BREAK TODAY. 
>> YOU KNOW, ANITA, I'M CURIOUS 
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE PITCHES TO 
THESE REPUBLICANS? 
I WATCH THE EVENT, THE USMCA 
SIGNING THIS MORNING AND YOU 
CAN SEE THE PRESIDENT FLAGGING 
CERTAIN REPUBLICANS AT THAT 
EVENT, GIVING THEM A LITTLE 
LOVE. 
CURIOUS TO SEE WHA FOLKS ARE 
SAYING ABOUT THE ONES ON THE 
FENCE. 
>> OBVIOUSLY, THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS PRESSURING THEM. 
PRESSURING THEM TO NOT WANT 
WITNESSES. 
JUST TO NOT VOTE FOR WITNESSES. 
REMEMBER, THE PRESIDENT STILL 
FEELS VERY CONFIDENT THAT HE'S 
GOING TO BE ACQUITTED, BUT AT 
THIS POINT, ALL OF THEIR EFFORT 
úIS ABOUT THESE WITNESSES, 
SHOULD THEY CALL THEM OR NOT? 
SO THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL THEM 
THINGS ABOUT WHY THEY 
SHOULDN'T. 
THE LATEST THING THAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAS BEEN TELLING 
SENATORS, IF YOU DO CALL THESE 
WITNESSES WE WILL LIKELY FIGHT 
IT, OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT 
CAN GO AND INVOKE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, AND IT'S A LITTLE 
BIT UNCLEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN 
AFTER THAT. 
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS 
COULD RULE, THE SENATE COULD 
RULE ON THAT. 
THERE ARE SENATORS WHO WILL 
SAY, WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT 
THAT. 
THEY WANT TO GET BACK TO 
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS. 
THEY WANT TO GET ON THE 
CAMPAIGN TRAIL, AND THAT'S SORT 
OF THE PUSH THEY'VE BEEN MAKING 
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. 
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS FROM A 
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE 
PRESIDENT WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL, 
WHAT DO YOU WALK AWAY WITH, 
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR LEGAL 
STRATEGY AND HOW THEY PUT THIS 
TOGETHER? 
WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU THINK 
THEY SHOULD HAVE AT THIS POINT? 
>> IF I'M A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR, 
I WANT TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND FIND 
OUT DID THEY KNOW ABOUT THE 
JOHN BOLTON MANUSCRIPT, AND IF 
SO, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME IN 
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY 
BASICALLY ARGUED TO THIS BODY 
OF SENATORS THAT THERE WAS NO 
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE 
PRESIDENT BEING INVOLVED IN 
TELLING ANYONE ABOUT THIS QUID 
PRO QUO. 
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. 
I WANT TO UNCOVER THAT. 
IF I'M ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, I WANT TO KNOW 
ABOUT THEIR NECESSITY FOR 
CALLING BOLTON IN THE FIRST 
PLACE, IN THE HOUSE INSTEAD OF 
LEAVING THIS DILEMMA TO THE 
SENATE. 
THAT'S WHAT'S ON MY MIND AT THE 
TOP. 
ANOTHER THING ABOUT ASKING A 
QUESTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS, IS I'D LIKE TO KNOW 
FROM THE OTHER PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS, WHAT THEY REALLY THINK 
ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S 
ARGUMENT THAT NONE OF THIS 
CONDUCT, IF IT DOESN'T AMOUNT 
TO ANY NUMERATED CRIME IN THE 
FEDERAL CODE, THAT NONE OF THIS 
CONDUCT CAN BE IMPEACHABLE. 
WE KNOW THAT THAT THEORY HAS 
TOTALLY BEEN DEBUNKED BY OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, SO 
THEY'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THAT 
ONE. 
>> IF YOU'RE TAKING THE 
TEMPERATURE ON CAPITOL HILL, 
YOU KNOW MITCH McCONNELL SAYS 
IN THE OPEN, HE CURRENTLY 
DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO 
MOVE FORWARD TO BLOCK WITNESSES 
IN THE TRIAL. 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR LINDSEY 
GRAHAM MADE A PLEA AGAINST 
CALLING WITNESSES. 
HERE'S WHAT LINDSAY GRAHAM HAD 
TO SAY. 
>> IF YOU GO DOWN THE ROAD OF 
WITNESSES, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 
ONE, IT'S GOING TO BE MANY. 
YOU'LL BE RULING ON PRIVILEGES 
AS A SENATOR MOST LIKELY. 
THESE WITNESSES THAT THEY'RE 
WANTING NOW COULD HAVE BEEN 
CALLED BEFORE THEY SHOULD HAVE 
BEEN CALLED. 
YOU COULD HAVE LITIGATED 
PRIVILEGE IN COURT. 
>> MOLLY, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING? 
ARE SENATORS CONFIDENT THEY CAN 
GET A PRIVILEGE BY FRIDAY? 
>> Reporter: THAT'S THE 
CHALLENGE. 
MITCH McCONNELL IS SAYING 
NUMBER ONE START SWEETENING 
THESE PEOPLE UP. 
IT WAS NO COINCIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED OUT TOM TILLIS 
AND SAID WHAT A WINNER HE IS. 
UP FOR REELECTION IN NORTH 
CAROLINA. 
JERRY MORAN, WHO HAS BUCKED THE 
PRESIDENT ON SEPARATION OF 
POWERS MATTERS IN THE PAST OF 
KANSAS. 
ROGER WICKER OF MISSISSIPPI, 
ALSO DONE THE SAME. 
SO YES, IT SIGNALED THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE NEEDS TO REALLY GET 
INVOLVED TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY 
CAN CHANGE MINDS. 
BUT THE CHALLENGE IS THOSE 
INSTITUTIONALISTS IN STATES 
LIKE OHIO, SAY A ROB PORTMAN. 
WHAT HAPPENS ONCE JOHN BOLTON'S 
BOOK COMES OUT, AND THERE'S ALL 
THIS EVIDENCE, OR ESSENTIALLY 
TESTIMONY THAT YES, THE 
PRESIDENT SAID EXPLICITLY, WE 
ARE DOING THIS FOR MY POLITICAL 
GAIN, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE 
GING TO DO IT, AND I DON'T 
CARE ABOUT THE INTEREST OF THE 
COUNTRY. 
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT HE 
SAID, BUT WHAT IF YOU READ 
THAT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU 
VOTE TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT, 
AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE 
INFORMATION. 
I THINK THAT PUTS THOSE 
SENATORS IN SORT OF A TIGHT 
SPOT. 
THERE'S A LOT OF THINKING ON 
THAT MATTER. 
>> NOT JUST EVEN THIS NOVEMBER 
ELECTION, YOU DON'T WANT TWO 
YEARS TO BE ON THE RECORD, AND 
THESE ADS SHOWING YOU DID NOT 
ALLOW A FAIR TRIAL, AND THEN 
ALL THE STUFF ON BOLTON COMES 
OUT. 
>> EXACTLY. 
IT WAS INTERESTING, OUR NANCY 
CORTEZ HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO 
SUSAN COLLINS WHO SAID THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS NOT DOING ENOUGH 
TO CHANGE HER MIND THIS 
MORNING. 
SHE ALSO SAID THE WITNESS VOTE 
NEEDS TO BE FAIR. 
I WANT TO PLAY WHAT SUSAN 
COLLINS SAYS. 
>> THIS PARALLELS WHAT WE DID 
WITH THE 1999 TRIAL OF 
PRESIDENT CLINTON. 
IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR 
BOTH SIDES PRESENT THEIR CASES 
BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T 
KNOW WHO WE MIGHT NEED, WHAT 
GAPS REMAIN. 
IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT THAT 
THERE BE FAIRNESS. 
THAT EACH SIDE BE ABLE TO 
SELECT A WITNESS OR TWO. 
>> I AM CURIOUS MOLLY, ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THIS, WHAT ARE 
SENATORS LIKE SUSAN COLLINS, 
MITT ROMNEY DOING TO TRY TO 
SWAY THEIR COUNTERPARTS? 
>> Reporter: ALSO MENTIONED AS 
POSSIBLE VOTES IN FAVOR OF 
WITNESSES, AND P THEY SIT NEXT 
TO EACH OTHER, AND THEY'VE BEEN 
SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER THIS 
WHOLE TRIAL. 
SOMEBODY LIKE A LAMAR 
ALEXANDER, IT'S REALLY UNCLEAR 
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT YOU CAN 
BET A MITCH McCONNELL IS IN 
THERE, TRYING TO STAVE THIS 
OFF, AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT 
ANY WAY HE CAN TO EARN A VOTE 
AGAINST WITNESSES. 
IF THAT MEANS OAY, YOU CAN BE 
THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE 
AS LONG AS I'M THE LEADER, 
WE'LL GIVE YOU YOUR OPIOID 
BILL. 
>> THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. 
>> Reporter: MITCH McCONNELL 
KNOWS THE PRESSURE POINTS OF 
ALL HIS POLITICAL CHESS PIECES. 
HIS REPUBLICANS THAT KEEP HIM 
THE MAJORITY LEADER, AND HE 
WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE 
PUSHES THE RIGHT BUTTONS IN 
ORDER TO GET THE VOTE THAT HE 
NEEDS. 
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A MATTER 
LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST 
UNCLEAR HOW MUCH PRESSURE YOU 
CAN EXERT ON A MATTER THAT HAS 
TO DO WITH OSTENSIBLY, 
SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUES. 
>> I'M CURIOUS, DOES THE WHITE 
HOUSE SEE THE MODERATE 
REPUBLICANS JUST AS A LOST 
CAUSE? 
>> IT'S INTERESTING, THE ONE 
THING WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR 
THE LAST DAY OR TWO SINCE THE 
BOLTON NEWS CAME OUT IS THAT 
THEY FEEL GOOD THAT THEY 
HAVEN'T HEARD REALLY FROM OTHER 
SENATORS. 
THEY MIGHT FEEL LIKE THEY'VE 
LOST SUSAN COLLINS, AND MAYBE 
THEY'VE LOST MITT ROMNEY, BUT 
THEY'RE FEELING GOOD THEY 
HAVEN'T HEARD FROM OTHER 
SENATORS. 
THEY WERE AFRAID WHEN THE 
BOLTON NEWS CAME OUT, THERE 
WOULD BE OTHER SENATORS THAT 
FLAT OUT SAID WE DEFINITELY 
NEED  TO HEAR FROM HIM. 
THEY HAVEN'T HEARED FROM ANYONE 
NEW WHO HAS SAID DEFINITELY I 
WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON, 
OR ANYONE ELSE. 
SO THEY'RE SORT OF TAKING THAT 
AS, OKAY, MAYBE THERE AREN'T 
FOUR VOTES, BECAUSE THEY NEED 
FOUR REPUBLICANS TO GO WITH THE 
DEMOCRATS TO SAY THERE ARE 
WITNESSES. 
SO THEY'RE FEELING, I THINK 
THEY WERE INITIALLY SHOCKED, 
BUT FEELING A LITTLE BIT BETTER 
AS THE TIME HAS GONE ON. 
>> I'M SORRY, ANITA, I'M NOT 
LAUGHING AT YOU, I'M LAUGHING 
AT THE FACT WE'RE SEEING ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ WALK AROUND WITH A 
BAG OF POTATO CHIPS. 
HE'S WALKING THROUGH THE SENATE 
RECEPTION ROOM WITH HIS POTATO 
CHIPS. 
>> HE NEEDS THAT SALT. 
>> A LONG DAY, A LITTLE EXTRA 
SALT GOES A LONG WAY. 
WE DID SEE JOE MANSION SUGGEST 
HE WOULD SUPPORT CALLING HUNTER 
BIDEN TO THE SENATE TRIAL. 
I WANT TO PLAY WHAT HE SAID. 
>> THE ONLY THING I SAID IS I 
WANT WITNESSES. 
I WANT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE. 
THERE SHOULD BE AN ADULT IN THE 
ROOM, THAT'S CHIEF JUSTICE 
ROBERTS. 
WE SHOULD VOTE AGAINST ON CHIEF 
JUSTICE ROBERTS BEING ABLE TO 
DETERMINE WHO IS PERTINENT TO 
THE TRIALS AND CHARGES BEING 
BROUGHT. 
IF HUNTER BIDEN WOULD BE ONE OF 
THOSE PEOPLE THAT JUSTICE 
ROBERTS SAYS IS PERTINENT TO 
THE TRIAL, THEN ABSOLUTELY. 
>> JOHN ROBERTS, RICKEY. 
>> Reporter: JOHN ROBERTS' JOB 
IS NOT TO GET INVOLVED. 
AND HE IS REALLY THERE JUST TO 
PRESIDE, AND KEEP ORDER, AND 
DECORUM. 
THE POWER OF THE TRIAL OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT RESTS IN THE 
SENATE, NOT IN THE JUDICIARY. 
THE SENATE DECIDES BY 51 VOTES 
IF IN FACT IT WILL HAVE 
WITNESSES. 
NOW THIS IS NOT LIKE YOU'RE 
HAVING A VOTE ON A BILL WHERE 
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BREAK A TIE. 
YOU HAVE TO HAVE 51 SENATORS 
VOTE. 
SO IT'S VERY NICE THAT JOE 
MANSION WOULD LIKE TO PASS THIS 
OFF TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, 
BUT HE CAN'T. 
>> HE CAN'T DO THAT. 
>> Reporter: THE WAY THE RULES 
OF THE ROAD, ESSENTIALLY, THE 
PACKAGE WAS SET UP, AFTER WE 
GET TO THE DEBATE TIME, AND 
VOTE WHETHER TO EVEN MOVE ONTO 
THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES, IT WILL 
BE AN ORDER FOR THE SENATE TO 
TAKE A VOTE ON WHETHER ROBERTS 
SHOULD BE THE ONE DECIDING 
WHETHER THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE 
PERTINENT OR NOT, EVEN IF THEY 
GET THE 51 VOTES IN FAVOR OR 
AGAINST. 
IT WAS A PROCEDURE THAT WAS 
SHOT DOWN IN THE LEAD UP TO 
PROVING THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, BUT 
ONCE THE SENATE GETS PAST THIS 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, 
THEY WILL HAVE ANOTHER 
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON WHETHER 
TO DISMISS THE WHOLE THING, 
FULL STOP, OR MOVE ONTO THE 
NEXT STEP OF JUSTICE ROBERTS. 
IT'S UNCLEAR FOR ME WHAT WOULD 
HAPPEN TO JUSTICE ROBERTS IF HE 
WAS PUT INTO THAT POSITION, 
BECAUSE AS RICKEY SAID, THE 
JUDICIARY, IT'S A WHOLE 
DIFFERENT BRANCH. 
IT'S ARTICLE 3 FOR A REASON. 
AGAIN, WE COULD BE ENTERING 
SOME PRETTY TENUOUS LEGAL 
TERRITORY. 
>> Reporter: I THINK THAT'S A 
FAIR STATEMENT, AND I CAN GIVE 
YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE 
JUSTICE ROBERTS BEGINS AND ENDS 
QUICKLY, WHICH IS EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
IF THERE'S A QUESTION OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, JUSTICE 
ROBERTS CAN RULE ON THAT WITHIN 
THE CONFINES OF THIS SENATE 
CHAMBER. 
BUT 51 SENATORS CAN OVERRULE 
HIM. 
>> ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER 
THAT. 
51. 
WHILE WE'RE DOING THE MATH HERE 
TO ACQUIT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE 
HERE FOR IN THE SENATE, TO 
ACQUIT, OR TO REMOVE. 
67 IS THE NUMBER YOU'VE GOT TO 
HIT. 
MOLLY, IS THERE TALKS AT THIS 
POINT TO GIVE REPUBLICANS SOME 
SORT OF COVER? 
ALLOW THESE WITNESSES TO COME 
FORWARD, AND THEN HEY, WE'LL 
GIVE YOU THAT ACQUITTAL VOTE? 
>> THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
I PUT IT OUT THERE, SOME OF MY 
SOURCES. 
IS McCONNELL SAYING TO THE 
PRESIDENT, LISTEN, IF YOU ARE 
SO HECK BENT ON NOT HAVING 
WITNESSES, YOU NEED TO VOTE TO 
REMOVE, VOTE PRESENT. 
BECAUSE REALLY, IF AGAIN, LIKE 
I SAID, IF THEY VOTE AGAINST 
WITNESSES AND THIS BOOK THAT 
BOLTEN'S WRITING COMES OUT, AND 
ALL THESE EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, 
THAT PUTS THOSE WITNESSES INTO 
A BOX. 
AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK YET, 
BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S CHARACTER, OR 
NATURE, TO BE FORGIVING LIKE 
THAT. 
AND SO, PERHAPS ANITA MIGHT 
HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. 
>> YOU'RE COLLEAGUES AT 
POLITICO WROTE THAT MANSION IS 
ONE OF THREE DEMOCRATS THAT 
COULD VET TO ACQUIT. 
WHO ARE THE OTHER TWO, AND WHAT 
DOES THE WHITE HOUSE FEEL WHO 
THEY COULD  SWAY WITHIN THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY? 
>> Reporter: THEY REALLY 
ENJOYED THAT NEWS. 
THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, 
AND WONDERING THAT. 
REMEMBER, THIS DISCUSSION WE'RE 
HAVING, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT 
HAS BEEN VERY TALKATIVE. 
HE'S LOVING TO, HE'S BOASTING 
REALLY ABOUT THESE LAST FEW 
WEEKS THAT NO REPUBLICAN 
SWITCHED DURING THE HOUSE VOTE. 
HE TALKS ABOUT THAT AT EVERY 
RALLY. 
HE TALKS ABOUT THAT ALL THE 
TIME. 
HE WANTS TO KEEP THE 
REPUBLICANS IN LINE, AND HE 
WANTS TO PEEL OFF A FEW 
DEMOCRATS. 
REMEMBER, THAT DID HAPPEN, JUST 
WITH A COUPLE. 
A HANDFUL REALLY IN THE HOUSE 
VOTE. 
IT'S SOMETHING THEY TALKED 
ABOUT ON THE SENATE FLOOR. 
AND IT'S SOMETHING THE 
PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT A LOT. 
THEY SAY YOU CAN'T DO 
SOMETHING, YOU CAN'T HAVE 
IMPEACHMENT UNLESS ITS 
BIPARTISAN, SO THEY'RE SAYING 
ACTUALLY IT'S BIPARTISAN THE 
OTHER WAY. 
THEY'RE FEELING VERY GOOD ABOUT 
THAT AND THEY ARE VERY MUCH 
LOOKING AT THAT. 
YOU MENTIONED JOE MANSION, AND 
YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT JOE 
MANSION AND THE PRESIDENT HAVE 
SORT OF THIS LONG RELATIONSHIP 
WHERE THEY DO MEET, THEY DO 
TALK. 
HE'S IN A TOUGH SPOT IN WEST 
VIRGINIA THERE, WHERE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS PRETTY POPULAR. 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING AT 
SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE, BUT 
REALLY THEIR MAIN FOCUS IS ON 
THESE VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS 
RIGHT NOW. 
>> WE'VE SEEN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WALKING IN THERE RIGHT 
NOW, AND WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S 
A CANCER SCARE, A CANCER 
SITUATION THAT UNFORTUNATELY, 
CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT 
MORE ABOUT? 
>> Reporter: IT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT JERRY 
NADLER'S WIFE WAS DIAGNOSED 
WITH PANCREATIC CANCER. 
THAT'S WY WE DIDN'T SEE HIM, 
INCIDENTALLY IN FRONT OF THE 
RULES COMMITTEE LAST MONTH, AND 
HE WAS OUT FOR A DAY. 
HE WAS UP HERE IN NEW YORK WITH 
HER. 
IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHEN THESE 
HEALTH SITUATIONS COME UP, 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BOTH, 
EVEN THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE BENCH, OR THE AISLE, IN 
THIS CASE, WERE TWEETING THEIR 
WELL WISHES. 
IT'S JUST SO TERRIBLE, BUT HE'S 
BACK, AND WILL PROCEED. 
>> IT WAS NICE TO SEE THAT 
SUPPORT, I HAVE TO SAY, IN SUCH 
A POLITICALLY DIVIDED MOMENT TO 
GET THAT SUPPORT FROM 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AS WELL. 
YOU KNOW MOLLY, NANCY CORTEZ 
ASKED DOUG JONES IF HE'S 
ACTUALLY MADE UP HIS MIND ON 
ACQUITTAL. 
HE SAYS GETTING WITNESSES, THAT 
COULD AFFECT THAT. 
>> SENATOR, HAVE YOU MADE A 
DECISION YET ON ACQUITTAL? 
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
EVERYONE IS SCREAMING FOR 
DECISIONS. 
I KEEP TELLING PEOPLE, I'M A 
LAWYER. 
I'VE SAT IN SO MANY JURY 
TRIALS, AND EVERY ONE I SIT IN 
ON, THE JUDGE SAYS DO NOT MAKE 
UP YOUR MINDS UNTIL YOU'VE 
HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND 
CONSIDER EVERYTHING. 
SO NATURALLY YOU LEAN THIS WAY, 
AND LEAN THAT WAY, IT'S AMAZING 
THAT PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO JUST 
GO AHEAD AND ANNOUNCE 
DECISIONS, AND I DON'T DO THAT. 
>> DOES GETTING WITNESSES 
AFFECT YOUR DECISION? 
>> I THINK IT COULD. 
I THINK IT'S A REAL PROBLEM 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT STARTS 
ATTACKING EVERY WITNESS THAT IS 
PROPOSED TO COME HERE. 
AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT 
SHOWS HIS GUILT UNDER ARTICLE 
2. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
HEAR THESE WITNESSES. 
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH. 
>> MOLLY, WE'RE TALKING A 
LITTLE ABOUT THIS EARLIER, HOW 
DOES THE VOTE ON WHETHER TO GET 
WITNESSES EFFECT BOTH PARTIES 
ULTIMATE DECISION ON ACQUITTAL, 
OR REMOVAL? 
>> I THINK IT JUST DEPENDS. 
IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN AND YOU 
THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID 
DOES NOT WARRANT IMPEACHMENT, 
YOU KNOW THAT AL DERSHOWITZ, 
YOU KNOW ARGUMENT. 
>> NOT HIS USUALLY MONIKER. 
>> AL D. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT 
WHAT HE DID WAS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, YOU'RE NOT GOING 
TO VOTE TO REMOVE HIM. 
BUT IF THERE IS THAT QUESTION 
AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, I THINK IT 
CHANGES THAT CALCULATION, MORE 
SO FOR DEMOCRATS THAN 
REPUBLICANS, BUT AGAIN, WITH 
THE ONES THAT I'M LOOKING AT 
WOULD BE LIKE A MURKOWSKI, WHO 
WAS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, AND IS 
INDEPENDENT MINDED THROUGH AND 
THROUGH, AND SUSAN COLLINS WHO 
IS IN A TOUGH REELECTION RACE 
IN MAINE, WHO ALREADY TOOK A 
POLITICAL HIT FOR THE PRESIDENT 
WHEN SHE VOTED FOR JUSTICE 
KAVANAUGH. 
THAT VERY SAME DAY, THOUSANDS 
OF DOLLARS HEADED TO HER STATE 
TO GIVE MONEY TO HER 
UNANNOUNCED OPPONENT. 
THERE'S A LOT OF FOCUS AND 
EFFORT ON DE-SEATING, TAKING 
AWAY HER SEAT. 
SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE 
OF SUSAN COLLINS. 
>> WHAT DOES TAKE CARE MEAN AT 
THIS POINT? 
>> THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
>> A POLITICAL POLL SHOWS 57% 
OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED 
TO USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO 
PREVENT WITNESSES FROM 
TESTIFYING. 
YOU BREAK IT DOWN FURTHER. 
YOU LOOK AT A QUINNIPIAC POLL, 
75% OF INDEPENDENTS. 
INDEPENDENTS, THEY SUPPORT 
WITNESS TESTIMONY. 
AND YOU LOOK AT THE 
REPUBLICANS. 
49%. 
ARE THESE NUMBERS RAISING ALARM 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE? 
>> YEAH, I MEAN, THOSE ARE 
REALLY HIGH NUMBERS. 
THAT 75% NUMBER, THAT'S REALLY, 
REALLY OVERWHELMING. 
I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'VE SEEN 
SOME REPUBLICANS SORT OF FLOAT 
THIS IDEA OF, IF WE GET OUR 
WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS CAN 
GET THEIRS, THAT BOTH SIDES CAN 
GET A WITNESS, THIS WITNESS 
SWAP THING. 
IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S 
GOING TO GO ANYWHERE, OF 
COURSE, SENATE MAJORITY LEAD 
CONSIDER, MITCH McCONNELL 
HASN'T SIGNED OFF ON THAT. 
I THINK YOU'RE SEEING SOME 
REPUBLICANS SAY LET'S DO THIS, 
AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
REALLY THINK THE DEMOCRATS WILL 
GO FOR THAT, BUT THEY LOOK LIKE 
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, 
RIGHT? 
THEY SEE THESE POLLS JUST LIKE 
ANYONE ELSE, SO THAT'S GOING TO 
MAKE THEM LOOK A LITTLE BIT 
BETTER IN THEIR EYES. 
SO IT'S NOT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN 
BLAMING THEM FOR NOT HAVING A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES, IT 
CAN'T BE FAIR. 
I THINK THIS IS SORT OF A WAY 
TO SAY POLITICALLY SPEAKING, WE 
ARE TRYING TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO WON'T 
PLAY BALL. 
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WITNESS 
SWAP IS GOING TO GO ANYWHERE, 
BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. 
I THINK THERE'S SOME THOUGHT TO 
IT BY REPUBLICANS, THAT YES, WE 
DO NEED TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE NOT 
TRYING TO DO THIS AS QUICKLY, 
AND WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT 
THE PEOPLE WANT. 
>> FOR SO LONG THE PRESIDENT 
HAS SAID THIS IS A SHAM TRIAL, 
BUT IN LIGHT OF THE BOLTON 
REVELATIONS THAT HAVE COME OUT, 
WHAT'S THE WHITE HOUSE 
CALCULOUS? 
DO THEY BELIEVE THEIR BASE 
REMAINS WITH THEM? 
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT NOT 
BEING ABLE TO EXPAND BEYOND 
THAT BASE? 
>> Reporter: NO, THEY STILL 
FEEL THEIR BASE IS WITH THEM. 
WHEN THEY SAY THEY'RE OUT IN 
THE COUNTRY TALKING TO PEOPLE, 
THAT PEOPLE AREN'T WATCHING. 
THESE ARE LONG DAYS OF THE 
TRIAL. 
PEOPLE ARE WORKING, AND THEY'RE 
GOING ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS. 
THEY'RE NOT WATCHING THE ENTIRE 
TRIAL. 
THEY'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE 
NUANCE AND THE IN'S AND OUT'S. 
SAYING IT'S JUST A PARTISAN 
FIGHT IN WASHINGTON. 
THEY FEEL THAT IS THE ONE THING 
THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT, WHICH IS 
THAT OUT IN THE COUNTRY, 
OUTSIDE OF THIS BUBBLE OF 
WASHINGTON PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING 
ATTENTION AND PERHAPS WILL 
STILL BE ON HIS SIDE. 
IF YOU GO TO ANY OF HIS RALLIES 
AND SEE HOW PEOPLE ARE SIGNING 
UP AND GIVING SMALL DOLLAR 
DONATIONS, IT'S CLEAR HE STILL 
HAS THE CONSERVATIVE BASE ON 
HIS SIDE. 
HE NEEDS TO GET THEM TO THE 
POLLS ON ELECTION DAY, OR 
EXPAND THAT BASE, BECAUSE HE 
MIGHT LOSE THIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
>> HE NEVER SAID TO ME I'VE GOT 
A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU ARE 
DOING IN UKRAINE. 
NEVER ONCE. 
NEVER WINKED. 
NEVER SENT ME A LITTLE NOTE. 
THAT'S CLASSIC BACK STABBER. 
IF HE CAME UP TO ME AND SAID 
RUDY YOU'RE A GRENADE THAT 
MIGHT BLOW UP, I'D SAY YOU'RE 
AN ATOMIC BOMB. 
>> Reporter: RUDY IS SUCH AN 
INTERESTING FIGURE IN THIS, WE 
HAVEN'T SEEN THE PRESIDENT 
BREAK WITH HIM AT ALL. 
YOU'VE HAD AIDES AND CONFIDANTS 
OF THE PRESIDENT WHO HAVE SAID 
FOR MONTHS HE NEEDED TO SORT OF 
SEVER THOSE TIES. 
TELL HIM TO STOP TALKING AND 
STOP GIVING INTERVIEWS, NOT 
EMPLOYEE HIM AS HIS ATTORNEY 
ANYMORE. 
OBVIOUSLY, HE'S NOT IN THIS 
DEFENSE TEAM IN THE TRIAL, BUT 
JUST TO SORT OF DISTANCE 
HIMSELF, AND THE PRESIDENT 
REFUSES. 
HE JUST HASN'T WANTED TO GO 
THERE DESPITE ALL SORTS OF 
ADVICE TO TELL HIM OTHERWISE. 
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE 
CAMPAIGN THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT 
WHAT RUDY GIULIANI WOULD SAY, 
BUT THE PRESIDENT'S STICKING 
WITH HIM. 
>> SPEAKING OF ASSOCIATES, LEV 
PARNAS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE 
TODAY ON CAPITOL HILL, ACTUALLY 
A GUEST OF SENATE MINORITY 
LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER. 
>> Reporter: SENATOR SCHUMER 
EXPLAINED IT TODAY, I'VE BEEN 
GIVING TICKETS TO THE GALLERY 
OUT TO MY CONSTITUENTS,  SO LEV 
AND HIS ATTORNEY CAME BY. 
HE SAID WE GAVE TICKETS TO HIS 
ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T 
KNOW IF LEV WOULD MAKE IT WITH 
THE ANKLE BRACELET ON. 
>> MONITOR. 
>> Reporter: YEAH, THE MONITOR. 
HE WAS ASKED DO DEMOCRATS WANT 
TO HEAR FROM LEV PARNAS? 
CHUCK SCHUMER SAID WE'RE 
STICKING WITH FOUR FOUR WITNESS 
REQUESTS, BUT ALSO HE SAID WE 
JUST WANT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE 
QUOTE UNQUOTE, IN THE ROOM 
WHERE IT HAPPENED. 
>> RICKEY, I WANT YOU TO WEIGH 
IN ON LEV PARNAS THERE. 
>> Reporter:I THINK IT'S VERY 
BAD OPTICS FOR THE DEMOCRATS. 
I DON'T THINK IN THESE HOLLOWED 
WALLS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEV 
PARNAS THERE. 
IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE HIS 
LAWYER. 
IT'S ANOTHER THING TO HAVE HIM. 
>> I WANT TO PLAY A BITE FROM 
PARNAS. 
HE WANTS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. 
>> I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, JOHN 
BOLTON'S THE KEY. 
>> MR. PARNAS, JOHN BOLTON'S 
REPORTING HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE 
A BOMBSHELL. 
IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER TO 
THIS TRIAL, IS THAT GOING TO BE 
EQUALLY TELLING AS WELL? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> HOW SO? 
>> I WANT TO TESTIFY UNDER 
OATH, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO 
THIS IN THE MEDIA. 
I THINK A LOT HAS BEEN PROVEN 
IN MY EVIDENCE THAT I'VE TURNED 
OVER TO THE HOUSE, SO THE NEXT 
THING IS IDENTIFY LOVE TO DO IT 
UNDER OATH, AND I WELCOME ALL 
OF THEM. 
I WELCOME RUDY TO TESTIFY UNDER 
OATH. 
I WELCOME THE PRESIDENT TO COME 
TESTIFY UNDER OATH. 
I WELCOME POMPEO TO TESTIFY 
UNDER OATH, AND DEFINITELY 
ATTRNEY BILL BARR. 
>> YOU HEARD HIM THERE. 
IS THE WHITE HOUSE CONCERNED? 
>> Reporter: THEY ARE CONCERNED 
ABOUT ALL THE WITNESSES. 
THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO TESTIFY, 
BUT THEY DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE 
TO TESTIFY. 
ONE THING THEY ARE CONCERNED 
ABOUT IN THE BIGGER PICTURE, 
IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE SOMEONE 
TESTIFY IN THE TRIAL, BUT HE'S 
ALSO OUT THERE TALKING. 
HE'S GIVING INTERVIEWS. 
HE GAVE AN INTERVIEW ON TV. 
THE SAME WITH JOHN BOLTON. 
THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE 
TRIAL, OF COURSE, BUT AGAIN, 
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY FEEL 
LIKE THE PRESIDENT WILL BE 
ACQUITTED, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER 
CONCERN, A BIGGER CONCERN, IF 
YOU WILL, THAT'S FOR HOW THE 
REST OF THE YEAR'S GOING TO GO. 
THEY'RE WORRIED THERE'S GOING 
TO BE NEW INFORMATION COMING 
OUT, THIS DRIP, DRIP, DRIP, 
EVERY FEW DAYS, SOMEONE'S GOING 
TO TALK PUBLICLY IN SOME WAY, 
GIVE AN INTERVIEW, OR A BOOK'S 
COMING OUT, AND THEY'RE WORRIED 
SORT OF ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REELECTION, AND HOW THAT WOULD 
AFFECT IT. 
