.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS) 
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH
MCCONNELL IN HIS CHAIR THE 
LEADERS TAKE POSITION GETTING 
READY FOR THE PROCEEDINGS TO 
BEGIN ANY MINUTE NOW .
LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON 
C-SPAN2.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] 
>>.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS] WE 
CAN SEE A LOT OF SENATORS 
HAVE MADE THEIR WAY INTO THE 
CHAMBER.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS NOT 
ARRIVED INSIDE THE CHAMBER 
YET AND WHEN HE DOES, THAT IS 
WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WILL 
BEGIN.
IT'S DAY EIGHTOF THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND THIRD 
DAY FOR THE PRESIDENTS WHITE 
HOUSE LAWYERS TO WRAPUP THEIR 
REMARKS.
THEY WILL GO FROM 2 TO 3 
HOURS.
IF YOU'VE MISSED ANY OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS, GO TO OUR 
WEBSITE C-SPAN.ORG AND FIND 
THERE, ALSO CAPITOL HILL 
REPORTER CRAIG KAPLAN INSIDE 
THE HILL DURING THOSE 
PROCEEDINGS AND YOU CAN 
FOLLOW HIM ON TWITTER AT 
CRAIG KAPLAN .
>> THE SENATE WILL CONVENE AS 
ACCORDED IMPEACHMENT.
THE CHAPLAIN WILL LEAD US IN 
PRAYER.
>> LET US PRAY.
OH GOD, YOU ARE OUR ROCK OF 
SAFETY.
PROTECT US IN AN UNSAFE WORLD
.
GUARD US FROM THOSE WHO SMILE
, BUT PLAN EVIL IN THEIR 
HEARTS.
USE OUR SENATORS.
BRING PEACE AND UNITY TO OUR 
WORLD.
MAY THEY PERMIT GODLINESS TO 
MAKE THEM BOLD AS LYONS.
GIVE THEM A CLEARER VISION OF 
YOUR DESIRES FOR OUR NATION.
REMIND THEM THAT THEY BORROW 
THEIR HEARTBEATS FROM YOU 
EACH DAY.
PROVIDE THEM WITH SUCH 
HUMILITY, HOPE AND COURAGE 
THAT THEY WILL DO YOUR WILL.
LORD, GRANT THAT THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL MAKE 
OUR NATION STRONGER, WISER 
AND BETTER.
WE PRAY IN YOUR STRONG NAME, 
AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 
THE FLAG .
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ] 
>> PLEASE BE SEATED.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE 
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS FOR 
THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO 
DATE, WITHOUTOBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL 
MAKE THE PROCLAMATION .
>> HERE HE, HERE YOU.
ALLPERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO 
KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF 
IMPRISONMENT .
WHILE THE SENATE OF THE 
UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR 
THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> WE EXPECT SEVERAL HOURS OF 
SESSION TODAY WITH PROBABLY 
ONE QUICK BREAK IN THE 
MIDDLE.
>> THANK YOU.
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 
THE SENATE RESOLUTION 483, 
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
HAVE 15 HOURS AND 33 MINUTES 
REMAINING TO MAKE THE 
PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE 
THOUGH IT WILL NOT BE 
POSSIBLE TO USE THE REMAINDER
OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE ENDOF 
THE DAY .
THE SENATE WILL NOW HERE YOU 
.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A VERY QUICK 
BRIEF OVERVIEW OFTODAY, WE DO 
NOT INTEND TO USE MUCH OF 
THAT TIME TODAY, MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
OUR GOAL IS TO BE FINISHED BY 
DINNERTIME AND WELL BEFORE.
WE WILL HAVE THREE 
PRESENTATIONS .
FIRST WILL BE DEPUTY WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL AND THEN J 
SEKULOW WILL BE A 
PRESENTATION AND I WILLFINISH 
WITH A PRESENTATION SO THAT 
OUR GOAL FOR THE DAY AND WITH 
THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO 
PAT TILDEN .
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, 
MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL,
MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER , IF 
I CAN START TODAY BY MAKING A 
COUPLE OBSERVATIONS RELATED 
TO THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE 
IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND I WOULDN'T 
PRESUME TO ELABORATE ON 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
PRESENTATION FROM YESTERDAY 
EVENING WHICH I THOUGHT WAS 
COMPLETE AND COMPELLING BUT I 
WANTED TO JUST ADD A COUPLE 
OF VERY SPECIFIC POINTS IN 
SUPPORT OF THE EXPOSITION OF 
THE CONSTITUTION AND 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE THAT HE 
SET OUT.
AND IT BEGINS FROM A FOCUS ON 
THE POINT IN THE DEBATE ABOUT 
THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
WHERE MALADMINISTRATION WAS 
OFFERED BY GEORGE MASON AS A 
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IN JAMES MADISON, RESPONDED 
THAT WAS A BAD IDEA.
HE SAID SO VAGUE A TERM WILL 
BE EQUIVALENT TO A TENURE 
DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE 
SENATE.
AND THAT EVENTS A DEEP-SEATED 
CONCERN THAT MADISON HAD AND 
IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE DESIGN 
OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
FOUR WAYS THAT CAN LEAD TO 
EXERCISES OF ARBITRARY POWER.
THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED 
TO PUT LIMITS AND CHECKS ON 
ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT POWER
.
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE GREAT 
MECHANISMS FOR THAT IS THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS, THE 
STRUCTURAL SEPARATION OF 
POWERS IN OUR CONSTITUTION 
BUT IT ALSO COMES FROM 
DEFINING AND LIMITING POWERS 
AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND A 
CONCERN THAT VAGUE TERMS, 
VAGUE STANDARDS ARE 
THEMSELVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 
THE EXPANSION OF POWER AND 
THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY 
POWER AND WE SEE THAT 
THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION 
AND IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE 
AS WELL AND THIS IS WHY 
GOVERNOR MORRIS ARGUED IN 
DISCUSSINGTHE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE THAT ONLY FEW OFFENSES 
, FEW OFFENSES OUGHT TO BE 
IMPEACHABLE AND THE CASES 
OUGHT TO BEENUMERATED AND 
DEFINED.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE SEEN THE 
DEBATES OF THE CONSTITUTION , 
THERE WERE MANY TERMS 
INCLUDED IN EARLIER DRAFTS 
WHEN IT WAS NARROWED DOWN TO 
TREASON AND BRIBERY, AND 
THERE WAS A SUGGESTION TO 
INCLUDE MALADMINISTRATION 
WHICH HAD BEEN A GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT INENGLISH 
PRACTICE, THE FRAMERS 
REJECTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS 
TOO VAGUE .
IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE.
IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ARBITRARY 
EXERCISES OF POWER AND WE SEE 
THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION 
IN TERMS THAT RELATE AND FIT 
IN WITH THE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE THE SAME CONCERN.
ONE IS IN THE DEFINITION OF 
TREASON.
THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED OF 
THE ENGLISH PRACTICE OF 
HAVING A VAGUE CONCEPT OF 
TREASON WAS MALLEABLE AND 
COULD BE CHANGED EVEN AFTER 
THE FACT TO DEFINE NEW 
CONCEPTS OF TREASON WAS 
DANGEROUS.
IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THEY 
WANTED TO REJECT FROM THE 
ENGLISH SYSTEM SO THEY
DESIGNED IN THE CONSTITUTION 
VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT 
CONSTITUTED TREASON AND HOW 
IT HAD TO BE PROVED AND IN 
THE TERM WAS INCORPORATED 
INTO THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE .
SIMILARLY IN THE REJECTION 
OF MALADMINISTRATION WHICH 
HAD BEEN AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE IN ENGLAND , THE 
FRAMERS REJECTED THAT BECAUSE 
IT WAS VAGUE.
A VAGUE STANDARD, SOMETHING 
THAT'S TOO CHANGEABLE THAT 
CAN BE REDEFINED, CAN BE 
MALLEABLE AFTER THE FACT 
ALLOWS FOR THE ARBITRARY 
EXERCISE OF POWER AND THAT 
WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO GIVE 
THAT POWER TO THE LEGISLATURE 
AS A POWER TO IMPEACH THE 
EXECUTIVE AREA AND SIMILARLY 
AND IT RELATES AGAIN TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, ONE OF 
THE GREATEST DANGERS FROM 
HAVING CHANGEABLE STANDARDS 
THAT EXISTED IN THE ENGLISH 
SYSTEM WAS THOSE OF DANGER, 
THE PARLIAMENT COULD HAVE A 
SPECIFIC LAW SAYING A 
SPECIFIC PERSON HAD DONE 
SOMETHING UNLAWFUL, THEY WERE 
BEING TAINTED EVEN THOUGH IT 
WASN'TUNLAWFUL BEFORE THAT .
AND THE FRAMERS REJECTED THE
ENTIRE CONCEPT .
IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 THEY 
ELIMINATED BOTH PATH POST 
FACTOR LAWS OF CRIMINAL 
PENALTIES AT THE FEDERAL 
LEVEL AND INCLUDED A 
PROVISION TO PROHIBIT STATES 
FROM USING BILLS OF 
ATTAINMENT AND IN THE ENGLISH 
SYSTEM THERE WAS A 
RELATIONSHIP TO SOME EXTENT 
BETWEEN THEM IMPEACHMENT AND 
BILLS OF TIGER BECAUSE BOTH 
WERE BILLS OF THE PARLIAMENT.
YOU COULD IMPEACH THEM FOR AN 
ESTABLISHED OFFENSE AND IT 
WAS BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF 
IMPEACHMENT WAS BEING 
NARROWED THAT GEORGE MASON AT 
THE DEBATE SUGGESTED AND 
POINTED OUT IN THE ENGLISH 
SYSTEM SAYING THERE'S A BILL 
OF ATTAINMENT BEING A GREAT 
TOOL FOR THE GOVERNMENT BUT 
WE'RE ELIMINATING THAT AND 
NOW WE'RE GETTING A NARROW 
DEFINITION OF IMPEACHMENT, WE 
OUGHT TO S EXPANDED TO 
INCLUDE MALADMINISTRATION.
AND MADISON SAID NO, AND THE 
FRAMERS AGREED WE HAVE TO 
HAVE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED 
OFFENSES, NOT A VAGUE 
CONCEPT, NOT SOMETHING THAT 
CAN BE INTERPRETED AFTER THE 
FACT AND USED ESSENTIALLY TO 
MAKE POLICY DIFFERENCES OR 
OTHER DIFFERENCES BY FACT THE 
SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT.
ALL THE STEPS THAT THE 
FRAMERS TOOK IN THE WAY THEY 
APPROACHED THE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE WERE IN TERMS OF 
NARROWING, RESTRICTING, 
ENUMERATING OFFENSES AND NOT 
A VAGUE AND MALLEABLE 
APPROACH AS IT HAD BEEN IN 
THE ENGLISH SYSTEM AND I 
THINK THE MINORITY VIEWS OF 
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT 
THE TIME OF THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SUMMED 
THIS UP AND REFLECTED IT WELL 
BECAUSE THEY EXPLAINED, I'M 
QUOTING FROM THE MINORITY 
VIEWS IN THE REPORT, THE 
WHOLE TENOR OF THE FRAMERS 
DISCUSSION, THE WHOLE PURPOSE 
OF THEIR MANY CAREFUL 
DEPARTURES FROM ENGLISH 
IMPEACHMENT PRACTICE WAS IN 
THE DIRECTION OF LIMITS AND
STANDARDS .
AND IMPEACHMENT POWER 
EXERCISE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE 
STANDARDS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT 
TO THE USE OF BILLS OF DANGER 
AND EX POST FACTO LAWS WHICH 
ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE 
CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONTRARY 
TO THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OF 
JUSTICE.
AND WHAT WE SEE IN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CHARGES AND THEIR 
DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF POWER 
IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE 
FRAMERS APPROACH BECAUSE THEY 
ARE VERY THEY'RE VERY PREMISE 
OF THEIR ABUSE OF POWER 
CHARGE IS THAT BASED ON 
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, NOT FREE 
PREDEFINED OFFENSES BUT THE 
PRESIDENT CAN DO SOMETHING AS 
PERFECTLY LAWFUL, PERFECTLY 
WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY BUT IF 
THE REAL REASON AS MISTER 
DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT IN THE 
LANGUAGE FROM THE REPORTS, 
THE REASON IN THE PRESIDENTS 
MIND IS SOMETHING THAT THEY 
FERRET OUT AND DECIDE IS 
WRONG, BECOMES IMPEACHABLE 
NOT STANDARD AT ALL.
IT ENDS UP BEING INFINITELY 
MALLEABLE.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I 
THINK, A TELLING FACTOR THAT 
REFLECTS HOW MALLEABLE IT IS 
AND HOW DANGEROUS IT IS IS IN 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE'S REPORT .
BECAUSE AFTER THEY DEFINE 
THEIR CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF 
POWER AND THEY SAY IT 
INVOLVES EXERCISING 
GOVERNMENT POWER FOR PERSONAL 
INTERESTS AND NOT THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND IT 
DEPENDS ON YOUR SUBJECTIVE
MOTIVES , THEY REALIZE THAT 
INFINITELY MALLEABLE.
NOT REALLY A CLEAR STANDARD 
THERE AND IT'S VIOLATING A 
FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF THE 
AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE 
THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE 
OF WHAT IS WRONG.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE OF AN 
OFFENSE.THIS IS SOMETHING 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ POINTED 
OUT LAST NIGHT, THERE HAS TO 
BE ADEFINED OFFENSE IN 
ADVANCE AND THE WAY THEY 
TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO 
SAY IN ADDITION TO OUR 
DEFINITION , HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS INVOLVE CONDUCT 
THAT IS RECOGNIZABLY WRONG TO 
AREASONABLE PERSON .
AND THAT'S THEIR KIND OF 
ADD-ON TO DEAL WITH THE FACT 
THAT THEY HAVEN'T 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE 
STANDARD.
THEY DON'T HAVE A STANDARD 
THAT DEFINES A SPECIFIC 
OFFENSE, THEY DON'T HAVE A 
STANDARD THAT DEFINES 
INCOHERENCE TERMS THAT ARE 
GOING TO BE IDENTIFIABLE WHAT 
THE OFFENSES ARE.
SO THEY JUST ADD ON AND IT'S 
GOT TO BE RECOGNIZABLY WRONG 
THEY SAY THEY'RE DOING THIS 
TO RESOLVE ATTENTION, THEY 
CALL IT WITHIN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
WHICH AS THEY POINT OUT AND 
THIS IS QUOTING FROM THE 
REPORT, THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDING ITS 
PROHIBITION ON BILLS OF 
ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO 
CLAUSE IMPLIES IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES SHOULD NOT COME AS A
SURPRISE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT AND 
EVERYTHING ABOUT THE TERMS OF 
THE CONSTITUTION , SPEAKING 
OF ANOFFENSE AND THE 
CONVICTION , THAT ALL CRIMES 
SHOULD BE TRIED BY JURY, THEY 
ALL TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT IN 
THOSECRIMINAL OFFENSE TERMS .
BUT ATTENTION HERE IS IT 
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION, 
BETWEEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DEFINITION WHICH LACKS ANY 
COHERENT DEFINITION OF AN 
OFFENSE THAT WOULD CATCH 
PEOPLE BY SURPRISE AND THE 
CONSTITUTION, THAT THE 
TENSION THEY'RE TRYING TO 
RESOLVE IS BETWEEN THEIR 
MALLEABLE STANDARDS THAT FACE 
NO CLEAR OFFENSE AND THE 
CONSTITUTION AND THE 
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND
BODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION 
THAT REQUIRE SOME CLEAR 
OFFENSE.
NO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT 
.
IN RELATION TO THE STANDARDS 
FOR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PUZZLE 
THAT FIT IN WITH THE 
EXPOSITION THAT PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ SET OUT AND IT 
ALSO SHOWS AN INHERENT FLAW 
IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEORY 
OF ABUSE OF POWER, REGARDLESS 
OF WHETHER OR NOT ONE ACCEPTS 
THE VIEW THAT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE HAS TO BE A CRIME, A 
DEFINED CRIME.
THERE IS STILL THE FLAW IN 
THEIR DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT IS SO MALLEABLE 
BASED ON PURELY SUBJECTIVE 
STANDARDS THAT IT DOES NOT 
PROVIDE ANY COGNIZABLE NOTICE 
OF DEFENSE.IT IS STILL 
MALLEABLE AND IN EFFECT 
CREATE THE OFFENSE OF 
MALADMINISTRATION AT THE 
FRAMERS EXPRESSLY REJECTED AS 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
EXPLAINED.
THE SECOND POINT THAT I 
WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT HOW DO 
WE TELL UNDER THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS STANDARD WHAT AN 
ILLICIT MOTIVE IS, WHEN THERE 
IS AN ILLICIT MOTIVE -MARK 
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET 
THE PROOF OF WHAT'S INSIDE 
THE PRESIDENT HAD BECAUSE 
MOTIVE IS INHERENTLY 
DIFFICULT TO PROVE WHEN 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY 
CONCEDED THEY'RE TALKING 
ABOUT LAWFUL ACTION ON THEIR 
FACE WITHIN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF 
THE PRESIDENT BUT THEY WANT 
TO MAKE ITIMPEACHABLE IF IT'S 
THE WRONG IDEA INSIDE THE 
PRESIDENTS HEAD .
AND THEY EXPLAIN IN THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 
THAT THE WAY WE WILL TELL IF 
THE PRESIDENT HAD THE WRONG 
MOTIVE IS WE WILL COMPARE 
WHAT HE DID TO WHAT STAFFERS 
IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT 
HE OUGHT TO DO.
QUOTE, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DISREGARDED UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS 
UKRAINE.
" AND THAT HE IGNORED QUOTE 
UNQUOTE, OFFICIAL POLICY THAT 
HE HAD BEEN BRIEFED ON AND 
THAT HE QUOTE, IGNORED, 
DEFINED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY 
AGENCY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.".
THAT IS NOT A 
CONSTITUTIONALLY COHERENT 
STATEMENT.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFINE 
AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH .
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1 THAT ALL 
OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER IN A 
PRESIDENT OF THEUNITED STATES 
.
HE ALONE IS AN ENTIRE BRANCH 
OF GOVERNMENT AREA HE SETS 
POLICY FOR THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
GIVEN VAST POWER.
AND OF COURSE, WITHIN LIMITS 
BY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS, 
AND WITHIN LIMITS SET BY 
SPENDING PRIORITIES, SPENDING 
LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS, HE 
WITHIN THOSE CONSTRAINTS SETS 
THE POLICIES OF THE 
GOVERNMENT AND IN AREAS OF 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MILITARY 
AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY 
WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING 
WITH IN THIS CASE, FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS, HEAD OF STATE 
COMMUNICATIONS, HE HAS VAST 
POWERS.
AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
EXPLAINED FOR OVER TWO
CENTURIES THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BEEN REGARDED AS THE SOLE 
ORGAN OF THE NATION IN 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS .
SO THE IDEA WE'RE GOING TO 
FIND OUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
HAD THE WRONG SUBJECTIVE 
MOTIVE BY COMPARING WHAT HE 
DID TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF 
SOME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS 
AMONG STAFFERS IS 
FUNDAMENTALLY 
ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL.
IT INVERTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
STRUCTURE AND ITS 
FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC 
BECAUSE OUR SYSTEM IS RATHER 
UNIQUE IN THE AMOUNT OF POWER 
THAT IT GIVES TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE EXECUTIVE HERE HAS MUCH 
MORE POWER AND IN A 
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.
PART OF THE REASON THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CAN HAVE THAT POWER 
IS THAT HE IS DIRECTLY
DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO 
THE PEOPLE .
THERE IS AN ELECTION EVERY 4 
YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT STAYS 
DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO 
THE PEOPLE BUT THOSE STAFFERS 
IN THE SUPPOSED INTER-AGENCY 
WHO HAD THEIR MEETINGS AND 
MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE 
PRESIDENT ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE 
TO THE PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC 
LEGITIMACY OR ACCOUNTABILITY 
TO THEIR DECISIONS OR 
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT IS 
WHY THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE 
AUTHORITY TO SET POLICIES AND 
MAKE DETERMINATIONS, 
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE 
STAFFERS MAY RECOMMEND.
THEY ARE THERE TO PROVIDE 
INFORMATION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT TO SET 
POLICY SO THE IDEA WE'RE 
GOING TO START IMPEACHING 
PRESIDENTS BY DECIDING THAT 
THEY HAD ILLICIT MOTIVES IF 
WE CAN SHOW A DISAGREE AND 
SOME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS IS 
FUNDAMENTALLY CONTRARY TO THE 
CONSTITUTION AND 
FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC 
AREA SO THOSE ARE THE TWO 
OBSERVATIONS I WANTED TO ADD 
TO SUPPLEMENT SPECIFIC POINTS 
ON PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
COMMENTS FROM LAST NIGHT .
NOW I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS AND 
RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS 
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD 
BROUGHT UP THAT ARE REALLY 
COMPLETELY EXTRANEOUS TO THIS 
PROCEEDING.
THE INVOLVE MATTERS THAT ARE 
NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, DO NOT 
DIRECTLY RELATE, EXCUSE ME, 
RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS.
BUT THEY ARE ACCUSATIONS THAT 
WERE BROUGHT UP SOMEWHAT 
RECKLESSLY IN ANY EVENT AND 
WE CANNOT CLOSE WITHOUT SOME 
RESPONSE TO THEM.
AND THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH 
THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN SOME 
SORT OF COVER-UP RELATED TO 
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 
CALL BECAUSE IT WAS STORED ON 
A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM.
SO LET ME START WITH THAT.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE THIS 
ACCUSATION THAT WAS SOMETHING 
NEFARIOUS GOING ON SO LET'S 
SEE WHAT THE WITNESSES HAD TO 
SAY.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN AND COLONEL VINDMAN 
IS THE PERSON WHO WAS 
LISTENING IN ON THE CALL AND 
WHO RAISED THE CONCERN, THE 
ONLY PERSON WHO RAISED A 
CONCERN WITH AN SC LAWYERS 
AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS 
SOMETHING IMPROPER, SOMETHING 
WRONG WITH THE CALL EVEN 
THOUGH HE LATER CEDED UNDER 
CROSS-EXAMINATION IT WAS A 
POLICY CONCERN BUT HE THOUGHT 
THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG AND 
HE HAD TO SAY THAT HE DID NOT 
THINK, HE SAID I DID NOT 
THINK THERE WAS MALICIOUS 
INTENT OR ANYTHING OF THAT 
NATURE TOCOVER ANYTHING UP .
HE'S THE ONE WHO WENT AND 
TALKED TO THE LAWYERS, HE'S 
THE ONE WHOSE COMPLAINTS 
SPURRED THE IDEA THAT WEIGHT, 
THERE MIGHTBE SOMETHING 
THAT'S SENSITIVEHERE AND WE 
SHOULD MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT 
GOING TO LEAD , HE THOUGHT 
THERE WAS NOTHING COVERING IT 
UP .
HIS BOSS, SENIOR DIRECTOR TIM 
MORRISON HAD SIMILAR 
TESTIMONY.
>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE THERE'S NO 
MALICIOUS INTENT IN MOVING 
THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SERVER.
>> CORRECT.
>> GET THE IDEA THAT THERE 
WAS A COVER-UP IS DESTROYED 
BY THE SIMPLE FACT THAT 
EVERYONE WHO IT'S PART OF 
THEIR JOBS NEEDED ACCESS TO 
THAT TRANSCRIPT STILL HAD 
ACCESS TO IT INCLUDING 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SO 
THE PERSON WHO RAISES THE 
COMPLAINT STILL HAS ACCESS TO 
THE TRANSCRIPT THE ENTIRE 
TIME AND THIS IS THE WAY 
MISTER MORRISON'S TESTIMONY 
EXPLAINED THAT.
>> EVEN ON THE CODEWORD
SERVER, YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT 
.
>> YES.
>> SO AT NO POINT IN TIME 
DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR 
DUTIES WHERE YOU DENIED 
ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE ANYBODY 
ON THE STAFF THAT NEEDED 
ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR 
THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES ALWAYS 
WAS ABLE TO ACCESS IT, 
CORRECT WESTERN MARK PEOPLE 
THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND A 
NEED TO ACCESS IT.
>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM, YES.
>> AS MISTER MORRISON 
TESTIFIED, HE RECOMMEND RICK 
RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE 
TRANSCRIPT NOT BECAUSE HE HAD 
CONCERN WAS ANYTHING IMPROPER 
OR ILLEGAL BUT HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT A POTENTIAL 
LEAK AND AS HE PUT IT HOW 
THAT WOULD PLAY OUT IN 
WASHINGTON'S LOWRISE 
ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD QUOTE, 
AFFECT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT 
BY UKRAINIAN PARTNERS 
CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING 
CONGRESS AND HE WAS RIGHT TO 
BE CONCERNED POTENTIALLY 
ABOUT LEAKS BECAUSE THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION HAS FACED 
NATIONAL SECURITYLEAKS AT AN 
ALARMING RATE .
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
HIMSELF SAID THE CONCERNS 
ABOUT LEAKS BEING JUSTIFIED 
AND IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL THAT 
SOMETHING WOULD BE PUT IN A
MORE RESTRICTED CIRCULATION .
NOW, WHAT ELSE IS IN THE 
RECORD OF EVIDENCE WESTERN 
MARK MISTER MORRISON 
EXPLAINED HIS UNDERSTANDING 
OF HOW THE TRANSCRIPT ENDED 
UP ON THAT SERVER.
>> I SPOKE WITH THE NSC 
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF STAFF, 
ASK THEM WHY AND THEY DID 
THEIR RESEARCH AND INFORMED 
ME IT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE 
HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 
AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN 
EISENBERG WHO I THEN ASKED 
WHY.
THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE 
MADE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY 
MIND TO QUESTION BUT I DIDN'T 
UNDERSTAND IT AND HE 
ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE NO 
SUCH DIRECTION.
HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND 
RISK REPRESENTED BACK TO ME 
THATHIS UNDERSTANDING WAS 
THAT WAS KIND OF AN 
ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR THAT 
WHEN HE GAVE DIRECTION TO 
RESTRICT ACCESS , THE 
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 
UNDERSTOOD THAT AS AN 
APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS 
SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT OF 
THE MEN, COULD NOT EXIST ON 
THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION 
SYSTEM.
>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE THERE'S NO 
MALICIOUS INTENT IN MOVINGTHE 
TRANSCRIPT TO THE 
COMPARTMENTED SERVER .
>> CORRECT.
>> EVERYONE WHO KNEW 
SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND WHO 
TESTIFIED AGREED THERE WAS NO 
MALICIOUS INTENT.
THE CALL WAS STILL AVAILABLE 
TO EVERYONE WHO NEEDED IT AS 
PART OF THEIR JOB AND IT 
CERTAINLY WASN'T COVERED UP 
OR DEEP-SIXED IN SOME WAY.
THE PRESIDENT DECLASSIFIED IT 
AND MADE IT PUBLIC SO WHY ARE 
WE IN HERE TALKING ABOUT 
THESE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT A 
COVER-UP WHEN IT'S A 
TRANSCRIPT WAS PRESERVED AND 
MADE PUBLIC IS SOMEWHAT 
ABSURD AREA NOW, THE OTHER 
POINT I'D LIKE TO TURN TO, 
ANOTHER ACCUSATION FROM THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS IS THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, WHEN 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT 
WAS NOT FORWARDED TO CONGRESS 
AREA A SAID THAT LAWYERS AT 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
THE ACCUSED OC, THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL OF PROVIDING A 
BOGUS OPINION FOR WHY THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE 
TO ADVANCE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT TO 
CONGRESS.
AND MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID 
THAT OC OPINED QUOTE, WITHOUT 
ANY REASONABLE BASIS THAT THE 
ACTING DNI DID NOT HAVE TO 
TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT TO 
CONGRESS.
AND THE WAY HE PORTRAYED 
THIS, THERE'S A STATUTE THAT 
SAYS IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
FINDS A MATTER OF URGENT
CONCERN, IT MUST BE FORWARDED 
TO CONGRESS .
AND MANAGER JEFFRIES 
PORTRAYED THIS AS IF THE ONLY 
THING TO DECIDE WAS WHERE 
THESE CLAIMS URGENT?
HE SAID QUOTE, WHAT COULD BE 
MORE URGENT THAN A SITTING 
PRESIDENT TRYING TO CHEAT AN
AMERICAN ELECTION BY 
SOLICITING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE ?
THAT'S NOT THE ONLY QUESTION.
THE STATUTE DOESN'T JUST 
SAY IF IT'S URGENT YOU HAVE 
TO FORWARD IT.
IT TALKS ABOUT URGENT CONCERN 
AS A DEFINED TERM AREA NOW, 
IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO 
COME AND THE CAST ACCUSATIONS 
AT POLITICAL AND CAREER 
OFFICIALS AT THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL WHICH WE ALL 
KNOW, A VERY RESPECTED OFFICE 
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
PROVIDES OPINIONS FOR THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH ON WHAT 
GOVERNING LAW IS, THEY SHOULD 
COME BACKED UP WITH ANALYSIS 
.
SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW 
ACTUALLY SAYS.
AND I THINK WE HAVE THE SLIDE
OF THAT.
URGENT CONCERN .
IS DEFINED AS A SERIOUS OR 
FLAGRANT PROBLEM, ABUSE, 
VIOLATION OF LAW RELATING TO 
THE FUNDING, ADMINISTRATION 
OR OPERATION OF AN 
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY WITHIN 
THE RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 
INVOLVING CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION .
SO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL WAS CONSULTED BY THE 
GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE DNI 
OFFICE.
AND THEY LOOKED AT THIS 
DEFINITION AND DID AN 
ANALYSIS AND THEY DETERMINED 
THAT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT 
IS NOT AN URGENT CONCERN 
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 
STATUTE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT 
JUST TALKING ABOUT DO WE 
THINKIT'S URGENT, DO WE THINK 
IT'S IMPORTANT .
THEY'RE ANALYZING THE LAW AND 
THEY LOOKED AT THE TERMS OF 
THE STATUTE.
THE ALLEGED CONDUCT IS NOT AN 
URGENT CONCERN WITHIN THE 
MEANING OF THE STATUTE 
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONCERN 
THE FUNDING, ADMINISTRATION 
OR OPERATION OF AN 
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY UNDER 
THE AUTHORITY OF THE DNI AREA 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HEAD OF 
STATE COMMUNICATIONTHAT WE DO 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND ANOTHER HEAD OF 
STATE .
THIS ISN'T SOME CIA OPERATION 
OVERSEAS, THIS ISN'T THE NSA 
DOING SOMETHING.
THIS ISN'T ANY INTELLIGENCE 
ACTIVITY GOING ON WITHIN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER 
THE SUPERVISION OF THE DNI.
IT'S THE HEAD OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXERCISING 
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY 
ENGAGING IN FOREIGN RELATIONS 
WITH A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE.
SO IN REACHING THAT 
CONCLUSION THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL LOOKED AT THE 
STATUTE, THE LEGISLATIVE 
HISTORY, AND IT CONCLUDED 
THAT THIS PHRASE URGENT 
CONCERN INCLUDES MATTERS 
RELATING TO ITS INTELLIGENCE 
ACTIVITIES OBJECT THE DNI'S 
SUPERVISION BUT DOES NOT 
INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF 
WRONGDOING RISING OUTSIDE OF 
ANY INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY.
OR OUTSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY ITSELF AND THAT 
MAKES SENSE.
THIS STATUTE WAS MEANT TO 
PROVIDE FOR AN ABILITY OF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
OVERSEEING THE ACTIVITIES OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO 
RECEIVE REPORTS ABOUT WHAT 
WAS GOING ON AT INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES, THOSE THAT ARE 
MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY THERE WAS FRAUD, 
WASTE, ABUSE, SOMETHING 
UNLAWFUL IN THOSE ACTIVITIES.
IT WAS NOT MEANT TO CREATE AN 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
PRESIDENCY AND INSPECTOR 
GENERAL OF THEOVAL OFFICE .
TO PURPORT TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND 
EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITIES HAD DONE 
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE 
REPORTED.
THIS LAW IS NARROW.
AND IF THERE'S NOT, IT DOES 
NOT COVER EVERY ALLEGED 
VIOLATION OF LAW OR OTHER 
ABUSE THAT COMES TO THE 
ATTENTION OF A MEMBER OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD 
JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
SEE SOMETHING ELSE DOESN'T 
MAKE THIS LAW APPLY.
AND THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING 
AND REPORTING ON ALLEGATIONS 
THAT DO NOT INVOLVE 
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OR 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
NOW, NONETHELESS THE 
PRESIDENT OF COURSE RELEASED 
JULY 25 CALL TRANSCRIPT AND 
IT WAS ALSO NOT THE END OF 
THE MATTER, THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND 
THE DNI, THE I ICG'S LETTER 
WERE NOT SENT DIRECTLY TO 
CONGRESS BECAUSE OC EXPLAINED 
THAT IF THE COMPLAINT DOESNOT 
INVOLVE IN URGENT CONCERN , 
BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE 
THERE THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE 
CHECKED OUT, THE APPROPRIATE 
ACTION IS TO REFER THE MATTER
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE DNI'S 
OFFICE DID.
THEY SENT THE ICI G'S LETTER 
WITH THE COMPLAINT TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE 
DEPARTMENTOF JUSTICE LOOKED 
AT IT .
AND THIS WAS ALL MADE PUBLIC 
SOMETIME AGO.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
EXAMINED THE EXACT 
ALLEGATIONS OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE EXACT 
FRAMING AND CONCERN RAISED BY 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHICH 
HAD TO DO WITH THE POTENTIAL, 
PERHAPS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
LAW VIOLATION.
DOJ LOOK AT IT, LOOKED AT THE 
STATUTES, ANALYZE IT AND 
DETERMINED THERE WAS NO 
VIOLATION AND CLOSED THE 
MATTER AND ANNOUNCED THAT 
MONTHS AGO.
WHEN SOMETHINGGETS SENT OVER 
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
TO EXAMINE, YOU CAN'T CALL 
THAT A COVER-UP .
EVERYTHING HERE WAS DONE 
CORRECTLY.
LAWYERS ANALYZED THE LAW, THE 
COMPLAINT WAS SENT TO THE 
APPROPRIATE PERSON FOR 
REVIEW.
IT WAS NOT WITHINTHE STATUTE 
THAT REQUIRED TRANSMISSION TO 
CONGRESS AND EVERYTHING WAS 
HANDLED ENTIRELY PROPERLY SO 
AGAIN , ACTUALLY, EXTRANEOUS 
TO THE MATTERS BEFORE YOU, 
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THESE 
TWO POINTS IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BUT IT MERITS A 
RESPONSE WHEN RECKLESS 
ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AGAINST 
THOSE AT THE WHITEHOUSE AND 
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE .
AND WITH THAT MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I WILL YIELD BACK MY 
TIME TO MISTER SEKULOW.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE, MAJORITY LEADER 
MCCONNELL AND DEMOCRATIC 
LEADERSHIP WORK, HOUSE 
MANAGERS, MEMBERSOF THE 
SENATE .
WHAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN HERE, 
WE CONCLUDE IS PERHAPS THE 
MOST SOLEMN OF DUTIES UNDER 
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.
THE TRIAL OF THE LEADER OF 
THE FREE WORLD AND THE DULY 
ELECTEDPRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES .
IT IS NOT A GAME OF LEAKS AND 
UNSOURCED MANUSCRIPTS.
THAT'S POLITICS, 
UNFORTUNATELY AND HAMILTON 
PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE HANDS 
OF THIS BODY, THE SENATE, 
PRECISELY AND SPECIFICALLY TO 
BE ABOVE THAT FREIGHT.
THIS IS THE GREATEST 
DELIBERATIVE BODY ON EARTH.
IN OUR PRESENTATION SO FAR, 
WE'VE NOW HEARD FROM LEGAL 
SCHOLARS FROM A VARIETY OF 
SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT, FROM A 
VARIETY OF POLITICAL 
BACKGROUNDS.
BUT THEY DO HAVE A COMMON
THEME .
WITH A DIRE WARNING.
DANGER.
DANGER.
DANGER.
TO LOWER THE BAR OF 
IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD 
IMPACT THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND 
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 
CONSTITUTION FOR GENERATIONS.
I ASKED YOU TO PUT YOURSELF 
IN SUPPORTING MISTER SCHIFF, 
MANAGER SCHIFF'S THAT HIS 
FATHER MADE ABOUT PUTTING 
YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF 
SOMEONE ELSE AND I SAID I'D 
LIKE YOU TO PUT YOUR SHOES, 
YOUR SELF IN THE SHOES OF THE 
PRESIDENT AREA AND I THINK 
IT'S IMPORTANT AS WE CONCLUDE 
TODAY THAT WE ARE REMINDED OF 
THAT FACT.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE HE WAS THE 
PRESIDENT WAS UNDER AN 
INVESTIGATION.
IT WAS CALLED CROSSFIRE 
HURRICANE.
IT WAS AN INVESTIGATION LED 
BY THE FBI.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION.
JAMES COMEY BASICALLY TOLD 
THE PRESIDENT A LITTLE ABOUT 
THE INVESTIGATION AND 
REFERENCED THE STEELE 
DOSSIER.
JAMES COMEY THEN DIRECTOR OF 
THE FBI SAID IT WAS SALACIOUS 
AND UNVERIFIED AREA SO 
SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED THAT 
THEY USED IT AS THE BASIS TO 
OBTAIN FISA WARRANTS.
MEMBERS, MANAGERS HERE, 
MANAGERS AT THIS TABLE RIGHT 
HERE SAID THAT ANY 
DISCUSSIONS ON THE ABUSE FROM 
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
SURVEILLANCE ACT WERE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
I TOLD YOU AT THE VERY 
BEGINNING, I ASKED PUT 
YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF NOT 
JUST THIS PRESIDENT, OFANY 
PRESIDENT .
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER
THIS TYPE OF ATTACK .
FISA WARRANTS ISSUED ON 
PEOPLE AFFILIATED WITH HIS 
CAMPAIGN, AMERICAN CITIZENS 
AFFILIATED WITH PEOPLE OF HIS 
CAMPAIGN.
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES 
BEING SURVEILLED PURSUANT TO 
AN ORDER THAT HAS NOW BEEN 
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE VERY 
COURT AT THAT ISSUED THE 
ORDER THAT IT WAS BASED ON A 
FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.
IN FACT, EVIDENCE IS 
TYPICALLY CHANGED, CHANGED BY 
THE VERY FBI LAWYER WHO WAS 
IN CHARGE OF THIS AREA 
CHANGED TO SUCH AN EXTENT 
THAT THE FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE 
INTELLIGENCE COURSE AS I SAID 
EARLIER, I'M NOT GOING TO 
REPEAT IT, ISSUED TWO ORDERS 
SAYING THAT WHEN THIS AGENT, 
THIS LAWYER MADE THESE 
MISREPRESENTATIONS FOR THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, 
THEY ALSO MADE A 
MISREPRESENTATION TO A 
FEDERAL COURT AREA THE 
FEDERAL COURT, THE FOREIGN 
SURVEILLANCE COURT.
A COURT WHERE THERE ARE NO 
DEFENSE WITNESSES.
A COURT WHERE THERE IS NO
CROSS-EXAMINATION .
IT'S A COURT BASED ON TRUST.
THAT TRUST WAS VIOLATED.
AND THEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION JAMES COMEY 
DECIDED HE WILL LEAK A MEMO 
OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND HE IS LEAKING THE 
MEMO FOR A PURPOSE, HE SAID.
TO OBTAIN THE APPOINTMENT OF 
A SPECIAL COUNSEL.
AND LOW AND BEHOLD, A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED AND IT 
JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT FBI 
AGENT, LAWYER WHO COMMITTED 
THE FRAUD FROM THE FISA COURT 
BECAME A LAWYER FOR THE 
MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
ONLY TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF 
POLITICAL ANIMUS AND BIAS 
FOUND BY THEINSPECTOR GENERAL 
.
THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.
LISA PAGE, AGENT STRZOK, I'M 
NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE 
DETAILS.
THEY'RE NOT IN CONTROVERSY, 
THEY'RE INCONTROVERTIBLE.
ACTS ARE CLEAR.
BUT DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOUR 
SENSE OF JUSTICE EVEN A 
LITTLE BIT THAT BOB MUELLER 
ALLOWED THE EVIDENCE ON THE 
PHONES OF THOSE AGENTS TO BE 
WIPED CLEAN WHILE THERE WAS 
AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON I 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
NOW, IF YOU DID IT, IF YOU 
DID IT MANAGER SCHIFF, IF YOU 
DID IT MANAGER JEFFRIES, IF I 
DIDTHAT, DESTROYED EVIDENCE , 
IF ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER DID 
THIS, WE WOULD BE IN SERIOUS
TROUBLE .
THERE SERIOUS TROUBLE IS THEY 
GET FIRED.
BOB MUELLER'S EXPLANATION FOR 
IT IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT 
HAPPENED.
I DON'T KNOW WHATHAPPENED, I 
CAN'T RECALL CONVERSATIONS .
YOU CAN'T VIEW THIS CASE IN A 
VACUUM.
YOU ARE BEING ASKED, AND I 
SAY THIS WITH THE UTMOST 
RESPECT, YOU ARE BEING ASKED 
TO REMOVE AN ELECTED, DULY 
ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
THIS ISN'T SOME WITH 
REFERENCES TO LAW SCHOOL 
EXAMS, I THOUGHT THEY WERE 
GREAT ANALYSIS YESTERDAY AND 
I APPRECIATE ALL THAT BUT I 
WANT TO FOCUS TODAY ON MY 
SECTION OF WHAT YOU'RE BEING 
ASKED TO DO.
YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE 
A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND ASKED 
TO DO IT IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
THERE ARE SOME OF YOU IN THIS 
CHAMBER RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD 
RATHER BE SOMEPLACE ELSE AREA 
AND THAT'S WHY WE WILL BE 
BRIEF.
I UNDERSTAND.
YOU'D RATHER BE SOMEPLACE 
ELSE.
WHY WOULD YOU RATHER BE 
SOMEPLACE ELSE WESTERN MARK 
BECAUSE YOU'RERUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT AND NOMINATION OF 
YOUR PARTY, I GET IT .
BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS 
DELIBERATIVE SITUATION.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO REMOVEA 
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, THAT'S WHAT 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CALL FOR .
SO WE HAD A SPECIAL COUNSEL.
AND WE GOT THE REPORT.
AND JUST FOR A MOMENT, 
PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES 
OF THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY 
PRESIDENT THAT WOULD BE UNDER
THIS SITUATION , YOUR NUMBER 
FOUR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE HIS WIFE IS WORKING 
FOR THE FIRM AT DOING 
OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON HIM.
AND IS COMMUNICATING WITH THE 
FOREIGN FORMER SPY, 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE AND IT'S 
BEING HANDLED BY CHRISTOPHER 
STEELE THROUGH NELLY OR YOUR 
HUSBAND, FOURTH RANKING 
REMEMBER AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND ALL THIS IS GOING 
ON AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO 
TELLAND HE'S TESTIFIED TO 
THIS, HE DOESN'T WANT TO TELL 
EVERYBODY WHAT HE'S DOING
BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID HE MIGHT 
HAVE TO STOP .
MIGHT HAVE TO STOP .
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
THIS IS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION AREA AND THEN 
WE ASKED WHY THEPRESIDENT IS 
CONCERNED ABOUT ADVICE HE'S 
BEING GIVEN ?
PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES.
PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES.
WE'VE GIVEN YOU AND OUR 
APPROACH HAS BEEN TO GIVE AN 
OVERVIEW AND TO BEVERY 
SPECIFIC .
TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT WHICH IS WHAT YOU 
ARE BEING ASKED TO DO FOR 
ESSENTIALLY POLICY 
DISAGREEMENTS, YOU HEARD A 
LOT ABOUT POLICY BUT THE ONE 
THAT STILL TROUBLES ME, THIS 
IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT IT 
WAS SENT BY SEVERAL MANAGERS 
IS ONLY DOING THESE THINGS 
FOR HIMSELF UNDERSTANDING 
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD 
TODAY AS WE ARE HERE, THEY 
RAISED IT BY THE WAY, I'M NOT 
TRYING TO BEDISRESPECTFUL .
THEY RAISED IT TO READ THIS 
PRESIDENT IS ONLY DOING 
THINGS FOR HIMSELF WHILE THE 
LEADERS OF OPPOSING PARTIES 
BY THE WAY THE HIGHEST LEVEL 
TO OBTAIN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE 
EAST, TO SAY YOU'RE ONLY 
DOINGTHAT FOR YOURSELF .
THE IRONY OF THOSE STATEMENTS 
MADE WHILE ALL THAT WAS GOING 
ON AND OTHER ACTS THAT THIS
BODY HAS PASSED, SOME OF THEM 
BIPARTISAN .
TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
POLICY DIFFERENCES.
THOSE POLICY DIFFERENCES 
CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DESTROY
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS .
HOUSE MANAGERS SPOKE FOR, I 
KNOW WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS ON 
THE TIME WHETHER IT WAS 21 
HOURS OR 23 HOURS, SPOKE 
DURING THAT TIME, A LOT OF 
TIME AREA ULTIMATE ATTACKING 
THE PRESIDENT, POLICY 
DECISIONS.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY 
HEARD.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT THERE 
WAS A PAUSE ON FOREIGN AID, 
I'VE LAID OUT BEFORE THERE 
WAS A PAUSE ON ALL KINDS OF 
FOREIGN AID, HE'S NOT THE 
FIRST PRESIDENT TO DO IT BUT 
THE ONE THING I'M TRYING TO 
UNDERSTAND FROM THE MANAGER'S 
PERSPECTIVE AND MAYBE IT'S 
NOT FAIR TO ASKTHE MANAGERS 
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A LEADER 
OF THE HOUSE .
BUT REMEMBER THE WHOLE IDEA 
THAT THIS WAS A DIRE NATIONAL 
SECURITY THREAT, A DANGER TO 
OUR NATION.
WE HAD TO GET THIS OVER HERE 
RIGHT AWAY, IT HAD TO BE DONE 
BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
IT WAS SO IMPORTANT, SO 
SIGNIFICANT THE COUNTRY WAS 
IN SUCH JEOPARDY, THE 
JEOPARDY WAS SO SERIOUS THAT 
IT HAD TO BE DONE 
IMMEDIATELY, BUT HOLD ON TO 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
FOR A MONTH TO SEE IF THE 
HOUSE COULD FORCE THE SENATE 
TO ADOPT RULES THAT THEY 
WANTED.
WHICH IS NOT THE WAY THE 
CONSTITUTION IS SET UP.
BUT IT WAS SUCH A DIRE 
EMERGENCY, IT WAS SO CRITICAL 
FOR OUR NATION'S NATIONAL 
INTEREST THAT WE COULD HOLD 
THEM FOR 33 DAYS.
DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.
THAT'S POLITICS.
AS I SAID, YOU'RE BEING 
CALLED UPON TO REMOVE THEDULY 
ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, THAT'S WHAT 
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CALL FOR .
THEY NEVER ANSWER THE 
QUESTION WHY THEY THOUGHT 
THERE WAS SUCH A NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY, MAYBE THEY WILL 
DURING QUESTIONS, I DON'T 
KNOW.
IF THERE WAS SUCH A NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY THEY NEVER SHOWED 
WHY IT WAS THAT THEY WAITED.
THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T WAIT TO 
HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS READ 
THOSE PROCEEDINGS MOVED IN 
RECORD TIME.
I SUSPECT THAT WE'VE BEEN 
HERE MORE THAN THE HOUSE 
ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE 
ACTUAL ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AREA IS NOT THE 
WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS 
SUPPOSED TO WORK?
IS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE 
CONSTITUTION?
AND THEN THERE QUESTION OF 
COURSE CAME UP IN YESTERDAY'S 
ON THE WHOLE SITUATION WITH 
BURISMA AND THE BIDENS AND 
THAT WHOLE ISSUE BUT WE HAVE, 
ARE WE, WE USED THE CALL THIS 
IN FREE-SPEECH CASES LIKE A 
FREE-SPEECH ZONE.
IF YOU HAVE YOURS FREE SPEECH 
ACTIVITIES OVER HERE, YOU 
CAN'T HAVE THEM OVER THERE.
DO WE HAVE A BIDEN FREE ZONE?
WAS THAT WHAT THIS WAS 
WESTERN MARK THAT YOU MENTION 
SOMEONE OR YOU'RE CONCERNED 
ABOUT A COMPANY AND IT'S NOT 
OFF-LIMITS.
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR 
ASKING A QUESTION.
I THINK WE SIGNIFICANTLY 
SHOWED THE QUESTION.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH 
IT DETAIL BY DETAIL ANALYSIS 
OF THE FACTS YOU BUT THERE 
ARE SOME THAT WE JUST HAVE TO 
GO THROUGH.
YOU HEARD A LOT OF NEW FACTS 
YESTERDAY IN OUR 
PRESENTATION.
SATURDAY, WHAT WE WERE 
POINTING TO IS A VERY QUICK 
OVERVIEW AND THEN YESTERDAY 
WE SPENT THE DAY AND WE 
APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S 
PATIENTS ON THATPOINT FOR THE 
FACTS .
THEY SHOWED YOU THIS, BUT 
THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU THAT.
THE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT 
THOUGH.
BECAUSE FACTS HAVE LEGAL 
RAMIFICATIONS.
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS IMPACT 
THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, SO I 
DON'T TAKE FACTS LIGHTLY AND 
I CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATELIGHTLY 
AND WE CAN'T .
THE FACTS WE DEMONSTRATED 
YESTERDAY AND BRIEFLY ON 
SATURDAY DEMONSTRATE THERE 
WAS IN FACT A PROPER MENTAL 
INTEREST IN THE QUESTIONS THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED AND THE 
ISSUES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
RAISED ON THAT PHONE CALL.
A PHONE CALL, AGAIN, BUT YOUR 
FEET IN THE SHOES OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
PUT YOURSELF IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S POSITION.
YOU THINK WHEN HE THOUGHT 
WHEN HE WAS ON THE CALL IT 
WAS HE AND PRESIDENT STRZOK, 
THE PRESIDENT AND 3000 OF HIS 
CLOSEST FRIENDS?
THE REALISTIC AREA THAT THE 
PRESIDENT KNEW THERE WERE A 
LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING.
FROM OUR SIDE AND FROM THEIR 
SIDE.SO HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS 
SAYING.
HE SAID IT.
WE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
IT.
THE FACTS ON THE CALL THAT 
HAVE BEEN KIND OF THE FOCUS 
OF ALL THIS REALLY FOCUSED ON 
FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES 
BOTH IN UKRAINE AND AROUNDTHE 
GLOBE , THEY TALK ABOUT OTHER 
COUNTRIES AND OTHER 
COUNTRIES, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER 
COUNTRIES CARRYING SOME OF 
THE FINANCIAL LOAD HERE, NOT 
JUST THE UNITED STATES.
THAT'S A LEGITIMATE POSITION 
FOR A PRESIDENT TO TAKE.
IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT, YOU 
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BUT 
HE IS THE PRESIDENT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL PHILBIN JUST SAID, 
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
PREROGATIVE, THAT'S THEIR 
CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE
ROLE .
SO THE CALL IS WELLDOCUMENTED 
.
THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE ON
THE CALL .
THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE ON 
THE OTHER END OF THE QUID PRO 
QUO THAT EXISTED WHEN HAVE 
BEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND 
WE ALREADY LAID OUT THE OTHER 
OFFICIALS FROM THE UKRAINE 
HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THERE 
WAS NO PRESSURE.
IT WAS A GOOD CALL.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE
WAS A PAUSE IN THAT AID .
ALL OF THAT IS WELL 
DOCUMENTED, I'M NOT GOING TO 
GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE 
OF THOSE FACTS, WE DO THAT 
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR 
ADVISOR WAS ASKED IF HE EVER 
FELT THERE WAS A CONNECTION 
BETWEEN MILITARY AID AND THE 
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS 
AND HE WAS ADAMANT THAT WE 
NEVER HAD THAT FEELING AND WE 
DID NOT HAVE THE FEELING THAT 
THIS AID WAS CONNECTED TO ANY 
ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE.
THIS IS COMING FROM THEPEOPLE 
WHO WERE RECEIVING AID .
SO WE TALK ABOUT THIS WHOLE 
QUID PRO QUO.
AND THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE.
THAT'S HOW THIS ACTUALLY 
REPORT BECAME AN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING.
AS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE 
BEGINNING AND HOUSE PERMANENT 
SELECTCOMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE UNDER CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF'S ROLE, THERE WAS ALL 
THESE DISCUSSIONS, IS IT AT 
QUID PRO QUO, WAS IT 
EXTORTION, WAS IT BRIBERY ?
AND WE ARE CLEAR IN OUR 
POSITION THATTHERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO .
BUT THEN YESTERDAY, MY 
COCOUNSEL PROFESSOR ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED LAST 
NIGHT THAT THESE ARTICLES 
MUST BE REJECTED, HE'S 
TALKING ABOUT FROM A 
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.
EVEN IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO .
WHICH WE HAVE CLEARLY 
ESTABLISHED THERE WAS NOT.
AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
I'M GOING TO QUOTE IT 
VERBATIM AREA THE CLAIM THAT 
FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS CAN 
BE DEEMED ABUSIVE OR ABUSES 
OF POWER BASED ON SUBJECTIVE 
OPINIONS ABOUT MIXED DORSAL 
MOTIVES THE PRESIDENT WAS 
INTERESTED ONLY IN HELPING 
HIMSELF DEMONSTRATE THE 
DANGERS OF EMPLOYING THE 
VAGUE, SUBJECTIVE AND 
POLITICALLY MALLEABLE PHRASE 
ABUSE OF POWER AS A 
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE 
CRITERIA FOR THE REMOVAL OF 
THE PRESIDENT.
HE WENT ON TO SAY IT FOLLOWS 
FROM THIS THAT IF A PRESIDENT
, ANY PRESIDENT WERE TO HAVE 
DONE WHAT THE TIMES REPORTED 
ABOUT THE CONTENT OF JOHN 
BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT THAT 
WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AREA I'M 
QUOTING EXACTLY FROM 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ, HE SAYS 
LET ME AREA NOTHING IN THE 
BOLTON REVELATIONS EVEN IF 
TRUE, EVEN IF TRUE WOULD RISE 
TO THE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF 
POWER OR AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AREA THAT IS CLEAR 
FROM HISTORY.
THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE 
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
YOU CANNOT TURN CONDUCT 
THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE INTO 
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT SIMPLY BY 
USING WORDS LIKE QUID PRO QUO 
AND PERSONAL BENEFIT.
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE 
FRAMERS WOULD HAVE INTENDED 
SO POLITICALLY LOADED AND 
PROMISCUOUSLY DEPLOYED A TERM 
AS ABUSE OF POWER TO THE 
WESTERNIZED, AGAIN PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ, AS A TOOL OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF
VAGUE , OPEN-ENDED AND 
SUBJECTIVE TERM THE FOUNDERS 
AND FRAMERS FEARED AND 
REJECTED.
TO BE SPECIFIC, YOU CANNOT 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON AN 
UNSOURCED ALLEGATION.
BUT WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
IS SAYING IS EVERYTHING IN 
THERE WAS TRUE.
IT CONSTITUTIONALLY DOESN'T 
RISE TO THAT LEVEL I WANT TO 
BECLEAR ON THIS AREA BECAUSE 
THERE'S A LOT OF SPECULATION 
OUT THERE .
WITH REGARD TO WHAT JOHN 
BOLTON HAS SAID WHICH 
REFERENCED A NUMBER OF 
INDIVIDUALS, WE WILL START 
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
HERE'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
SAID IN RESPONSE TO THAT NEW 
YORK TIMES PIECE.
I NEVER TOLD JOHN BUT THE AID 
TO THE UKRAINE WAS TIED TO 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO DEMOCRATS 
INCLUDING THE BIDENS, IN FACT 
HE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT 
THIS AT THE TIME OF HIS 
PUBLIC TERMINATION.
IF JOHN BOLTON SAID IT WAS 
ONLY TO SELL A BOOK.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
WHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE HAS NOT REVIEWED 
MISTER BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT, A 
NEW YORK TIMES ACCOUNT OF HIS 
CONVERSATION MISCHARACTERIZES 
WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR 
AND BOLTON DISCUSSED WAS NO 
DISCUSSION OF PERSONAL FAVORS 
OR UNDUE INFLUENCE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS NOR DID THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE THE 
PRESIDENTCONVERSATIONS WITH 
FOREIGN LEADERS WERE IMPROPER 
.
THE VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF OF 
STAFF ISSUED A STATEMENT, IN 
EVERY CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, 
IN PREPARATION FOR OUR TRIP 
TO POLAND, REMEMBER THAT WAS 
THE TRIP BEING PLANNED FOR 
THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT 
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESS HIS 
FRUSTRATION THAT THE UNITED 
STATES WAS BEARING THE LIONS 
SHARE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR 
AID TO UKRAINE AND EUROPEAN 
NATIONS WERE DOING THEIR 
PART.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO EXPRESSED 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE AND AT NO TIME DID I 
HEAR HIM TIE UKRAINE AID TO 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDEN 
FAMILY OR BURISMA.
THAT WAS THE RESPONSE.
RESPONDING TO AN UNPUBLISHED 
MANUSCRIPT THAT MAY BE FROM 
REPORTERS HAVE AN IDEA OF 
MAYBE WHAT IT SAYS AND THAT'S
, IF YOU WANT TO CALL THAT 
EVIDENCE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT 
YOU CALL THAT.
I CALL IT INADMISSIBLE BUT 
THAT'S WHAT IT IS AREA TO 
ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
NOT ACTING IN OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND IS VIOLATING HIS 
OATH OF OFFICE WHICH THE 
MANAGERSHAVE PUT FORWARD IS 
WRONG .
BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE 
WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS 
DESIGNED.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 
FULLNESS OF THE RECORD OF 
FAIR WITNESSES, THEIR 
WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES 
STATEMENTS, THE TRANSCRIPTS, 
THERE'S ONE THING THAT 
EMERGES.
THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF LAW.
THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT ON 
POLICY DECISIONS.
MOST OF THOSE THAT SPOKE YOUR 
HEARINGS DID NOT LIKE THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> .. 
IF YOU LOWER THE BAR THAT WAY,
DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT OR THE ONE
AFTER THAT, HE OR SHE WILL BE
HELD TO THAT SAME STANDARD.
I HOPE NOT.
I PRAY NOT.
THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS.
NOT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MY
CLIENT BUT FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ GAVE A LIST
OF PRESIDENTS FROM WASHINGTON TO
WHERE WE ARE TODAY WHO WONDER IF
THAT STANDARD THEY ARE PROPOSING
COULD BE SUBJECT TO ABUSE OF
POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
LOOK, WE KNOW THAT WHAT THIS IS
IS NOT ABOUT A PRESIDENT PAUSING
AID TO UKRAINE AND IT'S REALLY
NOT ABOUT A PHONE CALL.
IT IS ABOUT A LOT OF ATTEMPTS ON
POLICY DISAGREEMENTS THAT ARE
NOT BEING DEBATED HERE.
MY GOODNESS.
HOW MUCH TIME, HOW MUCH TIME?
HAS BEEN SPENT IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HOPING, THEY
WERE HOPING, THAT THE MOLAR
PROBE WOULD RESULT IN -- I WILL
NOT PLAY, I WAS THINKING ABOUT
IT AND PLAYING ALL THE CLIPS
FROM THE COMMENTATORS THE DAY
AFTER, THE DAY AFTER THE BOB
MUELLER TESTIFIED AND BOB
MUELLER WAS UNABLE TO ANSWER
UNDER HIS EXAMINATION, BASIC AND
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS.
HE HAD TO CORRECT HIMSELF
ACTUALLY.
HE HAD TO CORRECT HIMSELF BEFORE
THE SENATE FOR SOMETHING HE SAID
BEFORE THE HOUSE.
THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
BEEN LIVING WITH.
THEN WE ARE HERE TODAY ARGUING
ABOUT WHAT?
A PHONE CALL TO UKRAINE OR
UKRAINE AID BEING HELD OR
QUESTION ABOUT CORRUPTION OR A
QUESTION ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT
HAPPENS TO INVOLVE A HIGH PUBLIC
PROFILED FIGURE?
IS THAT WHAT THIS IS?
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE?
AND THEN WHAT DO WE FIND OUT?
THE AIDE WAS RELEASED.
IT WAS RELEASED IN AN ORDERLY
FASHION AND THE REFORMED
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
WINS THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION
WHETHER HIS PARTY WOULD TAKE THE
PARLIAMENT.
THEY DID.
THEY WORKED LATE INTO THE
EVENING WITH THE DESIRE TO PUT
FORWARD REFORMS.
EVERYBODY WAS WAITING, INCLUDING
AND YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY FROM
THEIR WITNESSES, I WILL SAY, YOU
HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY.
EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
UKRAINE AND WHETHER THE REFORMS
COULD TAKE PLACE.
EVERYBODY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
IT.
IT DID NOT AFFECT ANYTHING GOING
ON IN THE FIELD.
HERE WE HAVE PEOPLE WORRIED
ABOUT THE SOLDIERS AND I
APPRECIATE THAT BUT NONE OF THAT
AID WAS AFFECTING WHAT WAS GOING
ON ON THE BATTLEFIELD RIGHT THEN
OR FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS
BECAUSE IT WAS FUTURE AID.
ARE WE HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING BECAUSE AIDE CAME OUT
THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE END OF
THE FISCAL YEAR?
OR A SIX MINUTE PHONE CALL?
WHEN YOU BOIL IT DOWN THAT IS
WHAT THIS IS.
IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT
EVERYBODY SAID THE AID WAS
RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11 ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE
WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO WE HAVE NEVER
SEEN.
IT WAS DEALT IN GREAT DETAIL AND
I WILL NOT GO OVER THAT AGAIN.
BUT YOU KNOW THE NEW HIGH COURT,
THE ANTICORRUPTION COURT, WAS
NOT ESTABLISHED AND DID NOT SIT
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2019.
SO WHILE THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE WAS TRYING TO GET
REFORMS IN PLACE THE COURT THAT
WOULD DECIDE CORRUPTION ISSUES
WAS NOT SET UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5.
THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT
TO.
THEY NEEDED A HIGH COURT FOR
CORRUPTION.
INC. ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.
IT'S GOOD THEY RECOGNIZED IT BUT
REMEMBER WHEN I SAID THE OTHER
DAY YOU DON'T WAVE A MAGIC WAND
AND OUT UKRAINE DOES NOT HAVE A
CORRUPTION PROBLEM?
THE HIGH COURT OF CORRUPTION,
WHICH THEY HAVE TO HAVE, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT JUST PAST CORRUPTION
BUT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
ONGOING CORRUPTION ISSUES AND
YOU COULD PUT ALL YOUR WITNESSES
BACK ON UNDER OATH IN THE NEXT
HEARINGS YOU WILL HAVE WHEN THIS
IS ALL OVER AND YOU'LL BE BACK
IN HOUSE AND DOING THIS AGAIN
AND PUT THEM ALL BACK UNDER OATH
AND ASK THEM, MR. SCHIFF, IS
THERE A PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE?
IF THEY GET UP AND SAY NO,
EVERYTHING IS GREAT NOW,
HALLELUJAH.
BUT I SUSPECT THEY WILL SAY WE
ARE WORKING REALLY HARD ON IT.
I BELIEVE THEM.
BUT THIS IDEA THAT IT WAS
VANISHED AND NOW EVERYTHING IS
FINE, IT'S ABSURD.
MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT
WHILE THE DEVELOPING'S WERE
TAKEN PLACE THE VICE PRESIDENT
ALSO MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
IN WARSAW.
THAT WAS THE MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 1, THE ONE, BY THE
WAY, WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT'S
OFFICE SAID IN RESPONSE TO THIS
NEW YORK TIME, NO ONE TOLD HIM
ABOUT AID BEING HELD OR LINKED
TO INVESTIGATIONS.
ARE YOU GOING TO STOP, ARE YOU
GOING TO ALLOW PROCEEDING ON
IMPEACHMENT TO GO FROM A NEW
YORK TIMES REPORT ABOUT SOMEONE
THAT SAYS WHAT THEY HEAR IN A
MANUSCRIPT, IS THAT WHERE WE 
ARE?
I DON'T THINK SO.
I HOPE NOT.
WHAT DID MORRISON SAY?
YOU HEARD FIRST-HAND THE NEW
UKRAINE ADMINISTRATION WAS
TAKING CONCRETE STEPS TO ADDRESS
CORRUPTION.
THAT IS GOOD.
HE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THE
RELATIONSHIP WITH ZELENSKY IS
ONE THAT COULD BE TRUSTED.
GOOD.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ALSO AGREED
WITH VICE PRESIDENT DEPENDS AND
THIS IS INTERESTING, EUROPEANS
SHOULD BE DOING MORE.
AND RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT
PENS CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH
EUROPEAN LEADERS TO DO MORE AND
IN SOME THE PRESIDENT RAISED TWO
ISSUES HE WAS CONCERNED WITH TO
GET THEM ADDRESSED.
NOW, I'VE ALREADY WENT OVER
AGAIN AND THIS IS JUST THE
CLOSING MOMENTS HEAR OF THIS
PROCEEDING OR PORTION OF THIS
PROCEEDING.
AID WAS WITHHELD OR PAUSED, PUT
ON A PAUSE BUTTON, NOT JUST FOR
UKRAINE, AFGHANISTAN, SOUTH
KOREA, OF SALVADOR, LEBANON,
PAKISTAN AND I'M SURE I AM
LEAVING COUNTRIES OUT.
BUT DO YOU THINK THE MARK IN
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED IF THE
PRESIDENT SAYS BEFORE WE GIVE A
COUNTRY, I DON'T KNOW
$550 MILLION, SOME COUNTRIES
ONLY $400 MILLION WE LIKE TO
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH 
IT.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE
GUARDIANS OF THE TRUST HERE.
IT IS THE TAXPAYERS MONEY WE ARE
SPENDING.
THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY
FROM DOCTOR FIONA HILL, JOHN
BOLTON'S DEPUTY.
HERE IS WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT AID.
THIS IS HER TESTIMONY.
THERE'S A FREEZE BUT ON ALL
KINDS OF AID AND ASSISTANCE
BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PROCESS AT
THE TIME OF AN AWFUL LOT OF
REVIEWS OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.
OH, YOU MEAN THERE WAS A POLICY
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION TO
REVIEW FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND
HOW WE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE WE
SPEND A LOT OF MONEY.
BY THE WAY, I'M NOT COMPLAINING
ABOUT THE MONEY BUT I DON'T
THINK ANYBODY DOESN'T WANT TO
HELP.
WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING
ON IN THOSE ARE VALID AND
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
MANAGER CROW TOLD YOU PRESIDENT
UKRAINE'S POLICY WAS NOT STRONG
AGAINST RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH STATED
THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
SHE SAID IN HER DEPOSITION THAT
OUR COUNTRY'S UKRAINE POLICY
UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, HER WORDS
GOT STRONGER, THEN IT WAS UNDER
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
AGAIN, POLICY DISAGREEMENTS,
DISCRIMINATE ON APPROACH, HAVE
ELECTIONS, THAT IS WHAT WE DO IN
OUR REPUBLIC.
FOR THREE LONG DAYS HOUSE
MANAGERS PRESENTED THEIR CASE BY
SELECTIVELY SHOWING PARTS OF
TESTIMONY.
GOOD LAWYERS SURE PARTS OF
TESTIMONY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THE WHOLE
THING BUT OTHER GOOD LAWYERS
SHOW THE REST OF THE TESTIMONY
THAT IS WHAT WE THOUGHT TO DO.
TO GIVE YOU A FULLER VIEW OF
WHAT WE SAW AS THE GLARING
OMISSIONS BY MY COLLEAGUES.
THAT IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE LEGAL ISSUES HERE ARE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ONES AND I HAVE
BEEN, I THINK, PRETTY CLEAR OVER
THE LAST WEEK, STARTING WHEN WE
HAD THE MOTIONS ARGUMENTS ABOUT
MY CONCERN ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS THAT
WERE OPERATING UNDER.
I HAVE BEEN GOOD GOAL OF MANAGER
NADLER'S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND
OTHER NONSENSE.
I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT THIS
WAY.
TAKE OUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR
FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH AND
OTHER NONSENSE.
THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
AND OTHER NONSENSE.
THE RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND
OTHER NONSENSE.
THE RIGHTS EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE LAWS AND OTHER
NONSENSE.
YOU CAN'T START DOING THAT.
YOU WOULD NOT DO THAT.
NO ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE THAT.
IN FACT, SINCE THE FIRST
ADMINISTRATION GEORGE 
WASHINGTON.
THEY WANTED INFORMATION HE
THOUGHT IT WAS PRIVILEGED, HE
SAID IT WAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
LET'S NOT START CALLING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OTHER
NONSENSE.
AND LUMPING THEM TOGETHER.
THIS IS FROM A HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WHO BELIEVES
CLIENT ATTORNEY PRIVILEGE DOES
NOT APPLY WHICH SHOULD SCARE
EVERY LAWYER IN WASHINGTON DC.
MORE SCARY TO THE LAWYERS THAN
THE CLIENTS.
I SAY THAT IN WRITING AND IN
LETTERS.
THEY DON'T HIDE IT.
I WOULD ASK THEM, I'M NOT GOING
TO, IT IS NOT MY PRIVILEGE TO DO
THAT, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE
THAT?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DOES
NOT APPLY IN A CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?
IF IT DOES NOT APPLY THAT THERE
IS NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
OR IS THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE?
DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.
WE BELIEVE ARTICLE ONE FAILS
CONSTITUTIONALLY.
THE PRESIDENT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT
FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN
AFFAIRS.
IT IS OUR POSITION, LEGALLY,
THAT THE PRESIDENT AT ALL TIMES
ACTED WITH PERFECT LEGAL
AUTHORITY INQUIRED OF MATTERS
INTERNATIONAL INTEREST AND
HAVING RECEIVED ASSURANCES OF
THOSE MATTERS CONTINUED HIS
POLICY THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION
PUT FORWARD OF WHAT REALLY IS
UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT FOR
UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE DELIVERY
OF MILITARY AID PACKAGE THAT WAS
DENIED TO THAT UKRAINIANS PIPE
FOREIGN -- FORMER
ADMINISTRATIONS.
SOME OF THE MANAGERS RIGHT HERE,
MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER 
TABLE, VOTED IN FAVOR -- THEY
WANTED JAVELIN AND I TAKE
MISSILES FOR UKRAINE.
SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE DID 
NOT.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT.
VOTED AGAINST IT.
I AM GLAD WE GAVE IT TO THEM.
I'M GLAD WE ALLOW THEM TO
PURCHASE JAVELINS.
I TELL YOU I NEVER SERVED IN THE
MILITARY.
I HAVE TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS
RESPECT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN
THAT PROTECT OUR FREEDOM EACH
AND EVERY DAY.
TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY
ARE DOING AND CONTINUE TO DO.
BUT THIS PRESIDENT ACTUALLY
ALLOWED THE JAVELINS TO GO AND
SOME OF YOU LIKED THAT IDEA AND
SOME DID NOT.
IT'S A POLICY DIFFERENCE.
WILL BE IMPEACH PRESIDENT OBAMA
BECAUSE HE DID NOT GIVE THEM
LEGAL AID?
NO.
NOR SHOULD YOU.
YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT.
POLICY DIFFERENCE.
POLICY DIFFERENCES DO NOT RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY
MANDATED OR CONSTITUTIONAL
APPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE.
IT IS POLICY DIFFERENCES.
BY THE WAY, IT IS NOT JUST ON
LETHAL WEAPONS.
TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, DID HE
WITHHELD AID?
HE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
HE -- YOU ALLOWED HIM TO DO
THAT.
OH, BUT WE DON'T LIKE THAT THIS
PRESIDENT DID IT.
THE RULES CHANGE.
SO, THIS PRESIDENT'S RULES ARE
DIFFERENT THAN -- HE HAS A
DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS THAT
HE HAS TO APPLY THE WANT TO
ALLOW THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY OR THE
FUTURE ADMINISTRATIONS TO APPLY.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THESE
ARTICLES.
WE HAVEN'T LAID OUT, I BELIEVE,
A COMPELLING CASE ON WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.
WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES PUTTING THIS
TOGETHER, DID THEY GO THROUGH A
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS TO SEE IF
THERE WAS SOMETHING THEY COULD
COME UP WITH?
NO, THEY DID NOT.
DID THEY RUN TO COURT?
NO.
AND THE ONE TIME IT WAS ABOUT TO
HAPPEN THEY RAN THE OTHER WAY.
SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS
SOMETHING.
IT'S NOT OF POWERS AND OTHER
NONSENSE.
IF WE [INAUDIBLE] AT THIS VERY
MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR
REPUBLIC A BAR OF IMPEACHMENT
BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE
PRESIDENT'S POLICIES OR THE WAY
HE UNDERTOOK THOSE POLICIES,
BECAUSE WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT
POLICIES, IF PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT IS NOW THE RULE OF
THE DAY, WHICH OF THESE MEMBERS
AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SAID
SHOULD NEVER BE THE RULE OF THE
DAY MY GOODNESS, THEY SAID IT
SOME OF THEM FIVE MONTHS AGO.
BUT THEN WE HAD THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY, A PHONE CALL, IT'S AN
EMERGENCY.
EXCEPT JUST WAIT.
BUT IF PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT,
BASED ON POLICY DISAGREEMENTS,
WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS, AND
PERSONAL PRESUMPTIONS OR
NEWSPAPER REPORTS AND
ALLEGATIONS IN AN ON SOURCED,
MAYBE THIS IS SOMEBODY'S BOOK
WHO NO LONGER IS AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORM
THAN FUTURE PRESIDENTS,
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS WILL BE
PARALYZED THE MOMENT THEY ARE
ELECTED.
BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN TAKE THE
OATH OF OFFICE, THE BAR FOR
IMPEACHMENT CANNOT BE SET THIS
LOW.
MAJORITY LEADER, DEMOCRATIC
LEADER, HOUSE MANAGERS, MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE, DANGER, DANGER,
DANGER.
THESE ARTICLES MUST BE REJECTED
AND THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES 
IT.
JUSTICE DEMANDS IT.
MAJORITY LEADER, WE WOULD ASK
FOR A SHORT RECESS IF WE CAN, 15
MINUTES.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR 15
MINUTES.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND A 15
MINUTE BREAK NOW.
WE HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
DEFENSE TEAM THAT WHEN THEY
RETURN AFTER THIS BREAK YOU WILL
HEAR FROM WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL,
PAT CIPOLLONE AND HE WILL
CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENTS OPENING
ARGUMENTS.
THEY HAVE HAD THREE DAYS TO MAKE
THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS, 24
HOURS AND IT TURNS OUT THEY WILL
USE ABOUT HALF OF THAT TIME.
WE WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO
WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND WE ARE
EXPECTING SOME SENATORS AND
POSSIBLY A HOUSE MANAGERS, MAYBE
EVEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS,
TO GO TO THE DIFFERENT CAMERAS
POSITIONED THROUGHOUT THE
CAPITAL ON THE SENATE SIDE.
THE ONE WE SEE ONE OF THEM
APPROACH WE WILL GO TO THAT.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE WANT TO TAKE
YOUR PHONE CALLS.
DEMOCRATS (202)748-8920
REPUBLICANS (202)748-8921 AND
ALL OTHERS (202)748-8922 YOU CAN
TEXT US AS WELL AT 202748
###-8003 BUTTER MEMBER TO PUT
YOUR FIRST NAME, CITY AND STATE.
WHILE THE WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS
WERE MAKING THEIR CONCLUDING
REMARKS OF THEIR OPENING
ARGUMENTS ALAN DERSHOWITZ, WHO
WE ALL HEARD FROM LAST NIGHT IN
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WAS
TWEETING AT THE SAME TIME AND
SENT OUT THIS TWEET -- REFERRING
TO SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN AND
HER COMMENTS ABOUT NOT FOLLOWING
HIS ARGUMENTS LAST NIGHT BUT HE
SAID BORN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
LAW.
MY FORMER COLLEAGUES SENATOR
WARN CLAIMS SHE CANNOT FOLLOW MY
CAREFULLY LAID OUT PRESENTATION
THAT EVERYBODY ELSE SEEMED TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS SAYS MORE
ABOUT WARREN THAT IT DOES ABOUT
ME.
THEN HE SAID SHE ALSO WILLFULLY
MISCHARACTERIZED WHAT I SAID
CLAIMING I SPOKE ABOUT INTENT
COULD I CHALLENGE HER TO FIND
THAT WORD ANYWHERE IN MY
PRESENTATION.
I TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF
DISCERNING MIXED MOTIVES.
HE ALSO SAID THIS, IF WARREN
KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT COROLLA SHE
WOULD UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN MOTIVES WHICH ARE NOT
ELEMENTS OF CRIME AND INTENT,
WHICH IS PAID IS THE RESPONSE
WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF THE LAW.
THE TWO OF THEM, HARVARD LAW
PROFESSORS TOGETHER AT ONE TIME.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ STILL A
PROFESSOR THERE.
AS WE SAID OUR C-SPAN'S CAPITOL
HILL PRODUCER IS IN THE CHAMBER
DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS AND
HERE ARE A COUPLE TWEETS FROM
HIM, OBSERVATIONS HE MADE INSIDE
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
DATE EIGHT WHICH STARTED A FEW
MINUTES LATER AT 1:03 OF HIS
SCHEDULED 1:00 P.M. START TIME.
TWENTY, 30 SENATORS ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE WORK MISSING
WITH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
GAVELED THE TRIAL BACK INTO
SESSION.
HE ALSO NOTED THAT MICHIGAN GOP
REPRESENTATIVE FRED UPTON WHO IS
NOT A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENTS
IMPEACHMENT TEAM IS ON THE
SENATE FLOOR.
SEATED IN THE BACK OF THE
CHAMBER WATCHING THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL.
SOME REPORTERS ON CAPITOL HILL,
JOHN PUT OF POLITICO TWEETING
OUT SENATE RUBBLE BEGINS ARE
EXCITED TO ME TODAY AFTER THE
PRESIDENTS LAWYERS FINISH UP
THEIR PRESENTATIONS BUT AFTER WE
HEAR FROM PAT CIPOLLONE
REPUBLICANS RESPECTED TO GO
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND
DELIBERATE ABOUT WHAT IS NEXT.
MAGGIE FROM "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
HAS BREAKING NEWS, YOU ALL KNOW
THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS ALONG
WITH MICHAEL SCHMIDT TWEETING
OUT THE PRESIDENT [INAUDIBLE]
SEES IT AS LIKELY IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE HIS
TEAM, MEANWHILE, BUT THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWYERS WEREN'T AWARE OF
THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS IN
BOLTON'S BOOK.
NOW, ALSO POLITICO REPORTING
LINDSAY GRAHAM SUPPORTS A PLAN
TO LET SENATORS VIEW BOLTON'S
TRANSCRIPTS.
WHENEVER ROLL CALL IS REPORTING
THAT GETTING A SUBPOENA FOR THAT
TRANSCRIPT COULD PROVE DIFFICULT
AS THERE WILL BE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES WITH
THAT.
YOU ALSO HAVE SENATOR RAND PAUL
TODAY IN THIS QUOTE FROM "THE
WASHINGTON POST", TORCHING
BOLTON AS A QUOTE DISGRUNTLED
FIRED EMPLOYEE.
LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT SENATOR
GRAHAM HAD TO SAY EARLIER TODAY
ABOUT WITNESSES AND JOHN BOLTON.
>> SENATOR.
>> HERE IS WHAT I AM AT AT
WITNESSES.
I AM READY TO MAKE MY DECISION
BASED ON THE RECORD ESTABLISHED
IN THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE CHAIR
IS NOT TO PURSUE WITNESSES THAT
WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM AND I DO
NOT TO START A PRESIDENT DOING
AT HALF ASS AND HOUSE AND EXPECT
THE SENATE TO DO IT.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
SENATOR LANGFORD HAS SUGGESTED
THAT MAYBE THE MANUSCRIPT SHOULD
BE AVAILABLE IN A CLASSIFIED
SETTINGS AND LET SENATORS READ
IT FOR THEMSELVES.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE
SOLUTION TO ME HOWEVER, IF
PEOPLE WANT WITNESSES WE WILL
GET A LOT OF WITNESSES AND THIS
IDEA OF CALLING MORE MAKES ZERO
SENSE TO ME.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT THERE
IS NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE BIDENS CONNECTION TO
UKRAINE WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND
THERE IS -- OF EVIDENCE SO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD THE SENATE
THIS IS BASELESS AND HAS BEEN
BEEN DEBUNKED.
I THINK THE DEFENSE TEAM
YESTERDAY MADE A DAMNING
INDICTMENT FOR THE HUNTER AND
JOE BIDEN WHAT THEY ALLOWED TO
HAPPEN AND IT'S NOT AN AMERICAN
INTEREST TO EVER SEE THIS HAPPEN
AGAIN IN THE UKRAINE WHERE
HUNTER BIDEN BASICALLY TURNED IT
INTO AN ATM MACHINE BUT WE WILL
GO TO THAT AND THERE IS MEDIA
REPORTS THAT HAVE SUGGESTED DNC
STAFFER MET WITH UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS ABOUT 2015 ELECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS TRUE OR
NOT BUT IF WE WILL OPEN THIS UP
TO ADDITIONAL INQUIRY WE WILL GO
DOWN THE ROAD WITH A LEGITIMATE
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BELIEVE
THERE WAS CORRUPTION AND COMPLEX
WITH INTEREST ON THE BIDENS PART
IN NOT UKRAINE BUT WE WILL FULLY
EXPLORE THAT WHETHER OR NOT THIS
GOOD ABILITY TO THE IDEA THAT
D&C MAY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
UKRAINE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN THEN, WHAT IS
YOUR VOTE GOING TO BE ON THAT
OPENING QUESTION OF WHAT --
>> I WILL LET YOU KNOW FRIDAY
BUT RIGHT NOW I FEEL COMFORTABLE
WITH THE IDEA I HAVE ENOUGH.
I'M JUST TELLING EVERYBODY WHO
THANK YOU CAN SURGICALLY DEAL
WITH THIS, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
I WILL MAKE A PREDICTION BUT
THEY WILL BE 51 REPUBLICAN VOTES
TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN,
THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE DNC
STAFFER AT A VERY MINIMUM.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> HE SAID IF THE AID WAS
CONDITIONED I WOULD BE WRONG --
>> I HAVE SAID BASICALLY THAT
THEY PROVE TO ME IT WOULDN'T BE
WRONG FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT TO
RAISE THIS ISSUE BUT YOU HAVE TO
BE WILLFULLY BLIND AND SAY THAT
DEMOCRATIC MISCONDUCT DOES NOT
MATTER TO YOU, NOT TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD
REASON TO ASK THE UKRAINE TO
LOOK INTO THE BIDEN AFFAIR.
YOU HAD MEDIA REPORTS RIGHT
BEFORE THE JULY 25 MEETING AND
AS MUCH AS I LIKE JOE BIDEN HE
NEEDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF WHY
HE ALLOWED HIS SON TO CONTINUE
TO RECEIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
FROM BURISMA WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN IT WAS ACCOMPLICE OF
INTEREST.
IF A REPUBLICAN HAD BEEN THAT
SAME SITUATION HE WOULD BE ALL
OVER ALL OF US WANTING TO KNOW
WHY WE'RE NOT CALLING THESE
PEOPLE AS WITNESSES.
AS MUCH AS I LIKE JOE BIDEN HE
HAS TO ANSWER FOR HIS TIME AS
THE LEADER OF ANTICORRUPTION
EFFORTS IN THE UKRAINE.
APPARENTLY IT WAS IN A
CLASSIFIED SETTING NOW.
I'M JUST SUGGESTING IF IT'S IN A
CLASSIFIED SETTING NOW LET'S
LOOK AT IT BUT THIS WAS SENATOR
LANGFORD'S IDEA AND IT MAKES
PERFECT SENSE TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACHIEVABLE
BUT THAT WOULD BE A SOLUTION.
>> ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION --
>> LINDSAY GRAHAM EARLIER TODAY
TALKING TO REPORTERS ON
WITNESSES AND CALLING WITNESSES.
THE HEADLINE IN THE HILL
NEWSPAPER THIS MORNING THAT THE
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL
STRUGGLES TO MAINTAIN GOP UNITY
POST THE NEWS FROM THAT
MANUSCRIPT TO JOHN BOLTON'S
BOOK.
ELIZABETH IS ON CAPITOL HILL
REPORTER SAINT SENATOR BRAUN
SAYS HE DOES NOT FEEL THE NEED
TO SEE BOLTON MINISTER BECAUSE
HE KNOWS DERSHOWITZ ARGUED THAT
EVEN IF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE
BOOK ARE TRUE THEY DON'T RISE TO
THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
ON CAPITOL HILL, SENATE CHAMBER,
HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE PART OF
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM
TALKING TO REPORTERS.
>> BUT TO THINK THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT WILL COME OVER HERE
TO HIJACK THE SENATE THE WAY IT
HAS AND THEY SAY 1000 TIMES OVER
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW BUT THEY
DON'T EVEN ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT
OF BREAKING ANY LAW.
IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON AND IT IS
TIME TO MOVE FORWARD BUT I WILL
LEAVE YOU WITH THIS, JUST
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN OUR
COUNTRY IF YOU PLAY THIS OUT,
NOT JUST LONG-TERM, NOT JUST THE
NEXT TIME YOU HAVE A REPUBLICAN
HOUSE WITH A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT AND THIS NEW LOWER
STANDARD BUT WHAT HAPPENS THE
NEXT DAY?
I CARE ABOUT OUR REPUBLIC.
MY BACKGROUND IS IN THE MILITARY
AND I STILL SERVE IN THE ARMY
RESERVE.
I WAS IN IRAQ WITH THE 82nd
AIRBORNE DIVISION.
[INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE PEOPLE GOING
OVERSEAS FOR THEIR TENTH
DEPLOYMENT.
THEY MAY HAVE A FOUR -YEAR-OLD
AND A SIX -YEAR-OLD HOME AND WHY
DO THEY MAKE THAT SACRIFICE?
WHY ARE THEY WILLING TO LAY DOWN
THEIR LIFE FOR OUR FLAG AND FOR
OUR FREEDOMS AND FOR OUR
LIBERTIES AND FOR OUR
CONSTITUTION?
WILLING TO RISK IT ALL, NOT JUST
FOR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES BUT FOR
STRANGERS.
ALL OF YOU AS PATRIOTS,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARE IN
CONGRESS, MEMBER OF THE MEDIA
WERE WATCHING AT HOME, THINK
ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS FOR
AMERICA.
TIME TO MOVE ON.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> FIRST OFF, THE STANDARD AND
BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON THE
PRESIDENT TO PROVE HIS
INNOCENCE.
MAMIE ANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
WHO SAY THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY
UNTIL HE PROVES HIS INNOCENCE.
THAT IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.
BUT THE VERY FIRST PRESIDENT WHO
CAME TO TESTIFY GET A
TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW FROM
COLONEL VOLKER AND IF YOU GO
BACK TO HIS DEFINITION THAT
STARTED THIS WHOLE THING OFF HE
SAID THAT THE READOUTS FROM
UKRAINE AND THE U.S. AFTER THE
CALL MAKE NO REFERENCE TO QUID
PRO QUO OR A HOLD ON AID.
THAT IS THE NEXT DAY ON JULY 26
KIRK VOLKER MET WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND HAD NO RECORD OF
QUID PRO QUO OR PAWS ON AID.
IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOW WITH
ALL OF THE CONTACTS BETWEEN
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND HIS TOP AIDES
THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO QUID PRO
QUO OR HOLD ON EIGHT.
...
UKRAINE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING YOU AN ORDER TO GET THE
HOLD ON.
THESE FACTS WITH THE VERY FIRST
FACTS WE LEARNED WITH THE VERY
FIRST WITNESS IN FRONT OF ADAM
SCHIFF.
>> REPUBLICANS OF SAID NONE OF
THOSE WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE
WERE IN THE ROOM WITH THE
PRESIDENT OR HAD A CONVERSATION
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
WHY DON'T THEY WANT TO GET FROM
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON?
>> ACTUALLY AMBASSADOR VOLKER
DID HAVE THAT DIRECT
CONVERSATION WITH THE
 THE PT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND TO THAT POINT -- LET ME JUST
ANSWER IT.
BECAUSE AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HE
DID SPEAK.
BUT ON TOP OF THAT, GOING BACK
TO THE FALL OF 2017 PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS DIRECTLY EXPRESSING
HIS CONCERN TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER
OF THE NEED TO FIGHT CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE.
>> WE WILL BREAK AWAY FROM THE
HOUSE REPUBLICANS, TAKE YOU OVER
TO ANOTHER CAMERA, SENATOR
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL DEMOCRAT FROM
CONNECTICUT IS TALKING TO
REPORTERS.
>> -- WAS A FACTORY SUMMATION OF
A CASE BEREFT OF EVIDENCE.
[INAUDIBLE]
-- I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES LOOK
THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR AND
LOOK AT HOW THEY WILL BE
CONDUCTED.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT WE WANT IS THE TRUTH.
NOT QUID PRO QUO.
WE'VE SEEN WHAT A QUID PRO QUO
DOES.
WE NEED THE TRUTH AND WE NEED
THE WITNESSES WHO WERE IN THE
ROOM -- FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE
BEGINNING WITH THE JOHN BOLTON,
HIS NOTES SO THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE CAN --
[INAUDIBLE]
NOT A TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER ON
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, LIKE A
QUID PRO QUO.
>> WOULD YOU PREFER TO HAVE
WITNESSES ONE BY ONE OR HAVE A
SLATE OF WITNESSES?
>> OUR VIEW IS WE WANT ALL FOUR
WITNESSES, JOHN BOLTON, MICK
MULVANEY, ROBERT BLAIR AND MIKE
DUFFEY, ALL OF THEM WITH
RELEVANT FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
AND THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WOULD
LIKE AS WELL, WHETHER IT'S ONE
BY ONE OR IN TOTAL, WE WOULD
LIKE VOTES ON ALL OF THEM.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> AND DEEPLY ALARMED AND
CONCERNED, AND BEGIN IT REFLECTS
DIMINISHING LEADERSHIP OF THIS
PRESIDENT AND HIS CREDIBILITY,
WHICH IS SO REDUCED BY HIS
ESSENTIALLY LACK OF HONESTY TO
THE WORLD AND TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
BUT THE POTENTIAL FOR HUAWEI TO
BE INTEGRATED INTO THE UK SYSTEM
IS DEEPLY CONCERNING, AND HOPE
THEY WILL --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> DO YOU THINK IT WILL AFFECT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AMERICA
AND THE UK?
>> I HOPE IT WILL NOT BECAUSE I
HOPE THE UK WILL BE BETTER OF
THIS POTENTIALLY VERY MISGUIDED
AND POSSIBLY --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU.
>> LET'S GET TO SOME CALLS.
SHIRLEY IN ARKANSAS OF FIRST.
YOUR REACTION TO WHAT YOU'VE
HEARD TODAY.
>> Caller: WELL, I VOTED
DEMOCRAT FOR 59 YEARS, BUT WITH
ALL THAT'S GOING ON I'LL NEVER
EVER VOTE FOR DEMOCRAT.
THEY ARE CORRUPT.
THEY'RE
THEIR MAKING AS BD
WORLD COUNTRY, AND I WILL NEVER
AS LONG AS I LIVE, EVEN THOUGH
I'M 80 YEARS OLD, I WILL NEVER
VOTE DEMOCRAT EVER AGAIN.
>> BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'VE HEARD
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT?
>> Caller: YES WHY.
MY SPECIFICALLY?
>> Caller: THEY ARE SO
CROOKED.
>> DUG IN CALIFORNIA AND
INDEPENDENT.
YOUR TURN.
>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS WHAT IS ON
MY MIND.
I BELIEVE NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN
THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
NOBODY KNOWS THE WHISTLEBLOWER,
EXCEPT FOR MR. ALLEN SCHIFF.
I'M JUST BEGINNING TO WONDER IF
HOWLAND SCHIFF IS THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
>> Host: IT IS ADAM SCHIFF,
THE CHAIR OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE FROM CALIFORNIA.
THE SENATE IS PAST THE BREAK
THERE.
THEY BROKE AT 2:18 OR WE'RE
COMING UP ON THE END OF THE
BREAK TIME.
THE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH
McCONNELL IS WE SAW HIM
WALKING BACK INTO THE CHAMBER SO
WE DO NOT CONTROL THE CAMERAS.
WHEN THEY COME UP, WHEN THE
CAMERAS COME UP THAT IS WHEN
WE'LL GO RIGHT BACK INTO THE
CHAMBER.
WE MAY HAVE TO CUT OFF YOUR
REMARKS SO WE CAN GET YOU BACK
IN THERE QUICKLY AS THEY RESUME.
THEIR CONCLUDING REMARKS FROM
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS.
WE ARE EXPECTED TO HEAR FROM PAT
CIPOLLONE.
HE SAID HE WILL NOT TAKE ALL OF
THEIR 24 HOURS.
THEY WILL TAKE ABOUT HALF OF IT
AND HE SAID THEY WOULD CONCLUDE
BY DINNERTIME, IF NOT BEFORE.
LET'S GO TO DANNY IN FLORIDA,
REPUBLICAN CALLER.
DANNY.
HELLO, DANNY.
LET ME TRY ONE MORE TIME.
DANNY, ARE YOU THERE?
>> Caller: ON HERE TREMORS GO
AHEAD.
>> Caller:
, TRUMP SAO
RUN ON A BASIS OF DRAINING THE
SWAMP, AND I'VE NEVER -- I
WORKED CONSTRUCTION FOR 50 YEARS
AND YOU DON'T DRAIN THE SWAMP
WITHOUT MUDDYING THE WATER.
AS WITH A LOT OF DEMOCRATS
FIXING TO WASH OVER THE DAMN.
 DAM.
THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT.
>> Host: DANNY IN FLORIDA.
AFTER WE HEAR THE CONCLUSION OF
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS OPENING
REMARKS THIS AFTERNOON, THE
HILLARY'S REPORTING SERVICE WHO
CAN SUCK WHEN YOU MEET DOORS,
THE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH
McCONNELL ACCORDING TO
SOURCES, HE HAS CALLED THE
MEETING TO GET HIS GOP
COLLEAGUES ON THE SAME PAGE AS
PHASE ONE OF THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL NEARS ITS IN.
UNDER THE TRIALS ORGANIZING
RESOLUTION WHICH McCONNELL
DRAFTED, SENATORS WILL HAVE 16
HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE
HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS BEFORE
VOTING ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
IN ORDER TO SUBPOENA ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES SUCH OF THE FORMER
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN
BOLTON AND ACTING WHITE HOUSE
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.
THEY WILL MEET BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS AND THEN THEY ARE EXPECTED
TO START WITH THEIR QUESTIONING
OF HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TOMORROW.
THAT IS WHAT IS BEING REPORTED
BY REPORTERS UP ON CAPITOL HILL.
HIM EARLY IN PHILADELPHIA,
CALLER.
>> Caller: MY CONCERN IS THAT
THE PRACTICE OF THE GOP
SYSTEMATICALLY BLOCKING
INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC IS
NOT SERVING AS WELL.
NO ONE INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
THE GOP HAS BASICALLY BEEN
ACTING AS IF THEIR ROLE IS TO
DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, UPHOLD HIS
AGENDA.
STARTING WITH THE HOLDING OF
LEGISLATION BY MITCH SEEMS SINCE
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IN
OFFICE, THE GOP IS BASICALLY
BEEN UPHOLDING HIS AGENDA AS
OPPOSED TO APPEARING AS IF THEY
ARE WORKING FOR THE PUBLIC AS
EACH SENDER IS TO BE.
NOW, REGARDING THESE CHARGES AND
IMPEACHMENT, WE'VE HEARD ALSO
CLAIMS THAT THE IMPEACHMENT IS
INVALID, AS IF IT'S NOT DEFINED
BY OUR CONSTITUTION.
EACH OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS
EXPECTED TO SERVE A PARTICULAR
ROLE IN UPHOLDING OUR
CONSTITUTION, AND THAT DOES NOT
SEEM TO BE HAPPENING.
THEY DETERMINED BEFORE THE TRIAL
EVEN STARTED AND IDENTIFIED
THEMSELVES AS BIASED JURORS.
IMAGINE THAT.
IMAGINE THAT, NEVER HAVE WE SEEN
ANY SUCH BEHAVIOR AND CLAIM AND
WILLINGNESS TO STAND UP AND SAY
THAT AS IF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED
BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> Host: KIMBERLY, MORE
OBSERVATION FROM C-SPAN'S
CAPITAL PRODUCER CRAIG KAPLAN.
SENATE FLOOR DESK MATES,
SENATORS CALLED AND MURKOWSKI
SPOKE TO EACH OTHER FOR A FEW
MINUTES IN THEIR SEATS AT THE
TOP OF THE RECESS.
ALSO BEEN WHAT OVER AND SPOKE TO
JERRY NOW THE ONE OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS SEAT OF THE MENTORS
TABLE TURKEY RETURNED TO TRIAL
TODAY AFTER BEING IN NEWARK CITY
MONDAY WAS WIFE IS UNDERGOING
PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENT.
MICHAEL IN CALIFORNIA,
INDEPENDENT.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR
PROVIDING THE COVERAGE.
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS
WHEN YOU GO TO TRIAL, YOU HAVE
TO BE TRIED FOR BREAKING A LAW,
AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE.
ANYBODY IN YOUR COMMUNITY WHO
HAS GONE TO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
TRIAL CAN ATTEST TO THAT.
TO ME, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.
I THINK WITNESSES AND PRESS
STATEMENTS ALL JUST TAKE AWAY
FROM THAT.
I THINK THIS NEEDS TO STOP AND
THEY NEED TO BE RESUBMITTED
UNDER CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT
MEANS.
>> Host: OKAY.
LEEANN CALDWELL COPRODUCERS FOR
NBC TWEETING OUT JUST AFTER THE
BREAK WITH COLLEGE AND MURKOWSKI
CHATTED QUIETLY FOR ABOUT FIVE
MINUTES.
EACH HAD A HAND COVERING THEIR
MOUTH LIKELY TO ASSURE THAT
REPORTERS OR PERHAPS OTHER
SENATORS COULD NOT PICK UP WHAT
THEY HAD TO SAY.
ROGER IN NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO
COME BACK IN AFTER THIS SHORT
RECESS.
WE DON'T CONTROL THE CAMERAS,
ROGER.
SO WHEN THEY COME IN WE WILL GO
THERE QUICKLY.
GO AHEAD, ALL RIGHT.
FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR
LETTING ME SPEAK MY OPINION.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE IMPEACHMENT
OF THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE
MORE THAN ANY PRESIDENT WE'VE
EVER HAD IN HISTORY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS
POLICY, OR HIM HIMSELF, THAT
SOUNDS LIKE A PERSONAL ISSUE.
WHAT HE HAS DONE MORE ON FOREIGN
POLICY, ALL THE DEALS HE HAS
MADE, EVERYTHING THIS MAN HAS
DONE HE'S DONE AND MADE THINGS
BETTER.
THE CITIZENS AND PEOPLE FOR THE
UNITED STATES.
>> Host: ROGER IN NEW MEXICO.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" CAUGHT UP
WITH ADAM SCHIFF, THE INTEL
CHAIR IN THE HOUSE.
THEY JUST INTERVIEWED HIM AND,
ON THE BOLTON FALLOUT, AS THE
WITNESS TALKS CONTINUE SHIFT
HOLDS HIS CONDITION.
NO CIRCUS DEALS AND THE SENATE.
THEY SHOULD LOOK TO THE HOUSE TO
ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR BOLTON.
ALSO FROM CAPITOL HILL WE HAVE
KASIE HUNT HUSSEIN DAVID PERDUE
HAS COMPARED ROMNEY TO JEFF
FLAKE ON STEROIDS PICKS HAVE
ROMNEY IS NOT IN DANGER OF
LOSING HIS SEAT.
MITT ROMNEY AS YOU ALL KNOW
SAYING THERE ARE HIM AND OTHER
REPUBLICANS WHO COULD BE OPEN TO
VOTING FOR ALLOWING WITNESSES
AND GETTING TESTIMONY FROM JOHN
BOLTON.
ON A LIGHTER NOTE, THINGS ARE
GETTING SERIOUS IN IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL.
SENATOR ROMNEY IS DRINKING
CHOCOLATE MILK.
HE APPARENTLY BROUGHT HIS OWN
BOTTLE AND A "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" REPORTER SAYS MITT
ROMNEY WAS BUSTED FOR BRINGING A
BOTTLE OF FAMOUS CHOCOLATE MILK
ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
HE PUT IN A CLASS AND THAT WAS
OKAY THEN.
WE WILL GO TO IN CALIFORNIA.
DEMOCRATIC CALLER.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME ON.
I GUESS MY ONLY REACTION TO THIS
SO FAR, IT FEELS LIKE THEY DON'T
HAVE A COHERENT NARRATIVE OR
LIKE A LOGICAL PROGRESSION TO
THE ARGUMENTS.
MORE OR LESS I CAN CHARACTERIZE
AS A CONSTELLATION OF RANDOMLY
INDENTED BULLET POINTS.
RESIDENT THE HOUSE MANAGERS LAID
OUT A VERY CLEAR, THEY WITH A
SYSTEMATICALLY THROUGH ARTICLE
12 ARTICLE II AND THEY BASICALLY
WHEN HAD WITH TRYING TO PROVE
THEIR CASE IN A VERY SYSTEMATIC
FASHION BUT THE SENATE SEEMS TO
BE SPRING WHATEVER THEY CAN OUT
THERE.
IN HOPES SOMEBODY WILL LATCH ON
TO ONE OR TWO THINGS, THAT WAY
THEY CAN SAY THIS IS MY REASON
FOR, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN THE
LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ALLOWED
TO HAVE VISUAL AID ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE BUT IF THE WERE I
THINK WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL TO
HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CHARTS COME
WHEN THIS AS ARTICLE ONE AND ONE
THIS IS ARTICLE II AND
EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO
THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
GOES ON THE FIRST AND THE THIRD
WHEN IT SAYS EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT WOULD BE AN EASY WAY.
>> Host: BOTH THE HOUSE
MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS HAVE USED VISUAL AIDS
THROUGHOUT.
, YES, GIVE USE SLIDES AND STUFF
LIKE THAT BUT IF YOU HAVE
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A VISUAL
REFERENCE HE COULD SEE SOMETHING
THAT RELATES DIRECTLY TO ARTICLE
ONE ABUSE OF POWER OR ARTICLE TO
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND THAT
WHAT YOU WOULD KNOW LIKE A SHINY
OBJECT JUST TRYING TO BE THROWN
OUT AS WAY TO MUDDY THE WATERS
OR CONFUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
WATCHING.
THAT'S WHAT IT FEELS LIKE,
THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO THE
 S
MUCH STUFF OUT THERE TO CONFUSE
PEOPLE INSTEAD OF LATCH ONTO ONE
OR TWO THINGS THEY THINK THEY
LIKE.
>> Host: THE SENATE IS IN A 50
MINUTE BREAK.
IT'S APPROACHING MORE LIKE 30
MINUTES AND THEY WILL TAKE THIS
BREAK AND COME BACK AND THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS PLAN TO WRAP
UP THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS AND
THEN IT TURNS INTO 16 HOURS OF
QUESTIONS THAT SENATORS GET TO
ASK.
THEY HAVE TO WRITE DOWN THEIR
QUESTIONS.
THEY GET VETTED THROUGH
LEADERSHIP ACCORDING TO THE HILL
NEWSPAPER AND THEN THEY ARE
ASKED, THEY'RE GIVEN TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE WHO THEN READS THE
QUESTION TO WHOEVER IT IS
ADDRESSED TO.
DURING THE CLINTON TRIAL THEY
WOULD GET FIVE MINUTES TO ANSWER
EACH OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
WE WILL SEE HOW WORKS OUT THIS
TIME AROUND.
CNN REPORTED TWEETING OUT AMY
KLOBUCHAR IS MAKING A WHIRLWIND
TRIP TO IOWA TONIGHT.
THIS AND IS BACK IN.
WE WILL GO THERE NOW.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
WELL, HAD KIND OF A LENGTHY
PRESENTATION PREPARED BUT I
THINK, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD A
LOT FROM OUR SIDE AND A THINK
WE'VE MADE OUR CASE.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LEAVE
YOU WITH A COUPLE OF POINTS.
FIRST OF ALL, FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU, MR. LEADER AND THANK
YOU DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER
AND ALL OF YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF SPEAKING ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE AND FOR YOUR TIME AND
ATTENTION.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
WE'VE MADE THREE BASIC POINTS.
ONE, ALL YOU NEED IN THIS CASE
IS THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR
COMMON SENSE.
YOU JUST LOOK AT THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT FALL FAR SHORT OF
ANY
 OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD, AND
THEY ARE DANGEROUS POINT AND IF
YOU LOOK TO THE WORDS FROM THE
PAST THAT I THINK ARE
INSTRUCTIVE AS I SAID LAST
NIGHT, THEY ARE INSTRUCTIVE
BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT THEN AND
THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
AND I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH SOME OF
THOSE WORDS.
>> THERE MUST NEVER BE A
NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT WHEN
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF
OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND
OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE
THE DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS
IN OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO,
AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE
VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS.
>> THIS IS UNFAIR TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
BY THESE ACTIONS YOU WOULD UNDO
THE FREE ELECTION THAT EXPRESS
THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
IN 1996 AND IN SO DOING YOU WILL
DAMAGE THE FACE OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION
AND IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
YOU'LL SET THE DANGERS PRECEDENT
THAT THE CERTAINTY OF
PRESIDENTIAL TERMS WHICH IS SO
BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL AMERICA
WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PERSON
USE OF IMPEACHMENT.
FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL FACE
ELECTIONS, THEN LITIGATION, THEN
IMPEACHMENT.
THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WILL
DIMINISH IN THE FACE OF THE
CONGRESS, A PHENOMENON MUCH
FEARED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
>> THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE DEBATING,
NOT AN IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE CROSSING OUT
THE IMPEACHMENT STANDARD OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND
THEY ARE INSERTING THE WORD IN A
CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.
WE ARE PERMITTING A
CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL
COUP D'ÉTAT WHICH WILL HAUNT
THIS BODY AND OUR COUNTRY
FOREVER.
>> I WARNED MY COLLEAGUES THAT
YOU WILL REAP THE BITTER HARVEST
OF THE UNFAIR PARTISAN SEEDS YOU
SOWED TODAY.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR
IMPEACHMENT IS A WAY TO PROTECT
OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR CITIZENS,
NOT ANOTHER WEAPON IN THE
POLITICAL ARSENAL.
>> I EXPECT HISTORY WILL SHOW WE
LOWERED THE BAR ON IMPEACHMENT
SO MUCH, WE'VE BROKEN THE SEAL
ON THIS EXTREMELY PIDDLY SO
CAVALIERLY THAT IT WILL BE USED
AS A ROUTINE TOOL TO FIGHT
LEVITICAL BATTLES.
MY FEAR IS THAT WHEN A
REPUBLICAN WINS THE WHITE HOUSE,
DEMOCRATS WILL DEMAND PAYBACK.
>> YOU WERE RIGHT.
BUT I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU WERE
ALSO PROPHETIC.
AND I THINK, I COULDN'T SAY
BETTER MYSELF SO I WON'T.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER
IS IN YOUR HEART.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER
IS FOR OUR COUNTRY.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER
IS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO
IS TO THROW OUT A SUCCESSFUL
PRESIDENT ON THE EVE OF AN
ELECTION WITH NO BASIS AND IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IT WOULD DANGEROUSLY CHANGE OUR
COUNTRY AND WE CAN, WE CAN
FOREVER ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS.
YOU ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT AN
INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHY NOT TRUST THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WITH THIS DECISION?
WHY TERROR UP THEIR BALLOTS?
WHY TERROR UP EVERY BALLOT
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
SO I ASK YOU TO DEFEND OUR
CONSTITUTION, TO DEFEND
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, TO DEFEND
BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, TO RESPECT AND TO
DEFEND THE SACRED RIGHT OF EVERY
AMERICAN TO VOTE AND TO CHOOSE
THEIR PRESIDENT.
THE ELECTION IS ONLY MONTHS
AWAY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED
TO CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.
OVERTURNING THE LAST ELECTION
AND MASSIVELY INTERFERING WITH
THE UPCOMING ONE WOULD CAUSE
SERIOUS AND LASTING DAMAGE TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
AND TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY.
THE SENATE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO
HAPPEN.
IT IS TIME FOR THIS TO END HERE
AND NOW.
SO WE URGE THE SENATE TO REJECT
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
FOR ALL OF THE REASONS WE HAVE
GIVEN YOU.
YOU KNOW THEM ALL.
I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THEM.
THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, A QUOTE FROM
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, IT'S A
REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.
AND EVERY TIME I HEARD IT, I
SAID TO MYSELF, IT'S A REPUBLIC,
IF THEY LET US KEEP IT.
AND I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE,
EVERY CONFIDENCE IN YOUR WISDOM
YOU WILL DO THE ONLY THING YOU
CAN DO, WHAT YOU MUST DO, WHAT
THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS YOU TO
DO, REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT WILL SHOW THAT YOU PUT THE
CONSTITUTION ABOVE PARTISANSHIP.
IT WILL SHOW THAT WE CAN COME
TOGETHER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE AND END THE ERA OF
IMPEACHMENT FOR GOOD.
YOU KNOW IT SHOULD END.
YOU KNOW IT SHOULD END.
IT WILL ALLOW YOU ALL TO SPEND
ALL OF YOUR ENERGY AND ALL OF
YOUR ENORMOUS TALENT AND ALL OF
YOUR RESOURCES ON DOING WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SENT YOU HERE TO
DO, TO WORK TOGETHER, TO WORK
WITH THE PRESIDENT TO SOLVE
THEIR PROBLEMS.
SO THIS SHOULD END NOW AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR
ATTENTION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR
QUESTIONS, AND WITH THAT, THAT
IN OUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZE
RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE
REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEMOCRATIC LEADER ON HOW TO
PROCEED DURING THE QUESTION
PERIOD.
THEREFORE, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE QUESTION PERIOD
FOR SENATORS START WHEN THE
SENATE RECONVENES ON WEDNESDAY.
FURTHER, THAT THE QUESTIONS
ALTERNATE BETWEEN THE MAJORITY
AND MINORITY SIDES FOR UP TO
EIGHT HOURS AND DURING THAT
SESSION OF THE SENATE.
FINALLY, THAT ON THURSDAY THE
SEVENTH RESUME TIME FOR SENATORS
QUESTIONS ALTERNATING BETWEEN
SIDES FOR UP TO EIGHT HOURS
DURING THAT SESSION OF THE
SENATE.
>> IS THEIR
 THERE OBJECTI?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> SO WE WILL COMPLETE THE
QUESTION PERIOD OVER THE NEXT
TWO DAYS.
I REMIND SENATORS THE QUESTIONS
MUST BE IN WRITING, WILL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
DURING THE QUESTION PERIOD OF
THE CLINTON TRIAL, SENATORS WERE
THOUGHTFUL AND BRIEF WITH THEIR
QUESTIONS, AND THE MANAGERS AND
COUNSEL WERE SUCCINCT IN THEIR
ANSWERS.
I HOPE WE CAN FOLLOW BOTH OF
THESE EXAMPLES DURING THIS TIME.
>> DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
OF PRESIDENT CLINTON, CHIEF
JUSTICE REHNQUIST ADVISED
COUNSEL, QUOTE, COUNSEL ON BOTH
SIDES THAT THE CHAIR WILL
OPERATE ON A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION THAT EACH QUESTION
CAN BE FULLY AND FAIRLY ANSWERED
IN FIVE MINUTES OR LESS, END
QUOTE.
THE TRANSCRIPT INDICATES THAT
THE STATEMENT WAS MET WITH QUOTE
LAUGHTER, END QUOTE.
NONETHELESS, MANAGERS AND
COUNSEL GENERALLY LIMITED THEIR
RESPONSES ACCORDINGLY.
I THINK THE LATE CHIEFS TIME HE
WAS A GOOD ONE AND WOULD ASK
BOTH SIDES TO ABIDE BY IT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I WOULD
ASK AN INSTANCE OF THE TRIAL
ADJOURNED UNTIL ONE P.M.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29 AND THIS THIS
WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTES THE
ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION WE ARE
ADJOURNED.
>> WITH THAT, THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS HAVE WRAPPED UP THEIR
OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE SENATE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AGAINST
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND YOU HEARD
FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER
TOMORROW WHEN THEY COME IN FOR
THE SENATE SESSION THEY WILL
BEGIN THEIR 16 HOURS OF
QUESTIONING TIME ALTERNATING
BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS.
THEY WILL SPEND EIGHT HOURS
TOMORROW FOLLOWED BY EIGHT HOURS
ON THURSDAY WITH THEIR
QUESTIONS.
YO
