Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Meeks: If Trump Continues To Obstruct, That Will Be Part Of The Impeachment | Hardball | MSNBC

>>> IMPEACHMENT SHOWDOWN. LET’S PLAY HARDBALL.

LET’S PLAY HARDBALL. GOOD EVENING, I’M STEVE KORNACKI

GOOD EVENING, I’M STEVE KORNACKI IN FOR CHRIS MATTHEWS.

IN FOR CHRIS MATTHEWS. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE LAUNCHED A

ADMINISTRATION HAVE LAUNCHED A NEW BID TO SLOW THE UNFOLDING

NEW BID TO SLOW THE UNFOLDING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BUT IT HAS

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BUT IT HAS PROMPTED ONE TOP DEMOCRAT TO

PROMPTED ONE TOP DEMOCRAT TO ACCUSE THE WHITE HOUSE OF TRYING

ACCUSE THE WHITE HOUSE OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. IN A LETTER TONIGHT THE WHITE

IN A LETTER TONIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CALLS THE

HOUSE COUNSEL CALLS THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, QUOTE,

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, QUOTE, ILLEGITIMATE AND SAYS THE WHITE

ILLEGITIMATE AND SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE WILL REFUSE TO COOPERATE

HOUSE WILL REFUSE TO COOPERATE WITH IT.

WITH IT. THIS COMES AFTER THE STATE

THIS COMES AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT BROUGHT GORDON

DEPARTMENT BROUGHT GORDON SOUNDLAND THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO

SOUNDLAND THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION FROM SPEAKING

THE EUROPEAN UNION FROM SPEAKING TO THREE HOUSE COMMITTEES

TO THREE HOUSE COMMITTEES INFORMING HIM OF THAT DECISION

INFORMING HIM OF THAT DECISION JUST HOURS BEFORE HE WAS

JUST HOURS BEFORE HE WAS SCHEDULED FOR A DEPOSITION

SCHEDULED FOR A DEPOSITION TODAY.

TODAY. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS AMONG THE

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS AMONG THE THREE DIPLOMATS WHO EXCHANGED

THREE DIPLOMATS WHO EXCHANGED POTENTIALLY DAMNING TEXT

POTENTIALLY DAMNING TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT A POSSIBLE EFFORT

MESSAGES ABOUT A POSSIBLE EFFORT TO LEVERAGE THE GOVERNMENT OF

TO LEVERAGE THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE LAST SUMMER.

UKRAINE LAST SUMMER. AND ACCORDING TO REPUBLICAN

AND ACCORDING TO REPUBLICAN SENATOR RON JOHNSON SONDLAND

SENATOR RON JOHNSON SONDLAND TOLD HIM OVER THE SUMMER THE

TOLD HIM OVER THE SUMMER THE RELEASE WAS CONTINGENT ON

RELEASE WAS CONTINGENT ON UKRAINE POINTING A PROSECUTOR

UKRAINE POINTING A PROSECUTOR WHO WOULD QUOTE GET TO BOTTOM OF

WHO WOULD QUOTE GET TO BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN ADAM

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF MADE CLEAR THE

SCHIFF MADE CLEAR THE ADMINISTRATION’S STONEWALLING

ADMINISTRATION’S STONEWALLING REPRESENTS OBSTRUCTION OF

REPRESENTS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO HIM.

JUSTICE TO HIM. >> THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THIS

>> THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THIS WITNESS, THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE

WITNESS, THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS WE CONSIDER YET

THESE DOCUMENTS WE CONSIDER YET ADDITIONAL STRONG EVIDENCE OF

ADDITIONAL STRONG EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF THE

OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS OF

CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS, A COEQUAL BRANCH OF

CONGRESS, A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNMENT. >> IN A TWEET THIS MORNING THE

>> IN A TWEET THIS MORNING THE PRESIDENT TOOK PERSONAL

PRESIDENT TOOK PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISION

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISION SAYING, QUOTE, I WOULD LOVE TO

SAYING, QUOTE, I WOULD LOVE TO SEND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO

SEND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO TESTIFY BUT UNFORTUNATELY HE

TESTIFY BUT UNFORTUNATELY HE WOULD BE TESTIFYING BEFORE A

WOULD BE TESTIFYING BEFORE A TOTALLY COMPROMISED KANGAROO

TOTALLY COMPROMISED KANGAROO COURT.

