS BEST NOT
TO HER AT ALL. IF WE MUST ERROR, WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF
RESPECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. SIMILARLY, THE U.S.
SENATE MUST NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT
BASED ON A HUNCH THAT MAY BE TRUE. THE STRENGTH OF OUR
CONSTITUTION AND OUR NATION DICTATES THAT THE SENATE BE SURE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD IS WHOLLY
INEFFICIENT, THAT MEANS JUST 50.1% THINK IT’S A LITTLE MORE LIKELY
THAN NOT, THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. EVEN
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS NOT. IT HAS TO BE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. AS SENATOR ROCKEFELLER EXPLAINED DURING THE
TIME OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, HE SAID PROVEN TO A MORAL
CERTAINTY, THE CASE IS CLEAR. THAT IS THE STANDARD THE SENATE
SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU SHOULD
WILL NOT PERMIT ANY LESSER STANDARD, THANK YOU.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY. >>THANK YOU SIR, I SENT THE
QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGER. EVEN IF A COMMUNICATION OR DOCUMENT IS COVERED BY
EXECUTIVE VILLAGE, THAT PRIVILEGE CAN BE OVERCOME BY
SHOWING THE EVIDENCE IS IMPORTANT AND UNAVAILABLE
ELSEWHERE. ON JANUARY 22 WHEN THE TRIAL WAS UNDER WAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID “I
THOUGHT OUR TEAM DID A VERY GOOD JOB. BUT HONESTLY, WE HAVE ALL
THE MATERIAL, THEY DON’T HAVE THE MATERIAL.” CAN YOU COMMENT
ON WHETHER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALLOWS A PRESENT TO CONCEAL
INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY IF THE EVIDENCE
CANNOT BE OBTAINED ELSEWHERE.>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
AND I THINK THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY FOR THIS QUESTION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE, HAS THE POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. AS THE COUNSEL ADMITTED ON SATURDAY,
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT FORMALLY INVOKED IT, OVER ANY DOCUMENT
REQUESTED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSERTED AS IT
RELATES TO ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE GIVES
PRESIDENT TRUMP A QUALIFIED FORM OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHEN HE DOES
GET ADVICE FROM HIS AIDES IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF
HIS OFFICE. AND AS I KNOW YOU ARE ALL AWARE, IT IS OFTEN THE
CASE IN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT A PRESIDENT
WILL CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF
MATERIALS. IN THAT CASE, WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH USUALLY
DOES, AND SHOULD DO, IS PRODUCE EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN. AND THEN
PROVIDE A LOG OF DOCUMENTS IN DISPUTE OR PERMIT A PRIVATE
REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONTESTED. THAT IS NOT
WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS
ORDERED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY INSPIRED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. BLANKET DEFIANCE. THAT’S WHAT’S TAKEN
PLACE. AND THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. EVERY COURT THAT HAS
CONSIDERED THE MATTER, HAS ASSERTED THAT THE PRESIDENT
CANNOT ASSERT A PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, TO
PROTECT WRONGDOING. TO PROTECT EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSTITUTION
MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO IT. IN AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR
INFORMATION AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, OF
COURSE ARE AT ITS GREATEST. IT’S IMPERATIVE TO INVESTIGATE
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU RIGHT
NOW. LET’S LOOK AT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE CLOSEST TO WHAT WE FACE TODAY IN U.S.
VERSUS NIXON , IN THE CONTEXT OF A GRAND JURY
SUBPOENA. THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT PRESIDENT NIXON’S
GENERALIZED ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE MUST YIELD FOR THE
DEMONSTRATED NEED OF EVIDENCE IN THE PENDING TRIAL. IN THE
FEDERAL COURT HERE IN DC HAS RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS IS NEED
FOR INFORMATION AND FOR DOCUMENTS IS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING.
TURNING TO THE FACT OF THIS MATTER, EVERY ARGUMENT THAT
EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT REQUESTED BY CONGRESS IS SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE
OR SOME SORT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, IS ABSURD. THERE ARE CALENDAR INVITATIONS, SCHEDULING
EMAILS, PHOTOGRAPHS, CORRESPONDENCE WITH OUTSIDE
PARTIES, LIKE RUDOLPH GIULIANI. THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES
OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. AND THEY ARE NOT THE TYPE OF
MATERIAL SUBJECT TO ANY REASONABLE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. IF YOU WANT A FAIR TRIAL IT SHOULD INVOLVE
DOCUMENTS . GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS, DOCUMENTS LIKE AMBASSADOR BULLETINS AND NOTES,
THE PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMO, SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO YOU.
SO YOU CAN SEEK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH .
>>THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. STOMACH
SENATOR MORAN, MY COLLEAGUE AND I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.>>THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT IS WHAT DID HUNTER BITE INTO FOR THE MONEY THAT
BURISMA HOLDINGS PAID HIM?>>THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION , CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, AS
FAR AS WE KNOW HUNTER BIDEN SAID HE ATTENDED A COUPLE OF BOARD
MEETINGS A YEAR. HERE IS WHAT WE DO KNOW, HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND
ONE BOARD MEETING IN MONACO. NOW WE ALSO HEARD THAT WHEN THE
OWNER OF BURISMA, HE WAS LIVING IN MONACO, SO HUNTER BIDEN DID
ATTEND A BOARD MEETING IN MONACO. WE ALSO KNOW THAT HUNTER
BIDEN WENT TO NORWAY ON A FISHING TRIP AND HE TOOK HIS
DAUGHTER AND HIS NEPHEW, SO HE TOOK TWO OF JOE BIDEN’S CHILDREN
WITH HIM ON A FISHING TRIP TO NORWAY, WITH ZLOCHEVSKY, AND
THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE KNOW OTHER THAN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE
ATTENDED ONE OR TWO WARD MEETINGS. FACTUALLY, THAT IS
WHAT HE SAID, AND THE TIMELINE SHOWS THAT. AGAIN DEVON ARCHER WAS ON
THE BOARD WITH HIM, AND THEN HUNTER BIDEN REMAINED ON THE
BOARD, BUT FACTUALLY IN THE RECORD, THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE
KNOW THAT HE DID INVOLVING BURISMA AND ZLOCHEVSKY. THE
NORWAY TRIP WAS JUNE 2015, HE REMAINED ON THE BOARD UNTIL APRIL OF 2019. WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO
THEN, THE UKRAINIAN COURT IN 2016 CANCELED ZLOCHEVSKY’S
ARREST WERE IMPAIRED WE ALSO KNOW DECEMBER 15 VICE PRESIDENT
WRITING CALLED THE PRESIDENT AND MID-JANUARY 2017, BURISMA
ANNOUNCED ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COMPANY AND
ZLOCHEVSKY HAD BEEN CLOSED. >>THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.>>QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH
THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THE QUESTION READS AS FOLLOWS. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS SAY THE PRESIDENT DEMANDS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE
PRESIDENT COUNSEL DISPUTES THIS. CAN EITHER OF YOU NAME A SINGLE
WITNESS OR DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN ACCESS, HAS
GIVEN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE WHEN REQUESTED? I BELIEVE IT’S TIME
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GO FIRST. >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU
MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER, LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR
AND DISTINCT COUPLE OF THINGS. THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID THERE WAS A BLANKET DEFIANCE,
THAT’S THE WAY THEY CHARACTERIZED IT. WE WILL NOT
GIVE YOU ANYTHING, THAT’S ALWAYS SAID, IT WAS JUST LINK IT TO FIND, WE WILL NOT
RESPOND. WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT SEVERAL TIMES, THAT WAS NOT
THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE. THERE WAS SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED
RESPONSES IN DIFFERENT REQUESTS, BASED ON DIFFERENT LEGAL
RATIONALES BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS WITH
SUBPOENAS. SO, ONE PROBLEM IS, ALL THE SUBPOENAS UP UNTIL
OCTOBER 31 WERE NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED. THOSE SUBPOENAS WE SAID, WE WILL NOT RESPOND TO
THOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT VALIDLY ISSUED, IT WAS NOT AN
ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR ANYTHING
ELSE, IT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED.
THEY POINTED OUT THAT OH, WE SUBPOENAED THAT ACTING CHIEF OF
STAFF MULVANEY AFTER OCTOBER 31, THAT IS TRUE. WE DO NOT RELY ON
THE FACT THAT THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, WE POINTED OUT
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF SENIOR ADVISORS TO
THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS NOT SOME BLANKET ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR
THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL THE
SUBPOENAS THEY ISSUED. AS WE EXPLAINED IN THE BRIEF, IT
APPLIES TO THREE, THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THEY SUBPOENAED AS
WITNESSES, IT WAS ON THIS BASIS ALONE, THAT THE PRESIDENT
DECLINED TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE. ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY,
THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN
EISENBERG AND MR. COOPERMAN, I BELIEVE, IT WAS THOSE THREE THAT
HAD IMMUNITY, A DOCTRINE ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT
SINCE NIXON BUT THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE OTHER
SUBPOENAS, SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT SENIOR
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ASSERT THAT
THEY HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HIM INSTEAD THOSE SUBPOENAS REFUSED
TO ALLOW THOSE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL ALLOW EXECUTIVE BRANCH
COUNSEL TO ACCOMPANY THEM, IT’S BEEN PUBLISHED ONLINE AND CITED
IN OUR TRIAL, IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFUSE THE
ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION DURING QUESTIONING. THEREFORE IT’S NOT VALID TO
FORCE THEM TO APPEAR WITHOUT THAT.
>>THANK YOU COUNSEL.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED NOTHING AS PART OF OUR
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THE
HOUSE THE COMMITTEES THAT SUBPOENAED BEFORE THE HOUSE A
VOTE, HAVE STANDARD AUTHORITY UNDER THE HOUSE RULES, AND THEY WERE THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS, UNDER ITS STANDARD AUTHORITY, TO
INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER AT ANY TIME. AS WELL AS THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE, ADOPTED JANUARY 11, TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS THEY DID, AND
THEY WERE DEFIED. THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS NEVER BEEN
UPHELD BY ANY COURT, AND IT IS REALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO THINK
THAT SOMEHOW THIS CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS LURKED IN
HIDING FOR CENTURIES, FOR PRESIDENT TO USE IT IN THIS DAY.
WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES, MYERS AND GANN, THE COURTS
COMPLETELY REJECTED THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. ON SLIDE 38
IF YOU COULD, THERE IS A DECISION RECENTLY MADE IN THE McCANN CASE, AND HERE IS
WHAT IT SAYS. STATED SIMPLY, THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST
250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KING, THAT’S THE JUDGE’S
WORDS, NOT MINE. COMPULSORY APPEARANCE BY A SUBPOENA IS A LEGAL
CONSTRUCT, NOT A POLITICAL ONE, AND PER THE CONSTITUTION, NO ONE
IS ABOVE THE LAW. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR BY THE LAW TO ASSERT ANY KIND OF ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICA AND AS THE JUDGES
POINTED OUT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT A KING WOULD
ASSERT . I’M NOT SAYING THAT, BUT I
WILL SAY THIS. IT IS SOMETHING OUR FOUNDERS SET UP, OUR CHECKS
AND BALANCES TO PREVENT. NOBODY HAS ABSOLUTE POWER IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. NOT
THE SENATE AND HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE JUDICIARY,
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, AND JUST WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS
A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, THANK YOU.
>>SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
BOTH OF THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUISE AND MYSELF.
>>THANK YOU. THE QUESTION IS YOU REFUSE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION ON POLITICAL BIAS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS
REFUSING TO TELL THE SENATE WHETHER OR NOT THE WHISTLEBLOWER
HAD AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE ARE SEVERAL
BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH, ALMOST ALL HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN
BIDEN’S QUID PRO QUO, OR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS UNWILLING TO SAY WHETHER THE SO-CALLED
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS A FACT WITNESS THAT DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN,
AND COULD FACE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY FOR JOE BIDEN’S
DEMANDING UKRAINE FIRE THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING
BURISMA, AND WHY DID YOU REFUSE TO TRANSMIT TO THE GENERAL
SENATE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TRANSCRIPT. IT IS ADDRESSED TO
BOTH SIDES, PERHAPS THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN GO FIRST.>>WAS RESPECT TO THAT I CIG,
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES HAVE TRIED TO SHIFT FOCUS OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT IS
HANDLING THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, THERE IS AN EFFORT TO
INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON PART OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND EFFORT TO
INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE BRIEFINGS
WE HAD WITH THAT I CIG, RELATED TO THE UNUSUAL AND PROBLEMATIC
HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITHIN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH DIVERTS SHARPLY FROM ANY
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM ANY ONE IN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS CONTINUING THE
ONGOING OVERSIGHT TO DETERMINE WHY AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT WAS
INITIALLY CONCEALED FROM THE COMMITTEE IN VIOLATION OF THE
LAW. THE I CIG MICHAEL ATKINSON CONTINUES TO SERVE ADMIRABLY,
AND LIKE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DOES NOT RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF ITS
ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON
SENSITIVE MATTERS BECAUSE DOING SO RISKS UNDERCUTTING AN
IMPORTANT MECHANISM FOR THE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT.
THE TRANSCRIPTS REMAIN HEAVILY CLASSIFIED TO PROTECT SENSITIVE
INFORMATION. I CIG MADE EVERY EFFORT TO PROTECT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER’S IDENTITY AND BRIEFS US WITH EXPEDITION, WITH
THE EXPECTATION RATHER, THAT IT WILL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC. WE
ARE TRYING TO HONOR THAT EXPECTATION. WITH RESPECT TO
ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS ON THE PART OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, LET ME
REFER YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. WHICH IS
AFTER EXAMINING THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE
WHISTLEBLOWER’S BACKGROUND, ANY POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF ANY
BIAS, THE WHISTLEBLOWER DREW TWO CONCLUSIONS, THE WHISTLEBLOWER
WAS CREDIBLE, MEANING THAT WHATEVER ISSUE PERCEIVED OR
REAL, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THAT WHISTLEBLOWER
CREDIBLE. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS COMPLAINT WAS URGENT. AND THAT
IT NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED TO CONGRESS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE
LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. FOR THAT HE IS BEING
ATTACKED. THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT
RELY ON THE OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AS
JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AND
NOT TRANSMITTING THE COMPLAINT CONGRESS.
>>THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.>>FOR CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, PAGE 5 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT
STATES ALTHOUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PRELIMINARY REVIEW
IDENTIFIED SOME ADDITIONAL ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON PART
OF THE COMPLAINT. HE GOES ON TO SAY INVOLVING ARRIVAL POLITICAL
CANDIDATE, SUCH EVIDENCE DID NOT CHANGE HIS VIEW ABOUT THE CREDIBLE NATURE OF THE
CONCERN OR WHAT APPEARS TO BE CREDIBLE. BUT TO ARGUE THAT IT
DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF POLITICAL BIAS, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL HIMSELF SAYS THAT’S IN FACT, IT DOES NOT REPORT POLITICAL
BIAS. THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE
WORKED FOR JOE BIDEN WHEN HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT. THE HE MAY HAVE
HAD SOME AREA UNDER HIS WATCH INVOLVING UKRAINE. I ALSO
THOUGHT IT WAS JUST INTERESTING THAT MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF TALKED
ABOUT THE COMPLAINTS AS IT RELATES TO THE WHISTLE BLOWER
REPORT DO WE NOT THINK THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF INFORMATION
SHARED BY THE PRESIDENT’S MOST SENIOR ADVISOR SHOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME TYPE OF PROTECTIONS, OF COURSE, IT HAS
TO BE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU COUNSEL, AND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
BOTH THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS . >>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MANSION READS AS
FOLLOWS, THE FRAMERS TOOK THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS STRAIGHT OUT OF ENGLISH LAW WHERE IT HAD BEEN APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENTS FOR 400
YEARS BEFORE OUR CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. THE FRAMERS WERE
WELL AWARE WHEN THEY CHOSE THOSE WORDS THAT PARLIAMENT HAD
IMPEACHED OFFICIALS FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT
WERE NOT INDICTABLE AS CRIMES THE HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY
IMPEACHED IN THE SENATE HAS CONVICTED OFFICERS FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE NOT INDICTABLE CRIMES. EVEN
MR. DERSHOWITZ SAID IN 1988 THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE DOES
CERTAINLY NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME . WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST
22 YEARS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FRAMERS AND THE
HISTORIC MEANING OF THE TERM HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
IT’S THE PRESIDENT’S TURN. >>WHAT HAPPENED SINCE 1998 IS
THAT I STUDIED MORE, DID MORE RESEARCH, READ MORE DOCUMENTS,
AND LIKE ANY ACADEMIC, AND I KEEP REFINING MY VIEWS AND
WRITING MORE . IT’S NOT WHETHER A CRIME WAS
REQUIRED, WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT BEGAN, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER A
CRIME WAS REQUIRED. AND THEN I CONCLUDED, I’M COMPLETELY ACADEMIC GROUNDS,
THAT YOU COULD NOT IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER, AND THAT THE
TECHNICAL CRIME IS NOT REQUIRED FOR CRIMINAL LIKE BEHAVIOR IS, I
STAND BY THAT VIEW. THE FRAMERS REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION . REMEMBER, THE BRITISH NEVER
IMPEACH PRIME MINISTERS, THEY ONLY IMPEACH MIDDLE LEVEL AND
LOW LEVEL PEOPLE. THE FRAMERS DID NOT WANT TO ADOPT THE
BRITISH APPROACH. THEY REJECTED IT REJECTING MALADMINISTRATION,
AND WHAT IS A METAPHOR OR SYNONYM FOR MALADMINISTRATION?
ABUSE OF POWER. AND WHEN THEY REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION, THEY REJECTED ABUSE OF POWER. MR. CONGRESSMAN
SCHIFF ASKED A RHETORICAL QUESTION OF
CAN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN ABUSE OF POWER WITH IMPUNITY,
AND IN MY TRADITION WE ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS, SO I
WOULD THROW THE QUESTION BACK, CAN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN
MALADMINISTRATION WITH IMMUNITY. AND THEY WOULD SAY NO HE CAN’T
ENGAGE IN THAT WITH IMPUNITY BUT IT’S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME.
MALADMINISTRATION IS NOT IMPEACHABLE AND ABUSE OF THE
POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER A CRIME IS
REQUIRED, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ABUSE OF THE POWER IS
PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA, AND THE ANSWER FROM THE HISTORY IS
CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY NO, IF THAT WERE EVER PUT TO THE
FRAMERS THEY WOULD HAVE REJECTED IT WITH THE SAME CERTAINTY THAT
THEY REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION.>>>WE’VE SEEN THEM PLAY VIDEO
CLIPS OF ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY’S PRESS CONFERENCE
IN WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. HOW TO
RESPOND TO THE HOUSE MANAGER’S ALLEGATION THAT MR. MULVANEY
SUPPORTED THEIR CLAIMS IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WE RESPOND AS
MR. PHILBIN DID EARLIER TODAY WITH THAT WHICH IS, MR. MULVANEY
HAS ISSUED TWO STATEMENTS, ONE AFTER HIS PRESS CONFERENCE AND
THEN ONE MONDAY AFTER THE “NEW YORK TIMES” ARTICLE CONCERNING
MR. BOLTON’S A LEGEND MANUSCRIPT. IMAGINED THINGS IN
HIS MANUSCRIPT. I THINK JUST READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE
SAID AND PUT IT IN CONTEXT. FOR EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER. THIS IS
FROM, THIS IS THE DAY OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE. ONCE AGAIN,
THE MEDIA HAS DECIDED TO MISCONSTRUE MY COMMENTS TO
ADVANCED A WITCHHUNT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. LET ME BE
CLEAR. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN UKRAINIAN
MILITARY AID AND ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016
ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO WITHHOLD ANY MONEY
UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING RELATED TO THE SERVER.
THE ONLY REASONS WE WERE HOLDING THE MONEY WAS BECAUSE OF CONCERN
ABOUT LACK OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER NATIONS AND CONCERN OVER
CORRUPTION. MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE MORE
THAN 30 MINUTE BRIEFING WHERE I TOOK OVER 25 QUESTIONS I
REFERRED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE
SPENT RESPONSIBLY AND APPROPRIATELY. THERE WAS NEVER
ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FUNDS AND THE UKRAINIANS DOING
ANYTHING WITH THE SERVER. THIS WAS MADE EXPLICITLY OBVIOUS
BY THE FACT THAT THE AID MONEY WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT ANY ACTION
ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIANS REGARDING THE SERVER. THERE WAS
NEVER ANY CONDITION ON THE FLOW OF THE AID RELATED TO THE MATTER
OF THE DNC SERVER. THEN ON JANUARY 27, WHICH WAS
MONDAY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT FROM BOB DRISCOLL, MR.
MULVANEY’S ATTORNEY. NOW, I WILL READ IT IN FULL. THE LATEST
STORY FROM THE “NEW YORK TIMES” COORDINATED WITH A BOOK LAUNCH
HAS MORE TO DO WITH PUBLICITY THAN THE TRUTH. JOHN BOLTON
NEVER FORMED MICK MULVANEY OF ANY CONCERN SURROUNDING HIS
PURPORTED AUGUST CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. NOR DID MR.
MULVANEY EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
OR ANYONE ELSE INDICATING THAT UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID WAS
WITHHELD IN EXCHANGE FOR A UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016
ELECTION. FURTHERMORE, MR. MULVANEY HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF
ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. GIULIANI RESEMBLING THAT
DESCRIBED IN THE MANUSCRIPT AS IT WAS MR. MULVANEY’S
PRACTICE TO EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESERVE ANY
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. I WANT TO READ THE STATEMENTS IN
FULL SO THAT EVERYONE HAD THE FULL CONTEXT. EVEN AFTER MR.
PHILBIN REFERENCED THE STATEMENT AFTER THE PRESS
CONFERENCE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS AGAIN CAME BACK AND SAID MR.
MULVANEY INDICATED OR ADMITTED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. THAT
IS NOT TRUE. IF MR. MULVANEY MISSPOKE OR IF THE WORDS WERE
GARBLED HE CORRECTED IT THAT DAY AND HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR. THANK
YOU.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
>>I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL AND
HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THE QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES , THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO
FIRST. WHAT DID NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON
MEAN WHEN HE REFERENCED WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THEY ARE COOKING UP ON
THIS AND DID HE EVER RAISE THAT ISSUE IN ANY MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, WHEN JOHN BOLTON AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO DOCTOR KILLS TESTIMONY BROUGHT
UP THE DRUG DEAL, IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A JULY 10 MEETING AT
THE WHITE HOUSE, TWO MEETINGS AND THERE WAS A MEETING THAT HE
WAS PRESENT FOR AND A FOLLOWING MEETING AFTER THEY ENDED THE
FIRST MEETING. IN THE FIRST MEETING UKRAINIANS WANTED TO
RAISE THE TOPIC OF GETTING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED. AND AFTER RAISING THE ISSUE AT SOME
POINT THE AMBASSADOR SAID NO, WE HAVE A DEAL, THEY WILL GET THE
MEETING WHEN THEY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION. THIS IS THE POINT
WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED. YOU CAN LOOK UP THE
EXACT WORDS , I AM PARAPHRASING, BUT THIS IS
THE POINT WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENS AND ENDS THE
MEETING. HILL GOES, FOLLOWS HIM AND THE DELEGATION INTO ANOTHER
PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE MEETING CONTINUES BETWEEN
THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AND UKRAINIAN DELEGATION. AND THERE
IT IS MORE EXPLICIT BECAUSE IN THAT SECOND MEETING SONDLAND
BRINGS UP THE BIDENS SPECIFICALLY. HILL GOES TO TALK
TO BOLTON. AND INFORMS HIM WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THE FOLLOWING
MEETING. AND BOLTON’S RESPONSE IS GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS. AND
LET THEM KNOW I DON’T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL THAT
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY HAVE COOKING UP. SO AT THAT POINT,
THAT SPECIFIC CONVERSATION IS A REFERENCE TO THE QUICK QUOTE
OVER THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. WE KNOW OF COURSE FROM OTHER
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO AT THE MEETING. AND ALL THE EFFORTS BY GIULIANI
TO MAKE SURE THAT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS ARE MENTIONED IN
ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. BUT, DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. WE
CAN BRING IN JOHN BOLTON AND ASK EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO
WHEN HE DESCRIBED THE DRUG DEAL. NOW, DID BOLTON DESCRIBE AND
DISCUSS THIS DRUG DEAL WITH THE PRESIDENT? IT CERTAINLY APPEARS
FROM WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS MANUSCRIPT THAT THEY DID TALK
ABOUT THE FREEZE ON A. AND WHETHER JOHN BOLTON UNDERSTOOD AND AT WHAT POINT HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT THE DRUG DEAL WAS EVEN BIGGER AND MORE PERNICIOUS THAN
HE THOUGHT, IT INVOLVE NOT JUST THE MEETING BUT INVOLVE THE
MILITARY AID, ONE WAY TO FIND OUT AND I WILL ADD THIS. IN
TERMS OF MR. MULVANEY. MAYBE I WILL ADD IT LATER. [ LAUGHTER ]>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.>>2 1/2 MINUTES.
>>THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION ASKS ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON MEANT IN A
COMMENT THAT IS REPORTED AS HEARSAY BY SOMEONE ELSE SAYING
WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SAID. WE KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE CONFLICTING
ACCOUNTS OF THE JULY 10 MEETING. DR. HILL SAYS SHE HEARD
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY ONE THING AND HE DENIES THAT HE SAID
THAT. DR. HILL SAYS SHE TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON
BOLTON SAID SOMETHING TO HER ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN THE
MEETING WERE HE WASN’T THERE BUT HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT
CALLING IT A DRUG DEAL. AND WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT, I’M NOT GOING
TO SPECULATE ABOUT IT. IT’S A HEARSAY REPORT OF SOMETHING HE
SAID ABOUT A MEETING HE WASN’T IN, CHARACTERIZING IT IN SOME
WAY AND I WILL NOT SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT.
>>THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MYSELF
ALSO FOR SENATOR BOZEMAN. FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL I AM
SENDING IT TO THE DESK.>>THE QUESTION FROM THE
SENATORS IS AS FOLLOWS. IN SEPTEMBER 2019, THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AID WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE. YET, THE HOUSE MANAGERS
CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITIONED THE AID ON AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. DID UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR HIS
GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY MEET ANY OF THE ALLEGED REQUIREMENTS IN
ORDER TO RECEIVE THE AID?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I WILL BE VERY SHORT, THE ANSWER
IS NO. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT I WILL EXPLAIN. I THINK WE DEMONSTRATED
IT IN OUR PRESENTATION ON FRIDAY. AND ON MONDAY. THAT THE
AID WAS RELEASED, THE AID FLOWED. IT WAS A MEETING AT THE
U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A MEETING PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED IN WARSAW,
PRECISELY AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SUGGESTED. AND THERE WAS NEVER
ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN
REGARDING THE BIDENS, THE 2016 ELECTION, BURISMA, NO
STATEMENT MADE OR INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED , BEGAN BY THE
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. >>THANK YOU COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE. >>THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
>>I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK. AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW
ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA DISSEMINATING
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OR RUDOLPH GIULIANI’S CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE
ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, I
THINK THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES OF RELEVANT MATERIAL HERE. THE
FIRST, YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO AND THAT IS THE SUPPLEMENTAL
TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO
READ IT. I THINK IT SHEDS LIGHT VERY SPECIFICALLY ON THE VICE
PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW VIS-À-VIS THIS SCHEME.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THAT SUBMISSION. THERE IS A
SECOND BODY OF INTELLIGENCE THAT THE COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL. YOU SHOULD ALSO
READ. AND WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT THE MECHANISM THAT WOULD PERMIT
YOU TO DO SO. BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES
WE ARE DISCUSSING AND PERTINENT . THERE’S A THIRD CATEGORY OF
INTELLIGENCE TOO WHICH RAISES A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. THAT IS THAT
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES ARE FOR THE FIRST TIME REFUSING TO
PROVIDE TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. AND THAT MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GATHERED. WE KNOW IT EXISTS. BUT THE NSA HAS BEEN
ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE IT. NOW, THE DIRECTOR SAYS THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTOR’S
DECISION BUT NONETHELESS THERE WAS A BODY OF INTELLIGENCE THAT
IS RELEVANT TO REQUEST THAT WE HAVE MADE. THAT IS NOT BEING
PROVIDED AND THAT RAISES A VERY DIFFERENT CONCERN THAN
THE ONE BEFORE THIS BODY AND THAT IS ARE NOW OTHER AGENCIES
LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT WE REQUIRE TO SPEAK TRUTH
TO POWER THAT WE REQUIRE TO PROVIDE US THE BEST INTELLIGENCE
NOW ALSO WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AT THE URGING OF THE
ADMINISTRATION? AND THAT IS I THINK A DEEPLY CONCERNING AND
NEW PHENOMENON. THAT IS A PROBLEM WE’VE HAD WITH
OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT OF AN PART OF THE WHOLESALE
INSTRUCTION BUT NOW IS REARING ITS UGLY HEAD BUT THE SHORTER
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ON APART FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS ARE THERE
OTHER MATERIALS, THE ANSWER IS YES. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT
YOU AND WE WORK TOGETHER TO FIND OUT HOW YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM.
>>THANK YOU. MR. MAJORITY LEADER.
>>TWO QUESTIONS, ONE FROM EACH SIDE. THEY WILL BE THE LAST
BEFORE WE BREAK FOR DINNER. I WOULD ASK THE FOLLOWING. THEN WE
WILL RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES. >>THANK YOU.
>>SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. >>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
DESK.>>THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. HOW DOES THE NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF
POWER STANDARD ADVANCED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIFFER FROM
MALADMINISTRATION? AND IMPEACHMENT STANDARD
REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS? WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN AN ABUSE OF
POWER AND A POLICY DISAGREEMENT?>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE THAT QUESTION I THINK HITS THE KEY TO THE ISSUE
THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION AND RECALL IT WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON AND
REJECTED BY MADISON, ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WOULD TURN OUR
NEW REPUBLIC INTO A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE A
PRIME MINISTER , IN THIS CASE A PRESIDENT, CAN
BE REMOVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE. REMEMBER, TOO,
IN BRITAIN IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT USED AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER.
IT WAS USED AGAINST LOWER LEVEL PEOPLE. AND SO,
MALADMINISTRATION WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON AND MADISON SAID NO, IT
WOULD TURN US, IT WAS TOO BIG AND TOO GENERAL. NOW WHAT IS MALLET
ADMINISTRATION? IF YOU LOOK IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP
SYNONYMS THE SYNONYMS INCLUDE ABUSE. CORRUPTION. THIS ROLE.
DISHONESTY. MISUSE OF OFFICE AND MISBEHAVIOR. EVEN A HARVARD
PROFESSOR IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT, THIS IS AN
ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST BY HIM, HE’S IN FAVOR OF
IMPEACHMENT, HE SAYS ABUSE OF POWER IS THE SAME AS MISCONDUCT
IN OFFICE. AND HE SAYS HIS RESEARCH LEADS HIM TO CONCLUDE
THAT A CRIME IS REQUIRED. BY THE WAY, THE CONGRESSMAN WAS JUST
COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN HE SAID I’M THE ONLY SCHOLAR WHO
SUPPORTS THIS POSITION. IN THE 19th CENTURY, CLOSER IN TIME TO
WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE, DEEMED WHITE, HE WROTE THAT THE WEIGHT
OF AUTHORITY BY WHICH HE MEANT THE WEIGHT OF SCHOLARLY
AUTHORITY AND THE WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, 1867, THE
WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS IN FAVOR OF REQUIRING A CRIME, JUSTICE
CURTIS, AIMED TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. OTHERS HAVE COME TO
A SIMILAR CONCLUSION. YOU ASK WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 1998 AND THE CURRENT TO CHANGE MY
MIND, WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 19th CENTURY AND THE 20th
CENTURY TO CHANGE THE MIND OF SO MANY SCHOLARS? LET ME TELL YOU
WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT WAS
IMPEACHED. IF IN FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA OR PRESIDENT HILLARY
CLINTON HAD BEEN IMPEACHED THE WEIGHT OF CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP
WOULD BE CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF MY POSITION. BECAUSE THESE SCHOLARS
DO NOT PASS THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT. THE SCHOLARS ARE
INFLUENCED BY THEIR OWN BIAS, EITHER OWN POLITICS AND THEIR
VIEWS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH THAT IN MIND. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
PROFESSOR TRIBE HAD A REVELATION HIMSELF AT THE TIME WHEN CLINTON
WAS IMPEACHED HE SAID, THE LAW IS CLEAR, YOU CANNOT, YOU CANNOT
CHARGE A PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME IF HE’S A SITTING PRESIDENT. NOW
WE HAVE A CURRENT PRESIDENT, PROFESSOR TRIBE GOT WOKE. AND
WITH NO APPARENT NEW RESEARCH HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OVER THIS
PRESIDENT, CAN BE CHARGED WHILE SITTING IN OFFICE. THAT’S NOT
THE KIND OF SCHOLARSHIP THAT SHOULD INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION.