JUST GOING TO BE FOR THE REST 
OF THE YEAR, YES, THEY OF 
COURSE EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO 
FACE A LOT OF OPPOSITION, BUT 
THEY ARE AFRAID OF UKRAINE 
ALLEGATIONS TO CONTINUE FOR THE 
REST OF THE YEAR. 
SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SOME 
OTHER THINGS, BUT IT WOULD 
CONTINUE ON THIS EXACT TOPIC. 
NEW INFORMATION COMING OUT 
EVERY FEW DAYS FOR THE NEXT FEW 
MONTHS. 
>> RICKEY, IS THAT A STRATEGY? 
>> Reporter: WELL, IT'S A 
STRATEGY, BUT THE REALITY IS 
THIS. 
LOOK WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF 
THE TIMING TO THE ELECTION. 
THE DIFFICULTY IS THE LONGER 
THIS GOES, THE MORE THAT BOTH 
SIDES GET POLARIZED, AND THAT 
THAT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON 
THIS ELECTION. 
I JUST THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE 
WILL SAY IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE 
DEMOCRATS INTEREST TO GET THIS 
DONE, BECAUSE IF THEY DO CALL 
WITNESSES, WE'RE GOING TO GO ON 
AND ON AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL 
GET BLAMED. 
AT THE SAME TIME, DON'T YOU 
HAVE A DUTY TO COUNTRY TO SAY 
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE BEST 
EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE 
WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE 
DOCUMENTS? 
>> MOLLY, AS WE LOOK AHEAD TO 
THIS AFTERNOON, THE Q AND A 
HERE, WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING 
FOR, ESPECIALLY WITH THESE 
SENATORS? 
>> I'M WATCHING TO FIND OUT 
WHAT ORDER OF THESE QUESTIONS 
THE LEADERS ARE GOING TO BE 
PRESENTING THEM TO THE 
RESPECTIVE SIDES, AND TO PICK 
UP ON RICKEY'S POINT, I WANT TO 
HEAR WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL SAYS ABOUT IF THEY KNEW 
WHETHER OR NOT, IF THEY KNEW 
THE CONTENTS OF JOHN BOLTON'S 
BOOK THAT HE HAD TO SUBMIT TO 
THE NSC, AND IF NOT, WHY NOT? 
>> AND BEHIND THE SCENES, 
MOLLY, IF YOUR SENATOR, SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL 
AT THIS POINT, HOW ARE YOU 
TRYING TO PUT THE PRESSURE 
POINT TO PUT THE  KABAOSH ON 
THESE WITNESSES AT THIS POINT? 
>> Reporter: I'M FIGURING OUT 
HOW CAN I KEEP ROB PORTMAN, HOW 
CAN I KEEP THESE OTHER 
INSTITUTIONALISTS? 
>> I  THIS IS A CBS NEWS SPECIA 
REPORT  AND I AM NORAH 
O'DONNELL TODAY. 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL  ENTERS A 
NEW AND VERY INTERESTING PHASE 
AND IT IS THE QUESTION AND 
ANSWER PERIOD. 
SENATORS WILL SUBMIT QUESTIONS 
IN WRITING TO EITHER THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS OR THE DEFENSE TEAM OF 
THE PRESIDENT. 
IN FACT, WE HAVE GOT THE CARD 
FOR YOU RIGHT HERE. 
THIS IS THE CARD THAT THEY WILL 
FILL OUT AND HOPEFULLY THEIR 
PENMANSHIP IS UP TO PAR BECAUSE 
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WILL 
HAVE TO READ THE QUESTIONS OUT 
LOUD. 
HE HAS ASKED EACH SIDE TO LIMIT 
THE RESPONSES TO FIVE MINUTES. 
ONE QUESTION THAT WILL NOT BE 
ANSWERED UNTIL FRIDAY IS WILL 
THE SENATE CALL WITNESSES? 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PUSHING FOR 
THE TRIAL TO AND QUICKLY 
TWEETING REMEMBER THE DEMOCRATS 
ALREADY HAVE 17 WITNESSES AND 
WE WERE GIVEN NONE. 
WITNESSES ARE UP TO THE HOUSE 
AND NOT UP TO THE SENATE. AND 
OF COURSE NANCY CORDES POINTS 
OUT THAT THREE OF THE 17 
WITNESSES WERE REQUESTED BY 
REPUBLICANS AND WITH THE 
PRESENCE AND WAS NOT TRUE IN 
FACT EVERY SINGLE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL IN THE SENATE HISTORY HAS 
FEATURED WITNESSES. THIS MAY BE 
THE EXCEPTION THIS TIME AND AND 
LET'S GO TO NANCY CORDES.  úALR 
BEEN A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS. 
BRING US UP TO DATE. 
>> Reporter:  LEV PARNAS HAS 
MADE AN APPEARANCE ON CAPITOL 
HILL AND HE IS NOT BEEN CALLED 
TO TESTIFY. 
HE WAS JUST HOPING TO TAKE IN 
THE PROCEEDINGS AND HE IS THE 
INDICTED BUSINESSMAN WAS A 
CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE PERSONAL 
LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI. 
HE HAS AUDIO RECORDINGS AND 
VIDEO RECORDINGS THAT SHOW THAT 
HE WAS IN THE ROOM WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE SAYS 
THAT HE WORKED IN UKRAINE TO 
CARRY OUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED WHICH WAS THE REMOVAL OF 
THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS . 
IS CONTRIBUTED TO THE 
HEIGHTENED TENSIONS KAREN 
CAPITOL HILL TODAY. 
IT DOES NOT APPEAR HE WILL BE 
ABLE TO GET IN BECAUSE HE IS 
WEARING AN ANKLE MONITORING 
BRACELET. 
HE IS HERE NONETHELESS. 
>> IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN 
ATTENTION, NANCY, THE VERY 
LATEST ON THE SENATORS LAST 
NIGHT HE REPORTED THAT THE 
SENATE REPUBLICANS MEANT AFTER 
THE WHITE HOUSE CLOSED THEIR 
CASE AND THAT MAJORITY LEADER 
MITCH McCONNELL SAID THEY DO 
NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP 
WITNESSES AND I SPOKE WITH A 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR THIS MORNING 
AND SAID THAT THERE WAS ABOUT 
FIVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO 
ARE UNDECIDED AT THIS POINT.  
WHAT ARE YOU HEARING IS A LOOK 
AT IF THEY WILL CONTINUE THIS 
BY CALLING WITNESSES? 
N 
>> Reporter: LOTS OF 
CONVERSATIONS, NORAH.  
LISA MURKOWSKI ONE OF THE THREE 
SAID THEY ARE LEANING TOWARD 
ASKING FOR WITNESSES. 
SHE HAD A HALF HOUR MEETING 
ALONE WITH THE SENATE MAJORITY 
LEADER MITCH McCONNELL THIS 
MORNING AFTER SHE CAME OUT SHE 
SAID SHE WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT 
WHAT THEY DISCUSSED. 
SHE ALSO DID NOT WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER 
THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES. 
CLEARLY THERE IS SOME PRESSURE 
PLACED ON THE SENATORS WHO ARE 
EITHER LEANING TOWARD WITNESSES 
OR WHO ARE UNDECIDED. THAT WAS 
KIND OF A WAKE-UP CALL FROM THE 
SENATE LEADER WITH HIS OWN 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS LAST NIGHT 
TO SAY HERE IS WHERE THINGS 
STAND RIGHT NOW. 
AT THE MOMENT WE DO NOT HAVE 
THE VOTES TO STOP WITNESSES. 
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE? 
YOU HAVE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS 
ARGUING THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW 
THIS IS GOING TO END AND THE 
PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED AND 
WHY DRAG THIS OUT WITH MORE 
WITNESSES. 
THAT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT IS 
BEING MADE TO EVERY SINGLE 
UNDECIDED REPUBLICAN SENATOR 
RIGHT NOW. 
>> WE WILL BRING IN LESLEY 
STAHL AND JOHN DICKERSON FROM 
"60 MINUTES" AND IT'S GREAT TO 
HAVE YOU. 
THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST 
INTERESTING DAYS AS WE HEAR 
WHAT THE SENATORS FOUND MOST 
INTERESTING WHAT THEY WANT TO 
KNOW. 
>> YES. 
I THINK MAYBE IT WILL BE THE 
MOST INTERESTING OF THE DAYS 
THAT WE HAVE HAD SO FAR. 
DO NOT EXPECT A PERIOD MASON 
KIND OF SITUATION. 
THERE WILL NOT BE FOLLOW-UP 
QUESTIONS. 
I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE 
MORE SPEECHES. THE QUESTION 
ALWAYS IN THE BACKGROUND IS 
GOING TO BE WITNESSES AND MAYBE 
THE QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ABOUT 
THAT EXPECT THE QUESTIONS MIGHT 
BE ABOUT PREPARING THE QUESTION 
WITNESSES SO QUESTIONS TO TRY 
TO GET THAT OR ARE THEY TO 
EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT? 
ARE THESE ABOUT THE ELECTION 
AND NOT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
GETS ACQUITTED OR NOT? 
IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE 
WHICH OF THOSE VARIOUS BUCKETS 
IT IS ABOUT. 
TO THE POINT OF NANCY ABOUT 
MITCH McCONNELL SAYING MAYBE HE 
DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES ON THE 
WITNESS QUESTION THAT IS ALSO 
TO GET THE FUNDS INTO WAY IN 
ATTACKING JOHN BOLTON HE WAS 
THIS MORNING. 
IT IS A MESSAGE IF YOU VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES YOU CAN ENJOY THIS 
FOR ME. 
REMEMBER THE HAVE BEEN 17 
WITNESSES WHICH TO SLEEP CAN 
ALSO EXPECT THIS FROM ME IF YOU 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES. 
WE ARE GETTING A TAGTEAM. 
>> NO DOUBT THIS WAS A SAVVY 
MOVE FOR MITCH McCONNELL TO SAY 
WE DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES YET 
AND IT IS A WAY TO INVITE THE 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AND A NUMBER 
OF SENATORS FACE TOUGH 
REELECTION THIS YEAR, FACING 
POLITICAL PRESSURE. 
IS THIS WHAT ONE SAID THIS 
MORNING. 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS 
WRONG. 
THE CALL WAS NOT PERFECT. 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
IF WE CALL WITNESSES, IT COULD 
TAKE FIVE WEEKS. 
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT BENEFIT IT 
DOES TO JIM UP THE SENATE 
BUSINESS FOR WHAT IS ALREADY A 
PREORDAINED OUTCOME. 
THAT ECHOES THE THINKING THAT 
IS GOING ON. EVEN AMONGST 
REPUBLICANS WHO THINK WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG. 
>> I AM CURIOUS WHY THE WHOLE 
INTEREST OF A CENTER HASN'T 
COME UP AND WHETHER OR NOT 
DEBATING THIS. 
IF THEY HAVE A CENTERFOLD, ALL 
OF THESE REPUBLICANS WHO KNOW 
THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO 
CAN SAY HE DID SOMETHING WRONG 
AND THE DEMOCRATS CAN SAY OKAY 
LET THE VOTERS DECIDE AND ALL 
THE SENATORS WHO ARE IN A 
DIFFICULT REELECTION BACK HOME 
ARE OFF THE HOOK. 
>> LESLEY THAT IS SO SMART. 
I KEPT THINKING  THEY CLEARLY 
WANT TO EXPRESS SOME SORT OF 
DISAPPROVAL BUT THEY ALSO DO 
NOT THINK IN THE WORDS OF THIS 
SENATOR THAT HE AGREED WITH 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ BUT THAT THE 
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT WERE 
INAPPROPRIATE AND THEY DO NOT 
WANT HIM TO CONTINUE. 
>> IN THE PAST THEY'VE TALKED 
ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN UP FOR 
ELECTION. 
HE IS UP FOR ELECTION NOW AND 
WHEN YOU ARE A SENATOR YOUR 
FORTUNE IS TIED DIRECTLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT SO YOU MAY THINK YOU 
ARE CREATING A SENSE OF 
INDEPENDENCE BUT IT IS THE 
FORTUNE OF THE PRESIDENT THAT 
WILL HELP YOU RAISE MORE SO YOU 
NEED HIM TO LOOK PERFECT AND 
WHAT NORAH IS HEARING AS PART 
OF THE CONFLICT BECAUSE  THEY 
WANT TO HAVE WHAT THEY REALLY 
BELIEVE AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS 
HIM TO SAY WHAT HE DID WAS 
PERFECT. 
>> NO PRESSURE FOR SURE. 
>> LOOK AT THE POLITICAL 
STANDING OF THE PRESIDENT. 
SHE HAD A RALLY LAST NIGHT IN 
WILDWOOD, NEW JERSEY. 
NEW JERSEY IS DEMOCRATIC 
TERRITORY. IT ALWAYS GOES 
DEMOCRATIC. 
THERE WAS 125,000 PEOPLE WHO 
REQUESTED TICKETS, ACCORDING TO 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THEY KEPT 
ALL OF THE DATA ON ALL OF THOSE 
PEOPLE WHO ARE POTENTIAL VOTERS 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
HE STILL HAS A FERVENT BASE 
THAT SUPPORTS THEM. 
>> AND IF YOU VOTE FOR CENSURE 
THAT BASIS COMING AFTER YOU. 
>> PLEASED TO SAY IT IS THE 
ECONOMY. 
IT IS PUBLIC OPINION. 
EVERYTHING IS ABOUT PUBLIC 
OPINION. 
THE REPUBLICANS WHO NOW SAY 
THAT THEY ARE ON THE FENCE 
ABOUT WITNESSES, LOOKUP PUBLIC 
OPINION. 
75% WANT WITNESSES TOOK 75% OF 
THE PUBLIC BUT AGAIN AS YOU SAY 
HIS BASE IS COMPLETELY BEHIND 
HIM, AND SO THESE REPUBLICANS 
ARE CAUGHT BECAUSE OF PUBLIC 
OPINION. THEY ARE BEING TORN 
BOTH WAYS. 
>> AND OUR WHITE HOUSE TEAM HAS 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING THAT 
THIS IS PART OF THAT LOBBYING 
CAMPAIGN THAT IS ALREADY GOING 
ON THE HAPPENS BEHIND THE SCENES
WHERE THE CALLS ARE BEING MADE 
IN FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER'S 
OFFICE THAT IS WHAT THE MEETING 
WAS ABOUT. 
HOW CAN WE GET YOU FROM NOT 
VOTING FOR WITNESSES AND WHAT 
CAN WE DO HERE? BACK TO 
REMEMBER THE STEVEN SPIELBERG 
MOVIE ON ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND 
THE HORSETRADING? THE KIND OF 
BROADEST BEHIND THE SCENES TO 
SEE WHAT A PRESIDENT OR A 
MAJORITY LEADER CAN OFFER A 
SENATOR IN EXCHANGE FOR A VOTE. 
WHO KNOWS WHAT IS BEING OFERED
. I WILL LOVE TO BE IN THE ROOM
. 
>> I LIKE TO GO NOW TO WEIJIA 
JIANG WHO WAS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE WHO HAS NEW INFORMATION. 
WEIJIA  ?  
>> Reporter: I JUST RECEIVED A 
COPY OF A LETTER SENT TO JOHN 
BOLTON FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
HIS ATTORNEY. 
IT BASICALLY SAYS  YOU CANNOT 
PUBLISH YOUR BOOK AND I JUST 
GOT IT SO I WANT TO READ IT. 
PORTIONS FOR YOU. 
IT SAYS UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND 
THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 
YOUR CLIENT SIGNED AS A 
CONDITION FOR GAINING ACCESS TO 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THE 
MANUSCRIPT MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED 
OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSED WITHOUT 
THE DELETION OF THIS CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION AND APPOINTS TO 
SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE 
BOOK IS LABELED AS TOP SECRET 
LEVEL AND SO ESSENTIALLY THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS TELLING JOHN 
BOLTON THAT HE HAS TO REVISE 
THOSE PORTIONS BEFORE HE CAN 
PUBLISH THIS. 
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? 
AS WE KNOW FROM THAT EXPLOSIVE 
NEW YORK TIMES REPORTING AND 
THOSE REPORTERS WHO SAW THIS 
MANUSCRIPT, HE SAYS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF TOLD HIM THAT 
HE WAS WITHHOLDING AID TO 
UKRAINE BECAUSE HE WANTED THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
. THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 
BECAUSE WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT 
THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE HAD A COPY 
OF THIS MANUSCRIPT SINCE 
DECEMBER 30. 
THAT IS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW SO 
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THE TIMING. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL SAYS THAT 
NOBODY OUTSIDE OF THE NFC HAS 
REVIEWED THE MATERIAL. 
OF COURSE A LOT OF MINT 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS KNEW 
ABOUT THIS WHEN IT WAS 
DELIVERED TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
ARE COMING UP AGAIN. 
THIS IS BRAND-NEW AND WE ARE 
JUST SEEING A COPY OF THIS 
LETTER WITH THE WHITE HOUSE 
TELLING JOHN BOLTON YOU CANNOT 
PUBLISH THAT BOOK. 
>> ALL RIGHT, WEIJIA JIANG, 
THIS WILL NOW ENTER THE LEGAL 
PHASE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT 
BOOK CAN AND WILL BE PUBLISHED. 
>> IT IS A MESSAGE TO JOHN 
BOLTON AND THE REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS THAT WHAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO DO IS MAKE BOLTON SO 
TOXIC  IN THIS LETTER IS SAYING 
HE IS GIVING AWAY TOP-SECRET 
THINGS TO MAKE HIM SO TOXIC 
THAT A VOTE TO HAVE WITNESSES 
MEANS A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS 
TOXIC PERSON. 
MORE PRESSURE ON THOSE 
REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE TO VOTE ON 
WITNESSES. 
>> BUT THE INFORMATION ABOUT 
WHAT THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS 
ALL ABOUT IS OUT THERE ALREADY. 
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN LEAKED I 
WONDER IF BOLTON AND HIS 
PUBLISHER WOULD DEFY THE 
PRESIDENT  AND WHAT THE LEGAL 
CONSEQUENCES MIGHT BE. 
>> THE PUBLISHER OF THE BOOK IS 
SIMON AND SCHUSTER WHICH IS 
PART OF A DIVISION OF I COME CBS
. WHAT IS NOTEWORTHY IS THAT 
JOHN BOLTON WOULD KNOW WHAT IS 
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. IT IS SAID 
THAT HE WAS A METICULOUS 
NOTETAKER AND THAT HE TOOK MANY 
OF HIS NOTES WITH HIM AND THAT 
HE HAS ALREADY LEAKED THE 
LARGER UNDERSTANDING THAT IT 
WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
AIDE WAS TIED TO AN 
INVESTIGATION AND ALSO IN THE 
PAPER YESTERDAY IS THAT JOHN 
BOLTON IS ALLEGING AND THAT HE 
EXPRESSED TO BOB BARR THAT HE 
CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TRADING PERSONAL FAVORITES TO 
THE CHINESE PRESIDENT INTO THE 
TURKEY PRESIDENT ERDOGAN. 
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
IF HE IS ALLOWED TO BE A WITNESS
AND GETS TO SAY THIS IS NOT 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BUT THE 
ELECTION HE CAN SAY ANY NUMBER 
OF THINGS INCLUDING IF SOMEBODY 
ASKS HIM TALK ABOUT HOW 
CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT WAS 
ABOUT THE IDEA OF CORRUPTION 
AND HE MIGHT SAY SOMETHING THAT 
MIGHT UNDERMINE THAT 
DEFENSIVENESS IS THE QUESTION 
IF THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM 
DIRECTLY TO HOLD OF THIS AID 
BECAUSE OF THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL 
HILL WITH NEW INFORMATION . 
NANCY? 
>> Reporter:  NORAH, REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS SAID  BE CAREFUL ABOUT 
WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. 
WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT 
TWEETING ABOUT HIM REPEATEDLY 
SAYING IF HE HAD HIS WAY HE WAS 
STARTED SIX WORLD WARS AND HE 
WAS FIRED. JOHN BOLTON IS 
SOMEONE WHO WAS WELL RESPECTED 
BY A LOT OF REPUBLICANS HERE ON 
CAPITOL HILL WITH THE WARNING 
COMING FROM LINDSEY GRAHAM IS 
IF YOU GO AFTER JOHN BOLTON TOO 
HEARD YOU WILL FORCE REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS TO RALLY AROUND HIM 
AND SO BE CAREFUL. 
>> THAT IS INTERESTING. 
THAT IS WALKING THE LINE. TRY 
TO UNDERCUT HIM BUT DO NOT GO 
TO GO HARD. 
>> I WANT TO SEE THE PRESIDENT 
BE CAREFUL THAT IS WHAT I WOULD 
LIKE TO SEE. 
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY TO 
MAKE SURE WE HAVE NO 
INFORMATION THAT JOHN BOLTON 
LINKS THE DETAILS OF HIS BOOK 
AND IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE THE 
NEW YORK TIMES GOT THE DETAILS 
THAT ARE IN HIS BOOK BUT THE 
NEW YORK TIMES DID INDICATE 
THAT THEY HAVE LARGE PASSAGES 
FROM THE BOOK SUGGESTING THAT 
ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS OUT 
THERE YET ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY 
DISCLOSE. IT IS OVER 500 PAGES. 
>> I AM WONDERING IF THE 
PRESIDENT INVOKES EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND IF THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THAT FROM 
THE SENATE FLOOR, DOES HE HAVE 
THE POWER TO OVERRIDE THAT? 
>> THE CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE TRICKY THING ABOUT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS IT 
DOESN'T RULE IN ORDER TO 
TESTIFY VOLUNTARILY. HE REALLY 
COULDN'T BE ABLE TO INVOKE IT. 
IT WOULD REALLY BE THE VOTE OF 
THE SENATE WHETHER HE CAN SHOW. 
I CANNOT THINK THE PRESIDENT 
CAN INVOKE A PRIVILEGE CLAIM ON 
SOMEONE WHO VOLUNTARILY WANTS 
TO TESTIFY, WHICH IS PROBABLY 
WHAT THIS LETTER IS ABOUT. 
>> WE WILL SEE A GREAT DEAL OF 
JOHN ROBERTS TODAY WHO HAS THE 
TASK OF READING THE QUESTIONS 
FROM THE SENATORS. I'M CURIOUS 
TO SEE HOW SOME OF THE PROCESS 
WORKS TODAY. I HAD READ THIS 
MORNING IN THE WASHINGTON POST 
THAT SENATORS WHAT ACTUALLY 
HAND THEIR CARDS IN BUT I'VE 
ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT MANY OF 
THESE QUESTIONS WERE VETTED 
THROUGH THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS 
SO THAT THEY WILL NOT BE 
REPETITIVE. 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> EIGHT HOURS. 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES. 
DELIVERED IN WRITING. 
TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. AS A 
REMINDER, THE TWO SIZE WILL 
ALTERNATE. 
ANSWERS SHOULD BE KEPT TO FIVE 
MINUTES OR LESS. THE MAJORITY 
SIDE WILL LEAD WITH A QUESTION 
FROM THE SENATOR FROM MAINE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF, SENATOR MURKOWSKI 
AND SENATOR ROMNEY. 
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE 
THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED 
CONDUCT, SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF 
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION AND THE 
PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTERESTS 
HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER 
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN HIS 
ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE 1? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS  COME IN RESPONSE TO 
THE QUESTION, THERE IS REALLY 
TWO LAYERS TO MY ANSWER BECAUSE 
I LIKE TO POINT OUT FIRST THAT 
EVEN IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE 
MOTIVE, THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE PRESENTED THE SUBJECT OF 
MOTIVE ALONE CAN BE THE BASIS 
FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WE 
BELIEVE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY 
DEFECTIVE. 
IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO 
FRAME A CLAIM OF AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
BUT I WILL PUT THAT TO ONE SIDE 
AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF 
MIXED MOTIVE. IF THERE WERE A 
MOTIVE THAT WAS A PUBLIC 
INTEREST BUT ALSO SOME PERSONAL 
INTEREST, WE THINK IT FOLLOWS 
EVEN MORE CLEARLY THAT THAT 
CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE BASIS 
FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
EVEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IF 
THEY HAVE FRAMED THEIR CASE, 
EXPLAINED AND THIS IS POINTED 
OUT IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM 
THAT IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE REPORT THEY SPECIFIED 
THAT THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO 
MEET IS TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A 
SHAM INVESTIGATION. 
IT IS A BOGUS INVESTIGATION. 
THERE IS NOT ANY LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC PURPOSE. 
THAT IS A LANGUAGE. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY HAVE 
SET FOR THEMSELVES AND BEING 
ABLE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER 
THE THEORY OF WHAT AN ABUSE OF 
POWER OFFENSE CAN BE. SO IT IS 
A VERY DEMANDING STANDARD THAT 
THEY HAVE SET FOR THEMSELVES TO 
MEET THEY HAVE EVEN SAID THEY 
CAME UP AND THEY TALKED A LOT 
ABOUT THE BIDENS AND THESE 
ISSUES IN 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE  BECAUSE THEY WERE 
SAYING THERE IS NOT EVEN A 
SCINTILLA OF ANY EVIDENCE OF 
ANYTHING WORTH LOOKING INTO 
THERE. 
AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT 
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET, 
SHOWING HAT THERE IS NO 
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND 
THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAD
A PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE 
BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED THAT 
ONCE YOU GET INTO A MIXED 
MOTIVE SITUATION, IF THERE IS 
BOTH SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT 
ALSO A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC 
INTEREST MOTIVE, IT CANNOT 
POSSIBLY BE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE 
IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO HAVE THE 
SENATE TRYING TO CONSIDER WAS 
THAT 48% LEGITIMATE INTEREST 
AND 52% PERSONAL INTEREST OR 
WAS IT THE OTHER WAY? 
WAS AT 52%? 
YOU CANNOT DIVIDE IT THAT WAY. 
AND THAT IS WHY THEY RECOGNIZE 
THAT TO HAVE EVEN A REMOTELY 
COHERENT THEORY, THE STANDARDS 
THEY HAVE TO SET FOR THEMSELVES 
IS ESTABLISHING THAT THERE IS 
NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AT 
ALL FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY 
THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT 
SHOWS A POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST, AND THE PRESIDENT 
COULD HAVE THAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST MOTIVE, THAT DESTROYS 
THEIR CASE. 
SO ONCE YOU'RE INTO MIXED 
MOTIVE LAND, IT IS CLEAR THAT 
THE CASE FAILS IN THE CANNOT 
POSSIBLY BE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AT ALL. 
THINK ABOUT IT. 
ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SOME 
EXTENT HAVE IN MIND HOW THEIR 
CONDUCT AND HOW THEIR DECISIONS 
AND THEIR POLICY DECISIONS WILL 
AFFECT THE NEXT ELECTION. 
THERE'S ALWAYS SOME PERSONAL 
INTEREST IN THE ELECTORAL 
OUTCOME OF POLICY DECISIONS. 
AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 
THAT BUT THAT IS PART OF 
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. 
TO START SAY NOW THAT YOU HAVE 
A PART MOTIVE THAT IS FOR YOUR 
PERSONAL ELECTORAL GAIN THAT 
THAT IS SOMEHOW GOING TO BECOME 
AN OFFENSE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE 
ANY SENSE, AND IT IS TOTALLY 
UNWORKABLE, AND IT CANNOT BE A 
BASIS FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT 
FROM OFFICE. 
THE BOTTOM LINE IS ONCE YOU'RE 
IN THE IN ANY MIXED MOTIVE 
SITUATION, ONCE IT IS 
ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A 
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT 
COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING INTO 
SOMETHING JUST ASK ANY QUESTION 
ABOUT SOMETHING, THE MANAGERS 
CASE FAILS AND IT FAILS UNDER 
THEIR OWN TERMS. 
THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE TO 
SHOW NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
THERE ISN'T ANY LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC INTEREST. 
THEY TOTALLY FAILED TO MAKE 
THAT CASE. 
BOTH OF THE THINGS THAT WERE 
MENTIONED WITH THE 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE 
BIDEN  AND BURISMA SITUATION 
SHOWED  THERE IS AT LEAST SOME 
INTEREST THERE. 
LOTS OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES 
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAID 
ON ITS FACE IT APPEARS TO BE A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
IT IS AT LEAST WORTH RAISING A 
QUESTION ABOUT, ASKING A 
QUESTION ABOUT IT. 
THERE IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST 
AND THAT MEANS THE CASE 
ABSOLUTELY FAILS. 
THANK YOU EXPECT THANK YOU, 
COUNSEL FOR THE DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SUBMIT 
A QUESTION AS TO THE DESK.  
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER ASKS 
OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS JOHN 
BOLTON'S FORTHCOMING BOOK 
STATES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED TO CONTINUE WITHHOLDING 
$391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO 
UKRAINE UNTIL UKRAINE ANNOUNCED 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS TOP 
POLITICAL RIVAL AND THE 
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. 
IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE SENATE 
TO RENDER A FULLY INFORMED 
VERDICT IN THIS CASE WITHOUT 
HEARING THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN 
BOLTON, MICK MULVANEY, AND THE 
OTHER KEY EYEWITNESSES ARE 
WITHOUT SEEING THE RELEVANT 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. 
THERE IS NO WAY  TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES. WHEN 
YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO IS AS 
RELEVANT AS JOHN BOLTON, WHO 
GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST 
SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS OF THE 
PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT, WHO HAS 
VOLUNTEERED TO TESTIFY TO TURN 
HIM AWAY TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY 
I THINK IS DEEPLY AT ODDS WITH 
BEING AN IMPARTIAL JURY. 
I WOULD ALSO ADD IN RESPONSE TO 
THE LAST QUESTION THAT IF ANY 
PART OF THE PRESENCE WHEN THE 
PATIENT WAS A CORRUPT MOTIVE 
AND A CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE 
ACTION TO FREEZE THE AID 
WITHHOLD THE AID IT WOULD BE 
ENOUGH TO CONVICT UNDER 
CRIMINAL LAW THAT HERE THERE IS 
NO QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESENCE 
MOTIVATION AND IF YOU HAVE ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESENCE 
MOTIVATION AND MAKES IT ALL THE 
MORE ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN 
WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CONFIDED IN AND SAID HE WAS 
HOLDING UP THIS AID BECAUSE HE 
WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE 
POLITICAL INVESTIGTIONS THAT 
WOULD HELP HIM IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION. 
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER IT WAS A FACTOR, THE 
FACTOR, ALL OF THE FACTOR, 
THERE IS A WITNESS A SUBPOENA 
AWAY WHO CAN ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION. 
BUT THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF 
THE EVIDENCE MAKES IT VERY 
CLEAR. 
ON JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER THAT 
PHONE CALL, DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS 
TO GORDON SONDLAND THAT IS THAT 
úCONVERSATION AT THE UKRAINE 
RESTAURANT AND WHAT DOES GORDON 
SONDLAND, WHAT IS THE QUESTION 
THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL? IS HE 
GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
NOW THE COUNSEL  TO THE PRESENT 
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE HE IS 
WORRIED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. 
HE MIGHT HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT 
THAT BUT HERE THE MOTIVATION 
WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. ON THE 
PHONE WITH GORDON SONDLAND THE 
ONLY QUESTION HE WANTED AN 
ANSWER TO IS IS HE GOING TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATION? 
PARENT WHEN HE IS TALKING TO 
THE INVESTOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
úUNION. 
WHAT BETTER PERSON TO TALK TO 
IF IS REAL CONCERN WAS ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING THEN THE GUY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BURDEN 
SHARING IN EUROPE? 
DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE THIS AT 
ALL? 
OF COURSE NOT. 
OF COURSE NOT. 
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
IT, 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, 
TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR 
QUESTION. 
WAS AT ALL OF THE MOTIVE, SOME 
OF THE MOTIVE, OR NONE OF THE 
MOTIVE? 
WE THINK THE CASE IS CLEAR 
WITHOUT JOHN BOLTON, BUT IF YOU 
HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, YOU 
CAN ERASE ALL DOUBT. 
LET ME SHOW A VIDEO TO 
UNDERSCORE NUMBER TWO SLIDE HOW 
IMPORTANT THIS IS. 
>>'S HOUSE MANAGERS. REALLY 
THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU
ALL OF THE FACTS. 
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO 
SOMETHING VERY, VERY 
CONSEQUENTIAL AND ASK YOURSELF. 
ASK YOURSELF GIVEN THE FACTS 
THAT YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY WHAT 
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU WHO 
DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
FACTS? 
WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THE FACTS? 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A 
SHELL GAME. 
THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS. 
>> THE LAST VIDEO WHICH IS EVEN 
MORE IMPORTANT FOR MR. BOLTON, 
NUMBER THREE. 
>> ONCE AGAIN NOT A SINGLE 
WITNESS IN THE HOUSE RECORD 
THAT THEY DEVELOPED UNDER THEIR 
PROCEDURES THAT WE WILL CONTINUE
TO DISCUSS PROVIDED ANY FIRST-
HAND EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT EVER LINKED A MEETING 
TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS. 
ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THAT THERE 
WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> THAT IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE 
OF COURSE MICK MULVANEY SAID 
THAT THE MONEY WAS LINKED TO 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS. HE SAID 
IN ACKNOWLEDGING A QUID PRO QUO 
THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME AND WE 
SHOULD JUST GET OVER IT. 
GORDON SONDLAND ALSO SAID THE 
PRESENT SAY NO QUID PRO QUO BUT 
ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT. 
>> THE TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A 
QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENTS  
COUNSEL . 
>> TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL,  
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS HE HAS 
MANAGER JUST MADE IN RESPONSE 
TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS , A COUPLE OF POINTS I 
LIKE TO MAKE. 
ADAM SCHIFF SUGGESTE THERE WAS 
NO EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN BURDEN 
SHARING BECAUSE HE ACCORDING TO 
DAVID HALE NOT RAISED IN THE 
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT HE 
HAD WITH GORDON SONDLAND THAT 
HALE CLAIMS TO HAVE OVERHEARD 
BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE REAL 
EVIDENCE  AS WE EXPLAINED ON 
JUNE 24 THERE IS AN EMAIL IN 
THE RECORD SHOWING AND IT IS AN 
EMAIL FROM ONE PERSON AT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO 
ANOTHER WITH A SUBJECT LINE OF 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOLLOW-UP ASKING ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING AND IT SAYS WHAT DO 
OTHER MEMBERS SPENT TO SUPPORT 
UKRAINE? 
THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE 
FOLLOWING UP ON FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT 
ITSELF, EXCUSE ME, IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 CALL 
ITSELF THE PRESIDENT ASKED HE 
SAID WE SPENT A LOT OF EFFORT 
AND A LOT OF TIME FOR UKRAINE. 
MUCH MORE THAN THE EUROPEAN 
COUNTRIES ARE DOING. THEY 
SHOULD BE HELPING YOU MORE THAN 
WE ARE. GERMANY DOES ALMOST 
NOTHING FOR YOU. ALL THEY DO IS 
TALK, AND I THINK IT IS 
SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY ASK 
THEM ABOUT. 
HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE TALKS 
TO ANGELA MERKEL ABOUT IT AND 
THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING 
AS MUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IS 
DOING. 
HE IS RAISING BURDEN SHARING  
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED.  
ALSO MANAGER SCHIFF HAS SAID 
THERE'S  A CONNECTION BETWEEN 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE 
OF A STATEMENT THAT MICK 
MULVANEY MADE AT A PRESS 
CONFERENCE BUT THAT HAS BEEN 
CLEAR IN THE RECORD SINCE THAT 
PRESS CONFERENCE AND WHAT HE 
WAS SAYING WAS GARBLED AND/OR 
MISUNDERSTOOD AND HE 
IMMEDIATELY CLARIFIED AND SET 
ON THE DATE THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
TOLD ME TO WITHHOLD ANY MONEY. 
SIMILARLY, HE ISSUED A 
STATEMENT JUST THE OTHER DAY 
MAKING CLEAR AGAIN THAT HE SAID 
THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL SO IT 
IS RAISED IN THE THIRD PERSON 
NOR DID HE EVER HAVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
IN EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS, 
BURISMA, OR THE ELECTION. 
LASTLY ON TO THE POINT OF 
WHETHER THIS  CHAMBER SHOULD 
HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON, I 
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
CONSIDER WHAT THAT MEANS. 
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF JUST 
SHOULD BE HERE ONE WITNESS? 
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REAL 
QUESTION IS GOING TO BE. 
FOR THIS INSTITUTION THE REAL 
QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE 
PRESIDENT THAT IS GOING TO BE 
SAID FOR WAS A MIX OF THE WAY 
FOR THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO BRING AN 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES TO THIS 
CHAMBER AND CAN IT BE DONE IN A 
HURRIED HALF-BAKED PARTISAN 
FASHION, THEY DIDN'T EVEN 
SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON BELOW. 
AND TO SUGGEST THAT THIS BODY 
WILL BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE 
BODY THAT THIS BODY WILL HAVE 
TO DO ALL OF THE DISCOVERY AND 
THAT THIS INSTITUTION WILL BE 
PARALYZED ON THE DISCOVERY IS 
DONE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND IF 
THERE'S GOING TO BE WITNESSES 
THAN THE PRESENT WOULD HAVE TO 
HAVE A FAIR TRIAL AND THE 
PRESENT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS 
WITNESSES AND THIS WILL DRAG ON 
FOR MANY MONTHS. 
IF THAT IS THE NEW PRECEDENT 
AND THAT IS HOW ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS OPERATE  THE HOUSE 
DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THE WORK FOR 
FAITH ROAD OVER AND THIS 
INSTITUTION GETS DERAILED AND 
HAS TO DEAL WITH IT. 
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE 
PRECEDENT FOR THE WAY THIS BODY 
WILL HAVE TO HANDLE ALL 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE FUTURE 
BECAUSE IF IT BECOMES THAT EASY 
FOR THE HOUSE TO DO IT, THEY 
WILL BE DOING IT A LOT. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
MASSACHUSETTS? 
>> SENDING A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR MARKEY 
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
ON MONDAY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TREATED THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED 
HOUSE NEVER EVEN ASKED JOHN 
BOLTON TO TESTIFY. SO THAT THE 
RECORD IS ACCURATE, AND IT HAS 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATORS ASKED 
MR. BOLTON TO TESTIFY? 
>> SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS YES. 
OF COURSE WE ASKED JOHN BOLTON 
TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE, AND HE 
REFUSED THAT WE ELSE HIS DEPUTY 
TO TESTIFY AND HE REFUSED. 
THE IS THERE DEPUTY FIONA HILL 
TO TESTIFY AND SHE DID BUT WE 
ASKED HER DEPUTY THE COLONEL 
VINDMAN TO TESTIFY AND HE DID 
BUT WE DID SEEK THE TESTIMONY 
OF JOHN BOLTON AND THEY 
REFUSED. 
WHEN WE SUBPOENAED DR. 
KUPPERMAN HE SUED US AND TOOK 
US TO COURT  AND THE ANSWER WAS 
SENATOR, YOU SERVICE WITH AN UP 
SUBPOENA AND WE WILL SUE YOU TO 
DO. 
WE KNEW IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS IF 
NOT YEARS TO FORCE JOHN BOLTON 
TO COMMENTS TESTIFY. 
I SHOULD POINT OUT BECAUSE I 
THINK THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL 
POINT TO UNDERSCORE IS THE 
PRESENCE LAWYERS SAY THEY 
DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH TO GET 
JOHN BOLTON. THAT IS WHAT THEY 
ARE TELLING YOU. 
BUT LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT THEY 
ARE TELLING THE COURT. 
IF HE COULD PULL UP SLIDE 
NUMBER 39 PRACTICES THE 
PRESENCE LAWYERS AND COURT IN 
THE DON McGAHN LITIGATION AND 
THE COMMITTEE MEETING OUR 
COMMUNITY LACKS ARTICLE 3 
STANDING TO SUE TO ENFORCE 
SUBPOENA DEMANDING TESTIMONY 
FROM AN INDIVIDUAL ON MATTERS 
RELATED TO DUTIES AS AN 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL. 
IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY THE 
DUPLICITY OF THE ARGUMENT 
BEFORE YOU SAY THEY SHOULD HAVE 
TRIED HARDER TO GET THESE 
WITNESSES THEY SHOULD LITIGATE 
AND DOWN THE STREET AND THE 
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE THEY ARE 
ARGUING JUDGE YOU NEED TO THROW 
THEM OUT AND THEY HAVE NO 
STANDING TO SUE TO FORCE 
AWARENESS TO TESTIFY. 
ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO 
ACCEPT THAT? 
THINK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD BE 
SETTING IF YOU ALLOW A HOUSE TO 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND I WOULD 
SUBMIT THINK ABOUT THE 
PRECEDENT YOU WILL BE SETTING 
IF YOU DO NOT ALLOW BONUSES  
AND ENTER ALL. 
TO ME THAT IS THE MUCH MORE 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT HERE THE 
SOMETHING EVEN MORE DANGEROUS  
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WIND 
IS REALLY FROM THE BEGINNING, 
WHICH AS WE UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE 
GOT TO THIS POINT THEY CAN NO 
LONGER CONTEST EFFECT THE 
PRESENT WAS HELD AT HER AID TO 
COURSE THE L.A. 
TO DO THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL 
DIRTY WORK. 
SO NOW THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK ON 
YOU SHOULD HEAR ANY FURTHER 
WITNESSES ON THIS SUBJECT. 
WHAT IS MORE AS WE ARE GOING TO 
USE OUR AND ALL ARGUMENT AND SO 
WHAT. 
THE PRESIDENT IS FREE TO ABUSE 
THEIR POWER AND WE WILL RELY ON 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY THAT 
EVEN THE ADVOCATE OF WHICH SAYS 
IS OUTSIDE TO SAY THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER 
WITH IMPUNITY. IMAGINE WHERE 
THAT LEADS. THE PRESIDENT CAN 
ABUSE HIS POWER WITH IMPUNITY. 
THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY PROFESSOR 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS AT ODDS WITH 
KEN STARR'S OPINION ON THE 
SUBJECT AND WITH NOT ONLY OTHER 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
JONATHAN TURLEY WHO DOES WHAT 
IN THE SAYS THAT THEORY  IS 
CONSTITUTIONAL NONSENSE BUT EVEN
ALAN DERSHOWITZ DOESN'T AGREE 
WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ. 
BECAUSE WHERE THE CONCLUSION 
LEADS US IS THAT A PRESIDENT 
CAN ABUSE HIS POWER IN ANY KIND 
OF WAY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU 
CAN DO ABOUT IT. 
ARE WE REALLY READY TO ACCEPT 
THE POSITION THAT THIS PRESENT 
OR THE NEXT CAN WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR 
UNLESS THEY GET HELP IN THEIR 
REELECTION? 
WOULD WE SAY THAT YOU COULD 
WITHHOLD DISASTER RELIEF FROM A 
GOVERNOR WAS THAT GOVERNOR GOT 
HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO 
INVESTIGATE THE POLITICAL RIVAL?
THAT TO ME IS THE MOST 
DANGEROUS ARGUMENT OF ALL. 
IT IS A DANGER TO HAVE A 
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN 
THIS KIND OF AND TO HAVE A 
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES FOR THE 
BIGGEST DANGER OF ALL WOULD BE 
TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE 
IN THIS WAY AND THE CONGRESS IS 
POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT 
IT. THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT 
THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON MY BEHALF  JOINED BY 
SENATORS KRAMER AND McSALLY. 
>> DISSENTERS ASKED OF COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
IS THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT 
IN THE HOUSE A LOWER THRESHOLD 
TO MEET THAN THE STANDARD FOR  
CONVICTION IN THE SENATE AND 
HAVE THE HOUSE MANAGERS MOTHER 
EVIDENTIARY BURDEN TO SUPPORT A 
VOTE OF REMOVAL? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS,  THE STANDARD IN THE 
HOUSE, OF COURSE THE HOUSE IS 
NOT MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATION
IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IMPEACHMENT IS 
SIMPLY AN ACCUSATION. 
AS IN MOST SYSTEMS WHETHER 
SIMPLY AN ACCUSATION BEING MADE 
THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO 
ADHERE TO THE SAME STANDARD 
THAT IS USED IN MOST INSTANCES 
HOUSE MEMBERS HAVE SUGGESTED 
INTIMATE ARTICLES OF WHETHER OR 
NOT TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY SHOULD 
HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING 
EVIDENCE IN THE VIEW OF THE 
MEMBERS VOTE THAT THERE WAS 
SOME IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND 
THAT IS ALL. 
SOME NOT EVEN THAT STANDARD 
EXHIBIT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE THAT AN ACCUSATION CAN 
BE MADE TO GET IS DEFINITELY A 
LOWER STANDARD THAN THE 
STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE MET 
HERE ON A TRIAL FOR AN ULTIMATE 
VERDICT THAT THE CONSTITUTION 
SPEAKS IN TERMS OF A CONVICTION 
IN THE SENATE. 
IS BOTH PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
AND JUDGE  STARR POINTED OUT 
EVERYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION 
THAT THERE IS ANY  MENTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT IT IS SPOKEN OF IN 
TERMS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. 
THE OFFENSES THAT DEFINE THE 
JURISDICTION FOR THE SENATE BY 
SITTING AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, 
BRIBERY, AND HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THE CONSTITUTION 
SPEAKS OF A CONVICTION UPON 
BEEN CONVICTED IN THE SENATE. 
IS SPEAKS ABOUT CRIMES BEING 
TRIED BY A JURY EXCEPT IN CASES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AGAIN SUGGESTING 
NOTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND 
AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM ALL OF THESE TEXTUAL 
REFERENCES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT 
THE STANDARDS OF CRIMINAL LAW 
SHOULD APPLY IN THE TRUST ONLY 
TO THE EXTENT OF THE BURDEN AND 
STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE CARRIED 
BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WHICH 
MEANS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT 
THERE IS NOT ANY REQUIREMENT 
FOR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT SIMPLY FOR THE HOUSE TO 
VOTE UPON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THERE IS A VERY 
MUCH HIGHER STANDARD AT STAKE 
HERE, AS WE POINTED OUT IN THE 
MEMORANDUM. 
THE MERE ACCUSATION MADE AT THE 
HOUSE COMES HERE WITHOUT 
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AT 
ALL IN ITS FAVOR. THE SENATE 
SINCE AS THE TRIER OF FACT AND 
LAW, VIEWING BOTH FACTUAL AND 
LEGAL ISSUES DE NOVO AND THE 
TRIAL HOUSE MANAGERS ARE HELD 
TO A STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT OF EVERY 
ELEMENT OF WHAT WOULD BE A 
RECOGNIZABLE AND IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. THAT HERE THEY HAVE 
FAILED IN THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
HAVE ALSO FAILED ON THE LAW. 
THEY HAVE NOT STATED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
ANYTHING THAT'S ON ITS FACE 
AMOUNTS TO AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE, AND ON THE FACTS I 
THINK WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED VERY 
CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NOT 
PRESENTED FACTS THAT WOULD 
AMOUNT TO AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
EVEN UNDER THEIR OWN THEORIES. 
THEY HAVE PRESENTED ONLY PART 
OF THE FACT AND LEFT OUT THE 
KEY FACTS. 
AND I THINK WHAT YOU ARE VERY 
OFFICIALLY SHOWN IS THAT THERE 
ARE SOME FACTS THAT DO NOT 
CHANGE. 
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 20 
BUT CALL SHOWS THE PRESIDENT 
DOING NOTHING WRONG. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE 
NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE.'S 
OTHER ADVISORS SAID UKRAINIANS 
NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE. 
DID NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS 
ANY QUID PRO QUO.  
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN 
HELD UP UNTIL THE ARTICLE AT 
THE END OF AUGUST. 
THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WITH 
STATEMENTS ON RECORD WHO SPOKE 
TO THE PRESIDENT WHO ARE GORDON 
SONDLAND AND SENATOR RON 
JOHNSON REPORT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAID TO THEM THERE 
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND THE AID 
FLOWED WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING 
DONE RELATED TO INVESTIGATIONS. 
THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE RECORD 
THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE TO RELY ON TO MAKE THEIR 
CASE, THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVE 
THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT AND FAILED EVEN TO PROVE 
IT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 
EVIDENCE AT ALL, IN MY OPINION. 
THANK YOU.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL . 
>> THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 
IS RECOGNIZED.  
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> SENATOR FEINSTEIN ASKS THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STATED 
THAT THERE IS SIMPLY NO 
EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER LINKED 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
IS THAT TRUE? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, AND THANK YOU, 
SENATOR, FOR THAT QUESTION.  
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS NOT 
CORRECT. 
THERE IS EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID 
DIRECTLY  TO GET A PERSONAL 
POLITICAL BENEFIT TO HELP HIS 
INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. 
THERE'S A FEW POINTS THAT I 
WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION. 
FIRST LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE 
WORDS OF THE PRESENCE ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, 
WHO ON OCTOBER 17, 2019, DURING 
A NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE 
MENTIONED OR WAS ASKED ABOUT 
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE AIDE 
AND HE SAID DID HE? 
MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
REFERRING TO HE. 
ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN PASSING 
THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE 
DNC SERVER? 
ABSOLUTELY. 
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT THAT 
IS IT. 
AND THAT IS WHY HE HELD UP THE 
MONEY THAT HE WAS REPEATING THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN EXPLANATION. 
SECOND, GORDON SONDLAND IS 
READY 
>> BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 7. THE 
PRESIDENT DENIED THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO BUT THEN OUTLINED 
THE QUID PRO QUO THAT HE WANTED 
FROM YOU GREAT. 
THEN HE TOLD GORDON SONDLAND TO 
GO HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SHOULD GO TO THE 
MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT. 
THIRD, THE OWNER ADVISORS OF 
THE PRESENT, INCLUDING  THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO AWARE 
OF THE DIRECT CONNECTION AND 
MORE SO IN WARSAW AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD VICE PRESIDENT 
MIKE PENCE THAT HE WAS 
CONCERNED THE DELAY IN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE HAD BECOME TIED TO 
THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND 
THE VICE PRESIDENT SIMPLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONDITIONALITY 
OF THE AIDE. WE HEARD FROM 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO IN DIRECT 
EMAILS SAID IT WAS CRAZY TO TIE 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS NO 
OTHER REASON. 
THE ENTIRE APPARATUS AND 
STRUCTURE OF THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN 
DEALING WITH THE OTHER 
LEGITIMATE REASONS THAT THE 
PRESENT COUNSEL WANTS YOU TO 
BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS ABOUT 
THEY WERE ALL KEPT IN THE DARK 
AND IN AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS 
THAT THEY MADE UP SEVERAL 
MONTHS AFTER THE FACT HAD ENDED 
ONCE BEFORE DURING THE LAST 
INTERAGENCY MEETING. 
I WILL MAKE ONE FINAL POINT. 
AGAIN IF YOU HAVE ANY LINGERING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIRECT 
EVIDENCE, ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT 
ANYTHING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT 
THERE IS A WAY TO SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT. 
YOU CAN SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON AND ASK ABOUT QUESTION 
DIRECTLY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE . 
>> THE SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> SENATOR LEE ASKS  OF 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL  THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE ARGUED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS CONTRAVENED 
U.S. FOREIGN-POLICY. 
IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PLACE, 
CERTAINLY MORE THAN THE PLACE 
OF CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS, TO 
CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
, SENATORS, AND THANK YOU FOR 
THAT QUESTION. 
IT IS DEFINITELY THE 
PRESIDENT'S PLACE TO SET U.S. 
FOREIGN-POLICY. 
THE CONSTITUTION MAKES THIS 
CLEAR ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 BEST 
THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXECUTIVE 
AUTHORITY IN A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN 
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE 
THAT THAT AUTHORITY IS VESTED 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS 
ELECTED EVERY FOUR YEARS AND 
THAT IS WHAT GIVES HIM 
DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY TO HAVE 
THE POWERS AND OUR SYSTEM IS 
SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN THE VERY 
BROAD POWERS THAT ARE ASSIGNED 
TO THE EXECUTIVE. 
BUT IT WORKS, AND IT MAKES 
SENSE IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM 
PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS 
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE 
PEOPLE FOR THE POLICIES THAT HE 
SETS. 
THOSE WHO ARE STAFFERS IN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUREAUCRACY 
ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. 
THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY, 
AND THEY HAVE NO LITTLE 
LEGITIMACY OR AUTHORITY THAT 
COMES FROM AN ELECTION BY THE 
PEOPLE. 
AND SO IT IS CRITICALLY 
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE 
PRESIDENT SETS FOREIGN-POLICY 
WITHIN CONSTRAINTS THERE IS 
RULES FOR CONGRESS IN FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS TO SOME EXTENT. THE 
STATUTES CAN BE PASSED, FUNDING 
PROVISIONS CAN BE PASSED THAT 
RELATE TO IT, BUT THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED TIME AGAIN 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AS THE 
COURT SAID THE SOLE ORIGIN OF 
THE NATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 
SO HE SETS FOREIGN-POLICY. AND 
THE STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH HIM, 
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING 
WRONG THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT 
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE 
CENTERPIECES OF THE ABUSE OF 
POWER THEORY THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WOULD LIKE THIS BODY 
TO ADOPT, AND THAT IS THAT 
THEY'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT BASED SOLELY ON HIS 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE. 
THE PREMISE OF THEIR CASE IS 
THE OBJECT OF ACTIONS THAT WERE 
TAKEN WERE PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE
AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT. 
BUT IT IS A REAL REASON, IF WE 
GET INSIDE HIS HEAD AND FIGURE 
IT OUT, THEN WE CAN IMPEACH 
HIM. 
THE WEATHER THEY HAVE TRIED TO 
EXPLAIN THAT THEY CAN PROVE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A BAD 
MOTIVE IS THEY SAY WE COMPARE 
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT WANTED 
TO DO WITH WHAT THE INNER 
AGENCY CONSENSUS WAS THAT I 
MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY. 
THEY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY 
AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY 
INCOHERENT STATEMENT. 
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY THE 
AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT IS IMPORTANT TO HIM 
SUBORDINATE TO HIM. IT IS ONLY 
THEM WHO CAN'T DEFY THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLICY. 
THIS CASE IS BUILT ON A POLICY 
DIFFERENCE, AND A POLICY 
DIFFERENCE WERE THE PRESIDENT 
IS THE ONE WHO GETS TO 
DETERMINE POLICY BECAUSE HE HAS 
BEEN ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO 
DO THAT. 
WE ARE RIGHT NOW ONLY A FEW 
MONTHS AWAY FROM ANOTHER 
ELECTION WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN 
DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER 
THEY LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS DONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR 
NOT. 
THAT IS THE WAY DISPUTES ABOUT 
POLICY LIKE THAT SHOULD BE 
RESOLVED. 
IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO SAY 
THAT THERE ARE SOME INNER 
AGENCY CONSENSUS THAT DISAGREES 
WITH THEPRESIDENT AND 
THEREFORE WE CAN SHOW YOU DID 
SOMETHING WRONG AND THEREFORE 
HE COULD BE IMPEACHED THAT IS A 
DANGEROUS PROPOSITION. 
IT LACKS ANY DEMOCRATIC 
LEGITIMACY WHATSOEVER. IT IS 
CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION, 
AND IT SHOULD BE REJECTED BY 
THIS BODY. THE PRESIDENT IS THE 
ONE WHO GETS TO SET FOREIGN-
POLICY BECAUSE THAT IS THE ROLE 
ASSIGNED TO HIM IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THERE WAS EVEN LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL BITTMAN WHO COMPLAINED 
ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL HIMSELF 
WHO ULTIMATELY AGREED IT IS 
ONLY A POLICY DIFFERENCE AND IT 
WAS A POLICY CONCERN THAT HE 
RAISED ABOUT THE CALL. 
THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ARGUED THAT THE ALLEGED CONDUCT 
SET OUT IN THE ARTICLE DOES NOT 
VIOLATE A CRIMINAL STATUTE AND 
THIS MAY NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS 
FOR IMPEACHMENT AS HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS DOES THIS 
REASONING IMPLY THAT IF THE 
PRESIDENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE 
CRIMINAL STATUTE HE CANNOT BE 
IMPEACHED FOR ABUSES OF POWER 
SUCH AS ORDERING TAX AUDITS OF 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS, SUSPENDING 
HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS, 
INVESTIGATING POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS, OR ASKING FOREIGN 
POWERS TO INVESTIGATE MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
CENTERS , I APPRECIATE THE 
QUESTION. 
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED 
WITHOUT A STATUTORY CRIME BEING 
COMMITTED. THAT WAS THE 
QUESTION THAT WAS REJECTED IN 
THE CASE OF PRESIDENT NIXON AND 
AGAIN IN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
CASE. 
IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CASE THE GREAT
PREPONDERANCE OF LEGAL 
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF LEGAL 
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT IT IS 
NOT DEFINED IN CRIMINAL 
CONDUCT. 
THIS AUTHORITY INCLUDES NEARLY 
EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR TO HAVE 
STUDIED THE ISSUE, MULTIPLE 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO 
ADDRESS IT IN PUBLIC REMARKS, 
AND PRIOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
HOUSE. 
THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND 
STRUCTURE AND REFLECTS THE 
ABSURDITY AND PRACTICAL 
DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD RESULT 
WHERE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CONFINED TO INDICTABLE CRIMES. 
AS A SLIDE 35 SHOWS, FIRST THE 
PLAIN TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION 
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN 
OFFENSE BE A CRIME IN ORDER FOR 
IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED 
THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, HIGH 
CRIMES, AND MISDEMEANORS, ARE 
DEFINED FUNDAMENTALLY BY THE 
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST. 
SOME PUBLIC TRUST THEY ARE 
POLITICAL AS THEY RELATE 
CHIEFLY TO INJURY DONE 
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOCIETY 
ITSELF. 
OFFENSES AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION ARE DIFFERENT THAN 
OFFENSES AGAINST THE CRIMINAL 
CODE. SOME CRIMES, LIKE 
JAYWALKING ARE NOT IMPEACHABLE. 
SOME FORMS OF MISCONDUCT OFTEN 
OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE 
CRIMINAL LAW. IMPEACHMENT AND 
CRIMINALITY MUST THEREFORE BE 
ASSESSED SEPARATELY, EVEN 
THOUGH THE COMMISSION OF 
INDICTABLE CRIMES MAY FURTHER 
SUPPORT A CASE OF IMPEACHMENT 
AND REMOVAL. 
THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH 
IMPEACHMENT CONFIRMS THIS. 
A STRONG MAJORITY OF 
IMPEACHMENT SPOTTED BY THE 
HOUSE SINCE 1789 HAVE INCLUDED 
ONE OR MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT DO 
NOT CHARGE A VIOLATION OF 
CRIMINAL LAW. 
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT NIXON 
RESIGNED PREFER THE HOUSE COULD 
CONSIDER THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALLEGATIONS 
ENCOMPASS MANY NONCRIMINAL ACTS.
IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON, THE JUDICIAY 
COMMITTEE REPORT COVERING THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE 
HOUSE FOR STATED THAT THE 
ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON 
DID NOT HAVE TO RISE TO THE 
LEVEL OF VIOLATING THE FEDERAL 
STATUTE REGARDING ARTICLES 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN ORDER 
TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT. THE 
FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO 
REACH THE FULL SPECTRUM OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT 
THREATENED THE CONSTITUTION. 
THEY ALSO INTENDED THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTION INDOOR THROUGHOUT 
THE AGES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF 
YOU HAD TO KEEP UP WITH THE 
TIMES IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE THE 
FULL SPECTRUM OF PRESIDENTIAL 
MISCONDUCT. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT 
ANTICIPATE AND SPECIFICALLY 
PROHIBIT EVERY SINGLE THREAT 
AND PRESIDENT MIGHT SOMEDAY 
POSE, THE FRAMERS ADOPTED A 
STANDARD SUFFICIENTLY GENERAL 
TO MEET UNKNOWN FUTURE 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THIS STANDARD WAS MEANT
CORRUPTION OF OFFICE AND 
ELECTIONS. 
WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS 
POWER TO OBTAIN ILLICIT HELP IN 
HIS ELECTION FROM A FOREIGN 
POWER IT UNDERMINES THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ELECTION 
INTEGRITY, IT IS A TRIFECTA. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ALONG WITH 
SENATOR BLACKBURN AND SENATOR 
CORNYN I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
>> IN THE CASE OF SUCH A 
QUESTION ADDRESSED TO BOTH 
SIDES, THEY WILL SPLIT THE FIVE 
MINUTES EQUALLY.
>> THE SENATORS ASK WHY DID THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT 
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AND/OR 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 RACEWAYS 
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 
TURN OVER WITNESSES, NOT 
PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF 
INFORMATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW 
US TO PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
IN THE OCTOBER 8th 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 PARTLY IN 
RESPONSE TO WHAT MANAGER 
JEFFRIES SAID. 
I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE. 
THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS BLANKET 
DEFIANCE AND NO EXPLANATION AND 
NO CASE LAW FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS INCORRECT. 
I PUT UP SLIDES SHOWING THE 
LETTERS, A LETTER FROM OCTOBER 
18th THAT EXPLAINED 
SPECIFICALLY THAT THE SUBPOENAS 
THAT WERE 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. 
A LETTER FROM OMB SAYING THAT, 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING 
THAT. 
THERE WERE SPECIFIC RATIONALS 
RIGHTED THE CAUSES EXPLAINING 
THE DEFECT. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- THE 
HOUSE, MANAGER SCHIFF, CHOSE 
NOT TO TAKE ANY STEPS TO 
CORRECT THAT. 
WE POINTED OUT OTHER DEFECTS. 
WE ASSERTED THE ABSOLUTE 
DOCTRINE WHICH HAS BEEN 
ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT 
SINCE THE 1970s, THEY CHOSE NOT 
TO CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT. 
AND THEY DIDN'T ALLOW AGENCY 
COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT AT 
DEPOSITIONS. 
THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE 
THAT IN COURT. 
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 THAT THERE WAS 
NO ATTEMPT IS THAT THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS WERE JUST IN A HURRY. 
THEY HAD A TIMETABLE. 
ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID 
ON THE FLOOR HERE THEY HAD NO 
TIME FOR COURTS. 
THEY HAD TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION. 
THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT DONE BY 
CHRISTMAS. 
THAT'S WHY THE PROPER PROCESS 
WASN'T FOLLOWED HERE BECAUSE IT 
WAS A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL 
IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO 
GET DONE ALL AROUND TIMING FOR 
THE ELECTION. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
>> SENATOR LEAHY ASKS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THERE WAS 
NO HARM DONE, THAT THE AID WAS 
ULTIMATELY RELEASED TO UKRAINE. 
THE PRESIDENT MET WITH ZELENSKY 
AT THE U.N. IN SEPTEMBER AND 
THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS TREATED 
UKRAINE MORE FAVORABLY THAN HIS 
PREDECESSORS. 
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
QUESTION. 
CONTRARY TO WHAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL HAS SAID OR 
CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO HARM, 
NO FOUL, THAT THE AID 
EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, WE 
PROMISED UKRAINE IN 2014 THAT 
IF THEY GAVE UP THEIR 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 CONTINUED TO 
DIE ON THE FRONT LINES, THOSE 
FIGHTING FOR US, FIGHTING 
AGGRESSION. 
WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION WHEN UKRAINE HAS 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 AND CONTRARY 
TO THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET THAT 
ALL OF THE AID ARRIVED AND THAT 
IT ARRIVED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, 
THAT IS NOT TRUE. 
ALL OF THE AID HAS NOT ARRIVED. 
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF 
SIGNAL WITH HOLDING THE AID FOR 
NO LEGITIMATE REASON. 
THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING BUT NOTHING HAD 
CHANGED ON THE GROUND. 
HOLDING THE AID FOR NO 
LEGITIMATE REASON SENT A STRONG 
MESSAGE THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT 
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 WHOM, AS EVERYBODY 
IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, IT IN AN 
ACTIVE WAR AND A HOT WAR. 
SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE AID 
EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, NO HARM, 
NO FOUL, THAT IS NOT TRUE, 
SENATORS. 
I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT. 
THERE WAS HARM AND THERE WAS 
FOUL. 
AND LET US NOT FORGET THAT 
UKRAINE IS NOT AN ENEMY, THEY 
ARE NOT AN ADVERSARY, THEY ARE 
FRIENDS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR CRUZ. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A 
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 OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN 
POLICY?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
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. 
I OFFERED YOU A HYPOTHETICAL 
THE OTHER DAY. 
WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT WERE TO BE ELECTED 
AND CONGRESS WERE TO AUTHORIZE 
MUCH MONEY TO EITHER ISRAEL OR 
THE PALESTINIANS AND THE 
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WERE TO 
SAY TO ISRAEL, NO, I AM 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 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. 
WE TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE. 
THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE 
MOTIVES THAT A POLITICAL FIGURE 
CAN HAVE. 
ONE A MOTIVE IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST AND THE ISRAEL 
ARGUMENT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
THE SECOND IS IN HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTEREST AND THE 
THIRD WHICH HASN'T BEEN 
MENTIONED WOULD BE IN HIS OWN 
FINANCIAL INTEREST. 
HIS OWN PURE FINANCIAL 
INTEREST, PUTTING MONEY IN THE 
BANK. 
I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND 
ONE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT. 
EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I 
KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION 
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
AND MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT. 
YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
AND IF A PRESIDENT DOES 
SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED 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 
THE PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT 
THAT POINT AND IT WAS IN HIS 
INTEREST TO HAVE THESE SOLDIERS 
PUT AT RISK. 
THE LIVES OF MANY, MANY OTHER 
SOLDIERS LEFT WITHOUT THEIR 
COMPANY. 
WOULD THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID 
PRO QUO? 
NO BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT A 
BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATURAL 
INTEREST BUT, B, HE BELIEVED 
HIS ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO 
VICTORY IN THE CIVIL WAR. 
EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT. 
THAT'S WHY IT'S DANGEROUS TO 
TRY TO PSYCHOANALYST A 
PRESIDENT TO TRY TO GET IN TO 
THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN 
MIND. 
EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES. 
FOR THERE TO BE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT 
BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD 
PERMIT ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO 
BE IMPEACHED. 
HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE 
FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS AFTER 
CHECKING WITH THEIR POLITICAL 
ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS. 
IF YOU ARE JUST ACTING IN THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST, WHAT DO YOU 
NEED POLLSTERS, POLITICAL 
VERSE, DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE 
COUNTRY. 
BUT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE THE 
PUBLIC INTEREST AND YOUR OWN 
ELECTORAL INTEREST, IT'S 
IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH 
WEIGHT IS GIVEN FROM ONE TO THE 
OTHER. 
WE MAY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT IN 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A 
PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET 
ELECTED OR SENATOR OR MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS AND MAYBE YOU ARE 
RIGHT. 
IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS 
RUNNING TO BE ELECTED BUT FOR 
IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE YOU HAVE 
TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE 
A DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS 
OF AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUT 
IT, CORRUPT MOTIVES. 
IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE 
IF YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE THAT 
PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND PARTIALLY INVOLVES 
ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE 
PERSONAL PICUNIARY INTERESTS. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT 
ALLEGE THAT THIS DECISION, THIS 
QUID PRO QUO, AND THAT IS BASED 
ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS 
A QUID PRO QUO. 
THEY NEVER ALLEGE THAT IT WAS 
BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL 
REASONS. 
IT WOULD BE A HARDER CASE IF A 
HYPOTHETICAL PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES SAID 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 KICK BACK, I 
WILL WITHHOLD THE FUNDS. 
THAT'S AN EASY CASE. 
THAT IS PURELY CORRUPT AND IN 
THE PURELY PRIVATE INTEREST BUT 
A COMPLEX MIDDLE CASE IS I WANT 
TO BE ELECTED. 
I THINK I'M A GREAT PRESIDENT. 
I THINK I'M THE GREATEST 
PRESIDENT I EVER WAS AND IF I'M 
NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST -- THANK YOU, MR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> RECOGNIZE THE DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
WOULD YOU 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 MAKE. 
ONE IS A VERY ODD ARGUMENT FOR 
A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO 
MAKE AND THAT IS IT IS HIGHLY 
UNUSUAL TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN 
A TRIAL ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S 
STATE OF MIND, INTENT OR 
MANSERA. 
IN ALMOST EVERY CRIMINAL CASE 
ACCEPTED FOR A SMALL SLIVER, 
STRICT LIABILITY, THE QUESTION 
OF THE DEFENDANT'S INTENT AND 
STATE OF MIND IS ALWAYS AN 
ISSUE. 
THIS IS NOTHING NOVEL HERE. 
YOU DON'T REQUIRE A MIND 
READER. 
IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE AND I 
WOULD ASSUME IN EVERY 
IMPEACHMENT CASE, YES, YOU HAVE 
TO SHOW THAT 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 ARE PERFECTLY 
OKAY. 
SOME OF YOU SAID EARLIER IF 
THEY COULD PROVE A QUID PRO QUO 
OVER THE MILITARY, THAT WOULD 
BE SOMETHING. 
NOW WE HAVE. 
NOW THE ARGUMENT SHIFTS TO ALL 
QUID PRO QUOS ARE FINE AND ALL 
THE SAME. 
I WILL APPLY PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ OWN TEST. 
HE TALKED ABOUT THE STEP TEST. 
JOHN RECALLS THE PHILOSOPHER. 
LET'S PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER 
FOOT AND SEE HOW IT CHANGES OUR 
PERCEPTION OF THINGS. 
I WANT TO MERG THAT WITH ONE 
OF THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL 
COUNSEL ARGUMENT WHEN THEY 
RESORTED TO THE WHAT ABOUT ISM 
ABOUT BARRAM OBAMA'S OPEN MICK. 
THAT WAS A POOR ANALOGY, I 
THINK YOU WILL AGREE BUT LET'S 
USE THAT AND MAKE IT COMPARABLE 
TO TODAY AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL 
ABOUT THIS SCENARIO. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AN OPEN MICK 
SAYS TO MED RECEIVE I KNOW YOU 
DON'T WANT ME TO SEND THE 
MILITARY MONEY TO UKRAINE 
BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTING AND 
KILLING YOUR PEOPLE. 
I WANT YOU TO DO ME A AND A 
HALF, THOUGH. 
I WANT YOU TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY. 
AND I WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE YOU 
FOUND DIRT ON MITT ROMNEY. 
AND IF YOU ARE WILLING TO DO 
THAT, QUID PRO QUO, I WON'T 
GIVE UKRAINE THE MONEY THEY 
NEED TO FIGHT YOU ON THE FRONT 
LINE. 
DO ANY OF US HAVE ANY QUESTION 
THAT BARRAM OBAMA WOULD BE 
IMPEACHED FOR THAT KIND OF 
MISCONDUCT. 
ARE WE READY TO SAY THAT THAT 
WOULD BE OKAY IF BARRAM OBAMA 
ASKED HIM TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
OPPONENT AND WOULD WITHHOLD 
MONEY FROM AN ALLY THAT NEEDED 
TO DEFEND ITSELF TO GET AN 
INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY? 
THAT'S THE PARALLEL HERE. 
TO SAY, WELL, YES, WE CONDITION 
AID ALL THE TIME FOR LEGITIMATE 
REASONS, YES. 
FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, YOU 
MIGHT SAY TO THE GOVERNOR OF A 
STATE, HEY, GOVERNOR OF A 
STATE, YOU SHOULD CHIP IN MORE 
TO YOUR OWN DISASTER RELIEF. 
BUT IF THE PRESIDENT'S REAL 
MOTIVE IN DEPRIVING A STATE OF 
DISASTER RELIEF IS BECAUSE THAT 
GOVERNOR WON'T GET THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL ARE 
WE READY TO SAY THAT HE CAN 
SACRIFICE THE INTEREST OF THE 
PEOPLE IN THAT STATE OR THE 
PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE 
ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE FINE, 
IT'S CARTE BLANCHE. 
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE PREPARED TO 
SAY WITH RESPECT TO THIS 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT OR THE 
NEXT? 
IF WE ARE, THEN, THE NEXT 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF 
YOU. 
THEY CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THEIR 
NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
AND THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE, 
NO, DONALD TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED 
FOR DOING EXACTLY THE SAME 
THING THEREFORE IT MUST NOT BE 
IMPEACHABLE. 
NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT EFFORTS 
TO CHEAT AN ELECTION WILL BE IN 
PROXIMITY TO AN ELECTION. 
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T HOLD A 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR WHERE THEY ARE 
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT 
ELECTION, THEN YOU ARE GIVING 
THEM CARTE BLANCHE. 
SO, ALL QUID PROS ARE NOT THE 
SAME. 
SOME ARE LEGITIMATE AND SOME 
ARE CORRUPT. 
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A MIND 
READER TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS 
WHICH. 
FOR ONE THING, ASK JOHN BOLTON. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM IOWA. 
>> I SEND A REQUEST TO THE DESK.
>> SENATOR GRASSLEY ASKS 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, DOES 
THE HOUSE'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE 
THE SUBPOENAS RENDER THE QUOTE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, END 
QUOTE THEORY UNPRECEDENTED.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THE ANSWER IS YES. 
AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE HAS 
NEVER BEEN A PRIOR INSTANCE IN 
WHICH THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT 
EVEN IN THE HOUSE AS IN THE 
NIXON PROCEEDINGS, NEVER MIND 
THE CLINTON PROCEEDING THAT 
LEFT THE HOUSE AND CAME TO THE 
SENATE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE 
CAN BE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
WHEN THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING 
BEYOND SIMPLY ISSUING A 
SUBPOENA, GETTING RESISTANCE 
THEN THROWING UP YOUR HANDS AND 
GIVING UP SAYING WELL, THAT IS 
OBSTRUCTION. 
IN THE CLINTON SITUATION, MOST 
OF THE LITIGATION WAS WITH THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND THERE 
WERE PRIVILEGES ASSERTED AND 
LITIGATION AGAIN AND AGAIN. 
THE POINT IS THAT THE ISSUES 
ABOUT THE PRIVILEGES WERE ALL 
LITIGATED AND THEY WERE 
RESOLVED BEFORE THINGS CAME TO 
THIS BODY. 
SIMILARLY IN THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITHIN 
THE HOUSE, A LOT OF 
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN DONE BY 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THERE 
WAS LITIGATION OVER ASSERTION 
OF PRIVILEGES THERE AND GETTING 
AT TAPES AND SOME WERE TURNED 
OVER BUT LITIGATION ABOUT THE 
ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE IN 
RESPONSETO THE GRAND JURY 
SUBPOENA THAT FED INTO THE 
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. 
IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED FOR 
THE HOUSE TO ATTEMPT TO 
ACTUALLY BRING A CHARGE OF 
OBSTRUCTION INTO THE SENATE 
WHERE ALL THEY CAN PRESENT IS, 
WELL, WE ISSUED A SUBPOENA AND 
THERE WERE LEGAL GROUNDS 
ASSERTED FOR THE INVALIDITY OF 
THE SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE 
DIFFERENT GROUNDS AS I'VE GONE 
THROUGH, I WON'T REPEAT THEM IN 
DETAIL. 
SOME WERE BECAUSE THE SUBPOENAS 
WERE INVALID WHEN ISSUED 
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VOTE. 
SOME WITNESSES INVALID BECAUSE 
SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE 
PRESIDENT -- SOME WITHOUT THE 
BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNCIL, 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL WITH 
THEM. 
VARIOUS REASONS FOR INVALIDITY 
AND DEFECTS IN VARIOUS 
SUBPOENAS THEN NO ATTEMPT TO 
ENFORCE THEM. 
NO ATTEMPT TO LITIGATE OUT WHAT 
THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY 
MIGHT BE BUT BRING IT HERE AS 
AN OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IS 
UNPRECEDENTED. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID 
AND I'M SURE THEY WILL TAKE 
AGAIN TODAY THAT, WELL F WE HAD 
GONE TO COURT, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE SAID 
THAT THE COURTS DON'T HAVE 
JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS. 
THAT IS TRUE IN SOME CASES AND 
ONE BEING LITIGATED NOW RELATED 
TO THE FORMER COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT, DON McGAHN. 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
POSITION LIKE THE POSITION OF 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS 
THAT AN EFFORT BY THE HOUSE TO 
ENFORCE A SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE 3 
COURT IS A NONCONTROVERSY. 
THAT IS OUR POSITION AND WE 
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN COURT. 
THAT IS PART OF WHAT WOULD HAVE 
TO BE LITIGATED. 
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT 
THAT THE 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. 
THEY ARE USING THAT AVENUE FOR 
GOING TO COURT. 
THEY TOLD THE COURT IN McGAHN 
THAT ONCE THEY REACHED AN 
IMPASSE WITH THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH, THE COURTS WERE THE 
ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THE 
IMPASSE. 
AND AS I EXPLAIED THE OTHER 
DAY, THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR 
DEALING WITH THESE DISPUTES 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
CONGRESS. 
THE FIRST IS AN ACCOMMODATION 
PROCESS. 
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. 
WE OFFERED TO DO THAT AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OCTOBER 
8th LETTER. 
IF THEY THINK THEY CAN SUE THEY 
HAVE TO SAY THAT STEP BECAUSE 
THE CONSTITUTION, THE COURTS 
MADE CLEAR REQUIRE 
INCREMENTALISM IN DISPUTES 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. 
IF THEY THINK COURTS CAN 
RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE THAT'S THE 
NEXT STEP, THEY SHOULD DO THAT. 
THEN THINGS CAN PROCEED ON TO A 
HIGHER LEVEL OF CONFRONTATION. 
BUT TO JUMP STRAIGHT TO 
IMPEACHMENT, TO THE ULTIMATE 
CONFRONTATION DOESN'T MAKE 
SENSE. 
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT IS 
UNPRECEDENT IN THIS CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I SENT A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK. 
>> SEN
>> SENATOR ASKS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, WOULD THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CARE TO CORRECT THE 
RECORD ON ANY FALSEHOODS OR 
MISS CHARACTERIZATIONS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE'S OPENING ARGUMENTS.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
WE BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM 
CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE 
BASICALLY SIX FACTS THAT WERE 
NOT MET AND WILL NOT CHANGE AND 
ALL SIX OF THOSE SO-CALLED 
FACTS ARE INCORRECT. 
ON JULY 25th THAT IS NOT THE 
WHOLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, EVEN 
THOUGH IT INCLUDES DEVASTATING 
EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEME. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT WAS 
MADE CLEAR ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL BUT WE HAD EVIDENCE OF 
INFORMATION BEFORE THE MEETINGS 
WITH MR. BOLTON, THE SECRETARY 
MESSAGE TO MR. ZELENSKY'S 
PEOPLE TELLING HIM HE HAD TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHAT 
HE WANTED. 
ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE THAT MAKES 
US UNDERSTAND THAT PHONE CALL 
EVEN MORE CLEARLY. 
NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM 
CLAIMS THAT MR. ZELENSKY AND 
OTHER UKRAINIANS SAID THEY 
NEVER FELT PRESSURED TO OPEN 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
NOW, OF COURSE, THEY DIDN'T SAY 
THAT PUBLICLY. 
THEY WERE AFRAID OF THE 
RUSSIANS FINDING OUT. 
BUT ZELENSKY SAID PRIVATELY 
THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE 
INVOLVED IN U.S. DOMESTIC 
POLITICS. 
HE RESISTED ANNOUNCING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
HE ONLY RELENTED AND SCHEDULED 
THE CNN MEETING AFTER IT BECAME 
CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO 
RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THAT HE 
NEEDED AND THAT CONGRESS HAD 
PROVIDED IN OUR A 
APPROPRIATIONS. 
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF 
PRESSURE. 
NOW, UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS SAY, DIDN'T KNOW THAT 
TRUMP WAS WITH HOLDING THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL IT 
WAS PUBLIC. 
MANY WITNESSES HAVE CONTESTED 
THAT INCLUDE THE OPEN STATEMENT 
BY 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 UKRAINE DID RECENT AND 
SCHEDULE THAT TESTIMONY. 
THEY SAID NO WITNESSES SECURITY 
WAS CONDITIONED ON THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
NOT SO. 
MULVANEY AND OTHER WITNESSES 
TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKE DOWN 
FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS YOU 
CAN GET A WITNESS WHO TALKED TO 
THE PRESIDENT FIRSTHAND ABOUT 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT HE 
WAS DOING. 
ULTIMATELY OF COURSE THE FUNDS 
OR AT LEAST SOME OF THEM WERE 
RELEASED BUT THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
PROMISED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES 
STILL HAS NOT OCCURRED. 
SO -- 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, THE INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED 
FEDERAL LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD 
THAT AID. 
THAT MISCONDUCT IS STILL GOING 
ON. 
ALL THE AID HAS NOT YET BEEN 
RELEASED. 
FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY 
THERE IS CONFUSION, I THINK -- 
I'M SURE NOT INTENTIONAL BUT 
THE PRESIDENT SURELY DOES NOT 
NEED THE PERMISSION OF HIS 
STAFF ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY. 
THAT INFORMATION IS OFFERED TO 
YOU AS EVIDENCE OF 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 MY CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR THAT 
REQUIRES CONVICTION AND 
REMOVAL. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS. 
>> I SEND A REQUEST TO THE DESK 
FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON 
BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS BOAS 
MAN, BLACKBURN, KENNEDY AND 
TOOMEY. 
.
ED SENATORS ASK THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL DID THE HOUSE BOTHER TO 
SEEK TESTIMONY OR LITIGATE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUES 
DURING THE MONTH 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 OF THE PRIVILEGE 
ISSUES DURING THAT TIME. 
IN FACT, THEY FILED NO LAWSUITS 
ARISING FROM THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY TO SEEK TO CONTEST THE 
BASES THAT THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR 
RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS, THE 
BASIS FOR WHY THE SUBPOENAS 
WERE INVALID. 
WHEN LITIGATION WAS FILED BY 
ONE OF THE SUBPOENA RECIPIENTS, 
THAT WAS DR. CHARLES KUPPERMAN, 
THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER, HE WENT TO THE COURT 
AND SOUGHT A DECLARATORY 
JUDGMENT SAYING PRESIDENT TOLD 
ME NOT TO GO. 
