Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Impeachment trial of President Trump | Jan. 30, 2020 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

(0)
Difficulty: 0

ZAID YERMAK. >>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS

DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WILL REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

AND THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE.

>> THE HOUSE CASE IS RUSHED, WEAK AND INCOMPLETE.

>> HISTORY WILL BE OUR FINAL JUDGE, WILL SENATORS RISE TO THE

OCCASION? >> THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE

THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

>> THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN GET BECAUSE

THEY KNOW THEY

ARE GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTION. >> FINAL DAY FOR SENATORS TO ASK

QUESTIONS, U.S. CAPITAL WHERE IN ABOUT AN HOUR SENATORS WILL

SUBMIT QUESTIONS. I'M LINDSEY CASEY, WELCOME TO

LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST.

WILL BE ANOTHER LENGTHY DAY UP TO 8 HOUR OF QUESTIONING.

JOINING ME IN THE STUDIO MATEA GOLD, WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT

UNFOLDED YESTERDAY BUT SO MANY COMPETING NEWS

STORIES IN THE QUESTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM

OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. WITNESSES.

YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENTS THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS MAKING

AND THEN THE JOHN BOLTON FIGHT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHAT IS RISING TO TOP LINE OF ATTENTION RIGHT NOW.

>> HELSINKI WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS ALL EYES FOCUSED

NOT NECESSARILY TODAY BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW. IS THERE

GOING TO BE A VOTE ON WITNESSES. AS HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

THE DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE JOHN ROBERTS TO SERVE AS CRUCIAL TIE

BREAKING VOTE, IN A PROCESS WE HAVE NOT SEEN HIM

DO SO FAR. THAT IS WHERE THE DRAMA AND

QUESTION IS I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THE QUESTION AND

ANSWER PROCESSED TO TREAD OVER SOME OF THE SAME GROUND WE SAW

YESTERDAY AND PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE HINT ABOUT WHERE THE

MODERATES IN BOTH PARTIES ARE AND UNCERTAINTY LIES. THIS IS

BUILDING TOWARD A QUESTION WHETHER IS THIS TRIAL GOING TO

END IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO OR WITNESSES THAT CONTINUE THAT

FIGHT? AND THE BACKDROP OF THIS OF

COURSE IS THIS IDEA THAT JOHN BOLTON HAS A LOT TO SAY OF WHAT

WAS ON THE PRESIDENT'S MIND AND WHAT HE WANTED TO DO WITH

UKRAINE AND A BUILDING FIGHT BETWEEN BOLTON'S CAMP AND THE

WHITE HOUSE WHICH ASSERTED HIS MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL

AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THAT'S

SOMETHING THAT BOLT I DON'T KNOW'S ATTORNEY TOLD US

YESTERDAY IS NOT TRUE. I THINK WE ARE SEEING SETUP FOR RADAR

OVER QUITE A SIGNIFICANT FIGHT OVER THAT

BOOK. >> I WONDER HOW MUCH SENATORS

WILL HOW THE TIME LINE MIGHT AFFECT THEIR JUDGMENT, EVEN MORE

OF LIKE A TUSSLE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE WILL INFLUENCE THEM

BECAUSE UNLIKE A REAL JURY, THEY ARE NOT SEQUESTERED BUT THEY ARE

NOT DISALLOWED FROM CONSIDERING WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN TERMS

OF THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS. WHAT EVIDENCE THEY SHOULD BE

LOOKING AT IT'S NOT LIKE THEY ARE NOT READING THE NEWSPAPERS

OR WATCHING THE NEWS.

>> I THINK IF ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN SOME REPUBLICANS MOVE

AGAINST WITNESSES, THE MORE HAS COME OUT AGAINST --

ABOUT BOLTON WE HEARD EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS REPUBLICAN

SENATORS SAY THEY MIGHT BE TO OPEN WITNESSES.

THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE EFFECTIVELY MADE THE ARGUMENT TO

THE FELLOW REPUBLICANS IN THE CHAMBER THAT

WHETHER IT'S THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID, WHAT HAS BEEN LAID

OUT BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,

AGRICULTURE A YOU FROM THE GOP SIDE THAT NO WITNESSES ARE

NEEDED, EVEN IF THESE FACTS ARE TRUE IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE.

PREEMPTING TO HAVE MORE EVIDENCE GATHERING WHICH IS OPPOSITE THE

WAY YOU DO IN A TRIAL, FIRST GATHERING

EVIDENCE AND MAKING DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A CRIME

COMMITTED. BUT WE SEE ALREADY MANY

REPUBLICAN SENATORS COMING FORWARD AND SAYING I AGREE WITH

WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID IT DOES NOT APPEAR WITH

EVERYTHING SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND THOSE OF

HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE TRUE, THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

>> IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IS REALLY A SHIFT FROM WHAT THEY

WERE SAYING A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, EVIDENCE IS BEING

UNEARTHED AND COMING OUT FOR SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, A QUID

PRO QUO AND NOW EVEN AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT

THE MANUSCRIPTS THAT BOLT I DON'T KNOW ROAD CLEARLY SAID THE

PRESIDENT WAS CALLING FOR A QUID PRO QUO LINDSEY

GRAHAM CHANGING WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE A PROBLEM.

BEFORE THE SENATORS TAKE THEIR SEATS AT 1:00, THERE IS A FLURRY

ON CAPITAL HILL, THERE IS A LOT OF COMPETING

AGENDAS SO I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT SENATOR CHUCK

SCHUMER SAID TODAY, THIS IS OF COURSE A TOP

DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE AND HE SPOKE TO THE PRESS ABOUT WHERE

HE STANDS ON WITNESSES. >> TOMORROW WE'LL TAKE A CRUCIAL

VOTE ON WHETHER WE WILL DEBATE HAVING FOUR WITNESSES, HAVING

WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL.

THE FATE OF MUCH OF THE FUTURE OF HOW THIS REPUBLIC CONDUCTS

ITSELF IS ON THE SHOULDERS OF FOUR REPUBLICANS.

I BELIEVE SENATE REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ARE WORRIED

ABOUT THE VOTE. YESTERDAY MR. SEKULOW SAID IF

THE SENATE ELECTS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THE

PRESIDENT ACETYL WILL FORCE ALL SORTS OF MANNER OF DELAY.

TAKE THE MANAGERS TO COURT, ASSERT PRIVILEGE, DRAG IT ON

FOREVER. IT WAS A SHOCKING ADMISSION FROM MR. SEKULOW.

REVEALING HOW CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ARE. HOW AFRAID

THEY ARE OF EYEWITNESSES TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT COMING

BEFORE THE SENATE. OF COURSE HIS ARGUMENT ISN'T

TRUE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ENDLESS

DELAYS. THE DOCUMENTS ARE COMPILED.

ONE KEY WITNESS ALREADY SAID HE'D TESTIFY.

WE'D EXPECT THE OTHERS TO COMPLY IF SUBPOENAED AND QUESTIONS OF

PRIVILEGE CAN BE SORTED OUT RIGHT HERE IN THE SENATE.

MR.SEKULOW'S ARGUMENT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A THREAT, A

SHAKEDOWN. HE TOLD SENATORS TO THEIR FACES

THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM WILL DO WHATEVER IT POSSIBLY CAN TO

PREVENT THEM FROM SEEING THE TRUTH.

IT REMINDS YOU OF SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WOULD DO OR SAY AND IT

SHOULD OFFEND MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AS

MUCH AS AS IT OFFENDS US DEMOCRATS.

>> LEADER SCHUMER, MATEA WHAT SORT OF A MESSAGE DOES SCHUMER

DEFEND RIGHT NOW? I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE

COMPETENCE GAME THAT BOTH SIDES MIGHT BE PLAYING OR UNDER

CONFIDENCE GAME. WHAT DOES HIS MESSAGE NEED TO

BE? >> ONE OF THE THINGS DEMOCRATS

ARE ACUTELY AWARE, PUBLIC POLL SHOWS THE PUBLIC DOES SUPPORT

THE IDEA OF WITNESSES, THEY ARE TRYING TO

USE THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, USE IT AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS,

REPUBLICANS HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESS STRATEGY

MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THINGS AND THE

SENATE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO ITS OWN WORK.

THOSE ARGUMENTS SEEM MORE REALLY CASH FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME

AND LESS PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER. IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE HAVE

INDICATIONS THAT POSITIONS ON WITNESSES HAVE LARGELY

TESTIFIED. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW ONE IS

GOING TO VOTE. THE FACT THAT NANCY PELOSI CAME OUT AND SAID

SHE REALLY WANTS ROBERT TO BE A TIE BREAKING VOTE INDICATES THAT

THE DEMOCRATS SHALL WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE ENOUGH

VOTES OR WITNESSES. IT DOES HELP THEM TO MAKE THAT

ARGUMENT TO REPUBLICANS, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET THE WHOLE

STORY OUT THERE, WHY NOT BRING THESE PEOPLE

BEFORE US. AND DO YOU THINK ALSO STRESSING

AN ARGUMENT THAT AS WE'VE SEEN HAS LEGITIMACY MORE AND MORE

INFORMATION HAS COME OUT SINCE THE HOUSE

IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, SCHIFF MADE THIS ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER

AGAIN EVENTUALLY MORE OF THE STORY IS GOING TO BE

TOLD, DO YOU WANT IT TO BE TOLD IN THIS FORUM WHILE WE HAVE A

CHANCE TO HAVE A SAY OR AFTER YOU VOTE?

>> THE QUESTION FOR THEM, CAN YOU DEFEND YOUR VOTE AGAINST OR

REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. HOW DO YOU STAND UP AND

SAY WELL WE HAD REALLY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED IF THE

JOHN BOLTON BOOK IS PUBLISHED IN A COUPLE MONTHS.

>> RHONDA, IT WAS A LATE LAST NIGHT VIEWERS AND VOTERS ARE

PAYING ATTENTION, IF YOU WERE LAST MOMENTS OF THE

DAY, WHAT QUESTIONS TO YOU IN THOSE FINAL HOURS THAT WE WERE

WATCHING? >> YEAH, IF WE ALL NEED TO CATCH

UP, ONE OF THE STANDOUT MOMENTS YESTERDAY WAS FROM KRISTEN

SINNAMA, SHE ASK ADD POINTED QUESTION, STRAIGHT

FORWARD AND ARTICULATED IN A WAY WE HAVEN'T HEARD YESTERDAY.

>> NOTE FIDE CONGRESS OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN TRIANGLE

COUNTRIES FUNDS IN MARCH 2019 ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION TO

WITHHOLD AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN SEPTEMBER 2019, AND WORK WITH

CONGRESS FOR MONDAYS IN 2018 REGARDING FUNDS

BEING WITHHELD DUE TO PAKISTAN'S LACK OF PROGRESS MEETING ITS

COUNTER TERRORISM RESPONSIBILITIES.

IN THESE INSTANCES, THE -- EXCUSE ME, THE RECEIVING

COUNTRIES KNEW THE FUNDS WERE BEING WITHHELD TO CHANGE

BEHAVIOR AND FURTHER PUBLICLY STATED AMERICAN POLICY.

WHY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION WITHHELD THE UKRAINIAN SECURITY

ASSISTANCE DID IT NOT NOTIFY CONGRESS OR MAKE

UKRAINE OR PARTNER COUNTRIES PUBLICLY AWARE OF THE HOLD AND

THE

STEPS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE HOLD.

>> SO THAT WAS A QUESTION FROM KRISTEN SINNAMA, A CLOSELY

WATCHED SENATOR, SHE IS A DEMOCRAT BUT OFTEN VOTES

REPUBLICAN. SHE AND SENATOR MANCHIN OFTEN

BREAK AND VOTE FOR TRUMP NO, MA'AM NIECE, DIFFERENT POLICY

INITIATIVE THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR. SO

THAT WAS SORT OF GIVING US A GLIMPSE INTO WHAT PERHAPS A

DEMOCRAT IS THINKING RIGHT NOW ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. AND IT WAS A

VERY POINTED QUESTION, SHE WAS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT POTENTIAL

INEQUITIES IN HOW AID WAS HANDLED

BEFORE THE UKRAINE AND HOW IT WAS HANDLE WEEKEND THIS UKRAINE

SITUATION. THAT STOOD OUT TO MERE, THAT

HAPPENED AROUND 11:00. IF YOU DID NOT CATCH IT WHEN IT

REALLY HAPPENED GOOGLE AND TRY TO WATCH IT, IT'S VERY

INTERESTING. ABOUT TODAY WE'RE PROBABLY GOING

TO SEE THE SAME THING THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY.

WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE QUESTIONS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE

CALLS FOR WITNESS. I SPOKE WITH A SENIOR DEMOCRATIC

AID, THEIR SIDE IS HOPEFUL, THEY THINK YESTERDAY WENT WELL FOR

THEM. SO RIGHT HERE ON CAPITOL HILL

THAT IS THE FOCUS TODAY IS ABOUT TOMORROW'S VOTE IF THERE WILL BE

ENOUGH REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO COME

OVER. DEMOCRATS HAVE SORT OF A

CONTINGENCY PLAN, SENATOR VAN HOLLAND OF MARYLAND INTENDS TO

BRING A MOTION TOMORROW WHERE HE IS GOING TO ASK THAT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEP IN AND WEIGH IN ON THE WITNESS VOTE.

SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DRAMA AWAITS US FOR THIS VOTE

TOMORROW. >> RHONDA, QUICK QUESTION FOR

YOU, HEARING THAT TAPE FROM ONE OF THESE MODERATE DEMOCRATS THAT

PEOPLE ARE ALSO WATCHING. WE HEARD CHUCK SCHUMER PUTTING

PRESSURE ON FOUR REPUBLICANS NEED TO JOIN US ON THE QUESTION

OF WITNESSES OF THE LET'S TALK ABOUT MODERATE

DEMOCRATS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE WONDERING IF THEY MIGHT BE ABLE

TO PULL THEM OVER TO HAVE BASIC LEAH BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST

REMOVING A PRESIDENT OF OFFICE. >> YEAH, THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING

FOR WEEKS, BEFORE THE TRIAL EVEN BEGAN CLOSELY WATCHED SENATORS

MODERATE DEMOCRATS DOUG JONES OF ALABAMA,

AND MANCHIN OF WEST VIRGINIA. SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK

THEY ARE WEIGHING EACH DAY AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THINGS AS

THEY GO ALONG. I KNOW DOUG JONES SAID EACH DAY

HE IS JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH WHATEVER EVIDENCE IS COMING

OUT AND THAT IN THE END HE WILL VOTE BASED ON

HIS CONSCIENCE. AND SO ALL THREE OF THEM HAVEN'T

REALLY SAID MUCH ABOUT THEIR ULTIMATE VOTE FOR OR AGAINST

IMPEACHMENT. I AM SURE THERE WERE REPUBLICAN

COLLEAGUES TALKING TO THEIR SIDE AS WELL AS DEMOCRATS WHO WANT TO

KEEP THEM IN BASE. >> RHONDA THANKS SO MUCH.

LET'S BRING BACK CONVERSATION TO THE TABLE, MATT JOINS US, MATEA

I WANT TO SPEND A MINUTE ON MODERATE

DEMOCRATS, NO INDICATION THEY WOULD VOTE ON CALLING WITNESSES,

EVEN IF YOU ARE A HEAVILY TRUMP DISTRICT.

THE POLLS SHOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS INTERESTED IN

WITNESSES, I WANT TO SEE MORE, I WANT TO HEAR MORE.

WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR THEM IN TERMS OF THE ULTIMATE VOTE IN

TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE.

>> UP FOR REELECTION AND THESE VERY TIGHT CONTESTS THEY ARE

FACING ENORMOUS PRESSURE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S

SUPPORTERS ON THIS VOTE. AND SO THEY ARE ACUTELY AWARE THAT AND

TRYING TO NAVIGATE THAT IS A POLITICAL CALCULUS, THAT'S WHY

YOU HAVE SEEN THEM BE QUIET THROUGH THIS

PROCESS. IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE

SENATOR SINNAMA APPROACHING THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS WITH

SKEPTICISM AND GIVES YOU HINT WHERE HER HEAD IS.

BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR CAUCUS ALTOGETHER

AND THAT IS A PRESSURE THEY ARE FEELING ON INTERNAL FLANKS THAT

IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING ACUTE GOING INTO THE

FINAL DAYS OF THIS. >> MATT, HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING

THE JOHN BOLTON STORY LINE. SO CAN YOU GIVE US THE LATEST

WHERE THINGS STAND IN TERMS OF THIS FIGHT OVER PUBLICATION AND

ALLOWING THE MANUSCRIPT TO MOVE FORWARD, WHO

HAS THE DECISION MAKING POWER THERE.

>> THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL HAS THE DECISION MAKING POWER,

THEY ARE THE LATEST THAT WE KNOW AT THE

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, PEOPLE WHO REVIEW EX GOVERNMENT

OFFICIALS, MANUSCRIPTS HAS SAID TO BOLTON, WE THINK THERE IS

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, A LOT OF IT.

HIS LAWYER JUST YESTERDAY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES REPORTED THAT

BOLTON'S LAWYERS FEEL LIKE THAT IS NOT TRUE,

THEY FEEL THERE IS NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN THERE

AND THEY WANT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY

VISOR -- THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO GET THROUGH THE

REVIEW OF THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO HE CAN

POTENTIALLY TESTIFY OR AT LEAST KNOW THE BOUNDS OF WHAT HE WOULD

BE ALLOWED TO TALK TO. >> IT LOOKS LIKE ADAM SCHIFF AND

HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ARE APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE, WE

ARE GOING THERE AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IF THEY COME

FORWARD AND APPROACH IT. IN THE MOMENT THAT WE HAVE

THOUGH BEFORE THEY DO, MATEA THIS FIGHT OVER 0 THE MANUSCRIPT

RACES QUESTIONS WHETHER IT NOT ONLY BE SEEN,

LET'S GO TO ADAM SCHIFF NOW. >> ANSWER A COUPLE QUESTIONS

BEFORE WE GET STARTED TODAY. WHAT WE SAW

YESTERDAY WERE THE MOST INCREDIBLE ARGUMENTS BORNE OF

DESPERATION, IF THE SENATORS EVER FOLLOWED

WOULD LEAD THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PATH.

YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS ARGUED THAT A

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD DO ESSENTIALLY WHATEVER HE

WANTED TO SECURE HIS REELECTION NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT, IF HE

BELIEVED THAT HIS REELECTION WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARGUED, IF THE PRESIDENT DOES A

QUID PRO QUO, EVEN ONE WHERE HE WITHHOLDS MILITARY

AID FROM ALLY AT WAR, EVEN IF HE TAKES ACTIONS THAT GENERAL --

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AS LONG AS HE THINKS

IT'S IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST THAT'S OKAY AND NOTHING THAT

CONGRESS CAN DO IT ABOUT IT. AND WHAT'S MORE, IF PART OF THAT

QUID PRO QUO INVOLVES AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL

RIVAL, THE FACT THAT HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IS RUNNING

FOR PRESIDENT GIVES IT GREATER LEGITIMACY NOT LESS, MORE

CONSEQUENTIAL. THAT IS THE MOST ABSURDLY

DANGEROUS ARGUMENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY MUST RESORT TO THIS LEVEL OF

DESPERATION IS THE RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE

MANAGERS PROVED THE DEFENDANT SCHEME INVOLVED WITHHOLDING

MILITARY AID, WITHHOLDING OF A COVETED WHITE HOUSE

MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN ORDER TO COERCE, TO

EXTORT, TO BLACKMAIL THAT COUNTRY INTO CONDUCTING OR

ANNOUNCING THE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS, TO HELPING HIM

CHEAT IN THE ELECTION, THEY WENT ON TO SAY THAT

SOLICITING, INVITING, COORDINATING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

IN A U.S. ELECTION NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT THE FBI

DIRECTOR SAYS OR ANY SELF RESPECTING AMERICAN SAYS THAT

THEY VIEW THAT AS PERFECTLY FINE, IT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF

LAWLESSNESS. BUT IN A IS WHAT THEY'VE HAD TO RESORT TO AS

EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO PILE UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT.

AND WHEN THAT EVIDENCE THREATENED TO GET EVEN GREATER

WITH TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON THEY HAVE GONE TO EXTRA

LENGTHS TO PUT A MUSCLE ON JOHN BOLTON TO AVOID CALLING HIM AS A

WITNESS, LETTING AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT HE HAS

TO SAY, TO TRY TO STIFLE HIS BOOK.

TO ATTACKING HIM PUBLICLY BECAUSE THEY FEAR WHAT HE HAS TO

SAY. BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE

PRESIDENT'S SCHEME HAS BEEN EXPOSED.

SO THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE. WE WILL CONTINUE TODAY TO MAKE

THE CASE. A CASE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN

MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT NEED TO BE MADE TO THIS SENATE

AND THAT IS A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.

FAIR TRIAL, IMPARTIAL OATH REQUIRES WITNESSES.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD DELIVER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

NO TRIAL, NO VINDICATION. NO VINDICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT

OR ANYONE ELSE. THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR

TRIAL AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.

>> AT 1:00 QUESTION ASKED REGARDING POTENTIALLY THE

WHISTLEBLOWER, INVOLVING NAME. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS

APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE --

>> AS I SAID YESTERDAY, WE PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS.

WE NEED THEIR COOPERATION, WE NEED THEIR SUPPORT IN MAKING IT

THE COUNTRY WORK. AND I'M NOT TALKING SPACE I

CANNILY ABOUT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER, I'M TALKING ABOUT

WHISTLEBLOWERS GENERALLY. WE RELY ON PEOPLE OF GOOD

CONSCIENCE TO REPORT MISCONDUCT. THE ONLY POINT IN OUTING THIS

WHISTLEBLOWER IS TO SATISFY THE DESIGN OF THE PRESIDENT FOR

RETRIBUTION AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS SENATE

SHOULD

CONDONE. >>

SOME

REPUBLICANS ARE POINTING TO THE [ INAUDIBLE

] >> GOING DOWN THIS FIELD DOCIEA

RABBIT HOLD FOR WITHHOLDING MILITARY FOR ALLY AT WAR, TRYING

TO COERCE THAT ALLY HELPING HIM CHEAT IN THE

NEXT ELECTION AND TO CONTINUE AND I MAY GREAT FEW THE

PRESIDENT AGAIN, PART OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE

DOING MAY HAVE MEANT TO PERSUADE THE SENATORS, IT'S MEANT TO

GREAT FEW THE GRIEVANCES OF THE PRESIDENT BY

TALKING ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR JAMES COMEY OR PETER STROZK

OR LISA PAGE. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, ONLY DONALD TRUMP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

HIS MISCONDUCT AND HE MUST

BE HELD TO ACCOUNT, THANK YOU. >> NOW HOUSE IMPEACHMENT

MANAGERS ADDRESSING THE CAMERAS. TALK ABOUT A COUPLE POINTS THAT

THEY MADE. INCLUDING THE QUESTION OF THE

WHISTLEBLOWER. ARE YOU GETTING A SENSE IN HOW ADAM SCHIFF IS

TALKING ABOUT MATEA CONCERN MUCH WITNESSES MAY ULTIMATELY NOT BE

CALLED. >> HELSINKI WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS

SCHIFF AND THE DEMOCRATS MARY THEIR ASTONISHMENT DERSHOWITZ

WAS MAKING ABOUT THE CONCERN OF WITNESSES, TRYING

TO GIN UP OUTRAGE, REALLY EXPRESSING ASTONISHMENT AND SAY

HE IS GOING THIS FAR, THIS IS A DANGEROUS

PRECEDENT TO BE SET AND WE ACTUALLY DO NEED TO CONSIDER

WHAT ACTIONS COULD BE IMPEACHABLE BY A PRESIDENT AND

ASSESS THAT IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WE NEED WITNESSES.

AND YOU KNOW, STRONG WORDS FROM ADAM SCHIFF THERE TALKING ABOUT

HOW A RESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS THIS ARGUMENT IS.

WE SAW DERSHOWITZ TRY TO WALK BACK TODAY, HE DID SAY IF A

PRESIDENT WAS ACTING IN THE NATION'S INTEREST QUID

PRO QUO HE EXECUTE WEEKEND THAT MENTALITY WOULD BE LEGAL AND NOT

IMPEACHABLE. SO THE FACT THAT THIS IS

SOMETHING THAT IS HANGING OVER THE DEBATE ABOUT WITNESSES IS

INTERESTING. >> DERRY WHO IT DOESN'T MATTER,

LET'S SAY THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO TO HELP TRUMP BECOME THE

NEXT PRESIDENT. >> LET'S LISTEN TO THIS.

THIS CAME FROM QUESTION FROM REPUBLICAN SENATOR TED CRUZ,

LISTEN TO ALAN DERRY WHO WES. >> ADDRESSED TO COUNCIL FOR THE

PRESIDENT. AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOES IT

MATTER IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO?

IS IT TRUE THAT KID PRO COULDS ARE OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN

POLICY. >> EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL I KNOW

BELIEVES HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND MOSTLY YOU

ARE RIGHT. YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST. IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING

WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT

RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT. I WANT TO BE ELECTED I THINK I'M

A GREAT PRESIDENT. THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IF THERE

EVER WAS. THAT CANNOT BE IMPEACH APP

OFFENSE. THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> WONDERING IF REPUBLICANS WOULD

ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT

AS ALAN DERSHOWITZ, WE DID HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE CITING

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AND THE SENATE REPUBLICANS KNOW AND THE

DEMOCRATS ARE EMPHASIZING IF THEY VOTE TO ACQUIT THE

PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS ARGUMENT THIS IS AN IMPLICIT ENDORSEMENT

THAT THIS IS A RATIONAL. >> MIKE RON REPUBLICAN FROM

INDIANA, I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER, SO

SOMEONE WHO IS APPROVING OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TRUMP LEGAL

TEAM HAD BEEN MAKING BEFORE TRIED TO USE THIS FREE CARD IS

NOT BEING A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE LAW SCHOOL EXTREMES, TAKE THIS TO EXTREME

CONCLUSION. PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED THAT HE

ALONE CAN MAKE THE NATION GREAT. SO ANYTHING HE WOULD DO QUID PRO

QUO OR NO, IF THAT'S IN THE INTEREST OF THE MISSION, THEN

IT'S OKAY. THERE IS A FAIRWAY TO MAKE THIS

ARGUMENT WHICH IS FOREIGN POLICY OFTEN INVOLVES QUID PRO QUOS,

THEY CAN HAVE POLITICAL BENEFITS FOR THE

PRESIDENT OR THE PERSON MAKING THEM, AND FOR THE COUNTRY AT

LARGE, IF HE MAKES A GREAT DEAL WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE

SEND TROOPS OVER SEAS AND GET BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HERE, THAT'S

A QUID PRO QUO, THIS EXTREME LIKE GOES EVEN A

TIP BEYOND THAT, WELL PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING ELECT SOUTH DAKOTA

GOOD FOR THE NATION, ALMOST LIKE THEREFORE

ANYTHING COUNTY DO IS OKAY I THINK THEY HAVEN'T SAID IT EX

PRESIDENCYITILY REPUBLICANS DON'T GO WANT TO

SAY. >> HOW REPUBLICANS ARE

REABILITYING TO THIS NOW, SO PAULA, START WITH THAT.

WHAT IS THE SENT. >>BOB BRENLY: ON THE HILL FROM

REPUBLICANS. SO THEY LOVE DERSHOWITZ MONDAY

NIGHT MAKING THIS ARGUMENT THAT THERE COULD BE MIXED MOTIVES ON

THE ONE HAND TRUMP MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING

BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BENEFIT HIS CAMPAIGN BUT ALSO THERE WAS

A REAL NATIONAL POLICY INTEREST, AND SO

YOU CAN'T JUDGE, IT'S REALLY TOO HARD TO FIGURE OUT WAS IT 52%

THIS OR 48% THAT.

IN THE END HE DID WHAT HE DID AND THERE WAS A REAL NATIONAL

INTEREST IN WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO, THERE MIGHT

HAVE BEEN PERSONAL BENEFIT ALSO, THAT'S OKAY 0.

