 
WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE 
HALLWAYSOUTSIDE OF THE SENATE 
CHAMBER .
SOME EDITORS ARE RUNNING LATE 
AND THEY ARE SCRAMBLING TOGET 
INSIDE, CONTINUE TO WATCH .
>> THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE 
TEAM IS IN THE CHAMBER.
YOU CAN SEE ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND PART 
OF YOUR SCREEN JOINED BY PAT 
CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKULOW AND 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS STARTING 
TO MAKE THEIR WAY TO THEIR 
TABLE IN THE LEFT LOWER 
CORNER OFYOUR SCREEN.
WE EXPECT THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
TO ENTER ANY MOMENT .
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION] 
SENATORS HAVE MOST OF THEM 
MADE THEIR WAY INTO THE 
CHAMBER AND YOU SEE THE 
SENATE CHAPLAIN OFF TO THE 
RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOUR 
SCREEN, HE IS WAITING TO 
BEGIN THE PROCEEDINGS WITH A 
PRAYER.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE TO ENTER THEROOM.
LET'S WATCH .
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION] LIVE 
COVERAGE OF THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HERE ON 
C-SPAN WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
TAKING HIS CHAIR, HE WILL 
BEGIN QUESTIONING IN TIME 
WITH THE SENATORS, HE IS 
ASKED THATTHE ANSWER TO THE 
SENATORS QUESTIONS BE KEPT 
WITHIN FIVE MINUTES EACH.
EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTIONING 
TODAY FOLLOWED BY EIGHT HOURS 
TOMORROW , LIVE COVERAGE HERE 
ON C-SPAN2.
>> WE ARE SEVEN MINUTES PAST 
THE HOUR, STILL WAITING FOR 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO TAKE HIS 
CHAIR.
HOUSE MANAGERS TEAM HAS ALL 
MADE THEIR WAY TO THE TABLE, 
YOU CAN SEE ADAMSCHIFF IN THE 
LEFT-HAND PART OF YOUR 
SCREEN.
JERRY NADLER , HAKEEM 
JEFFRIES, SYLVIA GARCIA, VAL 
DENNINGS ALL AT THE TABLE 
WAITING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
FROM SENATORS .
>>.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] THE 
MAJORITY LEADER IN THE LOWER 
RIGHT CORNER OF YOUR SCREEN, 
HE'S READY TO GO.
YOU CAN SEE HE'S AT THE 
LEADERSHIP DESK AWAITING ON 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO ENTER 
THE CHAMBER AND BEGIN TODAY'S 
PROCEEDINGS.
AS A REMINDER TO YOU, WE HAVE 
CAMERAS STATIONED AROUND THE 
SENATE CHAMBER AS WELL TO GET 
REACTION FROM THE SENATORS, 
THE ATTORNEYS AND WE'VE SEEN 
HOUSE LAWMAKERS ALL AS WELL 
AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS OF 
COURSE TALKING TO REPORTERS 
AT THESE WHAT ARE CALLED 
STAKEOUT LOCATIONS FOR THE 
MEDIA.
ALL OUTSIDE THE SENATE 
CHAMBER.
WE GO BACK INSIDE THE CHAMBER 
NOW AND CONTINUE TO WATCH THE 
FLOOR.
>>.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] AND 
THE SENATE AGAIN WAITING FOR 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO COME 
INTO THE CHAMBER.
WE EXPECT THEM WHEN THEY 
START TO GO FOR SEVERAL HOURS
TODAY.
THEY ARE GOING TO, THEY SET 
ASIDE EIGHT FOR THE 
QUESTIONING OF THE SENATORS 
QUESTIONING THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AS WELL AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS .
THEY ALSO TAKE A BREAK SO 
WHEN THEY DO WE WILL OPEN UP 
THE PHONE LINES AND GET YOUR 
REACTION.
WE WANT TO ASK YOU TODAY WHAT 
DO YOU WANT YOUR SENATOR TO 
ASK OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
LAWYERS?
WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT QUESTION 
YOU WANT THEM TO ASK SO WE 
WILL OPEN UP THE PHONE LINES 
AND GET YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN 
THEY GO TO THEIR FIRST BREAK.
IN THE MEANTIME WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WATCH OUTSIDE OF 
THE SENATE CHAMBER AS WELL AS 
INSIDE .
>>.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] 
>> THE SENATE WILL CONVENE AS 
A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE CHAPLAIN WILL LEAD US IN 
PRAYER.
>> LET US PRAY.
DIVINE SHEPHERD, HONOR, GLORY 
AND POWER BELONG TO YOU.
REFRESH OUR SENATORS AS THEY 
ENTER A NEW PHASE OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
MAY THEY REALIZE THAT YOU 
HAVE APPOINTED THEM FOR THIS 
GREAT SERVICE AND THEY ARE 
ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU.
LORD, EMPOWER THEM TO LABOR 
TODAY WITH THE DOMINANT 
PURPOSE OF PLEASING YOU, 
KNOWING THAT IT IS NEVER 
WRONG TO DO RIGHT.
GIVE THEM RESILIENCY IN THEIR 
TOIL AS THEY REMEMBER YOUR 
PROMISE THAT THEY WILL REAP A 
BOUNTIFUL HARVEST IF THEY 
DON'T GIVE UP.
HELP THEM TO FOLLOW THE ROAD 
OF HUMILITY THAT LEADS TO 
HONOR AS THEY FIND THEIR 
SAFETY IN TRUSTING YOU.
WE PRAY IN YOUR MAJESTIC NAME
, AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 
THE FLAG .
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] 
>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, 
THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TODAY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL 
MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.
>> HERE HE, HERE HE.
ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO 
KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF 
IMPRISONMENT ON ASSEMBLY OF 
THE UNITED STATES, SITTING 
FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT 
EXHIBITED BYTHE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVESAGAINST DONALD 
JOHN TRUMP , PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES .
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT UP 
TO EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTIONS 
TO THE PARTIES DELIVERED IN 
WRITING TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
AFTER ALL MANNER THE TWO 
SIDES WILL ALTERNATE AND 
ANSWERS SHOULD BE KEPT TO 
FIVE MINUTES OR LESS.
THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD 
OFF WITH A QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATOR FROM MAINE.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TOTHE 
DESK .
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR ROMNEY.
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE 
THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS 
ALLEGED CONDUCT SUCH AS THE 
PURSUIT OF PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ADVANTAGE, ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION AND THE PROMOTION 
OF NATIONAL INTEREST, HOW 
SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER 
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS 
ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE 1?
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS, IN RESPONSE THAT 
QUESTION THERE ARE REALLY TWO 
LAYERS TO MY ANSWER.
CAUSE I LIKE TO POINT OUT 
FIRST THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS 
ONLY ONE MOTIVE, THE BEER HE 
OF ABUSE OF POWER HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED, THE 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE ALONECAN 
BECOME THE BASIS FOR AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE , WE 
BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY 
DEFECTIVE.
IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY 
TO FRAME A CLAIM OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
SO I WILL PUT THAT ONE SIDE 
AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF 
MIXED MOTIVE.
IF THERE WERE A MOTIVE THAT 
WAS OF PUBLIC INTEREST BUT 
ALSO SOME PERSONAL INTERESTS, 
WE THINK IT FOLLOWS EVEN MORE 
CLEARLY THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY 
BE THE BASIS FOR AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND EVEN 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS AS THEY 
HAVE FRAMED THEIR CASE, THEY 
HAVE EXPLAINED THIS IS 
POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM THAT IN THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 
THEY SPECIFY THAT THE 
STANDARD THEY HAVE TO MEET IS 
TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A SHAM 
INVESTIGATION.
IT'S A BOGUS INVESTIGATION.
THERE'S NOT ANY LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC PURPOSE, THAT'S THE 
LANGUAGE.
ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE
.
AT THE STANDARD A SET FOR 
THEMSELVES AND BEING ABLE TO 
MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR 
THEORY OF WHAT AN ABUSE OF 
POWER OFFENSE CAN BE A VERY 
DEMANDING STANDARD THAT THEY 
SET FOR THEMSELVES TO MEET 
AND THEY EVEN SAID THEY CAME 
UP AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE 
BIDENS, TALK A LOT ABOUT 
THESE ISSUES IN 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE BECAUSE THEY 
WERE SAYING IS NOT EVEN A 
SCINTILLA OF ANY EVIDENCE OF 
ANYTHING WORTH LOOKING INTO 
THEIR AND THAT'S THE STANDARD 
THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET 
SHOWING THAT THERE'S NO 
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AND 
THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T HAVE 
HAD ANY IMAGE AND EVEN OF A 
PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE 
BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT 
ONCE YOU GET INTO A MIXED 
MOTIVE SITUATION, IF THERE'S 
BOTH SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT 
ALSO A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC 
INTEREST MOTIVE, IT CAN'T 
POSSIBLY BE AN OFFENSE 
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO 
HAVE THE SENATE TRYING TO 
CONSIDER WELL, WAS IT 48 
PERCENT LEGITIMATE INTEREST 
AND 52 PERCENT PERSONAL 
INTEREST OR WAS IT THE OTHER 
WAY, 53PERCENT ?
YOU CAN'T DIVIDE THAT WAY AND 
THAT'S WHY THEY RECOGNIZE 
THAT EVEN REMOTELY COHERENT 
THEORY, THE STANDARD THEY 
HAVE TO SET FOR THEMSELVES IS 
ESTABLISHING THERE IS NO 
POSSIBLE INTEREST AT ALL FOR 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
AND IF THERE IS ANY 
POSSIBILITY, IF THERE IS 
NOTHING THAT SHOWS A POSSIBLE 
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE 
PRESIDENT COULD HAVE POSSIBLE 
PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE, THAT 
DESTROYS THEIR CASE SO ONCE 
YOU'RE INTO MIXED MOTIVE LAND
, IT'S CLEAR THEIR CASE FAILS 
AREA THERE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL 
AND THINK ABOUT IT, ALL 
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SOME 
EXTENT HAVE IN MIND HOW THEIR 
CONDUCT, HOW THEIR DECISIONS, 
POLICY DECISIONS WILL AFFECT 
THE NEXT ELECTION.
THERE'SALWAYS SOME PERSONAL 
INTEREST IN THE ELECTORAL 
OUTCOME OF POLICY DECISIONS 
AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG 
WITH THAT .
AS PART OF REPRESENTATIVE 
DEMOCRACY AND TO START SAYING 
NOW THAT IF YOU GOT A PART 
MOTIVE THAT FOR YOUR PERSONAL 
ELECTORAL GAIN, THAT'S 
SOMEHOW GOING TOBECOME AN 
OFFENSE ?
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND 
IS COMPLETELY UNWORKABLE AND 
IT CAN'T BE A BASIS FOR 
REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE OF THE BOTTOM LINE IS 
ONCE YOU'RE INTO ANY MIXED 
MOTIVE SITUATION, ONCE IT'S 
ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A 
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST 
THAT COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING 
INTO SOMETHING, JUST ASKING A 
QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, THE 
MANAGER'S CASE FAILS AND IT 
FAILS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS.
THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE TO 
SHOW NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST.
THERE ISN'T ANY LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC INTEREST AND IT FAILED 
TO MAKE THAT CASE.
WE'VE SHOWN CLEARLY THAT BOTH 
OF THE THINGS MENTIONED, 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE 
BIDEN BURISMA SITUATION ARE 
THINGS THAT RAISE AT LEAST 
SOME PUBLIC INTEREST.
THERE'S SOMETHING WORTH 
LOOKING AT THERE.
IT'S NEVERBEEN INVESTIGATED 
IN THE BIDEN SITUATION .
ONCE OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES 
SAID THAT ON ITS FACE IT 
APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
IT'S AT LEAST WORTH RAISING A 
QUESTION ABOUT, ASKING A 
QUESTION ABOUT IT AND THERE 
IS THAT PUBLIC INTEREST AND 
THAT MEANS THEIR CASE 
ABSOLUTELY FAILS.
THANK YOU.
>> IQ COUNCIL.
THE DEMOCRATICLEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED .
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER ASKS 
OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS, JOHN R 
BOLTON'S FORTHCOMING BOOK 
STATES THE PRESIDENT WANTED 
TO CONTINUE WITHHOLDING $391 
MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO 
UKRAINE UNTIL UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
HIS TOP POLITICAL RIVAL AND 
THE DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY 
THEORY ABOUT THE 2016 
ELECTION.
IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE 
SENATE TO RENDER A FULLY 
INFORMEDVERDICT IN THIS CASE 
WITHOUT HEARING THE TESTIMONY 
OF BOLTON, MULVANEY AND THE 
OTHER KEY EYEWITNESSES OR 
WITHOUT SEEING THE RELEVANT 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ?
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT 
QUESTION IS NUMBER THERE'S NO 
WAY TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITNESSES AND WHEN YOU HAVE A 
WITNESS WHO IS AS PLAINLY 
RELEVANT AS JOHN BOLTON WHO 
GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST 
SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, WHO 
HAS VOLUNTEERED TO COME AND 
TESTIFY, TO TURN HIM AWAY, TO 
LOOK THE OTHER WAY I THINK IS 
DEEPLY AT ODDS BEING AN 
IMPARTIAL JUROR.
I WOULD ALSO ADD IN RESPONSE 
TO THE LAST QUESTION THAT IN 
ANY PART OF THE PRESIDENTS 
MOTIVATION WAS A CORRUPT 
MOTIVE, IT WAS A CAUSAL 
FACTOR IN THE ACTION TO 
FREEZE THE AID OR WITHHOLD 
THE MEETING, THAT IS ENOUGH 
TO CONVICT HIM.
IT IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT UNDER 
CRIMINAL LAW BUT HERE THERE'S 
NO QUESTION ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENTS MOTIVATION AND IF 
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENTS MOTIVATION, IT 
MAKES IT ALL THE MORE 
ESSENTIAL TO CALL A MAN WHO 
SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CONFIDED IN AND SAID HE WAS 
HOLDING UP THIS AID BECAUSE 
HE WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT 
THESE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD 
HELP HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION
.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER IT WAS A FACTOR, THE 
FACTOR, A QUARTER OFTHE 
FACTOR, ALL OF THE FACTOR, 
THERE IS A IS A WITNESS A 
SUBPOENA AWAY WHO CAN ANSWER 
THAT QUESTION .
BUT THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF 
EVIDENCE MAKES IT CLEAR ON 
JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER THAT 
PHONE CALL, DONALD TRUMP 
SPEAKS TO GORDON SONDLAND AND 
WHAT DOES GORDON SONDLAND, 
WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENTS 
QUESTION OF GORDON SONDLAND 
THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL, IS 
HE GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING.
HE MAY HAVE HAD A GENERIC 
CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING 
BUT HERE THE MOTIVATION WAS 
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
ON THE PHONE THE ONLY 
QUESTION HE WANTED AN ANSWER 
TO WAS IS HE GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
THERE IN MY IS TALKING TO THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION.
WHAT BETTER PERSON TO TALK TO 
IF HIS REAL CONCERN WAS ABOUT 
BURDENSHARING AND THE GUY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE'S 
BURDEN SHARING ?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE 
THIS ATALL?
OF COURSE NOT.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION 
ABOUT IT , AT ALL, YOU NEED 
TO HEAR FROM HIS FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITYADVISOR .
DON'T WAIT FOR THEBOOK .
DON'T WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 
WHEN IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE
.
TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO 
YOUR QUESTION, WAS IT ALL THE 
MOTIVE, SOME OF THE MOTIVE OR 
NONE OF THE MOTIVE AND WE 
THINK AS I MENTIONED THE CASE 
IS OVERWHELMINGLYCLEAR 
WITHOUT JOHN BOLTON BUT IF 
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
IT , YOU CAN ERASE ALL DOUBT.
NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU A VIDEO 
TOó NUMBER TWO, SLIDE TWO.
HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.
THIS HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY, 
THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE 
YOU ALL OF THE FACTS.
BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO 
DO SOMETHING VERY, VERY 
CONSEQUENTIAL AND ASK 
YOURSELF, ASK YOURSELF GIVEN 
THE FACTS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY 
THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU, 
WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT THE FACTS?
WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALKABOUT 
THE FACTS ?
IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A 
SHELL GAME.
THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THEFACTS 
.
>> THE LAST VIDEO WHICH IS 
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AND ON 
POINTFOR MISTER BOLTON , 
NUMBER THREE.
>> AND ONCE AGAIN, NOT A 
SINGLE WITNESS IN THE HOUSE 
RECORD THAT THEY'VE COMPILED 
AND DEVELOPED UNDER THEIR 
PROCEDURES THAT WE DISCUSSED 
AND WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS 
PROVIDED ANY FIRST-HAND 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
EVER LINKED THE PRESIDENTIAL 
MEETING TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS
.
ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THAT 
THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
BECAUSE OF COURSE MICK 
MULVANEY SAID THAT THE MONEY 
WAS LINKED TO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE SAID IN ACKNOWLEDGING A 
QUID PRO QUO, THEY DO IT ALL 
THE TIMEAND WE SHOULD JUST 
GET OVER IT .
GORDON SONDLAND SAID THE 
PRESIDENT SAID ON THE ONE 
HAND NO QUID PRO QUO MADE IT 
CLEAR THAT ZELENSKY HAD TO GO 
TO THE MICAND ANNOUNCED THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS .
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
IHAVE A QUESTION FOR THE 
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL .
>> TO THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL,
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO 
THE ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS 
HOUSE MANAGERS STUFF MADE IN 
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS 
QUESTION ?
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS.
A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I'D 
LIKE TO MAKE.
MANAGER SCHIFF SUGGESTED THAT 
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ACTUALLY 
INTERESTED IN BURDEN SHARING 
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T APPARENTLY 
ACCORDING TO DAVID HALE RAISE 
IT IN THE TELEPHONE 
CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH 
GORDON SONDLAND AT HALECLAIMS 
TO HAVE OVERHEARD AT A 
RESTAURANT IN KIA BUT LET'S 
LOOK AT THE REAL EVIDENCE 
AS WE EXPLAINED ON JUNE 24 , 
THERE'S AN EMAIL IN THE 
RECORD SHOWING AN EMAIL FROM 
ONE PERSON AT THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE TO ANOTHER WITH 
THE SUBJECT LINE OF 
FOLLOW-UP, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES FOLLOW-UP 
ASKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.
IT SAYS QUOTE, WHAT DO OTHER 
NATO MEMBERS TEND TO SUPPORT 
UKRAINE?
THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE 
FOLLOWING UP ON FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT ITSELF, EXCUSE ME, 
IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 
25 CALL ITSELF, THE PRESIDENT 
ASKS, HE SAID WE SPENT A LOT 
OF EFFORT AND A LOT OF TIME 
FOR UKRAINE, MUCH MORE THAN 
THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE 
DOING AND THEY SHOULD BE 
HELPING YOU MORE THAN WE ARE.
GERMANY DOES ALMOST NOTHING 
FOR YOU.
ALL THEY DO IS TALK AND I 
THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU 
SHOULD REALLY ASK THEM ABOUT 
AND HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE 
TALKED TO ANGELA MARKEL ABOUT 
IT AND HE'S RAISING BURDEN 
SHARING AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AGREED WITH HIM.
MANAGER SCHIFF ALSO SUGGESTED 
THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF 
SOME CONNECTION TO THE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BECAUSE 
OF A STATEMENT THAT ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY MADE 
AT A PRESS CONFERENCE BUT 
IT'S BEEN CLEAR IN THE RECORD 
SINCE THAT PRESS CONFERENCE 
THAT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS 
GARBLED AND OR MISUNDERSTOOD 
AND HE IMMEDIATELY CLARIFIED 
AND SAID I MEANT THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO 
WITHHOLD ANYMONEY UNTIL THE 
UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING 
RELATED TO THE SERVER .
AND SIMILARLY, HE ISSUED A 
STATEMENT JUST THE OTHER DAY 
MAKING CLEAR AGAIN THAT HE 
SAID THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL 
SO IT'S PHRASED IN THE THIRD 
PERSON, NOR DID MISSILE 
MISTER MULVANEY EVER HAVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE 
INDICATING THAT UKRAINIAN 
MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN 
EXCHANGE FOR MILITARY 
INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE 
BIDENS OR THE ELECTION, THAT 
IS MISTER MULVANEY'S 
STATEMENT.
TO THE POINT ON WHETHER THIS 
CHAMBER SHOULD HEAR FROM 
AMBASSADORBOLTON , I THINK 
IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER 
WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE IT'S 
NOT JUST A QUESTION OF WELL, 
AND WE HEAR ONE WITNESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE REAL 
QUESTION IS GOING TO BE.
FOR THIS INSTITUTION, THE 
REAL QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE 
PRECEDENT THAT IS GOING TO BE 
SET FOR WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE 
WAY FOR THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO BRING AN 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES TO THIS 
CHAMBER AND BE DONE IN A 
HURRIED, HALF-BAKED PARTISAN 
FASHION WITHOUT, THEY DIDN'T 
EVEN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO GET 
HIS TESTIMONY TO INSIST NOW 
THAT THIS BODY WILL BECOME 
THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY, THAT 
THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO DO ALL 
THE DISCOVERY AND THAT THIS 
INSTITUTION WILL BE 
EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FOR 
MONTHS ON END BECAUSE IT HAS 
TO SIT AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT WHILE NOW 
DISCOVERY IS DONE BECAUSE IT 
WOULD BE AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE 
WITNESSES, THEN THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE TO, THEY SAID FAIR 
TRIAL, FAIR ADJUDICATION, THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 
HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS 
WITNESSES AND THERE WOULD BE 
DEPOSITIONS AND THIS WOULD 
DRAG ON FOR MONTHS AND THAT'S
THE NEW PRESIDENT .
THAT'S THE WAY ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS OPERATE IN THE 
FUTURE.
THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO 
THE WORK, THEY THROW IT OVER 
THE TRANSOM AND THIS 
INSTITUTION GETS DERAILED AND 
HAVE TO DEALWITH .
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE WAY, 
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE 
PRECEDENT SET HERE FOR THE 
LATEST BODY WILL HAVE TO 
HANDLE ALL IMPEACHMENTS IN 
THEFUTURE BECAUSE IF IT 
BECOMES THAT EASY FOR THE 
HOUSE TO DO IT, THEY WILL BE 
DOING IT A LOT.
THANK YOU .
>> THE SENATOR FOR 
MASSACHUSETTSSENDS A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK .
>>.
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
MARKEY TO HOUSE MANAGERS.
ON MONDAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TWEETED THE 
DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED HOUSE 
NEVER EVEN ASKED JOHN BOLTON 
TO TESTIFY.
".
SO THAT THE RECORD IS 
ACCURATE, DID HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATORS ASK 
MISTER BOLTON TO TESTIFY 
-MARK.
>> SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS 
YES.
OF COURSE WE ASKED JOHNBOLTON 
TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE AND 
HE REFUSED .
WE ASKED HIS DEPUTY, DOCTOR 
GOVERNMENT TO TESTIFY AND HE 
REFUSED.
FORTUNATELY WE ASKED THEIR
DEPUTY DOCTOR FIONA HILL TO 
TESTIFY AND SHE DID .
WE ASKED HER DEPUTY COLONEL 
VINDMAN TO TESTIFY AND HE DID 
BUT WE DID SEEK THE TESTIMONY
OF JOHN BOLTON AS WELL AS 
DOCTOR GOVERNMENT AND THEY 
REFUSED .
WHEN WE SUBPOENAED DOCTOR 
GOVERNMENT HE SUED US.TOOK 
US TO COURT.
WHEN WE RAISED A SUBPOENA 
JOHN BOLTON'S COUNSEL, THE 
SAME COUNSEL FOR DOCTOR 
GOVERNMENT, THE ANSWER WAS 
SENATOR, YOU SERVE US WITH A 
SUBPOENA AND WE WILL SUE YOU 
TOO.
WE KNEW BASED ON THE MCGAHN 
LITIGATION IT WOULD TAKE 
YEARS TO FORCE JOHN BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY AND I SHOULD POINT 
OUT BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS 
AN ESSENTIAL POINT TOóAS THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SAY, THEY 
DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH TO GET 
JOHN BOLTON OR THEY SHOULD 
HAVE SUBPOENAED JOHN BOLTON.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING 
YOU BUT LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT 
THEY ARE TELLING THE COURT 
AND THE MCGAHN LITIGATION.
IF WE COULD PULL A SLIDE 39.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS IN COURT IN THE 
MCGAHN LITIGATION IN THE 
COURT OF APPEALS.
A COMMITTEE MEETING OUR 
COMMITTEE LACKS ARTICLE 3 
STANDING TO ENFORCE A 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA 
DEMANDING TESTIMONY FROM AN 
INDIVIDUAL ON MATTERS RELATED 
TO DUTY AS AN EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OFFICIAL.
AND IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY 
THAT DUPLICITY OF THAT 
ARGUMENT.
THERE BEFORE YOU SAYING THEY 
SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER TO 
GET THESE WITNESSES, THEY 
SHOULD SUBPOENA, THEY SHOULD 
HAVE LITIGATED FOR YEARS AND 
DOWN THE STREET AND THE 
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE THERE 
ARGUING JUDGE, YOU NEED TO 
THROW THEM OUT.
THEY HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE, 
TO FORCE A WITNESS TOTESTIFY.
ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO 
ACCEPT THAT ?
COUNSEL SAYS THINK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT WE WOULD BE SETTING 
IF YOU ALLOW THE HOUSE TO 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND YOU 
PERMIT THEM TO CALLWITNESSES 
.
I WOULD SUBMIT, THINK ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT YOU WILL BE 
SETTING IF YOU DON'T ALLOW
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL ?
THAT TO ME IS A MUCH MORE 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT HERE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU THERE'S 
SOMETHING EVEN MORE DANGEROUS 
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT 
WE ANTICIPATED FROM THE 
BEGINNING WHICH IS WE 
UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE GOT TO 
THIS POINT THEY COULD NO 
LONGER CONTEST THE FACTS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY AT 
WAR TO COERCE THAT ALLY TO DO 
THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL 
DIRTY WORK.
SO NOW THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK 
ON YOU SHOULDN'T HEAR ANY 
FURTHER EVIDENCE, ANY FURTHER 
WITNESSES ON THIS SUBJECT.
WHAT'S MORE, WE'RE GOING TO 
USE THE AND ALL ARGUMENTS, SO 
WHAT?
THE PRESIDENT IS FREE TO 
ABUSE THEIR POWER.
GOING TO RELY ON A 
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY, A 
FRINGE THEORY THAT EVEN THE 
ADVOCATE OF WHICH SAYS IS 
OUTSIDE THE CONSENSUS OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO SAY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE
HIS POWER WITH IMPUNITY .
IMAGINE WHERE THAT LEADS.
THE PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS 
POWER WITH IMPUNITY.
NOW, THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS AT 
ODDS WITH THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL'S OWN EXPRESS OPINION 
ON THE SUBJECT WITH KEN'S 
STARS EXPRESS OPINIONON THE 
SUBJECT .
WITH NOT ONLY OTHER COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT JONATHAN 
TURLEY WHO TESTIFIED IN THE 
HOUSE SAYS THAT THE RATE IS 
CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVELY 
NONSENSE.
BUT EVEN 60-YEAR-OLD ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ DOESN'T AGREE WITH 
81-YEAR-OLD ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
AND FOR A REASON, BECAUSE 
WHERE THAT CONCLUSION LEADS 
US IS AT A PRESIDENT CAN 
ABUSE HIS POWER IN ANY KIND 
OF WAY AND THERE'S NOTHING 
YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
NOW, ARE WE REALLY READY TO 
ACCEPT THE POSITION THAT THIS 
PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT CAN 
WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS IN MILITARY AID TO 
AN ALLY AT WAR UNLESS THEY 
GET HELP IN THEIRREELECTION ?
WOULD WE SAY THAT YOU COULD 
AS PRESIDENT WITHHOLD 
DISASTER RELIEF FROM A 
GOVERNOR UNLESS THAT GOVERNOR 
GOT HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO 
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S 
POLITICAL RIVAL?
THAT TO ME IS THE MOST 
DANGEROUS ARGUMENT OF ALL.
IT IS A DANGER TO HAVE A 
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN 
MISCONDUCT AND IS A DANGER TO 
HAVE A TRIAL WITH NO 
WITNESSES AND SET THAT 
PRESIDENT OF THE BIGGEST 
DANGER OF ALL WOULD BE TO 
ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS 
OFFICE IN THIS WAY AND THE 
CONGRESS IS POWERLESS TO DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT .
IT ISCERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS INTENDED .
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I SENT A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK ON MY BEHALF AND 
ALSO JOINED BY CENTERS 
LOEFFLER, LEE, AND CRAMER.
>> THE SENATORS ASK OF 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, IS 
THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT 
IN THE HOUSE A LOWER 
THRESHOLD TO MEET THAN THE 
STANDARD FOR CONVICTION IN 
THE SENATE AND HOUSE THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS MET THEIR 
EVIDENTIARY BURDEN TO SUPPORT 
AND VOTE ON REMOVAL?
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS.
THE STANDARD IN THE HOUSE OF 
COURSE, THE HOUSE IS NOT 
MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION 
AND IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IMPEACHMENT 
IS SIMPLY AN ACCUSATION AND 
AS IN MOST SYSTEMS WHERE 
THERE'S AN ACCUSATION BEING 
MADE, THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE 
TO ADHERE TO THE SAME 
STANDARD USED IN THE SENATE.
IN MOST INSTANCES HOUSE 
MEMBERS SUGGESTED IN DEBATE 
ON ARTICLES OF WHETHER OR NOT 
TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY SHOULD 
HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING 
EVIDENCE IN THE VIEW OF THE 
MEMBERS VOTING THAT THERE WAS 
SOMEIMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND 
THAT IS ALL.
SOME NOT EVEN THAT STANDARD .
SO IT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S AN 
ACCUSATION CAN BE MADE, IT IS 
DEFINITELY A LOWER STANDARD 
THAN THE STANDARD THAT HAVE 
TO BE MET YOU'RE ON A TRIAL 
FOR AN ULTIMATE VERDICT.
THE CONSTITUTION IN TERMS OF 
A CONVICTION INTHE SENATE .
AND AS BOTH PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ AND JUDGE STARR 
POINTED OUT IN THEIR 
COMMENTS, EVERYWHERE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT THERE'S ANY 
MENTION OF IMPEACHMENT IT IS 
SPOKEN OF IN TERMS OF THE 
CRIMINAL LAW.
THE OFFENSES THAT DEFINE THE 
JURISDICTION FOR THE SENATE 
SITTING AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, 
BRIBERY AND HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS OFA 
CONVICTION UPON BEING 
CONVICTED IN THE SENATE .
IT SPEAKS OF ALL CRIMES BEING 
TRIED BY JURY EXCEPT IN CASES 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
AGAIN SUGGESTING NOTIONS OF 
THE CRIMINAL LAW AND AS WE 
POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL
MEMORANDUM , ALL THESE 
TEXTUAL REFERENCES MAKE IT 
CLEAR THAT THE STANDARDS OF 
CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD APPLY IN 
THE TRIAL CERTAINLY TO THE 
EXTENT OF THE BURDEN AND 
STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE 
CARRIED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WHICH MEANS PROOF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT 
THERE IS NOT ANY REQUIREMENT 
FOR PROOF HE ON A REASONABLE 
DOUBT SIMPLY FOR THE HOUSE TO 
VOTE UPON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'S A VERY MUCH HIGHER 
STANDARD ESTATE.
AS WE POINTED OUT THE MERE 
ACCUSATION MADE BY THE HOUSE 
COMES HERE WITH NO 
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AT 
ALL IN ITS FAVOR.
THE SENATE SITS AS TRY OR OF 
FACT AND LAW ROOM REVIEWING 
BACK AND LEGAL ISSUES AND THE 
TRIAL, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE 
HELD TO A STANDARD OF PROVING 
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT OF EVERY ELEMENT OF 
WHAT WOULD BE A COGNIZABLE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
HERE, THEY HAVE FAILED IN 
THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEY HAVE ALSO FAILED ON THE 
LAW.
THEY HAVE NOT STATED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
ANYTHING AT ALL AMOUNTS TO AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
AND ON THE FACTS I THINK WE 
HAVE DEMONSTRATED VERY 
CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NOT 
PRESENTED FACTS.
THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
EVEN UNDER THEIR OWN THEORY .
THEY HAVE PRESENTED ONLY PART 
OF THE FACTS AND LEFT OUT THE 
KEY FACTS.
AND MISTER PROCURER I THINK 
IS EFFECTIVELY SHOWING THAT 
THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT 
DON'T CHANGE.
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 
CALL SHOWS THE PRESIDENT 
DOING NOTHING WRONG.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE 
NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE.
HIS OTHER ADVISERS HAVE SAID 
THE UKRAINIANSNEVER FELT ANY 
PRESSURE.
THEY DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS 
ANY QUID PRO QUO .
THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN 
HELD UP UNTIL THE ARTICLE AT 
THE END OF AUGUST.
ONLY TWO PEOPLE WITH 
STATEMENTS ON RECORD WE SPOKE 
TO THE PRESIDENT WHO ARE 
SONDLAND AND SENATOR RON 
JOHNSON REPORTS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAID TO THEM THERE 
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND THE 
AID FLOWED WITHOUTANYTHING 
EVER BEING DONE RELATED TO 
INVESTIGATIONS .
THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.
THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE TO RELY ON TO 
MAKE THEIR CASE AND THEY HAVE 
FAILED TO PROVETHEIR CASE 
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, 
FAILED TO PROVE IT BY CLEAR 
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, 
FAILED TO PROVE IT AT ALL IN 
MY OPINION .
>> COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE IF I 
COULD SEND THE QUESTIONTO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS .
>> SENATOR FEINSTEIN ASKS THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT 
COUNSEL DATED THAT QUOTE, 
THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE 
ANYWHERE THAT PRESIDENT FROM 
EVER LINK SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE AND THANK YOU SENATOR 
FOR THAT QUESTION AREA 
PRESIDENT COUNSEL IS NOT 
CORRECT, THERE IS IN FACT 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE 
MILITARY AID DIRECTLY TO GET 
A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT 
TO HELP HIS INDIVIDUAL 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
THERE'S A FEW POINTS THAT I 
LIKE TO SUBMIT YOUR
CONSIDERATION .
FIRST, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN 
THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK 
MULVANEY ON OCTOBER 17 2019 
DURING A NATIONAL PRESS 
CONFERENCE MENTIONED QUOTE, 
OR HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE 
DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AID 
AND SAID DID HE?
MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REFERRING TO HE.
ALSO MENTIONED THEY TO ME IN 
PASSING THE CORRUPTION 
RELATED TO THE NZ SERVER, 
ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT 
IT BUT THAT'S IT AND THAT'S 
WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY AREA 
HE WAS REPEATING THE 
PRESIDENT ALL EXPLANATION 
RELATED DIRECTLY TO HIM.
BORDER SONDLAND TESTIFIED AND 
SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP NUMBER SEVEN.
THE PRESIDENT DENIED THERE 
WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND 
OUTLINED THE VERY QUID PRO 
QUO HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE 
AREA AND HE TOLD PRESIDENT 
SONDLAND QUOTES, THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD GO 
TO THE MICROPHONE AND 
ANNOUNCED THEINVESTIGATIONS .
HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
ADVISERS INCLUDING THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY 
POMPEO WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE 
DIRECT CONNECTION MORE SO ON 
SEPTEMBER 1, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD VICE PRESIDENT 
PANTS HE WAS CONCERNED THE 
DELAY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HAD BECOME TIED TO THE ISSUE 
OF INVESTIGATIONS.
THE VICE PRESIDENT SIMPLY
NODDED, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING 
THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE AID 
.
FOURTH, WE HEARD FROM 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO IN 
EMAILS AND TEXTS SAID IT WAS 
CRAZY TO TIE THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO INVESTIGATIONS.
FIVE, WE KNOW THERE'S NO 
OTHER REASON.
THE ENTIRE APPARATUS AND 
STRUCTURE OF THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT, STATE DEPARTMENT 
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALING
WITH THE OTHER LEGITIMATE 
REASONS , THE POLICY DEBATE 
THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS YOU TO 
BELIEVE THIS WAS ABOUT, THEY 
WERE ALL KEPT IN THE DARK AND 
THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY 
PROCESS THAT THEY MADE UP 
SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE FACT 
HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE.
DURING THE LAST INTERAGENCY 
MEETINGS AREA AND I'LL MAKE 
ONE FINAL POINT, AGAIN, IF 
YOU HAVE ANY LINGERING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIRECT 
EVIDENCE, ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT 
ANYTHING WE JUST TALKED 
ABOUT, ANYTHING I JUST 
RELAYED FOR THAT WE TALKED 
ABOUT LAST WEEK, THERE IS A 
WAY TO SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT 
ON IT AREA AND WE CAN 
SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
AND ASKED THAT QUESTION 
DIRECTLY.
>> THANK YOU MISTER MANAGER.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK .>> SENATOR LEE ASKS 
OF COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEARGUED 
AGGRESSIVELY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ACTIONS CONTRAVENE 
US FOREIGN POLICY .
ISN'T IT THE PRESIDENT'S 
PLACE, CERTAINLY MORE THAN 
THE PLACE OF CAREER CIVIL
SERVANTS TO CONDUCT FOREIGN 
POLICY ?
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF
JUSTICE.
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION .
IT IS DEFINITELY THE 
PRESIDENTS PLACE TO SET US 
FOREIGN POLICY AND THE 
CONSTITUTION MAKES THIS 
CLEAR.
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 REST THE 
ENTIRETY OF EXECUTIVE 
AUTHORITY IN APRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES .
AND IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT 
IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
STRUCTURE THAT THAT AUTHORITY 
IS VESTED SOLELY IN THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE 
PEOPLE.
EVERY FOUR YEARS, THAT'S WHAT 
GIVES THE PRESIDENT 
DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY TO HAVE 
THE POWERS THAT HE WAS GIVEN 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
OUR SYSTEM IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE 
IN THE VERY BROAD POWERS THAT 
ARE ASSIGNED TO THE EXECUTIVE
, BUT IT WORKS AND IT MAKES 
SENSE IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM 
PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS 
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE 
PEOPLE FOR THE POLICIES HE 
SAYS.
THOSE ARE STAFFERS IN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUREAUCRACY 
ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE 
PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY 
AND THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMACY 
OR AUTHORITY THAT COMES FROM 
AN ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE.
SO IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT 
TO RECOGNIZE THE PRESIDENT 
SETS FOREIGN POLICY, WITHIN 
CONSTRAINTS, THERE'S RULES 
FOR CONGRESS IN ORANGE 
AFFAIRS TO SOME EXTENT.
THAT IS IN THE PAST, FUNDING 
PROVISIONS CAN BE PASSED THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED 
TIME AND AGAIN THE PRESIDENT 
IS AS THE COURT SAID IN 
CURTISS WRIGHT THE SOLE ORGAN 
OF THE NATION IN FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS SO HE SETS FOREIGN 
POLICY.
AND IF STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH 
HIM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE 
PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING 
WRONG THIS IS A CRITICAL 
POINT BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF 
THE CENTERPIECES OF THE ABUSE 
OF POWER THEORY THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD LIKE 
THIS BODY TO ADOPT.
THAT IS THAT THEY ARE GOING 
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT 
BASED SOLELY ON HISSUBJECTIVE 
MOTIVE .
THE PREMISE OF THEIR CASE IS 
THE OBJECT OF ACTIONS THAT 
WERE TAKEN WERE PERFECTLY 
PERMISSIBLE AND WITHIN THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY BUT IT IF HIS REAL 
REASON, IF WE GET INSIDE HIS 
HEAD, WE CAN IMPEACH THEM AND 
THE WAY THEY HAVE TRIED TO 
EXPLAIN THAT THEY CAN PROVE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A BAD 
MOTIVE IS A STATE WE COMPARE 
WHAT IS THE PRESENCE WHAT TO 
DO WITH WHAT THE INTERAGENCY 
CONSENSUS WAS AND I MENTIONED 
THIS THE OTHER DAY, THEY SAY 
THE PRESIDENT DEFINED AND 
CONFOUNDED EVERY AGENCY IN 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONALLY 
INCOHERENT STATEMENT.
A PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFINE THE 
AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT ARE SUBORDINATE 
TO HIM.
THERE'S ONLY IT IS ONLY THEY 
CAN DEFY THE PRESIDENTS 
DETERMINATIONS OF POLICY SO 
WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO IS IT 
SHOWS THAT THE CASE IS BUILT 
ON A POLICY DIFFERENCE AND A 
POLICY DIFFERENCE WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO GETS 
TO DETERMINE POLICY BECAUSE 
HE'S BEEN ELECTED BY THE 
PEOPLE TO DO THAT AND WHERE 
RIGHT NOW ONLY A FEW MONTHS 
AWAY FROM ANOTHER ELECTION 
WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE 
FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER THEY 
LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DONE WITH THAT AUTHORITY OR 
NOT AND THAT'S THE WAY 
DISPUTES ABOUT POLICY LIKE
THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED .
IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE TO SAY 
THAT THERE'S SOME INTERAGENCY 
CONSENSUS THAT DISAGREES WITH 
THE PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE 
WE CAN SHOW HE DID SOMETHING 
WRONG AND THEREFORE HE CAN BE 
IMPEACHED.
THAT'S A DANGEROUS 
PROPOSITION BECAUSE IT LACKS 
ANY DEMOCRATICLEGITIMACY 
WHATSOEVER .
IT'S CONTRARY TO THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IT SHOULD BE 
REJECTED BYTHIS BODY .
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO 
GETS TO SET FOREIGN POLICY 
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ROLE 
ASSIGNED TO HIM IN THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IT WAS EVEN, 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE CALL 
FELT AND ULTIMATELY AGREED IT 
WAS ONLY A POLICY DIFFERENCE, 
IT WAS A POLICY CONCERN HE 
RAISED ABOUT THE CALL AREA 
AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES .
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW 
HAMPSHIRE.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE ISEND 
A QUESTION TO THE DESK .>> 
SENATOR SHAHEEN ASKS THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ARGUED THE ALLEGED CONDUCT 
SET OUT IN THE ARTICLE DOES
NOT VIOLATE A CRIMINAL 
STATUTE AND THUS MAY NOT 
CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AS HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS .
DOES THIS REASONING IMPLY 
THAT IF THE PRESIDENT DOES 
NOT VIOLATE A CRIMINAL 
STATUTE, HE COULD NOT BE IN 
PEACE FOR ABUSES OF POWER 
SUCH AS ORDERING TAX AUDITS 
OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS, THE 
SPENDING HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS
, INDISCRIMINATELY
INVESTIGATING POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS OR ASKING FOREIGN 
POWERS TO INVESTIGATE MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS ?
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS.
I APPRECIATE THEQUESTION .
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED 
WITHOUT A STATUTORY CRIME 
BEING COMMITTED.
THAT WAS THE POSITION AND THE 
QUESTION WAS REJECTED IN 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S CASE AND 
REJECTED AGAIN IN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON'S CASE.
IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CASE.
THE GREAT PREPONDERANCE OF 
LEGAL AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF LEGAL 
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT IT IS 
IN CRIMINAL CONDUCT, THIS 
INCLUDES EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR 
THAT HAS STUDIED THE ISSUE, 
MULTIPLESUPREME COURT 
JUSTICES WHO ADDRESS IT IN 
PUBLIC REMARKS AND PRIOR 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE .
THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, TEXT 
AND STRUCTURE AND REFLECTS 
THE ABSURDITY AND PRACTICAL 
DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD 
RESULT WITH IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CONFINED TO INDICTABLE 
CRIMES.
IT'S AS SLIDE 35 SHOWS, FIRST 
THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE 
THAT AN OFFENSE A CRIME IN 
ORDER FORIT TO BE IMPEACHABLE 
.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED 
THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
ARE DEFINED MENTALLY BY THE 
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST.
SOMEPUBLIC TRUST .
THEY ARE POLITICAL AS THEY 
RELATE CHIEFLY TOINJURIES 
DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE 
SOCIETY ITSELF .
OFFENSES AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION ARE DIFFERENT 
AND OFFENSES AGAINST THE 
CRIMINAL CODE.
SOME CRIMES LIKE JAYWALKING 
ARE NOT IMPEACHABLE AND SOME 
FORMS OF MISCONDUCT OFTEN 
BOTH DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION 
AND THE CRIMINAL LAW.
IMPEACHMENT AND CRIMINALITY 
MUST THEREFORE BE ASSESSED 
SEPARATELY EVEN THOUGH THE 
COMMISSION OF INDICTABLE 
CRIMES MAY FURTHER SUPPORT A 
CASE OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
REMOVAL.
THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH 
IMPEACHMENT CONFIRMS THIS.
A STRONG MAJORITY OF 
IMPEACHMENT VOTED BY THE 
HOUSE IN 1789 HAVE INCLUDED 
ONE OR MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT 
DID NOT CHARGE A VIOLATION OF 
CRIMINAL LAW.
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT NIXON 
RESIGNED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
COULD CONSIDER THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM, 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S 
ALLEGATIONS ENCOMPASS MANY, 
MANY NONCRIMINAL ACTS AND IN 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 
UNCOVERING THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE 
FLOOR STATED THAT QUOTE, THE 
ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON 
DO NOT HAVE TO RISE TO THE 
LEVEL OF VIOLATING THE 
FEDERAL STATUTE REGARDING 
ARTICLES OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FRAMERS INTENDED 
IMPEACHMENT TO REACH THE FULL 
SPECTRUM OF PRESIDENTIAL 
MISCONDUCT THAT THREATENED 
THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ALSO 
INTENDED THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND/OR 
THROUGHOUT THE AGES, IN OTHER 
WORDS IF YOU HAD TO KEEP UP 
WITH THE TIMES, IT WAS BETTER 
TO HAVE THE FULL SPECTRUM OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT 
ANTICIPATE AND SPECIFICALLY 
PROHIBIT EVERY SINGLE THREAT 
THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT 
SOMEDAY POSE, THE FRAMERS 
ADOPTED A STANDARD 
SUFFICIENTLY GENERAL AND 
FLEXIBLE TO MEET UNKNOWN 
FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.THIS 
STANDARD WAS MET AS MASON PUT 
IT TO CAPTURE ALL MANNER OF 
GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES 
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE 
POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE TO 
BENEFIT HIMSELF WHILE 
INJURING ORIGNORING THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE , HE IS DULY 
ABOUT VAL TO SERVE HE HAS 
COMMITTED AND IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE RECORDS OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
OFFER FURTHERCLARITY .
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTIONITSELF , NO 
DELEGATES LINKED IMPEACHMENT 
TO THE TECHNICALITY OF 
CRIMINAL LAW.INSTEAD, THE 
FRAMERS PRINCIPALLY INTENDED 
IMPEACHMENT FOR THREE FORMS 
OFPRESIDENTIAL WRONGDOING .
THE ABCS OF IMPEACHMENT.
A, ABUSE OF POWER.
THE, THE TRAIL OF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST THROUGH 
FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS AND 
SEE,CORRUPTION OF OFFICE AND 
ELECTIONS .
WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS 
POWER TO OBTAIN ILLICIT HELP 
IN HIS ELECTIONS FROM A 
FOREIGN POWER, UNDERMINE OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
ELECTION INTEGRITY.
IT IS THE TRIFECTA.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
LOUISIANA.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ALONG WITH 
EDITOR BLACKBURN AND SENATOR
CORNYN, I SEND A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK .
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> IN THE CASE OF SUCH A 
QUESTION ADDRESSED TO BOTH 
SIDES THEY WILL SPLIT THE 
FIVE MINUTES EQUALLY.
>> .. 
>> SENATORS ASKED WHY DID THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
AND OR IMMUNITY DURING THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS?
WE WILL BEGIN WITH HOUSE
MANAGERS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.
WE DID NOT CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS
RELATED TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE, AS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
COUNSEL ADMITTED DURING THIS
TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT NEVER
RAISED THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID RAISE WAS
THIS NOTION OF BLANKET DEFIANCE.
THIS NOTION THAT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT
COULD COMPLETELY DEFY ANY AND
ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NOT
TURN OVER DOCUMENTS, NOT
TURNOVER WITNESSES, NOT PRODUCE
A SINGLE SHRED OF INFORMATION.
IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT
THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
IN OCTOBER 8 THE LETTER THAT WAS
SENT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THERE WAS NO
JURISPRUDENCE THAT WAS CITED TO
JUSTIFY THE NOTION OF BLANKET
DEFIANCE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE LAW CITED
TO JUSTIFY THE DOCTRINE OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT
HAS CONSIDERED ANY PRESIDENTIAL
CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, SUCH
AS THE ONE ASSERTED BY THE WHITE
HOUSE HAS REJECTED IT OUT OF
HAND.
>> COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
LET ME FRAME THIS RESPONSE TO
WHAT MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID.
I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE THE
IDEA THAT THERE WAS BLANKET
DEFIANCE AND NO EXCAVATION AND
NO CASE LAW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
IS SIMPLY INCORRECT.
I PUT UP SLIDES SHOWING THE
LETTERS, LETTER FROM OCTOBER 18
THAT EXPLAINED SPECIFICALLY THAT
THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN
ISSUED BY THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY A VOTE
FROM THE HOUSE WERE INVALID AND
THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAYING THAT
IN A LETTER FROM OMB SAY NET AND
LETTER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT
SAYING THAT.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC RATIONALES
GIVEN CITING CASES WATKINS AND
OTHERS EXPLAINING THAT DEFECT.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE HOUSE
MANAGER SCHIFF CHOSE NOT TO TAKE
ANY STEPS TO CORRECT THAT.
WE ALSO POINTED OUT OTHER D2
DEFECTS.
ASSERTED THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
FOR SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE
PRESIDENT WHICH IS BEEN ASSERTED
BY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE
1970s.
THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE THAT
IN ACCORD.
WE ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE PROBLEM
THAT THEY DID NOT ALLOW AGENCY
COUNSEL TO BE PRESIDENT AT
DEPOSITIONS AND THEY CHOSE NOT
TO CHALLENGE THAT INCORPORATE
THESE MORE SPECIFIC, LEGAL
REASONS, NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE
BUT THAT'S A MISREPRESENTATION
OF THE RECORD.
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE
THAT ADJUDICATED IN COURT.
THE REASON IS THERE WAS NO
ATTEMPT IS THAT THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WERE JUST IN A HURRY.
THEY HAD A TIMETABLE FOR ONE OF
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID ON THE
FLOOR HERE THEY HAD NO TIME FOR
COURT AND HAD TO IMPEACH A
DEPOSIT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT DONE BY
CHRISTMAS.
THAT IS WHY THE PROPER PROCESS
WAS NOT FOLLOWED HERE BECAUSE IT
WAS PARTISAN AND POLITICAL
IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO
GET DONE ALL AROUND TIMING FOR
THE ELECTION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
>> SENATOR LEIGH HE ASKED THE
HOUSE MANAGERS THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THERE WAS NO
HARM DONE AT THE AIDE WAS
ULTIMATELY RELEASED TO UKRAINE
AND THE PRESIDENT MET WITH
ZELENSKY AT THE UN IN SEPTEMBERT
THIS PRESIDENT HASN'T TREATED
UKRAINE MORE FAVORABLY THAN HIS
PREDECESSORS.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR QUESTION.
CONTRARY TO WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL HAS SAID OR CLAIMED THAT
THERE WAS NO HARM, NO FOUL THAT
THE AIDE EVENTUALLY GOT THERE,
WE PROMISED UKRAINE IN 2014 THAT
IF THEY GAVE UP THEIR NUCLEAR
ARSENAL THAT WE WOULD BE THERE
FOR THEM AND THAT WE WOULD
DEFEND THEM AND THAT WE WOULD
FIGHT ALONG BESIDE THEM.
15000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED.
IT WAS INTERESTING THE OTHER DAY
WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
SAID THAT NO AMERICAN LIFE WAS
LOST AND WE ARE ALWAYS GRATEFUL
AND THANKFUL FOR THAT BUT WHAT
ABOUT OUR FRIEND AND WHAT ABOUT
OUR ALLIES IN UKRAINE.
ACCORDING TO DIPLOMAT HOLMES AND
ABBASID OR TAYLOR THAT OUR
UKRAINIANS FRIENDS CONTINUE TO
DIE ON THE FRONTLINE, THOSE WHO
WERE FIGHTING FOR US AND
FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION, WHEN UKRAINE'S HAD
THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND
US.
ALTHOUGH, THE AIDE DID ARISE, IT
TOOK THE WORK OF SENATORS IN
THIS ROOM WHO HAD TO PASS
ADDITIONAL LAWS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT WAS
OUT ON 35 MILLION ADDITIONAL
DOLLARS AND CONTRARY TO THE
PRESIDENT TO EAT THAT ALL OF THE
AIDE ARRIVED AND THAT IT ARRIVED
AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, THAT IS NOT
TRUE.
ALL OF THE AIDE HAS NOT ARRIVED.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF
SIGNAL WITHHOLDING THE AIDE FOR
NO LEGITIMATE REASON THE
PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT BURDEN
SHARING BUT NOTHING HAD CHANGED
ON THE GROUND.
HOLDING THE AIDE FOR NO
LEGITIMATE REASON SUNDAY STRONG
MESSAGE THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT
TO SEND TO RUSSIA THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND UKRAINE WAS ON SHAKY
GROUND.
IT ACTUALLY UNDERCUT UKRAINE'S
ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH
RUSSIA, WITH WHOM, AS EVERYONE
IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, IS IN AN
ACTIVE OR AND HOW WAR SO WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE AIDE EVENTUALLY
GOT THERE, NO HARM, NO FOUL,
THAT IS NOT TRUE, SENATORS.
I KNOW THAT KNOW THAT.
THERE WAS HARM AND THERE WAS
FOUL.
THAT IS LET US NOT FORGET
UKRAINE, NOT AN ENEMY, THEY ARE
NOT AN ADVERSARY BUT THEY ARE
OUR FRIEND.
>> SENATOR CRUZ.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOESN'T
MATTER IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO, IS IT TRUE THAT QUID PRO
QUO ARE OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN
POLICY?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
QUESTION.
YESTERDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF A
PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE
ISRAEL PALESTINE CONFLICT.
I AUTHORED YOU A HYPOTHETICAL
THE OTHER DAY.
WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT
WERE TO BE ELECTED AND CONGRESS
WERE TO AUTHORIZE MUCH MONEY TO
EITHER ISRAEL OR THE
PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL
NO, I WILL WITHHOLD THIS MONEY
UNLESS YOU STOP ALL SETTLEMENT
GROWTH OR TO THE PALESTINIANS, I
WILL WITHHOLD THE MONEY AND
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED TO YOU
UNLESS YOU STOP PAYING
TERRORISTS.
THE PRESIDENT SAID QUID PRO QUO.
IF YOU DON'T DO IT YOU DON'T GET
THE MONEY.
IF YOU DO IT YOU GET THE MONEY.
THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS CHAMBER
THAT WOULD REGARD THAT AS IN ANY
WAY UNLAWFUL.
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE
THE QUID PRO QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF
THE QUOTE WERE, IN SOME WAY
ILLEGAL.
WE TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE.
THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES
THAT THE POLITICAL FIGURE CAN
HAVE.
ONE, AUTOMOTIVE AND PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THE ISRAEL ORGAN IT
WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE SECOND IS IT IS IN HIS OWN
POLITICAL INTERESTS IN THE THIRD
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED
WOULD BE IN HIS OWN FINANCIAL
INTERESTS.
HIS OWN PURE FINANCIAL INTEREST
AND JUST PUTTING MONEY IN THE
BAG.
I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND
ONE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT.
EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I
KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT.
YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING
WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM
GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND
OF WOOD PRO QUOTE THE RESULTS IN
IMPEACHMENT.
I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN.
WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE
TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT
THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLIC
AND PARTY, LET'S ASSUME THE
PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT THAT
POINT AND IT WAS HIS ELECTORAL
INTEREST TO HAVE THESE SOLDIERS
PUT AT RISK FOR LIVES OF MANY
OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WOULD BE LEFT
WITHOUT THEIR COMPANY, WOULD
THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO
QUO?
NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT A,
BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST AND BE, HE BELIEVED IN
HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL
TO VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR.
EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT.
THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS
TO TRY TO PSYCHOANALYZE THE
PRESIDENT AND TRY TO GET INTO
THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN
MIND.
EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES AND
FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPEACHMENT BASED ON MIXED
MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT ALMOST ANY
PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED.
HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE
FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS AFTER
CHECKING WITH THEIR POLITICAL
ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS?
IF YOU ARE JUST ACTING IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WHAT YOU NEED
POSTERS?
MARTINI POLITICAL ADVISORS?
JUST DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE
COUNTRY BUT IF YOU WANT TO
BALANCE WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS WITH WHAT IS IN YOUR
PARTY'S ELECTORAL INTEREST IN
YOUR OWN ELECTORAL INTERESTS IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW
MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO -- WE
MAY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A
PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET
REELECTED OR FOR A PARTICULAR
SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS
AND MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT.
IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST FOR EVERYONE WHO IS
RUNNING TO BE ELECTED BUT FOR IT
TO BE IMPEACHABLE YOU WOULD HAVE
TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE A
DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
AS A HOUSE MANAGERS PUT IT,
CORRUPT MOTIVES.
IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE IF
YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE THAT
PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IMPARTIALLY INVOLVES
ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE
PERSONAL PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE
THAT THIS DECISION IS QUID PRO
QUO, AS THEY CALL IT, THE
QUESTION IS BASED ON THE
HYPOTHESIS THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO, I'M NOT ASKING THE FACTS
BUT THEY NEVER ALLEGE THAT IT
WAS BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL
REASONS BUT IT WOULD BE A MUCH
HARDER CASE IF A HYPOTHETICAL
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SAID TO A HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF
A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU
BUILD A HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON IT
AND UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A MILLION
DOLLAR KICKBACK I WILL WITHHOLD
THE FUNDS.
THAT'S AN EASY CASE.
THAT IS PURELY CORRUPT AND
PURELY PRIVATE INTEREST BUT A
COMPLEX METAL CASE IS CARLA, I
WANT TO BE ELECTED BECAUSE I
THINK I'M A GREAT PRESIDENT AND
THE GREATEST PRESENT THERE EVER
WAS AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER
GREATLY.
THAT CANNOT BE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> RECOGNIZED THE DEMOCRATIC
LEADER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND TO
A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY
THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL?
>> I WOULD BE DELIGHTED.
THERE ARE TWO ARGUMENTS THAT
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MAKES.
ONE IS I HAVE TO SAY A VERY ODD
ARGUMENTS FOR COMMITTAL DEFENSE
LAWYER TO MAKE AND THAT IS IT IS
HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION AND A TRIAL ABOUT THE
DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND INTENT
OR MENS REA.
IN EVERY COURTROOM IN AMERICA
AND EVERY COLONEL CASE OR ALMOST
EVERY CAMEL CASE, EXCEPT FOR A
SMALL SLIVER THAT ARE STRICT
LIABILITY, THE CASE QUESTION OF
THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF IS
ALWAYS AN ISSUE.
THIS IS NOT NOTHING NOVEL HERE
BUT YOU DO NOT REQUIRE A MIND
READER.
IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE AND I
WOULD ASSUME IN EVERY
IMPEACHMENT CASE YES, YOU HAVE
TO SHOW THE PRESIDENT WAS
OPERATING FROM A CORRUPT MOTIVE
AND WE HAVE.
BUT HE ALSO MAKES AN ARGUMENT
THAT ALL QUID PRO QUO'S ARE THE
SAME AND ALL ARE PERFECTLY
COPACETIC.
SOME OF YOU SAID EARLIER IF THEY
COULD PROVE A QUID PRO QUO OVER
THE MILITARY THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING.
WE HAVE.
NOW THE ARGUMENT SHIFTS TO ALL
QUID PRO QUO ARE JUST THE SAME.
I WILL PROVIDE PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ OWN TEST.
HE TALKED ABOUT THE STEP TEST.
A PHILOSOPHER SAID LET'S PUT THE
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND SEE
HOW THAT CHANGES OUR PERCEPTION
OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO
EMERGE THAT ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF
THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL COUNCILS
ARGUMENT WHEN THEY RESORTED TO
THE WHAT ABOUT ISLAM ABOUT
BARACK OBAMA'S OPEN MIC.
THAT WAS A VERY POOR ANALOGY I
THANK YOU WILL AGREE BUT LET'S
USE THAT ANALOGY AND MAKE IT
MORE COMPARABLE TO TODAY AND SEE
HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS
SCENARIO.
PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AN OPEN MIC
SAYS TO -- HEY, I KNOW YOU DON'T
WANT ME TO SEND THIS MILITARY
MONEY TO UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY
ARE FIGHTING AND KILLING YOUR
PEOPLE.
I WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR
THOUGH.
I WANT YOU TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION INTO MITT ROMNEY.
I WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE YOU FOUND
DIRT ON MITT ROMNEY AND IF YOU
ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, QUID PRO
QUO, I WON'T GIVE UKRAINE THE
MONEY THEY NEED TO FIGHT YOU ON
THE FRONT LINE.
DO ANY OF US HAVE ANY QUESTION
THAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE
IMPEACHED FOR THAT KIND OF
MISCONDUCT?
ARE WE READY TO SAY THAT THAT
WOULD BE OKAY IF BARACK OBAMA
ASKED -- TO INVESTIGATE HIS
OPPONENT AND WOULD WITHHOLD
MONEY FROM AN ALLIED THAT DID
NOT NEED TO DEFEND ITSELF TO GET
INVESTIGATION INTO MITT ROMNEY.
THAT IS THE PARALLEL HERE.
AND TO SAY THAT WELL, YES, WE
CONDITION ATE ALL THE TIME FOR
LEGITIMATE REASONS, YES.
FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS YOU MIGHT
SAY TO A GOVERNOR OF THE STATES,
GOVERNOR OF A STATE, YOU SHOULD
CHIP AND MORE TOWARDS YOUR OWN
DISASTER RELIEF.
BUT IF THE PRESIDENT WILL MOTIVE
INTO DEPRIVING A STATE OF
DISASTER RELIEF IS BECAUSE THAT
GOVERNOR WON'T GET HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENTS POLITICAL RIVAL ARE
WE READY TO SAY THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN SACRIFICE THE
INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT
STATE OR IN THE CASE OF -- THE
PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE
ALL QUID PRO QUO'S ARE CON
BLOTCH AND IS THAT REALLY WHAT
WE WANT TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO
THAT CONDUCT?
IF WE ARE, THEN THE NEXT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION
INTO YOU.
THEY CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THEIR
NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY FOREIGN
POWER.
THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE NO,
DONALD TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED FOR
DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING
THEREFORE, IT MUST NOT BE
IMPEACHABLE.
NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT EFFORTS
TO CHEAT AND ELECTION WILL
ALWAYS BE IN PROXIMITY TO AN
ELECTION.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T HOLD THE
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IN AN
ELECTION YEAR WHERE THEY ARE
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT ELECTION
THEN YOU ARE GIVING THEM CARTE
BLANCHE.
SO, ALL QUID PRO QUO'S ARE NOT
THE SAME.
SOME ARE LEGITIMATE AND SOME ARE
CORRUPT AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE
A MIND READER TO FIGURE OUT
WHICH IS WHICH.
FOR ONE THING, ASK JOHN BOLTON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR FROM IOWA.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> SENATOR GRASSLEY ASKS COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, DOES THE
HOUSES FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS
SUBPOENAS RENDER ITS QUOTE,
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THEORY
UNPRECEDENTED?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THE ANSWER IS YES.
AS FAR AS I AM AWARE THERE HAS
NEVER BEEN A PRIOR INCIDENTS IN
WHICH THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT
EVEN IN THE HOUSE AS IN TO THE
NIXON PROCEEDING, NEVERMIND IN
THE CLINTON PROCEEDING, WHICH
LEFT THE HOUSE AND CAME TO THE
SENATE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE CAN
BE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHEN
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING
BEYOND SIMPLY ISSUING A
SUBPOENA, GETTING RESISTANCE AND
THEN THROWING UP YOUR HANDS AND
GIVING UP INSANE THAT IS
OBSTRUCTION.
IN THE CLINTON SITUATION MOST OF
THE LITIGATION WAS WITH
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND
PRIVILEGE WAS ASSERTED AND
LITIGATION AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT
THE POINT IS THAT THE ISSUES
ABOUT THE PRIVILEGES WERE ALL
LITIGATED AND RESOLVED BEFORE
THINGS CAME TO THIS BODY.
SIMILARLY, IN THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN
THE HOUSE A LOT OF INVESTIGATION
HAD BEEN DONE BY THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND THERE WAS LITIGATION
OVER ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGES
THERE IN ORDER TO GET AT TAPES
OR TRANSPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN
TURNED OVER BUT THERE WAS
LITIGATION ABOUT THE ASSERTION
OF THE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO
THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA THAT FED
INTO THE HOUSES PROCEEDINGS.
IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY
UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO
ATTEMPT TO BRING A CHARGE OF
OBSTRUCTION INTO THE SENATE
WHERE ALL THEY CAN PRESENT IS WE
ISSUED A SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE
LEGAL GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR THE
INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA AND
THERE WERE DIFFERENT GROUNDS AND
I WILL REPEAT THEM ALL IN DETAIL
HERE BUT SOME WERE BECAUSE OF
SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO VOTE.
SOME THE SUBPOENAS WERE FOR
WITNESSES INVALID BECAUSE SENIOR
ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT HAD
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNITY FROM
COMPULSION FOR IT SOMEWHERE THAT
THEY WERE FORCING EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY
WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY
COUNSEL SO VARIOUS REASONS
ASSERTED FOR THE INVALIDITY AND
THE DEFECTS AND THEN NO ATTEMPT
TO ENFORCE THEM AND NO ATTEMPT
TO LITIGATE OUT WHAT THE
VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY MIGHT BE
BUT TO BRING IT HERE AS AN
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
I WILL NOTE THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAS SAID AND I AM SURE THEY WILL
SAY AGAIN TODAY THAT IF WE HAD
GONE TO COURT THE TOP
ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE SAID
THAT THE COURTS DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THOSE CLAIMS
AND THAT IS TRUE.
IN SOME CASES, ONE BEING
LITIGATED RIGHT NOW RELATED TO
FORMAL COUNSEL TO PRESENT FORMER
DON MCCANN, TOP ADMINISTRATION
JUST LIKE THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION IS THAT AN EFFORT
BY THE HOUSE TO ENFORCE THE
SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE THREE COURTS
IS A NONJUDICIAL BOWL
CONTROVERSY AND THAT IS OUR
POSITION WE WOULD ARGUE THAT IN
COURTS BUT THAT IS PART OF WHAT
HAS TO BE LITIGATED AND THAT
DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN'T HAVE IT
BOTH WAYS.
WE WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO SAY
THAT THEY HAVE AN AVENUE FOR
GOING TO COURT AND THEY ARE
USING THAT AVENUE FOR GOING TO
COURT AND THEY TOLD THE COURT IN
MCCANN THAT ONCE THEY REACHED AN
IMPASSE WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THE COURTS WERE THE ONLY WAY TO
RESOLVE THE IMPASSE.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY
THERE WERE MECHANISMS FOR
DEALING WITH THE DISPUTES
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND
CONGRESS.
THE FIRST IS AN ACCOMMODATION
PROCESS THEY DID NOT DO THAT BUT
WE OFFERED TO DO THAT IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OCTOBER 8
LETTER AND THEY DID NOT DO
ACCOMMODATIONS.
IF THEY THINK THEY CAN SUE THEY
HAVE TO TAKE THAT STEP BECAUSE
THE CONSTITUTION THE COURTS MADE
CLEAR REQUIRE INCREMENTALISM IN
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVES
AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SO IF
THEY THINK THAT THE COURTS CAN
RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE THAT'S THE
NEXT STEP THEY SHOULD DO AND HOW
THAT LITIGATED AND THEN THINGS
CAN PROCEED ON TO A HIGHER LEVEL
OF CONCENTRATION BUT TO JUMP
STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONFRONTATION DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT IS
UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> SENATOR SEVEN OH ASKS THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, WITH THE HOUSE
MANAGERS CARE TO CORRECT THE
REPRESENTATIVE RECORD ON ANY
FALSEHOODS OR
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE OPENING ARGUMENTS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ANNA
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT
TEAM HAS CLAIMED THERE WERE SIX
FACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET AND
WILL NOT CHANGE IN ALL SIX OF
THOSE SO-CALLED FACTS ARE
INCORRECT.
LET'S BE CLEAR.
ON JULY 25 AND THAT IS NOT THE
WHOLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US EVEN
THOUGH IT CONCLUDES DEVASTATING
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT
SCHEME PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT
WAS MADE CLEAR ON JULY 25 CALL
BUT WE HAD EVIDENCE OF
INFORMATION BEFORE THE MEETINGS
WITH MR. BOLTON, THE TEXT
MESSAGE TO MR. ZELENSKY PEOPLE
TELLING HIM HE HAD TO DO THE
INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHAT HE
WANTED AND ALL THIS EVIDENCE
THAT MAKES US UNDERSTAND THAT
PHONE CALL EVEN MORE CLEARLY.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CLAIMS
THAT MR. ZELENSKY AND OTHER
UKRAINIANS SAID THEY NEVER FELT
PRESSURED TO OPEN
INVESTIGATIONS.
NOW, OF COURSE, THEY DID NOT SAY
THAT PUBLICLY BECAUSE THEY WERE
AFRAID OF THE RUSSIANS FINDING
OUT BUT STILL IN SKI SAID
PRIVATELY THAT HE DID NOT WANT
TO BE INVOLVED IN U.S. DOMESTIC
POLITICS AND RESISTED ANNOUNCING
THE INVESTIGATIONS AND HE ONLY
RELENTED AND SCHEDULED THE CNN
MEETING AFTER IT BECAME CLEAR HE
WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE SUPPORT
THAT HE NEEDED AND THAT CONGRESS
HAD PROVIDED IN OUR
APPROPRIATIONS BUT THAT IS THE
DEFINITION OF A PRESSURE NOW,
UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER
SAY, DID NOT KNOW THAT TRUMP WAS
WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE UNTIL IT WAS PUBLIC
AND MANY WITNESSES HAVE
CONTESTED THAT, INCLUDING THE
OPEN STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY
FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE THAT
THEY KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
HOLD ON THE SECURITY MATTERS AND
IN THE END EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS
PUBLIC AND THAT AFTER IT WAS
UKRAINE DID RELENT AND SCHEDULE
THAT TESTIMONY.
WHAT THEY SAID NO WITNESSES THAT
THE SECURITY WAS CONDITIONED ON
INVESTIGATIONS BUT THAT WAS NOT
SO.
MICK MULVANEY, OTHER WITNESSES
TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKEDOWN OR
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BUT THE
IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU GET
A WITNESS WHO TALKED TO THE
PRESIDENT FIRSTHAND ABOUT WHAT
THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT HE WAS
DOING.
ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, THE FUNDS
OR AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, WERE
RELEASED BUT THERE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT
PROMISED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES
STILL HAS NOT OCCURRED.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS.
GETTING CAUGHT DOESN'T MITIGATE
THE WRONGDOING.
THE PRESIDENTS UNREPENTANT AND
WE FEAR HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
NOW, THE INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED
THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED
FEDERAL LAW WHEN HEAT WITHHELD
THAT EIGHT AND THAT MISCONDUCT.
IT IS STILL GOING ON IN ALL THE
AID HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED
AND FINALLY I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
SAY THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION, I
THINK, I'M SURE NOT INTENTIONAL
BUT THE PRESIDENT SURELY DOES
NOT NEED PERMISSION OF HIS STAFF
ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND THAT
INFORMATION IS OFFERED TO YOU AS
EVIDENCE OF WHAT HE THOUGHT HE
WAS DOING.
HE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE PURSUING
A POLICY AGENDA.
HE APPEARED FROM ALL THE
EVIDENCE TO BE PURSUING A
CORRUPTION, A CORRUPTION OF OUR
ELECTION THAT IS UPCOMING.
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
IT REQUIRES CONVICTION AND
REMOVAL.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
BOOZMAN, SALLY, BLACKBURN,
KENNEDY AND TOUHY.
>> THE SENATORS ASKED THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, DID THE
HOUSE FATHER TO SEEK TESTIMONY
OR LITIGATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
ISSUES DURING THE MONTHS DURING
WHICH IT HELD THE IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLES BEFORE SENDING THEM TO
THE SENATE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.
NO, THEY HOUSE DID NOT SEEK TO
LITIGATE ANY OF THE PRIVILEGE
ISSUES DURING THAT TIME.
IN FACT, THEY FILED NO LAWSUITS
ARISING FROM THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY TO SEEK TO CONTEST THE
BASES THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR
RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS ON THE
BASIS FOR WHY THOSE SUBPOENAS
WERE INVALID.
WHEN LITIGATION WAS FILED BY ONE
OF THE SUBPOENA RECIPIENTS, THAT
WAS DOCTOR CHARLES GOVERNMENT,
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR, HE WENT TO THE COURT
AND SOUGHT A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT SAYING PRESIDENT TOLD
ME I SHOULD NOT GO AND I HAVE A
SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE SAYING I
SHOULD GO SO PLEASE, COURTS,
TELL ME WHAT ARE MY OBLIGATIONS
AND THAT WAS FILED, I BELIEVE,
AROUND OCTOBER 25, TOWARD THE
END OF OCTOBER WITHIN A FEW DAYS
THE COURT HEADSET AND EXPEDITED
BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULED
A HEARING FOR DECEMBER 10.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HEAR BOTH
PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BUT ALSO THE MERITS ISSUES.
THEY WERE GOING TO GET A
DECISION AFTER HEARING ON
DECEMBER 10 THAT IT WOULD GO TO
THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES IN THE
HOUSE MANAGERS WITHDREW THE
SUBPOENA.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECIDED THEY WANT TO MOVE OUT
THE CASE SO THEY DID NOT GET A
DECISION.
NO, THE HOUSE HAS NOT PURSUED
LITIGATION TO GET THESE ISSUES
RESOLVED.
IT'S AFFIRMATIVELY AVOIDED
GETTING ANY LITIGATION AND IT
SEEMS TO BE IN PART BASED ON IF
YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORT THEIR ASSERTION
THAT UNDER THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT ASSIGNED TO THE
HOUSE, THE HOUSE BELIEVES THE
CONSTITUTION DEFINES, I BELIEVE,
THE EXACT WORDS ARE IT GIVES THE
HOUSE THE LAST WORD, SOMETHING
TO THAT EFFECT.
I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY
IT IS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
THEORY THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN
THEIR VIEW IT'S A PARAMOUNT
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND ALL
OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY -BASED
PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OR
IMMUNITIES OR ROLES OF THE OTHER
BRANCHES, BOTH JUDICIARY AND
EXECUTIVE, FALL AWAY.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN STAND
IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IF THEY ISSUE A SUBPOENA, THE
EXECUTIVE HAS TO RESPOND.
IT CAN'T RAISE ANY
CONSTITUTIONALLY -BASED
SEPARATION OF POWERS, CONCERNS
BUT IF YOU DO THAT'S OBSTRUCTION
TO COURTS.
COURTS HAVE NO ROLE FOR THE
HOUSE HAS SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S A DANGEROUS CONSTRUCT FOR
OUR CONSTITUTION.
IT SUGGESTS THAT ONCE THEY
FLIPPED THE SWITCH ON TO
IMPEACHMENT THERE IS NO CHECK ON
THEIR POWER AND WHAT THEY WANT
TO DO.
THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE
CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED.
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES WHEN
THERE ARE INTERBRANCH CONFLICTS
THAT THERE BE AN ACCOMMODATION
PROCESS AND THAT THERE BE
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES AND
THAT THE HOUSE HAD TAKEN THE
POSITION AND OTHER LITIGATION
THE MCGANN LITIGATION THEY ARE
TELLING THE COURTS THE COURTS
ARE THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE
THESE ISSUES.
AND THEY BROUGHT THAT CASE IN
AUGUST AND THEY ALREADY HAVE A
DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
AND HAVE AN APPEAL IN THE DC
CIRCUIT AND WAS ARGUED ON
GENERATE THREE, A DECISION COULD
COME ANY DAY.
THAT IS PRETTY FAST FOR
LITIGATION.
THEY HAVE DECIDED IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT THEY JUST DON'T WANT
TO DO LITIGATION.
AGAIN, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAD A
TIMETABLE AND ONE OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ADMITTED IT ON THE
FLOOR THEY HAD TO GET THE
PRESIDENT IMPEACHED BEFORE THE
ELECTION AND HAD NO TIME FOR THE
COURT AND FOR ANYONE TELLING
THEM WHAT THE RULES WERE AND
THEY HAD TO GET IT DONE BY
CHRISTMAS.
THAT IS WHAT THEY DID AND THEN
THEY WAITED AROUND FOR THE MONTH
BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE.
I THINK THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT IS
REALLY BEHIND THE CLAIMS THAT
IT'S URGENT THEN IT'S NOT
URGENT, IT'S URGENT WHEN IT OUR
TIMETABLE TO GET DONE BY
CHRISTMAS BUT NOT SO URGENT WHEN
WE CAN WAIT FOR MONTHS BECAUSE
WE WANT TO TELL THE SENATE HOW
TO RUN THINGS.
IT IS ALL A POLITICAL CHARADE.
THAT IS PART OF THE REASON, A
MAJOR REASON, THE SENATE SHOULD
REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
RECOGNITION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL'S ARGUMENTS THAT HOUSE
MANAGERS SEEK TO OVERTURN THE
RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND
THAT THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE
VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
FIRST, I WANT TO RESPOND TO
SOMETHING COUNSEL JOE SAID.
NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST FOR
LITIGATION INTO COURTS.
NINE MONTHS IS PRE- FAST IN THE
MCGANN CASE AND WE STILL DON'T
HAVE A DECISION YET.
WHAT IS MORE THAT IS THE VERY
CASE IN WHICH THEY ARE ARGUING
AS A QUOTED EARLIER, THAT
CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO COME TO
THE COURTS TO FORCE A WITNESS TO
TESTIFY.
HERE WE ARE NINE MONTHS LATER IN
THAT LITIGATION THEY SAID WE
WERE COMPELLED UNDER
CONSTITUTIONAL AND THEY ARE
SAYING IN COURT YOU CAN BRING
THIS AND IT'S NINE MONTHS AND WE
STILL DON'T HAVE A DECISION.
THAT SHOWS YOU JUST WHERE THEY
ARE COMING FROM.
IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE
PRESIDENTS DIRECTIVE BITE ALL
SUBPOENAS AND THEY ARE.
NIXON WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED
FOR FAR LESS OBSTRUCTION THAN
ANYTHING DONALD TRUMP DID.
THE ARGUMENT -- IF YOU IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT WHO ARE OVERTURNING
THE RESULTS OF THE LAST ELECTION
AND YOUR TURN UP THE BALLOTS IN
THE NEXT ELECTION BID IF THAT
WERE THE CASE THERE WOULD BE NO
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
BY DEFINITION IF YOU ARE
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT THAT
PRESIDENT IN OFFICE AND HAS WON
AN ELECTION BID CLEARLY, THAT'S
NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN
MIND.
WHAT THEY HAD A MIND IS THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS YOU MUST REMOVE
HIM FROM OFFICE, IT IS NOT
VOIDING THE LAST ELECTION BUT
PROTECTING THE NEXT ELECTION.
IMPEACHMENT POWER IS PUT IN THE
CONSTITUTION, NOT AS A
PUNISHMENT, THAT'S WHAT THE
CRIMINAL LAWS ARE FOR BUT TO
PROTECT THE COUNTRY.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT BEFORE THE NEXT
ELECTION WHAT YOU ARE REALLY
SAYING IS YOU CAN ONLY IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT IN THEIR SECOND TERM.
IF THAT WERE GOING TO BE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENT FOUNDERS
WOULD PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION A
PRESIDENT MAY COMMIT WHATEVER
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
THAT HE WANTS AS LONG AS IT'S IN
THE FIRST TERM.
THAT IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT ANY
RATIONAL FRAMER WOULD HAVE
WRITTEN AND INDEED, THEY DIDN'T.
THEY DID IT FOR A REASON.
THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED
THAT, IN FACT, THE OBJECT OF A
PRESIDENTS CROP TO SCHEME MIGHT
BE TO CHEAT IN THE VERY FORM OF
ACCOUNT ABILITY THAT THEY HAD
PRESCRIBED THE ELECTION.
COUNSEL HAS CONTINUED TO
MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT THE
MANAGERS HAVE SAID BUT WE ARE
NOT SAYING THAT WE HAD TO HURRY
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE
THE ELECTION BUT WE HAD TO HURRY
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING
TO CHEAT IN THAT ELECTION FOR
THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL IS WELL, YES, IT IS TRUE
THAT IF A PRESIDENT WILL TRY TO
CHEAT IN AN ELECTION BY
DEFINITION THAT IS PRIOR TO
THEIR REELECTION SO BY
DEFINITION THAT WILL BE
APPROXIMATE 28 ELECTION BUT YOU
KNOW,  LET THE VOTERS DECIDE
EVEN THOUGH THE OBJECT USED TWO
CORRUPT THAT BOTH OF THE PEOPLE.
THAT CANNOT BE AT THE FOUNDERS
HAD IN MIND BUT ONE THING I SAID
AT THE VERY OPEN OF THIS
PROCEEDING IS YES, WE ARE TO
LOOK TO HISTORY AND YES WE ARE
TO TRY TO DIVINE IN THE INTENT
OF THE FRAMERS BUT WE ARE NOT TO
LEAVE OUR COMMON SENSE AT THE
DOOR.
THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER THIS IS
FIRST TERM OR SECOND BUT IT'S
NOT WHETHER THE ELECTION IS A
YEAR AWAY OR THREE YEARS AWAY.
THE ISSUE IS DID HE COMMIT A
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND
IS IT A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO HOLD WITH
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO AN ALLY
AT WHARTON TO GET HELP ELICIT
MORE INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTION AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
IT IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT
TERM IT IS AND DOESN'T MATTER
HOW FAR AWAY THE ELECTION IS
BECAUSE THAT PRESIDENT
REPRESENTS A THREAT TO THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND
MORE THAN THAT A THREAT TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY.
AS WE HAVE SHOWN BY WITHHOLDING
THAT AID AND I NOTE THE
ARGUMENT, NO HARM NO FOUL, WE
WITHHOLD AN WITHHELD AID FROM AN
ALLY AT WAR AND SENT A MESSAGE
TO THE RUSSIANS WHEN THEY
LEARNED OF THIS HOLD THAT WE DID
NOT HAVE UKRAINE'S BACK AND WE
SENT A MESSAGE TO THE RUSSIANS
AS A LINSKY WAS GOING INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUTIN TO END
THAT WAR THAT ZELENSKY WAS
OPERATING FROM A POSITION OF
WEAKNESS BECAUSE THERE WAS A
DIVISION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND
UKRAINE.
THAT IS IMMEDIATE DAMAGE, DAMAGE
ON EVERY DATE AND THAT CONTINUES
TO THIS DAY, THE DAMAGE THE
PRESIDENT DOES IN PUSHING OUT
THE RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY
WERE IDENTIFIED DURING THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS AND YOU HAVE HEARD
IN THE SENATE AS RUSSIAN
INTELLIGENCE CAP AGAIN THE, THE
DANGER OF THE PRESIDENT POSES BY
TAKING VLADIMIR PUTIN SIDE OVER
HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES,
THAT'S A DANGER TODAY AND A
DANGER THAT CONTINUES EVERY DAY
HE PUSHES OUT THIS RUSSIAN
PROPAGANDA.
THE FRAMERS, IF THEY MEANT
IMPEACHMENT ONLY TO IMPLY IN A
SECOND TERM, WOULD HAVE SAID SO
BUT THAT WOULD'VE MADE THE
CONSTITUTION A SUICIDE PACT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND
IT'S NOT HOW YOU SHOULD
INTERPRET IT.
>> THE SENATOR FROM OHIO.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
GIVEN THAT IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS ARE PRIVILEGED IN
THE SENATE AND LARGELY PREVENTS
OTHER WORK FROM TAKING PLACE
WHILE THEY ARE ONGOING, PLEASE
ADDRESS THE OBLIGATIONS OF
ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO PRESENT AN
INCOMPLETE CASE TO THE SENATE
AND REQUEST THE SENATE TO SEEK
TESTIMONY FROM ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THIS BODY
FACES GIVEN THESE CALLS TO HAVE
WITNESSES BECAUSE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TRY TO VENT IT AS IF
IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT HOW
CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT
WITNESSES BUT IN REAL LITIGATION
NO ONE GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT
DOING DISCOVERY.
NO ONE GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT
HAVING HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES
FIRST.
YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT TRIAL AND
THEN START TRYING TO CALL
WITNESSES FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THE INDICATION HERE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR
TRYING TO RUN THINGS IN SUCH AN
UPSIDE DOWN WAY WOULD BE VERY
GRAVE FOR THIS BODY AS AN
INSTITUTION.
AS THE SENATOR'S QUESTION POINTS
OUT, AND LARGELY PREVENTS THIS
CHAMBER FROM GETTING OTHER
BUSINESS DONE, AS LONG AS THERE
IS A TRIAL PENDING.
THE IDEA THAT THE HOUSE CAN DO
AN INCOMPLETE JOB IN TRYING TO
FIND OUT WHAT WITNESSES THERE
ARE, HAVING THEM TESTIFY AND
TRYING TO FIND OUT THE FACTS AND
RUSH SOMETHING THROUGH EMBRY AND
HERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT AND THEN
START TRYING TO CALL ALL THE
WITNESSES MEANS THAT THIS BODY
WILL END UP TAKING OVER THAT
INVESTIGATORY TASK AND ALL THE
REGULAR BUSINESS OF THIS BODY
WILL BE SLOW DOWN, HINDERED,
PREVENTED WHILE THAT GOES ON.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF JUST ONE
WITNESS.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF PEOPLE
TALKING RIGHT NOW ABOUT JOHN
BOLTON BUT THE PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS
WITNESSES AND IT'S AS A MATTER
OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
THERE WOULD BE A LONG LIST OF
WITNESSES IF THE BODY WERE TO GO
IN THAT DIRECTION AND IT WOULD
MEAN THIS WOULD DRAG ON FOR
MONTHS AND PREVENT THIS CHAMBER
FROM GETTING ITS BUSINESS DONE.
THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO
THINGS AND AN UPSIDE DOWN WAY OF
DOING THINGS.
TO HAVE THE HOUSE NOT GO THROUGH
A PROCESS THAT IS THOROUGH AND
COMPLETE AND TO JUST RUSH THINGS
THROUGH IN A PARTISAN AND
CLINICAL MANNER AND THEN DUMP IT
ONTO THIS CHAMBER TO CLEAN
EVERYTHING UP IS A VERY
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO BE SET.
AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY WHATEVER
IS ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE BECOMES
THE NEW NORMAL.
IF THIS CHAMBER PUTS US ON THIS
PROCESS THAN THAT IS THE SEAL OF
APPROVAL FOR ALL TIME IN THE
FUTURE.
IF IT BECOMES THAT EASY FOR THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, DON'T ATTEMPT TO
SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES,
NEVERMIND LITIGATION, IT TAKES
TOO LONG BUT THEN LEAVE IT TO
THIS CHAMBER AND AS I SAID THE
OTHER DAY WHAT DO WE THINK WILL
HAPPEN IF SOME OF THESE
WITNESSES SUBPOENAED NOW THAT
THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO LITIGATE
ABOUT?
THERE WILL BE LITIGATION NOW
MOST LIKELY AND THEN THAT WILL
TAKE TIME WHILE THIS CHAMBER IS
STILL STUCK SITTING AS A COURT
OF IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO THINGS.
IT WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
SENATE IN TERMS OF THE WEIGHT
IMPEACHMENT OPERATE.
IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS
CHAMBER TO CONSIDER WHAT IT
REALLY MEANS TO START HAVING
THIS CHAMBER DO ALL THAT
INVESTIGATORY WORK AND HOW THIS
CHAMBER IT WOULD BE PARALYZED BY
THAT AND IS THAT REALLY THE
PRESIDENT AND IS THAT THE WAY
THIS CHAMBER WANTS EVERYTHING TO
OPERATE IN THE FUTURE?
ONCE YOU MAKE IT THAT MUCH
EASIER AND WE SAID THIS ON A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS IN
TERMS OF THE STANDARDS FOR
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BUT ALSO IN
TERMS OF THE PROCESS USED IN THE
HOUSE AND YOU MAKE IT REALLY WAY
TOO EASY TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
THAN THIS CHAMBER WILL BE
DEALING WITH AT ALL THE TIME.
AS MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER
POINTED OUT AT THE TIME OF THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HE WAS
PROPHETIC AND HIS WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL POINTED OUT THE OTHER
DAY ONCE YOU START DOWN THE PATH
OF PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THEY
WILL BE COMING AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN.
IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER THEY WILL
COME EVEN MORE FREQUENTLY.
THIS CHAMBER WILL HAVE TO SPEND
A LOT OF TIME DEALING WITH
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND CLEANING
UP INCOMPLETE HALF-BAKED
PROCEDURES RUSHED PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT FROM THE HOUSE IF
THAT IS THE SYSTEM GIVEN YOU IN
PREMATURE HERE.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT REASON FOR
NOT EXCEPTING THAT PROCEDURE AND
NOT TRYING TO OPEN UP THINGS NOW
WHEN THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DONE
PROPERLY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT
SUBPOENAING WITNESSES OR
DOCUMENTS WITH UNNECESSARY
PROLONG THIS CHILDHOOD ISN'T IT
TRUE THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE
THREE WITNESSES IN THE CLINTON
TRIAL WERE COMPLETED IN ONLY ONE
DAY EACH?
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE DIVIDING OFFICER IN THIS
TRIAL, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
RESOLVE ANY CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE
OR OTHER WITNESS ISSUES WITHOUT
ANY DELAY?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE ANSWER
IS YES.
WHAT IS CLEAR BASED ON THE
RECORD THAT WAS COMPILED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHERE
UP TO FIVE DEPOSITIONS A WEEK
WERE COMPLETED THAT THIS CAN BE
DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS FASHION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
RECORD THAT EXISTS BEFORE YOU
RIGHT NOW CONTAINS STRONG AND
UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL
AND PERSONAL GAIN AS PART OF A
SCHEME TO CHEAT IN THE 2020
ELECTION AND SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE THAT IS EVIDENCE
FROM WITNESSES WHO CAME FORWARD
FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS LIKE
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR.
HE IS A WEST POINT GRAD
GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR HERO.
INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS LIKE
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO GAVE
$1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
IN OPERATION.
RESPECTED NATIONAL SECURING
PROFESSIONALS LIKE LIEUTENANT
COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN.
AS WELL AS DOCTOR FIONA HILL
PAID 17 DIFFERENT WITNESSES,
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES,
TROUBLED BY THE CORRUPT CONDUCT
THAT TOOK PLACE AS ALLEGED AND
PROVEN BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE
AMBIGUITIES IN YOUR MIND THIS IS
A TRIAL, A TRIAL INVOLVES
WITNESSES.
A TRIAL INVOLVES DOCUMENTS.
A TRIAL INVOLVES EVIDENCE.
THAT IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON FOR
THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY AND THE
SENATE AND ITS HISTORY HAS HAD
15 DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
IN EVERY SINGLE TRIAL THERE WERE
WITNESSES READ EVERY SINGLE
TRIAL.
WHY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND HELD TO
A LOWER STANDARD AT THIS MOMENT
OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
IN FACT, IN MANY OF THOSE TRIALS
THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WHO HAD
NOT TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE AND
THAT WAS THE CASE MOST RECENTLY
IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL AND IT
CERTAINLY WAS THE CASE IN THE
TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON 37
OUT OF THE 40 WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WERE
NEW.
THIRTY-SEVEN OUT OF -- WHY CAN'T
WE DO IT IN THIS INSTANCE WHEN
YOU HAVE SUCH HIGHLY RELEVANT
WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON WHO
HAD A DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP INDICATING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING
THE AID BECAUSE HE WANTED THE
PHONY INVESTIGATIONS COUNSEL HAS
SAID THE GREATEST INVENTION AND
HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR
ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH HAS BEEN
THE VEHICLE OF CROSS EXAMINATION
BUT LET'S CALL JOHN BOLTON AND
LET'S CALL MICK MULVANEY LET'S
CALL OTHER WITNESSES AND SUBJECT
THEM FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND
PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
>> I HAVE TO SEND THE QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
>> SENATOR CORNYN ASKS COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRESIDENCY
AND THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AS THE HEAD
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE
ADVICE THE PRESIDENT CAN EXPECT
FROM HIS SENIOR ADVISERS IF THE
SENATE SEEKS TO RESOLVE CLAIMS
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR
SUBPOENAS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION
BY AN ARTICLE THREE COURTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR THE QUESTION.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
COMMUNE OCCASIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL KEEPING
THAT THOSE MEDICATIONS ARE
FINANCIAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT
PAID INDEX INVERSE THE THE
UNITED STATES THE COURT
EXPLAINED THAT THIS PRIVILEGE IS
GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE FOR
THIS REASON, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE
CANDID ADVICE THE PRESIDENT HAS
TO BE ABLE TO BE SURE THAT THOSE
WHO ARE SPEAKING WITH HIM HAVE
THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY
SAY IS NOT GOING TO BE REVEALED
AND THAT THERE ADVICE CAN REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL.
IF IT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL THEY
WOULD TEMPER WHAT THEY ARE
SAYING AND THEY WOULD NOT BE
CANDID WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE THE
PRESIDENT WOULD NOT THEN BE ABLE
TO GET THE BEST ADVICE.
IT'S THE SAME CONCERN THAT
UNDERPINS THE PROCESS OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT LIKE MEDICATION
DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
IF IT'S A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE BEFORE
COMING UP WITH A DECISION TO
DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES AND TO
PROBE WHAT OTHER WAYS MIGHT WORK
TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM AND TO
DISCUSS THEM CANDIDLY AND
OPENLY, NOT WITH THE FEELING
THAT THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IT
WILL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF
"THE WASHINGTON POST" THE NEXT
DAY.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE
THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WILL BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL YOU WON'T BE
CANDID AND GIVE YOUR BEST
ADVICE.
THAT DAMAGES DECISION-MAKING AND
THAT'S BAD FOR THE GOVERNMENT
AND BAD FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT MEANS
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH CAN'T FUNCTION
EFFICIENTLY.
THERE IS A CRITICAL NEED FOR THE
EXECUTIVES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THESE PRIVILEGES AND PROTECT
THEM.
THAT IS WHY THE SUPREME COURT
RECOGNIZED THAT IN NIXON VERSUS
THE UNITED STATES AND POINTED
OUT THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME
VERY HIGH SHOWINGS FROM ANOTHER
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT THERE
WILL BE ANY BREACH OF THAT
PRIVILEGE AND THAT IS WHY THERE
ISN'T AN ACCOMMODATION PROCESS
OR THE COURTS OF SAID THAT WHEN
THE CONGRESS AND THE LEGISLATOR
SEEKS INFORMATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVES AND EXECUTIVE HAD
CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST BOTH
BRANCHES ARE UNDER OBLIGATION TO
TRY TO COME TO SOME
ACCOMMODATIONS TO ADDRESS THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES BUT
IT IS NOT A SITUATION SIMPLY OF
CONGRESS IS SUPREME AND CAN
DEMAND INFORMATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE AND EXECUTIVE MUST
PRESENT EVERYTHING IN THE COURTS
HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE
THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE
FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.
HERE IN THIS CASE THERE ARE
VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE AND YOU
KNOW ONE OF THE POTENTIAL
WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE RAISED AGAIN AND
AGAIN IS JOHN BOLTON.
JOHN BOLTON IS THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT AND HE HAS ALL THE
NATIONS SECRETS FROM THE TIME
HE'S BEEN NATIONAL SATURDAY
ADVISOR AND THAT IS PRECISELY
THE AREA IN THE FIELD IN WHICH
THE SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED IN
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING
APPROACHING AN ABSOLUTE
PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND
COMMIT OCCASIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO FEEL THAT FOR
AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL SECURITY AS
THE CROWN JEWELS OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
AND SO, TO SUGGEST THAT THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER THAT
WE WILL JUST SUBPOENA HIM AND HE
WILL COME IN AND I WILL BE EASY
AND IT WON'T BE A PROBLEM THAT
IS NOT THE WAY IT WOULD WORK
BECAUSE THERE IS A VITAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AT
STAKE THERE.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE
INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY FOR EVERY PRESIDENT
TO PROTECT THAT PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE ONCE PRECEDENT STARTS TO
BE SET AND OF ONE PRESIDENT SAYS
I WON'T INSIST ON THE PRIVILEGE
THEN AND I'LL LET PEOPLE
INTERVIEW THIS PERSON AND I
WON'T INSIST ON IMMUNITY THAT
SETS PRESIDENT AND THE NEXT TIME
WHEN IT'S IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE
THE PRIVILEGE THE PRESIDENT IS
RAISED AND THE PRIVILEGE HAS
BEEN WEEKEND AND IT'S FOREVER
WEEKEND AND THAT DAMAGES THE
FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE TO
CONSIDER AND IT'S IMPORTANT IN
THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR
FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF OUR
GOVERNMENT AND THERE WILL BE
GRAVE ISSUES RAISED ATTEMPTING
TO HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
COME UNDER SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY
BUT THAT ALL HAS TO BE DEALT
WITH AND THAT MIGHT TAKE SOME
TIME BEFORE THINGS WOULD
CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR IS
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
ALSO FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
IF THE PRESIDENT WERE ACTING IN
THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL
SECURITY AS HE ALLEGES, WOULD
THERE BE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR
TESTIMONY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS
CLAIM?
IF YES, HAS ANY EVIDENCE LIKE
THAT BEEN PRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL?
... ...
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES TO HAVE 
A FAIR TRIAL.
IF HE IS ARGUING THERE IS 
EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A POLICY 
DEBATE PEOPLE WOULD LOVE TO SEE 
THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR MY FELLOW SENATOR 
CRUZ.
>> THANK YOU 
[SILENCE] 
SENATOR GRAHAM AND SENATOR CRUZ 
POSED THIS QUESTION FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS.
IN MR. SCHIFF HYPOTHETICAL: 
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD EVIDENCE 
THAT MITT ROMNEY'S SON WAS 
BEING PAID $1 MILLION PER YEAR 
BY A CORRUPT RUSSIAN COMPANY 
AND MITT ROMNEY HAD ACTED TO 
BENEFIT THE COMPANY WOULD OBAMA 
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK THAT 
THAT POTENTIAL CORRUPTION BE 
INVESTIGATED.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE 
HYPOTHETICAL IS A BIT OFF 
BECAUSE IT PRESUMES IN THAT 
HYPOTHETICAL THAT PRESIDENT 
OBAMA WAS ACTING OR EVIDENCE 
ACTING CORRECTLY WITH RESPECT 
TO HIS SON BUT NONETHELESS, 
LET'S TAKE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL ON 
ITS TERMS.
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE 
IF BARACK OBAMA HAD BEEN TRIED 
TO GET MEDVEDEV TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY 
WHETHER JUSTIFIED OR 
UNJUSTIFIED.
TO TARGET THEIR POLITICAL 
OPPONENT IS WRONG AND CORRUPT, 
PERIOD.
END OF STORY.
IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO 
RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT, 
RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE 
NATION SECURITY TO BENEFIT 
HIMSELF BECAUSE HE BELIEVES 
THAT HIS OPPONENT SHOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED BY THE FOREIGN 
POWER, THAT'S IMPEACHABLE.
IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON 
TO THINK ANY U.S. PERSON HAS 
COMMITTED OFFENSE, THERE ARE 
LEGITIMATE WAYS TO HAVE AN 
INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED.
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO 
HAVE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATION I WOULD SUGGEST 
FOR A PRESIDENT TO TURN TO HIS 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND SAY I 
WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY 
POLITICAL RIVAL, TAINTS 
WHATEVER INVESTIGATION THEY DO.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO 
HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCE FROM THE 
POLITICAL DESIRES OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND ONE OF THE DEEPLY 
TROUBLING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE 
CURRENT PRESIDENCY AS YOU DO 
HAVE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES SPEAKING QUITE OPENLY 
URGING HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TO INVESTIGATE HIS PERCEIVED 
ENEMIES.
THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE 
EITHER.
BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO 
YOU GO OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN 
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER 
TO INVESTIGATE YOUR ARRIVAL 
WHEN YOU THINK THERE IS CAUSE 
OR YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS 
CAUSE.
AND YOU CERTAINLY DON'T INVITE 
THAT FOREIGN POWER TO TRY TO 
INFLUENCE AN ELECTION TO YOUR 
BENEFIT.
IT'S REMARKABLE TO ME THAT WE 
EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THIS 
CONVERSATION.
IN OUR OWN FBI DIRECTOR HAS 
MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND 
SHOULDN'T REQUIRE FBI DIRECTOR 
TO SAY THIS THAT IF WE WERE 
APPROACHED WITH AN OFFER OF 
FOREIGN HELP WE SHOULD TURN IT 
DOWN, WE SHOULD NOT SOLICIT 
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERVENE IN 
OUR ELECTION.
AND WHETHER WE THINK THERE IS 
GROUNDS OR WE DON'T, THE IDEA 
WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN COUNTRY 
SECURITY HOSTAGE BY WITHHOLDING 
AID TO A NATION AT WAR, TO 
EITHER DAMAGE OUR ALLY OR HELP 
OUR ADVERSARY BECAUSE THEY 
WOULD CONDUCT INVESTIGATION 
INTO OUR OPPONENT, I CAN 
IMAGINE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES 
JUSTIFIED.
I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY 
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE WOULD 
WANT TO SAY THE PRESIDENT OF 
UNITED STATES CAN TARGET HIS 
RIVAL, SOLICIT ILLICIT FOREIGN 
HELP IN AN ELECTION, CAN HELP 
HIM CHEAT.
AND THAT'S OKAY.
BECAUSE THAT WILL DRAMATICALLY 
LOWER THE BAR FOR WHAT WE HAVE 
A RIGHT TO EXPECT IN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ENACTS THAT THERE ACTING IN OUR 
INTEREST.
I WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG FOR 
PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES TO 
BE ASKING FOR POLITICAL 
PROSECUTIONS BY HIS OWN JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO 
ENGAGE IN INVESTIGATION OF HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL BUT 
PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS WE HAVE 
SHOWN HERE, THERE IS NO MERIT 
TO THAT INVESTIGATION.
EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS AND YOU 
KNOW THERE'S NO MERIT TO IT 
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T EVEN WANT THE 
INVESTIGATION.
THE MORE ACCURATE PARALLEL, 
SENATOR, WOULD BE IF BARACK 
OBAMA SAID, I DON'T EVEN NEED 
YOU RUSSIA TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION, I JUST WANT YOU 
TO ANNOUNCE IT BECAUSE THAT 
PORTRAYS THE FACT THAT THERE 
WAS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS BECAUSE 
THE PRESIDENT DID IT EVEN NEED 
THE INVESTIGATION DONE.
HE JUST WANTED IT ANNOUNCED.
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE 
EXPLANATION FOR THAT EXCEPT HE 
WANTED THEIR HELP IN CHEATING 
THE NEXT ELECTION.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ASSIGNED A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
PETERS IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
DOES THE PHRASE "OR OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES IN MISDEMEANORS" IN 
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRE VIOLATION 
OF SENATE CRIMINAL CODE OR A 
BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST 
EFFICIENT?
THESE EXPLAIN.
ÃÃSUFFICIENT?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
>> THEY WERE VERY CLEAR THAT 
ABUSE OF POWER IS IN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IN EXPLAINING WHY THE 
CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW 
IMPEACHMENT EDMUND RANDOLPH 
WARNED "THE EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE 
GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING 
HIS POWER ". ALEXANDER HAMILTON 
DESCRIBES HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS HAS OFFENSES WHICH 
PROCEED FROM THE ABUSE OR 
VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
THE FRAMERS ALSO DESCRIBE WHAT 
IT MEANT, IT WAS IMPEACHABLE 
FOR A PRESIDENT TO ABUSE HIS 
PART IN OUR DOMINANT POWER TO 
SHELTER PEOPLE.
HE WAS CONNECTED IN A 
SUSPICIOUS MANNER FUTURE 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JAMES 
ODELL SAID THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
BE LIABLE TO IMPEACHMENT IF HE 
ACTED FROM SOME CORRUPT MOTIVE 
OR OTHER OR IF HE WAS WILLFULLY 
ABUSING HIS TRUST.
AS WAS LATER STATED IN ATREIDES 
SUMMARIZE CENTURIES OF COMMON 
LAW ABUSE OF POWER CURVES THE 
PUBLIC OFFICER ENTRUSTED WITH 
DEFINITE POWERS TO BE EXERCISED 
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A COMMUNITY 
WICKEDLY ABUSES OR FRAUDULENTLY 
EXCEEDS THEM.
WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS THAT 
ABUSE OF POWER WAS IMPEACHABLE, 
WASN'T JUSTIN EMPTY MEANINGLESS 
STATE.
THE FOUNDERS HAD BEEN 
PARTICIPATING WITH OVERTHROWING 
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, A KING 
WHO WAS NOT ACCOUNTABLE.
THEY INCORPORATED THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER INTO THE 
CONSTITUTION LATE IN THE 
DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE GIVING 
THE PRESIDENT MANY POWERS AND 
THEY SPECIFIED IF HE ABUSED 
THEM, THAT THOSE POWERS COULD 
BE TAKEN AWAY.
THE PRIOR ARTICLES 
CRIMES.
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CHARGED 
WITH ABUSING HIS POWER, 
TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS 
ENGAGING IN A COVER-UP.
THERE WAS CONDUCT SPECIFIED, 
SOME OF IT WAS CLEARLY 
CRIMINAL, SOME OF IT WAS NOT 
BUT IT WAS ALL IMPEACHABLE 
BECAUSE IT WAS CORRUPT AND IT 
WAS ABUSING HIS POWER.
IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE WE HAD WITNESSES 
CALLED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND 
DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICAN 
INVITED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
EXPERT JONATHAN TURLEY 
TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT 
IT'S POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A 
CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A 
NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE 
OF POWER.
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
INCLUDING THIS ONE HAS INCLUDED 
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED THE LAW 
BUT EACH PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT HAS INCLUDED THE 
CHARGES DIRECTLY UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A 
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION 
WAS NOT IN THE MINDS OF THE 
FOLDERS.
IT WOULD IT MAKE ANY SENSE 
TODAY.
YOU COULD HAVE A CRIMINAL LAW 
VIOLATION, YOU COULD DEFACE A 
PO BOX, THAT WOULD BE A 
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, WE 
WOULD LAUGH AT THE IDEA THAT 
THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS NOT ABUSE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.
IT MIGHT BE A CRIME.
YET YOU CAN HAVE ACTIVITIES 
THAT ARE SO DANGEROUS TO OUR 
CONSTITUTION THAT ARE NOT A 
CRIME THAT WOULD BE CHARGED AS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE 
THEY ARE IN ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS WORRIED 
ABOUT, THAT'S WHY THEY PUT THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION AND, FRANKLY, 
BECAUSE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE, NO EXECUTIVE WOULD YOU 
DARE EXCEED THEIR POWERS, 
REGRETTABLY, THAT PREDICTION 
DID NOT PROVE TRUE WHICH IS WHY 
WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVING ABUSED 
HIS BROAD POWERS TO THE 
DETRIMENT OF OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE, 
HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE b& 
SENATOR, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI.
>> THANK YOU SENATOR.
SENATORS ASKED COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT, DESCRIBED IN FURTHER 
DETAIL YOUR CONTENTION THAT ALL 
SUBPOENAS ISSUED PRIOR TO THE 
PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 
ARE AN EXERCISE OF INVALID 
SUBPOENA AUTHORITY BY THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEES 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
SENATORS FOR THAT QUESTION.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, 
THIS CONTENTION IS BASED ON A 
PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID 
OUT IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT 
CASES, EXPLAINING THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS POWERS TO 
EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH, TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, OR TO THE 
SENATE, AND PARTICULARLY THE 
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS 
CLEAR IN ARTICLE 1 THAT THE 
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS 
ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE.
AS TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AS A BODY, NOT 
ASSIGNED TO ANY COMMITTEE, TO 
SUBCOMMITTEE, OR ANY PARTICULAR 
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.
IN CASES SUCH AS RULE VERSUS 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
UNITED STATES VERSUS WATKINS, 
THE COURT HAS BEEN CALLED, 
THERE ARE DISPUTES ABOUT 
SUBPOENAS.
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT BUT 
THEY ESTABLISH A GENERAL RULE, 
A PRINCIPAL, THAT WHENEVER A 
COMMITTEE OF EITHER BODY OF 
CONGRESS ISSUES A SUBPOENA TO 
SOMEONE AND THAT PERSON RESISTS 
A SUBPOENA, THE COURTS WILL 
EXAMINE WHAT WAS THE AUTHORITY 
OF THAT COMMITTEE OR 
SUBCOMMITTEE'S ISSUE THAT 
SUBPOENA.
IT HAS TO BE TRACED BACK TO 
SOME AUTHORIZING RULE OR 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF, FOR 
EXAMPLE, IN-HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE.
THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR 
THAT THAT IS THE CHARTER OF THE 
COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY.
IT GETS ITS AUTHORITY SOLELY 
FROM AN ACTION THAT REQUIRES A 
BOAT OF ÃA VOTE OF THE HOUSE 
EITHER TO ESTABLISH BY RULE TO 
STAND THE AUTHORITY OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
IF THE COMMITTEE CANNOT TRACE 
ITS AUTHORITY TO A RULE OR 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE, THEN 
IT'S SUBPOENA IS INVALID AND 
THE SUPREME COURT IS MADE CLEAR 
IN THOSE CASES.
SUCH SUBPOENAS ARE NULL AND 
VOID BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND 
THE POWER OF THE COMMITTEE TO 
ISSUE THEY CAN'T BE ENFORCED.
OUR POINT HERE IS VERY SIMPLE, 
THERE IS NO STANDING RULE IN 
THE HOUSE THAT PROVIDES THE 
COMMITTEE'S THAT WERE ISSUING 
SUBPOENAS HERE, UNDER THE 
LEADERSHIP OF MANAGER SHIFT, 
THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS.
RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE DEFINES 
THE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OF 
COMMITTEES IT DOESN'T MENTION 
THE WORD IMPEACHMENT EVEN ONCE.
NO COMMITTEE UNDER RULE 10 WAS 
GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS FOR IMPEACHMENT 
PURPOSES.
THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE IN 
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION.
THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE FIRST 
TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO USE 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
IT ATTEMPTED TO ISSUE 
COMPULSORY PROCESS.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT REMAIN WITH THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF 
AND SPEAKER PELOSI BY HERSELF 
DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY MERELY 
BY TALKING TO A GROUP OF 
REPORTERS ON SEPTEMBER 24 TO 
GIVE THE POWERS OF THE HOUSE TO 
ANY PARTICULAR COMMITTEE TO 
START ISSUING SUBPOENAS.
THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED WERE 
INVALID WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED 
AND FIVE WEEKS LATER ON OCTOBER 
31 WHEN THE HOUSE FINALLY 
ADOPTED HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 
THAT AUTHORIZED FROM THAT POINT 
THE ISSUANCES AND SUBPOENAS, 
NOTHING THAT RESOLUTION 
ADDRESSED THE SUBPOENAS THAT 
HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED.
IT DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT.
IT DIDN'T PURPORT TO SAY THE 
ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN 
ISSUED WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO 
RETROACTIVELY GIVE AUTHORITY 
FOR THAT.
A SEPARATE QUESTION OF WHETHER 
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE 
LEGALLY.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO 
IT.
THIS IS ALL EXPLAINED IN THE 
OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL WHICH IS IN TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM ATTACHED AS APPENDIX 
C AND IT'S A VERY DETAILED AND 
THOROUGH OPINION, 37 PAGES, IT 
EXPLAINS ALL THIS.
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT 
APPLIES GENERALLY, THE HISTORY 
THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS 
WAY, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN 
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
BEEN IN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION 
FROM THE HOUSE AND THE FACT 
THAT THERE WAS NONE HERE.
THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR 
THOSE SUBPOENAS.
THAT MEANS 23 SUBPOENAS THAT 
WERE ISSUED WERE INVALID AND 
THIS WAS EXPLAINED AS I POINTED 
OUT THE OTHER DAY IN LETTERS 
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TO THE 
COMMITTEES, LETTER FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE, FROM OMB, THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT AND IN VERY 
SPECIFIC TERMS SET OUT THIS 
RATIONALE.THAT'S THE BASIS BY 
WHICH THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE 
INVALID AND PROPERLY RESISTED 
BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
IN FEDERALIST 65 ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON WRITES THAT THE 
SUBJECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE 
"THOSE OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED 
FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC 
MEN OR, IN OTHER WORDS, FROM 
THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST".
COULD YOU SPEAK PROBABLY TO THE 
DUTIES OF BEING A PUBLIC 
SERVANT AND HOW YOU BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS HAVE 
VIOLATED THIS TRUST?
[SILENCE] 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE 
TO SOLICIT A FOREIGN NATION TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR 
HIS OWN BENEFIT.
THEN HE ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTED 
CONGRESS IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS ABUSES OF 
POWER.
THESE ACTIONS ARE CLEARLY 
IMPEACHABLE.
THE KEY PURPOSE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IS TO 
CONTROL ABUSES OF POWER BY 
PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT IS TO SAY 
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE 
PUBLIC TRUST.
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE 
REPUBLIC ALL IMPEACHMENTS HAVE 
BEEN BASED ON ACCUSATIONS OF 
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES PUBLIC 
TRUST.
WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE THE 
PHRASE HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THEY INTENDED TO 
CAPTURE THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC 
OFFICIALS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WHO SHOWED NO RESPECT FOR THEIR 
OATH OF OFFICE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED THE LAW 
AND THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER 
TO GAIN A POLITICAL FAVOR.
THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS OATH 
OF OFFICE PROHIBITED HIM FROM 
USING HIS OFFICIAL FAVOR TOOK 
BENEFIT HIMSELF RATHER THAN THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID.
ILLEGALLY WITHHOLDING MILITARY 
AID AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
COMMITTED TO ANNOUNCING 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OPPONENT.
IN THE WORDS OF ONE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR "WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS 
IMPEACHABLE".
THIS IS PRECISELY THE 
MISCONDUCT THE FRAMERS CREATED 
THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING 
IMPEACHMENT TO PROTECT AGAINST.
I WANT TO ADD, REFERENCE TO 
SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE 
MADE BY SOME OF THE PRESIDENTS 
COUNCIL A FEW MINUTES AGO, THEY 
TALK ABOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER 
ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE HOUSE 
TO ACT PROPERLY IN SUBPOENA 
POWER BECAUSE THEY SAID THE 
HOUSE DID NOT DELEGATE BY RULE, 
HAVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 
THE COMMITTEE TO SUBPOENA 
POWER.
HE APPARENTLY HAD IT READ THE 
FACT THAT THE HOUSE HAS 
GENERALLY DELEGATED ALL 
SUBPOENA POWER TO THE 
COMMITTEES.
THAT WASN'T TRUE AT THE TIME OF 
THE WATKINS CASE, IT WASN'T 
TRUE 15 YEARS AGO BUT IT IS 
TRUE NOW.THE HOUSE IS A SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
MANNER OF ITS EXERCISE MAY NOT 
BE CHALLENGED OUTSIDE, WHETHER 
WE DO IT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
SHOULD BE CONVICTED ÃÃHOW WE 
REACHED OUR ACCUSATION IS THE 
MATTER SOLELY FOR THE HOUSE.
THIRDLY, WE TALK ABOUT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THEY POINT TO THE NIXON CASE 
THAT ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO 
CANDID ADVICE, THEREFORE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS 
ESTABLISHED.
THE SAME CASE SAYS THAT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE 
USED TO HIDE WRONGDOING.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT NIXON WAS 
AUDITED IN THAT CASE TO TURN 
OVER ALL THE MATERIAL.
THIRDLY, THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF 
WAIVER.
YOU CANNOT USE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE OR ANY OTHER 
PRIVILEGE IF YOU WAVERED.
THE MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THAT JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT 
TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAID 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM OF 
THE IMPROPER QUID PRO QUO AND 
HE WAVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
THAT MIGHT'VE EXISTED.
HE CHARACTERIZED THE 
CONVERSATION AND PUT IT INTO 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THEN 
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AGAINST IT.
THE PRESIDENT, BY THE WAY, 
NEVER CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
EVER.
HE IS CLAIMED INSTEAD ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY.
A RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
FROM ANY QUESTIONING BY THE 
CONGRESS OR ANYBODY ELSE A 
CLAIM REJECTED BY EVERY COURT 
THAT'S EVER CONSIDERED IT AND 
FINALLY, THE DIFFERENCE FROM 
THIS PRESIDENT IN ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENT CLAIMING PRIVILEGE OF 
ANY SORT IS THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
TOLD US IN ADVANCE, I WILL DEFY 
ALL SUBPOENAS, WHATEVER THEIR 
NATURE I WILL MAKE SURE THE 
CONGRESS GETS NO INFORMATION, 
IN OTHER WORDS, I AM ABSOLUTE.
CONGRESS CANNOT QUESTION WHAT I 
DO BECAUSE I WILL DEFY ALL 
SUBPOENAS, I WILL MAKE SURE 
THEY GET NO INFORMATION NO 
MATTER WHAT THEIR RIGHTS NO 
MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION.
THAT IS A CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE 
MONARCHICAL POWER.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> CAN I SUGGEST AFTER TWO MORE 
QUESTIONS ON EACH SIDE, ONE 
MORE, I'VE BEEN CORRECTED.
[LAUGHTER] 
AS I FREQUENTLY AM.
ONE MORE QUESTION ON EACH SIDE 
AND WE TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FROM THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> SENATOR ROBERTS ASKS, WOULD 
YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS MADE IN RESPONSE 
TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS 
>> DIRECTED TO THE COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, I WANT TO 
RESPOND TO A COUPLE, FIRST WITH 
REGARD TO THE QUESTION OR THE 
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AS 
IT RELATES TO WITNESSES IT'S 
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 
THE WITNESSES THAT ACTUALLY 
GAVE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WERE 
WITNESSES THAT EITHER BEEN 
INTERVIEWED BY DEPOSITION IN 
THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS, GRAND 
JURY PROCEEDINGS, AND 
SPECIFICALLY BLUMENTHAL AND NEW 
WITNESSES WERE NOT BEING 
CALLED.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE HOUSE IN 
THEIR PROCESS MOVE FORWARD WITH 
A FULL INVESTIGATION.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE.
THERE WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT 
THAT WAS RAISED BY MR. CHAIRMAN 
SHIFT, MANAGER SCHIFF REGARDING 
CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE 
DETERMINATION ON EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
WITH NO DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE, THE IDEA THAT THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER, THIS 
PROCEEDING COULD DETERMINE A 
WAIVER OR APPLICABILITY OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE 
QUITE A STEP.
THERE'S NOTHING HISTORIC 
PRECEDENT THAT WOULD JUSTIFY 
IT.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.
IF WE GET TO THE POINT OF 
WITNESSES, THEN, FOR INSTANCE, 
IF ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO BE 
CALLED WHEREBY THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS WAS ADAM SCHIFF AND THE 
ROLE OF KEN STARR, KEN STARR 
PRESENTED THE REPORT, MADE THE 
PRESENTATION BEFORE THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES, HAD ABOUT 
12 HOURS OF QUESTIONING I 
BELIEVE, THAT'S WHAT JUDGE 
STARR HAD.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF WAS 
CALLED AS A WITNESS WOULD IN 
FACT BEEN ISSUES OF SPEECH AND 
DEBATE CLAUSE PRIVILEGE BE 
LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER?
OR WOULD HE GO TO COURT?
OR MAYBE THEY WOULD WAIVE IT?
BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE KIND OF 
ISSUES THAT WOULD BE VERY VERY 
SIGNIFICANT.
SENATOR GRAHAM PRESENTED A 
HYPOTHETICAL WHICH MANAGER 
SHIFT SAID THAT'S NOT REALLY 
THE HYPOTHETICAL BUT 
HYPOTHETICAL IS ACTUALLY THAT, 
THEY ARE HYPOTHETICALS.
TO USE MANAGER SCHIFF WORDS YOU 
TALKED ABOUT IT WOULD BE WRONG 
IF THE FBI OR DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE WAS STARTING A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION OF 
SOMEONE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.
I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, ISN'T 
THAT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED?
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
THE FBI ENGAGED IN AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE 
FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WHEN THEY STARTED THEIR 
OPERATION CALLED CROSSFIRE 
HURRICANE.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE TARGETING A 
RIVAL, THAT'S AFFECTED.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE CALLING FOR 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN THAT.IN 
THE PARTICULAR FACT OF 
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE IT'S BEEN 
WELL ESTABLISHED NOW THAT IN 
FACT, FUSION GPS UTILIZED THE 
SERVICES OF A FORMER FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE PUT TOGETHER 
A DOSSIER AND THAT CHRISTOPHER 
STEELE RELIED ON HIS NETWORK OF 
RESOURCES AROUND THE GLOBE 
INCLUDING IN RUSSIA AND OTHER 
PLACES.
TO PUT TOGETHER THIS DOSSIER 
WHICH THEN JAMES COMEY SAID WAS 
UNVERIFIED AND SALACIOUS BUT 
YET IT WAS THE BASIS UPON WHICH 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
THE FBI OBTAINED FIVES AWARDS 
AND THIS WAS IN 2016 AGAINST A 
RIVAL CAMPAIGN.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO 
HYPOTHETICALS.
THAT'S PRECISELY THE SITUATION.
TO TAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL STEP, 
THIS IDEA THAT A WITNESS WILL 
BE CALLED IF THIS BODY DECIDES 
TO GO TO WITNESSES THAT A 
WITNESS WILL BE CALLED WOULD BE 
A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL 
FAIRNESS.
OF COURSE IF WITNESSES ARE 
CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THROUGH THAT MOTION, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL 
WITNESSES, WHICH WE WOULD.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
SENATOR.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
HARRIS IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID "WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS 
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL".
BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID "WHEN YOU ARE A STAR 
THEY LET YOU DO IT, YOU CAN DO 
ANYTHING,".
AFTER HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID THAT ARTICLE 2 OF 
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM "THE 
RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS 
AS PRESIDENT".
THE STATEMENT SUGGESTS THAT 
EACH OF THEM BELIEVED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.
A BELIEF REFLECTED IN THE 
IMPROPER ACTIONS THAT BOTH 
PRESIDENTS TOOK TO AFFECT THEIR 
REELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
IF THE SENATE FAILS TO HOLD THE 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
MISCONDUCT, HOW WOULD THAT 
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE?
[SILENCE] 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY THE 
FEAR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATTERN IN 
THIS PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN HIS 
WORDS, WHAT YOU SEE IS A 
PRESIDENT WHO IDENTIFIES THE 
STATE AS BEING HIMSELF.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT 
PEOPLE THAT REPORT HIS 
WRONGDOING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN 
HE DESCRIBES A WHISTLEBLOWER AS 
A TRADER OR SPY, THE ONLY WAY 
YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF SOMEONE WHO 
REPORTS WRONGDOING AS 
COMMITTING A CRIME AGAINST THE 
COUNTRY IS IF YOU BELIEVE YOU 
ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH THE 
COUNTRY.
THAT ANY REPORT OF WRONGDOING 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT TO THE 
PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT IS A 
TREASONOUS ACT.
IT'S THE KIND OF MENTALITY THAT 
SAYS UNDER ARTICLE 2 I CAN DO 
WHATEVER I WANT, THAT I'M 
ALLOWED TO DIE I'M ALLOWED TO 
FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.
COUNSEL HAS GIVEN A VARIETY OF 
EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FIGHTING 
OF ALL SUBPOENAS THEY MIGHT 
HAVE A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT IF 
THE ADMINISTRATION THE 
PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN 
ADMINISTRATION SAID WE WOULD 
ALLOW THESE WITNESSES TO 
TESTIFY BUT WITH THESE 
WITNESSES WITH THESE PARTICULAR 
QUESTIONS WE WANT TO ASSERT 
PRIVILEGE.
OF COURSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS 
DONE HERE.WHAT WE HAVE 
INSTEAD IS A SHIFTING SERIES OF 
RATIONALES AND EXPLANATIONS AND 
DUPLICITOUS ARGUMENTS, SOME 
MADE IN COURT AND SOME MADE 
HERE.
YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
SUBPOENAS ARE VALID BEFORE THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION AND THEN WITH 
RESPECT TO SUBPOENAS, ISSUED 
AFTER THE HOUSE A RESOLUTION 
LIKE TO MULVANEY, THOSE ARE NO 
GOOD EITHER.
YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT 
WE HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND 
THE COURT THAT ADDRESSES THIS 
SAYS, NO YOU DON'T.
YOU ARE NOT A KING.
THAT ARGUMENT MAY BE THOUGHT OF 
WITH FAVOR BY VARIOUS 
PRESIDENTS OVER HISTORY, IT'S 
NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANY 
COURT IN THE LAND, THERE IS NO 
CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR THAT 
EITHER.
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING 
RELEASED RIGHT NOW AS WE SIT 
HERE IN ITS MYSTERY OF THE 
COUNTRY AND DO SOME OF US, HOW 
ARE PRIVATE LITIGANTS ABLE TO 
GET DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT THAT 
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS WITHHELD 
FROM CONGRESS?
IF THEY WERE OPERATING IN ANY 
GOOD FAITH WOULD THAT BE THE 
CASE AND OF COURSE THE ANSWER 
IS NO.
WE WILL CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
THOUGH THE COURT SAYS THAT 
DOESN'T EXIST.
THEY SAID, ÃÃWHY WOULD THEY 
WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA ON DOCTOR 
COOPERMAN WHEN HE WAS ONLY 
THREATENING TO TIE YOU UP 
ENDLESSLY IN COURT.
WE SUGGESTED TO COUNSEL FOR 
DOCTOR COOPERMAN THAT IF THEY 
HAD A GOOD FAITH CONCERN ABOUT 
TESTIFYING IF THIS WAS REALLY 
GOOD FAITH AND WAS JUST A 
STRATEGY TO DELAY IF IT WAS 
JUST PART OF THE PRESIDENTS 
WHOLESALE FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS 
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO FILE 
SEPARATE LITIGATION BECAUSE 
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A CASE 
ALREADY IN COURT INVOLVING DON 
McGANN ON THE VERY SUBJECT.
THAT WAS RIGHT FOR DECISION 
INDEED THE DECISION WOULD COME 
UP VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
WE SAID, LET'S AGREE TO BE 
BOUND BY WHAT THE McGANN COURT 
DECIDES.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT AND 
IT BECAME OBVIOUS ONCE THE 
McGANN COURT DECISION CAME UP 
BECAUSE THE McGANN COURT SAID 
THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY, 
YOU MUST TESTIFY, AND IF YOU 
THINK PEOPLE INVOLVED IN 
NATIONAL SECURITY, I.E. DOCTOR 
CUPPERMAN AND JOHN BOLTON IF 
YOU THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY 
IMMUNE, YOU'RE NOT.
SO DID DR. CUPPERMAN SAID NOW I 
HAVE THE COMFORT I NEEDED 
BECAUSE THE COURT HAS WEIGHED 
IN.
THE ANSWER IS, OF COURSE NOT.
COUNSEL SAID, WE MIGHT'VE GOT A 
QUICK JUDGMENT IN DR. 
CUPPERMAN, YES, IN THE LOWER 
COURT.
DO ANY OF YOU BELIEVE FOR A 
SINGLE MINUTE THEY WOULDN'T 
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 
AND TO THE SUPREME COURT AND 
THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN 
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT 
THEY WOULD BE BACK IN THE 
DISTRICT COURT SAYING, HE IS 
NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ANYMORE 
BUT WE CLAIMS EXECUTIVE 
POSITION ÃÃTHAT IS A SIGN OF 
A PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES HE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
THAT ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERS HIM TO 
DO ANYTHING HE WANTS AND I WILL 
SAY THIS, IF YOU ACCEPT THAT 
ARGUMENT, IF YOU ACCEPT THE 
ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES CAN TELL YOU 
TO POUND SAND WHEN HE TRIED TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS WRONGDOING 
THERE WILL BE NO FORCE BEHIND 
ANY SENATE SUBPOENA IN THE 
FUTURE.
DEFINING ALL SUBPOENAS START 
BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO 
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO COMPLETELY 
IN A WAY THAT NIXON COULD NEVER 
CONTEMPLATED NOR WOULD THE 
CONGRESS OF THAT DAY HAVE 
ALLOWED, YOU WILL EVISCERATE 
YOUR OWN OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I SUGGEST WE RESUME AT 4:00 
P.M. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED.
[SILENCE] 
THE SENATE STANDS IN RECESS 
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME, 
THE FIRST DAY OF QUESTIONING BY 
SENATORS.
THEY HAVE ASKED ONLY SIX 
QUESTIONS IN TWO HOURS AND 
ABOUT 20 MINUTES.
THEY PLAN TO GO EIGHT HOURS 
TODAY AND EIGHT HOURS TOMORROW 
ON THURSDAY AND ASK THE 
QUESTIONS.
WE'VE HEARD 26 QUESTIONS IN 
OVER TWO HOURS TIME SO WE WILL 
SEE HOW MANY THEY CAN GET IN 
TODAY BEFORE THEY ADJOURN.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE SENATORS 
AND POSSIBLY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ATTORNEYS, MAYBE SOME HOUSE 
LAWMAKERS, COME TO THE CAMERAS 
THAT ARE STATIONED AROUND THE 
CAPITAL OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE 
CHAMBER, THERE IS MAJORITY 
LEADER MITT ROMNEY MAKING THEIR 
WAY OUT OF THE CHAMBER FOR A 
BREAK.
WE WILL SEE IF ANY OF THEM COME 
TO THE CAMERAS AND TALK AND 
WHEN THEY DO WILL BRING NEW 
THEIR COMMENTS.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE ARE GOING 
TO TAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS.
THE QUESTION FOR YOU THIS 
AFTERNOON IS, WHAT QUESTION DO 
YOU WANT YOUR SENDER TO ASK.
IF YOU LIVE IN THE EASTERN 
CENTRAL PART OF THE COUNTRY, 
202-748-8920, MOUNTAIN PACIFIC 
AREA 202-748-8921.
YOU CAN TEXT US WITH FIRST 
NAME, CITY, STATE, 
202-748-8903.
MANY OF YOU WATCHING THIS 
AFTERNOON PROBABLY WONDERING 
WHY CAN'T I SEE THE SENATOR 
WHO'S ASKING THE QUESTION?
JEREMY ART WITH C-SPAN TWEETS 
OUT AND REMIND YOU ALL, C-SPAN 
DOES NOT CONTROL CAMERAS IN THE 
SENATE.
THIS IS WHY WOULD A SENATOR 
SPEAKS TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, 
YOU SEE THIS.
ALSO FROM C-SPAN TWITTER 
ACCOUNT, IF YOU MISSED A 
QUESTION DURING THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, USE C-SPAN'S 
POINTS OF INTEREST TO JUMP 
DIRECTLY TO A QUESTION YOU 
CONFIDED IF YOU GO TO OUR 
WEBSITE C-SPAN.org.
ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN NEWS THIS 
AFTERNOON ABOUT THE QUESTION OF 
WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL 
JUSTICES.
ALEX BOLTON REPORTS THAT AFTER 
MITCH McCONNELL AND LISA 
MURKOWSKI MET THIS MORNING IT 
WAS CLEAR AT THE SENATE GOP 
LAUNCH THAT THE VOTES ARE THERE 
TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND TO 
MOVE FOR UP OR DOWN VOTE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES FRIDAY.
THERE'S ALSO THIS FROM SCOTT 
WONG, BREAKING CORY GARDNER OF 
COLORADO SAYS HE IS A NO ON 
IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES.
"I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED TO 
HEAR FROM 18TH WITNESS.
ALSO SCOTT QUAN SAYS COURT 
GARDNER, SENATOR GOP SENATORS 
LEAD WATTS TODAY PREDICTING NO 
WITNESSES IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, 
THEY ARE LOOKING TO WRAP THIS 
WHOLE THING UP BY THE END OF 
THE WEEK "WE WILL GET IT DONE 
BY FRIDAY, SAID CENTERED AROUND 
REPUBLICAN OF SOUTH DAKOTA".
AARON BLAKE SAID "TRUMP LOST 
COLORADO BY FIVE POINTS, BUT 
GARDNER NEVER REALLY WAVERED ON 
IMPEACHMENT".
HERE SENATOR TIM SCOTT.
>> THIS HAS BEEN A FAIRLY 
INFORMATIVE DAY LISTENING TO 
THE BACK-AND-FORTH CONVERSATION 
THROUGH QUESTIONS OF SENATORS 
BUT Ãb|
>> DO REPUBLICANS HAVE.
[INAUDIBLE] 
>> I THINK YOU SAW YESTERDAY IN 
THE PAPERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY 
THAT THE ANSWER IS, NOT YET.
I THINK THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU 
HEARD TODAY LED OFF BY SUSAN 
COLLINS IS SEEKING MORE 
INFORMATION THAT MAY HELP US 
GET TO THE PLACE WHERE THEY MAY 
NOT BE WITNESSES.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE THE 
VOTES YET.>>.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
51 SENATORS WILL MAKE THE 
DECISION AND THOSE 51 SENATORS 
WILL HAVE TO BE THOROUGHLY 
INVESTED IN THAT POSITION.
I DON'T THINK YOU WILL HAVE 
FOLKS WHO ARE VACILLATING BACK 
AND FORTH 
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
I WAS AMONG THE GROUP THAT GOT 
TOGETHER ON TRYING TO SEE WHAT 
WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH 
QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE JUST HAD TWO 
HOURS OF 16.
YOU WILL SEE THIS WILL PROBABLY 
EVOLVE AND IT WILL FOCUS IN ON 
MAY BE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT.
YOU NOTICED ALMOST WITHOUT 
EXCEPTION ANY QUESTION FROM ONE 
SIDE HAS BEEN AIMED AT THEIR 
SIDE.
AND ONLY A TIME OR TWO WAS AT 
THE OPPOSITE.
THAT IS SIMPLE.
JUST LIKE IN ANY DEBATE OR ANY 
TYPE OF COURTROOM 
CONSIDERATION, YOU WANT TO 
CONTROL THE DYNAMIC, I THINK 
THAT COULD CHANGE AS WE GO ON 
BUT SO FAR THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE 
SEEN AND THAT'S WHY.
>> I THINK IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY 
YOU WILL SEE EITHER SIDE ASKING 
QUESTIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE, 
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS YOU 
DON'T WANT TO GIVE SOMEONE AN 
OPPORTUNITY JUST TO THROW IT ON 
FOREVER WITHOUT ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION.
EVEN IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
REPUBLICAN, CHANCES ARE HIGH 
YOU WILL Ãb|
[MULTIPLE SPEAKERS] 
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
I THINK RON DID A VERY GOOD JOB 
TALKING TO ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
ARGUMENT AS IT RELATES TO QUID 
PRO QUO AND CREATING THREE 
TRANCHES.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU 
FACTOR IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
UNSPOKEN MOTIVE?
WE ARE GOING INTO READING MINDS 
AND THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE TRIED TO DO.
>> IT ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF 
WHAT IS THERE CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE THAT THE BIDENS WERE 
INVOLVED WITH THAT GETS 
DISMISSED AS DEBUNKED AND 
HANDLED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT 
WAS ELECTED.
I THINK THAT ALWAYS 
INTERTWINES.
HIS POINT IS, HOW WOULD YOU 
EVER DETERMINE WHERE ONE STARTS 
AND THE OTHER ONE FINISHES.
IT'S A SPECTRUM THAT WOULD BE 
DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE THE TWO.
[INAUDIBLE] 
IS IT UNHELPFUL WHEN ONE OF 
YOUR COLLEAGUES SAYS SENATOR 
ROMNEY IS TRYING TO EXCEED THE 
LEFT BY VOTING FOR WITNESSES?
WHAT SENATOR ROMNEY IS TRYING 
TO FIND THE FACT PATTERN THAT 
HELPS THEM COME TO THE 
CONCLUSION THAT'S IMPORTANT TO 
HIM.
MY POINT IS, I DO THINK MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
ARE TRYING TO TARGET VULNERABLE 
ETHICS SENATOR ROMNEY DOES WHAT 
SENATOR ROMNEY THINKS IS IN THE 
BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY.
>> I'M COMING TO TIM SCOTT'S 
RESCUE.
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
I THOUGHT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DID A GREAT JOB.
THERE WERE SO MANY UNTRUE, 
INCOMPLETE FAX, FOLKS, THERE 
WERE SO MANY UNTRUTHS 
INCOMPLETE FAX IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS CASES AND 
IN THE PRESENTATIONS AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS AND HAD A GOOD 
CHANCE TO REBUT THEM AND REBUT 
THEM VERY STRONGLY.
THE NEED FOR WITNESSES JUST 
CAME OUT EVEN STRONGER AS YOU 
HEARD THE BACK AND FORTH 
BETWEEN THE QUESTIONERS AND THE 
MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL.
A NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS WERE JUST 
DECIMATED.
DERSHOWITZ'S ARGUMENT THAT HE 
HAD TO BREAK THE LAW, TOTALLY 
PUTS RISK AND OUTLINE HOW MANY 
OF THE FOUNDERS SAID IT 
SHOULDN'T BE JUST A LEGAL 
CRIMINAL VIOLATION AND WHEN SHE 
GAVE ALL THE EXAMPLES AND ABUSE 
OF POWER, DERSHOWITZ'S 
ARGUMENTS WAS JUST FALSE AND 
TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH 
ALMOST EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL 
EXPERT AND HE COULDN'T ANSWER 
IT VERY WELL.
THAT'S WHY I INSERTED THE 
QUESTION LET THEM REBUT IF THEY 
DID, HOW ABOUT THE ARGUMENT 
THAT ALL QUID PRO QUO 0K?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE IT VERY 
CLEAR IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE 
FLOW IS.
IF THE FLOW IS SOMETHING LEGAL, 
THAT'S FINE.
IF THEY'RE SAYING INTERFERE IN 
THE ELECTIONS IN AMERICA, THAT 
IS AN ABUSE OF POWER IF THERE 
EVER WAS ONE.
>> HOW ABOUT THE IDEA THE 
MOTIVATION?
THEY SAID THERE MIGHT BE 
SEVERAL MOTIVATIONS AND YOU 
HAVE TO JUDGE IF ONE WAS OKAY 
AND THE ANSWER, WHICH LOOMED 
LAUNCH ONE HERE THE MOTIVATION?
ALL THE EYEWITNESSES.
NO ONE WOULD BETTER UNDERSTAND 
THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION THEN 
THEY WOULD.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD 
MORNING, GOOD AFTERNOON FOR US 
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF FAITH THAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL 
CONTINUE TO DO A VERY GOOD JOB.
>> MOST OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WERE 
DIRECTED ONLY TO HOUSE MANAGERS 
ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.
WHY IS THERE NOT Ãb|
>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE MORE OF 
THAT.
THE REASON WE DIRECTED 
QUESTIONS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
IS BECAUSE THEY NEEDED THE 
CHANCE TO REBUT THE FALSE 
ARGUMENTS, THE HELLACIOUS 
REASONING THE HALF-TRUTHS AND 
EVEN KNOW TRUTHS THAT THE THREE 
DAYS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
MADE, THIS IS WHERE FIRST 
CHANCE TO DO IT.
ONE QUESTION.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] MAKES NO 
SENSE WHATSOEVER.
I WOULD SAY THE STUDENT 
DECIMATED THE PROFESSOR.
ADAM SCHIFF SAID ÃÃTHE HEART 
OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
WHAT'S YOUR MOTIVATION WAS?
WHAT YOU ALREADY WHAT MADE YOU 
DO THE CRIME?
DID YOU HAVE INTENT CRIMINAL 
INTENT, WHICH CARRIES OVER ITS 
IMPEACHMENT?
I THOUGHT DERSHOWITZ'S 
ARGUMENTS WERE WEAK THE OTHER 
NIGHT AND THEY WERE JUST 
DECIMATED BY BOTH SCHIFF AND 
LOUGHRAN.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
IF JOHN BOLTON WANTED TO COME 
TESTIFY AND A SUBPOENA SIGNED 
BY CHIEF JUSTICE PAST AND 
BIPARTISAN WAY, HE WOULD BE 
HERE IN A DAY.
HE COULD GO TO COURT BUT HE 
WOULD BE TESTIFYING IN A DAY 
AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF HIS 
CLAIMS WOULD STAND UP.
I THINK THE ISSUE OF TIMING, A 
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, THE 
PRESIDENT, MITCH McCONNELL, 
KEEP COMING UP WITH NEW 
EXCUSES.
HOW ABOUT THE TIMING ARGUMENT 
WHEN WE WOULD HAD WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS IN THE BEGINNING, 
THEY SAID, LET'S WAIT AND HEAR 
THE ARGUMENTS AND WE SAID, 
AFTER WE HEAR THE ARGUMENTS 
YOU'RE GONNA SAY THERE'S NO 
TIME TO DO IT.
THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY DID.
WE COULD GET THE WHOLE THING 
DONE IN A WEEK OR TWO IN THE 
SACREDNESS AND IMPORTANCE OF 
GAINING ON THE FACT OF FIGURING 
OUT THIS VERY SOLEMN PROCESS TO 
SAY WE CAN'T WAIT A WEEK WHEN 
SOME PEOPLE THINK THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS IT FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES 
ONCE AGAIN TOO DO IT BEFORE X 
OR DO IT BEFORE WHY MAKES NO 
SENSE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AND 
HISTORICAL SENSE.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
>> YOU HEARD FROM A COUPLE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS, YOU HEARD 
FROM THE MINORITY LEADER, 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR CHUCK 
SCHUMER OF NEW YORK NOW IT'S 
TIME TO HEAR FROM YOU.
WHAT QUESTION DO YOU WANT YOUR 
SENATORS TO ASK?
GLENDA AND EAST ST. LOUIS 
ILLINOIS.
>> I LIKE TO ASK HENRY 
DUCKWORTH TO PLEASE ASK THEM AS 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
WHY THEY DIDN'T ASK THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD 
AND SPEAK PERSONALLY TO THIS 
ISSUE?
THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS ALL THE 
SOURCE NOT PART OF IT.
HE KNOWS EVERYTHING, OR SHE.
>> TONY, WHAT QUESTION DO YOU 
WANT YOUR SENATORS TO ASK?
>> I LIKE TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS 
UKRAINE DOCUMENTS THAT REVEALED 
A COMPLEX MONEY TRANSFER INTO A 
SLUSH FUND OPERATED BY JOE 
BIDEN'S SON, JOHN KERRY'S SON, 
PELOSI'S SON AND ROMNEY, THEY 
WERE ALL INVOLVED.
IN FACT, IF THIS IS TRUE, THE 
DEMOCRAT IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS 
A COVER-UP FOR A PLAY AND PLAY 
SCHEME BY THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION AND WHY ARE WE 
GOING AFTER THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES SAYING THAT 
HE'S GUILTY BEFORE THEY EVEN 
HAVE ANY FACTS THAT HE WAS 
GUILTY.
YOU CANNOT SAY HE'S GUILTY 
BECAUSE OF INTENT.
THEY ARE SAYING HE'S INTENDING 
TO DO SOMETHING AND THEY DON'T 
KNOW WHAT WAS IN HIS MIND.
I BELIEVE HE HAD THE RIGHT TO 
INVESTIGATE UKRAINE AND JOE 
BIDEN CORRUPTION BEFORE HE 
RELEASED ANY FUNDS, THANK YOU.
>> BOTH SENATORS FEINSTEIN WERE 
ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION DURING 
THE FIRST COUPLE OF HOURS OF 
QUESTIONING FROM SENATORS A 
TOTAL OF 26 QUESTIONS ASKED AND 
YOU SAW ALL THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
RESPOND TO A QUESTION OR TWO 
AND ADAM SCHIFF LEAD HOUSE 
MANAGER RESPONDING TO MULTIPLE 
QUESTIONS AND THEN FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM HE SAW PATSY 
BALONEY'S DEPUTIES RESPOND.
AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ RESPONDED 
AND THEN AT THE END HIS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY J SACKLER 
RESPOND.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN MR. SUE 
BALONEY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM 
THE SENATORS.
THEY HAVE 6+ HOURS OR 5+ HOURS 
LEFT HERE TODAY AND THEN 
TOMORROW TO RETURN FOR ANOTHER 
EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTIONING.
DEB IN LAKELAND FLORIDA, IT'S 
YOUR TURN.
>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY 
QUESTION.
MY SENATORS ARE RUBIO AND SCOTT 
FROM FLORIDA.
AND MINE IS A TWO PART 
QUESTION.
THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS 
STARTED FROM QUESTIONS IN THE 
CORRUPTION I'D LIKE TO 
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY FEEL THAT 
HUNTER BIDED MIGHT NOT BE 
IRRELEVANT WITNESS.
THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO THINK 
HUNTER BIDEN IS NOT A RELATIVE 
WITNESS.
SUPPOSEDLY HE WOULD BE A VERY 
RELEVANT WITNESS IN MY SECOND 
PART OF THE QUESTION WOULD BE 
FOR THEM IS THEY ARE SAYING 
THAT ALLEGEDLY TRUMPET DID THIS 
BECAUSE HE WANTED TO ADVANCE 
HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ABOUT 
HIS OPPONENT.
I GUESS I'M QUESTIONING THE 
LEGALITY OF THE SENATORS THAT 
ARE HIS OPPONENTS NOW THAT ARE 
VOTING TO HAVE HIM REMOVED FROM 
THE BALLOT.
THAT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE 
PROMOTING THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS 
BY DOING SO.
YOU THINK JOHN BOLTON IS 
IRRELEVANT WITNESS?
>> I THINK IT'S QUESTIONABLE.
I THINK IT WAS A VERY TIME THE 
BELIEF FROM THAT LEAK 
YESTERDAY.
ON HIS BOOK MANUSCRIPT.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS AWFUL WEIRD 
IN THE TIMING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I THINK IT'S 
CREDIBLE AND THERE'S NOTHING 
THAT SAYS YOU PUBLISHED ANY 
TRUTH TO HIS BOOK.
HOW MANY BOOKS HAVE BEEN 
PUBLISHED THAT DON'T 
HALF-TRUTHS IN THEM AND IT 
COMES OUT LATER THAT IT WAS A 
LIE.
>> WE REPORTED EARLIER THE 
WHITE HOUSE THREATENED LEGAL 
ACTION AGAINST THE PUBLICATION 
OF HIS BOOK, THE NBC NEWS IS 
REPORTING THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT 
HAVE NO CHANCE OF BLOCKING 
BOLTON'S TESTIMONY, COURTS 
OFTEN DECLINE TO GET INVOLVED 
IN EXECUTIVE PRISON STOMACH 
PRIVILEGE DESPITE THE DISPUTES 
TO BE POLITICAL AND NOT LEGAL.
HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL 
TODAY, MANY OF YOU PROBABLY SAW 
THE REPORTING THAT THE RUDY 
GIULIANI ASSOCIATE WAS ON 
CAPITOL HILL.
CAROLINE BREMEN A ROLL CALL 
PHOTOGRAPHER TWEETS THIS 
PICTURE OUT OF LAB PARTNERS, 
WEIGHTS IN THE OFFICE OF SENATE 
MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER 
TO PICK UP HIS TICKET TO ATTEND 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ON CAPITOL HILL.
THEN THERE IS THIS TWEET FROM 
TED CRUZ, WHEN THE TRIAL 
STARTED AT 1:14 PM SAYING 
"SCENES FROM THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL, SCHUMER INVITED HIM TO 
BE AS PERSONAL GUEST TODAY AT 
THE TRIAL, MINUTES AGO HE WAS 
REJECTED FROM THE GALLERY 
BECAUSE IS WEARING AN ANKLE 
BRACELET MANDATED BECAUSE IS A 
CRIMINAL DEFENDANT, ACCUSED OF 
SERIOUS FELONIES".
SENATOR SCHUMER RESPONDED TO 
QUESTIONS ABOUT ASKING LOVE 
TARDIS OR GIVING LAB PART IS A 
TICKET HE SAID (AS IN NEW 
YORK'S RESIDENT REACHED OUT TO 
HIS OFFICE AND HE GAVE A TICKET 
LIKE HE DOES TO OTHERS.
SCOTT IN BOONVILLE INDIANA.
>> HELLO BRADLEY.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT'S 
ABOUT THE BARISTA THING.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE OUR 
TAX DOLLARS GO TO HELP UKRAINE 
AND HE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO GO 
TO ANYTHING CORRUPT, WHICH 
UKRAINE AS EVERYBODY HAS SAID 
ON THE SHOW THAT EVERYTHING IS 
CORRUPT, WITH THE BIDENS BEING 
SO TIED INTO THE BARISTA THING 
AND MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, 
I COULD SEE WHY ANYBODY IN 
THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO 
MAKE SURE THE MONEY WE SEND 
THEM TO HELP THEIR COUNTRY 
DOESN'T GO TO THE CORRUPTION 
AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CORRUPT 
AND IF THE DEMOCRATS BACK TO 
THE BIDENS AND DON'T WANT US TO 
QUESTION THEM, THAT TELLS ME 
THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST AS 
CORRUPT AS THE BIDENS AND IT 
LOOKS LIKE AN EVIL FORCE TO ME.
>> SCOTT, YOU ARE BRINGING UP 
YOUR QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE 
FIRST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED 
TODAY BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS, 
SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR 
ROMNEY AND THE QUESTION WAS, 
WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT HAD MIXED 
MOTIVES HERE.
WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THAT AND 
JUST KNOW BEFORE WE DO THAT WE 
ARE A COUPLE MINUTES OUT FROM 
4:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME WHEN THE 
SENATE IS SLATED TO COME IN.
WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THEM TO PUT 
THE SWITCH ON THE CAMERAS AND 
SHOW US THE SENATE CHAMBERS.
WHEN THEY DO THAT WE WILL GO 
RIGHT BACK INSIDE THE SENATE 
CHAMBER.
IN THE MEANTIME, HERE'S THE 
FIRST QUESTION OF TODAY'S 
QUESTIONING TIME.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATORS RECOGNIZE.>> I 
SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI, AND SENATOR ROMNEY.
[SILENCE] 
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE 
THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED 
CONDUCT, SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF 
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN THE 
PROMOTING OF NATIONAL INTEREST, 
HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER 
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS 
ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE 1?
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, IN 
RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, 
THERE ARE TWO LAYERS TO ANSWER 
BECAUSE I LIKE TO POINT OUT 
FIRST THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS 
ONLY ONE MOTIVE, THE THEORY OF 
ABUSE OF POWER THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE ALONE CAN 
BECOME THE BASIS FOR AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, WE BELIEVE 
IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY 
DEFECTIVE.
IT'S NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO 
FRAME A CLAIM OF AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 
..... 
>> THERE'S ANY LEGITIMATE
PURPOSE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE,
ANY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THAT'S
THE STANDARD THEY'VE SET FOR
THEMSELVES IN BEING ABLE TO MAKE
THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR THEORY OF
WHAT AN ABUSIVE POWER OFFENSE
CAN BE, SO IT'S A VERY DEMANDING
STANDARD THAT THEY SET FOR
THEMSELVES TO MEET AND THEY'D
EVEN SAY THEY CAME UP AND TALKED
A LOT ABOUT THE BINDS, THEY
TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE ISSUES IN
2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE
BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING THERE'S
NOT EVEN ANY EVIDENCE OF
ANYTHING LOOKING THERE AND
THAT'S THED THE THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE TO MEET SHOWING THAT
THERE'S NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THE PRESIDENT
COULDN'T HAVE HAD PUBLIC
INTEREST MOTIVE BECAUSE THEY
RECOGNIZE THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO
A MIX-MOTIVE SITUATION, IF
THERE'S BOTH SOME PERSONAL
MOTIVE BUT ALSO LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE, IT CAN'T
POSSIBLY BE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO HAVE THE
SENATE TRYING TO CONSIDER, WELL,
WAS IT 48% LEGITIMATE INTEREST
AND 52% PERSONAL INTEREST OR WAS
THIS THE OTHER WAY, 53%, YOU
CAN'T DIVIDE IT THAT WAY AND
THAT'S WHY THEY RECOGNIZED THAT
-- EVEN A REMOTELY COHERENT
THEORY THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO
SET FOR THEMSELVES IS
ESTABLISHING THERE'S NO POSSIBLE
PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL FOR THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY,
IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS
A POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE,
THAT DESTROYS THEIR CASE, SO
ONCE YOU'RE INTO MIX-MOTIVE
LAND, IT'S CLEAR THAT THEIR CASE
FAILS, THERE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL.
THINK ABOUT IT, ALL OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO SOME EXTENT HAVE IN
MIND HOW THEIR CONTACT, HOW
THEIR DECISIONS, POLICY
DECISIONS WILL AFFECT THE NEXT
ELECTION, THERE'S ALWAYS SOME
PERSONAL INTEREST IF THE
ELECTORAL OUTCOME OF POLICY
DECISIONS AND THERE'S NOTHING
WRONG WITH THAT, THAT'S PART OF
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND TO
GO START SAYING NOW, WELL, IF
YOU HAVE A PART MOTIVE THAT'S
FOR YOUR PERSONAL ELECTORAL
GAIN, THAT THAT'S SOMEHOW GOING
TO BECOME AN OFFENSE, IT DOESN'T
MAKE ANY SENSE?
IT'S TOTALLY UNWORKABLE AND IT
CAN'T BE A BASIS FOR REMOVING A
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE, SO THE
BOTTOM LINE IS ONCE YOU'RE INTO
ANY MIX MOTIVE SITUATION, ONCE
IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS
A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST
THAT COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING INTO
SOMETHING, JUST ASKING A
QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, THE
MANAGER'S CASE FAILS AND IT
FAILS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS,
THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO
SHOW NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC
INTEREST, THERE ISN'T ANY
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND
THEY'VE TOTALLY FAIL TODAY MAKE
THAT CASE, I THINK WE HAVE SHOWN
CLEARLY THAT BOTH OF THE THINGS
THAT WERE MENTIONED,
INTERFERENCE AND BARISM
SITUATION ARE THINGS THAT RAISE
SOME PUBLIC INTEREST, THERE'S
SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT
THERE, IT'S NEVER BEEN
INVESTIGATED IN THE BIDEN
SITUATION, LOTS OF THEIR OWN
WITNESSES FROM STATE DEPARTMENTS
SAID THAT ON ITS FACE IT APPEARS
TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
IT'S AT LEAST WORTH RAISING OR
QUESTION ABOUT IT AND THERE'S
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT
MEANS THAT THE CASE ABSOLUTELY
FAILS.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS FROM EARLIER TODAY,
THE VERY FIRST QUESTION IN THE
SENATE QUESTIONING TIME, NOW WE
ARE EXPECTING THE CHAMBER TO
COME BACK INTO SESSION HERE ANY
MOMENT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE
SCREEN, WE DON'T CONTROL THE
CAMERAS, SO WHEN THEY COME BACK
IN, WE WILL QUICK I WILL GO
INSIDE THE CHAMBER FOR OUR GAVEL
TO GAVEL COVERAGE HERE ON
C-SPAN2, IN THE MEANTIME MIKE IN
IOWA, WE ARE ASKING YOU, FOLKS,
TODAY WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU
WANT YOUR SENATOR TO ASK, YOUR
SENATOR, SENATOR GRASSLEY DID
GET TO ASK A QUESTION, WHAT
WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO ASK?
>> A LADY CALLED IN YESTERDAY
AND MADE A GOOD POINT, THAT
WOULD BE MY QUESTION, WHY ARE
THE SENATORS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE
ON IMPEACHMENT?
THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE -- JUST
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THAT WOULD
BE MY QUESTION, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, RICKY IN PENNSYLVANIA.
HI, RICKY.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY
QUESTION TOO, IF THE PRESIDENT
WAS CONSIDERED CHECKING IN ON
HIS OPPONENT FOR THE NEXT
ELECTION TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN
IT THAT WHY ARE THE SENATORS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ALLOWED TO
VOTE ON THE IMPEACHMENT?
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, RICKY, WE CAN SEE
ALSO ON YOUR SCREEN OUTSIDE OF
SENATE CHAMBER, THE SENATORS
STARTING TO MAKE THEIR WAY BACK
IN AND, OF COURSE, THEY RUN INTO
REPORTERS ALONG THE WAY THAT
WANT TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS,
THERE'S CAMERA STAKE-OUT
POSITIONS, A COUPLE OF PLACES
THROUGHOUT THE CAPITOL, OUTSIDE
OF THE CHAMBER AND WE WILL SEE
IF THESE SENATORS CAN GET, MAKE
THEIR WAY IN SO THEY CAN RESUME
THE PROCEEDINGS THIS AFTERNOON.
ALSO I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU
THIS TWEET BY KYLE CHENEY WHO
BROKE THIS NEWS EARLIER TODAY
THAT
--
>> TEMPORARY PAUSE OF 48 DAYS ON
FUTURE AID THAT WOULD BE
DELIVERED TO UKRAINE OR
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S STEADFAST
REFUSAL TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID
FOR 3 YEARS, MORE THAN 1,000
DAYS WHILE UKRAINE ATTEMPT TODAY
HOLD BACK RUSSIA'S INVASION AND
PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU,
SENATORS FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND I THINK IT WAS FAR MORE
SERIOUS AND FOR MORE JEOPARDY
FOR THE UKRAINIANS, THE DECISION
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO
NOT USE THE AUTHORITY THAT WAS
GIVEN BY CONGRESS THAT MANY OF
YOU ALL AND MANY MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED
FOR GIVING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID TO
UKRAINIANS AND OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT TO
PROVIDE THE AID, AND MULTIPLE
WITNESSES WHO ARE CALLED IN THE
HOUSE, BY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS,
TESTIFIED THAT THE UNITED STATES
POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE GOT
STRONGER UNDER THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IN PART LARGELY
BECAUSE OF THAT LETHAL AID,
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT PROVIDING THE AID
WAS GREATER SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE
THAN PROVIDED FROM THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, PARTICULARLY THE
ISSUE OF ANTITANK MISSILES WHICH
WERE LETHAL AND KILL RUSSIAN
TANKS AND KILL CALCULUS IN
REGION IN EASTERN PORTION OF
UKRAINE WHERE THE CONFLICT IS
STILL ONGOING.
IN TERMS OF THE PAUSE, THE
TEMPORARY PAUSE ON AID HERE, THE
TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD WITH THE
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID ABOUT
THEIR SPECULATION AND THEY KNOW
WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE DENIED AID,
THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS
THAT THIS TEMPORARY PAUSE WAS
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
THE BRIEF PAUSE IN RELEASING THE
AID WAS, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, NOT
SIGNIFICANT AND UNDER SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
DAVID HAYLE EXPLAINED THIS WAS
CRITICAL NOT TO KEEP GOING NOW.
IT WAS MONEY, 5-YEAR MONEY, ONCE
IT'S OBLIGATED IT'S THERE FOR 5
YEARS AND IT USUALLY TAKES QUITE
A BIT OF TIME TO SPEND ALL OF
IT, SO THE IDEA SOMEHOW THAT
DURING THE COUPLE OF MONTHS IN
JULY, AUGUST AND UP TO SEPTEMBER
SEPTEMBER 11TH, 55 OR 48 DAYS
DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNTED
DENYING CRITICAL ASSISTANCE IS
SIMPLY NOT TRUE, NOW THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE TRIED TO PIVOT
AWAY FROM THAT BECAUSE THEY KNOW
IT'S NOT TRUE, THEY KNOW IT WAS
SIGNAL TO THE RUSSIANS, IT WAS A
SIGNAL OF LACK OF SUPPORT THAT
THE RUSSIANS WOULD PICK UP ON
BUT HERE AGAIN IT'S CRITICAL,
EVEN UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW THAT
THE AID HAD BEEN PAUSED AND PART
OF THE REASON WAS THEY NEVER
BROUGHT IT UP IN ANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT AND AS AMBASSADOR
VOLKER TESTIFIED REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DIDN'T
BRING IT UP TO THEM BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW, THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO PUT OUT ANY
SIGNAL THAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED
BY THE RUSSIANS OR BY THE
UKRAINIANS AS ANY SIGN OF LACK
OF SUPPORT, IT WAS KEPT INTERNAL
TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
THEY'VE POINTED TO SOME EMAILS
THAT SOMEONE AT THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF
STATE WHERE COOPER RECEIVED FROM
UNNAMED EMBASSY STAFFERS
SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS A
QUESTION ABOUT THE AID, HER
TESTIMONY WAS SHE COULDN'T EVEN
REMEMBER WHAT THE QUESTION
REALLY WAS AND SHE DIDN'T WANT
TO SPECULATE.
THERE'S NOT EVIDENCE IN ANY
DECISION-MAKERS IN THE UKRAINE
GOVERNMENT NEW -- KNEW ABOUT THE
PAUSE AND JUST THE OTHER DAY
ANOTHER ARTICLE CAME OUT, I
BELIEVE IT WAS FROM THE FOREIGN
MINISTER EXPLAINING THAT WHEN
THE POLITICAL ARTICLE WAS
PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 28TH THERE
WAS PANIC BECAUSE IT WAS THE
FIRST TIME THEY REALIZED THAT
THERE WAS ANY PAUSE ON THE AID.
SO THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT
WAS PROVIDING ANY SIGNAL EITHER
TO THE UKRAINIANS OR THE
RUSSIANS BECAUSE IT WASN'T
KNOWN, IT WAS TWO WEEKS LATER
AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT THE
AID WAS RELEASED.
THE TESTIMONY AND THE RECORD IS
THAT THE PAUSE WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT, IT WAS FUTURE
MONEY, NOT FOR CURRENT PURCHASES
AND IT WAS RELEASED BEFORE THE
END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THEY
POINT OUT THAT SOME OF IT WASN'T
OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE
FISCAL YEAR, THAT HAPPENS EVERY
YEAR, THERE'S SOME PERCENTAGE
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT THE
DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND,
AGAIN, IT'S 5-YEAR MONEY, IT'S
NOT LIKE IT'S ALL GOING TO BE
SPENT IN THE NEXT 30, 60, 90
DAYS ANYWAY, SO THE FACT THERE'S
A LITTLE FIX CONGRESS PASSED A
FICTION TO ALLOW $35 MILLION TO
BE SPENT, SOMETHING SIMILAR
HAPPENS FOR SOME AMOUNT ALMOST
EVERY YEAR AND NOT AFFECTING
CURRENT PURCHASES, IT WASN'T
JEOPARDIZING ANYTHING AT THE
FRONT LINE, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
ABOUT THAT IN THE RECORD.
THE EVIDENCE IS TO CONTRARY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR FROM MAINE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO BOTH
SETS TO COUNSEL WHICH I'M
SENDING TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION TO SENATOR KING
IS FOR HOUSE PRESIDENT AND THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF
GENERAL JOHN KELLY HAS
REPORTEDLY SAID, QUOTE, I
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON, END QUOTE
AND SUGGEST BOLTON SHOULD
TESTIFY SAYING, QUOTE, IF THERE
ARE PEOPLE THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE
TO THIS EITHER INNOCENCE OR
GUILT, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE
HEARD, END QUOTE.
DO YOU AGREE WITH GENERAL KELLY
THAT THEY SHOULD BE HEARD?
I THINK COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT IT'S YOUR TURNING TO
FIRST.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THIS WAS
A BIT OF A TOPIC THAT I
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AND THAT WAS
THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT IN
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" PIECE ABOUT
WHAT IS PURPORTEDLY IN A BOOK BY
AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
NOW, AS I'VE SAID THE IDEA THAT
A MANUSCRIPT IS NOT IN THE BOOK,
THERE'S NOT A QUOTE FROM THE
MANUSCRIPT IN THE BOOK, THIS IS
A PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE
STATEMENT MIGHT BE, THERE HAVE
BEEN VERY FORCEFUL STATEMENTS
NOT JUST FROM THE PRESIDENT BUT
FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATED
THAT WHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE HAS NOT REVIEWED
MR. BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT "THE NEW
YORK TIMES" ACCOUNTED THIS
CONVERSATION GROSSLY
MISCHARACTERIZES WHAT ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR AND MR. BOLTON
DISCUSSED, THERE WAS NO PERSONAL
FAVORS OR INFLUENCE ON
INVESTIGATION NOR DID ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR STATE THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATIONS WITH
FOREIGN LEADERS WERE IMPROPER,
SO, AGAIN, THAT GOES TO SOME SOF
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE --
THAT WERE IN THE ARTICLE.
THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID THE SAME
THING, HE SAID IN EVERY
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
AND VICE PRESIDENT IN
PREPARATION FOR OUR TRIP TO
POLAND, THE PRESIDENT
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED
FRUSTRATION THAT THE UNITED
STATES WAS BEARING SHARE OF
RESPONSIBILITY AND THERE'S ALSO
AN INTERVIEW THAT AMBASSADOR
BOLTON HAD GIVEN I THINK IN
AUGUST ABOUT THE CONVERSATION
WHERE HE SAID IT WAS A PERFECTLY
APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION, I
THINK THAT INFORMATION IS
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE NOW.
SO, AGAIN, TO MOVE THAT INTO A
-- A CHANGE IN PROCEEDING, SO TO
SPEAK, I THINK IS NOT CORRECT,
THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY
BEEN PRESENTED, AN ACCUSATION
THAT IF YOU GET INTO WITNESSES,
I WILL DO THIS BRIEFLY, IF YOU
GET DOWN ON THE ROAD OF THE
WITNESS ISSUES, LET'S BE CLEAR,
IT SHOULD NOT BE, I CERTAINLY
CAN'T DICTATE TO THIS BODY, IT
SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE, THOUGH,
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET JOHN
BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS GET NO WITNESSES, WE
WOULD EXPECT IF THEY'RE GOING TO
GET WITNESSES, WE WOULD GET
WITNESSES AND THOSE WITNESSES
WOULD THEN, BUT ALL THAT JUST TO
BE CLEAR CHANGES THE NATURE AND
SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THEY
DIDN'T ASK FOR BEFORE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> SENATOR, JUSTICE, WHAT'S THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF FORMER CHIEF OF
STAFF SAYING THAT HE BELIEVES
JOHN BOLTON AND IMPLICITLY DOES
NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT, THAT
BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY, IT'S
REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY NOT
WHETHER I BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON OR
WHETHER GENERAL KELLY BELIEVES
JOHN BOLTON, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE
JOHN BOLTON, WHETHER YOU'LL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY
FROM JOHN BOLTON, WHETHER YOU
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE
HIS CREDIBILITY FOR YOURSELF,
NOW, THERE ARE A FEW ARGUMENTS
MADE AGAINST THIS, SOME ARE
RATHER EXTRAORDINARY, IT WOULD
BE UNPRECEDENTED THE SUGGESTION
I THINK IS TO HAVE WITNESSES IN
THE TRIAL, WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY
IDEA, BUT AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
SAID IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY
NOT TO, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY
THAT INVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF
YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO
HEAR FROM ANY, THAT YOU SIMPLY
WANT TO RELY ON WHAT WAS
INVESTIGATED IN THE HOUSE.
THAT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED.
YES, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL
WITNESSES AND, YES, SO SHOULD
THE PRESIDENT RELEVANT
WITNESSES, NOW, THE PRESIDENT
SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T BELIEVE JOHN
BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY SAYS
YOU CAN'T BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON,
WELL, LET THE PRESIDENT CALL
MICK MULVANEY, ANOTHER RELEVANT
WITNESS WITH FIRSTHAND
INFORMATION IF HE'S WILLING TO
SAY PUBLICLY NOT UNDER OATH THAT
BOLTON IS WRONG, LET HIM COME
AND SAY THAT UNDER OATH.
YES, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT ONE
SIDE GETS TO CALL WITNESSES,
BOTH SIDES GET TO CALL RELEVANT
WITNESSES, NOW THEY ALSO MAKE
THE ARGUMENT IMPLICITLY, THIS IS
GOING TO TAKE LONG, SENATORS
HAVE TO WARN YOU IF WE WERE
UNDER REAL TRIAL IT'S GOING TO
REQUIRE WITNESSES AND THAT'S
GOING TO TAKE TIME.
AND I THINK THE -- THE
UNDERLYING THREAT AND I DON'T
MEAN THIS IN A HARSH WAY IS WE
ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS REALLY
TIME CONSUMING, THE DEPOSITION
TOOK PLACE VERY QUICKLY IN THE
HOUSE, WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD
CHIEF JUSTICE BEHIND ME THAT CAN
RULE ON EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, THE
PRESIDENT HAS WAIVED AND WAIVED
ANY CLAIM OF NATIONAL SECURITY
HERE BY TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF,
DECLASSIFYING THE CALL RECORD,
WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ASKING
JOHN BOLTON ABOUT VENEZUELA OR
OTHER PLACES OR OTHER COUNTRIES,
JUST UKRAINE.
AND ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE THESE
QUESTIONS TO THE MATTER AT HAND,
WHAT YOU CANNOT IS USE PRIVILEGE
TO HIDE WRONGDOING OF AN
IMPEACHABLE CHARACTER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
>> A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
CRUZ AND HAWLEY.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> THEY HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THINK KNEW EACH OTHER,
FULFILL THE REPORTED
COMMITMENTS, DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO TAKE DOWN -- TAKE OUT THE
PRESIDENT, END QUOTE.
>> I GATHER THERE'S A NEWS
REPORT AND SOME PUBLICATION THAT
IS SUGGEST A NAME FOR THE
WHISTLEBLOWER, SUGGESTS WHERE HE
WORKED, THAT HE WORKED WHILE
DETAILS OF STAFF FOR THEN VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THAT THERE
WERE OTHERS WHO WORKED THERE, WE
HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OTHER
THAN WHAT'S IN PUBLIC REPORTS
AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT, IT IS
SOMETHING TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
COMMITTEES BUT THAT TESTIMONY
CONTACTS WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER
AND CONTACTS WITH MANAGER
CHIEF'S STAFF AND THE
WHISTLEBLOWER ARE IN SECRECY TO
THIS DAY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
TESTIMONY OF THE ICIG WAS, IT
REMAINS SECRET, IT'S NOT BEEN
FORWARDED.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MANAGER
SCHIFF'S CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BEEN AND WHAT
CONNECTIONS THERE ARE THERE.
I CAN MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS
PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS
SUGGESTED IN THE QUESTION, WE
KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC
REPORT SUGGESTING CONNECTIONS
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY
DISCUSSED.
WE DON'T KNOW THE SITUATION OF
THE CONTACT COORDINATION, ADVICE
PROVIDED BY MANAGER SCHIFF.
HOW THIS WAS ALL -- THIS INQUIRY
WAS ALL CREATED, COULD
POTENTIALLY BE RELEVANT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK OF
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL LEARN THAT THE BOLTON
MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO REVIEW
AND HAS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE WHITE
HOUSE ATTEMPTED IN ANYWAY TO
PROHIBIT, BLOCK, DISAPPROVE OR
DISCOURAGE JOHN BOLTON OR HIS
PUBLISHER FROM PUBLISHING HIS
BOOK?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR THE
QUESTION.
AT SOME POINT I DON'T -- I DON'T
KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE
EXACT DATE.
THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE NSC FOR REVIEW
IS WITH CAREER NSC STAFF FOR
REVIEW, THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL'S OFFICE WAS NOTIFIED
THAT IT WAS THERE.
THE NSC HAS RELEASED STATEMENT
EXPLAINING THAT IT IS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY OUTSIDE OF NSC
STAFF, IN TERMS OF THE SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION, HAVE THERE
BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ITS
PUBLICATION OR TO BLOCK ITS
PUBLICATION, I THINK THAT THERE
WERE SOME MISINFORMATION PUT OUT
INTO THE PUBLIC REALM EARLIER
TODAY AND I CAN READ FOR YOU
RELATIVELY SHORT LETTER THAT WAS
SENT FROM NSC STAFF TO CHARLES
COOPER WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR
MR. BOLTON ON JANUARY 23RD WHICH
WAS LAST WEEK WHICH SAYS, DEAR
MR. COOPER, THANK YOU FOR
SPEAKING BY TELEPHONE, AS WE
DISCUSSED SECURITY COUNSEL AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR HAS BEEN
PROVIDED MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY
YOUR CLIENT, FORMER ASSISTANT TO
PRESIDENT JOHN BOLTON, BASED ON
OUR PRELIMINARY REVIEW THE
MANUSCRIPT APPEARS TO CONTAIN
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
APPEARS THAT THE CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION IS AT TOP SECRET
LEVEL WHICH IS DEFINED EXECUTIVE
, DISCLOSED WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION, THE MAN CRYPT MAY
NOT BE PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE
DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE DELETION
OF THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
REMAINS IN REVIEW IN ORDER TO
ASSIST CLIENT BY IDENTIFYING THE
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHIN
THE MANUSCRIPT WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME ENSURING THE PUBLICATION
DOES NOT HARM THE NATIONAL
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES,
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH
YOU TO ENSURE YOUR CLIENT'S
ABILITY TO TELL HIS STORY IN A
MANNER THAT PROTECTS U.S.
NATIONAL SECURITY.
WE WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU
SHORTLY WITH ADDITIONAL MORE
DETAILED GUIDANCE REGARDING NEXT
STEPS THAT SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO
REVISE THE MANUSCRIPT AND MOVE
FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS
POSSIBLE.
SINCERELY, END, THE SIGNATURE OF
THE CAREER OFFICIAL.
IT IS WITH THE NSC AMBASSADOR
BOLTON, CURRENT FORM, IT CAN'T
BE PUBLISHED BUT THAT THEY'LL BE
WORKING WITH HIM AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE TO
PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND BE REVISED
AND CAN TELL THE STORY THAT WAS
THE LETTER FROM THE NSC THAT
WENT OUT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
[LAUGHTER]
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AND SENATORS BURR,
MCSALLY, MURRAN AND SASSE.
>> THE SENATOR'S QUESTION IS
DIRECT TODAY COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION APPROVED SUPPLY
MISSILES TO UKRAINE AND OVER
UNITED STATES SHOULD PROVIDE
LETHAL DEFENSE WEAPONS TO
COUNTER FURTHER RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION IN EUROPE, BY
COMPARISON DID PRESIDENT OBAMA
REFUSE TO SEND WEAPONS OR OTHER
LETHAL MILITARY GEAR TO UKRAINE,
WAS THIS DECISION AGAINST THE
ADVICE OF DEFENSE SECRETARY AND
OTHER KEY MILITARY LEADERS IN
HIS ADMINISTRATION?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MADE
THE DECISION TO PROVIDE ANTITANK
MISSILES AN THERE WAS A
SIGNIFICANT DEBATE ABOUT THAT
SOME TIME, AUTHORIZATION HAD
BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS AND
MANY OF YOU VOTED FOR THAT,
AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE LETHAL
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, BUT THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT
TO PROVIDE THAT, IT WAS ONLY THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE
THAT LETHAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE
, AMBASSADOR VOLKER
EXPLAINED THAT RELATIONSHIP HAS
STRENGTHENING WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND MISSILES PROVIDED WAS
MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT IS
SOMETHING THAT, SOMETHING THAT
STRENGTHENED RELATIONSHIP WITH
UKRAINE AND AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH THAT MEANT THAT OUR
POLICY GOT STRONGER OVER THE
LAST 3 YEARS AND SHE CALLED IT
VERY SIGNIFICANT.
ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN
RELATION TO THIS IS, AGAIN, THE
PAUSE, THE TEMPORARY PAUSE THAT
TOOK PLACE OVER THE SUMMER IS
SOMETHING THAT THE UKRAINIAN
DEPUTY DEFENSE DESCRIBED AS
BEING SHORT THAT THEY DIDN'T
EVEN NOTICE IT, SO PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S POLICIES ACROSS THE
BOARD HAVE BEEN STRONGER THAN
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION IN
PROVIDING DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY,
LETHAL DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY TO
THE UKRAINIANS, THE SPECIFIC
PART OF THE QUESTION, SENATORS,
WHETHER IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE
ADVICE OF THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFENSE SECRETARY AND OTHERS, I
BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ACCURATE,
IT WAS AGAINST THE ADVICE OF
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, IT WAS
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO
PROVIDE THE LETHAL ASSISTANCE,
THAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC IN THE
PAST.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR HARPER,
COONES, HORONU, LEAHY TO HOUSE
MANAGERS AND ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF, THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND THE
OTHER SENATORS TO HOUSE
MANAGERS; THE PRESIDENT HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THERE
SHOULD BE NO WITNESSES AND NO
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN RESPONSE TO
THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS,
IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS
BLANKET REFUSAL TO COOPERATE AND
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THE
SENATE ACCEPTS THIS POSITION
HERE?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN
EXTREME MEASURE TO HIDE EVIDENCE
FROM CONGRESS, NO PRESIDENT HAS
EVER ISSUED AN ORDER TO DIRECT A
WITNESS TO REFUSE TO COOPERATE
IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEFORE
THIS.
DESPITE HIS FAMOUS ATTEMPT TO
CONCEAL THE MOST DAMAGING
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, EVEN
PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH,
NOT ONLY DID HE ALLOW THEM, HE
TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS
VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL
RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A
BLANKET ORDER DIRECTING THE
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
WITHHOLD ALL DOCUMENTS AND
TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THE ORDER WAS
CATEGORICAL, INDISCRIMINATE,
UNPRECEDENTED, ITS PURPOSE WAS
CLEAR TO PREVENT CONGRESS, EVERY
PERSON THAT WORKS IN EVERY
DEPARTMENT AGENCY AND OFFICE OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS JUST NOT
PRECEDENTED.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE
HAD SOME REASON BECAUSE OF THE
SUBPOENAS, WELL, I WILL TELL
YOU, WE ADOPT RULES ABOUT
SUBPOENAS IN THE HOUSE, THE
SENATE IS A CONTINUING BODY BUT
THE HOUSE ISN'T.
HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE
SUBPOENAS NOT BECAUSE HE EXERTED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE TRIED TO
SAY IT WAS INVALID BUT IT WAS
VALID AND ACTUALLY HE DOESN'T
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE THE
ARBITER OF THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE.
THE HOUSE IS THE WHOLE ARBITER
WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT.
WE HAVE OFFICIALS THAT ARE
REFUSING TO TESTIFY, HE
WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD NOT
ALLOW THIS.
IF IT WAS TO COVER UP MISDEEDS
AND CRIMES AS WE HAVE HERE.
UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT
WHO PROCEEDED HIM, WE ARE
OPENING THE DOOR NOT JUST TO
ELIMINATING THE IMPEACHMENT
CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION,
TRYING DOING OVERSIGHT.
TRY DOING OVERSIGHT, SENATOR,
ONE THICK -- THING ABOUT THAT IN
THE HOUSE, THE PRESIDENT CAN SAY
WE ARE NOT SENNING ANY
WITNESSES, WE ARE NOT SENDING
ANY DOCUMENTS, WE DON'T HAVE TO,
WE DON'T LIKE YOUR PROCESSES, WE
HAVE A WHOLESALE REJECTION OF
WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S NOT
THE WAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS
CREATED WHERE EACH BODY HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY, THERE'S A
SHARING OF POWER, I -- AND I
KNOW YOU CHERISH THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE.
YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS
MOMENT OF HISTORY.
>> THE SENATOR'S QUESTION IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD ON
AID EARLIER THAN THE POLITICAL
ARTICLE?
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE;
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
QUESTION, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
AS WE EXPLAINED ON SATURDAY THE
OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE
INDICATE THAT IS THE UKRAINIANS
AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVELS,
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND TOP
ADVISERS BECAME AWARE OF PAUSE
OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THROUGH
POLITICO ARTICLE, I ADDRESSED ON
SATURDAY AND SO THOSE COMMENTS
WILL STAND THE E-MAILS FROM THE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED
ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, WHAT SHE HAD
SAID WAS THAT SHE, HER STAFF HAD
GOTTEN EMAILS FROM SOMEONE AT
THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO HAD HAD
SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HERE THAT
SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE AID AT A
TIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 28TH, SHE
DID NOT KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE EMAILS NOR WHETHER THEY
MENTIONED HOLD, PAUSE, REVIEW,
ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE AND SHE
EVEN SAID HERSELF THAT SHE
DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE AS TO
WHAT THE EMAILS MEAN AND CANNOT
SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT THEY WERE
ABOUT.
I PRESENTED ON SATURDAY THE
EVIDENCE WHICH, AGAIN,
REFERENCING THE COMMON SENSE
THAT WOULD BE IN PLAY HERE, THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT ON
AUGUST 28TH CAUSED A FLURRY OF
ACTIVITY AMONG THE HIGHEST
RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS,
NEVER BEFORE DID THEY RAISE ANY
QUESTIONS AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS
THEY HAD WITH THE HIGH-RANKING
U.S. OFFICIALS THROUGH JULY AND
AUGUST, THERE WERE MEETINGS ON
JULY 9, JULY 10, JULY 25 CALL,
JULY 26TH AND AUGUST 27TH, AT
NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WAS THE
PAUSE ON AID REVEALED OR
INQUIRED ABOUT, HOWEVER, AS SOON
AS THE POLITICAL ARTICLE CAME
OUT ON AUGUST 28 WITHIN HOURS OF
POLITICAL ARTICLE COMING OUT,
TEXTED THE ARTICLE TO AMBASSADOR
VOLKER AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH
HIM.
THEN MR. FIELDMAN JUST
REFERENCED AN ARTICLE THAT CAME
OUT YESTERDAY AND THIS IS
INTERESTING, I'M GOING READ THE
ARTICLE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
AND I SUGGESTED TO THE SENATE IF
THEY WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS.
THEY FIRST FOUND OUT THAT U.S.
WAS WITHHOLDING AID TO UKRAINE
BY READING POLITICO ARTICLE
PUBLISHED AUGUST 28TH, U.S.
OFFICIALS AND UKRAINIAN
DIPLOMATS INCLUDING THE
COUNTRY'S FOREIGN MINISTER ELANA
HAVE SAID PUBLICLY THAT HE WAS
AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS AS EARLY
AS JULY, THAT'S THE ARTICLE THAT
THEY'VE MENTIONED AND THE
STATEMENT THAT THE HOUSE MEMBERS
HAVE MENTIONED.
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AND
SHOCKED BECAUSE JUST A COUPLE OF
DAYS PRIOR TO THAT, I ACTUALLY
HAD A MEETING WITH JOHN BOLTON,
ACTUALLY I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS
WITH HIM AND WE HAD EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS, THE LAST THING I'D
EXPECT TODAY READ WAS ARTICLE OF
MILITARY AID BEING FROZEN, AFTER
THAT I WAS TRYING TO GET THE
TRUTH, WAS IT TRUE OR NOT TRUE?
DANA SAID IT WAS A PANIC INSIDE
THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION
AFTER NEWS BROKE SAYING ZELENSKY
WAS CONVINCED THERE WAS SOME
SORT OF MISTAKE, THAT'S
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ASKED OTHER
OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON WHO --
WHAT TO MAKE OF THE NEWS, RIGHT
AFTER AUGUST 28TH.
THE NEXT TIME WE MET IN
SEPTEMBER WAS IN POLAND FOR
COMMEMORATION OF THE BEGINNING
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
THE MEETING WE DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY.
ADDING THAT HE MET WITH BOLTON
ON THE SIDELINES I HAD MY
SUSPICIONS, THERE WAS A SPECIAL
SITUATION WITH ONE OF OUR
DEFENSE COMPANIES THAT WERE
ACQUIRED BY THE CHINESE, BOLTON
MADE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT
THIS AS WELL, SO SOMEHOW I
LINKED THIS TWO THINGS AND TRIED
TO UNDERSTAND, OKAY, MAYBE THIS
COULD BE RELATED TO THIS, SO NOT
ONLY DID THEY NOT KNOW UNTIL
AUGUST 28TH WHEN THEY DID FIND
OUT THEY DIDN'T LINK IT TO ANY
INVESTIGATION.
WHERE IS THE QUID PRO QUO, IF
IT'S SUCH FOREFRONT OF THEIR
MIND, SUCH PRESSURE ON THEM,
WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP THEY
DIDN'T THINK IT WAS CONNECTED
WITH THE INVESTIGATION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A
QUESTION ON BEHALF SENATOR
BALDWIN AND MYSELF.
>> UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT
KNOW THAT THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN PAUSED, END
QUOTE, BEFORE SEEING PRESS
REPORTS ON AUGUST 28TH, 2019
WHICH WAS MORE THAN A MONTH
AFTER THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
TRUMP.
>> THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW
THAT, WE KNOW THAT LAURA COOPER
TESTIFIED THAT HER STAFF
RECEIVED TWO EMAILS REVEALING
THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS,
QUOTE, ASKING ABOUT SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND, IN FACT, COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE
AMOUNTS JUST NOW.
THEY FOUND VERY EARLY ON OR MUCH
EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO,
END QUOTE, THAT LIEUTENANT
COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN TESTIFIED
THAT HE WAS GETTING QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE STATUS, THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM
THE HOUSE INQUIRY THAT THERE WAS
A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND THERE
SHOULD BE, THEY NEEDED IT.
AS MY ESTEEMED SENATE ARMED
SERVICE'S COLLEAGUES KNOW VERY
WELL, THAT PROVIDING AID IS NOT
LIKE TURNING ON AND OFF A LIGHT
SWITCH, YOU HAVE TO HIRE
EMPLOYEES, YOU HAVE TO GET
EQUIPMENT, YOU HAVE TO SHIP IT,
IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THAT
PIPELINE TO GO AND, IN FACT, WE
HAD TO COME TOGETHER TO EXTEND
THE TIMELINE BECAUSE WE WERE AT
RISK OF LOSING IT.
LET'S ASSUME FOR A MINUTE
BROADLY SPEAKING THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT
THAT SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE HAS
NEVER BEEN BETTER THAN IT IS
TODAY, THAT UNDER THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION THEY ARE THE
STRONGEST ALLY THE UKRAINE HAS
SEEN IN YEARS.
SO ASSUMING FOR A MINUTE THAT
ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE, KIND OF
MAKES OUR OWN ARGUMENT, MAKES
OUR ARGUMENT, WHY HOLD THE AID?
WHY HOLD THE AID?
NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 16,
NOTHING CHANGED IN 17, NOTHING
CHANGED IN 18.
NOT PROVIDING LETHAL AID OR
48-DAY DELAY, LET'S NOT FORGET
THE REASON FOR THE DELAY BECAUSE
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE
DELAY AND THE PRESIDENT'S
MENTALITY, MIND SET DOESN'T
MATTER, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE
INTENDED TO DO.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE ARE
HERE, IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE
PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO BECAUSE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MATTERS
OF NATIONAL SECURITY DESERVE TO
GO TO BED EVERY NIGHT KNOWING
THAT THE PRESIDENT, THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, THE PERSON
WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF
OUR NATION EVERY NIGHT HAS THE
BEST INTEREST OF THEM AND THEIR
FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY IN
MIND, NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF
HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.
>> MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR
MURKOWSKI.
>> THE COUNSEL IS FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, WITNESSES
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSISTENTLY
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT UKRAINE
WAS A CORRUPT COUNTRY, BEFORE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY
ENTERED THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL
RACE IN APRIL 2019, DID
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION JOE
OR HUNTER BIDEN IN CONNECTION
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TO
FORMER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR
OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS,
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CABINET
MEMBERS OR TOP AIDES OR OTHERS,
IF SO WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY
TO WHOM AND WHEN?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
OF COURSE, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT AT THE OUTSET TO FRAME
THE ANSWER BY I'M LIMITED ON
WHAT'S IN THE RECORD AND WHAT'S
IN THE RECORD IS DETERMINED BY
WHO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THOUGHT, IT WAS THEIR
PROCEEDING, THEY WERE THE ONES
WHO RAN IT AND THEY WERE THE
ONES WHO CALLED THE WITNESSES,
PART OF THE QUESTION REFERS TO
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND OTHER CABINET MEMBERS
AND OTHERS LIKE THAT, NOT
SOMETHING ON THE RECORD ON THAT,
IT WASN'T PURSUED ON THE RECORD,
I CAN'T POINT TO SOMETHING IN
THE RECORD THAT SHOWS PRESIDENT
TRUMP AT AN EARLIER TIME
MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY
SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR
HUNTER BIDEN.
IT IS IN THE RECORD THAT HE
SPOKE TO PRESIDENT ABOUT
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE BOTH
IN UNION OF 2017 AND THEN AGAIN
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017, BUT THERE
ARE OTHER -- THERE'S OTHER
INFORMATION PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
AND IN THE RECORD THAT I THINK
IS IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE TIMELINE AND UNDERSTANDING
WHY IT WAS THAT THE INFORMATION
RELATED TO THE BIDENS AND THE
BARISM AFFAIR CAME UP WHEN IT
DID, ONE IMPORTANT PIECE OF
INFORMATION TO BEAR IN MIND IS,
PRESIDENT PORACHENKO WAS THE
PERSON THAT JOE BIDEN AND
HIMSELF IN THE TAPES WE HAVE
SEEN WENT TO TO HAVE THE
PROSECUTOR FIRED, SO AS LONG AS
PRESIDENT WAS STILL IN CHARGE IN
UKRAINE, HE WAS THE PERSON THAT
JOE BIDEN HAD SPOKEN TO TO GET
THE PROSECUTOR FIRED WHEN SHOKEN
WAS LOOKING INTO BARISM, AS LONG
AS HE WAS THE PRESIDENT IN
UKRAINE, QUESTIONED UTILITY OF
RAISING AN INCIDENT IN WHICH HE
WAS THE ONE WHO WAS TAKING THE
DIRECTION FROM VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR, SO
WHEN YOU HAVE AN ELECTION IN
APRIL OF 2019 AND YOU HAVE A NEW
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENZKY
WHO HAS RUN ON ANTICORRUPTION
PLATFORM AND IS THE QUESTION IS
HE REALLY GOING TO CHANGE
THINGS, IS THERE GOING TO BE
SOMETHING NEW IN UKRAINE IT
OPENS UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO START
LOOKING REALLY AT ANTICORRUPTION
ISSUES AND RAISING QUESTIONS.
NOW, THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING
TO UNDERSTAND AND THE TIMELINE
IS THAT WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT
RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S
PRIVATE LAWYER, AND WHAT WAS HE
INTERESTED IN IN UKRAINE AND
WHAT WAS HIS ROLE, WELL, AS WE
KNOW, IT'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC,
GIULIANI HAD BEEN ASKING
QUESTIONS OF UKRAINE DATING BACK
TO FALL OF 2018 AND IN
NOVEMBER 2018 HE SAID PUBLICLY
HE WAS GIVEN TIPS OF THINGS TO
LOOK INTO, HE GAVE AID TO THE
STATE DEPARTMENT IN MARCH OF
THIS YEAR, REMEMBER, VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED
CANDIDACY IN APRIL, APRIL 25TH,
IN MARCH RUDY GIULIANI GAVE
DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT INCLUDING INTERVIEW
NOTES FROM INTERVIEWS HE
CONDUCTED BOTH WITH SHOKEN AND
PROSECUTOR IN THE UKRAINE.
THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE FROM
JANUARY, JANUARY 23RD AND
JANUARY 25TH, 2019, SO MONTHS
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED
ANY CANDIDACY AND IT GOES
THROUGH IN INTERVIEW NOTES, WAS
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF JOE
BIDEN AND HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING
BASRIM AND HUNTER WAS ON THE
BOARD AND IT RAISES ALL THE
QUESTIONS ALL THE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT, IT WAS MR. GIULIANI
AS JANE EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY,
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT,
MR. GIULIANI, COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT IS LOOKING AT WHAT
WENT ON IN UKRAINE, ANYTHING
RELATED TO 2016, ARE THERE OTHER
THINGS RELATED THERE AND HE'S
GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, TIPS
ABOUT THIS AND STARTS PURSUING
THAT AS WELL AND HE'S DIGGING
INTO THAT IN JANUARY OF 2019, WE
KNOW THAT MR. GIULIANI IS THE
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL, I
CAN'T REPRESENT SPECIFIC
CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD, THEY
WOULD BE PRIVILEGED BUT WE DO
KNOW FROM TESTIMONY THAT THE
PRESIDENT SAID IN A MAY 23RD
OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH RESPECT
TO UKRAINE TALK TO RUDY, RUDY
KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE, THE
PRESIDENT IT SEEMS FROM THAT
GETS INFORMATION FROM
MR. GIULIANI.
MONTHS BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN ANNOUNCED CANDIDACY,
MR. GIULIANI IS LOOKING INTO
THIS ISSUE, INTERVIEWING PEOPLE
AND GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT
IT, IN ADDITION IN MARCH OF 2019
ARTICLES BEGAN TO BE PUBLISHED
AND 3 ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED BY
ABCT NEW YORKER AND WASHINGTON
POST BEFORE THE JULY 25TH CALL,
WASHINGTON POST ON JULY 22ND, 3
DAYS BEFORE THE CALL ARTICLE
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BIDENS
AND BARISM, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT
SUDDEN LAW CURRENT, RELEVANT,
PROBABLY TO BE IN SOMEONE'S
MIND, SO THAT'S THE TIMELINE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF PATTY AND MYSELF.
>> SENATOR HARRIS AND MURRAY
ASKED THE HOUSE MANAGERS; THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOW
IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING OF
AMBASSADOR MARIA YAVONOVITCH;
GET RID OF HER, GET HER OUT
TOMORROW, TAKE HER OUT, OKAY, DO
IT.
END QUOTE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS ORDER
TO LEV PARNAS, TWO MEN WHO
CARRIED OUT TRUMP'S PRESSURE
CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE AT THE
DIRECTION OF RUDY GIULIANI.
DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE
SUGGEST THAT IF THE SENATE DOES
NOT PURSUE ALL RELEVANT
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING WITNESSES
AND DOCUMENTS, THAT NEW EVIDENCE
WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT
AFTER THE SENATE RENDERS A
VERDICT?
>> THE ANSWER IS YES.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REALLY OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF THE ARTICLES OF HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IS EVERY
WEEK, INDEED, SOMETIMES EVERY
DAY THERE'S NEW INFORMATION
COMING TO LIGHT.
WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT ON
MARCH 17TH WHEN THE BOLTON BOOK
COMES OUT, THAT IS IF THE NSC
ISN'T SUCCESSFUL IN REDACTING IT
OR PREVENTING MUCH OF ITS
PUBLICATION AND ON THAT ISSUE I
DO WANT TO MENTION ONE OTHER
THING IN RESPONSE TO THE
QUESTION ABOUT THE BOLTON
MANUSCRIPT AND WHAT DID THE
WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS KNOW BECAUSE
I LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY TO THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND
MAYBE YOU LISTENED MORE
CAREFULLY THAN I DID, WHAT I
THOUGHT I HEARD HIM SAY, THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, WHAT DO
THEY KNOW ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT
AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT, THE
STATEMENT WAS PRECISELY WORRIED,
THE NSC UNIT REVEALING THE BOOK
DID NOT SHARE THE MANUSCRIPT,
WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT
QUESTION THAN WHETHER THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWYERS FOUND OUT WHAT'S
IN IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO
CIRCULATE THE MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE
SOMEONE WALK OVER TO THE WHITE
HOUSE AND SAY, YOU DO NOT WANT
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.
LET ME TELL YOU, YOU DO NOT WANT
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY, YOU
DON'T NEED TO READ HIS
MANUSCRIPT BECAUSE I CAN TELL
YOU WHAT'S IN IT.
SO WAS VERY CAREFULLY WORDED
ONE.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWYERS KNEW AND WHEN THEY
KNEW IT, THEY DID REPRESENT TO
YOU REPEATEDLY THAT THE
PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD A WITNESS
THAT HE WAS FREEZING THE AID TO
GET UKRAINE TO DO HIS
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND WE KNOW THAT NOT TRUE.
YOU KNOW THAT FROM THE WITNESSES
WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM BUT WE
ALSO KNOW AT LEAST IF THE
REPORTING IS CORRECT AND YOU
SHOULD FIND OUT IF IT IS, THAT
JOHN BOLTON TELLS A VERY
DIFFERENT STORY.
SO THERE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO BE REVELATIONS AN MEMBERS OF
THIS PARTY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE WILL HAVE TO ANSWER A
QUESTION EACH TIME EACH TIME IT
DOES AND WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT
TO KNOW THAT AND WOULD IT HELP
INFORM YOUR DECISION.
EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN THE LAND
YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND OUT
WHAT YOU CAN.
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT A COURT OF
APPEALS, WE ARE THE TRIAL COURT,
WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE
RECORD BELOW, THERE IS NO BELOW,
COUNSEL SAYS IN ANSWER TO THE
SENATOR'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
DONALD TRUMP EVER BROUGHT UP THE
HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM WITH
PRESIDENT IN THE PAST AND SAYS,
WELL, WE ARE CONFINED TO THE
RECORD BEFORE US, YOU'RE NOT
CONFINED TO THE RECORD IN THE
HOUSE, NOR IS THE PRESIDENT, THE
PRESIDENT COULD CALL WITNESSES
IF THEY EXISTED, THERE'S NOTHING
PREVENTING FROM SAYING, AS A
MATTER OF FACT, TOMORROW WE WILL
CALL SUCH AND SUCH AND THEY'RE
GOING TO TESTIFY THAT, INDEED,
DONALD TRUMP BROUGHT UP HUNTER
BIDEN TO PRESIDENT POCHENKO,
THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING HIM
FROM DOING THAT.
BUT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE NEW
EVIDENCE COME OUT ALL OF THE
TIME, BUT AMONG THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, WE KNOW
WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE AND,
YOU KNOW, THE EFFORT TO SUGGEST
THAT, WELL, BECAUSE THIS
PRESIDENT WAS STRONGER ON
JAVELINS THAN PREDECESSOR WHEN
WE KNOW FROM THE JULY 25TH CALL,
THE MOMENT THAT ZELENZKY BRINGS
UP THE JAVELINS, WHAT'S THE VERY
NEXT THING THE PRESIDENT SAYS,
HE WANTS A FAVOR.
THE QUESTION IS WHY DID HE STOP
THE AID, WHY DID HE STOP THE AID
THIS YEAR AND NO PRIOR YEAR?
WAS IT MERELY A COINCIDENCE, ARE
WE TO BELIEVE IT WAS MERELY A
COINCIDENCE THAT IT WAS THE YEAR
THAT JOE BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT?
ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF
THE COMPANIES IN ALL OF THE
LAND, ALL THE LAND IN UKRAINE IT
WAS HUNTER BIDEN WALKING INTO
THIS ONE, THAT WAS THE REASON
WHY THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN
BARISM WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE
THAT INVOLVED SON OF HIS
OPPONENT?
.. ..
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF SENATORS
CRAPO AND SENATOR RISCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CENTERS AS COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
UNDERSCORED THE ADMINISTRATION'S
ONGOING ANTICORRUPTION FOCUS
WITH OUR ALLIES.
WHAT POINT DOES THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT DEVELOPED
CONCERNS ABOUT REITSMA IN
RELATION TO CORRUPTION AND
CONCERNS WITH RUSSIA?
>> THE QUESTION I THINK IT BEARS
ON THE ANSWER THAT I WAS GIVING
TO THE LAST QUESTION.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAME OF
COURSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY ON THE JULY 25 CALLED
THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US BROUGHT
UP A COUPLE OF THINGS.
HE BROUGHT UP BURDEN SHARING AND
HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF
CORRUPTION INTO SPECIFICS.
THE SPECIFIC CASE OF POTENTIAL
UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION WHICH HE HAD HEARD
ABOUT AND THE INCIDENT INVOLVING
THE FIRING OF A PROSECUTOR WHO
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORT HAD
IN LOOKING INTO BURISMA OF THE
COMPANY THAT VICE PRESIDENT SUN
WAS ON THE BOARD OF.
AND THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S WAY
OF AND POINTING SPECIFIC ISSUES
RELATED TO CORRUPTION SO WHEN
DID IT BECOME THE PRESIDENT'S
CONCERNED THOSE ISSUES RELATED
TO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?
OF COURSE WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE
THAT EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE HILL TESTIFIED TO
THIS.ANTICORRUPTION WAS A MAJOR
ISSUE FOR U.S. POLICY WITH
RESPECT TO UKRAINE.
WHEN THERE WAS A NEW PRESIDENT
ELECTED IN APRIL PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY THAT BROUGHT THE POP --
PROBABILITY OF REFORM TO THE
FOREFRONT.
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM HIS
PRIVATE ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI
AND HE SPOKE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
OF RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE.
YOU GUYS GO TALK TO HIM BECAUSE
HE WAS EXPLAINING TO THE
DELEGATION THAT HAD JUST
RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION
FOR THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT
AND HE KEPT SAYING THE CORRUPT
COUNTRY, DON'T KNOW.
THEY TRIED TO GET ME IN THE
ELECTION.
HIS SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH
UKRAINE ENCRYPTION BECAUSE HE
KNEW FROM THE PUBLIC REPORT IN
THIS POLITICAL ARTICLE THAT HAS
BEEN REFERENCED MANY TIMES OF
POLITICAL ARTICLE OF
JANUARY 2015 EXPLAINED A LAUNDRY
LIST OF UKRAINE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN OUT
THERE ATTEMPTING SPREAD
MISINFORMATION OR BAD
INFORMATION OR DIGGING UP DIRT
ON MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN.
MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN
INVESTIGATING THINGS RELATED TO
UKRAINE IN 2016 AND WAS LED TO
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
BURISMA SITUATION AND VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVING THE
PROSECUTOR FIRED.
THAT WAS IN JANUARY THAT HE HAD
THESE INTERVIEWS.
HE TURNED OVER TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT IN MARCH AND THEN
THERE WERE A SERIES OF PUBLIC
ARTICLES PUBLISHED.
JOHN SOLOMON ON THE HILL
PUBLISHED ONE IN MARCH AND RUDY
GIULIANI TWEET IT OUT IN MARCH.
DURING THE ABC STORY IN JUNE
THERE WAS A TWO-PART NEW YORKER
STORY ABOUT BIDEN AND BURISMA IN
JULY AND JULY 22 THE "WASHINGTON
POST" HAD AN ARTICLE AND EXPLAIN
SPECIFICALLY IN JULY 223 DAYS
BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALLED
"WASHINGTON POST" REPORTED
MR. SHOKIN THE PROSECUTOR QUOTE
IT WAS BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST
IN THE COMPANY AND QUOTE
REFERRING TO BURISMA AND HE SAID
THAT QUOTE HAD HE REMAINED IN
HIS POST HE WOULD HAVE
QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN AND
QUOTE.
I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT AS THERE WERE
THESE ARTICLES BEING PUBLISHED
IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE TIME
THIS IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE PRESIDENT AND IT BECAME
AVAILABLE TO HIM AS SOMETHING
THAT WAS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF
POTENTIALLY SERIOUS CORRUPTION.
REMEMBER EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED
TO US ASKED ABOUT IT DOESN'T
SEEM LIKE THERE'S AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S AN
ISSUE, EVERYONE TESTIFIED YES
THERE IS AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE
AND THEY THINK IT WAS AFTER THE
INFORMATION HAD COME TO
MR. GIULIANI LONG BEFORE BY
PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT HE CAME TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT
AND BECAME SOMETHING WORTH
RAISING.
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WAS THE ONE
WHO FIRED THE PROSECUTOR WELL HE
WAS THE PRESIDENT NOT AS MUCH AS
AN OPPORTUNITY OR POSSIBILITY
WAS RAISED AND SO IN THAT
TIMEFRAME ALONG THAT ARC OF
TIMING THEY CAME TO THE PRESENCE
ATTENTION AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS
IN THAT TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FROM THE
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
>> SENATOR BLUMENTHAL ASKS DID
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR
OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE TELL
ANYONE IN THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
THAT A PUBLICATION OF THE BOLTON
BOOK WOULD BE POLITICALLY
PROBLEMATIC FOR THE PRESIDENT?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU SENATOR FOR THE
QUESTION.
NO ONE FROM INSIDE THE WHITE
HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE
TOLD US THAT THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOK WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK WE ASSUMED MR. BOLTON
WAS DISGRUNTLED AND WE DIDN'T
EXPECT HE WAS GOING TO BE SAYING
A LOT OF NICE THINGS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT THAT NO ONE TOLD US
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
MORAN AND HAWLEY ON THE QUESTION
OF THE HOUSE MATTERS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
ON AUGUST 26 OF 2019 LETTER FROM
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE DISCUSSING THE
SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER STATED
THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
IDENTIFIED SOME ARGUABLE
POLITICAL BIAS ON THE PART OF
THE COMPLAINANT IN FAVOR OF THE
RIVAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE.
MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTED
THAT THIS LIKELY REFER TO THE
WHISTLEBLOWERS WORKED WITH JOE
BIDEN.
DID THE SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER
WORK AT ANY POINT FOR OR WITH
JOE BIDEN?
IF SO DID HE WORK FOR OR WITH
JOE BIDEN ON ISSUES INVOLVING
UKRAINE AND DID HE ASSIST IN ANY
MATERIAL WAY WITH THE QUID PRO
QUO IN WHICH THEN VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN ADMITTED TO CONDITIONING
LOAN GUARANTEES TO UKRAINE ON
THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR
INVESTIGATING BURISMA?
>> THE THANK THE SENATORS FOR
THE QUESTION I WANT TO BE VERY
CAREFUL IN HOW ANSWERS SO AS NOT
TO DISCLOSE OR GIVE AN
INDICATION THAT MAY ALLOW OTHERS
TO IDENTIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
WHY WE ARE MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT
TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
THIS LINE SHOWS AND IT MAY BE
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO
READ AND ACTUALLY IF YOU COULD
HAND ME A COPY OF THAT AS WELL.
I DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO
DISTRIBUTE THAT TO EVERYONE.
IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE VIEWED THE
PROTECTION WHISTLEBLOWER IS
IMPORTANT, MEMBERS OF THIS BODY
HAS ALSO BEEN STRONG -- MADE
STRONG STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT
WHISTLEBLOWERS BUT SENATOR
GRASSLEY SAID THIS PERSON
APPEARS TO FOLLOW THE
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS
AND NOT TO BE HEARD OUT AND
PROTECTED.
WE SHOULD ALWAYS WORK TO RESPECT
WHISTLEBLOWERS REQUEST FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY.
SENATOR ROMNEY WHISTLEBLOWER
SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY
BECAUSE THEY PLAY A VITAL
FUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
SENATOR BURR, WE PROTECT
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND WE PROTECT
WITNESSES AND OUR COMMITTEE.
EVEN MY COLLEAGUE THE RANKING
MEMBER MR. NUNES, WE WANT PEOPLE
TO COME FORWARD AND WE WILL
PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE AT
ALL COSTS.
THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN
PRIORITY AND ONE THAT WE HAVE
DONE OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN SO I
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL BUT LET
ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SEVERAL THINGS
ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
FIRST OF ALL I DON'T KNOW WHO
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS.
I HAVE NOT MET THEM OR
COMMUNICATED WITH THEM IN ANY
WAY.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT
WRITE THE COMPLAINT OR COACH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT TO PUT IN THE
COMPLAINT.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT SEE
THE COMPLAINT BEFORE IT WAS
SUBMITTED -- SUBMITTED TO THE
INSPECTOR JUMPED AT THE
COMMITTEE INCLUDING ITS STAFF
DID NOT RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT
UNTIL THE NIGHT BEFORE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE.
WE HAVE AN OPENING HERE IN ON
SEPTEMBER 26 MORE THREE WEEKS
AFTER THE LEGAL DEADLINE BY
WHICH THE COMMITTEE SHOULD
RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT.
IN SHORT THE CONSPIRACY THEORY
WHICH I THINK WAS OUTLINED OVER
EARLIER THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COLLUDED WITH THE INTEL
COMMITTEE STAFF TO HATCH AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS A
COMPLETE AND TOTAL FICTION.
THIS WAS A THING CONFIRMED BY
THE REMARKABLE ACCURACY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WHICH
HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE
EVIDENCE WE SUBSEQUENTLY
GATHERED IN ALL THE MATERIAL
MATERIAL RESPECTS THAT ARE NOT
GOING TO GO ANYTHING THAT COULD
REVEAL OR LEAD TO THE REVELATION
OF THE IDENTITY OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER BUT I CAN TELL YOU
BECAUSE MY STAFFS NAMES HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS
PROCEEDING THAT MY STAFF ACTED
ALL TIMES WITH THE MOST COMPLETE
PROFESSIONALISM.
I'M VERY PROTECTIVE OF MY STAFF
AS I KNOW YOU ARE.
I AM GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE SUCH
BRIGHT HARD-WORKING PEOPLE
WORKING AROUND-THE-CLOCK TO
PROTECT THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE
SERVED OUR COMMITTEE SO WELL.
AND IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE
THEM AND SOME OF THEM MENTIONED
HERE TODAY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THEIR SAFETY AND ON LINE THREATS
, MEMBERS OF MY STAFF AS
A RESULT OF SOME OF THE SMEARS
THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST
THEM.
I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS NO ONE
WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH THEN MY
STAFF WHO'VE BEEN TREATED WITH
THE SAME KINDS OF SMEARS.
THEY ACTED AT ALL TIMES WITH THE
UTMOST PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY.
YOUR SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE AND YOUR CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHAIRMAN CAN TELL YOU
ENCOURAGE WHISTLEBLOWERS TO COME
TO THEIR COMMITTEE AND SO DO WE.
AND WHEN THEY DO WE TRY TO
FIGURE OUT IF THEIR COMPLAINT
WAS IN THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
AND IF IT IS THEN WE SUGGEST
THEY GET A LAWYER.
WE SUGGEST THE TOP INSPECTOR
GENERAL WHICH WAS WHAT HAPPENED
HERE.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER DID EXACTLY
WHAT THEY SHOULD.
EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT WHICH
IS UNFORGIVABLE, THE
WHISTLEBLOWER EXPOSE THE WRONG
DOING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE
PRESIDENT'S VIEW THAT MAKES HIM
OR HER AT TRADER -- TRAITOR.
THE PRESIDENT TELLS US THERE'S A
WAY WE TREAT TRAITORS AND SPIES.
FIRST OF ALL WE KNOW FIRST-HAND
WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WROTE IN
SECONDHAND.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR THAT
WHISTLEBLOWER ANYMORE EXCEPT TO
FURTHER ENDANGER EFFORTS.
THAT TO ME DOES NOT SEEM A
WORTHWHILE OBJECT FOR ANYONE IN
THIS CHAMBER OR ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THIS BUILDING COME IN
THE OVAL OFFICE OR ANY WHERE
ELSE.
>> THINK THE COUNCIL MR. MANAGER
>> THE SENATOR FROM RHODE
ISLAND.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON MY OWN
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OF
SENATORS BLUMENTHAL CORKER COONS
KLOBUCHAR LEAHY MARKEY PETERS
AND UDALL I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK.
>> A QUESTION FROM SENATOR
WHITEHOUSE TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THE MISSING WITNESS RULE WHICH
DATES BACK TO 1893 SUPREME COURT
CASE GRADES VERSUS UNITED STATES
ALLOWS ONE PARTY TO HAVE PAID
MADE IN ADVERSE INFERENCE
AGAINST THE OTHER FOR FAILURE TO
PRODUCE A WITNESS UNDER THAT
PARTY'S CONTROL WITH MATERIAL
INFORMATION.
HERE ONE PARTY THE PRESIDENT HAS
PREVENTED WITNESSES WITHIN HIS
CONTROL FOR TESTIFYING OR
PROVIDING DOCUMENTS.
DO THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE
SENATOR SHOULD APPLY THE MISSING
WITNESS RULE HERE AND IF SO WHAT
ADVERSE INFERENCES SHOULD WE
DRAW ABOUT THE MISSING TESTIMONY
AND DOCUMENTS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS
WE DO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD GO
ON ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE
PARTY RESISTING THE TESTIMONY OF
THESE WITNESSES LIKE JOHN
BOLTON.
COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED WHEN
THE PARTY IS RELEVANT EVIDENCE
WITHIN HIS CONTROL WHICH HE
FAILS TO PRODUCE THAT FAILURE
GIVES RISE TO AN INFERENCE THAT
THAT EVIDENCE IS UNFAVORABLE TO
HIM.
COURTS ARE FREQUENTLY DRAWN
ADVERSE ADVERSE INFERENCES WHERE
PARTY ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO
CONCEAL EVIDENCE OR PRECLUDE
WITNESSES FROM OFFERING
TESTIMONY.
I WOULD SUGGEST IT IS BAD FAITH
WHEN COUNSEL COMES BEFORE U.N.
SAYS THAT IF YOU REALLY WANTED
THESE WITNESSES YOU SHOULD HAVE
SUED TO GET THEM IN THE HOUSE
AND INTO THE COURTROOM DOWN THE
STREET AND SAYS YOU CAN'T SUE TO
GET WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE.
BUT THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED
HERE AND YOU OR I THINK NOT ONLY
PERMITTED BUT AS ALICIA DRAWN
ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT ONE OF
PARTIES MAKING THAT ARGUMENT ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE COURTHOUSE
THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THOSE
WITNESSES PROVIDE RUNS AGAINST
THEM.
NOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT
PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, NOT
ONE, SINGLE DOCUMENT.
IT'S EXTRAORDINARY.
THEY CAN ARGUE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
AND NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS, NOT
A WHIT.
THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY DON'T
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
PRIVILEGE AND IF THEY DID THEY
WOULD BE REDUCTIONS FOR SPECIFIC
REDACTION.
NONE OF THAT HAPPENED BUT ARE
YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE THAT THE REASON WHY
THE PRESIDENT HAS POSSESSION OF
THOSE E-MAILS REGARDING
INCREASED BY UKRAINE TO WHY THE
AID WAS FROZEN?
ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN
INFERENCE THAT THEY WON'T SHOW
YOU THOSE E-MAILS THAT THOSE
E-MAILS WOULD CONFIRM THAT
UKRAINE KNEW THE AID WAS
WITHHELD JUST LIKE THE FORMER
DEPUTY OF UKRAINE SAID PUBLICLY
WHICH HE TOLD "THE NEWS YORK
TIMES," YES WE DO.
BY THE END OF JULY WE KNEW THIS
WAS THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER
AT THE TIME, WE KNEW THE AID WAS
FROZEN BUT I WAS INSTRUCTED BY
ANDRE YERMAK NOT TO MENTION IT.
THEY DIDN'T WANT IT PUBLISHED
WRITER YOU ENTITLED TO DRAW AN
INFERENCE THAT THOSE RECORDS
THEY REFUSED TO TURN OVER AND
THE STATE DEPARTMENT THE FACT
THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW JOHN
BOLTON'S KNOWS TO BE TURNED OVER
IN ABBASID OR TAYLOR'S NOTES TO
BE TURNED OVER.
SHOULD YOU DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE?
YOU'RE DARNED RIGHT YOU SHOULD.
THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT ONLY TOLD
THEM NO QUID PRO QUO AND THEY
LEAVE OUT THE OTHER HALF FOR
SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR WHAT HE
SAID BILL QUID PRO QUO BUT YOU
HAVE TO GO TO THE MIC AND
ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS
BUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WROTE DOWN
THE MOM NOTES OF THAT
CONVERSATION.
THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE CALL
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE TO THE FACT
THAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
MASTER TAYLOR'S NOTES --
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES.
THEY DON'T LIKE TO SEE THE NOTES
YOU'RE DARNED RIGHT YOU SHOULD
DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE.
AND FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO WHO
HAS BECOME THE CENTRAL WITNESS
HERE, I THINK THE ADVERSE
INFERENCE SCREAMS THAT YOU AS TO
WHY YOU DON'T WANT JOHN BOLTON
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON
INFERENCE HERE NOT WHEN YOU HAVE
A WITNESS THAT'S WILLING TO COME
FORWARD.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR INFERENCE
HERE.
THERE IS JUST A NEED FOR A
SUBPOENA.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH
DAKOTA.
>> WE HAVE QUESTIONS AT THE
DESK.
>> SENATOR THUNE'S QUESTIONS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE
HOUSE MANAGERS JUST MADE IN
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.
I HAVEN'T READ RECENTLY THE CASE
THAT WAS CITED ABOUT THE WITNESS
RULE SO I CAN'T SAY SPECIFIC
WHAT'S IN IT BUT I'M WILLING TO
BET THAT THE WITNESS RULE DOES
NOT APPLY WITH A VALID ASSERTION
OF HER THE PRIVILEGE OR OTHER
IMMUNITY FOR KEEPING A WITNESS
TO COURT.
FOR EXAMPLE IF THEY TRIED TO
SUBPOENA THE DEFENDANTS LAWYER
AND THEY SAID WAIT I HAVE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE HE
CAN'T SUBPOENA HIM THEY ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THAT.
THAT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE AS I
HAVE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE TIMES
AND WE KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH
ON THIS THEY KEEP REPRESENTING A
LANKY DEFIANCE AND THERE'S NO
EXPLANATION AND NO LEGAL REASON
FOR THE PRESIDENT AND IT'S JUST
NOT TRUE.
THERE WERE LETTERS BACK AND
FORTH BUT I PUT THEM UP ON THE
SCREEN.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES
ASSERTED.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC LEGAL
DEFICIENCIES IN THE SUBPOENAS
THAT WERE SENT IN IT'S IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TURNING SQUARE
CORNERS AND PROCEEDING BY THE
LAW MATTERS AND FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TO COME HERE AND SAY IT
WAS LANKY DEFIANCE, IT WAS
UNPRECEDENTED THAT YOU HAVE TO
DRAWN AT FIRST INFERENCE AGAINST
THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T RESPOND
TO ANY OF OUR DOCUMENTS.
ALL THE DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS WERE
ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.
MAYBE THEY DISAGREED WITH US BUT
THEY CAN'T JUST SAY WE PROVIDED
NO RATIONALE AND YOU HAVE TO
DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE.
THERE'S A SPECIFIC LEGAL
RATIONALE PROVIDED AND THEY
DIDN'T TRY TO ENGAGE IN AN
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND THEY
DIDN'T TRY TO GO TO COURT.
YES IT'S TRUE OUR POSITION IS
THAT WHEN IT GOES TO COURT
ARTICLE III COURTS DON'T HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THAT.
THEIR POSITION IS ARTICLE III
COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THAT.
THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN GET A
COURT ORDER TO REQUIRE US TO
COMPLY WITH A VALID SUBPOENA BUT
THEY NEVER TRIED TO ESTABLISH IN
COURT THAT THEIR SUBPOENAS WERE
VALID.
WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF A LEGAL
DEFICIENCY ON ONE SIDE.
THEY THINK IT'S DIFFERENT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO COURT
AND GET IT RESOLVED.
WE HAVE THE ASSERTION OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM
CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION FOR
SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY EVERY
PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON.
THEY TRY TO SAY OH IT'S
PREPOSTEROUS AND IT'S IRRELEVANT
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THAT.
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON
VIRTUALLY HAS ASSERTED THAT BUT
IT'S ONLY BEEN ADDRESSED BY TWO
DISTRICT COURTS.
TRIAL LEVEL COURT'S.
THE FIRST ONE REJECTED IT AND
ITS DECISION WAS MADE BY THE
APPELLATE COURT WHICH MEANS THE
APPELLATE COURT THOUGHT PROBABLY
YOU'VE GOTTEN IT WRONG OR AT A
MINIMUM IS A REALLY DIFFERENT --
DIFFICULT QUESTION WE AREN'T
SURE ABOUT THAT IN THE SECOND
DISTRICT COURT DECISION IS BEING
LITIGATED RIGHT NOW.
THEY ARE LITIGATING IT.
AND WHEN THEY SAY WHEN CHARLIE
KUPPERMAN WENT TO COURT THEY
WERE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING
REASONABLE AND SAY OH WELL WE
DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE THIS WITH
YOU.
YOU SHOULD JUST AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE McCAIN DECISION.
WHAT'S TO SAY EVERY LITIGANT
GETS HIS DAY IN COURT?
WHY SHOULDN'T CHARLIE KUPPERMAN
GET HIS COUNSEL TO ARGUE HIS
POSITION ON THAT'S?
HE DIDN'T WANT TO SEND GOING TO
TRUST IT TO THE OTHER PEOPLE
LITIGATING THE OTHER CASE BUT
I'VE GOT MY CASE.
BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT SO
THEY MOOTED OUT THE CASE.
THEY WITHDREW SUBPOENAS AND
MOOTED OUT THE CASE BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO THE HEARING
IN FRONT OF JUDGE LEON ON
DECEMBER 10.
THEY HAVE ALSO POINTED OUT WITH
SOME OUTRAGE THE DOCUMENTS HAVE
BEEN MORE READILY PRODUCED UNDER
FOIA THEN IN RESPONSE TO THEIR
SUBPOENAS.
BUT WHAT THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS IS
WHEN YOU TURN SQUARE CORNERS,
YOU FOLLOW THE LAW AND THE
ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS THE LAW.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FOLLOWS THE
LAW AND RESPONSE IN THAT'S RIGHT
ARE THE DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED.
INFORMATION CAME OUT BUT THEY
DIDN'T GET IT BECAUSE THEY
ISSUED INVALID SUBPOENAS AND
THEY DIDN'T TRY TO DO ANYTHING
TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF
THEIR SUBPOENAS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SLOPPY AND
ISSUED AND VALID SUBPOENAS YOU
AREN'T GOING TO GET A RESPONSE
BUT IF SOME PRIVATE LITIGANT
FOLLOWS FOIA AND GETS THE FOIA
REPORTS THEY GET A RESPONSE SO
TO ACT LIKE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND HAS DONE SOME
BLANKET DENIAL OF EVERYTHING IS
INACCURATE AND THERE'S NO BASIS
FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE
BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIFIC
PRIVILEGE FOR EVERY REASON NOT
TO PRODUCE SOMETHING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
DID ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK
MULVANEY WAIVE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN HIS OCTOBER 17
PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE
STATED THAT THERE WAS QUOTE
POLITICAL INFLUENCE END QUOTE IN
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S
DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID TO
UKRAINE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS IN THE
SENATE I THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
MICK AFENI HAS WAIVED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
HE NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
IN FACT AS THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY
HAVE NOT ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE ONCE.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS SAID
WHEN WE MADE THAT POINT DURING
OUR OPENING ARGUMENTS THAT WAS
TECHNICALLY TRUE.
NO, IT'S TRUE.
IT'S NOT AN ALTERNATIVE FACT.
IT IS A FACT.
YOU NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN CONNECTION WITH
MICK MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY OR ANY
ONE ELSE.
IT WAS NOT ASSERTED AS IT
RELATES TO ANY OF THE 17
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED.
12 OF WHOM TESTIFIED PUBLICLY.
THE OTHER PHONY ARGUMENT THAT
HAS BEEN ARTICULATED
RESPECTFULLY ARE THAT THE HOUSE
NEEDED A VOTE IN ORDER FOR THE
SUBPOENA TO BE VALID.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES THE
FULL HOUSE TO VOTE, NOTHING IN
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, NOTHING
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, NOTHING UNDER
THE HOUSE RULES.
IT WAS A PHONY ARGUMENT GET THE
HOUSE AFTER THE INITIAL PHASES
OF THE INVESTIGATION DID FULLY
VOTE AND FULLY VOTED ON OCTOBER
OCTOBER 31.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH MICK
MULVANEY WAS SUBPOENAED
THEREAFTER, NOT A FOUR,
THEREAFTER, AFTER THE HOUSE HAD
VOTED.
SUBPOENAED ON NOVEMBER 7.
HERE IT IS.
THE NEXT DAY THE WHITE HOUSE
RESPONDED.
THEY RESPONDED WITH A TWO-PAGE
LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8.
THERE IS NO MENTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN THE NOVEMBER 8
LETTER BUT HERE'S WHAT IT DOES
SAY.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS
ADVISED ME THAT MR. MULVANEY IS
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY WITH
RESPECT TO MATTERS RELATED TO
HIS SERVICE AS A SENIOR ADVISER
TO THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS
LETTER FROM MR. CIPOLLONE IS IT
DOESN'T CITE A SINGLE LEGAL CASE
FOR THAT OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSITION,
A SINGLE LEGAL CASE FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT MICK MULVANEY
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW TO
SUPPORT IT.
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT.
HE GOT CAUGHT AND THEN HE WORKED
HARD TO COVER IT UP.
THE SENATE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH.
WE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH BY
CALLING WITNESSES WHO CAN
TESTIFIED AND ANY PRIVILEGED
ISSUE CAN BE WORKED OUT AT THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A
FAIR TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES A FAIR
TRIAL.
THE CONSTITUTION DESERVES A FAIR
TRIAL THAT INCLUDES MULVANEY,
THAT INCLUDES BOLTON AND
INCLUDES OTHER RELIC -- RELEVANT
WITNESSES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR YOUNG AND
SENATOR CRAPO THE QUESTION
DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION DIRECTED TO THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE
HOUSE MANAGERS OR THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFY
THE STANDARD STANDARDS APPROVED
TO BE USED IN TRIALS OF
IMPEACHMENT AND THE SENATE HAS
NOT ADOPTED THE UNIFORM STANDARD
BY RULE.
THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS
ARGUABLY A QUESTION FOR EACH
INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
IN THE CLINTON TRIAL AND NOW
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IT APPEARS
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS APPLY
DIFFERENT STANDARDS DEPENDING ON
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS A
MEMBER OF THEIR PARTY.
WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE
USED IN TRIALS OF IMPEACHMENT,
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
CLEAR AND CONVINCING, BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT AND WHY?
>> I THINK IT'S DETERMINED BY
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO GO FIRST.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.
THERE IS NO COURT CASE ON THIS.
THE HOUSE NEEDS STRONG EVIDENCE
THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN DECIDED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
SUGGESTED AND AS THE QUESTION
NOTES THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
SPECIFY EITHER THE HOUSES
EVIDENTIARY BURDEN OF PROOF OR
THE SENATE'S.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITSELF
TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING
STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE NIXON
MATTERS WHICH REQUIRES THE
EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING MUST BE
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PROBABLE TO
BE TRUE THAN NOT AND THE PRIOR
MUST HAVE A FIRM BELIEF IN ITS
ACTUALITY.
IN THE CLINTON CASE THE HOUSE
DID NOT COMMIT ANY PARTICULAR
BURDEN OF PROOF AND I WOULD
RECOMMEND AGAINST INCLUDING AN
EXPRESS STANDARD.
INSTEAD, LIKENED THE CLINTONS
SIMPLY FINDING THE FACTS AND ANY
INFERENCES FROM THOSE FACTS
WITHOUT LEGAL TECHNICALITIES.
IT HAS BEEN OPINED THAT IN THE
END IT'S UP TO EACH SENATOR TO
MAKE A JUDGMENT THAT I THINK
THERE IS MUCH TRUTH TO THAT.
YOUR OATH HOLDS YOU TO IMPARTIAL
JUSTICE AND I TRUST THAT EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF YOU IS HOLDING
THAT OATH VERY DEAR TO YOUR
HEART.
YOU WILL FIND THE FACTS AND LEAD
TO A JUST RESULT FOR OUR COUNTRY
, THE CONSTITUTION AND
FOR A FUTURE THAT HOPEFULLY IS
AS FREE AS HER PAST HAS BEEN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I THINK THE CONSTITUTION MAKES
IT CLEAR IN THE TERMS THAT IT
SPEAKS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE ALL
RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL LAW.
IT SPEAKS OF DEFENSE HERE THAT
SPEAKS OF CONVICTION.
IT SPEAKS OF A TRIAL AND SAYING
THAT'S CRIMES SHALL BE TRIED BY
JURY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THE GRAVITY OF A PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT IS AN ISSUE OF
BREATHTAKING IMPORTANCE FOR THE
COUNTRY.
CAN CAUSE TREMENDOUS DISRUPTION
TO OUR GOVERNMENT.
BOTH COUNCILS ARE IN FAVOR OF
TRADITIONAL STANDARDS OF PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND IN
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT SENATORS
BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS,
REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED IN FAVOR OF
THOSE STANDARDS.
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD SAID QUOTE
AND MAKING A DECISION OF THIS
MAGNITUDE IT IS BEST NOT TO AIR
AT ALL.
THEY HAVE MUST DARE WE SHOULD
ERR ON THE SIDE OF RESPECTING
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
SIMILARLY SENATOR BARBARA
MIKULSKI THEN SAID QUOTE THE
U.S. SENATE MUST NOT MAKE THE
DECISION TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT
BASED ON A HUNCH THAT THE
CHARGES MAY BE TRUE.
THE STRENGTH OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND THE STRENGTH OF OUR NATION
IS SURE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THE PREPONDERANCE IS
WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT AND THAT
MEANS 50.1% THINK IT'S A LITTLE
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.
EVEN CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE IS NOT.
HAS TO BE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT AND SENATOR ROCKEFELLER
EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THAT MEETS
QUOTE IT'S PROVEN TO A MORAL
CERTAINTY THAT THE CASE IS
CLEAR.
THAT IS THE STANDARD THE SENATOR
SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE GRAVITY
OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU WOULD
NOT PERMIT APPLYING A STANDARD.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGER.
EVEN IF THE COMMUNICATION OR
DOCUMENT IS COVERED BY EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE THAT PRIVILEGE CAN BE
OVERCOME BY SHOWING THE EVIDENCE
IS IMPORTANT AND UNAVAILABLE
ELSEWHERE.
HYUN-JIN RAY 22nd WILL THIS
TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID QUOTE I THOUGHT OUR
TEAM DID A VERY GOOD JOB BUT
HONESTLY WE HAVE ALL THE
MATERIAL.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE MATERIAL END
QUOTE.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALLOWS THE
PRESIDENT TO CONCEAL INFORMATION
FROM CONGRESS PARTICULARLY IF
THE OFFENSE CANNOT HE OBTAINED
ELSEWHERE?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY FOR THE
QUESTION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE HAS THE
POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND IS THE COUNSEL
ADMITTED ON SATURDAY THE
PRESIDENT HAS NOT FORMALLY
INVOKED IT OVER ANY DOCUMENTS
REQUESTED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSERTED AS A
RELEASE TO ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE GIVES
PRESIDENT TRUMP A QUALIFIED FORM
OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHEN HE DOES
GET ADVICE FROM HIS AIDES IN
ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF
HIS OFFICE.
AND AS I KNOW YOU ARE ALL AWARE
IT IS OFTEN THE CASE IN
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL CLAIM
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
A SMALL SUBSET OF MATERIALS.
IN THAT CASE BUT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH USUALLY DOES AND SHOULD
DO IS TO PRODUCE EVERYTHING THAT
I CAN AND THEN PROVIDE A LOG OF
DOCUMENTS IN PURSUIT OR PERMIT A
REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN CONTESTED.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN
THE CASE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO DEFY
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INSPIRED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, LIKE ITS
DEFIANCE IS WHAT HAS TAKEN
PLACE.
AND THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DO THAT
EVERY COURT THAT HAS CONSIDERED
THE MATTER HAS ASSERTED THAT THE
PRESIDENT CANNOT ASSERT A
PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT HIS OWN
MISCONDUCT, TO PROTECT
WRONGDOING, TO PROTECT EVIDENCE
THAT THE CONSTITUTION MAY HAVE
BEEN VIOLATED.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO IT.
IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE
CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR
INFORMATION AT ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ARE AT
ITS GREATEST IMPERATIVE TO
INVESTIGATE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
OF MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT
CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU RIGHT
NOW.
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT ARE CLOSE TO WHAT WE FACE
TODAY IN U.S. VERSUS NIXON IN
THE CONTEXT OF A GRAND JURY
SUBPOENA.
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND
PRESIDENT NIXON'S GENERALIZED
ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE MUST
YIELD TO THE DEMONSTRATED NEED
FOR EVIDENCE IN THE PENDING
TRIAL IN FEDERAL COURT HERE IN
D.C. HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
CONGRESS IS NEED FOR INFORMATION
AND FOR DOCUMENTS DURING AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS
PARTICULARLY COMPELLING.
TURNING TO THE FACT OF THE
MATTER BRIEFLY EVERY DOC
AMERIQUEST BY CONGRESS IS
SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE OR SOME
FORM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS
ABSURD.
THERE ARE CALENDAR SCHEDULING
E-MAILS PHOTOGRAPHS
CORRESPONDENCE WITH OUTSIDE
PARTIES LIKE RUDOLPH GIULIANI.
THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES
OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
AND I'M NOT -- ARE NOT THE TYPE
OF MATERIAL SUBJECT TO ANY
REASONABLE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
IF YOU WANT A FAIR TRIAL IT
SHOULD INVOLVE DOCUMENTS.
DOCUMENTS LIKE AMBASSADOR
BOLTON'S NOTE THE TENET COLONEL
VINDMAN'S DECISION MEMO SHOULD
ALSO BE PROVIDED TO YOU SO YOU
CAN SEEK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE
TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
IS.
>> SAID SENATOR MORAN MY
COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS HAS SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR COUNSEL
AND THE PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT IS WHAT DID HUNTER
BIDEN DO FOR THE MONEY THAT
WORRIES MY HOLDINGS PAID HIM?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS AS
FAR AS WE KNOW SENATOR BIDEN HAS
SAID HE QUOTE ATTENDED IT COPE
OLD BOARD MEETINGS A YEAR AND
QUOTE.
HERE'S WHAT WE DO KNOW.
HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND ONE
BOARD MEETING IN MONACO.
NOW WE ALSO HEARD THAT WHEN THE
OWNER OF WORRIES MY FLED TO
UKRAINE HE WAS LIVING IN MONACO
SO HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND A
BOARD MEETING IN MONACO.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT HUNTER BIDEN
WENT TO NORWAY ON A FISHING TRIP
AND HE TOOK HIS DAUGHTER AND HIS
NEPHEW SO HE TOOK TWO OF JOE
BIDEN'S CHILDREN WITH HIM ON A
FISHING TRIP TO NORWAY WITH FULL
CHESTY AND THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE
KNOW OTHER THAN HIS STATEMENT HE
INTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD
MEETINGS.
FACTUALLY THAT IS WHAT HE SAID
AND THE TIMELINE SHOWS AGAIN
DEVON ARCHER WAS ON THE BOARD
WITH HIM AND HUNTER BIDEN
REMAINED ON THE BOARD BUT
FACTUALLY AND THE RECORD THAT IS
AS MUCH AS WE KNOW THAT HE DID
INVOLVING BURISMA.
THE NORWAY TRIP WAS JUNE OF
2015.
HE REMAINED ON THE WARD.
UNTIL APRIL OF 2019.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO THEN
UKRAINIAN COURT IN SEPTEMBER
SEPTEMBER 2016 CANCELED
VOLCHESKI'S ARREST WARRANT AND
DECEMBER 15 VICE PRESIDENT ITEM
CALLED PRESIDENT POROSHENKO AND
THEN MID-JANUARY 2017 BURISMA
ANNOUNCED ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE COMPANY AND
VOLCHESKI HAD BEEN CLOSE.
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS RECOGNIZE.
>> A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE
MANAGER.
>> THE QUESTION READS AS
FOLLOWS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS STAY THE
PRESIDENT DEMANDS ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY.
THE PRESENCE COUNSEL DISPUTES
THIS.
CAN EITHER OF YOU NAME A SINGLE
WITNESS OR DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE
PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN ACCESS, HAS
GIVEN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE WHEN
REQUESTED?
IT BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GO FIRST.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU
MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER FOR THE
QUESTION LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR
AND DISTINGUISH A COUPLE OF
THINGS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE SAID THERE WAS A BLANKET
DEFIANCE.
THAT'S THE WAY THEY
CHARACTERIZED IT.
WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU
ANYTHING AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE
IS BLANKET DEFIANCE WE ARE NOT
GOING TO RESPOND.
WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN SEVERAL
TIMES THAT WAS NOT THE
PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE.
THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY
ARTICULATED RESPONSES TO
DIFFERENT REQUESTS BASED ON
DIFFERENT LEGAL RATIONALE
BECAUSE THERE WERE DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS WITH DIFFERENT
SUBPOENAS.
ONE PROBLEM IS ALL THE SUBPOENAS
UP UNTIL OCTOBER 31 OR NOT
VALIDLY AUTHORIZED SO THOSE
SUBPOENAS WE SAID WE AREN'T
GOING TO RESPOND TO THOSE
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T VALIDLY
ISSUED.
WASN'T AN ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND IT WASN'T ANYTHING
ELSE.
IT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY WERE
FELT THEY AUTHORIZE.
THEY POINTED OUT AH-HAH WE
SUBPOENAED I THINK IT WAS
MENTIONED ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF
MULVANEY AFTER OCTOBER 31.
THAT IS TRUE BUT THEY DIDN'T
RELY ON THE FACT THAT THE
SUBPOENA WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.
WE POINTED OUT THE DOCTRINE OF
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF SENIOR
ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT.
IT IS NOT SOME ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
FOR THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
DOESN'T APPLY TO ALL OF THE
SUBPOENAS THEY ISSUED.
AS EXPLAINED IN HER BRIEF IT
APPLIES TO THREE.
THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THEY
SUBPOENAED AS WITNESSES ON THIS
BASIS ALONE THAT THE PRESIDENT
DECLINED TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY,
THAT LEGAL ADVISER TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL JOHN
EISENBERG AND THE DEPUTY OF
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
MR. KUPPERMAN.
IT'S IN OUR BRIEF.
AS THOSE THREE THAT HAD
IMMUNITY.
A DOCTRINE ASSERTED BY EVERY
PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON.
THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE
SUBPOENAS.
SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO
WERE NOT STANDARD VISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT THAT THIS PRESIDENT
DID NOT ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
INSTEAD THE SUBPOENAS REFUSE TO
ALLOW THOSE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PERSONNEL TO HAVE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH COUNSEL ACCOMPANIED THEM
AND THE OPINION HAS BEEN
PUBLISHED IN ITS ON LINE.
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFUSE
TO ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL
TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION DURING QUESTIONING
AND THEREFORE IT'S NOT VALID TO
FORCE THEM TO APPEAR.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS YOU KNOW WE HAVE
RECEIVED NOTHING AS PART OF OUR
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE THAT SUBPOENAED
BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE HAD
STANDING AUTHORITY UNDER THE
HOUSE RULES AND THEY WERE THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WHICH HAS
UNDER STANDARD AUTHORITY TO
INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER AT ANY
TIME AS WELL AS THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE ADOPTED
JANUARY 11 TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
THEY DID AND THEY WERE TRIED BY
THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
HAS NEVER BEEN UPHELD BY ANY
COURT AND IT'S REALLY
INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO SAY THAT
SOMEHOW THIS CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY HAS LURKED IN HIDING
FOR CENTURIES FOR A PRESIDENT TO
USE IT IN THIS DAY.
WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES,
THE MEYERS CASE IN THE McGAHN
CASE COURTS COMPLETELY REJECTED
THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
THERE IS A DECISION RECENTLY
MADE AND THEY McGAHN CASE AND
HERE'S WHAT IT SAID.
STATED SIMPLY THE PRIMARY TAKE
AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF
RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS
THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.
THAT'S THE JUDGE'S WORDS, NOT
MINE.
COMPULSIVE RE-APPEARANCE BY A
SUBPOENA IS A LEGAL CONSTRUCT
NOT A POLITICAL ONE AND PER THE
CONSTITUTION NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PERMITTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY THE
LAW TO ASSERT ANY KIND OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICA
AND AS THE JUDGES POINTED OUT
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT A
KING WOULD ASSERT IT I'M NOT
SAYING THAT BUT I WILL SAY THIS,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT CHECKS AND
BALANCES PREVENT.
NOBODY HAS ABSOLUTE POWER IN OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
NOT THE HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT
AND NOT THE JUDICIARY.
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND JUST
WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS
A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
I THINK MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
BREDESEN THE QUESTION TO THE
DESK WHERE THE COUNSEL OF THE
PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
CRUZ AND MYSELF.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS YOU REFUSE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION ON POLITICAL
BIAS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS REFUSING TO
TELL THE SENATE WHETHER OR NOT
THE SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER HAD
AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THERE ARE 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON
PLANET EARTH AND ALMOST ALL HAD
NO INVOLVEMENT IN BIDEN'S QUID
PRO QUO PRAYED THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WILLING TO SAY WHETHER
THE SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER IS A
FACT WITNESS WHO DIRECTLY
PARTICIPATED IN AND COULD FACE
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR
JOE BIDEN'S DEMANDING UKRAINE
FIRED PROSECUTOR WHO IS
INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND WHY
DID HE REFUSE TO TRANSMIT TO THE
SENATE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
TRANSCRIPT?
>> WHICH SIDE?
>> 'S ADDRESS TO BOTH SIDES AND
I THINK PERHAPS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS CAN GO FIRST.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THE ICI G.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES
HAVE TRIED TO SHIFT FOCUS TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
A HIGHLY RESPECTED VETERAN OF
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND HIS
HANDLING OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINT.
THERE'S AN EFFORT TO INSINUATE
WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER IN AN EFFORT TO
INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON BEHALF
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE
BRIEFINGS WE HAD WITH THE ICI G.
RELATED TO USUAL AND PROBLEMATIC
HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITHIN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH
DIVERTS FROM ANY PRIOR
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT BY
ANYONE WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY BY THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE IS CONTINUING ITS
ONGOING OVERSIGHT TO DETERMINE
WHY AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT WAS
INITIALLY CONCEAL FROM THE
COMMITTEE IN VIOLATION OF THE
LAW.
THE ICI G. CONTINUES TO SERVE
ADMIRABLY.
LIKE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE DOES NOT RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS OF ITS ENGAGEMENT
WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S ON
SENSITIVE MATTERS BECAUSE DOING
SO RISKS UNDERCUTTING IMPORT
MECHANISM FOR THE COMMITTEE TO
CONDUCT OVERSIGHT.
THE TRANSFERS REMAIN PROPERLY
CLASSIFIED IN CONFORMITY WITH
PROTECTING SENSITIVE INFORMATION
TO THE ICIG MADE EVERY EFFORT TO
PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S
IDENTITY AND BRIEFED US WITH
EXPEDITION WITH THE EXPECTATION
RATHER THAT IT WOULD NOT THE
MADE PUBLIC AND WE ARE TRYING TO
HONOR THAT EXPECTATION.
WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATIONS OF
BIAS ON THE PART OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER LET ME REFER YOU
TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL WHICH IS AFTER
EXAMINING THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND
THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S BACKGROUND
AND A POTENTIAL OBLIGATION OF
ANY BIAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER DREW
TWO CONCLUSIONS.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS CREDIBLE
MEANING THAT WHATEVER ISSUE
PERCEIVED OR REAL THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOUND THAT WHISTLEBLOWER
CREDIBLE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND
THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT
WAS URGENT AND THAT IT NEEDED TO
BE PROVIDED TO CONGRESS.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FURTHER
FOUND THAT IT WAS WITHHELD FROM
CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW
, IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE.
FOR THAT HE IS BEING ATTACKED.
NOW COME SOUL FOR THE PRESIDENT
WILL RELY ON AN OPINION OF THE
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AND
NOT TRANSMITTING THE COMPLAINT
TO CONGRESS.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE ON PAGE FIVE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
IT STATES ALTHOUGH THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL'S CULINARY REVIEW
IDENTIFIES IN A SHOW OF ARGUABLE
POLITICAL BIAS ON THE PART OF
THE COMPLAINT.
>> THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
GOES ON ON TO SAY INVOLVING A
RIVAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE SUCH
EVIDENCE DOES NOT CHANGE HIS
VIEW ABOUT THE CREDIBLE NATURE
OF THE CONCERN OVER WHAT APPEARS
TO BE CREDIBLE BUT TO ARGUE THAT
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF
POLITICAL BIAS, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL HIMSELF SAID THAT AS IN
FACT AT LEAST THE PRELIMINARY
REVIEWS INDICATE SOME POLITICAL
BIAS.
THERE ARE POLITICAL REPORTS AND
MEDIA THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY
HAVE WORKED FOR JOE BIDEN WHEN
HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT.
HE MAY HAVE HAD SOME AREA UNDER
HIS WATCH INVOLVING UKRAINE BUT
I ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS
INTERESTING THAT MANAGER SCHIFF
JUST TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF HOW THEY CONTROL THE PROCESS
AS IT RELATES TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
REPORT BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE
NATURE OF THOSE.
DO WE NOT THINK THE SENSITIVE
NATURE OF INFORMATION SHARED BY
THE PRESIDENT'S MOST SENIOR
ADVISERS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT
TO THE SAME TYPE OF PROTECTIONS?
OF COURSE, IT HAS TO BE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
MANCHIN READS AS FOLLOWS.
THE FRAMERS TOOK THE WORDS HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS STRAIGHT
OUT OF ENGLISH LAW WHERE IT HAD
BEEN APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENT FOR
400 YEARS BEFORE CONSTITUTION
WAS WRITTEN.
THE FRAMERS WERE WELL AWARE WHEN
THEY CHOSE THOSE WORDS THE
PARLIAMENT HAD IMPEACHED
OFFICIALS FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE NOT
INDICTABLE AS CRIMES ARE THE
HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY IMPEACHED
AND THE SENATE HAS CONVICTED
OFFICERS FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE NOT
INDICTABLE CRIMES COULD EVEN
MR. DERSHOWITZ SAID IN 1998 AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE QUOTE
CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A
CRIME END QUOTE.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 22
YEARS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS AND
HISTORIC MEANING OF THE TERM
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
TURN.
>> WHAT HAPPENED SINCE 1998 IS
THAT I STUDIED MORE, DID MORE
RESEARCH, READ MORE DOCUMENTS
AND LIKE ANY ACADEMIC ALTERED MY
VIEWS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT'S WHAT PROFESSORS UP TO
TONIGHT KEEP WRITING MORE NIGHT
KEPT WRITING MORE AND HE KEPT
REFINING MY VIEWS BUT 1998 THE
ISSUE BEFORE THE SENATE WAS NOT
WHETHER A CRIME WAS REQUIRED BUT
IT WAS RATHER THE CRIME THAT
CLINTON WAS CHARGED WITH IS A
HIGH CRIME.
WHEN THE IMPEACHMENT BEGAN THE
ISSUE WAS WHETHER A CRIME WAS
REQUIRED.
TWO YEARS EARLIER IN AN OP-ED I
CONCLUDED NOT ON PARTISAN
GROUNDS AND COMPLETELY ACADEMIC
GROUNDS THAT HE COULD NOT
IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND
TECHNICAL CRIME WAS NOT REQUIRED
CRIMINAL LIKE BEHAVIOR WAS
REQUIRED AND I STAND BY THAT
VIEW.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED MEL
ADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS A PRIME CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT UNDER BRITISH LAW.
THE BRITISH NEVER IMPEACHED
PRIME MINISTERS BUT THE ONLY
ENGAGED WILL MIDDLE LEVEL AND
LOW-LEVEL LOW LEVEL PEOPLE SO
THE FRAMERS DIDN'T WANT TO ADOPT
THE APPROACH.
THEY REJECTED IT BY REJECTING
NOW ADMINISTRATION AND WHAT IS A
SYNONYM FOR MEL ADMINISTRATION,
ABUSE OF POWER AND WHEN THEY
REJECTED MEL ADMINISTRATION THEY
OBJECTED TO ABUSE OF POWER PER
CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF ASKED THE
RHETORICAL QUESTION CAN THE
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN ABUSE OF
POWER WITH IMPUNITY AND WE
ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS
SO I GAVE THE QUESTION BACK.
..
THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER
REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ABUSE OF
POWER IS A PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA
IN THE ANSWER FROM THE HISTORY
IS CLEARLY UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOWN.
THAT'S EVER BEEN PUT TO THE
FRAMERS THEY WOULD'VE REJECTED
WITH THE SAME CERTAINTY THEY
REJECTED NOW A ADMINISTRATION.
>> THE FIRST CHANCE OF THE
CONVENTION SAID TREASON OF
BRIBERY.
THAT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS
NOT INCLUSIVE ENOUGH.
SOMEBODY MAY PROPOSE THE
ADMINISTRATION FOUND TO VAGUE SO
THEY SET HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, THAT WAS A WELL
UNDERSTOOD TERM IN ENGLISH LAW
AND A WELL UNDERSTOOD TERM IN
THE IMPEACHMENT GOING ON IN
ENGLAND RIGHT THEN.
AN EVENT PRIMARILY IN ABUSE OF
POWER.
THAT IS THE MAIN MEANING OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
CHARLES SAID THOSE WHO BEHAVE IN
THIS OR BEHAVE THE TRUST
MISBEHAVES BUT I QUOTED THE
STORE YESTERDAY EVERY
IMPEACHMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY
HAS BEEN FOR ABUSE OF POWER IN
ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
CRIME, BRIBERY IS RIGHT THERE IN
THE CONSTITUTION.
TREASON BRIBERY, IT WAS NOT MADE
A STATUTORY CRIME UNTIL 1837.
SO IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
IMPEACHMENT FREE THE FACT OF THE
MATTER IS THAT CRIMES IN
IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE NOT PUNISHMENTS
FOR CRIMES.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE PROTECTIONS OF
THE PUBLIC AGAINST A PRESIDENT
WHO ABUSES POWER, WHO WOULD
THREATEN LIBERTY, WHO THREATENED
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
THREATEN THE CONGRESS TO
IRRIGATE PART OF HER POWER TO
HIMSELF.
THAT IS WHY PUNISHMENT ONLY GOES
THROUGH THE OFFICE, YOU CANNOT
PUT HIM IN JAIL AS YOU COULD FOR
CRIME, YOU CANNOT FIND HIM AS
YOU COULD FOR CRIME.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS,
AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN A
CRIME BE NOT IN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
TWO DIFFERENT TEST UNDERSTOOD
THAT WAY THROUGHOUT AMERICAN
HISTORY AND BY ALL SCHOLARS, ALL
SCHOLARS EXCEPT FOR MR. JEWISH
MR. DERSHOWITZ.
>>  THANK YOU MR. MANAGER THE
SENATOR FROM OR CAROLINA.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE COUNCIL THE PRESIDENT.
>> WE HAVE SEEN THE HOUSE
MANAGERS REPEATEDLY PLAY VIDEO
CLIPS OF ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF
MICK MULVANEY'S PRESS CONFERENCE
IN WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ALLEGATION THAT
MR. MULVANEY SUPPORTED THEIR
CLAIMS IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, SENATOR THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION.
WE RESPOND AS MR. PHILBIN DID
EARLIER TODAY WITH THAT WHICH IS
MR. MULVANEY HAS ISSUED TWO
STATEMENTS, ONE AFTER HIS PRESS
CONFERENCE AND ONE MONDAY AFTER
THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
CONCERNING MR. BOLTON'S ALLEGED
MANUSCRIPT, STATEMENTS IN HIS
MANUSCRIPT.
I THINK THE EASIEST THING IS TO
READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE
SAID AND TO PUT INTO CONTEXT FOR
EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER.
THIS IS FROM -- THIS IS THE DAY
OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
ONCE AGAIN THE MEDIA HAS DECIDED
TO MISCONSTRUE MY COMMENTS TO A
BIASED POLITICAL WITCH-HUNT
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
LET ME BE CLEAR THERE WAS
ABSOLUTE IN NO QUID PRO QUO
BETWEEN UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID
IN ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE
2016 ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT HOWEVER, TOLD ME
TOO WITHHOLD ANY MONEY UNTIL THE
UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING RELATED
TO THE SERVER.
THE ONLY REASON WE WERE HOLDING
THE MONEY WAS BECAUSE OF CONCERN
ABOUT LACK OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER
NATIONS AND CONCERN OVER
CORRUPTION.
MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE 30
MINUTE BRIEFING I TOOK 25
QUESTIONS AND I REFERRED TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTEREST IN
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE AND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE
SPENT RESPONSIBLY AND
APPROPRIATELY.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE FUNDS IN THE
UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING WITH
THE SERVER.
THIS IS MADE EXCLUSIVELY THAT
THE AID MONEY WAS DELIVERED
WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON THE PART
OF THE UKRAINIANS GUARDING THE
SERVER.
RELATED TO THE MATTER OF THE D&C
SERVER.
ON JANUARY 27th WHICH IS
MONDAY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT
FROM BOB DRISCOLL,
MR. MULVANEY'S ATTORNEY.
I WILL READ IN FULL.
THE LATEST WORD FROM THE NEAR
TIMES CORRELATED WITH THE BOOK
LAUNCH WITH PUBLICITY OF THE
TRUTH.
JOHN BOLTON DID NOT INFORM MICK
MULVANEY OF ANY CONCERNS
SURROUNDING BOLTON'S AUGUST
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
NOR DID MR. MULVANEY EVER HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
OR ANYONE ELSE INDICATING THE
UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID WAS
WITHHELD IN EXCHANGE FOR
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION OF
BREEZE MUST, THE BIDENS OR THE
2016 ELECTION, FURTHERMORE
MR. MULVANEY HAS NO RECOLLECTION
OF ANY REASONABLY MR. BOLTON'S
MANUSCRIPT AS IT WAS
MR. MULVANEY'S PRACTICE TO
EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE
PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESERVE ANY
PRIVILEGE.
SO I WANTED TO READ THE
STATEMENT SIMPLE SO EVERYONE HAD
THE FULL CONTEXT.
EVEN AFTER MR. PHILBIN
REFERENCED THE STATEMENT AFTER
THE PRESS CONFERENCE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS AGAIN MR. MULVANEY
ADMITTED THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
AS MR. MULVANEY MISSPOKE OR THE
WORDS WERE GARGLED HE CORRECTED
IT THAT DAY AND HAS BEEN VERY
CLEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
>> YES, SIR CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND
THE QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
>> THE QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GHOST
FIRST.