COURT. TRUMP ALSO QUOTED FROM ONE OF

TRUMP ALSO QUOTED FROM ONE OF SONDLAND’S TEXTS WHICH WAS

SONDLAND’S TEXTS WHICH WAS RELEASED LAST WEEK TO CLAIM

RELEASED LAST WEEK TO CLAIM VINDICATION.

VINDICATION. HE SAID, QUOTE, IMPORTANTLY

HE SAID, QUOTE, IMPORTANTLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TWEETS

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TWEETS STATED THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN

STATED THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUO’S

CRYSTAL CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUO’S OF ANY KIND THAT SAYS AT ALL.

OF ANY KIND THAT SAYS AT ALL. ALL OF IT COMES AMID NEW

ALL OF IT COMES AMID NEW REPORTING AS WELL FROM "THE NEW

REPORTING AS WELL FROM "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ABOUT TRUMP’S CALL

YORK TIMES" ABOUT TRUMP’S CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT

WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ZELENSKY. ACCORDING TO A MEMO THAT WAS

ACCORDING TO A MEMO THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, A

WRITTEN BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL DESCRIBED

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL DESCRIBED THE CALL AS CRAZY, FRIGHTENING

THE CALL AS CRAZY, FRIGHTENING AND COMPLETELY LACK IN SUBSTANCE

AND COMPLETELY LACK IN SUBSTANCE RELATED TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

RELATED TO NATIONAL SECURITY. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SCRIBED THE

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SCRIBED THE OFFICIAL AS, QUOTE, VISIBLY

OFFICIAL AS, QUOTE, VISIBLY SHAKEN BY WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED

SHAKEN BY WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED AND SAID IPTHE OFFICIAL’S VIEW

AND SAID IPTHE OFFICIAL’S VIEW THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEARLY

THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEARLY COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT.

COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT. NBC HAS CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE

NBC HAS CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF THE MEMO AND THE ACCURACY OF

OF THE MEMO AND THE ACCURACY OF "THE TIMES" DESCRIPTION OF IT.

"THE TIMES" DESCRIPTION OF IT. CONGRESSMAN GREGORY MEECH, SUSAN

CONGRESSMAN GREGORY MEECH, SUSAN AND JEFF BENNETT.

AND JEFF BENNETT. LET ME START WITH YOU TO TAKE US

LET ME START WITH YOU TO TAKE US THROUGH.

THROUGH. THE DAY BEGAN WITH AMBASSADOR

THE DAY BEGAN WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND APPARENTLY BEING TOLD,

SONDLAND APPARENTLY BEING TOLD, QUOTE, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE

QUOTE, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE GIVING THAT DEPOSITION TODAY.

GIVING THAT DEPOSITION TODAY. AND THE DAY NOW ENDING WITH THE

AND THE DAY NOW ENDING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE PUTTING OUT THIS

WHITE HOUSE PUTTING OUT THIS LETTER SAYING THEY’RE NOT GOING

LETTER SAYING THEY’RE NOT GOING TO COOPERATE ON ANYTHING.

TO COOPERATE ON ANYTHING. WHAT’S IS GOING ON HERE?

WHAT’S IS GOING ON HERE? >> IF YOU READ THE LETTER, IT

>> IF YOU READ THE LETTER, IT ACTUALLY READS MORE LIKE A

ACTUALLY READS MORE LIKE A POLITICAL DOCUMENT THAN A LEGAL

POLITICAL DOCUMENT THAN A LEGAL ONE.

ONE. SO IT APPEARS THE WHITE HOUSE IS

SO IT APPEARS THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO GIVE REPUBLICAN ALLIES

TRYING TO GIVE REPUBLICAN ALLIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SOME TALKING

OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SOME TALKING POINTS TO USE IN HIS DEFENSE AS

POINTS TO USE IN HIS DEFENSE AS THEY TRY TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK

THEY TRY TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK HERE.

