Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Impeachment trial of President Trump | Jan. 28, 2020 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

(0)
Difficulty: 0

>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DEMONSTRATED 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 WILL LOSE THE

ELECTION.

>> IT'S THE FINAL DAY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM TO

PRESENT THEIR OPENING DEFENSE TO THE SENATE. YOU ARE LOOKING

AT A LIVE SHOT OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL WHERE IN ABOUT AN HOUR

THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL GAVEL IN THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS

LIVE COVERAGE FROM "THE WASHINGTON POST". EVEN AS THE

PRESIDENT'S TEAM MAKES THEIR CASE, THERE IS SO MUCH ATTENTION

FOCUSED ON JOHN BOLTON AND IF YOU WILL BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.

I AM JOINED IN THE STUDIO BY ERIN BLAKE, THANK YOU FOR BEING

HERE. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT'S TO COME AND WHAT WE WILL EXPECTS

BUT FIRST, THERE IS THIS HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM NAMED JOHN

BOLTON. HAS THE NEEDLE MOVED AT ALL IN CONVINCING SENATORS THAT

WITNESSES

, ESPECIALLY BOLTON SHOULD BE CALLED?

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. YESTERDAY, MITT ROMNEY WHO HAS

BEEN THE MOST FORWARD AND TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT SHE

SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEST MY CAME AND SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS

IT WOULD BE THE CASE THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE REPUBLICAN

SENATORS WERE SUDDENLY WILLING TO HEAR HIM OUT. I THINK WHAT WE

ARE SEEING FROM OTHER REPUBLICANS WERE MAYBE MORE

SKEPTICAL OF THE IDEA IS THIS IDEA THAT THEY WANT TO SEE WHAT

HE WROTE, THE MANUSCRIPT OF HIS BOOK BEFORE THEY WOULD COMMIT TO

ACTUALLY HAVING HIM AS A WITNESS. THERE HAS BEEN THIS

IDEA THAT YES MAYBE IF HE COMES TO TESTIFY WE WILL HAVE SOMEONE

ELSE COME TO TESTIFY. SOME ARE CALLING IT A WITNESS DEAL, MAYBE

MORE AKIN TO A THREAT SAYING IF YOU GO DOWN THIS ROAD OF

ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, THAT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS 100 BEEN

TESTIFYING. ADAM SCHIFF HAS BEEN FLOATED BY SOME REPUBLICAN

SENATORS. I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY, BOLTON WILL HAPPEN.

CERTAINLY, THE NEWS HASN'T PUSHED A CONVERSATION.

>> I WANT TO SHOW HOW SOME SENATORS IN THE GOP SIDE ARE

TALKING ABOUT THIS. JAMES LANKFORD FROM OKLAHOMA PROPOSED

THE BOLT MANUSCRIPT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SENATE FOR

REVIEW. LET'S WATCH THE VIDEO MESSAGE HE PUT OUT TO HIS

CONSTITUENTS ON HIS FACEBOOK PAGE.

>> I THINK GETTING THE INFORMATION FIRSTHAND WOULD BE

IMPORTANT FOR US. IF JOHN BOLTON IS NO SHRINKING VIOLET, HE IS A

VERY BOLD, OUTSPOKEN INDIVIDUAL

. I HAVE KNOWN THEM FOR A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN IN CONGRESS.

I'VE NEVER SEEN HIM BE SHY ABOUT ANYTHING. MY ENCOURAGEMENT WOULD

BE IF HE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY, THERE IS PLENTY OF MICROPHONES

HE SHOULD STEP FORWARD AND START TALKING RIGHT NOW. IN THE

MEANTIME, WE SHOULD GET ACCESS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING THROUGH

CLASSIFICATION, EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS CLASSIFIED

CLEARANCE.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENT TO READ THE

MANUSCRIPT FOR OURSELVES. RATHER THAN GET A THIRD HAND FROM THE

NEW YORK TIMES AND WHAT THEY ARE REPORTING AND WHAT SOMEONE ELSE

READ AND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AND REMEMBER. WE SHOULD BE ABLE

TO READ THAT BEFORE THE CLASSIFICATION IS DONE. SO WE

UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IN THAT AND BE ABLE TO HEAR FIRSTHAND FROM

THE INFORMATION. >> LINDSEY GRAHAM SIGNALED HIS

SUPPORT OF THE LANGFORD PROPOSAL IN A TWEET, WE CAN PUT THAT UP

ON THE SCREEN AND TAKE A LOOK. I SUPPORT SENATOR LANGFORD'S

PROPOSAL THAT IT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SENATE IF

POSSIBLE IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING WERE EACH HAS OPPORTUNITY TO

REVIEW THE MANUSCRIPT AND MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. WHAT

WOULD THIS RESULT IN, WHAT IS THE GOP PLAY?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, HARD TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GOING

BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF BIPARTISANSHIP THAT EVERYONE

WANTS TO KNOW, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. DEMOCRATS SAY WE

WANT TO GET HIS NOTES, DOCUMENT HATED NOTES ABOUT WHAT HE WAS

THINKING AND REMEMBERING REAL-TIME. HE WAS A COPIOUS

NOTETAKER IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE MANUSCRIPT IS

SOMETHING REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT TO READ. AND THE FACT THAT

THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ON MORE INFORMATION

THAT REPUBLICANS WANT AT A TIME WHEN A COUPLE DAYS AGO,

REPUBLICANS WERE READY TO CLOSE SHOP AND COMPLETE THE TRIAL AND

SAY WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE INFORMATION. EVERYONE HAS MADE

THEIR CASE, LET'S MOVE ON. THE FACT THAT SOMEONE LIKE LINDSEY

GRAHAM SAYS IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON AND DISMISS THIS, IS SAYING I

WANT MORE INFORMATION. IT SHOWS THE BALL HAS SHIFTED. IT HASN'T

SHIFTED COMPLETELY TO WHERE DEMOCRAT WANT BUT THE FACT THAT

THIS BOMBSHELL HAS LED SOME REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING LET'S

AND THE TRIAL TO SEE WHAT'S GET MORE INFORMATION. SO IT HAS

SHIFTED. THERE HAS BEEN FEW THINGS THAT HAVE SHIFTED THE

DYNAMICS OF OUR. >> IS A POSSIBLE THE MANUSCRIPT

IN A ROOM, QUIET SPACE, NEUTRALIZES IT. IT NEUTERS THIS

AND THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT HEARING A WITNESS AND SEEING A

WITNESS RAISE THEIR HAND, TAKE AN OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH AND

DELIVER THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL BODY.

THE EXPLOSIVE TAPE THAT COULD GET PLAYED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND

AGAIN. BY THE BOOK. >> THERE'S A REASON THEY ARE NOT

ON BOARD WITH THIS. AIDES SAY THEY AREN'T INTERESTED.

MANUSCRIPT SAYS

HE'S NOT ON BOARD, A CRUCIAL SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> HOLD ON ONE SECOND, LINDSEY GRAHAM IS ADDRESSING THE CAMERA.

LET'S GO TO HIM. >> THE HOUSE CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE

WITNESSES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM. I DON'T WANT TO START A

PRECEDENT OF DOING IT HALF IN THE HOUSE, AND EXPECT THE SENATE

TO FIX IT. I HAVE SEEN THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY, I HAD NO IDEA

WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. SENATOR LANGFORD HAS SUGGESTED

THE MANUSCRIPT AVAILABLE IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. AND THEY

READ IT FOR THEMSELVES. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE

SOLUTION TO ME. IF PEOPLE WANT WITNESSES, WE WILL GET A LOT OF

WITNESSES. THIS IDEA OF CALLING ONE AND ONE MAKES ZERO SENSE TO

ME. WHAT I WOULD SAY THERE IS NOT A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT THE

BIDENS CONNECTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THERE IS A

SYNONYMY OF EVIDENCE. THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD THE SENATE THIS IS

BASELESS, IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED AND I THINK THE DEFENSE TEAM

YESTERDAY MADE A DAMNING INDICTMENT. OF WHAT HUNTER AND

JOE BIDEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. AND IT'S NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST

TO SEE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE UKRAINE WHERE HUNTER BIDEN

BASICALLY TURNED IT INTO AN ATM MACHINE. WE WILL GO TO THAT AND

THERE IS MEDIA REPORTS, PEOPLE IN YOUR BUSINESS THAT SUGGESTED

THE DNC STAFFER MET YOU WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT THE

ELECTION, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE NOT BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO

OPEN THIS UP TO ADDITIONAL INQUIRY, WE WILL GO DOWN THE

ROAD, WAS A LEGITIMATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BELIEVE THERE WAS

CORRUPTION AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON THE BIDENS PART IN

THE UKRAINE

. WE WILL EXPLORE THAT AND IF THERE IS CREDIBILITY TO THE IDEA

THAT THE DNC MAY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH UKRAINE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT IS YOUR BOAT GOING TO BE ON THE OPENING

QUESTION OF IF THERE SHOULD BE A WITNESS?

>> I WILL LET YOU KNOW FRIDAY. RIGHT NOW, I FEEL COMFORTABLE

WITH THE IDEA I HAVE ENOUGH. I AM TELLING EVERYBODY

THE THINGS YOU CAN SURGICALLY DEAL WITH, IT'S NOT GOING TO

HAPPEN. I WILL MAKE A PREDICTION. THERE WILL BE 51

REPUBLICAN VOTES TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, THE

WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE DNC STAFFER AT A VERY MINIMUM.

>> WHAT IS THE MANUSCRIPT -- >>

IF THE A TO UKRAINE WAS CONDITIONAL ON INVESTIGATION,

WOULD THAT BE WRONG? >> I HAVE SAID BASICALLY WHAT

THEY PROVE TO ME WHAT HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT

TO RAISE THE ISSUE. YOU HAVE TO BE WILLFULLY BLIND AND SAY THAT

DEMOCRATIC MISCONDUCT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU, NOT TO BELIEVE

THE PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD REASON TO ASK THE UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO

THE BIDEN AFFAIR. THERE WERE MEDIA REPORTS

FOR THE JULY 25th MEETING. AS MUCH AS I LIKE JOE BIDEN HE

NEEDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF WHY HE ALLOWED HIS SON TO CONTINUE

TO RECEIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE COMPANY WHEN HE

SHOULD'VE KNOWN IT WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF A

REPUBLICAN HAD BEEN THE SAME SITUATION YOU WOULD BE ALL OVER

ALL OF US WANTING TO KNOW WHY WE ARE NOT CALLING THESE PEOPLE AS

WITNESSES. AS MUCH AS I LIKE JOE BIDEN HE HAS TO ANSWER FOR HIS

TIME AS THE LEADER OF ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN THE

UKRAINE. >> WHY WOULD IT HAVE TO BE

-- IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. >> IT'S IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING

NOW, APPARENTLY. I AM SUGGESTING IF IT IS NOW, LET'S LOOK AT IT

IN THAT SETTING. THIS WAS SENATOR LANGFORD'S IDEA, IT

MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACHIEVABLE BUT THAT

WOULD BE A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

>> ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION.

>> SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM TAKING QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS. IT'S

IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT A LITTLE WHILE AGO SENATOR GRAHAM

SAID IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO PROVEN IT WOULD BE DISTURBING.

AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT? >> THAT WAS IN

AN INTERVIEW, HE SAID IF YOU CAN SHOW ME HE'S ENGAGED OUTSIDE THE

PHONE CALL THAT WOULD BE DISTURBING. THE JOHN BOLTON

REVELATION ON SUNDAY NIGHT, THE INITIAL ONE WAS THAT THE

PRESIDENT SAID PRIVATELY WHEN JOHN BOLTON WAS IN THE ROOM THAT

THOSE TWO THINGS WERE CONNECTED. IF HE WITHHELD AID AND IT WAS

TIED TO HIS DESIRE TO HIS INVESTIGATION, IF THE PRESIDENT

TOLD AN AIDE TO COMMUNICATE THAT, WE DON'T QUITE HAVE THAT

CONNECTED AT THIS POINT. BUT WHEN GORDON TESTIFIES, SAYS

THERE WAS THAT IN EFFECT, BOLTON'S BOOK WOULD SEEM TO

CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT DID CONNECT THESE TWO THINGS IN HIS

OWN MIND WHETHER HE GAVE THAT DIRECTION TO ANYONE ELSE OR NOT.

I THINK IT'S A INTERESTING THING, I WAS TALKING BEFORE HE

CAME OUT ABOUT THE IDEA OF A WITNESS STILL. IS IT ABOUT A

DEAL BUT MORE ABOUT A THREAT. THAT WAS THE MOST EXPLICIT THING

WE HAVE SEEN. IF PEOPLE WANT WITNESSES WE ARE GOING TO GET A

LOT OF THEM. HE SAID THEY HAVE 51 VOTES FOR HUNTER BIDEN, JOE

BIDEN, FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND FOR THE DNC AID. BASICALLY

SAYING YOU MIGHT BRING BOLTON BUT IF YOU DO WE WILL BRING FOUR

PEOPLE WITH US. I DO THINK IT'S WORTH QUESTIONING WHETHER

REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY HAVE THE VOTES FOR ALL OF THOSE OR ANYONE

OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY. THEY WOULD NEED TO AVOID LOSING MITT

ROMNEY, SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI IN ORDER TO GET THOSE

VOTES AND I AM NOT SURE THEY WOULD NECESSARILY BE ON BOARD

WITH ALL OF THOSE. >> MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE

LINDSEY GRAHAM MENTIONED DO NOT HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE

PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL CONDUCT. THEY ARE SIDESHOW WITNESSES,

PEOPLE IN THE VIEW OF VERY MANY REPUBLICAN SENATORS WOULD TURN

THIS INTO ACCOUNT SHOW, THE LONG, DRAWNOUT POLITICAL

ATMOSPHERE NOT IN LINE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE IMPEACHMENT

TRIAL. BOTH THEY WOULD BE POLITICAL IN NATURE, SOMEONE

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND INFUSE THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DIRECTLY

MORE SO INTO THE 2020 ELECTION, MORE SO THAN PEOPLE IN THE

SENATE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON I

THINK ERIN IS ON POINT TO SAY EVEN THOUGH LINDSEY GRAHAM IS

VERY BOLD AND SAYING HE BELIEVES THERE ARE 51 VOTES FOR THESE

WITNESSES, WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE TAPE AND SEE WHAT

SENATORS WOULD PUT THEIR FINGER ON THE SCALE TO SAY YES, WE WANT

THESE WITNESSES TO BE PART OF THIS TRIAL AND WE THINK THIS IS

RELEVANT EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THESE WITNESSES HAVE VERY MUCH

INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING, IF PRESIDENT

TRUMP WAS ON TRIAL. >> YOU WOULD NEW TONIGHT

YESTERDAY HEARING THE DEFENSE TEAM. TELL US ABOUT WHAT WE ARE

SEEING IN THE CORNER OF OUR SCREEN. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE

IS REALLY PRIME MINISTER ARE MAKING AN ANNOUNCEMENT. YOU CAN

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM, WE HAVE OUR

WHITE HOUSE REPORTED. TELL US EVERYTHING.