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. GO BACK AND READ THE DEBATES AND
YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM RIGHT, THE FRAMERS REJECTED VAGUE, OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA,
ABUSE OF POWER AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AGAIN.
SHE GAVE REASONS WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT. YES. WE FEARED
ABUSE OF POWER. YES. WE FEARED CRITERIA LIKE MALADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON. WE FEARED INCAPACITY. BUT NONE OF
THOSE MADE IT INTO THE CRITERIA. BECAUSE THE FRAMERS HAD TO
STRIKE A BALANCE. HERE ARE THE REASONS WE NEED IMPEACHMENT,
YES. NOW HERE ARE THE REASONS WE FEAR GIVING CONGRESS TOO MUCH
POWER. SO WE STRIKE A BALANCE. HOW DID THEY STRIKE IT? TREASON.
A SERIOUS CRIME. RIVALRY. ACHE SERIOUS CRIME. OR OTHER TYPE OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AGAIN TREASON AND BRIBERY. THAT
IS WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED. THEY DIDN’T INTEND TO GIVE
CONGRESS A LICENSE TO DECIDE WHO TO IMPEACH AND WHO
NOT TO IMPEACH ON PARTISAN GROUNDS. I READ YOU THE LIST OF
40 AMERICAN PRESIDENT’S WITH BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER.
SHOULD EVERY ONE OF THEM BE IMPEACHED? SHOULD EVERYONE BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE? IT IS TO TAKE A TERM. REJECT MY ARGUMENT
ABOUT CRIME. REJECT IT IF YOU CHOOSE TO. DO NOT REJECT MY
ARGUMENT THAT ABUSE OF POWER WOULD DESTROY, DESTROY THE
IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA OF THE CONSTITUTION AND TURN IT IN THE
WORDS OF ONE OF THE SENATORS TO MAKE EVERY PRESIDENT, EVERY MEMBER OF
THE SENATE, EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS BE ABLE TO DEFINE IT
ITSELF FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN BOSOM. YOU HEARD FROM THE OTHER
SIDE, EVERY SENATOR SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER YOU NEED PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. OR PROVED BY PREPONDERANCE. NOW
HERE EVERY SENATOR — >>THANK YOU COUNSEL. THANK YOU.
>>SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. >>I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF
OF SENATOR AND MYSELF THAT I SENT TO THE
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON
WHITE IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED STATES, 1993, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
THE SENATE QUOTE HAS VERY WIDE DISCRETION IN SPECIFYING
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PROCEDURES”. BUT STATED THAT THE SENATE QUOTE
WOULD ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IF IT WERE TO INSIST ON A PROCEDURE
THAT COULD NOT BE DEEMED A TRIAL BY REASON OF JUDGES. IF THE
SENATE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE
TESTIMONY OF KEY WITNESSES WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S ACTIONS AND INTENTIONS, WHAT A REASONABLE JUDGE CONCLUDE
THESE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE A CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR TRIAL?>>I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. I
DON’T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE WORDS OF A JUSTICE TO
TELL US THAT A TRIAL WITHOUT WHEN THIS IS IS NOT REALLY A
TRIAL. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. IF THE HOUSE MOVES
FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT AND COMES BEFORE THE SENATE AND
WANTS TO CALL WITNESSES AND WANTS TO MAKE ITS CASE AND IS
TOLD THOU SHALT NOT CALL WITNESSES. THAT’S NOT A FAIR
TRIAL. I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT
READING THE CASE LAW. THEY GO TO JURY DUTY THEMSELVES EVERY YEAR.
AND THEY SEE THE FIRST THING THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER THE JURY
IS SWORN IN, IS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES ITS OPENING STATEMENT, THE
DEFENSE MAKES THEIR STATEMENT AND THEN THE CALLING OF
WITNESSES. I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT WHILE IT’S FRESH. YOU CAN SAY A
LOT OF THINGS ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ, YOU CANNOT SAY HE’S
UNPREPARED. HE’S NOT OVER-PAIR TODAY, HE WASN’T A PREPARED 21
YEARS AGO. AND TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE READ 21 YEARS
AGO WHAT MASON HAD TO SAY OR MEDICINE, OR HAMILTON HAD TO
SAY, I DON’T BUY THAT. I THINK 21 YEARS AGO HE UNDERSTOOD THAT
MALADMINISTRATION WAS REJECTED BUT SO WAS A PROVISION THAT CAN
FIND THE OFFENSES TO TREASON AND BRIBERY ALONE WAS REJECTED. I
THINK ALAN DERSHOWITZ 21 YEARS AGO UNDERSTOOD THAT YES, WHY YOU
CAN’T IMPEACH FOR POLICY DIFFERENCE YOU CAN IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS WHAT HE SAID 21 YEARS
AGO. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. I DON’T THINK YOU CAN
WRITE OFF THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
OPINION BY SAYING THEY ARE ALL NEVER TRUMPER’S. CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW PROFESSORS IN FACT, LET’S PLAY A SNIPPET FROM PROFESSOR
SHIRLEY WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND SEE
WHAT HE HAD TO SAY RECENTLY. >>ON ABUSE OF POWER IN MY VIEW
IT’S CLEAR. YOU CAN IMPEACH PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR NON-CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
>>OKAY. WE CAN’T ARGUE PLAUSIBLY THAT HIS POSITION IS
OWING TO SOME POLITICAL BIAS. RIGHT? A FEW WEEKS AGO HE WAS IN
THE HOUSE ARGUING THE CASE FOR MY GOP COLLEAGUES THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. WAITED SAY IF YOU CAN
PROVE THESE THINGS AND PROVE AS INDEED WE HAVE THAT THE
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY CONDITIONING MILITARY AID TO HELP HIS
REELECTION CAMPAIGN, YES, THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. YOU CAN’T
ABUSE, YOU CAN IMPEACH FOR THAT KIND OF ABUSE OF POWER. THAT’S
EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE OUR
COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR. IF WE ARE TO INTERPRET THE
CONSTITUTION NOW AS SAYING THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THEIR
POWER AND I THINK THE PROFESSOR SUGGESTED BEFORE THE BREAK THAT
HE CAN ABUSE HIS POWER IN A CORRUPT WAY TO HELP HIS
REELECTION AND YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU CAN’T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE IF YOU USE IT FOR YOUR PERSONAL
INTEREST THAT’S JUST FINE. HE’S ALLOWED TO DO IT. NONE OF THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE
ACCEPTED THAT KIND OF REASONING. IN FACT, THE IDEA THAT THE CORE
OFFENSE THAT THE FOUNDERS PROTECTED AGAINST, THE CORE
OFFENSE IS ABUSE OF POWER. IS BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS TO
IMPEACHMENT. WOULD HAVE TERRIFIED THE FOUNDERS. YOU CAN
IMAGINE ANY NUMBER OF ABUSES OF POWER, A PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD
AID FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AT WAR AS A THANK YOU FOR THAT
ADVERSARY ALLOWING HIM TO BUILD A TRUMP TOWER IN THAT COUNTRY.
THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL. BUT ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT WE ARE
GOING TO PERMIT A RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD
MILITARY AID AS A THANK YOU FOR A BUSINESS PROPOSITION? NOW,
COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY BUT SOMETHING,
AKIN TO A CRIME, THERE’S A CRIME OF BARBARY OR EXTORTION.
CONDITIONING OFFICIAL ASK FOR PERSONAL
FAVORS. THAT IS BRIBERY. IT’S ALSO WHAT THE FOUNDERS
UNDERSTOOD AS EXTORTION. YOU CANNOT ARGUE EVEN IF YOU ARGUE
WELL, UNDER THE MODERN DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, YOU HAVE
TO SHOW SUCH AND SUCH, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY ARGUE THAT IT’S
NOT AKIN TO BRIBERY. IT IS BRIBERY. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS
AKIN TO BRIBERY. BUT THAT IS THE IMPORT OF WHAT THEY WOULD ARGUE.
THAT NO, THE PRESIDENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER
ARTICLES HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. HE CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE
AND DO SO SACRIFICING NATIONAL SECURITY, UNDERMINING THE
ELECTION AND THERE’S NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT.
>>MANAGER.>>WE ARE IN RECESS.>>>YOU ARE WATCHING LIVE
COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. WE LISTEN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS
TO BOTH THE HOUSE IMPEACH MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT’S
DEFENSE TEAM. QUESTION STARTED AROUND 1:00 THIS AFTERNOON AND
IT’S BEEN ABOUT FIVE HOURS AND TIME. THE ALLOTTED 16 HOURS. THE
Q&A WILL CONTINUE INTO THE EVENING AFTER THIS DINNER BREAK
AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU LIVE AND UNINTERRUPTED. I’M
JOINED NOW IN THE STUDIO. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE HAVE SEEN
MORE THAN 50 QUESTIONS ASKED SO FAR AND ORIGINALLY, INITIALLY
SEEMED LIKE EVERY QUESTION WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE EACH SIDE A
CHANCE TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE TALKING POINTS. THEY WERE
SOFTBALLS. SOME QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE PROBING. AND
IT SEEMS LIKE TRYING TO GET TO SOME NEW ANSWERS. WANT TO PLAY
ONE CLIP FOR YOU, ONE OF THE FEW MOMENTS SO FAR, THEY SEEM TO
WANT TO CLEAR THE TIMELINE ON THE PRESIDENT BRINGING UP THE
BIDENS AND UKRAINE. LET’S LISTEN.
>>WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT UKRAINE WITH A CORRUPT
COUNTRY. BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ENTERED THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL RACE IN APRIL, 2019, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER
MENTION JOE OR HUNTER BIDEN IN CONNECTION WITH CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE TO FORM A OFFICIAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CABINET
MEMBERS OR TOP AIDES OR OTHERS? >>I’M LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN THE
RECORD. AND WHAT IS IN THE RECORD IS DETERMINED BY WHAT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THOUGHT. IT WAS THEIR PROCEEDING, THEY
WERE THE ONES WHO RAN IT. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO CALLED THE
WITNESSES. SO, PART OF THE QUESTION REFERS TO CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHER CABINET MEMBERS AND OTHERS
LIKE THAT. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING OF THE RECORD ON THAT. IT WASN’T
PURSUED IN THE RECORD. SO I CAN’T POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE
RECORD THAT SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP AT AN EARLIER TIME
MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR
HUNTER BIDEN. >>THEY WILL STRUGGLE FOR AN ANSWER
THAT. >>YES. THEY ARE ASKING A
QUESTION, A MAIN TALKING POINT, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ONLY WANTED
THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE 2020 ELECTION. LIKE YOU SAID, COUNSEL
COULDN’T ANSWER IT. HE SAID NO, I DON’T HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF
ANYTHING COMING EARLIER IN THE RESIDENTS FOCUS ON BIDEN. HIS
CAVEAT WAS WELL, IT IS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS DURING THE
INVESTIGATION AND THEREFORE MAYBE THERE’S EVIDENCE THEY
DIDN’T UNCOVER. IT SOUNDS A LITTLE HOLLOW. HAVE TROUBLE
FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC TO THE END.>>ABSENTLY. ADAM SCHIFF CAME UP
AND SAID THAT THE COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENT TO ME
BECAUSE YOU ALSO CAN CALL WITNESSES AND IF THEY, IF THE
TRUMP DEFENSE HAD WITNESSES WHO KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
TALKED ABOUT THE BIDENS AND CORRUPTION BEFORE JOE BIDEN WAS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THEY COULD HAVE PRESENTED WITNESSES AND
THEY HAVEN’T. >>THIS IS OUR SENIOR
CORRESPONDENT. OKAY, IN MOMENTS LIKE THAT, HOW ARE THE SENATORS
REACTING? IS THERE NOTETAKING? IS THERE ACTIVE LISTENING?>>YES. ABSOLUTELY. THE TWO
STRETCHES I HAVE BEEN INSIDE THE CHAMBER FOR FOR THE TRIAL, LIKE,
THEY ARE MORE ENGAGED BECAUSE THIS FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES,
BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH, HAS A BIT MORE OF A ZING TO IT.
THAN THE LONG, 30, 40, 90 MINUTE SPEECHES THAT YOU HAD THE
PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. THE HOUSE MANAGERS OR THE
PRESIDENTIAL LAWYERS. SO IT IS EASIER TO FOLLOW AND THERE
AREN’T AS MANY MOMENTS WHERE THEY ARE GETTING UP AND WALKING
AROUND. WHAT WAS REALLY CRITICAL ABOUT THAT QUESTION RELATED TO
THE BIDENS IS WHO IT CAME FROM. IT CAME FROM MURKOWSKI AND A
COUPLE OF THE OTHER POTENTIALLY MODERATE REPUBLICANS ON THE
WITNESS QUESTION. AND THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE MOTIVE,
WHY DID TRUMP GO AFTER JOE BIDEN? WAS THIS SOMETHING
THAT HE WAS ALWAYS DOING? WAS IT AN ISSUE OF CORRUPTION HE WAS
ALWAYS PURSUING WITH UKRAINIANS? OR WAS IT MERELY A NEW ISSUE
THAT HE BROUGHT UP IN THE SUMMER OF 2019 BECAUSE HE REALIZED HE
WAS TRAILING HIM IN THE POLLS? THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING
TO GET AT AND THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WASN’T GOING TO
GIVE IN AND BASICALLY SAID THAT’S NOT REALLY IN THE RECORD
SO I CAN’T DISCUSS IT ALL THAT MUCH.
>>WHAT MOMENTS HAVE YOU DESERVED THAT HAVE BROUGHT OUT
YOU KNOW, EITHER A CHALLENGING MOMENT OR EITHER SIDE OF THIS OR
BROUGHT OUT NEW INFORMATION OR A LACK OF NEW INFORMATION? A LACK
OF ABILITY TO DEFEND OR ATTACK? >>THAT IS ONE OF THEM. I MEAN,
WHAT YOU SEE, THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO MOMENTS LIKE THAT
AND SCHIFF DELIVERY, CHUCK SCHUMER
DID IT FASTBREAK, BASICALLY SAID, POINTED TO MOMENTS WHERE
THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM SAYS WE CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND SCHUMER SAYS THERE’S AN EASY WAY
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF MOTIVE.
WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVE? YOU COULD HAVE FIRST-HAND
WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON. LIGHT MICK MULVANEY. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF
MOMENTS IN THE LAST HOUR, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TENSE MOMENTS,
ONE WAS WHEN FROM THE JOHN KENNEDY AND JERRY MORAN, HE HAS
BEEN THOUGHT OF AS A REPUBLICAN WHO MIGHT BE IN THE CAMP OF
THOSE TRADITIONAL HAWKS WHO MIGHT WANT TO SIDE WITH MITT ROMNEY AND HAVE MORE
WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY BOLTON. BUT THE QUESTION THAT JOHN
KENNEDY SUBMITTED WAS WHAT DID HUNTER BIDEN DO FOR THE MONEY
THAT HE GOT FROM UKRAINIAN COMPANIES? IT WAS A VERY MUCH
SOFTBALL QUESTION TO THE TRUMP LAWYERS THAT FORMER FLORIDA
ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI STEPPED UP AND JUST GAVE A VERY
PARTISAN RESPONSE. BASICALLY SAYING THAT ALL THEY KNOW IS A
HUNTER BIDEN WENT TO ONE MEETING IN MONACO AND WENT ON A FISHING
TRIP. TO BE A BOARD MEMBER. IT WAS A VERY PARTISAN MOMENT AND
DEMOCRATS WERE NOT HAPPY. THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER MOMENT IN
WHICH JOE MANCHIN AGAIN, A DEMOCRAT WHO REPUBLICANS HAVE
BEEN TRYING TO GET AND SO WHEN YOU SEE THE QUESTION YOU CAN SEE
THEM GOING THROUGH THESE SORT OF POTENTIALLY UNDECIDED PEOPLE AS
WHAT THEY ASK IS ALMOST MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT THE ANSWER
IS. THEY ASKED WHAT CHANGED IN THE 22 YEARS FROM WHEN YOU SAID
IN 1998 THAT THERE HAS TO BE A CRIME IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE
IMPEACHMENT? WITH THE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A CRIME TO BE
IMPEACHMENT? TO NOW WHERE HE’S TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THERE IS,
THERE HAS TO BE AN UNDERLYING CRIME. DERSHOWITZ BASICALLY CAME
TO A GLIB ANSWER, WAVING HIS ARMS AND SAID I STUDIED MORE. I
CHANGED MY MIND. JERRY NADLER GOT UP TO GET HIS RESPONSE AND WAS FAST, FURIOUS, FLIPPING
THROUGH PAPERS, READING HIS ANSWER, SAYING EVERY LEGAL
SCHOLAR HAS DETERMINED THAT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A CRIME. HE
THEN SAID EVERY SCHOLAR EXCEPT MISTER DERSHOWITZ, POINTING AT
HIM, AUDIBLE GASPS FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE ROOM. A
REAL SORT OF LIGHTING MOMENT. WHERE NADLER AGAIN HAS FOUND HIS
WAY TO REALLY IRRITATE REPUBLICANS TIME AND AGAIN.
>>THAT WAS INTERESTING.
>>THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE HAVE ALSO SEEN SENATE
REPUBLICANS ON THE BIKES OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM, BACKING AWAY A
LITTLE BIT FROM EMBRACING DISH WITH SO MUCH BECAUSE HE IS SO
CONTROVERSIAL WITHIN THE BROADER ACADEMIA AROUND. CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW AND HIS VIEW ON IMPEACHMENT AND CRIME. AND YET THERE ARE
SEVERAL REPUBLICANS WHO DEEM HIS ARGUMENTS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A
CRIME TO DEFEND TRUMP RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO SAY,
WELL, TRUMP MAY HAVE DONE THIS STUFF BUT IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE.
>>IT’S A STRONG POINT THAT WHO IS ASKING A QUESTION IS SO
IMPORTANT, THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT AND THE QUESTION WHILE
SIGNIFICANT IS REVEALING BECAUSE SOMEONE LIKE JOE MANCHIN, WHAT
IS ON HIS MIND? >>PEOPLE LIKE COLLINS AND
MURKOWSKI, THE FIRST QUESTION OUT THE GATE THIS MOMENT WAS
FROM MURKOWSKI, COLLINS AND ROMNEY, THE SENATORS EVERYONE IS
WATCHING. TO SEE IF THEY WILL ALLOW FOR WITNESSES. WHAT JOE
MANCHIN AND THOSE THREE AND OTHER MODERATES WANT TO SHOW
THEIR VOTERS IS THAT THEY ARE TAKING THIS VERY SERIOUSLY,
ASKING SERIOUS QUESTIONS THAT COULD AFFECT THEIR VOTES. COMING
DOWN THE LINE. >>I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
EARLY QUESTIONS. THIS TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE SEEING INSIDE THE
CHAMBERS, WHO ARE YOU WATCHING, HOW ARE THE DYNAMICS AT PLAY IN
TERMS OF SENATORS PASSING NOTES AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER, WHAT
DO YOU SEE? >>A LOT OF THAT IS STILL THE
SAME. SOMETIMES THEY’RE PASSING NOTES TO EACH OTHER, WHEN IT GOT
PAST 6:00 THAT WAS SORT OF THIS MOMENT EVERY DAY IN THE TRIAL,
WHEN THEY GET TO 6:00 THEY GET I’M SORRY, THEY GET A BIT HUNGRY AND THEY JUST HAVE TO GET UP AND
THEY STRETCH A LITTLE BIT. SOMETIMES BERNIE SANDERS, HE
BOLTS AWAY FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES OR SO. PROBABLY TO GET A SNACK
IN THE CLOAKROOM. AND YOU SORT OF SEE THEM REALLY GETTING
TIRED. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS REALLY INTERESTING SO
FAR, YOU HAVEN’T HEARD FROM IS LAMAR ALEXANDER. PEOPLE WHO KEEP
LOOKING FOR A REPUBLICAN WHO WILL JOIN POTENTIALLY THOSE
THREE IF MURKOWSKI JOINS COLLINS AND ROMNEY EYEWITNESSES. THE
TALK ABOUT LAMAR ALEXANDER. HE IS NOT ASKED A QUESTION YET AND
I’M TOLD HE WILL NOT ASK A QUESTION. HE WILL JUST SIT BACK
AND WATCH. HE DOESN’T WANT TO TRY TO TIP HIS HAND AT ALL. HE
JUST SITS THERE QUIETLY, OBSERVING, SOMETIMES SCRIBBLING
NOTES. HE’S JUST VERY STUDIOUS. >>I HAD A QUESTION FROM A
VIEWER WHO ASKED, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF JUSTICE ROBERTS COULD
TELL US THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE CAN SAY THAT IS SENATOR
MURKOWSKI OR THAT IS THE VOICE OF SENATOR KENNEDY FROM
LOUISIANA BUT IF JUSTICE ROBERTS DOESN’T SAY WHO IS ASKING THE
QUESTION BECAUSE THE MEDIA ISN’T CONTROLLING THE CAMERAS, WE
CAN’T TELL WHO PERHAPS HAS GIVEN IT. YOU DON’T HAVE THAT
FRUSTRATION BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBERS CAN SEE WHO’S
PUTTING IT FORTH. >>YES. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE
TIMES WHEN OUR DESK, THE WASHINGTON POST DESK IS OUTSIDE
THE SENATE CHAMBER AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE THOSE OF
US WHO ARE ROTATING IN AND OUT AND HAVE PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER
AT ALL TIMES BUT IT’S ROTATION. BETWEEN ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN IS A.
THERE TIMES WHERE AT OUR DESK WATCHING TV LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
WE KIND OF HEAR A VOICE THAT WE SORT OF RECOGNIZE BUT WE CAN’T
TELL WHETHER THAT IS JEFF MERKLEY OR IS THAT TOM UDALL,
THERE ARE MOMENTS WHERE WE ARE SUCK AS WELL. LOOK, CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS IS NEW TO THIS. HE DOES A REALLY EVER SET FOOT
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER AND HE’S NOT THINKING ABOUT TELEVISION.
THAT’S NOT REALLY HIS NORMAL THING. SO I THINK WE ARE JUST
STUCK HERE. OUR FRIENDS AT CSPAN HAVE BEEN GREAT SO FAR. THEY
KEEP COMPILING DATA ABOUT HOW MANY, HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN, HOW MANY HOURS , ADAM SCHIFF, HOW MANY HOURS
LIKE I’M HOPING AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY WILL HAVE COMPILED
THIS DATA TO TELL US ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND WHO THEY ASKED.
I’M REALLY RELYING ON C-SPAN. THEY ARE A NATIONAL TREASURE.
>>I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU ARE ONE OF THE FEW REPORTERS WHO WAS COVERING THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS WELL. I WAS GOING TO THE MINUTES
AND I SAW CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WOULD SAY THIS IS A
QUESTION FROM SENATOR SO AND SO AND SO. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS MORE
CLARITY. HE’S BEEN VERY STUDIOUS, HIS INTERCESSOR, KIND
OF MISS THE MARK OR DIDN’T FOLLOW THAT? THE PRECEDENT?
>>FOR AN ODD REASON THEY ARE LETTING THE SENATOR HIMSELF OR
HERSELF STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS THE QUESTION FROM SO AND SO AND
IF YOU DON’T HEAR IT YOU DON’T RECOGNIZE THE VOICE. ESPECIALLY
IF THEY DON’T HAVE A COHORT. IT BECOMES HARD.
>>ALL RIGHT, YOU KNOW, I HOPE YOU ARE NOT
HUNGRY, I HOPE YOU GET A BREAK AND GET SOME FOOD. BEFORE WE LET
YOU GO LET ME ASK YOU WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR FOR THE REST OF
THE NIGHT? IS THERE A SENSE OF EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS
IN THE CHAMBER WANTING TO LIKE LEAVE WAS SOMETHING MEMORABLE IN
PEOPLE’S MINDS? >>HONESTLY, WHAT I’M LOOKING
FOR IS OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER. I’M LOOKING, OR WHEN DURING BREAKS,
WHETHER THERE ARE SMALL HUDDLES OF KEY
SWING VOTES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. WHETHER THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO BRING TOGETHER ANY SORT OF WITNESS
MODES. SO I’M REALLY LOOKING AT IS THE OUTSIDE OF THE CHAMBER
MOVEMENT. AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S ANY CHANCE OF GETTING MORE THAN THREE REPUBLICANS TO
JOIN DEMOCRATS ON THE WITNESS VOTE. WHICH WE THINK WOULD BE
FRIDAY NIGHT. COULD SPILL INTO SATURDAY.
>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US. I WANT TO LOOK OVERALL
ABOUT THE MOOD AND TONE OF SENATORS. AMBER, WHAT IS YOUR BIG CONCERN
ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO BUY?
>>I THINK THERE WERE TWO TONES. ONE IS PARTISAN. LIKE LET’S SEE
IF THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT HUTTON BIDEN? EVEN THOUGH HE’S
NOT THE CENTER OF WHAT TRUMP ASKED THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT TO
DO BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT THEM ANYWAY. AND WE HEAR THE
QUESTIONS WERE ALL OF OUR EARS PERK UP, THE POTENTIALLY ON THE
FENCE SENATORS WHO ARE TAKING EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY BASED ON THE
QUESTIONS. THEY CAN’T ELABORATE, THEY CAN TALK MORE. BESIDES THE
QUESTIONS. WE DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON BEHIND THE
SCENES, BY THE ESSAY QUESTION, BUT I JOTTED A COUPLE DOWN THAT
I THOUGHT WERE INTERESTING. BEYOND LISA MURKOWSKI AND
COMPANY ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT BIDEN AND WHEN TRUMP GOT
INTERESTED. SHE ASKED THE DEFENSE TO EXPLAIN, SHE AND SOME
OTHERS, WHY THEY BLOCK SUBPOENAS, AND BEFORE THE HOUSE
PASSED THIS RESOLUTION SAYING OKAY, WE ARE IN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? WHAT DOES THAT EXPLAIN IT. THE
ARGUMENT WAS IN LEGAL DISPUTE, WHETHER YOU NEED THE HOUSE TO
SAY WE ARE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND A RESOLUTION. SHE
AND A FEW MORE CONSERVATIVE SENATORS ASKED WHAT THE STANDARD
OF PROOF SHOULD BE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REALLY. THEY WERE
SAYING IS IT A CRIMINAL TRIAL? BEYOND A REASONABLE STANDARD OF
DOUBT? >>FOR BOTH SIDES TO TAKE A LOOK
AT IT. >>YES. AND THEY GOT DIFFERENT
ANSWERS. THESE ARE A COUPLE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS THAT ASKED
SMART QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT TRIED TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD
BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WERE ALSO GUILTY OF THESE PARTISAN
QUESTIONS OF LIKE SOFTBALLS TO ADAM SCHIFF AND
COMPANY. THERE WAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR, I DON’T KNOW HIS NAME
FROM NEW MEXICO, AND HE ASKED THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN DID YOU
LEARN OF THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE WAS
TRYING TO BLOCK IT? AND THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID
HE COULDN’T SAY WHEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
LEARNED OF THE MANUSCRIPT. ADAM SCHIFF IS TRYING TO POKE A HOLE
IN THAT WHEN HE GOT UP AND SAID THERE’S NO REASON THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL COULDN’T HAVE WALKED OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE
AND SAID I CAN’T TELL YOU WITHIN THE MANUSCRIPT BUT TRUST ME,
DON’T LET BOLTON TALK. BASICALLY THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC
SENATOR PUT UP THERE IS THEIRS CORONATION BETWEEN THE WHITE
HOUSE AND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE TRIAL TO PREVENT BOLTON FROM
TALKING. ONE OTHER THING IN MY NOTES IS ANGUS KING, FROM MAINE
WHO HASN’T BEEN LIKE SUPER MAJOR PLAYER IN ALL OF THIS, AS WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL IF JOHN KELLY, TRUMPS FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF
AGREES WITH JOHN BOLTON THAT TRUMP TIED THE UKRAINE EIGHT,
WHY SHOULD HE TESTIFY? WHAT HOUSE BASICALLY SAID THE
PRESIDENT DENIES IT SO THAT’S THAT.
>>ANYTHING STANDING OUT TO YOU?>>IN TERMS OF PARTISAN
QUESTIONS THEY TRIED TO GO WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AGAIN.
THEY TRY TO HAVE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REVEALED. WHAT THEY
DIDN’T CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENED AS IT GAVE ADAM SCHIFF THE OPENING.
TO ADDRESS HEAD ON ALL OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES AROUND HIS
COMMITTEE, WORKING WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND HIM TO SAY I
DON’T KNOW WHO WAS BLOWER IS, I NEVER MET HIM. HE OR SHE HAD NO
COORDINATION WITH STAFF. AND THEN HE WENT ON TO COMPARE THE
TREATMENT OF HIS STAFF TO MARINA BONDAGE, HE SAID NO ONE
UNDERSTANDS BETTER THAN MY STAFF WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE SMEARED
WITH A BUNCH OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
>>HE ALSO LISTED STATEMENTS BY OTHERS, REPUBLICANS, TALKING
ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS, A POWERFUL MOMENT, THEY HAD IT
READY GO, A SLIDE READY TO GO, PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT IT MOTHER
WAS BLOWER. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES WROTE
A PIECE ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER QUESTION, TWO COLLEAGUES HAVE A PIECE IN THE WASHINGTON
POST ABOUT TRUMP’S ALLIES TURNING TO ONLINE CAMPAIGN TO
UNMASK THE WAS A BLOWER. WITH A READ. IT SHOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING
OUTSIDE OF THESE CHAMBERS IN WAYS THAT MIGHT BE LEGALLY
CHALLENGED.>>AT ONE POINT ONE OF THE
EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWER CAME FROM TED CRUZ
AND ANOTHER SENATOR, I THINK LINDSEY GRAHAM, IS IT BASICALLY
ASKING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO OPINE ON A REPORT THAT IS OUT
THERE THAT NAMED THE WHISTLEBLOWER. AND ALLEGING THE
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD TIES WITH PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO GET TRUMP
OUT, LIKE THE FBI DEEP STATE THEORY OVER IN THE CIA AND THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL I THOUGHT, A LITTLE LIKE A COMFORTABLE. HE
SAID I DON’T WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE NEWS. THE
SENATORS WERE BASICALLY POINTING PEOPLE WHO WERE LISTENING TO
REPORTS THAT NAMED THIS ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER. TITLES
REMARKABLE. >>I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
QUESTION OF JOHN BOLTON. TESTIFYING OR THE MANUSCRIPT.
ARE WE SEEING ANY NEEDLE MOVEMENT? IT’S HARD TO TELL. WE
CAN GAIN SOME INFERENCES FROM WHO IS ASKING WHAT QUESTIONS.
ARE WE SEEING ANY MOVEMENT ON THIS APPEAL TO HAVE JOHN BOLTON
TESTIFY OR FOR THE MANUSCRIPT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE SENATORS?