HERE. BUT HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

BUT HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THIS

HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THIS ARGUMENT MADE BY THE WHITE HOUSE

ARGUMENT MADE BY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NO LEGAL GROUND THAT IT’S

HAS NO LEGAL GROUND THAT IT’S NOT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION,

NOT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, CERTAINLY NOT BASED IN-HOUSE

CERTAINLY NOT BASED IN-HOUSE PRECEDENT.

PRECEDENT. AND SO WHAT WE’VE HEARD FROM

AND SO WHAT WE’VE HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF IS THAT IN THE FACE

ADAM SCHIFF IS THAT IN THE FACE OF ANYMORE STONEWALLING PAST

OF ANYMORE STONEWALLING PAST DEMOCRATS AREN’T GOING TO SEEK

DEMOCRATS AREN’T GOING TO SEEK LEGAL REMEDY THROUGH THE COURTS.

LEGAL REMEDY THROUGH THE COURTS. WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO DO IS

WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO DO IS CHALK THAT UP AS A NEW POTENTIAL

CHALK THAT UP AS A NEW POTENTIAL AVENUE, ANOTHER ARTICLE OF

AVENUE, ANOTHER ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, AND BEYOND THAT

IMPEACHMENT, AND BEYOND THAT ADAM SCHIFF SAYS THEY’RE GOING

ADAM SCHIFF SAYS THEY’RE GOING TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE.

TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. THAT MEANS IF THE WHITE HOUSE

THAT MEANS IF THE WHITE HOUSE WON’T GIVE THEM DOCUMENTS ON A

WON’T GIVE THEM DOCUMENTS ON A SUBJECT, THEY WILL ASSUME THE

SUBJECT, THEY WILL ASSUME THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, THE

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS TRUE.

UNDERLYING CLAIM IS TRUE. THEY WILL TAKE THAT STONEWALLING

THEY WILL TAKE THAT STONEWALLING TO BE SOME SORT OF CONFIRMATION.

TO BE SOME SORT OF CONFIRMATION. ON THE SONDLAND POINT WHICH I

ON THE SONDLAND POINT WHICH I THINK IS FAIRLY INSTRUCTIVE AS

THINK IS FAIRLY INSTRUCTIVE AS AS YOU MENTIONED MY COLLEAGUES

AS YOU MENTIONED MY COLLEAGUES AND I CONFIRMED TODAY THERE WAS

AND I CONFIRMED TODAY THERE WAS A FIVE HOUR GAP IN WHICH BILL

A FIVE HOUR GAP IN WHICH BILL TAYLOR IN WHICH A DIPLOMAT AND

TAYLOR IN WHICH A DIPLOMAT AND SONDLAND WERE COMMUNICATING

SONDLAND WERE COMMUNICATING ABOUT THIS QUID PRO QUO, THIS

ABOUT THIS QUID PRO QUO, THIS HOLDING UP OF UKRAINIAN MILITARY

HOLDING UP OF UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUMP’S

AID IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUMP’S DESIRE TO HAVE UKRAINIANS DIG UP

DESIRE TO HAVE UKRAINIANS DIG UP THIS DIRT ON JOE BIDEN.

THIS DIRT ON JOE BIDEN. WE HAVE CONFIRMED IN THAT

WE HAVE CONFIRMED IN THAT FIVE-HOUR WINDOW THAT SONDLAND

FIVE-HOUR WINDOW THAT SONDLAND COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH

COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOW TODAY

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOW TODAY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOW ECHOING

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOW ECHOING WHAT SONDLAND SAID IN THAT TEXT

WHAT SONDLAND SAID IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE BACK IN HE SAID THERE’S

MESSAGE BACK IN HE SAID THERE’S NO SUCH THING, THERE IS NO QUID

NO SUCH THING, THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.

PRO QUO. >> WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE

>> WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE THAT

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE THAT HAS SUBPOENAED SONDLAND TO

HAS SUBPOENAED SONDLAND TO TESTIFY AND APPEAR FOR A

TESTIFY AND APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION.

DEPOSITION. NOW BY NEXT WEDNESDAY TO BE

NOW BY NEXT WEDNESDAY TO BE DEPOSED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS.

DEPOSED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS. IF THIS POSTURE FROM THE WHITE

IF THIS POSTURE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH SHOWS NO SIGNS OF

HOUSE WHICH SHOWS NO SIGNS OF RELENTING, IF THAT CONTINUES, IF

RELENTING, IF THAT CONTINUES, IF HE DOESN’T SHOW UP NEXT

HE DOESN’T SHOW UP NEXT WEDNESDAY, IF THESE DOCUMENTS

WEDNESDAY, IF THESE DOCUMENTS DON’T COME FORWARD, WHAT IS THE

DON’T COME FORWARD, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?

NEXT STEP? >> THE NEXT STEP IS THIS IS WHAT

>> THE NEXT STEP IS THIS IS WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID. LOOK, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

LOOK, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. IF IN FACT HE WANTS TO CONTINUE

IF IN FACT HE WANTS TO CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT, THEN WE WILL SAY

TO OBSTRUCT, THEN WE WILL SAY HE’S OBSTRUCTING THE FUNDAMENTAL

HE’S OBSTRUCTING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CONGRESS TO DO ITS

RIGHTS OF CONGRESS TO DO ITS JOB.

JOB. AND THEN THAT WILL BECOME PART

AND THEN THAT WILL BECOME PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT.

OF THE IMPEACHMENT. IT WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY

IT WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IF

ABOUT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IF IN FACT HE’S NOT COOPERATING AND

IN FACT HE’S NOT COOPERATING AND HE’S INTENSELY TRYING TO COVER

HE’S INTENSELY TRYING TO COVER UP HIS BEHAVIOR --

UP HIS BEHAVIOR -- >> WHEN YOU SAY IT WILL BECOME

>> WHEN YOU SAY IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT, WOULD

PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT, WOULD THIS THEN BE AN ARTICLE THAT

THIS THEN BE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD BE FAST TRACKED ON ITS OWN

WOULD BE FAST TRACKED ON ITS OWN PERHAPS IN AN EFFORT TO COMPEL

PERHAPS IN AN EFFORT TO COMPEL COOPERATION OR WOULD THIS PLAY

COOPERATION OR WOULD THIS PLAY OUT ALONG WITH THE OTHER --

OUT ALONG WITH THE OTHER -- >> NO, I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN

>> NO, I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN ITEM THAT COULD BE FAST TRACKED

ITEM THAT COULD BE FAST TRACKED ON ITS OWN, ON ITS FACE.

ON ITS OWN, ON ITS FACE. IT IS CLEAR HE IS TRYING TO

IT IS CLEAR HE IS TRYING TO OBSTRUCT AND PREVENT THE

OBSTRUCT AND PREVENT THE CONGRESS FROM GETTING

CONGRESS FROM GETTING INFORMATION THAT IT NEEDS TO DO

INFORMATION THAT IT NEEDS TO DO ITS WORK.

ITS WORK. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT IT’S A

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT IT’S A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT COUNT

SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT COUNT OF IMPEACHMENT IN MY OPINION,

OF IMPEACHMENT IN MY OPINION, AND THEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER AREAS

AND THEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER AREAS OF IMPEACHMENT ALSO.

OF IMPEACHMENT ALSO. IF HE CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT AND

IF HE CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT AND DOES NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING

DOES NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING THAT REFUTES WHAT THE FACTS ARE.

THAT REFUTES WHAT THE FACTS ARE. >> SO THE DISCUSSION THAT’S BEEN

>> SO THE DISCUSSION THAT’S BEEN PLAYING OUT, REPUBLICANS HAVE

PLAYING OUT, REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN MAKING AN ISSUE OF SAYING,

BEEN MAKING AN ISSUE OF SAYING, HEY, HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT

HEY, HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT HAD A FORMAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE

HAD A FORMAL VOTE IN THE HOUSE TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY LAUNCHED, THE COMMITTEES ARE

LAUNCHED, THE COMMITTEES ARE INVESTIGATE.

INVESTIGATE. THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES

THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN KPRUSED YET, BUT

THAT HAVE BEEN KPRUSED YET, BUT ARE YOU SAYING IF SONDLAND

ARE YOU SAYING IF SONDLAND DOESN’T SHOW NEXT WEDNESDAY

DOESN’T SHOW NEXT WEDNESDAY THERE WILL BE AN ARTICLE OF

THERE WILL BE AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT’S THEN

IMPEACHMENT THAT’S THEN INTRODUCED?

INTRODUCED? >> THAT IS THE NEXT STEP.

>> THAT IS THE NEXT STEP. THAT’S WHERE WE HAVE TO MOVE TO.

THAT’S WHERE WE HAVE TO MOVE TO. IF IN FACT YOU OBSTRUCT THE

IF IN FACT YOU OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, THE INQUIRY, THEN

INVESTIGATION, THE INQUIRY, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT’S LEFT,

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT’S LEFT, WHAT IS HAPPENING.

WHAT IS HAPPENING. HE IS THEN OBSTRUCTING THE

HE IS THEN OBSTRUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND SO NOW

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND SO NOW WE LOOK AS A PART OF ARTICLES OF

WE LOOK AS A PART OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OBSTRUCTION.

IMPEACHMENT OBSTRUCTION. THAT BECOMES ONE OF THOSE

THAT BECOMES ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES AS WELL AS OTHERS WE

ARTICLES AS WELL AS OTHERS WE CAN LOOK AT, AND AS CHAIRMAN

CAN LOOK AT, AND AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS INDICATED IF HE DOES

SCHIFF HAS INDICATED IF HE DOES NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT, THEN WE

NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO INFER THAT THE

WILL HAVE TO INFER THAT THE FACTS AS WE SEE THEM IS WHAT

FACTS AS WE SEE THEM IS WHAT THEY ARE.

THEY ARE. BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES, A

BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES, A BETRAYAL OF HIS TRUST AS

BETRAYAL OF HIS TRUST AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS

OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS ENDANGERED THE NATIONAL SECURITY

ENDANGERED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THAT HE’S ABUSED HIS POWER

AND THAT HE’S ABUSED HIS POWER AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

STATES OF AMERICA. >> SUSAN, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF

>> SUSAN, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS?

THIS? BECAUSE THE THREAT IS HERE.

BECAUSE THE THREAT IS HERE. YOU’RE HEARING IT FROM A MEMBER

YOU’RE HEARING IT FROM A MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

COMMITTEE. IF THE AMBASSADOR DOES NOT SHOW

IF THE AMBASSADOR DOES NOT SHOW UP NEXT WEEK, DOES NOT

UP NEXT WEEK, DOES NOT COOPERATE, THEY ARE NOW SAYING

COOPERATE, THEY ARE NOW SAYING THIS BECOMES AN ARTICLE OF

THIS BECOMES AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

IMPEACHMENT. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CALCULATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE?

CALCULATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE? SURELY YOU’RE AWARE THAT IS

SURELY YOU’RE AWARE THAT IS LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN IF THEY

LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN IF THEY DO THIS.

DO THIS. CHOOSING TO EMBRACE THAT ROUTE

CHOOSING TO EMBRACE THAT ROUTE RATHER THAN HAVE HIM SHOW UP AND

RATHER THAN HAVE HIM SHOW UP AND TESTIFY.

TESTIFY. >> I’M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR.

>> I’M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR. IF HE REFUSES TO SHOW UP,

IF HE REFUSES TO SHOW UP, CONGRESSMAN, WILL THAT BE PART

CONGRESSMAN, WILL THAT BE PART OF A NUMBER OF COUNTS OF

OF A NUMBER OF COUNTS OF IMPEACHMENT OR WILL IT BE A

IMPEACHMENT OR WILL IT BE A SEPARATE COUNT THAT YOU WILL

SEPARATE COUNT THAT YOU WILL FAST TRACK AND USE IT TO KIND OF

FAST TRACK AND USE IT TO KIND OF HOLD OVER THE PRESIDENT’S HEAD?

HOLD OVER THE PRESIDENT’S HEAD? BECAUSE IF IT’S SEPARATE I THINK

BECAUSE IF IT’S SEPARATE I THINK FROM A COMMUNICATIONS POINT OF

FROM A COMMUNICATIONS POINT OF VIEW NOT A LEGISLATIVE ONE BUT A

VIEW NOT A LEGISLATIVE ONE BUT A COMMUNICATIONS ONE, IT WOULD BE

COMMUNICATIONS ONE, IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE BECAUSE THAT’S MUD YG

A MISTAKE BECAUSE THAT’S MUD YG THE WATERS ABOUT WHY WE’RE GOING

THE WATERS ABOUT WHY WE’RE GOING AFTER THE PRESIDENT.

AFTER THE PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO DO

I THINK THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, PRESENT

THE INVESTIGATION, PRESENT WHATEVER THEY’RE GOING TO DO,

WHATEVER THEY’RE GOING TO DO, OBSTRUCTION MAKES SENSE.

OBSTRUCTION MAKES SENSE. THE QUID PRO QUO MAKES SEN, HAVE

THE QUID PRO QUO MAKES SEN, HAVE THAT AND KEEP THIS AS CLEAN AS

THAT AND KEEP THIS AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE.

POSSIBLE. BECAUSE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES,

BECAUSE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES, HE DENIES, HE DELAYS, HE

HE DENIES, HE DELAYS, HE DEFLECTS AND RIGHT NOW WE’RE

DEFLECTS AND RIGHT NOW WE’RE GETTING PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO

GETTING PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE

HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROCESS THAN WHAT HE DID.

PROCESS THAN WHAT HE DID. >> ARGUING THAT THE IMPEACHMENT

>> ARGUING THAT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS, QUOTE, ALEGITIMATE,

INQUIRY IS, QUOTE, ALEGITIMATE, THE WHITE HOUSE LETTER TO PELOSI

THE WHITE HOUSE LETTER TO PELOSI SAYS THIS.

SAYS THIS. GIVEN YOUR INQUIRY LACKS ANY

GIVEN YOUR INQUIRY LACKS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION, ANY

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION, ANY PRETENSE OF FAIRNESS THE

PRETENSE OF FAIRNESS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CANNOT BE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. TONIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE’

TONIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE’ ARGUMENT IS FACING CRITICISM

ARGUMENT IS FACING CRITICISM FROM BOTH DEMOCRATS AND AT LEAST

FROM BOTH DEMOCRATS AND AT LEAST ONE REPUBLICAN.

ONE REPUBLICAN. THE FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL TO

THE FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL TO REPUBLICAN SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

REPUBLICAN SENATOR MARCO RUBIO TWEETED, QUOTE, WOW, THIS LETTER

TWEETED, QUOTE, WOW, THIS LETTER IS BANANAS.

IS BANANAS. A BARELY LAWYERED TEMPER

A BARELY LAWYERED TEMPER TANTRUM, A MIDDLE FINGER TO

TANTRUM, A MIDDLE FINGER TO CONGRESS AND ITS OVERSIGHT

CONGRESS AND ITS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES.

RESPONSIBILITIES. DEMOCRATS WILL PRESUMABLY HAVE

DEMOCRATS WILL PRESUMABLY HAVE TO FIGHT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE

TO FIGHT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THEIR

TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THEIR SUBPOENA REQUESTS.

SUBPOENA REQUESTS. AND TODAY’S SUBPOENA TO

AND TODAY’S SUBPOENA TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE SIXTH

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE SIXTH ISSUE SINCE SPEAKER PELOSI

ISSUE SINCE SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED THE IMPEACHMENT

ANNOUNCED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY JUST TWO WEEKS AGO.