>> THIS IS THE LONG AWAITED PEACE PLAN, THREE YEARS INTO THE

ADMINISTRATION, LOTS OF DIFFERENT DELAYS, THEY HAVE

FINALLY COME OUT OR ARE NOW COMING OUT WITH THEIR PEACE PLAN

FOR THE MIDDLE EAST, TRYING TO SHOW THEY CAN IN THE WORDS OF

PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT TOGETHER THE GREATEST DEAL, THE MOST

DIFFICULT DEAL THAT IS SUCH AND PLAGUED PREVIOUS PLANET

PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT HAVE ANY PALESTINIANS

ALONGSIDE HIM. >> VERY CRUCIAL POINT.

>> HE HAS THE IS REALLY PRIME MINISTER NEXT TO HIM AND

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL TO

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, HE HAS PROVIDED A LOT OF THINGS HE'S

WANTED, MOVING THE EMBASSY, MOVING BACK THE PRESSURE WHEN IT

COMES TO SETTLEMENTS. A LOT OF THE PALESTINIANS BELIEVE

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT A GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATOR AND THEY WILL

REJECT WHAT HE SAYING OUT OF HAND. WE HAVE REPORTED

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO USE THIS PIECE STEEL, PEACE PLAN

TO BRING SOME OF THE PALESTINIANS BACK TO THE TABLE

TO SHOW HE'S NOT COMPLETELY ON THE SIDE OF ISRAEL BUT IS

WILLING TO BE A FAIR BROKER AND IF ANYONE ON THE PALESTINIAN

SIDE WILL AGREE TO THIS. BUT BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

IMPEACHMENT THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HIM TRYING TO SHOW

EVEN AS HE'S BEING TRIED IN THE SENATE FOR HIGH CRIMES AND

MISDEMEANORS HE'S CONTINUING TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF HIS

OFFICE, MEET WITH FOREIGN LEADERS, TRY TO SHOW IMPEACHMENT

IS NOT KNOCKING HIM OFF HIS GAME.

>> BENJAMIN NETANYAHU EAGER FOR AN OPTICAL WIN. WE WILL SEE IF

IT IS OR IF THERE IS ANY SUBSTANCE TO A PEACE DEAL.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU IS ALSO FACING CORRUPTION CHARGES IN

HIS OWN COUNTRY. >> TWO READERS FACING POLITICAL

AND LEGAL FIRES IN THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. MEETING ONE ANOTHER

AND TRYING TO GET SOME POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM SHOWING THEY ARE

MOVING FORWARD, SHOWING THEY ARE CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF THEIR

OFFICE. >> WANT TO POINT OUT YOU MIGHT

HAVE SEEN A MOB SCENE IN THE SENATE, ON ONE OF YOUR SCREENS,

MITT ROMNEY WAS WALKING BY, SOMEONE OF SUCH FOCUS BECAUSE HE

WANTS TO SEE WITNESSES. I WANT TO COME BACK TO SENATOR LINDSEY

GRAHAM, HE HAS PUSHED BACK AGAINST THIS IDEA OF A

ONE-TO-ONE TRADE WITH WITNESSES. HE SAYS IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, I

WASN'T SURE HE WOULD GO WITH THAT AND INSTEAD OF TAKING THE

DEMOCRATS PERSPECTIVE THAT THERE IS NO TRADE DEAL NECESSARY

BECAUSE IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES BUT HE WAS LIKE THERE IS NO

TRADE DEAL BECAUSE WE WILL CALL A TON OF WITNESSES. YOU MICAH

JOHN BOLTON BUT WE WILL GET FOUR. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE

HEARD REPUBLICANS TAKE THAT, GO FURTHER AND THREATEN. TO ME, IS

THERE BLOOD IN THE WATER, IS THERE, THERE IS SO MANY

QUESTIONS OF WHO HAS SEEN THE MANUSCRIPT AND WE WILL TALK

ABOUT THAT BUT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO PUSH BACK HARD

POLITICALLY RIGHT NOW TO STAY AFLOAT?

>> IT'S NOTABLE, AS YOU SAID. WHEN WE REPORTED LAST WEEK ABOUT

DEMOCRATS FLOATING THIS IDEA OF A WITNESS, IF THERE HAD BEEN A

REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL, SUNDAY WE SAW THE NEW BOOK REVELATIONS

COME OUT ON MONDAY, YESTERDAY, REPUBLICANS WERE SUDDENLY

TALKING ABOUT A WITNESS SWAP AGAIN EVEN THOUGH DEMOCRATS

WEREN'T. WE WILL SEE IF OTHER SENATORS TALK TERMS THAT LINDSEY

GRAHAM IS, IF HE'S A LEADING INDICATOR OF THIS STRATEGY OF

BASICALLY THREATENING TO CALL A BUNCH OF WITNESSES IF DEMOCRATS

GET JUMBLED. PERHAPS IT'S -- IS NOT A WHOLE LOT BEHIND A RIGHT

NOW BUT I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THIS WILL BE THERE PLAY MOVING

FORWARD. >> THE THING ABOUT THE DANGER OF

ONE A REPUBLICAN THOUGHTS WAS, IF WE THREATEN A WITNESS SWAP,

EVEN IF DEMOCRATS SAY IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES THEY MIGHT

BACK DOWN BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE BIDENS BEING

DRAGGED INTO THIS. IF WE THREATEN THAT PERHAPS, IT WILL

QUIET THE WATERS. BUT NOW LINDSEY GRAHAM IS NOT JUST

THREATENING ONE-TO-ONE BUDDIES THROWING EVERYTHING IN THEIR.

>> A LOT OF THE STUFF THE DNC AID WHO TALKED TO UKRAINIANS

, THESE ARE THINGS THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HASN'T LOOKED

INTO OR FOUND MUCH TO SUBSTANTIATE. THROWING THESE ON

TOP OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL

CIRCUS. HAVING SOMEONE LIKE JOE BIDEN, YOU COULD ASK HIM ABOUT

THE ACCUSATIONS THE PRESIDENT MADE ABOUT HIS ACTION IN

UKRAINE. HUNTER BIDEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE

IMPEACHMENT, THE WHISTLEBLOWERS ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN

OVERWHELMINGLY CONFIRMED BY THE WITNESSES THAT WERE GIVING SWORN

TESTIMONY. THE IDEA THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD ADD ANYTHING

TO THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE HERE IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE AND I

THINK HE'S RIGHT, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR REPUBLICANS TO

VOTE BECAUSE I THINK EVEN MITT ROMNEY AND SUSAN COLLINS WOULD

RECOGNIZE CALLING THE WHISTLEBLOWER BASICALLY OUTING

THEM, IN A PUBLIC WAY, WOULD BE AIMED AT BEING PUNITIVE, AIMED

AT GETTING REVENGE FOR THE PERSON WHO RAISED THIS WHOLE

THING IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THINK THAT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR

FOR SOME OF THESE REPUBLICANS. >> WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT

AND REVIEW OF YESTERDAY. LET'S GO TO RHONDA ON CAPITOL HILL TO

TALK ABOUT WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE TODAY AND OVER THE NEXT FEW

DAYS. GIVE US A PREVIEW. >> Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT, WE

ARE GOING TO CONTINUE SEEING THE OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM THE

PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. IT WILL PROBABLY BE A CONTINUATION OF

YESTERDAY, WE ARE UNSURE ON HOW LONG IT WILL GO. REPUBLICANS

SAID THEY WOULD NOT GO AS LONG AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT BUT

THEY HAVE ABOUT 12 HOURS LEFT ON THE CLOCK THAT THEY COULD

CONTINUE GOING THROUGHOUT THE DAY WITH OPENING ARGUMENTS. YOU

WILL PROBABLY HEAR THE ARGUMENT ABOUT RINGING THE BIDEN'S,

PERHAPS YOUR LIKE WE HEARD YESTERDAY THAT THERE WERE CLAIMS

THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID A QUID PRO QUO. YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE

REPETITIVENESS TODAY. TOMORROW THAT WILL START THE 16 HOUR

SESSION OF QUESTION AND ANSWER WERE SENATORS BE ABLE TO ASK

QUESTIONS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. YOU

CAN EXPECT EACH SIDE WILL WANT TO POKE HOLES INTO EACH OF THE

ARGUMENTS THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE HAD. WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE

PROCEDURALLY, I SPOKE

TO SOMEONE AND THEY SAID PROCEDURALLY IT WILL LOOK LIKE

THE SENATORS WILL HAVE A FORM THEY ARE GIVEN TOMORROW MORNING.

THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WRITE OUT QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE AND THE

CHIEF JUSTICE WILL RECEIVE THOSE , THEY WILL BE WALKED UP TO HIM

AND HE WILL AND ALTERNATING ORDER DO A REPUBLICAN QUESTION

AND THEN A DEMOCRAT QUESTION. THAT IS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE

PROCEDURALLY. IS HE GOING TO READ ALL OF THE SENATORS

QUESTIONS? THAT WAS A QUESTION I HAD FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE

AND THEY SAID ON BACKGROUND A LOT OF THINGS ARE STILL BEING

DECIDED ABOUT THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS SO THEY ARE

UNSURE IF EVERY SENATORS QUESTION WILL BE READ TOMORROW.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR TOMORROW AND YESTERDAY CHUCK

SCHUMER WAS ASKED BY REPORTERS IN A PRESS CONFERENCE HE HAD,

WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY WITH THE QUESTIONING AND HE SAID WE ARE

NOT GOING TO STOP OUR CAUCUS MEMBERS FROM ASKING ANYTHING

THEY WANT ASK BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO GO OVER QUESTIONS

TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO REDUNDANCY AND PERHAPS HAVE

POINTED QUESTIONS THAT THEY ALL AGREE ON.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I KNOW RHONDA WILL BE CHASING SOME OF

THE SENATORS TO FIND OUT WHERE THE NEEDLE IS MOVING. I WANT TO

WELCOME JAMES TO THE CONVERSATION. I THINK YOU

PUBLISHED IT 10 MINUTES AGO, THANK YOU FOR RUSHING HERE.

BEFORE WE HAVE YOU WAY IN, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE

ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHO MIGHT

HAVE SEEN IT,

WHERE IT'S BEEN AND I AM FASCINATED BY THIS IDEA AND WE

HEARD A REPORTER ASKED LINDSEY GRAHAM WHY IT WOULD HAVE TO BE

VIEWED IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE

PUBLISHED, REPORTERS ARE POURING IN ON AMAZON. WHAT DO WE KNOW

ABOUT WHERE IT'S BEEN AND WHO MIGHT HAVE HAD EYEBALLS ON IT

AND IMPORTANTLY, WHO DIDN'T HAVE EYEBALLS ON IT?

>> THIS IS A BIG SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

IS THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF TENSION. THIS 500 PAGE BOOK

RIGHT NOW A MANUSCRIPT BY JOHN BOLTON ABOUT HIS TIME IN THE

WHITE HOUSE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS THROWN

OFF GUARD BY BECAUSE THE MANUSCRIPT HAS

A LOT OF QUESTIONS OVER WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT. STANDARD PRACTICES

OF SOMEONE WHO LEAVES THE WHITE HOUSE WRITES A MANUSCRIPT OR A

MEMOIR, THEY HAVE TO GET IT CLEARED AND MAKE SURE THERE IS

NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. SOMEONE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, THE

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WOULD HAVE TO TURN IT OVER AND THAT IS

WHAT HE DID AND THIS WAS ACCORDING TO REPORTING, THIS

HAPPENED AT THE END OF DECEMBER, HE TURNED IT OVER SO IT'S NOT

CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE OUTSIDE

HAD ACCESS TO IT OR IF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAD ACCESS

BUT THERE'S CONTROVERSY OVER THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES GOT

ACCESS TO IT AND OTHER ISLETS HAVE GOTTEN THE ABILITY TO

REPORT ON CONTENT IN THE SENATORS WHO ARE TRYING

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENATE TRIAL WERE BLINDSIDED AND MEMBERS OF

THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM, ACCORDING TO THEIR STATEMENTS DID NOT HAVE

ACCESS AND THAT IS A MAJOR QUESTION ABOUT THIS MAJOR PIECE

OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BLOWN UP THE TRIAL. MEMBERS OF THE

PRESIDENT'S OWN DEFENSE TEAM DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO IT OR DID NOT

TELL THE SENATE THAT THEY HAD ACCESS TO IT OR THIS WAS A

FACTOR. NOW THE FACT THAT THIS MANUSCRIPT WHICH SHOWS JOHN

BOLTON SAYING PRESIDENT TRUMP BASICALLY DID WHAT HE IS ACCUSED

OF

IN THIS TRIAL AND LINKING A TWO CRYING TO SOME OF THESE

POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, TARGETING THE BIDEN'S, THIS IS

A MAJOR SMOKING GUN, A MAJOR PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THERE IS A

LOT OF QUESTION WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE OVER WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT,

WHY THERE WASN'T MORE ADVANCED NOTICE AND WHY THE NEW YORK

TIMES AND OTHER OUTLETS WERE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT BEFORE THE

SENATORS WERE. >> TALK TO US ABOUT THE POSITION

OF MITCH McCONNELL AND I WANT TO POINT OUT SOME OF OUR GUESTS

YESTERDAY WERE SAYING SURE,

SHOCKING, SURPRISING BUT WE ALL KNEW JOHN BOLTON WAS WRITING THE

BOOK. THERE HAD TO BE A BIG QUESTION MARK ABOUT WHAT WAS IN

IT AND THERE WAS GROWING CONCERN AMONGST SOME THAT THIS WOULD

COME TO LIGHT AT THE TRIAL.

>> THIS WAS ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE

DOESN'T HAVE CREDIBILITY WITH SOME OF THE SENATORS. PAT

CIPOLLONE WAS ADAMANT WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO

REPUBLICAN SENATORS, I HAD NO IDEA, I DIDN'T SEE THIS, I

DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A DRAFT AND SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND

AIDES DON'T BELIEVE IN. THEY DON'T THINK THEY ARE TELLING THE

TRUTH AND WE DO HERE FROM PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING THAT JOHN

EISENBERG WHO IS PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE, WHO

IS UNDER PAT CIPOLLONE. DID HAVE ACCESS, PEOPLE CLOSE TO

EISENBERG CLAIMING HE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE MANUSCRIPT. WE DO

KNOW FROM TALKING TO A FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL

THAT IT WAS VERY STANDARD PRACTICE WHEN PEOPLE WOULD

SUBMIT BOOKS FOR CLASSIFICATION REVIEWS TO CIRCULATE THEM

AROUND. IT IS VERY RARE FOR THINGS TO STAY NEED TO KNOW. IF

THERE'S A HIGH PROFILE, INTERESTING BOOK PASSING AROUND,

IT GETS TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE, IF MICK MULVANEY WANTS TO SEE

SOMETHING LIKE THAT, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO. THEY ARE DENYING THEY

THOUGHT BUT WE ALSO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE AS OF THIS

MORNING THERE IS A FRESH STATEMENT WITH THE PUBLISHER OF

THE BOOK, BOLTON'S OWNS BOOKS PERSON AND THE LAWYER FOR BOLTON

SAYING CATEGORICALLY THE SECOND

NEW YORK TIMES STORY THAT EXPOSES MORE OF WHAT HE SAYS IN

THE BOOK, NOT COMING FROM US. NOT COMING FROM ANYONE IN OUR

CAMP, HAS TO BE COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH SUGGESTS THERE

IS WIDER DISTRIBUTION. EVEN THOUGH SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE

WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THERE IS

SOME MISTRUST AND THERE IS SOME FEELING LIKE THEY ARE NOT BEING

KEPT IN THE LOOP AND THEY ARE NOT BEING KEPT ABREAST OF THIS

TRAGEDY, SENATORS DON'T LIKE NOT BEING KEPT IN THE LOOP. I THINK

THAT IS A TENSION POINT AS THERE CONTINUES TO BE CONFLICT OVER

WITNESSES. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT

ELSE THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S OUTSIDE

THE PARAMETERS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL,

IT IS SIGNIFICANT, IT'S VERY NEWSWORTHY BUT IT ALSO DOES

RAISE THE QUESTION OF HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP DEALS WITH

FOREIGN POLICY. AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

>> THE REVELATION FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES ON MONDAY NIGHT WAS

JOHN BOLTON IN HIS BOOK SAYS HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE IDEA

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING FAVORS FOR THE AUTOCRATIC

LEADERS OF TWO COUNTRIES. CHINA AND TURKEY WITH HIS

WITH WHOM THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DEALING WITH EXTENSIVELY BECAUSE

OF THE TRADE WAR, TURKEY BECAUSE OF ISSUES IN SYRIA AND OTHER

MATTERS, BOLTON SAYS HE WAS VERY CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT WAS TO

CLOSE, THAT HE WAS MEDDLING IN WHAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THAT HE BROUGHT THIS CONCERN TO WILLIAM BARR WHO

MAYBE WASN'T QUITE AS CONCERNED BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE

APPEARANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS GETTING INVOLVED IN THESE

MATTERS. THESE MATTERS MAY NOT BE TOTALLY FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE

WHO HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THEM CLOSELY BUT THEY HAVE RAISED

CONCERNS BEFORE. CHINA IS INVOLVED IN A LARGE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIRM, THEY PLEADED GUILTY IN 2017, 2018

PRESIDENT TRUMP LIFTED SANCTIONS ON THEM. OR THE OBJECTIONS OF

MANY REPUBLICAN SENATORS, THEY THOUGHT ABOUT PASSING

LEGISLATION TO OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENT AND LATER BACKED DOWN.

MAY BE THE MORE INTERESTING SITUATION IS WITH TURKEY. OF

COURSE THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE

PRESIDENT THERE, THIS HAS TO DO WITH A BANK, THE BANK IS RELATED

TO ANOTHER CASE HAVING TO DO WITH AN OFFICIAL THAT WAS

CHARGED IN 2017. BASICALLY THE IDEA IS THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY

HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH THEM AND SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AND

ESSENTIALLY SAYING WE MIGHT DO SOMETHING FOR YOU ON THIS

INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION IF YOU WORK WITH US ON OTHER THINGS AND

THE IDEA NOW THAT THIS WOULD NOT JUST BE, BY THE WAY IT'S

IMPORTANT TO NOTE, NOT JUST THESE TWO OFFICIALS BUT ALSO

REPORTING THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON, WAS ASKED

TO INTERVENE IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS IN SOME FASHION AND HE

DECLINED TO, THE REPORTING CAME OUT IN OCTOBER. BUT THE IDEA HE

HAS CRITICIZED THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY, THE IDEA THAT THIS

WOULD BE OF CONCERN TO WILLIAM BARR, EVEN IF FROM APPEARANCE,

REINFORCES THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENE,

MAYBE EVEN SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE

PRESIDENT, PUBLICLY ARE A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE.

>> AND IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT BIDDING THE PRESIDENT'S

TEAM ARE DOING ON HIS BEHEST. I WANT TO SHARE SOME TAPE FROM

CHUCK SCHUMER, THE MINORITY LEADER HITS REPUBLICANS FOR

ATTACKING THE BIDEN FAMILY BUT I WANT YOU TO LISTEN TO THIS. IT

DOES TIE INTO WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

>> JUST LOOK AT THE OTHER NEW YORK TIMES REPORT LAST NIGHT

ABOUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S BOOK. SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE

ADMINISTRATION HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S FEELINGS

WITH AUTOCRATS. PARTICULARLY SHE OF CHINA AND TO ONE OF TURKEY.

DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE FINANCIAL INTEREST AT STAKE WHEN HE WAS

TALKING TO THEM AND OTHERS CUT

, MAYBE HIS KIDS HAD SOME ECONOMIC INTEREST AT STAKE AND

DID IT IMPACT OUR NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY WITH THOSE

COUNTRIES. THOSE QUESTIONS ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE

PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THEY ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR

SHINY OBJECTS TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE FACT

AND THE LAW AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. IT'S ANYTHING. IT IS

ANYTHING. ONE DAY IT'S NANCY PELOSI GAVE OUT PENS, ONE DAY

IT'S JERRY NADLER SAID SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T LIKE. , HUNTER

BIDEN, THERE IS ALWAYS A DIVERSION.

>> CHUCK SCHUMER TALKED ABOUT THE TRUMP FAMILY AND THE TRUMP

CHILDREN AND

JUST TO PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT BE ACTING TO BENEFIT, HIMSELF, HIS

CHILDREN, IS THIS DANGEROUS TERRITORY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GOING. THE FACT THAT THIS

BOOK HAS THROWN SUCH A WRENCH IN THE PROCESS, IT GIVES US A SENSE

OF HOW NASTY THINGS WILL GET, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FAMILY

IS BECOMING THEIR GAME, THE BIDEN FAMILY, SOME OF THESE

CONSPIRACY THEORIES, INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION, EVEN SOME

REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO BEFORE HAD SHIED AWAY FROM THESE KINDS

OF RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE NOW ENTERTAINING

THESE IDEAS. WE SAW HIM USE TIME ON THE FLOOR TO GO AFTER THE

FAMILY. IT SHOWS THIS IS HOW AGGRESSIVE THINGS WILL GET IN

PART BECAUSE

THIS BOMBSHELL REVELATION FROM JOHN BOLTON IS THAT IT ACCUSES

THE PRESIDENT OF BEING GUILTY OF WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF. IT SHOWS

REPUBLICANS ARE IN A TOUGH SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO

DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT TO WORK WITH

AND NOW THEY ARE GOING AFTER DEMOCRATS AND OTHER DIVERSIONARY

TACTICS THAT HAVE TRIED TO MUDDY THE WATERS A LITTLE BIT TO TRY

TO SHOW THIS. NOBLE

-- NOBODY BELIEVES HE WILL BE CONVICTED IN THE SENATE SO IF HE

IS GOING TO FACE A COUPLE OF DIFFICULT SITUATIONS IN PART

BECAUSE

THEY WANT WITNESSES AND WANT THE TRIAL TO LAST LONGER AND HE

WON'T BE COMPLETELY VINDICATED, SOME ARE SAYING THAT LET'S GO

AFTER DEMOCRATS AND MAKE IT A FIGHT AND IT LOOKS LIKE WHERE WE

ARE GOING. >> I WANT TO SHARE THAT WE SAW

AT LEAST THIS ON THE SPLIT SCREENS, I THINK THE ESCALATORS,

MIKE WAS THERE.

WE ARE GETTING COMMENTARY AND THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID, LISA

MURKOWSKI SAID THIS, JOHN BOLTON HAS SOMETHING TO OFFER US SO WE

WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO LEARN MORE AND BASICALLY SAYING THE

BOOK MIGHT BE HELPFUL AND THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF OPPORTUNITY

TO HEAR FROM MR. NOT NECESSARILY TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS, BUT

ANOTHER SENATOR BUT CRACKING THE DOOR OPEN MORE FOR

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IF A WRENCH HAS BEEN THROWN INTO THINGS

BECAUSE JAMES HAS DONE SOME GREAT ANALYSIS AND THROUGH A

DIFFERENT NEWS UNIVERSE, TO THE POINT I WANT TO PLAY SOME OF THE

TAPE FROM YESTERDAY. SHE FOCUSED ON HUNTER BIDEN AND THE AMOUNT

OF MONEY THAT HE WAS PAID. >> THE TYPICAL BOARD MEMBER OF

THESE COMPANIES

WE ARE NO THEY ARE TITANS OF THEIR INDUSTRY, HIGHLY QUALIFIED

AND AS SUCH WELL COMPENSATED. EVEN SO, HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID

SIGNIFICANTLY. THIS IS HOW WELL HE WAS COMPENSATED.

HUNTER BIDEN IS PAID OVER $83,000 A MONTH.

WHILE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY OF FOUR DURING THAT TIME,

EACH YEAR, MADE LESS THAN $54,000. THAT'S ACCORDING TO

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DURING THAT TIME.

>> THIS IS A CRITICISM NOT DEMOCRATS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE

WITH. THEY WILL TELL YOU MAYBE NOT TO THE CAMERAS THAT THESE

ARE BAD OPTICS FOR HUNTER BIDEN TO MAKE THIS MONEY, IS IT

CONCERNING, HOWEVER IS THAT CORA DOES CORRUPT.

>> I AM SURPRISED THEY DIDN'T FIGURE MORE INTO THE

PRESENTATION YESTERDAY. THIS IS SOMETHING REPUBLICAN SENATORS

HAVE BEEN PUSHING VERY HARD FOR THE TRUMP LEGAL DEFENSE TO DO.

SO MAYBE WE WILL SEE MORE OF THAT TODAY. THE OTHER POINT, I

THINK IT IS UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED HUNTER BIDEN WORKING

FOR THIS COMPANY WAS AT THE LEAST PROBLEMATIC.

WHAT YOU HAVE GOTTEN THE JOB IF HIS DAD WASN'T VICE PRESIDENT, I

DON'T THINK ANYONE IS SAYING HE WOULD HAVE. MANY OF THE NEWS

ARTICLES THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM POINTED TO ON MONDAY, ALLUDED TO

THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING

ON HIM TAKING THE JOB. THERE WAS ALMOST NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED

THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING CORRUPT ABOUT WHAT HIS FATHER DID WITH

REGARDS TO THIS WHICH IS THE ISSUE HERE. HUNTER BIDEN WORKING

OVERSEAS IS NOT THE ISSUE THAT THE PRESIDENT RAISED. THE ISSUE

THE PRESIDENT RAISED HIS THE IDEA THAT HE WAS BRAGGING ABOUT

THE PROSECUTION OF THE CASE. I DON'T KNOW HOW REPUBLICANS CAN

MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS GOING TO TIE TO JOE BIDEN

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT YET AND THE ARTICLES ARE POINTING TO

HUNTER BIDEN AND THIS ARRANGEMENT AND NOT ABOUT WHAT

JOE BIDEN DID. I THINK THEY ARE ARGUING THE POINT IT'S NOT AT

ISSUE HERE. >> IT WAS PART OF THE PRESIDENTS

DEFENSE SATURDAY AND YESTERDAY, THEY PREVIEWED

THAT THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE BIDEN'S, WE DIDN'T HEAR

ABOUT THAT ON SATURDAY. WERE YOU SURPRISED BY THE STRATEGY

YESTERDAY, LET'S TALK BIG PICTURE ABOUT THE STRATEGY THAT

THE REPUBLICANS LEGAL TEAM TOOK, WHAT WERE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> I THOUGHT CHUCK SCHUMER WAS BRUSHING THE PLATE IN RESPONSE

TO WHAT WE SAW YESTERDAY. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE WHOLE

ORIGINAL POINT OF THIS WAS THEY WERE TRYING TO TASK OUT ON ITEM,

GORDON TESTIFIED

THEY DIDN'T WANT INVESTIGATIONS BUT THEY ONE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT

OF INVESTIGATORS TO HAVE THIS CLOUD OVER THE BIDEN'S AND

SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENED LAST NIGHT, SOMEONE CAME OUT

AFTER THE PRESENTATION, REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM IOWA UP

FOR REELECTION AND SHE SAID I WONDER IF DEMOCRATS WERE MAKING

DECISIONS NEXT MONDAY NIGHT, WATCH THE PRESENTATION AND IF

THAT WILL HURT THEM AND THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE I TALKED TO

THAT COMPARED BACK TO KEVIN McCARTHY SAYING IN 2015 THE DAY

THAT HILLARY CLINTON TESTIFIED ABOUT BEN GHAZI FOR 12 HOURS.

McCARTHY BASICALLY SAID IT LOOKED UNBEATABLE BUT WE THAT

THIS INVESTIGATION AND HER POLL NUMBERS TOOK A HIT AND EVEN SOME

REPUBLICANS I SPOKE TO SAID ERNST SAID THE QUIET PART LOUD.

WHICH WAS BASICALLY EXPOSING A LOT OF THIS IS TAPPED OUT. IT

LOOKS TERRIBLE WHAT HE DID. IT IS.

>> AND SOME DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT SAYING I

WON'T DO THAT. >> LAST WEEK I SPOKE TO AN

OPERATIVE FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN THAT SAID

WE WERE GOING TO RUN OPERA, WE WERE GOING TO HIT BIDEN ON BUT

ONCE TRUMP STARTED ATTACKING THEY HAD TO BACK OFF. THEY WANT

TO SEEM LIKE THEY ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS TRUMP. SO THAT

NEUTRALIZED THE ISSUE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. BIDEN

CHUGGING ALONG, HE'S IN IOWA WHILE THESE SENATORS ARE SITTING

HERE DEFENDING HIM. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS INTERESTING IS

WHEN CHUCK SCHUMER ATTACKED THE TRUMP KIDS, THAT IS ALSO A

RESPONSE TO WHAT PAT TOOMEY IS DOING, THE CONSERVATIVE SENATOR

FROM PENNSYLVANIA. HE HAS BEEN TALKING TO SENATORS ABOUT TRYING

TO CREATE A ONE-FOR-ONE WITNESS DEAL AND THE IDEA IS TO GIVE

SOME COVER FOR REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO SAY THEY VOTED FOR

WITNESSES TO DEMAND AN EXCHANGE FOR JOHN BOLTON THEY WANT HUNTER

BIDEN. THINKING THAT WILL PUSH DEMOCRATS TO SHUT IT DOWN. CAN

SAY WE TRIED, YOU PROPOSED HUNTER BIDEN. THERE IS SOME

FRUSTRATION AMONG LEADERSHIP BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT IS THE

WAY THIS IS GOING SO I THINK THE COMMENTS THIS MORNING ARE ABOUT

SAYING YOU WANT TO PULL HUNTER BIDEN AND, WE WILL PULL THE

TRUMP KIDS IN AND BOTH SIDES POSTURING BUT ALSO TRYING TO

SHOW THEY HAVE SOME RHETORICAL LEVERAGE.

>> I WANT TO PLAY THIS CLIP BECAUSE IT'S INTERESTING WHAT

SHE SAID BUT ALSO HOW SHE SAYS IT. LET'S WATCH THAT FROM

YESTERDAY. THIS IS SENATOR JONI ERNST TALKING ABOUT THE

POLITICAL CALENDAR. >> IOWA CAUCUSES FOLKS, IOWA

CAUCUSES ARE NEXT MONDAY EVENING AND I AM REALLY INTERESTED TO

SEE HOW THIS DISCUSSION TODAY INFORMS AND INFLUENCES THE IOWA

CAUCUS VOTERS. THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS GOERS, WILL THEY SUPPORT

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

>> COULDN'T HAVE A BIGGER SMILE AS SHE IS SAYING THAT. YOU MAKE

A GREAT POINT. >> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER,

DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS

HERE BIDEN THE MOST AND THAT IS WHY TRUMP WAS GOING AFTER HIM.

THEY, I'M NOT SURE IT'S CORRECT BUT THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AT

THE TIME LAST YEAR WAS THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER RUN AGAINST

BERNIE SANDERS IN NOVEMBER THAN JOE BIDEN. I THINK WHAT ERNST IS

HAPPY ABOUT IS WITH BERNIE SANDERS, REPUBLICANS WIDELY

PERCEIVED IT WILL BE EASIER TO DEFEAT HIM. THAT IS PARTLY THE

POLITICS THAT MOTIVATED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS BUT ALSO THE

CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF IF IT QUALIFIES AS

POWER OR IF TRUMP CARES ABOUT CORRUPTION, THERE IS NO DENYING

THAT. HE DIDN'T CARE WHEN IT WAS PAUL MANAFORT INVOLVED WITH

CORRUPT AND NEFARIOUS FIGURES. HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT

BIDEN UNTIL IT BECAME CLEAR HE WAS GOING TO RUN AGAINST HIM IN

2020. >> THERE IS A PIECE YESTERDAY,

SO HOPEFUL. THANK YOU.

>> WE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO COME UP BECAUSE THE SENATORS

WERE PUSHING THEM AND THIS HAD TO FIGURE IN AT LEAST SOMEWHAT.

>> THE WHITE HOUSE WAS SAYING ON BACKGROUND CALLS, WE ARE GOING

AFTER THE BIDEN'S. >> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT

HUNTER BIDEN AND THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE

COMPANY. I ALSO MENTIONED HOW THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY

THAT JOE BIDEN'S ACTIONS WERE CORRUPT WHICH IS WHAT THE

PRESIDENT WAS INITIALLY INTERESTED IN IMPROVING. TO THE

POINT ON THAT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO RE-UP THESE. ONE IS THAT JOE

BIDEN AND THREATENING TO WITHHOLD THESE LOAN GUARANTEES

FROM UKRAINE WHICH IS BASICALLY THE THING HE WAS BRAGGING ABOUT

WAS ACTING UPON THE OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AT THE TIME.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TALKED ABOUT AT

LENGTH. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NOT JUST THE OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION WAS PUSHING BUT ALSO THE ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD,

THE WORLD BANK, NATIONAL MONETARY FUND, MANY OF THE

UKRAINE'S WESTERN ALLIES IN THE OTHER KEY POINT IS THAT THE

REASON THEY WANT THE PROSECUTOR OUTS, THE REASON THE PROSECUTOR

THAT HE HELPED PUSH OUT WAS BEING PUSHED OUT WAS BECAUSE HE

WAS SOFT ON CORRUPTION. U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAVE SAID HE

WAS NOT PURSUING THE CASE AT THE TIME HE WAS REMOVED AND IN FACT,

THE REMOVAL OF HIM PROBABLY PUT THE COMPANY IN GREATER DANGER

BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE MORE PRESSURE UPON HIS SUCCESSOR TO

START TO PURSUE THIS CASE WHICH HAD BEEN HOVERING BENEATH THE

SURFACE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THIS

HYPOTHETICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT WHAT JOE BIDEN DID THERE

ARE MANY WAYS IN WHICH IT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF

LOGICAL SENSE AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE SEEING THE TRUMP TEAM FOCUS

ON HUNTER BIDEN AND NOT ON WHAT JOE BIDEN DID WITH REGARD TO

UKRAINE. >> LOOKING AT THIS COMPARISON

TODAY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND

THE NIXON ERA.

FIVE REASONS TRUMP IS POISED TO GET ACQUITTED BUT WATERGATE

BROUGHT DOWN NIXON. WHAT IS THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE, PRESIDENT

NIXON DIDN'T HAVE FOX NEWS AND I WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT BECAUSE

THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A WRENCH THIS HAS THROWN INTO

THINGS AND IT CERTAINLY HAS. YOU SEE IT FROM REPUBLICAN

SCRAMBLERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT BUT IF YOU WATCH

FOX NEWS AS YOU WERE IMPRESSIVELY PAYING ATTENTION TO

AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU ARE REPORTING ON, YOU AND THE DAILY

202 FOLKS WERE NOTING HOW

SOME OF THE HOSTS WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

THAT'S IMPORTANT. >> IT IS HUGELY IMPORTANT, THERE

WAS A PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY THAT SHOWS SELF

IDENTIFIED REPUBLICANS TRUST FOX NEWS, THEIR MOST GO TO SOURCE

FOR INFORMATION. WATCHING FOX NEWS YESTERDAY IN PARALLEL, THEY

DID NOT AIR AND BROADCAST THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS

ARGUMENT LAST WEEK. THEY SKIPPED THEM. THEY SHOWED INTERMITTENTLY

AND IN PRIMETIME THE HOSTS ALL SAID I WON'T BORE YOU BY SHOWING

THESE SILLY ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEMOCRATS AND YESTERDAY, AND ANY

NORMAL ADMINISTRATION, THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE WOULD BE

DEVASTATING. YOU COULD ARGUE IF THAT WOULD END THE PRESIDENCY

BUT IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING. ONE OF THE WORST DAYS OF THE TRUMP

PRESIDENCY, YOU HAD ALL THE FOX PRIMETIME HOST SAYING IT WAS A

NOTHING BURGER, NO BIG DEAL, ON THE FIVE THEY WERE SAYING IT

VINDICATES HIM, THE BOOK IS GOOD FOR TRUMP, TUCKER CARLSON, LOU

DOBBS CALLING HIM PART OF THE DEEP STATE. JOHN BOLTON OF ALL

PEOPLE. MIND BLOWING.

AND TUCKER CARLSON SAID HE'S ALWAYS BEEN A SNAKE, EVERYONE

KNOWS THAT AND HAS BEEN WIDELY KNOWN. AND SEAN HANNITY SAYING

THE DEMOCRATIC CASE HAS BEEN OBLITERATED. THE ALTERNATIVE FAX

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR INFORMATION FROM THERE,

THEY ARE ATTACKING REPUBLICANS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, OTHER GUESTS

ARE BEING HARSHLY CRITICAL. MEANWHILE, THE PRESIDENT'S

DAUGHTER-IN-LAW

WAS ON WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A NON-OPINION SHOW ON FOX LAST

NIGHT. KIND OF SAYING ON CHALLENGE THE ONLY REASON

DEMOCRATS ARE IMPEACHING HIM IS BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY AND THEY

ARE EMBARRASSED. NO CHALLENGE, NO PUSHBACK. IT IS STARTLING AND

IN FACT, I WAS STRUCK TO DO THIS PIECE BECAUSE

IN KEN STARR'S SPEECH EVERYONE WAS AMAZED BY HOW HE TALKED

ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE OF BILL CLINTON. HE ACTUALLY

MENTIONED NIXON AND WATERGATE 17 TIMES DURING HIS PRESENTATION

AND HE BASICALLY SAID NIXON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED, THE

GOLD STANDARD FOR HOW THEY WORK. HE WAS GUILTY, HE TALKED ABOUT

NIXON AND THAT GOT ME THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

NOW AND THEN. I EMAILED HISTORIANS WHO HAVE READ

BIOGRAPHIES OF NIXON AND ALUMNI OF THE NIXON WHITE HOUSE,

ONE WHO WAS BASICALLY THE WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

DURING THE NIXON YEARS, HE TOLD ME HE THINKS NIXON COULD HAVE

PROBABLY SURVIVED PERHAPS IF HE HAD FOX NEWS. HE ALSO NOTED

ROGER AILES WHO WAS NIXON'S MEDIA GUY AND CONSULTANT,

CREATED FOX NEWS IN PART BECAUSE HE WAS UPSET THAT THE COVERAGE

WAS SO CRITICAL OF HIM DURING WATERGATE. IT'S A COMPELLING

COUNTERFACTUAL TO CONSIDER, CAN MENTIONED THERE ARE OTHER

FACTORS, THE ECONOMY WAS BAD

, A LOT OF OTHER PROBLEMS, VIETNAM, IT HAD TORN THE COUNTRY

APART. THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T CONTROL THE SENATE, THERE WERE

OTHER THINGS BUT IT IS HARD TO OVERSTATE AND IT'S ONE OF THE

REASONS SO MANY REPUBLICANS YOU TALK TO DON'T KNOW THE BASIC

FACTS OF WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING THEIR

INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SO DISMISSIVE OF ANY BAD NEWS

FOR THE PRESIDENT. >> THAT'S WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT

FOR THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ON SATURDAY AND INTO YESTERDAY TO

PRESENT A SOBER ANALYSIS AND DEFENSE. WE SAW ALAN DERSHOWITZ

TALKING AT GREAT LENGTH ABOUT HOW HE HAS COME TO CONCLUSIONS

THEIR ACADEMIC AND SCHOLARLY WORK AND ALL OF HIS BIG DUSTY

BOOKS AND TALKING ABOUT HIS EVOLUTION OVER TIME. YOU ALMOST

EXPECTED HIM TO HAVE SORT OF A CAP AND GOWN ON. SAYING HARVARD

ALL OVER. IT DOES GIVE REPUBLICANS COVER. IT'S NOT

HYSTERIA. IT'S NOT

FLAME THROWING. AT LEAST IN TERMS OF TONE AND EVEN IF THE

FACTS WERE NOT IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING WE SAW, THE HOUSE GO

THROUGH, DURING THE LAST PART OF THE YEAR IT DOES GIVE

REPUBLICANS A CHANCE TO SAY I HEARD THE FACTS, THE

PRESENTATION AND I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO KNOW

NOW. >> IT IS WORTH KNOWING THE

PRESIDENT'S TEAM MAYBE FOR THE FIRST TIME OFFERED AN EXTENSIVE

DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT BASED ON SUBSIDENCE ON MONDAY. DURING

THE INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE THE DEFENSE IS BASICALLY LEFT TO

HOUSE REPUBLICANS, MANY OF WHOM ARE FLAMETHROWERS AND

THERE IS A PLACE FOR THAT IN THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW. THEY WERE

ATTACKING WITNESSES, ATTACKING THE PROCESS, THEY GENERALLY

WEREN'T DEALING WITH THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF ALLEGATIONS. ON

MONDAY THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM DEALT WITH SOME OF THAT

SUBSTANCE. I THINK IN MANY WAYS THE ARGUMENTS WERE STRAINED, THE

IDEA THAT

THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SAID HE DIDN'T FEEL PRESSURE SO IT

WASN'T A PRESSURE CAMPAIGN. THE IDEA THAT THE UNITED NATIONS

MEETING GAVE HIM WHAT HE WANTED EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE WANTED AN

OVAL OFFICE MEETING AND WAS WAITING FOR THAT.

>> AND THIS IS THE QUESTION OF HOW CAN THERE BE SOMETHING

WITHHELD. >> WITHOUT GIVING WHAT THEY WERE

SUPPOSED TO SAME THING WITH THE MILITARY AND THE IDEA THAT IT

WAS GIVEN EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS WEREN'T LAUNCHED.

THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY THOSE

MEETINGS HAVEN'T HAPPENED, THE MILITARY AID WAS GIVEN BECAUSE

THE WHOLE THING WAS BLOWING UP AND SENATORS WERE INSISTENT

THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET THE A TO UKRAINE BECAUSE IT WAS SO

IMPORTANT. THERE WERE REASONS FOR THEM TO FINALLY GIVE UP THIS

WHOLE THING. THEY WERE DEALING WITH SUBSTANCE BUT I THINK THERE

WERE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH YOU CAN REALLY POKE SOME SERIOUS

HOLES IN ARGUMENTS THAT THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM WAS MAKING. ON

THE OTHER HAND, THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE VERY GOOD FOR

THE FOX NEWS CARD BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT

ANYTHING AS CRITICAL

. >> WE HEARD FROM SEVEN DIFFERENT

LAWYERS AND HAVING WATCHED IT ALL, IT WAS STRIKING HOW THERE

WAS A PICK YOUR OWN ADVENTURE MESSAGE TO IT. SO YOU HEARD KEN

STARR, GENERALLY CRITIQUE IMPEACHMENT, JANE RASKIN DISMISS

WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING SAYING THAT WHAT ANY DEFENSE ATTORNEY

WOULD DO. YOU HEARD DRY LEGAL ARGUMENTS, YOU HAD JAY SEKULOW

SAYING THIS IS ABOUT POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, BASICALLY THERE

WERE

A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS THAT DIFFERENT REPUBLICAN

SENATORS COULD CONCEIVABLY LATCH ONTO TO JUSTIFY A VOTE FOR

ACQUITTAL BUT WHAT IS STRIKING BY SEVEN DIFFERENT LAWYERS

TALKING ALL DAY LONG, THERE IS NO

NOD TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE DONE

ANYTHING WRONG. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONSISTENT THINGS THROUGHOUT

THE DAY. THEY ARE NOT GIVING AN INCH ON THAT. THEY HAVE THE

LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT HE DIDN'T DO ANY MISCONDUCT AND THAT IS AN

EXTREMELY LOW POSITION TO TAKE. IT IS WORKING.

>> THERE WAS ONE MOMENT WHEN THEY WALKED TO THE PRECIPICE

SAYING THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG KNOW I KNOW MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE

COME TO CONCLUDE OR MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THE CALL WAS LESS THAN

PERFECT. THAT WAS ABOUT AS WILLING AS THEY WERE TO

ACKNOWLEDGE

THE IDEA THAT MAYBE THERE WAS SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC HERE. EVEN

IF IT WASN'T NECESSARILY IMPEACHABLE. WHICH IS AN

ARGUMENT REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE MADE BUT THE TRUMP LEGAL

TEAM IS ON THIS IDEA THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. THAT THIS

WAS ABOVE BOARD. >> I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE ONE

TIME JOHN BOLTON WAS MENTIONED, THE TRUMP TEAM COULD HAVE GONE

THE WHOLE DAY WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT HIM. THEY DIDN'T

NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THERE BUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ DID SAY NOTHING

IN THE REVELATIONS EVEN IF TRUE WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ABUSE

OF POWER OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WHAT IS THE UTILITY USING THE

WORD BOLTON, BUT SAYING IT DOESN'T HIT THE BAR OF AN

IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. >> WE ARE TRYING TO REPORT TO

WHAT THAT WAS AD-LIBBING AND WANTED TO BE THE CENTER OF THE

CONVERSATION. I THINK THEY WANTED TO GET THE SOUNDBITE

ACROSS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE PACKAGES WERE REPUBLICANS

SENATORS EXPRESSING ALARM SO I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT HAVING SOME

BALANCE. AND HAVING THE TRUMP TWEET ATTACKING BOLTON. THEY

ALSO THINK THEY ARE GOING BACK TO THE APPLET ARGUMENT, UNDER

ARTICLE 2 THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. HE DID NOT

OFFER SUBSTANCE AND LEGAL ANALYSIS, YOU COULD HAVE SEEN

HIM IN A ROBE, A MAROON CAP BUT HE WAS FLATLY ASSERTING ANYTHING

THAT BOLTON MAY OR MAY HAVE NOT OUTLINED IS THAT HE IS ALLOWED.

HE HIMSELF, SPEAKING OF ABUSE OF POWER AT ANOTHER POINT, HE SAID

THIS IS A MINORITY VIEW. SOME LAWYERS I TALKED TO WHO ARE

FOLLOWING THIS CLOSELY SAY THE MINORITY VIEW BECAUSE IT'S

WRONG. IT'S NOT THE CONSENSUS, THAT'S AN ABSOLUTIST VIEW.

>> LET'S BRING RHONDA IN, SHE'S ON CAPITOL HILL. WE WERE

LISTENING CLOSELY TO HEAR JOHN BOLTON'S NAME AND IT DID HAPPEN

LAST NIGHT. WHAT WERE YOUR TAKEAWAYS OVERALL

OF THE QUESTION OF WHETHER BOLTON WOULD HELP OR HURT THE

ARGUMENT IN TERMS OF DIRECTLY FACING IT AND HOW THE

PRESENTATIONS WENT IN GENERAL YESTERDAY.

>> Reporter: WE WERE REALLY WAITING ALL DAY FOR A GLIMPSE AT

HOW THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE WOULD USE THE BOLTON NEWS. WE

KNEW OR YOU COULD SUSPECT THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO OVERLOOK IT

BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A BIG NEWS ITEM YESTERDAY. AND IT CAME LATE

AT NIGHT.

IT WASN'T UNSURPRISING THAT HE DIDN'T DELVE DIRECTLY INTO IT

BUT TO ME I FELT LIKE THEY REALLY DID HAVE TO ADDRESS IT

SOMEHOW. AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT BACK TO SOMETHING THAT

LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID WHEN WE PLAYED HIS COMMENTS EARLIER

ABOUT BOLTON. HE SAID SOMETHING I'M HEARING COMMONLY FROM

REPUBLICANS THAT NOW THE SENATE IS GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH

DOING SOMETHING HOW SHOULD'VE DONE WHEN THEY HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO BRING WITNESSES. AND I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE

TO REMIND PEOPLE THE HOUSE DID INVITE BOLTON, THEY HAD A DATE

SCHEDULED, A FRIDAY IN NOVEMBER THAT THEY HAD A DATE SCHEDULED

FOR THEY ASKED HIM TO COME. HE SAID HE WOULD NOT COME WITHOUT A

SUBPOENA AND HIS DEPUTY WAS ALSO CALLED IN AND TOOK HIS SUBPOENA

TO A JUDGE ASKING THE JUDGE TO WAY AND IF YOU SHOULD IGNORE THE

WHITE HOUSE AND COME TO THE HOUSE TO TESTIFY. THE HOUSE

WAITED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT CASE IN ORDER TO SEE IF YOU

SHOULD BE COMING HERE SO THEY DID INVITE HIM, THEY WAITED AND

MOVED ON. WITH THE PUBLIC FACE OF TESTIMONY. I WANT TO MAKE

SURE THAT VIEWERS AND READERS KNOW THE HOUSE DID CALL BOLTON

IN. >> GREAT POINT, WE HEARD LINDSEY

GRAHAM EARLIER SAY THE HOUSE DID A HALF JOB . HE ACTUALLY USED

THAT PHRASE SO WE ARE RECYCLING BACK AGAIN.

>> WE WILL GET ANOTHER HEALTHY DOSE OF THAT TODAY. I THINK THIS

COMES DOWN TO

WHETHER THE HOUSE IS THE ONE THAT DIDN'T WAIT LONG ENOUGH OR

IF THE PRESIDENT ABSOLUTIST APPROACH TO PRESENTING EVERYONE

FROM TESTIFYING IS THE ISSUE HERE AND THAT IS OF COURSE THE

CENTER OF THE ARTICLE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS THE

PRESIDENT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, REPUBLICANS ARGUE DEMOCRATS

SHOULD HAVE LET THOSE CHARGES OR THOSE CASES PLAY OUT. AT THE

SAME TIME, EVEN IN LITIGATION

INVOLVING THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS

AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF LAWYERS HAVE ESSENTIALLY STATED

THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN DETERMINING

WHETHER THESE PEOPLE CAN TESTIFY. ON THE ONE HAND THEY

ARE ARGUING WE NEED TO LET THE COURTS HANDLE THESE THINGS AND

THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE ARGUING THEY HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS

PROCESS. IT IS TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUTH AND

THERE IS THOUGHT THAT THIS NEW STANCE THEY HAVE THAT THE COURT

SHOULD BE DEALING WITH COULD JEOPARDIZE THE CASE THEY HAVE

ONGOING WITH DON McGANN AND COULD MAKE IT LIKELY HE COULD

HAVE TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE. >> LET'S GO BACK TO RHONDA, HOW

ARE YOU HEARING DEMOCRATS WHO I'M SURE ARE TIRED OF HEARING

THE EXCUSE OR REASON FOR WHY

THEY CAN'T CONSIDER THIS TESTIMONY. WHY THEY THINK IT

SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE HOUSE PROCESS. HOW ARE YOU

HEARING THEM PUSH BACK? >> Reporter: SENATE DEMOCRATS

KEEP STICKING TO THE LETTER THAT CHUCK SCHUMER SENT TO THE

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL SAYING HE WANTS THE FOUR WITNESSES, HE

WANTS MULVANEY, BOLTON, THEY KEEP SAYING WE WILL FIRST LOOK

AT THIS VOTE ON FRIDAY AND SEE WHERE THAT GOES AND THEN THEY

WILL ADDRESS WHAT THEY DO NEXT IF WITNESSES AREN'T CALLED.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF INCREASING PRESSURE AMONG

REPUBLICANS TO POSSIBLY VOTE. WE TALKED TO ANGUS KING WHO

MENTIONED HE'S PREDICTING 5 TO 10 REPUBLICANS WILL POSSIBLY

COME OVER AND DEVOTE FOUR WITNESSES. RIGHT NOW, WHAT I AM

HEARING IS THEY WANT TO FIRST GET THROUGH THIS VOTE ON FRIDAY

AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE THEN. I HAVE ASKED DEMOCRATS, SAY THIS

DOESN'T GO YOUR WAY, SAY THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET BOLTON

AND THEY ARE NOT FORTHCOMING

ABOUT THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT A TRADE DEAL RIGHT

NOW. THEY ONLY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE FRIDAY VOTE AND I HAVE

ASKED SHOULD THE HOUSE CALL BOLTON BACK? SHOULD THEY BRING

HIM AND NOW THAT HE'S A WILLING PARTICIPANT AND A LOT OF THEM,

SENATE DEMOCRATS WANT THIS HANDLED ON THEIR SIDE FIRST. BUT

I THINK WE ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN WE SEE

HOW THAT SHAKES OUT. >> THEY HAVE SAID WE COULDN'T

WAIT ENDLESSLY FOR THIS

WAITING GAME. >> IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT

JOHN BOLTON HAS SAID I WILL TESTIFY IN THE SENATE BECAUSE,

THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT MAYBE HE'S TRYING TO CHOOSE

HIS VENUE BUT HE HAS SAID I WILL ABIDE BY THE SUBPOENA BECAUSE

THERE IS NOT THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH THE COURTS TO GET THIS

DECIDED. IN A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THEY HAVE TO DECIDE THIS

ON THE SPOT. IF THE HOUSE SUBPOENAS HIM AND TRIES TO GET

HIM TO TESTIFY, HE CAN PULL BACK ON HIS PREVIOUS STANCE WHICH WAS

WE CAN LET THE COURTS DECIDE IF I SHOULD HAVE TO TESTIFY HERE OR

NOT. I DON'T SEE HIM GETTING A HOUSE SUBPOENA AND SHOWING UP

AND BEING LIKE OKAY, THAT'S FINE. IF YOU LOOK AT HIS

STATEMENT WHEN HE ANNOUNCED HE WOULD TESTIFY HE WAS VERY CLEAR

TO DELINEATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PROCESSES AND HE

WAS SAYING THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A CHANCE FOR REVIEW AND

LET. >> MUCH IS CALLING FOR JOHN

BOLTON BUT OTHER WITNESSES, QUESTIONS ABOUT MICK MULVANEY,

SECRETARY POMPEO, AND OTHERS. WHAT IS THE CONVERSATION OUT

ABOUT

AS WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, PULLING THE THREAD AND HAVING

THE TAPESTRY UNRAVEL. HOW FAR COULD THE DEMOCRATS CALL GO AND

WHAT POSITION DOES THAT PUT THEM IN?

>> DEMOCRATS SAY THEY WANT FOUR, IF YOU GO TO ANY IN THE HALLWAY

THEY WILL ALL SAY WE WANT BOLTON, MULVANEY AND MIKE DUFFY

AND ROBERT BLAIR

. ALL FOUR WOULD HAVE VALUABLE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LIKELY BE

HURTFUL TO THE PRESIDENT. I THINK ONE OF THE EFFORTS YOU SAW

FROM MITCH McCONNELL AND LEADERSHIP WAS TO CINCH THAT.

LET'S KEEP IT ON BOLTON, LET'S TRY TO POWER THROUGH AND THAT IS

WHAT YOU ARE SEEING WITH PAT TOOMEY, WITNESS TRADE, ONE FOR

ONE, HE KEEPS SAYING ONE FOR ONE. SOME OF THE MOVEMENT ON THE

REPUBLICAN SIDE, ONE OF THE BIG SURPRISES YESTERDAY IS BILL

CASSIDY

, THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA STOOD UP IN THE

REPUBLICAN LUNCH AND SAID MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE WITNESSES. THEY

SAID THERE WAS NO ONE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE BUT OLTON

HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. WHAT YOU HEARD FROM DEMOCRATS

YESTERDAY WAS SO THAT MULVANEY. AND MIKE DUFFY. THEY WERE THERE,

TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS. PEOPLE ARE NOT TALKING

ABOUT TRYING TO CALL RUDY GIULIANI EVEN THOUGH HE WOULD

HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS THINKING

AND THAT IS LARGELY BECAUSE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE THAT

THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN GET AROUND. SO IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE

A SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE FOUR DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES BUT THAT IS

STILL WHAT THEIR POSITION IS AND

ADAM SCHIFF, TO AARON'S POINT IS TRYING TO CONTROL THE PROCESS.

HE WAS VERY CATEGORICAL GOAL YESTERDAY OVER OPPORTUNITIES

THAT WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THE HOUSE TO GET BOLTON, LET'S

HAVE THEM HERE, DURING THE TRIAL, LET'S DO THIS AND IT'S

FOR THE REASONS AARON OUTLINED.

>> WE WILL BRING YOU THE SENATE TRIAL WANT TO GETS UNDERWAY LIVE

AND UNINTERRUPTED. IT RECONVENES AROUND 1:00'S WILL BE SHORTLY

STARTING. THIS WILL BE THE TRIAL CHANCE FOR THEM TO

PROVE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED AND NOT IMPEACHED. BUT

TOMORROW, THEY WILL SEE THE NEXT PHASE WHICH IS THE QUESTION

FACE. WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAVE TO DO TODAY, WHAT IS

LEFT ON THE

WE WILL BRINGING YOU THE

TALKING POINTS. WE WILL KEEP IT SHORT AND TIGHT. WHAT ELSE IS

LEFT? >>

I DO WONDER IF THEY WILL NEED TO GO TODAY INTO THE IDEA THAT EVEN

IF THE THINGS THAT JOHN BOLTON IS SAYING ARE TRUE. IT'S NOT A

BIG DEAL

. HOUSE ARE YOU GOING TO GET REPUBLICAN SENATORS MAY BE

WAIVER LITTLE BIT ON HAVING HIM TESTIFY? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU

MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. AND BE COMPELLING WITH IT.

JAMES TALKED ABOUT BILL CASSIDY OPEN AS A WITNESS. LINDSEY

GRAHAM THE QUOTE WE REFERRED TO BEFORE PRESENT SAID THERE WAS A

QUID PRO QUO THAT SISTER BEEN SO BOLDNESS SAYING THERE IS A QUID

PRO QUO HERE HOW DO YOU SHRUG

THIS OFF? WE SEE THE LINE OF ARGUMENT WELL IF ALL THIS IS

TRUE IS STILL NOT IMPEACHABLE IT'S NOTHING WRONG BECAUSE HE

WAS PURSUING CORRUPTION. >> ALAN DERSHOWITZ SETTING THE

STANDARD. >> WE SEE THIS IN SEAN HANNITY'S

SHOW THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS EVEN IF THERE IS A TRUTH

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. I DON'T THINK TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM

WILL MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BUT I THINK THEY NEED TO ADDRESS THE

BOLTON ISSUE IN SOME FORM. EVEN

IF NOT COMPLETELY DIRECTLY. >> HOW IMPORTANT IS WHAT HAPPENS

IN THIS ROOM COMPARED TO WHAT'S HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF HERE. HOUSE

REPUBLICANS MAKING THE PITCH FOR THE PRESIDENTS INNOCENCE. WHAT'S

HAPPENING ON FOX NEWS. >> IT'S OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT

WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE FLOOR BUT THE WAY THIS WILL BE

RESOLVED IN THE SIDE CONVERSATIONS NOT JUST THE PARTY

LUNCHES. ABOUT MITT ROMNEY TALKING TO HIS COLLEAGUES. KELLY

LOEFFLER ATTACKED HIM. HE'S AN ELDER STATESMAN OF THE PARTY HE

HAS POLITICAL FREEDOM A LOT OF IS PARTIES DO NOT HAVE. ROMNEY'S

HAVING ONE-ON-ONE

CONVERSATIONS HE'S WHISPERING TO PEOPLE. THEY ARE GOING ABOUT ON

THE SENATE FLOOR IS ROMNEY ABLE TO PERSUADE SOME OF THESE

REPUBLICANS LET'S DO THIS ON WITNESSES LET'S HAVE A DEAL. THE

OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS BRETT CAVANAUGH PRECEDENT. THE

CAVANAUGH HEARINGS BECAUSE

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE BASED. IN THAT SITUATION THEY COME UP WITH

THE LIMITED TIME AND LIMITED FBI INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT GAVE THE

COVER FOR SUSAN COLLINS AND JEFF BLAKE EVEN TO ADVANCE THE A

NOMINATIONS. RIGHT NOW

THE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING BESIDE THE CONVERSATIONS AMONG

LEADERSHIP AND THE REPUBLICANS IS WHAT CAN WE GIVE THAT WON'T

UNRAVEL AND PULL THE THREAD TO LEAD TO MICK MULVANEY COMING IN

TO TESTIFY BUT GIVE PEOPLE COVER WE TOOK THIS SERIOUSLY, WE

PURSUED THIS, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE GOT,

IT'S NOT AND IMPEACHABLE

OFFENSE. THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT LINE IS SO

I THINK WHAT YOU COULD SEE IS MacCONNELL COMING FORWARD TODAY

OR TOMORROW WITH SOME SORT OF OFFER AND THEN ROMNEY PUSH BACK.

>> YOU SO MUCH LET'S GO LIVE TO THE SENATE CHAMBER.

>> LET US PRAY. OH GOD YOU ARE OUR ROCK OF SAFETY. PROTECT

US IN AND UNSAFE WORLD. GUARD US FROM THOSE WHO SMILE BUT PLAN

THE EVIL IN THEIR HEARTS. USE OUR SENATORS TO BRING PEACE AND

UNITY TO OUR WORLD. MAY THEY PERMIT GODLINESS TO MAKE THEM

BOLD AS LIONS. GIVE THEM A CLEARER VISION OF YOUR DESIRES

FOR OUR NATION. REMIND THEM THAT THEY BORROW THEIR HEARTBEATS

FROM YOU EACH DAY. PROVIDE THEM WITH SUCH HUMILITY, HOPE AND

COURAGE THAT THEY WILL DO YOUR WILL. LORD, GRANT THAT THIS

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL MAKE OUR NATION STRONGER, WISER AND

BETTER. WE PRAY IN YOUR STRONG NAME, AMEN.

>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE

FLAG. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE

FLAG FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR

WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> PLEASE BE SEATED.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE

TRIAL ARE APPROVED

TO DATE. NOT OBJECTION SO ORDERED. THE SERGEANT OF ARMS

WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION. HERE YE

, HEAR YOU, HERE HE. ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON

PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT. WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS

SITTING ON THE TRIALS OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD

JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.'S MR. CHIEF

JUSTICE

. IT >> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS

RECOGNIZE. >> WE EXPECT SEVERAL HOURS OF

THE SESSION TODAY WITH PROBABLY ONE QUICK BREAK IN THE MIDDLE.

>>

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE RESOLUTE RESOLUTION 483,

THE COUNCIL OF THE PRESENT HAVE 15 HOURS AND 33 MINUTES

REMAINING TO MAKE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE. IT WILL NOT BE

POSSIBLE TO USE THE REMAINDER OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE END OF THE

DAY. THE SENATE WILL NOW HERE YOU.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, JUST TO

GIVE YOU A QUICK

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TODAY, WE DO NOT INTEND MUCH OF THAT TIME

TODAY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. OUR GOAL IS TO BE FINISHED BY

DINNERTIME AND WELL BEFORE. WE WILL HAVE THREE PRESENTATIONS.

FIRST WILL BE PAT PHILBIN WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. THEN J SEKULOW

WILL

GIVE A PRESENTATION. WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND THEN AFTER THAT IF

IT'S OKAY WITH YOU LEADER WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AND THEN I

WILL FINISH. THAT IS OUR GOAL. NOW I TURN IT OVER TO PAT

PHILBIN

. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF

THE SENATE, MAJORITY LEADER MacCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER

SCHUMER

, I LIKE TO START THE DAY BY MAKING A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS

RELATED TO THE ABUSE OF POWER

CHARGE IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE IMPEACHMENT. I WOULD NOT

PRESUME TO ELABORATE ON PRESIDENT ON MR. DURSO WHICH IS

PRESENTATION WHICH I THOUGHT WAS COMPLETE AND COMPELLING BUT I

WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF VERY SPECIFIC POINTS IN SUPPORT OF

THE EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE IMPEACHMENT

CLAUSE THAT HE SET OUT. IT BEGINS FROM A FOCUS

ON THE POINT IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF THE

CONSTITUTION CONVENTION. WHERE MALADMINISTRATION WAS OFFERED BY

GEORGE MASON AS A GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. AND A JAMES MADISON

RESPONDED THAT THAT WAS A BAD IDEA. AND HE SAID SO VEGA TERM

WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A 10 YEAR DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE

SENATE.

AND THAT DEEP-SEATED CONCERN THAT MADISON HAD AND IS PART OF

THE WHOLE DESIGN OF OUR CONSTITUTION, FOR WAYS THAT CAN

LEAD TO EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER

. THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS AND CHECKS ON ALL

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT POWER. OBVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE GREAT

RECOGNITION

MECHANISMS FOR THAT IS A SEPARATION OF POWERS THE

STRUCTURE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OUR CONSTITUTION. IT

ALSO COMES FROM DEFINING AND LIMITING POWERS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THE CONCERNED THE BIG TERMS, VAGUE

STANDERS THEMSELVES ARE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPANSION OF

POWER AND EXERCISE ARBITRARY POWER. WE SEE THAT THROUGHOUT

THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AS WELL. THIS

IS WHY MR. MORRIS ARGUED IN DISCUSSING THE IMPEACHMENT

CLAUSE THAT ONLY FEW OFFENSES ARE TO BE IMPEACHABLE AND THE

CASES ARE TO BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED. THAT'S WHY WE SEE IN

THE DEBATES OF THE CONSTITUTION,

MANY TERMS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN EARLIER DRAFTS WHEN IT WAS

NARROWED IT DOWN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY AVENUE THERE WAS A

SUGGESTION TO INCLUDE MALADMINISTRATION, WHICH HAD

BEEN THE YEAR GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT IN ENGLISH PRACTICE

THE FRAMERS REJECTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO VAGUE

, IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ARBITRARY

EXERCISE OF POWER. WE SEE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL

TERMS IT FITS IN

. ONE IS THE DEFINITION OF TREASON. THE FRAMERS WERE

CONCERNED OF THE ENGLISH

PRACTICE TO HAVE A VAGUE CONCEPT OF TREASON THAT WAS MALLEABLE

AND CAN BE CHANGED AFTER THE FACT TO DEFINE NEW CONCEPTS OF

TREASON WAS DANGEROUS. IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANTED TO

REJECT FROM THE ENGLISH SYSTEM SO THEY DEFINED IN THE

CONSTITUTION VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT CONSTITUTED TREASON AND HOW

IT HAD TO BE PROVED. AND THAT TERM WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE

IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE. SIMILARLY IN THE REJECTION OF

MALADMINISTRATION WHICH HAD A BEEN AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN

ENGLAND, THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT BECAUSE IT WAS VAGUE. A

VAGUE STANDARD SOMETHING TO CHANGEABLE THAT CAN BE

REDEFINED, CAN BE VALUABLE AFTER THE FACT, ALLOWS FOR THE

ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF

POWER AND THAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO GIVE THAT POWER TO

THE LEGISLATURE AS THE POWER TO IMPEACH THE EXECUTIVE. AND

SIMILARLY IT RELATES TO THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, ONE OF THE

GREATEST DANGERS FROM HAVING CHANGEABLE STANDARDS THAT

EXISTED IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM WAS BILLS OF ATTAINDER. UNDER

BILL OF ATTAINDER. OF THE PARLIAMENT COULD HAVE A SPECIFIC

LAW SAYING THE PERSON HAD DONE SOMETHING UNLAWFUL THEY WERE

BEING ATTAINTED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT UNLAWFUL BEFORE THAT. OF

THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT ENTIRE CONCEPT. AND AARGH

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 9 THEY ELIMINATED ALL THOSE POSTS THAT

NO LAWS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THEY INCLUDED

PROVISION TO PROHIBIT STATES FROM USING THOSE. IN THE ENGLISH

SYSTEM THERE WAS ANY RACE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPEACHMENT

AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER BECAUSE BOTH WERE TOOLS OF PARLIAMENT TO

GET TO OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT. YOU CAN A PETE THEM

FOR AN ESTABLISHED SENSE OR YOU CAN ATTACH A BILL OF ATTAINDER.

BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF IMPEACHMENT WAS BEING NARROWED

THAT GEORGE MASON POINTED OUT IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM THERE IS A

BILL OF ATTAINDER, IT'S A BEEN A GREAT USEFUL TOOL FOR THE

GOVERNMENT

BUT WE ARE IN ELIMINATING THAT AND NOW WE ARE GETTING A NARROW

DEFINITION OF IMPEACHMENT, WE ARE TO EXPAND IT TO INCLUDE

MALADMINISTRATION. AND MADISON SAID NO, AND THE FRAMERS AGREED.

WE HAD TO HAVE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED SENSE, NOT A VAGUE

CONCEPT NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED OR BLURRED AFTER

THE FACT AND COULD BE USED TO MAKE POLICY DIFFERENCES OR OTHER

DIFFERENCES LIKE THAT, THE SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT. ALL THE

STEPS OF THE FRAMERS TOOK IN THE WAY THEY APPROACHED THE

IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, WERE IN TERMS OF NARROWING

, RESTRICTING, CONSTRAINING, ENUMERATING OFFENSES.

AND NOT A VAGUE AND VALUABLE APPROACH THAT HAD BEEN IN THE

ENGLISH SYSTEM. I THINK THE MINORITY VIEW

OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THE

TIME OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, SUMS THIS UP AND

REFLECTED IT WELL BECAUSE THEY EXPLAINED AND I'M QUOTING FROM

THE MINORITY VIEW IN THE REPORT, THE FULL TENOR

OF THE FRAMERS DISCUSSIONS, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THEIR MANY

CAREFUL DEPARTURES FROM ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT PRACTICE, WAS IN THE

DIRECTION OF LIMITS AND STANDARDS. IMPEACHMENT POWER

EXERCISE WITHOUT EXTRA INDIC AND OBJECTIVE'S STANDARDS WOULD BE

TANTAMOUNT TO THE

USE OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS WHICH ARE

EXPRESSLY CONFERRED BIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONTRARY TO

THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OF JUSTICE. WHAT WE SEE IN THE HOUSE MANAGER

CHARGES AND THEIR DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF POWER, IS EXACTLY

ANTITHETICAL TO THE FRAMERS APPROACH. BECAUSE THEY VERY

PREMISE FOR THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE IS THAT IT'S ENTIRELY

BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS NOT

PREDEFINED OFFENSES, THE PRESIDENT COULD DO SOMETHING

THAT IS PERFECTLY LAWFUL WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY. THE REAL REASON

THAT DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT IN THEIR LANGUAGE

REASONING THE PREDATORS MIND IS WHAT THEY FERRET OUT AND BECOME

WRONG IS

IMPEACHABLE. THAT'S NOT A STANDARD AT ALL. IT ENDS UP

BEING INFINITELY MALLEABLE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK A TELLING

FACTOR THAT REFLECTS HOW MALLEABLE IT IS AND HOW

DANGEROUS IT IS. IS IN THE HOUSE DUE JUDICIARY REPORT. AFTER THEY

DEFINED THE CONCEPT OF

ABUSE OF POWER AND THEY SAY IT INVOLVES YOUR EXERCISING

GOVERNMENT POWER FOR PERSONAL INTEREST IN NOT NATIONAL

INTEREST AND IT DEPENDS ON YOUR SUBJECT OF MOTIVE, THEY REALIZE

THAT'S INFINITELY MALLEABLE. THERE'S NOT A CLEAR STANDARD

THERE. AND IS VIOLATING A FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF THE

AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE OF WHAT IS WRONG. YOU HAVE TO HAVE

NOTICE OF A SENTENCE. PROFESSOR CHURCH WHICH POINTED OUT LAST

NIGHT THERE HAS TO BE A DEFINED OFFENSE IN ADVANCE

. THE WAY THEY TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO SAY IN ADDITION TO

OUR DEFINITION HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS INVOLVE CONDUCT

WHICH IS RECOGNIZABLY WRONG TO A PERSON. THAT'S THEIR ADD-ON TO

DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THEY HAD IN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE

STANDARD

. THEY DON'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT DEFINES A SPECIFIC OFFENSE

THEY DON'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT DEFINES INCOHERENT TERMS THAT

ARE GOING TO BE IDENTIFIABLE

WHAT THE OFFENSES ARE. SO THEY JUST ADD ON AND IT'S GOT TO BE

RECOGNIZABLY WRONG. THEY SAY THEY ARE DOING THIS TO RESOLVE

ATTENTION

THEY CALL IT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION. BECAUSE THEY POINT

OUT IN THIS IS QUOTING FROM THE REPORT. THE STRUCTURE OF THE

CONSTITUTION INCLUDING ITS PROHIBITION OF BILLS OF

ATTAINDER AND THE EXPO FACT THERE CLAUSE IMPLY IMPEACHABLE

OFFENSES SHOULD NOT COME AS A SURPRISE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT

PROFESSOR CHURCH WHICH POINTED OUT. EVERYTHING ABOUT THE TERMS

OF THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKING OF AN OFFENSE AND CONVICTION THAT A

CRIME SHOULD BE TRIED BY JURY EXCEPT FOR IMPEACHMENT THEY ALL

TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT IN THOSE CRIMINAL OFFENSE TERMS. BUT THE

TENSION IS NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION IT'S BETWEEN THE

HOUSE MANAGER IS

DEFINITION WAS LAX A COKE COHERENT DEFINITION THAT WOULD

CATCH PEOPLE BY SURPRISE AND THE CONSTITUTION. THAT'S ATTENTION

THEY ARE TRYING TO RESOLVE BETWEEN THEIR MALLEABLE STANDARD

AND OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE EMBODIED

IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES SOME. HE WANTED TO

POINT THAT OUT IN RELATION TO THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHABLE

OFFENSES. BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL

PUZZLE THAT FITS IN WITH THE EXPOSITION PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ

SET OUT. IT ALSO SHOWS AN INHERENT FLAW

IN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S THEORY OF THE ABUSE OF POWER REGARDLESS OF

WHETHER OR NOT ONE ACCEPTS THE VIEW AVENUE AND IMPEACHABLE

OFFENSE HAS TO BE A DEFINED

CRIME, THERE IS STILL A FLAW IN THE DEFINITION OF THE ABUSE OF

POWER THAT IS SO MALLEABLE, BASED ON PURELY SUBJECTIVE

STANDARDS, THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY COGNIZABLE NOTICE OF

A SENSE. IT IS SO MALLEABLE IT IN EFFECT, RE-CREATES THE

OFFENSIVE MALADMINISTRATION THAT THE FRAMERS EXPRESSLY REJECTED

AS PROFESSOR VIRTUE WHICH EXPLAINED. THE SECOND POINT,

THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT, HOW DO WE TELL ONTO THE HOUSE

MANAGER STANDARD WHAT AND

ELICIT MOTIVE IS WHEN THERE IS AN ILLICIT MOTIVE. HOW DO WE GET

THE PROOF OF WHAT'S INSIDE THE PRESIDENTS HEAD BECAUSE OF

COURSE MOTIVE IS INHERENTLY DIFFERENT DIFFICULT TO PROVE

WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PERFECTLY LAWFUL ACTIONS ON THE

FACE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT, THEY

WANT TO MAKE IT IMPEACHABLE, IS THE WRONG IDEA INSIDE THE

PRESIDENTS HEAD. AND THEY EXPLAIN IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE REPORT, THAT THE WAY WILL TELL IF THE PRESIDENT HAVE

THE WRONG MOTIVE,

COMPARE WHAT HE DID TO WHAT STAFFERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

SAID HE OUGHT TO DO. SO HE SAID "THE PRESIDENT DISREGARDED THE

UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE

" AND HE IGNORED "OFFICIAL POLICY THAT HE HAD BEEN BRIEFED

ON". AND THAT HE "IGNORED, DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY

AGENCY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH"

. >> THAT IS NOT A

CONSTITUTIONALLY COHERENT STATEMENT. THE PRESIDENT CANNOT

DEFY AGENCIES WITHIN THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH. ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION

SAID ALL THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES, HE ALONE

IS AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. HE SETS POLICY FOR

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HE IS GIVEN VAST POWER. AND OF COURSE

WITHIN LIMITS SET BY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS AND WITHIN LIMITS

SET BY SPENDING

PRIORITIES AND LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS, HE WITHIN THOSE

CONSTRAINTS SET THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THERE IS FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND MILITARY AFFAIRS WHICH IS

NATIONAL SECURITY WE ARE DEALING WITH IN THIS CASE. HE HAS VAST

POWERS AS PROFESSOR DURST WHICH

EXPLAINS FOR OVER TWO CENTURIES. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN REGARDED

AS THE SOLE ORBIT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUT THE PRESIDENT HAD THE WRONG SUBJECT

OF MOTIVE BY COMPARING WHAT HE DID TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF

SOME INTER-AGENCY CONCESSIONS

AMONG STAFFERS IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT OVER IT'S

THE CAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND IT'S ALSO

FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. OUR SYSTEM IS RATHER UNIQUE IN

THE AMOUNT OF POWER THAT IT GIVES TO THE PRESIDENT

, EXECUTIVE HERE HAS MUCH MORE POWER THAN THE PARLIAMENTARY

SYSTEM. PART OF THE REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN HAVE THAT

POWER

HE IS DIRECTLY DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. THERE

IS AN ELECTION EVERY FOUR YEARS TO ENSURE THE PRESIDENT STAYS

DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE TEACHER PEOPLE. BUT THE

STAFFERS IN THOSE AGENCIES AND THEIR MEETINGS AND MAKE

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE

PRESIDENT. THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY OR

ACCOUNTABILITY TO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT IS WHY THE

PRESIDENT IS THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HE HAS THE

AUTHORITY TO SET POLICIES AND MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDLESS

OF WHAT THE STAFFERS MAY RECOMMEND. THEY ARE THERE TO

PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT TO SET POLICY. SO THE IDEA THAT WE

ARE GOING TO START IMPEACHING PRESIDENTS BY DECIDING THEY HAVE

ELICIT MOTIVES AND THEY CAN SHOW SOME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS IS

FUNDAMENTALLY

CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. OF THOSE ARE

THE TWO OBSERVATIONS I WANTED TO ADD TO SUPPLEMENT SPECIFIC

POINTS ON PROFESSOR

DERSHOWITZ'S COMMENTS LAST NIGHT. I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS AND

RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS BROUGHT UP

. THAT ARE REALLY COMPLETELY EXTRANEOUS TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THEY INVOLVE MATTERS THAT ARE NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY RELATE

TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS ACTIONS. BUT THEY ARE

ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP SOMEWHAT RECKLESSLY IN ANY

EVENT, AND WE CAN'T CLOSE WITHOUT SOME RESPONSE TO THEM.

AND THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE WHITE

HOUSE

AND WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF

COVER-UP RELATED TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th

CALL. BECAUSE IT WAS STORED ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. LET ME

START WITH THAT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE THE ACCUSATION THAT THERE WAS

SOMETHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON. ALESSI WITH THE WITNESSES

ACTUALLY HAD TO SAY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN , REMEMBER

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN WAS A PERSON LISTENING IN ON THE CALL

AND RAISED THE CONCERN, THE ONLY PERSON THAT RAISED THE CONCERN

THAT HE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING IMPROPER AND SOMETHING

WRONG WITH THE CALL . EVEN THOUGH HE LATER CONCEDED IN

CROSS EXAMINATION IT WAS A POLICY CONCERN. HE THOUGHT THERE

WAS SOMETHING WRONG. HE HAD TO SAY, HE DID NOT THINK

, HE SAID I DO NOT THINK THERE WAS MALICIOUS INTENT OR ANYTHING

OF THAT NATURE TO COVER ANYTHING UP. HE'S THE ONE I WENT TO TALK

TO THE LAWYERS. HE'S THE ONE WHOSE COMPLAINTS SPURRED THE

IDEA THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING REALLY SENSITIVE HERE WE SHOULD

MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT GOING TO LEAK. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS

NOTHING COVERING IT UP. HIS BOSS , SENIOR DIRECTOR TIM MORRISON

HAD SIMILAR TESTIMONY. >> THERE IS NO MALICIOUS INTENT

IN MOVING THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE DEPARTMENT SERVER

. >> CORRECT.

>> THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A COVER UP IS FURTHER DESTROYED BY

THE SIMPLE FACT THAT EVERYONE WHO IS PART OF THE JOBS NEEDED

ACCESS TO THAT TRANSCRIPT. STILL HAD ACCESS TO IT INCLUDING WITH

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN. OF THE PERSON WHO RAISES THE

COMPLAINT STILL HAS ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE

TIME. THIS IS THE WAY MR. MORRISON'S TESTIMONY EXPLAINED

THAT. >> EVEN ON THE CODEWORD SERVER

YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT. >> YES.

>> SO IT NO POINT IN TIME DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR OFFICIAL

DUTIES WHERE YOU WOULD DENIED ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION

>> CORRECT

. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ANYBODY ON

THE NSC STAFF THAT NEEDED ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THEIR

OFFICIAL DUTIES, ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO ACCESS IT CORRECT? PEOPLE

THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND NEED TO ACCESS IT.

>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE COMPARTMENT SYSTEM?

YES. >> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED HE

RECOMMENDED RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT

NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS ANYTHING IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL BUT HE WAS

CONCERNED ABOUT A POTENTIAL LEAK AND AS HE PUT IT HELD THAT

"WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT" AND

"WOULD AFFECT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY CONGRESS" HE WAS

RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS BECAUSE

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAD NATIONAL SECURITY LEAKS AT AN

ALARMING RATE.

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN SAID THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEAK WAS

JUSTIFIED AND IT'S NOT UNUSUAL THAT SOMETHING WOULD BE PUT IN A

MORE RESTRICT CIRCULATION. NOW WHAT ELSE IS IN THE RECORD

EVIDENCE? MR. MORRISON EXPLAINED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE

TRANSCRIPT ENDED UP ON THAT SERVER

. >> I SPOKE WITH THE NSC'S

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF STAFF AND ASKED THEM WHY. THEY DID THEIR

RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE HIGHER

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG WHOM

I THEN ASKED WHY.

THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE MADE IS NOT NECESSARILY MIND A QUESTION

BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AND HE ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE

THE DIRECTION

I A GAVE NO SUCH DIRECTION HE GAVE HIS OWN INQUIRY AND

REPRESENTED BACK TO ME IT WAS AN UNDERSTANDING IT WAS AN

ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR HE ALSO GAVE DIRECTION TO RESTRICT

ACCESS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY UNDERSTOOD THAT IS AN

APPREHENSION THAT WAS SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT OF THE MEMO THAT

COULD NOT EXIST ON THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

>> SO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE NO MALICIOUS INTENT OF MOVING

THE TRANSFER GRIPPED? >> CORRECT.

>> EVERYONE WHO KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND WHO TESTIFIED AGREE

THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT. THE CALL WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO

ANYONE WHO NEEDED IT AS PART OF THEIR JOB. IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT

COVERED UP OR DEEP-SIXED IN SOME WAY. THE PRESIDENT DECLASSIFIED

IT AND MADE IT PUBLIC. SO WHY ARE WE EVEN HEAR ABOUT TALKING

ABOUT A COVER-UP IT WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT WAS MADE PUBLIC IS

SOMEWHAT ABSURD. NOW THE OTHER POINT I'D LIKE TO TURN TO

ANOTHER ACCUSATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS IS THE

WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS NOT

FORWARDED TO CONGRESS. THEY HAVE SAID LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE HAVE ACCUSED OLC OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

, TO PROVIDE A BOGUS OPINION WHY THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL

INTELLIGENCE DID NOT HAVE TO ADVANCE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS

COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS. AND MANAGERS JEFFRIES SAID LOC

OPINED WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS THAT ACTING DNI DID NOT

HAVE TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS. THE WAY HE

PORTRAYED IT THERE IS A STATUTE THAT SAID THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FINDS THE MATTER OF URGENT

CONCERN IT MUST BE FORWARDED TO CONGRESS. AND MANAGER JEFFRIES

PRETRADE THIS IS THE ONLY THING TO DECIDE WAS WERE THESE CLAIMS

URGENT? HE SAID "WHAT COULD BE MORE URGENT THAN A SITTING

PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION BY SOLICITING

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?"

THAT'S NOT THE ONLY QUESTION. OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY IF IT'S

URGENT YOU HAVE TO FORWARD IT. IT TALKS ABOUT URGENT CONCERN AS

A DEFINED TERM. IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO COME

AND CAST ACCUSATIONS AT THE POLITICAL AND CAREER OFFICIALS

AT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS A VERY

RESPECTED OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE AND PROVIDES

OPINIONS ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ON WHAT GOVERNING LAW IS

, THEY SHOULD COME BACK WITH AN ANALYSIS. LET'S LOOK AT WITH THE

LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. AND I THINK WE HAVE THE SLIDE OF THAT.

URGENT CONCERN. IS DEFINED AS A SERIES OF FLAGRANT PROBLEMS,

ABUSE AND VIOLATION OF LAW

RELATING TO THE FUNDING OR OPERATION OF AN INTELLIGENCE

ACTIVITY WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF

THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE INVOLVING

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. SO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL WAS

CONSULTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE DNI'S

OFFICE. AND THEY LOOKED AT THIS DEFINITION AND THEY DID AN

ANALYSIS AND THEY DETERMINED THAT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

IS NOT AN URGENT CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. THEY

ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT DO WE THINK IT'S URGENT

, DO WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT? NO THEY ARE ANALYZING THE LAW. AND

THEY LOOK TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

IS NOT AN URGENT CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE

AS IT DID NOT CONCERN THE FUNDING OR ADMINISTRATION OR

OPERATION OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF

DNI. REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEY HAD A STAY

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

AND ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE.

THIS IS NOT A CIA OPERATION OVERSEAS THIS IS NOT THE NSA

DOING SOMETHING THIS IS NOT AN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY GOING ON

WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER THE SUPERVISION

OF THE DNI IS AHEAD OF THE EXACT

UNIT OF BRANCH EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

ENGAGING IN FOREIGN RELATIONS WITH THE FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE.

SO IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

LOOKED AT THE STATUTE, CASE LAW, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. AND IT

CONCLUDED

THAT THIS PHRASE URGENT CONCERN, INCLUDES MATTERS RELATING TO

INTELLIGENT ACTIVITIES SUBJECT

TO THE DNI SUPERVISION BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF

WRONGDOING ARISING OUTSIDE OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY OR OUTSIDE

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ITSELF

. AND THAT MAKES SENSE. THE STATUTE WAS MEANT TO PROVIDE FOR

AN ABILITY OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE

COMMITTEE

OVERSEEING THE ACTIVITY OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO

OVERSEE REPORTS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AT INTELLIGENCE

AGENCIES THOSE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY FRAUD,

WASTE, ABUSE, SOMETHING UNLAWFUL. IT WAS NOT MEANT TO

CREATE AN INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF THE PRESIDENCY. AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE OVAL

OFFICE. TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT EXERCISING HIS

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES, HAD DONE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE

REPORTED. THIS LAW IS NARROW. AND IT DOES NOT COVER EVERY

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LAW

. THEY EXPLAINED, OR ABUSE IT COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE COMMUNITY

AND HAPPEN TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE DOES NOT MAKE THIS LAW APPLY.

THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING ON ALLEGATIONS

THAT DO NOT INVOLVE IN INTELLIGENT ACTIVITIES OR THE

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. NONETHELESS. OF THE PRESIDENT,

OF COURSE RELEASED THE JULY 25th CALL TRANSCRIPT AND IT WAS ALSO

NOT THE END OF THE MATTER THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS AND

THE

I CIG'S LETTER WERE NOT SENT DIRECTLY TO CONGRESS. BECAUSE

OLC EXPLAINED OF THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT INVOLVE URGENT CONCERN,

BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THERE THAT YOU WANT HAVE CHECKED

OUT, THE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE

HARTMAN OF JUSTICE. THAT'S WHAT THE

DNAS OFFICE DID. THEY SENT THE I CIG'S LETTER WITH A COMPLAINT TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOOKED

AT IT. AND THIS WAS ALL MADE PUBLIC SOME TIME AGO

. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXAMINED THE EXACT ALLEGATIONS

OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE EXACT FRAMING AND CONCERN RAISED

BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH THE POTENTIAL OF

PERHAPS A CAMPAIGN

FINANCE LAW VIOLATION. TO DOJ LOOKED AT IT, LOOKED AT THE

STATUTE

, ANALYZED IT AND DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT A VIOLATION AND

CLOSE THE MATTER AND IT ANNOUNCED THAT MONTHS AGO. WHEN

SOMETHING GETS SENT OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO

EXAMINE, YOU CAN'T CALL THAT A COVER-UP. EVERYTHING HERE WAS

DONE CORRECTLY, THE LAWYERS ANALYZE THE LAW, THE COMPLAINT

WAS SENT TO THE APPROPRIATE PERSON FOR REVIEW, IT WAS NOT

WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRED TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS. AND

EVERYTHING WAS HANDLED ENTIRELY PROPERLY. SO AGAIN, ACTUALLY

EXTRANEOUS TO THE MATTERS BEFORE YOU, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THESE

TWO POINTS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT IT MERITS A

RESPONSE WHEN RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AGAINST

THOSE

OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WITHOUT

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I'LL YIELD BACK MY TIME TO MR. SEKULOW .

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. IT MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL

DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, HOUSE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WHAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN HERE AS WE CONCLUDE, IS PERHAPS THE MOST

SOLEMN OF DUTIES UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE

TRIAL OF THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD AND THE DULY ELECTED

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT IS NOT A GAME OF LEAKS AND

UNSOURCED MANUSCRIPTS.

THAT'S POLITICS, UNFORTUNATELY AND HAMILTON PUT IMPEACHMENT IN

THE HANDS OF THIS BODY, THE SENATE, PRECISELY AND

SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABOVE THAT FRAY. THIS IS THE GREATEST

DELIVERED A BODY ON EARTH.

IN OUR PRESENTATIONS SO FAR, YOU NOW HEARD FROM LEGAL SCHOLARS

FROM A VARIETY OF SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT FROM A VARIETY OF

POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS.

THAT THEY DO HAVE A COMMON THEME. WITH THE DIRE WARNING.

DANGER. DANGER. DANGER.

TO LOWER THE BAR OF IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THESE ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT WOULD IMPACT THE FUNCTION WINNING OF OUR

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT CONSTITUTION

FOR GENERATIONS.

I ASK YOU TO PUT YOURSELF AND QUOTING MR. SCHIFF , MANAGER

SHIFTS HIS

FATHER STATEMENT. PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE

ELSE, I SAID I'D LIKE YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE

PRESIDENT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS WE CONCLUDE TODAY,

THAT WE ARE REMINDED OF THAT FACT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES, BEFORE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT WAS UNDER AND

INVESTIGATION. IT WAS CALLED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. IT WAS AN

INVESTIGATION LED BY THE FBI. THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION. JAMES COMEY

EVENTUALLY TOLD THE PRESIDENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE

INVESTIGATION AND REFERENCE THE STEEL DOSSIER.

JAMES COMEY THEN DIRECTOR OF THE FBI SAID IT WAS SALACIOUS AND

UNVERIFIED. SO SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED THAT THEY USED IT AS

THE BASIS TO OBTAIN FISA WARRANTS. MEMBERS AND MANAGERS

HERE, MANAGERS AT THIS TABLE RIGHT HERE SAID THAT ANY

DISCUSSIONS ON THE ABUSE OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEYS

VOTES ACT UTILIZED TO GET THE WARRANTS WERE CONSPIRACY

THEORIES. I TOLD YOU THE VERY BEGINNING,

I ASKED, DO YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF NOT JUST THIS

PRESIDENT BUT ANY PRESIDENT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THIS

TYPE OF ATTACK.

FISA

WARRANTS ISSUED ON PEOPLE AFFILIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN.

AMERICAN CITIZENS AFFILIATED WITH THE PEOPLE OF HIS CAMPAIGN.

CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BEING SURVEILLED

PURSUANT TO AN ORDER THAT HAS NOW BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE

VERY COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER THAT IT WAS BASED ON A

FRAUDULENT PRESENTATION. IN FACT, EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY

CHANGED, CHANGED BY THE VERY FBI LAWYER WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF

THIS. CHANGE TO SUCH AN EXTENT

THAT THE FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE INTELLIGENT WORK AS I SAID

EARLIER I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT AGAIN, ISSUED TWO ORDERS

SAYING THAT WHEN THIS AGENT, THIS LAWYER

MADE THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION,

THEY ALSO MADE A MISREPRESENTATION TO A FEDERAL

COURT. THE FEDERAL COURT. UPON SURVEILLANCE

COURT. A COURT WHERE THERE ARE NO DEFENSE WITNESSES. A COURT

WHERE THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION. IS A COURT

BASED ON TRUST. THAT TRUST WAS VIOLATED. AND THEN, THE DIRECTOR

OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JAMES COMEY

DECIDE HE WILL LEAK A MEMO OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HE IS LEAKING THE MEMO FOR A

PURPOSE, HE SAID. TO OBTAIN THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL

COUNSEL.

AND LOW AND BEHOLD A SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED. AND IT

JUST SO HAPPENS, THAT FBI AGENT, LAWYER WHO COMMITTED THE FRAUD

ON THE FISA COURT , BECAME

A LAWYER FOR THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. ONLY TO BE

REMOVED BECAUSE OF POLITICAL ANIMUS AND BIAS FOUND BY THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL. THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.

LISA PAGE, AGENT STRAUCH, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE

DETAILS, YOU KNOW THEM. THEY ARE NOT IN CONTROVERSY

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. BUT DOES IT BOTHER YOUR SENSE OF JUSTICE?

EVEN A LITTLE BIT? EVEN A LITTLE BIT? THAT BOB

MUELLER, ALLOWED THE EVIDENCE ON THE PHONES OF THOSE AGENTS TO

BE WIPED CLEAN WHILE THERE WAS A BIT INVESTIGATION GOING ON BY

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. NOW IF YOU DID IT, IF YOU DID IT

MANAGER

SCHIFF IF YOU DID IT MANAGER JEFFRIES, IF I DID THAT,

DESTROYED EVIDENCE IF ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER DID THIS, WE WOULD

BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. THERE SERIOUS TROUBLE IS THEY GET

FIRED.

BOB 24 EXPLANATION FOR IT IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I

DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, I CAN'T RECALL CONVERSATIONS. YOU

CAN'T VIEW THIS CASE IN A VACUUM. YOU ARE BEING ASKED AND

I SAY THIS WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO

REMOVE AND DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS NOT SOME, WE HAVE REFERENCES TO LAW SCHOOL, I

THOUGHT THE REFERENCES WERE GREAT ANALYSIS YESTERDAY I

APPRECIATE ALL THAT BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON MY SECTION ON WHAT

YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE A DULY

ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU ARE BEING ASKED

TO DO IT IN AN ELECTION YEAR. IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THERE IS SOME OF YOU IN THIS CHAMBER RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD

RATHER BE SOMEPLACE ELSE. AND THAT'S WHY WE WILL BE BRIEF. I

UNDERSTAND.

YOU'D RATHER BE SOMEPLACE ELSE WHY WOULD YOU RATHER BE

SOMEPLACE ELSE? BECAUSE YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT A

NOMINATION OF YOUR PARTY, I GET IT. BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS

DELIBERATIVE SITUATION.

YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CALLED

FOR, REMOVAL. SO WE HAD A SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND WE GOT THE

REPORT. AND JUST FOR A MOMENT,

PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT

THAT WOULD BE UNDER THIS SITUATION, YOUR NUMBER FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHOSE WIFE IS WORKING FOR THE FIRM THAT IS

DOING THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON HIM AND HE IS COMMUNICATING WITH

THE FOUR FORMER SPY

, CHRISTOPHER STEEL TO PUT TOGETHER THE DOSSIER AND IS

BEING HANDLED BY CHRISTOPHER STEEL THROUGH NELLY TO HER

HUSBAND THE FOURTH RANKING MEMBER OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BRUCE OR.

HE DOESN'T WANT TO TESTIFY HE DOESN'T WANT TO TELL ANYBODY

WHAT HE'S DOING HE'S AFRAID HE WILL HAVE TO STOP. HE MIGHT HAVE

TO STOP. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN. THIS IS THE FBI.

AND THEN WE ASK WHY THE PRESIDENTS CONCERNED ABOUT

ADVICE HE IS BEING GIVEN? PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES. PUT

YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES.

WE HAVE GIVEN YOU AND OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO GIVE AN

OVERVIEW AND TO BE VERY SPECIFIC. TO REMOVE A DULY

ELECTED PRESIDENT WHICH IS AT WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO.

AND ESSENTIALLY POLICY DISAGREEMENTS

, YOU HEAR A LOT ABOUT POLICY. THE ONE THAT I STILL IS STILL

TROUBLES ME. THIS IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAID BY SEVERAL OF

THE MANAGERS, ONLY DO THESE THINGS FOR HIMSELF.

UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY AS WE ARE

HERE. THEY RAISED IT BY THE WAY I'M NOT TRYING TO BE

DISRESPECTFUL. THEY RAISED IT

. THIS PRESIDENT IS ONLY DOING THINGS FOR HIMSELF WHILE THE

LEADERS OF OPPOSING PARTIES BY THE WAY, AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL TO

OBTAIN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST,

YOU SAY YOU ARE ONLY DOING THAT FOR YOURSELF? I THINK THE IRONY

OF THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WHILE ALL OF THAT WAS GOING ON

AND OTHER ACTS OF THIS BODY'S PASS SOME OF IT BIPARTISAN. TO

HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. POLICY DIFFERENCES.

THOSE POLICY DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DESTROY THE

SEPARATION OF POWERS. HOUSE MANAGER SPOKE FOR I KNOW WE'VE

HAD DISAGREEMENTS ON THE TIME IT WAS 21 HOURS, 23 HOURS, THEY

SPOKE DURING THEIR TIME A LOT OF TIME. MOST OF IT ATTACKING THE

PRESIDENT, POLLY POLICY DECISIONS, THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT

THEY HEARD

, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THERE WAS A PAUSE ON FOREIGN AID I LAID OUT

BEFORE THERE WAS PAUSE ON ALL KINDS OF FOREIGN AID NOT THE

FIRST PRESIDENT TO DO IT. BUT THE ONE THING I'M STILL TRYING

TO UNDERSTAND FOR THE MANAGERS PERSPECTIVE AND MAYBE NOT AT THE

MANAGERS REQUEST YOU'RE NOT THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE,

REMEMBER, THE WHOLE IDEA THIS WAS A DIRE NATIONAL SECURITY

THREAT A DANGER TO OUR NATION, WE HAD TO GET THIS OVER HERE

RIGHT AWAY, IT HAD TO BE DONE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. IT WAS SO

IMPORTANT IT WAS SO SIGNIFICANT, THE COUNTRY WAS IN SUCH JEOPARDY

, THE JEOPARDY WAS SO SERIOUS, THAT IT HAD TO BE DONE

IMMEDIATELY, LET'S HOLD ON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR

A MONTH TO SEE IF THIS HOUSE COULD FORCE THE SENATE TO ADOPT

RULES THAT THEY WANTED.

WHICH IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION IS SET UP.

BUT IS IS SUCH A DIRE EMERGENCY, IT WAS SO CRITICAL TO OUR

NATION'S NATIONAL INTEREST, THAT WE COULD HOLD THEM FOR 33 DAYS.

DANGER. DANGER. DANGER. THAT'S POLITICS.

AS I SAID, YOU ARE BEING CALLED UPON

TO REMOVE THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

THAT'S WITH THESE ARTICLES IMPEACHMENT CALL FOR. THEY NEVER

REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHY THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS SUCH

A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, MAYBE THEY WILL DURING QUESTIONS, I DON'T

KNOW. THERE WAS SUCH A NATIONAL EMERGENCY THEY NEVER DID EXPLAIN

WHY IT WAS THAT THEY WAITED. THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T WAIT TO

HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS AS MY COLLEAGUES PLAYED OUT, THOSE

PROCEEDINGS MOVED IN RECORD TIME. I SUSPECT THAT WE HAVE

BEEN HERE MORE THAN THE HOUSE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IS THAT THE WAY CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED

TO WORK? IS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE CONSTITUTION?

AND THEN THE QUESTION OF COURSE, CAME UP YESTERDAY ON THE WHOLE

SITUATION WITH BURISMA AND THE BIDENS

AND THAT WHOLE ISSUE. MY COLLEAGUES WENT THROUGH THAT IN

A GREAT DEAL AND I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT DO WE HAVE

, ARE WE IN A SITUATION, WE USED TO CALL IN FREE SPEECH CASES A

FREE-SPEECH A ZONE YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FREE-SPEECH ACTIVITIES OVER

HERE, YOU CAN HAVE THEM OVER THERE. TO DO WE HAVE LIKE A

BIDEN FREEZONE? IS THAT WHAT THIS WAS? THAT YOU MENTION

SOMEONE OR YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A COMPANY

, AND IT'S NOW OFF-LIMITS YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR ASKING A QUESTION? I THINK WE

SIGNIFICANTLY SHOWED THE QUESTION. I'M NOT GONNA GO

THROUGH DETAIL BY DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS. BUT THERE

ARE SOME THAT WE JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH. YOU HEARD A LOT OF NEW

FACTS YESTERDAY IN OUR PRESENTATION. ON SATURDAY, WHAT

WE POINTED TO WAS A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW

. THEN YESTERDAY WE SPENT THE DAY, AND WE APPRECIATE

EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE ON THAT, GOING THROUGH THE FACTS. THEY

SHOWED YOU THIS THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU THAT. THE FACTS ARE

IMPORTANT, THOUGH. BECAUSE FACTS HAVE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS. LEGAL

RAMIFICATIONS IMPACT THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE. SO I DON'T

TAKE FACTS LIKELY AND I CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE THE

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE LIGHTLY AND WE CAN'T.

THE FACTS WE DEMONSTRATED YESTERDAY AND BRIEFLY ON

SATURDAY DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS IN FACT, A PROPER GOVERNMENTAL

INTEREST TO THE QUESTIONS THE PRESIDENT ASKED AND THE ISSUES

THE PRESIDENT RAISED ON THAT PHONE CALL. A PHONE CALL, AGAIN

PUT YOUR FEET IN THE SHOES OF THE PRESIDENT.

YOURSELF IN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION. DO YOU THINK HE

THOUGHT WHEN HE WAS ON THE CALL IT WAS HIM AND PRESIDENT

ZELENSKY ON THE CALL AND THAT WAS IT? OR I HEARD ONE

COMMENTATOR THE PRESIDENT AND 3000 OF HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS.

LET'S BE REALISTIC.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES KNEW THAT THERE WAS A LOT

OF PEOPLE LISTENING FROM OUR SIDE AND FROM THEIR SIDE. SO HE

KNEW WHAT HE WAS SAYING. HE SAID IT. WE RELEASED IT TRANSCRIPT OF

IT.

THE FACTS ON THE CALL THAT HAD BEEN KIND OF THE FOCUS OF ALL OF

THIS

REALLY FOCUS ON FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES BOTH IN UKRAINE AND

AROUND THE GLOBE THEY TALKED ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES. THE

PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES CARRYING

SOME OF THE FINANCIAL LOAD HERE NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A LEGITIMATE POSITION FOR A PRESIDENT TO TAKE IF YOU

DISAGREE WITH IT, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. THAT HE IS THE

PRESIDENT AS MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL,

SCHIFF JUST SAID. THAT'S THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PREROGATIVE.

THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL APPROPRIATE ROLE. SO THE CALL IS

WELL DOCUMENTED. THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE ON THE CALL.

THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER END OF THE QUID PRO QUO IF

IT EXISTED, WOULD'VE BEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. BUT

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WE ALREADY LAID OUT THE OTHER

OFFICIALS FROM UKRAINE , HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO

PRESSURE. IT WAS A GOOD CALL. THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THERE WAS

A POSITIVE IN THE AID. ALL OF THAT

IS WELL DOCUMENTED I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE

OF THOSE FACTS, WE DID THAT DURING THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SENIOR ADVISOR

WAS ASKED IF HE EVER FELT THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN