Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Impeachment trial of President Trump | Jan. 29, 2020 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

(0)
Difficulty: 0

>>>

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