>>IT’S HARD TO SAY. THESE MINI BREAKS YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ASK SENATORS . A LOT HAVE NOT SHOWED THEIR
HANDS UNTIL THIS POINT. I DON’T THINK THEY WILL. UNTIL THE VOTE
HAPPENS. IT’S INTERESTING IS THEIRS’S BATTLE BETWEEN BOLTON
AND THE WHITE HOUSE. WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING YOU CAN’T
REALLY RELEASE THIS BOOK IT’S CLASSIFIED AND BEFORE I CAME ON
BOLTON’S ATTORNEY RESPONDED SAYING YOU NEED TO TELL ME
EXACTLY WHAT IS CLASSIFIED IN HERE BECAUSE MY CLIENT MIGHT BE
OUT TO TEST BY NEXT WEEK. >>I WANT TO PLAY A BIT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS. LAST WEEK WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER TO
JOHN BOLTON’S LAWYER, WHAT THEY SAID WAS IT CONTAINED TOP-SECRET
MATERIAL THAT COULD ENDANGER NATIONAL SECURITY. THE
PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE WAS ASKED ABOUT WHEN THEY KNEW THAT
MANUSCRIPT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND WHETHER THERE
WAS ANY ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION. HERE’S HOW PHILBIN
RESPONDED. >>I DON’T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF
MY HEAD THE EXACT DATE. THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO
THE NSC FOR REVIEW AND WAS WITH STAFF FOR REVIEW. THE OFFICE WAS
NOTIFIED IT WAS THERE. TENNESSEE RELEASED A STATEMENT
EXPLAINING THAT IT IS NOT REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE NSC
STAFF. IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, HASN’T BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO
PREVENT ITS PUBLICATION OR TO BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION? I THINK
THERE WERE SOME MISINFORMATION PUT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC REALM
EARLIER TODAY. IT IS WITH THE NSC DOING THEIR FREE PUBLICATION
REVIEW. THROUGH THE LAWYER, AMBASSADOR
BOLTON WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE MANUSCRIPTS HE SUBMITTED
CONTAINED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION INCLUDING
TOP-SECRET LEVEL SO IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT CAN’T BE
PUBLISHED. BUT THEY WILL BE WORKING WITH HIM AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE SO IT CAN BE REVISED AND HE CAN
TELL HIS STORY. >>IT SEEMS TO PREDICTABLE
QUESTION. TO THE PRESIDENT TEAM BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THIS?
>>I DON’T THINK SO. I MEAN, HE HAS A LETTER AND THIS IS A NEW
REPORTED LETTER THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL SENT
TO THE FORMER BOSS, JOHN BOLTON. AND AGAIN MENTIONED EARLIER,
ADAM SCHIFF CAME AFTER THAT AND SAID EVEN IF LIKE AS THE WHITE
HOUSE SAID THEY ARE NOT CLEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THIS
BOOK THAT IS COMING OUT AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE A PRESIDENT TRUMP
COULD HAVE KNOWN THERE WAS SOMETHING, SOMETHING, LIKE
SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE REVIEWING AND IT GOT A HEADS UP.
I’M PARAPHRASING ADAM SCHIFF, HE SAID THERE’S NOTHING TO PREVENT
HIM FROM WALKING TO THE WEST WING AND SAYING DELAY JOHN
BOLTON TESTIFY. TRUST ME ON THAT ONE. ALLEGATION THERE’S
OCCLUSION WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE. TO USE CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION TO PROTECT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS TRIAL.
>>JOINING US NOW IS A NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT. SO HE TALKS ABOUT
WHAT HE CALLS A REMARKABLE CLAIM THAT ANYTHING THAT TRUMP DOES TO
GET REELECTION COULD BE CONSIDERED, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO LET’S GO DEEPER ON THAT. REMIND US OF
THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL
AND THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS THAT WERE IN YOUR WORDS
WORKABLE. >>RIGHT. ONE OF THE FIRST
QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP TODAY WAS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
HOUSE HAD MET THE STANDARD TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ONE
OF THE ATTORNEYS BASICALLY SAID THAT UNDER THE STANDARD THAT THE
HOUT HAD SET FORTH IF THERE IS ANY WAY IN WHICH TRUMP’S ACTIONS
CAN BE CONSTRUED AS BEING IN THE PUBLIC BENEFIT HE CAN’T BE
IMPEACHED. HE SAYS THAT’S ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET
BY THE HOUSE. IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR PHILBIN SAY IT WASN’T
THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY WAS ACTING IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PET BUT
IF IT COULD BE CONSTRUED IN THAT WAY. THAT HE COULDN’T BE
IMPEACH. IF YOU COMBINE THAT WITH LATER TESTIMONY FROM ALAN
DERSHOWITZ, ANOTHER PERSON ON TRUMP’S TEAM, HE MADE A VERY
SWEEPING AND SORT OF STAGGERING CLAIM WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE
PUBLIC BENEFIT COULD INCLUDE IF THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING HIS
OWN REELECTION. AFTER ALL, DONALD TRUMP, HIS THEME IS KEEP
AMERICA GREAT, SUGGESTING HE THINKS HE IS, HIS PRESIDENCY IS
ITSELF BENEFICIAL TO THE UNITED STATES. THEREFORE THAT’S THE
CONCEPTION, ACTING IN, EVEN ACTING ON HIS OWN BEHALF THAT’S
IN THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. THEREFORE HE CAN’T BE IMPEACHED FOR IT. IT
IS A SWEEPING ARGUMENT. I THINK NO ONE OUTSIDE OF PERHAPS
TRUMP’S LEGAL TEAM WOULD ADHERE TO IT. IT WAS QUITE A STAGGERING
CLAIM. >>LET’S LISTEN TO THE TAPE,
THIS IS ALAN DERSHOWITZ ARGUING THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
GUILTY. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE INTERTWINED WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. >>WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT
THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WITH THAT THE AND UNLAWFUL
QUID PRO QUO? NO, THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST AND HE BELIEVED HIS ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO
VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. THAT IS
WHY IT’S SO DANGEROUS. TO TRY TO CYCLE, PSYCHOANALYZE THE
PRESIDENT, TO GET INTO THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYBODY HAS MIXED
MOTIVES. AND FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED
ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE
IMPEACHED. >>CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>>THIS IS A HEADLINE BECAUSE YOU
HAVE SOMEONE SAYING BASICALLY THE PRESIDENT, IF IT WILL HELP
THEM GET REELECTED. >>EXACTLY. IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR
THE GREATEST PRESIDENT COMING OF THE GREATEST THINGS FOR THIS
COUNTRY GETTING REELECTED IS SERVING THE NATION’S INTEREST.
YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO TRY TO GET REELECTED WHICH IS A
REALLY BROAD CLAIM AND UNCLEAR HOW FAR DERSHOWITZ WOULD TAKE
THAT. WERE THERE ANY LIMITS TO ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
>>I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A MANIFESTATION OF THE TRUMP TEAM
EMBRACING THE SO WHAT IF HE DID ARGUMENT. SO WHAT IF HE HELD UP
MILITARY AID TO FORCE UKRAINE TO MAKE JOE
BIDEN LOOK BACK? HE DID IT, YOU KNOW, I’M SORRY, WHAT IF HE DID
IT, IT’S A MANIFESTATION OF JOHN
BOLTON’S MANUSCRIPT COMING OUT I THINK. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE AT A
VERY HIGH LEVEL SAYING TRUMP DID IT. WHY DON’T WE START
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO ARGUE IT’S OKAY?
BECAUSE TRUMP SAYS IT’S OKAY BECAUSE HE THINKS WHATEVER HE
WANTS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST.>>I WONDER HOW THAT GOES OVER
WITH SENATORS. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MUCH
OKAY WITH THE ARGUMENT, WHAT ABOUT A MODERATE REPUBLICAN? HOW
DOES A GOFER WITH THEM? >>QUITE FRANKLY I DON’T THINK
PEOPLE ARE ON BOARD WITH TEAM TRUMP AND WILL REACH OUT AND
EMBRACE THIS THING. FOR ALL OF THE TENSION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS AN AMPLIFIED TWO DIFFERENT
LEVELS DEPENDING ON WHAT PARTY YOU’RE IN, I DON’T THINK ANYONE
WILL SAY THE PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES AS LONG AS HE
THINKS IT WILL GET HIM REELECTED IS CLEAR AND CAN’T BE IMPEACH. I
DON’T THINK ANYONE WILL EMBRACE AT IN PART BECAUSE ALL OF,
EVERYONE ON CAPITOL HILL, ALL REPUBLICANS UNDERSTAND DEMOCRATS
AT SOME POINT WILL BE PRESIDENT AGAIN AND IF THEY SAY YES, I
AGREE WITH THIS STANDARD, FOR ALL OF THE HYPOCRISY WE HAVE
SEEN, ALL THE OLD VIDEOS FROM 1999, I WOULD SAY, I THINK AMBER IS
RIGHT IN THAT AT EXEMPLIFIES TRUMP IS DOING BUT WHAT IT
REALLY EXEMPLIFIES IS THAT HE SAYS ALLEN, COME ON BMI TEAM AND
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS OVER HIS HEAD IN TERMS OF HIS ARGUMENTS. HE’S
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER BY TRADE. I THINK HE MADE IT VERY,
VERY SWEEPING THE DONALD TRUMP I’M SURE ACTUALLY THOUGHT WAS
FANTASTIC, BUT I THINK PROBABLY THE OTHER LAWYERS AT THE TABLE
WERE KIND OF RUBBING THEIR HEAD.>>IT’S IMPORTANT POINT OUT THAT
THE FIRST QUESTION CAME FROM THAT GROUP OF MODERATES. WE TALK
ABOUT MURKOWSKI, COLLINS AND ROMNEY ASKING ABOUT MOTIVE AND
WHAT A PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE? WHAT IF THERE
WAS AN OFFICIAL MOTIVE? BATTLING CORRUPTION? AND ALSO A PERSONAL
MOTIVE? THAT ARGUMENT, DERSHOWITZ, THE ARGUMENT IS NOT
GOING TO SATISFY THEIR QUESTION.>>SIGNIFICANT THAT IT CAME FROM
THEM. >>I FEEL LIKE THEY’RE TRYING TO
ASK VERY POINTED QUESTIONS. WE DON’T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE
MORE WITNESSES AND OPEN THE DOOR TO CONVICTING THE PRESIDENT.
GIVE ME A STANDARD OF PROOF. DERSHOWITZ AND I THINK THE LEGAL
TREAT DECIDES IT. WELL, THE PRESIDENT, JUST TRUST US. HE’S
DOING THIS IN OUR INTEREST. SHOULDN’T CAST DOUBT ON HIS
JUDGMENT. HE’S THE PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT THE DERIVATIVE OF
WHAT WE HEARD EARLIER WHICH IS AMERICA ELECTED
PRESIDENT TRUMP SO LET’S TRUST HIS JUDGMENT. EVEN IF IT MEANS
IGNORING CONGRESS APPROPRIATE IN THE AID. LET’S TRUST THE
PRESIDENT. >>IS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN
OFFRAMP FOR THE MODERATE SENATORS, A CHANCE TO SAY LOOK,
WE CAN’T LOOK INTO A MAN , WE CAN LOOK INTO HIS HEART, WE
CAN ONLY TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD. IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE MOTIVES
GETS HIM OFF THE HOOK FOR VOTING TO IMPEACH. AND EVEN FOR CALLING
FOR MORE WITNESSES. BUT IT DIDN’T SEEM LIKE THAT COUNSEL,
THE DEPUTY COUNSEL PHILBIN OR ALAN DERSHOWITZ GAVE THEM THAT
OPPORTUNITY. AND THE DEMOCRATS TURNED IT AROUND AND SAID THIS
WAS PROOF THEY NEEDED TO CALL WORK WITNESSES. WHAT ARE YOU
WATCHING FOR IN TERMS OF SATISFYING THE CONCERNS AND
QUESTIONS THE MODERATES HAVE? >>IT’S INTERESTING IT WAS ONE
OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT SET THE TONE FOR THE
RESPONSES WE ARE GOING TO GET. IT IS A VALID QUESTION. IF
YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT DID
SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE YOU MAY BE TRYING TO GAUGE IF YOU
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT PART OF WHY HE FOCUSED ON BIDEN IN THE
CALL WAS OUT OF SINCERE CONCERN FOR CORRUPTION. WHERE’S THE LINE
AT WHICH HIS MOTIVATION MAKES IT SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE? WHAT WE
SAW IS WE SAW NOT REALLY VERY HELPFUL ANSWERS. WE SAW TRUMP’S
TEAM MAKING AN ASSERTION THAT POTENTIALLY THERE WAS NO LINE
AND HE COULD HAVE ANY, AS LONG AS THIS ONE, TINY IOTA OF PUBLIC
BENEFIT IT WAS FINE. YOUR THE DEMOCRATS SAYING THE OPPOSITE,
THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION AT ALL THAT HE WAS ACTING IN THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT REGARDLESS OF WHEN IOTA OF CORRUPT INTENT HE CAN BE
IMPEACHED. WHO MADE THE BEST ARGUMENT?
THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. BUT I DON’T KNOW. THIS IS, WE’RE
TRYING TO LOOK INSIDE A BLACK BOX OF THE SENATORS HEADS AND
FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY LAND ON IT. I THINK ONE THING WE HAVE
SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN WE HAVE THESE QUESTIONS,
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, THE TIE-BREAKING FACTOR IS THE PARTY
IN SOME WAYS. IT’LL BE FASCINATING TO SEE WHETHER THAT
HOLDS PICK >>LISA MURKOWSKI WAS ASKING
ABOUT SENATOR CRUISE, IF IT IS THE STANDARD OF PROOF. I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT THE CALL FOR WITNESSES FROM THE PUBLIC.
LOOKING AT THE LATEST POLLS AND WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SEE
FROM POTENTIAL WITNESSES.>>WE HAVE SEEN POLL NUMBERS
WHICH REPEATEDLY SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO SEE
WITNESSES. THAT IS BEEN ELEVATED BY PEOPLE, CRITICS OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAY WE HAVE TO BRING IN WITNESSES INTO THE PROCEDURE.
BUT I THINK IT MISSES SOMETHING. DO WANT TO SEE WITNESSES AND
THEN THEY ASKED DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS WANT WITNESSES BECAUSE
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN A FAIR TRIAL BUT REPUBLICANS SAID THE LETTER. THE DEMOCRATS
WANT WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY’RE TRYING TO TAKE DOWN REPUBLICANS.
WITH THAT SUGGESTS IS WHILE REPUBLICANS IN THE POLL, ABOUT
HALF WANTED TO SEE WITNESSES, THEY DON’T WANT TO SEE THE
DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES. THEY WANT TO SEE WITNESSES LIKE HUNTER
BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN AND ADAM SCHIFF SITTING UP THERE. WHILE
IT IS TRUE THAT MOST AMERICANS WANT TO SEE
WITNESSES IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT AMERICANS WANT TO SEE THE
SAME WITNESSES. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT REPUBLICANS WILL HEAR
FROM BOLTON. IT’S NOT THE CASE THE DEMOCRATS WILL HEAR FROM
HUNTER BIDEN. I THINK THE MIDDLEGROUND, EVERYONE WILL BE
UNHAPPY SO LET’S COME ON. THAT IS PROBABLY PART OF THE CASEY
TRY TO MEET. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING
WITH US. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CHASING
FOLKS AROUND AS WE WERE WATCHING TO SEE WHAT SENATORS MIGHT SAY
AS THEY COME OUT OF THE SENATE CHAMBERS. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING?
>>MOMENTS AFTER THEY ADJOURNED FOR THE DINNER BREAK WE SPOKE TO
A FEW SENATORS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AS THEY CAME OUT,
THEY CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AND REACTIONS ARE NOT SURPRISING BUT
IT SHOWS THEY ARE STANDING FIRM ON THEIR POSITIONS. FOR
INSTANCE, CHUCK SCHUMER CAME OUT AND SAID THIS HAS BEEN A VERY
SUCCESSFUL DAY. HE SAYS ALL THE QUESTIONS HAVE SHOWN THE HOUSE
MANAGER’S CASE WILL PREVAIL AND HE IS HOPEFUL THAT FOUR OR MORE
REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES. BEFORE THAT HE HAS
BEEN SAYING THIS WILL BE AN UPHILL BATTLE BUT TODAY AFTER HE
CAME OUT OF THE CHAMBERS JUST NOW HE SAID HE IS HOPEFUL THAT
HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL VOTE ON FRIDAY FOR WITNESSES. AT
LEAST FOUR OF THEM. ALSO TIM SCOTT CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AS
WELL AS JOHN — AND THEY ARE STANDING FIRM SAYING THAT
DERSHOWITZ, HIS CASE TODAY AND THE ANSWERS HE GAVE WERE SOLID
AND REALLY ATTACKING THE DEMOCRATS CASE. THAT SIDE THINKS
THEY ARE GOING TO PREVAIL AS WELL. ONE ARGUMENT THAT THEY
STARTED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IS THAT THEY WANT THIS TO MOVE
FORWARD BECAUSE THEY SAY NOW THIS IS ABOUT THE SENATE
STOPPING ITS WORK. JOHN SAID THAT IF THEY CONTINUE ON WITH
THIS, THIS IS NONSENSE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT
BE REMOVED. THEY KNOW DEMOCRATS DON’T HAVE THE VOTES FOR THAT.
REALLY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS A PROLONGED PHASE OF QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS. PROLONGING THE WHOLE PROCEDURE. SO BOTH SIDES ARE
SAYING THINGS THAT ARE INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT AS YOU
MIGHT EXPECT. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING NOW.
>>I LOVE TO GET A SENSE OF YOUR SENSE OF HOW THINGS ARE GOING.
CHUCK SCHUMER THINGS THINGS ARE GOING BUT WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF
WHETHER THIS IS UNEARTHING NEW INFORMATION OR DESIGNED TO SCORE
POLITICAL POINTS. >>I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MOVE
ON, THIS WON’T CHANGE ANYTHING, THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT’S KIND OF TELLING WHERE
REPUBLICANS FEEL RIGHT NOW. THAT IS SAYING THEY ARE PERHAPS IN A
CORNER WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY CAN’T SAY MUCH MORE ABOUT
STOPPING BOLTON SO NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND A NEW NARRATIVE.
SAYING THAT WE NEED TO MOVE PAST EVERYTHING. I THINK THAT MAY GIVE US PERHAPS
A GLIMPSE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO SCHIFF THE MESSAGING
NOW , KNOWING THAT THERE’S A LOT OF PRESSURE RIGHT NOW FOR THAT
WHEN THIS VOTE AND THEY AREN’T DENYING IT. JUST TRYING TO
SCHIFF THE MESSAGE RIGHT NOW. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE ARE SEEING THE TIME BROKEN
INTO TWO DAYS. WE TALKED TO PAUL EARLIER THAT THIS IS A FASTER
CLIP. IT WILL ENGAGE SENATORS MORE WITH ACTIVE LISTENING. WERE
NOT SEEING REPUBLICANS MAKING DEMONSTRABLE, NOT LISTENING, WE
ARE SO BORED, THOSE KINDS OF MOTIONS, AND THEY ARE BEING
INVOKED, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT HEARING THE VOICES THAT MUCH.
THEY ARE PAYING MORE ATTENTION. I WONDER IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
IS TUNED INTO THIS AND IF THIS PROCESS IS PLAYING OUT IN THIS
ROOM OR PLAYING OUT MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, TELEVISION NEWS
SHOWS, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, YES OR NO? I GUESS WE WILL SEE
IF SENATORS ARE FEELING THE PRESSURE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>>THEY WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO GO BACK HOME. AND HEAR FROM PEOPLE.
EVEN IF THIS IS LIKE A NORMAL SESSION AND THEY ONLY HAVE ONE
WEEK BREAK THEY YOU NORMALLY JET OUT OF TOWN TO HOME. THEY DON’T
HAVE TIME TO DO THAT AND GET FEEDBACK. I WAS INTERESTED IN
POLL NUMBERS, THEY MIGHT SHED LIGHT ON THE QUESTION,
REPUBLICANS WANT TO SEE WITNESSES BUT THEY WANT TO SEE
FOLKS LIKE HUNTER BIDEN. THAT WAS IT THE CASE BEFORE THE
SENATE TRIAL GOT STARTED. THE WASHINGTON POST ABC NEWS POLL
FOUND TWO AND THREE REPUBLICANS AGREED THAT TRUMP SHOULD ALLOW
HIS TOP AIDES TO TESTIFY. WHERE IN DIFFERENT TERRITORY WHICH TO
ME SUGGESTS THAT PERHAPS PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, WE KNOW THAT THE
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA MACHINE HAS BEEN LOUD AND UNDERMINING
REPUBLICANS, FIGURES LIKE JOHN BOLTON IN A WAY THAT IS
JAW-DROPPING, LIKE MAYBE IT IS WORKING. AND THAT SUGGESTS THAT
SOME PEOPLE AREN’T WATCHING THE TRIAL AND HEARING ADAM SCHIFF
RESPOND, THEY ARE WATCHING CLIPS AT NIGHT.
>>TALK TO US ABOUT THIS ATTACK THAT IS GOING ON AGAINST JOHN
BOLTON. AND THE WAY THAT JOHN BOLTON AND HIS REPUTATION HAS
RADICALLY CHANGED IN THE EYES OF FOX NEWS.
>>FOR ANY POLITICAL REPORTER THAT IS COVERED JOHN BOLTON,
SOMEONE WHO WAS AS CONSERVATIVE AS YOU CAN GET, A DARLING OF THE
FAR RIGHT, HAD A SUPER PAC THAT SUPPORTED CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICANS. HOCK AND A CHARACTER AND AN ICON. NOW HE’S LIKE THE LIBERAL LAST
GASP. AND YOU HAVE FOX ATTACKING HIM BECAUSE HE DARED TO GO UP
AGAINST TRUMP. YOU HAVE THE MSNBC OF THE WORLD CELEBRATING
BOLTON IF HE DOES COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY AGAINST TRUMP.
EVERYTHING IS UPSIDE DOWN. >>UNTIL THE MANUSCRIPT AND THE
INFORMATION CAME OUT ABOUT WHAT THE CONTENT COULD BE, NO ONE
KNEW WHAT BOLTON MIGHT OFFER AND THERE WERE INDICATIONS OR FLARES
HE SENT UP BUT NEITHER SIDE WAS READY TO THROW HIM INTO A BEAR
HUG BUT THE REPUBLICANS PUSHED FROM MORE BUT I WONDER IF
DEMOCRATS WANT HIM AS A WITNESS OR JUST WANTED TO PUSH AND TRY
TO CRACK OPEN THE CALL FOR WITNESSES GENERALLY. THERE
WASN’T A GUARANTEE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HE WOULD TALK ABOUT.>>I SAID YOUR SHOW BEFORE THE
MANUSCRIPT, WHAT IF JOHN BOLTON DOESN’T HAVE A LOT TO SAY? I SAW
A LAWYER REPRESENT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND IT RESONATED,
IF YOU READ OUT THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE INTERVIEW HOUSE
DEMOCRATS HAD LIKE MAYBE WE KNOW EVERYTHING. BECAUSE FIONA HILL
WAS FORTHCOMING, ALEXANDER VINDMAN, PEOPLE WORKING UNDER
JOHN BOLTON, WHAT IF THERE WAS A MORE TO SAY? IT TURNS OUT AT
LEAST IN THIS MEETING THERE WAS. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, BECAUSE HE IS
SUCH A CONSERVATIVE FIGURE AND DOESN’T SEEM WILLING TO
UNDERMINE DECADES AND DECADES OF WORK AND HIS REPUTATION, IS HE
REALLY GOING TO LIKE THROW A BOMB ON PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>>HE HAS A FUNDRAISING PACK AND HIS OWN ASPIRATIONS AND
AMBITIONS OF WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR HIM. SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHAT HE MIGHT OFFER. ANYMORE MOMENT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
TODAY? >>I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT WAS SENT TO ME WAS AFTER SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ASKED A
QUESTION AND ANYONE WHO WATCHES THE HILL KNOWS SHE IS A
PROSECUTOR AND AND SHE IS ABLE TO SPEAK IN HEARINGS AND IN THE
COMMITTEES SHE ASKED TOUGH QUESTIONS. HER QUESTION WAS
PERHAPS ONE THAT TEED UP ADAM SCHIFF TO ANSWER IN
A WAY THAT WAS FAVORABLE FOR DEMOCRATS. IT ALSO SHOWS
STRATEGY. LET’S TAKE A LISTEN. >>THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING OF
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, GET RID OF HER, GET HER OUT
TOMORROW. I DON’T CARE. GET HER OUT TOMORROW. TAKE HER OUT.
OKAY. DO IT.”. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS
ORDER, TWO MEN CARRIED OUT HIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE. AT
THE DIRECTION OF RUDY GIULIANI. DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE
SUGGEST THAT IF THE SENATE DOES NOT PURSUE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE
INCLUDING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THE NEW EVIDENCE WILL
CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT AFTER THE SENATE RENDERS A VERDICT.
>>THE ANSWER IS YES. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REALLY OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE ARTICLES IS EVERY WEEK
INDEED, SOMETIMES EVERY DAY, THERE IS NEW INFORMATION COMING
TO LIGHT. WE KNOW THERE WILL BE NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT
ON MARCH 17. WHEN THE BOLTON BOOK COMES OUT. THAT IS AT THE
NSC ISN’T SUCCESSFUL IN REDACTING IT. OR PREVENTING MUCH
OF HIS PUBLICATION. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE REVELATIONS AND
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, WILL HAVE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS, EACH TIME IT DOES, WHY DID YOU WANT TO KNOW
THAT WHEN IT WOULD’VE HELPED INFORM YOUR DECISION?
>>THE STRATEGY THAT I THINK COULD BE EFFECTIVE, IT BRINGS UP
A TROUBLING PART OF THE EVIDENCE WE SEE IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
SUBMITTING TEXT MESSAGES THAT SHOW THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO OUST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND THEN
A LOT OF PEOPLE FOUND THAT TROUBLING. THEY FOUND THE WORDS
TROUBLING. TAKE HER UP. THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED AND ALSO AT THE END
IT PUTS THE ONUS BACK ON THE SENATE. IF YOU DON’T DO
SOMETHING NOW THIS IS ONLY GOING TO CONTINUE AND MORE EVIDENCE
WILL COME OUT AND YOU ALL WILL BE ON THE LINE FOR NOT HAVING
HANDLED IT NOW. THAT WAS ONE QUESTION THAT REALLY STOOD OUT
TO ME TODAY. >>YOU MENTIONED LEV PARNAS, HE
WAS HEADING THE CAPITOL HILL THIS MORNING. WITHIN THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS PRESENCE ON CAPITOL HILL? UTILITY OF HIM?
TRYING TO GET INTO THE CHAMBER? >>OUR COLLEAGUES CALLED IT SORT
OF THE SIDESHOW, IT ADDS AN ELEMENT
OF CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE. WHEN YOU SEE A WITNESS WHO IS A SHADOWY
FIGURE IN ALL OF THIS. DOWNSTAIRS IN THE BASEMENT AND
WALKING SLOWLY TOWARD THE CHAMBER. THERE HASN’T BEEN MUCH,
THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH TO INSPIRE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER
PHASE THERE HASN’T BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION ON THE HALLWAYS. I
THINK PEOPLE WERE REMINDED HE IS A
FIGURE IN THIS, HE COULD BE A WITNESS AT SOME POINT. ALSO IT
REMINDS PEOPLE OF SORT OF THE FACT THAT HE DIDN’T COME FORWARD
WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO ON THE HOUSE SIDE AND NOW BREK BOLTON
IS COMING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE. SO THAT IS THE TAKE AWAY FROM
THE LEV PARNAS EXPERIENCE THIS MORNING.
>>HE TRIED TO GET IN, HE IS UNDER INDICTMENT AND WAS NOT
ALLOWED IN BECAUSE OF THE ELECTRONICS ROLL. THANK YOU. I
WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE TO STORY PUBLISHED BY THE LAST HALF
HOUR, BOLTON’S LAWYER CONTENDS THERE IS NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL
AND ASKED FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW SO HE CAN TESTIFY IF CALLED.
THIS QUESTION OF HIS BOLTON PREPARING FOR A POSSIBLE TIME TO
TESTIFY, AMBER. >>BONE SPOKE OUT THROUGH HIS
LAWYERS AND WE HEARD WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TODAY SAY WELL, OUR
OFFICIALS SAY JOHN BOLTON SPOKE IS CLASSIFIED AND ESSENTIALLY THE MESSAGE WAS TO SET IT ASIDE,
JUST IGNORE THAT INFORMATION WHEN YOU DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
BOLTON IS PUSHING BACK ESSENTIALLY AND SAYING A COUPLE
THINGS HERE. NO, IS NOT CLASSIFIED. THIS SHOULD BE
PUBLISHED IN MARCH. I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO REWRITE IT WITH
HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. AND LIKE YOU SAID, LIBBY,
THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED REVIEW OF THE CHAPTER ON UKRAINE
BECAUSE THIS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE THE RESULTS OF YOUR REVIEW
OF THE CHAPTER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TO GO TESTIFY. TO ME
THAT SAYS WHAT DOES HE KNOW? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT CHAPTER ABOUT
UKRAINE AS PART THAT LEADS TO THE “NEW YORK TIMES” AND
PROBABLY IS CENTRAL TO WHAT HE WILL TESTIFY ABOUT. TO ME THAT
INDICATES HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GO ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAY
TRUMP LINKED UKRAINE AID TO THE BIDENS.
>>ONE OF THE FOX NEWS HOST SAID, MY SHOW AND TELL ME WHAT
YOU HAVE JOHN BOLTON. CAN SENATORS, WHAT CAN THEY
CONSIDER BECAUSE WE HEARD TRUMP LEGAL TEAM REFERRING TO LIKE
THIS IS NOT PART OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT RECORD, HOW DO WE
BRING IT INTO CONSIDERATION? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON JOHN
BOLTON AND HIS VOICE AND THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT COULD BE
EXERCISED WHETHER IN WRITTEN FORM OR BEFORE THE SENATE FLOOR?
>>IF JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIES OR GIVES A NEWS INTERVIEW OR PRESS
CONFERENCE AND SAYS THERE WAS A DIRECT QUID PRO QUO AND THE
PRESIDENT MADE IT EXPLICIT TO HIM, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT
FOR REPUBLICANS TO ARGUE ANY LONGER THAT THE PRESIDENT WASN’T
ACTING, WASN’T TRYING TO DO THIS OR THAT TO INVESTIGATE THE
BIDENS. >>THE CIRCLES BACK TO THE POINT
THAT WE SEE TODAY THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO BROADEN THE DEFENSE TO
NOT JUST HE DIDN’T DO IT, TO EVEN IF HE DID IT IT DOESN’T
MATTER. WE JUST HAD A SENATOR TALKING TO REPORTERS DURING THE
BREAK WHO SAID EVEN IF EVERYTHING IN BOLTON’S BOOK IS
TRUE IT DOESN’T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
>>WERE TRYING TO SEE IF SENATORS WILL CROSS THE AISLE 12
WITNESSES. I DON’T KNOW, IT CHANGES MINUTE BY MINUTE BUT TO
ME IT SEEMS HE RECOGNIZES THE POSSIBILITY THAT BOLTON MIGHT
TESTIFY. >>OR JUST GET THE INFORMATION
OUT IN SOME WAY. >>I THINK PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED
THAT IF HE HAS THIS INFORMATION THAT IS CENTRAL TO THIS CASE, TO
THE INQUIRY, THE TRIAL, WHY HAS HE WAITED SO LONG ? IS IT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO
SELL BOOKS? WAS HE TRYING TO PROTECT TRUMP? WHAT ARE JOHN
BOLTON’S MOTIVES IN ALL OF THIS?>>THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
CRITICS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. >>IS A REAL, LEGITIMATE
QUESTION, WHY DID HE IGNORE THE HOUSE’S REQUEST TO TESTIFY? THE
SUBPOENA WAS A FORMALITY. HIS ANSWER WAS THE WHITE HOUSE IS
BANNING ME. TODAY THEY ARE STILL BANNING HIM FROM TALKING. WHAT
CHANGED? >>HE IS UP FOR REELECTION BUT
HE HAS BEEN ON TEAM TRUMP AND WE HEARD THEM TALK ABOUT BUYING
CLOSE DOORS CORY GARDNER AND OTHER SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION
ARE WARNING THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES THAT IF THEY DON’T
DISPATCH WITH A QUICKLY IT IS WORSE FOR THEM. THEY WANT TO GET
IT DONE QUICKLY SO THEY CAN TURN THE ATTENTION AWAY FROM IT. NOT
WANTING TO COMPLICATE THINGS WITH MORE WITNESSES. THAT
REVEALS HOW CORY GARDNER IS ON THIS NOW.