WHAT DID NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISED THAT JOHN BOLTON MET
WHEN HE REFERENCED WHATEVER DRUG
DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE
COOKING UP ON THIS" AND DID HE
EVER RAISE THE ISSUE AT ANY
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
WHEN JOHN BOLTON, THIS IS
ACCORDING TO DOCTOR HILL'S
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DRUG DEAL,
IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A
JULY 10 MEETING IN THE WHITE
HOUSE, TO MEANING SUNDAY, THERE
WAS A MEETING THAT INVESTOR
BOLTON WAS PRESENT FOR AND THEN
HE ABRUPTLY ENDED THE FIRST
MEANING.
UKRAINIANS NATURALLY WANTED TO
RAISE THE TOPIC OF GETTING THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SO
DESPERATELY WANTED.
AFTER RAISING THE ISSUE AT SOME
POINT AMBASSADOR SOLOMON SAID WE
HAVE A DEAL, THEY WILL GET THE
MEETING ONCE HE ANNOUNCED
INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS THE POINT WHERE
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFEN.
YOU CAN LOOK UP DOCTOR HILL'S
EXACT WORDS AND I'M PARAPHRASING
HERE.
THIS IS A POINT WHERE AMBASSADOR
BOLTON STIFFENS AND ENDS THE
MEETING.
HE'LL FOLLOW SONDLAND IN THE
DELEGATION TO ANOTHER PART OF
THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE
MEETING CONTINUES BETWEEN THE
AMERICAN DELEGATION IN THE
UKRAINIAN DELEGATION AND THERE
IS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT BECAUSE IN
THE SECOND MEETING SONDLAND SAYS
AND BRINGS UP THE BIDENS
SPECIFIC.
HILL GOES TO TALK TO BOLTON.
AND INFORMS HIM WITH WHAT'S
TAKING PLACE IN THE FOLLOWING
MEETING.
BOLTON'S RESPONSES GO TALK TO
THE LAWYERS.
AND LET THEM KNOW I DON'T WANT
TO BE PART OF THE DRUG DEAL THAT
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY HAVE
COOKING UP.
SO AT THAT POINT, THAT SPECIFIC
CONVERSATION TO THE REFERENCE OF
THE QUID PRO QUO OVER THE WHITE
HOUSE MEETING.
WE KNOW FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS AND
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO
AND ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING AND ALL THE EFFORTS BY
GIULIANI TO MAKE SURE THE
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION ARE
MENTIONED IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS
HAPPEN.
BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
WE CAN BRING IN JOHN BOLTON AND
ASK HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS
REFERRING TO WHEN HE DESCRIBED
THE DRUG DEAL.
DID BOLTON DESCRIBE AND DISCUSS
THE DRUG DEAL WITH THE
PRESIDENT, IT CERTAINLY APPEARS
FROM WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE
MANUSCRIPT THAT THEY DID TALK
ABOUT THE FREEZE ON AID.
AND WHETHER JOHN BOLTON
UNDERSTOOD AND WHAT POINT HE
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DRUG DEAL
WAS EVEN BIGGER AND MORE
PERNICIOUS THAN HE THOUGHT AND
WOULD NOT JUST INVOLVE THE
MEETING BUT THE MILITARY AID AND
THERE'S ONE WAY TO FIND OUT.
AND IN TERMS OF MR. MULVANEY,
MAYBE I'LL ADD IT LATER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AS TWO AND
HALF MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE QUESTION ASKS ABOUT WHAT
AMBASSADOR BOLTON MET IN A
COMMENT THAT'S REPORTED HEARSAY
FROM SOMEONE ELSE SAYING WHAT HE
SUPPOSEDLY SAID.
WHAT WE KNOW, THERE ARE
CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF THE JULE
HOUSE.
DOCTOR HILL SAID SHE HEARD
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY ONE
THING AND HE DENIES HE SAID
THAT, DOCTOR HILL SAID HE'S
TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND
HE SAID SOMETHING TO HER WHAT HE
WAS SAID IN THE MEETING THAT HE
WASN'T THERE BUT SAYING
SOMETHING ABOUT IT CALLING IT A
DRUG DEAL.
WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT, I'M NOT
GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT.
IT'S A HEARSAY REPORT OF
SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT A
MEETING HE WAS IN IN
CHARACTERIZING IT IN SOME WAY
AND ACCORDING TO SPECULATE WHAT
HE MEANT BY THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MYSELF AND
ALSO FOR SENATOR PORTMAN AND
SENATOR BOZEMAN FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND I'M
SENDING IT TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE
SENATORS IS AS FOLLOWS.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019 THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AID WAS
RELEASED TO UKRAINE YET THE
HOUSE MANAGERS CONTINUE TO ARGUE
THE PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITION
THE AID ON AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE BIDENS.
DID THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR
HIS GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY MEET
ANY OF THE ALLEGED REQUIREMENTS
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE AID?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE VERY SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
BUT I'LL EXPLAIN.
I THINK THAT'S CLEAR, WE
DEMONSTRATED IN OUR PRESENTATION
ON FRIDAY AND MONDAY THAT THE
AID WAS RELEASED, THE AID
FLOWED, THERE WAS A MEETING AT
THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A
MEETING PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED IN
WARSAW PRECISELY AS PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY HAD SUGGESTED AND THERE
WAS NEVER ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF
ANY INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN
REGARDING THE BIDENS, BURISMA,
THE 2016 ELECTION.
NO STATEMENTS, NO INVESTIGATIONS
ANNOUNCED BEGAN BY THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE US ON THE
QUESTION TO THE DESPERATE HOUSE
MANAGER.
>> THE QUESTION IS.
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA
DISSEMINATING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
OR RUDOLPH GIULIANI CONSPIRACY
THEORIES, SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE
THE INFORMATION BEFORE WE
DELIBERATE ON THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS I
THINK THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES
OF RELEVANT MATERIAL HERE, THE
FIRST YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF
JENNIFER WILLIAMS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO
READ IT, I THINK IT SHEDS LIGHT
VERY SPECIFICALLY ON THE VICE
PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE MAY OR MAY
NOT KNOW VIS-À-VIS THE SCHEME.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ
THAT SUBMISSION.
THERE WAS A SECOND BODY OF
INTELLIGENCE THAT THE COMMITTEE
HAD BEEN PROVIDED THAT IS
RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL.
YOU SHOULD ALSO READ.
AND WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT THE
MECHANISM THAT WOULD PERMIT YOU
TO DO SO.
BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT
TO THE ISSUES WE ARE DISCUSSING
AND PERTINENT.
THERE IS A THIRD CATEGORY OF
INTELLIGENCE WHICH RAISES A VERY
DIFFERENT PROBLEM AND THAT IS
THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
FOR THE FIRST TIME REFUSING TO
PROVIDE TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE.
AND THAT MATERIAL HAS BEEN
GATHERED, WE KNOW IT EXISTS BUT
THE NSA HAS BEEN ADVISED NOT TO
PROVIDE IT.
NOW THE DIRECTOR SAYS THAT THIS
IS THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION BUT
NONETHELESS THE BODY OF
INTELLIGENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO
REQUEST WE HAVE MADE AND THAT IS
NOT BEING PROVIDED.
THAT RAISES A VERY DIFFERENT
CONCERN FOR THE ONE FOR THIS
BODY AND THAT IS ARE NOW OTHER
AGENCIES LIKE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY THAT WE REQUIRE TO
SPEAK TO THE POWER THAT WE
REQUIRE TO PROVIDE US THE BEST
INTELLIGENCE NOW ALSO
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AT THE
URGING OF A ADMINISTRATION.
THAT IS A DEEPLY CONCERNING AND
NEW PHENOMENON IN THAT PROBLEM
WE HAD WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE
WHOLESALE INSTRUCTION BUT NOW
WITH RESPECT TO THE I SEE.
BUT THE SHORTER ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION APART FROM JENNIFER
WILLIAMS ARE THE OTHER RELEVANT
MATERIALS THE ANSWER IS YES.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT YOU
IN WE WORK TOGETHER TO FIND OUT
HOW YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM.
>> MR. MAJORITY LEADER.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, TWO QUESTIONS,
ONE FROM EACH SIDE.
THIS WILL BE THE LAST BEFORE WE
BREAK FOR DINNER.
I WOULD ASK THE FOLLOWING AND
THEN THE SENATE SHOULD STAND IN
RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
>> SEND THE QUESTION TO THE
DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
HOW DOES A NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF
POWER STANDARD ADVANCE BY THE
HOUSE MANAGERS DIFFER FROM NOW
ADMINISTRATION.
IN IMPEACHMENT STANDARD REJECTED
FROM THE FRAMERS.
WHERE IS THE LINE FROM AN
ABUSIVE POWER IN A POLICY
DISAGREEMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
QUESTION, THAT QUESTION HITS A
KEY TO THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU
TODAY.
WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED NOW A
ADMINISTRATION AND RECALLED IT
WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON AND
REJECTED BY MADISON ON THE
GROUND IT WOULD TURN OUR NEW
REPUBLIC INTO A PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY WHERE PRIME MINISTER
IN THIS CASE, THE PRESIDENT CAN
BE REMOVED AT THE PLEASURE OF
THE LEGISLATURE.
AND REMEMBER TO, AND BRITAIN,
IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT USED AGAINST
THE PRIME MINISTER.
IT WAS USED AGAINST LOWER LEVEL
PEOPLE.
AND SO NOW ADMINISTRATION WAS
INTRODUCED BY MASON IN MADISON
SAID NO IT WAS TOO VAGUE AND TOO
GENERAL.
NOW WHAT IS NOW A
ADMINISTRATION, IF YOU LOOK IT
UP IN THE DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP
SYNONYMS THE SYNONYMS INCLUDE
ABUSE, CORRUPTION, MS. RULED,
DISHONESTY, MISUSED OF OFFICE
AND MISBEHAVIOR.
EVEN A HARVARD PROFESSOR WHO WAS
IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS AN OMISSION AGAINST
INTEREST BY HIM.
HE IS IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT,
HE SAYS ABUSIVE POWER IS THE
SAME AS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.
HE SAYS AS HIS RESEARCH LEADS
HIM TO CONCLUDE THAT A CRIME IS
REQUIRED.
BY THE WAY THE CONGRESSMAN WAS
JUST COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN HE
SAID I'M THE ONLY SCHOLAR WHO
SUPPORTS HIS POSITION.
IN THE 19th CENTURY WHICH IS
MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO WHEN THE
FRAMERS WROTE THAT THE COLUMBIA
LAW SCHOOL WROTE THAT THE WEIGHT
OF AUTHORITY BY WHICH YOU MET
THE AUTHORITY AND JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY IN 1867, THE WEIGHT OF
AUTHORITY IS IN FAVOR OF
REQUIRING A CRIME, JUST AS
CURTIS CAME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION.
OTHERS HAVE COME TO A SIMILAR
CONCLUSION.
YOU ASK WILL HAPPEN BETWEEN 1998
AND THE CURRENT THAT CHANGE MY
MIND.
WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 19th
CENTURY IN THE 20 CENTURY THAT
CHANGE THE MIND OF SO MANY
SCHOLARS.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THE CURRENT
PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED.
IF IN FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA OR
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON HAD
BEEN IMPEACHED, THE WEIGHT OF
CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP WOULD BE
CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF MY POSITION.
THESE SCHOLARS DO NOT HAVE THE
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT TEST.
THESE SCHOLARS ARE INFLUENCED BY
THEIR OWN BIASED, BY THEIR OWN
POLITICS AND THEIR VIEWS TO BE
TAKEN WITH THAT IN MIND.
THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
PROFESSOR HAD A REVELATION
HIMSELF.
AT THE TIME WHEN CLINTON WAS
IMPEACHED HE SAID THE LAW IS
CLEAR, YOU CANNOT CHARGE A
PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME WHILE
HE'S A SITTING PRESIDENT.
NOW WE HAVE A PRESIDENT,
PROFESSOR GOT WOKE AND THERE WAS
NO APPARENT NEW RESEARCH BECAME
TO THE CONCLUSION OVER THIS
PRESIDENT CAN BE CHARGED WHILE
SITTING IN OFFICE.
THAT IS NOT THE KIND OF
SCHOLARSHIP THAT SHOULD
INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION.
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS,
GO BACK AND READ THE DEBATES AND
YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM RIGHT,
THE FRAMERS REJECTED VAGUE
OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA, ABUSE OF
POWER AND WHAT WE HAVE AS A
FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AGAIN, SHE
GAVE REASONS WHY WE HAVE
IMPEACHMENT, WE FEARED ABUSE OF
POWER, YES WE FEARED CRITERIA
LIKE NOW ADMINISTRATION, THAT
WAS PART OF THE REASON.
WE FEARED INCAPACITY, BUT NONE
OF THOSE MADE INTO THE CRITERIA.
BECAUSE THE FRAMERS HAD TO
STRIKE THE BALANCE.
HERE'S THE REASONS WE NEED
IMPEACHMENT.
NOW HERE'S THE REASONS WE FEAR
GIVING CONGRESS TOO MUCH POWER.
SO WE STRIKE A BALANCE.
HOW DID THEY STRIKE IT, TREASON,
A SERIOUS CRIME, BRIBERY A
SERIOUS CRIME OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAIN OF
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS
INTENDED, THEY DID NOT INTEND TO
GIVE CONGRESS A LICENSE TO
DECIDE WHO TO IMPEACH AND WHO
NOT TO IMPEACHED ON PARTISAN
ROUNDS.
I RENTED THE LIST OF 40 AMERICAN
PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED
OF AMERICAN POWER, SHOULD
EVERYONE BE IMPEACHED, SHOULD
EVERYONE OF BEEN REMOVED FROM
OFFICE, IT IS TOO VAGUE OF TERM.
REJECT MY ARGUMENT ABOUT CRIME,
DO NOT REJECT MY ARGUMENT THAT
ABUSE OF POWER WOULD DESTROY THE
IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND TURN IT INTO
WORDS OF ONE OF THE SENATORS TO
MAKE EVERY PRESIDENT AND EVERY
MEMBER OF THE SENATE AND EVERY
MEMBER OF CONGRESS BE ABLE TO
DEFINE ITSELF FROM WITHIN THEIR
OWN.
EVERY SENATOR SHOULD DECIDE
WHETHER YOU NEED PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT OR PROOF BY A
PREPONDERANCE.
NOW WE HEAR THE EVERY SENATOR --
>>  THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> SENATOR FOR MARYLAND.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A
QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MYSELF
THAT I SEND TO THE DESK FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGER.
>> THE QUESTION IS AS FOLLOW,
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON
WHITE AND CONCURRING OPINION IN
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES
IN 1993, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE
SENATE HAS VERY WIDE DISCRETION
IN SPECIFYING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
PROCEDURES AND STATED THAT THE
SENATE WOULD ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION IF IT WERE TO INSIST
ON A PROCEDURE THAT CANNOT BE
DEEMED A TRIAL BY REASONABLE
JUDGES.
IF THE SENATE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE
TESTIMONY OF KEY WITNESSES IN
THE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS AND
INTENTIONS WOULD A REASONABLE
JUDGE CONCLUDE THESE PROCEEDINGS
CONSTITUTE A CONSTITUTIONALLY
FAIR TRIAL.
>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES I
DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO A
PRIOR JUSTICE TO TELL US THAT A
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES IS NOT
REALLY A TRIAL.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A FAIR TRIAL
IF THE HOUSE MOVES FORWARD WITH
IMPEACHMENT INCOMES BEFORE THE
SENATE AND WANTS TO CALL
WITNESSES AND IS TOLD THOU SHALL
NOT CALL WITNESSES.
THAT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT READING
THE CASE LAW.
IF THEY GO TO JURY DUTY
THEMSELVES EVERY YEAR AND THEY
SEE THE FIRST THING THAT TAKES
PLACE THAT THE JURY IS SWORN IN
AS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES ITS
OPENING STATEMENT, THE DEFENSE
MAKES THEIRS AND BEGINS THE
CALLING OF WITNESSES.
I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT
WHETHER FRESH.
YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS
ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ BUT HE'S
NOT UNPREPARED TODAY AND HE WAS
NOT PREPARED 21 YEARS AGO.
AND TO BELIEVE HE WOULD NOT HAVE
READ 21 YEARS AGO WITH WHAT
MASON OR MADISON HAD TO SAY OR
HAMILTON HAD TO SAY, I AM SORRY
I DO NOT BUY THAT.
I THINK 21 YEARS AGO WE
UNDERSTOOD THAT NOW
ADMINISTRATION WAS REJECTED BUT
SO WAS A PROVISION OF CONFINED
IMPEACHABLE SENSE OF TREASON AND
BRIBERY ALONE WAS REJECTED.
I THINK ALAN DERSHOWITZ FOR 21
YEARS AGO UNDERSTOOD THAT YES
WHILE YOU CANNOT IMPEACHED FOR A
POLICY DIFFERENCE, YOU CAN
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF
POWER.
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID 21 YEARS
AGO.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN,
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN WRITE OFF
THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
OPINION I SAY THEY'RE ALL NEVER
TRUMPER'S.
ALL LAW PROFESSORS, IN FACT
LET'S PLAY A SNIPPET FROM THE
PROFESSOR WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE
DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND THIS
IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY RECENTLY.
>> IN ABUSE OF POWER IN MY VIEW
IS CLEAR, YOU CAN IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR
NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT.
>> WE CANNOT ARGUE PLAUSIBLY
THAT HIS POSITION WILL IS GOING
TO SOME POLITICAL BIAS.
JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO HE WAS IN
THE HOUSE ARGUING THE CASE FOR
MY GOP COLLEAGUES THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE
IMPEACHED.
HE DID SAY YOU CAN ACTUALLY
PROVE THESE THINGS, YOU CAN
PROVE AS INDEED WE HAVE THAT THE
PRESIDENT USED HIS POWER BY
CONDITION THE MILITARY AID TO
HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN.
YES, THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER
YOU CAN IMPEACH FOR THAT KIND OF
ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE
HERE.
WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE OUR
COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR IF WE
ARE TO INTERPRET THE
CONSTITUTION NOW AS SAYING A
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THEIR POWER
AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT
SUGGESTED BEFORE THE BREAK THAT
HE CAN ABUSE THE POWER AND THE
CORRUPT WAY TO HELP THE
REELECTION AND YOU CANNOT DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU CANNOT DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
BECAUSE IF YOU USE IT AS A
PERSONAL INTEREST, THAT IS JUST
FINE.
HE'S ALLOWED TO DO IT.
NONE OF THE FOUNDERS WOULD
ACCEPTED THAT REASONING IN FACT
THE IDEA THAT THE CORE OFFENSE
THAT THE FOUNDERS PROTECTED
AGAINST, THE COURT OFTEN IS
ABUSE OF POWER IS BEYOND THE
REACH OF CONGRESS THROUGH
IMPEACHMENT WOULD HAVE TERRIFIED
THE FOUNDERS.
YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY NUMBER OF
ABUSES OF POWER THE PRESIDENT TO
WITHHOLD AID FROM ANOTHER
COUNTRY AS A THANK YOU FOR THE
ADVERSARY ALLOWING THEM TO BUILD
A TRUMP TOWER IN THE COUNTRY.
IT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL BUT ARE
WE REALLY GOING TO SAY THAT WERE
GOING TO HAVE TO PERMIT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AS A
THANK YOU FOR BUSINESS
PROPOSITION?
THE COUNSELOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY AND
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO THE
CRIME, WE THINK THERE IS A CRIME
HERE OR BRIBERY OR EXTORTION,
CONDITIONING OFFICIAL ACTS FOR
PERSONAL FAVORS.
THAT IS BRIBERY, IT'S ALSO WHAT
THE FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD AS
EXTORTION.
YOU CAN ARGUE EVEN IF YOU ARGUE
UNDER THE MODERN DEFINITION OF
BRIBERY YOU HAVE TO SHOW SUCH
AND SUCH YOU CAN ARGUE THAT IT'S
NOT ATTUNED TO BRIBERY.
THAT'S AN APPOINT WHAT THEY
WOULD ARGUE.
THAT NOW THE PRESIDENT HAS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT HE CAN
DO ANYTHING HE WANTS, HE CAN
ABUSE HIS OFFICE BY SACRIFICING
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
UNDERMINING THE ELECTIONS AND
NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT.
>> MANAGER.
>> WE ARE IN RECESS.
>> SO FAR 54 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
ASKED AT THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
MANAGERS BY THE TRUMP'S DEFENSE
TEAM BY 59 SENATORS.
HERE IS THE CARD THAT THEY HAVE
TO FILL OUT, CRAIG KAPLAN
TWEETED THIS OUT THIS IS UNITED
STATES SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES CHECK WHO YOU WANT THE
QUESTION TO GO TO, YOU HANDWRITE
IT AND THEN YOU MUST SIGN IT.
BY THE WAY ALL 54 OF THOSE
QUESTIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON
C-SPAN'S WEBSITE,
C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT UNDER
POINT OF INTEREST, YOU CAN READ
AND SEE VIDEO OF ALL 54 SO FAR
QUESTIONS.
(202)748-8920 IF YOU LIVE ON THE
EAST CENTRAL TIME ZONE
(202)748-8921 AND THOSE IN THE
MOUNTAIN PACIFIC TIME ZONES AND
YOU CAN TWEET US OR TEXT US IN A
QUESTION AT (202)748-8903 AND OF
COURSE CONTINUE CONVERSATION
ONLINE.
HERE IS CHRIS COONS.
>> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
FOLLOWING THE HAS PROVIDED A
NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS AND ANSWER
QUESTIONS AND ADDRESS ISSUES AND
REVISIT CORE PIECES OF THE CASE
IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARDS TO
SUBPOENAS AND TO THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTION REFUSAL TO PRODUCE
ANY WITNESSES AND ANY DOCUMENTS.
I PARTICULAR STRUCK AT ONE
RECENT DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS NOT
BEEN HIGHLIGHTED OR DISCUSSED
TODAY.
THAT IS A GENERAL JOHN KELLY WHO
IS A FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HAS
PROBABLY SAID HE BELIEVES JOHN
BOLTON.
I WOULD LIKE FOLKS TO FOCUS ON
WHAT THAT MEANS.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS KNOWING
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
JOHN BOLTON IS ALLEGED TO SAY
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID ORDER HIM TO
WITHHOLD AID TO UKRAINE IN ORDER
TO TRY AND LEVERAGE A BASELESS
INVESTIGATION BY UKRAINE.
THIS MEANS HIS FORMER CHIEF OF
STAFF WAS IN THE ROOM AND
WITNESS BEHAVIOR BY THE
PRESIDENT THAT WOULD STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT
IS THE SORT OF THING PRESIDENT
TRUMP DOES.
>> REPUBLICANS SAY THAT DOES NOT
MATTER AND IT DOES NOT REACH THE
LEVEL OF HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR.
>> SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN
DEBATED A GREAT LINK IN FACT ONE
OF THE MOST RECENTLY DISCUSSED
QUESTIONS, I DO THINK THE WEIGHT
OF HISTORY, EVIDENCE IN A
PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT SUGGESTS
THE ABUSE OF POWER IS AN
APPROPRIATE MATTER FOR
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.
DID YOU HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION.
>> IF YOU LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS
FROM BOTH THE PRESIDENT
ADVOCATES IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS,
THAT COULD BE USED AS AN
OFFRAMP, I WOULD SUGGEST MORE AS
AN EXCUSE.
IT IS CLEAR AS INCOMPARABLE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHERE THERE
IS MIXED MOTIVES, IT IS STILL
POSSIBLE TO CONVICT SOMEONE.
ON A CHARGE LIKE BRIBERY OR
EXTORTION.
WHETHER THERE'S A MIXTURE OF
CORRUPT AND LEGITIMATE MOTIVE.
I DON'T THINK THE ACTUALLY
ANSWERS THE ISSUE, I DON'T THINK
THAT IS A WAY TO SAY WE DON'T
HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS.
TO THE LAST POINT, I THINK IT'S
MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER THAT WE
REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS
FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, WE
SEE MORE AND MORE RECENT
DEVELOPMENT THUS ADJUST IN THE
FORM OF JOHN BOLTON THERE IS
SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE ROOM WHO
CAN GIVE RELEVANT TESTIMONY AND
WHAT HE HAS TO SAY WILL COME OUT
SOON ANYWAY.
LET ME YIELD MY TIME.
>> I WILL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE.
>> PROBABLY.
I NOTICE WERE A LITTLE INTO MORE
THAN A FOURTH OF IT NOW.
I THINK WE HAVE RIGHT UNDER FIVE
HOURS.
AS IT KEEPS GOING, I THINK THE
FOCUS IS ON INCREASINGLY THE
FOUNDATION OF THE CASE ITSELF.
IN PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ, EVERY
TIME HE GETS UP THERE IT'S AN
IMMEDIATE HARD COME BACK BECAUSE
HE IS ATTACKING THIS WHOLE
PROCESS BASED UPON THE
UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ARTICLES
THEMSELVES AND WHEN HE STARTS
TALKING ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO
THAT WE DID EARLIER AND HOW THAT
YOU HAVE IMPUTE MOTIVES FROM A
PUBLIC AND APPLICABLE INTEREST
YOU CAN TELL THAT RAISES THE
QUICK RESPONSE ON THEIR SIDE.
I SENSE THAT THE CASE IN GENERAL
IS STARTING TO WEAKEN ON THOSE
POINTS AND THEY KEEP FOCUSING OF
COURSE ON THE QUESTION OF
WITNESSES.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> IF YOU HAD LISTEN CLOSELY HE
SAID THERE ARE OTHER SCHOLARS
AND IF IN HIS OPINION INVOLVED
OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT HE
IS NOT ALONE.
THAT WAS A FALSE STATEMENT.
>> THAT WAS DERSHOWITZ TO SET.
>> ADAM SCHIFF SAID SO.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> THE QUESTION IS WHAT TO SAY
THOSE CRITICS THAT REPUBLICANS
HAVE ABANDONED ANY PRETENSE OF
BEING INDEPENDENT JURORS TO THE
PRESIDENT.
>> HOGWASH IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.
AS OBJECTIVE AS EITHER SIDE.
NO ONE HAS WALKED INTO THE
HEARING WITHOUT HAVING HEARD
WHAT WAS PROPER FOR THE HOUSE.
WE HAVE HAD 192 VIDEO CLIPS OF
WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN THE
HOUSE SO WE EITHER HAVE OUR
OPINIONS REINFORCED OR REJECTED
THOSE OPINIONS AND ASKING
QUESTIONS BASED ON THE HOUSE.
BESIDE A FLAWED WEEK CASE TO THE
SENATE, THAT IS ON THEM TO MAKE
IT BETTER.
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE IT BETTER
THEY CAN DO IT BY CALLING
MR. BOLTON IN THE HOUSE WHERE
THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
>> THEY DID.
>> ACTUALLY THEY INVITED HIM TO
SPEAK BUT THEY DID NOT --
>> THEY INVITED HIM TO SPEAK BUT
HE DID NOT SHOW UP.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY
STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, HE
HAS NOW SAID HE WOULD COME
TESTIFY.
>> IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM
MR. BOLTON YOU HAVE TO HEAR FROM
HIM IN THE HOUSE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND ME FINISHING
MY, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
WHERE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
HEAR FROM HIM AND CONTINUE TO
WORK AS WE DO SO THEN WE WOULD
BE ABLE TO DO AMERICA'S PRIORIT-
>> I WOULD GO ONE STEP FURTHER
TO SAY EVEN IF EVERYTHING IN
BOLTON'S BOOK HAPPENS TO BE TRUE
IN EVERYTHING HE TESTIFIES
HAPPENS TO BE TRUE OR HE HAPPENS
TO BE CALLED.
I STILL DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT
RISES TO THE LEVEL OF THE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES THAT THE
HOUSES CHARGED THE PRESIDENT
WITH.
WE HEARD 54 QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS SO FAR TODAY AND AT THE
RATE RECORDING WILL PROBABLY
HEAR 160 TOTAL.
WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
ALL OF OUR MEMBERS TO HEAR MORE
INFORMATION BUT I'M COMMITTED TO
GO TO THE END OF THE DAY ON
FRIDAY AND CAST A VOTE TO SAY
AND READY TO GO TO FINAL
JUDGMENT, I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AMERICA
HAS HEARD ENOUGH.
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE UNDER
THE SYSTEM THAT THE SENATE CAN
DO NO OTHER WORK UNTIL WORK
THROUGH WITH IMPEACHMENT WHICH
MEANS WORKING ON DRUGS, HIGHWAY
BILL, MANY PRIORITIES THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE -- A MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS ARE SAYING THIS IS A
WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE THEY KNOW
THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT BE
REMOVED AND THEY KNOW THAT THIS
IS HIS ELECTION YEAR END THEY
SAY YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT
THINGS TO DO TO ADVANCE THE
COUNTRY THAN WHAT WERE DOING BY
SITTING HERE IN A TRIAL OF
IMPEACHMENT --
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
I THOUGHT THIS QUESTION.
AGAIN WAS SO GOOD FOR OUR SIDE.
SO MANY DIFFERENT INSTANCES
WHERE ARGUMENTS PREVAIL.
ONCE AGAIN PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
ARGUMENT MAY JUST ABOUT NO SENSE
THAT IT HAS TO BE AT THE LEVEL
OF BRIBERY OR EXTORTION, I THINK
ADAM SCHIFF AND THE OTHERS TOOK
HIM TO THE CLEANERS AND
ARGUMENT.
AND THE IDEA THAT NOW
ADMINISTRATION IS THE SAME AS
ABUSE OF POWER ALMOST NO SCHOLAR
EXCEPTS.
A VERY TELLING MOMENT.
THEY SAID THEY DON'T WANT
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND I ASKED
HIM THE QUESTION, NAME ONE
WITNESS OR ONE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE
ALLOWED THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO
GET WHEN THEY REQUESTED IT AND
MR. PHILBIN FILIBUSTERED BECAUSE
HE HAD NO ANSWER, THEY COULD NOT
ANSWER A SINGLE WITNESS OR
SINGLE DOCUMENT.
IF THAT IS NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
AGAIN TWO OF THE SENATORS WHO
ARE MOST INTERESTED IN DECIDING
WHETHER TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES
ASKED IF THEY COULD FIND ANY
INSTANCE WHERE THE PRESIDENT
TALKED ABOUT BIDEN BEFORE HE
ANNOUNCED FOR PRESIDENT AND THEY
CANNOT ANSWER.
THEY SAID I ONLY HAVE THE
RECORD.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
AND THEN -- BACK-AND-FORTH.
WHAT DID MULVANEY MEAN WHAT DID
MULVANEY MEAN WHEN HE SAID DRUG
TO.
THAT WAS BACK-AND-FORTH.
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW, ASK THEM,
BRING THEM HERE AS WITNESSES.
SO I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A GREAT
AFTERNOON FOR US, I AM HOPEFUL
WE CAN WIN THE ARGUMENT FOR
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID UPHILL,
THERE IS TREMENDOUS PRESSURE
FROM AN INVECTIVE NASTY
PRESIDENT ON EVERY REPUBLICAN
SENATOR BUT I THINK THEY SIT
THERE AS THEY LISTEN TO THE
QUESTIONS AND THEY KNOW THE
PUBLIC IS TOTALLY ON OUR SIDE
AND WE HAVE A REAL SHOT TO GET
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
>> MY GUT TELLS ME WE ARE MAKING
PROGRESS, PROGRESS, PROGRESS AND
I CERTAINLY AM HOPEFUL.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
HUNTER BIDEN HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CHARGES AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.
AND IT'S ALWAYS LOOKING FOR A
DIVERSION.
BUT IT'S NOT OUR CALL, IF THEY
WANT HUNTER BIDEN THEY GOT 53
VOTES, THEY CAN CALL HIM BUT
THEY DON'T WANT TO THEY KNOW IT
WOULD MAKE IT A CIRCUS.
I DON'T THINK MCCONNELL HAS THE
VOTES ON HIS SIDE FOR HUNTER
BIDEN.
>> WE'VE SEEN TIME AND TIME
AGAIN IN THESE PROTRACTED
POLITICAL THAT LEADER MCCONNELL
WINS THESE ARGUMENTS --
>> YOU DO NOT WIN WHEN YOU STAND
FOR A COVER-UP.
YOU DO NOT WIN WHEN THERE IS NOT
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND IS
NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
I THINK WE HAVE A REAL SHOT
HERE.
BUT ANY CONCLUSION THAT DOES NOT
ALLOW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IS
GOING TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT
ACQUITTAL IF THAT SHOULD HAPPEN,
WORTH VERY, VERY LITTLE.
0.
YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IT WAS AN ACQUITTAL IF
YOU DON'T HAVE WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
SOME OF THE COMMITTEES MET TODAY
AND PASSED OUT BILLS.
THEY SURE CAN IN THE MORNING.
>> CAN I TELL YOU SOMETHING, IT
RINGS SO FALSE.
WE HAVE MITCH MCCONNELL LEADER
OF THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD WHO
DID NOT PUT A SINGLE BILL ON THE
FLOOR FOR THE YEAR BEFORE
IMPEACHMENT AND NOW THEY'RE
SAYING THIS IS GETTING IN THEIR
WAY.
MITCH MCCONNELL WILL MEET EARLY
IN THE MORNING TO GET BILLS ON
THE FLOOR, WE DARE YOU TAKE TEN
OF THE BILLS THE HOUSE PASSED
THE DAY AFTER IMPEACHMENT ENDS
AND PUT THEM ON THE FLOOR THEN
TALK ABOUT IT.
IF THEY GO THAT THEY CANNOT TALK
ABOUT GETTING NOTHING DONE.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN
EXPERT AT GETTING NOTHING DONE.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
I DON'T THINK THEY NAMED THE
NAME ON THE FLOOR IN THE SENATE.
>> I KNOW WHAT AN CONTENTS.
>> THIS IS DESPICABLE.
THIS IS IN A ADMINISTRATION IN
THEIR QUEST FOR ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY IN THEIR DONALD TRUMP'S
THREATS AND THINGS TOWARDS
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON WERE
ONCE HIS GOOD FRIENDS THERE SO
AFRAID OF TRUTH THEY GO TO ANY
LENGTH TO STOP IT FROM
HAPPENING.
IN THIS TRIAL AND SOMETIMES
OUTSIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS TRUST.
>> I JUST WANT -- GO AHEAD YOUR
NICE GUY.
>> THE GOP SAYS YOU BLEW IN THE
HOUSE AND THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD
HAPPEN --
>> FOR THE GOP TO BLAME THE
HOUSE FOR NOT HAVING ALL THE
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WHEN IT
WAS DONALD TRUMP WHO STOPPED
THEM IN AT THE SNAP OF HIS
FINGER CAN HAVE IT ALL ITS
ULTIMATE HYPOCRISY.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
>> DURING THIS DINNER BREAK WE
WILL CONTINUE TO GET ANY
REACTION FROM THE SENATORS BUT
IN THE MEANTIME WE WANT TO HEAR
FROM YOU, THE QUESTION WE WILL
ASK YOU IS WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE
THE SENATORS TO ASK, 54
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED SO 
FAR, 16 HOURS IN TOTAL THAT THE
SENATORS GET TO QUESTION THE
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS FROM
THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM.
THEY BEGAN TODAY AT 1:00 P.M.,
TODAY SCHEDULED FOR THIS.
LET'S HEAR FROM LINDA IN
PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA, LINDA
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK
YOURSELF OR WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE
TO HAVE THE SENATORS ASK.
>> GOD SAVE OUR REPUBLIC.
AT QUESTION FOR PRESIDENT
COUNSEL, I'M CONVINCED THAT THIS
HOUSE WOULD'VE BEEN PIZZA
PRESIDENT FOR BLOWING BUBBLES,
USING REGULAR NON-BUBBLE CHEWING
GUM, WHAT ETHICAL AND U.S. HOUSE
RULES VIOLATION ET CETERA THAT
THE PROCESS CAN WE THE PEOPLE
HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR IN
ADDITION TO VOTING THEM ON
OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU LINDA.
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL CONNECTICUT.
>> I DO ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT
TO BE REELECTED AND NOTHING
WRONG WITH IT.
NOT IMPEACHABLE AS LONG AS I'M
DOING IT TO BE REELECTED.
BECAUSE THAT IS THE DEFINITION
OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
THAT CANNOT BE THE LAW.
I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN
IS THE WHITE HOUSE TAKING SUCH
AN EXTREME POSITION, FAR MORE
OVERREACHING THAN THEY NEED TO
DO IN THE OTHER POINT I WOULD
MAKE IS THAT I THINK THAT 75% OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THINK
WE NEED WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
HAS PROBABLY REASON TO 80, MAYBE
85 AFTER THIS ARGUMENT TODAY.
THE IDEA THAT WE CAN FINISH THIS
TRIAL WITHOUT JOHN BOLTON AS A
WITNESS IS ABSOLUTELY
PREPOSTEROUS.
AFTER THEY CHARACTERIZE HIS FAX
AS UNSOURCED MANUSCRIPTS OR
LEAKS OR HEARSAY AND THEY
COMPLAIN ABOUT LACK OF EVIDENCE,
IF THEY WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING
LIKE A FULL FAIR PROCEEDING WE
NEED JOHN BOLTON AND WE NEED
MICK MULVANEY IN THE IDEA OF
WHAT HE SAID WAS GARBLED AND
CORRECTED IN ANYBODY LISTENING
TO THE PRESS CONFERENCE HAS TO
KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING BECAUSE
THAT HE SAID GET OVER.
AND I REALLY THINK THAT THIS
TRIAL HAS BEEN REDUCED TO AN
ABSURDITY.
IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS AND THERE WILL BE MORE
COMING OUT DAY BY DAY, DOMINO BY
DOMINO, GROUP BY GROUP WE WILL
SEE MORE OF THE TRUTH EMERGE AND
IT WILL HAUNT MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
THERE SHOULD BE NO AGREEMENT.
I HAVE DONE QUITE A FEW TRIALS,
WE DON'T TRADE WITNESSES, YOU
GET YOUR WITNESS I GET MY
WITNESSES.
THE KEY QUESTION IS, IS A
WITNESS RELEVANT.
IF THEY HAVE ADMISSIBLE
INFORMATION, DO THEY HAVE EYES
AND EARS ON SOMETHING THAT IS
GERMANE AND RELEVANT TO THE
TRIAL.
THAT IS A CRITERIA.
THAT SHOULD BE IT, THE
REPUBLICANS HAVE THE POWER TO
CALL ANYBODY THEY WANT, THEY CAN
CALL 15 WITNESSES TOMORROW, IF
THEY CAN GET 51 VOTES.
THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WILL THEY
SUPPORT WITNESSES WHO REALLY
HAVE SOMETHING RELEVANT TO SAY,
NOBODY COULD BE MORE RELEVANT
AND IMPORTANT THAN JOHN BOLTON
AND MICK MULVANEY AS WELL AS
ROBERT BLAIR AND MIKE DUFFY.
THEY HAVE EYES AND EARS ON THE
PRESIDENT.
>> EARLIER TODAY ON THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN --
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
I THINK A DISCLOSURE OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER IDENTITY WOULD BE
GREAT.
LEGAL ISSUES ALTHOUGH ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE THERE WOULD
BE SOME DEGREE OF IMMUNITY AND
CERTAINLY UNDER OUR ETHICS RULE
THERE WOULD BE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES AND I WOULD ASK THE
CHIEF JUSTICE TO IMMEDIATELY
INTERVENE AND PERHAPS APPLY
SANCTIONS.
IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED BUT IT
WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED FOR
ANYONE TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY
OF A WHISTLEBLOWER ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE MY COLLEAGUES
TO DO SO.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
I'LL BE ABSOLUTELY BLUNT WITH
YOU.
I AM LISTENING.
I DID THE EVIDENCE FOR
IMPEACHMENT IS OVERWHELMING,
THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE THAT
WOULD CORROBORATE WHAT WE'VE
SEEN AND HEARD SO FAR BUT I'M
STILL LISTENING FOR ANY EVIDENCE
THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL PRODUCE
SHOWING HIS INNOCENCE.
ANYTHING THAT EXONERATES HIM,
ANYTHING EXCULPATORY, I AM
HOPING HE WILL BRING IT FORWARD.
AND HE WILL BRING IT FORTH IN
WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS AND
WITNESSES CROSS-EXAMINED,
DOCUMENTUM BLACK AND WHITE THAT
WE CAN SEE.
JUST LIKE ANY OTHER TRIAL.
IF MY COLLEAGUES ARE STILL
LISTENING, THAT IS A GOOD THING.
THAT'S OUR OBLIGATION.
BUT I THINK WE ARE ABSOLUTELY
UNITED ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE
THAT WE DO NEED THOSE WITNESSES
AND DOCUMENTS.
I NEED NO COLLEAGUE WHO HAS HAD
WE HAVE ENOUGH.
ALL DONE.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> I THINK MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ARE STRUGGLING,
GENUINELY REALLY STRUGGLING.
BECAUSE AC THAT THEY ARE
MARCHING OFF A CLIFF.
THEY ARE MARCHING OFF A CLIFF
LED BY DONALD TRUMP AND HE AIN'T
GOING TO GO OVER THE CLIFF WITH
THEM.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO VOTE AND
THEY KNOW THE TRUTH WILL COME
OUT IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN
IT ALWAYS DOES IN LIFE AND
ESPECIALLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
WHERE THERE ARE LEAKS IN BOOKS
AND MEMOS, IT ALL COMES OUT.
AND IT WILL BE PROBABLY ENOUGH
BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION TO HUGE
CONSEQUENCES FOR THEM.
THEY WILL BE HUNTED BY HISTORY
IF THEY REFUTE TO SEE AND HEAR
THE TRUTH, THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN
ABOUT WHAT THEY CANNOT SEE IF
THEY PUT BLINDERS ON.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT
NOW.
PUTTING BLINDERS ON.
IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL KNOW
IT BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.
>>   ZIMMER CASSIE READ THE
QUESTION ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION LOOKING INTO THE
BIDENS, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF
THE QUESTION.
>> I WAS CONFUSED BY THE
QUESTION.
I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF DID THE
PRESIDENT INTEREST IN THE BIDENS
BEGIN JUST WHEN HE ANNOUNCED FOR
PRESIDENT.
I WILL TELL YOU AS A FORMER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN THE
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL I WILL
TELL YOU WHAT ONE OF THE MOST
PROFOUNDLY AND MEANINGFUL FACTS
THAT COME OUT IN THE TRIALS OF
OUR IS FOR ME, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE OUR CHIEF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, EITHER
DECLINE OR WOULD NEVER ASK TO
LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.
ALL THIS CORRUPTION, ALL THE
CRIMINALITY, AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE WOULD NEVER ASK OR HE
DECLINES TO LOOK INTO ANY
VIOLATION BY JOE BIDEN OR HUNTER
BIDEN AND SAID THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WENT TO
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND ASKED
THE FOREIGN LEADER TO
INVESTIGATE A UNITED STATES
CITIZEN.
THAT SHOCKS ME.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
WE HAVE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME,
AND MAY WELL BE A QUESTION THAT
WE SUBMIT, WHY DID YOU HAPPEN IN
THE WAY WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE REJECTED.
I'VE ASKED FOR THE DOCUMENTS
THAT REFLECT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, EITHER BEING CONSULTED
OR REJECTING THE REQUEST AND IF
THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS THEN WE
NEED TO KNOW THAT AS WELL.
BUT THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
POINT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND.
FOR ANY CITIZEN TO THINK THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS GOING TO GO TO A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND ASK THE
FOREIGN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A
U.S. CITIZEN AND TRY TO SMEAR
THEM, I THINK RAISES PROFOUND
QUESTION AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF
THE MOST TELLING AND IMPORTANT
FACTS IN THE TRIAL SO FAR.
THANK YOU EVERYONE.
>> UP NEXT ON C-SPAN IS SUSIE
AND CONRAD, MONTANA.
SUSIE WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ASK THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS OR THE
TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION
TO THE HOUSE MEAN ENTERS.
>> SUSIE WE WILL PUT THE
QUESTION ON HOLD AND HEAR FROM
ALAN DERSHOWITZ.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT BRINGS OUT
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THE
QUESTIONS -- WHEN SOMEBODY FROM
ONE SIDE ASK THE HARD QUESTION
THEN SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE.
WHEN PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS ON THE
SAME SIDE IT'S NOT AS EFFECTIVE
IN BRINGING OUT HARD POINTS.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY INFORMATIVE
AND I THINK THE SENATORS HAVE
BEEN ASKING TERRIFIC QUESTIONS.
VERY SMART QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS
THAT GO RIGHT TO THE CORE OF
EVERYTHING.
FROM A PROFESSOR POINT OF
VIEW --
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> HOW COME PEOPLE HAVE SAID HOW
COME EVERYBODY DISAGREES WITH
YOU.
THAT'S BEEN MY LIFE.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> I CHANGE MY VIEW SO MANY
TIMES WITH SO MANY ISSUES I'VE
WRITTEN 40 BOOKS, EVERY TIME I
WRITE A BOOK I WRITE ONE DRAFT
AND THEN ANOTHER DRAFT.
AND THEN I CHANGED I'M SHOCKED
THAT PEOPLE SAY I CHANGE MY
VIEWS, OF COURSE I CHANGED MY
VIEWS AND I'LL PROBABLY CHANGE
HIM AGAIN.
EVEN THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE I
CHANGE MY VIEWS.
NONE OF THE CHAMBER DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND ON THE OTHER
HAND OF MY COLLEAGUES TO CHANGE
TO MY RESPONDING.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION]
>> ALL RIGHT SUSIE AND CONRAD,
MONTANA WHAT IS THE QUESTION FOR
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY
FOR CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF, BASED ON
HIS ARGUMENT IS IT TRUE THAT HE
ATTEMPTED TO SOLICIT PICTURES OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM RUSSIA
DIRECTLY STATING THAT PERSON ON
THE PHONE TO THE RECORDING THAT
PUTIN ALSO TESTED IN THEM.
AND UNDER THAT PRETENSE --
>> WHERE DID SUSIE GO.
SUSIE IS GONE SORRY ABOUT THAT.
FORT LAUDERDALE FLORIDA.
>> HI HOW ARE YOU.
>> HOW ARE YOU.
>> I AM GREAT.
MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY FOR
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE AND I
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER IS
ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTRY
AND BRIEFING THE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND PROTECTION FOR OUR NATION.
I THINK IT'S ABSURD THAT WERE
NOT ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES
BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT
DO ANYTHING WRONG WHY CAN'T
ANYBODY TESTIFY THAT.
WE NEED COOPERATION OF INNOCENT
OR GUILT.
>> ACTUALLY HOW CLOSELY HAVE YOU
FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.
>> I WATCH IT ALL THE TIME.
I WATCH C-SPAN ALL THE TIME.
>> ARE YOU A STUDENT.
>> YES I'M A STUDENT AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA I STUDY
SCIENCE.
>> YOU STUDY SCIENCE AND WATCH
C-SPAN.
>> YES.
>> TAKE YOU FOR CALLING IT.
. . .
ASKED, THAT SENATORS HAVE
ASKED THE TWO SIDES SO FAR
THIS EVENING.
AND THEY SHOULD BECOMING BACK
IN ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR OR
SO.
JACK FROM SUMNER WASHINGTON
COMICAL HEAD JACK.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE
QUESTION OF THE HOUSE.
THEY KEEP COMPLAINING ABOUT
THIS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR THE
PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT,
AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO TESTIFY.
I AM SURE THERE IS A WAY THEY
COULD TESTIFY, BUT MY QUESTION
IS, WHY DOES THIS
WHISTLEBLOWER HAVE ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY JUST
PASSED A LAW TO MAKE IT SO,
THAT IS WHY.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS ALL
ALONG.
THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE,
WHO IN THIS WHOLE NATION
DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FACE
THEIR ACCUSER?
EVERYBODY DOES BUT THEY HAVE
DENIED THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE HIGHEST
OFFICE IN THIS LAND, THAT
ABSOLUTE REASON.
HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS
ACCUSER.
HE IS THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS
WHOLE MESS.
IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
IF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
TESTIFIES, IT IS OVER.
BE ONE DEMOCRAT IN COLORADO
TWEETED OUT OF VOTE AGAINST
WITNESSES IS A VOTE AGAINST
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR
DEMOCRACY.
MAX'S IN WILLIAMSPORT
PENNSYLVANIA, MAXWELL WOULD
YOU LIKE TO ASK THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS OF THE
TRUNK DEFENSE TEAM?
>> Caller: I AM KIND OF A
HISTORIAN, I HAVE NEVER SEEN
AN IMPEACHMENT ON JUDGES OR
WHATEVER, WHEN THE OTHER SIDE
IN THE HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE
THE REPUBLICANS IN THIS CASE,
DID NOT GET TO ASK FOR
WITNESSES THAT THEY WANTED.
AND I WOULD LIKE EITHER ONE OF
MY SENATORS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
>> Host: THANK YOU SIR.
IMAGINE CALIFORNIA TEXT IN
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT LAW IS
PREVENTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S
NAME FROM BEING RELEASED?
VARNA FROM ASHLAND KENTUCKY,
YOU ARE UP.
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION.
>> Caller: GOOD EVENING, MY
CONCERN GOES ALL THE WAY BACK
TO WHEN THE HOUSE FIRST
STARTED THE PROCESS.
PELOSI, NEVER HAD THE VOTES TO
START THE IMPEACHMENT.
AND NEVER ASSIGNED A COMMITTEE
TO LAUNCH THE INVESTIGATION.
THEREFORE, WOULD THAT NOT FALL
IN THE LAW -- ABOUT
INFORMATION GATHERING.
THEY GATHERED ALL OF THE
STUFF, THEY DID NOT FOLLOW
THEIR OWN POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES, AND NOW THEY WANT
TO SAY THEY WANT MORE.
IT IS NOT THE SENATE'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THEIR
CASE FOR THEM.
>> Host: UP NEXT IS CYNTHIA
FROM COLD SPRING, TEXAS.
CYNTHIA WHAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> Caller: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
THE HOUSE MANAGERS, GIVEN THAT
ADAM SCHIFF IS ON RECORD AS
LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ABOUT HAVING COMPELLING
EVIDENCE FOR THE RUSSIAN
COLLUSION, HOW ARE WE TO
BELIEVE HIM WHEN HE IS TALKING
ABOUT WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR
ABOUT A CONNECTION THAT THE
WITNESS HAS TWO THE BIDENS, OR
THE OTHER ADMINISTRATION OR
THE UKRAINE SCANDAL
CORRUPTION?
>> Host: THANK YOU MA'AM,
CHRISSY FROM OCALA FLORIDA HOW
DO YOU JUSTIFY BLOCKING DIRECT
EVIDENCE AS HER QUESTION FROM
A TEXT.
ALREADY 54 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
ASKED, AND WHEN THEY COME BACK
THEY WILL BE IN FOR ANOTHER
COUPLE OF HOURS.
THEY HAVE TWO DAYS, 16 HOURS
TOTAL TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.
DOUG FROM CLEAN CREEK
ARIZONA.
GOOD EVENING.
>> Caller: HI, MY QUESTION IS
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AND
MOST LIKELY DIRECTED AT ADAM
SCHIFF AND MR. NADLER.
THEY CONTINUE TO MAKE THE
EVALUATION THAT DONALD TRUMP
IS QUOTE CHEATING.
HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO ME
OPPOSITION RESEARCH IN
CAMPAIGNING IS CHEATING.
SO HOW DO THEY RECONCILE WITH
THAT?
ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF
ANY OF THEM HAVE TAKEN A DRUG
TEST RECENTLY OR CONSUME THC
IN THE LAST 24 HOURS?
>> Host: MICHAEL FROM
VIRGINIA, WHAT YOUR QUESTION.
>> Caller: MY QUESTION IS FOR
ADAM SCHIFF AND MY SENATOR
CAIN, WHO I DID NOT VOTE FOR
AND HE DOES NOT SUPPORT MY
VIEWS.
MY QUESTION IS WHEN THEY SAY
IT'S A DEBUNKED THEORY OF THE
BIDENS IN BURISMA, THEY
ACTUALLY SPEWED DEBUNKED
THEORIES BY ROBERTS MULLER IN
TWO YEARS OF INVESTIGATION FOR
THE TRUMP CONSPIRACY.
THAT IS DEBUNKED COMPARED TO
THE BURISMA AND BIDENS PORTION
OF THE DEAL.
MY QUESTION TO ADAM SCHIFF'S
WHY DO YOU KEEP SPREADING
RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA WITH THE
STEEL REPORTING AND EVERYTHING
THAT WENT ON THERE.
BUT YOU CHASTISE THE PRESIDENT
FOR SPREADING QUOTE RUSSIAN
PROPAGANDA ON BURISMA.
THAT IS MY POINT.
>> Host: HAVE YOU BEEN
LISTENING TODAY?
>> I HAVE BEEN LISTENING ALL
DAY EVERY DAY.
I AM A RETIRED AND I WATCH AND
LISTEN TO MY GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE SURE THEY DO EVERYTHING
THAT I FOUGHT FOR.
FOR MY CHILDREN'S BENEFIT.
>> Host: DO YOU THINK THE
SENATORS HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS
THAT YOU ARE GLAD THEY ASKED?
OR HAVE THEY GOT YOU ANGRY?
>> Caller: NOT REALLY, I
WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
BUT WE GOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW
IS A MESSAGING PROBLEM.
THE DEMOCRATS, I WILL APPLAUD
THEM THEY ARE VERY GOOD AT
MESSAGING.
AND THEY CAN MESSAGE ANYTHING
ACROSS IF IT'S IN A TWITTER
FEED.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE
LONG-WINDED.
THEY SPEAK VERY LONG ABOUT
EVERYTHING THEY DO.
IN THIS DAY AND AGE, I'M 48
YEARS OLD, I AM NOT A
MILLENNIAL AND INTO TWITTER
AND ALL THAT.
BUT IF YOU CAN'T FIT IT INTO A
ONE SENTENCE PARAGRAPH TO MAKE
YOUR POINT, THEN YOU HAVE LOST
EVERYBODY.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MASTERED
THIS.
THE REPUBLICANS JUST CANNOT
GET ON BOARD WITH THIS
MESSAGING.
AND I THINK -- THAT'S WHAT I
SAID ABOUT THIS DEBUNKED.
THEY KEEP SAYING BOERSMA IS
DEBUNKED.
IT'S THE TRUMP RUSSIAN
CONSPIRACY THAT IS DEBUNKED.
>> Host: BILL IN MANASSAS,
VIRGINIA SAYS ARE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ACTUALLY ANSWERING
QUESTIONS OR JUST READING
SCRIPTS?
TIM FROM LAKELAND, FLORIDA,
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION FOR THIS
PROCESS?
>> Caller: YES, SIR, THANK YOU
FOR TAKING MY CALL.
I KEEP ON HEARING THE
DEMOCRATS SAYING THAT THEY
WANT TO CALL WITNESSES IN THIS
AND ALL OF THAT, THEY HAD THE
CHANCE TO DO THAT IN THE
HOUSE.
WHAT THEY WANT IS THE SENATE
TO DO THEIR JOB.
WELL IF THE SENATE GOES AHEAD
AND CALLS PEOPLE AS WITNESSES,
THEN WHAT IS GOING TO END UP
HAPPENING IS THE NEXT
PRESIDENT THAT GETS IN THEIR,
WHAT CAN HAPPEN?
THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE UP SOME
KIND OF JUNK OR SOMETHING --
OH YEAH WE ARE GOING TO
IMPEACH THIS ONE TOO.
AND HANDED OVER TO THE
SENATE.
AND THEN THEY WANT THE SENATE
TO DO ALL OF THE WORK.
THEY JUST NEED TO LOOK BACK
AND CALL THE STUFF THAT THEY
DID IN THE HOUSE AND DIDN'T
DO.
>> Host: WHO DO YOU THINK IS
BEEN EFFECTIVE ON THE FLOOR SO
FAR?
>> Caller: WHO'S BEEN
EFFECTIVE?
>> Host: OF THE TWO TEAMS OF
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS
OR THE TRUNK DEFENSE.
>> Caller: THE TRUMP DEFENSE
TO ME.
THEY HAVE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING
AND SHOWED WHERE THEY STOPPED
ON THE INTERVIEWS, AND THE
REPUBLICANS KEPT ON SHOWING
WHERE THEY HAD STOPPED.
THEY PROVE THAT THEY ARE
WRONG.
>> Host: THANK YOU TIM, WAYNE
IS IN HANOVER PENNSYLVANIA.
>> Caller: YES, I WAS ASKED TO
BRING THIS IN THE FORM OF A
QUESTION SO I WILL TRY TO DO
THAT.
IT WAS JUST FUNNY THE ONE
SENATOR WAS SPEAKING IN THE
HALL AND HE SAID TRUMP HASN'T
DONE ANYTHING TO PROVE HIS
INNOCENCE.
AND I JUST FIND IT CRAZY THAT
WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY.
BUT THEY THINK OTHERWISE.
ALSO, SCHIFF AND HIS LAST
STATEMENT SAID THAT SOME LADY
HAD INFORMATION, BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.
HE ENCOURAGED A GUIDE TO
INVESTIGATE IT.
AIN'T THAT THE SAME THING THAT
TRUMP IS BEING DRUG THROUGH
THIS FOR THIS DEAL FOR?
>> Host: BOBBING ORGANS IS A
BEEN WATCHING THE TRIAL AND I
WOULD ASK THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ARE TRULY POINT OUT ALL THE
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
LED OUT IN A CLEAN
UNDERSTANDABLE WAY.
AT THIS POINT IT HAS BEEN A
MISS MASH OF EXHIBIT.
DAN FROM CHEYENNE, WYOMING.
WHAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> Caller: MY QUESTION IS FOR
ADAM SCHIFF.
WHEN HE GOT DUPED ON TV TRYING
TO GET MORE DIRT ON DONALD
TRUMP ABOUT THE NAKED PICTURES
AND HE WAS LOOKING TO GET MORE
INFORMATION.
AND HE SAID HIS STAFF WOULD BE
IN CONTACT WITH HIM.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIM STAND
UP THERE AND SAY THAT IS NOT
TRUE.
I WOULD LIKE ONE OF THE
REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO ASK HIM
THAT QUESTION.
>> Host: AS YOU KNOW, THE
REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ACCUSING
ADAM SCHIFF OF KNOWING AND
MEETING WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
HE DID SAY ON THE SENATE FLOOR
TONIGHT, THAT HE HAS NEVER MET
NOR TALKED WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
>> Caller: NO, HE GOT DUPED BY
RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS.
>> Host: THAT'S RIGHT DO YOU
LET ME REPHRASE THAT -- DO YOU
THINK THAT WOULD BE AN
EFFECTIVE QUESTION THAT HE
WOULD ANSWER?
>> Caller: WHY NOT?
THE PROBLEM WITH ADAM SCHIFF,
I WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE
PROBLEM IS WITH ADAM SCHIFF.
HE IS ALL ABOUT RUNNING HIS
MOUTH MONEY DOESN'T HAVE TO
RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND.
EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS THE
TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH, WHEN HE DOESN'T HAVE TO
DO THAT TO A MIKE, HE IS
THERE.
HE'S GOT HIS MOUTH WRAPPED
AROUND THAT MIC.
>> Host: THIS IS ANGELA AND
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.
>> Caller: I'M FINE NOW THAT
I'VE GOTTEN YOU ON THE PHONE.
I AM A FORMER ELECTED OFFICIAL
IN HAMPTON VIRGINIA, RETIRED
NOW.
I'M 78 YEARS OLD, I WATCH THE
WATERGATE SERIES FROM
BEGINNING TO END.
AND THEY CONDUCTED A TRUE
HOUSE INVESTIGATION ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD NIXON.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT SAME TYPE
OF COOPERATION AMONG THE
HOUSE.
IT IS THEIR JOB TO CALL
WITNESSES.
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE
SENATE.
AND I AM TIRED OF HEARING ALL
OF THIS CARE PARAPHRASING OF
THE PRESIDENT, SENATOR RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL JUST USED IT ON
C-SPAN A FEW MOMENTS AGO WHEN
HE PARAPHRASE THE PRESIDENT'S
PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE.
I DISLIKE THE PARAPHRASING,
SOMEBODY ELSE'S COMMENTS
EITHER YOU QUOTE THEM
CORRECTLY OR DON'T QUOTE THEM
AT ALL.
I THINK THE HOUSE HAS DONE A
GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND I CERTAINLY HOPE THE TWO
SENATORS THAT I HAVE WORKED
HARD WITH, WARNER AND KANE --
SENATOR KAINE PLEASE DON'T
TELL US TO FIGHT IN THE
STREETS AGAIN BECAUSE
CHARLOTTESVILLE WILL REPEAT
ITSELF AGAIN.
IT UPSETS ME GREATLY WHEN YOU
PRIME THE HATE.
I SINCERELY HOPE THAT MY
SENATORS DO NOT VOTE TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT
THEY PROBABLY WILL BECAUSE
THIS IS POLITICS AND IT IS
POOR.
AND IT ISN'T PRETTY.
>> Host: ANGELA IF YOU'RE
RETIRED PUBLIC OFFICIAL YOU
HAVE BEEN IN THE POLITICAL
ARENA CORRECT?
>> Caller: CORRECT.
>> Host: AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY
NOT FOR WIMPS IS IT?
>> Caller: KNOW IT IS, YOU
HAVE TO BE.
>> Host: HOLD ON HERE'S
LINDSEY GRAHAM.
>> WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD AND
LET ME GET THIS ACCURATE, BUT
SENATOR SCHUMER CLAIMS THERE
WILL NOT BE ENOUGH VOTES.
[INAUDIBLE]
THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY FOR
SURE.
[INAUDIBLE]
THE ONLY THING I DO KNOW FOR
SURE IS THAT THERE IS GOING TO
BE 53 REPUBLICAN VOTES TO CALL
HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE ALL OF US
BELIEVE IF THIS TRIAL GOES ON,
HUNTER BIDEN IS VERY WELL AWAY
IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
PRESIDENT HAD THAT THERE WAS
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.
IT'S.
REPORTER: POLICY ACCUSING
YOU?
>> Host: JEAN IN FLORIDA,
ASKING THIS QUESTION.
I WANT MY TWO REPUBLICAN
SENATORS TO ASK WHEN IS IT
BETTER TO NOT HAVE EVERYONE IN
THE ROOM PRESENT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT TESTIFIES?
WHY DID CLINTON'S TRIAL SENATE
INCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY BUT
IT IS NOT HERE?
WASN'T TESTIMONY PRESIDENT
ALREADY SAT THERE?
>> Host: LLOYD, COLORADO
SPRINGS, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION
FOR THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
MANAGERS AND DEFENSE?
>> Caller: I HAVE A QUESTION
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL ON
THERE.
WHY DID THEY NOT GO THROUGH
THE CORRECT PROCESS OF GETTING
ALL OF THE VOTES THAT WERE
REQUIRED IN THE HOUSE TO GET
THE NECESSARY SUBPOENAS THEY
WOULD'VE GOT IF THEY HAD THE
RIGHT AMOUNT OF VOTES.
THEN IT WOULD'VE MADE IT LEGAL
TO GET THE SUBPOENAS FOR THE
WITNESSES OF ANYBODY THEY
WANTED.
RIGHT NOW THEY SAY OH WE
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
BUT THEY WASTED TIME BUT THEY
SAID THEY HAD NO TIME AND THEY
HAD TO DO IT ON A QUICK HURRY
UP BASIS AND STUFF.
AND THEN TO HEAR SCHUMER COME
ON BOOKTV AND SAY HOW GOOD
THEY ARE DOING.
IT REMINDS ME OF BAGHDAD BOB,
WHEN THE U.S. INVADED IRAQ AND
STAFF, HE SAID IT WAS ALL
PROPAGANDA AND NOBODY READ
IT.
NOBODY WAS AT THE AIRPORT AND
STUFF.
BUT IT IS ALL BASICALLY
PROPAGANDA.
EVERYTHING I HAVE SEEN SO FAR,
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL HAS
BEEN BLOWING THEM OUT OF THE
WATER.
I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS,
CLEAR BACK SINCE THE MULLER
CASE WAS ON THERE WHEN THEY
FIRST STARTED WITH ALL OF THIS
STUFF.
I HAVE WATCHED ABOUT
EVERYTHING I CAN ON C-SPAN, ON
THIS EVERY DAY.
>> Host: ALRIGHT LLOYD, THANK
YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR
CALLING TONIGHT.
AND THROUGHOUT THIS EVENING'S
QUESTIONING WHENEVER THEIR
BRAKES WE WILL COME BACK AND
TAKE CALLS.
AT THE END OF THE NIGHT WE
WILL CERTAINLY DO IT AS WELL.
CHARLES FROM KINGS PARK, NEW
YORK.
GOOD EVENING TO USE THERE.
>> Caller: GOOD EVENING AND
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL.
I AM A DISABLED VIETNAM
VETERAN -- MARINE CORPS FROM
1966.
I FIND IT AWFUL THAT ONLY DAYS
AFTER THE ELECTION OF A DULY
ELECTED PRESIDENT, THAT THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
>> Host: HEY HIT THE MUTE
BUTTON ON YOUR TV, CHARLES.
>> Caller: THAT DAYS AFTER THE
ELECTION, THAT THEY TALKED
ABOUT IMPEACHING A DULY
ELECTED PRESIDENT.
>> Host: SORRY ABOUT THAT
CHARLES YOU HAD BOOKTV UP AND
IT WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND
YOU HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ARE
COMING BACK INTO THE SENATE
CHAMBER.
GARY IN REDMOND, WASHINGTON.
HI.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR
SCHIFF.
FIRST OF ALL I AM JUST YOUR
AVERAGE PERSON, I USUALLY GO
TO THE LEFT.
AND I AM DEVASTATED TO SEE
WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
I CAN SAY THAT FOR A LOT OF
AMERICANS.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW -- IS
BOLTING COMES AND TESTIFIES,
AND HOW THAT, NO MATTER WHICH
WAY IT GOES, HOW THAT CAN'T TO
DISPROVE THE OTHER WITNESS
THAT THEY HAVE HAD ON TRIAL?
I MEAN, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES
IT MAKE IT'S A HE SAID SHE
SAID.
HE IS UNDER OATH, EVERYBODY
ELSE HAS BEEN UNDER OATH.
WHAT GOOD IS IT GOING TO DO?
>> Host: SO YOU ARE READY TO
VOTE TO ACQUIT?
>> Caller: ABSOLUTELY, YES.
>> Host: AND YOU SAID YOU
USUALLY ON THE POLITICAL LEFT?
>> Caller: I ACTUALLY AM.
I AM SICK ABOUT THIS WHOLE
THING THAT WE MADE THIS
DEVASTATING ACCUSATIONS BASED
ON NO FACT THAT HAS DISRUPTED
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND IT IS -- IT'S EMBARRASSING
AND I'M DISAPPOINTED.
THERE ARE NO FACTS AND
EVERYBODY IS UNDER OATH, WHAT
DIFFERENCES BOLTON BOLTON
GOING TO MAKE?
>> Host: ARE PEOPLE IN YOUR
AREA TALKING ABOUT THIS?
[LAUGHTER]
EVERYBODY IS JUST DISAPPOINTED
AND HAS LOST A LOT OF FAITH IN
THE COUNTRY.
IT IS SAD, I AM SO
DISAPPOINTED THE DEMOCRATS
FELT TO DO THIS WITH NO
FACTS.
I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE IT.
>> Host: YOU LIVE IN THE
SEATTLE AREA CORRECT?
>> Caller: I DO CORRECT.
>> Host: SO THEY WERE
OVERWHELMINGLY FOR HILLARY
CLINTON IN 2016.
DO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT POLITICS
THERE?
DO THEY TALK ABOUT A SIMILE?
>> Caller: YES THEY CAN.
I TRY NOT TO, ESPECIALLY NOW.
IT IS SO ABOUT TRUMP IS RIGHT
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND
WHAT HE DID WAS LEGITIMATELY
OKAY.
IT WAS THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN.
THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY
MIND ABOUT THAT.
BUT YES, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL
OF POLITICS.
>> Host: DID YOU VOTE FOR HIM
IN 2016?
>> Caller: I DID NOT.
>> Host: A MIKE IN AIKEN SOUTH
CAROLINA.
QUICKLY BEFORE THE SENATE
COMES IN WHICH A QUESTION FOR
THEM?
>> Caller: THREE QUICK POINTS
NUMBER ONE THEY SAY THEY NEED
WITNESSES IN THE SENATE SHOULD
HEAR ALL OF THEIR WITNESSES
AFTER THEY SAID THEIR CASE WAS
A SLAMDUNK CASE.
WHEN IN FACT WE LISTEN FOR
THREE DAYS TO THEIR WITNESSES
WHO WERE UNDER OATH.
WE HEARD EVERY ONE OF THEM
UNDER VIDEO TESTIMONY.
SO WE HEARD ALL OF THEIR
WITNESSES EXCEPT THOSE THEY
KEPT SECRET.
SO I WONDER, WHY A SENATOR
DOESN'T ASK HAVE AND WE HEARD
ALL YOUR WITNESSES?
>> Host: THAT IS MIKE IN SOUTH
CAROLINA.
ANOTHER MIKE IN OREGON.
GO AHEAD MIKE WHAT'S YOUR
QUESTION?
>> Caller: THIS IS SORT OF A
LEGAL QUESTION TO THEM.
THEY HAVE BEEN TOSSING AROUND
QUID PRO QUO.
SO I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION
HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE A
QUID PRO QUO SINCE THE
OUTCOME, THE RELEASE OF THE
FUNDS, HAD BEEN PREDETERMINED
AND WAS NOT INFLUENCED AT ALL
BY A SEPARATE ISSUE REQUEST OF
THE PRESIDENT?
>> Host: ARE YOU A LAWYER
MIKE?
>> Caller: I AM NOT.
[LAUGHTER]
BUT MAYBE I SHOULD BE?
>> Host: I WAS CONFUSED BY IT
IN YOU WOULD MAKE A GOOD
LAWYER.
LET'S GO TO LOUISIANA.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR
TAKING MY CALL.
MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE
LEGAL DEFINITION OF A
WITNESS.
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT NOT
WANTING TO CALL WITNESSES BUT
AT THE SAME TIME THE WITNESSES
THEY WANT TO CALL SEEM TO BE
WITNESSES THAT THEY WANT TO
CALL TO OFFER UP INFORMATION
THAT THEY DON'T SEEM TO KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT.
SO IT LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY,
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THESE
WITNESSES ARE MORE OF A
CONTINUATION OF THE
INVESTIGATION THAT THE DEFENSE
HAS BEEN SAYING SHOULD HAVE
BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE HOUSE
SINCE IT'S THEIR JOB TO DO
THAT PRIOR TO CHARGING SOMEONE
WITH SOMETHING.
YOU WOULDN'T CHARGE SOME OF
THE CRIME OF MURDER IF YOU
DIDN'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE HE MADE THE CHARGES.
THANK YOU MUCH.
>> Host: BRIAN FROM OREGON.
I WOULD LIKE A SENATOR TO ASK
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM UNDER
WHAT CONDITIONS THEY WOULD
CONSIDER A HOUSE SUBPOENA
VALID?
>> Host: BRANDON VICTORVILLE
CALIFORNIA HI BRIAN.
>> Caller: I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW, I'VE A QUESTION FOR THE
HOUSE.
WHAT DO PAUL LOSEY AND SCHIFF
HOPE TO GAIN BY IMPEACHING
DONALD TRUMP.
HE'S BEEN BEING A GOOD
PRESIDENT TO US.
I HOPE THAT IT'S NOT TRYING TO
MAKE IT LIKE CALIFORNIA.
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA SUCKS,
WHICH I AM IN THEIR DISTRICT.
>> Host: TIM IS IN MANCHESTER,
TENNESSEE.
>> Caller: I JUST HAVE A
GENERAL QUESTION.
I AM WONDERING WHY ON THE
DEMOCRATIC SIDE OR THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE FOR THAT
MATTER, I WAS THINKING BACK
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
WRITTEN, THEY INTENDED FOR THE
SENATORS THEMSELVES TO DO ALL
THE QUESTIONING.
INSTEAD OF ALL OF THESE HIRED
GUNS THAT ARE DOING WHAT THEY
ARE DOING.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND OUTSIDERS
BEING INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCESS.
I THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
BE ALL PEOPLE FROM THE
SENATE.
>> Host: INTERESTING, I
APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THAT.
KIM FROM CENTRAL FLORIDA I
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY TRUMP
AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE
OPPOSED TO WITNESSES?
IF TRUMP IS NOT GUILTY WHEN
WITNESSES PROVE THAT?
DEL FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> Caller: I'VE GOT A
QUESTION, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
WHAT HUNTER BIDEN AND JOE
BIDEN -- WHY ARE THEY BEING
INVESTIGATED -- WHY IS IT
BEING COVERED UP.
WHAT IS THAT WHY BIDEN IS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE
HE HAD THE FEELING THAT THIS
WAS GOING TO COME OUT -- THE
CORRUPTION ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE?
>> Host: AND JOE FROM TEXAS
TECH TEN WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND
PROPER FOR DEMOCRATS RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT RECUSE
THEMSELVES FROM THE VOTE?
KERI FROM LAWRENCEVILLE
GEORGIA.
>> Caller: HI I JUST WONDER
WHY THE REPUBLICANS WHEN THEY
ASK THEIR QUESTIONS THEY MORE
OR LESS TURN THIS INTO A TRUMP
PEP RALLY.
BECAUSE IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE
WHETHER TRUMP OR OBAMA HAS
GIVEN MORE TO UKRAINE OR WHAT
THEY'VE GIVEN THEM.
THE FACT IS, THE PRESIDENT WAS
WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS FOR HIS
OWN PURPOSES.
B1 RHONDA FROM LA MESA,
CALIFORNIA.
IT IS YOUR TURN.
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?
>> Host: THE SENATE IS BACK IN
RHONDA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
IT'S SUMAC I SENT A QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF AND HOLLY.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE]
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT, FROM
SENATOR MCSALLY, SENATOR SCOTT
FROM FLORIDA SENATOR HAWLEY
AND SENATOR HOEVEN.
SENATOR SCHIFF JUST ARGUED
THAT WE THINK THERE IS A CRIME
HERE OF EXTORTION, OR QUOTE
SOMETHING AKIN TO BRIBERY".
DID THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT CHARGE THE
PRESIDENT WITH BRIBERY,
EXTORTION, OR ANYTHING AKIN TO
IT?
DID THEY HAVE FACTS FOR EITHER
CRIME.
IF NOT OF THE HOUSE MANAGER'S
DISCUSSION OF CRIMES THEY
NEITHER ALLEGED OR PROVED
APPROPRIATE IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, CENTERS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND NO, THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE THE
CRIME OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION,
OR ANY OTHER CRIME.
AND THAT IS A CRITICAL POINT.
BECAUSE AS A SUPREME COURT HAS
EXPLAINED, NO PRINCIPLE OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS MORE
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE NOTICE
OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE AND A
CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A TRIAL
WHERE THE ISSUES ARE RAISED BY
THAT CHARGE ARE AMONG THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERY
ACCUSED.
THAT WAS A SUPREME COURT IN
COLE VERSUS ARKANSAS.
IT IS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT FOR
OVER HUNDRED AND 30 YEARS, THE
COURT CANNOT PERMITS, IT HAS
BEEN RULED BUT THEY CANNOT
PERMIT A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
TRIED ON CHARGES THAT ARE NOT
MADE IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
HIM.
THAT IS THE RULE AND CRIMINAL
LAW, IT IS ALSO THE CASE FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
IT IS THE HOUSE'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN
ACCUSATION AND THE SPECIFIC
ACCUSATION AND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, THE HOUSE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND
THEY DID THAT.
AND THE CHARGES THEY PUT IN
THE ARTICLES WERE ABUSIVE
POWER ON A VAGUE STANDARD THEY
MADE UP AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
THEY PUT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT
OTHER THINGS IN THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY REPORT BUT THEY DID
NOT PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND IF THIS WERE A CRIMINAL
CHILD KIND AND ORDINARY COURT
IN MR. SCHIFF HAD DONE WHAT HE
ADJUSTED ON THE FLOOR HERE.
START TALKING ABOUT CRIMES OF
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION THAT
WERE NOT IN THE INDICTMENT.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN AN AUTOMATIC
MISTRIAL AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN
DONE NOW AND WE COULD'VE GONE
HOME.
AND MR. SCHIFF KNOWS THAT
BECAUSE HE IS A FORMER
PROSECUTOR.
IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE
HOUSE TO COME HERE, FAILING TO
HAVE CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT ANY CRIME AT
ALL AND THEN TO START ARGUING
THAT ACTUALLY, OH WE THINK
THERE IS SOME CRIME INVOLVED
THEM ACTUALLY WE THINK WE
PROVED THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'VE
PROVIDED NO NOTICE WE WERE
GOING TO TRY TO PROVE IT.
IT IS TOTALLY NOT
PERMISSIBLE.
IS A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF DUE
PROCESS.
SCHOLARS HAVE POINTED OUT
THOSE RULES APPLY EQUALLY, IN
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
CHARLES BLACK AND BOBBITT IN
THEIR WORK, IMPEACHMENT ON
HANDBOOK THAT IS REGARDED AS
ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES
COLLECTING SOURCES OF
AUTHORITY ON IMPEACHMENT
BASE", THE SENATOR'S ROLE IS
SO ONLY ONE OF ACTING ON THE
ACCUSATIONS, THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, BOATED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THE SENATE CANNOT LAWFULLY
FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OF
SOMETHING NOT CHARGED BY THE
HOUSE, ANYMORE THAN A TRIAL
JURY CAN FIND A DEFENDANT
GUILTY OF SOMETHING NOT
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.
".
SO WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF JUST
TRIED HERE, IS TOTALLY
IMPROPER.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISTRIAL
IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS
BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE FACTS
THAT WOULD SATISFY THE
ELEMENTS OF A CRIME OF
EXTORTION OR BRIBERY EITHER.
AND TO ATTEMPT, AFTER MAKING
THEIR OPENING, AFTER NOT
CHARGING ANYTHING IN THE
ARTICLES, THAT IS A CRIME
AFTER NOT SPECIFYING ANY CRIME
PART AFTER SENT GIVING US NO
NOTICE THEY'RE GOING TO
ATTEMPT TO CHARGE A CRIME.
IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER
QUESTION TO TRY AND CHANGE THE
CHARGES THAT THEY HAVE MADE
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND TO SAY THAT
ACTUALLY THERE IS BRIBERY AND
EXTORTION, IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE.
IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT
CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS, THEY
ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND
THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED.
THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO,
THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE SENT
A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
JOINED IN THIS QUESTION BY
SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, LEAHY AND
WHITE HOUSE.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE]
>> THE SENATOR FIRM UDALL
LEAHY AND WHITE HOUSE IS TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
ARGUED THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S
INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA
CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
FOR HIS FATHER JOE BIDEN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION, AND HIS FAMILY
INCLUDING THOSE WHO SERVE IN
THE WHITE HOUSE, MAINTAIN
SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS INTEREST
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND
BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN PAYMENTS
AND INVESTMENTS.
BY THE STANDARD THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
APPLIED TO HUNTER BIDEN,
SHOULD MR. KUSHNER AND THIS
TRUMPS CONFLICT OF INTEREST
WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ALSO
COME UNDER INVESTIGATION?
[SILENCE]
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE INTO THE
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THAT QUESTION.
LET ME JUST PREFACE WHAT I'M
ABOUT TO SAY WITH THE
STATEMENT.
THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH FEW
DAYS.
IT HAS BEEN A TRYING TIME FOR
EACH OF US, AND FOR OUR
NATION.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IN
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT
HAS BEEN POSED.
I STAND BEFORE YOU AS A MOTHER
OF THREE SONS.
I AM SURE THAT MANY OF YOU IN
THIS CHAMBER HAVE CHILDREN,
SONS AND DAUGHTERS, AND
GRANDCHILDREN.
THAT YOU THINK THE WORLD OF.
MY GRANDCHILDREN'S LAST NAME
IS DEMI SO WHEN THEY GO OUT TO
GET A JOB I WONDER IF THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL ASSOCIATE
MY SONS WITH THEIR MOTHER AND
THEIR FATHER.
I JUST BELIEVE AS WE GO
THROUGH THIS VERY TOUGH, VERY
DIFFICULT DEBATES, ABOUT
WHETHER TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THAT WE STAY FOCUSED.
THE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE SEEN
MANY DISTRACTIONS.
MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID TO
TAKE OUR MINDS OFF OF THE
TRUTH, OFF OF WHY WE ARE
REALLY HERE.
IN MY FORMER LIGHT OF WORK
ICING, WORKING WITH SMOKE AND
MIRRORS.
ANYTHING THAT WILL TAKE YOUR
ATTENTION OFF OF WHAT IS
PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.
WHAT IS THERE IN PLAIN VIEW.
THE REASON WE ARE HERE IS
NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY'S
CHILDREN.
AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE REASON
WE ARE HERE IS BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES -- THE 45th PRESIDENT
USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO
TRY TO SHAKE DOWN, I WILL USE
THAT TERM BECAUSE I AM
FAMILIAR WITH IT.
JEFF ORNE POWER TO INTERFERE
IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TRIED TO
CHEAT AND THEN TRIED TO GET
THIS FOREIGN POWERS NEWLY
ELECTED PRESIDENT TO SPREAD A
FALSE NARRATIVE THAT WE KNOW
IS UNTRUE ABOUT INTERFERENCE
AND OUR ELECTION.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE AND
THAT WOULD REALLY HELP THE
SITUATION IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL PERHAPS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN
PRETTY SILENT WOULD ISSUE A
RULING ON OPINION ABOUT ANY
PERSON OF AUTHORITY.
ESPECIALLY IN THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, USING OR
ABUSING THAT AUTHORITY TO
INVITE OTHER POWERS INTO
INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION.
SO MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I WILL
JUST CLOSE MY REMARKS AS I
BEGAN THEM, LET US STAY
FOCUSED.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
CHILDREN OR THE BIDEN'S
CHILDREN.
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
WRONGDOING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF, SENATOR RISCH,
CRUZ, MORAN, AND BOZEMAN, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
[SILENCE]
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
CRAPO AND THE OTHER SENATORS,
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
>> DOES THE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD SHOW THAT INVESTIGATION
AND THE BREEZE IN THE MATTER
IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE
UNITED STATES IN ITS EFFORT TO
STOP CORRUPTION?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, CENTERS,
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER
IS YES.
THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THAT IT
WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF
THE UNITED STATES, IN FACT THE
EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT IS
ABUNDANT.
HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW.
HUNTER BIDEN WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY COMPANY
IN UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY
APPARENT EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD
QUALIFY HIM FOR THAT
POSITION.
HE WAS APPOINTED SHORTLY AFTER
HIS FATHER, THE VICE
PRESIDENT, BECAME THE OBAMA'S
ADMINISTRATION'S POINT MAN FOR
POLICY ON UKRAINE.
WE KNOW THAT HIS APPOINTMENT
RAISE SEVERAL RED FLAGS AT THE
TIME.
CHRIS HINES THE SECRETARY OF
STATE SEVERED HIS BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH HUNTER,
CITING HUNTER'S LACK OF
JUDGMENT AND JOIN THE BOARD OF
BURISMA MODE BECAUSE IT WAS
OWNED BY SOMEONE WHO IS
REPEATEDLY UNDER INVESTIGATION
FOR CORRUPTION, MONEY
LAUNDERING, AND OTHER ISSUES.
REPORTS SPECULATED HUNTER'S
ROLE WITH BULLIES MY HUNTER
WOULD UNDERMINE THE U.S.
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IN THE
UKRAINE.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" SAID THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT SONS UKRAINIAN OIL
BOARD LOOKS NEPOTISTIC AT BEST
YOUTH AREAS THAT WORSE.
THERE WERE OTHER ARTICLES,
THERE WAS ONE THAT REPORTED
QUOTE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES WOULD NOT HELP
BY THE NEWS THAT HUNTER HAD
BEEN ON THE BOARD OF THE
DIRECTORS OF BURISMA MALL.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ARTICLE
SAYING THE CREDIBILITY OF
MR. BIDEN'S MESSAGE MAY BE
UNDERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION
OF HIS SON FOR THE UKRAINIAN
NATIONAL GAS COMPANY AND
BURISMA MEN WHICH WAS OWNED BY
OFFICIALS EXPECTED OF BAD
PRACTICES.
ACTIVE IS HERE, IN THE
UKRAINE, SAY THAT THE U.S. IS
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IS
BEING UNDERMINED AS A SON
RECEIVES MONEY FROM A FORMER
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL WHOSE BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR GRAFT.
AT THE SAME TIME, WITHIN THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICIALS RAISE QUESTIONS
SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY RAISE
THE QUESTION WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
SIMILARLY DEPUTY ASSISTANT
CANTON VOICED HIS CONCERNS
WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S
OFFICE.
EVERYONE WHO WAS ASKED, IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THAT
THERE WAS AT LEAST AN
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
WHEN MR. BIDEN'S SON WAS
APPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF THIS
COMPANY.
THAT INCLUDED AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT CANS,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN,
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AMBASSADOR
SOLOMON, AMBASSADOR HILL THEY
ALL AGREE THERE'S APPEARANCE
OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
THE JULY TYPE OF TELEPHONE
CALL, PRESIDENT VIOLENCE HE
HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BIDEN
AND BURISMA MAMA ISSUE.
THE FIRING OF US WHO WAS BEING
LOOKING INTO THE BIDENS THERE
WAS A BILLION DOLLARS IN LOAN
GUARANTEES TO MAKE SURE THAT
PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED.
HE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS
A SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO YOU
DON'T GET A MILLION DOLLARS
LESS UNTIL THAT PROSECUTOR IS
FIRED.
MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN SIX
HOURS ON THE TAPE.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISE THIS IN
THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
RELATED TO CORRUPTION.
AND HE SAID, THE ISSUE OF THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE --
REFERRING TO THE CASE OF
BURISMA MODE.
IT IS TO MAKE SURE WE RESTORE
THE HONESTY SO WE WILL TAKE
CARE OF IT.
AND HE LATER SAID IN AN
INTERVIEW THAT HE RECOGNIZED
THAT THE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE
BEEN SAYING TO HIM THINGS ARE
CORRUPT IN THE UKRAINE.
HE WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO
THEM KNOW WE ARE GONNA CHANGE
THAT.
THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE
CORRUPTION.
SO THAT EXPLICIT EXCHANGE IN
THE JULY 25 CALL SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZE
THAT BIDEN VARESE THE INCIDENT
HAD AN IMPACT ON CORRUPTION
AND ANTICORRUPTION.
AND SO WAS DEFINITELY
UNDERMINING THE U.S. A MESSAGE
ON ANTICORRUPTION, AND IT WAS
A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE ISSUE
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE
WITH PRESIDENT BELINSKY TO
MAKE SURE THE UNITED STATES
DID NOT CONDONE ANYTHING THAT
SEEMED TO INVEST TO GATES AND
TO ENFORCE THE PROPER
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR DURBIN'S
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO
THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN
BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT
UKRAINE'S HELP IN
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS ONLY
AFTER REPORTS SUGGESTED THAT
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN MIGHT
ENTER THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL
RACE AND WOULD SERIOUSLY
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN
THE POLLS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO
INTEREST IN BIDEN OBAMA ERA
UKRAINE WARS IN 2017 OR 2018
WHEN BIDEN WAS NOT RUNNING
AGAINST HIM FOR PRESIDENT.
NONE OF THE 17 WITNESSES IN
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
PROVIDED ANY CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY IN ANY
WAY IN UKRAINE.
INSTEAD, WITNESSES TESTIFIED
THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT
WAS CARRYING OUT OFFICIAL U.S.
POLICY AND COORDINATION WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY,
WHEN HE ADVOCATED FOR THE
OUSTER OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN
OFFICIAL.
IN SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
SIMPLY UNFOUNDED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN
HAND-PICKED ENVOY TO UKRAINE
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER KNEW
THERE WAS UNFOUNDED TO HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE CONFRONTED
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY,
MR. GIULIANI, ABOUT THIS
CONSPIRACY THEORY AND TOLD HIM
THAT QUOTE IT IS SIMPLY NOT
CREDIBLE TO ME, THE JOE BIDEN
WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN HIS
DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT BY
MONEY, OR THINGS FOR HIS SON,
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG
TIME, HE IS A PERSON OF
INTEGRITY, AND THAT'S NOT
CREDIBLE.
GIULIANI ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
DID NOT FIND ONE OF THE
SOURCES OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.
THE FORMER UKRAINIAN
PROSECUTOR, TO BE HELD
CREDIBLE.
SO EVEN GIULIANI KNEW THE
ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE.
OUR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S
CONFIRMED THAT THE PRESIDENT
NEVER SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ABOUT UKRAINE OR ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP, GENUINELY
BELIEVED THAT THERE IS
LEGITIMATE BASIS TO REQUEST
UKRAINE'S ASSISTANCE AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS,
THERE ARE SPECIFIC FORMAL
PROCESSES THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
FOLLOWED.
SPECIFICALLY HE COULD HAVE
ASKED THE D.O.J. TO MAKE AN
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR
ASSISTANCE TO THE MUTUAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE TREATY.
IT'S WORTH NOTING, THE
PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT
HUNTER BIDEN TO THE EXTENT
THAT HE IS THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S SON.
AND THEREFORE, A MEANS THROUGH
WHICH TO SMEAR A POLITICAL
OPPONENT.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ASKING FOR
THE REMOVAL OF THE FORMER
PROSECUTOR ON THAT JULY 25
CALL.
THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED.
NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO
HUNTER BIDEN.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON,
YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS NO
BASIS FOR INVESTIGATING VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
CAN WE GET SLIDE 52 UP?
THE TIMING SHOWS CLEARLY THAT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS
CONDUCT OCCURRED IN 2015, IT
WASN'T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN BEGAN CONSISTENTLY
BIDDING TRUMP IN NATIONAL
POLLS IN THE SPRING OF 2019 BY
SIGNIFICANT MARGINS.
THAT THE PRESIDENT TARGETED
BIDEN, HE WAS SCARED OF
LOSING, THE PRESIDENT WANTED
TO CAST A CLOUD OVER A FORMER
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THIS WASN'T ANY GENUINE
CONCERN OF WRONGDOING.
THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT, THIS
WAS SOLELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE
COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK, TO
MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIN.
HE FROZE THE CRITICAL MONEY TO
UKRAINE TO COERCE UKRAINE TO
HELP HIM ATTACK HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS AND SECURE HIS
REELECTION.
WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT USE OUR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS
PERSONAL BIDDING.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
>> I SENT ON QUESTION TO DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, CRAPO,
GRAHAM AND MYSELF TO THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL.
[SILENCE]
'S - THE QUESTION IS FROM
SENATOR SCOTT TO THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL.
HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT THE
BIDEN BURISMA AFFAIR HAS BEEN
DEBUNKED.
WHAT AGENCY WITHIN THE
GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO THE
DEBUNKING?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ABOUT
ANY INVESTIGATION, LET ALONE
DEBUNKED SHAM DISCREDITED OR
AS MANAGER JEFFRIES TOLD YOU
TONIGHT, PHONY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
INCITED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD BECAUSE NONE EXISTS.
A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, I READ
TO YOU A QUOTE AND STATEMENTS
FROM VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
DEALING WITH CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE.
WHAT I DIDN'T TELL YOU WAS
THAT HE MADE THE STATEMENTS,
BEFORE THE UKRAINIAN
PARLIAMENT DIRECTLY.
HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HISTORIC
BATTLE OF CORRUPTION, HE SPOKE
ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION
SPECIFICALLY IN THE ENERGY
SECTOR.
HE SPOKE ABOUT NO SWEETHEART
DEALS, HE SAID ALL THE GUARDS
MUST PLAY BY THE SAME RULES.
CORRUPTION SIPHONS AWAY
RESOURCES FROM THE PEOPLE IT
BLUNTS ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND IT
FRONTS THE HUMAN DIGNITY.
THOSE WERE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN'S WORDS.
SO THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS
CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE
ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE, RUN
BY A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN
OLIGARCH, WHO IS PAYING OUR
VICE PRESIDENT SON AND HIS
SONS BUSINESS PARTNER,
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR NO
APPARENT LEGITIMATE REASON
WHILE HIS FATHER WAS
OVERSEEING OUR COUNTRY'S
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE
MERITS ANY PUBLIC INQUIRY
INVESTIGATION OR INTEREST?
THE ANSWER IS YES.
AND SIMPLY BY SAYING IT DIDN'T
HAPPEN, IS RIDICULOUS.
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS INCITING TO
HER CHILDREN, THE MESSAGE TO
OUR CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WHEN
YOU OVERSEE A CORRUPTION AND
TRYING TO READ IT OUT IN
ANOTHER COUNTRY, IS TO MAKE
SURE YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT
BENEFITING FROM IT.
THAT IS WHAT SHOULD BE
HAPPENING.
NOT TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT
IT'S OKAY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T DENY
THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE
REASON TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION.
THEY JUST SAY IT WAS DEBUNKED,
IT'S A SHAM, IT'S DEEMED
LEGITIMATE BUT THEY DON'T TELL
YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED.
WE ALL REMEMBER THE E-MAIL
THAT CHRIS HINES IS SENT.
KEEP THIS IN MIND, HE IS THE
STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY THEN
SECRETARY OF STATE JON KERRY.
HE SENDS AN OFFICIAL E-MAIL TO
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THE
CHIEF OF STAFF, TO JON KERRY
AND HIS SPECIAL ASSISTANT.
THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THAT E-MAIL THAT IT IS
A WARNING SHAH TO SAY I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BUT
WE ARE NOT INVESTED IN IT.
AND WE ARE TAKING A GIANT STEP
BACK.
AND THINK ABOUT THE WORDS,
REMEMBER THE VIDEO WE SAW
ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.
WHAT DID HE SAY?
I AM NOT GOING TO OPEN MY
KIMONO.
I AM NOT GOING TO OPEN MY
KIMONO WHEN HE WAS ASKED HOW
MUCH MONEY HE WAS MAKING.
IN ONE MONTH, AND ONE MONTH
ALONE, HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS
PARTNER MADE AS MUCH -- ALMOST
AS MUCH AS EVERY SENATOR AND
CONGRESSMAN JUSTIN ONE MONTH
ALONE WHAT YOU LEARNED IN THE
YEAR.
AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT
MERITS INQUIRY?
DOES ANYONE HERE THINK, WHEN
THEY SITS UP DEBUNKED
INVESTIGATION THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULDN'T
REMEMBER?
IF IT WAS TESTIMONY OF HUNTER
BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, SECRETARY OF
STATE JON KERRY, HIS STEPSON,
THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER, HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF, AND SPECIAL
ASSISTANT.
HOW CAN YOU TELL THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IT DOESN'T MERIT
INQUIRY, WHEN OUR VICE
PRESIDENT SON IS SUPPOSEDLY
DOING THIS FOR CORPORATE
TRANSPARENCY IN UKRAINE.
HE'S GOING TO OVERSEE THE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
UKRAINIAN COMPANY.
HE'S GOING TO HELP THEM, AND
IF YOU LOOK AT HIS STATEMENT
THAT I READ TO YOU BEFOREHAND,
THERE IS ANOTHER PART OF IT
FROM OCTOBER 2019.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHETHER HE
THOUGHT IT DEALT WITH OUTSIDE
UKRAINE, AND JUST BURISMA?
HE SAYS, I WAS ADVISING
BURISMA ON ITS CORPORATE
REFORM INITIATIVE, AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FUELING
BURISMA'S INTERNATIONAL.
IN LISTENING TO THE STATEMENT
BY HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEY.
VIBRANT ENERGY PRODUCTION
PARTICULARLY NATURAL GAS WAS
CENTRAL TO UKRAINE'S
INDEPENDENCE, AND SYSTEMIC THE
TIME OF LATIMER SPOONED ON THE
ATTACK ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A
DEMOCRATIC EUROPE.
DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTOOD
WHAT HE WAS GETTING THE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHAT HIS
FATHER WAS DOING?
THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT
STATEMENT DID NOT COME OUT
UNTIL OCTOBER 2019.
ONLY WHEN THE NEWS STORY
STARTED TO BREAK, ONLY WHEN
THE HOUSE MANAGERS RAISE THESE
ISSUES DID PEOPLE START TO
TALK ABOUT IT.
TELL US -- TELL US WHEN WE SAW
JOE BIDEN, HUNTER BIDEN, JON
KERRY TESTIFY ABOUT IT.
TELL US WHERE YOU DID IT
DURING THE IMPEACHMENT
HEARING.
I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT
TESTIMONY.
I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THE
BANK RECORDS.
WE PUT THAT BANK RECORDS IN
FRONT OF YOU AND THE PEOPLE
ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT
EXACTLY WAS GOING ON.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL.
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
>> THANK YOU NURSE SENATOR
ONTRACK ON BEHALF OF HEINRICH
AND MYSELF I HAVE A QUESTION
SENT TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE]
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
MERKLEY AND OTHER CENTERS AS
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR PREVIOUS
ANSWER ABOUT THE BOLTON
MANUSCRIPT.
WHEN EXACTLY DID THE FIRST
PERSON ON THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFENSE TEAM FIRST LEARNED OF
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
MANUSCRIPT?
SECONDLY, MR. BOLTON'S LAWYER
PUBLICLY DISPUTES THAT ANY
INFORMATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT
COULD REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED
CLASSIFIED.
WAS THE DETERMINATION TO BLOCK
ITS PUBLICATION ON THE BASIS
THAT IT CONTAINS CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION, MADE SOLELY BY
CAREER OFFICIALS OR WERE
POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
OR ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE
HOUSE INVOLVED?
[SILENCE]
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, CENTER
TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION
SPECIFICALLY THE ALLEGATION
THAT CAME OUT IN THE NEW YORK
TIMES ARTICLE ABOUT A
CONVERSATION THAT ALLEGEDLY
REPORTED TO THE MANUSCRIPT
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, OFFICIALS,
LAWYERS AND WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL'S LEARNED ABOUT THAT
ALLEGATION FOR THE FIRST TIME
ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON WHEN THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS CONTACTED BY
THE NEW YORK TIMES.
IN TERMS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW, IT IS CONDUCTED AT THE
NSC BY THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS
NOT INVOLVED IN CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW DETERMINING WHAT IS
CLASSIFIED AND NOT
CLASSIFIED.
I CANNOT STATE THE SPECIFICS.
BY UNDERSTANDING IT IS
CONDUCTED BY CAREER OFFICIALS
AT THE NSC.
IT'S HANDLED BY THEM.
I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO BE
FULL INFORMATION ON THAT.
MY UNDER STANDING IS DONE BY
CAREER OFFICIALS.
BUT IT'S NOT BEING DONE BY THE
LAWYERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL OFFICE.
I HOPE THAT ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, SENATOR.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR LANGFORD
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE]
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE
SENATOR SULLIVAN AND LANGFORD
TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
THERE HAS BEEN CONFLICTING
TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW LONG THE
SENATES MIGHT BE TIME TO UP IN
ATTAINING ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
TRIAL, THE MINORITY LEADER
OFFERED 11 AMENDMENTS TO
OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN
THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS AND
DEPOSITIONS FROM SEVERAL
FEDERAL AGENCIES.
IF THE SENATE HAD ADOPTED ALL
11 OF THESE AMENDMENTS, HOW
LONG DO YOU THINK THIS
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD TAKE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE, IT WOULD TAKE A
LONG TIME.
IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME JUST
TO GET THROUGH THOSE MOTIONS.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN 17
WITNESSES.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
THAT THE MANAGERS HAVE PUT
FORWARD AN DEMOCRATIC LEADER
SCHUMER HAS DISCUSSED.
HE HAS DISCUSSED FOUR
WITNESSES IN PARTICULAR.
IF THIS BODY WERE TO GRANT
WITNESSES WOULD SAY YES YOU
GET THOSE FOUR WITNESSES AND
THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GETS
WHAT?
WHATEVER I WANT?
THAT'S MR. SCHUMER THAT'S WHAT
YOU SAID THIS IS WHAT I WANT
TO WHAT ADAM SCHIFF, I WANT
HUNTER BIDEN, I WANT JOE
BIDEN, I WANT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER, I ONCE ALSO
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WITHIN THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
THAT HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS
WITHOUT WHISTLEBLOWER.
I GET ANYBODY WE WANT?
BY THE WAY IF WE WANT
EVERYBODY WE WANT WE ARE GOING
TO BE HERE FOR A VERY, VERY
LONG TIME.
THE FACT OF THE MATTERS WERE
NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITNESSES
TONIGHT BUT THAT IS OBVIOUSLY
AN UNDERCURRENT.
BUT TO SAY THIS IS NOT CAN
EXTEND THIS PROCEEDING?
MONTHS.
BECAUSE UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
ELSE, DESPITE THE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE,
I SUSPECT THAT MANAGER SCHIFF,
SMART GUY, HE'S GOING TO SAY
WAIT A MINUTE I'VE GOT SOME
SPEECH AND DEBATE PRIVILEGES.
THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO
THIS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE,
BUT THEY MAY RAISE IT WOULD BE
LEGITIMATE TO RAISE IT.
SO THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE
WOULD BE -- THIS WOULD BE THE
FIRST OF MANY WEEKS.
I THINK WE GOT TO BE CLEAR.
THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN AN
AGGRESSIVE AND FAST-PACED
WAY.
AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING -- NOW
WE NEED WITNESSES.
AFTER 31 OR 32 TIMES YOU SAID
HE APPROVED EVERY ASPECT OF
YOUR CASE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
HE JUST SAID HE DID.
WHILE THEN I DON'T THINK WE
NEED ANY WITNESSES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
>> THE QUESTION IS FROM
SENATOR MENENDEZ TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MAINTAINED
THAT HE WITHHELD U.S. SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION.
YET HIS PURPORTED CONCERN
ABOUT CORRUPTION DID NOT
PREVENT HIS ADMINISTRATION
FROM SENDING CONGRESSIONALLY
APPROPRIATED ASSISTANCE TO
UKRAINE MORE THAN 45 TIMES
BETWEEN JANUARY 2017 AND JUNE
2019, TOTALING MORE THAN
$1.5 BILLION.
SO WHY DID THE PRESIDENT
SUDDENLY BECOME CONCERNED
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN EARLY
2019?
[SILENCE]
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
HE BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION SUPPOSEDLY IN EARLY
2019 BECAUSE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION
FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
THAT IS WHAT THE OVERWHELMING
AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER
LEGITIMATE REASON.
AS YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT,
FIRST THE PUBLICLY RELEASED
RECORDS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
APRIL 21 AND 25 CALLS TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER
MENTIONED THE WORD
CORRUPTION.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
TALKING POINTS FOR THESE CALLS
PREPARED BY HIS OWN STAFF,
LISTED CORRUPTION.
SECOND, THE MAY 2019 THE STATE
AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CERTIFIED TO CONGRESS UKRAINE"
TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS FOR
THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING
CORRUPTION".
AND MET THE ANTICORRUPTION
BENCHMARKS IS VERY BODY
ESTABLISH WHEN IT APPROPRIATED
TUNER $50 MILLION OF THOSE
FUNDS.
THIRD, BY THE TIME OF THE
JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY HAD ALREADY
ESTABLISHES ANTICORRUPTION
HAVING INTRODUCED THE NUMBER
OF REFORM BILLS AND UKRAINE.
FOURTH, ON JULY 26, DAY AFTER
HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP
SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SOMEONE
WHO IS IN UKRAINE.
THE ONE QUESTION THE PRESIDENT
ASKED AMBASSADOR SOD ONE WAS
NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION, BUT WHAT
IS ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WAS INTO THE
INVESTIGATION?
FIFTH, THE RELEASED AID AS
YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT
SENATOR, THE PRESIDENT
RELEASED TO THE AID IN 2017.
AND IN 2018.
AND HE RELEASED IN 2019 ONLY
AFTER HAVING GOTTEN CAUGHT.
IN THE WORDS OF ZINMAN AND
OTHERS THE CONDITIONS ON THE
GROUND HAD NOT CHANGED.
: :
THE TWO PRIOR YEARS THAT 
SUDDENLY WE ARE TO BELIEVE 
SOMETHING CHANGE THE CONDITIONS 
ON THE GROUND CHANGED AND HE 
HAD AN EPIPHANY ABOUT 
CORRUPTION WITHIN A WEEK OF 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCING 
HIS CANDIDACY IT DOESN'T MAKE 
ANY SENSE.
ONE OTHER THING I WILL SAY WITH 
REGARD TO THE AID IS THIS 
ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS BEEN THE STRONGEST 
SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE AND I 
TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER, 
LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT TO BE 
THE CASE.
IF IT IS THE CASE AS 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
CONTENDED OVER AND OVER AGAIN 
THEN THERE IS OF COURSE NO 
REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID 
BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
THIS LEADS US AND ADMIRABLY 
ONLY TO ONE CONCLUSION AND THAT 
IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES USED TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S 
MONEY TO WITHHOLD AID FROM AN 
ALLY AT WAR TO BENEFIT HIS 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RUSSIAN 
PROPAGANDA, BY CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES, BY PEOPLE ASKING YOU 
TO LOOK IN OTHER DIRECTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS THE FACTS 
WILL CONTINUE TO COME OUT 
WHETHER THIS BODY SUBPOENAS 
THEM ARE NOT FULL ÃÃTHE 
QUESTION IS WILL THEY COME OUT 
IN TIME AND WILL YOU BE THE 
ONES ASKING FOR THEM WHEN 
YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAKING THE 
DECISION A COUPLE DAYS TO SIT 
IN JUDGMENT?
>> MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU 
[SILENCE] 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
JOHNSON FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IF HOUSE MANAGERS WERE 
CERTAIN IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO 
LITIGATE A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN 
BOLTON, WHY SHOULDN'T THE 
SENATE ASSUME LENGTHY 
LITIGATION AND MAKE THE SAME 
DECISION AS THE HOUSEMAID, 
REJECT THE SUBPOENA FOR JOHN 
BOLTON?
>>.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE, I THINK THAT'S 
PRECISELY THE POINT.
THE FACT IS THAT IF IN FACT WE 
ARE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF A 
WITNESS OR WITNESSES THAT HAD 
IN THE CASE OF AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON HIGH RANKING NSA, THIS 
IS AN INDIVIDUAL GETS GIVING 
THE PRESIDENT ADVICE AT THE 
HIGHEST LEVEL THE SUPREME COURT 
HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ON 
THAT.THAT'S WHERE PRIVILEGES 
ARE AT THEIR HIGHEST LEVEL.
THE PRESUMED PRIVILEGE, 
ACTUALLY, IS WHAT THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS SAID.
IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS I 
THINK WE ARE GOING DOWN A ROAD, 
IF THE SENATE GOES THIS ROAD OF 
A LENGTHY PROCEEDING WAS A LOT 
MORE WITNESSES AND THEN I WANT 
TO ASK THIS QUESTION AND JUST 
PLANT IT AS A THOUGHT.
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE NEW 
NORM FOR IMPEACHMENT?
YOU PUT AN IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER 
IN A COUPLE WEEKS, WE DON'T 
LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WE 
GET THROUGH AND A TWO DAY 
PROCEEDING IN FRONT OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WE WRAP IT 
UP AND SEND IT APPEAR AND SAY 
FIGURED OUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT 
THIS IS REALLY BECOMING.
THAT'S WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS I 
THINK YOU FOR LOOKING AT THE 
INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS AT 
STAKE HERE, THIS IS A VERY 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
WHAT THEY ARE DOING, WHAT THEY 
ARE SAYING IS BASICALLY, WE 
HAVE ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE, 
THAT'S WHAT MANAGER SHIFTS SAID 
BUT NOT REALLY.
WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE, NOT 
BECAUSE WE NEED IT, BECAUSE WE 
WANT IT.
WE DIDN'T WANT IT BAD ENOUGH 
WHEN WE WERE IN THE HOUSE SO WE 
DIDN'T GET IT.
WE ISSUED SUBPOENA AND THEN 
LET'S DUKE IT OUT IN COURT AND 
SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT THIS IS, 
THEY ARE ACTING LIKE THIS IS 
SOME MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC COURT 
PROCEEDING.
I REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT UNDER THEIR 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY 
ARE REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
THEY ARE ALREADY SAYING IN THE 
MEDIA THAT THERE ARE ONGOING 
INVESTIGATION THEY WILL 
CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE.
I WAS GOING TO BE DOING THIS 
EVERY THREE WEEKS?
EVERY MONTH, EXCEPT IN THE 
SUMMER?
THERE IS AN ELECTION MONTHS 
AWAY THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE 
RIGHT TO VOTE.
WHEN I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS 
WHETHER THE LATE NEED OF 
WITNESSES AFTER YOU SAID YOU 
PROVED YOUR CASE, IT'S IT'S HOW 
THE PRIVILEGES APPLY OR NOT 
APPLY, SENATOR SCHUMER SAID WE 
GET ANYBODY WANT, WE WOULD BE 
HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND 
THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE UNITED 
STATES, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> THE HOW QUESTION IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, WOULD YOU 
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER 
THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE 
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
THAT IS, IF THE HOUSE WANTS TO 
CALL WITNESSES, IF YOU WANT TO 
HEAR FROM A SINGLE WITNESS IF 
YOU WANT TO HEAR WHAT JOHN 
BOLTON HAS TO SAY, WE ARE GOING 
TO MAKE THIS ENDLESS TUMBLEWEED 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE 
GOING TO MAKE THIS ENDLESS WE 
PROMISE YOU WE ARE GOING TO 
WANT ADAM SCHIFF TO TESTIFY, WE 
WANT BIDEN, THE WHISTLEBLOWER, 
WE HAVE THE 
UNMITIGATED TEMERITY TO WHAT 
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL WE WILL 
MAKE YOU PAY FOR IT WITH 
ENDLESS DELAY.
THE SENATE WILL NEVER BE ABLE 
TO GO BACK TO ITS BUSINESS.
THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT.
HOW DARE THE HOUSE ASSUME THERE 
WILL BE WITNESSES IN A TRIAL?
SHOULDN'T THE HOUSE HAVE KNOWN 
WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK ITS 
INVESTIGATION THAT THE SENATE 
WAS NEVER GOING TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES?
THAT THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE 
HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC WITH NO 
WITNESSES I WOULD LIKE MR. 
SACCO TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS 
CONTACTS WITH MR. PARTNERS ARE 
MR. SUE PALLONE ABOUT THE 
EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE 
PRESIDENT'S FIGHT ON ALL 
SUBPOENAS.
I LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT, 
I LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND PUT HIM UNDER 
OATH.
BUT WE ARE NOT HERE TO INDULGE 
IN FANTASY OR DISTRACTION.
WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT 
PEOPLE WITH PERTINENT AND 
PROBATIVE EVIDENCE AND YOU KNOW 
SOMETHING, I TRUST THE MAN 
BEHIND ME SITTING WAY UP WHERE 
I CAN'T SEE RIGHT NOW.
BUT I TRUST HIM TO MAKE 
DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER 
WITNESSES MATERIAL OR NOT, 
WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE TO OUT 
IT WAS TO BLOWER OR NOT WHETHER 
A PARTICULAR PASSAGE IN A 
DOCUMENT IS PRIVILEGED OR NOT, 
IT'S NOT GONNA TAKE MONTHS OF 
LITIGATION ALTHOUGH THAT'S WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS 
THREATENING, THEY ARE DOING THE 
SAME THING TO THE SENATE THEY 
DID TO THE HOUSE, WHICH IS YOU 
TRY TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT, TRY TO TRY THE 
PRESIDENT, WE WILL TIE YOU AND 
YOUR ENTIRE CHAMBER UP IN KNOTS 
FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS.
AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING, THEY 
WILL IF YOU LET THEM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THEM.
YOU CAN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON, 
YOU CAN ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN 
CAMERA WHETHER SOMETHING IS 
RELEVANT, WHETHER IT DEALS WITH 
UKRAINE OR VENEZUELA, WHETHER 
IT'S PRIVILEGED OR IS IT ISN'T.
WHETHER THE PRIVILEGES BEING 
MISSED APPLIED TO HIDE 
CRIMINALITY OF WRONGDOING BUT 
GOT A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF 
JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME 
WHO CAN MAKE THESE DECISIONS IN 
REAL TIME.
DON'T BE THROWN OFF BY THIS 
CLAIM, IF YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT 
IT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU PAY 
WITH DELAYS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER 
SEEN.
WE WILL CALL WITNESSES THAT 
WILL TURN THIS INTO A CIRCUS.
IT SHOULDN'T BE A CIRCUS IT 
SHOULD BE A FAIR TRIAL.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES.
I THINK WHEN I WAS ASKED THAT 
QUESTION BEFORE I ANSWERED THE 
AFFIRMATIVE AND THE NEGATIVE, 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES AND YOU 
SHOULDN'T PRESUME THAT WHEN A 
HOUSE AND PEACHES THE SENATE 
TRIALS FROM NOW ON WILL BE 
WITNESS FREE, WILL BE EVIDENCE 
FREE, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS INTENDED, IF IT WAS 
THEY WOULD'VE MADE YOU THE 
COURT OF APPEALS BUT THEY 
DIDN'T.
THEY MADE YOU THE TRIERS OF 
FACT.
THEY EXPECTED YOU TO HEAR FOR 
WITNESS THEY EXPECTED YOU TO 
VALIDATE THE CREDIBILITY.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT ABOUT 
JOHN BOLTON.
I'M NO FAN OF JOHN BOLTON 
ALTHOUGH I LIKE HIM A LITTLE 
MORE THAN I USED TO.
YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM HIM.
YOU SHOULD WANT TO.
DON'T TAKE GENERAL KELLY'S WORD 
FOR IT.
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HIM OR MICK 
MULVANEY, WHAT YOU BELIEVE JOHN 
BOLTON OR THE PRESIDENT CAN 
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
YES, WE PROVED OUR CASE 
COUNSEL.
WE PROVED IT OVERWHELMINGLY.
YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST THE FACT 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
MILITARY AID TO COERCE AN ALLY.
YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST IT.
YOU CHOSE TO MAKE JOHN BOLTON'S 
TESTIMONY RELEVANT, PERTINENT, 
IF YOU HAVE STIPULATED THE 
PRESIDENT DID AS HE IS CHARGED, 
THEN YOU MIGHT MAKE THE 
ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING 
HERE BUT YOU HAVE IT, YOU 
CONTESTED IT.
NOW YOU WANT TO SAY BUT THE 
SENATE SHALL NOT HEAR FROM THIS 
WITNESS THAT'S NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL.
THAT'S NOT EVEN THE APPEARANCE 
OF FAIRNESS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATOR RISCH.
[SILENCE] 
>> TO BE BOTH TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL AND WAREHOUSE 
MANAGERS.
[SILENCE] 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CASSIDY AND SENATOR RISCH, FROM 
BOTH PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FIRST.
WE SAW A VIDEO OF MR. NADLER 
SAYING "THERE MUST NEVER BE A 
NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR 
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF 
OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
OPPOSED BY THE OTHER" SECTION 
IMPEACHMENT WILL LACK 
LEGITIMACY, WILL PRODUCE 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN 
OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME 
AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE 
VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS".
GIVEN THE WELL-KNOWN DISLIKE OF 
SOME HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE STATE 
OF DESIRE OF SOME TO IMPEACH 
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
INAUGURATED AND THE STRICTLY 
PARTISAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT, DO THE CURRENT 
PROCEEDINGS TYPIFY THAT WHICH 
MR. NADLER WARNED AGAINST 20 
YEARS AGO.
>>.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SANDERS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
A SIMPLE ANSWER IS, YES THESE 
ARE THE EXACTLY SORT OF 
RESEEDING'S MANAGER NADLER 
WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO 
IT'S A PURELY A PARTISAN 
EASEMENT AND IT'S BEEN CLEAR AT 
LEAST SOME FACTIONS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND THE 
DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE 
HAVE BEEN INTENT ON FINDING 
SOME WAY TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FROM THE DAY HE WAS 
SWORN IN AND EVEN BEFORE THE 
DAY HE WAS SWORN IN.
AND THAT'S DANGEROUS FOR OUR 
COUNTRY TO ALLOW PARTISAN VENOM 
AND INDEMNITY LIKE THAT TO TAKE 
HOLD AND BECOME THE NORM FOR 
DRIVING IMPEACHMENT IS EXACTLY 
WHAT THE FRAMERS WARNED 
AGAINST.
IN FEDERALIST 65 HAMILTON 
WARNED AGAINST IT.
HE WARNED AGAINST PERSECUTION 
BY AN INTEMPERATE AND DESIGNING 
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS 
DID NOT WANT IMPEACHMENT TO 
TURN INTO.
AND YET THAT IS CLEARLY WHAT IT 
IS TURNING INTO HERE.
BOTH MANAGER NADLER AND 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER IN 
THE VIDEO WE SAW WERE 
FOREWARNING THAT IF WE START TO 
GO DOWN THIS ROAD, ONE THING 
THAT SEEMS TO BE SURE IN 
WASHINGTON IS WHAT GOES AROUND 
COMES AROUND.
IF IT'S DONE WANTS TO ONE 
PARTY, IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN 
FROM THE OTHER PARTY TO THE 
OTHER PARTY WANTS THE PRESIDENT 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY 
CHANGES HANDS AND THEN IN A 
CYCLE IT WILL GET WORSE AND 
WORSE AND THERE WILL BE MORE 
AND MORE AND EVERY PRESIDENT 
WILL BE IMPEACHED.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS 
INTENDED AND THIS BODY 
SHOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN 
HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNSEL.
>> THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR PERSONAL 
AND POLITICAL GAIN.
AS PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMPS 
CORRUPT EFFORT TO CHEAT AND 
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION.
THERE IS A REMEDY FOR THAT TYPE 
OF STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT REMEDY IS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT REMEDY IS 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL WHICH 
IS WHAT THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY 
IS DOING RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S NOT PARTISAN.
THAT'S NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 
PLAYBOOK, THAT'S NOT THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY PLAYBOOK.
THAT'S THE PLAYBOOK IN A 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
GIVEN TO US IN A PRECIOUS 
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF IN THIS 
INSTANCE IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMPS CONDUCT 
STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF 
OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTION.
AS NORTH CAROLINIANS DELEGATE 
WILLIAM DEVI NOTED THAT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IF HE 
BE NOT IMPEACHABLE WHILE IN 
OFFICE HE WILL SPARE OR MEANS 
WHATSOEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
UNDERSTOOD THAT PERHAPS THIS 
REMEDY WOULD ONE DAY BE 
NECESSARY.
>> THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.
THAT IS WHY THIS PRESIDENT WAS 
IMPEACH.
THAT IS WHY IT'S APPROPRIATE 
FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE NOT AS 
PARTISAN AS AMERICANS TO HOLD 
THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
HIS STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
>> SENATOR SANDERS ASKED THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS REPUBLICAN 
LAWYERS HAVE STATED ON SEVERAL 
OCCASIONS THAT TWO PEOPLE 
SENATOR JOHNSON AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WOULD TOLD DIRECTLY BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THERE WAS 
NO QUID PRO QUO IN TERMS OF 
HOLDING BACK UKRAINE AID IN 
EXCHANGE FOR INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE BIDENS.
GIVEN THE MEDIA HAS DOCUMENTED 
PRESIDENT TRUMPS THOUSANDS OF 
LIVES WHILE IN OFFICES MORE 
THAN 16,200 AS OF JANUARY 20 
WHY SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO 
BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAYS HAS CREDIBILITY.
>> I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE TO 
BEGIN WITH THAT QUESTION EXCEPT 
TO SAY THAT IF EVERY DEFENDANT 
IN A TRIAL COULD BE EXONERATED 
JUST BY DENYING THE CRIME, 
THERE WOULD BE NO TRIAL.
IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
I THINK IT IS TELLING THAT WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE FIRST WORDS 
OUT OF HIS MOUTH, ACCORDING TO 
SONDLAND, WERE NO QUID PRO QUO.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING YOU 
DO, YOU BLURT OUT WHAT YOU BEEN 
CAUGHT IN THE ACT AND YOU SAY, 
IT WASN'T ME I DIDN'T DO IT BUT 
EVEN THEN THE PRESIDENT 
COULDN'T HELP HIMSELF.
BECAUSE THE OTHER HALF OF THAT 
CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO BUT ZELINSKI NEEDS TO GO TO 
THE MICROPHONE.
NO QUID PRO QUO BUT QUID PRO 
QUO.
THIS REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING 
THAT CAME UP EARLIER.
WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT WHEN 
HE'S ON THE CALL ON JULY 25 
KNOWING THAT THERE ARE OTHER 
PEOPLE LISTENING, WHY ON EARTH 
WOULD THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
THIS KIND OF SHAKEDOWN WITH 
OTHERS IN EARSHOT.
SOMETIMES IT'S VERY HARD TO 
FATHOM SOMETIMES JUST PEOPLE 
MAKE MISTAKES BUT I THINK IN 
THE CASE OF THIS PRESIDENT, HE 
TRULY BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE 
LAW.
HE TRULY BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S 
LISTENING IT DOESN'T MATTER 
WHO'S LISTENING.
IF IT'S GOOD FOR HIM, IT'S GOOD 
FOR THE STATE BECAUSE HE IS THE 
STATE STOP IF IT HELPS HIS 
REELECTION IT'S GOOD FOR 
AMERICA.
AND WHATEVER MEANS HE NEEDS TO 
EFFECTUATE HIS ELECTION WHETHER 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID OR 
WHAT HAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT 
HELPS HIM GET ELECTED, IT'S 
GOOD FOR AMERICA BECAUSE HE IS 
THE STATE.
THIS IS WHY I THINK HE IS SO 
IRATE WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD 
AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.
NOT JUST THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT 
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON OR 
GENERAL KELLY YOU MIGHT ASK THE 
QUESTION, WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE 
WHO LEAVE THIS ADMINISTRATION, 
WHY DO THEY WALK AWAY FROM THIS 
PRESIDENT WITH SUCH A 
CONVICTION THAT HE IS 
UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY THAT 
YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT HE 
SAYS.
THINK ABOUT THIS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S NOW FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF GENERAL KELLY DOESN'T 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, HE BELIEVES JOHN 
BOLTON.
CAN EVERYBODY BE DISGRUNTLED?
CAN IT ALL BE A MATTER OF BIAS?
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER.
HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON 
POST DOCUMENTED SO MANY FALSE 
STATEMENTS.
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, YOU CAN'T, 
I REMEMBER EARLY IN THIS 
PRESIDENCY MANY OF US TALK 
ABOUT HOW ONCE AS PRESIDENT YOU 
LOSE YOUR CREDIBILITY.
ONCE AS PRESIDENT YOUR COUNTRY 
OR YOUR FRIENDS OR ALLIES 
AROUND THE WORLD CANNOT RELY ON 
YOUR WORD, JUST HOW DESTRUCTIVE 
AND DANGEROUS IT IS TO THE 
COUNTRY.
WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE DENIAL, 
IT'S A FALSE DENIAL.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE WALL STREET 
JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT SENATOR 
JOHNSON WAS INTERVIEWED IN WHEN 
HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH 
SONDLAND AND HAD THAT SINKING 
FEELING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT 
THOSE TWO THINGS TIED TOGETHER, 
EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE 
TIED TOGETHER.IT WAS A SIMPLE 
AS 2+2 EQUALS 4. YOU CAN'T RELY 
ON FALSE EXCULPATORY WITH THIS 
PRESIDENT ANYMORE THAN YOU CAN 
WITH ANY OTHER ACCUSED AND 
PROBABLY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT 
TRACK RECORD A LOT LESS THAN 
OTHER ACCUSED.
AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE 
PEOPLE WITH FIRST-HAND 
KNOWLEDGE WHO DON'T HAVE TO 
RELY ON HIS FALSE EXCULPATORY 
COMMITTEE DON'T HAVE TO WRITE 
MICK MULVANEY IS RECANTED WHAT 
YOU ALL SO SO GRAPHICALLY ON 
TV.
HOW DOES SOMEBODY WHO SAY 
WITHOUT A DOUBT THIS WAS A 
FACTOR, THIS IS WHY HE DID IT 
AND BY THE WAY, ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
LOST A CRIMINAL CASE IN WHICH 
HE ARGUED THAT IF A CORRUPT 
MOTIVE WAS ONLY PART OF THE 
MOTIVE, YOU CAN'T CONVICT AND 
THE COURT SAID, YES YOU CAN.
IF A CORRUPT MOTIVE IS ANY PART 
OF IT, YOU CAN CONVICT.
HE'S LOST THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE 
HE TAKES THE ARGUMENT AGAIN 
BEFORE THIS COURT.
IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY MORE 
AVAILING HERE THAN IT WAS 
THERE.
THE END OF THE DAY THOUGH THERE 
IS NO MORE INTERESTED PARTY 
HERE THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
I THINK WE HAVE SEEN HE WILL 
SAY WHATEVER HE BELIEVES SUITS 
HIS INTEREST.
LET'S INSTEAD RELY ON THE 
EVIDENCE AND RELY ON OTHERS AND 
WHAT IS JUST A SUBPOENA AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
SENATOR FROM COLORADO.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
QUESTION FROM SENATOR GARDNER 
IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AT ANY 
ASSERTION OF PROTECTION FROM 
DISCLOSURE IS INDICATIVE OF 
GUILT AND AT THE HOUSES 
ASSERTION OF IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BY THE 
EXECUTIVE.
IS THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE 
HOUSES IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION AND WHAT PROTECTS 
THE EXECUTIVE FROM THE HOUSE 
ABUSING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
IN THE FUTURE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ASSERTION 
THAT ANY EFFORT TO ASSERT A 
PRIVILEGE, A CERTAIN LEGAL 
IMMUNITY TO DECLINE DISCLOSING 
INFORMATION SOMEHOW SIGN OF 
GUILT IS NOT THE LAW.
IT'S ACTUALLY FUNDAMENTALLY 
CONTRARY TO THE LAW.
LEGAL PRIVILEGES EXIST FOR A 
REASON.
WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASSERT THEIR 
RIGHTS.
IT'S A BASIC PART OF THE 
AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND 
ASSERTING YOUR RIGHTS, 
ASSERTING PRIVILEGES AND DUE 
PROCESS RIGHTS EVEN IF IT MEANS 
LIMITING INFORMATION IS NOT AND 
CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE 
OF GUILT.
TO THE SECOND PART OF THE 
QUESTION, AS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS THEORY THAT THE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT MEANS THE 
PRESIDENT CAN'T RESIST ANY 
SUBPOENA THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT WHICH MEANS ONLY 
THAT THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY 
PLACE, THE ONLY PART OF THE 
GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THAT POWER.
IT DOESN'T SAY THEY HAVE A 
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
THAT DESTROYS ALL OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR 
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE SUDDENLY DISAPPEARS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WINDOW BREW 
TIMES HAS CITED NIXON VERSUS 
UNITED STATES, I MAKE IT 
RASPBERRY SCUM OF THE CASE 
INVOLVING PRESIDENT NIXON IN 
1974 THE SUPREME COURT 
DETERMINED THAT IN THAT 
PARTICULAR CASE AFTER A 
BALANCING OF INTERESTS 
EXERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE 
WAY BUT IT DID NOT SAY THERE IS 
AN ABSOLUTE BLANKET RULE THAT 
ANY TIME THERE IS AN ALLEGATION 
OF WRONGDOING OR IMPEACHMENT 
GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JUST 
DISAPPEARS.
THAT'S NOT THE RULE FOR THAT 
CASE.EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT THE 
COURT POINTED OUT THAT THERE 
MIGHT BE AN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
OR PRIVILEGE IN THE FIELD OF 
FOREIGN RELATIONS AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY WHICH IS THE FIELD WE 
ARE DEALING WITH HERE.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZER COULD BE 
PARTISAN AND ILLEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT.
THEY RECOGNIZE THE HOUSE COULD 
IMPEACH FOR THE WRONG REASONS.
THEY DID IT LEAVE THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH TOTALLY DEFENSELESS TO 
THAT.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITIES 
ROOTED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
SUCH AS IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR 
ADVISORS IT STILL APPLIES EVEN 
IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S PART OF THE CHECKS AND 
BALANCES IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY DON'T FALL AWAY SIMPLY 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE SAYS WE WANT 
TO PROCEED ON IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER 
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT 
AND SEPARATION OF POWERS FOR 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RETAIN 
THE ABILITY TO PROTECT 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST TO 
PROTECT THE PREROGATIVES OF THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
AND FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO FAIL 
TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS AND 
PROTECT THEM WOULD DO LASTING 
DAMAGE TO THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY FOR THE FUTURE.
I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT 
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A 
DANGER IN THE LEGAL THEORY THAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE 
PROPOSING HERE BECAUSE IT WOULD 
DO LASTING DAMAGE TO THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS TO THE 
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO 
HAVE THE IDEA BE THAT AS SOON 
AS THE HOUSE FLIPS THE SWITCH 
THEY WANT TO START PROCEEDING 
ON IMPEACHMENT THE EXECUTIVE 
HAS NO DEFENSES AND HAST OPEN 
EVERY FILE ON DISPLAY 
EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT THE WAY 
THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TO 
HAVE STILL ITS DEFENSES FOR ITS 
FEAR OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT PART OF THE 
CHECKS AND BALANCES.
BEFORE I SIT DOWN I WOULD LIKE 
TO CLOSE GOING BACK TO THE 
SENATOR WHO ASKED THE QUESTION 
ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS ON THE 
BOLTON BOOK, I BELIEVE I WAS 
CLEAR ABOUT THIS BUT I WANT TO 
MAKE 100% SURE THE EXTENT THE 
SENATOR WAS ASKING FOR 
ASSURANCE THAT ONLY CAREER 
OFFICIALS IN THE NFC REVIEW IT 
FOR CLASSIFICATION REVIEW.
I CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSURANCE 
BECAUSE IT'S AN NSC PROCESS AND 
I'M NOT SURE THE LEVELS OF THE 
PROCESS THERE MIGHT BE OTHER 
REVIEWS.
I DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE AND I 
DON'T WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS 
GIVING THAT ASSURANCE TO YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL RESPOND 
FIRST THIS QUESTION FROM 
SENATOR WARREN.
IF UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELINSKI 
CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
OFFERED DIRT ON PRESIDENT 
TRUMPS POLITICAL RIVALS IN 
EXCHANGE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS IN MILITARY AID, THAT 
WOULD CLEARLY BE BRIBERY AND AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
WHY WOULD IT BE MORE ACCEPTABLE 
AND SOMEHOW NOT IMPEACHABLE FOR 
THE REVERSE, FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO PROPOSE THE SAME 
CORRUPT BARGAIN?
[SILENCE] 
BRIBERY IS OBVIOUSLY AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
BRIBERY IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE 
ACCUSATION THE HOUSE LEVELS OF 
ABUSE OF POWER.
WE EXPLAIN IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE REPORTS THE PRACTICE 
OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE UNITED 
STATES HAS TENDED TO ENVELOP 
CHARGES OF BRIBERY WITHIN THE 
BROADER STANDARD OF HIGHER 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THAT'S THE HISTORICAL STANDARD.
THE OWNERS OF BRIBERY ARE 
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED HERE.
THE ABUSE OF POWER IS CLEARLY 
ESTABLISHED WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES OFFERS 
SOMETHING OF EXTORT FOREIGN 
POWER TO GET A BENEFIT FROM 
SELF, WITHHOLDS MILITARY AID, 
IN ORDER TO GET THAT FOREIGN 
POWER TO DO SOMETHING THAT 
WOULD HELP HIM POLITICALLY 
THAT'S CLEARLY BRIBERY, CLEARLY 
AN ABUSE OF POWER AND THERE'S 
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
BY THE WAY, THE QUESTION WAS 
RAISED EARLIER AS TO WHAT THE 
PROPER STANDARD OF PROOF IS AND 
PEOPLE POINTED OUT THE 
CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY.
BUT THE HIGHEST END OF PROOF IS 
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND 
THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN 
NOT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT 
BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
>> THE QUESTION I THINK WITH 
THIS HYPOTHETICAL SHOWS MANAGER 
NADLER SHOWS THIS IS AN EFFORT 
TO TRY TO SMUGGLE INTO ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT THAT DO NOT 
MENTION ANY CRIME THE IDEA THAT 
THERE IS SOME CRIME ALLEGED 
HERE.THERE IS NOT.
I WENT TO THAT EARLIER.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
SPECIFY A THEORY OF THE CHARGE 
THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.
THEY DO NOT ALLEGE THE ELEMENTS 
OF BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.
IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD 
WANTED TO BRING THE CHARGES 
THEY HAD TO PUT THEM IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT JUST 
THE WAY A PROSECUTOR IF HE 
WANTS TO PUT SOMEONE ON TRIAL 
FOR BRIBERY HE HAS TO PUT IT 
INTO INDICTMENT.
IF YOU DON'T AND PUT IT IN 
TRIAL AND HAVE TO START 
ARGUING, ACTUALLY, WE THINK 
THERE IS BRIBERY GOING ON HERE, 
THAT'S IMPERMISSIBLE AND 
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.
I HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS CONTRARY 
TO WHAT THE FACTS WERE HERE 
THAT TRY TO SUGGEST MAYBE 
THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF BRIBERY, 
THAT'S ALL BESIDE THE POINT.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN 
PRESENTED WE HAVE SPECIFIC 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IT 
DOESN'T SAY BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION.
THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO 
FRAME IT ANYWAY THEY WANTED 
BECAUSE THEY CONTROLLED THE 
WHOLE PROCESS AND CONTROL THE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESSES 
THAT WERE CALLED AND THEY COULD 
FRAME IT ANYWAY THEY WANTED.
THEY DIDN'T PUT IN ANY CRIME.
THERE IS NO CRIME ASSERTED 
HERE, IT'S NOT PART OF THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
CAN'T BE CONSIDERED NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
I SUBMIT TO THE DESK A QUESTION 
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR COREN.
[SILENCE] 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MORAN 
AND SENATOR CORNYN IS FOR 
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THAT IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE ISSUE 
OF PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND 
THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES OVER 
THE OBJECTION OF EITHER THE 
MANAGERS OR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL, WHAT A DETERMINATION 
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE BE SUBJECT 
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND 
LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
PROCESS, IF WE WERE GOING TO 
START TALKING ABOUT SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES, SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS, 
HAVING THINGS COME TO EVIDENCE 
THAT WAY, THE FIRST QUESTION 
WOULD BE, THE SUBPOENAS WOULD 
HAVE TO BE ISSUED FOR WITNESSES 
OR THE DOCUMENTS.
IF THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE 
RESISTED ON THE GROUNDS OF SOME 
VILLAGE FOR IMMUNITY THAT WOULD 
HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT BECAUSE 
OF THE PRESIDENT ASSERTED THE 
IMMUNITY OF SENIOR ADVISOR TO 
THE PRESIDENT OR EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE OVER CERTAIN 
DOCUMENTS, THE SENATE WOULD 
HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT 
WAS GOING TO FIGHT THAT 
ASSERTION AND HOW TO SOME 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND 
NEGOTIATION OR IF THE SENATE 
WERE GOING TO GO TO COURT TO 
LITIGATE THAT.
THE WHOLE PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO 
PLAY OUT.
THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STAGE 
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE GONE 
THROUGH ANY TIME THE PRESIDENT 
RESISTED THE SUBPOENA ON THE 
WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DECIDED NOT TO DO IN THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE QUESTION 
ASKS FURTHER IN TERMS OF 
QUESTIONS HERE IN THE TRIAL 
ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTICULAR 
EVIDENCE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING 
THEN THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN 
INITIAL DETERMINATION IF THERE 
WERE OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIONS 
OF EVIDENCE BUT ALL SUCH 
DETERMINATION CAN BE CHALLENGED 
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE 
AND SUBJECT TO A VOTE.
THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS 
EARLIER THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY 
OTHER COURTS, WE DON'T NEED 
ANYTHING INVOLVING WITH ANYONE 
ELSE BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
IS HERE.
THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
THAT'S NOT TO BE SOMETHING 
THAT'S DETERMINED WITH ALL 
RESPECT, JUST BY THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT 
WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN 
THE COURT OR BY NEGOTIATION 
WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THEN ONCE WE HEAR ON SPECIFIC 
EVIDENTIARY AND THEIR 
OBJECTIONS DURING DEPOSITIONS 
THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED OR BY 
WITNESS ON THE STAND IF THEIR 
OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR 
DOCUMENTS AUTHENTICATION OR 
THINGS LIKE THAT CHIEF JUSTICE 
COULD MAKE AN INITIAL RULING 
BUT EVERY ONE OF THOSE RULINGS 
COULD BE APPEALED TO THIS BODY 
TO VOTE BY MAJORITY VOTE ON 
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD COME 
IN OR NOT.
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CONSIDER 
RULES WHETHER YOU HAVE TO HAVE 
THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 
APPLY OR MODIFIED RULES OF 
EVIDENCE AND ALL THAT WOULD 
HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT.
I DON'T THINK WE WOULD GET TO 
THE STAGE OF ANY DETERMINATION 
OF EVIDENCE HERE BEING ANYWAY 
APPEALED OUT TO THE COURTS.
THAT WOULD BE A PROCESS THAT 
THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE 
WHAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN 
EVIDENCE AND THE TRIAL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT Ãb|
>> EXCUSE ME?
SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
>> THANK YOU.
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH 
IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED 
MULTIPLE TIMES IN PUBLIC THAT 
HIS ACTIONS WERE PERFECT YET HE 
REFUSES TO ALLOW BOLTON, 
MULVANEY, AND OTHERS TO TESTIFY 
UNDER OATH.
IF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE 
SO PERFECT, WHY WOULDN'T HE 
ALLOW FACT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY 
UNDER OATH ABOUT WHAT HE HAS 
SAID PUBLICLY.
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IF THE 
PRESIDENT WERE SO CONFIDENT 
THIS WAS A PERFECT CALL AND 
THAT THOSE AROUND HIM WOULD 
AGREE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING 
NEFARIOUS GOING ON, HE WOULD 
WANT WITNESSES TO COME TESTIFY 
BUT OF COURSE HE DOESN'T.
HE DOESN'T WANT HIS FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO 
TESTIFY.
HE DOES ON THE CURRENT CHIEF OF 
STAFF TO TESTIFY.
HE DOESN'T WANT THOSE HEADING 
OMB TO TESTIFY.
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR 
FROM ANY OF THEM.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY 
INDICATIVE THAT HE KNOWS WHAT 
THEY HAVE TO SAY.
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR 
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE ANY 
OF THE MYRIAD OF DOCUMENTS THAT 
HE HAS BEEN WITHHOLDING FROM 
HIS BODY AS HE DID FROM THE 
HOUSE BUT I ALSO WANT TO 
ADDRESS THE LAST QUESTION IF I 
COULD, IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
EMPOWERED UNDER THE SENATE 
RULES TO ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS 
OF WITNESSES AND PRIVILEGE AND 
THE ANSWER IS, YES.
CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE 
THOSE DETERMINATIONS QUICKLY?
THE ANSWER IS YES.
IS THE SENATE EMPOWERED TO 
OVERTURN THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IS 
THE VOTE 50 OR IS IT TWO 
THIRDS?
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE 
WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE 
PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS THE POWER 
TO DO IT AND WHAT'S MORE, UNDER 
THE SENATE RULES YOU WANT 
EXPEDITED PROCESS, WE ARE HERE 
TO TELL YOU WE WILL AGREE WITH 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING ON 
WITNESSES ON THEIR MATERIALITY, 
ON THE APPLICATION OR 
NONAPPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE.
WE AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE AND WILL NOT SEEK 
TO LITIGATE AN ADVERSE RULING.
WE WILL NOT SEEK TO APPEAL AN 
ADVERSE RULING, WILL THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DO THE 
SAME?
JUST AS THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
TRUST WHAT THESE WITNESSES HAVE 
TO SAY, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS 
DON'T WANT TO RELY ON WHAT THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE IS RULINGS MIGHT 
BE.
WHY IS THAT?
THEY AS WE UNDERSTAND THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE WILL BE FAIR, FOR A 
MOMENT I'M NOT SUGGESTING THEY 
DON'T THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
IS FAIR, QUITE THE CONTRARY!
THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL BE 
FAIR.
THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL MAKE A 
FAIR RULING.THAT SHOULD TELL 
YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
WEAKNESS OF THEIR POSITION.
THEY DON'T WANT A FAIR TRIAL OF 
WITNESSES, THEY DON'T WANT TO 
FAIR JUSTICE TO ADJUDICATE 
THESE QUESTIONS, THEY JUST WANT 
TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THEY 
WILL DELAY AND DELAY, I THINK 
IT WAS THOMAS PAINE SAID "THOSE 
WHO WOULD ENJOY THE BLESSINGS 
OF LIBERTY MUST UNDERGO THE 
RIGORS OF DEFENDING IT.
THE FATIGUES OF DEFENDING IT.
IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE FOR US 
TO HEAR FROM WITNESS?
IS THAT HOW LITTLE EFFORT WE 
ARE WILLING TO PUT INTO THE 
BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM AND 
LIBERTY?
IS THAT HOW LITTLE FATIGUE WE 
ARE WILLING TO INCUR?
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA.
>> I SENT A QUESTION ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF TIM SCOTT AND MARCO 
RUBIO.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
QUESTION FROM SENATOR ÃON 
BEHALF OF SENATOR SCOTT FROM 
SOUTH CAROLINA AND MR. RUBIO.
DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
MR. SUE PALLONE POINTED 
SENATORS TO THE "GOLDEN RULE OF 
IMPEACHMENT".
IN ELABORATING ON THAT RULE, 
CAN YOU OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON THE 
LIMITING PRINCIPLES BOTH IN THE 
NATURE OF OFFENSES THAT SHOULD 
BE CONSIDERED AND THE PROXIMITY 
TO ELECTIONS FOR FUTURE 
IMPEACHMENTS TOWARD THE END OF 
SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC TRUST BY 
WOODEN GUARDRAILS ON BOTH 
PARTIES.
[SILENCE] 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, IN 
ELABORATING ON THE GOLDEN RULE 
OF IMPEACHMENT I WOULD SAY 
PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE IF WE 
LISTEN TO WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR SAID IN THE PAST AND 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND OTHER 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THAT 
SHOULD GUIDE US.
THAT PRINCIPLE IS, AND A 
PRINCIPAL BASED IN PRESIDENT 
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU HAVE A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT, THAT IN AND OF 
ITSELF IS A DANGER SIGN.
BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT THERE 
IS NOT A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT 
THAT EVEN THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE HAS SAID HE WOULD NEED TO 
EVEN BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.
IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN 
ELECTION.
THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT.IT IS 
AN OVERTURNING OF AN ELECTION.
IN ADDITION, IS THE REMOVAL OF 
THIS PRESIDENT FROM AN ELECTION 
THAT'S OCCURRING IN JUST MONTHS 
FROM NOW, WHICH I THINK IS 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.
I THINK THE OTHER IMPORTANT 
FACT HERE IS THAT THERE IS 
ACTUALLY BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION 
TO THIS IMPEACHMENT.
DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT.
IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.THAT'S AN 
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.
THE OTHER PRINCIPAL WOULD BE 
THAT IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS 
THAT'S UNPRECEDENTED, IF YOU 
HAVE A PROCESS THAT'S 
UNPRECEDENTED, THAT SHOULD BE 
SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE 
CONSIDERED STOP ALWAYS IN THE 
PAST THERE HAS BEEN AN BOAT ÃÃ
VOTE AUTHORIZING IMPEACHMENT, 
WHY?
BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE 
AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT, 
THAT'S THE HOUSE, NOT THE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AT A PRESS 
CONFERENCE.
THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT 
CONSIDERATION.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION 
IS, ALL OF THE HISTORICAL 
PRECEDENTS RELATED TO RIGHTS 
GIVEN TO A PRESIDENT AND A 
PROCESS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
THAT IN OUR HISTORY.
THE PRESENT COUNSEL WASN'T 
ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE 
WITNESSES, WASN'T ALLOWED TO 
CALL WITNESSES AND COMING HERE 
BASICALLY ASKING YOU, NUMBER 
ONE, TO CALL WITNESSES THAT 
THEY REFUSED TO PURSUE, BUT 
MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK WHAT 
THEY ARE SAYING IS, DO WHAT 
THEY DID, ONLY CALL WITNESSES 
THAT THEY WANT, DON'T ALLOW THE 
PRESIDENT TO CALL WITNESSES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS.
THAT DOESN'T WORK.
IT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.
THE OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE 
THERE IS, YOU HEAR A LOT ABOUT 
FAIRNESS BUT IN THE AMERICAN 
JUSTICE SYSTEM FAIRNESS IS 
ABOUT FAIRNESS TO THE ACCUSED 
FAIRNESS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS TO 
THE ACCUSED.
HOW YOU COULD SUGGEST WHAT WE 
ARE GOING TO DO IS HAVE A 
TRIAL, GET THE WITNESSES THE 
PROSECUTOR IS THAT WE WANT, 
EVEN THOUGH YOU GOT THE CALL NO 
WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE YOU GOT 
TO CROSS-EXAMINE NONE OF THE 
WITNESSES WE CALLED AND HAVE WE 
GOT A DEAL FOR YOU?LET US 
CALL ANOTHER WITNESS BUT YOU 
CALL NONE.
THAT'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE.
I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT 
WHAT DERSHOWITZ SAID IS TRUE, I 
THINK WHEN YOU ARE THINKING 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AS MUCH AS WE 
CAN AS HUMAN BEINGS WE SHOULD 
THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE 
PRESIDENT IS THE PRESIDENT 
REGARDLESS OF PARTY AND HOW 
WOULD WE TREAT A PRESIDENT OF 
OUR OWN PARTY IN SIMILAR 
CIRCUMSTANCES AND I THINK 
THAT'S THE GOLDEN RULE OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GUESS 
HERE BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE 
LOTS OF STATEMENTS FROM 
DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE 
LAST TIME AROUND AND PRINCIPLES 
AND I SAID, I AGREE WITH THEM.
I AGREE WITH THOSE PENCILS.
I JUST ASKED THAT THEY BE 
APPLIED HERE.
THAT'S MY ANSWER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
SENATOR DURBIN ASKED THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS IF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WERE TO ACTUALLY INVOKE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS 
PROCEEDING, WOULDN'T HE BE 
REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THE 
SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS OR 
COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING 
SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE 
SEEKS TO PROTECT?
[SILENCE] 
AS STATED BEFORE, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS A VERY LIMITED 
PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE CLAIMED 
BY THE PRESIDENT.
HE HAS AT NO TIME TO CLAIMED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, RATHER 
THAN CLAIMED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
AND NONEXISTENT CONCEPT TO 
EVERY COURT THAT'S EVER 
CONSIDERED IT HAS REJECTED IT.
INSTEAD HE HAS SIMPLY SAID WE 
WILL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS, WE 
WILL DENY TO THE HOUSE ALL 
INFORMATION, ALL INFORMATION, 
WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY CAN 
HAVE.
THIS IS WAY BEYOND.
IT IS INTENDED TO, BECAUSE HE 
FEARS THE FACT.
THE FACTS ARE, HE TRIED TO 
EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DO 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID THAT 
THIS CONGRESS HAD VOTED HE 
BROKE THE LAW TO WITHHOLD AID 
AT THIS CONGRESS HAD MANDATED 
BE SENT TO THEM IN ORDER TO 
PRESSURE THEM INTO ANNOUNCING 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
THOSE FACTS ARE PROVEN BEYOND 
DOUBT AT ALL.
SO WE HAVE A DIVERSION AFTER 
DIVERSION, DIVERGENCE ABOUT 
WHAT HUNTER BIDEN MAY HAVE DONE 
IN UKRAINE, IRRELEVANT.
WHATEVER HE DID IN UKRAINE, THE 
QUESTION IS, DID THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHOLD FOREIGN MILITARY AID 
IN ORDER TO EXTORT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INTO HELPING HIM 
BREAK AMERICAN ELECTION?
WE HEAR DIVERSIONS ABOUT 
PRIVILEGE, WE HEAR QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WITNESSES, WE KNOW HE IS 
TELLING THE SENATORS, DON'T 
ALLOW WITNESSES, WHY?
BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THE 
WITNESSES WILL SAY.
WE HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM HIS 
COUNCILS, WE TAKEN ENOUGH TIME 
WITH WITNESSES.
THE HOUSE SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED 
IF IT DIDN'T HAVE PROOF 
POSITIVE.
WE HAD PROOF POSITIVE WE VOTED 
IT DIDN'T MEAN YOU SHOULDN'T 
HAVE MORE PROOF IF IT COMES 
FORWARD.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT MR. 
BOLTON SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED 
TO TESTIFY AND HE'S NOT GOING 
TO WASTE OUR TIME.
HE TOLD US HE WOULD TAKE THE 
TESTIFY WITH THE SUBPOENA.
ALL OF THESE THE QUESTIONS ARE 
DIVERSIONS, THEY ARE DIVERSIONS 
BY A PRESIDENT IS DESPERATE 
BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN THE 
FACTS THAT HE THREATENED A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT JUST 
THREATENED, DID IN FACT 
WITHHOLD MANDATED AMERICAN 
MILITARY AID FROM THEM IN ORDER 
TO BLACKMAILED HIM INTO SERVING 
HIS POLITICAL PURPOSES FOR 
PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSES.
WE KNOW THAT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS OF 
DIVERSION.
NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE THE 
WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY THE WAY 
HE DOES OFFICER PRIVILEGE, WHEN 
YOU ARE DEALING WITH 
ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, SUPREME 
COURT TOLD US THE NIXON CASE 
PRIVILEGE YIELD.
ALL THESE ARGUMENTS ARE 
DIVERSIONS, KEEP YOUR EYE ON 
THE FACTS, THE FACTS WE HAVE 
PROVEN AND LET'S SEE IF THE 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND AS MR. 
SCHIFF SAID WITNESSES SHOULD 
NOT BE A THREAT, NOT TO THE 
SENATE, NOT ANYBODY ELSE.
IT'S NOT TO WASTE TOO MUCH TIME 
BECAUSE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RULE 
ON RELEVANT QUESTIONS OF 
RELEVANCY OR PRIVILEGE OR 
ANYTHING ELSE BUT THE FACT ARE 
THE FACTS.THE PRESIDENT IS A 
DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES IS 
TRYING TO RIG THE NEXT 
ELECTION, HE'S ABUSED HIS POWER 
AND HE MUST BE BROUGHT TO HEAL 
AND THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED 
FROM HIS CONTINUING EFFORTS TO 
BREAK OUR ELECTIONS.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
>> I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
[SILENCE] 
GOOD QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
ROMNEY IS FOR THE COUNSEL TO 
THE PRESIDENT.
ON WHAT SPECIFIC DATE DID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRST ORDER THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AND DID HE EXPLAIN THE 
REASON AT THAT TIME?
[SILENCE] 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS EVIDENCE 
IN THE RECORD OF A SPECIFIC 
DATE, THE SPECIFIC DATE BUT 
THERE IS TESTIMONY IN THE 
RECORD THAT INDIVIDUALS AT OMB 
AND ELSEWHERE WERE AWARE OF THE 
HOLD AS OF JULY 3 AND THERE IS 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S RATIONALES FROM 
EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT TIME.
THERE'S AN EMAIL FROM JUNE 24 
THAT'S BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED, 
IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED IN 
RESPONSE TO A FOIA REQUEST THAT 
IS FROM ONE DOD STAFF ARE UP TO 
THE CHIEF STAFF IN DOD, SORRY, 
FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF DOWN TO 
STAFFORD DOD RELATING ON THE 
SUBJECT LINE FOLLOW-UP.
FOLLOW-UP FROM A MEETING WITH 
POTUS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
WHAT WAS THE FUNDING USED FOR 
DID IT GO TO US FIRMS?
WHO FUNDED IT?
WHAT DO OTHER NATO MEMBERS 
SPEND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE?
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN JUNE 
THE PRESIDENT HAD EXPRESSED HIS 
CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING 
WITH OTHER NATO MEMBERS DO.
SIMILARLY, IN THE JULY 25 
TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED PRESIDENT 
ZELINSKI SPECIFICALLY, HE 
RAISED THE ISSUE OF BURDEN 
SHARING, SHOWING THAT WAS HIS 
CONCERN.
IN ADDITION, IT WAS I BELIEVE 
MR. MORRISON WHO TESTIFIED THAT 
HE WAS AWARE FROM OMB THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD EXPRESSED 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND 
THAT THERE WAS A REVIEW PROCESS 
TO CONSIDER CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE.
THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT RAISED 
CONCERNS AT LEAST AS OF JUNE 24 
THAT THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF 
THE HOLD AS OF JULY 3 THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING WORD IN THE 
EMAIL ON JUNE 24 AND REFLECTED 
IN THE JULY 25 CALL SIMILARLY 
THERE IS TESTIMONY FROM LATER 
IN THE SUMMER THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD RAISED CONCERNS 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE SO 
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE 
RECORD THAT REFLECTS THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
[SILENCE] 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CORTEZ MASTRO IS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
CLAIMED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
UNFAIRLY EXCLUDED FROM HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE DUE 
PROCESS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RECEIVED DURING HOUSE 
PROCEEDINGS COMPARED TO 
PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS?
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF ANY OPPORTUNITIES 
TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL 
PARTICIPATE?
[SILENCE] 
MR. CHIEF COUNSEL AND SENATOR, 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT 
QUESTION.
LET ME MAKE THIS PLAIN.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE VICTIM 
HERE.
THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE IS THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INVITED TO 
ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS.
HE COULD HAVE HAD ALONE CYCLE 
OR ANY OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS 
WHO HAVE JOINED AT THE COUNCIL 
TABLE PARTICIPATE THROUGHOUT 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.
THEY COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF 
THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS AND 
IMAGINE THIS, CROSS-EXAMINE 
WITNESSES, RAISE OBJECTIONS, 
PRESENT EVIDENCE, FAVORABLE TO 
THE PRESIDENT, IF THEY HAD ANY 
TO PRESENT.
AND THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED 
TO HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN 
WITNESSES CALLED BUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE, 
HE WROTE TO THE HOUSE "IF YOU 
ARE GOING TO IMPEACH ME, DO IT 
NOW FAST.
SO WE CAN HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IN 
THE SENATE.
IN EVERY EVENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY 
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE 
DURING THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION BUT 
BUT HE REFUSED AS WE'VE ALREADY 
SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO 
PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS OR ALLOW 
WITNESSES TO CHAPTER 5. WE 
THANK GOD FOR THE 17 PUBLIC 
SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD IN 
SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT EFFORTS 
TO OBSTRUCT IN ADDITION 
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS IN CONGRESS 
HAD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 
QUESTIONS DURING THE DEPOSITION 
AND THE HEARINGS IN BOTH THE 
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS CALLED THREE WITNESSES 
DURING THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND AN 
ADDITIONAL WITNESS DURING 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEES HEARINGS, 
OF COURSE, HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IS NOT A FULL-BLOWN 
CRIMINAL CHILD, WE DO KNOW 
THAT.
THIS IS A TRIAL AND OBVIOUSLY 
THE PRESIDENT IS BEING AFFORDED 
EVERY DUE PROCESS RIGHT DURING 
THE PROCEEDINGS ..... 
IN EARLY OCTOBER, MR. SUH CIPPOG
SUBPOENA POWER TO THE
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES, THE BODY COULD HAVE
ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENCY THE
WHITE HOUSE POINTED OUT, AND
PROCLAIMED THOSE SUBPOENAS AS
VALID EXERCISES OF THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE COULD
HAVE REISSUED THE SUBPOENA AFTER
THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NEITHER OF
THE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, I
APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION.
THESE ARGUMENTS PLAIN AND SIMPLE
OR A RED HEARING.
THE INQUIRY IN THE SUBPOENA WAS
FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, HOUSE RULES AND
PRECEDENT.
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE, NOT THE
PRESIDENT, TO DECIDE HOW TO
CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
AT THE HOUSE AUTONOMY TO
STRUCTURE THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS
ROOTED IN TWO PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
FIRST, ARTICLE ONE THAT'S THE
HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IT CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENT, NO
REQUIREMENT AS TO HOW THE HOUSE
MUST CARRY OUT THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.
SECOND, ARTICLE ONE STATES THAT
HOUSE IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE
THE RULES OF PROCEEDINGS.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE PROVISIONS
ARE AT THE HOUSE SOLD DISCRETION
TO DETERMINE THE MANNER WHICH
THEY INVESTIGATE, DELIBERATE AND
VOTE FOR THE ROUNDS OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IN EXERCISING ITS RESPONSIBILITY
TO INVESTIGATE AND CONSIDER THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE HOUSE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO
RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONCERNING THE
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.
THE FRAMERS, THE COURTS AND PAST
PRESIDENTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AND
ONEROUS CONGRESS IS RIGHT FOR
INFORMATION IN THE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION AND ITS CRITICAL
SAFEGUARD TO THE SYSTEM OF
DIVIDED POWERS, OTHERWISE THE
PRESIDENT COULD HIDE HIS OWN
WRONGDOING TO PREVENT CONGRESS
FROM DISCOVERING IMPEACHABLE
MISCONDUCT EFFECTIVELY
NULLIFYING THE CONGRESS IS
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS TRIED TO ACHIEVE.
THE PRESIDENT ASSERTED THE POWER
TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHICH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA OR
RESPONSIVE AND THOSE THAT ARE
NOT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT EACH TIME
ANYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
GETS A SUBPOENA, IT'S OPEN
SEASON FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND
DOJ TO START INVESTING SERIOUS
ABOUT HOUSE RULES AND
PARLIAMENTARY PRECEDENT.
THIS IS NOT HOW THE SEPARATION
OF POWERS WORKS AND TO ACCEPT
THE ARGUMENT WOULD UNDERMINE THE
HOUSE AND SENATE ABILITY TO
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IT WOULD ALSO MAKE IMPEACHMENT
THE KNOWLEDGE.
THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION FULLY
AUTHORIZED IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF
VERY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THE FULL HOUSE
TO TAKE A VOTE BEFORE CONDUCTING
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THEY INVENTED THIS THEORY AS THE
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT
COURT IN DC STATEHOOD, AND THIS
IS A DIRECT QUOTE, THIS CLAIM
HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION OR GOVERNING ROLES
IN THE HOUSE.
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF IS TO
EXERCISE THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT
INSTEAD CONFIRMS THE HOUSE SHALL
HAVE THE RULE TO DETERMINE THE
RULES OF ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS.
NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED AND IMPEACHED BY THE
HOUSE AND CONVICTED BY THE
SENATE WITHOUT ANY PREVIOUS VOTE
OF THE HOUSE AUTHORIZING AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
AS RECENTLY AS THE 114TH
CONGRESS, THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CONSIDERED IMPEACHING
THE IRS COMMISSIONER FOLLOWING
ANOTHER REFERRAL FROM A KENNEDY
AND ABSENT A FULL HOUSE VOTE TO
READ THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION INTO
PRESIDENT NIXON'S MISCONDUCT FOR
FOUR MONTHS BEFORE APPROVAL OF
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION.
THE HOUSE RULES ALSO DO NOT
PRECLUDE COMMITTEES FROM
INQUIRING TO THE POTENTIAL
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
INSTEAD THE NECESSARY POWERS
INCLUDING THE POWER TO ISSUE
SUBPOENA.
EACH OF THE COMMITTEES THAT
CONDUCTED THE INITIAL
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT IN FOREIGN
AFFAIRS INDISPUTABLY HAD
OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OVER
THESE MATTERS.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
POINTED TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT
-- THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE SENATOR FROM RHODE 
ISLAND.
SPINNAKER ISN'T A QUESTION TO
THE DESK AND BECAUSE MY QUESTION
REFERENCES AN EARLIER QUESTION,
I'VE ATTACHED A QUESTION AS A
REFERENCE TO THE OFFICER AND
PARLIAMENT.
IN CASES OF INTEREST TO.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITE
HOUSE IS TO COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO
ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FROM
SENATOR:  AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI
SAYING HE COULD ONLY FIGHT FOR
THE RECORD.
FIVE MINUTES AFTERWARD, HOUSE
COUNSEL -RIGHT-BRACE AND
NEWSPAPER STORIES TO THE SENATE
FROM OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE
RECORD.
COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE AN
ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO
THE SENATOR'S QUESTION, DID THE
PRESIDENT EVER MENTION THE
BIDENS AND CONNECTION TO UKRAINE
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY IN APRIL
OF 2019 AND WHAT DID THE
PRESIDENT SAY TO WHOM AND WHEN?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK I REFUSE TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION AT ALL.
WE'VE BEEN ADVISED BY HOUSE
MANAGERS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO
OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED TO
INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT
EITHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SO
THINGS THAT ARE IN NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES, THINGS LIKE THAT OUT
THERE WE COULD REFER TO, OR
THINGS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.
SO I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GO
BACK INTO THINGS THAT THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE SAID IN
PRIVATE, AND THERE'S BEEN NO
DISCOVERY OF THAT.
IT'S NOT A PARTISAN INQUIRY.
SO TO SAY THE PRESIDENT MIGHT
HAVE SAID THE TWO CABINET TO CA.
I'M NOT IN THE POSITION TO SAY
THAT.
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS IN THE
PUBLIC AND IN THE RECORD AND I
ANSWERED TO THE FULL ABILITY OF
WHAT IS IN THE DOMAIN AND WHAT
IS IN THE RECORD.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
ALSO RESPOND TO THE LAST
QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY
SENATOR MURKOWSKI WITH RESPECT
TO THE VOTE ON AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, BECAUSE
THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A VOTE FROM
THE FULL HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
IT WAS THAT WAY IN THE JOHNSON
IMPEACHMENT AND THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'VE BEEN REFERENCES THAT
THEY BEGIN SOME INVESTIGATORY
WORK BEFORE THE HOUSE ACTUALLY
VOTED ON THE RESOLUTION.
I THINK IT WAS RESOLUTION 803 TO
AUTHORIZE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
BUT ALL OF THAT WORK WAS
GATHERING THE SUPPORT IN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OR THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN GATHERED BY OTHERS,
AND THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY
PROCESS ISSUE.
AND IN FACT, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
DETERMINED WHEN THERE WAS A MOVE
TO HAVE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ISSUED SUBPOENAS AFTER
THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE THAT
THE COMMITTEE LACKED THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ANY
COMPULSORY PROCESS UNTIL THERE
WAS A VOTE BY THE FULL HOUSE
AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE TO DO
THAT.
AND THIS ISN'T SOME ESOTERIC
SPECIAL RULE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT,
AS I TRY TO EXPLAIN, IT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RULE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION ABOUT HOW THE
AUTHORITY THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY
WE, THE PEOPLE, TWO CHAMBERS OF
THE LEGISLATURE, EITHER THE
HOUSE OR THE SENATE, ONCE IT IS
GIVEN THERE TO THE HOUSE, HOW
DOES IT GET TO A COMMITTEE BACKS
IT CAN ONLY GET OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE OF DELEGATED BY THE
HOUSE.
THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE
HOUSE VOTES AND THERE IS NO
STANDING RULE THAT GIVES THE
COMMITTEE AUTHORITY TO USE THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS OPPOSED
TO THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE.
THERE IS NO RULE THAT GIVES THE
POWER TO USE THE AUTHORITY OF
IMPEACHMENT TO ISSUE COMPULSORY
PROCESS.
RULE TEN DOESN'T MENTION
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL, THE WORD
DOESN'T APPEAR AND THAT'S WHY
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MUST BE
A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE TO
AUTHORIZE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, OR IN THIS CASE IT
WAS CONTRARY TO ALL PRIOR
PRACTICE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE
MANAGER SCHIFF AND OTHERS
COMMITTEE THE POWER TO ISSUE
SUBPOENA.
IT WAS CLEAR IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE POSITION
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS THAT
ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED
BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOLUTION ARE
INVALID ON THEIR FAITH AND
SENATOR MURKOWSKI'S QUESTION IS
CORRECT THERE WAS NO EFFORT IN
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 EITHER
TO ATTEMPT TO RETROACTIVELY
AUTHORIZE THE SUBPOENA OR TO SAY
THAT THE SUBPOENA TO
RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THE
SUBPOENA OR TWO THEN REISSUE
THEM UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
SO, THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED
INVALID AND THERE WAS NO
RESPONSE FROM THE HOUSE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL?
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
>> I SEND A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON MY OWN
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
CRUZ AND SENATOR BRAUN.
>> THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL WILL
RESPOND FIRST.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR HOLLY
AND THE OTHER SENATORS.
WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, UKRAINE'S
PROSECUTOR GENERAL VOWED TO
INVESTIGATE BURISMA BEFORE VICE
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN PRESSED
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON
CORRUPTION, INCLUDING PUSHING
FOR THE REMOVAL OF SHOKIN
COMMITTED THE OFFICE OF THE VICE
VICEPRESIDENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL E
ETHICS ADVICE APPROVING
MR. BIDENS INVOLVEMENT IN
MATTERS INVOLVING CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE OR SHOKIN DESPITE THE
PRESENCE OF HUNTER BIDEN ON THE
BOARD OF BURISMA A COMPANY
WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE CORRUPT.
DID THE VICE PRESIDENT BY AN
BYJENNIFER ASKED HIM TO STEP DON
FROM THE BOARD OF BURISMA?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE
THAT THE BEEN VICE PRESIDENT JOE
BIDEN SOUGHT ANY ETHICS OPINION.
WE ARE AWARE THAT BOTH AMOS
HOCHSTEIN AND SECRETARY OF STATE
KENT -- IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
SECRETARY OF STATE KENT TALKED
BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT EACH
RAISED THE ISSUE WITH VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN OF THE POTENTIAL
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH
HIS SON BEING ON THE BOARD OF
BURISMA.
DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT RAISED THE
ISSUE THE RESPONSE WAS THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, THE VICE
PRESIDENT WAS BUSY DEALING WITH
THE ONUS OF HIS OTHER SON AND
THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN.
SO, FROM WHAT WE KNOW THERE
WASN'T ANY EFFORT TO SEEK AN
ETHICS OPINION.
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF AN ETHICS
OPINION HAVING BEEN ISSUED,
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS FLAGGED
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE,
WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ASKED HIS SON TO
STEP DOWN OR THAT ANY OTHER
ACTION WAS TAKEN.
AND I BELIEVE THAT VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE NEVER
DISCUSSED, HE SAID PUBLICLY, HE
NEVER DISCUSSED HIS SONS
OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH
HIM.
>> SO,
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND
SENATORS, I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION.
THE FACT ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT
BIDENS CONDUCT DOESN'T CHANGE.
EVERY WITNESS ASKED ABOUT THIS
TOPIC JUSTIFYING THAT MR. SHOKIN
IS WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE A
CORRUPT AND INEFFECTIVE
PROSECUTOR WHO DID NOT PROSECUTE
CORRUPTION.
SHOKIN WAS SO CORRUPT THAT THE
ENTIRE FREE WORLD, THE UNITED
STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
PRESSED FOR HIS OFFICE TO BE
CLEANED UP.
SO, I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO BE
SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING THAT
MR. SHOKIN CLAIMS.
SECOND, WITNESSES INCLUDING OUR
OWN ANTICORRUPTION ADVOCATE
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH REMEMBER
THAT VERY DEDICATED
ANTICORRUPTION AMBASSADOR
TESTIFIED THAT SHOKIN'S REMOVAL
MADE IT MORE LIKELY THAT
INVESTIGATION OF A CORRUPT
UKRAINIAN COMPANY WOULD MOVE
FORWARD.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THE DISMISSAL OF SHOKIN MADE IT
MORE LIKELY THAT BURISMA WOULD
BE INVESTIGATED.
THIRD, BURISMA WASN'T UNDER
SCRUTINY AT THE TIME JOE BIDEN
CALLED FOR SHOKIN'S OUSTER,
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL
ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU OF
UKRAINE, AN ORGANIZATION SEVERAL
WITNESSES TESTIFIED IS EFFECTIVE
AT FINDING CORRUPTION.
SHOKIN'S'S OFFICE INVESTIGATED
THE BURISMA, BUT THEY FOCUSED ON
THE PERIOD BEFORE HUNTER BIDEN
JOINED THE COMPANY.
BUT AGAIN, IN ANOTHER
INVESTIGATION, DISMISSING SHOKIN
WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MORE
LIKELY.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS
I WILL SEND TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
SENATOR KING'S QUESTION FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS.
MR. RUDY GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE POLITICAL AIR
AND BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, SO
DOESN'T THE PRESIDENT'S MENTION
OF GIULIANI BY NAME IN THE
JULY 25 CALLED CONQUEST OF FULLY
ESTABLISHED THE PURPOSE OF THE
CALL?
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, MR. GIULIANI PLAYED
A KEY ROLE IN THE MONTH-LONG
SCHEME TO PRESSURED UKRAINE TO
ANNOUNCE POLITICAL
INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT THE
CAMPAIGN.
REMARKABLY, THE PRESIDENT
DEFENDS IS REVVING ITSELF INTO
INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE WHILE
TRYING TO MINIMIZE HIS ROLE.
THERE'S OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE,T,
NOT JUST TESTIMONY, BUT FULL
RECORDS AND OTHER CORROBORATING
DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING
MR. GIULIANI'S KEY ROLE IN
EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN BEGINNING IN
EARLY SPRING OF 2019 THE SMEAR
CAMPAIGN AGAINST AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH AND THEN THROUGH THE
SUMMER.
EVERYONE KNEW THAT RUDY GIULIANI
WAS THE GATEKEEPER TO THE
PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE.
MAY 10, MR. GIULIANI CANCELED
THE TRIP TO UKRAINE DURING WHICH
HE PLANNED TO DIG DIRT ON FORMER
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND ON
THE DISCREDIT CONSPIRACY THEORY
AFTER THE CLAIMS BECAME PUBLIC.
HE ADMITTED WE ARE NOT MEDDLING
IN AN ELECTION.
WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN
INVESTIGATION.
SOMEONE COULD SAY IT'S IMPROPER,
AND THIS IS AN FOREIGN POLICY.
I'M ASKING THEM TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION THEY ARE ALREADY
DOING AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE
TELLING HIM TO STOP.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN.
DURING THE MAY 10 APPEARANCE ON
FOX NEWS, GIULIANI ALSO SAID HE
CANCELED THE TRIP BECAUSE THEY
ARE ENEMIES OF TRUMP AROUND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
MR. GIULIANI'S ASSOCIATE LEFT
UPON US AND PRODUCED A SET OF
DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE THAT
INCLUDED A LETTER AND I BELIEVE
THAT WE HAVE SLIDE 50.
MR. GIULIANI SAID TO THE
PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY DURING
THE TIME PERIOD IN A LETTER
DATED MAY 10, MR. GIULIANI
INFORMS MR. ZELENSKY HE
REPRESENTS PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE ALSO REQUESTED A MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON MAY 13 AND
14TH ALONG WITH VICTORIA
THOMPSON AND THE CAPACITY IS
PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
CONSENT.
MR. GIULIANI CONFIRMED THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTIONS WITH
REGARDS STATING HE KNOWS WHAT
I'M DOING.
SURE, MY ONLY CLIENT FOR
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE'S GOING TO HAVE AN OBLIGATION
TO REPORT TO.
TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY
INSTRUCTED THE AMERICAN AND
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO TALK TO
GIULIANI DEMONSTRATING THAT HE
WAS THE KEY PLAYER IN THE
CORRUPT SCHEME.
IN A MAY 23 OVAL OFFICE MEETING
TO DISCUSS GREEN POLICY,
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE
THREE EMMY GOES TO TALK TO RUDY
GIULIANI.
IN RESPONSE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
TESTIFIED SECRETARY PERRY,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WORKED
WITH MR. RUDY GIULIANI IN THE
MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
AFTER TWO EXCLUSIVE WHITE HOUSE
MEETINGS ON JULY 10 IN WHICH
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXPLICITLY
CONVEYED THE DEMAND FOR
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, TOP
UKRAINIAN AID ANDRIY YERMAK SAID
I FEEL THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS
AS RUDY AND WHAT WAS HE ASKING
FOR?
INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO CITIZENS,
NOT JUST RUSSIA IN GENERAL.
IN FACT, HE WASN'T EVEN ASKING
FOR AN INVESTIGATION, JUST
ASKING FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION SO THAT AMERICAN
CITIZENS, THE BIDENS COULD BE
SMEARED.
ON THE JULY 25 CALLED WITH
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP
MENTIONED RUDY GIULIANI BY NAME
AND NO LESS THAN FOUR TIMES AND
INFORMED HIM OF GIULIANI KNOWS
WHAT'S HAPPENED.
HE TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
RUDY GIULIANI RUDY VERY MUCH
KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING.
IN AUGUST MR. GIULIANI MET WITH
A TOP UKRAINIAN AID AND COUNTRY
THEY MUST ISSUE A PUBLIC
STATEMENT ANNOUNCING
INVESTIGATIONS.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER
WORKS CLOSELY WITH GIULIANI AND
THE UKRAINIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE STATEMENT WOULD MEET
MR. GIULIANI'S DEMANDS,
SPECIFICALLY MR. GIULIANI
INSISTED THE STATEMENT INCLUDE
SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO BURISMA
AND THE 2,016TH ELECTION AND
BIDEN.
THROUGH THE PROCESS, SONDLAND
STATED THEY NEEDED THE APPROVAL
FOR THE PRESS STATEMENT AND THAT
THE NEW GIULIANI REPRESENTED THE
INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT.
RUDY GIULIANI ADMITTED ON LIVE
TELEVISION THEY ARE PRESSURING
UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN,
NOT CORRUPTION BUT JOE BIDEN.
SEPTEMBER, 2019, THEY ASKED
GIULIANI YOU DID ASK UKRAINE TO
LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN AND THE
RESPONSE HE INSISTED OF COURSE I
DID.
MR. GIULIANI INSISTED UKRAINE
LOOK INTO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ON
BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
FINALLY, DURING THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS, MR. GIULIANI WOULD
DIG UP DIRT TO BENEFIT THE
PRESIDENT.
IN DECEMBER, HE AGAIN TRAVELED
TO MEET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
JUST DESCRIBED IS A SECRET
ASSIGNMENT, AN ACT OF WHICH THE
PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY CALLED
IMMEDIATELY UPON LANDING WHAT
DID YOU GET TO WHICH
MR. GIULIANI RESPONDED MORE THAN
YOU CAN IMAGINE.
IT'S WORTH NOTING IN
MS. RASKIN'S PRESENTATION --
REPEATED REQUESTS FOR
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BIDEN, NOT
INTO CORRUPTION.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR
SACHS, MCSALLY AND HOLDEN.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR RUBIO
AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR
COUNSEL FROM PRESIDENT.
HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS VIEW
REMOVING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ON THE BASIS
OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY
AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHERS?
>> THANK YOU.
OLEKSANDER HAMILTON ADDRESSED
DIRECTLY.
HE SAID THE GREATEST DANGER OF
IMPEACHMENT IS IF IT TURNS ON
THE VOTE OF ONE PARTY BEING
GREATER THAN THE VOTE OF ANOTHER
PARTY IN EITHER HOUSE.
SO I THINK THEY WOULD BE
APPALLED TO SEE AN IMPEACHMENT
GOING FORWARD IN VIOLATION OF
THE SCHUMER RULE AND RULES OF
OTHER CONGRESSMEN NOT WERE GOOD
ENOUGH FOR US DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT THAT SEEMED TO HAVE
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE
CURRENT SITUATION.
THE CRITERIA THAT HAD BEEN SET
OUT OR SO LOST, THEY BASICALLY
PARAPHRASE CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE
WATERS WHO SAID THERE IS NO LAW.
ANYTHING THE HOUSE WANTS TO DO
TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE.
THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY.
THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW.
WE'VE HEARD MUCH ABOUT NO ONE
ABOVE THE LAW.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS
NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
THEY MAY NOT USE THE MAXINE
WATERS, GERALD FORD MADE THE
SAME POINT.
JUDGES ARE DIFFERENT.
THERE IS ONLY ONE PRESIDENT.
BUT, TO USE THAT CRITERIA THAT
IT'S WHATEVER THE HOUSE SAYS IT
IS, WHATEVER THE SENATE SAYS IT
IS TURNS THOSE BODIES INTO
LAWLESS BODIES WITH THE INTENT
OF THE FRAMERS.
MANAGER SCHIFF CONFUSED MY
ARGUMENT WITH CONTENT AND
MOTIVE.
YOU ADMITTED I AM A CRIMINAL
LAWYER AND I'VE TAUGHT CRIMINAL
LAW FOR 50 YEARS AT HARVARD ANDD
THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DISTINCTION
BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE.
SOMEBODY SHOOTS SOMEBODY, THE
INTENT IS WHEN YOU SHOOT
SOMEBODY YOU KNOW BULLETS WILL
LEAVE AND HIT SOMEBODY.
MOTIVE COULD BE READ THEN EACH,
IT COULD BE MONEY.
IT ALMOST NEVER IS TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION EXCEPT IN EXTREME
CASES.
THERE ARE CASES WHERE THE MOTIVE
COUNTS BUT LET'S CONSIDER A
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WE HAVE
DISCUSSED.
LET'S ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD
BEEN TOLD BY HIS ADVISORS THAT
IT REALLY IS IMPORTANT TO SEND
LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, BUT
THEN HE GETS A CALL FROM HIS
POSTER AND POLITICAL ADVISER WHO
SAYS WE KNOW IT'S IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST TO SEND LETHAL
WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, BUT WE ARE
TELLING YOU THAT THE LEFT-WING
LEFT WINGOF YOUR PARTY IS REALLO
GIVE YOU A HARD TIME IF YOU
START SELLING LETHAL WEAPON AND
GETTING INTO A LETHAL WAR
POTENTIALLY WITH RUSSIA.
WOULD ANYBODY HERE SUGGEST THAT
WAS IMPEACHABLE?
LET'S ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA
SAID I PROMISED TO BOMB SYRIA IF
THEY HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS, BUT
I'M NOW TOLD BY MY POSTERS THAT
BOMBING SYRIA WOULD HURT MY
ELECTORAL CHANCES, CERTAINLY NOT
IMPEACHABLE AT ALL.
SO LET ME APPLY THAT TO THE
CURRENT SITUATION.
AS YOU KNOW, I SAID PREVIOUSLY
THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF
POSSIBLE MOTIVES.
ONE IS THE MOTIVE IS PURE.
ONLY INTEREST FOR WHAT IS GOOD
FOR THE COUNTRY.
IN THE REAL WORLD, THAT RARELY
HAPPENS.
THE OTHER IS THE MOTIVE IS
COMPLETELY CORRUPT.
I WANT MONEY, A KICKBACK.
BUT THE THIRD ONE THAT IS SO
COMPLICATED AND THAT'S OFTEN IS
UNDERSTOOD.
WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE,
AND MOTIVE IN WHICH YOU THINK
YOU ARE DOING GOOD FOR THE
COUNTRY, BUT THEY WERE ALSO
DOING GOOD FOR YOUR SELF.
YOU ARE DOING GOOD FOR ME, YOU,
YOU ARE DOING GOOD AND
ALTOGETHER PUT IT IN A BUNDLE IN
WHICH YOU ARE SATISFIED YOU ARE
DOING ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT
THING.
THEY GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE
OF THAT IN THE CASE.
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ONLY BECAME INTERESTED IN
CORRUPTION WHEN HE LEARNED JOE
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT
THE PRESIDENT WAS IN A SECOND
TERM AND HE SAID TO HIMSELF YOU
KNOW, JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT.
I REALLY SHOULD NOW GET
CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER HIS SON
IS CORRUPT BECAUSE HE'S NOT ONLY
A CANDIDATE AND HE'S NOT RUNNING
AGAINST ME.
I'M FINISHED WITH MY TERM, BUT
HE COULD BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND IF HE'S THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND HE HAS A CORRUPT SON, THE
FACT THAT HE'S ANNOUNCED HIS
CANDIDACY IS A VERY GOOD REASON
FOR UPPING THE INTEREST.
IF HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, HE'S THE FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
BIG DEAL.
BUT IF HE'S RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, THAT IS AN ENORMOUS
BIG DEAL.
SO, THE DIFFERENCE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD MAKE IS WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT IS FIRST-TERM OR
SECOND, RUNNING OR NOT RUNNING
FOR REELECTION.
I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEE
HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION
THIS WOULDN'T BE A CORRUPT VOTE
IS COUNTED WITH THE MIXED MOTIVE
BUT LEANING ON THE SIDE OF
NATIONAL INTEREST.
IF HE IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION,
SUDDENLY THAT TURNS IT INTO
IMPEACHABLE --
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SAID
THAT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR
KLOBUCHAR FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
I WAS ON THE TRIAL COMMITTEE FOR
THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN
THE SENATE, WHICH INVOLVED
GEORGE THOMAS WAS ULTIMATELY
REMOVED.
DURING THAT TIME THE SENATE
TRIAL COMMITTEE HEARD FROM 26
WITNESSES, 17 OF WHOM HAD
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THE
HOUSE.
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON COULD THERE
BE FOR ALLOWING 26 WITNESSES IN
A JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND
HEARING NONE FOR A PRESIDENT TO
TRIAL?
>> I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS
IMPEACHMENT.
SOMEONE ASKED ME THE LAST TIME I
TRIED A CASE AND THE ANSWER IS
PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO EXCEPT FOR
THE IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS WHEN I
LAST SPENT SOME QUALITY TIME
WITH YOU.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED FOR
THE WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS A FAR MORE
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THE
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE.
NOW, YOU MIGHT SAY WELCOME AND
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE, HOW IS
IT POSSIBLE THAT THE TIME OF THE
SENATE COULD BE OCCUPIED BY
CALLING WITNESSES THAT AS
PRECIOUS AS YOUR TIME IS, WE
WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME CALLING
DOZENS OF WITNESSES, THAT AND
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT, IT'S
NOT THE TIME.
IT'S TOO MUCH OF AN IMPOSITION.
AGAIN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE
THEATER CALLING OF JUDGES HAVING
A FAIR TRIAL WHEN WE ARE
ADJUDICATING TO GO TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS PARAMOUNT.
NOW WE'VE ALWAYS ARGUED THAT THE
TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
AND YES, IT'S A BIG DEAL TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND REMOVE A
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
IT'S ALSO A BIG DEAL IF YOU
LEAVE IN PLACE A PRESIDENT WHEN
THE HOUSE HAS PROVEN THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT AND IS
LIKELY TO CONTINUE COMMITTING
IT.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT, I
THINK, FROM THE RECORD THAT NOT
ONLY DID THE PRESIDENT SOLICIT
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016,
BOTH SOLICITED UKRAINE
INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING
ELECTION, SOLICITED THE CHINA
INTERFERENCE.
AS MY COLLEAGUE JUST SAID, RUDY
GIULIANI AS A PERSONAL AGENT IN
UKRAINE GIVING THE SAME KIND OF
THING JUST LAST MONTH, AND IN
RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION IS IT
DISPOSITIVE THAT GIULIANI THE
PERSONAL AIDE IS RUNNING THIS
BYTE IN THE OPERATION RATHER
THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF
GOVERNMENT?
ISN'T THAT DISPOSITIVE OF
WHETHER THIS WAS POLICY OR
POLITICS AND I THINK THE ANSWER
IS YES.
GIULIANI HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR I'M NOT HERE TO INFORM
POLICY.
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
LAWYER.
I'M NOT HERE TO DO FOREIGN
POLICY.
NOW MR. DERSHOWITZ MADE A RATHER
ASTOUNDING ARGUMENT THAT AN
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN THAT
IS UNWARRANTED, UNMERITED
SUDDENLY BECOMES WARRANTED IF HE
RUNS FOR PRESIDENT.
NOW, HE PUTS THAT AT THE
PRESIDENT'S SECOND TERM, BUT IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE'S IN
HIS FIRST TERM OR SECOND TERM.
THE INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN
DOESN'T SOMEHOW BECOME
LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE'S RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU VIEW
YOUR OWN INTEREST AS SYNONYMOUS
WITH THE NATIONS INTEREST.
I THINK IT IS THE MOST PROFOUND
CONFLICT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
ONE PARTY RUNNING FOR THE
REELECTION OR NOT TO SUGGEST
THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE LEADING
CANDIDATE IN THE OPPOSITE PARTY
IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NOW THEY
ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
REALLY HAVE TO STEP ASIDE FROM
WHAT IS GOING ON TO IMAGINE THAT
ANYONE COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT
THAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE, RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT NOW MEANS YOU ARE
A MORE TARGETED INVESTIGATIONS
AND WENDY WERE NOT.
THAT CANNOT BE.
BUT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS
BEING ARGUED HERE.
TO CONCLUDE, SENATOR, THE CASE
FOR WITNESSES IN A PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT WHERE EITHER ON THE
ONE SIDE YOU REMOVE A PRESIDENT
ON THE OTHER SIDE YOU LEAVE IN
PLACE A PRESIDENT WHO MAY POSE A
CONTINUED THIS FOR THE COUNTRY
IS FAR MORE COMPELLING TO TAKE
THE TIME TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES
THAN A CORRUPT LOUISIANA JUDGE
WHO ONLY IMPACTS THOSE WHO COME
BEFORE THIS COURT.
ALL OF US COME BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
>> I SEND A QUESTION ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF, SENATORS LANGFORD AND
SENATOR HAWLEY.
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
LANGFORD AND HOLLY IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
OVER THE PAST 244 YEARS, EIGHT
JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE IS
NEVER A PRESIDENT.
THE JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FOR
BRIBERY, PERJURY AND TAX
EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND OTHER UNLAWFUL
ACTION.
HOW DOES THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLE DIFFER FROM THE REMOVAL
BY THE SENATE?
THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN IMPEACHING AND REMOVING
A JUDGE, EVEN A JUSTICE AND
IMPEACHING AND REMOVING A
PRESIDENT.
NO JUDGE, NOT EVEN THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THERE IS A JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
THERE ISN'T ALWAYS A VICE
PRESIDENTS.
WE HAVE HERE CO. OF TIME THERE
WAS NO VICE PRESIDENT THAT
NEEDED THE AMENDMENT SO THERE IS
NO COMPARISON BETWEEN IMPEACHING
THE JUDGE AND PRESIDENT.
MOREOVER, THERE IS A TEXTUAL
DIFFERENCE.
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES JUDGES
SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.
THAT IS CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF'S
STANDARD AND WE WISH EVERYBODY
SERVED GOOD BEHAVIOR BUT THE
CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT
THE PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE DURING
THE BEHAVIOR.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THE PRESIDENT
ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS AND THEY
GET THE JUDGES GOOD BEHAVIOR.
JUDGES DON'T RUN SO THERE'S ONLY
ONE JUDGE ON THE GOOD BEHAVIOR,
NAMELY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
SO, WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE THE
BRITISH SYSTEM TO THE AMERICAN
SYSTEM, WE HEARD A LOT OF
ARGUMENT THAT WE ADOPTED THE
SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE WORDS,
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THOSE MAY HAVE BEEN BARRED BUT
THE WHOLE CONCEPT TO LONGER
EXISTS BUT WHEN IT DID IT ONLY
OPERATED FOR THE LOW-LEVEL AND
MID-LEVEL PEOPLE ON THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT HAVE
BEEN CITED.
THIS GUY IN THE COMMERCE AND
HERE AND FAIR, UTTERLY
REPLACEABLE PEOPLE.
THE BRITISH SYSTEM ON THE OTHER
HAND, YOU COULD GET RID OF THE
HEAD OF STATE AND HEAD OF
GOVERNMENT.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT AND SO
THE NOTION THAT WE BORROWED THE
SYSTEM HAS THAT EXACTLY
BACKWARDS.
WE REJECTED THE SYSTEM AND WE
DIDN'T WANT THE PRESIDENT TO
SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
WE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO SERVE
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE VOTERS.
JUDGES DON'T SERVE THE PLEASURE
OF THE VOTERS SO THERE NEEDS TO
BE DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND HAS
BEEN USED IN PRACTICE FOR THE
MOST PART THEY HAVE BEEN
IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FOR
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
TAKE THE EXAMPLE GIVEN IF THEY
CANNOT DO HIS JOB IT IS EASY TO
IMAGINE HOW A JUDGE MIGHT HAVE
TO BE REMOVED FOR THAT.
THE 25TH AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDING THERE WAS A GAP IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND PLEASE, MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND OVER ROLE.
GOOD ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE DON'T ABUSE THEIR POWER?
THEY DON'T CONNECT
MALADMINISTRATION BUT THEY LEFT
OPEN AND LEFT THOSE GAPS.
YOUR JOB ISN'T TO FILLING THE
GAPS.
YOUR JOB IS TO APPLY THE
CONSTITUTION AS THE FRAMERS
WROTE IT AND THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
COMES TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNT
OR IS THIS.
THE PRESIDENTS WE'VE STATES,
QUOTE, CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN
FOREIGNERS INVOLVED IN THE
AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
HOWEVER, IN JUNE OF 2019,
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IF RUSSIA
OR CHINA OFFERED INFORMATION ON
HIS OPPONENT, QUOTE, THERE'S
NOTHING WRONG WITH LISTENING,
AND HE MIGHT NOT ALERT THE FBI
BECAUSE, QUOTE, GIVE ME A BREAK,
LIFE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, AND
QUOTE.
DOES HE AGREE THAT FOREIGNERS
INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN
ELECTIONS IS ILLEGAL?
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK THAT CONGRESS SPECIFIED
SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH
FOREIGNERS CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN
ELECTIONS.
THEY CAN'T VOTE IN ELECTIONS,
THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS,
THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER MADE A
COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS JULY 25
CALL, AND EXPLAINED FOR THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HE
FRAMED THAT WHISTLEBLOWERS
COMPLAINED AND WROTE A COVER
LETTER FRAMING IT IN TERMS OF
THOSE WALLS, AND HE SAID THAT
THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE HERE
RELATED TO SOLICITING FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTION TO CAMPAIGN AND
VALUE CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE.
THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THEY
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH
VIOLATION HERE.
SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
INVOLVED IN THE CASE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTERVIEW WITH
ABC THAT YOU CITED DOES NOT
INVOLVE THE FOREIGN CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION, SOMETHING THAT IS
ADDRESSED BY CONGRESS.
HE WAS REFERRING TO THE
POSSIBILITY THAT INFORMATION
COULD COME FROM A SOURCE.
AND I THINK HE POINTED OUT IN
THAT INTERVIEW THAT THEY MIGHT
CONTACT THE FBI, HE MIGHT LISTEN
TO SOMETHING.
BUT THE INFORMATION ISN'T
SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.
AND IF THERE IS CREDIBLE
INFORMATION, CREDIBLE
INFORMATION OF WRONGDOING BY
SOMEONE RUNNING FOR A PUBLIC
OFFICE, IT'S NOT CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE FOR CREDIBLE
INFORMATION ABOUT WRONGDOING TO
BE BROUGHT TO LIGHT IF IT IS
CREDIBLE INFORMATION.
SO THE IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION
THAT HAPPENS TO COME FROM
OVERSEAS IT IS INFORMATION THAT
IS CREDIBLE AND POTENTIALLY
SHOWS WRONGDOING BY SOMEONE THAT
HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE
IF IT'S CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS
FOR THE VOTERS TO KNOW FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON
WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR AN
OFFICE.
THANK YOU.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A BREAK
UNTIL 10 P.M..
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO
ORDERED.
AND WHILE THEY ARE TAKING THIS
BREAK WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU
AND HEAR WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED
TODAY AND WHAT QUESTIONS HE
WOULD ASK THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
MANAGERS AND THE TRUMP DEFENSE
TEAM.
YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS DIVIDED
BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION.
(202)748-8920 IF YOU LIVE IN
EAST AND CENTRAL TIME ZONES.
(202)748-8921 FOR THE MOUNTAIN
AND PACIFIC TIME ZONES AND YOU
CAN SEND A TEXT IF YOU CAN'T GET
THROUGH THE LINES,
(202)748-8903.
SO, THEY WILL PROBABLY GO FOR
ANOTHER HOUR OR SO TONIGHT.
THEY WILL BE BACK TOMORROW.
THEY HAVE ANOTHER EIGHT HOURS ON
THEIR SCHEDULE FOR SENATORS TO
ASK QUESTIONS OF THE LAWYERS ON
EACH SIDE FOR THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AND THE
DEFENSE TEAM.
THEN ON FRIDAY IT'S SCHEDULED TO
HAVE FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE ON
THEMOTION TO HAVE OTHER WITNESSS
SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
SO, THIS IS ALL COMING UP RIGHT
NOW.
WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH FOR
SENATORS TO REACT AND TAKE YOUR
CALLS DURING THIS TIME.
HENRY AND DIAMOND HEAD,
MISSISSIPPI, WHAT IS A QUESTION
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ANSWERED
AREA
>> Caller: I WOULD LIKE -- THE
CONSTITUTION STATES THAT BEFORE
AN IMPEACHMENT CAN HAPPEN IN A
HOUSE HAS TO HAVE A VOTE.
THEY DID NOT DO THAT SO THIS
WHOLE THING IS ILLEGAL.
AND ADAM SCHIFF HAS LIED ABOUT
THIS.
WHY DON'T THEY PUT HIM ON TRIAL?
IT'S JUST A SHAM.
BUT THEY ARE DOING TO AMERICA IS
MORE DIVIDED NOW THAN IT EVER
WAS.
>> Host: HAVE YOU BEEN
WATCHING ALL WEEK?
>> Caller: I'VE BEEN WATCHING
EVERY DAY, YOU BET.
>> Host: WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS,
ANYTHING FROM TODAY?
>> Caller: YES, IN THE
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES WHEN
THEY START TELLING THINGS OTHER
PEOPLE SAID AND THEN WHEN, MICK
MULVANEY AND OTHERS, THEY PROVE
DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
THEY ASKED CERTAIN QUESTIONS AND
MAKE A STATEMENT THAT'S NOT TRUE
AND MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE IT'S
TRUE AND THAT IS WHAT THE
DEMOCRATS ARE DOING.
>> Host: HENRY, A LOT OF THE
QUESTIONS HAVE CENTERED AROUND
JOHN BOLTON.
DO YOU THINK THAT HE SHOULD BE
COMPELLED TO TESTIFY?
>> Caller: I DON'T THINK SO
BECAUSE THE HOUSE WOULD NOT
ALLOW THE REPUBLICANS TO CALL A
WITNESS, SO WHY SHOULD THE
SENATE ALLOW THESE PEOPLE THAT
THINK THEY HAVE EVERYTHING SET
UP ALREADY AND NOW THEY WANT
MORE EVIDENCE, I THINK THEY
SHOULD ALLOW WITNESSES.
>> Host: THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME TONIGHT.
GEORGE IN BOYNTON BEACH FLORIDA.
WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO
ASK?
>> Caller: IT'S NOT SO MUCH A
QUESTION.
I MAY RETIRE ARMY SERGEANT WITH
ABOUT TWO YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL
AND SEEING WHAT I AM SEEING NOW
IS UNBELIEVABLE.
WHEN THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO,
IT'S USUALLY A GANGSTER SENT
SOMEBODY HAD SAID YOU DO THIS
FOR ME OR ELSE.
NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN
ANY SHAPE OR FORM WHERE HE SENT
SOME BODY TO TELL THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE ANYTHING AND PUT
PRESSURE ON HIM.
THAT'S ABOUT ALL I'VE GOT TO
SAY.
THIS THING IS RIDICULOUS.
>> Host: THAT IS GEORGE IN
BOYNTON BEACH FLORIDA.
82 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED OF
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS
AND THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM SO
FAR.
DEENA IN RURAL UTAH.
YOUR SENATOR, ROMNEY, ASKED A
QUESTION TONIGHT.
DID YOU HEAR THAT?
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIS
QUESTION?
>> Caller: HERE IS THE THING,
WHEN I'M LISTENING TO ALL THESE
QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING BACK
AND FORTH, THEY ARE VOLLEYING TO
TRY TO PUT THEIR POINT ACROSS.
HERE'S MY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
JOHN BOLTON SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO TESTIFY.
SO, --
>> Host: DON'T LEAVE US BUT
LET'S LISTEN TO SENATOR CASEY,
DEMOCRAT IN PENNSYLVANIA.
>> WE WILL GO BACK AND WILL WE
GO ANOTHER HOUR OR MORE, BUT I
THINK AT LEAST AN HOUR.
FAIRLY EDUCATED GUESS.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> I AM NOT SURE THEY ARE, BUT I
DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AND
IT'S PROBABLY TRUE ON BOTH SIDES
WHERE YOU CAN EMPHASIZE A POINT
AND YOU CAN REITERATE SOME OF
THE POINTS MADE IN THE
PRESENTATIONS ON EITHER SIDE.
YOU CAN FILL IN AREAS WHERE YOU
THINK THAT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH
EMPHASIS ON A POINT OR A DATE OR
FACT.
SO, TO THAT EXTENT IT HELPS TO
REVIEW THE TRIAL OR SOME OF THE
EVIDENCE FOR BOTH PARTIES, BUT
IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY QUESTION, IF
NOT EVERY OTHER QUESTION GETS
BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF
THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OR
WITNESSES AND I THINK THAT THE
OTHER SIDE IS HAVING GREAT
TROUBLE FOR DAYS NOW EXCLAIMING
WHY THEY WANT WITNESSES OR
DOCUMENTS, AND BETH GOT EVER
MORE DIFFICULT IN LIGHT OF JOHN
BOLTON.
BASED ON THE TIME IN THE SENATE,
THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW FRIDAY IS
GOING TO WORK.
I'M GUESSING THAT, AND THIS IS A
PRETTY GOOD GUESS, THAT FRIDAY
WE WILL FINALLY GET TO THAT
WITNESS PART, BUT THAT IS BUT
ONE VOTE.
NOW IT COULD BE THAT IF THAT
VOTE DOESN'T PREVAIL, THEN YOU
MOVE TO THE END OF THE TRIAL.
BUT THERE'S STILL QUESTIONS
ABOUT HOW THAT WILL PLAY OUT.
BUT IF IT IS PREVAIL THEM IF
THERE'S ENOUGH VOTES FOR
WITNESSES, THEN WE ARE INTO A
WHOLE NEW PHASE ABOUT HOW TO GET
THE WITNESSES AND THAT WOULD BE
THE SUBJECT OF SOME KIND OF AN
AGREEMENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S
GOING TO BE BASICALLY ONE VOTE
ON WITNESSES AT THAT POINT.
NOW, IF IT PREVAILS YOU COULD
HAVE A SERIES OF WITNESS VOTES
THAT DEAL WITH THE MECHANICS.
ONE PARTICULAR WITNESS OR GROUP
OF WITNESSES OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
BUT LOOK, WE ARE STILL BACK TO
THIS BASIC ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN FINISH
A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT
THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
AND I DO THINK THE OTHER SIDE IS
STRUGGLING WITH THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT IS
THE DEMOCRATS REMAIN UNITED
[INAUDIBLE]
THE PRESIDENT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
USE THAT FOR A BIPARTISAN
ACQUITTAL.
>> IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING
ANYONE HAS TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE
I THINK EVERY ONE OF US KNOWS
AND IF OUR LEADERSHIP DIDN'T
KNOW, WE WOULD'VE TOLD THEM,
THIS IS THE DECISION EVERYBODY
HAS TO MAKE.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS
OUT OR WHAT THE NUMBERS WILL BE,
BUT IT'S REALLY GOT TO BE THAT
INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION THAT
EVERY SENATOR HAS TO MAKE.
YOU START WITH THE BASIC CHARGES
THE PRESIDENT INTERFERED IN A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, THAT IS A
CHARGE, AND ALSO IN NOT
SOLICITATION AT THE SAME
ENGAGEMENT WITH ASKING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT AND AT LEAST THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION
ON A DEBUNKED THEORY ABOUT THE
LAST ELECTION.
SO IN ONE EPISODE TO BRING TWO
ELECTIONS.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE
MAKING THAT ASSESSMENT, BUT
THERE'S NEVER BEEN IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS -- AND WE HAVE BEEN
READING A LOT, AS YOU KNOW --
HOW WELL THIS DAY IMPACT THE
ELECTION OR DETERMINATION.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST TRYING
TO DO THEIR JOBS.
IN FACT THAT YOU HAVE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THAT ARE
HERE, ALL OF WHOM SPENDING A LOT
OF TIME HERE, THERE'S NEVER
CONSIDERATION ABOUT HOW COME
OTHER TIME, THEY ARE DOING THE
JOB EVERYONE EXPECTS THEM TO DO.
WE EXPECT EACH OF US TO DO OUR
OWN JOB, SO IT HASN'T BEEN THAT
KIND OF CALCULATION.
THERE'S SOME POLITICAL MOTIVE
THAT DRIVES EVERYTHING HERE BUT
PEOPLE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.
>> TO GO BEHIND THE SCENES FOR
ME [INAUDIBLE]
WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES?
>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS
NECESSARILY A CONSENSUS ABOUT
THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO SAID THIS YEARS
AGO WHETHER IT IS A RULE OR
SOMETHING A GOOD LAWYER SAID
YEARS AGO YOU SHOULD TRY TO
CHOOSE THE OUTCOME OF A SUPREME
COURT CASE BASED ON THE ORAL
ARGUMENTS.
THAT RULE MIGHT APPLY HERE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN
NECESSARILY DEFINE BASED UPON
THEIR QUESTIONS INTO THE
QUESTION PERIOD.
>> I GUESS I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF
A REACTION BECAUSE I GUESS I
BELIEVE PERSONALLY IN THIS
QUESTION, THEY ARE EITHER GOING
TO GET THREE VOTES OR THEY ARE
GOING TO GET A NUMBER GREATER
BUT IT WON'T BE THREE VERSUS
FOUR, IT WILL BE VERSUS SEVEN OR
FIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, A
LARGER NUMBER.
THE PERSON WHO IS CONSIDERED THE
FOURTH VOTE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO
A LOT OF ACRIMONY ON THE RIGHT,
AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A
DIFFICULT DECISION SOMEONE WOULD
HAVE TO MAKE.
SO I THINK IT WILL EITHER STOP
AT THREE, WHICH WILL FAIL, OR
IT'LL BE A HIGHER NUMBER.
>> A TOMMY TEN IS THE START
TIME, SO I'M GOING TO RUN UP.
ANYTHING ELSE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> Host: SENATOR CASEY
MENTIONED POLITICS, PRESIDENTIAL
POLITICS.
SENATOR SANDERS, WARREN AND
KLOBUCHAR ALL HAVE QUESTIONS AT
IT.
IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
NEWSPAPER, SOMETHING ELSE
SENATOR CASEY TALKED ABOUT,
SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE
OPTIMISTIC THEY WILL VOTE TO
CONCLUDE PRESIDENT TRUMPS
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS SOON AS
FRIDAY AND THE MOTION TO CALL
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AS OF
WEDNESDAY ONLY THREE REPUBLICAN
SENATORS WERE PUBLICLY
CONSIDERING A VOTE TO CALL
WITNESSES, AND ONE OF THEM,
SENATOR MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA,
HUDDLED IN THE MORNING WITH
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL
AT THE CAPITOL OFFICE.
TWO OTHER GOP LAWMAKERS ARE
WEIGHING ABOUT TWO COLD
WITNESSES AND SIGNALED THEY
WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOVE.
SENATOR PAT TOOMEY,
PENNSYLVANIA, SAID HE WAS VERY,
VERY SKEPTICAL, HE WOULD SEE THE
NEED TO VOTE FOR ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES.
AND SENATOR CORY GARDNER OF
COLORADO, REPUBLICAN OF FOR
REELECTION IN THE BATTLEGROUND
EIGHT, ANNOUNCED WEDNESDAY THAT
HE WOULD NOT VOTE TO CALL
WITNESSES.
LET'S GO BACK TO DEAN IN RURAL
UTAH.
PLEASE GO AHEAD AND I APOLOGIZE
FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.
>> Caller: THAT'S OKAY.
MY POINT IS ABOUT CALLING
WITNESSES, HERE'S THE THING.
OKAY, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE 20
REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTE TO HAVE
WITNESSES, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT?
SO, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO CALL
WITNESSES, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES
OF THAT?
>> Host: AS THE ARTICLE SAID,
VERY SLIM.
>> Caller: SO WHY GO THROUGH
ALL OF THIS?
WE ARE IN AN ELECTION YEAR AND
WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS
PENALIZING THE ELECTION SYSTEM
BY DRAGGING THIS OUT FOR MONTHS
AND WEEKS AND WEEKS.
WHY GO THERE?
>> Host: YOUR SENATOR, MITT
ROMNEY, HAS BASICALLY SAID HE
WOULD VOTE FOR WITNESSES.
>> Caller: I KNOW.
AND I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
AND I SENT HIM A MESSAGE.
>> Host: DID YOU GET A
RESPONSE FROM HIS OFFICE?
>> Caller: I JUST SENT IT
YESTERDAY AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED
A RESPONSE.
>> Host: TOM FROM ILLINOIS.
THAT IS THE QUESTION YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE ASKED OF THE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS OF THE
DEFENSE TEAM?
>> Caller: GOOD EVENING.
I HAVE JUST A BRIEF ONE.
MR. ADAM SCHIFF SAID THAT
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION EVIDENCE
IS CONSIDERED INDICATIVE OF
GUILT.
I WOULD ASK HIM IF WITHHOLDING
INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE IN
REGARDS TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS
INDICATIVE OF GUILT AND
COORDINATION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND
THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS WELL AS
OTHERS TO FRAME THE PRESIDENT
FOR POLITICAL REASONS TO
UNFAIRLY INFLUENCE THE ELECTION
AND/OR WHY MR. SCHIFF COULD USE
STATEMENTS LIKE YOU SHOWED YOU
SHOULD WANT TO, BUT CLAIMS
STATEMENTS LIKE THAT FROM THE
PRESIDENT ARE IMMEDIATELY
DIRECTED THE WORDS BLACKMAILING
AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.
..
>> JOHNNY AND EL PASO, TEXAS.
JOHNNY YOU ARE ON.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE QUESTION
AND ANSWER FROM THE HOUSE
MANAGERS AND THE LEGAL COUNSEL.
ONE THING I NOTICED IS WHEN A
SENATOR ASKED A CERTAIN QUESTION
THEY ONLY HIT ON THE QUESTION
FOR A QUICK MOMENT AND THEN THEY
RESPOND TO A QUESTION EITHER TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS OR THE LEGAL
COUNSEL FROM THREE OR FOUR
QUESTIONS AGO.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE
PROCEDURE SHOULD GO, NO EITHER
SIDE HAS A REBUTTAL.
I DON'T SEE WHY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IS ALLOWING THAT TO
HAPPEN.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY QUESTION
FOR THAT.
AS FAR AS JOHN BOLTON, I'M THE
TYPE OF PERSON IF THEY HAVE
SOMETHING TO SAY, LET THEM, AND
SAY IT BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF
HE ALREADY HAD THE INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT WHY DID
HE WAIT FOR A BOOK DEAL AND
SARAH HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY NOW.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN
ABOUT THAT.
IF HE HAD SOMETHING IMPORTANT HE
SHOULD'VE CAME OUT AND SAID IT.
>> CURRENTLY THE BOLTON BOOK IS
GOING TO BE SCHEDULED TO COME
OUT ON MARCH 17.
AS MITCH MCCONNELL MAKES HIS WAY
BACK OUT ON THE SENATE FOR THE
CAMERAS COULD COME ON QUICKLY
AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO INTERRUPT
AND GO INTO THE SENATE AND THEY
HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR OR SO TO GO
TONIGHT BEFORE THEY CONCLUDE.
WE WILL BE TAKING YOUR CALLS
AFTER THAT AS WELL.
WE WILL BE A LITTLE ABRUPT, WE
DON'T CONTROL THE CAMERAS IN THE
SENATE UNFORTUNATELY.
LEO FROM TEXAS TEXT IN, WHY
DON'T YOU FILE A MOTION TO THIS
QUALIFY THE SENATORS WHO
PUBLICLY SAID THEY WOULD NOT BE
AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
THEIR HOPELESS, MEANINGLESS AND
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE AT
ALL IN ACCUSE THEMSELVES OR
DISQUALIFY THEM.
CHRIS IN CALIFORNIA WHAT THE
QUESTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
ASKED.
>> THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
IF WITNESSES ARE SO IMPORTANT TO
THE HOUSE, WHY DID THEY SHUT
DOWN THE MINORITY FOR THEIR DATE
OF WITNESSES ACCORDING TO THE
HOUSE RULES.
THEY CUT THEM RIGHT OFF AT THE
KNEES.
>> HAVE YOU LEARNED ANYTHING IN
THE LAST TWO DAYS OR TODAY WITH
THE QUESTIONING OF THE SENATORS?
>> NOTHING NEW REALLY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR CALLING HIM.
CANTON OHIO.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> MY QUESTION IS HOW IS IT FAIR
WHEN THEY'VE ALREADY SIGNED
SAYING THEY WOULD NOT BE PARTIAL
TO THE HEARING WHEN YOU HAVE
THESE CANDIDATES, SENATOR
CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO
VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM.
THAT IS NOT IMPARTIAL.
WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED, SHOULDN'T
THEY HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE HEARINGS?
BECAUSE BERNIE SANDERS, HIS
QUESTION WAS ABOUT CALLING TRUMP
A LIAR AND HE WAS KIND OF MAKING
A POLITICAL STATEMENT.
HE SAID TRUMP IS NOTHING BUT A
LIAR.
THEIR QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE
BIPARTISAN AND THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO BE BY PARTIAL WHEN THEY DO
THEIR FINAL VOTE.
>> THANK YOU JEANNIE.
KATHY, NEVADA CITY CALIFORNIA.
YOU ARE ON C-SPAN2.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES WE CAN.
>> I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS BUT
SOME HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
THANK YOU FOR TELEVISING THIS.
THE FIRST THING I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT, I KNOW THIS IS NOT
NECESSARILY A REGULAR TRIAL BUT
THE WAY IT STANDS NOW AND THE
ANSWER HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THERE
SEEMS TO BE A HUGE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH
MEANS SOME ARE SAYING, I THINK
THEY'VE GIVEN GOOD EVIDENCE THAT
THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL.
SO WERE GOING TO CONTINUE
THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I
UNDERSTAND THERE IS A SET
PROCESS AND IT IS UP TO THE
SENATORS.
BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD DRILL
DOWN A LITTLE MORE ON THAT AND I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE A
PROCESS THAT THAT DETERMINATION
COULD BE MADE BECAUSE THEN WHAT
RECOURSE DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE
IF HE IS FOUND GUILTY, DOES HE
HAVE ANY RECOURSE TO GO BACK AND
PROVE TO BEGIN WITH ARTICLES ARE
NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH IS THE BIBLE OF OUR
DEMOCRACY.
>> THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT ALAN
DERSHOWITZ WAS MAKING.
>> YES, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF BACK-AND-FORTH ON THAT
AND I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT
TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE
ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME --
I'M NOT A LAWYER.
BUT I STILL UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE
SAID AND ALSO MR. PHILBIN
BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE
ARTICLES -- NOT NECESSARILY TO
THE ARTICLE BUT EVEN THE PROCESS
SEEM TO BE INVALID WHERE THERE
NEEDS TO BE A VOTE.
I DON'T THINK NANCY PELOSI
REALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY OF NOT
VOTING IN GETTING THE
CONSISTENCE AS AN INDIVIDUAL
EVEN WITH HER TITLE IT DOES NOT
APPEAR SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
BEGIN WHAT WAS STARTED AND THEN
OF COURSE YOU COULD GO DOWN THE
RULES BEING UNFAIR AND ALL OF
THAT.
SO DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE ANY
RECOURSE THERE.
I THINK IF YOU TAKE THIS AND
STEPS IT WOULD BE A VITAL
QUESTION TO ASK AND GET THROUGH
BEFORE YOU KEEP GOING ON AND ON
ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE THE
WITNESSES COMING ON.
>> TOM IN VIRGINIA PLEASE GO
AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP AS THE UKRAINE'S
TO LOOK INTO THE BINDINGS, WE
HAVE ALL HEARD THAT.
I'VE WATCHED THE HEARINGS IN THE
SENATE TRIAL.
THE ONE THING I HAVE NOT SEEN
FROM ANYBODY IS ANY EVIDENCE
THAT THE REASON FOR ASKING THE
UKRAINIANS TO LOOK INTO IT WAS
FOR HIS POLITICAL GAIN.
WHAT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
PRESENTED THAT HE DID SAY TRULY
FOR HIS POLITICAL GAIN.
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING OR
HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE HOUSE
MANAGERS OR ANYBODY IN THE
HOUSE.
THEY TALK ABOUT IT AS THOUGH
THEY CAN READ HIS MIND BUT
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS
THE REASON THAT HE ASKED THEM TO
LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.
>> THE SENATE IS BACK IN.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE WILL
FINISH UP AT 11:00 O'CLOCK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SENATOR
FROM GEORGIA.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
BLACKBURN, HIGHSMITH, COTTEN,
HOLLY, BARRASSO, FISHER AND
CORNING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
AS A FACT WITNESS WHO IS
COORDINATING WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER DID MANAGER SHIFTS
HANDLING OF THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY CREATE MATERIALS AND
PROCESS ISSUES FOR THE PRESIDENT
TO HAVE A TRIAL?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THE SHORT ANSWER IS
YES IT CREATED A MATERIAL DUE
PROCESS ISSUE.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY AND
THE PORTION OF MY ARGUMENT THERE
WERE THREE MAJOR DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS THE LACK OF AN
AUTHORIZATION AS A WHOLE
PRECEDING STARTED AN
ILLEGITIMATE AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID MANNER
AND SECOND THE LACK OF DUE
PROCESS PROTECTION WITH
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES AND PRESENT WITNESSES.
THE FINAL IS MANAGER SCHIFF OR
HIS STAFF HAD SOME ROLE IN
CONSULTING WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER THAT REMAINS
SECRET TO THIS DAY.
AND ALL ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT
ABOUT THAT AND ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT THOUGHT WERE SHUT DOWN.
MANAGER SCHIFF SAID TODAY HE HAD
NO CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER ONLY HIS STAFF.
BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE
WAS SOME CONSULTATION THERE
HADN'T ACTUALLY BEEN PROBED BY
ANY QUESTIONING.
ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
HAVE TRIED TO ASK ABOUT THOUGHT
WERE SHUT DOWN.
AND ANY QUESTIONS AS A RESULT
INTO DETERMINING WHO THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS AND WHAT HIS
MOTIVATION AND HIS BIAS WERE
ALSO SHUT DOWN.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NOTED, WE
HEARD THE EARLIER THIS EVENING
IN HIS LETTER TO THE ACTING
DIRECTOR, THE DNI THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD POLITICAL
BIAS.
BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD
CONNECTIONS TO A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE OF ANOTHER PARTY.
BUT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY REMAINS
SECRET.
IT WAS IN EXECUTIVES SESSION TO
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND NOT PART OF THE RECORD HERE.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ABILITY
TO PROBE INTO THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND
OTHERS WHO ARE MATERIALLY
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE
INQUIRY.
IF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS ALLEGED
TO THE PUBLIC REPORTS ACTUALLY
DID WORK FOR THEN VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN ON UKRAINE ISSUES EXACTLY
WHAT WAS HIS ROLE, WHAT WAS HIS
INVOLVEMENT WHEN ISSUES WERE
RAISED WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY
QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT THEN HAD
WITH HIS SON SITTING ON THE
BOARD OF BREEZE MAMA AND WAS THE
WHISTLEBLOWER INVOLVED IN ANY OF
THAT IN MAKING DECISIONS TO NOT
DO ANYTHING RELATED TO THAT.
DID HE HAVE SOME REASON TO WANT
TO PUT THE DEEP-SIXED ON ANY
QUESTION RAISING ANY ISSUE ABOUT
WHAT WENT ON WITH THE BIDENS AND
BURISMA AND HOLDING GUARANTEES
AND QUID PRO QUO.
WE DON'T KNOW.
AND BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF WAS
GETTING THE WHOLE PROCESS
BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN IN
CHARGE OF DIRECTING THE INQUIRY
AND DIRECTING IT AWAY FROM ANY
OF THE QUESTIONS, THAT CREATES A
REAL PROCESS DEFECT IN THE
RECORD THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED
HERE.
SO YES THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM
IN A MAJOR DEFECT IN THE WAY THE
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OCCURRED THAT
AFFECTS US RECORD IT MEANS IS
NOT A RECORD THAT CAN BE RELIED
UPON TO REACH ANY CONCLUSION
OTHER THAN AN ACQUITTAL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THAT I WILL SEND TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR PETERS ASKED THE
HOUSE MANAGERS DOES AN
IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER
REQUIRE THAT A PRESIDENT'S
CORRUPT PLAN ACTUALLY SUCCEED?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND
SENATORS.
THE ANSWER IS NO.
JUST AS -- ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT
A CRIMINAL DEFENSE, IF YOU
ATTEMPTED MURDER BUT DID NOT
SUCCEED YOU WOULD NOT BE
INNOCENT, THE PRESIDENT HAS
ATTEMPTED TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL BENEFIT.
HE USED THE POWER -- LET'S PUT
SLIDE 11 UP IF WE COULD, HE USED
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
AND WE KNOW THIS BY THE
PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENTS, THE
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
CONFESSION, SUBSTANTIAL
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND
WITNESSES, TESTIMONY AND THIS
HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, FOR
THREATENED ELECTION SECURITY AS
WELL AS UNDERMINING U.S.
CREDIBILITY AND OUR VALUES
ABROAD.
NOW BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
CONTINUES TO ACT IN THIS MANNER,
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN
ONGOING THREAT.
WHILE THE IMPEACHMENT WAS GOING
ON THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL
LAWYER MR. GIULIANI WAS IN
UKRAINE CONTINUING THIS SCHEME.
AND WHEN HE LANDED, HE WAS STILL
TAXIING ON THE PHONE AND THE
PRESIDENT WAS ASKING HIM WHAT
DID YOU GET.
WHAT DID YOU GET.
SO THIS IS AN ONGOING MATTER,
THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO RELEASE
THE AID AFTER HIS SCHEME WAS
REVEALED DOES NOT AND THE
PROBLEM.
I HAVE LISTENED WITH GREAT
INTEREST TO THE BACK AND FORTH
IN THE QUESTIONS, IT IS HARD
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STAND UP
AND ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS BUT
I CANNOT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE
BELIEVES HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE
WANTS, WHATEVER HE WANTS AND
THERE'S NO CONSTRAINT THAT IS
BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE
CONGRESS, MR. MULVANEY AS WE
NOTED HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTLY TIED HIS OLD
ON MILITARY AID TO HIS DESIRE TO
GET AND CONDUCT A POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION.
HE TOLD US TO GET OVER IT.
NOW THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE
SUGGESTED WE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE
OUR EYES.
WHEN MR. MULVANEY -- WHEN I WAS
A KID THEY SAID DON'T BELIEVE
YOUR LYING EYES BECAUSE HE
WALKED OUT BACK LATER.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ACTUALLY
TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS WHO
DIRECTLY SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT.
WHO APPARENTLY CAN TELL US THAT
THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM THAT THE
ONLY REASON WHY THIS AID WAS
HELD UP WAS TO GET DIRT ON THE
DEMOCRATS.
IF WE JUST THINK ABOUT IT, PUT
UKRAINE TO ONE SIDE.
IF A CHIEF EXECUTIVE CALLED THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND SAID I
WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY
POLITICAL OPPONENT, I WANT YOU
TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION,
THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY QUESTION
THAT THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER USE
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
IT IS REALLY NO DIFFERENT WHEN
YOU HAVE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT WAS
INVOLVEMENT OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT AND ARE MATTERS IN
OUR ELECTION.
SO YES THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT
SUCCEED IN THAT PARTICULAR
INSTANCE DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE
SAFE.
THE IDEA, I WAS STUNNED TO HEAR
THAT NOW APPARENTLY IT IS OKAY
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GET
INFORMATION FROM FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND ELECTION.
THAT IS NEWS TO ME.
THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN WAS
PROHIBIT ANYTHING OF VALUE.
A THING OF VALUE IS INFORMATION,
IF YOU OR I ACCEPTED MATERIAL
INFORMATION FROM A SOURCE,
E-MAIL WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT OR
FROM A FOREIGN NATION THAT WOULD
BE ILLEGAL.
THE THOUGHT THAT AS WE GO
FORWARD IN THE TRIAL ITSELF WE
ARE CREATING ADDITIONAL DANGERS
TO THE NATION BY SUGGESTING THAT
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LONG
PROHIBITED ARE NOW SUDDENLY
GOING TO BE OKAY BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BEEN ASSERTED IN THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AND RICH, PAULY AND
MURRAY AND.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BROSSEAU AND THE OTHER SENATORS
FROM COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT,
CAN THE SENATE CONVICT THE U.S.
SITTING PRESIDENT OF OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS FOR EXERCISING THE
PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES OR RIGHTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND
THE SHORT ANSWER IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY NO.
THE SENATE MAY NOT CONVICT THE
PRESIDENT FOR EXERCISING HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
THE THEORY THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED, I THINK
PROFESSOR TESTIFYING BEFORE THE
HOUSE MADE IT VERY CLEAR AS A
SELF AND ABUSE OF POWER BY
CONGRESS AND IS DANGEROUS FOR
THE STRUCTURE OF A GOVERNMENT.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION AT
THE HEART OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE BROUGHT IS THE HOUSE CAN
DEMAND INFORMATION AND IF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH RESIST, EVEN IF
IT PROVIDES LAWFUL RATIONALE,
PERHAPS ONE THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH THAT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING
PRESIDENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF
PRIDE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH
HIM AND IMMEDIATELY IMPEACHING
THE PRESIDENT.
THAT IS DANGEROUS FOR STRUCTURE
OF GOVERNMENT.
WERE TALKING ABOUT PRINCIPLES
HERE, ONE BASED ON SIMPLY THE
FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO PROCEED
LAWFULLY.
WE.
A LOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SIDE
OF THE LAW BUT AS PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ.
IF THE HOUSE HASN'T ISSUED
SUBPOENAS, THE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO
SUBPOENA A SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT
ASSERTS THE IMMUNITY OF HIS
SENIOR ADVISERS A DOCTRINE THAT
HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE PRESIDENT
NIXON AND GOES BACK EARLIER THAN
THAT, THEN THERE IS A
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES THAT DOES NOT SUGGEST
AN IMPEACHABLE AN OFFENSE OF THE
SEPARATION OF POWER IN
OPERATION.
THE FRICTION BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES AS PART OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND JUST
AS LEWIS EXPLAINED, THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
NOT BECAUSE THE MOST EFFICIENT
WAY TO HAVE GOVERNMENT BUT
BECAUSE THE FRICTION THAT IT
CAUSED AN INTERACTION BETWEEN
THE BRANCHES BY ENSURING THAT NO
ONE BRANCH COULD AGGRANDIZE
POWER TO ITSELF.
AND WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE
SUGGESTING IS DIRECTLY
EMPATHETIC CALL TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.
WHAT THEY ARE SUGGESTING IS ONCE
THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO PURSUE
IMPEACHMENT AND MAKE DEMANDS FOR
INFORMATION TO THE EXECUTIVE,
THE EXECUTIVE HAS NO DEFENSES.
THEY CAN HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY OR PREROGATIVE TO
RAISE IN RESPONSE TO THE
SUBPOENA THAT HAS TO TURN OVER
EVERYTHING FOR THE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
WHAT THAT WOULD LEAD TO AS
PROFESSOR TRULY EXPLAINED, IS
TRANSFORMING OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT BY ELEVATING THE
HOUSE AND MAKING A PARLIAMENT
EXISTENCE AS PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ WAS EXPLAINING.
IN THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, THE
PRIME MINISTER CAN BE REMOVED BY
A VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE.
BUT IF YOU MAKE IT SO EASY TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ALL THE
HOUSE HAS TO DO IS DEMAND
INFORMATION, GO TO THE RESPONSE
FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT IS NOT
CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT
ALL PRESIDENTS BEFORE ME HAVE
ASSERTED I WILL STICK WITH THE
PREROGATIVES IN THE HOUSE CAN
SAY YOU'LL BE IMPEACHED AND IF
THE VOTE IS REMOVED THE
PRESIDENT.
YOU MAKE THE PRESIDENT DEPENDENT
ON THE LEGISLATURE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO GET
SPECIFICALLY DURING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HE
WARNED THE FRAMERS WHEN WE MAKE
A MESSAGE MAKING THE PRESENCE OF
A TERM PRINCIPAL AND MAKING SURE
WE SHOULD NOT MAKE IT DEPEND ON
THE LEGISLATURE.
IT WAS A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
MAKING IT EASY TO REMOVE CHIEF
EXECUTIVES THAT THE FRAMERS
WANTED TO REJECT.
IN THIS THEORY OF OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS WOULD CREATE THAT
SYSTEM OF EASY REMOVAL.
EFFECTIVELY A PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM OF NO-CONFIDENCE THAT IS
NOT THE STRUCTURE OF THE
GOVERNMENT THAT THE FRAMERS
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION
FOR US.
THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
WARNER, HEINRICH.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL AND THE OTHER
SENATORS IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
IT READS AS FOLLOWS.
BEFORE THE BREAK THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL STATED ACCEPTING MERE
INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN
SOURCE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
WOULD VIOLATE CAMPAIGN-FINANCE
LAW AND IT IS NOT CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE TO ACCEPT CREDIBLE
INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN
SOURCE ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS
RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
UNDER THIS VIEW ACCEPTANCE OF
THE KIND OF PROPAGANDA
DISSEMINATED BY RUSSIA IN 2016
ON FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS USING BOX, BIG
ACCOUNTS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO
SPREAD THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE
PERFECTLY LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE.
>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ACCEPTING
SUCH A THING OF VALUE IS IN FACT
A VIOLATION OF LAW AND ISN'T IT
TRUE THAT IT'S ONE OF THE
HIGHEST PRIORITIES OF OUR
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INCLUDING
THE CIA, NSA, DNI AND FTI TO DO
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.
>> IT IS SO WITHOUT QUESTION
AMONG THE VERY HIGHEST
PRIORITIES OF THE INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES, LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
OUR ELECTION OF THE TYPE AND
CHARACTER THAT WE SAW IN 2016.
WHEN RUSSIA HACKED THE DATABASE
OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE WHEN HE BEGAN A
CAMPAIGN OF LEAKING THOSE
DOCUMENTS WITH THE MASSIVE AND
SYSTEMIC SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN,
OUR AGENCIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAVE BEEN DEVOTING THEMSELVES TO
PREVENTING A RECURRENCE OF THAT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE
PRESIDENT CORRECTLY, I THINK I
AM, THEY ARE SAYING NOT ONLY IS
THAT OKAY TO ACCEPT THAT BUT THE
VERY ALLEGATION AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT THAT PAUL MUELLER
SPENT TWO YEARS INVESTIGATING
DIDN'T AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY, COULD HE PROVE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE
CRIME OF CONSPIRACY.
WERE TALKING ABOUT SEPARATE FROM
COLLUSION ALTHOUGH MY COLLEAGUES
KEEP CONFUSING THE TWO.
PAUL MUELLER DID NOT ADDRESS
COLLUSION.
BUT WHETHER HE COULD PROVE THE
ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY.
HE FOUND IT DID NOT.
BUT THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT IS SAYING EVEN IF HE
COULD HAVE, THAT IS OKAY.
IT IS NOW OKAY TO CRIMINALLY
CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY TO
GET HELP THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT
BELIEVES IT WILL HELP HIS
CAMPAIGN AND THEREFORE HELP OUR
COUNTRY.
THAT IS NOW OKAY.
IT IS OKAY TO ASK FOR THE HELP,
WORK WITH THAT POWER TO GET THAT
HELP, THAT IS NOT OKAY.
IT'S A REMARKABLE EVOLUTION OF
THE PRESIDENTIAL DEFENSE, IT
BEGAN NONE OF THAT STUFF
HAPPENING HERE AND NONE OF THAT
TO SEE HER AND MIGRATED TO THEY
DID SEEK INVESTIGATION OF THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL AND
THAT IT BECAME, THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT SOUGHT
BY OFFICIAL POLICY, THEY WERE
SOUGHT BY THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER
AND PERSONAL CAPACITY.
AND THEN IT MIGRATED TO, WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHILE THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS
CONDUCTING THIS PERSONAL
POLITICAL AARON THE PRESIDENT
WITHHELD THE MONEY BUT WE THINK
THAT IS OKAY.
WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER THE
COURSE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS IN
THE LONG DAY TODAY A REMARKABLE
LOWERING OF THE BAR TO THE POINT
WHERE EVERYTHING IS OKAY AS LONG
AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT'S
IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST.
YOU CAN CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER
COUNTRY TO GET THEIR HELP IN
YOUR ELECTION EITHER BY
INTERVENING ON YOUR BEHALF TO
HELP YOU OR INTERVENING TO HURT
YOUR OPPONENT IN OUR TOLD US NOT
ONLY OKAY BUT BEYOND THE REACH
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND WHY?
BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE.
BECAUSE IF YOU SAY ABUSE OF
POWER IS IMPEACHABLE THEN YOU'RE
IMPEACHING PEOPLE OF PRESIDENTS
FROM YOUR POLICY.
WILL THAT IS NONSENSE.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
PROFESSOR ARGUED, THEY'RE NOT
THE SAME THING THAT BILL BARR
ARGUE.
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING AS
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUED 21
YEARS AGO.
AND THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING
TODAY.
THEY ARE JUST NOT.
YOU CANNOT SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE FACT THAT
YOUR UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING IT
DOES NOT EXONERATE YOU.
A FAILED SCHEME DOES NOT MAKE
YOU INNOCENT.
IF YOU TAKE A HOSTAGE AND YOU
DEMAND A RANSOM AND THE POLICE
ARE ASKING AND YOU RELEASE THE
HOSTAGE BEFORE YOU GET THE MONEY
IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU INNOCENT.
IT JUST MAKES YOU UNSUCCESSFUL,
AND UNSUCCESSFUL CROOK.
BUT IT DOES NOT MITIGATE THE
HARMFUL CONDUCT.
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT
NOR SHOULD THE AMERICA PEOPLE
EXCEPT THE IDEA PUT OUT BY THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TODAY THAT
IT IS PERFECTLY FINE,
UNIMPEACHABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY
RUSSIA, UKRAINE, CHINA, I WANT
YOUR HELP IN MY ELECTION BECAUSE
THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE
PRESIDENT.
WE ARE CALLING THAT POLICY NOW.
IT'S A POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT
TO DEMAND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
AND WITHHOLD MONEY FROM AN ALLY
AT WORK UNLESS THEY GET IT.
THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL POLICY.
I AM SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I CALL
CORRUPTION.
THEY CAN DRESS IT UP BUT
CORRUPTION IS STILL CORRUPTION.
>>  THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
COLLINS IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ASSERTED
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED CRIMINAL
BRIBERY AS DEFINED IN 18 USC
SECTION 201 AND HONEST SERVICE
FRAUD AS DEFINED IN 18 USC
SECTION 1346.
THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT CITED IN
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
DID THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AS
ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTE
VIOLATIONS OF THESE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS AND IF SO WHY WERE
THEY NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ARTICLES.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR YOUR
QUESTION.
ARTICLE ONE ALLEGES CORRUPT
ABUSE OF POWER.
CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER CONNECTED
TO THE PRESIDENT EFFORT TO TRY
TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION BY
PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN, JOE BIDEN
SOLELY FOR PERSONAL AND
POLITICAL GAIN.
AND TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020
ELECTION.
ANNA SCHEME WAS EXECUTED IN A
VARIETY OF WAYS.
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ INDICATED
BASED ON HIS THEORY OF WHAT IS
IMPEACHABLE THAT IT HAS TO BE A
TECHNICAL CRIMINAL VIOLATION,
THOUGH THE WEIGHT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SET TO
CONTRARY, BUT HE SAID IT SHOULD
BE SOMETHING THAT IS EITHER
CRIMINAL VIOLATION OR ATTEND TO
A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
ATTEND TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
WHAT WE ALLEGED IN ARTICLE ONE
HOLDS HIM TO THAT CATEGORY.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED HERE,
PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED A
THING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR
AN OFFICIAL ACT.
THE THING OF VALUE PHONY,
POLITICAL DIRT IN THE FORM OF
INVESTIGATION SOUGHT AGAINST JOE
BIDEN, HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND HE ASKED FOR IT EXPLICITLY
ON THE JULY 25 CALL AND THROUGH
HIS INTERMEDIARY REPEATEDLY IN
THE SPRING THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER
INTO THE FALL.
SOLICITED A THING OF VALUE IN
EXCHANGE FOR TWO OFFICIAL ACTS.
ONE OFFICIAL ACT WAS THE RELEASE
OF $391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID
PASSED BY THE SENATE AND THE
HOUSE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
IN THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, WITNESSES
WHO SAID THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC POLICY REASON, NO
SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO
LEGITIMATE FOREIGN POLICY OR
NATIONAL SECURITY REASON FOR
WITHHOLDING THE AID.
IT WAS WITHHELD TO SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
YES THAT IS ATTEND TO A CRIME.
THAT IS YOUR STANDARD.
>> THE PRESIDENT ALSO SOLICITED
THAT POLITICAL DIRT IN EXCHANGE
FOR A SECOND OFFICIAL ACT, THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE
UKRAINIAN LEADER DESPERATELY
WANTED SO MUCH SO THAT HE
MENTIONED IT ON THE JULY 25 CALL
AND EVEN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT
THE SIDELINES OF THE UN IN LATE
SEPTEMBER THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE BROUGHT UP THE OVAL
OFFICE MEETING IN JANUARY
BECAUSE IT WAS VALUABLE TO HIM.
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT.
WITHHELD THE OFFICIAL ACT.
THE SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
IN A 2020 ELECTION.
THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN
AMERICA.
THAT UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY.
THAT IS A STUNNING CORRUPT ABUSE
OF POWER AND YES, SIR, IT'S A
CAN TO A CRIME.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF SENATORS KHAZEI, ROSEN AND
MYSELF TO THE HOUSE MANAGER.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR FROM NEW
YORK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS
JULIE BRENNAN, CASEY, MURPHY AND
ROSEN IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
HOW DID THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
DIFFER FROM OTHER HOLDS ON
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND HOW IS
THE HOLD IN RELEASE OF
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED
ASSISTANT TO FORM COUNTRY
SUPPOSED TO WORK.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.
TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID IS NOT THE SAME AS
A ROUTINE WITHHOLDING OR
REVIEWING A FOREIGN AID TO
ASSURE IT ALIGNS WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S POLICY PRIORITIES OR
TO ADJUST THE GEOPOLITICAL
DEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE INDEED IF THAT WERE THE
CASE, IF THE PRESIDENT HAD
ENGAGED A PROCESS, HAD GONE
THROUGH THE INTERAGENCY REVIEW
PROCESS, HAD GONE THROUGH THE
ROUTINE CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS,
WE WOULD HAVE THE DOCUMENTS, WE
WOULD HAVE THE TESTIMONY, WE
WOULD HAVE THE FACTS TO BACK
THAT UP.
BUT INDEED WHAT WE HAVE ARE NONE
OF THOSE FACTS.
NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS IN A
TWO-MONTH PERIOD WHERE NONE OF
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD
NORMALLY BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROCESS WERE AWARE OF THE REASON
FOR THE WHOLE.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT PRIOR HOLES IN
THE CASES OF OBAMA'S, PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S TEMPORARY HOLD.
CONGRESS WAS NOTIFIED FOR THE
REASONS FOR THE HOLDS.
IT WAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WHETHER
CORRUPTION, NATIONAL SECURITY IN
THE PORT OF OUR ALLIANCES.
NEVER THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
PERSONAL INTEREST.
BUT LET'S LOOK AT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S OTHER HOLDS.
IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE OF
CONCERN OF TARIFFS OR IN CENTRAL
AMERICA BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION
CONCERNS.
THOSE REASONS FOR OFFICIAL
POLICY WERE NOT CONCEALED, THEY
WERE PUBLIC, WIDELY PUBLICIZED
AND HAD ENGAGED NOT ONLY
CONGRESS BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED HERE.
ALL OF THIS GOES TO SHOW THE
EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO
LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON.
WHY VIOLATE THE CONTROL ACT.
WHY KEEP ALL OF THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN THE HOLES IN THE
DARK.
THE PRESIDENTS AGENCY AND
ADVISORS CONFIRMED REPEATEDLY
THAT THE AID WAS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY'S
NATIONAL SECURITY INCLUDING
SECRETARY ESPER.
SECRETARY POMPEO.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.
AMBASSADOR HOLDEN OVER AND OVER
AGAIN.
EVERYBODY WAS EMPLOYING THE
PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE HOLD TO
NO AVAIL.
THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS EVEN THE
PROCESS WAS UNUSUAL AS I TALKED
ABOUT EARLIER AND YOU HEARD OVER
THE LAST WEEK A CAREER ROLE AND
BE OFFICIAL EXPLAINED THAT
MR. DUFFY, THE PRESIDENT
HAND-PICKED POLITICAL APPOINTEE
WHO REFUSED TO TESTIFY THE
PRESIDENT STRUCTURING TOOK OVER
RESPONSIBILITY TO AUTHORIZE THE
AID.
MR. SANDY CONFIRMED IN HIS
ENTIRE CAREER AT OMB HE HAD
NEVER SEEN OR EXPERIENCED CAREER
OFFICIALS HAVING THE
APPORTIONMENT AUTHORITY REMOVED
BY A POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
SENATORS, THIS IS WHAT WERE
TALKING ABOUT.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION.
YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ME IN A
WHILE AND I SUSPECT THERE'S A
REASON FOR THAT.
I SUSPECT THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG
ISSUE.
WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
HAPPEN HERE.
THE PRESIDENT USES AUTHORITY,
PUT THE INTEREST OF HIMSELF,
OVER THE FREE ENTRY ELECTION,
THAT IS WHAT WERE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED,
THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS
A LEGITIMATE ENGAGEMENT OF U.S.
POLICY PROCESSES TO FORWARD
LEGITIMATE ENDS.
>>  THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR
MCCASKILL, MIKE SALLY RATHER,
LANGFORD.
[LAUGHTER]
THAT WAS A TERRIFYING MOMENT ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF, MIKE SALLY,
GARDNER, TEMPO AND WICKER, THIS
IS A QUESTION FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU THE QUESTION IS FOR
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT DOES A SUPER MAJORITY
THRESHOLD FOR CONVICTION IN THE
SENATE CRATED BY THE FRAMERS SAY
ABOUT THE TYPE OF CASE THAT
SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE
AND THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE
SENATE.
>> THERE WERE SEVERAL DEBATES
AMONG THE FRAMERS OF COURSE
SHOULD YOU HAVE IMPEACHMENT NO,
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND WHAT
THE CRITERIA SHOULD BE.
THERE WAS ANOTHER DEBATE, WHO
SHOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
REMOVED.
JAMES MATTIS SUGGESTED THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AS A COMPLETELY
NONPARTISAN INSTITUTION.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT THE ISSUE AS WELL BUT HE
SAID THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULD NOT
BECOME INVOLVED DIRECTLY AS A
BRANCH OKAY TO PRESIDE OVER THE
TRIAL BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IN
IMPEACH PRESIDENT CAN BE PUT ON
TRIAL FOR CRIMES IF YOU
COMMITTED CRIMES.
IN HAMILTON SAID IF YOU WERE TO
BE PUT ON TRIAL HE WOULD THEN BE
PUT ON TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE
SAME INSTITUTION, THE JUDICIARY
THAT HAD ALREADY IMPEACHED HIM
AND THEY MAY HAVE A
PREDISPOSITION.
IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE IT
WAS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE
SENATE WHICH IS A VERY DIFFERENT
INSTITUTION BACK AT THE FOUNDING
OBVIOUSLY SENATORS WERE NOT
DIRECTLY ELECTED THEY WERE
APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATION AND
SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS AN
INSTITUTION THAT CHECKS ON THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MORE
MATURE, MORE SOBER FOR LONGER
PERIODS OF TIME WITH AN EYE TO
THE FUTURE NOT SO CONCERNED
ABOUT PLEASING THE POPULAR
MASSES.
THE FRAMERS WERE REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
NOBODY CALLED THE UNITED STATES
OF DEMOCRACY A REPUBLICAN BUT
NOT A DEMOCRACY.
AND NOW IT CAME TIME TO ASSIGN
IT TO THE SENATE THERE WAS
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE
CRITERIA AND OBVIOUSLY THE VOTE
SHOULD BE IN THE SELECTION OF A
23rd MAJORITY WAS DESIGNED,
PLAINLY DESIGNED TO AVOID A
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
PLAINLY DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE
THE VERY WISE PHILOSOPHY BY THE
CONGRESSMAN AND THE SENATOR
DURING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
DURING THE IMPEACHMENT.
NEVER EVER HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT
OR REMOVAL THAT IS PERSON.
ALWAYS DEMAND THAT THEY BEHAVE.
WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS, A
WIDESPREAD NATIONAL AGREEMENT
AND BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
WHAT BETTER WAY OF ASSURING
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAN
REQUIRING A TWO THIRDS VOTE.
BECAUSE ALMOST IN EVERY INSTANCE
IN ORDER TO GET A TWO THIRDS
VOTE YOU NEED MEMBERS OF BOTH
PARTIES.
IN THE JOHNSON CASE WAS A
PERFECT EXAMPLE.
IN ORDER TO GET THE VOTE YOU
NEEDED NOT ONLY THE PARTY THAT
WAS BEHIND THE IMPEACHMENT BUT
YOU NEEDED PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER
SIDE AS WELL AND WHEN SEVEN
REPUBLICANS DISSENTED I BELIEVE
LARGELY ON THE ARGUMENT OF
JUSTICE CURTIS AND OTHERS IN
ARGUMENTS I PARAPHRASE THE OTHER
DAY IT LOST BY MERELY ONE VOTE.
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IF I
REMEMBER CORRECTLY ACHIEVED A
5050 SPLIT.
AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
I THINK I'M RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN 51 - 49.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 59.
I THINK EXPLAINED ONLY TWO
THIRDS REQUIREMENT CHECK ON THE
HOUSE BUT I THINK IT SENDS A
MESSAGE TO EVERY SENATOR, IT
SENDS A MESSAGE EVEN TO THE ONES
IN THE ONE THIRD TO RECONSIDER.
IF YOU'RE VOTING FOR A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT YOU ARE VIOLATING
THE SPIRIT OF THE TWO THIRDS
REQUIREMENT.
THERE ARE ANY INSTITUTIONS AT
THE END OF THE DAY POLITICAL
CONVENTIONS SEEKING UNANIMOUS
VOTE TO SHOW UNITY.
I WOULD URGE SOME SENATORS WHO
FAVOR IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK AT THE
TWO THIRDS AND SAY IF THERE IS
NOT GOING TO BE A TWO THIRDS,
THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN
IMPEACHMENT AND THEREFORE WE
WILL VOTE AGAINST IT EVEN THOUGH
WE MIGHT THINK THAT THE CRITERIA
FOR IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN
SATISFIED.
DO NOT VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
DO NOT VOTE FOR REMOVAL UNLESS
YOU THINK THAT THE CRITERIA
ARTICULATED BY THE SENATOR IN
THE CONGRESSMAN AND I BELIEVE BY
THE CONSTITUTION AND HAMILTON
ARE MET.
MAINLY BIPARTISAN, ALMOST
UNIVERSAL CONCERN FOR THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, THAT CRITERIA
IS NOT MET IN THE TWO THIRDS
REQUIREMENT REALLY ILLUSTRATES
THE IMPORTANCE OF FRAMERS GAVE
TO THE CRITERIA.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHILE THE
QUESTION IS COMING UP I
UNDERSTAND THERE'S TWO MORE
DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONS INTO MORE
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
MURPHY IS TO THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL.
>> THE HOUSE MEMBERS HAVE
COMMITTED TO ABIDE BY RULINGS BY
THE CHIEF JUSTICE REGARDING
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THEY MISS
A BULLY OF EVIDENCE AND THEY
WILL NOT APPEAL SUCH RULINGS.
WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
MAKE THE SAME COMMITMENT
OBVIATING ANY CONCERN ABOUT AN
EXTENDED TRIAL?
>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WE HAVE
HAD THIS QUESTION AND WE SAY
VERY CLEARLY.
WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DO
THAT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH AN
IMPEACHMENT IS BASED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AS
STAKE WITH NO DISRESPECT TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT IS NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.
IT'S A SAME THING THE DREAM
AGAIN.
SURRENDER CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES THAT YOU HAVE AND
THEN WE WILL PROCEED IN THIS
WAY.
GIVE US DOCUMENTS, GIVE US
WITNESSES AND IF YOU DON'T WE
WILL CHARGE YOU WITH OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS.
IN THIS CASE WE ARE WILLING TO
LIVE ACCORDING TO THE MANAGERS
BY WHATEVER THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DECIDES THAT THAT IS NOT WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IS
SET UP.
IT'S PUTTING US IN THE EXACT
SAME SPOT AGAIN.
GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE
A SUBPOENA IN COURT.
RELY ONLY -- WHO'S HERE WITH NO
DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS HERE AS A
PRESIDING OFFICER.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT WILLING TO
FORGO THOSE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES THAT HE POSSESSES
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, UNDER
ARTICLE TWO, FOR EXPEDIENCY.
THEY TRIED THAT IN THE HOUSE.
WE TRUST THAT WILL NOT BE THE
DECISION HERE IN THE SENATE.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR MR. DERSHOWITZ ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF AND MICK SALLY AND MORAN.
>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL TO
THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED TO
SENATOR DERSHOWITZ.
YOU STATED DURING YOUR
PRESENTATION THE HOUSE GROUNDS
FOR IMPEACHMENT AMOUNT TO THE
MOST DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
WHAT SPECIFIC DANGER DOES THIS
IMPEACHMENT POSE TO OUR REPUBLIC
TO ITS CITIZENS?
>> THANK YOU SENATORS, I CAME OF
AGE OF THE PERIOD OF
MCCARTHYISM.
I THEN BECAME A YOUNG PROFESSOR
DURING THE TIME OF THE VIETNAM
WAR.
AS ALL OF YOU LIVE THROUGH THE
DIVISION DURING THE IRAQ WAR.
IN 9/11 AND FOLLOWING 9/11.
I HAVE NEVER LIVED AT A MORE
DIVISIVE TIME IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA THEN TODAY,
FAMILIES HAVE BROKEN UP, FRIENDS
DON'T SPEAK TO EACH OTHER.
THE DIALOGUE HAS DISAPPEARED ON
UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.
WE LIVE IN EXTRAORDINARILY
DANGEROUS TIMES.
I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE
IMPEACHMENT DECISION BY THE
HOUSE HAS BROUGHT THAT ON US,
PERHAPS IS NEARLY A SYMPTOM OF A
TERRIFIC PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
FACING US AND LIKELY TO FACE US
IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF
THIS MATURE SENATE WHOSE JOB IT
IS TO LOOK FORWARD, WHOSE JOB IT
IS TO ENSURE FUTURE, TO MAKE
SURE THE DIVISION DOES NOT GROW
EVEN GREATER.
OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO BE REMOVED TODAY TO
OPPOSE EXPONENTIAL DANGER TO OUR
ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER AS A
PEOPLE.
THE DECISION WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED BY MANY AMERICANS,
NIXON'S DECISION WAS EASILY
ACCEPTED.
I THINK THAT DECISION THAT
WOULD'VE BEEN MADE AND OTHER
CASES WOULD'VE BEEN ACCEPTED.
THIS ONE WILL NOT BE EASILY
ACCEPTED.
IT IS SUCH A DIVIDED COUNTRY.
SUCH A DIVIDED TIME AND IF THE
PRESIDENT IS ASKED OUT BUSHED
THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE REMOVED
ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A VAGUE AND
RECURRING OPEN-ENDED AND
TARGETED TERMS AS ABUSE OF 
POWER, 40 PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN
ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER.
I BET ALL OF THEM HAVE WE JUST
DON'T KNOW SOME OF THE CHARGES
AGAINST SOME OF THEM.
BUT WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON SO
MANY.
IF THAT CRITERIA WOULD'VE BEEN
USED THIS WILL JUST BE THE
BEGINNING OF A REOCCURRING
AUTHORIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN EVERYONE HOUSE IS
CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY AND THE
PRESIDENCY IS CONTROLLED BY
ANOTHER PARTY.
THE HOUSE MANAGER SAY THERE WAS
DANGERS OF NOT IMPEACHING.
BUT THOSE DANGERS CAN BE
ELIMINATED IN EIGHT MONTHS.
IF YOU REALLY FEEL THERE IS A
STRONG CASE THEN CAMPAIGN
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
BUT THE DANGER OF IMPEACHMENT
WILL LAST MY LIFETIME IN YOUR
LIFETIME IN THE LIFETIME OF HER
CHILDREN.
I URGE YOU RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE
THE GUARDIANS OF OUR FUTURE,
FOLLOW THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
DO NOT ALLOW IMPEACHMENT TO
BECOME A NORMALIZED WEAPON IN
THE WORDS OF THE FRAMERS.
MAKE SURE IT'S RESERVED ONLY FOR
THE EXTRAORDINARY CASES LIKE
THAT OF RICHARD NIXON, THIS CASE
DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
CINEMA TO THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL IS AS.
THE ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED
CONGRESS OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN
TRIANGLE COUNTRY FUND IN 
MARCH 2019 ANNOUNCED THE
DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID TO
AFGHANISTAN IN SEPTEMBER 2019
AND WORK WITH CONGRESS FOR
MONTHS IN 2018 REGARDING FUNDS
BEING WITHHELD DUE TO PAKISTAN
LACK OF PROGRESS MEETING
COUNTERTERRORISM RESPONSIBLE
DAY.
IN THESE INSTANCES THE RECEIVING
COUNTRIES NEW THE FUNDS WERE
BEING WITHHELD TO CHANGE
BEHAVIOR AND FURTHER PUBLICLY
STATED AMERICAN POLICY.
WHY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HELD
THE UKRAINIAN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE DIDN'T NOT NOTIFY
CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE OUR
PARTNER COUNTRIES PUBLICLY AWARE
OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS NEEDED
TO RESOLVE THE HOLD.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK IN ALL OF THOSE
INSTANCES LISTED IN THE
QUESTION, IT WAS CLEAR THAT
WITHHOLDING THE AID WAS MEANT TO
SEND A SIGNAL.
IT WAS DONE PUBLICLY AND MEANT
TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE COUNTRY.
I THINK IN THE TESTIMONY BEFORE
THE HOUSE HERE IN BASSETT OR
VOLKER MADE CLEAR THAT HE AND
OTHERS HOPE THAT THE HOLD WILL
NOT BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY
DID NOT WANT THERE TO BE ANY
SIGNAL TO THE UKRAINIANS OR TO
OTHERS.
PEOPLE TALK TO YOUR ABOUT HOW
EVEN IF THE AID AND IT WAS
WITHHELD IT DID NOT LEAD TO
ANYTHING NOT BEING PURCHASED
OVER THE SUMMER.
IT WAS STILL DANGEROUS BECAUSE
IT WOULD SEND A SIGNAL TO THE
RUSSIANS.
THE WHOLE POINT WAS NONPUBLIC. S
NOT DONE TO BE A SIGNAL.
IT WAS TO ADDRESS CONCERN THE
PRESIDENT HAD RAISED CONCERN AND
WANTED TIME TO HAVE THOSE
CONCERNS ADDRESSED.
HE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER
BURDEN SHARING, THE ISSUE
REFLECTED IN THE JUNE 24 E-MAIL
I REFERRED TO EARLIER THAT'S
REFERRED TO IN THE JULY 25 CALL
TRANSCRIPT AND HE WANTED TO
UNDERSTAND CORRUPTION ISSUES.
HE RACE CORRUPTION ISSUES.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER
THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. MORRIS
EXPLAINED THERE WERE
DEVELOPMENTS ON CORRUPTION.
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BEEN
ELECTED IN APRIL AND AT THAT
TIME MULTIPLE WITNESSES
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS UNCLEAR,
HE RAN ON A UNFORMED AGENDA BUT
IT WAS UNCLEAR WHAT HE'D BE ABLE
TO GET ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE IT
WAS UNFAIR WHETHER HE'D SECURE A
MAJORITY IN THE UKRAINIAN
PARLIAMENT.
THOSE ELECTIONS DID NOT OCCUR
UNTIL JULY.
THAT WAS A JULY 25 CALL THAT
OCCURRED IN THE MAJORITY IN
PARLIAMENT AND THEN THE
PARLIAMENT STILL WAS NOT GOING
TO BE SEATED UNTIL LATER IN
AUGUST.
MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT WHEN
HE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON AT THE
END OF AUGUST I THINK AROUND
AUGUST 27 THAT THE PARLIAMENT
HAD JUST BEEN SEATED IN ZELENSKY
IN HIS MINISTERS HAD BEEN TIRED
BECAUSE THEY WERE UP ALL NIGHT
THEY KEPT THE PARLIAMENT LAY IN
SESSION TO PASS THE REFORM
LEGISLATION INCLUDING THINGS
LIKE ELIMINATING IMMUNITY FOR
MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT FROM
CORRUPTION PROSECUTION IN THE
LEGISLATION SET UP THE INTAKE
CORRUPTION.
THESE DEVELOPMENTS WERE POSITIVE
DEVELOPMENTS BUT THEN
MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WHEN HE SPOKE TO VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW THEY
DISCUSSED THESE AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WENT TO THE THINGS HE
WAS DOING AND THAT INFORMATION
WAS RELAYED BACK TO THE
PRESIDENT.
SO THE HOLD HAD BEEN IN PLACE SO
THE PRESIDENT COULD WITHIN THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT, PRIVATELY
CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION NOT TO
SEND A SIGNAL TO THE OUTSIDE
WORLD.
SO THE IDEA THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED SOMEHOW
THIS IS TERRIBLE AND THE WHOLE
POINT IN BASSETT OR VOLKER
EXPLAIN THAT THERE WAS CONCERN
DID NOT BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE IT
WOULD THEN NOT SEND A SIGNAL AND
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL THE
POLITICO ARTICLE CAME OUT AUGUS8
