DO YOU SEE THEIR ATTEMPT AT A
DO YOU SEE THEIR ATTEMPT AT A
DEFENSE BEING MOSTLY ABOUT
DEFENSE BEING MOSTLY ABOUT
MAKING THE CASE AGAINST
MAKING THE CASE AGAINST
WITNESSES?
WITNESSES?
>> I DO.
>> I DO.
I THINK THEYRE DEFINITELY
I THINK THEYRE DEFINITELY
AFRAID OF WHAT WITNESSES HAVE TO
AFRAID OF WHAT WITNESSES HAVE TO
SAY AND SO THEIR WHOLE STRATEGY
HAS BEEN DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A
HAS BEEN DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A
FAIR TRIAL.
FAIR TRIAL.
THEY DONT FRAME IT THAT WAY BUT
THEY DONT FRAME IT THAT WAY BUT
THATS IN ESSENCE I THEY HAVE A
THATS IN ESSENCE I THEY HAVE A
VERY HEAVY BURDEN WITH THAT
VERY HEAVY BURDEN WITH THAT
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND WHAT A FAIR TRIAL IS.
UNDERSTAND WHAT A FAIR TRIAL IS.
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.
A FAIR TRIAL DOES NOT CONSIST OF
A FAIR TRIAL DOES NOT CONSIST OF
THE PERSON WHO IS CHARGED
THE PERSON WHO IS CHARGED
AGREEING WITH THE JUDGES TO
AGREEING WITH THE JUDGES TO
DEPRIVE THE PROSECUTION FROM
DEPRIVE THE PROSECUTION FROM
BEING ABLE TO MAKE A CASE.
BEING ABLE TO MAKE A CASE.
SO ITS HARD TO ARGUE WE DONT
SO ITS HARD TO ARGUE WE DONT
WANT TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE,
WANT TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY SAY WE
PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY SAY WE
SHOULD HEAR FROM MORE DIRECT
SHOULD HEAR FROM MORE DIRECT
WITNESSES TO TALK TO THE
WITNESSES TO TALK TO THE
PRESIDENT BUT WERE NOT GOING TO
PRESIDENT BUT WERE NOT GOING TO
ALLOW THEM TO BE CALLED.
ALLOW THEM TO BE CALLED.
WHAT WAS SO STRIKING TO ME
WHAT WAS SO STRIKING TO ME
REALLY ABOUT THEIR CASE IS THEY
REALLY ABOUT THEIR CASE IS THEY
BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE
BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE
SCHEME.
SCHEME.
THEY DONT CONTEST THE SCHEME.
THEY DONT CONTEST THE SCHEME.
THEY DONT SAY, NO, HE DIDNT
TRY TO GET FOREIGN HELP IN THE
TRY TO GET FOREIGN HELP IN THE
ELECTION.
ELECTION.
THEY DIDNT SAY THERE WAS NO
THEY DIDNT SAY THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE HE WAS CONDITIONING THE
AID, THEY JUST TRIED TO MAKE THE
AID, THEY JUST TRIED TO MAKE THE
CASE THAT YOU DONT NEED A FAIR
CASE THAT YOU DONT NEED A FAIR
TRIAL HERE.
TRIAL HERE.
YOU CAN MAKE THIS GO AWAY.
YOU CAN MAKE THIS GO AWAY.
BUT LOOK, IF THEYRE SUCCESSFUL
BUT LOOK, IF THEYRE SUCCESSFUL
IN DEPRIVING THE COUNTRY WITH A
IN DEPRIVING THE COUNTRY WITH A
FAIR TRIAL, THERE IS NO
FAIR TRIAL, THERE IS NO
EXONERATION.
EXONERATION.
THERE IS NO EXONERATION.
AMERICANS WILL RECOGNIZE THAT
AMERICANS WILL RECOGNIZE THAT
THE COUNTRY DID NOT GET WHAT THE
THE COUNTRY DID NOT GET WHAT THE
FOUNDERS INTENDED BECAUSE THEY
FOUNDERS INTENDED BECAUSE THEY
PUT THE WORD TRY IN THE
PUT THE WORD TRY IN THE
CONSTITUTION FOR A REASON.