>>I DON’T THINK IT’S A COINCIDENCE THAT AFTER THE CLOSE
DOOR MEETING, HE SAYS GUYS, HELP ME OUT WITH MY REELECTION, DON’T
CALL WITNESSES. HE SAYS I DON’T WANT TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES. TO
ME THAT WAS A MARK IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COLUMN THAT THERE WILL
BE WITNESSES. >>THEY WERE ASKED TODAY WHY DIDN’T THE HOUSE CHALLENGE
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? AND HERE IS
HOW THEY RESPONDED. >>THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. WE DID
NOT CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS RELATED TO EXECUTIVE. WHICH BECAUSE AS
THE PRESIDENT’S OWN COUNSEL ADMITTED DURING THIS TRIAL THE
PRESIDENT NEVER RAISED THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID RAISE WAS THIS NOTION OF BLANK AND
DEFIANCE. THIS NOTION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH DIRECTED BY THE
PRESIDENT COULD COMPLETELY DEFY ANY AND ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. NOT TURNOVER DOCUMENTS. NOT
TURNOVER WITNESSES. NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF INFORMATION.
IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. IN THE OCTOBER A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THERE WAS NO JURISPRUDENCE THAT WAS CITED. TO
JUSTIFY THE NOTION OF BLANKET DEFIANCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE
LAW CITED TO JUSTIFY THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT HAS CONSIDERED ANY PRESIDENTIAL CLAIM OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SUCH AS THE ONE ASSERTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
HAS REJECTED IT OUT OF HAND. >>HAKEEM JEFFRIES EARLIER
TODAY. ANY THOUGHTS ON WHAT HE IS SAYING?
>>IT WAS NEW TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN’T ASSERT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DIRECTLY TO THE HOUSE. THAT HE JUST SAID I HAVE IMMUNITY AND ALL MY
LAWYERS AND EVERYONE YOU WANT TO TALK TO HAS IMMUNITY BECAUSE IN
THE PRESIDENT. THIS FITS INTO THIS DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT. I
THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO STEP BACK AND HIGHLIGHT THE LETTER
THAT HAKEEM JEFFRIES IS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IT’S A BIG MOMENT
IN THE BREAKING UP OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS
AND THE WHITE HOUSE ON THIS. IN OCTOBER, THE COUNCIL, THE
LAWYERS ON THE FLOOR FOR TRUMP, HE WROTE THIS FIERY LETTER TO
DEMOCRATS AND CALLED HER INQUIRY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HE BLOCKED
PEOPLE FROM TESTIFYING AND SAID LIKE WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THIS
AT ALL BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE WRONG AND PRESIDENT TRUMP
ESSENTIALLY IS DOING EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK AND YOU DON’T NEED
TO WORRY ABOUT US. DUBIOUS LEGAL REASONING AND THE PRESIDENT
EARNED A REBUKE FROM TWO DOZEN FORMER CLASSMATES FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL. LIKE WHERE YOU GETTING
THIS, HOW ARE YOU READING THE CONSTITUTION? WE DON’T
UNDERSTAND? THE LETTER WAS A BASIS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE BANDS
THAT NOW HAVE GOT US INTO THIS SITUATION WAS JOHN BOLTON AND
WHY HE HASN’T TALKED. >>WE SAW THE LAWYERS TRIED TO MAKE A CASE FOR PUT
YOURSELF IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SHOES BECAUSE HE DOES FEEL LIKE
HE HAS BEEN PERSECUTED THROUGHOUT THIS TIME, THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION, CLAIMS ABOUT RUSSIA. THEY GO TO THIS
NOTION OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO DENY HIS TEAM FROM TESTIFYING. OF
COURSE HE WILL PUT UP WALLS TO PROTECT HIMSELF.
>>THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A REASONABLE ARGUMENT IF NOT FOR
THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED HIS TOP AIDES AND ANYONE
ACROSS ADMINISTRATION ROOM TESTIFYING IN ANY NUMBER OF
INVESTIGATION. THE HOUSE HAS IN ADDITION TO THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY THEY HAVE MULTIPLE COMMITTEES WHO WERE
INVESTIGATING MULTIPLE THINGS RELATED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
HIS CAMPAIGN. >>WE’RE BACK IN THE SENATE.
LET’S RETURN TO THE SENATE CHAMBER AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST.>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. >>I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SCOTT FROM FLORIDA.
>>THANK YOU.>>THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT. CHAIRMANSHIPS ARGUED THAT WE
THINK THERE’S A CRIME HERE OF BRIBERY OR EXTORTION OR
SOMETHING AKIN TO BRIBERY. TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANYTHING
AKIN TO IT? TO BE ELLEDGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE EITHER
CRIME? IF NOT, ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISCUSSION OF CRIMES
THEY ALLEGED OR PROVED APPROPRIATE IN THIS PROCEEDING?>>THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND NO, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE THE
CRIME OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANY OF THE CRIME AND THAT THE
CRITICAL POINT. BECAUSE, IF THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED, NO
PRINCIPAL OR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS MORE CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED THAN THAT OF NOTICE OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE AND A
CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A TRIAL AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THAT
CHARGER AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERY ACCUSED. THE
COURT IS EXPLAINING THAT FOR OVER 130 YEARS A COURT CANNOT
PERMIT, IT’S BEEN THE ROLE THEY CAN’T PERMIT A DEFENDANT BE CHARGED ON
CHARGES THAT ARE NOT MADE IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST HIM. THAT IS
THE RULE IN CRIMINAL LAW AND ALSO THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IT IS THE HOUSE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN ACCUSATION AND A
SPECIFIC ACCUSATION AND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THAT AND THEY DID THAT AND THE CHARGES THE
BUTTON ARTICLES WERE ABUSE OF POWER ON A BIG STANDARD THEY
MADE UP AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THEY PUT DISCUSSION
ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND THE COMMITTEE REPORT BUT THEY DID
NOT PUT THAT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IF THIS WERE A
CRIMINAL TRIAL AND MR. SCHIFF HAD DONE WHAT HE JUST DID ON THE
FLOOR HERE AND START TALKING ABOUT CRIMES OF DEBRIS AND
EXTORTION THAT WERE NOT IN THE INDICTMENT IT WOULD’VE BEEN A
MISTRIAL. WE ALL BE DONE NOW. WE COULD GO HOME. MR. SCHIFF KNOWS
THAT BECAUSE HE’S A FORMER PROSECUTOR. IT IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE HOUSE TO COME HERE, FAILING TO CHARGE,
FAILING TO PUT IN ANY CRIME AT ALL AND THEN TO START ARGUING
THAT ACTUALLY WE THINK THERE IS SOME CRIME INVOLVED IN ACTUALLY
WE THINK WE PROVED IT EVEN THOUGH WE PROVIDED NO NOTICE WE
WERE GOING TO TRY TO PROVE IT. IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE. AT THE
FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. AND SCHOLARS HAVE
POINTED OUT THOSE RULES APPLY EQUALLY IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
CHARLES BECK AND PHILIP BOBBITT EXPLAINED IN THEIR WORK
IMPEACHMENT, A HANDBOOK, REGARDED AS ONE OF THE
AUTHORITIES COLLECTING SOURCES OF AUTHORITY ON IMPEACHMENT,
THEY SAID, QUOTE, THE SENATOR’S ROLE IS SOLELY ONE OF ACTING ON
THE ACCUSATIONS. THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT , VOTED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. THE SENATE CANNOT LAWFULLY FIND THE
PRESIDENT GUILTY OF SOMETHING NOT CHARGED BY THE HOUSE ANYMORE
THAN A TRIAL JURY CAN FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF SOMETHING
NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.”. MANAGER SCHIFF ATTEMPTED TO DO
SOMETHING IMPROPER. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISTRIAL IN ANY
COURT IN THE COUNTRY. THERE IS NOTHING TO HIS INTRODUCED IN THE
FACT THAT WOULD SATISFY THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME OF EXTORTION
OR BRIBERY, EITHER AND TO ATTEMPT
AFTER MAKING THEIR OPENING, AFTER NOT CHARGING ANYTHING IN
THE ARTICLES, THAT IS A CRIME, AFTER NOT SPECIFYING ANY CRIME,
AFTER PROVIDING NO NOTICE THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO ARGUE A CRIME,
THE QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION TO TRY TO CHANGE THE CHARGE THEY MADE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO SAY ACTUALLY THERE IS
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. IT’S NOT
PERMISSIBLE. THIS BODY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS.
THEY’RE NOT PERMISSIBLE , NOT INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT AND SHOULD BE IGNORED. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL.>>THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>>THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I HAVE SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON, I’M JOINED BY SENATORS
BLUMENTHAL, LEAHY AND WHITE HOUSE.>>THE QUESTION AS TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS ARGUED THAT HUNTER
BIDEN AND HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA CREATED A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST FOR HIS FATHER, JOE BIDEN. PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND HIS FAMILY INCLUDING THOSE WHO SERVE
IN THE WHITE HOUSE MAINTAIN SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS INTERESTS
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN PAYMENTS AND
INVESTMENTS. BY THE STANDARD THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAS APPLIED
TO HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD MR. KUSHNER AND MR. TRUMP CONFLICT OF INTEREST
WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ALSO COME UNDER INVESTIGATION?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE INTO THE
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION. LET ME PREFACE
WHAT I’M ABOUT TO SAY WITH THIS STATEMENT. THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH
FEW DAYS. IT HAS BEEN A TRYING TIME FOR EACH OF US. AND FOR OUR
NATION. I WANT TO SAY THIS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN
POST. I STAND BEFORE YOU AS THE MOTHER OF THREE SONS. I AM SURE
THAT MANY OF YOU IN THIS CHAMBER HAVE CHILDREN, SONS AND
DAUGHTERS, AND GRANDCHILDREN THAT YOU THINK THE WORLD OF. MY
CHILDREN’S LAST NAME IS DEMI. AND SO, WHEN THEY GO OUT TO GET
A JOB I WONDER IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ASSOCIATE MY SON WITH
THEIR MOTHER AND THEIR FATHER. I JUST BELIEVE, AS WE GO THROUGH
THIS VERY TOUGH, VERY DIFFICULT DEBATE, ABOUT WHETHER TO IMPEACH
AND REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WE STAY
FOCUSED . THE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE SEEN
MANY DISTRACTIONS, MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID TO TAKE OUR MINDS
OFF OF THE TRUTH, OFF OF WHY WE ARE REALLY HERE. IN MY FORMER LINE OF WORK I
CALLED IT WORKING WITH SMOKE AND MIRRORS. ANYTHING THAT WILL TAKE
YOUR ATTENTION OFF OF WHAT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, WHAT IS THERE
AND PLAYING IN VIEW. THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH ANYBODY’S CHILDREN. AS WE TALK ABOUT, THE REASON WHY WE
ARE HERE IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE 45th PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO
SHAKE DOWN, I WILL USE THAT TERM BECAUSE IT FAMILIAR WITH THE, A
FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE AND THIS YEAR’S ELECTION. IN OTHER
WORDS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRIED STREET AND
THEN TRY TO GET THIS FOREIGN POWER, THIS NEWLY ELECTED
PRESIDENT TO SPREAD A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT WE KNOW IS UNTRUE
ABOUT INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. THAT IS WHY WE
ARE HERE AND IT REALLY WOULD HELP I BELIEVE THE SITUATION IF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PERHAPS, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WOULD
ISSUE A RULE OR AN OPINION ABOUT ANY PERSON OF AUTHORITY,
ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USING OR ABUSING
THAT AUTHORITY TO INVITE OTHER POWERS INTO INTERFERING IN OUR
ELECTION AND SO, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I WILL JUST CLOSE MY
REMARKS AS I BEGAN THEM. LET US STAY FOCUSED. THIS DOESN’T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT’S CHLDREN OR THE BIDENS CHILDREN.
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS WRONGDOING. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU.>>THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR RISCH,
SENATOR CRUZ , GRAHAM, MORAN AND BOZEMAN. IS SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK. FOR THE COUNCIL, FOR THE PRESIDENT.>>THE QUESTION , DOES THE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD SHOW THAT IT INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER IS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS EFFORTS TO STOP
CORRUPTION?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATORS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER IS YES.
THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT IS
ABUNDANT. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW. HUNTER BIDEN WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY COMPANY IN UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY APPARENT
EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD QUALIFY HIM FOR THAT
POSITION. HE WAS APPOINTED SHORTLY AFTER HIS FATHER, THE
VICE PRESIDENT, BECAME THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S POINT MAN FOR
POLICY ON UKRAINE. WE KNOW HIS APPOINTMENT RAISED SEVERAL RED
FLAGS AT THE TIME. CHRIS HINES , THE STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY
OF STATE THAT TIME SEVERED HIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH
HUNTER CITING HIS LACK OF JUDGMENT IN JOINING THE BOARD OF
THE COMPANY, BURISMA BECAUSE IT WAS OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH WHO WAS
UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR CORRUPTION. FOR MONEY LAUNDERING
AND OTHER OFFENSES. CONTEMPORANEOUS PRESS REPORTS
SPECULATED THAT HUNTERS ROLE WITH BURISMA MIGHT UNDERMINE
U.S. EFFORTS LED BY HIS FATHER AT THAT TIME TO PROMOTE THE U.S.
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGING IN UKRAINE. THE WASHINGTON POST
SAID QUOTE, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FUN TO CREATE
AN OIL BOARD LOOKS BAPTIST AT BEST AND NEFARIOUS AT WORST. AND
COOL. THERE WERE OTHER ARTICLES, THERE WAS ONE THAT REPORTED QUOTE, THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT HELPED BY THE NEWS THAT
HUNTER HAD BEEN ON THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OF BURISMA. THERE
WAS ANOTHER ARTICLE. SAYING SADLY THE CREDIBILITY OF MR.
BIDEN’S MESSAGE MIGHT BE UNDERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
HIS SON WITH UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, BURISMA HOLDINGS
WHICH IS HELD BY AN OFFICIAL EXPECTED OF CREPT PRACTICES.
ACTAVIS SAY THAT THE U.S. ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IS BEING
UNDERMINED AS HIS SON RECEIVES MONEY FROM ME FORMER OFFICIAL
WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR GRAFT. AT THE SAME TIME WITHIN
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS RAISE THE QUESTION,
THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY POLICY, RAISED THE MATTER WITH
THE VICE PRESIDENT. SIMILARLY THE DEPUTY RAISED CONCERNS WITH THE OFFICE.
EVERYONE WHO WAS ASKED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WHEN MR. BIDEN’S SON WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF THIS COMPANY. THAT INCLUDED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH,
COLONEL VINDMAN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND DR. HILL AND
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. THEY AGREED THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE OF
CONFLICT. AND EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF
THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONNECTION. BETWEEN THE BIDEN AND BURISMA
INCIDENT AND FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR WHO
WAS LOOKING INTO BURISMA WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OPENLY
ACKNOWLEDGED HE LEVERAGED $1 BILLION IN U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES
TO MAKE SURE THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED. HE OPENLY
ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS A GOOD QUID PRO QUO, YOU DON’T GET $1
BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT PROSECUTOR
IS FIRED. MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN SIX HOURS HE SAID ON THE TAPE.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THIS IN THE JULY 25
CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED THAT THIS RELATED TO
CORRUPTION. AND HE SAID THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE CASE, REFERRING TO THE CASE OF BURISMA, IS THE ISSUE OF MAKING
SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY THAT WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. AND HE
LATER SAID IN AN VIEW THAT HE RECOGNIZED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN SAYING
TO HIM THINGS ARE CREPT IN UKRAINE AND HE WAS TRYING TO
EXPLAIN KNOW, WE WILL CHANGE THAT. THERE WILL NOT BE
CORRUPTION. EXPLICIT EXCHANGE IN THE CALL SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT
FENSKE RECOGNIZED THAT BIDEN AND THE INCIDENT HAD AN IMPACT ON
CORRUPTION AND ANTICORRUPTION AND IT WAS UNDERMINING THE U.S.
MESSAGE ON ANTICORRUPTION AND IT WAS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO RAISE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE UNITED
STATES DID NOT CONDONE ANYTHING THAT WOULD SEEM TO INTERFERE
WITH LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCE THE PROPER MESSAGE.
THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. >>THANK YOU.>>THIS IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS
JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL. >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THAN
SENATORS. THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT UKRAINE’S HELP IN INVESTIGATING
THE BIDENS ONLY AFTER REPORTS SUGGESTED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
MIGHT ENTER THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND WOULD
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE POLLS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO
INTEREST IN THE UKRAINIAN WORK IN 2017 OR
2018 WHEN BIDEN WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST HIM. FOR PRESIDENT. NONE
OF THE 70 WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROVIDED ANY
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
ALLEGATION THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED
INAPPROPRIATELY IN ANY WAY TO UKRAINE. INSTEAD, WITNESSES
TESTIFY THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT WAS CARRYING OUT
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IN COORDINATION WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHEN HE ADVOCATED FOR THE OUSTER OF A
CROPPED UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. IN SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
SIMPLY UNFOUNDED. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN ENVOY TO UKRAINE NEW
THEY WERE UNFOUNDED, TOO. HE TESTIFIED THAT HE CONFRONTED THE
PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEY, MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY
THEORY AND TOLD HIM THAT QUOTE, IT IS SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE TO ME
THAT JOE BIDEN WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES AS VICE
PRESIDENT BY MONEY OR THINGS FOR HIS SON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I
HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. HE’S A PERSON OF INTEGRITY AND
THAT’S NOT CREDIBLE. GIULIANI ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DID NOT
FIND ONE OF THE SOURCES OF THESE ALLEGATIONS. A FORMER UKRAINIAN
PROSECUTOR TO BE CREDIBLE. EVEN GIULIANI KNEW THE ALLEGATIONS
WERE FALSE. OUR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THAT THE
PRESIDENT NEVER SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT UKRAINE
OR ANY INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. IF PRESIDENT
TRUMP GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS LEGITIMATE BASIS TO
REQUEST UKRAINE’S ASSISTANCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS,
THERE ARE SPECIFIC FORMAL PROCESSES THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
FOLLOWED. SPECIFICALLY HE COULD HAVE ASKED THE DOJ TO MAKE AN
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
TREATY. IT’S WORTH NOTING THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT
HUNTER BIDEN TO THE EXTENT THAT HE IS THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SON.
AND THEREFORE THE MEANS TO SMEAR AN OPPONENT. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ASKING FOR
THE REMOVAL OF THE FORMER PROSECUTOR ON THE JULY 25 CALL.
THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED. NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUNTER BIDEN.
THIS IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. CAN WE GET SLIGHT 52? THE
TIMING SHOWS CLEARLY THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
CONDUCT OCCURRED IN 2015 IT WASN’T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN BEGAN CONSISTENTLY BEATING TRUMP IN NATIONAL POLLS IN THE
SPRING OF 2019 BY SIGNIFICANT MARGINS. THE PRESIDENT TARGETED
BIDEN. HE WAS SCARED OF LOSING. THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO CAST A
CLOUD OVER A POLITICAL OPPONENT . THIS WASN’T ABOUT ANY GENUINE
CONCERN OF WRONGDOING. THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT, THIS WAS
SOLELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE
COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIND UP.
SO HE FROZE THE MONEY TO UKRAINE TO COURSE UKRAINE TO HELP HIM
ATTACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT AND SECURE HIS REELECTION. WILL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT USE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS PERSONAL BIDDING. NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. >>THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
>>THANK YOU. THE QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,
AND THIS IS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.>>HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THE
BIDEN BURISMA FAIR HAS BEEN DEBUNKED. WHAT AGENCY LED TO THE
DEBUNKING?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATION LET
ALONE DEBUNKED, DISCREDITED OR AS MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID PHONY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE INCITED BECAUSE NONE EXISTS. A COUPLE OF
DAYS AGO I READ TO YOU A QUOTE AND STATEMENT FROM VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN DEALING WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. WHAT I
DID NOT TELL YOU WAS HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTLY. HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HISTORIC
BATTLE OF CORRUPTION. HE SPOKE ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION
SPECIFICALLY IN THE ENERGY SECTOR. HE SPOKE ABOUT NO
SWEETHEART DEALS. HE SAID OLIGARCHS AND NON-OLIGARCHS MUST
PLAY BY THE SAME RULES. CORRUPTION SIPHONS AWAY
RESOURCES FROM THE PEOPLE. IT BLUNTS ECONOMIC GROWTH. AND IT AFFRONTS THE HUMAN
DIGNITY. THOSE WERE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S WORD. THE REAL
QUESTION IS THIS. IS CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE ENERGY SECTOR IN
UKRAINE RUN BY A CROPPED UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH WHO IS PAYING
OUR VICE PRESIDENT’S SON AND HIS SON’S BUSINESS PARTNER
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR NO APPARENT, LEGITIMATE REASON
WHILE HIS FATHER WAS OVERSEEING OUR COUNTRY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH
UKRAINE, OR AT ANY PUBLIC INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION OR
INTEREST? THE ANSWER IS YES. SIMPLY BY SAYING IT DIDN’T
HAPPEN IS RIDICULOUS. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, THE MESSAGE TO OUR CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU
OVERSEE A CORRUPTION AND TRY TO ROOT IT
OUT IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS TO MAKE SURE YOUR CHILDREN AREN’T
BENEFITING FROM IT. THAT IS WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING. NOT TO SIT
THERE AND SAY IT’S OKAY. THE HOUSE MANAGERS DON’T DENY THAT
THERE’S A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO AN INVESTIGATION. THEY JUST
SAY IT WAS DEBUNKED. IT’S A SHAM. IT’S NOT LEGITIMATE AND
THEY DON’T TELL YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED. WE ALL REMEMBER THE
EMAIL THAT CHRIS HINES SENT. KEEP THIS IN MIND. HE IS THE
STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY, THEN SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY. HE SENDS AN EMAIL TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT, TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, TO JOHN KERRY AND THE
SPECIAL ASSISTANT , THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE.
THERE’S NO QUESTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EMAIL THAT IT’S A
WARNING SHOT TO SAY I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING BUT WE ARE
NOT INVESTIGATING. HE’S TAKING A GIANT STEP BACK. AND THINK ABOUT
THE WORDS AND REMEMBER THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.
WHAT DID HE SAY? I’M NOT GOING TO OPEN MY KIMONO. I’M NOT GOING
TO OPEN MY KIMONO WHEN HE WAS ASKED HOW MUCH MONEY HE WAS
MAKING. IN ONE MONTH, IN ONE MONTH ALONE, HUNTER BIDEN AND
HIS PARTNER MADE AS MUCH, ALMOST AS MUCH AS
EVERY SENATOR IN CONGRESS, IN ONE MONTH WHAT YOU’RE IN ONE
YEAR. YOU DON’T THINK THAT MERITS INQUIRY? DOES ANYONE HERE
THINK WHEN THEY SAY IT’S A DEBUNKED INVESTIGATION, IT
DIDN’T HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULDN’T REMEMBER IF THERE WAS TESTIMONY
OF HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY,
HIS STEPSON, THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER, HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT. HOW CAN YOU TELL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IT DOESN’T MERIT INQUIRY WHEN OUR VICE
PRESIDENT’S SON IS SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS FOR
CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY IN UKRAINE? HE’S GOING TO OVERSEE
THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF A UKRAINIAN COMPANY? HE’S GOING TO
HELP THEM AND IF YOU LOOK AT HIS STATEMENT THAT I READ TO BEFORE
THERE’S ANOTHER PART OF IT FROM OCTOBER 2019. IF YOU WANT TO
KNOW IF IT DEALT WITH OUTSIDE OF UKRAINE, JUST BURISMA HE SAYS HE
WAS ADVISING BURISMA ON ITS CORPORATE INITIATIVES, AND
AFFECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL GROWTH AND
DIVERSITY. LISTEN TO THIS STATEMENT BY HUNTER BIDEN’S
ATTORNEY. VIBRANT ENERGY PRODUCTION PARTICULARLY NATURAL
GAS WAS CENTRAL TO UKRAINE’S INDEPENDENCE AND STEMMING THE
TIDE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN’S ATTACK ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A
DEMOCRATIC EUROPE. DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS
GETTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? WHAT HIS FATHER WAS DOING? THE
ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT STATEMENT DIDN’T COME OUT UNTIL OCTOBER
2019. ONLY WHEN A NEW STORY STARTED TO BREAK, ONLY WHEN THE
HOUSE MANAGERS RAISED THESE ISSUES DO PEOPLE START TO TALK
ABOUT IT. TELL US, TELL US WHERE WE SAW JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER
BIDEN AND JOHN KERRY TESTIFY, TELL US WHERE YOU DID IT WHEN
YOU DID YOUR IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS? I DON’T REMEMBER
SEEING THAT TESTIMONY. I DO REMEMBER SEEING THE BANK
RECORDS. WE PUT THE BANK RECORDS IN FRONT OF YOU. AND PEOPLE ARE
ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY WAS GOING ON.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
>>THANK YOU, ON BEHALF OF THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO AND
MYSELF I HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE DESK .
>>THANK YOU.>>THE QUESTION FROM THE
SENATORS IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR
PREVIOUS ANSWER ABOUT THE BULL TO MANUSCRIPT. WHEN EXACTLY DID
THE FIRST PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE TEAM FIRST
LEARNED OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT? SECONDLY, MR.
BOLTON’S LAWYER PUBLICLY DISPUTES THAT ANY INFORMATION IN
THE MANUSCRIPT COULD REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED. WAS A
DETERMINATION TO BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT IT
CONTAINS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION MADE SOLELY BY CAREER OFFICIALS
OR WERE POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE
OR ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE INVOLVED?>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, TO ADDRESS
YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY THE ALLEGATION THE CAME OUT IN THE
“NEW YORK TIMES” ARTICLE ABOUT A CONVERSATION THAT IS ALLEGEDLY
REPORTED IN THE MANUSCRIPT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND MR.
BOLTON, OFFICIALS, LAWYERS THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED ABOUT THAT
ALLEGATION FOR THE FIRST TIME ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON WHEN THE WHITE
HOUSE WAS CONTACTED BY THE “NEW YORK TIMES”. IN TERMS OF THE
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW IT IS CONDUCTED AT THE NSC, THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE IS NOT INVOLVED IN CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW DETERMINING WHAT IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT CLASSIFIED. I CAN’T STATE THE SPECIFICS, MY
UNDERSTANDING IT IS CONDUCTED BY CAREER OFFICIALS THAT THE NSC
BUT IT’S HANDLE BY THE NSC. I’M NOT IN POSITION TO GIVE YOU FULL
INFORMATION ON THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS BEING DONE
BY CAREER OFFICIALS BUT IT IS NOT BEING DONE BY LAWYERS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
>>I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE
SENATOR FOR THE SENATOR’S COUNSEL. >>A QUESTION FROM SENATOR
SULLIVAN AND LANGFORD. TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. THERE
HAS BEEN CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW LONG THE SENATE MIGHT
BE TIED UP IN OBTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS TRIAL THE MINORITY LEADER OFFERED 11
MINUTES TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF
DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS FROM SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES. IF THE
SENATE HAD ADOPTED ALL 11 OF THESE AMENDMENTS HOW LONG DO YOU
THINK THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD TAKE?>>MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IT
WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME. IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET THROUGH
THE MOTIONS. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN 17 WITNESSES. WERE TALKING ABOUT
NOW ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. THAT THE MANAGERS HAVE PUT FORWARD
AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DISCUSS, DISCUSSING FOUR
WITNESSES IN PARTICULAR. AS OF THIS BODY, IF IT WERE TO GRANT
WHEN THIS IS WOULD SAY YES, YOU GET THOSE FOUR WITNESSES AND THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL GETS WHAT? WHATEVER I
WANT. THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY, WHATEVER YOU WANT, HERE’S WHAT I
WANT. I WANT ADAM SCHIFF. I WANT HUNTER BIDEN. I WANT JOE BIDEN.
I WANT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. I WANT TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH WHISTLEBLOWER . ANYONE WE WANT, BY THE WAY IF
WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT YOU WILL BE HERE FOR A FAIR LAWN. THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS WERE NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITNESSES TONIGHT.
IT’S AN UNDERCURRENT BUT TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO EXTEND
THE PROCEEDING, MONTHS. BECAUSE UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ELSE.
DESPITE THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE I SUSPECT
THAT MANAGER SCHIFF, SMART GUY, HE WILL SAY, I HAVE SPEECH AND
DEBATE PRIVILEGES. THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO US. I’M NOT SAYING
THEY ARE. BUT THEY MAY RAISE IT. BE LEGITIMATE TO RAISE IT. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE WOULD,
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF MANY WEEKS. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
CLEAR. THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN AN AGGRESSIVE AND FAST-PACED
WAY. AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING, WE NEED WITNESSES. AFTER 31 OR 32
TIMES YOU SAID YOU PROVED EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR CASE. THAT’S WHAT
YOU SAID. DID HE JUST SAY HE DID. I DON’T THINK WE NEED ANY
WITNESSES. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.>>THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR
MENENDEZ TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MAINTAINED HE WITHHELD U.S. SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION.
YET, HIS PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION DID NOT PREVENT HIS
ADMINISTRATION FROM SENDING CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE MORE THAN 45 TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY 2017
AND JUNE 2019 TOTALING MORE THAN $1.5 BILLION. WHY DID THE
PRESIDENT SUDDENLY BECOME CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
EARLY 2019? NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL DO THE INVESTIGATION. THIS THE RELEASED
AID AS YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT SENATOR, HE RELEASED THE AID IN
2017. IN 2018, HE RELEASED IT IN 2019 ONLY AFTER HAVING GOTTEN
CAUGHT IN THE WORDS OF THE COLONEL ANOTHER WITNESS SAYS THE
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND HAD NOT CHANGED. SO, WE ARE HEARING A
LOT TONIGHT ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. RUSSIA, THE FACTS
MATTER HERE. WE ARE HERE, FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WITHHELD FOREIGN AID
THAT HE WAS HAPPY TO GIVE, AND THE TWO PRIOR YEARS, THAT
SUDDENLY WE ARE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING CHANGED THE CONDITIONS
ON THE GROUND CHANGED AND HE HAD AND EPIPHANY ABOUT CORRUPTION,
WITHIN A WEEK OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY,
DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. ONE OTHER THING I WILL SAY REGARDING
THE AID, THIS ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN THE
STRONGEST SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE. I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER.
LET’S ASSUME THAT TO BE THE CASE. IF IT IS THE CASE AS THE
COUNCIL HAS CONTENDED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THERE IS OF COURSE
NO REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID, BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED. IT
LEADS US TO ONE CONCLUSION. THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AMERICAN PEOPLE’S MONEY, TO
WITHHOLD AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR THE BENEFIT HIS POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN. DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY PROPAGANDA BY CONSPIRACY
THEORIES BY PEOPLE ASKING YOU TO LOOK IN OTHER DIRECTIONS. THAT
IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, THAT WILL NOT CHANGE, THE FACTS WILL
CONTINUE TO COME OUT. WHETHER THIS BODY SUBPOENAS THEM OR NOT.
FACT WILL COME OUT. THE QUESTION NOW, WILL THEY COME OUT IN TIME?
WILL YOU BE THE ONES ASKING FOR THEM WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE
MAKING THE DECISION IN A COUPLE OF DAYS WITH AN ENGINE.>>MR. MANAGER, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, A QUESTION TO THE DESK TO THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON
FROM THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL OF HOUSE MANAGERS WERE CERTAIN IT
WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO LITIGATE A SUBPOENA FROM BOLTON WHY SHOULD
THE SENATE ASSUME LENGTHY LITIGATION CAN MAKE THE SAME
DECISION TO REJECT THE SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THINK
THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT. AND, THE FACT IS, THAT IF IN
FACT WE ARE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, OF A WITNESS, OR
WITNESSES, THAT HAD IN CASE OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIGH-RANKING
AND ESSAY, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT’S GIVING PRESIDENT ADVICE,
THEY HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT THAT IS WHERE PRIVILEGES ARE AT THE
HEART LEVEL. THE PRESUMED PRIVILEGE WITH THE SUPREME COURT
AND, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS I THINK WE ARE GOING DOWN A ROAD
IF THE SENATE GOES THIS ROAD, A LENGTHY PROCEEDING, WITH MORE
WITNESSES AND I WANT TO ASK THIS QUESTION AND PLANET AS A
THOUGHT. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE NEW NORM FOR IMPEACHMENT? AND
IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER WE DON’T LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WE
GET IT THROUGH AND IT TODAY PROCEEDING AND WE WRAP IT UP AND
SEND IT UP HERE AND SAY GO FIGURE IT OUT. THAT’S WHAT THIS
IS BECOMING. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS. SO I THINK IF WE ARE LOOKING
AT THAT INSTITUTION AT STAKE HERE IT’S A VERY DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS BASICALLY WE HAVE
ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE. THAT IS WHAT SCHIFF SAID BUT NOT
REALLY. SO, WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE NOT BECAUSE WE NEED IT,
BECAUSE WE WANTED. WE DON’T WANT IT BAD ENOUGH WHEN WE WERE IN
THE HOUSE, WE DID NOT GET IT. NOW, YOU ENTERED THE SUBPOENA
AND THEN, LET’S DUKE IT OUT IN COURT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, THIS IS, THEY ARE ACTING THIS IS A TRAFFIC
COURT PROCEEDING. REMIND EVERYBODY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
UNDER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY ARE REQUESTING
THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU KNOW,
THEY ALREADY SAY, IN THE MEDIA, THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
INVESTIGATE AND ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS EVERY THREE WEEKS? EVERY
MONTH EXCEPT FOR THE SUMMER? THERE IS AN ELECTION ONE MONTH
AWAY. THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE MY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL SAID THAT WHEN I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS WHETHER IT IS THE
LATE WITNESSES APP YOU SAID YOU PROVE YOUR CASE THE PRIVILEGE
SUPPLIED OR NOT APPLIED HUMOR SAID WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT. WE WOULD BE HERE FOR A VERY,
VERY LONG TIME. THAT’S NOT GOOD FOR THE U.S.. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU COUNSEL. THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>>THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT JUST
GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL.
>>I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT’S
GOING ON, HERE. THAT IS, IF THE HOUSE WANTS TO CALL WITNESSES,
IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM A SINGLE WITNESS IF YOU WANT TO
HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO SAY, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS
ENDLESS. WE THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS WILL MAKE THIS ENDLESS.
WE PROMISE YOU, WE WILL WANT ADAM SCHIFF TO TESTIFY WE ARE
GOING TO WANT JOE BIDEN TO TESTIFY WE WANT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WE WANT EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD IF YOU DARE, IF YOU
HAVE THE UNMITIGATED TEMERITY TO WANT WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL WE
WILL MAKE YOU PAY FOR THIS ENDLESS DELAY. THE SENATE WILL
NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO BUSINESS. THAT’S THEY’RE
ARGUMENT HOW DEAR THE HOUSE ASSUME THERE WILL BE WITNESSES
AND A TRIAL. SHOULDN’T HOUSE HAVE KNOWN, WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK
INVESTIGATION THE SENATE WAS NEVER GOING TO ALLOW WITNESSES.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE HISTORY
OF THE REPUBLIC WITH NO WITNESSES. I WOULD LIKE TO 11 TO TESTIFY OR MR. PAT
CIPOLLONE TO FIGHT ON ALL SUBPOENAS I
WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
QUESTIONS ON THE PRESIDENT THE PERIMETER OF THE WE ARE NOT HERE
TO INDULGE IN FANTASY OR DISTRACTION. WE’RE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT PEOPLE ABOUT EVIDENCE I TRUST THE MAN BEHIND ME, SITTING
WHERE I CANNOT SEE RIGHT NOW. I TRUST HIM TO MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT IF WITNESSES MATERIAL OR NOT IF IT IS MATERIAL TO GET
WEATHER UP PARTICULAR PASSAGE IS PRIVILEGED OR NOT. IT’S NOT
GOING TO TAKE MONTHS OF LITIGATION ALTHOUGH THAT’S WHAT
THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL IS THREATENING THEY ARE DOING THE
SAME THING TO THE SENATE THAT THEY DID THE HOUSE. YOU TRY TO
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT YOU TRY TO TRY THE PRESIDENT, WE
WILL TIE YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE CHAMBER UP IN KNOTS FOR WEEKS
AND MONTHS BRING YOU KNOW SOMETHING? THEY WILL IF YOU LET
THEM. YOU DON’T HAVE TO LET THEM. YOU CAN SUBPOENA JOHN
BOLTON, YOU CAN ALLOW THERE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION IN CAMERA WEATHER SOMETHING IS RELEVANT IF IT
DEALS WITH THE UKRAINE OF VENEZUELA IF IT IS PRIVILEGED OR
NOT. IF IT IS MISAPPLIED TO HIDE CRIMINALITY WRONGDOING. WE DON’T
HAVE TO GO UP AND DOWN THE COURT. WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD
CHIEF JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME. HE CAN MAKE THESE
DECISIONS RIGHT NOW. DON’T BE THROWN OFF BY DISCLAIM, IF YOU
EVEN THINK ABOUT IT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU PAY WITH A SECULAR
SCENE. WE WILL CALL WITNESSES THAT WILL TURN THIS INTO A
CIRCUS. SHOULD NOT BE A CIRCUS. IT WILL BE A FAIR TRIAL. IT
CANNOT BE FOR JOHN WITHOUT WITNESSES. I WAS ASKED THAT
QUESTION BEFORE. YOU CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES.
YOU SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT WHEN A HOUSE IMPEACHES THE SENATE
TRIALS FROM NOW ON WILL BE WITNESS FREE. IT WILL BE
EVIDENCE FREE. THAT IS NOT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED IT. IF IT WAS,
IT WOULD’VE MADE YOU THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THEY DID NOT.
THEY MADE YOU THE TRIERS OF FACT. THE EXPECTED YOU TO HEAR.
THEY ASK THAT DID YOU TO EVALUATE CREDIBILITY. I AM NO
FAN OF JOHN BOLTON. I LIKE MORE THAN I USED TO. BUT, YOU SHOULD
HEAR FROM HIM. HE SHOULD WANT TO. DON’T TAKE GENERAL KELLY’S
VIEW FOR IT. MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HIM OR
MULVANEY WEATHER YOU BELIEVE HIM THE PRESIDENT MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
WE PROVED OUR CASE. WE PROVED IT, OVERWHELMINGLY. YOU CHOSE TO
CONTACT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID.
YOU CONTACTED IT. YOU CHOSE TO MAKE BOLTON’S TESTIMONY
PERTINENT. YOU MIGHT MAKE THE ARGUMENT, THAT YOU’RE MAKING
HERE. YOU HAVEN’T. YOU CONTACTED IT NOW YOU WANT TO SAY LET THE
SENATE THAT SHALL NOT HEAR FROM THIS WITNESS. THAT’S NOT A FAIR
TRIAL. IT’S NOT EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS. YOU
CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS. THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE READ THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK. TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND
COUNSEL. QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR
CASSIDY AND THE RICH FOR BOTH PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, FIRST. SOME VIDEO OF MR. AND NADLER SAYING
QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND
OPPOSED BY THE OTHER. SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL LACK
LEGITIMACY OR PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN
OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME. WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY
LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS”. GIVEN THE
WELL-KNOWN DISLIKE OF SOME HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND THE STATED DESIRE OF SOME TO IMPEACH BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS
INAUGURATED, THE STRICTLY PARTISAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF
IMPEACHMENT DUE TO CURRENT PRECEDENTS TYPIFY THAT WHICH MR.
NADLER WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES, THESE ARE
EXACTLY THE SORT OF STUDENTS THAT MANAGER NADLER WARNED
AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO. IT HAS BEEN CLEAR, THAT AT LEAST SOME
FACTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RL ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE
AISLE HAS BEEN INTENT ON FINDING SOME WAY TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT FROM THE DAY HE WAS SWORN IN AND EVEN BEFORE. THAT
IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. TO ALLOW PARTISAN VENOM AND ENMITY
LIKE THAT, TO TAKE HOLD AND BECOME THE NORM, FOR DRIVING
IMPEACHMENT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS WARNED AGAINST HAMILTON
WARNED AGAINST THAT. HE WARNED AGAINST PERSECUTION BY AN
INTEMPERATE BINDING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE. THAT IS
WHAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT WANT, IMPEACHMENT TO TURN INTO. THAT
IS CLEARLY WHAT IT IS TURNING INTO HERE. BOTH MANAGER NADLER
AND DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER IN THE VIDEO WE SAW WERE
FOREWARNING IF WE START TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, ONE THING THAT
SEEMS TO BE SURE WASHINGTON IS WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
IF IT HAPPENS TO ONE PARTY WILL HAPPEN AGAIN TO THE OTHER PARTY.
THEN, WE WILL BE IN A SECULAR WOULD GET WORSE AND WORSE AND
THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE. EVERY PRESIDENT WILL BE
IMPEACHED. THAT’S NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED. THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO
HAPPEN. THANK YOU. >>COUNSEL. THE EVIDENCE IS
OVERWHELMING. PRESIDENT TRUMP, PRESSURED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. AS
PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CORRUPT EFFORT, TO CHEAT AND
SOLICIT FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. THERE IS A REMEDY
FOR THAT TYPE OF STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER. THAT REMEDY IS IN THE
CONSTITUTION. THAT REMEDY, IS IMPEACHMENT AND THE
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, WHICH IS WHAT THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY
IS DOING RIGHT NOW. THAT’S NOT PARTISAN. THAT IS NOT THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAYBOOK. THAT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
PLAYBOOK. THAT IS THE PLAYBOOK IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. GIVING
TO US, AND A PRECIOUS FASHION BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE IMPEACHMENT IN THIS INSTANCE, OF COURSE AND THE
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, AS NECESSARY, BECAUSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S CONDUCT STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR FREE AND FAIR
ELECTION. AS WILLIAM DAVEY NOTICED THAT
THE CONVENTION, QUOTE IF YOU DO NOT IMPEACHABLE WHILE IN OFFICE,
HE WILL SPARE NO EFFORT, OR MEANS WHATSOEVER, TO GET HIMSELF
REELECTED. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
UNDERSTOOD, THAT PERHAPS THIS REMEDY WOULD ONE DAY BE
NECESSARY. THAT’S WHY WE ARE HERE. RIGHT NOW. THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE, AND AMERICAN ELECTION. NOT THE
UKRAINIANS, NOT THE RUSSIANS NOT THE CHINESE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHY, THIS PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED.
THAT IS WHY IT’S APPROPRIATE, FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, NOT AS ARTISANS, AS AMERICANS TO HOLD
THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER.
>>THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. SENATOR FROM VERMONT. I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.>>SENATOR SANDERS, ASKS HOUSE
MANAGERS, REPUBLICAN LAWYERS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT TWO
PEOPLE SENATOR JOHNSON AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WERE TOLD
DIRECTLY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO IN
TERMS OF HOLDING BACK UKRAINE AID IN EXCHANGE FOR AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. GIVEN THE MEDIA HAS DOCUMENTED
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S THOUSANDS OF LIVES WHILE IN OFFICE, MORE THAN
16,200, AS OF JANUARY 20, WHY SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE
THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, HAS CREDIBILITY.>>I’M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE TO
BEGIN EXCEPT TO SAY THAT, IF EVERY DEFENDANT IN A TRIAL,
COULD BE EXONERATED BY DENYING THE CRIME, THERE WOULD BE NO
TRIAL. DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I THINK IT’S TELLING THAT WHEN,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THE FIRST WORDS
OUT OF HIS MOUTH, WORK NO QUID PRO QUO . THAT’S THE KIND OF
THING YOU DO, YOU BLURT OUT WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT.
YOU SAY, IT WAS NOT ME. EVEN THEN, HE COULD NOT HELP HIMSELF.
BECAUSE, THE OTHER HALF OF THE CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO QUO
BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE
MICROPHONE AND SHE SHOULD WANT TO. NO QUID PRO QUO NO QUID PRO
QUO THIS REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING THAT CAME UP EARLIER. WHY WOULD
THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE’S ON THE CALL ON JULY 25th KNOWING OTHER
PEOPLE WERE LISTENING, WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE ENGAGE IN THIS
KIND OF A SHAKEDOWN WITH OTHERS WITHIN EARSHOT? I THINK THIS
QUESTION COMES UP IN ALMOST EVERY TRIAL? WHY WOULD THE
DEFENDANT DO THAT? IT’S VERY HARD TO FATHOM. SOMETIME PEOPLE
MAKE MISTAKES BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, HE BELIEVES HE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. HE BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE LOT DOES NOT MATTER
WHO IS LISTENING. IT DOESN’T MATTER. IF IT’S GOOD FOR HIM,,
IF IT’S GOOD FOR HIM IT’S GOOD FOR THE STATE BECAUSE HE IS THE
STATE. IF IT HELPS HIS REELECTION, IT’S GOOD FOR
AMERICA. WHATEVER MEANS HE NEEDS OR WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID OR
WHAT HAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT HELPS HIM GET ELECTED, IT’S GOOD
FOR AMERICA BECAUSE HE IS THE STATE. THIS IS WHY I THINK HE IS
SO IRATE, WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD, AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON OR GENERAL KELLER MIGHT ASK, WHY WOULD SO MANY PEOPLE WHO LEAVE
THE ADMINISTRATION, WHY DO THEY, WALK AWAY FROM THIS PRESIDENT,
WITH SUCH A CONVICTION, THAT HE’S UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY?
YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS. THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CHIEF OF
STAFF, GENERAL KELLY, DOES NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON. CAN EVERYBODY BE
DISGRUNTLED? CAN IT ALL THE A MATTER BIAS? I THINK WE KNOW THE
ANSWER? I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER. HOW DO YOU BELIEVE
PRESIDENT THAT THE POST HAS DOCUMENTED SO MANY FALSE
STATEMENT? THE SHORT ANSWER IS YOU CANNOT. EARLY IN THE
PRESIDENCY, MANY TALKED ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT YOU
LOSE THE CREDIBILITY AND YOUR COUNTRY, OR YOUR FRIENDS OR
ALLIES THEY CANNOT RELY ON YOUR WORD, JUST HOW DESTRUCTIVE AND
DANGEROUS IT IS TO THE COUNTRY. AND, SO WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE
DENIAL, IF THE FALSE DENIAL. AND, INDEED IF YOU LOOK AT THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT JOHNSON WAS INTERVIEWED IN WHEN
HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND HE HAD THAT SINKING FEELING,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT WANT THOSE TWO THINGS TIED TOGETHER,
EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE TIED TOGETHER IT WAS A SYMBOL IS
2+2+4. CAN YOU RELY ON A FALSE STATEMENT YOU CANNOT. NOT
ANYMORE YOU CAN THEN WITH ANY OTHER ACCUSED. PROBABLY GIVEN
HIS TRACK RECORD LESS THAN OTHER ACCUSED. BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. YOU DON’T
HAVE TO RELY ON HIS FALSE THIS YOU DON’T HAVE TO RELY ON
MULVANEY THAT YOU ALSO ALSO GRAPHICALLY COME ON TV. WITHOUT
A DOUBT, THIS WAS A FACTOR IN THE THIS IS
WHY HE DID IT AND BY THE WAY, DERSHOWITZ LOST THE CRIMINAL
CASE THAT HE LOST THE CASE. THE COURT SAID, OH YES YOU CAN. IF A
CORRUPT MOTIVE IS ANY PART OF IT, YOU
CAN CONVICT. HE LOST THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE I DID MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT AGAIN. IT SHOULD NOT BE ANY MORE VEILING HERE THAN IT
WAS THERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY THOUGH, THERE’S NO MORE INTEREST
DID PARTY HERE THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BUT HE WAS SAY WHATEVER HE NEEDS TO. LET’S RELY ON THE EVIDENCED. ONE IS JUST A SUBPOENA AWAY. SENATOR FROM COLORADO. THANK
YOU. >>QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR
GARDENER. THE HOUSES ASSERTION OF
IMPEACHMENT POWER, CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BY THE EXECUTIVE. IS
THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE HOUSES IMPEACHMENT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT PROTECTS
THE EXECUTIVE FROM THE HOUSE ABUSING THE POWER, IN A FEATURE?
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU,
FOR THAT QUESTION. THE HOUSE MANAGERS ASSERTION, THAT ANY
EFFORT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE AND HAVE LEGAL IMMUNITY TO CLIENT
DISCLOSING INFORMATION IS SOMEHOW A SIGN OF GUILT, IS NOT
THE LAW. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY CONTRARY TO THE LAW. LEGAL
PRIVILEGES EXIST FOR REASON WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASSERT THEIR
RIGHT. IT’S A BASIC PART OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. SEARCHING YOUR
RIGHT AND PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITY, EVEN IF IT MEANS
LIMITING THE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO A
TRIBUNAL IS NOT AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE. THE SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION, AS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEORY THAT THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT MEANS THE PRESIDENT CANNOT RESIST ANY
SUBPOENA THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION
GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, WHICH MEANS ONLY
THAT THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PLACE , THE ONLY PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT THAT HAD THAT POWER. IT DOESN’T SAY TO HAVE A
PERMANENT PART OF IMPEACHMENT. IT DESTROYS ALL OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. IT DOESN’T MEAN
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CITED
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON. IN 1974, THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINED THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, AFTER BALANCING
OF INTEREST, ASSERTIONS THAT EXECUTIVE VILLAGE HAVE TO GIVE
WAY. IT’S NOT A BLANKET RULE THAT ANY TIME THERE IS AN
ALLEGATION OF WRONGDOING, OR IMPEACHMENT GOING ON, EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. THAT’S NOT THE REAL. BUT EVEN IN THAT
CONTEXT, THE COURT POINTED OUT, THERE MIGHT BE AN ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY BILL WOULD IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. WHICH IS
THE FIELD WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE. THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THE
COULD BE PARTISAN AND ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT. THE
RECOGNIZE THE HOUSE COULD IMPEACH FOR WRONG REASONS. THEY
DIDN’T NEED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH . THE IMMUNITY IS ROOTED IN
THAT. IT STILL APPLIES, EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT
THAT IS PART OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY DO NOT HOLLOWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS NOW, WE
WANT TO PROCEED. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, FOR THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY
INTEREST. FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO FAIL TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS,
WOULD BE LACKING DAMAGE, TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR THE
FUTURE. I THINK THAT’S A CRITICAL POINT TO UNDERSTAND.
THERE IS A DANGER IN THE LEGAL THEORY, THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ARE PROPOSING HERE. IT WOULD DO LASTING DAMAGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE THE IDEA BE DONE SINCE THE HOUSE FLIPS A SWITCH THAT THEY
WANT TO START PROCEEDING ON IMPEACHMENT COME THE EXECUTIVE
HAS NO DEFENSES JUST TO OPEN EVERY FILE, AND DISPLAY
EVERYTHING. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND. THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TO HAVE DEFENSES FOR ITS FAIR OF
AUTHORITY. THAT’S PART OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. BEFORE I SIT DOWN
I WANT TO QUOTE AND GOING BACK TO THE SENATOR THAT ASKED
KRISTIN ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS ON BOLTON. I BELIEVE I WAS
CLEAR. I WANT TO BE 100% SURE. CANNOT MAKE THAT ASSURANCE, I’M
NOT SURE AT THE LEVELS OF THE PROCESS, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER
REVIEWS. I DID NOT WANT IT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. I I
HAD A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS.
>>THANK YOU. THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL RESPOND FIRST TO THIS
QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARREN. IF UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OFFERED DIRT TRUMPS POLITICAL
RIVALS, IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUMP’S HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS IN MILITARY AID THAT WOULD CLEARLY BE BRIBERY AND AND
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WHY WOULD IT BE MORE ACCEPTABLE AND
SOMEHOW NOT IMPEACHABLE FOR THE REVERSE? THAT IS FOR TRUMP TO
PROPOSE THE SAME CORRUPT BARGAIN ?>>BRIBERY, IT’S OBVIOUSLY
IMPEACHABLE. BRIBERY IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE ACCUSATIONS
OF THE HOUSE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF POWER. WE EXPLAINED THE PRACTICE
OF IMPEACHMENT IS WITHIN OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY ARE ESTABLISHED HERE. THE ABUSE OF
POWER IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED WHEN THE PRESIDENT OFFER
SOMETHING AND EXTORTS A FOREIGN POWER TO GET A BENEFIT FOR HIMSELF AND
WILLS HOLDS MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO GET THAT POWER TO DO
SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP HIM, POLITICALLY THAT IS CLEARLY
BRIBERY AND AN ABUSE OF POWER THERE’S NO QUESTION. BY THE WAY,
THE QUESTION WAS MADE EARLIER AS TO WHAT THE PROPER STANDARD OF
TRUTH IS. BUT, THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF PROOF IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THIS
HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BEYOND ANY
DOUBT.>>THE QUESTION, I THINK WITH
THIS SHOWS, THIS IS AN EFFORT TO SMUGGLE IN ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT THAT DO NOT MENTION ANY CRIME, THE IDEA THAT THERE
IS SOME TIME ALLEGED. THERE IS NOT. THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SPECIFY THEORY OF THE CHARGE HERE GOT HIS ABUSE OF POWER.
THEY DO NOT ELECT BRIBERY OR DISTORTION THEY DON’T MENTION
BRIBERY OR EXTORTION. IF THEY WANTED TO BRING THOSE TO HAD TO
PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES JUST AWAY PROSECUTOR IF HE WANTS TO
PUT SOMEBODY ON TRIAL FOR BRIBERY HAS TO PUT IT IN THE
INDICTMENT. IF YOU DON’T AND YOU COME TO TRIAL AND TRY TO START
ARGUING DONE AS WELL, ACTUALLY, WE THINK THERE IS BRIBERY GOING
ON HERE, THAT’S NOT PERMISSIBLE THAT’S RUSTIC REAL MISCONDUCT.
TO TRY TO SUGGEST THAT MAY BE THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF BRIBERY,
THAT’S BESIDE THE POINT. WE HAVE SPECIFIC FACTS, WE HAVE EVIDENCE
RESENTED AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF EACH MINUTE. IT DOES
NOT SAY BRIBERY OR EXTORTION. THERE’S NO WAY TO GET THAT INTO
THIS CASE AT THIS POINT. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME THEIR CASE. THEY HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY THEY
CONTROL THE WHOLE PROCESS THEY CONTROLLED ALL THE EVIDENCE TO
BRING IN. THEY COULD FRAME IT ANYWAY THEY WANTED BUT THEY DID
NOT PUT IT IN. THERE’S NO CRIME ASSERTED HERE IT’S NOT PART OF THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED NOW. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK YOU, I SUBMIT TO
THE DESK QUESTION ON MY BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR [
INDISCERNIBLE ]. >>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MORAN
IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. IS IT TRUE THAT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE CHIEF
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE ISSUE OF PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND
TESTIMONY WITNESSES OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE MANAGERS OR
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL AND WILL IT BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR,
THANK YOU, FOR THE QUESTION. LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY. WE ARE
GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND
HAVING THINGS COME INTO EVIDENCE THAT WAY, THE FIRST QUESTION
WOULD BE SUBPOENAS WOULD HAVE TO BE ISSUED TO WITNESSES BEFORE
THE DOCUMENTS. IF THEY WERE ON THE GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE
IMMUNITY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT. BECAUSE IF THE
PRESIDENT ASSERTED, FOR EXAMPLE IMMUNITY FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
OR OVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THE SENATE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER
IT WAS GOING TO CITE THAT ASSERTION AND HOW THEIR SOME
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS OR IF THE SENATE WERE GOING TO GO TO COURT
TO LITIGATE THAT. THAT PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO PLAY OUT. I WOULD
BE THE FIRST AND THAT WOULD GO THROUGH ANY TIME THE PRESIDENT
RESISTED THAT. THAT’S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DECIDED NOT TO DO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THEN, ONCE THERE HAD BEEN
EVERYTHING WAS SUBPOENAED IT’S ON-SITE THE QUESTION WAS ASKING, FURTHER, IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS
HERE IN TRAIL ADMISSIBILITY. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, THE
PRESIDING OFFICER AND CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN
INITIAL DETERMINATION IF THERE WERE OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF
EVIDENCE. THAT CAN BE CHALLENGED BY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IT
WILL BE SUBJECT TO A VOTE. IT WOULD NOT BE, THERE WAS A
SUGGESTION EARLIER, THAT WE DON’T NEED ANY OTHER COURT. THE
CHIEF JUSTICE IS HERE. THAT’S NOT CORRECT. ON THE FRONT END,
THAT’S NOT SOMETHING DUNST DETERMINED IN ALL RESPECTS HER,
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SORTED
OUT IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEN WHEN WE
ARE HERE ON EVIDENTIARY AND THE OBJECTION DURING DEPOSITION, IT
WOULD BE RESOLVED BY WITNESS ON THE STAND IF THERE IS A OBJECTION TO A PARTICULAR
DOCUMENT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN INITIAL RULING BUT
EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE COULD BE APPEALED TO THE BODY. YOU MIGHT
HAVE TO CONSIDER RULES WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE, RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE MODIFIED
RULES OF EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THROWN OUT. I
DON’T THINK WE WOULD GET TO THIS STAGE THEN OF IN DETERMINATION
OF EVIDENCE HERE. THAT WOULD BE PROCESS THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO
DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SEND THE QUESTION.
>>EXCUSE ME. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA. I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE TEST. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH,
IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED MULTIPLE
TIMES IN PUBLIC, HIS ACTIONS WERE PERFECT FOR IT HE REFUSES
TO ALLOW BOLTON TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. IF HIS ACTIONS ARE SO
PERFECT WHY WOULDN’T HE ALLOW WITNESSES TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH
ABOUT WHAT HE HAS SAID PUBLICLY?>>THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IF THE
PRESIDENT WERE SO COMPETENT THIS WAS A PERFECT CALL, AND THOSE
AROUND HIM WOULD AGREE THAT THERE’S NOTHING THE VARIOUS
GOING ON, HE WOULD WANT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. BUT HE
DOES NOT. HE DOES NOT WANT HIS ADVISOR TO TESTIFY AND DOESN’T
WANT HIS CURRENT CHIEF OF STAFF TO TESTIFY. HE DOES NOT WANT
ANYBODY TO TESTIFY. NOW, I THINK THAT’S INDICATIVE, THAT HE KNOWS
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR WHAT THEY
HAVE TO SAY. HE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS
BEEN WITHHOLDING FROM THE BODY. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAST
QUESTION IF I COULD. IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND POWER UNDER
THE SENATE RULES, TO ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND
PRIVILEGE, AND THE ANSWER IS YES. CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE
DETERMINATION QUICKLY AND THE ANSWER IS YES. AS THE SENATE
EMPOWERED OVERTURN THE CHIEF JUSTICE UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES? IS ABOUT 50 OR IS IT TWO THIRDS? THAT’S SOMETHING
WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE DOES HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT. UNDER THE SENATE RULES,
YOU WANT EXPEDITE THE PROCESS WE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU WE WILL
AGREE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULE ON WITNESSES ON MATERIALITY ON THE
APPLICATION OR NONAPPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE. WE AGREE TO BE BOUND
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE WE WILL NOT SEEK TO LITIGATE AN ADVERSE
RULING WE WILL NOT SEEK TO APPEAL AN ADVERSE RULING. WILL
THE PRESIDENTS COUNSEL DO THE SAME? IF NOT JUST AS THE
PRESIDENT DOESN’T TRUST WHAT WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY, THE
PRESIDENTS DON’T WANT TO RELAY ON HIS RULING MIGHT BE. WHY IS
THAT? DAY AS WE UNDERSTAND HE WILL BE FAIR. NOT SUGGESTING THAT THEY DON’T THINK
HE’S FAIR. QUITE THE CONTRARY THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL BE FAIR.
THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL MAKE A FAIR RULING. THAT SHOULD TELL
YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR POSITION. DIDN’T WANT A
FAIR TRIAL WITH WITNESSES AND THEY DO NOT WANT A FAIR JUSTICE.
THEY WANT TO SUGGEST YOU, THEY WILL DELAY DELAY DELAY. THOMAS
PAINE, SAID THOSE WHO WOULD ENJOY THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, MUST
UNDERGO THE RIGORS OF DEFENDING AND THE DEFEAT OF DEFENDING IT.
IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE FOR US TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS? IS THAT HOW
LITTLE EFFORT WE ARE WILLING TO PUT INTO THE BLESSINGS OF
FREEDOM AND LIBERTY? IS THAT HOW LITTLE FATIGUE WHERE WILLING TO
INCUR? BECAUSE THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA. I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF. >>QUESTION ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
SCOTT FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND MR. RUBIO. THIS IS DIRECTED TO
THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT. MR. PAT CIPOLLONE AND ELABORATE ON THAT ROLE, AND
YOU OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON LIBERTY PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURE OF
OFFENSES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND IN THE PROXIMITY
TO ELECTION FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENT AND WORD PUBLIC
TRUST BY PUTTING GUARD RAILS ON BOTH PARTIES? I THINK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IN ELABORATING ON THE GOLDEN RULE I
WOULD SAY IT’S BEEN NUMBER ONE, IF WE LISTEN TO WHAT THE
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAID IN THE PAST, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ANOTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THAT SHOULD GUIDE US. THAT
PRINCIPLE IS AND IT’S A PRINCIPAL BASED ON PRECEDENT,
SHOULD NOT HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IF YOU HAVE A
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS DANGEROUS. THAT
MEANS THERE IS NOT A BIPARTISAN SOUP PORT THAT EVEN DOES? THE
HOUSE I SAID, YOU WOULD NEED TO BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN
ELECTION. THEY DON’T DISPUTE THAT. IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN
ELECTION. IT IS THE REMOVAL OF THIS PRESIDENT FROM AN ELECTION
THAT THE CURRENT MONTH FROM NOW. THAT’S ANOTHER IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLE. THE OTHER IMPORTANT BACK HERE, IS THAT THERE IS
ACTUALLY BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THIS. DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST
IT. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. THE OTHER THE OTHER
PRINCIPAL, WOULD BE, IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT’S UNPRECEDENTED,
IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED, THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED. ALWAYS, IN THE PAST THERE HAS BEEN A VOTE
AUTHORIZING AND IMPEACHMENT. WHY? THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE
AUTHORITY OF AND IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S THE HOUSE, NOT THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. THAT’S ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS, ALL OF THE HISTORICAL
PRESIDENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN VIOLATED. THE
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL IS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES. THERE COME IN
HERE AND BASICALLY ASKING YOU, NUMBER ONE, THE CALL WITNESSES
THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PURSUE AND I THINK WHAT THEY ARE SAYING TO
DO IT THEY DID. I WOULD CALL WITNESSES THAT THEY WANT. DO NOT
ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CALL WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT
WANTS. THAT DOES NOT WORK . THAT IS NOT THE PROCESS. THE
OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES THERE IS, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT
FAIRNESS. IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, FAIRNESS IS
ABOUT FAIRNESS TO THE ACCUSED FAIRNESS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS TO
THE ACCUSED HOW YOU CAN SUGGEST WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO IS HAVE A
TRIAL LOOK AT THE WITNESSES AND PROSECUTORS WE WANT. EVEN THOUGH
YOU GOT TO CROSS-EXAMINE NONE OF THE
WITNESSES AND HOW WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU. LET US CALL ANOTHER
WITNESS THAT YOU CALL NONE. THAT’S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE. I
THINK THE REALITY IS, THAT WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID IS
TRUE. THINK WHEN YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS
MUCH AS WE CAN AS HUMAN BEINGS, IS TO THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS
OF, THE PRESIDENT IS THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
HOW WOULD WE TREAT A PRESIDENT OF HER OWN PARTY, IN SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES? I THINK THAT IS THE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT.
I DON’T THINK WANT TO GUESS. I THINK WE HAVE LOTS OF TREATMENTS
FROM DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST TIME AROUND, I SAID, I
AGREE WITH THEM. I AGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES I
ASK THAT THEY BE EMPLOYED HERE. THAT IS MY ANSWER, THANK YOU. I
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
>>THANK YOU. IF RESIDENT TRUMP WERE TO
ACTUALLY INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS SEEDING, WOULDN’T HE BE REQUIRED TO
IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING
SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE SEEKS TO PROTECT? THE AMOUNT AS STATED BEFORE, EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IS A VERY LIMITED PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE CLAIMED
BY THE PRESIDENT. HE HAD NO TIME CLAIMED EXECUTIVE CALL THAT SHE
CLAIMS IMMUNITY. INSTEAD HE HAS SIMPLY SAID, WE
WILL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS, WE WILL DENY TO THE HOUSE ALL
INTIMATION ALL INTIMATION WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CANNOT
HAVE THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE PALE. IT’S INTENDED TO, BECAUSE
HE FEARS THE FACTS. THE FACTS ARE, HE TRIED TO EXTORT FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT THERE WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID THAT THIS CONGRESS,
THIS CONGRESS MANDATED BE SENT TO THEM, IN ORDER TO PRESSURE
THEM, INTO ANNOUNCING THIS OCCASION OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THEY WERE PROVEN BEYOND ANY
DOUBT AT ALL. WHAT DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE DIVERSION AFTER
DIVERSION. DIVERSIONS ABOUT WHAT HUNTER BIDEN MAY HAVE DONE IN
THE UKRAINE. IT IS IRRELEVANT. WHATEVER HE DID, THE QUESTION
IS, DID THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD FOREIGN MILITARY AID, IN ORDER
TO EXTORT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO HELPING HIM READ AN
AMERICAN ELECTION? WE HEAR DIVERSION ABOUT PRIVILEGE. HER
QUESTIONS ABOUT WITNESSES. WE KNOW HE’S TELLING SENATORS, DO
NOT ALLOW WITNESSES, WHY? CASINOS, WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL
SAY. WE HEAR RECOMMENDS FROM HIS COUNSEL, WE HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH
TIME WITH WITNESSES. THE HOUSE SHOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR DID
NOT HAVE PROOF POSITIVE. WE DO HAVE PROOF POSITIVE. THAT
DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE PROOF. THERE’S NO ARGUMENT
THAT MR. BOLTON SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY. HE TOLD US
HE WILL TESTIFY. ALL OF THESE, OR DIVERSIONS. THEY ARE
DIVERSION BY PRESIDENT WOULD DESK BRITT, BECAUSE WE HAVE
PROVEN THE FACT, THAT HE THREATENED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
HE DID IN FACT WITHHOLD MANDATED MILITARY AID FROM THEM TO
BLACKMAIL THEM INTO SERVING HIS POLITICAL PURPOSES FOR PRIVATE
POLITICAL PURPOSES WE KNOW THAT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A DIVERSION.
NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE THEY WILL TESTIFY IN A WAY HE DOES
NOT WANT. PRIVILEGE. WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH
WRONGDOING, THE SUPREME COURT TOLD US, PRIVILEGE YIELDS. SO,
ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS OR DIVERSIONS KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE
FACTS, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN. AS MR. ADAM SCHIFF SAID,
WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT . NOT TO THE SENATE OR ANYBODY
ELSE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RULE AND RELEVANT QUESTIONS RELEVANCY
OR PRIVILEGE OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE FACTS ARE FACTS OR THE
PRESIDENT IS A DANGER TO THE UNITED DATE IS PRETTY TRIED TO
READ THE NEXT ELECTION HE ABUSE OF POWER. HE MUST BE BROUGHT TO HEEL THE COUNTRY
MUST BE SAVED FROM HIS CONTINUING EFFORTS TO RID OUR
ELECTION. I THINK YOU MR. MANAGER. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I
SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROMNEY FOR
THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. ON WHAT SPECIFIC DATE DID PRESIDENT
TRUMP FIRST ORDERED THE HOLDER AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO
UKRAINE AND DID HE EXPLAIN THE REASON AT THAT TIME?
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU,
FOR THE QUESTION. I DON’T THINK THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
OF A SPECIFIC DATE, THE SPECIFIC DATE. BUT, THERE IS TESTIMONY IN
THE RECORD, THAT INDIVIDUALS WERE AWARE OF A HOLD, AS OF JULY
THIRD, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE PRESIDENTS
RATIONALE FROM EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT, THERE IS AN EMAIL FROM
JUNE 24th THAT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED. IT IS FROM ONE DOD
STAFFER, THE CHIEF OF STAFF I’M SORRY, FROM THE CHIEF OF
STAFF RELATING SUBJECT LINE FOLLOW-UP FROM A MEETING
EXPLAINING QUESTION SHE HAD BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE UKRAINE
ASSISTANCE WHAT WAS THE FUNDING USED FOR
DID IT GO TO U.S. FIRMS AND WHO FUNDED IT AND WHAT DID OTHER
NATO MEMBERS BEEN FOR UKRAINE? SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN
JUNE, HE HAD EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. WHAT DID
OTHER NATO MEMBER DO AND SIMILARLY IN THE JULY 25th
TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS THE PRESIDENT ASKED ZELENSKY
SPECIFICALLY HE RAISED ISSUE OF BURDEN SHARING. THAT WAS HIS
CONCERN. IN ADDITION, IT WAS, I BELIEVE MR. MORRISON,
WHO TESTIFIED, THAT HE WAS WHERE FROM OMB THE PRESIDENT HAD
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION, AND THERE WAS A
REVIEW PROCESS HE CONSIDERED CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE. THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SHOWS, THE PRESIDENT
RAISED CONCERNS JUNE 24th, THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE HOLDERS
OF JULY THIRD. HIS CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WORK IN THE
EMAIL ON JUNE 21st. THERE’S TESTIMONY FROM LATER IN THE
SUMMER HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND THAT
IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT REFLECTS THE PRESIDENTS
CONCERN. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA. I SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK.. >>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
CORTEZ, IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS HE WAS UNFAIRLY EXCLUDED FROM
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE TREATMENT DID HE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY
OPPORTUNITIES COME TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL PARTICIPATE?
>>THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE VICTIM
HERE. THE BIG JUMP IN THIS CASE, IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INVITED TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL OF
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARINGS. HE COULD HAVE HAD MR. PAT CIPOLLONE OR ANY OF THE
OTHER ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE JOINED AT THE COUNSEL TABLE TO
PARTICIPATE THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE. THEY
COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF THE HEARINGS AND IMAGINE THIS,
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, RAISE OBJECTIONS, PRESENT EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE
PRESIDENT, IF THEY HAD ANY TO PRESENT. AND, THEY COULD HAVE
REQUESTED TO HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN WITNESSES CALLED. HE
REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE AND HE SAID IF YOU ARE GOING TO
IMPEACHMENT, DO IT NOW FAST. AT EVERY EVENT, RESIDENT TRUMP
WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BUT HE REFUSED, AS WE’VE SAID OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR ALLOW WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY. WE THANK GOD FOR THE 17 PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD
IN SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT. IN ADDITION
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAD AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS
DURING THE DEPOSITION. REPUBLICANS MEMBERS CALLED THREE WITNESSES DURING
THE INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND ADDITIONAL WITNESS
DURING THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS. OF COURSE, THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY IS NOT A FULL-BLOWN CRIMINAL TRIAL. WE DO KNOW THAT.
THIS IS A TRIAL AND OBVIOUSLY THE PRESIDENT IS AFFORDED EVERY
DUE PROCESS RIGHT DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU.
>>CHIEF JUSTICE . I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. .
>>THIS QUESTIONS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. IN EARLY OCTOBER, MR. PAT CIPOLLONE SENT A LETTER
SAYING THESE WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY AUTHORIZED AND
THUS INVALID. WHEN THE HOUSE ASKED THIS AUTHORIZING THE
INQUIRY IN AUTHORIZING SUBPOENA POWER, THE BODY COULD HAVE
ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENCY THE WHITE HOUSE POINTED OUT. THEY
PROCLAIMED THE SUBPOENAS AS EXERCISES OF THE INQUIRY.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE COULD’VE REISSUED THE SUBPOENAS
AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. HE EXPLAINED WELL
NEITHER THOSE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THESE ARGUMENTS PLAIN AND SIMPLE, WERE
RED HERRING. THE HOUSE IS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WERE FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION HOUSE RULES, AND THE PRESIDENT. IT’S FOR THE
HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE HOW TO CONDUCT AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE HOUSE IS AT ECONOMY TO STRUCTURE ITS
OWN PROCEEDINGS FOR AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ROOTED
INTO PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. FIRST, ARTICLE 1 THE HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT. IT CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENT NO REQUIREMENT AS TO
HOW THE HOUSE MUST CARRY OUT THAT RESPONSIBILITY. SECOND,
ARTICLE 1 STATES, THE HOUSE IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE RULES
AND PROCEEDINGS. TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE PROVISIONS GIVE THE HOUSE
THE SOUL DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE MATTER IN WHICH THEY
INVESTIGATE, DELIBERATE AND VOTE FOR GROUNDS OF IMPEACHMENT. IN
EXERCISING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE POWER TO
INVESTIGATE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RELEVANT INVESTIGATION
CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT. THE FRAMERS, THE
COURT AND PAST PRESIDENT, HAVE RECOGNIZED AND HONORED CONGRESS
IS RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN THE INVESTIGATION TO SAFEGUARD OUR
SYSTEM AND DIVIDED POWER. OTHERWISE, THE PRESIDENT COULD
HIDE HIS OWN WRONGDOING TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM
DISCOVERING IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT, ESPECIALLY
NULLIFYING CONGRESSES IMPEACHMENT POWER. THAT IS
PRECISELY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE YOUR. THE
PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED THE POWER TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHICH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA HE WILL RESPOND TO AND THOSE HE WILL
NOT. THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WILL HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THAT EACH TIME
ANYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH GETS A SUBPOENA, IT IS OPEN
SEASON AND DOJ TO INVENT THEORIES, ABOUT HOUSE RULES AND
PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDENT. THIS IS NOT HOW THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
WORK. DO ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT WITHHOLDING AND IT WOULD
UNDERMINE HOUSE AND SENATE’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT WOULD ALSO MAKE THE IMPEACHMENT ANALOGY. HE ARGUES THERE WAS NO
RESOLUTION FULLY AUTHORIZING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AGAIN,
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE FULL HOUSE TO TAKE A VOTE BEFORE
CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS
LAWYERS INVENTED THIS THEORY. CHIEF JUDGE RACHEL HAS DATED AND
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, THIS CLAIM HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION OR GOVERNING RULES IN THE HOUSE. THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW IT DIRECTS THE IMPEACHMENT. THE
HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE ROLE OF THE SOLE POWER TO DETERMINE THE
RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. THIS CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE
PRESIDENT. NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO THIS IN THE
HOUSE. IF CONVICTED BY THE SENATE AS THE RANKING AND
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AS RECENTLY THE ONE 14th CONGRESS, THE DID
JUST YOUR COMMITTEE CONSIDERED IMPEACHING THE IRS COMMISSIONER
FOLLOWING HIS ROLE FROM ANOTHER COMMITTEE. THAT TOOK A WHOLE
HOUSE VOTES BEGAN AND INVESTING JASON TO NIXON’S MISCONDUCT FOR
FOUR MONTHS BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION. THE HOUSE RULES
DO NOT PRECLUDE THE COMMITTEE FROM INQUIRING INTO THE
POTENTIAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT INSTEAD THEY HAD A ROBUST POWER
INCLUDING THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS. EACH OF THE THREE
COMMITTEES THAT CONDUCTED THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT
TRUMP CONDUCT IN THE UKRAINE INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT IN
FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAD OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OVER
THESE MATTERS. THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL POINTED TO THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT WITH THE FULL HOUSE THANK YOU.
>>THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
>>I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. BECAUSE MY QUESTION
REFERENCES AND A QUESTION I ATTACH THAT EARLIER QUESTION, AS
A REFERENCE.>>THANK YOU.
>>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITE
HOUSE IS FROM THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
REFUSED TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS
AND MURKOWSKI, SAYING HE COULD ONLY CITE TO THE RECORD. I
ADMITTED AFTERWORD, RECENT NEWSPAPER START TO THE SENATE
FROM OUTSIDE THE HOUSE RECORD. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE A TRUTHFUL
ANSWER TO THE SENATORS QUESTION. DID THE PRESIDENT EVER MENTION
THE BIDENS IN CONNECTION TO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, BEFORE
VICE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT BY THE ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY.
WHAT DID HE SAY TO WHOM AND WHEN?
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU, FOR
THE QUESTION. I DON’T THINK I REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION
COME AT ALL WE WERE ADVISED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEY WERE
GOING TO OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WOULD
NOT EITHER IN PUBLIC DOMAIN SO THINGS THAT ARE NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES WE COULD REFER TO OR THINGS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.
SO, I’M NOT IN A POSITION TO GO BACK INTO THINGS THAT THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT’VE SAID IN PRIVATE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO
DISCOVERY INTO THAT. I CANNOT TELL NOW ABOUT THINGS THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE SAID THE CABINET MEMBERS. I’M NOT IN
POSITION TO SAY THAT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. I
ANSWERED THE QUESTION FULLY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. THAT’S
BASED ON WHAT’S IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO ALSO RESPOND TO THE LAST QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY
SENATOR MURKOWSKI. WITH RESPECT TO THE VOTE ON AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS. BECAUSE, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A
VOTE FROM A FULL HOUSE, TO AUTHORIZE ANY IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRIES INTO PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. IT WAS THAT WAY IN
THE JOHNSON AND NIXON IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BEGAN WORK BEFORE THEY VOTED ON THE RESOLUTION. I THINK WAS ABLE TO
REACH AUTHORIZE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES BUT ALL THAT WORK WAS
SIMPLY GATHERING THINGS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR HAD BEEN
GATHERED ALREADY BY OTHER COMMITTEES. IT WAS NO COMPULSORY
PROCESS ISSUED. AND IN FACT CHAIRMAN RUBINO SPECIFICALLY
DETERMINE WHEN THERE WAS A MOVE TO HAVE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ISSUE SUBPOENAS AFTER THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE.
THEY LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THAT BEFORE THERE HAD BEEN
A VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THEM TO DO THAT. THIS ISN’T SOME ESOTERIC
SPECIAL RULE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT HOW AUTHORITY GIVEN BY WE THE
PEOPLE, TO CHAMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE BY THE HOUSE OR
SENATE . ONCE IT’S GIVEN THERE TO THE
HOUSE, HOW DID IT GET TO A COMMITTEE? IT CAN ONLY GET THEM
TO A COMMITTEE OF ITS DELEGATED BY THE HOUSE. THAT CAN ONLY
HAPPEN IF THE HOUSE VOTES. THERE IS NO STANDING RULE TO GIVE THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE AUTHORITY COLLECTIVELY. THERE’S
NO RULE THAT GIVES YOU PARTIES THE AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT,
THE ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS. RULE 10 DOES NOT MENTION
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL. THAT’S WHY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MUST BE A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE TO
AUTHORIZE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR IN THIS CASE, IT
WAS CONTRARY TO ALL PRIOR PRACTICE IT WAS GIVEN TO MANAGER
ADAMS COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY TO USE
THE POWER IMPEACHMENT ISSUE SUBPOENAS. IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS ALL
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WERE INVALID.
SENATOR CASKEY SAID THAT THERE WAS NO EFFORT EITHER TO ATTEMPT
TO RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THE SUBPOENAS, OR TO SAY, THAT THOSE
SUBPOENAS TO RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THOSE SUBPOENAS OR
REISSUE THEM UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 650. SO, THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED INVALID.
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE HOUSE. THANK YOU.
>>COUNSEL, SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
>>ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUZ AND
SENATOR DANE, — >>THANK YOU.
>>PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WILL RESPOND
FIRST AND THE OTHER SENATORS. WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, THE
UKRAINE’S PROSECUTOR GENERAL, VOWED TO INVESTIGATE BEFORE JOE
BIDEN PRESSED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON CORRUPTION
INCLUDING PUSHING FOR THE REMOVAL AND DID THE COUNSEL’S
OFFICE OR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
LEGAL CONCERT ISSUE ETHICS ADVISOR PROVING MR. BIDEN’S
INVOLVEMENT IN MATTERS INVOLVING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE DESPITE
THE PRESENCE OF HUNTER BIDEN A COMPANY CONSIDERED WIDELY TO BE
CORRECT? DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN EVER ASK HUNTER BIDEN TO
STEP DOWN FROM THE BOARD?>>CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU, FOR THE
QUESTION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEN VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD ANY OPINION BUT WE ARE AWARE THAT DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAN’T TESTIFIED ACCUSE ME HOCHSTEIN IS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND CAN’T TESTIFIED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE HOUSE THAT THEY EACH RAISED THE ISSUE WITH BIDEN OF A
POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH IS
ABOUT HUNTER BEING ON THE BOARD. CAN’T TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH,
HE RAISED THAT ISSUE WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE THE
RESPONSE WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE WAS BUSY
DEALING WITH THE ILLNESS OF HIS OTHER SON. THERE WAS NO ACTION
TAKEN. FROM WHAT WE KNOW, THERE WAS NOT ANY EFFORT TO SEEK AN
ETHICS OPINION. ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS FLAGGED FOR THE VICE
PRESIDENT’S OFFICE. WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT BIDEN ASKED TO SEND A
STEP DOWN OR ANY OTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN AND I BELIEVE VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE NEVER DISCUSSED IT. HE NEVER DISCUSSED
HIS SON’S OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEALINGS. THANK YOU.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I APPRECIATE
YOUR QUESTIONS. THE FACT ABOUT BARS PRESIDENTS CONDUCT ARE
CLEAR AND DO NOT CHANGE. LET’S GO THROUGH THEM. FIRST EVERY
WITNESS ASKED ABOUT THIS TOPIC TESTIFIED, THAT HE WAS WIDELY
CONSIDERED TO BE A CORRUPT AND INEFFECTIVE PROSECUTOR. HE DID
NOT PROSECUTE CORRUPTION. HE WAS SO CORRUPT, THAT THE
ENTIRE FREE WORLD UNITED’S DATES AND THE UNION AND INTERNATIONAL
MONETARY FUND PRESSED FOR HIS OFFICE TO BE CLEANED UP. I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO BE
SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING THAT HE CLAIMED. WITNESSES INCLUDING OUR
OWN ADVOCATE AMBASSADOR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH REMEMBER
THAT AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED THAT HIS
REMOVAL MADE IT MORE LIKELY THAT INVESTIGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN
COMPANIES, WOULD MOVE FORWARD. LET ME REPEAT THAT, HE MADE IT
MORE LIKELY THAT HE WOULD BE INVESTIGATED. HE WAS NOT UNDER
SCRUTINY AT THE TIME JOE BIDEN CALLED FOR SULTAN ACCORDING TO
THE NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION OF UKRAINE ORGANIZATION AND SEVERAL
WITNESSES TESTIFIED AND WERE FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
BEFORE HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE COMPANY BUT AGAIN, IN ANOTHER
INVESTIGATION IT WAS WARRANTED. HE WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MORE
LIKELY.>>THANK YOU.>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS. I WILL SEND IT TO THE DESK. SENATOR KINGS QUESTION FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, AS FOLLOWS. MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE
EXCLUSIVELY ON A POLITICAL ERRAND BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.
DOESN’T THE PRESIDENT’S MENTION OF GIULIANI BY NAME, AND A JULY
23rd CALL CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE CALL?
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, MR. GIULIANI, PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
MONTH-LONG’S GAME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINE
TO BENEFIT HIS ELECTION. THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE,
TEXT AND RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, ESTABLISHING MR.
GIULIANI’S KEY ROLE IN EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT PRESSURE CAMPAIGN
BEGINNING IN EARLY 2019, BUT THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH . EVERYBODY KNEW GIULIANI WITH THE
GATEWAY TO THAT UKRAINE. HE CANCELED HIS TRIP UKRAINE,
DURING WHICH HE PLANNED TO DIG UP DIRT FORMER BIDEN AND
DISCREDIT THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AND PLANS BECAME PUBLIC ADMITTED
THAT WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. HE EXPLAINED THIS
IS NOT — SOMEONE DID SAY IT IS IMPROPER. I’M ASKING THEM TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION THERE ALREADY DOING AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE
TELLING THEM TO STOP. DURING A MAY 10th APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS,
GIULIANA STATE SAID HE CANCELED THE TRIP BECAUSE THE ENEMIES OF
TRUMP RUN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HIS ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS
PRODUCED THE SENATE DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDED A LETTER. GIULIANI
SENT TO ZELENSKY DURING THIS TIME. IN THE LETTER DATED MAY
10th HE INFORMED ZELENSKY REPRESENTED TRUMP AS A PRIVATE
CITIZEN, NOT AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES . WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT
HE CONFIRMED TRUMP’S KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTIONS REGARDING UKRAINE
STATED, HE KNOWS WHAT I’M DOING. HE’S MY ONLY CLIENT. HE’S THE
ONE I’M OBLIGATED TO REPORT TO. TRUMP REPEATEDLY INSTRUCTED OFFICIALS TO TALK TO RUDY. HE
DEMONSTRATED GIULIANI WAS A KEY PLAYER IN THE CORRUPT SCHEME. ON
MAY 23rd TO DISCUSS POLICY TRUMP DIRECTED HIS PEOPLE TO TALK TO
RUDY. SECRETARY PERRY AND VOLCKER AND I WORKED WITH
GIULIANI AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES . SONDLAND EXPLICITLY CONVEYED THE
PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATION TO UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS FIELD THAT THE KEY FOR MANY
THINGS IS RUDY GIULIANI. READ HE WAS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION
OF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS. HE WAS ASKING FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION SO THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR THE ABYDOS TO BE
SMEARED. TRUMP MENTIONED GIULIANI BY NAME NO LESS THAN
FOUR TIMES. HE TOLD ZELENSKY GIULIANI IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED
MAN AND ADDED RUDY KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING. IN AUGUST HE MET WITH
THE TOP UKRAINIAN AID AND CONVEYED UKRAINE IS ANNOUNCING
AN INVESTIGATION. WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD
MEET RUDY’S DEMANDS SPECIFICALLY. HE INSISTED THE
STATEMENT INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO BURISMA AND
BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION RUDY HAS BEEN ONLINE THE BEACH
LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN. IN SEPTEMBER, 2019 HE SAID YOU DID
ASK UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN? GIULIANI SET UP OF COURSE
I DID. LOOK INTO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ON
BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, TRUMP. FINALLY, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS,
GIULIANI DID NOT STOP DIGGING UP DIRT TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT
HEARD IN DECEMBER HE TRAVELED AGAIN TO UKRAINE TO MEET WITH
OFFICIALS. HE DESCRIBED IT AS A SECRET ASSIGNMENT. GIULIANI
RESPONDED, I GOT MORE THAN YOU IMAGINE.>>THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. I SEND
A QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>THANK YOU. QUESTION FROM SENATOR RUBIO FOR
THE PRESIDENT. HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS VIEW REMOVING A
PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED
BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHERS?
>>ALEXANDER HAMILTON ADDRESSED
THAT ISSUE DIRECTLY. THE GREATEST DANGER HE SAID, OF
IMPEACHMENT, IS IF IT TURNED ON THE VOTES OF ONE PARTY BEING
GREATER THAN THE VOTES OF ANOTHER PARTY IN EITHER HOUSE.
SO, I THINK THEY WOULD BE APPALLED TO SEE IMPEACHMENT
GOING FORWARD IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF THE CONGRESSMAN
THAT WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR US DURING THE CLAYTON IMPEACHMENT. THE CRITERIA THAT HAS BEEN SET
UP SO LAWLESS, THE BASICALLY PEER FRIES CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE
WATERS, WHO SAYS, THERE IS NO LAW. ANYTHING HOUSE WANTS TO DO
TO IMPEACH A SOME TEACHABLE DOUBTS WHAT IS HAPPENING. THAT
PLACES THE HOUSE ABOVE THE LAW. WE’VE HEARD MUCH ABOUT NOBODY IS
ABOVE THE LAW. GERALD FORD MADE THE SAME POINT. THERE IS ONLY ONE PRESIDENT. TO
USE THAT CRITERIA, THAT IT IS WHATEVER THE HOUSE AS IT IS,
WHATEVER THE SENATE SAYS THAT IS, TURNS THOSE BODIES INTO
LAWLESS BODIES, IN VIOLATION OF THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.
MANAGE YOUR ADAM SCHIFF CONFUSED MY ARGUMENT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT
MOTIVE AND INTENT. YOU ADMITTED IMA CRIMINAL LAWYER AND I TAUGHT
CRIMINAL LAW FOR 50 YEARS AT HARVARD. THERE’S ENORMOUS
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE . WHEN YOU PULL THE TRIGGER YOU
KNOW BULLET WILL EVEN HIT SOMEBODY AND MADE KILLED THEM.
THAT’S THE INTENT TO KILL. MOTIVE, CAN BE REVENGE OR MONEY.
IT ALMOST NEVER IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EXCEPT IN EXTREME
CASES. THERE ARE CASES WHERE MOTIVE COUNTS. LET’S CONSIDER A
HYPOTHETICAL GOING OUT OF A SITUATION WE DISCUSSED LET’S
ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA, HAD BEEN TOLD, BY HIS ADVISORS, THAT IT’S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO SEND LEAVE THE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. THEN, HE
GETS A CALL FROM HIS POLITICAL ADVISOR, WHO SAYS WE KNOW IT’S
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO SEND WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE BUT WE
ARE TELLING YOU THE LEFT WING OF YOUR PARTY, IS REALLY GOING TO
GIVE YOU A HARD TIME, IF YOU START SELLING LETHAL WEAPONS AND
GETTING INTO A WAR, POTENTIALLY WITH RUSSIA. WOULD ANYBODY
SUGGEST THAT’S IMPEACHABLE? LET’S ASSUME OBAMA SAYS I
PROMISE TO BOMB SYRIA IF THEY HAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BUT NOW
I’M TOLD, THAT BOMBING SYRIA, WOULD HURT MY ELECTORAL CHANCES.
CERTAINLY NOT IMPEACHABLE, AT ALL. LET ME APPLY THAT NOW. I
SAID PREVIOUSLY THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF POSSIBLE MOTIVE. ONE
IS, THE MOTIVE IS PURE. THE ONLY INTEREST IS WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE
COUNTRY. IN THE REAL WORLD, THAT REALLY HAPPENED. THE OTHER IS
THE MOTIVE IS COMPLETELY CORRUPT. I WANT MONEY. THE THIRD
ONE IS COMPLICATED. MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU HAVE A
MIXED MOTIVE. NO MOTIVE IN WHICH, YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING
GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT ALSO FOR YOURSELF. YOU ARE DOING GOOD
AND ALTOGETHER YOU PUT IT IN A BUNDLE, IN WHICH YOU ARE
SATISFIED THAT YOU’RE DOING THE RIGHT THING. LET ME GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE THE ARGUMENT IS THAT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BECAME INTERESTED IN CREPT WHEN HE LEARNED JOE BIDEN WAS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. LET’S ASSUME THE PRESIDENT WAS IN A
SECOND TERM AND SAID, JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, I
SHOULD NOW GET CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER HIS SON IS CORRECT. HE’S
A CANDIDATE AND IS NOT RUNNING AGAINST ME BUT HE COULD BE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HE’S THE PRESIDENT, AND HE
HAS A CORRUPT SON, THE FACT THAT HE HAS ANNOUNCE CANDIDACY, IS A
GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE INTEREST IN HIS SON. HE WASN’T
RUNNING, HE IS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT,
OKAY. BIG DEAL. HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, THAT IS AN ENORMOUS
BIG DEAL AT THE DIFFERENCE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD MAKE IS
WHETHER SHE’S RUNNING FOR REELECTION OR NOT, THEY WOULD
CONCEDE THAT IF IS NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION THIS WOULD NOT BE
A CORRUPT MOTIVE IT WOULD BE MIXED. IF HE IS RUNNING FOR
REELECTION, SUDDENLY, THAT TURNS IT INTO AN IMPEACHABLE — THE
MAC THANK YOU, THANK YOU COUNCIL. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SUBMIT A
QUESTION TO THE DECIMATED BY HOUSE MANAGERS.
>>THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR
COLUMBUS ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS. DURING THAT TIME THE SENATE
TRIAL COMMITTEE HEARD FROM 26 WITNESSES, 17 OF WHOM HAD NOT
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE. WHAT POSSIBLE REASON COULD THERE
BE FOR ALLOWING 26 WITNESSES IN A JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND
HEARING NONE FOR PRESIDENTS TRIAL?
>>>>AS YOU KNOW I’M QUITE FAMILIAR
WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT. SOMEBODY ASKED ME THE LAST TIME
I TRY THE CASE, THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO EXCEPT FOR
THE IMPEACHMENT WHEN ICE THAT QUALITY TIME WITH YOU. THERE IS
NO DIFFERENCE, IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION. I WOULD SAY THAT
THE NEED FOR WITNESSES IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A MORE COMPELLING
CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE. YOU
MIGHT SAY IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT
THE TIME OF THE SENATE, COULD BE OCCUPIED BY CALLING WITNESSES
THAT AS PRECIOUS AS THE TIME IS, WE WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME
CALLING DOZENS OF WITNESSES, BUT IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A
PRESIDENT, IT’S NOT WORTH THE TIME? IT’S TOO MUCH OF AN
IMPOSITION. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE IMPERATIVE COLLEEN AND HAVING A FAIR TRIAL WHEN WE
ARE ADJUDICATING THE GUILT OF THE PRESIDENT IS PARAMOUNT.
WE’VE ONLY ARGUED THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND YES IT’S A BIG DEAL TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT. IS ALSO A BIG DEAL IF YOU LEAVE IN PLACE THE PRESIDENT
WHEN THE HOUSE IS PROVEN THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE THING AND NOT ONLY DID HE
SOLICIT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016, BUT HE SOLICITED UKRAINE’S
INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION, HE SOLICITED CHINA’S
INTERFERENCE AS McAULEY JUST SAID. I HAD RUDY GIULIANI IN
UKRAINE DURING THE SAME KIND OF THING LAST MONTH. IN RESPONSE TO
THAT QUESTION, GIULIANI THE PERSONAL AGENT OF THE PRESIDENT
IS RUNNING THIS BIDEN OPERATION, RATHER THAN SOME THOUGHT POLICY
OR POLITICS? THE ANSWER IS YES. GIULIANI HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR. I’M NOT HERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY. THAT’S THE
PRESIDENT’S OWN LAWYER. I’M NOT HERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY. JUST
WHAT’S MADE A RATHER STUNNING ARGUMENT. AN INVESTIGATION OF
JOE BIDEN IS UNWARRANTED, UNMERITED BECOMES WARRANTED IF
HE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT. HE POSITED THAT IN THE PRESIDENT
SECOND TERM. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF HE CAN A FIRST OR SECOND
TERM. AND ILLEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION INTO
JOE BIDEN DOESN’T BECOME LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE’S RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT. NOT UNLESS YOU VIEW YOUR INTEREST AS SYNONYMOUS
WITH THE NATION’S INTEREST. I THINK IT’S THE MOST PROFOUND
CONFLICT FOR PRESIDENT WHETHER HE’S RUNNING FOR REELECTION OR
NOT TO SUDDENLY INVESTIGATE HIM BECAUSE IT’S JUSTIFIED BECAUSE,
NOW HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. YOU REALLY UP TO STEP ASIDE TO
IMAGINE ANYBODY COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. THAT RUNNING FOR
OFFICE, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT NOW, MEANS YOU ARE A MORE
JUSTIFIED TARGET OF INVESTIGATION, AND WHEN YOU WERE
NOT. IT CANNOT BE. IT CANNOT BE. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS
BEING ARGUED HERE. TO CONCLUDE, SENATOR, A CASE FOR WITNESSES AND EIGHT
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, ON ONE SIDE EURO MOVE PRESIDENT OR, ON
THE OTHER SIDE YOU LEAVE IN PLACE THE PRESIDENT THAT MAY
POSE A CONTINUED RISK TO THE COUNTRY IS FAR MORE COMPELLING
TO TAKE THE TIME TO GET WITNESSES, THEN A CORRUPT
LOUISIANA JUDGE. HE ONLY IMPACTS THAT COME BEFORE HIS COURT. ALL
OF US COME BEFORE THE COURT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I THINK
YOU. THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA. DONE
12 >>I SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK.. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DANE,
LANGFORD AND HOLLY IS FOR COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT. OVER
THE PAST 244 YEARS, EIGHT JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED
FROM OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE, BUT NEVER PRESIDENT JUDGES HAVE
BEEN REMOVED FOR BRIBERY PERJURY TAX EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTIONS. DUE TO CURRENT
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES DIFFER ?
>>THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN IMPEACHING AND REMOVING THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE AND
IMPEACHING AND REMOVING THE PRESIDENT. NO JUDGE NOT EVEN A
CHIEF JUSTICE IS A JUDICIAL BRANCH. THERE IS A JUDICIAL
BRANCH. THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HEARING HE IS
IRREPLACEABLE. REMEMBER, WE HAD A PERIOD OF TIME THERE WAS NO
VICE RESIDENT. THERE’S NO COMPARISON BETWEEN IMPEACHING A
JUDGE AND IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT. OVER THERE IS A
TEXTUAL DIFFERENCE THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES JUDGES
SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. THAT’S THE CONGRESSMAN ADAM
SCHIFF STANDARD . WE WISH EVERYBODY SERVED ONLY DURING
GOOD BEHAVIOR. BUT, THE CONSTITUTION DISTANT SAY THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. THE PUBLIC , JUDGES DO NOT RUN. THERE’S
ONLY ONE JUDGE FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR. NAMELY THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS. AND SO, TO MAKE THE COMPARISON IS TO MAKE THE SAME
MISTAKE THAT WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE THE BRITISH SYSTEM TO THE
AMERICAN SYSTEM. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENT WE ADOPTED THE
BRITISH SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE WORDS. HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS. THOSE WORDS MAY HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM GRADE
BRITTON. BUT THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT. WHEN IT DID IT OPERATOR
FOR LOW-LEVEL PEOPLE ONLY IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT HAVE
BEEN CITED INVOLVE INDIA THIS GUY HERE THIS GUY THERE. UTTERLY REPLACEABLE PEOPLE BUT
THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF, ON THE OTHER HAND YOU CAN GET RID OF
HEAD OF STATE OF GOVERNMENT RATHER. IT’S A VOTE OF
NO-CONFIDENCE. THAT’S WHAT THE FRAMERS REJECT THE. THE FRAMERS
REJECTED THAT FOR PRESIDENT. THE NOTION, WE REJECTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM
WE DIDN’T WANT IT. WE DIDN’T WANT TO PRESIDENT TO SERVE AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE. WE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO SERVE AT THE
PLEASURE OF VOTERS. JUDGES DON’T SERVE THE PLEASURE OF THE
VOTERS. THERE NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND BROADER
CRITERIA. THOSE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN USED IN PRACTICE TO HAVE
BEEN IMPEACH FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. TAKE AN EXAMPLE GIVEN.
JUDGES COMPLETELY DRUNK AND INCAPACITATED AND CANNOT DO HIS
JOB. IT’S EASY TO IMAGINE, HOW A JUDGE MIGHT HAVE TO BE REMOVED
FOR THAT. BUT THE PRESIDENT, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED. PLEASE MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER YOUR ROLE IS NOT TO
FILL IN GAPS. WHY IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE, PEOPLE DON’T ABUSE
POWER. PEOPLE DON’T COMMIT MALADMINISTRATION. THE FRAMERS LIVED UP IN THOSE
GAPS. YOUR JOB ISN’T TO FILL IN GAPS YOUR JOB IS TO APPLY THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE FRAMERS WROTE IT AND THAT DOESN’T
INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THANK
YOU. >>THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THE SENATOR
FROM DELAWARE. I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.. THANK YOU. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KEARNS
TO THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL IS THIS. QUOTE, CONGRESS HAS
FORBIDDEN FOREIGNERS INVOLVED IN AMERICAN
ELECTIONS,”. HOWEVER, IN JUNE 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, IF
RUSSIA OR CHINA FOR INFORMATION ON HIS OPPONENT,
QUOTE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH LISTENING” AND HE MIGHT NOT
ALERT THE FBI, BECAUSE QUOTE, GIVE ME A BREAK LIFE DOES NOT
WORK THAT WAY”. IS TRUMP AGREEING WITH YOUR
STATEMENT FOREIGNERS INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS
ILLEGAL? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR,
THANK YOU, FOR YOUR QUESTION CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED SPECIFIC
WAYS IN WHICH FOREIGNERS CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN ELECTIONS. THERE
ARE RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS. WHEN
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ORIGINALLY MADE THE COMPLAINT
WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, HE FRAMED THE
WHISTLEBLOWERS COMPLAINT IN TERMS OF THOSE LAWS. HE SAID
THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE HERE RELATED TO SOLICITING FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND INTERFERENCE. THAT WAS PACIFICALLY REVIEWED BY
THE DOJ. SO, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING INVOLVED HERE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INTERVIEW WITH ABC THAT YOU CITED DOES NOT
INVOLVE SOMETHING THAT IS A FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
ADDRESSED BY THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. HE WAS REFERRING TO INFORMATION COMING FROM A
SOURCE PRETTY POINTED OUT IN THE INTERVIEW, HE MIGHT CONTACT THE
FBI. HE MIGHT LISTEN TO SOMETHING BUT MERE INFORMATION
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAWS. IF THERE IS CREDIBLE
INFORMATION, CREDIBLE INFORMATION OF WRONGDOING BY
SOMEBODY RUNNING FOR A PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE FOR CREDIBLE INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT TO
LIGHT. I THINK THAT THE IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT
HAPPENS TO COME FROM OVERSEAS, IS NOT NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN
INFORMATION. INFORMATION THAT’S CREDIBLE, THAT SHOWS WRONGDOING,
BY SOMEBODY WHO HAVE IS TO BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, IF IT’S
CREDIBLE OR RELEVANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON WHO’S
THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, THANK YOU.
>>THE MAJORITY LEADERS RECOGNIZE. I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A
BREAK UNTIL 10 P.M. AND THEN FINISH UP FOR THE EVENING.
>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. YOUR WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE FROM
THE WASHINGTON POST. THEY ARE ON A SHORT BREAK. WE ARE EXPECTING
THEM TO DO EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTIONS. WE ARE IN THE HOME
STRETCH TONIGHT. 15 A LOWERS A LETTER TO TODAY’S PICK BUT THEY
DO NOT GET DONE TONIGHT IT WILL PICK UP TOMORROW. WE ARE LIVE IN
THE STUDIO. WE HAVE BEEN COVERING THIS FROM CAPITOL HILL.
IT’S REFRESHING TO HAVE YOU HERE IN THE NEWSROOM. WE CAN GO INTO
SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS LAST ROUND. WHAT IS THE
TEMPERATURE LIKE ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY? SO MUCH IS HAPPENING HERE
IN THE CHAMBER. A LOT OF THE DRAMA, WHERE THE SENATORS FALL,
AND WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE HALLWAYS, WHAT WAS IT LIKE
THERE, TODAY.’S I THAT’S REALLY WHAT’S TAKING UP AIR ON THE
HILL. IT’S A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE
PROCESS IN THE BOLTON NEWS HAS CERTAINLY OVERSHADOWED
EVERYTHING. THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TRYING
TO GET A SENSE OF MORE REPUBLICANS MIGHT COME OVER AND
VOTE FOR WITNESSES HEARD THERE’S A STRONG SENSE OF WHICH WAY THAT
MIGHT GO. IT MIGHT BE THURSDAY AFTERNOON
OR FRIDAY MORNING. THAT’S WHERE THE FOCUS IS THERE WAS A PROTEST
EARLIER TODAY. IT WAS A PROBE WITNESS HIM WITNESS. PEOPLE WERE
THERE AND WE WANT WITNESSES, AS WELL. I IN THE MEANTIME I HAVE BEEN
LOOKING AT FOX NEWS AND I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
CARSON WAS LOOKING AT DEMOCRATS AND HE WAS SAYING THEY MIGHT
VOTE AGAINST HIM EASEMENT. HE WAS LOOKING AT JONES AND LET’S
TALK ABOUT THESE MODERATE DEMOCRATS. LET’S LOOK AT THE
QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT THEIR ROLE . THOSE ARE LOOKING AT DECISIONS
AND JONES, HE IS THE DEMOCRAT FROM ALABAMA. HE HAD A VERY
TIGHT RACE AND HE BECAME ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RIGHT NOW,
JONES IS IN A TOUGH SPOT. HE REPRESENTS US DATE THAT’S VERY
PRO-TRUMP. HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO REACH OUT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. HE WILL NOT COME TO HIS
DECISION, UNTIL HE HAS TO. THAT IS WHERE HIS PERSPECTIVE IS
MENTIONED, A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK AT HIM. PEOPLE MIGHT BE FAMILIAR
WITH HIM AND HIS STANCE ON GUN CONTROL. HE REPRESENTS WEST
VIRGINIA WHICH IS ANOTHER PRO-TRUMP STATE. HE MIGHT BE IN
A LITTLE BIT OF A BIND. ARIZONA HAS A LOT OF CHANGE IN
DEMOGRAPHICS AND THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH
WAY THEY ARE GOING TO GO. WE DID SEE SOME OF THOSE COMING OUT
THIS EVENING. BERNIE SANDERS AND CLUBS ARE ASKING QUESTIONS. THEY
WERE ALL VERY POLITICAL IN NATURE AND ONE THAT RING, BERNIE
SANDERS ASKED HIS BUILT ON THE PREMISE THAT TRUMP HAS IN HIS
WORDS, LIED OVER 60,000 TIMES IN A FACT CHECKER SAID TRUMP HAS
MADE MORE THAN 16,000 FALSE STATEMENTS. SANDERS WENT FROM
THERE AND SAID WHY DO YOU BELIEVE HIM? I WOULD HAVE LIKED
TO HAVE SEEN HIM ASK THAT OF THE TEAM. THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE WHO
GETS THE QUESTION? WHO FIELDS IT? WERE YOU LISTENING TO HERE
WITH THE OTHER CANDIDATES WERE ASKING?
>>I WAS NOT SURE BUT CLUB RETIRES VOICE WHICH HE ASKED
ADAM SCHIFF SHE DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHY DO WE NEED A
WITNESS FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE IMPEACHMENT VERSUS A PRESIDENCY?
THAT WAS ABLE TO QUEUE UP ADAM SCHIFF . HE WAS IMPEACHED AND THEY HAD
WITNESSES. SHE WAS GIVEN HIM YOU KNOW, A PLATFORM TO DISCUSS
THAT. I AM INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES HAVE TO ASK. IT’S A STRATEGY TO ASK AND HAS TO GO
INTO WHAT QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE ASKED WILL IT BE SOMETHING
THAT MIGHT HUNT THEM WHEN THEY GO TO IOWA NEXT WEEK OR YOU KNOW
NEW HAMPSHIRE AFTER THAT? THE SENATE TEAMS HAVE TO SAY YOU
ARE GOING TO ASK THE BOSTON. LET’S MAKE SURE TO SOMETHING WE
CAN STICK TO FOR THE REMAINDER OF YOUR CANDIDACY. SPIRIT AND
AMY STARTED THAT QUESTION WHICH I WAS ON A TROUT COMMITTEE WHEN
THEY IMPEACHED THE JUDGE BEFORE. IT PLAYS INTO ANTICORRUPTION AND JUST LIKE ELIZABETH WARREN
WHO ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION AND ONCE AGAIN IT’S AN INTERESTING
DYNAMIC OF ARE YOU ASKING A QUESTION TO PLOT IN FORMATION OR
HAVE YOU ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND. AND ARE YOU REALLY USING
THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH FORWARD A POLITICAL DEBATE OR A VANTAGE
POINT THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU WANT TO GET OUT THERE? AND THIS
WHOLE IMPEACHMENT FOR FRONT RUNNERS IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEY
HAVE TO CHOOSE WHY. LET’S GO AHEAD TO THAT PENNSYLVANIA
DEMOCRAT A LISTEN IN. >>IT GOES BACK TO THE
FUNDAMENTALS. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE WITNESSES AND THE OTHER SIDE
IS HAVING GREAT TROUBLE FOR DAYS NOW, EXPLAINING WHY THEY WANT
MORE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. THAT GOT EVER MORE DIFFICULT IN
THE BOLTON DISCLOSURE. THEY HAD A HARD TIME, BECAUSE TO MAKE IT
ARGUMENT YOU NEED DOCUMENTS BASED ON TIME AND WHATEVER TIME
IN THE SENATE THAT MAKES NO SENSE. I DON’T KNOW HOW FRIDAY IS GOING
TO WORK. AND I’M GUESSING AND THIS IS A GOOD GUESS LIKE I SAID
FRIDAY, WE WILL FINALLY GET TO THAT WITNESS DID THAT IS WHAT
ONE VOTE. IT COULD BE IT COULD BE THAT IF THAT BOAT DOES NOT
PREVAIL THEN YOU MOVE TO THE END OF THE TRIAL AND THERE ARE STILL
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE TRIAL WILL PLAY OUT IF IT DOES PREVAIL
THEN WE ARE INTO YOU KNOW WE ARE INTO A WHOLE NEW PHASE ABOUT HOW
TO GET WITNESSES AND WHICH WOULD BE THE SUBJECT — MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT IS
GOING TO BE BASICALLY ONE VOTE. NOW, IF IT PREVAILS YOU COULD
HAVE A SERIES OF VOTES THAT DEAL WITH MECHANICS. ONE PARTICULAR WITNESS OR GROUP
OF WITNESSES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE ARE STILL BACK TO THE
BASIC ISSUE. I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU CAN FINISH A FULL, FAIR
TRIAL WITHOUT THE WITNESS I DO THINK THE OTHER SIDE, THEY ARE
STRUGGLING WITH THAT. I THINK THEY JUST ARE. RIGHT.>>HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT
DEMOCRATS REMAIN UNITED? SOME WILL BE WAVERING.>>IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE HAS
TALKED ABOUT. EVERY ONE OF US KNOWS, AND IF OUR LEADERSHIP DID
KNOW WE WOULD TELL THEM. THIS IS A DECISION EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO
MAKE IT I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE
NUMBERS WILL BE. IT HAS TO BE THAT INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION
EVER SENATOR HAS TO MAKE. YOU START WITH THE BASIC CHARGES.
DID HE ISSUE INTERFERENCE FROM FERN GOVERNMENT? WAS HE ASKING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT? HE MANAGED IN ONE EPISODE IN A
SENSE, TO BRING IN TWO ELECTIONS.>>THAT’S, I MEAN, LOOK
INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE MAKING THAT ASSESSMENT, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN — IN OUR DISCUSSION, WE HAVE
BEEN MEETING A LOT, AS YOU KNOW. HOW WILL THIS DAY IMPACT THE
ELECTION? I JUST THINK PEOPLE WOULD RATHER DO THE JOB.
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT ARE HERE, ALL OF WHOM ARE SPENDING A
LOT OF TIME HERE. THERE IS NEVER A CONSIDERATION ABOUT HOW YOU
KNOW, THEIR TIME. THEY ARE DOING A JOB. IT HAS NOT BEEN THE KIND OF
CALCULATION. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT THERE IS SOME
MEDICAL MOTIVE THAT DRIVES EVERYTHING, HERE. PEOPLE TAKE IT
SERIOUSLY. IT’S THE MAC RIGHT.>>[ INDISCERNIBLE – LOW VOLUME
] >>I DON’T, YET I DON’T THINK THERE
IS NECESSARILY CONSENSUS ABOUT THAT. I DON’T KNOW WHO SAID THIS, YEARS AGO WHETHER
IT’S A RULE OR WHETHER IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT DID LAURIER
10 YEARS AGO. YOU OFTEN TRY OR YOU SHOULD NOT TRY TO SHOW THE
OUTCOME OF A SUPREME COURT CASE BASED ON THE ARGUMENT BUT I’M
NOT SURE WE CAN NECESSARILY DEFINE WHICH SENATORS LEANING ON
THAT QUESTION. I GUESS I DID NOT HAVE MUCH OF A
REACTION. I GUESS, I BELIEVE, THIS IS MY VIEW, PERSONALLY. I
BELIEVE IN THE WITNESS QUESTION THEY GET THREE VOTES, OR THEY
ARE GOING TO GET A NUMBER MUCH GREATER. WHEN I READ THREE
VERSUS FOUR HE WILL BE THREE VERSUS SEVEN OR FIVE. BECAUSE
LOOK, THE PERSON WHO IS CONSIDERED A FOURTH VOTE WILL,
WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO A LOT OF ACRIMONY ON THE RIGHT. THAT’S
GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT DECISION SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE. IT
WILL STOP AT THREE WHICH WILL FAIL OR WILL BE A HIGHER NUMBER.
THEY TELL ME THAT IT IS GOING TO BE START TIME.
>>SENATOR CASEY TALK ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE.
WE HAVE BEEN SPECULATING WILL REPUBLICANS TRY TO HAVE A BLOCK.
THE TIPPING POINT OF THAT BOAT. >>YOU KNOW, I’M COMMENTING ON
CLIP OF CASEY IT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IS
GOING TO HAPPEN IT WILL EITHER BE THREE OR IT COULD BE MORE.
WILL FAIL OR IT WILL BE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF SUPPORT
IT’S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE AND NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IS
GOING TO HAPPEN ON FRIDAY. IT POINTS TO, I THINK HE WAS ASKED
ABOUT, THE DEMOCRATS, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY THREE WHO MIGHT
GO THE OTHER WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THERE’S A LOT OF
SPECULATION. WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL FRIDAY. THERE WOULD BE
MORE, IF THERE IS A WITNESS OF VOTE, THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR
WITNESSES. HOLIDAY PROCESS STARTS. IT COULD BE LIKE A
FREE-FOR-ALL. WITNESSES COULD START SHOWING UP ON CAPITOL
HILL. WHO WOULD IT BE AND HOW WOULD IT WORK OUT? AS WE READ
THE TEA LEAVES FROM WHAT POINT OUT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
DEMOCRATIC UNITY HIS QUESTION WAS INTERESTING. HE ASKED THIS
QUESTION ABOUT LIKE, SO GIVEN THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
IMPEACHMENT AND GIVEN THE HISTORY CREATED, IT WAS A
HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS WERE
BUILDING ON, WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE CLINTON TRIAL TO MOVE
THE PERSPECTIVE OF DERSHOWITZ? YOU SOUND THIS WITH GET UP AND
MAKE HIS ARGUMENT THAT HE STUDIED MOORE HE HAS LEARNED
MORE. IT DID NOT SEEM TO RING TOTALLY. WHAT MIGHT HAVE
ACTUALLY CHANGED OR MOVED ON THIS QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE
BAR? >>IT SOUNDED THE SOFTWARE CALL
AS HE HAS BEEN. HE HAS BEEN BRING IN AN ACADEMIC
FLAVOR TO THIS. IT REALLY SHOWS YOU THAT, AND I DON’T KNOW IF
THIS IMPEACHMENT SEEMS TO BE IN THE ART OF THE BEHOLDER. THE
OTHER PARTY SAYS IT’S IMPEACHABLE AND THE OTHER PARTY
SAYS NO. BOTH SIDES ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FRAMERS, AND HOW THEY
INTERPRETED WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. IT’S A LOT OF
PHILOSOPHICAL TALK MANSIONS QUESTION WAS VERY VERY GOOD ONE.
I ONE MOMENT THAT STOOD OUT TO ME IS THE QUESTION FOLLOWING UP
ON THE QUESTION ASKED BY A MODERATE REPUBLICAN EARLIER. AS
THE MOTHER REPUBLICANS AND DOWN SPECIFICALLY, HAS THE PRESIDENT
TALKED ABOUT CONCERNS OF CORRUPTION AND LINKING IT TO THE
BIDENS PRIOR TO ENTERING THE RACE IN 2019. SO,
IT’S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR TRUMP TEAM TO TAKE A CRACK AT
THAT VERY DID YOU GET A SENSE IT WAS ADDING ANYTHING NEW? NO IT
WAS A DIFFERENT DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER FOR THERE
SIDE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE, THAT’S WHERE THE
MOMENT LIES. WAS BIDEN BECOMING A FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE? WAS HE
JUST WANTING TO STAMP OUT CORRUPTION? THAT WAS A DIFFICULT
QUESTION TO ANSWER. I DON’T WE GOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER. YEAH. IT
WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE SENATOR WHITEHOUSE ASKED THE QUESTION.
HE BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. WAS A GOOD QUESTION THAT PUT TRUMP’S
DEFENSE TEAM IN A TOUGH SPOT. DID PROBE MORE ABOUT WHAT’S
ALLOWED INTO THE RECORD. WHITE HOUSE IS POINTED OUT THAT PART
OF THE COUNCIL ANSWERED TRUMP LEGAL TEAM ANSWER, AS TO WHY YOU
KNOW THEY COULD NOT GIVE A CLEAR RESPONSE ABOUT, TRUMP’S STATE OF
MIND. IT WASN’T IN THE RECORD. IT WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE
RECORD. INSTEAD OF SAYING YEAH I HAD THIS CONVERSATION ON YOU
KNOW, A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE I ENTERED THE RACE. I’M NOT
TALKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THE RECORD. YOU TALKED
ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE IN THE NEWS MEDIA. THAT’S NOT IN THE
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT RECORD. HIS RESPONSE WAS, WELL IT HAD TO BE
EITHER IN THE RECORD, OR IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THAT WAS HIS WAY
OF SAYING THAT’S WHY I’M STAYING INSIDE MY BUMPERS. I WRITE.
THAT’S A VERY GOOD LEGAL STRATEGY PROBABLY. WHO COULD
ANSWER THAT. IT WAS NOT SOMETHING WRITTEN OR
TRANSCRIBED, WE ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BUT
AGAIN, THIS IS WHY THE HOUSE TEAM IS SAYING, WE NEED
WITNESSES HERE. I I WANT TO REMIND US WHAT’S IN
STORE FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK. WE DO HAVE ANOTHER DAY, OF THIS
HUMAN DAY SO, IT’S LIKELY THEY WILL TAKE ANOTHER EIGHT HOURS OR
LESS. TO HAVE UP TO EIGHT HOUR TOMORROW TO DO ANOTHER Q&A
SESSION. IT LOOKED LIKE EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY. THE
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER FOREIGN. THEY WILL ASK THAT OF THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL OR THE WHITE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS. THEY
TOOK A BREAK. THEY DO HAVE A LITTLE TIME THEY CAN USE TO
CONTINUE THIS ON THE FLOOR. THE START AGAIN TOMORROW AT 1:00
BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO THE SENATE CHAMBER I WONDER HOW THEY
WILL BE GROUPING QUESTIONS. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. I
HEARD THE VERY FIRST QUESTION WITH ROMNEY, THINKING WE ARE
REALLY GOOD ENOUGH TO START HERE. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS TOO
YOU HAVE SEEN KREWES AND BRAUN GET TOGETHER. HE WAS SEEN YOU
KNOW, A FEW OTHERS ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE USUALLY BIND
TOGETHER, AS WELL. I THINK ASKING QUESTIONS TOGETHER MIGHT
BE A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS STRENGTH
IN NUMBERS. IF YOU ARE JOINING THE TEAM OF QUESTIONERS, THAT
MIGHT HELP YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE POLITICALLY SAFE. YOU CAN
CERTAINLY SEE WHY THEY MIGHT WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ON THEIR
OWN. EVEN IF THE VOICE IS NOT LITERALLY HEARD IN THE SENATE
CHAMBER, AT LEAST THE QUESTION IS ASKED. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN
BRICKNER WAS TO TAKE THE QUESTIONS AND READ THEM. HE IS
NOT DOING MUCH BETWEEN KEEP IN TIME. IS NOT PUSHING BACK IF
THERE ARE THEMES THAT ARE NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT HER ARE
REPETITIVE. HE HAS GOT A VERY CLEAR JOB. HE
IS STICKING TO IT. I HE IS. WE DO KNOW ON FRIDAY, HE IS
PLANNING ON FILING A MOTION THAT IS GOING TO ASK CHIEF JUSTICE
THIS TWO-WAY AND UNWITNESSED VOTES. IF THEY ARE NOT QUITE
SURE BY TOMORROW, THEY ARE DOING THINGS THAT THEY HOPE WILL PUT
THINGS IN PLACE BY FRIDAY. . THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
HOPING HE WILL HAVE A BIGGER ROLE IN THIS AND NOT BE SORT OF
THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER. HE SAID THAT HE HAS BEEN IN A SUBSTITUTE
TEACHER ROLE. SOMEBODY IS SO CLOSELY WATCHED I AM NOT
ANTICIPATING HER REVEALING WHERE SHE IS COMING DOWN ON THIS. THEY
HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN BY THAT AT THIS POINT. WE WILL SEE WHAT
EVOLVES THROUGH THIS PROCESS HAVE TO THINK BOTH SIDES WANT TO
GO OUT TONIGHT? HOW DO THEY WANT TO LEAVE TONIGHT. UNTIL THE NEXT
NEW CYCLE PICKS UP WITH THIS TOMORROW AFTERNOON. I THINK THEY
WANT TO LEAVE EARLIER TODAY, WHEN THEY WENT OUT ON A DINNER
BREAK I LISTENED TO THE PRESS CONFERENCES WITH BOTH SIDE YOU
KNOW, SCHUMER LOOKS LIKE HE IS VERY CONFIDENT. HE THINKS IT
MIGHT GO THEIR WAY. HE THINKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY GOOD
JOB OF STICKING TO THEIR ARGUMENT. REPUBLICANS MAY GO
QUIETER, TODAY THE MIGHT LEAVE QUIETER TODAY. THEY DO HAVE
CAUCUS WORK TO DO. THEY MAY NEED TO GO AHEAD AND DECIDE, LET’S GO
AHEAD WITH A WITNESS VOTE. WE ARE GOING TO HEAR AT THE END OF
THE DAY. WE ARE READY FOR TOMORROW. PROBABLY NOT GOING TO
HEAR MUCH FROM REPUBLICANS TODAY.
>>ALSO CHALLENGING QUESTIONS ARE ASKED
OF HOUSE MANAGERS. ASKING THEM OKAY, YOU’VE HEARD FROM WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL FROM PAT CIPOLLONE AND HAVE BEEN RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT
JUST WHAT INFORMATION THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT DEFLECT OR MIGHT NOT
YOU KNOW RESPOND TO. BUT, HE HAD A COUPLE OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES TO PUSH BACK AND TRY TO GET THEM TO GET THAT
INFORMATION. HE WAS TRYING TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY
DEMOCRATS.. I THINK IT DOES SPEAK TO MODERATES. THEY WANT TO SAY
LOOK, I LOOKED AT THE SIDE. ASKED FOR QUESTIONS ON THESE
QUESTIONS, AND ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW SURROUND DEED EVENTS AROUND THIS
IMPEACHMENT, IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE SENATORS.
>>IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE HEADING
BACK. THANK YOU. >>THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
>>TURNED 12 THANK YOU. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR LEX LEARN OTHERS
SENATORS ARE FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. AS A WITNESS
COORDINATING WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, DID MANAGER ADAMS HANDLING OF THE INQUIRY CREATE
MATERIAL TO PROCESS ISSUES FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, DID CREATE A DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, AND MY ARGUMENT, THERE ARE THREE
MAJOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATION THE LACK OF AUTHORIZATION DURING THE
PROCEEDING AND IT STARTED IN AND LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONALLY
INVALID MANNER AND SECOND, THE LACK OF BASIC DUE PROCESS
PROTECTION RELATED TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 2% EVIDENCE
TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND PRESENT WITNESSES. THE FINAL ONE
IS MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF OR HIS STAFF HAD SOME ROLE IN
CONSULTING WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER THAT REMAIN SECRET, TO THIS DAY AND
ALL ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT
SACRAMENT WERE SHUT DOWN. MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF SAID HE HAD
NO CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THERE WAS SOME CONSULTATION THERE, HAS NOT BEEN
PROBED BY ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO ASK ABOUT THAT WERE SHUT DOWN.
AND ANY QUESTIONS SOLD ANY QUESTIONS INTO DETERMINING WHO
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WASN’T HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE SHUT DOWN ALSO.
THE IN VECTORED GENERAL , WE NOTED HEARD THAT EARLIER
THIS EVENING IN HIS LETTER TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DNA,
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD TO REACH POLITICAL BIAS, BECAUSE
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD CONNECTIONS TO A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE OF ANOTHER PARTY BUT, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL REMAINS A SECRET. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORWARDED FROM THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD THAT
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ABILITY TO PROBE INTO THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND OTHERS WHO ARE MATERIALLY
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE INQUIRY. THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BEEN A
LEGEND IN PUBLIC REPORTS WORKED FOR THE THEN VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN ON UKRAINE’S ISSUES AND WHAT WAS HIS ROLE OR INVOLVEMENT
WHEN ISSUES ARE RAISED WE KNOW THROUGH TESTIMONY THE QUESTIONS
WERE RAISED ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THE VICE PRESIDENT
HAD WHEN HIS SON WAS ON SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA WAS
INVOLVED IN THAT? DID HE HAVE SOME REASON TO WANT
TO FLIP ON ANY QUESTION RAISING ANY ISSUE ABOUT WHAT WENT ON
WITH THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND WITHHOLDING $1 BILLION IN
LOAN GUARANTEES AND ENFORCING QUID PRO QUO . YOU WILL NOT GET $1 BILLION
INTO THE FIRE HIM. WE DON’T KNOW. BECAUSE MANAGER ADAM
SCHIFF WAS GUIDING THE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN IN
CHARGE OF DIRECTING THE INQUIRY AND DRINKING IT AWAY FROM ANY OF
THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT CREATES A DUE PROCESS DEFECT IN THE RECORD
. YES THAT’S A MAJOR DEFECT. THE WAY THEY OCCURRED THIS RECORD
MEANS IT’S NOT RECORD THAT COULD BE RELIED UPON TO REACH ANY
CONCLUSION OTHER THAN AN ACQUITTAL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU. THE MAC THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS AND I WILL SEND IT TO THE DESK. SENATOR PETERS ASKS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, DOES AND IMPEACHABLE ABUSIVE POWER REQUIRED THE
PRESIDENT’S CORRUPT PLAN ACTUALLY SUCCEED?
>>CHIEF JUSTICE, AND SENATORS, THE
ANSWER IS NO. JUST AS ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE,
IF YOU ATTEMPTED MURDER, BUT DID NOT SUCCEED, HE WOULD NOT BE
INNOCENT. THE PRESIDENT HAS ATTEMPTED TO UPEND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR SOME PERSONAL BENEFIT IN THE LET’S
PUT SLIDE 11 UP. HE HAS USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE, TO SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. WE KNOW THIS, THAT BY THE PRESIDENT’S
OWN STATEMENTS AND THE CONFESSIONS SUBSTANTIAL
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TESTIMONY, AND THIS HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES.
IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR ELECTION SECURITY, AND UNDERMINING U.S.
CREDIBILITY AND THE VALUES ABROAD. NOW, BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO ACT IN THIS MANNER, WE BELIEVE THIS IS
AN ONGOING THREAT. WHILE THE IMPEACHMENT IS GOING ON,
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL LAWYER MR. GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE,
CONTINUING THIS GAME. WHEN HE LANDED, HE WAS STILL TEXTING AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING
HIM, WHAT DID YOU GET? WHAT DID YOU GET? THIS IS AN ONGOING
MATTER AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO RELEASE THE A AFTER HIS
SCHEME WAS REVEALED, DOES NOT END THE PROBLEM. NOW, I HAVE
LISTENED WITH GREAT INTEREST TO THE BACK AND FORTH IN QUESTIONS,
I WANT TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, AND I CANNOT, BUT I
DO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE CLEAR HE BELIEVES HE CAN DO
WHATEVER HE WANTS. WHATEVER HE WANTS, AND THERE IS NO
CONSTRAINT THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE CONGRESS, MR.
MULVANEY HAS WE NOTED HAS THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTLY TIED TO HOLD ON MILITARY AID TO HIS DESIRE TO
GET UKRAINE TO CONDUCT A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION. NOW,
THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE OUR
EYES. WHEN I WAS A KID, THEY SAID, DON’T BELIEVE YOUR LYING
EYES AS HE WALKS THAT BACK LATER. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
ACTUALLY, TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS WHO DIRECTLY SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT, WHO APPARENTLY CAN TELL US, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM
THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS AID WAS HELD UP, TO GET DIRT ON
DEMOCRATS. IF WE THINK ABOUT IT, IF CHIEF EXECUTIVE CALLED THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND SAID, I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION, THERE WOULD BE
NO QUESTION THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROPER USE OF PRESIDENTIAL
POWER. IT’S NO DIFFERENT, WHEN YOU INVOLVE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
EXCEPT IT’S WORSE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FOUNDERS WERE ABOUT
WAS INVOLVEMENT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND ARE MATTERS. SO,
YES, THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT SUCCEED IN THAT INSTANCE, DOES
NOT MEAN WE ARE SAFE. THE IDEA I WAS STUNNED TO HEAR,
NOW APPARENTLY, IT IS OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GET INFORMATION
FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN AN ELECTION. THAT IS NEWS TO ME.
YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN LAW PROHIBITED ACCEPTING THING
OF VALUE OF INFORMATION. IF YOU OR I ACCEPTED A MATERIAL
INFORMATION FROM A SOURCE, EMAIL DATABASE, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT
OR FROM A FOREIGN NATION THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL. THE THOUGHT,
THAT THIS AS WE GO FORWARD IN THIS TRIAL ITSELF, WE CREATE
ADDITIONAL DANGERS TO THE NATION, BY SUGGESTING THAT
THINGS THAT HAVE LONG BEEN PROHIBITED ARE NOW SUDDENLY
GOING TO BE OKAY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ASSERTED IN THE
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE. I YIELD BACK. I THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING
. TRENT 12 >>THANK YOU.
>>THE QUESTION FROM THE OTHER
SENATORS FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, KENNETH SENATE
CONVICT A SITTING PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR RIGHTS?
>>MR. CHEAP JUSTICE AND CENTER,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SHORT ANSWER IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY, NO THE SENATE MAY NOT THE SERIES THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED, I THINK SHE REALLY TESTIFYING FOR THE
HOUSE MADE IT VERY CLEAR. BUT IS AN ABUSIVE POWER AND IT’S
DANGEROUS. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION AT THE HEART OF THE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGED THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
BROUGHT, IS THAT THE HOUSE CAN DEMAND INFORMATION AND IF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THIS, EVEN IF IT PROVIDES LAWFUL RATIONALE,
PERHAPS ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH ARE
CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING PRECEDENTS AND PRINCIPLES
APPLIED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH
THEM AND JUMP IMMEDIATELY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THAT’S
DANGEROUS FOR OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
PRINCIPLE HERE BASED ON SIMPLY A FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO PROCEED
LAWFULLY WE’VE HEARD ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. IT HAS TWO
PROCEED BY THE PROPER METHOD TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. SO, IF THE HOUSE IS NOT ISSUED SUBPOENAS OF
THE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO SUBPOENA SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT
AND THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS IMMUNITY TO SENIOR ADVISORS, A
DOCTRINE HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE
NIXON GOES BACK EARLIER THAN THAT, THEN THERE IS A
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST
AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IT’S SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
OPERATION AT FRICTION BETWEEN BRANCHES AS PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY DESIGN. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
NOT BECAUSE IT WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO HAVE
GOVERNMENT, BUT BECAUSE OF FRICTION THAT IT CAUSED AND THE
INTERACTION BETWEEN BRANCHES, IT’S PART OF A WAY OF
GUARANTEEING LIBERTY BY ENSURING NO ONE BRANCH CAN AGGRANDIZE
POWER FOR ITSELF. WHAT HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SUGGESTING, IS
ANTITHETICAL TO THAT PRINCIPAL. WHAT THEY ARE
SUGGESTING IS, ONCE THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT
AND MAKE SIGNS FOR INFORMATION FROM EXECUTIVES, THE EXECUTIVE
IS NO DEFENSES. HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR
PREROGATIVE TO RAISE RESPONSE. THEY HAVE TO TURN OVER
EVERYTHING. BUT THAT WOULD LEAD TO, PROFESSOR TURLEY EXPLAINED,
IS TRANSFORMING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BY ELEVATING THE
HOUSE AND MAKING IT A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. AS
DERSHOWITZ WAS EXPLAINING, IN THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM THE
PRIME MINISTER CAN BE REMOVED BY A VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE. IF YOU
MAKE IT SO EASY, TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, ALL THE HOUSE HAS TO
DO IS DEMAND INFORMATION, GO TO RESPONSE FROM PRESENCES PRINT
THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT ALL RESIDENCES TUSCAN SAY THAT IT YOU WILL BE
IMPEACHED. YOU MAKE THE PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON THE
LEGISLATOR. THAT’S WHAT HE WARNED AGAINST SPECIFICALLY
DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HE WARNED THE
FRAMERS, WHEN YOU MAKE A METHOD FOR MAKING THE PRESIDENT
AMENABLE WE SHOULD MAKE SURE WE CANNOT MAKE HIM DEPENDENT ON THE
LEGISLATURE. IT WAS A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM MAKING IT EASY TO REMOVE THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT THE FRAMERS WANTED TO REJECT. IN THIS THEORY
OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WE CREATE EXACTLY THAT SYSTEM. EASY
REMOVAL, EFFECTIVELY A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF A VOTE
OF NO-CONFIDENCE IT’S NOT THE STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
THE FRAMERS WERE TRYING TO THE CONSTITUTION.
>>SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. SENATORS WARNER,
HEINRICH AND HARRIS. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL AND OTHER SENATORS, IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IT
READ AS FOLLOWS, FOR THE BREAK, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL’S DATED
THAT ACCEPTING MERE INFORMATION, FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, AND IT IS
NOT CAMPAIGN INTERFERED TO ACCEPT CREDIBLE INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN SOURCE ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO’S RUNNING FOR OFFICE. UNDER
THIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE KINDS OF PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATED BY
RUSSIAN 2016, ON FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS,
USING BOTS AND FAKE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO SPREAD
INFORMATION IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE.
ISN’T IT TRUE THAT ACCEPTING SUCH A THING OF VALUE IS A
VIOLATION OF LAW AND ISN’T IT TRUE IT’S ONE OF THE HIGHEST
PARITIES ARE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE CIA, D
AND I AND FBI, TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE OR INTERVENTION IN OUR ELECTIONS?
>>IT’S WITHOUT QUESTION, AMONG THE
VERY HIGHEST PARITIES OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HIM A LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION OF
THE TYPE AND CHARACTER WE SAW IN 2016. WHEN RUSSIA HACKED THE
DATABASES OF THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE WHEN THEY BEGAN A
CAMPAIGN OF LEAKING THOSE DOCUMENTS WHEN IT ENGAGED IN A
MASTER SYSTEMIC SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN, ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES HAVE BEEN DEVOTING THEMSELVES, TO REMAINING A
RECURRENCE OF THAT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IF I AM
UNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT CRACKING AND I THINK I AM, THEY
ARE SAYING NOT ONLY IS THAT OKAY TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT THAT, BUT
THE VERY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT THAT BOB MUELLER SPENT
TWO YEARS INVESTIGATING, DIDN’T AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL AND SPEAR AND
SEE THAT IS TO BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE CRIME OF
CONSPIRACY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM
POLICING. MUELLER DID NOT ADDRESS COLLUSION WHAT HE DID
ADDRESSES WHETHER HE COULD APPROVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. HE
FOUND HE COULD NOT. WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SAY NOW,
EVEN IF HE COULD HAVE, THAT’S OKAY. IT’S NOW OKAY TO
CRIMINALLY CONSPIRE, WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY, TO GET HELP IN
A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES, IT
WOULD HELP HIS CAMPAIGN AND THEREFORE OUR COUNTRY. THAT’S
OKAY NOW. IT’S OKAY TO ASK FOR HELP AND WORK WITH THAT POWER TO
GET THAT HELP THAT’S NOW OKAY. IT’S BEEN A REMARKABLE EVOLUTION
OF THE DEFENSE. BEGIN WITH NONE OF THAT STUFF HAPPENED HERE.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE AND IT MIGRATED TO OKAY, THEY DID SEEK
INVESTIGATIONS AND BECAME OKAY, THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT
SOUGHT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS. IT WAS HOT BY THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER. THEN IT MIGRATED TO OKAY WE ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT WHILE THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WAS CONDUCTING THIS
PERSONAL, POLITICAL ERRAND, HE WITHHELD THE MONEY AND WE THINK
THAT’S OKAY. WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW
DAYS AND THE LONG DAY TODAY, A REMARKABLE LOWERING OF THE BAR,
TO THE POINT NOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS OKAY. AS LONG AS
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT IS IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST. YOU CAN
CONSIDER FIRE WAS ANOTHER COUNTRY TO GET HELP IN YOUR
ELECTION BY INTERVENING ON YOUR BEHALF TO HELP YOU OR BY
INTERVENING TO HURT YOUR OPPONENT. NOW WE ARE TOLD,
THAT’S NOT ONLY OKAY BUT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. IF YOU SAY ABUSE OF POWER IS
IMPEACHABLE THEN YOU ARE IMPEACHING PEOPLE FROM YOUR
POLICY. THAT IS NONSENSE. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEY ARE
NOT THE SAME THING AND BUILD BAR HAS ARGUED, THEY ARE NOT THE
SAME THING AS DERSHOWITZ ARGUED 21 YEARS AGO. DO NOT THE SAME
THING TODAY. THEY ARE JUST NOT. YOU CANNOT SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING IT
DOES NOT EXONERATE YOU. IF YOU TAKE A HOSTAGE, AND YOU
DEMAND RANSOM, AND THE POLICE ARE ASKING YOU, AND YOU
RELEASE THE HOSTAGE BEFORE YOU GET THE MONEY, DOES NOT MAKE YOU
INNOCENT. IT MAKES YOU UNSUCCESSFUL. DOES NOT MITIGATE
THE HARMFUL CONDUCT. THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE I DIA THE
WEATHER PRESIDENTS LETTERS TODAY THAT IT’S PERFECTLY FINE AND
UNIMPEACHABLE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO SAY RUSSIA OR CHINA I WANT YOUR HELP IN MY LECTION. THAT’S
THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT. WE ARE CALLING THAT POLICY, NOW.
THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAN FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND
TO WITHHOLD MONEY LIST TO GET IT. THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL
POLICY. I’M SORRY. THAT’S WHAT I CALL, CORRUPTION. THEY CAN DRESS
IT UP AND DEFINE IT IN LEGALESE BUT
CORRUPTION IS STILL CORRUPTION. >>THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK. >>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
COLLINS IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
ASSERTED THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED CRIMINAL BRIBERY AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 201 AND HONEST SERVICES FRAUD IS DEFINED IN SECTION
1346, THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT CITED IN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT DID THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AS ALLEGED IN THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF THESE
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, AND IF SO WHY WERE THEY NOT INCLUDED IN
THE ARTICLES? THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR REQUEST
DEAN ARTICLE 1 ALLEGES, CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER. CORRUPT ABUSE OF
POWER CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT EFFORT TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE
2020 ELECTION, BY PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN JOE BIDEN SOLELY FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. THE
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. THIS GAME WAS
EXECUTED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. NOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
INDICATED BASED ON HIS VERY OF WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE. IT HAS TO
BE A TECHNICAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION BELOW THE WEIGHT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS EITHER A
CRIMINAL VIOLATION OR SOMETHING CAN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION. A CAN THAT FALLS INTO THAT
CATEGORY. WHAT HAPPENS HERE IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, SOLICITED
A THING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT TOOK THING OF
VALUE WAS PHONY, POLITICAL DIRT IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL
OPPONENT. HE ASKED FOR IT EXPLICITLY ON
THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL AND THROUGH HIS INTERMEDIARY
HEATEDLY IN THE SPRING THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AND INTO
THE FALL. HE SOLICITED A THING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR TWO
OFFICIAL ACTS. ONE OFFICIAL ACT WAS THE RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID
THAT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE AND BY THE HOUSE ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS. THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.
WITNESSES, WHO SAID THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY REASON. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR
WITHHOLDING THE EGG. WAS WITHHELD TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE. THAT IS YOUR STANDARD, SIR THE
PRESIDENT SOLICITED THAT POLITICAL DIRT IN EXCHANGE FOR A
SECOND OFFICIAL ACT. WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THE LEADER WANTED
SO MUCH SO THAT HE MENTIONED IT ON THE JULY 25th CALL AND EVEN
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE SIDELINES
OF THE U.N. IN LATE SEPTEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE BROUGHT UP THE OVAL OFFICE
MEETING, AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS VALUABLE TO HIM. HE WITHHELD IT.
HE WITHHELD THAT OFFICIAL ACT. THE SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020
ELECTION. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA THAT UNDERMINES OUR
DEMOCRACY. THAT’S A STUNNING CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER IN THE
YES SIR, IT ISA CRIME. THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.
>>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. .
THANK YOU, SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.
>>QUESTION FROM SENATORS
HILLEBRAND, MURPHY AND ROSEN AS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. HOW DO
THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS HOW DOES THAT WORK.>>CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, FOR
THE QUESTION, SENATORS. TO BE VERY CLEAR, WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID IS NOT THE SAME AS A ROUTINE WITHHOLDING OR
REVIEWING OF FOREIGN AID THAT ALIGNS WITH POLICY PRIORITIES,
OR TO ADJUST THE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT. INDEED, IF THAT
WERE THE CASE, IF THE PRESIDENT HAD ENGAGED THAT PROCESS, HAD
GONE THROUGH THE INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS, HAD DONE THROUGH THE ROUTINE CONGRESSIONAL
CERTIFICATION PROCESS, HE WOULD HAVE THE DOCUMENT, HE WOULD HAVE
TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE THE FACTS TO BACK THAT UP. INDEED WHAT WE
HAVE, ARE NONE OF THOSE. WE DON’T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS. IN
THE TWO MONTHS., WHERE NONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD
NORMALLY BE INVOLVED, WERE AWARE OF THE REASON FOR THE WHOLE.
LET’S LOOK AT SOME PRAYER HOLDS. IN THE CASES OF OBAMA,
PRESIDENTS OBAMA’S PRESIDENT TEMPORARY HOLD, AND CONGRESS WAS
NOTIFIED. THERE WERE REASONS FOR THOSE HOLDS IT WAS DONE IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, WHETHER IT WAS CORRUPTION OR SECURITY.
NEVER THE PRESIDENT’S OLD PERSONAL INTEREST. LET’S LOOK AT
TRUMP’S OTHER HOLDS. IN AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE OF CONCERNS
ABOUT TERRORISTS. IN CENTRAL AMERICA, BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION
CONCERNS. THEY WERE DONE FOR REASONS REGARDING POLICY THEY
WERE NOT CONCEALED. THEY WERE PUBLIC. THEY WERE WIDELY
PUBLICIZED. THEY HAD ENGAGED CONGRESS AND THE DOJ AND
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE IN TYPE APPARATUS INVOLVED IN
CONDUCTING THOSE HOLDS. AGAIN, NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED HERE. ALL OF THIS GOES TO SHOW THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON WHY
VIOLATE THE INCUMBENT CONTROL ACT? WHY KEEP PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
THESE HOLDS IN THE DARK? THE PRESIDENTS AGENCY OF
ADVISORS CONFIRMED, REPEATEDLY, THE EGG WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF OUR COUNTRY’S NATIONAL SECURITY INCLUDING SECRETARY
POMPEO AND VICE PRESIDENT PENTZ, AMBASSADOR BOLTON. OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, EVERYBODY WAS IMPLORING THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE
HOLD TO NO AVAIL. EVIDENCE SHOWS EVEN THE PROCESS WAS UNUSUAL AND
YOU HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST WEEK. MR. DUFFY, THE PRESIDENT’S
HAND PICKED APPOINTEE, WHO HAS REFUSED TO TESTIFY TOOK OVER
RESPONSIBILITY TO AUTHORIZE THE AIDE. MR. SANDY CONFIRMED, IN
HIS ENTIRE CAREER, HE HAD NEVER SEEN OR EXPERIENCED CAREER
OFFICIALS HAVING THEIR 30 REMOVED BY A POLITICAL
APPOINTEE. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION AND YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM YOU
IN A WHILE. I SUSPECT THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. IT’S BECAUSE,
WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG ISSUE. WE DON’T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY
BUT THE INTEREST OF HIMSELF OVER THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY,
OVER THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
HERE TO TALK ABOUT. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED THAT’S WHAT EVIDENCE
SHOWED. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW LEGITIMATE ENGAGEMENT.>>THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. TRAIN 12. I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. .
THAT WAS A TERRIFYING MOMENT. ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND LANGFORD
AND GARDNER, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL.
>>THINKING. THANK YOU. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BLUNT
AND OTHERS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. WHAT DOES THE
SUPER MAJORITY THRESHOLD FOR CONVICTION IN THE SENATE SAY
ABOUT THE TYPE OF CASE THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE
AND STANDARD OF PROOF THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE
SENATE? >>THERE WERE SEVERAL DEBATES AMONG
THE FRAMERS, SHOULD YOU HAVE IMPEACHMENT AT ALL? WHAT’S THE
CRITERIA AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER DEBATE. WHO SHOULD HAVE
THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD BE REMOVED? JAMES MADISON SUGGESTED, THE SUPREME COURT. SHOULD BE COMPLETELY NONPARTISAN
AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL. HE
SAID THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULDN’T BECOME INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN BRANCH TO
PRESIDE OVER THE CHILD BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, AND IMPEACHED
PRESIDENT CAN BE PUT ON TRIAL OR FOR CRIMES HE COMMITTED.
HAMILTON SAID, IF HE WERE TO BE PUT ON TRIAL, HE WOULD THEN BE
PUT ON TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE SAME INSTANT TUITION, THE
JUDICIARY MIGHT HAVE A PREDISPOSITION. SO IN THE
COURSE OF THE DEBATE, WAS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE
SENATE, WHICH IT WAS A DIFFERENT INSTITUTION BACK AT THE FOUNDING
OBVIOUSLY, SENATORS WERE POINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS AN INSTITUTION THAT CHECKED ON
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THEY WERE MORE SOBER AND ELECTED
FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. THEY WERE NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT
PLEASING THE POPULAR MASSES. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
DEMOCRACY. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
WHEN IT CAME TIME TO SIGN IT TO THE SENATE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHAT THE CRATE CHEERIER AND VOTE WOULD BE. IT WAS
PLAINLY DESIGNED, PLAINLY DESIGNED TO AVOID PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT. PLAINLY DESIGNED TO ACCENTUATE THE WISE BLASPHEMY
ESPOUSED BY THE CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR DURING THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN. DURING THE IMPEACHMENT . NEVER EVER HAVE IMPEACHMENT
REMOVAL THAT IS PARTISAN. ALWAYS DEMAND THAT THERE BE WIDESPREAD
CONSENSUS AND WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT AND BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT. WHAT BETTER WAY OF ENSURING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THEN
REQUIRING A TWO THIRDS VOTE. ALMOST IN EVERY INSTANCE IN
ORDER TO GET A TWO THIRDS VOTE YOU NEED MEMBERS OF BOTH
PARTIES. JOHNSON’S CASE WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. IN ORDER TO GET
THAT BOOK YOU NEEDED NOT ONLY THE PARTY THAT WAS BEHIND THE
IMPEACHMENT, AND YOU NEEDED PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE AS
WELL. WHEN SEVEN REPUBLICANS DISSENTED BASED LARGELY ON THE
ARGUMENT THAT THERE WERE ARGUMENTS I
PARAPHRASE HERE THE OTHER DAY, IT LOST BY MERELY ONE VOTE. THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IF I REMEMBER CHRIS, ACHIEVED A 50-50
SPLIT. AM I RIGHT? I THINK I’M RIGHT ABOUT THAT. AND ONLY LOST,
IT COULD HAVE BEEN 5149, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH. I THINK IT
IS PLAIN THAT, NOT ONLY IS THE TO THIRD WERE CARMEN A
>>ON THE HOUSE, IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO EVER SENATOR. IT
SENDS A MESSAGE TO SENATORS WOULD BE IN THE ONE THIRD. IF
YOU ARE 14 FOR PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, YOU ARE VIOLATING
THE SPIRIT OF THE TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENT. THERE ARE MANY
INSTITUTIONS WHERE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WEEK AND SEEK
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO SHOW UNITY. I WOULD URGE SOME SENATORS, WHO
FAVOR IMPEACHMENT, LOOK AT THAT TWO THIRDS AND SAY IF THERE IS
NOT GOING TO BE TWO THIRDS, THEREFORE, WE WILL VOTE AGAINST
IMPEACHMENT. EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN
SATISFIED. DON’T VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT. DO NOT VOTE FOR
REMOVAL UNLESS YOU THINK THAT THE CRITERIA? AIDED BY THE
SENATOR AND BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY HAMILTON ARE ENOUGH.
NAMELY, BIPARTISAN ALMOST UNIVERSAL BY THE UNITED DATES OF
AMERICA. THAT CRITERIA IS MET IN THE TWO THIRDS COMMENT
ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE THE FRAMERS GAVE TO THAT CRITERIA. I
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT. >>CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK. WHILE THE QUESTION IS COMING UP,
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO MORE DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONS INTO MORE
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
MURPHY’S TO THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
SUBMITTED TO BINDING RULINGS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, REGARDING
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND
THEY WILL NOT APPEAL SUCH RULINGS. WITH THE PRESIDENT’S
COUNSEL MAKE THE SAME COMMITMENT OBVIATING ANY CONCERNS ABOUT AN
EXTENDED TRIAL? >>MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WE’VE HAD
THIS QUESTION. WILL SAY VERY CLEARLY. WE ARE NOT WILLING TO
DO THAT. WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH IMPEACHMENT IS BASED AND
THE PRIVILEGES THAT ARE AT STAKE WOULD KNOW THE SUSPECT TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT’S NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. IT’S THE
SAME THING THEY ARE DOING AGAIN. SURRENDER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVIDENCE YOU HAVE AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED IN THIS WAY. GIVE
US DOCUMENT. GIVE US WITNESSES AND IF YOU DON’T, WE WILL CHARGE
YOU WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IN THIS CASE WE ARE
WILLING TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE MANAGERS I WHATEVER THE CHIEF
JUSTICE DECIDES. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
IS SET UP. IT’S EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT AGAIN. GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT
TO CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENA IN COURT AND RELY ONLY ON WHO IS
HEREBY THE WAY AGAIN WITH NO DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
HE’S HERE AS A PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PROCEEDING. SO
THE PRESIDENT ISN’T WILLING TO FORGO THOSE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES THAT HE POSSESSES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION UNDER
ARTICLE 2 FOR EXPEDIENCY. THEY TRIED THAT IN THE HOUSE. I’M
SURE THERE WILL NOT BE THE DECISION HERE, IN THE SENATE.
THANK YOU.’S >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. SENATOR
FROM MISSISSIPPI. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK. TO DERSHOWITZ. THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL TO THE
RESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND IT’S
THIS, PROFESSOR JUST WHICH YOU STATED DURING YOUR PRESENTATION
THE THE HOUSE GROUNDS FORM JUDGMENT AND NOT TO THE MOST
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT”. WHAT SPECIFIC DANGER DOES THIS
IMPEACHMENT BOTH TO OUR REPUBLIC TO ITS CITIZENS?
>>THANK YOU, SENATORS. CAME OF AGE
DURING THE PERIOD OF McCARTHYISM. I THEN BECAME A
YOUNG PROFESSOR IN THE RING THE TIME OF THE VIETNAM WAR. I LIVED DURING THE IRAQ WAR AND
FOLLOWING 9/11. I’VE NEVER LIVED IN A MORE DIVISIVE TIME IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEN TODAY. FAMILIES ARE BROKEN UP
AND FRIENDS DON’T SPEAK TO EACH OTHER. DIALOGUE HAS DISAPPEARED
ON CAMPUSES. WE LIVE IN EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS TIMES.
I’M NOT SUGGESTING THE DIVISION AND DECISION BY THE HOUSE IS
BROUGHT THAT HONESTY PERHAPS IT SIMPLY A SYMPTOM OF A TRAFFIC
PROBLEM WE HAVE FACING US AND LIKELY TO FACE US IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT’S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS MATURE SENATE WHOSE JOB
IT IS TO LOOK FORWARD WHOSE JOB IT IS TO ASSURE OUR FUTURE, TO
MAKE SURE THE DIVISIONS DON’T GROW EVEN GREATER. FOR PRESIDENT
TO BE REMOVED TODAY, IT WOULD POSE EXISTENTIAL DANGERS TO OUR
ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER, AS A PEOPLE. THE DECISION WOULD BE
ACCEPTED BY MANY AMERICANS. NIXON’S DECISION WAS ACCEPTED
EASILY ACCEPTED. I THINK THAT DECISIONS THAT WOULD’VE BEEN
MADE IN OTHER CASES WOULD BE ACCEPTED, THIS ONE WOULDN’T BE
EASILY ACCEPTED. BECAUSE IT’S A DIVIDED COUNTRY. IT’S A DIVIDED
TIME. IF THE PRESIDENT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
BE REMOVED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VAGUE AND RECURRING OPEN-ENDED
AND TARGETED TERMS AS ABUSE OF POWER 40 PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED
AND ALL HAVE, WE DON’T KNOW SOME CHARGES AGAINST SOME OF THEM,
BUT WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON SO MANY, IF THAT CRITERIA WERE TO
BE USED, THIS WOULD BE THE BEGINNING. IT WOULD BE THE
BEGINNING OF A RECURRING WEAPONIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT,
WHENEVER ONE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY AND PRESIDENCY IS
CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER. THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE DANGER ISN’T IMPEACHMENT BUT
THOSE DANGERS CAN BE ELIMINATED IN EIGHT MONTHS. IF YOU REALLY
FEEL THERE IS A STRONG CASE, CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
AT THE DANGER OF THEM EACH MEANT TO LAST MY LIFETIME AND YOURS. IT WILL LAST A LIFETIME OF OUR
CHILDREN. I URGE YOU, RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE THE
GUARDIANS OF OUR FUTURE. FOLLOW THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION. DON’T ALLOW IMPEACHMENT TO BECOME A
NORMALIZED WEAPON. MAKE SURE IT’S RESERVED ONLY FOR THE MOST
EXTRAORDINARY CASES LIKE THAT OF RICHARD NIXON. THIS CASE DOESN’T
MEET THAT CRITERIA. THANKS. >>THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>>THANK YOU >>THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR TO THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, IS THIS THE ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED CONGRESS
OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRY FUN IN MARCH, 2019
ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN
SEPTEMBER 2019, AND WORKED WITH CONGRESS FOR MONTHS AND 2018
REGARDING FUNDS WITHHELD DUE TO PAKISTAN’S LACK OF PROGRESS
MEETING COUNTERTERRORISM RESPONSIBILITIES. IN THESE INSTANCES THE RECEIVING
COUNTRIES NEW THE FUNDS WITHHELD TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN FURTHER
PUBLICLY STATED AMERICAN POLICY. WHY, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION
WITHHELD ASSISTANCE DID NOT NOTIFY CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE
OR PARTNER COUNTRIES, PUBLICLY WHERE OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS
NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE HOLD? >>MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, CENTER, THANK
YOU, FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK IN ALL OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT
WERE LISTED IN THE QUESTION, IT WAS CLEAR, THAT WITHHOLDING THE
EGG, WAS MEANT TO SEND A SIGNAL. IT WAS DONE PUBLICLY AND MEANT
TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE COUNTRY. I THINK IN THE TESTIMONY BEFORE
THE HOUSE, HERE, FULCHER MADE CLEAR THAT HE AND OTHERS HOPED
THE HOLD WOULD NOT BECOME PUBLIC. BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT
THERE TO BE ANY SIGNAL TO THE UKRAINIANS OR OTHERS. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TALKED ABOUT HOW, EVEN IF THE AID WHEN IT WAS WITHHELD,
DID NOT LEAD TO ANYTHING NOT BEING PURCHASED OF THE SUMMER
WAS STILL DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT SENT THE SIGNAL TO RUSSIANS. THE
POINT WAS WAS NOT PUBLIC. UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW AND
RUSSIANS DIDN’T KNOW. WAS NOT DONE TO SEND A SIGNAL. WAS TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT HAD RAISED CONCERNS ANYONE A
TIME TO HAVE THOSE CONCERNS ADDRESSED. HE WANTED TO
UNDERSTAND BETTER BURDEN SHARING AND IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE
EMAIL REFERRED TO EARLIER AND IT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE CALL
TRANSCRIPT. THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER OF THE TESTIMONY THERE
WERE DEVELOPMENTS ON CORRUPTION OVER THE SUMMER . ZELENSKY HAD JUST BEEN ELECTED
IN APRIL. AT THAT TIME MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFIED, THAT IT WAS
UNCLEAR HE HAD RUN A REFORM AGENDA BUT IT WAS
UNCLEAR WHAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH IT WAS UNCLEAR
WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ABLE TO SECURE A MAJORITY. JULY 25th CALL
OCCURRED RIGHT AFTER THOSE ELECTIONS AND HE WON THE
MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT. THE PROBLEM IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE
SEATED UNTIL LATER IN AUGUST THIRD TESTIFIED WHEN HE AND
BALLSTON WERE IN CARE OF, RIGHT AT THE END OF AUGUST AROUND
AUGUST 27th, THE PARLIAMENT HAD JUST BEEN SEATED AND ZELENSKY
AND HIS MINISTERS, RETIRED THEY HAD BEEN UP ALL NIGHT PICK UP
THE PARLIAMENT UP LATE IN SESSION TO PASS THE REFORM
LEGISLATION AGENDA) INCLUDING THINGS LIKE ELIMINATING IMMUNITY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT FROM CORRUPTION PROSECUTION.
THEY HAD SET UP THE NEW ANTICORRUPTION COURT. THESE
DEVELOPMENTS WERE POSITIVE. MORRISON TESTIFIED ZELENSKY WHEN
HE SPOKE TO PARENTS IN WARSAW, THEY DISCUSSED THESE AND
ZELENSKY WENT THROUGH THINGS HE WAS DOING AND THAT INFORMATION
WAS RELAYED BACK. THE HOLD HAD BEEN IN PLACE SO THAT THE
PRESIDENT COULD WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRIVATELY CONSIDER
THIS INFORMATION NOT TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.
THIS PLAYS INTO THE IDEA OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE PRESENTED
WITH THAT SOMEHOW THIS WAS TERRIBLE. PART OF THE WHOLE
POINT WAS THAT THERE WAS CONCERN AND NOT BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE IT
WOULD THEN NOT SEND A SIGNAL NOT IS WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL THE
POLITICAL ARTICLE CAME OUT ON AUGUST 28th.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *