>>>
WE INTO YET ANOTHER PHASE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. IN ONE HOUR 
THE SENATORS WILL STICK 
CENTERSTAGE THEMSELVES. WELCOME 
TO LIVE COVERAGE. THANK YOU FOR 
JOINING US.
THEY GET 16 HOURS SPREAD OUT 
OVER TODAY AND TOMORROW.
JOINING ME IN THE STUDIO IS 
AMBER PHILLIPS AND JAMES HOLMAN.
YOU BOTH PUBLISH STORIES IN THE 
LAST 30 MINUTES. WE WILL TALK 
MORE ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO 
ASK QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE TOP 
LINE NEW STORY HERE. 
>> I THINK IT IS HAPPENING 
OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE CHAMBER. 
THE QUESTIONS ARE STILL 
INTERESTING.
THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
THE SENSORS GOING TO AGREE. IT 
IS ALMOST LIKE WE FINISHED 
OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH 
SIDES. MAYBE THEY WILL SURPRISE 
ME. EVERYONE IS REALLY THINKING 
ABOUT FRIDAY. THE BIG VOTE TO 
EXTEND THE TRIAL. WE ARE 
WATCHING EXTREMELY CLOSE HE WAS 
SENATORS ARE SAYING. I AM NOT 
ANY CLEAR IF THEY WILL SUBPOENA 
HIM. 
>> WE WILL GET IN THE LATEST 
NEWS. I'M WONDERING
IF THE QUESTION TODAY A 
REVEALING ON BOTH SIDES.
>> I THINK THE BIG STORY TODAY 
IS GOING TO BE THE FULL PARTIES 
TRANSFER THE LAWYERS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE ON TROUGH.
THEY WILL BE FASTER PACED THAN 
WHAT WE THINK.
THEY WILL NOT HAVE A ONE HOUR 
LONG SPEECH. YOU ARE GOING TO 
ALTERNATE BACK AND FORTH. THIS 
IS NOT JUST THE SENATORS SITTING
AND DECIDING. BOTH OF THEM ARE 
PLAYING
FOR THESE PEOPLE AMBER IS 
TALKING ABOUT. TRYING TO 
CONVINCE THEM THE FACTS ARE OUT 
THERE FOR THE WHAT IS HIS AND 
MATERIAL. THE TOP STRATEGY IS 
THAT REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH THEM 
OUT OF CONTACT WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
DEMOCRATS EARLY ON ARE GOING TO 
HAVE TO QUESTION THE BOTH THE 
MANUSCRIPT.
WE DID NOT REVIEW THE 
MANUSCRIPT.
OFFICIALS DECLINED TO SAY THAT 
THEY WILL BE THAT POSTURING 
SEMANTICS.
IT IS NOT THE KIND OF THING THAT
MOVES PUBLIC ATTENTION.
SHE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALL THE 
DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 
HAPPENING TODAY.
>> THIS QUESTION PHASES WANT TO 
BROKEN UP INTO 8 HOUR PERIODS.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS GIVEN 
US A GLIMPSE OF HOW HE WANTED 
THIS TO GO. HE WANTS THE LAWYER 
FOR THE PRESIDENTS THINK ABOUT 
WHETHER THE THE ANSWER 
QUESTIONS.
>>
THE QUESTION CAN BE FULLY AND 
THOROUGHLY ANSWERED IN FIVE 
MINUTES OR LESS. THE TRANSCRIPT 
INDICATES THE STATEMENT WAS MET 
WITH LAUGHTER.
NONETHELESS, MANAGERS AND 
COUNSEL LIMIT THEIR RESPONSES 
ACCORDINGLY.
WHILE WE HOPE THAT IS WHAT THEY 
MAY DO, WE COULD HAVE A VERY 
LONG DAY. HOW DO THEY SUBMIT 
THESE QUESTIONS? THEY HAVE A 
FORM.
THEY HAVE A FEW LINES FOR THE 
QUESTION.
THE SENATORS THAT KIND OF GROUP 
TOGETHER AND ASKED THE SAME 
QUESTION.
HE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THE DO NOT HAVE ANY 
REDUNDANCIES. THE ANSWER PERIOD 
IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE
HALLS HERE.
BEHIND ME THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG
PROTEST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE 
TO CALL FOR WITNESSES TO PUT 
PRESSURE ON THOSE REPUBLICANS. 
WE ALSO KNOW THEY ARRIVED A FEW 
HOURS AGO WITH HIS LAWYERS.
HE RECEIVED TICKETS FROM THE 
OFFICE OF CHUCK SCHUMER. HE CAN 
NOT GOING TO THE GALLERY OR THE 
CHAMBER BECAUSE HE HAS 
ELECTRONIC DEVICE ON HIS ANKLE.
THIS FORM IS NOT THREE PAGES 
LONG.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 
COORDINATION.
LAST NIGHT, HE SAID HE DOES NOT 
HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLOCK.
RIGHT NOW FEELS LIKE THEY GET 
THERE.
THOUSAND HAVE THEIR OWN.
BASED ON THE RIGHT, THE 
HARD-CORE KIND OF LOYALIST. 
SOMETIMES THEY WANT TO MAKE A 
MOCKERY OF THE PROGRESS.
HE ACTUALLY COACH FOR JOHN 
ROBERTS.
THEY ARE TWISTING A LOT OF ARMS.
IS IT THE PROCESS MAY BE A 
LITTLE BIT OF PAYING IT FORWARD.
DO THEY ASK THE TOUGHER 
QUESTION. GOOD THEY FEEL LIKE 
THEY GOT THERE QUESTION 
ANSWERED. YOU DO NOT NEED TO 
COMPLETELY GO AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> YOU GUYS MADE A GREAT POINT 
YESTERDAY. IT WAS A REFERENCE TO
THE PROCESS. HOW THAT ULTIMATELY
WAS. THEY DID SLOW THINGS DOWN.
IT WAS THIS LIMITED EDITION TO 
APPEASE CERTAIN PEOPLE.
WE ARE TAKING THESE CONCERNS 
SERIOUSLY.
HOW CAN THEY CALL IT INSECURITY.
THIS TIME,
WITH THE WORK OF THE WITNESSES 
THAT HE WANTED AND THIS TIME THE
LEVERAGE HANGOVER THIS BIG 
ARGUMENT, LOOK, DO YOU WANT 100 
BOND.
HE HAS SORT OF BENIGN SOCIAL 
MEDIA TIRADES ALL DAY LONG. NO 
WAY HE DOES NOT GET ONE OF THE 
BETTER DEFENSE AFFORDS.
IT IS VERY APT. VERY DIFFERENT. 
THEY HAVE THAT LEVERAGE TO KIND 
OF SCARE SOME OF THE MEMBERS FOR
HOLDING TO A REACTIVE PROCESS.
HE THINKS THAT THERE IS A LITTLE
BIT OF GAME PLAN. HE DOES NOT.
SOMETIMES IT EXPRESSES A LOT OF 
CONFIDENCE. I THINK THE 
PRACTICAL IMPACT IS THERE WILL 
BE A BUNCH OF PRESSURE. WHEN SHE
WAS TALKING TO US A COUPLE OF 
MINUTES AGO. THERE WAS THIS BIG 
PURGE. I THINK HE ALSO ENVISIONS
THEY WILL GET PRESSURE FROM SOME
OF THE TRUMP SUPPORTERS AS WELL.
THIS IS ABOUT LAYING YOUR CARDS 
ON THE TABLE. THE TOP LINE THING
FROM THE MEETING. 
THEN THEY WERE QUICKLY TRYING TO
WALK THAT BACK. HE IS SAYING HE 
THINKS HE IS GOING TO GET THERE.
DURING THIS MEETING,
THEY WRAPPED UP THE ARGUMENT 
LAST NIGHT.
ALL OF THEM SIT UP AND SAID 
LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH.
ALL THESE PEOPLE, NO ONE IS TO 
BE THERE.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT DEFECTING 
AND BREAKING AWAY. THEY ARE SORT
OF STICKING TOGETHER. THE ONLY 
VULNERABLE MEMBER UP FOR 
REELECTION.
>>
I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT 
HE GETS HIS WAY. IT IS JUST SO 
REMARKABLE.
CONSIDERING THROWING OUT A 
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. WE ARE 
DAYS AWAY.
THERE MAY BE REPUBLICANS DE 
FACTO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS 
THE MOST LIKELY OPTION. I THINK 
IT SPEAKS TO THE POWER AND THE 
IMPACT OF THAT MANUSCRIPT. I DO 
NOT THINK WE WILL BE HERE 
WITHOUT THAT.
>> THIS IS A HUGE DEAL.
IT IS HARD TO OVERSTATE HOW THAT
ACTUALLY FEELS.
>> LET'S DO A HEADCOUNT. WHO IS 
SAYING THEY'RE OPEN TO HAVING 
WITNESSES. CALLING FOR WITNESSES
IS ONE THING.
WHO ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO 
BRING BEFORE THE SENATE. WHO IS 
A QUESTION MARK.
>>
I THINK SHE IS LEANING TOWARDS 
WITNESSES. MET RONNIE SAYS HE 
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM JOHN 
BOLTON. SHE COULD GO EITHER WAY.
LaMARR I'LL ALEXANDER A BIGGER 
QUESTION MARK. FROM THERE I DO 
NOT KNOW WHO MAY COME IN. TO 
YOUR NEXT QUESTION. DO THEY KNOW
WHO THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM. I 
THINK THAT IS THE BIGGER DEBATE 
TO HAVE. OUR CALLING MADE A 
POINT LAST NIGHT. MAYBE THEY DO 
HAVE WITNESSES.
THE CONSENSUS THAT CAN NEVER BE 
SOLVED. THE MAJORITY WANTS A 
BROAD THING THEY AGREE ON. 
>> HE IS RETIRING. SITTING IN 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HE IS THE 
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION. HE IS 
ALSO A INSTITUTION.
THE KEY THING ABOUT HIM, MITCH 
McCONNELL IS ONE OF HIS CLOSEST 
FRIENDS.
I THINK YOU CAN EXPECT THEM TO 
VOTE FOR ONE IS IS.
WE DO NOT HEAR A LOT ABOUT HIM.
THE DEN ONE CLOSE REPORTERS 
APPROACHED HIM,
HE DECLINED TO COMMENT. HE IS 
NOT SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO DO TO 
HIM.
I THINK AMBER EXACTLY CORRECT. 
THERE IS A VERY REAL SCENARIO.
THEY PASS THE THRESHOLD.
THAT SORT OF FALLS APART.
ESPECIALLY WITH THIS SENATE.
I AM NOT GOING TO BE DISCUSSING 
THE WEATHER SITUATION. I HAVE 
SOME MORE QUESTIONS. WE WILL SEE
HOW THE QUESTIONING HAPPENS 
TODAY IN THIS SESSION.
ALSO THEY MAY BE GETTING GASSED 
ON THE SENATE FLOOR. THAT IS 
LATER ON.
WE TALKED ABOUT REPUBLICANS. 
LET'S GO BACK TO DEMOCRATS. THE 
SENATOR MENTIONED IS NOW OPENING
THE DOOR TO MORE WITNESSES.
THIS IS HOW THEY TALK ABOUT IT 
TODAY.
>> IS HERE RELATIVE WITNESS?
>> I THINK SO. I DO NOT HAVE A 
PROBLEM THERE. THIS IS WHY WE 
ARE WHERE WE ARE. I THINK HE CAN
CLEAR HIMSELF. WHAT I KNOW AND 
WHAT I HAVE HEARD.
NO MATTER IF YOU'RE DEMOCRATS OR
REPUBLICANS.
>>
THIS IS SIGNIFICANT. BEFORE WE 
ANALYZE IT TOO MUCH, LET'S 
ANALYZE THE MINORITY LEADER HOW 
HE RESPONDED AS A MEMBER OF HIS 
CAUCUS.
>> WE HAVE HAD TOTAL UNITY ON 
THE ISSUE THAT WILL BE BEFORE 
US.
WE ARE TOTALLY UNITED.
>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 
THESE TWO LAYERS.
JUST KIND OF SETTING ASIDE THIS 
BROADER DEBATE. IT IS REMARKABLE
TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT.
WE KNOW THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA 
MACHINE IS LOUDLY TALKING ABOUT 
THE HUNTER BIDEN FACTOR. AS FOR 
A ARGUMENT AS TO WHY HE MAY HAVE
DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
>> HE SAID HE STOOD BY HIS 
COMMENT.
HE ASKED IF HE WOULD BE OPEN.
THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.
ONCE YOU GET THE NAME THROWN IN 
THERE.
>> IT IS THE DEMOCRAT WHO HAS 
BEEN VIEWED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. 
HE HAS KIND OF TRIED HARD TO 
BUILD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS I 
SAID EARLIER. THEY MAY HAVE SOME
POLITICAL ADVANTAGES. HE IS ONE 
OF THREE DEMOCRATS WHO TALKED TO
LEADERSHIP AIDES. ONE OF THREE 
WHO COULD VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL.
THAT IS ABOUT THE SAME MARGIN IN
THAT STATE. ALSO FROM ARIZONA. 
TRYING TO BRAND HERSELF AS A 
MODERATE. THE WITNESS DEBATE 
ACTUALLY HELPS THOSE DEMOCRATS.
EVEN IN A RED STATE.
WHEN THEY FINISHED ARGUMENT 
YESTERDAY, THE SIDE 
CONVERSATIONS THAT BROKE OUT. HE
WAS TALKING TO A BUNCH OF 
REPUBLICANS. OTHER DEMOCRATIC 
SENATORS.
ALSO THEY WERE GOING UP TRYING 
TO COACH THEM ALONG.
THERE IS A LOT OF THESE SIDE 
CONVERSATIONS.
THOSE MATTER
IN THESE. 
>> WE TALKED BEFORE HOW THEY DO 
NOT WANT TO BE THE ODD PERSON 
OUT. WHETHER IT IS DEMOCRAT OR 
REPUBLICAN.
>> THAT IS SUCH A GREAT POINT.
THEY SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO IT 
TOGETHER. ONCE HE WAS ALSO WITH 
THEM.
THE EAST AND WESTBOUND OF THE 
UNITED STATES. KIND OF JUMPING 
OFF THE PLANE TOGETHER. I THINK 
THAT IS A HUGE POINT. IF THEY 
AGREED TO HAVE WITNESSES, I DO 
NOT THINK YOU WOULD JUST HAVE 
FOUR. VERY QUICKLY. THERE ARE A 
BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
THEY FEEL THAT IS THE WAY IT IS 
GOING.
>>
IT HAS SINCE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN.
IT IS NOT LIKE A UNSAFE THING TO
DO.
>> THEY WERE QUOTING US 
ONE-FOR-ONE. NOW HE IS PULLING 
BACK. IT IS JUST AN IDEA 
BASICALLY.
>> I THINK IT IS UP FOR 
REELECTION IN PENNSYLVANIA. HE 
HAS TRIED VERY HARD.
ONE OF THE MOST OUTSPOKEN 
REPUBLICANS FOR GUN CONTROL 
LEGISLATION.
ALSO, THIS GIVES THEM COVER. I 
CANNOT MAKE IT WORK. I THINK 
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY 
ABOUT. TOO MANY ALLIES HAVE TOLD
OTHER REPUBLICANS. THIS IS 
REALLY ABOUT POSTURING.
TRYING TO HEAR FROM BOLTON AND 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
>> PUNCTURE AT HOME. LOOK I'M 
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING.
IF THEY WANT TO VOTE FRIDAY, 
THEY DO NOT NEED TO CONVINCE 
ANYBODY. THEY COULD JUST DO IT.
WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO DEAL WITH
DEMOCRATS? I THINK IT SPEAKS TO 
THEM RECOGNIZING IT IS THE 
DIFFICULT POSITION IN TERMS OF 
PUBLIC OPINION TO DO A SITUATION
WHERE THEY HAVE HUNTER BIDEN.
>> HE MAY WANT A ONE-FOR-ONE 
SWAP. I WANT TO REVIEW THE 
PRESIDENCY YESTERDAY. THEY DID 
NOT USE ANYTHING CLOSE TO ALL OF
THE TIME.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT 
OF EVERYONE. ARGUING DIFFERENT 
ASPECTS. WERE YOU SURPRISED 
YESTERDAY? DID YOU FEEL THEY 
WERE PIVOTING THE ARGUMENT? I 
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
SEPARATELY WITH REPUBLICANS.
TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL OVERALL 
DEFENSE.
>>
10 MINUTES AFTER THE LUNCH 
BREAK. EVERYONE WAS TAKING THEIR
TIME.
THE ARGUMENT THEY LEFT THE 
SENATOR WITH WAS TO LEAVE IT UP 
TO VOTERS. EVEN IF YOU THINK HE 
DID WRONG. LET THE VOTERS 
DECIDE.
THAT IS I THINK WHAT THEY WANTED
TO LEAVE PEOPLE WITH. ALSO, WE 
SHOULD TALK ABOUT HIM. THEY 
CONTINUE TO INSIST A BROAD CLAIM
OF EXECUTIVE POWER.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG 
ARGUMENTS YOU HEARD YESTERDAY. 
THAT HE ACTED WITHIN HIS 
AUTHORITY.
I THINK THE KEY POINT YESTERDAY 
WAS THAT HE ACTED WITHIN HIS 
AUTHORITY. HE HAS THE 
PREROGATIVE TO DO WHAT HE DID.
I WAS SURPRISED BY HOW THEY KIND
OF CUT OFF. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS
THE OTHER DAY. THEY ALL TALKED 
FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR. I THINK 
THEY WANTED TO CREATE THIS IDEA.
THEY WERE LEAVING IT TO THE 
PEOPLE.
>> THE BIGGER SECOND QUESTION. 
WAS THE STRATEGY. THEY ARE NOT 
REPORTING ON THAT. I DO KNOW 
THEY BASICALLY IGNORED IT. UNTIL
MONDAY NIGHT. WHEN HE GETS OUT. 
HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MENTIONS
HIM OUT FRONT. HE SAYS IF HE DID
WHAT HE SAID, IT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE. HIS ARGUMENT COMES 
DOWN TO ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS 
TOO VAGUE OF A CONCEPT. THAT IS 
WHAT THEY HAVE REPORTED.
WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT.
HERE IS THIS ONE CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLAR.
JAMES WHAT YOU HAVE ALTERED. 
ANYTHING AMBER IS GETTING UP. I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST TAKE US 
THROUGH THAT. WE SAW SENATOR 
GRAHAM A COUPLE MONTHS AGO 
SETTING ONE BAR OF CONDUCT. NOW 
THE BAR HAS TOTALLY CHANGED.
>>
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY SAID IN 
OCTOBER.
HE PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE THIS 
MORNING. ESSENTIALLY THAT IS 
WHAT HE SAID. THAT IS A MASSIVE 
CHANGE.
THE SENATORS WHO CLIMBED ONTO.
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO KNOW 
THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST 
THE WITNESSES. THEY ARE TRYING 
TO COME UP WITH WHY THEY ARE 
VOTING AGAINST THE WITNESSES 
STIMULATING YES, THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO. IT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE.
THAT IS ALL ABOUT BEING ABLE TO 
ARGUE HE IS MOVED. WE ALREADY 
SPECULATED.
IT IS A BIG CHANGE FOR OCTOBER. 
IT IS NOT JUST HIM. WE SORT OF 
HEARD ALL.
THEN THERE IS THIS BACKGROUND 
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS.
WHATEVER ORIGINALLY WAS THE 
PLAN. THEY HAVE EMBRACED IT AS 
THEIR STRATEGY. IT IS WORKING 
SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS THEIR 
WAY.
>> HE GOT ADDED TO THE TEAM. WE 
WERE ALL SCRAMBLING A WEEK 
BEFORE THE TRIAL.
>>
HE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLAR. WHICH IS WHY WE 
ASSOCIATE HIM WITH O.J. SIMPSON.
HE IS A CELEBRITY DEFENSE 
LAWYER. HE IS NOT A SCHOLAR ON 
THE CONSTITUTION.
HIS INTERPRETATION IS COMPLETELY
WRONG.
HE TAUGHT THERE FOR 50 YEARS.
A BUNCH OF THEM HAD THEM IN 
THEIR PROFESSION. THEY CAME UP 
AND WE WERE SLAPPING HIM ON THE 
BACK. THIS GUY IS SUPER 
CONTROVERSIAL.
HE WAS THIS GUY WANT TO GO ON 
TELEVISION.
IT WILL GET ELEVATED.
>> I MENTION ALL OF THE SENSORS.
>> HE ALSO SHAMELESSLY MADE A 
HUGE DEAL
THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THEMSELVES. HE IS A REALITY TV 
PRESIDENT. HE LOVES THE IDEA OF 
HIM STANDING UP AND DEFENDING 
HIM.
>> THE ONE WHO WAS PLANNING TO 
ATTEND
HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COME IN.
THE IDEA OF HIM LEAVING COMING 
HERE.
LEFT HARDEST WE WILL REMEMBER 
BACK IN FALL.
EVERYONE HAS SEEN IT AND NOT 
HEARD SO MUCH FROM.
IRAN MIGHT END -- REMINDING 
SENSORS YOU HAVE SOME WITNESSES 
OUT HERE WHO HAS SOME VERY 
INCREDIBLE DEFENSE. WE KNOW THE 
TROUBLE THAT EVIDENCE. IT 
INVOLVED TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT 
TRYING TO GET THE AMBASSADOR 
OUT. HE IS SORT OF WALKING 
AROUND HERE AS A REMINDER.
I THINK THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY HE CAME IN.
HE HAS THAT ELECTRONIC BRACELET.
HE IS SITTING HERE ON THE 
GROUND.
>> HE MAY SUCH A GREAT POINT. HE
IS UNDER INDICTMENT. YOU CANNOT 
BRING ELECTRONICS IN THE SENATE.
>> HE WAS ALSO INDICTED.
THERE WAS A COURT HEARING 
YESTERDAY ON THE CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE CHARGES. IT BECAME VERY 
CLEAR.
THEY DECIDED TO GONE RACHEL 
MADDOW AND TURN OVER ALL THESE 
THINGS.
THERE IS SOME TENSION THERE.
THAT TRANSITION WITH THE REALITY
TV.
>> THERE IS DEAFLY NO TALK OF 
HIM BEING CALLED AS A WITNESS. 
HE IS UNDER INDICTMENT. WHEN HE 
WAS ASKED ABOUT IT, HE SAID 
WOULD GIVE NEW YORKERS TICKETS 
WHEN THEY ASKED.
NOTHING TO SEE FROM MY OFFICE.
HE IS WITH JULIANO'S ORIGINAL 
76.
HE EVENTUALLY GOT WRAPPED IN 
THIS SCHEME TALKING TO UKRAINE'S
TOP OFFICIALS
THAT ALL HAVE BEEN.
I WAS THE CENTRAL FIGURE. HERE 
IS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS.
THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND. THEY 
APPEARED TO SHOW DIRECT 
CONSULTATION.
UNLESS THAT IS A DIRECT FROM THE
PRESENT. HE HAS NOT PROVIDED 
DOCUMENTS THEY SAY HE WAS IN ON 
THIS.
>> WEATHER THEN DEFLATING HIS 
EGO. YOU WOULD WENT OUT THE 
QUESTION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE REMEMBER HIM A 
FEW WEEKS AGO. REMEMBER,
YOU ARE HEADED TO THE AIRPORT. 
AGAIN, IT WAS A HIGHLY SOUGHT 
AFTER WITNESS A FEW MONTHS AGO.
THE DEFENSE TEAM ARGUMENT
YET THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT 
SEALED THEIR CASE. WHY NOT CAUSE
SOME WITNESSES. I WANT TO PLAY 
SOME TAPE FROM THE LEADER OF THE
DEMOCRATS OVER IN THE SENATE. 
REALLY ADDRESSING THIS CASE OF 
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENCY 
SHUT DOWN THE CALL FOR 
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. I 
REMAIN HOPEFUL THAT MORE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WOULD JOIN 
US IN THIS TRIAL. IS IT UP TO 
FIGHTS AS I HAVE ALWAYS SAID. 
THE PUBLIC IS ON OUR SIDE.
>> THAT IS SENATOR SCHUMER. AS 
HE IS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE, 
LET'S ASK SOME MORE QUESTIONS 
FOR.
>> I FEEL LIKE WHAT HE WAS 
SAYING.
THEY HAD 24 HOURS. TRYING TO 
TELL US EXACTLY WHY. WHAT HE 
DID. HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF 
PROVIDING THIS. THEY WOULD ZERO 
IN ON THE FACT HERE.
WITHOUT ENCOMPASSING EVERYTHING 
ELSE AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I 
THINK WHAT I HEARD. HE WOULD 
THEN REFUTE THE CASE.
OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS. TALKING TO
THEIR CONSTITUENTS. HAVING THAT 
DOOR MESSAGE CHAIN
. YET THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO
PROVE THEIR CASE.
>> THERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE 
WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN. THEY KEPT 
SAYING. THE ARGUMENT WAS WE HAVE
NOT HEARD FROM ANY. REMEMBER ONE
OF THE TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. WE DO QUID PRO QUO 
ALL THE TIME.
THREE OTHER PEOPLE THEY WANT TO 
HEAR FROM. REPUBLICANS WANT TO 
SAY WE HAVE HEARD IT ALL.
THE WAY THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO 
DRIVING ALONG. TWEETING THIS 
MORNING. THEY WOULD NEVER BE 
SATISFIED.
THEY ARE JUST GOING TO KEEP 
DEMANDING. DEMOCRATS NOT 
ACTUALLY DISPUTING THAT. WE DO 
WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF 
WHAT HAPPENED. EVERYONE THAT HAS
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. COMING INTO
THE PROCESS ARGUMENT.
WHILE WE DO NOT PLAY THIS OUT IN
THE HOUSE.
THERE ARE SOME VARIOUS LEGAL 
CASES.
YESTERDAY THE HOUSE WENT TO 
COURT. HE SAID THIS IS A JURY. 
YOU'RE THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE 
LAND. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
HAS SAID THAT CONGRESS IS NOT A 
COURT. IF IT IS, AND 
INTOLERANCE INTO ALL OF THIS 
GRAND JURY MATERIAL. WE ARE 
STILL TRYING TO GET TESTIMONY.
ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT STRINGS 
ARE TIED TOGETHER. DEMOCRATS 
WANT TO PULL UP THE STRING. THEY
WANT TO SEE WHERE THAT GOES. 
THEY KNOW IT CANNOT BE AS 
HELPFUL TO THEM.
HE IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY 
PLAY LONG.
THEY LEGITIMATELY FEAR.
ALL OF THE SUDDEN THE OFFICER 
PULLED HIM INTO THE SCANDAL. HE 
IS TESTIFYING UNDER OATH.
WHAT IS HE TRYING TO HIDE.
>> IF HE JUST MAKES A STATEMENT.
IF HE IS UNDER OATH, THAT COULD 
YIELD SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS 
WANT. THAT IS THE TIME WHEN YOU 
HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT SEEMS LIKE 
THEY TRIED TO STAUNCH THE 
BLEEDING. WHERE DOES IT END.
>> THEY WERE SAYING LET'S GET 
THIS OVER WITH. WE'RE STILL 
GOING TO GET ATTACKED BY 
DEMOCRATS. HOW DO WE JUSTIFY NOT
CALLING HIM. THAT IS PART OF THE
ARGUMENT.
WHAT IS THE HARM OF THAT. THERE 
FOCUSED ON THE POLITICS OF IT. 
BEING TIED TO THE PRESIDENT. IN 
PLACES LIKE ARIZONA OR COLORADO.
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIS 
MESSAGING RIGHT NOW. BETWEEN HE 
HAD EARLY THIS MORNING. THE 
DEMOCRATS ALREADY HAD 17 
WITNESSES. WITNESSES WROTE TO 
THE HOUSE AND NOT TO THE SENATE.
ON THAT NOTE LET'S HEAR HIM LAST
NIGHT AT A RALLY IN NEW JERSEY 
WHERE HE IS PUSHING BACK AGAINST
THESE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.
>> WE ARE CREATING JOBS. THE 
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ARE 
OBSESSED. CRAZY WITH TOM.
THE DO-NOTHING DEMOCRATS.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP THERE. THE 
LINE IS YOU GUYS HAVE POINTED 
OUT. LET THE ELECTION AND THE 
VOTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. LET
THERE BE A NEW ONE.
>> HE WAS GOING TO COME DOWN 
HARD. WITH TALK ABOUT HOW HARD 
IT IS. HE HAS BEEN WATCHING THE 
PROCEEDINGS FROM THE GALLERY.
ONE OF THEIR COLLEAGUES. SITTING
THERE WATCHING. HE RELIGIOUSLY 
ATTACKED HIM. YOU'RE EITHER WITH
THEM OR AGAINST THEM. SOME OF 
THESE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT 
RETIRING.
ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE IS GOING TO
BLAME YOU FOR EVERYTHING. THEY 
DO NOT HAVE THE STATURE OF A 
JOHN McCAIN. TO WITHSTAND THAT 
CRITICISM. IT IS'S REPUBLICAN 
PARTY AT THIS POINT. HE IS MORE 
POPULAR THAN MITCH McCONNELL. 
THAT IS NOT LOST ON ANY OF THOSE
53 REPUBLICANS.
>> I FEEL LIKE HE EXEMPLIFIES 
THIS. THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE 
SURVIVED.
THEY HAVE DECIDED I AM ALL IN. 
OUR COLLEAGUE WENT TO KENTUCKY 
TO TALK TO THE REDDEST AREA. 
MITCH McCONNELL IS UP FOR 
REELECTION AS WELL. IS NOT HIM 
JUST THINK ABOUT HIS 
RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP.
HE HEARD FROM VOTERS.
THE DEMOCRAT GOT ELECTED. I WANT
HIM TO STAND BY TRUMP. KENTUCKY 
IS A REDDER STATE THAN COLORADO.
TRUMP IS COMPLETELY ENGINEERED.
THEY REALLY HAD NO CHOICE.
ALSO GOTTEN SOME REAL VICTORIES.
THE HOPE CONGRESSIONAL 
DELEGATION HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR 
DECADES. SHE GAVE THIS GREAT 
INTERVIEW. ABOUT HOW SHE CALLED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. SHE HEARD HIM 
SAY AT A EVENT. SHE PICKED UP 
THE PHONE. THEY HAD A CHAT ABOUT
VARIOUS THINGS.
THE ENTERTAINMENT ASPECT OF 
THIS. THE POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE.
THIS DOES HAVE A REAL 
CONVERSATION. SHE GOT SO MUCH 
PUSHBACK WHEN SHE VOTED AGAINST 
BRAD CAVANAUGH. THERE WAS A REAL
THREAT GIVEN TO HER.
>>
SHE LOST A PRIMARY IN 2010. I 
THINK THAT EXPERIENCE. IT IS NOT
A EASY NAME TO WRITE DOWN. 
PEOPLE HAD BRACES THEY WERE 
WEARING. THAT EXPERIENCE. FEW 
OTHER SENATORS REALLY FEEL. SHE 
HAD A HARD RACE BEFORE THAT.
SHE HAS MANAGED TO SURVIVE. 
ALASKA IS A WEIRD STATE. IT IS 
NOT PREDICTABLE. IT IS NOT 
KENTUCKY. WHEN YOU TALK TO HER, 
SHE DOES FEEL THAT. SHE FEELS 
THE PREROGATIVE. HER DAD WAS IN 
THE SENATE. THERE WAS THAT TIME 
EARLY. THEY SORT OF DID 
SOMETHING THAT REALLY UPSET HER.
I HAVE MORE POWER THAN YOU.
SHE SORT OF PUT HIM IN HIS 
PLACE. HE HAD TO APOLOGIZE TO 
HER. IT IS A REMINDER CONGRESS 
DOES HAVE A LOT OF POWER. I 
THINK A LOT OF TIMES. THEY'RE SO
AFRAID OF HIS ATTACK. THEY WOULD
GET THAT POWER.
THE FATE OF THE PRESIDENT IS IN 
THE HAND OF THE SENATORS.
THAT IS WHY THESE PROCEEDINGS
ARE SO INTERESTING TO WATCH. THE
FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY 
THIS IS HAPPENING. THESE PEOPLE 
ARE JURORS IN A TRIAL.
I THINK SOMETIMES THE SENATORS 
FORGET THAT.
THAT IS WHY THIS TRIAL. IT IS SO
UNIQUE.
>>
I KNOW THIS BODY. I WE WANT TO 
PROCEED HERE. THIS JUST GET HER 
DOWN. THE NEW CYCLE.
THE MAIN ROADBLOCK. JOHN BOLTON.
CERTAINLY FOCUSED ON THAT. THERE
IS THIS QUESTION OF RUDY 
GIULIANI. HOW HE IS ENTERING THE
MIX. LISTEN TO HOW HE TALKED 
ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. THIS IS FROM 
CBS THIS MORNING. HIS MAIN 
CRITICISM COULD BE THAT HE IS A 
BACKSTABBING. THE MAIN COMPLAINT
SEEMS TO BE THAT HE NEVER 
DIRECTLY CONFRONTED HIM.
>> HE NEVER SAID TO ME I HAVE A 
PROBLEM. NEVER SENT A LITTLE 
NOTE.
I FEEL I HAVE A SWAMP CHARACTER.
HE CAME UP TO ME.
I WAS SAY YOUR ATOMIC BOMB. 
>>
JOHN BOLTON SHOULD NOT TESTIFY.
>> TRYING TO MAKE A LEGAL 
ARGUMENT. ALSO CALLING HIM A 
ATOMIC BOMB.
>> IN THE MINDS OF SOME. 
FASCINATING TO HEAR THEM BOTH 
USE THIS COLORFUL LANGUAGE. HE 
NEVER CAME TO ME.
>> THERE IS A LOGICAL PROBLEM 
WITH THAT.
THEY WERE HAVING MEETINGS WITH 
THE UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS.
THE FACT THAT HE WAS EVEN 
INVOLVED AT ALL.
TRUMP ON THAT PHONE CALL. 
TROUBLED.
GIULIANI WAS NOT EVEN SUPPOSED 
TO BE IN THIS.
TWO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES THERE. 
ELIZABETH WORN AT THE TOP. A 
LITTLE BIT OF A BREEDER THERE 
LAST NIGHT.
FIRST LET'S BRING IN RHONDA. IS 
HE GO ON NATIONAL TELEVISION? 
DOES THAT HELP THEM?
>> IT COULD GO BOTH WAYS.
I KNOW DURING THE PUBLIC FACE 
TESTIMONY. A LOT OF THEM WERE A 
LITTLE NERVOUS TO LEARN HOW 
INVOLVED RUDY GIULIANI WAS AS 
THE PERSONAL LAWYER. I THINK 
THAT INTERVIEW, POINTS TO THE 
FACT THAT HE SOMETIMES WORKS ON 
HIS OWN. HE IS NOT ABLE TO BE 
CONTROLLED MUCH BY THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY. I THINK HE 
DOES MAKE HIS DEFENSE. A LITTLE 
NERVOUS. WHEN HE DOES INTERVIEWS
LIKE THAT.
YOU JUST DO NOT KNOW WHERE HE IS
COMING. WE DID NOT HAVE VERY 
MUCH.
THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT ANY 
DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS SUPPOSED TO 
DO. RELATED TO THE RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION.
DESPERATELY WANTED TO BE ON THE 
FLOOR. THEY WANTED TO BE ONE OF 
THE LAWYERS GIVING THE SPEECH.
THIS WILL NOT BENEFIT YOUR CASE.
IS IT BECAUSE OF THE AUDIENCE IN
THE ROOM? HIS ROLE IN THE WHOLE 
THING? 
>> I THINK IS A WITNESS TO A LOT
OF MISCONDUCT. THERE ARE A LOT 
OF LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS. PEOPLE 
ANSWERING UNDER OATH. COULD THEY
WRITE IN THEIR QUESTIONS. HE 
WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.
>> THAT WOULD BE CRAZY.
>> WHAT DID YOU JUST SUBPOENA 
RUDY GIULIANI. IT IS 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THAT 
WAS UNREASONABLE TO ASK THAT 
QUESTION. WE FOLLOW THE HOUSE 
INVESTIGATION WRAPPING UP. HE 
WAS GOING TO THE UKRAINE.
HE BROUGHT THE CREW WITH THEM TO
DO A DOCUMENTARY. HE CAME BACK. 
CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE SAID, NO THANK YOU. 
THEY DO NOT TRUST THIS GUY. A 
LOT OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS. 
SOMEONE TESTIFIED. HE WAS A 
TICKING TIME BOMB. THEY DO NOT 
TRUST HIM.
>> HE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY 
THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR 
VARIOUS THINGS.
WE DO NOT KNOW FULLY. THERE IS A
LOT OF UNKNOWNS. SOMEONE 
TESTIFIED.
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? THERE ARE A
LOT OF THINGS WE HAVE NEVER GOT 
TO THE BOTTOM UP.
>> HE DID NOT WANT TO TRY TO 
TALK TO RUDY GIULIANI.
>> I DO THINK THE SENATE IS 
GETTING READY TOGETHER. WE WILL 
OF COURSE GO THERE. I WANT TO 
THANK THEM AS I PARTY MENTIONED.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR DOING DOUBLE 
DUTY ON SO MANY OF THESE DAYS. 
THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER 
OR NOT THE MANUSCRIPT TO BE 
LOOKED AT BY REPUBLICANS. YOU 
WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE IN A 
CLASSIFIED SETTING. WHY HIDE 
THIS AND TREAT IT LIKE IT IS A 
CLASSIFIED READ. A BUG THAT WILL
BE SOLD. ALREADY BEING PROMOTED.
THE MANUSCRIPT. IS THIS THE 
CONVERSATION BEING PUT IN PLAY. 
>> HE KEEPS PUSHING UP. IT IS A 
WAY FOR REPUBLICANS
TO LOOK LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO 
HEAR HIS STORY. THEY WANT TO GET
THE FAX. HE WAS SAYING IT IS A 
UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCOUNT. THAT 
SORT OF TAKES THE BOX A BIT. 
ALSO DEMOCRATS RESPONDING. IN 
THE MEMO. THIS COULD BE ABOUT 
SERVING. THAT IS THERE PUSHBACK.
I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY ONE 
OFFRAMP MITCH McCONNELL COULD 
TAKE. WE ACTUALLY VOTED TO 
SUBPOENA THE MANUSCRIPT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THEY'RE SAYING 
THEY WANT TO GET TO THE FAX. YET
THEY ARE CHOOSING TO READ A BOOK
INSTEAD OF TALKING TO THE GUY 
WHO WROTE IT.
>> ONE SOURCE TO ANOTHER SOURCE.
HOW DO WE KNOW. THE QUESTION 
STILL REMAINS. WHAT THAT JUST 
COMPEL YOU EVEN MORE. EVEN IF 
THE ARE TROUBLING. DIRECTLY 
RELATED UKRAINE AID TO A 
INVESTIGATION. DEMAND BRINGING 
HIM INTO THE CHAMBER.
>> OPENING THE BOOK. APPARENTLY 
THERE'S DOZENS OF PAGES. IT HAS 
BEEN DESCRIBED BY PEOPLE. HE HAS
NOT PUSHED BACK. OR ARE 
REPORTING. TURKEY AND CHINA. I 
AM FASCINATED TO SEE. MORE THAN 
A 500 PAGE LONG BOOK. WHAT ELSE 
IS IN THERE.
>> YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE.
>> I THINK REPUBLICANS DO WANT 
TO SEE THE BOOK.
>> I WANT TO REMIND YOU THIS IS 
THE SHEET WE WILL BE SCENE. 
SHORT AND SWEET AND TO THE 
POINT. WHETHER THE NAME IS FOR 
THE COUNCIL OR THE PRESIDENT OR 
THE HOUSE MANAGER. THEN MULTIPLE
SENATORS. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH 
THE MINUTES YESTERDAY. WE COULD 
KIND OF TEAM UP. THE WHOLE 
REASON THEY HAVE TO WRITE THESE.
BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL SET UP 
IN THE 1980S. THEY DID NOT WANT 
THEM FILIBUSTERING. REALLY THE 
DEFINITION OF THE SENATE.
>> I TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
THE CLAN DEFENSE LAWYERS SAID 
THEY HAVE A LITTLE SIGN.
THEY WOULD BASICALLY DO A SIGNAL
TO ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
SENATORS. THEY WOULD THEN ALLOW 
THE DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE 
WHATEVER POINT THEY WANTED TO 
MAKE. THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF
THOSE DAYS WHERE IT IS FUN TO 
SEE THE DYNAMIC IN THE ROOM.
>> NO JOURNALIST HAVE CONTROL
OVER THE CAMERAS. THIS IS THE 
SENATE THAT IS CONTROLLING THE 
CAMERAS. WE ARE RELYING ON OUR 
COLLEAGUES TO GIVE IS THAT 
COLOR.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO PUT A 
FINE POINT. THEY ASKED THE MEDIA
ORGANIZATION TO PUT CAMERAS IN 
THERE. THEY SAID YOU CANNOT HAVE
CAMERAS POINTING AT US.
>> THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLING THE 
CAMERA. IF THEY WERE, THEY WOULD
BE LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM. EVEN
KNOWING WHO IS SITTING NEXT TO 
WHO IS SO IMPORTANT. IT IS SO 
INTERESTING TO KNOW. SIDE BY 
SIDE. WHO IS HAVING THESE 
CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT. THERE'S A REPUBLICAN 
APPROACH HIM. ALL OF THAT 
INFORMS US.
WE WILL BE WATCHING TODAY TO SEE
WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES REPORT ABOUT
WHAT IS GOING ON. 16 HOURS FOR 
THE QUESTION SESSION. HALF 
MANAGERS HAVE COME READY. THEY 
WILL BOTH BE FILLING THESE 
QUESTIONS. I'M INTERESTING TO 
SEE IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS A 
MORE VOCAL ROLE OR NOT.
>> HE WILL HEAR HIS VOICE.
HE WILL BE READING THE 
QUESTIONS. SO FAR WE HAVE ONLY 
SEEN HIM CHIME IN ONCE WHICH WAS
INTERESTING. THAT WAS HIS 
CHOICE. I WOULD CHIEF JUSTICE 
HAS TO PRESIDE. MAYBE DOES HE 
PLAY INTERFERENCE. THAT WAS A 
BAD QUESTION. DOES HE CUT PEOPLE
OFF? OR, THERE WAS A DEBATE 
DURING THE CLINTON TRIAL. 
WHETHER OR NOT HOUSE MANAGERS 
GOT ASKED THE QUESTION. AT THAT 
POINT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAD TO 
BE, HANG ON LET ME HUDDLE WITH 
THE. HE LITERALLY SAID I 
DISAGREE WITH THAT ANSWER. THE 
VERY NEXT DAY HE END UP CHANGING
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN OBJECT TO
A QUESTION. ARE THE PROCEDURAL 
MOMENTS LIKE THAT.
>> HE READ THE BOOKS ON 
IMPEACHMENT. EVERYTHING ELSE. 
THE KEY THING. HE SERVED IN THE 
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. HE 
ACTUALLY WORKED FOR CAN START AT
ONE POINT IN THE 1980S. HE IS 
INCREDIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
REPUTATION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
HE IS GOING TO GO TO GREAT 
LENGTHS NOT TO LOOK LIKE IS 
TIPPING THE SCALE FOR EITHER 
SIDE. HE WANTS TO BE SEEN.
HE PUT DURING HIS CONFIRMATION 
HEARING DURING 2005. I THINK IS 
GOING TO BE KIND OF CAREFUL TO 
SEE IT AS MUCH IS POSSIBLE. THE 
TIMES THAT HE DOES INTERJECT 
WILL BE ALL THE MORE.
>> I KNOW THE SUPREME COURT 
WATCHER
. IN THE INNER CIRCLE.
IN A COUPLE MONTHS HE COULD 
DECIDE. WHETHER OR NOT HIS 
FINANCES HAVE TO GO TO CONGRESS.
IT COULD THEN BE MADE PUBLIC. HE
WAS TO BE UMPIRE. REGARDLESS OF 
WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.
>> TRY TO PRESIDE OVER THIS.
NO PREFERENCE. IN EITHER 
DIRECTION. I LISTEN TO YOUR 
PODCAST THIS MORNING. I WANT TO 
GIVE A SHOUT OUT. YOU CAN GO TO 
THE WASHINGTON POST. YOU TALKING
ABOUT THE QUESTION OF JOHN 
BOLTON. HOW THEY HAVE SHIFTED 
THEIR BAR FOR WHAT IS OKAY FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO DO. I BELIEVE 
YOU SAID SHOCKING BUT NOT 
SURPRISING. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
REPUBLICANS HAVE CHANGED THEIR 
BAR. AS YOU PUT IT. IT IS NOT 
SURPRISING.
>>
IN 2017. YOU LOOK AT WHAT 
REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING. IF 
THERE WAS ANY CONTACT. SAYING 
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 
CONTACT. IT IS ONE OF THOSE 
THINGS. THEY HAVE ADJUSTED 
ACCORDINGLY. THIS NEW TALKING 
POINT.
THEY DO NOT WANT TO PULL. 
POLITICIANS ARE OFTEN 
HYPOCRITES. IT IS NOT NEW.
YOU HAD A NEW PERSPECTIVE.
SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING. IT 
IS NOT SURPRISING. HE IS DONE 
SUCH A EXCELLENT JOB. IN THIS 
WHOLE PROCESS. ALMOST EVERY 
LEGISLATIVE DEBATE THAT HAS COME
UP IN CONGRESS. IT IS A BIG 
THING THAT I PUT IN HIS CORNER. 
FOR WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE 
WITNESSES. THAT IS THE SUCCESS 
RIGHT NOW.
THE REPRESENTATION.
OVER THE PAST WEEK.
THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. THEY 
KIND OF CONSIDERED. WHETHER OR 
NOT THE SENATOR CAN CALL THE 
WITNESSES. ON THE OTHER HAND 
THEY WERE SO SCRIPTED. WHO MADE 
WHAT ARGUMENT.
THE 15 MOST OBVIOUS QUESTIONS. 
SOME OF THEM HAVE PROBABLY BEEN 
ADDRESSED. THERE IS ALSO SOME 
UNPREDICTABILITY.
I HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED THAT 
QUESTION BEFORE.
THERE COULD BE A VERY DIRECT 
QUESTION. IT COULD PUT THEM ON 
THE SPOT. THAT LOOKS BAD. IT 
GIVES THEM THE COVERS TO NOT 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES. THOSE 
TENSIONS ARE THERE. ONE OF THE 
OTHER THINGS TO WATCH. THE 
DEFENSE LAWYERS. HE IS CLEARLY 
IN CHARGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
TEAM. A LOT OF THE PEOPLE ARE 
VERY HAPPY TO BE THERE. JUST 
HONORED TO BE SITTING THERE AT 
THE TABLE. THE BIG 
PERSONALITIES. THE QUESTION TO 
THE COUNCIL. DOES HE FILLED 
THOSE QUESTIONS? WE ARE NOT 
GOING TO HAVE GOOD CAMERAS. IT 
WILL BE FUN TO KNOW WITH SOME 
THE CONVERSATIONS WERE IN THOSE 
MEETING. THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN 
MADE ABOUT THE OJ TRIAL. THE 
DREAM TEAM.
WHAT KIND OF EGO TENSIONS ARE 
THERE. COMING UP WITH WHO IS 
GOING TO FILLED SOME OF THESE 
QUESTIONS. SOME OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE DEPUTY COUNSEL. DO THEY 
GET HIGHER PROFILES. THERE IS A 
LOT OF FUN STUFF TO WATCH. 16 
HOURS.
JUST FASCINATED TO SEE IT.
>> DOES HE GET THROWN ON THE 
SPOT. HE IS THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL LAWYER. HE HAS BEEN 
IMPLEMENTED IN SOME OF THE 
TESTIMONY.
JAMES REPORTING SAYS REPUBLICANS
WANT TO MAKE HIM MORE OF A 
WITNESS. THIS IS A CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING. THIS WILL BE SUPER 
AGGRESSIVE.
>> WON THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL.
REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. HE 
IS THE ONE. HE IS THE ONE THAT 
WENT. THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS.
THE CLASSIFIED OPERATIONS.
HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED.
THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THAT. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO 
ANSWER. THEY CAN CITE 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THAT 
IS BAD OPTICS TO HAVE THE 
SENATOR ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT
I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON.
>>
IF THE JOURNALIST IS OVERSEEING 
THIS. LET'S GET YOU BACK ON 
TASK. HE IS HEADING UP TO THE 
LEFT. LIVE AND INTERRUPTED.
THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGES HERE.
>> LET US PRAY. DIVINE SHEPHERD.
HONOR AND GLORY. POWER.
THEY BELONG TO YOU.
REFRESH OUR SENATORS. AS THEY 
ENTER A NEW PHRASE. OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. MAY THEY 
REALIZE.
YOU HAVE APPOINTED THEM. FOR 
THIS GREAT SERVICE. THEY ARE 
ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU. EMPOWER THEM
TO LABOR TODAY WITH THE DOMINANT
PURPOSE OF PLEASING YOU. KNOWING
THAT IT IS NEVER WRONG TO 
DO RIGHT. GIVE THEM RESILIENCY 
IN THEIR TOIL. THEY REMEMBER 
YOUR PROMISE THAT THEY WILL REAP
A BOUNTIFUL HARVEST.
HELP THEM TO FOLLOW THE ROAD OF 
HUMILITY THAT LEADS TO HONOR AS 
THEY FIND THEIR SAFETY IN 
TRUSTING YOU.
WE PRAY IN YOUR MAJESTIC NAME. 
AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING 
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE 
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR
WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION 
UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH 
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION. 
THE PROCEEDINGS ARE APPROVED 
TODAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION SO 
ORDERED. THE SERGEANT AT ARMS 
WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.
>> HEAR YE HEAR YE HEAR YOU. ALL
PERSONS ARE COMMANDED. THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE
TRAWL OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. EXHIBITED BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES. THE 
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> IT WILL CONDUCT UP TO 8 
HOURS. TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. A 
REMINDER THE TWO SIDES WILL 
ALTERNATE AND ANSWERS SHOULD BE 
KEPT TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. 
THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD OFF.
THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THE 
SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED. I SEND 
THE QUESTION TO THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI.
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT. IF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE THAN 
ONE MODE OF FOR HIS ALLEGED 
CONDUCT SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF 
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION AND THE 
PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTEREST. 
HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER 
MORE THAN ONE MODE OF OF ARTICLE
1.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  IN 
RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. THERE
IS REALLY TWO LAYERS TO MY 
ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT 
OUT FIRST THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS
ONLY ONE MOTIVE.
THE ABUSE OF POWER THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED. THE 
SUBJECT MOTIVE ALONE COULD BE A 
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. WE BELIEVE 
IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY 
DEFECTIVE. IT IS NOT A 
PERMISSIBLE WAY TO FRAME A CLAIM
OF A DEFENSE UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. I WILL PUT THAT TO
ONE SIDE. ADDRESSED THE QUESTION
OF MIXED MOTIVE. IF THERE WAS A 
MOTIVE OF PUBLIC INTEREST. WITH 
THINK IT FOLLOWS EVEN MORE 
CLEARLY THAT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY 
BE DEBATED FOR A IMPEACHABLE 
DEFENSE. THEY HAVE FRAMED THEIR 
CASE. THEY HAVE EXPLAINED IT WAS
POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM. IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE REPORT. THEY SPECIFY 
THAT THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO 
MEET IS TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A 
SHAM INVESTIGATION. IT IS A 
BOGUS INVESTIGATION.
ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY HAVE 
SET FOR THEMSELVES. IN BEING 
ABLE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER 
THEIR THEORY OF WHAT A ABUSE OF 
POWER DEFENSE CAN BE. THERE IS A
VERY DEMANDING STANDARD THEY SET
FOR THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE EVEN 
SAID THEY CAME UP AND TALKED A 
LOT ABOUT IT. THEY TALKED A LOT 
ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THEY WERE 
SAYING THERE IS NOT EVEN A 
SCINTILLA I ANY EVIDENCE OF 
ANYTHING WORTH LOOKING INTO. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY WOULD 
HAVE TO MEET. SHOWING THERE IS 
NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE
PRESIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY
SMIDGEN OF A PUBLIC INTEREST 
MOTIVE. THEY RECOGNIZE THAT ONCE
YOU GET INTO A MIXED MOTIVE 
SITUATION, IF THERE IS SOME 
PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT ALSO A 
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST, YOU 
CANNOT POSSIBLY BE IN OFFENSE. 
IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO HAVE THEM 
TRYING TO CONSIDER WAS IT 48 
PERCENT LEGITIMATE INTEREST. 52 
PERCENT PERSONAL.
YOU CANNOT DIVIDE IT THAT WAY. 
THAT IS WHY THEY RECOGNIZE IT. 
EVEN A REMOTELY COHERENT THEORY.
THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO SET 
FOR THEMSELVES IS ESTABLISHING 
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST AT ALL FOR THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. IF THERE IS 
SOMETHING THAT SHOWS A POSSIBLE 
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE 
PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT 
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE,
THAT DESTROYED THEIR CASE. ONCE 
YOUR INTO MIXED MOTIVE LANE, IT 
IS CLEAR THEIR CASE FAILS. THERE
CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A IMPEACHABLE
DEFENSE. ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS 
TO SOME EXTENT HAVE IN MIND HOW 
THEIR DECISIONS WILL AFFECT THE 
NEXT ELECTION. THERE IS ALWAYS 
SOME PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE 
ELECTORAL OUTCOME OF POLICY. 
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 
THAT. THAT IS PART OF 
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. TO SAY
NOW IF YOU HAVE A PART MOTIVE 
THAT IS FOR YOUR ELECTORAL GAIN,
THAT IS SOMEHOW GOING TO BECOME 
A OFFENSE. THAT DOES NOT MAKE 
ANY SENSE. IT CANNOT BE A BASIS 
FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE. THE BOTTOM LINE. ONCE 
YOU'RE IN ANY MIXED MOTIVE 
SITUATION, ONCE IT IS 
ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A 
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT 
COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING INTO 
SOMETHING, JUST ASKING THE 
QUESTION, THE CASE FAILS AND IT 
FELLS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS. 
THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE TO SHOW
NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
THEY HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO MAKE
THAT CASE. I THINK WE HAVE SOME 
VERY QUICK. THEY ARE THINGS THAT
RECENTLY SOME 
PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IT IT IS 
SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT. IT 
HAS NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED. 
LOTS OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES SAID
THAT IT APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST. IT IS AT LEAST 
WORTH RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT 
IT. THAT MEANS THEIR CASE 
ABSOLUTELY FAILS.
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ARE 
RECOGNIZE.
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER ASKED 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED TO CONTINUE 
WITHHOLDING $391 MILLION OF 
MILITARY AID
TO UKRAINE UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCED 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS TOP 
POLITICAL RIVAL
ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. IS 
THERE ANY WAY
TO DEVELOP A VERDICT WITHOUT 
HEARING THE TESTIMONY OF THE 
OTHER KEY EYEWITNESSES.
>> THANK YOU MR. JUSTICE.  THE 
SHORT ANSWER IS NO. THERE IS NO 
WAY TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT
WITNESSES.
IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST
EGREGIOUS.
COMING TO TESTIFY TO LOOK THE 
OTHER WAY.
I THINK IT IS DEEPLY AT ODDS 
WITH BEING IMPARTIAL JURY. I 
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN 
RESPONSE TO THE LAST QUESTION. 
IF ANY PART OF THE MOTIVATION, 
THERE WAS A FACTOR IN THE ACTION
TO FREEZE THE AID. THAT IS 
ENOUGH TO CONVICT.
HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT 
THE MOTIVATION.
IT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE 
ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN WHO 
SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. HE WAS HOLDING UP 
THIS AID. HE WANTED UKRAINE TO 
CONDUCT THESE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ALL OF THE FACTOR. A SUBPOENA 
AWAY THAT CAN ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION. IT MAKES IT VERY 
CLEAR. ON JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER
THAT PHONE CALL. DONALD TRUMP 
SPEAKS TO HIM. THAT 
CONVERSATION.
THE DAY AFTER THAT, IS HE GOING 
TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.
HE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE BURDEN SHARING. HE MAY HAVE 
HAD A GENERIC SHARING. HERE, IT 
WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. THE ONLY 
QUESTION HE WANTED ANSWER TO. IS
HE GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION. BEAR IN MIND HE 
IS TALKING TO THE AMBASSADOR TO 
THE UNION. WHAT BETTER PERSON TO
TALK TO. THEN THE GUY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BURDEN 
SHARING. DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE
THIS AT ALL.
YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM HIS FORMER
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. DO 
NOT WAIT FOR THE BOOK. DO NOT 
WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN IT IS 
IN BLACK AND WHITE.
YOU WILL FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO 
YOUR QUESTION. WAS IT ALL OF THE
MOTIVE. WE THINK AS I MENTIONED,
THE CASE IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR
WITHOUT HIM. IF YOU HAVE ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT IT, YOU CAN ERASE
ALL DOUBT.
LET ME SHOW YOU A VIDEO. THE 
NUMBER 2 SLIDE. THIS HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
REALLY THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO 
GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS. 
THEY'RE ASKING YOU
TO DO SOMETHING VERY 
CONSEQUENTIAL. ASK YOURSELF. 
GIVEN THE FACT SHE IS HEARD 
TODAY. WHO DOES NOT WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE FACTS.
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD NOT BE A 
SHELL GAME.
IT IS REALLY ON POINT FOR MR. 
BOLTON.  NUMBER 3.
ONCE AGAIN. NOT A SINGLE 
WITNESS. IN THE HOUSE RECORD. 
THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED 
UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES.
IT PROVIDED ANY FIRST-HAND 
EVIDENCE.
THE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TO ANY 
INVESTIGATION. ANYONE WHO SPOKE 
WITH THE PRESIDENT SAID HE MAY 
CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO LINKAGE 
BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS NOT 
CORRECT.
THE MONEY WAS LINKED TO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE SAID IN ACKNOWLEDGING A QUID 
PRO QUO. WE SHOULD JUST GET OVER
IT.
THEY ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THEY HAD
TO GO TO THE MIC.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNCIL.
>> TO THE COUNCIL. WOULD YOU 
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS 
OR ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
JUST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE 
PREVIOUS QUESTION.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  A COUPLE
OF POINTS. MANAGER SHIFT. HE 
SUGGESTED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE 
HE WAS INTERESTED IN BURDEN 
SHARING. HE DID NOT APPARENTLY 
RAISE IT IN THE TELEPHONE 
CONVERSATION. THAT HE CLAIMS TO 
HAVE OVERHEARD AT A RESTAURANT. 
LET'S LOOK AT THE REAL EVIDENCE.
AS WE EXPLAINED ON JUNE 24. 
THERE IS A EMAIL IN THE RECORD.
SO ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. THE 
SUBJECT LINE. PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES FOLLOW-UP ASKING 
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING. IT SAYS, WHAT DO OTHER 
MEMBERS SPEND TO SUPPORT 
UKRAINE. THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE 
FOLLOWING UP ON WITH THE 
PRESENT. IN THE TRANSCRIPT 
ITSELF.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED. HE SAYS WE 
SPEND A LOT OF EFFORT AND TIME. 
MUCH MORE THAN THE EUROPEAN 
COUNTRIES ARE DOING. WE SHOULD 
BE HELPING YOU MORE THAN WE ARE.
THEY SAY ALMOST NOTHING FOR YOU.
ALL THEY DO IS TALK. IT IS 
SOMETHING THEY SHOULD REALLY ASK
YOU ABOUT. HE GOES ON TO TALK 
ABOUT IT. THAT THEY'RE NOT 
REALLY DOING AS MUCH AS THEY'RE 
DOING. HE AGREED WITH HIM.
THERE IS EVIDENCE. SOME 
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE.
IN THE 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. HE MADE IT A PRESS
CONFERENCE. IT HAS BEEN CLEAR ON
THE RECORD SINCE THAT PRESS 
CONFERENCE. WHAT HE WAS SAYING 
WAS GARGLED. HE IMMEDIATELY 
CLARIFIED. HE NEVER TOLD ME.
SIMILARLY, HE ISSUED A 
STATEMENT. MAKING CLEAR AGAIN. 
THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL. IT IS 
RAISING A THIRD PERSON. THEY 
NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE.
LASTLY ON THE POINT. WHETHER 
THIS CHAMBER SHOULD HERE. I 
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
CONSIDER WHAT THAT MEANS. SHOULD
WE JUST HEAR ONE WITNESS. THAT 
IS NOT WHAT THE REAL QUESTION IS
GOING TO BE. THE REAL QUESTION 
IS WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT GOING 
TO BE SET. WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE 
FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TO BRING A IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO THIS CHAMBER. CAN IT BE DONE.
PARTISAN FASHION. THEY DID NOT 
EVEN SUBPOENA HIM.
THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY TO GET HIS
TESTIMONY. NOW THIS WILL BECOME 
THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY. THIS 
BODY WILL HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE 
DISCOVERY. THIS INSTITUTION WILL
BE EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FOR 
MONTHS ON END. IT HAS TO SIT AS 
A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. 
DISCOVERY IS DONE. IF THEY'RE 
GOING TO BE WITNESSES. FAIR 
TRIALS. THEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE TO HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO 
CALL HIS WITNESS. THERE WILL BE 
DEPOSITIONS. THAT IS THE NEW 
PRESIDENT. THAT IS THE WAY ALL 
OF IT OPERATES IN THE FUTURE. IN
THIS INSTITUTION.
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE WAY. FOR 
THE WAY THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO 
HANDLE ALL THE IMPEACHMENTS IN 
THE FUTURE.
THEY WILL BE DOING IT A LOT. 
THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
MASSACHUSETTS. SEND A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK.
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MARKET TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. ON MONDAY, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED THE 
DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED HOUSE NEVER 
EVEN ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY. THE RECORD IS ACCURATE,
DID THE INVESTIGATORS ASKED MR. 
BOLTON TO TESTIFY. 
>> SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS YES. 
OF COURSE WE ASKED HIM TO 
TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE. HE 
REFUSED. WE ASKED HIS DEPUTY. HE
REFUSED. FORTUNATELY WE ASKED 
THE DEPUTY TO TESTIFY. WE ASKED 
HER DEPUTY. WE DID SEEK THE 
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON. THEY 
REFUSED. WHEN WE SUBPOENAED, HE 
SUED US. HE TOOK US TO COURT. 
WHEN WE RAISED A SUBPOENA. THE 
ANSWER WAS, YOU SERVICE WITH A 
SUBPOENA AND WE WILL SEE YOU AS 
WELL. WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD TAKE
MONTHS IF NOT YEARS TO FORCE 
THEM TO COME AND TESTIFY. I 
SHOULD POINT OUT, I THINK THIS 
IS A CENTRAL .2 . THEY DID NOT 
TRY HARD ENOUGH TO GET HIM. THAT
IS WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU. LET
ME SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'RE TELLING
THE COURT. WE CAN PULL UP SLIDE 
NUMBER 39. THIS IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS IN COURT. IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS. IT LACKS 
ARTICLE 3 TO SUE TO FORCE A 
CONGRESSIONAL OF SUBPOENA.
RELATED TO DUTIES AS EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OFFICIAL. IT TAKES YOUR 
BREATH AWAY. THE DUPLICITY OF 
THAT ARGUMENT. BEFORE YOU SAYING
THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER TO
GET THESE WITNESSES. THEY SHOULD
HAVE LITIGATED FOR YEARS. DOWN 
THE STREET IN THE FEDERAL 
COURTHOUSE. THEY ARE DOING, YOU 
NEED TO THROW THEM OUT. THEY 
HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE TO FORCE
A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. ARE WE 
REALLY PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT. 
THINK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. IF 
YOU ALLOW A HOUSE TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT. IF YOU PERMIT THEM TO
CALL WITNESSES. THINK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT YOU WILL BE SETTING IF
YOU DO NOT ALLOW WITNESSES IN 
TRIAL. THAT TO ME IS THE MUCH 
MORE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. THERE 
WAS SOMETHING EVEN MORE 
DANGEROUS.
SOMETHING YOU ANTICIPATE FROM 
THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY CAN NO 
LONGER CONTEST THE FACTS. THE 
WITHHELD MILITARY AID.
TO DOING THE POLITICAL DIRTY 
WORK OF THE PRESIDENT. NOW, THEY
HAVE FALLEN BACK.
YOU SHOULD NOT HEAR ANY FURTHER 
WITNESSES ON THIS SECTION.
WE ARE GOING TO USE THE END ALL 
ARGUMENT. SO WHAT. HE IS FREE TO
ABUSE THEIR POWER. WE'RE GOING 
TO RELY ON A CONSTITUTIONAL 
THEORY. EVEN THE ADVOCATE OF 
WHICH SAYS IT IS OUTSIDE THE 
CONSENSUS TO SAY A PRESIDENT 
COULD ABUSE HIS POWER WITH 
IMMUNITY. IMAGINE WHERE THAT 
LEADS.
THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY THE 
PROFESSOR.
NOT ONLY WITH OTHER COUNSEL. 
TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE. THAT IS 
EFFECTIVE NONSENSE. EVEN THE 
60-YEAR-OLD DOES NOT AGREE WITH 
THE 81-YEAR-OLD. FOR A REASON. 
WITH THAT CONCLUSION LEAVES US.
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO 
ABOUT IT.
ARE WE REALLY READY TO ACCEPT 
THE POSITION THAT THIS PRESIDENT
OR THE NEXT CAN WITHHOLD 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
IN MILITARY AID TURNED OUT I AT 
WAR. UNLESS THEY GET HELP IN 
THEIR REELECTION.
WOULD YOU SAY YOU CAN WITHHOLD 
DISASTER RELIEF UNLESS THE 
GOVERNOR GOT HIS ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.
THAT TO ME IS THE MOST DANGEROUS
ARGUMENT OF ALL. IT IS A DANGER 
TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH NO 
WITNESSES.
IT SHOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE IDEA 
THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS 
OFFICE IN THIS WAY.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THANK 
YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON MY 
BEHALF.
ALSO JOINED BY THE SENATORS.
>> THE SENATORS ASKED FOR THE 
COUNSEL OF THE PRESENT. IS THE 
STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
HOUSE A LOWER THRESHOLD TO MEET 
IN THE STANDARD FOR CONVICTION 
IN THE SENATE. HAD THEY MET 
THEIR EVIDENTIARY BURDEN TO 
SUPPORT A VOTE OF REMOVAL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THE 
STANDARD IN THE HOUSE IS NOT 
MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION. 
THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. IT IS SIMPLY A 
ACCUSATION.
THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO 
ADHERE TO THE SAME STANDARDS IT 
USED IN THE SENATE. HOUSE 
MEMBERS HAVE SUGGESTED ARTICLES 
OF WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPROVE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY 
SHOULD HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE. THERE WAS SOME 
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE.
IT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH EVIDENCE. IT
IS DEFINITELY A LOWER STANDARD.
THEY SPEAK IN TERMS OF A 
CONVICTION.
AS THEY POINTED OUT. EVERYWHERE 
IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IT IS SPOKEN IN TERMS OF THE 
CRIMINAL LAW.
IT IS TREASON AND BRIBERY. THE 
CONSTITUTION SPEAKS OF A 
CONVICTION ON BEING CONVICTED IN
THE SENATE. THE SPEAKS OF ALL 
CRIMES BEING TRIED BY JURY IN 
CASES EXCEPT FOR A IMPEACHMENT. 
AS WE POINTED OUT, ALL OF THE 
TEXTUAL REFERENCES. THEY MAKE IT
CLEAR THE STANDARDS OF THE 
CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD APPLY IN THE
LAW. IN THE BURDEN AND STANDARD 
OF PROOF TO BE CARRIED BY THE 
HOUSE MANAGER. IT IS VERY CLEAR.
THERE IS NOT ANY REQUIREMENT FOR
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 
SIMPLY FOR THE HOUSE TO VOTE 
UPON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
THERE IS VERY MUCH HIGHER 
STANDARD AS DAYCARE. AS WE 
POINTED OUT. THE MERE ACCUSATION
COMES HERE WITH NO PRESUMPTION 
OF REGULARITY AT ALL IN ITS 
FAVOR.
BOTH FACT AND LAW. FACTUAL AND 
LEGAL ISSUES. THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ARE HELD TO A STANDARD
OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT OF EVERY ELEMENT OF WHAT 
WOULD BE RECOGNIZABLE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. HERE THEY 
HAVE FAILED IN THEIR BURDEN OF 
PROOF. THEY ALSO FELT ON THE 
LAW. ANYTHING THAT ON ITS FACE 
AMOUNTS TO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED VERY 
CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NOT 
PRESENTED FACT. EVEN UNDER THEIR
OWN THEORY. PART OF THE FACT. 
LEFT OUT THE KEY FACTOR.
THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT DO NOT
CHANGE. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
JULY 25 CALL CHOSEN DOING 
NOTHING WRONG.
HE NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE. HIS 
OTHER ADVISORS. THEY DO NOT 
THINK THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO 
QUO.
THEY NEVER KNEW IT HAD BEEN HELD
UP UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE. 
THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WITH 
STATEMENTS ON RECORD. THEY 
REPORT THEY SAID TO THEN THERE 
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.
WITHOUT EVER BEING DONE RELATED 
TO THE INVESTIGATION. THAT IS 
WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. THAT IS 
WHAT THEY HAD TO RELY ON. THEY 
HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE 
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THEY FAILED TO PROVE IT AT ALL. 
THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 
IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I'D SEND THE QUESTION TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THEY ASKED FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGER. THE COUNCIL STATED 
THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THE PRESIDENT COUNSEL IS NOT 
CORRECT. THEY WITHHELD THE 
MILITARY AID DIRECTLY TO GET A 
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT. 
THERE IS A FEW POINTS I WOULD 
LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION. LOOK NO FURTHER
THAN THE WORDS OF THE ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF WHO ON OCTOBER 17
2019 DURING A NATIONAL PRESS 
CONFERENCE. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT 
THE DIRECT CONNECTION.
DID HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN 
PASSING THE CORRUPTION RELATED 
TO THE DNC SERVER. NO QUESTION 
ABOUT IT. THAT IS WHY WE HELD UP
THE MONEY. HE WAS REPEATING THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN EXPLANATION 
RELATE DIRECTLY TO HIM. SECOND 
HE TESTIFY BY PHONE ON SEPTEMBER
7. THE PRESIDENT DENIED THERE 
WAS A QUID PRO QUO. OUTLINES THE
VERY QUID PRO QUO HE WANTED FROM
UKRAINE. THEN HE TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT
THAT HE SHOULD GO TO THE 
MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCED THE 
INVESTIGATION. THIRD, THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN ADVISORS. 
INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT 
WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE DIRECT 
CONNECTION. MORE SO ON SEPTEMBER
1. HE TOLD VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
PENCE. THEY HAVE BECOME TIED TO 
THE ISSUE. SIMPLY NODDED. 
ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONDITIONALITY
OF THE EIGHT. FOURTH, WE HEARD 
FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. IN 
DIRECT EMAIL AND TEXT THAT IT 
WAS CRAZY TO TIE THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO THE INVESTIGATION.
WE ALSO KNOW THERE IS NO OTHER 
REASON. THE ENTIRE APPARATUS. 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT. IT SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE OTHER
LEGITIMATE REASONS. THE POLICY 
DEBATE.
THEY WERE ALL KEPT IN THE DARK. 
THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS THEY 
MADE UP AFTER THE FACT HAD ENDED
MONTHS BEFORE DURING THE LAST 
INTERAGENCY MEETINGS. I WILL 
MAKE ONE FINAL POINT. AGAIN,
IF YOU HAVE ANY LINGERING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE.
ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING WE 
JUST TALKED ABOUT. ANYTHING I 
JUST RELAYED. THERE IS A 
QUESTION TO SHED ADDITIONAL 
LIGHT ON IT. YOU CAN SUBPOENA 
AND ASKING THAT QUESTION 
DIRECTLY.
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.  
SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> SENATOR LEE ASKED FOR THE 
COUNSEL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
ARGUED AGGRESSIVELY.
IS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PLACE 
SERVING MORE THAN THE CAREER 
CIVIL SERVICE TO CONDUCT FOREIGN
POLICY.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. IT 
IS DEFINITELY THE PRESIDENT'S 
PLAN. THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. 
THEY MAKE IT CLEAR. ARTICLE 2 
SECTION 1. THE EXECUTIVE 
AUTHORITY IN A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. IT IS CRITICALLY 
IMPORTANT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
STRUCTURE THAT THE AUTHORITY IS 
VESTED SLOWLY IN THE PRESENT. 
THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE 
PEOPLE EVERY 4 YEARS. THAT IS 
WHAT GIVES THEM DEMOCRATIC 
LEGITIMACY TO HAVE THE POWERS 
THAT HE IS GIVEN UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. IT IS SOMEWHAT 
UNIQUE IN THE VERY BROAD POWERS.
IT WORKS. IT MAKES SENSE
IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. HE IS 
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE 
PEOPLE. THOSE WHO ARE STAFFERS 
IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEY 
ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. 
THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY. 
THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMACY OR 
AUTHORITY. IT IS CRITICALLY 
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE 
PRESIDENT SETS FOREIGN POLICY. 
WITHIN SOME CONSTRAINTS.
IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO SOME 
EXTENT.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
TIME AND AGAIN.
HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY. IF THE 
STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH HIM. THAT
DOES NOT MEET THE PRESIDENT IS 
DOING SOMETHING WRONG. THAT IS 
THE CRITICAL POINT. THIS IS ONE 
OF THE CENTERPIECES. THE ABUSE 
OF POWER THEORY. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WOULD LIKE THIS BODY TO
ADOPT. THAT IS THEY ARE GOING TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. STOLE ON 
HIS SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE. THE 
OBJECT OF ACTIONS WERE PERFECTLY
PERMISSIBLE. WITHIN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. HIS 
REAL REASON IF WE GET INSIDE HIS
HEAD AND FIGURE IT OUT. WE CAN 
IMPEACH THEM. THE WAY THEY HAVE 
TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO PROVE THE 
PRESIDENT HAD A BAD MOTIVE. WE 
COMPARE WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO 
WITH WHAT THE INTERAGENCY 
CONSENSUS WAS. I MENTIONED IT 
THE OTHER DAY. THE PRESIDENT 
DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY 
AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY THE 
AGENCY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
IT IS ONLY THEY WHO CAN DEFY THE
PRESENT. THE CASE IS BUILT ON 
THE POLICY DIFFERENCE.
HE HAS BEEN ELECTED BY THE 
PEOPLE TO DO THAT. WHERE ONLY A 
FEW MONTHS AWAY FROM ANOTHER 
ELECTION. WITH THE PEOPLE CAN 
DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR
NOT THEY LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS DONE WITH THAT AUTHORITY.
IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO SAY 
THERE IS SOME INTERAGENCY. 
THEREFORE, WE CAN SHOW HE DID 
SOMETHING WRONG. EXTRAORDINARILY
DANGEROUS PROPOSITION.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO 
GETS TO SET FOREIGN POLICY. THAT
IS THE ROLE ASSIGNED TO HIM.
HE EVEN COMPLAINED ABOUT THE 
JULY 25 CALL. IT WAS ONLY A 
POLICY DIFFERENCE. IT WAS A 
POLICY CONCERN. IT IS NOT ENOUGH
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I SENT 
THE QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> HE ASKED THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ARGUED THE ALLEGED CONDUCT SET 
OUT IN THE ARTICLES DOES NOT 
VIOLATE A CRIMINAL STATUTE AND 
MAY NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. DOES THIS 
REASONING IMPLY HE DOES NOT 
VIOLATE.
SUCH AS ORDERING TAX AUDIT.
INDISCRIMINATELY INVESTIGATING 
PROPONENTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I 
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
THAT IS THE PRECISION. THE 
QUESTION WAS REJECTED.
IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN 
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S CASE. 
THE GREAT PREPONDERANCE OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF THE 
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS
THAT IT IS OCCUPIED IN CRIMINAL 
CONDUCT. EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR HAS
STUDIED THE ISSUE. MULTIPLE 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. PRIOR 
IMPEACHMENTS IN THE HOUSE. THIS 
CONCLUSION
FOLLOWS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL 
HISTORY, TEXT, AND STRUCTURE. IT
REFLECTS THE PRACTICAL 
DIFFICULTIES. WHERE THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER CAN FIND 
INDICTABLE CRIMES. IT IS LIKE 35
SHOWS. FIRST, THE PLAINTEXT OF 
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
REQUIRE.
THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
THEY ARE DEFINED FUNDAMENTALLY.
SOME PUBLIC TRUST. THEY ARE 
POLITICAL.
THE SOCIETY ITSELF.
DIFFERENT FROM THE OFFENSES IN 
THE CRIMINAL POST. SOME CRIMES 
LIKE JAYWALKING. THEY'RE NOT 
IMPEACHABLE.
IN CRIMINALITY. NEVER BE 
ASSESSED SEPARATELY. EVEN THOUGH
THE PRECIOUS COMMISSION MAY 
FURTHER SUPPORT A CASE OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL. THE 
IMPEACHMENT CONFIRMS A STRONG 
MAJORITY VOTED BY THE HOUSE IN 
1789 HAVE INCLUDED ONE OR MORE 
ALLEGATIONS THAT DID NOT CHARGE 
A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW. 
ALTHOUGH HE RESIGNED BEFORE THE 
HOUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM. THE 
COMMITTEE ALLEGATION. MANY ASK. 
IN HIS CASE, THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANY THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE 
HOUSE.
THE ACTIONS DID NOT HAVE TO RISE
TO THE LEVEL OF VIOLATING THE 
FEDERAL STATUTE. REGARDING 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THE NT DID IMPEACHMENT TO REACH 
THE FULL SPECTRUM OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT 
THREATENED THE CONSTITUTION.
IT ENDURED THROUGHOUT THE AGES.
IF WE HAD TO KEEP UP IN THE 
TIME. IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE THE 
FULL SPECTRUM. THEY COULD NOT 
ANTICIPATE. EVERY SINGLE THREAT 
IT MAY POSE. THEY ADOPTED A 
STANDARD.
TO MEET UNKNOWN FUTURE 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ALONG WITH 
SENATOR BLACKBURN AND SENATOR 
CORNYN I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
FOR COUNSEL FROM THE PRESIDENT.
IN THE CASE OF SUCH A QUESTION 
ADDRESSED TO BOTH SIDES, THEY 
WILL SPLIT THE FIVE MINUTES 
EQUALLY.
THE SENATORS ASK, WHY DOES THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT 
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP OFF 
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY DURING THE 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS, THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. THE 
ANSWER IS SIMPLE. WE DID NOT 
CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS RELATED TO 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE, AS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
COUNSEL ADMITTED, DURING THIS 
TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
RAISED THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID RAISE WAS THIS NOTION OF 
BLANKET DEFIANCE. THIS NOTION 
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT COULD 
COMPLETELY DEFY ANY AND ALL 
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. NOT TURN OVER 
DOCUMENTS. NOT TURNOVER 
WITNESSES. NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE 
SHRED OF INFORMATION. IN ORDER 
TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT THE TRUTH
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN THE 
OCTOBER 8 LETTER, THAT WAS SENT 
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THERE WAS NO JURISPRUDENCE THAT 
WAS CITED TO JUSTIFY THE NOTION 
OF BLANKET DEFIANCE. THERE HAS 
BEEN NO CASE LAW CITED TO 
JUSTIFY THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY. IN FACT EVERY SINGLE 
COURT THAT HAS CONSIDERED ANY 
PRESIDENTIAL CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY SUCH AS THE ONE 
ASSERTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
REJECTED IT OUT OF HAND. 
>>
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
LET ME FRAME THIS IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID. I 
WENT TO THIS BEFORE. THE IDEA 
THAT THERE WAS BLANKET DEFIANCE 
AND NO EXPLANATION AND NO CASE 
LAW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
SIMPLY INCORRECT.
I PUT UP SLIDES, SHOWING THE 
LETTERS, A LETTER FROM OCTOBER 
18 THAT EXPLAINED SPECIFICALLY 
THAT THE SUBPOENA THAT HAD BEEN 
ISSUED BY THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT AUTHORIZED
BY A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE WERE 
INVALID. AND THERE WAS A LETTER 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
SAYING THAT. THERE WAS A LETTER 
FROM OMB SAYING THAT. A LETTER 
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING
THAT. THERE WERE SPECIFIC 
RATIONALES GIVEN, CITING CASES, 
WATKINS, BRADLEY AND OTHERS 
EXPLAINED THAT EFFECT. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, MANAGER SCHIFF  
DECIDED TO NOT TAKE STEPS TO 
CORRECT THAT. WE PARTED OUT OVER
DEFECTS. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR 
SENIOR ADVISORS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT THAT IS ASSERTED FROM 
EVERY PRESIDENT FROM THE 1970S. 
UNIT HE CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE 
THAT IN COURT. WE EXPLAIN THE 
PROBLEM THAT AGENCY COUNSEL WERE
NOT CHECKED
PRESIDENT OF POSSESSIONS. THESE 
WERE SPECIFIC LEGAL REASONS, NOT
BLANKET DEFIANCE. THAT IS A 
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE RECORD.
AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE
THAT ADJUDICATED IN COURT. AND 
THE REASON THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT 
IS
THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE JUST 
IN A HURRY. THEY HAD A 
TIMETABLE. ONE OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS SAT ON THE FLOOR HERE, 
THEY HAD NO TIME FOR COURT. THEY
HAD TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT 
BEFORE THE ELECTION. SO THEY HAD
TO HAVE IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS. 
THAT IS WHY THE PROPER PROCESS 
WASN'T FOLLOWED HERE. BECAUSE IT
WAS A PARTISAN THEM AND BELITTLE
IT -- AND POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT 
THAT THEY WANTED TO GET DOWN 
AROUND THE TIMING FOR THE 
ELECTION. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. SENATOR 
FROM VERMONT.
>> SENATOR LEAHY ASKED THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL ARGUES THERE WAS NO HARM
DONE AND THAT THE AID WAS 
ULTIMATELY RELEASED TO UKRAINE  
AND THE PRESIDENT MET WITH
ZELENSKY AT THE UN IN SEPTEMBER 
AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS TREATED 
UKRAINE MORE FAVORABLY THAN HIS 
PREDECESSORS. WHAT IS YOUR 
RESPONSE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR 
YOUR QUESTION. CONTRARY TO WHAT 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAS SAID
OR HAS CLAIMED, THAT THERE WAS 
NO HARM, NO FOUL, THE AID 
EVENTUALLY GOT  THERE, WE 
PROMISE UKRAINE IN 2014 THAT IF 
THEY GAVE UP THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL
THAT WE WOULD BE THERE FOR THEM.
THAT WE WOULD DEFEND THEM. THAT 
WE WOULD FIGHT ALONG BESIDE 
THEM. 15,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE 
DIED.
IT WAS INTERESTING THE OTHER DAY
WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
SAID THAT NO AMERICAN LIFE WAS 
LOST AND WE ARE ALWAYS GRATEFUL 
AND THANKFUL FOR THAT. BUT WHAT 
ABOUT OUR FRIENDS? WHAT ABOUT 
OUR ALLIES IN UKRAINE? ACCORDING
TO DIPLOMAT
HOLMES AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, 
OUR UKRAINIAN FRIENDS CONTINUE 
TO DIE ON THE FRONT LINES. THOSE
WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR US, 
FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION, WHEN UKRAINIANS HAVE
THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND 
US.
THE AID, ALTHOUGH IT DID ARRIVE 
, IT TOOK THE WORK OF SENATORS 
IN THIS ROOM WHO HAD TO PASS 
ADDITIONAL LAWS TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT LOSE
OUT ON 35 MILLION ADDITIONAL 
DOLLARS
. CONTRARY TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
TWEET THAT ALL OF THE AIDE 
ARRIVED AND IT ARRIVED AHEAD OF 
SCHEDULE, THAT IS NOT TRUE. ALL 
OF THE AIDE HAS NOT ARRIVED. AND
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF 
SIGNAL. WITHHOLDING THE AIDE FOR
NO LEGITIMATE REASON. THE 
PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED 
ON THE GROUND. HOLDING THE AIDE 
FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON SENT A 
STRONG MESSAGE
WE WERE NOT GOING TO SEND TO 
RUSSIA THAT THE RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
UKRAINE WAS ON SHAKY GROUND. IT 
ACTUALLY, UNDERCUT UKRAINE'S 
ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE
WITH RUSSIA. WITH HIM, AS 
EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, IS
IN ACTIVE WAR.
AND WE TALK ABOUT THE AIDE, 
EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, NO HARM, 
NO FOUL, THAT IS NOT TRUE 
SENATORS. AND I KNOW THAT YOU 
KNOW THAT. THERE WAS HARM. AND 
THERE WAS FOUL. LET US NOT 
FORGET THAT YOU CLAIM IS NOT AN 
ENEMY. THEY ARE NOT AN 
ADVERSARY. THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT IT 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. AS A 
MATTER OF LAW, DOES IT MATTER IF
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IS IT 
TRUE THAT QUID PRO QUOS ARE USED
IN FOREIGN POLICY?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION. 
YESTERDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF A 
PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE 
ISRAEL, PALESTINE CONFLICT. AND 
I OFFERED A HYPOTHETICAL THE 
OTHER DAY. WHAT IF A DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT WERE TO BE ELECTED AND
CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE
MUCH MONEY TO ISRAEL OR THE 
PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL,
NO, I'M GOING TO WITHHOLD THIS 
MONEY UNLESS YOU STOP ALL 
SETTLEMENT GROWTH. OR TO THE 
PALESTINIANS, I WILL WITHHOLD 
THE MONEY, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED 
TO YOU UNLESS YOU STOP PAYING 
TERRORISTS. AND THE PRESIDENT 
SAID, A QUID PRO QUO? IF YOU 
DON'T DO IT, YOU DON'T GET THE 
MONEY. IF YOU DO IT, YOU GET THE
MONEY. THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS 
CHAMBER THAT WOULD REGARD THAT 
AS
IN ANY WAY UNLAWFUL. THE ONLY 
THING THAT WOULD MAKE A QUID PRO
QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF THE QUO WERE 
IN SOME WAY  ILLEGAL. THERE ARE 
THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES THAT A 
POLITICAL FIGURE CAN HAVE.
ONE, A MOTIVE IN PUBLIC 
INTEREST. THE ISRAEL ARGUMENT 
WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE SECOND IS IN HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTERESTS AND THE 
THIRD, WHICH HASN'T BEEN 
MENTIONED WOULD BE IN HIS OWN 
FINANCIAL INTERESTS. HIS OWN 
PURE FINANCIAL INTEREST. IS 
PUTTING MONEY IN THE BANK. I 
WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND ONE 
FOR ONE MOMENT. EVERY PUBLIC 
OFFICIAL THAT I KNOW BELIEVES 
HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST.
AND MOSTLY, YOU ARE RIGHT. YOUR 
ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. AND THE PRESIDENT DOES
SOMETHING, WHICH HE BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED DID, 
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT 
CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO 
QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT.
I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN. WHEN
PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL 
SHERMAN
TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA,
SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY, LET'S ASSUME 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING 
AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS HIS 
ELECTORAL AGENTS TO HAVE THE 
SOLDIERS PUT AT RISK, THE LIVES 
OF MANY OTHER SOLDIERS WHO WOULD
BE LEFT WITHOUT THEIR COMPANY. 
WITH THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID 
PRO QUO? NO BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT
A BELIEVED IT WAS THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND B, HE BELIEVED HIS 
OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO 
VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY 
PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT AND THAT
IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO TRY
TO PSYCHOANALYZE THE PRESIDENT 
AND GET INTO THE INTRICACIES OF 
THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYBODY HAS 
MIXED MOTIVES. AND FOR THERE TO 
BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT,
BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD BE 
PERMITTING ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT 
TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY 
PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE -- 
FOREIGN-POLICY DECISIONS -- WHY 
DO YOU NEED POSTERS? YOU NEED 
POLITICAL ADVISORS. JUST DO IT 
IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.
THAT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE WHAT
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH 
WHAT IS IN YOUR PARTY'S 
ELECTORAL INTERESTS AND YOUR OWN
ELECTORAL INTERESTS, IT IS 
IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH 
WEIGHT IS GIVEN FROM ONE TO THE 
OTHER. WE MAY ARGUE IT IS NOT IN
THE NATIONAL INTEREST PULLED 
NUCLEAR PRESIDENT TO GET 
REELECTED OR
SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS. 
AND MAYBE WE ARE RIGHT, IT IS 
NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR
EVERYONE RUNNING TO BE ELECTED. 
BUT TO BE IMPEACHABLE IT WOULD 
HAVE TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE 
MADE A DECISION SOLELY ON THE 
BASIS OF HOUSE MANAGERS, CORRUPT
AMOUNT
MOTIVES. IT CANNOT BE CORRUPT 
MOTIVE IF IT IS A MIXED MOTIVE 
THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST, ELECTORAL AND
DOES NOT INVOLVE PERSONAL 
INTERESTS. AND THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS
DECISION, THIS QUID PRO QUO, AS 
THEY CALL IT AND THE QUESTION IS
BASED ON HIGH PALACES,
-- HYPOTHESIS, THEY NEVER 
ALLEGED THAT IT WAS BASED ON 
PURE FINANCIAL REASONS. IT WOULD
BE A MUCH HARDER CASE EVER 
HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE
TO A HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU 
BUILD A HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON 
IT, AND UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A 
MILLION-DOLLAR -- I WILL 
WITHHOLD THE FUNDS. THAT IS NOT 
THE CASE. THAT IS PART CORRUPT 
AND PRIVATE INTEREST. THAT 
ACCOMPLICE MIDDLE
CASE IS, I WANT TO BE ELECTED. I
THINK I'M THE GREATEST PRESIDENT
THERE EVER WAS AND IF I'M NOT 
ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
WILL SUFFER GREATLY. THAT CANNOT
BE. 
>> RECOGNIZING THE DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE HEAD
-- QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.  
>> I WOULD BE DELIGHTED. THERE 
ARE TWO ARGUMENTS THAT PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ MAKES. ONE IS A VERY 
ODD ARGUMENT FOR A CRIMINAL 
DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE AND THAT 
IS THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO 
HAVE A DISCUSSION AND TRIAL 
ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF 
MIND,
INTENT OR MENS REA. IN EVERY 
COURTROOM IN AMERICA AND EVERY 
CRIMINAL CASE OR ALMOST EVERY 
CRIMINAL CASE EXCEPT FOR A SMALL
SLIVER THERE ARE STRICT 
LIABILITIES. THE QUESTIONS OF 
INTENT AND STATE OF MIND IS 
ALWAYS AN ISSUE. THIS IS NOTHING
NOVEL. YOU DON'T REQUIRE A 
MINDREADER. IN EVERY CRIMINAL 
CASE, I WOULD ASSUME AND EVERY 
IMPEACHMENT CASE, YES YOU HAVE 
TO SHOW THE PRESIDENT WAS 
OPERATING FROM A CORRUPT MOTIVE.
AND WE HAVE. BUT HE ALSO MAKES 
AN ARGUMENT THAT ALL QUID PRO 
QUOS ARE THE SAME AND ALL OUR 
PERFECTLY COPACETIC. SOME OF YOU
SAID EARLIER, IF THEY CAN PROVE 
QUID PRO QUO OVER THE MILITARY 
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING. WELL, 
WE HAVE. SO THE ARGUMENT SHIFTS 
TO ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE THE 
SAME. WELL I'M GOING TO SUPPLY 
THE OWN TEST. HE TALKED ABOUT 
THE STEP TEST.
THE PHILOSOPHER, LET'S PUT THE 
SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND SEE
HOW IT CHANGES PERCEPTION OF 
THINGS. BUT I WANT TO MERGE THAT
ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER 
PRESIDENTIAL COUNSEL'S ARGUMENTS
WHEN THEY  RESORTED TO THE, WHAT
ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S OPEN
MIC. THAT WAS A POOR ANALOGY I 
THINK YOU WILL AGREE BUT LET'S  
USE IT AND MAKE IT COMPARABLE TO
TODAY AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL THIS 
SCENARIO? PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AN 
OPEN MIC SAYS,  HEY,
I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SEND
THIS MILITARY MONEY TO UKRAINE 
BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTING AND 
KILLING YOUR PEOPLE. I WANT YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH. I WANT 
YOU TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF 
MITT ROMNEY. AND I WANT YOU TO 
ANNOUNCE THAT YOU FOUND DIRT ON 
MITT ROMNEY. AND IF YOU'RE 
WILLING TO DO THAT, QUID PRO 
QUO, I WON'T GIVE UKRAINE THE 
MONEY THAT THEY NEED TO FIGHT 
YOU ON THE FRONT LINE. DO ANY OF
US HAVE ANY QUESTION
THAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE 
IMPEACHED FOR THAT KIND OF 
MISCONDUCT? ARE WE REALLY READY 
TO SAY THAT WOULD BE OKAY. IF 
BARACK OBAMA ASKED TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENTS AND 
WOULD WITHHOLD MONEY FROM ALLIES
THAT NEEDED TO DEFEND ITSELF TO 
GET AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT 
ROMNEY? THAT IS THE PARALLEL 
HERE. AND TO SAY, YES, WE 
CONDITIONED IT ALL THE TIME FOR 
LEGITIMATE REASONS.
YES, FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS YOU 
MIGHT SAY TO A GOVERNOR OF A 
STATE, HEY GOVERNOR OF A STATE, 
YOU SHOULD SHIP AND MORE TOWARD 
YOUR OWN DISASTER RELIEF. BUT IF
THE PRESIDENT'S REAL MOTIVE IN 
DEPRIVING THE STATE OF DISASTER 
RELIEF IS BECAUSE THAT GOVERNOR 
WON'T GET HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 
TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S
POLITICAL RIVAL, ARE WE READY TO
SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN SACRIFICE 
THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF 
THAT STATE OR IN THE CASE, THE 
PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY? ALL QUID 
PRO QUOS ARE FINE AND IT IS 
CARTE BLANCHE? IS THAT REALLY 
WHAT WE ARE PREPARED TO SAY WITH
RESPECT TO THIS PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT OR THE NEXT? BECAUSE IF 
WE ARE, THEN THE NEXT PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES CAN ASK FOR
AN INVESTIGATION OF YOU. THEY 
CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION FROM ANY POOR
FOREIGN POWER. AND THE ARGUMENT 
WILL BE MADE, DONALD TRUMP WAS 
ACQUITTED FOR DOING THE SAME 
THING. THEREFORE IT MUST NOT BE 
IMPEACHABLE. BEAR IN MIND,
THAT EFFORTS TO CHEAT AN 
ELECTION ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE 
IN PROXIMITY TO AN ELECTION. AND
IF YOU SAY, YOU CAN'T HOLD THE 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR WHERE THEY ARE 
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT ELECTION
THEN YOU ARE GIVING THEM CARTE 
BLANCHE. ALL
QUID PRO QUOS ARE NOT THE SAME. 
SOME ARE LEGITIMATE AND SOME ARE
CREPT. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A 
MINDREADER TO FIGURE OUT WHICH 
IS WHICH. FOR ONE THING, ASKS 
JOHN BOLTON. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. MR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SENATOR FROM 
IOWA. 
>> I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> SENATOR GRASSLEY AS COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT, DOES THE 
HOUSE'S FAILURE TO SUPPORT ITS 
SUBPOENAS OBSTRUCT -- 
UNPRECEDENTED? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THE ANSWER IS YES. AS FAR AS I 
AM AWARE THERE IS NEVER BEEN A 
PRIOR INSTANCE IN WHICH THERE 
HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT, EVEN IN THE
HOUSE, AS IN THE NIXON
PROCEEDING NEVERMIND THE CLINTON
PROCEEDING THAT LEFT THE HOUSE 
AND CAME TO THE SENATE, TO 
SUGGEST THAT CAN BE OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS WHEN THERE HASN'T 
BEEN ANYTHING BEYOND SIMPLY 
ISSUING A SUBPOENA, GETTING 
RESISTANCE AND THROWING UP YOUR 
HANDS AND GIVING UP AND SAYING, 
THAT IS OBSTRUCTION. IN THE 
CLINTON SITUATION, MOST OF THE 
LITIGATION WAS WITH THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
THERE WERE PRIVILEGES ASSERTED 
AND LITIGATION AND LITIGATION, 
AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE POINT IS 
THE ISSUES ABOUT THE PRIVILEGES 
WERE ALWAYS NEGATED AND WERE 
RESOLVED BEFORE THINGS CAME TO 
THIS BODY. SIMILARLY, IN THE 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT, WITHIN THE 
HOUSE,
A LOT OF INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN 
DONE BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND 
THERE WAS LITIGATION OVER 
ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGES THERE 
IN ORDER TO GET THE TAPES, 
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE TURNED 
OVER.
BUT AGAIN THERE WAS LITIGATION 
ABOUT THE ASSERTION OF THE 
PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE 
GRAND JURY SUBPOENA THAT FED 
INTO THE HOUSE'S PROCEEDINGS. IT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY 
UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO 
ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY BRING A 
CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION INTO THE 
SENATE, WHERE ALL THEY CAN 
PRESENT IS WE ISSUE THE 
PRECEDING SUBPOENA AND THERE 
WERE LEGAL GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR 
THE INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA 
AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT GROUNDS
THAT -- I WILL NOT REPEAT THEM 
IN DETAIL BUT SOMEWHERE BECAUSE 
OF SUBPOENAS THAT WERE IN VALUED
AND SOME THERE WAS NO VOTE. AND 
WITNESSES WERE IN VALUED BECAUSE
SENIOR ADVISORS HAD NO
IMMUNITY FOR COMPULSION. SUMMER 
FORCING EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL. 
VARIOUS REASONS ASSERTED FOR THE
INVALIDITY AND DEFECTS
OF VERY SUBPOENAS. AND NO 
ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THEM. NO 
ATTEMPT TO LITIGATE OUT WHAT THE
VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY MIGHT BE 
BUT BRING AS OBSTRUCTION CHARGE 
IS UNPRECEDENTED. AND I WILL 
NOTE THE HOUSE MANAGERS, HAVE 
SAID AND I'M SURE THEY WILL SAY 
AGAIN TODAY THAT, IF WE HAD GONE
TO COURT, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE SAID 
THAT THE COURTS DON'T HAVE 
JURISDICTION OVER THOSE CLAIMS. 
THAT IS TRUE.
IN SOME CASES, THERE IS ONE 
BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW 
RELATED TO THE FORMER COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT, DON BEGAN. 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
POSITION, JUST LIKE THE POSITION
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS 
THAT AN EFFORT BY THE HOUSE TO 
ENFORCE A SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE 3 
COURT IS A NON-JUSTICIABLE 
CONTROVERSY
. THAT IS OUR POSITION AND WE 
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN COURT. THAT 
IS PART OF WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
LITIGATED. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE
FACT THAT HOUSE MANAGERS CAN'T 
HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. I WANT TO 
MAKE THIS CLEAR. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WANT TO SAY THAT THEY 
HAVE AN AVENUE FOR GOING TO 
COURT. THERE USING THE AVENUE 
FOR GOING TO COURT. THEY 
ACTUALLY TOLD THE COURT AND ON 
AGAIN ONCE THEY'VE REACHED AN 
IMPASSE WITH THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT THE COURTS WERE THE 
ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE.
AND AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY
THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR DEALING
WITH THESE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE 
EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS. THE 
FIRST IS ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. WE OFFER TO
DO THAT IN THE OFF OCTOBER 8 
LETTER. THEY DID NOT DO 
ACCOMMODATIONS. IF THEY THINK 
THEY CAN SEE THEY HAVE TO TAKE 
THAT STEP BECAUSE THE 
CONSTITUTION -- IN DISPUTES 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. IF THEY 
THINK
THAT THE COURTS CAN RESOLVE THAT
DISPUTE, THAT IS THE NEXT STEP 
AND THEY SHOULD DO THAT AND HAVE
THAT NEGATED. THEN THINGS CAN 
PROCEED TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF 
CONFRONTATION. BUT TO TRUMP 
STATE TO IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
ULTIMATE COMPETITION DOESN'T 
MAKE SENSE. IT IS NOT
THE SYSTEM THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES. AND IT IS 
UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> SENATOR ASKED THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS,
WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS CARE TO 
CORRECT THE RECORD ON ANY 
FALSEHOODS OR 
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE OPENING ARGUMENTS? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. WE BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAS CLAIMED 
BASICALLY THAT THERE WERE 
SIXPACKS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET 
AND THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. IN ALL
6 OF THE FACTS THAT ARE IN 
CORRECT. LET'S BE CLEAR ON JULY 
25, THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE 
EVIDENCE. BEFORE US EVEN THOUGH 
IT INCLUDES DEVASTATING EVIDENCE
OF THE PROVIDENT SCHEME. IT WAS 
MADE CLEAR ON THE CALL BUT WE 
HAD EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION 
BEFORE THE MEETING, WITH MR. 
BOLTON, THE TEXT MESSAGE, TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PEOPLE 
TELLING
THEM HE HAD TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHAT HE 
WANTED. ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE 
THAT MAKES US UNDERSTAND THE 
PHONE CALL EVEN MORE  -- 
CLEARLY. THE CLAIM THAT MR. 
ZELENSKY  SAID THEY NEVER FELT 
PRESSURED TO OPEN THE 
INVESTIGATION. THEY DIDN'T SAY 
IT PUBLICLY, THEY WERE AFRAID OF
THE RUSSIANS, FINDING OUT. BUT 
ZELENSKY SAID PRIVATELY  HE 
DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN 
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. YOU 
WANTED TO RESIST ANNOUNCING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. HE ONLY RELENTED
IN SCHEDULING THE CNN MEETING 
AFTER IT WAS CLEAR HE WAS NOT 
GOING TO RECEIVE THE
SUPPORT THAT HE NEEDED AND THAT 
CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED IN OUR 
APPROPRIATIONS. THAT IS THE 
DEFINITION OF PRESSURE. NOW 
UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS
SAY DID NOT KNOW
THAT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL IT WAS
PUBLIC. MANY WITNESSES HAVE 
CONTESTED THAT, INCLUDING THE 
OPEN STATEMENT BY -- WHO WAS 
THEN THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER
OF UKRAINE, THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE 
SECURITY MATTERS. AND IN THE 
END, EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS PUBLIC
AND AFTER WAS UKRAINE
SCHEDULED THE TESTIMONY. HEATHER
SAID THE WITNESSES SAID THAT 
SECURITY WAS CONDITIONED ON THE 
-- MULVANEY, OTHER WITNESSES 
TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKEDOWN FOR 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THAT 
THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU 
CAN GET A WITNESS WHO TALKED TO 
THE PRESIDENT FIRSTHAND ABOUT 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT HE 
WAS DOING. ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE
SOME OF IT WAS RELEASED
BUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT
THE PRESIDENT PROMISED THREE 
DIFFERENT TIMES STILL HAS NOT 
OCCURRED. AND WE STILL DON'T 
HAVE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS. GETTING CAUGHT DOESN'T 
MITIGATE THE WRONGDOING. THE 
PRESIDENT'S
UNREPENTANT AND WE FEAR HE WILL 
DO IT AGAIN. NOW IN THE 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED 
THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED FEDERAL 
LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD THE AID. 
THAT MISCONDUCT IS GOING ON, ALL
THE AID HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. 
AND FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
THIS, THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION, 
I'M SURE UNINTENTIONAL. THE 
PRESIDENT TRULY DOES NOT NEED TO
PUT
PERMISSION OF HIS STAFF ON 
FOREIGN POLICY. THAT IS
GIVEN AS EVIDENCE ON WHAT HE 
THOUGHT HE WAS DOING. AND HE DID
NOT APPEAR TO BE PURSUING A 
POLICY AGENDA. HE APPEARED, FROM
ALL THE EVIDENCE TO BE PURSUING 
A CORRUPTION. A CORRUPTION OF 
OUR ELECTION THAT IS UPCOMING.
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR 
THAT REQUIRES CONVICTION AND 
REMOVAL. I YIELD BACK. 
>>
THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS. 
>> I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
BOSEMAN, SALLY BLACKBURN, 
KENNEDY AND
TOOMEY. 
>> THE SENATORS AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
, DID THE HOUSE FATHER TO SEEK 
TESTIMONY OR LITIGATE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ISSUES DURING THE 
MONTHS DURING WHICH IT HELD UP 
THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES BEFORE 
SENDING THEM TO THE SENATE? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, NO,
THE HOUSE DID NOT SEEK TO 
LITIGATE ANY VILLAGE ISSUES 
DURING THAT TIME. IN FACT, THEY 
FILED NO LAWSUITS ARISING FROM 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT 
THEY WOULD SEEK TO CONTEST THE 
BASIS THAT THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR 
RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS. THE 
BASIS FOR WHY THE SUBPOENAS WERE
INVALID. AND WHEN LITIGATION WAS
FILED BY ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS, 
THAT WAS -- THE DEPUTY NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER HE WENT TO THE 
COURT AND SOUGHT DECLARATORY 
JUDGMENT SAYING THE PRESIDENT 
TOLD ME I SHOULDN'T GO. I HAD 
SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSING I 
SHOULD GO. PLEASE, TELL ME MY 
OBLIGATIONS. AND THAT WAS FILED,
I BELIEVE AROUND OCTOBER 25th, 
TOWARD THE END OF OCTOBER. VERY 
SHORTLY, WITHIN A FEW DAYS, THE 
COURT HAS SAID THE EXPEDITED 
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER 
10 THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HEAR 
BOTH PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO 
DISMISS BUT ALSO
THE MERIT ISSUE. THEY WOULD GET 
THE DECISION AFTER HEARING ON 
DECEMBER 10 THAT WOULD GO TO THE
MERIT OF THE ISSUE. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA. 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED
TO MOOD OF THE CASE THAT THEY 
WOULD NOT GET DECISION. SAID NO,
THE HOUSE HAS NOT PURSUED 
LITIGATION TO GET THE ISSUES 
RESOLVED. IT IS AFFIRMATIVELY 
AVOIDED GETTING ANY LITIGATION. 
AND IT SEEMS TO BE, AT LEAST IN 
PART, BASED ON, IF YOU LOOK AT 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
REPORT, THEIR ASSERTION THAT 
UNDER THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT,'S ASSIGNED TO THE 
HOUSE, THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION
-- I BELIEVE THE EXACT WORDS, IT
GIVES THE HOUSE THE LAST WORD, 
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. AND I 
MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, THIS IS
THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 
THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN THEIR 
VIEW IT IS ACTUALLY THE 
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AND ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY 
BASED PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OR 
IMMUNITIES
OR ROLES, EVEN OF THE OTHER 
BRANCHES, MOSTLY JUDICIARY AND 
EXECUTIVE FALL AWAY. AND THERE'S
NOTHING THAT CAN STAND IN THE 
WAY OF THE HOUSE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. IF THE ISSUE UP TO 
SUBPOENA THE EXECUTIVE HAS TO 
RESPOND AND IT CANNOT RAISE ANY 
CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND IF YOU 
DO THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF 
COURTS. THE COURSE HAS NO ROLE. 
THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS A 
DANGEROUS CONSTRUCT FOR OUR 
CONSTITUTION. IT SUGGESTS THAT 
ONCE THEY FLIP THE SWITCH ONTO 
IMPEACHMENT THERE IS NO CHECK ON
THEIR POWER IN WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE 
CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED. THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, WHEN 
THERE ARE INTERBRANCH CONFLICTS 
THAT THERE BE AN ACCOMMODATION 
PROCESS. THAT THERE BE ATTEMPTS 
TO ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF BOTH
BRANCHES. AND IF THE HOUSE HAS 
TAKEN THE POSITION IN ANOTHER 
LITIGATION THEY ARE TELLING THE 
COURTS THAT THE COURTS ARE THE 
ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. 
AND THEY BROUGHT THAT CASE TO IN
AUGUST.
THEY HAVE AN APPEAL IN THE D.C. 
CIRCUIT. IT WAS ARGUED JANUARY 
3. THE DECISION COULD COME ANY 
DAY. THAT IS PRETTY FAST FOR 
LITIGATION. BUT THEY DECIDED IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY DON'T 
WANT TO DO LITIGATION. AND 
AGAIN, IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAD 
TIMETABLE. ONE OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ADMITTED ON THIS FLOOR 
THAT THEY HAD TO GET THE 
PRESIDENT IMPEACH BEFORE THE 
ELECTION AND HAD NO TIME FOR THE
COURTS, FOR ANYONE TELLING THEM 
WHAT THE RULES WERE. AND THEY 
HAD TO GET IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS,
THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. THEN THEY
WAITED AROUND FOR THE MONTH, 
BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE. AND I 
THINK THAT SHOWS YOU
WHAT IS REALLY BEHIND THE CLAIMS
OF, IS URGENT, IT IS NOT URGENT,
IT IS URGENT WHEN IT IS OUR 
TIMETABLE AND NOT URGENT WHEN WE
CAN WAIT FOR A MONTH BECAUSE WE 
WANT TO TELL THE SENATE HOW TO 
RUN THINGS. IT IS ALL A 
POLITICAL CHARADE. AND THAT IS 
PART OF THE REASON, A MAJOR 
REASON THE SENATE SHOULD RETRACT
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
>>
THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. PLEASE ADDRESS THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT 
THAT HOUSE MANAGERS SEEK TO 
OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2016
ELECTION AND THAT THE DECISION 
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
BE LEFT TO THE VOTERS IN 
NOVEMBER.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
FIRST I WANT TO RESPOND TO 
SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL JUST 
SAID. NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST
FOR LITIGATION IN THE COURTS. 
SADLY, I AGREE WITH THAT THAT 
NINE MONTHS ISN'T BACKED
PRETTY FAST AND WE DON'T HAVE A 
DECISION YET. ONCE MORE THAT IS 
THE CASE THEY ARE ARGUING AS I 
QUOTED EARLIER THAT CONGRESS HAS
NO RIGHT TO COME TO THE COURTS 
TO FORCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. 
SO HERE WE ARE, NINE MONTHS 
LATER AND LITIGATION THAT THEY 
SAID WERE COMPELLED UNDER 
CONSTITUTION AND THEY ARE SAYING
IN COURT YOU CANNOT BRING THIS 
AND IT IS NINE MONTHS AND WE 
DON'T HAVE A DECISION. I THINK 
THAT TELLS YOU JUST WHERE THEY 
ARE COMING FROM. IT ALL GOES 
BACK TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTIVE, DESPITE ALL SUBPOENAS
AND THEY ARE. DIXON WAS GOING TO
BE IMPEACHED FOR FAR LESS 
OBSTRUCTION THAN ANYTHING THAT 
DONALD TRUMP DID.
THE ARGUMENT, IF YOU IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT, YOU ARE OVERTURNING 
THE RESULTS OF THE LAST ELECTION
AND YOU ARE TEARING UP THE 
BALLOTS IN THE NEXT ELECTION. IF
THAT WERE THE CASE, THERE WOULD 
BE NO IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE BY DEFINITION IF YOU ARE
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT THAT 
PRESIDENT IS IN OFFICE AND HAS 
WON THE ELECTION. CLEARLY THAT 
IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN 
MIND. WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND IS 
IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, YOU 
MUST REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. IT 
IS NOT VOIDING THE LAST 
ELECTION, IT IS PROTECTING THE 
NEXT ELECTION. THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWERS PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION 
NOT AS A PUNISHMENT. THAT IS 
WHAT THE CRIMINAL LAWS ARE FOR. 
BUT TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY. IF 
YOU SAY YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT BEFORE THE NEXT 
ELECTION, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY 
SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN THEIR 
SECOND TERM. THAT WERE GOING TO 
BE THERE CONSTITUTIONAL 
REQUIREMENT THE FOUNDERS 
WOULD'VE PUT INTO THE 
CONSTITUTION, A PRESIDENT CAN 
COMMIT WHATEVER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS HE WANTS AS LONG AS
IT IS THE FIRST TERM. THAT IS 
CLEARLY NOT WHAT ANY RATIONAL 
FARMER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AND 
INDEED THEY DID IN. AND THEY DID
IT FOR A REASON. THE FOUNDERS 
WERE CONCERNED THAT IN FACT THE 
OBJECT OF WHATEVER A PRESIDENT'S
CORRUPT SCHEME MIGHT BE TO CHEAT
IN THE VERY ACCOUNTABILITY THEY 
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ELECTION. 
COUNSEL HAS CONTINUED TO 
MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT THE 
MANAGERS HAVE SAID. THEY WERE 
NOT SANG TO HURRY TO IMPEACH 
BEFORE THE ELECTION, WE HAD TO 
HURRY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT 
ELECTION. AND THE POSITION OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS,
WELL, YES, IT IS TRUE THAT IF A 
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO CHEAT AND 
ELECTION, BY DEFINITION THAT IS 
PART OF THEIR REELECTION AND BY 
DEFINITION THAT IS APPROXIMATE 
TO AN ELECTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, 
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, EVEN 
THOUGH THE OBJECT IS TO CORRUPT 
THAT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. THAT 
CANNOT BE BUT THE FOUNDERS HAD 
IN MIND. WHAT I SAID AT THE VERY
OPEN OF THIS PROCEEDING IS, YES,
WE ARE TO LOOK TO HISTORY. YES, 
WE ARE TO TRY TO DIVINE THE 
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS BUT WE ARE
NOT TO
LEAVE COMMON SENSE OF THE DOOR. 
THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER THIS IS 
THE FIRST TREMOR THE SECOND. IT 
IS A WHETHER THE ELECTION IS 
WHEN YOU'RE AWAY OR 3 YEARS 
AWAY. THE ISSUE IS, DID HE 
COMMIT A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR? IS IT A HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OF A TO AN ALLY AT 
WAR TO GET HELP, ELICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION?
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS, IT 
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TERM IT IS. 
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW FAR AWAY 
THE ELECTION IS. BECAUSE THAT 
PRESIDENT REPRESENTS A THREAT TO
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. 
MORE THAN THAT A THREAT TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY. AS WE HAVE 
SHOWN, I WITHHOLDING THE AID, 
AND I KNOW THE ARGUMENT, NO 
HARM, NO FOUL, WE WITHHELD AID 
FROM AN ALLY AT WAR. WE SENT THE
MESSAGE TO THE RUSSIANS WHEN 
THEY LEARNED OF THE HOLD THAT WE
DID NOT HAVE UKRAINE'S BACK. WE 
SENT A MESSAGE TO THE RUSSIANS, 
AS ZELENSKY WAS GOING INTO 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH  NEWTON TO END
THE WAR THAT ZELENSKY WAS 
OPERATING FROM A POWER OF 
WEAKNESS BECAUSE THERE WAS A 
DIVISION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES AND 
UKRAINE. 
THAT IS IMMEDIATE DAMAGE. THAT 
IS DAMAGE DONE EVERY DAY. THAT 
DAMAGE CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. 
THE DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT DOES IN
PUSHING OUT THE RUSSIAN 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES OR 
IDENTIFYING THE HOUSE PROCEDURES
AND YOU HAVE HEARD IN THE SENATE
AS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE 
PROPAGANDA, THE DANGER THAT THE 
PRESIDENT POSES BY TAKING 
VLADIMIR PUTIN PROPHESIED OVER 
HIS OWN
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, THAT IS A
DANGER TODAY. THAT IS A DANGER 
THAT CONTINUES EVERY DAY HE 
PUSHES OUT THIS RUSSIAN 
PROPAGANDA.
THE FRAMERS, IF THEY MEANT 
IMPEACHMENT ONLY TO IMPLY IN THE
SECOND TERM, WOULD HAVE SAID SO.
BUT THAT WOULD'VE MADE THE 
CONSTITUTION A SUICIDE PACT. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND NOT
HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM OHIO. 
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. GIVEN
THAT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE
PRIVILEGED IN THE SENATE AND 
LARGELY PREVENT OTHER WORK FROM 
TAKING PLACE, WHILE THEY ARE 
ONGOING, PLEASE ADDRESS THE 
IMPLICATIONS OF ALLOWING THE 
HOUSE TO PRESENT AN INCOMPLETE 
CASE TO THE SENATE AND REQUEST 
THE SENATE TO SEEK TESTIMONY 
FROM ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THIS BODY 
FACES, GIVEN
THESE CALLS TO HAVE WITNESSES. 
BECAUSE HOUSE MANAGERS TRY TO 
PRESENT IT AS IF IT IS JUST A 
SIMPLE QUESTION, HOW CAN YOU 
HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
BUT IN RELITIGATION, NO ONE GOES
TO TRIAL WITHOUT DOING 
DISCOVERY. NOAH GOES TO TRIAL 
WITHOUT HAVING HEARD FROM THE 
WITNESSES FIRST. YOU DON'T SHOW 
UP AT TRIAL AND THEN START 
TRYING TO CALL WITNESSES FOR THE
FIRST TIME. AND THE IMPLICATION 
HERE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
STRUCTURE FOR TRYING TO RUN 
THINGS
IN UPSIDE DOWN WAY WOULD BE VERY
GRAVE FOR THIS BODY AS AN 
INSTITUTION. BECAUSE AS THE 
SENATORS QUESTION
POINTS OUT, IT LARGELY PRESENTS 
THIS CHAMBER FROM GETTING OTHER 
BUSINESS DONE, AS LONG AS THERE 
IS A TRIAL PENDING. AND THE IDEA
THAT THE HOUSE CAN DO AN 
INCOMPLETE JOB IN TRYING TO FIND
OUT WHAT WITNESSES THERE ARE, 
HAVING THEM COME TESTIFY, TRYING
TO FIND OUT THE FACTS, TO RUSH 
SOMETHING THROUGH AND BRING IT 
HERE AS IMPEACHMENT AND THEN 
START TO CALL THE WITNESSES, 
MEANS THAT THIS BODY WILL END UP
TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATORY 
TASK AND ALL THE REGULAR 
BUSINESS OF THIS BODY WILL BE 
SLOWED DOWN, HINDERED, PREVENTED
WELL THAT GOES ON.
AND IT ISN'T A QUESTION OF ONE 
WITNESS. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING RIGHT 
NOW ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. BUT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS 
WITNESSES AS A MATTER OF 
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
AND THERE WOULD BE A LONG LIST 
OF WITNESSES IF THE BODY WERE TO
GO IN THAT DIRECTION IT WOULD 
MEAN IT WOULD DRAG ON FOR 
MONTHS. AND PREVENT THIS CHAMBER
FROM GETTING ITS BUSINESS DONE. 
THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO 
THINGS AND IN UPSIDE DOWN WAY OF
DOING THINGS. AND TO HAVE THE 
HOUSE NOT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
THAT IS THOROUGH AND COMPLETE, 
AND TO JUST RUSH THINGS THROUGH 
IN A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL 
MATTER AND DUMP IT ONTO THIS 
CHAMBER TO CLEAN EVERYTHING UP 
IS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. 
AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, 
WHATEVER IS EXCEPTED IN THIS 
CASE BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL. AND
IF THIS CHAMBER PUTS
ON THE PROCESS, THAT IS THE SEAL
OF APPROVAL FOR ALL TIME IN THE 
FUTURE. AND IF IT BECOMES THAT 
EASY FOR THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
DON'T ATTEMPT TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES, NEVERMIND LITIGATION,
IT TAKES TOO LONG, BUT THEN 
LEAVE IT TO THIS CHAMBER -- AS I
SAID THE OTHER DAY, REMEMBER,
WHAT DO WE THINK WILL HAPPEN IF 
SOME OF THE WITNESSES ARE 
SUBPOENA NOW? THAT THEY NEVER 
BOTHER TO LITIGATE ABOUT? THEN 
THERE WILL BE LITIGATION NOW, 
MOST LIKELY. THEN THAT WILL TAKE
TIME, WHILE THIS CHAMBER IS 
STUCK
SITTING AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS NOT THE WAY
TO DO THINGS. AND IT WOULD 
FOREVER CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, 
IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE 
IMPEACHMENT OPERATES. IT IS 
VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE 
CHAMBER TO CONSIDER WHAT IT 
REALLY MEANS TO START HAVING 
THIS CHAMBER TO ALL THE 
INVESTIGATORY WORK
AND HOW THIS CHAMBER WOULD BE 
PARALYZED BY THAT. AND IS IT 
REALLY THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT 
THE WAY THIS CHAMBER WANTS 
EVERYTHING TO OPERATE IN THE 
FUTURE? ONCE YOU MAKE IT THAT 
MUCH EASIER -- WE HAVE SAID THIS
ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS 
IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS FOR 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND ALSO IN
TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT IS 
USED IN THE HOUSE. YOU MAKE IT 
REALLY, WAY TOO EASY TO IMPEACH 
A PRESIDENT THAN THIS CHAMBER IS
GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE 
TIME. AND AS MINORITY LEADER 
SCHUMER POINTED OUT, AT THE TIME
OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HE 
WAS PROPHETIC
, AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
POINTED OUT, ONCE YOU START DOWN
THE PATH OF PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT, THEY WILL BE COMING
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND 
IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER THEY WILL 
COME EVEN MORE FREQUENTLY. THIS 
CHAMBER IS GOING TO BE SPENDING 
A LOT OF TIME DEALING WITH 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND CLEANING 
UP INCOMPLETE PROCEDURES, RUSHED
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT FROM THE 
HOUSE. IF THAT IS THE SORT OF 
SYSTEM THAT IS GIVEN HERE. THAT 
IS A VERY IMPORTANT REASON FOR 
NOT ACCEPTING THAT PROCEDURE AND
NOT TRYING TO OPEN THINGS UP NOW
AND THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN DONE 
RAPIDLY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL?
>> THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT
SUBPOENAING WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY
PROLONG THE TRIAL. ISN'T IT TRUE
THAT DEPOSITIONS OF THE THREE 
WITNESSES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL 
WERE COMPLETED IN ONLY ONE DAY 
EACH? AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, AS PRESIDING 
OFFICER IN THIS TRIAL, HAS THE 
AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE ANY CLAIMS 
OF PRIVILEGE OR OTHER WITNESS 
ISSUES WITHOUT ANY DELAY?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE ANSWER
IS YES. WHAT IS CLEAR, BASED ON 
THE RECORD THAT WAS COMPILED BY 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
WERE UP TO FIVE DEPOSITIONS PER 
WEEK WERE COMPLETED, THAT THIS 
CAN BE DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS 
FASHION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE RECORD THAT EXISTS 
BEFORE YOU, RIGHT NOW, CONTAINS 
STRONG AND UNCONTROVERTED 
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN 
FOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN 
AS PART OF A SCHEME TO CHEAT IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION AND SOLICIT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. THAT IS 
EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES WHO CAME
FORWARD, FROM THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING 
INDIVIDUALS LIKE AMBASSADOR BILL
TAYLOR. WEST POINT GRADUATE. 
VIETNAM WAR HERO. INCLUDING 
INDIVIDUALS LIKE BASSITT OR 
SONDLAND
WHO GAVE $1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S INAUGURATION. RESPECTED 
NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS 
LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN. AS WELL AS 
DR. FIONA HILL. 17 DIFFERENT 
WITNESSES, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
EMPLOYEES, TROUBLED BY THE 
CORRUPT CONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE 
AS ALLEGED AND PROVEN BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. BUT TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE 
AMBIGUITIES, IN YOUR MIND, THIS 
IS A TRIAL. A TRIAL INVOLVES 
WITNESSES.
A TRIAL INVOLVES DOCUMENTS. A 
TRIAL INVOLVES EVIDENCE. THAT IS
NOT A NEW PHENOMENON FOR THIS 
DISTINGUISHED BODY. THE SENATE, 
IN ITS HISTORY HAS HAD 15 
DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. IN
EVERY SINGLE TRIAL THERE WERE 
WITNESSES. EVERY SINGLE TRIAL. 
WHY DOES THIS PRESIDENT GET 
TREATED DIFFERENTLY, HELD TO A 
LOWER STANDARD? AT THIS MOMENT 
OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY? 
IN FACT, IN MANY OF THOSE 
TRIALS, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WHO HAD 
NOT TESTIFIED
IN THE HOUSE. THAT WAS THE CASE,
MOST RECENTLY IN THE BILL 
CLINTON TRIAL. IS CERTAINLY WAS 
THE CASE IN THE TRIAL OF 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON, 37 OUT OF THE
40 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN 
THE SENATE WERE KNEW. 37 OUT OF 
-- WHY CAN'T WE DO IT IN THIS 
INSTANCE? WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH 
HIGHLY RELEVANT WITNESSES LIKE 
JOHN BOLTON WHO HAD A DIRECT 
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID 
BECAUSE HE WANTED THE PHONY 
INVESTIGATIONS? COUNSEL HAS SAID
THAT THE GREATEST INVENTION IN 
THE HISTORY OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR
ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH HAS BEEN
THE VEHICLE OF CROSS 
EXAMINATION. LET'S CALL JOHN 
BOLTON. LET'S CALL IT MULVANEY. 
LET'S CALL OTHER WITNESSES AND 
SUBJECT THEM TO CROSS 
EXAMINATION AND PRESENT THE 
TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR CORNYN ASKED
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE
PRESIDENCY IF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IS THE HEAD 
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE 
ADVICE OF THE PRESIDENT CAN 
EXPECT FROM SENIOR ADVISORS IF 
THE SENATE SEEKS TO RESOLVE 
CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
FOR SUBPOENAS IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT ANY 
DETERMINATION BY AN ARTICLE 3 
COURT 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED 
THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL, IT 
KEEPING THE COMMUNICATIONS 
CONFIDENTIAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR 
THE PROPER FUNCTIONING 
GOVERNMENT. IN NIXON VERSUS 
UNITED STATES THE COURT 
EXPLAINED THE PRIVILEGE IS 
GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS
AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE 
FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE, 
FOR THIS REASON. IN ORDER TO 
RECEIVE CANDID ADVICE, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS TO BE ABLE TO BE 
SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE SPEAKING
WITH HIM
HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT 
THEY SAY IS NOT GOING TO BE 
REVEALED. THAT THEIR ADVICE CAN 
REMAIN EVIDENTIAL. IF IT IS NOT 
CONFIDENTIAL THEY WOULD TEMPER 
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. THEY WOULD
NOT BE CANDID WITH THE PRESIDENT
AND WOULDN'T BE ABLE -- THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO 
GET THE BEST ADVICE. AND IF THE 
SAME CONCERN THAT HAS THE 
PROSPEROUS ASPECT OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. EVEN IF IT ISN'T
COMMUNICATION DIRECTLY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. IF IT IS DELIVERED 
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE WITH THAT
COMING UP WITH THE DECISION TO 
PROBE WHAT THEIR WAYS MIGHT WORK
TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND 
DISCUSS THEM CANDIDLY AND 
OPENLY, NOT
FEELING THE FIRST THING THEY 
WILL SAY WILL BE ON THE FRONT 
PAGE OF THE WASHINGTON POST THE 
NEXT DAY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE 
CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU ARE 
SAYING IS GOING TO BE KEPT 
CONFIDENTIAL YOU WILL NOT BE 
CANDID. YOU WON'T GIVE YOUR BEST
ADVICE. THAT DAMAGE IS TO THE 
DECISION-MAKING, BAD FOR THE 
GOVERNMENT AND BAD FOR THE 
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE
GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
CAN'T FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. SO 
THERE IS A CRITICAL
NEED FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO BE 
ABLE TO HAVE THESE PRIVILEGES 
AND PROTECT THAT. THAT IS WHY 
THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED 
THAT IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED 
STATES. AND POINTED OUT THAT 
THERE HAS TO BE HIGH SHOWING AS 
NEED FROM ANOTHER BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT IF THERE'S GOING TO 
BE ANY BREACH OF THAT PRIVILEGE.
AND THAT IS WHY THERE IS AN
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS. WHEN THE
CONGRESS OR LEGISLATURE SEEKS 
INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
AND EXECUTIVE HAS 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST, BOTH 
AVERAGE BRANCHES TRY TO COME TO 
ACCOMMODATION TO ADDRESS THE 
INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES. BUT 
IT IS NOT THE SITUATION OF 
SIMPLY THE CONGRESS IS SUPREME 
AND CAN DEMAND INFORMATION FROM 
THE EXECUTIVE AND
THE EXECUTIVE MUST PRESENT 
EVERYTHING. THE COURTS HAVE MADE
THAT CLEAR. THAT WOULD BE 
DAMAGING TO THE FUNCTIONING 
GOVERNMENT. SO HERE, IN THIS 
CASE, THERE ARE VITAL INTERESTS 
AT STAKE. AND IN ONE OF THE 
POTENTIAL WITNESSES THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE RAISED AGAIN AND AGAIN IS 
JOHN BOLTON. JOHN BOLTON WAS A 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT. HE HAS ALL OF THE 
NATION'S SECRETS FROM THE TIME 
HE WAS NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER. THAT IS PRECISELY THE 
AREA, THE FIELD IN WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED IN THE 
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES 
THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING 
APPROACHING ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE 
OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. TO FEEL THAT NATIONAL
SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AS 
THE CROWN JEWEL OF THE EXECUTIVE
GLITCH. SO TO SUGGEST THAT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR -- WE 
WILL SUBPOENA HIM, HE WILL COME 
IN AND THAT WILL BE EASY, THAT 
IS NOT THE WAY IT WOULD WORK 
BECAUSE THERE IS VITAL 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AT 
STAKE. AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR 
THE INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENCY, FOR EVERY 
PRESIDENT TO PROTECT THAT 
PRIVILEGE. ONCE PRESIDENT STARTS
TO BE SET
, IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS, I WILL 
INSIST ON THE PRIVILEGE, I WILL 
LET PEOPLE INTERVIEW THAT PERSON
AND NOT INSIST ON IMMUNITY, THAT
IS SITTING PRESIDENT. THE NEXT 
TIME WHEN IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
PRESERVE THE PRIVILEGE, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN WEEKEND AND 
HAS FOREVER BEEN WEEKEND.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE TO 
CONSIDER. IT IS IMPORTANT IN THE
SUPREME COURT TO MAKE CLEAR FROM
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND PROPER 
FUNCTIONING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 
AND THERE WOULD BE GRAVE ISSUES 
RAISED, ATTEMPTING TO HAVE
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO
THE PRESIDENT COME UNDER 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY. IT WOULD 
ALL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH AND 
THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE
THINGS WOULD CONTINUE. THANK 
YOU. 
>> COUNSEL? 
>>
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE TASK. 
>>> THE ANSWER IS YES. THEY ARE 
WELL-ESTABLISHED PROCESSES AND 
AGENCIES IN PLACE TO PURSUE 
VALID AND LEGITIMATE NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTEREST IN THE UNITED 
STATES. LIKE THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR. AS AN 
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON. MANY 
OTHER FOLKS WITHIN THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. AS WE HAVE 
WELL-ESTABLISHED OF THE LAST 
WEEK, NONE OF THOSE FOLKS OR 
NONE OF THOSE AGENCIES WOULD 
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED REVIEWING 
THAT EVIDENCE HAVING THAT 
DISCUSSION
WERE INCORPORATED INTO ANY TYPE 
OF INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS 
DURING THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THE TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
HERE. FROM THE TIME OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL ON JULY 25. TO 
THE TIME THE HOLD WAS LIFTED. 
THOSE AGENCIES WERE IN THE DARK.
THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING. MORE SO NOT ONLY WERE
THE IN THE DARK. THE PRESIDENT 
VIOLATED THE LAW.
EXECUTING HIS SCHEME.
NONE OF THAT SUGGEST A VALID 
LEGITIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVE. 
MORE SO,
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND HIS 
COUNSEL IS BRINGING AT ISSUE THE
QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS. IF OVER 
AND OVER AGAIN AS WE HAVE HEARD 
IN THE LAST FEW DAYS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SIMPLY PURSUING A 
VALID LEGITIMATE POLICY 
OBJECTIVE. THIS WAS A SPECIFIC 
DEBATE ABOUT POLICY. A DEBATE 
ABOUT CORRUPTION. A DEBATE ABOUT
CORRUPTION SHARON. THEY MUST 
HAVE THE DOCUMENT TO SHOW THEM. 
LET'S HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES 
THAT WOULD SHOW THEM. THE 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WE HAVE 
SHOW THE EXACT OPPOSITE. THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER 
DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. 
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL. IF HE IS ARGUING THERE IS
EVIDENCE. A POLICY DEBATE. I 
THINK EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE TO 
SEE. THOSE DOCUMENTS. THEY WILL 
LOVE TO SEE THE WITNESSES AND 
HEAR FROM THEM DIRECTLY. WHAT 
EXACTLY WAS BEING DEBATED.
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH 
CAROLINA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR GRAHAM AND SENATOR 
CRUISE
POST THIS QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. IN THE HYPOTHETICAL, 
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD 
EVIDENCE THAT MITT ROMNEY SON 
WAS BEING PAID $1 MILLION PER 
YEAR BY A CORRUPT RUSSIAN 
COMPANY AND MET ROMNEY HAD ACTED
TO BENEFIT THE COMPANY, WHAT 
OBAMA HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK 
THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION BE 
INVESTIGATED.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE 
HYPOTHETICAL IS A BIT OFF.
IT RESUMES THAT HYPOTHETICAL 
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ACTING 
CORRUPTLY. EVIDENCE HE WAS 
ACTING CORRUPTLY WITH RESPECT TO
HIS SON. LET'S TAKE A 
HYPOTHETICAL ON ITS TERMS. WOULD
IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE IF 
BARACK OBAMA HAD TRIED TO GET 
THEM TO DO A INVESTIGATION OF 
MET ROMNEY WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS
JUSTIFIED OR UNJUSTIFIED. THE 
REALITY IS, FOR A PRESIDENT WITH
FULL MILITARY AID. OR 
HYPOTHETICAL TO WITHHOLD IT TO 
BENEFIT THE ADVERSARY. TO TARGET
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT IS 
WRONG AND CORRUPT. PERIOD. END 
OF STORY.
IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO 
RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT. 
RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE 
SECURITY TO BENEFIT HIMSELF 
BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT HIS 
OPPONENT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED 
BY A FOREIGN POWER. THAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE. IF YOU HAVE A 
LEGITIMATE REASON TO THINK THAT 
ANY PERSON HAS
COMMITTED AN OFFENSE, THERE IS 
LEGITIMATE WAYS TO HAVE A 
INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED. I WAS 
SUGGEST THAT FOR A PRESIDENT TO 
TURN TO HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
THAT I WANTED TO INVESTIGATE MY 
POLITICAL RIVAL TATE WHATEVER 
INVESTIGATION THEY DO. THEY 
SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF
ASKING THEIR OWN JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE 
RIVALS. THEY OUGHT TO HAVE SOME 
INDEPENDENCE FROM THE POLITICAL 
DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT.
THEY DO HAVE A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES
SPEAKING QUITE OPENLY URGING HIS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS PERCEIVED 
ENEMIES. THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE 
POLICE EITHER. UNDER NO 
CIRCUMSTANCES
DO YOU GO OUTSIDE OF YOUR 
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER 
TO INVESTIGATE ARRIVAL.
YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT INVITE A 
FOREIGN POWER TO TRY TO 
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION TO YOUR 
BENEFIT. IT IS REMARKABLE TO ME 
THAT WE EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THIS 
CONVERSATION.
>> IT HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY 
CLEAR.
IF WE WERE APPROACHED WITH A 
OFFER, WE SHOULD TURN IT DOWN. 
WE SHOULD NOT SOLICIT A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY. WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK
THERE IS GROUNDS. THE IDEA THAT 
WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN COUNTRY 
HOSTAGE WITHHOLDING AID TO A 
NATION AT WAR. TO EITHER DAMAGE 
OUR ALLY OR HELP OUR ADVERSARY. 
THEY WILL CONDUCT AN 
INVESTIGATION. I CANNOT IMAGINE 
ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
IS SOLICIT FOR HELP IN ELECTION.
CAN HELP THEM CHEAT. THAT IS 
OKAY. THAT WOULD DRAMATICALLY 
LOWER THE BAR.
FOR WHAT WE EXPECT IN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
I WOULD SAY IT IS WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO BE ASKING FOR POLITICAL 
PROSTITUTION DOORS -- 
PROSECUTION. WRONG TO ASK A 
FOREIGN POWER TO ENGAGE IN A 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL. PARTICULARLY AS WE HAVE 
SHOWN HERE, THERE IS NO MERIT 
FOR THAT INVESTIGATION. YOU KNOW
THERE IS NO MERIT TO IT BECAUSE 
HE DID NOT EVEN WANT THE 
INVESTIGATION. IF BARACK OBAMA 
SAID I DO NOT EVEN NEED YOU TO 
DO THE INVESTIGATION, I JUST 
WANTED TO ANNOUNCE IT. THAT 
BETRAYS THE FACT THAT THE WAS NO
LEGITIMATE BASIS.
HE DID NOT EVEN NEED THE 
INVESTIGATION DONE. HE JUST 
WANTED ANNOUNCE. THERE IS NO 
LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION FOR THAT.
EXCEPT HE WANTED HIS HELP IN 
TREATING THE NEXT ELECTION.
>> THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
PETERS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
DOES THE PHRASE OR OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES IN MISDEMEANORS IN 
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRE A VIOLATION
OF THE U.S. CRIMINAL CODE OR A 
BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. PLEASE 
EXPLAIN.
>> THE CHAMBERS WERE VERY CLEAR 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS 
IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. EXPLAINING 
WHY THE CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW 
IMPEACHMENT. HE WARNED THE 
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT 
OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSING HIS 
POWER. ALEXANDER HAMILTON 
DESCRIBED HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. PROCEEDING FROM 
THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION. THEY 
ALSO DESCRIBED WHAT IT MEANT. IT
WAS IMPEACHABLE FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO ABUSE. TO SHELTER PEOPLE. A 
SUSPICIOUS MANNER.
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT WILL BE 
LIABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT. IF HE 
HAD ACTED FROM SOME CORRUPT 
MOTIVE OR IF HE WAS WILLFULLY 
ABUSING HIS TRUST. AS WAS LATER 
STATED, SUMMARIZING CENTURIES OF
COMMON LAW. ABUSE OF POWER.
ENTRUSTED WITH THEFT HOWARD. THE
BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. OR 
FRONTALLY EXCEEDING THEM.
WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS, 
ABUSE OF POWER WAS IMPEACHABLE, 
IT WAS NOT JUST A EMPTY 
MEANINGLESS DAY. THE FOUNDERS 
HAD BEEN PARTICIPATING WITH 
OVERFLOWING THE BRITISH 
GOVERNMENT. A KING WHO IS NOT 
ACCOUNTABLE. THEY INCORPORATED 
THE APPEASEMENT POWER INTO THE 
CONSTITUTION. LATE IN THE 
DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THEY DELIVERED GIVEN THE PRESENT
MANY POWERS.
THAT THOSE POWERS TO BE TAKEN 
AWAY. THE PRIOR ARTICLE THAT THE
CONGRESS HAS HAD DID NOT INCLUDE
SPECIFIC CRIME. PRESIDENT NIXON 
WAS CHARGED WITH ABUSING HIS 
POWER. TARGETING POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS. ENGAGING IN A 
COVER-UP. SOME OF THAT WAS 
CLEARLY CRIMINAL. THERE WAS ALL 
IMPEACHABLE. IT WAS CORRUPT AND 
ABUSING HIS POWER. IN THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE HAD 
WITNESSES CALLED BY BOTH 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. THE 
REPUBLICAN INVITED LAW EXPERT 
TESTIFIED.
UNEQUIVOCALLY IT IS POSSIBLE TO 
ESTABLISH A CASE THROUGH 
IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A 
NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE 
OF POWER. EVERY PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT INCLUDING THIS ONE 
HAS INCLUDED CONDUCT THAT 
VIOLATED THE LAW. EACH 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT HAS 
INCLUDED THE CHARGES DIRECTLY 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS 
IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT A SPECIFIC CRIMINAL LAW 
VIOLATION WAS NOT IN THE MINDS 
OF THE FOUNDERS. IT WOULD NOT 
MAKE ANY SENSE TODAY. YOU CAN 
HAVE A CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION.
YOU COULD DEFACE A PO BOX. THAT 
WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 
LAW. WE WOULD LAUGH AT THE IDEA 
THAT IT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS NOT ABUSE 
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER. IT MAY BE
A CRIME. YOU CAN HAVE ACTIVITIES
THAT IS SO DANGEROUS TO OUR 
CONSTITUTION. THAT WOULD BE 
CHARGED AS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS WORRIED
ABOUT. THAT IS WHY THEY IMPEDE. 
FRANKLY BECAUSE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, NO EXECUTIVE
WOULD DARE EXCEED THEIR POWERS. 
REGRETTABLY THAT PREDICTION. 
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVING ABUSED 
HIS POWERS TO THE DETRIMENT OF 
OUR NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A 
CORRUPT PURPOSE. HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF.
>> SIGNATURES AS COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESENT. DESCRIBED IN FURTHER 
DETAIL THAT ALL SUBPOENAS 
ISSUED. PRIOR TO THE HOUSE 
RESOLUTION. THE EXERCISE OF 
INVALID SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.
>> THANK YOU SENATORS FOR THAT 
QUESTION. AS I EXPLAINED THE 
OTHER DAY. THIS IS BASED ON A 
PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT
IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT CASES. 
EXPLAINING THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DEFINES POWERS TO MEET HOUSE OF 
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
IN PARTICULAR THE LANGUAGE OF 
THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR IN 
ARTICLE 1. THAT THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS TO THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS A 
BODY.
IT IS NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY 
COMMITTEE. ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE.
THE UNITED STATES VERSUS 
WATKINS. THERE ARE DISPUTES 
ABOUT SUBPOENAS. MOST 
SPECIFICALLY IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
CONTEXT. THEY ESTABLISH A 
GENERAL RULE THAT WHENEVER A 
COMMITTEE OF EITHER BODY OF 
CONGRESS ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO 
SOMEONE. THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE
.
IT HAS TO BE TRACED BACK TO SOME
AUTHORIZING ROLLER RESOLUTION 
FROM THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THEMSELVES. THE 
COURTS WILL EXAMINE THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IS THE
CHARTER OF THE COMMITTEE. IT 
GETS THE AUTHORITY SOLELY FROM 
ACTION BY THE HOUSE THAT 
REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE HOUSE. IN
ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE COMMITTEE
BY RESOLUTION OR BY ROLE THE 
STANDING AUTHORITY OF THAT 
COMMUNITY.
IF THE COMMITTEE CANNOT TRACE 
THE AUTHORITY, TO A ROLLER 
RESOLUTION, THEN THE SUBPOENA IS
INVALID. IT IS MADE CLEAR IN 
THOSE CASES. THERE ARE NO AND 
VOID. THEIR BE ON THE POWER TO 
ISSUE IT. OUR POINT IS VERY 
SIMPLE. THERE IS NO STANDING 
ROLE IN THE HOUSE.
IT PROVIDES THE COMMITTEE THAT 
WERE ISSUING SUBPOENAS HERE. THE
AUTHORITY TO USE THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER. RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE. 
EDIFIES THE LEGISLATIVE 
JURISDICTION. IT DOES NOT 
MENTION THE WORD IMPEACHMENT 
EVEN ONCE. NO COMMITTEE WAS 
GIVEN THE AUTHORITY. IMPEACHMENT
PURPOSES. THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN 
THE CASE. IN THE HISTORY OF THE 
NATION. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE FIRST 
TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO USE 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
ATTEMPTING TO ISSUE THE 
COMPULSORY PROCESS. IN THIS 
CASE, THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION 
FROM THE HOUSE. IT REMAINS WITH 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
SHE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY 
MERELY BY TALKING TO A GROUP OF 
REPORTERS SEPTEMBER 24 TO GIVE 
THE POWERS TO ANY PARTICULAR 
COMMITTEE. THE SUBPOENAS THAT 
WERE ISSUED WHERE INVALID WHEN 
THEY WERE ISSUED. THEN FIVE 
WEEKS LATER ON OCTOBER 31, WHEN 
THE HOUSE FINALLY ADOPTED THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION, THAT 
AUTHORIZED FROM THAT POINT
THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS. 
NOTHING ADDRESSED THE SUBPOENAS 
THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED. 
THE ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN 
ISSUED WERE GOING TO TRY TO 
RETROACTIVELY GIVE AUTHORITY TO 
THAT. QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT 
THAT'S COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. THE
DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO. THIS
IS EXPLAINED IN THE OPINION FROM
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
WHICH IS OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM. 
THIS IS VERY DETAILED AND 
THOROUGH.
IT EXPLAINS ALL OF THIS. THE 
BASIC PRINCIPLE. THE HISTORY 
THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS 
WAY. THE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION.
THE FACT THERE WAS NONE HERE.
THAT MEANS 23 SUBPOENAS WERE 
ISSUED WHERE INVALID.
LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE
STATE DEPARTMENT. IN VERY 
SPECIFIC TERMS.
THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE 
SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID. THANK 
YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
HOUSE MANAGERS.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WRITES THE 
SUBJECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE 
THOSE OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED 
FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF MEN OR IN
OTHER WORDS THE ABUSE OR 
VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST. 
COULD YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO THE 
DUTIES OF BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT
AND HOW YOU BELIEVE THE ACTIONS 
HAVE VIOLATED THIS TRUST.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE.  HE USED HIS 
OFFICE TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTION FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT. 
MANY OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN HIS 
ATTEMPTS TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
ABUSE OF POWER. THE KEY PURPOSE 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT WAS TO 
CONTROL ABUSES OF POWER BY 
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THAT IS TO SAY
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED THE PUBLIC
TRUST.
ACCUSATIONS OF CONDUCT VIOLATING
PUBLIC TRUST. THEY INTENDED TO 
CAPTURE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIKE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO SHOWED NO 
RESPECT FOR THEIR OATH OF 
OFFICE. HE IGNORED THE LAW AND 
THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO 
GAIN POLITICAL FAVOR. IT ALSO 
PROHIBITED HIM FROM USING HIS 
OFFICIAL.
RATHER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID. IS LEGALLY 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID. UNTIL 
THEY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPONENT. 
IN THE WORDS OF ONE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR. NOTHING 
IS IMPEACHABLE. THAT IS 
PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT. 
CREATING A CONSTITUTION 
INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT. I WANT TO
ADD. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT 
WERE MADE BY SOME OF THE 
PRESENCE COUNSEL A FEW MINUTES 
AGO. THEY TALK ABOUT SUBPOENA 
POWER. TO ACT PROPERLY. BECAUSE 
THEY SAID THE HOUSE DID NOT 
DELEGATE BY RULE WILL HAVE A 
RESOLUTION.
THE HOUSE IS GENERALLY DELEGATED
ALL SUBPOENA POWER TO THE 
COMMITTEE. IT WAS NOT TRUE 15 
YEARS AGO. IT IS TRUE NOW. THE 
HOUSE SO POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. 
THE MATTER OF THIS EXERCISE MAY 
NOT BE CHALLENGED FROM OUTSIDE.
WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE 
CONVICTED UPON OUR ACCUSATION IS
A QUESTION FOR THE SENATE. IT IS
A MATTER SOLELY FOR THE HOUSE. 
THIRD WE TALKED ABOUT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. THEY POINT TO THE 
NIXON CASE. THE PRESIDENT HAS A 
RIGHT
TO CANDID ADVICE. THEREFORE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS 
ESTABLISHED.
DOES THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
CANNOT BE USED TO HIDE 
WRONGDOING. HE WAS ORDERED TO 
TURN OVER ALL THE MATERIAL. 
THIRDLY,
THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF WAIVER. 
YOU CANNOT USE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IF YOU WAVE IT. THE 
MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT
HE WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH
WHEN HE SAID THE PRESIDENT TOLD 
HIM OF THE IMPROPER QUID PRO 
QUO. HE WAVED THE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. HE KIND OF 
CHARACTERIZE THE CONVERSATION. 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. CLAIMING 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
HE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. HE HAS CLAIMED 
INSTEAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE 
RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE THAT HE HAS 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM ANY 
QUESTIONING. A CLAIM REJECTED. 
FINALLY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS 
PRESIDENT THAN ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENT. THIS PRESIDENT TOLD 
US IN ADVANCE. WHATEVER THE 
NATURE. I WILL MAKE SURE THEY 
GET NO INFORMATION. I AM 
ABSOLUTE. CONGRESS CANNOT 
QUESTION WHAT I DO. I WILL MAKE 
SURE THEY GET NO INFORMATION.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF ARTICLE 2
OF THE IMPEACHMENT.
>>  THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.  THE 
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> TWO MORE QUESTIONS ON EACH 
SIDE.
ONE MORE QUESTION. I HAVE BEEN 
CORRECTED. AS I FREQUENTLY THEM.
ONE MORE QUESTION ON EACH SIDE 
AND WE WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE 
BREAK.
>> THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
>> QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL.
>> SENATOR ROBERTS ASKED WOULD 
YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE 
HOUSE MANAGEMENT MADE IN 
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS 
QUESTIONS.
DIRECTED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE.  I WANT TO RESPOND 
TO A COUPLE. FIRST TO THE 
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED 
AS IT RELATES TO WITNESSES.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR 
PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE WITNESSES
THAT GAVE TESTIMONY WERE 
WITNESSES THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN 
INTERVIEWED BY DEPOSITION IN THE
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS 
SPECIFICALLY SENATOR BLUMENTHAL.
THE WITNESS WAS NOT BEING 
CALLED. THAT IS BEING CALLED TO 
THE HOUSE IN THE PROCESS. MOVING
FORWARD WITH A FULL 
INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS ANOTHER
STATEMENT THAT WAS RAISED.
REGARDING THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO 
MAKE A DETERMINATION ON 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WITH NO 
DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDING 
OFFICER TO DETERMINE A WAIVER OR
THE APPLICABILITY OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE WOULD BE QUITE A STEP.
THERE IS NOTHING HISTORICAL THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY. THERE IS 
SOMETHING ELSE. IF WE GET TO THE
POINT OF WITNESSES, FOR 
INSTANCE, FOR ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES TO BE CALLED.
THE ROLE BASICALLY OF KEN STARR.
HE PRESENTED A REPORT
AND MADE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
ABOUT 12 HOURS OF QUESTIONING. 
IF REPRESENTATIVE SHIFT WAS 
CALLED AS A WITNESS, WHAT EFFECT
ISSUES OF SPEECH AND DEBATE BE 
LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER OR WOULD HE GO
TO COURT. MAYBE THEY WOULD WAIVE
IT. THOSE WILL BE THE KIND OF 
ISSUES THAT WOULD BE VERY 
SIGNIFICANT. SENATOR GRAHAM 
PRESENTED A HYPOTHETICAL WHICH 
THEY SAID IS NOT REALLY THE 
HYPOTHETICAL. IT IS ACTUALLY 
THAT. HYPOTHETICALS.
LIKE THEY WERE STARTING A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION. I AM 
THINKING TO MYSELF. THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED. THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND THE FBI ENGAGED IN A
INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE 
FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. THAT IS WHEN THEY 
STARTED THEIR OPERATION CALLED 
CROSSFIRE HER AGAIN. HE SAID IT 
WOULD BE TARGETING ARRIVAL. 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE WITHIN THAT. 
IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF 
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. IT HAS BEEN
WELL ESTABLISHED. THE FUSION 
GPS. IT UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF 
A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
TO PUT TOGETHER A DOSSIER. HE 
RELIED ON HIS NETWORK OF 
RESOURCES AROUND THE GLOBE 
INCLUDING RUSSIA AND OTHER 
PLACES.
YET IT WAS THE BASIS.
THEY OBTAINED THE ONCE. THIS WAS
IN 2016. AGAINST ARRIVAL 
CAMPAIGN.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO DO 
HYPOTHETICALS. THAT IS PRECISELY
THE SITUATION. TO TAKE IT A 
ADDITIONAL STEP. THIS IDEA THAT 
A WITNESS WILL BE CALLED THAT 
THIS BODY DECIDES TO GO TO 
WITNESS. THAT A WITNESS WILL BE 
CALLED WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF 
FUNDAMENTAL PRACTICE. IF 
WITNESSES ARE CALLED BY THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, THROUGH THAT 
MOTION, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CALL WITNESSES AS WELL WHICH 
WE WOULD. THANK YOU MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>>  THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THANK 
YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
HARRIS'S FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT
MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. BEFORE 
HE WAS ELECTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAID WHEN YOU'RE A STAR, YOU CAN
DO ANYTHING. AFTER HE WAS 
ELECTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION 
GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT. 
THE STATEMENTS SUGGEST EACH OF 
THEM SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT IS 
ABOVE THE LAW. REFLECTED IN THE 
IMPROPER ACTIONS THEY TOOK TO 
AFFECT THEIR REELECTION 
CAMPAIGNS. IF THE SENATE FAILS 
TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
MISCONDUCT, HOW WOULD THAT 
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY.
>> THIS IS EXACTLY THE FEAR. I 
THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATTERN
IN THIS PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT, 
WHAT YOU SEE IS A PRESIDENT WHO 
IDENTIFIES THE STATE AS BEING 
HIMSELF.
THEY TALK ABOUT PEOPLE REPORTING
HIS WRONGDOING. WHEN HE 
DESCRIBES IT WHISTLEBLOWER.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF
SOMEONE REPORTS WRONGDOING AS 
COMMITTING A CRIME IS IF YOU 
BELIEVE YOU ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH 
THE COUNTRY. IN A REPORT OF 
WRONGDOING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
IS A TREASONOUS ACT. IT IS THE 
KIND OF MENTALITY THAT SAYS 
UNDER ARTICLE 2 I CAN DO 
WHATEVER I WANT. I AM ALLOWED TO
FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS. COUNSEL HAS
GIVEN A VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS.
THEY MIGHT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE 
ARGUMENT IF THE ADMINISTRATION 
HAD GIVEN HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS 
BUT RESERVED SOME OF THEM.
OF COURSE THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS 
ON THE. WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS 
A SHIFTING SERIES OF 
EXPLANATIONS. SOME MADE IN 
COURT.
THEY MADE THE ARGUMENT THE 
SUBPOENAS ARE NOT VALID BEFORE 
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION. ISSUED 
AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTIONS. 
THOSE ARE NO GOOD EITHER.
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
YOU ARE NOT A KING. THAT MAY BE 
THOUGHT OF WITH FAVOR BY VARIOUS
PRESIDENTS. THERE IS NO 
CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR THAT 
EITHER. DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING
RELEASED RIGHT NOW.
HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO GET 
DOCUMENTS TO THE FREEDOM OF 
REGULATION ACT. IF THEY WERE 
OPERATING IN ANY GOOD FAITH, 
WOULD THAT BE THE CASE. THE 
ANSWER WOULD BE NO. WHAT WE HAVE
INSTEAD, YOU CAN CLAIM ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY. EVEN THOUGH THAT DOES 
NOT EXIST.
THEY SAID THEY WITHDREW THE 
SUBPOENA. WHY WOULD THEY 
WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA WHEN HE 
WAS ONLY THREATENING TO TIE YOU 
UP IN COURT.
WE SUGGESTED THAT IF THEY HAD A 
GOOD FAITH CONCERN.
IF THIS WAS REALLY GOOD FAITH 
AND WAS NOT JUST A STRATEGY TO 
DELAY. IT WAS NOT JUST PART OF 
THE PRESIDENTS WHOLESALE AT ALL 
SUBPOENAS. THERE WAS ACTUALLY 
ALREADY A CASE IN COURT 
INVOLVING THEM ON THAT VERY 
SUBJECT. IT WAS RIGHT FOR 
DECISION.
HE SAID LET'S JUST AGREE TO BE 
BOUND. THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO 
THAT. IT BECAME OBVIOUS. AGAIN 
THE COURT SAID THERE IS NO 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. IF YOU THINK 
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL 
SECURITY. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE 
SOMEHOW I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT. NOW 
I HAVE THE COMFORT I NEEDED. THE
COURT HAS WEIGHED IN. THE ANSWER
IS OF COURSE NOT. THEY MIGHT 
HAVE GOTTEN A QUICK JUDGMENT. IN
THE LOWER COURT. DO ANY OF YOU 
BELIEVE FOR A SINGLE MINUTE. TO 
THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME 
COURT STRUCK DOWN THE IMMUNITY 
ARGUMENT. WE'RE GOING TO CLAIM 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THAT IS A SIGN OF THE PRESIDENT 
WHO BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE 
LAW. THAT ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERS 
THEM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. IF
YOU ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, YOU 
ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
CAN TELL YOU TO POUNCE IN WHEN 
HE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
WRONGDOING. THERE WILL BE NO 
FORCE BEHIND ANY SENATE SUBPOENA
IN THE FUTURE. IT STARTED BEFORE
THE IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU ALLOW A PERSON TO 
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO COMPLETELY 
IN A WAY THAT NIXON AND NEVER 
HAVE CONTEMPLATED.
YOU WILL EVISCERATE YOUR OWN 
OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I SUGGEST WE RESUME AT 4 PM. 
SO ORDERED.
>> YOU'RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE 
SENATE IS IN RECESS. THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS.
WE WILL BRING IT TO YOU LIVE 
WHEN THEY RESUME. I AM JOINED IN
THE STUDIO. THANK YOU SO MUCH 
FOR BEING HERE. YOU TAKE AWAY SO
FAR OF HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT. 
WE DEAFLY ARE SEEING A RHYTHM 
AND A PATTERN.
>> WE ONLY IN MAYBE THE 3rd HOUR
OF WHAT I THINK IS SUPPOSED TO 
BE 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONING. WE 
AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS 
PROCESS. SO FAR WE ARE NOT 
SEEING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. 
DIFFICULT FOR BOTH SIDES TO 
ANSWER. THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS 
NEED TO BE AIMING THEIR QUESTION
AT THE HOUSE MANAGER. THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR SEEMS TO BE 
LARGELY AIMING THEIR QUESTION AT
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. IT 
SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE WORKING TO 
KIND OF TEA UP THERE TALKING 
POINTS FOR EACH SIDE. IT SORT OF
SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE ANSWERS 
WERE ACTUALLY PREWRITTEN. THEY 
SEEM TO BE GOING UP WITH ANSWERS
THAT HEART ARTERY BEEN PREPARED.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INTERESTING
POINTS MADE. I WANT TO BRING 
RHONDA IN ON THIS QUESTION. YOU 
GET THE SENSE THAT ONE SIDE IS 
LOBBING UP A GENTLE BALL. JUST 
WAITING FOR THEIR SIDE OF THE 
ARGUMENT. GO AHEAD AND TAKE A 
SWING AT IT.
>> ALSO TO ADD. I FEEL LIKE THIS
FIRST THREE-HOUR PORTION IS 
SHOWING THAT IT IS BOLTON. 
MULTIPLE TIMES.
THE QUESTIONS TRY TO TARGET 
BRINGING WITNESSES IN. EVEN AT 
THE TOP OF THE MORNING. HIS 
QUESTION WAS JUST FOR THE 
RECORD. COULD YOU LET US KNOW IF
THE HOUSE DID CALL. WE DO KNOW 
THE ANSWER. YES WE DID CALL HIM.
HE DID NOT COME. THERE WAS ALSO 
A MOMENT AFTER HE WAS FINISHED 
WITH HIS ANSWER, HE SAID BY THE 
WAY, IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER 
QUESTIONS WE COULD PROBABLY 
BRING HIM IN TO ANSWER THEM. IT 
JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT IS REALLY 
THE UNDERCURRENT HERE. BOTH 
SIDES ARE TRYING TO GET AT IT. 
REMEMBER IF YOU GUYS GET A CALL,
WE WILL CALL THE REPUBLICAN 
WITNESSES AS WELL. 
>> THE SPRING IN THE EDITOR TO 
JOIN THE TABLE. THE VERY FIRST 
QUESTION CAME FROM A TRIO OF 
EDITORS WHO ARE VERY CLOSELY 
WATCHED. WE CAN PLAY THAT TAPE 
IN JUST A MOMENT. WHAT DID IT 
SAY TO YOU. SENATOR COLLINS.
>> IS SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF 
STRATEGY. THEY'RE LOOKING TO 
PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE ABOUT THE 
COVER THEY NEED. THE QUESTION 
THEY ASKED WAS SO FASCINATING. 
IT BECAME INTERMINGLING OF 
MOTIVES. IS ACTUALLY MOTIVATED. 
A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE. ALSO 
THE PERSONAL INTEREST. OBVIOUSLY
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE 
GETTING VERY TO HUMANLY. WE SAW 
HIM MAKE EVEN A MORE TO HUMANLY 
ARGUMENT. EVEN THE PURE INTEREST
IF HE FELT HE WAS ACTING IN THE 
BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY. IT
WAS REALLY A REMARKABLE 
STATEMENT. I WANT TO PLAY THAT 
TAPE. THE QUESTIONABLE MOTIVE. 
IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO HOW 
REPUBLICANS MAY GET THEMSELVES 
SOME COVER. ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS
WERE JUST FASCINATING.
>> I STAND TO QUESTION THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. SENATOR 
ROMNEY. IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS 
ALLEGED CONDUCT. SUCH IS THE 
PURSUIT OF PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ADVANTAGE. ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION AND THE PROMOTION OF 
NATIONAL INTEREST. HOW SHOULD 
THEY CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE 
MOTIVE. THE STANDARD THEY HAVE 
SET FOR THEMSELVES. ESTABLISHING
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST AT ALL. IF THERE IS ANY
POSSIBILITY. SOMETHING THAT 
SHOWS A POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. THE PRESIDENT CAN HAVE
THAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST 
MOTIVE. THAT DESTROYED THEIR 
CASE. ONCE YOUR INTO MIXED 
MOTIVE LAND. THERE CANNOT 
POSSIBLY BE A IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AT ALL.
>> LET'S GO TO RHONDA TO GET HER
TO REFLECT ON NOT JUST THE 
QUESTIONS BUT ALSO THE ANSWER.
>> MOTIVE IS AT THE HEART OF 
THIS ENTIRE SCANDAL. YOU HAVE 
THE REPUBLICAN SAME. HIS MOTIVE 
WAS PURE. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
WANT TO INVESTIGATE AND STAMP 
OUT CORRUPTION. THAT IS REALLY 
WHAT THIS CALL WAS ABOUT. IF YOU
REMEMBER A COMMON REFRAIN. THE 
TESTIMONIES. THEY SAID YOU 
REMEMBER WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT 
SAID. COULD YOU HELP HIM OUT.
MEANWHILE, YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS 
SAYING THIS IS ALL ABOUT 
PERSONAL. ON TOP OF THAT HE ALSO
JEOPARDIZED NATIONAL SECURITY. 
GO BACK TO HOW THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL DEFENDED ITSELF. COULD 
THE MOTIVE BE MIXED. GOING EVEN 
FURTHER WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. HE CANNOT BE GUILTY IF 
HIS MOTIVES WERE POLITICAL.
>> WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD 
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE 
TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THEY CAN
VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
WOULD THAT BE A UNLAWFUL QUID 
PRO QUO? NO IT WOULD NOT. THE 
PRESIDENT BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST. HE BELIEVED 
HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL. 
EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. 
THAT IS WHY IT IS SO DANGEROUS. 
TRYING TO PSYCHOANALYZE A 
PRESIDENT. THE INTRICACIES OF 
THE HUMAN MIND. EVERYONE HAS 
MIXED MOTIVES. FOR THERE TO BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED
ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT 
ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE 
IMPEACHED. I WELCOME JAMES TO 
THE TABLE. 
>> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
THIS. LET'S TALK ABOUT MIXED 
MOTIVES. HOW CAN YOU EVER TRULY 
KNOW THE MOTIVATION.
THIS IS PART OF A PATTERN WITH 
TRUMP. ARTICLE TO LET YOU DO 
WHATEVER YOU WANT. THAT IS NOT 
WHAT ARTICLE TO SAYS. ABUSE OF 
POWER. WE'RE TALKING IN THE 
CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 1. IT IS 
RELATED TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
WE DO NOT WANT TO. HE IS 
CLIMBING FURTHER OUT ON THE 
JURORS COULD PERSPECTIVE.
TED CRUZ WHO ASKED THE QUESTION 
WHO PROMPTED THAT ANSWER. HE 
SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF THE
OBAMA PRESIDENCY. WANTING TO BE 
EMPEROR AND KING. TO HAVE THEM 
APPROVINGLY GETTING HIM TO SAY 
THAT EVERY PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS 
POWER IS KIND OF A REMARKABLE 
THING. IT REFLECTS THE MOMENT.
JUSTIFIED TO VOTE TO EQUIP. 
>> THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD 
MAKE IT UNLAWFUL IS IF IT IS 
SOME WAY ILLEGAL. THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. HIS OWN FINANCIAL 
INTEREST.
DOING SOMETHING IN YOUR 
POLITICAL INTERESTS WILL BE 
ULTIMATELY IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. I USE WHATEVER 
LEVERAGE THE POWER. IT IS FOR 
YOUR GOOD. WINNING REELECTION. 
THAT IS MOVING THE BAR. FOR WHAT
MOTIVATION MEANS.
>> IS SORT OF RAISES THE 
QUESTION UNDER THAT STANDARD. 
WHEN WILL THERE EVER BE A 
IMPEACHABLE ACT. IF YOU COULD 
BASICALLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT. IF 
YOU BELIEVE YOUR REELECTION IS 
IN THE PUBLIC GOOD. THEY GIVE 
YOU LICENSE TO DO A LOT OF 
THINGS. WHAT IS THAT END. WHERE 
IS THE BOUNDARY. IT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN REALLY INTERESTING IF WE 
HAD A DIFFERENT FORM. THERE WAS 
SOME BACK AND FORTH. THAT IS 
OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE CONFINES. 
WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT 
KIND OF INTERPLAY. I WOULD BE 
VERY INTERESTING TO SAY THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS SITE THE 
ARGUMENT LIKE THEY DID THE 
HUMANLY FOR THE REASON WHY THERE
IS NOT.
>> AS THEY LAID IT OUT, THE 
OTHER WOULD BE FINANCIAL 
INTEREST. THAT SEEMED TO SET 
THIS NEW STANDARD. WHAT WAS HE 
REALLY BENEFITING.
WE CAN ALL IMAGINE FINANCIAL 
BENEFITS. WE CAN ALL ASPIRE AND 
RELATE TO. SEEM LIKE THAT WAS 
THE DIRTY ONE. DOING SOMETHING 
IN THE POLITICAL INTEREST. PART 
OF WHAT IS INTERESTING. THESE 
ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE 
CONFRONTED EVERY DAY AROUND THE 
COUNTRY. OBVIOUSLY WITH THE 
IMPEACHMENT. IT IS A DIFFERENT 
STANDARD.
SORT OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH A 
QUID PRO QUO. THAT IS THE HEART 
OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH A 
BRIBERY. IT IS ONLY LEGAL IF 
YOU'RE ASKING OUT OF A FINANCIAL
MOTIVE.
IT IS ONLY LEGAL IF YOUR MOTIVE 
IS ENTIRELY PERSONAL. I BELIEVE 
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THE 
ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE
THE MIXED MOTIVE. IF YOU CAN 
ESTABLISH THAT.
YOUR ESSENTIAL MOTIVATION IS A 
CORRUPT ONE. THAT CAN ESTABLISH 
CRIME. EVEN IF THE THINGS YOU 
ARE DOING ARE ALSO MOTIVATED BY 
SOMETHING MORE PURE ALONGSIDE 
YOUR CURRENT MOTIVATION. 
>>
I WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT HOW 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUSH BACK ON 
IT. SHE HAS A FEW MINUTES IN 
BETWEEN LISTENING TO THIS Q&A. I
AM FASCINATED BY HOW THE 
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN GROUP. WHO 
HAS BEEN ALIGNING THEMSELVES TO 
ASK QUESTIONS. WHAT ARE YOU 
NOTICING IN THE PATTERNS IS 
JOINING TOGETHER TO ASK 
QUESTIONS.
>> I THOUGHT THE FIRST QUESTION 
RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. TALKING 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES.
AS WE KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THREE 
WHO ARE CONSIDERED THE MOST IN 
PLAY. POTENTIALLY SUPPORTING 
WITNESSES.
PERHAPS TO MAKE THAT CASE. A LOT
OF THESE ARE VERY INTERESTING. 
THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT A
BIPARTISAN QUESTION.
THE MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN.
IT IS GIVING THESE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE SIDE TO 
REPEAT THEIR CASES.
THE SENATE DEMOCRATS TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
MAKING THE CASE WE'VE ALREADY 
HEARD SEVERAL TIMES THIS WEEK. 
YOU HEAR THAT A LOT IN 
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. FOR WHAT 
COULD BE POTENTIALLY MORE 
CONTENTIOUS QUESTIONS. WHAT ARE 
YOU LISTENING FOR. IN TERMS THAT
RELATES TO WITNESSES.
>> SPECIFICALLY REPUBLICANS WHO 
MAY BE ON THE FENCE ABOUT WHERE 
THEY MAY BE LEADING. FOR 
EXAMPLE, THE SENATOR WHO IS NOT 
ONE WE ARE WATCHING VERY 
CLOSELY. HE HAS RAISED THE STEAK
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS AND 
PROCEDURE. HE HAS ASKED THE 
QUESTION. HE ASKED EARLIER IN 
THE TRIAL. HOW MUCH LONGER TO 
THIS TRIAL DRAG OUT.
YOU ALSO HEARD HIM.
HELPING THEM MAKE THEIR CASE. IT
COULD ALSO DRAG THIS OUT. KIND 
OF MAKING THAT PUBLIC CASE. 
LISTENING TO THIS TRIAL. ALSO TO
RAISE THIS QUESTION. SHE PAIRED 
UP WITH ANOTHER CALLING.
ABOUT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF 
THESE SUBPOENAS.
RATING AS TO WHERE THEY MAY 
LEAD.
>> FINALLY. SOME COLOR FROM 
INSIDE THE CHAMBER. THEY MAY 
HAVE SEEN ADAM SHIFT. FUTURE 
MANAGERS BEING CUT OFF OF IT BY 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. NOT SO MUCH 
ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TEAM. THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS 
THAT SOME OLD-FASHIONED 
OLD-SCHOOL WAYS OF KEEPING TRACK
OF THE TIME.
>>
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ON THEIR
SIDE. THE PEOPLE ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAD BEEN 
HOLDING UP LITTLE CARDS. 
BASICALLY TIMES UP. FIVE MINUTES
THEY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IT
CAN GO PRETTY QUICKLY. ALONG THE
ARGUMENT.
THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP 
BETTER TRACK OF THE TIME.
>> WE WILL SAID THEY COME WITH 
THE NEW STRATEGY. THANK YOU SO 
MUCH. THE INTERESTING THING 
ABOUT HOW THEY DO PLAN AHEAD TO 
HELP KEEP TRACK OF TIME. FROM 
THE OWNER VANTAGE POINT. WE 
TALKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF 
MOTIVE. THE LEGAL TEAM WHAT HE 
IS ARGUING. A BIT SURPRISING.
PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO. IT IS 
ALSO INTERESTING. THEY'VE BEEN 
HOLDING UP THE STANDARDS JUST A 
COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. I THEY 
PUSHED BACK AGAINST US. ADAM 
SHIFT USED IT TO REBUFF THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND URGED 
SENATORS TO CALL FOR WITNESSES.
>> HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION 
ABOUT HIS MOTIVATION. IF YOU 
HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT HIS 
MOTIVATION, IT MAKES IT ALL THE 
MORE ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN 
WHO SPOKE.
HE WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT
THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT WOULD HELP THEM IN THE NEXT
INVESTIGATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY 
QUESTIONS ABOUT IF IT WAS A 
FACTOR. THERE IS A WITNESS AND A
SUBPOENA WHO CAN ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION.
>> D GET THE SENSE THEY'RE 
MAKING ANY CALLS FOR WITNESSES 
TODAY? 
>> I THINK ACTUALLY WHAT WE SAW 
IS MORE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE 
WITNESSES THAT WAS ALL. THERE 
HAS BEEN A ENORMOUS PUBLIC 
PUSHBACK AGAINST BOLTON FROM THE
RIGHT. PROBABLY TAKEN HIM BY 
SURPRISE. A WILLINGNESS OF 
REPUBLICANS TO GO AFTER HIM. WE 
SAW LINDSEY GRAHAM SUGGEST THAT 
IS POSSIBLY NOT HELPFUL. I THINK
WE ARE ALSO SEEING SENATORS ECHO
THE WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS. 
MORE WITNESSES WOULD DRAG THIS 
OUT. WHERE IS IT GOING TO STOP? 
I THINK RIGHT NOW, THAT IS 
REALLY A JUMP BALL QUESTION. WE 
HAVE YET TO SEE IT AROUND THAT.
>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US? 
>> WE JUST LEARNED TODAY THERE 
WAS A LETTER SENT FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE TO THE COUNSEL JUST LAST 
WEEK. INDICATING THEY HAD BEGUN 
THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE 
MANUSCRIPT THAT HAD BEEN 
SUBMITTED TO THEM. THEY FOUND 
WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A LARGE 
QUANTITY OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL.
THAT IS WHY HE HAD SUBMITTED TO 
THEM. HIS LAWYER HAD TOLD THE 
WHITE HOUSE HE HAD WRITTEN IT 
PERFECTLY NOT TO INCLUDE 
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. THE WHITE 
HOUSE CLAIMS IT INCLUDES A WHICH
COULD DELAY THE PUBLICATION OF 
THE BOOK. IT COULD ALSO DEEPLY 
ANGERED JOHN BOLTON IN PART 
BECAUSE IT MAY DELAY THE 
PUBLICATION OF HIS BOOK.
WE WILL HAVE TO SEE THE EXTENT 
TO WHICH HE MAY TRY TO STRIKE 
OUT ON HIS OWN IN ORDER TO 
ENSURE THE PUBLIC DOES HERE.
>>
WE SAW FOXNEWS, MYSELF. AFTER 
CRITICIZING HIM.
HOW IS THE MANUSCRIPT AND 
TESTIMONY. 
>> THIS IS THE INTERESTING 
FIGURE. HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. HE WAS ALSO
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION. HE 
SORT OF HAS A CONNECTION WITH 
THESE NUMBERS. HE HAS KIND OF A 
OWN REPUTATION. HE IS CLOSEST TO
THEM. HE IS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE 
WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO HELP 
SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL GET 
THESE VOTES AGAINST WITNESSES. 
THE FACT THAT HE ASKED THAT 
QUESTION. HOW LONG WITH THIS 
DRAG OUT. HE HAD TO REMEMBER IN 
THE PRACTICAL WAY. THEY ARE ON 
JURY DUTY. THEY HAVE BEEN 
SITTING THERE. I THINK THERE WAS
POLITICAL ARGUMENTS. WE DO NOT 
WANT THIS TO DRAG ON. THERE IS 
ALSO A PERSONAL ARGUMENT. DO YOU
REALLY WANT TO SEE HER FOR WEEKS
MORE. HOW LONG DO YOU WANT THIS 
TO DRAG OUT. I THINK HE IS 
TRYING TO MAKE BOTH ARGUMENTS. 
HIS AUDIENCE WHEN HE IS DOING 
THAT. KIND OF THE AUDIENCE AT 
HOME.
>> THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
RELEASED A STATEMENT
DESCRIBING A CONVERSATION HE HAD
WITH JOHN BOLTON. IT'S A TOLD 
HIM TO LOOK INTO THE REMOVAL OF 
THE FORMER UKRAINE AMBASSADOR. 
WHY ARE WE ONLY HEARING ABOUT 
THIS NOW.
>> I BELIEVE HE HAS SAID THAT HE
KEPT QUIET ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE 
BELIEVED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE
HOUSE OVERSIGHT PROCESS. HE DID 
NOT WANT TO DISRUPT THAT BY 
MAKING A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT. HE
HAS PUT IT OUT NOW. THE 
PRESIDENT TWEETED TODAY OR 
YESTERDAY CLAIMING HE HAD NEVER 
MADE HIS CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE 
KNOWN. SORT OF A LATE IN THE DAY
COMPLAINT. HE IS POINTING OUT 
THAT HE DID VOICE SOME CONCERNS.
THE DAY AFTER HE LEFT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. THE PRESIDENT HAS CRACKED
OPEN THE DOOR. NOW IT FEELS LIKE
IT IS OKAY FOR HIM TO RESPOND?
>> THAT IS THE ARGUMENT HE IS 
THINKING. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WONDERING WHY HE 
MENTIONED TO HIS COLLEAGUES IN 
THE HOUSE. THAT THEY HAD 
UNDERWAY. I DO NOT THINK IT IS 
GOING TO HELP JOHN BOLTON AND 
HIS IN TENSES SITE THAT HE HAD. 
THAT HE ACTUALLY CALLED THE 
DEMOCRAT AND SUGGESTED THEY AREA
FOR OVERSIGHT BY THE DEMOCRATIC 
COMMITTEE. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS 
QUITE INTERESTING. HE BELIEVES 
THERE WAS SOMETHING SO 
DISTURBING ABOUT THE PROCESS BY 
WHICH THE AMBASSADOR WAS CALLED.
HE BELIEVES SOMEONE NEEDED TO 
LOOK INTO IT.
>> IT DOES RAISE THE QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHAT THEY HAD WITH OTHER 
PEOPLE THAT MAY COME TO LIGHT. 
EVEN AS WE'RE HAVING THIS 
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER HE 
WOULD BECOME THE WITNESS. THERE 
IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT WOULD BE
PROCESSED OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL. 
WE WOULD HEAR MORE AND MORE 
CONVERSATION HE MAY HAVE HAD 
WITH FORMER OFFICIALS. I DO NOT 
THINK HE IS GOING AWAY.
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE 
LISTENING FOR AS THIS CONTINUES.
>> I THINK WHAT THEY ALLUDED TO.
WHEN THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONS 
CHANGE. RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE BEEN
PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP CLEAN UP. 
THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS THEM TO 
RESPOND. THERE ARE 16 TOTAL 
HOURS FOR QUESTIONS. I LOVE THE 
IDEA THAT THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ARE MAKING 
FLASHCARDS. THE LAST COUPLE OF 
HOURS, A LOT OF THE RESPONSES 
FELT PRACTICE.
WE ARE GENERALLY GOING TO GET 
THIS QUESTION. THAT IS WHY THEY 
WERE STILL HAVING SLIDES THEY 
WERE REFERRING TO. ONCE YOU 
START GETTING OPTIMAL QUESTIONS,
THEY COULD GO DIFFERENT 
DIRECTIONS. THEY COULD BE LESS 
PREPARED. MORE RAW OR MORE 
DIRECT. MORE AS WE TALKED ABOUT 
PUTTING THE LAWYERS ON TRIAL. WE
HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH OF THAT. 
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. THE 
TELEGRAPH THERE WOULD BE A MAJOR
THING. THERE WERE STILL A LOT OF
TIME FOR THOSE THINGS TO PLAY 
OUT. I THINK THAT WILL BE THE 
DIRECTION IT GOES IN A COUPLE OF
HOURS.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU BE LISTENING 
FOR COMING UP?
>> VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT HE SAID.
I AM LOOKING FOR MORE DIRECT 
QUESTIONS. THE FIRST FEW HOURS 
WE HAVE SEEN A STOP ON QUESTIONS
ON AT THE HOUSE MANAGER. I THINK
WE MAY HEAR MORE DIRECT 
QUESTIONS IN THIS NEXT PHASE 
UNLESS THEY DECIDE TO END IT 
EARLY. I THINK THIS IS MOVING 
MORE DIRECT. MAYBE A FEW MORE 
CONTENTIOUS QUESTIONS. I'M ALSO 
LISTENING OUT FOR A FEW OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO ASK A
FEW QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT IS 
INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE 
FOCUSING ON. THOSE ARE SOME OF 
THE THINGS I'M LOOKING FOR.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY 
INTERESTING. MATT ROMNEY 
ACTUALLY TWEETED QUESTIONS THAT 
HE HAD SUBMITTED. SOME OF HIS 
QUESTIONS WERE QUITE 
CHALLENGING. PARTICULAR TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. THEY 
STARTED TO GET INTO THE MORE THE
FACTS OF THE CASE. NOT ONLY THE 
THEORY OF IMPEACHMENT. I BELIEVE
ONE OF THEM WAS DESCRIBING THE 
PRESIDENT FIRST DECIDED. HOW HE 
MADE THAT DECISION. IT IS SORT 
OF A GLASS BOX WE HAVE NOT 
LEARNED ABOUT THROUGH THIS 
PROCESS. I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE 
THAT WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL TO DESCRIBE THE FACT OF 
THEIR UNDERSTANDING. WE CAN BE 
CHALLENGING QUESTIONS.
>>
THERE ARE A FEW SURPRISES IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIAL. THOSE ARE 
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS 
THAT ASK THEM TO REALLY CONFRONT
THE EVIDENCE OR THE FACTS WHICH 
WE HAVE NOT SEEN A GREAT DEAL SO
FAR. 
>> ANYTHING THAT GETS MORE TO 
THE MEAT OF THE NARRATIVE WOULD 
BE REALLY FASCINATING. RIGHT NOW
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS
THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL. ONE OF 
THE REASONS THEY HAVE GONE TO 
THAT PLACE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE 
NOT CONTESTING THE FACT.
I DO THINK THAT WOULD BE 
FASCINATING TO SEE PEOPLE 
WRESTLE WITH THAT QUESTION.
WHEN HE IS SAYING HE HAS A 
PUBLIC INTEREST IN SEEKING THE 
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN. WHY 
WAS THAT THE ONE INVESTIGATION 
THAT WAS NATIONAL INTEREST. I 
THINK HOW THE DECISION CAME TO 
WITHHOLD AID WOULD BE 
FASCINATING TO UNDERSTAND. 
REALLY HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE
TO RELEASE IT. THE DEMOCRATS 
ARGUE THE REASON IT WAS RELEASED
WAS BECAUSE OF SHIPMENTS THEY 
GET CAUGHT. WHAT WAS THE 
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR 
THAT.
>> THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ARE WE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO FLUSH OUT 
THE MEAT AND THE BONES. KIND OF 
GET INTO THE PRESIDENT'S STATE 
OF MIND.
>>
YOU MENTIONED WE MAY SEE ADAM 
SCHIFF'S NAME BROUGHT UP. WHAT 
IS THE STRATEGY OF THAT. WHO IS 
THAT REALLY APPEALING TO.
>> WE HIT JOSH ALLEN. ON THE 
SEAN HANNITY TONIGHT. IT PLAYS 
WELL.
WHAT ABOUT IT TO SOME DEGREES. 
WE HEARD ABOUT LISA PAGE 
YESTERDAY. WE HER THROUGHOUT HIS
DEFENSE PRESENTATION. ABOUT THE 
MUELLER REPORT. I THINK SOME OF 
THAT IS PLAYING TO THE AUDIENCE 
FOR SURE. SOME OF IT IS PLAIN TO
THE CONSERVATIVE BASE. SOME OF 
IT IS MONEY IN THE WATER. SOME 
OF IT IS GETTING TO THE IDEA OF 
MOTIVATION. WHAT HIS LAWYERS 
SAID ON MONDAY. YOU NEED TO 
UNDERSTAND WHERE HE IS COMING 
FROM. YOU JUST KIND OF SUFFERED
THEY WANTED TO RUN DOWN THESE 
RUMORS HE WAS HEARING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.
I THINK IT DOES GET INTO THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES. SEEM LESS 
THAN CORRUPT.
>> ONE INTERESTING THING WE HAVE
HEARD. 
>> WE ACTUALLY BACK ON. THANK 
YOU SO MUCH. LET'S GO BACK LIVE 
TO THE SENATE CHAMBER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I HAVE A 
QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. IT IS COSPONSORED BY 
SENATORS.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE 
SERVICES.
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH,. 
OKLAHOMA EXCUSE ME.
THE SENATORS ASKED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION.
AS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARMED 
SERVICES COMMITTEE, WE LISTEN 
INTENTLY WHEN HE WAS DEFENDING 
ONE OF HIS AMENDMENTS TO THE 
ORGANIZING RESOLUTION LAST WEEK 
AS HE EXPLAINED HOW HE HAD 
FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE BEING 
DENIED MILITARY AID WHEN HE 
NEEDS IT DURING HIS SERVICE. AS 
YOU KNOW, UNDER THE SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS 
CONFIRMED THE AID PROVIDED TO 
UKRAINE LAST YEAR WITH FUTURE 
AID. WHICH WOULD YOU SAY HAD THE
GREATER MILITARY IMPACT? 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TEMPORARY PAUSE 
OF 40 DAYS ON FUTURE AID THAT 
WILL NOW BE DELIVERED TO UKRAINE
OR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STEADFAST 
REFUSAL TO PROVIDE LEGAL AID FOR
THREE YEARS. MORE THAN 1000 DAYS
WHILE THEY ATTEMPTED TO HOLD 
BACK THE RUSSIAN INVASION.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THANK YOU
SENATORS FOR THAT QUESTION.  IT 
WAS FORMER SERIOUS AND JEOPARDY 
FOR THE DECISION OF THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION TO NOT USE THE 
AUTHORITY THAT WAS GIVEN BY 
CONGRESS. THAT MANY MEMBERS 
VOTED FOR. GIVEN THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO 
PROVIDE AID TO THE UKRAINIAN. 
THEY DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT
AID. MULTIPLE WITNESSES WHO WERE
CALLED IN THE HOUSE TESTIFIED
THAT THE UNITED STATES POLICY 
GOT STRONGER UNDER THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION. IN PART LARGELY 
BECAUSE OF THAT AID.
OTHERS ALSO TESTIFIED THAT U.S. 
POLICY PROVIDING THAT AID WAS 
GREATER SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE THAN
WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION. THEY EXPLAINED 
WERE LETHAL AND WOULD KILL 
RUSSIAN TANKS AND CHANGE THE 
CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION FOR THE 
RUSSIAN IN THE REGION OF THE 
EASTERN PORTION OF THE CRANE 
WHERE THAT CONFLICT IS STILL 
ONGOING. IN TERMS OF THE 
TEMPORARY PAUSE,
THE TESTIMONY AND THE RECORD 
CERTIFIED WITH THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THEIR 
SPECULATION AND THEY KNOW WHAT 
IT IS LIKE TO BE DENIED AID. THE
TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS THAT 
THIS TEMPORARY PAUSE WAS NOT 
SIGNIFICANT. AMBASSADOR 
TESTIFIED THE BRIEF POLS WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT. UNDER THE SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, 
THIS WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE. NOT 
TO KEEP THE ARMY GOING NOW. THIS
IS NOT MONEY THAT HAD TO FLOW 
EVERY MONTH. IT WAS FIVE YOUR 
MONEY. IT WAS THERE FOR FIVE 
YEARS. A USER TAKES QUITE A BIT 
OF TIME TO SPEND ALL OF IT.
55-48 DAYS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU 
COUNT THEM. THIS WAS DENYING 
CRITICAL ASSISTANCE RIGHT THEN. 
IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THEY HAVE
TRIED TO PIVOT AWAY FROM THAT. 
THEY KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE. IT WAS
A SIGNAL OF LACK OF SUPPORT THAT
THE RUSSIANS WOULD PICK UP ON. 
HERE AGAIN IT IS CRITICAL. THEY 
EVEN DID NOT KNOW THE AID HAD 
BEEN POLS. PART OF THE REASON 
WAS THAT THEY NEVER BROUGHT IT 
UP, THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED. 
REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT BRING IT
UP TO THEM. THEY DID NOT WANT 
ANYONE TO KNOW. THEY DID NOT 
WANT TO PUT OUT ANY SIGNAL THAT 
WILL BE PERCEIVED.
IT WAS KEPT INTERNAL TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT. THEY POINTED TO SOME
EMAILS
. WHERE THEY RECEIVED FROM THE 
UNNAMED STAFFERS SUGGESTING 
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE 
AID. HER TESTIMONY WAS SHE 
CANNOT EVEN REMEMBER WHAT THE 
QUESTION WAS. THERE IS NOT 
EVIDENCE IN ANY DECISION-MAKERS 
IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND 
KNEW ABOUT THE POLS. JUST THE 
OTHER DAY, ANOTHER ARTICLE CAME 
OUT.
EXPLAINING THAT WHEN THE 
POLITICAL ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED 
ON AUGUST 28, THERE WAS PANIC 
BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST TIME 
THEY REALIZED. THAT WAS NOT 
SOMETHING THAT WAS PROVIDING ANY
SIGNAL. IT WAS NOT KNOWN. TWO 
WEEKS LATER IT BECAME PUBLIC 
THAT IT WAS RELEASED. THE PAUSE 
WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. IT WAS 
FUTURE MONEY. IT WAS RELEASED 
BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR.
THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. THERE 
IS SOME PERCENTAGE THAT DOES NOT
MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR. AGAIN IT 
IS FIVE YOUR MONEY. IT IS NOT 
LIKE IT IS A GOING TO BE SPENT 
IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS ANYWAY. THE 
FACT THERE WAS A LITTLE FIX 
CONGRESS PASSED TO ANOTHER $35 
MILLION TO BE SPENT. SOMETHING 
SIMILAR HAPPENED ALMOST EVERY 
YEAR. IT WAS NOT AFFECTING 
CURRENT PURCHASES. IT WAS NOT 
JEOPARDIZING ANYTHING AT THE 
FRONT LINES. THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT IN THE 
RECORD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH 
SETS OF COUNSEL.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KING'S
FROM THE COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF HAS REPORTEDLY SAID I 
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. SUGGEST 
BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY SAYING IF 
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT COULD 
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS EITHER 
INNOCENCE OR GUILT, I THINK THEY
SHOULD BE HEARD. DO YOU AGREE 
WITH GENERAL KELLY THAT THEY 
SHOULD BE HEARD. IT IS YOUR TURN
TO GO FIRST.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THIS WAS A BIT OF THE TOPIC I 
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. THAT WAS 
THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT IN
THE NEW YORK TIMES PIECE ABOUT 
WHAT IS REPORTEDLY IN THE BOOK 
BY AMBASSADOR BOLTON. AS I HAVE 
SAID, THE IDEA THAT A MANUSCRIPT
IS NOT IN THE BOOK. THERE IS NOT
A QUOTE FROM THE MANUSCRIPT IN 
THE BOOK. THIS IS A PERCEPTION 
OF WHAT THE STATEMENT MAY BE. 
THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FORCEFUL 
STATEMENTS. NOT JUST FROM THE 
PRESIDENT BUT FROM THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL. THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE STATED THAT WHILE HAS 
NOT REVIEWED HIS MANUSCRIPT, THE
NEW YORK TIMES ACCOUNT OF THIS 
CONVERSATION GROSSLY 
MISCHARACTERIZES WHAT THEY 
DISCUSSED. THERE WAS NO 
DISCUSSION OF PERSONAL FAVORS OR
UNDUE INFLUENCE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS NOR DID THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATIONS WERE 
IMPROPER. THAT GOES TO SOME OF 
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE IN THE
ARTICLE. THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID
THE SAME THING. HE SAID EVERY 
CONVERSATION WAS PREPARATION TO 
OUR TRIP TO POLAND.
THERE IS ALSO INTERVIEW THAT HE 
HAD GIVEN IN AUGUST ABOUT THE 
CONVERSATION WHERE HE SAID IT 
WAS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE 
CONVERSATION. AGAIN, TO MOVE 
THAT INTO A CHANGE IN 
PROCEEDING. I THINK IT IS NOT 
CORRECT. THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS 
ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED. THE 
ACCUSATION THAT IF YOU GET INTO 
WITNESSES. IF WE GET DOWN THE 
ROAD, LET'S BE CLEAR.
IT SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE THAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET JOHN 
BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS GET NO WITNESSES. WE 
WOULD EXPECT WE WOULD GET 
WITNESSES. THOSE WITH THEM. JUST
TO BE CLEAR. THAT CHANGES THE 
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF SAYING THAT HE BELIEVES 
JOHN BOLTON. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE
THE PRESENT. THAT JOHN BOLTON 
SHOULD TESTIFY. AT THE END OF 
THE DAY, IT IS NOT WHETHER OR 
NOT I BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON OR 
WHETHER GENERAL KELLY BELIEVES 
JOHN BOLTON. BUT WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. WHETHER
YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR DIRECTLY FROM JOHN BOLTON. 
THERE ARE A FEW ARGUMENTS MADE 
AGAINST THIS. SOME ARE RATHER 
EXTRAORDINARY. IT WOULD BE 
UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE WITNESSES 
AT A TRIAL. WHAT A EXTRAORDINARY
IDEA. AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
SAID, IT WILL BE EXTRAORDINARY 
NOT TO. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY 
THEN EVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF YOU
DECIDE YOU DO NOT WANT TO HEAR 
FROM ANY. YOU SIMPLY WANT TO 
RELY WHAT WAS INVESTIGATED IN 
THE HOUSE. YES WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO CALL WITNESSES. SO SHOULD THE
PRESENT.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS YOU CANNOT 
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. LET THE 
PRESIDENT CALL HIM. ANOTHER 
RELEVANT WITNESS WITH FIRST-HAND
INFORMATION. IF HE IS WILLING TO
SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE IS WRONG. 
LET HIM COME AND SAY THAT UNDER 
OATH. WE ARE NOT SAYING JUST ONE
SIDE GETS TO CALL. BONSAI GUEST 
CAR RELEVANT WITNESSES. THEY 
ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS 
GOING TO TAKE LONG. WE HAVE TO 
WARN YOU. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE 
TIME. I THINK THE UNDERLYING 
THREAT. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE 
THIS REALLY TIME-CONSUMING. THE 
DEPOSITION TOOK PLACE VERY 
QUICKLY IN THE HOUSE. WE HAVE A 
PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF JUSTICE 
BEHIND ME. THE PRESIDENT HAS 
WAIVED ANY CLAIM ABOUT NATIONAL 
SECURITY. BY TALKING ABOUT 
HIMSELF. BY DECLASSIFIED THE 
RECORD. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN 
ASKING ABOUT VENEZUELA OR OTHER 
PLACES. JUST UKRAINE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE 
THESE RELEVANT QUESTIONS.
YOU CANNOT HIDE WRONGDOING OF 
THE CHARACTER.
>>
SENDING A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF.
THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO THE 
COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT. IS IT 
TRUE THAT THE ALLEGED 
WHISTLEBLOWER DETAILED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DURING
THE SAME TIME PERIOD BETWEEN 
JANUARY 2017 AND THE PRESENT. DO
YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT 
THEY KNOW EACH OTHER. DO YOU 
HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THE 
ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER 
COORDINATED TO FULFILL THE 
REPORTED COMMITMENTS TO DO 
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT I 
HAVE COMES FROM PUBLIC REPORTS. 
I GATHERED THERE IS A NEWS 
REPORT IN SOME PUBLICATION THAT 
SUGGESTS A NAME FOR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. SUGGEST WHERE HE 
WORKS. THAT HE WORKED AT THAT 
TIME. WHY DID TELLING THE STAFF.
THAT THERE WERE OTHERS WHO 
WORKED THERE. WE HAVE NO 
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OTHER THAN 
WHAT IS IN THIS PUBLIC REPORT. I
DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO 
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT. IT IS 
SOMETHING OF UNKNOWN EXTENT MAY 
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. BEFORE 
THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMITTEES.
THAT CONTEXT WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. CONTEXT BETWEEN 
MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF AND THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER ARE SHROUDED IN 
SECRECY TO THIS DAY. WE DO NOT 
KNOW WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS. WE 
DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE STATUS 
CONTACT WAS HAVE BEEN. IT IS 
SOMETHING THEY SEEM TO BE 
RELEVANT. SINCE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER STARTED THIS 
ENTIRE INQUIRY. I CANNOT MAKE 
ANY REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE
ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS 
SUGGESTED IN THE QUESTION. WE 
KNOW THERE WAS A PUBLIC REPORT 
SUGGESTING CONNECTION. PRIOR 
WORKING RELATIONSHIPS. NOT 
SOMETHING I CAN COMMENT ON. 
SAYING THERE IS A REPORT THERE. 
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY 
DISCUSSED. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT 
THEY WERE TOLD BY THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. OTHER PUBLIC 
REPORTS ABOUT INACCURACIES IN 
THE REPORT. WE DO NOT KNOW THE 
TESTIMONY ON THAT. WE DO NOT 
KNOW THE SITUATION OF THE 
CONTACTS AND COORDINATION. THE 
ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE MANAGER 
SHIP. IT ALL REMAINS UNKNOWN. 
SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY GETS TO
THE BOTTOM OF THE MOTIVATION. 
HOW THIS WAS ALL CREATED. IT 
COULD POTENTIALLY BE RELEVANT. 
THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> WHEN DID THEY FIRST LEARNED 
THE MANUSCRIPT HAVE BEEN 
SUBMITTED TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR
REVIEW. HAS THE COUNSELOR ANYONE
ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY TO PROHIBIT
OR DISCOURAGE JOHN BOLTON OR HIS
PUBLISHER FROM PUBLISHING THIS 
BOOK?
>>  THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
AT SOME POINT, I DO NOT KNOW OFF
THE TOP MY HEAD THE EXACT DATE. 
THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN 
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. IT WAS 
WITH THE STAFF FOR REVIEW. 
COUNSEL WAS NOTIFIED IT WAS 
THERE. THEY HAVE RELEASED A 
STATEMENT SAYING IT HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE.
HASN'T BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO 
PREVENT THE PUBLICATION? I THINK
THERE WAS SOME MISINFORMATION 
PUT OUT IN THE PUBLIC REALM 
EARLIER TODAY. I CAN READ FOR 
YOUR RELATIVELY SHORT. IT WAS 
SENT FROM THE STAFF TO CHARLES 
COOPER WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR 
MR. JOHN BOLTON  ON JANUARY 23. 
IT WAS LAST WEEK. IT SAYS DEAR 
MR. COOPER,  THANK YOU FOR 
SPEAKING. THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE 
MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY YOUR 
CLIENT. FORMER ASSISTANT 
PRESIDENT JOHN BOLTON FOR 
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW. BASED ON 
OUR REVIEW, THE MANUSCRIPT 
APPEARS TO CONTAIN CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION. IT ALSO APPEARS 
THAT SOME DECLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION IS AT THE TOP OF THE
LEVEL. IT IS DEFINED BY THE 
EXECUTIVE ORDER. THE HAS 
INFORMATION THAT COULD BE 
EXPECTED TO CAUSE GREAT FUN TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE 
UNITED STATES IF DISCLOSED 
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. UNDER 
FEDERAL LAW, AND THE 
NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT,
THE MANUSCRIPT MAY NOT BE 
PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSED
WITHOUT THIS CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION. THE MANUSCRIPT 
REMAINS UNDER REVIEW TO DO OUR 
BEST TO ASSIST YOUR CLIENT. 
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING 
THE PUBLICATION DID NOT HARM THE
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO 
WORK WITH YOU TO ENSURE YOUR 
CLIENTS ABILITY TO TELL HIS 
STORY. WE WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH 
YOU SHORTLY WITH MORE DETAILED 
GUIDANCE REGARDING NEXT STEPS 
THAT SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO 
PROVIDE THE MANUSCRIPTS AND MOVE
FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS 
POWERFUL.
IT IS WITH THEM DOING THEIR 
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW. HE WAS 
NOTIFIED THE MANUSCRIPTS HE 
SUBMITTED CONTAINED INFORMATION 
INCLUDING THE TOP SECRET LEVEL. 
IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT CANNOT BE
PUBLISHED.
THEY WILL BE WORKING WITH THEM 
AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE 
PROVIDING GUIDANCE SO CAN BE 
REVISED. THAT WAS THE LETTER 
THAT WENT OUT. THANK YOU 
COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM IOWA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE 
SENATORS.
>>
>> THE SENATOR'S QUESTION IS 
DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. IS IT TRUE THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION APPROVED 
SUPPLYING ANTITANK MISSILES TO 
UKRAINE. IT IS ALSO TRUE THIS 
DECISION CAME ON THE HILLS OF A 
NEARLY THREE-YEAR DEBATE IN 
WASHINGTON OVER WHETHER OR NOT 
THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE 
WEAPONS TO COUNTER FURTHER 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE. BY
COMPARISON, THE PRESIDENT OBAMA 
REFUSED TO SEND WEAPONS OR OTHER
MILITARY GEAR TO UKRAINE. WAS 
THIS DECISION AGAINST THE ADVICE
OF HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY AND 
OTHER KEY MILITARY LEADERS. 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. THEY MADE
THE DECISION TO PROVIDE ANTITANK
MISSILES. THERE WAS A 
SIGNIFICANT DEBATE ABOUT THAT 
FOR SOME TIME. AUTHORIZATION HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS. MANY 
OF YOU VOTED FOR THAT 
AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
THE ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT 
TO PROVIDE THAT. IT WAS ONLY THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE 
THAT ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE. THERE
WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF 
TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDINGS AT 
HIS POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS 
ACTUALLY STRONGER.
THEY EXPLAINED THAT AMERICA'S 
POLICY HAD BEEN STRENGTHENED 
UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP. EACH STEP
ALONG THE WAY. THEY GOT TO THE 
MISSILES BEING PROVIDED. WAS 
MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS 
STRENGTHENED A RELATIONSHIP WITH
UKRAINE. THEY SAID THAT THE 
ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDE LEAD THE 
WEAPONS IN OUR POLICY ACTUALLY 
GOT STRONGER OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS. SHE CAUGHT IT VERY 
PERSISTENT.
ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE. IN 
RELATION TO THIS. THE TEMPORARY 
PAUSE THAT TOOK PLACE OVER THE 
SUMMER IS SOMETHING THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER 
DESCRIBED AS BEING SO SHORT THEY
DID NOT EVEN NOTICE IT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY ACROSS 
THE BOARD HAD BEEN STRONGER THAN
THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION IN 
PROVIDING DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY 
TO THE UKRAINIAN. I THINK THAT 
IS SIGNIFICANT. THE SPECIFIC 
PART OF THE QUESTION. WHETHER IT
WAS CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF 
THE DEFENSE SECRETARY AND 
OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT IS 
ACCURATE. IT WAS AGAINST THE 
ADVICE OF THE SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE. IT WAS HIS TO PROVIDE 
THE ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I CAN TAKE THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR 
HARPER.
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF. THANK YOU.
>> THE OTHER SENATORS IS TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT 
HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT 
THERE SHOULD BE NO WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN RESPONSE TO 
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. IS 
THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS 
BLANKET REFUSAL TO COOPERATE AND
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES THE 
SENATE ACCEPTS THIS POSITION 
HERE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR.  PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
TAKEN THE EXTREME MEASURE TO 
HIDE THIS EVIDENCE FROM 
CONGRESS. NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER 
ISSUED A ORDER TO DIRECT A 
WITNESS TO REFUSE TO COOPERATE 
IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. DESPITE 
HIS FAMOUS ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL 
THE MOST DAMAGING EVIDENCE, EVEN
PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR 
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
NOT ONLY DID HE ALLOW THAT, HE 
TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS 
VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL 
RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A BLANKET
ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTIRE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO WITHHOLD ALL
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IT WAS
CATEGORICAL. IT WAS 
DISCRIMINATE. UNPRECEDENTED. ITS
PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO PREVENT 
CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS DUTY 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. HOLDING 
THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
TELLING EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND EVERY 
PERSON WHO WORKS IN EVERY 
DEPARTMENT AGENCY OFFICE OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT'S JUST NOT 
PRECEDENT. IT WAS NOT ABOUT 
SPECIFIC NARROWLY DEFINED 
PRIVILEGES HE NEVER ASSERTED. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE 
HAD SOME KIND OF REASON. BECAUSE
OF THE SUBPOENAS. WE ADOPT RULES
ABOUT SUBPOENAS IN THE HOUSE. 
THE SENATE IS A CONTINUING BODY.
IN JANUARY, WE ADOPTED OUR RULES
. IT ALLOWED THE COMMITTEE 
CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. HE 
REFUSED. COMPLYING WITH THOSE 
SUBPOENAS. NOT BECAUSE HE 
EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. HE 
DID NOT LIKE WHAT WE WERE DOING.
HE TRIED TO SAY IT WAS INVALID. 
IT WAS VALID. HE ACTUALLY DOES 
NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE THE
ARBITER OF THE RULES OF THE 
HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE 
ARBITER OF THE RULES WHEN IT 
COMES TO IMPEACHMENT. THIS 
REFUSAL TO GIVE TESTIMONY IS 
STILL GOING ON. WE STILL HAVE 
FORMER OFFICIALS WHO ARE 
REFUSING TO TESTIFY. HE WILL NOT
ALLOW THIS. IN ANY OTHER 
CONTEXT.
A FAMILIAR SAID I AM NOT GOING 
TO ANSWER YOUR SUBPOENA, THEY 
WOULD BE DEALT WITH. HARSHLY.
IF IT WAS TO COVER UP MISDEEDS 
AND CRIMES AS WE HAVE HERE. THEY
COULD ACTUALLY GO TO JAIL FOR 
DOING THAT. IF WE ALLOW THE 
PRESIDENT TO AVOID 
ACCOUNTABILITY BY SIMPLY 
REFUSING TO PROVIDE ANY 
DOCUMENTS OR ANY WITNESSES 
UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT 
WHO PRECEDED HIM, WERE OPENING 
THE DOOR NOT JUST ELIMINATING 
THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. TRY DOING 
OVERSIGHT. TRY DOING OVERSIGHT. 
WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT IN 
THE HOUSE. IF HE CAN JUST SAY 
WE'RE NOT SENDING ANY WITNESSES.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO. WE DO NOT 
LIKE YOUR PROCESS. WE HAVE A 
WHOLESALE REJECTION OF WHAT 
YOU'RE DOING. THAT IS NOT THE 
WAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS 
CREATED. WHERE EACH BODY HAS A 
RESPONSIBILITY. THE SHARING OF 
POWER. I KNOW YOU CHERISH THE 
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE. 
THAT WOULD BE EVISCERATED IF THE
PRESIDENT COMPLETE
STILL WALK IS ALLOWED TO PERSIST
AND BE ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY. 
YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS 
MOMENT. I YELLED BACK.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THE SENATOR'S QUESTIONS FOR 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. YOU 
SAID THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID
NOT KNOW ABOUT THE POSITIVE LEAD
INTO AUGUST 28, 2019 WHEN IT WAS
REPORTED IN POLITICAL. THEN LORD
COOPER SAID THAT MEMBERS OF HER 
STAFF RECEIVED QUERIES ABOUT THE
AID FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY 
ON JULY 25.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD ON
AID EARLIER THAN THE POLITICAL 
ARTICLE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE. THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR QUESTION. IT DOES NOT MEAN 
THAT. AS WE EXPLAINED ON 
SATURDAY. THE OVERWHELMING BODY 
OF EVIDENCE INTEGRATES AT THE 
HIGHEST LEVELS. THEY ONLY BECOME
AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THE 
AUGUST 20 ARTICLE. I ADDRESSED 
ON SATURDAY. EACH OF THOSE 
COMMENTS THAT WILL STAND. THE 
EMAILS FROM THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TESTIFIED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. WHAT
SHE HAD SAID WAS THAT HER STAFF 
HAD GOTTEN EMAILS FROM SOMEONE 
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO HAS 
SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT SOMEHOW
RELATED TO THE AID AT A TIME 
PRIOR TO AUGUST 20. SHE DID NOT 
KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THE EMAILS
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY 
MENTIONED REVIEW OR ANYTHING OF 
THAT NATURE. SHE EVEN SAID 
HERSELF THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO
SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE EMAILS 
MEAN AND CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN 
WHAT THEY WERE ABOUT. I 
PRESENTED ON SATURDAY THE 
EVIDENCE WHICH AGAIN REFERENCED 
THE COMMON SENSE THAT WOULD BE 
IN PLAY HERE. THIS WAS SOMETHING
ON AUGUST 28 CAUSED A FLURRY OF 
ACTIVITY AMONG THE HIGHEST 
RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. 
NEVER BEFORE DID THEY RAISE ANY 
QUESTIONS AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS
THEY HAD WITH THE HIGH-RANKING 
U.S. OFFICIALS THROUGH JULY AND 
AUGUST. THERE WERE MEETINGS ON 
JULY 9 AND JULY 10. JULY 26. 
NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS.
HOWEVER, AS SOON AS THE ARTICLE 
CAME OUT, ON AUGUST 28 WITHIN 
HOURS,
MR. YOUR MAC  TEXTED THE ARTICLE
TO THE AMBASSADOR AND ASKED TO 
SPEAK WITH HIM. THAT IS 
CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE FINDING 
OUT ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THEY HAVE ALSO MADE STATEMENTS 
THAT THEY LEARNED ABOUT FOR THE 
FIRST TIME. THEN MR. FELDMAN 
JUST REFERENCED  A ARTICLE THAT 
CAME OUT YESTERDAY. IN THE DAILY
BEAST. IT WAS THE INTERVIEW WITH
MR. VENABLE.  WHO AT THE TIME 
WAS A VERY HIGH-RANKING DEFENSE 
OFFICIAL. THIS IS INTERESTING. 
I'M GOING TO READ THIS ARTICLE. 
I SUGGEST TO THE SENATE IF THEY 
WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO 
CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS. HE 
SAID HE FIRST FOUND OUT THE U.S.
WAS WITHHOLDING AID BY READING 
POLITICAL ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON 
AUGUST 28. U.S. OFFICIALS AND 
DIPLOMATS INCLUDING THE 
COUNTRY'S FOREIGN MINISTER HAS 
SAID PUBLICLY THAT WERE AWARE OF
PROBLEMS AS EARLY. THAT IS THE 
ARTICLE THEY MENTIONED THAT THE 
HOUSE MEMBERS MENTIONED. I WAS 
REALLY SURPRISED AND SHOCKED. 
JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO 
THAT, ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING 
WITH JOHN BOLTON. WE HAD 
EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS. THE LAST 
THING I EXPECTED TO READ WAS A 
ARTICLE ABOUT MILITARY AID BEING
FROZEN. AFTER THAT I WAS TRYING 
TO GET TO THE TRUTH. HE SAID IT 
WAS A PANIC. AFTER THE INITIAL 
NEWS BROKE. SAYING HE WAS 
CONVINCED THERE HAD BEEN SOME 
SORT OF MISTAKE. THEY END UP 
PUTTING IN CALLS TO THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL. ASKING OTHER 
OFFICIALS WHAT TO MAKE OF THE 
NEWS. AGAIN ON AUGUST 20. THE 
NEXT TIME WE MET IN SEPTEMBER, 
IT WAS IN POLAND FOR THE 
COMMEMORATION OF THE SECOND 
WORLD WAR. THERE WERE DISCUSSED 
PREVIOUSLY.
ADDING THAT HE MET WITH HIM ON 
THE SIDELINE FOR COMMEMORATION. 
I HAD MY SUSPICIONS. THERE WAS A
SPECIAL SITUATION WITH ONE OF 
OUR DEFENSE COMPANIES. THE U.S. 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. HE 
ACTUALLY MADE THE PUBLIC COMMENT
ABOUT THIS AS WELL. SOMEHOW I 
LINK THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
MAYBE THIS COULD BE RELATED. NOT
ONLY DID THEY NOT KNOW TO AUGUST
28. WHEN THEY DID FIND OUT, THEY
DID NOT LINK IT TO ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS. WHERE IS THE 
QUID PRO QUO. IF THIS IS THE 
FOREFRONT OF THEIR MIND, SUCH 
PRESSURE ON THEM. THEY HAVE TO 
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET 
THE AID. WHEN THE AID WAS HELD 
UP, THEY DO NOT THINK IT WAS 
CONNECTED TO THE INVESTIGATION. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. I 
HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF 
SENATOR BALDWIN AND MYSELF.
THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGER. IS THE WHITE 
HOUSE CORRECT IN ITS TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM AND PRESENTATIONS OF 
ITS CASE THAT PRESIDENT ZELINSKI
AND OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN
PAUSED. BEFORE SEEING PRESS 
REPORTS ON AUGUST 28 2019 WHICH 
IS MORE THAN ONE MONTH AFTER THE
JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE 2
PRESIDENTS.
>> THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION. THE 
ANSWER IS NO. THE EVIDENCE DOES 
NOT SHOW THAT.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25 
SAYING IT WAS ASKING ABOUT 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. HE BROUGHT 
UP THESE EMAILS JUST NOW. I 
WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE SENATE 
SUBPOENAED THOSE EMAILS SO WE 
CAN ALL SEE FOR OURSELVES WHAT 
EXACTLY IS HAPPENING. WE ALSO 
KNOW THAT THE CAREER DIPLOMAT 
STATED SHE WAS VERY SURPRISED AT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY 
COUNTERPARTS TRADECRAFT AS IF TO
SAY THEY FOUND OUT VERY EARLY ON
OR MUCH EARLIER. THAT TESTIFIED 
BY MID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS. THE 
EVIDENCE SHOWS OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN. THERE WAS A LOT OF 
DISCUSSION AND THERE SHOULD BE. 
WE ALL KNOW THAT DELAYS MATTER. 
IT MATTERS A LOT.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD 
FOR IT. THIS IS NOT JUST A 48 
DAY DELAY. UKRAINIANS WERE 
CONSISTENTLY ASKING ABOUT IT 
BECAUSE IT WAS URGENT. THEY 
NEEDED IT. YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS
ASKING FOR IT? AMERICAN 
BUSINESS. THE CONTRACTORS WHO 
ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING THIS. 
THERE WAS A PIPELINE.
MY ESTEEMED ARMED SERVICES KNOW 
VERY WELL. PROVIDING A DOES NOT 
LIKE TURNING OFF AND ON THE 
LIGHT SWITCH. YOU HAVE TO HIRE 
EMPLOYEES. YOU HAVE TO GET 
EQUIPMENT. YOU HAVE TO SHIP IT.
I HAD TO COME TOGETHER AS A 
CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW TO EXTEND
THAT TIMELINE BECAUSE WE WERE AT
RISK OF LOSING THEM. TO THIS 
DAY, $18 MILLION OF THAT AID HAS
STILL NOT BEEN SPENT. THIS JUST 
ASSUME FOR A MINUTE. ALSO 
BROADLY SPEAKING. THE PRESIDENT 
COUNTER ARGUMENT THAT SUPPORT 
HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER THAN IT IS
TODAY. UNDER THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE THE 
STRONGEST ALLIES THEY HAVE SEEN 
IN YEARS. JUST ASSUMING FOR A 
MINUTE THAT ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE.
IT KINDA MAKES OUR OWN ARGUMENT.
WHY WITHHOLD THE EGG? WHY HOLD 
THE AID? NOTHING HAD CHANGED. 
NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 18. ONE 
THING HAD CHANGED.
THAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
LASTLY THE QUESTION BEFORE MY 
SERVICES CALLING. IN TERMS OF 
THE MILITARY IMPACT. THEY ASKED 
WHAT WAS GREATER. NOT PROVIDING 
LEGAL AID.
LET'S NOT FORGET THE REASON FOR 
THE DELAY. A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
TODAY ABOUT THE TECHNICALITY OF 
THE DELAY. THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
MENTALITY OF MINDSET DOES NOT 
MATTER. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT 
HE INTENDED TO DO.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE.
IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO.
THEY DESERVE TO GO TO BED EVERY 
NIGHT KNOWING THAT THE PRESIDENT
AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
. THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE 
FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF 
OUR NATION EVERY NIGHT HAS THE 
BEST INTEREST OF THEM AND THEIR 
FAMILIES. NOT THE BEST INTEREST 
OF HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. THAT 
IS WHY WE ARE HERE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR. I SENT THE QUESTION 
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF 
AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI.
>> THE QUESTION AS TO COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESENT. WITNESSES 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSISTENTLY 
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT UKRAINE 
WAS A CORRUPT COUNTRY. BEFORE 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY 
ENTERED THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL 
RACE IN APRIL 2019. THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION JOE
OR HUNTER BIDEN IN CONNECTION 
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TO 
THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. 
OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CABINET MEMBERS 
ARE TOP AIDES OR OTHERS. IF SO, 
WHAT DID HE SAY TO WHOM AND 
WHEN.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  THANK 
YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I THINK 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO FRAME THE 
ANSWER. LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN 
RECORD. WHAT IS IN RECORD AS 
DETERMINED BY WHAT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THOUGHT. THEIR 
PROCEEDINGS. THEY WERE THE ONE 
TO CALL THE WITNESSES. PART OF 
THE QUESTION REFERS TO 
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND OTHER CABINET MEMBERS.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING IN THE 
RECORD ON THAT. IT WAS NOT 
PURSUED IN THE RECORD. I CANNOT 
POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE RECORD
THAT SHOWS HIM AT AN EARLIER 
TIME MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY 
SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR 
HUNTER BIDEN. IT IS IN THE 
RECORD HE SPOKE TO HIM TWICE 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
BOTH IN JUNE OF 2017 AND IN 
SEPTEMBER OF 2017. THERE IS 
OTHER INFORMATION PUBLICLY 
AVAILABLE AND IN THE RECORD. I 
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR 
UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE AND 
UNDERSTANDING WHY IT WAS THAT 
THE INFORMATION RELATED CAME UP 
WHEN IT DID. THE ONE IMPORTANT 
PIECE OF INFORMATION. HE WAS THE
PERSON THAT JOE BIDEN HIMSELF 
WENT TO TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR 
FIRED. AS LONG AS HE WAS STILL 
IN CHARGE, HE WAS A PERSON THAT 
JOE BIDEN HAD SPOKEN TO TO GET 
HIM FIRED WHEN HE WAS LOOKING 
INTO PUBLIC REPORTS. AS LONG AS 
HE WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT, 
QUESTION THE UTILITY OF RAISING 
THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE WAS THE
ONE. TAKEN THE DIRECTION. FIRING
THE PROSECUTOR. WE HAVE A 
ELECTION IN APRIL 2019 AND A NEW
PRESIDENT,
IT WAS RUN ON ANTICORRUPTION 
PLATFORM, IS SHE REALLY GOING TO
CHANGE THINGS. IS THERE GOING TO
BE SOMETHING NEW? IT OPENS UP 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO START LOOKING
REALLY AT THE ANTICORRUPTION 
ISSUES AND RAISING QUESTIONS. 
THE OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS TO 
UNDERSTAND.
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT RUDY 
GIULIANI. WHAT WAS HE INTERESTED
IN.
AS WE KNOW IT HAS BEEN MADE 
PUBLIC. THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING A 
LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THE UKRAINE 
DATING BACK TO THE FALL OF 2018.
IN NOVEMBER 2018, HE SAID HE WAS
GIVEN SOME TIPS ABOUT THINGS TO 
LOOK INTO.
APRIL 25.
THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE FROM 
JANUARY.
IT GOES THROUGH. EXPLAINING THAT
HE WAS REMOVED.
HE HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING. IN 
THE HUNTER WAS ON THE BOARD.
IT WAS MR. GIULIANI  AS THEY 
EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY. THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
LOOKING INTO WHAT WENT ON IN 
UKRAINE. IS THERE ANYTHING 
RELATED TO 2016. OTHER THINGS 
RELATED THERE. START PURSUING 
THAT.
RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE.
IT SEEMS FROM THAT GETTING 
INFORMATION TO MR. GIULIANI.  
MUST BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED HIS 
CANDIDACY, MR. GIULIANI IS 
LOOKING INTO HIS ISSUE.  GETTING
INFORMATION ABOUT IT. IN MARCH 
2019. ARTICLES BEGAN TO BE 
PUBLISHED. BY THE NEW YORKER AND
THE WASHINGTON POST.
>> I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.
>> THEY ASK THE HOUSE MANAGER'S.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS 
NOW IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING THE 
AMBASSADOR TO GET RID OF HER. I 
DO NOT CARE. GET HER OUT 
TOMORROW. TAKE HER OUT. DO IT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP GET THIS ORDER. 
TWO MEN WHO CARRIED OUT HIS 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN THE UKRAINE
AT THE DIRECTION OF RUDY 
GIULIANI.
IF THEY DO NOT PURSUE EVIDENCE, 
THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL CONTINUE 
TO COME TO LIGHT AFTER THE 
SENATE RENDERS A VERDICT.
>> THE ANSWER IS YES. WHAT WE 
HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL 
WEEKS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE 
ARTICLES IS THAT EVERY WEEK OR 
SOMETIMES EVERY DAY THERE IS NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT. WE 
KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW 
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT ON 
MARCH 17 WHEN THE BOOK COMES 
OUT. IF THEY ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL 
IN REDACTING IT OR PREVENTING 
MUCH OF ITS PUBLICATION. ON THAT
ISSUE, I DO WANT TO MENTION ONE 
OTHER THING.
I LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO 
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MAYBE YOU 
LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY THAN I DO.
I THOUGHT I HEARD THEM SAY WHAT 
THEY KNOW ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT. 
THE STATEMENT WAS VERY PRECISELY
WORDED. THE NSC UNIT DID NOT 
SHARE THE MANUSCRIPT. THAT IS A 
DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHETHER 
OR NOT THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS 
FIND OUT WHAT WAS IN IT. YOU DO 
NOT HAVE TO CIRCLET THE 
MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE SOMEONE WALK 
OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAY 
YOU DO NOT WANT JOHN WANTED TO 
TESTIFY. YOU DO NOT WANT HIM TO 
TESTIFY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ
HIS MANUSCRIPT. IT WAS A VERY 
CAREFULLY WORDED ONE. I DO NOT 
KNOW WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS NEW. THEY DID REPRESENT 
TO YOU REPEATEDLY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD THE WITNESS
THAT HE WAS FREEZING THE AID TO 
GET UKRAINE TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. WE KNOW THAT IS 
NOT TRUE. WE KNOW THAT FROM THE 
WITNESSES WE ARE HE HEARD FROM. 
WE ALSO KNOW AT LEAST IF THE 
RECORDING IS CORRECT, THAT JOHN 
BOLTON TELLS A VERY DIFFERENT 
STORY. THERE GOING TO BE 
CONTINUED REVELATIONS. MEMBERS 
OF THIS BODY ARE GOING TO HAVE 
TO ENTER QUESTION EACH TIME IT 
DOES. WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW 
THAT WHEN IT WOULD HAVE HELPED.
EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN THE LAND. 
YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND OUT. 
AGAIN WE ARE NOT A COURT OF 
APPEALS. WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO 
THE RECORD BELOW. COUNSEL SAYS 
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT HE EVER BROUGHT 
UP THE HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM. 
SAYING WE ARE CONFINED TO THE 
RECORD BEFORE US. YOU ARE NOT 
CONFINED TO THE RECORD IN THE 
HOUSE NOR IS THE PRESENT. THE 
PRESIDENT COULD CALL WITNESSES. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT 
THEM. TOMORROW WE'RE GOING TO 
CALL SUCH AND SUCH. THEY WILL 
TESTIFY THAT DONALD TRUMP CAUGHT
HIM UP.
THERE WAS NOTHING PROHIBITING 
HIM FROM DOING THAT. THE END OF 
THE DAY, WE ARE GOING TO 
CONTINUE TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE 
COME OUT ALL OF THE TIME. AMONG 
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, 
WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS GOING TO 
BE. THE EFFORT TO SUGGEST. THIS 
PRESIDENT WAS STRONGER THAN HIS 
PREDECESSOR. WE KNOW FROM THE 
JULY 25 CALL. WE KNOW THE MOMENT
THEY BRING UP THE JAVELINS. HE 
SAID HE WANTS A FAVOR.
THE QUESTION IS WHY DID HE STOP 
THE EGG? WHY DID HE STOP THE AID
THIS YEAR. WAS IT MERELY A 
COINCIDENCE. WAS IT A 
COINCIDENCE THAT HE WAS RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT. ARE WE TO BELIEVE
THAT ALL OF THE COMPANIES AND 
LAND. OF ALL THE LAND IN THE 
UKRAINE THAT IT WAS JUST HUNTER 
BIDEN WALKING INTO THIS ONE. 
>> THE SENATOR ASKS COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL HAS UNDERSCORED
THE ONGOING ANTICORRUPTION FOCUS
WITH OUR ALLIES. AT WHAT POINT 
DID THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
DEVELOP CONCERNS IN RELATION TO 
CORRUPTION AND CONCERNS WITH 
RUSSIA?
>> THAT QUESTION, I THINK IT 
BEARS ON THE ANSWER I WAS GIVING
TO THE LAST QUESTION. THIS IS 
SOMETHING
THAT BECAME, OF COURSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND HIS CONVERSATION WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, THE 
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US, IT BROUGHT 
UP A COUPLE OF THINGS HE BROUGHT
UP BURDEN SHARING SPECIFICALLY 
AND HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF 
CORRUPTION INTO SPECIFICS. THE 
SPECIFIC CASE OF POTENTIAL 
UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION, WHICH HE HAD HEARD 
ABOUT AND ASKED ABOUT. AND THE 
INCIDENT INVOLVING THE FIRING OF
A PROSECUTOR WHO ACCORDING TO 
PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE BEEN LOOKING
INTO THE COMPANY THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT SON WAS ON THE BOARD 
OF. AND THAT WAS THE PRESIDENTS 
WAY OF PINPOINTING SPECIFIC 
ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION. SO
WHEN DID IT BECOME THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERN, THOSE 
ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION 
WITH UKRAINE? WE HAVE THE 
EVIDENCE THAT EVERYONE IN THE 
GOVERNMENT, THOUGHT THAT 
ANTICORRUPTION WAS A MAJOR
ISSUE FOR U.S. POLICY WITH 
RESPECT TO UKRAINE. WHEN THERE 
IS A NEW PRESIDENT ELECTED, 
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, THAT BROUGHT
THE POSSIBILITY OF REFORM TO THE
FOREFRONT.
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM RUDY 
GIULIANI, HE SPOKE IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE, RUDY KNOWS ABOUT 
UKRAINE, TALK TO HIM. HE WAS 
EXPLAINING TO THE DELEGATION 
THAT HE JUST RETURNED FOR THE 
INAUGURATION FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT 
UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL
CORRUPT, HE KEPT SAYING IT WAS A
CORRUPT COUNTRY, THEY TRIED TO 
GET ME IN THE ELECTION. THERE IS
HIS SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH 
UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION. HE KNEW 
FROM THE PUBLIC REPORTS,
THE POLITICAL ARTICLE THAT'S 
BEEN REFERENCED MANY TIMES, IN 
JANUARY 2017, EXPLAINS A LAUNDRY
LIST OF UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT 
THERE ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND 
SPREAD
MISINFORMATION, OR BAD 
INFORMATION, OR ASSIST IN 
DIGGING UP
DIRT ON THE MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN. MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN 
INVESTIGATING THINGS RELATED TO 
UKRAINE IN 2016 AND WAS LED TO 
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
SITUATION AND
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVING THE 
PROSECUTOR FIRED. IT WAS IN 
JANUARY THAT HE HAD THESE 
INTERVIEWS THAT HE TURNED OVER 
TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 
MARCH, THEN THERE WAS THE 
ARTICLES PUBLISHED. RUDY 
GIULIANI TWEETED ABOUT IT IN 
MARCH, THERE WAS AN ABC STORY IN
JUNE, THERE WAS A TWO-PART STORY
IN JULY, THEN JULY 22 THE 
WASHINGTON POST HAD AN ARTICLE 
AND EXPLAIN SPECIFICALLY SO 
THREE DAYS BEFORE THE CALL, THE 
PROSECUTOR BELIEVED IT WAS 
BECAUSE THE INTEREST OF THE 
COMPANY, REFERRING TO MARIE'S 
MAMA
BURISMA, SO I THINK THERE IS A 
REASONABLE INFERENCE, AS THERE 
WHERE THESE  ARTICLES BEING 
PUBLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 
THE TIME, THIS WAS INFORMATION 
AVAILABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, AND 
IT BECAME AVAILABLE TO HIM IS 
SOMETHING THAT WAS A SPECIFIC 
EXAMPLE OF POTENTIALLY SERIOUS 
CORRUPTION. REMEMBER EVERYONE 
WHO TESTIFIED,
WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT IT DOUBT IT 
SEEM LIKE THERE WAS A CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST, EVERYONE TESTIFIED 
YES, THERE IS AT LEAST AN 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST, AND I THINK IT WAS 
AFTER THE INFORMATION HAD COME 
TO MR. GIULIANI, LONG BEFORE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD 
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, THAT HE
CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND BECAME SOMETHING 
WORTH RAISING. BECAUSE AGAIN, 
THE PRESIDENT FIRED THE 
PROSECUTOR, AND WHILE HE IS 
STILL THE PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT 
THAT MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF 
RAISING THAT. SO IT WAS IN THAT 
TIMEFRAME THAT IT CAME TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION THAT'S WHY
IT WAS RAISED IN THE TIMING, 
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE, I 
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL.
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL ASKS, DID 
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR 
OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE TELL 
ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE THAT 
PUBLICATION OF THE BOLTON BOOK 
WOULD BE POLITICALLY PROBLEMATIC
FOR THE PRESIDENT?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND THANK YOU SENATOR FOR THE 
QUESTION. NO ONE FROM INSIDE THE
WHITE HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE WHITE
HOUSE TOLD US THAT THE 
PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK WOULD BE
AUTOMATIC FOR THE PRESIDENT. WE 
ASSUME THAT MR. BOLTON WAS 
DISGRUNTLED, AND WE DIDN'T 
EXPECT THAT HE WOULD BE SAYING A
LOT OF NICE THINGS, NO ONE TOLD 
US ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> SENATOR FROM TEXAS. 
>> I SENT QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MORAN 
AND HOLLY, A QUESTION FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, 
ON
AUGUST 26, 2019, THERE WAS A 
LETTER FROM THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL TO THE DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, 
DISCUSSING THE SO-CALLED 
WHISTLEBLOWER STATED THAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL IDENTIFY SOME 
AND DISHY OF ARGUABLE POLITICAL 
BIAS IN FAVOR OF A RIVAL 
POLITICAL CANDIDATE. MULTIPLE
MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTED THAT THIS
LIKELY REFERRED TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWERS WORK WITH JOE 
BIDEN. DID THE SO-CALLED 
WHISTLEBLOWER WORK AT ANY POINT 
FOR OR WITH JOE BIDEN? IF SO, 
DID HE WORK FOR OR WITH JOE 
BIDEN ON ISSUES INVOLVING 
UKRAINE AND DID HE ASSIST IN ANY
MATERIAL WAY WITH THE QUID PRO 
QUO IN WHICH IT THEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS ADMITTED TO 
CONDITIONING LOAN GUARANTEES TO 
UKRAINE ON THE FIRING OF THE 
PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING 
BURISMA. 
>> THINK
THE SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION, I
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW TO 
ANSWER, SO AS NOT TO DISCLOSE OR
GIVE AN INDICATION THAT MAY 
ALLOW OTHERS TO IDENTIFY THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
WHY WE ARE MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT
TO PROTECT THE EFFORT OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. IF YOU COULD PUT 
UP SLIDE 48.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS, AND IT MAY BE 
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO 
READ, SO LET ME TRY TO, IF YOU 
CAN HAND ME A COPY OF THAT AS 
WELL. SO I HAVE A CHANCE TO 
DISTRIBUTE THAT TO EVERYONE
. IT'S NOT JUST
THAT WE VIEW THE PROTECTION OF 
WHISTLEBLOWERS AS IMPORTANT, 
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE ALSO 
MADE STRONG STATEMENTS OF JUST 
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS. SENATOR GRASSLEY
SAID THIS PERSON APPEARS TO HAVE
FOLLOWED THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
PROTECTION LAWS, AND TO BE HEARD
OUT AND PROTECTED WE SHOULD ALSO
ALWAYS RESPECT WHISTLEBLOWERS 
REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY. 
SEMINAR ROMNEY SAID 
WHISTLEBLOWERS SHOULD BE 
ENTITLED TO CONFIDENTIALITY AND 
PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY PLAY OF 
VITAL FUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
SENATOR BURR, WE PROTECT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS, WE PROTECT 
WITNESSES AN HOUR
COMMITTEE. THE 
>> WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME 
FORWARD AND WILL WILL PROTECT 
THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PEOPLE AT 
ALL COST. IT'S BEEN UP 
BIPARTISAN PRIORITY, ONE WE'VE 
DONE OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN. I 
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL, BUT LET
ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SEVERAL 
THINGS, FIRST OF ALL I DON'T 
KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, I
HAVE NOT MET THEM OR 
COMMUNICATED WITH THEM IN ANY 
WAY. THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT
WRITE THE COMPLAINT OR COACH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT TO PUT IN THE
COMPLAINT
. THE COMMITTEE STAFF DO NOT SEE
THE COMPLAINT BEFORE IT WAS 
SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL. THE COMMITTEE, 
INCLUDING THE STAFF DID NOT 
RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT UNTIL THE 
NIGHT BEFORE ACTING DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, WE HAD AN
OPEN HEARING WITH THE ACTIVE 
DIRECTOR ON SEPTEMBER 26, MORE 
THAN THREE WEEKS AFTER THE LEGAL
DEADLINE BY WHICH THE COMMITTEE 
SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE 
COMPLAINT. IN SHORT, THE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY, WHICH I THINK
WAS OUTLINED EARLIER, THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COLLUDED WITH THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE STAFF TO PATCH 
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IS
A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FICTION. 
THIS WAS I THINK CONFIRMED BY 
THE REMARKABLE ACCURACY
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, 
WHICH HAS BEEN COOPERATED BY THE
EVIDENCE WE SUBSEQUENTLY 
GATHERED IN ALL MATERIAL 
RESPECTS. SO I WILL NOT GO INTO 
ANYTHING THAT COULD REVEAL OR 
LEAD TO THE REVELATION OF THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, 
BUT I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE MY 
STEPS NAMES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT 
INTO THIS PROCEEDING, THAT MIGHT
STAFF ACTED AT ALL TIMES, WITH 
THE MOST COMPLETE 
PROFESSIONALISM. I AM VERY 
PROTECTIVE OF MY STAFF, AS I 
KNOW YOU ARE. AND I AM GRATEFUL 
THAT WE HAVE SUCH GREAT, 
HARD-WORKING PEOPLE WORKING 
AROUND THE CLOCK TO PROTECT THIS
COUNTRY. AND WHO HAVE SERVED OUR
COMMITTEE SO WELL.
IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE THEM
SMEARED, AND SOME OF THEM 
MENTIONED HERE TODAY HAVE 
CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY, AND
ONLINE THREATS TO MEMBERS OF MY 
STAFF AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE
SMEARS THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED 
AGAINST THEM. I CAN TELL YOU 
THAT THERE IS NO ONE WHO CAN 
UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF 
INVESTOR YVONNE OVICH MORE THAN 
SOME OF MY STAFF THAT HAVE BEEN 
TREATED BY THE SAME KIND OF 
SMEARS AND HEALTH CONCERNS OVER 
THEIR OWN SAFETY. THEY HAVE 
ACTED AT ALL TIMES WITH THE 
UTMOST PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY
.
YOUR CHAIRMAN CAN TELL YOU THAT 
WE ENCOURAGE WHISTLEBLOWERS TO 
COME TO THE COMMITTEE, AND SO DO
WE. AND WHEN WE DO WE TRY TO 
FIGURE OUT IF THERE COMPLAINT 
WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. IF IT 
IS, THEN WE SUGGEST THEY GET A 
LAWYER,
AND TALK TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED 
HERE. THE WHISTLEBLOWER DID 
EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD, EXCEPT
FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT IS 
UNFORGIVABLE, BECAUSE THEY 
EXPOSED
THE WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT,
AND IN THE PRESIDENTS VIEW THAT 
MAKES THEM A TRAITOR OR A SPY. 
AND IF THE PRESIDENT TELLS US 
THERE WAS A WAY WE USED TO TREAT
TRAITORS AND SPIES. YOU WONDER 
WHY WE DON'T WANT TO CALL THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, FIRST OF ALL, WE 
KNOW FIRSTHAND WHAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WROTE SECONDHAND 
IN THE COMPLAINT, THERE'S NO 
NEED FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
ANYMORE EXCEPT TO FURTHER 
ENDANGER THAT PERSON'S LIFE. 
THAT TO ME DOES NOT SEEM A 
WORTHWHILE OBJECT FOR ANYONE
IN THIS CHAMBER, THE 
OVERBUILDING OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
>> THINK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ON MY OWN 
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATORS
BLUMENTHAL, BOOKER, KLOBUCHAR, 
MARQUIS, PETERS AND U-HAUL, I 
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
WHITEHOUSE AND THE OTHER 
SENATORS TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS. THE MISSING 
WITNESS RULE WHICH DATES BACK TO
1893 SUPREME COURT CASE GRAVES 
VERSUS UNITED STATES, ALLOWS ONE
PARTY TO OBTAIN AN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE AGAINST THE OTHER TWO 
FAILURE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS FOR
THE PARTIES CONTROL WITH 
MATERIAL INFORMATION. THE 
PRESIDENT HAS
PREVENTED WITNESSES WITHIN HIS 
CONTROL FROM TESTIFYING OR 
PROVIDING DOCUMENTS.
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE 
SENATOR SHOULD APPLY THE MISSING
WITNESS RULE HERE, AND IF SO, 
WHAT ADVERSE INFERENCES SHOULD 
WE DRAW ABOUT THE MISSING 
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS 
>> WE DO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD
DRAW AND ADVERSE INFERENCE 
AGAINST THE PARTY RESISTING THE 
TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES 
LIKE JOHN BOLTON. COURTS HAVE 
LONG RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN A 
PARTY HAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE, 
WITHIN HIS CONTROL THAT HE FAILS
TO PRODUCE, THAT FAILURE GIVES 
RISE TO AN INFERENCE THAT THAT 
EVIDENCE IS UNFAVORABLE TO HIM. 
COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY DRAWN 
ADVERSE INFERENCES WHERE A PARTY
ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO CONCEAL 
EVIDENCE OR PRECLUDE WITNESSES 
FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY, AND I 
WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS BAD 
FAITH WHEN COUNSEL COMES BEFORE 
YOU AND SAYS THAT IF YOU REALLY 
WANTED THESE WITNESSES YOU 
SHOULD HAVE SUED TO GET THEM IN 
THE HOUSE AND GOES INTO THE 
COURTROOM, DOWN THE STREET AND 
SAYS YOU CAN'T SUE TO GET 
WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE. BUT 
THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, 
AND YOU ARE I THINK, NOT ONLY 
PERMITTED, BUT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD
DRAW AND ADVERSE INFERENCE, THAT
WHEN A PARTY IS MAKING THAT 
ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 
COURTHOUSE, THAT THE EVIDENCE 
THOSE WITNESSES WOULD PROVIDE 
RENTS AGAINST THEM. NOW THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT
PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, NOT 
ONE, A SINGLE DOCUMENT, THAT'S 
EXTRAORDINARY. THEY CAN ARGUE 
EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,
MOST OF THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO 
WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY 
OF THESE DOCUMENTS, NOT A WIT. 
THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
FROM PROVIDING DOCUMENTS. THE 
VAST MAJORITY DON'T HAVE 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRIVILEGE, 
AND IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE 
REDACTION'S, SPECIFIC 
REDUCTIONS, NONE OF THAT 
HAPPENED. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO 
DRAW AND
ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE 
REASON WHY THE PRESIDENTS TEAM, 
WHO HAS POSSESSION OF THOSE 
EMAILS, REGARDING INCREASE BY 
UKRAINE AS TO WHY THE AIDE WAS 
PRESENT, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW
AN INFERENCE IF THEY WILL NOT 
SHOW YOU THOSE EMAILS. THEY WILL
CONFIRM THAT UKRAINE KNEW THE 
AIDE WAS WITHHELD JUST LIKE THE 
FORMER DEPUTY OF UKRAINE, THAT 
PUBLICLY, WHEN SHE TOLD THE NEW 
YORK TIMES, YES WE KNEW
, THIS IS THE DEPUTY FOREIGN 
MINISTER AT THE TIME. WE KNEW 
THE AIDE WAS FROZEN BUT I WAS 
INSTRUCTED NOT TO MENTION IT. I 
HAD A TRIP PLANNED TO WASHINGTON
AND I WAS TOLD NOT TO GO, WHY, 
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT IT
PUBLIC. ARE YOU ENTITLED TO DRAW
AN INFERENCE THAT THOSE RECORDS 
THEY REFUSED TO TURN OVER, ALL 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, 
THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW 
JOHN BOLTON'S NOTES TO BE TURNED
OVER, OR AMBASSADOR TAYLORS 
NOTES TO BE TURNED OVER, YOU ARE
DARN RIGHT YOU SHOULD. THEY SAY 
WELL THE PRESIDENT ONLY TOLD 
SANS LYNN, NO PREQUEL CALL
QUID PRO QUO.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WROTE DOWN THE
NOTES OF THAT CONVERSATION. THAT
TOOK PLACE RIGHT AFTER THE CALL 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. ARE YOU 
ALLOWED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE ON THE FACT THAT THEY 
DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE AMBASSADOR
TAYLORS NOTES? ON THE FACT THAT 
THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE 
AMBASSADOR TAYLORS, YOU ARE DARN
RIGHT YOU SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE. FINALLY,
WITH RESPECT TO
WHO HAS BECOME A CENTRAL WITNESS
HERE, I THINK THE ADVERSE 
INFERENCE SCREAMS THAT YOU AS TO
WHY THEY DON'T WANT JOHN BOLTON.
BUT YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON AN 
INFERENCE HERE, NOT WHEN YOU 
HAVE A WITNESS WILLING TO COME 
FORWARD. THERE IS NO NEED FOR 
INFERENCE HERE. THERE IS JUST A 
NEED FOR A SUBPOENA.
>> THINK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR FROM 
SOUTH DAKOTA, QUESTION SENT TO 
THE DESK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD YOU 
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS 
OR ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
JUST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE 
PREVIOUS QUESTIONS? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. I HAVE
NOT READ RECENTLY THE CASE THAT 
WAS EXCITED ABOUT THE MISSING 
WITNESS RULE, SO I CAN'T STATE 
SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S IN IT. BUT 
I'M WILLING TO BET THAT THE 
MISSING WITNESS RULE DOES NOT 
APPLY WHEN THERE'S BEEN A VALID 
ASSERTION OF A PRIVILEGE OR 
OTHER IMMUNITY FOR KEEPING THE 
WITNESS OUT OF COURT. FOR 
EXAMPLE, IF THEY TRIED TO 
SUBPOENA THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER,
AND THE DEFENDANT SAID WAIT, I 
HAVE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, 
YOU CANNOT
SUBPOENA HIM, THEY WILL NOT BE 
ABLE TO GET AN ADVERSE INFERENCE
FROM THAT. THAT IS CRITICAL, 
BECAUSE AS I'VE GONE THROUGH 
MULTIPLE TIMES, WE KEEP GOING 
BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, THEY 
KEEP REPRESENTING THAT THERE WAS
OF BLANK DEFIANCE AND NO 
EXPLANATION OR LEGAL BASIS FOR 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING. 
IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. THERE WERE 
LETTERS BACK AND FORTH, I PUT 
THEM UP ON THE SCREEN. THERE WAS
SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES ASSERTED, 
THERE WAS SPECIFIC LEGAL
EFFICIENCIES IN THE SUBPOENAS 
SENT. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE 
IF YOU ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
TURNING SQUARE CORNERS AND 
PROCEEDING BY THE LAW MATTERS. 
AND FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO 
COME HERE AND SAY IT WAS
BLANKET DEFIANCE, UNPRECEDENTED,
SO YOU HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE 
THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO ANY OF 
OUR DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS, ALL THE 
DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED 
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. MAYBE 
THEY DISAGREE WITH US, BUT THEY 
CAN'T JUST SAY WE PROVIDED NO 
RATIONALE, AND YOU HAVE TO DRAW 
AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. THERE WAS 
SPECIFICALLY A RATIONALE
PROVIDED. THEY DID NOT TRY TO 
ENGAGE IN THE ACCOMMODATION 
PROCESS AND THEY DID NOT TRY TO 
GO TO COURT. AND YES, IT'S TRUE,
OUR POSITION IS THAT WHEN THEY 
GO TO THE COURT
, ARTICLE 3 COURTS DON'T HAVE 
JURISDICTION OVER THAT. THEIR 
POSITION IS THAT ARTICLE 3 
COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THAT. THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN GET 
A COURT ORDER
TO REQUIRE US TO COMPLY WITH A 
VALID SUBPOENA. BUT THEY NEVER 
TRIED TO ESTABLISH IN COURT THAT
THE SUBPOENAS WERE VALID. WE 
HAVE AN ASSERTION OF ILLEGAL 
EFFICIENCY ON ONE SIDE,
THEY THINK IT'S DIFFERENT, THEY 
DON'T WANT TO GO TO COURT TO GET
IT RESOLVED. WE HAVE THE 
ASSERTION OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
FROM CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION 
FROM SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE 
PRESIDENT, IT'S BEEN ASSERTED BY
VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE
NIXON. THEY TRY TO SAY OH IT'S 
PREPOSTEROUS, IRRELEVANT, WE 
DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. 
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON, 
VIRTUALLY, HAS ASSERTED THAT. 
IT'S ONLY BEEN ADDRESSED BY TWO 
DISTRICT COURTS. THE TRIAL LEVEL
COURT, THE FIRST ONE REJECTED 
IT, AND IT'S DECISION WAS STAYED
BY THE APPELLATE COURT. WHICH 
MEANS THEY THOUGHT PROBABLY YOU 
GOT IT WRONG OR
AT THE MINIMUM IT'S A REALLY 
DIFFICULT QUESTION, WE ARE NOT 
SURE ABOUT THAT. THE SECOND 
DISTRICT COURT DECISION IS BEING
LITIGATED RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE 
LITIGATING IT. AND WHEN THEY SAY
WHEN CHARLIE COOPERMAN WENT TO 
COURT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO 
SOMETHING REASONABLE TO SAY OH 
WELL WE DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE 
THIS WITH YOU, YOU SHOULD JUST 
AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE 
McCANDLESS DECISION. WHY 
SHOULDN'T CHARLIE COOPERMAN GET 
TO ARGUE ON HIS BEHALF, THAT'S 
WHAT HE WANTED, HE DID NOT WANT 
TO SAY I WILL TRUST IT TO THE 
OTHER PEOPLE.
I WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. BUT
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT, SO THEY
BOOTED OUT THE CASE, THEY WENT 
THROUGH THE SUBPOENA TO MOVE OUT
THE CASE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT 
WANT TO GO TO THE HEARING ON 
DECEMBER 10. THEY HAVE ALSO 
POINTED OUT AS IF IT'S SOME 
OUTRAGE, THAT DOCUMENTS HAVE 
BEEN MORE READILY PRODUCED UNDER
FOIA THAN IN RESPONSE TO THEIR 
SUBPOENAS. WHEN IT ACTUALLY 
SHOWS, WHEN YOU TURN SQUARE 
CORNERS AND FOLLOW THE LAW AND
MAKE A REQUEST TO THE 
ADMINISTRATION THAT FOLLOWS THE 
LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS 
THE LAW AND RESPONSE, AND THAT 
IS RIGHT. THE DOCUMENTS WERE 
PRODUCED, INFORMATION CAME OUT, 
BUT THEY DID NOT GET IT BECAUSE 
THEY DID NOT TRY TO ESTABLISH 
THE VALIDITY
OF THE SUBPOENAS. IF YOU ARE 
GOING TO BE SLOPPY AND ISSUE 
INVALID SUBPOENAS, YOU WILL NOT 
GET A RESPONSE. BUT IF SOME 
PRIVATE LITIGANT FOLLOWS FOIA, 
THEY GET A RESPONSE. BUT TO ACT 
LIKE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
HAS DONE SOME BLANKET DENIAL OF 
ANYTHING, IT'S SIMPLE AND 
INACCURATE. THERE'S NO ADVERSE 
INFERENCE, BECAUSE THERE IS A 
SPECIFIC BASIS NOT TO PRODUCE 
SOMETHING.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I
SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR HOUSE 
MANAGERS, DID Mc MULVANEY
WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN HIS
OCTOBER 2017 PRESS CONFERENCE IN
WHICH HE STATED THAT THERE WAS 
"POLITICAL INFLUENCE" IN THE 
TRUMPS ADMINISTRATION DECISION 
TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE, I THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. Mc MULVANEY HAS WAIVED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE HAS 
NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. IN FACT, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ACKNOWLEDGED THEY HAVE NOT 
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
ONCE.
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL SAID WHEN WE 
MADE THAT POINT DURING OPENING 
ARGUMENTS, THAT WAS TECHNICALLY 
TRUE. NO, IT IS TRUE. IT'S NOT 
AN ALTERNATE FACT, IT IS A FACT.
YOU HAVE NEVER ASSERTED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IN 
CONNECTION WITH Mc MULVANEY'S 
TESTIMONY, OR ANYONE ELSE. IT 
WAS NOT ASSERTED AS IT RELATES 
TO ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED. BOTH OF WHOM 
TESTIFIED PUBLICLY. THE OTHER 
PHONY ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 
ARTICULATED, RESPECTFULLY,
ARE THAT THE HOUSE NEEDED TO 
VOTE. IN ORDER FOR THE SUBPOENAS
TO BE VALID. THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES 
THE FULL HOUSE TO VOTE. NOTHING 
IN
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS, 
NOTHING UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR THE
HOUSE RULES. IT WAS A PHONY 
ARGUMENT. YET, THE HOUSE, AFTER 
THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE 
INVESTIGATION,
DID FULLY VOTE, AND FULLY VOTED 
ON OCTOBER 31. INTERESTINGLY 
ENOUGH, Mc MULVANEY WAS 
SUBPOENAED THEREAFTER.
NOT BEFORE, THEREAFTER, AFTER 
THE HOUSE HAD VOTED.
SUBPOENAED ON NOVEMBER 7, HERE 
IT IS, THE NEXT DAY, THE WHITE 
HOUSE RESPONDED. THEY RESPONDED 
WITH A TWO-PAGE LETTER DATED 
NOVEMBER 8
. THERE IS NO MENTION OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE 
NOVEMBER 8
LETTER, BUT HERE IS WHAT IT DOES
SAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
HAS ADVISED ME THAT MR. MULVANEY
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE. FROM 
COMPELLED CONGRESSIONAL 
TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO 
MATTERS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE 
AS THE SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 
PRESIDENT. WHAT'S INTERESTING 
ABOUT THIS LETTER IS THAT IT 
DOES NOT CITE A SINGLE LEGAL 
CASE FOR THAT OUTRAGEOUS 
PROPOSITION. A SINGLE LEGAL 
CASE. FOR THE PROPOSITION
THAT MICK MULVANEY ABSOLUTELY 
IMMUNE. THERE IS NO LAW TO 
SUPPORT IT. THE PRESIDENT TRIED 
TO CHEAT, GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN 
HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP. 
THE SENATE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH.
YOU CAN GET TO THE TRUTH BY 
CALLING WITNESSES WHO CAN 
TESTIFY.
AND ANY PRIVILEGED ISSUES CAN BE
WORKED OUT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
OF THE SUPREME COURT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A 
FAIR TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT 
DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, THE 
CONSTITUTION DESERVES A FAIR 
TRIAL, THAT INCLUDES MULVANEY, 
THAT INCLUDES BOLTON, THAT 
INCLUDES OTHER RELEVANT 
WITNESSES.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF, THE QUESTION IS TO BE
DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES. 
>> THE QUESTION DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
HOUSE MANAGERS, THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT SPECIFY THE STANDARD 
APPROVED TO BE USED IN TRIALS OF
IMPEACHMENT, AND THE SENATE HAS 
NOT ADOPTED THE UNIFORM STANDARD
BY REAL, THUS
, THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS 
ARGUABLY A QUESTION FOR EACH 
INDIVIDUAL SENATOR. IN THE 
CLINTON TRIAL, AND NOW WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT APPEARS THAT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
APPLIED DIFFERENT STANDARDS 
DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT IS A MEMBER OF THEIR 
PARTY. WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF 
SHOULD BE USED IN TRIALS OF 
IMPEACHMENT
? PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
CLEAR AND CONVINCING, BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT, AND WHY? I 
THINK IT'S THE TURN OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TO GO FIRST. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THERE IS NO COURT CASE ON THIS.
THE HOUSE NEEDS STRONG EVIDENCE,
BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN DECIDED 
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
SUGGESTED. AS THE QUESTION 
NOTES, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
SPECIFY
EITHER THE HOUSES EVIDENTIARY 
BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE SENATES. 
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITSELF 
TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING 
STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE NIXON 
MATTER
, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE 
EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING MUST BE 
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PROBABLE TO 
BE TRUE THAN NOT, AND THAT
THE TRIER OF FACT MUST HAVE A 
FIRM BELIEF IN THE FACTUAL 
KNOWLEDGE HE. IN THE CLINTON 
CASE, THE HOUSE DID NOT COMMIT 
TO ANY PARTICULAR BURDEN OF 
PROOF, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND 
AGAINST INCLUDING AN EXPRESSED 
STANDARD. IN STAND LIKE IN THE 
CLINTONS, SIMPLY FINDING THE 
FACTS, AND ANY INFERENCES FROM 
THOSE FACTS WITHOUT LEGAL 
TECHNICALITY. IN THE END, IT IS 
UP TO EACH SENATOR TO MAKE A 
JUDGMENT, AND I THINK THERE IS 
MUCH TRUTH TO THAT. YOUR OATH 
HOLDS YOU TO
FOUNDING OF IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. 
AND I TRUST THAT EACH AND EVERY 
ONE OF YOU IS HOLDING THAT OATH 
VERY DEAR TO YOUR HEART. IT WILL
FIND THE FACTS AND LEAD TO A 
JUST RESULT
OR OUR COUNTRY, THE CONSTITUTION
AND FOR A FUTURE THAT IS 
HOPEFULLY AS FREE AS OUR PAST 
HAS BEEN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. I THINK THE 
CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR, IN 
THE TERMS THAT IT SPEAKS OF 
IMPEACHMENT,
FOR ALL RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL 
LAW, IT SPEAKS OF AN OFFENSE, IT
SPEAKS OF CONVICTION, IT SPEAKS 
OF A TRIAL AND SAYING GRIMES 
SHOULD BE TRIED BY A JURY IN 
CASE IT'S THE CASE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS AN ISSUE OF
BREATHTAKING IMPORTANCE FOR THE 
COUNTRY AND COULD CAUSE 
TREMENDOUS DISRUPTION TO OUR 
GOVERNMENT. BOTH COUNSEL IN 
FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL STANDARD 
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT 
AND IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
SENATORS, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND 
DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED 
IN FAVOR OF THAT STANDARD. AND 
SENATOR FEINGOLD SAID
IN THIS MAGNITUDE IT IS BEST NOT
TO HER AT ALL. IF WE MUST ERROR,
WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF 
RESPECTING THE WILL OF THE 
PEOPLE. SIMILARLY, THE U.S. 
SENATE MUST NOT MAKE THE 
DECISION TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT 
BASED ON A HUNCH THAT
MAY BE TRUE. THE STRENGTH OF OUR
CONSTITUTION AND OUR NATION 
DICTATES THAT THE SENATE BE SURE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE 
PREPONDERANCE STANDARD IS WHOLLY
INEFFICIENT, THAT MEANS JUST 
50.1%
THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE LIKELY 
THAN NOT, THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. EVEN 
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS
NOT. IT HAS TO BE BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT. AS SENATOR 
ROCKEFELLER EXPLAINED DURING THE
TIME OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT,
HE SAID PROVEN TO A MORAL 
CERTAINTY, THE CASE IS CLEAR. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THE SENATE 
SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE GRAVITY
OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU SHOULD 
WILL NOT PERMIT ANY LESSER 
STANDARD, THANK YOU.
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY. 
>> THANK YOU SIR, I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGER. EVEN IF A COMMUNICATION
OR DOCUMENT IS COVERED BY 
EXECUTIVE VILLAGE, THAT 
PRIVILEGE CAN BE OVERCOME BY 
SHOWING THE EVIDENCE IS 
IMPORTANT AND UNAVAILABLE 
ELSEWHERE. ON JANUARY 22 WHEN 
THE TRIAL WAS UNDER
WAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID "I 
THOUGHT OUR TEAM DID A VERY GOOD
JOB. BUT HONESTLY, WE HAVE ALL 
THE MATERIAL, THEY DON'T HAVE 
THE MATERIAL." CAN YOU COMMENT 
ON WHETHER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
ALLOWS A PRESENT TO CONCEAL 
INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS, 
PARTICULARLY IF THE EVIDENCE 
CANNOT BE OBTAINED ELSEWHERE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
AND I THINK THE SENATOR FROM NEW
JERSEY FOR THIS QUESTION. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE, HAS THE 
POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. AS THE
COUNSEL ADMITTED ON SATURDAY, 
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT FORMALLY 
INVOKED IT, OVER ANY DOCUMENT 
REQUESTED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSERTED AS IT 
RELATES TO ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT. 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE GIVES 
PRESIDENT TRUMP A QUALIFIED FORM
OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHEN HE DOES 
GET ADVICE FROM HIS AIDES IN 
ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF
HIS OFFICE. AND AS I KNOW YOU 
ARE ALL AWARE, IT IS OFTEN THE 
CASE IN CONGRESSIONAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT A PRESIDENT 
WILL CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
OVER A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF 
MATERIALS. IN THAT CASE, WHAT 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH USUALLY 
DOES, AND SHOULD DO, IS PRODUCE 
EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN. AND THEN
PROVIDE A LOG OF DOCUMENTS IN 
DISPUTE OR PERMIT A PRIVATE 
REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT 
HAVE BEEN CONTESTED. THAT IS NOT
WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE, 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS 
ORDERED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH TO DEFY
OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY INSPIRED 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. BLANKET 
DEFIANCE. THAT'S WHAT'S TAKEN 
PLACE. AND THERE IS NO RIGHT TO 
DO THAT. EVERY COURT THAT HAS 
CONSIDERED THE MATTER, HAS 
ASSERTED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT ASSERT A PRIVILEGE TO 
PROTECT HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, TO 
PROTECT WRONGDOING. TO PROTECT 
EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSTITUTION 
MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT DO IT. IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE 
CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR 
INFORMATION AND ITS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, OF 
COURSE ARE AT ITS GREATEST. IT'S
IMPERATIVE TO INVESTIGATE 
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF 
MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU RIGHT
NOW. LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE 
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IN 
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE CLOSEST 
TO WHAT WE FACE TODAY IN U.S. 
VERSUS NIXON
, IN THE CONTEXT OF A GRAND JURY
SUBPOENA. THE SUPREME COURT 
FOUND THAT PRESIDENT NIXON'S 
GENERALIZED ASSERTION OF 
PRIVILEGE MUST YIELD FOR THE 
DEMONSTRATED NEED OF EVIDENCE IN
THE PENDING TRIAL. IN THE 
FEDERAL COURT HERE IN DC HAS 
RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS IS NEED
FOR INFORMATION AND FOR 
DOCUMENTS
IS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING. 
TURNING TO THE FACT OF THIS 
MATTER, EVERY ARGUMENT THAT 
EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT REQUESTED 
BY
CONGRESS IS SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE
OR SOME SORT OF ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY, IS ABSURD. THERE ARE
CALENDAR INVITATIONS, SCHEDULING
EMAILS, PHOTOGRAPHS, 
CORRESPONDENCE WITH OUTSIDE 
PARTIES, LIKE RUDOLPH GIULIANI. 
THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES 
OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
AND THEY ARE NOT THE TYPE OF 
MATERIAL SUBJECT TO ANY 
REASONABLE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. IF YOU WANT A FAIR 
TRIAL IT SHOULD INVOLVE 
DOCUMENTS
. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, DOCUMENTS LIKE 
AMBASSADOR BULLETINS AND NOTES, 
THE PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMO, 
SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO YOU. 
SO YOU CAN SEEK THE TRUTH, THE 
WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH
. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. STOMACH 
SENATOR MORAN, MY COLLEAGUE AND 
I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT IS WHAT DID HUNTER
BITE INTO FOR THE MONEY THAT 
BURISMA HOLDINGS  PAID HIM?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION
, CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, AS 
FAR AS WE KNOW HUNTER BIDEN SAID
HE ATTENDED A COUPLE OF BOARD 
MEETINGS A YEAR. HERE IS WHAT WE
DO KNOW, HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND
ONE BOARD MEETING IN MONACO. NOW
WE ALSO HEARD THAT WHEN THE 
OWNER OF BURISMA, HE WAS LIVING 
IN  MONACO, SO HUNTER BIDEN DID 
ATTEND A BOARD MEETING IN 
MONACO. WE ALSO KNOW THAT HUNTER
BIDEN WENT TO NORWAY ON A 
FISHING TRIP AND HE TOOK HIS 
DAUGHTER AND HIS NEPHEW, SO HE 
TOOK TWO OF JOE BIDEN'S CHILDREN
WITH HIM ON A FISHING TRIP TO 
NORWAY, WITH ZLOCHEVSKY, AND 
THAT  IS AS MUCH AS WE KNOW 
OTHER THAN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE
ATTENDED ONE OR TWO WARD 
MEETINGS. FACTUALLY, THAT IS 
WHAT HE SAID, AND THE TIMELINE 
SHOWS
THAT. AGAIN DEVON ARCHER WAS ON 
THE BOARD WITH HIM, AND THEN 
HUNTER BIDEN REMAINED ON THE 
BOARD, BUT FACTUALLY IN THE 
RECORD, THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE 
KNOW THAT HE DID INVOLVING 
BURISMA  AND ZLOCHEVSKY.  THE 
NORWAY TRIP WAS JUNE 2015, HE 
REMAINED ON THE BOARD
UNTIL APRIL OF
2019. WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO
THEN, THE 
UKRAINIAN COURT IN
2016 CANCELED ZLOCHEVSKY'S 
ARREST WERE IMPAIRED WE ALSO 
KNOW DECEMBER 15 VICE PRESIDENT 
WRITING CALLED THE PRESIDENT AND
MID-JANUARY 2017, BURISMA 
ANNOUNCED ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 
AGAINST  THE COMPANY AND 
ZLOCHEVSKY HAD BEEN CLOSED. 
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH
THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT AND
HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THE QUESTION
READS AS FOLLOWS. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS SAY THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE 
PRESIDENT COUNSEL DISPUTES THIS.
CAN EITHER OF YOU NAME A SINGLE 
WITNESS OR DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE
PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN ACCESS, HAS 
GIVEN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE WHEN 
REQUESTED? I BELIEVE IT'S TIME 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
GO FIRST. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
MINORITY LEADER
SCHUMER, LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR 
AND DISTINCT COUPLE OF THINGS. 
THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID
THERE WAS A BLANKET DEFIANCE, 
THAT'S THE WAY THEY 
CHARACTERIZED IT. WE WILL NOT 
GIVE YOU ANYTHING, THAT'S ALWAYS
SAID, IT WAS JUST
LINK IT TO FIND, WE WILL NOT 
RESPOND. WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN
IT SEVERAL TIMES, THAT WAS NOT 
THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE. THERE 
WAS SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED 
RESPONSES IN DIFFERENT REQUESTS,
BASED ON DIFFERENT LEGAL 
RATIONALES BECAUSE THEY ARE 
DIFFERENT PROBLEMS WITH 
SUBPOENAS. SO, ONE PROBLEM IS, 
ALL THE SUBPOENAS UP UNTIL 
OCTOBER 31 WERE NOT VALIDLY 
AUTHORIZED. THOSE SUBPOENAS
WE SAID, WE WILL NOT RESPOND TO 
THOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT 
VALIDLY ISSUED, IT WAS NOT AN 
ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
OR ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR ANYTHING
ELSE, IT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY 
WERE NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED. 
THEY POINTED OUT THAT OH, WE 
SUBPOENAED THAT ACTING CHIEF OF 
STAFF MULVANEY AFTER OCTOBER 31,
THAT IS TRUE. WE DO NOT RELY ON 
THE FACT THAT THE SUBPOENA WAS 
NOT AUTHORIZED, WE POINTED OUT 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY OF SENIOR ADVISORS TO 
THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS NOT SOME 
BLANKET ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR 
THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT 
DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS THEY ISSUED. AS WE 
EXPLAINED IN THE BRIEF, IT 
APPLIES TO THREE, THERE WERE 
THREE PEOPLE THEY SUBPOENAED AS 
WITNESSES, IT WAS ON THIS BASIS 
ALONE, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DECLINED TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE.
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, 
THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN 
EISENBERG AND MR. COOPERMAN, I 
BELIEVE, IT WAS THOSE THREE THAT
HAD IMMUNITY, A DOCTRINE 
ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT 
SINCE NIXON BUT THEN THERE WAS A
DIFFERENT
PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE OTHER 
SUBPOENAS, SOME OF THE OTHER 
WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT SENIOR 
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT. THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT ASSERT THAT 
THEY HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HIM 
INSTEAD THOSE SUBPOENAS REFUSED 
TO ALLOW THOSE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
PERSONNEL ALLOW EXECUTIVE BRANCH
COUNSEL TO ACCOMPANY THEM, IT'S 
BEEN PUBLISHED ONLINE AND CITED 
IN OUR TRIAL, IT'S 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFUSE THE 
ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL 
TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION DURING QUESTIONING. 
THEREFORE IT'S NOT VALID TO 
FORCE THEM TO APPEAR WITHOUT 
THAT.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED 
NOTHING AS PART OF OUR 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IT'S
WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THE 
HOUSE THE COMMITTEES THAT 
SUBPOENAED BEFORE THE HOUSE A 
VOTE, HAVE STANDARD AUTHORITY 
UNDER THE HOUSE RULES,
AND THEY WERE THE OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS, UNDER ITS 
STANDARD AUTHORITY, TO 
INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER AT ANY 
TIME. AS WELL AS THE FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE, ADOPTED JANUARY 11, TO 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS THEY DID, AND 
THEY WERE DEFIED. THE IDEA OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS NEVER BEEN
UPHELD BY ANY COURT, AND IT IS 
REALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO THINK
THAT SOMEHOW THIS CONCEPT OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS LURKED IN 
HIDING FOR CENTURIES, FOR 
PRESIDENT TO USE IT IN THIS DAY.
WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES,
MYERS AND GANN, THE COURTS 
COMPLETELY REJECTED THE IDEA OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. ON SLIDE 38 
IF YOU COULD, THERE IS A 
DECISION RECENTLY MADE
IN THE McCANN CASE, AND HERE IS 
WHAT IT SAYS. STATED SIMPLY, THE
PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST 
250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN 
HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS
ARE NOT KING, THAT'S THE JUDGE'S
WORDS, NOT MINE. COMPULSORY 
APPEARANCE
BY A SUBPOENA IS A LEGAL 
CONSTRUCT, NOT A POLITICAL ONE, 
AND PER THE CONSTITUTION, NO ONE
IS ABOVE THE LAW. THE PRESIDENT 
IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE 
CONSTITUTION OR BY THE LAW TO 
ASSERT ANY KIND OF ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY, THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN
AMERICA AND AS THE JUDGES 
POINTED OUT, THAT WOULD BE 
SOMETHING THAT A KING WOULD 
ASSERT
. I'M NOT SAYING THAT, BUT I 
WILL SAY THIS. IT IS SOMETHING 
OUR FOUNDERS SET UP, OUR CHECKS 
AND BALANCES TO PREVENT. NOBODY 
HAS ABSOLUTE POWER
IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. NOT
THE SENATE AND HOUSE, NOT THE 
PRESIDENT, NOT THE JUDICIARY, 
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED, AND JUST 
WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS 
A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
THANK YOU.
>>
SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SENT
THE QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR 
BOTH OF THE COUNSEL OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUISE AND 
MYSELF.
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION IS YOU REFUSE TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION ON POLITICAL
BIAS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
REFUSING TO TELL THE SENATE 
WHETHER OR NOT THE WHISTLEBLOWER
HAD AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST. THERE ARE SEVERAL 
BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH, ALMOST 
ALL HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN 
BIDEN'S
QUID PRO QUO, OR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS UNWILLING TO SAY 
WHETHER THE SO-CALLED 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS A FACT WITNESS
THAT DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN, 
AND COULD FACE CRIMINAL AND 
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR JOE BIDEN'S 
DEMANDING UKRAINE FIRE THE 
PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING
BURISMA, AND WHY DID YOU REFUSE 
TO TRANSMIT  TO THE GENERAL 
SENATE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
TRANSCRIPT. IT IS ADDRESSED TO 
BOTH SIDES, PERHAPS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CAN GO FIRST.
>> WAS RESPECT TO THAT I CIG, 
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES 
HAVE TRIED TO SHIFT FOCUS OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT IS 
HANDLING THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT, THERE IS AN EFFORT TO
INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON PART OF 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND EFFORT TO 
INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE BRIEFINGS
WE HAD WITH THAT I CIG, RELATED 
TO THE UNUSUAL AND PROBLEMATIC 
HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITHIN 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH 
DIVERTS SHARPLY FROM ANY 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM ANY
ONE IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE. THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY IS CONTINUING THE 
ONGOING OVERSIGHT TO DETERMINE 
WHY AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT WAS 
INITIALLY CONCEALED FROM THE 
COMMITTEE IN VIOLATION OF THE 
LAW. THE I CIG MICHAEL ATKINSON 
CONTINUES TO SERVE ADMIRABLY, 
AND LIKE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DOES NOT 
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF ITS 
ENGAGEMENTS WITH
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON 
SENSITIVE MATTERS BECAUSE DOING 
SO RISKS UNDERCUTTING AN 
IMPORTANT MECHANISM FOR THE 
COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT. 
THE TRANSCRIPTS REMAIN HEAVILY 
CLASSIFIED TO PROTECT SENSITIVE 
INFORMATION. I CIG MADE EVERY 
EFFORT TO PROTECT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY AND 
BRIEFS US WITH EXPEDITION, WITH 
THE EXPECTATION RATHER, THAT
IT WILL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC. WE 
ARE TRYING TO HONOR THAT 
EXPECTATION. WITH RESPECT TO 
ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS ON THE PART 
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, LET ME 
REFER YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. WHICH IS 
AFTER EXAMINING
THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S BACKGROUND, ANY 
POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF ANY 
BIAS, THE WHISTLEBLOWER DREW TWO
CONCLUSIONS, THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
WAS CREDIBLE, MEANING THAT 
WHATEVER ISSUE PERCEIVED OR 
REAL, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
FOUND THAT WHISTLEBLOWER 
CREDIBLE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS 
COMPLAINT WAS URGENT. AND THAT 
IT NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED TO 
CONGRESS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS 
WITHHELD FROM
CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE 
LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE 
STATUTE. FOR THAT HE IS BEING 
ATTACKED.
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
RELY ON THE OPINION OF THE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AS 
JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AND
NOT TRANSMITTING THE COMPLAINT 
CONGRESS. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER.
>> FOR CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, PAGE 5 OF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT 
STATES ALTHOUGH THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL PRELIMINARY REVIEW 
IDENTIFIED SOME ADDITIONAL 
ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON PART 
OF THE COMPLAINT. HE GOES ON TO 
SAY INVOLVING ARRIVAL POLITICAL 
CANDIDATE, SUCH EVIDENCE DID NOT
CHANGE HIS VIEW ABOUT
THE CREDIBLE NATURE OF THE 
CONCERN OR WHAT APPEARS TO BE 
CREDIBLE. BUT TO ARGUE THAT IT 
DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF 
POLITICAL BIAS, THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL HIMSELF SAYS THAT'S IN 
FACT,
IT DOES NOT REPORT POLITICAL 
BIAS. THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS 
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE 
WORKED FOR JOE BIDEN WHEN HE WAS
VICE PRESIDENT. THE HE MAY HAVE 
HAD SOME AREA UNDER HIS WATCH 
INVOLVING UKRAINE. I ALSO 
THOUGHT IT WAS JUST INTERESTING 
THAT MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF  TALKED
ABOUT THE COMPLAINTS AS IT 
RELATES TO THE WHISTLE BLOWER 
REPORT DO WE NOT THINK THE 
SENSITIVE NATURE OF INFORMATION 
SHARED BY THE PRESIDENT'S MOST 
SENIOR ADVISOR SHOULD NOT BE 
SUBJECT TO THE SAME TYPE OF 
PROTECTIONS, OF COURSE, IT HAS 
TO BE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL,
AND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR 
BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM
SENATOR MANSION READS AS 
FOLLOWS, THE FRAMERS TOOK THE 
WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS STRAIGHT OUT OF 
ENGLISH LAW WHERE IT HAD BEEN
APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENTS FOR 400 
YEARS BEFORE OUR CONSTITUTION 
WAS WRITTEN. THE FRAMERS WERE 
WELL AWARE WHEN THEY CHOSE THOSE
WORDS THAT PARLIAMENT HAD 
IMPEACHED OFFICIALS FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT 
WERE NOT INDICTABLE AS CRIMES 
THE HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY 
IMPEACHED IN THE SENATE HAS 
CONVICTED OFFICERS FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT 
WERE NOT INDICTABLE CRIMES. EVEN
MR. DERSHOWITZ SAID IN 1988 THAT
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE DOES 
CERTAINLY NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME
. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 
22 YEARS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL 
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS AND THE 
HISTORIC MEANING OF THE TERM 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS? 
IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S TURN. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED SINCE 1998 IS 
THAT I STUDIED MORE, DID MORE 
RESEARCH, READ MORE DOCUMENTS, 
AND LIKE ANY ACADEMIC,
AND I KEEP REFINING MY VIEWS AND
WRITING MORE
. IT'S NOT WHETHER A CRIME WAS 
REQUIRED, WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
BEGAN, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER A 
CRIME WAS REQUIRED. AND THEN I 
CONCLUDED,
I'M COMPLETELY ACADEMIC GROUNDS,
THAT YOU COULD NOT IMPEACH FOR 
ABUSE OF POWER, AND THAT THE 
TECHNICAL CRIME IS NOT REQUIRED 
FOR CRIMINAL LIKE BEHAVIOR IS, I
STAND BY THAT VIEW. THE FRAMERS 
REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION
. REMEMBER, THE BRITISH NEVER 
IMPEACH PRIME MINISTERS, THEY 
ONLY IMPEACH MIDDLE LEVEL AND 
LOW LEVEL PEOPLE. THE FRAMERS 
DID NOT WANT TO ADOPT THE 
BRITISH APPROACH. THEY REJECTED 
IT REJECTING MALADMINISTRATION, 
AND WHAT IS A METAPHOR OR 
SYNONYM FOR MALADMINISTRATION? 
ABUSE OF POWER.
AND WHEN THEY REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION, THEY REJECTED
ABUSE OF POWER. MR. CONGRESSMAN 
SCHIFF 
ASKED A RHETORICAL QUESTION OF 
CAN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
ABUSE OF POWER WITH IMPUNITY, 
AND IN MY TRADITION WE ANSWER 
QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS, SO I 
WOULD THROW THE QUESTION BACK, 
CAN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
MALADMINISTRATION WITH IMMUNITY.
AND THEY WOULD SAY NO HE CAN'T 
ENGAGE IN THAT WITH IMPUNITY BUT
IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME. 
MALADMINISTRATION IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE AND ABUSE OF THE 
POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. THE 
ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER A CRIME IS 
REQUIRED, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER 
ABUSE OF THE POWER IS 
PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA, AND THE 
ANSWER FROM THE HISTORY IS 
CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY NO,
IF THAT WERE EVER PUT TO THE 
FRAMERS THEY WOULD HAVE REJECTED
IT WITH THE SAME CERTAINTY THAT 
THEY REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION.
>>> WE'VE SEEN THEM PLAY VIDEO 
CLIPS OF ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY'S PRESS CONFERENCE
IN WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID 
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. HOW TO
RESPOND TO THE HOUSE MANAGER'S 
ALLEGATION THAT MR. MULVANEY 
SUPPORTED THEIR CLAIMS IN HIS 
PRESS CONFERENCE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. SENATOR, THANK YOU 
FOR THE QUESTION. WE RESPOND AS 
MR. PHILBIN DID EARLIER TODAY 
WITH THAT WHICH IS, MR. MULVANEY
HAS ISSUED TWO STATEMENTS, ONE 
AFTER HIS PRESS CONFERENCE AND 
THEN ONE MONDAY AFTER THE "NEW 
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE CONCERNING 
MR. BOLTON'S A LEGEND 
MANUSCRIPT. IMAGINED THINGS IN 
HIS MANUSCRIPT. I THINK JUST 
READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE
SAID AND PUT IT IN CONTEXT. FOR 
EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER. THIS IS
FROM, THIS IS THE DAY OF THE 
PRESS CONFERENCE. ONCE AGAIN, 
THE MEDIA HAS DECIDED TO 
MISCONSTRUE MY COMMENTS TO 
ADVANCED A WITCHHUNT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. LET ME BE 
CLEAR. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO 
QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN UKRAINIAN 
MILITARY AID AND ANY 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
TOLD ME TO WITHHOLD ANY MONEY 
UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS DID 
ANYTHING RELATED TO THE SERVER. 
THE ONLY REASONS WE WERE HOLDING
THE MONEY WAS BECAUSE OF CONCERN
ABOUT LACK OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER
NATIONS AND CONCERN OVER 
CORRUPTION.
MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE MORE 
THAN 30 MINUTE BRIEFING WHERE I 
TOOK OVER 25 QUESTIONS I 
REFERRED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND 
ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE 
SPENT RESPONSIBLY AND 
APPROPRIATELY. THERE WAS NEVER 
ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FUNDS
AND THE UKRAINIANS DOING 
ANYTHING WITH THE SERVER.
THIS WAS MADE EXPLICITLY OBVIOUS
BY THE FACT THAT THE AID MONEY 
WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT ANY ACTION
ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIANS 
REGARDING THE SERVER. THERE WAS 
NEVER ANY CONDITION ON THE FLOW 
OF THE AID RELATED TO THE MATTER
OF THE DNC SERVER.
THEN ON JANUARY 27, WHICH WAS 
MONDAY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT 
FROM BOB DRISCOLL, MR. 
MULVANEY'S ATTORNEY. NOW, I WILL
READ IT IN FULL. THE LATEST 
STORY FROM THE "NEW YORK TIMES" 
COORDINATED WITH A BOOK LAUNCH 
HAS MORE TO DO WITH PUBLICITY 
THAN THE TRUTH. JOHN BOLTON 
NEVER FORMED MICK MULVANEY OF 
ANY CONCERN SURROUNDING HIS 
PURPORTED AUGUST CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. NOR DID MR. 
MULVANEY EVER HAVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
OR ANYONE ELSE INDICATING THAT 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID WAS 
WITHHELD IN EXCHANGE FOR A 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION OF
BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 
ELECTION.  FURTHERMORE, MR. 
MULVANEY HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF 
ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. 
GIULIANI RESEMBLING THAT 
DESCRIBED IN THE MANUSCRIPT
AS IT WAS MR. MULVANEY'S 
PRACTICE TO EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM 
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL 
COUNSEL TO PRESERVE ANY 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. I 
WANT TO READ THE STATEMENTS IN 
FULL SO THAT EVERYONE HAD THE 
FULL CONTEXT. EVEN AFTER MR. 
PHILBIN REFERENCED
THE STATEMENT AFTER THE PRESS 
CONFERENCE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AGAIN CAME BACK AND SAID MR. 
MULVANEY INDICATED OR ADMITTED 
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. THAT 
IS NOT TRUE. IF MR. MULVANEY 
MISSPOKE OR IF THE WORDS WERE 
GARBLED HE CORRECTED IT THAT DAY
AND HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR. THANK 
YOU.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL  AND
HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THE QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES
, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO 
FIRST. WHAT DID NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON 
MEAN WHEN HE REFERENCED WHATEVER
DRUG DEAL THEY ARE COOKING UP ON
THIS AND DID HE EVER RAISE THAT 
ISSUE IN ANY MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, WHEN JOHN BOLTON AND 
THIS IS ACCORDING TO
DOCTOR KILLS TESTIMONY BROUGHT 
UP THE DRUG DEAL, IT WAS IN THE 
CONTEXT OF A JULY 10 MEETING AT 
THE WHITE HOUSE, TWO MEETINGS 
AND THERE WAS A MEETING THAT HE 
WAS PRESENT FOR AND A FOLLOWING 
MEETING AFTER THEY ENDED THE 
FIRST MEETING. IN THE FIRST 
MEETING UKRAINIANS WANTED TO 
RAISE THE TOPIC OF GETTING THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED. AND 
AFTER RAISING THE ISSUE  AT SOME
POINT THE AMBASSADOR SAID NO, WE
HAVE A DEAL, THEY WILL GET THE 
MEETING WHEN THEY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATION. THIS IS THE POINT
WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
STIFFENED. YOU CAN LOOK UP THE 
EXACT WORDS
, I AM PARAPHRASING, BUT THIS IS
THE POINT WHERE AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON STIFFENS AND ENDS THE 
MEETING. HILL GOES, FOLLOWS HIM 
AND THE DELEGATION INTO ANOTHER 
PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE 
THE MEETING CONTINUES BETWEEN 
THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AND 
UKRAINIAN DELEGATION. AND THERE 
IT IS MORE EXPLICIT BECAUSE IN 
THAT SECOND MEETING SONDLAND 
BRINGS UP THE BIDENS 
SPECIFICALLY.  HILL GOES TO TALK
TO BOLTON. AND INFORMS HIM WHAT 
IS TAKING PLACE IN THE FOLLOWING
MEETING. AND BOLTON'S RESPONSE 
IS GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS. AND 
LET THEM KNOW I DON'T WANT TO BE
PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL THAT 
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY HAVE 
COOKING UP. SO AT THAT POINT, 
THAT SPECIFIC CONVERSATION IS A 
REFERENCE TO THE QUICK QUOTE 
OVER THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. WE
KNOW OF COURSE FROM OTHER 
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY ABOUT 
THE QUID PRO QUO AT THE MEETING.
AND ALL THE EFFORTS BY GIULIANI 
TO MAKE SURE THAT SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATIONS ARE MENTIONED IN 
ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. BUT, 
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. WE 
CAN BRING IN JOHN BOLTON AND ASK
EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO
WHEN HE DESCRIBED THE DRUG DEAL.
NOW, DID BOLTON DESCRIBE AND 
DISCUSS THIS DRUG DEAL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT? IT CERTAINLY APPEARS 
FROM WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS 
MANUSCRIPT THAT THEY DID TALK 
ABOUT THE FREEZE ON A. AND 
WHETHER JOHN BOLTON UNDERSTOOD
AND AT WHAT POINT HE UNDERSTOOD 
THAT THE DRUG DEAL WAS EVEN 
BIGGER AND MORE PERNICIOUS THAN 
HE THOUGHT, IT INVOLVE NOT JUST 
THE MEETING BUT INVOLVE THE 
MILITARY AID, ONE WAY TO FIND 
OUT AND I WILL ADD THIS. IN 
TERMS OF MR. MULVANEY. MAYBE I 
WILL ADD IT LATER. [ LAUGHTER ]
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> 2 1/2 MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION. 
THE QUESTION ASKS ABOUT WHAT 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON MEANT IN A 
COMMENT THAT IS REPORTED AS 
HEARSAY BY SOMEONE ELSE SAYING 
WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SAID. WE KNOW
IS THAT THERE ARE CONFLICTING 
ACCOUNTS OF THE JULY 10 MEETING.
DR. HILL SAYS SHE HEARD 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY ONE 
THING AND HE DENIES THAT HE SAID
THAT. DR. HILL SAYS SHE
TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
BOLTON SAID SOMETHING TO HER 
ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN THE 
MEETING WERE HE WASN'T THERE BUT
HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT 
CALLING IT A DRUG DEAL. AND WHAT
HE MEANT BY THAT, I'M NOT GOING 
TO SPECULATE ABOUT IT. IT'S A 
HEARSAY REPORT OF SOMETHING HE 
SAID ABOUT A MEETING HE WASN'T 
IN, CHARACTERIZING IT IN SOME 
WAY AND I WILL NOT SPECULATE 
ABOUT WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT. 
>> THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM 
NORTH DAKOTA. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MYSELF 
ALSO FOR SENATOR BOZEMAN. FOR 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL  I AM 
SENDING IT TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS AS FOLLOWS. IN 
SEPTEMBER 2019, THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AID WAS RELEASED TO 
UKRAINE. YET, THE HOUSE MANAGERS
CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP CONDITIONED THE AID ON AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. DID
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR HIS 
GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY MEET ANY 
OF THE ALLEGED REQUIREMENTS IN 
ORDER TO RECEIVE THE AID?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I
WILL BE VERY SHORT, THE ANSWER 
IS NO. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT I WILL 
EXPLAIN. I THINK WE DEMONSTRATED
IT IN OUR PRESENTATION ON 
FRIDAY. AND ON MONDAY. THAT THE 
AID WAS RELEASED, THE AID 
FLOWED. IT WAS A MEETING AT THE 
U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A MEETING
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED IN WARSAW, 
PRECISELY AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SUGGESTED.  AND THERE WAS NEVER 
ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY 
INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN 
REGARDING THE BIDENS,
THE 2016 ELECTION, BURISMA, NO 
STATEMENT MADE OR INVESTIGATIONS
ANNOUNCED , BEGAN BY THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA. 
>> I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW 
ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
RELATED TO RUSSIA DISSEMINATING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OR RUDOLPH 
GIULIANI'S CONSPIRACY THEORIES? 
SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE THIS 
INFORMATION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE
ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, I 
THINK THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES
OF RELEVANT MATERIAL HERE. THE 
FIRST, YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO AND
THAT IS THE SUPPLEMENTAL 
TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS. 
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO
READ IT. I THINK IT SHEDS LIGHT 
VERY SPECIFICALLY ON THE VICE 
PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE MAY OR MAY
NOT KNOW VIS-À-VIS THIS SCHEME. 
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ 
THAT SUBMISSION. THERE IS A 
SECOND BODY OF INTELLIGENCE THAT
THE COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN 
PROVIDED THAT IS RELEVANT TO 
THIS TRIAL. YOU SHOULD ALSO 
READ. AND WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT 
THE MECHANISM THAT WOULD PERMIT 
YOU TO DO SO. BECAUSE IT IS 
DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES 
WE ARE DISCUSSING AND PERTINENT
. THERE'S A THIRD CATEGORY OF 
INTELLIGENCE TOO WHICH RAISES A 
DIFFERENT PROBLEM. THAT IS THAT 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES ARE
FOR THE FIRST TIME REFUSING TO 
PROVIDE TO THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE. AND THAT MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GATHERED. WE KNOW IT 
EXISTS. BUT THE NSA HAS BEEN 
ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE IT. NOW, 
THE DIRECTOR SAYS
THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTOR'S 
DECISION BUT NONETHELESS THERE 
WAS A BODY OF INTELLIGENCE THAT 
IS RELEVANT TO REQUEST THAT WE 
HAVE MADE. THAT IS NOT BEING 
PROVIDED AND THAT RAISES
A VERY DIFFERENT CONCERN THAN 
THE ONE BEFORE THIS BODY AND 
THAT IS ARE NOW OTHER AGENCIES 
LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
THAT WE REQUIRE TO SPEAK TRUTH 
TO POWER THAT WE REQUIRE TO 
PROVIDE US THE BEST INTELLIGENCE
NOW ALSO WITHHOLDING INFORMATION
AT THE URGING OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION? AND THAT IS I 
THINK A DEEPLY CONCERNING AND 
NEW PHENOMENON. THAT
IS A PROBLEM WE'VE HAD WITH 
OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT OF AN 
PART OF THE WHOLESALE 
INSTRUCTION BUT NOW IS REARING 
ITS UGLY HEAD BUT THE SHORTER 
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ON APART 
FROM
JENNIFER WILLIAMS ARE THERE 
OTHER MATERIALS, THE ANSWER IS 
YES. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT 
YOU AND WE WORK TOGETHER TO FIND
OUT HOW YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM. 
>> THANK YOU. MR. MAJORITY 
LEADER. 
>> TWO QUESTIONS, ONE FROM EACH 
SIDE. THEY WILL BE THE LAST 
BEFORE WE BREAK FOR DINNER. I 
WOULD ASK THE FOLLOWING. THEN WE
WILL RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE 
DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. HOW 
DOES THE NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF 
POWER STANDARD ADVANCED BY THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS DIFFER FROM 
MALADMINISTRATION?
AND IMPEACHMENT STANDARD 
REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS? WHERE 
IS THE LINE BETWEEN AN ABUSE OF 
POWER AND A POLICY DISAGREEMENT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT 
QUESTION BECAUSE THAT QUESTION I
THINK HITS THE KEY TO THE ISSUE 
THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. WHEN 
THE FRAMERS REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION AND RECALL IT 
WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON AND 
REJECTED BY MADISON, ON THE 
GROUNDS THAT IT WOULD TURN OUR 
NEW REPUBLIC INTO A 
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE A 
PRIME MINISTER
, IN THIS CASE A PRESIDENT, CAN 
BE REMOVED AT THE PLEASURE OF 
THE LEGISLATURE. REMEMBER, TOO, 
IN BRITAIN IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT 
USED AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER.
IT WAS USED AGAINST LOWER LEVEL 
PEOPLE. AND SO, 
MALADMINISTRATION WAS INTRODUCED
BY MASON AND MADISON SAID NO, IT
WOULD TURN US, IT WAS TOO BIG 
AND TOO GENERAL.
NOW WHAT IS MALLET 
ADMINISTRATION? IF YOU LOOK IT 
UP IN THE DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP
SYNONYMS THE SYNONYMS INCLUDE 
ABUSE. CORRUPTION.  THIS ROLE. 
DISHONESTY. MISUSE OF OFFICE AND
MISBEHAVIOR. EVEN A HARVARD 
PROFESSOR IN FAVOR
OF IMPEACHMENT, THIS IS AN 
ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST BY 
HIM, HE'S IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT, HE SAYS ABUSE OF 
POWER IS THE SAME AS MISCONDUCT 
IN OFFICE. AND HE SAYS HIS 
RESEARCH LEADS HIM TO CONCLUDE 
THAT A CRIME IS REQUIRED. BY THE
WAY,
THE CONGRESSMAN WAS JUST 
COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN HE SAID 
I'M THE ONLY SCHOLAR WHO 
SUPPORTS THIS POSITION. IN THE 
19th CENTURY, CLOSER IN TIME TO 
WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE, DEEMED 
WHITE, HE WROTE THAT THE WEIGHT 
OF AUTHORITY BY WHICH HE MEANT 
THE WEIGHT OF SCHOLARLY 
AUTHORITY AND THE WEIGHT OF 
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, 1867, THE 
WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS IN FAVOR 
OF REQUIRING A CRIME, JUSTICE 
CURTIS, AIMED TO THE SAME 
CONCLUSION. OTHERS HAVE COME TO 
A SIMILAR CONCLUSION. YOU ASK 
WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 1998
AND THE CURRENT TO CHANGE MY 
MIND, WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 
19th CENTURY AND THE 20th 
CENTURY TO CHANGE THE MIND OF SO
MANY SCHOLARS? LET ME TELL YOU 
WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED IS 
THAT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT WAS 
IMPEACHED. IF IN FACT PRESIDENT 
OBAMA OR PRESIDENT HILLARY 
CLINTON HAD BEEN IMPEACHED THE 
WEIGHT OF CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP 
WOULD BE CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF MY 
POSITION. BECAUSE THESE SCHOLARS
DO NOT PASS THE SHOE ON THE 
OTHER FOOT. THE SCHOLARS ARE 
INFLUENCED BY THEIR OWN BIAS, 
EITHER OWN POLITICS AND THEIR 
VIEWS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH THAT 
IN MIND. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
PROFESSOR TRIBE HAD A REVELATION
HIMSELF AT THE TIME WHEN CLINTON
WAS IMPEACHED HE SAID, THE LAW 
IS CLEAR, YOU CANNOT, YOU CANNOT
CHARGE A PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME 
IF HE'S A SITTING PRESIDENT. NOW
WE HAVE A CURRENT PRESIDENT, 
PROFESSOR TRIBE GOT WOKE. AND 
WITH NO APPARENT NEW RESEARCH HE
CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OVER THIS
PRESIDENT, CAN BE CHARGED WHILE 
SITTING IN OFFICE. THAT'S NOT 
THE KIND OF SCHOLARSHIP THAT 
SHOULD INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION. 
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS.
GO BACK AND READ THE DEBATES AND
YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM RIGHT, 
THE FRAMERS REJECTED
VAGUE, OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA, 
ABUSE OF POWER AND WHAT WE HAVE 
IS A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AGAIN. 
SHE GAVE REASONS WHY WE HAVE 
IMPEACHMENT. YES. WE FEARED 
ABUSE OF POWER. YES. WE FEARED 
CRITERIA LIKE MALADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON. WE 
FEARED INCAPACITY. BUT NONE OF 
THOSE MADE IT INTO THE CRITERIA.
BECAUSE THE FRAMERS HAD TO 
STRIKE A BALANCE. HERE ARE THE 
REASONS WE NEED IMPEACHMENT, 
YES. NOW HERE ARE THE REASONS WE
FEAR GIVING CONGRESS TOO MUCH 
POWER. SO WE STRIKE A BALANCE. 
HOW DID THEY STRIKE IT? TREASON.
A SERIOUS CRIME. RIVALRY. ACHE 
SERIOUS CRIME. OR OTHER TYPE OF 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
AGAIN TREASON AND BRIBERY. THAT 
IS WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED. 
THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE 
CONGRESS A LICENSE
TO DECIDE WHO TO IMPEACH AND WHO
NOT TO IMPEACH ON PARTISAN 
GROUNDS. I READ YOU THE LIST OF 
40 AMERICAN PRESIDENT'S  WITH 
BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER. 
SHOULD EVERY ONE OF THEM BE 
IMPEACHED? SHOULD EVERYONE BE 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE? IT IS TO 
TAKE A TERM. REJECT MY ARGUMENT 
ABOUT CRIME. REJECT IT IF YOU 
CHOOSE TO. DO NOT REJECT MY 
ARGUMENT THAT ABUSE OF POWER 
WOULD DESTROY, DESTROY THE 
IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND TURN IT IN THE 
WORDS OF ONE OF THE SENATORS TO 
MAKE
EVERY PRESIDENT, EVERY MEMBER OF
THE SENATE, EVERY MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS BE ABLE TO DEFINE IT 
ITSELF FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN 
BOSOM. YOU HEARD FROM THE OTHER 
SIDE, EVERY SENATOR SHOULD 
DECIDE WHETHER YOU NEED PROOF 
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. OR 
PROVED BY PREPONDERANCE. NOW 
HERE EVERY SENATOR -- 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF 
OF SENATOR
AND MYSELF THAT I SENT TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>> SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON 
WHITE IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED 
STATES, 1993, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 
THE SENATE QUOTE HAS VERY WIDE 
DISCRETION IN SPECIFYING 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PROCEDURES". 
BUT STATED THAT THE SENATE QUOTE
WOULD ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IF IT
WERE TO INSIST ON A PROCEDURE 
THAT COULD NOT BE DEEMED A TRIAL
BY REASON OF JUDGES. IF THE 
SENATE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
TESTIMONY OF KEY WITNESSES WITH 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S ACTIONS AND INTENTIONS, 
WHAT A REASONABLE JUDGE CONCLUDE
THESE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE A 
CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR TRIAL?
>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. I 
DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO LOOK 
TO THE WORDS OF A JUSTICE TO 
TELL US THAT A TRIAL WITHOUT 
WHEN THIS IS IS NOT REALLY A 
TRIAL. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A 
FAIR TRIAL. IF THE HOUSE MOVES 
FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT AND 
COMES BEFORE THE SENATE AND 
WANTS TO CALL WITNESSES AND 
WANTS TO MAKE ITS CASE AND IS 
TOLD THOU SHALT NOT CALL 
WITNESSES. THAT'S NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL. I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT 
READING THE CASE LAW. THEY GO TO
JURY DUTY THEMSELVES EVERY YEAR.
AND THEY SEE THE FIRST THING 
THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER THE JURY 
IS SWORN IN, IS THE GOVERNMENT 
MAKES ITS OPENING STATEMENT, THE
DEFENSE MAKES THEIR STATEMENT 
AND THEN THE CALLING OF 
WITNESSES. I DO WANT TO TAKE 
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT 
WHILE IT'S FRESH. YOU CAN SAY A 
LOT OF THINGS ABOUT ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ, YOU CANNOT SAY HE'S 
UNPREPARED. HE'S NOT OVER-PAIR 
TODAY, HE WASN'T A PREPARED 21 
YEARS AGO. AND TO BELIEVE THAT 
HE WOULD NOT HAVE READ 21 YEARS 
AGO WHAT MASON HAD TO SAY OR 
MEDICINE, OR HAMILTON HAD TO 
SAY, I DON'T BUY THAT. I THINK 
21 YEARS AGO HE UNDERSTOOD THAT 
MALADMINISTRATION WAS REJECTED 
BUT SO WAS A PROVISION THAT CAN 
FIND THE OFFENSES TO TREASON AND
BRIBERY ALONE WAS REJECTED. I 
THINK ALAN DERSHOWITZ 21 YEARS 
AGO UNDERSTOOD THAT YES, WHY YOU
CAN'T IMPEACH FOR POLICY 
DIFFERENCE YOU CAN IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER. 
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID 21 YEARS 
AGO. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE 
THEN. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN 
WRITE OFF
THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
OPINION BY SAYING THEY ARE ALL 
NEVER TRUMPER'S. CONSTITUTIONAL 
LAW PROFESSORS IN FACT, LET'S 
PLAY A SNIPPET FROM PROFESSOR 
SHIRLEY WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE 
DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND SEE 
WHAT HE HAD TO SAY RECENTLY. 
>> ON ABUSE OF POWER IN MY VIEW 
IT'S CLEAR. YOU CAN IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER. 
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR 
NON-CRIMINAL CONDUCT. 
>> OKAY. WE CAN'T ARGUE 
PLAUSIBLY THAT HIS POSITION IS 
OWING TO SOME POLITICAL BIAS. 
RIGHT? A FEW WEEKS AGO HE WAS IN
THE HOUSE ARGUING THE CASE FOR 
MY GOP COLLEAGUES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED. WAITED SAY IF YOU CAN
PROVE THESE THINGS AND PROVE AS 
INDEED WE HAVE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY 
CONDITIONING
MILITARY AID TO HELP HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN, YES, THAT 
IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. YOU CAN'T 
ABUSE, YOU CAN IMPEACH FOR THAT 
KIND OF ABUSE OF POWER. THAT'S 
EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE 
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE OUR 
COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR. IF WE 
ARE TO INTERPRET THE 
CONSTITUTION NOW AS SAYING THAT 
A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THEIR 
POWER AND I THINK THE PROFESSOR 
SUGGESTED BEFORE THE BREAK THAT 
HE CAN ABUSE HIS POWER IN A 
CORRUPT WAY TO HELP HIS 
REELECTION AND YOU CAN'T DO 
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU CAN'T DO 
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE IF 
YOU USE IT FOR YOUR PERSONAL 
INTEREST THAT'S JUST FINE. HE'S 
ALLOWED TO DO IT.
NONE OF THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE 
ACCEPTED THAT KIND OF REASONING.
IN FACT, THE IDEA THAT THE CORE 
OFFENSE THAT THE FOUNDERS 
PROTECTED AGAINST, THE CORE 
OFFENSE IS ABUSE OF POWER. IS 
BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS TO 
IMPEACHMENT. WOULD HAVE 
TERRIFIED THE FOUNDERS. YOU CAN 
IMAGINE ANY NUMBER OF ABUSES OF 
POWER, A PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD 
AID FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AT WAR 
AS A THANK YOU FOR THAT 
ADVERSARY ALLOWING HIM TO BUILD 
A TRUMP TOWER IN THAT COUNTRY. 
THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL. BUT 
ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT WE ARE 
GOING TO PERMIT A RESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID AS A THANK YOU FOR 
A BUSINESS PROPOSITION? NOW, 
COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CRIME 
IS NOT NECESSARY BUT SOMETHING, 
AKIN TO A CRIME, THERE'S A CRIME
OF BARBARY OR EXTORTION. 
CONDITIONING
OFFICIAL ASK FOR PERSONAL 
FAVORS. THAT IS BRIBERY. IT'S 
ALSO WHAT THE FOUNDERS 
UNDERSTOOD AS EXTORTION. YOU 
CANNOT ARGUE EVEN IF YOU ARGUE 
WELL, UNDER THE MODERN 
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, YOU HAVE 
TO SHOW SUCH AND SUCH, YOU 
CANNOT POSSIBLY ARGUE THAT IT'S 
NOT AKIN TO BRIBERY. IT IS 
BRIBERY. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS 
AKIN TO BRIBERY. BUT THAT IS THE
IMPORT OF WHAT THEY WOULD ARGUE.
THAT NO, THE PRESIDENT HAS A 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER 
ARTICLES HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE 
WANTS. HE CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE 
AND DO SO SACRIFICING NATIONAL 
SECURITY, UNDERMINING THE 
ELECTION AND THERE'S NOTHING 
CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT. 
>> MANAGER.
>> WE ARE IN RECESS.
>>> YOU ARE WATCHING LIVE 
COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON 
POST OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. WE LISTEN TO 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS 
TO BOTH THE HOUSE IMPEACH 
MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE TEAM. QUESTION STARTED 
AROUND 1:00 THIS AFTERNOON  AND 
IT'S BEEN ABOUT FIVE HOURS AND 
TIME. THE ALLOTTED 16 HOURS. THE
Q&A WILL CONTINUE INTO THE 
EVENING AFTER THIS DINNER BREAK 
AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU 
LIVE AND UNINTERRUPTED. I'M 
JOINED NOW IN THE STUDIO. THANK 
YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE HAVE SEEN
MORE THAN 50 QUESTIONS ASKED SO 
FAR AND ORIGINALLY, INITIALLY 
SEEMED LIKE EVERY QUESTION WAS 
DESIGNED TO GIVE EACH SIDE A 
CHANCE TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE 
TALKING POINTS. THEY WERE 
SOFTBALLS. SOME QUESTIONS HAVE 
BEEN A LITTLE MORE PROBING. AND 
IT SEEMS LIKE TRYING TO GET TO 
SOME NEW ANSWERS. WANT TO PLAY 
ONE CLIP FOR YOU, ONE OF THE FEW
MOMENTS SO FAR, THEY SEEM TO 
WANT TO CLEAR THE TIMELINE ON 
THE PRESIDENT BRINGING UP THE 
BIDENS AND UKRAINE. LET'S 
LISTEN. 
>> WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THE HOUSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW 
THAT UKRAINE WITH A CORRUPT 
COUNTRY. BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ENTERED THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL RACE IN APRIL, 
2019, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER 
MENTION JOE OR HUNTER BIDEN IN 
CONNECTION WITH CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE TO FORM A OFFICIAL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CABINET 
MEMBERS OR TOP AIDES OR OTHERS? 
>> I'M LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN THE
RECORD. AND WHAT IS IN THE 
RECORD IS DETERMINED BY WHAT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
THOUGHT.
IT WAS THEIR PROCEEDING, THEY 
WERE THE ONES WHO RAN IT. THEY 
WERE THE ONES WHO CALLED THE 
WITNESSES. SO, PART OF THE 
QUESTION REFERS TO CONVERSATIONS
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
OTHER CABINET MEMBERS AND OTHERS
LIKE THAT. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING
OF THE RECORD ON THAT. IT WASN'T
PURSUED IN THE RECORD. SO I 
CAN'T POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE 
RECORD THAT SHOWS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AT AN EARLIER TIME 
MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY 
SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
>>
THEY WILL STRUGGLE FOR AN ANSWER
THAT. 
>> YES. THEY ARE ASKING A 
QUESTION, A MAIN TALKING POINT, 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ONLY WANTED
THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE 2020
ELECTION. LIKE YOU SAID, COUNSEL
COULDN'T ANSWER IT. HE SAID NO, 
I DON'T HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF 
ANYTHING COMING EARLIER IN THE 
RESIDENTS FOCUS ON BIDEN. HIS 
CAVEAT WAS WELL, IT IS THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS DURING THE 
INVESTIGATION AND THEREFORE 
MAYBE THERE'S EVIDENCE THEY 
DIDN'T UNCOVER. IT SOUNDS A 
LITTLE HOLLOW. HAVE TROUBLE 
FOLLOWING THAT LOGIC TO THE END.
>> ABSENTLY. ADAM SCHIFF CAME UP
AND SAID THAT THE COMPLETELY 
DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENT TO ME 
BECAUSE YOU ALSO CAN CALL 
WITNESSES AND IF THEY, IF THE 
TRUMP DEFENSE HAD WITNESSES WHO 
KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
TALKED ABOUT THE BIDENS AND 
CORRUPTION BEFORE JOE BIDEN WAS 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THEY COULD
HAVE PRESENTED WITNESSES AND 
THEY HAVEN'T. 
>> THIS IS OUR SENIOR 
CORRESPONDENT. OKAY, IN MOMENTS 
LIKE THAT, HOW ARE THE SENATORS 
REACTING? IS THERE NOTETAKING? 
IS THERE ACTIVE LISTENING?
>> YES. ABSOLUTELY. THE TWO 
STRETCHES I HAVE BEEN INSIDE THE
CHAMBER FOR FOR THE TRIAL, LIKE,
THEY ARE MORE ENGAGED BECAUSE
THIS FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES,
BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH, 
HAS A BIT MORE OF A ZING TO IT. 
THAN THE LONG, 30, 40, 90 MINUTE
SPEECHES THAT YOU HAD THE 
PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS OR THE 
PRESIDENTIAL LAWYERS. SO IT IS 
EASIER TO FOLLOW AND THERE 
AREN'T AS MANY MOMENTS WHERE 
THEY ARE GETTING UP AND WALKING 
AROUND. WHAT WAS REALLY CRITICAL
ABOUT THAT QUESTION RELATED TO 
THE BIDENS IS WHO IT CAME FROM. 
IT CAME FROM MURKOWSKI AND A 
COUPLE OF THE OTHER POTENTIALLY 
MODERATE REPUBLICANS ON THE 
WITNESS QUESTION. AND THEY ARE 
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE MOTIVE,
WHY DID TRUMP GO AFTER
JOE BIDEN? WAS THIS SOMETHING 
THAT HE WAS ALWAYS DOING? WAS IT
AN ISSUE OF CORRUPTION HE WAS 
ALWAYS PURSUING WITH UKRAINIANS?
OR WAS IT MERELY A NEW ISSUE 
THAT HE BROUGHT UP IN THE SUMMER
OF 2019 BECAUSE HE REALIZED HE 
WAS TRAILING HIM IN THE POLLS? 
THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING 
TO GET AT AND THE DEPUTY WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL WASN'T GOING TO 
GIVE IN AND BASICALLY SAID 
THAT'S NOT REALLY IN THE RECORD 
SO I CAN'T DISCUSS IT ALL THAT 
MUCH. 
>> WHAT MOMENTS HAVE YOU 
DESERVED THAT HAVE BROUGHT OUT 
YOU KNOW, EITHER A CHALLENGING 
MOMENT OR EITHER SIDE OF THIS OR
BROUGHT OUT NEW INFORMATION OR A
LACK OF NEW INFORMATION? A LACK 
OF ABILITY TO DEFEND OR ATTACK? 
>> THAT IS ONE OF THEM. I MEAN, 
WHAT YOU SEE, THE DEMOCRATIC 
RESPONSE TO MOMENTS LIKE THAT 
AND
SCHIFF DELIVERY, CHUCK SCHUMER 
DID IT FASTBREAK,  BASICALLY 
SAID, POINTED TO MOMENTS WHERE 
THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM SAYS WE 
CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND
SCHUMER SAYS THERE'S AN EASY WAY
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION OF MOTIVE. 
WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVE?
YOU COULD HAVE FIRST-HAND 
WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON. 
LIGHT MICK MULVANEY.
THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF 
MOMENTS IN THE LAST HOUR, THERE 
WERE A COUPLE OF TENSE MOMENTS, 
ONE WAS WHEN FROM THE JOHN 
KENNEDY AND JERRY MORAN, HE HAS 
BEEN THOUGHT OF AS A REPUBLICAN 
WHO MIGHT BE IN THE CAMP OF 
THOSE TRADITIONAL HAWKS WHO 
MIGHT WANT TO SIDE
WITH MITT ROMNEY AND HAVE MORE 
WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY BOLTON. 
BUT THE QUESTION THAT JOHN 
KENNEDY SUBMITTED WAS WHAT DID 
HUNTER BIDEN DO FOR THE MONEY 
THAT HE GOT FROM UKRAINIAN 
COMPANIES? IT WAS A VERY MUCH 
SOFTBALL QUESTION TO THE TRUMP 
LAWYERS THAT FORMER FLORIDA 
ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI 
STEPPED UP AND JUST GAVE A VERY 
PARTISAN RESPONSE. BASICALLY 
SAYING THAT ALL THEY KNOW IS A 
HUNTER BIDEN WENT TO ONE MEETING
IN MONACO AND WENT ON A FISHING 
TRIP. TO BE A BOARD MEMBER. IT 
WAS A VERY PARTISAN MOMENT AND 
DEMOCRATS WERE NOT HAPPY. THEN 
THERE WAS ANOTHER MOMENT IN 
WHICH JOE MANCHIN AGAIN, A 
DEMOCRAT WHO REPUBLICANS HAVE 
BEEN TRYING TO GET AND SO WHEN 
YOU SEE THE QUESTION YOU CAN SEE
THEM GOING THROUGH THESE SORT OF
POTENTIALLY UNDECIDED PEOPLE AS 
WHAT THEY ASK IS ALMOST MORE 
IMPORTANT THAN WHAT THE ANSWER 
IS. THEY ASKED WHAT CHANGED IN 
THE 22 YEARS FROM WHEN YOU SAID 
IN 1998 THAT THERE HAS TO BE A 
CRIME IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE 
IMPEACHMENT? WITH THE DOESN'T 
HAVE TO BE A CRIME TO BE 
IMPEACHMENT? TO NOW WHERE HE'S 
TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THERE IS, 
THERE HAS TO BE AN UNDERLYING 
CRIME. DERSHOWITZ BASICALLY CAME
TO A GLIB ANSWER, WAVING HIS 
ARMS AND SAID I STUDIED MORE. I 
CHANGED MY MIND. JERRY NADLER 
GOT UP TO GET HIS RESPONSE
AND WAS FAST, FURIOUS, FLIPPING 
THROUGH PAPERS, READING HIS 
ANSWER, SAYING EVERY LEGAL 
SCHOLAR HAS DETERMINED THAT IT 
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME. HE 
THEN SAID EVERY SCHOLAR EXCEPT 
MISTER DERSHOWITZ, POINTING AT 
HIM, AUDIBLE GASPS FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE ROOM. A 
REAL SORT OF LIGHTING MOMENT. 
WHERE NADLER AGAIN HAS FOUND HIS
WAY TO REALLY IRRITATE 
REPUBLICANS TIME AND AGAIN. 
>>
THAT WAS INTERESTING. 
>> THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING 
BECAUSE WE HAVE ALSO SEEN SENATE
REPUBLICANS ON THE BIKES OUTSIDE
OF THIS ROOM, BACKING AWAY A 
LITTLE BIT FROM EMBRACING DISH 
WITH SO MUCH BECAUSE HE IS SO 
CONTROVERSIAL WITHIN THE BROADER
ACADEMIA AROUND. CONSTITUTIONAL 
LAW AND HIS VIEW ON IMPEACHMENT 
AND CRIME. AND YET THERE ARE 
SEVERAL REPUBLICANS WHO DEEM HIS
ARGUMENTS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A
CRIME TO DEFEND TRUMP RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO SAY, 
WELL, TRUMP MAY HAVE DONE THIS 
STUFF BUT IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE. 
>> IT'S A STRONG POINT THAT WHO 
IS ASKING A QUESTION IS SO 
IMPORTANT, THE QUESTION IS 
IMPORTANT AND THE QUESTION WHILE
SIGNIFICANT IS REVEALING BECAUSE
SOMEONE LIKE JOE MANCHIN, WHAT 
IS ON HIS MIND? 
>> PEOPLE LIKE COLLINS AND 
MURKOWSKI, THE FIRST QUESTION 
OUT THE GATE THIS MOMENT WAS 
FROM MURKOWSKI, COLLINS AND 
ROMNEY, THE SENATORS EVERYONE IS
WATCHING. TO SEE IF THEY WILL 
ALLOW FOR WITNESSES. WHAT JOE 
MANCHIN AND THOSE THREE AND 
OTHER MODERATES WANT TO SHOW 
THEIR VOTERS IS THAT THEY ARE 
TAKING THIS VERY SERIOUSLY, 
ASKING SERIOUS QUESTIONS THAT 
COULD AFFECT THEIR VOTES. COMING
DOWN THE LINE. 
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
EARLY QUESTIONS. THIS TALK ABOUT
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING INSIDE THE 
CHAMBERS, WHO ARE YOU WATCHING, 
HOW ARE THE DYNAMICS AT PLAY IN 
TERMS OF SENATORS PASSING NOTES 
AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER, WHAT 
DO YOU SEE? 
>> A LOT OF THAT IS STILL THE 
SAME. SOMETIMES THEY'RE PASSING 
NOTES TO EACH OTHER, WHEN IT GOT
PAST 6:00 THAT WAS SORT OF THIS 
MOMENT EVERY DAY IN THE TRIAL, 
WHEN THEY GET TO 6:00 THEY GET 
I'M SORRY, THEY GET A BIT HUNGRY
AND THEY JUST HAVE TO GET UP AND
THEY STRETCH A LITTLE BIT. 
SOMETIMES BERNIE SANDERS, HE 
BOLTS AWAY FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES 
OR SO. PROBABLY TO GET A SNACK 
IN THE CLOAKROOM. AND YOU SORT 
OF SEE THEM REALLY GETTING 
TIRED. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS 
THAT IS REALLY INTERESTING SO 
FAR, YOU HAVEN'T HEARD FROM IS 
LAMAR ALEXANDER. PEOPLE WHO KEEP
LOOKING FOR A REPUBLICAN WHO 
WILL JOIN POTENTIALLY THOSE 
THREE IF MURKOWSKI JOINS COLLINS
AND ROMNEY EYEWITNESSES. THE 
TALK ABOUT LAMAR ALEXANDER. HE 
IS NOT ASKED A QUESTION YET AND 
I'M TOLD HE WILL NOT ASK A 
QUESTION. HE WILL JUST SIT BACK 
AND WATCH. HE DOESN'T WANT TO 
TRY TO TIP HIS HAND AT ALL. HE 
JUST SITS THERE QUIETLY, 
OBSERVING, SOMETIMES SCRIBBLING 
NOTES. HE'S JUST VERY STUDIOUS. 
>> I HAD A QUESTION FROM A 
VIEWER WHO ASKED, IT WOULD BE 
GREAT IF JUSTICE ROBERTS COULD 
TELL US THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE
CAN SAY THAT IS SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI OR THAT IS THE VOICE 
OF SENATOR KENNEDY FROM 
LOUISIANA BUT IF JUSTICE ROBERTS
DOESN'T SAY WHO IS ASKING THE 
QUESTION BECAUSE THE MEDIA ISN'T
CONTROLLING THE CAMERAS, WE 
CAN'T TELL WHO PERHAPS HAS GIVEN
IT. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT 
FRUSTRATION BECAUSE PEOPLE IN 
THE CHAMBERS CAN SEE WHO'S 
PUTTING IT FORTH. 
>> YES. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE
TIMES WHEN OUR DESK, THE 
WASHINGTON POST DESK IS OUTSIDE 
THE SENATE CHAMBER AND THERE 
HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE THOSE OF 
US WHO ARE ROTATING IN AND OUT 
AND HAVE PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER 
AT ALL TIMES BUT IT'S ROTATION. 
BETWEEN ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN IS A.
THERE TIMES WHERE AT OUR DESK 
WATCHING TV LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
WE KIND OF HEAR A VOICE THAT WE 
SORT OF RECOGNIZE BUT WE CAN'T 
TELL WHETHER THAT IS JEFF 
MERKLEY OR IS THAT TOM UDALL, 
THERE ARE MOMENTS WHERE WE ARE 
SUCK AS WELL. LOOK, CHIEF 
JUSTICE ROBERTS IS NEW TO THIS. 
HE DOES A REALLY EVER SET FOOT 
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER AND HE'S 
NOT THINKING ABOUT TELEVISION. 
THAT'S NOT REALLY HIS NORMAL 
THING. SO I THINK WE ARE JUST 
STUCK HERE. OUR FRIENDS AT CSPAN
HAVE BEEN GREAT SO FAR. THEY 
KEEP COMPILING DATA ABOUT HOW 
MANY, HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE 
SPOKEN, HOW MANY HOURS
, ADAM SCHIFF, HOW MANY HOURS 
LIKE I'M HOPING AT THE END OF 
THE DAY THEY WILL HAVE COMPILED 
THIS DATA TO TELL US ALL OF THE 
QUESTIONS AND WHO THEY ASKED. 
I'M REALLY RELYING ON C-SPAN. 
THEY ARE A NATIONAL TREASURE. 
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU ARE 
ONE OF THE FEW
REPORTERS WHO WAS COVERING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS 
WELL. I WAS GOING TO THE MINUTES
AND I SAW CHIEF JUSTICE 
REHNQUIST WOULD SAY THIS IS A 
QUESTION FROM SENATOR SO AND SO 
AND SO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? IT 
SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS MORE 
CLARITY. HE'S BEEN VERY 
STUDIOUS, HIS INTERCESSOR, KIND 
OF MISS THE MARK OR DIDN'T 
FOLLOW THAT? THE PRECEDENT? 
>> FOR AN ODD REASON THEY ARE 
LETTING THE SENATOR HIMSELF OR 
HERSELF STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS
THE QUESTION FROM SO AND SO AND 
IF YOU DON'T HEAR IT YOU DON'T 
RECOGNIZE THE VOICE. ESPECIALLY 
IF THEY DON'T HAVE A COHORT. IT 
BECOMES HARD. 
>> ALL RIGHT,
YOU KNOW, I HOPE YOU ARE NOT 
HUNGRY, I HOPE YOU GET A BREAK 
AND GET SOME FOOD. BEFORE WE LET
YOU GO LET ME ASK YOU WHAT ARE 
YOU WATCHING FOR FOR THE REST OF
THE NIGHT? IS THERE A SENSE OF 
EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS 
IN THE CHAMBER WANTING TO LIKE 
LEAVE WAS SOMETHING MEMORABLE IN
PEOPLE'S MINDS? 
>> HONESTLY, WHAT I'M LOOKING 
FOR IS OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER. I'M 
LOOKING, OR WHEN DURING BREAKS, 
WHETHER
THERE ARE SMALL HUDDLES OF KEY 
SWING VOTES ON EITHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE. WHETHER THEY ARE 
TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO BRING 
TOGETHER ANY SORT OF WITNESS 
MODES. SO I'M REALLY LOOKING AT 
IS THE OUTSIDE OF THE CHAMBER 
MOVEMENT. AND WHETHER OR NOT 
THERE'S ANY CHANCE OF GETTING
MORE THAN THREE REPUBLICANS TO 
JOIN DEMOCRATS ON THE WITNESS 
VOTE. WHICH WE THINK WOULD BE 
FRIDAY NIGHT. COULD SPILL INTO 
SATURDAY. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING
WITH US. I WANT TO LOOK OVERALL 
ABOUT THE MOOD AND TONE OF 
SENATORS.
AMBER, WHAT IS YOUR BIG CONCERN 
ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO 
BUY? 
>> I THINK THERE WERE TWO TONES.
ONE IS PARTISAN. LIKE LET'S SEE 
IF THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT 
HUTTON BIDEN? EVEN THOUGH HE'S 
NOT THE CENTER OF WHAT TRUMP 
ASKED THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT TO 
DO BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM 
ANYWAY. AND WE HEAR THE 
QUESTIONS WERE ALL OF OUR EARS 
PERK UP, THE POTENTIALLY ON THE 
FENCE SENATORS WHO ARE TAKING 
EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY BASED ON THE
QUESTIONS. THEY CAN'T ELABORATE,
THEY CAN TALK MORE. BESIDES THE 
QUESTIONS. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW 
WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE 
SCENES, BY THE ESSAY QUESTION, 
BUT I JOTTED A COUPLE DOWN THAT 
I THOUGHT WERE INTERESTING. 
BEYOND LISA MURKOWSKI AND 
COMPANY ASKING THE QUESTION 
ABOUT BIDEN AND WHEN TRUMP GOT 
INTERESTED. SHE ASKED THE 
DEFENSE TO EXPLAIN, SHE AND SOME
OTHERS, WHY THEY BLOCK 
SUBPOENAS, AND BEFORE THE HOUSE 
PASSED THIS RESOLUTION SAYING 
OKAY, WE ARE IN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? 
WHAT DOES THAT EXPLAIN IT. THE 
ARGUMENT WAS IN LEGAL DISPUTE, 
WHETHER YOU NEED THE HOUSE TO 
SAY WE ARE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AND A RESOLUTION. SHE 
AND A FEW MORE CONSERVATIVE 
SENATORS ASKED WHAT THE STANDARD
OF PROOF SHOULD BE WHICH I 
THOUGHT WAS REALLY. THEY WERE 
SAYING IS IT A CRIMINAL TRIAL? 
BEYOND A REASONABLE STANDARD OF 
DOUBT? 
>> FOR BOTH SIDES TO TAKE A LOOK
AT IT. 
>> YES. AND THEY GOT DIFFERENT 
ANSWERS. THESE ARE A COUPLE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS THAT ASKED 
SMART QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT 
TRIED TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD 
BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WERE ALSO 
GUILTY OF THESE PARTISAN 
QUESTIONS OF LIKE
SOFTBALLS TO ADAM SCHIFF AND 
COMPANY. THERE WAS A DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW HIS NAME 
FROM NEW MEXICO, AND HE ASKED 
THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN DID YOU 
LEARN OF THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT 
AND WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE WAS 
TRYING TO BLOCK IT? AND THE 
DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID 
HE COULDN'T SAY WHEN THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
LEARNED OF THE MANUSCRIPT. ADAM 
SCHIFF IS TRYING TO POKE A HOLE 
IN THAT WHEN HE GOT UP AND SAID 
THERE'S NO REASON THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL COULDN'T HAVE 
WALKED OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND SAID I CAN'T TELL YOU WITHIN
THE MANUSCRIPT BUT TRUST ME, 
DON'T LET BOLTON TALK. BASICALLY
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC
SENATOR PUT UP THERE IS THEIRS 
CORONATION BETWEEN THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN 
THE TRIAL TO PREVENT BOLTON FROM
TALKING. ONE OTHER THING IN MY 
NOTES IS ANGUS KING, FROM MAINE 
WHO HASN'T BEEN LIKE SUPER MAJOR
PLAYER IN ALL OF THIS, AS WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL IF JOHN KELLY, 
TRUMPS FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF 
AGREES WITH JOHN BOLTON THAT 
TRUMP TIED THE UKRAINE EIGHT, 
WHY SHOULD HE TESTIFY? WHAT 
HOUSE BASICALLY SAID THE 
PRESIDENT DENIES IT SO THAT'S 
THAT. 
>> ANYTHING STANDING OUT TO YOU?
>> IN TERMS OF PARTISAN 
QUESTIONS THEY TRIED TO GO
WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AGAIN. 
THEY TRY TO HAVE IDENTIFYING 
INFORMATION REVEALED. WHAT THEY 
DIDN'T CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENED AS
IT GAVE ADAM SCHIFF THE OPENING.
TO ADDRESS HEAD ON ALL OF THE 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AROUND HIS 
COMMITTEE, WORKING WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND HIM TO SAY I 
DON'T KNOW WHO WAS BLOWER IS, I 
NEVER MET HIM. HE OR SHE HAD NO 
COORDINATION WITH STAFF. AND 
THEN HE WENT ON TO COMPARE THE 
TREATMENT OF HIS STAFF TO MARINA
BONDAGE, HE SAID NO ONE 
UNDERSTANDS BETTER THAN MY STAFF
WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE SMEARED 
WITH A BUNCH OF CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES. 
>> HE ALSO LISTED STATEMENTS BY 
OTHERS, REPUBLICANS, TALKING 
ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS,
A POWERFUL MOMENT, THEY HAD IT 
READY GO, A SLIDE READY TO GO, 
PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT IT MOTHER
WAS BLOWER. I WANT TO POINT OUT 
THAT ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES WROTE
A PIECE ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
QUESTION, TWO COLLEAGUES
HAVE A PIECE IN THE WASHINGTON 
POST ABOUT TRUMP'S ALLIES 
TURNING TO ONLINE CAMPAIGN  TO 
UNMASK THE WAS A BLOWER. WITH A 
READ. IT SHOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING
OUTSIDE OF THESE CHAMBERS IN 
WAYS THAT MIGHT BE LEGALLY 
CHALLENGED.
>> AT ONE POINT ONE OF THE 
EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHISTLEBLOWER CAME FROM TED CRUZ
AND ANOTHER SENATOR, I THINK 
LINDSEY GRAHAM, IS IT BASICALLY 
ASKING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
TO OPINE ON A REPORT THAT IS OUT
THERE THAT NAMED THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. AND ALLEGING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD TIES WITH 
PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO GET TRUMP 
OUT, LIKE THE FBI DEEP STATE 
THEORY OVER IN THE CIA AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL I THOUGHT, A
LITTLE LIKE A COMFORTABLE. HE 
SAID I DON'T WANT TO TALK MORE 
ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE NEWS. THE 
SENATORS WERE BASICALLY POINTING
PEOPLE WHO WERE LISTENING TO 
REPORTS THAT NAMED THIS ALLEGED
WHISTLEBLOWER. TITLES 
REMARKABLE. 
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE 
QUESTION OF JOHN BOLTON. 
TESTIFYING OR THE MANUSCRIPT. 
ARE WE SEEING ANY NEEDLE 
MOVEMENT? IT'S HARD TO TELL. WE 
CAN GAIN SOME INFERENCES FROM 
WHO IS ASKING WHAT QUESTIONS. 
ARE WE SEEING ANY MOVEMENT ON 
THIS APPEAL TO HAVE JOHN BOLTON 
TESTIFY OR FOR THE MANUSCRIPT TO
BE IN THE HANDS OF THE SENATORS?
>> IT'S HARD TO SAY. THESE MINI 
BREAKS YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO ASK SENATORS
. A LOT HAVE NOT SHOWED THEIR 
HANDS UNTIL THIS POINT. I DON'T 
THINK THEY WILL. UNTIL THE VOTE 
HAPPENS. IT'S INTERESTING IS 
THEIRS'S BATTLE BETWEEN BOLTON 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE. WHERE THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T 
REALLY RELEASE THIS BOOK IT'S 
CLASSIFIED AND BEFORE I CAME ON 
BOLTON'S ATTORNEY RESPONDED 
SAYING YOU NEED TO TELL ME 
EXACTLY WHAT IS CLASSIFIED IN 
HERE BECAUSE MY CLIENT MIGHT BE 
OUT TO TEST BY NEXT WEEK. 
>> I WANT TO PLAY A BIT OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS. LAST WEEK WHEN THE 
WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER TO 
JOHN BOLTON'S LAWYER, WHAT THEY 
SAID WAS IT CONTAINED TOP-SECRET
MATERIAL THAT COULD ENDANGER 
NATIONAL SECURITY. THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE WAS ASKED 
ABOUT  WHEN THEY KNEW THAT 
MANUSCRIPT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND WHETHER THERE 
WAS ANY ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ITS 
PUBLICATION. HERE'S HOW PHILBIN 
RESPONDED. 
>> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF 
MY HEAD THE EXACT DATE. THE 
MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO
THE NSC FOR REVIEW AND WAS WITH 
STAFF FOR REVIEW. THE OFFICE WAS
NOTIFIED IT WAS THERE.
TENNESSEE RELEASED A STATEMENT 
EXPLAINING THAT IT IS NOT 
REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE NSC 
STAFF. IN TERMS OF THE SECOND 
PART OF THE QUESTION,
HASN'T BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO 
PREVENT ITS PUBLICATION OR TO 
BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION? I THINK 
THERE WERE SOME MISINFORMATION 
PUT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC REALM 
EARLIER TODAY. IT IS WITH THE 
NSC DOING THEIR FREE PUBLICATION
REVIEW.
THROUGH THE LAWYER, AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE 
MANUSCRIPTS HE SUBMITTED 
CONTAINED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION INCLUDING
TOP-SECRET LEVEL SO IN ITS 
CURRENT FORM IT CAN'T BE 
PUBLISHED. BUT THEY WILL BE 
WORKING WITH HIM AS QUICKLY AS 
POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE SO 
IT CAN BE REVISED AND HE CAN 
TELL HIS STORY. 
>> IT SEEMS TO PREDICTABLE 
QUESTION. TO THE PRESIDENT TEAM 
BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THIS? 
>> I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, HE 
HAS A LETTER AND THIS IS A NEW 
REPORTED LETTER THAT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL SENT 
TO THE FORMER BOSS, JOHN BOLTON.
AND AGAIN MENTIONED EARLIER, 
ADAM SCHIFF CAME AFTER THAT AND 
SAID EVEN IF LIKE AS THE WHITE 
HOUSE SAID THEY ARE NOT CLEAR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THIS 
BOOK THAT IS COMING OUT AND WHAT
IS GOING TO BE A PRESIDENT TRUMP
COULD HAVE KNOWN THERE WAS 
SOMETHING, SOMETHING, LIKE 
SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE 
REVIEWING AND IT GOT A HEADS UP.
I'M PARAPHRASING ADAM SCHIFF, HE
SAID THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT 
HIM FROM WALKING TO THE WEST 
WING AND SAYING DELAY JOHN 
BOLTON TESTIFY. TRUST ME ON THAT
ONE. ALLEGATION THERE'S 
OCCLUSION WITHIN THE WHITE 
HOUSE. TO USE CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION TO PROTECT PRESIDENT
TRUMP IN HIS TRIAL. 
>> JOINING US NOW IS A NATIONAL 
CORRESPONDENT. SO HE TALKS ABOUT
WHAT HE CALLS A REMARKABLE CLAIM
THAT ANYTHING THAT TRUMP DOES TO
GET REELECTION COULD BE 
CONSIDERED, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO LET'S
GO DEEPER ON THAT. REMIND US OF 
THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD FROM 
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL 
AND THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS 
THAT WERE IN YOUR WORDS 
WORKABLE. 
>> RIGHT. ONE OF THE FIRST 
QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP TODAY WAS
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE 
HOUSE HAD MET THE STANDARD TO 
IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ONE 
OF THE ATTORNEYS BASICALLY SAID 
THAT UNDER THE STANDARD THAT THE
HOUT HAD SET FORTH IF THERE IS 
ANY WAY IN WHICH TRUMP'S ACTIONS
CAN BE CONSTRUED  AS BEING IN 
THE PUBLIC BENEFIT HE CAN'T BE 
IMPEACHED. HE SAYS THAT'S 
ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET 
BY THE HOUSE. IT WAS INTERESTING
TO HEAR PHILBIN SAY IT WASN'T 
THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY WAS ACTING 
IN THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PET BUT 
IF IT COULD BE CONSTRUED IN THAT
WAY. THAT HE COULDN'T BE 
IMPEACH. IF YOU COMBINE THAT 
WITH LATER TESTIMONY FROM ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ,  ANOTHER PERSON ON 
TRUMP'S TEAM, HE MADE A VERY 
SWEEPING  AND SORT OF STAGGERING
CLAIM WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE 
PUBLIC BENEFIT COULD INCLUDE IF 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING HIS 
OWN REELECTION. AFTER ALL, 
DONALD TRUMP, HIS THEME IS KEEP 
AMERICA GREAT, SUGGESTING HE 
THINKS HE IS, HIS PRESIDENCY IS 
ITSELF BENEFICIAL TO THE UNITED 
STATES. THEREFORE THAT'S THE 
CONCEPTION, ACTING IN, EVEN 
ACTING ON HIS OWN BEHALF THAT'S 
IN THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. THEREFORE
HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED FOR IT. IT
IS A SWEEPING ARGUMENT. I THINK 
NO ONE OUTSIDE OF PERHAPS 
TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM  WOULD ADHERE
TO IT. IT WAS QUITE A STAGGERING
CLAIM. 
>> LET'S LISTEN TO THE TAPE, 
THIS IS ALAN DERSHOWITZ ARGUING 
THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE 
GUILTY. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE 
INTERTWINED WITH THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
>> WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD 
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE 
TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT 
THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY WITH THAT THE AND UNLAWFUL
QUID PRO QUO? NO, THE PRESIDENT 
BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND HE BELIEVED HIS 
ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO 
VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. EVERY 
PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. THAT IS
WHY IT'S SO DANGEROUS. TO TRY TO
CYCLE, PSYCHOANALYZE THE 
PRESIDENT, TO GET INTO THE HUMAN
MIND. EVERYBODY HAS MIXED 
MOTIVES. AND FOR THERE TO BE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED
ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT 
ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE 
IMPEACHED. 
>> CAN YOU RESPOND TO THAT? 
>>
THIS IS A HEADLINE BECAUSE YOU 
HAVE SOMEONE SAYING BASICALLY 
THE PRESIDENT, IF IT WILL HELP 
THEM GET REELECTED. 
>> EXACTLY. IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR 
THE GREATEST PRESIDENT COMING OF
THE GREATEST THINGS FOR THIS 
COUNTRY GETTING REELECTED IS 
SERVING THE NATION'S INTEREST. 
YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO 
TRY TO GET REELECTED WHICH IS A 
REALLY BROAD CLAIM AND UNCLEAR 
HOW FAR DERSHOWITZ WOULD TAKE 
THAT. WERE THERE ANY LIMITS TO 
ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? 
>> I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A 
MANIFESTATION OF THE TRUMP TEAM 
EMBRACING THE SO WHAT IF HE DID 
ARGUMENT. SO WHAT IF HE HELD UP 
MILITARY AID
TO FORCE UKRAINE TO MAKE JOE 
BIDEN LOOK BACK? HE DID IT, YOU 
KNOW, I'M SORRY, WHAT IF HE DID 
IT,
IT'S A MANIFESTATION OF JOHN 
BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT COMING OUT I
THINK. WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE AT A
VERY HIGH LEVEL SAYING TRUMP DID
IT. WHY DON'T WE START 
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT? HOW ARE WE 
GOING TO ARGUE IT'S OKAY? 
BECAUSE TRUMP SAYS IT'S OKAY 
BECAUSE HE THINKS WHATEVER HE 
WANTS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST.
>> I WONDER HOW THAT GOES OVER 
WITH SENATORS. THAT IS SOMETHING
I THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MUCH
OKAY WITH THE ARGUMENT, WHAT 
ABOUT A MODERATE REPUBLICAN? HOW
DOES A GOFER WITH THEM? 
>> QUITE FRANKLY I DON'T THINK 
PEOPLE ARE ON BOARD WITH TEAM 
TRUMP AND WILL REACH OUT AND 
EMBRACE THIS THING. FOR ALL OF 
THE TENSION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS 
AN AMPLIFIED TWO DIFFERENT 
LEVELS DEPENDING ON WHAT PARTY 
YOU'RE IN, I DON'T THINK ANYONE 
WILL SAY THE PRESIDENT NO MATTER
WHAT HE DOES AS LONG AS HE 
THINKS IT WILL GET HIM REELECTED
IS CLEAR AND CAN'T BE IMPEACH. I
DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL EMBRACE 
AT IN PART BECAUSE ALL OF, 
EVERYONE ON CAPITOL HILL, ALL 
REPUBLICANS UNDERSTAND DEMOCRATS
AT SOME POINT WILL BE PRESIDENT 
AGAIN AND IF THEY SAY YES, I 
AGREE WITH THIS STANDARD, FOR 
ALL OF THE HYPOCRISY WE HAVE 
SEEN, ALL THE OLD VIDEOS FROM 
1999,
I WOULD SAY, I THINK AMBER IS 
RIGHT IN THAT AT EXEMPLIFIES 
TRUMP IS DOING BUT WHAT IT 
REALLY EXEMPLIFIES IS THAT HE 
SAYS ALLEN, COME ON BMI TEAM AND
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS OVER HIS HEAD
IN TERMS OF HIS ARGUMENTS. HE'S 
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER BY 
TRADE. I THINK HE MADE IT VERY, 
VERY SWEEPING THE DONALD TRUMP 
I'M SURE ACTUALLY THOUGHT WAS 
FANTASTIC, BUT I THINK PROBABLY 
THE OTHER LAWYERS AT THE TABLE 
WERE KIND OF RUBBING THEIR HEAD.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT POINT OUT THAT
THE FIRST QUESTION CAME FROM 
THAT GROUP OF MODERATES. WE TALK
ABOUT MURKOWSKI, COLLINS AND 
ROMNEY ASKING ABOUT MOTIVE AND 
WHAT A PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE 
THAN ONE MOTIVE? WHAT IF THERE 
WAS AN OFFICIAL MOTIVE? BATTLING
CORRUPTION? AND ALSO A PERSONAL 
MOTIVE? THAT ARGUMENT, 
DERSHOWITZ, THE ARGUMENT IS NOT 
GOING TO SATISFY THEIR QUESTION.
>> SIGNIFICANT THAT IT CAME FROM
THEM. 
>> I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO
ASK VERY POINTED QUESTIONS. WE 
DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE 
MORE WITNESSES AND OPEN THE DOOR
TO CONVICTING THE PRESIDENT. 
GIVE ME A STANDARD OF PROOF. 
DERSHOWITZ AND I THINK THE LEGAL
TREAT DECIDES IT. WELL, THE 
PRESIDENT, JUST TRUST US. HE'S 
DOING THIS IN OUR INTEREST. 
SHOULDN'T CAST DOUBT ON HIS 
JUDGMENT. HE'S THE PRESIDENT. I 
THINK THAT THE DERIVATIVE OF 
WHAT WE HEARD EARLIER
WHICH IS AMERICA ELECTED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SO LET'S TRUST 
HIS JUDGMENT. EVEN IF IT MEANS 
IGNORING CONGRESS APPROPRIATE IN
THE AID. LET'S TRUST THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>>
IS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN 
OFFRAMP FOR THE MODERATE 
SENATORS, A CHANCE TO SAY LOOK, 
WE CAN'T LOOK INTO A MAN
, WE CAN LOOK INTO HIS HEART, WE
CAN ONLY TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD. 
IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE MOTIVES 
GETS HIM OFF THE HOOK FOR VOTING
TO IMPEACH. AND EVEN FOR CALLING
FOR MORE WITNESSES. BUT IT 
DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THAT COUNSEL, 
THE DEPUTY COUNSEL PHILBIN OR 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ GAVE THEM THAT 
OPPORTUNITY. AND THE DEMOCRATS 
TURNED IT AROUND AND SAID THIS 
WAS PROOF THEY NEEDED TO CALL 
WORK WITNESSES. WHAT ARE YOU 
WATCHING FOR IN TERMS OF 
SATISFYING THE CONCERNS AND 
QUESTIONS THE MODERATES HAVE? 
>> IT'S INTERESTING IT WAS ONE 
OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS BECAUSE 
IT SET THE TONE FOR THE 
RESPONSES WE ARE GOING TO GET. 
IT IS A VALID QUESTION. IF 
YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT THE PRESIDENT DID 
SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE YOU MAY 
BE TRYING TO GAUGE IF YOU 
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT PART OF 
WHY HE FOCUSED ON BIDEN IN THE 
CALL WAS OUT OF SINCERE CONCERN 
FOR CORRUPTION. WHERE'S THE LINE
AT WHICH HIS MOTIVATION MAKES IT
SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE? WHAT WE
SAW IS WE SAW NOT REALLY VERY 
HELPFUL ANSWERS. WE SAW TRUMP'S 
TEAM MAKING  AN ASSERTION THAT 
POTENTIALLY THERE WAS NO LINE 
AND HE COULD HAVE ANY, AS LONG 
AS THIS ONE, TINY IOTA OF PUBLIC
BENEFIT IT WAS FINE. YOUR THE 
DEMOCRATS SAYING THE OPPOSITE, 
THERE IS NO DEMONSTRATION AT ALL
THAT HE WAS ACTING IN THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT REGARDLESS OF WHEN IOTA 
OF CORRUPT INTENT HE CAN BE 
IMPEACHED.
WHO MADE THE BEST ARGUMENT? 
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. 
BUT I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS, WE'RE
TRYING TO LOOK INSIDE A BLACK 
BOX OF THE SENATORS HEADS AND 
FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY LAND ON 
IT. I THINK ONE THING WE HAVE 
SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN WE
HAVE THESE QUESTIONS, 
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, THE 
TIE-BREAKING FACTOR IS THE PARTY
IN SOME WAYS. IT'LL BE 
FASCINATING TO SEE WHETHER THAT 
HOLDS PICK 
>> LISA MURKOWSKI WAS ASKING 
ABOUT SENATOR CRUISE, IF IT IS 
THE STANDARD OF PROOF. I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT THE CALL FOR 
WITNESSES FROM THE PUBLIC. 
LOOKING AT THE LATEST POLLS AND 
WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SEE 
FROM POTENTIAL WITNESSES.
>> WE HAVE SEEN POLL NUMBERS 
WHICH REPEATEDLY SUGGEST THAT 
PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO SEE 
WITNESSES. THAT IS BEEN ELEVATED
BY PEOPLE, CRITICS OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAY WE HAVE TO BRING IN 
WITNESSES INTO THE PROCEDURE. 
BUT I THINK IT MISSES SOMETHING.
DO WANT TO SEE WITNESSES AND 
THEN THEY ASKED DO YOU THINK THE
DEMOCRATS WANT WITNESSES BECAUSE
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN A FAIR 
TRIAL BUT REPUBLICANS
SAID THE LETTER. THE DEMOCRATS 
WANT WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY'RE 
TRYING TO TAKE DOWN REPUBLICANS.
WITH THAT SUGGESTS IS WHILE 
REPUBLICANS IN THE POLL, ABOUT 
HALF WANTED TO SEE WITNESSES, 
THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE 
DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES. THEY WANT 
TO SEE WITNESSES LIKE HUNTER 
BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN AND ADAM 
SCHIFF SITTING UP THERE. WHILE 
IT IS TRUE
THAT MOST AMERICANS WANT TO SEE 
WITNESSES IT IS NOT THE CASE 
THAT AMERICANS WANT TO SEE THE 
SAME WITNESSES. IT IS NOT THE 
CASE THAT REPUBLICANS WILL HEAR 
FROM BOLTON. IT'S NOT THE CASE 
THE DEMOCRATS WILL HEAR FROM 
HUNTER BIDEN. I THINK THE 
MIDDLEGROUND, EVERYONE WILL BE 
UNHAPPY SO LET'S COME ON. THAT 
IS PROBABLY PART OF THE CASEY 
TRY TO MEET. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING
WITH US.
I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CHASING 
FOLKS AROUND AS WE WERE WATCHING
TO SEE WHAT SENATORS MIGHT SAY 
AS THEY COME OUT OF THE SENATE 
CHAMBERS. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING? 
>> MOMENTS AFTER THEY ADJOURNED 
FOR THE DINNER BREAK WE SPOKE TO
A FEW SENATORS, DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS AS THEY CAME OUT, 
THEY CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AND 
REACTIONS ARE NOT SURPRISING BUT
IT SHOWS THEY ARE STANDING FIRM 
ON THEIR POSITIONS. FOR 
INSTANCE, CHUCK SCHUMER CAME OUT
AND SAID THIS HAS BEEN A VERY 
SUCCESSFUL DAY. HE SAYS ALL THE 
QUESTIONS HAVE SHOWN THE HOUSE 
MANAGER'S CASE WILL PREVAIL AND 
HE IS HOPEFUL THAT FOUR OR MORE 
REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES. BEFORE THAT HE HAS 
BEEN SAYING THIS WILL BE AN 
UPHILL BATTLE BUT TODAY AFTER HE
CAME OUT OF THE CHAMBERS JUST 
NOW HE SAID HE IS HOPEFUL THAT 
HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL 
VOTE ON FRIDAY FOR WITNESSES. AT
LEAST FOUR OF THEM. ALSO TIM 
SCOTT CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AS 
WELL AS JOHN -- AND THEY ARE 
STANDING FIRM SAYING THAT 
DERSHOWITZ, HIS CASE TODAY AND 
THE ANSWERS HE GAVE WERE SOLID 
AND REALLY ATTACKING THE 
DEMOCRATS CASE. THAT SIDE THINKS
THEY ARE GOING TO PREVAIL AS 
WELL. ONE ARGUMENT THAT THEY 
STARTED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY
IS THAT THEY WANT THIS TO MOVE 
FORWARD BECAUSE THEY SAY NOW 
THIS IS ABOUT THE SENATE 
STOPPING ITS WORK. JOHN SAID 
THAT IF THEY CONTINUE ON WITH 
THIS, THIS IS NONSENSE BECAUSE 
THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT
BE REMOVED. THEY KNOW DEMOCRATS 
DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR THAT. 
REALLY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS A
PROLONGED PHASE OF QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS. PROLONGING THE WHOLE 
PROCEDURE. SO BOTH SIDES ARE 
SAYING THINGS THAT ARE 
INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT AS YOU 
MIGHT EXPECT. THAT IS WHAT THEY 
ARE SAYING NOW. 
>> I LOVE TO GET A SENSE OF YOUR
SENSE OF HOW THINGS ARE GOING. 
CHUCK SCHUMER THINGS THINGS ARE 
GOING BUT WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF 
WHETHER THIS IS UNEARTHING NEW 
INFORMATION OR DESIGNED TO SCORE
POLITICAL POINTS. 
>> I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MOVE 
ON, THIS WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, 
THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO 
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. I THINK 
THAT'S KIND OF TELLING WHERE 
REPUBLICANS FEEL RIGHT NOW. THAT
IS SAYING THEY ARE PERHAPS IN A 
CORNER WHERE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY
CAN'T SAY MUCH MORE ABOUT 
STOPPING BOLTON SO NOW THEY ARE 
TRYING TO FIND A NEW NARRATIVE. 
SAYING THAT WE NEED TO MOVE PAST
EVERYTHING.
I THINK THAT MAY GIVE US PERHAPS
A GLIMPSE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE 
TRYING TO SCHIFF THE MESSAGING 
NOW , KNOWING THAT THERE'S A LOT
OF PRESSURE RIGHT NOW FOR THAT 
WHEN THIS VOTE AND THEY AREN'T 
DENYING IT. JUST TRYING TO 
SCHIFF THE MESSAGE RIGHT NOW.  
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE ARE SEEING THE TIME BROKEN 
INTO TWO DAYS. WE TALKED TO PAUL
EARLIER THAT THIS IS A FASTER 
CLIP. IT WILL ENGAGE SENATORS 
MORE WITH ACTIVE LISTENING. WERE
NOT SEEING REPUBLICANS MAKING 
DEMONSTRABLE, NOT LISTENING, WE 
ARE SO BORED, THOSE KINDS OF 
MOTIONS, AND THEY ARE BEING 
INVOKED, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT 
HEARING THE VOICES THAT MUCH. 
THEY ARE PAYING MORE ATTENTION. 
I WONDER IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
IS TUNED INTO THIS AND IF THIS 
PROCESS IS PLAYING OUT IN THIS 
ROOM OR PLAYING OUT MORE
ON SOCIAL MEDIA, TELEVISION NEWS
SHOWS, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, 
YES OR NO? I GUESS WE WILL SEE 
IF SENATORS ARE FEELING THE 
PRESSURE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
>> THEY WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO GO
BACK HOME. AND HEAR FROM PEOPLE.
EVEN IF THIS IS LIKE A NORMAL 
SESSION AND THEY ONLY HAVE ONE 
WEEK BREAK THEY YOU NORMALLY JET
OUT OF TOWN TO HOME. THEY DON'T 
HAVE TIME TO DO THAT AND GET 
FEEDBACK. I WAS INTERESTED IN 
POLL NUMBERS, THEY MIGHT SHED 
LIGHT ON THE QUESTION, 
REPUBLICANS WANT TO SEE 
WITNESSES BUT THEY WANT TO SEE 
FOLKS LIKE HUNTER BIDEN. THAT 
WAS IT THE CASE BEFORE THE 
SENATE TRIAL GOT STARTED. THE 
WASHINGTON POST ABC NEWS POLL 
FOUND TWO AND THREE REPUBLICANS 
AGREED THAT TRUMP SHOULD ALLOW 
HIS TOP AIDES TO TESTIFY. WHERE 
IN DIFFERENT TERRITORY WHICH TO 
ME SUGGESTS THAT PERHAPS PEOPLE 
ARE WATCHING, WE KNOW THAT THE 
CONSERVATIVE MEDIA MACHINE HAS 
BEEN LOUD AND UNDERMINING 
REPUBLICANS, FIGURES LIKE JOHN 
BOLTON IN A WAY THAT IS 
JAW-DROPPING, LIKE MAYBE IT IS 
WORKING. AND THAT SUGGESTS THAT 
SOME PEOPLE AREN'T WATCHING THE 
TRIAL AND HEARING ADAM SCHIFF 
RESPOND, THEY ARE WATCHING CLIPS
AT NIGHT. 
>> TALK TO US ABOUT THIS ATTACK 
THAT IS GOING ON AGAINST JOHN 
BOLTON. AND THE WAY THAT JOHN 
BOLTON AND HIS REPUTATION HAS 
RADICALLY CHANGED IN THE EYES OF
FOX NEWS. 
>> FOR ANY POLITICAL REPORTER 
THAT IS COVERED JOHN BOLTON, 
SOMEONE WHO WAS AS CONSERVATIVE 
AS YOU CAN GET, A DARLING OF THE
FAR RIGHT, HAD A SUPER PAC THAT 
SUPPORTED CONSERVATIVE 
REPUBLICANS. HOCK AND A 
CHARACTER AND AN ICON.
NOW HE'S LIKE THE LIBERAL LAST 
GASP. AND YOU HAVE FOX ATTACKING
HIM BECAUSE HE DARED TO GO UP 
AGAINST TRUMP. YOU HAVE THE
MSNBC OF THE WORLD CELEBRATING 
BOLTON IF HE DOES COME FORWARD 
AND TESTIFY AGAINST TRUMP. 
EVERYTHING IS UPSIDE DOWN. 
>> UNTIL THE MANUSCRIPT AND THE 
INFORMATION CAME OUT ABOUT WHAT 
THE CONTENT COULD BE, NO ONE 
KNEW WHAT BOLTON MIGHT OFFER AND
THERE WERE INDICATIONS OR FLARES
HE SENT UP BUT NEITHER SIDE WAS 
READY TO THROW HIM INTO A BEAR 
HUG BUT THE REPUBLICANS PUSHED 
FROM MORE BUT I WONDER IF 
DEMOCRATS WANT HIM AS A WITNESS 
OR JUST WANTED TO PUSH AND TRY 
TO CRACK OPEN THE CALL FOR 
WITNESSES GENERALLY. THERE 
WASN'T A GUARANTEE AS TO WHAT 
EXACTLY HE WOULD TALK ABOUT.
>> I SAID YOUR SHOW BEFORE THE 
MANUSCRIPT, WHAT IF JOHN BOLTON 
DOESN'T HAVE A LOT TO SAY? I SAW
A LAWYER REPRESENT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND IT RESONATED, 
IF YOU READ OUT THE TRANSCRIPTS 
FROM THE INTERVIEW HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS HAD LIKE MAYBE WE KNOW
EVERYTHING. BECAUSE FIONA HILL 
WAS FORTHCOMING, ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN, PEOPLE WORKING UNDER 
JOHN BOLTON, WHAT IF THERE WAS A
MORE TO SAY? IT TURNS OUT AT 
LEAST IN THIS MEETING THERE WAS.
BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, BECAUSE HE IS
SUCH A CONSERVATIVE FIGURE AND 
DOESN'T SEEM WILLING TO 
UNDERMINE DECADES AND DECADES OF
WORK AND HIS REPUTATION, IS HE 
REALLY GOING TO LIKE THROW A 
BOMB ON PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> HE HAS A FUNDRAISING PACK AND
HIS OWN ASPIRATIONS AND 
AMBITIONS OF WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR
HIM. SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHAT HE MIGHT OFFER. ANYMORE 
MOMENT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
TODAY? 
>> I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS 
THAT WAS SENT TO ME WAS AFTER 
SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ASKED A 
QUESTION AND ANYONE WHO WATCHES 
THE HILL KNOWS SHE IS A 
PROSECUTOR AND AND SHE IS ABLE 
TO SPEAK IN HEARINGS AND IN THE 
COMMITTEES SHE ASKED TOUGH 
QUESTIONS. HER QUESTION WAS 
PERHAPS ONE THAT
TEED UP ADAM SCHIFF TO ANSWER IN
A WAY THAT WAS FAVORABLE FOR 
DEMOCRATS. IT ALSO SHOWS 
STRATEGY. LET'S TAKE A LISTEN. 
>> THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING OF 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH,  
GET RID OF HER, GET HER OUT 
TOMORROW. I DON'T CARE. GET HER 
OUT TOMORROW. TAKE HER OUT. 
OKAY. DO IT.". 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS 
ORDER, TWO MEN CARRIED OUT HIS 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE. AT
THE DIRECTION OF RUDY GIULIANI. 
DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE 
SUGGEST THAT IF THE SENATE DOES 
NOT PURSUE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE
INCLUDING WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS, THE NEW EVIDENCE WILL
CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT AFTER 
THE SENATE RENDERS A VERDICT. 
>> THE ANSWER IS YES. WHAT WE 
HAVE SEEN REALLY OVER THE LAST 
SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE PASSAGE 
OF THE ARTICLES IS EVERY WEEK 
INDEED, SOMETIMES EVERY DAY, 
THERE IS NEW INFORMATION COMING 
TO LIGHT. WE KNOW THERE WILL BE 
NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT 
ON MARCH 17. WHEN THE BOLTON 
BOOK COMES OUT. THAT IS AT THE 
NSC ISN'T SUCCESSFUL IN 
REDACTING IT. OR PREVENTING MUCH
OF HIS PUBLICATION. THEY WILL 
CONTINUE TO HAVE REVELATIONS AND
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE, WILL HAVE TO 
ANSWER QUESTIONS, EACH TIME IT 
DOES, WHY DID YOU WANT TO KNOW 
THAT WHEN IT WOULD'VE HELPED 
INFORM YOUR DECISION? 
>> THE STRATEGY THAT I THINK 
COULD BE EFFECTIVE, IT BRINGS UP
A TROUBLING PART OF THE EVIDENCE
WE SEE IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS. 
SUBMITTING TEXT MESSAGES THAT 
SHOW THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO OUST
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND THEN 
A LOT OF PEOPLE FOUND THAT 
TROUBLING. THEY FOUND THE WORDS 
TROUBLING. TAKE HER UP. THAT IS 
HIGHLIGHTED  AND ALSO AT THE END
IT PUTS THE ONUS BACK ON THE 
SENATE. IF YOU DON'T DO 
SOMETHING NOW THIS IS ONLY GOING
TO CONTINUE AND MORE EVIDENCE 
WILL COME OUT AND YOU ALL WILL 
BE ON THE LINE FOR NOT HAVING 
HANDLED IT NOW. THAT WAS ONE 
QUESTION THAT REALLY STOOD OUT 
TO ME TODAY. 
>> YOU MENTIONED LEV PARNAS, HE 
WAS HEADING THE CAPITOL HILL 
THIS MORNING. WITHIN THE 
CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS PRESENCE 
ON CAPITOL HILL? UTILITY OF HIM?
TRYING TO GET INTO THE CHAMBER? 
>> OUR COLLEAGUES CALLED IT SORT
OF
THE SIDESHOW, IT ADDS AN ELEMENT
OF CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE. WHEN YOU 
SEE A WITNESS WHO IS A SHADOWY 
FIGURE IN ALL OF THIS. 
DOWNSTAIRS IN THE BASEMENT AND 
WALKING SLOWLY TOWARD THE 
CHAMBER. THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH,
THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH TO 
INSPIRE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER 
PHASE THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH 
DISCUSSION ON THE HALLWAYS. I 
THINK
PEOPLE WERE REMINDED HE IS A 
FIGURE IN THIS, HE COULD BE A 
WITNESS AT SOME POINT. ALSO IT 
REMINDS PEOPLE OF SORT OF THE 
FACT THAT HE DIDN'T COME FORWARD
WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO ON THE 
HOUSE SIDE AND NOW BREK BOLTON 
IS COMING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE.
SO THAT IS THE TAKE AWAY FROM 
THE LEV PARNAS EXPERIENCE THIS 
MORNING. 
>> HE TRIED TO GET IN, HE IS 
UNDER INDICTMENT AND WAS NOT 
ALLOWED IN BECAUSE OF THE 
ELECTRONICS ROLL. THANK YOU. I 
WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE TO 
STORY PUBLISHED BY THE LAST HALF
HOUR, BOLTON'S LAWYER CONTENDS 
THERE IS NO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL 
AND ASKED FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW 
SO HE CAN TESTIFY IF CALLED. 
THIS QUESTION OF HIS BOLTON 
PREPARING FOR A POSSIBLE TIME TO
TESTIFY, AMBER. 
>> BONE SPOKE OUT THROUGH HIS 
LAWYERS AND WE HEARD WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL TODAY SAY WELL, OUR 
OFFICIALS SAY JOHN BOLTON SPOKE 
IS CLASSIFIED AND ESSENTIALLY
THE MESSAGE WAS TO SET IT ASIDE,
JUST IGNORE THAT INFORMATION 
WHEN YOU DECIDE WHAT TO DO. 
BOLTON IS PUSHING BACK 
ESSENTIALLY AND SAYING A COUPLE 
THINGS HERE. NO, IS NOT 
CLASSIFIED. THIS SHOULD BE 
PUBLISHED IN MARCH. I SHOULDN'T 
HAVE TO REWRITE IT WITH 
HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE. AND LIKE YOU SAID, LIBBY,
THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED
REVIEW OF THE CHAPTER ON UKRAINE
BECAUSE THIS IMPERATIVE THAT WE 
HAVE THE RESULTS OF YOUR REVIEW 
OF THE CHAPTER AS SOON AS 
POSSIBLE. TO GO TESTIFY. TO ME 
THAT SAYS WHAT DOES HE KNOW? IT 
SEEMS LIKE THAT CHAPTER ABOUT 
UKRAINE AS PART THAT LEADS TO 
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" AND 
PROBABLY IS CENTRAL TO WHAT HE 
WILL TESTIFY ABOUT. TO ME THAT 
INDICATES HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO
GO ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAY 
TRUMP LINKED UKRAINE AID TO THE 
BIDENS. 
>> ONE OF THE FOX NEWS HOST 
SAID, MY SHOW AND TELL ME WHAT 
YOU HAVE JOHN BOLTON.
CAN SENATORS, WHAT CAN THEY 
CONSIDER BECAUSE WE HEARD TRUMP 
LEGAL TEAM REFERRING TO LIKE 
THIS IS NOT PART OF THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT RECORD, HOW DO WE 
BRING IT INTO CONSIDERATION? 
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON JOHN 
BOLTON AND HIS VOICE AND THE 
DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT COULD BE 
EXERCISED WHETHER IN WRITTEN 
FORM OR BEFORE THE SENATE FLOOR?
>> IF JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIES OR 
GIVES A NEWS INTERVIEW OR PRESS 
CONFERENCE AND SAYS THERE WAS A 
DIRECT QUID PRO QUO AND THE 
PRESIDENT MADE IT EXPLICIT TO 
HIM, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT 
FOR REPUBLICANS TO ARGUE ANY 
LONGER THAT THE PRESIDENT WASN'T
ACTING, WASN'T TRYING TO DO THIS
OR THAT TO INVESTIGATE THE 
BIDENS. 
>> THE CIRCLES BACK TO THE POINT
THAT WE SEE TODAY THAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO BROADEN THE DEFENSE TO
NOT JUST HE DIDN'T DO IT, TO 
EVEN IF HE DID IT IT DOESN'T 
MATTER. WE JUST HAD A SENATOR 
TALKING TO REPORTERS DURING THE 
BREAK WHO SAID EVEN IF 
EVERYTHING IN BOLTON'S BOOK IS 
TRUE IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE 
LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> WERE TRYING TO SEE IF 
SENATORS WILL CROSS THE AISLE 12
WITNESSES. I DON'T KNOW, IT 
CHANGES MINUTE BY MINUTE BUT TO 
ME IT SEEMS HE RECOGNIZES THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT BOLTON MIGHT 
TESTIFY. 
>> OR JUST GET THE INFORMATION 
OUT IN SOME WAY. 
>> I THINK PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED
THAT IF HE HAS THIS INFORMATION 
THAT IS CENTRAL TO THIS CASE, TO
THE INQUIRY, THE TRIAL, WHY HAS 
HE WAITED SO LONG
? IS IT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO 
SELL BOOKS? WAS HE TRYING TO 
PROTECT TRUMP? WHAT ARE JOHN 
BOLTON'S MOTIVES IN ALL OF THIS?
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT 
CRITICS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. 
>> IS A REAL, LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION, WHY DID HE IGNORE THE 
HOUSE'S REQUEST TO TESTIFY? THE 
SUBPOENA WAS A FORMALITY. HIS 
ANSWER WAS THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
BANNING ME. TODAY THEY ARE STILL
BANNING HIM FROM TALKING. WHAT 
CHANGED? 
>> HE IS UP FOR REELECTION BUT 
HE HAS BEEN ON TEAM TRUMP AND WE
HEARD THEM TALK ABOUT BUYING 
CLOSE DOORS CORY GARDNER AND 
OTHER SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION
ARE WARNING THE REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES THAT IF THEY DON'T 
DISPATCH WITH A QUICKLY IT IS 
WORSE FOR THEM. THEY WANT TO GET
IT DONE QUICKLY SO THEY CAN TURN
THE ATTENTION AWAY FROM IT. NOT 
WANTING TO COMPLICATE THINGS 
WITH MORE WITNESSES. THAT 
REVEALS
HOW CORY GARDNER IS ON THIS NOW.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A 
COINCIDENCE THAT AFTER THE CLOSE
DOOR MEETING, HE SAYS GUYS, HELP
ME OUT WITH MY REELECTION, DON'T
CALL WITNESSES. HE SAYS I DON'T 
WANT TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES. TO 
ME THAT WAS A MARK IN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S COLUMN THAT THERE WILL 
BE WITNESSES. 
>> THEY WERE ASKED TODAY
WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE CHALLENGE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIMS OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? AND HERE IS
HOW THEY RESPONDED. 
>> THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. WE DID 
NOT CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS RELATED
TO EXECUTIVE. WHICH BECAUSE AS 
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN  COUNSEL 
ADMITTED DURING THIS TRIAL THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER RAISED THE 
QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID RAISE WAS
THIS NOTION OF BLANK AND 
DEFIANCE. THIS NOTION OF 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DIRECTED BY THE
PRESIDENT COULD COMPLETELY DEFY 
ANY AND ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
NOT TURNOVER DOCUMENTS. NOT 
TURNOVER WITNESSES. NOT PRODUCE 
A SINGLE SHRED OF INFORMATION. 
IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT 
THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. IN THE OCTOBER A LETTER 
THAT WAS SENT TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THERE WAS NO 
JURISPRUDENCE THAT WAS CITED. TO
JUSTIFY THE NOTION OF BLANKET 
DEFIANCE. THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE
LAW CITED TO JUSTIFY THE 
DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. 
IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT
HAS CONSIDERED
ANY PRESIDENTIAL CLAIM OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SUCH AS THE 
ONE ASSERTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE 
HAS REJECTED IT OUT OF HAND. 
>> HAKEEM JEFFRIES EARLIER 
TODAY. ANY THOUGHTS ON WHAT HE 
IS SAYING? 
>> IT WAS NEW TO ME THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T ASSERT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DIRECTLY TO 
THE HOUSE. THAT HE JUST SAID
I HAVE IMMUNITY AND ALL MY 
LAWYERS AND EVERYONE YOU WANT TO
TALK TO HAS IMMUNITY BECAUSE IN 
THE PRESIDENT. THIS FITS INTO 
THIS DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT. I 
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STEP 
BACK AND HIGHLIGHT THE LETTER 
THAT HAKEEM JEFFRIES IS TALKING 
ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S A BIG MOMENT 
IN THE BREAKING UP OF THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE ON THIS. IN 
OCTOBER, THE COUNCIL, THE 
LAWYERS ON THE FLOOR FOR TRUMP, 
HE WROTE THIS FIERY LETTER TO 
DEMOCRATS AND CALLED HER INQUIRY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HE BLOCKED 
PEOPLE FROM TESTIFYING AND SAID 
LIKE WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THIS
AT ALL BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE 
WRONG AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ESSENTIALLY IS DOING EVERYTHING 
BY THE BOOK AND YOU DON'T NEED 
TO WORRY ABOUT US. DUBIOUS LEGAL
REASONING AND THE PRESIDENT 
EARNED A REBUKE FROM TWO DOZEN 
FORMER CLASSMATES FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW 
SCHOOL. LIKE WHERE YOU GETTING 
THIS, HOW ARE YOU READING THE 
CONSTITUTION? WE DON'T 
UNDERSTAND? THE LETTER WAS A 
BASIS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE BANDS 
THAT NOW HAVE GOT US INTO THIS 
SITUATION WAS JOHN BOLTON AND 
WHY HE HASN'T TALKED. 
>> WE SAW THE LAWYERS
TRIED TO MAKE A CASE FOR PUT 
YOURSELF IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
SHOES BECAUSE HE DOES FEEL LIKE 
HE HAS BEEN PERSECUTED 
THROUGHOUT THIS TIME, THE 
MUELLER INVESTIGATION, CLAIMS 
ABOUT RUSSIA. THEY GO TO THIS 
NOTION OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT 
IS GOING TO DENY
HIS TEAM FROM TESTIFYING. OF 
COURSE HE WILL PUT UP WALLS TO 
PROTECT HIMSELF. 
>> THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A 
REASONABLE ARGUMENT IF NOT FOR 
THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BLOCKED HIS TOP AIDES AND ANYONE
ACROSS ADMINISTRATION ROOM 
TESTIFYING IN ANY NUMBER OF 
INVESTIGATION. THE HOUSE HAS IN 
ADDITION TO THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY THEY HAVE MULTIPLE 
COMMITTEES WHO WERE 
INVESTIGATING MULTIPLE THINGS 
RELATED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
HIS CAMPAIGN. 
>> WE'RE BACK IN THE SENATE. 
LET'S RETURN TO THE SENATE 
CHAMBER AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE 
WASHINGTON POST.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
SCOTT FROM FLORIDA. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
CHAIRMANSHIPS ARGUED THAT WE 
THINK THERE'S A CRIME HERE OF 
BRIBERY OR EXTORTION OR 
SOMETHING AKIN TO BRIBERY. TO 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH 
BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANYTHING 
AKIN TO IT? TO BE ELLEDGE FACTS 
SUFFICIENT TO PROVE EITHER 
CRIME? IF NOT, ARE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DISCUSSION OF CRIMES 
THEY ALLEGED OR PROVED 
APPROPRIATE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
AND NO, THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE THE 
CRIME OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR 
ANY OF THE CRIME AND THAT THE 
CRITICAL POINT. BECAUSE, IF THE 
SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED, NO 
PRINCIPAL OR PROCEDURAL DUE 
PROCESS IS MORE CLEARLY 
ESTABLISHED THAN THAT OF NOTICE 
OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE AND A 
CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A TRIAL 
AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THAT 
CHARGER AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF EVERY ACCUSED. THE 
COURT IS EXPLAINING THAT FOR 
OVER 130 YEARS A COURT CANNOT 
PERMIT, IT'S BEEN THE ROLE THEY 
CAN'T PERMIT
A DEFENDANT BE CHARGED ON 
CHARGES THAT ARE NOT MADE IN THE
INDICTMENT AGAINST HIM. THAT IS 
THE RULE IN CRIMINAL LAW AND 
ALSO THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
IT IS THE HOUSE'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO MAKE AN ACCUSATION AND A 
SPECIFIC ACCUSATION AND ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE HAD 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THAT AND THEY
DID THAT AND THE CHARGES THE 
BUTTON ARTICLES WERE ABUSE OF 
POWER ON A BIG STANDARD THEY 
MADE UP AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. THEY PUT DISCUSSION 
ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND THE 
COMMITTEE REPORT BUT THEY DID 
NOT PUT THAT IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. IF THIS WERE A 
CRIMINAL TRIAL AND MR. SCHIFF 
HAD DONE WHAT HE JUST DID ON THE
FLOOR HERE AND START TALKING 
ABOUT CRIMES OF DEBRIS AND 
EXTORTION THAT WERE NOT IN THE 
INDICTMENT IT WOULD'VE BEEN A 
MISTRIAL. WE ALL BE DONE NOW. WE
COULD GO HOME. MR. SCHIFF KNOWS 
THAT BECAUSE HE'S A FORMER 
PROSECUTOR. IT IS NOT 
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE HOUSE TO 
COME HERE, FAILING TO CHARGE, 
FAILING TO PUT IN ANY CRIME AT 
ALL AND THEN TO START ARGUING 
THAT ACTUALLY WE THINK THERE IS 
SOME CRIME INVOLVED IN ACTUALLY 
WE THINK WE PROVED IT EVEN 
THOUGH WE PROVIDED NO NOTICE WE 
WERE GOING TO TRY TO PROVE IT. 
IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE. AT THE 
FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF DUE 
PROCESS. AND SCHOLARS HAVE 
POINTED OUT THOSE RULES APPLY 
EQUALLY IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
CHARLES BECK AND PHILIP BOBBITT 
EXPLAINED IN THEIR WORK 
IMPEACHMENT, A HANDBOOK, 
REGARDED AS ONE OF THE 
AUTHORITIES COLLECTING SOURCES
OF AUTHORITY ON IMPEACHMENT, 
THEY SAID, QUOTE, THE SENATOR'S 
ROLE IS SOLELY ONE OF ACTING ON 
THE ACCUSATIONS. THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
, VOTED BY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. THE SENATE 
CANNOT LAWFULLY FIND THE 
PRESIDENT GUILTY OF SOMETHING 
NOT CHARGED BY THE HOUSE ANYMORE
THAN A TRIAL JURY CAN FIND A 
DEFENDANT GUILTY OF SOMETHING 
NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.".
MANAGER SCHIFF ATTEMPTED  TO DO 
SOMETHING IMPROPER. IT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN A MISTRIAL IN ANY 
COURT IN THE COUNTRY. THERE IS 
NOTHING TO HIS INTRODUCED IN THE
FACT THAT WOULD SATISFY THE 
ELEMENTS OF A CRIME OF EXTORTION
OR
BRIBERY, EITHER AND TO ATTEMPT 
AFTER MAKING THEIR OPENING, 
AFTER NOT CHARGING ANYTHING IN 
THE ARTICLES, THAT IS A CRIME, 
AFTER NOT SPECIFYING ANY CRIME, 
AFTER PROVIDING NO NOTICE THEY 
WILL ATTEMPT TO ARGUE A CRIME, 
THE QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 
TO TRY TO CHANGE
THE CHARGE THEY MADE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND TO SAY ACTUALLY THERE IS 
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE. IT'S NOT 
PERMISSIBLE. THIS BODY SHOULD 
NOT CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS. 
THEY'RE NOT PERMISSIBLE
, NOT INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AND SHOULD BE 
IGNORED. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE 
RECOGNITION. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I HAVE SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON, I'M JOINED BY SENATORS 
BLUMENTHAL, LEAHY AND WHITE 
HOUSE.
>>
THE QUESTION AS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL HAS ARGUED THAT HUNTER 
BIDEN AND HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH
BURISMA CREATED A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST FOR HIS FATHER, JOE 
BIDEN.  PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE 
TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND HIS 
FAMILY INCLUDING THOSE WHO SERVE
IN THE WHITE HOUSE MAINTAIN 
SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS INTERESTS 
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BENEFIT
FROM FOREIGN PAYMENTS AND 
INVESTMENTS. BY THE STANDARD THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS APPLIED 
TO HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD MR. 
KUSHNER AND
MR. TRUMP CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ALSO 
COME UNDER INVESTIGATION?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE INTO THE 
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR 
THAT QUESTION. LET ME PREFACE 
WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY WITH THIS 
STATEMENT. THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH
FEW DAYS. IT HAS BEEN A TRYING 
TIME FOR EACH OF US. AND FOR OUR
NATION. I WANT TO SAY THIS IN 
RESPONSE
TO THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN 
POST. I STAND BEFORE YOU AS THE 
MOTHER OF THREE SONS. I AM SURE 
THAT MANY OF YOU IN THIS CHAMBER
HAVE CHILDREN, SONS AND 
DAUGHTERS, AND GRANDCHILDREN 
THAT YOU THINK THE WORLD OF. MY 
CHILDREN'S LAST NAME IS DEMI. 
AND SO, WHEN THEY GO OUT TO GET 
A JOB I WONDER IF THERE ARE 
PEOPLE WHO ASSOCIATE MY SON WITH
THEIR MOTHER AND THEIR FATHER. I
JUST BELIEVE, AS WE GO THROUGH 
THIS VERY TOUGH, VERY DIFFICULT 
DEBATE, ABOUT WHETHER TO IMPEACH
AND REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES THAT WE STAY 
FOCUSED
. THE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE SEEN
MANY DISTRACTIONS, MANY THINGS 
HAVE BEEN SAID TO TAKE OUR MINDS
OFF OF THE TRUTH, OFF OF WHY WE 
ARE REALLY HERE.
IN MY FORMER LINE OF WORK I 
CALLED IT WORKING WITH SMOKE AND
MIRRORS. ANYTHING THAT WILL TAKE
YOUR ATTENTION OFF OF WHAT IS 
PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, WHAT IS THERE
AND PLAYING IN VIEW. THE REASON 
WHY WE ARE HERE HAS NOTHING TO 
DO WITH ANYBODY'S CHILDREN. AS 
WE TALK ABOUT, THE REASON WHY WE
ARE HERE IS BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
THE 45th PRESIDENT USED THE 
POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO 
SHAKE DOWN, I WILL USE THAT TERM
BECAUSE IT FAMILIAR WITH THE, A 
FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE AND 
THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. IN OTHER 
WORDS THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES TRIED STREET AND 
THEN TRY TO GET THIS FOREIGN 
POWER, THIS NEWLY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT TO SPREAD A FALSE 
NARRATIVE THAT WE KNOW IS UNTRUE
ABOUT INTERFERENCE
IN OUR ELECTION. THAT IS WHY WE 
ARE HERE AND IT REALLY WOULD 
HELP I BELIEVE THE SITUATION IF 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PERHAPS, 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WOULD
ISSUE A RULE OR AN OPINION ABOUT
ANY PERSON OF AUTHORITY, 
ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES USING OR ABUSING 
THAT AUTHORITY TO INVITE OTHER 
POWERS INTO INTERFERING IN OUR 
ELECTION AND SO, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE I WILL JUST CLOSE MY 
REMARKS AS I BEGAN THEM. LET US 
STAY FOCUSED. THIS DOESN'T HAVE 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT'S 
CHLDREN OR THE BIDENS CHILDREN. 
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS WRONGDOING. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF, SENATOR RISCH, 
SENATOR CRUZ , GRAHAM, MORAN AND
BOZEMAN. IS SEND A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK. FOR THE COUNCIL, FOR 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> THE QUESTION
, DOES THE EVIDENCE IN THE 
RECORD SHOW THAT IT 
INVESTIGATION
IN THE MATTER IS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND ITS EFFORTS TO STOP 
CORRUPTION?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE
STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER IS YES. 
THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THAT IT 
WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE 
UNITED STATES, IN FACT, THE 
EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT IS 
ABUNDANT. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW. 
HUNTER BIDEN WAS APPOINTED TO 
THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY COMPANY 
IN UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY APPARENT 
EXPERIENCE
THAT WOULD QUALIFY HIM FOR THAT 
POSITION. HE WAS APPOINTED 
SHORTLY AFTER HIS FATHER, THE 
VICE PRESIDENT, BECAME THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S POINT MAN FOR 
POLICY ON UKRAINE. WE KNOW HIS 
APPOINTMENT RAISED SEVERAL RED 
FLAGS AT THE TIME. CHRIS HINES
, THE STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE THAT TIME SEVERED HIS 
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH 
HUNTER CITING HIS LACK OF 
JUDGMENT IN JOINING THE BOARD OF
THE COMPANY, BURISMA BECAUSE IT 
WAS OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH WHO WAS
UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR 
CORRUPTION. FOR MONEY LAUNDERING
AND OTHER OFFENSES. 
CONTEMPORANEOUS PRESS REPORTS 
SPECULATED THAT HUNTERS ROLE 
WITH BURISMA MIGHT  UNDERMINE 
U.S. EFFORTS LED BY HIS FATHER 
AT THAT TIME TO PROMOTE THE U.S.
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGING IN 
UKRAINE. THE WASHINGTON POST 
SAID QUOTE, THE APPOINTMENT OF 
THE VICE PRESIDENT FUN TO CREATE
AN OIL BOARD LOOKS BAPTIST AT 
BEST AND NEFARIOUS AT WORST. AND
COOL. THERE WERE OTHER ARTICLES,
THERE WAS ONE
THAT REPORTED QUOTE, THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES
WAS NOT HELPED BY THE NEWS THAT 
HUNTER HAD BEEN ON THE BOARD OF 
THE DIRECTORS OF BURISMA.  THERE
WAS ANOTHER ARTICLE. SAYING 
SADLY THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. 
BIDEN'S MESSAGE MIGHT BE 
UNDERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
HIS SON WITH UKRAINIAN NATURAL 
GAS COMPANY, BURISMA HOLDINGS  
WHICH IS HELD BY AN OFFICIAL 
EXPECTED OF CREPT PRACTICES. 
ACTAVIS SAY THAT THE U.S. 
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IS BEING 
UNDERMINED AS HIS SON RECEIVES 
MONEY FROM ME FORMER OFFICIAL 
WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR 
GRAFT. AT THE SAME TIME WITHIN 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICIALS RAISE THE QUESTION, 
THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY 
POLICY, RAISED THE MATTER WITH 
THE VICE PRESIDENT. SIMILARLY 
THE DEPUTY
RAISED CONCERNS WITH THE OFFICE.
EVERYONE WHO WAS ASKED IN THE 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THAT 
THERE WAS AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WHEN 
MR. BIDEN'S SON WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF THIS COMPANY. THAT 
INCLUDED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH,
COLONEL VINDMAN, JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND DR. HILL AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. THEY AGREED 
THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE OF 
CONFLICT.
AND EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF  
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONNECTION. 
BETWEEN THE BIDEN AND BURISMA 
INCIDENT 
AND FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR WHO
WAS LOOKING INTO BURISMA WHEN 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OPENLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED  HE LEVERAGED $1 
BILLION IN U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES 
TO MAKE SURE THAT PARTICULAR 
PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED. HE OPENLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS A GOOD QUID 
PRO QUO, YOU DON'T GET $1 
BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEES  
UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT PROSECUTOR
IS FIRED. MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN
SIX HOURS HE SAID ON THE TAPE. 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP RAISED THIS IN THE JULY 25
CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
RECOGNIZED  THAT THIS RELATED TO
CORRUPTION. AND HE SAID THE 
ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF 
THE CASE, REFERRING TO THE CASE 
OF
BURISMA, IS THE ISSUE OF MAKING 
SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY THAT
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.  AND HE
LATER SAID IN AN VIEW THAT HE 
RECOGNIZED
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN SAYING 
TO HIM THINGS ARE CREPT IN 
UKRAINE AND HE WAS TRYING TO 
EXPLAIN KNOW, WE WILL CHANGE 
THAT. THERE WILL NOT BE 
CORRUPTION. EXPLICIT EXCHANGE IN
THE CALL SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT 
FENSKE RECOGNIZED THAT BIDEN AND
THE INCIDENT HAD AN IMPACT ON 
CORRUPTION AND ANTICORRUPTION 
AND IT WAS UNDERMINING THE U.S. 
MESSAGE ON ANTICORRUPTION AND IT
WAS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO RAISE WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE UNITED 
STATES DID NOT CONDONE ANYTHING 
THAT WOULD SEEM TO INTERFERE 
WITH LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIONS 
AND ENFORCE THE PROPER MESSAGE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE 
RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS 
JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNCIL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THAN 
SENATORS. THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT 
UKRAINE'S HELP IN INVESTIGATING 
THE BIDENS ONLY AFTER REPORTS 
SUGGESTED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
MIGHT ENTER THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND WOULD 
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE
POLLS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO 
INTEREST
IN THE UKRAINIAN WORK IN 2017 OR
2018 WHEN BIDEN WAS NOT RUNNING 
AGAINST HIM. FOR PRESIDENT. NONE
OF THE 70 WITNESSES IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROVIDED ANY
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE 
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE 
ALLEGATION THAT FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED 
INAPPROPRIATELY IN ANY WAY TO 
UKRAINE. INSTEAD, WITNESSES 
TESTIFY THAT THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS CARRYING OUT 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IN 
COORDINATION WITH THE 
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHEN HE 
ADVOCATED FOR THE OUSTER OF A 
CROPPED UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. IN 
SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE 
SIMPLY UNFOUNDED. PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN ENVOY TO UKRAINE NEW
THEY WERE UNFOUNDED, TOO. HE 
TESTIFIED THAT HE CONFRONTED THE
PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY, MR. 
GIULIANI ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY 
THEORY AND TOLD HIM THAT QUOTE, 
IT IS SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE TO ME 
THAT JOE BIDEN WOULD BE 
INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES AS VICE
PRESIDENT BY MONEY OR THINGS FOR
HIS SON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I
HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. 
HE'S A PERSON OF INTEGRITY AND 
THAT'S NOT CREDIBLE. GIULIANI 
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DID NOT 
FIND ONE OF THE SOURCES OF THESE
ALLEGATIONS. A FORMER UKRAINIAN 
PROSECUTOR TO BE CREDIBLE. EVEN 
GIULIANI KNEW THE ALLEGATIONS 
WERE FALSE. OUR OWN JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER SPOKE TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT UKRAINE 
OR ANY INVESTIGATION INTO VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN. IF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT 
THERE WAS LEGITIMATE BASIS TO 
REQUEST UKRAINE'S ASSISTANCE IN 
LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS, 
THERE ARE SPECIFIC FORMAL 
PROCESSES THAT HE SHOULD HAVE 
FOLLOWED. SPECIFICALLY HE COULD 
HAVE ASKED THE DOJ TO MAKE AN 
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE 
TO THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 
TREATY. IT'S WORTH NOTING THE 
PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN TO THE EXTENT THAT 
HE IS THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON. 
AND THEREFORE THE MEANS TO SMEAR
AN OPPONENT. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ASKING FOR 
THE REMOVAL OF THE FORMER 
PROSECUTOR ON THE JULY 25 CALL. 
THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED. NOT AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO HUNTER BIDEN.
THIS IS ANOTHER REASON THAT 
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR 
INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN. CAN WE GET SLIGHT 52? THE
TIMING SHOWS CLEARLY THAT 
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE 
CONDUCT OCCURRED IN 2015 IT 
WASN'T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN BEGAN CONSISTENTLY BEATING
TRUMP IN NATIONAL POLLS IN THE 
SPRING OF 2019 BY SIGNIFICANT 
MARGINS. THE PRESIDENT TARGETED 
BIDEN. HE WAS SCARED OF LOSING. 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO CAST A 
CLOUD OVER A POLITICAL OPPONENT
. THIS WASN'T ABOUT ANY GENUINE 
CONCERN OF WRONGDOING. THE 
EVIDENCE FOR THAT, THIS WAS 
SOLELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE 
COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO 
MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIND UP.
SO HE FROZE THE MONEY TO UKRAINE
TO COURSE UKRAINE TO HELP HIM 
ATTACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT 
AND SECURE HIS REELECTION.
WILL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES CANNOT USE OUR 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS 
PERSONAL BIDDING. NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
>> THANK YOU. THE QUESTION TO 
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, 
AND THIS IS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL.
>> HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THE 
BIDEN BURISMA FAIR HAS BEEN  
DEBUNKED. WHAT AGENCY LED TO THE
DEBUNKING?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATION LET 
ALONE DEBUNKED, DISCREDITED OR 
AS MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID PHONY. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE INCITED 
BECAUSE NONE EXISTS. A COUPLE OF
DAYS AGO I READ TO YOU
A QUOTE AND STATEMENT FROM VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN DEALING WITH 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. WHAT I 
DID NOT TELL YOU WAS HE MADE 
THOSE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTLY. 
HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HISTORIC 
BATTLE OF CORRUPTION. HE SPOKE 
ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
SPECIFICALLY IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR. HE SPOKE ABOUT NO 
SWEETHEART DEALS. HE SAID 
OLIGARCHS AND NON-OLIGARCHS MUST
PLAY BY THE SAME RULES. 
CORRUPTION SIPHONS AWAY 
RESOURCES FROM THE PEOPLE. IT 
BLUNTS ECONOMIC GROWTH.
AND IT AFFRONTS THE HUMAN 
DIGNITY. THOSE WERE VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S WORD. THE REAL
QUESTION IS THIS. IS CORRUPTION 
RELATED TO THE ENERGY SECTOR IN 
UKRAINE RUN BY A CROPPED 
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH WHO IS PAYING
OUR VICE PRESIDENT'S SON  AND 
HIS SON'S BUSINESS PARTNER 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR NO 
APPARENT, LEGITIMATE REASON 
WHILE HIS FATHER WAS OVERSEEING 
OUR COUNTRY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH 
UKRAINE, OR AT ANY PUBLIC 
INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION OR 
INTEREST? THE ANSWER IS YES.
SIMPLY BY SAYING IT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN IS RIDICULOUS. WITH ALL 
DUE RESPECT TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, THE MESSAGE TO OUR 
CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU 
OVERSEE
A CORRUPTION AND TRY TO ROOT IT 
OUT IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS TO 
MAKE SURE YOUR CHILDREN AREN'T 
BENEFITING FROM IT. THAT IS WHAT
SHOULD BE HAPPENING. NOT TO SIT 
THERE AND SAY IT'S OKAY. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T DENY THAT 
THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON TO 
DO AN INVESTIGATION. THEY JUST 
SAY IT WAS DEBUNKED. IT'S A 
SHAM. IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE AND 
THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHEN IT 
HAPPENED. WE ALL REMEMBER THE 
EMAIL THAT CHRIS HINES SENT. 
KEEP THIS IN MIND. HE IS THE 
STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY, THEN 
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY.
HE SENDS AN EMAIL TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, TO THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF, TO JOHN KERRY AND THE 
SPECIAL ASSISTANT
, THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE. 
THERE'S NO QUESTION WHEN YOU 
LOOK AT THE EMAIL THAT IT'S A 
WARNING SHOT TO SAY I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEY ARE DOING BUT WE ARE 
NOT INVESTIGATING. HE'S TAKING A
GIANT STEP BACK. AND THINK ABOUT
THE WORDS AND REMEMBER THE VIDEO
THAT WE SAW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN. 
WHAT DID HE SAY? I'M NOT GOING 
TO OPEN MY KIMONO. I'M NOT GOING
TO OPEN MY KIMONO WHEN HE WAS 
ASKED HOW MUCH MONEY HE WAS 
MAKING. IN ONE MONTH, IN ONE 
MONTH ALONE, HUNTER BIDEN AND 
HIS PARTNER
MADE AS MUCH, ALMOST AS MUCH AS 
EVERY SENATOR IN CONGRESS, IN 
ONE MONTH WHAT YOU'RE IN ONE 
YEAR. YOU DON'T THINK THAT 
MERITS INQUIRY? DOES ANYONE HERE
THINK WHEN THEY SAY IT'S A 
DEBUNKED INVESTIGATION, IT 
DIDN'T HAPPEN, THAT WE WOULDN'T 
REMEMBER IF THERE WAS TESTIMONY 
OF HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, 
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY, 
HIS STEPSON,
THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER, HIS 
CHIEF OF STAFF AND SPECIAL 
ASSISTANT. HOW CAN YOU TELL THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IT DOESN'T MERIT
INQUIRY WHEN OUR VICE 
PRESIDENT'S SON 
IS SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS FOR 
CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY IN 
UKRAINE? HE'S GOING TO OVERSEE 
THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF A 
UKRAINIAN COMPANY? HE'S GOING TO
HELP THEM AND IF YOU LOOK AT HIS
STATEMENT THAT I READ TO BEFORE 
THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF IT FROM 
OCTOBER 2019. IF YOU WANT TO 
KNOW IF IT DEALT WITH OUTSIDE OF
UKRAINE, JUST BURISMA HE SAYS HE
WAS ADVISING  BURISMA ON ITS 
CORPORATE  INITIATIVES, AND 
AFFECT
OF THE INTERNATIONAL GROWTH AND 
DIVERSITY. LISTEN TO THIS 
STATEMENT BY HUNTER BIDEN'S 
ATTORNEY. VIBRANT ENERGY 
PRODUCTION PARTICULARLY NATURAL 
GAS WAS CENTRAL TO UKRAINE'S 
INDEPENDENCE AND STEMMING THE 
TIDE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S ATTACK 
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A 
DEMOCRATIC EUROPE. DO YOU THINK 
HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS 
GETTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? 
WHAT HIS FATHER WAS DOING? THE 
ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT STATEMENT 
DIDN'T COME OUT UNTIL OCTOBER 
2019. ONLY WHEN A NEW STORY 
STARTED TO BREAK, ONLY WHEN THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS RAISED THESE 
ISSUES DO PEOPLE START TO TALK 
ABOUT IT. TELL US, TELL US WHERE
WE SAW JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER 
BIDEN AND JOHN KERRY TESTIFY, 
TELL US WHERE YOU DID IT WHEN 
YOU DID YOUR IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS? I DON'T REMEMBER 
SEEING THAT TESTIMONY. I DO 
REMEMBER SEEING THE BANK 
RECORDS. WE PUT THE BANK RECORDS
IN FRONT OF YOU. AND PEOPLE ARE 
ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT EXACTLY 
WAS GOING ON. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE 
SENATOR FROM OREGON. 
>> THANK YOU, ON BEHALF OF THE 
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO AND 
MYSELF I HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND
TO THE DESK . 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT. PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR 
PREVIOUS ANSWER ABOUT THE BULL 
TO MANUSCRIPT. WHEN EXACTLY DID 
THE FIRST PERSON OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM FIRST 
LEARNED  OF THE ALLEGATIONS
IN THE MANUSCRIPT? SECONDLY, MR.
BOLTON'S LAWYER PUBLICLY 
DISPUTES THAT ANY INFORMATION IN
THE MANUSCRIPT COULD REASONABLY 
BE CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED. WAS A 
DETERMINATION TO BLOCK ITS 
PUBLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT IT
CONTAINS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION 
MADE SOLELY BY CAREER OFFICIALS 
OR WERE POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE 
OR ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
INVOLVED?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, TO ADDRESS
YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY THE 
ALLEGATION THE CAME OUT IN THE 
"NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT A
CONVERSATION THAT IS ALLEGEDLY 
REPORTED IN THE MANUSCRIPT 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND MR. 
BOLTON, OFFICIALS, LAWYERS THE 
WHITE HOUSE LEARNED ABOUT THAT 
ALLEGATION FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
SUNDAY AFTERNOON WHEN THE WHITE 
HOUSE WAS CONTACTED BY THE "NEW 
YORK TIMES". IN TERMS OF THE 
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW IT IS 
CONDUCTED AT THE NSC, THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS NOT 
INVOLVED IN CLASSIFICATION 
REVIEW DETERMINING WHAT IS 
CLASSIFIED OR NOT CLASSIFIED.
I CAN'T STATE THE SPECIFICS, MY 
UNDERSTANDING IT IS CONDUCTED BY
CAREER OFFICIALS THAT THE NSC 
BUT IT'S HANDLE BY THE NSC. I'M 
NOT IN POSITION TO GIVE YOU FULL
INFORMATION ON THAT. MY 
UNDERSTANDING IT IS BEING DONE 
BY CAREER OFFICIALS BUT IT IS 
NOT BEING DONE BY LAWYERS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE. I 
HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE 
SENATOR FOR THE SENATOR'S 
COUNSEL. 
>> A QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
SULLIVAN AND LANGFORD. TO THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. THERE
HAS BEEN CONFLICTING TESTIMONY 
ABOUT HOW LONG THE SENATE MIGHT 
BE TIED UP IN OBTAINING 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AT THE 
BEGINNING OF THIS TRIAL THE 
MINORITY LEADER OFFERED 11 
MINUTES TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL 
EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF 
DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS FROM 
SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES. IF THE
SENATE HAD ADOPTED ALL 11 OF 
THESE AMENDMENTS HOW LONG DO YOU
THINK THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
WOULD TAKE?
>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IT 
WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME. IT WOULD
TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET THROUGH 
THE MOTIONS. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
17 WITNESSES. WERE TALKING ABOUT
NOW ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. THAT 
THE MANAGERS HAVE PUT FORWARD 
AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERS
DISCUSS, DISCUSSING FOUR 
WITNESSES IN PARTICULAR. AS OF 
THIS BODY, IF IT WERE TO GRANT 
WHEN THIS IS WOULD SAY YES, YOU 
GET THOSE FOUR WITNESSES AND THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL GETS WHAT? WHATEVER I 
WANT. THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY, 
WHATEVER YOU WANT, HERE'S WHAT I
WANT. I WANT ADAM SCHIFF. I WANT
HUNTER BIDEN. I WANT JOE BIDEN. 
I WANT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. I WANT
TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE 
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAD 
CONVERSATIONS WITH WHISTLEBLOWER
. ANYONE WE WANT, BY THE WAY IF 
WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT YOU WILL 
BE HERE FOR A FAIR LAWN. THE 
FACT OF THE MATTER IS WERE NOT 
HERE TO ARGUE WITNESSES TONIGHT.
IT'S AN UNDERCURRENT BUT TO SAY 
THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO EXTEND
THE PROCEEDING, MONTHS. BECAUSE 
UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ELSE. 
DESPITE THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AND OTHER NONSENSE I SUSPECT 
THAT MANAGER SCHIFF, SMART GUY, 
HE WILL SAY, I HAVE SPEECH AND 
DEBATE PRIVILEGES. THAT MAY BE 
APPLICABLE TO US. I'M NOT SAYING
THEY ARE. BUT THEY MAY RAISE IT.
BE LEGITIMATE TO RAISE IT.
THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE WOULD,
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF MANY 
WEEKS. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE 
CLEAR. THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN 
AN AGGRESSIVE AND FAST-PACED 
WAY. AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING, WE
NEED WITNESSES. AFTER 31 OR 32 
TIMES YOU SAID YOU PROVED EVERY 
ASPECT OF YOUR CASE. THAT'S WHAT
YOU SAID. DID HE JUST SAY HE 
DID. I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY 
WITNESSES. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE 
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
>> THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR 
MENENDEZ TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MAINTAINED
HE WITHHELD U.S. SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE HE
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION. 
YET, HIS PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT
CORRUPTION DID NOT PREVENT HIS 
ADMINISTRATION FROM SENDING 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE MORE THAN 
45 TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY 2017 
AND JUNE 2019 TOTALING MORE THAN
$1.5 BILLION. WHY DID THE 
PRESIDENT SUDDENLY BECOME 
CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
EARLY 2019?
NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL DO THE 
INVESTIGATION. THIS THE RELEASED
AID AS YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT 
SENATOR, HE RELEASED THE AID IN 
2017. IN 2018, HE RELEASED IT IN
2019 ONLY AFTER HAVING GOTTEN 
CAUGHT IN THE WORDS OF THE 
COLONEL ANOTHER WITNESS SAYS THE
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND HAD NOT
CHANGED. SO, WE ARE HEARING A 
LOT TONIGHT ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT
CORRUPTION. RUSSIA, THE FACTS 
MATTER HERE. WE ARE HERE, FOR 
ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY. 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, WITHHELD FOREIGN AID 
THAT HE WAS HAPPY TO GIVE, AND 
THE TWO PRIOR YEARS, THAT 
SUDDENLY WE ARE TO BELIEVE 
SOMETHING CHANGED THE CONDITIONS
ON THE GROUND CHANGED AND HE HAD
AND EPIPHANY ABOUT CORRUPTION, 
WITHIN A WEEK OF VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY, 
DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. ONE 
OTHER THING I WILL SAY REGARDING
THE AID, THIS ASSERTION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN THE 
STRONGEST SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE. 
I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER. 
LET'S ASSUME THAT TO BE THE 
CASE. IF IT IS THE CASE AS THE 
COUNCIL HAS CONTENDED OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN, THERE IS OF COURSE 
NO REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID, 
BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED. IT 
LEADS US TO ONE CONCLUSION. THAT
IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS, 
AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MONEY, TO 
WITHHOLD AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR
THE BENEFIT HIS POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN. DO NOT BE DISTRACTED 
BY PROPAGANDA BY CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES BY PEOPLE ASKING YOU TO
LOOK IN OTHER DIRECTIONS. THAT 
IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, THAT WILL
NOT CHANGE, THE FACTS WILL 
CONTINUE TO COME OUT. WHETHER 
THIS BODY SUBPOENAS THEM OR NOT.
FACT WILL COME OUT. THE QUESTION
NOW, WILL THEY COME OUT IN TIME?
WILL YOU BE THE ONES ASKING FOR 
THEM WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE 
MAKING THE DECISION IN A COUPLE 
OF DAYS WITH AN ENGINE.
>> MR. MANAGER, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN,
A QUESTION TO THE DESK TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OF 
HOUSE MANAGERS WERE CERTAIN IT 
WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO LITIGATE A 
SUBPOENA FROM BOLTON WHY SHOULD 
THE SENATE ASSUME LENGTHY 
LITIGATION CAN MAKE THE SAME 
DECISION TO REJECT THE SUBPOENA 
FOR JOHN BOLTON.
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THINK 
THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT. 
AND, THE FACT IS, THAT IF IN 
FACT WE ARE TO GO DOWN THAT 
ROAD, OF A WITNESS, OR 
WITNESSES, THAT HAD IN CASE OF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIGH-RANKING 
AND ESSAY, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL
THAT'S GIVING PRESIDENT ADVICE, 
THEY HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT THAT 
IS WHERE PRIVILEGES ARE AT THE 
HEART LEVEL. THE PRESUMED 
PRIVILEGE WITH THE SUPREME COURT
AND, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS I 
THINK WE ARE GOING DOWN A ROAD 
IF THE SENATE GOES THIS ROAD, A 
LENGTHY PROCEEDING, WITH MORE 
WITNESSES AND I WANT TO ASK THIS
QUESTION AND PLANET AS A 
THOUGHT. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE
NEW NORM FOR IMPEACHMENT? AND 
IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER WE DON'T 
LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WE 
GET IT THROUGH AND IT TODAY 
PROCEEDING AND WE WRAP IT UP AND
SEND IT UP HERE AND SAY GO 
FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S WHAT THIS 
IS BECOMING. THAT IS WHAT THIS 
IS. SO I THINK IF WE ARE LOOKING
AT THAT INSTITUTION AT STAKE 
HERE IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS 
PRECEDENT BECAUSE WHAT THEY ARE 
SAYING IS BASICALLY WE HAVE 
ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE. THAT 
IS WHAT SCHIFF SAID BUT NOT 
REALLY. SO, WE NEED MORE 
EVIDENCE NOT BECAUSE WE NEED IT,
BECAUSE WE WANTED. WE DON'T WANT
IT BAD ENOUGH WHEN WE WERE IN 
THE HOUSE, WE DID NOT GET IT. 
NOW, YOU ENTERED THE SUBPOENA 
AND THEN, LET'S DUKE IT OUT IN 
COURT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, THIS IS, THEY
ARE ACTING THIS IS A TRAFFIC 
COURT PROCEEDING. REMIND 
EVERYBODY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
UNDER THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THEY ARE REQUESTING 
THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES. YOU KNOW, 
THEY ALREADY SAY, IN THE MEDIA, 
THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO 
INVESTIGATE AND ARE WE GOING TO 
DO THIS EVERY THREE WEEKS? EVERY
MONTH EXCEPT FOR THE SUMMER? 
THERE IS AN ELECTION ONE MONTH 
AWAY. THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A 
RIGHT TO VOTE MY WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL SAID THAT WHEN I LOOK AT
ALL OF THIS WHETHER IT IS THE 
LATE WITNESSES APP YOU SAID YOU 
PROVE YOUR CASE THE PRIVILEGE 
SUPPLIED OR NOT APPLIED HUMOR 
SAID WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT.
WE WOULD BE HERE FOR A VERY, 
VERY LONG TIME. THAT'S NOT GOOD 
FOR THE U.S.. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. THE 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>>
THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WOULD YOU PLEASE 
RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT JUST 
GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
>>
I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT'S 
GOING ON, HERE. THAT IS, IF THE 
HOUSE WANTS TO CALL WITNESSES, 
IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM A 
SINGLE WITNESS IF YOU WANT TO 
HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO 
SAY, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS 
ENDLESS. WE THE PRESIDENTS 
LAWYERS WILL MAKE THIS ENDLESS. 
WE PROMISE YOU, WE WILL WANT 
ADAM SCHIFF TO TESTIFY WE ARE 
GOING TO WANT  JOE BIDEN TO 
TESTIFY WE WANT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WE WANT EVERYBODY 
IN THE WORLD IF YOU DARE, IF YOU
HAVE THE UNMITIGATED TEMERITY TO
WANT WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL WE 
WILL MAKE YOU PAY FOR THIS 
ENDLESS DELAY. THE SENATE WILL 
NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO 
BUSINESS. THAT'S THEY'RE 
ARGUMENT HOW DEAR THE HOUSE 
ASSUME THERE WILL BE WITNESSES 
AND A TRIAL. SHOULDN'T HOUSE 
HAVE KNOWN, WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK 
INVESTIGATION THE SENATE WAS 
NEVER GOING TO ALLOW WITNESSES. 
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE HISTORY
OF THE REPUBLIC WITH NO 
WITNESSES. I WOULD LIKE
TO 11 TO TESTIFY OR MR. PAT 
CIPOLLONE 
TO FIGHT ON ALL SUBPOENAS I 
WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS 
ABOUT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK 
QUESTIONS ON THE PRESIDENT THE 
PERIMETER OF THE WE ARE NOT HERE
TO INDULGE IN FANTASY OR 
DISTRACTION. WE'RE HERE TO TALK 
ABOUT PEOPLE ABOUT EVIDENCE I 
TRUST THE MAN BEHIND ME, SITTING
WHERE I CANNOT SEE RIGHT NOW. I 
TRUST HIM TO MAKE DECISIONS 
ABOUT IF WITNESSES MATERIAL OR 
NOT IF IT IS MATERIAL TO GET 
WEATHER UP PARTICULAR PASSAGE IS
PRIVILEGED OR NOT. IT'S NOT 
GOING TO TAKE MONTHS OF 
LITIGATION ALTHOUGH THAT'S WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS 
THREATENING THEY ARE DOING THE 
SAME THING TO THE SENATE THAT 
THEY DID THE HOUSE. YOU TRY TO 
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT YOU 
TRY TO TRY THE PRESIDENT, WE 
WILL TIE YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE 
CHAMBER UP IN KNOTS FOR WEEKS 
AND MONTHS BRING YOU KNOW 
SOMETHING? THEY WILL IF YOU LET 
THEM. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET 
THEM. YOU CAN SUBPOENA JOHN 
BOLTON, YOU CAN ALLOW THERE 
CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE A 
DETERMINATION IN CAMERA WEATHER 
SOMETHING IS RELEVANT IF IT 
DEALS WITH THE UKRAINE OF 
VENEZUELA IF IT IS PRIVILEGED OR
NOT. IF IT IS MISAPPLIED TO HIDE
CRIMINALITY WRONGDOING. WE DON'T
HAVE TO GO UP AND DOWN THE 
COURT. WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD 
CHIEF JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT 
BEHIND ME. HE CAN MAKE THESE 
DECISIONS RIGHT NOW. DON'T BE 
THROWN OFF BY DISCLAIM, IF YOU 
EVEN THINK ABOUT IT WE ARE GOING
TO MAKE YOU PAY WITH A SECULAR 
SCENE. WE WILL CALL WITNESSES 
THAT WILL TURN THIS INTO A 
CIRCUS. SHOULD NOT BE A CIRCUS. 
IT WILL BE A FAIR TRIAL. IT 
CANNOT BE FOR JOHN WITHOUT 
WITNESSES. I WAS ASKED THAT 
QUESTION BEFORE. YOU CANNOT HAVE
A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
YOU SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT WHEN
A HOUSE IMPEACHES THE SENATE 
TRIALS FROM NOW ON WILL BE 
WITNESS FREE. IT WILL BE 
EVIDENCE FREE. THAT IS NOT THE 
FOUNDERS INTENDED IT. IF IT WAS,
IT WOULD'VE MADE YOU THE COURT 
OF APPEALS THAT THEY DID NOT. 
THEY MADE YOU THE TRIERS OF 
FACT. THE EXPECTED YOU TO HEAR. 
THEY ASK THAT DID YOU TO 
EVALUATE CREDIBILITY. I AM NO 
FAN OF JOHN BOLTON. I LIKE MORE 
THAN I USED TO. BUT, YOU SHOULD 
HEAR FROM HIM. HE SHOULD WANT 
TO. DON'T TAKE GENERAL KELLY'S 
VIEW FOR IT. MAKE UP YOUR OWN 
MIND. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HIM OR
MULVANEY WEATHER YOU BELIEVE HIM
THE PRESIDENT MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
WE PROVED OUR CASE. WE PROVED 
IT, OVERWHELMINGLY. YOU CHOSE TO
CONTACT THE FACT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID.
YOU CONTACTED IT. YOU CHOSE TO 
MAKE BOLTON'S TESTIMONY 
PERTINENT. YOU MIGHT MAKE THE 
ARGUMENT, THAT YOU'RE MAKING 
HERE. YOU HAVEN'T. YOU CONTACTED
IT NOW YOU WANT TO SAY LET THE 
SENATE THAT SHALL NOT HEAR FROM 
THIS WITNESS. THAT'S NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL. IT'S NOT EVEN THE 
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS. YOU 
CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, 
WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS.
THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE READ THE 
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. I SENT A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
COUNSEL.
QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR 
CASSIDY AND THE RICH FOR BOTH 
PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, FIRST. SOME
VIDEO OF MR. AND NADLER SAYING 
QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE 
NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR 
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF 
OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL LACK 
LEGITIMACY OR PRODUCE 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN 
OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME. 
WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY
LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL 
INSTITUTIONS". GIVEN THE 
WELL-KNOWN DISLIKE OF SOME HOUSE
DEMOCRATS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND THE STATED DESIRE OF SOME TO
IMPEACH BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS
INAUGURATED, THE STRICTLY 
PARTISAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT DUE TO CURRENT 
PRECEDENTS TYPIFY THAT WHICH MR.
NADLER WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS 
AGO.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION THE 
SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES, THESE ARE 
EXACTLY THE SORT OF STUDENTS 
THAT MANAGER NADLER WARNED 
AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO. IT HAS 
BEEN CLEAR, THAT AT LEAST SOME 
FACTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RL 
ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE 
AISLE HAS BEEN INTENT ON FINDING
SOME WAY TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FROM THE DAY HE WAS 
SWORN IN AND EVEN BEFORE. THAT 
IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. TO
ALLOW PARTISAN VENOM AND ENMITY 
LIKE THAT, TO TAKE HOLD AND 
BECOME THE NORM, FOR DRIVING 
IMPEACHMENT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
FRAMERS WARNED AGAINST HAMILTON 
WARNED AGAINST THAT. HE WARNED 
AGAINST PERSECUTION BY AN 
INTEMPERATE BINDING
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE. THAT IS 
WHAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT WANT, 
IMPEACHMENT TO TURN INTO. THAT 
IS CLEARLY WHAT IT IS TURNING 
INTO HERE. BOTH MANAGER NADLER 
AND DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER IN
THE VIDEO WE SAW WERE 
FOREWARNING IF WE START TO GO 
DOWN THIS ROAD, ONE THING THAT 
SEEMS TO BE SURE WASHINGTON IS 
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND. 
IF IT HAPPENS TO ONE PARTY WILL 
HAPPEN AGAIN TO THE OTHER PARTY.
THEN, WE WILL BE IN A SECULAR 
WOULD GET WORSE AND WORSE AND 
THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE. 
EVERY PRESIDENT WILL BE 
IMPEACHED. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE 
FRAMERS INTENDED.
THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO 
HAPPEN. THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL. THE EVIDENCE IS 
OVERWHELMING. PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
PRESSURED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. AS 
PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CORRUPT EFFORT, TO CHEAT AND 
SOLICIT FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2020 ELECTION. THERE IS A REMEDY
FOR THAT TYPE OF STUNNING ABUSE 
OF POWER. THAT REMEDY IS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. THAT REMEDY, IS 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, WHICH 
IS WHAT THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY 
IS DOING RIGHT NOW. THAT'S NOT 
PARTISAN. THAT IS NOT THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAYBOOK. THAT 
IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
PLAYBOOK. THAT IS THE PLAYBOOK 
IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. GIVING
TO US, AND A PRECIOUS FASHION BY
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE IMPEACHMENT IN THIS 
INSTANCE, OF COURSE AND THE 
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, AS 
NECESSARY, BECAUSE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT STRIKES AT THE 
VERY HEART OF OUR FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTION.
AS WILLIAM DAVEY NOTICED THAT 
THE CONVENTION, QUOTE IF YOU DO 
NOT IMPEACHABLE WHILE IN OFFICE,
HE WILL SPARE NO EFFORT, OR 
MEANS WHATSOEVER, TO GET HIMSELF
REELECTED.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
UNDERSTOOD, THAT PERHAPS THIS 
REMEDY WOULD ONE DAY BE 
NECESSARY. THAT'S WHY WE ARE 
HERE. RIGHT NOW. THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE, AND 
AMERICAN ELECTION. NOT THE 
UKRAINIANS, NOT THE RUSSIANS NOT
THE CHINESE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHY,
THIS PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED. 
THAT IS WHY IT'S APPROPRIATE, 
FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, NOT AS 
ARTISANS, AS AMERICANS TO HOLD 
THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM VERMONT. I HAVE A 
QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
>>
SENATOR SANDERS, ASKS HOUSE 
MANAGERS, REPUBLICAN LAWYERS ON 
SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT TWO 
PEOPLE SENATOR JOHNSON AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WERE TOLD 
DIRECTLY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO  IN 
TERMS OF HOLDING BACK UKRAINE 
AID IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. 
GIVEN THE MEDIA HAS DOCUMENTED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S THOUSANDS OF 
LIVES WHILE IN OFFICE, MORE THAN
16,200, AS OF JANUARY 20, WHY 
SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE
THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAYS, HAS CREDIBILITY.
>> I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE TO 
BEGIN EXCEPT TO SAY THAT, IF 
EVERY DEFENDANT IN A TRIAL, 
COULD BE EXONERATED BY DENYING 
THE CRIME, THERE WOULD BE NO 
TRIAL. DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I
THINK IT'S TELLING THAT WHEN, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE FIRST WORDS 
OUT OF HIS MOUTH, WORK NO QUID 
PRO QUO . THAT'S THE KIND OF 
THING YOU DO, YOU BLURT OUT WHEN
YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT.
YOU SAY, IT WAS NOT ME. EVEN 
THEN, HE COULD NOT HELP HIMSELF.
BECAUSE, THE OTHER HALF OF THE 
CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO QUO
BUT
ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE 
MICROPHONE AND SHE SHOULD WANT 
TO. NO QUID PRO QUO  NO QUID PRO
QUO THIS REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING
THAT CAME UP EARLIER.  WHY WOULD
THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE'S ON THE 
CALL ON JULY 25th KNOWING OTHER 
PEOPLE WERE LISTENING, WHY ON 
EARTH WOULD HE ENGAGE IN THIS 
KIND OF A SHAKEDOWN WITH OTHERS 
WITHIN EARSHOT? I THINK THIS 
QUESTION COMES UP IN ALMOST 
EVERY TRIAL? WHY WOULD THE 
DEFENDANT DO THAT? IT'S VERY 
HARD TO FATHOM. SOMETIME PEOPLE 
MAKE MISTAKES BUT I THINK IN 
THIS CASE, HE BELIEVES HE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW. HE BELIEVES HE IS
ABOVE THE LOT DOES NOT MATTER 
WHO IS LISTENING. IT DOESN'T 
MATTER. IF IT'S GOOD FOR HIM,, 
IF IT'S GOOD FOR HIM IT'S GOOD 
FOR THE STATE BECAUSE HE IS THE 
STATE. IF IT HELPS HIS 
REELECTION, IT'S GOOD FOR 
AMERICA. WHATEVER MEANS HE NEEDS
OR WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID OR 
WHAT HAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT 
HELPS HIM GET ELECTED, IT'S GOOD
FOR AMERICA BECAUSE HE IS THE 
STATE. THIS IS WHY I THINK HE IS
SO IRATE, WHEN PEOPLE COME 
FORWARD, AND BLOW THE WHISTLE. 
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON OR 
GENERAL KELLER MIGHT ASK, WHY
WOULD SO MANY PEOPLE WHO LEAVE 
THE ADMINISTRATION, WHY DO THEY,
WALK AWAY FROM THIS PRESIDENT, 
WITH SUCH A CONVICTION, THAT 
HE'S UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY? 
YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF, GENERAL KELLY, DOES NOT 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, HE BELIEVES JOHN 
BOLTON. CAN EVERYBODY BE 
DISGRUNTLED? CAN IT ALL THE A 
MATTER BIAS? I THINK WE KNOW THE
ANSWER? I THINK WE KNOW THE 
ANSWER. HOW DO YOU BELIEVE 
PRESIDENT THAT THE POST HAS 
DOCUMENTED SO MANY FALSE 
STATEMENT? THE SHORT ANSWER IS 
YOU CANNOT. EARLY IN THE 
PRESIDENCY, MANY TALKED ABOUT 
WHEN YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT YOU 
LOSE THE CREDIBILITY AND YOUR 
COUNTRY, OR YOUR FRIENDS OR 
ALLIES THEY CANNOT RELY ON YOUR 
WORD, JUST HOW DESTRUCTIVE AND 
DANGEROUS IT IS TO THE COUNTRY. 
AND, SO WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE 
DENIAL, IF THE FALSE DENIAL. 
AND, INDEED IF YOU LOOK AT THE 
WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT
JOHNSON WAS INTERVIEWED IN WHEN 
HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND HE 
HAD THAT SINKING FEELING, 
BECAUSE IT DID NOT WANT THOSE 
TWO THINGS TIED TOGETHER, 
EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE 
TIED TOGETHER IT WAS A SYMBOL IS
2+2+4. CAN YOU RELY ON A FALSE 
STATEMENT YOU CANNOT. NOT 
ANYMORE YOU CAN THEN WITH ANY 
OTHER ACCUSED. PROBABLY GIVEN 
HIS TRACK RECORD LESS THAN OTHER
ACCUSED. BUT AT THE END OF THE 
DAY, WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. YOU DON'T 
HAVE TO RELY ON HIS FALSE THIS 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON 
MULVANEY THAT YOU ALSO ALSO 
GRAPHICALLY COME ON TV. WITHOUT 
A DOUBT,
THIS WAS A FACTOR IN THE THIS IS
WHY HE DID IT AND BY THE WAY, 
DERSHOWITZ LOST THE CRIMINAL 
CASE THAT HE LOST THE CASE. THE 
COURT SAID, OH YES YOU CAN. IF A
CORRUPT
MOTIVE IS ANY PART OF IT, YOU 
CAN CONVICT. HE LOST THAT 
ARGUMENT BEFORE I DID MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT AGAIN. IT SHOULD NOT BE
ANY MORE VEILING HERE THAN IT 
WAS THERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY
THOUGH, THERE'S NO MORE INTEREST
DID PARTY HERE THAN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
BUT HE WAS SAY WHATEVER HE NEEDS
TO. LET'S RELY ON THE EVIDENCED.
ONE IS JUST A SUBPOENA AWAY.
SENATOR FROM COLORADO. THANK 
YOU. 
>>
QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR 
GARDENER.
THE HOUSES ASSERTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT POWER, CANNOT BE 
QUESTIONED BY THE EXECUTIVE. IS 
THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE 
HOUSES IMPEACHMENT ARE 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION, AND WHAT PROTECTS 
THE EXECUTIVE FROM THE HOUSE 
ABUSING THE POWER, IN A FEATURE?
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, 
FOR THAT QUESTION. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ASSERTION, THAT ANY 
EFFORT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE AND
HAVE LEGAL IMMUNITY TO CLIENT 
DISCLOSING INFORMATION IS 
SOMEHOW A SIGN OF GUILT, IS NOT 
THE LAW. IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY 
CONTRARY TO THE LAW. LEGAL 
PRIVILEGES EXIST FOR REASON WE 
ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASSERT THEIR 
RIGHT. IT'S A BASIC PART OF THE 
JUSTICE SYSTEM. SEARCHING YOUR 
RIGHT AND PRIVILEGES,
IMMUNITY, EVEN IF IT MEANS 
LIMITING THE INFORMATION THAT 
MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO A 
TRIBUNAL IS NOT AND CANNOT BE 
TREATED AS EVIDENCE. THE SECOND 
PART OF THE QUESTION, AS TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS THEORY THAT THE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT MEANS THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT RESIST ANY 
SUBPOENA THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION 
GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT, WHICH MEANS ONLY
THAT THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PLACE
, THE ONLY PART OF THE 
GOVERNMENT THAT HAD THAT POWER. 
IT DOESN'T SAY TO HAVE A 
PERMANENT PART OF IMPEACHMENT. 
IT DESTROYS ALL OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND 
PRIVILEGES. IT DOESN'T MEAN 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CITED 
NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES. 
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON.
IN 1974, THE SUPREME COURT 
DETERMINED THAT IN THAT 
PARTICULAR CASE, AFTER BALANCING
OF INTEREST, ASSERTIONS THAT 
EXECUTIVE VILLAGE HAVE TO GIVE 
WAY. IT'S NOT A BLANKET RULE 
THAT ANY TIME THERE IS AN 
ALLEGATION OF WRONGDOING, OR 
IMPEACHMENT GOING ON, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. THAT'S NOT
THE REAL. BUT EVEN IN THAT 
CONTEXT, THE COURT POINTED OUT, 
THERE MIGHT BE AN ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY BILL WOULD IN THE FIELD
OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. WHICH IS 
THE FIELD WE ARE DEALING WITH 
HERE. THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THE
COULD BE PARTISAN AND 
ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT. THE 
RECOGNIZE THE HOUSE COULD 
IMPEACH FOR WRONG REASONS. THEY 
DIDN'T NEED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
. THE IMMUNITY IS ROOTED IN 
THAT. IT STILL APPLIES, EVEN IN 
THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT 
THAT IS PART OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
THEY DO NOT HOLLOWAY SIMPLY 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS NOW, WE 
WANT TO PROCEED. THE SEPARATION 
OF POWERS, FOR THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH TO RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO
PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 
INTEREST. FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO 
FAIL TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS, 
WOULD BE LACKING DAMAGE, TO THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR THE
FUTURE. I THINK THAT'S A 
CRITICAL POINT TO UNDERSTAND. 
THERE IS A DANGER IN THE LEGAL 
THEORY, THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ARE PROPOSING HERE.
IT WOULD DO LASTING DAMAGE TO 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND 
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO 
HAVE THE IDEA BE DONE SINCE THE 
HOUSE FLIPS A SWITCH THAT THEY 
WANT TO START PROCEEDING ON 
IMPEACHMENT COME THE EXECUTIVE 
HAS NO DEFENSES JUST TO OPEN 
EVERY FILE, AND DISPLAY 
EVERYTHING. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE
FRAMERS HAD IN MIND. THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TO HAVE 
DEFENSES FOR ITS FAIR OF 
AUTHORITY. THAT'S PART OF CHECKS
AND BALANCES. BEFORE I SIT DOWN 
I WANT TO QUOTE AND GOING BACK 
TO THE SENATOR THAT ASKED 
KRISTIN ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS
ON BOLTON. I BELIEVE I WAS 
CLEAR. I WANT TO BE 100% SURE.
CANNOT MAKE THAT ASSURANCE, I'M 
NOT SURE AT THE LEVELS OF THE 
PROCESS, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER 
REVIEWS. I DID NOT WANT IT TO BE
MISUNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE 
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. I I 
HAD A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS
WILL RESPOND FIRST TO THIS 
QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARREN. IF
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
OFFERED DIRT TRUMPS POLITICAL 
RIVALS, IN EXCHANGE FOR TRUMP'S 
HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS IN MILITARY AID THAT 
WOULD CLEARLY BE BRIBERY AND AND
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WHY WOULD 
IT BE MORE ACCEPTABLE AND 
SOMEHOW NOT IMPEACHABLE FOR THE 
REVERSE? THAT IS FOR TRUMP TO 
PROPOSE THE SAME CORRUPT BARGAIN
?
>>
BRIBERY, IT'S OBVIOUSLY 
IMPEACHABLE. BRIBERY IS 
CONTAINED WITHIN THE ACCUSATIONS
OF THE HOUSE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF 
POWER. WE EXPLAINED THE PRACTICE
OF IMPEACHMENT IS WITHIN OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY ARE 
ESTABLISHED HERE. THE ABUSE OF 
POWER IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OFFER 
SOMETHING AND EXTORTS A FOREIGN 
POWER TO
GET A BENEFIT FOR HIMSELF AND 
WILLS HOLDS MILITARY AID IN 
ORDER TO GET THAT POWER TO DO 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP HIM, 
POLITICALLY THAT IS CLEARLY 
BRIBERY AND AN ABUSE OF POWER 
THERE'S NO QUESTION. BY THE WAY,
THE QUESTION WAS MADE EARLIER AS
TO WHAT THE PROPER STANDARD OF 
TRUTH IS. BUT, THE HIGHEST 
STANDARD OF PROOF IS
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THIS 
HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BEYOND ANY 
DOUBT.
>> THE QUESTION, I THINK WITH 
THIS SHOWS, THIS IS AN EFFORT TO
SMUGGLE IN ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT DO NOT MENTION 
ANY CRIME, THE IDEA THAT THERE 
IS SOME TIME ALLEGED. THERE IS 
NOT. THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SPECIFY THEORY OF THE CHARGE 
HERE GOT HIS ABUSE OF POWER. 
THEY DO NOT ELECT BRIBERY OR 
DISTORTION THEY DON'T MENTION 
BRIBERY OR EXTORTION. IF THEY 
WANTED TO BRING THOSE TO HAD TO 
PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES JUST 
AWAY PROSECUTOR IF HE WANTS TO 
PUT SOMEBODY ON TRIAL FOR 
BRIBERY HAS TO PUT IT IN THE 
INDICTMENT. IF YOU DON'T AND YOU
COME TO TRIAL AND TRY TO START 
ARGUING DONE AS WELL, ACTUALLY, 
WE THINK THERE IS BRIBERY GOING 
ON HERE, THAT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE 
THAT'S RUSTIC REAL MISCONDUCT. 
TO TRY TO SUGGEST THAT MAY BE 
THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF BRIBERY, 
THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT. WE HAVE
SPECIFIC FACTS, WE HAVE EVIDENCE
RESENTED AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC 
ARTICLES OF EACH MINUTE. IT DOES
NOT SAY BRIBERY OR EXTORTION. 
THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THAT INTO 
THIS CASE AT THIS POINT. THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME THEIR CASE.
THEY HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY THEY 
CONTROL THE WHOLE PROCESS THEY 
CONTROLLED ALL THE EVIDENCE TO 
BRING IN. THEY COULD FRAME IT 
ANYWAY THEY WANTED BUT THEY DID 
NOT PUT IT IN. THERE'S NO CRIME 
ASSERTED HERE IT'S NOT
PART OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND CANNOT BE 
CONSIDERED NOW. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE. THANK YOU, I SUBMIT TO 
THE DESK QUESTION ON MY BEHALF 
AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR [ 
INDISCERNIBLE ]. 
>>
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MORAN 
IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THAT
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE ISSUE OF
PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND 
TESTIMONY WITNESSES OVER THE 
OBJECTION OF THE MANAGERS OR 
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL AND WILL IT 
BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR, 
THANK YOU, FOR THE QUESTION. LET
ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY. WE ARE 
GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT 
SUBPOENAING
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND 
HAVING THINGS COME INTO EVIDENCE
THAT WAY, THE FIRST QUESTION 
WOULD BE SUBPOENAS WOULD HAVE TO
BE ISSUED TO WITNESSES BEFORE 
THE DOCUMENTS. IF THEY WERE ON 
THE GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE 
IMMUNITY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE 
SORTED OUT. BECAUSE IF THE 
PRESIDENT ASSERTED, FOR EXAMPLE 
IMMUNITY FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
OR OVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THE 
SENATE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER 
IT WAS GOING TO CITE THAT 
ASSERTION AND HOW THEIR SOME 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS OR IF THE 
SENATE WERE GOING TO GO TO COURT
TO LITIGATE THAT. THAT PROCESS 
WOULD HAVE TO PLAY OUT. I WOULD 
BE THE FIRST AND THAT WOULD GO 
THROUGH ANY TIME THE PRESIDENT 
RESISTED THAT. THAT'S WHAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS DECIDED NOT TO DO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THEN, ONCE THERE HAD BEEN 
EVERYTHING WAS SUBPOENAED IT'S 
ON-SITE THE QUESTION WAS ASKING,
FURTHER, IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS 
HERE IN TRAIL ADMISSIBILITY. 
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER AND
CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN 
INITIAL DETERMINATION IF THERE 
WERE OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF 
EVIDENCE. THAT CAN BE CHALLENGED
BY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IT 
WILL BE SUBJECT TO A VOTE. IT 
WOULD NOT BE, THERE WAS A 
SUGGESTION EARLIER, THAT WE 
DON'T NEED ANY OTHER COURT. THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE IS HERE. THAT'S 
NOT CORRECT. ON THE FRONT END, 
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING DUNST 
DETERMINED IN ALL RESPECTS HER, 
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SORTED 
OUT IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEN WHEN WE 
ARE HERE ON EVIDENTIARY AND THE 
OBJECTION DURING DEPOSITION, IT 
WOULD BE RESOLVED BY WITNESS ON 
THE STAND IF THERE IS A
OBJECTION TO A PARTICULAR 
DOCUMENT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
COULD MAKE AN INITIAL RULING BUT
EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE COULD BE 
APPEALED TO THE BODY. YOU MIGHT 
HAVE TO CONSIDER RULES WHETHER 
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE,
RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE MODIFIED 
RULES OF EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT 
WOULD HAVE TO BE THROWN OUT. I 
DON'T THINK WE WOULD GET TO THIS
STAGE THEN OF IN DETERMINATION 
OF EVIDENCE HERE. THAT WOULD BE 
PROCESS THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO 
DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE 
IN EVIDENCE. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE. I SEND THE QUESTION. 
>> EXCUSE ME. SENATOR FROM 
MINNESOTA. I SEND A QUESTION TO 
THE TEST.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH,
IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. THE 
PRESIDENT HAS STATED MULTIPLE 
TIMES IN PUBLIC, HIS ACTIONS 
WERE PERFECT FOR IT HE REFUSES 
TO ALLOW BOLTON TO TESTIFY UNDER
OATH. IF HIS ACTIONS ARE SO 
PERFECT WHY WOULDN'T HE ALLOW 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH 
ABOUT WHAT HE HAS SAID PUBLICLY?
>>
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IF THE 
PRESIDENT WERE SO COMPETENT THIS
WAS A PERFECT CALL, AND THOSE 
AROUND HIM WOULD AGREE THAT 
THERE'S NOTHING THE VARIOUS 
GOING ON, HE WOULD WANT 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. BUT HE 
DOES NOT. HE DOES NOT WANT HIS 
ADVISOR TO TESTIFY AND DOESN'T 
WANT HIS CURRENT CHIEF OF STAFF 
TO TESTIFY. HE DOES NOT WANT 
ANYBODY TO TESTIFY. NOW, I THINK
THAT'S INDICATIVE, THAT HE KNOWS
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. HE DOES 
NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR WHAT THEY 
HAVE TO SAY. HE DOESN'T WANT YOU
TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS
BEEN WITHHOLDING FROM THE BODY. 
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAST 
QUESTION IF I COULD. IS THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE AND POWER UNDER 
THE SENATE RULES, TO ADJUDICATE 
QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND 
PRIVILEGE, AND THE ANSWER IS 
YES. CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE 
DETERMINATION QUICKLY AND THE 
ANSWER IS YES. AS THE SENATE 
EMPOWERED OVERTURN THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE UNDER CERTAIN 
CIRCUMSTANCES? IS ABOUT 50 OR IS
IT TWO THIRDS? THAT'S SOMETHING 
WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE DOES HAVE THE POWER TO 
DO IT. UNDER THE SENATE RULES, 
YOU WANT EXPEDITE THE PROCESS WE
ARE HERE TO TELL YOU WE WILL 
AGREE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
RULE ON WITNESSES
ON MATERIALITY ON THE 
APPLICATION OR NONAPPLICATION OF
PRIVILEGE. WE AGREE TO BE BOUND 
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE WE WILL NOT
SEEK TO LITIGATE AN ADVERSE 
RULING WE WILL NOT SEEK TO 
APPEAL AN ADVERSE RULING. WILL 
THE PRESIDENTS COUNSEL DO THE 
SAME? IF NOT JUST AS THE 
PRESIDENT DOESN'T TRUST WHAT 
WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY, THE 
PRESIDENTS DON'T WANT TO RELAY 
ON HIS RULING MIGHT BE. WHY IS 
THAT? DAY AS WE UNDERSTAND HE 
WILL BE FAIR. NOT
SUGGESTING THAT THEY DON'T THINK
HE'S FAIR. QUITE THE CONTRARY 
THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL BE FAIR.
THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL MAKE A 
FAIR RULING. THAT SHOULD TELL 
YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE WEAKNESS
OF THEIR POSITION. DIDN'T WANT A
FAIR TRIAL WITH WITNESSES AND 
THEY DO NOT WANT A FAIR JUSTICE.
THEY WANT TO SUGGEST YOU, THEY 
WILL DELAY DELAY DELAY. THOMAS 
PAINE, SAID THOSE WHO WOULD 
ENJOY THE
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, MUST 
UNDERGO THE RIGORS OF DEFENDING 
AND THE DEFEAT OF DEFENDING IT. 
IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE FOR US TO
HEAR FROM A WITNESS? IS THAT HOW
LITTLE EFFORT WE ARE WILLING TO 
PUT INTO THE BLESSINGS OF 
FREEDOM AND LIBERTY? IS THAT HOW
LITTLE FATIGUE WHERE WILLING TO 
INCUR?
BECAUSE THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA. I SEND 
A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF. 
>>
QUESTION ON BEHALF OF SENATOR 
SCOTT FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND 
MR. RUBIO. THIS IS DIRECTED TO 
THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MR. PAT CIPOLLONE 
AND ELABORATE ON THAT ROLE, AND 
YOU OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON LIBERTY 
PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURE OF 
OFFENSES THAT SHOULD BE 
CONSIDERED, AND IN THE PROXIMITY
TO ELECTION FOR FUTURE 
IMPEACHMENT AND WORD PUBLIC 
TRUST BY PUTTING GUARD RAILS ON 
BOTH PARTIES?
I THINK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. IN 
ELABORATING ON THE GOLDEN RULE I
WOULD SAY IT'S BEEN NUMBER ONE, 
IF WE LISTEN TO WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAID IN THE 
PAST, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ANOTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 
THAT SHOULD GUIDE US. THAT 
PRINCIPLE IS AND IT'S A 
PRINCIPAL BASED ON PRECEDENT, 
SHOULD NOT HAVE A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT IF YOU HAVE A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT IN AND
OF ITSELF IS DANGEROUS. THAT 
MEANS THERE IS NOT A BIPARTISAN 
SOUP PORT THAT EVEN DOES? THE 
HOUSE I SAID, YOU WOULD NEED TO 
BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT IT 
IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN 
ELECTION. THEY DON'T DISPUTE 
THAT.
IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN 
ELECTION. IT IS THE REMOVAL OF 
THIS PRESIDENT FROM AN ELECTION 
THAT THE CURRENT MONTH FROM NOW.
THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT 
PRINCIPLE. THE OTHER IMPORTANT 
BACK HERE, IS THAT THERE IS 
ACTUALLY BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION 
TO THIS. DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST
IT. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT 
PRINCIPLE. THE OTHER THE OTHER 
PRINCIPAL, WOULD BE, IF YOU HAVE
A PROCESS THAT'S UNPRECEDENTED, 
IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS 
UNPRECEDENTED, THAT SHOULD BE 
CONSIDERED. ALWAYS, IN THE PAST 
THERE HAS BEEN A VOTE 
AUTHORIZING AND IMPEACHMENT. 
WHY? THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE 
AUTHORITY OF AND IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT'S THE HOUSE, NOT THE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. THAT'S 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION 
IS, ALL OF THE HISTORICAL 
PRESIDENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD BEEN VIOLATED. THE 
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL
IS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE 
WITNESSES AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
CALL WITNESSES. THERE COME IN 
HERE AND BASICALLY ASKING YOU, 
NUMBER ONE, THE CALL WITNESSES 
THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PURSUE AND 
I THINK WHAT THEY ARE SAYING TO 
DO IT THEY DID. I WOULD CALL 
WITNESSES THAT THEY WANT. DO NOT
ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CALL 
WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTS. THAT DOES NOT WORK
. THAT IS NOT THE PROCESS. THE 
OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES THERE
IS, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT 
FAIRNESS. IN THE AMERICAN 
JUSTICE SYSTEM, FAIRNESS IS 
ABOUT FAIRNESS TO THE ACCUSED 
FAIRNESS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS TO 
THE ACCUSED HOW YOU CAN SUGGEST 
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS HAVE A
TRIAL LOOK AT THE WITNESSES AND 
PROSECUTORS WE WANT. EVEN THOUGH
YOU GOT TO
CROSS-EXAMINE NONE OF THE 
WITNESSES AND HOW WE GOT A DEAL 
FOR YOU. LET US CALL ANOTHER 
WITNESS THAT YOU CALL NONE. 
THAT'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE. I 
THINK THE REALITY IS, THAT WHAT 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID IS 
TRUE. THINK WHEN YOU WERE 
THINKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS 
MUCH AS WE CAN AS HUMAN BEINGS, 
IS TO THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS 
OF, THE PRESIDENT IS THE 
PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF PARTY. 
HOW WOULD WE TREAT A PRESIDENT 
OF HER OWN PARTY, IN SIMILAR 
CIRCUMSTANCES? I THINK THAT IS 
THE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
I DON'T THINK WANT TO GUESS. I 
THINK WE HAVE LOTS OF TREATMENTS
FROM DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE
LAST TIME AROUND, I SAID, I 
AGREE WITH THEM.
I AGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES I 
ASK THAT THEY BE EMPLOYED HERE. 
THAT IS MY ANSWER, THANK YOU. I 
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS. 
>> THANK YOU.
IF RESIDENT TRUMP WERE TO 
ACTUALLY INVOKE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IN THIS SEEDING,
WOULDN'T HE BE REQUIRED TO 
IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC 
COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING 
SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE SEEKS
TO PROTECT? THE AMOUNT
AS STATED BEFORE, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS A VERY LIMITED 
PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE CLAIMED 
BY THE PRESIDENT. HE HAD NO TIME
CLAIMED EXECUTIVE CALL THAT SHE 
CLAIMS IMMUNITY.
INSTEAD HE HAS SIMPLY SAID, WE 
WILL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS, WE 
WILL DENY TO THE HOUSE ALL 
INTIMATION ALL INTIMATION 
WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CANNOT 
HAVE THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE 
PALE. IT'S INTENDED TO, BECAUSE 
HE FEARS THE FACTS. THE FACTS 
ARE, HE TRIED TO EXTORT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT THERE WITHHOLDING 
MILITARY AID THAT THIS CONGRESS,
THIS CONGRESS MANDATED BE SENT 
TO THEM, IN ORDER TO PRESSURE 
THEM, INTO ANNOUNCING THIS 
OCCASION OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS THOSE ARE THE FACTS. 
THEY WERE PROVEN BEYOND ANY 
DOUBT AT ALL. WHAT DO WE HAVE? 
WE HAVE DIVERSION AFTER 
DIVERSION. DIVERSIONS ABOUT WHAT
HUNTER BIDEN MAY HAVE DONE IN 
THE UKRAINE. IT IS IRRELEVANT. 
WHATEVER HE DID, THE QUESTION 
IS, DID THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD 
FOREIGN MILITARY AID, IN ORDER 
TO EXTORT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INTO HELPING HIM READ AN 
AMERICAN ELECTION? WE HEAR 
DIVERSION ABOUT PRIVILEGE. HER 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WITNESSES. WE 
KNOW HE'S TELLING SENATORS, DO 
NOT ALLOW WITNESSES, WHY? 
CASINOS, WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL
SAY. WE HEAR RECOMMENDS FROM HIS
COUNSEL, WE HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH 
TIME WITH WITNESSES. THE HOUSE 
SHOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR DID 
NOT HAVE PROOF POSITIVE. WE DO 
HAVE PROOF POSITIVE. THAT 
DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD NOT HAVE 
MORE PROOF. THERE'S NO ARGUMENT 
THAT MR. BOLTON SHOULD NOT BE 
PERMITTED TO TESTIFY. HE TOLD US
HE WILL TESTIFY. ALL OF THESE, 
OR DIVERSIONS. THEY ARE 
DIVERSION BY PRESIDENT WOULD 
DESK BRITT, BECAUSE WE HAVE 
PROVEN THE FACT, THAT HE 
THREATENED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
HE DID IN FACT WITHHOLD MANDATED
MILITARY AID FROM THEM TO 
BLACKMAIL THEM INTO SERVING HIS 
POLITICAL PURPOSES FOR PRIVATE 
POLITICAL PURPOSES WE KNOW THAT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A DIVERSION. 
NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE THEY 
WILL TESTIFY IN A WAY HE DOES 
NOT WANT. PRIVILEGE.
WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH 
WRONGDOING, THE SUPREME COURT 
TOLD US, PRIVILEGE YIELDS. SO, 
ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS OR 
DIVERSIONS KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE 
FACTS, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN 
PROVEN. AS MR. ADAM SCHIFF SAID,
WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT
. NOT TO THE SENATE OR ANYBODY 
ELSE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RULE
AND RELEVANT QUESTIONS RELEVANCY
OR PRIVILEGE OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
THE FACTS ARE FACTS OR THE 
PRESIDENT IS A DANGER TO THE 
UNITED DATE IS PRETTY TRIED TO 
READ THE NEXT ELECTION HE ABUSE 
OF POWER. HE MUST
BE BROUGHT TO HEEL THE COUNTRY 
MUST BE SAVED FROM HIS 
CONTINUING EFFORTS TO RID OUR 
ELECTION. I THINK YOU MR. 
MANAGER. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  I 
SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>>
QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROMNEY FOR
THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. ON
WHAT SPECIFIC DATE DID PRESIDENT
TRUMP FIRST ORDERED THE HOLDER 
AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE AND DID HE EXPLAIN THE 
REASON AT THAT TIME? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, 
FOR THE QUESTION.  I DON'T THINK
THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
OF A SPECIFIC DATE, THE SPECIFIC
DATE. BUT, THERE IS TESTIMONY IN
THE RECORD, THAT INDIVIDUALS 
WERE AWARE OF A HOLD, AS OF JULY
THIRD, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE IN 
THE RECORD OF THE PRESIDENTS 
RATIONALE FROM EVEN EARLIER THAN
THAT, THERE IS AN EMAIL FROM 
JUNE 24th THAT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY
RELEASED. IT IS FROM ONE DOD 
STAFFER, THE CHIEF OF STAFF
I'M SORRY, FROM THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF RELATING SUBJECT LINE 
FOLLOW-UP FROM A MEETING 
EXPLAINING QUESTION SHE HAD BEEN
ASKED ABOUT THE UKRAINE 
ASSISTANCE
WHAT WAS THE FUNDING USED FOR 
DID IT GO TO U.S. FIRMS AND WHO 
FUNDED IT AND WHAT DID OTHER 
NATO MEMBERS BEEN FOR UKRAINE? 
SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN 
JUNE, HE HAD EXPRESSED HIS 
CONCERN
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. WHAT DID 
OTHER NATO MEMBER DO AND 
SIMILARLY IN THE JULY 25th 
TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED ZELENSKY 
SPECIFICALLY HE RAISED ISSUE OF 
BURDEN SHARING. THAT WAS HIS 
CONCERN. IN ADDITION,
IT WAS, I BELIEVE MR. MORRISON, 
WHO TESTIFIED, THAT HE WAS WHERE
FROM OMB THE PRESIDENT HAD 
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, AND THERE WAS A 
REVIEW PROCESS
HE CONSIDERED CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE. THE EVIDENCE IN THE 
RECORD SHOWS, THE PRESIDENT 
RAISED CONCERNS JUNE 24th, THAT 
PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE HOLDERS
OF JULY THIRD. HIS CONCERNS 
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WORK IN THE
EMAIL ON JUNE 21st. THERE'S 
TESTIMONY FROM LATER IN THE 
SUMMER HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND THAT 
IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
THAT REFLECTS THE PRESIDENTS 
CONCERN. THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, THE SENATOR FROM 
NEVADA. I SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK..  
>>
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CORTEZ, IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HE WAS UNFAIRLY EXCLUDED FROM 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES. CAN
YOU DESCRIBE THE TREATMENT
DID HE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY 
OPPORTUNITIES COME TO HAVE HIS 
COUNSEL PARTICIPATE? 
>>
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE VICTIM 
HERE. THE BIG JUMP IN THIS CASE,
IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INVITED TO 
ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL OF
THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS. HE COULD HAVE HAD MR. 
PAT CIPOLLONE  OR ANY OF THE 
OTHER ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE JOINED 
AT THE COUNSEL TABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE THROUGHOUT THE 
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE. THEY 
COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF THE 
HEARINGS AND IMAGINE THIS, 
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, RAISE 
OBJECTIONS, PRESENT
EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE 
PRESIDENT, IF THEY HAD ANY TO 
PRESENT. AND, THEY COULD HAVE 
REQUESTED TO HAVE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OWN WITNESSES CALLED. HE
REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE AND HE 
SAID IF YOU ARE GOING TO 
IMPEACHMENT, DO IT NOW FAST.
AT EVERY EVENT, RESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY 
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BUT 
HE REFUSED, AS WE'VE SAID OVER 
AND OVER AGAIN, TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS OR ALLOW WITNESSES TO 
TESTIFY. WE THANK GOD FOR THE 17
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD
IN SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT. IN ADDITION
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAD AN EQUAL 
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS 
DURING THE DEPOSITION. 
REPUBLICANS MEMBERS
CALLED THREE WITNESSES DURING 
THE INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS AND ADDITIONAL WITNESS 
DURING THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS. 
OF COURSE, THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY IS NOT A FULL-BLOWN 
CRIMINAL TRIAL. WE DO KNOW THAT.
THIS IS A TRIAL AND OBVIOUSLY 
THE PRESIDENT IS AFFORDED EVERY 
DUE PROCESS RIGHT DURING THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. THANK YOU. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE . I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. . 
>>
THIS QUESTIONS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. IN EARLY OCTOBER, MR. 
PAT CIPOLLONE  SENT A LETTER 
SAYING THESE WERE NOT 
APPROPRIATELY AUTHORIZED AND 
THUS INVALID. WHEN THE HOUSE 
ASKED THIS AUTHORIZING THE 
INQUIRY IN AUTHORIZING SUBPOENA 
POWER, THE BODY COULD HAVE 
ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENCY THE 
WHITE HOUSE POINTED OUT. THEY 
PROCLAIMED THE SUBPOENAS AS
EXERCISES OF THE INQUIRY. 
ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE 
COULD'VE REISSUED THE SUBPOENAS 
AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS 
ADOPTED. HE EXPLAINED WELL 
NEITHER THOSE ACTIONS TOOK 
PLACE. 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, I 
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THESE 
ARGUMENTS PLAIN AND SIMPLE, WERE
RED HERRING. THE HOUSE IS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
WERE FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE 
CONSTITUTION HOUSE RULES, AND 
THE PRESIDENT. IT'S FOR THE 
HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT TO 
DECIDE HOW TO CONDUCT AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE HOUSE 
IS AT ECONOMY TO STRUCTURE ITS 
OWN PROCEEDINGS FOR AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ROOTED 
INTO
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. FIRST, ARTICLE 1 
THE HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT. IT CONTAINS NO 
REQUIREMENT NO REQUIREMENT AS TO
HOW THE HOUSE MUST CARRY OUT 
THAT RESPONSIBILITY. SECOND, 
ARTICLE 1 STATES, THE HOUSE IS 
EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE RULES
AND PROCEEDINGS. TAKEN TOGETHER,
THESE PROVISIONS GIVE THE HOUSE 
THE SOUL DISCRETION TO DETERMINE
THE MATTER IN WHICH THEY 
INVESTIGATE, DELIBERATE AND VOTE
FOR GROUNDS OF IMPEACHMENT. IN 
EXERCISING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO
INVESTIGATE THE POWER TO 
INVESTIGATE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO
RELEVANT INVESTIGATION 
CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTS 
MISCONDUCT. THE FRAMERS, THE 
COURT AND PAST PRESIDENT, HAVE 
RECOGNIZED AND HONORED CONGRESS 
IS RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN THE 
INVESTIGATION TO SAFEGUARD OUR 
SYSTEM AND DIVIDED POWER. 
OTHERWISE, THE PRESIDENT COULD 
HIDE HIS OWN WRONGDOING TO 
PREVENT CONGRESS FROM 
DISCOVERING IMPEACHABLE 
MISCONDUCT, ESPECIALLY 
NULLIFYING CONGRESSES 
IMPEACHMENT POWER. THAT IS 
PRECISELY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE YOUR. THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED THE POWER
TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHICH 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA HE WILL 
RESPOND TO AND THOSE HE WILL 
NOT. THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WILL
HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THAT EACH TIME
ANYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
GETS A SUBPOENA, IT IS OPEN 
SEASON AND DOJ TO INVENT 
THEORIES, ABOUT HOUSE RULES AND 
PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDENT. THIS IS
NOT HOW THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
WORK. DO ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT 
WITHHOLDING AND IT WOULD 
UNDERMINE HOUSE AND SENATE'S 
ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT WOULD 
ALSO MAKE THE IMPEACHMENT
ANALOGY. HE ARGUES THERE WAS NO 
RESOLUTION FULLY AUTHORIZING THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AGAIN, 
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE 
FULL HOUSE TO TAKE A VOTE BEFORE
CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS
LAWYERS INVENTED THIS THEORY. 
CHIEF JUDGE RACHEL HAS DATED AND
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, THIS 
CLAIM HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION OR GOVERNING RULES 
IN THE HOUSE. THE CONSTITUTION 
ITSELF SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW IT
DIRECTS THE IMPEACHMENT. THE 
HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE ROLE OF THE
SOLE POWER TO DETERMINE THE 
RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. THIS 
CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE 
PRESIDENT. NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE 
BEEN SUBJECTED TO THIS IN THE 
HOUSE. IF CONVICTED BY THE 
SENATE AS THE RANKING AND 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AS RECENTLY
THE ONE 14th CONGRESS, THE DID 
JUST YOUR COMMITTEE CONSIDERED 
IMPEACHING THE IRS COMMISSIONER 
FOLLOWING HIS ROLE FROM ANOTHER 
COMMITTEE. THAT TOOK A WHOLE 
HOUSE VOTES BEGAN AND INVESTING 
JASON TO NIXON'S MISCONDUCT FOR 
FOUR MONTHS BEFORE APPROVAL OF 
THE RESOLUTION. THE HOUSE RULES 
DO NOT PRECLUDE THE COMMITTEE 
FROM INQUIRING INTO THE 
POTENTIAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT INSTEAD
THEY HAD A ROBUST POWER 
INCLUDING THE POWER TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS. EACH OF THE THREE 
COMMITTEES THAT CONDUCTED THE 
INITIAL INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CONDUCT IN THE UKRAINE 
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT IN 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAD
OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OVER 
THESE MATTERS. THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL POINTED TO THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT WITH THE FULL HOUSE 
THANK YOU. 
>>
THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.  BECAUSE MY QUESTION 
REFERENCES AND A QUESTION I 
ATTACH THAT EARLIER QUESTION, AS
A REFERENCE.
>> THANK YOU. 
>>
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITE 
HOUSE IS FROM THE COUNSEL TO THE
PRESIDENT. WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
REFUSED TO ANSWER A DIRECT 
QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS 
AND MURKOWSKI, SAYING HE COULD 
ONLY CITE TO THE RECORD. I 
ADMITTED AFTERWORD, RECENT 
NEWSPAPER START TO THE SENATE 
FROM OUTSIDE THE HOUSE RECORD.
WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE A TRUTHFUL
ANSWER TO THE SENATORS QUESTION.
DID THE PRESIDENT EVER MENTION 
THE BIDENS IN CONNECTION TO 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, BEFORE 
VICE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT 
BY THE ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY. 
WHAT DID HE SAY TO WHOM AND 
WHEN? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU, FOR
THE QUESTION. I DON'T THINK I 
REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION 
COME AT ALL WE WERE  ADVISED BY 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEY WERE 
GOING TO OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED 
TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WOULD
NOT EITHER IN PUBLIC DOMAIN SO 
THINGS THAT ARE NEWSPAPER 
ARTICLES WE COULD REFER TO OR 
THINGS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD. 
SO, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GO 
BACK INTO THINGS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MIGHT'VE SAID IN 
PRIVATE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO 
DISCOVERY INTO THAT. I CANNOT 
TELL NOW ABOUT THINGS THE 
PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE SAID THE 
CABINET MEMBERS. I'M NOT IN 
POSITION TO SAY THAT. I CAN TELL
YOU WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. I 
ANSWERED THE QUESTION FULLY TO 
THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. THAT'S 
BASED ON WHAT'S IN PUBLIC 
DOMAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A 
MOMENT TO ALSO RESPOND TO THE 
LAST QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY 
SENATOR MURKOWSKI. WITH RESPECT 
TO THE VOTE ON AUTHORIZING THE 
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
BECAUSE, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A
VOTE FROM A FULL HOUSE, TO 
AUTHORIZE ANY IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES INTO PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT. IT WAS THAT WAY IN 
THE JOHNSON AND NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BEGAN WORK BEFORE THEY
VOTED ON THE
RESOLUTION. I THINK WAS ABLE TO 
REACH AUTHORIZE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES BUT ALL THAT WORK WAS 
SIMPLY GATHERING THINGS IN THE 
PUBLIC DOMAIN OR HAD BEEN 
GATHERED ALREADY BY OTHER 
COMMITTEES. IT WAS NO COMPULSORY
PROCESS ISSUED. AND IN FACT 
CHAIRMAN RUBINO SPECIFICALLY 
DETERMINE WHEN THERE WAS A MOVE 
TO HAVE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE ISSUE SUBPOENAS AFTER 
THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE. 
THEY LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO 
ISSUE THAT BEFORE THERE HAD BEEN
A VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THEM TO DO 
THAT. THIS ISN'T SOME ESOTERIC 
SPECIAL RULE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. 
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE, 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT HOW
AUTHORITY GIVEN BY WE THE 
PEOPLE, TO CHAMBERS OF THE 
LEGISLATURE BY THE HOUSE OR 
SENATE
. ONCE IT'S GIVEN THERE TO THE 
HOUSE, HOW DID IT GET TO A 
COMMITTEE? IT CAN ONLY GET THEM 
TO A COMMITTEE OF ITS DELEGATED 
BY THE HOUSE. THAT CAN ONLY 
HAPPEN IF THE HOUSE VOTES. THERE
IS NO STANDING RULE TO GIVE THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE 
AUTHORITY COLLECTIVELY. THERE'S 
NO RULE THAT GIVES YOU PARTIES 
THE AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT, 
THE ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS. 
RULE 10 DOES NOT MENTION 
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL. THAT'S WHY 
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MUST BE
A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE TO 
AUTHORIZE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE OR IN THIS CASE, IT 
WAS CONTRARY TO ALL PRIOR 
PRACTICE IT WAS GIVEN TO MANAGER
ADAMS
COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY TO USE 
THE POWER IMPEACHMENT ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS. IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS ALL 
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BEFORE THE 
HOUSE RESOLUTION WERE INVALID. 
SENATOR CASKEY SAID THAT THERE 
WAS NO EFFORT EITHER TO ATTEMPT 
TO RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THE 
SUBPOENAS, OR TO SAY, THAT THOSE
SUBPOENAS TO RETROACTIVELY 
AUTHORIZE THOSE SUBPOENAS OR 
REISSUE THEM UNDER HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 650. SO,
THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED INVALID. 
THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE 
HOUSE. THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL,
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. 
>>
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUZ AND 
SENATOR DANE, -- 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL RESPOND
FIRST AND THE OTHER SENATORS. 
WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, THE 
UKRAINE'S PROSECUTOR GENERAL, 
VOWED TO INVESTIGATE BEFORE JOE 
BIDEN PRESSED UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS ON CORRUPTION 
INCLUDING PUSHING FOR THE 
REMOVAL AND DID THE COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE
OR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT 
LEGAL CONCERT ISSUE ETHICS 
ADVISOR PROVING MR. BIDEN'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN MATTERS INVOLVING
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE DESPITE 
THE PRESENCE OF HUNTER BIDEN A 
COMPANY CONSIDERED WIDELY TO BE 
CORRECT? DID VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN EVER ASK HUNTER BIDEN TO 
STEP DOWN FROM THE BOARD?
>>
CHIEF JUSTICE THANK YOU, FOR THE
QUESTION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF 
ANY EVIDENCE  THAT THEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD ANY OPINION 
BUT WE ARE AWARE THAT DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAN'T 
TESTIFIED ACCUSE ME HOCHSTEIN IS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND CAN'T 
TESTIFIED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE 
THE HOUSE THAT THEY EACH RAISED 
THE ISSUE WITH BIDEN OF A 
POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH IS 
ABOUT HUNTER BEING ON THE BOARD.
CAN'T TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH, 
HE RAISED THAT ISSUE WITH THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE THE 
RESPONSE WAS THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS BUSY 
DEALING WITH THE ILLNESS OF HIS 
OTHER SON. THERE WAS NO ACTION 
TAKEN. FROM WHAT WE KNOW, THERE 
WAS NOT ANY EFFORT TO SEEK AN 
ETHICS OPINION. ALTHOUGH THE 
ISSUE WAS FLAGGED FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. WE ARE NOT 
AWARE THAT BIDEN ASKED TO SEND A
STEP DOWN OR ANY OTHER ACTION 
WAS TAKEN AND I BELIEVE VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE NEVER 
DISCUSSED IT. HE NEVER DISCUSSED
HIS SON'S OVERSEAS BUSINESS 
DEALINGS. THANK YOU. 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I APPRECIATE 
YOUR QUESTIONS.  THE FACT ABOUT 
BARS PRESIDENTS CONDUCT ARE 
CLEAR AND DO NOT CHANGE. LET'S 
GO THROUGH THEM. FIRST EVERY 
WITNESS ASKED ABOUT THIS TOPIC 
TESTIFIED, THAT HE WAS WIDELY 
CONSIDERED TO BE A CORRUPT AND 
INEFFECTIVE PROSECUTOR. HE DID 
NOT PROSECUTE CORRUPTION.
HE WAS SO CORRUPT, THAT THE 
ENTIRE FREE WORLD UNITED'S DATES
AND THE UNION AND INTERNATIONAL 
MONETARY FUND PRESSED FOR HIS 
OFFICE TO BE CLEANED UP.
I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO BE 
SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING THAT HE 
CLAIMED. WITNESSES INCLUDING OUR
OWN ADVOCATE AMBASSADOR 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH  REMEMBER
THAT
AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED THAT HIS 
REMOVAL MADE IT MORE LIKELY THAT
INVESTIGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN 
COMPANIES, WOULD MOVE FORWARD. 
LET ME REPEAT THAT, HE MADE IT 
MORE LIKELY THAT HE WOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED. HE WAS NOT UNDER 
SCRUTINY AT THE TIME JOE BIDEN 
CALLED FOR SULTAN ACCORDING TO 
THE NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION OF 
UKRAINE ORGANIZATION AND SEVERAL
WITNESSES TESTIFIED
AND WERE FIGHTING CORRUPTION. 
BEFORE HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE 
COMPANY BUT AGAIN, IN ANOTHER 
INVESTIGATION IT WAS WARRANTED. 
HE WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MORE 
LIKELY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. I WILL SEND IT 
TO THE DESK.
SENATOR KINGS QUESTION FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, AS FOLLOWS. MR. 
RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE 
EXCLUSIVELY ON A POLITICAL 
ERRAND BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. 
DOESN'T THE PRESIDENT'S MENTION 
OF GIULIANI BY NAME, AND A JULY 
23rd CALL CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH
THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE CALL? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, MR. GIULIANI, PLAYED
A KEY ROLE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
MONTH-LONG'S GAME TO PRESSURE 
UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINE 
TO BENEFIT HIS ELECTION.
THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, 
TEXT AND RECORDS AND OTHER 
DOCUMENTS, ESTABLISHING MR. 
GIULIANI'S KEY ROLE IN EXECUTING
THE PRESIDENT PRESSURE CAMPAIGN 
BEGINNING IN EARLY 2019, BUT THE
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH . 
EVERYBODY KNEW GIULIANI WITH THE
GATEWAY TO THAT UKRAINE. HE 
CANCELED HIS TRIP UKRAINE, 
DURING WHICH HE PLANNED TO DIG 
UP DIRT FORMER BIDEN AND 
DISCREDIT THE CONSPIRACY THEORY 
AND PLANS BECAME PUBLIC ADMITTED
THAT WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN 
INVESTIGATION. HE EXPLAINED THIS
IS NOT -- SOMEONE DID SAY IT IS 
IMPROPER.
I'M ASKING THEM TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION THERE ALREADY 
DOING AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE 
TELLING THEM TO STOP. DURING A 
MAY 10th APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS,
GIULIANA STATE SAID HE CANCELED 
THE TRIP BECAUSE THE ENEMIES OF 
TRUMP RUN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
HIS ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS   
PRODUCED THE SENATE DOCUMENT 
THAT INCLUDED A LETTER. GIULIANI
SENT TO ZELENSKY DURING THIS 
TIME. IN THE LETTER DATED MAY 
10th HE INFORMED ZELENSKY 
REPRESENTED TRUMP AS A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN, NOT AS THE  PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES .
WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT 
HE CONFIRMED TRUMP'S KNOWLEDGE 
OF HIS ACTIONS REGARDING UKRAINE
STATED, HE KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING.
HE'S MY ONLY CLIENT. HE'S THE 
ONE I'M OBLIGATED TO REPORT TO. 
TRUMP REPEATEDLY INSTRUCTED
OFFICIALS TO TALK TO RUDY. HE 
DEMONSTRATED GIULIANI WAS A KEY 
PLAYER IN THE CORRUPT SCHEME. ON
MAY 23rd TO DISCUSS POLICY TRUMP
DIRECTED HIS PEOPLE TO TALK TO 
RUDY. SECRETARY PERRY AND 
VOLCKER AND I WORKED WITH 
GIULIANI AT THE EXPRESS 
DIRECTION OF  PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES . SONDLAND 
EXPLICITLY CONVEYED THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION TO UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS
FIELD THAT THE KEY FOR MANY 
THINGS IS RUDY GIULIANI. READ HE
WAS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION 
OF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS. HE WAS
ASKING FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION SO THAT AMERICAN 
CITIZENS FOR THE ABYDOS TO BE 
SMEARED. TRUMP MENTIONED 
GIULIANI BY NAME NO LESS THAN 
FOUR TIMES.
HE TOLD ZELENSKY
GIULIANI IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED 
MAN AND ADDED RUDY KNOWS WHAT IS
HAPPENING. IN AUGUST HE MET WITH
THE TOP UKRAINIAN AID AND 
CONVEYED UKRAINE IS ANNOUNCING 
AN INVESTIGATION.
WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD 
MEET RUDY'S DEMANDS 
SPECIFICALLY. HE INSISTED THE 
STATEMENT INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
REFERENCES TO  BURISMA  AND 
BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION
RUDY HAS BEEN ONLINE THE BEACH 
LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN. IN 
SEPTEMBER, 2019 HE SAID YOU DID 
ASK UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE 
BIDEN? GIULIANI SET UP OF COURSE
I DID.
LOOK INTO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ON
BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, TRUMP. 
FINALLY, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS,
GIULIANI DID NOT STOP DIGGING UP
DIRT TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT 
HEARD IN DECEMBER HE TRAVELED 
AGAIN TO UKRAINE TO MEET WITH 
OFFICIALS. HE DESCRIBED IT AS A 
SECRET ASSIGNMENT. GIULIANI 
RESPONDED, I GOT MORE THAN YOU 
IMAGINE.
>> THANK YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. I SEND
A QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THANK YOU.
QUESTION FROM SENATOR RUBIO FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. HOW WOULD THE 
FRAMERS VIEW REMOVING A 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN 
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED
BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY AND 
OPPOSED BY THE OTHERS? 
>>
ALEXANDER HAMILTON ADDRESSED 
THAT ISSUE DIRECTLY. THE 
GREATEST DANGER HE SAID, OF 
IMPEACHMENT, IS IF IT TURNED ON 
THE VOTES OF ONE PARTY BEING 
GREATER THAN THE VOTES OF 
ANOTHER PARTY IN EITHER HOUSE. 
SO, I THINK THEY WOULD BE 
APPALLED TO SEE IMPEACHMENT 
GOING FORWARD IN VIOLATION OF 
THE RULES OF THE CONGRESSMAN 
THAT WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR US 
DURING THE CLAYTON IMPEACHMENT.
THE CRITERIA THAT HAS BEEN SET 
UP SO LAWLESS, THE BASICALLY 
PEER FRIES CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE 
WATERS, WHO SAYS, THERE IS NO 
LAW. ANYTHING HOUSE WANTS TO DO 
TO IMPEACH A SOME TEACHABLE 
DOUBTS WHAT IS HAPPENING. THAT 
PLACES THE HOUSE ABOVE THE LAW. 
WE'VE HEARD MUCH ABOUT NOBODY IS
ABOVE THE LAW. GERALD FORD MADE 
THE SAME POINT.
THERE IS ONLY ONE PRESIDENT. TO 
USE THAT CRITERIA, THAT IT IS 
WHATEVER THE HOUSE AS IT IS, 
WHATEVER THE SENATE SAYS THAT 
IS, TURNS THOSE BODIES INTO 
LAWLESS BODIES, IN VIOLATION OF 
THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. 
MANAGE YOUR ADAM SCHIFF CONFUSED
MY ARGUMENT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT
MOTIVE  AND INTENT. YOU ADMITTED
IMA
CRIMINAL LAWYER AND I TAUGHT 
CRIMINAL LAW FOR 50 YEARS AT 
HARVARD. THERE'S ENORMOUS 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND 
MOTIVE
. WHEN YOU PULL THE TRIGGER YOU 
KNOW BULLET WILL EVEN HIT 
SOMEBODY AND MADE KILLED THEM. 
THAT'S THE INTENT TO KILL. 
MOTIVE, CAN BE REVENGE OR MONEY.
IT ALMOST NEVER IS TAKEN INTO 
CONSIDERATION EXCEPT IN EXTREME 
CASES. THERE ARE CASES WHERE 
MOTIVE COUNTS. LET'S CONSIDER A 
HYPOTHETICAL GOING OUT OF A 
SITUATION WE DISCUSSED LET'S 
ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA, HAD BEEN
TOLD, BY HIS ADVISORS, THAT IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO SEND LEAVE 
THE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. THEN, HE
GETS A CALL FROM HIS POLITICAL 
ADVISOR, WHO SAYS WE KNOW IT'S 
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO SEND
WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE BUT WE 
ARE TELLING YOU THE LEFT WING OF
YOUR PARTY, IS REALLY GOING TO 
GIVE YOU A HARD TIME, IF YOU 
START SELLING LETHAL WEAPONS AND
GETTING INTO A WAR, POTENTIALLY 
WITH RUSSIA. WOULD ANYBODY 
SUGGEST THAT'S IMPEACHABLE? 
LET'S ASSUME OBAMA SAYS I 
PROMISE TO BOMB SYRIA IF THEY 
HAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BUT NOW 
I'M TOLD, THAT BOMBING SYRIA, 
WOULD HURT MY ELECTORAL CHANCES.
CERTAINLY NOT IMPEACHABLE, AT 
ALL. LET ME APPLY THAT NOW. I 
SAID PREVIOUSLY THERE ARE THREE 
LEVELS OF POSSIBLE MOTIVE. ONE 
IS, THE MOTIVE IS PURE. THE ONLY
INTEREST IS WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE 
COUNTRY. IN THE REAL WORLD, THAT
REALLY HAPPENED. THE OTHER IS 
THE MOTIVE IS COMPLETELY 
CORRUPT. I WANT MONEY. THE THIRD
ONE IS COMPLICATED. 
MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU HAVE A 
MIXED MOTIVE. NO MOTIVE IN 
WHICH, YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING 
GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT ALSO 
FOR YOURSELF. YOU ARE DOING GOOD
AND ALTOGETHER YOU PUT IT IN A 
BUNDLE, IN WHICH YOU ARE 
SATISFIED THAT YOU'RE DOING THE 
RIGHT THING. LET ME GIVE YOU AN 
EXAMPLE THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
BECAME INTERESTED IN CREPT WHEN 
HE LEARNED  JOE BIDEN WAS 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. LET'S 
ASSUME THE PRESIDENT WAS IN A 
SECOND TERM AND SAID, JOE BIDEN 
IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, I 
SHOULD NOW GET CONCERNED ABOUT 
WHETHER HIS SON IS CORRECT. HE'S
A CANDIDATE AND IS NOT RUNNING 
AGAINST ME BUT HE COULD BE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND HE'S THE PRESIDENT, AND HE 
HAS A CORRUPT SON, THE FACT THAT
HE HAS ANNOUNCE CANDIDACY, IS A 
GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE 
INTEREST IN HIS SON. HE WASN'T 
RUNNING,
HE IS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT,
OKAY. BIG DEAL. HE'S RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, THAT IS AN ENORMOUS 
BIG DEAL AT THE DIFFERENCE THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD MAKE IS 
WHETHER SHE'S RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION OR NOT, THEY WOULD 
CONCEDE THAT IF IS NOT RUNNING 
FOR REELECTION THIS WOULD NOT BE
A CORRUPT MOTIVE IT WOULD BE 
MIXED. IF HE IS RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION, SUDDENLY, THAT TURNS
IT INTO AN IMPEACHABLE -- THE 
MAC THANK YOU, THANK YOU 
COUNCIL.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SUBMIT A 
QUESTION TO THE DECIMATED BY 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>>
THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR 
COLUMBUS ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
DURING THAT TIME THE SENATE 
TRIAL COMMITTEE HEARD FROM 26 
WITNESSES, 17 OF WHOM HAD NOT 
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THE 
HOUSE.
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON COULD THERE
BE FOR ALLOWING 26 WITNESSES IN 
A JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND
HEARING NONE FOR PRESIDENTS 
TRIAL? 
>>
>>
AS YOU KNOW I'M QUITE FAMILIAR 
WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT.
SOMEBODY ASKED ME THE LAST TIME 
I TRY THE CASE, THE ANSWER IS 
PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO EXCEPT FOR
THE IMPEACHMENT WHEN ICE THAT 
QUALITY TIME WITH YOU. THERE IS 
NO DIFFERENCE, IN TERMS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. I WOULD SAY THAT 
THE NEED FOR WITNESSES IN 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FOR THE  
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  
IS A MORE COMPELLING 
CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE. YOU 
MIGHT SAY IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
A JUDGE, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT
THE TIME OF THE SENATE, COULD BE
OCCUPIED BY CALLING WITNESSES 
THAT AS PRECIOUS AS THE TIME IS,
WE WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME 
CALLING DOZENS OF WITNESSES, BUT
IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A 
PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT WORTH THE 
TIME? IT'S TOO MUCH OF AN 
IMPOSITION. I WOULD ARGUE THAT 
THE IMPERATIVE COLLEEN
AND HAVING A FAIR TRIAL WHEN WE 
ARE ADJUDICATING THE GUILT OF 
THE PRESIDENT IS PARAMOUNT. 
WE'VE ONLY ARGUED THE TRIAL 
SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND YES
IT'S A BIG DEAL TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT. IS ALSO A BIG DEAL IF
YOU LEAVE IN PLACE THE PRESIDENT
WHEN THE HOUSE IS PROVEN THE 
PRESIDENT HAS
COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE
THING AND NOT ONLY DID HE 
SOLICIT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 
2016, BUT HE SOLICITED UKRAINE'S
INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING 
ELECTION, HE SOLICITED CHINA'S 
INTERFERENCE AS McAULEY JUST 
SAID. I HAD RUDY GIULIANI IN 
UKRAINE DURING THE SAME KIND OF 
THING LAST MONTH. IN RESPONSE TO
THAT QUESTION, GIULIANI THE 
PERSONAL AGENT OF THE PRESIDENT 
IS RUNNING THIS BIDEN OPERATION,
RATHER THAN SOME THOUGHT POLICY 
OR POLITICS? THE ANSWER IS YES.
GIULIANI HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY 
CLEAR. I'M NOT HERE DOING 
FOREIGN POLICY. THAT'S THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYER. I'M NOT 
HERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY. JUST 
WHAT'S MADE A RATHER STUNNING 
ARGUMENT. AN INVESTIGATION OF 
JOE BIDEN IS UNWARRANTED, 
UNMERITED BECOMES WARRANTED IF 
HE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT. HE 
POSITED THAT IN THE PRESIDENT 
SECOND TERM. IT DOESN'T MATTER 
IF HE CAN A FIRST OR SECOND 
TERM. AND
ILLEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION INTO 
JOE BIDEN DOESN'T BECOME 
LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE'S RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT. NOT UNLESS YOU 
VIEW YOUR INTEREST AS SYNONYMOUS
WITH THE NATION'S INTEREST. I 
THINK IT'S THE MOST PROFOUND 
CONFLICT FOR PRESIDENT WHETHER 
HE'S RUNNING FOR REELECTION OR 
NOT TO SUDDENLY INVESTIGATE HIM 
BECAUSE IT'S JUSTIFIED BECAUSE, 
NOW HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. 
YOU REALLY UP TO STEP ASIDE TO 
IMAGINE ANYBODY COULD MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT. THAT RUNNING FOR 
OFFICE, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 
NOW, MEANS YOU ARE A MORE 
JUSTIFIED TARGET OF 
INVESTIGATION, AND WHEN YOU WERE
NOT. IT CANNOT BE. IT CANNOT BE.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS 
BEING ARGUED HERE. TO CONCLUDE, 
SENATOR,
A CASE FOR WITNESSES AND EIGHT 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, ON ONE
SIDE EURO MOVE PRESIDENT OR, ON 
THE OTHER SIDE YOU LEAVE IN 
PLACE THE PRESIDENT THAT MAY 
POSE A CONTINUED RISK TO THE 
COUNTRY IS FAR MORE COMPELLING 
TO TAKE THE TIME TO GET 
WITNESSES, THEN A CORRUPT 
LOUISIANA JUDGE. HE ONLY IMPACTS
THAT COME BEFORE HIS COURT. ALL 
OF US COME BEFORE THE COURT OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I THINK 
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA. DONE 
12 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DANE, 
LANGFORD AND HOLLY IS FOR 
COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT. OVER 
THE PAST 244 YEARS,
EIGHT JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE, 
BUT NEVER PRESIDENT JUDGES HAVE 
BEEN REMOVED FOR BRIBERY PERJURY
TAX EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST 
THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER 
UNLAWFUL ACTIONS. DUE TO CURRENT
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES DIFFER
? 
>>
THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN IMPEACHING AND REMOVING 
THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE AND 
IMPEACHING AND REMOVING THE 
PRESIDENT. NO JUDGE NOT EVEN A 
CHIEF JUSTICE IS A JUDICIAL 
BRANCH. THERE IS A JUDICIAL 
BRANCH. THE PRESIDENT IS THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HEARING HE IS 
IRREPLACEABLE. REMEMBER, WE HAD 
A PERIOD OF TIME THERE WAS NO 
VICE RESIDENT. THERE'S NO 
COMPARISON BETWEEN IMPEACHING A 
JUDGE AND IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT. OVER THERE IS A 
TEXTUAL DIFFERENCE THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES JUDGES 
SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. 
THAT'S THE CONGRESSMAN ADAM 
SCHIFF STANDARD . WE WISH 
EVERYBODY SERVED ONLY DURING 
GOOD BEHAVIOR. BUT, THE 
CONSTITUTION DISTANT SAY THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD SERVE DURING 
GOOD BEHAVIOR. THE PUBLIC
, JUDGES DO NOT RUN. THERE'S 
ONLY ONE JUDGE FOR GOOD 
BEHAVIOR. NAMELY THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS. AND SO, TO MAKE THE 
COMPARISON IS TO MAKE THE SAME 
MISTAKE THAT WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE
THE BRITISH SYSTEM TO THE 
AMERICAN SYSTEM. WE HAVE HEARD A
LOT OF ARGUMENT WE ADOPTED THE 
BRITISH SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE 
WORDS. HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. THOSE WORDS MAY 
HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM GRADE 
BRITTON. BUT THE CONSTITUTION 
WAS NOT. WHEN IT DID IT OPERATOR
FOR LOW-LEVEL PEOPLE ONLY 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT HAVE 
BEEN CITED INVOLVE INDIA THIS 
GUY HERE THIS GUY THERE.
UTTERLY REPLACEABLE PEOPLE BUT 
THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF, ON THE 
OTHER HAND YOU CAN GET RID OF 
HEAD OF STATE OF GOVERNMENT 
RATHER. IT'S A VOTE OF 
NO-CONFIDENCE. THAT'S WHAT THE 
FRAMERS REJECT THE. THE FRAMERS 
REJECTED THAT FOR PRESIDENT. THE
NOTION,
WE REJECTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM 
WE DIDN'T WANT IT. WE DIDN'T 
WANT TO PRESIDENT TO SERVE AT 
THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.
WE WANTED
THE PRESIDENT TO SERVE AT THE 
PLEASURE OF VOTERS. JUDGES DON'T
SERVE THE PLEASURE OF THE 
VOTERS. THERE NEEDS TO BE 
DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND BROADER 
CRITERIA. THOSE CRITERIA HAVE 
BEEN USED IN PRACTICE TO HAVE 
BEEN IMPEACH FOR CRIMINAL 
BEHAVIOR. TAKE AN EXAMPLE GIVEN.
JUDGES COMPLETELY DRUNK AND 
INCAPACITATED AND CANNOT DO HIS 
JOB. IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE, HOW A
JUDGE MIGHT HAVE TO BE REMOVED 
FOR THAT. BUT THE PRESIDENT, 
THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE 
CONSTITUTION, IT SPECIFICALLY 
PROVIDED. PLEASE MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
REMEMBER YOUR ROLE IS NOT TO 
FILL IN GAPS. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
TO MAKE SURE, PEOPLE DON'T ABUSE
POWER. PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT 
MALADMINISTRATION.
THE FRAMERS LIVED UP IN THOSE 
GAPS. YOUR JOB ISN'T TO FILL IN 
GAPS YOUR JOB IS TO APPLY THE 
CONSTITUTION AND THE FRAMERS 
WROTE IT AND THAT DOESN'T 
INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THANK 
YOU. 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THE SENATOR 
FROM DELAWARE. I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.. THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KEARNS
TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS 
THIS. QUOTE, CONGRESS HAS 
FORBIDDEN FOREIGNERS
INVOLVED IN AMERICAN 
ELECTIONS,". HOWEVER, IN JUNE 
2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, IF 
RUSSIA OR CHINA
FOR INFORMATION ON HIS OPPONENT,
QUOTE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG 
WITH LISTENING" AND HE MIGHT NOT
ALERT THE FBI, BECAUSE QUOTE, 
GIVE ME A BREAK LIFE DOES NOT 
WORK THAT WAY". IS
TRUMP AGREEING WITH YOUR 
STATEMENT FOREIGNERS INVOLVEMENT
IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS 
ILLEGAL? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR, 
THANK YOU, FOR YOUR QUESTION 
CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED SPECIFIC 
WAYS IN WHICH FOREIGNERS CANNOT 
BE INVOLVED IN ELECTIONS. THERE 
ARE RESTRICTIONS ON 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS. WHEN
THE WHISTLEBLOWER
ORIGINALLY MADE THE COMPLAINT 
WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL, HE FRAMED THE 
WHISTLEBLOWERS COMPLAINT IN 
TERMS OF THOSE LAWS. HE SAID 
THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE HERE 
RELATED TO SOLICITING FOREIGN 
CONTRIBUTIONS AND INTERFERENCE. 
THAT WAS PACIFICALLY REVIEWED BY
THE DOJ. SO, THAT IS NOT 
SOMETHING INVOLVED HERE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTERVIEW WITH
ABC THAT YOU CITED DOES NOT 
INVOLVE SOMETHING THAT IS A 
FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION 
ADDRESSED BY THE LAWS PASSED BY 
CONGRESS. HE WAS REFERRING
TO INFORMATION COMING FROM A 
SOURCE PRETTY POINTED OUT IN THE
INTERVIEW, HE MIGHT CONTACT THE 
FBI. HE MIGHT LISTEN TO 
SOMETHING BUT MERE INFORMATION 
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD 
VIOLATE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
LAWS.
IF THERE IS CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION, CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION OF WRONGDOING BY 
SOMEBODY RUNNING FOR A PUBLIC 
OFFICE IS NOT CAMPAIGN 
INTERFERENCE FOR CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT TO 
LIGHT. I THINK THAT THE IDEA 
THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT 
HAPPENS TO COME FROM OVERSEAS, 
IS NOT NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN 
INFORMATION. INFORMATION THAT'S 
CREDIBLE, THAT SHOWS WRONGDOING,
BY SOMEBODY WHO HAVE IS TO BE 
RUNNING FOR OFFICE, IF IT'S 
CREDIBLE OR RELEVANT FOR PEOPLE 
TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON WHO'S 
THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, 
THANK YOU. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADERS 
RECOGNIZE. I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A
BREAK UNTIL 10 P.M. AND THEN 
FINISH UP FOR THE EVENING. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED.
YOUR WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE FROM
THE WASHINGTON POST. THEY ARE ON
A SHORT BREAK. WE ARE EXPECTING 
THEM TO DO EIGHT HOURS OF 
QUESTIONS. WE ARE IN THE HOME 
STRETCH TONIGHT. 15 A LOWERS A 
LETTER TO TODAY'S PICK BUT THEY 
DO NOT GET DONE TONIGHT IT WILL 
PICK UP TOMORROW. WE ARE LIVE IN
THE STUDIO. WE HAVE BEEN 
COVERING THIS FROM CAPITOL HILL.
IT'S REFRESHING TO HAVE YOU HERE
IN THE NEWSROOM. WE CAN GO INTO 
SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS 
LAST ROUND. WHAT IS THE 
TEMPERATURE LIKE ON CAPITOL HILL
TODAY? SO MUCH IS HAPPENING HERE
IN THE CHAMBER. A LOT OF THE 
DRAMA, WHERE THE SENATORS FALL, 
AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE 
HALLWAYS, WHAT WAS IT LIKE 
THERE, TODAY.'S I THAT'S REALLY 
WHAT'S TAKING UP AIR ON THE 
HILL.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE 
PROCESS IN THE BOLTON NEWS HAS 
CERTAINLY OVERSHADOWED 
EVERYTHING. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE 
ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TRYING
TO GET A SENSE OF MORE 
REPUBLICANS MIGHT COME OVER AND 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES HEARD THERE'S
A STRONG SENSE OF WHICH WAY THAT
MIGHT GO.
IT MIGHT BE THURSDAY AFTERNOON 
OR FRIDAY MORNING. THAT'S WHERE 
THE FOCUS IS THERE WAS A PROTEST
EARLIER TODAY. IT WAS A PROBE 
WITNESS HIM WITNESS. PEOPLE WERE
THERE AND WE WANT WITNESSES, AS 
WELL.
I IN THE MEANTIME I HAVE BEEN 
LOOKING AT FOX NEWS AND I WANTED
TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING. 
CARSON WAS LOOKING AT DEMOCRATS 
AND HE WAS SAYING THEY MIGHT 
VOTE AGAINST HIM EASEMENT. HE 
WAS LOOKING AT JONES AND LET'S 
TALK ABOUT THESE MODERATE 
DEMOCRATS. LET'S LOOK AT THE 
QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT THEIR ROLE
. THOSE ARE LOOKING AT DECISIONS
AND JONES, HE IS THE DEMOCRAT 
FROM ALABAMA. HE HAD A VERY 
TIGHT RACE AND HE BECAME 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RIGHT NOW, 
JONES IS IN A TOUGH SPOT. HE 
REPRESENTS US DATE THAT'S VERY 
PRO-TRUMP. HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO
REACH OUT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.
HE WILL NOT COME TO HIS 
DECISION, UNTIL HE HAS TO. THAT 
IS WHERE HIS PERSPECTIVE IS 
MENTIONED, A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK 
AT HIM. PEOPLE MIGHT BE FAMILIAR
WITH HIM AND HIS STANCE ON GUN 
CONTROL. HE REPRESENTS WEST 
VIRGINIA WHICH IS ANOTHER 
PRO-TRUMP STATE. HE MIGHT BE IN 
A LITTLE BIT OF A BIND. ARIZONA 
HAS A LOT OF CHANGE IN 
DEMOGRAPHICS AND
THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH 
WAY THEY ARE GOING TO GO. WE DID
SEE SOME OF THOSE COMING OUT 
THIS EVENING. BERNIE SANDERS AND
CLUBS ARE ASKING QUESTIONS. THEY
WERE ALL VERY POLITICAL IN 
NATURE AND ONE THAT RING, BERNIE
SANDERS ASKED HIS BUILT ON THE 
PREMISE THAT TRUMP HAS IN HIS 
WORDS, LIED OVER 60,000 TIMES IN
A FACT CHECKER SAID TRUMP HAS 
MADE MORE THAN 16,000 FALSE 
STATEMENTS. SANDERS WENT FROM 
THERE AND SAID WHY DO YOU 
BELIEVE HIM? I WOULD HAVE LIKED 
TO HAVE SEEN HIM ASK THAT OF THE
TEAM. THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE WHO 
GETS THE QUESTION? WHO FIELDS 
IT? WERE YOU LISTENING TO HERE 
WITH THE OTHER CANDIDATES WERE 
ASKING? 
>> I WAS NOT SURE BUT CLUB 
RETIRES VOICE WHICH HE ASKED 
ADAM SCHIFF  SHE DIRECTED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS WHY DO WE NEED A 
WITNESS FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE 
IMPEACHMENT VERSUS A PRESIDENCY?
THAT WAS ABLE TO QUEUE UP ADAM 
SCHIFF .
HE WAS IMPEACHED AND THEY HAD 
WITNESSES. SHE WAS GIVEN HIM YOU
KNOW, A PLATFORM TO DISCUSS 
THAT. I AM INTERESTED TO HEAR 
WHAT THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL 
CANDIDATES HAVE TO ASK. IT'S A 
STRATEGY TO ASK AND HAS TO GO 
INTO WHAT QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO
BE ASKED WILL IT BE SOMETHING 
THAT MIGHT HUNT THEM WHEN THEY 
GO TO IOWA NEXT WEEK OR YOU KNOW
NEW HAMPSHIRE AFTER THAT?
THE SENATE TEAMS HAVE TO SAY YOU
ARE GOING TO ASK THE BOSTON. 
LET'S MAKE SURE TO SOMETHING WE 
CAN STICK TO FOR THE REMAINDER 
OF YOUR CANDIDACY. SPIRIT AND 
AMY STARTED THAT QUESTION WHICH 
I WAS ON A TROUT COMMITTEE WHEN 
THEY IMPEACHED THE JUDGE BEFORE.
IT PLAYS INTO ANTICORRUPTION
AND JUST LIKE ELIZABETH WARREN 
WHO ALSO ASKED THE QUESTION AND 
ONCE AGAIN IT'S AN INTERESTING 
DYNAMIC OF ARE YOU ASKING A 
QUESTION TO PLOT IN FORMATION OR
HAVE YOU ALREADY MADE UP YOUR 
MIND. AND ARE YOU REALLY USING 
THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH FORWARD
A POLITICAL DEBATE OR A VANTAGE 
POINT THAT YOU HAVE THAT YOU 
WANT TO GET OUT THERE? AND THIS 
WHOLE IMPEACHMENT FOR FRONT 
RUNNERS IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEY 
HAVE TO CHOOSE WHY. LET'S GO 
AHEAD TO THAT PENNSYLVANIA 
DEMOCRAT A LISTEN IN. 
>> IT GOES BACK TO THE 
FUNDAMENTALS. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
ARE WITNESSES AND THE OTHER SIDE
IS HAVING GREAT TROUBLE FOR DAYS
NOW, EXPLAINING WHY THEY WANT 
MORE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. 
THAT GOT EVER MORE DIFFICULT IN 
THE BOLTON DISCLOSURE. THEY HAD 
A HARD TIME, BECAUSE TO MAKE IT 
ARGUMENT YOU NEED DOCUMENTS 
BASED ON TIME AND WHATEVER TIME 
IN THE SENATE THAT MAKES NO 
SENSE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW FRIDAY IS GOING
TO WORK. AND I'M GUESSING AND 
THIS IS A GOOD GUESS LIKE I SAID
FRIDAY, WE WILL FINALLY GET TO 
THAT WITNESS DID THAT IS WHAT 
ONE VOTE. IT COULD BE IT COULD 
BE THAT IF THAT BOAT DOES NOT 
PREVAIL THEN YOU MOVE TO THE END
OF THE TRIAL AND THERE ARE STILL
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE TRIAL 
WILL PLAY OUT IF IT DOES PREVAIL
THEN WE ARE INTO YOU KNOW WE ARE
INTO A WHOLE NEW PHASE ABOUT HOW
TO GET WITNESSES AND WHICH WOULD
BE THE SUBJECT --
MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT IS 
GOING TO BE BASICALLY ONE VOTE. 
NOW, IF IT PREVAILS YOU COULD 
HAVE A SERIES OF VOTES THAT DEAL
WITH MECHANICS.
ONE PARTICULAR WITNESS OR GROUP 
OF WITNESSES OR SOMETHING LIKE 
THAT. WE ARE STILL BACK TO THE 
BASIC ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW HOW 
YOU CAN FINISH A FULL, FAIR 
TRIAL WITHOUT THE WITNESS I DO 
THINK THE OTHER SIDE, THEY ARE 
STRUGGLING WITH THAT. I THINK 
THEY JUST ARE. RIGHT.
>> HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT 
DEMOCRATS REMAIN UNITED? SOME 
WILL BE WAVERING.
>>
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANYONE HAS
TALKED ABOUT. EVERY ONE OF US 
KNOWS, AND IF OUR LEADERSHIP DID
KNOW WE WOULD TELL THEM. THIS IS
A DECISION EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO 
MAKE IT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT 
PLAYS OUT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
NUMBERS WILL BE. IT HAS TO BE 
THAT INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION 
EVER SENATOR HAS TO MAKE. YOU 
START WITH THE BASIC CHARGES. 
DID HE ISSUE INTERFERENCE FROM 
FERN GOVERNMENT?
WAS HE ASKING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT?
HE MANAGED IN ONE EPISODE IN A 
SENSE, TO BRING IN TWO 
ELECTIONS.
>> THAT'S, I MEAN, LOOK 
INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE MAKING THAT
ASSESSMENT, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN
-- IN OUR DISCUSSION, WE HAVE 
BEEN MEETING A LOT, AS YOU KNOW.
HOW WILL THIS DAY IMPACT THE 
ELECTION? I JUST THINK PEOPLE 
WOULD RATHER DO THE JOB. 
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT ARE 
HERE, ALL OF WHOM ARE SPENDING A
LOT OF TIME HERE. THERE IS NEVER
A CONSIDERATION ABOUT HOW YOU 
KNOW, THEIR TIME. THEY ARE DOING
A JOB.
IT HAS NOT BEEN THE KIND OF 
CALCULATION. I KNOW SOME PEOPLE 
MIGHT THINK THAT THERE IS SOME 
MEDICAL MOTIVE THAT DRIVES 
EVERYTHING, HERE. PEOPLE TAKE IT
SERIOUSLY. IT'S THE MAC
RIGHT.
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME 
] 
>>
I DON'T, YET I DON'T THINK THERE
IS NECESSARILY CONSENSUS ABOUT 
THAT. I DON'T KNOW
WHO SAID THIS, YEARS AGO WHETHER
IT'S A RULE OR WHETHER IT IS 
JUST SOMETHING THAT DID LAURIER 
10 YEARS AGO. YOU OFTEN TRY OR 
YOU SHOULD NOT TRY TO SHOW THE 
OUTCOME OF A SUPREME COURT CASE 
BASED ON THE ARGUMENT BUT I'M 
NOT SURE WE CAN NECESSARILY 
DEFINE WHICH SENATORS LEANING ON
THAT QUESTION.
I GUESS I DID NOT HAVE MUCH OF A
REACTION. I GUESS, I BELIEVE, 
THIS IS MY VIEW, PERSONALLY. I 
BELIEVE IN THE WITNESS QUESTION 
THEY GET THREE VOTES, OR THEY 
ARE GOING TO GET A NUMBER MUCH 
GREATER. WHEN I READ THREE 
VERSUS FOUR HE WILL BE THREE 
VERSUS SEVEN OR FIVE. BECAUSE 
LOOK, THE PERSON WHO IS 
CONSIDERED A FOURTH VOTE WILL, 
WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO A LOT OF 
ACRIMONY ON THE RIGHT. THAT'S 
GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT DECISION
SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE. IT 
WILL STOP AT THREE WHICH WILL 
FAIL OR WILL BE A HIGHER NUMBER.
THEY TELL ME THAT IT IS GOING TO
BE START TIME. 
>> SENATOR CASEY TALK ABOUT WHAT
HE THINKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE.
WE HAVE BEEN SPECULATING WILL 
REPUBLICANS TRY TO HAVE A BLOCK.
THE TIPPING POINT OF THAT BOAT. 
>> YOU KNOW, I'M COMMENTING ON 
CLIP OF CASEY IT POINTS TO THE 
FACT THAT
NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IS 
GOING TO HAPPEN IT WILL EITHER 
BE THREE OR IT COULD BE MORE. 
WILL FAIL OR IT WILL BE 
OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF SUPPORT 
IT'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE AND 
NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IS 
GOING TO HAPPEN ON FRIDAY. IT 
POINTS TO, I THINK HE WAS ASKED 
ABOUT, THE DEMOCRATS, THERE
ARE ESSENTIALLY THREE WHO MIGHT 
GO THE OTHER WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, 
AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF 
SPECULATION. WE WILL NOT KNOW 
UNTIL FRIDAY. THERE WOULD BE 
MORE, IF THERE IS A WITNESS OF 
VOTE, THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR 
WITNESSES. HOLIDAY PROCESS 
STARTS. IT COULD BE LIKE A 
FREE-FOR-ALL. WITNESSES COULD 
START SHOWING UP ON CAPITOL 
HILL. WHO WOULD IT BE AND HOW 
WOULD IT WORK OUT? AS WE READ 
THE TEA LEAVES FROM WHAT POINT 
OUT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT 
DEMOCRATIC UNITY HIS QUESTION 
WAS INTERESTING. HE ASKED THIS 
QUESTION ABOUT LIKE, SO GIVEN 
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND GIVEN THE 
HISTORY CREATED, IT WAS A 
HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE 
CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS WERE 
BUILDING ON, WHAT HAS CHANGED 
SINCE THE CLINTON TRIAL TO MOVE 
THE PERSPECTIVE OF DERSHOWITZ? 
YOU SOUND THIS WITH GET UP AND 
MAKE HIS ARGUMENT THAT HE 
STUDIED MOORE HE HAS LEARNED 
MORE. IT DID NOT SEEM TO RING 
TOTALLY. WHAT MIGHT HAVE 
ACTUALLY CHANGED OR MOVED ON 
THIS QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE 
BAR? 
>> IT SOUNDED THE SOFTWARE CALL 
AS HE HAS BEEN.
HE HAS BEEN BRING IN AN ACADEMIC
FLAVOR TO THIS. IT REALLY SHOWS 
YOU THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF 
THIS IMPEACHMENT SEEMS TO BE IN 
THE ART OF THE BEHOLDER. THE 
OTHER PARTY SAYS IT'S 
IMPEACHABLE AND THE OTHER PARTY 
SAYS NO. BOTH SIDES ARE TALKING 
ABOUT THE FRAMERS, AND HOW THEY 
INTERPRETED WHAT THEY ARE 
SAYING. IT'S A LOT OF 
PHILOSOPHICAL TALK MANSIONS 
QUESTION WAS VERY VERY GOOD ONE.
I ONE MOMENT THAT STOOD OUT TO 
ME IS THE QUESTION FOLLOWING UP 
ON THE QUESTION ASKED BY A 
MODERATE REPUBLICAN EARLIER. AS 
THE MOTHER REPUBLICANS AND DOWN 
SPECIFICALLY, HAS THE PRESIDENT 
TALKED ABOUT CONCERNS OF 
CORRUPTION AND LINKING IT TO THE
BIDENS PRIOR TO
ENTERING THE RACE IN 2019. SO, 
IT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR 
TRUMP TEAM TO TAKE A CRACK AT 
THAT VERY DID YOU GET A SENSE IT
WAS ADDING ANYTHING NEW? NO IT 
WAS A DIFFERENT DIFFICULT 
QUESTION TO ANSWER FOR THERE 
SIDE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE 
TIMELINE, THAT'S WHERE THE 
MOMENT LIES. WAS BIDEN BECOMING 
A FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE? WAS HE 
JUST WANTING TO STAMP OUT 
CORRUPTION? THAT WAS A DIFFICULT
QUESTION TO ANSWER. I DON'T WE 
GOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER. YEAH. IT 
WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE SENATOR 
WHITEHOUSE ASKED THE QUESTION. 
HE BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. WAS A 
GOOD QUESTION THAT PUT TRUMP'S 
DEFENSE TEAM IN A TOUGH SPOT. 
DID PROBE MORE ABOUT WHAT'S 
ALLOWED INTO THE RECORD. WHITE 
HOUSE IS POINTED OUT THAT PART 
OF THE COUNCIL ANSWERED TRUMP 
LEGAL TEAM ANSWER, AS TO WHY YOU
KNOW THEY COULD NOT GIVE A CLEAR
RESPONSE ABOUT, TRUMP'S STATE OF
MIND. IT WASN'T IN THE RECORD. 
IT WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE 
RECORD. INSTEAD OF SAYING YEAH I
HAD THIS CONVERSATION ON YOU 
KNOW, A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE I 
ENTERED THE RACE. I'M NOT 
TALKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S 
NOT IN THE RECORD. YOU TALKED 
ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE IN THE 
NEWS MEDIA. THAT'S NOT IN THE 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT RECORD. HIS 
RESPONSE WAS, WELL IT HAD TO BE 
EITHER IN THE RECORD, OR IN THE 
PUBLIC DOMAIN. THAT WAS HIS WAY 
OF SAYING THAT'S WHY I'M STAYING
INSIDE MY BUMPERS. I WRITE. 
THAT'S A VERY GOOD LEGAL 
STRATEGY PROBABLY. WHO COULD 
ANSWER THAT. IT WAS NOT 
SOMETHING WRITTEN OR 
TRANSCRIBED, WE ARE GOING TO 
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BUT 
AGAIN, THIS IS WHY THE HOUSE 
TEAM IS SAYING, WE NEED 
WITNESSES HERE.
I
I WANT TO REMIND US WHAT'S IN 
STORE FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK. 
WE DO HAVE ANOTHER DAY, OF THIS 
HUMAN DAY SO, IT'S LIKELY THEY 
WILL TAKE ANOTHER EIGHT HOURS OR
LESS. TO HAVE UP TO EIGHT HOUR 
TOMORROW TO DO ANOTHER Q&A 
SESSION. IT LOOKED LIKE EXACTLY 
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY. THE 
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER FOREIGN. 
THEY WILL ASK THAT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OR THE WHITE
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS. THEY
TOOK A BREAK. THEY DO HAVE A 
LITTLE TIME THEY CAN USE TO 
CONTINUE THIS ON THE FLOOR. THE 
START AGAIN TOMORROW AT 1:00 
BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO THE 
SENATE CHAMBER I WONDER HOW THEY
WILL BE GROUPING QUESTIONS. WHAT
ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. I 
HEARD THE VERY FIRST QUESTION 
WITH ROMNEY, THINKING WE ARE 
REALLY GOOD ENOUGH TO START 
HERE. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS TOO
YOU HAVE SEEN KREWES AND BRAUN 
GET TOGETHER. HE WAS SEEN YOU 
KNOW, A FEW OTHERS ON THE 
DEMOCRAT SIDE USUALLY BIND 
TOGETHER, AS WELL. I THINK 
ASKING QUESTIONS TOGETHER MIGHT 
BE A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME THERE IS STRENGTH 
IN NUMBERS. IF YOU ARE JOINING 
THE TEAM OF QUESTIONERS, THAT 
MIGHT HELP YOU BE A LITTLE BIT 
MORE POLITICALLY SAFE. YOU CAN 
CERTAINLY SEE WHY THEY MIGHT 
WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ON THEIR 
OWN. EVEN IF THE VOICE IS NOT 
LITERALLY HEARD IN THE SENATE 
CHAMBER, AT LEAST THE QUESTION 
IS ASKED. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN 
BRICKNER WAS TO TAKE THE 
QUESTIONS AND READ THEM. HE IS 
NOT DOING MUCH BETWEEN KEEP IN 
TIME. IS NOT PUSHING BACK IF 
THERE ARE THEMES THAT ARE NOT 
ACTUALLY CORRECT HER ARE 
REPETITIVE.
HE HAS GOT A VERY CLEAR JOB. HE 
IS STICKING TO IT. I HE IS. WE 
DO KNOW ON FRIDAY, HE IS 
PLANNING ON FILING A MOTION THAT
IS GOING TO ASK CHIEF JUSTICE 
THIS TWO-WAY AND UNWITNESSED 
VOTES. IF THEY ARE NOT QUITE 
SURE BY TOMORROW, THEY ARE DOING
THINGS THAT THEY HOPE WILL PUT 
THINGS IN PLACE BY FRIDAY.
. THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 
HOPING HE WILL HAVE A BIGGER 
ROLE IN THIS AND NOT BE SORT OF 
THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER. HE SAID 
THAT
HE HAS BEEN IN A SUBSTITUTE 
TEACHER ROLE. SOMEBODY IS SO 
CLOSELY WATCHED I AM NOT 
ANTICIPATING HER REVEALING WHERE
SHE IS COMING DOWN ON THIS. THEY
HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN BY THAT AT 
THIS POINT. WE WILL SEE WHAT 
EVOLVES THROUGH THIS PROCESS
HAVE TO THINK BOTH SIDES WANT TO
GO OUT TONIGHT? HOW DO THEY WANT
TO LEAVE TONIGHT. UNTIL THE NEXT
NEW CYCLE PICKS UP WITH THIS 
TOMORROW AFTERNOON. I THINK THEY
WANT TO LEAVE EARLIER TODAY, 
WHEN THEY WENT OUT ON A DINNER 
BREAK I LISTENED TO THE PRESS 
CONFERENCES WITH BOTH SIDE YOU 
KNOW, SCHUMER LOOKS LIKE HE IS 
VERY CONFIDENT. HE THINKS IT 
MIGHT GO THEIR WAY. HE THINKS 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY GOOD 
JOB OF STICKING TO THEIR 
ARGUMENT. REPUBLICANS MAY GO 
QUIETER, TODAY THE MIGHT LEAVE 
QUIETER TODAY. THEY DO HAVE 
CAUCUS WORK TO DO. THEY MAY NEED
TO GO AHEAD AND DECIDE, LET'S GO
AHEAD WITH A WITNESS VOTE. WE 
ARE GOING TO HEAR AT THE END OF 
THE DAY. WE ARE READY FOR 
TOMORROW. PROBABLY NOT GOING TO 
HEAR MUCH FROM REPUBLICANS 
TODAY. 
>> ALSO
CHALLENGING QUESTIONS ARE ASKED 
OF HOUSE MANAGERS. ASKING THEM 
OKAY, YOU'VE HEARD FROM WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL FROM PAT CIPOLLONE
AND
HAVE BEEN RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT
JUST WHAT INFORMATION THE WHITE 
HOUSE MIGHT DEFLECT OR MIGHT NOT
YOU KNOW RESPOND TO.
BUT, HE HAD A COUPLE OTHER 
OPPORTUNITIES TO PUSH BACK AND 
TRY TO GET THEM TO GET THAT 
INFORMATION. HE WAS TRYING TO 
GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY 
DEMOCRATS.. I THINK IT DOES 
SPEAK TO
MODERATES. THEY WANT TO SAY 
LOOK, I LOOKED AT THE SIDE. 
ASKED FOR QUESTIONS ON THESE 
QUESTIONS, AND ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW
SURROUND DEED EVENTS AROUND THIS
IMPEACHMENT, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
TO THE SENATORS. 
>>
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE HEADING 
BACK. THANK YOU. 
>>
THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. 
>> TURNED 12
THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION
FROM SENATOR LEX LEARN OTHERS 
SENATORS ARE FOR THE COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT. AS A WITNESS 
COORDINATING WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, DID MANAGER ADAMS
HANDLING OF THE INQUIRY CREATE 
MATERIAL TO PROCESS ISSUES FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I 
BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES,
DID CREATE A DUE PROCESS ISSUE. 
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, 
AND MY ARGUMENT, THERE ARE THREE
MAJOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATION THE 
LACK OF AUTHORIZATION DURING THE
PROCEEDING AND IT STARTED IN AND
LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
INVALID MANNER AND SECOND, THE 
LACK OF BASIC DUE PROCESS 
PROTECTION RELATED TO 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 2% EVIDENCE 
TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND 
PRESENT WITNESSES. THE FINAL ONE
IS MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF  OR HIS 
STAFF HAD SOME ROLE IN 
CONSULTING WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER THAT
REMAIN SECRET, TO THIS DAY AND 
ALL ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT 
THAT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT 
SACRAMENT WERE SHUT DOWN. 
MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF SAID HE HAD 
NO CONTACT  WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER BUT THE EXTENT TO 
WHICH THERE WAS SOME 
CONSULTATION THERE, HAS NOT BEEN
PROBED BY ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL 
THE QUESTIONS THAT REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO 
ASK ABOUT THAT WERE SHUT DOWN. 
AND ANY QUESTIONS SOLD ANY 
QUESTIONS INTO DETERMINING WHO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WASN'T HIS 
MOTIVATIONS WERE SHUT DOWN ALSO.
THE IN VECTORED GENERAL
, WE NOTED HEARD THAT EARLIER 
THIS EVENING IN HIS LETTER TO 
THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DNA, 
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD
TO REACH POLITICAL BIAS, BECAUSE
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD 
CONNECTIONS TO A PRESIDENTIAL 
CANDIDATE OF ANOTHER PARTY BUT, 
THE TESTIMONY FROM THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL REMAINS A SECRET. IT HAS
NOT BEEN FORWARDED FROM THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND IS
NOT PART OF THE RECORD THAT 
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ABILITY 
TO PROBE INTO THE RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND 
OTHERS WHO ARE MATERIALLY 
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE 
INQUIRY.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BEEN A 
LEGEND IN PUBLIC REPORTS WORKED 
FOR THE THEN VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ON UKRAINE'S ISSUES AND 
WHAT WAS HIS ROLE OR INVOLVEMENT
WHEN ISSUES ARE RAISED WE KNOW 
THROUGH TESTIMONY THE QUESTIONS 
WERE RAISED ABOUT THE CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST THE VICE PRESIDENT 
HAD WHEN HIS SON WAS ON SITTING 
ON THE BOARD OF  BURISMA  WAS 
INVOLVED IN THAT?
DID HE HAVE SOME REASON TO WANT 
TO FLIP ON ANY QUESTION RAISING 
ANY ISSUE ABOUT WHAT WENT ON 
WITH THE BIDENS AND  BURISMA  
AND WITHHOLDING $1 BILLION IN 
LOAN GUARANTEES AND ENFORCING 
QUID PRO QUO 
. YOU WILL NOT GET $1 BILLION 
INTO THE FIRE HIM. WE DON'T 
KNOW. BECAUSE MANAGER ADAM 
SCHIFF WAS GUIDING THE PROCESS 
BECAUSE HE WAS  THE CHAIRMAN IN 
CHARGE OF DIRECTING THE INQUIRY 
AND DRINKING IT AWAY FROM ANY OF
THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT CREATES A 
DUE PROCESS DEFECT IN THE RECORD
. YES THAT'S A MAJOR DEFECT. THE
WAY THEY OCCURRED THIS RECORD 
MEANS IT'S NOT RECORD THAT COULD
BE RELIED UPON TO REACH ANY 
CONCLUSION OTHER THAN AN 
ACQUITTAL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
THANK YOU. THE MAC
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND I WILL SEND IT TO 
THE DESK.
SENATOR PETERS ASKS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, DOES AND IMPEACHABLE 
ABUSIVE POWER REQUIRED THE 
PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT PLAN 
ACTUALLY SUCCEED? 
>>
CHIEF JUSTICE, AND SENATORS, THE
ANSWER IS NO. JUST AS ALTHOUGH 
THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, 
IF YOU ATTEMPTED MURDER, BUT DID
NOT SUCCEED, HE WOULD NOT BE 
INNOCENT. THE PRESIDENT HAS 
ATTEMPTED TO UPEND THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR SOME 
PERSONAL BENEFIT IN THE LET'S 
PUT SLIDE 11 UP. HE HAS USED THE
POWERS OF HIS OFFICE, TO SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. WE KNOW 
THIS, THAT BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
OWN STATEMENTS AND THE 
CONFESSIONS SUBSTANTIAL 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TESTIMONY, 
AND THIS HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES.
IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR ELECTION
SECURITY, AND UNDERMINING U.S. 
CREDIBILITY AND THE VALUES 
ABROAD. NOW, BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO ACT IN 
THIS MANNER, WE BELIEVE THIS IS 
AN ONGOING THREAT. WHILE THE 
IMPEACHMENT IS GOING ON, 
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL LAWYER MR. 
GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE, 
CONTINUING THIS GAME. WHEN HE 
LANDED, HE WAS STILL TEXTING
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING 
HIM, WHAT DID YOU GET? WHAT DID 
YOU GET? THIS IS AN ONGOING 
MATTER AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD 
TO RELEASE THE A AFTER HIS 
SCHEME WAS REVEALED, DOES NOT 
END THE PROBLEM. NOW, I HAVE 
LISTENED WITH GREAT INTEREST TO 
THE BACK AND FORTH IN QUESTIONS,
I WANT TO ANSWER ALL THE 
QUESTIONS, AND I CANNOT, BUT I 
DO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
MADE CLEAR HE BELIEVES HE CAN DO
WHATEVER HE WANTS. WHATEVER HE 
WANTS, AND THERE IS NO 
CONSTRAINT THAT HAS BEEN 
RECOGNIZED BY THE CONGRESS, MR. 
MULVANEY HAS WE NOTED HAS THAT 
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTLY TIED TO HOLD ON 
MILITARY AID TO HIS DESIRE TO 
GET UKRAINE TO CONDUCT A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION. NOW, 
THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS SUGGESTED
THAT WE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE OUR 
EYES. WHEN I WAS A KID, THEY 
SAID, DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING 
EYES AS HE WALKS THAT BACK 
LATER. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 
ACTUALLY, TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS
WHO DIRECTLY SPOKE TO THE 
PRESIDENT, WHO APPARENTLY CAN 
TELL US, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM 
THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS 
AID WAS HELD UP, TO GET DIRT ON 
DEMOCRATS. IF WE THINK ABOUT IT,
IF CHIEF EXECUTIVE CALLED THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND SAID,
I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY 
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND ANNOUNCE 
AN INVESTIGATION, THERE WOULD BE
NO QUESTION THAT WOULD BE AN 
IMPROPER USE OF PRESIDENTIAL 
POWER. IT'S NO DIFFERENT, WHEN 
YOU INVOLVE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
EXCEPT IT'S WORSE. ONE OF THE 
THINGS THAT FOUNDERS WERE ABOUT 
WAS INVOLVEMENT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT AND ARE MATTERS. SO, 
YES, THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT 
SUCCEED IN THAT INSTANCE, DOES 
NOT MEAN WE ARE SAFE.
THE IDEA I WAS STUNNED TO HEAR, 
NOW APPARENTLY, IT IS OKAY FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO GET INFORMATION
FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN AN 
ELECTION. THAT IS NEWS TO ME. 
YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
LAW PROHIBITED ACCEPTING THING 
OF VALUE OF INFORMATION. IF YOU 
OR I ACCEPTED A MATERIAL 
INFORMATION FROM A SOURCE, EMAIL
DATABASE, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT 
OR FROM A FOREIGN NATION THAT 
WOULD BE ILLEGAL. THE THOUGHT, 
THAT THIS AS WE GO FORWARD IN 
THIS TRIAL ITSELF, WE CREATE 
ADDITIONAL DANGERS TO THE 
NATION, BY SUGGESTING THAT 
THINGS THAT HAVE LONG BEEN 
PROHIBITED ARE NOW SUDDENLY 
GOING TO BE OKAY, BECAUSE THEY 
HAVE BEEN ASSERTED IN THE 
PRESIDENTS DEFENSE. I YIELD 
BACK. I THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING
. TRENT 12 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>
THE QUESTION FROM THE OTHER 
SENATORS FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT, KENNETH SENATE 
CONVICT A SITTING PRESIDENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITIES OR RIGHTS? 
>>
MR. CHEAP JUSTICE AND CENTER, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
SHORT ANSWER IS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY, NO THE SENATE 
MAY NOT
THE SERIES THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED, I THINK
SHE REALLY TESTIFYING FOR THE 
HOUSE MADE IT VERY CLEAR. BUT IS
AN ABUSIVE POWER AND IT'S 
DANGEROUS. THE FUNDAMENTAL 
PROPOSITION AT THE HEART OF THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGED 
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
BROUGHT, IS THAT THE HOUSE CAN 
DEMAND INFORMATION AND IF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THIS, EVEN IF 
IT PROVIDES LAWFUL RATIONALE, 
PERHAPS ONE OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH ARE 
CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING
PRECEDENTS AND PRINCIPLES 
APPLIED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH
THEM AND JUMP IMMEDIATELY TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S 
DANGEROUS FOR OUR STRUCTURE OF 
GOVERNMENT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
PRINCIPLE HERE BASED ON SIMPLY A
FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO PROCEED 
LAWFULLY WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENTS
PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW 
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. IT HAS TWO
PROCEED BY THE PROPER METHOD
TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. SO, IF THE 
HOUSE IS NOT ISSUED SUBPOENAS OF
THE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO SUBPOENA 
SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS 
IMMUNITY TO SENIOR ADVISORS, A 
DOCTRINE HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY 
VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE 
NIXON GOES BACK EARLIER THAN 
THAT, THEN THERE IS A 
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE 
BRANCHES. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST 
AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IT'S
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND 
OPERATION AT FRICTION BETWEEN 
BRANCHES AS PART OF THE 
CONSTITUTION BY DESIGN. THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, 
NOT BECAUSE IT WAS THE MOST 
EFFICIENT WAY TO HAVE 
GOVERNMENT, BUT BECAUSE OF 
FRICTION THAT IT CAUSED AND THE 
INTERACTION BETWEEN BRANCHES, 
IT'S PART OF A WAY OF 
GUARANTEEING LIBERTY BY ENSURING
NO ONE BRANCH CAN AGGRANDIZE 
POWER FOR ITSELF. WHAT HOUSE 
MANAGERS ARE SUGGESTING, IS 
ANTITHETICAL TO THAT
PRINCIPAL. WHAT THEY ARE 
SUGGESTING IS, ONCE THEY DECIDE 
THEY WANT TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT 
AND MAKE SIGNS FOR INFORMATION 
FROM EXECUTIVES, THE EXECUTIVE 
IS NO DEFENSES. HAVE NO 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR 
PREROGATIVE TO RAISE RESPONSE. 
THEY HAVE TO TURN OVER 
EVERYTHING. BUT THAT WOULD LEAD 
TO, PROFESSOR TURLEY EXPLAINED, 
IS TRANSFORMING OUR SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT BY ELEVATING THE 
HOUSE AND MAKING IT A 
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. AS 
DERSHOWITZ WAS EXPLAINING, IN 
THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM THE 
PRIME MINISTER CAN BE REMOVED BY
A VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE. IF YOU 
MAKE IT SO EASY, TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, ALL THE HOUSE HAS TO 
DO IS DEMAND INFORMATION, GO TO
RESPONSE FROM PRESENCES PRINT 
THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE 
PRINCIPLES THAT ALL RESIDENCES
TUSCAN SAY THAT IT YOU WILL BE 
IMPEACHED. YOU MAKE THE 
PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON THE 
LEGISLATOR. THAT'S WHAT HE 
WARNED AGAINST SPECIFICALLY 
DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION HE WARNED THE 
FRAMERS, WHEN YOU MAKE A METHOD 
FOR MAKING THE PRESIDENT 
AMENABLE WE SHOULD MAKE SURE WE 
CANNOT MAKE HIM DEPENDENT ON THE
LEGISLATURE. IT WAS A 
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
MAKING IT EASY TO REMOVE THE 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT THE FRAMERS
WANTED TO REJECT. IN THIS THEORY
OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WE 
CREATE EXACTLY THAT SYSTEM. EASY
REMOVAL, EFFECTIVELY A 
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF A VOTE 
OF NO-CONFIDENCE IT'S NOT THE 
STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
THE FRAMERS WERE TRYING TO THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
>>
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. MR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK.  SENATORS WARNER, 
HEINRICH AND HARRIS.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
BLUMENTHAL AND OTHER SENATORS, 
IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IT 
READ AS FOLLOWS, FOR THE BREAK, 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S DATED 
THAT ACCEPTING MERE INFORMATION,
FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE IS NOT 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, AND IT IS 
NOT CAMPAIGN INTERFERED TO 
ACCEPT CREDIBLE INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN SOURCE ABOUT SOMEBODY 
WHO'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE. UNDER 
THIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE KINDS OF 
PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATED BY 
RUSSIAN 2016, ON FACEBOOK AND 
OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, 
USING BOTS AND FAKE ACCOUNTS AND
OTHER TECHNIQUES TO SPREAD 
INFORMATION IT WOULD BE 
PERFECTLY LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ACCEPTING 
SUCH A THING OF VALUE IS A 
VIOLATION OF LAW AND ISN'T IT 
TRUE IT'S ONE OF THE HIGHEST 
PARITIES ARE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE CIA, D 
AND I AND FBI, TO DO EVERYTHING 
POSSIBLE TO PREVENT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE OR INTERVENTION IN 
OUR ELECTIONS? 
>>
IT'S WITHOUT QUESTION, AMONG THE
VERY HIGHEST PARITIES OF OUR 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HIM A LAW 
ENFORCEMENT TO PREVENT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION OF 
THE TYPE AND CHARACTER WE SAW IN
2016. WHEN RUSSIA HACKED THE 
DATABASES OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
COMMITTEE WHEN THEY BEGAN A 
CAMPAIGN OF LEAKING THOSE 
DOCUMENTS WHEN IT ENGAGED IN A 
MASTER SYSTEMIC SOCIAL MEDIA 
CAMPAIGN, ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES HAVE BEEN DEVOTING 
THEMSELVES, TO REMAINING A 
RECURRENCE OF THAT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IF I AM 
UNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT 
CRACKING AND I THINK I AM, THEY 
ARE SAYING NOT ONLY IS THAT OKAY
TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT THAT, BUT 
THE VERY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT THAT BOB MUELLER SPENT
TWO YEARS INVESTIGATING, DIDN'T 
AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL AND SPEAR AND
SEE THAT IS TO BE PROVED BEYOND 
A REASONABLE DOUBT THE CRIME OF 
CONSPIRACY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM 
POLICING. MUELLER DID NOT 
ADDRESS COLLUSION WHAT HE DID 
ADDRESSES WHETHER HE COULD 
APPROVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. HE 
FOUND HE COULD NOT. WHAT COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SAY NOW, 
EVEN IF HE COULD HAVE, THAT'S 
OKAY. IT'S NOW OKAY TO 
CRIMINALLY CONSPIRE, WITH 
ANOTHER COUNTRY, TO GET HELP IN 
A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AS LONG
AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES, IT 
WOULD HELP HIS CAMPAIGN AND 
THEREFORE OUR COUNTRY. THAT'S 
OKAY NOW. IT'S OKAY TO ASK FOR 
HELP AND WORK WITH THAT POWER TO
GET THAT HELP THAT'S NOW OKAY. 
IT'S BEEN A REMARKABLE EVOLUTION
OF THE DEFENSE. BEGIN WITH NONE 
OF THAT STUFF HAPPENED HERE. 
NOTHING TO SEE HERE AND IT 
MIGRATED TO OKAY, THEY DID SEEK 
INVESTIGATIONS AND BECAME OKAY, 
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT 
SOUGHT THROUGH OFFICIAL 
CHANNELS. IT WAS HOT BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER. THEN IT 
MIGRATED TO OKAY WE ACKNOWLEDGE 
THAT WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER WAS CONDUCTING THIS 
PERSONAL, POLITICAL ERRAND, HE 
WITHHELD THE MONEY AND WE THINK 
THAT'S OKAY. WE HAVE WITNESSED 
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW 
DAYS AND THE LONG DAY TODAY, A 
REMARKABLE LOWERING OF THE BAR, 
TO THE POINT NOW WHERE 
EVERYTHING IS OKAY. AS LONG AS 
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT IS IN 
HIS REELECTION INTEREST. YOU CAN
CONSIDER FIRE WAS ANOTHER 
COUNTRY TO GET HELP IN YOUR 
ELECTION BY INTERVENING ON YOUR 
BEHALF TO HELP YOU OR BY 
INTERVENING TO HURT YOUR 
OPPONENT. NOW WE ARE TOLD, 
THAT'S NOT ONLY OKAY BUT BEYOND 
THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE.
IF YOU SAY ABUSE OF POWER IS 
IMPEACHABLE THEN YOU ARE 
IMPEACHING PEOPLE FROM YOUR 
POLICY. THAT IS NONSENSE. THEY 
ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEY ARE
NOT THE SAME THING AND BUILD BAR
HAS ARGUED, THEY ARE NOT THE 
SAME THING AS DERSHOWITZ ARGUED 
21 YEARS AGO. DO NOT THE SAME 
THING TODAY. THEY ARE JUST NOT. 
YOU CANNOT SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE. THE FACT THAT YOU 
ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING IT 
DOES NOT EXONERATE YOU.
IF YOU TAKE A HOSTAGE, AND YOU 
DEMAND RANSOM, AND THE
POLICE ARE ASKING YOU, AND YOU 
RELEASE THE HOSTAGE BEFORE YOU 
GET THE MONEY, DOES NOT MAKE YOU
INNOCENT. IT MAKES YOU 
UNSUCCESSFUL. DOES NOT MITIGATE 
THE HARMFUL CONDUCT. THIS BODY 
SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE I DIA THE 
WEATHER PRESIDENTS LETTERS TODAY
THAT IT'S PERFECTLY FINE AND 
UNIMPEACHABLE FOR
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO SAY RUSSIA OR CHINA  I WANT 
YOUR HELP IN MY LECTION. THAT'S 
THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT. WE 
ARE CALLING THAT POLICY, NOW. 
THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
THE MAN FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND
TO WITHHOLD MONEY LIST TO GET 
IT. THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL 
POLICY. I'M SORRY. THAT'S WHAT I
CALL, CORRUPTION. THEY CAN DRESS
IT UP
AND DEFINE IT IN LEGALESE BUT 
CORRUPTION IS STILL CORRUPTION. 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>>
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
COLLINS IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, 
ASSERTED THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED
CRIMINAL BRIBERY AS DEFINED IN 
SECTION 201 AND HONEST SERVICES 
FRAUD IS DEFINED IN SECTION 
1346, THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT 
CITED IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT DID THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS AS ALLEGED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF THESE 
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, AND IF SO
WHY WERE THEY NOT INCLUDED IN 
THE ARTICLES?
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR REQUEST 
DEAN ARTICLE 1 ALLEGES, CORRUPT 
ABUSE OF POWER. CORRUPT ABUSE OF
POWER CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT
EFFORT TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE 
2020 ELECTION, BY PRESSURING 
UKRAINE TO TARGET AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN JOE BIDEN SOLELY FOR 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. THE
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION. THIS GAME WAS
EXECUTED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. 
NOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
INDICATED BASED ON HIS VERY OF 
WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE. IT HAS TO 
BE A TECHNICAL CRIMINAL 
VIOLATION BELOW THE WEIGHT OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOULD BE 
SOMETHING THAT IS EITHER A 
CRIMINAL VIOLATION OR SOMETHING 
CAN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
A CAN THAT FALLS INTO THAT 
CATEGORY. WHAT HAPPENS HERE IS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, SOLICITED 
A THING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR
AN OFFICIAL ACT TOOK THING OF 
VALUE WAS PHONY, POLITICAL DIRT 
IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION
AGAINST JOE BIDEN'S POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
HE ASKED FOR IT EXPLICITLY ON 
THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL AND 
THROUGH HIS INTERMEDIARY 
HEATEDLY IN THE SPRING 
THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AND INTO 
THE FALL. HE SOLICITED A THING 
OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR TWO 
OFFICIAL ACTS. ONE OFFICIAL ACT 
WAS THE RELEASE OF
$391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID 
THAT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE 
AND BY THE HOUSE ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS. THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. 
WITNESSES, WHO SAID THERE WAS NO
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY REASON.
THERE WAS NO REASON FOR 
WITHHOLDING THE EGG. WAS 
WITHHELD TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE.
THAT IS YOUR STANDARD, SIR THE 
PRESIDENT SOLICITED THAT 
POLITICAL DIRT IN EXCHANGE FOR A
SECOND OFFICIAL ACT. WHITE HOUSE
MEETING THAT THE LEADER WANTED 
SO MUCH SO THAT HE MENTIONED IT 
ON THE JULY 25th CALL AND EVEN 
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE SIDELINES
OF THE U.N. IN LATE SEPTEMBER OF
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE
BROUGHT UP THE OVAL OFFICE 
MEETING, AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS 
VALUABLE TO HIM. HE WITHHELD IT.
HE WITHHELD THAT OFFICIAL ACT. 
THE SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020
ELECTION. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
IN AMERICA THAT UNDERMINES OUR 
DEMOCRACY. THAT'S A STUNNING 
CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER IN THE 
YES SIR, IT ISA CRIME. 
THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. .
THANK YOU, SENATOR FROM NEW 
YORK. 
>>
QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
HILLEBRAND, MURPHY AND ROSEN AS 
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. HOW DO 
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
HOW DOES THAT WORK.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, FOR
THE QUESTION, SENATORS.
TO BE VERY CLEAR, WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID IS NOT THE SAME AS
A ROUTINE WITHHOLDING OR 
REVIEWING OF FOREIGN AID THAT 
ALIGNS WITH POLICY PRIORITIES, 
OR TO ADJUST THE POLITICAL 
DEVELOPMENT. INDEED, IF THAT 
WERE THE CASE, IF THE PRESIDENT 
HAD ENGAGED THAT PROCESS, HAD 
GONE THROUGH THE INTERAGENCY 
REVIEW PROCESS, HAD DONE THROUGH
THE ROUTINE CONGRESSIONAL 
CERTIFICATION PROCESS, HE WOULD 
HAVE THE DOCUMENT, HE WOULD HAVE
TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE THE FACTS TO
BACK THAT UP. INDEED WHAT WE 
HAVE, ARE NONE OF THOSE. WE 
DON'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS. IN 
THE TWO MONTHS., WHERE NONE OF 
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD 
NORMALLY BE INVOLVED, WERE AWARE
OF THE REASON FOR THE WHOLE. 
LET'S LOOK AT SOME PRAYER HOLDS.
IN THE CASES OF OBAMA, 
PRESIDENTS OBAMA'S PRESIDENT 
TEMPORARY HOLD, AND CONGRESS WAS
NOTIFIED. THERE WERE REASONS FOR
THOSE HOLDS IT WAS DONE IN THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST, WHETHER IT 
WAS CORRUPTION OR SECURITY. 
NEVER THE PRESIDENT'S OLD 
PERSONAL INTEREST. LET'S LOOK AT
TRUMP'S OTHER HOLDS. IN 
AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE OF CONCERNS 
ABOUT TERRORISTS. IN CENTRAL 
AMERICA, BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION 
CONCERNS. THEY WERE DONE FOR 
REASONS REGARDING POLICY THEY 
WERE NOT CONCEALED. THEY WERE 
PUBLIC. THEY WERE WIDELY 
PUBLICIZED. THEY HAD ENGAGED 
CONGRESS AND THE DOJ AND 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE IN 
TYPE APPARATUS INVOLVED IN 
CONDUCTING THOSE HOLDS. AGAIN, 
NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED HERE.
ALL OF THIS GOES TO SHOW THE 
EVIDENCE SHOWS THERE IS NO 
LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON WHY 
VIOLATE THE INCUMBENT CONTROL 
ACT? WHY KEEP PEOPLE INVOLVED IN
THESE HOLDS IN THE DARK?
THE PRESIDENTS AGENCY OF 
ADVISORS CONFIRMED, REPEATEDLY, 
THE EGG WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF OUR COUNTRY'S NATIONAL 
SECURITY INCLUDING SECRETARY 
POMPEO AND VICE PRESIDENT PENTZ,
AMBASSADOR BOLTON. OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, EVERYBODY WAS IMPLORING 
THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE 
HOLD TO NO AVAIL. EVIDENCE SHOWS
EVEN THE PROCESS WAS UNUSUAL AND
YOU HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST 
WEEK. MR. DUFFY, THE PRESIDENT'S
HAND PICKED APPOINTEE, WHO HAS 
REFUSED
TO TESTIFY TOOK OVER 
RESPONSIBILITY TO AUTHORIZE THE 
AIDE. MR. SANDY CONFIRMED, IN 
HIS ENTIRE CAREER, HE HAD NEVER 
SEEN OR EXPERIENCED CAREER 
OFFICIALS HAVING THEIR 30 
REMOVED BY A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION
AND YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM YOU 
IN A WHILE. I SUSPECT THERE IS A
REASON FOR THAT. IT'S BECAUSE, 
WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
BIG ISSUE. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY 
BUT THE INTEREST OF HIMSELF OVER
THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY, 
OVER THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
HERE TO TALK ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT 
HAPPENED THAT'S WHAT EVIDENCE 
SHOWED. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO
SHOW LEGITIMATE ENGAGEMENT.
>> THANK YOU. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. TRAIN
12.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. .
THAT WAS A TERRIFYING MOMENT. ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND LANGFORD 
AND GARDNER, THIS IS A QUESTION 
FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THINKING. THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BLUNT 
AND OTHERS IS FOR THE COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. WHAT DOES THE
SUPER MAJORITY THRESHOLD FOR 
CONVICTION IN THE SENATE SAY 
ABOUT THE TYPE OF CASE THAT 
SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE 
AND STANDARD OF PROOF THAT 
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE 
SENATE? 
>>
THERE WERE SEVERAL DEBATES AMONG
THE FRAMERS, SHOULD YOU HAVE 
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL? WHAT'S THE 
CRITERIA AND THEN THERE WAS 
ANOTHER DEBATE. WHO SHOULD HAVE 
THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 
DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
SHOULD BE REMOVED? JAMES MADISON
SUGGESTED, THE SUPREME COURT.
SHOULD BE COMPLETELY NONPARTISAN
AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL. HE
SAID THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE 
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE 
JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULDN'T BECOME
INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN BRANCH TO 
PRESIDE OVER THE CHILD BECAUSE 
ULTIMATELY, AND IMPEACHED 
PRESIDENT CAN BE PUT ON TRIAL OR
FOR CRIMES HE COMMITTED. 
HAMILTON SAID, IF HE WERE TO BE 
PUT ON TRIAL, HE WOULD THEN BE 
PUT ON TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE 
SAME INSTANT TUITION, THE 
JUDICIARY MIGHT HAVE
A PREDISPOSITION. SO IN THE 
COURSE OF THE DEBATE, WAS 
FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE 
SENATE, WHICH IT WAS A DIFFERENT
INSTITUTION BACK AT THE FOUNDING
OBVIOUSLY, SENATORS WERE POINTED
BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEY WERE 
SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS
AN INSTITUTION THAT CHECKED ON 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
THEY WERE MORE SOBER AND ELECTED
FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. 
THEY WERE NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT
PLEASING THE POPULAR MASSES. 
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT 
DEMOCRACY.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. 
WHEN IT CAME TIME TO SIGN IT TO 
THE SENATE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHAT THE CRATE CHEERIER 
AND VOTE WOULD BE. IT WAS 
PLAINLY DESIGNED, PLAINLY 
DESIGNED TO AVOID PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT. PLAINLY DESIGNED TO
ACCENTUATE THE WISE BLASPHEMY 
ESPOUSED BY THE CONGRESSMAN AND 
SENATOR DURING THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN. DURING THE IMPEACHMENT
. NEVER EVER HAVE IMPEACHMENT 
REMOVAL THAT IS PARTISAN. ALWAYS
DEMAND
THAT THERE BE WIDESPREAD 
CONSENSUS AND WIDESPREAD 
AGREEMENT AND BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT. WHAT BETTER WAY OF 
ENSURING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THEN
REQUIRING A TWO THIRDS VOTE. 
ALMOST IN EVERY INSTANCE IN 
ORDER TO GET A TWO THIRDS VOTE 
YOU NEED MEMBERS OF BOTH 
PARTIES. JOHNSON'S CASE WAS A 
PERFECT EXAMPLE. IN ORDER TO GET
THAT BOOK YOU NEEDED NOT ONLY 
THE PARTY THAT WAS BEHIND THE 
IMPEACHMENT, AND YOU NEEDED 
PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE AS 
WELL. WHEN SEVEN REPUBLICANS 
DISSENTED BASED LARGELY ON THE 
ARGUMENT
THAT THERE WERE ARGUMENTS I 
PARAPHRASE HERE THE OTHER DAY, 
IT LOST BY MERELY ONE VOTE. THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IF I 
REMEMBER CHRIS, ACHIEVED A 50-50
SPLIT. AM I RIGHT? I THINK I'M 
RIGHT ABOUT THAT. AND ONLY LOST,
IT COULD HAVE BEEN 5149, WOULD 
NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH. I THINK IT
IS PLAIN THAT, NOT ONLY IS THE 
TO THIRD WERE CARMEN A 
>> ON THE HOUSE,  IT SENDS A 
MESSAGE TO EVER SENATOR. IT 
SENDS A MESSAGE TO SENATORS 
WOULD BE IN THE ONE THIRD. IF 
YOU ARE 14 FOR PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT, YOU ARE VIOLATING 
THE SPIRIT OF THE TWO THIRDS 
REQUIREMENT. THERE ARE MANY 
INSTITUTIONS WHERE AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THIS WEEK AND SEEK 
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO SHOW UNITY. I 
WOULD URGE SOME SENATORS, WHO 
FAVOR IMPEACHMENT, LOOK AT THAT 
TWO THIRDS AND SAY IF THERE IS 
NOT GOING TO BE TWO THIRDS, 
THEREFORE, WE WILL VOTE AGAINST 
IMPEACHMENT. EVEN THOUGH WE 
MIGHT THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN 
SATISFIED. DON'T VOTE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. DO NOT VOTE FOR 
REMOVAL UNLESS YOU THINK THAT 
THE CRITERIA? AIDED BY THE 
SENATOR AND BY THE CONSTITUTION 
AND BY HAMILTON ARE ENOUGH. 
NAMELY, BIPARTISAN ALMOST 
UNIVERSAL BY THE UNITED DATES OF
AMERICA. THAT CRITERIA IS MET IN
THE TWO THIRDS COMMENT 
ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE THE 
FRAMERS GAVE TO THAT CRITERIA. I
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. SENATOR FROM 
CONNECTICUT. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
WHILE THE QUESTION IS COMING UP,
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO MORE 
DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONS INTO MORE 
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
MURPHY'S TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
SUBMITTED TO BINDING RULINGS BY 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, REGARDING 
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE 
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND 
THEY WILL NOT APPEAL SUCH 
RULINGS. WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL MAKE THE SAME COMMITMENT
OBVIATING ANY CONCERNS ABOUT AN 
EXTENDED TRIAL? 
>>
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WE'VE HAD 
THIS QUESTION. WILL SAY VERY 
CLEARLY. WE ARE NOT WILLING TO 
DO THAT. WE ARE NOT WILLING TO 
DO THAT BECAUSE THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK UPON 
WHICH IMPEACHMENT IS BASED AND 
THE PRIVILEGES THAT ARE AT STAKE
WOULD KNOW THE SUSPECT TO THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT'S NOT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. IT'S THE 
SAME THING THEY ARE DOING AGAIN.
SURRENDER CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROVIDENCE YOU HAVE AND THEN WE 
WILL PROCEED IN THIS WAY. GIVE 
US DOCUMENT. GIVE US WITNESSES 
AND IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL CHARGE
YOU WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. IN THIS CASE WE ARE 
WILLING TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE
MANAGERS I WHATEVER THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE DECIDES. THAT IS NOT THE
WAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
IS SET UP. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME
SPOT AGAIN. GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT 
TO CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENA IN 
COURT AND RELY ONLY ON WHO IS 
HEREBY THE WAY AGAIN WITH NO 
DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
HE'S HERE AS A  PRESIDING 
OFFICER OF THIS PROCEEDING. SO 
THE PRESIDENT ISN'T WILLING TO 
FORGO THOSE RIGHTS AND 
PRIVILEGES THAT HE POSSESSES 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION UNDER 
ARTICLE 2 FOR EXPEDIENCY. THEY 
TRIED THAT IN THE HOUSE. I'M 
SURE THERE WILL NOT BE THE 
DECISION HERE, IN THE SENATE. 
THANK YOU.'S 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. SENATOR 
FROM MISSISSIPPI. MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE  I I SEND A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK.  TO DERSHOWITZ.
THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
RESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND IT'S 
THIS, PROFESSOR JUST WHICH YOU 
STATED DURING YOUR PRESENTATION 
THE THE HOUSE GROUNDS FORM 
JUDGMENT AND NOT TO THE MOST 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT". WHAT 
SPECIFIC DANGER DOES THIS 
IMPEACHMENT BOTH TO OUR REPUBLIC
TO ITS CITIZENS? 
>>
THANK YOU, SENATORS. CAME OF AGE
DURING THE PERIOD OF 
McCARTHYISM. I THEN BECAME A 
YOUNG PROFESSOR IN THE RING THE 
TIME OF THE VIETNAM WAR.
I LIVED DURING THE IRAQ WAR AND 
FOLLOWING 9/11. I'VE NEVER LIVED
IN A MORE DIVISIVE TIME IN THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEN 
TODAY. FAMILIES ARE BROKEN UP 
AND FRIENDS DON'T SPEAK TO EACH 
OTHER. DIALOGUE HAS DISAPPEARED 
ON CAMPUSES. WE LIVE IN 
EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS TIMES.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THE DIVISION 
AND DECISION BY THE HOUSE IS 
BROUGHT THAT HONESTY PERHAPS IT 
SIMPLY A SYMPTOM OF A TRAFFIC 
PROBLEM WE HAVE FACING US AND 
LIKELY TO FACE US IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THIS MATURE SENATE WHOSE JOB 
IT IS TO LOOK FORWARD WHOSE JOB 
IT IS TO ASSURE OUR FUTURE, TO 
MAKE SURE THE DIVISIONS DON'T 
GROW EVEN GREATER. FOR PRESIDENT
TO BE REMOVED TODAY, IT WOULD 
POSE EXISTENTIAL DANGERS TO OUR 
ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER, AS A 
PEOPLE. THE DECISION WOULD BE 
ACCEPTED BY MANY AMERICANS. 
NIXON'S DECISION WAS ACCEPTED 
EASILY ACCEPTED. I THINK THAT
DECISIONS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN 
MADE IN OTHER CASES WOULD BE 
ACCEPTED, THIS ONE WOULDN'T BE 
EASILY ACCEPTED. BECAUSE IT'S A 
DIVIDED COUNTRY. IT'S A DIVIDED 
TIME. IF THE PRESIDENT IS 
ESTABLISHED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
BE REMOVED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH 
VAGUE AND RECURRING OPEN-ENDED 
AND TARGETED TERMS AS ABUSE OF 
POWER
40 PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED 
AND ALL HAVE, WE DON'T KNOW SOME
CHARGES AGAINST SOME OF THEM, 
BUT WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON SO 
MANY, IF THAT CRITERIA WERE TO 
BE USED, THIS WOULD BE THE 
BEGINNING. IT WOULD BE THE 
BEGINNING OF A RECURRING 
WEAPONIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT, 
WHENEVER ONE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED
BY ONE PARTY AND PRESIDENCY IS 
CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER. THE HOUSE
MANAGERS SAY
THE DANGER ISN'T IMPEACHMENT BUT
THOSE DANGERS CAN BE ELIMINATED 
IN EIGHT MONTHS. IF YOU REALLY 
FEEL THERE IS A STRONG CASE, 
CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 
AT THE DANGER OF THEM EACH MEANT
TO LAST MY LIFETIME AND YOURS.
IT WILL LAST A LIFETIME OF OUR 
CHILDREN. I URGE YOU, 
RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE THE 
GUARDIANS OF OUR FUTURE. FOLLOW 
THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. DON'T ALLOW 
IMPEACHMENT TO BECOME A 
NORMALIZED WEAPON. MAKE SURE
IT'S RESERVED ONLY FOR THE MOST 
EXTRAORDINARY CASES LIKE THAT OF
RICHARD NIXON. THIS CASE DOESN'T
MEET THAT CRITERIA. THANKS. 
>>
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. MR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK.  
>> THANK YOU 
>>
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR TO THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, IS THIS THE
ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED CONGRESS
OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN TRIANGLE
COUNTRY FUN IN MARCH, 2019 
ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION TO 
WITHHOLD AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN 
SEPTEMBER 2019, AND WORKED WITH 
CONGRESS FOR MONTHS AND 2018 
REGARDING FUNDS WITHHELD DUE TO 
PAKISTAN'S LACK OF PROGRESS 
MEETING COUNTERTERRORISM 
RESPONSIBILITIES.
IN THESE INSTANCES THE RECEIVING
COUNTRIES NEW THE FUNDS WITHHELD
TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN FURTHER 
PUBLICLY STATED AMERICAN POLICY.
WHY, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION 
WITHHELD ASSISTANCE DID NOT 
NOTIFY CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE 
OR PARTNER COUNTRIES, PUBLICLY 
WHERE OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS 
NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE HOLD? 
>>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, CENTER, THANK
YOU, FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK 
IN ALL OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT 
WERE LISTED IN THE QUESTION, IT 
WAS CLEAR, THAT WITHHOLDING THE 
EGG, WAS MEANT TO SEND A SIGNAL.
IT WAS DONE PUBLICLY AND MEANT 
TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE COUNTRY.
I THINK IN THE TESTIMONY BEFORE 
THE HOUSE, HERE, FULCHER MADE 
CLEAR THAT HE AND OTHERS HOPED 
THE HOLD WOULD NOT BECOME 
PUBLIC. BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT
THERE TO BE ANY SIGNAL TO THE 
UKRAINIANS OR OTHERS. THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TALKED ABOUT HOW, EVEN 
IF THE AID WHEN IT WAS WITHHELD,
DID NOT LEAD TO ANYTHING NOT
BEING PURCHASED OF THE SUMMER 
WAS STILL DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT 
SENT THE SIGNAL TO RUSSIANS. THE
POINT WAS WAS NOT PUBLIC. 
UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW AND 
RUSSIANS DIDN'T KNOW. WAS NOT 
DONE TO SEND A SIGNAL. WAS TO 
ADDRESS CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT 
HAD RAISED CONCERNS ANYONE A 
TIME TO HAVE THOSE CONCERNS 
ADDRESSED. HE WANTED TO 
UNDERSTAND BETTER BURDEN SHARING
AND IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE 
EMAIL REFERRED TO EARLIER AND IT
WAS REFERRED TO IN THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT. THE COURSE OF THE 
SUMMER OF THE TESTIMONY THERE 
WERE DEVELOPMENTS ON CORRUPTION 
OVER THE SUMMER
. ZELENSKY HAD JUST BEEN ELECTED
IN APRIL. AT THAT TIME MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES TESTIFIED, THAT IT WAS
UNCLEAR HE HAD RUN
A REFORM AGENDA BUT IT WAS 
UNCLEAR WHAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH IT WAS UNCLEAR 
WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ABLE TO 
SECURE
A MAJORITY. JULY 25th CALL 
OCCURRED RIGHT AFTER THOSE 
ELECTIONS AND HE WON THE 
MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT. THE 
PROBLEM IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE 
SEATED UNTIL LATER IN AUGUST 
THIRD TESTIFIED WHEN HE AND 
BALLSTON WERE IN CARE OF, RIGHT 
AT THE END OF AUGUST AROUND 
AUGUST 27th, THE PARLIAMENT HAD 
JUST BEEN SEATED AND ZELENSKY 
AND HIS MINISTERS, RETIRED THEY 
HAD BEEN UP ALL NIGHT PICK UP 
THE PARLIAMENT UP LATE IN 
SESSION TO PASS THE REFORM 
LEGISLATION AGENDA) INCLUDING 
THINGS LIKE ELIMINATING IMMUNITY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT 
FROM CORRUPTION PROSECUTION. 
THEY HAD SET UP THE NEW 
ANTICORRUPTION COURT. THESE 
DEVELOPMENTS WERE POSITIVE. 
MORRISON TESTIFIED ZELENSKY WHEN
HE SPOKE TO PARENTS IN WARSAW, 
THEY DISCUSSED THESE AND 
ZELENSKY WENT THROUGH THINGS HE 
WAS DOING AND THAT INFORMATION 
WAS RELAYED BACK. THE HOLD HAD 
BEEN IN PLACE SO THAT THE 
PRESIDENT COULD WITHIN THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT PRIVATELY CONSIDER 
THIS INFORMATION NOT TO SEND A 
SIGNAL TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. 
THIS PLAYS INTO THE IDEA OF THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ARE PRESENTED 
WITH THAT SOMEHOW THIS WAS 
TERRIBLE. PART OF THE WHOLE 
POINT WAS THAT THERE WAS CONCERN
AND NOT BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE IT
WOULD THEN NOT SEND A SIGNAL NOT
IS WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL THE 
POLITICAL ARTICLE CAME OUT ON 
AUGUST 28th.