CONSTITUTION FOR A REASON.
>> THE OTHER PART OF THE
>> THE OTHER PART OF THE
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE IS TO CALL
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE IS TO CALL
INTO QUESTION THE INVESTIGATORS,
INTO QUESTION THE INVESTIGATORS,
WHETHER ITS YOU OR THE
WHETHER ITS YOU OR THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
JAY SEKULOW BASICALLY SAID THE
JAY SEKULOW BASICALLY SAID THE
PRESIDENT -- HAS EVERY RIGHT TO
PRESIDENT -- HAS EVERY RIGHT TO
QUESTION ESSENTIALLY DEFENDING
QUESTION ESSENTIALLY DEFENDING
THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES
THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES
HAVE SUTSSPICIONS ABOUT UKRAINE
HAVE SUTSSPICIONS ABOUT UKRAINE
ROLE IN 2016 GOING AFTER THE
ROLE IN 2016 GOING AFTER THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT THE
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL DID THAT
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL DID THAT
BEFORE THE SENATE?
BEFORE THE SENATE?
>> I WAS SURPRISED.
>> I WAS SURPRISED.
I THINK IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE.
I THINK IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE.
BASICALLY WHAT HE DID, AND THIS
BASICALLY WHAT HE DID, AND THIS
WAS REALLY FOLLOWING THE
WAS REALLY FOLLOWING THE
PRESENTATION WE MADE THE DAY
PRESENTATION WE MADE THE DAY
BEFORE ABOUT THE THREAT THE
BEFORE ABOUT THE THREAT THE
PRESIDENT POSES TO THE COUNTRY
PRESIDENT POSES TO THE COUNTRY
BECAUSE HE CONTINUES TO CHOOSE
BECAUSE HE CONTINUES TO CHOOSE
TO BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE RUDY
TO BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE RUDY
GIULIANI.
GIULIANI.
HE CONTINUES TO BELIEVE RUSSIAN
HE CONTINUES TO BELIEVE RUSSIAN
PROPAGANDA OVER HIS OWN
PROPAGANDA OVER HIS OWN
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, OVER HIS
OWN FBI DIRECTOR AND THAT MAKES
OWN FBI DIRECTOR AND THAT MAKES
HIM DANGEROUS TO OUR COUNTRY.
HIM DANGEROUS TO OUR COUNTRY.
WHAT DO THEY DO?
WHAT DO THEY DO?
THEY GO AND DOUBLE DOWN ON THAT
THEY GO AND DOUBLE DOWN ON THAT
SAME CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY
SAME CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY
THAT UKRAINE HACKED THE DNC
THAT UKRAINE HACKED THE DNC
SERVER
SERVER
SERVER.
SERVER.
ITS ASTONISHING.
ITS ASTONISHING.
ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE
ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TO SAY THE
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TO SAY THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD DISBELIEVE HIS
PRESIDENT SHOULD DISBELIEVE HIS
OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENTSCIES, HAS
OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENTSCIES, HAS
EVERY RIDE TO BELIEVE VPLADIMIR
EVERY RIDE TO BELIEVE VPLADIMIR
PUTIN, I WOULDNT WANT TO MAKE
PUTIN, I WOULDNT WANT TO MAKE
THAT ARGUMENT.
THAT ARGUMENT.
>> THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION ISSUE
>> THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION ISSUE
AS WELL AS YOUR OPENING
AS WELL AS YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT ON THE PHONE CALL, ANY
STATEMENT ON THE PHONE CALL, ANY
REGRETS ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE
REGRETS ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE
TWO MOMENTS YOURSELF?
TWO MOMENTS YOURSELF?
>> NO.
>> NO.
AND IM GLAD YOU ASKED THE
AND IM GLAD YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION ABOUT COLLUSION ABOUT,
QUESTION ABOUT COLLUSION ABOUT,
AGAIN, THEY MAY BE PERPETUATING
AGAIN, THEY MAY BE PERPETUATING
THE PRESIDENTS TALKING POINTS
THE PRESIDENTS TALKING POINTS
BUT THEY HAVE GOT IT EXACTLY
BUT THEY HAVE GOT IT EXACTLY
WRONG.
WRONG.
BOB MUELLER DID NOT FIND THERE
BOB MUELLER DID NOT FIND THERE
WAS NO COLLUSION.
WAS NO COLLUSION.
IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF PAGES OF
IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF PAGES OF
THE REPORT HE SAID WE DONT
THE REPORT HE SAID WE DONT
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
WHAT HE SAID WAS WE CANNOT FIND
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BEYOND AIND
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
REASONABLE DOUBT.
NONETHELESS, WHAT HE DID FIND
NONETHELESS, WHAT HE DID FIND
WAS THAT THE RUSSIANS OFFERED
WAS THAT THE RUSSIANS OFFERED
THE PRESIDENT DIRT ON HIS
THE PRESIDENT DIRT ON HIS
OPPONENT AND THEY SAID THEY
OPPONENT AND THEY SAID THEY
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT.
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT.
LITERALLY PUT IT IN WRITING.
LITERALLY PUT IT IN WRITING.
BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT POINT,
BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT POINT,
CHUCK, AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE
CHUCK, AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE
MUELLER REPORT TO ALL OF THIS
MUELLER REPORT TO ALL OF THIS
BECAUSE WERE NOT TRYING THE
BECAUSE WERE NOT TRYING THE
MUELLER REPORT IS THIS IS NOT
MUELLER REPORT IS THIS IS NOT
THE FIRST TIME THAT HE INVITED
THE FIRST TIME THAT HE INVITED
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
THAT IS THE BACKGROUND OF THE
CURRENT EFFORT TO GET A FOREIGN
CURRENT EFFORT TO GET A FOREIGN
NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN AN
NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN AN
ELECTION.
ELECTION.
YOU CANT SAY ITS AN ACCIDENT
WHEN YOU REPEATEDLY ARE SEEKING
WHEN YOU REPEATEDLY ARE SEEKING
FOREIGN HELP AND IN THIS CASE WE
FOREIGN HELP AND IN THIS CASE WE
PROVED OVERWHELMINGLY THAT THEY
PROVED OVERWHELMINGLY THAT THEY
WERE LEVERAGING HUNDREDS OF
WERE LEVERAGING HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT UKRAINE
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT UKRAINE
NEEDED IN MILITARY AID AND A
NEEDED IN MILITARY AID AND A
DEEPLY SOUGHT-AFTER OVAL OFFICE
DEEPLY SOUGHT-AFTER OVAL OFFICE
MEETING TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO
MEETING TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO
HELPING HIM CHEAT.
HELPING HIM CHEAT.
>> THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM
>> THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM
ALSO BROUGHT UP THE FISA ISSUE
ALSO BROUGHT UP THE FISA ISSUE
IN GENERAL BECAUSE THERE WAS A
IN GENERAL BECAUSE THERE WAS A
REPORT THAT THE JUSTICE
REPORT THAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOW SAID THAT
DEPARTMENT HAS NOW SAID THAT
THOSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS, TWO
THOSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS, TWO
OF THEM TO SURVEY CARTER PAGE
LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE, SHOULD
LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE, SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AND
NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AND
ESSENTIALLY TRIED TO FREEZE ANY
ESSENTIALLY TRIED TO FREEZE ANY
INFORMATION THAT WAS COLLECTED
INFORMATION THAT WAS COLLECTED
AROUND IT.
AROUND IT.
WHATS YOUR REACTION TO THE
WHATS YOUR REACTION TO THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS NEW
JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS NEW
DECISION ON THAT?
DECISION ON THAT?
>> WELL, LOOK, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, ITS A
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, ITS A
PRETTY REMARKABLE ARGUMENT,
PRETTY REMARKABLE ARGUMENT,
WHICH IS BECAUSE THERE WERE
WHICH IS BECAUSE THERE WERE
FLAWS AND SERIOUS FLAWS IN A
FLAWS AND SERIOUS FLAWS IN A
FISA APPLICATION INVOLVING A
FISA APPLICATION INVOLVING A
SINGLE PERSON, CARTER PAGE,
SINGLE PERSON, CARTER PAGE,
THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT HAS
THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT HAS
EVERY RIGHT TO DISBELIEVE THE
EVERY RIGHT TO DISBELIEVE THE
UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION OF THE
UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION OF THE
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THAT
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THAT
RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR LAST
RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR LAST
ELECTION, THEYRE LIKELY TO
ELECTION, THEYRE LIKELY TO
INTERFERE IN THE NEXT ELECTION
INTERFERE IN THE NEXT ELECTION
AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT IS
AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT IS
RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE HIS
RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE HIS
POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN.
POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN.
I DONT KNOW HOW ONE THING
I DONT KNOW HOW ONE THING
FOLLOWS FROM THE OTHER, BUT IT
FOLLOWS FROM THE OTHER, BUT IT
SHOWS, I THINK, THE WEAKNESS OF
SHOWS, I THINK, THE WEAKNESS OF
THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS
THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS
SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS
PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS
OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE HIS
OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE HIS
OPPONENT.
OPPONENT.
AND I JUST DONT THINK YOU CAN
MAKE THAT CASE PERSUASIVELY TO
MAKE THAT CASE PERSUASIVELY TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> WHERE ARE YOU ON WITNESS
>> WHERE ARE YOU ON WITNESS
RECIPROCITY?
RECIPROCITY?
>> LOOK, I THINK THE PRESIDENT
HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL RELEVANT
HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL RELEVANT
WITNESSES, JUST AS WE DO, IN HIS
WITNESSES, JUST AS WE DO, IN HIS
DEFENSE.
DEFENSE.
HE DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO
HE DOESNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CALL IRRELEVANT WITNESSES OR
CALL IRRELEVANT WITNESSES OR
WITNESSES THAT ARENT FACT
WITNESSES THAT ARENT FACT
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES.
>> IF THE SENATE SAYS HE DOES,
>> IF THE SENATE SAYS HE DOES,
WHY NOT?
WHY NOT?
THATS THE WAY THE RULES WORK.
IF THE SENATE SAYS HE CAN, THEN
IF THE SENATE SAYS HE CAN, THEN
HE CAN.
HE CAN.
>> WELL, THE SENATE CAN MAKE
WHATEVER DECISION THE SENATE CAN
WHATEVER DECISION THE SENATE CAN
MAKE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN
MAKE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN
JUDGE THAT DECISION, BUT IF
JUDGE THAT DECISION, BUT IF
WERE TALKING ABOUT A FAIR
WERE TALKING ABOUT A FAIR
TRIAL, IF THE SENATORS ARE GOING
TRIAL, IF THE SENATORS ARE GOING
TO GIVE CONTENT TO THEIR OATH TO
TO GIVE CONTENT TO THEIR OATH TO
BE IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATORS OF
BE IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATORS OF
JUSTICE, THEY CANT SAY, WELL,
JUSTICE, THEY CANT SAY, WELL,
WERE GOING TO ALLOW THE
WERE GOING TO ALLOW THE
PRESIDENT TO TRADE WITNESSES
PRESIDENT TO TRADE WITNESSES
THAT DONT SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE
THAT DONT SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE
FACTS BUT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO
FACTS BUT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO
ONCE AGAIN TRY TO SMEAR HIS
ONCE AGAIN TRY TO SMEAR HIS
OPPONENT.
OPPONENT.
WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT THE
POUND OF FLESH, MAKE THAT THE
POUND OF FLESH, MAKE THAT THE
COST OF CALLING RELEVANT
COST OF CALLING RELEVANT
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES.
>> IF THEYRE IRRELEVANT, WHAT
ARE YOU AFRAID OF?EVANT, WHAT
ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
WONT THAT BE EXPOSED?
WONT THAT BE EXPOSED?
>> ITS NOT A QUESTION OF WHAT
>> ITS NOT A QUESTION OF WHAT
IM AFRAID OF.
IM AFRAID OF.
IM NOT AFRAID OF ANYTHING.
IM NOT AFRAID OF ANYTHING.
THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THE TRIAL
THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THE TRIAL
BE USED AS A VEHICLE TO SMEAR
BE USED AS A VEHICLE TO SMEAR
HIS OPPONENT.
HIS OPPONENT.
IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF A SENATE
IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF A SENATE
TRIAL, OR IS IT TO GET TO THE
TRIAL, OR IS IT TO GET TO THE
TRUTH.
TRUTH.
BECAUSE IF ITS TO GET TO THE
BECAUSE IF ITS TO GET TO THE
TRUTH, HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL
TRUTH, HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL
US ANYTHING ABOUT THE
US ANYTHING ABOUT THE
WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY FUNDING.
HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL US WHYNG.
HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL US WHY
THE PRESIDENT WOULDNT LET THE
THE PRESIDENT WOULDNT LET THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INTO THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INTO THE
OVAL OFFICE.
OVAL OFFICE.
HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL US
HUNTER BIDEN CANT TELL US
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
ITS A FALSE CHOICE TO SAY IF
ITS A FALSE CHOICE TO SAY IF
THE HOUSE GETS TO CALL
THE HOUSE GETS TO CALL
WITNESSES, DOESNT THE
WITNESSES, DOESNT THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT.
YES, WE BOTH GET TO CALL
WITNESSES.TH GET TO CALL
WITNESSES.
ONE OTHER POINT, WE HAVE A VERY
ONE OTHER POINT, WE HAVE A VERY
CAPABLE JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT
CAPABLE JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT
BEHIND ME THAT CAN MAKE
BEHIND ME THAT CAN MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT THE MATERIALITY
DECISIONS ABOUT THE MATERIALITY
OF WITNESSES.
OF WITNESSES.
WE TRUST THE SUPREME COURT
WE TRUST THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, TO
JUSTICE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, TO
MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
ONE FINAL THING, IF YOU WILL.
ONE FINAL THING, IF YOU WILL.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY.
>> THE PRESIDENT IS PUSHING OUT
>> THE PRESIDENT IS PUSHING OUT
THE ARGUMENT WE DONT HAVE TIME
TO CALL WITNESSES.NT HAVE TIME
TO CALL WITNESSES.
WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO HAVE
WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO HAVE
THESE PEOPLE TESTIFY BUT WE JUST
THESE PEOPLE TESTIFY BUT WE JUST
DONT HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
DONT HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
IT WOULD BE TOO INCONVENIENT.
IT WOULD BE TOO INCONVENIENT.
THATS A DODGE.
THATS A DODGE.
WE HAVE A JUSTICE WHO CAN MAKE
WE HAVE A JUSTICE WHO CAN MAKE
DECISIONS IF THERES ANY
DECISIONS IF THERES ANY
LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.
LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.
IT CAN GO TO THE JUSTICE --
IT CAN GO TO THE JUSTICE --
>> THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT
>> THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT
INTERFERES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL
INTERFERES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
ELECTION.
WE START TO CREEP TOO CLOSE TO
IT.START TO CREEP TOO CLOSE TO
IT.
BASICALLY AT WHAT POINT SHOULD
VOTERS HAVE THIS DECISION VERSUS
VOTERS HAVE THIS DECISION VERSUS
THE SENATE?
THE SENATE?
>> ITS A BROADER ARGUMENT THAN
>> ITS A BROADER ARGUMENT THAN
THAT.
THAT.
THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU
THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN
HIS FIRST TERM BECAUSE IT WILL
EITHER OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE
EITHER OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS THAT ELECTED HIM OR
VOTERS THAT ELECTED HIM OR
PREVENT HIM FROM BEING ON THE
PREVENT HIM FROM BEING ON THE
BALLOT THE NEXT TIME.
BALLOT THE NEXT TIME.
NOW, THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT,
NOW, THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT,
IF ITS TO BE A MEANINGFUL
IF ITS TO BE A MEANINGFUL
REMEDY, MEANS THAT YOU CAN
REMEDY, MEANS THAT YOU CAN
REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
IF A PRESIDENT COMMITS SERIOUS
IF A PRESIDENT COMMITS SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT IN HIS FIRST TERM, HE
MISCONDUCT IN HIS FIRST TERM, HE
DOESNT GET A PASS.
DOESNT GET A PASS.
THE DANGER TO THE COUNTRY IS
THE DANGER TO THE COUNTRY IS
PARTICULARLY ACUTE WHEN THE
PARTICULARLY ACUTE WHEN THE
CONDUCT INVOLVES THREATENING THE
CONDUCT INVOLVES THREATENING THE
INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION
INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION
BECAUSE THATS NORMALLY THE
BECAUSE THATS NORMALLY THE
REMEDY.
REMEDY.
IF HES ALLOWED TO CHEAT THEN
IF HES ALLOWED TO CHEAT THEN
ITS NOT A PROPER REMEDY.
ITS NOT A PROPER REMEDY.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE
CRITICISM THAT SOME REPUBLICAN
CRITICISM THAT SOME REPUBLICAN
SENATORS DIDNT LIKE YOUR HEAD
SENATORS DIDNT LIKE YOUR HEAD
ON A PIKE COMMENT.
ON A PIKE COMMENT.
MURKOWSKI, COLLINS AND ERNST,
ALL THREE WHO MIGHT BE OPEN TO
ALL THREE WHO MIGHT BE OPEN TO
WITNESSES THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE
WITNESSES THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE
GOT TOO PERSONAL.
GOT TOO PERSONAL.
>> I DONT THINK IT WAS PERSONAL
>> I DONT THINK IT WAS PERSONAL
TO REFER TO THE CBS STORY.
TO REFER TO THE CBS STORY.
WHAT MAY BE PERSONAL, AND I
WHAT MAY BE PERSONAL, AND I
THINK I HAVE TO BE VERY CANDID
THINK I HAVE TO BE VERY CANDID
ABOUT THIS, IS I MADE THE
ABOUT THIS, IS I MADE THE
ARGUMENT THAT ITS GOING TO
ARGUMENT THAT ITS GOING TO
REQUIRE MORAL COURAGE TO STAND
REQUIRE MORAL COURAGE TO STAND
UP TO THIS PRESIDENT.
UP TO THIS PRESIDENT.
AND THIS IS A RAFFLE AND
AND THIS IS A RAFFLE AND
VINDICTIVE PRESIDENT.
VINDICTIVE PRESIDENT.
LOOK AT THE PRESIDENTS TWEETS
LOOK AT THE PRESIDENTS TWEETS
ABOUT ME TODAY SAYING THAT I
ABOUT ME TODAY SAYING THAT I
SHOULD PAY A PRICE.
SHOULD PAY A PRICE.
>> DO YOU TAKE THAT AS A THREAT?
>> DO YOU TAKE THAT AS A THREAT?
>> I THINK ITS INTENDED TO BE.
>> I THINK ITS INTENDED TO BE.
BUT LOOK, IT IS GOING TO BE VERY
BUT LOOK, IT IS GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF THESE
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF THESE
SENATORS TO STAND UP TO THIS
SENATORS TO STAND UP TO THIS
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT.
IT REALLY IS.
THERES JUST NO QUESTION ABOUT
THERES JUST NO QUESTION ABOUT
IT.
IT.
AND I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
AND I DONT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
AND I DONT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
IT IN A WAY THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO
IT IN A WAY THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO
THEM.
THEM.
BUT I DO WANT TO SPEAK CANDIDLY
ABOUT IT.WANT TO SPEAK CANDIDLY
ABOUT IT.
AND IF THIS WERENT AN ISSUE,
AND IF THIS WERENT AN ISSUE,
THERE WOULDNT BE AN ISSUE ABOUT
THERE WOULDNT BE AN ISSUE ABOUT
CALLING WITNESSES.
CALLING WITNESSES.
IF WE CANT EVEN GET THE
IF WE CANT EVEN GET THE
SENATORS TO AGREE TO CALL
SENATORS TO AGREE TO CALL
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL, IT SHOWS
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL, IT SHOWS
YOU JUST HOW DIFFICULT THAT
YOU JUST HOW DIFFICULT THAT
MORAL COURAGE IS.
MORAL COURAGE IS.
>> WELL TRY TO HAVE THAT
>> WELL TRY TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION IN A SECOND.