THEY LOVE THAT. REPUBLICANS ON TUESDAY WERE JUST

SINGING DERSHOWITZ'S PRICES, THEY FELT LIKE THEY COULD SAY,

YEAH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, TRUMP DID WHAT HE DID BUT IT'S NOT

IMPEACHABLE, IT'S NOT REMOVABLE, IT'S NOT CONVICTABLE.

THEY LOVE THAT. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THEY WERE REALLY

CONFUSED, WENT DEEPER INTO LAWSUIT RATIONAL AND LIKE TAKING

IT TO THE NNTH DEGREE, THE MIXED MOTIVE ON

THE ONE HAND OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT,

THAT'S FINE, TOO, THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

THAT GOT REPUBLICANS THEY GOT A LITTLE BIT UNEASY.

THEY REALLY WANTED TO GO

BACK TO THAT MONDAY NIGHT DERSHOWITZ AND STICK TO THAT

VERSION AND NOT MONDAY AFTERNOON VERSION.

>> TELL US ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI'S CALL FOR THE CHIEF

JUSTICE TO AN TIE BREAKER IN THE EVENT THERE IS A 50/50 VOTE.

>> YEAH, SHE WAS KIND OF DODGING A QUESTION THAT I THREW AT HER

IN THE END THIS WOULD AN -- CONGRESS IMPEACHED HIM OR END

BOLD ENDED DONALD TRUMP HAVING BEEN ACQUITTED BY THE SENATE.

SHE BASICALLY SAID HE WILL NEVER BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE IT WILL BE

A SHAM TRIAL. IF IT COMES TO A 50/50 VOTE SHE IS ONE OF THOSE

THAT BELIEVES, 50/50 VOTE ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES, THE

CHIEF JUSTICE SHOULD WEIGH IN AND ACTUALLY CAST A TIE BREAKING

VOTE THERE. IS A LOT OF CONFLICTING BELIEFS, LEGAL,

PARLIAMENT AIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CHIEF JUSTICE HAS THAT ROLE.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A VOTE THAT HIT 50/50 WHEREIN THE CHIEF

JUSTICE BROKE THAT TIE THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A SENATE

VOTE IN THE REGULAR -- AMENDMENT THAT WAS 50/50 AND THE VICE

PRESIDENT WOULD BREAK A TIE. IT'S REALLY SETTING UP A

POTENTIALLY MASSIVE CONCENTRATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE

FIRST BRANCH SUING TO TRY TO GET THE DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM

THE ARTICLE 2 BRANCH YELLING AT ARTICLE 3 AND SUPREME COURT IN

WHICH YOU HAVE ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT NOW IN

THIS MASSIVE BRAWL. SO, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

FIRST YOU HAVE TO GET TO A 50/50 AND WE DO NOT YET KNOW WHETHER

THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE. >> PAUL KANE FROM THE HILL.

THIS IS SUCH A BIG QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMOCRATS

WILL BE ABLE TO BRING OVER REPUBLICANS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DEGREE OF THE ROOM BASED ON WHAT THE

QUESTIONS WERE AND WHO THEY WERE COMING FROM.

IT WAS REALLY SIGNIFICANT YESTERDAY NOT JUST TO LISTEN TO

THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS, BUT THE MANNER THAT

THE WAY THAT MODERATES OR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAD A SET OPINION

WERE PRESENTING THEIR QUESTIONS. >> YEAH, MOST OF THE DAY I FELT

LIKE IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK, PEOPLE WERE ASKING MEMBERS OF THEIR

FELLOW PARTY LITTLE SOFT BALL QUESTION THAT

THEY PREPARED FOR. I THINK WE GOT MORE INTERESTING

QUESTIONS IN TICKET QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM ABOUT

WHAT IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY

SOUGHT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA BEFORE

JOE BIDEN LAUNCHED A CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER SAID THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PUBLIC

RECORD, THERE IS NOTHING THERE I CAN SPEAK TO.

AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS INCREDIBLY TELLING, THAT DOES GO

TO MOTIVE AND THAT IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE SAW

DERSHOWITZ, EXPLAIN YOU CAN HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE, TWO MODERATES

MAY BE STRUGGLING WITH THAT QUESTION.

IS IT OKAY IF ALL THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS

REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS ONCE JOE

BIDEN WAS CLEARLY GOING TO BE ARRIVAL FOR 2020.

>> SHORT OF ENGAGED IN FACTS, CRITICAL AND APPROPRIATE

MODERATE WITNESSES ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED.

THIS IS MODERATE WITNESSES ENGAGED IN THE FACTS.

>> BEFORE WE LET YOU KNOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE QUESTION OF

THE JOHN BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHERE IT'S AT.

SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN GOING ON

OUTSIDE OF THE QUESTION OF THE MAN ADSCRIPT. BUT FINISH TELLING

US ABOUT THE LEGAL FIGHT TAKING PLACE AND WHAT THE IMPLICATION

MIGHT BE IF THE MANUSCRIPTS COULD BE SEEN BY SENATORS.

>> THERE ARE TWO LEGAL FIGHTS, ONE, WHAT IS THE FATE OF THIS

TEXT THAT JOHN BOLTON HAS WRITTEN, WILL THE

PUBLIC EVER GET TO SEE THAT, SENATORS GET TO SEE THAT.

SORT OF RELATED WILL HE GET TO TESTIFY. ONE OF THE THINGS IT

SEEMS LIKE HE IS OUT TO DO IS PROVE THAT HE IS NOT JUST TRYING

TO SELL BOOKS, THAT HE WANTS TO TELL HIS STORY TO

SENATOR. BUT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT TRY TO BLOCK THAT, TAX AS

THEY SOUGHT TO BLOCK THE BOOK. THEY MIGHT TELL HIM, HEY, JOHN,

WE HAVE SERIOUS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CONCERNS AND THERE

MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, HE WAS NATIONAL

SECURITY VISOR, SO YOU MIGHT SEE A LEGAL BATTLE OVER WHERE HE CAN

APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE AND LONGER TERM A LEGAL

BATTLE OVER WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS MATERIAL IN THIS

BOOK. IT'S TOUGH, JUST COVERING OTHER

CASES NOT BOLTON'S BUT OTHER CASES OF FBI EMPLOYEES ARE

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES WHO WANT TO BUY A BOOK,

PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE AGENCY STRIPPED OUT ALL THE GOOD

STUFF THAT SHOULDN'T BE CLASSIFIED BUT THEY

DEEM IT IS AND THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THIS.

>> IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT PIECE THAT YOU FILED THIS WEEK

POINTS OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND ALLIES ARE

WORKING TO UNDERMINE JOHN BOLTON'S CREDIBILITY HAPPENING

OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER, PUTTING PRESSURE ON SENATORS,

THERE IS AN EFFORT TO DIMINISH HIM IN TERMS OF HIS IMPORTANCE

AS WELL AS LOYALTY TO THE PARTY WHICH IS A

SHOCKING PLACE TO BE GIVEN JOHN BOLTON'S CREDENTIALS.

LET'S GO BACK TO RHONDA WITH A MEMBER OF THE SENATE JURY,

RHONDA. >> THAT'S RIGHT, I'M HERE WITH

SENATOR COREY BOOKER, CAN YOU TELL ME, CAN DEMOCRATS REALLY BE

CONFIDENTS AS WE GO INTO THIS DAY BEFORE THE WITNESS VOTE THAT

REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

>> HAVE YOU TO CONTINUE TO CALL OUT, I MEAN ABSURDITY, WE CAN'T

LOSE -- WE CAN'T LOSE OUR SENSE OF OUTRAGE, WE HAVE JOHN BOLTON

LITERALLY, THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING, I

TRUST -- NOT JOHN BOLTON, JOHN KELLY, THAT I TRUST JOHN BOLTON.

AND SO, THIS TO ME IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPLICIT COMMENTS OF -- WE

CAN'T TRUST THE PRESIDENT, THAT HE WAS A

PERSON WHO HAS FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IS SO PERTINENT TO A MAJOR

ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT THAT WE SHOULD KNOW

THE TRUTH. AND THE FACT THAT WE PEOPLE

DON'T WANT TO BRING THAT INTO COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, NOT TO

MENTION THIS HIGH COURT THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS

UNACCEPTABLE TO ME. SO I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRAY ON IT,

CONTINUE TO HOPE FOR IT AND UNTIL THAT LAST VOTE IS CAST I

AM STILL GOING TO BELIEVE THAT COMMON

SENSE AND PATRIOTISM CAN RULE OUT OVER FEAR AND PARTISANSHIP.

>> IF IT'S THE END OF THE DAY TOMORROW AND THIS VOTE IS

DEFEATED, WHAT IN YOUR VIEW SHOULD BE NEXT?

>> WELL, AGAIN, I COME FROM THE SAME HISTORY YOU DO IN THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE'VE SEEN BAD LOSSES, WE'VE

SEEN DARK TIMES, WE'VE

SEEN MORAL VANDALISM, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, STONEWALL,

THELMA, GO BACK TO THE DAWNING OF OUR HISTORY, WE'VE SEEN AWFUL

TIME THINGS HAPPENING A FRONT TO THE IDEALS OF THIS NATION,

BUNKER HILL, AND WE FOUND WAYS TO REGROUP AND COME BACK

STRONGER. THIS COMING ELECTION IS A -- NOT

RIGHT OR LEFT, THIS IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, I KNOW THAT

BECAUSE I KNOW MY FRIENDS IN THE SENATE WHEN

THEY ARE TALKING PRIVATELY AN HORDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS GUY

WE WOULDN'T -- THIS IS A -- THIS IS NOW A TIME

FOR US TO REGROUP AND BRING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO THE

FOCUS IT REALLY IS. NOT RIGHT OR LEFT BUT RIGHT OR

WRONG. IT'S A MOMENT ABOUT BIGGER

ISSUES, ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DEAL AS A PLANET WITH CLIMATE

CHANGE, THAT IS ON THE BALLOT. OUTRAGEOUS FEAR ABOUT GETTING

SICK OR HOARDING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

THAT IS ON THE BALLOT. SEND OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL WITH

THE IMPLICIT MESSAGE WE CAN'T PROTECT YOU NOW SO WE ARE GOING

TO TEACH YOU HOW TO HIDE AND DO SHELTER IN

PLACE DRILLS. THIS IS ON THE BALLOT.

AND SO I'M READY TO FIGHT IN THESE LAST HOURS FOR TRUTH

AND/OR GETTING THAT TRUTH ON THE SENATE FLOOR, IF THAT FAILS I

WILL NOT GIVE UP. YOU AND I WOULD NOT BE HERE

RIGHT NOW IF OUR ANCESTORS GAVE UP WHEN THINGS WEPT WRONG OR

WENT AGAINST OUR WAY. >> I HAVE WORD TO ASK YOU, I

HAVE SIGNAL YOU ARE ASKED TO RUN. LIBBY, BACK TO YOU.

>> THANKS SO MUCH, RHONDA. DONNA, IT SEEMS LIKE COREY

BOOKER HAS I WISH I WERE IN IOWA RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE

TIME LINE OF THINGS, SENATOR BOOKER IS NO LONGER RUNNING FOR

PRESIDENT, FOUR PEOPLE IN THIS JURY WHO ARE RUNNING FOR

PRESIDENT AND WANT TO BE IN IOWA.

THE TIMING OF THIS IS SIGNIFICANT TO HOW THEY DEAL

WITH THE FINAL PUSH BEFORE THE CAUCUS ON MONDAY NIGHT.

SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE TIME LINE OF THINGS?

>> SO, THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS UNTIL 10:00, 11:00 TONIGHT.

>> THEY HAVE ALMOST 8 HOURS LEFT.

>> YES, EXACTLY. SO, WE GOT ABOUT 70 QUESTIONS

LAST NIGHT. I WOULD EXPECT THE SAME TODAY.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH AT 1:00

IS SENATOR RAND PAUL IS TRYING TO PRESS FOR THE

DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

JOHN ROBERTS PUSHED BACK ON THAT YESTERDAY, WE'LL SEE WHAT

HAPPENS AGAIN TODAY. >> AND SO JUST TO DIG INTO THAT

FOR A MOMENT. RAND PAUL WANTED TO PUT WHO HE

BELIEVES IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THE QUESTION?

>> RIGHT. >> SO IT WOULD FALL ON THE CHIEF

JUSTICE TO READ THIS. >> RIGHT.

>> AND NAME WHO RAND PAUL BELIEVES TO BE THE

WHISTLEBLOWER. >> EXACTLY.

AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE PUSHED BACK ON THAT?

>> YES. SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS

TODAY? I WOULD MENTION THAT MOST OF THE

QUESTIONING HAS GONE THROUGH THE TWO LEADERS, McCONNELL AND

SCHUMER. SO I THINK THERE IS AN EFFORT BY

McCONNELL AS WELL WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THIS TURN INTO A

CIRCUS AT THE START OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

>> THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT TURNING INTO A CIRCUS, ABOUT

THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS AND ETHICS OF

THIS MOMENT, IS THAT ALSO BEING CONSIDERED BY THE REPUBLICANS?

>> I WOULD THINK SO, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY TELLING YESTERDAY.

ADAM SCHIFF'S RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE

WHISTLEBLOWER. THAT HE TOOK QUOTES FROM CHARLES

GRASSLEY, RICHARD BURR, DEVIN NUNES AND POSTED THEM ON THE

VIDEO SCREEN SHOWING THEIR DEFENSE OF

WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

>> SO THAT WILL BE THE FIRST BIT OF DRAMA TO UNFOLD AS WE SEE

THINGS START OFF AROUND 1:00. WE GO THROUGH THE 8 HOURS OF

QUESTIONING, UP TO ALMOST 8 HOURS OF QUESTIONING TODAY.

TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO

CALL WITNESSES. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF A TIME

LINE, IS THAT ON TRACK FOR TOMORROW?

>> YES. FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE WHEN THEY COME IN EQUALLY

DIVIDED. THEN A REQUEST OF WHETHER THEY

GO TO PRIVATE DELIBERATIONS ON WHAT TO DO. THERE ARE SOME IN

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO ARE SAYING IT'S YOU UNNECESSARY.

OATHS WHO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD DO THAT.

AND THEN THEY WILL LIKELY HAVE A VOTE PROBABLY TOMORROW NIGHT ON

WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHERE THOSE

VOTES ARE. McCONNELL SUGGESTED THE OTHER

DAY THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES.

REPUBLICANS ARE EXPRESSING MORE CONFIDENCE SINCE THEN THAT THEY

WILL BE ABLE TO PREVENT CALLING ANY WITNESSES

FOR NEW EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL. AND DEMOCRATS I SHOULD ALSO

POINT OUT SEAMLESS OPTIMISTIC ABOUT PREVAILING ON THAT VOTE.

>> WE JUST HEARD PAUL KANE ONE OF THE REPORTERS ON YOUR TEAM

TALK ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI PROPOSING THAT THE

CHIEF JUSTICE BREAK A TIE. HE DUG INTO THE POTENTIAL TIE

THAT MIGHT CREATE, I'M WONDERING ABOUT IF IT WOULD GIVE ANYONE

COVER, A WAY THEN FOR REPUBLICANS TO NOT HAVE LIKE THE

ONE REPUBLICAN WHO TURNED THE TIDE, OR DOES THAT PUT THEM IN A

TOUGHER SITUATION OR EASIER SITUATION AS

THEY TAKE A VOTE. >> INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT, YOU

KNOW, IN THE PAST CHIEF JUSTICE HAS WEIGHED IN 100 YEARS AGO OR

SO ON SOME OF THE MINOR QUESTIONS REGARDING

THIS TRIAL. OR REGARDING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

BUT THIS WOULD BE THE DECISION. AND IT'S HARD TO SEE THE CHIEF

JUSTICE STEPPING INTO THAT ROLE ESPECIALLY SINCE SO FAR AS BOB

BARNES REPORTED YESTERDAY, HE HAS BEEN THE

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER AS OPPOSED TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE OR PRESIDING

OVER THE TRIAL AND MAKING DECISIONS.

EVEN WHEN HE RECEIVES THE QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS,

IT'S REALLY JUST READING THE QUESTIONS I CAN'T LOUD,

HE'S NOT VETTING THE QUESTIONS OR MAKING ANY COMMENT AIRY ABOUT

THE QUESTIONS. >> CERTAINLY NOT FACT CHECKING

THEM OR FACT CHECKING THE ANSWERS, DEFINITELY NOT DOING

THAT. MADE SURE TO KEEP PEOPLE ON THE

5 MINUTE RULE. >> OKAY, SO BACK TO THE TIME

LINE. SO, YOU KNOW THAT SETS US UP

FORD HARPER THE VOTE ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES ON A FRIDAY.

IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED, WHAT HAPPENS SATURDAY?

>> SO, IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED I THINK SENATOR McCONNELL

WOULD MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO TRY TO HAVE THE VOTES ON THE TWO

CHARGES AND PUSH FOR THE ACQUITTAL.

>> ON FRIDAY NIGHT? >> ON FRIDAY NIGHT.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER DEMOCRATS WOULD WANT TO FILE ANY

SORT OF MOTIONS TO DELAY THAT TO SEEK WITNESSES, TO

GET THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO DECIDE SENATOR VAN HOLLAND HAS

SUGGESTED WOULD DO THAT. IT COULD DRAG OUT THAT WE'RE

LOOKING AT ONE OR 2 IN THE MORNING AS WE DID THE FIRST FULL

DAY OF THE TRIAL. THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY

WANT THAT VOTE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO

COME BACK LATER ON SATURDAY.

>> WHEN YOU SAY VOTE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING.

NOT FOR THEIR COMFORT AND WELL-BEING, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

THE POLITICAL OPTICS AND CUT, GOSH, WEEKS, MINUTES

AFTER THE VOTE IS CAST SAYING IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT THE

REPUBLICANS VOTED THIS WAY. >> EXACTLY.

>> OKAY. DONNA, WHAT IS THE TALK AMONG

REPUBLICANS IN TERMS OF LENGTHENING THIS OUT AND WHAT

WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS BLEEDS NOT INTO JUST THE WEEKEND

BUT ALSO MONDAY AND A REMINDER OF THE CALL AN CAR, IOWA CAUCUS

MONDAY NIGHT, STATE OF THE UNION TUESDAY

NIGHT. >> INTERESTING TO SEE SOME OF

THE QUESTIONS FROM THE 2020 CANDIDATES, REPUBLICAN

CANDIDATES, THEIR CONCERN ABOUT WHAT A LONGER TRIAL WOULD

MEAN FOR SENATE BUSINESS. >> 2020 SENATORS, PEOPLE WHO ARE

SUPERVISOR PORE REELECTION. >> SEVERAL QUESTIONS YESTERDAY

ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON SENATE PROCEEDINGS IF THE

TRIAL GOES ON FOR SEVERAL WEEKS. AND I KNOW THAT MARTHA Mc SALLY

RAISED THAT QUESTION AND ALSO MADE THE POINT YESTERDAY THAT IT

WOULD BE SHE ARGUED IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL

TO THE SENATE. THE ISSUE HERE THOUGH IS THE

SENATE HAS NOT BY ALL ACCOUNTS HAS NOT DONE A LOT OF

LEGISLATION OVER THE PAST YEAR.

>> THE REPORTING HAD BEEN THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THIS DONE

BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION. IS THAT STILL THE READ FROM THE

WHITE HOUSE? DOES THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ON

HIS TEAM SEE A GAIN FOR FIGHTING IN THE MIDST OF THIS AND GIVING

STATE OF THE UNION AT THE SAME TIME.

>> IT'S INTERESTING, SEVERAL DEMOCRATS AND I DON'T KNOW IF

ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SUGGESTED THIS, BUT THE NOTION

THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS THIS OVER BY THE SUPER BOWL.

AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPER BOWL IS ON FOX THIS YEAR, AND THE

PRESIDENT TYPICALLY DOES AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NETWORK.

SO, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE INTERVIEWED ON SUNDAY.

SO I THINK THE IDEA IS TO GET THIS OVER WITH BY SUNDAY NIGHT.

>> INTERVIEW BY SEAN HANNITY A HOST IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORNER

BY NOT ONE OF A JOURNALIST WHO WOULD ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS.

RHONDA, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING IOWA CAUCUSES, CONSIDERING THE

STATE OF THE UNION, WHAT IS THE CONVERSATION LIKE ON CAPITOL

HILL ABOUT HOW THE NEXT WEEK PLAYS OUT?

>> YEAH, LIBBY, I HAVE BEEN DOING A LITTLE BIT OF POLLING IN

THE HALLWAYS AND ON MY PHONE TRYING TO GET A

SENSE OF WHAT PEOPLE IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE ARE FEELING

ABOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS, RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE

STATE OF THE UNION. YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO A

DEMOCRATIC AID STATE OF THE UNION, WE ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT

THE STATE OF THE UNION, EVERYTHING IS ON THE

IMPEACHMENT. IN THE HOUSE THEY ARE DOING

BUSINESS AS USUAL, PERHAPS ON TUESDAY WHEN WE HAVE THE STATE

OF THE UNION IT WILL BE THAT A TYPICAL STATE OF THE

UNION ADDRESS MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S ALSO GOING TO HAVE

THIS, YOU KNOW, TRIAL OVER SHADOWING IT. I AM

ALSO THINKING ABOUT THE POLITICS AT PLAY, TOO.

YESTERDAY WE KNOW WHEN THIS PRESIDENT SIGNED THE USMCA DEAL,

THE TRADE DEAL THAT HAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT HE DID NOT

INVITE ANY DEMOCRATS TO COME. AND SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI WAS

VERY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS TO GET THAT TRADE

DEAL THROUGH. AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK DEMOCRATS WERE

SURPRISED THAT THEY WEREN'T INVITED SHOW YOU THE PRESIDENT'S

THINKING RIGHT NOW. SO IF HE DID NOT INVITE THEM TO THAT, WHAT IS

HIS STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH GOING TO BE LIKE.

RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE

STATE OF THE UNION ON TUESDAY, WHEN IT COMES

IT WILL BE FAIRLY INTERESTING TO SEE HOW EVERYONE APPROACHES IT.

>> THANKS SO MUCH, RHONDA. LET'S BRING IN ROBERT BARNES OUR

COLLEAGUE THAT COVERS THE SUPREME COURT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, BOB.

AS YOU SO WELL DESCRIBED IS THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER LEADING THE

CLASS. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WATCHED HIM

SO OFTEN IN THE COURT, TELL US ABOUT YOUR READ ON WHAT HE HAS

DONE SO FAR AND WHAT HIS ROLE HAS BEEN, TEMPMENT

HAS BEEN. >> HE -- HE WANTS TO PROTECT THE

COURT. THAT'S HIS GOAL IN ALL OF THIS.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT, HE HAS SPENT EVERY SORT OF WAKING

MOMENT OUTSIDE THE COURT TALKING ABOUT ITS

IMPARTIALITY, THE FACT THAT

IT'S NOT PARTISAN, IT MAY BE AID AID LOGICALLY DIVIDED, TRYING

NOT TO LOOK PARTISAN GOING FROM ONE SIDE TO

THE OTHER. HE FOR THE LONGEST TIME DIDN'T

HAVE MUCH TO DO, YOU KNOW, HE KEPT -- HE KEPT WATCH OF THE

CLOCK. IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY TO THOSE OF

US WHO COVER THE COURT WHERE AN ADVOCATE HAS 30 MINUTES TO

PRESENT HIS OR HER POINT OF VIEW, AND IT WAS A BIG DEAL THIS

TERM WHEN THE COURT DECIDED THAI ADVOCATE WOULD HAVE 2 MINUTES OF

UNINTERRUPTED TIME BEFORE THE JUSTICES STARTED ASKING

QUESTIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER DAY --

>> I AM GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU. A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WOULD

DO, THE LAWYER PREPPING FOR THIS FOR SO LONG, START TO TALK AND

JUSTICE WOULD JUMP IN RIGHT AWAY WITH A REALLY

TOUGH QUESTION. >> GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

SO THEN THE CHIEF WE WATCHED HIM GET UP THE OTHER DAY AND SAY

THAT THEY HAD 16 HOURS AND 43 MINUTES OR WHAT IT WAS TO GO.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING THAT HE IS

PRESIDING OVER HERE THAN WHAT HE DOES AT THE SUPREME

COURT. >> IS THIS -- YES, WATCHING SOME

OLD FOOTAGE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU SEE HIM TRYING TO BE I THINK VERY DOWN THE

MIDDLE, YOU KNOW, HE DID APPARENTLY REJECT ONE QUESTION,

TOLD THE SENATORS HE WOULD NOT RELAY A QUESTION THAT TO NAME

THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THIS CASE. >> THAT WAS FASCINATING, BECAUSE

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH DON A, RAND PAUL, SENATOR WANTED TO ASK

A QUESTION THAT HAD THE WHISTLEBLOWER,

ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME IN IT.

LIKE, SO THAT IS THE ONE MOMENT MUSCLE, HE DIDN'T DO IT IN AN

OVERT SHOW WOULD WAY. IT WASN'T THIS BIG HIGHLIGHT

MOMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY.

NO, HE READ THE QUESTION WITHOUT ANY EFFECT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT

HE THINKS OF THEM. I WAS AMUSED YESTERDAY HE WAS

READING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS OWN POWER, DOES THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS? YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF

THOSE QUESTIONS, BY THE WAY, ARE VERY OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S POWERS ARE, ONLY TWO

OTHER CHIEF JUSTICES HAVE PRESIDED AT A PRESIDENTIAL

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS THE

ONLY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT THE JUSTICE IS BROUGHT IN FOR.

AND SO THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH OF A TRACK RECORD.

>> WHAT COULD CHANGE THAT SUBSTITUTE TEACHER TYPE OF ROLE

THAT HE HAS BEEN PLAYING? >> I GUESS A TIE VOTE IS WHAT

WOULD CHANGE THAT. AND AGAIN, THAT IS A QUESTION IN

WHICH SCHOLARS DISAGREE, DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREAK A TIE

VOTE? SOME ARGUE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS

CONTAINED IN THE SENATE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION TALKS ABOUT THE

VICE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY AS THE HEAD OF THE SENATE TO BREAK A

TIE VOTE, IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHEN PRESIDING

OVER ONE OF THESE TRIALS. AND SO THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK IF HE

IS A ASSUMING ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT WHEN HE SITS IN THIS POSITION, THEN YES,

HE CAN BREAK A TIE. OTHERS SAY NO, THAT'S -- IT

WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BORN SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU HATE TO BE PUT IN THAT POSITION.

>> THAT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT POINT WHAT HE WOULD WANT TO DO,

WHAT HE SEES HIS ROLE AS A

ARREST BY TO ARBITER AS TO WHAT.

>> WELL DID HE AND IN THE SENATE HAS CHANGED ITS RULES SINCE THEN

THAT MAKES THAT MUCH MORE AMBIGUOUS AND

SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THEY WERE HAPPY WITH THAT PROCEDURE.

THE ONLY OTHER MODERN TRIAL WE'VE HAD WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE

REHNQUIST PRESIDED AT BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT

TRIAL, HE DIDN'T FACE ANY TIE VOTES.

IN FACT, HE HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO BECAUSE OF THE SENATORS

AGREED ON SO MUCH ABOUT THAT TRIAL, ABOUT WITNESSES, AND

ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT HE WAS NOT REALLY CALLED UPON TO MAKE

ANY KIND OF TOUGH DECISION. >> DONNA, THIS WOULDN'T BE

BREAKING A TIE VOTE OVER A PROCEDURAL MATTER OR WHETHER

IT'S I CAN'T LOT MORE TIME TO BOTH SIDES, IT WOULD BE TIED

BECAUSE THERE IS CONTROVERSIAL AND A QUESTION ON THE TABLE

WHETHER OR NOT

R NOT TO CALL WITNESSES. >> INCENSE OF HIS DECISIONS ON

OBAMACARE IN THE PAST, HIS PUSHBACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S

CLAIM ABOUT OBAMA JUDGES AND TRUMP JUDGES.

ALL OF THAT WOULD COME TO THE FLOOR.

IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE. >> YEAH.

WELL YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING, TOO. ROBERTS I AM SURE HE HAS A

LOT OF RESPECT FROM THE SENATORS.

HE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF BUDDIES IN THE SENATE.

THE REPUBLICANS HOLD THE OBAMACARE VOTE AGAINST HIM SO

MUCH THAT

IT WILL ALWAYS

BE THIS GIANT ASTERISK, UNIFORMLY CONSERVATIVE, THE

DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE HIM FOR THOSE BIG VOTES.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS SORT OF

THINGS THEY'VE GOT HIM. >> SO WE MAY AGAIN EXPECT TO SEE

THIS QUESTION FROM RAND PAUL ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWER NAMED IN IT,

ROBERTS IS IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

DO WE KNOW IF WE DEALT WITH REPUBLICAN RANKS BEFORE WE GET

TO THAT PHASE. CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF THE

POWER DYNAMIC. >> I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES OF

WHAT IS THE PLAN. RAND PAUL HAS A NEWS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED, I

GATHER HE EXPECTS ROBERTS TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT OR AT LEAST

DECIDE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO -- HE IS NOT GOING TO REVEAL THAT

NAME. SO PAUL WILL IMMEDIATELY HOLD A

NEWS CONFERENCE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT AND PERHAPS USE THE

NAME OF THE ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SORE OF FELT TO ME, YOU WOULD

KNOW BETTER THAT THE OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE IN LINE

ON THIS, THEY DON'T PARTICULARLY WANT THIS TO

HAPPEN EITHER, AM I RIGHT? >> YES, WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE.

I MEAN CHARLES GRASSLEY HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT IN PUSHING FOR

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AS SCHIFF POINTED

OUT IN PUTTING THOSE QUOTES UP, THAT'S CERTAINLY THE CASE.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT'S DAY, EVERYONE

FEELS THEY ARE LONG DAYS. THE MORNINGS LIKE HOW IS HE

SPENDING HIS MORNINGS, WHAT IS ON THE SUPREME COURT'S SLATE

RIGHT NOW. >> THERE IS COME AT A FAIRLY

GOOD TIME FOR HIM IN THAT THE COURT ALWAYS TAKES A REGULARLY

SCHEDULED BREAK ABOUT THIS TIME OF YEAR.

SO, THERE AREN'T ANYMORE ORAL ARGUMENTS UNTIL THE END OF

FEBRUARY, ACTUALLY. HE DID HAVE SOME DAYS WHERE

THERE WERE -- HE PRESIDED OVER ORAL ARGUMENTS AT THE COURT,

THEN HE GOT IN THE CAR, DROVE A BLOCK TO THE

CAPITAL AND STARTED IN THE SENATE.

AND THOSE WERE VERY LONG DAYS FOR HIM.

HE HADN'T SHOWN ANY COMPLAINT. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER HE SPENT HIS

65th BIRTHDAY MONDAY PRESIDING OVER THE SENATE, I'M SURE THAT

WASN'T HOW HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO TURN 65.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HE ALSO IS A STUDENT OF HISTORY, HE KNOWS HOW

IMPORTANT AND HISTORICAL THIS IS.

HE TAKES IT VERY SERIOUSLY, HE PREPARES WELL FOR EVERYTHING.

I WAS WATCHING AND SORT OF INTERESTED YESTERDAY WHERE HE

WANTED TO KNOW WHERE EVERY SENATOR WAS, THE QUESTION

THAT HE COULD IDENTIFY THE SENATOR, I'M SURE HE PREPARED

FOR THAT VERY WELL. THERE WAS A STORY THAT HE ONCE WHEN SPEAKING

TO A LAW SCHOOL CLASS AFTER HE HAD BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE ASKED

FOR PHOTOS OF THE STUDENTS BEFORE HAND SO THAT HE COULD

PREPARE FOR TO TALK TO A CLASS OF STUDENTS. SO I AM SURE HE

REALLY PREPARED FOR PRESIDING OVER THE SENATE, YOU KNOW.

HE IS A GUY WHO DOESN'T LIKE THINGS LEFT TO CHANCE.

>> ANDREW PHILLIPS WAS OUR GUEST YESTERDAY, SHE POINTED OUT SHE

HAS BEEN WATCHING OLD FOOTAGE HOW CHIEF

JUSTICE REHNQUIST PRESIDED OVER THE CLINTON TRIAL, HE WOULD READ

MORE CLEARLY WHO THE QUESTION WAS COMING

FROM, WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THE CAMERAS, JOURNALISTS CAN'T

CAN TROLL CAMERAS, WE ARE PLAYING GUESSING GAMES WHO IS

ACTUALLY SUBMITTING THE QUESTIONS.

SOMETIMES IT'S OBVIOUS BY VOICE, WE KNOW WHAT STATE THEY ARE

FROM, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS SENATOR FROM ALASKA, WE KNOW

IT'S THE REPUBLICANS TURN, IT MUST BE, HE HADN'T BEEN SAYING

ALL OF THE PEOPLE -- BECAUSE HE CAN SEE

IT, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RELY ON THE CAMERAS.

>> REMEMBER, HE IS NOT A BIGGY ON CAMERA.

THERE ARE NO CAMERAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OBVIOUSLY, HE HAS

BEEN ONE OF THOSE WHO HAS BEEN OPPOSED TO

TELEVISING THE COURT'S PROCEEDINGS.

THIS IS A NEW THING FOR HIM. YOU KNOW, -- AND IT'S A NEW

THING FOR AMERICANS, WHEN DO YOU EVER SEE THE CHIEF JUSTICE? YOU

SEE HIM SWEARING IN THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, STATING THE

OATH. AND YOU SEE HIM SILENTLY AT

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES WHERE OF COURSE HE DOESN'T TALK

OR, YOU KNOW, EVEN TRY TO SHOW EMOTION ONCE AGAIN.

AND SO THIS IS KIND OF THE FIRST CHANCE THAT AMERICANS HAVE BEEN

GIVEN A LONG EXPOSURE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE

EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE HEARD VERY LITTLE OF WHAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY

SAY. >> ROBERT BARNES THANK YOU SO

MUCH. DONNA, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE

QUESTION THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY AND WHAT THEY REVEALED ABOUT

SOME OF THESE MODERATES. THE FIRST QUESTION CAME FROM A

TRIO ALL WATCHING CLOSELY TO SEE HOW THEY MAY BE WEIGHING THIS

VOTE FOR WITNESSES SO THIS IS SENATOR COLLINS SPEAKING FIRST.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF

MYSELF, SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR ROMNEY.

>> ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF

PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, ROOTING OUT

CORRUPTION, AND PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTERESTS, HOW SHOULD

THE SENATE CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS

ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE ONE? >> THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO SET

FOR THEMSELVES IS ESTABLISHING THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC

INTEREST AT ALL FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS

A POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THE

PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE,

THAT DESTROYS THEIR CASE. SO ONCE YOU ARE INTO MIXED MOTIVE

LAND, IT'S CLEAR THAT THEIR CASE FAILS, THERE CAN'T POSSIBLY AN

IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL.

>> I WHAT IT DEWPOINT THAT REVEAL TO YOU, POSED BY THE

SENATORS RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. >> IT SUGGESTED TO ME THAT THEY

ARE UNCERTAIN AT THIS POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE

OUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO ARRIVE AT THEIR

DECISION ON WITNESSES. LOOKING FOR A STANDARD OF PROOF,

WOULD POINT OUT THAT LATER ON IN THE PROCEEDINGS LAST

NIGHT THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION FROM COLLINS REGARDING WHY THERE

WAS NOT A CHARGE OF EXTORTION AND BRIBE EARLY, I BELIEVE WAS

THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTION. AND THERE WAS AN IDEA THAT MAYBE

THE ANSWERS THAT SHE GOT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS WASN'T

SUFFICIENT. >> TALKING JEFFRIES WHO GAVE --

WHAT THE SENATORS, MODERATE SENATORS WERE LAYING OUT WAS A

QUESTION OF IF HONEST SERVICE IS FRAUD, ISSUES

OF BRIBE REAR TREE -- ULTIMATELY DIDN'T MAKE

IT TO THE STAGE, WHAT GIVES? JEFFREYS DIDN'T ADDRESS IT IN A

WAY THAT GIVE A LOT OF CLARITY AS TO TRUE DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. AND SCHIFF CAME ON TO TRY TO I

GUESS TO CLEAN UP. I THINK -- BUT AT THE SAME TIME

THERE WAS AN ANSWER THAT PATRICK PHILBIN THAT COLLINS WAS NOT

SATISFIED WITH EITHER. IF YOU ARE READING THE

TEA LEAVES OF WHERE THE MODERATE THE ARE GOING TO GO, YOU ARE

LOOKING AT THEIR RESPONSE AS THEY HEAR THESE ANSWERS FROM

BOTH THE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM.

>> I WANT TO PLAY ONE MORE BIT OF TAPE, THIS IS ALAN DERSHOWITZ

ON THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW THEY

ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT PERSONAL MOTIVE IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL

IF THE PRESIDENT WINS REELECTION,

INTERTWINED MOTIVE, LET'S LISTEN.

>> WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE

TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THEY THIS CAN VOTE FOR THE

REPUBLICAN PARTY, WOULD THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO?

NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, A BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL

INTEREST. BUT B, HE BELIEVED THAT HIS OWN

ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO VICTORY IN CIVIL WAR.

EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT, THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DANGEROUS TO

TRY TO PSYCHO ANALYZE A PRESIDENT, TO TRY TO

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 PERMIT

ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED.

>> DONNA. >> IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO SEE

THE RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S STATEMENTS

YESTERDAY. JUST AN ONSLAUGHT OF CRITICISM.

DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR. HILLARY CLINTON WEIGHED IN.

REPUBLICANS YESTERDAY, SEVERAL OF THEM HAD SOME DIFFICULTY

TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROFESSOR WAS SAYING. AND EVEN

HIS OWN COMMENTED TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS TRYING -- HE IS

SCRAMBLING TO EXPLAIN IT. >> WALK IT IT BACK IN SOME WAY

ON SOCIAL MEDIA. >> YEAH, YOU KNOW, YOU READ THE

STATEMENT AND IT'S PRETTY

CLEAR WHAT HE

IS TALKING ABOUT. >> HOW THAT SETTLE WITH

REPUBLICANS GENERALLY, FOR MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO MAY BE

LOOKING FOR A REASON TO SAY, OKAY BE I'M SATISFIED, THAT

DIDN'T HELP THEM. >> RIGHT, AS PAULA POINTED OUT

EARLIER IN THE SHOW, THEY WERE ALL IN ON DERSHOWITZ TWO DAYS

AGO, BUT YESTERDAY LEFT THEM FLUMMOXED.

>> WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING FOR TODAY?

WATCHING FOR? >> THE QUESTIONS FROM THE

MODERATES, THE POTENTIAL SWING VOTES.

I DON'T KNOW AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WHETHER SENATOR ALEXANDER

POSED ANY QUESTIONS YESTERDAY. >> I DIDN'T HEAR ANY.

>> I DIDN'T HEAR ANY. AND,

YOU KNOW, WHAT ROMNEY AND OTHERS PRESENT AND WHAT TYPE OF

QUESTIONS THEY

POSE. THOSE I THINK

ARE THE KEYS. >> IS THERE A DANGER THEY DON'T

ARGUE A STRONG ENOUGH CASE AND THEIR MINDS COULD STILL BE

INFLUENCED, NOT JUST BY AN ARGUMENT THAT IS PERSUASIVE BUT

POTENTIALLY DAMAGING LIKE THE DERSHOWITZ, THE PRESIDENT CAN DO

ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC GOOD.

>> THE MODERATES ARE LOOKING FOR THE ANSWER THAT THEY WANT FROM

EACH ONE THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THEIR RATIONALE FOR HOW THEY ARE

GOING TO VOTE ON WITNESSES. AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY

COULD LOSE IT, IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE BUT I JUST WONDER

WHETHER THERE

IS THE FIX

IS IN HERE BUT I STILL WONDER IF THERE IS SOMETHING SO DAMAGING,

AND WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID YESTERDAY, I

WONDER IF THE DEFENSE TEAM WILL BE PULLING HIM BACK IN REIGNING

HIMSELF IN GIVING THE REACTION THAT HE SAW.

>> RIGHT. AND I ALSO WONDER WHETHER WE ARE

GOING TO HEAR FROM THE LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM, THE ARGUMENT THAT

WE HEARD EARLY ON WHICH IS LET THE VOTERS

DECIDE. 9, 10 MONTHS FROM THE ELECTION, LET THEM DECIDE, YOU

DON'T TAKE THAT ROLE ON. >> SO, DONNA, YOU LAID OUT THE

TIME LINE FOR US WHICH IS SO HELPFUL.

TOMORROW SUCH A CRUCIAL DAY TO WATCH BECAUSE OF THIS QUESTION

OF WITNESSES. WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO BE WATCHING OUTSIDE OF

THE CHAMBER? YOU KNOW, THEY ARE OFTEN CAUCUS LUNCH THAT HAPPEN,

TOMORROW'S FRIDAY, TOMORROW IS FRIDAY. DAYS ARE RUNNING

TOGETHER. WHAT MAY WE BE WATCHING IN TERMS

OF MEETINGS OR CONVERSATIONS OR ACTIVITY ON CAPITOL HILL

TOMORROW AFTERNOON? >> I THINK THE REPUBLICAN LUNCH

BEFORE THEY GAVEL IN TOMORROW WILL BE CRITICAL AS TODAY AS

WELL WHETHER WE GET ANY SORT OF CLUES

AS

TO WHERE THE

REPUBLICAN SENATORS STAND. >> DO WE HEAR ANYMORE THAT FROM

BLACK? >> ANYMORE MOVEMENT SENATE

MAJORITY LEADER SPEAKING AS ASKING HIM TO GET SETTLED.

DONNIE ANYMORE MOVEMENT GETTING -- SENATE REPUBLICANS SAY LET'S

LOOK AT IT IN A SECURE ROOM, IS

THERE A WAY

TO CONTROL IT THAT DOES NOT CART BLANCH EVERYBODY GETS TO

STEPH. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT WOULD BE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS, IT'S

NOT AS IF IF THEY AGREE ON WITNESSES JOHN BOLTON

IS GOING TO BE APPEAR IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE GOING UP THERE TO TAKE THEIR SEAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, DOB IN A, CONGRESSIONAL EDITOR, THANK YOU

FOR JOINING US. GET BACK TO YOUR TEAM IN

REPORTING. I'M LIBBY CASEY WE WILL BRING

THIS TO YOU LIVE UNINTERRUPTED TODAY.

>> ETERNAL LORD GOD, SEND YOUR HOLY SPIRIT INTO THIS CHAMBER,

PERMIT OUR SENATORS TO FEEL YOUR PRESENCE DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT

TRIAL. ILLUMINATE THEIR MINDS WITH THE

LIGHT OF YOUR WISDOM. EXPOSING TRUTH AND RESOLVING

UNCERTAINTIES. MAY THEY UNDERSTAND THAT

YOU CREATED THEM WITH COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES AND MORAL

DISCERNMENT

TO BE USED FOR YOUR GLORY. GRANT THAT THEY WILL COMPREHEND

WHAT REALLY MATTERS, SEPARATING THE RELEVANT FROM THE

IRRELEVANT. LORD, KEEP THEM FROM FEAR AS

THEY BELIEVE THAT YOUR TRUTH

WILL TRIUMPH THROUGH THEM. ELIMINATOR DISCORDANT STATIC

WITH THE MUSIC OF YOUR WISDOM. WE PRAY IN YOUR GREAT NAME,

AMEN. >> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING

THE PLEDGE OF THE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ALLEGE

APSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR

WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AL

TO THE FLAG

>> SENATORS PLEASE BE SEATED. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HEAR YE HEAR YE ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON

PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE

UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT

EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD

JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> SENATE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

TODAY. WE WERE ABLE TO GET NEARLY 100 QUESTIONS YESTERDAY.

SENATORS POSED CONSTRUCTIVE QUESTIONS AND PARTIES WERE

RESPECT AND RESPONSIVE, I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT ALL

WHO PARTICIPATED YESTERDAY. WE WILL AGAIN BREAK EVERY 2 TO 3

HOURS AND DINNER AROUND 6:30. WE'VE BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE

CHIEF JUSTICE'S UNIQUE POSITION IN READING OUR QUESTIONS AND I

WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ASSURE HIM THAI LEVEL OF

CONSIDERATION FOR HIM WILL CONTINUE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> THE SENATOR FROM WASHING

TORCH. >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE

DESK FOR HOUSE

MANAGERS. >> THANK YOU.

SENATOR MURRAY ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS, YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED

ABOUT WHY THE HOUSE DID NOT AMEND OR REISSUE

SUBPOENAS AFTER IT PASSED ITS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ITS

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOUCHED UPON

THE HOUSE HAVING THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS SPES IF ID BY

ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION. COULD YOU ELABORATE WHY THAT

AUTHORITY CONTROLS BROUGHT FORT BY MEMBERS OF THE DEFENSE TEAM

CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THOSE SUBPOENAS.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE ANSWER IS THAT THESE WERE

VALIDLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS UNDER THE HOUSE RULES.

THE WHITE HOUSE ARREST YOU TO THE CONTRARY IS WRONG AND IT

WOULD HAVE PROFOUND NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS HOW

CONGRESS AND OUR DEMOCRACY FUNCTION.

ON JANUARY 9th, 2019 THE HOUSE ADOPTED ITS RULES LIKE WE DO

EVERY CONGRESS AND THESE RULES GAVE THE

COMMITTEE THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

THEY ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS RULES AND HERE IS A RELEVANT PORTION OF

RULE 11 ON SLIDE 55. THE HOUSE'S STANDING RULES GIVE

EACH COMMITTEE SUBPOENA POWER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT

ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES AS IT

CONSIDER NECESSARY. THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN ON

SEPTEMBER 9th BEFORE THE SPEAKERS' AN JUNE NOT ON

SEPTEMBER

24th THAT WOULD BECOME PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT UMBRELLA.

FULLY WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION.

THE ARGUMENT IS SOMEHOW BY DECLARING THAT THIS

INVESTIGATION ALSO FALLS UNDER AN INQUIRY TO CONSIDER ARTICLES

OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH GIVES CONGRESS ACTUALLY GREATER

AUTHORITY AT SOMEHOW NULLIFIES THE TRADITIONAL OVERSIGHT

AUTHORITY AND THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

NOW THE PRESIDENT COUNTERS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A FULL VOTE ON

IMPEACHMENT FIRST THAI'S WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NEED ADD HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE

SUBPOENA POWER AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE

COMMITTEE STANDING RULES TODAY. PRESIDENT ACTUALLY COMPELS THE

OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, SEVERAL FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN

INVESTIGATED, I AM PEEVED AND -- HAVING EVER TAKEN A VOTE TO OUT

RISE THE INQUIRY RECENTLY CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR

A FORMAL VOTE OF THE FULL HOUSE TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT

PROCEEDINGS. BUT EVEN ASSUMING A HOUSE THAT

WAS NECESSARY, THERE WAS A VOTE, THE TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660

DECLARED THAT THE SIX INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES OF THE

HOUSE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THEIR ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS AS

PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS

CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACHMENT.

AND THE COMMITTEE REPORT WHICH A COMPANIES THE RESOLUTION SPACE I

CANNILY DESCRIBES THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAD

BEEN ISSUED BY THE INVESTIGATION GATING COMMITTEES AND SAID, "ALL

SUBPOENAS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REMAIN IN

FULL FORCE" SO WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REISSUE THE

SUBPOENAS AFTER THE RESOLUTIONS? SHORT ANSWER IS THEY DIDN'T NEED

TO. THE SUBPOENAS WERE ALREADY FULLY

AUTHORIZED. IN ANY EVENT EVEN AFTER THE

RESOLUTION PASSED, THE COMMITTEES ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO

MICK MULVANEY, ROBERT BLAIR, FOUR OTHER WITNESSES AND THE

PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK THOSE SUBPOENAS.

THE ARGUMENT ABOUT A FULL HOUSE VOTE IS AN EXCUSE ABOUT

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION. THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY

WITH THE HOUSE SUBPOENAS BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE, AND AFTER THE

HOUSE VOTE. THE ONLY LOGIC ALEX MANSION IS

THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE US ALL ALONG, HE WAS

DETERMINED TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE PRESIDENT

TRUMP'S VIEW, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SAID, COUNTY DO WHATEVER HE

WANTS. NOW THAT'S NOT WHAT THE

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC ENTRUSTED TO US BY THE FOUNDERS

HAD IN MIND. THIS ARGUMENT DOESN'T JUST IMPLY

TO IMPEACHMENT, IT WOULD IMPLY TO ORDINARY OVERSIGHT VEST, IT

DOESN'T APPLY TO THE HOUSE, IT WOULD ALSO

APPLY TO THE SENATE BY SANCTIONING THE PRESIDENT'S

BLANKET OBSTRUCTION, THE SENATE WOULD BE CURTAILING ITS OWN

SUBPOENA POWER IN THE FUTURE AS WELL AS THE HOUSE'S AND THE

OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION THAT VERY HAVE AS WE NOW KNOW IT

WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ALTERED. I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU, MS. MANAGER. MR.CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY. >> VIA QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE

DESK FOR HOUSE

MANAGER SCHIFF AND

FOR

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL

>> THE PRESIDING OFFICER DECLINES

TO READ THE

QUESTION AS SUBMITTED. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A

QUESTION TO THE

DESK. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN IS ADDRESSED TO THE

HOUSE MANAGERS. GIVEN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE

COUNCIL COULD NOT ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S REQUEST THAT ASKED FOR

THE EXACT DATE THE PRESIDENT FIRST ORDERED THE HOLD ON

SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHAT WITNESS

OR

WITNESSES COULD ANSWER

SENATOR ROMNEY'S QUESTION?

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU SENATOR FOR THE

QUESTION. YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER

THAT QUESTION. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A

TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF

E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, CONVERSATION AND WITNESS

TESTIMONY THAT COACHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT

INCLUDING AN E-MAIL FROM LAST SUMMER

BETWEEN MR. BOLTON, MR. BLAIR, WHERE WE KNOW FROM WITNESS

TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED.

BUT WE DO KNOW IS FROM MULTIPLE WITNESSES, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS

KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLACE ADD HOLD ON SECURITY

ASSISTANCE, SOON AFTER IT WAS ORDERED IN JULY OF 2019, SO WE

KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DID U.S. OFFICIALS

KNOW ABOUT IT, AND OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT, BUT

UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS WELL.

FROM FORMER DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE SHE STATED

PUBLICLY IN FACT THAT THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW

ABOUT IT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IN JULY.

WE ALSO KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF LAURA COOPER THAT HER STAFF

RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25th

REVEALING THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT

SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AND THAT QUOTE THAT

HILL KNOWS ABOUT TO ASK THAT SITUATION TO ANNEX TENT SO DOES

THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY. ON JULY 25th.

THE SAME DAY AS

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

SHE WAS SURPRISED AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY UKRAINE AN

COUNTER PARTS DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT

EARLY ON OR EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL KNELL ALEXANDER VINDMAN

TESTIFIED THAT AMID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING STATUS

OF UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE

SURROUNDING IT. THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO

OBSTRUCT WHOLLY OUR EFFORTS TO

GET THE

E-MAILS AND COARSE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE ASKED

FOR. BOLT I DON'T KNOW TO TESTIFY AND A SUBPOENA TO THE

STATE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AND OTHERS TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT MATERIAL.

LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS, LAST EVENING, COUNSEL FOR

THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY

DID THE HOLD FOR UKRAINE DIFFER FROM HOLDS IN THE NORTH EARN

TRIANGLE AND OATH HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN. HE PROVIDED AN

EXPLANATION THAT I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND

BECAUSE HE SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION

THAT HAS AN EXPLANATION. AND AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THE

EXPLANATION WAS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES ONE WAS PUBLIC TRYING

TO PUT PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THE COUNTRIES IN

QUESTION. PRIVATE EFFORT TO PUT PRESSURE.

IF THAT WERE TRUE THEN THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE,

E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES AND INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT

WE KNOW IS ROBUST THAT WOULD ILLUSTRATE THAT TO BE THE CASE.

FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT.

LET ME FINISH WITH THIS. I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT A LOT OF

PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITAL INCLUDING ME HAVE OFTEN

DESCRIBED MUCH CONSTERNATION ABOUT RED TAPE AND BUREAUCRACY

AND LAYERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT RUN TOO SLOW.

I SOMETIMES SHARE THAT CONCERN. RIGHT, THAT SOMETIMES IT TAKE

HAS LONG TIME, MEMOS FOR EVERYTHING, E-MAILS FOR

EVERYTHING, PAPER TRAILS FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS TOWN. I THINK

THAT IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.

AND IT IS TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY SEE THAT INFORMATION SO WE CAN

GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED,

THIS BODY COULD GET THAT INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A

QUESTION TO

THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF

AND BEHALF OF

SASSE, Mc SALLY,. >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR

TUMEY IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

GIVEN THAT THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE MOST

SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL ACTS IN WHICH WE AS CITIZENS ENGAGE IN

OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD THE SENATE GIVE TO

THE FACT THAT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AND

DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM HOLDING FUTURE FEDERAL OFFICE WOULD UNDO

THAT DEMOCRATIC DECISION AND KICK THE PRESIDENT OFF

THE BALLOT IN THIS YEAR ELECTION?

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ONE OF THE CONCERN THAT WE'VE RAISED

THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL

MONTHS IN GOING BACK TO THE TIME WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DEALING WITH

THIS IN THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES IS WE ARE IN

AN ELECTION YEAR, SOME IN THIS ROOM THAT ARE DAYS AWAY FROM THE

IOWA CAUCUSES TAKES PLACE. SO WE ARE DISCUSSING THE

POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES, NOT ONLY DURING ELECTION SEASON, IN THE

HEART OF THE ELECTION SEASON. I THINK THAT THIS DOES A

DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AGAIN, WE THINK THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS IS MOVED FORWARD IS

IRREGULAR TO SAY THE LEAST. DO YOU THINK IT COMPLICATES THE

MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT WE ARE LITERALLY AT THE

DAWN OF A NEW SEASON OF ELECTIONS. WE ARE AT THAT SEASON

NOW. AND YET WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT AND I WANT TO TIE THIS INTO THE

URGENCY THAT WAS SO PREVALENT IN DECEMBER WITH MY

COLLEAGUES, THE MANAGERS, IT WAS SO URGENT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD

THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT BY MID DECEMBER BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY WAS AT STAKE.

AND THEN THEY WAITED 33 DAYS TO BRING IT HERE. AND NOW THEY ARE

ASKING TO YOU DO ALL THE INVESTIGATION.

ALTHOUGH THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, PROVED THEIR CASE BUT STILL NEED

MORE TO PROVE IT. OF COURSE WE BELIEVE, AND I WANT

TO BE CLEAR THAT THEIR ENTIRE PROCESS WAS CORRUPT FROM THE

VERY BEGINNING AND PUTTING IT ON THIS BODY BUT TO DO IT WHILE THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO BE

THE HEAD OF THEIR PARTY, TO RUN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES. SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM

AND TO TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES I THINK THAT'S ALL PART AND PARCEL OF

THE SAME PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF IRREGULARITIES THAT HAVE TAKEN

PLACE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SINCE THE

BEGINNING, THE SPEAKER ALLOWED THE ARTICLES TO LINGER. IT WAS

SUCH A NATIONALLY URGENT MATTER THAT THEY COULD LINGER FOR A

MONTH. SO WE THINK THAT THIS POINTS TO

THE EXACT PROBLEM WHAT IS TAKING PLACE HERE, MY COLLEAGUE THIS IS

REALLY TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL:

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO

THE DESK

FOR THE HOUSE

MANAGERS. >> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR TESTER ASKED, MR. DERSHOWITZ STATED IF THE

PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET

ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID

PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS ANY LIMIT TO THE TYPE OR SCOPE OF

QUID PRO QUO A SITTING PRESIDENT COULD ENGAGE IN

WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY AS LONG AS THE INTENT OF THE SITTING

PRESIDENT IS TO GET RE-ELECTED IN WHAT HE OR

SHE BELIEVES

IS IN THE

PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST? >> CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR.

THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD

LAST NIGHT. FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, THAT

IS IF THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES WILL

HELP HIM GET RE-ELECTED AND HE BELIEVES HIS

REELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER

HOW CORRUPT A QUID PRO QUO IS.

IT'S ASTONISHING THAT ON THE -- SOMEBODY WEEK MAKE THAT

ARGUMENT. IT DIDN'T BEGIN THAT WAY, WHAT

WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE DAYS IS A DISSENT INTO

CONSTITUTIONAL MADNESS BECAUSE THAT WAY MADNESS LIES F WE ARE

TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT A PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY CAN DO

WHATEVER HE WANTS, ENGAGE IN WHATEVER QUID

PRO QUO HE WANTS, I WILL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME

THAT TO HELP ME GET ME ELECTED, I WILL GIVE MILITARY

DOLLARS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME HELP IN MY REELECTION.

IF YOU WILL GIVE ME ELICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR

ELECTION. NOW THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE

THAT ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND

DEAD TO RIGHTS. THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF

DESPERATION. NOW WHAT IS SO STRIKING TO ME IS

ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID, WELL WHEN

THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT

IS NOT ILLEGAL. THAT OF COURSE WAS RICHARD

NIXON. WATERGATE IS NOW 40 TO 50 YEARS

BEHIND US. HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING IN THE

LAST HALF CENTURY? HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL?

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.

OR DONALD TRUMP'S VERSION UNDER ARTICLE 2 CAN UNDO WHATEVER WANT

OR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IF THE PRESIDENT

BELIEVES IN HIS REELECTION IT IS THERE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST,

HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. IN FACT, MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WHEN

WE PROGRESSED WATERGATE, WATERGATE REFORMS AND WE TRIED

TO INSULATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM

INTERFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENCY, WE TRIED TO PUT AN END TO THE

POLITICAL ABUSES OF THAT DEPARTMENT AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT

WE ENACTED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS, WE ARE RIGHT BACK TO

WHERE WE WERE HALF CENTURY AGO AND WOULD ARGUE WE

MAY BE IN A WORSE PLACE BECAUSE OF THIS TIME, THIS TIME THAT

ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED. THAT ARGUMENT IS IF THE

PRESIDENT'S SAYS IT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL FAILED, AND RICHARD

NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN. BUT THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED

HERE. NOW. THAT MEANS WE ARE NOT BACK

TO WHERE WE ARE, WE ARE WORSE OFF THAN WHERE WE ARE.

THAT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS. I WOULD HOPE THAT

EVERY AMERICAN WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S WRONG TO SEEK FOREIGN

HELP IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, THAT MEANS SHOULD DECIDE

AMERICAN ELECTIONS. I WOULD HOPE AND I BELIEVE THAT

EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS

THAT'S TRUE TO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN ONES.

I WOULD HOPE THAT WE UNDERSTAND. I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS TRIAL

WOULD BE ONE CONDUCIVE OF THE TRUTH, THE SENATOR ASKED WHAT

WITNESSES COULD SHED LIGHT ON WHEN THE PRESIDENT

ORDERED THE HOLD AND WHY. WELL WE KNOW MICK MULVANEY

WOULD, THAT INSTRUCTION CAME FROM OMB.

YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY TAYLOR, THE SHOCK THAT WENT

THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SHOCK HE

EXPERIENCED IN THAT VIDEO CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS FIRST

ANNOUNCED AND THE INSTRUCTION WAS THIS COMES THROUGH

THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF OMB BUT A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE

PRESIDENT. MICK MULVANEY KNOWS WHY THAT

ORDER WENT INTO PLACE AND HE MADE THAT STATEMENT PUBLICLY

WHICH HE NOW REQUIRES TO RECANT, I'M SURE HE GOT AN

ANYWHERE FULL FROM THE PRESIDENT AFTER HE DID. BUT APPARENTLY IT

DOESN'T MATTER. NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT'S IN HIS INTEREST,

IT'S OKAY. NOW, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ALSO,

WHAT IF IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON, OF COURSE NO EVIDENCE

THAT THIS WAS A CREDIBLE REASON TO INVESTIGATE

THE PRESIDENT'S RIVAL, LET'S SAY IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON, DOES

THAT MAKE IT RIGHT? WHAT PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO

THINK IT IS A CREDIBLE REASON NOT TO INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT,

OR WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE ONE OR COME

UP WITH SOME FIG LEAF. THEY COMPOUNDED THE DANGEROUS

ARGUMENT THAT NO QUID PRO QUO IS TOO CORRUPT, IF YOU THINK IT CAN

HELP YOUR ELECTION, COMPOUNDED IT BY

SAYING AND IF WHAT YOU WANT IS TARGETING YOUR RIVAL IS MORE

LEGITIMATE, THAT INLAY MADNESS LIES.

>> JUSTICE. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.

>> ON BEHALF OF

MYSELF AND SENATOR

YOUNG. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KRAMER AND YOUNG IS FOR THE

COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. MANAGER SCHIFF REGULARLY STATES

THAT IF THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT HE WOULD AGREE TO ALL

OF THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THAT THE MANAGERS WANT.

IS THE PRESIDENT THE FIRST INNOCENT

DEFENDANT NOT TO

WAVE HIS RIGHTS? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION

BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS, OBVIOUSLY NO, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE

FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT WHO DECIDED NOT TO

WAVE HIS RIGHTS. AND I THINK IT IS STRIKING AND

SHOCKING THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN

REPEATEDLY DEPLOYED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS THROUGHOUT THESE

PROCEEDINGS WE HEARD MANAGER NADLER SAY ONLY THE GUILTY HIDE

EVIDENCE. ONLY THE GUILTY DON'T RESPOND TO

SUBPOENAS AND MANAGER NADLER -- EXCUSE ME MANAGER SCHIFF SAID

THIS IS NOT THE WAY INNOCENT PEOPLE ACT.

OF COURSE THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE VERY SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN

JUSTICE SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS AND

ASSERTING THOSE RIGHTS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN INDICATION OF

GUILT. THAT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY

THE LAWS AND BY THE CONSTITUTION. AND THE SUPREME

COURT EXPLAINED VERSUS HAYES, THE CASE CITED IN OUR TRIAL

MEMORANDUM, THE VERY IDEA OF PUNISHING SOMEONE, WHICH IS WHAT

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WITH THEIR

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, TO SAY THAT IF

THE PRESIDENT INSISTS ON A CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF

HIS OFFICE, IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT LIKE

VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT AT LEAST SINCE NIXON AND SOME GOING

BEYOND FURTHER BACK TO THAT, HE IS GOING TO ASSERT

THE IMMUNITY OF HIS SENIOR VISORS TO COMPEL CONGRESSIONAL

TESTIMONY, HE IS GOING TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS

BRANDED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR

PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED EXECUTIVE BRANCH

CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST, WE ARE GOING TO CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION

OF CONGRESS AND IMPEACH HIM. FUNDAMENTAL THEME RUNNING

THROUGHOUT THEIR OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND ARGUMENTS GENERALLY

HERE THAT IF THE PRESIDENT STANDS ON HIS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IF HE TRIES TO PROTECT THE

INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS

OFFICE, WHICH HE IS DUTY BOUND TO DO FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF

THAT OFFICE, THAT'S SOMEHOW AN INDICATION OF

GUILT AND

HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. FUNDAMENTAL TO THE AMERICAN

SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS, TO OUR

PRINCIPLES OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RIGHTS CAN BE

DEFENDED, THAT RIGHTS EXIST TO BE DEFENDED AND ASSERTS THOSE

RIGHTS CAN BE NOT BE TREATED AS EITHER

SOMETHING PUNISHABLE OR AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

THERE WOULD AN LONG LINE OF PAST PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENTS, EXCUSE

ME, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT,

PRESIDENTS BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER AND A LONG LINE OF

PRESIDENTS WHO COULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED FOR

OBSTRUCTION OF CON TROPICAL DEPRESSION IF EVERY TIME A

PRESIDENT INSISTED UPON THE PREROGATIVES OF THE OFFICE

THE PRESIDENCY AND IN CYSTED ON DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF

POWER THAT COULD BE TREATED AS SOMETHING

IMPEACHABLE AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF REFUSED TO TURN OVER A LOT OF DOCUMENTS

TO THE HOUSE IN THE FAST AND FURIOUS

INVESTIGATION, HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT.

BUT NO ONE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE CONCEPT OF SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS

CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE

THAT IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS A COMPLETELY BOGUS ASSERTION.

IT'S CONTRARY TO ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR AMERICAN

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND FUNDAMENTALS OF FAIRNESS AND ULTIMATELY

REJECTED BY THIS BODY. >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR.CHIEF JUSTICE. >> THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR JONES' QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

ASIDE FROM THE HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT

AUTHORITY, PLEASE IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY WHICH PROVISION OR

PROVISIONS IF ANY IN THE HOUSE RULES OR A HOUSE RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZED THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE

COMMITTEES PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

IN ADDITION, PLEASE LIST THE SUBPOENAS

THAT

WERE ISSUED AFTER

HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

>> SENATOR, WE WILL COMPILE THE LIST, WE DON'T HAVE IT

ACCESSIBLE IN THE MOMENT IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION -- WE

DO HAVE IT. LET ME JUST, IF I COULD. SPACE I

CANNILY THE SUBPOENAS WENT OUT AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WERE

SUBPOENAED TO JOHN EISENBERG, ROBERT

BLAIR, MICHAEL ELLIS, GRIFFITH AND Mc MULVANEY.

BUT LET ME UNDERSCORE SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE HAD TO SAY,

LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN, IF I CAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS.

WHAT THE PRACTICAL IMPORT OF WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT

WOULD ARGUE. AND IT IS THIS, LET'S SAY THAT A

DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER AND LET'S SAY THAT ANY ONE OF

YOU THAT CHAIR A COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE

DETERMINED THAT YOU THINK THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED

IN SOMETHING QUESTIONABLE, MAYBE EVEN SOME

WRONGDOING, AND YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION, AND WOULD IMAGINE

THAT YOUR SENATE RULES LIKE OUR HOUSE RULES AND

IT'S HOUSE RULE 10 SENATOR THAT HAS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE PART

OF OUR NORMAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT

POWER DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME OF WATERGATE SO THEY HAD TO HAVE

A SEPARATE RISING INTEREST LEAGUE, BUT THAT

HOUSE RULE PASSED EACH SESSION THAT EMPOWERS US TO ISSUE

SUBPOENAS AS COMMITTEE CHAIRS. SO, THERE YOU ARE DEMOCRATIC

PRESIDENT, YOU'RE A CHAIR, YOU START TO DO OVERSIGHT, YOU ISSUE

SUBPOENAS. YOU START TO LEARN MORE AND WHAT

YOU LEARN BECOMES MORE AND MORE CONCERNING.

AND YOU ISSUE MORE SUBPOENAS. AND THE ADMINISTRATION IN AN

EFFORT TO COVER UP THEIR MISCONDUCT SAYS WE ARE NOT GOING

TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF YOUR SUBPOENAS, WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT

ALL SUBPOENAS AND THEY COME UP WITH ONE BAD FAITH EXCUSE AFTER

ANOTHER AS TO WHY THEY DON'T HAVE TO

COMPLY. AND AS YOU INVESTIGATE FURTHER,

AND YOU ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE WALL OF OBSTRUCTION, THEN YOU

BEGIN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AND THAT LEADS TO THE PASSAGE OF

YET ANOTHER RESOLUTION. THEY WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT ALL

THE WORK THAT YOU DID BEFORE YOU DETERMINED THAT IT MERITED

POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT MUSTING THROWN OUT,

THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY EMPOWERED TO OBSTRUCT YOU IN

YOUR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT YOU MUST

BEGIN WITH YOUR CONCLUSION THAT YOU MUST BEGIN WITH THE

CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE

YOU ISSUE ADD SINGLE SUBPOENA OTHERWISE THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER

YOU DID BEFORE YOU GOT TO THAT PLACE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

NOW WE DID NOT HAVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DO THE INITIAL

INVESTIGATION HERE, WHY? BECAUSE BILL BARR TURNED IT

DOWN. SAME ATTORNEY GENERAL MENTIONED

JULY 25th CALL SAID THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. SO THERE

WAS NO DOJ INVESTIGATION, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL COUNSEL

INVESTIGATION. IT WASN'T AS IF SOMEONE LIKE KEN

STARR HANDED US A PACKAGE AND SAID HERE IS THE EVIDENCE, NOW

YOU CAN TAKE UP A RESOLUTION, IMPEACHMENT

RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK.

WE HAD TO DO THAT WORK FOR OURSELVES AND THEY WOULD HAVE

YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY SUBPOENA YOU ISSUE AS A PART OF

YOUR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY THAT DOWN THE ROAD REVEALS

EVIDENCE THAT LEADS TO YOU EMBARK ON AN IMPEACHMENT

INQUIRY MUST BE DISREGARDED, THAT CANNOT AND IS NOT THE LAW.

IT WOULD RENDER THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION MEANINGLESS.

COURT AFTER COURT THAT HAS LOOKED AT THE CONGRESS' POWER TO

ISSUE SUBPOENAS HAVE ALL REAPED THE SAME

CONCLUSION, IF YOU HAVE THE POWER TO LEGISLATION YOU HAVE

THE POWER TO OVERSEE. WE HAVE A VIOLATION THAT IS

CONGRESS PASSES MILITARY SPENDING, THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T

SPEND IT, GIVES NO REASON, HE KEEPS IT A SECRET, WE

ARE INVESTIGATING THAT, THAT CAN'T ARE MORE TO FIND OUT WHY

AID WE APPROPRIATED WAS NOT GOING OUT

THE DOOR. YOU CAN'T LOOK INTO THAT UNLESS

YOU ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND JUNE FIRSTHAND.

THAT IS THE IMPORT OF THAT ARGUMENT.

IT WOULD CRIPPLE YOUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY AND WITHOUT YOUR

OVERSIGHT CAPACITY YOUR LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY IS

CRIPPLED. THAT'S THE REAL WORLD IMPORT OF

THIS LEGAL WINDOW DRESSING. THEY WOULD STRIP YOU OF YOUR

ABILITY TO DO MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT.

AND PARTICULARLY HERE WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MISCONDUCT OF

AN IMPEACHABLE KIND AND CHARACTER IT WOULD MEAN THAT A

PRESIDENT CAN INSTRUCT THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.

AND IF YOU NEED ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR BAD FAITH OF WHICH IS

ABUNDANT, THE SHIFTING AND SPRINGING,

RATIONALIZATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS, WHEN WE HAD COREY

LIEU WANT DO YOU SKI IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HE

WOULDN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE MIGHT, THEY MIGHT

CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, SOMEONE

WHO NEVER WORKED

ER WORKED FOR THE EXECUTIVE. >> TIME IS EXPIRED.

>> SENATOR FROM TEXAS. >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK

ON BEHALF OF

MYSELF AND SENATORS

HOLLY AND

GRAHAM. >>

THANK YOU. >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR

CRUZ HAWLEY AND GRAHAM IS FOR BOTH SIDES, THE COUNSEL

FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS. " YESTERDAY MANAGER

DEMINGS REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER JOE BIDEN SOUGHT ANY

LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON BURISMA,

CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY PAYING HIS SON $1 MILLION PER YEAR.

USA TODAY REPORTED THAT WHEN ASKED ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN

SAID, EXCUSE ME, "HE HADN'T SPOKEN TO HIS SON

HUNTER BIDEN ABOUT HIS OVER SEAS BUSINESS."

THAT ACCOUNT WAS CONTRADICTED BY HUNTER BIDEN WHO TOLD THE NEW

YORKER HE TOLD HIS FATHER ABOUT BURISMA AND, " DAD SAID, I HOPE

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. AND I SAID I DO."

WHY DO JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN'S STORIES CONFLICT.

DID THE HOUSE ASK EITHER SIDE QUESTION."

THE WHITE HOUSE

COUNSEL GOES FIRST. YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER -- I'M

SORRY. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.

SENATORS YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER REGARDING THAT YESTERDAY.

BUT IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT HE SAID HE NEVER SPOKE TO HIS

SON ABOUT OVER SEAS DEALINGS, JOE BIDEN WAS THE

POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE INVESTIGATING AT THE TIME YOU

UKRAINES WERE A CORRECT CUP BURISMA, ITS

ANSWER OAR, ALI AL OLIGARCH, PAID $83,000 A

MONTH, A MONTH TO SIT ON THAT BOARD WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN

ENERGY, NO EXPERIENCE IN THE UKRAINE, DOESN'T SPEAK THE

LANGUAGE, AND WE CLEARLY KNOW THAT HE HAD A FANCY JOB

DESCRIPTION, HE ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD MEETINGS, ONE

IN MONDAY A COULD AND WHEN ON A FISHING TRIP WITH JOE BIDEN'S

FAMILY IN NORWAY. JOE BIDEN KNOWS THAT JOE BIDEN KNOWS THAT

THIS OLIGARCH IS CORRUPT, NEWS REPORTS EVERYWHERE.

NO ONE WILL DISPUTE THAT. IN FACT IT RAISED EYEBROWS WORLD

WIDE BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT BY HIS ACCOUNT NEVER ONCE ASKED HIS

SON TO LEAVE THE BOARD. WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE IF

HE DID. HE NEVER ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE

THE BOARD. INSTEAD, HE STARTED

INVESTIGATING THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS GOING AFTER BURISMA AND

CORRUPT OLIGARCH WHO THEY SAY WAS CORRUPT EVEN BY OLIGARCH

STANDARDS WHO HAD

FLED THE COUNTRY, LIVING IN MONACO, HE DOES NOT ASK HIM TO

LEAVE THE BOARD. IN 2015 WE KNOW BY REPORTS HE

HAS CLOSE CONTACTS, HE TRAVELS TO UKRAINE TWICE, HE LINKS THE

AID TO THE FIRING, SAME THING IN 2016 AT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

LINKS THE AID TO THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR.

CALLS HIM FOUR TIMES IN THE EIGHT DAYS LEADING TO YOU THE

PROSECUTOR. THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING

HUNTER BIDEN, YET HE NEVER SAYS THAT, ALL CASE IS CLOSED.

DAYS BEFORE BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE HE JOKES THAT HE MAY HAVE TO

CALL HIM EVERY COUPLE WEEKS TO CHECK IN.

HUNTER BIDEN STAYS ON THAT BOARD FOR THREE YEARS. THREE YEARS.

THEN WE HEAR THE VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN BRAGGING ABOUT FIRING THE

PROSECUTOR LINKING IT TO AID. THEN WE

HAVE THE SIX MINUTE PHONE CALL. MR.CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> I'M SORRY, THE

HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 2.5 MINUTES. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND TO

OUR SENATORS. SENT YACHT SENATORS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

THAT QUESTION. YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT A QUESTION

ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A FATHER AND HIS SON.

LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER, THERE PROBABLY ARE

CONVERSATIONS THAT I CAN'T REPEAT TO YOU ABOUT

MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MY SON. SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR

QUESTION SENATOR. WHAT THAT EXACT CONVERSATION

WAS. BUT, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS

THIS. IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE, AND I HAVE NO

REASON TO DOUBT THAT WE ARE, IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT

SPEAKING THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE TRUTH MATTERS, NOT JUST FOR

THOSE WHO HAVE

PAID THE PRICE IN OUR HISTORY TO FORM A UNION AND PROTECT OUR

DEMOCRACY, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR FUTURE. AND IN THIS

CASE, IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THAT, THEN I CAN TELL YOU THIS

THAT WE ARE SERIOUS THEN ABOUT HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES.

LOOKING AT THE BIDENS NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE CALL THEIR

NAME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO POINT TO THE FACT

THAT EITHER BIDEN HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO TELL US ABOUT THE

PRESIDENT SHAKING DOWN A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM

CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THE PRECIOUS ELECTION TRYING TO

STEAL EACH INDIVIDUAL'S IN THIS COUNTRY'S VOTE.

I DON'T THINK EITHER BIDEN HAS INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHO I THINK DOES, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL

AMBASSADOR BOLTON. IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE

TRUTH, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL HIM BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA

ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT SAY OR WHAT ABOUT MR. MULVANEY WHO HAD DAY

TO DAY CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPLE IN OUR INVESTIGATION,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

WELL WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WHEN DID WE KNOW? OR

WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT PUT THE HOLD ON.

WE HAVE REPORTS THAT SAY ON JUNE 19th OF 2019 MR. BLAIR

PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED THE DIRECTOR OF OMB TO HOLD UP

SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE INFAMOUS

JULY 25th CALL. SO

-- THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A

QUESTION -- >> SENATOR FROM NEVADA.

>> I SEND A

QUESTION TO THE

DESK. >> THANK YOU.

>> ADDRESSED TOED HOT HOUSE MANAGERS. YOU HAVE TRIED TO MAKE

A CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS OF OVER

THOSE OF NATION RISKING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE

PROCESS. WHAT PRECEDENT DO YOU BELIEVE THE

PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SET

FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS? "

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATOR.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN SERVICE TO THE

COUNTRY, AND ONE THING THAI EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME IS THAT

WE ARE STRONG NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE

OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHICH IS EXTREME, AND APPEAR IN

ALL OF ITS SENSE, AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS

CHAMBER ACTUALLY APPRECIATES AND RESPECTS. WE ARE ALSO STRONG

BECAUSE WE HAVE FRIENDS. WE ARE STRONG BECAUSE AMERICA

DOESN'T GO IT ALONE. YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS IN IRAQ AND

AFGHANISTAN I WORKED FREQUENTLY WITH AFGHAN, ARMY PARTNERS,

IRAQI ARMY PARTNERS AND OTHERS NOT BECAUSE

IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIAL, WE COULDN'T

ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION WITHOUT IT.

BUT IF THOSE PARTNERS FEEL LIKE OUR POLICIES, WE SAY PUBLICLY,

DON'T MATTER. IF THEY FEEL LIKE WE ARE NOT A

RELIABLE AND PREDICT I BELIEVE PARTNER.

IF THEY FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING.

THEN THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US. THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US. FOR

OVER 70 YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE PARTNERSHIPS,

THE A LINES THAT WE HAVE BUILT, STRIVE TO

CREATE THAT IS USHERED IN AN UNPRECEDENTED PERIOD OF PEACE

AND PROSPERITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WILL START TO FRAY.

BECAUSE

THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE WILL NOT MATTER.

UKRAINE HAS STARTED TO LEARN THAT. OUR 68,000 TROOPS

THROUGHOUT EUROPE DESERVE BETTER, EVERY DAY THEY GET UP

AND THEY DO THEIR JOB, THE JOB THAT

WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO. AND THEY RELY ON OUR

CONSISTENCY, OUR PREDICTABILITY, THEY RELY ON THE INTEREST BEING

IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, NOT THE WHIMS AND THE

PERSONAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT. WHETHER THAT BE

PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION OUR BROADER ALLIANCES.

AND IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE DOESN'T

MATTER. WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE

EVOLUTION OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENT THAT WE'VE

SEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO

SEE. >> RUSSIA, IF YOU ARE LISTENING,

I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING.

I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE REWARDED MIGHT ILLEGAL BY OUR

PRESS. LET'S SEE IF THAT HAPPENS.

>> FOREIGNERS, IF RUSSIA, IF CHAIN A, SOMEONE ELSE OFFERS YOU

INFORMATION ON OPPONENT, SHOULD YOU ACCEPT OR

CALL THE FACEBOOK HINT I THINK YOU DO BOTH I THINK YOU MIGHT

WANT TO LISTEN, IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM A

COUNTRY, NORWAY, WE HAVE INFORMATION ON YOUR OPPONENT,

OH, I THINK I WOULD WANT TO HEAR IT.

>> YOU WANT THAT KIND OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?

>> IT'S NOT INTERFERENCE, IT'S INFORMATION I THINK WOULD TAKE

IT. >> RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT

BIDEN. AND IT SAYS, THE OTHER THING

THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THIS IS PRESIDENT

TRUMP SPEAKING THAT BIDEN TOOD THE PROSECUTION AND A

LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, SO WHATEVER CAN YOU

DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF

YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.

>> WELL I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY'D

START

A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. >> IF WE FEEL THERE IS

CORRUPTION LIKE I FEEL THERE WAS IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS

TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION AGAINST ME.

IF WE BUILD THIS CORRUPTION WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO A FOREIGN

COUNTRY. >> BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA

SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT

HAPPENED WITH -- WITH UKRAINE. >> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE

TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW

WHEN THEY GO TO BED TONIGHT THAT THERE IS A

PRESIDENT THAT HAS THEIR INTEREST IN MIND, THAT WILL PUT

THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY ABOVE HIS OWN POLITICAL

SELF INTEREST. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE

ANSWERS AND YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME TO CALL AMBASSADOR

BOLTON

TO TESTIFY. >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM OHIO. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A

QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF

OF MYSELF,

TUMEY CORNYN, AND MORAND. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED TO HEAR THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY

EVOKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR JOHNATHAN

TURNPIKELY WHO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION INCLUDING PLAYING A

PART OF A VIDEO OF HIM. >> ISN'T IT TRUE PROFESSOR

TURLEY OPPOSED IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE AND SAID ABUSIVE POWER

IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO PROVE ALONE WITHOUT

ANY A COMPANYING CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER HAS NEVER BEEN THE SOLE

BASIS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND NOT

PROVEN IN THIS CASE.

>> MR. CHIEF USE TIS, SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT. PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS VERY

CRITICAL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE AND OF THE CHARGES

THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE CONSIDERING HERE

BOTH THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE AND THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.

AND HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A RUSHED PROCESS.

THAT HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PURSUED IN INVESTIGATION, THAT AS THE

SENATORS POINT OUT IN THE QUESTION, ABUSE OF

POWER IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT THEORY TO IMPEACHMENT A

PRESIDENT AND NEVER USED WITHOUT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.

AND I THINK IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST WEEK AND

A HALF WE'VE POINTED THAT OUT MULTIPLE TIMES,

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OUR HISTORY INCLUDING EVEN

THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH DIDN'T

LEAD TO AN IMPEACHMENT, HAVE USED CHARGES THAT INCLUDE

SPECIFIC VIOLATION THE OF THE LAW AND THE CRIMINAL LAW, ANDREW

JOHNSON WAS CHARGED MOSTLY IN COUNTS THAT INVOLVED VIOLATION

OF TENURE OFFICE ACT WHICH THE CONGRESS

SPACE I CANNILY MADE BY PUNISHABLE FIND AN IMPRISON 89

VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE EITHER A HIGH CRIME OR A HIGH

MISS DEMEANOR ONE OF THOSE TERMS TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT WAS GOING TO

BE USED TO TRIGGER AN IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, EACH OF

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THERE, EXCEPT FOR

THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, IS SORT OF TREATED

SEPARATELY ON THE OBSTRUCTION THEORY, INCLUDED SPECIFIC

VIOLATIONS OF LAW. THERE WAS SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS

ALLEGED IN THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS OFTEN

SORT OF REFERRED TO LOOSELY AS THE ABUSIVE POWER ARTICLE,

WASN'T ENTITLED ABUSE OF POWER, IT DIDN'T CHARGE ABUSE OF POWER.

SPECIFICATIONS WERE VIOLATIONS OF LAW, VIOLATING THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

VIOLATING THE LAWS GOVERNING EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES.

UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE USING THE CIA AND OTHERS

SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW. AND CLEARLY IN THE CLINTON

IMPEACHMENT. PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED

FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE ARE CRIMES.

WHILE PROFESSOR TURLEY DOES NOT TANG THE VIEW A PRIME -- HE

POINTED OUT THERE WAS NOT NEARLY SUFFICIENT BASIS

AND NOT NEARLY SUFFICIENT RECORD COMPILED IN THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES TO JUSTIFY AN ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE. HE WAS

VERY CRITICAL OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THEORY AND HE

POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF

POWER BY CONGRESS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS

DEMANDED INFORMATION, GOTTEN A REFUSAL FROM THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH BASED ON CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED

PREROGATIVES OF