>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
DEMONSTRATED HE WILL REMAIN A 
THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO 
REMAIN IN OFFICE. 
>> THE HOUSE CASE IS RUSHED, 
WEAK AND INCOMPLETE. 
>> HISTORY WILL BE OUR FINAL 
JUDGE. WILL SENATORS RISE TO THE
OCCASION? 
>> THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE 
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. 
>> THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR 
ANYTHING THEY CAN GET. BECAUSE 
THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE 
THE ELECTION. 
>> WE ARE WATCHING CAPITOL HILL 
WITH RENEWED ATTENTION AS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM 
RESUMES ITS DEFENSE IN HIS I 
WANT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. I'M 
LIBBY KASEY AND YOU ARE WATCHING
LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE 
"WASHINGTON POST." BECAUSE 
OF ALLEGATIONS IN A NEW 
UNPUBLISHED MAN MANUSCRIPT. WITH
ME TO SHARE THE LATEST REPORTING
FROM THE "WASHINGTON POST" ARE 
ROBERT COSTA JAMES HOMAN AND 
SHANE HARRIS. THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE. WE ALL KNEW THAT THE
WEEKEND MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF
A RESET AND A COLLECTIVE BREATH 
TO FIGURE OUT OKAY. HOW IS THIS 
LOOKING AND ARE WITNESSES LIKELY
TO BE CALLED BUT EVERYTHING 
REALLY FELT LIKE IT CHANGED LAST
NIGHT AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE 
CONVERSATION. IF NOT THE 
ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WE DON'T KNOW 
WHAT THAT WILL BE YET. BUT BOB 
PUT IN YOUR WORDS, HOW BIG OF A 
DEAL THIS BOLTON NEWS IS. 
>> IT ALL BEGAN ON SATURDAY. 
THIS TAKING A MOMENT TO CATCH 
YOUR BREATH FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
LEGAL TEAM AND MANY REPUBLICANS 
WHEN SENATOR ROMNEY ON SATURDAY 
SAID HE WANTED TO SEE WITNESSES 
IN THIS TRIAL. 
AND THAT HAD MY SOURCES AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S INNER CIRCLE ON EDGE
BECAUSE THEY WORRY THAT ROMNEY 
COULD GIVE COVER TO OTHER 
REPUBLICANS TO PUSH FOR WITNESS 
DEAL. AND THE THEN ON SUNDAY 
WHEN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" 
REPORTERS GREAT REPORTERS, 
SCOOPED DETAILS ABOUT JOHN 
BOLTON'S BOOK, YOU SAW GROWING 
CONCERN WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND REPUBLICAN CIRCLES THAT MORE
REPUBLICANS ON MONDAY WOULD PUSH
TO HAVE SOME KIND OF WITNESS 
NEGOTIATION MOVE FORWARD. AND 
PERHAPS EVEN CALL JOHN BOLTON AS
A WITNESS. WHAT'S NOTABLE IS SO 
FAR MONDAY, JUST AS THE SENATORS
NOW HEAD INTO LUNCH, BEFORE IT 
ALL BEGINS AT 1:00 P.M., YOU 
DON'T SEE A TOTAL COLLAPSE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SUPPORT. YOU 
SEE CRACKS, YOU SEE SOME 
SENATORS LIKE ROMNEY AND SENATOR
COLLINS WHO HAVE VOICED SUPPORT 
FOR WITNESSES IN THE PAST, 
SPEAKING UP. SAYING WE NEED TO 
SEE WITNESSES. BUT SENATOR JOHN 
THUN NUMBER TWO SENATE 
REPUBLICAN SAID THIS IS NOT 
REALLY A GAME CHANGER AT ALL. 
FULL SPEED AHEAD ON THE SENATE 
TRIAL. AND SOME OF THE 
VULNERABLE SENATE REPUBLICANS 
LIKE SENATOR TILLLESS WHO'S UP 
IN 2020 FROM NORTH CAROLINA. 
HE'S NOT BREAKING AWAY FROM HIS 
POSITION. BEING A LITTLE BIT 
UNEASY ABOUT CALLING WITNESSES. 
SO IT'S A FLUID MOMENT AT THE 
CAPITOL AS THE TRIAL IS SET TO 
BEGIN AGAIN. 
>> MORE FLUID THAN WE THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE. I MEAN DESPITE YOU 
KNOW ROMNEY CALLING FOR 
WITNESSES AND SAYING THAT THAT 
YOU KNOW, INDICATING THAT WAS 
IMPORTANT TO HIM, IT REALLY 
LOOKED LIKE THIS COULD BE 
WRAPPED UP THIS WEEK, JAMES. AND
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD GIVEN I
THINK ON SATURDAY, BECAUSE THEY 
GAVE A VERY REASONABLE 
PRESENTATION AND EVEN IF THE 
FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE THE 
MANNER, THE TONE WAS IN LINE 
WITH ALLOWING REPUBLICANS TO SAY
WELL, THEY'VE GIVEN A DEFENSE 
HERE. SO I WANT TO GET YOUR 
SENSE OF HOW YOU THINK THIS 
CHANGES THIS. 
>> YEAH LIBBY I THINK THE KEY 
THING IS THAT THEY STILL NEED 
FOUR. DEMOCRATS NEED FOUR 
SENATORS TO CROSS OVER. SO I 
THINK THEY CAN EASILY GET TWO. 
AND THE QUESTION IS DOES SENATOR
ROMNEY GIVE COVER? NOW, THIS -- 
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IS THE
FIRST TIME THAT IN THIS WHOLE 
TRIAL THERE'S SORT OF BEEN DOSE 
OF UNCERTAINTY INJECTED INTO THE
PROCESS? BY AND LARGE THIS HAS 
FELT VERY CHOREOGRAPHED AND VERY
SCRIPTED. THERE WEREN'T YOU KNOW
NEW REVELATIONS OR BOMBSHELLS 
DURING THE TESTIMONY LAST WEEK 
AS YOU NOTED. I'M SORRY, DURING 
THE PRESENTATION LAST WEEK AS 
YOU NOTED THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS KIND OF SOBER MINDED ON 
SATURDAY. AND SO THAT'S WHY I 
THINK PEOPLE WERE SO KIND OF 
SURPRISED AND THE GRAND SCHEME 
OF THING IT'S NOT NEW THAT JOHN 
BOLTON SAID THERE WAS A DRUG 
DEAL GOING ON THAT HE DIDN'T 
WANT TO BE ANY PART OF. WHAT IS 
NEW IS THAT THE PRESIDENT. 
ACCORDING TO BOLTON, ACCORDING 
TO THE REPORTING, DIRECTLY TOLD 
BOLTON HE WAS TYING THE MONEY 
TOGETHER WITH THE MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE IN THE INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE BIDENS. AND SO THAT IS 
WHERE THERE ARE DEFINITELY 
CRACKS. BUT IT'S NOT A SURE 
THING THAT THIS IS GOING TO KIND
OF BLOW THIS OPEN. BUT IT IS A 
VERY FLUID SITUATION. AND THAT'S
WHAT KIND OF LEADS US WATCHING 
ON EDGE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN 
THE NEXT COUPLE OF HOURS AND 
WHETHER -- 
>> WHAT WILL YOU BE WATCHING? 
>> SO IT'S GOING TO BE 
INTERESTING TO NOTE. SENATE 
REPUBLICANS ARE EATING LUNCH 
RIGHT NOW AND I'VE BEEN TEXTING 
WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING 
TO BE IN THE ROOM. THEY'RE ALL 
KIND OF EAGER TO SEE WHAT THE 
MOOD IS. IS MITCH McCONNELL SAY 
LET'S JUST MOVE ON AND THIS 
ISN'T THE TIME TO SHOW ANY SIGNS
OF WEAKNESS? THEN SECOND THING 
TO WATCH IS IN THE 1:00 HOUR DO 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS DO 
ANYTHING TO SORT OF ADDRESS 
THIS? THEY HAVE THE FLOOR NOW. 
YOU KNOW, ADAM SCHIFF CAN HAVE A
PRESS CONFERENCE AND TALK TO 
REPORTERS. BUT THEY CAN MAKE THE
CASE. DO THEY CHANGE THEIR 
DEFENSE STRATEGY IN LIGHT OF THE
BOLTON INFORMATION? NOW WE KNOW 
THAT BOLTON SUBMITTED THIS 
MANUSCRIPT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 
THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT WHO WHO 
SAW IT OR WHAT EXACTLY WHO HAD 
IT AGAIN BUT THEY GAVE IT TO THE
WHITE HOUSE ON DECEMBER 30th. SO
THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE 
THAT PEOPLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
HAVE HAD THIS, THEY KNEW WHAT 
BOLTON WAS GOING TO ALLEGE. AND 
THEY STILL CAME UP WITH THE 
STRATEGY THAT THEY CAME UP WITH.
SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE
IF THEY SORT OF TRIANGULATE 
ACCORDINGLY. 
>> SHANE, WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING?
>> WELL, I THINK THE FIRST THING
I'M WATCHING IS HOW PRESIDENT 
TRUMP REACTS SPECIFICALLY TO 
JOHN BOLTON. AND I THINK HE CAME
OUT WITH TWEET SAYING EARLIER 
TODAY LIKE YOU MENTIONED THAT HE
WAS FIRED. JOHN BOLTON DISPUTES 
THAT. WHY WOULD HE BE DOING 
THAT? OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS TO START ATTACKING BOLTON.
THAT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY HARD 
BECAUSE JOHN BOLTON IS A FAIRLY 
CREDIBLE WITNESS IN ALL THIS. HE
CLEARLY DOESN'T HAVE A POLITICAL
AX TO GRIND AT LEAST WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE
SOLE MA KNEE STRIKE WHICH OF 
COURSE HAPPENED AFTER HE LEFT. 
WE ILL UNDERSTOOD FOR A WHILE 
THAT JOHN BOLTON PROBABLY HAS A 
STORY TO TELL. THE QUESTION WAS 
A JOHN DEAN TYPE OF FIGURE THAT 
WOULD DIRECTLY TIE THE PRESIDENT
TO THE YOU KNOW, TO THE ALLEGES 
CRIME OR WRONGDOING. WELL, 
ACCORDING TO THE REPORTING, HE'S
SORT OF DOING THAT BUT YOU ARE 
NOT SEEING TO BOB'S POINT A 
FOUNDATIONAL SHIFT IN ANYONE'S 
REACTION HERE. IT'S LIKELY HE 
MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS. 
AGAIN HE WILL BE VERY CREDIBLE. 
THE PRESIDENT WILL TRY AND 
UNDERMINE HIM. THAT'S GOING TO 
BE A TOUGH CASE. BUT I MEAN 
COLOR ME SKEPTICAL THAT THIS IS 
SOME KIND OF LIKE -- BOLTON KIND
OF MOMENT THAT'S GOING TO LEAD 
TO THE PRESIDENT BEING 
CONVICTED. I THINK THIS IS 
COMPLETELY BAKED IN YOU KNOW. 
THIS IS NOW THE HISTORY AND THE 
RECORD THAT'S BEING SET HERE. 
AND IT'S BEING DONE -- QUITE 
CHARACTERISTICALLY DRAMATIC AND 
UNEXPECTED FASHION. 
>> WHY THE SPECIFIC LINES THAT 
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED ON
ARE GETTING SO MUCH ATTENTION. 
BECAUSE WE DID GET A SENSE THAT 
JOHN BOLTON HAD CONCERNS. 
EVERYTHING FROM CALLING A DRUG 
DEAL THE SAYING REPEATEDLY TO 
PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR HIM GO 
TALK TO THE LAWYERS. BUT A 
DEMOCRATIC AIDE WORKING ON THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL POINTED OUT TO
REPORTERS TODAY THAT THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT DIRECTLY UNDERMINE 
ASCII PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
CASE. THIS IS NOT LEGALLY 
REQUIRED. JUST GO TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE WEBSITE. LET'S LOOK AT 
THIS FROM PAGE 81. THE EVIDENCE 
SQUARELY REFUTES THE MADE UP 
CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT 
LEVERAGED SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN
EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE ANNOUNCING 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO EITHER 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION OR THE BIDEN BURISMA 
AFFAIRS. THIS IS LIKE A KEY PART
OF THE WHITE HOUSE'S DEFENSE. 
BOB, DOES THIS -- JEOPARDIZE THE
ATTORNEYS ARGUING FOR TRUMP? 
DOES THIS JEOPARDIZE THE CASE 
TODAY IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY? 
>> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR 
CASE. IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY 
INTERESTING TO SEE IF BOLTON 
ACTUALLY TESTIFIES. WHAT 
SPECIFICALLY DOES HE SAY? 
BECAUSE WHAT WE SAW DURING THE 
MUELLER INVESTIGATION FOR 
EXAMPLE AND SHANE WAS ON TOP OF 
ALL THAT, IS THERE WAS ALWAYS A 
QUESTION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
ABOUT HIS INTENT. HE IS SOMEONE 
WHO SPEAKS IN A WAY THAT 
SOMETIMES HARD TO FOLLOW AND 
HE'LL GO OFF IN TANGENTS. SO IF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON HEARD ONE 
THING, AND HE HEARD A CERTAIN 
LINE AND INTERPRETED IT IN A 
CERTAIN WAY, HE MAY WRITE IT AS 
A SCENE IN THE BOOK THAT WOULD 
BE POTENTIALLY DAMAGING FOR THE 
WHITE HOUSE CASE. AND TOTALLY 
OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE'S SO FAR ARGUED. AT THE 
SAME TIME, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN 
WITH MANY THINGS WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS IT'S HARD AT TIMES TO 
FIGURE OUT WHAT IS HIS INTENT. 
HE IS SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS IN 
IMPRECISE WAYS. AND SO BOLTON'S 
TESTIMONY IS GOING TO BE 
IMPORTANT IF IT MOVES FORWARD 
BECAUSE IT WILL TRY TO CLARIFY 
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE PRESIDENT 
SPECIFY? DID HE MAKE IT CLEAR HE
WOULD NOT RELEASE THE AID UNLESS
THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION OF 
THE BIDENS? AND WHAT LANGUAGE 
DID HE USE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE 
IS GOING TO MATTER FOR MANY 
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE. AS 
THEY DECIDE HIS ENTIRE -- THE 
FATE OF HIS PRESIDENCY. 
>> DOESN'T THIS RAISE MORE 
QUESTIONS? WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO 
HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON? 
>> EVERY REPORTER WANTS TO HEAR 
FROM MORE PEEL 
ALL THE TIME. 
>> IT'S NOT GIST BOLTON. THE 
MANUSCRIPT HIGHLIGHTS THAT THERE
ARE NO FIRSTHAND WITNESSES. THEY
ARE ALSO TRYING TO BLOCK THE 
FIRSTHAND WITNESSES FROM COMING 
FORWARD. ONE OF REASONS THE 
BOLTON REVELATIONS ARE 
INTERESTING IS HE SAYS THAT MICK
MULVANEY WAS DEFINITELY PRESENT 
FOR ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH THE 
HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY 
GIULIANI ABOUT YOVANOVITCH. HE 
ALWAYS MADE IT A POINT TO LEAVE 
THE ROOM WHEN TRUMP WAS TALKING 
TO GIULIANI BECAUSE HE DIDN'T 
WANT TO INTERFERE WITH ATTORNEY 
CLIENT PRIVILEGE. HE IS ONE OF 
THE FOUR WITNESSES DEMOCRATS 
WANT TO HEAR FROM. THERE WILL BE
NEW PRESSURE TO HEAR FROM HIM. 
AND SO I THINK TO SHANE'S POINT,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T CALL JOHN 
BOLTON LEV PARNAS. BOB'S 
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE PRECISE 
WORDING MATTERS. BUT THE WAY 
THAT BOLTON HEARD IT IS MUCH 
MORE CREDIBLE THAN LEV PARNAS OR
ALSO MICHAEL COHEN. WE GOT INTO 
THE SAME SITUATION LAST YEAR 
WHEN MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED AND
HE SAID HE COMPARED TRUMP TO A 
MOB BOSS AND SAID YOU KNOW, HE 
GRAB A TIE AND SAID THIS TIE IS 
BLUE AND IT WOULD BE LIKE NO THE
TIE IS RED AND IT WOULD BE LIKE 
THE TIE IS BLUE AND THEN YOU 
WOULD BE LIKE YES, SIR. SO 
MICHAEL COHEN HAD KIND OF 
DIMINISHED CREDIBILITY BECAUSE 
HE LIKE LEV PARNAS, HAD BEEN 
INDICTED FOR A SERIES OF CRIMES.
BOLTONNOT BEEN INDICTED. HAS 
HELD SENIOR JOBS IN THE RONALD 
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND BOTH 
BUSH'S ADMINISTRATIONS AND NOW 
YOU KNOW IN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WHITE HOUSE THERE FOR MORE THAN 
500 DAYS OF THE TRUMP 
PRESIDENCY. THAT DOES JUST GIVE 
HIS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT TRUMP
MEANT BY WHATEVER HE SAID THAT 
MUCH MORE STANDING. 
>> WELL, THIS DOES RAISE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER POTENTIAL 
WITNESSES. AND DEMOCRATS ARE 
REALLY ZEROING IN ON THAT IN 
PARTICULAR ON MICK MULVANEY. THE
ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF FOR 
TRUMP. LET'S LISTEN TO SENATOR 
SCHUMER EARLIER THIS MORNING. 
>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON ESSENTIALLY
CONFIRMS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED
THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE 
FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
IT BOILS DOWN TO ONE THING. WE 
HAVE A WITNESS WITH FIRSTHAND 
EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS FOR WHICH HE IS ON 
TRIAL. HE IS READY AND WILLING 
TO TESTIFY. HOW CAN SENATE 
REPUBLICANS NOT VOTE TO CALL 
THAT WITNESS AND REQUEST HIS 
DOCUMENTS? SEVERAL SECTIONS OF 
MR. BOLTON'S BOOK FURTHER 
IMPLICATE MR. MULVANEY. 
PREVIOUSLY, MR. MULVANEY DENIED 
EVER BEING ON THE PHONE WHEN THE
PRESIDENT SPOKE TO RUDY 
GIULIANI. MR. BOLTON WRITES THAT
MR. MULVANEY WAS ON THE PHONE 
WITH RUDY AND THE PRESIDENT WAS 
DISCUSSING THE REMOVAL OF 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. MR. 
BOLTON'S BOOK IS FURTHER 
EVIDENCE THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE WERE QUOTE IN THE LOOP ON
THIS SCHEME. AS AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID, AND NOW THEY ARE 
ALL COVERING UP. SO IT SEEMS 
LIKE NOT ONLY IS THERE MORE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD
THE AID OFF TO GET A POLITICAL 
GAIN AND INVESTIGATION, BUT 
THERE SEEMS TO BE A GIANT 
COVER-UP AMONG SO MANY OF THE 
LEADING PEOPLE IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE. WHO KNEW ABOUT IT AND 
SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT LET ALONE 
TRIED TO STOP IT. 
>> MY COLLEAGUE RHONDA COLVIN ON
CAPITOL HILL WAS AT THE SCHUMER 
PRESS CONFERENCE THIS MORNING. 
DID YOU GET A SENSE THE 
DEMOCRATS REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS 
IS A GAME CHANGER? ARE THEY 
PLAYING TO THE CAMS AND PUBLIC 
OR DO YOU THINK THIS CHANGES 
THEIR ARGUMENT? 
>> Reporter: LIBBY, AFTER THAT 
BOLTON NEWS THERE'S MORE 
CONFIDENCE IN THE DEMOCRATS THIS
MORNING. IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE
I MEAN NIGH MORETY LEADER CHUCK 
SCHUMER SAID THEY ARE CONFIDENT 
THAT NOW THEY HAVE THE REPORT 
FROM BOLTON THEY ALSO AREN'T TOO
CONFIDENT. THEY REALLY NEED 
APPEAL TO THE SENATE REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES. THEY NEED TO VOTE 
FOR WITNESSES. IN IN THE ROOM 
TOO AFTER THAT CLIP, SCHUMER WAS
ASKED BY A REPORTER IF HE WILL 
GO ALONG WITH THAT TRADE DEAL TO
BRING SOMEONE WHO MAY NOT BE 
RELEVANT TO THE CASE LIKE HUNTER
BIDEN IN ORDER TO GET BOLTON 
HERE. AND HE WAS NOT VERY CLEAR 
STILL IF HE WANTS TO DO THAT. HE
SAID THE FIRST THING WE'VE GOT 
TO DO IS ACTUALLY HAVE THE VOTE 
AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT WE NEED 
TO DO AFTER THAT. BUT HE SAID 
AMERICAN PEOPLE PROBABLY WON'T 
BUY A TRADE DEAL. SO THEY DO 
SEEM TO HAVE MORE WIND IN THEIR 
SAILS THIS MORNING AFTER THIS 
NEWS BUT THEY ARE BEING 
CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC THIS MIGHT
PUSH A FEW MORE REPUBLICANS IN 
THAT COLUMN FOR MAYBE MORE THAN 
FOUR, WHO NEED TO VOTE IN ORDER 
TO HAVE WITNESSES. NOW 
REPUBLICANS ALSO HAD A SCHEDULED
PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER CHUCK 
SCHUMER AND DEMOCRATS DID. IT 
WAS WITH MIKE BRAWN AND LINDSEY 
GRAHAM. GRAHAM WAS NOT THERE. 
THEY ACTUALLY CHANCENED THE 
PRESS CONFERENCE AND IT CAME 
BACK ON. BUT REPUBLICANS IN THE 
ROOM SEEMED TO WANT TO CONTINUE 
TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AND SAY
THAT HE WILL BE VINDICATED THAT 
IS WHAT MIKE BRAWN SAID AFTER 
SCHUMER MADE HIS COMMENTS. YOU 
HAVE DEMOCRATS WHO DON'T WANT TO
BE TOO CONFIDENT AND YOU HAVE 
REPUBLICANS WHO ARE SAYING THIS 
MEANS NOTHING. 
>> SO RHONDA, WHAT WILL YOU WILL
WATCHING AS THE TRIAL 
PROCEEDINGS GET UNDERWAY AROUND 
1:00? 
>> Reporter: I THINK THIS WILL 
KIND OF CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE 
PERHAPS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE. AND I JUST THINK IT WAS
SO INTERESTING THAT THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS DID NOT HAVE
THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE AS A THEY
HAD PLANNED TODAY. THERE MIGHT 
BE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENT 
MESSAGES ATTEMPTS GOING ON 
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE 
MESSAGES TOGETHER. WHAT I MIGHT 
BE INTERESTED IN SEEING AS WE GO
THROUGH THE NEXT FEW HOURS IS 
SOME OF THE VOICES WE DIDN'T 
HEAR FROM ON SATURDAY. YOU KNOW,
THAT WAS KEN STARR, LOT OF 
PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO HEAR WHAT 
HE HAS TO SAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE 
HAVE BEEN WONDERING WHAT IS HE 
GOING TO BRING TO THE TABLE AND 
WHY WAS HE ADDED ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STEAM? I 
THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING 
WE'RE ALL ANTICIPATING BUT 
OVERALL, WE'RE ALL ANTICIPATING 
HOW THIS NEWS THAT BROKE 
YESTERDAY IS GOING TO AFFECT THE
COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT TODAY. 
>> GREAT, RHONDA THANK YOU SO 
MUCH. JAMES, IS THERE A CONCERN 
AMONG REPUBLICANS THAT PULLS ON 
THE THREAD OF JOHN BOLTON WILL 
UNRAVEL THE TAPESTRY AND CEMENT 
THE CASE FOR CALLING MULVANEY 
AND CALLING SECRETARY POMPEO AND
OTHERS AND HOW MUCH ARE THEY 
PUTTING THAT INTO THEIR 
CALCULATION OF WHETHER BOLTON 
SHOULD BE CALLED? 
>> HUGE. I TALKED TO A SENIOR 
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP AIDE THIS 
MORNING. AND THAT WAS HIS BIG 
THING. WAS THAT THE FEAR IS OKAY
SO WE HAVE BOLTON. BOLTON SAYS 
SOMETHING, THEN WE HAVE TO GO 
GET MULVANEY AND THEN WE HAVE TO
GO GET POMPEO AND THEN TO GET 
MIKE DUFFY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN 
THE TAPESTRY STARTS TO UNWIND. 
MORE AND MORE BAD FACTS THEY 
FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO KIND OF 
STOP IT HERE BECAUSE THEY WORRY 
BOLTON IS NOT 
GOING TO BE ENOUGH. CERTAINLY 
NOT GOING TO SATIATE DEMOCRATS 
BUT CREATE HARDER WITNESS VOTES 
POST BOLTON FOR THE SENATORS WHO
ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2020. 
>> IT'S WORTH GOING BACK AND 
REMINDING ALL OF US WHY THESE 
PEOPLE ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THE 
STORY AT THIS POINT. AND WHY YOU
KNOW, AS WE HEARD FROM THAT 
TAPE, HAVING BOLTON COME MIGHT 
LEAD TO MULVANEY AND SECRETARY 
OF STATE AND WHAT THE CONCERN IS
THERE. 
>> THEY WERE ALL TO REFERENCE 
THE TITLE ON BOLTON'S MAN YOU 
SCRIPT. THESE WERE ALL THE 
PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. WE HAVE 
HEARD FROM WITNESSES WHO HAD YOU
KNOW BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS SORT 
OF -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY 
IMPRESSIVE COOL VIEW BUT IN SOME
CASES ONE STEP TO REMOVE PEOPLE 
WHO WERE ON THE RECEIVING END OF
CERTAIN THINGS OR MAYBE DID HEAR
THE PHONE CALL BUT NOT 
NECESSARILY IN THE ROOM WITH THE
PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS HAMMERING 
OUT THE UKRAINE POLICY. JOHN 
BOLTON IS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE 
AND IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING YOU 
ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WITH 
EXCEPTIONAL BUREAUCRATIC 
EXPERIENCE. THAT MATTERS BECAUSE
HE TAKES NOTES AND UNDERSTANDS 
WHAT EVERYONE'S ROLE IS SUPPOSED
TO BE AND AS THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR SORT OF SAT IN 
THE CENTER OF THE HIVE IF YOU 
LIKE WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
RAN IT VERY MUCH KIND OF AS IN 
SOME WAYS AS A ONE PERSON SORT 
OF OPERATION. SO HIS TESTIMONY 
WILL BEAR DIRECTLY ON WHAT AIDES
TO THE PRESIDENT KNEW. WHEN THEY
KNEW IT. WHAT THEY SAID. AND TO 
YOUR POINT OF LIKE ANALOGY OF 
PULLING ON A THREAD. IT'S 
CERTAINLY CONNECTING BACK TO THE
PEOPLE AND I MEAN HE IS SAYING 
MICK MULVANEY MIKE POMPEO AND 
OTHERS DIRECTLY HAVE INFORMATION
THAT BEARS ON THIS CASE. AND 
AGAIN, HE IS A HIGHLY CREDIBLE 
WITNESS. THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO 
HAS YOU KNOW A STALWART 
CONSERVATIVE. I MEAN HE IS A 
PARTISAN IN THAT SENSE. THIS IS 
NOT SOMEONE WHO'S COMING IN I 
THINK AND TRYING TO BLOW UP THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY. BUT AT THE 
SAME TIME, HE IS GOING TO GIVE 
THAT ACCOUNT AS HE SAW IT. I 
MEAN BOLTON IS NOT GOING DOWN 
WITH THE TRUMP SHIP. EVEN IF THE
PRESIDENT WILL PROBABLY STILL BE
ACQUITTED IN THIS. BOLTON HAS 
HIS OWN HISTORY HE'S THINKING 
ABILITY. WHAT HE MIGHT WAIL GET 
THEREUPON AND SAY. YEAH I 
UNDERSTAND UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS 
A QUID PRO QUO AND THE PRESIDENT
WAS PERFECTLY RIGHT TO DO. WE 
DON'T KNOW THE NUANCE OR THE 
SPIN THAT JOHN BOLTON WOULD PUT 
ON THIS. HE IS THE ONE KIND OF 
HOLDING ALL THE CARDS RIGHT NOW.
IT'S CLEAR THE REPORTERS WHILE 
GETTING UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S 
IN THE BOOK, NO ONE HAS REALLY 
SEEN THE BOOK OUTSIDE OF THE FEW
PEOPLE AND MAYBE OTHERS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE. SO YEAH, JOHN 
BOLTON, IT'S TURNING OUT REALLY 
WELL FOR HIM RIGHT NOW IT SEEMS 
TO ME. 
>> THE QUESTION OF JUST WHO 
MIGHT HAVE SEEN THIS MANUSCRIPT 
BUT FIRST REPORTERS ASKED ABOUT 
JOHN BOLTON. WE HAVE THE FRESH 
TAPE. LET'S LISTEN. 
>> MR. PRESIDENT WHAT'S YOUR 
RESPONSE TO THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT AND DOES THIS 
INCREASE THE CHANCE HE IS COULD 
BE CALLED TO TESTIFY? 
>> I CAN TELL YOU NOTHING WAS 
EVER SAID TO JOHN BOLTON. 
>> THE QUESTION OF WHO SAW IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR A COUPLE OF 
REASONS. AS THE TRUMP DEFENSE 
TEAM HAD A CRACK AT CHECKING 
THIS OUT. DID THE WHITE HOUSE 
PRESS TEAM EVEN HAVE EYEBALLS ON
THIS OR NOT? WHY IS WHO HAS SEEN
IT SO IMPORTANT, SHANE? 
>> BECAUSE THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO 
CAN TESTIFY OR AT LEAST TALK TO 
WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. IN THE 
PROCESS THAT WENT THROUGH HERE 
JUST TO EXPLAIN THIS BRIEFLY FOR
PEOPLE, IS WHAT'S CALLED A 
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW. IT'S VERY
STANDARD FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD 
SECURITY CLEARANCES OR WERE IN 
SENIOR POSITIONS AND SOMETIMES 
EVEN NOT VERY SENIOR POSITIONS. 
IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE A 
BOOK, YOU HAVE GOT TO SHOW IT TO
EXPERTS AND SECURITY REVIEWERS 
AND A LEGAL TEAM TO MAKE SURE 
THIS IT'S NOT REVEALING ANY 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. THAT YOU
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND 
IMPORTANTLY WHEN BOLTON'S 
LAWYERS SUBMITTED THIS TO GO 
THROUGH THE PROCESS, THEY 
ATTACHED THE LETTER THAT SAID HE
BELIEVES THERE'S NO CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION IN HERE. NOTHING 
THAT WOULD IMPLICATE HIS 
OBLIGATIONS TO KEEP THINGS 
SECRET. AND WE EXPECT THIS WILL 
GO THROUGH FAIRLY QUICKLY. 
THEY'RE EXPECTING A FAIRLY 
ROUTINE PROCESS. NOW ONCE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE, THERE WOULD BE 
PEOPLE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL WHO WOULD SEE IT AND 
PRESUMABLY PEOPLE IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WOULD SEE
AND IT LAWYERS ARE ALWAYS 
INVOLVED. AND THESE KINDS OF 
REVIEWS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE SEEN IT. OR
THAT EVEN THE CHIEF OF STAFF 
WOULD HAVE SEEN IT BUT ONCE IT'S
KIND OF IN THE BLOODSTREAM AND 
PROCESS OF THE WHITE HOUSE YOU 
KNOW YOU COULD IMAGINE THAT SOME
PEOPLE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A 
PEEK AT THAT. BUT CERTAINLY 
THERE WOULD BE SOME YOU KNOW, 
MAYBE NOT HUGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE,
BUT A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER 
WHO WOULD BE GOING OVER EVERY 
SINGLE WORD OF THAT MANUSCRIPT 
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING SURE 
IT WAS CLEARED FOR PUBLIC 
RELEASE. NOT TO BE FINDING OUT 
WHETHER IT HAD ANYTHING OF LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
CASE. THAT SAID, THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE IS ONE OF 
THE PEOPLE ON THE FLOOR OF THE 
SENATE. RIGHT NOW. DEFENDING THE
PRESIDENT AND MAKING THE CASE 
AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT 
MANUSCRIPT WOULD NOT HAVE AT 
LEAST MADE A PATH THROUGH THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE. 
THAT WOULD BE STANDARD PROCEDURE
FOR AN EXWHITE HOUSE SENIOR 
EMPLOYEE WHO WANTED TO WRITE A 
BOOK. 
>> AS WE SAW THE REPORT COME OUT
FROM THE "NEW YORK TIMES," IT 
SEEMED TO CATCH SOME BY 
SURPRISE. EVEN ON PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN PRESS TEAM. 
>> WELL, IT WAS UNCLEAR FOR MANY
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND TOP 
TOP REPUBLICANS ABOUT WHEN JOHN 
BOLTON WOULD ACTUALLY PUBLISH 
THE BOOK. NOW WE KNOW IT'S 
COMING OUT IN MARCH. AND -- 
>> A REAL YOU KNOW, QUESTION 
ABOUT BOOK DEAL AND EVERYTHING 
ELSE AND OUR TEAM'S REPORTING 
SOLIDIFIED YES THERE'S A BOOK 
DEAL THAT'S COMING FORTH BUT 
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S BEEN ON 
BILLBOARDS EVERYWHERE FOR THE 
PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. WHAT THE 
TITLE OF THE BOOK WOULD BE. A 
LOT OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE 
WHEN AND THE WHAT. 
>> HE'S HAD A BOOK BEFORE. HE 
WROTE A BOOK ABOUT HIS TIME IN 
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. GEORGE 
W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED 
SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION AND 
HE'S NOT KNOWN FOR PULLING 
PUNCHES ABOUT HOW HI FEELS ABOUT
DIFFERENT ADVERSARIES INSIDE THE
ADMINISTRATION. THERE WOULD BE 
INTENSE INTEREST INSIDE THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
PERHAPS ELSEWHERE BUT A NOTABLE 
REPORTING TARGET TODAY FOR THE 
POSTAND OTHER ABOUT WHY THEY 
DECIDED TO KEEP THIS CONTAINED 
TO WHAT EXTENT IF ANY WAS PAT 
CIPOLLONE THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL INFORMED AND WHAT EXTENT
WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP INFORMED? 
WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL 
TEAM MAKE CERTAIN ARGUMENTS ON 
SATURDAY AND PLAN TO MAKE 
CERTAIN ARGUMENTS TODAY IF THEY 
KNEW THIS MANUSCRIPT WAS SITTING
INSIDE THE WEST WING IN SOME 
CAPACITY. DID THAT AFFECT THEIR 
THINKING AND WHY WERE SOME 
PEOPLE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP IF 
THEY WERE? 
>> JAMES DEEPER INTO WHAT KIND 
OF A WITNESS JOHN BOLTON WOULD 
BE AND WHAT HE HAS TO BE 
CONSIDERING. SO HE RESISTED 
GOING BEFORE THE HOUSE. BUT HE 
DID SAY HE SIGNALED HE WOULD BE 
OPEN TO COMING TO THE SENATE IF 
SUBPOENAED. AT THE SAME TIME, 
THIS BOOK IS WORKING ITS WAY 
THROUGH THE VETTING PROCESS. SO 
YOU KNOW, CAN HE SORT OF HAVE 
HIS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO? GO 
BEFORE YOU KNOW THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND BEFORE CONGRESS AND 
TELL WHAT HE HEARD AND WHAT HE 
SAW? AND YET HAVE A BOOK COME 
OUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER? 
>> I MEAN JOHN BOLTON IS IN HIS 
EARLY 70S. AS I MENTIONED. HE'S 
BEEN AROUND YOU KNOW, HE WAS A 
KEY FIGURE IN THE REAGAN JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT. AND HE -- BASED ON 
REPORTING, IS SENSITIVE TO HIS 
BOOK COMING OUT JUST WEEKS AFTER
THIS TRIAL POTENTIALLY WRAPS UP.
AND HIM NOT HAVING HAD ANY KIND 
OF SAY IN THAT. I THINK HE 
RECOGNIZES THAT HE WOULD BE 
CRITICIZED. 
>> THROUGH THAT OPTICS RIGHT? 
YOU WOULDN'T GO BEFORE CONGRESS 
-- 
>> BUT YOU ARE OKAY WITH THE 
MULTIMILLION DOLLAR BOOK DEAL 
COMING OUT A FEW WEEKS LATER. I 
THINK SHANE IS ABSOLUTELY 
CORRECT AND ONE OF THE THINGS 
YOU HEARD TALKING TO REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS LAST WEEK WAS THAT HE 
MIGHT KIND OF OFFER UP SOME WHAT
LAWYERS CALL BAD FACTS. BUT THEN
SAY LOOK, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE 
PREROGATIVE TO DO THAT. HE'S 
SOMEONE WHO'S KNOWN TO BE AN 
ADVOCATE FOR EXECUTIVE POWER. 
JOHN CORNYN SAID LAST WEEK I 
THINK BOLTON COULD BE A HELPFUL 
WITNESS FOR THE PRESIDENT. MAYBE
THAT'S WISHABLE THINKING BUT 
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CLEAR THAT 
IF HE TESTIFIED, HE WOULD KIND 
OF COME OUT WITH A DAGGER FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. AND I THINK HE'S 
VERY SENSITIVE TO -- EVEN THOUGH
HE IS IN HIS 70s, HE'S SENSITIVE
TO HIS LEGACY. HIS FUTURE IN THE
PARTY. HE IS AN IDEA LOG AND HE 
UNDERSTAND -- HE SEES THIS KIND 
OF FIGHT WITHIN CONSERVATIVISM 
FOR THE KIND OF -- THERE WAS 
GOING ON THE A HURRICANE IRK 
SORT OF PARTY OR A MORE RAND 
PAUL SORT OF PARTY. HE'S VERY 
SENSITIVE TO SORT AFTER WANTING 
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND 
CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT TO BE MORE
ALIGNED WITH HOW HE'S VIEWING 
THE WORLD. THIS ISN'T SORT OF 
HIM RIDING INTO THE SUNSET. HE'S
STILL FEELING LIKE HE'S GOT SOME
KIND OF FUTURE IN REPUBLICAN 
POLITICS. 
>> IMPORTANT TO YOU KNOW AS 
SHANE SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BEEN MAKING MOVES RECENTLY THAT 
HAVE BEEN IN LINE WITH THE 
BOLTON PHILOSOPHY AT LARGE. BOB 
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
STRATEGY AS DEMOCRATS MOUNT 
THEIR CASE RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO 
WE HEARD CHUCK SCHUMER SORT OF 
YOU KNOW EVERYONE'S IN THE LOOP.
CASTING THE NET WIDE THERE. A 
DANGER IN TURNING OFF SOME OF 
THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO 
THINK I WANT TO HEAR WHAT BOLTON
SAYS BUT I DON'T HAVE THE 
APPETITE FOR A HUGE LONG WITNESS
LIST OR I DON'T THINK IT'S A 
GOOD USE OF MY TIME IN THIS 
PROCESS. 
>> WHAT I WAS TALKING TO A 
COUPLE OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS 
OVER THE WEEKEND. IT'S CLEAR 
THAT THEY'RE GOING FOR BROKE AT 
THIS MOMENT. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
HAIL OUT THE ARGUMENT AS HAVE 
OTHER HOUSE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS.
THEY'RE -- NOT EVEN 51 VOTES YET
FOR WITNESSES. TO GET TO THE 
THRESHOLD TO REMOVE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FROM OFFICE, WHICH IS THE 
GOAL OF DEMOCRATS TO TAKE HIM 
OUT OF THE PRESIDENCY, THEY NEED
TO RALLY REPUBLICANS. SO THEY'RE
TRYING TO PUT AS MUCH PRESSURE 
AS POSSIBLE ON REPUBLICANS TO 
ALLOW WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY 
DON'T BELIEVE THEY'LL EVER GET 
CLOSE TO THE NECESSARY 
TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE UNLESS 
THEY HAVE BOLTON AND OTHERS 
TESTIFY. THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO 
PROTECT THEIR OWN POLITICAL 
INTERESTS AND THEIR OWN 
POSITIONING BY NOT TAKING THE 
BAIT ON THE REPUBLICAN OFFER OF 
HUNTER BIDEN IN EXCHANGE FOR 
JOHN BOLTON. SENATOR CRUZ AND 
OTHERS HAVE TOLD ME RECENTLY 
THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT
TO FOCUS ON THE BIDENS. 
DEMOCRATS HAVE SO FAR RESISTED 
THAT. BECAUSE THERE'S A BRIEF IN
THE DEMOCRATIC SAID THAT 
REPUBLICANS WILL BREAK BEFORE 
DEMOCRATS BREAK AS LONG AS NEW 
INFORMATION CHEMOS COMING OUT. 
MORE REPUBLICAN SENATORS GET 
UNEASY. SO YOU ARE SEEING THE 
DEMOCRATS AND THERE WILL BE 
QUESTIONS AFTER THIS IS ALL OVER
WHETHER THEY MADE THE RIGHT 
STRATEGIC DECISIONS. SHOULD THEY
HAVE TAKEN A WITNESS DEAL EVEN 
IF IT SEEMED TO BE IRRELEVANT TO
THE TRIAL? IN THEIR EYES. BUT AT
THIS POINT, THEY ARE HOLDING 
FIRM AND PUSHING REPUBLICANS 
TRYING TO GET A WITNESS DEAL 
HOPING THAT WILL THEN TAKE THEM 
TO THE NEXT STEP WHICH IS 
CONVINCING REPUBLICANS TO REMOVE
HIM FROM OFFICE. 
>> EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP 
STRATEGY. I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR 
WHAT YOU TWO THINK ABOUT HOW 
DEMOCRATS SEE THATWORKING OUT 
FOR THEM. 
>> WEAL, IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT 
REALLY WELL. IN SO FAR THE 
HISTORY OF THE MOMENT RIGHT? 
AGAIN, IT SEEMS ALMOST 
IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEMOCRATS WILL 
RALLY ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO 
ACTUALLY REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. 
AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE 
SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY SHOCKING
AND PERHAPS NEW. BUT THE STORY 
THAT THEY'RE TELLING IS ONE OF 
ALL OF THESE PEOPLE KNOWING 
EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
DOING. NOW FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS 
AND CARRYING OUT THE WISHES 
MAYBE IN THE CASE OF JOHN BOLTON
YOU KNOW THINKING IT WAS A BAD 
IDEA. ALL OF THOSE FACTS ARE 
COMING TO LIGHT. AND YOU KNOW A 
BIG PART OF THE STRATEGY HERE I 
THINK BEHIND THE IMPEACHMENT WAS
TO HAVE A PUBLIC AIRING OF ALL 
OF THIS. RIGHT? AND TO GET IT 
OUT THERE PARTICULARLY DURING AN
ELECTION YEAR SO FROM THAT 
PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS WORKING 
GREAT FOR DEMOCRATS. I MEAN EVEN
IF BOLTON DOESN'T TESTIFY THAT 
BOOK IS GOING TO COME OUT IN 
MARCH. HE'S AT LEAST BEEN CAUGHT
TRYING TO TELL YOU KNOW, HIS 
STORY TO THE SENATE. IT'S UP TO 
THEM THOUGH IF THEY WANT TO CALL
HIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS YOU 
KNOW JUST FROM A PURE POLITICAL 
PERSPECTIVE OF LAYING OUT THE 
FACTS AND GETTING THE STORY OUT 
THERE, THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
SUCCEEDING IN THAT. AND THE POLL
NUMBERS WILL TELL YOU THAT IT 
SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY CLEAR 
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK THAT
THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING 
WRONG OR UNETHICAL. ALTHOUGH 
IT'S NOT A CLEAR UNITED STATES 
-- MAJORITY FOR REMOVAL. BUT IF 
THE DEMOCRATS' GOAL HERE IS JUST
TO SAY THAT LOOK, EVERYONE WAS 
IN THE LOOP AND HERE'S HOW. 
THAT'S HAPPENING KIND OF RIGHT 
IN FRONT OF OUR EYES RIGHT NOW. 
>> ONE NAME WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED
SO FAR THAT IS KIND OF 
SIGNIFICANT HERE IS BILL BARR. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE 
BOLTON MANUSCRIPT ACCORDING TO 
THE TIMES REPORTING. BOLTON SAID
HE TALKED TO THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL AFTER  JULY 25th CALL 
AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT RUDY
GIULIANI SORT OF FREELANCING AND
POTENTIALLY ADVANCING HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTERESTS. THAT'S AT 
ODDS WITH THE VERSION OF EVENTS 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN
AND SAYING NO LAST NIGHT, WHAT 
WE'VE SAID IS CORRECT. BARR 
DIDN'T KNOW AFTER THE JULY 25th 
CALL HE DIDN'T FIND OUT UNTIL 
AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT HAD BEEN FILED AND 
THAT DOES FIT IN WITH THE IDEA 
THAT KIND OF A POX ON ALL THEIR 
HOUSES IN THE ADMINISTRATION. 
THAT EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP 
AND ALSO THERE WAS A FRESH 
"WASHINGTON POST" ABC POLL THIS 
MORNING THAT SHOWS THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL STANDINGS 
IS ACTUALLY MUCH BETTER THAN IT 
WAS LAST TIME WE POLLED ON THIS 
IN OCTOBER. IN OCTOBER, TRUMP 
WAS BEHIND DOUBLE DIGITS AGAINST
ALL SIX OF THE TOP DEMOCRATIC 
CANDIDATES. NOW ALL SIX HE'S 
WITHIN THE MARGIN 
OF ERROR WITH. LARGELY BECAUSE I
HAVE DEPENDENTS OF INDEPENDENTS.
BEYOND THE MARGIN OF ERROR. SO I
THINK ONE OF THE GOALS FOR 
DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE HIM 
FROM OFFICE, IS TO SORT OF GET 
THIS OUT THERE TO KIND OF AIR 
THE FACTS ABSOLUTELY BUT ALSO 
PUT A SEED IN THE MINDS OF SOME 
OF THESE INDEPENDENT VOTERS WHO 
HAVE GRAVITATED TOWARD TRUMP 
BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY THAT 
CHARACTER COUNTS. THE PRESIDENT 
IS SORT OF A SHADY CHARACTER WHO
CAN'T BE THRUSTED. THAT'S WHY 
THEY DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOME A
BACK AND FORTH WITH HUNTER AND 
JOE 
BIDEN. 
>> WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT 
SPEAKER PELOSI'S STRATEGY TO 
HOLD THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
OVER THE DECEMBER BREAK? SOME 
CREDIT TO HER WAITING AT LEAST A
LITTLE BIT LONGER FOR MORE FACTS
TO COME OUT FOR MORE INFORMATION
TO SURFACE? 
>> TO USE A PHRASE FROM THIS 
ENTIRE EPISODE. IT WAS PART OF 
SPEAKER PELOSI'S PRESSURE 
CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO PUSH THE 
REPUBLICAN ON WITNESSES AND THAT
IS WHOLE DEMOCRATIC EXERCISE AT 
THIS MOMENT. IS AT ONE LEV, TO 
MAKE A CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT, THEY ALSO WANT 
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY AHEAD OF THE 2020 
ELECTIONS IS HELD RESPONSIBLE 
FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND THE WAY THEY'RE 
RESPONDING TO HIS CONDUCT. IT'S 
A TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT AND HOW
HE HANDLE UKRAINE AND RUDY 
GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
ALSO ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
TOP DEMOCRATS ARE OKAY WITH 
SPEAKER PELOSI HOLDING BACK THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE 
MODERATE REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
ESPECIALLY NOW. ONE OF THEM IS 
MITT ROMNEY AND HE SPOKE TO CNN 
THIS MORNING ABOUT JOHN BOTH ON.
LET'S LISTEN TO THAT. 
>> I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU HOW
JOHN BOLTON'S TESTIMONY WOULD 
ULTIMATELY PLAY ON A FINAL 
DECISION. BUT IT'S RELEVANT. AND
THEREFORE I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT. 
AND WHAT IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE 
WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON ALL THE 
FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WE 
HEAR OF COURSE FROM THE 
PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE AS WHAT 
WAS RELEVANT AND WHAT WAS SAID 
AND HOW THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE
FINAL VOTE BUT I CAN'T BEGIN TO 
TELL YOU HOW THAT MIGHT BE 
RESOLVED. I SEE MYSELF AS A 
SENATOR JUROR. I WILL MAINTAIN 
IMPARTIALITY TO THE EXTENT I 
CAN. 
>> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANY OF THE
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND DO YOU
GET SENSE THAT MORE OF THEM WILL
BE ON BOARD WITH VOTING FOR 
WITNESSES FOUR OF YOU NEED SAY 
YES. DO YOU THINK THERE ARE FOUR
VOTES? 
>> I THINK IT'S -- INCREASINGLY 
LIKELY THAT OTHER REPUBLICANS 
WILL JOIN THOSE OF US WHO THINK 
WE SHOULD HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON.
>> WELL, OUR COLLEAGUE ALSO 
CAUGHT UP WITH SENATOR SUSAN 
COLLINS WHO SAID THE BOLTON 
REPORTING STRENGTHENS THE CASE 
FOR WITNESSES AND HAS INCREASED 
CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING NOW 
AMONG HER COLLEAGUES. NOW IT'S 
IMPORTANT NOTE THAT MITT ROMNEY 
HAS NOT YET ADDRESSED WHETHER HE
WANTED TO SEE THE MANUSCRIPT 
HIMSELF OR IF HE HAS QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHO IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
MIGHT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE 
CONTENTS OF IT BEFOREHAND. LET'S
BRING AMBER PHILLIPS INTO THE 
CONVERSATION. BUT FIRST I SEE 
THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AT THE 
MICROPHONE. LET'S GO HEAR WHAT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS TO SAY. 
>> THEN ANSWER ONE OR TWO 
QUESTIONS. WE'RE RUNNING A 
LITTLE LATE AND WE'LL HAVE TO 
KEEP IT THE THAT. THE NEWS OF 
THE LAST 24 HOURS THAT JOHN 
BOLTON NOT ONLY IS PREPARED TO 
TESTIFY, 
BUT THAT BASED ON HIS MANUSCRIPT
THAT TESTIMONY WOULD INCLUDE A 
DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WHERE HE MADE IT CLEAR HE WAS 
POSITIONING MILITARY AID 
DIRECTLY ON INVESTIGATIONS MAKES
IT ALL THE MORE CLEAR WHY YOU 
CAN'T HAVE A TRILLO MEANINGFUL 
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES AND YOU 
CAN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT JOHN 
BOLTON. I AM YOU KNOW, PLEASED 
THAT THE SENATORS ARE 
RECONSIDERING SOME THAT HAD I 
THINK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
UTILITY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY. 
THEY APPEAR TO BE RECONSIDERING.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY 
POSITIVE. BECAUSE THIS WITNESS 
OBVIOUSLY HAS SUCH RELEVANT 
INFORMATION TO SHED ON THE MOST 
EGREGIOUS OF ALL OF THE CHARGES 
IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AND THAT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHHELD 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
IN MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY AT 
WAR TO HELP SECURE THAT NATION'S
HELP TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION. NOW LET ME MAKE ONE 
OTHER POINT THOUGH VERY CLEAR. 
WE ALREADY HAVE TESTIMONY ON 
THIS KEY PERNICIOUS CHARGE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT 
TESTIMONY HAS BEEN CONSISTENT 
AND UNIFORM AND UNCONTESTED. 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
SAYS AS THEY DID ON THE SENATE 
FLOOR THAT THERE'S NO DIRECT 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER
TOLD SOMEONE HE WAS CONDITIONING
THE AID ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS,
THAT'S JUST NOT CORRECT. HE TOLD
MICK MULVANEY AND MULVANEY 
ADMITTED IT PUBLICLY. SAYING 
THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THIS DNC 
SERVER ISSUE WITH THE PRESIDENT 
AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON 
THEY HELD UP THE MONEY. SO THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN CHIEF OF STAFF 
IS ALREADY ADMITTED TO 
DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. WHAT'S MORE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 7th. AND 
WHILE THE PRESIDENT DENIED A 
QUID PRO QUO, HE THEN WENT ON 
THE TO EXPLAIN TO SONDLAND THERE
WAS IN FACT A QUID PRO QUO OVER 
THE AID. THAT IS ZELENSKY HAD TO
GO TO THE MIC TO ANSWER THESE --
ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND OF COURSE ALL OF THE OTHER 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE 
FACT THAT THERE WAS NO 
LEGITIMATE REASON FOR HOLDING 
THE AID. THE FACT THAT ALL OF 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF ALL 
THE ADVISORS AND THE OTHER 
SECRETARIES WERE URGING THAT IT 
BE RELEASED. THE UNCONTRADICTED 
EVIDENCE IS AS SIMPLE AS 2 PLUS 
2 EQUALS 4. NEVERTHELESS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SOUGHT TO 
CONTEST THIS CHARGE. AND NOW 
THAT THEY HAVE, THEY CANNOT 
DISPUTE THE RELEVANCE AND THE 
IMPORTANCE OF JOHN BOLTON'S 
TESTIMONY. 
SO YOU HAVE TO COME IN. TESTIFY 
UNDER OATH. SENATORS SHOULD NOT 
WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN THE 
BOOK COMES OUT. THEY SHOULD 
DEMAND THIS INFORMATION WHILE 
IT'S STILL BEING PERTINENT TO 
THEIR DISCUSSION. 
>> SO RELEVANT. IF BOLTON'S 
TESTIMONY WAS SO IMPORTANT YOU 
SHOULD HAVE PUSHED HARDER FOR IT
ON THE HOUSE SIDE. DO YOU REGRET
NOT DOING THAT? 
>> NO. WHAT THAT ARGUMENT 
AMOUNTS TO THAT BEAR IN MIND WE 
DID USE THAT APPROACH WITH OTHER
WITNESSES LIKE DON MCGAHN. NOW 
MORE THAN NINE MONTHS SINCE WE 
SUBPOENAED DON McGAHN AND WE ARE
NOWHERE NEAR A COURT DECISION. 
SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY WHY DIDN'T 
YOU GO TO COURT TO INSIST AND 
FIGHT AND GO THROUGH THE 
DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF 
APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT? WE 
WOULD STILL HAVE THAT QUESTION 
UNRESOLVED A YEAR FROM NOW. SO 
IT'S REALLY AN ARGUMENT TO SAY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE 
ABLE TO UNILATERALLY DECIDE. 
>> AND WHEN HE CAN BE IMPEACHED.
GIVE THAN HE WAS ATTEMPTING AND 
HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING AND 
CONTINUES TO ATTEMPT TO CHEAT IN
THE NEXT ELECTION, WE DID NOT 
FEEL WE WOULD WAIT. IT'S A 
QUESTION FOR BOLTON WHY HE WAS 
UNWILLING TO TESTIFY WHEN WE 
INVITED HIM TO TESTIFY IN THE 
HOUSE. 
>> WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW BUT HE SHOULD 
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. FOR 
WHATEVER REASON HE WAS UNWILLING
TO COME BEFORE THE HOUSE. HE WAS
WILLING TO COME BEFORE THE 
SENATE AND THE SENATORS SHOULD 
NOT TURN AWAY FROM THIS VERY 
RELEVANT EVIDENCE. 
>> ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH BOLTON
-- 
>> ANY OTHER -- I HAD A QUESTION
FROM YOU YESTERDAY. WANT TO GIVE
OTHERS A CHANCE. I'M SORRY. 
>> DO YOU TRUST JOHN BOLTON? 
>> YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A QUESTION
OF WHETHER I TRUST JOHN BOLTON. 
OR THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TRUST
JOHN BOLTON OR THE DEMOCRATIC 
SENATORS. HE SHOULD BE PLACED 
UNDER OATH AND THIS IS WHY WE 
THINK THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE 
PUBLIC. IT SHOULD BE LIVE. LET 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALONG WITH 
THE SENATORS EVALUATE JOHN 
BOLTON'S CREDIBILITY WHEN HE 
TESTIFIES AND MAKE THEIR OWN 
JUDGMENT. BUT TO SAY THAT WE'RE 
GOING TO BLIND OURSELVES FROM A 
WITNESS WHO HAS SO CLEARLY 
RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO ONE OF THE
CENTRAL MOST SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, I DON'T 
SEE HOW YOU CAN HAVE 
A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT TESTIMONY 
LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. 
>> THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS 
TALKS TO REPORTERS AS THEY 
PREPARE TO HEAD INTO THE SENATE 
CHAMBERS. THE TRIAL WILL START 
AROUND 1:00 EASTERN 
TIME. WE'RE HERE IN THE 
"WASHINGTON POST" STUDIO. 
>> A FEW 
THOUGHTS ON CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S 
COMMENTS. HE BELIEVES AND HE 
WENT AFTER HIS CRITICS THERE, HE
SAID WE TRIED TO GET MCGAHN. 
McGAHN FOUGHT US IN THE COURTS. 
McGAHN STILL HASN'T APPEARED ON 
CAPITOL HILL. SO HE SAID 
DEMOCRATS NEED TO KEEP MOVING 
FORWARD AND PUSH REPUBLICANS. 
BECAUSE IT COMES DOWN TO THE 
DEMOCRATIC FEAR THAT IF THEY 
MOVE TO SUBPOENA BOLTON OR 
SOMEONE LIKE McGAHN OR ANOTHER 
TOP OFFICIAL, THAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE WILL ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND THIS WILL LEAD TO 
AT LEAST FOUR TO FIVE WEEKS IF 
NOT FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS OF 
BATTLES IN FEDERAL COURT. SO 
SCHIFF AT THE MOMENT. NOT READY 
TO CALL BOLTON VIA SUBPOENA TO 
TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. WHICH MANY 
DEMOCRATS HAVE FLOATED IN RECENT
DAYS AS THE OPTION. IF THE 
SENATE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T MOVE 
ON WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL. 
>> IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE 
STRONGEST REPUBLICAN PUSHBACKS 
RIGHT NOW A DEMOCRATS DON'T DO 
THEIR JOB WHEN THE HOUSE HAD 
CONTROL OF THIS. SO YOU KNOW, 
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TESTIMONY 
THAT WE'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US. 
WE ARE TAKING THIS -- I HEARD 
YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS WHO ARE 
INVOLVED IN THE CHINTOP 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS PUSHING IT 
OFF ON THE HOUSE HAS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE 
INVESTIGATION PHASE OF THIS 
JAMES. AND YOU HEARD SCHIFF 
PUSHING BACK AT THAT TODAY. 
>> YEAH, EVERY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
IN AMERICAN HISTORY THERE HAVE 
BEEN 19 -- TO READ THE -- 
FEDERAL JUDGES AND OTHERS, 
THEY'VE ALL HAD WITNESSES AND 
THEY'VE ALL -- REQUESTED MORE 
DOCUMENTS. THE KIND OF THE -- 
THE WAY IT WORKED IN THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THAT 
YOU HAVE SOMETHING CAN DO AN 
INDICTMENT WHICH IS WHAT THE 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENTING IS AND YOU 
HAVE A TRIAL WHERE THINGS ARE 
WAIVED. DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT THAT'S THE STANDARD 
THAT REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT 
TO USE. THEY DID DEPOSITIONS OF 
MONICA LEWINSKY AND OF VERNON 
JORDAN AND OTHERS. AND SAID 
DEMOCRATS I THINK -- ARE 
FRUSTRATED THAT REPUBLICANS SEEM
TO WANT TO PUT SCHIFF ON TRIAL 
WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE THE 
PROSECUTORS AND YOU KNOW ONE OF 
THE THINGS THAT TED CRUZ IN 
ADDITION TALKING ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN ALSO TALKING ABOUT TRYING 
TO GET ADAM SCHIFF SUBPOENAED 
AND CALLED AS A WITNESS TO TALK 
ABOUT HIS DEALINGS WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND THAT'S KIND OF
A VERY TRUMP-IAN APPROACH TO PUT
THE PROSECUTOR ON TRIAL. TO KIND
OF -- IT'S PART OF THE GENERAL 
APPROACH OF WHAT ABOUTISM THAT 
WE OFTEN SEE WHEN THEY HAVE 
THEIR BACK UP AGAINST THE WALL. 
>> WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT SCHIFF 
AND NOW HE'S BECOME A FOCUS OF 
ATTENTION. BUT AMER YOU HAVE 
BEEN REPORTING THIS MORNING ON 
HOW THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS AND
OTHER REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE 
ARE REACTING TO THE BOLTON NEWS.
>> WELL I MEAN GATHERING OUR 
AMAZING CONGRESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
REPORTING ON THAT ON CAPITOL 
HILL, I'M HEARING A RANGE OF 
ANSWERS. KEEP THE PRESSURE ON 
SENATE REPUBLICANS TO CONSIDER 
HEARING BOLTON WHICHS NO EASY 
FEAT. THEY WOULD OPEN THE DOOR 
TO DAMAGING TESTIMONY THAT COULD
MAKE THEM OVERTHROW THE PARTY'S 
PRESIDENT. THIS IS NO EASY FEAT.
ON ONE END YOU HAVE TRUMP 
DRAWING A RED LINE SAYING BOLTON
IS LYING RIGHT? I DON'T HEAR 
SENATORS SAY THAT. I DON'T HEAR 
THEM GO THIS FAR WITH THE 
REPUBLICAN ICON. JOHN CORNYN 
SAID MAYBE HE'S DRAMATIZING AND 
JUST WANTS TO SELL BOOKS. I HEAR
OTHER SENATORS LIKE JOHN THU 
NSAID THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE 
FACTS OF THE CASE. UKRAINE GOT 
THE AID AND MAYBE IT WAS OKAY 
FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ASK THE 
BIDENS TO BE INVESTIGATED. SO 
ESSENTIALLY LIKE DEFENDING THE 
WRONGDOING. THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
CLAIMING. BUT HERE'S WHAT'S 
INTERESTING. LIKE THOSE ARE ALL 
REPUBLICAN RESPONSES TO AVOID 
HAVING TO CALL JOHN BOLTON AND 
WITNESSES. I HEAR A COUPLE OF 
THEM TALK ABOUT PUTTING THE ONUS
ON THE WHITE HOUSE TO EXPLAIN 
THIS. JONI ERNST IN PARTICULAR 
SAID I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT. I 
WANT TO WAIL UNTIL I HEAR WHAT 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAS TO 
SAY IN 15 MINUTES OR SO. I HEAR 
FROM THAT IS I WANT TO BE ON 
YOUR TEAM PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT 
YOU GUYS HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY I'M
NOT GOING TO CALL JOHN BOLTON 
AFTER THIS. 
>> SUCH A GREAT ROUND UP OF THE 
RANGE OF REACTIONS AND WHAT I 
THINK THE COMMENT FLICKS AT IS 
THE PRIDE THAT FRUSTRATION. THAT
THERE ARE A LOT OF SENATE 
REPUBLICANS WHO WERE CAUGHT 
OFF-GUARD BY THIS. IF IT WAS AS 
SHANE EXPLAINED SORT OF 
CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE FOR THE 
LAST MONTH. SOME OF THESE 
SENATORS HAVE KIND OF CLIMBED 
OUT ON A LIMB THE ONES THAT 
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AND NOW 
ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY FEEL LIKE 
MAYBE THEY WALKED TOO FAR. AND 
MAYBE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO 
WALK IT BACK OR CHANGE THE 
ARGUMENTS AND SAY SENATORS -- 
LIKE ALL PEOPLE BUT ESPECIALLY 
SENATORS LOVE TO SORT OF FEEL 
LIKE THEY'RE IN THE LOOP. 
THEY'RE AWARE OF WHAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE KNOWS. MITCH McCONNELL 
SAID PUBLICLY HE'S WORKING HAND 
IN HAND WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
LEGAL TEAM. THAT YOU KNOW, 
THEY'RE A UNITED FRONT. AND IT'S
NOT CLEAR WHAT EXACTLY McCONNELL
KNEW ABOUT WHAT THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT SAID. IF INFORMATION 
WAS SHARED WITH HIM. THAT'S ONE 
OF THE REPORTING TARGETS FOR 
TODAY. SORT OF WHAT McCONNELL 
KNEW AND WHETHER THERE'S ANY 
FRUSTRATION AMONG THE LEADERSHIP
TEAM ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS 
WAS POTENTIALLY HELD BACK FROM 
THEM. 
>> BOB YOU KNOW, WHEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BASICALLY SAYS YOU KNOW 
BOLTON IS LYING AND THE 
CONVERSATION NEVER HAPPENED. 
GOING ON TWITTER THREADS OVER 
THE LAST 24 HOURS OR SO TRYING 
TO UNDERMINE JOHN BOTHON USING 
WORDS LIKE REVENGE AND SORT OF 
OUT TO SELL BOOKS IS LIKE THE 
GIST OF PEOPLE HE'S RETWEETING. 
WHERE DOES THAT PUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM? BOTH INSIDE 
THIS COURTROOM, THE SENATE 
CHAMBERS AND ALSO OUTSIDE AS 
THEY KIND OF TRY TO DO DAMAGE 
CONTROL ABOUT THIS? 
>> WELL, YOU SEE FROM MANY 
ALLIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ALREADY, A WILLINGNESS TO 
GO TO POLITICAL WAR AGAINST 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND LIKELY SEE
MORE OF THAT IN WEEKS TO COME IF
HE MOVES CLOSER TO TESTIFYING IN
THE SENATE TRIAL. THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS UNEASY TO SAY THE LEAST
ABOUT BOLTON'S TESTIMONY. IF IT 
HAPPENS. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT 
HE AS JAMES SAID SO WELL IS NOT 
A FIGURE WHO COMES OUT OF THE 
TRUMP LOYALIST RANKS. HE'S 
SOMEONE WITH 
HIS OWN POLITICAL CAPITAL INSIDE
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. HE HAS HIS
OWN BOOK DEAL AND BEEN IN 
WASHINGTON FOR YEARS. HE ALSO 
HAS AND I REPORTED THIS AT THE 
POST, A REALLY SHARP MEMORY. AND
I'VE COVERED HIM FOR OVER A 
DECADE. AND INTERVIEWED HIM MANY
TIMES. HE ACTUALLY TRIED TO RUN 
FOR PRESIDENT A FEW TIMES PEOPLE
FORGET ABOUT THAT. HE TRIED TO 
RUN FOR PRESIDENT. HE IS SOMEONE
WHO WOULD ALWAYS CARRY A 
BRIEFCASE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. 
LEATHER AND BATTERED AND FULL OF
BINDERS AND LEGAL PADS AND HE 
WAS JUST SEEN AS A LAWYER FIRST.
INSIDE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. A 
KNIFE-WIELDING LAWYER. NOT 
LITERALLY. BUT POLITICALLY 
INSIDE IN TERMS OF KNOWING HOW 
TO CARVE OUT HIS OWN SPACE 
INSIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATION. 
AND SO WORLD KNOWS JOHN BOLTON 
AS THIS MUSTACHED DIPLOMAT. BUT 
PEOPLE REALLY KNOW HIM AS A 
LAWYER WHO HAS SHARP ELBOWS. 
>> YEAH. PRESIDENT TRUMP TRYING 
TO SAY THIS IS SORT OF -- BITTER
YOU KNOW, BITTERNESS ON BOLTON'S
PART FOR BEING QUOTE UNQUOTE 
FIRED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. I 
WONDER HOW MUCH TRACTION THAT'S 
GOING TO HAVE. 
>> ONE THING TO ADD ON BOLTON IS
THE IDEA HE'S GOING TO BE A SLIP
ON PRESIDENT TRUMP. NO ONE 
WHO KNOWS BOLTON THINK THAT IS. 
THEY THINK HE'S A CONSERVATIVE 
BUT THE DEMOCRATS SHOULDN'T PUT 
ALL THE CHIPS ONLY HIM. BUT YOU 
SEE SENATORS LIKE CHRIS MURPHY 
OF CONNECTICUT SAY WE HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL WITH BOLTON. WE DON'T 
KNOW WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY 
EITHER. 
>> DO YOU FIND THE PRESIDENT'S 
ATTACK ON BOLTON SORT OF 
FASCINATING? SAYING YEAH 
WHATEVER. SORT OF DUN PLAY THE 
SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT HE SAYS. A 
BITTER TREACHEROUS PERSON. 
>> EVERYONE WHO'S HAD AN 
EXPERIENCE WORKING FOR PRESIDENT
TRUMP YOU ARE EITHER WITH HIM 
TOTALLY AND A LOYALIST TO THE 
END, OR YOU ARE THEN E ENEMY AND
HE WILL GO TO WAR WITH YOU ON 
TWITTER WITH HIS OWN LEGAL 
ACTION. LOOK AT MICHAEL COHEN. 
ALL THESE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE 
YEARS WHO HAVE BROKEN WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. CLOSE AIDES, 
CONFIDANTS AND THEN THE BATTLE. 
>> THEN -- 
>> AMBER LET'S GET YOU IN THERE.
>> TRUMP HAS SURVIVED ALL OF 
THIS. THERE'S LIKE A GRAVEYARD 
ALMOST OF HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE 
FLIPPING ON PRESIDENT FOR 
WHATEVER REASON OR GETTING 
CAUGHT AND HAVING TO ADMIT WHAT 
THEY KNOW. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
STILL THE PRESIDENT. SO EVEN IF 
BOLTON AND DEMOCRATS DREAM 
SCENARIO LIKE LET'S DO THIS. 
LET'S TAKE DOWN THE PRESIDENT. I
HAVE A HARD TIME LIKE SEEING 
THIS BEING THE THING THAT 
FINALLY BREAKS HIM. 
>> IF YOU LOOK BACK AT BOLTON'S 
BOOK WHICH BOB MENTIONED EARLIER
HIS SORT OF 
TELL ALL ABOUT THE GEORGE W. 
BUSH ADMINISTRATION. HE COUNT GO
AFTER BUSH FOR SORT OF LIKE -- 
FAILING TO PURSUE THE PATH HE 
WANTED ON THE CAREER WITH IRAN. 
INSTEAD HE TRAINS HIS IRE ON 
CONDO RICE AND OTHERS IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION. ONE OF THE 
REASONS THAT PEOPLE WHO WERE IN 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ARE 
NERVOUS IS THAT BOOK ABOUT THE 
BUSH YEARS HAS DETAILED DIALOGUE
ABOUT SPECIFIC THINGS, QUOTES 
THAT ARE LONG AND ATTRIBUTED TO 
PEOPLE IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE 
AND IT'S WHAT HE STASHES IN THAT
LEGAL BRIEFCASE OF HIS THAT HE 
TAKES LONGHAND NOTES AND HE WENT
TO YALE LAW SCHOOL. WHETHER YOU 
KNOW YOU AGREE WITH HIM OR 
DISAGREE WITH HIM POLITICALLY. 
HE'S AN IMMENSELY SMART PERSON 
WHO HAS AN IRON TRAP MEMORY. 
>> SO IS JAMES COMEY THOUGH. HE 
DESCRIBES IN HIS CAR WROTE DOWN 
A MEMO OF WHAT HE WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> GREAT ANALOGY. 
>> SOMEONE ELSE IS CHAIRMAN ADAM
SCHIFF. TO THE COLLEAGUE RHONDA 
COLVIN ON CAPITOL HILL TO 
TALK ABOUT THE SCHIFF AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DYNAMIC. 
>> Reporter: THE PRESIDENT 
TWEETED THAT HE SUGGESTED AT 
LEAST THAT SCHIFF MAY PAY FOR 
THIS. IS A YOU SOW ON THE SUNDAY
SHOWS THAT SOME SENATORS WERE 
ASKED ABOUT. THAT REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT
WASN'T SAYING THIS WAS PHYSICAL 
HARM TO ADAM SCHIFF BUT SCHIFF 
TODAY I SAW THE INTERVIEW WITH 
HIM ON CNN. HE SAID THIS IS OF 
NO SURPRISE. THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BEEN AFTER HIM AFTER SCHIFF 
BECAME SORT OF THE FACE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IN THE
HOUSE. EVEN REMARKED ON FRIDAY 
IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS THAT HE
PREPARED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS COUNSEL TO GO AFTER ME. SO 
THIS REALLY DOESN'T COME AS A 
SURPRISE THAT TRUMP MADE THE 
COMMENTS YESTERDAY. AND THERE 
WERE PROBABLY MORE TO COME. 
SCHIFF HAS SORT OF DEVELOPED 
INTO THE PERSON THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS WANT TO PITCH AS THE
MAN OF THE IMPEACHMENT. THE ONE 
WHO HID THE INVESTIGATION IN A 
BASEMENT IN THE CAPITOL BASEMENT
ROLL AND WOULD NOT LET 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS IN. SO HE 
REALLY -- HE HAS IN ALL HIS WORK
IN THE IMPEACHMENT HAS REALLY 
COME OUT TO BE THE TARGET GUY. 
AND WILL LIKELY HEAR THAT MORE 
TODAY AND FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL 
DAYS. 
>> RHONDA, A LITTLE BIT IRONIC 
AS THE PRESIDENT WAS ATTACKING 
ADAM SCHIFF, REPUBLICANS WERE 
STILL COMPLAINING ABOUT SCHIFF'S
USE OF HEAD ON A PIKE. HE 
ADDRESSED SENATORS IN THE 
CLOSING ARGUMENTS LAST WEEK 
SAYING THAT YOU KNOW, SETTING 
THIS ANONYMOUS SOURCE IN THE CBS
REPORT THAT ANY SENATOR WHO WENT
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD 
HAVE HIS HEAD ON A PIKE. THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SORT OF EMPLOYING 
ANGRY ACTIVE WORDS TOWARDS 
SCHIFF AND THREATENING LANGUAGE 
AS WELL. 
>> YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. AND 
SCHIFF DID SAY IN THOSE CLOSING 
ARGUMENTS WHEN HE SAID THAT LINE
ABOUT HEADS ON A PIKE, HE SAID 
THAT HE WAS UNSURE IF THAT WAS 
TRUE BUT HE WAS QUOTING 
SOMETHING THAT HE HAD READ. SO 
HE HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT AT 
LENGTH WITH HE REALLY TRIED TO 
SAY. YOU KNOW WHAT? IT ALSO 
REMINDS ME THIS MORNING WHEN I 
WAS IN THE SCHUMER PRESS 
CONFERENCE THAT HE SAID 
SOMETHING SIMILAR. IT WASN'T AS 
GRAPHIC AS HEAD ON A PIKE. BUT 
HE SAID HE KNOWS HIS REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES ARE FACING A LOT OF 
PRESSURE BECAUSE IF THEY EVEN --
HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ANY SORT OF
DISCORD WITH THE PRESIDENT, THEY
KNOW THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY FOR 
THAT POLITICALLY. THAT'S WHY 
SCHUMER WAS SAYING THEY ARE ONLY
CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC RIGHT NOW 
ABOUT THIS BOLTON NEWS BRINGING 
MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES. BECAUSE HE KNOWS HIS 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE UNDER 
A LOT OF STRESS WITH THEIR YOU 
KNOW, STANDARD BEARER POSSIBLY 
GOING AFTER THEM IF THEY 
DISAGREE WITH HIM. 
>> SO PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO A 
THREATENING SENATORS OVER THE 
WEEKEND REALLY. AND SORT OF THIS
TWEET LANGUAGE. ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT REPUBLICANS COULD SURVIVE 
ELECTIONS AND SUCH IF THEY GO 
AGAINST HIM DURING THIS IMPEOPLE
PROCESS. 
>> YEAH AND IT'S REALLY -- IT'S 
STRIKING THE PEOPLE THAT WERE 
REALLY WATCHING AND I 
MEAN WE TALKED ABOUT COREY 
GARDNER AND TOM TILLIS. EITHER 
WITH HIM OR AGAINST HIM. AND 
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE AGAINST 
HIM. THEY KNOW THAT IT'S JEFF 
FLAKE IS WATCHING IN THE 
GALLERY. NOT ON THE FLOOR. AND I
THINK THAT THAT -- THERE IS FEAR
WHETHER IT'S SORT OF MADE 
EXPLICIT OR NOT, THAT FEAR 
DEFINITELY EXISTS OF CROSSING 
THE PRESIDENT AND AS AMBER SAID 
IT THE START OF SUMMARIZING ALL 
THE SENATORS REACTION. IT'S A 
HUGE DEAL TO KIND OF BREAK WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY.
ANY PRESIDENT. NO MATTER WHO IT 
IS. TRUMP ASIDE, IT'S A BIG STEP
TO SAY I'M GOING TO TAKE THE 
SIDE OF THE OPPOSITION PARTY AND
DEMAND WITNESSES. THAT IS A HUGE
DEAL AND THAT'S I THINK THAT 
PRESSURE ALL EXISTS AND IT'S 
DOUBLY SO BECAUSE OF TRUMP. 
>> BUT THERE ARE LEVELS BETWEEN 
ZERO AND 100. SO IT'S NOT LIKE 
THESE SENATORS ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE ARE JUST GOING TO GO FROM 
BEING TOTALLY WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO BEING WITH THE 
OPPOSITION PARTY. WHAT YOU COULD
SEE BASED ON MY OWN REPORTING 
AND THE COMING DAYS, IS A GRAY 
AREA. WHERE SOME REPUBLICANS 
COME FORWARD AND SAY WE NEED TO 
SEE WITNESSES. BUT IF WE'RE 
GOING LET THE DEMOCRATS CALL 
BOLTON, WE NEED TO HAVE THE 
ABILITY FOR REPUBLICANS TO CALL 
A WITNESS. THIS COULD BE A 
REPUBLICAN WAY OF LETTING SOME 
STEAM OUT AND SAY TO THEIR OWN 
VOTERS WE'RE TRYING TO GET 
WITNESSES AS PART OF THIS TRIAL.
PUTTING THE DEMOCRATS IN A 
POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE
A DEAL WITH REPUBLICANS ON 
WITNESSES. AND THE DEMOCRATS 
CAN'T STAND THE IDEA OF CALLING 
HUNTER BIDEN OR JOE BIDEN. BUT 
YOU COULD HAVE STANDOFF WHERE 
REPUBLICANS SAY WE ARE WILLING 
TO DO WITNESSES BUT WE NEED 
SOMEONE LIKE A HUNTER BIDEN TO 
STEP FORWARD. THAT WOULD LEAD TO
THE TOTAL POLITICAL BATTLE 
BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS. IT'S ALREADY 
UNLIKELY BASED ON THE 
CONVERSATION WITH REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS THAT BOLTON SUDDENLY 
JUST GOING TO BE CALLED AS A 
SOLO WITNESS BECAUSE OF THIS 
NEWS. 
>> AMBER, WE HAD A PREVIEW FROM 
THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM THAT THE 
BIDENS WOULD BE A TARGET AND A 
TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AS TRUMP 
LAWYERS FINALLY HAD A CHANCE IN 
THE SENATE FLOOR TO DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT PUBLICLY. WE DIDN'T 
HEAR BIDEN REALLY LIKE THE FOCUS
OF THE ATTENTION ON SATURDAY. 
THEY ONLY CHOOSED -- LESS THAN 
TWO HOURS TO OPEN UP THEIR 
ARGUMENTS. IT WAS A DIFFERENT 
FOE DUST AND ANTICIPATED AND 
WE'LL SEE WHAT TODAY HAS IN 
STORY. 
>> YEAH, ON SATURDAY, THE 
OPENING FOR THE OPEN -- THEY 
SEEMED VERY AWARE OF THE 
CRITICISM AGAINST THEM SO FAR. 
THAT THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN TIME TO 
DEFEND THE PRESIDENT IN AN 
OFFICIAL FORMAT. THAT THEY'VE 
BEEN ATTACKING THE PROCESS. OR 
BEING RATHER POLITICAL. RATHER 
THAN THE SUBSTANCE. SO WE SAW 
THEM TRY TO ZERO IN ON THE 
SUBSTANCE. AND THEIR STRONGEST 
POINT I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE 
MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, WAS YOU 
CAN'T TIE TRUMP TO HOLDING UP 
THE UKRAINE AID TO GET THIS 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE WIDENS. 
YOU HAVEN'T HAD A WITNESS SAY 
THAT YET. SO WHY ARE WE HERE? 
AND THEN THE NEXT DAY JOHN 
BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT LEAKED THAT 
SAYS I CAN TIE IT. BOB WAS 
TALKING ABOUT THE REPORTING THAT
SUGGESTS THERE COULD BE A WAY TO
CUT A DEAL SO REPUBLICANS CAN 
GET OUT OF THE CORNER THEY'RE 
BACKED IN. SENATOR DEB FISHER 
REPUBLICAN FROM NEBRASKA WHO 
TOLD THE COLLEAGUES IT DOESN'T 
TAKE A SUBPOENA TO PUT OUT A 
STATEMENT. IF AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
HAS SOMETHING TO SAY HE WOULD DO
THAT. THAT MIGHT BE A WAY OUT OF
THE SITUATION FOR REPUBLICANS. 
LIKE SENATOR GRAHAM SAYS LET'S 
SEE THE MANUSCRIPT AND THEY 
NEVER HAVE THE GUY ON THE STAND 
AND NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE HE'S 
GOING TO SAY. 
>> WE'RE SEEING THE SENATORS 
LEAVE AND HEAD TOWARDS THE 
SENATE CHAMBER. YOU KNOW, 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR OF WYOMING 
FOUND ONE WAY TO TALK ABOUT 
THIS. HE TOOK THEY HAD HEADLINE 
AND INSTEAD TURNED THE ATTENTION
TO LEAKS. LOOK AT THIS. 
>> WELL, THERE'S A SO-CALLED 
BLOCKBUSTER REPORT IN TODAY'S 
"NEW YORK TIMES." IT'S A STORY 
ABOUT SELECTIVE LEAKS FROM A 
BOOK THAT YOU CAN ORDER PREORDER
ON AMAZON.COM. FROM JOHN BOLTON.
TO ME, THE FACTS OF THE CASE 
REMAIN THE SAME. THERE IS 
NOTHING NEW HERE TO WHAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE BEEN  
SAYING. I THINK SOMETHING NEW 
COMING OUT EVERY DAY. VERY 
SIMILAR TO THE KAVANAUGH TRIAL. 
OLD INFORMATION TOLD IN A 
DIFFERENT WAY. TO INFLAME 
EMOTIONS AND INFLUENCE THE 
OUTCOME. TAKE A BREATH AND LET'S
LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS TODAY IN THE CASE THAT 
THEY PRESENT. 
>> AMBER, GOING WHAT YOU HEARD 
FROM SOME OTHER REPUBLICANS 
SENATORS ABOUT LET JUST WAIT AND
SEE WHAT THE DEFENSE CAN OFFER 
UP. 
>> RIGHT. THE PROBABLE IS HE WAS
STRUGGLING THERE BECAUSE HE SAID
THERE'S NOTHING NEW TO SEE HERE,
THERE'S SOMETHING MASSIVELY NEW 
TO SEE HERE WITH WHAT THE 
MANUSCRIPT ALLEGEDLY SAYS. 
>> ALSO THERE WAS SO MUCH SORT 
OF ANGRY PUSHBACK AND BLOWBACK 
AFTER THE KAVANAUGH HEARING. 
WHAT ELSE DO YOU MAKE OF WHAT 
THE SENATOR IS TALKING ABOUT 
TODAY? 
>> IT'S FUNNY THE IMMEDIATE KIND
OF ATTACK THE LEAKS. WE'VE SEEN 
THAT LIKE WITH THE TRANSCRIPTS 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S CALLS THINGS 
LIKE THAT. AND IT WILL 
BE INTERESTING TO WATCH HOW THE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS RESPONDS. 
DOUG JONES IS SAYING JUST VOTE 
TO SUBPOENA THE MANUSCRIPT 
ITSELF FROM ONE OF THE 
PUBLISHING HOUSES? JOE MANCHIN 
IS SOMEONE WHO THE WHITE HOUSE 
BELIEVES THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO 
VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL. BUT MANCHIN 
HAS BEEN STRONG IN SAYING WE 
SHOULD HEAR AND WITNESSES AND 
YOU KNOW DOES THIS BACK AND 
FORTH KIND OF GIVE COVER FOR 
SOME OF THOSE DEMOCRATS TO VOTE 
THE WAY THEY WANT TO VOTE WHICH 
IS WITH THEIR PARTY ON 
IMPEACHMENT FROM STATES THAT THE
PRESIDENT CARRIED HANDILY. 
>> BOB, WHAT WILL YOU BE 
LISTENING FOR AS THE DEFENSE 
GETS UNDERWAY HERE? 
>> I'M GOING TO BE LISTENING 
FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR A 
DISCUSSION IF IT COMES, OF 
HUNTER BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN. 
WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR DAYS AND 
WE'VE SEEN IT IN OUR PAPER AND 
OTHERS, THAT THE TRUMP WHITE 
HOUSE WANTS TO PUT A SPOTLIGHT 
ON THE BIDENS. SO THAT'S TALK. 
WE'VE HEARD IT BEHIND THE SCENES
FROM WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS. WILL
TALK NOW TRANSLIT INTO ACTION 
WHEN THE LAWYERS ARE ON THE 
SENATE FLOOR AS AMBER SAID SO 
WELL, WE DIDN'T HEAR A LOT OF 
THAT AT ALL ON SATURDAY. NOW IS 
THEIR MOMENT. BUT BASED ON OUR 
REPORTING TODAY, WE MAY HEAR THE
WHITE HOUSE RECALIBRATE ITS 
MESSAGE TO REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
BECAUSE THEY SEE THE FLUIDITY 
WHEN IT COMES TO WITNESSES. SO 
SOME SCORING POINTS AGAINST THE 
BIDENS SEEM TO BE THE PLAN FOR 
MONDAY. IS IT STILL THE PLAN? 
THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN 
FOR CLOSELY TODAY. IS THE WHITE 
HOUSE ADJUSTING AS THE WITNESS 
BATTLE CONTINUES? 
>> ONE THING THAT THE -- 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TRIED TO DO 
ON SATURDAY WAS DEMONSTRATE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS INDEED CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH OTHER 
COUNTRIES WERE CONTRIBUTING AND 
CONCERNED ABOUT YOU KNOW, HOW --
HOW UKRAINE WAS FUNCTIONING. I 
GUESS I'M WONDERING IF THEY CAN 
TRY TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A 
VALID CONCERN TO BE ASKING FOR 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS
AND TO BURISMA. SORT OF ABSOLVE 
THE JOHN BOLTON QUID PRO QUO 
ANALYSIS. 
>> BE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR THEM 
TO DO THAT BASED ON WHAT I'M 
REMEMBERING THEM SAY SATURDAY 
WHICH IS HE DIDN'T MENTION THE 
BIDE -- HE DID MENTION THE 
BIDENS IN THE TRANSCRIPT. BUT HE
TALKED MORE ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING. CAN I DIRECT YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE TOP PART OF THE
TRANSCRIPT? WHERE HE TALKED 
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. JUST -- 
BOB SAID IT WOULD BE LIKE -- I 
DON'T WANT TO SAY A 180 BUT 
CLOSE TO IT. 
>> THEY HAD SOME OF THE FACTS 
WRONG ON FRIDAY OR STILL BEING 
SELECTIVE ABOUT THEIR WITNESSES 
IN TERMS OF JUST WHEN THE 
UKRAINIANS KNEW AID WAS BEING 
HELD UP? AND THEY KEPT -- SORT 
OF USING THIS LINE THAT WE HEARD
BEFORE. THERE CAN'T BE A QUID 
PRO QUO IF THERE'S YOU KNOW, 
QUO. YOU KNOW, I AM INTERESTED 
IN HEARING OF SENATORS 
APPRECIATED THE ARGUMENT OR IF 
THEY WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT AND WE
WON'T REALLY KNOW THIS 
NECESSARILY FOR DAYS. TAKING 
CAREFUL NOTES CHAMBER THE TIME 
LINE AND FACTS AND ARE THESE 
SENATORS PAYING ATTENTION 
OUTSIDE THE ROOM TO THE 
COUNTERARGUMENTS THAT SCHIFF AND
OTHERS ARE MAKING OR THEY REALLY
FOCUSED ON WHAT'S BEING 
PRESENTED INSIDE THE ROOM 
SINGULARLY? 
>> WHEN CIPOLLONE LAID OUT THE 
STANDARD ON SATURDAY, HE SAID 
THE PRESIDENT DID ABSOLUTELY 
NOTHING WRONG. THAT WAS THE 
STANDARD THAT HE SET IS. THAT'S 
A -- FOR THE FIRST LONG WHILE OF
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EVERY 
TIME TRUMP DID SOMETHING THAT 
WAS KIND OF THE -- HAD EVERYONE 
IN WASHINGTON OUTRAGED, IT WAS 
WELL, TRUMP'S NEVER DONE THIS 
BEFORE. HE NEEDED THIS. NEVER 
HELD ELECTED OFFICE BEFORE BUT 
IN THIS CASE THE STANDARDS OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID IS 
WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT 
NOTHING WAS INAPPROPRIATE. AND 
SO THAT ABSOLUTIST POSITION 
BECOMES HARDER TO SUSTAIN WHEN 
YOU HAVE REVELATIONS LIKE WHAT 
YOU HAVE IN THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT AND THAT'S MORE ABOUT
I THINK PLEASING TRUMP AND KIND 
OF TRUMP'S VIEW OF THE WORLD. 
THEN IT IS ABOUT MAYBE THAT'S 
NOT THE BEST SUBSTANTIVE 
ARGUMENT. 
>>> THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE 
CONCERNS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
BEHAVIOR, THERE'S AN ELECTION 
COMING UP IN A FEW MONTHS.  WE 
WILL SEE IF THE ARGUMENT HOLDS 
FOR NOW.  IT'S A FRAGILE HOLD 
FOR REPUBLICANS AS THE NEW 
INFORMATION COMES TO LIGHT. MANY
REPUBLICANS PUBLICLY AND 
PRIVATELY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS 
THE CASE TO MAKE.  THERE'S AN 
ELECTION COMING.  LET THE VOTERS
DECIDE. 
>> WE HEARD THEM MAKING IT 
PERSONAL TO THE VOTERS AND 
SAYING THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO 
OVER THROW THE WILL.  THAT'S 
SOMETHING THAT IS TRYING TO HIT.
I WANT TO THANK MY GUESTS WHILE 
I HAVE A MOMENT HERE.  EXCELLENT
REPORTING FROM ALL OF YOU.  IT'S
REALLY INCREDIBLE TO HAVE YOU 
FOR HER THE ANALYSIS.  WE WILL 
BRING THIS TO YOU LIVE AND 
UNINTERRUPTED WHEN IT GETS 
UNDERWAY.  WE'RE BACK WITH MORE 
ANALYSIS AND DIGGING IN TO WHAT 
IS HAPPENING INSIDE OF THE SEN 
SENATE CHAMBER AND OUTSIDE WHILE
WE WATCH THE BOLTON LINE.  
AMBER, WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING 
FOR TODAY? 
>> WELL, IS THERE TALK OF THAT 
OF THE REPUBLICANS?  DOES THIS 
GET SO BAD THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
GO OUT THERE AND SAY WE'RE GOING
DEFEND TRUMP AND NOT REALLY DO 
IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOLTON 
NEWS?  THE REASON WHY I BRING 
THAT UP IS DURING THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF CLINTON, DIANNE 
WAS TRYING TO GET IT VOTED ON 
AND EVEN GATHERED 30 SENATORS ON
BOTH SIDES AND SAID LET'S VOTE 
ON THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF UP 
PEACHMENT.  SHE NEVER GOT IT. 
THIS IS DEMOCRAT TRYING TO FIND 
A WAY OUT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT.  DOES IT GET TO THE 
POINT THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT THAT? 
>> YEAH, THERE WAS A SCRAMBLE ON
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT AND THEN 
WE SAW THE REPUBLICANS COMING 
OUT WITH GUNS BLAZE ASKING 
LINDSEY GRAM COMES BACK WITH THE
INTENSITY AND HITTING HARD THE 
WAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED 
AND LETTING REPUBLICANS WIN. 
WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYONE FOLD UP 
YET. 
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BIDEN
DAY.  THEY'RE GOING ATTACK JOE 
AND HUNTER BIDEN HARD.  IT'S 
GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO SEE HOW
THEY RESPOND TO THAT.  TODAY 
WE'RE ONE WEEK OUT FROM THE IOWA
CAUCUSES.  THIS IS ALL HAPPENING
AGAINST THAT BACK DROP AS WELL. 
>> ONE THING THAT WE HAVE NOT 
TALKED ABOUT IS THE DEMOCRATIC 
SENATORS THAT FLEW OUT.  I SAW 
ELIZABETH WARREN HEADING IN TO 
THE CHAMBER THERE.  THEY'RE NOT 
TALK OF THE CONVERSATION THERE. 
>> YEAH, THEY SHOULD BE IN THE 
HALLWAY.  IT'S A WEEK AWAY.  
WOW.  THAT'S A MAJOR MOMENT FOR 
THE DEMOCRATIC MOMENT.  SENATOR 
BERNIE SANDERS PULLING AHEAD IN 
IOWA AND OTHER 
STATES.  AND COVERED IN THE IOWA
AND JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, AND 
THERE'S A MOVEMENT THERE IN 
IOWA.  HE IS GOING TO BE A 
CONTENDER UNTIL SUPER TUESDAY IF
NOT LONGER THAN THE PROCESS. 
>> OKAY.  SO THEY WERE IN IOWA 
AND NOW THEY'RE DOING THE STATE 
WORK OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF 
DAYS.  WHO GOES IN TO THIS WEEK 
STRONG IN IOWA?  WHO HAS THE 
TEAM ON THE GROUND THAT CANNOT 
LOSE MOMENTUM OR PERHAPS GAIN 
MOMENTUM? 
>> YEAH, SO ELIZABETH WARREN HAS
THE BEST ORGANIZATION IN IOWA, 
BUT THE POLLS IN NATIONAL SHOW 
THAT SHE IS FADING A LITTLE BIT.
THE QUESTION IS CAN THE GROUND 
GAME THAT SHE HAS BUILT HELP IN 
THE WAY OF THE WINDOW.  THERE'S 
SOME WAIT MOMENTUM THAT IS 
HELPING HER, BUT SHE IS NOT IN 
THE STATE.  INSTEAD, HER 
DAUGHTER IS THERE AND HUSBAND IS
THERE.  SHE IS HERE IN 
WASHINGTON, AND WILL BE LIKELY 
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE WEEK. 
>> WE JUST HEARD THEM ASK THE 
SENATORS TO TAKE THE SEAT.  I'M 
WONDERING HOW LONG THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM WILL TALK IT 
HAD.  HOW MANY OF THE TIME WILL 
THEY USE.  LET'S GO TO THE 
SENATE CHAMBER AS THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE TAKES THE SEAT.  THANK 
YOU FOR WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE 
FROM THE WASHINGTON 
POST.  
>> LET US PRAY.  LORD THROUGH 
ALL OF THE  GENERATIONS YOU HAVE
BEEN OUR MIGHT  MIGHTY GOD.  AS 
MILLIONS MOURN THE DEATHS OF 
KOBE AND GIANNA BRYANT AND THOSE
WHO DIED WITH THEM, WE THINK 
ABOUT LIFE'S BREVITY, 
UNCERTAINTY AND LEGACY.  REMIND 
US THAT WE ALL HAVE A LIMITED 
TIME ON EARTH TO LEAVE THE WORLD
BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT.  AS 
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS 
UNFOLDS, GIVE OUR SENATORS THE 
DESIRE TO MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR
TIME ON EARTH.  TEACH THEM HOW 
TO LIVE OH GOD, AND LEAD THEM 
ALONG THE PATH OF 
HONESTY.  MAY THEY HEAR THE 
WORDS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.  AND
GOING DOWN THE CORRIDORS OF THE 
CENTURY, AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE 
TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE 
YOU FREE. LORD, THANK YOU FOR 
GIVING OUR CHIEF JUSTICE ANOTHER
BIRTHDAY. AMEN. 
>> AMEN. 
>> LEASE JOIN ME IN SITING THE 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE 
FLAG.  I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TOTHE
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR 
WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION 
UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH 
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. . 
>> PLEASE BE SEATED. 
>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE 
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. 
THE SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MAKE 
THE PROCLAMATION. 
>> HEAR YOU HEAR YOU HEAR YOU. 
YOU'RE COMMAND TO KEEP SILENT 
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. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> AS THE CHAPLAIN HAS 
INDICATED, HAPPY BIRTHDAY.  I AM
SURE THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU 
PLANNED TO CELEBRATE THE DAY. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE 
KIND WISHES.  THANK YOU TO ALL 
OF THE SENATORS FOR NOT ASKING 
FOR 
THE YEAS AND NEE ASK. 
>> FOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL 
SENATORS, WE SHOULD EXPECT A 
BREAK EVERY TWO OR THREE HOURS. 
THEN AT 6 O'CLOCK, A BREAK FOR 
DINNER.  WITH THAT, CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I YIELD FORWARD. 
>> PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SENATE RESOLUTION 483, THE 
COUNCIL THAT 22 HOURS AND 5 5 
MINUTES REMAINING TO MAKE THE 
PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.  THE 
SENATE IS NOW GOING TO HEAR YOU.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, 
MANAGERS. WHAT WE HAVE DONE ON 
SATURDAY IS THE PATTERN THAT 
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TODAY AS
FAR AS HOW WE'RE GOING DEAL WITH
THE CASE. WE DEAL WITH 
TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE.  WE DEAL 
WITH THE INFORMATION.  WE DO NOT
DEAL WITH SPECULATION,  
ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE NOT BASED 
ON EVIDENCE STANDARDS AT ALL.  
WE'RE GOING HIGHLIGHT SOME OF 
THOSE VERY FACT THAT IS WE 
TALKED ABOUT VERY  QUIC  LY ON 
SATURDAY. YOU'RE GOING HEAR MORE
OF THAT. I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN 
OVER VIEW OF WHAT WE PLAN TO DO 
TODAY WITH THE PRESENTATION.  
YOU'RE GOING HEAR FROM A NUMBER 
OF LAWYERS. EACH ONE OF THESE 
LAWYERS WILL BE ADDRESSING A 
PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CASE. I WILL 
INTRODUCE THE ISSUES THAT 
THEY'RE GOING DISCUSS, AND THEN 
THAT INDIVIDUAL LAWYER WILL COME
UP AND MAKE THE PRESENTATION. WE
WANT TO DO THIS ON A THOROUGH 
BASIS.  LET ME START WITH JUST 
FOR A VERY BRIEF FEW MOMENTS TO 
TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE. 
ONE OF THE THING THAT IS BECAME 
VERY CLEAR TO US AS WE LOOKED AT
THE PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, WAS THE LACK OF FOCUS 
ON THE JULY 25TH TRANSCRIPT. 
THAT'S BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT 
DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THEY 
WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO SAY.  NOW, 
YOU HAVE HEARD, AND YOU WILL 
HEAR MORE ON THAT IN THE DAYS 
AHEAD.  WE KNOW ABOUT MR. 
SCHIFF'S VERSION OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT.  YOU HEARD IT AND 
SAW IT.  I WANT TO KEEP ON 
COMING  BACK TO FACTS.  FACTS 
THAT ARE REALLY UNDISPUTED.  THE
PRESIDENT IN HIS CONVERSATION 
WAS CLEAR ON A NUMBER OF POINTS.
SO WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.  I 
MENTION THAT AT THE CLOSE OF MY 
ARGUMENTS EARLY THAT IT WAS 
PRESIDENT VOIR DIRE  VOIR DIRE 
CLINE SKI THAT SAID NO PRESSURE.
IT WAS A REDDING OF MINDS.  I 
THINK THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT 
WHAT THEY CHUMMILY SAID AND HOW 
IT'S BACKED 
UP. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, 
LEGAL AUTHORITY, NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND PURSUANT TO THE 
OATH OF  PRESIDENT WAS ACTING 
UNDER THECONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY, LEGAL AUTHORITY, 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND PURSUANT 
TO THE OATH OF OFFICE. ASKING A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM A CORRUPTION IS NOT A 
VIOLATION OF OATH.  IT'S 
INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE WAS A 
LOT OF DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ON 
THE KERNEL VIN MAN.  ONE OF THE 
THING SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HE 
SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW IF 
THERE WAS ANYTHING OF CRIME OR 
OF THE FLAY 
CHURCH. 
S THAT HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT 
KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING OF 
CRIME OR OF THE FLAY CHURCH. 
THIS IS ABOUT DEEP POLICY 
DIFFERENCES.  WE HAVE LIVE WHERE
THERE'S DEEP POLICY CONCERNS AND
DEEP TURPSS.  THAT SHOULD NOT BE
THE BASIS OF AN IMPEACHMENT.  IF
THE BAR HAS NOW REACHED THAT 
LEVEL,
THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME 
WORK IS UNMANAGEABLE.  AREYOU 
GOING TO HAVE A POLICY 
DIFFERENCE OR AN APPROACH 
DIFFERENCE ABOUT A POLICY, WE'RE
GOING START AN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING?  AS I SAID EARLIER, 
I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS WAS 
ABOUT JUST A PHONE CALL.  THERE
WAS A PATTERN IN PRACTICE OF 
ATTEMPTS OVER A THREE YEAR 
PERIOD. 
ALSO, INTERFERE WITH THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK. I AM 
GOING SAY THI  BECAUSE I WANT TO
BE BRIEF.  WE ARE GOING HAVE A 
SERIES OF LAWYERS ADDRESS YOU, 
SO IT WILL NOT BE ONE LAWYER FOR
HOURS AND HOURS. THERE WILL BE A
SERIES OF LAWYERS ON A VARIETY 
OF ISSUES. THIS IS HOW WE 
ENVISION THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE
GOING.  WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE 
APPROPRIATE TO 
START WITH AN OVER VIEW, IF YOU 
WILL, OF THE HISTORICAL ISSUES 
AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 
INVOLVING THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE 
A LONG HISTORY OF THAT.  THAT'S 
GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY THAT WE 
DON'T.  I THINK THAT WE WOULD 
ALL AGREE.  IF THIS IS THE NEW 
STANDARD, THE FUTURE IS GOING 
LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT.  SO WE'RE 
GOING HEAR NEXT FROM MY CODOWN 
CELL KENT STAR.  JUDGE STAR IS A
FARMER JUDGE FOR THE U.S. COURT 
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA.  HE SERVED AS THE 39th
SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR THE UNITED
STATES ARGUING  CASES BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES.  I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF 
ARGUING A CASE ALONG JUDGE STAR 
MANY YEARS 
AGO.  HE SERVED AS THE COUNCIL 
IN THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY.  HE 
TESTIFIED FOR ALMOST 12 HOURS 
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
WITH REGARD TO THAT REPORT.  
JUDGE STAR IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH
THIS PROCESS
WITH REGARDS TO ONE AND TWO AND 
THEN THE COMP LA CASES AND THEN 
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WHERE THIS
CASE NOW STANDS.  I WANT TO 
YIELD MY TIME TO KENNETH STARR. 
>> MR. 
STARR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
HOUSE  MANAGERS 
AND STAFF. MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE, THE MAJORITY LEADER, 
MINORITY LEADER.  AT THE 
BEGINNING OF 
THESE PROCEEDINGS ON JANUARY 
16TH THEAS, JANUARY 16TH, THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE DID THE -- AND 
THEN AGAIN ON 
TUESDAY. 
ARTICLE ONE SESSION THREE.  WE 
KNOW THAT FIRST ONE BY HEART.  
THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS, 
BUT THEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT
GOES 
ON. 
WHEN SITTING FOR THE PURPOSE, 
THEY SHOULD BE ON EARTH, OATH OR
AFFIRMATION.  THAT OATH OR 
AFFIRMATION REQUIRES EACH MEMBER
OF THE SENATE TO DO IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE.  NOW, THIS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY 
ADMINISTERED OATH HAS BEEN GIVEN
IN EVERY PROCEEDING OF THIS BODY
SINCE 
1798:AND TO SIGNA IDENTIFY THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE OCCASION, THE 
SENATES MORE RESENT TRADITIONS 
CALL FOR YOU AS YOU DID TO SIGN 
THE BOOK.  THAT BOOK IS NOT 
SIMPLY PART OF THE RECORD, IT'S 
IN TRUSTED TO THE NATIONAL 
ARCHIVES:THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT TAKE AN 
OATH IN CONNECTION WITH 
IMPEACHMENT. DTO THE NATIONAL 
ARCHIVES:THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT TAKE AN 
OATH IN CONNECTION WITH  TO THE 
NATIONAL ARCHIVES:THEHOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT TAKE AN 
OATH IN CONNECTION WITH 
IMPEACHMENT.  THE SENATE, YES. 
THE HOUSE, NO.  THUS, EACH 
MEMBER OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST 
BODY NOW HAS SPECIAL INDEED 
UNIQUE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS. 
DUTIES IMPOSED UNDER OUR 
FOUNDING 
DOCUMENT IS DOCUMENTS DURING THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF CLINTON 2 
IS YEARS NOW, THEY RULED IN 
RESPONSE TO AN OBJECTION THAT 
WAS POSED BY SENATOR OF IOWA. 
THE SENATORS ARE NOT SITTING AS 
JURORS.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION. 
RATHER, THE SENATE IS A COURT 
AND IN FACT, HISTORY TEACHES US 
THAT FOR LITERALLY DECADES, THIS
BODY WAS REFERRED TO IN THIS 
CONTEXT AS THE HIGH COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  WE'RE NOT IN A 
LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER DURING THE 
PROSIDINGS.  WE'RE IN A TRY YUAN
WE'RE IN COURT.  ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON THAT WAS QUOTED 
FREQUENTLY, BUT HE WAS 
DESCRIBING THE ROLE OF THE 
COURTS.  IN DOING SO, HE 
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE 
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON THE ONE 
HAND AND THAT'S WHAT COURTS DO 
AND THE EXERCISE OF WILL OR 
POLICY PREFERENCES IF YOU WILL 
ON THE OTHER HAND.  THAT'S WHAT 
THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES DO. 
ACCORDING TO HAMILTON, COURTS 
WERE TO BE IN HIS WORD 
IMPARTIAL.  THERE'S THAT WORD 
AGAIN.  THAT'S A DAUNTING TASK 
FOR JUDGES STRUGGLING TO DO THE 
RIGHT THING TO BE IMPARTIAL, 
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW. 
IT'S CERTAINLY HARD IN LIFE TO 
BE IMPARTIAL AND POLITICS IT'S 
NOT EVEN ASKED OF ONE TO BE 
IMPARTIAL.  THAT'S THE TASK THAT
THE  CONSTITUTION PICKED TO 
IMPOSE UPON EACH OF YOU. 
SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS PARTICULAR
JUNCTION CHURCH IN THE AMERICAN 
HISTORY, THE SENATE IS BEING 
CALLED TO SIT AS THE HIGH COURT 
OF IMPEACHMENTPEACHMENT ALL TOO 
FREEWAYLY.  WE'RE LIVE NOTHING 
THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.  IN THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION AFTER 
RESOLUTION, MONTH AFTER MONTH 
HAS CALLED FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
IMPEACHMENT.  HOW DID WE GET 
HERE WITH PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT IN VOTE FREQUENTLY 
IN THE DESTABILIZING AS WELL AS 
IN THE WAY.  BRIEFLY TOLD, THE 
STORY  BEGINS 42 YEARS AGO IN 
THE WAKE OF THE LONG NATIONAL 
NIGHTMARE OF WATER GATE, 
CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT JIMMY 
CARTER COLLABORATIVELY USHERED 
IN A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL 
HISTORY. TOGETHER IN FULL 
AGREEMENT, THEY ENACTED THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNCIL PROVISIONS 
OF THE ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT
OF 
1978.  IT WAS NOT THE AGE OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNCILS.  IT BECAME
UNBEKNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THE AGE 
OF IMPEACHMENT
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DID A 
POSITION HOWEVER WELL 
INTENTIONED, THE INDEPENDENT 
COUNCIL PROVISIONS WERE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WHY?  A VIEW 
OF THE DEPARTMENT THOSE 
PROVISIONS WENT TO THE RIGHTFUL 
DEMAIN AND PREROGATIVE OF THE 
BRANCH OF THE PRESIDENCY.  THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION 
WAS REJECTED BY THE SUPREME 
COURT MOST IMPORTANTLY IN 
HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS NEW 
ERA IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY, 
JUSTICE ANTHONY SCIATICA LEAH 
WAS IN THE DESCEND.  OF THAT, 
JUSTICE SCIATICA LEAH  
WROTE THIS.  IT'S ACTIVE WITH 
THE SMELL OF THREATENED 
IMPEACHMENT.  IMPEACHMENT.  
JUSTICE SCALIA DID THE COURT 
THAT I WAS SERVING AT THE TIME 
IN 
THE DISTRICT
BY A RENOWNED SILVERMAN.  WHY?  
WHYWOULD JUSTICE SCALIA REFER TO
IMPEACHMENT?  THIS WAS A REFORM 
MEASURE.  THERE COULD BE NO MORE
SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRES AND THE
FIRING OF SPECIAL PROCESS CARTS 
AS  SECUTOR AS HE WAS CALLED COX
BY NIXON.  THE GOVERNMENT WOULD 
BE BETTER AND MORE HONEST AND 
GREATER ACCOUNT 
NULLITY AND ARCH DEPENDENT 
COUNCIL WOULD BE PROTECTED.  THE
WORD IMPEACHMENT HAUNTS THAT. 
IT'S NOT HARD TO DISCOVER 
WHY. 
TO BE IN AFFECT AN AGENT OF THE 
HOUSE OF PRESIDENT 
TAV.  TO REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WHEN A LOW 
THRESHOLD WAS RECEIVED AND THAT 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE LEFT 
UNDEFINED MAY HAVE BEEN 
COMMITTED
LOW THRESHOLD WAS RECEIVED AND 
THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE LEFT
UNDEFINED MAY HAVE BEEN 
COMMITTED THIS IS A DAGGER AIMED
AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENCY. 
PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNED THE 
MEASURE IN TO LAW, AND THEN THE 
NATION WENT THROUGH THE LONG 
PROCESS KNOWN AS WHITE WATER. 
RESULTING IN THE FINDINGS BY THE
OFFICE THAT I LED, THE OFFICE OF
INDEPENDENT COUNCIL IN A WRITTEN
REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.  THAT RUMPLY TO
CONGRESS WAS STIPULATE 
STIPULATED IN 1978.  TO PUT IT 
MILD LYEFERRAL TO CONGRESS WAS 
STIPULATE STIPULATED IN 1978.  
TO PUT ITMILDLY THEY WERE UPSET 
ON WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY JOINED
THE REPUBLICANS WHO ON THEIR 
PART WAS OUTRAGED BY AN EARLIER 
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WITH A
VERY DISTINGUISHED JUDGE. DURING
THE REGAN AL MINUTE 
ADMINISTRATION,
DMINISTRATION, AND ALSO TO THE 
STATUE.  THE ACURA MONEY 
SURROUND ING SURROUNDING AND 
THEN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
AQUIETLE TO THE BODY LEAD TO THE
END OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL 
ERA.  ENOUGH WAS 
ENOUGH. 
RIMONY SURROUNDING AND THEN 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S AQUIETLE TO 
THE BODY LEAD TO THE END OF THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNCIL ERA.  ENOUGH
WAS ENOUGH.  CONGRESS AND 
BIPARTISAN WAY HAD A CHANGE OF 
HEART.  IT ALLOWED THE LAW TO 
EXPIRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 
TERMS IN 
1999.  IT DIED A QUIET AND 
UNEVENTFUL DEATH AND REPLACED BY
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL 
REGULATIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL 
JANET RENO IN THE MONTHS OF THE 
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.  ONE CAN
REVIEW THE REGULATIONS AND SEE 
NO REFERENCE TO IMPEACHMENT.  
NONE. NO LONGER WERE THE 
POISONED PILL PROVISIONS OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PART OF
AMERICA'S LEGAL LANDSCAPE.  
THERE WERE GONE.  THE RENO 
REGULATION SEEMED TO SIGNAL A 
RETURN TO TRADITIONAL NORMS.  
IMPEACHMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE 
IMBEDDED IN THE ACTUAL LAWS OF 
THE LAND BUT RETURNED TO THE 
LANGUAGE OF THE CONGRESS 
TUITION. CONSTITUTION N. THE 
MEANTIME, THE DNA AND POLITICAL 
CULTURE HAD CHANGED.  EVEN WITH 
THE DAWN OF THE NEW CENTURY, THE
21st CENTURY, IMPEACHMENT 
REMAINED ON THE LIPS OF 
COUNTLESS AMERICANS. THAT ECHOED
FREQUENTLY IN THE PEOPLE'S 
HOUSE.  THE IMPEACHMENT 
HABIT PROVED TO BE HARD TO KICK.
IRONICALLY WHILE THIS WAS 
HAPPENING HERE AT HOME, ACROSS 
THE ATLANTIC THE USE OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS A WEAPON DISAPPEA
ED, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM THAT 
WE INHERITED THE PROCESS WAS 
FIRST USED MORE THAN TWO 
CENTURIES BEFORE THOSE FIRST 
SETTLERS CROSSED THE ATLANTIC. 
UPON THOUGHTFUL EXAMINATION, A 
NUMBER OF MODERN DAY PARLIAMENT 
LOOK AND FOUND IMPEACHMENT TO BE
OBSOLETE.  AMONG OTHER 
CRITICISMS, MEMBERS OF 
PARLIAMENT CAME TO THE VIEW THAT
THE PRACTICE WHICH HAD LAST BEEN
ATTEMPTED IN BRITAIN IN 1868, 
FAILS TO MEET MODERN PRECEDE 
YOUR STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS. 
FAIRNESS.  A SIR WILLIAM McKAY 
REMARKED, IMPEACHMENT IN BRITAIN
IS DEAD.  YET, HERE AT HOME AND 
THE WORLD'S LONGEST STANDING 
CONTUSIONAL REPUBLIC, INSTEAD OF
A ONCE IN A CENTURY THAT NO, 
MA'AM NO, MA'AM THAT IT HAD BEEN
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT HAS 
BECOME A 
WEAPON. 
IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN NORMAL 
LIES EDED IT'S GOING TO BE IN 
EVERY ACT. DEMOCRATS WILL REGRET
IT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
HANDING OUT THE  PENS.  THE PENS
OF THE SIGNING 
CEREMONY. 
TO BE IN EVERY ACT.  DEMOCRATS
WILL REGRET IT WHEN THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE HANDING OUT THE 
PENS.  THE PENS OF THE SIGNING
CEREMONY.  IT REMAINS SHEAVEED. 
HAD THERE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL 
PRESIDENTS?  YEAH, THINK OF JOHN
ALLEN.  THINK OF ANDREW JACKSON 
AND HENRY CLAY WERE PARTISAN'S 
PRACTICE OCCASIONALLY IN THE 
FIRST CENTURY?  OF COURSE.  LET 
THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE 
EARLY CONGRESSES KNEW HOW TO 
SOUND EACH OF THEM BEFORE 
INCLUDING AGAINST A MEMBER OF 
THIS BODY.  SENATOR WILLIAM OF 
TENNESSEE AND DURING THE 
JEFFERSON ADMINISTRATION, THE 
UNSUCCESSFUL IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
JUSTICE SAMUEL CHAISE AND THEN 
THE PARTIAL THAT'S NONE THE LESS
ACQUITTED BY THE CHAMBER WAS AN 
EARLY LANDMARK IN MAINTAINING 
THE TREASURED AND INDEPENDENCE 
OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.  IT 
TOOK THE NATIONAL CONVULSION OF 
THE CIVIL WAR ASSASSINATION OF 
MR. LINCOLN AND THE COUNTER 
RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES 
AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED BY MR. 
LINCOLN'S SUCCESSOR ANDREW 
JOHNSON TO BRING ABOUT THE 
NATION'S VERY FIRST PRESIDENTIAL
I PEACHMENT
PEACHMENT.  THIS HIGH COURSE 
ACQUITTED THE CONTROVERSIAL 
JOHNSON, BUT ONLY BY VIRTUE OF 
SENATORS FROM THE PARTY OF 
LINCOLN BREAKING RANKS.  IT WAS 
OVER A CENTURY LATER THAT THE 
NATION RETURNED TO THE WORLD OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.  THE 
RANK CRIMINALITY OF THE NIXON 
ADMINISTRATION.  IN LIGHT OF THE
RAPIDLY UNFOLDING FACTS 
INCLUDING UNCOVERED BY THE 
SENATE COMMITTEE AND AN 
OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN VOTE 
OF 40010 TO 4.  THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVINGS AUTHORIZED AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.  IN 1974, 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
AFTER THE LONG HEARINGS VOTED 
AGAIN IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED 
STATES. 
THEY WERE MOVING TO THE FAVORING
OF REMOVING THE LEADER OF THE 
NATION'S HIGHEST HONOR THAT WON 
THE RE-ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE. 
IT BARES EMPHASIS BEFORE THIS 
HIGH COURT. THIS WAS THE FIRST 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OVER
100 YEARS. IT ALSO BARES 
EMPHASIS THAT IT WAS POWERFULLY 
BIPARTISAN, AND IT WAS NOT JUST 
THE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE 
IMPEACHMENT.  IN DEAD, THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT CHAIR OF NEW JERSEY 
WAS INSISTED THAT TO BE ACCEPTED
BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE 
PROCESS HAD TO BE 
BIPARTISAN.  LIKE WAR 
IMPEACHMENT IS HELD OR AT LEAST 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS 
HELL.  THOSE OF US THAT LIVE 
THROUGH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, 
FULL WELL UNDERSTAND THAT A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS 
GOING TO DOMESTIC WAR.  
THANKFULLY PROTECT BID I THE ED 
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND 
WORDS.  IT'S FILLED AND DIVIDES 
THE COUNTRY LIKE NOTHING ELSE.  
THOSE OF US THAT LIVED THROUGH 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
UNDERSTAND THAT IN A DEEP AND 
PERSONAL WAY.  NOW, IN CON 
TROTHS, WISELY AND JUDICIALLY 
CONDUCTED UNLIKE THE UNITED 
KINGDOM, THE IMPEACHMENT REMAINS
A VITAL TOOL IN THE COUNTRY TO 
SERVE AS A CHECK WITH RESPECT TO
THE FEDERAL  JUDICIARY.  AFTER 
ALL, IN THE CONSTITUTIONS 
BRILLIANT STRUCTURE DESIGN, 
FEDERAL JUDGES KNOW THAT THIS 
BODY FULL WELL KNOWS FROM THE 
DAILY WORK AN 
IMPORTANT FEATURE, INDEPENDENCE 
FROM POLITICS.  EXACTLY WHAT 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS TALKING 
ABOUT IN 78.  DURING THE 
CONSTITUTION'S TERM GOOD 
BEHAVIOR.  AND PRACTICAL AFFECT 
AND LIFE.  IMPEACHMENT IS THUS A
VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTION FOR WE
THE PEOPLE AGAINST WHAT COULD BE
SERIOUS ARTICLE 3 WRONG DOING 
WITHIN THE BRANCH.  SO IT IS 
WHEN YOU COUNT OF THE 63 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES AUTHORIZED
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OVER THE HISTORY, ONLY EIGHT 
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN  CONVICTED IN
THIS HIGH COURT AND REMOVE FROM 
OFFICE.  EACH AND EVERY ONE HAS 
BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE.  THIS 
HISTORY LEAVES ME TO REFLECT ON 
THE NATURE OF YOUR WEIGHTED 
RESPONSIBILITIES HERE IN THE 
HIGH COURT AS JUDGES IN THE 
CONTEXT OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.  THE FOURTH 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT I AM 
COUNTING THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE NATION'S HISTORY, BUT THE
THIRD OVER THE PAST HALF 
CENTURY.  I  
RESPECT THAT THEY WOULD DO WELL 
IN THE DELIBERATIONS TO GUIDE 
THE NATION IN THIS WORLD'S 
GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY TO 
RETURN TO OUR COUNTRY'S 
TRADITIONS WHEN PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT WAS TRULY A MEASURE 
OF LAST 
RESORT. MEMBER OF THIS BODY CAN 
HELP AND END THIS VERY 
PROCEEDING, PRESTORE THE 
TRADITIONAL AND ABOVE ALL BY 
RETURN TO GO THE TEXT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION 
ITSELF. 
RESTORE THE TRADITIONAL AND 
ABOVE ALL BY RETURN TO GO THE 
TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
WEAVING WHAT COULD BE CALLED THE
COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.  THAT IS WHAT 
COURT'S DO.  THEY WAVE THE 
COMMON LAW.  THERE'S INDICATIONS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT 
THAT WILL COME TO THE HISTORY 
THAT THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION 
IS APPROPRIATE TO BE ASKED AND 
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE 
ARGUMENTS.  WAS THERE A CRIME OR
OTHER VIOLATIONS TO HAVE 
ESTABLISHED LAW ALLEGED.  LET'S 
GO THE TEXT.  THROUGHOUT THE 
CONSTITUTIONS DESCRIPTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT, THE TEXT SPEAKS 
ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION IN 
TERMS OF THE  CRIMES.  IT BEGINS
WITH TREASON AND THE GREATEST OF
THE CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE AND
WE THE PEOPLE.  SO MISUSED AS A 
IN PARLIAMENT EXPERIENCES TO 
LEAD THE FOUNDERS AND ACTUALLY 
DEFINED THE TERM AND THE 
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  BRIBERY 
AND A FORM OF MORAL AND LEGAL 
CORRUPTION, AND THE BASIS OF SO 
MANY OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS OVER THE COURSE OF 
THE HISTORY.  AGAIN, ALL OF THEM
AGAINST JUDGES.  THEN THE 
MYSTERIOUS TERMS OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.  ONCE 
AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS IMPLYING 
THE LANGUAGE OF CRIMES.  THE 
CONSTITUTION IS SPEAKING TO US 
IN TERMS OF CRIMES.  EACH OF 
THOSE REFERENCES WHEN YOU COUNT 
THEM, COUNT 7, COUNT 8, SUPPORTS
THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHMENTS
SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF 
OFFENSES AGAINST ESTABLISHED 
LAW.  WITH PRESIDENT TROW THE 
PRESIDENCY, IT REQUIRE TOES THE 
UNITED STATES AND NOT A 
POLITICAL OFFICE NO MATTER HOW 
HONEST OR IMPARTIAL TO PRESIDE 
AT TRIAL.  GUIDED BY THE 
HISTORY, THEY MADE A WISE CHOICE
TO RESTRAIN, LIMIT THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THE DEAN OF THE COLUMBIA LAW 
SCHOOL AND THEODORE WHITE WROTE 
THIS.  THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY 
IS THAT NO IMPEACHMENT WILL LIE 
ACCEPT FOR A TRUE CRIME.  A 
BREACH OF THE LAW THAT WOULD BE 
THE SUBJECT OF INDICTMENT.  I'M 
NOT MAKING THAT 
ARGUMENT.  I AM NOTING WHAT HE 
IS SAYING.  HE DID NOT OVER 
ARGUE THE CASE.  HE SAID THAT 
THE  WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.  THE 
WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.  SO THIS 
ISSUE IS A WEIGHTING ONE.  THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH 
ALL DUE RESPECT, DOES IT 
ESTABLISH THE LAW OR NOT?  THIS
IS AN APPROPRIATE AND WEIGHTING 
CONSIDERATION FOR THE SENATE. 
ESPECIALLY AS I'M TRY TO GO 
EMPHASIZE NOT IN THE CASE OF A 
FEDERAL 
JUDGE BUTING TO EMPHASIZE NOT IN
THE CASE OF A FEDERAL JUDGE BUT 
THERE'S A HUGE FACTOR THAT THIS 
IS OCCURRING IN AN ELECTION YEA 
WHEN WE THE PEOPLE IN A MAT OVER
OF MONTHS WILL GO TO THE  POLLS.
IN DEVELOPING THE COMMON LAW OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, THIS 
THRESHOLD FACTOR CONSISTENT WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, 
CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY AND 
IMPEACHMENTS, AS I WILL SEEK TO 
DEMONSTRATE, SERVES AS A 
CLARIFYING AND STABILIZING 
ELEMENT.  IT INCREASES 
PREDICTABILITY TO DO WHAT?  TO 
REDUCE THE PROFOUND DANGER THAT 
A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WILL 
BE DOMINATED BY THE PARTISAN 
CONSIDERATIONS AND PRECISELY THE
EVIL THAT THE FRAMERS WARNED 
ABOUT.  SO TO HISTORY, HISTORY 
BARES OUT THE POINT.  THE 
NATION'S MOST RESENT EXPERIENCE 
AND THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND 
EVEN THOUGH SEVERELY AND 
CRITICIZED, CHARGED CRIMES. 
THESE ARE CRIMES PROVEN IN THE 
CRUCIALABLE OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO BE BEYOND ANY
REASONABLE DOUBT, SO TO THE 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE ARTICLES 
CHARGED 
CRIME S
BLE OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO BE BEYOND ANY
REASONABLE DOUBT, SO TO THE 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE ARTICLES 
CHARGED  CRIMES -- WHEN ONE 
RETURNS TO ARTICLE 2 AND NIXON 
APPROVED BY A BIPARTISAN HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, ARTICLE 2 
OF NIXON'S SETS FORTH A DEEPLY 
TROUBLING STORY OF NUMEROUS 
CRIMES.  NOT ONE OR TWO BUT 
NUMEROUS CRIMES CARRIED OUT 
BY THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF.  SO THE 
APPROPRIATE QUESTION.  WHERE 
CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLE IN
THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT IN NIXON?  YES.  IN 
CLINTON, YES. HERE, NO.  A 
FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE 
JUDGES AND THE HIGH COURT COME 
AS YOU WILL INDIVIDUALLY TO YOUR
JUDGMENT. EVEN IN THE POLITICAL 
CALL OF THE ANDREW JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT, ARTICLE 11 CHARGED 
A VIOLATION OF THE CONTROVERSIAL
TINNIER OF OFFICE ACT.  YOU'RE 
FAMILIAR WITH IT.  THAT ACT 
WARRANTED EXPRESSLY THE OVAL 
OFFICE THAT IS VIOLATION WOULD 
CONSTITUTE A HIGH MISDEMEANOR 
EMPLOYING THE VERY LANGUAGE OF 
THE HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES. 
THIS HISTORY REPRESENTS AND I 
BELIEVE, MAY IT PLEASE THE 
COURT, IT EMBODIES THE COMMON 
LAW OF THE PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.  THESE ARE FLEEING 
FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND
IN THE GLOSS OF THE NATION'S 
HISTORY.  UNDER THIS VIEW, THE 
COMMISSION OF AN ALLEGED CRIME 
FOR VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW
CAN APPROPRIATELY BE  CONSIDERED
GAIN AN 
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION OF A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. WILL 
LAW PROFESSORS AGREE WITH THIS? 
N , BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO 
THE ACADEMY, THIS IS NOT AN 
ACADEMIC 
GATHERING. WE'RE IN COURT.  
WE'RE NOT GIST IN COURT.  WITH 
ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE, WE'RE IN DEMOCRACY'S 
ULTIMATE COURT.  THE BETTER 
CONSTITUTIONAL ANSWER TO THE 
QUESTION IS PROVIDED BY A 
FAITHFUL EXAMINATION OF A 
CONSTITUTION 
TEXT AND THEN LOOKING FAITHFULLY
TO THE HISTORY.  THE VERY 
DIVISIVE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
DEMONSTRATES WHILE HIGHLY 
RELEVANT, THE COMMISSION OF 
A CRIME IS BY NO MEANS OF THE 
DUALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.  WHY? 
THIS BODY KNOWS AND WE APPOINT 
THE JUDGES AND YOU CONFIRM THEM 
AND THEY'RE THERE FOR LIFE.  
STOP THE PRESIDENTS AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S SEE IS UNIQUE.  THE 
PRESIDENCY STANDS ALONE IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK. 
BEFORE HE BECAME THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
JOHN MARSHAL THEN SITTING AS A 
MATTER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE 
MADE A SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF 
THE HOUSE.  THERE HE SAID THIS, 
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE ORGAN 
OF THE NATION AND EXTERNAL 
RELATIONS.  THE SOLE 
REPRESENTATIVE WITH FOREIGN 
NATIONS.  IF THAT SOUNDS 
LIKE, IT'S BEEN EMBRACED OVER 
DECADES BY THE SUPREME COURT OF 
THE JETS UNITED STATES BY 
JUSTICES.  THE PRESIDENCY IS 
UNIQUE.  THERE'S NO OTHER SYSTEM
QUIET LIKE OURS. IT HAS SERVED 
US WELL.  SO AS TO THE 
PRESIDENCY, IMPEACHMENT AND 
REMOVAL NOT ONLY OVER TURNS A 
NATIONAL ELECTION AND PERHAPS 
PROFOUNDLY HAS AN UPCOMING 
ELECTION, IN THE WORLDS OF OMAR,
IT ENTAILS A RISK.  THESE ARE 
THE WORDS.  PROFESSOR OMAR'S 
WORD, BRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.  SHE PINNED THEM 
WITH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. 
GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE -- 
REGARDLESS WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS DONE, GRAVE DISRUPTION.  WE 
WILL ALL AGREE THE PRESIDENT'S 
UNDER THE TEXT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IT'S AMENDMENTS
ARE TO SERVE OUT THEIR TERM 
ABSENT A GENUINE NATIONAL 
CONSENSUS REFLECTED BY THE 
TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY REQUIREMENT 
OF 
THIS COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
MUST GO AWAY.  TWO-THIRDS.  IN 
POLITICS AND IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S
CALLED A LANDSLIDE.  HERE I 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT
THAT ALL FAIR MINDED PERSONS 
WILL AGREE THERE'S NO NATIONAL 
CONSENSUS.  WE MAY WISH FOR ONE,
BUT THERE'S IS NOT.  TO THE 
CONTRARY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 
AMERICA'S MODERN HISTORY, NOT A 
SINGLE HOUSE MEMBER OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S PARTY SUPPORTED 
EITHER OF THE TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  NOT ONE.  NOT IN 
COMMITTEE.  NOT ON THE HOUSE 
FLOOR, AND THAT PUTS IN BOLD 
RELIEF THE PETER REDENO 
PRINCIPLE.  CALL IT THE REDENO 
RULE IMPEACHMENT MUST BE 
BIPARTISAN IN 
NATURE.  AGAIN, SITTING AS A 
COURT, THIS BODY SHOULD SIGNAL 
TO THE NATION THE RETURN TO THE 
TRADITIONS BIPARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENTS.  WHAT'S THE 
ALTERNATIVE?  WELL, THE  WILL 
THE PRESIDENT BE KING TO 
OVERSIGHT? THE TRADITION OF 
OVERSIGHT.  A ENORMOUS CHECK ON 
THE PRESIDENTIAL POWER 
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY AND IT 
CONTINUES AVAILABLE TODAY.  IN 
IRAN CONTRA, NO IMPEACHMENT WAS 
TAKEN.  THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE, DEMOCRAT GYM WRIGHT FROM 
TEXAS FROM FORT WORTH WHERE THE 
WEST BEGINS, NEW BETTER.  HE 
SAID NO S. IT'S BEFITS THE AGE 
OF IMPEACHMENT.  A HOUSE 
RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH RONALD 
REGAN WAS INTRODUCED.  IT WAS 
FILED.  THE EFFORT TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS SUPPORTED 
BY THE LEADING LAW PROFESSOR 
WHOSE NAME YOU WOULD WELL 
RECOGNIZE AND HEAR IT GAIN THIS 
EVENING 
FROM PROFESSOR TO IDENTIFY.  THE
SPEAKER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE 
ECHOING PETER REDINO SAID NO.  I
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE 
SENATE SHOULD CLOSE THIS CHAPTER
AND THIS CHAPTER ON THIS 
INCREASINGLY DISRUPTIVE ACT.  
THIS ERA AND AGE OF REFORT THE  
CONSTITUTIONS WEAPON FOR THE 
PRESIDENCY.  LET THE PEOPLE 
DECIDE.  THERE'S A GREAT JUSTICE
WHO SAT FOR 30 YEARS.  JUSTICE 
JOHN HARLAND IN THE MID-CENTURY 
FOR THE 20th CENTURY, AND IN A 
LAWSUIT INVOLVING A VERY BASIC 
QUESTION, CONSIDERS THE RIGHTS 
THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARLY VIOLATED 
BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 
AND AGENTS BRING AN ACTION FOR 
DAMAG S WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SO
PROVIDED. NO LAW THAT GAVE THE 
WOUNDED ED CITIZEN A RIGHT TO 
REDRESS FOR DAMAGES.  JUST AS 
HARLAND HAD A MAGNIFICENT 
REOCCURRING AND SIX UNNAMED 
FEDERAL AGENTS, SUGGESTED THAT  
COURTS SHOULD TAKE IN TO 
CONSIDERATION IN REACHING IT'S 
JUDGMENT, THEIR JUDGMENT WHAT HE
CALLED FACTORS COUNSELING 
RESTRAINTS.  HE WAS SOME WHAT 
RELUCTANT TO SAY THAT WE, THE 
SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT THIS 
RIGHT AND CREATE IT WHEN 
CONGRESS ENACTED IT.  THEYHAVE 
COULD HAVE ACTED.  HE 
RELUCTANTLY CAME TO THE 
CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSTITUTION
EM POW OVERED THE FEDERAL COURTS
TO CREATE THIS RIGHT FOR OUR 
INJURED CITIZENS.  TO GIVE THEM 
REDRESS.  NOT JUST A RELIEF, BUT
DAMAGES AND MONEY RECOVERY FOR 
THE VIOLATIONS OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS.  HE ADDRESSED THEM AND 
CAME TO THE VIEWING AND WAS SO 
HONEST SAYING THAT I CAME TO THE
CASE WITH A DIFFERENT VIE, BUT I
CHANGED MY MIND.  VOTED IN FAVOR
OF THE FAMILY HAVING TO ADDRESS 
AGAINST THE FEDERAL AGENTS THAT 
VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS.  JUDGING 
AT IT'S MOST ITCH PARTIAL SENSE.
I'M GOING DRAW FROM THE JUSTICE 
HARLAND'S MACK TRIX AND SIMPLIFY
THESE.  I THINK THERE MAY BE 
OTHERS FOR THE LAW, AND I'M 
ESTABLISHING THAT IT'S A REALLY 
RANT FACTOR.  I THINK IT'S A 
WEIGHTING FACTOR.  WHEN WE COME 
TO TRADITIONAL IMPEACHMENT, AND 
SECONDLY THE ARTICLES COME TO 
YOU WITH NO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. 
THEY COME TO YOU AS A VIOLATION 
OF WHAT I'M DUBBING THE RODINO 
RULE.  THIRD, AS I WILL NOW 
DISCUSS, THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF 
PROCESS.  THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS.  THIS COURT IS VERY
FAMILIAR WITH THE UNITED STATES 
VERSES NIXON.  IT'S RECOGNIZING 
THE PRESIDENT'S PROFOUND 
INTEREST IN THE REGARDLESS OF 
THE VIEW AND THE JUSTICE'S WERE 
UNANIMOUS.  THIS IS JUST NOT A 
THAT'S BUILT NO THE CONS 
NATIONAL ORDER, SO LET ME 
COMMENT BRIEFLY.  THIS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
RECOGNITION OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND THEN COMPANION 
PRIVILEGES, THE DELIBERATIVE 
PROCESS PRIVILEGE.  THE IMMUNITY
OF CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL  ADVISERS 
BEING SUMMONED TO TESTIFY. THESE
ARE ALL FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN 
THE 
LAW.  IF THERE'S A DISPUTE WITH 
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
OVER THE AVAILABILITY OF 
DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES AND THERE
IS IN EACH AND EVERY 
ADMINISTRATION, THEN GO TO 
COURT.  IT REALLY IS JUST AS 
SIMPLE AS THAT.  I DON'T HAVE TO
LAY BEHR THE POINT.  HERE IS THE
POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO 
EMPHASIZE.  FREQUENTLY THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ADVISES THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENCY  CALLS.  WHATEVER THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT WANT TO DO AS A 
POLITICAL MATTER THERE'S A 
COMBINATION OF THE SPIRIT TO 
PROTECT PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS
AND COMMUNICATIONS.  I HAVE 
HEARD IT IN MY TWO TOURS OF DUTY
IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DON'T
RELEASE THE DOCUMENTSMENT.  .  
IF YOU DO, YOU'RE INJURING THE 
PRESIDENCY.  GO TO COURT. WE 
HAVE HEARD CONCERNS ON THE 
LENGTH OF TIME THE LITIGATION 
MAY TAKE.  THOSE OF US THAT HAVE
LITIGATED KNOW THAT SOMETIMES 
LITIGATION SOMETIMES TAKES 
LONGER THAN WE WOULD LIKE. 
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE 
DENIED.  WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITH
THAT.  OUR HISTORY, CHURCHILL'S 
STEADY HISTORY.  THE HISTORY 
TELLS US THAT IT'S NOT 
NECESSARILY 
SO.  GO BY WAY OF EXAMPLE AND 
THE PENT UPON'S CASE.  ORDERS  
ISSUED PREVENTING AND 
SANCTIONING A GROSS VIOLATION OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENTS GUARANTEE 
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  AN 
ORDER ISSUED OUT OF THE DISTRITE
COURT JUNE JUNE 15TH, 1971.  
THAT ORDER WAS REVERSED IN AN 
OPINION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF 
THE JETS TWO WEEKS 
LATER.  JUNE 15TH.  THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COULD HAVE 
FOLLOWED THAT WELL PATH AND 
COULD HAVE SOUTH THE EXPEDITION.
IT'S SIX ABLACKS DOWN AND THE 
JUDGES ARE THERE AND THE THEY'RE
ALL ABLE AND HARDWORKING. PEOPLE
OF THE INTEGRITY AND FOLLOW THE 
PATH -- FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE 
LAW.  GO TO 
COURT. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT 
LEAST ONE PROBLEM HAD THE HOUSE 
GONE COURT AND REMAINED IN 
COURT. THE ISSUE IS BEFORE YOU. 
AMONG OTHER FLAWS THE OFFICE OF 
THE LEGAL COUNCIL DETERMINED, 
AND I HAVE READ THE OPINION.  I 
BELIEVE IT'S CORRECT, THAT WITH 
ALL RESPECT ALL HOUSE SUBPOENAED
ISSUED WITH ADOPTION TO THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 FOR THE 
FIRST TIME AUTHORIZED THE 
IMPEACHMENT IN SQUIRE ERIE AS A 
HOUSE.  
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
BUT THAT'S THE HOUSE.
IT'S 435 MEMBERS ELECTED FROM 
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
REPUBLIC. NOT ONCE. NO MATTER 
HOW ABLE SHE MAY BE IN THE 
PEOPLE'S HOUSE EVERY 
CONGRESSPERSON GETS A VOTE. 
EVERY PERSON EVERY VOTE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RECORD. 
CONSISTENTLY AND SCRUPULOUSLY 
FOLLOWED THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL 
OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IN 
PARTICULAR THE OFFICE OF THE 
LEGAL COUNSEL. AS YOU KNOW THAT 
IMPORTANT OFFICE MANY HAVE YOUR 
EXPERIENCE WITH THAT OFFICE IS 
STAFFED WITH THE LAWYERS OF 
GREAT ABILITY. HAVE A REPUTATION
FOR SUPERB WORK. IT IS SUCH 
THOUGHTFUL WORK OF
BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN 
ADMINISTRATIONS. THE OFFICE IS 
NOW HEADED BY A BRILLIANT LAWYER
WHO SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO 
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY. THE 
HOUSEMAID
DISAGREE WITH THE GUIDANCE 
PROVIDED TO THE PRESIDENT BY 
THAT OFFICE. THE HOUSE 
FREQUENTLY DOES DISAGREE.
BUT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW 
THE GUIDANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO AN 
INTERBRANCH LEGAL AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE, CANNOT 
REASONABLY BE VIEWED AS AN 
OBSTRUCTION. AND MOST 
EMPHATICALLY NOT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. HISTORY ONCE AGAIN IS A
GREAT TEACHER. AND THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT
, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REJECTED A DRAFT 
ARTICLE ASSERTING THAT PRESIDENT
CLINTON AND HERE ARE THE WORDS 
OF THE DRAFT ARTICLE. 
FRAUDULENTLY AND CORRUPTLY 
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
. STRONG WORDS. FRAUDULENTLY AND
CORRUPTED GLEE, THAT WAS A DRAFT
ARTICLE. IN MY VIEW, HE HAD 
HEAVEN LIVED THROUGH THE FACTS 
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT. HE DID,
HE DID TIME AND AGAIN MONTH 
AFTER MONTH. WE WOULD GO TO 
COURT. WE WOULD WIN. AND MANY 
MEMBERS, NOT EVERYBODY ON THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
AGREED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD 
INDEED IMPROPERLY CLAIMED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, REBUFFED 
TIME AND AGAIN BY THE JUDICIARY.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT 
COMMITTEE CHAIRED THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE, CHAIRED 
BY HENRY HYDE, WISELY CONCLUDED 
THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON'S DOING 
SO SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
HERE'S THE IDEA, IT IS NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEFEND THE ASSERTED LEGAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
THIS IS THAT I'M QUOTING HERE 
FROM PAGE 55 OF THE PRESIDENTS 
TRIAL BRIEF. A FUNCTION OF HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY 
JUDGMENT. IT'S A POLICY JUDGMENT
AND A CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT. I
WOULD SAY THIS COURT AS IT'S 
COMING THROUGH THE DELIBERATION 
PROCESS, TO READ THE PRESIDENTS 
TRIAL BRIEF WITH RESPECT TO 
PROCESS. IT WAS JUSTICE, FELIX 
FRANKFURTER CONFIDANT OF FDR, 
BRILLIANT JURIST, WHO REMINDED 
AMERICA THAT THE HISTORY OF 
LIBERTY IS IN LARGE MEASURE THE 
HISTORY OF PROCESS AND 
PROCEDURE.
IN PARTICULAR I WOULD GUIDE THE 
HIGH COURT TO THE DISCUSSION OF 
THE LONG HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OVER TWO 
CENTURIES.
IN PROVIDING DUE PROCESS 
PROTECTIONS. UNITS IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATIONS.
IT'S A RICHLY HISTORICAL 
DISCUSSION THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU 
CAN READ IT IN FOUR PAGES, PAGES
62 TO 66 OF THE TRIAL BRIEF. 
PUTS IT BOLD BELIEF THE 
IRREFUTABLE FACT, THIS HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH ALL RESPECT
SOUGHT TO TURN ITS BACK ON HIS 
OWN ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES. 
PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN 
FOLLOWED FAITHFULLY DECO DECADE 
AFTER DECADE REGARDLESS OF WHO 
WAS IN CONTROL. REGARDLESS OF 
POLITICAL PARTY. ALL THOSE 
PROCEDURES ARE TORN ASUNDER. AND
ALL OVER THE VIGOROUS OBJECTION 
OF THE UNANIMOUS AND VOCAL 
MINORITY
, I NEED NOT REMIND THIS HIGH 
COURT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY 
MINORITY RIGHTS ARE IN 
IMPORTANT. MINORITY RIGHTS 
SHOULD BE PROTECTED. EQUAL 
JUSTICE. BUT THEN AGAIN, THE 
HOUSE MEMBERS TOOK NO OATH TO BE
IMPARTIAL.
THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT REQUIRE
THEM
TO STAY BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION 
TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. WHEN 
THEY CHOSE TO TEAR ASUNDER THEIR
PROCEDURES, THEY WERE OATH LIST.
THEY COULD TOSS OUT THEIR OWN 
RULEBOOK, RAW POWER.
HERE WE HAVE TRAGICALLY FOR THE 
COUNTRY AND I THINK TRAGICALLY 
FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ARTICLE 2 OF THESE IMPEACHMENT 
ARTICLES A ONE RUNAWAY HOUSE. IT
IS
RUNAWAY NOT ONLY FROM ITS 
LONG-STANDING PROCEDURES IT'S 
RUNAWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTION 
DEMAND OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS 
IS CAPTURED IN THOSE HOWLETT 
TURN TERMS. AS IN ENGLISH 
BEAKING PEOPLE SINCE BAG TWO 
CARTA BY DOING SO THE HOUSE IS 
INADVERTENTLY APPOINTED THE 
COURT TO AN EXIT MAP. IT'S AN 
EXIT RAMP PROVIDED BY THE 
CONSTITUTION ITSELF. AND EXIT 
RAMP
BUILT BY THE MOST NOBLE OF 
BUILDERS, THE FOUNDING 
GENERATION. DESPITE THE CLEAREST
PRECEDENT REQUIRE DUE PROCESS 
FOR THE ACCUSED AND IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, BUT SURELY ALL THE MORE
SO IN A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT
HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHOSE TO CONDUCT
A WHOLLY UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS 
IN THIS CASE. THEY DID SO 
KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY 
BECAUSE THEY WERE WARNED AT 
EVERY TURN. DON'T DO IT. IT 
DON'T DO IT THAT WAY. A PROCESS
, THE PRESIDENT BEING DENIED THE
BASIC RIGHTS
THAT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO EVERY
SINGLE ACCUSED PRESIDENT IN THE 
HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC. EVEN TO
THE RACIST
ANDREW JOHNSON SEEKING TO UNDO 
MR. LINCOLN'S GREAT LEGACY. HE 
GOT THOSE RIGHTS BUT NOT HERE.
DUE PROCESS COULD HAVE BEEN 
HONORED. BASIC RIGHTS COULD HAVE
BEEN HONORED
. THE HOUSE RULES, THE HOUSES 
TRADITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN 
HONORED BUT WHAT'S DONE IS DONE.
THE
TWO ARTICLES COME BEFORE THIS 
COURT, THIS HIGH COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT, DRIPPING WITH 
FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS VIOLATIONS.
WHEN COURTS ARE CONFRONTED WITH 
THIS KIND OF PHENOMENA, A TRAIN 
OF FAIRNESS VIOLATIONS, COURTS 
IN THIS COUNTRY DO THE RIGHT 
THING
THEY DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, THEY 
INVOKE FEDERALLY OR LITERALLY
THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION
THE FIRST ORDER OF ART 
GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO PERFORM A
MORE
PERFECT UNION IS TO ESTABLISH 
JUSTICE. ESTABLISHED JUSTICE 
EVEN BEFORE GETTING TO THE WORDS
TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON 
DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL 
WELFARE
ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, THE
CONSTITUTION SPEAKS IN TERMS OF 
JUSTICE ESTABLISHING JUSTICE.
COURTS WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS, 
THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS 
BECAUSE WHY? THEY KNEW AND THEY 
KNOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF OUR 
FOUNDING INSTRUMENT IS TO 
PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES. TO 
SAFEGUARD US BUT TO SAFEGUARD US
AS INDIVIDUALS. AGAINST THE 
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.
AND WHY IN THE BENEDICT REWORDS 
OF THE PREAMBLE, TO SECURE THE 
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO 
OURSELVES AND TO OUR POSTERITY. 
LIBERTY UNDER LAW. I THINK THE 
COURT.
>> MR. SEKULOW .
MR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE JUDGE
STAR HAS LAID OUT FOR YOU THE 
SOLEMN NATURE OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. I WANT TO CONTRAST 
THE SOLEMN NATURE OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS OF WHAT HAS BEEN 
LAID OUT BEFORE US ON BOTH THE 
HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
PERSPECTIVE . I WANT YOU TO 
THINK ABOUT THIS, THE HISTORY, 
THE IMPORTANCE, THE SLIM AND HE 
WE ENGAGED HERE IN THIS GREAT 
BODY WITH WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON 
THE SIGNING OF ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT . N
PENS 
DISTRIBUTED TO THE IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGERS . A CELEBRATORY MOMENT 
. 
THINK ABOUT THAT . 
THINK ABOUT THIS . 
A POIGNANT MOMENT . 
WE ARE NEXT GOING TO ADDRESS THE
FACTUAL ANALYSIS . TO BRIEFLY 
REFLECT 
MY COLLEAGUE OF THE DEPUTY WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL, MIKE SCHAPIRO 
WILL BE JOINING US IN A MOMENT 
TO DISCUSS MORE OF THE FACTS . 
TO 
CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WE HAD 
ON SATURDAY. LET ME JUST RECAP 
VERY QUICKLY WHAT WAS LAID OUT 
ON SATURDAY . FIRST, 
THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION 
EITHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A 
MEETING ON ANYTHING. 
THE PAUSE SECURITY ASSISTANT 
FUNDS ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON 
THE CALL . SECOND , PRESIDENT 
ZELINSKI AND OTHER UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY SAID THERE 
WAS NO PRINT QUOTE 
QUID PRO QUO AND NO PRESSURE TO 
REVIEW ANYTHING. THIRD, 
PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY  AND HIGH-RANKING 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN
KNOW THAT ASSISTANCE WAS 
PAUSED UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST 
OVER A MONTH AFTER THE CALL. 
FOURTH, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS 
TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS ANY 
CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY 
INVESTIGATION OF EVANS ASSURES 
ASSISTANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
FIFTH. SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
FLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 11th TOOK 
PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 25th WITHOUT 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WITHOUT
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCING 
ANY INVESTIGATIONS. 
FINALLY, IN THE BLIND DRIVE TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT , 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN REALITY , 
STRATEGICALLY HAS BEEN THE BEST 
FRIEND AND SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE 
CERTAINLY IN OUR RECENT HISTORY 
. THESE ARE THE FACTS . THAT IS 
WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. DEPUTY WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL , MIKE 
SAPPORO WILL NOW 
RELATE ADDITIONAL FACTS AS IT 
RELATES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. 
THANK YOU. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE , GOOD AFTERNOON. 
MR. LEADER, I BELIEVE WE WILL 
TAKE A BREAK AT THEIR CONCLUSION
OF MY REMARKS IF IT IS DEEMED TO
BE APPROPRIATE. ON SATURDAY, WE 
WALKED THROUGH SOME OF THE 
EVIDENCE WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THAT WERE PUT FORWARD AND THE 
WHAT THEY DIDN'T PUT FORWARD 
DURING THEIR 21+ HOURS OF 
PRESENTATION. EVIDENCE THAT WE 
RECOUNTED WAS DRAWN DIRECTLY 
FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN 
RECORD . THE CASE THEY CHOSE TO 
SUBMIT TO THIS CHAMBER. 
TWO ECHO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. 
SEKULOW . BRIEFLY THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT 
PRESIDENT DID NOT INVESTIGATE 
ANYTHING ON THE JULY 25 CALL 
WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY  AND DID NOT MENTION 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE 
CALL. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  SAID 
HE FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY AND TOP 
OFFICIALS DID NOT LEARN OF THE 
PAUSE ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
UNTIL MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER 
THE JULY 25 CALL . IN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS OWN RECORD, THEIR 
RECORD THAT DAVE 
DEVELOPED AND BROUGHT BEFORE 
THIS CHAMBER, REFLECTS THAT 
ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT SAID THE PRESIDENT 
MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO LINKAGE 
BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATION. THERE IS ANOTHER 
CATEGORY OF EVIDENCE 
DEMONSTRATING THE PAUSE ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DISTINCT
AND UNRELATED TO INVESTIGATIONS 
. THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID
WITHOUT THE UKRAINIAN 
EVER ANNOUNCING ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS OR UNDERTAKING 
ANY 
INVESTIGATION. HERE IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
>> THE FACT IS THE AID WAS GIVEN
TO UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY NEW 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT . 
>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IN 
FACT MEET WITH 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY IN SEPTEMBER
OF THE UNITED NATIONS CORRECT? 
>> HE DID. 
>> AND THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT
OF INVESTIGATION BEFORE THIS 
MEETING AND THERE WAS NO 
ANNOUNCEMENT AFTER THIS MEETING 
. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT . 
>> WHILE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WAS PAUSE, THE ADMINISTRATION 
DID PRECISELY WHAT YOU WOULD 
EXPECT. IT ADDRESS PRESIDENT 
TRUMPS CONCERNS ABOUT THE TWO 
ISSUES I MENTIONED ON SATURDAY, 
BURDEN SHARING AND CORRUPTION. A
NUMBER OF LONG POLICYMAKERS. 
ALSO CONTACTED THE PRESIDENT AND
THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROVIDE INPUT
ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ISSUE
DURING THIS PERIOD INCLUDING 
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM . 
THE PROCESS CULMINATED ON 
SEPTEMBER 11 2019 . ON THAT DAY 
THE PRESIDENT SPOKE WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE AND SENATOR ROB 
PORTLAND . THE VICE PRESIDENT 
AND NSC SENIOR DIRECTS AND 
DIRECTOR, 
TO MORE DECISIONS WORDS WAS 
ARMED WITH THE CONVERSATION JUST
DAYS EARLIER IN WARSAW 
POLAND AND BOTH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND SENATOR 
PORTLAND RELATED THEIR VIEW OF 
THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AND CONVINCED THE 
PRESIDENT THE AGE SHOULD BE 
DISPERSED IMMEDIATELY . AFTER 
THE MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TERMINATED THE PAUSE AND THE 
SUPPORT FLOWED TO THE UKRAINE. 
I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK NOW 
AND TALK FOR A MOMENT 
ABOUT WHY THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS BRIEFLY PAUSED. 
AGAIN, IN THE WORDS OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS OWN WITNESSES. WITNESS 
AFTER WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT 
CONFRONTING UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION
SHOULD BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF 
UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE. THEY ALSO 
TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT HAD 
LONG-STANDING INSINCERE CONCERNS
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, HOWEVER, TOLD 
YOU THAT IT WAS LAUGHABLE TO 
THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. BUT
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WITNESSES 
SAID . ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR 
VOELKER , PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAD A VERY 
DEEP ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEW OF 
UKRAINE BASED ON PAST CORRUPTION
AND THAT'S A REASONABLE POSITION
ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER.  MOST PEOPLE WHO KNEW 
ANYTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD SAY
THAT. AND DR. HILL TESTIFIED , I
THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY
QUITE PUBLICLY SAID THAT HE WAS 
VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. AND IN 
FACT, HE'S NOT ALONE BECAUSE 
EVERYONE HAS EXPRESSED GREAT 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
SAID IF THE PRESIDENT IS 
CONCERNED WITH CORRUPTION , IT'S
THIS DISINGENUOUS. THEY SAID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT CARE 
ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN 2017 AND 18 AND 
THE SAID HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT
IN 2019. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT SHARED 
HIS CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION 
DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT 
PORTION GO IN THEIR FIRST 
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. WHAT
WOULD THAT MEAN ? IN JUNE OF 
2017 , 2017. 
THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS 
CONCERNS ABOUT 
THAT IN GENERAL. PRESIDENT TRUMP
IS ESPECIALLY WARY OF SENDING 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS ABROAD WHEN 
OTHERS COUNTRIES REFUSED TO 
PITCH IN. BIT MR. MORRISON AND 
MR. HILL TESTIFIED AT LENGTH 
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
LONG-STANDING CONCERN ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING IN FOREIGN AID 
. 
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED 
UNITED STATES SEEM TO BEAR THE 
BRUNT OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
AND YOU TRAIN. HE WANTED THE 
EUROPEANS TO STEP UP AND 
CONTRIBUTE MORE. 
>> WE HEARD MORE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WAS SCRUPULOUS AND WANTED TO 
MAKE SURE IT MET CRITERIA THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ESTABLISHED. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT EXPRESS HE 
EXPECT THERE ALLIES TO GIVE 
THEIR FAIR SHARE IN FOREIGN AID 
DURING THE PHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI . TO 
>> THE PRINCIPLE OF BURDEN 
SHARING BY ALLIES IS AN 
IMPORTANT ALLY ELEMENT OF THE 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REVIEW. 
THE PRESIDENT ASKED 
EXPRESSED THESE CONCERNS TO RON 
JOHNSON. HE SAID HOW CORRUPT 
THIS WAS IN EUROPE DOES NOT DO 
HIS FAIR SHARE OF 
THIS. THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT
TELL YOU OF THIS WHY NOT ? 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO
BE CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER 
COUNTRIES NOT 
PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. AS 
LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED, U.S. 
CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
UKRAINE ARE FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT
THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY AND 
EU FUNDS TEND TO BE ON THE 
ECONOMIC SIDE RATHER THAN FOR 
DEFENSE AND SECURITY. SENATOR 
JOHNSON ALSO CONFIRMED THAT 
OTHER COUNTRIES REFUSED TO 
PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSE WEAPONS 
THAT UKRAINE NEEDED IN ITS WAR 
WITH RUSSIA . THESE KEEP IN MIND
ALSO . THAT THE PAUSE OF THE 
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAM WAS FAR FROM UNUSUAL OR 
OUT OF CHARACTER FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
THE PRESIDENT IS SKEPTICAL OF 
FOREIGN AID AND ONE OF HIS TOP 
CAMPAIGN PROMISES IN OFFICE 
WOULD BE TO AVOID WASTEFUL 
SPENDING OF AMERICAN TALKS TAX 
PAYER DOLLARS ABROAD. MEANWHILE,
THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TODAY 
CLAIMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
NOT GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING , WERE UPSET WHEN
AS A CANDIDATE , PRESIDENT TRUMP
CRITICIZED FREE WRITING BY NATO 
MEMBERS. 
THIS PAST SUMMER, THE 
ADMINISTRATION PAUSE, REVIEWED 
AND IN SOME CASES CANCELED 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
IN FOREIGN AID TO AFGHANISTAN, 
EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA
AND LEBANON. THESE ARE JUST SOME
OF THE REVIEWS OF FOREIGN AID 
UNDERTAKEN AT THE VERY SAME TIME
THAT THE UKRAINE AID WAS PAUSED.
SO WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 
BRIEF 
PERIOD OF TIME WHILE UKRAINE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSE? 
PEOPLE WERE GATHERING 
INFORMATION A MONITORING THE 
FACTS ON THE GROUND AT UKRAINE 
AS A NEW 
PARLIAMENT WAS SWORN IN AND 
BEGAN PRODUCING ANTICORRUPTION 
LEGISLATION. NOTWITHSTANDING 
WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD 
BELIEVE . THE REASON FOR THE 
PAUSE WAS NO SECRET WITHIN THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND THE AGENCY 
. ACCORDING TO MR. MORRISON, IN 
A JULY MEETING ATTENDED BY 
OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, THE 
REASON PROVIDED FOR THE PAUSE BY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WAS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND HE 
WANTED TO MAKE SURE UKRAINE WAS 
DOING ENOUGH TO MANAGE THAT 
CORRUPTIONS. IN FACT AS MR. 
MORRISON TESTIFIED, BY LABOR 
DAY, THERE HAD BEEN DEFINITIVE 
DEVELOPMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY WAS 
COMMITTED TO THE ISSUES HE 
CAMPAIGNED ON, ANTICORRUPTION 
REFORMS. 
MR. MORRISON ALSO TESTIFIED THE 
ADMINISTRATION WAS WORKING ON 
ANSWERING THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONCERNS REGARDING 
BURDEN SHARING. HERE'S MR. 
MORRISON. 
>> WAS THERE ANY ENTER AGENCY 
ACTIVITY WHETHER IT WAS A STATE 
DEPARTMENT OR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
TO LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO
UNDERSTAND WHO WAS CONTRIBUTING 
WHAT AND IN WHAT CATEGORIES. 
>> AND SO THE PRESIDENT SAID 
CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE AGENCY 
WAS ADDRESSING IT? GO YES . 
>> HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS AWAITING 
INFORMATION ON BURDEN SHARING 
AND ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE BEFORE RELEASING THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE? BECAUSE 
THAT'S WHAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE
TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
. ON SCEPTER ONE, 2019, VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.  PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS SCHEDULED TO'S ATTEND 
THE WORLD WAR II IN POLAND BUT 
INSTEAD REMAIN TO 
MANAGE  THE RESPONSE TO THE 
HURRICANE. THIS WAS THREE DAYS 
AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THROUGH
THE POLITICAL ARTICLE ABOUT THE 
REVIEW OF THE ASSISTANCE. JUST 
AS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND HIS 
AIDES ANTICIPATED, 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT
ONCE THE CAMERAS LEFT THE ROOM, 
THE VERY FIRST QUESTION THAT 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY HAD WAS 
ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE. THE VICE PRESIDENT 
RESPONDED BY ASKING ABOUT TWO 
THINGS. BURDEN SHARING AND 
CORRUPTION. HERE'S HOW JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS DESCRIBED IT . 
THE VP RESPONDED BY REALLY 
EXPRESSING OUR ONGOING SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE BUT WANTED TO HEAR 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, WHAT 
THE STATUS OF HIS REFORM EFFORTS
WERE THAT HE COULD THEN CABE 
CONVEY BACK TO THE PRESIDENT AND
WANTING TO HEAR MORE THAT THE 
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES COULD DO TO 
SUPPORT UKRAINE. VICE PRESIDENT 
PANTS KNOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
HE KNEW WHAT 
PRESIDENT  TRUMP WANTED TO HEAR 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS ECHOING THE 
TWO RECURRING THEMES. CORRECT 
CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING. 
THE SAME CONSISTENT THEMES 
EVERY TIME. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
RECEIVED A SIMILAR READOUT OF 
THE MEETING BETWEEN THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.  INCLUDING 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S FOCUS ON 
CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING. 
HERE'S AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. 
>> ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 
1st I RECEIVED A READOUT OF FOR 
MR. PENCE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY  OPENED THE MEETING BY 
IMMEDIATELY ASKING THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT THE SECURITY 
COOPERATION. THE VICE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT RESPOND SUBSEQUENTLY BUT
SAID HE WOULD TALK TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT NIGHT. THE VICE 
PRESIDENT DID SAY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED EUROPEANS TO DO 
MORE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND 
UKRAINIANS TO DO MORE TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION . 
>> ON SEPTEMBER 11, BASED ON THE
INFORMATION COLLECTED AND 
PRESENTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
THE PRESIDENT LIFTED THE PAUSE 
ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE . AS 
MR. MORRISON EXPLAINED, OUR 
PROCESS GAVE THE PRESIDENT THE 
CONFIDENT HE NEEDED TO APPROVE 
THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY 
SECTOR THERE ASSISTANCE. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THAT THE 
TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN
SHARING IS A RUSE 
. NO ONE KNEW WHY THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED AND NO ONE
WAS ADDRESSING THE PRESENCE 
CONCERNS WITH UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION BURDEN SHARING. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS OWN EVIDENCE, 
THEIR OWN RECORD TELLS A 
DIFFERENT STORY, HOWEVER . THEY 
DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT . NOT IN 21
HOURS . WHY NOT ? 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS WERE 
ADDRESSED IN ORDINARY FORCE . 
THE PRESIDENT WASN'T CAUGHT 
AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE. 
THE MANAGERS ARE WRONG . ALL OF 
THIS, TOGETHER WITH WHAT WE 
DISCUSSED ON SATURDAY , 
DEMONSTRATE 
THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION 
BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATION. WHEN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS REALIZED THAT THERE 
COULD PRO QUOTE THEORY ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS 
FALLING APART, THEY CREATED A 
SECOND ALTERNATIVE THEORY . 
ACCORDING TO HOUSE MANAGERS 
PRESENT  ZELENSKY WANTED A WHITE
HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CONDITION THAT MEETING ON THE 
INVESTIGATION. WHAT ABOUT THE 
BACKUP ACCUSATION ? DOES IT FARE
BETTER THAN THE QUID PRO QUO THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE? NO, THEY 
DON'T . 
THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL MEETING 
HAPPENED WITHOUT ANY 
PRECONDITIONS AT THE FIRST 
AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY IN A 
WIDELY TELEVISED MEETING AT THE 
UNITED NATIONS 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN NEW YORK ON 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. THE WHY KYLE
WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING TO 
SCHEDULE THE MEETING EARLIER IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE OR IN WARSAW BUT
THOSE FELL TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF 
THE HURRICANE. THOSE MEETINGS 
HAPPENED WITHOUT THE PRESIDENT 
ANNOUNCED 
OR BEGAN ANY INVESTIGATIONS. THE
FIRST THING TO KNOW ABOUT THE 
SO-CALLED QUID PRO QUO MEETING 
AT THE END OF THE JULY 25 CALLED
,  THE PRESIDENT HAD INVITED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE ON THREE SEPARATE 
OCCASIONS, EACH TIME WITHOUT ANY
PRECONDITIONS. PRESIDENT TRUMP 
INVITED PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY TO 
THE 
IN PERSON MEETING ON THEIR 
INITIAL APRIL 21 CALL. WHEN YOU 
ARE SETTLED IN AND READY I WOULD
LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE. ON MAY, 29. AFTER THE 
INAUGURATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAID IT CONGRATULATORY LETTER 
AGAIN INVITING  PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE. AS 
YOU PREPARE TO ADDRESS THE MANY 
CHALLENGES 
OF UKRAINE PLEASE NOTE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WITH YOU AND
COMMITTED TO HELPING UKRAINE 
WITH ITS VAST POTENTIAL. TO HELP
SHOW THE COMMITMENT I WOULD LIKE
TO INVITE YOU TO MEET WITH ME AT
THE WHITE HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, 
D.C., AS SOON AS WE CAN FIND A 
MUTUALLY CONVENIENT TIME . THEN 
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PERSONALLY  INVITED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO A PARTICIPATE IN A 
MEETING THE THIRD TIME. 
WHENEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE FEEL FREE TO 
CALL, GIVE US A DATE AND WE'LL 
WORK THAT OUT. I LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING YOU. THAT'S THREE 
SEPARATE INVITATIONS FOR A 
MEETING. ALL MADE WITHOUT ANY 
PRECONDITIONS. TOURING THIS 
TIME, AND BEHIND THE SCENES, THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING 
DILIGENTLY TO SCHEDULE A MEETING
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS AT THE 
EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE 
. IT TO MORRISON, WHOSE 
RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED 
HELPING ARRANGE 
HEAD OF STATE VISITS TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE OR OTHER HEAD OF 
STATE MEETINGS, TESTIFIED THAT 
HE UNDERSTOOD THAT ARRANGING THE
WHITE HOUSE VISIT WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY  WAS A DO OUT THAT CAME
FROM THE PRESIDENT. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DIDN'T MENTION THE WORD
THE THAT 
THE  WHITE HOUSE WAS TRYING TO 
SCHEDULE A MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY . WHY NOT ? 
SCHEDULING A PRESIDENTIAL 
MEETING TAKES TIME. MR. MORRISON
TESTIFIED THAT HIS DIRECTORY 
WHICH WAS ONE OF SEVERAL 
, HAD A DOZEN SCHEDULE REQUESTS 
IN WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR 
MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS 
THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO LAND AND
UKRAINE WAS BUT ONE OF THOSE 
REQUESTS. 
DUE TO BOTH PRESIDENTS 
SCHEDULES, ACCORDING TO MR. 
MORRISON, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT 
THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
TWO PRESIDENTS TO MEET WOULD BE 
IN WARSAW AT THE BEGINNING OF 
SEPTEMBER . 
THE ENTIRE NOTION THAT A 
BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND  THE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY , WAS SOMEHOW
CONDITIONED 
ON A STATEMENT ABOUT 
INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETELY 
DEFEATED BY ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD 
FACT. A BILATERAL MEETING 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI WAS PLANNED 
FOR SEPTEMBER 1 IN WARSAW 
. THE SAME WARSAW MEETING WE 
WERE JUST DISCUSSING WITHOUT THE
UKRAINIAN SAYING A WORD ABOUT 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS. AS IT 
TURNED OUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING 
BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DORIAN. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE 
TO ATTEND IN HIS PLACE. IN THE 
EVEN THAT SCHEDULING GLITCH DID 
NOT PUT OFF THE MEETING FOR 
LONG. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY MET AT THE 
NEXT AVAILABLE DATE AT THE 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY. PRESIDENT  
ZELENSKY SAID THERE WERE NO 
PRECONDITIONS FOR THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP . THOSE 
WERE HIS WORDS. NO CONDITIONS. 
SO YOU ARE PROBABLY WONDERING , 
HOW COULD THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CLAIM THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO 
WITH A MEETING FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WHEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS 
ACTUALLY DID MEET WITHOUT 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING 
ANY INVESTIGATION? THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS MOVED TO THE GOLD POST 
AGAIN. THEY CLAIM THE MEETING 
COULD NOT BE AN IN PERSON 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP , 
WHAT IT HAD TO BE WAS A MEETING 
AT THE OVAL OFFICE AND IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE. THAT'S NONSENSE. 
PUTTING TO ONE SIDE 
THE ABSURDITY OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TRYING TO REMOVE THE 
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE BECAUSE HE MET PRESIDENT 
IN ONE LOCATION RATHER THAN THE 
OTHER. THIS HAS NO FACT. 
WHAT MATTERS IS IT WAS A 
BILATERAL PRESIDENTIAL MEETING, 
NOT THE LOCATION OF THE MEETING.
SHE SAID IT WAS NOT ALWAYS A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PER SE BUT 
DEFINITELY A PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL,
YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH 
ZELENSKY  AND THE PRESIDENT. I 
MEAN, IT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE 
IN POLAND, IN WARSAW, IT 
COULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, A 
PROPER BILATERAL IN SOME OTHER 
CONTEXT. A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING.
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT 
TELL YOU ABOUT DR. HILL'S 
TESTIMONY, WHY NOT ? IN FACT 
THEY SAID JUST LAST WEEK ,  THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STILL HASN'T 
GOTTEN HIS WHITE HOUSE MEETING .
WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU ABOUT 
DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY? SO YOU 
WOULD HAVE THE FULL CONTEXT OF 
INFORMATION. THEY SPOKE FOR OVER
21 HOURS, THEY COULDN'T TAKE A 
COUPLE MINUTES TO GIVE YOU THAT 
CONTEXT? HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW 
THAT DR. HILL WAS WRONG . 
BECAUSE PRESENT  ZELENSKY 
SAID SO AND THE JULY 25th CALL. 
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th
CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO MEET WITH HIM 
PERSONALLY AND HAPPY TO HOST IN 
UKRAINE OR MEET WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 1 IN POLAND .
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION PLANNED TO DO . 
IF IT WEREN'T FOR HURRICANE 
DORIAN,  PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD 
HAVE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
IN POLAND ON SEPTEMBER 1. JUST  
AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD 
REQUESTED. 
AND  WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS. 
AS IT HAPPENED, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MET WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT INSTEAD IN JUST A FEW 
WEEKS LATER MET WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN NEW YORK , ALL WITHOUT 
ANYONE MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT 
AN INVESTIGATION. AND ONCE 
AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IN 
THE HOUSE RECORD 
THAT THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED
UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES, THAT WE 
DISCUSSED AND WILL CONTINUE TO 
DISCUSS, PROVIDED ANY FIRST-HAND
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER
LINKED THE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING 
TO ANY INVESTIGATION. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE SEIZED THE BALL . 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CLAIM THAT
MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST WERE QUID
PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE 
HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT 
ZALESKI, BUT AGAIN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS ONLY GUESSING , 
BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.
HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
NEVER TOLD HIM THERE WAS ANY 
SORT OF CONDITION FOR A MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.  WIDE 
DID HE THINK THERE WAS ONE? IN 
HIS OWN WORDS, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID HE COULD ONLY 
REPEAT WHAT HE HEARD THROUGH AND
PASS IT OR VOLKER 
THROUGH GIULIANI. HE DIDN'T EVEN
HEAR FROM MR. GIULIANI HIMSELF .
BUT AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER  WHO WAS THE SUPPOSEDLY 
BETWEEN MR. GIULIANI AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THOUGHT NO 
SUCH THING AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THERE 
WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN THE 
MEETING OF 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY AND 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS I'M 
GOING TO READ THE FULL QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERED BECAUSE THIS 
PASSAGE IS KEY. THIS IS FROM 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER  DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY. QUESTION 
: DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER 
WITHHOLD A MEETING FROM 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  OR DELAY A 
MEETING UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS 
COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATE THE 
ALLEGATIONS 
CONCERNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION? ANSWER : THE ANSWER TO
THE QUESTION IS NO . 
IF YOU WANT TO YES OR NO ANSWER.
WE DID HAVE DIFFICULTY 
SCHEDULING A MEETING BUT THERE 
WAS NO LINKAGE LIKE THAT . 
QUESTION: YOU SAID YOU WERE NOT 
AWARE OF ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN 
DELAY IN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY AND THE 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATE TO THE 
ALLEGATIONS AS YOU DESCRIBE THEM
CORRECT? ANSWER: CORRECT . 
ON NO FEWER THAN 15 SEPARATE 
OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST WEEK , 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PLAYED A 
VIDEO OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAYING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION WAS A PREREQUISITE
FOR A MEETING OR CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. 15 TIMES. THEY NEVER 
ONCE READ TO YOU THE TESTIMONY 
THAT I JUST READ . THEY NEVER 
ONCE READ TO YOU THE TESTIMONY 
IN WHICH AMBASSADOR VOELKER 
REFUTED WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
CLAIMED HE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR
VOLKER . HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW . 
PRESIDENT  TRUMP INVITED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MEET THREE
TIMES WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS. THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING BEHIND 
THE SCENES TO SCHEDULE THE 
MEETING. THE TWO PRESIDENTS PLAN
TO MEET IN WARSAW , JUSTICE 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY HAD ASKED . 
AND THEY ULTIMATELY MET THREE 
WEEKS LATER WITHOUT UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS. 
NO ONE TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE 
RECORD 
THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER SAID 
THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN A
MEETING AND INVESTIGATION. THOSE
ARE THE FACTS PLAIN AND SIMPLE .
SO MUCH FOR A QUID PRO QUO FOR A
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT . 
BEFORE I MOVE ON, LET ME TAKE A 
BRIEF MOMENT TO 
ADDRESS A SIDE ALLEGATION THAT 
WAS RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ARE STILL TRYING 
TO PUSH 
. THE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO ATTEND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  INAUGURATION
IN FAVOR OF A LOWER RANKING 
DELEGATION . AND ORDER 
ACCORDING TO THEM TO SIGNAL A 
DOWNGRADING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE. 
THAT IS NOT TRUE . 
NUMEROUS FACTORS HAD TO ALIGN AS
I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM 
CAN GREATLY APPRECIATE . FOR THE
VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND . 
FIRST, DATES OF TRAVEL WERE 
LIMITED 
. FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASON 
THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
GENERALLY AVOID BEING OUT OF THE
COUNTRY AT THE SAME TIME FOR 
MORE THAN A FEW HOURS . THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SCHEDULED TRIPS TO
EUROPE AND JAPAN DURING THE 
PERIOD WHEN UKRAINE ANTICIPATED 
THE 
UKRAINIAN INAUGURATION WOULD 
OCCUR AT THE END OF MAY OR EARLY
JUNE. JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
TESTIFIED THE OFFICE OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT ADVISE UKRAINIANS THAT
IF THE VICE PRESIDENT WERE TO 
PARTICIPATE IN THE INAUGURATION,
THE IDEAL DATES WOULD BE AROUND 
MAY 29, MAY 31 
OR JUNE 1. WHEREIN THE PRESIDENT
WOULD BE IN THE UNITED STATES. 
SHE SAID IF IT WASN'T ONE OF 
THOSE DAYS IT WOULD BE VERY 
DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND . 
SECOND, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACTED
AS IF NO OTHER PRIORITIES COULD 
COMPETE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIONS 
TIME 
. THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE 
WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PLANNING A 
COMPETING TRIP FOR MAY 30th 
IN OTTAWA CANADA TO PARTICIPATE 
IN AN EVENT SUPPORTING PASSAGE 
OF THE UNITED STATES, MEXICO, 
CANADA AGREEMENT. ULTIMATELY THE
VICE PRESIDENT TRAVELED TO 
OTTAWA ON MAY 30 TO MEET THE 
PRIME MINISTER, JUSTIN TRUDEAU 
AND PROMOTE THE PASSAGE OF THAT 
TREATY. THIS WAS TOP 
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITY AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP VIGOROUSLY 
SUPPORTED. WHAT DO YOU DID NOT 
HEAR FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS WAS
UKRAINIAN INAUGURATION DATE DID 
NOT GO AS PLANNED ON MAY 16. MAY
16 
. UKRAINIAN SURPRISED EVERYONE 
AND SCHEDULE THE INAUGURATION 
FOR JUST FOUR DAYS LATER . ON 
MAY 20 . MONDAY MAY 20. THINK 
ABOUT THAT . MAY 16 , MAY 20. 
GET EVERYBODY, SECURITY , 
EVERYONE TO UKRAINE. JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS TESTIFIED IT WAS VERY 
SHORT NOTICE , SO WOULD'VE BEEN 
DIFFICULT FOR 
THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND 
PARTICULAR SINCE THEY HAD NOT 
SENT OUT THE ADVANCE TEAM. 
GEORGE CAN'T 
TESTIFIED THAT THE SHORT NOTICE 
LEFT ALMOST NO TIME FOR PROPER 
PREPARATION OR FOREIGN 
DELEGATIONS TO VISIT . AND THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT SCRAMBLED ON 
FRIDAY THE 17th TO TRY TO FIGURE
OUT WHO WAS AVAILABLE . MR. KENT
SUGGESTED THAT SECRETARY PERRY 
BE THE ANCHOR FOR THE DELEGATION
SOMEONE A PERSON OF STATURE AND 
WHOSE 
JOB HAD RELEVANCE TO OUR AGENDA.
SECRETARY. LET THE DELEGATION 
WHICH INCLUDED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER  AND SENATOR JOHNSON. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
IT WAS THE LARGEST DELEGATION 
FROM ANY COUNTRY THERE AND IT 
WAS A HIGH LEVEL ONE . THE HOUSE
MANAGERS DID NOT TELL YOU THIS. 
WHY NOT ? THE CLAIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF INSTRUCTED THE VICE
PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND 
PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY  INAUGURATION IS BASED 
ON HOUSE MANAGER ASSUMPTION WITH
NO EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT DID
SOMETHING WRONG . FINALLY , AS 
I'M COMING TO THE END . 
IF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW A 
QUID PRO QUO 
, WHAT DOES IT SHOW? 
UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, ONE OF THE FEW THINGS 
THAT ALL OF THE WITNESSES AGREED
ON WAS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
STRENGTHENED THE RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN THE U.S. AND UKRAINE AND
HE HAD BEEN A MORE STALWART 
FRIEND TO UKRAINE AND A MORE 
FIERCE OPPONENT OF RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA 
. THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY 
CLAIMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DOES NOT CARE ABOUT UKRAINE. 
THEY ARE ATTRIBUTING VIEWS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT ARE 
CONTRARY TO HIS ACTIONS . 
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY ARE 
CONTRARY TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
OWN EVIDENCE. BUT DON'T TAKE MY 
WORD FOR IT . AMBASSADORS 
YOVANOVITCH,  TAYLOR, AND 
VOLKER  ALL TESTIFIED TO THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POSITIVE 
POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE BASED ON 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO 
PROVIDE LEGAL AID TO 
UKRAINE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
TESTIFIED THAT THE POLICY 
TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS 
A  SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OVER 
OBAMA'S POLICY. AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AGREED . AMERICA'S POLICY
TOWARDS UKRAINE HAS BEEN 
STRENGTHENED UNDER PRESIDENT 
TRUMP . 
HE  MADE DECISIONS ALONG THE 
WAY. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT DECISION 
TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO 
UKRAINE MET THAT THE POLICY WAS 
STRONGER OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS
. SHE CALLS THE POLICY SHIFT WAS
VERY IMPROVED. LET'S HEAR FROM 
THESE . 
>> THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS 
PROVIDED DEFENSE IN THE FORM OF 
LEGAL EGG CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT . 
>> MORE THAN THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION 
>> 
YES. PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED 
EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG
THE WAY LETHAL 
DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT. 
>> AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY 
IMPROVING POSITIONS WITH ANTI-
TANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS.
THEY ARE TANK BUSTERS AND THE 
WAR WITH RUSSIA ALL OF A SUDDEN 
ACCELERATED IN SOME WAY AND 
CHUNKS COME OVER THE HORIZON, 
JAVELINS ARE A VERY SERIOUS 
WEAPON TO DEAL WITH THAT . EGO 
UKRAINE IS BETTER POSITIONED TO 
FIGHT RUSSIA TODAY BEFORE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE. 
AS A RESULT THE UNITED STATES IS
SAFER ALSO. THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT THE 
TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR'S 
TAYLOR, VOLKER AND 
YOVANOVITCH.  WHY NOT? THESE ARE
THE FACTS AS DRAWN FROM THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS OWN RECORD . ON 
WHICH THEY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
. 
THIS IS WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT 
MUST FAIL . 
FOR THE SIX REASONS I SET FORTH 
WHEN I BEGAN ON SATURDAY, THERE 
WAS NO LINKAGE 
BETWEEN INVESTIGATIONS AND 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE JULY
25 CALL. UKRAINIAN SAID THERE 
WAS NO QUIT 
BROKE WALL AND THEY FELT NO 
PRESSURE. THE TOP UKRAINIANS DID
NOT EVEN KNOW SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED UNTIL MORE
THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 
CALL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS RECORD 
RISK FLEX ANYONE THAT SPOKE WITH
THE PRESIDENT SAID THE PRESIDENT
MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO LINKAGE 
. THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE LOAD 
AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL MEETING 
TOOK PLACE ALL WITHOUT ANY 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ENHANCED 
AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN 
HIS THREE YEARS IN OFFICE. THESE
FACTS ALL REQUIRE THE FIRST 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FAIL . 
YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD AND WILL 
CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM 
MY COLLEAGUES ON WHY THE SECOND 
ARTICLE MUST FAIL. ONCE AGAIN, 
THIS IS THE CASE THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CHOSE TO BRING . THIS 
IS THE EVIDENCE THEY BROUGHT 
BEFORE THE SENATE . THE VERY 
HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH
THEM. 
THEY SAY THEIR CASE IS 
OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED . 
IT IS NOT . THEY SAY THEY HAVE 
PROVEN EACH OF THE ARTICLES 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP , THEY 
HAVE NOT . THE FACTS AND 
EVIDENCE OF THE CASE , THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE BROUGHT , 
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT . THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. 
AND I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A 
BREAK. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> COLLEAGUES CAN TAKE A 15 
MINUTE BREAK. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION . 
YOU ARE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE 
OF THE WASHINGTON POST AS THE 
SENATE GOES ON A BRIEF RECESS WE
WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT WE SAW SO 
FAR TODAY. ADJOINING ME AS 
REPORTERS AMBER PHILLIPS AND 
WALT . THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR 
BEING HERE. I WANT US . 
START BY ADDRESSING THE ELEPHANT
IN THE ROOM WHICH IS THE JOHN 
BOLTON MANUSCRIPT . 
BOLDEN HAS HIS MANUSCRIPT THAT 
HAD BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 
THAT DIRECTLY LINKS THIS 
QUESTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
JOHN BOLTON SAYS DIRECTLY 
LINKING UKRAINIAN AID WITH 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. 
BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT CAN  STARR 
AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
AMBER, HAS THIS BEEN A FACTOR 
AND HOW THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS 
ARE DEFENDING ? 
>> I HAVE NOT HEARD IT TO BE A 
FACTOR I'M PULLING UP MY NOTES 
BECAUSE TO OPEN THE DEFENSE, J 
SEKULOW 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TOP ATTORNEY 
WE DEAL WITH EVIDENCE 
TRANSCRIPTS PUBLIC INFORMATION 
WE DON'T DEAL WITH SPECULATION 
OR ALLEGATIONS NOT BASED ON 
EVIDENTIARY STANDARD. I THOUGHT 
THAT WAS A NOD TO SENATORS THAT 
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE 
MANUSCRIPT , YOU CAN READ IT 
DON'T FOCUS ON THAT FOCUS ON 
WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO TELL YOU. 
AND THERE WE SPENT TIME 
OUTLINING SO FAR WHAT THEY 
TALKED ABOUT ON SATURDAY 
WHICH IS IF YOU READ THE 
SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PHONE CALL 
TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG. IF YOU 
LOOK AT THIS CORNER OF THE TIMES
THAT TRUMP INVITED  PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HE 
DID NOTHING WRONG. I WOULD SAY A
NARROW READING OF THE FACTS. 
THEY ARE PIECING IT TOGETHER . 
OVERALL NOTE JOHN 
BOLTON IS NOT PART OF THE 
PICTURE. 
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE 
BOLTON PHENOMENA AND THAT'S WHAT
I WOULD CALL IT. THIS IS A 
PROCEEDING THAT IS VERY 
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MOST 
AMERICANS ASSOCIATE WITH A TRIAL
RIGHT ? IT'S NOT LAW 
AND ORDER WITH THE JUDGE TALKING
ABOUT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE, IS
A POLITICAL PROCEEDING . THE 
QUESTION I WOULD HAVE RIGHT NOW 
IS WHETHER JOHN BOLTON JUMPING 
INTO THIS , THIS BOOK EXCERPT 
COMING OUT 
THIS REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF 
DATA WEATHER THAT WILL MOVE 
ANYONE POLITICALLY TO THEN ALTER
IN SOME WAY 
THIS UNUSUAL TRIAL THAT'S 
DIFFERENT THAN TRIALS WE ARE 
USED TO. 
>> 
THEY CAN CONSIDER OTHER 
EVIDENCE. THEY CAN GO OUT AND 
TALK TO PEOPLE THERE IS NO GAG 
ORDER LIKE IN A TRIAL. YOU ARE 
RIGHT . 
>> YEAH I COVERED THE BILL COSBY
CASE FOR THE POST. I COULD ONLY 
IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 
LIKE TO HEAR THE JURY TALKING 
ABOUT HOW THEY WERE FEELING 
ABOUT THINGS IN THE MIDST OF THE
TRIAL. AS A REPORTER 
I WOULD HAVE LOVED THAT. 
>> WE DID HAVE THE QUESTION OF 
HOW THE PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM 
MIGHT PIVOT OR FRAME THEIR PITCH
HERE TO THE SENATORS . BASED ON 
THE BOLTON TRANSCRIPT DEPUTY 
COUNSEL BASICALLY IGNORED IT. 
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN 
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DID NOT CONDITION ANYTHING
ON  INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE 
JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND DID NOT EVEN 
MENTION SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON 
THE CALL . PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY 
SAID HE FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE 
CALL . 
PRESIDENT  ZELENSKY AND THE TOP 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
DID NOT LEARN OF THE PAWS ON THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL MORE 
THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 
CALL . AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
OWN RECORD , THEIR RECORD 
, THAT THEY DEVELOPED AND 
BROUGHT BEFORE THE CHAMBER, 
REFLECT ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH 
THE PRESIDENT SAID THE PRESIDENT
MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO LINKAGE 
BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS . 
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS 
ATTORNEYS , MIKE  PURPURA . NO 
ONE TESTIFIED THAT FUNDING 
WAS REQUESTED. HE'S TRYING TO GO
BACK WHAT WAS SAID IN THE HOUSE.
BOLTON DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE
HOUSE SO HIS COMMENTS WERE NOT 
PART OF THE RECORD . 
BUT WE CAN SEE IN COMING DAYS 
WHETHER SENATORS THINK HIS 
INFORMATION SHOULD BE INTRODUCED
INTO THIS RECORD, AMBER . 
WHAT IS THE LATEST IN THE 
MOVEMENT ON THE SENATORS AND HOW
THEY ARE WEIGHING IN AND FEELING
ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF BOLTON 
TESTIFYING? EGO IS HARD TO TELL 
SINCE THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE 
SHOW A COUPLE HOURS AGO BECAUSE 
THEY ARE IN THE CHAMBER AND NOT 
TALKING TO REPORTERS RIGHT NOW. 
ARE CONGRESSIONAL COLLEAGUES ARE
TRACKING EVERYBODY THEY COULD 
DOWN THIS MORNING. WHEN THE 
TRIAL GOT STARTED I HEARD A 
RANGE OF ANSWERS I HEARD MOSTLY 
PEOPLE IN THE TOP SENATE 
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP SAY WHAT 
MIKE PURPURA WAS SAYING THEY GOT
THE AID TRUMP THAT THE MEETINGS 
THERE'S NO THERE THERE . TO 
DON'T WORRY ABOUT BOLTON. 
I HEARD ABOUT SENATOR JONI ERNST
WHO IS UP FOR REELECTION IN IOWA
SAYING I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND 
GET WITH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
I INTERPRET AS GIVE ME SOMETHING
TO WORK WITH HOW CAN I DEFEND 
YOU? AS A POINTED OUT THEY HAVE 
NOT 
TALKED ABOUT THAT YET THEY HAVE 
NOT GIVEN HER SOMETHING TO WORK 
WITH. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WILL 
BE ASKED BY REPORTERS DURING THE
BREAK. IT'S A PROBLEM IF THEY 
CAN'T CHASE HER DOWN. IT'S 
SOMEONE TO WATCH FOR WHERE 
REPUBLICANS STAND AFTER TODAY'S 
ARGUMENT . 
>> SENATOR ANGUS KING 
IS IN INDEPENDENT CAUCUSES WITH 
DEMOCRATS. HE'S INTERESTING TO 
WATCH HOW HE THINKS THE SENATE 
AT LARGE IS FEELING . HE DID AN 
INTERVIEW TODAY HERE'S HOW I'M 
HEARING WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. I'M 
HEARING FROM A NUMBER OF 
REPUBLICANS TO HEAR FROM JOHN 
BOLTON . MY PREDICTION WOULD BE 
FIVE OR 10. 
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SEEING. 
>> WHAT IS THE LAST ? BLOCK 
BUSTER HE ? 
>> HE BY PUTTING THAT OUT THERE 
OBVIOUSLY 
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO PUSH IT 
FORWARD. LET'S GO DOWN TO MY 
COLLEAGUE RHONDA WHO IS WITH A 
MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE 
, HIGH RHONDA . 
>> I'M HERE WITH DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR SHARON BROWN OF OHIO. 
YOU HAVE A REACTION TO THE 
BOLTON NEWS . ACCORDING TO THE 
MANUSCRIPT AGE SHOULD BE 
WITHHELD WHAT YOUR REACTION . 
>> IS NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY . 
I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT IF YOU HAVE
WHAT WE ALL KNOW 
WHAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC KNOW 
ABOUT A TRIAL YOU HAVE THE 
PROSECUTION YOU HAVE THE DEFENSE
ANY OF WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY 
AND DOCUMENTS. 
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE WHITE
HOUSE DOES NOT WANT WITNESSES. 
THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT THIS 
WHOLE CASE IS HEARSAY , WHAT 
OTHERS SAY WHEN THE ANSWER TO 
THAT IS WHY NOT HAVE SOMEONE WHO
WAS IN THE ROOM 
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS ONE OF
THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN THE 
FOREIGN-POLICY ESTABLISHMENT OF 
THE ADMINISTRATION HE WAS IN THE
ROOM WE SHOULD BRING A MAN IS 
CLEAR THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT 
WANT WITNESSES WHO ARE ACTUALLY 
HIGH WITNESSES AND HEARD WHAT 
HAPPENED. 
>> SHOULD THEY THINK ABOUT BRING
KEEN THAT TRADE IDEA 
HUNTER BIDEN.'S 
>> IT'S NOT A QUID PRO QUO IS 
NOT A NEGOTIATION. WHAT I'D LIKE
TO SEE EVERYBODY'S NAME IS 
SUBMITTED LET'S THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE DECIDED THIS WITNESSES 
MATERIAL TO THE CASE. WAS JOHN 
BOLTON MATERIAL YES . MICK 
MULVANEY MATERIAL ? YES HE 
SHOULD BE THERE THAT'S A 
JUDGMENT WHO ACTUALLY CAN GIVE 
US INSIGHT INTO WHAT HAPPENED 
. DURING THE PRESIDENTS CALL AND
DURING THE PRESIDENTS FOLLOW-UP.
WE ALL KNOW INCLUDING MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
WHO ARE FEARFUL OF THE PRESENT, 
FEAR DOES A BUSINESS IN THE 
SENATE TOO OFTEN. WE ALL KNOW 
THE PRESENT UNITED STATES DID 
SOMETHING PRESIDENT NIXON DID 
NOT DO HE SOLICITED A BRIBE 
FOR HIS OWN GAIN. THAT HAS NEVER
HAPPENED UNTIL RIGHT NOW. 
>> YOU REPRESENT THE STATE OF 
OHIO A SWING STATE. HOW IS THIS 
PLANE IN OHIO? 
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK I
MEAN 
ASKING A QUESTION YOU WANT FROM 
THE MEDIA BUT IT'S NOT A 
QUESTION WE SHOULD BE THINKING 
ABOUT . WE TOOK AN OATH TO 
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE. IN THIS 
CASE ONLY ON ANYTHING I DO ON 
THIS ONE IS NOT IT'S REALLY UP 
TO THE EVIDENCE THIS IS A TRIAL 
WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE 
AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED WITNESSES
WHO ARE IN THE ROOM WHO CAN GIVE
US A SENSE. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH SHERROD 
BROWN. 
>> THANK YOU MUCH AMBER . I 
WANTED TO GET YOUR REFLECTION 
THE SUN WHAT WE HEARD SHERROD 
BROWN. 
>> WE HEARD ABOUT THE 
REPUBLICANS AND ADAM SCHIFF  
BROUGHT UP ABOUT FEAR . YOU GUYS
ARE AFRAID OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
COME ON, HOLD WITNESSES. WHEN  
ADAM SCHIFF USED IT 
IT GOT UNDER REPUBLICAN SKIN AND
THEY WENT TO THE MIKE'S AND SAID
I THINK ADAM SCHIFF  WENT 
OVERBOARD BY CALLING US AFRAID. 
IT'S NOT A LINE DEMOCRATS ARE 
DROPPING RIGHT NOW ANYTHING THEY
CAN DO THEY WILL GIVE IT A TRY. 
>> THEY ARE HOPING THEY WILL 
TAKE THE BAIT 
. OF THESE ARE PRIDEFUL PEOPLE 
AND FEEL ASSERTIVE IN THE 
CHAMBER AND THEY SHOULD BE IN 
CHARGE AND NOW THEY ARE CALLED 
FRAIDY CATS? IT'S ALMOST LIKE A 
PLAYGROUND WAY OF ATTACKING 
THINGS . IS INTERESTING TO SEE 
IF ANYONE TAKE SET UP NOW. 
>> RIGHT 
THE REPUBLICANS ALREADY FEEL 
LIKE THEY ARE ON THEIR HAUNCHES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST 
WAY TO GET WHAT YOU WANT. 
>> PROBABLY NOT BUT WHAT OTHER 
ALTERNATIVE DOES HE HAVE 
. 
>> ARE THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO 
USE STRATEGY ARE THEY TRYING TO 
BE CONVINCING ARE THEY TRYING TO
WIN OR HAMMER THIS HOME TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE . WE SAW THE 
AMERICAN 
DEMOCRATS. MORE WITNESS 
TESTIMONY HAMMERING AT HARD. 
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP . THE 
REPUBLICAN SAY 
IF YOU HAVE ONE WITNESS COME 
THAT WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER AND 
ANOTHER AND THEY WILL LOSE 
CONTROL OVER THE PROCESS THAT 
MITCH McCONNELL WANTED TO HOLD 
IT TIGHT . IT'S FASCINATING TO 
WATCH CAN STARR  COME BEFORE THE
SENATE BODY 
. FOR PEOPLE WHO COVERED THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT STORY 21 
YEARS AGO, THIS MUST BE AN 
ESPECIALLY SURREAL MOMENT. OUR 
COLLEAGUE WAS IN THE CHAMBER 
EARLIER TODAY. THE SENATE IS 
ATTENTIVE DURING CAN STARS 
PRESENTATION. SOME OF HIS 
ARGUMENTS RAISE SOME EYEBROWS. 
LET'S WATCH. 
>> THE SENATE IS BEING CALLED TO
SIT AS THE HIGH COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT ALL TOO FREQUENTLY .
INDEED WE ARE LIVING IN WHAT I 
THINK CAN APTLY BE DESCRIBED AS 
THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT . 
IMPEACHMENT IS . OR AT LEAST 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS . 
THOSE OF US WHO LIVED THROUGH 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT , 
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THIS BODY 
, FULL WELL UNDERSTAND THAT A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS 
TANTAMOUNT TO DOMESTIC WAR . 
ALBEIT THANKFULLY PROTECTED BY 
OUR BELOVED FIRST 
AMENDMENT, A WAR OF WORDS IN A 
WAR OF IDEAS. BUT IT'S FILLED 
WITH ACRIMONY AND IT DIVIDES THE
COUNTRY LIKE NOTHING ELSE . 
THOSE OF US WHO LIVED THROUGH 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
UNDERSTAND THAT AT A DEEP AND 
PERSONAL WAY 
. FOR CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE 
ARTICLES IN THE COMMON LAW OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN 
NIXON, YES. IN CLINTON, YES. 
HERE, NO . 
>> CAN STAR PRESENTING PART OF 
THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE. YOU 
REPORTED ON CAN  STARR. YOU ARE 
PROFILING HIM BEFORE TODAY. WHAT
WAS YOUR REACTION TO HIS ROLE . 
>> UNFORGETTABLE 
, SURREAL, WE WILL BE TALKING 
ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THIS
WAS A MOMENT EVERYONE WAS 
WAITING FOR. HERE YOU HAVE A GUY
WHO IS AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
WHOSE END INVESTIGATION LED TO 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON , NOW HE IS REPRESENTING
DONALD TRUMP AND HE IS SAYING 
IMPEACHMENTS USED TOO FREQUENTLY
, IT'S THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT . 
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD 
HAVE EXPECTED MR. 
STARR  TO SAY IN THE LATE 90s 
AND HERE WE ARE IN 2019 AND 
THOSE ARE THE WORDS HE IS USING.
I'D ALSO POINT OUT EVEN THOUGH 
HIS TONE IS VERY PROFESSORIAL , 
A HISTORY LESSON HE WAS STARTING
OUT TO GIVE US, THE WORDS HE IS 
USING IF YOU LISTEN CLOSELY, 
DOMESTIC WAR , THE SWORD, A 
WEAPON, THESE ARE VERY STRONG , 
STRIDENT WORDS , AGAIN MIGHT NOT
EXPECT FROM THE GUY WHOSE 
INVESTIGATION LED TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF ANOTHER PRESIDENT
. 
>> GREAT POINT. 
THERE WAS THE MANNER IN WHICH HE
ADDRESSED THE SENATE AND ALSO 
THE CONTENT OF THE WORDS WHICH 
WERE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER IN 
SOME WAYS. CAN YOU TELL US WHY 
IT'S A REAL AMBER ? 
>> HE COULD HAVE SAID, I DON'T 
THINK WHAT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF 
RISES TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT 
CLINTON IS ACCUSED OF. CLINTON 
AND NIXON WERE ACCUSED OF TRY 
CRIMES AND TRUMP IS NOT. 
>> IS A BASIS IN LOGIC . I WAS 
THERE WHEN WE INVESTED 
INVESTIGATED PRESENT 
CLINTON I CAN TELL YOU WHAT OUR 
FINDINGS WAS, THIS WAS 
DIFFERENT. THAT'S NOT THE WAY HE
SAID IT . 
>> HE STEPPED OUT OF THAT TO SAY
IMPEACHMENT IS ALMOST ALWAYS 
WRONG. IS WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY .
AND DECRYING THAT WE ARE IN THIS
AGE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT HE 
PLAYED A BIG ROLE IN HIMSELF . 
>> HE IS THE DEFINING AMERICAN 
FIGURE ARGUING 
BILL CLINTON NEEDED TO BE KICKED
OUT OF OFFICE. AND HERE HE IS 
SAYING WAIT A SECOND, WE 
SHOULDN'T BE DOING ANY OF THIS. 
HE ACTUALLY SAID 
WHY DON'T YOU GUYS GO TO THE 
COURTS, WHY DON'T YOU PRACTICE 
YOUR RULE OF OVERSIGHT OF A 
PRESIDENT, DON'T KICK HIM OUT 
ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NOT THIS
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR 
IMPEACHMENT . 
THERE CERTAINLY WAS NOT BAFFERT 
CLINTON. 
>> HE'S ALMOST MAKING AN 
ARGUMENT THAT IMPEACHMENT 
SHOULDN'T EXIST IF YOU TAKE A 
QUICK GLANCE AT IT . I THINK OF 
WE BORE DOWN A BIT MORE ON WHAT 
HE WAS SAYING HE IS TRYING TO 
MAKE A VERY FINE ARGUMENT THAT 
IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TOOL TO USE 
IF A CRIME IS INVOLVED . BUT 
AGAIN I GO BACK TO HIS LANGUAGE,
HE USED A VERY SPECIFIC TERM , 
HE SAID THE MYSTERIOUS TERMS 
OTHER CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
AGAIN, CASTING DOUBT ON THE 
ENTIRE PROCESS, ON THE ENTIRE 
CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT. IT'S 
REALLY A JAW-DROPPING MOMENT TO 
OBSERVE . I'M TELLING YOU I 
THINK WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT 
THIS AFTERNOON FOR A LONG TIME. 
>> LET'S GO BACK TO CAPITOL HILL
AND OUR COLLEAGUE RHONDA . 
ANOTHER SENATOR, RHONDA. 
>> I'M HERE WITH SENATOR ANGUS 
KING OF MAINE. I KNOW YOU HAVE 
TO GO BACK TO THE CHAMBER 
TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PREDICTION 
YOU BELIEVE BETWEEN 5 TO 10 
REPUBLICANS EVENTUALLY WILL VOTE
FOR WITNESSES. 
>> IT'S NOT BASED ON 
CONVERSATION WITH SENATORS OR 
INSIDE INFORMATION IS BASED ON 
MY OWN BELIEVE IT WOULD BE VERY 
HARD AFTER WHAT WE HEARD 
YESTERDAY 
ABOUT THIS MANUSCRIPT, I JUST 
THINK HOW DO YOU VOTE AGAINST 
CALLING JOHN BOLTON WITH A 
STRAIGHT FACE? AND CALL THIS A 
TRIAL? IT WOULD GO DOWN IN 
HISTORY AS JUST SHOCKING. SO 
THE BASIS OF MY PREDICTION IS I 
THINK THE DAM WILL BREAK ON THIS
ONE QUESTION NOW WHETHER OR NOT 
THEY CALL MICK MULVANEY OR THE 
DOCUMENTS I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T 
SEE HOW GIVEN WHAT WE NOW HAVE 
HEARD FROM JOHN BOLTON, THAT YOU
COULD GO HOME AND SAY NO WE 
DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR THAT. 
>> I KNOW THE HOUSES SAID THEY 
MIGHT CALL WITNESSES IF THE 
SENATE 
DECIDES NOT TO CALL WITNESSES DO
YOU THINK THAT HOUSE SHOULD CALL
BOLTON IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON
YOUR SIDE? THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE
TRIAL IS GET TO THE FACTS IT'S 
NOT AN ELECTION IS NOT THE IOWA 
CAUCUS. IS SUPPOSED TO BE A 
TRIAL AND WE TOOK AN OATH TO DO 
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. A LOT OF THE 
EMPHASIS BEEN ON THE WORD 
IMPARTIAL THERE'S ALSO IMPORTANT
SOMETHING CARRIED ON IN THE WORD
JUSTICE. THAT MEANS FACT . THAT 
MEANS MAKING A RATIONAL DECISION
BASED ON INFORMATION . 
IS SORT OF AMAZINGLY TO ME GIVEN
WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN THE LAST 24 
HOURS, WITH ONE OF THE PRESENT 
LAWYERS TODAY SAID WE HAVEN'T 
HEARD FROM ANYBODY WHO COULD 
DIRECTLY HEARD FROM THE 
PRESIDENT, WELL, THERE'S A GUY 
STANDING THERE WITH HIS HAND UP 
SAYING I'M READY . THAT SOME OF 
THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE WE 
CAN GET. 
>> WHAT IS YOUR PITCH TO YOU 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WHO ARE ON
THE FENCERS SAID THEY MIGHT BE 
WILLING TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES . 
>> ARE YOU SERIOUS? AGAIN, I'M 
SORT OF TEASING THEM . I THINK 
AFTER THE LAST 24 HOURS , 
WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS SAID
I HAVE INFORMATION THAT'S 
RELEVANT TO THE HEART OF THIS 
CASE, TO NOT CALL HIM , IS 
IMPEACHMENT THIS WHOLE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD BE AN 
ASTERISK IN HISTORY AS A NOT 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. SO I'M NOT 
BROWBEATING MY COLLEAGUES ARE 
GOING AROUND LOBBYING, THEY KNOW
. THEY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. IS 
ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK IT 
WILL BE MORE THAN THREE OR FOUR.
ONCE IT'S THREE OR FOUR, OTHER 
FOLKS ARE GOING TO WANT TO SAY 
I'M FORGETTING THIS WITNESS IN 
AS WELL. 
>> SENATOR KING THANK YOU SO 
MUCH . I WILL SEND IT BACK TO 
YOU GUYS. 
>> IT IS INTERESTING TO HEAR THE
LANGUAGE THAT SENATOR KING IS 
USING. AS HE TALKS ABOUT THIS 
SAYING HOW DO YOU VOTE AGAINST 
CALLING JOHN BOLTON WITH A 
STRAIGHT FACE HOW CAN YOU DO 
THIS REPUBLICANS ? HE'S ALSO NOT
BROWBEATING THEM . ABOUT WHAT 
LANGUAGE OR EFFORT YOU GIVE IF 
YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT TRYING TO GET
REPUBLICANS. 
>> THEY HAVE TRIED TO 
IN THE PAST STEP BACK AND LET'S 
SEE IF REPUBLICANS HOLD A FAIR 
TRIAL MAYBE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER
ON THIS, THAT DIDN'T WORK. 
McCONNELL AND CHUCK SCHUMER DID 
NOT HAVE CONVERSATIONS AT ALL 
BEEN THEY LEARNED OF THE EVE OF 
SETTING THE TRIAL RULES THERE'S 
NOT GONNA BE ANY WITNESSES . 
THERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF 
FAITH ON BOTH SIDES TO NEGOTIATE
SOMETHING. 
SO I FEEL LIKE DEMOCRATS 
RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN HOUSE 
MANAGERS TRIED TO NEEDLE AND 
ATTACK THE SENATORS SITTING IN 
THEIR CHAIRS IT BACKFIRED A 
LITTLE YET WE HEAR OVER AND OVER
AGAIN I THINK IT WAS MANWELL, 
THEY ARE OUT OF OPTIONS WHAT CAN
THEY DO? 
>> THIS 
QUESTION WHETHER IT BE FOR 
SENATORS GO TO THE REPUBLICAN 
SIDE OF THE AISLE TO DEMOCRATIC 
SIDE OF THE AISLE AND QUESTION 
WITNESSES WEATHERBEE THE BARE 
MINIMUM OR MORE, IS AN 
INTERESTING ONE IN TERMS OF THE 
POLITICS AND OPTICS OF IT . 
THERE COULD BE COVER FOR SOME OF
THE REPUBLICANS 
. WE GOT SENATOR COLLINS AND 
SENATOR ROMNEY INDICATING THEY 
MAY BE WILLING TO CALL JOHN 
BOLTON WHO IS NUMBER THREE AND 
WHO IS NUMBER FOUR? 
IF YOU ARE NUMBER FOUR YOU ARE 
SEEN AS A DECIDING VOTE AND THAT
MIGHT BE REALLY TOUGH FOR ANYONE
REPUBLICAN TO BEAR THE RUNT OF .
A COUPLE OF MORE COLLEAGUES 
COULDN'T TAKE ON AND TAKE THE 
PRESSURE OFF AND SEEMED TRULY 
BIPARTISAN AND LESS LIKE YOU ARE
THE ONE OR THE TO THE PUSH THIS 
OVER AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
KING SAID THAT. WHAT IF THE 
COUPLE JUMPED IN AND HE USE THE 
RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY ARGUMENT 
TO MAKE THE CASE WILL WHAT IF 
THEY RECOGNIZE WE ARE GOING TO 
PAUSE RIGHT NOW JUST TRY TO BE 
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY . A
MAKE THIS VOTE. BUT THEY ALL 
REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS LIKE FOR 
JOHN McCAIN WHO DID THAT THUMBS 
DOWN VOTE EARLY IN THE MORNING 
ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE 
TOP LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY AS HE 
WAS DYING. PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
OUT THERE INSULTING AND CAME . 
IN A VERY REAL WAY. McCAIN WAS 
NOT UP FOR REELECTION 
. BUT SOME OF THESE SENATORS 
MIGHT BE. 
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION SINCE 
YOU KNOW THIS BODY SO WELL . WE 
KEEP ON HEARING THE EYES OF 
HISTORY. HOW MANY PEOPLE 
WATCHING THIS AND HOW MANY 
PEOPLE WITHIN THE CHAMBER COULD 
NAME THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED 
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND 
HOW THEY VOTED? HOW MANY COULD 
NAME THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGERS ? MY GUESS IS IF WE 
WALKED OUT ONTO K STREET HERE, 
AND STOPPED 10 PEOPLE , IF WE 
STOPPED 50 PEOPLE I BET WE WOULD
BE LUCKY TO GET ONE PERSON WHO 
COULD TELL US WHO WAS THE LEAD 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGER AND WHO WAS 
THE LEAD DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT 
CLINTON 
. IT WOULD BE A GREAT EXERCISE, 
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO ASSIGN 
SOMEBODY 
THAT  ASSIGNMENT. 
>> WE HAVE TO POINT OUT A COUPLE
WEEKS AGO IN JEOPARDY THE ANSWER
THE QUESTION WITH ADAM SCHIFF , 
NONE OF THE CONTESTANTS WAS ABLE
TO GET HIM. THERE'S A QUESTION 
RIGHT NOW OUR VIEWERS KNEW WHO 
ADAM SCHIFF IS BETTER THE PUBLIC
DOESN'T TUNE INTO THAT . WHEN  
PRESIDENT TRUMP GOES AFTER 
SCHIFF IT RAISES THE PROFILE OF 
SCHIFF. 
WILL THE HISTORY TRACK THIS 
PEOPLE? EVERY SENATOR WANTS TO 
BE REMEMBERED IN A CERTAIN WAY. 
I GUESS IS THE QUESTION OF US 
SHORT-TERM THOUGHT AND LONG-TERM
PLACE IN HISTORY. 
>> I LOOK TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO
VOTED FOR CLINTON IN THE HOUSE 
NOT THE SENATE TOTALLY DIFFERENT
STORY. 
ALMOST ALL OF THEM FILTERED OUT 
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OVER A 
COUPLE OF YEARS. IT WAS JUST 
LIKE EVEN IN THAT PARTISAN TIME 
AND NOW WE ARE IN HYPER PARTISAN
TIME WE COULD NOT CROSS PARTY 
LINES AT THAT MOMENT IS A PART 
OF THE PARTY YOU WANTED. 
SOME WAS TRUE IN THE VERSE 
DEMOCRATS CROSSED THE AISLE AND 
VOTED TO KEEP THEM. LET'S GO 
BACK TO THE CHAMBER OF THE 
SENATE. 
>> WE ARE LOOKING AT AROUND 6:00
FOR DINNER . AND WE WILL PLOW 
RIGHT THROUGH UNTIL 6:00 . 
>> PRESIDENTS COUNCIL CONTINUING
CONTINUE WITH THEIR CASE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS THERE
HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK IN BOTH 
THE BRIEFS AND IN THE 
DISCUSSIONS . 
OVER THE LAST WEEK ABOUT ONE OF 
OUR COLLEAGUES FORMER MAYOR OF 
NEW YORK, RUDY GIULIANI . 
MAYOR GIULIANI SERVED AS ONE OF 
THE LEADERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE TEAM DURING THE MOLAR 
INVESTIGATION. 
HE'S MENTIONED 531 TIMES IN THE 
BRIEF AND 511, GIVE OR TAKE IN 
THE ARGUMENTS INCLUDING THE 
MOTION DAY . WE HAD A ROBUST 
TEAM THAT WORKED ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE DURING 
THE MUELLER  PROBE CONSISTING ON
GIULIANI, CIPOLLONE, 
AND MARTY RASKIN AS WELL AS JANE
RASKIN. 
JANE RASKIN WAS ONE OF THE 
LEADING ATTORNEYS ON THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF
THE PRESIDENT . 
THE ISSUE OF MAYOR GIULIANI HAS 
COME UP HERE IN THIS CHAMBER A 
LOT . WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE 
APPROPRIATE NOW TO TURN TO THAT 
ISSUE . THE ROLE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER , HIS PRIVATE
COUNSEL 
IN THIS PROCEEDING. I WOULD LIKE
TO YIELD MY TIME MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE TO RASKIN . 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , MAJORITY 
LEADER McCONNELL , MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE . I EXPECT YOU HAVE 
HEARD AMERICAN POET , 
CARL SAMBERG SUMMARY OF THE 
TRIAL LAWYERS DILEMMA. IF THE 
FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU ARGUE THE 
LAW, IF THE LAW IS AGAINST YOU, 
ARGUE THE FACTS. IF THE FACTS 
AND THE LAW ARE AGAINST YOU, 
POUND THE TABLE AND YELL LIKE  .
WE'VE HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DO SOME TABLE POUNDING AND A 
LITTLE YELLING. IN THE MAIN THEY
HAVE USED A DIFFERENT TACTIC 
HERE. A TACTIC FAMILIAR TO TRIAL
LAWYERS ALTHOUGH NOT MENTIONED 
BY MR. SAMBERG. IF BOTH THE LAWS
AND THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU 
PRESENT A DISTRACTION. EMPHASIZE
A SENSATIONAL FACT OR PERHAPS A 
COLORFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL 
PUBLIC FIGURE WHO APPEARS ON THE
SCENE AND THEN DISTORT CERTAIN 
FACTS , IGNORE OTHERS EVEN WHEN 
THEY ARE THE MOST PROBATIVE 
, MAKE CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS AND
INSINUATE THE SHINY OBJECT IS 
FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE 
ACTUAL FACTS ALLOWED . IN SHORT,
DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE HOLES 
IN YOUR CASE. RUDY GIULIANI IS 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS COLORFUL 
DISTRACTION . HE'S A HOUSEHOLD 
NAME . LEGENDARY FEDERAL 
PROSECUTOR WHO TOOK DOWN THE 
MOSS VIA MAFIA . CORRUPT PUBLIC 
OFFICIALS CRIME BUSTING MAYOR 
WHO CLEANED UP NEW YORK AND 
TURNED IT AROUND. A NATIONAL 
HERE 
, AMERICA'S MAYOR AFTER 9/11 AND
AFTER THAT INTERNATIONALLY 
RECOGNIZED 
EXPERT ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
TO BE SURE, MR. GIULIANI HAS 
ALWAYS BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A 
CONTROVERSIAL FOR HIS 
HARD-HITTING TAKE NO PRISONER 
APPROACH. 
IT'S NO STRETCH TO SAY HE WAS 
RESPECTED BY FRIEND AND FOE 
ALIKE FOR HIS INTELLECT , 
TENACITY, ACCOMPLISHMENT, HIS 
FIERCE LOYALTY TO HIS CAUSES AND
HIS COUNTRY . AND THEN 
THE UNTHINKABLE. HE PROBABLY 
SUPPORTED THE CANDIDACY OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP , THE ONE WHO 
WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO WIN 
. AND THEN IN THE SPRING OF 
2018, HE STOOD UP TO DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT SUCCESSFULLY, IT TURNS
OUT AGAINST WHAT WE ALL NOW KNOW
AS THE REAL DEBUNKED THIS 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA 
DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN . 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 
YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. GIULIANI IS
AT THE CENTER OF THIS 
CONTROVERSY. THEY'VE ANOINTED 
HIM THE PROXY VILLAIN OF THE 
TAIL. THE LEADER OF THE ROGUE 
OPERATION. THE PRESENTATION WAS 
FILLED WITH AD HOMINEM ATTACK 
AND NAME-CALLING. POLITICAL 
BAGMAN. I SUGGEST YOU HE'S FRONT
AND CENTER IN THEIR NARRATIVE 
FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON 
ALONE . TO DISTRACT FROM THE 
FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT 
SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM . 
SO WHAT'S THE FIRST TELL THAT 
MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE IN THIS MAY 
NOT BE ALL THAT IT'S CRACKED UP 
TO BE? THEY DID NOT SUBPOENA HIM
TO TESTIFY . IN FACT, MR. 
SCHIFF  AND HIS COMMITTEE NEVER 
EVEN INVITED HIM TO TESTIFY. 
THEY TOOK A STAB AT 
SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS BACK IN 
SEPTEMBER AND WHEN HIS LAWYER 
RESPONDED WITH LEGAL DEFENSES 
THE HOUSE WALKED AWAY . 
BUT IF RUDY GIULIANI IS 
EVERYTHING THEY SAY HE IS , 
DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE 
SUBPOENAED AND PURSUED HIS 
TESTIMONY? ASK YOURSELF WHY 
DIDN'T THEY? 
IN FACT, IT APPEARS THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE WAS NOT PARTICULARLY 
INTERESTED IN PRESENTING YOU 
WITH ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF WHAT
MAYOR GIULIANI DID OR WHY HE DID
IT 
. INSTEAD, THEY ASK YOU TO RELY 
ON HEARSAY, SPECULATION AND 
ASSUMPTION. EVIDENCE THAT WOULD 
BE INADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT . 
FOR EXAMPLE, HOUSE MANAGERS 
SUGGEST THAT MR. GIULIANI AT THE
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, DEMANDED 
THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND 
BURISMA BEFORE A WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT . THEY BASE THAT ON A 
STATEMENT TO IN EFFECT BY 
STATEMENT FROM AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. WHAT 
HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T TELL YOU IS
THAT SONDLAND ADMITTED HE WAS 
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT . HE 
PRESUMED THAT MR. GIULIANI'S 
REQUEST WAS INTENDED FOR A WHITE
HOUSE VISIT . EVEN WORSE, HIS 
ASSUMPTION WAS ON THIRDHAND 
INFORMATION AS HE PUT IT. THE 
MOST HE COULD DO WAS REPEAT WHAT
HE HEARD THROUGH AMBASSADOR 
VOELKER FROM GIULIANI . WHOM HE 
PRESUMED SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT 
ON THE ISSUE . AND BY THE WAY, 
AS MR. TRAN PURPURA  HAS 
EXPLAINED . THE ONE THAT 
ACTUALLY WAS SPEAKING AMBASSADOR
, VOLKER  TESTIFIED THERE WAS NO
LINKING IN THE MEETING BETWEEN 
THE PRESIDENT 
AND AN INVESTIGATION. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ALSO MAKE MUCH OF A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO WHERE THE
PRESIDENT SUGGESTED THE UKRAINE 
WORKING GROUP INCLUDING 
AMBASSADORS 
VOLKER  AND SONDLAND. THEY 
SHOULD TALK TO RUDY. THE 
MANAGERS TOLD YOU THEY PRESIDENT
TRUMP GAVE A DIRECTIVE AND 
DEMAND 
THEY NEEDED TO WORK WITH 
GIULIANI IF THEY WANTED TO WORK 
WITH THE UKRAINE POLICY. THOSE 
WORDS DIRECTIVE AND DEMAND ARE 
MISLEADING. THEY MISREPRESENT 
WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY SAID
. AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER  TESTIFIED THAT HE 
UNDERSTOOD BASED ON THE MEETING 
THAT GIULIANI WAS ONLY ONE OF 
SEVERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
FROM THE PRESIDENT . AND THE 
PRESIDENT SIMPLY WANTED 
OFFICIALS TO SPEAK TO MR. 
GIULIANI BECAUSE HE KNOWS ALL 
THESE THINGS ABOUT UKRAINE . AS 
VOLKER  PUT IT, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COMMENT WAS NOT AN INSTRUCTION ,
JUST A COMMENT . AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND 
AGREED. HE TESTIFIED HE DID NOT 
TAKE IT AS AN ORDER AND HE ADDED
THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EVEN 
SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED US
TO TALK TO GIULIANI ABOUT . 
SO IT MAY COME AS NO SURPRISE TO
YOU THAT AFTER THE MAY 23rd 
MEETING, 
DURING WHICH THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TOLD YOU THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED 
THE UKRAINE TEAM TALK TO 
GIULIANI, NEITHER VOELKER NOR 
SONDLAND EITHER FOLLOWED UP WITH
MR. GIULIANI UNTIL JULY. AND THE
JULY 
FOLLOW-UP  BY MR. VOLKER, 
HAPPENED ONLY BECAUSE HE CRANING
GOVERNMENT ASKED TO BE PUT IN 
TOUCH WITH HIM. 
VOLKER  TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT
ZELINSKI'S SENIOR AIDE 
APPROACHED HIM TO 
ASKED TO BE CONNECTED TO MR. 
GIULIANI. HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALSO 
RELY ON TESTIMONY THAT MAYOR 
GIULIANI TOLD AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
AND SONDLAND IN HIS VIEW TO BE 
CRITICAL 
, A STATEMENT ON ANTI-CORRUPTION
SHOULD SPECIFICALLY MENTION 
INVESTIGATION AND 2016 
INVESTIGATION AND BURISMA. WHEN 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER  NEW WEATHER 
CAN GIULIANI WAS CONVEYING 
MESSAGES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WANTED CONVEYED 
,  VOLKER SAID HE DID NOT HAVE 
THAT IMPRESSION. HE BELIEVED 
THAT GIULIANI WAS DOING HIS OWN 
COMMUNICATION ON WHAT HE WAS 
INTERESTED IN . 
BUT EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN 
THE RELIANCE ON PRESUMPTIONS, 
ASSUMPTIONS AND UNSUPPORTED 
CONCLUSIONS, IS A MANAGERS 
FAILURE TO PLACE IN ANY FAIR 
CONTEXT MR. GIULIANI'S ACTUAL 
ROLE IN EXPLORING UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION. TO HEAR THEIR 
PRESENTATION 
, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT MAYOR 
GIULIANI HAD PARACHUTED INTO THE
PRESIDENT'S ORBIT IN THE SPRING 
OF 2019 FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE 
OF CARRYING OUT A POLITICAL HIT 
JOB. THEY HAVE YOU BELIEVE MARY 
GIULIANI WAS ONLY THERE TO DIG 
UP DIRT AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT
BIDEN BECAUSE HE MIGHT BE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RIVAL IN THE 
2020 ELECTION. 
OF COURSE, MR. GIULIANI'S INTENT
IS NO SMALL MATTER HERE. IS A 
CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL PREMISE TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CASE. MR. 
GIULIANI'S MOTIVES IN 
INVESTIGATING YOU CRANING 
CORRUPTION AND INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 26 
ELECTION WAS ENTIRELY A 
POLITICAL ONE UNDERTAKEN UNDER 
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION. WHAT 
EVIDENCE HAVE THE MANAGERS 
ACTUALLY OFFER YOU TO SUPPORT 
THAT CLAIM? ON CLOSE INSPECTION,
IT TURNS OUT , VIRTUALLY NONE . 
THEY JUST SAY IT . OVER AND OVER
AND OVER . AND THEY OFFER YOU 
ANOTHER FALSE DICHOTOMY 
. EITHER MR. GIULIANI WAS ACTING
IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY TO 
FURTHER THE PRESIDENT'S FORMS 
POLICY OBJECTIVE 
OR HE WAS ACTING AS THE PERSONAL
ATTORNEY IN WHICH CASE 
THEY CONCLUDE HIS MOTIVE COULD 
ONLY BE TO FURTHER THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OBJECTIVE 
. OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS JEN 
POINT TO GIULIANI'S PUBLIC 
STATEMENT IN WHICH HE IS CLEAR 
AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THE FACT THAT HE IS INDEED THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY . 
THERE YOU HAVE IT. 
GIULIANI ADMITS HE'S WORKING AS 
HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY THEREFORE 
HE HAD TO BE ACTING UNDER THE 
PRESIDENT'S OBJECTION. 
THERE IS ANOTHER OBVIOUS ANSWER 
TO THE QUESTION. WHAT MOTIVE 
COULD GIULIANI HAVE TO TALK TO 
THE UKRAINIANS. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS KNOW THE ANSWER. 
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
2020 ELECTION. 
MAYOR GIULIANI BEGAN 
INVESTIGATING UKRAINE CORRUPTION
AND INTERFERENCE INTO THE 2020 
ELECTION WAY BACK IN NOVEMBER 
2018 A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED 
HIS CANDIDACY AND FOUR MONTHS 
BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE 
MUELLER  REPORT ONE OF THE 
BIGGEST FAULTS CONSIDER 
CONSPIRACY VERY IN CIRCULATION 
THAT THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN HAD COLLUDED WITH 
RUSSIA DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN 
WAS STILL IN WIDE CIRCULATION. 
AS THE HILL REPORTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S HIGHEST PROFILE DEFENSE 
ATTORNEY, 
THE FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR 
OFTEN KNOWN AS RUDY, BELIEVE THE
UKRAINIAN EVIDENCE COULD ASSIST 
IN HIS DEFENSE AGAINST THE 
RUSSIAN COLLUSION INVESTIGATION 
AND FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL 
ROBERT MUELLER  FINAL REPORT SO 
RUDY ALI GIULIANI BEGAN TO 
INVESTIGATE . 
IT WAS ALSO REPORTED IN MEDIA 
OUTLETS INCLUDING CNN WHICH 
RELATED TO THAT GIULIANI'S ROLE 
COULD BE TRACED BACK TO LATE 
2018 AS HE WAS DESCRIBED AS A 
WELL-KNOWN INVESTIGATOR. 
THE WASHINGTON POST AND MANY 
OTHER NEWS OUTLETS REPORTED THE 
SAME INFORMATION. SO YES, MAYOR 
GIULIANI WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY . BUT HE WAS 
NOT ON A POLITICAL ERRAND . AS 
HE IS STATED REPEATEDLY AND 
PUBLICLY , 
HE WAS DOING WHAT GOOD DEFENSE 
ATTORNEYS DO, HE WAS FOLLOWING A
LEAD FROM A WELL-KNOWN PRIVATE 
INVESTIGATOR . 
HE WAS GATHERING EVIDENCE 
REGARDING YOU CRANING ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE TO DEFEND HIS 
CLIENT AGAINST THE FALSE 
ALLEGATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED 
BY SPECIAL COUNSEL MORE . 
MUELLER.  THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID
NOT EVEN ALLUDE TO THAT 
POSSIBILITY. INSTEAD THEY JUST 
REPEATED THE MANTRA THAT 
GIULIANI'S MOTIVE WAS 
POLITICAL. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES 
ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE APPROACHED 
THEIR MISSION. THE BOTTOM LINE 
IS MR. GIULIANI DEFENDED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP VIGOROUSLY, 
RELENTLESSLY AND PUBLICLY 
THROUGHOUT THE MOLAR 
INVESTIGATION. AND IN A NONSTOP 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT
FOLLOWED. INCLUDING THE 
ATTEMPTED MOLAR REDO BY THE 
HOUSE COMMITTEE WHICH THE 
MANAGERS WOULD LIKE TO SNEAK IN 
THE BACK DOOR HERE . THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS MAY NOT LIKE HIS STYLE 
, YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS STYLE, 
BUT ONE MIGHT ARGUE, THAT HE IS 
EVERYTHING CLARENCE DARROW SAID 
IT 
DEFENSE LAWYER MUST BE, 
OUTRAGEOUS, IRREVERENT, 
BLASPHEMOUS A ROGUE, A RENEGADE 
, FACT IS IN THE END , AFTER TWO
YEARS SEIZURE ON THE PRESIDENCY 
, 
TO INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS AND
A $32 MILLION SPECIAL COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATION, TURNS OUT RUDY 
WAS SPOT ON. 
SEEMS TO ME IF WE ARE KEEPING 
SCORE ON WHO GOT IT RIGHT ON 
ALLEGATIONS OF FISA  ABUSE REGIS
MISCONDUCT ON THE HIGHEST LEVEL 
ON THE FBI. ALLEGED COLLUSION 
AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION, 
THE SCORE ON MAYOR GIULIANI'S 
BOARD IS FOR AND MR. SCHIFF ZERO
. 
IN THIS TRIAL AND AT THIS MOMENT
MR. GIULIANI IS A MINOR PLAYER ,
THAT SHINY OBJECT JUST 
DESIGNED TO DISTRACT YOU. 
SENATORS I URGE YOU MOST 
RESPECTFULLY, DO NOT BE 
DISTRACTED . THANK YOU MR. G 
JUSTICE I YIELD BACK TO MR. 
SEKULOW . 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE , 
HOUSE MANAGERS, WE ARE NOW GOING
TO MOVE TO A SECTION DEALING 
WITH THE LAW . 
TWO ISSUES IN PARTICULAR THAT MY
COLLEAGUE PAT 
PHILBIN  WILL BE ADDRESSING. 
ISSUES INVOLVING DUE PROCESS AND
SPECIFICALLY LEGAL ISSUES 
DEALING WITH THE SECOND ARTICLE 
OF IMPEACHMENT OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. I WILL YIELD MY TIME 
NOW, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , TO MR. 
PHILBIN . 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , SENATORS,
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL AND 
MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER, 
THE OTHER DAY AS WE OPENED OUR 
PRESENTATION I TOUCHED ON TWO 
AREAS DUE PROCESS VIOLATION THAT
CHARACTERIZE THE PROCEEDINGS IN 
THE HOUSE AND SOME FUNDAMENTAL 
MISCHARACTERIZATION AND ERRORS 
THAT UNDER 
PIN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHARGES 
OF OBSTRUCTION. I WILL COMPLETE 
THE PRESENTATION ON THOSE POINTS
TO ROUND OUT THE FUNDAMENTALLY 
UNFAIR PROCEDURE THAT WAS USED 
IN THE HOUSE AND IMPLICATIONS 
OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT IS 
BEFORE YOU NOW. ALSO ADDRESSED 
THE DETAILS THAT REPORT CHARGES 
OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. ON DUE PROCESS, 
THERE ARE THREE FUNDAMENTAL 
ERRORS THAT AFFECTED THE 
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE. THE 
FIRST IS AS I EXPLAINED ON 
SATURDAY, 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS 
UNAUTHORIZED AND 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE 
BEGINNING. NO COMMITTEE OF THE 
HOUSE HAD THE POWER TO LAUNCH AN
INQUIRY UNDER THE HOUSES 
IMPEACHMENT POWER UNLESS THE 
HOUSE ITSELF IS TAKEN A VOTE TO 
GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO 
COMMITTEE. RUMI VERSUS UNITED 
STATES IN UNIT 
STATES VERSUS WALK-INS THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS SET OUT THESE 
PRINCIPLES, GENERAL PRINCIPLES 
ARISE FROM THE CONSTITUTION 
WHICH GIVES AUTHORITY TO EACH 
CHAMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH TO THE HOUSE AND THE 
SENATE ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL 
MEMBERS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE. IN
ORDER FOR THE HOUSE AUTHORITY TO
BE TRANSFERRED TO A COMMITTEE 
THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE ON THAT . 
THEY FULFILL THESE THIS WAY TO 
ISSUE A VALID SUBPOENA THE 
COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE TO 
MUST CONFORM TO THE RESOLUTION 
ESTABLISHING ITS INVESTIGATORY 
POWERS. THAT'S A PROBLEM NEAR 
THE WAS NO RESOLUTION THERE WAS 
NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE 
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A 
SUBPOENA UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER. THE INQUIRY BEGAN WITH 
NEARLY 2 DOZEN INVALID 
SUBPOENAS. 
THE SPEAKER HAD 
THE HOUSE PROCEED ON NOTHING 
MORE THAN A PRESS CONFERENCE IN 
WHICH SHE REPORTED TO AUTHORIZE 
COMMITTEES UNDER BEGIN THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER . UNDER THE 
KNICKS MEANT NIXON IMPEACHMENT 
IT WAS POINTED OUT 
AND EXPLAINED THAT SUCH A 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE HAS 
ALWAYS BEEN PASSED BY THE HOUSE.
IT IS A NECESSARY STEP IF WE ARE
TO MEET OUR OBLIGATION. SO WE 
BEGAN THIS PROCESS WITH AN 
AUTHORIZED SUBPOENA THAT 
IMPOSE NO COMPULSION ON THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RESPOND TO 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. I WILL 
BE COMING BACK TO THAT POINT 
THAT THRESHOLD POINT WHEN WE GET
TO THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGES. THE 
SECOND FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS 
ERROR IS THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS DENIED THE PRESIDENT 
BASIC DUE PROCESS REQUIRED BY 
THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS IN THE 
PROCEDURES THEY USED FOR THE 
HEARINGS. I'M NOT GOING TO GO 
BACK IN DETAIL OVER THOSE . AS 
WE HEARD FROM JUDGE STARR,  THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ABANDON THE 
PRINCIPLES COVERING IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE FOR OVER 
150 YEARS PEERS I WILL TOUCH ON 
JUST A FEW POINTS AND RESPOND TO
A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE MADE. THE 
FIRST IS IN DENYING DUE PROCESS 
RIGHTS, THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS 
WERE HUGE REVERSAL FROM THE 
PROVISION HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
TAKEN THEMSELVES IN THE RECENT 
PAST PARTICULARLY IN THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. WE HAVE 
MANAGER NADLER'S PROCEEDINGS OF 
WHAT WAS REQUIRED. 
MANAGER NADLER WAS EXPLAINING 
THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRED THAT A
MINIMUM 
NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST 
YOU THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED 
BY COUNSEL THE RIGHT TO 
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AGAINST 
YOU ALL THOSE RIGHTS WERE DENIED
THE PRESIDENT . 
ONE OF THE RESPONSES AT THE 
MANAGERS HAVE MADE TO THE DEFECT
WE POINTED OUT IN  THE SECRET 
PROCEEDINGS WERE MANAGER SCHIFF 
BEGAN THE HEARINGS IN THE 
BASEMENT BUNKER , IS THAT THAT 
WAS BEST INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES
THEY WERE OPERATING BY A GRAND 
JURY, DON'T BE FOOLED BY THAT . 
THOSE HEARINGS OPERATE NOTHING 
LIKE A GRAND JURY , GRAND JURY 
HAS SECRECY FOR TWO REASONS . 
TO PROTECT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
INVESTIGATION SO OTHERS WON'T 
KNOW WHAT WITNESSES ARE BEING 
CALLED IN AND WHAT THEY ARE 
SAYING TO KEEP THAT SECRET FOR 
THE PROSECUTOR 
TO DEVELOP THE EVIDENCE AND TO 
PROTECT TO THE ACCUSED BECAUSE 
HE ACCUSE MIGHT NOT EVER BE 
INDICTED . IN THIS CASE ALL THAT
INFORMATION WAS MADE PUBLIC 
EVERY DAY . THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
DESTROYED ANY LEGITIMATE ANALOGY
TO A GRAND JURY BECAUSE THAT WAS
ALL PUBLIC , THEY MADE NO SECRET
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS THE 
TARGET. THEY ISSUED COMMENTS 
ABOUT HIM EVERY DAY. AND THEY 
DIDN'T NOT KEEP THE DIRECTION OF
THE INVESTIGATION SECRET, 
THEIR WITNESS LIST WAS PUBLISHED
DAILY THE DIRECTION OF THE 
INVESTIGATION WAS OPEN AND THE 
TESTIMONY WAS SELECTIVELY DELETE
TO A COMPLIANT MEDIA TO 
ESTABLISH A FALSE NARRATIVE 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. IF THAT 
HEAD OCCURRED IN A REAL GRAND 
JURY THAT HAD BEEN A CRIMINAL 
VIOLATION. PROSECUTORS CAN DO 
THAT UNDER THE CRIMINAL RULE IS 
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO DO THAT IN
A GRAND JURY. ALSO, THE GRAND 
JURY EXPLANATION PROVIDES 
NO RATIONALE WHATSOEVER FOR THE 
SECOND ROUND OF HEARINGS. AFTER 
THE BASEMENT 
BUNKER, THEY SECRET HEARINGS 
WHERE THE TESTIMONY WAS 
PRESCREENED, AND THE SAME 
WITNESSES WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN 
DEPOSED, WERE PUT ON IN A PUBLIC
HEARING WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
STILL EXCLUDED . ASK YOURSELF 
WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? 
AND EVERY PRIOR PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE MODERN ERA 
WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN PUBLIC 
HEARINGS, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TO 
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. WHY DID
THERE HAVE TO BE PUBLIC TELEVISE
HEARINGS. THAT WAS NOTHING MORE 
THAN A SHOW TRIAL. NOW, 
I ALSO ADDRESSED THE OTHER DAY 
HOUSE MANAGERS CONTENTION THAT 
THEY HAD OFFERED THE PRESIDENT 
DUE PROCESS . WHEN THINGS REACH 
THE THIRD ROUND OF HEARING IN 
FRONT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 
MANAGER NADLER OFFERED 
THE PRESIDENT APPEARANCE I 
EXPLAINED WHY THAT WAS AN 
ILLUSION. BEFORE THE HEARING 
BEGAN OTHER THAN THE LAW 
PROFESSORS, THE SPEAKER HAD 
ALREADY DETERMINED AND OUTCOME 
ALREADY SAID THERE WOULD BE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. THEY HAD 
NO 
INTENT TO CALL FACTUAL WITNESSES
IT WAS ALL DONE AND LOCKED IN. 
AND THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE 
HANGING OVER THAT WHEN THEY HAD 
OFFERED REPORTEDLY TO ALLOW THE 
PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS . 
THAT WAS A SPECIAL PROVISION IN 
THE RULES WHERE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 
ALSO UNPRECEDENTED THAT ALLOWED 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT
ANY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AT ALL IF
HE CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO TURN 
OVER DOCUMENTS OR NOT ALLOW 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. SO IF THE 
PRESIDENT DIDN'T GIVE UP HIS 
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY HE HAD 
BEEN ASSERTING OVER EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH 
CONFIDENTIALITY IF HE DID NOT 
COMPLY WITH THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
WHAT THEY WANTED IT WAS UP TO 
CHAIRMAN NADLER TO SAY NO RIGHTS
AT ALL 
. THERE'S A TERM FOR THAT IN THE
LAW IS CALLED AN 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION. YOU 
CAN'T CONDITION SOMEONE TO 
EXERCISE SURRENDERING OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. YOU CAN'T
SAY WILL LET YOU HAVE DUE 
PROCESS IN THIS WAY IF YOU WAVE 
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE ON
ANOTHER ISSUE. LAST 
POINT I'LL MAKE ABOUT DUE 
PROCESS IS THIS. IS IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER DUE PROCESS IS 
ENSHRINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS 
FOR A REASON. IT'S NOT THAT THE 
PROCESS IS JUST AN END IN ITSELF
, IT'S A DEEP SEATED BELIEF IN 
OUR LEGAL TRADITION THAT FAIR 
PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL FOR 
ACCURATE 
DECISION-MAKING. 
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES 
IN PARTICULAR 
IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT 
PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANY 
AMERICAN . THE SUPREME COURT HAS
EXPLAINED FOR OVER 250 YEARS OUR
LEGAL TRADITION HAS RECOGNIZED 
CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE 
GREATEST LEGAL ENTITY EVER 
DISCOVERED . FOR THE DISCOVERY 
OF TRUTH. SO WHY DID HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS IN EVERY PRECEDENT AND
EVERY PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS 
IN THE WAY THEY DIVIDE THESE 
HEARINGS PROCEDURES? WHY DID 
THEY DEVISE A PROCESS THAT KEPT 
THE PRESIDENT LOCKED OUT OF ANY 
HEARINGS FOR 71 OF THE 78 DAYS 
OF THE SO-CALLED INVESTIGATION? 
I WOULD SUBMIT BECAUSE THEIR 
PROCESS WAS NEVER ABOUT FINDING 
THE TRUTH . THE PROCESS WAS 
ABOUT ACHIEVING PREDETERMINED 
OUTCOME ON A TIMETABLE . AND 
HAVING IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS. 
AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ACHIEVED. 
THE THIRD FUNDAMENTAL DUE 
PROCESS AREA IS THE WHOLE 
FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS IS 
UNDER AN ERROR THAT FACT 
WITNESSES SUPERVISE AND LIMITED 
TO FACTUAL DISCOVERY 
IN  THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. I
EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY THAT 
MANAGER SCHIFF HAD A REASON , 
POTENTIALLY, BECAUSE OF HIS 
CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
AND WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND HOW 
THE COMPLAINT WAS FRAMED WHICH 
ALL REMAINED SECRET TO LIMIT 
INFORMATION . THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
BEGAN THIS WHOLE PROCESS , HIS 
BIAS HIS MOTORISTS WHY HE WAS 
DOING IT. IT'S RELEVANT TO 
UNDERSTAND 
. THERE IS NO INQUIRY INTO THAT.
WHAT CONCLUSION DOES THIS ALL 
LEAD TO ALL THIS DUE PROCESS 
ERRORS THAT AFFECTED THE 
PROCEEDINGS UP TO NOW ? I THINK 
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE , 
THE RIGHT CONCLUSION IS NOT THIS
BODY IN THIS CHAMBER SHOULD TRY 
TO REDO EVERYTHING , START 
BRINGING IN NEW EVIDENCE 
BRINGING WITNESSES THE BECAUSE 
THE PRESIDENT WASN'T ALLOWED AND
REDOING THE WHOLE PROCESS . AND 
THAT'S FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS 
ONE, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
DEMONSTRATED DESPITE THE 
ONE-SIDED UNFAIR PROCESS , 
THE RECORD THAT THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS COLLECTED THROUGH THAT
PROCESS ALREADY SHOWS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING 
WRONG. IT ALREADY EXONERATES THE
PRESIDENT. THE SECOND AND MORE 
IMPORTANT REASON IS BECAUSE OF 
THE INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS 
IT WOULD HAVE FOR THIS CHAMBER .
WHAT EVER PRECEDENT IS SET 
WHATEVER THIS BODY ACCEPTS NOW 
AS A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO BRING AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AND TO 
BRING IT TO THIS CHAMBER BECOMES
A NEW NORMAL . AND IF THE NEW 
NORMAL IS GOING TO BE THAT THERE
CAN BE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING
IN THE HOUSE 
THAT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND 
DOESN'T PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT OR
ANOTHER OFFICIAL BEING IMPEACHED
, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, IF FAILS 
TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION, IT DOESN'T COME 
HERE WITH THE FACTS ESTABLISHED 
, 
THIS BODY THEN SHOULD BECOME THE
INVESTIGATORY BODY AND START 
REDOING WHAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO
AND FINDING NEW WITNESSES AND 
DOING THINGS OVER AND GETTING 
NEW EVIDENCE, THAT'S GOING TO BE
THE NEW NORMAL. THAT WILL BE THE
WAY THE CHAMBER HAS TO FUNCTION 
AND IT WILL BE A LOT MORE 
IMPEACHMENTS COMING BECAUSE IT'S
A LOT EASIER TO DO AN IMPORT 
IMPEACHMENT IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO
FOLLOW DUE PROCESS AND COME HERE
AND EXPECT THE SENATE TO DO THE 
WORK THE HOUSE DID NOT DO. I 
SUBMIT THAT IS NOT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION 
OF THIS CHAMBER SITTING AT THE 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. IT SHOULD 
NOT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD NOT PUT 
THIS PROCESS OF THE HOUSE THAT 
WOULD FORCE THIS CHAMBER TO TAKE
ON THAT. I WILL MOVE ON TO THE 
CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE 
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT . 
ACCEPTING THAT ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT 
WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY DAMAGE THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION I PERMANENTLY ALL 
TRADING THE RELATION SHIP 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCHES THE SECOND ARTICLE THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR 
ACCEPTING DEMANDS AND 
ESTABLISHING DEFENSE IN 
IMMUNITIES 
BASED ON LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LEGAL 
COUNSEL. 
THE APPROACH HERE THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING WHEN WE 
DEMAND THE DOCUMENTS, THE 
EXECUTIVE. BRANCH MUST COMPLY 
IMMEDIATELY IN THE ASSERTION OF 
PRIVILEGE OR DEFENSES ARE 
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE 
OBSTRUCTION. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
MANDATED ACCOMMODATION PROCESS 
TO WORK OUT EXCEPT 
THE BULL SOLUTION OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. WE DON'T HAVE 
TO GO TO THE COURT TO ESTABLISH 
THE VALIDITY OF OUR SUBPOENA. AT
ONE POINT MANAGER SHIFT SAID 
ANYTHING THAT CONTEMPLATES THE 
OBSTRUCTION THEY CAN JUMP 
STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT . WHAT 
THIS REALLY MEANS IN THIS CASE 
THEY ARE SAYING. FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO DEFEND THE 
PREROGATIVE OF HIS OFFICE. TO 
DEFEND CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED
PRINCIPLE OR IMMUNITY IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. IF THIS 
CHAMBER OF ACCEPTS THE PREMISE, 
IT WOULD'VE BEEN ASSERTED HERE 
CONSTITUTED AN IMPEACHABLE 
DEFENSE IT WILL FOREVER DAMAGE 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. 
IT WILL UNDERMINE THE 
INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE 
AND DESTROY THE BALANCE BETWEEN 
THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT THE FRAMERS CRAFTED 
IN THE CONSTITUTION . AS OF 
ATTORNEYS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE . 
BASING ON OBSTRUCTION THAT WILL 
ITSELF BE A 
PEWS ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THAT 
AND UNPACK AND EXPLAIN SOME OF 
THAT . I'LL START BY OUTLINING 
THE THREE . IN THE SUBPOENA 
THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS.
THREE DIFFERENT LEGALLY BASE . 
I POINTED OUT ON SATURDAY 
REFRAIN FROM THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS
THAT THERE WAS JUST BLANKET 
DEFIANCE , BLANKET OBSTRUCTION 
AND AS IF IT WERE UNEXPLAINED 
OBSTRUCTION , JUST WE WON'T 
COOPERATE 
. THAT'S NOT TRUE, THERE WERE 
VERY SPECIFIC LEGAL GROUNDS 
PROVIDED AND EACH ONE WAS 
SUPPORTED BY AN OPINION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE 
LEGAL COUNSEL. THE FIRST THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS 
DECLINED TO COMPLY 
WITH SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE NOT 
BEEN AUTHORIZED THAT'S A POINT I
MADE AT THE BEGINNING. THERE WAS
NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE, THE SIT 
PINOTS ISSUED WERE NOT 
AUTHORIZED. I POINTED OUT IN 
OCTOBER 18 LETTER TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL THE SPECIFIC 
GROUNDS WAS EXPLAINED . IT 
WASN'T JUST FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL THERE WERE OTHER LETTERS
ON THE SCREEN NOW OCTOBER 15th 
LETTER FROM OMB WHICH EXPLAINS 
ABSENT DELEGATION BY A HOUSE 
RULE OR RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE 
NONE OF YOUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN 
DELEGATED TO RISQUÉ'S 
JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATION PURSUANT 
IMPEACHMENT POWER ARTICLE 1 
SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE LETTER WENT ON TO EXPLAIN 
THAT RATIONALE. 
THERE IS SPECIFIC EXCHANGES OF 
LETTERS EXPLAINING THE LEGAL 
GROUNDS. THE SECOND GROUND , THE
SECOND PRINCIPLE . THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION INSERTED 
WAS THAT SOME OF THESE SUBPOENAS
REPORTED TO REQUIRE THE 
PRESIDENT SENIOR ADVISORS, CLOSE
ADVISORS TO TESTIFY. FOLLOWING 
50 YEARS OF PRECEDENT , THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LEGAL 
COUNSEL ADVISE THREE SENIOR 
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT , 
ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF 
OF STAFF, LEGAL ADVISORS TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
WERE IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED 
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. 
BASED ON THAT ADVICE FROM LEGAL 
COUNSEL THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED 
THOSE ADVISORS NOT TO TESTIFY . 
ADMINISTRATION OF BOTH POLITICAL
PARTIES HAVE ASSERTED THIS 
IMMUNITY SINCE THE 1970S. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA 
ASSERTED IT AFTER THE DIRECTOR 
OF OFFICE POLITICAL STRATEGY IN 
OUTREACH. PRESIDENT GEORGE W 
BUSH ASSERTED IT AFTER HIS 
FORMER COUNSEL AND HIS CHIEF 
WHITE HOUSE STAFF. PRESIDENT 
CLINTON ASSERTED IT AS TO HIS 
COUNSEL 
. PRESIDENT REAGAN ASSERTED IT 
AND PRESIDENT NIXON ASSERTED IT.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS 
MADE UP RECENTLY. THERE IS 
EXECUTIVE LONG HISTORY OF THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROVIDING 
THE OPINION THE SENIOR ADVISORS 
TO THE PRESIDENT ARE IMMUNE FROM
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY AND THE 
SAME PRINCIPLE ASSERTED HERE . 
THERE IS AN IMPORTANT RATIONALE 
BEHIND THIS. ONE IS THE 
PRESIDENT MOST SENIOR ADVISORS 
ARE HIS ALTER EGOS. AND ALLOWING
CONGRESS TO SUBPOENA 
SUBPOENA THEM AND COMPEL THEM TO
TESTIFY HIS TENT TO MY 
TANTAMOUNT TO ALLOWING THE 
PRESIDENT TO COME TESTIFY. 
THAT UNDER THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS WOULD NOT BE TOLERABLE. 
OF CONGRESS COULD NO LONGER DO 
THAT TO THE PRESIDENT AS THE 
PRESIDENT COULD NOT 
FORCE CONGRESS TO ANSWER TO HIM.
THERE IS A SECOND AND MORE 
IMPORTANT RATIONALE. THAT 
RELATES TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
THE IMMUNITY PROTECTS THE SAME 
PRIVILEGE 
THAT UNDERLINES EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
PROTECTS THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AS THE COURT PUT IT 
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXING, 
IT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE 
OPERATION 
OF GOVERNMENT AND ROUTED UNDER 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED EXECUTIVE 
NEEDS THIS PRIVILEGE TO FUNCTION
AND IS ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION 
OF POWERS. ATTORNEY GENERAL , 
JANET RENO, ADVISE PRESIDENT 
CLINTON . THE IMMUNITY ADVISORS 
ENJOY VIA CONGRESSIONAL 
COMMITTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND MAY 
NOT BE OVERBORNE BY COMPETING 
CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST. ATTORNEY
GENERAL RENO AND PRESIDENT 
CLINTON IT'S NOT A 
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT ISSUE, 
ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES 
A SUIT THIS PRINCIPLE FOR SENIOR
ADVISORS. WHY DOES IT MATTER? IT
MATTERS BECAUSE THE SUPREME 
COURT SAID PRINT EXPLAINED THE 
FUNDAMENTAL 
PRINCIPLE BEHIND EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS IT'S NECESSARY TO 
HAVE CONFIDENTIALITY AND 
DELIBERATION IN ORDER TO HAVE 
GOOD AND WORTHWHILE 
DELIBERATION IN ORDER TO HAVE 
PEOPLE PROVIDE THEIR CANDID 
ADVICE 
BECAUSE IF THEY KNEW WHAT THEY 
WERE GOING TO SAY WAS GOING TO 
BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF 
WASHINGTON POST THE NEXT DAY OR 
THE NEXT WEEK , THEY WOULD NOT 
TELL THE PRESIDENT WHAT THE 
ACTUAL THOUGHT . IF YOU WANT TO 
HAVE GOOD DECISION-MAKING , 
THERE HAS TO BE THAT ZONE OF 
CONFIDENTIALITY . THIS IS A 
WASTE THE SUPREME COURT PUT IT. 
"THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE TEACHES 
THOSE WHO EXPECT PUBLIC 
DISSEMINATION OF THEIR REMARKS 
MAY WELL CANDOR THE APPEARANCES 
AND FOR THEIR OWN INTERESTS IT 
TO THE DETRIMENT OF 
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 
". 
THOSE ARE THE INFERENCES 
PROTECTED BY HAVING SENIOR 
ADVISORS BE A MOAN FROM 
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. 
ONE SOMEONE IS COMPELLED TO SIT 
IN THE WITNESS SEAT AND START 
ANSWERING QUESTIONS, IT'S HARD 
FOR THEM TO PROTECT THAT 
PRIVILEGE TO MAKE SURE THEY 
DON'T START REVEALING SOMETHING 
. FOR A SMALL CIRCLE OF THOSE 
CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT, FOR THE 
PAST 
40 TO 50 YEARS, ADMINISTRATIONS 
OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE INSISTED ON
THIS PRINCIPLE. AND NOW THE 
OTHER NIGHT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WHEN WE WERE HERE VERY LATE LAST
WEEK , THEY SUGGESTED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE WAS A DISTRACTION . 
MANAGER NADLER CALLED IT 
NONSENSE, NOT AT ALL . IT IS A 
PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY THE 
SUPREME COURT . A CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE ROUNDED IN SEPARATION 
OF POWERS. THEY ALSO ASSERTED 
THIS IMMUNITY HAS BEEN REJECTED 
BY EVERY COURT THAT HAS 
ADDRESSED IT. AS IF TO MAKE IT 
SEEN BY LOTS OF COURTS HAVE 
ADDRESSED IT THEY HAVE ALL SAID 
THIS THEORY DOESN'T FLY . 
THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. THAT'S NOT 
TRUE AND IN FACT MOST INSTANCES,
ONCE THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS 
IMMUNITY FOR A SENIOR ADVISOR. 
THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
BEGINS. 
USUALLY THERE IS COMPROMISE 
BETWEEN TESTIMONY AND TO PROVIDE
OTHER INFORMATION AND PROVIDE 
TESTIMONY THERE IS A COMPROMISE.
ONLY TWO TIMES 
IT'S BEEN LITIGATED DISTRICT 
COURTS IT IS TRUE REJECTED IT. 
ONE WAS IN THE CASE INVOLVING 
FORMER COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT 
GEORGE W BUSH THE DISTRICT COURT
REJECTED IMMEDIATELY ON THE 
APPEAL OF THE DC COURT STAYED 
THAT DECISION. THE DECISION TO 
STAY THAT DECISION THAT THE 
APPELLATE COURT 
>> THE SECOND DECISION IS STILL 
BEING MITIGATED RIGHT NOW. IT IS
THE McGANN CASE THAT THE HOUSE 
HAS BROUGHT RIGHT NOW.
THAT CASE WAS ARGUED IN THE DC 
CIRCUIT ON JANUARY 3. THERE IS 
NO ESTABLISHED LAW SUGGESTING 
THIS AMENITY SOMEHOW HAS BEEN 
REJECTED BY THE COURT. IT IS 
STILL BEING LITIGATED. IT IS AN 
IMMUNITY THAT IS A STANDARD 
PRINCIPAL ASSERTED BY
EVERY ADMINISTRATION OF BOTH 
PARTIES FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS. 
ASSERTING THAT PRINCIPLE CANNOT 
BE TREATED AS OBSTRUCTION. THE 
THIRD ACTION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
TOOK OR THE ADMINISTRATION TO 
RELATED TO THE FACT THAT HOW 
DEMOCRATS TRIED TO SHUT OUT 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL, AGENCY
COUNSEL FROM THE DEPOSITION OF 
EMPLOYEES. THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL CONCLUDED
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES MAY
NOT BAR AGENCY COUNSEL FROM 
ASSISTING IN EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
WITNESSES WITHOUT
THE LEGITIMATE PREROGATIVES OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IN 
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE 
SUBPOENA WHILE BARRING AGENCY 
COUNSEL WOULD BE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE PRESIDENT 
RELIED ON THAT LEGAL ADVICE HERE
. AS POINTED OUT,
THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSULTING 
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
RECEIVING ADVICE FROM THE VERY 
RESPECTED OFFICE OF
LEGAL COUNSEL AND FOLLOWING THAT
ADVICE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE AND 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES 
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. AGAIN,
ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH 
POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE 
RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANT ROLE 
AGENCY COUNSEL PLAYS. IN THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
STATED THAT EXCLUSIVE AGENCY 
COUNSEL COULD POTENTIALLY 
UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO 
ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
WHERE APPROPRIATE. SO WHY IS 
AGENCY COUNSEL IMPORTANT? AS I 
TRIED TO EXPLAIN, THE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND
INTERNAL DELIBERATE CAN 
MEDICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT 
BRANCH, THOSE ARE IMPORTANT 
LEGAL RIGHTS. THEY ARE NECESSARY
FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONS OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AGENCY COUNSEL IS ESSENTIAL TO 
PROTECT THOSE LEGAL RIGHTS. WHEN
AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE GOES IN 
TO TESTIFY, HE OR SHE MIGHT NOT 
KNOW, PROBABLY WOULD NOT KNOW 
THE LINE FOR WHAT WAS COVERED BY
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NOTHING 
THAT EMPLOYEES NECESSARILY KNOW.
EVEN IF THEY ARE PERMITTED TO 
HAVE PERSONAL COUNSEL, SAME 
THING. MOST ATTORNEYS FOR 
EMPLOYEES DO NOT KNOW THE FINER 
POINTS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
CONFIDENTIAL INTEREST AND
IT IS ALSO NOT THEIR JOB TO 
PROTECT THOSE INTERESTS. THEY 
ARE THE PERSONAL LAWYER FOR THE 
EMPLOYEE WHO IS TESTIFYING, 
TRYING TO PROTECT THAT EMPLOYEE 
FROM POTENTIAL LEGAL 
CONSEQUENCES. WE USUALLY HAVE 
LAWYERS TO PROTECT LEGAL RIGHTS.
IT MAKES SENSE WHEN THERE IS AN 
IMPORTANT
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASED 
RIGHT AT STATE, THE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, THERE SHOULD BE A 
LAWYER THERE TO PROTECT THAT 
RIGHT FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE THE OFFICE
OF LEGAL COUNSEL ENDORSED. THIS 
ALSO DOES NOT RAISE 
INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS FOR
INVESTIGATIONS OR FINDING 
INFORMATION. JUST AS RECENTLY AS
APRIL 2019 THE HOUSE COMMITTEE 
ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 
REFORM REACHED AN ACCOMMODATION 
WITH THE TRUMPET MINISTRATION 
AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION HAD
DECLINED TO MAKE SOMEONE 
AVAILABLE FOR A DEPOSITION 
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AGENCY 
COUNSEL. THAT ISSUE WAS WORKED 
OUT AND ACCOMMODATIONS WERE 
MADE. THERE WAS TESTIMONY 
PROVIDED IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT DOESN'T ALWAYS RESULT
IN THE KIND OF ESCALATION THAT 
WAS SEEN HERE, STRAIGHT TO 
IMPEACHMENT. THE ACCOMMODATIONS 
PROCESS CAN WORK THINGS OUT. 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS APPOINTED
TO A HOUSE RULE THAT EXCLUDES 
AGENCY COUNSEL. OF COURSE A 
HOUSE RULE CANNOT OVERRIDE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.
THOSE ARE THE THREE PRINCIPLES 
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
ASSERTED. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO 
TURN TO THE CLAIM THAT SOMEHOW
THIS ASSERTION OF THESE 
PRINCIPLES CREATED AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE IDEA 
THAT ASSERTING
DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES, LEGAL 
DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES IN 
RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS, ACTING ON
THE
ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE IS IMPEACHABLE IS ABSURD
AND IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR 
GOVERNMENT. LET ME EXPLAIN WHY. 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE STRUCTURED 
THE THEORY THAT IS WRONG. FIRST 
AND FOREMOST,
IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAW ASSERTING
PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS TO RESIST 
COMPULSION IS NOT OBSTRUCTION. 
IT IS A FUNDAMENT RIGHT. THE 
SUPREME COURT EXPLAINS TO PUNISH
A PERSON BECAUSE HE HAS DONE 
WHAT THE LAW CLAIM LEE ALLOWS IS
A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION. 
IT IS TO PENALIZE A PERSON'S 
RELIANCE AND PATENTLY 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS A 
PRINCIPLE THAT IN THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WAS 
RECOGNIZED ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT
IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO SUGGEST 
ASSERTING RIGHTS IS IMPEACHABLE.
A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR
SAID THE ALLEGATIONS OF INVOKING
PRIVILEGE AND USING THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM TO SHIELD INFORMATION IS 
AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT SHOULD 
LEAVE TO IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL
OF OFFICE IS NOT ONLY FRIVOLOUS 
BUT ALSO DANGEROUS. MANAGER 
NADLER SAID THE USE OF A LEGAL 
PRIVILEGE IS NOT IMPEACHABLE BY 
ITSELF, AND MINORITY LEADER 
CHUCK SCHUMER IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT EXPRESSED THE SAME 
VIEW.
TO SUGGEST THAT ANY SUBJECT OF 
AN INVESTIGATION, MUCH LESS THE 
PRESIDENT
WITH NEGATIONS TO THE 
INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY IS
ABUSING POWER AND INTERFERING 
WITH AN INVESTIGATION MAKING 
LEGITIMATE LEGAL CLAIMS, USING 
DUE PROCESS AND ASSERTING 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS BEYOND 
CONSIDERATION. 
>> THAT WAS EXACTLY CORRECT THEN
AND IS EXACTLY CORRECT NOW. NOW,
MORE IMPORTANT IS THE PRINCIPLE 
THAT ASSERTING RIGHTS CANNOT BE 
CONSIDERED OBSTRUCTION. WHEN THE
RIGHT THE PRESIDENT IS ASSERTING
ARE BASED ON EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, WHEN THEY ARE 
CONSTITUTIONALLY
GROUNDED PRINCIPLES ESSENTIAL 
FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
PROTECTING THE INSTITUTION OF 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, TO
CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION IS A TERM
THAT WILL TURN THE CONSTITUTION 
ON HIS HEAD. DEFENDING THE 
SEPARATION OF POWER CANNOT BE 
DEEMED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
WITHOUT DESTROYING THE 
CONSTITUTION.
EXCEPTING THAT APPROACH WOULD DO
PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND WOULD 
ALLOW THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO TURN ANY 
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE EXECUTIVE 
OVER INFORMATIONAL DEMANDS INTO 
A SUPPOSED BASIS FOR REMOVING 
THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. IT 
WOULD EFFECTIVELY CREATE FOR US 
THE VERY MENTORING SYSTEM THAT 
THE FRAMERS THOUGHT TO AVOID, 
BECAUSE BY MAKING ANY DEMAND FOR
A INFORMATION AND GOADING THE
EXECUTIVE TO A REFUSAL, AND 
TREATING THAT AS IMPEACHABLE, 
THE HOUSE WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE 
ABLE TO FUNCTION WITH A 
NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE POWER. NOW, 
THAT IS NOT THE FRAMERS
DESIGN. THE LEGISLATIVE AND 
EXECUTIVE BRANCHES FREQUENTLY 
CLASH ON QUESTIONS OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, 
INCLUDING ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL 
DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION. THESE 
CONFLICTS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE 
THE FOUNDING. IN 1796 GEORGE 
WASHINGTON RESISTED
MEN'S FROM CONGRESS FOR 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
NEGOTIATION OF THE J TREATY. 
THERE HAVE BEEN CONFLICTS 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
CONGRESS IN CHILLY EVERY 
ADMINISTRATION SINCE THEN ABOUT 
CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR
INFORMATION. THE FOUNDING 
FATHERS EXPECTED THE BRANCHES TO
HAVE THESE CONFLICTS. JAMES 
MADISON POINTED OUT THAT THE 
LEGISLATIVE
, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL 
DEPARTMENTS MUST IN THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR FUNCTIONS GUIDED BY THE
TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION 
ACCORDING TO ITS OWN 
INTERPRETATION OF IT. IT WAS 
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WOULD BE 
FRICTION, SIMILARLY IN 
FEDERALIST 51 MADISON POINTED 
OUT THAT THE GREAT SECURITY 
AGAINST
A GRADUAL CONCENTRATION OF THE 
SEVERAL POWERS IN THE SAME 
DEPARTMENT, CONSISTENT IN 
GETTING TO THOSE WOULD MINISTER 
EACH DEPARTMENT THE NECESSARY 
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS AND 
PERSONAL MOTIVES TO RESIST 
ENCROACHMENT OF THE OTHERS. THIS
IS CHECKS AND BALANCES. THIS 
CLASHING BETWEEN THE BRANCHES. 
IT IS NOT EVIDENCE
OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. IT IS
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN ITS 
PRACTICAL OPERATION. IT IS PART 
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. IN
THE PROPER AND HISTORICALLY 
ACCEPTED WAY THIS HAS BEEN 
RESOLVED IS THROUGH THE 
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS. COURTS 
HAVE EXPLAINED THE BRANCHES ARE
REQUIRED TO ENGAGE IN A 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS TO RESOLVE
DISAGREEMENTS WHERE THERE IS A 
CLASH OVER DEMAND FOR 
INFORMATION. THE DC CIRCUIT HAS 
EXPLAINED WHEN CONGRESS ASKED 
FOR INFORMATION FROM THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT TRIGGERS 
AN IMPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL 
MANDATE TO TAKE OPTIMAL 
ACCOMMODATION OF THE NEED OF THE
CONFLICTING BRANCHES.
THE GOAL IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE 
NEED OF BOTH BRANCHES TO REACH A
COMPROMISE. IF THAT PROCESS 
FAILS CONGRESS HAS OTHER TOOLS. 
THE HOUSE TRADITIONALLY HAS 
PROCEEDED TO CONTENT OR VOTE ON 
A CONTEMPT RESOLUTION. IN RECENT
TIMES THE HOUSE HAS TAKEN THE 
POSITION THAT IT MAY SUE IN THE 
COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY 
OF SUBPOENAS AND
SECURE AN INJUNCTION TO ENFORCE 
THEM. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
POINTED OUT THE TRUMPET 
MINISTRATION, WHEN IT WAS TO HAS
TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THOSE CASES 
ARE NOT JUST FISHABLE IN ARTICLE
3 COURTS. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT
WAS THE VIEW OF THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION. THERE IS THAT 
RESISTANCE IN THE COURT CASES TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS 
TO ADDRESS THOSE. I THINK HOUSE 
MANAGERS ARE MISSING THE POINT 
WHEN THEY IDENTIFY THAT POSITION
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS 
TAKEN. THE HOUSE CANNOT CLAIM
THAT THEY HAVE A MECHANISM FOR 
GOING TO COURT. THEY ARE IN 
COURT RIGHT NOW ASSERTING THAT 
MECHANISM IN THE McGAHN CASE.  
THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T HAVE TO 
BOTHER WITH THAT MECHANISM AND 
CAN JUMP STRAIGHT TO 
IMPEACHMENT. IMPEACHMENT IS A 
THERMONUCLEAR WEAPON OF BRANCH 
FRICTION IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
WHERE THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE A 
RIFLE OR BAZOOKA AT THE HOUSE'S 
DISPOSAL TO ADDRESS FRICTION, 
THAT IS THE NEXT STEP. IT IS
INCREMENTALLY IN THE 
CONSTITUTION, NOT JUMPING 
STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT.
IF THE HOUSE COULD JUMP STRAIGHT
TO IMPEACHMENT, THAT WOULD ALTER
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
BRANCHES. IT WOULD SUGGEST THAT 
THE HOUSE COULD MAKE ITSELF 
SUPERIOR OVER THE EXECUTIVE. TO 
DANGLE THE THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT
OVER ANY DEMAND FOR INFORMATION 
MADE TO THE EXECUTIVE. THAT IS 
CONTRARY TO THE
FRAMERS PLAN. MADISON EXPLAINED 
THAT WHERE THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES COME INTO 
CONFLICT IT IS FEDERALIST 49 SAY
NEITHER OF THEM CAN PRETEND TO A
EXCLUSIVE OR SUPERIOR RIGHT OF 
SETTLING THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN 
RESPECTIVE
POWERS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ASSERTED IN 
THIS CASE. THEY HAVE SAID THAT 
THE HOUSE BECOMES THE FRAME
. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM TO 
GO TO COURT. THE EXECUTIVE MUST 
BE WRONG. ANY RESISTANCE IS 
OBSTRUCTION. IF YOU CLAIM OUR 
SUBPOENA IS INVALID,
WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO
ADDRESS THAT CONCERN. WE WILL 
JUST IMPEACH. RESISTANCE IS 
OBSTRUCTION.
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE EVEN PUT IT 
THIS WAY IN THEIR REPORT, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID THE 
HOUSE ITSELF, THEY EFFECTIVELY 
HAVE SAID THE HOUSE IS A JUDGE 
OF ITS OWN POWER BECAUSE"THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE
FINAL WORD. THAT IS ON PAGE 154
ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORT. WHAT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
SAYING, THEY POINT TO THE FACT 
THAT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 GIVES
THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THEY CLAIM THAT 
BECAUSE IT IS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT COURTS HAVE NO ROLE
. THE HOUSE IS THE FINAL WORD 
AND A JUDGE OF ITS OWN POWER. 
THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. THERE IS 
NO POWER THAT IS UNCHECKED IN 
THE CONSTITUTION. THE SOLE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT GET INTO THE 
HOUSE SIMPLY MEANS THAT POWER IS
GIVEN SOLELY
TO THE HOUSE AND NOT ANYWHERE 
ELSE. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
SAY THAT THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT IS A PARAMOUNT POWER
THAT MAKES ALL OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND 
PRIVILEGES AND PREROGATIVES OF 
THE OTHER BRANCHES FALL ANYWAY.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THAT 
THERE COULD BE PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT FOR THE
WRONG REASONS. THEY DIDN'T STRIP
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF ANY OF 
ITS
MEANS FOR PROTECTING ITS OWN 
SPIRIT OF AUTHORITY, ITS OWN 
PREROGATIVES.
THOSE PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGES STILL SURVIVE, EVEN 
IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT 
LIKE THE HOUSE IN SIMPLY
WHIPPING IS WHICH THEY NOW WE 
ARE IN IMPEACHMENT AND THEY HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL KRYPTONITE THAT 
MAKES THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE
LEMONADE. WHEN THERE ARE THESE 
CONFLICTS, EVEN IN THE CONTEXT 
OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE 
EXECUTIVE CAN CONTINUE TO ASSERT
ITS PRIVILEGES AND PREROGATIVES 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. INDEED 
IT MUST IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE 
INSTITUTIONAL
INTERESTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY AND PRESERVE THE 
PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE 
BRANCHES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR TURLEY RIGHTLY POINTED
OUT THAT BY CLAIMING CONGRESS 
CAN DEMAND ANY TESTIMONY OR 
DOCUMENTS
AND IMPEACH ANY PRESIDENT WHO 
DARES TO GO TO THE COURT, HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS ARE DANCING A POSITION
THAT WAS ABUSIVE OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT. OTHER SCHOLARS 
AGREE, IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT A PROFESSOR 
TESTIFIED THAT IMPEACHING A 
PRESIDENT FOR INVOKING LAWFUL 
PRIVILEGES IS A DANGEROUS AND 
OMINOUS
MATTER.
ONE OF THE FRAMERS WARNED 
AGAINST THIS AT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. HE 
EXPLAINED THAT WHEN WE MAKE HIM,
REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT, 
AMENABLE TO JUSTICE WE SHOULD 
TAKE CARE TO PROVIDE SOME OLD 
THAT WOULD NOT MAKE HIM 
DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATURE. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD DO.
IT WILL MAKE THE PRESIDENT 
DEPENDED ON THE LEGISLATURE. ANY
DEMAND FOR INFORMATION MADE BY 
CONGRESS
COULD BE USED AS A THREAT OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO ENFORCE 
COMPLIANCE BY THE EXECUTIVE. THE
VERY THEORY THAT THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE ASSERTED IS THAT 
THERE CAN BE NO ASSERTIONS OF 
RELIGIOUS, NO CONSTITUTIONALLY 
TASTE PREROGATIVES TO STAND IN 
THEIR WAY. IF THAT THEORY WERE 
TRUE VIRTUALLY
EVERY PRESIDENT COULD'VE BEEN 
INPEACHED. VIRTUALLY EVERY 
PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED AT ONE 
TIME OR ANOTHER THESE 
CONSTITUTIONAL OR AUGUST. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA
FAMOUSLY REFUSED TO TURN OVER 
DOCUMENTS THAT LED TO HIS 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BEING HELD IN 
CONTEMPT. THAT DIDN'T NEED TO 
IMPEACHMENT. THERE COULD BE A 
LONG LIST OF PRESIDENTS WHO 
WOULD HAVE TO BE DISTINGUISHED 
IF THE PRINCIPLES BEING ASSERTED
NOW IN THIS CASE WERE APPLIED TO
ALL PAST PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE GIVEN A FEW
DIFFERENT JUSTIFICATIONS TO THIS
APPROACH.
I WOULD SUBMIT NINE COULD BE 
RECONCILED WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION. THEY SAY THAT IF 
WE CANNOT IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT 
FOR THIS OBSTRUCTION THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. NOT 
SO. AS I THINK I POINTED OUT, 
THE PRESIDENT'S IS STAYING 
WITHIN THE LAW, ASSERTING THE 
LAW, RELYING ON THE LEGAL ADVICE
ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO 
MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS
BASED ON LONG, RECOGNIZE 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. 
INDEED
IS MAKING THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT 
WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENAS 
THAT IT IS CONGRESS THAT IS NOT 
ABOVE THE LAW. IT IS THE HOUSE. 
THE HOUSE HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW 
AS WELL. IT HAS THE ISSUE VALID 
SUBPOENAS. IS A LOT IS NOT 
FOLLOWED THOSE SUBPOENAS ARE NO 
AND VOID. THE EXECUTIVE DO NOT 
HAVE TO COMPLY. HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
SAY THEY SHOULDN'T GO TO THE 
COURT BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE NO
ROLE IN IMPEACHMENT. I THINK I 
HAVE POINTED OUT THAT HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS CANNOT SAY THEY HAVE 
OR JUST BECAUSE OF THE PROVISION
OF THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
THAT IT IS THE PARAMOUNT POWER 
AND NO OTHER BRANCH PLAYS ANY 
OTHER ROLE AND PROVIDING A CHECK
ON HOW THAT POWER IS EXERCISED. 
IN ADDITION, HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE GONE TO COURT. IN THE 
McGAHN CASE THAT THEY ARE  
LITIGATING RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE 
ASSERTED THAT IS PART OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS 
EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS NOT 
VALIDLY PART OF THE INQUIRY, BUT
THAT IS THE GROUND IN WHICH THEY
ARE LITIGATING. THEY SAY THEY 
HAVE NO TIME FOR THE COURT.
I THINK WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS 
IS THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR THE 
RULE OF LAW IN THE WAY THEY ARE 
PURSUING THE INQUIRY. THE OTHER 
DAY, ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ACTUALLY SAT ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE THAT THEY HAD TO GET 
MOVING. THEY COULDN'T WAIT FOR 
THE NEGATION BECAUSE THEY HAD TO
IMPEACH BEFORE THE
ELECTION. I THINK IT IS RELEVANT
TO BEAR MY WHAT SORT OF DELAY 
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IN THE 
McGAHN CASE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
REFERRED  TO A NUMBER OF TIMES, 
THEY
PRESENTED AS BEING LONG AND 
DRAWN OUT. THEY ISSUED A 
SUBPOENA IN APRIL, BUT DID NOT 
FILE A LAWSUIT UNTIL AUGUST. BY 
NOVEMBER 25 THEY HAD A DECISION 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND IT 
WAS ARGUED ON APPEAL ON THE DC 
CIRCUIT JANUARY 3. THE 
LITIGATION WAS PRETTY FAST. IT 
CAN GO FASTER. IN THE NIXON CASE
DURING WATERGATE SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR ISSUED A SUBPOENA ON 
APRIL 18, 1974. ON MAY 20, IN 
LESS THAN ONE MONTH, THE 
DISTRICT COURT DENIED A MOTION 
TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA. ON MAY 31
THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR
THE CASE,
AND ON JULY 24 THE SUPREME COURT
ISSUED A DECISION. THAT IS 
LIGHTNING FAST. WHEN THERE IS
URGENCY TO THE CASE, WHEN THERE 
IS A REASON THERE CAN BE 
EXPEDITION IN THE COURT AND A 
DECISION CAN BE HAD IN A TIMELY 
MANNER. IN THE ONE CASE
THAT ACTUALLY AROSE FROM THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS 
THE HOUSE THAT DERAILED THE 
CASE. THIS WAS THE CASE 
INVOLVING THE DEPUTY
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. WHEN 
HE RECEIVED A SUBPOENA HE WENT 
TO COURT AND ASK THE COURT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT EXPLAINING 
WHAT HIS OBLIGATIONS WERE
. SHOULD HE TAKE THE DIRECTOR 
FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS 
IMMUNE TO NOT GO OR SHOULD HE 
OBEY THE SUBPOENAS?  NOW, IN 
THAT CASE HE FILED SUIT ON 
OCTOBER 25. THE COURT, WITHIN A 
FEW DAYS SAID
AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. 
THE HOUSE WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA 
ON NOVEMBER 5, JUST 11 DAYS 
LATER IN ORDER TO MOVE THE CASE.
I THINK LITIGATION IS A VIABLE 
AVENUE ALONG WITH THE 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS IT IS A 
FIRST STEP. IF THE HOUSE 
BELIEVES IT CAN GO TO COURT AND 
WANTS TO MITIGATE AND LITIGATE 
THE SUBPOENAS THAT IS ALSO 
AVAILABLE. IMPEACHMENT AS A 
FIRST STEP DOES NOT MAKE ANY 
SENSE. I SHOULD POINT OUT IN 
PARTS WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
SAY THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
GO TO THE COURTS, BUT THEY NOW 
COME TO THIS CHAMBER AND SAY 
THIS CHAMBER SHOULD ISSUE MORE 
SUBPOENAS. THIS CHAMBER SHOULD 
GET THE WITNESSES THAT WE DID 
NOT BOTHER TO FIGHT ABOUT, WHAT 
DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN THEN? 
THAT THERE WON'T BE SIMILAR 
ASSERTIONS OR
LITIGATION ABOUT THAT? THIS GOES
BACK TO THE POINT THAT I MAY,
IF YOU PUT YOUR IMPRIMATUR ON A 
PROCESS THAT WAS BROKEN AND SAY 
THAT WAS A GREAT WAY TO RUN 
THINGS. THIS WAS A GREAT PACKAGE
TO BRING HERE. WE WILL CLEAN UP 
THE MESS AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS AND
TRY TO DO ALL THE WORK THAT WAS 
NOT DONE THAT BECOMES THE NEW 
NORMAL. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE 
FOR THIS BODY. THE PROPER WAY TO
HAVE THINGS HANDLED IS TO HAVE 
THE HOUSE, IF IT WANTS TO BRING 
AN IMPEACHMENT READY FOR TRIAL, 
IT HAS TO DO THE INVESTIGATION. 
THE INFORMATION IT WANTS TO GET 
HAS TO BE
RESOLVED AND IT HAS TO BE READY 
TO PROCEED, NOT TRANSFER THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS CHAMBER 
TO DO THE WORK THAT HAVE NOT 
BEEN DONE. 
THEY ALSO ASSERT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ASSERTION OF THESE 
PRIVILEGES IS SOMEHOW DIFFERENT 
BECAUSE IT IS UNPRECEDENTED AND 
CATEGORICAL.
WELL, IT IS UNPRECEDENTED 
PERHAPS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE 
WAS A BROAD STATEMENT,
THAT IS BECAUSE IT WAS 
UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO 
BEGIN THESE PROCEEDINGS
WITHOUT VOTING TO AUTHORIZE A 
COMMITTEE TO ISSUE THE 
SUBPOENAS. THAT WAS THE FIRST
UNPRECEDENTED STEP. THAT IS WHAT
HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN 
HISTORY. OF COURSE THE RESPONSE 
WOULD BE IN SOME SENSE 
UNPRECEDENTED. AS THE PRESIDENT 
SIMPLY POINTED OUT, WITHOUT THAT
BOAT THERE WERE NO VALID 
SUBPOENAS. THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN 
CATEGORICAL REFUSALS IN THE 
PAST. PRESIDENT TRUMAN, THE 
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN 
ACTIVITIES IN 1948 ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS TO HIS ADMINISTRATION,
ISSUED A DIRECTIVE FOR THE 
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT ANY
THE PEANUT, DEMAND, OR REQUEST 
FOR A INFORMATION OR FILES OF 
THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN THOSE
THE SHALL BE RESPECTFULLY 
DECLINED ON THE BASIS OF THIS 
DIRECTIVE 
. HE REFERRED ALL SUCH INJURIES 
TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTS 
FOR SUCH RESPONSE AS THE 
PRESIDENT MAY DETERMINE TO BE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE TRUMAN 
ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED TO NONE
OF THEM. 
A LAST POINT ON THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS CLAIM THAT THE 
PRIVILEGES SIMPLY DISAPPEAR 
BECAUSE THIS IS THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER OF THE HOUSE. THEY HAVE 
REFERRED A NUMBER OF TIMES TO 
THE UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON. 
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION 
ADJUSTING THAT SOMEHOW 
DETERMINES THAT WHEN IN
A IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE FALLS AWAY. THAT IS 
NOT TRUE. IN FACT, THE UNITED 
STATES VERSUS NIXON WAS NOT EVEN
ADDRESSING A CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENA. IT WAS
A SUBPOENA FROM A SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR. EVEN IN THAT TEXT 
THE COURT DIDN'T SAY THE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SIMPLY 
DISAPPEARS. INSTEAD THE COURT 
SAID IT IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE 
THESE COMPETING INTERESTS. THEY 
ARE THE INTEREST OF THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH AND IN
ADMINISTERING A CRIMINAL 
PROSECUTION, A CASE WHERE 
EVIDENCE IS NEEDED. THESE 
COMPETING INTERESTS IN A MANNER 
THAT PRESERVES THE ESSENTIAL 
FUNCTIONS OF EACH BRANCH. IT 
EVEN HELD OUT THE POSSIBILITY 
THAT IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN 
RELATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY 
THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING 
APPROACHING AN ABSOLUTE 
EXECUTIVE VILLAGE. THAT IS 
EXACTLY THE FIELD THAT WE ARE 
IN, FORMULATIONS AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY MATTERS. ANOTHER THING 
YOU HAVE HEARD THAT PRESIDENT 
CLINTON VOLUNTARILY COOPERATED 
WITH THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED 
TO HIS IMPEACHMENT, PRODUCING 
TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOCUMENTS. THAT IS NOT REALLY
ACCURATE. THAT WAS ONLY AFTER 
LONG LITIGATION AGAIN AND AGAIN 
WITHOUT ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.
HE ASSERTED NUMEROUS RELIGIOUS. 
THE COMMITTEE THEN EXPLAINS THAT
DURING THE MONICA LEWINSKY 
INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT CLINTON 
ABUSED HIS POWER THROUGH 
ASSERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE BY AT LEAST FIVE AIDS.
UNLIKE THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE, 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FIRST
NEGOTIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE,
LITIGATED THE CLAIMS AND GOT 
THEM RESOLVED. ULTIMATELY, THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUE ALL OF THE 
PROBLEMS WITH THEIR OBSTRUCTION.
COULD BE BRUSHED ASIDE
AND THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION OF
IMMUNITIES AND DEFENSES HAVE TO 
BE TREATED AS SOMETHING 
NEFARIOUS BECAUSE IF MR. NADLER 
OR AS HE PUT IT,
ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE 
THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS WHAT HE 
SAID LAST TUESDAY NIGHT. MR. 
SHIFT SIMILARLY SAID THE 
INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS WAY. 
REALLY
? IS THAT THE PRINCIPAL IN THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? IF YOU
ASSERT LEGAL PRIVILEGES OR YOUR 
RIGHTS THAT MEANS YOU ARE 
GUILTY? THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE?  
THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THE
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT 
COMES DOWN TO A DISPUTE OVER A 
LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE 
ABILITY OF THE HOUSE TO COMPEL 
INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE. 
NO MATTER HOW HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
TRY TO DRESS UP THEIR CHARGES, A
DIFFERENCE OF LEGAL OPINION DOES
NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF 
IMPEACHMENT. UNTIL NOW THE HOUSE
HAS REPEATEDLY REJECTED ATTEMPTS
TO IMPEACH OVER LEGAL DISPUTES 
OVER ASSERTIONS. AS JUDGE STARR 
POINT OUT THE HOUSE  TO DISH 
AREA COMMITTEE CONCLUDED THE 
PRESIDENT HAD IMPROPERLY
EXERCISE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
YET, STILL CONCLUDED IT DIDN'T 
HAVE THE ABILITY TO SECOND-GUESS
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE 
PRESIDENT OR WHAT WAS IN HIS 
MIND ASSERTING EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
YOU CANNOT TREAT THAT AS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. IT REJECTED
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THEY 
STUCK CLINTON'S ASSERTIONS OF 
PRIVILEGE. AS THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS OWN WITNESS HAS 
EXPLAINED IN 1843 PRESIDENT 
TYLER SIMILARLY WAS INVESTIGATED
FOR POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. HIS 
ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT WHAT HE
REGARDED AS A PREROGATIVE OF HIS
OFFICE, BECAUSE HE HAD RESISTED 
DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION FROM 
CONGRESS. THE PROFESSOR SAID
ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT WHAT HE 
REGARDED AS PREROGATIVES OF HIS 
OFFICE WERE A FUNCTION OF HIS 
POLICY AND OFFICE JUDGMENT AND 
COULD NOT BE USED TO IMPEACH. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RESISTANCE WAS
NO LESS A FUNCTION OF HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY 
JUDGMENTS AND PROVIDES NO BASIS 
TO IMPEACH. I WOULD LIKE TO 
CLOSE WITH A FINAL THOUGHT: ONE 
OF THE GREATEST ISSUES AND 
PERHAPS THE GREATEST ISSUE FOR 
YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE 
IS HOW THE
PRECEDENT IN THIS CASE WILL  
AFFECT THE FUTURE. THE FRAMERS 
RECOGNIZE THERE WILL BE A 
LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT. THEY 
WARNED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT THAT 
REFLECTED WHAT HE CALLED THE 
PERSECUTION OF AN INTEMPERATE OR
DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES. THAT IS 
EXACTLY WHAT THIS CASE PRESENTS.
JUSTICE STORY RECOGNIZE THAT THE
SENATE PROVIDED THE PROPER 
TRIBUNAL FOR TRYING IMPEACHMENT.
IT WAS BELIEVED FOR HAVING
A GREATER SENSE OF OBLIGATION 
FOR THE FUTURE GENERATION, NOT 
TO BE SWAYED BY THE PASSIONS OF 
THE MOMENT. ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL
QUESTIONS HERE IS WILL THE 
CHAMBER ADOPT A STANDARD FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, A DELUDED STANDARD 
THAT FUNDAMENTALLY DISRUPTS THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE? NOTE 
THE FIRST ARTICLE,
THE REASON THE JUDGE STARR AND 
THE PROFESSOR HAVE COVERED AND 
THE SECOND ARTICLE  WOULD DO.
I WILL CLOSE WITH A QUOTATION 
FROM ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WHO CROSS THE AISLE AND
VOTED AGAINST CONVICTING 
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON DURING 
HIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
HE SAID ONCE WE SET THE EXAMPLE 
OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT WHEN 
THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL
HAVE SUBSIDED WILL BE REGARDED 
AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES. NO 
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL BE SAFE. 
WHAT THEN BECOMES THE CHECKS AND
BALANCES OF THE CONSTITUTION 
WILL
BE CAREFULLY DEVISED AND SO 
VITAL TO PERPETUITY ARE ALL 
GONE. THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> MISSED CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS, 
MR. PHILBIN TALKS ABOUT 
EXECUTIVE KNOWLEDGE. DEFENSE 
TURLEY SAID WE HAVE THREE 
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT 
TWO. IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
BY A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR 
GOING TO COURT IT IS AN ABUSE OF
POWER. IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF 
POWER. WITH REGARD TO EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IT WAS MR. NADLER WHO 
SAID OR CALLED IT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE. 
WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
REFUSED TO COMPLY
, ARGUING COMPELLING
DISCLOSURE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT
WITH THE SEPARATION OF POWER 
ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
EXECUTIVE POWER AND OTHER 
NONSENSE. MANAGER SCHIFF WROTE 
IT WAS BACK BY
PRECEDENCE IT HAS RECOGNIZED THE
NEED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
SENIOR ADVISERS TO RECEIVE 
CANDID ADVICE AND INFORMATION  
FROM TOP AIDES. EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE... 
THE NONSENSE, WE TALKED ABOUT 
THIS THE OTHER NIGHT IS TO TREAT
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES AS IF 
THEY ARE ASBESTOS IN THE CEILING
TILES. YOU CANNOT TOUCH THEM.
THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE 
CONSTITUTION IS DESIGNED. WE ARE
GOING TO NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION 
TO A SEPARATE TOPIC, ONE THAT 
WAS
WHERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT 
ON THE FLOOR AND WILL BE NOW. 
PRESENTING FOR THE PRESIDENT IS 
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PAM BONDI.
SHE IS ALSO A PROSECUTOR, A 
CAREER PROSECUTOR. SHE HANDLED 
COUNTLESS CASES. SHE IS GOING TO
DISCUSS
AN ISSUE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
PUT PRETTY MUCH AT THE CENTER OF
THEIR CASE: THE ISSUE OF 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, 
PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO A 
COMPANY KNOWN AS THE RECENT --
BURISSMA. 
>> SENATORS,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, WHEN THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS GAVE YOU THEIR 
PRESENTATION,
WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR BRIEF 
THEY REPEATEDLY REFERENCED 
HUNTER BIDEN AND
BURISMA. THEY SPOKE TO YOU FOR 
OVER  21 HOURS AND THEY 
REFERENCE JOE BIDEN, OR BURISMA 
OVER 400 TIMES. WHEN THEY GAVE 
THESE PRESENTATIONS THEY SAID 
THERE WAS NOTHING TO SEE. IT WAS
A SHAM. THIS IS FICTION. IN 
THEIR TRIAL MEMORANDUM HOUSE 
MANAGERS DESCRIBED THIS AS 
BASELESS. NOW, WHY DID THEY SAY 
THAT? WHY DID THEY INVOKE BIDEN 
OR MARIE FROM A -- BURISMA OVER 
400 TIMES? THE REASON  THEY 
NEEDED TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE 
THEY ARE HERE SAYING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MUST BE IMPEACHED AND 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR RAISING 
A CONCERN.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO TALK 
ABOUT THIS TODAY. THEY SAY SHAM,
THEY SAY BASELESS, THEY SAY THIS
BECAUSE
IT IS OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY: 
HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, NAVY THERE 
IS SOMETHING HERE WORTH RAISING.
THEIR CASE CRUMBLES. THEY HAVE 
TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO 
RAISE THIS CONCERN.
THAT IS NOT WHAT PUBLIC RECORDS 
SHOW. HERE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE
SOURCES THAT FLAGGED QUESTIONS 
SURROUNDING THIS VERY SAME ISSUE
. THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS 
FRAUD OFFICE, THE DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 
GEORGE KENT, HUNTER BIDEN, 
FORMER BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, AND
AN ABC WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, 
GOOD MORNING AMERICA, ABC, THE 
WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK 
TIMES, UKRAINIAN LAW 
ENFORCEMENT, AND THE OBAMA STATE
DEPARTMENT ITSELF. THEY ALL 
RAISED THIS ISSUE. WE WOULD 
PREFER NOT TO BE TALKING ABOUT 
THIS. WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE 
DISCUSSING THIS. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE PLACED THIS AT 
ISSUE
SO WE MUST ADDRESS IT. LET'S 
LOOK AT THE FACTS. IN EARLY 2014
JOE BIDEN, OUR VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES LED THE UNITED
STATES FOREIGN POLICY IN THE 
UKRAINE WITH THE GOAL OF ROOTING
OUT CORRUPTION. ACCORDING TO AN 
ANNUAL STUDY DURING THIS TIME
UKRAINE WAS ONE OF THE MOST 
CORRUPT COUNTRIES IN THE ENTIRE 
WORLD. IN UKRAINE THERE IS A 
NATURAL GAS COMPANY CALLED 
BURISMA.  BURISMA HAS BEEN  
OWNED BY AN OLIGARCHY. HERE IS 
WHAT HAPPENED VERY SHORTLY AFTER
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS NAMED 
US APPOINTMENT FOR UKRAINE. HIS 
SON ENDS UP ON THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA , WORKING FOR AND PAID 
BY THE OWNER OF BURISMA.  AND 
FEBRUARY 2000
HE FLEES THE COUNTRY.
HE IS WELL KNOWN. GEORGE KENT, 
THE VERY FIRST WITNESS THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS CALLED DURING PUBLIC 
HEARINGS TESTIFIED THAT
ZLOCHEVSKY 
STOOD OUT FOR HIS SELF-DEALING. 
HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL YOU 
THAT. THE AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER
EXPLAINED THAT BURISMA HAD A "
VERY BAD REPUTATION AS A COMPANY
FOR CORRUPTION AND MONEY 
LAUNDERING. "
HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL YOU 
THAT. BURISMA WAS  SO CORRUPT 
THAT GEORGE KENT SAID HE 
INTERVENED TO PREVENT USAID FROM
COSPONSORING AN EVENT WITH 
BURISMA . IT WAS A 
CHILD CONTEST AND THE PRIZE WAS 
A CAMERA. THEY WERE SO BAD, 
BURISMA, THAT OUR COUNTRY  WOULD
NOT EVEN COSPONSOR A CHILDREN'S 
EVENT WITH BURISMA .
IN MARCH 2014 THE UNITED KINGDOM
SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE OPENS A 
MONEY-LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE OLAGARD  ZLOCHEVSKY  
AND HIS COMPANY, BURISMA.  THE 
VERY NEXT MONTH APRIL 2014 
ACCORDING TO A PUBLIC REPORT 
HUNTER BIDEN QUIETLY JOINTS
THE S JOINS THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA. REMEMBER,  EARLY 2014 
WAS WHEN VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN BEGAN LEADING UKRAINE 
POLICY. HERE IS HOW HUNTER BIDEN
CAME TO JOIN THE BOARD IN APRIL 
2014. HE WAS BROUGHT ON BY DEVON
ARCHER, HIS BUSINESS PARTNER
. HE WAS COLLEGE ROOMMATES WITH 
CHRIS HINES, STEPSON OF THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE. ALL THREE 
MEN HAD ALL STARTED AN 
INVESTMENT FIRM TOGETHER. PUBLIC
RECORDS SHOW THAT APRIL 16, 2014
DEVON ARCHER MEETS WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. JUST TWO DAYS LATER ON 
APRIL 18 ON APRIL 18, 2014 IS 
WHEN HUNTER BIDEN QUIETLY JOINTS
BURISMA  ACCORDING TO PUBLIC 
REPORTING. REMEMBER, THIS IS 
JUST ONE MONTH
AFTER THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS
FRAUD OFFICE OPENED AN 
MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE INTO 
BURISMA .
NOT ONLY 10 DAYS AFTER HUNTER 
BIDEN JOINS THE BOARD BRITISH 
AUTHORITIES SEIZED $23 MILLION 
IN BRITISH BANK ACCOUNTS 
CONNECTED TO THE
OLAGARD ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OWNER OF
BURISMA.  DID HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE
THE BOARD THEN? NO. THE BRITISH 
AUTHORITIES ALSO ANNOUNCED IT 
STARTED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
INTO POTENTIAL MONEY-LAUNDERING.
DID HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE 
BOARD? NO. WHAT HAPPENED WAS 
THEN AND ONLY THEN DID THE 
COMPANY CHOOSE TO ANNOUNCE THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN HAD JOINED THE 
BOARD AFTER THE ASSETS OF 
BURISMA  AND ITS OLAGARD OWNER 
ZLOCHEVSKY  WERE FROZEN AND A 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HAD 
BEGUN. HUNTER BIDEN'S DECISION 
TO JOIN BURISMA  RAISED FLAX 
ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. ONE ARTICLE 
FROM MAY 2014 STATED: THE 
APPOINTMENT OF THE SON OF JOE 
BIDEN TO THE BOARD OF UKRAINIAN 
GAS FIRM BURISMA HAS  RAISED 
EYEBROWS THE WORLD OVER. EVEN AN
OUTLET WITH BIAS FOR DEMOCRATS 
POINTED OUT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
ACTIVITIES CREATED A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST FOR JOE BIDEN. THE 
ARTICLE STATED THE MOVE RAISES 
QUESTIONS ABOUT A POTENTIAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR JOE 
BIDEN. EVEN CHRIS HINES, HUNTER 
BIDEN ZONE BUSINESS PARTNER AT 
GRAVE CONCERNS. HE THOUGHT THAT 
WORKING WITH BURISMA  WAS 
UNACCEPTABLE. HE WAS WORRIED 
ABOUT THE CORRUPTION, THE 
GEOPOLITICAL RISK, AND HOW BAD 
IT WOULD LOOK. HE WISELY 
DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM HUNTER 
BIDEN AND DEVON ARCHER'S 
APPOINTMENT TO BURISMA. 
HE DIDN'T SIMPLY CALL HIS 
STEPFATHER, THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE AND SAY I HAVE A PROBLEM 
WITH THIS. HE DIDN'T TELL HIS 
FRIENDS, HEY GUYS, I'M NOT 
GETTING ON THE BOARD. I WANT 
NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. HE WENT
SO FAR AS TO SEND AN EMAIL TO 
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. HE 
WROTE: APPARENTLY DEVON AND 
HUNTER HAVE JOINED THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA . A PRESS RELEASE WENT 
OUT TODAY. I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHY
THEY DECIDED TO, BUT THERE IS NO
INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THEIR 
COMPANY. WHAT DID HUNTER BIDEN 
DO? HE STAYED ON THE BOARD. WHAT
DECREASE TIMES DO? HE 
SUBSEQUENTLY STOPPED DOING 
BUSINESS WITH HIS COLLEGE 
ROOMMATE, DEVON ARCHER AND HIS 
FRIEND HUNTER BIDEN. HIS 
SPOKESPERSON SAID THE LACK OF 
JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER WAS A 
MAJOR CATALYST FOR HIM ENDING 
HIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH 
MR. ARCHER AND MR. BIDEN. THE 
MEDIA ALSO NOTICED THE SAME DAY 
AN
ABC NEWS REPORTER ASKED THE 
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY 
ABOUT IT. [ CLIP PLAYING ] 'S 
>> HUNTER BIDEN HAS NOW TAKEN A 
POSITION WITH THE LARGEST OIL 
AND GAS HOLDING COMPANY IN 
UKRAINE. IS THERE ANY CONCERN 
ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF A 
CONFLICT
TO THE VICE PRESIDENT? 
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. I SAW THOSE 
REPORTS THAT HUNTER BIDEN AND 
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE 
HONESTLY PRIVATE CITIZENS. WHERE
THEY WORK DOES NOT REFLECT AN 
ENDORSEMENT BY THE 
ADMINISTRATION. NOR BY THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WERE THE PRESIDENT. I 
WOULD REFER YOU TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
>> THE NEXT DAY THE WASHINGTON 
POST RAN A STORY ABOUT IT. IT 
SAID: THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT SIGNED TO A 
UKRAINIAN WALL BOARD LOOKS 
NEPOTISTIC AT BEST, NEFARIOUS 
AND WORSE. AGAIN, THE 
APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S FUN TO A UKRAINIAN 
OIL BOARD LOOKS NEPOTISTIC AT 
BEST, NEFARIOUS AND WORSE. THE 
MEDIA DIDN'T STOP QUESTIONING
HERE. IT KEPT GOING. HERE IS 
ABC. [ CLIP PLAYING ] 'S 
>> YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THE CANCER 
OF CORRUPTION. 
>> BUT THEN SOMETHING STRANGE 
HAPPENS. JUST THREE WEEKS LATER
A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY,
BURISMA, ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION  
APPOINT HUNTER BIDEN SEEN HERE 
IN PROMOTIONAL DEALS TO THEIR 
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PAYING HIS 
FIRM MORE THAN $1 MILLION PER 
YEAR.
>> HERE IS MORE FROM ABC. 
>> UKRAINE WASN'T THE ONLY 
COUNTRY WHERE HUNTER BIDEN'S 
BUSINESSES AND HIS FATHER'S 
DIPLOMACY INTERSECTED
. IT ALSO HAPPENED IN CHINA. 
THIS VIDEO SHOWS CHINESE 
MASQUERADING VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN AS HE ARRIVED IN BEIJING
DECEMBER 2013. RIGHT BY HIS 
SIDE, HIS SON HUNTER. LESS THAN 
TWO WEEKS LATER HIS FIRM HAD NEW
BUSINESS, CREATING AN INVESTMENT
FUND IN CHINA INVOLVING THE BANK
OF CHINA WITH REPORTS THEY HOPE 
TO RAISE $1.5 BILLION. 
>> IN FACT, EVERY WITNESS WHO 
WAS ASKED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA  AGREED
. THERE WAS A POTENTIAL 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST. MULTIPLE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS WITNESSES, INCLUDING 
THOSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL, AND OTHERS UNANIMOUSLY 
TESTIFIED THERE WAS A
POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THESE ARE 
THEIR WITNESSES.
HOW MUCH MONEY DID HUNTER BIDEN 
GET FOR BEING ON THE BOARD? 
WELL, IF YOU START LOOKING AT 
BANK RECORDS ACCORDING TO 
REPORTS BETWEEN APRIL 2014 AND 
OCTOBER 2015 BURISMA PAY  MORE 
THAN $3.1 MILLION TO DEVON 
ARCHER AND HUNTER BIDEN.
THAT IS OVER THE COURSE OF A 
YEAR AND A HALF. HOW DO WE KNOW 
THIS? SOME OF THE DEVON ARCHER'S
BANK RECORDS WERE DISCLOSED 
DURING AN UNRELATED FEDERAL 
CRIMINAL CASE HAVING NOTHING TO 
DO WITH HUNTER BIDEN. THESE 
RECORDS SHOW 17 MONTHS
BURISMA WIRED TWO PAYMENTS OF  
$83,333, NOT JUST FOR ONE MONTH,
FOR 2 MONTHS, BUT FOR 17 MONTHS.
ACCORDING TO ORDERS SOURCES 
REPORT
THAT OF THE TWO PAYMENTS OF 
$83,333 EACH ONE WAS FOR HUNTER 
BIDEN, ONE WAS FOR DEVON ARCHER.
NOW, HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID 
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN BOARD 
MEMBERS FOR MAJOR US FORTUNE 100
COMPANIES SUCH AS GOLDMAN SACHS,
COMCAST, CITIGROUP. A TYPICAL 
BOARD MEMBER OF THE FORTUNE 100 
COMPANIES, WE KNOW THEY ARE 
TYPES OF THEIR INDUSTRY, HIGHLY 
QUALIFIED, AND AS SUCH ARE WELL 
COMPENSATED. EVEN SO HUNTER 
BIDEN WAS PAID SIGNIFICANTLY 
MORE. THIS IS HOW WELL HE WAS 
COMPENSATED. HUNTER BIDEN IS 
PAID OVER $83,000 A MONTH. THE 
AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY OF FOUR 
DURING THAT TIME EACH YEAR MAY 
LAST $54,000. THAT IS ACCORDING 
TO THE US CENSUS BUREAU DURING 
THAT TIME. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN
REPORTED ABOUT HIS WORK ON THE 
BOARD: THE WASHINGTON POST SAID 
WHAT SPECIFIC DUTIES HUNTER 
BIDEN CARRIED OUT FOR BURISMA 
ARE NOT FULLY KNOWN . THE NEW 
YORKER REPORTED: ONCE OR TWICE A
YEAR HE ATTENDED BURISMA  BOARD 
MEETINGS AND ENERGY FORMS THAT 
TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE. WHEN 
SPEAKING WITH ABC NEWS ABOUT HIS
QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ON THE 
BOARD HUNTER BIDEN
DID NOT POINT TO ANY OF THE 
USUAL QUALIFICATIONS OF A BOARD 
MEMBER. HUNTER BIDEN HAD NO 
EXPERIENCE IN NATURAL GAS, NO 
EXPERIENCE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR,
NO EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINIAN 
REGULATORY AFFAIRS. HE DOES NOT 
SPEAK UKRAINIAN. NATURALLY, THE 
MEDIA HAS ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT 
HIS BOARD MEMBERSHIP. WHY WAS 
HUNTER BIDEN ON THIS BOARD? 
>> IF YOUR LAST NAME WAS NOT 
BIDEN
THE THINK YOU WOULD'VE ASKED TO 
BE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA? 
>> PROBABLY NOT. I DON'T KNOW. 
>> LET'S GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT 
HIS TIME ON THE BOARD. REMEMBER,
HE JOINED THE BOARD APRIL 2014, 
WHILE THE UNITED KINGDOM HAD AN 
OPEN MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE 
AGAINST BURISMA  AND ITS OWNER,
THE OLAGARD ZLOCHEVSKY. ON 
AUGUST 20, 2014, FOUR MONTHS 
LATER, THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL  INITIATES A 
MONEY-LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE SAME OLAGARD ,
ZLOCHEVSKY. THIS IS ONE OF 15 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO  BURISMA  
AND ZLOCHEVSKY. ACCORDING TO A 
RECENT PUBLIC STATEMENT  MADE BY
THE CURRENT PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL...
ON JANUARY 16, 2015 PROSECUTORS 
FOR ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OWNER OF 
BURISMA  ON WHOSE HUNTER BIDEN 
SAT ON HIS BOARD ON THE 
COUNTRIES WANTED LIST FOR FRAUD,
HUNTER BIDEN IS ON THE BOARD. A 
BRITISH COURT ORDERS ZLOCHEVSKY 
AND HIS $23 MILLION IN ASSETS 
THE UNFROZEN. WHY WAS THE MONEY 
UNFROZEN?
THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
CAN'T TESTIFY TO IT. [ CLIP 
PLAYING ] BY SOMEONE IN THE 
GENERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE SHUT
THE CASE, ISSUED A LETTER TO HIS
LAWYER AND THE MONEY WENT POOF.
>> ESSENTIALLY PAYING A BRIBE TO
MAKE THE MONEY GO AWAY? 
>> THAT IS OUR STRONG 
ASSUMPTION. 
>> HE ALSO TESTIFIED THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S 
OFFICE ACTIONS LED TO THE 
UNFREEZING OF THE ASSETS. AFTER 
GEORGE KENT IS CONFIRMED THE 
PROSECUTOR WITHOUT. VICTOR SHOW 
CAN BECOMES THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL. THIS IS THE PROSECUTOR 
YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT LATER, THE 
ONE THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD 
PUBLICLY SAID HE WANTED OUT OF 
OFFICE. IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONS
ABOUT PREVIOUS PROSECUTOR'S 
ACTIONS, GEORGE KENT 
SPECIFICALLY VOICE OTHER 
CONCERNS. THIS TIME TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE ABOUT
HUNTER BIDEN. IN FEBRUARY 2015 
HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN,
HE RAISED THEM TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. 
>> IN EVERYTHING CALL IN FOR A 
2015 I RAISE MY CONCERNS THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN STATUS AS A BOARD 
MEMBER WOULD CREATE THE 
PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST. 
>> HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL 
YOU THAT. THIS IS ALL WELL
HUNTER BIDEN SET ON THE BOARD OF
BURISMA. DID HUNTER BIDEN START 
WORKING FOR BURISMA? NO. DID THE
VICE PRESIDENT STOP BLEEDING  
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S 
FOREIGN POLICY EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE? 
>> NO. IN THE MEANTIME
THE VICE PRESIDENT IS STILL AT 
THE FOREFRONT OF THE US-UKRAINE 
POLICY. HE PLEDGES A 
BILLION-DOLLAR LOAN GUARANTEE TO
UKRAINE, CONTINGENT ON ITS 
PROGRESS IN ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION. AROUND THE SAME TIME
AS THE ONE BILLION-DOLLAR 
ANNOUNCEMENT OTHER PEOPLE RAISED
THE ISSUE OF A CONFLICT. 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL
ENVOY FOR ENERGY POLICY TOLD THE
NEW YORKER IT RAISED HUNTER 
BIDEN'S PARTICIPATION ON THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA DIRECTLY  WITH 
THE VICE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. THIS
IS A SPECIAL ENVOY FOR PRESIDENT
OBAMA
. THE MEDIA HAD QUESTIONS ALSO. 
DECEMBER 8, 2015 THE NEW YORK 
TIMES PUBLISHES AN ARTICLE THAT 
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA  AND ITS 
OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY. THE TIMES 
REPORTS  THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE VICE PRESIDENT 
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE MAY HAVE 
BEEN UNDERMINED AT THE 
ASSOCIATION OF HIS SON, HUNTER 
BIDEN. 
IT WAS NOT JUST ONE REPORTER 
LAST QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LINE 
BETWEEN BURISMA AND THE  OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION. AS WE LEARN 
RECENTLY THE REPORTING ON FOX 
NEWS ON JANUARY 19 THERE WAS A 
MEETING BETWEEN OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS.
A JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK 
TIMES ASKS THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
ABOUT THE MEETING. HE WANTED 
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
MEETING. WHERE US SUPPORT FOR 
PROSECUTIONS OF BURISMA HOLDINGS
IN  THE UNITED KINGDOM AND 
UKRAINE WERE DISCUSSED. THE 
STORY NEVER RAN. AROUND THE TIME
OF THE REPORTED STORY, JANUARY 
2016
A MEETING BETWEEN THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION AND UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS TOOK PLACE ACCORDING 
TO A UKRAINIAN PRESS REPORT AS 
TRANSLATED SAYS: THE US 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE MADE IT 
CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIAN 
AUTHORITIES THAT IT WAS LINKING 
THE $1 BILLION IN LOAN 
GUARANTEES TO THE DISMISSAL OF 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL VIKTOR 
SHOKIN.  NOW, WE ALL KNOW FROM 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND 
WORDS OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF HE ADVOCATED FOR THE 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S MISSILE.
THERE WAS AN ONGOING 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE OLAGARD 
ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OWNER OF  
BURISMA AT THE TIME.  WE KNOW 
THIS BECAUSE ON FEBRUARY 2, 2060
THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL
OBTAIN A RENEWAL OF A COURT 
ORDER TO SEIZE THE UKRAINIAN
OLAGARD ASSETS. 
ARTICLE PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 24, 
2016 SAYS THE OLAGARD ZLOCHEVSKY
IS  SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A 
CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ILLICIT 
ENRICHMENT.
OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS THE VICE
PRESIDENT HAD MULTIPLE CALLS 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. 
DAYS AFTER THE LAST CALL ON 
FEBRUARY 4
ABC CONSULTANT REACHED OUT TO 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO REQUEST 
A MEETING TO DISCUSS BURISMA.  
WE KNOW WHAT SHE SAID BECAUSE 
THE EMAIL WAS RELEASED UNDER THE
NAME OF INFORMATION ACT THE 
CONSULTANT EXPLICITLY INVOKED 
HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME AS A BOARD 
MEMBER. IN AN EMAIL SUMMARIZING 
THE CALL THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL SAYS
TO THE CONSULTANT: NOTED THE TWO
HIGH-PROFILE CITIZENS ARE 
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMPANY.
IT INCLUDES HUNTER BIDEN AS A 
BOARD MEMBER. SHE ADDED THAT THE
CONSULTANT WOULD LIKE TO TALK 
WITH THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE
ABOUT GETTING A BETTER 
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE US CAME
TO THE DETERMINATION THAT THE 
COUNTRY IS CORRUPT.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS EMAIL 
DOCUMENTS THAT THE US GOVERNMENT
HAD DETERMINED BURISMA TO BE  
CORRUPT. THE CONSULTANT WAS 
SEEKING A MEETING WITH AN 
EXTREMELY SENIOR STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS 
THE US GOVERNMENT POSITION. HER 
PITCH FOR THE
MEETING SPECIFICALLY USED HUNTER
BIDEN SAME. ACCORDING TO THE 
EMAIL THE MEETING WAS SET FOR A 
FEW DAYS LATER. LATER THAT MONTH
ON
MARCH 29, 2016 THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT FINALLY VOTED TO FIRE
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL. THIS IS 
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL 
INVESTIGATING THE OLAGARD, 
OWNER OF BURISMA ON WHOSE BOARD 
HUNTER BIDEN SET. TWO DAYS AFTER
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL  IS VOTED
OUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES
THE US WILL PROVIDE $335 MILLION
IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE. HE SOON ANNOUNCES THE 
US WILL PROVIDE $1 BILLION
IN LOAN GUARANTEES TO THE 
UKRAINE. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT 
ONE OF THE CENTRAL WITNESSES, 
AMBASSADOR YOU BONDAGE. IN MAY. 
IN MAY 2015 SHE WAS NOMINATED TO
BE AMBASSADOR. HERE IS
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SHE WAS 
PREPARING FOR HER SENATE 
CONFIRMATION. 
>> THE CONGRESSWOMAN ASKED YOU 
HOW THE OBAMA-BIDEN STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAD PREPARED YOU TO 
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BURISMA  
AND
HUNTER BIDEN SPECIFICALLY. DO 
YOU RECALL? 
>> YES. 
>> OUT OF THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES
IN THE UKRAINE THE ONLY ONE YOU 
RECALL THE OBAMA-
BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT RIVERA 
QUESTIONS WERE THE ONE WHERE THE
VICE PRESIDENT SO WAS ON THE 
BOARD, IS THAT THERE? 
>> YES. 
>>
DID SHE SEEM PREPARED TO COME 
FOR ALL OF YOU AND TALK ABOUT 
WORLD ISSUES? SHE'S GOING TO BE 
IN CHARGE OF THE UKRAINE. WHAT 
DID THEY FEEL, THE ONLY COMPANY 
THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BRIEF 
HER ON NK SHE GOT A QUESTION? 
BURISMA.  AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH WAS CONFIRMED JULY 
2016 AS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
WAS COMING TO A CLOSE
. IN SEPTEMBER 2016 A UKRAINIAN 
COURT CANCELS THE OLAGARD  
ARREST WARRANT. IN THE MIDDLE OF
JANUARY 2070 BURISMA  ANNOUNCES 
THAT ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 
AGAINST THE AND ZLOCHEVSKY  
HAPPEN CLOSED. BOTH OF THESE 
THINGS HAPPENED WHILE HUNTER 
BIDEN SET ON THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA. AROUND THIS TIME BUT 
PRESIDENT BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE. 
YEARS LATER FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN PUBLICLY DETAILS
WHAT WE
KNOW HAPPENS, A THREAT TO 
WITHHOLD MORE THAN $1 BILLION IN
LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS SHOKIN  
WAS FIRED.[ CLIP PLAYING ]'S 
>> I SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO 
GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS. 
THEY SAID YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY.
YOU ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT. I 
SAID CALLED HIM. I SAID I'M 
TELLING YOU YOU ARE NOT GETTING 
$1 BILLION. I SAID YOU ARE NOT 
GETTING 1 BILLION. I AM GOING TO
BE LEAVING HERE IN SIX HOURS AND
THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, YOU
ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY. HE 
GOT FIRED AND THEY PUT IN PLACE 
SOMEONE WHO WAS SOLID AT THE 
TIME.
>> WHAT HE DIDN'T SAY ON THAT 
VIDEO ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK 
TIMES, THIS WAS THE PROSECUTOR 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA . WHAT HE 
ALSO DIDN'T SAY ON THE VIDEO WAS
THAT HIS SON WAS BEING PAID 
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS BY THE 
OLAGARD, OWNER OF BURISMA TO SIT
ON THE BOARD . ONLY THEN DOES 
HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE BOARD. HE
STAYS ON THE BOARD UNTIL APRIL 
2019. NOW, ON NOVEMBER 
2019 HUNTER BIDEN SIGNED AN 
AFFIDAVIT SAYING"HE HAS BEEN 
UNEMPLOYED AND HAS NO OTHER 
MONTHLY INCOME SINCE MAY 2019.
THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER 2019. WE 
KNOW FROM AFTER APRIL 2019 TO 
MAY 2019
THROUGH NOVEMBER 2019 HE WAS 
UNEMPLOYED BY HIS OWN STATEMENT.
APRIL 2019 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2019
, DESPITE HIS RESIGNATION FROM 
THE BOARD THE MEDIA CONTINUE TO 
RAISE THE ISSUE RELATED TO 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
ON JULY 2000 SECOND
-- JULY 22, 2019 THE WASHINGTON 
POST WROTE THAT FIRE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL SHOKIN  RELIEVED HIS -- 
BELIEVE HIS HOUSE WAS BECAUSE OF
THE INTEREST IN THE COMPANY, 
REFERRING TO BURISMA. THE POST  
FURTHER WROTE THAT HAD HE 
REMAINED IN HIS POST HE WOULD 
HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN. ON
JULY 25, 2019, THREE DAYS LATER,
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKS WITH 
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR ZELINSKI. HE 
SAYS THERE IS A LOT OF TALK 
ABOUT BIDEN SON, THAT BIDEN STOP
THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF 
PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT 
THAT. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH 
THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE 
GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND 
BRAGGING THAT HE STOP THE 
PROSECUTION. IF YOU CAN LOOK 
INTO IT, IT LOOKS HORRIBLE TO 
ME. THE HOUSE MANAGERS TALKED 
ABOUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA  
400 TIMES, BUT NEVER GAVE YOU 
THE FULL PICTURE. HERE ARE THOSE
WHO DID. THE UNITED KINGDOM 
SERIOUS FRAUD UNIT, THE DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 
GEORGE KENT, CHRIS HEINZ, THE 
ABC
WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, ABC, GOOD 
MORNING AMERICA, THE WASHINGTON 
POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 
UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND 
THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT 
ITSELF. THEY ALL THOUGHT THERE 
WAS CAUSE TO RAISE THE ISSUE 
ABOUT THE BIDENS
AND BURISMA. NOW THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS MIGHT SAY  WITHOUT 
EVIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING WE JUST
HAVE SAID HAS BEEN ABOUT. THAT 
THE EVIDENCE POINTS 
UNEQUIVOCALLY IN THE OTHER 
DIRECTION.
THAT IS A DISTRACTION. YOU HAVE 
HEARD FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE 
WAS ANY CONCERN TO RAISE HERE. 
ALL OF THIS WAS BASELESS. ALL WE
ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE WAS A 
BASIS TO TALK ABOUT THIS, TO 
RAISE THIS ISSUE. THAT IS 
ENOUGH. I YIELD MY TIME. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL,
DEMOCRATIC LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER,
HOUSE MANAGERS, AND WAS OF THE 
SENATE, THIS WILL BE OUR LAST 
PRESENTATION BEFORE DINNER. THE 
NEXT
LAWYER WERE PRESENTING THE 
PRESIDENT IS A PARTNER IN THE 
COUNCIL WITH, A LAW FIRM THAT 
HAS BEEN REPRESENTING THE 
PRESIDENT FOR OVER TWO DECADES. 
HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND 
TRIAL LAWYER WHO RAN A NATURAL 
GAS COMPANY IN THE UNITED 
STATES. HE IS GOING TO DISCUSS 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS IGNORED OR MISSTATED 
AND HOW OTHER PRESIDENTS MIGHT 
HAVE MEASURED UP UNDER THIS NEW 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARD. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, I HAVE THE HONOR
AND PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. I 
HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY LISTENING TO
AND REVIEWING THE HOUSE MANAGERS
CASE.
THAT CASE PRETTY MUCH BOILS DOWN
TO ONE STRAIGHT FOR CONTENTION: 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER TO PROMOTE HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST IN
-- AND NOT OUR COUNTRIES. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE PRESIDENT
DID NOT TAKE THE STEPS THEY 
ALLEGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR 
COUNTRY, BUT ONLY FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT. IF THAT IS 
WRONG, IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
WANTED WOULD'VE BENEFITED OUR 
COUNTRY, AND THE MANAGERS HAVE 
NOT MET THEIR BURDEN. THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE 
REJECTED. AS WE WILL SEE, THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT COME CLOSE
TO MEETING THEIR BURDEN. LAST 
WEEK,
MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THE 
INVESTIGATIONS  PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REPORTEDLY ASKED PRESIDENT 
LATIMER ZELINSKI ABOUT ON THE 
JULY 20 CALL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
IN THE COUNTRY'S INTEREST HE 
CUTS HE SAID THEY WERE
DISCREDITED ENTIRELY. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS SAY THAT THE 
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN DEBUNKED.
THEY WERE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS. 
NOW WE HAVE THE QUESTION: WHERE 
THEY REALLY? THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
IN THEIR OVER 21 HOURS OF 
REPETITIVE PRESENTATIONS NEVER 
FOUND THE TIME TO SUPPORT THOSE 
STATEMENTS. WHAT IS IN FACT TRUE
THAT ANY INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN 
DEBUNKED
? THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT 
IDENTIFY FOR YOU WHO SUPPOSEDLY 
CONDUCTED ANY INVESTIGATIONS. 
WHO SUPPOSEDLY DID THE 
DEBUNKING? WHO DISCREDITED IT
? WHERE WE WERE ANY SUCH 
INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED? WHEN 
WERE THE RESULTS PUBLISHED? MUCH
MORE'S LEFT UNANSWERED. THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI WENT 
THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WE KNOW 
ABOUT BURISMA . IN ITS MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS
TO PAYMENTS TO VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN SON AND HIS BUSINESS 
PARTNERS THERE IS NO QUESTION 
THAT ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD 
LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED
?  I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EASILY 
AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS,
BUT WHICH THEY NEVER SOUGHT OR 
CONSIDERED. BASED ON WHAT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD YOU
IN THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE YOU 
CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELF WHETHER 
THE CONDUCT WAS SUSPECTS. AS YOU
KNOW ONE OF THE ISSUES CONCERNED
HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH 
THE UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS 
COMPANY, WHICH PAID HIM MILLIONS
WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE 
PRESIDENT AND WAS IN CHARGE OF 
THE UKRAINIAN PORTFOLIO DURING 
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION. I WILL
GET TO THOSE SUPPOSEDLY
DISCREDITED ALLEGATIONS 
IDENTIFIED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS
IN A FEW MINUTES. THE OTHER 
ISSUE WAS WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF 
CALLED  THE BASELESS CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
MANAGER SCHIFF  SAID PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED TO A RAISE FROM 
HISTORY IS PREVIOUS POLITICAL 
MISCONDUCT. THERE WAS NO 
PREVIOUS POLITICAL MISCONDUCT. 
IF ANY THEORY HAS BEEN 
DISCREDITED IT IS THE THEORY 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA IN 2016. IT
WAS THAT ERIE THAT WAS 
DISCREDITED AND DISCREDITED 
ENTIRELY BY ROBERT MUELLER'S 
MASSIVE INVESTIGATION. THE SAME 
INVESTIGATION THE DEMOCRATS 
DEMANDED SINCE THE PRESIDENT 
TOOK OFFICE. THE SAME 
INVESTIGATION THEY KNEW THEY 
WERE ABSOLUTELY SURE WOULD 
EXPOSE SUCH COLLUSION. THE SAME 
INVESTIGATION WHICH AFTER 22 
MONTHS OF EXHAUSTIVE WORK AT A 
COST OF $32 MILLION FOUND NO 
CONSPIRACY. NO EVIDENCE OF 
RUSSIAN COLLUSION. AS WE WILL 
SEE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE IS WRONG NOW 
ABOUT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS THEY WERE IN 2016
ABOUT THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION. AS 
TO THE OTHER INCIDENT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTIONED, THE ONE 
CONCERNING THE UKRAINIAN GAS 
COMPANY BURISMA, WHILE I 
ACTUALLY THINK  THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT IS UNDISPUTED. 
UKRAINE HAD A PARTICULARLY 
CORRUPTION PROBLEM. IT WAS SO 
CORRUPT THAT DEALING WITH 
CORRUPTION AND SOLVING THE 
CORRUPTION WAS A PRIORITY FOR 
OUR US FOREIGN POLICY. HERE IS 
HOW ONE KNOWLEDGEABLE EXERT A 
PUT IT IN 2015: IT IS NOT ENOUGH
TO SET UP A NEW ANTICORRUPTION 
BUREAU AND ESTABLISH A SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR. THE OFFICE OF THE 
GENERAL PROSECUTOR DESPERATELY 
NEEDS REFORM
. THE JUDICIARY SHOULD BE 
OVERHAULED. THE ENERGY SECTOR 
NEEDS TO BE COMPETITIVE, RULED 
BY MARKET PRINCIPLES
AND NOT SWEETHEART DEALS. IT IS 
NOT ENOUGH TO PUSH THROUGH LAWS 
TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY, WITH 
REGARD TO OFFICIAL SOURCES OF 
INCOME. SENIOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
HAVE TO REMOVE ALL CONFLICTS 
BETWEEN BUSINESS INTERESTS AND 
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES. 
NOW, AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
SAID, HERE ARE THE FACTS WE DO 
KNOW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINE. 
BURISMA, A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS
COMPANY  PAID HUNTER BIDEN
MILLIONS TO SERVE ON ITS BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY
RELEVANT
EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE. HE HAD 
NO EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE IN 
THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY. HE HAD
NO KNOWN EXPERTISE IN CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE OR UKRAINIAN LAW.
HE DOESN'T, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, 
SPEAK UKRAINIAN. SO WHY?  WHY 
DID BURISMA ONE HUNTER BIDEN ON 
ITS BOARD?  WHY DID THEY WANT
TO PAY HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? 
WELL, HE DID HAVE ONE 
QUALIFICATION: HE WAS THE SON OF
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND HE WAS THE SON OF THE
MAN IN CHARGE OF THE UKRAINIAN 
PORTFOLIO FOR THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATION.
AND WE ARE TO BELIEVE THERE IS 
NOTHING TO SEE HERE? THAT FOR 
ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE OR INQUIRE
ABOUT THIS WOULD BE A SHAM, 
NOTHING TO SEE HERE. TELLINGLY, 
HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEYS ON 
OCTOBER 13, 2019-ISH A STATEMENT
ON HIS BEHALF. HE INDICATED IN 
APRIL 2014 HUNTER WAS ASKED TO 
JOIN THE BOARD BURISMA .
AND THEN STACY STEPPED OFF THE 
BOARD IN APRIL 2019. NOW, LISTEN
TO THE COMMITMENT THAT HUNTER 
BIDEN IS SUPPOSEDLY WILLING TO 
MAKE TO ALL OF US. HUNTER MAKES 
THE FOLLOWING COMMITMENT: UNDER 
A BITING ADMINISTRATION UNDER 
READILY COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL 
GUIDELINES OR STANDARDS OF
A PRESIDENT BODY MAY ISSUE TO 
ADDRESS REPORTED CONFLICTS OF 
INTEREST OR THE APPEARANCE OF 
SUCH, INCLUDING ANY RESTRICTIONS
RELATED TO OVERSEAS BUSINESS 
INTEREST.
THAT STATEMENT ALMOST TELLS US 
ALL WE NEED TO KNOW. THAT IS THE
RULE THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN IN 
PLACE IN 2014, BECAUSE THERE 
ALREADY WAS AN OBAMA-BIDEN 
ADMINISTRATION. WHAT CHANGED?  
REMEMBER A COUPLE MINUTES AGO 
WHEN I QUOTED AN EXPERT ON 
UKRAINE? THE ONE WHO SAID 
UKRAINE MUST
CLEANUP ITS ENERGY SECTOR? THE 
ONE WHO SAID UKRAINE SELECT 
SENIOR OFFICIALS HAVE TO REMOVE 
ALL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEIR 
BUSINESS INTEREST AND THE 
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLY?
>> IT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE ON
THE BOARD. THAT IS ALL THAT I 
HAVE FOCUSED ON.
WHEN ASKED HOW MUCH MONEY 
BURISMA WAS PAYING HIM?  HE 
RESPONDED HE DOES NOT WANT TO 
OPEN HIS KIMONO.
HE DOES REFER TO PUBLIC REPORTS 
ABOUT HOW MUCH HE WAS BEING 
PAID. WE NOW KNOW HE WAS BEING 
FAR MORE
. 
>> YOUR PAY $50,000 A MONTH? 
>> I AM A PRIVATE CITIZEN. ONE 
THING I DON'T HAVE TO DO IS SIT 
HERE AND OPEN MY KIMONO. IT HAS 
ALL BEEN REPORTED. 
>> WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON THE 
VICE PRESIDENT SON WAS BEING 
PAID BY BURISMA?  WAS IT BASED 
ON KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING 
OF THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY IN 
UKRAINE? WAS HE GOING TO DISCUSS
HOW OUR GOVERNMENT REGULATES THE
ENERGY
INDUSTRY HERE? WAS HE GOING TO 
DISCUSS HOW WE SET RATES? WAS HE
GOING TO DISCUSS PIPELINE 
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OR 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS?
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE 
NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY AT ALL? OF 
COURSE NOT. WHAT WAS THE REASON?
I THINK WE DO NOT NEED TO LOOK 
ANY FURTHER THAN THE EXPLANATION
HUNTER BIDEN GAVE THE ABC 
INTERVIEW WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY?
>> IF YOUR LAST NAME WAS INVITED
TO YOU THINK YOU WOULD'VE BEEN 
ASKED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA?  
>> I DON'T. PROBABLY NOT. I DO 
NOTHING A LOT OF THINGS THAT 
WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF MY 
LAST NAME WERE NOT BIDEN.
>> AS IF TO CONFIRM HOW SUSPECT 
THE CONDUCT WAS HE AND HIS 
LAWYER CANNOT EVEN KEEP THEIR 
STORY STRAIGHT. COMPARE THE 
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY BURISMA 
ON MAY 12, 2014 WITH
HUNTER BIDEN'S LAWYERS STATEMENT
ON OCTOBER 13, 2019. THE MAY 
2014 PRESS RELEASE BEGINS
ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN TO BE IN 
CHARGE OF A UKRAINIAN COMPANY 
OWNED BY AN OLAGARD  AND HIS 
LEGAL UNIT. HOWEVER,
IN HIS LAWYER STATEMENT IN 
OCTOBER 2008 THE AFTER HIS 
INVOLVEMENT CAME UNDER PUBLIC 
SCRUTINY HE NOW CLAIMED AT NO 
TIME
WAS HUNTER IN CHARGE OF THE 
COMPANY'S LEGAL AFFAIRS. WHICH 
IS IT? WHAT WAS HE DOING? WHO 
KNOWS. WHAT WERE THEY LOOKING TO
HIDE? 
LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK AND 
REALIZE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL HAVE US 
BELIEVE THIS HAD NOTHING AT ALL 
TO DO WITH OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR 
COUNTRY'S INTEREST, NOTHING AT 
ALL TO DO WITH THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. IT SIMPLY WAS 
PRIVATE CITIZEN HUNTER BIDEN 
DOING HIS OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS 
AND PURELY COINCIDENTAL THAT IT 
WAS IN HIS FATHER'S
PORTFOLIO, IN THE EXACT SECTOR 
THAT HIS FATHER SAID WAS 
CORRUPT. WE HAVE A DOCUMENT, 
SOMETHING THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DID NOT SHOW YOU OR 
EVEN PUT BEFORE THE HOUSE BEFORE
VOTING THESE FACELESS ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT 
THIS EMAIL FROM  ,  THE STEPSON 
OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF STATE, 
JOHN CAREY. AND WHO WAS THE 
OTHER BUSINESS PARTNER WITH 
HUNTER BIDEN AND
DEVON ARCHER, OUR SECRETARY OF 
STATE STEPSON AND OUR VICE 
PRESIDENT SON ARE IN BUSINESS 
TOGETHER. IT WAS SENT TO THE 
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT EMAIL 
ADDRESSES OF TWO SENIOR PEOPLE
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. WHO ARE
THESE TWO? THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE 
SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY
OF STATE. THE SUBJECT LINE IN 
THE EMAIL IS NOT CORPORATE 
TRANSPARENCY.
IT IS NOT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. 
THE SUBJECT LINE IS UKRAINE.
CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD THE 
SENSITIVITY  TO OUR US FOREIGN 
POLICY.
WHAT DOES THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE'S STEPSON SAY? HE SAYS 
THIS: APPARENTLY DEVON AND 
HUNTER BOTH JOINED THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA  AT A PRESS RELEASE WHEN
OUT TODAY. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY 
THEY DECIDED TO, BUT THERE WAS 
NO INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM AND 
THEIR COMPANY. WHAT IS THE MOST 
TELLING THING ABOUT THIS? IT IS 
CLEAR THAT THE CHIEF OF STAFF 
AND THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY ALREADY KNEW WHO DEVON
WAS, BECAUSEDID NOT INCLUDE HIS 
LAST NAME. 
THEY OBVIOUSLY KNEW WHO HUNTER 
WAS.
THIS IS SAYING I CANNOT SPEAK TO
WHY THEY DECIDED TO JOIN THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA.  HE IS THEIR 
BUSINESS PARTNER. NOT THAT THERE
ARE GOOD REASONS. NOT THAT THEY 
ARE THERE TO ENHANCE CORPORATE 
TRANSPARENCY,
NOT THAT THEY ARE THERE TO 
FURTHER US POLICY, HELP FIGHT 
CORRUPTION, ENSURE THE BOARDS OF
DIRECTORS COMPENSATION AND 
BENEFITS ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED,
NOTHING LIKE THAT. HE CANNOT SAY
THOSE THINGS BECAUSE HE KNOWS 
THEM WELL. HE KNOWS THEY HAVE NO
PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS 
WHATSOEVER TO DO THOSE THINGS, 
ESPECIALLY FOR A UKRAINIAN GAS 
COMPANY.
SAID HE IS GOING ON THE RECORDS 
REPORT WHAT HUNTER AND DEVON ARE
DOING AND TAKE PLANS TO 
DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF. 
WHAT DID THE STATE DEPARTMENT DO
WITH THIS INFORMATION?
APPARENTLY NOTHING. THEY DIDN'T 
TELLTO STAY AWAY, NOTHING. 
BUT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ONE IS TO
BELIEVE ALL OF THIS DOES NOT 
MERIT ANY INQUIRY. ANYONE 
DISCUSSING ONE IS NOW CORRUPT. 
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT A CORRUPT
COMPANY IN A CORRUPT COUNTRY 
WILL BE PAYING THE VICE 
PRESIDENT SON $1 MILLION PER 
YEAR? PAYING HIS BUSINESS 
PARTNER
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
STEPSONTHOUGHT IT WAS  IMPORTANT
ENOUGH
. I ASKED WHY IT WOULD NOT MERIT
AN INVESTIGATION? BACK IN 
JANUARY 2018 AS YOU HURT
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
BRAGGED HE HAD PRESSURE THE 
UKRAINIANS, THREATENED THEM, 
INDEED COERCE THEM INTO BARRING 
THE STATE PROSECUTOR WHO 
REPORTEDLY WAS INVESTIGATING THE
VERY COMPANY THAT PAID MILLIONS 
TO HIS SON.
HE BRAGGED THAT HE GAVE THEM SIX
HOURS TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR OR 
HE WOULD CUT OFF $1 BILLION IN 
US LOAN GUARANTEES
. [ CLIP PLAYING ] 
>> I SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO 
GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS. 
THEY SET YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY, 
THEY ARE NOT S YOU ARE NOT THE 
PRESIDENT. I SAID CALL THEM. I 
TELL YOU YOU'RE NOT GETTING
$1 BILLION AND I'M GOING TO BE 
LEAVING HERE IN SIX HOURS. IF 
THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED YOU 
ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY. HE 
GOT FIRED
AND THEY PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE 
WHO WAS SOLID AT THE TIME. 
>> ARE WE TO BELIEVE IT WAS THE 
POLICY OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO 
WITHHOLD $1 BILLION?
WAS THAT REALLY OUR POLICY? WE 
HAVE ALL HEARD CONTINUOUSLY FROM
THE MANAGERS AND MANY AGREE 
ABOUT THEIR RISK POSED BY THE 
RUSSIANS. WE HAVE HEARD THE 
MANAGERS SAY THAT A SLIGHT DELAY
IN PROVIDING FUNDING ENDANGERS 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT 
JEOPARDIZES OUR INTEREST. 
THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT MUST 
IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE, YET THEY ARGUE IT WAS 
THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF OUR 
COUNTRY TO WITHHOLD $1 BILLION A
MESS ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS FIRED 
WITHIN A CERTAIN MATTER OF 
HOURS. COULD THAT EVER BE OUR 
POLICY?
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
WE WERE WILLING TO JEOPARDIZE 
UKRAINIANS AND SOMEONE WHO 
HAPPENED TO BE INVESTIGATING 
BURISMA WAS PROBABLY FIRED.  
WERE GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THE 
ECONOMY BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR 
WAS NOT FIRED? DOES ANYONE 
REALLY BELIEVE THAT WAS OR EVER 
COULD BE OUR UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN POLICY?
JUST IN CASE THE MANAGER OR 
OTHERS TRY TO ARGUE HE WAS NOT 
SERIOUS ABOUT THAT, HE WAS 
BLUFFING. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE 
WITH THAT SEND TO THE RUSSIANS 
ABOUT OUR SUPPORT FOR THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT WE WOULD BLUFF 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN ECONOMY?
FROM 2014-2017 FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN CLAIM TO BE 
ON A CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION 
IN THE UKRAINE. HE REPEATEDLY 
SPOKE ABOUT HOW THE CANCER OF 
CORRUPTION WAS AN EPIDEMIC AND 
HOW UKRAINE A SNOW MORE 
CONSEQUENTIAL MISSIONS THAN 
CONFRONTING CORRUPTION. HE 
ENCOURAGED THEM TO CLOSE THE 
SPACE FOR CORRUPT MIDDLEMEN WHO 
RIP OFF THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. HE
RAILED AGAINST THIS BEHAVIOR FOR
A SELECT FEW. IT HAS 
CHARACTERIZED
THAT COUNTRY FOR SO LONG. ON HIS
LAST OFFICIAL VISIT FOUR DAYS 
BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE HE SPOKE 
OUT AGAINST CORRUPTION
THAT EATS AWAY LIKE A CANCER AND
AGAINST CORRUPTION WHICH 
CONTINUES TO EAT AWAY AT THE 
UKRAINIAN DEMOCRACY WITHIN. WHY 
WAS HE DOING THIS?
WAS HE SO CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, EVEN 
SINGLING OUT THEIR ENERGY SECTOR
? CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS A 
CRITICAL POLICY CONCERN FOR OUR 
COUNTRY, DURING THIS WHOLE TIME 
WHAT ELSE WAS HAPPENING? HIS SON
AND HIS SON'S BUSINESS PARTNERS 
WERE RAKING IN MORE THAN $1 
BILLION PER YEAR AND WHAT WAS 
REGARDED AS ONE OF THE MOST 
CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANIES IN 
THE ENERGY SECTOR, OWNED AND 
CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE MOST 
CORRUPT OLAGARDS.
WERE HIS WORDS JUST HOLLOW? 
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY WERE 
EMPTY. AT LEAST WHEN IT CAME TO 
ANYONE QUESTIONING HIS SONS OWN 
SWEETHEART DEAL. HIS OWN SON 
STILL WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION. AGAIN, TO RAISE THE 
QUESTION WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE 
DID THIS INTO
FUTURE US GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS: 
YOUR FAMILY CAN ACCEPT MONEY 
FROM FOREIGN CORRUPT COUNTRIES? 
YOU CAN PAY FAMILY MEMBERS OF 
OUR HIGHEST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO EVEN 
ASK QUESTIONS? WHAT WAS GOING ON
? WE HAVE TO ACCEPT HOUSE 
MANAGERS STATEMENT,
EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAS EVER 
INVESTIGATED. WHY? CAN YOU 
IMAGINE WHAT A HOUSE MANAGER AND
HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATIC 
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD SAY IF IT 
WERE THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN ON
THE PAYROLL OF AN OLAGARD?  WHEN
IT HIGHLY
APPEARED A TRUE UKRAINIAN 
FIGHTER HAD ASSUMED THE 
PRESIDENCY THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT
PERMITTED TO FOLLOW UP ON JOE 
BIDEN'S OWN WORDS ON CORRUPTION
, TRYING TO MAKE THOSE WORDS 
SOMETHING OTHER THAN EMPTY. 
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION IS NOT ONLY
A PRIVATE INTEREST.
NO LONGER IS AN IMPORTANT 
CONCERN FOR OUR COUNTRY.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO COVER
A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS ABOUT 
THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL IN 
WHICH THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE
THE PRESIDENT WAS SHAKING DOWN 
AND PRESSURING THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE TO DO HIS PERSONAL
BIDDING. FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS 
NOT THE FIRST TELEPHONE CALL 
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAD WITH OTHER FOREIGN 
LEADERS. THING ABOUT IT FOR A 
MOMENT, THE CALL WAS ROUTED 
THROUGH THE SITUATION
ROOM. IT WAS A SCHEDULED CALL. 
THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE 
CALL. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE 
TAKING NOTES. OBVIOUSLY THE 
PRESIDENT WAS AWARE. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TALK ABOUT THE FACT 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T FOLLOW
THE APPROVED TALKING POINTS AS 
IF THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT 
IS OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW APPROVED 
TALKING POINTS.
THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, I THINK
THIS IS CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS 
HOW TO SPEAK HIS MIND.
REMEMBER THE FAKE TRANSCRIPT 
THAT MANAGER SCHIFF READ 
FROM THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE? HIS MOB, GANGSTER 
LIKE RENDITION OF THE CALL?
I PROSECUTOR ORGANIZED CRIME FOR
YEARS. THE TYPE OF DESCRIPTION 
OF WHAT GOES ON, WHAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TRIED TO CREATE FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IS COMPLETELY 
DETACHED FROM REALITY. IT IS AS 
IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE 
MOBSTERS WOULD INVITE PEOPLE 
THEY DO NOT KNOW INTO AN
ORGANIZED CRIME MEETING TO 
SURROUND AND TAKE NOTES TO 
ESTABLISH CORRUPT INTENT. 
MANAGER SCHIFF, OUR JOB  
WOULD'VE BEEN A LOT EASIER IF 
THAT WERE HOW IT WORKED.
THINK ABOUT WHAT HE IS SAYING 
AND THE MANAGERS POSITION, THAT 
OUR PRESIDENT DECIDED WITH 
CORRUPT INTENT TO SHAKE DOWN 
ANOTHER FOREIGN LEADER AND 
DECIDED TO DO IT IN FRONT OF 
EVERYONE IN A DOCUMENTED 
CONVERSATION, IN THE PRESENCE OF
PEOPLE HE DIDN'T KNOW, JUST SO 
HE CAN GET A PERSONAL BENEFIT 
THAT WAS NOT IN OUR COUNTRIES 
INTEREST. THE LOGIC IS
FLAWED. IT IS ILLOGICAL BECAUSE 
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. THAT 
IS WHY MANAGER SCHIFF  RAN AWAY 
FROM THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. THAT
IS WHY HE CREATED HIS OWN SAKE 
CONVERSATION
. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS 
ANOTHER POINT FROM THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 PHONE 
CALL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE 
THAT AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH
THE PRESIDENT WAS CRITICAL TO 
THE NEWLY ELECTED UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT. IT WOULD SIGNAL TO 
RUSSIA, WHICH HAD INVADED 
UKRAINE IN 2014 AND STILL 
OCCUPIED UKRAINIAN TERRITORY 
THAT UKRAINE COULD COUNT ON 
AMERICAN SUPPORT. THEY ACTUALLY 
ARGUE THAT IT WAS A QUID PRO 
QUO. THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD
HIS CRITICAL MEETING THAT WOULD 
DETER THE RUSSIANS AND SAVE 
UKRAINIANS BECAUSE HE WANTED 
SOMETHING PERSONAL. NOW,
IF THAT WERE CRITICAL TO 
PRESIDENT LATIMER ZELINSKI AND 
THE SAFETY OF HIS OWN CITIZENS 
HE WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY JUMPED
AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO 
THE OVAL OFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED HIM THE 
INVITATION DURING THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL. LET'S SEE WHAT 
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR ZELINSKI 
ACTUALLY SAYS WHEN INVITED TO 
WASHINGTON ON THAT CALL.
HE DOES NOT SAY THIS IS WHAT I 
WOULD LIKE TO DO, IT IS CRITICAL
FOR MY PEOPLE. WE WILL ARRANGE 
IT IMMEDIATELY. HIS RESPONSE IS 
I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO COME AND
HAPPY TO MEET YOU PERSONALLY AND
GET TO KNOW YOU BETTER. ON THE 
OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE ON 
SEPTEMBER 1 WE WILL BE IN POLAND
. WE CAN MEET IN POLAND 
HOPEFULLY. IN AN OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING
, IF IT WERE CRITICAL THAT WAS 
THE TIME TO SAY SO AND NOT TO 
SUGGEST ANOTHER VENUE. WHEN WE 
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT IS 
BEFORE US IT IS CLEAR THE ONLY 
PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT HAVING AN 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING WERE 
LOWER-LEVEL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
WHO THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. 
THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED, THOSE 
WHO ACTUALLY MAKE THE DECISIONS,
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR ZELINSKI AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, TO THEM IT WAS 
NOT CRITICAL. IT WAS DEFINITELY 
NEVER A QUID PRO QUO. WHAT WAS 
IMPORTANT
TO PRESIDENT VLADIMIR ZELINSKI 
WAS NOT A OVAL OFFICE MEETING, 
BUT THE LETHAL WEAPONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPLIED TO 
UKRAINE AND THE SANCTIONS THE 
PRESIDENT ENFORCED AGAINST THE 
RUSSIANS. THAT IS WHAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 20 CALL 
THEM STRAIGHT. LET US NOW 
CONSIDER WHAT PRESIDENT VITAMINS
AND SKIN NEW ABOUT THE SUPPORT 
THAT RESIDENT TRUMP HAD PROVIDED
TO THE UKRAINE COMPARED TO THE 
SUPPORT OR MORE ACCURATELY
THE LACK THEREOF THAT THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATION HAD PROVIDED TO 
UKRAINE. IN FEBRUARY 2004
RUSSIA BEGAN ITS MILITARY 
CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE. IT WAS
AGAINST THE ADVICE AND URGING
OF CONGRESS AND MANY IN HIS OWN 
ADMINISTRATION, PRESIDENT OBAMA 
REFUSED THEN AT THE ROUTE THE 
REMAINDER OF HIS PRESIDENCY TO 
PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE. IN THE HOUSE MANAGER 
SCHIFF JOINED MANY OF HIS 
COLLEAGUES IN A LETTER WRITING 
CAMPAIGN  TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, 
URGING THAT THE US MUST SUPPLY 
UKRAINE WITH THE MEANS TO DEFEND
ITSELF. AND URGED PRESIDENT 
OBAMA TO QUICKLY APPROVE 
ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT 
UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO DEFEND 
SOVEREIGN TERRITORIES, INCLUDING
THE TRANSFER OF LETHAL DEFENSE 
WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINIAN 
MILITARY. ON MARCH 23 THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED A 
RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT 
OBAMA TO IMMEDIATELY EXERCISE 
THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO 
PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH LETHAL 
DEFENSIVE
WEAPONS SYSTEMS. THE VERY NEXT 
DAY THE SENATE PASSED A 
UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION, URGING THE
PRESIDENT TO PRIORITIZE AND 
EXPEDITE THE PROVISION OF LETHAL
AND NONLETHAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE CONSISTENT
WITH THE UNITED STATES NATURAL
-- NATIONAL APOLOGIES. AS ONE 
SENATOR SAID IT IN MARCH 2015: 
DIVIDING NONLETHAL EQUIPMENT 
LIKE NIGHT VISION GOGGLES IS ALL
WELL AND GOOD, BUT GIVING
THE UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO 
SEE THE RUSSIANS COMING, BUT NOT
THE ABILITY TO STOP THE IS NOT 
THE ANSWER. YET PRESIDENT OBAMA 
REFUSED. HE REFUSED EVEN THE 
SENIOR CAREER PROFESSIONALS 
RECOMMENDING HE PROVIDE LETHAL 
WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINIANS. BY 
CONTRAST, WHAT DID
PRESIDENT LATIMER ZELINSKI AND 
THE RUSSIANS KNOW? THEY KNEW 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID PROVIDE
THAT SUPPORT. THAT CLEARLY WAS 
THE MOST MATERIAL THINGS TO HIM,
MUCH MORE THAN IMPORTANT THAN 
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO MAKE MUCH OF
THEIR CONTENTION THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY WANTED 
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR THE LINSKY TO
ONLY ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION 
AND NOT CONDUCT ANYTHING. THAT 
MAKES NO SENSE. PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT
LATIMER'S LINSKY WAS JULY 2019, 
ALMOST A YEAR AND HALF BEFORE 
THE NEXT ELECTION. WOULD IT 
REALLY HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT? 
WOULD ANYONE HAVE REMEMBERED A 
YEAR OR MORE LATER? IRONICALLY,
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PUT 
BURISMA AND HIS CONNECTION TO 
THE BIDENS FRONT AND CENTER IN 
THESE PROCEEDINGS. NOW THE 
VOTERS WILL KNOW ABOUT IT  AND 
PROBABLY WILL REMEMBER. BE 
CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
MANAGER SCHIFF, THERE HE GOES 
AGAIN PUTTING WORDS IN THE 
PRESIDENTS MOUTH THAT WERE NEVER
THERE . LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT 
OF THE JULY CALL. PRESIDENT 
TRUMP NEVER ASKED ABOUT ANY 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY TYPE OF 
INVESTIGATION. PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TELLS PRESIDENT  TRUMP 
I GUARANTEE AS THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE THAT ALL THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE DONE 
OPENLY AND CANDIDLY. THAT I CAN 
ASSURE. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS SAY
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T WANT 
TO GET MIXED UP IN US POLITICS. 
IT IS PRECISELY THE DEMOCRATS 
WHO LITTER SIZE THE ISSUE. LAST 
AUGUST THEY BEGAN CIRCLING THE 
WAGON TRYING TO PROTECT VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND ARE 
STILL DOING IT. THEY CONTEND 
THAT ANY INVESTIGATION
INTO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 
PAYMENTS BY A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY OWNED BY A CORRUPT
OLAGARD TO THE SON OF THE SECOND
HIGHEST OFFICEHOLDER IN  OUR 
LAND, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN 
CHARGE OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN
THE UKRAINE, THEY ARE CALLING 
THAT A SHAM, HE BUNKED
. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN 
INVESTIGATION. HOW COULD IT BE A
SHAM? SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS SAY SO, WHICH BRINGS ME
TO ANOTHER ONE OF THE BASELESS 
CONTENTIONS. THAT THE PRESIDENT 
RAISE THE MATTER WITH PRESIDENT 
VLADIMIR ZELINSKI BECAUSE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD 
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY FOR 
PRESIDENT. IT WAS FAR FROM A 
SECRET THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT 
WAS PLANNING TO RUN. WHAT HAD 
CHANGED? FIRST, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD BEEN ELECTED IN 
APRIL  ON AN ANTICORRUPTION 
PLATFORM. IN JULY, RUNNING ON 
THE SAME PLATFORM HIS PARTY TOOK
CONTROL OF THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT,
MAKING IT THE OPPORTUNE TIME TO 
RAISE THE ISSUE. FINALLY, THERE 
WAS A EXCEPT THE GOVERNMENT IN 
THE UKRAINE COMMITTED TO 
FIGHTING PRECISELY THE KIND OF 
HOW THE QUESTION CONDUCT 
DISPLAYED BY BURISMA  JUST AS 
JOE BIDEN HAD RAISED YEARS 
BEFORE. TWO OTHER THINGS: IN 
LATE JUNE ABC NEWS RAN A STORY 
ENTITLED HUNTER BIDEN'S FOREIGN 
DEALS. DID JOE BIDEN SON PROFIT 
OFF OF HIS FATHER'S POSITION AS 
VICE PRESIDENT?
JUST A COUPLE WEEKS BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENTS TELEPHONE CALL WITH 
VLADIMIR FOR LINSKY THE NEW 
YORKER MAGAZINE, NOT EXACTLY A 
SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP RAN
AN EXPOSE: WILL HUNTER BIDEN 
JEOPARDIZE HIS FATHER'S 
CAMPAIGN?
GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE FACT 
THAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT HIS 
INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA  AND 
THE CHINESE COMPANIES. THE NEW 
YORK REPORTER, JUST A COUPLE OF 
WEEKS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL SAID
SOME OF VICE PRESIDENT'S BIDENS 
ADVISORS TO WORRY
THAT HUNTER WOULD EXPOSE THE 
VICE PRESIDENT TO CRITICISM. A 
FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE SAID 
THAT HUNTER'S BEHAVIOR INVITED 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
HE WAS LEVERAGING ACCESS FOR HIS
BENEFIT. THE REPORTER WROTE WHEN
I ASKED MEMBERS OF BIDENS STAFF 
WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID RAISE 
THEIR CONCERN WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT SEVERAL OF THEM SAID 
THEY HAD BEEN TOO INTIMIDATED TO
DO SO. EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR 
HIM HAS BEEN SCREENED THAT,
A FORMER ADVISOR TOLD THE 
REPORTER. I DO NOT KNOW IF 
ANYONE HAS BEEN INTIMIDATED BY 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
OR SCREEN THAT BY HIM ABOUT 
BURISMA OR HIS SONS INVOLVEMENT.
DO WE WANT THE TYPE OF 
GOVERNMENT WHERE QUESTIONS ABOUT
SUSPECT CONDUCT ARE SUPPRESSED 
OR DISMISSED AS ILLEGITIMATE 
BECAUSE SOMEONE IS INTIMIDATING 
OR
IS JUST TOO IMPORTANT? NO, THAT 
IS PRECISELY WHEN AN 
INVESTIGATION IS MOST IMPORTANT.
LAST THURSDAY NIGHT MANAGER 
JEFFRIES PROVIDED US WITH THE 
DEMOCRATS STANDARD FOR ABUSE OF 
POWER. HE SAID ABUSE OF POWER 
OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
EXERCISES HIS OFFICIAL POWER TO 
OBTAIN A CORRUPT PERSONAL 
BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR 
INJURING THE NATIONAL INTEREST. 
MR. JEFFRIES AND THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CONTEND UNDER THIS 
STANDARD PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
AND MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE. IF THE STANDARD 
APPLIES, THEN WHERE WERE THE 
SAME DEMOCRATS CALLS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT WHEN
UNCONTROVERTED SMOKING ON 
EVIDENCE EMERGED THAT PRESIDENT 
OBAMA HAD VIOLATED THEIR 
STANDARD? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND THIS BASIC NOTION AS 
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
IT IS AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE. 
YET, HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO 
APPLY THEIR OWN VERSION, WHICH 
APPLIES
ONLY TO THEIR POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS. THEY WANT ONE SYSTEM 
OF JUSTICE FOR DEMOCRATS AND 
ANOTHER FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE MY WORD,
LET'S WALK THROUGH THE FACTS. ON
MARCH 26, 2012 ON THE EVE OF THE
2012 NUCLEAR
SECURITY SUMMIT IN SEOUL, SOUTH 
KOREA, PRESIDENT OBAMA MET WITH 
THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS
WHAT A DEPRESSING -- ONE OF THE 
PRESSING ISSUES IN THE UNITED 
STATES. HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE
ISSUE OF MISSILE DEFENSE OF THE 
STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 
THE US AND RUSSIA? AS PRESIDENT 
OBAMA'S DEFENSE SECRETARY SAID 
IN JUNE 2010, UPGRADED MISSILE 
INTERCEPTORS IN DEVELOPMENT 
WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO 
PROTECT OUR TROOPS, OUR BASIS, 
OUR FACILITIES, AND ALLIES. HE 
CONTINUED THERE IS NOTHING ON 
MISSILE DEFENSE. THERE IS NO 
MEETING OF THE MINDS. THE 
RUSSIANS HATE IT. THEY HAVE 
HATED IT SINCE THE LATE 1960S. 
THEY WILL ALWAYS HATE IT, MOSTLY
BECAUSE WE WILL BUILD IT AND 
THEY WON'T. DURING THE NUCLEAR 
SECURITY SUMMIT PRESIDENT OBAMA 
HAD A PRIVATE EXCHANGE WITH THE 
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT THAT WAS 
PICKED UP ON A HOT MICROPHONE. [
CLIP PLAYING ] 
>> PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ON ALL 
THESE ISSUES, BUT PARTICULARLY 
MISSILE-DEFENSE THIS CAN BE 
SOLVED, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR 
HIM TO GIVE ME SPACE. THE 
PRESIDENT RESPONDED YET, I 
UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND YOUR 
MESSAGE. SPACE FOR YOU.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: THIS IS MY LAST
ELECTION. AFTER MY ELECTION I 
WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY. HE 
RESPONDS, I UNDERSTAND. I WILL 
TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO 
VLADIMIR. AS WE ALL KNOW, 
LETTERMAN PUTIN. AS YOU JUST SAW
IN 2012 PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKED 
THE RUSSIANS FOR SPACE UNTIL 
AFTER THE UPCOMING 2012 ELECTION
AFTER WHICH HE WOULD HAVE MORE 
FLEXIBILITY
. LET ME APPLY MISSILE JEFFRIES 
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THREE-PART TEST FOR ABUSE OF 
POWER. ONE, THE PRESIDENT 
EXERCISES OFFICIAL POWER. 
RESIDENT OBAMA'S ACTIONS
CLEARLY MEET THE TEST FOR 
EXERCISING OFFICIAL POWER, 
BECAUSE IN HIS ROLE AS HEAD OF 
STATE DURING A NUCLEAR SECURITY 
SUMMIT, AFTER ASKING THE 
PRESIDENT FOR SPACE HE PROMISED 
HIM THAT MISSILE-DEFENSE CAN BE 
SOLVED.
WHAT ELSE COULD THAT MEAN BUT 
SOLVED IN A WAY FAVORABLE TO THE
RUSSIANS WHO WERE DEAD SET 
AGAINST EXPANSION OF A US 
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN 
EUROPE? TWO, TO OBTAIN A CORRUPT
PERSONAL BENEFIT. RESIDENT 
OBAMA'S ACTIONS
WERE CLEARLY FOR HIS OWN CORRUPT
PERSONAL BENEFIT BECAUSE HE WAS 
ASKING AN ADVERSARY FOR SPACE. 
THE EXPRESS
PURPOSE OF FURTHERING HIS OWN 
ELECTION CHANCES. AGAIN, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THIS IS MY 
LAST ELECTION. AFTER MY ELECTION
I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA KNEW THE 
IMPORTANCE OF
MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE, BUT 
DECIDED TO USE IT AS A 
BARGAINING CHIP WITH THE 
RUSSIANS TO FURTHER HIS OWN 
ELECTION CHANCES IN 2012. THREE,
WHILE IGNORING OR INJURING OUR 
NATIONAL INTEREST. AS RESIDENT 
OBAMA'S DEFENSE SECRETARY SAID 
MISSILES WOULD GIVE US THE 
ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS. 
OUR BASIS, OUR FACILITIES AND 
OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE. SURELY, 
SACRIFICING THE ABILITY TO 
PROTECT OUR TROOPS AND OUR 
ALLIES WOULD INJURE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. YET PRESIDENT OBAMA 
WAS WILLING TO BARTER AWAY THE 
SAFETY OF OUR TROOPS AND THE 
SAFETY OF OUR ALLIES IN THE 
EXCHANGE FOR SPACE IN THE 
UPCOMING ELECTION. IN SHORT,
PRESIDENT OBAMA LEVERAGED THE 
POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO THE 
DETRIMENT OF US POLICY ON 
MISSILE DEFENSE IN ORDER TO 
INFLUENCE THE 2012 ELECTION. WE 
NEVER WOULD'VE KNOWN PRESIDENT 
OBAMA REALIZED THAT THE 
MICROPHONE WAS ON
, THAT THERE WAS A HOT MIC. ONE 
COULD EASILY SUBSTITUTE 
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXCHANGE WITH 
ARTICLE 1
OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. USING THE POWERS OF HIS 
HIGH OFFICE PRESIDENT OBAMA 
SOLICITED INTERFERENCE OF A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, RUSSIA,
IN THE 2012 UNITED STATES 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE DID SO
THROUGH A SCHEME OR COURSE OF 
CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED SOLICITING
THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA TO GIVE
HIM SPACE ON MISSILE DEFENSE 
THAT WOULD FIT HIS REELECTION 
AND INFLUENCE THE 2012 UNITED 
STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO 
HIS ADVANTAGE.
IN DOING SO PRESIDENT OBAMA USED
THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY IN 
A MANNER THAT COMPROMISE THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND UNDERMINED THE 
INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES 
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. HE IGNORED 
AND INJURED THE INTEREST OF THE 
NATION
. DOES IT SOUND FAMILIAR, HOUSE 
MANAGERS? IT SHOULD. AS THE CASE
AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD 
HAVE BEEN FAR STRONGER THAN THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ABUSE 
OF POWER TO BENEFIT HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTEREST WAS THERE
AND IS HERE NOW FOR EVERYONE TO 
HEAR. IT WAS A DIRECT, 
UNQUESTIONABLE QUID PRO QUO. NO 
MIND READING WAS NEEDED. WHERE 
WERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEN?
THAT POINTS OUT THE ABSURDITY OF
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CASE AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT WAS 
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND NOT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO WAS WEAK ON 
RUSSIA AND WE CAN'T SUPPORT TO 
THE UKRAINE. PRESIDENT OBAMA 
CAME TO RUSSIA ENVIRONMENT PUTIN
MISSILE-DEFENSE WHEN HE DECIDED 
TO SCRAP THE US PLANS
TO INSTALL MISSILE BASES IN 
POLAND. YET, HE CRITICIZED 
SENATOR MITT ROMNEY DURING THE 
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHEN 
HE SAID RUSSIA WAS THE GREATEST 
GEOPOLITICAL THREAT TO THE US. [
CLIP PLAYING ]
>> I'M GLAD YOU RECOGNIZE AL 
QAEDA IS A THREAT. A FEW MONTHS 
AGO WHEN YOU WERE ASKED YOU SAID
RUSSIA. IN THE 1980S ARE NOW
CALLING TO ASK FOR THEIR FORM 
POLICY BANK, THE COLD WAR HAS 
BEEN OVER FOR 20 YEARS. 
>> NOW WHEN IT IS POLITICALLY 
CONVENIENT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
SAYING THE SAME THING PRESIDENT 
OBAMA CRITICIZED MITT ROMNEY FOR
SAYING. IN FACT THEY ARE BASING 
THEIR ENTIRE POLITICIZED
IMPEACHMENT ON THIS AND VERSION 
OF REALITY. A CLAIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOW SUPPORTING 
UKRAINE FAR MORE THAN THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATION. PRESIDENT OBAMA 
CAVED ON MISSILE DEFENSE IN LATE
2009. HIS HOT MICROPHONE MOMENT 
OCCURRED IN MARCH 2012. HIS 
REELECTION
WAS EIGHT MONTHS LATER. TWO 
YEARS LATER IN MARCH 2014 RUSSIA
INVADED UKRAINE. PRESIDENT TRUMP
REFUSED TO PROVIDE LEGAL AID TO 
UKRAINE
TO ENABLE IT TO DEFEND ITSELF. 
WHERE WERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THEN?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE 
THERE WAS A THREAT, AN
EMINENT THREAT TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY FOR 
WHICH THE PRESIDENT MUST BE 
REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM THE 
HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND 
BECAUSE OF WHAT?
BECAUSE HE HAD A PHONE CALL WITH
A FOREIGN LEADER AND DISCUSSED 
CORRUPTION? BECAUSE HE PAUSED, 
GIVING WAY OUR TAX DOLLARS TO A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY?  THAT IS THEIR 
THEORY. IT IS ABSURD ON ITS 
FACE. NOT ONE AMERICAN LIFE WAS 
IN JEOPARDY OR LOST AND THEY 
KNOW IT. HOW DO WE KNOW THEY 
KNOW IT? BECAUSE THEY WENT ON 
VACATION AFTER THEY ADOPTED THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY 
DID NOT CANCEL RECESS. THEY DID 
NOT RUSH BACK TO DELIVER THE 
ARTICLES TO THE SENATE THE CAUSE
OF THIS SUPPOSE IT TERRIBLE, 
IMMINENT THREAT. WHAT DO THEY 
DO?
[ CLIP PLAYING ] 
>> TIMING IS REALLY DRIVEN BY 
THE URGENCY. 
>> NOTHING COULD BE MORE URGENT.
>> THE URGENCY TO THIS. 
>> WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY. 
>>
NANCY PELOSI STILL HOLDING ONTO 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
URGENCY, URGENCY FOR WHICH YOU 
WANT TO
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU SAT ON
THE ARTICLES FOR A MONTH.
THEY ADOPTED THEM ON FRIDAY THE 
13th 2019, WENT ON VACATION AND 
FINALLY DECIDED AFTER ONE OF THE
DEBATES HAVE FINISHED
AND AFTER THE BCS FOOTBALL 
CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THAT IT WAS 
TIME TO DELIVER THEM.
IT IS URGENT THEY TOLD US,
NO DUE PROCESS FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT. IT IS A CRISIS OF 
MONUMENTAL IMPORTANCE. OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY
IS AT RISK EVERY ADDITIONAL DAY 
HE IS IN OFFICE THEY TELL US. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO USE THE 
SAME EXCUSE FOR NOT ISSUING 
SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY. THERE 
WAS NO TIME FOR THE NORMAL 
JUDICIAL VIEW. THEY EVEN 
COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PROCESS. A 
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN WHICH THE 
JUDGE AGREED TO AN EXPEDITED 
SCHEDULE, EVEN THAT WAS NOT GOOD
ENOUGH FOR THEM WHEN THEY ISSUED
THE SUBPOENAS. ONE OF THE 
LAWYERS WROTE TO THE HOUSE 
GENERAL COUNSEL
WE ARE DISMAYED THAT THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEES HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO 
JOIN US IN SEEKING RESOLUTION 
FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THIS
MOMENTOUS CONSTITUTIONAL 
QUESTION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS 
POSSIBLE. HE CONTINUED, IT IS 
IMPORTANT TO GET A DEFINITIVE 
JUDGMENT ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH 
DETERMINING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY AND CONFLICTING
DEMANDS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND 
EXECUTIVE BRANCHES. ISN'T THAT 
THE POINT? ISN'T THAT HOW OUR 
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS? IS 
AND HOW IT HAS ALWAYS WORKED? 
ISN'T THAT HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO
WORK? THE SAME
DEMOCRATS DEFENDED OTHER 
ADMINISTRATIONS WHO FOUGHT 
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS.
I THINK WE ALL REMEMBER FAST AND
FURIOUS. THE SAME ATTORNEY WHEN 
HE WROTE TO THE HOUSE CHAIR SAID
THE HOUSE CHAIRMAN, MR. SCHIFF 
AND MISSED ANOTHER ARE MISTAKEN 
TO SAY THE LAWSUIT IS  INTENDED 
TO DELAY OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCT 
THE COMMITTEE. HE CONTINUED, NOR
HAS THIS BEEN COORDINATED IN ANY
WAY WITH THE WHITE HOUSE ANYMORE
THAN
IT HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IF THE
HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO PURSUE THE 
SUBPOENA TESTIMONY, LET THE 
RECORD BE CLEAR THAT IS THE 
DECISION OF THE HOUSE.
THEY COME BEFORE YOU AND BLAME 
THE ADMINISTRATION. THEY BLAME 
YOU IF YOU DON'T SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES AND HAVE THEM BEFORE 
YOU. EVEN IN THE FACE OF THIS 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THEY CLAIM
THE PRESIDENT IS TO BLAME FOR 
THEIR DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR
OWN SUBPOENAS OR NOT ISSUE 
OTHERS.
THEIR CHOICE, BUT THE PRESIDENT 
IS RESPONSIBLE. THAT IS WHAT 
THEY'RE CLAIMING. IT IS 
LUDICROUS. THEY ARE BLAMING THE 
PRESIDENT CUT THEY DECIDED ON 
THEIR OWN NOT TO SEEK JUDICIAL 
REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR 
OWN SUBPOENAS. FOR SOME 
WITNESSES, NEVER EVEN ISSUED 
SUBPOENAS. IN THEIR MIND THAT IS
IMPEACHABLE. MANAGER NADLER 
SPOKE
ELOQUENTLY BACK FOR THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING IN 
DECEMBER 1998. HE SAID THERE 
MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED ONE OF 
OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
LARGELY OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WOULD LACK 
LEGITIMACY, WOULD PRODUCE 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN 
OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME. 
IT WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE 
VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS. MANAGER NADLER WAS
RIGHT THEN AND IT IS EQUALLY 
TRUE TODAY. DIVISIVENESS AND 
BITTERNESS.
LISTEN TO HIS WORDS. IMPEACHMENT
BY ONE PARTY CAUSE DIVISIVENESS 
AND BITTERNESS IN OUR COUNTRY. 
THAT IS WHAT
AN BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENT LEADS 
TO. WHILE HE WARNED AGAINST 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS THE 
HOUSE DID NOT FOLLOW. THEY DID 
NOT HEED HIS ADVICE. THAT IS ONE
OF THE REASONS WE ARE SITTING 
HERE TODAY WITH ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE NOT FOUND 
IN OUR CONSTITUTION OR THE 
EVIDENCE AND ARE BROUGHT SIMPLY 
IN PARTISAN POLITICS. THIS IS A 
SAD TIME FOR ALL OF US. THIS IS 
NOT A TIME TO GIVE OUT 
SOUVENIRS. THE PARENTS USED TO 
SIGN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
, TRYING TO IMPROPERLY IMPEACH 
OUR COUNTRY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO 
THE WORLD. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO
GET DIGS IN THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WILL BE IMPEACH BECAUSE WE HAVE 
THE MAJORITY.
IT IS NOT WHAT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE DESERVE OR WANT. SADLY, 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT TRUST 
THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS TO CHOOSE
THEIR OWN PRESIDENT. THEY DO NOT
THINK THEY CAN LEGITIMATELY WIN 
AN ELECTION AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SO THEY NEED TO RUSH TO 
IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY. THAT IS
WHAT THEY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY TOLD
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT IS A 
SHAME. WE ON THE OTHER HAND 
TRUST OUR FELLOW AMERICANS TO 
CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.
CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE, LET THE 
SENATORS THAT ARE HERE TRYING TO
BECOME THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE 
TRY TO WIN THAT ELECTION. LET 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CHOOSE. 
MAYBE THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE
HISTORICALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT. 
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE 
THAT THEIR 401(K) ACCOUNTS HAVE 
DONE EXTREMELY WELL. MAYBE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE PRISON 
REFORM AND GIVING PEOPLE A 
SECOND CHANCE. TELLINGLY, SOME 
OF THESE HOUSE MANAGERS WORK 
CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH THIS 
ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE AMERICANS
A SECOND CHANCE.
THAT WAS THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
THAT IS WHAT
THE COUNTRY DEMANDS. THAT IS 
WHAT SOCIETY DESERVES. MAYBE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE AN 
ADMINISTRATION BITING THE OPIOID
EPIDEMIC. MAYBE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE LIKE SECURE BORDERS. 
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE 
BETTER TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH OUR
BIGGEST TRADING PARTNERS. MAYBE 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE OTHER 
COUNTRIES SHARING IN THE BURDEN 
WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN AID. 
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ACTUALLY LIKE LOWER TAXES.
IN A TRIAL MEMORANDUM THAT YOU 
SUBMITTED HERE BEFORE THE 
SENATE,
YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE FRAMERS OF 
THE CONSTITUTION, BELIEVING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLEGED 
CONDUCT IS THERE "WORST 
NIGHTMARE"
THEY WOULD BE HORRIFIED. IN 
FACT, SADLY, SADLY THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CONDUCT
IN BRINGING THESE BASELESS 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT 
WILL CLEARLY BE THERE AND OUR 
WORST NIGHTMARE. THANK YOU.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED
THERE'S MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I 
THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT A 45 
MINUTE BREAK FOR DINNER. 
>> NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU ARE WATCHING LIVE 
COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON 
POST. WE WILL BE HERE DURING 
THIS
BREAK ABOUT A 45 MINUTE BREAK IS
YOU HEARD LEADER McCONNELL SAY. 
I'M IN THE STUDIO WITH MY 
COLLEAGUES AMBER PHILLIPS AND 
HELDER MEANT. WILL GIVE AN 
ANALYSIS ON A SENSE OF WHERE 
THINGS OF GONE
TODAY AND WHAT WE EXPECT THE 
REST OF THE NIGHT THANK YOU 
JOINING US. AMBER LET'S GO 
THROUGH WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
TEAM WANTED TO DO TODAY AND HOW 
THEY HAVE HAD EACH OF THESE 
LAWYERS TAKE A CHUNK OF THE 
ARGUMENT. WHAT ABOUT THE ARK OF 
TODAY IN THE VARIOUS 
ASSIGNMENTS. 
>> WHAT THEY HAD TO DO TODAY OR 
EXCUSE ME WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO
TODAY WAS DEFEND JUMP ON THE 
FACTS AND CONFUSE WHO'S BEING 
INVESTIGATED HERE BY BRINGING UP
JOE BIDEN. WHAT THEY HAD TO DO 
IS ADDRESS THE BOLTON 
ALLEGATIONS THAT DROPPED ON THE 
EVE OF EVERYTHING. THERE IS 
SOMEONE OUT THERE I KNOW A LINK
WHY TRUMP WITHHELD UKRAINE AID 
AND TALKED ABOUT INVESTIGATING 
BIDEN. THEY DID NOT TOUCH ON 
BOLTON. J
SEKULOW AT THE VERY BEGINNING 
SAID WITHOUT MENTIONING BOLTON, 
WE VIEW PUBLICLY INFORMATION WE 
DON'T DEAL IN SPECULATION ARE 
ALLEGATIONS AND THAT WAS IT. 
