Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Katyal On Trump’s Refusal To Testify: This Is ‘The Only Time I've Wanted Trump To Actually Speak’

Normal
(0)
Difficulty: 0

OFFICE. >>> WE HAVE A LAW PROFESSOR FROM

>>> WE HAVE A LAW PROFESSOR FROM

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, AND

CHARLIE AND ALICIA ARE STILL

HERE.

OR SUBPOENA IN-PERSON SPONGESES

TO QUESTIONS.

I REMEMBER IT GOT WRAPPED AROUND

ALL SORTS OF LEGAL PROBLEMS.

ARE SOME OF THOSE ERASED BY THE

FACT HES AN EX-PRESIDENT, A

PRIVATE CITIZEN NOW?

>> I DO THINK SO.

THE INVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT

IS DIFFERENT WHEN YOURE DEALING

WITH A FORMER OFFICIAL.

I THINK THE STORY LINE IS

PREDICTABLY, UNFORTUNATELY, THE

SAME, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS

REFUSING TO TESTIFIED.

HES QUITE FRANKLY A SCAREDY

CAT.

IF YOU OR I WERE ACCUSED OF

SOMETHING LIKE FOMENTING JANUARY

6th, WE WOULD DO EVERYTHING

POSSIBLE TO CLEAR OUR NAME.

NOT THIS GUY.

IF I WERE TWITTER, MAYBE INSTEAD

OF SUSPENDING HIS ACCOUNT, YOU

HAVE TO TESTIFY, YOU HAVE TO

POST UNDER OATH.

THAT WOULD HAVE SHUT HIM UP

QUICKLY, TOO.

THE WHOLE EPISODE IS GOOD FOR

THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THEY HAVE GIVEN FORMER PRESIDENT

TRUMP A CHANCE TO TELL HIS STORY

AND HES JUST SHOWN HIMSELF TO

BE AFRAID.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I WANTED

DONALD TRUMP TO ACTUALLY SPEAK.

INSTEAD, HES SILENT AND SPENDS

HIS TIME LIKE SPENDING HIS IMDB

PAGE TO THE S.A.G. OFFICES --

ITS A JOKE, BUT SERIOUSLY, HE

TRIES TO CLEAR HI NAME WITH

S.A.G., BUT HE HAS AN

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AND HES

SCARED TO BE UNDER OATH.

ALSO, IT SEEMS THAT HIS LAWYERS

KNOW HES GUILTY OF THE CHARGE.

THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE IS

SIMPLE AND IS JUST ONE.

HES GUILTY OF INCITING THE

INSURRECTION.

DONALD TRUMP HELD A

RADIOLOGICALLY TO INCITE WHAT

HAPPENED NEXT.

HE SAID, QUOTE, I WILL GO WITH

YOU.

SO NONE OF THE FACTS ARE IN

QUESTION, AND IT SEEMS TO ME

THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A GOOD

ARGUMENT BOTH -- AND BECAUSE

THIS ISNT A CRIMINAL TRIAL

WHERE, IF FOUND GUILTY, YOU GO

TO JAIL.

ITS ONLY A POLITICAL PROCESS,

THAT FOR THE PUBLIC TO INFER

GUILT AND INTENT TO DO EXACTLY

WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT REALLY A

STRETCH.

>> ABSOLUTELY 100%.

THATS WHY TRUMPS LAWYERS,

INSTEAD OF THE FACTS, ARE TRYING

TO PUT EVERYBODY ON THIS ONE

CLAIM, WHICH IS THAT YOU CANT

IMPEACH A FORMER PRESIDENT UNDER

OUR CONSTITUTION.

THATS WRONG JUST ON THE MERITS

FOR MANY REASONS SAID BY

McCONNELL -- MOTTE MITCH

McCONNELL, BUT JUDGE MICHAEL

McCONNELL, WHO SAID THIS

IMPEACHMENT STARTED WHILE HE WAS

PRESIDENT, AND HE SAYS ITS

UNDOUBTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL, BUT

NICOLLE, YOU SAY ITS A

POLITICAL PROBLEM AND OUR

FOUNDERS SAID WE GAVE THIS TO

CONGRESS, NOT A COURT OF LAW,

BECAUSE OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND

SENATOR ARE POPULARLY

ACCOUNTABLE.

ABOUT THIS CLAIM ABOUT NOT

IMPEACHING A FORMER PRESIDENT,

ITS A DODGE AROUND HAVING THE

SENATORS ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE

ULTIMATE QUESTION -- DID TRUMP

DO IT OR NOT?

>> I THINK TRUMPS LAWYERS HAVE

MISCALCULATED.

THERE ARE WAYS FOR THE SENATE TO

FORCE AN ANSWER ON THAT

QUESTION.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN NORMAL COURTS,

WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED THE

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM, IN WHICH

YOU SPLIT THE QUESTION INTO TWO.

HERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN

SPLIT THE QUESTION FOR THE

SENATE TO DECIDE INTO TWO.

THEY CAN ASK FIRST, IS IT OKAY

TO IMPEACH A FORMER OFFICIAL?

AND SECOND, SEPARATE QUESTION,

THAT THE SENATORS ARE TO ACT,

DID PRESIDENT TRUMP INCITE

The Description of Katyal On Trump’s Refusal To Testify: This Is ‘The Only Time I've Wanted Trump To Actually Speak’