INQUIRY JUST TWO WEEKS AGO. JEFF, LET ME BRING YOU BACK IN

JEFF, LET ME BRING YOU BACK IN ON THIS.

ON THIS. YOU WERE MENGING THIS READS LIKE

YOU WERE MENGING THIS READS LIKE A POLITICAL DOCUMENT.

A POLITICAL DOCUMENT. ULTIMATELY IT’S A JURY OF

ULTIMATELY IT’S A JURY OF SENATORS IF IT GETS THAT FAR

SENATORS IF IT GETS THAT FAR THAT DECIDES THAT WOULD IMPEACH.

THAT DECIDES THAT WOULD IMPEACH. THIS CAN BE READ THEN YOU’RE

THIS CAN BE READ THEN YOU’RE SAYING AS THIS IS THE WHITE

SAYING AS THIS IS THE WHITE HOUSE’S ATTEMPT TO EQUIP

HOUSE’S ATTEMPT TO EQUIP REPUBLICANS WITH A POLITICAL

REPUBLICANS WITH A POLITICAL SORT OF LINE OF ATTACK.

SORT OF LINE OF ATTACK. >> YEAH, AND INTERESTING ENOUGH

>> YEAH, AND INTERESTING ENOUGH THE TRIAL BALLOON THAT THE WHITE

THE TRIAL BALLOON THAT THE WHITE HOUSE FLOATED ON FRIDAY WHEN

HOUSE FLOATED ON FRIDAY WHEN THEY FIRST SUGGESTED THIS LETTER

THEY FIRST SUGGESTED THIS LETTER WAS COMING THEY WERE TRYING TO

WAS COMING THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY IF THE HOUSE SPEAKER DOESN’T

SAY IF THE HOUSE SPEAKER DOESN’T BRING THIS IMPEACHMENT VOTE TO

BRING THIS IMPEACHMENT VOTE TO THE FLOOR THEY WEREN’T GOING TO

THE FLOOR THEY WEREN’T GOING TO COOPERATE.

COOPERATE. THIS LETTER STOPS SHORT OF

THIS LETTER STOPS SHORT OF MAKING THAT POINT.

MAKING THAT POINT. I THINK BECAUSE REPUBLICANS GOT

I THINK BECAUSE REPUBLICANS GOT THE MESSAGE IF NANCY PELOSI WERE

THE MESSAGE IF NANCY PELOSI WERE TO BRING AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE TO

TO BRING AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE TO THE FLOOR IT WOULD ALSO PUT

THE FLOOR IT WOULD ALSO PUT REPUBLICANS ON THE RECORD, AND

REPUBLICANS ON THE RECORD, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T

THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T WANT TO DO.

WANT TO DO. SO, YES, IT DOES READ A BIT LIKE

SO, YES, IT DOES READ A BIT LIKE A POLITICAL SCREED HERE, BUT TO

A POLITICAL SCREED HERE, BUT TO SUSAN’S POINT NANCY PELOSI HAS

SUSAN’S POINT NANCY PELOSI HAS ALREADY SAID WHAT’S ALREADY IN

ALREADY SAID WHAT’S ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AS THIS

THE PUBLIC RECORD AS THIS INVESTIGATION GOES FORWARD EVEN

INVESTIGATION GOES FORWARD EVEN IF THEY DON’T GET ANOTHER

IF THEY DON’T GET ANOTHER DIPLOMAT TO SHOW UP, IF THEY

DIPLOMAT TO SHOW UP, IF THEY DON’T GET THE DOCUMENTS THEY

DON’T GET THE DOCUMENTS THEY WANTS, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS

WANTS, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALREADY ADMITTED TO IS ENOUGH OF

ALREADY ADMITTED TO IS ENOUGH OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,

AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, UNDERMINING THE NATIONAL

UNDERMINING THE NATIONAL SECURITY, RISKING THE INTEGRITY

SECURITY, RISKING THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS, THAT IS THE CASE,

OF ELECTIONS, THAT IS THE CASE, THE ARGUMENT DEMOCRATS ARE

THE ARGUMENT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO BUILD.

TRYING TO BUILD. AND THEY FEEL THEY ALREADY HAVE

AND THEY FEEL THEY ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO DO

THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO DO THAT INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S

THAT INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN COMMENTS.

OWN COMMENTS. >> CONGRESSMAN, JEFF MENTIONS

>> CONGRESSMAN, JEFF MENTIONS THIS, ITS IN THAT LETTER TO THE

THIS, ITS IN THAT LETTER TO THE SPEAKER.

SPEAKER. THE WHITE HOUSE MAKING THE POINT

THE WHITE HOUSE MAKING THE POINT DEMOCRATS HAVE SORT OF DECREED

DEMOCRATS HAVE SORT OF DECREED THERE’S AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

THERE’S AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY GOING ON.

GOING ON. THERE’S NOT BEEN A FORMAL HOUSE

THERE’S NOT BEEN A FORMAL HOUSE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE IT.

VOTE TO AUTHORIZE IT. THERE WAS A FORMAL HOUSE VOTE

THERE WAS A FORMAL HOUSE VOTE WITH NIXON.

WITH NIXON. THEY’RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT

THEY’RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT BUT THAT’S BEEN THE CUSTOM AT

BUT THAT’S BEEN THE CUSTOM AT LEAST IN MODERN TIMES.

LEAST IN MODERN TIMES. WE’RE GOING TO SHOW SOME OF THE

WE’RE GOING TO SHOW SOME OF THE POLLING A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT

POLLING A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE SOME CONSENSUS IN THE

LOOKS LIKE SOME CONSENSUS IN THE POLLING IS THERE IS SUPPORT OUT

POLLING IS THERE IS SUPPORT OUT THERE IN THE IMPEACHMENT

THERE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

INQUIRY. DO YOU WANT DEMOCRATS TO CALL

DO YOU WANT DEMOCRATS TO CALL OUT THAT VOTE AND SAY, FINE?

OUT THAT VOTE AND SAY, FINE? >> WHAT WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO IS

>> WHAT WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO IS ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL WHO’S

ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL WHO’S SUBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION TO

SUBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION TO TELL US HOW TO INVESTIGATE.

TELL US HOW TO INVESTIGATE. WE’RE IN A VERY SERIOUS TIME,

WE’RE IN A VERY SERIOUS TIME, MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THE WHITE

MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE

HOUSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IF HE HAS THOSE

DOCUMENTS IF HE HAS THOSE DOCUMENTS AND SHOW THAT THERE’S

DOCUMENTS AND SHOW THAT THERE’S NO NEED TO IMPEACH HIM FOR WHAT

NO NEED TO IMPEACH HIM FOR WHAT IS OBVIOUS TO US AN ABUSE OF HIS

IS OBVIOUS TO US AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER, A THREAT TO NATIONAL

POWER, A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND A BETRAYAL OF THE

SECURITY AND A BETRAYAL OF THE CONSTITUTION BASED UPON HIS

CONSTITUTION BASED UPON HIS ACTIONS.

ACTIONS. SO ABSENT THAT THAT, THEN WHAT

SO ABSENT THAT THAT, THEN WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE BUT WHAT I DO

CHOICE DO WE HAVE BUT WHAT I DO SAY, SUSAN, I AM TALKING ABOUT

SAY, SUSAN, I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL THREE.

ALL THREE. OBSTRUCTION BECOMES ONE OF THE

OBSTRUCTION BECOMES ONE OF THE COUNTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED

COUNTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED THEREIN WITH THE SAME THING WE

THEREIN WITH THE SAME THING WE TALKED ABOUT AS FAR AS BETRAYAL,

TALKED ABOUT AS FAR AS BETRAYAL, ABUSE OF POWER AND NATIONAL

ABUSE OF POWER AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

SECURITY INTERESTS. THOSE WOULD ALL BE COMPILED

THOSE WOULD ALL BE COMPILED THEREIN.

THEREIN. THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. IT’S A SERIOUS TIME AND WE’RE

IT’S A SERIOUS TIME AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT