>> 
.
>>.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION] THE 
SENATE TRIAL AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GETTING 
UNDERWAY HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE COUNSEL FOR 
BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE THEIR 
WAY TO THEIR TABLES AND AT 
THE BOTTOM OF YOUR LEFT-HAND 
SCREEN, IT'S HARD TO SEE 
RIGHT NOW BUT FORMER 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL CAN STARR 
IS IN THE SENATE WELL TALKING 
TO THE HOUSE MANAGER'S SIDE 
OF THE TABLE.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE ENTERED THE CHAMBER.
YOU WILL SEE ALL SENATORS 
RISE WHEN HE DOES THAT.
HE WILL TAKE THE CHAIR AND 
THE GAVEL IN TODAY'S 
PROCEEDINGS.
WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE AND SENATORS TO MAKE 
THEIR WAY INTO THE CHAMBER 
AND BEGIN TODAY'S 
PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE EXPECTING 
THAT OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR 
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM GETS 
UNDERWAY AND GOES A SIMILAR 
WAY THAT THEY DID FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH 
MCCONNELL LET THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL GO FOR 3 TO 4 HOURS 
BEFORE THEY TAKE A BREAK.
WHILE WE WAIT FOR THIS TO 
START WE WANT TO SHOW YOU 
EARLIER TODAY HOUSE 
REPUBLICANS ARE SERVING AS 
PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE TEAM GOING BEFORE THE 
CAMERAS AND REPORTERS TO TALK
.
>> WHY DON'T WE TAKE OUR 
SEATS?
>> SENATE WILL CONVENE AS A
CORDED IMPEACHMENT, THE 
CHAPEL WILL LEAD US IN PRAYER 
.
>> LET US PRAY.
LORD, THROUGH ALL THE 
GENERATIONS YOU HAVE BEEN OUR 
MIGHTY GOD.
AS MILLIONS MORE THE DEPTHS 
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 LEAVE THEM ALONG THE 
PATH OF HONESTY.
MAY THEY HEAR THE WORDS OF 
JESUS OF NAZARETH 
REVERBERATING DOWN THE 
CORRIDORS OF THE CENTURIES 
AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH 
AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU 
FREE.
AND LORD, THANK YOU FOR 
GIVING OUR CHIEF JUSTICE 
ANOTHER BIRTHDAY, AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING 
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 
OUR FLAG.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] 
>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, 
THE JURY WILL PROCEED WITH 
THE TRIAL TODAY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION SHOW SO 
ORDER.
SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKETHE 
PROCLAMATION .
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE.
ALL PERSONS ARE COMMENDED TO 
KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF 
IMPRISONMENT WHILE 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.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> AS THE CHAPEL HAS 
INDICATED, HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
I'M SURE THAT'S EXACTLY HOW
YOU PLANNED TO CELEBRATE THE 
DAY .
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS KIND 
WISHES AND THANK YOU TO THE 
SENATORS FOR NOT ASKING FOR 
THE NAY'S AND YEAH'S.
>> SENATORS SHOULD EXPECT A 
BREAK EVERY THREEHOURS AND AT 
6:00 EVERY FOR DINNER .
AND WITH THAT, MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE I YIELD THE FLOOR.
>> PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SENATE RESOLUTION 483 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS 
22 HOURS AND FIVE MINUTES 
REMAINING TO MAKE A 
PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE.
THE SENATE WILL NOW HERE YOU 
.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THESENATE 
.
WHAT WE'VE DONE ON SATURDAY 
IS THE PATTERN WE ARE GOING 
TO CONTINUE TODAY AS FAR AS 
HOWWE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH 
THE CASE .
WE DEAL WITH TRANSCRIPT 
EVIDENCE.
WE DEAL WITH PUBLICLY 
AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
WE DO NOT DEAL WITH 
SPECULATION.
ALLEGATIONS.
THAT ARE NOT BASED ON 
EVIDENCE FREE STANDARDS AT 
ALL.
WE ARE GOING TO HIGHLIGHT 
SOME OF THOSE VERY FACTS WE 
TALKED ABOUT VERY QUICKLY.
ON SATURDAY, YOU'RE GOING TO 
HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN 
OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE PLAN TO 
DO TODAY IN OUR PRESENTATION.
YOU WILL 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 TO DISCUSS 
AND THAT INDIVIDUAL LAWYER 
WILL COME UP AND MAKE THEIR
PRESENTATION .
WE WANT TO DOTHIS ON AN 
EXPEDITIOUS YET THOROUGH 
BASIS .
LET ME START WITH JUST FOR A 
BREAK VERY BRIEFFEW MOMENTS 
TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE 
WERE .
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BECAME 
CLEAR TO US AS WE LOOK AT 
PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WAS THE LACK OF 
FOCUS ON THAT JULY 25
TRANSCRIPT .
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE 
TRANSCRIPT ACTUALLY DOESN'T
SAY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT 
TO SAY .
NOW, WE'VE HEARD AND YOU WILL 
HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE 
DAYS AHEAD.
WE KNOW ABOUT MISTER SCHIFF'S 
VERSION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
YOU HEARD IT, YOU SAW IT.
I WANT TO KEEPCOMING BACK TO 
FAX .
FACTSTHAT ARE REALLY 
UNDISPUTED .
THE PRESIDENT IN HIS 
CONVERSATION WAS CLEAR ON A 
NUMBER OF POINTS BUT SO WAS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
I MENTIONED THAT AT THE CLOSE 
OF MY ARGUMENTS EARLIER THAT 
IT WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO 
SAID I DIDN'T FEEL ANY 
PRESSURE AND AS THIS READING 
OF MINES OF WHAT PEOPLE WERE 
SAYING I THINK IT'S GOOD TO 
LOOK ATWHAT THEY SAID AND HOW 
IT'S BACKED UP .
IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE 
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS AT ALL TIMES 
ACTING UNDER HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY,
UNDER HIS LEGAL AUTHORITY , 
INTERNATIONAL INTEREST AND 
PURSUANT TO HIS OATH OF 
OFFICE.
ASKING A FOREIGN LEADER TO 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ISSUES 
OF CORRUPTION IS NOT A 
VIOLATION OF IT OATH.
IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE 
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
THE OTHER DAY ABOUT 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE 
REITERATE IS THAT HE HIMSELF 
SAID HE DID NOT KNOW IF THERE 
WAS ANYTHING OF CRIME OR 
ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
HE HAD DEEP POLICY CONCERNS 
AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS 
IS REALLY ABOUT.
IS DEEP POLICY CONCERNS, DEEP 
POLICY DIFFERENCES.
WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL 
REPUBLIC WHERE YOU HAVE THE 
POLICY CONCERNS AND DEEP 
DIFFERENCES, THAT SHOULD NOT 
BE THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF THE BAR OF IMPEACHMENTHAS 
NOW REACHED THAT LEVEL , THEN 
FOR THE SAKE OF THE REPUBLIC, 
THE DANGER THAT PUTS NOT JUST 
THIS BODY, BUT OUR ENTIRE 
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IS 
UNIMAGINABLE.
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE EVERY 
TIME THERE'S APOLICY 
DIFFERENCE OF SIGNIFICANCE OR 
AN APPROACH DIFFERENCE OF 
SIGNIFICANCE ABOUT A POLICY , 
WE'RE GOING TO START AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING?
AS I SAID EARLIER, I DON'T 
REALLY THINK THIS WAS ABOUT 
JUST A PHONE CALL.
THERE WAS A PATTERN AND 
PRACTICE OF ATTEMPTS OVER A 
THREE-YEAR PERIOD TO NOT ONLY 
INTERFERE WITH THE PRESIDENTS 
CAPABILITY TO GOVERN WHICH BY 
THE WAY THEY WERE COMPLETELY 
UNSUCCESSFUL AT, JUST LOOK AT 
THE STATE OF WHERE WE ARE AS 
A COUNTRY.
BUT ALSO INTERFERE WITH OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .
I'M GOING TO SAY THIS BECAUSE 
I WANT TO BE BRIEF.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SERIES 
OF LAWYERS ADDRESS YOU.
THERE WILL NOT BE ONE LAWYER 
FOR HOURS AND HOURS, WE WILL 
HAVE A SERIES OF LAWYERS
ADDRESS YOU 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 
OVERVIEW IF YOU WILL OF SOME 
OF THE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL 
ISSUES AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
ISSUES INVOLVING IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.
SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A LONG 
HISTORY OF THAT AND I THINK 
THAT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY 
THAT WE DON'T AND I THINK WE 
WOULD ALL AGREE.
BUT IF THIS BECOMES THE NEW 
STANDARD, THE FUTURE IS GOING 
TO LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT AREA 
SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR NEXT 
FROM MY COCOUNSEL KEN STARR.
JUDGE STARR IS A FORMER JUDGE 
FOR THE US COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
HE SERVED THE 39TH SOLICITOR 
GENERAL OF 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 ALONGSIDE 
JUDGE STARR MANY YEARS AGO.
HE ALSO SERVED AS THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DURING 
THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY AND 
AUTHORED THE STARR REPORT.
HE TESTIFIED FOR ALMOST 12 
HOURS BEFORE THE JUDICIARY 
WITH REGARD TO THAT REPORT.
JUDGE STARR ISFAMILIAR WITH 
THIS PROCESS .
HE IS GOING TO ADDRESS A 
SERIES OF DEFICIENCIES.
THESE ARE LEGAL ISSUES WITH 
REGARD TO ARTICLES 1 AND 2. 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS, 
HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS AND 
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WHERE 
THIS CASE NOW STANDS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY 
TIME RIGHT NOW TO CHIEF 
JUSTICE STARR.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
HOUSE MANAGERS.
AND STAFF.
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THE 
MAJORITY LEADER AND MINORITY 
LEADER.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS ON JANUARY 16, 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF 
OFFICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS 
BODY.
AND THEN AGAIN ON TUESDAY.
IN DOING SO THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
WAS HONORING THE WORDS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3. WE ALL 
KNOW THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 
THAT ARTICLE BY HEART.
THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE 
SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS.
BUT THEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
TEXT GOES ON .
TO SAY THIS.
WHEN SITTING FOR THATPURPOSE 
, THEY SHALL BE UNDER OATH OR 
AFFIRMATION.
THAT OATH OR AFFIRMATION IN 
TURN REQUIRES EACH MEMBER OF 
THE SENATE TO DO IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE.
NOW, THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY 
ADMINISTERED OATH OR 
AFFIRMATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN 
EVERY PROCEEDING IN THIS BODY 
SINCE 1798.
INDEED, TO SIGNIFY THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE OCCASION, 
THE SENATE'S MORE RECENT 
TRADITIONS CALL FOR YOU AS 
YOU DID TO SIGN THE BOOK AND 
THAT BOOK IS NOT SIMPLY PART 
OF THE RECORD, IT'S ENTRUSTED 
TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
IN CONTRAST, MEMBERS OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO 
NOT TAKE AN OATH IN 
CONNECTION WITHIMPEACHMENT .
THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION WELL KNEW WHEN 
AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION SHOULD 
BE REQUIRED.
THE SENATE, YES.
THE HOUSE, NUMBER AND THUS 
EACH MEMBER OF THE WORLD'S 
GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY 
NOW HAS SPECIAL, INDEED 
UNIQUE DUTIES ANDOBLIGATIONS 
.
DUTIES IMPOSED UNDER OUR 
FOUNDING DOCUMENT.
DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, 21 YEARS
AGO IN THIS CHAMBER , THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED 
STATES RULED IN RESPONSE TO 
AN OBJECTION THAT WAS 
INTERPOSED BY SENATOR TOM 
HARKIN OF IOWA.
THE SENATORS ARE NOT SITTING 
AS JURORS, SENATOR HARKIN 
NOTED.
AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREED
WITH THAT PROPOSITION .
RATHER, THE SENATE IS A COURT
.
IN FACT, HISTORY TEACHES US 
THAT FOR LITERALLY DECADES, 
THIS BODY WAS REFERRED TO IN 
THIS CONTEXT AS THE HIGH 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
SO WE ARE NOT A LEGISLATIVE 
CHAMBER DURING THESE 
PROCEEDINGS.
WE ARE IN A TRIBUNAL.
WE ARE IN COURT.
IN FEDERALIST 78, ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON WHO'S BEEN QUOTED 
FREQUENTLY IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, BUT IN 
FEDERALIST 78 HE WAS
DESCRIBING THE ROLE OF COURTS 
.
YOUR ROLE.
AND IN DOING SO HE 
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN WHAT HE 
CALLED THE EXERCISE OF 
JUDGMENT ON THE ONE HAND 
WHICH IS WHAT COURTS DO AND 
THE EXERCISE OF WILL OR 
POLICY PREFERENCE IF YOU WILL 
ON THE OTHER HAND YOU THAT'S 
WHAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES DO.
ACCORDING TO HAMILTON, COURTS 
WERE TO BE IN HIS WORD 
IMPARTIAL.
THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN.
AND THAT'S A DAUNTING TASK 
FORJUDGES .
STRUGGLING TO DO THE RIGHT 
THING, TO BE IMPARTIAL.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.
IT'S CERTAINLY HARD IN LIFE 
TO BE IMPARTIAL, IN POLITICS 
IT'S ASKED OF ONE TO BE 
IMPARTIAL BUT THAT'S THE TASK 
THE CONSTITUTION CHOSE TO 
IMPOSE UPON EACH OF YOU.
AND SIGNIFICANTLY, IN THIS 
PARTICULAR JUNCTURE IN 
AMERICA'S HISTORY.
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.
IN THE HOUSE, RESOLUTION 
AFTER RESOLUTION, MONTH AFTER 
MONTH HAS CALLED FOR THE 
PRESIDENTS IMPEACHMENT.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
INVOKED FREQUENTLY, AND IT'S 
INHERENTLY DESTABILIZING AS 
WELL AS ACRIMONIOUS WAY.
BRIEFLY TOLD, THE STORY 
BEGINS 42 YEARS AGO.
IN THE WAKE OF THE LONG 
NATIONAL NIGHTMARE OF 
WATERGATE, CONGRESS AND 
PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER 
COLLABORATIVELY USHERED IN A 
NEW CHAPTER IN AMERICA'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
TOGETHER, IN FULL AGREEMENT, 
THEY ENACTED THE INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL PROVISIONS OF THE 
ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT OF 
1978.
BUT THE NEW CHAPTER WAS NOT
SIMPLY THE AGE OF INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL .
IT BECAME UNBEKNOWNST TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THE AGE OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
DURING MY SERVICE IN THE 
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AS 
COUNSELOR IN CHIEF OF STAFF 
TO ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM 
SMITH, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TOOK THE POSITION THAT 
HOWEVER WELL INTENTIONED, THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
PROVISIONS WERE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WHY?
IN THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT
, THOSE PROVISIONS INTRUDED 
INTO THE RIGHTFUL DOMAIN AND 
PREROGATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OF THE PRESIDENCY.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S 
POSITION WAS EVENTUALLY 
REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY IN 
HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS 
NEW ERA IN OUR COUNTRY'S 
HISTORY, JUSTICE SCALIA WAS 
IN DEEP DISSENT
AMONG HIS STINGING CRITICISMS 
OF THAT LAW, JUSTICE SCALIA 
WROTE THIS .
THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUTE 
IS ACRID WITH THE SMELL OF
THREATENED IMPEACHMENT .
IMPEACHMENT.
JUSTICE SCALIA ECHOED THE 
CRITICISMS OF THE COURT IN 
WHICH I WAS SERVING AT THE 
TIME, THE COLUMBIA DISTRICT 
CIRCUIT WHICH HAD STRUCK DOWN 
THE LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 
AND A VERY IMPRESSIVE OPINION 
BY RENOWNED JUDGE LAWRENCE 
SILVERMAN.
WHY?
WHY WOULD JUSTICE SCALIA 
REFERRED TO IMPEACHMENT?
THIS WAS A REFORM MEASURE.
THERE WOULD BE NO MORE 
SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRES, 
FIRING OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
, HE WAS CALLED ARCHIBALD COX 
BY PRESIDENT NIXON.
GOVERNMENT WOULD NOW BEBETTER 
, MORE HONEST, GREATER 
ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSELWOULD BE 
PROTECTED .
BUT THE WORD IMPEACHMENT 
HAUNTS THAT DISSENTING 
OPINION.
AND IT'S NOT HARD TO DISCOVER 
WHY.
BECAUSE THE STATUTE BY ITS 
TERMS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO BECOME 
IN EFFECT AN AGENT OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
AND AT WHAT END?
TO REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WHEN A VERY 
LOW THRESHOLD OF INFORMATION 
WAS RECEIVED THAT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE LEFT 
UNDEFINED.
MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.
TO PARAPHRASE PRESIDENT 
CLINTON'S VERY ABLE COUNSEL 
AT THE TIME, BERNIE NUSSBAUM, 
THIS STATUTE IS A DAGGER 
AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE
PRESIDENCY .
PRESIDENT CLINTON NONETHELESS 
SIGNED THE PREAUTHORIZED 
MEASURE INTO LAW AND THE 
NATION THEN WENT THROUGH THE 
LONG PROCESS KNOWN AS 
WHITEWATER.
RESULTING IN THE FINDINGS BY 
THE OFFICE WHICH I LEAD, THE 
OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
.
IN A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT REFERRAL TO CONGRESS WAS 
STIPULATED IN THE ETHICS AND 
GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.
TO PUT IT MILDLY, DEMOCRATS 
WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT WHAT 
HAD HAPPENED.
THEY THEN JOINED REPUBLICANS 
ACROSS THE AISLE WHO FOR 
THEIR PART HAD BEEN OUTRAGED 
BY AN EARLIER INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.
THAT VERY DISTANT WITH FORMER 
JUDGE LAWRENCE WALSH, DURING 
THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, 
JUDGE WALSH INVESTIGATION 
INTO WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS 
IRAN CONTRA SPAWNED IN 
NORMA'S CRITICISM ON THE 
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE.
FOCUS OF THE INVESTIGATION 
ITSELF, BUT ALSO AS TO 
STATUTE.
THE ACRIMONY SURROUNDING IRAN 
CONTRA AND THEN THE 
IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL AND 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACQUITTAL 
BY THIS BODY LED INEXORABLY 
TO THE END OF THE INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL ERA.
ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH.
AND LIVING THROUGH THAT 
WILDLY CONTROVERSIAL 21 YEAR 
BOLD EXPERIMENT WITH THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE, 
CONGRESS IN A BIPARTISAN WAY 
HAD A CHANGE OF HEART.
IT ALLOWED THE LAW TO EXPIRE 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS.
IN 1999.
THAT WOULD BE A 
WELL-INTENTIONED REFORM 
MEASURE DIED A QUIET AND 
UNEVENTFUL DEATH AND IT WAS 
PROMPTLY REPLACED BY JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT INTERNAL 
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO 
DURING THE WANING MONTHS OF 
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
ONE CAN REVIEW THOSE 
REGULATIONS AND SEE NO 
REFERENCE TO IMPEACHMENT.
NONE.
NO LONGER WERE THE POISON 
PILL OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT PART OF AMERICA'S 
LEGAL LANDSCAPE.
THEY WERE GONE.
AND WE KNOW REGULATIONS SEEM 
TO SIGNAL A RETURN TO
TRADITIONAL NORMS .
IMPEACHMENT WOULD NO LONGER 
BE EMBEDDED IN THE ACTUAL 
LAWS OF THE LAND.
BUT RETURNED TO THE LANGUAGE 
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, 
AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL DNA 
AND ITS POLITICAL CULTURE HAD
CHANGED .
EVEN WITH THE DAWN OF THE NEW 
CENTURY, THE 21ST CENTURY, 
IMPEACHMENT REMAINED ON THE 
LIPS OF COUNTLESS AMERICANS 
AREA AND 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 
DISAPPEARED.
AND THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 
WHICH OF COURSE WE INHERITED 
THE PROCESS, IMPEACHMENT WAS 
FIRST USED MORE THAN TWO 
CENTURIES BEFORE THOSE FIRST 
SETTLERS CROSSEDTHE ATLANTIC 
.
BUT UPON THOUGHTFUL 
EXAMINATION, A NUMBER OF 
MODERN-DAY PARLIAMENTARY 
COMMITTEES LOOKED 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 PROCEDURAL 
STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS.
FAIRNESS.
SIR WILLIAM MCKAY RECENTLY 
REMARKED IMPEACHMENT IN 
BRITAIN IS DEAD.
YET HERE AT HOME, IN THE 
WORLD'S LONGEST STANDING 
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, 
INSTEAD OF A ONCE IN A 
CENTURY PHENOMENON WHICH IT 
HAD BEEN, PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT HAS BECOME A 
WEAPON.
TO BE WIELDED AGAINST ONE'S
POLITICAL OPPONENT .
AND IN HER THOUGHTFUL WALL 
STREET JOURNAL OP-ED A WEEK 
AGO SATURDAY, PEGGYNOONAN 
WROTE THIS .
IMPEACHMENT HAS NOW BEEN 
NORMALIZED.
IT WON'T BE A ONCE IN A 
GENERATION ACT.
BUT AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION 
ACT.
IMMIGRANTS WILL REGRET IT.
WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE HANDING 
OUT THE PENS.
THE PENS OF THE SIGNING
CEREMONY .
WHEN WE LOOK BACK DOWN THE 
CORRIDORS OF TIME WE SEE THAT 
FOR ALMOST OUR FIRST CENTURY 
AS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, 
THE SWORD OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT REMAINED ACHIEVED
.
HAD THERE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL 
PRESIDENTS?
OH YES INDEED.
THINK OF JOHN ADAMS AND THE 
ALIEN ANDSEDITION ACTS.
THINK OF ANDREW JACKSON AND 
HENRY CLAY .
WERE PARTISAN PASSIONS
OCCASIONALLY INFLAMED DURING 
THAT FIRST CENTURY ?
OFCOURSE .
AND LEST THERE BE ANY DOUBT, 
THE EARLY CONGRESSES PHONE 
WELL KNEW HOW TO SUMMON 
IMPEACHMENT TO THE FLOOR
INCLUDING AGAINST A MEMBER OF 
THIS BODY .
SENATOR WILLIAM BLOUNT OF 
TENNESSEE.
DURING THE JEFFERSON 
ADMINISTRATION THE 
UNSUCCESSFUL IMPEACHMENTOF 
SAMUEL CHASE, A SURLY AND 
PARTIAL JURIST WHO WAS 
NONETHELESS ACQUITTED BY THIS 
CHAMBER .
IT CAME AN EARLY LANDMARK IN 
MAINTAINING THE TREASURED 
INDEPENDENCE OF OUR FEDERAL
JUDICIARY .
IT TOOK THE NATIONAL 
CONVULSION OF THE CIVIL WAR, 
ASSASSINATION OF MISTER 
LINCOLN AND THE COUNTER 
RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES 
AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED BY 
MISTER LINCOLN'S SUCCESSOR 
ANDREW JOHNSON TO BRING ABOUT 
THE NATIONS VERY FIRST
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT .
FAMOUSLY OF COURSE YOUR 
PREDECESSORS IN THIS HIGH 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT 
ACQUITTED THE UNPOPULAR AND 
CONTROVERSIAL JOHNSON, BUT 
ONLY BY VIRTUE OF SENATORS 
FROM THE PARTY OF LINCOLN 
BREAKING RANKS.
IT WAS OVER A CENTURY LATER 
THAT THE NATION WOULD TURN TO 
THE TUMULTUOUS WORLD OF
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT .
NECESSITATED BY 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 410 TO 4, THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED 
AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
AND IN 1974, THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AFTER A 
LENGTHY HEARING VOTED AGAIN 
IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITEDSTATES .
IMPORTANTLY, PRESIDENT 
NIXON'S OWN PARTY WAS SLOWLY 
BUT INEXORABLY MOVING TOWARDS 
FAVORING THE REMOVAL OF THEIR 
CHOSEN LEADER FROM THE 
NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.
WHO HAD JUST WON REELECTION 
BY A LANDSLIDE.
IT BEARS EMPHASIS BEFORE THIS 
HIGH COURT, THIS WAS THE 
FIRSTPRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
IN OVER 100 YEARS .
IT ALSO BEARS EMPHASIS, IT 
WAS POWERFULLY BIPARTISAN.
AND IT WASN'T JUST THE VOTE 
TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
INDEED, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
CHAIR OF NEW JERSEY WAS 
INSISTENT THAT TO BE ACCEPTED 
BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE 
PROCESS HAD TO BE BIPARTISAN.
LIKE WAR, IMPEACHMENT IS HELL 
OR AT LEAST PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT IS HELL.
THOSE OF US WHO LIVED THROUGH 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
MEMBERS OF HIS BODY FOR WELL 
UNDERSTAND 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 IN A DEEP AND 
PERSONAL WAY.
NOW, IN CONTRAST WISELY AND 
JUDICIOUSLY CONDUCTED, UNLIKE 
THE UNITED KINGDOM, 
IMPEACHMENT REMAINS A VITAL 
AND APPROPRIATE TOOL IN OUR 
COUNTRY TO SERVE AS A CHECK 
WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY .
AFTER ALL, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONS BRILLIANT 
STRUCTURAL DESIGN , FEDERAL 
JUDGES KNOW AS THIS BODY FULL 
WELL KNOWS FROM ITS DAILY 
WORK A PIVOTALLY IMPORTANT 
FEATURE.
INDEPENDENCE FROM POLITICS.
EXACTLY WHAT ALEXANDER
HAMILTON WAS TALKING ABOUT IN 
FEDERALIST 78 .
DURING THE CONSTITUTIONS 
TERM, GOOD BEHAVIOR AND 
PRACTICAL EFFECT BY TENURE.
IMPEACHMENT IS THUS A VERY 
IMPORTANT PROTECTION FOR WE 
THE PEOPLE AGAINST WHAT COULD 
BE SERIOUS ARTICLE 3 
WRONGDOING WITHIN THAT BRANCH
.
AND SO IT IS WHEN YOU COUNT 
OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES AUTHORIZED BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVER 
OURHISTORY , ONLY EIGHT HAVE 
ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED IN 
THIS HIGH COURT AND REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE.
AND EACH AND EVERY ONE HAS 
BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE.
THIS HISTORY LEADS ME TO 
REFLECT ON THE NATURE OF YOUR 
WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITIES HERE 
IN THIS HIGH COURT AS JUDGES 
IN THE CONTEXT OFPRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT .
THE FOURTH PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT, I'M COUNTING THE 
NIXON PROCEEDINGS, IN OUR 
NATIONS HISTORY, BUT THE 
THIRD OVER THE PAST 
HALF-CENTURY.
AND I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT 
THAT THE SENATE IN ITS WISDOM 
WOULD DO WELL IN ITS 
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.
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY CAN HELP 
AND END THIS VERY PROCEEDING, 
RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
AND HISTORICAL TRADITIONS.
ABOVE ALL BY RETURNING TOTHE 
TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION 
ITSELF .
IT CAN DO SO BY ITS EXAMPLE 
HERE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
IN WEAVING THE TAPESTRY OF 
WHAT CAN RIGHTLY BE CALLED 
THE COMMON LAW OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S WHAT COURTS DO.
THEY WEAVE THE COMMON LAW.
THERE ARE INDICATIONS WITHIN 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT THAT 
THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS 
APPROPRIATE TO BE ASKED.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE 
ARGUMENTS.
WAS THERE A CRIME OR OTHER 
VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW
ALLEGED ?
SO IT REFERS TO THE TEXT, 
THROUGHOUT THECONSTITUTIONS 
DESCRIPTION OF IMPEACHMENT , 
THE TEXT HE SPEAKS ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
WITHOUT EXCEPTION IN TERMS OF 
CRIMES.
IT BEGINS OF COURSE WITH 
TREASON, THE GREATEST CRIMES 
AGAINST THE STATE AND AGAINST 
WE THE PEOPLE AREA BUT SO 
MISUSED AS A BLUDGEON AND 
PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCES IT 
IS LED THE FOUNDERS TO DEFINE 
THE TERM IN THE CONSTITUTION 
ITSELF.
BRIBERY, AND INIQUITOUS FORM 
OF MORAL AND LEGAL COLLECTION 
AND THE BASIS OF SO MANY OF 
THE 63 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS OVER THE COURSEOF 
OUR HISTORY .
AGAIN, ALMOST ALL OF THEM 
AGAINST JUDGES.
AND THEN THE MYSTERIOUS TERMS 
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
ONCE AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS 
EMPLOYING THE LANGUAGE OF 
CRIMES.
PROSTITUTION IS SPEAKING TO 
US IN TERMS OF CRIMES.
EACH OF THESE REFERENCES WHEN 
YOU COUNT THEM, COUNT SEVEN, 
COUNT EIGHT, SUPPORTS THE 
CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHMENTS 
SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS
OF OFFENSES AGAINST 
ESTABLISHED LAW .
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO 
THE PRESIDENCY.
WHERE THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND NOT A 
POLITICAL OFFICER NO MATTER 
HOW HONEST, NO MATTER HOW 
IMPARTIAL TO PRESIDE A TRIAL.
GUIDED BY HISTORY, THE 
FRAMERS MADE A DELIBERATE AND 
WISE CHOICE TO CONSTRAIN, TO 
LIMIT THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
AND SO IT WAS ON THE VERY EVE 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, THE 
EMINENT SCHOLAR AND DEAN OF 
THE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, 
THEODORE DWIGHT WROTE THIS.
THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS 
THAT NO IMPEACHMENT WILL LIE 
EXCEPT FOR A TRUE CRIME.
A BREACH OF THE LAW WHICH
WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF 
INDICTMENT .
I'M NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.
I'M NOTING WHAT HE IS SAYING.
HE DIDN'T OVER ARGUE THE 
CASE.
HE SAID THE WEIGHT OF 
AUTHORITY.
THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.
SO THIS ISSUE IS A WEIGHTY 
ONE.
AS THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH ALL DUE 
RESPECT IN THESE TWO ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGED A 
CRIME OR VIOLATIONOF 
ESTABLISHED LAW OR NOT ?
THIS IS, I DON'T WANT TO OVER 
ARGUE, AN APPROPRIATE AND 
WEIGHTY CONSIDERATION FOR THE 
SENATE BUT ESPECIALLY AS I'M 
TRYING TO EMPHASIZE IN THE 
CASE OF ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE 
BUT OF THE PRESIDENT.
COURTS CONSIDER PRUDENTIAL 
FACTORS AND THERE IS A HUGE 
PRUDENTIAL FACTOR THAT THIS 
TRIAL IS OCCURRING IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR.
WHEN WE THE PEOPLE IN A 
MATTER 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 NATION'S 
HISTORY AND IN PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT AS I'LL SEEK TO 
DEMONSTRATE SERVES AS A 
CLARIFYING STABILIZING AN 
ELEMENT.
IT INCREASES PREDICTABILITY.
TO DO WHAT?
TO REDUCE THE PROFOUND DANGER 
THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT WILL BE DOMINATED 
BY PARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS.
PRECISELY THE EVIL THAT THE 
FRAMERS WARNED ABOUT.
AND SO TO HISTORY.
HISTORY BEARS OUT THE POINT.
THE NATION'S MOST RECENT 
EXPERIENCE, THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, EVEN THOUGH 
SEVERELY AND ROUNDLY 
CRITICIZED CHARGED CRIMES.
THESE ARE CRIMES PROVEN IN 
THE CRUCIBLE OF THE HOUSE OF 
THE REPRESENTATIVES TO DATE 
BEYOND ANY REASONABLE 
OBSERVERS DOUBT.
SO TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.
THE ARTICLES CHARGED CRIMES.
WHAT ABOUT ARTICLE 2 IN NIXON 
WHICH IS SOMETIMES REFERRED 
TO AS ABUSE OF POWER.
WAS THAT THE ABUSE OF POWER 
ARTICLE?
ARTICLE ONE BEFORE THIS COURT
?
NOT AT ALL.
WHEN ONE RETURNS TO ARTICLE 2 
IN NIXON APPROVED BY A 
BIPARTISAN HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, ARTICLE 2 OF NIXON 
SETS FORTH A DEEPLY TROUBLING 
STORY OF NUMEROUS CRIMES, NOT 
ONE, NOT 2, NUMEROUS CRIMES 
CARRIED OUT AT THE DIRECTION 
OF THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
AND SO THE APPROPRIATE 
QUESTION.
WERE CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE 
ARTICLES IN THE COMMON LAW OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN 
NIXON?
YES.
IN CLINTON, YES.
HERE, NUMBER A FACTOR TO BE 
CONSIDERED AS THE JUDGES AND 
HIGH COURT, AS YOU WILL 
INDIVIDUALLY TO YOUR JUDGMENT
.
EVEN IN THE POLITICAL 
CAULDRON OF THE ANDREW 
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT, ARTICLE 
11 CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE 
CONTROVERSIAL TENURE OF 
OFFICE ACT.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
AND ACT WARNED EXPRESSLY THE 
OVAL OFFICE THAT IT'S 
VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A 
HIGH MISDEMEANOR.
EMPLOYING THE VERY LANGUAGE 
OF CONSTITUTIONALLY 
COGNIZABLE CRIMES.
THIS HISTORY REPRESENTS, AND 
I BELIEVE MAY IT PLEASE THE 
COURT, IT EMBODIES THE 
COMMON-LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.
THESE ARE FACTS GLEANED FROM 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND 
FROM THE LOSS OF THE NATION'S 
HISTORY.
AND UNDER THIS VIEW, THE 
COMMISSION OF AN ALLEGED 
CRIME OR VIOLATION OF 
ESTABLISHED LAW CAN 
APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED 
AGAIN, A WEIGHTY AND 
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AND 
ELEMENT.
A HISTORICALLY SUPPORTABLE 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
WELL, LAW PROFESSORS AGREE 
WITH THIS.
NUMBER BUT WITH ALL DUE 
RESPECT TO THE ACADEMY, THIS 
IS NOT AN ACADEMICGATHERING .
YOU ARE IN COURT.
WE'RE NOT JUST IN COURT, WITH 
ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE AND SUPREME COURT OF 
THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE IN 
DEMOCRACIESULTIMATE COURT .
AND THE BETTER CONSTITUTIONAL 
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS 
PROVIDED BY A RIGOROUS AND 
FAITHFUL EXAMINATION OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND THEN 
LOOKING FAITHFULLY AND 
RESPECTFULLY TO OUR HISTORY.
THE VERY DIVISIVE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT 
WHILE HIGHLY RELEVANT, THE 
COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS BY 
NO MEANS SUFFICIENT TO 
WARRANT THE REMOVAL OF OUR
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT .
WHY?
THIS BODY KNOWS.
WE APPOINT JUDGES AND YOU 
CONFIRM THEM AND THEYARE 
THEREFORE LIFE .
NOTPRESIDENTS .
AND THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.
THE PRESIDENCY STANDS ALONE 
IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
FRAMEWORK BEFORE HE BECAME 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, JOHN MARSHALL 
SITTING AS A MEMBER OF THE 
PEOPLE'S HOUSE MADE A SPEECH 
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
AND THERE HE SAID THIS.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE 
ORGAN OF THE NATION AND ITS 
EXTERNAL RELATIONS.
AND IT'S SOLE REPRESENTATIVE 
WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.
IF THAT SOUNDS LIKE HYPERBOLE
, IT HAS BEEN EMBRACED OVER 
DECADES BY THE SUPREME COURT 
OF THE UNITED STATES BY 
JUSTICES APPOINTED BY MANY 
DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS.
THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.
THERE IS NO OTHER SYSTEM 
QUITE LIKE OURS AND IT HAS 
SERVED US WELL.
AND SO AS TO THE PRESIDENCY, 
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL NOT 
ONLY OVERTURNS A NATIONAL 
ELECTION AND PERHAPS PROFOUND 
EFFECTS AND UPCOMING ELECTION
, IN THE WORDS OF YALE'S AKIL 
OMAR, IT ENTAILS A RISK, AND 
THESE ARE APPEALS WORDS, 
GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.
PROFESSOR OMAR PENNED THOSE 
WORDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE, GRAVE 
DISRUPTION.
WE WILL ALL AGREE THAT 
PRESIDENTS UNDER THE TEXT OF 
THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS 
AMENDMENTS ARE TO SERVE OUT 
THEIR TERM ABSENT A GENUINE 
NATIONAL CONSENSUS REFLECTED 
BY THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY 
REQUIREMENT OF THIS COURT.
THE PRESIDENT MUST GO AWAY.
TWO THIRDS.
IN POLITICS AND INIMPEACHMENT 
, THAT'S CALLED A LANDSLIDE.
HERE, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT 
TO THE COURT AT ALL 
FAIR-MINDED PERSONS WILL 
SURELY AGREE THERE IS NO 
NATIONAL CONSENSUS.
WE MIGHT WISH FOR ONE BUT 
THERE ISN'T.
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 PIVOTAL FACTS PUTS 
IN BOLD RELIEF THE PETER 
RODINO PRINCIPLE.
CALL IT THE RUDY NO RULE.
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE 
BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.
AGAIN, SITTING AS A COURT 
THIS BODY SHOULD SIGNAL TO 
THE NATION THE RETURN TO OUR 
TRADITIONS.
BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.
WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE LEFT 
AND MARK WILL THE PRESIDENT 
BECAME?
DO OVERSIGHT.
THE TRADITION OF OVERSIGHT.
AN ENORMOUS CHECK ON 
PRESIDENTIAL POWER THROUGHOUT 
OUR HISTORY AND IT CONTINUES 
AVAILABLE TODAY.
IN THE IRAN-CONTRA, NO 
IMPEACHMENT WASUNDERTAKEN .
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, A 
DEMOCRAT JIM WRIGHT FROM 
TEXAS FROM FORT WORTH WHEN 
THE WEST BEGINS, NEW BETTER.
HE SAID NO, BUT IT AS BEFITS 
THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT, A 
HOUSE RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN WAS 
INTRODUCED.
IT WAS FILED.
AND THE EFFORT TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS 
SUPPORTED BY LEADING LAW 
PROFESSOR WHOSE NAME YOU 
WOULD WELL-RECOGNIZED AND YOU 
WILL HEAR IT AGAIN THIS 
EVENING FROM PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ, I'LL LEAVE IT TO 
HIM TO IDENTIFY THE LEARNED 
PROFESSOR BUT THE SPEAKER OF 
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE TACKLING 
PETER RUDINO SAID NO SO I 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE 
SENATE SHOULD CLOSE THIS 
CHAPTER, THESE IDIOSYNCRATIC 
CHAPTER ON THIS INCREASINGLY 
DISRUPTIVE ACT.
THIS ERA, THIS AGE OF RESORT 
TO THE CONSTITUTION'S 
ULTIMATE DEMOCRATIC WEAPON 
FOR THEPRESIDENCY .
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.
THERE WAS A GREAT JUSTICE WHO 
SENT FOR 30 YEARS.
JUSTICE JOHN HARLAN, MID 
CENTURY OF THE 20TH CENTURY 
AND IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING A 
VERY BASICQUESTION , CAN 
CITIZENS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE 
CLEARLY BEEN VIOLATED BY 
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES AND AGENTS BRING AN 
ACTION FOR DAMAGES?
WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SO 
PROVIDED?
NO LAW THAT GAVE THE WOUNDED 
CITIZENS A RIGHT TO REDRESS 
THROUGH DAMAGES.
AND JUSTICE HARLAN IN A 
MAGNIFICENT CONCURRING 
OPINION IN BIVINS VERSUS SIX 
UNNAMED FEDERAL AGENTS 
SUGGESTED THAT COURTS, HERE 
YOU ARE, SHOULD TAKE INTO 
CONSIDERATION IN REACHING ITS 
JUDGMENT, THEIR JUDGMENT WHAT 
HE CALLED FACTORS COUNSELING 
RESTRAINT.
HE WAS SOMEWHAT RELUCTANT TO 
SAY THAT WE, THE SUPREME 
COURT SHOULD GRANT THIS RIGHT 
AND CREATE IT WHEN CONGRESS 
COULD HAVE ACTED BUT IT 
HADN'T.
BUT HE RELUCTANTLY CAME TO 
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ITSELF EMPOWERED 
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CREATE 
THIS RIGHT FOR OUR INJURED
CITIZENS .
TO GIVE THEM REDRESS, NOT 
JUST AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BUT 
DAMAGES.
MONEY RECOVERY FOR VIOLATIONS 
OF THECONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .
FACTORS COUNSELING RESTRAINT 
AND HE ADDRESSED THEM AND HE 
CAME TO THE VIEW, HE WAS SO 
HONEST AND SAID I CAME TO THE 
CASE WITH A DIFFERENT VIEW 
AND I CHANGED MY MIND AND 
VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BIVINS 
FAMILY HAVING REDRESS AGAINST 
FEDERAL AGENTS WHOHAD 
VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS .
JUDGING IN ITS MOST IMPARTIAL 
AND ELEGANT SENSE.
I'M GOING TO DRAW FROM THIS 
HARLAN'S MATRIX OF FACTORS 
COUNSELING RESTRAINT AND 
SIMPLY IDENTIFY THESE.
I THINK THERE MAY BE OTHERS.
THE ARTICLES DO NOT CHARGE A 
CRIME OR VIOLATION OF 
ESTABLISHED LAW, I'M 
SUGGESTING IT'S ARELEVANT 
FACTOR .
I THINK IT'S A WEIGHTY FACTOR
.
WHEN WE COME TO PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENTS, NOT JUDICIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.
SECONDLY, THE ARTICLES COME 
TO YOU WITH NO BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT.
THEY COME TO YOU AS A 
VIOLATION OF WHAT I AM 
DOUBLING THE RUDINO RULE AND 
THIRD AS I WILL NOW DISCUSS 
THE PIVOTALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE
OF PROCESS .
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
THIS COURT IS VERY FAMILIAR 
WITH UNITED STATES VERSUS
NIXON .
IT'S UNANIMOUSLY AND 
RECOGNIZING THE PRESIDENTS 
PROFOUND INTEREST IN 
CONFIDENTIALITY, REGARDLESS 
OF THE WORLDVIEW OR 
PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUSTICE, 
THE JUSTICES WERE UNANIMOUS.
THIS WASN'T JUST A
CONTRIVANCE, IT'S BUILT INTO 
THE VERY NATURE OF OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER .
SO LET ME COMMENT REALLY, 
THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
RECOGNITION OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND THEN COMPANION 
PRIVILEGES.
THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS 
PRIVILEGE.
THE IMMUNITY OF CLOSE 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISERS FROM 
BEING SUMMONED TO TESTIFY.
THESE ARE ALL FIRMLY 
ESTABLISHED IN OUR LAW.
IF THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN 
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES OVER THE ABOUT 
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS OR 
WITNESSES AND THERE IS IN 
EACH AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION
, THEN GO TO COURT.
IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS 
THAT, I DON'T NEED TO BELABOR 
THE POINT BUT HERE'S THE 
POINTI'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE .
FREQUENTLY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT ADVISES THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES THAT THE PROTECTION OF 
THE PRESIDENCY CALLS, 
WHATEVER THE PRESIDENTMIGHT 
WANT TO DO , AS A POLITICAL 
MATTER, THERE'S A COMBINATION 
AND SPIRIT OF COMEDY TO 
PROTECT PRIVILEGED 
CONVERSATIONS AND 
COMMUNICATIONS.
I'VE HEARD IT IN MY TWO TOURS 
OF DUTY AT THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, DON'TRELEASE THE 
DOCUMENTS MISTERPRESIDENT .
IF YOU DO , YOU'RE INJURING 
THE PRESIDENCY.
GO TO COURT.
WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE 
LITIGATIONMIGHT TAKE .
THOSE OF US WHO'VE LITIGATED 
KNOW THAT SOMETIMES 
LITIGATION DOES TAKE LONGER
THAN WE WOULD LIKE .
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE 
DENIED.
WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITHTHAT .
BUT OUR HISTORY, CHURCHILL'S 
MAXON, STUDY HISTORY.
OUR HISTORY TELLS US THAT'S 
NOT NECESSARILY SO.
TAKE BY WAY OF EXAMPLE THE 
PENTAGON PAPERS CASE.
ORDERS ISSUED PREVENTING AND 
SANCTIONING A GROSS VIOLATION 
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENTS 
CURRENCY OF FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS .
AN ORDER ISSUED OUT OF THE 
DISTRICT COURT JUNE 15, 1971.
THAT ORDER WAS REVERSED IN AN 
OPINION I THE SUPREME COURT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 2 WEEKS 
LATER.
JUNE 15.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT 
PATH, IT COULD HAVE SOUGHT 
EXPOSITION.
THE COURTHOUSE IS SIX BLOCKS 
DOWN, THE JUDGES ARE THERE, 
THEY ARE ALL VERY ABLE AND
HARD-WORKING.
PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY .
FOLLOW THE PATH.
FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE LAW.
GO TO COURT.
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT 
LEAST ONE PROBLEM HAD THE 
HOUSE SEEN FIT TO GO TO COURT 
AND REMAIN INCOURT .
THE ISSUE IS BEFORE YOU.
BUT AMONG OTHER FLAWS, THE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
DETERMINED AND I READ THE 
OPINION AND I BELIEVE IT'S 
CORRECT THAT WITH ALL RESPECT
, ALL HOUSE SUBPOENAS ISSUED 
PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 WHICH 
FOR THE FIRST TIME AUTHORIZED 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS A 
HOUSE, ALL SUBPOENAS WERE 
INVALID.
THEY WERE VOID.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND ALL OF 
HER ABILITIES AND VAST
EXPERIENCE , UNDER OUR 
CONSTITUTION , SHE WAS 
POWERLESS TO DO WHAT SHE 
PURPORTED TO DO.
.. 
BUT THAT THE HOUSE, IT'S 435
MEMBERS ELECTED FROM ACROSS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
NOT ONE, NO MATTER HOW ABLE SHE
MAY BE.
IN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE HOUSE
EVERY CONGRESSPERSON GETS A VOTE
WE NOTE THE CONCEPT.
ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
MORE GENERALLY, THE PRESIDENT,
AS I REVIEWED THE RECORD, HAS
CONSISTENTLY AND SCRUPULOUSLY
FOLLOWED THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL
OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IN
PARTICULAR THE OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL.
HE HAS BEEN OBEDIENT.
AS YOU KNOW, THAT IMPORTANT
OFFICE, MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD
YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES
PROFESSIONALLY WITH THAT OFFICE
IS STAFFED WITH LAWYERS OF GREAT
ABILITY AND IT HAS A REPUTATION
FOR SUPERB WORK.
IT HAS DONE SUCH THOUGHTFUL WORK
IN BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND
REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS AND
THE OFFICE IS NOW HEADED BY A
BRILLIANT LAWYER WHO SERVED AS A
LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE ANTHONY
KENNEDY.
THE HOUSE MAY DISAGREE WITH THE
GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE
PRESIDENT BY THAT OFFICE AND 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 AS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
HISTORY, ONCE AGAIN, IS A GREAT
TEACHER.
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY 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 CORRUPTLY.
THOSE WERE THE DRAFT ARTICLES.
IN MY VIEW, HAVING LIVED THROUGH
THE FACTS AND WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT,
HE DID.
HE DID IT TIME AND AGAIN, MONTH
AFTER MONTH.
WE WOULD GO TO COURT.
WE WOULD WIN.
AND THEN 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 HITE, WISELY CONCLUDED
THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON'S DOING
SO SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
HERE IS THE IDEA.
IT IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO DEFEND THE ASSERTED
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES OF THE PRESIDENCY.
THIS IS AND I AM QUOTING FROM
PAGE 55 OF THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL
BRIEF, A FUNCTION OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY
JUDGMENTS, NOT JUST A POLICY
JUDGMENT BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL
JUDGMENT.
I WOULD GUIDE THIS COURT AS IT
IS COMING THROUGH THE
DELIBERATION PROCESS TO READ THE
PRESIDENT'S TRIAL BRIEF WITH
RESPECT TO PROCESS.
IT WAS JUSTICE FELIX 
FRANKFURTER, CONFIDENT OF FDR,
BRILLIANT JURIST WHO REMINDED
AMERICA THAT THE HISTORY OF
LIBERTY IS IN LARGE MEASURE THE
HISTORY OF PROCESS, NOT
PROCEDURE.
IN PARTICULAR, I WOULD GUIDE THE
HIGH COURT TO THE DISCUSSION OF
THE LONG HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OVER TWO
CENTURIES AND IN PROVIDING DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS IN ITS
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS.
RICHLY, HISTORICAL DISCUSSION
AND THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU CAN
READ THE CORE OF IT IN FOUR
PAGES.
PAGES 62-66 OF THE TRIAL BRIEF
PUTS IN BOLD RELIEF, I BELIEVE,
AND IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT THIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WITH
ALL RESPECT, SAW FIT TO TURN HIS
BACK ON ITS OWN ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURES.
PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWED FAITHFULLY DECADE AFTER
DECADE REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS IN
CONTROL, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL
PARTY, ALL THOSE PROCEDURES ARE
TORN ASUNDER AND ALL OVER THE
VIGOROUS OBJECTIONS FROM THE
UNANIMOUS AND VOCAL MINORITY.
I NEED NOT REMIND THIS HIGH
COURT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY
MINORITY RIGHTS ARE 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 SAY BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION THAT WE WILL DO
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
WHEN THEY CHOSE TO TEAR ASUNDER
THEIR PROCEDURES THEY WERE BOTH
LESS AND THEY COULD TOSS OUT
THEIR OWN RULEBOOK, ALL POWER
AND HERE WE HAVE TRAGICALLY FOR
THE COUNTRY, AND I BELIEVE,
TRAGICALLY FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN ARTICLE TWO
OF THESE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES A
RUNAWAY HOUSE.
IT IS RUNAWAY.
NOT ONLY FROM ITS LONG-STANDING
PROCEDURES IT IS RUNAWAY FROM
THE CONSTITUTION'S DEMAND OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, CAPTURED
IN THOSE HALLOWED TERMS, DUE
PROCESS OF ALL AND WE CARED
ABOUT THIS IS AN ENGLISH
SPEAKING PEOPLE SINCE MAGNA
CARTA.
BY DOING SO, HOWEVER, THE HOUSE
HAS INADVERTENTLY POINTED THIS
COURT TO AN EXIT RAMP.
IT IS AN EXIT RAMP PROVIDED BY
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
AND SENT EXIT RAMP BUILT BY THE
MOST NOBLE OF BUILDERS THE
FOUNDING GENERATION AND DESPITE
THE CLEAREST PRESIDENT REQUIRING
DUE PROCESS FOR THE ACCUSED AND
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SURELY ALL
THE MORE SO IN A PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT AND THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS CHOSE TO CONDUCT A
HOLY UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS IN
THIS CASE AND THEY DID SO
KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY
BECAUSE THEY WERE WARNED AT
EVERY TURN, DON'T DO IT.
DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.
AND 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 AND BASIC RIGHTS COULD
HAVE BEEN HONORED AND HOUSE
RULES AND THE HOUSES TRADITIONS
COULD HAVE BEEN HONORED BUT WHAT
IS DONE IS DONE AND THESE TWO
ARTICLES COME BEFORE THIS COURT
AND THIS HIGH COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT DRIPPING WITH
FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS VIOLATIONS.
IN COURTS, YOU ARE THE COURTS,
ARE CONFRONTED WITH THIS KIND OF
PHENOMENON, A TRAIN OF FAIRNESS
VIOLATIONS AND COURTS IN THIS
COUNTRY DO THE RIGHT THING AND
THEY DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND
THEY INVOKE FIGURATIVELY OR
LITERALLY THE PREAMBLE TO THE
CONSTITUTION THE VERY FIRST
ORDER OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AFTER
TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION IS
TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE.
TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE, EVEN
BEFORE GETTING TO THE WORDS TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE
TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE
TO ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY
IN THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS IN
TERMS OF JUSTICE AND
ESTABLISHING JUSTICE.
COURTS WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS AND
THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS
BECAUSE WHY?
THEY KNEW AND THEY KNOW THAT THE
PURPOSE OF OUR FOUNDING
INSTRUMENT IS TO PROTECT OUR
LIBERTIES.
IT'S TO SAFEGUARD US AND TO
SAFEGUARD US AS INDIVIDUALS
AGAINST THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
AND WHY?
IN THE BENEDICT THREE WORDS OF
THE PREAMBLE, TO SECURE THE
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO
OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY.
LIBERTY UNDER LAW.
I THINK THE COURT.
MR. JAY SEKULOW.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS,
JUDGES  *, LAID OUT BEFORE YOU
THE SOLEMN NATURE OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS AND I WANT TO
CONTRAST THE SOLEMN NATURE OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT IS
BEEN LAID OUT BEFORE US FROM A
BOTH HISTORICAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE AND I
WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS,
THE HISTORY, THE IMPORTANCE AND
SOLEMNITY OF WHAT WE ARE ENGAGED
IN HERE IN THIS GREAT BODY.
WITH WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON
THE SIGNING OF ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
PENS DISTRIBUTED TO THE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS, A
CELEBRATORY MOMENT.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
THINK ABOUT THIS.
A POIGNANT MOMENT.
WE WILL NEXT ADDRESS A FACTUAL
ANALYSIS TO BRIEFLY REFLECT MY
COLLEAGUE THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL WHO WILL BE JOINING US
IN A MOMENT TO DISCUSS MORE OF
THE FACTS TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD ON
SATURDAY BUT LET ME RECAP VERY
QUICKLY WHAT WAS LAID OUT ON
SATURDAY.
FIRST, THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION
EITHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A
MEANING ON ANYTHING.
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS IS
NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL.
SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO AND NO PRESSURE ON
THEM TO REVIEW ANYTHING.
THIRD, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
HIGH RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED TILL THE
END OF AUGUST OVER ONE MONTH
AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL.
FOURTH, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF SAID THERE WAS ANY
CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY
INVESTIGATION INSECURITY
ASSISTANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL
MEETING OR ANYTHING ELSE.
FIFTH, THE SECURITY FLOWED ON
SEPTEMBER 11 IN A PRESIDENTIAL
MEETING TOOK PLACE ON
SEPTEMBER 25 WITHOUT THE
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCING
ANY INVESTIGATION AND FINALLY,
IN THE BLIND TRIED 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 WILL
NOW ADDRESS ADDITIONAL FACTS
RELATED TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MR. LEADER, I BELIEVE WE WILL BE
READY TO TAKE A BREAK AT THE
CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS WITH
YOUR APPROVAL.
ON SATURDAY WE WALKED THROUGH
SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS PUT FORWARD AND
DIDN'T PUT FORWARD DURING THEIR
21 PLUS HOURS OF PRESENTATION.
EVIDENCE THAT WE RECOUNTED WAS
DRAWN DIRECTLY FROM THE HOUSE
MANAGERS OWN RECORD AND THE CASE
THEY CHOSE TO SUBMIT TO THIS
CHAMBER TO ECHO MY COLLEAGUE,
MR. JAY SEKULOW, WEEKLY 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 PAWS
ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE FELT
NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE TOP
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT
LEARN OF THE PAUSE ON THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL MORE
THAN ONE 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 THE PRESIDENT
MADE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO
LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.
THERE IS ANOTHER CATEGORY OF
EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE
PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS
DISTINCT AND UNRELATED TO
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID
WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS EVER
ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS OR
UNDERTAKING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
HERE IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
>> AND THE FACT IS THE AIDE WAS
GIVEN TO UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF NEW
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IN
FACT ME WITH PRESIDENT THE
LINSKY IN SEPTEMBER AT THE
UNITED NATIONS, CORRECT?
>> HE DID.
>> AND THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT
OF THE MEDICATION BEFORE THAT
MEETING.
>> CORRECT.
>> THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THIS
MEETING.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> WHILE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WAS PAUSED THE ADMINISTRATION
DID PRECISELY WHAT YOU WOULD
EXPECT.
IT ADDRESSED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CONCERNS ABOUT THE TWO ISSUES
THAT I MENTIONED ON SATURDAY,
BURDEN SHARING AND CORRUPTION.
A NUMBER OF LAW AND POLICY
MAKERS ALSO CONTACTED THE
PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE TO
PROVIDE INPUT ON THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE ISSUE DURING THIS
TIME, INCLUDING SENATOR LINDSEY
GRAHAM.
THE PROCESS CULMINATED ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.
ON THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT SPOKE
WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND
SENATOR ROB PORTMAN.
THE VICE PRESIDENT, NSA SENIOR
DIRECTOR TIM MORRISON'S WORDS,
WAS ARMED WITH HIS CONVERSATION
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FROM
THEIR MEETING JUST DAYS EARLIER
IN WARSAW, POLAND AND BOTH THE
VICE PRESIDENT AND SENATOR
PORTMAN RELATED THEIR VIEW OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSISTANCE
TO UKRAINE AND CONVINCED THE
PRESIDENT THAT THE AID SHOULD BE
DISPERSED IMMEDIATELY.
AFTER THE MEETING PRESIDENT
TRUMP TERMINATED THE PAUSE AND
THE SUPPORT FLOWED TO 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 CONFRONTED UKRAINIAN
CORRUPTION SHOULD BE AT THE
FOREFRONT OF UNITED STATES
FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE
THEY ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAD LONG-STANDING AND
SINCERE CONCERNS ABOUT
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS, HOWEVER,
TOLD YOU IT WAS LAUGHABLE TO
THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE
WITNESSES SAID.
ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOELKER
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMONSTRATED
THAT HE HAD A VERY DEEPLY ROOTED
NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE BASED
ON PAST CORRUPTION AND THAT IS A
REASONABLE POSITION ACCORDING TO
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, MOST PEOPLE
WHO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT UKRAINE
WOULD THINK THAT.
AND DOCTOR 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 CONCERN ABOUT
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID
THAT THE PRESIDENTS CONCERN WITH
CORRUPTION IS DISINGENUOUS AND
THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT TRUMP
DID NOT CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
2017 OR 2018 AND HE CERTAINLY
DID NOT CARE ABOUT IT IN 2019.
THAT WAS THEIR WORDS.
NOT ACCORDING TO ABBASID OR
JOVANOVICH HOWEVER WHO TESTIFIED
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHARED HIS
CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION
DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S PRESIDENT SAYS ARE IN
THEIR FIRST MEETING IN THE OVAL
OFFICE AND WHEN WAS THAT 
MEETING?
IN JUNE OF 2017.
THAT WAS 2017.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS
WELL-KNOWN CONCERNS ABOUT
FOREIGN AID GENERALLY
SCRUTINIZING, AND IN SOME CASES,
CURTAILING FOREIGN AID WAS A
CENTRAL PLANK OF HIS CAMPAIGN
PLATFORM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ESPECIALLY
WARY OF SENDING AMERICAN
TAXPAYER DOLLARS ABROAD WHEN
OTHER COUNTRIES REFUSE TO PITCH
IN.
MR. MORRISON AND MR. HALE BOTH
TESTIFIED AT LENGTH ABOUT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LONG-STANDING
CONCERN WITH BURDEN SHARING AND
FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS.
HERE IS WHAT THEY SAID.
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED
THAT THE UNITED STATES SEEMED TO
BEAR THE EXCLUSIVE BRUNT OF
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE
AND HE WANTED TO SEE THE
EUROPEANS STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE
MORE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
>> WE HAVE OFTEN HEARD AT THE
STATE DEPARTMENT THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WANTS TO MAKE SURE FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE IS REVIEWED
SCRUPULOUSLY TO MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S IN U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS
AND THAT WE EVALUATE IT
CONTINUOUSLY SO IT MEETS CERTAIN
CRITERIA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
ESTABLISHED.
>> AND HE IS HAS HE EXPRESSED
OUR ALLIES TO GET THEIR FAIR
SHARE OF FOREIGN AID AS
EVIDENCED BY A POINT HE RAISED
DURING THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THAT
EFFECT?
SMACKED THE PRINCE WILL A
GREATER BURDEN SHARING BY ALLIES
AND OTHER LIKE-MINDED ESTATES IS
IN A THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
REVIEW.
>> THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED THESE
PRECISE CONCERNS TO SENATOR RON
JOHNSON, WHO WROTE, HE REMINDED
ME HOW THOROUGHLY CORRUPT
UKRAINE WAS AND AGAIN CONVEYED
HIS FRUSTRATION THAT EUROPE DOES
NOT DO ITS FAIR SHARE OF
PROVIDING MILITARY AID.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL
YOU ABOUT THIS.
WHY NOT?
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO BE
CONCERNED THAT OTHER COUNTRIES
WERE NOT PAYING THERE.
FAIR SHARE.
AS LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED U.S.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UKRAINE ARE FAR
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ANY
INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY AND SHE ALSO
SAID 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 THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF
WEAPONS THAT UKRAINE NEEDS IN
ITS WAR WITH RUSSIA.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND ALSO THAT
THE PAUSE OF THE UKRAINE IS
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 THAT ONE OF HIS
TOP CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND
PRIORITIES IN OFFICE HAS BEEN TO
AVOID WASTEFUL SPENDING OF
AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS
ABROAD.
MEANWHILE, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO
TODAY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT TRUMP
WAS NOT GENUINELY CONCERNED
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WERE UPSET
WHEN, AS A CANDIDATES, PRESIDENT
TRUMP CRITICIZED FREE RIDING BY
NATO MEMBERS.
THIS PAST SUMMER THE
ADMINISTRATION PAUSED, 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 THAT UKRAINE AID WAS
PAUSED.
SO WHAT HAPPENED DURING A BRIEF
PERIOD OF TIME WHILE THE UKRAINE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED?
PEOPLE WERE GATHERING
INFORMATION AND MONITORING THE
FACTS ON THE GROUND IN UKRAINE
AS THE NEW PARLIAMENT WAS SWORN
IN AND BEGAN INTRODUCING
ANTICORRUPTION LEGISLATION.
NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE,
THE REASON FOR THE PAUSE WAS NO
SECRET WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE
AND THE AGENCIES.
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
CORRUPTION.
IN FACT, AS MR. MORRISON
TESTIFIED, BY LABOR DAY THERE
HAD BEEN DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
TO DEMONSTRATE THE PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WASN'T COMMITTED TO THE
ISSUES HE CAMPAIGNED ON AND --
ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS.
MR. MORRISON ALSO TESTIFIED THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WORKING
ON ANSWERING THE PRESIDENTS
CONCERNS REGARDING BURDEN
SHARING.
HERE IS MR. MORRISON.
>> WAS THERE ANY INTERAGENCY
ACTIVITY WHETHER IT BE WITH THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OR DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT AND CORONATION BY THE
INITIALS CRITIC COUNSEL TO LOOK
INTO THAT FOR THE PRESIDENT?
>> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO
UNDERSTAND WHO WAS CONTRIBUTE IN
WHAT AND IN WHAT CATEGORIES.
>> AND SO, THE PRESIDENT HAD
CONCERNS THAT THE INTERAGENCY
TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM?
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 IS WHAT VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE TOLD PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY.
ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SCHEDULED TO
ATTEND THE WORLD WAR II
COMMEMORATION IN POLAND BUT
INSTEAD REMAINED IN THE REST TO
MANAGE THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO
HURRICANE DORIAN.
REMEMBER, THIS WAS THREE DAYS,
THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY LEARNED THROUGH THE
POLITICAL ARTICLE ABOUT THE
REVIEW OF THE SECURITY
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 IS HOW JENNIFER WILLIAMS
DESCRIBED IT.
>> THE VP RESPONDED BY
EXPRESSING OUR ONGOING SUPPORT
FOR UKRAINE BY WANTING TO HEAR
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU
KNOW,  WHAT THE STATUS OF HIS
REFORM EFFORTS WERE THAT HE
COULD THEN CONVEY BACK TO THE
PRESIDENT AND ALSO WANTING TO
HEAR IF THERE WERE MORE THAT
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES COULD DO TO
SUPPORT UKRAINE.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNOWS
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE KNEW WHAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO HEAR
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS ECHOING
THE PRESIDENTS TO REOCCURRING
THEMES -- CORRUPTION AND BURDEN
SHARING.
IT IS 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 IS A BASS THAT ARE TAYLOR.
>> ON THE EVENING OF
SEPTEMBER 1, I RECEIVED A
READOUT OF THE PENCE ZELENSKY
LEADING OVER THE PHONE FROM MR.
MORRISON DURING WHICH HE TOLD ME
THAT THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD
OPENED THE MEETING BY
IMMEDIATELY ASKING VICE
PRESIDENT ABOUT THE SECURITY
COOPERATION.
THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT
RESPOND TO BELIEVE BUT SAID HE
WOULD TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
THAT NIGHT.
THE PRESIDENT DID SAY THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE
EUROPEANS TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND
THAT HE WANTED THE 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
CONFIDENCE HE NEEDED TO APPROVE
THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY
SECTOR ASSISTANCE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THAT THE
TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN
SHARING IS A RUSE BUT NO ONE
KNEW WHY THE SCAREDY ASSISTANCE
WAS PAUSED AND NO ONE WAS
ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENTS
CONCERNS WITH UKRAINIAN
CORRUPTION IN BURDEN SHARING.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN EVIDENCE,
THEIR OWN RECORD TELLS A
DIFFERENT STORY HOWEVER.
THEY DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT 
THIS, NOT IN 21 HOURS.
WHY NOT?
THE PRESIDENTS CONCERNS WERE
ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT CAUGHT
AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE AND
THE MANAGERS ARE WRONG.
ALL OF THIS, TOGETHER WITH WHAT
WE DISCUSSED ON SATURDAY,
DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WAS NO
CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.
WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS REALIZED
THAT THEIR QUID PRO QUO THEORY
ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS
FALLING APART THEY CREATED A
SECOND ALTERNATIVE THEORY.
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY
WANTED A MEETING AT THE WHITE
HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITION THAT
MEETING ON INVESTIGATIONS.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE MANAGERS
BACKUP ACCUSATIONS?
DO THEY FARE ANY BETTER THAN
THEIR QUID PRO QUO FOR SECURITY
ASSISTANCE?
NO.
NO, THEY DO NOT.
A 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 WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING TO
SCHEDULE A MEETING EARLIER AT
THE WHITE HOUSE OR IN WARSAW BUT
THOSE OPTIONS FELL THROUGH DUE
TO NORMAL SCHEDULING AND A
HURRICANE.
THE TWO PRESIDENTS MET AT THE
EARLIEST CONVENIENCE WITHOUT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER
ANNOUNCING OR BEGINNING ANY
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE FIRST THING TO KNOW ABOUT
THE ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO FOR A
MEETING IS THAT BY THE END OF
THE JULY 25 CALL THE PRESIDENTS
HAD INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON THREE
SEPARATE OCCASIONS, EACH TIME
WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO AN IN
PERSON MEETING ON THEIR INITIAL
APE ATTORNEY ONE CALL.
WHEN YOU ARE SETTLED IN AND
READY AND LIKE YOU TO INVITE YOU
TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
ON MAY 29 THE WEEK AFTER
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S
INAUGURATION PRESIDENT TRUMP
SENT A CONGRATULATORY LETTER.
AGAIN IT INVITED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
AS YOU PREPARE TO ADDRESS THE
MANY CHALLENGES FACING UKRAINE,
PLEASE NOTE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ARE WITH YOU AND ARE COMMITTED
TO HELPING UKRAINE REALIZE ITS
VAST POTENTIAL.
TO HELP SHOW THAT COMMITMENT I
WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO MEET
WITH ME AT THE WHITE HOUSE IN
WASHINGTON DC AS SOON AS WE CAN
FIND A MUTUALLY CONVENIENT TIME.
THEN ON JULY 25 PRESIDENT TRUMP
PERSONALLY INVITED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO PARTICIPATE IN A
MEETING FOR A THIRD TIME.
WHENEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME
TO THE WHITE HOUSE, FEEL FREE TO
CALL.
GIVE US A DATE AND WE WILL WORK
THAT OUT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU.
THAT IS THREE SEPARATE
INVITATIONS FOR A MEETING, ALL
MADE WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.
DURING THIS TIME AND BEHIND THE
SEAMS WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING
DILIGENTLY TO SCHEDULE A MEETING
BETWEEN PRESIDENT AT THE
EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.
TIM MORRISON, WHO IN RESPONSE
WILL THESE 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 DUE OUT THEY CAME
FROM THE PRESIDENTS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT
MENTION THE WORK THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE WAS DOING TO SCHEDULE THE
MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DID
THEY?
WHY NOT?
SCHEDULING A PRESIDENTIAL
MEETING TAKES TIME.
MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HIS
DIRECTORATE, WHICH WAS JUST ONE
OF SEVERAL, HAD A DOZEN SCHEDULE
REQUESTS AND WITH THE PRESIDENT
FOR MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN
LEADERS THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO
LAND AND UKRAINE WAS JUST ONE OF
THOSE REQUESTS.
DUE TO BOTH PRESIDENTS BUSY
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 PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WAS SOMEHOW CONDITIONED
ON A STATEMENT ABOUT
INVESTIGATIONS IS COMPLETELY
DEFEATED BY ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD
FACT AND A BILATERAL MEETING
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PLANNED
FOR SEPTEMBER 1 IN WARSAW AND
THE SAME WARSAW MEETING WE WERE
JUST DISCUSSING WITHOUT THE
UKRAINIANS SAYING A WORD ABOUT
AN INVESTIGATION.
AS IT TURNED OUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND A MEETING
IN WARSAW BECAUSE OF HURRICANE
DORIAN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE TO ATTEND IN HIS
PLACE.
EVEN THAT SCHEDULING GLITCH DID
NOT PUT OFF THEIR MEETING FOR
LONG.
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY MET AT THE NEXT
AVAILABLE DATE, SEPTEMBER 25, ON
THE SIDELINES IN THE UNITED
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY AREA IS
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAS
SAID, THERE WERE NO
PRECONDITIONS FOR HIS MEETING
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THOSE ARE HIS WORDS, NO
CONDITIONS.
SO, YOU'RE PROBABLY WONDERING
HOW GOOD HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM
THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO
FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP WHEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS
ACTUALLY DID MEET WITHOUT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING
ANY INVESTIGATIONS?
WELL, HOUSE MANAGERS MOVED THE
GOALPOST AGAIN.
THEY CLAIM THAT THE MEETING
CANNOT 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 IS NONSENSE.
PUTTING TO ONE SIDE THE
ABSURDITY OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS
TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM OFFICE BECAUSE HE MET A
WORLD LEADER IN ONE LOCATION
VERSUS ANOTHER AND THIS THEORY
HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.
AS DOCTOR HILL TESTIFIED WHAT
MATTERED WAS THAT THERE WAS A
BILATERAL PRESIDENTIAL MEETING,
NOT THE LOCATION OF THE MEETING.
SHE SAID, IT WASN'T ALWAYS A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING PER PER SE
BUT DEFINITELY A PRESIDENTIAL
MEETING YOU KNOW,  MEETING WITH
ZELENSKY AND THE PRESIDENT.
I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE TAKEN
PLACE IN POLAND IN WARSAW.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW,  A
PROPER ROLE BILATERAL AND OTHER
CONTACTS BUT A WHITE HOUSE LEVEL
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL
YOU ABOUT DOCTOR HILL'S
TESTIMONY.
WHY NOT?
IN FACT, THEY SAID JUST LAST
WEEK THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
STILL HAS NOT GOTTEN HIS WHITE
HOUSE MEETING.
WHY DID THEY NOT TELL YOU ABOUT
DOCTOR HILL'S TESTIMONY?
SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE FULL
CONTEXT AND INFORMATION.
THEY SPOKE FOR OVER 21 HOURS AND
THEY CANNOT TAKE A COUPLE
MINUTES TO GIVE YOU THAT
CONTEXT?
HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW THAT DOCTOR
HILL WAS RIGHT?
BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID
SO ON THE JULY 25 CALL.
REMEMBER WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO
WASHINGTON ON THE JULY 25 CALL
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE WOULD
BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU
PERSONALLY AND OFFERED TO HOST
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN UKRAINE OR ON
THE OTHER HAND, MEET WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 1
IN POLAND.
THAT IS 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 TRADE
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 AND MET WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NEW YORK, ALL
WITHOUT ANYONE MAKING ANY
STATEMENT ABOUT ANY
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND, ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE
WITNESS IN THE HOUSE RECORD THAT
THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED
UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES THAT WE
HAVE DISCUSSED AND WILL CONTINUE
TO DISCUSS PROVIDED ANY
FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT EVER LINKED THE
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TO ANY
INVESTIGATIONS.
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SEIZED UPON
THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CLAIM
THAT MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST WORK
QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A
WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY BUT AGAIN, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND WAS ONLY GUESSING BASED
ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.
HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT
NEVER TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS
ANY SORT OF A CONDITION FOR A
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
WHY THEN DID HE THINK THAT THERE
WAS ONE?
IN HIS OWN WORDS, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND AND SAID HE COULD ONLY
REPEAT WHAT HE HEARD THROUGH
AMBASSADOR BULGER FROM GIULIANI
HE DID NOT EVEN HEAR FROM MR.
GIULIANI HIMSELF.
BUT AMBASSADOR BULGER WHO IS THE
SUPPOSED DEAD LINK BETWEEN MR.
GIULIANI AND INVESTORS SONDLAND
THOUGHT NO SUCH THING.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE WAS NO
LINKAGE BETWEEN THE MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND UKRAINIAN
INVESTIGATIONS.
I WILL READ THE FULL QUESTION
AND ANSWERS BECAUSE THIS PASSAGE
IS KEY.
THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.
QUESTION, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP
EVER WITHHOLD A MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR DELAY A
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS COMMITTED
TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS
THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED
CONCERNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION?
ANSWER, THE ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION IS NO, IF YOU WANT A
YES OR NO ANSWER BUT THE REASON
THE ANSWER IS NO IS BECAUSE 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 THE
DELAY IN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE
UKRAINIAN COMMITMENT TO
INVESTIGATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT
YOU DESCRIBED 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 THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF
THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS A
PREREQUISITE FOR A MEETING OR
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT.
FIFTEEN TIMES.
THEY NEVER ONCE READ TO YOU THE
TESTIMONY THAT I JUST DID.
THEY NEVER ONCE READ TO YOU THE
TESTIMONY IN WHICH AMBASSADOR
VOLKER REFUTED WHAT AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND CLAIMED HE HEARD FROM
INVESTOR BULGER.
HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW.
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MEET THREE
TIMES WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS AND
THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING
BEHIND THE SCENES TO SCHEDULE
THE MEETING.
THE TWO PRESIDENTS PLANNED TO
MEET IN WARSAW JUST AS PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY HAD ASKED AND
ULTIMATELY MET 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
INVESTIGATIONS.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS, PLAIN AND
SIMPLE.
SO MUCH FOR 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 THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ARE STILL TRYING TO
PUSH.
THE MANAGERS CLAIM PRESIDENT
TRUMP ORDERED VICE PRESIDENT
DEPENDS NOT TO ATTEND PRESIDENT
SO LINDSAY'S INAUGURATION IN
FAVOR OF A LOWER RANKING
DELEGATION.
IN ORDER, ACCORDING TO THEM, TO
SIGNAL A DOWNGRADING OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND UKRAINE.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
NUMEROUS FACTORS HAD TO ALIGN AS
I AM SURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM
CAN GREATLY APPRECIATE.
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WHO
ATTEND.
FIRST, DATES OF TRAVEL WERE
LIMITED AND FINANCIAL SECURITY
REASONS THE PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT GENERALLY AVOID BEING
OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME
TIME FOR MORE THAN A FEW HOURS.
THE PRESIDENT SCHEDULED TRIPS TO
EUROPE AND JAPAN DURING THE TIME
WHEN OUR EMBASSY IN UKRAINE
ANTICIPATED THE UKRAINIAN
INAUGURATION WOULD OCCUR.
AT THE END OF MAY OR EARLY IN
JUNE WITH JENNIFER WILLIAMS
TESTIFIED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
VICE PRESIDENT ADVISED THE
UKRAINIANS THAT IF THE VICE
PRESIDENT WERE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE INAUGURATION THE IDEAL DATES
WOULD BE AROUND MAY 29, MAY 30,
MAY 31 OR JUNE 1 WHEN THE
PRESIDENT WOULD BE IN THE UNITED
STATES.
SHE SAID IF IT WASN'T ONE OF
THOSE DATES IT WOULD BE VERY
DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND.
SECOND, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACT
AS IF NO OTHER PRIORITIES IN THE
WORLD COULD COMPETE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION'S TIME.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OFFICE WAS
SIMULTANEOUSLY PLANNING A
COMPETING TRIP FOR MAY 30 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 WITH PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN
TRUDEAU GROW AND PROMOTE THE
PASSAGE OF THE U.S. MTA HEARD
THIS DECISION, AS YOU KNOW,
ADVANCED THE TOP AND FINISHED
RATION PRIORITY AN ISSUE
PRESIDENT TRUMP VIGOROUSLY
SUPPORTED.
WHAT YOU DID NOT HEAR FROM THE
HOUSE MANAGERS WAS THAT THE
UKRAINIAN INAUGURATION DATES DID
NOT GO AS PLANNED.
ON MAY 16, MAY 16 THE UKRAINIAN
SURPRISED EVERYONE AND SCHEDULED
THE INAUGURATION FOR JUST FOUR
DAYS LATER ON MAY 20, MONDAY MA.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
MAY 16, MAY 20.
EVERYBODY, SECURITY, ADVANCE,
EVERYONE TO UKRAINE.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT
IT WAS VERY SHORT NOTICE BUT
WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR
THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND,
PARTICULARLY SINCE THEY HAD NOT
SENT OUT THE ADVANCE TEAM.
GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE
SHORT NOTICE LEFT ALMOST NO TIME
FOR EITHER PROPER PREPARATIONS
OR FOREIGN DELEGATIONS TO VISIT
AND THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
SCRAMBLED ON FRIDAY THE 17 TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO WAS
AVAILABLE.
MR. KENT SUGGESTED SECRETARY OF
ENERGY.
BV ANCHOR FOR THE DELEGATION AS
SOMEONE WHO IS A PERSON OF
STATURE AND WHOSE JOB HAD
RELEVANCE TO OUR AGENDA.
SECRETARY.
LED THE DELEGATION WHICH ALSO
INCLUDED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SENATOR
JOHNSON.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
IT WAS THE LARGEST DELEGATION
FROM ANY COUNTRY THEY ARE IT WAS
A HIGH-LEVEL ONE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL
YOU THIS.
WHY NOT?
THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT
INSTRUCTED THE VICE PRESIDENT
NOT TO ATTEND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IS BASED
ON HOUSE MANAGER ASSUMPTIONS
WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG.
FINALLY, AS I COME TO THE END,
IF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW
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 HAS
STRENGTHEN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE U.S. AND UKRAINE AND
THAT HE HAS SPENT A MORE
STALWART FRIEND TO UKRAINE AND A
MORE FIERCE OPPONENT OF RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION AND PRESIDENT OBAMA.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY
CLAIM 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,
AMBASSADOR'S YOVANOVITCH, TAYLOR
AND VOLKER ALL TESTIFIED TO THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS POSITIVE
NEW POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE BASED
ESPECIALLY ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
DECISION TO PROVIDE LEGAL AID TO
UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARD
UKRAINE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
IMPROVEMENT OVER PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S POLICY.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AGREED THAT
AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE
HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED UNDER
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO HE CREDITED
WITH APPROVING EACH OF THE
DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION
TO PROVIDE LEGAL LEGAL WEAPONS
TO UKRAINE BEEN OUR POLICY
ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER OVER THE
LAST THREE YEARS.
SHE CALLED THE POLICY SHIFT THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED VARIED
SIGNIFICANCE.
A TEAR FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH BACK TO TOP
DEMONSTRATION HAS INDEED
PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL AID TO
UKRAINE IN THE FORM OF DEFENSE
OF LEGAL AGE, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND THAT IS MORE SO THAN THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT?
>> THE YES SPIRIT PRESIDENT
TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE
DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY IN
PROVIDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT.
>> AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
AND STRENGTHEN OUR POLICY BY
APPROVING THE PROVISIONS UKRAINE
OF ANTITANK MISSILES KNOWN AS
JAVELINS.
>> THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY BUSTERS
AND SO IF THE WAR WITH RUSSIA
ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED IN
SOME WAY AND TANKS COME OVER THE
HORIZON THAT BALLOONS ARE A VERY
SERIOUS WEAPON TO DEAL WITH 
THAT.
>> UKRAINE IS BETTER POSITIONED
TO FIGHT RUSSIA TODAY THAN IT
WAS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK
OFFICE.
AS A RESULT, THE UNITED STATES
IS SAFER TOO.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHO DID NOT
TELL YOU ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY
FROM AMBASSADOR 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 OR MEETING ON JULY 25
CALL.
THE UKRAINIANS SAID THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO AND THEY FELT NO
PRESSURE.
THE TOP UKRAINIANS WHO DID NOT
EVEN KNOW THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED UNTIL MORE
THAN ONE MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25
CALL.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS RECORD
REFLECTS THAT ANYONE WHO SPOKE
WITH THE PRESIDENT SAID THE
PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THAT THERE
WAS NO LINKAGE, SECURITY
ASSISTANCE FLOAT IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL MEETINGS TOOK PLACE
ALL WITHOUT ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS ENHANCED AMERICA'S
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND HIS
THREE YEARS IN OFFICE.
THESE FACTS ALL REQUIRE THAT THE
FIRST ARTICLE 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 CASES
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.
I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A
BREAK.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> COLLEAGUES WE WILL TAKE A 15
MINUTE BREAK.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN
ITS 15 MINUTES BREAK THE
SENATORS ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE
THE CHAMBER AND WE MAY SEE SOME
OF THEM COME OUT OF THE CHAMBER
AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE CAMERAS
THAT ARE STATIONED AROUND THE
CAPITOL ON THE SENATE SIDE.
THEY COULD COME DOWN ANY
MINUTES.
WHEN THEY DO WE WILL BRING YOU
SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS BUT IN
THE MEANTIME WE WANT TO QUEUE UP
YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT YOU HAVE
HEARD TODAY AND OVER THE LAST
WEEK OR SO FROM THE SENATE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BUT DEMOCRATS
202748 ###-8920, REBEL AGAINST
(202)748-8921.
[CROWD BOOS]
AND ALL OTHERS (202)748-8922 AND
YOU CAN TEXT US HERE'S THE NEW
NUMBER TO TEXT US.
(202)748-8903 YOU MUST PUT YOUR
FIRST NAME AND YOUR CITY AND
STATE SO THAT WE CAN READ THOSE
TEXTS ON AIR.
HERE IS RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
DEMOCRAT OF ROOK CONNECTICUT
TALKING TO REPORTERS.
>> IN THIS CHAMBER [INAUDIBLE]
THEY SEEM TO BE OPERATING IN
DENIAL AND I THINK THEY ARE FAST
LOSING ANY CREDIT OF
CREDIBILITY.
[INAUDIBLE] THEY SAY THERE ISN'T
ENOUGH EVIDENCE BUT THEY ARE
TRYING TO STOP IT FROM COMING TO
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.
>> SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL IS
JUST FINISHING UP HIS THOUGHTS
ON WHAT HE HEARD TODAY.
ON THIS QUESTION OF CALLING
WITNESSES AFTER "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" BROKE THE STORY YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON IN AN UPCOMING BOOK BY
THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON SAYS THAT
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WITH
HIM IN THE PRESIDENT WHERE THE
PRESIDENT TIED THAT MILITARY AID
TO UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATIONS
INTO THE BIDENS.
ON THAT POINT ALL THINGS
CONSIDERED, AND B ARE TWEETING
OUT THIS AFTERNOON THAT SENATOR
ANGUS KING, INDEPENDENT OF MAINE
IS TELLING NPR'S REPORTING THAT
HE EXPECTS FIVE-TEN AT REBEL
BEGINNING SENATORS TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF HEARING FROM WITNESSES
LIKE THE FORMER NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON IN
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
ALSO, THIS MORNING OR THIS
AFTERNOON ON TWITTER, ELI
STRUGGLED TWEETING OUT THAT NEW
AID FROM HIS SPOKESPERSON
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON PUTTING
OUT A STATEMENT SIMON & SCHUSTER
STATE THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY
NO COORDINATION WITH "THE NEW
YORK TIMES" ON THEIR PART ON
THIS STORY.
BOLTON'S TEAM SAYING THAT THIS
LEAK CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
MAGGIE -- WHO BROKE THE STORY
ALONG WITH SCHMITZ FROM THE NEW
YORK TIMES IS SAYING RNC IS
ATTACKING BOLTON WHERE MARK
METALS POINTS OUT THAT HE SAYS
THE ALLEGATIONS IN JOHN BOLTON'S
BOOK TO NOTHING TO CHANGE THE
KEY FACTS AND THEY LIST THEM
THERE AND IT GOES ON TO SAY
FURTHERMORE THERE ARE GLARING
ISSUES THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
STORY NOT ONLY DOES IT OMIT
DIRECT QUOTES FROM BOLTON'S
MANUSCRIPT BUT DOES NOT CITE ANY
NAMED SOURCES BUT NEW YORK TIMES
DECIDED TO PUBLISH A REPORT WITH
NO ACCOUNT ABILITY FOR THE
SOURCES WHO PROVIDED THE
INFORMATION AND CALL THIS A 2.0
VERSION OF DEMOCRATS FAILED
KAVANAUGH PLAYBOOK.
ALSO, THE CLIENT WHO REPORTS FOR
CNN TWEETS OUT OF THIS -- JAY
SEKULOW SUGGEST THAT HE OPENED
UP TODAY THAT THE TRUMP LEGAL
TEAM WON'T RESPOND TO BOLTON AND
SHE QUOTES HIM ON THE SENATE
FLOOR WHEN THEY CAME INTO
SESSION TODAY SAYING -- WE DEAL
WITH TRANSCRIPTS EVIDENCE AND
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
WE DO NOT DEAL WITH SPECULATION.
ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE NOT BASED
ON EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS AT ALL.
THAT IS BETSY KLEIN FROM CNN.
THEN YOU HAVE -- SANE
SENIOR-LEVEL LIGHTHOUSE SOURCES
TELL ABC THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL
TEAM IS PREPARING FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF WITNESSES IN THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
SOURCES TELL ABC THE LEGAL TEAM
IS PREPARING AGGRESSIVE, DRAWN
OUT LEGAL FIGHT TO BLOCK
TESTIMONY OF POTENTIAL
WITNESSES.
LET'S GO TO DREW WHO IS IN
CLEVELAND, OHIO PAID DEMOCRATIC
COLOR, YOU ARE UP A FIRST-RATE
GOOD MORNING OR GOOD AFTERNOON
TO YOU.
>> Caller: GOOD AFTERNOON.
IT'S NOT MORNING IN CALIFORNIA
BUT --
>> Host: THERE YOU GO.
>> Caller: I JUST WANT TO CALL
IN AND SAY I WANTED TO SEE BOTH
SIDES AND WANTED THEM TO HAVE AN
OPEN MIND CONSIDERING BOTH SIDES
BUT AFTER THE FIRST B ARGUMENTS
PUT FORTH BY STARR AND PURPURA
IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS OR
GAMES BEING PLAYED.
ON ONE HAND YOU HAVE THE
DEMOCRATS AND SHIFT LAYING OUT A
VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER CASE
CONSIDERING ALL THE OBSTRUCTION
THAT THEY SAY AND THEN YOU HAVE
WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IS NOTHING,
ABSOLUTELY NO STATEMENT OF
EXONERATION FOR THE PRESIDENT
EXCEPT FOR THEY JUMP EVERY NOW
AND THEN IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANTIAL
STATEMENTS TO SAY THIS EXONERATE
HIM BUT THERE WAS -- THEY REALLY
DID NOT SHOW EVIDENCE.
STARR, FOR ONE, FOCUSED ON THE
PROCESS TODAY AND GRANTED I'M
NOT IN LAW MYSELF BUT THAT
STRIKES ME AS SOMETHING YOU
WOULD DO WHEN YOU KNOW SURE
WHILE YOUR CLIENT IS NOT AS
INNOCENT AS YOU WOULD LIKE HIM
TO BE.
ATTACKING THE PROCESS BY SAYING
THAT THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID
AS A PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENT
THAT YOU ONLY NEED TO GET THEM
OUT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OR
COMMITTEE.
YOU ONLY NEED THOSE VOTES AND
SOMETIMES EVEN THE COMMITTEE HAD
SKIN LET THE SUBPOENAS OUT.
YOU DON'T NEED THE ENTIRE FLOOR
TO VOTE.
IS THERE ANY RECOURSE FOR START
MAKING PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENTS
LIKE THAT AND THEN PURPURA DID
NOT DO MUCH BETTER HIMSELF.
TRYING TO WEAVE TOGETHER THESE
NARRATIVES THAT BRING US BACK TO
WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TO
EARLIER WITH THE NEED FOR
EVIDENCE.
TRYING TO PUT THIS NARRATIVE
SAYING THAT WE HEARD FROM -- I
FORGET HIS ONE NAME BUT FOR KERR
AND GIULIANI AND GIULIANI SEEMS
TO MISS THE LINK HERE.
WE NEED TO HEAR FROM GIULIANI.
IF ANYONE WANTS FULL EXONERATION
FOR THIS PRESIDENT AND FRANKLY,
THE DEMOCRATS IF HE'S EXONERATED
BY FULL EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES,
FINE.
THAT IS OKAY BUT NEEDS TO BE
BIFOLD WITNESSES AND FULL
EVIDENCE BUT OTHERWISE IT'S A
SHAM HEARING.
...
 MANY OF THE REPORTERS ARE
NOTING THAT KEN STARR, LIKE THIS
REPORTER FOR PBS WHO PROSECUTE
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT
ARGUING IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN
USED TO OFTEN AND HAS BECOME TOO
POLITICAL.
THOSE OF US WHO LIVE THROUGH THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT UNDERSTAND
IT'S LIKE DOMESTIC WAR AND
DIVIDE THE COUNTRY LIKE NOTHING
ELSE.
BOYS IN OHIO REPUBLICAN.
>> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GET
ON.
I'VE BEEN TRYING SINCE THIS
THING STARTED.
EVERYBODY DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT
TRUMP DID I TELL YOU WHAT, A MAN
HAS DONE MORE FOR THIS COUNTRY
THAT OBAMA DID IN THE EIGHT
YEARS HE WAS THERE I MEAN, IT'S
UNREAL.
>> Host: OKAY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM SO FAR?
>> Caller: PRESIDENTS TEAM IS
DOING A GREAT JOB.
THE ONLY THING I'M MAD ABOUT OF
THE WHOLE ORDEAL IS ALL THE
MONEY THEY'RE SPENDING ON IT YOU
CAN GIVE IT TO POOR PEOPLE LIKE
ME.
I MEAN, I LIVE ON SOCIAL
SECURITY DISABILITY.
>> Host: WISCONSIN.
>> Caller: HOW ARE YOU DOING?
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON
EVERYONE IS KIND OF MAKING
COMPLETE A JUDGMENT OUT THERE,
BUT I REALLY WANT TO MAKE A
COMMENT ON KEN STARR.
THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL A COOL
CAT.
I MEAN, HE EXPLAINED WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS WHERE A
TEN-YEAR-OLD COULD COMPREHEND.
THAT WAS FANTASTIC.
I DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL AT IT
NEVER UNDERSTOOD POLITICS, BUT
HE MADE IT WHERE I COULD
UNDERSTAND IT AND HE DIDN'T DO
JUSTICE FOR JUST THE TRUMP, OUR
PRESIDENT.
HE DID JUSTICE FOR OUR COUNTRY
BECAUSE THAT WAS SMOOTH.
IT WAS SWEET.
IT WAS VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND
AND IT KIND OF MAKES, IT'S
MAKING ME FLIP MY SWITCH.
I GUESS I'LL BE VOTING FOR
MR. TRUMP BECAUSE I WAS A
DEMOCRAT AND I LET EVERYTHING
PLAY OUT I HAVE A JUDGMENT CALL.
MY MIND STILL MIGHT CHANGE BUT
RIGHT NOW HE'S GOT MY VOTE.
>> Host: LEEANN,
, REPORTS OR
NBC TWEETED OUT ABOUT KEN
STARR'S PRESENTS UP THERE TODAY.
MOMENT BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL STARTED KEN STARR CHATTED
WITH ADAM SCHIFF FOR SEVERAL
MINUTES.
STARR ALSO SHOW CANS WITH
REPRESENTATIVE LOFGREN AND
OTHERS PARTICIPATE.
CHUCKLING AND PUTTING HIS ARM
AROUND STARR.
DAN IN WATERTOWN NEW YORK
DEMOCRATIC CALLER.
>> Caller: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S ABSOLUTELY A
MUST IMPAIRED THAT WE HAVE
WITNESSES.
I'LL JUST GO WITH THAT
INITIALLY.
THE TRUMP DEFENDS TEAM TO ME
RIGHT NOW DEFENSE TEAM SHOWS ME
THAT THEY HAVE NO DEFENSE.
THEIR DEFENSE IS ABOUT AS WEAK
AS SOMEONE ONCE SAID ABOUT AS
WEAK AS T BY BOILING A SHADOW OF
THE PIGEON THAT A STARVED TO
DEATH, I THINK WAS ABRAHAM
LINCOLN.
WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF JUST
LISTENING TO COMMENTS.
I RESPECT PEOPLES VIEWS AND THEY
ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION
BUT THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO THE
FACTS.
THAT'S AN OLD CLICHÉ.
>> Host: LET'S GO TO THE
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK
SCHUMER TALKING TO REPORTERS.
>> HIS LAWYERS KEEP MAKING THE
CASE FOR WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS.
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE FACT
THAT KEN STARR EMPHASIZED?
WE ARE A COURT.
WHOEVER HEARD OF A COURT
PROCEEDING WITHOUT WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS?
WHOEVER HEARD OF A TRIAL WITHOUT
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?
IF WE ARE A COURT, ALL THE MORE
REASON WE HAVE TO THE EVIDENCE.
SECOND, MR. SEKULOW SAID WHEN HE
LISTED IS FIVE POINTS, NOT A
SINGLE WITNESS THAT THEY HEARD
FROM POTUS HIMSELF.
WE WANT BOLTON.
WE WANT MULVANEY'S.
THEY HEARD FROM THE
 THE PRET
HIMSELF.
WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF NOT
HAVING WITNESSES WHO HEARD FROM
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF BY HAVING
BOLTON, BY HAVING MULVANEY COME
BY HAVING BLADDER AND MY HAVING
DUFFEY, AND THE DOCUMENTS
UNDERNEATH WITH, UNDERNEATH WHAT
THEY SAID YOUR THIRD, THE IDEA
THAT THE SENATE, HOUSE CAN DO
OVERSIGHT, WHICH IS ALSO WHAT
MR. SAAR SAID, THAT'S WAY TO
KEEP A PRESIDENT IN LINE.
AS YOU HAVE HEARD, NO PRESIDENT
HAS EVER BLOCKED OVERSIGHT, HAS
BLOCKED ANY KIND OF
CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES MORE
THAN THIS PRESIDENT.
AND FINALLY, IF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS SAID YOU WOULD HAVE
ELECTION CAN WAIT FOR ELECTIONS
AND BUT THE CRIME COMMITTED,
THEY WOULD HAVE LISTED HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IN FACT, EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL
EXPERT, INCLUDING THOSE AT THE
TIME LIKE MASON, INCLUDING
HAMILTON, INCLUDING ALL OF THE
EXPERTS WHO HAVE FOLLOWED UP
HAVE SAID YOU DON'T NEED A CRIME
TO UNSEAT THE PRESIDENT FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
SO I DON'T THINK THEY MADE A
VERY STRONG CASE AT ALL.
THEY CONTINUE TO AVOID THE
FACTS.
LET US HEAR FROM, I'D LIKE
MR. PURPURA WHEN HE IS
MENTIONING THE PRESIDENT'S
DOCUMENT, YOU DON'T HEAR THE
WORD BIDEN.
YOU DON'T HEAR THE WORD CRIED
STRIKE.
THOSE ARE IN THE DOCUMENTS.
WHY?
IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT WAS ASKING FOR A QUID
PRO QUO.
TAKE A FEW QUESTION BUT ONLY A
FEW PEOPLE WE CAN AFFECT VOTEL
TO IDENTIFY YOU YES.
>> YOU SAY YOU WANT BOLTON.
YOU CANNOT DO HOPING TO BELIEVE
THE BOOK MANUSCRIPT REVELATIONS
ENOUGH TO GET REPUBLICANS OVER
THE LINE?
>> LOOK, IT'S A LITTLE BIT IN
THE SENSE LIKE WATERGATE.
EVERY LITTLE, AND YOU WEAK NEW
EVIDENCE COMES OUT THAT IS
FURTHER FURTHER CONDEMNING OF
THE PRESIDENT HERE AND SO
OBVIOUSLY THE REVELATIONS IN THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" ABOUT THE
BOLTON BOOK STRENGTHEN THE CASER
WITNESSES, FOR DOCUMENTS EVEN
MORE.
EACH FEW DAYS SOMETHING COMES
OUT, AND AVERAGE AMERICAN IS
SAYING, WHY DON'T THEY WANT
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?
YOU CAN SIT AND LISTEN TO ALL
THESE ARGUMENTS BUT ONE QUESTION
LOOMS OVERHEAD.
IF THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING
WRONG, WHY IS HE SO AFRAID OF
HAVING WITNESSES AND HAVING
DOCUMENTS?
>> THANK YOU.
SHOULD THE HOUSE SUBPOENA THE
MANUSCRIPT OR BOLTON?
>> THAT'S UP TO THEM.
I'M NOT GIVING THEM ADVICE.
YES, SIR.
[INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
>> LOOK, YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM
LINE IS VERY SIMPLE.
IF THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING
THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER AND IF
THE PRESIDENT THEN STONEWALLS
CONGRESS INTO INVESTIGATING IT,
THEN IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY
REMEDY LEFT TO CONGRESS OTHER
THAN ELECTION.
IN THIS CASE SINCE IT INVOLVES
TRYING TO JUST JOIN OUR
ELECTION, TRYING TO DISTORT OUR
ELECTIONS, ELECTIONS IS NOT THE
REMEDY.
>> SOME CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS
ARE ARGUING THAT JUSTICE ROBERTS
CAN DEMAND US OF BEING A OF
MULVANEY IF HOUSE MANAGERS
REQUEST IT.
IS THAT IN THE DISCUSSION NOW?
>> WE HAD AN AMENDMENT PUT IN BY
SENATOR GRAHAM HAULED WHICH HAVE
SAID REQUIRE HIM TO RULE, NOT
CHANGING THE RULES OF THE SENATE
WHICH HOUSE COULD OVERRULE.
OUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE
AFRAID OF ANY INDEPENDENT
ANALYSIS WHETHER IT'S FROM
WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS AND THEY
DON'T EVEN WANT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE TO OPINE.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
>> THE MINORITY LEADER TALKING
TO REPORTERS.
DURING THIS BREAK IN A SENATE
TRIAL.
THE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH
McCONNELL CALLED FOR A 15
MINUTE BREAK.
THEY ARE ABOUT AT THAT POINT.
WE UNDERSTAND THE MAJORITY
LEADER IS BACK IN THE CHAMBER SO
WE WILL GO INTO AND BRING YOU
BACK TO GAVEL TO GAVEL COVERAGE
OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
WHEN THE SENATE COMES IN.
IN THE MEANTIME MORE OF YOUR
REACTION.
MICHAEL IN OHIO, REPUBLICAN.
>> Caller: HOW ARE WE DOING
TODAY?
YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO THROW
A FEW THINGS OUT HERE WITH THE
WITH ALL THIS STARTED.
YOU GO TO THE BASEMENT IN THE
CONGRESS.
YOU HOLD THESE HEARINGS.
THE PRESIDENT ISN'T ALLOWED TO
HAVE ANY HAVE HIS REPRESENTATION
OR HIS COUNSEL PRESENT.
THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE
CHARGES AND SEND THEM ON WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS.
EVERYTHING THAT I HEARING IN
THIS APPEARS TO ME IT'S ABOUT
DUE PROCESS.
IT'S ABOUT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY
WORKS.
I JUST FEEL LIKE -- I DID COMING
THIS THIS WITH REALLY AN OPEN
MIND BUT THE MORE I LISTEN TO
SHIFT AND SCHUMER AND PELOSI AND
NADLER, THE MORE I HAVE TO THINK
THERE'S JUST ONE GOAL IN MIND.
I THINK THEY HELD ON TO THEIR
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES JUST TO
KEEP BERNIE AND ELIZABETH WARREN
OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
>> Host: SO YOU HAVE LISTENED
TO JERRY NADLER.
DID YOU HEAR HIM ON SATURDAY
AFTER THE FIRST TWO HOURS OF THE
OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM THE THE
PRESIDENT DEFENSE TEAM WHERE HE
REBUTTED THEIR ARGUMENT?
HE SAID WE ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT
TO COME BEFORE THAT HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN WE HELD
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE ASKED THEM, THE WIDEST IF
THEY WOULD BE SENDING COUNSEL.
>> Caller: THAT WAS ON THE
61st DAY, YES, FOR THE FIRST
60 DAYS THERE WAS NOTHING.
BUT YOU
 YOU KNOW, EVEN WITHT
CONGRESS' JOB WAS TO PUT A CASE
TOGETHER.
SCHUMER JUST MENTIONED THIS IS
ABOUT A TRIAL OR THIS IS A
COURT.
IT IS A COURT IN A SENSE.
IT'S A COURT HEARING THE FACTS S
THAT CONGRESS HAS PUT TOGETHER
AND SUBMITTED.
YOU DON'T COME INTO THE CONGRESS
AFTER THE FACT THAT SAY BY THE
WAY, WE NEED THIS, WE NEED THIS,
WE NEED THIS.
I THINK THE WHOLE THING SHOULD
BE THROWN OUT.
IT'S PROCEDURALLY FLAWED AND I
THINK IT'S JUST A SHAM.
>> Host: FREDERICK, MARYLAND,
INDEPENDENT.
YOUR TURN.
>> Caller: YES.
I WAS AGAINST STORE INITIALLY
AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT SOME
OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HE WAS
INTERJECTING WITH HIS
CONSTITUTION OVERTURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE
THINKS --
[INAUDIBLE]
IN MODERN TIMES AS A SUMMER WE
NEED TO ALTER THE CONSTITUTION
--
[INAUDIBLE]
IN THE SITUATION.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SENATE
BECAUSE I KEEP TRYING TO REMAIN
OPEN-MINDED AND OBJECTIVE BUT
WHAT I FIND IT DIFFICULT IS THAT
EVEN IN TERMS OF THE DEFENSE
THEY ARE NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE
THAT WILL SUPPORT OR
SUBSTANTIATE THEIR POSITION.
IT'S A LOT OF HEARSAY AND WHAT
WE THOUGHT AND WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT WHERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS TO
REALLY SUBSTANTIATE THEIR
TIMELINE OR PRESENT THE EVIDENCE
IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT?
I CONTINUE TO TRY TO REMAIN
OPEN-MINDED BUT I'M JUST NOT
SEEING IT.
NOT ONLY AM I NOT SEEING IT BUT
I'M KIND OF -- THE NUANCE COME
HOW THEY'RE ATTEMPTING EVEN WITH
THE CONSTITUTION AND CUT OF TALK
ABOUT THIS OVERVIEW OF THE
PARLIAMENT AND PREPARES THEM FOR
THE PARLIAMENT THAT WE ARE NOT A
MONARCH AND WE DON'T RUN OUR
GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME WAY THAT
THE PARLIAMENT ONCE THEIR
GOVERNMENT.
I'M REMARKABLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT.
>> Host: GERALD IN FLORIDA,
DEMOCRATIC CALLER, YOU ARE NEXT.
>> Caller: YES.
I'M TURKEY SIX I'VE BEEN A
REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, AND I'M
THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED WITH THE
PRESENT LEADERSHIP.
THEY JUST DON'T SEEM TO HAVE --
I'M SEARCHING FOR THE WORD.
DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO ACT ON THE COUNTRIES BEHALF.
THEY ARE JUST AGAINST
EVERYTHING.
I WISH THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE
PRESIDENT AT LEAST.
THIS IS NONSENSE, THIS THING.
AND OH, BY THE WAY, I'M
ORIGINALLY FROM DELAWARE SO I
KNEW -- I DID KNOW WHEN BUT I
MET JOE BIDEN A COUPLE TIMES.
ONCE AS A 17-YEAR-OLD WHEN HE
WAS 17
 17 AND HE THOUGHT HE S
PRETTY SMART.
HE TRIED TO PUT HIS ARM AROUND A
GIRL THAT I KNEW AND WHEN I
CONFRONTED HIM HE BACKED AWAY,
HIM AND HIS FRIEND SAID OKAY,
LET'S GO.
I'M JUST DISGUSTED WITH WHAT
EVERYTHING IS GOING ON.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
>> Host: SENATOR JOHN CORNYN
OF REPUBLICAN OF TEXAS TWEETS
OUT TODAY AMIDST ALL THIS
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT NOW THERE WILL BE FOUR
REPUBLICANS TO VOTE WITH
DEMOCRATS TO CALL WITNESSES LIKE
JOHN BOLTON.
ALTHOUGH WE WON'T VOTE ON
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UNTIL FRIDAY,
HOUSE MANAGERS NEED TO KNOW THAT
BOTH SIDES WILL HAVE THE SAME
CHANCE TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
WITNESSES TO CALL.
OBVIOUS CHOICES ARE ADAM SCHIFF,
JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN FOR
STARTERS.
"POLITICO" IS REPORTING -- CYBER
REPORTERS FOR POLITICAL
REPORTING THAT MITT ROMNEY SPOKE
TO REPORTERS TODAY AHEAD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND SAID QUOTE IT'S
INCREASINGLY LIKELY THAT OTHER
REPUBLICANS WOULD JOIN THOSE OF
US WHO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE FROM
JOHN BOLTON.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH OTHERS WHO
HAVE OPINED UPON THIS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO
HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON FOR US TO
BE ABLE TO MAKE AN IMPARTIAL
JUDGMENT.
SUSAN COLLINS PUT OUT A
STATEMENT SAYING THIS "NEW YORK
TIMES" STORY THAT BROKE
YESTERDAY STRENGTHENS THE CASE
FOR CALLING WITNESSES LIKE JOHN
BOLTON.
JOSEPH IN TEXAS, REPUBLICAN.
>> Caller: HOW ARE YOU DOING
TODAY?
I'M JUST CALLING TO GET
EVERYBODY TO TAKE A STEP BACK
AND FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS ALL
BEGAN WHEN TRUMP FIRST ANNOUNCED
HIS CANDIDACY TO RUN FOR
PRESIDENCY.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT IT WAS
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS BEGAN.
BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO SECRET
FOR ANYBODY TO SAY WE ARE GOING
TO IMPEACH THAT MF FROM DAY ONE.
HAD TO BE THAT'S WHERE -- IT
MADE THE COMMENT, TRUMP DID,
MADE THE COMMENT SAYING I'M
GOING TO DRAIN THE SWAMP.
THIS WON'T APPARENTLY IS FULL OF
DEMOCRATS THAT WANT TO KEEP
THEIR JOB, AND IF THEY KEEP
GOING THE WAY THEY ARE THERE NOT
GOING TO KEEP THEIR JOB.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOT A LOT
OF BEEN SCARED.
>> Host: WE ARE WAITING ON THE
SENATE TO COME BACK INTO
SESSION.
THEY ARE 22 MINUTES INTO A 15
MINUTE BREAK.
WE DO NOT CONTROL THE CAMERAS IN
THE CHAMBER SO WHEN THEY COME
BACK AND WE WERE QUICKLY BRING
YOU RIGHT TO THE FLOOR TO
CONTINUE WITH OUR UNINTERRUPTED
COVERAGE OF THE SENATE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
JOT IN SAN FRANCISCO,
INDEPENDENT.
JOHN.
>> Caller: FIRST OFF I USED TO
BE A DEMOCRAT AND PROBABLY LIKE
A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I HEARD
CALL IN, I BEEN SO DISGUSTED
WITH HOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVE RUN
THIS WHOLE PROCESS FROM NANCY
PELOSI TO ADAM SCHIFF, AND THE
UNFAIRNESS.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY
BOO-HOO TO ADAM SCHIFF ABOUT
THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT HIS CASE
IS OVERWHELMING BUT NOW HE NEED
WITNESSES.
WELL, BUT HE KNOWS HE SHOULD
HAVE DONE THAT MONTHS AGO.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP ALSO
IS THE FACT THAT NOBODY IS
TALKING ABOUT AND ESPECIALLY THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED IT A
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT
THE CROWDSTRIKE.
THE FACT THAT DURING ROGER STONE
TRIAL HE DID A PRETRIAL MOTION
SAYING THAT THE CHARGES NEED TO
BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY HAD
NEVER PROVEN THAT THE RUSSIANS
ACTUALLY DID ANY HACKING.
IT TURNED OUT THAT CROWDSTRIKE
RECORDS WERE SUBPOENAED AND IT
TURNED OUT CROWDSTRIKE NEVER DID
A FINAL REPORT.
THE FBI NEVER ASKED FOR A FINAL
REPORT AND EVEN UNSEAT THAN
JAMES COMEY SAID THE DNC DID NOT
FULLY COOPERATE BY TURNING THE
DNC SERVER OVER.
IT ALL WENT TO CROWDSTRIKE AND I
HOPE THAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK INTO
THIS BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP HAS
CONSISTENTLY BEEN PUSHING THE
CROWDSTRIKE ISSUE AND I WOULD
LOVE TO HAVE JOURNALISTS ASK TOM
PEREZ WILL THE DNC TURN OVER THE
SERVER?
THEY LAUGH WHEN TRUMP SAID --
>> THE SIN IS BACK IN.
WE WILL TAKE YOU THERE NOW.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING HAVING
CONSULTED WITH THE PRESIDENT
LAWYERS AT
 THAT WE'RE LOOKINT
AROUND 6:00 FOR DINNER, AND WE
WILL PLOW RIGHT THROUGH UNTIL
6:00.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL CAN
CONTINUE WITH THEIR CASE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBER 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 SERVE AS ONE OF
THE LEADERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFENSE TEAM DURING THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION.
HE'S MENTIONED 531 TIMES, 20 IN,
20 IN THE BRIEF AND ABOUT 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,
CONSISTED OF MAYOR GIULIANI,
STUART ROTH, MARK, MAYOR
GIULIANI OF COURSE AND MARTY
RASKIN AS WELL AS JANE RASKIN.
JAMIE 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 USE MY TIME.
>> -- YIELD MY TIME.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MAJORITY
LEADER McCONNELL, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE.
I EXPECT YOU HAVE HEARD AMERICAN
POET CARL SANDBURG SUMMARY OF
THE TRIAL LAWYERS DILEMMA.
IF THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU,
ARGUE THE LAW.
IF THE LAW IS AGAINST YOU, ARGUE
THE FACTS IT IF THE FACTS AND
THE LAW ARE AGAINST YOU, POUND
THE TABLE AND YELL LIKE HELL.
WELL, WE'VE HEARD THE HOUSE
MANAGERS DO SOME TABLE POUNDING
AND A LITTLE YELLING BUT IN THE
MAIN THAT USED A DIFFERENT
TACTIC HERE.
TACTIC FAMILIAR TO TRIAL LAWYERS
THOUGH NOT MENTIONED BY MR.
SANDBURG.
IF BOTH THE LAW 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.
THEN DISTORT CERTAIN FACTS,
IGNORE OTHERS, EVEN WHEN THEY
ARE THE MOST PROBATIVE.
MAKE CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS AND
INSINUATE THAT SHINY OBJECT IS
FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
ACTUAL FACTS ALLOW.
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 MAFIA, CORRUPT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, WALL STREET
RACKETEERS, CRIME BUSTING MAYOR
WHO CLEANED UP NEW YORK AND
TURNED IT AROUND.
A NATIONAL HERO, AMERICA'S MAYOR
AFTER 9/11.
AND AFTER THAT, AND
INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED
EXPERT ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
TO BE SURE, MR. GIULIANI HAS
ALWAYS BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A
CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE FOR HIS
HARD-HITTING TAKE NO PRISONERS
APPROACH.
BUT IT'S NO STRETCH TO SAY THAT
HE WAS RESPECTED BY FRIEND AND
FOE ALIKE FOR HIS INTELLECT, HIS
TENACITY, HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND HIS FIERCE LOYALTY TO HIS
CAUSES AND HIS COUNTRY.
AND THEN THE UNTHINKABLE.
HE PUBLICLY 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
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 TALE, THE LEADER
OF A ROGUE OPERATION.
THE PRESENTATIONS WERE FILLED
WITH AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND
NAME-CALLING.
COLD-BLOODED POLITICAL
OPERATIVE, POLITICAL BAGMAN.
BUT I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT HE IS
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 CLAIMS.
SO WHAT'S THE FIRST TELL THAT
MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE IN THIS MAY
NOT BE ALL THAT IT IS CRACKED UP
TO BE?
THEY DIDN'T SUBPOENA HIM TO
TESTIFY.
IN FACT, MR. SCHIFF'S AND HIS
COMMITTEE NEVER EVEN INVITED HIM
TO TESTIFY.
THEY TOOK A STATUS OF PEENING
HIS DOCUMENTS ACT IN SEPTEMBER
AND WHEN HIS LAWYER RESPONDED
WITH LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE
PRODUCTION, 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 YOURSELVES WHY DIDN'T THEY?
IN FACT, IT APPEARS THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE WASN'T PARTICULARLY
INTERESTED IN PRESENTING YOU
WITH ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF WHAT
MAYOR GIULIANI DID OUR 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, THE HOUSE MANAGERS
SUGGEST MR. GIULIANI AT THE
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION DEMANDED
THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCED AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND
BURISMA BEFORE AGREEING TO A
WHITE HOUSE VISIT.
THEY BASE THAT ON A STATEMENT TO
THAT EFFECT BY AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, BUT WHAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS DON'T TELL YOU WAS THAT
SONDLAND ADMITTED HE WAS
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT.
HE PRESUMED THAT MR. GIULIANI'S
REQUESTS WERE INTENDED AS
 ASA
CONDITION FOR A WHITE HOUSE
VISIT.
EVEN WORSE, HIS ASSUMPTION WAS
ON THIRDHAND INFORMATION.
AS HE PUT IT, THE MOST HE COULD
DO IS REPEAT WHAT HE HEARD
THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER FROM
GIULIANI.
WHOM HE PRESUMED SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT ON THE ISSUE.
AND BY THE WAY, AS MR. PURPURA
HAS EXPLAINED, THE PERSON WHO
WAS ACTUALLY SPEAKING TO MR.
GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR VOLKER,
TESTIFIED CLEARLY THAT THERE WAS
NO LINKAGE BETWEEN THE MEETING
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO MAKE
MUCH OF A MAY 23 WHITE HOUSE
MEETING DURING WHICH THE
PRESIDENT SUGGESTED TO HIS
UKRAINE WORKING GROUP INCLUDING
AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND
THAT THEY SHOULD TALK TO RUDY.
THE MANAGERS TOLD YOU THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE A DIRECTIVE
AND A DEMAND THAT THE GROUP
NEEDED TO WORK WITH GIULIANI IF
THEY WANTED HIM TO A GREAT WITH
THE UKRAINE POLICY THEY WERE
PROPOSING.
BUT THOSE WORDS, DIRECTED 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 FOR 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, IT WAS NOT AN
INSTRUCTION BUT JUST A COMMENT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED.
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T TAKE
IT AS AN ORDER, AND HE ADDED
THAT THE PRESIDENT WASN'T 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 23
MEETING, THE ONE DURING WHICH
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD YOU THE
PRESIDENT DEMANDED THAT HIS
UKRAINE TEAM TALK TO GIULIANI,
NEITHER VOLKER NOR SONDLAND'S
EVEN FOLLOWED UP WITH MR.
GIULIANI UNTIL JULY.
AND THE JULY FOLLOW-UP, BY MR.
VOLKER, HAPPENED ONLY BECAUSE
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ASK TO
BE PUT IN TOUCH WITH HIM.
VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S SENIOR AIDE ANDRIY
YERMAK APPROACHED HIM TO ASK TO
BE CONNECTED TO MR. GIULIANI.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALSO RELY ON
TESTIMONY THAT MAYOR GIULIANI
TOLD AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND
SOLID THAT IN HIS VIEW, TO BE
CREDIBLE UKRAINIAN STATEMENT ON
ANTICORRUPTION SHOULD
SPECIFICALLY MENTION
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND
BURISMA.
BUT WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS
ASKED WHETHER HE KNEW IT
GIULIANI WAS CONVEYING MESSAGES
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT TO
CONVEY TO THE UKRAINIANS, VOLKER
SAID THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THAT
IMPRESSION.
AND HE BELIEVED THAT GIULIANI
WAS DOING HIS OWN COMMUNICATION
ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVED HE WAS
INTERESTED IN.
BUT EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN
THE RELIED ON PRESUMPTIONS,
ASSUMPTIONS AND UNSUPPORTED
CONCLUSIONS, IS THE MANAGERS
FAILURE TO PLACE IN ANY OTHER
CONTEXT MR. GIULIANI'S ACTUAL
ROLE AND 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 HERE THEY WOULD HAVE BELIEVE
THAT MAYOR GIULIANI WAS ONLY
THERE TO DIG UP DIRT AGAINST
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
BECAUSE HE MIGHT BE PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S RIVAL IN THE 2020
ELECTIONS.
OF COURSE MR. GIULIANI'S INTENT
IS NO SMALL MATTER HERE.
IT'S A CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL
PREMISE OF HOUSE MANAGERS CASE
THAT MR. GIULIANI'S MOTIVE IN
INVESTIGATIVE UKRAINIAN
CORRUPTION AT IT APPEARS IN
 E
2016 ELECTION WAS AN ENTIRELY
POLITICAL ONE UNDERTAKEN AT THE
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
BUT WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE THE
MANAGERS ACTUALLY OFFERED YOU TO
SUPPORT THAT PROPOSITION?
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 FOREIGN
POLICY OBJECTIVES, OR HE WAS
ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT'S
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, IN WHICH CASE
THEY CONCLUDE HIS MOTIVE COULD
ONLY BE TO FURTHER THE
PRESIDENT'S LYRICAL OBJECTIVES.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEN POINT TO
VARIOUS MR. GIULIANI'S PUBLIC
STATEMENTS IN WHICH HE IS CLEAR
AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THE FACT THAT HE IS INDEED
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY.
THERE YOU HAVE IT.
GIULIANI ADMITS HE'S ACTING AS
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD
TO OF BEEN ACTING WITH A
POLITICAL MOTIVE TO INFLUENCE
THE 2020
THE 2020 ELECTION.
NO OTHER OPTION, RIGHT?
WRONG.
THERE IS OF COURSE ANOTHER
OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THE QUESTION,
WHAT MOTIVATED MAYOR GIULIANI TO
INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBLE
INVOLVEMENT OF UKRAINIANS IN THE
2016 ELECTION?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS KNOW WHAT THE
ANSWER IS.
IT'S IN PLAIN SIGHT.
AND MR. GIULIANI HAS TO ANY
NUMBER OF NEWS OUTLETS EXACTLY
WHEN AND WHY HE BECAME
INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
2020 ELECTION.
MAYOR GIULIANI BEGAN
INVESTIGATING UKRAINE CORRUPTION
AND IT APPEARED IN THE 2020
ELECTION WAY BACK IN NOVEMBER OF
2018, A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED
HIS CANDIDACY.
AND FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE
RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT,
WHEN THE BIGGEST FALSE
CONSPIRACY THEORY IN CIRCULATION
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA DURING THE
2016 CAMPAIGN WAS STILL IN WIDE
CIRCULATION.
AS THE HILL REPORTED, AS
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HIGHEST
PROFILE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THE
FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR OFTEN
KNOWN SIMPLY AS RUDY, BELIEVED
THE UKRAINIANS EVIDENCE COULD
ASSIST IN HIS DEFENSE AGAINST
THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION
INVESTIGATION AND FORMER SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER'S FINAL
REPORT.
SO JULIANNE BEGAN TO CHECK
THINGS OUT IN LATE 2018 AND
EARLY 2019 -- GIULIANI.
THE GENESIS OF MAYOR GIULIANI
INVESTIGATION WAS ALSO REPORTED
BY NUMEROUS OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS
INCLUDING CNN, WHICH RELATED
THAT GIULIANI'S ROLE IN UKRAINE
COULD BE TRACED BACK TO NOVEMBES
CONTACTED BY SOMEONE HE
DESCRIBES AS AN 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 A
POLITICAL ERRAND.
AS HE STATED REPEATEDLY AND
PUBLICLY, HE WASN'T DOING THAT
GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEYS DO.
HE WAS FOLLOWING A LEAD A
WELL-KNOWN PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR.
HE WAS GATHERING EVIDENCE
REGARDING UKRAINIAN ELECTION
INTERFERENCE TO DEFEND HIS
CLIENT AGAINST THE FALSE
ALLEGATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER.
BUT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T
EVEN ALLUDE TO THAT POSSIBILITY.
INSTEAD, THEY JUST REPEATED
THEIR MANTRA THAT GIULIANI'S
MOTIVE WAS PURELY POLITICAL.
AND THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT
THE BIAS WITH WHICH HAVE
APPROACHED THEIR MISSION.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, MR. GIULIANI
DEFENDED PRESIDENT TRUMP
VIGOROUSLY, RELENTLESSLY AND
PUBLICLY ABOUT THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION.
AND IN THE NONSTOP CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS THAT FOLLOWED.
INCLUDING THE ATTEMPTED MUELLER
REDO BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WHICH THE MANAGERS
WOULD APPARENTLY LIKE TO SNEAK
IN THE BACK DOOR HERE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS MAY NOT LIKE
YOUR STYLE.
YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS STYLE, BUT
ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT HE IS
EVERYTHING CLARET DARROW SAID A
DEFENSE LAWYER MUST BE,
OUTRAGEOUS, IRREVERENT,
BLASPHEMOUS, A ROGUE, A
RENEGADE.
THE FACT IS IN THE END AFTER A
TWO-YEAR SIEGE ON THE
PRESIDENCY, TWO 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 SIZE OF USE,
EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT AT THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE FBI,
ALLEGED COLLUSION BETWEEN THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, AND
SUPPOSE IT OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
THE SCORE IS MAYOR GIULIANI
FOUR, MR. SCHIFF ZERO.
BUT IN THIS TRIAL IN THIS
MOMENT, MR. GIULIANI IS JUST A
MINOR PLAYER.
THAT SHINY OBJECT DESIGNED TO
DISTRACT YOU.
SENATORS, I URGE YOU MOST
RESPECTFULLY DO NOT BE
DISTRACTED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I YIELD BACK TO MR. SEKULOW.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS, WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO A SECTION
DEALING WITH THE LAW.
TWO ISSUES IN PARTICULAR THAT MY
COLLEAGUE THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL WILL BE ADDRESSING.
ISSUES INVOLVING DUE PROCESS AND
ISSUES 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,
MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER.
THE OTHER DAY AS WE OPEN OUR
PRESENTATION, I TOUCHED ON TWO
AREAS, SOME OF THE DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS THAT CHARACTERIZE THE
PRECEDENCE IN THE HOUSE, SOME OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS AND ERRORS
THAT UNDERPIN HOUSE DEMOCRATS
CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION.
TODAY I WILL COMPLETE THE
PRESENTATION ON THOSE POINTS TO
ROUND OUT SOME OF THE
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR PROCEDURE
THAT WAS USED IN THE HOUSE AND
ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS
PROCEEDING BEFORE YOU NOW.
AND ALSO ADDRESSEE IN DETAIL THE
PURPORTED CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION
IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
ON DUE PROCESS, THERE ARE THREE
FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS THAT IN FACT,
OF THE 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 HAS
THE POWER TO LAUNCH AN INQUIRY
UNDER THE HOUSES IMPEACHMENT
POWER UNLESS THE HOUSE ITSELF
HAS TAKEN A VOTE TO GIVE THAT
AUTHORITY TO A COMMITTEE.
I DO IN CASES SUCH AS UNITED
STATES VERSUS WATKINS THE
SUPREME COURT HAS SET OUT THESE
PRINCIPLES, GENERAL PRINCIPLES
DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH ASSIGNS AUTHORITY TO EACH
CHAMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH, TO THE HOUSE INTO THE
SENATE BUT NOT THE INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS OR SUBCOMMITTEES.
OR AN AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE TO
BE TRANSFERRED TO A COMMITTEE
THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE ON THAT.
THE D.C. CIRCUIT HAS DISTILLED
THE PRINCIPLES FROM THOSE CASES
THIS WAY.
TO ISSUE A VALID SUBPOENA A
COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE MUST
CONFORM STRICTLY TO THE
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ITS
INVESTIGATORY POWERS.
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM HERE.
THERE WAS NO SUCH RESOLUTION.
THERE WAS NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENAS UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER.
SO THIS INQUIRY BEGAN WITH
NEARLY TWO DOZEN INVALID
SUBPOENAS.
THE SPEAKER HAD THE HOUSE
PROCEED ON NOTHING MORE THAN A
PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH SHE
PURPORTED TO AUTHORIZE
COMMITTEES TO BEGIN AN
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION SHE
LACKED THAT AUTHORITY.
AS A CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE DURING THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY POINTED OUT,
PETER RODINO, 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 OBLIGATIONS.
SO WE BEGIN THIS PROCESS WITH AN
AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS THAT IMPOSE
NO COMPULSION ON THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO RESPOND WITH DOCUMENTS
OR WITNESSES AT ARE WE COMING
BACK TO THAT POINT, THAT
THRESHOLD FOUNDATIONAL POINT
WHEN WE GET TO THE OBSTRUCTION
CHARGE.
THE SECOND FUNDAMENTAL DUE
PROCESS ERROR IS THAT THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS DENIED THE PRESIDENT
BASIC DUE PROCESS REQUIRED BY
THE CONSTITUTION AND BY
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEDURES THAT
THEY DO FOR THE HEARINGS.
DO.
AS WE HEARD FROM JUDGE STARR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ESSENTIALLY
ABANDONED THE PRINCIPLES THAT
HAVE GOVERNED IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRIES IN THE HOUSE FOR OVER
150 YEARS.
I WILL TOUCH ON JUST A FEW
POINTS AND RESPOND TO A COUPLE
OF POINTS TO HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
MADE.
THE FIRST IS THAT IN DENYING DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS WERE A HUGE REVERSAL
FROM THE POSITION HOUSE
DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES HAVE TAKEN
IN THE RECENT PAST, PARTICULARLY
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING.
AND I BELIEVE WITH MANAGER
NADLER IS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT
WAS REQUIRED.
>> MANAGER NADLER WAS EXPLAINING
THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRE AT A
MINIMUM NOTICE OF THE CHARGES
AGAINST YOU, THE RIGHT TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE
RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES
AGAINST YOU AND THE RIGHT TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE, ALL THOSE
RIGHTS WERE DENIED TO THE
PRESIDENT.
NOW, ONE OF THE RESPONSES THAT
THE MANAGERS HAVE MADE TO THE
DEFECT THAT WE POINTED OUT IN
THE SECRET PROCEEDINGS WHERE
MANAGER SCHIFF BEGAN THESE
HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT BUNKER
IS THAT WHILE THAT WAS REALLY
JUST BEST INVESTIGATIVE
PRACTICE.
THERE ARE PUTTING LIKE A GRAND
JURY.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY THAT.
THOSE HEARINGS OPERATED NOTHING
LIKE A GRAND JURY.
A GRAND JURY HAS SECRECY
PRIMARILY FOR TWO REASONS.
TO PROTECT THE DIRECTION OF THE
INVESTIGATION SO OTHERS WILL NOT
KNOW WHAT WITNESSES ARE BEING
CALLED AND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING
TO KEEP THAT SECRET FOR THE
PROSECUTOR TO BE ABLE TO KEEP
DEVELOPING THE EVIDENCE, AND TO
PROTECT THE ACCUSED.
BECAUSE THE ACCUSED MIGHT NOT
EVER BE INDICTED.
IN THIS CASE ALL OF THE
INFORMATION WAS MADE PUBLIC
EVERY DAY.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS DESTROYED ANY
ANALOGY, ANY LEGITIMATE ANALOGY
TO A GRAND JURY BECAUSE THAT WAS
ALL PUBLIC.
THEY MAY DON'T SECRET THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS THE TARGET.
THE ISSUED ACCOUNTS ABOUT THEM
EVERY DAY.
AND IT DIDN'T KEEP THE DIRECTION
OF THEIR INVESTIGATION SECRET.
THEIR WITNESS LIST WERE
PUBLISHED DAILY.
THE DIRECTION OF THE
INVESTIGATION WAS OPEN AND THE
TESTIMONY THAT TOOK PLACE WAS
SELECTIVELY LEAKED TO A
COMPLIANT MEDIA TO ESTABLISH A
FALSE NARRATIVE.
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.
IF THAT SORT OF CONTACT HAD
OCCURRED IN AN REAL GRAND JURY,
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A CRIMINAL
VIOLATION.
PROSECUTORS CAN'T DO THAT.
UNDER RULE SIX E OF THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL RULES IT'S A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE TO BE LINKING WHAT TAKES
PLACE IN A GRAND JURY.
AND ALSO THE GRAND JURY
EXPLANATION PROVIDES NO
RATIONALE WHATSOEVER FOR THE
SECOND ROUND IF YOU EXPECT A
MEMBER AFTER THE BASEMENT
BUNKER, AFTER SECRET HEARINGS
WHERE THE TESTIMONY WAS
PRESCREENED, THEN THE SAME
WITNESSES WHO IT ALREADY BEEN
DEPOSED WERE PUT ON ANY PUBLIC
HERE WITH THE PRESENT WAS STILL
EXCLUDED.
ASK YOURSELF WHAT WAS THE REASON
FOR THAT.
IN EVERY PRIOR PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT IN THE MODERN ERA
WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC CARRIES
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND COULD
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE PUBLIC
TELEVISED HEARINGS WHERE THE
PRESIDENT WAS EXCLUDED?
THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A
SHOW TRIAL.
NOW, I ALSO ADDRESSED THE OTHER
DAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS
CONTENTION THAT THEY HAD OFFERED
THE PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS.
THAT WHEN THINGS REACHED THE
THIRD ROUND OF HEARINGS IN FRONT
OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, THE MANAGER NADLER
OFFERED THE PRESENT TO PROCESS
AND I EXPLAINED WHY THAT WAS
ILLUSORY.
THERE WAS NO GENUINE OFFER
BECAUSE BEFORE ANY HEARINGS
BEGIN OTHER THAN THE LAW
PROFESSORS SEMINAR ON DECEMBER 4
THE SPEAKER HAD DETERMINED THE
OUTCOME, OUR STEAD THERE WOULD
BE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE
INFORMED THE COUNSELS OFFICE
THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO CALL ANY
FACT WITNESSES OR HAVE ANY
FACTUAL HEARINGS WHATSOEVER.
IT WAS ALL DONE, IT WAS LOCKED
IN, IT WAS BAKED EAR AND IT WAS
SOMETHING ELSE HANGING OVER THAT
WHEN THEY HAD OFFERED
PURPORTEDLY TO ALLOW THE
PRESIDENT SOME DUE PROCESS
RIGHT,
, AND THAT WAS A SPECIAL
PROVISION IN THE RULES FOR THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
PROCEEDINGS.
ALSO UNPRECEDENTED THAT ALLOWED
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
TONIGHT THE PRESIDENT ANY DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS AT ALL, IF HE
CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO TURN OVER
DOCUMENTS OR NOT ALLOW WITNESSES
TO TESTIFY.
SO THAT IF THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
GIVE UP HIS PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITY THAT HE HAD BEEN
ASSERTING OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CONFIDENTIALITY, THAT HE DIDN'T
COMPLY WITH WHAT THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WANTED, THEN IT WAS UP
TO CHAIRMAN NADLER TO
POTENTIALLY SAY NO RIGHTS AT
ALL.
THERE'S A TERM FOR THAT IN THE
LAW.
IT'S CALLED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONDITION.
YOU CAN'T CONDITION SOMEONE TO
EXERCISE SOME RIGHT ON THEIR
SURROUNDING OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.
YOU CAN'T SAY WE WILL LET YOU OF
DUE PROCESS IN THIS WAY IF YOU
WAVE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES ON ANOTHER ISSUE.
THE LAST POINT I WILL MAKE ABOUT
DUE PROCESS IS OF THIS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT
DUE PROCESS IS ENSHRINED IN THE
BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A REASON.
IT'S NOT THAT PROCESS IS JUST AN
END IN ITSELF.
INSTEAD, IT IS A DEEP-SEATED
BELIEF IN OUR LEGAL TRADITION
THAT THEIR PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL
FOR ACCURATE DECISION-MAKING.
CROSS-EXAMINE -- THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
IN PARTICULAR IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS
FOR ANY AMERICAN.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED
THAT FOR OVER 250 YEARS OUR
LEGAL TRADITION HAS RECOGNIZED
CROSS-EXAMINATION AS THE
GREATEST LEGAL ENGINE EVER
DISCOVERED FOR THE DISCOVERY --
EVER INVENTED FOR THE DISCOVERY
OF TRUTH.
SO WHY DID HOUSE DEMOCRATS
JETTISON EVERY PRECEDENT AND
EVERY PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS
IN THE WAY THEY DEVISED THESE
HEARING PROCEDURES?
WHY DID THEY DEVISED THE PROCESS
THEY KEPT THE
 THE PRESIDENTD
OUT OF ANY HEARINGS FOR 71 OF
THE 78 DAYS OF THE SO-CALLED
INVESTIGATION?
I SUBMIT BECAUSE THEIR PROCESS
WAS NEVER ABOUT FINDING THE
TRUTH.
THEIR PROCESS WAS ABOUT CHEATING
A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME ON A
TIMETABLE AND HAVING IT DONE BY
CHRISTMAS -- ACHIEVING EVENT
THAT IS WHAT THEY ACHIEVED.
NOW, THE THIRD FUNDAMENTAL DUE
PROCESS ERROR IS THAT THE WHOLE
FOUNDATION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS
WAS ALSO TAINTED BEYOND REPAIR
BECAUSE AN INTEREST IN FACT,
WITNESS SUPERVISED AND LIMITED
THE COURSE OF THE FACTUAL
DISCOVERY, THE COURSE OF THE
HEARING.
I EXPLAINED TO THE DAY THAT
MANAGER SCHIFF HAD A REASON,,
POTENTIALLY, BECAUSE OF HIS
OFFICES CONTACT WITH THE
SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER, AND
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND HOW THE
COMPLETE WAS FRAMED WHICH ALL
REMAIN SECRET TO LIMITING, WHICH
IS RELEVANT.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER BEGAN THIS
WHOLE PROCESS HERE IS BIASED,
HIS MOTIVE, WHY HE WAS DOING IT,
WHAT HE SOURCES WERE.
THAT'S RELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT GENERATED THIS WHOLE
PROCESS THAT THERE WAS NO
INQUIRY INTO THAT.
SO WHAT CONCLUSION DOES THIS ALL
LEAD TO COME ALL OF THESE DUE
PROCESS ERRORS THAT HAVE
INFECTED THE PROCEEDING UP TO
NOW?
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT CONCLUSION
IS NOT THAT THIS BODY, THIS
CHAMBER, SHOULD TRY TO REDO
EVERYTHING, TO START BRINGING IN
NEW EVIDENCE, RING IN WITNESSES
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WASN'T
ALLOWED WITNESSES BELOW AND
REDOING THE WHOLE PROCESS.
AND THAT'S FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS.
WHAT IS FIRST AS MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE DEMONSTRATED, DESPITE THE
ONE-SIDED AND THEIR PROCESS IN
THE HOUSE, THE RECORD THAT THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATS COLLECTED
THROUGH THAT PROCESS ALREADY
SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID
NOTHING WRONG.
IT ALREADY EXONERATES THE
PRESIDENT.
BUT THE SECOND AND MORE
IMPORTANT REASON IS BECAUSE OF
THE INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
IT WOULD HAVE FOR THIS CHAMBER.
WHATEVER PRECEDENT SETS, AS A
PERMISSIBLE WAY TO BRING AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AND TO
BRING 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,
THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE
PRESIDENT OR ANOTHER OFFICIAL
BEING IMPEACHED DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS, THAT FAILS TO CONDUCT A
THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, THAT
DOESN'T COME HERE WITH THE FACTS
ESTABLISHED, THAT THEN THIS BODY
SHOULD BE, THE INVESTIGATORY
BODY AND START REDOING WHAT THE
HOUSE DIDN'T DO AND FINDING NEW
WITNESSES AND DOING THINGS OVER
AND GETTING TO EVIDENCE, THEN
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE NEW
NORMAL AND THAT WILL BE THE WAY
THAT THIS CHAMBER HAS TO
FUNCTION, AND THERE WILL BE A
LOT MORE IMPEACHMENTS COMING
BECAUSE IT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO
AN IMPEACHMENT IF YOU DON'T HAVE
TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS AND CAN
COME HERE AND EXPECT THE SENATE
TO DO THE WORK OF THE HOUSE
DIDN'T DO.
I SUBMIT THAT IS NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OF THIS
CHAMBER SITTING AS A COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT, AND IT SHOULD NOT
PUT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD NOT PUT
ITS -- ON A PROCESS IN THE HOUSE
THAT WOULD FORCE THIS CHAMBER TO
TAKE ON THAT ROLE.
NOW I WILL MOVE ON TO THE CHARGE
OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE SECOND
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.
ACCEPTING THAT ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY
DAMAGE SEPARATION OF POWERS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BY
PERMANENTLY ALTERING THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
BRANCHES.
IN THE SECOND ARTICLE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT FOR RESISTING
LEGALLY DEFECTIVE DEMANDS FOR
INFORMATION BY ASSERTING
ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFENSES AND
IMMUNITIES BASED ON LEGAL ADVICE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
IN ESSENCE, THE APPROACH HERE IS
THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING
WHEN WE DEMAND DOCUMENTS,
EXECUTIVE BRANCH MUST COMPLY
IMMEDIATELY.
ANY ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OR
DEFENSE AT YOUR SUBPOENAS ARE
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS TO WORK
OUT AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION WITH
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE
COURTS TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY
OF OUR SUBPOENAS.
AT ONE POINT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID
THAT ANYTHING THAT MAKES THE
HOUSE EVEN CONTEMPLATE
LITIGATION IS EVIDENCE OF
OBSTRUCTION.
THE HOUSE CLAIMS THEY CAN JUMP
STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS IN THIS
CASE IS THAT THEY ARE SAYING FOR
THE PRESIDENT TO DEFEND THE
PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, TO
DEFEND CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED
PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES IS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IF THIS CHAMBER ACCEPTS THAT
PREMISE, THEN WHAT IS MEANT A
SORT OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
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
BRANCHES THAT THE FRAMERS
CRAFTED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AS PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, BASING IMPEACHMENT ON
THIS OBSTRUCTION THEORY WOULD
ITSELF BE AN ABUSE OF POWER BY
CONGRESS.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THAT
AND UNPACK AND EXPLAIN SOME OF
THAT.
I WILL START BY OUTLINING THE
THREE, WITH THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY DID IN
RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS BECAUSE
THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT
ACTIONS, THREE DIFFERENT LEGALLY
BASED ASSERTIONS FOR RESISTING
DIFFERENT SUBPOENAS THAT THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MAY.
AT THAT POINT IT OUT ON SATURDAY
THERE IS BENT HIS CONSTANT
REFRAIN FROM THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS
THAT THERE WAS JUST BLANKET
DEFIANCE, BLANKET OBSTRUCTION AS
IF THAT WAS, AS IF IT WERE
UNEXPLAINED OBSTRUCTION, JUST WE
WON'T COOPERATE WITHOUT MORE.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
THEY WERE VERY SPECIFIC LEGAL
GROUNDS PROVIDED, AND EACH ONE
WAS SUPPORTED BY AN OPINION FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
SO THE FIRST IS EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OFFICIALS DECLINED TO COMPLY
WITH SUBPOENAS THAT HAD NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED, AND THAT'S A POINT I
MADE AT THE BEGINNING.
THERE WAS NO VOTE FROM THE
HOUSE.
WITHOUT A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE,,
THE SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED WERE
NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADD A POINTED
OUT THAT IN AN OCTOBER 18 LETTER
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
THAT SPECIFIC GROUND WAS
EXPLAINED.
IT WASN'T JUST FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL.
THERE WERE OTHER LETTERS.
ON THE SCREEN THAT IS OCTOBER 15
FROM OMB WHICH EXPLAINED ABSENT
A DELEGATION BY A HOUSE RULE OR
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE, NONE
OF YOUR COMMITTEES HAS BEEN
DELEGATED JURISDICTION TO
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER UNDER ARTICLE ONE, SECTION
TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE LETTER WENT ON TO EXPLAIN
THAT LEGAL RATIONALE.
NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE.
THROUGH SPECIFIC EXCHANGES OF
LETTERS EXPLAINING THESE LEGAL
GROUNDS FOR RESISTING.
THE SECOND GROUND, THE SECOND
PRINCIPLE THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ASSERTED WAS THAT
SOME OF THESE SUBPOENAS
PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE
PRESIDENT'S SENIOR ADVISORS COME
HIS CLOSE ADVISERS, TO TESTIFY.
FOLLOWING AT LEAST 50 YEARS OF
PRECEDENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
ADVISED THAT WE SENIOR ADVISERS
TO THE PRESIDENT, THE ACTING
WHITE AS CHIEF OF STAFF, THE
LEGAL ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE DEPUTY
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WERE
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY.
RAISED ON THAT ADVICE FROM THE
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED THOSE
ADVISERS NOT TO TESTIFY.
ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH
POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE ASSERTED
THIS COMMUNITY SINCE THE 1970s
1970s.
PRESIDENT OBAMA ASSERTED IT AS
TO THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF
POLITICAL STRATEGY AND OUTREACH.
PRESIDENT GEORGE
 GEORGE H
ASSERTED AS TO HIS FORMER
COUNSEL AND TO HIS WHITE HOUSE
CHIEF OF STAFF.
PRESIDENT CLINTON ASSERTED IT.
AS THE TWO OF HIS COUNSEL'S.
PRESIDENT REAGAN ASSERTED IT AS
TO HIS COUNSEL FRED FIELDING.
AND PRESIDENT NIXON ASSERTED IT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
JUST MADE UP RECENTLY.
THERE'S A DECADES LONG HISTORY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PROVIDING THE OPINION THAT
SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE PRESENT
OUR OPINION FROM COMPELLED
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY.
IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT WAS
ASSERTED HERE.
AND THERE ARE IMPORTANT
RATIONALES BEHIND THIS
COMMUNITY.
WHAT IS THAT THE PRESENCE POST
SENIOR ADVISERS ARE ESSENTIALLY
HIS ALTER EGOS.
AND ALLOWING CONGRESS TO
SUBPOENA THEM AND COMPEL THEM TO
COME TESTIFY WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT
TO ALLOWING CONGRESS TO SUBPOENA
THE PRESENT AND FORCED HIM TO
COME TESTIFY.
BUT THAT ENDED SEPARATION OF
POWERS WOULD NOT BE TOLERABLE.
CONGRESS CAN NO MORE DO THAT
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE
PRESIDENT COULD FORCE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS TO COME TO THE WHITE
HOUSE IN ANSWER TO HIM.
THERE'S ALSO A SECOND AND
IMPORTANT RATIONALE BEHIND THIS
COMMUNITY, AND THAT RELATES TO
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THE IMMUNITY PROTECTS THE SAME
INTEREST THAT UNDERLIE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THAT
PROTECTS THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND DELIBERATIONS
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS
AS THE COURT PUT IT IN UNITED
STATES VERSUS NIXON, THE
PRIVILEGE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE
OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT AND
INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
SO THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THE EXECUTIVE NEEDS
THIS RELATES TO BE ABLE TO
FUNCTION, IT'S ROOTED IN THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
AS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
ADVISED PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE
IMMUNITY SUCH ADVISERS ENJOY
FROM TESTIMONY AND COMPULSION BY
A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IS
ABSOLUTE AND MAY NOT BE
OVERBORNE BY COMPETING
CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST.
THAT'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
PRESIDENT CLINTON.
THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.
THIS IS NOT A
 A REPUBLICAN OR
DEMOCRAT ISSUE.
ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES
ASSERT THIS PRINCIPLE OF
IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISERS.
AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?
IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE SUPREME
COURT HAS EXPLAIN THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE BEHIND
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS IT
NECESSARY TO HAVE
CONFIDENTIALITY IN
COMMUNICATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS
IN ORDER TO HAVE GOOD AND
WORTHWHILE DELIBERATIONS IN
ORDER TO HAVE PEOPLE PROVIDE
THEIR CANDID ADVICE TO THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF THEY KNEW
WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY
WOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF
THE "WASHINGTON POST" THE NEXT
DAY FOR THE NEXT WEEK, THEY
WOULDN'T TELL THE PRESIDENT WHAT
THEY ACTUALLY THOUGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD
DECISION MAKING, THERE HAS TO BE
THAT SELLER OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
THIS IS A WAY TO THE SUPREME
COURT PUT IT.
QUOTE, HUMAN EXPERIENCE TEACHES
THAT THOSE WHO EXPECT PUBLIC
DISSEMINATION OF THE REMARKS,
MAY WELL TEMPER CANDOR WITH
APPEARANCES AND FOR THE OPEN
INTEREST TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, END
QUOTE.
THAT WAS ALSO FROM THE UNITED
STATES VERSUS NIXON.
SO THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE
INTEREST THAT ARE PROTECTED BY
HAVING SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE
PRESIDENT, BE IMMUNE FROM
COMPELLED CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY BECAUSE ONE SUMMER IS
COMPELLED AND SIT IN THE WITNESS
SEAT AND START ANSWERING
QUESTIONS, IT'S VERY HARD FOR
THEM TO PROTECT THAT PRIVILEGE,
TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T START
REVEALING SOMETHING THAT WAS
DISCUSSED.
SO 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.
NOW, THE OTHER NIGHT THE HOUSE E
MANAGERS WHEN WE WERE HERE VERY
LATE LAST WEEK, THEY SUGGESTED
THIS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WAS A
DISTRACTION AND MANAGER NADLER
CALLED IT NONSENSE.
NOT AT ALL.
IT IS A PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY
THE SUPREME COURT, A
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE CROWDED
IN SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THEY ALSO ASSERTED THIS
COMMUNITY HAS BEEN REJECTED BY
EVERY COURT THAT IS ADDRESSED IT
AS IF TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT LOTS
OF COURTS HAVE ADDRESSED THIS.
THEY ALL SAID THAT THIS THEORY
JUST DOESN'T FLY.
IT'S NOT ACCURATE.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IN FACT, IN MOST INSTANCES, ONCE
THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS IMMUNITY
FOR A SENIOR ADVISOR, THE
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS BETWEEN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE
LEGISLATURE BEGINS, AND THERE'S
USUALLY SOME COMPROMISE TO ALLOW
PERHAPS SOME TESTIMONY NOT IN
OPEN HEARING BUT IN A CLOSED
HEARING OR IN A DEPOSITION,
PERHAPS TO PROVIDE OTHER
INFORMATION INSTEAD OF LIVE
TESTIMONY.
THERE'S A COMPROMISE.
BUT THE ONLY TWO TIMES IT'S BEEN
LITIGATED, DISTRICT COURT, IT IS
TRUE, REJECTED THE IMMUNITY.
ONE WAS IN A CASE INVOLVING
FORMER COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT
GEORGE W. BUSH.
MYERS.
THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE
IMMUNITY, BUT IMMEDIATELY ON
APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE D.C. CIRCUIT STAYED THAT
DECISION AND THAT DECISION MEANS
TO STATE THAT DISTRICT COURT
DECISION, THAT THE APPELLATE
COURT THOUGHT THERE WAS A
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON APPEAL,
THAT EXECUTIVE BRANCH MIGHT
SUCCEED OR AT A MINIMUM THAT THE
ISSUE OF IMMUNITY PRESENTS ITS
QUESTIONS GOING TO THE MERITS SO
SERIOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL,
DIFFICULT AND DOUBTFUL AS TO
MAKE THEM A FAIR GROUND FOR
LITIGATION.
...
>> PRINCIPLE ASSERTED BY EVERY
ADMINISTRATION OF BOTH PARTIES
AND ASSERTING THAT PRINCIPLE
CANNOT BE TREATED AS
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
THE THIRD ACTION THE PRESIDENT
TOOK, THE ADMINISTRATION TOOK
RELATED TO THE FACT SUBPOENAS
TRY TO SHUT OUT EXECUTIVE
BRANCH AND AGENCY COUNSEL FROM
THE DEPOSITION OF EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
CONCLUDED THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES MAY
NOT BAR AGENCY COUNSEL WITHOUT
CONTRAVENING THE LEGITIMATE
PREROGATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
AND ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE
SUBPOENA WHILE FIRING AGENCY
COUNSEL WOULD BE QUOTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL".
THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSULTING
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, RECEIVING ADVICE FROM
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
AND FOLLOWING THAT ADVICE
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVE OF HIS OFFICE AND
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AGAIN ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH
POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE
RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THE AGENCY COUNSEL PLAYS IN
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
STATED IT COULD POTENTIALLY
UNDERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO ASSERT THE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHERE
APPROPRIATE.
SO WHY IS AGENCY COUNSEL
IMPORTANT CLICKS AS I TRY TO
EXPLAIN FOR COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE PRESIDENT TO DELIVER
THESE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE LEGAL
RIGHTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AND THE AGENCY COUNSEL IS
ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THOSE.
IN THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
GOES IN TO TESTIFY, HE OR SHE
PROBABLY WOULD NOT KNOW WHERE
IS THE LINE THAT IS COVERED BY
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EVEN IF
THEY ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE
THEIR PERSONAL COUNSEL WITH
THEM, SAME THING MOST PERSONAL
ATTORNEYS DON'T KNOW THE FINER
POINT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THEY ARE THE PERSONAL LAWYER
TRYING TO PROTECT THAT
EMPLOYEE FROM THAT LEGAL
CONSEQUENCE WHEN THERE IS AT
STAKE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
THERE SHOULD BE A LAWYER THERE
TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT FOR THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT THE
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
ENDORSED THAT PRINCIPLE.
ALSO WITH UNSURMOUNTABLE
PROBLEMS AND TO FIND THAT
INFORMATION AND IN APRIL 2019
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT
REFORM REACHED AN
ACCOMMODATION WITH THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE
ADMINISTRATION HAD DECLINED TO
MAKE THEM AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF
LACK OF AGENCY COUNSEL.
THAT ISSUE WAS WORKED OUT AND
THE ACCOMMODATION WAS MADE AND
THERE WAS TESTIMONY PROVIDED
FOR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS RESULT IN
THAT ESCALATION WE HAVE SEEN
HERE STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT.
THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS CAN
WORK THINGS OUT.
IN FACT THERE IS NO HOUSE RULE
BUT OF COURSE IT CANNOT
OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE
PRINCIPLES.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE
ASSERTION OF THESE PRINCIPLES
CREATED AND IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
THE IDEA THAT ASSERTING
DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES AND
LEGAL DEFENSES IN RESPONSE TO
SUBPOENA, ACTING ON ADVICE OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS ABSURD
AND IT IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR
GOVERNMENT.
LET ME EXPLAIN WHY.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS THEORY IS
WRONG BECAUSE IN A GOVERNMENT
OF LAWS ASSERTING PRIVILEGES
TO RESIST COMPULSION IS NOT
OBSTRUCTION IT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO.
THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINS TO
PUNISH A PERSON BECAUSE HE HAS
DONE WHAT THE LAW CLAIMS HE
ALLOWS HIM TO DO IS A PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE BASIC SOAR
IN FOR AN AGENT OF THE STATE
TO PURSUE RECORD OF ACTION IS
TO PENALIZE A PERSON TO RELY
ON THE LEGAL RIGHT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN
THE PAST AND THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT WAS RECOGNIZED
ACROSS THE BOARD IT WOULD BE
IMPROPER TO SAY IT IS AND
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
"THE ALLEGATIONS OF TO USE THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO SHIELD
INFORMATION IS AN ABUSE OF
POWER THAT SHOULD LEAD TO
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE BUT IS ALSO DANGEROUS.
MANAGER NADLER SAID THE USE OF
THE LEGAL PRIVILEGE IS NOT
LEGAL OR IMPEACHABLE BY ITSELF
BUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
MINORITY LEMUR CHUCK SCHUMER
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
EXPRESS THE SAME VIEW TO
SUGGEST THAT ANY SUBJECT OF AN
INVESTIGATION MUCH LESS THE
PRESIDENT'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE
PRESIDENCY IS ABUSING POWER
AND INTERFERING WITH AN
INVESTIGATION BY MAKING
LEGITIMATE LEGAL CLAIMS USING
DUE PROCESS TO ASSERT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR THE
CONSIDERATION.
>> AND THAT WAS EXACTLY
CORRECT THEN AND IT IS EXACTLY
CORRECT NOW.
NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
PRINCIPLE OF ASSERTING RIGHTS
THAT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED
OBSTRUCTION, THE RIGHTS THE
PRESIDENT IS ASSERTING IS
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 TURNS
THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD
DEFENDING SEPARATION OF POWERS
CANNOT BE DEEMED AND
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WITHOUT
DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION.
ACCEPTING THAT APPROACH WITH
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
WOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO TURN ANY
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
EXECUTIVE INTO A BASIS FOR
REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM
OFFICE TO EFFECTIVELY CREATE
FOR US THE PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM THE FRAMERS SOUGHT TO
AVOID BY MAKING A DEMAND FOR
INFORMATION AND GOADING THE
EXECUTIVE TO REFUSAL AND
TREATING THAT AS IMPEACHABLE
THE HOUSE EFFECTIVELY COULD
FUNCTION WITH A NO-CONFIDENCE
VOTE.
THE EXECUTIVE FREQUENTLY CLASH
ON CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION INCLUDING
CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS
CONFLICTS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE
THE FOUNDING OF 1796 OF GEORGE
WASHINGTON THE FIRST PRESIDENT
RESISTED DEMANDS FROM CONGRESS
FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF THE JAY
TREATY AND THERE HAVE BEEN
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE
EXECUTIVES AND CONGRESS IN
VIRTUALLY EVERY ADMINISTRATION
SINCE THEN ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL
DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECTED
THE BRANCHES TO HAVE THESE
CONFLICTS.
JAMES MADISON POINTED OUT THE
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS AND WITH
ITS OWN INTERPRETATION OF IT.
IT IS RECOGNIZED IT WOULD BE
FRICTION SIMILARLY N-LETTER
FEDERALIST 51 MADISON POINTED
OUT THE GREAT SECURITY AGAINST
THE GRADUAL CONCENTRATION OF
GIVING TO THOSE TO ADMINISTER
EACH DEPARTMENT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS AND
PERSONAL MOTIVES TO RESIST THE
ENCROACHMENT OF OTHERS IT IS
CHECKS AND BALANCES THIS
FRICTION BETWEEN THE BALANCES
IS NOT EVIDENCE OF AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IT IS A
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
PRACTICAL OPERATION AND PART
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN
BUT TO BE PROPERLY AND
HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED THAT THE
DISAGREEMENT WAS RESOLVED IS
THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
MANDATED ACCOMMODATIONS
PROCESS.
COURTS HAVE EXPLAINED THE
BRANCHES ARE REQUIRED TO
ENGAGE UNDER THE
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS TO
RESOLVE A DISAGREEMENT IF
THERE IS A CLASH OVER DEMAND
FOR INFORMATION AS THE DC
CIRCUIT EXPLAINS ASKING FOR
INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH THAT TRIGGERS AN
IMPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE IF YOU DROP THE
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 THERE
ARE OTHER TOOLS AT ITS
DISPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE
DISAGREEMENT TO TRADITIONALLY
PROCEED TO CONTEMPT
RESOLUTION.
IN RECENT TIMES THE HOUSES
TAKEN THE POSITION IT COULD
SUE IN COURT TO LITIGATE OF
THE SUBPOENA AND SECURE THE
INJUNCTION THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE POINTED OUT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN THE
VIEW THOSE CASES ARE NOT JUST
ARTICLE THREE.
MADISON IS CORRECT SO THERE IS
THAT RESISTANCE EVEN IN COURT
CASES TO THE JURISDICTION TO
ADDRESS THAT BUT HOUSE
MANAGERS ARE MISSING THE POINT
WHEN THEY IDENTIFY THAT
POSITION THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS TAKEN.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE CANNOT CLAIM
THEY HAVE A MECHANISM FOR
GOING TO COURT.
THEY ARE IN COURT RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN SIMULTANEOUSLY THE
CLAIM THEY DON'T HAVE TO
BOTHER WITH THAT MECHANISM
THEY CAN JUMP STRAIGHT TO
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION IS THAT THE
NUCLEAR WEAPON OF INTERBRANCH
FICTION WHETHER A RIFLE OR
BAZOOKA TO ADDRESS THE
FRICTION WITH THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, THAT IS THE NEXT STEP
NOT JUMPING STRAIGHT TO
IMPEACHMENT IS THE SOLUTION IF
THE HOUSE COULD JUMP STRAIGHT
TO IMPEACHMENT THAT WOULD
ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE BRANCHES.
IT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
HOUSE COULD MAKE IT SELF
SUPERIOR OVER THE EXECUTIVE
AND DANGLE THE THREAT OF
IMPEACHMENT OVER ANY DEMAND
FOR INFORMATION.
THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE FRAMERS
PLAN.
MADISON EXPLAINED THAT THE WAY
THE BRANCHES WERE IN CONFLICT
WITH FEDERALIST 49 "NEITHER OF
THEM CAN PRETEND TO THE
SUPERIOR RIGHT OF SETTLING THE
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE
POWERS".
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ASSERTED
IN THIS CASE.
THEY HAVE SAID THE HOUSE
BECOME SUPREME, THERE'S NO
NEED TO GO TO COURT, THE
EXECUTIVE MUST BE WRONG ANY
RESISTANCE TO THEIR SUBPOENA
IS OBSTRUCTION IF YOU CLAIM
THE SUBPOENA IS INVALID WE
DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO
ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.
WE WILL JUST IMPEACH YOU
BECAUSE RESISTANCE IS
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
AND THE HOUSE EVEN PUT IT THIS
WAY IN THEIR REPORT THEY SAID
THE HOUSE ITSELF EFFECTIVELY
THAT IT'S OF ITS OWN POWERS
BECAUSE IT GIVES THE HOUSE THE
FINAL WORD".
PAGE 154 ON THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT.
THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT
THEY POINT TO THE FACT ARTICLE
ONE SECTION TWO IS GIVING THE
HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT AND THEY CLAIM THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THE
HAVE FINAL WORD AS JUDGE OF
ITS OWN POWERS THAT'S CONTRARY
TO CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.
THERE IS NO POWER UNCHECKED IN
THE CONSTITUTION THE SOLE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT GIVEN TO
THE HOUSE SIMPLY MEANS IT IS
GIVEN SOLELY TO THE HOUSE NOT
ANYWHERE ELSE.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS
THE PARAMOUNT POWER TO MAKE
ALL OTHER RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES IN PREROGATIVES OF
THE OTHER BRANCHES FOLLOW WAY.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZE THERE
COULD BE IMPEACHMENTS FOR THE
WRONG REASONS.
THEY DID NOT STRIP THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF ANY OF ITS
NEEDS FROM PROTECTING ITS OWN
AUTHORITY AND PREROGATIVE
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
'S PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY STILL
SURVIVES EVEN IF THE CONTEXT
OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS
NOT LIKE THE HOUSE CAN FLIP A
SWITCH TO SAY NOW WE ARE
IMPEACHMENT WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL KRYPTONITE TO
MAKE THE POWERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE ELIMINATE.
SO IF THERE ARE THESE
CONFLICTS EVEN IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE
EXECUTIVE CAN CONTINUE TO
ASSERT ITS PRIVILEGES IN
PREROGATIVES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND INDEED IT
MUST TO PROTECT THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENCY AND PRESERVE
THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE PROFESSOR RIGHTLY POINTED
OUT THAT BY CLAIMING CONGRESS
CAN CLAIM ANY TESTIMONY OR
DOCUMENT AND IMPEACH ANY
PRESIDENT WHO DARES TO GO TO
COURT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE A
POSITION THAT IS ENTIRELY
UNTENABLE WITH THE ABUSE OF
IMPEACHMENT".
OTHERS AGREE.
IN THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT, PROFESSOR BLOCK
TESTIFIED, QUOTE IMPEACHING A
PRESIDENT FOR INVOKING LAWFUL
PRIVILEGES IS DANGEROUS AND
OMINOUS PRECEDENT GO".
IT WOULD ACHIEVE EXACTLY THE
RESULT THEY WANTED THAT THEY
WARNED AGAINST AT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
HE EXPLAINED THAT, QUOTE WED
REMAKE HIM, THE
PRESIDENT, AMENABLE TO 
JUSTICE, WE SHOULD TAKE CARE
TO PROVIDE SOME MODE THAT WILL
NOT MAKE HIM DEPENDENT ON THE
LEGISLATURE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD
DO RECOMMEND MAKE THE
PRESIDENT DEPENDING ON THE
LEGISLATURE BECAUSE ANY DEMAND
BY CONGRESS COULD BE USED AS A
THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT TO
ENFORCE THE EXECUTIVE AND
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE ASSERTING
THE VERY VERY THERE CAN BE NO
ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGES OR
ANYTHING TO STAND IN THE WAY.
IF THAT IS TRUE VIRTUALLY
EVERY PRESIDENT COULD HAVE
BEEN IMPEACHED VIRTUALLY EVERY
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ASSERTED AT
ONE TIME OR ANOTHER THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES
PRESIDENT OBAMA FAMOUSLY IN
THE FAST AND FURIOUS
INVESTIGATION REFUSED TO TURN
OVER DOCUMENTS BECAUSE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD IN
CONTEMPT IT COULD BE A VERY
LONG LIST OF PRESIDENTS IT
WOULD BE VERY DISTINGUISHED IF
THEY WERE APPLIED TO ALL PAST
PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY.
AS THEY WERE GIVEN A FEW
DIFFERENT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR
THIS APPROACH BUT NONE CAN BE
RECONCILED WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.
SO IF THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE
THE LAW, NOT SO AND AS WE
POINTED OUT IT STAYS WITHIN
THE  LAW, ASSERTING THE LAW
RELYING ON THE LEGAL ADVICE OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
MAKE THE ARGUMENTS BASED ON
LONG RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES AND IS MAKING THE
FUNDAMENTAL POINT THAT IT IS
CONGRESS THAT IS NOT ABOVE THE
LAW BUT PERHAPS THE HOUSE AS
WELL TO ISSUE A VALID
SUBPOENA.
AND IF IT FOLLOWED THE
SUBPOENAS ARE NULL AND VOID
AND THE EXECUTIVE DOESN'T HAVE
TO  COMPLY.
THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY THEY
SHOULD NOT GO TO THE COURTS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ROLE OF
IMPEACHMENT AND I POINTED OUT
THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CAN'T
SAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE
PROVISIONS THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT BUT IT IS THE
PARAMOUNT POWER AND NO OTHER
BRANCH PROVIDES A CHECK ON HOW
THAT IS EXERCISED.
IN ADDITION THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE TO COURT
IN THE MCGHAN CASE THEY ARE
LITIGATING THEY SAY THAT'S
PART OF THE INQUIRY FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS
EXPLAINED IT WASN'T BUT THAT
IS THE GROUND IN WHICH THEY
LITIGATE.
THEY SAY THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR
THE COURTS.
BUT WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS
THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR THE RULE
OF LAW AND THE WAY THEY PURSUE
THE INQUIRY.
THE OTHER DAY ONE OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS ACTUALLY SAID ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE THEY HAVE
TO GET MOVING THEY HAD TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE
THE ELECTION.
THAT'S NOT A VALID REASON TO
NOT PURSUE IT.
AND WHAT SORT OF DELAY ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT CRACKS IN THE
MCGHAN CASE IT IS REFERRED TO
A NUMBER OF TIMES WHICH THEY
POINTED OUT TO BE LONG AND
DRAWN OUT ISSUING A SUBPOENA
IN APRIL BUT THEY DID NOT FILE
A LAWSUIT UNTIL AUGUST.
BY NOVEMBER 25th THEY HAD A
DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT ARGUED ON APPEAL ON THE
DC CIRCUIT JANUARY 3rd AND
IT CAN GO FASTER IN THE NIXON
CASE DURING WATERGATE, THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ISSUED A
SUBPOENA APRIL 181974 AND ON
MAY 20th LESS THAN ONE MONTH
THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A
MOTION AND ON MAY 31st THE
SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR
THE CASE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND ON JULY 24th THE
SUPREME COURT ISSUED A
DECISION.
THAT IS LIGHTNING FAST.
SO IF THERE IS URGENCY TO THE
CASE AND THE REASON FOR IT AND
A DECISION CAN BE HAD IN A
TIMELY MANNER.
IN THE ONE CASE IT ROSE FROM
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS TO
THE HOUSE THAT DERAILED THE
CASE THAT THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR BECAUSE HE
WENT TO COURT AND ASKED THE
COURT FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT HIS
OBLIGATIONS WERE IF HE SHOULD
TAKE IT FROM THE PRESIDENT OR
SHOULD HE OBEY THE SUBPOENA
CRACKS IN THAT CASE ON OCTOBER h
 THE COURT WITHIN A FEW DAYS
HAD A BRIEFING SCHEDULE BUT
THE HOUSE WITHDREW THE
SUBPOENA JUST 11 DAYS LATER.
LITIGATION IS A VIABLE AVENUE
WITH THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS
AND IF THE HOUSE LEAVES IT CAN
GO TO COURT TO HAVE THE
JURISDICTION AND LITIGATE THE
APPEALS THAT IS ALSO AVAILABLE
TO THEM.
THE IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T MAKE
ANY SENSE.
AND I SHOULD POINT OUT IT'S
HARD WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGER
SAYS THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
LITIGATE OR GO TO THE COURTS.
BUT NOW THEY COME TO THIS
CHAMBER AND SAY THIS SHOULD
ISSUE SOME WITNESSES WE DIDN'T
BOTHER TO FIGHT ABOUT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN
THEN THAT THERE WILL NOT BE
SIMILAR ASSERTIONS OF
PRIVILEGE CRACKS THIS GOES
BACK TO THE POINT THAT I MADE
THAT IF YOU PUT YOURSELF IN A
PROFIT THAT WAS BROKEN TO SAY
THAT WAS A GREAT WAY TO RUN
THINGS THIS IS A GREAT BRACKET
ON - - PACKAGE AND WILL CLEAN
UP THE MESS AND DO THE WORK
THAT WASN'T DONE THEN THAT
BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL AND
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR
THIS BODY.
THE PROPER WAY TO HAVE THINGS
HANDLED IS TO HAVE THE HOUSE
TO BRING THE IMPEACHMENT HERE
READY FOR TRIAL THE
INFORMATION IT WANTS TO GET IT
HAS TO BE RESOLVED AND READY
TO PROCEED.
NOT TRANSFER THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS CHAMBER
TO DO THE WORK THAT HASN'T
BEEN DONE.
THEY ALSO ASSERT PRESIDENT
TRUMPS ASSERTION OF THESE
PRIVILEGES IS SOMEHOW
DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS
UNPRECEDENTED AND UN-
CATEGORICAL.
IT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE
SENSE THERE WAS A BROAD
STATEMENT A LOT OF STATEMENTS
WOULDN'T BE COMPLIED WITH BUT
IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE
HOUSE TO BEGIN THESE
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT VOTING TO
AUTHORIZE THE COMMITTEE TO
ISSUED A SUBPOENA.
THAT IS WHAT HAD NEVER
HAPPENED BEFORE IN HISTORY.
OF COURSE THE RESPONSE TO THAT
IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY POINTED
OUT WITHOUT THAT VOTE THERE
ARE NO VALID SUBPOENAS AND ALL
THOSE REFUSALS IN THE PAST
PRESIDENT TRUMAN ON THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES 1940 ISSUED
SUBPOENAS TO HIS
ADMINISTRATION AND A DIRECTIVE
TO THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
THAT ANY SUBPOENA OR DEMAND OR
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OF
REPORTS OR THOSE FILED SHALL
RESPECTFULLY DECLINE ON THE
BASIS OF THIS DIRECTIVE AND
REFERRED ALL INCREASE TO THE
PRESIDENT FOR SUCH A RESPONSE
THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY
DETERMINE TO BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THEY RESPONDED TO
NONE OF THEM.
AND MY LAST POINT THAT THE
PRIVILEGES SIMPLY DISAPPEAR
BECAUSE IT IS IMPEACHMENT
POWER OF THE HOUSE, THEY REFER
A NUMBER OF TIMES UNITED
STATES VERSUS NIXON THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION
SUGGESTING SOMEHOW THAT
DETERMINED WHEN YOU ARE IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EXECUTIVE
PART ONE - - EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE FALLS AWAY.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IN FACT NIXON WAS NOT EVEN
DIRECTING A CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENA BUT FROM THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR.
AND EVEN THAT CONTEXT IT
SIMPLY DISAPPEARS AND INSTEAD
THE COURT SAYS IT'S NECESSARY
TO RESOLVE THESE COMPETING
INTEREST WITH THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH TO ADMINISTER THE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PAINT
CASE FOR EVIDENCE IS NEEDED
AND THAT PRESERVES THE
FUNCTIONS OF EACH BRANCH.
EVEN HELD OUT THE POSSIBILITY
IN THE FIELD THE FORMULATIONS
OF NATIONAL SECURITY THERE
COULD BE SOMETHING UP
APPROACHING ABSOLUTE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE FORMULATIONS AND
NATIONAL SECURITY.
ANOTHER THING YOU HEARD OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON VOLUNTARILY
COOPERATING WITH THE
INVESTIGATION TO PRODUCE TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS.
BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY ACCURATE
THAT IS ONLY LONG AFTER
LITIGATION BEGAN ABOUT
ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE AND
NUMEROUS PRIVILEGES.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
EXPLAINS DURING THE
INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT
CLINTON ABUSED HIS POWER TO
HAVE FRIVOLOUS ASSERTIONS OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BY AT
LEAST FIVE AIDES.
UNLIKE THE HOUSE IN THIS 
CASE, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL  *
FIRST NEGOTIATE WITH THE WHITE
HOUSE AND THEN LITIGATED THOSE
CLAIMS AND GOT THEM RESOLVED.
ULTIMATELY THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ARGUED ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH
THEIR OBSTRUCTION THEORY
SHOULD BE BRUSHED ASIDE IN THE
PRESIDENT'S ASSERTIONS OF
IMMUNITY AND DEFENSE COULD BE
TREATED AS SOMETHING THE
VARIOUS BECAUSE AS MISTER
NADLER PUT IT, ONLY GUILTY
PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE THE
EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID LAST
TUESDAY NIGHT MISTER SCHIFF
SIMILARLY SAID WHILE
DISCUSSING THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
THE INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS
WAY, ".
REALLY CRACKS IS THAT THE
PRINCIPAL IN THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA THAT IF YOU ASSERT
LEGAL PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS
THAT MEANS YOU ARE GUILTY THAT
THE SENT DON'T ASSERT THEIR
RIGHTS THE PRESIDENT CANNOT
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE
CRACKS THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE.
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT COMES DOWN TO A
DISPUTE OVER A LEGAL ISSUE
RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS ON THE ABILITY OF THE
HOUSE TO COMPEL INFORMATION
THE MATTER HOW HOUSE DEMOCRATS
TRY TO DRESS UP THE CHARGES
THE DIFFERENCE OF LEGAL
OPINION DOES NOT RISE TO THE
LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.
UNTIL NOW THE HOUSE HAS
REPEATEDLY OBJECTED ATTEMPTS
ON LEGAL DISPUTES OVER
ASSERTIONS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED
AND AS JUDGE STARR POINTED OUT
IN THE CLINTON PRECEDING THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT HAD
IMPROPERLY EXERCISED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE BUT YET STILL
CONCLUDED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE
THE ABILITY TO SECOND GUESS
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE
PRESIDENT OR HAVE PROOF AND
YOU CANNOT TREAT THAT AS THE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IT REJECTED THE ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT BASED ON CLINTON'S
ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.
AND AS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS OWN
WITNESS HAS EXPLAINED, IN 1843
PRESIDENT TYLER SIMILARLY WAS
INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT HIS ATTEMPT TO
PROTECT WHAT HE REGARDED AS
THE PREROGATIVE OF HIS OFFICE
IF HE RESISTED DEMANDS FOR
INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS TO
EXPLAIN THE ATTEMPT TO ASSERT
WHAT HE REGARDED AS THE
PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE FOR
A FUNCTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY JUDGMENT
AND THEY CANNOT BE USED TO
IMPEACH HIM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS WAS NO LESS A
FUNCTION OF POLICY JUDGMENT
AND PROVIDES A BASIS TO
IMPEACH HIM.
I'D 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 WILL
AFFECT THE FUTURE.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THERE
WOULD BE PARTISAN AND
ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENTS AND
HAMPTON EXPRESS THE BOARD
NUMBER 65 ABOUT IMPEACHMENTS
THAT WERE REFLECTED AS, QUOTE
THE PERSECUTION ON PERSECUTION
OF AN INTEMPERATE MAJORITY IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
".
THAT IS WHAT THE CASE PRESENTS.
AND THAT THE SENATE HAS THE
PROPER TRIBUNAL FOR
IMPEACHMENTS BECAUSE IT IS
BELIEVED BY THE FRAMERS TO
HAVE A GREATER SENSE OF
OBLIGATION TO THE FUTURE AND
FUTURE GENERATION NOT TO BE
SWAYED BY THE PASSIONS OF THE
MOMENT.
AND ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL
QUESTIONS IS WILL THAT CHAMBER
ADOPT THE STANDARD THAT
FUNDAMENTALLY DISRUPTS THE
DAMAGES AND ALTERS THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE
REASONS THAT JUDGE STARR AND
DERSHOWITZ AND THE OBSTRUCTION
CHARGE WOULD DO.
SO I WILL CLOSE WITH A
QUOTATION FROM ONE OF THE
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO ACROSS
THE AISLE TO VOTE AGAINST
CONVICTING ANDREW JOHNSON
DURING HIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
TO EXPLAIN THE GREAT PRINCIPLE
THAT APPLIES AND 
SAID, QUOTE ONCE WE SET THE
EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING THE
PRESIDENT FOR THE EXCITEMENT
OF THE HOUR HAVE SUBSIDED, NO
FUTURE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SAFE
AND THEN WHAT BECOMES OF THE
CHECKS AND BALANCES OF THE
CONSTITUTION SO CAREFULLY
DIVIDED AND VITAL TO
PERPETUITY.
THEY ARE ALL GONE.
THINKING MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE
I YIELD TO MISTER JAY
SEKULOW.
>>.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE AND
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND
HOUSE MANAGERS TALKING ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
EARLIER TESTIFYING BEFORE THE
HOUSE SAID THERE ARE THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, NOT
TO.
IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND
MAKE A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO
COURT IT IS ABUSE OF POWER.
IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER.
WITH REGARD TO EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, IT WAS MISTER
NADLER WHO CALLED IT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.
BUT ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER
REFUSED TO COMPLY AND INVOKE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OF
COMPELLED DISCLOSURE WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS
ESTABLISHED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
EXECUTIVE POWER AND OTHER
NONSENSE.
THE WHITE HOUSE ASSERTION OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WAS BACKED
BY DECADES OF PRECEDENT THAT
HAS RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR
THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR
ADVISERS TO RECEIVE CANDID
ADVICE AND INFORMATION FROM
THEIR TOP AIDES.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER
NONSENSE.
THE NONSENSE WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS THE OTHER NIGHT IS TO
TREAT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES AS IF THEY ARE AS
BEST AS IN THE CEILING TILES.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE
CONSTITUTION IS DESIGNED TO.
WE NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION TO A
SEPARATE TOPIC THAT HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED A LOT ON THE FLOOR
AND WILL BE DISCUSSED NOW.
PRESENTING FOR THE PRESIDENT
IS THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND
ALSO A PROSECUTOR, CAREER
PROSECUTOR, HANDLING COUNTLESS
CASES, SHE WILL DISCUSS AN
ISSUE THE HOUSE MANAGER PUTS
PRETTY MUCH AT THE CENTER OF
THEIR CASE AND THAT IS THE
ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE, PARTICULARLY IN
REGARD TO A COMPANY KNOWN AS
BURISMA AND I DEFER TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDY.
>> SENATORS, MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE, WHEN THE HOUSE
MANAGERS GAVE THE PRESENTATION
WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR
BRIEF THEY REPEATEDLY
REFERENCED HUNTER BIDEN AND
BURISMA AND THEY SPOKE TO YOU
FOR OVER 21 HOURS AND THEY
REFERENCED BIDEN OR T12 OVER
400 TIMES.
WHEN THEY GAVE THESE
PRESENTATIONS, THEY SAID THERE
WAS NOTHING TO SEE.
IT WAS A SHAM.
THIS IS FICTION.
AND THEN TO DESCRIBE THIS AS
BASELESS.
SO WHY DID THEY INVOKE BIDEN
OR T12 OVER 400 TIMES CRACKS
BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE SAYING
THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST BE
IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM
OFFICE FOR RAISING A CONCERN.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO TALK
ABOUT THIS TODAY.
THEY SAY SHAM AND BASELESS
BECAUSE IT'S OKAY FOR SOMEONE
TO SAY DO YOU KNOW WHAT CRACKS
MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING CARE
WORTH RAISING AND THEN THEIR
CASE CRUMBLES IT WOULD BE
EASIER TO PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT TO RAISE THIS
CONCERN BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT
PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW.
A FEW OF THOSE SOURCES THAT
FIGHT QUESTIONS SURROUNDING
THIS VERY SAME ISSUE, THE
UNITED KINGDOM WITH THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, HUNTER BIDEN FORMER
BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AND WHITE
HOUSE REPORTER, GOOD MORNING
AMERICA, ABC, WASHINGTON POST
, 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 OR
DISCUSSING THIS.
BUT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
PLACED THIS SQUARELY AT ISSUE
SO WE MUST ADDRESS IT.
LOOK AT THE FACTS.
EARLY 2014 VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES LED THE
FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE WITH
THE GOAL OF REACHING QUESTIONS
AND WITH TRANSPARENCY
INTERNATIONAL UKRAINE WAS ONE
OF THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES
IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
IN UKRAINE THERE IS A NATURAL
GAS COMPANY CALLED BURISMA IT
HAS BEEN OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH
BY NICHOLA HERE IS WHAT
HAPPENED VERY SHORTLY AFTER
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS MADE
US POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE.
HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN ENDS UP
ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA
WORKING FOR AND PAID BY THE
OLIGARCH.
IN FEBRUARY 2014, IN THE WAKE
OF ANTICORRUPTION UPRISING BY
THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE TO FLEE
THE COUNTRY AND FLEE UKRAINE
BUT THE OLIGARCH AND GEORGE
CAN THE VERY FIRST WITNESS THE
DEMOCRATS CALL DURING THE
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIFY THE
OLIGARCH STOOD UP FOR HIS OWN
DEALINGS EVEN AMONG OTHER
OLIGARCHS.
HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU
THAT.
AND PAT MANN - - AND PASSENGER
VOCAL OR SAID BRISA QUOTE HAS
A VERY BAD REPUTATION AS A
COMPANY FOR CORRUPTION AND
MONEY LAUNDERING.
".
HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU
THAT.
BURISMA WAS SO CORRUPT THAT
GEORGE KENT SAID HE INTERVENED
TO PREVENT USAID FROM
COSPONSORING AN EVENT WITH
BURISMA.
DO YOU KNOW THE EVENT?
IT WAS A CHILD CONTEST AND THE
PRIZE WAS A CAMERA I.
THEY WERE SO BAD THAT OUR
COUNTRY WOULDN'T EVEN
COSPONSOR A CHILDREN'S EVENT
WITH BURISMA.
MARCH 2014 THEY OPEN A
MONEY-LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION
INTO THE OLIGARCH AND HIS
COMPANY, BURISMA.
THE VERY NEXT MONTH, APRIL
2014 ACCORDING TO A PUBLIC
REPORT HUNTER BIDEN QUIETLY
JOINS THE BOARD OF BURISMA.
REMEMBER EARLY 2014 IS WHEN
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BEGAN
LEADING UKRAINE POLICY.
HERE IS HOW HUNTER BIDEN CAME
TO JOIN THE BOARD HE WAS
BROUGHT ON BY ARCHER THE
BUSINESS PARTNER DEVON ARCHER
WAS COLLEGE ROOMMATES WITH
CHRIS HEINZ STEPSON SECRETARY
OF STATE JOHN KERRY.
ALL THREE MEN DEVON ARCHER
CHRIS HEINZ AND HUNTER BIDEN
WERE ALTOGETHER.
APRIL 16, 2014 DEVON ARCHER
MEETS WITH VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND
JUST TWO DAYS LATER ON APRIL
18, 2014 IS WHEN HUNTER BIDEN
QUIETLY JOINS BURISMA
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING.
AFTER THE UNITED KINGDOM OPENS
A MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE AND
HUNTER BIDEN JOINS THE BOARD.
AND NOT ONLY TEN DAYS
AUTHORITIES SEIZED $23 MILLION
OF BRITISH BANK ACCOUNTS
CONNECTED TO THE OLIGARCH TO
THE OWNER OF BURISMA DID
HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE BOARD
THEN?
KNOW.
THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES ALSO
ANNOUNCED IT STARTED A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO
POTENTIAL MONEY LAUNDERING.
DID HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE
BOARD?
KNOW.
ONLY THEN WHAT HAPPENED IS THE
COMPANY CHOOSE TO ANNOUNCE
THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAD JOINED
THE BOARD AFTER THE ASPECT OF
BURISMA AND THE OLIGARCH
OWNERS WERE FROZEN AND A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HAD
BEGUN.
AND THEN TO RAISE FLAGS ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY ONE ARTICLE FROM
MAY 2014 STATED THE
APPOINTMENT OF JOE BIDEN SON
TO THE BOARD OF A UKRAINIAN
GAS FIRM BURISMA HAS RAISED
EYEBROWS THE WORLD OVER.
EVEN AN OUTLET THAT HUNTER
BIDEN'S ACTIVITIES HAD A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE ARTICLE STATED IT RAISES
QUESTIONS ABOUT A POTENTIAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR JOE
BIDEN.
EVEN CHRIS HEINZ HIS OWN
BUSINESS PARTNER HAD GRAVE
CONCERNS.
HE THOUGHT THAT WORKING WITH
MARIE'S MONTH - - BURISMA IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE
CORRUPTION IN THE GEOPOLITICAL
RISK AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK.
SO HE WISELY DISTANCES HIMSELF
FROM HUNTER BIDEN AND DEVON
ARCHER TO BURISMA.
HE DIDN'T SIMPLY CALL HIS
STEPFATHER, SECRETARY OF STATE
AND SAY I HAVE A PROBLEM.
HE DIDN'T TELL HIS FRIENDS I'M
NOT GETTING ON THE BOARD I
WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
HE WENT SO FAR TO SEND AN
E-MAIL TO SENIOR STATE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ABOUT
THIS ISSUE.
AND HE WROTE, APPARENTLY DEVON
AND HUNTER HAVE JOINED THE
BOARD OF BURISMA IN A PRESS
RELEASE WENT OUT TODAY.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY
DECIDED TO BUT THERE IS NO
INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN
THEIR COMPANY.
WHAT IS HUNTER BIDEN DO?
HE STAYED ON BOARD.
WHAT HE CHRIS HEINZ DO?
SUBSEQUENTLY HE STOPPED DOING
BUSINESS HIS COLLEGE ROOMMATE
DEVON ARCHER AND HIS ROOMMATE
HUNTER BIDEN.
CHRIS HEINZ SPOKESPERSON SAID
THE LACK OF JUDGMENT WAS A
CATALYST FOR MISTER HEINZ
ENDING RELATIONSHIP WITH
MISTER BIDEN AND MISTER
ARCHER.
ALSO THE SAME DAY OBAMA WHITE
HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY WAS
ASKED ABOUT IT.
>> HUNTER BIDEN HAS NOT TAKEN
A POSITION WITH THE LARGEST
OIL AND GAS COMPANY IN
UKRAINE.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN AT LEAST
THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT
TO THE VICE PRESIDENT QUICK.
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE OF
HUNTER BIDEN AND OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE FAMILY ARE PRIVATE
CITIZENS.
WHERE THEY WORK IS NOT AN
ENDORSEMENT BY THE
ADMINISTRATION OR BY THE VICE
PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT I WOULD
REFER YOU TO THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
SPENT THE NEXT DAY THE
WASHINGTON POST RAN A STORY
ABOUT IT AND IT SAID, THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT SON TO A UKRAINIAN
WHEEL BOARD LOOKS NEPOTISTIC
AT BEST AND THE VARIOUS AT
WORST.
AGAIN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
VICE PRESIDENT SON TO A
UKRAINIAN OIL BOARD LOOKS
NEPOTISTIC AT BEST AND IF
AREAS SAT WORSE AND THEN TO
ASK QUESTIONS THAT KEPT GOING
HERE IS ABC.
>> YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THE
CANCER OF CORRUPTION.
>> JUST THREE WEEKS LATER
BURISMA ACCUSED OF 
CORRUPTION, APPOINTS TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAYING HIS
FOR MORE THAN $1 MILLION PER
YEAR.
>> HERE IS MORE FROM ABC.
>> UKRAINE IS NOT THE ONLY
COUNTRY HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS
FATHER'S DIPLOMACY AS VICE
PRESIDENT INTERSECTED IT ALSO
HAPPENED IN CHINA.
THIS VIDEO SHOWS CHINESE
DIPLOMATS CLEANING VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ARRIVING IN
CHINA DECEMBER 2013 BY HIS
SIDE AS HIS SON HUNTER.
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER
HUNTER'S FIRM HAD NEW BUSINESS
CREATING AN INVESTMENT FUND IN
CHINA INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT
CONTROL BANK OF CHINA WITH
REPORTS THEY HOPE TO RAISE
 ONE.$5 BILLION.
>> EVERY WITNESS THAT WAS
ASKED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S
INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA
AGREED THERE WAS A POTENTIAL
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
MOST WITNESSES INCLUDING THOSE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL AND OTHERS
, UNANIMOUSLY TESTIFIED THERE
WAS A POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THESE WERE THERE WITNESSES.
HOW MUCH MONEY DID HUNTER
BIDEN GET FOR BEING ON THE
BOARD?
START WITH THE BANK RECORDS
ACCORDING TO REPORTS BETWEEN
APRIL 2014 AND OCTOBER 2015.
BURISMA PAID MORE THAN
THREE.$1 MILLION TO DEVON
ARCHER AND HUNTER BIDEN AND
OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR AND
A HALF.
HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?
DEVON ARCHER'S BANK RECORDS
WERE DISCLOSED DURING AN
UNRELATED FEDERAL CASE HAVING
NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTER
BIDEN.
THE BANK RECORDS SHOW 17
MONTHS THAT BURISMA WIRED TO
PAYMENTS OF $83333.
NOT JUST FOR ONE MONTH OR
THREE MONTHS BUT 17 MONTHS.
ACCORDING TO REUTERS SOURCES
REPORT UP TO TWO PAYMENTS OF
$83333 EACH ONE WAS FOR HUNTER
BIDEN AND ONE WAS DEVON
ARCHER.
AND THOSE FOR THE FORTUNE 100
COMPANIES CITIGROUP AND
COMCAST.
THE TYPICAL BOARD MEMBER WE
KNOW THEY ARE TITANS OF THEIR
INDUSTRY AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED
AND WELL COMPENSATED.
EVEN SO HUNTER BIDEN PAID
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.
THIS IS HOW WELL HE WAS
COMPENSATED.
HE IS PAID OVER $83000 A MONTH
WHILE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN
FAMILY OF FOUR DURING THAT
TIME EACH YEAR MADE LESS THAN
$54000.
AND THAT'S ACCORDING TO US
BUSINESS BUREAU DURING THAT
TIME.
SO THE WASHINGTON POST SAID
"WHAT SPECIFIC DUTIES DID
HUNTER BIDEN CARRY OUT FOR
EASTER ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR HE
WENT TO ENERGY FORUMS THAT
TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE.
SPEAKING WITH ABC NEWS ABOUT
THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ON
BURISMA BOARD HE DIDN'T POINT
TO ANY OF THE USUAL
QUALIFICATIONS OF A BOARD
MEMBER.
HUNTER BIDEN HAD NO EXPERIENCE
OF NATURAL GAS.
NO EXPERIENCE IN THE ENERGY
SECTOR.
NO EXPERIENCE AND AS FAR AS WE
KNOW HE DOES NOT SPEAK
UKRAINIAN SO NATURALLY THE
MEDIA HAS ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT HIS BOARD MEMBERSHIP.
WHY WAS HUNTER BIDEN ON THIS
BOARD?
IF YOUR LAST NAME WAS BIDEN
WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO
BE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA
QUICK.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW.
PROBABLY NOT.
>> SO LET'S GO BACK TO TALK
ABOUT HIS TIME ON THE BOARD.
REMEMBER HE JOINED BURISMA
APRIL 2014 BUT THEY HAVE AN
OPEN CASE AGAINST BUT THE
GENERAL'S OFFICE INITIATES A
MONEY-LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION
INTO THE SAME OLIGARCH.
THIS IS ONE OF 15
INVESTIGATIONS ACCORDING TO A
RECENT PUBLIC STATEMENT MADE
BY THE CURRENT PROSECUTOR
GENERAL ON HENRY 16
PROSECUTORS THE OWNER OF
MURRAY'S MAMA THE HUNTER BIDEN
SAT ON HIS BOARD ON THE WANTED
LIST WHILE HUNTER BIDEN IS ON
BOARD.
AND WITH THE $23 MILLION OF
ASSETS WHY WAS THE MONEY AND
FROZEN?
THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
TESTIFIED TO IT.
>> IN THE SOMEBODY IN THE
GENERAL PROSECUTORS OFFERS
SHUT THE CASE AND ISSUED A
LETTER TO HIS LAWYER.
ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE THE CASE
GO AWAY.
THAT IS A STRONG
ASSUMPTION, YES SIR.
>> ALSO THE UKRAINIAN
PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE
WAS FREEZING ASSETS.
AFTER THE CONFIRMATION THAT
PROSECUTOR WAS OUT THIS IS THE
PROSECUTOR IN YOU WILL HEAR
THAT LATER THAT VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN HAS PUBLICLY SAID HE
WANTED OUT OF OFFICE.
IN ADDITION TO AND THEN TO
VOICE THEIR CONCERN TO THE
VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE OF
HUNTER BIDEN AND THEN RAISE
CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN TO
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE.
>> IN A BRIEFING CALL FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF IN
FEBRUARY 2015 I RAISE MY
CONCERNS HUNTER BIDEN STATUS
COULD CREATE THE PERCEPTION OF
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
BUT HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT
TELL YOU THAT ALL WHY HUNTER
BIDEN SAT ON THE BOARD.
DID HE STOP WORKING FOR
BURISMA?
KNOW.
DID HE STOP LEADING THE FORM
POLICY EFFORTS BY THE
ADMINISTRATION AS THE VICE
PRESIDENT?
NO PRICK IN THE MEANTIME VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN IS STILL THE
FOREFRONT OF POLICY AND
PLEDGED $1 BILLION OF LOAN
GUARANTEED TO UKRAINE
CONSENTED BUT OTHER PEOPLE
COULD'VE RAISED THE ISSUE OF
THE CONFLICT.
AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION
ENVOY TOLD THE NEW YORKER AND
WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND
THEN TO RAISE IT DIRECTLY WITH
THE VICE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
AND THEN THE MEDIA HAS
QUESTIONS AND THEN TO THE
PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOWS HIM
AND HERE IS THEIR QUOTE THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE MAY
HAVE BEEN BUT WITH HUNTER
 BIDEN"WITH PARIS SMUT
AND ITS OWNERS.
AND IT WASN'T THE LINES
BETWEEN BURISMA AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AND AS WE
LEARNED RECENTLY THROUGH FOX
NEWS ON JANUARY 19, 2016 THERE
WAS A MEETING BETWEEN OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS.
THE JOURNALS FOR THE NEW YORK
TIMES ASKED THE STATE
DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS MEETING
HE WANTED MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE MEETING, QUOTE WHERE
THE SUPPORT FOR BURISMA
HOLDINGS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
WERE  DISCUSSED"BUT
THE STORY NEVER RAN.
AROUND THE TIME IT WAS
REPORTED OF
JANUARY 2016, 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 UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES
IT WAS LEAVING THE $1 MILLION
OF LOAN GUARANTEES TO THE
DISMISSAL OF THE PROSECUTOR
GENERAL VIKTOR SHOKIN.
WE ALL KNOW FROM THE WORDS OF
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HIMSELF
HE ADVOCATED AND FOR THAT
DISMISSAL.
THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO
THE OLIGARCH AND BURISMA AT
THE TIME AND WE KNOW THIS
BECAUSE ON FEBRUARY 2nd, 
2016 THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR
GENERAL OBTAINED A RENEWAL OF
A COURT ORDER TO SEIZE THE
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS ASSETS AN
ARTICLE PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 4th
 2016 THAT OLIGARCH IS
SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ILLICIT
ENRICHMENT".
OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS THE
VICE PRESIDENT HAS MULTIPLE
CALLS WITH UKRAINE PRESIDENT.
DAYS AFTER THE LAST CALL IN
FEBRUARY 4th, A DC
CONSULTANT REACHED OUT TO THE
STATE DEPARTMENT TO REQUEST A
MEETING TO DISCUSS BURISMA.
WE KNOW WHAT IT SAID BECAUSE
IT WAS RELEASED UNDER THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND
THE CONSULTANT EXPLICITLY
INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME IS
A BOARD MEMBER.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL
SAYS THIS CONSULTANT NOTED
THAT TO CITIZENS THAT ARE
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMPANY
INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN AS A
BOARD MEMBER".
AND ADDED THAT THE CONSULTANT
WOULD, QUOTE LIKE TO TALK WITH
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE TO
GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING HOW
THE US CAME TO THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE COUNTRY
IS CORRUPT".
TO BE CLEAR THIS E-MAIL
DOCUMENT THE US GOVERNMENT HAS
DETERMINED BURISMA TO BE
CORRUPT.
THE CONSULTANT HAD A MEETING
WITH EXTREMELY SENIOR STATE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS
THE US GOVERNMENT'S POSITION.
A PITCH FOR THE MEETING
SPECIFICALLY USED HUNTER
BIDEN'S NAME IT ACCORDING TO
THE E-MAIL THE MEETING WAS SET
FOR A FEW DAYS LATER.
AND LATER THAT MONTH, MARCH 29t 
2016, THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT
FINALLY DECIDES TO FIRE THE
PROSECUTOR GENERAL.
THIS IS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL
INVESTIGATING THE
OLIGARCH, OWNER OF BURISMA AND
HUNTER BIDEN SAT THEN TWO DAYS
LATER THE VICE PRESIDENT
ANNOUNCES THE US WILL GIVE
$335 MILLION IN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND
ANNOUNCES THEY WILL PROVIDE
$1 BILLION OF LOAN GUARANTEES
TO UKRAINE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE
DEMOCRATS POTENTIAL WITNESSES
AMBASSADOR T19.
MAY 2016 AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH WAS NOMINATED TO
BE AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE.
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SHE
WAS PREPARING FOR HER SENATE
CONFIRMATION HEARING.
>> >> . .>> . .>>
IN CHARGE OF THE UKRAINE AND 
WHAT DID THEY FEEL THE ONLY 
COMPANY, THE COMPANY WAS 
IMPORTANT TO BRIEF HER ON IN 
CASE SHEGOT A QUESTION ?
BURISMA.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS 
CONFIRMED AS THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION WAS COMING TO 
A CLOSE AND IN SEPTEMBER 2016 
A UKRAINIAN COURT CANCELED 
THE OLIGARCHSARREST WARRANT 
FOR LACK OF PROGRESS IN THE 
CASE .
IN MID-JANUARY 2017 BURISMA 
ANNOUNCES ALL LEGAL 
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT AND 
THE LAWYER HAVE BEEN CLOSED.
BOTH THESE THINGS HAPPENED
WHILE HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA .
AROUND THE TIME PRESIDENT 
BIDENLEAVES OFFICE .
YEARS LATER NOW, 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'S WERE NOTGOING TO GIVE 
YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS.
THEY SAID YOU DON'THAVE THE 
AUTHORITY, I SAID CALL HIM .
I'M TELLING YOU YOU'RE NOT 
GETTING $1 BILLION .
YOU'RE NOT GETTING 1BILLION , 
I HAVE A PLANE THAT LEAVES IN 
SIX HOURS AND IF THE 
PROSECUTOR IS NOTFIRED, 
YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY 
.
WELL, SOME OF IT SHE GOT 
FIRED AND THEY PUT IN PLACE 
SOMEONE 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.
SHOKIN.
BUT HE ALSO DIDN'T SAY ON THE 
VIDEO WAS THAT HIS SON WAS 
SEEN, BEING PAID SIGNIFICANT 
AMOUNTS BY THE OLIGARCH OWNER 
OF BURISMA WHO WHO SAT ON IT 
BOARD.
ONLY THEN DOES HUNTER BIDEN 
LEAVES THE BOARD.
HE STAYS ON THE BOARD UNTIL 
APRIL 2019.
NOW, ON NOVEMBER 2019, HUNTER 
BIDEN FINDS AN AFFIDAVIT 
SAYING QUOTE, HE'S BEEN 
UNEMPLOYED AND HAS NO OTHER 
MONTHLY INCOME SINCE MAY 19.
THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER 2019 
THAT WE KNOW AFTER APRIL 2019 
TO MAY 2019 THROUGH NOVEMBER 
2019 HE WAS UNEMPLOYED BY HIS 
OWN STATEMENT.
APRIL 2019 TO NOVEMBER 2019.
DESPITE A RESIGNATION FROM 
THE BOARD, THE MEDIA CONTINUE 
TO RAISE THE ISSUE RELATED TO 
A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
ON JULY 22, 2019 THE 
WASHINGTON POST WROTE THAT 
FIRED PROSECUTOR GENERAL
SHOKIN QUOTE , BELIEVES HIS 
OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS 
INTEREST IN THE COMPANY, 
REFERRING TO BURISMA.
OPPOSED FURTHER QUOTES THAT 
QUOTE, HAD HE REMAINED IN HIS 
POST, HE WOULD HAVE 
QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN.
ON JULY 25, 2019, THREE DAYS 
LATER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAK 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
HE SAYS THERE'S A LOT OF TALK 
ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN 
STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A 
LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND 
OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO WHENEVER YOU CAN DO WITH 
THIS ATTORNEY GENERALWOULD BE 
GREAT .
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING 
THAT HE STOPPED THE
PROSECUTION .
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, LOOKS 
HORRIBLE TO ME.
".
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TALKED 
ABOUT BURISMA 400 TIMES BUT 
THEY NEVER GAVE YOU THE FULL 
PICTURE.
BUT HERE ARE THOSE WHO DID.
THE UNITED KINGDOM FRAUD UNIT
, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
OF STATE GEORGE KENT.
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 SAID HAS 
BEEN DEBUNKED.
THAT EVIDENCE WAS ENTIRELY 
AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IN THE 
OTHERDIRECTION .
THAT IS A DISTRACTION.
YOU HEARD FROM THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 
THERE WAS ANY CONCERN TO 
RAISE HERE.
ALL THIS WAS BASELESS AND ALL 
WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE 
WAS BASIS TO TALK ABOUT THIS, 
TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AND THAT 
IS ENOUGH.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHIEF
JUSTICE .
MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL, 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, 
HOUSE MANAGERS AND MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE, THIS WILL BE OUR 
LAST PRESENTATION BEFORE 
DINNER.
THE NEXT LAWYER REPRESENTING 
THE PRESIDENT AS ERIC 
HIRSCHMAN, A PROSECUTOR AND 
TRIAL LAWYER WHO RAN ANATURAL 
GAS COMPANY IN THE UNITED 
STATES .
HE IS GOING TO DISCUSS 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO HOUSE 
MANAGERS IGNORED OR MISSTATED 
AND HOW OTHER PRESIDENTS 
MIGHT HAVE MEASURED UP TO 
THIS NEW IMPEACHMENT 
STANDARD.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
I AM ERIC HERSCHMANN.
I HAVE THE HONORAND PRIVILEGE 
OF REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS .I'VE BEEN 
CAREFULLY LISTENING TO AND 
REVIEWINGTHE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CASE .
THAT CASE PRETTY MUCH BOILS 
DOWN TO ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD 
CONTENTION.
THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER TO PROMOTE HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST AND NOT OUR 
COUNTRIES INTEREST AREA THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT TAKE THE 
STEPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR
COUNTRY BUT ONLY FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT .
BUT IF THAT'S WRONG, IF WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED 
WOULD HAVE BENEFITED OUR 
COUNTRY, THEN THE MANAGERS 
HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN AND 
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
MUST BE REJECTED.
AS WE WILL SEE, THE HOUSE
MANAGERS DO NOT COME CLOSE TO 
MEETING THEIR BURDEN .
LASTWEEK , MANAGER SCHIFF 
SAID THE INVESTIGATIONS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY 
ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
ABOUT ON THE JULY 25 CALL 
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE 
COUNTRY'S INTERESTS BECAUSE 
HE SAID THEY WERE DISCREDITED 
ENTIRELY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THAT 
THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN 
DEBUNKED.
THEY WERE SHANNON 
INVESTIGATIONS.
SO NOW WE HAVE A QUESTION, 
WERE THEY REALLY?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE 
OVER 21 HOURS OF THEIR 
REPETITIVE PRESENTATION NEVER 
FOUND THE TIME TO SUPPORT 
THOSE CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS.
WAS IT IN FACT TRUE THAT ANY
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN 
DEBUNKED ?
HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT 
IDENTIFY FOR YOU WHO 
SUPPOSEDLY CONDUCTED ANY
INVESTIGATIONS .
WHO SUPPOSEDLY DID THE 
DEBUNKING.WHO DISCREDITED 
IT?
WHERE AND WHEN WERE ANY SUCH 
INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED?
WHEN WERE THE RESULTS
PUBLISHED AND MUCH MORE IS 
LEFT UNANSWERED .
ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI WENT 
THROUGH WHAT SOME OF WHAT WE 
KNOW ABOUT BURISMA AND ITS 
PAYMENTS TO VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S SON.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT ANY 
RATIONAL PERSON WOULD LIKE TO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS 
EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS BUT WHICH THEY NEVER 
THOUGHT OR CONSIDERED.
BASED ON WHAT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BONDI TOLD YOU, YOU 
CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELF 
WHETHER THE CONDUCT WAS 
SUSPECT.
AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE 
ISSUES CONCERNED HUNTER 
BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY 
WHICH PAID HIM MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS WHILE HIS FATHER WAS 
VICE PRESIDENT AND WAS IN 
CHARGE OF THE UKRAINIAN 
PORTFOLIO DURING THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATION.
I'LL 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 QUOTE, ERASED 
FROM HISTORY'S PREVIOUS 
POLITICAL MISCONDUCT .
WHAT BUT THERE WAS NO 
PREVIOUS POLITICAL 
MISCONDUCT.
IF ANY THEORY HAS BEEN 
DISCREDITED, IT'S THE THEORY 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COLLUDED 
WITH RUSSIA IN 2016.
IT WAS THAT THEORY THAT WAS 
DISCREDITED AND DISCREDITED 
ENTIRELY BY MISTER MUELLER'S 
VAST INVESTIGATION.
THE SAME INVESTIGATION THE 
DEMOCRATS COMMANDED SINCE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.
THE SAME INVESTIGATION THEY 
KNEW THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY 
SURE WHEN EXPOSED SUCH 
COLLUSION.
THE SAME INVESTIGATION WHICH 
AFTER 22 MONTHS OF EXHAUSTIVE 
WORK AT A COST TO THE 
TAXPAYERS OF $32 MILLION 
FOUND NO CONSPIRACY AND NO 
EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION 
WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
AND AS WE WILL SEE, THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE AS WRONG NOW 
ABOUT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS THEY WERE IN 
2016 ABOUT THE RUSSIAN 
COLLUSION.
AFTER, AS TO THE OTHER 
INCIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MENTIONED, THE ONE CONCERNING 
THEUKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY 
BURISMA, I THINK THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT IS UNDISPUTED 
.
BUT UKRAINE HAD A 
PARTICULARLY BAD 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 
OBSERVER OF THE UKRAINE PUT 
IT IN 2015.
QUOTE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SET 
UP A NEW ANTICORRUPTION 
BUREAU AND ESTABLISHED A 
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION.
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL 
PROSECUTOR DESPERATELY NEEDS
REFORM.
THE JUDICIARY SHOULD BE 
OVERHAULED .
THE ENERGY SECTOR NEEDS TO BE 
COMPETITIVE.
RULE BY MARKET PRINCIPLES, 
NOT SWEETHEART DEALS.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PUSH 
THROUGH LOSS TO INCREASE 
TRANSPARENCY WITH REGARD TO 
OFFICIAL SOURCES OF INCOME.
SENIOR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE 
TO REMOVE ALL CONFLICT 
BETWEEN THEIR BUSINESS 
INTERESTS AND GOVERNMENT 
RESPONSIBILITY.
NOW AS ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI 
SAID, HERE ARE THEFACTS WE 
KNOW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE UKRAINE 
.
BURISMA, THE UKRAINIAN 
NATURAL GAS COMPANY PAID 
HUNTER BIDEN MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS TO SERVE ON ITS BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS.
HE DID NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANT 
EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE.
HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE IN THE 
NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY.
YET NO EXPERTISE IN CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE OR IN UKRAINIAN 
LAW.
HE DOESN'T SO FAR AS WE KNOW 
SPEAK UKRAINIAN.
SO WHY?
WHY DID BURISMA WANT HUNTER 
BIDEN ON ITS BOARD?
WHY DID THEY WANT TO PAY HIM 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
HE HAD ONE QUALIFICATION, HE 
WAS THE SON OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
IT 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.
THATFOR ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE 
OR INQUIRE ABOUT THIS WOULD 
BE A SHAM .
NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
BUT TELLINGLY, HUNTER BIDEN'S 
ATTORNEY ON OCTOBER 13, 2019 
ISSUED A STATEMENT ON HIS 
BEHALF.
HE INDICATED IN APRIL 2014 
HUNTER WAS ASKED TO JOIN THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA.THEN 
STATES ON 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 BIDEN 
ADMINISTRATION, HUNTER WILL 
COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL 
GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS THAT 
PRESIDENT BIDEN MAY ISSUE TO 
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR THE 
APPEARANCE OF SUCH CONFLICTS 
INCLUDING ANY RESTRICTIONS 
RELATED TO OVERSEAS BUSINESS 
INTERESTS.
THAT STATEMENT ALMOST TELLS 
US ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.
THAT'S THE RULE THAT SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN 2014, 
BECAUSE THERE ALREADY WAS AN 
OBAMA BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.
WHAT CHANGED?
WHAT CHANGED?
REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MINUTES 
AGO WHEN I QUOTED AN EXPERT 
ON UKRAINE, THE ONE WHO SAID 
UKRAINE MUST CLEAN UP ITS 
ENERGY SECTOR?
THE ONE WHO SAID UKRAINE 
SELECTS SENIOR ELECTED 
OFFICIALS HAVE TO REMOVE ALL 
CONFLICTSBETWEEN THEIR 
BUSINESS INTERESTS AND THEIR 
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES .
YOU KNOW WHO SAID THAT 
ABOUT UKRAINE?
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN 
DECEMBER 2015.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WENT TO 
UKRAINE APPROXIMATELY 12 TO13 
TIMES.
HE SPOKE WITH LEGISLATORS, 
BUSINESSPEOPLE, OFFICIALS .
HE WAS REPORTEDLY FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.
HE WAS URGING UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE AND UPROOT 
CORRUPTION.
ONE THING HE APPARENTLY DID 
NOT DO HOWEVER WAS TO TELL 
HIS SON NOT TO TRADE ON HIS 
FAMILY'S CONNECTIONS.
HE DID NOT TELL HIS SON TO 
ESPECIALLY STAY AWAY FROM THE 
ENERGY SECTOR AND THE VERY 
CORRUPTIONWRITTEN COUNTRY 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS 
RESPONSIBLE FOR.
AND MANAGER SCHIFF SAYS MOVE 
ALONG .
THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
WHAT ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AFRAID OF FINDING OUT?
IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ABC IN 
OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, HUNTER 
BIDEN SAID HE WAS ON THE 
BOARD OF BURISMA TO FOCUS ON
PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY .
>> I KNOW I WAS COMPLETELY 
QUALIFIED TO BE ON THE BOARD 
TO HEAD UP CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY 
COMMITTEE ON THE BOARD AND 
THAT'S ALL THAT I'VE HEARD.
>> BUT WHEN ASKED HOW MUCH 
MONEY BURISMA WAS PAYING HIM, 
HE RESPONDED HE DOESN'T WANT 
TO OPEN HIS KOMODO.
IN AND DISCLOSE HOW MUCH.
HEDOES REPORT A PUBLIC REPORT 
ABOUT HOW MUCH HE WAS BEING 
PAID , BUT AS WE NOW KNOW, HE 
WAS BEING PAID FAR MORETHAN 
WHAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD 
.
>> YOU WERE PAID $50,000 A 
MONTH FOR YOUR POSITION?
>> I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN, ONE 
THING I DON'T HAVE TO DO IS 
SIT HERE AND OPEN MY KOMODO 
IN AS MUCH AS HOW IT RELATES 
BUT IT'S ALL BEEN RECORDED.
>> WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON 
HUNTER BIDEN THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S SON WAS BEING 
PAID?
WAS IT BASED ON HIS KNOWLEDGE 
AND UNDERSTANDINGOF 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 GAS RATES?
WAS HE GOING TO DISCUSS 
PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT, 
CONSTRUCTION ORENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPACT STATEMENTS ?
DID HE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY AT 
ALL WEST ANDMARK OF COURSE 
NOT BUT WHAT WAS THE REASON ?
I THINK WE DO NOT NEED TO 
LOOK ANY FURTHER THAN THE 
EXPLANATION THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
GAVE TO AN ABC INTERVIEW WHEN 
HE WAS ASKED WHY.
HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.
>> IF YOUR LAST NAME WASN'T 
BIDEN DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD 
HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ON THE 
BOARD?
>> I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY 
NOT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT 
OF THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE 
HAPPENED IN MY LIFE IF MY 
LAST NAME WASN'T BIDEN.
>> AND AS IF TO CONFIRM HOW 
SUSPECT THIS CONGRESS WAS, 
THAT IT SHOULDBE A CONCERN TO 
OUR COUNTRY, HUNTER BIDEN AND 
HIS LAWYER COULD NOT EVEN 
KEEP THEIR STORY STRAIGHT .
COMPARE THE PRESS RELEASE 
THAT WAS ISSUED BY BURISMA IN 
2014 WITH HUNTER BIDEN'S 
LAWYER'S STATEMENT ON OCTOBER 
13 OF 2019.
THE MAY 2014 PRESS RELEASE 
BEGINS, ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN 
WILL BE IN CHARGE OF HOLDING 
LEGAL UNITS.
HE WAS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE 
OF A UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY 
OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH LEGAL 
UNIT.
HOWEVER, IN HIS LAWYER 
STATEMENT IN OCTOBER 2019, 
AFTER HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH 
BURISMA CAME UNDER RENEWED 
PUBLIC SCRUTINY HE NOW CLAIMS 
AT NO TIME WAS HUNTER IN 
CHARGE OF THECOMPANY'S LEGAL 
AFFAIRS .
IS IT?
WHAT WAS HUNTER BIDEN DOING 
AT BURISMA IN EXCHANGE FOR 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARSWESTERN 
MARK WHO KNOWS ?
WHAT WERE THEY LOOKING TO 
HIDE SO MUCH FOR HIS 
CORPORATE GOVERNMENT 
TRANSPARENCY?
BUT LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK TO 
REALIZE WHAT TRANSPIRED 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THIS 
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR 
GOVERNMENT.
NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH OUR 
COUNTRY'S INTERESTS
NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR VICE
PRESIDENT.
NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT.IT SIMPLY 
WAS PRIVATE CITIZEN HUNTER 
BIDEN DOING HIS OWN PRIVATE 
BUSINESS.
ITWAS PURELY COINCIDENTAL 
THAT IT WAS IN HIS FATHER'S 
PORTFOLIO IN UKRAINE IN THE 
EXACT SECTOR , THE ENERGY 
SECTOR THAT HIS FATHER SAID 
WAS CORRUPT .
BUT WE HAVE A DOCUMENT HERE 
AGAIN , SOMETHING THAT HOUSE 
MANAGERS DID NOT SHOW YOU OR 
EVEN PUT BEFORE THE HOUSE 
BEFORE VOTING THESE BASELESS 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS EMAIL, 
IT'S AN EMAIL FROM CHRIS 
PINE.
AS ATTORNEY BONDI TOLD YOU, 
HE IS THE STEPSON OF THE THEN 
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY 
AND WHO WAS THE OTHER 
BUSINESS PARTNER WITH HUNTER 
BIDEN AND DEVON ARCHER?
OUR SECURITY OF SECRETARY OF 
STATE STEPSON AND VICE 
PRESIDENT SON ARE IN BUSINESS 
TOGETHER.
IT WAS SENT ON MAY 13, 2014 
TO THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT 
EMAIL ADDRESSES OF TWO SENIOR 
PEOPLE AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
AND WHO ARE THESE TWO PEOPLE?
THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE 
SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE.
THE SUBJECT LINE IN THE EMAIL 
ISNOT CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY 
.
IT'S NOT CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE.
IT'S NOT HERE'SA HEADS UP .
THE SUBJECT LINE IS UKRAINE.
CHRIS HEINZ CERTAINLY 
UNDERSTOOD THE SENSITIVITY TO 
OUR US FOREIGN POLICY.
AND WHAT DOES THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE STEPSON SAY ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN AND DEVON 
ARCHER?
HE SAYS THIS.
APPARENTLY DEVON AND HUNTER 
JOINED THE BOARDOF BURISMA 
AND A PRESSRELEASE WENT OUT 
TODAY.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY 
DECIDED , BUT THERE WAS NO 
INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THE 
COMPANY .
WHAT IS THE MOST TELLING 
THING ABOUT THIS?
IT IS CHEERED CLEAR THE CHIEF 
OF STAFF AND SECRETARY NEW 
WHO DEVON WAS BECAUSE MISTER 
HEINZ DID NOT INCLUDE HIS 
LASTNAME.
IT'S JUST DEVON .
THEY OBVIOUSLY KNEW WHO 
HUNTER WAS BECAUSE AGAIN IT 
HUNTER BIDEN.
THIS IS CHRIS PINE SAYING I 
CAN'T WHY THEY DECIDED TO 
JOIN THE BOARD OF BURISMA.
HE'S THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER.
NOT THAT THERE ARE GOOD 
CORPORATE REASONS AND THEY'RE 
GOING THEREFORE CORPORATE 
GOVERNANCE.
NOT THAT THEY ARE THERE TO 
ANNOUNCE CORPORATE
TRANSPARENCY, NOT THAT THEY 
ARE THERE TO FURTHER US 
POLICY, NOT THAT THEY ARE 
THERE TO HELP FIGHT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
NOT THAT THEY ARE THERE TO 
ENSURE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ARE 
PUBLICLY DISCLOSED .
NOTHING LIKE THAT.
HE CANNOT SAY THOSE THINGS 
BECAUSE HE KNOWS DEVON AND 
HUNTER WELL AND HE KNOWS THEY 
HAVE NO PARTICULAR 
QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER TO 
DO THOSE THINGS.
ESPECIALLY THE UKRAINIAN GAS 
COMPANY.
INSTEAD, MISTER HEINZ IS 
PLAINLY GOING ON THE RECORD 
TO REPORT WHAT HUNTER AND
DEVON WERE DOING THROUGH 
OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO TAKE 
PAINS TO DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF 
FROM WHAT THEY WERE DOING .
AND WHAT DID THE STATE
DEPARTMENT DO WITH THIS
INFORMATION THAT THE 
SECRETARY OF STATE STEPSON 
BUT THEY NEEDED TO KNOW ?
APPARENTLY , NOTHING.
THEY DID NOT TELL MISTER 
HEINZ TO STAY AWAY.
THEY DID NOT TELL MISTER 
HEINZ THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.
NOTHING.
BUT ALL THIS, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WANTED TO BELIEVE 
DOES NOT EVEN MERIT ANY 
INQUIRY.
ANYONE ASKING FOR ONE, ANYONE 
DISCUSSING ONE IS NOW 
CORRUPT.
DOES IT MERIT AN INQUIRY BY A 
CORRUPT COMPANY IN A CORRUPT 
COUNTRY WHO WOULD BE PAYING 
OUR VICE PRESIDENT SON $1 
MILLION PER YEAR?
PLUS IT APPEARS SOME
ADDITIONAL EXPENSES AND 
PAYING HIS BUSINESS PARTNER 
AND ADDITIONAL MILLION 
DOLLARS PER YEAR ?
SECRETARY OF STATE CARRIES 
STEPSON THOUGHT IT WAS 
IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO REPORT.
WHY AREN'T THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CONCERNED AND I ASK YOU, WHY 
WOULD IT NOT MERIT AN
INVESTIGATION ?
AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING ELSE 
ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, 
BACK IN JANUARY 2018, AS YOU 
HEARD FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN BRAGGED THAT HE HAD 
PRESSURED THE UKRAINIANS, 
THREATENED THEM, INDEED 
COERCE THEM INTO FIRING A 
STATE PROSECUTOR WHO 
REPORTEDLY WAS INVESTIGATING 
THE VERY COMPANY THAT PAID 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HIS 
SON.
HE BRAGGED THAT HE GAVE SIX 
HOURS TO FIRE THEPROSECUTOR 
OR HE WOULD CUT OFF $1 
BILLION IN US LOAN GUARANTEE 
.
>> WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU 
THE BILLION DOLLARS.
THEY SAID YOU HAVE NO 
AUTHORITY, YOU'RE NOT THE 
PRESIDENT.
I SAID CALL HIM.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU,
YOU'RE NOT GETTING $1 
BILLION.
YOU'RE NOT GETTING 1 BILLION, 
I'M LEAVING HERE I THINK IN 
SIX HOURS .
IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT 
FIRED, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE 
MONEY.
WELL, SON OF A BENCH.
HE GOT FIRED AND THEY PUT IN 
PLACE SOMEONE WHO WAS SOLID 
AT THE TIME AREA ARE WE 
REALLY TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS 
THE POLICY OF OURGOVERNMENT 
TO WITHHOLD $1 BILLION ?
$1 BILLION IN GUARANTEED AID 
TO UKRAINE UNLESS THEY FIRED 
A PROSECUTOR ON THE SPOT?
WAS THAT REALLY OUR POLICY?
YOU'VE ALL HEARD CONTINUOUSLY 
FROM THEMANAGERS AND MANY 
AGREE ABOUT THE RISKS TO THE 
UKRAINIANS POSED BY THE 
RUSSIANS.
WE HAVE HEARD THE MANAGERS 
SAY THAT A SLIGHT DELAY IN 
PROVIDING FUNDING TO UKRAINE 
AND DANGERS OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY .
AND JEOPARDIZES OUR INTERESTS 
AND THEREFORETHE PRESIDENT 
MUST IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE .
YET THEY ALSO ARGUE IT WAS 
THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF OUR 
COUNTRY TO WITHHOLD $1 
BILLION UNLESS ONE INDIVIDUAL 
WAS FIRED WITHIN A CERTAIN
MATTER OF HOURS .
WAS THAT REALLY OR COULD IT 
EVER BE OUR UNITED STATES 
POLICY?
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
, WE WERE WILLING TO 
JEOPARDIZE UKRAINIANS UNLESS 
SOMEBODY WHO HAPPENED TO BE 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA WAS 
PROBABLY FIRED.
WHERE WE GOING TO JEOPARDIZE 
THE UKRAINIANS ECONOMY 
BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR WAS 
NOT FIRED IN A SIX HOUR TIME 
PERIOD AS VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN DEMANDED?
DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT WAS 
OR EVER COULD BE OUR UNITED 
STATES FOREIGN POLICY?
AND JUST IN CASE THE MANAGERS 
OR OTHERS TRY TO ARGUE NO, HE 
WASN'T SERIOUSABOUT THAT .
HE WAS JUST BLUFFING.
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE WITH 
THAT SEND TO THE RUSSIANS 
ABOUT OUR SUPPORT FOR THE 
UKRAINIANS, THAT WE WOULD 
BLUFF AND BLUFF WITH THE 
UKRAINIANECONOMY ?
FROM 2014 TO 2017, VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN CLAIMED TO BE 
ON A CRUSADE AGAINST 
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.
HE REPEATEDLY SPOKE ABOUT HOW 
THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION WAS 
ENDEMIC IN UKRAINE AND 
HOBBLED UKRAINE, HOW UKRAINE 
FACED NORMALCONSEQUENTIAL 
MISSION AND CONFRONTING 
CORRUPTION AND HE ENCOURAGED 
UKRAINE TO CLOSE THE SPACE 
FOR CORRUPT MIDDLEMEN WHO RIP 
OFF THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE .
THE VICE PRESIDENT RAILED 
AGAINST MONOPOLISTIC BEHAVIOR 
WHERE A SELECT FEW PROFIT 
FROM SO MANY SWEETHEART DEALS 
THAT HAVE CHARACTERIZED THAT 
COUNTRY FOR SO LONG.
IN HIS LAST OFFICIAL VISIT TO 
THE UKRAINE FOUR DAYS BEFORE 
HE LEFT OFFICE HE SPOKE OUT 
AGAINST CORRUPTION AND 
OLIGARCHY.
THAT EATS AWAY LIKE A CANCER 
AND AGAINST CORRUPTION WHICH 
CONTINUES TO EAT AWAY AT 
UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY WITHIN.
WHY WAS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
DOING THIS WESTERN MARK WAS 
HE SO CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE 
EVEN SINGLING OUT THAT 
COUNTRY'S ENERGY SECTOR 
BECAUSE CORRUPTION IN THE 
UKRAINE IS A CRITICAL POLICY 
CONCERN FOROUR COUNTRY .
BUT DOING DURING THIS WHOLE 
TIME WHAT ELSE WAS HAPPENING?
HIS SON AND HIS SON'S 
BUSINESS PARTNER WERE RAKING 
IN OVER $1 MILLION A YEAR FOR 
WHATWAS REGARDED AS ONE OF 
THE MOST CORRUPT UKRAINIAN
COMPANIES IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR , OWNED AND CONTROLLED 
BY ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT 
OLIGARCHS .
FOR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
WORDS AND WERE HIS WORDS JUST 
HOLLOW?
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS THE ANSWER 
APPARENTLY IS YES, THEY WERE 
EMPTY WORDS, AT LEAST WHEN IT 
CAME TO ANYONE QUESTIONING 
HIS SON'S OWN SWEETHEART 
DEAL.
HIS OWN SONS DEAL WITH 
UKRAINE CORRUPTION AND 
OLIGARCHY.
AGAIN, TO RAISE MANAGER 
SCHIFF'S OWN QUESTION, WHAT 
KIND OF MESSAGE DID THIS SEND 
TO FUTURE US GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS?
YOUR FAMILY CAN ACCEPT MONEY 
FROM FOREIGN CORRUPT 
COMPANIES, NO PROBLEM.
YOU CAN PAY FAMILY MEMBERS 
FROM OUR HIGHEST GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS AND NO ONE IS
ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS ?
WHAT WAS GOING ON?
WE HAVE TO JUST EXCEPT NOW 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONCLUSORY 
STATEMENT LIKE A SHAM, 
DISCREDITED, EVEN THOUGH NO 
ONE HAS EVER INVESTIGATED.
WHY?
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT HOUSE 
MANAGER SCHIFF AND HIS 
DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES 
WOULD SAY IF IT WERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMPS CHILDREN ON 
AN OLIGARCHS PAYROLL?
AND WHEN IT FINALLY APPEARED 
THAT A TRUE UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION FIGHTER HAD 
ASSUMED THE COUNTRY'S 
PRESIDENCY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO.
HE WAS NOTPERMITTED TO FOLLOW 
UP ON VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
OWN WORDS ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION .
TO TRY TO MAKE THOSE WORDS 
SOMETHING OTHER THAN EMPTY.
AND ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION IS NOW ONLY A 
PRIVATE INTEREST AREA AND NO 
LONGER IS A SERIOUS CONCERN 
FOR OUR COUNTRY.
NOW, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT 
TO COVER A FEW ADDITIONAL 
POINTS ABOUT THE JULY 25 
TELEPHONE CALL WHICH THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IN THEIR WORDS WAS 
SHAKING DOWN AND PRESSURING 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE 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.
SO THINK ABOUT THIS 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 PEOPLETAKING 
NOTES AND OBVIOUSLY , THE 
PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT 
FACT.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TALK ABOUT 
THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT FOLLOW THE APPROVED 
TALKING POINTS.
AS IF THE PRESIDENT, ANY 
PRESIDENT IS OBLIGATED TO 
FOLLOW APPROVED TALKING 
POINTS.
AND THE LAST TIME ICHECKED , 
AND I THINK THIS IS CLEAR TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, RESIDENT 
TRUMP KNOWS HOW TO SPEAK HIS 
MIND.
BUT REMEMBER THE BIG 
TRANSCRIPT THAT MANAGER 
SCHIFF PUT BEFORE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HIS 
MOB GANGSTER LIKE RENDITION 
OF THE CALL.
I PROSECUTED ORGANIZED CRIME 
FOR YEARS.
THE TYPE OF DESCRIPTION OF 
WHAT GOES ON WHAT HOUSE 
MANAGER SCHIFF TRIED TO 
CREATE IS COMPLETELY DETACHED 
FROM REALITY.
IT IS AS IF WE ARE SUPPOSED 
TO BELIEVE THAT MOBSTERS 
WOULD INVITE PEOPLE THEY DO 
NOT KNOW INTO AN ORGANIZED 
CRIME MEETING AND SIT AROUND 
AND TAKE NOTES TO ESTABLISH 
THEIR CORRUPT INTENT.
MANAGER SCHIFF, OUR JOBS AS 
PROSECUTORS AND I KNOW YOU 
WERE ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN A 
LOT EASIER IF THAT WERE HOWIT 
WORKED .
THINK ABOUT WHAT HE IS SAYING 
YOU THINK ABOUT THE MANAGERS 
POSITION.
THAT OUR PRESIDENT DECIDED 
WITH CORRUPT INTENT TO SHAKE 
DOWN IN THEIR WORDS ANOTHER 
FOREIGN LEADER AND HE DECIDED 
TO DO IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE 
IN A DOCUMENTED CONVERSATION 
IN THE PRESENCE OF PEOPLE HE 
DID NOT EVEN KNOW JUST WHO HE 
COULD GET THIS PERSONAL 
BENEFIT AND WAS NOT IN OUR 
COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.
THE LOGIC IS FLAWED, IT IS 
COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL BECAUSE 
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
AND THAT IS WHY MANAGER 
SCHIFF RAN AWAY FROM THE 
ACTUAL THREAT.
THAT IS WHY HE CREATED HIS 
OWN FAKE CONVERSATION.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST 
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 BECAUSE 
IT WOULD SIGNAL TO RUSSIA 
WHICH HAD INVADED UKRAINE IN 
2014 AND STILL OCCUPIED 
UKRAINIAN TERRITORY THAT 
UKRAINE, I'M SORRY, THAT 
UKRAINE COULD COUNT ON 
AMERICAN SUPPORT.
THEY ARGUE THAT IT WAS A QUID 
PRO QUO, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHELD THIS CRITICAL OVAL 
OFFICE MEETING THAT WOULD 
DETER THE RUSSIANS AND SAVE 
THE UKRAINIANS BECAUSE HE 
WANTED SOMETHING PERSONAL.
NOW, IF THAT WAS IN FACT 
CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY FOR THE SAFETY OF 
HIS OWN CITIZENS HE WOULD 
HAVEIMMEDIATELY JUMPED AT THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE 
OVAL OFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED HIM 
THAT INVITATION DURING THE 
JULY 25 CALL .
BUT LET'S SEE WHAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SAYS WHEN HE'S 
INVITED TO WASHINGTON ON THAT 
CALL.
HE DOES NOT SAY THIS IS WHAT 
I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IT'S 
CRITICAL FOR MY PEOPLE.
WE WILL ARRANGE IT 
IMMEDIATELY.
HIS RESPONSE IS, I WOULD BE 
VERY HAPPY TO COME AND WOULD 
BE HAPPY TO MEET YOU 
PERSONALLY AND GET TO KNOW 
YOU BETTER READ ON THE OTHER 
HAND I BELIEVE THAT ON 
SEPTEMBER 1 WE WILL BE IN 
POLAND AND WECAN MEET IN 
POLAND.
HOPEFULLY .
IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING, AN 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING CRITICAL 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT 
WAS THE TIME TO SAY SO.
NOT SUGGEST ANOTHER VENUE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE 
BEFORE US IT IS CLEAR THAT 
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO TALKED 
ABOUTHAVING AN OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING WERE LOWER LEVEL 
GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES WHO 
THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA , 
BUT THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED , 
THOSE WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, TO THEM IT
WAS NOT CRITICAL.
IT WAS NOT MATERIAL AND IT 
DEFINITELY WAS NEVER A QUID 
PRO QUO .
WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT AN 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING BUT THE 
LETHAL WEAPON THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SUPPLIED TO THE UKRAINE 
AND THE SANCTIONS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND FORCED 
AGAINST THE RUSSIANS.
THAT IS WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT 
OF THE JULY 25 CALL 
DEMONSTRATES.
LET US NOW CONSIDER WHAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY KNEW ABOUT 
THE SUPPORT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD PROVIDED TO THE 
UKRAINE COMPARED TO THE 
SUPPORT OR MORE ACCURATELY 
THE LACK THEREOF THAT THE 
PRIORADMINISTRATION HAD 
PROVIDED TO UKRAINE .
ON FEBRUARY 2004, RUSSIA 
BEGAN ITS MILITARY CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST UKRAINE.
AGAINST THE ADVICE AND 
URGINGS OF CONGRESS AND MANY 
IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED THEN 
AND THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER 
OF HIS PRESIDENCY TO PROVIDE 
LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THE 
UKRAINE.
IN THE HOUSE, MANAGER SCHIFF 
JOINED MANY OF HIS COLLEAGUES 
IN A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN 
TO PRESIDENT OBAMA URGING 
THAT QUOTE, THE US MUST 
SUPPLY UKRAINE WITH THE MEANS 
TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND URGING 
PRESIDENT OBAMA TO QUICKLY 
APPROVE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO 
SUPPORT UKRAINE'S EFFORTS TO 
DEFEND ITS SOVEREIGN 
TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE 
TRANSFER OF LEGAL DEFENSE 
WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE 
MILITARY.
ON MARCH 23, THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES 
OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED A 
RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT 
OBAMA TO IMMEDIATELY EXERCISE 
THE AUTHORITY BY CONGRESS TO 
PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH LETHAL 
DEFENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS.
THE VERY NEXT DAY THIS SENATE 
PASSED A UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION 
URGING THE PRESIDENT TO 
PRIORITIZE AND EXPEDITE THE 
PROVISION OF DEFENSIVE LETHAL 
AND NONLETHAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE 
CONSISTENT WITH UNITED STATES 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND POLICY.
AS ONE SENATOR HERE STATED 
IN MARCH 2015, PROVIDING 
NONLETHAL EQUIPMENT LIKE 
NIGHTVISION GOGGLES IS ALL 
WELL AND GOOD, BUT GIVING THE 
UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO SEE 
THE RUSSIANS COMING BUT NOT 
THE ABILITY TO STOP THEM IS 
NOT THE ANSWER.
YET, PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED.
HE REFUSED EVEN IN THE FACE 
OF SUPPORT BY SENIOR CAREER 
PROFESSIONALS, RECOMMENDING 
HE PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO 
THE UKRAINIANS.
BY CONTRAST, WHAT DID 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE 
RUSSIANS KNOW?
THEY KNEW PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
PROVIDE THAT SUPPORT.
THAT CLEARLY WAS THE MOST 
MATERIAL THING TO HIM.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN A 
MEETING IN THE OVALOFFICE .
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO MAKE 
MUCH OF THE CONTENTION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY 
WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
ONLY TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION, NOT CONDUCT 
ANYTHING BUT THAT CONTENTION 
MAKES NO SENSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS IN 
JULY 2019.
ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF 
BEFORE OUR NEXT ELECTION BUT 
ONLY A ANNOUNCEMENT SO FAR IN 
ADVANCE WITH NO FOLLOW-UP
REALLY HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON 
THE ELECTION OF THE MANAGERS 
CLAIM?
WOULD ANYONE HAVE REMEMBER 
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OR YEAR OR 
SO LATER ?
IRONICALLY THE HOUSE MANAGER 
WHO PUT BURISMA FRONT AND 
CENTER IN THIS PROCEEDING AND 
THE VOTERS WILL KNOW ABOUT IT 
AND PROBABLY WILL REMEMBER IT
.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
MANAGER SCHIFF, THERE HE GOES 
AGAIN PUTTING WORDS IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOUTH THAT WERE 
NEVER THERE AND AGAIN, LOOK 
AT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 
CALL
PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER ASKED 
ABOUT ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY 
TYPE OF INVESTIGATION .
THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TELLS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP QUOTE, I 
GUARANTEE AS THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UKRAINE THAT ALL THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE DONE 
OPENLY AND CANDIDLY.
THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU WHAT 
HAPPENED NEXT?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY 
PRESIDENTZELENSKY DID NOT 
WANT TO GET MIXED UP IN US 
POLITICS .
BUT IT IS PRECISELY THE 
DEMOCRATS WHO POLITICIZE THE 
ISSUE.
THEY BEGAN CIRCLING THE WAGON 
TRYING TO PROTECT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THEY'RE 
STILL DOING IT IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS.
THEY CONTEND THAT ANY 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF 
PAYMENT BY A CORRUPT 
UKRAINIAN COMPANY OWNED BY A 
CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH 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'RE PULLING 
THAT TYPE OF INQUIRY.
CALLING THAT A SHAM, DEBUNKED 
BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN 
INVESTIGATION SO HOW COULD IT 
BE A SHAM?
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS SAY SO?
WHICH BRINGS ME TO YET 
ANOTHER ONE OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS BASELESS CONTENTIONS 
, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED 
THE MATTER WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY BECAUSE VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD ANNOUNCED 
HIS CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT 
BUT OF COURSE IT WAS FAR FROM 
A SECRET THATVICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN 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.
THAT MADE IT AN OPPORTUNE 
TIME TO RAISE THE ISSUE 
BECAUSE FINALLY, THERE WAS A 
RECEPTIVE GOVERNMENT IN THE 
UKRAINE COMMITTING TO 
FIGHTING PRECISELY THE KIND 
OF HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE 
CONDUCT DISPLAYED BY BURISMA 
IN ITS PAYMENTS TO HUNTER 
BIDEN AND HIS PARTNER JUSTICE 
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 PROFIT OFF HIS 
POSITION AS SON OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND A COUPLE OF 
WEEKS BEFORE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S TELEPHONE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE NEW 
YORKER MAGAZINE, NOT EXACTLY 
A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP RAN AN EXPOSC.
WILL HUNTER BIDEN JEOPARDIZE 
HIS FATHER'S CAMPAIGN?
GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE 
FACTS WE KNOW ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH 
BURISMA AND HIS INVOLVEMENT 
WITH THE CHINESE COMPANY AREA 
THE NEW YORK REPORTER, THIS 
WAS IN JULY, JUST A COUPLE OF 
WEEKS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL 
SEND SOME OF VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S ADVISERS WERE WORRIED 
HUNTER WOULD EXPOSE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT TO CRITICISM.
A FORMER SENIOR WHITE HOUSE 
AIDE CALLED THE NEW YORKER 
REPORTER THAT HUNTER'S 
BEHAVIOR INVITED QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS 
LEVERAGING ASSETS FOR HIS 
BENEFIT.
THE REPORTER WROTE THAT WHEN 
I ASKED MEMBERS OF BIDEN'S 
STAFF WHETHER THEY DID RAISE 
THE CONCERN WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT, SEVERAL OF THEM 
SAID THEY HAD BEEN TO 
INTIMIDATE TO DO SO.
EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR HIM 
HAS BEEN SCREENED THAT, A 
FORMER ADVISOR TOLD A 
REPORTER.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANYONE 
HAS BEEN INTIMIDATED BY BY 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ORHAS 
BEEN SCREENED THAT BY HIM 
ABOUT BURISMA OR HIS SONS 
INVOLVEMENT .
WE WANT THE TYPE OF 
GOVERNMENT WHERE QUESTIONS 
ABOUT SUSPECT CONDUCT ARE 
SUPPRESSED OR DISMISSED AS 
ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE SOMEONE 
IS INTIMIDATING OR SCREAMS AT 
OR IS JUST TOO IMPORTANT.
NO.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHEN AN
INVESTIGATION IS MOST 
IMPORTANT .
NOW, LAST THURSDAY NIGHT, 
MANAGER JEFFRIES PROVIDED US 
WITH THE DEMOCRATS STANDARD 
FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
HE SAID QUOTE, ABUSE OF POWER 
OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
EXERCISES HIS OFFICIAL POWER.
TO OBTAIN A CORRUPT PERSONAL 
BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR 
INJURING THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
MISTER JEFFRIES AND THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CONTEND THAT UNDER 
THIS STANDARD, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS COMMITTED AND 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND MUST 
BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE.
BUT IF MANAGER JEFFRIES 
STANDARD APPLIES, THEN WHERE 
WERE THESE SAME DEMOCRATS 
CALLED FOR IMPEACHMENT WHEN 
UNCONTROVERTED SMOKING GUN 
EVIDENCE OF MERGE THAT 
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD VIOLATED 
THEIR STANDARD.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND THIS BASIC NOTION 
AS EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE 
LAW.
IT IS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.
YET THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT 
TO APPLY THEIR OWN VERSION OF 
SELECTIVE JUSTICE HERE WHICH 
APPLIES ONLY TO THEIR 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.THEY 
WANT ONE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE 
FOR DEMOCRATS ANDANOTHER 
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR 
EVERYONE ELSE .
BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE 
MY WORD FOR IT.
LET'S WALK THROUGH THE FACTS 
ON MARCH26, 2012 , ON THE EVE 
OF THE 2012 NUCLEAR SECURITY 
SUMMIT IN SEOUL SOUTH KOREA, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA MET WITH 
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRY 
MEDVEDEV TO DISCUSS MILITARY 
DEFENSE.
HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE ISSUE 
OF MISSILE DEFENSE TO 
STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP TO THE 
US AND RUSSIA?
AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEFENSE 
SECRETARY ROBERT GATES SAID 
IN JUNE 2010, UPGRADED 
MISSILE INTERCEPTORS AND 
DEVELOPMENT QUOTE, WOULD GIVE 
US THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR 
TROOPS, OUR BASES, OUR 
FACILITIESAND OUR ALLIES IN 
EUROPE .
IT CONTINUES, THERE IS 
NOTHING OF THE MINDS ON 
MISSILE-DEFENSE SO THERE IS 
NO MEETING OF THE MINDS ON 
MISSILE-DEFENSE.
THE RUSSIANS HATE IT.
THEY HATED IT SINCE THE LATE 
1960S IT 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 RUSSIAN 
PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV THAT WAS 
PICKED UP ON A HOT 
MICROPHONE.
>>.
>> PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ON 
ALL THESE ISSUES, 
PARTICULARLY MISSILE-DEFENSE, 
THIS CAN BE SALT BUT IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO GIVE ME 
SPACE.
RESIDENT RESPONDED, I 
UNDERSTAND.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR MESSAGE 
ABOUT SPACE HAD SPACE FOR 
YOU.
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
THIS IS MY LAST ELECTION 
AFTER MY ELECTION, I WILL 
HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY.
PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV RESPONSE I 
UNDERSTAND.
I WILL TRANSMIT THIS 
INFORMATION TO VLADIMIR.
AS WE ALL KNOW, VLADIMIR 
PUTIN.
AS YOU JUST SAW IN 2012, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKS THE 
RUSSIANS FOR SPACE.
UNTIL AFTER THE UPCOMING 2012 
ELECTION.
AFTER WHICH HE WOULD HAVEMORE 
FLEXIBILITY .
LET ME APPLY MISTER JEFFRIES 
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THREE-PART TEST FOR ABUSE OF 
POWER.
ONE, THE PRESIDENT EXERCISES 
HIS OFFICIAL POWER.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ACTIONS 
CLEARLY MEET THE TEST FOR 
EXERCISING OFFICIAL POWER.
BECAUSE IN HIS ROLE AS HEADOF 
STATE , DURING HIS NUCLEAR 
SECURITY SUMMIT AFTER ASKING 
PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV FOR SPACE, 
HE PROMISED HIM THAT QUOTE, 
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 US 
MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN
EUROPE .
2, TO OBTAIN A CORRUPT 
PERSONAL BENEFIT PRESIDENT 
OBAMA'S ACTIONS WERE CLEARLY 
FOR HIS OWN CORRUPT PERSONAL 
BENEFIT BECAUSE HE WAS ASKING 
AN ADVERSARY FOR SPACE FOR 
THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF 
FURTHERING HIS OWN ELECTION 
CHANCES.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THIS IS 
MY LASTELECTION .
AFTER MY ELECTION, I HAVE 
MORE FLEXIBILITY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA KNEW THE 
IMPORTANCE OF MISSILE DEFENSE 
IN EUROPE BUT DECIDED TO USE 
THAT AS A BARGAINING CHIP 
WITH THE RUSSIANS TO FURTHER 
HIS OWN ELECTION CHANCES IN 
2012.
THREE, WHILE IGNORING OR 
INJURING OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST AREA AS PRESIDENT 
OBAMA'S DEFENSE SECRETARY 
SAID, MISSILES WOULD GIVE US 
THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR 
TROOPS.
OUR BASES, OUR FACILITIES AND 
OUR ALLIES INEUROPE .
SHORTLY, SACRIFICING THE 
ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS 
AND OUR ALLIES WOULD INJURE 
THE 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 POWERS OF HIS 
OFFICE TO THE DETRIMENT OF US 
POLICY ON MISSILE-DEFENSE IN 
ORDER TO INFLUENCE THE 2012 
ELECTION AREA SOLELY TO HIS 
ADVANTAGE AND WE NEVER WOULD 
HAVE KNOWN PRESIDENT OBAMA 
REALIZED THAT THE MICROPHONE 
WAS ON.
THERE WAS A HOT MIC.
ONE COULD EASILY SUBSTITUTE 
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2000 
EXCHANGE WITH PRESIDENT 
MEDVEDEV INTO ARTICLE ONE 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 
FORCE A CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED 
SOLICITING THE GOVERNMENT OF 
RUSSIA TO GIVE HIM SPACE ON 
MISSILE-DEFENSE THAT WOULD 
BENEFIT 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 
COMPROMISED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY 
OF THE UNITED STATES
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS .
HE THUS IGNORED AND INJURED 
THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION.
DOES IT SOUND FAMILIAR HOUSE 
MANAGERS?
IT SHOULD.
THERE'S A CASE AGAINST 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD HAVE 
BEEN 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 
THERE.
WHERE WERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THEN?
AND THAT POINTS OUT THE 
ABSURDITY OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CASE AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA, NOT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO WAS WEAK 
ON RUSSIA AND WEAK ON SUPPORT 
TO UKRAINE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA CAVED TO 
RUSSIA AND PUTIN ON 
MISSILE-DEFENSE WHEN HE 
DECIDED TO SCRAP THE US PLANS 
TO INSTALL MISSILE BASES IN 
POLAND, YET HE CRITICIZED
SENATOR ROMNEY DURING THE 
2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 
WHEN SENATOR ROMNEY SAID 
RUSSIA WAS THE GREATEST 
GEOPOLITICAL THREAT TO THE US 
.
>> GOVERNOR ROMNEY, I'M GLAD 
YOU RECOGNIZE AL QAEDA IS A 
THREAT BECAUSE A FEW MONTHS 
AGO YOU WERE ASKED WHAT THE 
BIGGEST GEOPOLITICAL THREAT 
FACING AMERICA YOU SAID 
RUSSIA.
NOT AL QAEDA, YOU SAID RUSSIA 
HAD THE 1980S ARE CALLING TO 
ASK FOR THEIR FOREIGN-POLICY 
BACKBECAUSE THE COLD WAR HAS 
BEEN OVER FOR 20 YEARS .
>> NOW WHEN THIS WHEN IT'S 
POLITICALLY CONVENIENT, THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THE SAME 
THING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA 
CRITICIZED SENATOR ROMNEY FOR 
SAYING.
IN FACT THEY'RE BASING THEIR 
ENTIRE POLITICIZED 
IMPEACHMENT ON THIS INVERSION 
OF REALITY, THIS CLAIM THAT 
PRESIDENT FROM DID NOT 
SUPPORT UKRAINE FARMORE THAN 
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION .
RESIDENT OBAMA CAVED ON 
MISSILE-DEFENSE IN LATE 2009.
HIS HOT MIC MOMENT OCCURRED 
IN MARCH 2012.
HIS REELECTION WAS EIGHT 
MONTHS LATER.
TWO YEARS LATER IN MARCH 2014
, RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE AND 
ANNEXED CRIMEA.
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO 
PROVIDE LEGAL AID TO THE 
UKRAINE TO ENABLE, PRESIDENT 
OBAMA REFUSED TO PROVIDE AID 
TO UKRAINE TO ENABLE IT TO 
DEFEND ITSELF AREA WHERE WERE 
THE HOUSEMANAGERS THEN ?
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE 
THAT THERE WAS A THREAT, AND 
IMMINENT THREAT TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR 
COUNTRY FOR WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT MUST BE REMOVED 
IMMEDIATELY FROM THE HIGHEST 
OFFICE OF THE LAND AREA 
BECAUSE OF WHAT?
BECAUSE HE HAD A PHONE CALL 
WITH A FOREIGN LEADER AND 
DISCUSSED CORRUPTION?
BECAUSE HE PAUSED FOR A SHORT 
TIME, GIVING AWAY OURTAX 
DOLLARS TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY 
?
THAT IS THEIR THEORY.
IT IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE.
NOT ONE AMERICAN LIFE WAS IN 
JEOPARDY OR LOST BY THE SHORT 
DELAY AND THEY KNOW IT.
AND HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY 
KNOW IT?
BECAUSE THEY WENT ON VACATION 
AFTER THEY ADOPTED THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THEY DID NOT CANCEL THEIR 
RECESS.
THEY DID NOT RUSH BACK TO 
DELIVER THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO THE SENATE 
CAUSE OF THE SUPPOSED 
TERRIBLE AND A THREAT TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
WHAT DID THEY DO?
>> THE ECONOMY IS DRIVEN BY 
THEURGENCY .
>> NOTHING COULD BE MORE 
URGENT.
>> THE URGENCY.
>> AND URGENT.
>> THERE'S AN URGENCY TO THIS
.
>> WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY.
>> THERE'S NO TIME TO SCREW 
AROUND.
>> IT'S ABOUT URGENCY.
>> NANCY PELOSI IS STILL 
HOLDINGONTO THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT .
>> URGENCY.
URGENCY FOR WHICH YOU WANT TO 
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES?
USED SAT ON THE ARTICLES FOR 
A MONTH.
THE LONGEST DELAY IN THE 
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.
THEY ADOPTED THEM ON FRIDAY, 
DECEMBER 13 2019.
FRIDAY THE 13TH.
WENT ON VACATION AND FINALLY 
DECIDED AFTER ONE OF THEIR 
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL 
DEBATES HAD FINISHED AND 
AFTER THE BCS FOOTBALL 
CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THAT IT WAS 
TIME TO DELIVER THEM.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THEIR 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST 
ARGUMENT.
WAS IT THAT THE REASON THAT 
THEY SAID THEY HAVE TO RUSH 
TO VOTE?
IT'S URGENT, THEY TOLD US.
NO DUE PROCESS FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT.
IT IS A CRISIS OFMONUMENTAL 
PROPORTIONS .
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT 
RISK.
EVERY ADDITIONAL DATA USING 
OFFICE, THEY TELL US TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO USED THE 
FAMOUS EXCUSE FOR NOT ISSUING 
SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY RED 
HAD NO TIME FOR THE NORMAL 
JUDICIAL REVIEW AREA THEY 
EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE 
JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS IN 
THE CHAMBER BEFORE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 
SUPREME COURT.
A JUDICIAL REVIEW IN WHICH 
THE JUDGE AGREED TO AN 
EXPEDITED SCHEDULE.
EVEN THAT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH 
FOR THEM WHEN THEY ISSUED 
THEIR SUBPOENAS.
ONE OF THE LAWYERS FOR THE 
SUBPOENAED WITNESSES WROTE TO 
THE HOUSE GENERAL COUNSEL 
QUOTE, WE ARE DISMAYED AT THE 
HOUSE COMMITTEE HAS CHOSEN 
NOT TO JOIN US IN SEEKING 
RESOLUTION FROM THE JUDICIAL 
BRANCH OF THIS MOMENTOUS 
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AS 
EXPEDITIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE.
HE CONTINUED, IT'S IMPORTANT 
TO GET A DEFINITIVE JUDGMENT 
FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH 
DETERMINING THEIR 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY IN THE 
FACE OF CONFLICTING DEMANDS 
OF THE LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCHES AREA THAT THE POINT?
IS IT THAT HOW OUR SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT WORKS?
ISN'T THAT HOW IT'S ALWAYS 
WORKED WITH AND MARK ISN'T 
THAT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO 
WORK?
THESE SAME DEMOCRATS DEFENDED 
OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS WHO 
FOUGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM 
UNCONVENTIONAL SUBPOENAS AND 
I THINK WE ALL REMEMBER THAT.
THE SAME ATTORNEY WHEN HE 
WROTE TO THE HOUSE CHAIR SAID 
THE HOUSE CHAIRMAN, MISTER 
SCHIFF ARE MISTAKEN TO SAY 
THE LAWSUIT IS INTENDED TO 
DELAY OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCT 
THE COMMITTEE.
VITAL INVESTIGATORY WORK.
HE CONTINUES NOR HAS THIS LAW 
BEEN COORDINATED IN ANY WAY 
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.
ANY MORE THAN IT HAD BEEN 
COORDINATED WITH THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AREA IF THE 
HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO PURSUE 
THROUGH A SUBPOENA TESTIMONY, 
THE RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT IS 
THE HOUSE IN HOUSE DECISION.
IF THEY COME BEFORE YOU AND 
THEY BLAME DEMONSTRATION, AND 
THEY BLAME YOU IF YOU DON'T 
SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND HAVE 
THEM BEFORE YOU.
YET EVEN IN THE FACE OF THIS 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, THEY 
CLAIM THAT 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 THEIR CLAIM IS 
AND IS LUDICROUS.
THEY'RE BLAMING THE PRESIDENT 
BECAUSE THEY DECIDE ON THEIR 
OWN NOT TO SEEK JUDICIAL 
REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF 
THEIR OWN SUBPOENAS.
AND FOR SOME WITNESSES, NEVER 
TO EVEN ISSUE SUBPOENAS AREA 
AND IN THEIR MIND, THAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
MANAGER NADLER SPOKE 
ELOQUENTLY BACK BEFORE THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS IN DECEMBER 1998.
HE SAID QUOTE, THERE MUST 
NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR AN 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.
AND IT WILL CALL INTO 
QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OFOUR 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS .
MANAGER NADLER WAS RIGHT THEN 
AND IT IS EQUALLY TRUE TODAY.
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS
.
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS.
LISTEN TO HIS WORDS.
IMPEACHMENT BY ONE PARTY 
CAUSES DIVISIVENESS AND 
BITTERNESS IN OUR COUNTRY.
THAT IS WHAT A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT LEADS TO.
SADLY WHEN MANAGER NADLER 
ELEGANTLY WARNED AGAINST 
DIVISIVENESSAND BITTERNESS , 
THE HOUSE DID NOT FOLLOW HIS 
ADMISSION ADMONITION.
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 FOR 
PARTISAN POLITICS.
THIS IS A SAD TIME FOR ALL OF 
US.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO GET 
OUT SOUVENIRS, THE PENS USE 
TO SIGN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, TRYING TO 
IMPROPERLY IMPEACH OUR 
COUNTRY'S REPRESENTATIVES TO 
THE WORLD.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TRY 
TO GET DAYS IN THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WILL ALWAYS BE 
IMPEACHED AS WE HAVE THE 
MAJORITY AND WE CAN DO IT TO 
YOU AND WE GET IT TO YOU AREA 
IT IS WRONG AREA IT IS NOT 
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DESERVE OR WANT AREA SADLY, 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT 
TRUST THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS 
TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN 
PRESIDENT.
THEY DO NOT THINK THAT THEY 
CAN LEGITIMATELY WIN AN 
ELECTION AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SO THEY NEED TO RUSH TO 
IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY.
THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE 
CONTINUALLY TOLD THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE .
AND THAT IS A SHAME.
WE ON THE OTHER HAND TRUST 
OUR FELLOW AMERICANS TO 
CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.
CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE, LET 
SENATORS THAT ARE HERE WHO 
ARE TRYING TO BECOME THE 
DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE TRY TO WIN 
THAT ELECTION.
LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
CHOOSE.
>> MAYBE THEY'RE CONCERNED 
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE 
HISTORICALLY LOW 
UNEMPLOYMENT.
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
LIKE THAT THEREFORE 1K 
ACCOUNTS HAS DONE EXTREMELY 
WELL.
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
LIKE PRISON REFORM AND GIVING 
PEOPLE A SECOND CHANCE.
TELLINGLY, SOME OF THESE 
HOUSE MANAGERS WORK 
CONSTRUCTIVELY, 
CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH THIS 
ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE 
AMERICA A SECOND CHANCE.
WAS THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THAT IS WHAT THE COUNTRY 
DEMANDS
THAT IS WHAT SOCIETY DESERVES 
.
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
LIKE AN EFFICIENT THAT IS 
FIGHTING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC 
AREA MAYBE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE LIKE SECURE BORDERS.
MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
LIKE BETTER TRADE AGREEMENTS 
THAT ARE 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 
AREA IN OTHER WORDS MAYBE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THEIR 
CURRENT PRESIDENT.
A PRESIDENT WHO KEPT HIS 
PROMISES AND DELIVERED ON 
THEM.
IF YOU THINK THE AMERICANS, 
IF YOU THINK AMERICANS WANT 
TO ABANDON OUR PROSPERITY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESSES UNDER 
THIS PRESIDENT, CONVINCED THE
ELECTORATE IN NOVEMBER AT THE 
BALLOT BOX .
>> .. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO
ORDERED ON THE SECOND DAY OF
THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE WITH
SUPPORT FROM THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS BERKOWITZ
GET YOUR REACTION TO WHAT YOU
HAVE HEARD SO FAR.
LAST WEEKEND TODAY 202 IS THE
AREA CODE FOR THE LINE FOR
DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICANS FOR
ALL OTHERS AND WE ARE ALSO
TAKING YOUR TEXT MESSAGES.
HERE IS THE SENATE REPUBLICAN
LEADER LEAVING THE CHAMBER
THEY ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE A 45
MINUTE LUNCH BREAK ALTHOUGH IT
TENDS TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT.
AND ALSO SHARE WITH YOU THE
BREAKING NEWS THAT HAS BEEN
HAPPENING DURING THE TRIAL
INCLUDING THIS FROM THE
WASHINGTON POST POINTING OUT
SENATOR TO ME PROPOSES ONE /
ONE WITNESS STEEL AFTER THE
REVELATIONS THAT THOSE THAT
ARE CONSIDERING WITNESSES.
NOW THERE IS A STORY FROM THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL THAT THEY
WOULD ENTER UNCHARTERED
TERRITORY.
ALL OF THIS IS FROM YESTERDAY
THAT JOHN BOLTON HAS WRITTEN A
MEMOIR INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT
SAID HE WAS GOING TO WITHHOLD
AID TO UKRAINE THIS IS WHAT
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS
REPORTING WHETHER TO CALL JOHN
BOLTON AS A WITNESS COULD
PLUNGE CONGRESS AND THE WHITE
HOUSE INTO UNCHARTERED
TERRITORY WITH NO PRECEDENT IF
A SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
CAN TESTIFY IN THE TRIAL OF
HIS FORMER BOSS.
IF WE HEAR FROM SENATORS THAT
THE MICROPHONE WE WILL CUT YOU
OFF TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE
SAYING BUT FIRST WE GO TO
DAVID IN LOS ANGELES.
HOW MUCH HAVE YOU BEEN
WATCHING TODAY.
>>Caller: MOST OF TODAY.
I MISSED SOME OF IT BUT I COST
LAWN - - CAUGHT THE LAST GOOD
HOUR AND A HALF.
SO I AM UP TO SPEED ON THAT.
'S.
>> WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN
HUNTER BIDEN WHAT DID YOU
THINK?
>>Caller: I AM AWARE OF
BURISMA THAT IT HAS BEEN
LOOKED INTO.
HONESTLY EVERYBODY CAN'T
FOLLOW EVERYTHING.
I DO KNOW IF YOU WANT TO LOOK
AT HUNTER BIDEN I DO THINK HE
DID SOMETHING SKETCHY.
NOW DOUBT ABOUT IT.
BUT HUNTER IS NOT ON TRIAL
RIGHT NOW I DON'T FEEL THAT
HIS ACTIONS HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.
>> HERE IS SENATOR CRUISE.
>> THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDING WE HAVE HEARD JUST
THE BEGINNING OF THE SERIOUS
EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION
INVOLVING BURISMA THAT PAID
HUNTER BIDEN IS SAID
$1 MILLION A YEAR BUT I WILL
ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE LET
ME ANSWER WITHOUT INTERRUPTING
ME.
BURISMA PAID HUNTER 
BIDEN, $1 MILLION PER YEAR
WHILE HUNTER BIDEN THREATENED
LONDON AS JOE BIDEN THREATENED
TO WITHHOLD AID UNLESS AND
UNTIL THEY FIRE THE PROSECUTOR
INVESTIGATING HIS SON.
JOE BIDEN VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
WE ENCOURAGE EVERY NEWS OUTLET
TO SHOW THE VIDEO HOW HE
BRAGGED HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE HE WOULD CUT OFF
THE $1 BILLION AND BLOCK THAT
IN FOREIGN AID TO UKRAINE
UNLESS THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR
IN HIS OWN WORDS SON OF A
PITCH - - T6 THEY FIRE THE
GUY.
>> YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
>> I LOVE - - I UNDERSTAND YOU
WANT TO OBSESS OVER THE LATEST
BOMBSHELL I HAVE SEEN THE NEW
YORK TIMES COVERAGE BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY IT DOESN'T
IMPACT THE LEGAL ISSUES FOR
THE SENATE.
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS THE
AUTHORITY'S THEY HAD THEY
BUILT THEIR CASE THAT
INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND THE
BIDENS FOR CORRUPTION WAS
BASELESS AND A SHAM.
LET ME FINISH.
NO.
I WILL FINISH MY POINT THEN I
WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS BASE THEIR
ENTIRE CASE ON THE PROPOSITION
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION FOR
BURISMA AND THE BIDENS WAS
BASELESS AND A SHAM THEY SAID
THERE WASN'T A SHRED OF
EVIDENCE WE HAVE JUST SEEN TWO
HOURS OF EVIDENCE.
NOT ONLY REASONABLE AND
JUSTIFIED BUT THE PRESIDENT
HAD AN OBLIGATION EXTENDED TO
THE VERY HIGHEST LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT.
>>.
>>.
>> MY CHILDREN ARE NINE AND 11
I'M SORRY DO YOU WANT TO THROW
A NINE -YEAR-OLD IN PRISON?
MY THIRD-GRADER PLAYS
BASKETBALL AND SOFTBALL AT HER
SCHOOL.
SO STOP PLAYING THE NASTY
WASHINGTON GAME.
ATTACKING A NINE -YEAR-OLD?
>> SENATOR WE HAVE SEEN THE
REPORTS OF A ONE / ONE WITNESS.
>> IN MY VIEW ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES ARE NOT NECESSARY TO
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED
THEIR CLAYS THEY HAVE NOT COME
REMOTELY CLOSE TO MEET THEIR
BURDEN OF PROOF.
IF THE SENATE LATER THIS WEEK
DECIDES TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD
THAT I THINK ADD A MINIMUM THE
MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS IS FOR
THE SENATE TO HEAR FROM IS NOW
HUNTER BIDEN.
LET ANOTHER REPORTER HAVE A
CHANCE.
>> WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO HEAR
FROM JOHN BOLTON QUICK.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE
TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE AN
HAVE A BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEY HAVE FALLEN WOEFULLY
SHORT THE STANDARD IS HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THEY
HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT ANY
LAW WAS VIOLATED.
THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY
JUSTIFIED TO ASK FOR AN
INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION
CONCERNING UKRAINE AND
POTENTIALLY HUNTER BIDEN AND
JOE BIDEN FORGOT THE END OF
THE DAY THERE MAY OR MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN.
>> BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE
TESTIMONY IN A TRIAL?
>> IT IS A SHADOW OF THE
PRESIDENCY THE LAST SEVERAL
MONTHS OF SHAM PROCEEDINGS IN
THE HOUSE WITH THE ONLY HEARD
FROM PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND
THEY IGNORED THE SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION WITH
THE VICE PRESIDENT GOING TO
THE VERY TOP OF THE
ADMINISTRATION THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION POINTED OUT THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OVER AND
OVER AND SO DID THE PRESS
UNTIL THEY DECIDED TO DEFEND
THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT ATTACK THIS IS
BEEN A SHAM FROM THE
BEGINNING.
PRESIDENTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION.
>> IF WE GET TO WITNESSES IT
WILL BE ONE / ONE OR TWO / TWO
BUT THE LAST HOUR WAS THE MOST
POWERFUL PRESENTATION ON
EITHER SIDE AND IT GETS AT THE
PRESIDENT GOT EVERY RIGHT TO
LOOK INTO CORRUPTION BECAUSE
HE DID SUCH A GOOD JOB TO
PREPARE WHAT WAS OVERLOOKED
DURING THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AND HOW SICK
THE BIDENS WERE INVOLVED THE
MAIN TAKE AWAY FROM THIS IS
NOW THEY MENTION THE BIDENS
400 TIMES IN THEIR OWN
PRESENTATION IS PROBABLY THE
VICE PRESIDENTS WORST
NIGHTMARE IT HAS RISEN TO THAT
LEVEL.
>> BUT HE ASKED FOR A FAVOR
FROM UKRAINE.
>> DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO OF
BARACK OBAMA?
WE ARE COMING DOWN HERE TO
TELL YOU ABOUT THE LAST COUPLE
OF HOURS AND NOW WHAT WE WILL
TELL YOU IS WHAT WE HAVE JUST
SEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
HOURS FROM UKRAINE ON THE
ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF POWER
AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
AND ABUSE OF POWER THE
ARGUMENT ON ABUSE OF POWER IS
THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
WE SPENT A GOOD HOUR GOING
OVER WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS
WE UNDERSTAND THIS.
BUT ON THAT OF THE TWO
ARTICLES WAS PAID TO PLAY FOR
CHUCK SCHUMER EXPLAINING BACK
IN THE TIME OF THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION THAT ABUSE OF
POWER THE PRESIDENT HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE
PRESIDENCY.
IN TERMS OF THE THREE BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT IN PROTECTING
HIS BRANCH THE PRESIDENT HAS
AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT USING
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS PART OF
THAT OBLIGATION.
>> BUT ARE YOU ALL UNITED
QUICK.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WE
WILL DECIDE FRIDAY ON
WITNESSES BUT IT'S NOT A
ONE-SIDED ISSUE THE
PRESIDENT'S CASE HAS TO BE CAN
ONE - - WE HAVE 60 HOURS OF
QUESTIONING ON WEDNESDAY AND
THURSDAY AND ULTIMATELY THE
QUESTION WILL COME ARE WE
READY TO GO TO FINAL JUDGMENT
OR DO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM
MORE PEOPLE?
IT WILL BE A GROUP OF
INDIVIDUALS 51 SENATORS WILL
MAKE THAT DECISION ON FRIDAY
AND NOT BEFORE REGARDLESS OF
WHAT QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> I THINK THE FINAL POINT
THAT IS FINAL ONE - - VERY
GOOD WHY ARE WE IMPEACHING
THIS PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL HAS DONE A BRILLIANT
JOB TO LET THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THEY HAVE USED ESTABLISH LAW
AND THE CONSTITUTION THEY
SPELL IT OUT THERE NOT SAYING
WHEN I WAS A CHILD.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
THAT.
THEY ARE PRESENTING THE LAW
AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN OUR HOUSE
MANAGERS DO AND OTHER
DEMOCRATS TAKE THE
CONSTITUTION AND THROW IT
UNDER THE BUS AND BY THE WAY
PUT IT IN REVERSE AND DO IT
AGAIN WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO
IMPEACH AND REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WILL BE
REELECTED THIS FALL THE POINT
THAT WAS JUST MADE IN THE LAST
30 MINUTES THAT WE HAVE RECORD
UNEMPLOYMENT HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES WITH A BOOMING
ECONOMY PEOPLE IN IOWA ARE
THRILLED WE HAVE USMCA BEING
SIGNED AND TRADE DEALS WITH
CHINA THERE IS SO MUCH GOING
ON THAT'S GOOD AND POSITIVE
FOR THIS COUNTRY AND THE
DEMOCRATS HATE IT WE HAVE A
LARGER THAN LIFE PRESIDENT
THAT HAS ACHIEVED THAT.
>> WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE THE
HOUSE MANAGERS CUT AND PASTED
HERE AND THERE TO MAKE IT SEEM
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL HAS PUT THE
ENTIRE CONVERSATION OF EACH
WITNESS TO GATHER TO HAVE
DISPROVEN ALL THE INNUENDO AND
GOSSIP AT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
BASE THEIR CASE ON.
>> SO WE HAVE YET ANOTHER DAY
OF DISCUSSION AND THEN WE WILL
MAKE THAT DECISION BUT AT THIS
TIME THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
HAS ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED
, SHREDDED THE CASE GOING
FORWARD.
>> THE FINAL ISSUE EVERYONE
WAS PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
BIDENS BUT THE FOUR PEOPLE
WHOSE EYES WERE WIDE OPEN AND
WAS SENT BY AMY KLOBUCHAR AND
BERNIE SANDERS AND ELIZABETH
WARREN AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN
THEM SO ATTENTIVE.
>> THE IOWA CAUCUSES ARE THIS
NEXT MONDAY EVENING.
I AM REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE
HOW THIS DISCUSSION TODAY
INFORMS AND INFLUENCES THE
IOWA CAUCUS VOTERS THE
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS GOERS.
WILL THEY BE SUPPORTING VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AT THIS
POINT?
>>.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THERE ARE
MORE PEOPLE LISTENING AND
PAYING ATTENTION AND THAT LAST
HOUR CLOSE THE DEAL.
>> I DON'T DO THAT.
>> BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF REPORTS IS THAT FAIR
OF THEM?
>> I DON'T USE THOSE TERMS OR
WORDS BUT THE PRESIDENT CAN
CHOOSE TO USE THEM IF HE WANTS
TO.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE PART OF
THE TRIAL THAT MADE A
DIFFERENCE AND YOU SHOULD PAY
ATTENTION CAREFULLY WAS JUST
THE LAST HOUR IF ANYBODY NEEDS
ANY MORE INFORMATION WE CAN
GET TO THE QUESTION OF
WITNESSES AND CROSS THAT
THRESHOLD ON THURSDAY OR
FRIDAY.
>> FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM WE
FEEL REALLY GOOD OF PROGRESS
THUS FAR YOU'VE HEARD FROM A
COLLECTION OF SENATORS AND
THEY LET THEIR OPINIONS BE
CLEAR THE JOB IS WELL DONE AND
THE CASE IS WELL REPRESENTED.
ONE THING YOU WILL NOTICE THE
LAST COUPLE OF HOURS IS THAT
THE PRESIDENT DID HAVE AN
OBLIGATION, HE CERTAINLY HAD A
RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE
CORRUPTION IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.
THE USE OF THE PRECIOUS
TREASURE OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
IS TO BE SAFEGUARDED HE HAD A
LEAD - - A LEGAL OBLIGATION
THAT'S BEEN A THEME OF DONALD
TRUMP SAYS BEFORE HE BECAME
THE PRESIDENT AND THAT'S WHAT
YOU SAW ALSO ATTENTION TO THE
BIDENS AND BURISMA THE
DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS
REFERENCED AT 400 TIMES IN
THEIR PRESENTATION SO IT MADE
IT RELEVANT FOR TODAY AND THE
METHODICAL WAY OF THE EVIDENCE
PLAYED OUT THE LAST COUPLE
HOURS LEAVES VERY LITTLE DOUBT
FOR ANYONE THIS WAS A DEAL
THAT DROPPED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ON THE PART OF ALL
AMERICANS.
>> SHOULD THERE BE WITNESSES
QUICK.
>> I HAVE BEEN WATCHING FOR
GRADING THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL
TEAM IS DOING A REALLY GOOD
JOB TO LAY OUT THE CASE BUT
THE HOUSE DID NOT PROVE THEIR
CASE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF
IS ON THE HOUSE I WOULD ADVISE
THE SENATORS NOT TO CALL FOR
MORE WITNESSES.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE, THE HOUSE
WAS SUPPOSED TO CALL WITNESSES
AND THEY COULD HAVE.
THEY COULD HAVE SUBPOENAED
JOHN BOLTON BUT THEY CHOSE NOT
TO.
SO DON'T PUT THE BURDEN OF
PROOF ON THE SENATE THAT THE
DEMOCRATS DID NOT DO IN THE
HOUSE.
THANK YOU.
>> THE BIGGEST THING ALLIED OF
AMERICANS ARE ASKING BY NOW IS
WHY WAS THIS LEAKED OUT AT
THIS PARTICULAR TIME RIGHT
BEFORE TODAY'S PRESENTATION
WITH THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM?
SOME HAVE SAID EDITS TO
SUGGEST TO SELL MORE BOOKS OR
THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO CREATE
CHAOS.
WHAT WE DO KNOW IT IS A
PATTERN FOR MY DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES HAVE EMBARKED UPON
WHEN IT WAS OVER IN THE HOUSE
THEY CONTINUE TO LEAK OUT
THINGS TO CHANGE THE
NARRATIVES HE WILL WRITE ABOUT
IT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN
GET WORRIED ABOUT IT ONLY TO
FIND OUT THE FACTS LATER DO
NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE
ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE MADE.
>> LET ME JUST SAY I WILL BE
GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LET
ME FINISH I KNOW I TALK A
LITTLE SLOWER BECAUSE I'M FROM
NORTH CAROLINA BUT WE DON'T
NEED A TRANSLATOR.
LET ME GO AHEAD AND HIT ON
THIS TOPIC.
HERE WE ARE TODAY LOOKING AT
ANOTHER REASON AT THIS
PARTICULAR TIME MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE WILL
MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND WHETHER
TO CALL WITNESSES WITH THIS
LEAK WAS DESIGNED FOR ONE
PURPOSE ONLY TO TRY TO
MANIPULATE THE THINKING OF MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO
OPEN IT UP AND PROVIDE FOR
MORE WITNESSES.
WHY WILL WE ALL OF A SUDDEN
FIND MORE FACTS?
KNOW.
THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CLEAR I'M
NOT IN FAVOR OF CALLING
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES BECAUSE
THEY WILL REMAIN AS THEY
ALWAYS HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF
THE PRESIDENT GETTING NO
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE NO
INVESTIGATION NOTHING WAS
DELIVERED FOR TEMPORARY PAUSE
IN THE AID.
>> BUT YOU WANT TO HEAR THAT
FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT QUICK.
>> IT IS THE HOUSE'S JOB TO
PROVIDE ANY INVESTIGATION AND
AS WE LOOK AT FIRSTHAND
KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE ALREADY HAD
FIRSTHAND WITNESSES THAT
CONTINUE TO SAY THE PRESIDENT
DID NOT CONDITION THE AID THE
ACTUAL PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE
SAID HE FELT NO PRESSURE THAT
DOESN'T CHANGE REGARDLESS OF
WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAYS
THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.
>>.
>>
[INAUDIBLE]
>> FOR ALL OF US AS HOUSE
MEMBERS I SPEAK FOR ALL OF US
GIVING ADVICE FROM THE HOUSE
TO MITCH MCCONNELL AND MY
SENATE COLLEAGUES IS NOT
NORMALLY A GOOD IDEA.
SO IS DOING THAT, MY ADVICE TO
LEADER MCCONNELL AND ALL
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IS LOOK
AT THE EVIDENCE, ASSESS THE
EVIDENCE IN THE WORST CASE OF
THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE CASE
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
ACQUITTED THEN VOTE TO ACQUIT
AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE WORST
CASE OF FACTS THAT WERE
PRESENTED.
>> IF YOU WANT THEM TO ASSESS
THE FACTS AND DOES THAT HANG
OVER HIS HEAD YOU DIDN'T CALL
WITNESSES AT A TRIAL.
>> WE HAD 12 WITNESSES SO YOUR
PREMISE OF NO WITNESSES THERE
HAS BEEN 17 AND THE HOUSE.
YOU ALL KNOW THIS.
YOU ARE FROM KENTUCKY I WILL
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
SO AS WE LOOK AT ONE OF THE
KEY COMPONENTS IS TO SUGGEST
ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES
COMBINED DON'T EQUAL ONE
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THAT
JUST ISN'T THE CASE TO SUGGEST
AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A SUPER
WITNESS BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED
CONVERSATION THAT HE DID NOT
REPEAT I WANT TO STRESS THAT
SOMEONE I HAVE SPOKE TO SOME
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES ON AUGUST
27 OF THIS YEAR AMBASSADOR
BOLTON MET WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY.
HAD HE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO HOLD UP AID HE
WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT.
HE DID NOT AND WE KNOW THAT
FOR A FACT HOW BECAUSE MISTER
MORRISON WAS THERE AND
TESTIFIED TO THAT.
WHETHER A CONVERSATION
HAPPENED OR NOT CERTAINLY
THERE IS NOT AN ACTION THAT
CAME FROM THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS SAID THE CONVERSATION
DIDN'T HAPPEN OTHER WHITE
HOUSE OFFICIALS HAVE COME OUT
TO CONTRADICT SOME OF THE
REPORTING DONE LAST NIGHT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> I TALK TO THE PRESIDENT ON
A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS FOR ONE
OF THE REASONS I DIDN'T
BECAUSE I DON'T TALK ABOUT MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OR REDIRECT.
>> ARE YOU ALLEGING DEMOCRATS
HAVE LEAKED TO THE NEW YORK
TIMES QUICK.
>> I HAVE EVIDENCE THEY LEAKED
WHEN IT WAS OVER IN THE HOUSE.
THIS IS PART OF A COORDINATED
LEAK TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE.
TO SAY ANY PARTICULAR DEMOCRAT
DID IT I CANNOT DO THAT.
BUT THERE IS A HISTORY OF MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES LEAKING
TO SOME OF YOU THAT ARE
COVERING THE PRESS RIGHT NOW I
WOULD FIND YOU HAD DOCUMENTS I
DID NOT EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO I
WAS LITERALLY FINDING OUT
ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS FROM ALL
OF YOU THERE IS A HISTORY OF
THAT HAPPENING.
>> I THINK THE SUBSTANCE OF
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND
DELIVERED BY UKRAINE IS WHAT
MATTERS.
HAD UKRAINIANS ACTUALLY DONE
AN INVESTIGATION OR PROVIDED A
DELIVERABLE BECAUSE OF A
CONNECTION THAT WE WOULD BE
HAVING A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION
BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AND
THE VERY COUNTRY THAT WOULD
HAVE TO BE BRIBED TO BE AND
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SAYS IT
DID NOT HAPPEN.
>> PART OF THAT ARGUMENT IS
THAT HE WAS TOLD BY THE
PRESIDENT DOESN'T THAT
CONTRADICT?
>> IT HAS BEEN CONTRADICTED BY
A NUMBER OF OTHER WITNESSES SO
IT COMES INTO DO YOU WANT TO
BELIEVE AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND
THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY THAT
I WOULD INDICATE HAS BEEN
CONTRADICTED BY OTHER
WITNESSES SO IT'S IMPORTANT WE
LOOK AT THAT.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE TWO THINGS
THAT WAS A LEGITIMATE
FOLLOW-UP THE OTHER PART I
DON'T BELIEVE THE LINKAGE THAT
WAS SUGGESTED BY MY DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES I DON'T HAVE THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT
REGARDLESS OF ANY REPORT TO
THE CONTRARY.
>>
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THE EVIDENCE WITH VICE
PRESIDENT JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN
WAS LAID OUT BY PAM BONDI AND
THE LAWYERS THAT FOLLOWS IT
WAS ALL THEIR WORD.
GO AHEAD.
>> THE POINT IS WE COULD HAVE
A REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND IN
THAT SITUATION WITH THIS
BECOMING A NEW NORMAL IN
AMERICA, THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT WOULD BE IMPEACHED
BY A REPUBLICAN HOUSE.
WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW
WE USE THE TOOLS OF
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE THE WHITE
HOUSE COULD FLIP THE SHOE WAS
ON THE OTHER FOOT THE
DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT THE
REPUBLICANS TO DO SOMETHING
LIKE THIS AND THAT'S THE MAIN
POINT.
>> YOUR ARGUMENT NOTHING
EGREGIOUS HAS OCCURRED.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE BAR THAT
THEY SET I CAN TELL YOU HAVING
SERVED IN CONGRESS UNDER
PRESIDENT OBAMA IF I TAKE
THEIR SAME EXACT ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD
HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED UNDER THE
SAME STANDARD THE SAME EXACT
STANDARD YOU CAN TAKE FAST AND
FURIOUS AND LOIS LERNER AND
OTHER ISSUES THAT CONCERN I
HAVE HAVING A HISTORY WITH THE
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AND
THE ACCUSATIONS MADE WE HAVE
SUCH A LOW STANDARD THAT EVERY
PRESIDENT WILL FACE
IMPEACHMENT IF WE ALLOW THIS.
>> I AM AN OPTIMIST BUT I
BELIEVE ONE DAY THIS WILL HEAL
OVER IT WILL BE A SCAR AND NOT
AN OPEN WOUND I DON'T SEE THAT
BEFORE NOVEMBER 2020 WHEN THE
VOTERS WILL DECIDE WHO HAS
TRUTH ON THEIR SIDE.
>> UNFILTERED COVERAGE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP YOU SAW SOME OF THE
PRESIDENTS OFFENDERS INCLUDING
MARK MEADOWS WHO IS STEPPING
DOWN TO RETIRE AT SOME POINT
THIS YEAR NEW 
YORK, LOUISIANA, ARIZONA WE
WILL GET BACK TO YOUR PHONE
CALLS AND WE SHOULD POINT OUT
IF WE HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE OR THE PRESIDENTS
OFFENDERS ARE DEMOCRATS IF
THEY COME TO THE MICROPHONE WE
WILL STOP YOU TO HEAR FROM
THEM BUT IN THE MEANTIME KEVIN
FROM SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA HOW
MUCH OF TODAY HAVE YOU BEEN
WATCHING.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT TO
BE WATCHING THROUGH THE ENTIRE
PROCESS IF YOU WATCH THE
ENTIRE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE IF YOU FOLLOW THE
WHOLE THING AND THE ENTIRE
PROCESS IF YOU COULD BELIEVE
SOMEONE INNOCENT THEN I CAN
SAFELY SAY YOU CARE AS MUCH AS
THEY CARE ABOUT THOSE OHIO
STATE STUDENTS AS MUCH AS
POMPEO CARES ABOUT UKRAINE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT
THAT.
>> THE ONE DEVELOPING STORY
THAT WE HAD IS FROM THE
WASHINGTON POST.
YOU HEARD SOME OF THE
REFERENCES TO THE SENATORS
REGARDING WITNESSES WITH THE
NEW YORK TIMES STORY OF JOHN
BOLTON'S NEW BOOK IS SCHEDULED
TO BE RELEASED MARCH 17
ACCORDING TO SIMON AND
SCHUSTER 558 PAGE BOOK AND THE
WASHINGTON POST IS REPORTING
THE FOLLOWING THAT SENATOR TO
ME AN INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIVE
ON - - CONSERVATIVE HAS SPOKEN
WITH A NUMBER OF COLLEAGUES
ABOUT POSSIBLY SUMMONING TWO
WITNESSES TO THE PRESIDENTS
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ONE CALL BY
THE REPUBLICANS AND ONE BY THE
DEMOCRATS ACCORDING TO THREE
REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS THEIR
PROPOSAL ON - - PROPOSING ONE
/ ONE DEAL MAY BE NECESSARY
PARTICULARLY WITH PRESSURE
MOUNTED FOR WITNESSES TO BE
CALLED THOSE THAT SPOKE ON THE
CONDITION OF ANONYMITY SUCH
ARRANGEMENT COULD FORCE
DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THE
REPUBLICAN WITNESSES OR THEY
HAVE TO MAKE QUIT THE
PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS HAVE UNTIL THE END OF
THE EVENING TO MOUNT THEIR
DEFENSE THEY WILL CONCLUDE
TOMORROW FOLLOWED BY 16 HOURS
OF QUESTIONS DIVIDED EVENLY
BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS OUR NEXT COLLAR IS
A NEW YORK GOOD EVENING.
>>Caller: I HAVE TO SAY I'M
NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT WAS MORE
NAUSEATING.
EITHER CAN START TALKING ABOUT
THE CULTURE OF IMPEACHMENT
THAT WE ARE LIVING IN OR ARE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE UPSET ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THEM BEING
LARGER-THAN-LIFE.
THAT HYPERBOLIC LANGUAGE THAT
THE DEFENSES USING JUST SEEMS
UNBELIEVABLE AT THIS POINT AND
I HAVE BEEN WATCHING
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
AS AN INDEPENDENT IN A
CONSERVATIVE DISTRICT THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE PRESENTED A
COMPELLING CASE MORE SO THAN
THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE.
>> IS THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE?
>> KNOW SHE IS NORTH OF US SHE
IS NEAR ALBANY AND
SCHENECTADY.
I SAW HER JUMP AT THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
I FEEL AS IF PEOPLE ARE
JOCKEYING FOR A POSITION TO
GET A GOVERNMENT PAYING JOB
UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
JUST LIKE LOSING THE ELECTION
AND SO THEN WHAT DID SHE DO
SHE WENT TO THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND THAT GETS
HER A POSITION OF POWER AND
THAT'S WHETHER IT IS UKRAINIAN
INVESTING INTO HER CAMPAIGN
PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HER
DOWN HERE.
>> HERE IS CONGRESSMAN ADAM
SCHIFF.
>> IN THE CASE BY THE LAWYERS
I'M HAPPY TO RESPOND TO A
COUPLE QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS AGAIN MAINTAINED
REPEATED THE THERE ARE NO
WITNESSES DIRECTLY SAYING THE
PRESIDENT TIED MILITARY AID TO
THE CONDUCT OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT
REPEATEDLY TODAY WHICH WAS
REMARKABLE IN LIGHT OF THE
TRUE FACTS THAT THERE ARE
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED OR
HAVE ADMITTED PUBLICLY THE
PRESIDENT DID CONDITION THE
MILITARY AID ON
INVESTIGATIONS.
MICK MULVANEY HAS ADMITTED IT
AND WAS ASKED AS A QUID PRO
QUO AND SAID WE DO THAT ALL
THE  TIME.
GET OVER IT.
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CHIEF OF
STAFF MADE THAT ADMISSION AND
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THE
PRESIDENT TOLD HOME MY - -
TOLD HIM WITH NO QUID PRO QUO
BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO
GO TO THE MICROPHONE TO
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION AND
HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.
NOW WE HAVE A THIRD WITNESS
WHO IS APPARENTLY A DIRECT
WITNESS TYING THE MILITARY AID
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WE COULD NOT
HAVE MADE A MORE POWERFUL CASE
FOR CALLING HIM THEN THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS JESTED TO
CONTEST THAT LINK BETWEEN
MILITARY AID AND
INVESTIGATIONS SO THEY
UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF
JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS WHO
WOULD CORROBORATE EXACTLY THE
UNCONTESTED EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS WITH THAT POLITICAL
SHAM INVESTIGATION.
A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS THERE
SEEMS TO BE A SHIFT OF WHERE
THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE
AND IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO
MAINTAIN THEY WANT A FAIR
TRIAL AND KNOW ALL THE FACTS
WHEN THE WITNESS THAT SAYS I'M
READY I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY
HE HAS GIVEN AN OUTLINE IS
HARD TO SAY WE WILL NOT HEAR
THAT.
BUT A COUPLE OF OTHER 
POINTS, FIRST OF ALL THEY WENT
TO GREAT LINKS THAT I FOUND
WAS ABUSING TO SAY GIULIANI IS
JUST A DISTRACTION THE ONE
THAT BOLTON DESCRIBED AS A
HAND GRENADE HE'S A BIT PLAYER
THE HOUSE ONLY BRINGS THEM UP
TO DISTRACT YOU.
IT WASN'T THE HOUSE THAT WAS
ON THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO SAY REPEATEDLY HE
WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO
TALK TO RUDY HIS NAME CAME UP
MORE THAN ANY OTHER PERSON'S
NAME SO WHY WAS THAT IF HE WAS
SUCH A BIT PLAYER AS THE
PRESIDENT'S TEAM WOULD NOW
HAVE YOU BELIEVE?
SO WITH THE THREE AMIGOS AND
VOLKER AND SONDLAND AFTER THE
INAUGURATION WHAT DOES THE
PRESIDENT SAY?
YOU HAVE TO TALK TO RUDY.
WE HAVE TESTIMONY INCLUDING
AMBASSADORS SONDLAND TO WORK
THROUGH GIULIANI.
AND THE STATEMENT OF THE
UKRAINIANS PROPOSED DIDN'T
MEET GIULIANI'S REQUIREMENTS
AND TO UNDERSCORE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN HE IS AN AGENT OF
THE PRESIDENT SO TRY AS THEY
MADE TO MARGINALIZE HIS ROLE
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO IN LIGHT
OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND
THEN FINALLY, THE BIDENS.
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER SPENT
ABOUT TWO HOURS TRASHING THE
BIDENS FOR WHAT THEY COULD NOT
EXPLAIN IS WHY IT WAS
PRESIDENT TRUMP ONLY NOW WHEN
JOE BIDEN BECAME A CANDIDATE
FOR  PRESIDENT, WHY
ONLY NOW DOES HE HAVE A SUDDEN
INTEREST IN HUNTER BIDEN AND
BURISMA?
WHY DID HE SHOW THAT INTEREST
IN 2017 OR 2018?
WHY WAS HE WILLING TO MEET
WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE AND NOT RAISE THIS
ISSUE IF HE HAD SUCH A
PROFOUND CONCERN OF HUNTER
BIDEN AND BURISMA?
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT HIS
FATHER WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST
DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT.
IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR WHY
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A SUDDEN
INTEREST IN HUNTER BIDEN AND
BURISMA AND NOT BECAUSE OF AN
APPARENT OR PERCEIVED CONFLICT
OF INTEREST.
YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF THIS
PRESIDENT IS IT CREDIBLE OF
ALL PRESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE A
DEEP FOUND CONCERN OVER THE
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST OR A BUSINESS
INTEREST OF A VICE
PRESIDENTIAL SON OR CHILD.
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE A
VERY TOUGH BURDEN AND ANYONE
DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT UNDER
THESE FACTS WILL HAVE A TOUGH
CASE TO MAKE.
BUT THEY LEFT PIVOTAL
QUESTIONS UNANSWERED AND AT
THE END OF THE DAY THEY DON'T
CONTEST THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SOUGHT TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO
HELP THEM CHEAT IN THE
ELECTIONS.
>> HE SUGGESTED WERE YOU IN
ANY WAY INVOLVED?
>> PERSONALLY IT CAME AS QUITE
A SURPRISE WHEN THE NEW YORK
TIMES STORY CAME OUT BUT
THAT'S WHAT REPRESENTATIVE
MEADOWS HAS RIGHT NOW.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE REASONS
WHY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ALLIES HAVE WANTED TO SUPPRESS
JOHN BOLTON'S TESTIMONY.
EVIDENTLY THEY HAVE A
MANUSCRIPT THEY UNDERSTAND
WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAD TO SAY
THAT THE QUESTION THE SENATORS
WILL HAVE TO ANSWER IS HOW
WILL THEY EXPLAIN WHY THEY
WAITED UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN THE
BOOK COMES OUT FOR THE
SENATORS THEMSELVES TO LEARN
KEY FACTS IN THIS TRIAL?
I THINK IT WILL BE ENORMOUSLY
DIFFICULT TO RATIONALIZE WITH
WITNESSES.
>> THAT THE HOUSE BLEW IT.
>> THEY MADE THE ARGUMENT THE
HOUSE DID NOT ASK FOR
TESTIMONY.
THAT IS FALSE.
WE DID ASK.
WHEN HE REFUSED FOR THE
TESTIMONY HIS LAWYER TOLD US
IF YOU SERVE MISTER BOLTON
WITH A SUBPOENA HE WILL FIGHT
YOU IN COURT AND SUE YOU AS
HIS DEPUTIES SUED THE HOUSE.
HAD WE DONE THAT, NINE MONTHS
LATER WE WOULD STILL BE IN
COURT TO GET HIS TESTIMONY.
THE QUESTION IS, WHY WAS JOHN
BOLTON DETERMINED TO GO TO
COURT TO FIGHT TESTIMONY IN
THE HOUSE BUT NOW WILLING TO
COME BEFORE THE SENATE?
THAT'S IN QUESTION HE SHOULD
ANSWER BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY THE SENATORS CANNOT HIDE
FROM IRRELEVANT WITNESS WHO IS
COMFORTABLE AND WILLING TO
TESTIFY AND ONE THAT HAS SUCH
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION.
>> THAT WAS CONGRESSMAN ADAM
SCHIFF THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA 28
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND A
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR.
THE STORY THAT'S DOMINATING
WASHINGTON DC IS THE HEADLINE
FRONT PAGE NEW YORK TIMES
PUBLISH YESTERDAY MONEY TO
UKRAINE TIED BUT THE EXCERPTS
PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK
TIMES AND SENATE REACTION
INCLUDING FROM SENATOR HARRIS
FROM CALIFORNIA AND JOHN
BOLTON HAS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF
TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT HE MUST
TESTIFY.
EVERYDAY PEOPLE ARE CONFRONTED
WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE WHY
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE
TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY HE'S
NOT ABOVE THE LAW CENTER FOR
RAND PAUL REPUBLICAN OF
KENTUCKY WHY DIDN'T JOHN
BOLTON TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE
BECAUSE HIS BOOK WAS NOT
FINISHED YET FOR PRE- SALES.
DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE SAY
THAT CAN START COMPLAINING
IMPEACHMENT IS BAD AND BONDI
COMPLAINING ABOUT A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST AND THEN NEPOTISM
AS HYPOCRITICAL AS IT IS
IRRELEVANT AND ONE OTHER TWEET
SAYING SENATOR BROWN THE
REPUBLICAN OF INDIANA THE LAST
HOUR WAS THE CRUX OF THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
THE SENATE IS IN RECESS FOR
ABOUT 45 MINUTES THAT WILL
LIKELY GO BEYOND THAT AS SOON
AS THE TRIAL RESUMES WE WILL
GO LIVE.
IN THE MEANTIME, YOUR PHONE
CALLS THANK YOU FOR OUR
WAITING IN WASHINGTON.
>>Caller: PERK I JUST WANT
TO SAY I APPLAUD THE DEFENSE
TEAM MEETING THIS DEFENSE I
REALLY APPRECIATED KEN'S STAR
HOLE RUN DOWN ON THE
IMPEACHMENT MOST AMERICAN
SHOULD LISTEN TO IT AND IN
FACT PUT THAT OUT IN ALL THE
SCHOOLS.
HE BROKE IT DOWN TO A VERY
REASONABLE APPROACH FOR EVERY
AMERICAN TO UNDERSTAND HOW
IMPEACHMENT WORKS.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF THIS
INFORMATION.
EVEN I HAD IT HOW IMPEACHMENT
WORKS.
IT WAS WONDERFUL TO HEAR
THAT.
I HAD NOT REALIZED THE SENATE
ITSELF HAD SWORN INTO ITSELF
TO RUN THE TRIAL AS A PEER ONE
- - AS OPPOSED TO THE HOUSE I
THOUGHT IT WAS A FREE-FOR-ALL
WHO EVER YOU WANTED TO SUPPORT
THE NARRATIVE TO SHOW UP AND I
THINK THE DEFENSE TEAM IS
DOING A GREAT JOB.
I WOULD SAY THEY SHOULDN'T
PULL ANY MORE WITNESSES.
THE IDEA IS THE HOUSE DID DUE
DILIGENCE ACCORDING TO THEM SO
NOW WHY DO THEY SAY YOU NEED
TO PULL MORE WITNESSES?
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO THEY
ARE EXTENDING THE TWO ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT AND DOING A
GREAT JOB.
WHY BRING MORE INTO THIS AND
KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET AS
OPPOSED TO THE MONTHS OF AD
NAUSEA FROM THE DEMOCRATS THE
SENATE SHOULD KEEP IT SHORT
AND SWEET BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT DO ANYTHING WRONG.
>> THE CHIEF JUSTICES 65th
BIRTHDAY DONNA IS JOINING US
FROM GEORGIA.
>> WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN AND
HEARD SO FAR?
>> I'M WATCHING FROM THE
BEGINNING AND AN EXCELLENT
TEACHER IN HISTORY IN MORE
WAYS THAN ONE KEN'S STAR - -
CAN STAR LAID THAT OUT I
CANNOT WRAP MY MIND THAT THEY
ARE ACCUSING THIS PRESIDENT
LIKE A QUID PRO QUO OR
WHATEVER THEY ARE SAYING OR
TRYING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE
2020 ELECTIONS I AM TOTALLY
OFFENDED BY IT ALL.
THE DEMOCRATS JUST DO NOT LIKE
MISTER TRUMP.
THAT'S OKAY.
THEY CANNOT LIKE SOMEBODY AT
ALL AND ELECTIONS HAVE
CONSEQUENCES.
I PERSONALLY DO NOT CARE FOR
MISTER OBAMA I DO NOT BELIEVE
IN THE DIRECTION HE TOOK OUR
COUNTRY BUT I DID NOT COMPLAIN
AND TRY TO IMPEACH THE MAN.
BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT HE DID
WERE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS HE LIED
TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
>> WE ARE 46 MINUTES INTO A 45
MINUTE BREAK BECAUSE AS SOON
AS THE SENATE COMES IN ME WILL
TAKE YOU THERE LIVE
TECHNICALLY THEY RUN LONGER
THAN SCHEDULED AS SENATORS
MOVE FROM THE GALLERY AND THE
FLOOR TO THEIR OFFICES AND
THEN RETURN THIS IS FROM
CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS THE
FOLLOWING POINT THE HOUSE
RUSHING TO JUDGMENT CAUSING
ALL THIS THEY HATE THE
PRESIDENT THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW
ANY RULES OF LAW THEY JUST
WANT THEM OUT OF OFFICE
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A
CHANCE TO WIN BACK THE
PRESIDENCY AND THIS WILL COST
THEM THE HOUSE AS WELL A TEXT
MESSAGE FROM A MASSACHUSETTS
AND CAM RANH AND OKLAHOMA
CITY.
WILL ANY MISINFORMATION BE
CALLED OUT AMERICANS DESERVE
WITNESSES.
SENT US A TEXT MESSAGE ON THE
REPUBLICAN LINE GOOD EVENING.
>> HELLO.
I'M ON THE DEMOCRATIC LINE.
I FEEL KEN STARR WAS RICH HOW
HYPOCRITICAL HE WAS TODAY.
>> YOU MEAN THE INVESTIGATION
FROM CLINTON 20 YEARS AGO?
>> RIGHT.
ANYWAYS I DID NOT APPRECIATE
HIS LECTURE.
I THINK IT IS EMBLEMATIC OF
WHAT THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE
TEAM HAS DONE SO FAR AND THAT
IS TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING
EXCEPT ATTEMPTING TO DIRECTLY
CONTRADICT THE EXCELLENT, VERY
SOLID AND VERY LOGICAL CASE
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUT IN
PLACE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CALL
LINDA FROM OREGON.
WITH YOUR REFERENCES TO
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AS A
HIGHLY INTERESTED VOTER I DO
NOT UNDERSTAND HOW A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL HEARING CAN PROCEED
WITHOUT WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS.
FLORIDA IS NEXT ON THE
REPUBLICAN LINE GO AHEAD.
>>Caller: I AM QUITE
CONCERNED ADAM SCHIFF DID NOT
LISTEN TO THE PRESENTATION OF
ALL OF THE LAWYERS THAT SET
FORTH THE DEMOCRATIC SLANT
INTO THE WHOLE OPERATION.
IF THE HOUSE HAD NOT GAINED
THE VICTORY BY DEMOCRATS THIS
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD NEVER
BE IN PROCESS SPIRIT THAT WAS
THE SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER
MITCH MCCONNELL WHO WAS UP FOR
REELECTION IN KENTUCKY.
WE HAVE CAMERAS POSITIONED TO
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE ALSO
IN THE BASEMENT YOU CAN HEAR
THE SUBWAY SOUND IN THE
BASEMENT AS IT TAKES THE
SENATORS TO AND FROM THEIR
OFFICE BUILDINGS.
REPUBLICANS ARE REPEATING THE
SAME TALKING POINTS THAT ADAM
SCHIFF CLAIMED THEY WOULD.
FOR MASSACHUSETTS GOOD EVENING.
>> I HAVE TO SAY I'VE ALWAYS
BEEN A FAN OF ALAN DERSHOWITZ
HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND I
LIKE HOW HE IS DEMOCRAT BUT
INDEPENDENT THINKING AND DOES
WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT FOR
THE COUNTRY HE HAS BEEN VERY
PERSUASIVE TO ME I'M FED UP
WITH THIS WHOLE PARTISAN GOING
AFTER THE PRESIDENT JUST
BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM I
AM OF THE MINDSET JUST BEAT
THEM AT THE BALLOT BOX AND I
THINK I WILL SWITCH OVER TO
INDEPENDENT AFTER WATCHING ALL
THIS.
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
>> WE HEARD FROM JONI ERNST
TALKING ABOUT THE CAUCUSES ONE
WEEK FROM TONIGHT YOU CAN
WATCH THEM LIVE HERE ON C-SPAN
NETWORK.
>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY
CALL.
TO BE IN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP
FROM DAY NUMBER ONE AS THE
ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT TO
MAXINE WATERS IMPEACH 45.
I CAN GO ON AND ON.
WITH A REPUBLICAN ISSUE I WOKE
UP THIS MORNING WITH THE
MANUSCRIPT OF BOLTON AND I
DON'T HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION
BUT AS FAR AS COLLEGE
EDUCATION.
>> THE HILL NEWSPAPER SAYS THE
SENATE WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THE
NUMBER TWO SAYS MAYBE YOU DID
BECAUSE YOU ARE WRITING THE
STORIES BUT NO WE DID NOT KNOW
IT WAS COMING FROM THE FRONT
PAGE STORY ON THE NEW YORK
TIMES WEBSITE BOLTON REVEALED
IF HE DID WITHHOLD AID TO
UKRAINE UNLESS HE HAD
POLITICAL DIRT ON THE BIDENS.
GOOD EVENING.
>> I ACTUALLY STUDIED BUSINESS
LAW WHEN I WENT TO SCHOOL.
I SEE IT FROM BOTH SIDES
LOOKING AT THE DEMOCRATIC'S
CASE THEY HAVE OVER 21 HOURS
THAT THEY TALKED A LOT OF
PEOPLE THINK THIS IS ABOUT
IMPEACHING HIM BUT THE CURRENT
HEARING IS THE WITNESSES IT
WAS ONLY IF THERE WAS
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE I KNOW
MANY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OBAMA
BUT WHEN THAT IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY STARTED.
>> AND NOW JOINING US FROM
CALIFORNIA CITY.
>> YES.
I REALLY AM DISAPPOINTED WITH
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHICH IS
ALL OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES
THEY NEED TO GET ON WITH WHAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THEM
ALL TO DO WHICH IS TAKE CARE
OF AMERICA NOT THEIR OWN
POCKETS AND SPEND ALL OF OUR
MONEY WE HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS
AND NOW IS THE TIME.
I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT
EVERY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE MY
FAMILY HAS IN WITH THE
DEMOCRATS FOR YEARS AND LET ME
TELL YOU THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE
PUT THIS PRESIDENT DOWN AND
BEING PRIOR MILITARY MYSELF I
HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BUT LET ME
TELL YOU THESE POLITICIANS
NEED TO GO BACK AND LET THE
HOMELESS PEOPLE RUN THIS
COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY WOULD
PROBABLY DO A LOT BETTER JOB
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO
SAY I WILL LEAVE IT THERE.
>> MATTER WHO YOU ARE GO SEE
SECURITY THIS IS ONE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS GOING
THROUGH SECURITY AS HE ARRIVES
AT THE CAPITAL.
>> I'M SO GLAD YOU TOOK MY
CALL.
I'M GOING TO GIVE A DIFFERENT
SPIN BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN FOR THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE
HE STANDS UP FOR TRUTH THIS IS
A SPIRITUAL BATTLE PEOPLE NEED
TO REALIZE THIS NEW SHINY
OBJECT FROM BOLTON IS JUST
MORE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CANNOT
STAND THAT THE TRUTH SHALL
PREVAIL.
>> WE WILL GO BACK TO THE
SENATE FLOOR.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE AND
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND
HOUSE MANAGERS, WE WILL DO TWO
THINGS THIS EVENING.
WE WILL HEAR FROM ROBERT RAY.
HE WILL DISCUSS ISSUES HOW HE
WAS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATIONS
AND LEGAL ISSUES AND THEN WE
WILL CONCLUDE THIS EVENING
WITH PRESENTATIONS FROM
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SO I
WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TIME
MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE TO ROBERT
RAY.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND
DISTINGUISHED HOUSE MANAGERS
AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT I STAND BEFORE YOU
TODAY IN DEFENSE OF MY FELLOW
AMERICANS WHO IN NOVEMBER 2016
ELECTED DONALD TRUMP TO SERVE
THE PEOPLE AS THEIR PRESIDENT
THE REASONS FOR THAT VOTE ARE
AS VARIED AS ANY DECISIONS BUT
THE 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 THE UNITED STATES ON
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY
DO NOT ALLEGE CRIME THE
FRAMERS INTENT AND THE
HISTORICAL PRACTICE ALL
DICTATE THAT WELL-FOUNDED
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT
THE HIGH CRIME HAS BEEN
COMMITTED AND AS SUCH REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE IS WARRANTED ONLY
WHEN SUCH AN OFFENSE ALSO
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF THE
PUBLIC TRUST.
THAT IS IN THE CASE OF THE
PRESIDENT A VIOLATION OF OATH
OF OFFICE.
BOTH ARE REQUIRED AND NEITHER
BY A CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE
EVIDENCE IS SHOWN HERE BY
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
I AM HERE THIS EVENING IN THIS
CHAMBER PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT
AND DEFEND THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES ON THE FACTS
, THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT
MUST BE PARAMOUNT TO
YOU, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TO
DECIDE THE GREAT QUESTION IF
THESE ARTICLES WARRANT WITH OR
WITHOUT WITNESSES THE REMOVAL
OF THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
BECAUSE THERE IS AND CAN BE NO
BASIS ON WHICH THE SENATE CAN
OR SHOULD CONVICT THE
PRESIDENT HE MUST NOT BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
THAT JUDGMENT IS RESERVED TO
THE PEOPLE IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF ELECTIONS IN NEXT IS
OVER NINE MONTHS AWAY.
FORTY YEARS AGO IN 19881st
CAME TO CAPITOL HILL AS A
LEGISLATIVE INTERN FOR A
CONGRESSMAN WHO ONLY SIX YEARS
EARLIER PLAYED AN IMPORTANT
AND CRITICAL ROLE AGAINST
PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON.
THE CONGRESSMAN OF WHOM I
SPEAK THAT I CAME TO RESPECT
IMMENSELY SERVED THEN AND 1974
WITH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE PAST IN THE SUMMER
OF 1974 WITH HIS COLLEAGUES TO
EVALUATE AND VOTE AS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HERE HAVE WITH
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
INCLUDING THE CRIME OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE
OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
BUT UNLIKE HOW HOUSE MANAGERS
45 YEARS LATER DECEMBER 2019
PROCEEDED HERE BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS IN 1974 ALONG WITH
HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND HOUSE
REPUBLICANS WAS THE ORDER OF
THE DAY. . . . . CLAIM AND ORDEE
RELEASE OF THE TAPES TO THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
AS A RESULT, THREE DAYS LATER,
THE HIGH CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE INCLUDING PERJURY
TETHERED TO A SECOND ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT TWO DAYS AFTER
THAT, ALLEGING ABUSE OF POWER
WAS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY A VOTE
OF 27 TO 11, AND 28 TO TEN
RESPECTIVELY.
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT ALLEGED 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 FBI
TO ADVANCE THE COVER-UP.
THAT IS THAT CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
CHARGE IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THE CRIMES ALLEGED WERE
SERIOUS, INVOLVING UNLAWFUL
SURVEILLANCE OF A POLITICAL
PARTY, PAYING HUSH MONEY OUT
OF US WHITE HOUSE SAFETY
BURGLARS, AND OTHER
CO-CONSPIRATORS TO SILENCE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ATTEMPTS TO
ALTER TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
SIX REPUBLICAN HOUSE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS JOINED ALL 21
DEMOCRATS IN SUPPORTING THOSE
TWO ARTICLES.
MY CONGRESSMAN WAS AMONG THOSE
SIX REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS.
ANOTHER ONE OF THE SIX WAS
THEN A YOUNG CONGRESSMAN FROM
MAINE, WHO LATER BECAME A
MEMBER OF THIS BODY, SERVING
WITH DISTINCTION AS A SENATOR
AND LATER AS PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON'S SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE.
A THIRD OF THE SIX WAS
REPRESENTATIVE CALDWELL
BUTLER, A REPUBLICAN FIRM
VIRGINIA WHOSE PAPERS ARE
HOUSED AT WASHINGTON AND LEE
UNIVERSITY IN LEXINGTON
VIRGINIA AND THE STATE WHERE I
GREW UP, AND WHERE I LATER
WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.
TOGETHER, THESE SIX
REPUBLICANS MADE HISTORY.
THEY DID SO WITH NO SENSE OF
TRIUMPH, AND TODAY'S NO FIST
BUMPS, BUT ONLY IN THE WORDS
OF MY CONGRESSMAN'S WITH DEEP
RELUCTANCE AND ONLY BECAUSE
THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE OF UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY BY THE PRESIDENT IN A
CRIMINAL COVER-UP THAT WAS IN
THE CONCLUDING LANGUAGE OF THE
FIRST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRARY TO HIS TRUST AS
PRESIDENT.
AFTER THE THIRD ARTICLE IN THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THAT
ARTICLE OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS
DID NOT HAVE BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT BUT WAS VOTED ON BY
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALONG
PARTY LINES BY A VOTE OF 21 TO
17.
REPUBLICANS OBJECTED THEN TO
THE THIRD ARTICLE IN THE FACE
OF THE PRESIDENT'S GOOD FAITH
PRIOR CLAIM TO EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE BY WITHHOLDING
CERTAIN EVIDENCE UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS THE MATTER WAS
DEFINITIVELY 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 THAT YOU ALL HAVE
BEEN DEPRIVED OF YOUR PHONES,
AND THUS A CALCULATOR APP.
SO I WILL DO IT FOR YOU.
AT 27 TO 11 VOTE WAS NOT ONLY
BIPARTISAN AS I INDICATED, BUT
OVERWHELMINGLY SO.
INDEED OVER 70%.
THAT IS TO SAY, GREATER THAN A
TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY.
THAT'S VOTE, SENDS A POWERFUL
SIGNAL TO THE FULL HOUSE.
AND INDEED THE SENATE THAT
IMPEACHMENT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY
BIPARTISAN AND THEREFORE
POLITICALLY AND LEGALLY
LEGITIMATE.
PRESIDENT NIXON'S FATE WAS
SEALED, AND THE RESULT WAS
INEVITABLE.
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT
COMMITTEE VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT,
THE PRESIDENT RESIGNED.
MY CONGRESSMAN DURING THE
COURSE OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS
COMMENTED 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 THEN BRINGS ME WHAT WAS
INTENDED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION RELATIVE TO
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT SUBJECT WILL BE ADDRESSED
AT SOME LENGTH BY MY COLLEAGUE
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ.
BUT MUCH HAS BEEN SAID BY
HOUSE MANAGERS AND ALEXANDER
HAMILTON'S OFT QUOTED
STATEMENT IN FEDERALIST NUMBER
65.
THAT'S THE ONE REPEATEDLY
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND CITED
IN FAVOR OF AN EXPANSIVE SCOPE
OF JURISDICTION BY CONGRESS
OVER ALLEGED OFFENSES.
IN HAMILTON'S WORDS WHICH
PROCEED FROM MISCONDUCT OF A
PUBLIC OFFICIAL, CONSTITUTING
THE ABUSE OF, OR VIOLATION OF
SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
THE IRONY, THAT HAMILTON, THE
GREATEST PROPONENTS IN THIS
COUNTRY, OF EXECUTIVE AND
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY, THAT
PERHAPS 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 THAT 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
ACKNOWLEDGED IN FEDERALIST
NUMBER 69, THAT A PRESIDENT
CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE UPON CONVICTION OF,
TREASON BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE SHOULD JUST READ THE WORD
CRIME, RIGHT OUT OF THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND PRECEDENT
THAT MERRILY ALONG THE WAY
TOWARDS AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL,
WITH WITNESSES NO LESS, BUY
PRESENT DULY ELECTED BY THE
PEOPLE.
AND FOR WHAT?
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY
DO NOT EVEN ALLEGED CRIMES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT, THAT
COURSE, IF SUSTAINED, CHEAPENS
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND
THUS IS AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY
ALL ITS OWN.
INDEED IN NONE OTHER THAN
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S HIGHLY
RESPECTED COUNCIL CHARLES
RUFF, DURING THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL 21 YEARS AGO IN JANUARY
OF 1999 STATED AND I QUOTE, TO
ARGUE AS THE MANAGERS DO, THAT
THE PHRASE OTHER 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, NEW
EXACTLY WHAT THOSE WORDS
MEANT, AND KNEW EXACTLY WHAT
RISK THEY INTENDED TO PROTECT
AGAINST,".
ONE OF THOSE CONCERNS AND
RISK, COUNCIL RUFF WENT ON TO
EXPLAIN, WAS THAT IMPEACHMENT
BE LIMITED AND WELL DEFINED.
FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE, WHAT IS
REQUIRED IS THE CRIME IS
ALLEGED AND THOSE CRIME SPREE
OF THE TYPE THAT IN
PARTICULAR, ARE SO SERIOUS
THAT THEY, AGAIN IN MR. RUFF'S
WORDS, QUOTE SUBMIT OUR
GOVERNMENT WITH JUSTIFY
OVERTURNING A POPULAR
ELECTION".
OTHERWISE WHAT YOU HAVE, AND
TOCQUEVILLE'S WORDS IS
LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY.
THAT, TAKEN IN ITS PROPER
CONTEXT, MEMBER OF THE SENATE
I RESPECT LEIGH SUBMIT IS WHAT
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WELL
UNDERSTOOD AND MEANT.
AND SO DID MY CONGRESSMAN.
THAT CONGRESSMAN WAS OF COURSE
HAMILTON FISK JUNIOR.
ACTUALLY HE WAS NOT REALLY
JUNIOR, BUT HE WAS THE
FOURTH.
HIS GREAT-GRANDFATHER WAS ALSO
HAMILTON FOR SHE WAS BORN IN
1808, LATER SERVED AS GOVERNOR
OF NEW YORK, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE
CIVIL WAR, AND NOTABLY AS
PRESIDENT ... HE GRANTS
SECRETARY OF STATE.
BUT WHAT I DID NOT REALIZE AT
THE TIME BACK IN 1980, EVEN
THOUGH NOW IT IS SO OBVIOUS,
THE ORIGINAL
HAMILTON FIST WAS NAMED AFTER
THEIR PARENTS BEST FRIEND
ALEXANDER HAMILTON HIMSELF.
WHAT HAMILTON FISH FROM THE
WATERGATE ERA COURAGEOUSLY
UNDERSTOOD, IS THE SAME
HISTORICAL LESSON THAT JEFFREY
INGLE, FOUNDING DIRECTOR FOR
PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY OF HAS
WRITTEN ABOUT AND CO-AUTHORED
A 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, IN
THIS CASE THE 63 MILLION
PEOPLE LIKE ME, WHO VOTED FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP, EXCEPT HIS
GUILT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGE
AND ORDER TO OVERWHELMINGLY
PERSUADE A SUPER MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS AND THUS THEIR
SENATORS FROM ALFIE WITT VINCE
AND WANTING HIS REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE.
AND FINALLY BECAUSE IT IS THE
PRESIDENT AFTER UNITED STATES
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE
REPOSITORY OF A AND ENTRUSTED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WITH
ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF
THE UNITED STATES.
IN OTHER WORDS AN ENTIRE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE CANNOT BE BASED
UPON AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR
OFFENSES WHICH ARE IN ESSENCE
NOTHING MORE THAN PARAPHRASING
PRESIDENT GERALD FORD NOW,
WHATEVER PARTISAN MAJORITY OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONSIDERS THEM TO BE.
AND TO SUPPLEMENT THAT CITED
STATEMENT FROM 50 YEARS AGO.
IN 1970, FROM THEN CONGRESSMAN
WITH THE PROSPECT OF
POTENTIALLY IMPEACHING A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, FORD
POINTEDLY CLARIFIED THAT
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHMENTS
ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE VOTERS
CAN REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, THE
VICE PRESIDENT, AND ALL
PERSONS HOLDING OFFICE AT
THEIR PLEASURE AT LEAST EVERY
FOUR YEARS.
TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT IN MID
TERM, IT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE
AND NEVER DONE WHEN INDEED HE
SAID REQUIRE CRIMES OF THE
MAGNITUDE OF TREASON AND
BRIBERY.
PROFESSOR X HEAL AMAR OF YALE
LAW SCHOOL MADE THE SAME POINT
DURING THE PIT-IMPEACHMENT.
ABOUT THE DANGER THROUGH
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OF
TRANSFORMING AN ENTIRE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT.
WHEN THEY REMOVE A DULY
ELECTED PRESIDENT, THEY UNDO
THE VOTES OF MILLIONS OF
ORDINARY CITIZENS ON ELECTION
DAY.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING, HE
CONTINUED THAT SENATORS SHOULD
DO LIGHTLY BLESSED WE FLY
TOWARDS A KIND OF
PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT THAT
OUR ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
REPUDIATES.
AND HAMMERING HOME THE
CONSTITUTIONAL UNIQUENESS OF
PRESIDENTIAL 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 POWER INDEED
POSE A THREAT TO OUR BASIC
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.
A THREAT IS HIGH AND TRULY AS
MALIGNANT TO DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT IS TREASON AND
BRIBERY, HE REASONED WITH THE
SENATE EVER BE ABLE TO NULLIFY
THE VOTES AND REMOVE 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 RUFF WARNED A
GENERATION AGO, EMPTY VESSELS
OF WHICH CAN BE POURED IN A
NUMBER OF CHARGES, EVEN THOSE
CONSIDERED ABANDON.
AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
IMPEACHMENT, THE ARTICLES
ACTUALLY CHARGED CRIMES.
THE SENATE THEREAFTER
DETERMINED BY ITS VOTE IN THAT
CASE, AND EFFECTS THAT WHILE
THOSE CRIMES, PERJURY AND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MAY
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, THOSE
CRIMES WERE NOT HIGH ENOUGH
CRIMES DAMAGING TO THE BODY
POLITIC TO WARNS 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 AGREED WITH IT OR
NOT, IT'S LEGITIMATE.
IT IS ALSO ONE THAT IS
HISTORICALLY CONSISTENT WITH
HAMILTON'S VIEWS AND MEDICINES
TOO, CONCERNING THE PROPER
SCOPE OF IMPEACHMENT AS
APPLIED TO A PRESIDENT.
WHEN I ENTERED THE SCENE AND
SUCCEEDED MY COLLEAGUE AND
COCOUNSEL HERE, JUDGE KENNETH
STARR AS INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
IN OCTOBER 1999, IT WAS LEFT
FOR ME TO IT DECIDE WHERE THE
PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S FOLLOWING
IMPEACHMENT WAS NONETHELESS
WARRANTED.
CONSISTENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE PRINCIPLES OF
FEDERAL PROSECUTION.
AND THAT MATTER WAS
EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED.
IN THE MIDST OF A FEDERAL
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION, I
COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO DECIDE
FIRST WHETHER CRIMES HAD IN
FACT BEEN COMMITTED.
I FOUND THAT THEY HAD.
AND I LATER SAID SO PUBLICLY
IN THE FINAL REPORTS,
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED AND
MANDATED BY CONGRESS,
CONCLUDING THE LEWINSKY
INVESTIGATION.
SIGNIFICANTLY THOUGH, I ALSO
DETERMINED THAT THE
PROSECUTION OF THE PRESIDENT,
WHILE IN, OR ONCE HE LEFT
OFFICE WOULD NOT BE IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, GIVEN
ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE MEANS
SHORT OF PROSECUTION IN ORDER
TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT.
THOSE MEANS INCLUDE A WRITTEN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE
PRESIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER HIS
SENATE TRIAL, THAT HIS
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH WITH THE
GRAND JURY HAD AN BEEN FALSE
AND A RELATED AGREEMENT TO
SUSPEND HIS LAW LICENSE.
THE PRICE PAID BY PRESIDENT
CLINTON WAS INDEED HI, AND IT
STEMMED IN THE END, FROM THE
NEED TO VINDICATE THE
PRINCIPAL, FIRST RAISE MOST
PROMINENTLY DURING WATERGATE
THAT NO PERSON, INCLUDING THE
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.
DESPITE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
SUBSEQUENT POST TEST IN HIS
MEMOIRS THAT I WAS JUST
ANOTHER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR OUT
TO EXTRACT, IN HIS WORDS A
POUND OF FLESH, I CREDIT THE
PRESIDENT TO THIS DAY WITH
AGREEING TO DO WHAT WAS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EXERCISE
MY DISCRETION NOT TO
PROSECUTE.
NAMELY, THAT FOR THE GOOD OF
THE COUNTRY AND RECOGNIZING
THE UNIQUE PLACE THAT THE
PRESIDENT, INDEED ANY
PRESIDENT, OCCUPIES IN HER
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCRETION
GO HAND-IN-HAND AND PERMIT
INDEED DEMANDED SUCH AN
APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION.
IT ENABLED THE COUNTRY TO MOVE
ON AND IT WAS AS MUCH IF MORE
A CREDIT TO BILL CLINTON THAN
TO ANY CREDIT THAT I RECEIVE
OR DESERVE THAT WE WERE ABLE
TO REACH AN AGREEMENT AND
AVOID ANY MORE RIP PARTISAN
BECAUSE OF THE WILL WAS THE
PEOPLE.
BY ELECTING AND REELECTING
CLINTON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND HIS SUCCESSOR GEORGE W.
BUSH.
IN SHORT I WAS ABSOLUTELY
MINDFUL, AND EXCEEDINGLY
CONCERNED TO ROUTE TO MY
TENURE AS INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
THAT ALTHOUGH CRIMES HAD BEEN
COMMITTED, BILL CLINTON WAS
THE ELECTED OFFICIAL PLACE IN
OFFICE BY VOTERS THROUGHOUT
THE NATION, AND HEAD OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AND I WAS NOT.
THE LESSON FOR ME WAS A SIMPLE
ONE.
THAT I AM SURE EVERY AMERICAN
CITIZEN, WHATEVER THEIR OWN
EXPERIENCE OR POLITICAL
PERSPECTIVE CAN UNDERSTAND.
BE HUMBLE, AND ACT WITH
HUMILITY, NEVER BEING TOO SURE
YOU ARE RIGHT.
TODAY, 20 YEARS LATER WHAT WE
HAVE LEARNED FROM THAT -- WHAT
HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THAT
EXPERIENCE?
I FEAR THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION IS NOTHING AT ALL.
IF THESE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES
NOW ARE SUSTAINED BEYOND
SUMMARY RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF
ACQUITTAL, IMPEACHMENT IN THE
FUTURE IT LITERALLY WILL MEAN
NOT THE THAT THE PROOF OF HIGH
CRIMES IS NO LONGER NECESSARY
TO SUSTAIN THE EFFORT, BUT NO
CRIME AT ALL IS SUFFICIENT AS
LONG AS THEY PARTISAN IN THE
HOUSE ALSO.
AND BEST IN THE PAST FOUR
MONTHS ALONE, WE HAVE A
WITNESS THE ENDLESS PROCESSION
OF LEGAL THEORIES USED TO
SUSTAIN THIS PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT.
FROM TREASON TO QUID PRO QUO,
TO BRIBERY TO EXTORTION, TO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO
SOLICITATION AND ILLEGAL
FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION,
TO A VIOLATION OF THE CONTROL
ACT, TO WHO KNOWS WHAT ALL IS
NEXT.
WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH THEN,
ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT
ARTICLES, ABANDONING ANY
PRETENSE TO ALLEGE CRIMES THAT
ARE ANOTHER VEHICLE OR WEAPON
IF YOU WILL, IN ORDER TO
DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT
POLITICALLY IN AN ELECTION
YEAR.
IT IS, I SUBMITS, DECIDEDLY
NOT IN THE COUNTRY'S BEST
INTEREST TO HAVE THE
PROSECUTION OF THE GRAVE ISSUE
OF IMPEACHMENT AND THE DRASTIC
PROSPECT OF REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE, BECOME JUST POLITICS
BY OTHER MEANS.
ANYMORE THAN IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE OF
POWER OF PROSECUTION UNDER THE
CODE TO BE EXERCISED NOT ON
THE MERITS, WITHOUT FEAR OF
FAVOR, BUT INSTEAD AS A RAW,
NAKED AND PERNICIOUS EXERCISE
OF PARTISAN POWER AND
ADVANTAGE.
I HAVE SPENT THE BETTER PART
OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE, FOR
OVER 30 YEARS AS A FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR FOR 13 YEARS
THROUGH TWO INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONS.
AND NOW AS A DEFENSE LAWYER
FOR OVER 17 YEARS, TRYING MY
LEVEL BEST ALWAYS TO ASSURE
POLITICS AND PROSECUTION DO
NOT MIX.
IT MUST NOT HAPPEN HERE.
A STANDARD LIST AND PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT, IS ILLEGITIMATE.
AND SHOULD BE REJECTED AS
SUCH.
OVERWHELMINGLY BY THIS BODY, I
HOPE AND SUBMIT OR
ALTERNATIVELY AND IF NEED BE,
BY ONLY A PARTISAN REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY FOR THE GOOD OF THE
COUNTRY.
TURNING NOW TO WHAT THE HOUSE
AND MANAGERS HAVE ALLEGED.
REGARDING THE FIRST ARTICLE,
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORT ON IMPEACHMENT CONTAINS
A RATHER EXTRAORDINARY
STATEMENT.
HE SAYS AS FOLLOWS AND I
QUOTE.
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ACTIONS NEED NOT RISE TO THE
LEVEL OF A CRIMINAL VIOLATION
TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT, HIS
CONDUCT HERE WAS CRIMINAL.
".
SO IN SHORT, WE NEEDN'T BOTHER
IN IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE
CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH A
CRIME, IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZING
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO PROVE THAT SUCH A CRIME WAS
COMMITTED.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO SAY THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS
CRIMINAL NONETHELESS.
ASIDE FROM BEING EXCEEDINGLY
UNFAIR, TO CALL SOMETHING
CRIMINAL AND NOT TO STAND
BEHIND THE ALLEGATION AND
ACTUALLY CHARGE HIM, IT JUST
AIN'T SO.
I HAVE HEARD HOUSE MANAGER
HAKEEM JEFFRIES ARGUED BEFORE
THIS BODY THAT HE AND HIS TEAM
HAVE OVER WHELMING THAT IS
QUID PRO QUO PRO BY THE
PRESIDENT.
THAT'S HIS WORDS NOT MINE.
THAT IS A PROPOSED EXCHANGE BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP OF SOMETHING
OF PERSONAL BENEFIT TO HIMSELF
AND TURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT
BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
AS I HAVE EXPLAINED AS FAR
BACK AS NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR
END A TIME MAGAZINE COVER
STORY, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS
LEGAL THEORY IS THAT AN
UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO IS
LIMITED TO THOSE ARRANGEMENTS
THAT ARE CORRUPT, THAT IS TO
SAY ONLY THOSE THAT ARE
CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY
IMPROPER ARE THEREFORE
ILLEGAL.
IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, THE
SPECIFIC MEASURABLE BENEFIT
THAT AN INVESTIGATION, OR EVEN
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE
BIDEN MIGHT BRING PRESIDENT
TRUMP AT BEST NEBULOUS.
I SHOULD ADHERE ALSO, THAT ANY
EFFORT TO CONTEND THAT THIS
PURPORTED THING OF VALUE, ALSO
CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, IS FRAUGHT WITHOUT AS
A MATTER OF LAW AND INDEED THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS SET AS
MUCH.
SO TO COURT TO HAVE STRUGGLED
AT LEAST SINCE THE EARLY
1990s WITH APPLICATION OF
THE FEDERAL ANTICORRUPTION
LAWS TO SITUATIONS LIKE THIS,
WHEN AN IN-KIND BENEFIT IN THE
FORM OF CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE
OR ASSISTANCE IS ALLEGED TO BE
ILLEGAL, NONE OF THIS WOULD
PERMIT THE REQUISITE FINDING
SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE OF A
VIOLATION OF LAW NECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS AN
ABUSE OF POWER.
BUT BACK TO MANAGER JEFFRIES,
PROOF OF EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO
BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH
PARENTHETICALLY WAS PREVIOUSLY
NOTED BY MR. CIPOLLONE IS
NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VERY
DIFFERENT TELEPHONE CALL THAN
THE ONE PRESIDENT TRUMP
ACTUALLY HAD WITH UKRAINE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AS I TRY TO EXPLAIN IN THEIR
TIME MAGAZINE AND PEACE, NEXT
WOULD PULL QUOTE THAT ALLEGED
IMPROPER CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE
WOULD'VE HAD PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAYING TO HIS COUNTERPART IN
UKRAINE, AND WORDS OR
SUBSTANCE, HERE'S THE DEAL,
AND FOLLOWED UP WITH
EXPLICITLY LINKING A DEMAND
FOR 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.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS,
READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.
BY THE WAY, THE DEMANDS
CHARACTERIZATION APPARENTLY
CREEPS INTO THIS PHONE CALL
LARGELY AS THE RESULT OF ARMY
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER
VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY WHERE HE
EQUATES A REQUEST BASED ON HIS
MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND HAVING
LISTENED IN ON THE CALL BY A
SUPERIOR OFFICER, IN THIS CASE
THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS THE
SAME THING AS AN ORDER IN THE
CHAIN OF COMMAND.
WHILE ALL OF THIS MAY BE TRUE
OF THE MILITARY, IT GOES
WITHOUT SAYING THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, AS A LEADER AND HEAD
OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION, WAS
NOT AND IS NOT IN OUR MILITARY
CHAIN OF COMMAND.
I SAY THAT TO YOU, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, AS A SON OF A U.S.
ARMY COLONEL AND VIETNAM WAR
VETERAN, BURIED IN ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEMETERY AND
CURRENTLY SERVING WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPACE FORCE
COMMANDER DENVER.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY IN THIS
REGARD IS AT BEST, I SUBMIT TO
YOU DISTORTED AND
UNPERSUASIVE.
NEXT, THE PURPORTED IMPLICIT
LINK BETWEEN FOREIGN AID IN
THE INVESTIGATIONS, OR THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEM, IS
WEAK.
THE MOST THAT AMBASSADOR
GORDON SIMON WAS ABLE TO GIVE
US HIS PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH A
LINK EXISTED AND THAT
PRESUMPTION WAS CONTRADICTED
BY THE PRESIDENT'S EXPRESS
DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
QUID PRO QUO TO AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, AS WELL AS TO
SENATOR RON JOHNSON.
THE PRESIDENT WAS EMPHATIC TO
SOUND ONE, HE SAID I WANT
NOTHING, I WANT TO KNOW QUID
PRO QUO.
I JUST WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE
RIGHT THING AND DO WHAT HE RAN
ON.
TO SENATOR JOHNSON, THE SAME
THING.
JUST TWO WORDS.
NO WAY.
RECOGNIZING THIS FLAW IN THE
TESTIMONY, HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
FOCUSED INSTEAD ON AN
ALTERNATE QUID PRO QUO
RATIONALE THAT THE EXCHANGE
WAS CONDITIONED ON A FOREIGN
HEAD OF STATE MEETING AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.
IN RETURN FOR UKRAINE PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE BIDENS.
IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT,
STATES AS FOLLOWS AND I
QUOTE.
IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE VISITS
CONSTITUTE A FORMAL EXERCISE
OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITHIN
THE MEANING -- NOT SO FAST
THE SUPREME COURT IN MCDONALD
BOILED IT DOWN TO ONLY THOSE
FACTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE
FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT
POWER AND THAT ARE MORE
SPECIFIC AND FOCUSED ON A
BROAD POLICY OBJECTIVE.
AN EXCHANGE RESULTING IN
MEETINGS, EVENTS, PHONE CALLS,
AS THOSE TERMS ARE TYPICALLY
UNDERSTOOD AS BEING ROUTINE,
ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME
COURT'S DEFINITION OF AN
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 AND OFFICIAL ACTS AS A
FORMAL EXERCISE OF
DECISION-MAKING POWER.
NOT THE FORMALITY OF THE
VISIT.
EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION WERE
TRUE, THIS COULD NOT
CONSTITUTE A QUID PRO QUO.
I SHOULD KNOW, I ARGUED IN
EFFECT A CONTRARY PROPOSITION
IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS
SUN DIAMOND BEFORE THE
SPECIFIC OVER 20 YEARS AGO IN
1999.
THAT PROPOSITION LOST.
UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE WAS NINE TO NOTHING.
IN ANY EVENT, THE COVETED
MEETING, AND IT WAS AFTER ALL
JUST A MEETING, WHETHER AT THE
WHITE HOUSE OR NOT, WAS NOT
PERMANENTLY WITHHELD.
IT LATER HAPPENS BETWEEN THE
TWO PRESIDENTS AT THE UNITED
NATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY AT
THE FIRST AVAILABLE
OPPORTUNITY IN
SEPTEMBER 2019.
FINALLY, THE ARGUMENT BY
CHAIRMAN GERRY NADLER THAT
THIS CALL BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
REPRESENTED A QUOTE
EXTORTIONATE DEMAND" IS
PATENTLY RIDICULOUS.
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THIS
IS PRESSURE.
NO PRESSURE WAS EXERCISED OR
EXERTED DURING THE CALL,
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE
REPEATEDLY DENIED THIS
EXISTED.
IT INDEED TO THE CONTRARY, THE
EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS
UKRAINE WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE
OF RESISTING ANY EFFORTS TO
ENTANGLE ITSELF IN UNITED
STATES DOMESTIC PARTY POLITICS
AND PARTISANSHIP.
WHAT THEN REMAINS OF THE FIRST
ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT?
NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED.
INDEED NO CRIMES WERE EVEN
FORMALLY ALLEGED.
IN THAT REGARD, WHAT EXACTLY
IS LEFT?
IT'S NOT TREASON, UKRAINE IS
OUR ALLY, NOT OUR ENEMY OR
ADVERSARY.
AND RUSSIA IS NOT HER ENEMY,
ONLY OUR ADVERSARY.
IT'S NOT BRIBERY, THERE IS NO
QUID PRO QUO.
IT'S NOT EXTORTION, NO
PRESSURE.
IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN
COUNTRY BRING CONTRIBUTION,
THE BENEFIT OF THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION IS NOT TANGIBLE
ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE AN
IN-KIND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
WARRANTING PROSECUTION UNDER
FEDERAL LAW.
AND IS ALSO NOT A VIOLATION OF
THE ENTIRE OUT CONTROL ACT.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LAST
ONE FOR A MOMENT SHALL WE?
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, AN ARM
OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM HAS
DECIDED CONTRARY TO THE
POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICES OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, THAT 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 ASSERTIONS OF POLICY
PRIORITY, CONTRARY TO THE WILL
OF CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE TO
THIS INTERBRANCH DISPUTE
BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS TO ASSERT
HIS AUTHORITY OVER FOREIGN
POLICY TO DETERMINE THE TIMING
OF THE BEST USE OF FUNDS.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A DISPUTE
THAT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPLICATIONS UNDER SEPARATION
OF POWER PRINCIPLES ABOUT
WHICH THIS BODY IS WELL
FAMILIAR.
IT FITS THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE TO
CONTROL FOREIGN POLICY AGAINST
CONGRESSES REASONABLE
EXPECTATION THAT THE PRESIDENT
WILL COMPLY WITH THE
CONSTITUTION'S FAITHFUL
EXECUTION OF THE LAW OR
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 HIS RIGHTS, LAW
REVIEW ARTICLES HAVE BEEN
WRITTEN ABOUT IT, ONE AS
RECENTLY AS LAST JUNE IN THE
HARVARD LAW REVIEW.
CONGRESS THROUGH ITS ARM, THE
GAO, HAVE OPPOSING VIEW FROM
THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND
OMB.
BIG SURPRISE.
I AM REMINDED OF ONE OF
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S FAMOUS
PRESS CONFERENCES WHERE HE WAS
ASKED TO COMMENTS ABOUT A
REPORT THAT THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE HAS VOTED A
RESOLUTION THAT CONCLUDED HE
WAS A TOTAL FAILURE AS
PRESIDENT.
HE FAMOUSLY QUIPPED, I AM SURE
THAT IT WAS PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
THAT IS ALL THAT THIS IS HERE,
POLITICS.
NO MORE, NO LESS.
AND IN THE END, WHAT ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT?
THE TEMPORARY HOLD WAS LIFTED,
AND THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED.
AS THEY HAD TO BE UNDER THE
LAW, AND AS KNOWLEDGE WAS NONE
OTHER THAN ACTING CHIEF OF
STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, 19 DAYS
BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL
YEAR IN SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.
IN ANY EVENT ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF THE M POWER MET ACTS CAN NO
LONGER SUSTAIN AN IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLE THEN CAN ASSERTION OF
EXECUTIVE FRUIT PRIVILEGE AND
OPPOSITION OF A SUBPOENA HAVE
A FINAL DECISION OF A COURT
ORDER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT
SUBPOENA.
MIRROR ASSERTION OF A
PRIVILEGE OR OBJECTION, IN A
LEGITIMATE INTERBRANCH
DISPUTE, IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVE, IT SHOULD NEVER
RESULT IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
OR ABUSE OF POWER, OR
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
AND YET, AND A LAST DITCH
EFFORT TO REFRAIN ITS FIRST
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ON
ABUSE OF POWER, HOUSE
MANAGERS, AS PART OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE GONE
BACK INTO HISTORY, ALWAYS A
TREACHEROUS ENDEAVOR FOR
LAWYERS, THEY NOW ARGUE THAT
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON'S
IMPEACHMENT FROM OVER 150
YEARS AGO FOLLOWING THE END OF
THE CIVIL WAR, AND DURING
RECONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ABOUT
A VIOLATION OF THE TENURE OF
OFFICE ACT, WHICH WAS AFTER
ALL THE WAS CHARGE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CHARGE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
BUT INSTEAD RESTED ON HIS USE
OF POWER WITH ILLEGITIMATE
MOTIVES.
AND IN A HISTORICAL
SLEIGHT-OF-HAND, WHERE ONLY
THE NEW YORK TIMES RECENT 1619
SERIES, SERIES THAT CRITICIZED
BY HER PRINCETON CIVIL WAR AND
RECONSTRUCTION HISTORY
PROFESSORS IS INACCURATE.
HOUSE MANAGERS NOW CLAIM THAT
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S REMOVAL OF
LINCOLN SECRETARY OF WAR EDWIN
STANTON, WITHOUT CONGRESSES
PERMISSION IN VIOLATION OF A
CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES, LATER
FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
IS BEST UNDERSTOOD WITH THE
BENEFIT OF REVISION OF
HINDSIGHT TO BE MOTIVATED NOT
BY HIS DESIRE TO VIOLATE THE
STATUTE, BUT ON HIS
ILLEGITIMATE USE OF POWER TO
UNDERMINE RECONSTRUCTION AND
SUBORDINATES AFRICAN-AMERICANS
FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR.
THAT ALL MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT
IS ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER TO
CLAIM THAT THAT MOTIVE
ACTUALLY WAS THE BASIS OF
JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT.
PROFESSOR LAURENCE TRIBE WHO
IS A SOURCE FOR THIS MISGUIDED
REINTERPRETATION OF THE
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY
SUBSTITUTES HIS OWN
SELF-DESCRIBED FOR MORE
COMPELLING BASIS FOR JOHNSON'S
REMOVAL, FROM THE ONE THAT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND THE
SENATE CONSIDERED AT HIS
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
THERE HAS BEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF
THAT GOING ON IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT.
PEOPLE SUBSTITUTING THEIR OWN
INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE ONE
THAT THE PRINCIPLES ACTUALLY
AND EXPLICITLY INSIST ON.
AT ANY RATE, A PRESIDENT
SO-CALLED ILLEGITIMATE
MOTIVES, AND WIELDING POWER
CAN NO MORE FRAME AND
LEGITIMIZE THE JOHNSON
IMPEACHMENT THEN RECASTING THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT IS REALLY
ABOUT HIS MOTIVES IN DEFYING
CONGRESS OVER THE COUNTRY'S
FOREIGN POLICY IN VIETNAM.
AGAIN, ALL OF THAT MAY BE
TRUE, BUT IT HAS NOTHING
REALLY TO DO WITH
IMPEACHMENT.
NOT ONLY THAT, IT IS ALSO BAD
HISTORY.
AS RECOGNIZE 65 YEARS AGO BY
THEN SENATOR JON F. KENNEDY
AND HIS BOOK PROFILES IN
COURAGE, PRESIDENT JOHNSON WAS
SAFER REMOVAL OF OFFICE BY ONE
VOTE.
AND THUS BY ONE COURAGEOUS
SENATOR WHO RECOGNIZE THE
LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH THAT THE
TENURE OF OFFICE ACT
REPRESENTED.
QUOTING NOW FROM SENATOR
EDMUND G ROSS, AND PROFILES
ENCOURAGE, WHO EXPLAINS HIS
VOTE AS FOLLOWS.
QUOTE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE AS 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
APPARENTLY THE FASHION NOW,
SENATOR ROSS'S ACTION WAS
EVENTUALLY PRAISED AND
ACCEPTED SEVERAL DECADES AFTER
HIS SERVICE.
AND AGAIN MANY YEARS LATER BY
PRESIDENT KENNEDY AS A
COURAGEOUS STAND AGAINST
LEGISLATIVE MOB RULE.
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WILL HAVE
MORE TO SAY ABOUT ONE OTHER
COURAGEOUS SENATOR FROM MORE
ON THAT LATER.
BUT FOR NOW, THE POINT AS OUR
HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT
PRESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT BASED
UPON BAD OR ILL MOTIVES.
AND ANY THOUGHT TO THE
CONTRARY SHOULD STRIKE YOU, I
SUBMIT, AS EXCEEDINGLY
DANGEROUS TO OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT.
IF THAT WERE THE STANDARD,
WHAT'S PRESIDENT WOULD EVER BE
SAFE BY WAY OF IMPEACHMENT,
FROM WHAT HAMILTON DECRIED AS
THE QUOTE PERSECUTION OF AS AN
INTEMPERATE OR DESIGNING
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
".
THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE OF THE
ABUSE OF POWER, ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT, INDEED WHEN ADDED
TOGETHER WITH THE OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE ARTICLE, AS A
RESULT NOT FAR OFF FROM WHAT
WOULD CITIZEN TWEETED BACK IN
DECEMBER DESCRIBED AS ARTICLE
ONE, DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ARTICLE TWO, 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, BELIEVES THE
PRESIDENT ABUSE THE POWER OF
HIS OFFICE DURING THE JULY 25
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
MORE.
TO IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROVING THAT A CRIME WAS
COMMITTED, IS TO SIDESTEP THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AS WELL
AS THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.
NOW I NOTED MANY OF YOU MAKE
COME TO CONCLUDE OR MAY HAVE
ALREADY CONCLUDED, THAT THE
CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT.
AND I HAVE SAID ON ANY NUMBER
OF OCCASIONS PREVIOUSLY AND
PUBLICLY, THAT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN BETTER IN ATTEMPTING TO
SPUR ACTION BY A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT MET IN CORNING LAW
ENFORCEMENT WITH OUR
GOVERNMENT TO HAVE DONE SO
THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS.
WHILE THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY
ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO
OTHERWISE, THERE IS
CONSEQUENCES TO THAT ACTION AS
WE HAVE NOW WITNESSED.
AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHY WE ARE
ALL HERE.
THAT IS ANOTHER THING
ALTOGETHER TO CLAIM THAT SUCH
CONDUCT IS CLEARLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY IMPEACHABLE AS AN
ABUSE OF POWER.
THERE CAN BE NO SERIOUS
QUESTION THAT THIS PRESIDENT,
OR ANY PRESIDENT, ACTS
LAWFULLY AND REQUESTING
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE WITH THE
INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE
CORRUPTION.
EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT POTENTIALLY
INVOLVE ANOTHER POLITICIAN.
TO ARGUE OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO
ENGAGE IN THE SPECIOUS
CONTENTION THAT A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE, OR FOR THAT MATTER
ANY PRESIDENT ENJOYS ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY FROM INVESTIGATION
DURING THE COURSE OF THE
CAMPAIGN.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS NOT THE
CASE FOR MY OWN EXPERIENCE.
I DID SO IN 2000 AND
INVESTIGATING HILLARY CLINTON
WAS SHE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE
TO BECOME A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM NEW YORK OF WHICH
SHE WAS ELECTED.
MY POINT IS SIMPLY THIS.
THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
IMPEACHING STANDS TRIAL HERE
IN THE SENATE FOR ALLEGEDLY
DOING SOMETHING INDIRECTLY
ABOUT WHICH HE WAS ENTIRELY
PERMITTED TO DO DIRECTLY.
THAT CANNOT FORM A BASIS AS AN
ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE
SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT HIS
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
TURNING NOW TO THE SECOND
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.
AS WE ARGUED AND ARE WRITTEN
TRIAL BRIEF, AT THE OUTSET, IT
MUST BE NOTED THAT THIS IS AT
LEAST A LITTLE ODD, FOR HOUSE
MANAGERS TO BE ARGUING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP SOMEHOW
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS WHEN HE
DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED WHAT
IS THE CENTRAL PIECE OF
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
AND THAT IS OF COURSE THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 CALL
AS WELL AS THE CALL WITH
PRESIDENT SO IN SKI THAT
PRECEDED IT ON APRIL 21,
2019.
RELEASE OF THE FULL CALL
RECORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE
END OF THIS CLAIM OF
OBSTRUCTION.
BUT APPARENTLY NOT.
INSTEAD, AGAIN RELYING ON
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON,
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE A BROAD
CLAIM TO DOCUMENTS OF
WITNESSES AND IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
NIXON COURT WITHHOLDING THAN
OBJECTION BY THE PRESIDENT
BASED ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
COULD ONLY BE OVERCOME IN THE
LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTED THERE.
THAT WAS WHERE THE INFORMATION
WAS 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'S
SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FAIR
TRIAL IN COLLATERAL
PROCEEDINGS WAS WHAT THE COURT
ACTUALLY FOUND DISPOSITIVE IN
REJECTING THE PRESIDENT'S
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE TO PREVENT
CONGRESS FROM GAINING ACCESS
TO THE WATERGATE TAPES.
ALL SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIONS
HAVE DEFENDED THAT EXCEPTION
AGAINST ANY GENERAL CLAIM OF
ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS,
DOCUMENTS, AND WITNESSES WHO
ARE THE WITNESSES -- WHO ARE
THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSEST
ADVISERS.
THUS, IT SHOULD BE A MATTER OF
ACCEPTED WISDOM, AND HISTORIC
PREMISE THAT A PRESIDENT
CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
FOR INVOKING ESTABLISHED LEGAL
RIGHTS AND DEFENSES PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES, EVEN IN THE
FACE OF SUBPOENAS FROM HOUSE
COMMITTEES.
BACK IN 1998, PROFESSOR TRIED
CALL THAT ANY ARGUMENT TO THE
CONTRARY AS FRIVOLOUS AND
DANGEROUS.
HOUSE MANAGERS RESPOND NOW BY
ARGUING NONETHELESS, THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFY
A LEGITIMATE SUBPOENA,
PARTICULARLY I SUPPOSE WHEN
THERE IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS ART
STEAK.
AND THUS, IT IS AN ISSUE
RISING TO THE LEVEL OF
INTERBRANCH CONFLICT THAT IN
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ONLY
ACCOMMODATIONS BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES AND ULTIMATELY COURTS
CAN FINALLY RESOLVE.
THE HOUSE CHOSE TO FORGO THAT
COURSE AND TO PLOW FORWARD
WITH IMPEACHMENT.
HOUSE MANAGERS CANNOT BE HEARD
TO COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEIR OWN
STRATEGIC CHOICE CAN FORM ANY
BASIS TO PLACE BLAME ON THE
PRESIDENT FOR IT.
AND WORSE YET, TO THEN IN
IMPEACH HIM ON THAT BASIS AND
REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.
THAT IS NO BASIS AT ALL, AS
PURSE FETZER JONATHAN TURLEY
HAS EXPLAINED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGITIMATE
SUBPOENA IS ENFORCED OVER
CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
OR IMMUNITY ONLY WHEN A COURT
WITH JURISDICTION SAYS SO IN A
FINAL DECISION.
IN SOME, CALLING A SUBPOENA
LEGITIMATE, AS HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT MAKE
IT SO.
AN ANALOGY TAKEN FROM
BASEBALL, THAT I BELIEVE 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
ONCE ASKED DURING A GAME BY A
PLAYER IF A BALL WAS GAME OR
FOUL.
THE UMPIRE REPLIED, AND EIGHT
NELSON UNTIL I CALL IT.
I SAY THE SAME THING TO
CHAIRMANSHIP NOW.
IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE THEREFORE
ENFORCEABLE SUBPOENA AND
SORROW COURT SAYS IT IS.
PRECEDING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT AND INDEED IN
RESPONSE TO DEMANDS NOT JUST
FROM THE WHITEWATER
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, BUT ALSO
FROM SEVERAL OTHER OF THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
INVESTIGATIONS ARE ONGOING AT
THAT TIME.
AND AGAIN I KNOW, I WAS IN ONE
OF THEM.
THE WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDLY
ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS WILL
AGAIN NEGATED FOR MONTHS.
NOT WEEKS, AND IN SOME CASES
FOR YEARS.
SO WHEN I HEAR MR. SCHIFF'S
COMPLAINED THAT THE HOUSE
REQUEST FOR FORMER WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL DON MCGANN'S
TESTIMONY, GRAND JURY MATERIAL
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN
DRAWN OUT SINCE APRIL OF LAST
YEAR, I CAN ONLY SAY IN
RESPONSE, BOO-HOO.
DID I THINK AT THE TIME THAT
MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS OF
PRIVILEGE WERE FRIVOLOUS AND
IN WITH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS?
OF COURSE.
INDEED THAT WAS THE
DETERMINATION OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON.
WHAT DID THEY DO ABOUT IT?
NOTHING.
THE COMMITTEE PROPERLY
CONCLUDED THEN THAT THOSE
ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE, EVEN
IF ILL-FOUNDED, DID NOT
CONSTITUTE AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
DID I BELIEVE THAT THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS IN
THIS REGARD HAD ADVERSELY
IMPACTED OUR INVESTIGATION?
YOU BET I DID.
AND I SAID SO IN THE FINAL
REPORT.
BUT NEVER, DID I SERIOUSLY
CONSIDER THAT THOSE EFFORTS BY
THE WHITE HOUSE, ALTHOUGH
ENDLESSLY FRUSTRATING, AND
DAMAGING TO THE INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, WOULD
CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, OR ANY
RELATED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
INSTEAD ION MY COLLEAGUES DID
THE BEST WE COULD AND 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 THAT WHAT HAS
TRANSPIRED HERE, INVOLVING
THIS ADMINISTRATION ASSERTION
OF VALID AND WELL-RECOGNIZED
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND
IMMUNITIES, IS SOMEHOW
CONTRARY TO LAW, AN
IMPEACHABLE IS LUDICROUS.
IN SHORT, TO ADD TO THE PARADE
OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES NOT
SUSTAINED ON THIS IMPEACHMENT,
THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE OR OF CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM
CONGRESS FOR ASSERTING SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHAT HE
HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ASSERT.
THAT IS TRUE NOW AS IT HAS
BEEN TRUE OF EVERY PRESIDENTS
ALL THE WAY BACK TO PRESIDENT
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
IN SHORT, AS TO BOTH ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT, ALL THE
PRESIDENT IS ASKING FOR HERE,
IS BASIC FAIRNESS.
AND TO BE HELD TO THE VERY
SAME STANDARD THAT BOTH HOUSE
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI PROPERTY
IN MARCH OF 2019, AT WHICH
PREVIOUSLY WAS ENDORSED DURING
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND
STRIKINGLY SIMILAR LANGUAGE BY
HOUSE MANAGER GERRY 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 PENS, OR OTHERWISE ARE
EVER GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THIS IMPEACHMENT UNDER
THE DEMOCRATS OWN STANDARDS.
WITH THAT I AM READY TO
CONCLUDE.
THE PRESIDENT'S ONLY
INSTRUCTION TO ME FOR THIS
TRIAL WAS A 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, AND
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, AND THE BEST
INTEREST OF THIS COUNTRY.
BECAUSE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS,
WE WILL ALL BE JUDGED IN THE
EYES OF HISTORY ON WEATHER IN
THIS MOMENT, REACTED WITH THE
COUNTRY'S OVERALL WELFARE IN
MIND, RATHER THAN ADVANCING
THE CAUSE OF PARTISAN
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, THAT 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, WHAT LIES BEFORE YOU
NOW, IS JUST SUCH A BIG
THING.
THE NEXT ELECTION AWAITS.
ELECTION DAY IS ONLY NINE
MONTHS AWAY.
AS SENATOR DALE BUMPERS
ELOQUENTLY CONCLUDED ARGUING
AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND I
QUOTE, THAT'S THE DAY WHEN WE
REACH ACROSS THE AISLE AND
HOLD HANDS.
EMMA KRATZ AND REPUBLICANS,
AND WE SAY WIN OR LOSE, WE
WILL ABIDE BY THE DECISION.
IT IS A SOLEMN EVENT,
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, AND
THEY SHOULD NOT BE UNDONE
LIGHTLY OR JUST BECAUSE ONE
SIDE AS POLITICAL CLOUT AND
THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T,".
OTHERWISE, AS ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WARNED US DURING HIS FIRST
INAUGURAL ADDRESS, AND I QUOTE
IF THE MINORITY WILL NOT
ACQUIESCE, THE GOVERNMENT MUST
CEASE.
SO THAT IN REJECTING THE
MAJORITY PRINCIPLE, ANARCHY 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.
WITH THAT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I
YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE ARE
NOW GOING TO DELVE INTO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR A
BIT.
AND OUR PRESENTER IS PROFESSOR
ALAN DERSHOWITZ.
HE IS THE PROFESSOR EMERITUS
OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
AFTER SERVING AS A LAW CLERK
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 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, PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ BECAME THE YOUNGEST
TENURED PROFESSOR AT HARVARD
LAW SCHOOL.
MR. DERSHOWITZ HAS SPENT 50
YEARS OF ACTIVE FACULTY MEMBER
AT HARVARD, TEACHING
GENERATIONS OF LAW STUDENTS
INCLUDING SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE CHAMBER.
AND CLASSES RANGING FROM
CRIMINAL LAW CONSTITUTIONAL
LITIGATION, LEGAL ETHICS AND
EVEN IN COURSES OUGHT
IMPEACHMENT.
HE WILL ADDRESS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED
BY THESE ARTICLES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE, OUR FRIENDS, LAWYERS,
FELLOW LAWYERS.
IT IS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO
IT STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY, TO
PRESENT A CONSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL, NOT
ONLY OF THIS PRESIDENT, THAT
ALL AND ANY 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 A
CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS OF RICHARD NIXON.
WHO I PERSONALLY ABHORRED, AND
WHOSE IMPEACHMENT I'VE
PERSONALLY FAVORED.
AND I STOOD FOR THE RIGHTS OF
BILL CLINTON WHO I ADMIRED,
AND WHOSE IMPEACHMENT I
STRONGLY OPPOSED.
I STAND AGAINST THE
APPLICATION AND MISAPPLICATION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA
IN EVERY CASE AND AGAINST AT
ANY PRESIDENT WITHOUT REGARD
TO WHETHER I SUPPORT HIS OR
HERS PARTIES OR POLICIES.
I WOULD BE MAKING THIS VERY
SAME CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
HAD HILLARY CLINTON, FOR WHOM
I VOTED, BEEN ELECTED AND HAD
A REPUBLICAN HOUSE VOTED TO
IMPEACH HER ON THESE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.
I AM HERE TODAY, BECAUSE I
LOVE MY COUNTRY AND OUR
CONSTITUTION.
EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM, SHARES
THAT LOVE.
I WILL ARGUE THAT A
CONSTITUTION, AND ITS TERMS,
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
TO NOT ENCOMPASS THE TWO
ARTICLES CHARGING ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
IN OFFERING THESE ARGUMENTS, I
STAND IN THE FOOTSTEPS, AND IN
THE SPIRIT OF JUSTICE BENJAMIN
CURTIS WHO WAS OF COUNSEL TO
IMPEACH PRESIDENT ANDREW
JOHNSON AND WHO EXPLAINED TO
THE SENATE THE QUOTE A GREATER
PRINCIPLE WAS AT STAKE THAN
THE FATES OF ANY PARTICULAR
PRESIDENT.
AND OF WILLIAM EVERTS, A
FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE,
ANOTHER ONE OF ANDREW
JOHNSON'S LAWYERS WHO
REPORTEDLY SAID HE HAD COME TO
THE DEFENSE TABLE, NOT AS A
PARTISAN, NOT AS A
SYMPATHIZER, BUT TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION OF COURSE
PROVIDES THE SENATE HAS
THIS'LL ROLE AND POWER TO TRY
ALL IMPEACHMENTS.
IN EXERCISING THAT POWER, THE
SENATE MUST CONSIDER THREE
ISSUES IN THIS CASE.
THE FIRST IS WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
HOUSE MANAGERS ESTABLISHES BY
THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF
APPROVE, PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OCCURRED.
THE SECOND, IS WHETHER IF
THESE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
OCCURRED, DID THEY ARISE TO
THE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF POWER?
AND/OR OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS?
AND FINALLY, THE SENATE MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY
AUTHORIZED CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FIRST ISSUE IS LARGELY
FACTUAL AND I LEAVE THAT TO
OTHERS.
THE SECOND IS A COMBINATION OF
JUDICIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW AND I'LL TOUCH ON THOSE.
THE THIRD IS A MATTER OF PURE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
DO THESE CHARGES OF ABUSE AND
OBSTRUCTION RISE TO THE LEVEL
OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION?
I WILL BEGIN AS ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BEGINS
WITH THE TEXT OF THE
CONSTITUTION ON IMPEACHMENT.
I WILL THEN EXAMINE WHY THE
FRAMERS SELECTED THE WORDS
THEY DID AS THE SOLE CRITERIA
AUTHORIZING IMPEACHMENT.
IN MAKING MY PRESENTATION, I
WILL TRANSPORT YOU BACK TO A
HOT SUMMER IN PHILADELPHIA,
AND A COLD WINTER IN
WASHINGTON.
I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO
PATRIOTS AND IDEAS THAT HELP
SHAPE OUR GREAT NATION.
TO PREPARE FOR THIS JOURNEY, I
HAVE IMMERSED MYSELF AND A LOT
OF DUSTY OLD VOLUMES FROM THE 1h
 AND 19th CENTURY.
I ASK YOUR INDULGENCE AS I
QUOTE FROM THE WISDOM OF OUR
FOUNDERS.
LET'S RETURN TO THE DAYS OF
YESTERYEARS IS NECESSARY,
BECAUSE THE ISSUE TODAY IS NOW
WITH THE CRITERIA OF
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE, NOT
WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL BODY MIGHT
TODAY DECIDE ARE THE PROPER
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT OF A
PRESIDENT.
BUT WHAT THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY CHOSE,
AND WHAT THEY EXPRESSLY AND
IMPLICITLY REJECTED.
I WILL ASK WHETHER THE FRAMERS
WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED SUCH A
VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS AS
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION
AS CONGRESSES CRITERIA.
I WILL SHOW BY A CLOSE REVIEW,
OF THE HISTORY, THAT THEY DID
NOT AND WOULD NOT ACCEPT SUCH
CRITERIA FOR FEAR THAT THESE
CRITERIA WOULD TURN A NEW
REPUBLIC INTO A BRITISH STYLE
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN
WHICH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S
TENURE WOULD BE IN THE WORDS
OF JAMES MATTIS, THE FATHER OF
OUR CONSTITUTION, AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.
THE CONCLUSION I WILL OFFER
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT
ADVOCATED BY HIGHLY JUSTICE
BENJAMIN CURTIS WHO DISSENTED
FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S
NOTORIOUS DECISION IN DRED
SCOTT IN DESERT RESIGNING IN
PROTEST OF THE HIGH COURT
SERVED AS COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT
ANDREW JOHNSON IN THE SENATE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
HE ARGUED AND I QUOTE, THERE
CAN BE NO CRIME, THERE CAN BE
NO MISDEMEANOR WITHOUT A LAW
WRITTEN OR WRITTEN, EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED.
IN SO ARGUING HE WAS ECHOING
THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY
THEATRE DWIGHT OF THE COLUMBIA
LAW SCHOOL WHO WROTE IN 1867,
JUST BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT,
AND LESS A CRIME IS
SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, TREES AND
BRIBERY, IMPEACHMENTS LIKE
INDICTMENTS CAN ONLY BE
INSTITUTED FOR CRIMES
COMMITTED AGAINST THE
STATUTORY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS JUDGE STARR SAID
EARLIER TODAY.
HE DESCRIBED THAT AS THE
WEIGHTS 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
HOWEVER, AND THE ONE MOST
RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS,
AS THAT EVEN IF THAT POSITION
IS NOT ACCEPTED, EVEN IF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT WERE NOT
REQUIRED, THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION IMPLICITLY
REJECTED, AND IF IT HAD BEEN
PRESENTED TO THEM WOULD'VE
EXPLICITLY REJECTED SUCH VAGUE
TERMS AS ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS
AMONG THE ENUMERATED AND
DEFINED CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT AMONG THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
AGAINST PRESIDENT JOHNSON MORE
ACCUSATION OF NONCRIMINAL BUT
OUTRAGEOUS MISBEHAVIOR.
INCLUDING ONE AKIN TO THE
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS.
FOR EXAMPLE ARTICLE TEN CHARGE
JOHNSON TO ATTEMPT TO BRING
INTO DISGRACE RIDDICK CRUEL
HATRED AND REPROACH THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
ARTICLE 11 CHARGE JOHNSON WITH
THAT DENYING THAT CONGRESS WAS
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION
TO EXERCISE THE LEGISLATIVE
POWER.
AND DENYING THAT THE
LEGISLATION OF SAID CONGRESS
WAS OBLIGATORY UPON HIM.
PRETTY SERIOUS CHARGES.
HERE'S HOW JUSTICE CURTIS
RESPONDED TO THESE NONCRIMINAL
CHARGES.
QUOTES MY FIRST POSITION IS
THAT WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS OF
TREASON, BRIBERY, AND OTHER
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, IT
REFERRED TO AND INCLUDES ONLY
HIGH CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES MADE SO BY
SOME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES,
EXISTING AND I SAY HE
CONTINUED THAT THIS IS PLAINLY
TO BE INFERRED FROM EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ON THE
SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT.
I WILL BRIEFLY REVIEW THOSE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WITH YOU.
JUDGE PRACTICES IN CAPITATION
SUPPORT INDEED IN HIS VIEW IT
WAS COMPELLED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT TREASON
BRIBERY AND HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS ARE HIGH CRIMES.
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS MUST BE AKIN TO
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
CURTIS CITED THE LATIN FRAIN
SORRY FOR THE
MISPRONUNCIATION, REFERRING TO
THE CLASSIC ROLE OF
INTERPRETATION THAT WHEN THE
MEETING OF A WORD THAT IS PART
OF A GROUP OF WORDS IS
UNCERTAIN, YOU SHOULD LOOK TO
THE OTHER WORDS IN THAT GROUP
THAT PROVIDE INTERPRETIVE
CONTEXT.
THE LATE JUSTICE ANTONIN
SCALIA GAVE THE FOLLOWING
CURRENT EXAMPLE.
IF ONE SPEAKS OF MICKEY
MANTLE, ROCKY MARCIANO,
MICHAEL JORDAN AND OTHER GREAT
COMPETITORS, THE LAST NOUN
DOES NOT REASONABLY REFERRED
TO SAM WALTON WHO IS A GREAT
COMPETITOR BUT IN BUSINESS, OR
NAPOLEON WHO WAS A GREAT
COMPETITOR ON THE
BATTLEFIELD.
APPLYING THAT RULE TO THE
GROUP OF WORDS TREASON BRIBERY
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THE LAST FIVE WORDS SHOULD BE
TO INCLUDE ONLY SERIOUS
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AKIN TO
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
JUSTICE CURTIS THEN REVIEWED
THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT RELATE TO
IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST HE STARTED WITH THE
PROVISION THAT SAYS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT
REPRIEVES AND PARDONS FOR
OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.
EXCEPT IN CASES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
HE ARGUED THAT IF IMPEACHMENT
WERE NOT AN OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, WAS NOT
BASED ON OFFENSE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES, THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTION.
HE WENT ON TILL SECOND
PROVISION.
THE SECOND TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES
EXCEPT IN CASES OF
IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY
JURY.
THIS DEMONSTRATE ACCORDING TO
CURTIS, BEN IMPEACHMENT
REQUIRES A CRIME.
BUT UNLIKE OTHER CRIMES, IT
DOES NOT REQUIRE A JURY
TRIAL.
YOU ARE THE JUDGE AND THE
JURY.
HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, BY THE
EXPRESS WORDS OF THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AN
ACQUITTAL, OR A CONVICTION.
JUDGMENTS GENERALLY RENDERED
ONLY IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMES.
NOW PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S
LAWYERS OF COURSE ARGUED IN
THE ALTERNATIVE IS LAWYERS
ALWAYS DO WHEN THERE'S A
QUESTION OF FACT AND OF LAW.
HE ARGUED THAT JOHNSON DID NOT
VIOLATE THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AS YOU HEARD FROM
OTHER LAWYERS TODAY.
BUT EVEN IF HE DID, THE
ARTICLES DO NOT CHARGE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH IS
THE ARGUMENT I AM MAKING
BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
JUSTICE CURTIS' FIRST POSITION
WAS AT THE ARTICLES DID NOT
CHARGE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ALLEGE
HIGH CRIME OFFENSES AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES.
ACCORDING TO A HARVARD
HISTORIAN AND LAW PROFESSOR,
NICLAS BUIE, CURTIS'
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS WERE
PERSUASIVE TO AT LEAST SOME
SENATORS WHO WERE NO FRIENDS
OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON.
INCLUDING THE CO-AUTHORS OF
THE 13th AND THE 14th
AMENDMENT.
SENATOR, JUDGE CURTIS GAVE US
THE LAW AND WE FOLLOWED IT.
SENATOR JAMES W GRIMES ECHOED
CURTIS' ARGUMENT BY REFUSING
TO ACCEPT INTERPRETATION OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
THAT CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE
LAW OF EACH SENATORS JUDGMENT
ENACTED IN HIS OWN BOSOM AND
SHOULD THE ALLEGED COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENSE.
THOUGH HE DESPERATELY WANTED
TO SEE PRESIDENT JOHNSON, WHOM
HE DESPISED OUT OF OFFICE, HE
BELIEVED IN IMPEACHMENT
REMOVAL WITHOUT THE VIOLATION
OF LAW WOULD BE QUOTES
CONSTRUED INTO APPROVAL OF
IMPEACHMENTS AS PART OF FUTURE
POLITICAL MACHINERY.
:
HE REPEATS THIS VIEW THE QUOTE,
IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES A CRIME BUT
HE NOW ARGUES THAT THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT DO CHARGE CRIMES.
HE IS SIMPLY WRONG.
HE IS WRONG BECAUSE IN THE
UNITED STATES VERSUS HUTCHINS A
CASE DECIDED ALMOST MORE THAN
200 YEARS AGO NOW THE CASE THE
SUPREME COURT RULED THAT FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO
CREATE COMMON LAW CRIMES.
CRIMES ARE ONLY WHAT ARE IN THE
STATUTE BOOK.
SO, PROFESSOR IS RIGHT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A CRIME
FOR IMPEACHMENT BUT WRONG WHEN
HE SAYS THAT COMMON-LAW CRIMES
CAN BE USED AS A BASIS FOR
IMPEACHING EVEN THOUGH THEY DO
NOT APPEAR IN THE STATUTE BOOKS.
NOW, I'M NOT HERE ARGUING THAT
THE CURRENT DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE IN ANY
WAY BOUND LEGALLY BY JUSTICE
CURTIS ARGUMENTS FOR THOSE OF
THE -- BUT 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
MAY HAVE PLAYED IN THE OUTCOME
OF THE CLOSEST PRECEDENT TO THE
CURRENT CASE.
NOW, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THERE IS
A NUANCED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ARGUMENT MADE BY CURTIS INTO
WHITE AND THE ARGUMENT THAT I AM
PRESENTING HERE TODAY.
THIS IS BASED ON MY READING OF
HISTORY.
CURTIS ARGUED THERE MUST BE A
SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE
PRE-EXISTING LAW.
HE RECOGNIZES AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSTITUTION THERE WERE NO
FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES, OF
COURSE NOT, ESTABLISH NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT SO WE CANNOT HAVE
STATUTES PRIOR TO THE
ASTONISHMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND OUR NATION.
THIS ARGUMENT IS AUTHORED TODAY
BY PROPONENTS OF THIS
IMPEACHMENT ON THE CLAIM THAT
FRAMERS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED
TO LIMIT THE CRITERIA OR
IMPEACHMENT TO CRIMINAL LIKE
BEHAVIOR.
JUSTICE CURTIS ADDRESSED THAT
ISSUE AND THAT ARGUMENT HEAD-ON.
HE HE POINTED OUT THAT CRIMES
SUCH AS BRIBERY WOULD HE MADE
CRIMINAL BY THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH THE FRAMERS
OF THE CONSTITUTION KNEW WOULD
BE PASSED.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE ANTICIPATED
THAT CONGRESS WOULD SOON ENACTED
STATUTES PUNISHING AND DEFINING
CRIMES SUCH AS BURGLARY,
EXTORTION, PERJURY ET CETERA.
HE ANTICIPATED THAT AND BASED
HIS ARGUMENT ON THAT.
THE CONSTITUTION ALREADY
INCLUDED TREASONOUS CRIME AND
THAT WAS DEFINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND THEN IT
INCLUDED OTHER CRIMES BUT WHAT
JUSTICE CURTIS SAID IS THAT YOU
COULD INCLUDE LAWS WRITTEN OR
UNWRITTEN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY
WHICH HE MEANT COMMON-LAW WHICH
AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION
THERE WERE MANY COMICAL CRIMES
AND THEY WERE ENFORCEABLE EVEN
FEDERALLY UNTIL THE SUPREME
COURT, MANY YEARS LATER, DECIDED
THAT COMMON-LAW CRIMES WERE NO
LONGER PART OF THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION.
THE POSITION I DERIVED FROM
HISTORY WOULD -- THIS IS A WORD
THAT AS UPSET PEOPLE BUT WOULD
INCLUDE CRIMINAL LIKE CONDUCT,
AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY AND
THEY MAY 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 OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HE COULD NOT
TECHNICALLY BE PROSECUTED IN THE
UNITED STATES FOR SUCH A CRIME.
BUT I BELIEVE HE CAN 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 IS THE DISTINCTION I THINK
WE DRAW OR FOR PRESIDENT IF HE
COMMITTED PERJURY OR OBJECTION
OF JUSTICE HE COULD BE CHARGED
WITH THESE CRIMES AS IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES BECAUSE THESE CRIMES,
THOUGH NOT SPECIFIED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, ARE AKIN TO
TREASON AND BRIBERY AND THIS
WOULD BE TRUE EVEN IF SOME OF
THE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS, TIME AND
PLACE, OR ABSENT.
WHAT CURTIS AND DWIGHT AND I
AGREE UPON AND THIS IS THE KEY
POINT IN THIS IMPEACHMENT CASE,
PLEASE, UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M
ARGUING.
PURELY NON- CRIMINAL CONDUCT,
INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE
OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES.
THAT IS THE KEY ARGUMENT I'M
PRESENTING TODAY.
THIS VIEW WAS SUPPORTED BY TEXT
WRITERS AND JUDGES IN TIME TO
THE FOUNDING.
WILLIAM RUSSELL WHO IS 1819
TREATIES ON CRIMINAL LAW WAS A
BIBLE AMONG CRIMINAL LAW
SCHOLARS AND OTHERS DEFINED HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS
QUOTE, SUCH IMMORAL AND UNLAWFUL
ACTS AS ARE NEARLY ALLIED AND
EQUAL IN GUILT TO A FELONY AND
YET, OWING TO THE ABSENCE OF
SOME TECHNICAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
TECHNICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, DO NOT
FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE
FELONY GOOD SIMILAR VIEWS WERE
STRESSED BY STATE COURTS AND
OTHERS DISAGREE.
CURTIS CONSIDERED VIEWS AND
THOSE OF DWIGHT, RUSSELL AND
OTHERS BASED ON CAREFUL STUDY OF
THE TEXT IN HISTORY ARE NOT
BONKERS, ABSURDIST, LEGAL CRACK
TRAP OR OTHER DEMEANING EPITHETS
TO THROWN 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
GENERATIONS THAT FOLLOWED.
IF THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY
ACADEMICS TODAY THAT SHOWS A
WEAKNESS AMONG THE ACADEMICS,
NOT AMONG THE FOUNDERS.
THESE WHO DISAGREE WITH CURTIS
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS ARE OBLIGED, I
BELIEVE, TO RESPOND WITH REASON,
COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS, NOT
NAME-CALLING.
IF JUSTICE CURTIS ARGUMENTS AND
THOSE OF DEAN DWIGHT ARE
REJECTED I THINK PROPONENTS OF
IMPEACHMENT MUST OFFER
ALTERNATIVE PRINCIPLES.
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.
WE JUST HEARD IN 1970 CONGRESS
MEANT GERALD FORD WHO I GREATLY
ADMIRED SAID THE FOLLOWING.
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT
OF JUSTICE AND IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE IS WHATEVER A MAJORITY
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONSIDERS IT TO BE AT A GIVEN
MOMENT IN HISTORY ET CETERA.
YOU WILL NOTE THE QUOTE.
CONGRESSWOMAN VACCINE WATERS
RECENTLY PUT IT MORE
INSISTENTLY, IN THE CONTEXT OF A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND
HERE IS WHAT SHE SAID.
IMPEACHMENT IS WHATEVER CONGRESS
SAYS IT IS.
THERE IS NO LAW.
BUT THIS LAW LIST FIELD WOULD
PLACE 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 WHAT
IT IS ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF
DOING.
AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT
THE PRESIDENT AND NOT CONGRESS.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE KINDS OF
VIEW EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE
FRAMERS.
THEY FEARED HAVING A PRESIDENT
TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
LEGISLATOR AND IT IS PRECISELY
THE VIEW REJECTED BY SENATOR
JAMES GRIMES WHEN HE REFUSED TO
ACCEPT AN INTERPRETATION OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT
WOULD CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE
LAW ENACTED IN HIS OWN BOSOM.
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IN THE
WORDS OF KUVIN AND MORRIS THAT
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT
MUST BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED.
THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IMPEACHMENT
TODAY 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 JUSTICE CURTIS, IS
CONFIRMED BY THE DEBATE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS AND BY THE
WRITINGS OF WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
AND, I BELIEVE, BY THE WRITERS
OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON WHICH WERE
HEAVILY RELIED ON BY LAWYERS AT
THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTIONS
ADOPTION.
THERE WERE, AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSTITUTIONS ADOPTION, TO GREAT
DEBATE THAT WENT ON AND IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO
GREAT DEBATES.
THE FIRST ARE TO IMAGINE TODAY
BUT THE FIRST WAS SHOULD THERE
BE ANY POWER TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT AT ALL.
THERE WERE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE FOUNDING GENERATION AND OF
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
WHO SAID NO, THEY SAID NO,
PRESIDENT 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.
THEY ARE OFFERING ERRONEOUSLY
CONTEMPLATED.
LET'S BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
DEBATE.
DURING THE BROAD DEBATE ABOUT
WHETHER A PRESIDENT TO SUBJECT
TO IMPEACHMENT PROPONENTS OF
IMPEACHMENT USED VAGUE AND
OPEN-ENDED TERMS SUCH AS UNFIT,
OBNOXIOUS, CORRUPT AND HIS
CONDUCT, MISBEHAVIOR,
NEGLIGENCE, MALPRACTICE,
TREACHERY, INCAPACITY,
SPECULATION AND
MALADMINISTRATION.
THEY WORRY THAT A PRESIDENT
MIGHT PERVERT HIS ADMINISTRATION
TO A SCHEME OF SPECULATION AND
OPPRESSION.
THAT HE MIGHT BE CORRUPTED A
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 A
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 AS GOVERNOR MORRIS
APTLY PUT IT, CORRUPTION AND
OTHER OFFENSES OUGHT TO BE
IMPEACHABLE BUT THE CASES OUGHT
TO BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED.
THE GREAT FALLACY OF MANY
CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS AND
PENDANTS AND WITH DUE RESPECT,
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, IS THAT THEY
FAIL 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 BUT LET ME GIVE YOU A
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT
HAVE FACED 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 IT
REGULATIONS OR CRIMINAL CIVIL
REGULATIONS OVER TWITTER AND
FACEBOOK ET CETERA.
IN THE DEBATE OVER REGULATING
THE SOCIAL MEDIA PROPONENTS OF
REGULATION MIGHT WELL CITE BROAD
DANGERS SUCH AS FALSE
INFORMATION, INAPPROPRIATE
CONTENT, HATE SPEECH, THOSE ARE
GOOD REASONS 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
LEGISLATION WOULD BE MUCH
NARROWER AND MORE CAREFULLY
DEFINED IN THE BROAD DANGERS
THAT NECESSITATED SOME
REGULATION.
THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD AND ACTED
ON THIS DIFFERENCE BUT I'M
AFRAID MANY SCHOLARS AND OTHERS
AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FAIL TO
SEE THIS DISTINCTION AND THEY
CITE SOME OF THE FEARS THAT LED
TO THE NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT
MECHANISM AND THEY CITE THEM AS
THE CRITERIA THEMSELVES.
THAT IS A DEEP FALLACY.
IT IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT THAT
THE DISTINCTION BE 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 AND
SO THEY GOT DOWN TO THE
DIFFICULT BUSINESS OF
ENUMERATING AND DEFINING
PRECISELY WHICH OFFENSES AMONG
THE MANY THAT THEY FEARED A
PRESIDENT MIGHT COMMIT SHOULD BE
IMPEACHABLE.
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE LEFT
TO THE VOTERS TO EVALUATE.
SOME FRAMERS SUCH AS ROGER
SHERMAN WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO
BE REMOVAL BY THE NATIONAL
LEGISLATOR AT ITS PLEASURE MUCH
LIKE THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER
CAN BE REMOVED BY A SIMPLE VOTE
OF NO CONFIDENCE BY PARLIAMENTS.
THAT VIEW WAS REJECTED.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN OPPOSED
DECIDEDLY THE MAKING OF THE
EXECUTIVE QUOTE, MERE CREATURE
OF THE LEGISLATOR.
GOVERNOR MORRIS WAS AGAINST THE
DEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE ON
THE LEGISLATOR CONSIDERING THE
LEGISLATOR YOU WILL PARDON ME
QUOTING THIS A GREAT DANGER TO
BE APPREHENDED.
I -- AGREE WITH THAT.
JAMES MADISON EXPRESSED CONCERNS
ABOUT PRESIDENT BEING IMPROPERLY
DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATOR AND
OTHERS WORRIED ABOUT A FEEBLE
EXECUTIVE.
HEARING THESE AND OTHER
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TURNING THE
NEW REBELLION TO A PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY IN WHICH SLOW THE
JUDGE LATER HAD A POWER TO THE
PRESIDENT THE FRAMERS SET OUT TO
STRIKE THE APPROPRIATE TALENTS
BETWEEN THE BROAD CONCERNS THAT
LED THEM TO VOTE FOR A
PROVISIONAL AUTHORIZING THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT AND
THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA,
NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE ABUSE
OR OVERUSE.
AMONG THE CRITERIA PROPOSED WERE
MALPRACTICE, NEGLECT OF DUTY,
MALL CONDUCT, NEGLECT IN THE
EXECUTION OF OFFICE AND, THIS
WORD WILL COME BACK TO TALK
ABOUT, MALADMINISTRATION.
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO THAT LAST
TERM, A TERM USED IN BRITAIN AS
A CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT
MADISON RESPONDED TO SO VAGUE A
TERM THAT WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO
A TEN YEAR DURING THE PLEASURE
OF THE SENATE.
UPON HEARING MADISON'S
OBJECTIONS COLONEL MASON
WITHDREW MALADMINISTRATION AND
SUBSTITUTED OTHER HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
HAD HE DELEGATED PROPOSED
INCLUSION OF ABUSE OF POWER OR
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS A
ENUMERATED DEFINED FOR
IMPEACHMENT HISTORY STRONGLY
SUGGESTS THAT MADISON WOULD HAVE
SIMILARLY OPPOSED IT AND IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED.
I WILL COME BACK TO THAT
ARGUMENT A LITTLE LATER ON WHEN
I TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ABUSE
OF POWER.
INDEED, MADISON WORRIED THAT A
PARTISAN LEGISLATOR COULD EVEN
MISS USE THE WORD MISDEMEANOR TO
INCLUDE A BROAD ARRAY OF NON-
CRIMES SO HE PROPOSED MOVING THE
TRIAL TO THE NONPARTISAN SUPREME
COURT.
THE PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT MADISON
SUDDENLY CHANGED HIS MIND AND
FAVORED SUCH MISUSE TO EXPAND
THE MEANING OF A MISDEMEANOR TO
INCLUDE BROAD TERMS LIKE
MISBEHAVIOR.
NO, IT MEANT HE FEARED THAT THE
WORD MISDEMEANOR COULD BE ABUSED
AND HIS FEARS HAVE PROVEN TO BE
PRESCIENT AND BY THE HOUSE IN
THIS CASE.
THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT THE BROAD
CONCERNS CITED BY THE FRAMERS
SUGGESTED BY IMPEACHMENT WERE
NOT AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED AS
CRITERIA JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT
IS THE MANNER BY WHICH WORD
INCAPACITY FOCUS ON THAT WORD
PLEASE, INCAPACITY WAS TREATED.
MADISON AND OTHERS FOCUSED
HEAVILY ON THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT
HAPPENS IF A PRESIDENT BECOMES
INCAPACITATED.
CERTAINLY A PRESIDENT IS
INCAPACITATED AND SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO PRESIDE
OVER THIS GREAT COUNTRY.
AND EVERYONE SEEMED TO AGREE
THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A
PRESIDENTIAL INCAPACITY IS A
GOOD AND POWERFUL REASON FOR
HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT PROVISION
BUT WHEN IT CAME TIME TO
ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR ACTUALLY
REMOVING A PRESIDENT INCAPACITY
WAS NOT INCLUDED.
WHY NOT CONNECT PRESUMABLY
BECAUSE IT WAS TOO VAGUE AND
SUBJECTIVE A TERM.
WHEN WE HAD AN INCAPACITATED
PRESIDENT IN THE END OF THE
WOODROW WILSON A SECOND TERM HE
WAS NOT IMPEACHED AND REMOVED.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS
CAREFULLY DRAWN PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE WAS
REQUIRED TO REMEDY THE DAUNTING
PROBLEM OF A PRESIDENT WHO WAS
DEEMED INCAPACITATED.
ANOTHER REASON WHY YOUR
PRESENTATION WAS NOT INCLUDED
AMONG IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES IS
BECAUSE IT WASN'T CRIMINAL.
IT IS NOT A CRIME TO BE
INCAPACITATED AND IT'S NOT AKIN
TO TREASON.
IT'S NOT AKIN TO BRIBERY AND NOT
A HIGH CRIME AND IT MISDEMEANOR.
THE FRAMERS BELIEVED IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES MUST BE CRIMINAL IN
NATURE AND AKIN TO THE MOST
SERIOUS CRIMES.
INCAPACITY SIMPLY DID NOT FIT
INTO THIS CATEGORY AND NOTHING
CRIMINAL ABOUT IT.
THE CONSTITUTION HAD TO BE
AMENDED TO INCLUDE A DIFFERENT
CATEGORY OF NON- CRIMINAL
BEHAVIORS THAT WARRANTED
REMOVAL.
I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER SERIOUSLY
THAT IMPORTANT PART OF THE
HISTORY OF THE ADOPTION OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.
I THINK BLACKSTONE AND HAMILTON
ALSO SUPPORT THIS VIEW.
THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT OVER
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS OF
TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES, THOSE WORDS REQUIRE
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
THE DEBATE IS ONLY OVER THE
WORDS AND MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
WERE FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE FACT
THAT THE WORD MISDEMEANOR WAS A
SPECIES OF CRIME THE BOOK THAT
WAS MOST OFTEN DEEMED
AUTHORITATIVE WAS WRITTEN BY
BLACKSTONE IN GREAT BRITAIN AND
HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT THIS
IN THE VERSION THAT WAS
AVAILABLE TO THE FRAMERS.
A CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR IS AN ACT
COMMITTED OR OMITTED IN
VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC LAW
EITHER FORBIDDING OR DEMANDING
AND THE GENERAL [INAUDIBLE] BOTH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH
PROPERLY SPEAKING ARE MERE
SYNONYMOUS TERMS.
MERE SYNONYMOUS TERMS.
HE THEN WENT ON IN COMMON USAGE
OF THE WORD CRIMES IS MADE TO
DENOTE SUCH OFFENSES OF A DEEPER
OR MORE CHURCHES DIE ALL SMALL
FOLDS AND OMISSIONS OF LESS
CONSEQUENCE ARE COMPRISED UNDER
THE GENTLER NAME OF THE
MISDEMEANORS ONLY.
INTERESTINGLY HE POINTED OUT
THAT MISDEMEANORS WERE NOT
ALWAYS SO GENTLE THAT THERE WAS
A CATEGORY CALLED CAPITAL
MISDEMEANORS WHERE IF YOU STOLE
SOMEBODY'S KEG OR OTHER FOWL YOU
COULD BE SENTENCED TO DEATH BUT
IT'S ONLY FOR A MISDEMEANOR,
DON'T WORRY, NOT A FELONY BUT
THERE WERE MISDEMEANORS THAT
WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE.
MOREOVER BLACKSTONE WROTE THAT
PARLIAMENTARY AND IMPEACHMENT IS
A PROSECUTION, A PROSECUTION OF
ALREADY KNOWN AND ESTABLISHED
LAW PRESENTED TO THE MOST HIGH
AND SUPREME COURT OF CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION ANALOGOUS TO THIS
GREAT COURT YEAR HE OBSERVED
THAT A COMMONER CAN BE IMPEACHED
ONLY FOR HEIGHT MISDEMEANORS AND
APPEAR MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR ANY
CRIME AND THIS CERTAINLY
SUGGESTS THAT BLACKSTONE DEEMED
HIGH MISDEMEANORS TO BE A
SPECIES OF CRIME.
HAMILTON IS A LITTLE LESS CLEAR
IN THIS ISSUE AND NOT SURPRISING
BECAUSE HE WAS WRITING IN
FEDERALIST NUMBER 65 THAT HE WAS
WRITING IT NOT TO DEFINE WHAT
THE CRITERIA FROM IMPEACHMENT
WERE BUT WRITING PRIMARILY IN
DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS
WRITTEN AND LESS TO DEFINE ITS
PROVISIONS.
HE CERTAINLY CANNOT BE CITED IN
FAVOR OF CRITERIA SUCH AS ABUSE
OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS NOR OF IMPEACHMENT
VOTED ALONG PARTY LINES.
HE WARNED THE GREATEST DANGER
AND THESE WERE HIS WORDS, THE
GREATEST DANGER IS THAT THE
DECISION WILL BE REGULATED MORE
BY THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH
AUTHORITIES THEN BUY THE REAL
DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR
GUILT.
IN ADDITION TO USING THE
CRIMINAL TERMS INNOCENCE OR
GUILT HAMILTON ALSO REFERRED TO
QUOTE, PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE.
HE CITED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS THAT STATES THAT THE
PARTY CONVICTED SHALL
NEVERTHELESS BE LIABLE AND
SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL AS A
REASON FOR NOT HAVING THE
PRESIDENT TRIED BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.
HE FEARED A DOUBLE PROSECUTION,
A VARIATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
BEFORE THE SAME JUDICIARY.
THESE POINTS ALL SOUND AND
CRIMINAL TERMS.
BUT ADVOCATES OF A BROAD
OPEN-ENDED NONCRIMINAL
INTERPRETATION OF HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS INSISTED
HAMILTON IS ON THEIR SIDE.
AND THEY CITE THE FOLLOWING
WORDS REGARDING THE COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT.
I THINK I'VE HEARD THESE WORDS
QUOTED MORE THAN ANY OTHER WORD
IN SUPPORT OF A BROAD VIEW OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THEY ARE MISUNDERSTOOD BUT
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.
WHEN DESCRIBING THE COURTS OF
IMPEACHMENT HE SAID THE SUBJECTS
OF ITS JURISDICTION, THOSE ARE
IMPORTANT WORDS, SUBJECT OF
THOSE INTEREST ACTION BY WHICH
HE MEANT, TREASON, BRIBERY AND
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS AND THE SUBJECT OF
THIS JURISDICTION ARE THOSE
OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED FROM THE
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEANT OR IN
OTHER WORDS FROM THE ABUSE OR
VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
THEY ARE OF A NATURE WHICH MADE
WITH PECULIAR PROPRIETY BE
DENOMINATED POLITICAL, AS THEY
RELATE CHIEFLY TO INJURIES DONE
IMMEDIATELY TO SOCIETY ITSELF.
THOSE ARE HAMILTON'S WORDS.
THEY ARE OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD AS
SUGGESTING THAT THE CRITERIA
AUTHORIZING IMPEACHMENT INCLUDES
THE MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEN OR
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 OF THE COURTS
OF IMPEACHMENT, NAMELY TREASON,
BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THOSE OF SPECIFIED ARE POLITICAL
IN NATURE AND THEY ARE THE
CRIMES THAT INVOLVE THE
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC AND THE
ABUSE OF VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC
TRUST.
HAMILTON 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 CRIME MUST
BE OF A POLITICAL NATURE.
THIS WOULD EXCLUDE PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S PRIVATE NONPOLITICAL
CRIME.
IN FACT, AND THIS IS INTERESTING
HAMILTON'S VIEW WAS CITED BY
CLINTON'S ADVOCATES AS
CONTRACTING NOT EXPANDING THE
MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES.
TODAY SOME OF THESE SAME
ADVOCATES, LOOK AT THE SAME
WORDS AND CITE THEM AS EXPANDING
ITS MEANING.
CLINTON WAS ACCUSED OF A CRIME.
PERJURY.
THE ISSUE IN HIS CASE WAS NOT
WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRED A CRIME FOR IMPEACHMENT
BUT INSTEAD THE ISSUE WAS
WHETHER CLINTON'S ALLEGED CRIME
COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH
CRIME IN LIGHT OF ITS PERSONAL
NATURE.
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT I
STATED IN AN INTERVIEW I DID NOT
THINK THAT A TECHNICAL CRIME WAS
REQUIRED.
BUT I DID THINK OF USING TRUST
COULD BE CONSIDERED.
I SAID THAT.
AT THAT TIME I HAD NOT DONE
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THAT ISSUE
BECAUSE IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE
CLINTON CASE AND I WAS NOT FULLY
AWARE OF THE COMPELLING COUNTER
ARGUMENTS.
I SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE ACADEMIC
CONSENSUS ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS
NOT ON THE FRONT BURNER AT THE
TIME.
BUT BECAUSE THIS IMPEACHMENT
DIRECTLY RAISES THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS
REQUIRED I HAVE GONE BACK AND
READ ALL THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL
MATERIAL AS NONPARTISAN
ACADEMICS SHOULD ALWAYS DO AND
HAVE NOW CONCLUDED THAT THE
FRAMERS DID INTEND TO LIMIT THE
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT TO
CRIMINAL TYPE ACTS AKIN TO
TREASON, BRIBERY AND THEY
CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO
EXTEND IT TO VAGUE AND
OPEN-ENDED AND NONCRIMINAL
ACCUSATIONS SUCH AS ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
I PUBLISHED THIS ACADEMIC
CONCLUSION WELL BEFORE I WAS
ASKED TO PRESENT THE ARGUMENTS
TO THE SENATE IN THIS CASE.
MY SWITCH AND ATTITUDE PURELY
ACADEMIC AND PURELY NONPARTISAN.
NOR AM I THE ONLY PARTICIPANT IN
THIS PROCEEDING WAS CHANGED HIS
MIND.
SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
SEVERAL SENATORS EXPRESSED
DIFFERENT VIEWS REGARDING THE
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT WHEN
THE SUBJECT WAS PRESIDENT
CLINTON THEN THEY DO NOW.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS CLINTON
MY COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND,
PROFESSOR LAWRENCE DRIVE, WHO
ADVISES BIGGER CLOSING OUT WROTE
THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT
BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND NOW
HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND.
THAT IS WHAT ACADEMICS DO.
ANNA SHOULD DO BASED ON NEW
INFORMATION.
IF THERE ARE REASONABLE DOUBTS
ABOUT THE INTENDED MEANING OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
SENATORS MIGHT CONSIDER
RESOLVING THESE DOUBTS BY
REFERENCE TO A LEGAL CONCEPT
KNOWN AS -- IT GOES BACK TO
HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE
FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY AND WAS
A CONCEPT IN GREAT BRITAIN
RELIED UPON BY MANY OF OUR OWN
JUSTICES AND JUDGES OVER THE
YEARS AND A WELL-KNOWN TO THE
LEGAL MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDING
GENERATION.
IT REQUIRED AND CONSTRUING
CRIMINAL STATUTE THAT IS CAPABLE
OF MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION AND THE
INTERPRETATION THAT FAVORS THE
DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SELECTED
UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH THE
INTENT OF THE STATUTE.
IT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE OLIVER
WENDELL HOLMES, JUSTICE ANTHONY
SCALIA 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
ENCOMPASS BRIBERY AND IN OTHER
WORDS, THE SENATORS ARE IN DOUBT
ABOUT THE MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS AND THE RULE OF
LENITY SHOULD INCLINE THEM
TOWARD ACCEPTING A NARROWER
RATHER THAN BROAD
INTERPRETATION.
I VIEWED THE REJECTS ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS AS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA.
EVEN IF THE RULE OF LENITY IS
NOT TECHNICALLY APPLICABLE TO
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS A
QUESTION, CERTAINLY A POLICY
UNDERLINE THAT RULE ARE WORTHY
OF DESERVING OF CONSIDERATION AS
GUIDES TO CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION.
NOW, HERE I MAKE 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 NOT WANT TO
ADDRESS MYSELF TO, DO ABUSE OF
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES?
THE RELEVANT HISTORY ANSWERS
THAT QUESTION CLEARLY IN THE
NEGATIVE.
EACH OF THESE CHARGES SUFFERS
FROM THE VICE OF BEING QUOTE, SO
VAGUE A TERM THAT THERE WILL BE
EQUIVALENT OF TENURE AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE SENATE AND TO
QUOTE AGAIN THE FATHER OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.
ABUSE OF POWERS AND ACCUSATION
EASILY LEVELED BY POLITICAL
OPPONENTS AGAINST CONTROVERSY
ALL PRESIDENTS.
IN OUR LONG HISTORY MANY
PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF
ABUSING THEIR POWER AND I WILL
NOW GIVE YOU A LIST OF
PRESIDENTS WHO IN OUR HISTORY
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSING
THEIR 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 AN IMPORTANT
AND FORCING THE ALIEN AND
SEDITION LAWS BUT THOMAS
JEFFERSON, PURCHASING LOUISIANA
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION.
I WILL GO ON.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, MOUNT MARTIN
VAN BUREN, JOHN TYLER, ARBITRARY
DESPOTIC AND CORRUPT ABUSE OF
THE VETO POWER.
JAMES POPE, HERE I QUOTE ABRAHAM
LINCOLN.
HE ACCUSED POPE OF ABUSING HIS
POWER OVER HIS OFFICE
CONTEMPTUOUSLY DISREGARDING THE
CONSTITUTION AND USURPING THE
ROLE CONGRESS AND ASSUMING THE
ROLE OF DICTATOR.
HE DID NOT SEEK TO IMPEACH HIM
JUST SOUGHT TO DEFEAT HIM.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WAS ACCUSED OF ABUSING HIS POWER
FOR SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE CIVIL
WAR.
PRESIDENT GRANT, GROVER
CLEVELAND, WILLIAM MCKINLEY,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, WILLIAM
TAFT, WOODROW WILSON, FRANK AND
ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN, JIMMY CARTER,
RONALD REAGAN QUOTE, CONCERNING
IRAN-CONTRA AND NOW I SAY
PROFESSOR LAWRENCE STRIDE SAID
THE FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING, QUOTE,
THEREIN LIES WHAT APPEARS TO BE
THE MOST SERIOUS BREACH OF DUTY
BY THE PRESIDENT, A BREACH THAT
MAY WELL ENTAIL AND IMPEACHABLE
ABUSE OF POWER.
GEORGE HW BUSH.
THE FOLLOWING WAS RELEASED TODAY
BY THE CLINTON GORE CAMPAIGN.
IN THE PAST WEEKS AMERICANS HAVE
BEGUN TO LEARN THE EXTENT TO
WHICH GEORGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
HAS ABUSED THEIR GOVERNMENTAL
POWER OF POLITICAL PURPOSES.
THAT IS HOW ABUSE OF POWERS HAVE
BEEN USED.
AS CAMPAIGN RHETORIC.
IT SHOULD BE STATEMENTS ISSUED
BY ONE CLINICAL PARTY AGAINST
THE OTHER AND THAT IS THE NATURE
OF THE TERM.
ABUSE OF POWER IS A POLITICAL
WEAPON AND IT SHOULD BE LEVELED
AGAINST POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE.
THAT IS TRUE BUT BARACK OBAMA,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HELD AN ENTIRE HEARING ENTITLED
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ABUSE OF
POWER.
NOW, BY THE STANDARDS APPLIED TO
EARLIER PRESIDENTS NEARLY ANY
CONTROVERSIAL ACT BY A CHIEF
EXECUTIVE COULD BE DENOMINATED
ABUSE OF POWER.
FOR EXAMPLE, PAST PRESIDENTS
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF USING THEIR
FOREIGN POLICY, EVEN THEIR WAR
POWERS TO ENHANCE THEIR
ELECTORAL PROSPECTS.
PRESIDENTS OFTEN HAVE MIXED
MOTIVES.
IT INCLUDES PARTISAN AND
PERSONAL BENEFITS ALONG WITH A
NATIONAL INTEREST, PROFESSOR
JOSH BLACKMAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSOR PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING
INTERESTING EXAMPLES.
QUOTE, IN 1864 DURING THE HEIGHT
OF THE CIVIL WAR PRESIDENT
LINCOLN ENCOURAGED GENERAL
WILLIAM SHERMAN TO ALLOW
SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD TO RETURN
TO INDIANA TO VOTE.
WHAT WAS LINCOLN'S PRIMARY
MOTIVATION?
HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA REMAINED
IN THE HANDS OF HER PUBLIC AND
LOYALISTS WHO CONTINUE THE WAR
UNTIL VICTORY.
LINCOLN'S REQUEST RISKED
UNDERCUTTING THE MILITARY EFFORT
BY DEPLETING THE RANKS.
MOREOVER, DURING THE TIME
SOLDIERS FROM THE REMAINING
STATES FACED GREATER RISKS THAN
DID THE RETURNING HOOSIERS.
THE PROFESSOR CONTINUES, LINCOLN
HAD DUAL MOTIVES.
PRIVATELY HE SOUGHT TO SECURE
VICTORY FOR HIS PARTY.
BUT THE PRESIDENT AS A PRESIDENT
AND AS A PARTY LEADER AND
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF MADE A
DECISION WITH LIFE OR DEATH
CONSEQUENCES.
PROFESSOR BLACKMAN DO THE
FOLLOWING RELEVANT CONCLUSION
FROM THIS AND OTHER HISTORICAL
EVENTS.
HE SAID POLITICIANS ROUTINELY
PROMOTE THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE GENERAL WELFARE WHILE IN THE
BACK OF THEIR MINDS CONSIDERING
HOW THESE ACTIONS WILL AFFECT
THEIR POPULARITY.
OFTEN THE TWO CONCEPTS OVERLAP
AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY
IS GOOD FOR THE OFFICIALS
REELECTION.
ALL POLITICIANS, HE SAID,
UNDERSTAND THAT DYNAMIC.
LIKE ALL HUMAN BEINGS PRESIDENTS
AND OTHER POLITICIANS PERSUADE
THEMSELVES THAT THEIR ACTIONS
SEEN BY THEIR OPPONENTS AS
SELF-SERVING ARE PRIMARILY IN
THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.
IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH
MIXED MOTIVE ACTIONS CONSTITUTE
AN ABUSE OF POWER OPPONENTS MUST
PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT AND
A TRIBUTE TO HIM AS SINGULAR
SELF-SERVING MOTIVES.
SUCH AS OBJECTIVE PROBING OF
MOTIVES CANNOT BE THE LEGAL
BASIS FOR A SERIOUS ACCUSATION
OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT COULD
RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF AN
ELECTED PRESIDENT.
YET, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE
MANAGERS ARE CLAIMING.
HERE IS WHAT SAID, QUOTE,
WHETHER THE PRESIDENTS REAL
REASON, THE ONES ACTUALLY IS
MINE ARE AT THE TIME LEGITIMATE.
WHAT A STANDARD?
WHAT WAS IN THE PRESIDENTS MIND
ACTUALLY IN HIS MIND AND WHAT
WAS THE REAL REASON?
WOULD YOU WANT YOUR ACTIONS TO
BE PROBED FOR WHAT WAS THE REAL
REASON AND WHY YOU ACTED EVEN IF
A PRESIDENT WERE -- IT CLEARLY
SHOWS, IN MY MIND, THAT THE
FRAMERS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED
THIS PSYCHOANALYTICAL APPROACH
TO PRESIDENTIAL MOTIVES TO
DETERMINE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE AND
WHAT IS IT NOT.
HERE I COME TO A RELEVANT AND
CONTEMPORARY IN THIS ISSUE.
EVEN IF A PRESIDENT, ANY
PRESIDENT, WERE TO DEMAND A QUID
PRO QUO AS A CONDITION TO
SENDING AID TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY
OBVIOUSLY I HIGHLY DISPUTED
MATTER IN THIS CASE THAT WOULD
NOT, BY ITSELF, CONSTITUTE AN
ABUSE OF POWER BUT CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL CASE THAT
IS IN OUR NEWS TODAY AS THE
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER COMES TO
THE UNITED STATES FOR MEETINGS.
LET'S ASSUME THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT TELLS ISRAEL THAT
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS WILL NOT BE SENT FOR AN
OVAL OFFICE MEETING WILL NOT BE
SCHEDULED IN LESS THE ISRAELIS
STOP BUILDING -- QUID PRO QUO.
I MIGHT DISAPPROVE OF SUCH A
QUID PRO QUO DEMAND ON POLICY
GROUNDS BUT IT WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER.
QUID PRO QUO 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.
THE CLAIM THAT FOREIGN POLICY
DECISIONS CAN BE DEEMED ABUSE OF
POWER BASED ON SUBJECTIVE
OPINIONS ABOUT MIXED OR SOLD
MOTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
INTERESTED ONLY IN HELPING
HIMSELF DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS
OF EMPLOYING THE VAGUE
SUBJECTIVE AND POLITICALLY
MALLEABLE PHRASE, ABUSE OF
POWER, AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY
PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR THE
REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENTS.
NOW, IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT
IF A PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENTS,
WERE TO HAVE DONE WHAT THE TIMES
REPORTED ABOUT THE CONTACTS OF
THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPTS 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
AND 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
BENEFITS.
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE
FRAMERS WOULD HAVE INTENDED SO
POLITICALLY LOADED AND
PROMISCUOUSLY DEPLOYED A TERM IS
ABUSE OF POWER TO BE WEAPON EYES
TO IT AS A TOOL OF IMPEACHMENT.
IT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF
VAGUE OPEN-ENDED AND SUBJECTIVE
TERM THAT THE FRAMERS FEARED AND
REJECTED.
CONSIDER THE TERM
MALADMINISTRATION BUT I WANT TO
GET BACK TO THAT TERM BECAUSE
IT'S A TERM THAT WAS EXPLICITLY
REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS YOU WILL
RECALL THE PHRASE AND THAT HAS
BEEN OBJECTED TO IT IT HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN AND IT IS NOT PART OF
THE CRITERIA.
WE ALL AGREE MALADMINISTRATION
IS NOT A GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IF THE HOUSE FOR TWO IMPEACH ON
MALADMINISTRATION IT WOULD BE
PLACING ITSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE
FRAMERS EXPLICITLY REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION FOR WHAT IS
MALADMINISTRATION?
IT'S COMPARABLE, IN MANY WAYS,
TO THE ABUSE OF POWER BUT MAHLON
MINISTRIES AND HAS BEEN DEFINED
TO INCLUDE ABUSE, CORRUPTION,
MISRULE, DISHONESTY, MISUSE OF
OFFICE AND MISBEHAVIOR PROFESSOR
BUIE IN HIS ARTICLE IN TODAY'S
NEW YORK TIMES EQUATES ABUSE OF
POWER WITH QUOTES, MISCONDUCT IN
OFFICE.
MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.
THE SUPPORTING THE VIEW THAT
WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION THEY ALSO
REJECTED ABUSE OF POWER AS A
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT.
BLACKSTONE DENOMINATED MALLON AS
JASON IS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR AND
THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY THE METHOD
OF PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENT
WHERE IN SUCH PENALTY SHOWED
DEATH OR INFLICTED AND INCLUDED
AMONG THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
IN OTHER WORDS YOU CAN BE
IMPRISONED FOR MALLON
ADMINISTRATION.
DESPITE THIS BRITISH HISTORY
MADISON INSISTED THAT IF YOU
REJECTED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE
AND I QUOTE AGAIN, SO VAGUE HE
TERM WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO TEN
YEAR DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE
SENATE AND IT WAS EXPLICITLY
REJECTED AND WITHDRAWN BY ITS
SPONSOR.
THIS IMPORTANT EPISODE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY SUPPORTS
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FRAMERS
DID NOT ACCEPT WHOLE HOG OF THE
BRITISH APPROACH TO IMPEACHMENT
AS SOME HAVE MISTAKENLY ARGUED.
SPECIFICALLY THEY REJECTED HIM
VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA,
EVEN THOSE CARRYING PUNISHMENT
OF AN PRESIDENT IN BRITAIN
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO
TURN OUR NEW REPUBLIC INTO A
PARLIAMENTARY REAL STYLE
DEMOCRACY IN WHICH THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE COULD BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE SIMPLY BY A VOTE OF
NONCONFIDENCE PRINT THAT IS WHAT
HE DID NOT WANT TO.
SURE, NO ONE WAS ABOVE THE LAW
BUT THEY CREATED A LAW AND
CREATED A LAW BY WHICH CONGRESS
COULD IMPEACH AND THEY DID NOT
WANT TO EXPAND THAT LAW TO
INCLUDE ALL THE CRITERIA THAT
PERMITTED IMPEACHMENT IN GREAT
BRITAIN.
THE FRAMERS WOULD NEVER HAVE
INCLUDED AND DID NOT INCLUDE
ABUSE OF POWER AS ENUMERATED IN
DEFINED CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
BY EXPRESSLY REJECTING
MALADMINISTRATION THEY
IMPLICITLY REJECTED ABUSE.
NOR WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE
INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
IS AMONG THE ENUMERATED AND
DEFINED CRITERIA FOR IT TO HIS
VAGUE AND INDEFINABLE ESPECIALLY
IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN
WHICH ACCORDING TO HAMILTON AND
FEDERALIST 78 THE LEGISLATIVE
BODY IS NOT THEMSELVES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE OF THEIR
OWN POWERS.
THE CONSTRUCTION THEY PUT ON
THEM IS NOT CONCLUSIVE UPON
OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
INSTEAD HE SAID THE COURTS WERE
DESIGNED AS AN INTERMEDIATE BODY
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE, AS DECLARED
IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
LEGISLATOR IN ORDER TO KEEP THE
LATTER WITHIN THE LIMITS
ASSIGNED TO THEIR AUTHORITY FOR
IT UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS
AND BALANCES IT CANNOT BE AN
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND SOME
OTHER LAWYERS HAVE MADE THIS
ARGUMENT TODAY MORE THOROUGHLY
FOR A PRESIDENT TO DEMAND
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE
SUBPOENAS BEFORE THEY ARE
COMPLIED WITH.
THE LEGISLATOR IS NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE OF ITS OWN
POWERS INCLUDING THE POWER TO
ISSUE SUBPOENAS BUT THE COURTS
WERE DESIGNATED TO DISSOLVE
DISPUTES BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND
LEDGE THETA BRANCHES AND IT
CANNOT BE AN OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS TO INVOKE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE
COURTS TO DO SO.
BY THEIR VERY NATURE WORDS LIKE
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS ARE STANDARDLESS.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT
STANDARDS INTO WORDS LIKE BATS.
BOTH ARTIST SUBJECTIVE MATTERS
OF DEGREE AND AMENABLE TO
BURYING PARTISAN PARTICIPATION.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IN
ADVANCE WHETHER A GIVEN ACTION
WILL SUBSEQUENTLY.
[AUDIO DIFFICULTIES]
INDEED THE SAME ACTION WITH THE
SAME STATE OF MIND CAN BE DEEMED
ABUSIVE OR 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 COULD BE APPLIED
TO ONE PERSON AND ONE WAY AND
ANOTHER PERSON ANOTHER WAY AND
THEY BOTH FIT WITHIN THE TERMS
OF USE OF POWER.
A FEW EXAMPLES WILL ILLUSTRATE
THE DANGERS OF STANDARD LISTS OF
IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA.
MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE
PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN HAS
ARGUED THAT A TWEET CONTAINING
WHAT HE BELIEVED IT WAS FALSE
INFORMATION COULD QUOTE, GET THE
CURRENT PRESIDENT IMPEACHED IF
IT IS PART OF A BROADER COURSE
OF CONDUCT.
A TWEET.
PROFESSOR ALAN LICHTMAN HAS
ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD
BE IMPEACHED BASED ON HIS
CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY WHICH HE
REGARDS AS A CRIME AGAINST
HUMANITY.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU I DISAGREE
WITH OUR PRESIDENTS CLIMATE
CHANGE POLICY AS I DO WITH MANY
OF HIS OTHER POLICIES BUT THAT
IS NOT A CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S A CRITERIA FOR DECIDING
WHO YOU WILL VOTE FOR.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE A PRESIDENTS
POLICIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE VOTE
FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE AND FIND
A CANDIDATE WHO HAS A BETTER
POLICY ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE
PRESIDENT'S TWEETS, FIND SOMEONE
WHO DOESN'T TREAT.
THAT WOULD BE EASY.
BUT DON'T ALLOW YOUR SUBJECTIVE
JUDGMENTS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS
AND IS NOT IN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
PROFESSOR TRIBE ARGUED UNDER THE
ABUSE OF POWER PRESIDENT RONALD
REAGAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN
IMPEACHED.
WOULD ANY AMERICAN TODAY ACCEPT
THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN WHICH
PROSECUTORS COULD CHARGE A
CITIZEN WITH ABUSE OF CONDUCT?
CAN YOU IMAGINE A CRIME, ABUSIVE
CONDUCT?
FORTUNATELY WE HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
AGAINST THE STATUTE THAT QUOTE,
EITHER FOR BIDS OR REQUIRES THE
DOING OF AN ACT IN A TERM SO
VAGUE THAT MEN AND WOMEN OF
COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST
NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS MEANING
AND DIFFER AS TO ITS
APPLICATION.
VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE
CRITERIA THAT FIT THIS
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID VIOLATES THE
FIRST ESSENTIALS OF DUE PROCESS
MORE CLOSELY THEN ABUSE OF
POWER.
AN OBJECTION OF CONGRESS.
ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION IS THAT WHEN WORDS
CAN BE INTERPRETED IN AN
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE MATTER
OR CONSTITUTIONALLY PRECISE
MATTER THE LATTER MUST BE
CHOSEN.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO USE THAT
RULE OF INTERPRETATION AS WELL
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.
THE SENATOR REMOVED A DULY
ELECTED PRESIDENT ON VAGUE NON-
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS SUCH AS
ABUSE OF POWER, ABSORPTION OF
CONGRESS WOULD CREATE A
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND BE
CONSTRUED IN THE WORDS OF
SENATOR JAMES GRIMES, INTO
APPROVAL OF IMPEACHMENT AS PART
OF FUTURE POLITICAL MACHINERY.
THIS IS A REALISTIC THREAT TO
ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHO SERVE
WITH OPPOSING LEGISLATIVE
MAJORITIES THAT COULD EASILY
CONCOCT VAGUE CHARGES OF ABUSE
OR OBSTRUCTION.
THE FACT THAT A LONG LIST OF
PRESIDENTS THAT WERE ACCUSED OF
ABUSE OF POWER WERE NOT
IMPEACHED DEMONSTRATES HOW
SELECTIVELY THIS TERM HAS AND
CAN BE USED IN THE CONTEXT OF
IMPEACHMENT.
I'M SORRY HOUSE MANAGERS, YOU
JUST PICKED THE WRONG CRITERIA.
YOU PICKED THE MOST DANGEROUS
POSSIBLE CRITERIA TO SERVE AS A
PRECEDENT FOR HOW WE SUPERVISE
AND OVERSEE FUTURE PRESIDENTS.
THE IDEA OF ABUSE OF 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.
NOR ARE THESE VAGUE OPEN ENDED
AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT THAT WE ARE CHARGED
HERE ARE NOT SAVED BY THE
INCLUSION IN THESE ARTICLES OF
SOMEWHAT MORE SPECIFIC BUT STILL
NONCRIMINAL TYPE CONDUCT.
THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THEMSELVES
ARE VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED AND DO
NOT CHARGE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
PAID INCLUDE SUCH ACCUSATIONS AS
COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY,
ABUSING THE POWER OF THE
PRESIDENCY, VIOLATING HIS OATH
OF OFFICE, IN ANY EVENT, THE
ACTUAL ARTICLES THAT CHARGE
ABUSE OF POWER AND INSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE NEITHER OF WHICH ARE
IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
ACTUAL ARTICLES IN WHICH YOU
MUST ALL VOTE.
NOT ON THE MORE SPECIFIC LIST OF
MEANS, INCLUDED IN THE TEXT OF
THE ARTICLES WITH AN ANALOGY TO
COLONEL THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF
THE DEFENDANT WERE TO BE CHOOSE
DISHONESTY AND COMMITTING THE
CRIME OF DISHONESTY.
WE WOULD NOT MATTER THAT THE
INDICTMENT LISTED AS WELL THE
MEANS TOWARD DISHONESTY A
VARIETY OF FORMS OR SPECIFIC
POTENTIAL OFFENSES BUT
DISHONESTY IS SIMPLY NOT A
CRIME.
IT'S TOO BROAD A CONCEPT AND NOT
IN THE STATUTES AND NOT A CRIME.
THE INDICTMENT WOULD BE
DISMISSED BECAUSE DISHONESTY IS
A SIN AND NOT A CRIME.
EVEN IF THE INDICTMENT INCLUDED
A LONG LIST OF MORE SPECIFIC
ACTS OF DISHONESTY.
NOR CAN IMPEACHMENT BE BASED ON
A BUNCHING OF TOGETHER OF NON-
IMPEACHABLE'S SINS, NONE OF
WHICH IS STAND ALONE MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA.
ONLY IF ONE CONSTITUTIONALLY
AUTHORIZED DEFENSE APPROVED CAN
THE SENATE THEN CONSIDER CONDUCT
IN DECIDING THE DISCRETIONARY
ISSUE OF WHETHER REMOVAL IS
WARRANTED.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR
JURISDICTION IS BASED ON
COMMISSION OF AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
ONCE THAT JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENT
IS SATISFIED YOU HAVE BROAD
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
REMOVAL IS WARRANTED AND
CONSIDER A WIDE ARRAY OF CONDUCT
CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL BUT YOU
HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REMOVE
UNLESS THERE'S ONE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IN THE THREE DAYS OF ARGUMENTS
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOSSED AROUND
WORDS EVEN VAGUER AND MORE
OPEN-ENDED THEN ABUSE AND
OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTIFY THEIR
CASE FOR REMOVAL.
THIS 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
ALLEGED POLITICAL SINS FROM
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES.
WE ALL WANT OUR PRESIDENTS AND
OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO LIVE
UP TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS THAT
BY WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN,
THOUGH BOTH OF THEM WERE ACCUSED
OF ABUSE OF POWER BY THEIR
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THE FRAMERS COULD HAVE DEMANDED
THAT ALL PRESIDENTS MUST MEET
CONGRESSMAN SHIFTS STANDARDS OF
BEING HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY,
VIRTUOUS AND RIGHT.
THIS IS IN ORDER TO COMPLETE
THEIR TERMS BUT THEY DIDN'T.
THEY UNDERSTAND HUMAN
FALLIBILITY.
AS MADISON PUT IT, IF MEN WERE
ANGELS, NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
NECESSARY AND THEN A SPEAKING OF
PRESIDENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, IF ANGELS WERE TO
GOVERN MEN, NEITHER INTERNAL OR
EXTERNAL CONTROLS IN GOVERNMENT
WOULD BE NECESSARY.
THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF
THEY SET THE CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT TO LOW FEW
PRESIDENTS WOULD SERVE THEIR
TERMS.
INSTEAD THEIR TENURE WOULD BE AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATOR
AS IT WAS AND STILL IS IN
BRITAIN.
THEY SET THE STANDARDS AND THE
CRITERIA HIGH REQUIRING NOT JUST
SIMPLE BEHAVIOR, NOT DISHONESTY,
DISTRUST OR DISHONOR BUT
TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
I END THIS PRESENTATION TODAY
WITH A NONPARTISAN PLEA FOR FAIR
CONSIDERATION OF MY ARGUMENTS
AND THOSE MADE BY COUNSEL AND
MANAGERS ON BOTH SIDES.
I WILLINGLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE
ACADEMIC CONSENSUS IS THAT
CRIMINAL CONDUCT WAS NOT
REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT AND
THAT ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE
SUFFICIENT BUT I HAVE READ AND
RESPECTFULLY CONSIDERED THE
ACADEMIC WORK OF MY MANY
COLLEAGUES WHO DISAGREE WITH MY
VIEW AND THE VIEW WHO ACCEPT IT.
I DO MY OWN RESEARCH.
I DO MY OWN THINKING.
I HAVE NEVER BOWED TO THE
MAJORITY ON INTELLECTUAL OR
SCHOLARLY MATTERS.
WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT DURING
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING
THERE HAVE BEEN FEW ATTEMPTS TO
RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENTS AND
OTHER 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 OF
POSSIBLE MERITS OF THE OF CIVIL
EVENT REJECTED WITH NEGATIVE
EPITHETS.
I URGE THE SENATORS TO IGNORE
THESE EPITHETS AND TO CONSIDER
THE ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER
ARGUMENTS ON THEIR MERITS.
ESPECIALLY THOSE DIRECTED
AGAINST THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BIGNESS OF ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
I NOW OFFER A CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATING CONFLICTING 
ARGUMENTS.
THE CRITERIA THAT I OFFER I HAVE
LONG CALLED THE SHOE ON THE
OTHER FOOT TEST.
IT IS A COLLOQUIAL VARIATION OF
THE TEST PROPOSED BY THE GREAT
LEGAL AND POLITICAL THINKER AND
MY FORMER COLLEAGUE, JOHN RAWLS.
IT IS CIVIL IN ITS STATEMENT BUT
DIFFICULT IN ITS APPLICATION.
AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ARE
SPECIALLY URGE EACH OF YOU TO
IMAGINE THAT THE PERSON BEING
IMPEACHED WERE OF THE OPPOSITE
PARTY OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT
BUT THAT IN EVERY OTHER RESPECT
THE FACTS WERE THE SAME.
I HAVE APPLIED THIS TEST TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS I AM
OFFERING 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 BID
THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME KNOW
THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
I AM NONPARTISAN IN MY
APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
BID CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF ALL
MY COLLEAGUES?
WHO SUPPORT THIS IMPEACHMENT
ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO POSE THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON.
I PROPOSED THE SHOE TEST IN
EVALUATING BUSH VERSUS GORE AND
ASKING THE JUSTICES TO CONSIDER
HOW THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED HAD IT
BEEN CANDIDATE BUSH RATHER THAN
GORE WHO WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED
VOTES BEHIND IN SEEKING A
RECOUNT?
IN OTHER WORDS I WAS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THAT ISSUE I
THOUGHT THIS UP IN 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 YOU HAVE HEARD IN
THIS HISTORIC CHAMBER BUT IT IS
AN IMPORTANT TEST BECAUSE HOW WE
VOTE ON THIS CASE WILL SERVE AS
A PRESIDENT TO HOW OTHER
SENATORS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES
AND DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES VOTE IN
FUTURE CASES.
ALLOWING A DULY ELECTED
PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED ON THE
BASIS OF THE STANDARDLESS
SUBJECTIVE, EVER-CHANGING
CRITERIA, ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS RISKS
BEING CONSTRUED IN THE WORDS OF
SENATOR GRIMES, A REPUBLICAN
SENATOR FROM IOWA WHO VOTED
AGAINST IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT
ANDREW JOHNSON INTO APPROVAL OF
IMPEACHMENTS AS PART OF FUTURE
POLITICAL MACHINERY.
AS I BEGIN I WILL CLOSE.
I'M 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 FREEST AND
MOST WONDERFUL COUNTRY IN
HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
I LOVE OUR CONSTITUTION,
GREATEST MOST ENDURING DOCUMENTS
IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU NOT TO
LET YOUR FEELINGS OF DOUBT --
ABOUT ONE MAN, STRONG AS THEY
MAY BE, TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT
THAT WOULD UNDO THE WORK OF OUR
FOUNDERS, INJURE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FUTURE OF OUR
CHILDREN AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE
DAMAGE TO THE DELICATE BALANCE
OF OUR SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES
PAID AS JUSTICE CURTIS SAID
DURING THE TRIAL OF ANDREW
JOHNSON, A GREATER PRINCIPLE IS
AT STAKE THEN 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 AND LIST ALL THEIR
ANIMOSITIES, PERSONALITIES,
INFLUENCE AND INTEREST ON ONE OR
THE OTHER AND THE SENSE, THE
SENATE WAS ESTABLISHED AS A WISE
AND MATURE CHECK ON THE PASSIONS
OF THE MOMENT WITH QUOTE, A DEEP
RESPONSIBILITY TO FUTURE TIMES.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THIS
GREAT BODY TO THINK BEYOND THE
EMOTIONS OF THE DAY AND TO VOTE
AGAINST IMPEACHING ON THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES NOW
BEFORE YOU AND TO REMOVE A DULY
ELECTED PRESIDENT AND PREVENT
THE VOTERS FROM CITING HIS FATE
ON THE BASIS OF THESE ARTICLES
WOULD NEITHER DO JUSTICE TO THIS
PRESIDENT NOR TO OUR ENDURING
CONSTITUTION FOR THERE IS NO
CONFLICT HERE.
IMPEACHING WOULD DENY BOTH
JUSTICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND
JUSTICE TO OUR CONSTITUTION.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLOSE
ATTENTION AND IT HAS BEEN A
GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO ADDRESS
THIS DISTINGUISHED MATTER ON
THIS BODY ON THIS IMPORTANT
MATTER BID THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR ATTENTION.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> I'M SORRY, ARE YOU COMPLETE?
PAT CIPOLLONE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL,
DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER,
SENATORS, DON'T WORRY, THIS
WON'T TAKE VERY LONG.
WE WILL STOP FOR THE DAY AND WE
WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR
PRESENTATIONS TOMORROW.
I JUST HAD THREE OBSERVATIONS
THAT I WANTED TO BRIEFLY MAKE
FOR YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR PROFESSOR AND ALL OUR
PRESENTERS FROM OUR SIDE TODAY.
I WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING TO
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 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
AND HOW WOULD WE ANSWER THAT
QUESTION?
I FOUND MYSELF THINKING MAYBE
THAT'S 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 AND THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE
YOU HAVE BEEN PASSED ON A PURELY
PARTISAN BASIS FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN HISTORY.
IN FACT, THERE WAS A 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 ANY 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 HAD EXERCISED.
THE PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN NO
RIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONDUCTED
ONLY TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS AND
YOU ARE SITTING FOR YOUR SIXTH
DAY OF TRIAL.
THE HOUSE IS DEMANDING WITNESSES
FROM YOU THAT THEY REFUSED TO
SEEK 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 TO SIT
IN YOUR SEATS FOR.
AN ELECTION IS ONLY MONTHS AWAY
AND 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 AND PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY AND TAKE THE CHOICE
AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND 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.
BUT THEN YOU WOULD BE HAPPY
BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EASY ANSWER
AND YOU CAN BE DONE WITH YOUR
LAW SCHOOL EXAM AND IT WOULD BE
YOU IMMEDIATELY REJECT THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
PHOTOS QUESTION, SHOULD YOUR
ANSWER DEPEND ON YOUR POLITICAL
PARTY, ANSWER, NO.
MY SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT I
ACTUALLY THINK IT'S INSTRUCTIVE
TO WATCH THE OLD VIDEOS FROM THE
LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED.
MANY OF YOU WERE STILL MAKING
SOAP OR MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN WE
ARE THE POINT THAT WE ARE MAKING
ABOUT THE LAW AND PRECEDENT.
...