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. FROM THERE 
WE HAD TRUMP'S TEAM
THIS EVENING TALKING TO SEPARATE
LAWYERS TALKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN 
AND WHY THEY FELT THEY WANTED TO
JUSTIFY WHY TRUMP MENTIONED THE 
BIDENS IN THE PHONE CALL WITH 
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT THEY ALSO 
WHAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING 
TALKED ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI. JANE
RASKIN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 
AFTERNOON. THE PROSECUTION THE 
HOUSE WANTS TO MAKE SURE 
GIULIANI WAS DOING ILLICIT 
SHADOW CAMPAIGN NO HE WAS JUST A
PRIVATE ATTORNEY.
THAT CONTRADICTS WITH EVIDENCE 
THAT WE HEARD IN THE HOUSE THAT 
WE CAN TALK ABOUT. IS KIND OF 
SCATTERSHOT ALL THE THINGS THEY 
WANTED TO DO SOME THINGS THEY 
DIDN'T WHICH WAS TALK ABOUT 
BOLTON. 
>> ERIC HERSCHMANN WRAPPED UP  
ALONG THE BREAK. HE WAS WRAPPING
UP AND THROWING THINGS ON THE 
WALL. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A 
HITLESS THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS
REPUBLICANS CONCERNS IN THE PAST
FEW YEARS. THIS WAS SORT OF AN 
APPROACH THAT DIDN'T NECESSARILY
FOLLOW ONE ARC. WE SEE
SEKULOW SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WILL
DEWPOINT A, POINT B, POINT C, 
POINT  D. THIS LAST ONE WAS A 
GRAB BAG. I WANT TO GO TO RHONDA
ON CAPITOL HILL TO GET HER TAKE 
AWAY. RHONDA WHAT IS GOING ON 
WITH THE LEGAL TEAM. 
>> IT IS KIND OF A GRAB BAG. 
THEY DID FOCUS IN THE LAST TWO 
HOURS ON BIDEN AND THERE 
ARGUMENT FOR WHY HE AND HUNTER 
BIDEN ARE INVOLVED IN THIS. PAM 
IS THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL 
AND NOW SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE 
PRESIDENT SHE STARTED THINGS 
OFF. THIS IS WHY BIDEN NEEDS TO 
COME, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WANT 
YOU TO THINK THIS IS A DIVERSION
HE WE HAVE A CASE WHY HE SHOULD 
COME. LET'S TAKE A LISTEN. 
>> THE TYPICAL BOARD MEMBER OF 
THESE FORTUNE 100 COMPANIES, WE 
KNOW
THEY ARE TIED TO THE INDUSTRY 
AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND WELL 
COMPENSATED. EVEN SO, HUNTER 
BIDEN WAS PAID SIGNIFICANTLY 
MORE. THIS IS HOW WELL HE WAS 
COMPENSATED.
SO HUNTER BIDEN IS PAID OVER 
$83,000 A MONTH WHILE, THE 
AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY OF FOUR 
DURING THAT TIME EACH YEAR MADE 
LESS THAN $54,000. AND THAT'S 
ACCORDING TO U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 
DURING THAT TIME.
>> SHE WANTED TO MAKE A KITCHEN 
TABLE ISSUE. WHAT HE WAS MAKING 
IS THE SON OF THE
VICE PRESIDENT AND NORMAL 
AMERICANS WERE MAKING DON'T 
MATCH UP. THAT WAS APPEAL TO THE
AMERICAN VOTER THAT MIGHT BE 
WATCHING. AFTER SHE WAS DONE 
ERIC HERSCHMANN  PLAYED CLIPS OF
HUNTER BIDEN AND ABC NEWS 
REPORTED ON HOW MUCH
HE IS MAKING AND HE SAID I'M NOT
GONNA OPEN MIC MONO. THEY ARE 
MAKING THE POINT THAT JOE BIDEN 
AND HUNTER BIDEN IS IMPLICATED 
IN THIS AND THEY WANT TO THE 
BOTTOM OF IT
. 
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS 
STRATEGY. WE KNEW FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE TALKING IN ADVANCE OF 
THEIR DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT THE 
BIDEN NAME WOULD COME UP A LOT. 
WHEN PAM BONDI STARTED SHE SAID 
THEY 
BROUGHT UP BIDEN AND BURISMA 
HUNDREDS OF TIMES AS THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS MADE THEIR CASE WE 
DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS 
BUT WE HAVE TO BE. THAT WAS AN 
OPENING A REASON FOR THEM TO HIT
BIDEN HARD. I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO 
SHED SOME PERSPECTIVE ON THIS
FOR THIS. THE QUESTION OF HUNTER
BIDEN ON THE BOARD, WE ALSO 
HEARD HER BRING UP SECRETARY 
CARRY. THE SECRETARY STATE AND 
HIS FAMILY. I WAS WONDERING ALL 
THESE SENATORS HAVE PROBABLY 
HAVE THE QUESTION WHICH WHAT 
SHOULD MY FAMILY
BE DOING IN TERMS OF MY JOB AND 
CAREERS DOES THIS GET TOO CLOSE 
TO HOME AS THE SENATORS PUT 
THEMSELVES IN BIDEN'S SHOES? 
IT'S HARD TO THROW ROCKS AT
GLASS HOUSES YOU KNOW WHAT I'M 
GETTING AT HERE? 
>> THERE'S A LEGITIMATE ISSUE IN
WASHINGTON ABOUT HOW FAMILY 
MEMBERS OF POLITICIANS MAKE 
MONEY. IT'S THE
CLASSIC SWAMP ISSUE. IS 
SOMETHING WE IN THE MEDIA RIGHT 
A LOT ABOUT INCLUDING ABOUT THE 
BIDEN CASE. I KNOW IRONICALLY 
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS 
THE DISTRESS THE MEDIA SO 
STRONGLY, THERE WERE REPEATED 
NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT THE BIDEN 
SITUATION CITED IN THE 
PRESENTATION. THE ISSUE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS
JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE 
MIGHT BE AN ISSUE OF A CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST AROUND JOE BIDEN AND
HIS SON, DOES NOT NECESSARILY 
MEAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS
CORRUPTING THE USE OF POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE OF 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO OPEN THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO THAT. IS 
ALMOST, FRANKLY, DECIDE THE 
POINT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE 
ARGUMENT THAT THE BIDEN ISSUE IS
PRESSING, SO PRESSING THAT IT 
WAS APPROPRIATE USE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWER. AND THAT
IS A CHALLENGING ARGUMENT. WE 
CAN WALK THROUGH A FEW REASONS 
JUST TO NAME ONE, HUNTER BIDEN 
WAS NAMED TO THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA AND
2015. THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED
THE SENATE FOR A GOOD PORTION OF
THE TIME SINCE THEN. THERE WAS 
NO REPUBLICAN OVERSIGHT OF 
HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA ALL OF 
THAT TIME. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
NOT SEEM INTERESTED IN THAT 
ISSUE FROM THE TIME HE TOOK 
OFFICE, HE
APPEARS TO COME INTERESTED IN IT
SHOCKINGLY IN ABOUT THE SPRING 
OF 2019. WHAT HAPPENED IN SPRING
OF 2019 THAT'S WHEN JOE BIDEN 
DECLARED HE WAS RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT POLLS SHOW HE WAS A 
LEGITIMATE THREAT TO
THE PRESIDENT REELECTION EFFORT.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE WON'T BE 
HEARING ABOUT FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM. 
>> WHEN HUNTER BIDEN WAS MAKING 
MONEY AND PRESENT JOE BIDEN WAS 
DOING AT THE TIME. THERE IS A 
KEY ISSUE OF TRYING TO TOSS OUT 
A PROSECUTOR WHO IS A GLOBAL 
COMMUNITY AT LARGE. AND WE SEEN 
A LETTER FROM SOME REPORT 
REPUBLICAN CENTERS ON THE 
UKRAINE ISSUE THAT WAS CRITICAL 
OF THE PROSECUTOR. THERE IS THE 
MOMENT THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE 
TALKING ABOUT IMPLIES THE 
PROSECUTOR WAS SOME HOW TIED TO 
THE BURIES, HUNTER BIDEN 
SITUATION WHEN ACTUALLY
, GOING HARD ON THAT PROSECUTOR 
WOULD NOT HAVE HELPED HUNTER 
BIDEN IN THAT MOMENT. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. OF THE CORE OF 
THE CASE WHEN YOU REALLY GET 
INTO IT THAT REALLY GIULIANI 
WANT TO PRESS AGAINST JOE BIDEN,
HE HAD FORCED
THE OUSTER OF THIS UKRAINIAN 
PROSECUTOR WHO WAS IN SOME WAY 
PROSECUTING HIS SON. AND IT DOES
NOT COMPORT WITH THE FACT
THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS IT 
MOBILIZE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT 
FACTS. FOR ONE THING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS EXISTED 
IN THE UKRAINE WAS NOT JOE BIDEN
SON IT WAS THE CEO OF THE 
COMPANY THAT JOE BIDEN DECIDED 
TO JOIN AFTER THE WRONGDOING WAS
COMMITTED
POTENTIALLY BY THE CEO OF THE 
COMPANY. ALSO THERE IS GOOD 
EVIDENCE THAT THAT INVESTIGATION
WAS LARGELY DORMANT. IT WAS 
STALLED AT THE TIME JOE BIDEN 
BECAME INVOLVED.
IN PART BECAUSE PROSECUTORS IN 
THE OFFICE OF THAT PROSECUTOR 
HAD TAKEN BRIBES TO STALL IT. 
THAT WAS THE KIND OF THING THAT 
MADE MUCH OF THE WESTERN 
COMMUNITY DECIDE THAT PROSECUTOR
WAS CORRUPT. AND FINALLY,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE 
MOTIVATION FOR JOE BIDEN GETTING
INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE WAS HIS 
SONS COMPANY OR THAT 
INVESTIGATION THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE HE KNEW ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS HE WAS 
LEADING INTERNATIONAL COALITION 
HE MENTIONED THE
INTERNATIONAL COALITION INCLUDED
REPUBLICANS AT THE TIME. 
>> AS WELL AS THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND NATIONAL MONETARY FUND HE 
WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING 
CONTROVERSIAL. THAT'S RIGHT HE 
WAS LEADING AN EFFORT THAT WAS 
WIDE ACROSS THE WESTERN WORLD. 
>> WE SAW THE CONVERSATION LAST 
WEEK VICK A LETTER CAME FROM THE
REPUBLICAN CENTERS EXPRESSING 
CONCERN IT IT UPSET RON JOHNSON 
AND UP REPUBLICAN SHAKING HIS 
HEAD WHO WENT OVER AND TALKED TO
ROB PORTMAN WHO WAS THE LEAD 
AUTHOR ON THAT SO REPUBLICANS 
WERE IN THE AWKWARD POSITION 
REAL-TIME AT THAT TIME VOICED 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION 
ISSUES. 
>> IF THE AND IF YOU BELIEVE 
THERE WAS GOOD SOLID EVASON
EVIDENCE ALL THAT WAS TRUE IN 
THE INDEPENDENT REPORTING 
SUGGEST THERE IS NOT. EVEN IF 
YOU DID BELIEVE THAT, THE 
APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE THAT 
FIRST OF ALL HAVE THE UKRAINIANS
OPEN AN INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCE 
THEY ARE OPENING AN 
INVESTIGATION RATHER THAN HAVING
THE U.S. LOOK INTO IT IN SOME 
WAY AND HAVING THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES THE PERSON WHO
IS MOST LIKELY TO POLITICALLY 
GAIN FROM AN INVESTIGATION BE 
PERSONALLY IN CHARGE OF MAKING 
SURE IT HAPPENED,
AND USING THE LEVERAGE OF THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT HE LEADS TO
MAKE IT HAPPEN. THAT'S REALLY 
THE QUESTION. 
>> AMBER WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS 
INTO THE EFFECTIVE NESTS OF PAM 
BONDI. IT  IN THE PUSH TODAY TO 
PUT THE BIDENS IN A BAD LIGHT AS
A DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> I THINK THEY HAVE A CHOICE 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP BROUGHT 
HIM UP IN THE PHONE CALL WITH 
ANOTHER WORLD LEADER. IS A SAID 
WAS AT THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE?
HE DID IT. THERE'S TWO WORLD 
LEADERS AND WHAT DOES PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BRING UP A SUBSTANTIAL 
CHUNK OF THAT PHONE 
CONVERSATION, JOE BIDEN. THAT 
BEING SAID TO THE EXPENSE THE 
PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S STORYLINE AND DISREGARD 
THE FACT ABOUT JOE BIDEN AND 
WRONGDOING, I THINK THERE IS AN 
IT KEENEST FACTOR TO HUNTER 
BIDEN GETTING X AMOUNT OF 
DOLLARS LIKE PAM BONDI LIKES TO 
SAY IT. AND A REASON . A FACTOR 
TO IT THAT IT THE VERY LEAST OF 
TRUMP GOES THROUGH THIS 
UNSCATHED COULD MAYBE
TARNISH BIDEN IN THE 2020 
ELECTION. 
>> THERE WAS TESTIMONY IN THE 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT CASE THE 
PEOPLE THAT WORKED IN THEIR 
UKRAINE FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT
AT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AT THE 
TIME HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE 
BOARD WORK CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
OF THE LEAVITT RAISED AS A 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
OR THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND THEY ATTEMPTED TO 
RAISE IT WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE
WHICH WAS NOT PARTICULARLY 
AMENABLE TO HEARING THAT. HAVING
SAID THAT WITNESSES TESTIFYING 
AT THAT THEY SAID THEY WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AT THE TIME
NOT JUST NOW BUT AT THE TIME, 
ALSO TESTIFIED AT THE SAME TIME 
THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO KNOW 
UKRAINE VERY WELL THEY DID NOT 
SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE REASON 
JOE BIDEN TOOK A ROLE IN THE 
CASE OF PROSECUTOR HAD ANYTHING 
TO DO WITH HIS SON. 
>> A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A TRACK 
RECORD OF
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE. WE ARE LOOKING AT 
THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS TO SEE 
IF THERE'S ANY MOVEMENT OF 
CALLING FOR WITNESSES
AND HOW THE SENATE IS RESPONDING
TO THE JOHN BOLTON NEWS. LET'S
TRACK HOW THE SENATORS ARE 
FEELING TODAY. WE ARE REPORTING 
ON WHERE THE VOTE COUNT STANDS 
FOR THE CALL TO HAVE JOHN BOLTON
TESTIFY FOR THE SUN SENATE. 
>>
>> IS VERY INFLUX BEFORE THE 
SHOCKING REVELATIONS IN THE NEW 
YORK TIMES ABOUT WHAT BOLTON 
PLANS TO WRITE IN HIS UPCOMING 
BOOK.
TO SENATE REPUBLICANS WILL 
LIKELY VOTE FOR MORE TESTIMONY. 
SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE AND MITT 
ROMNEY HAVE USE THE WORDS THEY 
WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF NEW
WITNESSES. YOU NEED AT LEAST 51.
WHETHER THE REVELATION FROM 
BOLTON CHANGES THE DYNAMIC IS 
STILL TOO EARLY TO TELL BUT 
THERE IS CERTAINLY MORE 
NERVOUSNESS AMONG REPUBLICANS ON
CAPITOL HILL PERHAPS THEY KNOW 
MORE WITNESSES. OUR COLLEAGUE 
ROBERT COSTA REPORTED THAT PAT 
TOOMEY WHO KEPT HIS POWDER VERY 
DRY ON WITNESSES UNLOADING THE 
IDEA OF A ONE-FOR-ONE WITNESS 
DEAL. HE'S BEEN AND TALK WITH 
ROMNEY ABOUT THIS. WE ARE 
WATCHING THE OTHER SWING VOTES 
MICHALSKI OF ALASKA. THEY HAVE 
NOT SWITCH THEIR RHETORIC FROM 
BEFORE THE
BOLTON REVELATION AS FOR AFTER 
THE REVELATION. ONE SMART 
REPUBLICAN TOLD ME IF THERE ARE 
FOUR YESES, A FOUR YES 
REPUBLICAN VOTE FOR WITNESSES 
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE FOR 
REPUBLICAN VOTES. ESPECIALLY 
WITH THE TOUGH BOAT LIKE THIS IF
THERE IS CAN BE A MAJORITY OF 
BOTH FOR WITNESSES IN THE SENATE
YOU'RE GOING TO MOST LIKELY SEE 
A MASS DEFECTION OF REPUBLICANS 
IN FAVOR OF CALLING MORE 
WITNESSES IN THE SENATE. 
>> HOW ARE YOU HEARING THIS BEEN
TALKED ABOUT? ARE YOU HEARING IT
MOVEMENT AS THE QUESTION OF HOW 
THE REPUBLICANS IF WE CALL 
WITNESSES OR ARE YOU SENSING ANY
SUBTLETIES IN THE DOOR BEING 
CRACKED OPEN A BIT MORE HERE? 
>> A LOT OF THE RHETORIC COMING 
FROM THE TOP LEADERS HAVE NOT 
CHANGED AT ALL LISTEN TO THE 
FOLKS WHO IS THE NON-NUMBER 
THREE REPUBLICAN LEADERS SAID 
THERE'S NOTHING NEW. THE FLOW 
LEADER SAYS IT DOESN'T CHANGE 
THE OUT COME OF THE END OF THE 
DAY. THE NUMBER TWO LEADER SAID 
THIS IS NOT A GAME CHANGER. 
LISTEN TO WHAT THE RANK-AND-FILE
ARE SAYING OR NOT SAYING AT ALL.
THEY VERY MUCH KEPT THEIR POWDER
DRY ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO HEAR
MORE WITNESSES ARE NOT. THERE IS
A LITTLE BIT OF DISCOMFORT AT
WHAT COULD COME NEXT. WE DIDN'T 
SEE THESE BOLTON REVELATIONS 
COMING. OF THE SENATORS WERE 
SURPRISED THE SENIOR 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL SAID 
THEY HOLD HEARD FROM REPUBLICAN 
CENTERS BEING BLINDSIDED ABOUT 
THIS THERE WAS A LOT OF 
CONFUSION. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT
OF A LOT OF CONFUSION AND LACK 
OF CLARITY ABOUT
WHAT MAY COME NEXT. MITCH 
McCONNELL IT IS STILL CLEAR HE 
DOES NOT WANT THIS TO GO ON ANY 
LONGER THAN IT NEEDS TO. HE DOES
NOT BELIEVE THEY NEED TO CALL 
MORE WITNESSES AND CORRAL MORE 
MEMBERS THAT IS IN QUESTION 
RIGHT NOW. 
>> LEADER MacCONNELL DID NOT 
HAVE ADVANCE NOTICE ON THE 
MANUSCRIPT COMING OUT. DID YOU 
HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT MacCONNELL 
KNEW WAS IN THE TIMING THAT 
CAUGHT THEM OFF GUARD OR THE 
EXISTENCE OF THE CONTENTS? 
>> WE ALL KNEW JOHN BOLTON WAS 
WRITING A BOOK AND WHAT HE COULD
WRITE IN THE BOOK COULD STIR 
SOME POTS. THAT'S WHY DEMOCRAT 
SAID OVER AND OVER HE'S WRITING 
A BOOK WHY DON'T WE HAVE THEM 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE. 
>> MITCH McCONNELL DID NOT HAVE 
ADVANCE
WARNING WE ARE TOLD NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL THAT THE ONLY 
PEOPLE WHO KNEW ABOUT THE 
CONTENTS WERE THIS SPECIFIC 
DIVISION IN THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL THAT HAS THIS 
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING 
THERE IS NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL 
IN PUBLICATIONS LIKE THIS. THERE
ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONS. SOME 
OF THE QUESTIONS REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS HAVE WHO KNEW WHAT 
WHEN. WE MAY
HEAR THE QUESTIONS IN THE COMING
DAYS. 
>>> REPUBLICANS HAVE A WAY OUT 
THIS MORNING AND EARLY AFTERNOON
BECAUSE THEY COULD SAY WE ARE 
GOING TO WAIT UNTIL THE 
PRESIDENT SIDE GIVES THE DEFENSE
WE NEED TO HEAR ALL THE FACTS 
AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
ABOUT THEM A BIT OF TIME. AND 
NOW WE'VE HAD HOURS OF ARGUMENTS
. THE DEFENSE DEAN HAS NOT 
RESTED WILL HEAR MORE TONIGHT 
POSSIBLY TOMORROW. WILL THE 
REPUBLICANS BE HELD TO ACCOUNT 
HERE? 
>> PROBABLY WHEN THE TIME IS 
OVER ONE MESSAGE FOR MITCH 
McCONNELL
WE CLOSE THE PARTY LUNCH LET'S 
KEEP OUR POWDER DRY UNTIL THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAS FINISHED
THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENTS ON THE 
FLOOR WHICH WE ARE TOLD COULD 
VERY WELL GO INTO TOMORROW WHICH
IS LONGER THAN HE HAD INITIALLY 
EXPECTED. AND
THERE ARE THE 16 HOURS OF 
QUESTIONS BOTH DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS CAN HEAR A LOT OF 
QUESTIONS FROM BOTH THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM. I 
THINK MacCONNELL REALLY WANTS 
HIS MEMBERS DID NOT MAKE A 
DECISION, NOT RUN INTO ANY RASH 
CONCLUSION UNTIL THAT. IS DONE 
AND MacCONNELL WILL HAVE 51 
VOTES AT THAT POINT. HE GOES 
STRAIGHT TO A
ACQUITTAL VOTE BUT THAT IS UP IN
THE AIR. 
>> LIVE FROM CAPITOL HILL, THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AMBER, REPUBLICANS 
IF THEY CALL WITNESSES AND CALL 
BOLTON, THEY CAN'T WALK IT BACK.
IT MAKES THEM SAY LET'S WAIT AND
SEE WHAT WE HEAR.
ALSO HOW THEY FEEL LIKE THEY 
NEED TO PROCEED. THEY ARE 
WONDERING WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
DEFENSE WILL BE. 
>> I KEEP SAYING WHAT I HEARD IN
OUR CONGRESSIONAL COLIC 
REPORTING THIS MORNING WAS 
SENATORS SAYING I DON'T KNOW 
WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS BIDEN 
STUFF. I WANT TO STAND BY 
>> EXCUSE ME BOLTON. I DON'T 
KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS JOHN 
BOLTON REVELATION. BUT GIVE ME 
SOMETHING HERE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL AND THEY HAVE NOT YET, 
SO FAR. 
>> ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF TRIED TO ADDRESS IT ON 
TWITTER THIS MORNING. HE TWEETED
IT IS NOT TRUE.
WHICH IS, GOING TO BE DIFFICULT 
FOR HIS LEGAL TEAM TO LATER 
ARGUE THAT IT IS TRUE BUT NOT 
PROBABLE
. IT'S THE DIRECTION THEY FEEL 
LIKE THEY HAVE TO HEAD. IT'S AN 
INAPPROPRIATE THING FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO DO. HE SAID HE DID 
NOT DO AND SAY THOSE THINGS. ONE
OF THE THINGS IT WILL BE 
INTERESTING IS JOHN BOLTON BY 
ALL ACCOUNTS IS A NOTETAKER. 
THERE MAY WELL BE
CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES FROM JOHN 
BOLTON, EITHER TAKEN DIRECTLY 
DURING THE MEETING OR IT IN JIM 
COMAY FASHION IN A MEMO HE WROTE
RIGHT AFTER THE MEETING THAT MAY
BACK UP THE ACCOUNT. AND NOW THE
PRESIDENCY IS ON RECORD CLAIMING
THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. 
>> REMINDER WHY THIS IS SO 
EXPLOSIVE. THE STORY LAST NIGHT 
THAT THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN 
PREPARED THE HOLTON HAD SENT IT 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR VETTING 
FOR NATIONALS PURITY PURPOSES. 
JOHN BOLTON IN THIS MANUSCRIPT 
SAID HE HEARD FROM TRUMP 
EXPLICITLY THAT WITHHOLDING 
MILITARY AID WOULD KEEP GOING 
UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. 
ALSO SECRETARY POMPEO SAID THERE
WAS NOTHING TO THE TRUMP CLEAN 
TEAM CLAIM THAT MARIA YANUKOVYCH
WAS  CORRUPT. HE RAISED CONCERNS
ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND CONCERNS
ABOUT WILLIAM BARR. ALSO MICK 
MULVANEY'S ROLE HE WAS PRESIDENT
PRESENT
ABOUT ONE OF THE CALLS. IT 
BRINGS ABOUT QUESTIONS AND NOT 
JUST IN WHAT BOLTON COULD 
PROVIDE FOR TESTIMONY BUT WHAT 
OTHER PEOPLE COULD AS WELL. YOU 
DID MENTION WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS
TWEETING HE ADDRESSED REPORTERS 
BRIEFLY IS A QUESTION WAS THROWN
AT HIM HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY
ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. 
>> PRESIDENT THE MANUSCRIPT IS 
AT INCREASED
CHANCES OF TESTIFYING? 
>> I HAVE NOT SEEN A MANUSCRIPT 
BUT NOTHING HAS SAID TO JOHN 
BOLTON I HAVE NOT SEEN A 
MANUSCRIPT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT IT
DELIGHT DENYING THE 
CONVERSATION. 
>> HE'S NOT LEAVING ANY NUANCE 
TO THE REPUBLICANS OR THE 
DEFENSE TEAM. DID PRESENT
TRUMP SAY THAT DID JOHN BOLTON 
HEAR HIM WRONG WAS THERE A 
MISINTERPRETATION. YOU TALK 
ABOUT WHY THE MANUSCRIPT AT THE 
NEW YORK TIMES HAS REPORTED ON 
IS SO EXPLOSIVE. DEMOCRATS DREAM
TESTIMONY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THEIR KEY WITNESS SAYING GORDON 
SONDLAND A DIPLOMAT WELL BELOW
JOHN BOLTON IN THE HIERARCHY. I 
BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED 
TO CONNECT UKRAINE AID WITH 
INVESTIGATING THE
BIDENS. RUDY GIULIANI NO I NEVER
HEARD IT FROM THE PRESIDENT BEEN
JOHN BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT NOT 
ONLY DO I KNOW PRESIDENT
TRUMP WANTED TO CONNECT THESE 
THINGS, I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS IN 
THE ROOM WITH HIM. IN ADDITION 
TO THAT HE DIDN'T WANT THE 
ACTUAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
BIDENS THAT THEY SPEND TIME 
LAYING OUT
, HE JUST WANTED THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF IT. LINE BY LINE
EVERYTHING DEMOCRATS COULD WANT.
>> ON THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE 
THERE IS
A LEGAL BRIEF, A TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM THAT'S AT ODDS WITH 
WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS SAID. IT 
SAID RIGHT ON THEIR WE PULLED IT
OFF AND HIGHLIGHTED PAGE 81. 
HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS. THE 
EVIDENCE SQUARELY REFUTES THE 
CLAIM THAT
PRESIDENT LEVERAGED SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE IN EXCHANGE FOR 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE WITH A 26
ELECTION OR THE BIDEN, BURISMA 
AFFAIR. THIS IS WHAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS SAYING THE KEY PART OF 
THE
DEFENSE. WE HEARD THAT OUT 
LEIDEN ON SATURDAY AND REPEATED 
TODAY BY A COUPLE OF ATTORNEYS. 
IT IS AT ODDS WITH WHAT JOHN 
BOLTON HAD CLAIMED IN THIS 
MANUSCRIPT. 
>> THAT WAS THE STRONGEST PART 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
DEFENSE SO FAR. WHAT THEY ARE 
ESSENTIALLY SAYING THERE IS THE 
MEMBER MEMORANDUM
DEMOCRATS WE NEVER GOT ANY WANT 
TO CONNECT THE TWO SO WHY SHOULD
WE THROW HIM OUT OF OFFICE. 
>> EXECUTIVE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
IGNORING THIS BOLTON MANUSCRIPT.
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN 
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DID NOT CONDITION ANYTHING
ON INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE
JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND DID NOT MENTION THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE FELT 
NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.  
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE  TOP 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT 
LEARN OF THE PAWS ON THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL MORE 
THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 
CALL.
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN 
RECORD, THEIR RECORD THAT THEY 
DEVELOPED AND BROUGHT
BEFORE THIS CHAMBER REFLECTS 
THAT ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS 
NO LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> WHEN DID THE TRUMP
TEAM BULLET POINTS IS THERE WAS 
NO LINKAGE. 
>> LISTEN CAREFULLY HE WAS BEING
A LAWYER. BECAUSE THE FIRST 
THING HE SAID WAS THAT THERE IS 
NO EVIDENCE AND THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL
THAT THE PRESIDENT LINKED THOSE 
TWO ISSUES AND WE HAVE SEEN THE 
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL AND
WE KNEW THAT TO BE TRUE. THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT, THE PRESIDENT
DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE THERE IS
A QUESTION I BELIEVE THAT HIS 
STATEMENT TO ZELENSKY WAS WE 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
AND RESPOND TO A STATEMENT BY 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ABOUT 
HOW MUCH THEY WOULD LIKE MORE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
BUT IT IS TRUE THE PRESIDENT 
DOES NOT DIRECTLY LINK THE TWO 
ISSUES ON THE PHONE CALL. THEN 
HE GOES ON TO REFER THE 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD THAT WAS 
DEVELOPED BY THE HOUSE. HE NOTED
THAT THAT RECORD DEVELOPED BY 
THE HOUSE INCLUDED NO TESTIMONY 
FROM ANY WITNESSES THAT WHERE 
THE RESIDENT LINK THE TWO. THAT 
IS ALSO TRUE. OF COURSE JOHN 
BOLTON WAS NOT INTERVIEWED BY 
THE HOUSE. THEY DID NOT ISSUE 
THEY DID NOT
FIND IN COURT FOR THE TESTIMONY 
THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE 
SENATE TO HEAR FROM HIM NOW. HE 
DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO HUMAN 
IN THE WORLD THAT COULD TESTIFY 
OF THAT HE SAID IT WAS NOT 
RAISED ON THE CALL AND IT'S NOT 
ON THE RECORD BY THE HOUSE. 
>> WE HEARD THE ATTORNEY SAY A 
COUPLE OF TIMES THE HOUSE RECORD
THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD THAT IT'S
NOT INCLUDE THE RECORD OF JOHN 
BOLTON. 
>> THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO SUM UP 
ALL THE INK ARGUMENTS OF THE 
TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM OF VERY 
NARROW MICROSCOPIC
EVIDENCE. IF YOU LOOK AT THESE 
COUPLE OF LINES HE'S IN THE 
CLEAR IF YOU LOOK AT THIS 
CONVERSATION ON THIS DAY WERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PHYSICALLY 
IN THE ROOM WITH UKRAINE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
THEY HAD THEIR MEETING, STUFF 
LIKE THAT. 
>> THE NOTION THAT THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE BEEN 
TAKEN BY SURPRISE BY THIS IS A 
LITTLE SURPRISING TO ME. BECAUSE
I FEEL LIKE JOHN BOLTON HAD BEEN
ALL BUT SCREAMING, SENDING UP SO
MANY FLARES
THAT THIS WAS POSSIBLY OUT 
THERE. HIS LAWYER PREVIOUSLY PUT
OUT A STATEMENT SAYING HE WAS 
PRIVY TO MEETINGS AND 
CONVERSATIONS THAT NO OTHER 
WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED TO THAT 
HE COULD TESTIFY TO. THERE HAD 
BEEN TESTIMONY ARE WAS A 
ONE-ON-ONE MEETING BETWEEN JOHN 
BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT IN THE 
OVAL OFFICE THE END OF AUGUST 
WHERE JOHN BOLTON WENT INTO TALK
ABOUT WHY THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE HAVE BEEN HELD UP IN 
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN TO GET
IT FREED UP AND HE EMERGED FROM 
THAT MEETING AND TOLD HIS BOARD 
NO DICE THE SECURITY AID
, THE HOLD IS NOT GOING TO BE 
LIFTED. CLEARLY THE PRESIDENT 
SAID SOMETHING TO HIM AND THAT 
MEETING WHY HE DID NOT WANT TO 
LIFT THE ASSISTANCE. AGAIN IT'S 
SURPRISING TO ME WHY THEY WOULD 
NOT HAVE BEEN BRACING FOR THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS THERE. 
>> OUR GUEST WROTE THAT
HE IS LOOKING AT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE 
AND THE HEADLINE SAYS TRUMP SAID
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE THE 
EVIDENCE SAYS HE IS FOCUSED ON 
BIDEN. 
>> THANK YOU FOR TALKING TO US. 
WE EXPECT TO HEAR A LOT
TODAY BUT WE DID NOT HEAR A LOT 
TODAY WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S 
TEAM HOPING TO PUSH WITH THE 
BIDEN NARRATIVE? 
>> I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO 
CONTINUE THIS BIDEN NARRATIVE. I
THINK THEY ARE GOING TO PUSH IT 
OUT TO THE AMERICANS AT THE 
HOUSE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THE 
BIDENS AREN'T INVOLVED IN THIS 
AND HERE'S WHY WE THINK THAT IS.
OF COURSE ROMNEY POINTED OUT 
THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS MAKING A 
LOT OF MONEY AND MAKING MORE 
THAN MOST AMERICANS. THEY ARE 
JUST GOING TO STICK WITH A LOT 
OF THINGS THEY POSSIBLY CAN TO 
MAKE IT SEEM THE BIDENS NEED TO 
BE HERE. OF THEY ARE NOT SAYING 
THAT THE BIDENS ARE NOT A 
RELAFEN PART. THEY BELONG HERE 
AS MUCH AS BOLTON OR ANY OTHER 
WITNESS DOES. 
>> THE REPUBLICAN PUSH TO HAVE A
TRADE
. YOU GET JOHN BOLTON IN 
EXCHANGE WE WILL GET ONE IF NOT 
MORE OF THE BIDENS. OF THE 
DEMOCRAT SAY IT'S NOT AN EQUAL 
OFFER. WAS THE CONVERSATION? 
>> I GO BACK TO THIS MORNING 
WHEN
CHUCK SCHUMER ANNOUNCED IN HIS 
PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE DID NOT
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TRADE 
IDEA. FIRST WE NEED TO GET TO 
THE VOTE. HE WAS HOPING AND 
PRAYING THAT
FOUR OR MORE REPUBLICAN STEP UP 
AND VOTE FOR WITNESSES. HE IS 
NOT SAYING WHETHER OR NOT A DEAL
IS ON THE TABLE. MOST DEMOCRATS 
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SAY IT IS NOT
AND IT SHOULDN'T BE. THE BIDENS 
HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 
NARRATIVE. IF THEY WANT THE 
INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
AND HIS SON, ON THE BOARD WITH 
HIS UKRAINIAN
GAS COMPANY THAT'S A SEPARATE 
ISSUE MAY BE THE SENATE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CAN LOOK 
INTO AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT IS 
OVER. 
>> DEMOCRAT SAY NOW WE HAVE A 
STORY FROM BOLTON
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A TRADE, 
THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. LET'S 
SEE WHAT HAPPENS POSSIBLY 
FRIDAY. THE VOTE FOR WITNESSES 
MAY OCCUR OR MAYBE INTO THE 
WEEKEND. THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON 
THAT BEFORE THEY TALK TRADE. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH WE DID SEE 
THE TEAM FOR JOE BIDEN RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT PUT OUT A 
STATEMENT THE CAMPAIGN DIRECTLY 
AFTER THE BONDI THAT THE BIDEN 
PUSH FOR UKRAINE 
BENEFITED HUNTER BIDEN. THEY 
CALLED IT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
CONCLUSIVELY REFUTED AND 
DEBUNKED, FIGHTING BACK AGAINST 
THAT NARRATIVE. LET'S LISTEN TO 
JOE BIDEN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
THIS IS A TAPE. LET'S HEAR WHAT 
BIDEN HAD TO SAY. 
>>
-- ALL RIGHT FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN GIVING 
INSIGHT WHAT HE IS DOING WITH 
THIS DOUBLE SCREEN SITUATION. 
DAVID WAGGLE IS JOINING US FROM
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA. YOU ARE 
WATCHING JOE BIDEN CAMPAIGN 
EVENT TAKE US WHAT
HIS DAY HAS BEEN LIKE. 
>> TO RALLIES, HE WILL HAVE A 
THIRD TOWN HALL WHERE HE WILL 
TAKE QUESTIONS. AND VOTERS ON 
THEIR OWN HAVE NOT BEEN BRINGING
UP THE HUNTER BIDEN THING PEOPLE
HAVE HIM CLOSE AND YOU ARE
ONLY DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT 
RELATED MATTERS WHEN REPORTERS 
ASKED. THE OVERALL FRAME THAT 
TRUMP NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. 
THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT 
FROM SOMEONE RUNNING AGAINST 
HIM. 
>> HOW MUCH DOES THIS DC 
TESTIMONY AFFECTING OR IMPACTING
THE MOOD OF THE
BIDEN CAMPAIGN? HOW THEY ARE 
THINKING ABOUT NOT JUST FIELDING
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BUT HIM AS 
A CANDIDATE? 
>> HONESTLY NOT BEEN A BIG DEAL 
FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS. TO THE 
FRUSTRATION OF SOME OF THE 
OPPONENTS ON THE LEFT. FOR 
EXAMPLE BERNIE SANDERS WHO WANTS
TO BEAT HIM IN IOWA TO DENOUNCE 
ONE OF HIS OWN REPORTERS TO CALL
BIDEN KRUPP.
HUNTER BIDEN WAS TRADING OFF HIS
FATHER'S NAME.
YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT OTHER 
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE BIDEN 
FAMILY. SANDERS DENOUNCED THAT 
HE DOES NOT WANT TO
TALK ABOUT IT. YOU DON'T HEAR 
BIDENS RIVALS BRINGING UP THESE 
IDEAS FOR A NUMBER REASON. A 
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WANT TO SEE A 
POSITIVE CAMPAIGN AS THEY DID IN
2016. WITHOUT A LOT OF SUCCESS. 
THE OTHER THING IS THEY DON'T 
WANT IN THE LONG RUN, STATEMENTS
OUT THERE THAT CAN BE USED 
AGAINST THEM IN THE GENERAL 
ELECTION. THERE IS A WORRY ABOUT
THAT. ELIZABETH WARREN A LOT IN 
THIS CONTEXT. SHE WILL GET A 
QUESTION ABOUT A CANDIDATE SAID 
AND SHE REFUSED TO COMMENT. 
PEOPLE THOUGHT SHE SHOULD'VE 
FOUGHT BACK HARDER. THE POINT IS
THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING ON THE 
RECORD ATTACKING THE NOMINEE. 
BUT CANDIDATES ARE SAYING THINGS
ABOUT OTHER CANDIDATE POLICIES, 
THEY TEND TO TAKE PRETTY KID 
LOVE APPROACH TO BIDEN. 
>> WE HEARD THE TAPE FROM THE 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT THAT TRUMP
IS AFRAID TO RUN AGAINST ME. 
REPORTERS ARE THROWN QUESTIONS 
TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND WHAT'S 
HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON.@BIG 
SOUNDBITE IS DIFFERENT DOES THE 
WORLD AROUND WASHINGTON 
DIFFERENT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?
>> IT'S CAR
COMPARTMENTALIZE. ONE THING I'VE
BEEN ASKING PEOPLE VOTERS ARE 
SHOWING UP WHAT WILL THEY THINK 
HAPPENED? THERE ARE VOTERS THAT 
SOME WON'T ADMIT IT, PEOPLE I'VE
BEEN WRITING ABOUT FOR YEARS 
THAT LOOK AT THE SCANDAL AND THE
MUELLER REPORT AND HE WILL BE 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE WHEN THIS IS
OVER,  IT DOES NOT COME UP FOR A
COMPLICATED PSYCHOLOGICAL 
READING. THEY ARE BUSY AND 
FOCUSED ON CHOOSING THEIR 
NOMINEE AND NOT FOCUSED ON THE 
DETAILS NOT SAY IT'S NOT 
IMPORTANT. BUT YOU MORE 
FREQUENTLY SAY AND HEAR 
DEMOCRATS SAY LIST DAY FOCUSED 
ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OR
THE TRUMP EPA DECISION AND THEN 
ON IMPEACHMENT. 
>> DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF JOE 
BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN IS NERVOUS OR
HOW NERVOUS THEY ARE TO DEAL 
WITH THESE ALLEGATIONS? EVEN 
THOUGH THE FACTS ARE ON THE SIDE
WE SAW THINGS HAPPEN WITH 
HILLARY CLINTON FOR YEARS AGO 
AND SHE LOST THE ELECTION. 
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO 
EXPLAIN AND THINK THROUGH. 
DEMOCRATS REALLY
HAVE WORKED THROUGH A LOT OF 
TRAUMA WHEN IT CAME TO THE LAST 
ELECTION. THEY HAVE LOTS OF 
THEORIES WHY THEY LOST. ONE THEY
DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT MUCH IS
THE IDEA THAT TRUMP MAKES THE 
OPPONENT LOOK CORRUPT AND TAKES 
ADVANTAGE OF THAT. IN THE 
POLLING SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE 
DON'T SEE HIM
AS THEY SAW HILLARY. FAIRLY OR 
UNFAIRLY. WE SEE FOX'S POLLING 
WHICH IS THE ONLY POLLING 
NATIONALLY THAT ASKS IF THEY 
THINK THE CANDIDATES ARE HONEST 
OR TRUSTWORTHY. HILLY CLINTON 
STORY AFTER THE EMAIL THOUGHT 
SHE WAS NOT TRUSTWORTHY. IN THIS
RACE,
THE MOST NEGATIVE RATINGS IS DO 
YOU THINK HE'S TRUSTWORTHY PLUS 
ONE FOR BIDEN, +6 WERE WORN, +6 
FOR BERNIE SANDERS. THE 
DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A LOT OF 
CONFIDENCE IN THE ELECTION BUT 
THEY PROCESS THE CANDIDATES 
REPUTATION AND IT'S A WORK THAT 
IS NOT CORRUPT. IT SOUNDS LIKE 
THAT IS IT JUST HAPPENS THAT 
WAY. HERE ON FOX MEETING THIS 
WEEK DURING IMPEACHMENT THERE 
WERE SEGMENTS ABOUT THE BIDEN 
FAMILY.
YOU CAN TELL IT'S LIKE A 
METHADONE FOR THE DRUG THEY 
REALLY WANT WHICH IS ATTACKING 
HILLARY CLINTON. 
>> IN THE TRAILER YOU PUT OUT A 
FEW TIMES A WEEK LAST ISSUE IS 
ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS
. YOUR HEADLINE IS RIVALS ARE 
NOT THROWING A LOT OF ROADBLOCKS
IN FRONT OF SANDERS. 
>> WHAT WAS IT LIKE ABOUT BERNIE
SANDERS THIS WEEKEND. AND WHAT 
ABOUT THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC 
CANDIDATES WHEN THEY GO BACK TO 
WASHINGTON FOR THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS? 
>> SANDERS HAVE A GOOD WEEK. 
HE'S PRETTY OPEN IN COMPLAINING 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. HE'S NEVER 
CARED MUCH ABOUT THIS SCANDAL OF
THE UNDERLYING THIS. HE'LL JUST 
TELL YOU THINGS ALL POLITICS 
SHOULD BE ABOUT PEOPLE'S 
ECONOMIC SITUATION AND CLASS AND
CAPITALISM. ANYTHING THAT 
DISTRACTS FROM THAT IS BAD. IT'S
IRONIC THAT HE'S STUCK IN DC FOR
MUCH OF THE WEEK. AMY KLOBUCHAR 
AND MICHAEL BENNETT, I THINK 
BASHAR HAS PUT OUT
OR PUT UP A FACE I DON'T KNOW 
EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE THINKING. 
THEY ALL SAY THIS IS 
CONTROVERSIAL. AND THIS ADDS A 
WRINKLE INTO MY PLANS. WITH ALL 
THAT SAID, BETTER THAN TO BE 
EXPECTED HE IS EXPECTED TO GET A
PRIVATE PLANE RESERVED AND DID 
FIVE RALLIES OVER TWO DAYS. ALL 
VERY LARGE. WHAT YOU TEND TO SEE
IF THE CANDIDATE IS DOING WELL 
AT THIS STAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN, 
IT'S THE BIGGEST CROWDS IN 
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATES
THAT HE VISITS WITH. THE CONTEXT
OF THE MOMENT IS SANDERS WAS 
SEEN BY THE PARTY FOR REASONS HE
WAS THE OLDEST CANDIDATE FOR 
REASONS POLLING SAID MANY 
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS THOUGHT HE 
MISSED HIS CHANCE LAST TIME. 
THEY JUST THOUGHT HE DID NOT 
HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO 
REINTRODUCE HIMSELF TO WIN THE 
UPPER NOMINATION. THEY ACTUALLY 
BUILD HIM UP IN A WAY TO ATTACK 
ELIZABETH WARREN. YOU FREQUENTLY
HEAR
BERNIE IS HONEST ELISE HE IS 
BEEN CONSISTENT AND HONEST. BUT 
ELIZABETH WARREN CASE IS NOT SO 
MUCH. THINGS LIKE THAT. BERNIE 
SANDERS HAS A POLITICAL 
ORGANIZATIONS HE REMAINS NOT 
ONLY A WELL-LIKED DEMOCRAT BUT 
THE VOTERS GENERALLY LIKE.
LAST TIME HE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. 
THERE IS A DAUNTING REALIZATION 
IF HE WERE TO WIN IOWA EVEN WITH
25, 26 VOTES, THEN WIN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE BY 26% OF THE VOTE. 
THIS YEAR IT ALLOWS HIM TO COME 
OUT AND SAY HE'S WELL INTO THE 
NOMINATION AND THEY ARE NOT 
DOING A LOT TO STOP HIM. TODAY 
YOU HEARD SOME PEOPLE JUDGE JOE 
BIDEN, THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN 
DOUBLE DIGITS IN IOWA RIGHT NOW.
>> DAVE, WAS AT SWIPE AT BERNIE 
SANDERS? 
>> YOU HEARD ONLY IN THE 
MORNING.
IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BIDEN 
HAD A SMALLER CROWD THAN A FEW 
DAYS AGO. HE HAD SOME RIPPING ON
HOW A CANDIDATE WHO HE DID NOT 
NAME WOULD SPEND $60 TRILLION ON
POLICIES AND
WILL SAY HOW TO PAY FOR. HE DID 
NOT GO AFTER SANDERS LIKE HE 
WENT AFTER ELIZABETH WORDEN. AND
SAME WITH MAYOR PETE.
THAT WAS VERY CLEAR SANDERS IS A
RISK. WE CAN HAVE A NOMINEE THAT
WILL LOSE THE ELECTION. ONE OF 
THESE LETTERS SAID SANDERS IS A 
TOUGH ONE TO RUN AGAINST. BUT 
MAYOR PETE DOES NOT BRING THIS 
UP AT EVENTS. I THOUGHT THAT.
IF HE AGREES TO THE SENTIMENTS, 
HE DOES NOT GO THERE. EVEN HE, 
HE WAS ONE OF THE GUYS RAISE FOR
HIS HONESTY AND NOT SURE HOW TO 
GO NEGATIVE AGAINST HIM.
GOING NEGATIVE DOES NOT WIN THE 
ELECTION BUT HE'S BASICALLY GONE
THE WHOLE YEAR WITHOUT FACING 
THE CRITICISM HE FACED AGAINST 
HILLARY CLINTON OR ELIZABETH 
WARREN. HE'S GOT A FREE RIDE AND
NOT CLEAR WHO
IS DOING ANYTHING TO STOP THAT. 
>> NATIONAL REPORTER ON THE 
CAMPAIGN TRAIL IN IOWA. I'M 
PICTURING YOU AS YOU WERE 
TALKING, HOW TO FIGURE OUT HOW 
TO GET TO THE NEXT THING 
APPARENTLY YOU ARE TALKING WITH 
MAYOR PETE. 
>>'S
>> I JUST DON'T WANT THE RISK OF
GOING OFF THE ROAD. 
>> THANK YOU IOWA CAUCUSES ONE 
WEEK AWAY. RIGHT NOW. 
>> I WAS THINKING IN THE SHOW 
RIGHT NOW. ANOTHER ALTERNATE 
UNIVERSE THIS IS WHAT WE KEEP 
TALKING ABOUT
. IT'S LIKE A SLICE OF THE 
CONVERSATION. 
>> AMBER IS WE'VE BEEN TALKING 
HERE WE'VE SEEN THE REPUBLICANS 
AT THE MICROPHONE MAKINGS 
STATEMENTS. JONI ERNST WAS JUST 
SPEAKING TO THE REPORTERS ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE. LET'S 
LISTEN TO THAT. 
>> WHY ARE WE IMPEACHING THIS 
PRESIDENT? WHAT IS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS OBJECTIVE IN THIS? I 
THINK THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL HAS DONE A BRILLIANT JOB
IN SHREDDING THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CASE. AND THEY HAVE DONE IT BY 
USING ESTABLISHED LAW
AND THE CONSTITUTION. I MEAN, 
THEY HAVE SPELLED IT OUT, WE ARE
NOT PUTTING IN FLUFF STORIES, 
THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN 
I WAS A CHILD AND I GREW UP TO 
BE A JUDGE, WE ARE NOT TALKING 
ABOUT THAT. THEY ARE PRESENTING 
THE LAW.
WHAT I HAVE SEEN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DO ANOTHER DEMOCRATS 
TAKE THE CONSTITUTION THROAT ON 
THE GROUND AND THROWN UNDER THE 
BUS AND BY THE WAY, LET'S NOT 
THROW IT UNDER THE BUS BUT PUT 
IT IN REVERSE AND LET'S DO IT 
AGAIN. WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO 
IMPEACH AND REMOVE THIS 
PRESIDENT? IS IT BECAUSE THEY 
KNOW THAT HE WILL BE REELECTED 
THIS FALL? THE POINT THAT WAS 
JUST MADE IN THE LAST 30 MINUTES
OR SO WAS THAT WE HAVE RECORD 
UNEMPLOYMENT HERE IN THE UNITED 
STATES, WE HAVE A BOOMING 
ECONOMY, PEOPLE IN IOWA ARE 
THRILLED THAT WE HAVE THE U.S. 
AND PAB INSIDE AND WE HAVE TRADE
DEALS IN CHINA THERE IS SO MUCH 
GOING ON GOOD AND POSITIVE FOR 
THIS COUNTRY AND THE DEMOCRATS 
HATE IT THAT WE HAVE A LARGER 
THAN LIFE PRESIDENT THAT HAS 
ACHIEVED THAT. 
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE 
WITNESSES? 
>> I THINK WE HAVE NOT HEARD, WE
HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CUT AND PASTED HERE IN 
THERE TO MAKE IT SEEM ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
HAS PUT THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION 
BY EACH ONE OF THE WITNESSES 
TOGETHER AND HAVE DISPROVEN ALL 
THE INNUENDO AND GOSSIP THAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS
BASE THEIR CAISSON. 
>> YES OR NO WITNESSES? 
>> WE HAVE YET ANOTHER DAY MAYBE
OF DISCUSSION COMING FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, WE HAVE OUR
OWN QUESTIONS WE WILL ASK AND 
THEN WE WILL MAKE THAT DECISION.
AT THIS TIME AGAIN, THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL HAS ABSOLUTELY 
SHREDDED, SHREDDED THE CASE 
BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THE FINAL ISSUE PEOPLE
PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION FOR THE 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BIDENS, THE
FOR PEOPLE WHOSE EYES WERE FULLY
WIDE OPEN ARE ELIZABETH WYATT 
WARREN, BERNIE SANDERS, AMY
CLUB WHICH ARE. I'VE NEVER SEEN 
THEM SO ATTENTIVE AS TO WHEN 
THIS DISCUSSION WAS ON JOE 
BIDEN. 
>> IOWA CAUCUSES ARE THIS NEXT 
MONDAY
EVENING. I'M REALLY INTERESTED 
TO SEE HOW THIS DISCUSSION TODAY
INFORMS AND INFLUENCES THE IOWA 
CAUCUS VOTERS. THE DEMOCRATIC 
CAUCUS OF BOARD VOTERS. WILL 
THEY BE SUPPORTING PRESIDENT 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AT THIS 
POINT. 
>> SHE'S BEEN A LONG TIME 
SUPPORTER
OF THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE TEAM, 
NO SURPRISE THAT SHE'S SAYING 
SHE BELIEVES THEY HAVE SHREDDED 
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT 
FORTH LAST WEEK. 
>> NO SURPRISE, BUT THIS MORNING
OUR CONGRESSIONAL COLLEAGUES 
WERE GRABBING REPORTERS AS THE 
>> GRABBING SENATORS.'S 
>> THE SHOCK WAVES WERE AT THE 
CAP CAPITAL. 
>> I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE
COUNSEL. A COUPLE HOURS LATER I 
SAID I DON'T THINK THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL GAVE HER
SOMETHING TO GRAB ONTO. IT 
DIDN'T MATTER. 
>> LET'S GO ON CAPITOL HILL TO 
GET HER TAKE WHAT WE HEARD FROM 
SENATOR ERNST AND OTHER 
REPUBLICANS. RHONDA. 
>> IT'S SURPRISING SHE CAME HARD
AGAINST THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY 
THEY WERE PUT PROMOTING INNUENDO
AND NOT RIGHT.
WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO THAT 
CLIP I WAS THINKING ABOUT A TIME
WHEN IN AUGUST WHEN I WAS 
TALKING TO A FARMER IN IOWA 
DURING THE STATE FAIR. SHE 
ACTUALLY GREW UP WITH JONI OURS 
SHE SUPPORTED HER IN THE LAST 
ELECTION BUT SHE WASN'T QUITE 
SURE WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO 
THIS TIME AROUND SO JONI ERNST 
IS INTERESTING TO SEE HER COME 
OUT SO STRONGLY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE SHE IS IN A 
VERY TIGHT RACE HERSELF. THE 
DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT OUT FUND 
RAISED HER A FEW MONTHS AGO. SHE
PROBABLY CAREFULLY PICKING
THE MEDIA OPPORTUNITIES SHE HAS 
AROUND THE HILL BECAUSE SHE HAS 
PEOPLE AT HOME
SAYING I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE 
PRESIDENT BUT ALSO I'M NOT 
SUPPORTIVE OF SOME OF THE TRAYS 
AND DEALS HE HAS DONE.
THAT'S WHAT IOWA VOTERS ARE 
CARING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. THEY 
WANT TRADE DEALS HEAVILY BECAUSE
THEY RELY HEAVILY ON FARMING AS 
THEIR MAIN ECONOMY. SO IT'S VERY
INTERESTING TO SEE HEARD DELVE 
INTO THIS AND BE VERY VERY 
PROPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS COUNSEL RIGHT NOW. SHE HAS A
TIGHT RACE HERSELF. 
>> SENATOR ERNST GO AWAY FROM 
IMPEACHMENT TALK ABOUT THE 
ECONOMY AND OTHER THINGS AND FOR
US SO JUMPED IN AND GOT BACK ON 
TRACK TALKING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE AND SENATOR 
ERNST MANAGED TO PULL CONTROL 
BACK AND ADDRESS REPORTERS 
QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT 
SPECIFICALLY. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
IS ALMOST SOUNDED A LITTLE BIT 
LIKE A CAMPAIGN SPEECH BECAUSE 
SHE WAS TRYING TO BRING IT BACK 
AROUND TO IOWA. LIKE YOU SAID A 
LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND HERE 
BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING FOR 
REELECTION THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE
TO SAY HOW THEY WILL TALK ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT VERY CAREFULLY. 
SHE'S VERY INTERESTING TO WATCH 
AND WHAT SHE IS GOING TO SAY 
THIS WEEK AND BEYOND ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> AMBER LET'S BACKTRACK TODAY. 
AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER
COMPONENTS. THE PRESIDENT 
DEFENSE TEAM TRIED TO PUT FORTH 
YOU HEARD KEN STARR 
AND HE WAS VERY WATCHED BECAUSE 
OF HIS ROLE IS THE ONE PUSHING 
FORWARD
THE INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON 21 YEARS AGO. IT'S WORTH
REFLECTING ON HOW SURPRISING HIS
ROLE ENDED UP BEING. A LOT OF US
THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE THERE TO SAY
I PUSH FOR AN IMPEACHMENT AND 
THE BAR IS HERE AND NOW THE BAR 
IS NOWHERE NEAR. HE SAID LITTLE 
BIT ABOUT THAT THEN HE SEEMED TO
QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF 
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL IN BEMOAN THE
STATE OF AMERICA RIGHT NOW
AND THE STATE OF INVESTIGATION 
WHICH SEEM SO SURPRISING SINCE 
HE WAS A KEY PLAYER IN OUR LAST 
ONE. 
>> EXACTLY IT WAS A TOTAL 180 
WHICH I'M WRITING A PIECE IT 
SHOULD GO UP SHORTLY. LIKE YOU 
SAID, HE DID NOT HAVE TO STEP 
OUT OF HIS LANE IS YOU SAID 
EARLIER THE SHOW HE DID NOT HAVE
TO SAY, I DON'T THINK 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE USED 
EXCEPT FOR IN STREAM CASES.
HIS POINT WAS YOU NEED SIX OR 
SEVEN SENATORS A KICK OUT OF 
PRESIDENT THE MAJORITY OF 
AMERICANS SAY THIS SHOULD GO 
THAT'S THE ONLY TIME IT SHOULD 
BE VALID, THAT WASN'T THE CASE 
WHEN HE WAS A LEADING FIGURE
ARGUING PRESIDENT CLINTON. WE 
DON'T HEAR SENATORS TALKING 
ABOUT THIS I DON'T HEAR 
DEMOCRATS TALKING ABOUT THIS. I 
THINK THIS ONE IS IN THE HISTORY
BOOKS. CAN STARR TRYING TO SEND 
A MESSAGE?  TIME IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT
PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN 
TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED, BIDEN, 
BIDEN, BIDEN. JONI ERNST AND 
JOHN ON THE MICS WERE JUST 
SMILING TALKING ABOUT THE 
BIDENS.
NOT A COINCIDENCE SHE SAID IOWA 
CAUCUS IS COMING UP AND TRIED TO
ADDRESS DEMOCRATIC VOTERS DO YOU
WANT TO REALLY SUPPORT THIS GUY?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED TO HAPPEN WHEN HE 
BROUGHT UP THE BIDENS IN THE 
PHONE CALL IN JULY. ADAM SCHIFF 
TALK TO SOME REPORTERS AND HE 
REACTED TO THE LEGAL TEAMS 
ARGUMENT. 
>> AGAIN THEY MAINTAIN 
REPEATEDLY THAT THERE ARE NO 
WITNESSES DIRECTLY STATE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT TIED MILITARY AID 
TO THE CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION 
THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT 
REPEATEDLY TODAY. WHICH WAS 
REMARKABLE. IT TO FAX, ONE, 
THERE ARE WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED OR HAVE ADMITTED 
PUBLICLY THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID CONDITION THE 
MILITARY AID ON INVESTIGATIONS 
THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY WAS ASKED IT WAS 
IT IT COULD
PRO QUOTE BASICALLY SAID WE DO 
THAT ALL THE TIME, GET OVER IT. 
>> HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF 
ADMITTED IT. AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TOLD HIM WHILE HE 
SAID NO QUID PRO QUO HE SAID 
KYIV  ZELENSKY HAD TO GO TO THE 
MIKE AND SAY HE SHOULDN'T DO 
THAT NOW WE HAVE A. WITNESS THAT
IS A DIRECT WITNESS TYING THE 
MILITARY AIDES. WE COULD NOT 
HAVE MADE A MORE POWERFUL CASE 
THAN THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER JUST 
DID. 
>> ADAM SCHIFF 
TALKING THERE. IN THE LEGALS 
DEFENSE HAVE CENTER STAGE IN ITS
AROUND THE EDGES FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS TO MAKE THEIR 
COUNTERARGUMENT. 
>> JANE RASKIN ONE OF THE 
ATTORNEY THESE FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WHO DEFENDED DURING THE 
YOVANOVITCH INVESTIGATION. 
BROUGHT UP RUDY GIULIANI. 
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS SURPRISING
BECAUSE GIULIANI
IS A TROUBLING CHARACTER FOR THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. I MEAN 
THAT BECAUSE EVEN BEFORE THE 
WHISTLE PLAYER EXPLODED HE WAS 
TRAVELING TO UKRAINE ARE SAYING 
HE WAS TRAVELING ON BEHALF OF 
THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS PULLED 
BACK AS
THE CONGRESS IS TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHERE THE AID IS. HE'S A 
TROUBLING CHARACTER FOR MOST OF 
THOSE REASONS. THE TRUMP TEAM 
DECIDED LET'S TALK ABOUT HIM. 
LET'S NOT DODGE HIM. JANE 
RASKIN'S
ARGUMENT WAS IGNORED RUDY 
GIULIANI. HE'S JUST A MINOR 
PLAYER THAT'S SHINY OBJECT
DESIGNED TO DISTRACT YOU. SHE'S 
ACCUSING DEMOCRATS OF MAKING 
GIULIANI THE FALL GUY FOR TRUMP.
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PROVE
TRUMP HAVE THAT CONNECTION 
BETWEEN UKRAINIAN AND THE 
BIDENS. HER ARGUMENT WAS YES HE 
WAS ON AIR TALKING TO FOX NEWS 
ALL SUMMER LONG HOW HE'S GOING 
TO GET DIRT ON THE
BIDENS HE TRAVEL TO UKRAINE. 
EVEN WHEN THE IMPEACHMENT WAS 
GOING ON HE TRAVELED TO UKRAINE.
BUT HE DID THAT IS A PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY TO PROTECT TRUMP. THERE
IS NO OFFICIAL POLICY GOING ON 
WHY WOULD YOU UP REACHED THE 
PRESIDENT TO THAT. I WENT BACK 
TO GORDON SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY 
HE WORKED CLOSELY WITH GIULIANI 
AND HE SAID WE WORKED WITH MR. 
GIULIANI BECAUSE IT PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED US TO DO SO.
COMPLETELY IGNORING OTHER 
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. HE WAS A 
PERSONAL LAWYER BUT HE WAS 
WORKING IN THIS CAUSE I OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AFFECTING UKRAINE 
POLICY. UKRAINE POLICY THAT 
GIULIANI HAD PUBLICLY SAID WAS 
THE LINK OF SOME OF THE MEETINGS
AND AID FOR INVESTIGATION. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE HAS RESUMED HIS
SEAT LET'S GO BACK IN THE SENATE
CHAMBERS. ANDREW PHILLIPS INC. 
YOU SO MUCH. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS WE WILL 
DO TWO THINGS THIS EVENING. WE 
WILL FIRST HEAR FROM FORMER 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, ROBERT RAY.
HE WILL DISCUSS ISSUES OF HOW HE
WAS INVOLVED IN AN INVESTIGATION
LEGAL ISSUES HOW THE HISTORY OF 
THAT WORKS. WE WILL CONCLUDE 
THIS EVENING WITH A PRESENTATION
FROM PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ. I 
WOULD LIKE TO HEAL MY TIME TO 
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT RAY.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. DISTINGUISHED HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND MAY IT PLEASE THE 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. I STAND 
BEFORE YOU IN DEFENSE OF MY 
FELLOW AMERICANS. WHO IN 
NOVEMBER, 2016 ELECTED DONALD 
TRUMP TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AS 
THEIR PRESIDENT.
THEIR REASONS FOR THAT VOTE WERE
AS VARIED AS ANY IMPORTANT 
DECISIONS ARE. BUT THEIR 
COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT ACCEPTED AS 
LEGITIMATE UNDER OUR 
CONSTITUTION IS DESERVING OF MY 
RESPECT AND YOURS.
FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN OUR 
NATIONS HISTORY, THE SENATE HAS 
CONVENED TO TRY THE PRESIDENT OF
UNITED STATES ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THOSE ARTICLES DO 
NOT ALLEGE
CRIMES. THE CONSTITUTION, THE 
FRAMERS INTENT AND HISTORICAL 
PRACTICE ALL DICTATE THAT 
WELL-FOUNDED ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ALLEGE THAT A HIGH 
CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AS SUCH
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
ONLY WHEN SUCH AN OFFENSE 
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF THE 
PUBLIC TRUST. THAT IS IN THE 
CASE OF THE PRESIDENT, OF 
VIOLATION IN HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
BOTH ARE REQUIRED AND NEITHER 
ONE BY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE 
EVIDENCE AS SHOWN HERE BY THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I AM 
HERE THIS EVENING IN THIS 
CHAMBER DISTINCTLY PRIVILEGED
TO REPRESENT AND DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ON THE FACTS, ON THE LAW AND ON 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE 
THAT MUST BE PARAMOUNT
TO YOU, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE IN
DECIDING THE GREAT QUESTION AS 
TO WHETHER THESE ARTICLES 
WARRANT WITH OR WITHOUT 
WITNESSES
THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT 
FROM OFFICE. THERE IS AND CAN BE
NO BASIS ON THESE ARTICLES ON 
WHICH THE SENATE CAN OR SHOULD 
CONVICT THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT IS
ALLEGED. OF THE PRESIDENT MUST 
NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THAT
JUDGMENT IS RESERVED TO THE 
PEOPLE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
ELECTIONS, THE ELECTION IS JUST 
NINE MONTHS AWAY.
40 YEARS AGO IN 1980, WHEN I 
FIRST CAME TO CAPITOL HILL IS A 
LEGISLATIVE INTERN FOR 
CONGRESSMAN WHOLE ONLY SIX YEARS
EARLIER HAD PLAYED AN IMPORTANT 
CRITIC WILL ROLE IN THE 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
RICHARD NIXON, THE CONGRESSMAN 
WHO I SPEAK WHO I RESPECT
IMMENSELY SERVED THEN AND IN 
1974 ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. HE WAS TASK IN THE 
SUMMER OF 1974 TOGETHER WITH HIS
COLLEAGUES TO EVALUATE AND VOTE 
ON AS MOST OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HERE HAVE, THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. IT INCLUDED THE 
CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS. UNLIKE HELD THE 
ENTIRE HOUSE
45 YEARS LATER IN DECEMBER OF 
2019 PROCEEDED HERE, BIPARTISAN 
CONSENSUS
IN 1974 AMONG HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS WAS THE 
ORDER OF THE DAY. IT BECAME 
APPARENT THEN THAT
NARROW PARTISAN VIEWS ASIDE, THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD 
STEP INTO THE BREACH IN SO FAR 
AS CRIMINAL PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT
WARRANTED. OF THE TAPES OF OVAL 
OFFICE CONVERSATIONS INVOLVING 
THE
PRESIDENT PROVIDED THAT 
EVIDENCE. OF THE SUPREME COURT 
OVERRULED THE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND ORDERED THE TAPES 
TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. THREE DAYS LATER HIGH
CRIMES AND JUSTICE OF PERJURY 
ATTACHED TO A SECOND
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WAS 
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE BY A VOTE OF 27 TO 11 
AND 28 TO 10
RESPECTIVELY. THE SECOND ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT ALLEGE AMONG 
OTHER THINGS UNLAWFUL USE OF THE
CIA AND ITS RESOURCES INCLUDING 
COVERT ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED 
STATES AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF THE F
VI TO ADVANCE THE COVER IT THAT 
IS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF 
INSTRUCT JUSTICE IN THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT. THE CRIMES 
ALLEGED WERE SERIOUS INVOLVING 
UNLAWFUL
AND PAYING MONEY TO
BURGLARS AND A TESTIMONY UNDER 
OATH. SIX REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE 
MEMBERS JOINED ALL 21 DEMOCRATS 
AND SUPPORTING THOSE TWO 
ARTICLES. MY CONGRESSMAN WAS 
AMONG THOSE SIX REPUBLICAN HOUSE
MENTORS. ANOTHER ONE OF THE SIX 
WAS A YOUNG CONGRESSMAN FROM 
MAINE WHO LATER BECAME A MEMBER 
OF THE BODY.
AND WAS LATER BILL CLINTON'S 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT YOUNG 
CONGRESSMAN WAS BILL:. A THIRD 
OF THE SIX WAS CALDWELL BUTLER
, A REPUBLICAN FROM VIRGINIA 
WHOSE PAPERS WERE HOUSED AT 
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN LEXA 
CAN VIRGINIA IN A STATE WHERE I 
GREW UP AND LATER WENT TO LAW 
SCHOOL. TOGETHER THESE SIX 
REPUBLICANS MADE HISTORY. THEY 
DID SO WITH NO SENSE OF TRIUMPH.
IN TODAY'S PARLANCE NORTH
FIST BUMPS BUT ONLY IN THE WORD 
OF MY CONGRESSMAN WITH DEEP 
RELUCTANCE AND ONLY BE CAUSE 
THAT EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND 
UNMISTAKABLE UNLAWFUL ACTIONS BY
THE PRESIDENT IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
CONTRARY TO HIS TRUST AS 
PRESIDENT. AS TO THE THIRD 
ARTICLE IN THE NIXING 
IMPEACHMENT THAT ARTICLE DID NOT
ENJOY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BUT WAS
VOTED ON THE HOUSE JUDICIAL 
COMMITTEE ALONG
PARTY LINES BY VOTE OF 21 TO 17.
REPUBLICANS OBJECTED TO THE 
THIRD ARTICLE AND THE PRESIDENT 
CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND 
WITHHOLD IN CERTAIN
MATTERS UNTIL IT WAS RESOLVED BY
THE SUPREME COURT. MY POINT IN 
MENTIONING THESE THREE VOTES BY 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
SIMPLY THIS COUNT VOTES AND DO 
THE MATH
. I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE BEEN 
DEPRIVED OF YOUR PHONES AND THUS
THE CALCULATOR APP SO I WILL DO 
IT FOR YOU. A 27 TO 11 VOTE WAS 
BIPARTISAN AS I INDICATED BUT 
OVERWHELMING SO. TO 70% THAT IS 
GREATER THAN THE
TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY. THAT 
VOTE SEND A POWERFUL SIGNAL TO 
THE FULL HOUSE. INDEED THE 
SENATE THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS OVER
LOT OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN 
AND THEREFORE POLITICALLY AND 
LEADER LEGALLY JILL LEGITIMATE. 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S FATE WAS 
SEALED AND THE RESULT WAS IN AT 
A. LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER 
THAT VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT THE 
PRESIDENT RESIGN. MY 
CONGRESSMAN'S COMMENTED SIMPLY 
AND PLAINLY THAT IT WAS IN HIS 
WORDS A GREAT AMERICAN TRAGEDY. 
BUT THE GREATER POINT WAS AND 
IS, THAT
IMPEACHMENT WAS NEVER DESIGNED 
OR INTENDED TO BE A PARTISAN 
TOOL AND WAS TO BE UNDERTAKEN 
ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. THIS 
BRINGS ME WHAT WAS INTENDED BY 
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
RELATIVE TO IMPEACHMENT. THAT 
SUBJECT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN 
SOME LENGTH BY MIKE COLLEAGUE, 
PROFESSOR THERE TO IT. THAT MUCH
HAS BEEN SAID BY HOUSE
MANAGERS BY ALEXANDERS HAMILTON 
STATEMENT. THAT IS REPEATEDLY 
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND THE 
EXPENSIVE
SCOPE IN HAMILTON'S WORD WHICH 
PROCEED FROM MISCONDUCT OF OF 
PUBLIC OFFICIAL CONSTITUTING THE
ABUSE OF OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST. THE IRONY THAT 
HAMILTON, THE GREATEST PROPONENT
IN THIS COUNTRY OF EXECUTIVE AND
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY THAT EVER
LIVED, SHOULD BE FRONT AND 
CENTER IN THIS PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT
EFFORT TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE IS 
APPARENTLY LOST ON HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS. I DARESAY 
HAMILTON WOULD ROLL OVER IN HIS 
GRAVE AT THE END OF WALL STREET 
IN NEW YORK CITY TO KNOW THAT 
CONTRARY TO WHAT HE EXPLICITLY 
KNOWLEDGED IN FEDERALIST 69 THAT
A PRESIDENT COULD ONLY BE 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE UPON 
CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY 
AND HIGH CRIMES OF MISDEMEANORS 
WE SHOULD READ THE WORD CRIMES 
OUT OF THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE 
AND PROCEED MERRILY ON THE WAY 
WITH WITNESSES NO LESS ON 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT 
ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE FOR WHAT? 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT 
THERE IS NO CRIMES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT THAT 
COURSE SUSTAINED CHEAPENS THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND IS AN 
AMERICAN TRAGEDY ALL ITS OWN. 
NONE OTHER THAN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, 
CHARLES ROUGH
DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 20 
YEARS AGO STATED TO ARGUE AS THE
MANAGERS DO THAT THE PHRASE 
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS WAS REALLY MEANT TO
ENCOMPASS A WIDE RANGE OF 
OFFENSES SIMPLY FLIES IN THE 
FACE OF THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE 
FRAMERS WHO CAREFULLY CHOSE 
THEIR LANGUAGE, KNEW EXACTLY 
WHAT THE WORDS MEANT AND KNEW 
EXACTLY WHAT RISK THEY INTENDED 
TO PROTECT AGAINST. ONE OF THOSE
CONCERNS AND RISK THEY WENT ON 
TO EXPLAIN THAT IMPEACHMENT BE 
LIMITED
AND WELL-DEFINED. FOR OUR 
PURPOSES HERE, WHAT IS REQUIRED 
IS BOTH THE CRIMES BE ALLEGED 
AND THOSE CRIMES BE OF THE TYPE 
THAT IN PARTICULAR ARE SO 
SERIOUS THAT THEY AGAIN AND MR. 
ROUGH'S WORDS, SUBVERT OUR 
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND WOULD 
JUSTIFY OVERTURNING A POPULAR 
ELECTION,". OTHERWISE WHAT YOU 
HAVE IS LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY. 
THAT, TAKEN AS IN ITS PROPER 
CONTEXT I RISK ACTUALLY SUBMIT 
IS WHAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON WELL 
UNDERSTOOD IN MEANT AND SO DID 
MY CONGRESSMAN. THAT CONGRESSMAN
WAS OF COURSE HAMILTON FIST 
JUNIOR BUT ACTUALLY HAMILTON 
FIST THE FOURTH HIS 
GREAT-GRANDFATHER WAS ALSO
HAMILTON FISH. HE LATER SERVED 
AS GOVERNOR OF THE NEW YORK EGG 
UNITED STATES SENATOR BEFORE THE
CIVIL WAR AND KNOWN AS YOU 
LUCIUS GRANTS
SECRETARY OF THE STATE. WHAT I 
DID NOT REALIZE BACK IN 1980 
ALTHOUGH NOW IT'S OBVIOUS, THE 
ORIGINAL HAMILTON FISH WAS NAMED
AFTER HIS PARENTS BEST FRIEND, 
NONE OTHER THAN ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON HIMSELF. WHAT HAMILTON 
FISH FROM THE WATERGATE ERA 
UNDERSTOOD WAS THE SAME 
HISTORICAL LESSON THAT ANGLE 
FOUNDER FOR
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY HAS WRITTEN 
ABOUT A CO-AUTHOR
2018 BOOK ON IMPEACHMENT. THE 
CHARGE MUST BE TREASON, BRIBERY 
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. IT MUST BE ONE FOR
WHICH CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE 
PROOF CAN BE PRODUCED. ONLY IF 
THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY PRODUCED 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS INDEED 
IRREFUTABLE, SUCH THAT HIS OWN 
CONSTITUENTS, INC. IT
THIS CASE THE 63 MILLION PEOPLE,
LIKE ME WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP,
EXCEPT HIS GUILT OF THE OFFENSE 
CHARGED TO OVERWHELMINGLY 
PERSUADE A SUPER MAJORITY OF 
AMERICANS OF MALFEASANCE
WARNED HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. 
BECAUSE IT IS THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE, THE REPOSITORY OF 
AND INTERESTED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION WITH ALL THE 
EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE 
CONSTITUTION IN OTHER WORDS AN 
ENTIRE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMOVAL 
FROM OFFICE CANNOT BE BASED UPON
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR 
INFESTS NOTHING MORE THAN 
PARAPHRASING PRESENT GERALD FORD
, WHATEVER
A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS CONSIDERS
IT TO BE. 50 YEARS AGO IN 1970 
FROM THEN CONGRESSMAN JERRY FORD
WITH THE PROSPECT OF IMPEACHING 
A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, FORD 
CLARIFIED THAT
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHMENT'S 
ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE VOTERS CAN
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND ALL PERSONS 
HOLDING OFFICE AT LEAST EVERY 
FOUR YEARS. TO REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT IN MIDTERM, HE HAS 
TRIED BEFORE AND NEVER DONE IT 
WOULD INDEED REQUIRE
CRIMES OF THE MAGNITUDE OF 
TREASON AND BRIBERY. A PROFESSOR
OF YALE LAW SCHOOL MADE THIS 
ARGUMENT
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
ABOUT THE DANGERS OF 
TRANSFORMING AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY REMOVE A 
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT THEY UNDO
THE VOTES OF MILLIONS OF 
ORDINARY AMERICANS ON ELECTION 
DAY. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING, HE 
CONTINUED, THAT SENATORS SHOULD 
DO LIGHTLY LESS WE SLIDE TOWARD 
A PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT THAT 
OUR ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF 
GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO 
REPUDIATE. AND HAMMERING HOME 
THE CUP CONSTITUTIONAL
UNIQUENESS OF IMPEACHMENT HE 
EMPHASIZED THE CASE OF RICHARD 
NIXON AND DISTINGUISHED THAT 
FROM ANDREW JOHNSON THAT IS TO 
SAY ONLY WHEN EXTREMELY HIGH 
CRIMES AND GROSS ABUSES OF 
OFFICIAL POWER
INDEED POSE A THREAT TO A BASIC 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, A THREAT 
AS HIGH AND TRULY IS MALIGNANT 
TO DEMOCRAT AS TREASON AND 
BRIBERY
, WOULD A SENATE ONLY BE 
JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING A 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. MY POINT 
IS THIS. HISTORY, OUR AMERICAN 
HISTORY MATTERS
. TO LISTEN TO HOW THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WOULD HAVE IT, ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT ARE MERELY AS 
CHECK ROUGH WARNED A GENERATION 
AGO, EMPTY VESSELS TO WHICH CAN 
BE POURED IN A NUMBER OF CHARGES
EVEN THOSE CONSIDERED AND 
ABANDONED
. IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT THE 
ARTICLES ACTUALLY CHARGE CRIMES.
THE SENATE THEREAFTER DETERMINED
BY ITS VOTE WHILE THOSE CRIMES, 
PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED
THEY WERE NOT HIGH ENOUGH CRIMES
DAMAGING TO THE BODY POLITICS 
TOWARD THE PRESIDENT'S REMOVAL 
FROM OFFICE. THAT JUDGMENT WAS 
OF COURSE WITHIN THIS BODY'S 
DISCRETION TO RENDER.
AND IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH
BY THE COUNTRY. WHETHER YOU 
AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, AS 
LEGITIMATE, IT IS ALSO ONE THAT 
IS CYSTS
HISTORICAL CONSISTENT WITH 
HAMILTON'S VIEWS AND MEDICINES 
CONCERNING THE PROPER SCOPE OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS APPLIED TO A 
PRESIDENT. WHEN I ENTERED THE 
SCENE AND SUCCEEDED MY COLLEAGUE
AND COCOUNSEL HERE AS JUDGE
STARR IT WAS LEFT TO ME TO 
DECIDE WHETHER PROSECUTION  WAS 
NONETHELESS WARRANTED 
INCONSISTENT WITH
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL 
PROSECUTION OF THAT MATTER WAS 
EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED IN THE 
MIDST OF A GRAND JURY 
INVESTIGATION THAT I 
COMMISSIONED IN ORDER TO DECIDE 
WHETHER CRIMES HAVE BEEN 
COMMITTED I FOUND THAT THEY HAD.
AND I LATER SAID SO POPE WILL BE
IN THE FINAL COURT AND EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED MANDATED BY CONGRESS.
SIGNIFICANTLY THOUGH I ALSO 
DETERMINE THE PROSECUTION OF THE
PRESIDENT WHILE IN OUR ONCE HE 
LEFT OFFICE, WOULD NOT BE IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST GIVEN 
ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE MEANS 
SHORTER OF PROSECUTION IN ORDER 
TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT. 
THOSE MEANS INCLUDE A WRITTEN 
KNOWN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE 
PRESIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER HIS 
SENATE TRIAL THAT HIS TESTIMONY 
OVER THE GRAND JURY HAD BEEN 
FALSE AND LABELED AGREEMENT 
SUSPENDED ALL LICENSED THE PRICE
PAID BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
WAS HIGH AND IT STEMMED IN THE 
END FROM THE NEED TO VINDICATE 
THE PRINCIPAL FIRST RAISED MORE 
PROMINENTLY DURING WATERGATE 
THAT NO PERSON INCLUDING THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
DESPITE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
SUBSEQUENT PROTESTATION IN HIS 
MEMOIRS THAT I WAS JUST ANOTHER 
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR OUT TO 
ABSTRACT, IN HIS WORDS, A POUND 
OF FLESH, I CREDIT THE PRESIDENT
TO THIS DAY TO AGREE TO DO WHAT 
WAS NECESSARY
IN ORDER TO EXERCISE MY 
DISCRETION NOT TO PROSECUTE 
MAINLY FOR THE GOOD OF THE 
COUNTRY AND RECOGNIZING THE 
UNIQUE PLACE OF THE PRESIDENT 
INDEED ANY PRESIDENT OCCUPIES IN
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. 
ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCRETION GO
HAND IN HAND. AND IT DEMANDED IT
AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION IT 
ENABLED THE COUNTRY TO MOVE ON 
AND IT WAS AS MUCH A CREDIT TO 
BILL CLINTON THAT IS TO ANY 
CREDIT I RECEIVED OR
DESERVE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO 
REACH AN AGREEMENT AND AVOID ANY
PARTISAN INTERFERENCE AT THE 
WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 
ELECTING AND REELECTING PRESENT 
PLANTER
CLINTON IN THE FIRST PLACE AND 
HIS SUCCESSOR GEORGE W. BUSH. I 
WAS ABSOLUTELY MINDFUL AND 
EXCEEDINGLY CONCERNED THROUGHOUT
MY TENURE AS INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
ALTHOUGH CRIMES HAVE BEEN 
COMMITTED, BILL CLINTON WAS THE 
ELECTED OFFICIAL AND HEAD OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND I WAS NOT. 
OF THE LESSON FOR ME WAS A 
SIMPLE ONE THAT I'M SURE EVERY 
AMERICAN CITIZEN WHATEVER THEIR 
OWN EXPERIENCE OR POLITICAL 
PERSPECTIVE CAN
UNDERSTAND. BE HUMBLE AND ACT 
WITH HUMILITY NEVER BE TOO SURE 
THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. TODAY, 20 
YEARS LATER WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED
FROM THAT EXPERIENCE? I FEAR THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS 
NOTHING AT ALL. IF THESE 
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES NOW WERE 
SUSTAINED BEYOND SUMMARY 
RESOLUTION AND REQUITAL IT WOULD
MEAN IN THE FUTURE NOT ONLY
THAT NO CRIME AT ALL IS 
SUFFICIENT AS LONG AS THE 
MAJORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE SAYS
SO. IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS 
ALONE, WE HAVE WITNESSED THE 
ENDLESS PROCESSION OF LEGAL 
AREAS USED TO SUSTAIN THIS 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT FROM 
TREASON TO QUID PRO QUO TO 
BRIBERY TO EXTORTION TO 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO 
SOLICITING AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN 
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION TO IN 
VIOLATION OF IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL
ACTS TO WHO KNOWS WHAT ALL IS 
NEXT.
WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH THEN ARE 
CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT 
ARTICLES ABANDONING ANY PRETENSE
OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES THAT ARE 
ANOTHER VEHICLE OR WEAPON IF YOU
WILL, IN ORDER TO DAMAGE THE 
PRESIDENT POLITICALLY
IN AN ELECTION YEAR. IT IS I 
SUBMIT DECIDEDLY NOT IN THE 
COUNTRY'S BEST INTEREST TO HAVE 
THE PROSECUTION OF THE GRAVE 
ISSUE OF THE IMPEACHMENT AND 
DRASTIC PROSPECT THAT OF REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE BE JUST POLITICS BY 
OTHER MEANS ANY MORE THAN IT 
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE 
POWER OF OFFENSE UNDER THE 
CRIMINAL CODE TO BE EXERCISED 
NOT ON THE MERITS WITHOUT FEAR 
OR FAVOR BUT INSTEAD
AS A ROD, NAKED AND PERNICIOUS 
EXERCISE OF PARTISAN POWER AND 
ADVANTAGE. I'VE SPENT THE BETTER
PART OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE
FOR OVER 30 YEARS AS A FEDERAL 
PROSECUTOR FOR 13 YEARS WITH TWO
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATIONS AND NOW AS A 
DEFENSE LAWYER FOR OVER 17 
YEARS, TRY MY LEVEL BEST ALWAYS 
TO ENSURE THAT POLITICS AND 
PROSECUTION DO NOT MIX.
IT MUST NOT HAPPEN HERE. A 
STANDARDLESS AND IN PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT IS ILLEGITIMATE AND 
SHOULD BE REJECTED AS SUCH. 
OVERWHELMINGLY BY THIS BODY I 
HOPE AND SUBMIT OR ALTERNATIVELY
OR IF NEED BE BY ONLY A PARTISAN
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR THE GOOD
OF THE COUNTRY. TURNING NOW TO 
WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
ALLEGED. REGARDING THE FIRST 
ARTICLE,
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT 
CONTAINS A RATHER EXTRAORDINARY 
STATEMENT IT SAYS AS FOLLOWS AND
I QUOTE "ALTHOUGH
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS NEED NOT 
RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CRIMINAL 
ACTION TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT, 
HIS CONDUCT HERE WAS CRIMINAL". 
>> IN SHORT WE NEITHER BOTHER 
AND IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES 
CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH THE 
CRIME RECOGNIZING INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS 
COMMITTED, WE ARE GOING TO SAY 
THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT IS 
CRIMINAL, NONETHELESS. ASIDE 
FROM BEING EXCEEDINGLY UNFAIR TO
CRAWL CALL SOMETHING CRIMINAL 
AND NOT STAND BEHIND THE 
ALLEGATION AND ACTUALLY CHARGE 
IT, IT JUST AIN'T SO. I HAVE 
HEARD HOUSE MANAGERS JEFFRIES, 
ARGUE THAT HE AND HIS TEAM HAVE 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF 
EXPLICIT QUIT QUOTE PRO BY THE 
PRESIDENT. IN EXCHANGE OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND PERSONAL BENEFIT 
BY HIMSELF IN RETURN FOR 
OFFICIAL ACT BY THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT. AS I EXPLAINED IN A 
TIME MANIC USING MAGAZINE COVER 
STORY THE OFFER WAS LIMITED TO 
THOSE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE 
CORRUPT ONLY THOSE THAT ARE 
CLEARLY UNMISTAKABLY IMPROPER 
ARE THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND IN THE
EYES OF THE LAW THE SPECIFIC 
MEASURABLE BENEFIT THAT AN 
INVESTIGATION OR AN ANNOUNCEMENT
AND INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE 
BIDENS IS AT BEST NEBULOUS. ANY 
EFFORT TO CONTEND THAT THIS
PURPORT THING OF VALUE 
CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN 
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS FRAUGHT WITH DOUBT AS A 
MATTER OF LAW
, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS 
SAID AS MUCH. SO TO HAVE CORDS 
WHO HAVE STRUGGLED SINCE THE 
1990S WITH APPLICATION WITH THE 
FEDERAL ANTICORRUPTION LAWS TO 
SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHEN
IN-KIND BENEFIT IN THE FORM OF 
CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE OR 
ASSISTANCE IS ALLEGED TO BE 
ILLEGAL. AND NONE OF THIS WOULD 
PERMIT THE REQUISITE FINDING 
SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND 
UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE OF A 
VIOLATION OF LAW NECESSARY TO 
SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS IT 
ABUSIVE POWER. BACK TO MANAGER 
JEFFRIES CONTENTION
QUID PRO QUO BY THE PRESIDENT 
WHICH PARENTHETICALLY IS 
PREVIOUSLY NOTED BY MR. 
CIPOLLONE IS NOWHERE FOUND IN 
THE ARTICLES  OF IMPEACHMENT. IT
WOULD'VE REQUIRED A DIFFERENT 
TELEPHONE CALL BY THE ONE HE 
ACTUALLY HAD. AS I TRIED TO 
EXPLAIN IN THE TIME MAGAZINE 
PIECE AND EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO 
FOR CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE WOULD 
HAVE
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING TO HIS 
COUNTERPART IN UKRAINE, IN WORDS
OF SUBSTANCE, HERE'S THE DEAL 
AND THE FOLLOW-UP BY EXPLICITLY 
LINKING A DEMAND FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS TO 
THE PROVISION OR RELEASE OF 
FOREIGN AID. NONE OF THAT WAS 
SAID OR EVER HAPPENED. THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT ITSELF DEMONSTRATES 
THAT BEYOND ANY DOUBT. IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S WORDS, READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT. BY THE WAY,
TO DEMAND CHARACTERIZATIONS 
CREEPS INTO THIS PHONE CALL 
LARGELY BECAUSE OF ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN'S SAID HE PLACED THE 
REQUEST AND BASED ON HIS 
MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND LISTENED
IN ON THE CALL BY HIS SUPERIOR 
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS THE SAME 
THING AS AN ORDER IN A CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. ALL OF THIS IS TRUE IN 
THE MILITARY HE GOES WITHOUT 
SAYING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY  
IS THE LEADER OF A SOVEREIGN 
DANGER NATION IS NOT THE 
MILITARY COMMAND. I SAY THAT AS 
THE ARMY VETERAN AND THE FATHER 
OF A U.S. ARMY MAJOR CURRENTLY 
SERVING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
SPACE FORCE COMMAND IN AURORA 
COLORADO NEAR DENVER. WITH ALL 
DUE RESPECT, LIEUTENANT 
VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY IS DISTORTED
AND UNPERSUASIVE. NEXT, THE 
EXPLICIT LINK BETWEEN FORWARD 
AID AND THE INVESTIGATION AND 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEM IS WEEK.
THE MOST THAT AMBASSADORS 
SONDLAND WAS ABLE TO GIVE WITH 
HIS PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH A LINK
LIKELY EXISTED AND THAT 
PRESUMPTION WAS FLATLY 
CONTRADICT THE EYE THE 
PRESIDENTS EXPRESSED DENIAL OF 
THE EXISTENCE OF A QUID PRO QUO.
TWO AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AS TO 
ALSO SENATOR RON JOHNSON. OF THE
PRESIDENT WAS
EMPHATIC TWO AMBASSADORS 
SONDLAND HE SAID I WANT NOTHING 
I WANT NO QUIT
BROKE ALL I WANT LINSKY TO DO 
THE RIGHT THING TO DO WHAT HE 
RAN ON. SENATOR JOHNSON THE SAME
THING TWO WORDS, NO WAY. 
>> RECOGNIZING THIS TESTIMONY 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE FOCUSED 
INSTEAD, ON AN ALTERNATE QUIT 
BROKE WILL RATIONALE THAT THE 
EXCHANGE WAS CONDITIONAL ON A 
FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE.
IN RETURN FOR INVESTIGATION INTO
THE BIDENS. ON A HOUSE JUDICIARY
REPORT IT IS BEYOND QUESTION 
THAT THIS IS A FORMAL EXERCISE 
OF GOVERNMENT
POWER. NOT SO FAST. ACTUALLY THE
SUPREME COURT AND McDONALD
BOILED IT DOWN TO ONLY THOSE 
ACTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE FORMAL 
EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT POWER AND
THAT ARE MORE SPECIFIC AND 
FOCUSED THAN A BROAD POLICY. 
EXCHANGE OF MEETINGS AND THEN 
PHONE CALLS
AS THOSE TERMS ARE TYPICALLY 
UNDERSTOOD AS BEING ROUTINE 
ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT 
OFFICIAL ACT DO NOT COUNT. THE 
FACT THAT THE MEETING INVOLVED 
WAS A FORMAL ONE WITH ALL THE 
TRAPPINGS OF A STATE VISIT BY 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND 
HOSTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES MAKES NO 
DIFFERENCE. THE SUPREME COURT IS
TALKING ABOUT AN OFFICIAL ACT AS
A FORMAL EXERCISE OF THE 
DECISION-MAKING POWER. AN EVEN 
IF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE 
THIS COULD NOT CONSTITUTE A QUID
PRO QUO. I ARGUED IN THE FACT 
THE UNITED STATES VERSUS SON 
DIAMOND VERSUS IN THE SUPREME 
COURT OVER 20 YEARS AGO. THAT 
PROPOSITION LOST UNANIMOUSLY. 
THE VOTE WAS NINE TO NOTHING. 
THE COVETED MEETING AT IT WAS 
AFTER ALL JUST A MEETING WEATHER
AT THE WHITE HOUSE OR NOT, WAS 
NOT PERMANENTLY WITHHELD. AND 
LATER HAPPEN BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS
IN NEW YORK SITTING AT THE FIRST
AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY AND SIP 
TIMBER, 2019. FINALLY THE 
ARGUMENT BY CHAIRMAN JERRY 
NADLER THIS CALL BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP REPRESENTATIVE AND 
EXTORTION DEMAND, IS PATENTLY 
RIDICULOUS.
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF CRIME 
OF EXTORTION IS PRESSURE. NO 
PRESSURE WAS EXERCISED OR 
EXERTED DURING THE CALL. 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ITSELF HAVE 
REPEATEDLY DENIED  PRESSURE 
EXISTED. INDEED THE CONTRARY.
UKRAINE WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF
RESISTING ANY EFFORTS TO 
ENTANGLE ITSELF IN UNITED STATES
DOMESTIC PARTY POLITICS AND 
PARDONS SHIP. WHAT REMAINS OF 
THE FIRST ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT? 
NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED, NO 
CRIMES OR EVEN
FORMALLY ALLEGED. IN THAT 
REGARD, WHAT EXACTLY IS LEFT? 
IT'S NOT TREASON, UKRAINE IS OUR
ALLY NOT HER ENEMY OR ADVERSARY 
AND RUSSIA IS NOT OUR ENEMY ONLY
ARE ADVERSARY. IT'S NOT BRIBERY,
THERE'S NO QUIT PRO QUOTE IT'S 
NOT EXTORTION, NO PRESSURE IS 
NOT ILLEGAL FOREIGN CAMPAIGN 
CONTRIBUTION,
THE BENEFIT OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF INVESTIGATION IS NOT TANGIBLE
ENOUGH
TO CONSTITUTE AN IN-KIND 
CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATION WARRANTED
UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND IT'S NOT 
OF VIOLATION OF THE IMPOUNDING 
CONTROL ACT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK 
AT THE LAST ONE. OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE AN ARM OF 
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IN 
HIS INFINITE WISDOM HAS DECIDED 
CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
. OMB. WHILE THE PRESIDENT MAY 
TEMPORARILY WITHHOLD FUNDS FROM 
OBLIGATION
BUT NOT BEYOND THE END OF THE 
FISCAL YEAR. HE MAY NOT DO SO 
WITH VAGUE OR GENERAL ASSERTION 
OF PRIOR POLICY PRIORITIES
PRIOR TO THE WILL OF CONGRESS. 
THE DISPUTE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH WAS TO EXERT HIS 
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE 
TIMING OF THE BEST USE OF FUNDS.
ULTIMATELY
THIS IS A DISPUTE THAT HAS 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS 
UNDER SEPARATION OF POWER 
PRINCIPLES WHICH THIS BODY IS 
WELL FAMILIAR. IT APPEARS THE 
PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONAL 
PREROGATIVES TO CONTROL FOREIGN 
POLICY AGAINST CONGRESS 
REASONABLE EXPERT TATIAN THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WILL COMPLY WITH 
THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE 
LAW OF REQUIREMENT OF HIS OATH 
OF OFFICE. THIS ISSUE HAS COME 
UP BEFORE WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS.
THERE IS A HUGE CONSTITUTIONAL 
DEBATE AMONG LEGAL SCHOLARS 
ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT. A LOT REVIEW
ARTICLES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT
IT. ONE AS RECENTLY AS LAST JUNE
IN THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. 
CONGRESS THROUGH ITS ARM, GAO 
HAS AN OPPOSING VIEW FROM THAT 
OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND OM B. 
BIG SURPRISE. I AM REMINDED OF 
ONE OF
PRISON KENNY'S PRESS CONFERENCES
WHERE HE IS ASKED TO COMMENT 
ABOUT THE REPORT THAT REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE VOTED OF 
RESOLUTION HE WAS A TOTAL 
FAILURE AS PRESIDENT. HE 
FAMOUSLY QUIPPED. I'M SURE IT 
WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THAT IS 
ALL THIS IS HERE
POLITICS, NO MORE AND NO LESS. 
IN THE END, WHAT ARE WE TALKING 
ABOUT? THE TEMPORARY HOLD LIFTED
AND THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED AS A
HAD TO BE UNDER THE LAW AND 
ACKNOWLEDGE WAS REQUIRED BY THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY 19
DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR 
2011 THE 2017. THE IMPOUNDMENT 
AT CANNOT SUSTAIN AN IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLE AS CAN CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENA AFTER THE FINAL
DECISION OF THE COURT ORDERING 
THE COMPLIANCE OF THE SUBPOENA. 
NEITHER THE OBJECTION IN AND 
INTERBRANCH DISPUTE IS A 
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE
. IT SHOULD NEVER RESULT IN 
UNIMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR ABUSE 
OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. AND YET, IN A LAST 
DITCH
EFFORT TO REFRAME ITS FIRST 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ON ABUSE 
OF POWER, HOUSE MANAGEMENT ON 
PART OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
REPORT HAVE GONE BACK IN HISTORY
ALWAYS A TREACHEROUS ENDEAVOR 
FOR LAWYERS, THEY ARGUE THAT 
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON'S 
IMPEACHMENT 150 YEARS AGO 
FOLLOWING THE END OF THE CIVIL 
WAR WAS NOT ABOUT IN IN 
VIOLATION OF TENURE OF OFFICE 
ACT WHICH WAS THE VIOLATION OF 
LAW CHARGE IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BUT RESTED ON A 
ILLEGITIMATE MOTIVES.
US HISTORICAL SLEIGHT-OF-HAND 
NEW YORK TIMES 1619 SERIES 
ROUNDLY CRITICIZED BY TWO OF MY
PRINCETON CIVIL WAR AND 
RECONSTRUCTION HISTORY 
PROFESSORS AS INACCURATE. HOUSE 
MANAGERS NOW CLAIM THAT
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S REMOVAL OF 
LINCOLN SECRETORY OF WAR WITHOUT
CONGRESS
PERMISSION IN VIOLATION OF A 
STATUTE LATER FOUND TO BE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS BEST 
UNDERSTOOD WITH THE BENEFIT OF 
REVISIONIST HINDSIGHT NOT TO BE 
OF STATUE BED ON HIS THE LID 
ILLEGITIMATE USE TO SUBORDINATE 
AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOLLOWING THE 
CIVIL WAR. THAT ALL MAY BE TRUE,
BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING 
ALTOGETHER THAT THAT MOTIVE 
ACTUALLY WAS THE BASIS OF 
JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT. PROFESSOR
LAURENCE TRIBE WAS THE SOURCE 
FOR THIS MIGHT
MISGUIDED REINTERPRETATION 
SIMPLY SUBSTITUTES HIS OWN, 
SELF-DESCRIBED COMPELLING BASIS 
FOR JOHNSON'S REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE FROM THE ONE THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVE
ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND CONSIDERED
AT HIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THERE 
IS BEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF THAT 
GOING ON IN THIS IMPEACHMENT. 
PEOPLE SUBSTITUTING THEIR OWN 
INTERPRETATION FOR THE ONE THAT 
THE PRINCIPLES ACTUALLY
INSIST ON. AT ANY RATE, A 
PRESIDENTS SO-CALLED 
ILLEGITIMATE MOTIVES IN WIELDING
POWER CAN NO MORE FRAME AND 
LEGITIMATE THE JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT AS RECASTING THE 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT AS HIS MOTIVES
OVER HIS FOREIGN POLICY IN 
VIETNAM. AGAIN, ALL OF THAT MAY 
BE TRUE BUT IT HAS NOTHING 
REALLY TO DO WITH
IMPEACHMENT. NOT ONLY THAT, IT'S
ALSO BAD HISTORY. AS RECOGNIZED 
65 YEARS AGO BY THEN SENATOR 
JOHN F. KENNEDY IN HIS BOOK 
PROFILES ENCOURAGE, PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON WAS SAVED FROM REMOVAL 
IN OFFICE BY ONE VOTE ONE 
COURAGEOUS SENATOR RECOGNIZE THE
LEGISLATOR OVERREACH THAT THE 
TENURE OF OFFICE ACT 
REPRESENTED. QUOTING NOW
SENATOR EDMUND G ROSS WHO 
EXPLAINED HIS VOTE AS FOLLOWS. 
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE 
EXECUTIVE OFFICES A COORDINATE 
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WAS ON 
TRIAL. IF THE PRESIDENT MUST 
STEP DOWN UPON INSUFFICIENT 
PROOF AND FROM PARTISAN 
CONSIDERATIONS, THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE DEGRADED.
SO TO HEAR. CONTRARY TO THE
FASHION NOW, SENATOR ROSS ACTION
WAS PRAISED AND ACCEPTED SEVERAL
DECADES AFTER HIS SERVICE AND 
AGAIN MINDY YEARS LATER BY 
PRESIDENT KENNEDY AS HER 
COURAGEOUS STAND AGAINST 
LEGISLATIVE MOB RULE. PROFESSOR 
DURSO WHICH WILL HAVE MORE TO 
SAY ABOUT ONE OF THE COURAGEOUS 
SCENTED TOUR, MORE ON THAT 
LATER. NOW THE POINT IS OUR 
HISTORY
DEMONSTRATES PRESIDENT SHOULD 
NOT BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT 
BASED UPON BAD OR ILL MOTIVES. 
ANY THOUGHT TO THE CONTRARY 
SHOULD STRIKE YOU, I SUBMIT AS 
EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS TO OUR 
CONSTANT TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT WERE THE STANDARD, WHAT 
PRESIDENT WOULD EVER BE SAFE BY 
WAY OF IMPEACHMENT FROM WHAT 
HAMILTON DECRIED AS THE 
"PERSECUTION OF DESIGNING 
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES"
. THE CENTRAL IMPORT OF THE 
ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT, INDEED WHEN ADDED 
TOGETHER WITH THE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE ARTICLE IS A RESULT NOT 
FAR OFF FROM ONE WHAT CITIZEN 
TWEET I SAW BACK IN DECEMBER 
DESCRIBED AS ARTICLE 1, 
DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. ARTICLE 2, DEMOCRATS 
CAN'T BEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT REMOVABLE
FROM OFFICE JUST BECAUSE A 
DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE 
AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR 
MANAGERS, BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE 
DURING THE JULY 25th CALL OF 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. OF THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES MORE. TO 
IGNORE  THE REQUIREMENT AND 
PROVING IT
CRIME WAS COMMITTED IS TO 
SIDESTEP THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
DESIGN AS WELL AS THE LESSONS OF
HISTORY. MANY OF YOU HAVE COME 
TO CONCLUDE OR HAVE ALREADY 
CONCLUDED THAT THE CALL WAS LESS
IMPERFECT AND I HAVE SAID ON A 
NUMBER OF OCCASIONS PREVIOUSLY 
IN PUBLICLY IT WOULD'VE BEEN 
BETTER AND ATTEMPTING TO SPUR 
ACTION IN COORDINATING A LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WITH OUR 
GOVERNMENT TO HAVE DONE SO 
THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS
. WHILE THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY 
ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO 
OTHERWISE, THERE IS CONSEQUENCE 
TO THAT ACTION AS WE HAVE NOW 
WITNESS, AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHY 
WE ARE ALL HERE. BUT IT IS 
ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER TO 
CLAIM THAT SUCH CONDUCT IS 
CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY 
IMPEACHABLE AS IT ABUSE OF 
POWER. THERE CAN BE NO SERIOUS 
QUESTION THAT THIS PRESIDENT OR 
ANY PRESIDENT ACTS
LAWFULLY IN REQUESTING FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE IN INVESTIGATION INTO
POSSIBLE CORRUPTION EVEN WHEN IT
MIGHT POTENTIALLY INVOLVE
A POLITICIAN. IT TO ARGUE 
OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO ENGAGE IN 
A SPECIOUS CONTENTION THAT A 
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND FOR 
THAT MATTER ANY CANDIDATE ENJOYS
IMMUNITY IN THE COURSE OF THE 
CAMPAIGN. I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S 
NOT THE CASE FOR MY OWN 
EXPERIENCE. I DID SO IN 
INVESTIGATING HILLARY CLINTON 
WHILE SHE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE
WHILE SHE WAS RUNNING TO OFFICE.
MY POINT IS THIS THIS PRESIDENT 
HAS BEEN IMPEACHED AND STANDS 
TRIAL IN THE SENATE FOR 
ALLEGEDLY DOING SOMETHING 
INDIRECTLY ABOUT WHICH HE WAS 
ENTIRELY
PERMITTED TO DO DIRECTLY. THAT 
CANNOT FORM A BASIS IS AN ABUSE 
OF POWER ARTICLE SUFFICIENT TO 
WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
TURNING NOW TO THE SECOND 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. AS WE 
ARGUED IN OUR WRITTEN TRIAL 
BRIEF, AT THE OUTSET IT MUST BE 
NOTED THAT IT'S AT LEAST A 
LITTLE ODD FOR HOUSE MANAGERS TO
BE ARGUING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SOMEHOW OBSTRUCT CONGRESS WHEN 
HE DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED 
WHAT IS THE CENTRAL PIECE OF 
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THAT IS 
OF COURSE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
JULY 25th CALL AS WELL AS THE 
CALL THAT PRECEDED IT ON APRIL 
21 2019. RELEASE OF THAT CALL 
RECORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END
OF THIS CLAIM OF OBSTRUCTION BUT
APPARENTLY NOT. INSTEAD RELYING 
ON UNITED STATES VERSUS
NIXON HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
BROUGHT A BROAD CLAIM TO 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE NIXON COURT 
LIMITED HOLDING THAT AN 
OBJECTION
BY THE PRESENT BASED ON 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COULD ONLY 
BE OVERCOME IN THE LIMITED 
CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTED THERE WHERE THE 
INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS ALSO 
MATERIAL TO THE PREPARATION OF 
THE DEFENSE BY HIS 
CO-CONSPIRATORS IN PENDING CASES
AWAITING TRIAL FOLLOWING 
INDICTMENT. IN OTHER WORDS A 
DEFENDANT SIX AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
A FAIR TRIAL IN COLLATERAL 
PROCEEDINGS WAS WHAT THE ACTUAL 
COURT FOUND THE POSITIVE IN 
REJECTING THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THE 
WATERGATE
TAPES. ALL OF THAT IS A CLAIM OF
ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS, 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WHO WERE
THE PRESIDENTS CLOSEST ADVISORS.
BUSES SHOULD BE A MATTER OF 
ACCEPTED WISDOM AND HISTORICAL 
PREMISE
, THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR REVOKING
ESTABLISHED LEGAL RIGHTS, 
DEFENSES, PRIVILEGES AND 
IMMUNITIES. EVEN IN THE FACE OF 
SUBPOENAS FROM HOUSE COMMITTEES.
BACK IN 1998 A PROFESSOR CALLED 
OUT ANY ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY
AS FRIVOLOUS AND
DANGEROUS. HOUSE MANAGERS 
RESPOND NOW BY ARGUING 
NONETHELESS, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
NO RIGHT TO DEFY A LEGITIMATE 
SUBPOENA PARTICULARLY WHEN 
IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS ARE AT 
STAKE.
THUS IT IS AN ISSUE RISING TO 
THE LEVEL OF AN INTERBRANCH 
CONFLICT THAT OUR SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT ONLY ACCOMMODATION 
BETWEEN THE BRANCHES AND 
ULTIMATELY COURTS CAN FINALLY 
RESOLVE.
THE HOUSE CHOSE TO FORGO THAT 
COURSE AND PLOW FORWARD WITH 
IMPEACHMENT. HOUSE MANAGERS 
CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN NOW 
THAT THEIR OWN STRATEGIC COURSE 
CAN PLACE BLAME ON THE PRESIDENT
FOR A. AND WORSE YET
THEN TO IMPEACH HIM ON THAT 
BASIS AND SEEK HIS REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE. THAT'S NO BASIS AT ALL 
AS PROFESSOR CHARLIE HAS 
EXPLAINED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGITIMATE 
SUBPOENA IS IN FORCE OVER 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR EXECUTIVE
IMMUNITY ONLY WHEN IT
COURT SSO IN A FINAL DECISION. 
CALLING A SUBPOENA
LEGITIMATE AS HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT MAKE IT 
SO. AN ANALOGY TAKEN FROM 
BASEBALL THAT I THINK THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE MIGHT APPRECIATE, MAKES 
THE POINT. A LONG TIME 
MAJOR-LEAGUE UMPIRE NAMED BILL 
KLEMM WHO WORKED
UNTIL 1941 AFTER 37 YEARS IN THE
BIG LEAGUES WAS ASKED DURING A 
GAME WHETHER THE BALL WAS FAIR 
OR FOUL. OF THE THEM PYRE
REPLIED IT AIN'T NOTHING UNTIL I
CALL IT. I SAY THE SAME THING TO
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NOW IS NOT A  A 
FORCIBLE SUBPOENA UNTIL THE 
COURT SAYS IT IS.
RECEDING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
AND IN RESPONSE TO DEMAND NOT 
JUST FROM THE WHITEWATER 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL BUT FROM 
OTHER INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING 
AT THAT TIME. I KNOW, I WAS IN 
ONE OF THEM. THE WHITE HOUSE 
REPEATEDLY ASSERTED CLAIMS OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. MANY OF 
THOSE CLAIMS WERE LITIGATED FOR 
MONTHS, NOT WEEKS AND IN SOME 
CASES FOR YEARS. WHEN I HEAR MR.
SCHIFF  COMPLAINT THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL AND GRAND MATURITY
TESTIMONY IS DRAWN OUT. I CAN 
ONLY SAY IN RESPONSE. BOO-HOO. 
DID I THINK THOSE CLAIMS WERE 
PRIVY FRIVOLOUS AND OF COURSE 
THAT WAS THE DETERMINE OF THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY DURING THE IT
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. WHAT DID 
THEY DO ABOUT IT? NOTHING. THE 
COMMITTEE PROPERLY CONCLUDED IF 
THOSE WERE IN FOUNDED THEY DID 
NOT CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. DID I REGARD CLINTON 
ACTIONS ADVERSELY
ACTIVATED OUR INVESTIGATION YOU 
BET I DID BUT NEVER DID I 
SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT THOSE 
EFFORTS BY THE WHITE HOUSE, 
ALTHOUGH ENDLESSLY FRUSTRATING 
AND DAMAGING TO THE INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
, WOULD CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR ANY 
RELATED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
INSTEAD I AND MY COLLEAGUES DID 
THE BEST WE COULD IN REACHING 
ACCOMMODATION WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE WHERE POSSIBLE OR THROUGH 
LITIGATION WHEN NECESSARY IN 
ORDER TO COMPLETE THE TASK AT 
HAND TO THE BEST
OF OUR ABILITY TO DO SO. ANY 
CONTENTION TO WHAT HAS 
TRANSPIRED HERE INVOLVING THIS 
ADMINISTRATION ASSERT SOON OF 
VALID AND WELL-RECOGNIZED CLAIMS
OF
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IS 
SOMEHOW CONTRARY TO LAW AND 
IMPEACHABLE, IS LUDICROUS. IN 
SHORT, TO ADD TO THE PARADE OF 
CRIMINAL AND FENCE OFFENSES NOT 
SUSTAINED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE OR OF CONGRESS.. THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
IMPEACHED SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL 
REVIEW WHEN HE HAS RIGHT TO 
ASSERT. THAT IS NOW AND HAS BEEN
TRUE ALL THE WAY BACK TO GEORGE 
WASHINGTON.
BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CALL ALL THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING
FOR HIS BASIC FAIRNESS AND TO BE
HELD TO THE VERY SAME STANDARD 
THAT BOTH HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI PROFFERED IN MARCH, 2019.
WHICH PREVIOUSLY WAS ENDORSED 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
AND STRIKINGLY SIMILAR LANGUAGE 
BY HOUSE JERRY NADLER IN 1998. 
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE NOTHING 
LESS THAN "COMPELLING, 
OVERWHELMING, AND BIPARTISAN
". WE AGREE. NO AMOUNT OF 
WITNESS TESTIMONY DOCUMENTS,
HIGH-FIVES, FIST BUMPS, SIGNING 
PANS OR OTHERWISE OR EVER GOING 
TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THIS
IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE DEMOCRATS 
OWN STANDARDS. WITH THAT I AM 
READY TO CONCLUDE. THE 
PRESIDENTS ONLY INSTRUCTION TO 
ME FOR THIS TRIAL WAS THE SIMPLE
ONE. DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT.
AS A COUNTRY, WE NEED TO PUT A 
STOP TO DOING ANYTHING AND 
EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO IS 
START DOING WHAT'S RIGHT AND 
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE 
NATION'S BEST INTEREST. A 
BRAZENLY PARTISAN POLITICAL 
IMPEACHMENT BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
IS NOT, I SUBMIT IN THE BEST 
INTEREST OF THIS COUNTRY. 
BECAUSE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS WE
WILL ALL BE JUDGED IN THE EYES 
OF HISTORY ON WHETHER IN THIS 
MOMENT WE ACTED WITH THE 
COUNTRY'S OVERRIDING WELFARE 
FIRMLY IN MIND, RATHER THAN 
ADVANCING THE CAR CAUSE OF 
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. I HAVE 
ALWAYS BELIEVED AS AN ARTICLE OF
FAITH THAT IN GOOD TIMES AND IN 
HARD TIMES AND EVEN IN BAD TIMES
WITH MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE AT 
STAKE, THIS COUNTRY GETS THE BIG
THINGS RIGHT. I HAVE SEEN THAT 
IN MY OWN LIFE AND FROM MY OWN 
EXPERIENCE. EVEN IN WASHINGTON, 
D.C..
WHILE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, 
THIS LIES BEFORE YOU NOW, IT'S A
BIG THING THE NEXT ELECTION 
AWAITS. ELECTION
DAY IS ONLY NINE MONTHS AWAY. AS
SENATOR DALE BUMPERS ELOQUENTLY 
CONCLUDED IN ARGUING AGAINST 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE, AND I QUOTE,
THAT'S THE DAY WHEN WE REACH 
ACROSS THE AISLE AND HOLD HANDS,
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, WIN 
OR LOSE, WE WILL ABIDE BY THE 
DECISION.) QUOTE.". THEY SHOULD 
NOT BE DONE LIGHTLY JUST BECAUSE
ONE SIDE HAS POLITICAL
CLOUT AND ANOTHER ONE DOESN'T. 
AS A ABRAHAM LINCOLN WARNED, 
QUOTE IF THE MINORITY DOES NOT 
ACQUIESCE THE GOVERNMENT TO 
CEASE. AND ACREE IN SOME FORM IS
ALL THAT IS LEFT
,". THIS IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF
THE LAST ELECTION IN 2016 CANNOT
BE LEFT TO STAND.
FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, 
THEREFORE, SHOULD BE REJECTED 
AND THE PRESIDENT MUST BE 
ACQUITTED. MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
WITHOUT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I 
YIELD BACK. THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WE WILL 
DELVE INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
EFFORTS FOR A BIT AND ARE 
PRESENTER IS PROFESSOR ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ AFTER SERVING AS A 
LOCK WERE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA HE SERVED AS A LAW 
CLERK FOR JUSTICE ARTHUR 
GOLDBERG
OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. AT 
THE AGE OF 28 HE BECAME THE 
YOUNGEST TENURED PROFESSOR AT 
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. HE
IS TEACHING GENERATIONS OF LAW 
STUDENTS INCLUDING MEMBERS OF 
THIS CHAMBER IN CLASSES RANGING 
FROM CRIMINAL LAW AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION AND 
LEGAL EFFORTS AND EVEN CASES ON 
IMPEACHMENT HE WILL ADDRESS THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY 
THESE ARGUMENTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE, MY FRIENDS, LAWYERS, 
FELLOW LAWYERS, IT'S A GREAT 
HONOR FOR ME TO STAND BEFORE YOU
TODAY TO PRESENT A 
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST 
THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL NOT 
ONLY OF THIS PRESIDENT BUT
ALL AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHO 
MAY BE CHARGED WITH THE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF 
ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I STAND
BEFORE YOU TODAY AS I STOOD IN 
1973 AND 1974 FOR THE PROTECTION
OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS OF RICHARD NIXON. WHOSE
IMPEACHMENT I PERSONALLY 
FAVORED. I STOOD FOR THE RIGHTS 
OF BILL CLINTON WHOM I ADMIRED 
AND WHOSE IMPEACHMENT I STRONGLY
OPPOSED. I STAND AGAINST THE 
APPLICATION AND MISAPPLICATION 
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA 
IN EVERY CASE AND AGAINST ANY 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT REGARD TO 
WHETHER I SUPPORT
HIS OR HER PARTIES OR POLICIES. 
I WOULD BE MAKING THE VERY SAME 
CONSTITUTIONAL ART ARGUMENT HAD 
HILLARY CLINTON
WITH WHOM I HAD VOTED AND HAD A 
REPUBLICAN HOUSE VOTED TO 
IMPEACH HER
ON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.
I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LOVE 
MY COUNTRY. AND OUR 
CONSTITUTION. EVERYONE IN THIS 
ROOM SHARES THAT LOVE.
I WILL ARGUE THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND ITS TERMS, HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
DO NOT ENCOMPASS THE TWO 
ARTICLES CHARGING ABUSE OF POWER
AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
OFFERING THESE ARGUMENTS I STAND
IN THE FOOTSTEPS AND THEN THE 
SPIRIT OF JUSTICE BENJAMIN 
CURTIS, WHO IS OF
COUNSEL TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
ANDREW JOHNSON AND WHO EXPLAINED
TO THE SENATE THAT "A GREATER 
PRINCIPLE WAS AT STAKE THAN THE 
FATE OF ANY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT
". AND OF WILLIAM
EVERTS ANOTHER ONE OF ANDREW 
JOHNSON'S LAWYERS WHO REPORTEDLY
SAID HE COME TO THE DEFENSE 
TABLE NOT AS A PARTISAN NOT AS A
SYMPATHIZER, BUT TO DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION 
OF COURSE, ADVISES THE SENATE 
HAS A SOUL RULE TO
TRY IMPEACHMENTS. IN EXERCISING 
THAT POWER THE SENATE MUST 
CONSIDER THREE ISSUES IN THAT 
CASE. THE EVIDENCE OF HOUSE 
MANAGERS ESTABLISHES THE 
APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF PROOF 
BEYOND THE REASON OF DOUBT THAT 
THE FACTS OCCUR. A
THE SECOND IS WHETHER THESE 
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OCCUR DID 
THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ABUSE 
OF POWER OR THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. FINALLY, THE SENATE 
MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE ABUSE
OF POWERS OR OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE
IMPEACHMENT. THE FIRST IS 
LARGELY FACTUAL I LEAVE THAT TO 
OTHERS. THE SECOND IS 
TRADITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
WILL TOUCH ON THOSE. THE THIRD 
IS A MATTER OF YOUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW. DO CHARGES OF ABUSE AND 
OBSTRUCTION RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION? I WILL BEGIN AS 
ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 
BEGINS WITH TEXT OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL. I WILL EXAMINE 
WHY THE FRAMERS SELECTED THE 
WORDS THEY DID AUTHORIZING 
IMPEACHMENT. IN MAKING MY 
PRESENTATION I WILL TRANSPORT 
YOU BACK TO
A HOT SUMMER IN PHILADELPHIA. I 
WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO PATRIOTS 
AND IDEAS THAT HELP SHAPE OUR 
GREAT NATION. TO PREPARE FOR 
THIS JOURNEY I HAVE IMMERSED 
MYSELF
IN A LOT OF DUSTY OLD VOLUMES 
FROM THE 18th AND 19th CENTURY. 
I ASK YOUR INDULGENCE AS I QUOTE
FROM THE WISDOM OF OUR FOUNDERS.
THIS RETURN TO THE DAYS OF 
YESTERYEAR
IS NECESSARY. IF THE ISSUE TODAY
IS NOT WITH THE CRITERIA OF 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE, NOT WHAT 
A LEGISLATIVE BODY OR 
CONSTITUTIONAL BODY MIGHT TODAY 
DECIDE ARE THE PROPER CRITERIA 
FOR IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT 
BUT THE WHAT THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY CHOSEN 
WHAT THEY EXPRESSIVELY
I WOULD ASK WHETHER THE FRAMERS 
ACCEPTED BIG TERMS AS ABUSE OF 
POWER AS A GOVERNING CRITERIA. I
WILL SHOW BUT A CLOSE REVIEW OF 
HISTORY
THEY DID NOT AND WOULD NOT 
ACCEPT CRITERIA
FOR FEAR THEY WOULD TURN OUR NEW
REPUBLIC INTO A BRITISH STYLE 
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN WHICH
THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE TENURE WOULD BE IN THE
NAME OF JAMES MADISON BE AT THE 
PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE. 
CONCLUSION I OFFER SIMILAR NOT 
IDENTICAL. AS BENJAMIN CURTIS 
WHO DESCENDED FROM THE SUPREME 
COURT'S NOTORIOUS DECISION FROM 
DRUGS GOT AND RESIGNING IN 
PROTEST SERVED AS COUNSEL FROM 
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON IN IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HE ARGUED 
AND I QUOTE, THERE CAN BE NO 
CRIME NO MISDEMEANOR WITHOUT A 
LOT WRITTEN OR EXPRESSED OR 
IMPLIED." HE WAS ECHOING THE 
CONCLUSION BY
PETER WHITE OF COLUMBIA LAW 
SCHOOL WHO WROTE IN 1867 BEFORE 
THE THEM BEACH MEANT UNLESS A 
CRIME IS CAN SPECIFICALLY NAMED 
TREASON AND BRIBERY IMPEACHMENT 
LIKE INDICTMENTS
CAN ONLY BE INSTITUTED AND 
COMMITTED AGAINST THE STATUTORY 
FLAW OF THE UNITED STATES. AS 
JUDGE STARR SAID EARLIER TODAY 
HE  DESCRIBED THAT IS THE WEIGHT
OF AUTHORITY
BEING ON THE SIDE OF THAT 
PROPOSITION AT A TIME MUCH 
CLOSER TO THE FRAMING THEN WE 
ARE TODAY. THE MAIN THRUST OF MY
ARGUMENT AND MOST RELEVANT TO 
THESE PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF THAT 
POSITION IS NOT ACCEPTED EVEN IF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT WERE NOT 
REQUIRED THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONST DUCHENNE AND BLESSED BE 
REJECTED AND WOULD HAVE 
EXPLICITLY REJECTED SUCH TERMS 
AS ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
AS ENUMERATED IN DEFINED 
CRITERIA FOR HIM PREACHING A 
PRESIDENT.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON WAS 
ACCUSATIONS OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR 
INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARTICLE 
10 CHARGE JOHNSON BRING INTO 
DISGRACE THE CONGRESS OF THE 
UNITED STATES ARTICLE 11
DENYING CONGRESS WAS AUTHORIZED 
IN
LEGISLATIVE POWER AND DENYING 
THE LEGISLATIVE OF CONGRESS 
OBLIGATORY ON HIM. PRETTY 
SERIOUS CHARGES. HERE'S OUT 
JUSTICE RESPONDED. QUOTE, MY 
FIRST POSITION CONGRESS BREACH 
OF
OTHER CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IT
REFERS TO ONLY MY CRIMINAL 
OFFENSES AGAINST UNITED STATES 
MADE SO BY SOME LAW OF THE 
UNITED STATES. AND I SAY HE 
CONTINUED THIS IS PLAINLY TO BE 
INFERRED EACH AND EVERY 
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON
THE SUBJECT HIM A BRIEF 
IMPEACHMENT
" I WILL REVIEW THOSE WITH YOU. 
JUST CURTIS'S INTERPRETATION 
SUPPORTED IN HIS VIEW WAS 
COMPELLED
BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL TAX. TO 
TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE HIGH
CRIMES. OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS MUST BE AKIN TO 
TREASON AND BRIBERY. ARE DECIDED
THE LAND PHRASE. SORRY FOR THE 
PRONUNCIATION. REFERRING TO A 
CLASSIC RULE
OF INTERPRETATION WHEN A MEANING
ABOARD THAT IS PART OF A GROUP 
OF WORDS IS UNCERTAIN YOU SHOULD
LOOK TO THE OTHER WORDS IN THAT 
GROUP THAT PROVIDE CONTEXT. THE 
LATE JUSTICE ANTHONY SCALIA GAVE
THE OTHER EXAMPLE IF ONE SPEAKS 
OF MICKEY MANTLE, ROCKY MARCIANO
, MICHAEL JORDAN ANOTHER GREAT 
COMPETITORS, THE LAST ONE DOES 
NOT REFER TO SAM WALNUT WAS A 
GREAT COMPETITOR IN BUSINESS OR 
TO NAPOLEON. WHO IS GREAT 
COMPETITOR IN BATTLEFIELD. THE 
LAST FIVE WORDS SHOULD BE 
INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE ONLY 
SERIOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AKIN 
TO TREASON
AND BRIBERY. TO JUSTICE CURTIS 
REVIEWED THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION THAT RELATE TO 
IMPEACHMENT. FIRST, HE STARTED 
WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT 
REPRIEVES AND PARDONS FOR 
OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED 
STATES. EXCEPT IN CASES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. COGENTLY ARGUED IF 
PEACH MINT WERE NOT AN OFFENSE 
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WAS 
NOT BASED ON
OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED 
STATES IT WOULD BE NO NEED FOR 
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL ACCEPTANCE. 
HE THEN WENT ON TO A SECOND 
PROVISION. A TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES
EXCEPT FOR IN CASES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY. 
THIS DEMONSTRATED ACCORDING TO 
CURTIS THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES
A CRIME. UNLIKE OTHER CRIMES, IT
DOES NOT REQUIRE A JURY
TRIAL YOU ARE THE JUDGE AND 
JURY. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BY EXPRESS 
WORDS AND CONSTITUTION REQUIRES 
AN ACQUITTAL OR A CONVICTION. 
JUDGE SIMMONS GENERALLY RENDERED
ONLY IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMES.
NOW PRISON JOHNSONS LAWYERS 
ARGUED IN THE ALTERNATIVE AS ALL
LAWYERS DO WHEN THERE'S QUESTION
OF FACT AND OF LAW.
HE ARGUED THAT JOHNSON DID NOT 
VIOLATE THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS OTHER LAWYERS 
TODAY BUT EVEN IF HE DID THE 
ARTICLES DO NOT CHARGE HIM 
TEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH IS THE 
ARGUMENT THAT I'M MAKING BEFORE 
YOU THIS EVENING. THIS IS 
CURTIS'S FIRST POSITION
THE ARTICLES DID NOT CHARGE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY
DID NOT ALLEGE HIGH CRIME 
OFFENSES AGAINST UNITED STATES. 
ACCORDING TO A HARVARD HISTORIAN
AND LAW PROFESSOR. CURTIS'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ARE 
PERSUASIVE
TO RELEASE SOME SENATORS WHO ARE
NO FRIENDS OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON 
INCLUDING CO-AUTHORS OF THE 13th
AND 14th AMENDMENT. THE SENATOR 
PUTS IT JUDGE CURTIS GAVE US THE
LAW AND WE FOLLOWED IT. IS 
SENATOR JAMES W GRIMES ECHOED 
CURTIS HIS ARGUMENT BY REFUSING 
TO ACCEPT AN INTERPRETATION OF 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
THAT CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE 
LAW OF EACH SENATOR. AND ENACTED
IN HIS OWN BOSOM
THAT THOUGH HE DESPERATELY 
WANTED TO SEE PRESIDENT JOHNSON 
WHO HE DESPISED OUT OF OFFICE, 
HE BELIEVED THAT HE IMPEACHMENT 
REMOVAL WITHOUT THE VIOLATION 
ARE EXTRUDED IN THE APPROVAL OF 
IMPEACHMENT POLITICAL MACHINERY.
JUST AS CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
MAY WELL HAVE CAN AT LEAST HAVE 
SOME OF THE SEVEN
THAT REQUIRED A SINGLE VOTE. THE
NEW YORK TIMES REPEATS HIS VIEW 
THAT "IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES A 
CRIME.
NOW HE REQUIRES THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT DO CHARGE CRIMES. HE
IS WRONG BECAUSE
IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS 
HUDSON THE CASE DECIDED MORE 
THAN 200 YEARS NOW THE UNITED 
STATES SUPREME COURT RULED. THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS NO RESTRICTION
TO CREATE COMMON CRIMES. SO 
PROFESSOR IS RIGHT.
IT REQUIRES A CRIME FOR 
IMPEACHMENT BUT WRONG WHEN HE 
SAYS HIS COMMON-LAW
CRIMES CAN BE USED FOR BASES FOR
IMPEACHING EVEN THOUGH THEY 
DON'T APPEAR IN THE STATUTE 
BOOKS. I'M NOT HERE ARGUING THAT
THE CURRENT DISTINGUISH MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE OR IN ANY WAY 
BOUND, LEGALLY BOUND BY JUSTICE 
CURTIS'S ARGUMENTS OR THOSE OF 
DWIGHT. I AM ARGUING THAT YOU 
SHOULD GIVE THEM SERIOUS 
CONSIDERATION. THE CONSIDERATION
TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED BY 
THE EMINENCE OF THEIR AUTHOR AND
THE ROLE THEY HAVE PLAYED IN THE
OUTCOME THAT IS PROCESS AND TO 
THE CURRENT CASE. THERE IS A 
NUANCED DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE ARGUMENTS MADE 
BETWEEN CURTIS INTO WHITE AND 
THE ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING 
HERE TODAY BASED ON MY READING 
OF HISTORY. CURTIS ARGUED THERE 
MUST BE A PACIFIC
VIOLATION OF EXISTING LAW. HE 
RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME OF THE 
CONSTITUTION THERE WERE NO 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS STATUES. 
THE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A 
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SO WE 
COULDN'T HAVE
STATUES PRIOR TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION OF OUR NATION. THIS
IS ARGUED BY PROPONENTS OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT. FRAMERS COULD NOT 
INTEND TO LIMIT CRITERIA TO 
CRIMINAL LIKE BEHAVIOR. TO 
JUSTICE CURTIS ADDRESS THAT 
ISSUE AND THAT ARGUMENT HEAD-ON.
HE POINTED OUT THE CRIME SUCH AS
BRIBERY WOULD BE MADE CRIMINAL 
BY THE LAWS OF UNITED STATES 
WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION NEW WOULD BE PASSED
IN OTHER WORDS, ANTICIPATED THE 
CONGRESS WOULD SOON ENACT 
STATUTES,
PUNISHING, DEFINING CRIMES SUCH 
AS EXTORTION, PERJURY, ETC. 
ANTICIPATED THAT AND BASED HIS 
ARGUMENT ON THAT. THE 
CONSTITUTION ALREADY INCLUDED 
TREASON AS A CRIME. AND THEN IT 
INCLUDED OTHER CRIMES.
BUT WHAT JUSTICE CURTIS SAID IS 
THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE LAWS 
WRITTEN OR A UNWRITTEN, 
EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED BY WHICH HE MEANT 
COMMON-LAW AT THE TIME OF THE 
CONSTITUTION THERE WERE MANY 
COMMON-LAW CRIMES AND THEY WERE 
IN ENFORCEABLE EVEN FEDERALLY 
UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT MANY 
YEARS LATER DECIDED THAT 
COMMON-LAW CRIMES WERE NO LONGER
PART OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
THIS IS WHAT I DERIVE FROM 
HISTORY THEY WOULD INCLUDE 
CRIMINAL LIKE
CONDUCT AKIN TO TREASON AND 
BRIBERY. THEY NEED NOT BE IN MY 
VIEW CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF A 
TECHNICAL CRIME
THAT WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN
A CRIMINAL CONVICTION. LET ME 
EXPLAIN. FOR EXAMPLE IF A 
PRESIDENT WERE TO RECEIVE OR 
GIVE A BRIBE OUTSIDE OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE THE 
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HE COULD 
NOT BE PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED 
STATES FOR SUCH A CRIME BUT HE 
COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR SUCH A 
CRIME BECAUSE HE COMMITTED THE 
CRIME OF BRIBERY
EVEN THOUGH HE COULD NOT 
TECHNICALLY BE ACCUSED OF IT IN 
THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S THE 
DISTINCTION I THINK WE DROP. OR 
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
EXTORTION, PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE. HE CAN
BE CHARGED WITH THESE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BECAUSE 
THESE CRIMES COULD NOT SPECIFY 
IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE AKIN TO 
TREASON A BRIBERY. THIS WOULD BE
TRUE EVEN IF SOME OF THE 
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS, TIME AND 
PLACE ARE ABSENT. CURTIS INTO 
WHITE AND I AGREE UPON IN THIS 
IS A KEY POINT IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT CASE. PLEASE 
UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ARGUING,
PURELY NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT 
INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE 
OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES. THAT IS THE KEY 
ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING TODAY. 
THIS VIEW WAS SUPPORTED BY 
JUDGES CLOSE IN TIME TO THE 
FAMILY
. WILLIAM OLD WILL RUSSELL WHOSE
1819 TREATISE ON CRIMINAL LAW 
WAS A BIBLE AMONG CRIMINAL LAW 
SCHOLARS
AND OTHERS DEFINES HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS AS "SUCH 
IMMORAL AND UNLAWFUL ACTS AS ARE
MERELY ALLIED AND EQUALLY GUILT 
TO A FELONY AND YET OWING TO THE
ABSENCE OF SOME TECHNICAL 
CIRCUMSTANCES, DO NOT FALL 
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A 
FELONY.
" SIMILAR VIEWS ARE EXPRESSED BY
STATE COURTS, OTHERS DISAGREE. 
USE OF WHITE RUSSELL AND OTHERS 
BASED ON CAREFUL STUDY ARE NOT 
BONKERS, ABSURD US, LEGAL FLAP
TRAP OR OTHER DEMEANING EPITHETS
TO BE ROLLED AROUND BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORTERS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT 
AS JUDGE STARR  POINTED OUT THEY
HAD THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY, 
THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE 
GENERATION OF FOUNDERS AND THE 
GENERATION OF FOLLOWERS. THAT 
FOLLOWED. IF THEY ARE NOT
ACCEPTED BY THE ACADEMICS OF 
TODAY THAT SHOWS A WEAKNESS OF 
THE ACADEMICS NOT OF THE 
FOUNDERS. THESE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
ARE A OBLIGED TO RESPOND WITH 
REASONABLE COUNTER
INTERPRETATION NOT NAME-CALLING.
IF JUSTICE CURTIS AND WHITE ARE 
REJECTED, I THINK THEY ARE 
PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT MUST 
OFFER
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT REMOVAL. WE JUST 
HEARD THAT GERALD FORD WHO LIE 
GREATLY ADMIRED, SAID THE 
FOLLOWING IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
A JUSTICE. IT THE IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN ANY 
GIVEN MOMENT OF HISTORY, ETC. 
YOU ALL KNOW THE QUOTE. 
CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS MORE
PUT IT SAYS SINGLY IN THE CON? 
OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. 
>> IMPEACHMENT IS WHATEVER 
CONGRESS SAYS IT IS, THERE IS NO
LAW.
THIS LAWLESS VIEW TO REPLACE 
CONGRESS ABOVE THE LAW. IT WOULD
PLACE CONGRESS
ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION. FOR 
CONGRESS TO IGNORE THE SPECIFIC 
WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
AND SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENTS
WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO DO
WHATEVER THEY ARE ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT OF DOING AND NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. NOT THE PRESIDENT
AND NOT CONGRESS. THIS IS 
PRECISELY THE KIND OF YOU 
REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS. WHO 
FEARED HAVING THE PRESIDENT 
SERVE AT THE VIEW OF THE 
LEGISLATOR AND REJECTED BY 
SENATOR JAMES GRIMES WHO REFUSED
TO ACCEPT INTERPRETATION OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT 
WOULD CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE 
LAW AND ENACT IN HIS OWN BOSOM. 
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IN THE
WORDS OF MORRIS, THE CRITERIA 
MUST BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED. 
THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IMPEACHMENT 
TODAY OR ARE OBLIGED TO 
DEMONSTRATE HOW THE CRITERIA 
ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE IN THIS 
CASE ARE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED 
IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE 
COMPELLING TEXTUAL ANALYSIS 
PROVIDED BY JUSTIN CURTIS
IS CONFIRMED BY THE DEBATE IN 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY
THE FEDERALS PATER PAPERS AND
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE AND ALEXANDER
HAMILTON WERE HEAVILY RELIED ON 
BY LAWYERS AT THE TIME OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION. THERE 
WERE AT THE TIME OF THE 
CONSTITUTION'S ADOPTION,
TWO GREAT DEBATES THAT WENT ON. 
IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND 
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO 
GREAT DEBATES. THE FIRST, HARD 
TO IMAGINE TODAY BUT THE FIRST 
WAS SHOULD THERE BE ANY POWER TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AT ALL? 
AND THERE WERE SEVERAL MEMBERS 
OF THE FOUNDING GENERATION
AND OF THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WHO SAID NO. A 
PRESENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
BE IMPEACHED. THE SECOND AND THE
SECOND IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT IN
OUR CONSIDERATION TODAY IS IF A 
PRESIDENT IS TO BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT, WHAT SHOULD THE 
CRITERIA BE? THESE ARE VERY 
DIFFERENT ISSUES. MONDAY OR 
OFTEN
ERRONEOUSLY COMPLETED. LET'S 
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST DEBATE. 
DURING THE BROAD DEBATE ABOUT 
WHETHER A PARENT PRESENT SHOULD 
BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT
. PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT USE 
VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS SUCH 
AS UNFIT, OBNOXIOUS, CORRUPT, 
MISCONDUCT, MISBEHAVIOR, 
NEGLIGENCE, MALPRACTICE, 
TREACHERY, INCAPACITY, TECH 
ELATION AND MALADMINISTRATION.
THEY WORD THE A PRESIDENT MIGHT 
PERVERT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO 
HIS SCHEME OF SPECULATION 
OPPRESSION. HE MIGHT BE 
CORRUPTED
BY FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND YES, 
THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT HE MIGHT 
HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF 
ABUSING HIS POWER. THOSE WERE 
THE CONCERNS THAT LED THE 
FRAMERS TO DECIDE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MUST BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT
. BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE 
FRAMERS SUGGESTED THAT THESE 
GENERAL FEARS, JUSTIFYING THE 
NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL
MECHANISM SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY 
BE ACCEPTED
AS A SPECIFIC CRITERION FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. FAR FROM IT, 
GOVERNOR MORRIS APTLY PUT IT, 
CORRUPTION AND OTHER OFFENSES 
WERE IMPEACHABLE. BUT THE CASES 
OUGHT TO BE ENUMERATED AND 
DEFINED. THE GREAT
FALLACY OF MANY CONTEMPORARY 
SCHOLARS AND PUNDITS WITH DUE 
RESPECT, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IS A FAILED TO 
UNDERSTAND THE CRITICAL 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE BROAD 
REASONS FOR NEEDING AN 
IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM AND THE 
CAREFULLY ENUMERATED AND DEFINED
CRITERIA
THAT SHOULD AUTHORIZE THE 
DEPLOYMENT OF THIS POWERFUL 
WEAPON. LET ME GIVE YOU A 
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT 
FACE CONGRESS OR CERTAINLY WILL 
FACE CONGRESS. LET'S ASSUME THAT
THERE IS A DEBATE OVER 
REGULATING THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL
MEDIA. WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE 
REGULATIONS OR CRIMINAL CIVIL 
REGULATIONS OVER TWITTER OR 
FACEBOOK ETC.
. IN THE DEBATE OVER REGULATING 
THE SOCIAL MEDIA, PROPONENTS OF 
REGULATION MIGHT WELL SITE BROAD
DANGERS SUCH AS FALSE 
INFORMATION, INAPPROPRIATE 
CONTENT
, HATE SPEECH. THOSE ARE GOOD 
REASON FOR HAVING REGULATION BUT
WHEN IT CAME TO ENUMERATING AND 
DEFINING WHAT SHOULD BE 
PROHIBITED
SUCH BROAD DANGERS WOULD HAVE TO
BE BALANCED AGAINST OTHER 
IMPORTANT POLICIES AND THE 
RESULTING INTEREST LEGISLATION 
WOULD BE MUCH IN ERROR MORE 
CAREFULLY DEFINED THAN THE BROAD
DANGERS THAT NESSUS SAID DATED 
SOME REGULATION. THE
FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THIS 
DIFFERENCE. MANY SCHOLARS AND 
OTHERS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
FAILED TO SEE THE DISTINCTION 
AND THEY CITE SOME OF THE FEARS 
THAT LED TO THE NEED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM, THEY CITE
THEM AS THE CRITERIA THEMSELVES.
THAT IS A DEEP FALLACY. AND IS 
CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT AT THIS 
DISTINCTION SHARPLY DRAWN 
BETWEEN ARGUMENTS MADE IN FAVOR 
OF IMPEACHING AND THE CRITERIA 
THEN DECIDED UPON TO JUSTIFY THE
IMPEACHMENT SPECIFICALLY OF A 
PRESIDENT.
THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THIS SO 
THEY GOT DOWN TO THE DIFFICULT 
BUSINESS OF ENUMERATING A 
DEFINING ROSALES PRECISELY WHICH
OFFENSES AMONG MANY THE 
PRESIDENT MIGHT COMMIT
. SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE. SOME 
FRAMERS SUCH AS ROGER SHERMAN 
WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE 
REMOVED BY THE NATIONAL 
LEGISLATURE AT ITS PLEASURE MUCH
LIKE THE PRIME MINISTER COULD BE
REMOVED AS A SIMPLE VOTE OF 
NO-CONFIDENCE BIKE PARLIAMENT. 
THAT VIEW WAS REJECTED. BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN DECIDEDLY BY THE 
LEGISLATURE. MORRIS DEPENDING ON
THE LEGISLATOR CONSIDERING 
PARDON ME QUOTING THIS 
>> A GREAT DANGER TO BE 
APPREHENDED
". TO JAMES MADISON EXPRESSED 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
BEING DEPENDENT ON THE 
LEGISLATOR. OTHERS
WORRIED ABOUT A FEEBLE 
EXECUTIVE. HEARING THESE AND 
OTHER ARGUMENTS ABOUT TURNING 
INTO A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY 
WHICH THE LEGISLATOR HAD A POWER
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT THE 
FRAMERS SET OUT TO STRIKE THE 
APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN THE 
BROAD CONCERN THAT LED THEM TO 
AUTHORIZE IMPEACHMENT OF OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND IN NEED OF 
SPECIFIC CRITERIA NOT SUBJECT TO
LEGISLATIVE ABUSE OR OVERUSE. 
AMONG THOSE WERE MALPRACTICE,
NEGLECT OF DUTY, MOUNT CONDUCT, 
NEGLECT OF EXECUTION OF CONGRESS
AND MALADMINISTRATION.
WAS A RESPONSE TO THAT LAST TERM
AS A USE IN BRITAIN AS A TERM 
FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT MADISON 
RESPONDED A VAGUE TERM WILL BE 
UPON THE PLEASURE OF THE SENATE.
UPON HEARING OBJECTIONS THEY 
WITHDREW MALADMINISTRATION AND
PUT IN HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. OTHER THINGS ABUSE
OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS AS DEFINED IMPEACHMENT 
HISTORY SUGGESTED MADISON WOULD 
OPPOSED IT AND IT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN OBJECT DID. I WILL COME 
BACK TO THAT ARGUMENT WHEN I 
TALKED TO THIS SPECIFICALLY 
ABOUT
THE ABUSE OF POWER. MADISON 
WORRIED THAT A PARTISAN 
LEGISLATURE COULD MISUSE THE 
WORD MISDEMEANOR TO INCLUDE A 
BROAD ARRAY OF NON-CRIME SO HE
PROPOSED MOVING THE TRIAL TO THE
NONPARTISAN SUPREME COURT. THE 
PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED.
THIS IS NOT MINA SOMEONE 
SUGGESTED THAT MADISON SUDDENLY 
CHANGE HIS MIND IN FAVOR TO 
EXPAND THE MEANING OF 
MISDEMEANOR TO INCLUDE BROAD 
TERMS LIKE MISBEHAVIOR NO HE 
ONLY FEARED AT. HE FEARED IT 
COULD BE ABUSED. IT WAS THE 
MISUSE OF THE TERM OF HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN THE 
HOUSE OF THIS CASE. THE BEST 
EVIDENCE THAT WAS CITED BY THE 
FRAMERS TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT 
WAS NOT AT A MOTT
AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED AS 
CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT 
WAS THE MANNER BY WHICH THE WORD
INCAPACITY, FOCUS ON THAT WORD.
INCAPACITY WAS TREATED. MADISON 
AND OTHERS FOCUSED HEAVILY ON 
THE PROBLEM OF WHAT HAPPENS IF A
PRESIDENT BECOMES INCAPACITATED.
CERTAINLY A PERSON WHO IS 
INCAPACITATED SHOULD NOT BE 
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO PRESIDE 
OVER THIS GREAT COUNTRY. AND 
EVERYONE SEEMED TO AGREE THAT 
THE POSSIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL 
INCAPACITY IS A GOOD AND 
POWERFUL REASON FOR HAVING 
IMPEACHMENT PROVISION. WHEN IT 
CAME TIME TO ESTABLISHING QUITE 
TEARY UP FOR ACTUALLY REMOVING A
PRESIDENT, INCAPACITY WAS NOT 
INCLUDED WHY NOT? PRESUMABLY 
BECAUSE IT WAS TOO VAGUE AND 
SUBJECT OF AT TURN. WHEN WE HAD 
AN INCAPACITATED
PRESIDENT OF THE END OF THE 
WOODROW WILSON SECOND TERM, HE 
WAS NOT IMPEACHED AND REMOVED. 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS 
CAREFULLY DRAWN PROCEDURAL 
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE WAS 
REQUIRED TO REMEDY THE DAUNTING 
PROBLEM OF A PRESIDENT WHO IS
DEEMED INCAPACITATED. ANOTHER 
REASON WHY INCAPACITATION WAS 
NOT INCLUDED IN IMPEACHABLE IN 
FENCES IT'S NOT
CRIMINAL IS NOT A CRIME IS NOT 
AKIN TO BRIBERY AND HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR. FRAMERS 
BELIEVED THAT IT MUST BE 
CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND AKIN TO 
THE MOST SERIOUS OF CRIMES AND 
INCAPACITY DID NOT FIT INTO THIS
CATEGORY. SO THE CONSTITUTION 
HAD TO BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A 
DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF 
NONCRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THAT 
WARRANTED REMOVAL. HIRED YOU CAN
CONSIDER SERIOUSLY THAT IN POINT
AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE HISTORY
OF THE ADOPTION OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
I THINK THAT BLACKSTONE AND 
HAMILTON ALSO SUPPORT THIS VIEW.
THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT OVER 
THE CONCLUSION OVER THE WORDS 
TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES. OF THOSE REQUIRE 
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THE DEBATE IS
ONLY OVER THE WORDS 
MISDEMEANORS. THE FRAMERS WERE
COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT THE 
WORD MISDEMEANOR WAS A SPECIES 
OF CRIMES. THE BOOK THAT WAS 
MOST OFTEN
DEEMED AUTHORITATIVE WAS WRITTEN
BY WILLIAM BLACKSTONE IF GREAT 
BRITAIN. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID. 
ABOUT
THIS VERSION THAT WAS AVAILABLE 
TO THE FRAMERS. A CRIME OR 
MISDEMEANOR IS AN ACT COMMITTED 
OR OMITTED IN VIOLATION OF 
PUBLIC LAW EVEN FOR BIDDING OR 
COMMANDING. IF THE GENERAL 
DEFINITION
IS BOTH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
WHICH PROPERLY SPEAKING ARE MERE
SOME ANONYMOUS TERMS. MERE 
SYNONYMOUS TERMS. THEY WENT ON 
WITH COMMON USAGE, THE WORD 
CRIMES IS MADE TO NOTE OFFENSES 
AND SMALL OMISSIONS OF LESS 
CONSEQUENCE OR UNDER THE GENTLE
NAME OF MISDEMEANORS ONLY. HE 
POINTED OUT MISDEMEANORS ARE NOT
ALWAYS SO GENTLE, THERE WAS A 
CATEGORY CALLED CAPITAL OF 
MISDEMEANORS IF YOU STOLE 
SOMEBODY'S PIG OR OTHER FOWL YOU
COULD BE SENTENCED TO DENSE. 
IT'S A MISDEMEANOR DON'T WORRY 
NOT FOR FELONY. THEIR WORK 
MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE CAPITAL 
IN NATURE. BLACKSTONE WROTE THAT
PARMA WILL
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IS A 
PROSECUTION OF ALREADY KNOWN AND
ESTABLISHED LAW PRESENTED IN THE
MOST HIGH AND SUPREME COURT OF 
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANALYSIS 
TO THIS GREAT CORD HE OBSERVED 
THAT A COMMONER COULD BE 
OBSERVED FOR MISDEMEANORS APPEAR
MAY
BE IMPEACHED FOR ANY CRIME. THIS
CERTAINLY SUGGESTS THAT 
BLACKSTONE DEEMED HIGH 
MISDEMEANORS TO BE A SPECIES OF 
CRIME. HAMILTON IS A LITTLE LESS
CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE AND NOT 
SURPRISINGLY BECAUSE
HE WAS IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65 
HE WAS WRITING
NOT TO DEFINE WITH THE CRITERIA 
FOR IMPEACHMENT WERE, HE WAS 
WRITING FOR NARROWLY IN DEFENSE 
OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN. 
AND LESS TO DEFINE ITS 
PROVISIONS. BUT HE CERTAINLY 
CANNOT BE CITED IN FAVOR OF 
CRITERIA OF ABUSE OF POWER OR 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS NOR 
IMPEACH ALONG PARTY LINES. HE 
WARNED THAT THE GREATEST DANGER 
THESE WERE HIS WORDS, THE DATE 
GREATEST DANGER IS THAT THE 
DECISION WILL BE RE-REGULATED 
MORE BY THE COMPARATIVE PARTIES 
THAN BY THE REAL DEMONSTRATION 
OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT. IN 
ADDITION TO USING CRIMINAL TURNS
INNOCENCE OR GUILT HE SAID QUOTE
PROSECUTION AND SENDS". HE 
STATES THE
PARTY CONVICTED SHALL 
NEVERTHELESS BE LIABLE AND 
SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL AS A
REASON FOR NOT HAVE THE 
PRESIDENT TRIED BEFORE THE 
SUPREME COURT HE FEARED A DOUBLE
PROSECUTION A VARIATION OF 
DOUBLE JEOPARDY BETWEEN THE SAME
JUDICIARY. THEY ARE SOUNDING 
CRIMINAL TERMS. AD BECAUSE OF A 
BROAD OPEN-ENDED NON-
INTERPRETATION OF HIGH CRIMES IN
MISDEMEANORS INSIST HAMILTON IS 
ON THEIR SIDE AND THEY CITE THE 
FOLLOWING WORDS REGARDING A 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT AND I THINK
I'VE HEARD THESE WORDS QUOTED 
MORE THAN ANY OTHER WORDS IN 
SCHOOL PORT OF A BROAD WORD OF 
IMPEACHMENT
AND THEY ARE MISUNDERSTOOD. 
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID SUBJECT OF 
JURISDICTION BY WHICH HE MEANT 
TREASON BRIBERY AND
MISDEMEANOR. SUBJECT OF 
JURISDICTION OR IN OTHER WORDS 
ABUSE OF VIOLATION OF PUBLIC 
TRUST. THEY ARE PECULIAR 
PROPRIETY
BE DONE NOMINATED POLITICAL AS 
THEY RELATE CHIEFLY TO THE 
INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE
SOCIETY ITSELF. 
>> THOSE ARE HAMILTON'S WORDS. 
THEY IN CHAIR CRITERIA INCLUDE 
THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
TRUST. THAT IS A MISREADING. 
THESE WORDS WERE USED TO 
CHARACTERIZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CRITERIA
THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE 
JURISDICTION NAMELY TREASON 
BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES OR 
MISDEMEANORS. OF THOSE SPECIFIED
CRIMES ARE POLITICAL IN NATURE 
AND THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION OF 
PUBLIC
TRUST. HE WAS NOT EXPANDING THE 
SPECIFIED CRITERIA TO INCLUDE AS
INDEPENDENT GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, MISCONDUCT, ABUSE 
OR VIOLATION, IF ANYTHING HE WAS
CONTRACTING THEM
TO REQUIRE IN ADDITION TO PROOF 
OF THE SPECIFIED CRIMES, ALSO 
PROOF THAT THE CRIMES MUST BE OF
A POLITICAL NATURE. THIS WOULD 
EXCLUDE PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S PRIVATE NONPOLITICAL 
CRIME. IN FACT, THIS IS 
INTERESTING, HAMILTON'S VIEW WAS
CITED BY CLINTON'S ABACUS AS 
CONTRACTING, NOT EXPANDING THE 
MEETING OF HIGH CRIMES.
TODAY SOME THE SAME ADVOCATES 
LOOK AT THE SAME WORDS AND CITE 
THEM AS EXPANDING ITS MEANING. 
CLINTON WAS
ACCUSED OF A CRIME, PERJURY THE 
ISSUE WAS NOT WHETHER THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A CRIME OF
IMPEACHMENT IT WAS WEATHER 
CLINTON'S ALLEGED
CRIME COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A 
HIGH CRIME IN LIGHT OF PERSONAL 
NATURE. DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT I STATED I DID NOT 
THINK A TECHNICAL CRIME WAS 
REQUIRED. BUT I DID THINK 
ABUSING TRUST
COULD BE CONSIDERED. I SAID THAT
AT THE TIME I HAD NOT DONE THE 
RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT
WAS A RELEVANT TO THE CLINTON 
CASE AND I WAS NOT FULLY AWARE 
OF THE COMPELLING COUNTER 
ARGUMENTS I CERTAINLY ACCEPTED 
THE ACADEMIC
CONSENSUS ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS 
NOT IN THE FRONT BURNER AT THIS 
TIME. BUT THIS IMPEACHMENT 
DIRECTLY RAISES THE ISSUE 
WHETHER CRIMINAL IS REQUIRED, 
I'VE GONE BACK AND READ THE 
HISTORICAL
MATERIAL AS NONPARTISAN ACADEMIC
SHOULD ALWAYS DO AND CONCLUDED 
THE FRAMERS DID INTEND TO LIMIT 
IT TO CRIMINAL ACTS AKIN TO 
TREASON AND BRIBERY AND DID NOT 
EXTEND TO HAVE IT OPEN ENDED IN 
NONCRIMINAL ACCUSATION IS SUCH 
AS ABUSE OF POWER AND ABUSE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS I 
PUBLISH THIS WELL BEFORE I WAS 
ASKED TO PRESENT IT AT THIS 
CASE. MY SWITCH IN THIS CASE IS 
PURELY PURELY ACADEMIC
AND NONPARTISAN. SEVERAL MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS AND SENATORS EXPRESS
DIFFERENT VIEWS REGARDING 
IMPEACHMENT WHEN THE SUBJECT WAS
PRESIDENT CLINTON THAN THEY DO 
NOW WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CLINTON MY COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND 
WHO IS AN ADVISOR TO PELOSI NOW.
SAID THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE 
CHARGED WITH A CRIME NOW HE 
CHANGE HIS MIND. THAT'S WHAT 
ACADEMICS DO BASED ON NEW 
INFORMATION IF THERE IS 
REASONABLE UP DOUBTS ABOUT THE 
INTENDED MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS, SENATORS MIGHT
CONSIDER
RESOLVING THE DOUBTS BY LEGAL 
CONTEXT KNOWN AS LIMITING. THIS 
GOES BACK TO MANY YEARS AND WAS 
A CONCEPT INGRAINED
BRITAIN RELIED UPON MANY 
JUSTICES IN JUST AS IN IT WAS 
WELL KNOWN TO THE LEGAL MEMBERS 
OF THE FOUNDING GENERATION. IT 
REQUIRED CRIMINAL STATUTE 
CAPABLE OF MORE THAN ONE 
REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, THE 
IN TAPE ROTATION THAT FAVORS THE
DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SELECTED AND
LESS A COMPLEX WITH THE STATUTE.
IT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY CHIEF 
JUSTICE MARSHALL
, OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, ANTHONY
AND SCULLY AND OTHERS. APPLYING 
THAT RULE TO THE INTERPRETATION 
OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
WOULD REQUIRE THAT THESE WORDS 
BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY TO REQUIRE
CRIMINAL LIKE CONDUCT AKIN TO 
TREASON AND BRIBERY RATHER THAN 
BROADLY TO ABUSIVE POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IN 
OTHER WORDS,
THE SENATORS IN DOUBT ABOUT THE 
MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THE RULE OF LEVITY 
SHOULD INCLINE THEM TO ACCEPT A 
NARROW RATHER THAN A BROAD 
INTERPRETATION. OF YOU THAT 
OBJECTS THE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS A 
CRITERIA. EVEN IF IT'S NOT 
APPLICABLE TO IMPEACHMENT, MY 
QUESTION CERTAINLY THE POLICIES 
UNDERLYING THE RULE ARE WORTHY 
AND DESERVING OF CONSIDERATION 
AS GUIDES
TO CONSTITUTIONAL 
INTERPRETATION. HERE I AM MAKING
I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. 
EVEN IF THE SENATE WERE TO 
CONCLUDE THAT A TECHNICAL CRIME 
IS NOT REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT,
THE CRITICAL QUESTION REMAINS IN
THE QUESTION I NIALL WANT TO 
ADDRESS MYSELF TO DO ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES. OF THE RELATIVE 
HISTORY ANSWERS THAT QUESTION 
CLEARLY IN THE NEGATIVE. EACH 
CHARGES SUFFERED FROM THE VICE 
OF BEING A VEGAS TERM THAT THEY 
WILL BE AT THE TENURE OF THE 
PLEASURE OF THE SENATE TO QUOTE
THE FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION. 
ABUSE OF POWER IS AN ACCUSATION 
EASILY LEVELED BY POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS AGAINST CONTROVERSIAL 
PRESIDENTS IN OUR LONG HISTORY 
MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN 
ACCUSED OF ABUSING POWER. I WILL
NOW GIVE YOU A LIST OF
PRESIDENTS IN OUR HISTORY WHO 
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSING 
POWER WHO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE HOUSE 
MANAGER'S VIEW OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. GEORGE WASHINGTON 
REFUSAL TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS 
RELATED TO THE JAY TREATY. JOHN 
ADAMS SIGNING AND FORCING THE 
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. THOMAS 
JEFFERSON PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA 
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, MARTIN 
FOUND BUREN, JOHN TYLER, JAMES 
POLK, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ACCUSED 
POPE OF VICKI ABUSING HIS POWER 
AT DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTION
USURPING THE ROLE OF CONGRESS 
AND THE ROLE OF DICTATOR. HE 
DIDN'T SEEK TO IMPEACHMENT HE 
JUST SOUGHT TO DEFEAT HIM. 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS ACCUSED OF 
ABUSING HIS POWER
FOR SUSTAINING THE WRIT OF 
HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE CIVIL 
WAR. PRESIDENT GRAHAM. GROVER 
CLEVELAND WILLIAM McKINLEY 
THEATER ROSE WHAT TAFT, WILSON, 
HARRY TRUMAN JIMMY CARTER RONALD
REAGAN "CONCERNING A RAN 
CONTRACT
" AND NOW IS A PROFESSOR 
LAURENCE TRIBE SAYS THERE LIES 
WHAT I SAID THE SERIES BREACH OF
DUTY BY THE PRESIDENT MAY WELL 
INTEL IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF 
POWER. GEORGE H.W. BUSH BUSH. IN
FOLLOWING WAS RELEASED BY 
CLINTON-GORE CAMPAIGN THE
GEORGE BUSH AND THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF ABUSE OR 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSE. THAT'S HOW ABUSE OF 
POWER SHOULD BE USED AS CAMPAIGN
RHETORIC. SHOULD BE IN 
STATEMENTS AGAINST ONE POLITICAL
PARTY AGAINST ANOTHER. THAT'S 
THE NATURE OF THE TERM ABUSE OF 
POWER IS A POLITICAL WEAPON AND 
IT SHOULD BE LEVELED AGAINST 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS. LET THE 
PUBLIC DECIDE
. BARACK OBAMA THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
ENTIRE HEARING
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ABUSE OF 
POWER. NOW BY THE STANDARDS 
APPLIED TO EARLIER PRESIDENTS 
NEARLY ANY CONTROVERSIAL ACT BY 
A CHIEF EXECUTIVE COULD BE 
DENOMINATED AS ABUSE OF POWER. 
EXAMPLE PAST PRESIDENTS OF BEEN 
ACCUSED OF USING FORM POLICY 
EVEN THERE WERE POWERS TO 
ENHANCE THEIR ELECTRO 
PROSTHETICS
. PRESIDENTS OFTEN HAVE MIXED 
MOTIVES THAT INCLUDE PARTISAN 
IMPERSONAL BENEFITS ALONG WITH 
NATIONAL INTEREST. PROFESSOR 
JOSH BLACK MEN
PROVIDED THE INTERESTING 
EXAMPLE.
PRESIDENT LINCOLN ENCOURAGED 
WILLIAM SHERMAN TO ALLOW 
SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD TO RETURN 
TO VOTE. WHAT WAS LINCOLN'S 
PRIMARY MOTIVATION THE PROFESSOR
ASKED
WHAT HE WANTED MAKE SURE THE 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA REMAINED 
IN THE HANDS OF REPUBLICAN 
LOYALISTS WHO WOULD CONTINUE THE
WAR UNTIL VICTORY. LINCOLN'S 
REQUEST WRIST UNDERCUTTING THE 
MILITARY EFFORT BY DEPLETING THE
RANKS MOREOVER DURING THE TIME 
THE SOLDIERS IN THE REMAINING 
STATES FACE GREATER RISK
THAN DID THE RETURNING. LINCOLN 
HAD MOTIVES. HE WANTED VICTORY 
FOR HIS PARTY. ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT AS A PRESIDENT PARTY 
LEADER AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF 
MADE A DECISION WITH LIFE OR 
DEATH CONSEQUENCES
. PROFESSOR BLACKMON THE 
FOLLOWING RELEVANT CONCLUSION 
FROM THIS AND OTHER HISTORICAL 
EVENTS. HE SAID POLITICIANS 
ROUTINELY PROMOTE THEIR 
UNDERSTANDING OF GENERAL WELFARE
WHILE IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS
CONSIDERING HOW THESE ACTIONS 
WILL AFFECT THEIR POPULARITY. 
OFTEN THE TWO CONCEPTS OVERLAP. 
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY IS 
GOOD FOR THE OFFICIALS 
REELECTION. ALL POLITICIANS HE 
SAID, UNDERSTAND THAT DYNAMIC. 
ALL HUMAN BEINGS, PRESIDENTS AND
OTHER POLITICIANS PERSUADE 
THEMSELVES THAT THEIR ACTIONS 
SEEN BY THEIR OPPONENTS AS 
SELF-SERVING
ARE PRIMARILY IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE 
THAT MIXED MOTIVE ACTIONS 
CONSTITUTED
ABUSE OF POWER, OPPONENTS MUST 
PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT AND 
ATTRIBUTE TO A SINGULAR 
SELF-SERVING MOTIVE SUCH AS 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE CANNOT BE THE 
LEGAL BASIS FOR A SERIES 
ACCUSATION OF ABUSE OF POWER 
THAT COULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL
OF AN ELECTED PRESIDENT. YET, 
THIS IS A PRECISELY WHAT THE 
MANAGERS ARE CLAIMING HERE'S 
WHAT THEY SAID QUOTE WHETHER THE
PRIEST PRESIDENTS REAL REASON, 
THE ONES ACTUALLY IN HIS MIND 
ARE AT THE TIME LEGITIMATE
" WHAT A STANDARD WHAT WAS IN 
THE PRESENCE MIND ACTUALLY IN 
HIS MIND WHAT WAS THE REAL 
REASON
? WOULD YOU WANT YOUR ACTIONS TO
BE PROBED WHAT WAS THE REAL 
REASON WHY YOU ACTED? EVEN IF A 
PRESIDENT WERE AND
IT CLEARLY SHOWS IN MY MIND, 
THAT THE FRAMERS COULD NOT HAVE 
INTENDED THIS PSYCHOANALYTIC 
APPROACH TO PRESIDENTIAL MOTIVES
TO DETERMINE THE DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE AND 
WHAT IS NOT. HERE I COME
TO A RELEVANT AND 
CONTEMPORANEOUS ISSUE. EVEN IF A
PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT WERE TO
A MAN DEMAND A QUID PRO QUO AS A
CONDITION TO SENDING AID TO A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY,
OBVIOUSLY A HIGHLY DISPUTED 
MATTER IN HIS CASE, THAT WOULD 
NOT IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE AN 
ABUSE OF POWER. CONSIDER THE 
FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL CASE IN 
OUR USE NEWS TODAY IS THE 
REALIST ISRAELI MINISTER COMES 
TO THE UNITED STATES FOR 
MEETINGS. LET'S ASSUME A 
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TELLS 
ISRAEL THAT FOREIGN AID 
AUTHORIZED BY ISRAEL BY THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE SCHEDULED
UNLESS THE EVER ISRAELIS
STOP BUILDING SETTLEMENTS QUID 
PRO QUO. I MIGHT DISAPPROVE SUCH
A QUID PRO QUO DEMAND ON POLICY 
GROUNDS BUT IT WOULD NOT 
CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER. 
QUIT PRO QUOTE ALONE IS NOT A 
BASIS FOR ABUSE OF POWER. IT IS 
PART OF THE WAY
FOREIGN-POLICY HAS BEEN OPERATED
BY PRESIDENTS SINCE THE 
BEGINNING OF TIME. TO CLAIM THE 
PORT FORM POLICY CAN BE DEEMED 
ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON 
SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS OR MIXED 
MOTIVES ONLY HELPING HIMSELF 
DEMONSTRATE THE DANGERS OF 
EMPLOYING THE VAGUE SUBJECT TO 
THEM POLITICALLY VALUABLE PHRASE
ABUSE OF POWER IS A CONSTITUTION
PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL
OF THE PRESIDENT. IT FOLLOWS 
FROM THAT IF THE PRESIDENT ANY 
PRESIDENT WERE TO HAVE DONE WITH
THE TIMES REPORTED ABOUT THE 
CONTEXT OF THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT, THAT WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. LET ME REPEAT, NOTHING 
IN THE BOLTON REVELATIONS EVEN 
IF TRUE, WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL
OF AN ABUSE OF POWER OR AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THAT IS 
CLEAR FROM THE 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'VE INTENDED SO POLITICAL
LOADED AND PROMISCUOUS TERM AS 
ABUSE OF POWER TO BE WEAPON NICE
AS A TOOL OF IMPEACHMENT. IS IS 
PRECISELY THE KIND OF VAGUE 
OPEN-ENDED AND SUBJECTIVE TERM 
THAT THE FRAMERS FEARED AND 
REJECTED. CONSIDER THE TERM
MALADMINISTRATION I WANT TO GET 
BACK TO THAT TERM BECAUSE THAT 
WAS THE TERM THAT WAS EXPLICITLY
REJECTED BY THE 
YOU RECALL RAISED AND THEN 
OBJECTED AND WITHDRAWN. IT IS 
NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA. WE 
WILL AGREE MALADMINISTRATION IS 
NOT THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IF THE HOUSE WERE TO IMPEACH ON 
MALADMINISTRATION, THEY WOULD BE
PLACING HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW 
THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT
THAT. THE FRAMERS REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION. WHAT IS 
MALADMINISTRATION. IS COMPARABLE
IN MANY WAYS TO THE ABUSE OF 
POWER IS BEEN DEFINED TO ABUSE 
ABUSE, CORRUPTION, MISRULE, 
DISHONESTY, MISUSE OF OFFICE, 
MISBEHAVIOR.
PROFESSOR BOWIE IN HIS ARTICLE 
TODAY EQUATES ABUSE OF POWER 
WITH "MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE". 
THUS SUPPORTING THE VIEW WHEN 
THE FRAMERS REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION THEY ALSO 
OBJECTED ABUSE OF POWER AS A 
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
BLACKSTONE DENOMINATED IT AS 
HIGH MISDEMEANOR. IS PENALTY 
SHUT SHORT OF DEATH OR INFLICTED
YOU CAN BE IMPRISONED FOR 
MALADMINISTRATION. DESPITE THIS 
BRITISH HISTORY, MADISON 
ASSISTED IF YOU'D REJECTED THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, SO
VAGUE A TERM WOULD BE AT THE 
PLEASURE OF THE SENATE AND IT 
WAS EXPLICITLY REJECTED AND 
WITHDRAWN BY ITS SPONSOR. THIS 
IMPORTANT EPISODE SUPPORTS THE 
CONCLUSION THAT THE FRAMERS DID 
NOT ACCEPT WHOLE HALL THE 
BRITISH APPROACH TO IMPEACHMENT 
AS SOME HAVE MISTAKENLY ARGUED. 
SPECIFICALLY THEY REJECTED VAGUE
AND OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA EVEN 
THOSE IN
BRITAIN BECAUSE THEY DID NOT 
WANT TO TURN OUR NEW REPUBLIC 
INTO A PARLIAMENTARY STYLE 
DEMOCRACY IN WHICH THE CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE COULD BE REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE SIMPLY BY A VOTE OF 
NONCONFIDENCE. THAT'S WHAT THEY 
DIDN'T WANT. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE
LAW BUT THEY CREATED A LAW, THEY
CREATED A LAW BY WHICH CONGRESS 
COULD IMPEACH AND THEY DID NOT 
WANT TO EXPAND THAT LAW TO 
INCLUDE ALL THE CRITERIA THAT 
COMMITTED IMPEACHMENTS IN GREAT 
BRITAIN. OF THE FRAMERS WOULD 
NEVER HAVE INCLUDED AND DID NOT 
INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AS 
ENUMERATED DEFINED CRITERIA FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. BY REJECTING MALLOW
AT MINISTRATION. THEY REJECTED 
ABUSE. IT'S VAGUE
, INDEFINABLE ESPECIALLY IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM WHICH 
ACCORDING TO
HAMILTON IN FEDERALIST 78, THE 
LEGISLATIVE BODY IS NOT 
THEMSELVES A CONSTITUTIONAL 
JUDGE OF THEIR OWN POWERS. THE 
CONSTRUCTION THEY PUT ON THEM IS
NOT CONCLUSIVE UPON OTHER 
COMPONENTS. HE SAID IN THE 
COURTS WERE DESIGNED AS AN 
INTERMEDIATE BODY BETWEEN THE 
PEOPLE AND THE LEGISLATURE
IN ORDER TO KEEP THE LATTER 
WITHIN THE LIMITS ASSIGNED TO 
THEIR AUTHORITY. UNDER OUR 
SYSTEM OF SEPARATION POWER AND 
CHECKS OF BALANCES THERE IS AN 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND OTHER
LAWYERS HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENT 
MORE THOROUGHLY FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO DEMAND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 
LEGISLATIVE CUP SUBPOENAS BEFORE
THEY COMPLIED WITH. LEGISLATOR 
IS NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE INCLUDING 
SUBPOENAS. THE COURT IS 
DESIGNATED TO RESOLVE DISPUTE 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. IT CANNOT 
BE THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
TO INVOKE THE COURTS TO DO SO. 
BY THEIR VERY NATURE WORDS LIKE 
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS ARE STANDARDLESS. 
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT STANDARDS
LIKE THAT INTO WORDS. BOTH ARE 
AMENABLE TO
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS IT'S 
IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IN ADVANCE 
WHETHER A GIVEN ACTION WOULD 
SUBSEQUENTLY BE DEEMED TO BE ON 
ONE SIDE OR OTHER OF THE LINE. 
THE SAME ACTION WITH THE SAME 
STATE OF MIND CAN BE DEEMED 
ABUSIVE ORCS OBSTRUCTIVE WHEN 
DONE BY ONE PERSON BUT NOT WHEN 
DONE BY ANOTHER. THAT IS THE 
ESSENCE OF WHAT THE RULE OF LAW 
IS
NOT WHEN YOU HAVE A CRITERIA 
THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO ONE 
PERSON IN ONE WAY AND ANOTHER 
PERSON ANOTHER WAY AND THEY BOTH
FIT WITHIN THE TERMS OF ABUSIVE 
POWER. A FEW EXAMPLES WILL 
ILLUSTRATE THE DANGERS OF 
STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT 
CRITERIA. MY FRIEND AND 
COLLEAGUE
FESTER FELDMAN HAS ARGUED THAT A
TWEET CONTAINING WHAT HE 
BELIEVED WAS FALSE INFORMATION 
COULD "GET THE CURRENT PRESIDENT
IMPEACHED IF IT WAS PART OF A 
BROADER COURSE OF CONDUCT". 
PROFESSOR ALAN LIPPMANN ARGUED 
HE CAN BE IMPEACHED BASED ON HIS
CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY WHICH HE 
REGARDED AS A CRIME AGAINST 
HUMANITY. I DISAGREE WITH THE 
PRESIDENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AS I DO 
WITH MANY OTHER POLICY BUT 
THAT'S NOT A CRITERIA
FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT'S A 
CRITERIA TO DECIDE WHO YOU ARE 
GOING TO VOTE FOR. IF YOU DON'T 
LIKE THE PRESIDENTS POLICY ON 
CLIMATE CHANGE VOTE FOR ANOTHER 
CANDIDATE
. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE 
PRESIDENT'S TWEETS, FIND 
SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T TWEET, THAT
WOULD BE EASY. BUT DON'T ALLOW 
YOUR SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS TO 
DETERMINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. PER PRESSER
TRIBE UNDER THE CRITERIA OF 
ABUSE OF POWER
, PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN 
SHOULD'VE BEEN IMPEACH. WOULD 
ANY AMERICAN EXCEPT THE LEGAL 
SYSTEM WHERE PROSECUTORS COULD 
CHARGE THE
CITIZEN WITH ABUSIVE CONDUCT 
COULD YOU IMAGINE A CRIME OF 
ABUSIVE CONDUCT FORCEFULLY WE 
HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL CAN 
PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE STATUTE 
THAT "FOR BIDS REQUIRES A ACT
THAT IS SO VAGUE THAT MEN OR 
WOMEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE 
MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS 
MEETING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS 
APPLICATION". VERY DIFFICULT TO 
IMAGINE CRITERIA THAT FITS THIS 
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE SUPREME 
COURT SAYS VIOLATES THE DUE 
PROCESS
. MORE CLOSELY THAN ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WHEN WORDS 
CAN BE INTERPRETED IN 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE MANNER 
OR CONSTITUTIONALLY PRECISE 
MATTER, THE LETTER MUST BE 
CHOSEN. YOU ARE AND CHOOSE 
ENTITLED TO USE THAT RULE OF 
INTERPRETATION IN DECIDING 
WHETHER OR NOT OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS OR ABUSE OF POWER CAN 
BE DEFINED AS FITTING WITHIN THE
CRITERIA OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. FOR THE SENATE TO 
REMOVE IT
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT ON ON 
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS SUCH AS 
ABUSE OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS WOULD CREATED DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT AND CONSTRUED IN THE 
WORDS OF JAMES AND GRIMES AS
IMPEACHMENT PART OF THE 
POLITICAL MACHINERY. THIS WAS A 
REALISTIC THREAT TO ALL FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS WHO IS SERVED WITH 
OPPOSING LEGISLATIVE MAJORITIES 
WHO COULD EASILY CONCOCT CHARGES
OF ABUSIVE POWER AND 
CONSTRUCTION. A LONG LIST OF 
PRESIDENTS WERE ACCUSED OF ABUSE
OF POWER WERE NOT IMPEACH
DEMONSTRATES HOW SELECTIVELY 
THIS TERM HAS AND CAN BE USED IN
THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT. I'M 
SORRY, HOUSE MANAGERS, YOU JUST 
HIT THE WRONG CRITERIA
. YOU PICK THE MOST DANGEROUS 
POSSIBLE CRITERIA TO SERVE AS 
THE PRECEDENT FOR HOW WE 
SUPERVISE AND OVERSEE FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS. IN THE IDEA OF 
ABUSIVE
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS ARE SO FAR FROM WHAT 
THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND, THAT 
THEY SO CLEARLY VIOLATE THE 
CONSTITUTION AND WOULD PLACE 
CONGRESS ABOVE THE LAW. NOW MORE
OF THESE VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE 
CHARGE HERE
THEY ARE NOT SAVED BY THE 
INCLUSION OF THE ARTICLES OF 
SOMEWHAT MORE SPECIFIC AND STILL
NONCRIMINAL TYPE CONDUCT. THE 
SPECIFICATIONS OF THEMSELVES ARE
OPEN-ENDED AND DO NOT CHARGE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES INCLUDING 
ACCUSATIONS AS COMPARABLE RACE A
COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY 
ABUSING THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
VIOLATING HIS OATH OF OFFICE. IS
THE ACTUAL OFFICE ABUSE OF POWER
AND JUSTICE NEITHER WHICH ARE IN
THE CONSTITUTION. ACTUAL 
ARTICLES IS WHAT YOU MUST VOTE. 
ANALOGY TO CRIMINAL INDICTMENT 
MUST BE HELPFUL. IF A CRIMINAL 
WAS IT ACCUSED OF DISHONESTY.
COMMITTING THE CRIME OF 
DISHONESTY. IT WOULD NOT MATTER 
THAT THE INDICTMENT THE MEANS TO
DISHONESTY ARE FAR MORE PER 
SPECIFIC POTENTIAL DISHONESTY IS
NOT A CRIME. IS TOO BROAD A 
CONCEPT IS NOT IN THE CONCEPT IS
NOT IN THE STATUES. THE 
INDICTMENT WOULD BE
DISMISSED. A DISHONESTY IS A SIN
AND NOT A CRIME. EVEN IF IT WENT
ON TO MORE DISHONEST ACTS. NOR 
CAN IMPEACHMENT BE ON A FUNCTION
TOGETHER OF NON-IMPEACHABLE SINS
NONE OF WHICH STAND ALONE BE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA THE 
CRITERIA. ONLY IT ONE
AS IT IS PROVED CAN THE SENATE 
CONSIDER THE CONDUCT AND DECIDE 
THE DISCRETIONARY ISSUE OF 
WHETHER REMOVAL IS WARRANTED. IN
OTHER WORDS YOUR JURISDICTION IS
BASED ON COMMISSION OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WANTS THAT 
JURISDICTION
ELEMENT IS SATISFIED YOUR BROAD 
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER 
REMOVAL IS WARRANTED AND YOU 
CONSIDER A WIDE ARRAY OF CONDUCT
CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL. BUT 
YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO 
REMOVE UNLESS THERE IS ONE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WITHIN THE 
MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. IN THE THREE DAYS 
OF ARGUMENT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TWIST AROUND WORDS EVEN VAGUE 
AND OPEN-ENDED TO JUSTIFY THEIR 
CASE OF REMOVAL. INCLUDED TRUST,
TRUTH, HONESTY AND FINALLY 
RIGHT. THESE ASPIRATIONAL WORDS 
OF VIRTUE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. 
BUT THEY DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE
OF THE MANAGERS TO DISTINGUISH 
DISTINGUISH THE POLITICAL SINS 
THAT CONSTITUTE A PEACH BOWL 
OFFENSES. WE WANT
OUR OFFICIALS TO LIVE UP TO THE 
HIGHEST STANDARDS SET UP BY 
WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN BOTH OF 
THEM WERE ACCUSED OF ABUSIVE
POWER BY THEIR POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS. THE FRAMERS COULD 
DEMAND ALL PRESIDENTS MUST MEET 
CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF  STANDARD OF 
BEING HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY
AND RIGHT IN ORDER TO COMPLETE 
THE TERMS. BUT THEY DIDN'T
BUT THEY UNDERSTAND HUMAN 
FALLIBILITY. IF MEN WERE ANGELS,
NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY
AND THEN SPEAKING OF PRESIDENTS 
AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS IF 
ANGELS WERE TO GOVERN MEN EITHER
INTERNAL OR INTERNAL CONTROLS ON
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY. 
IF
FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD IF THEY SET 
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT TOO
LOW, IT PRESIDENTS WOULD SERVE 
THEIR TERMS AND THE
TENURE WOULD BE OF THE PLEASURE 
OF THE LEGISLATURE AS IT WAS AND
STILL IS IN BRITAIN. THEY SET 
THE STANDARDS OF CRITERIA HIGH 
WHICH REQUIRED NOT SIMPLE 
BEHAVIOR OR DISHONESTY YOUR 
TRUST OR DISHONOR BUT TREES ARE 
TREASON BRIBERY
AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. I AND THIS TODAY 
WITH A NONPARTISAN PLEA FOR FAIR
CONSIDERATION. MY ARGUMENTS MADE
BY MANAGERS ON BOTH SIDE. I 
WILLINGLY ACKNOWLEDGE
THE ACADEMIC A SENSES CRIMINAL 
CONDUCT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AND ABUSE OF POWER 
AND OBSTRUCT CONGRESS IS A 
VISION I HAVE READ AND HAVE 
COLLEAGUES THAT DISAGREE WITH MY
VIEW. I DO MY OWN RESEARCH OF MY
OWN THINKING AND I HAVE NEVER 
BOWED TO THE MAJORITY ON
INTELLECTUAL OR SCHOLARLY 
MATTERS. WHAT CONCERNS ME DURING
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING 
THERE HAVE BEEN FEW ATTEMPTS TO 
RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENTS ANOTHER 
PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS OPPOSED TO 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF THIS
PRESIDENT. INSTEAD OF ANSWERING 
MY ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF 
JUSTICE CURTIS AND PROFESSOR 
BOWIE AND OTHERS, ON THEIR 
MERITS IMPOSSIBLE MERITS THEY 
HAVE SIMPLY BEEN REJECTED
WITH NEGATIVE EPITHETS. I URGE 
THE SENATORS TO IGNORE THESE 
EPITHETS AND CONSIDER THE
ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS 
ON THE MERITS ESPECIALLY THOSE 
DIRECTED AGAINST THE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS OF 
THE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I NOW 
OFFER A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING 
CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS. THE 
CRITERIA I LONG OFFER IS THE 
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT TEST. IS 
A COLLOQUIAL VARIATION OF THE 
TEST PROPOSED BY THE GREAT LEGAL
AND POLITICAL THINKER MY FORMER 
COLLEAGUE, JOHN RAWLS. IT IS 
SIMPLE IN ITS STATEMENT
AND DIFFICULT IN ITS 
APPLICATION. AS AN EXPERIMENT I 
RESPECTFULLY URGE EACH OF YOU 
IMAGINE THE PERSON BEING 
IMPEACHED WERE OF THE OPPOSITE 
PARTY OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT 
AND EVERY OTHER RESPECT
THE FACTS WERE THE SAME. I'VE 
APPLIED THIS TEST TO 
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS I'VE
APPLIED TODAY. I WOULD BE MAKING
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL 
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT ON THESE TWO GROUNDS
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I VOTED 
FOR OR AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREED 
OR DISAGREED WITH HIS OR HER 
POLICIES. THOSE OF YOU THAT KNOW
ME KNOW ME THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE 
TRUTH. I AM NON-
PARTISAN IN MY APPLICATION OF 
THE CONSTITUTION. THE SAME CAN 
BE SAID OF ALL MY COLLEAGUES WHO
SUPPORT THIS IMPEACHMENT AND 
THOSE THAT OPPOSE THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON. I IN THE THE SUPREME 
COURT VERSUS GORE. I HAD
THE OTHER SIDE OF VALUE. I 
THOUGHT THE SUPREME COURT IN 
THAT CASE FAVORED THE 
REPUBLICANS OVER THE DEMOCRATS 
AND I ASKED THEM TO APPLY THE 
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT TEST. I 
NOW RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS 
DISTINGUISHED CHAMBER TO 
CONSIDER THAT TEST
IN EVALUATING THE ARGUMENTS THAT
OCCUR IN THIS HISTORIC CHAMBER. 
IT IS AN IMPORTANT TEST BECAUSE 
HOW YOU VOTE ON THIS CASE WILL 
SERVE AS A PRESENCE IN HOW YOU 
OTHER SENATORS THE DIFFERENT 
PARTIES AND DIFFERENT 
BACKGROUNDS VOTE IN FUTURE 
CASES. ALLOWING A DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED ON THE 
BASE OF A STANDARDLESS, 
SUBJECTIVE EVER-CHANGING 
CRITERIA ABUSIVE
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS RISK BEING CONSTRUED IN
THE WORDS OF SENATOR GRIMES A 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR IN IOWA WHO 
VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT OF 
ANDREW JOHNSON AS PART OF 
IMPEACHMENT MACHINERY.
I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LOVE 
MY COUNTRY. I LOVE THE COUNTRY 
THAT WELCOMED MY GRANDPARENTS 
AND MADE THEM INTO GREAT 
PATRIOTS AND SUPPORTERS
OF THE MOST WONDERFUL COUNTRY IN
THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I LOVE
OUR CONSTITUTION THE MOST 
GREATEST AND ENDURING DOCUMENT 
IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND. I 
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU NOT TO LET
YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT ONE MAN 
STRONG AS THEY MAY BE TO 
ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD
UNDO THE WORK OF OUR
FOUNDERS, INJURE THE 
CONSTITUTION FUTURE OF OUR 
CHILDREN AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE 
DAMAGE TO THE DELICATE BALANCE 
OF OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES AS JUSTIN CURTIS SAID 
DURING THE TRIAL OF ANDREW 
JOHNSON, A GREATER PRINCIPLE IS 
AT STAKE THAN THE FATE OF ANY 
PARTICULAR PRESIDENT.
THE FATE OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS OF
DIFFERENT PARTIES AND POLICIES 
IS ALSO AT STAKE AS IS THE FATE 
OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 
THE PASSIONS AND FEARS OF THE 
MOMENT MUST NOT BLIND US TO OUR 
PAST AND TO OUR FUTURE. HAMILTON
PREDICTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD
AGITATE THE PASSIONS OF THE 
WHOLE COMMUNITY AND LIST ALL 
THEIR
ANIMOSITY, PARTIALITY'S, 
INFLUENCE AND INTEREST OF ONE OF
THE OTHER. THE SENATE WAS 
ESTABLISHED AND UP PURE CHECK 
FOR THE PASSION OF THE MOMENT 
FOR DEEP RESPONSIBILITY. FOR 
FUTURE TIMES. I RESPECTFULLY 
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY TO
THINK BEHIND THE EMOTIONS OF THE
DAY AND
VOTE AGAINST THE IMPEACHING OF 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES BEFORE
YOU TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT AND 
PREVENT THE VOTERS OF THE 
DECIDING THE FATE ON THE BASIS 
OF THESE ARTICLES.
NEITHER DO JUSTICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT NOR TO THE ENDURING 
CONSTITUTION, THERE IS NO 
CONFLICT HERE.
IT WOULD DENY JUSTICE TO THE 
INDIVIDUAL AND JUSTICE TO THE 
CONSTITUTION. I THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR CLOSE ATTENTION IT HAS BEEN
A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO ADDRESS 
THIS DISTINGUISHED MATTER. THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
DO NOT WORRY, THIS WILL NOT TAKE
VERY LONG. WE WILL STOP FOR THE 
DAY AND CONTINUE WITH OUR 
PRESENTATIONS FOR TOMORROW. I 
JUST HAD THREE OBSERVATIONS THAT
I WANTED TO BRIEFLY MAKE FOR YOU
. FIRST OF ALL, GOT THANK YOU 
VERY MUCH PROFESSOR BERKOWITZ. I
WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING AND 
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, MY MIND WENT 
BACK TO LAW SCHOOL. I BEGAN 
THINKING HOW WOULD THIS 
IMPEACHMENT LOOK AS A LAW SCHOOL
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ON AN 
EXAM, HOW WOULD  I FOUND MYSELF 
THINKING, MAYBE THAT IS A GOOD 
WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. THE 
QUESTION WOULD GO SOMETHING LIKE
THIS, IMAGINE YOU ARE A UNITED 
STATES SENATOR AND YOU ARE 
SITTING IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN PAUSED PAST
ON A PURELY PARTISAN BASIS
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. 
IN FACT, THERE WAS BIPARTISAN 
OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN 
TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT 
FROM THE MOMENT OF HIS 
INAUGURATION FOR NO REASON, JUST
BECAUSE HE WON. THE ARTICLES 
BEFORE YOU DO NOT ALLEGE A CRIME
, OR EVEN ANY VIOLATION OF THE 
CIVIL LAW. ONE ARTICLE ALLEGES 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
, SIMPLY FOR EXERCISING LONG 
STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 
THAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS 
EXERCISED. THE PRESIDENT WAS 
GIVEN NO RIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE CONDUCTED ONLY TWO 
DAYS OF HEARINGS, YOU ARE 
SITTING THROUGH YOUR SIXTH DAY 
OF TRIAL. THE HOUSE IS DEMANDING
WITNESSES FROM YOU THAT THEY 
REFUSE TO SEAT THEMSELVES. WHEN 
CONFRONTED WITH EXPEDITED COURT 
PROCEEDINGS REGARDING SUBPOENAS 
THEY HAD ISSUED, THEY ACTUALLY 
WITHDREW THOSE SUBPOENAS. THEY 
ARE NOW CRITICIZING YOU IN 
STRONG ACCUSATORY LANGUAGE IF 
YOU DON'T CAPITULATE
TO THEIR UNREASONABLE DEMANDS 
AND SIT IN YOUR SEATS FOR 
MONTHS. AN ELECTION IS ONLY 
MONTHS AWAY. FOR THE FIRST TIME 
IN HISTORY, THEY ARE ASKING YOU 
TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM THE 
BALLOT. THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO 
DO SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES ALL 
PAST HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS THAT 
YOU HAVE STUDIED IN THIS CLASS 
AND PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY, AND
TAKE THE CHOICE AWAY FROM THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE
. IT WOULD TEAR APART THE 
COUNTRY FOR GENERATIONS AND 
CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
FOREVER. QUESTION, WHAT SHOULD 
YOU DO? YOUR FIRST THOUGHT MIGHT
BE, THAT IS NOT A REALISTIC 
HYPOTHETICAL. THAT COULD NEVER 
HAPPEN IN AMERICA. THEN, YOU 
WOULD BE HAPPY BECAUSE YOU WOULD
HAVE
AN EASY ANSWER, YOU COULD BE 
DONE WITH YOUR LAW SCHOOL EXAM. 
IT WOULD BE YOU IMMEDIATELY 
REJECT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. BONUS QUESTION, 
SHOULD YOUR ANSWER DEPEND ON 
YOUR POLITICAL PARTY? ANSWER, NO
! MY SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT 
I ACTUALLY THINK IT IS VERY 
INSTRUCTIVE TO WATCH THE OLD 
VIDEOS FROM THE LAST TIME THIS 
HAPPENED, WHEN MANY OF YOU WERE 
STILL MAKING MORE ADEQUATE 
ELOQUENTLY THAN WE ARE, THE
LAWS PRESENT. THAT IS NOT 
PLAYING A GAME OF GOT YOU, THAT 
IS PAYING YOU A COMPLIMENT. YOU 
ARE RIGHT ABOUT THOSE PRINCIPLES
, YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT THOSE 
PRINCIPLES. IF YOU
WON'T LISTEN TO ME, I WOULD URGE
YOU TO LISTEN TO YOUR YOUNGER 
SELVES, YOU WERE RIGHT. THE 
THIRD OBSERVATION IN SITTING 
HERE TODAY,
JUDGE STARR TALKED ABOUT WE ARE 
IN THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT , IN 
THE AGE OF CONSTANT 
INVESTIGATIONS. IMAGINE, IMAGINE
, IMAGINE IF ALL OF THAT ENERGY 
WAS BEING USED TO SOLVE THE 
PROBLEMS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IMAGINE IF THE AGE OF 
IMPEACHMENT WAS OVER IN THE 
UNITED STATES. IMAGINE THAT. AND
I WAS LISTENING TO PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ TALK ABOUT THE SHOE 
ON THE OTHER FOOT  RULE, AND IT 
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I WOULD 
MAYBE PUT IT DIFFERENTLY. I 
WOULD MAYBE CALL IT THE GOLDEN 
RULE OF IMPEACHMENT
. FOR THE DEMOCRATS, THE GOLDEN 
RULE COULD BE DO UNTO 
REPUBLICANS AS YOU WOULD HAVE 
THEM DO UNTO DEMOCRATS, AND 
HOPEFULLY
WE WILL NEVER BE IN ANOTHER 
POSITION IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE 
WE HAVE ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT, BUT
VICE VERSA FOR THAT RULE. THOSE 
ARE MY THREE OBSERVATIONS. I 
HOPE THAT IS HELPFUL. THOSE 
WHERE THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAD 
LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATIONS. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MOST 
IMPORTANT THOUGHT IS THIS, THIS 
CHOICE BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. THEY WILL GET TO MAKE IT
MONTHS FROM NOW. THE 
CONSTITUTION AND COMMON SENSE IN
ALL OF OUR HISTORY PREVENT YOU 
FROM REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM
THE BALLOT. THERE IS NO BASIS 
FOR IT IN THE FACTS, THERE'S 
SIMPLY NO BASIS FOR IT IN THE 
LOW. I WOULD URGE YOU TO QUICKLY
COME TO THAT CONCLUSION SO WE 
CAN GO IT HAD AN ELECTION. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION
AND THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK WITH 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL
ADJOURNED UNTIL 1:00 P.M. ON 
TUESDAY, JAY GRAY 28. THIS ORDER
ALSO CONSTITUTES THE ADJOURNMENT
OF THE SENATE. 
>> WITHOUT A JUDGE OBJECTION, WE
ARE ADJOURNED.
>>> MUCH AS WE SAW THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS PLEAD THE 
SENATORS TO RISE ABOVE PARTY 
LOYALTIES, THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE TEAM
IS ASKING THEM TO CONSIDER THEIR
DECISION. OF COURSE, EACH SIDE 
WOULD LIKE THEM TO REACH A VERY 
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. THE SENATE
NOW STANDS IN RECESS UNTIL 
TOMORROW, WHICH WILL BE THE LAST
DAY OF OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM. A 
REMINDER THAT EACH SIDE WAS 
ALLOTTED 24 HOURS OVER THE 
COURSE OF THREE DAYS
. SO FAR, THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE TEAM HAS USED A LESS 
THAN 10 OF THOSE HOURS. I AM 
JOINED NOW IN THE WASHINGTON 
POST NEWSROOM BY AMBER PHILLIPS.
THANK YOU, AMBER FOR BEING HERE.
THE PRESENTATION BY DERSHOWITZ 
THIS EVENING WAS GOING TO BE 
CLOSELY WATCHED. IN MAY  NEWS 
WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT ONTO THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM. REMIND US WHY.
>> HE IS A HOUSEHOLD NAME AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR CAN
BE THESE DAYS. HE IS A HARVARD 
LAW PROFESSOR WHO CAME TO 
PROMINENCE IN MORE LIBERAL 
CIRCLES, WITH MORE LIBERAL 
ACTIVISM. IN THE TRUMP ERA, HE 
HAS BECOME BEST KNOWN FOR 
DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS 
NOT A LIBERAL. IT STARTED REALLY
WITH THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE 
RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. HE BECAME
THIS FIGURE WHO SAID BASED ON MY
PRINCIPLES AND MY READING THE 
CONSTITUTION, YOU GUYS SHOULD 
NOT BE ATTACKING THE PRESIDENT 
THIS WAY. YOU SHOULD NOT IMPEACH
HIM OVER THE RUSSIA STUFF. HE 
GAINED PROMINENCE IN
FOX NEWS AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
TWITTER FEED. HE'S NOW ARGUING 
THE SAME THING TO PROTECT THE 
PRESIDENT, IN THIS CASE, WITH 
THE UKRAINE ALLEGATIONS. THIS IS
THE MOST HIGHEST PROFILE 
POSITION TO ARGUE THAT. 
>> WHAT WERE THE MAIN POINTS 
THAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ WAS TRYING 
TO MAKE THIS EVENING, RHONDA? 
>> LIBBY,
I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO TELL 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THERE 
WAS REALLY NO USE FOR A LOT OF 
THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGER HAD. HE DEFINITELY WAS 
TRYING TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT HE
DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THESE WERE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. I THINK A 
LOT OF WHAT HE TRIED TO SAY IN 
THAT LAST HOUR WAS VERY 
ACADEMIC. IT REMINDED ME OF 
EARLIER THIS MORNING WHEN WE 
HEARD FROM CANDACE
KENNETH STARR. THAT WAS DEEPLY 
ACADEMIC. IT WAS NOT TOO 
CONFRONTATIONAL. I THINK WE WERE
THINKING ABOUT DERSHOWITZ 
FINALLY GETTING UP AND HAVING 
HIS MOMENT THAT IT WOULD BE A 
LITTLE MORE  CONFRONTATIONAL 
THAN IT WAS. HE KIND OF STUCK TO
ACADEMIA AND TRYING TO LINK THE 
HISTORY AND HAMILTON TO WHAT WE 
ARE SEEING TODAY. 
>> THERE IS THIS QUESTION, I 
WILL BRING IT BACK HERE TO 
AMBER, WHETHER OR NOT HE DID 
ANYTHING WRONG, AND EVEN IF HE 
DID, WHERE THE DEFENSES 
IMPEACHABLE. I'M GOING TO LOOK 
AT THE BAR, FOR WHAT IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND WHAT 
SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT WE SEE 
PRESENTED HERE TODAY. 
>> YEAH, WHAT HE ARGUED WAS, I'M
LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE, THE 
FRAMERS, HE SAID, COULD HAVE 
DEMANDED THE STANDARDS OF BEING 
HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY, AND 
RIGHT. IF YOU GO BELOW THAT BAR,
YOU COULD GET IMPEACHED. HE SAID
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAW THE 
FRAMERS SAID. THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
NOT ARGUING THERE.
NUNES ARGUES THAT BY ATTACKING 
TRUMP WITH ABUSE OF POWER, THIS 
NEBULOUS, HARD TO GRAB ONTO 
ACCUSATION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN 
WHEN YOU MATCH IT UP WITH A 
CRIMINAL CODE , THEY ARE 
CREATING A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO SAY,  NUNES
USED THE TERM , MALLET. THEY 
WERE NOT GREAT PEOPLE, DID NOT 
REALLY HANDLE GOVERNMENT WELL 
FOR THOSE GUYS TO GET IMPEACHED.
IT WAS A WARNING TO THEM THAT IF
YOU IMPEACH THIS GUY, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FOR THIS, WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT. 
>>
LET'S BRING MANWELL INTO THE 
CONVERSATION. HE JOINS US BY 
PHONE. HE HAS REPORTED 
EXTENSIVELY ABOUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM. MANWELL, 
PART OF WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
SEEMED TO BE DEFENDING WAS 
HIMSELF AND HIS CHANGE OF 
PERSPECTIVE OVER THE YEARS ABOUT
WHERE HE FALLS ON THIS ISSUE. 
>> YEAH, THERE WAS ANOTHER 
DEFENDANT IN THE CHAMBER TODAY, 
AND THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE GUY 
BEHIND THE PODIUM, ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ. THAT REASON IS THAT 
DURING THE CLINTON 
ADMINISTRATION, HE WAS ARGUING 
THE EXACT OPPOSITE THING HE IS 
ARGUING NOW. HE WAS SAYING THAT 
NO CRIME WAS NEEDED TO IMPEACH. 
NOW HE IS SAYING A CRIME IS 
NEEDED TO IMPEACH. BUT, HERE YOU
ARE SEEING AT THE AGE OF 81, 
PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ, 
EMPHASIS ON PROFESSOR REALLY IN
FULL FLOWER. HE SAYS BACK THEN, 
I DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH, I DID
NOT READ THE ACADEMIC MATERIAL, 
NOW I HAVE LISTENED
, LISTEN TO ME NOW. IT IS 
FASCINATING TO SEE IT PLAY OUT. 
>> HE SAID HIS SWITCH WAS PURELY
ACADEMIC. HE DID POINT OUT, 
MANWELL, HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE 
TO SWITCH PERSPECTIVE BETWEEN 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND THIS
IMPEACHMENT, RIGHT? 
>> YES, HE ALSO MADE ANOTHER 
IMPORTANT POINT THAT HE CAME TO 
THIS CONCLUSION, ACCORDING TO 
HIM, PRIOR TO BEING CHOSEN TO BE
ON TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM. THAT IS 
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO 
GET OUT THE MESSAGE THAT HE DID 
NOT COME TO THIS CONCLUSION 
SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE A 
ZEALOUS ADVOCATE FOR TRUMP, BUT 
BE BECAUSE HE CAME TO THIS 
CONCLUSION BASED ON HIS 
RESEARCH. HE SAID, I DO MY OWN 
RESEARCH. AGAIN, QUITE A BIT OF 
BELT REFERENTIAL TALK FROM THE 
MAN WHO IS DEFENDING THE 
PRESIDENT, WHO IS ADEQUATE IS OF
BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE. 
>>
MAUEL, EVEN IF ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
IS CLAIMING THIS ACADEMIC PRAYER
DEGREE , AND EDUCATION, THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM ARE 
PUTTING HIM IN PRIME TIME
. THEY CLOSE THE NIGHT ON HIM. 
HE IS THE CLOSER OF THE DAY. THE
PRESIDENT HAS CERTAINLY BEEN, BY
THE "WASHINGTON POST" REPORTING 
HOW ALAN DERSHOWITZ HAS DEFEATED
THE PRESIDENT ON TELEVISION. WE 
CAN'T IGNORE THE POLITICS OF 
THIS MOMENT. 
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU CAN LOOK 
AT IT THIS WAY, IF THERE WERE 
EVER A PRESIDENT WHO COULD BE 
CONSIDERED A CELEBRITY PRIOR TO 
BEING IN OFFICE, IT WAS DONALD 
TRUMP. AND IF THERE WERE EVER A 
LAWYER WHO COULD BE CONSIDERED A
CELEBRITY BEFORE REPRESENTING A 
PRESIDENT WHO WAS FACING 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT 
WOULD BE ALAN DERSHOWITZ.
HE IS ONE OF THE BEST-KNOWN 
ATTORNEYS OF THE LAST CENTURY IN
THE UNITED STATES. HE IS 
SOMEBODY WHO YOU HAVE SEEN ON 
TELEVISION IN THE O.J. SIMPSON 
TRIAL, HE IS SOMEBODY WHO WE SAW
ON THE BIG SCREEN, REPRESENTING 
CLOUSE MUNRO IN THE MOVIE" "THE 
REVERSAL OF FORTUNE". IT IS A 
REALLY INTERESTING MATCHUP
OF TWO VERY WELL-KNOWN PEOPLE, 
TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN KNOWN 
FOR MAKING DRAMATIC STATEMENTS 
ON TELEVISION AND TO PEOPLE WHO 
COULD VERY LIGHTLY BE SEEN AS 
MUCH ON A CELEBRITY MAGAZINE, AS
ON A NEWSMAGAZINE. 
>>
WHERE WE EXPECTING ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ TO PLAY A ROLE IN 
THIS DEFENSE? WHAT WERE YOU 
EXPECTING, MAUEL, AND HOW WILL  
THIS LIVE UP TO REALITY? I WILL 
SAY OF COURSE, WE DO NOT KNOW 
WHAT WE WILL SEE TOMORROW FROM 
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM. DID YOUR 
INTERPRETATION MATCHUP TO WHAT 
HE WAS ABLE TO DO TONIGHT? 
>> YES. THEY SEEM TO BE BUILDING
ANTICIPATION TO GET TO THE TWO 
BIG NAMES ON THEIR TEAM, CAN 
STARR AND  ALAN DERSHOWITZ. 
THESE ARE THE HOUSEHOLD NAMES ON
THEIR TEAM. YOU CAN ALMOST LOOK 
AT IT AS IF YOU WERE STAGING A 
MOVIE. YOU HAVE AL PACINO AND 
ROBERT DE NIRO, WILL
, YOU WAIT UNTIL SOME OF THE 
LATER SEEMS TO BRING THEM IN AND
YOU HAVE EVERYBODY SAYING, WHERE
IS AL PACINO, WHERE IS ROBERT DE
NIRO? I THINK A LOT OF US WHO 
WERE WATCHING THIS WERE SAYING 
WHERE IS KENNETH STARR, WHERE IS
ALAN DERSHOWITZ ? WHEN THEY 
FINALLY
BURST ON THE SCENE, IT HAS THIS 
EXTRA BIT OF WOW, THEY ARE 
FINALLY HERE, WE ARE ALL GOING 
TO BE ON THE EDGE OF OUR SEATS 
AND WATCH THESE GUYS BECAUSE WE 
KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND THEY 
CLEARLY WERE BUILDING UP TO GET 
TO THAT. 
>> ALL RIGHT, MANUEL 
ROIG-FRANZIA,  THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR TALKING TO US. LET'S PLAY A 
LITTLE TAPE FROM THE ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ VISITATION. WATCH 
THIS. 
>> CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS 
RECENTLY PUT IT MORE 
SYSTEMICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. HERE 
IS WHAT SHE SAID, IMPEACHMENT IS
WHATEVER CONGRESS SAYS IT IS, 
THERE IS NO LAW. THIS LAWLESS 
VIEW WOULD PLACE CONGRESS ABOUT 
THE LAW. IT WOULD PLACE CONGRESS
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. FOR 
CONGRESS TO IGNORE THE SPECIFIC 
WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
AND SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT 
WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO DO IT 
AND WHAT IT IS ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT
OF DOING IT, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW. NOT THE PRESIDENT AND NOT 
CONGRESS. 
>> ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S DEFENSE.
AMBER PHILLIPS? 
>> IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS I'VE 
BEEN TALKING TO SAY THIS WHOLE 
THING STARTED, TENDED TO AGREE 
EXPLICITLY WITH MAXINE WATERS 
THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS VAGUE 
ON IMPEACHMENT, THAT FOUNDERS
LEFT IT OPEN. YOU HEARD SOME 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ON THE 
MORE LIBERAL SIDES ARGUED THIS. 
THEY LEFT IT OPEN BECAUSE THEY 
COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED CRIMES 
THAT INVOLVED A TELEPHONE AND 
CALLING UP THE PRESIDENT, OR 
BREAKING INTO THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE IN THE 70s. 
SO, THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT YES, 
IT IS PURPOSEFULLY
VAGUE AND THE CONGRESS CAN 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR WHATEVER
IT WANTS. DERSHOWITZ IS ARGUING 
THAT A READING, A VERY IN-DEPTH 
READING
, LEGAL SCHOLARS, AND HE TOOK US
ALL THE WAY BACK TO 
PHILADELPHIA, THE FOUNDERS AND 
HE IMAGINED US IN A HOT BUILDING
IN PHILADELPHIA WHILE THEY ARE 
TRYING TO HAMMER THIS OUT. 
ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT IT THIS
WAY, IT MEANS THEY REALLY MEANT 
FOR IT TO MATCH UP TO THE 
CRIMINAL CODE TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT. THE QUESTION OF 
COURSE IS, WELL WHY ISN'T THAT 
IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE IT 
HAS THAT HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS SECTION? 
>> PART OF WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ 
WAS DOING WAS GIVING CRITICS OF 
THE PRESIDENT AND GIVING SOME 
CRITICISM, BUT THE SAME, THAT 
DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF 
IMPEACHMENT, THE QUESTION IS 
WHAT EXACTLY WOULD BE AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
? DERSHOWITZ SAYS WE HAVEN'T 
SEEN IT. CAN YOU TALK MORE ABOUT
THE HOLDS HE IS TRYING TO POKE 
IN THE DEMOCRAT'S CASE AND THE 
ABUSE OF POWER IS INDEED 
SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR? 
>> RIGHT. WHAT HE SAID ONCE 
BEFORE, AND ALSO
CAN STARR ALSO SAID THIS THIS 
MORNING, BUT THE PRESIDENT DID 
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, BUT IT WAS A
POLICY DECISION THAT  
WITHHOLDING AID WAS ABOUT 
POLICY, THE CALL WAS ABOUT 
POLICY. WHAT IT IS THEY WERE 
TRYING TO ENTER INTERPRET THE 
SAME EVENTS THAT THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS SAY ARE IMPEACHABLE, 
THEY ARE TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE 
THAT NO, THESE ARE JUST POLICY 
DIRECTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS TRYING TO WARD OFF MORE 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. INSTEAD, 
IT HAD MORE TO DO WITH 
PROTECTING AMERICA THAT IT HAD 
TO DO WITH AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. IT WAS REALLY LIKE 
INTERPRETING THESE EVENTS QUITE
DIFFERENTLY. THIS IS ONE OF THE 
AREAS YOU ARE SEEING THAT. 
>> OKAY, WE DID HEAR A NAME WE 
HAVEN'T HEARD TALKED ABOUT IN 
THE SENATE CHAMBERS TODAY, JOHN 
BOLTON. DERSHOWITZ ARGUED THE 
BOLTON REVELATIONS REALLY WOULD 
NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN A CASE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. LET'S 
LISTEN TO THAT. 
>> IF A PRESIDENT, ANY 
PRESIDENT, WERE TO HAVE DONE 
WHAT THE TIMES REPORTED ABOUT 
THE CONTENT OF THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT, THAT WOULD NOT 
CONSTITUTE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. LET ME REPEAT, NOTHING 
IN THE BOLTON REVELATIONS, EVEN 
IF TRUE
, WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN 
ABUSE OF POWER, OR AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THAT IS 
CLEAR FROM THE 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. 
>> RHONDA, WE WERE WONDERING IF 
THE DEFENSE TEAM WOULD 
ACKNOWLEDGE THESE ALLEGATIONS 
THAT ARE IN THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ DIRECTLY GOING 
AFTER THAT? 
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT THEY HAD 
TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
BOLTON, UNLESS IT REALLY WOULD 
HAVE LOOKED LIKE A HUGE GAP WHEN
THAT NEWS WAS THE BIGGEST NEWS 
OF THE DAY, AND POTENTIALLY 
OVERSHADOWING THEIR ARGUMENTS 
TODAY. SO, I THINK THEY DID SORT
OF THE BEST THAT THEY COULD WITH
THAT INFORMATION. THEY ARE 
SAYING THAT THIS MANUSCRIPT--ONE
THING I HAVE BEEN HEARING, THEY 
ARE SAYING THE MANUSCRIPT IS 
MORE ABOUT SELLING BOOKS.
THAT IS EXPECTED. I THINK THE 
ARGUMENT THAT HE MADE THERE WAS 
VERY EXPECTED. I HAD TO ADDRESS 
IT IN THIS WAS THE BEST WAY TO 
DO IT. 
>> AT THE SAME TIME LIBBY, AND 
RHONDA, YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS,
THEY DID NOT ADDRESS IT UNTIL 
THE LAST MINUTE OF THE TRIAL. IT
SOUNDED ALMOST LIKE DERSHOWITZ 
THROUGH THIS IN. I DID NOT SEE 
ANY COHERENT PLAN PUT TOGETHER 
IN WHAT WAS OTHERWISE A VERY 
BLAND AND THEN EXECUTED VERY 
PRECISELY DEFENSE. 
>> RHONDA, WHAT ARE YOUR 
THOUGHTS ON THAT? 
>> THAT IS TRUE. THAT SORT OF 
POINTS TO SOMETHING I SAID WAY 
BACK WHEN WHEN WE WERE TALKING 
AT NOON TODAY. I FEEL THAT A LOT
OF THE REPUBLICANS HAD TO TAKE A
LOT OF TIME TODAY TO FIGURE OUT 
THEIR MESSAGING. I NOTICED 
EARLIER THIS MORNING THEY HAD A 
PRESS CONFERENCE AND THEY 
CANCELED IT AND PUT IT BACK ON, 
I THINK THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY 
REALLY DID NOT KNOW HOW TO
RESPOND TO THE BOLTON NEWS. YOU 
ARE RIGHT WITH DERSHOWITZ ADDING
THAT IN TOWARD THE END OF THE 
DAY, I THINK THAT SHOWS THEY 
MIGHT HAVE NEEDED TO COME 
TOGETHER TO FIGURE OUT HOW ARE 
WE GOING TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE 
WE KNOW WE CAN'T IGNORE IT. 
MOMENTS AGO, A COUPLE OF HOURS 
AGO, EVEN LINDSEY GRAHAM CAME 
OUT WITH COMMENTS SAYING HE 
BELIEVES THE MAIN SCRIPT NEEDS 
TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE SENATE 
SO THEY CAN REVIEW IT. THESE 
WERE HIS FIRST COMMENTS, BUT 
THEY CAME HOURS AFTER THAT 
HAPPENED. THEY HAD TO SPEND A 
FEW HOURS MESSAGING ON THIS 
BOLTON STORY. 
>> RHONDA, THEY POINT OUT THE 
QUESTION OF SELLING BOOKS IS NOW
SOMETHING REPUBLICANS ARE BEING 
CRITICAL OF. THEY THINK THAT IS 
EVEN A REASON TO ATTACK BOLTON. 
THAT IS NOT THE ONLY CONCERN 
THAT SOME ARE HAVING ABOUT JOHN 
BOLTON. WE SAW SOME NOT WASTING 
ANY TIME HITTING JOHN BOLTON 
TODAY. LET'S WATCH THIS FROM 
SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY. 
>> WE HAVE HEARD FROM LYNN 
PARNELL'S, TODAY THERE WAS A 
STORY LEAKED TODAY ABOUT MR. 
JOHN BOLTON. I THINK, HOW SHOULD
I SAY THIS?
I THINK THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR
ALLEGATIONS WOULD BE MUCH 
STRONGER IF THEY WERE COMING 
FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. I THINK IT 
HAS BEEN WELL DEMONSTRATED THAT 
BOTH INDIVIDUALS HAVE REASONS TO
BE BIASED. DO I BELIEVE THAT 
THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN ARE TELLING 
THE TRUTH? I DON'T KNOW
, BUT I WOULD NOT BET MY HOUSE 
ON IT. AND IF I WERE BETTING 
YOUR HOUSE, IT WOULD ONLY BE A 
MAYBE. 
>> ALL RIGHT. RHONDA, SO THERE, 
A REPUBLICAN SENATOR QUESTIONING
THE CREDIBILITY OF JOHN BOLTON. 
>> AND AGAIN,
THAT PROBABLY SHOULD NOT 
SURPRISE US. I THINK THAT IS A 
WAY TO AT LEAST START OFF A DAY 
WITH THIS NEWS. IT STARTED OFF
BY SAYING WAIT A MINUTE, IT IS 
NOT CREDIBILITY. I THINK THAT 
WAS PROBABLY THE EASIEST ATTACK 
THAT SOME REPUBLICANS HAD. I AM 
NOT TOO SURPRISED BY SENATOR 
KENNEDY'S REMARKS THERE. FIRST 
OFF, JUST GO AFTER CREDIBILITY. 
THE FUNNY THING TO ME, AND I 
WANT TO SAY--I THINK IT WAS ROB 
WHO SAID THIS EARLIER, THIS 
BOLTON NEWS SHOULD NOT HAVE 
TAKEN THEM BY SURPRISE. IF YOU 
LOOK AT ALL OF THE CLOSED-DOOR 
DEPOSITIONS, A LOT OF THE PEOPLE
WHO CAME MONTHS AGO, THEY 
COOPERATED EXACTLY WHAT BOLTON 
SAID IN THAT MANUSCRIPT. HE SAID
HE KNEW. AGAIN, THEY PROBABLY 
SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED. I THINK
POINTING OUT
THAT ABILITY ISSUES IS A FIRST 
LINE OF ATTACK RIGHT NOW. 
>> I WONDER, AMBER, HOW HITTING 
BOLTON ON CREDIBILITY WILL 
APPEAL TO THOSE MODERN SENATORS 
IN TERMS OF A ESTABLISHED 
REPUBLICAN, SOMEONE THAT HAS 
WORKED FOR MULTIPLE 
ADMINISTRATIONS. 
>> I DO WONDER IF THAT BACKFIRES
, IF THAT IS OVERSTEPPING. 
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HEAR PEOPLE 
LIKE KENNEDY AND I'VE HEARD 
OTHER SENATORS AS WELL, LUMPING 
HIM IN WITH SOMEONE NAMED LEV 
PARNAS, AN UKRAINIAN AMERICAN
, WHO IS BEING CHARGED IN 
FEDERAL COURT HERE IN AMERICA 
FOR CAMPAIGN-FINANCE ISSUES 
RELATED TO THIS SCHEME.
SO, I BELIEVE I HEARD KENNEDY 
SAY, ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH.
HE WAS REFERRING TO, I BELIEVE, 
LEV PARNAS. THOSE ARE NOT TWO 
PEAS IN A POT, AND TO TRY TO 
THROW BOLTON DOWN IN THE MUD 
LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW. IT IS A
STRATEGY
THAT TELLS ME THEY HAVE THEIR 
BACKS TO THE WALL AND WHAT TO 
SAY ABOUT THAT. 
>> WE ARE WONDERING WHAT HAPPENS
NEXT. RHONDA, WE COULD SEE MORE 
TESTIMONY, RATHER MORE OF THIS 
INITIAL ARGUMENT FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM TOMORROW. DO WE
HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE MIGHT 
EXPECT? DO WE HAVE AN NATION OF 
WHERE THEY MIGHT GO TOMORROW? 
>> YEAH, THEY HAVE A FEW MORE, 
MORE THAN A FEW MORE, HOURS ON 
THE CLOCK RIGHT NOW WITH THE 24 
HOURS THEY'VE BEEN ALLOTTED TO 
MAKE THE OPENING ARGUMENTS. WE 
COULD SEE ANOTHER FULL DAY OF 
ARGUMENTS. BACK ON SATURDAY AND 
FRIDAY, THEY DID SAY THEY WERE 
NOT GOING TO GO AS LONG AS THE 
HOUSE-SENATE DID. HE DOES NOT 
LOOK LIKE THEY ARE HAVING 
SHORTER DAYS. WE ARE A FEW HOURS
SHORT TODAY FROM HOW LONG THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS WENT LAST WEEK, 
BUT NOT BY MUCH. THEY MAY FILL 
UP TOMORROW
WITH MORE OF THE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS. THEN, WE DO KNOW, 
WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS THAT 
SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING 
FRIDAY WILL BE THE OTHER 
EARLIEST THEY WILL HAVE THAT 
SENATE VOTE. IT IS GOING TO BE 
AN IMPORTANT DAY. 
>> WE WILL HAVE TOMORROW
, THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM 
CONTINUING THEIR ARGUMENTS. THEY
DO HAVE UP TO 24 HOURS, STILL A 
LOT LEFT ON THE TABLE. WE WILL 
SEE HOW MUCH THE USE OF THAT. 
THEN, SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 
HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS. THOSE 
QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE WRITTEN AND
SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, 
JOHN ROBERTS. AFTER THAT, IT 
GOES TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
THE PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM WILL 
HAVE TWO HOURS EACH TO ARGUE FOR
OR AGAINST ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 
AND WITNESSES. FOLLOWING THAT, 
SENATORS WILL DEBATE AND VOTE ON
WHETHER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 
EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TESTIMONY. 
AMBER, WE ARE ALL WATCHING TO 
SEE HOW THE CONVERSATION PLAYS 
OUT
OVER THE NEXT DAY OR TWO TO SEE 
IF ENOUGH REPUBLICANS WILL GET 
ON BOARD TO CALL FOR WITNESSES. 
>> YOU HEARD SOME REPUBLICANS 
SAY I AM STILL LISTENING, STILL 
WAITING TO HEAR THE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS. WELL, WE ARE ON THE 
TAIL END. THEY MIGHT GET TO ASK
A QUESTION OR TWO. I KNOW THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, MORE 
THAN 100 QUESTIONS. THAT IS LIKE
ONE PERSON AT HER IF YOU 
CALCULATE IT OUT. IT IS DECISION
TIME FOR THEM, IS MY POINT. THE 
OTHER THING I'M THINKING OF WHEN
THE SENATORS ARE TAKING TIME TO 
VOTE IS THEY HAVE BEEN HERE TWO 
WEEKS, LONG DAYS, LONG NIGHTS, 
NOT ON THEIR OWN SCHEDULE, NO 
PHONES. EVEN THOUGH THEY THINK 
THEY MIGHT WANT TO HEAR FROM 
BOLTON, IN MIGHT BE THE RIGHT 
THING TO DO FROM THEM, BUT THEY 
JUST MAYBE WANT TO ENTER THE 
TRIAL AND MOVE ON? MITCH 
McCONNELL IS OFFERING THAT TO 
THEM. 
>> IT IS A QUESTION TO SEE HOW 
BIG THE APPETITE IS FOR MORE 
INFORMATION AND MORE EVIDENCE TO
BE BROUGHT IN. WE WILL BE 
WATCHING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS 
TOMORROW
. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS GOING TO DO.
THEY MAY JUST REHASH SOME OF 
WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE DONE, OR 
WE COULD SEE SOMETHING NEW. I 
THINK THAT IS A QUESTION 
SENATORS WILL HAVE, WHAT ELSE DO
THEY GOT. WE DID HEAR FROM THE 
LEGAL TEAM TODAY HITTING AT 
THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, WHETHER 
IT WAS THE BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT, 
THE ROLE OF GIULIANI, ATTACKING 
THE BIDENS. A LOT OF THAT WAS 
DONE TODAY. WE WILL SEE IF THEY 
GO MUCH DEEPER. 
>> WHAT ELSE DO THEY HAVE TO SAY
? BASED ON THE READ OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S TWITTER FEED, WHAT 
WAS SAID IN THE IMPEACHMENT, I 
DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE. IF THEY 
ARE GOING TO TAKE AN EXTENDED 
CHUNK OF TIME TOMORROW, IT IS 
PROBABLY FOR SOMETHING NEW WE 
HAVE NOT HEARD OF IT OF COURSE, 
MAYBE,
THEY MAY HAVE SPENT THE ENTIRE 
DAY THEY WERE ARGUING TRYING TO 
FIGURE OUT A RESPONSE TO THIS 
BOLTON ALLEGATION, BECAUSE IT 
CAME SUNDAY EVENING AND THEY HAD
TO BE AT THE TRIAL MONDAY 
AFTERNOON. THAT IS SOMETHING ON 
MY RADAR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE 
COULD SEE IF WE DO SEE SOMETHING
NEW. 
>> AMBER PHILLIPS, THANK YOU SO 
MUCH AND THANK YOU TO RHONDA 
COLVIN, WHO HAS BEEN WITH US ALL
DAY ON CAPITOL HILL.  RHONDA, 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORTING. I 
WANT TO LOOK AT THIS EVENING'S 
HEAD LICE TO REMIND US WHAT A 
DAY THIS HAS BEEN. THE WHITE 
HOUSE WORKS TO CONTAIN DAMAGE IN
FORTHCOMING BOLTON BOOK. DO YOU 
SEE THAT? DESPITE THE EFFORTS BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM 
TO TURN THE ATTENTION TO THE 
BIDENS AND ELSEWHERE, A LOT OF 
THIS HAS GONE BACK TODAY TO THE 
REVELATIONS FROM THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT. THIS IS A DEVELOPING
STORY. WE WILL STAY ON IT AND WE
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO
JOIN THE "WASHINGTON POST" FOR 
OUR LIVE COVERAGE. WE WILL BE 
BACK HERE TOMORROW AT NOON 
EASTERN TIME. I AM LINDSAY 
CASEY, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.