YOU HAVE A SUBPOENA FROM THE 
HOUSE SAYING I SHOULD GO, 
PLEASE, COURT, TELL ME WHAT ARE 
MY OBLIGATIONS AND THAT WAS 
FILED, I BELIEVE, AROUND 
OCTOBER 25, TOWARD THE END OF 
OCTOBER. 
SHORTLY WITHIN A FEW DAYS THE 
COURT SET AN EXPEDITED BRIEF 
HEARING FOR DECEMBER 10th TO 
HEAR PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO 
DISMISS BUT ALSO THE MERITS 
ISSUE. 
SO, THEY WERE GOING TO GET A 
DECISION AFTER A HEARING ON 
DECEMBER 10th THAT WOULD GO TO 
THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WITHDRAW THE 
SUBPOENA. 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECIDED THEY WANTED TO MOAT OUT 
THE CASE SO THEY DIDN'T GET A 
DECISION. 
THE HOUSE HAS NOT PURSUED 
LITIGATION TO GET ANY OF THE 
ISSUES RESOLVED. 
IT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY AVOIDED 
GETTING LITIGATION. 
THAT SEEMS TO BE IN PART BASED 
ON, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 
THEIR ASSERTION THAT UNDER THE 
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE, THE 
HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS -- I 
BELIEVE THE EXACT WORDS ARE IT 
GIVES THE HOUSE THE LAST WORD, 
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. 
AND I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER 
DAY. 
THESE THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL 
THEORY THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE 
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
IN THEIR VIEW IT'S THE 
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
AND ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY 
BASED PRIVILEGES, RIGHTS OR 
IMMUNITIES OR ROLES OF THE 
OTHER BRANCHES, JUDICIARY AND 
EXECUTIVE FALL WAY. 
THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN STAND 
IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE'S POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT. 
IF THEY ISSUE A SUBPOENA, THE 
EXECUTIVE HAS TO RESPOND AND IT 
CAN'T RAISE ANY 
CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
SEPARATION OF POWERS CONCERNS. 
THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE. 
THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT IS A DANGEROUS CONSTRUCT 
FOR OUR CONSTITUTION. 
IT SUGGESTS THAT ONCE THEY FLIP 
THE SWITCH ON TO IMPEACHMENT, 
THERE IS NO CHECK ON THEIR 
POWER ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO 
AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE 
CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED. 
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES WHEN 
THERE ARE ENTER BRANCH 
CONFLICTS THERE IS AN 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS. 
THAT THERE ARE ATTEMPTS TO 
ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF BOTH 
BRANCHES AND THAT THE HOUSE HAS 
TAKEN THE POSITION AND OTHER 
LITIGATION, THE McGAHN 
LITIGATION THEY ARE TELLING THE 
COURTS THE COURTS ARE THE ONLY 
WAY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES AND 
THEY BROUGHT THAT CASE IN 
AUGUST. 
THEY ALREADY HAVE A DECISION 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT. 
THEY HAVE AN APPARENTLY APPEAL 
IN THE DC CIRCUIT, ARGUED 
JANUARY 3rd, A DECISION COULD 
COME ANY DAY. 
THAT IS FAST FOR LITIGATION. 
BUT THEY DECIDED IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT THEY DON'T WANT TO 
DO LITIGATION. 
IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAD A 
TIMETABLE. 
ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ADMITTED ON THIS FLOOR THEY HAD 
TO GET THE PRESIDENT IMPEACHED 
BEFORE THE ELECTION. 
THEY HAD NO TIME FOR THE COURTS 
FOR ANYONE TELLING THEM WHAT 
THE RULES WERE AND THEY HAD TO 
GET IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS AND 
THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. 
THEN THEY WAITED AROUND FOR THE 
MONTH BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE. 
AND I THINK THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT 
IS BEHIND THE CLAIMS OF URGENT, 
NOT URGENT, URGENT WHEN IT'S 
OUR TIMETABLE TO GET IT DONE BY 
CHRISTMAS BUT NOT SO URGENT 
WHEN WE CAN WAIT FOR A MONTH 
BECAUSE WE WANT TO TELL THE 
SENATE HOW TO RUN THINGS. 
IT'S ALL A POLITICAL CHARADE. 
THERAPIES PART OF THE REASON, A 
MAJOR REASON THAT THE SENATE 
SHOULD REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE 
RECOGNITION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE
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
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
AND FIRST I WANT TO RESPOND TO 
SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL JUST 
SAID. 
NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST FOR 
LITIGATION IN THE COURTS. 
SADLY I AGREE WITH THAT. 
NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST IN 
THE McGAHN CASE AND WE STILL 
DON'T HAVE A DECISION YET. 
THAT IS THE VERY CASE IN WHICH 
THEY ARE ARGUING AS I QUOTED 
EARLIER THAT CONGRESS HAS NO 
RIGHT TO COME TO THE COURTS TO 
FORBES A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. 
SO, HEAR WE ARE NINE MONTHS 
LATER AND THAT LITIGATION THAT 
THEY SEALED WERE COMPELLED TO 
BRING AND THEY ARE SAYING IN 
COURT YOU CAN'T BRING THIS AND 
NINE MONTHS AND WE DON'T HAVE A 
DECISION. 
THAT TELLS YOU JUST WHERE THEY 
ARE COMING FROM. 
IT GOES BACK TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTIVE, FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS 
AND THEY ARE. 
NIXON WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED 
FOR FAR LESS OBSTRUCTION THAN 
ANYTHING THAT DONALD TRUMP DID. 
NOW, THE ARGUMENT WELL, IF YOU 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT YOU ARE 
OVERTURNING THE RESULTS OF THE 
LAST ELECTION AND TEARING UP 
THE BALL LOTS 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, WON AN 
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'S NOT VOIDING THE LAST 
ELECTION, IT'S PROTECTING THE 
NEXT ELECTION. 
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WAS PUT 
IN AS NOT 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 ARE SAYING 
IS YOU CAN ONLY IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT IN THE SECOND TERM, 
OKAY. 
>> IF THAT WERE THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THE 
FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE PUT THAT A 
PRESIDENT MAY COMMIT WHATEVER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS HE 
WANTS AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE 
FIRST TERM. 
THAT IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT ANY 
RATIONAL FRAMER WOULD HAVE 
WRITTEN AND THEY DIDN'T. 
THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON. 
THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED 
THAT IN FACT THE OBJECT OF A 
PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME 
MIGHT BE TO CHEAT IN THE VERY 
FORM OF ACCOUNTABILITY THAT 
THEY HAD PRESCRIBED THE 
ELECTION. 
SO, COUNSEL CONTINUED TO MISS 
CHARACTERIZE WHAT THE MANAGERS 
SAID. 
WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT WE HAD 
TO HURRY TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT 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'S TRUE THAT IF A 
PRESIDENT TRIES TO CHEAT IN AN 
ELECTION BY DEFINITION THAT IS 
PART OF THE REELECTION, 
APPROXIMATE TO AN ELECTION BUT, 
YOU KNOW, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE 
EVEN THOUGH THE OBJECT IS TO 
CORRUPT THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. 
THAT CANNOT BE WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND. 
ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID AT THE 
OPEN OF THIS PROCEEDING IS YES, 
WE ARE TO LOOK TO HISTORY. 
YES, WE ARE TO TRY TO DEFINE 
THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS BUT 
NOT LEAVE COMMON SENSE AT THE 
TERM. 
THIS ISN'T WHETHER IT'S FIRST 
TERM OR SECOND, ELECTION ONE 
YEAR AWAY OR THREE YEARS AWAY. 
DID HE COMMIT THE HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR. 
IS IT A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR FOR A PRESIDENT 
TRUMP UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID FOR AN ALLY AT WAR 
TO GET HELP FOR 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 AND MORE THAN THAT A 
THREAT TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
AS WE HAVE SHOWN BY WITHHOLDING 
THAT AID AND I KNOW THE 
ARGUMENT NO HARM TO FOUL, WE 
WITHHELD AID FROM AN ALLY AT 
WAR. 
WE SENT A 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 
IN NEGOTIATIONS TO END THE WAR 
THAT ZELENSKY WAS OPERATING 
FROM A POSITION 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 IDENTIFIED 
DURING THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS 
AND YOU HEARD IN THE SENATE AS 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE 
PROPAGANDA, THE DANGER THAT THE 
PRESIDENT POSED BY TAKING 
VLADIMIR PUTIN'S SIDE OVER HIS 
OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, THAT 
IS A DANGER TODAY. 
THAT IS A DANGER THAT CONTINUES 
EVERYDAY HE PUSHES OUT THIS 
RUSSIA PROPAGANDA. 
THE FRAMERS F THEY MEANT 
IMPEACHMENT ONLY TO APPLY IN 
THE SECOND TERM THEY WOULD HAVE 
SAID SO BUT THAT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN A SUICIDE PACT. 
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND NOW 
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. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TRY TO 
PRESENT IT AS IF IT'S JUST A 
SIMPLE QUESTION. 
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
BUT IN REAL LITIGATION NO ONE 
GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT DOING 
DISCOVERY. 
NO ONE 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. 
THE IMPLICATIONS HERE IN OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR 
TRYING TO RUN THINGS IN SUCH AN 
UPSIDE DOWN WAY, WOULD BE GRAVE 
FOR THIS BODY AS AN INSTITUTION 
BECAUSE AS THE SENATORS' 
QUESTION POINTS OUT IT LARGELY 
PREVENTS THIS CHAMBER FROM 
GETTING OTHER BUSINESS DONE AS 
LONG AS THERE IS A TRIAL 
PENDING. 
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, 
JUST RUSH SOMETHING THROUGH AND 
BRING IT HERE AS AN IMPEACHMENT 
AND THEN START TRYING TO CALL 
ALL THE WITNESSES MEANS THAT 
THIS BODY WILL END UP TAKING 
OVER THAT INVESTIGATORY TASK 
AND ALL OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS 
OF THIS BODY WILL BE SLOWED 
DOWN, HINDERED OR PREVENTED 
WHILE THAT GOES ON. 
AND IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF ONE 
WITNESS. 
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF -- A LOT 
OF PEOPLE TALK 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. 
THAT WOULD MEAN THIS WOULD DRAG 
ON FOR MONTHS AND PREVENT THIS 
CHAMBER FROM GETTING ITS 
BUSINESS DONE. 
THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO 
THINGS AND AN UPSIDE DOWN WAY 
OF DOING THINGS. 
AND TO HAVE THE HOUSE NOT GO 
THROUGH A PROCESS THAT IS 
THOROUGH AND COMPLETE AND RUSH 
THINGS THROUGH IN A PARTISAN 
AND POLITICAL MATTER THEN DUMP 
IT ON THIS CHAMBER TO CLEAN 
EVERYTHING UP, IT IS A VERY 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO BE SET. 
AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY, 
WHATEVER IS ACCEPTED IN THIS 
CASE BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL. 
IF THIS CHAMBER PUTS IT ON THIS 
PROCESS THEN THAT IS THE SEAL 
OF APPROVAL FOR ALL TIME IN THE 
FUTURE. 
IF IT BECOMES THAT EASY FOR THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 
IMPEACHMENT A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, DON'T ATTEMPT TO 
SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES, NEVER 
MIND LITIGATION, IT TAKES TOO 
LONG, BUT THEN LEAVE IT ALL TO 
THIS CHAMBER -- I SAID THE 
OTHER DAY, REMEMBER, WHAT DO WE 
THINK WILL HAPPEN IF SOME OF 
THESE WITNESSES ARE SUBPOENAED 
NOW, THAT THEY NEVER BOTHERED 
TO LITIGATE ABOUT? 
NOW LITIGATION NOW MOST LIKELY. 
THEN THAT WILL TAKE TIME WHILE 
THIS CHAMBER IS STILL STUCK 
SITTING AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
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 
IMPEACHMENTS OPERATE. 
SO, I THINK IT'S HAVE THE TALLY 
IMPORTANT FOR THIS CHAMBER TO 
CONSIDER WHAT IT REALLY MEANS 
TO HAVE THIS CHAMBER DO THE 
INVESTIGATORY WORK, HOW THIS 
CHAMBER WOULD BE PARALYZED BY 
THAT AND IS THAT REALLY THE 
PRECEDENT. 
IS THAT THE WAY THIS CHAMBER 
WANTS EVERYTHING TO OPERATE IN 
THE FUTURE. 
ONCE YOU MAKE IT THAT MUCH 
EASIER AND WE SAID THIS ON A 
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS IN 
TERMS OF THE STANDARDS FOR 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BUT IN 
TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT IS 
USED IN THE HOUSE, YOU MAKE IT 
WAY TOO EASY TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT THEN THIS CHAMBER 
WILL BE DEALING WITH THAT ALL 
THE TIME. 
AND AS MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER 
POINTED OUT AT THE TIME OF THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, HE WAS 
PROPHETIC AS WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL POINTED OUT ONCE YOU 
START DOWN THE PATH OF PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENTS, THEY WILL COME 
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. 
IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER THEY WILL 
COME MORE FREQUENTLY. 
THIS CHAMBER WILL BE SPENDING 
TIME WITH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 
AND CLEANING UP INCOMPLETE HALF 
BAKED PROCEDURES RUSHED 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS FROM THE 
HOUSE IF THAT IS WHAT IS GIVEN 
HERE. 
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT REASON 
FOR NOT ACCEPTING THAT 
PROCEDURE AND NOT TRYING TO 
OPEN THINGS UP NOW WHEN THINGS 
HAVEN'T BEEN DONE PROPERLY IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT 
SUBPOENAING WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS WOULD UNNECESSARILY 
PROLONG THIS 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 PROVIDING 
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 QUESTION. 
WHAT IS CLEAR BASED ON THE 
RECORD THAT WAS COMPILED BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHERE 
UP TO FIVE DEPOSITIONS PER WEEK 
WERE COME PLEATED, THAT THIS 
CAN BE DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS 
FASHION. 
IT'S 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 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO GAVE 
ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION. 
RESPECTED NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROFESSIONALS LIKE LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL 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 SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE 
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. 
IT CERTAINLY WAS THE CASE IN 
THE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON. 
37 OUT OF THE 40 WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WERE 
NEW. 
37 OUT OF 40. 
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 WITH HOLDING THE AID 
BECAUSE HE WANTED THE PHONY 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
COUNSEL SAID 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 MICK MULVANEY. 
LET'S CALL OTHER WITNESSES, 
SUBJECT JECTS THEM TO CROSS-
EXAMINATION AND PRESENT THE 
TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I WILL 
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATORS CORNYN ASKS COUNCIL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHAT ARE THE 
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRESIDENCY, 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL 
ROLE AS HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AND ADVICE THAT HE CAN 
EXPECT FROM HIS SENIOR ADVISERS 
IF THEY SEEK IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT ANY 
DETERMINATION BY AN ARTICLE 3 
COURT. 
OURT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. 
THE SUPREME COURT IS RECOGNIZED 
THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL KEEPING 
THOSE COMMUNICATIONS 
CONFIDENTIAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR 
THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF 
GOVERNMENT. 
IN NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED 
STATES, THE COURT EXPLAINED 
THAT 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. 
THEIR ADVICE CAN REMAIN 
CONFIDENTIAL. 
IF IT'S NOT CONFIDENTIAL, THEY 
WOULD TEMPER WHAT THEY ARE 
SAYING, THEY WOULDN'T BE CANDID 
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WOULDN'T 
BE ABLE -- THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE BEST 
ADVICE. 
IT'S THE SAME CONCERN THAT 
UNDERPINS THE DELIBRA ATIVE 
PROCESS. 
EVEN IF IT'S NOT A 
COMMUNICATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, IF IT'S THE PROCESS 
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE BEFORE 
COMING UP WITH A DECISION TO 
DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES, TO PROBE 
WHAT OTHERWAYS MIGHT WORK TO 
ADDRESS A PROBLEM AND TO 
DISCUSS THEM CANDIDLY AND 
OPENLY, NOT WITH THE FEELING 
THAT THE FIRST THING THEY SAY 
WILL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF 
THE "WASHINGTON POST" THE NEXT 
DAY. 
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE 
CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU ARE 
SAYING WILL BE KEPT 
CONFIDENTIAL, YOU WON'T BE 
CANDID. 
YOU WON'T GIVE YOUR BEST 
ADVICE. 
THAT DAMAGES DECISION MAKING. 
THAT'S BAD FOR THE GOVERNMENT 
AND BAD FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE 
UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT MEANS 
THAT 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 TO 
PROTECT THEM. 
THAT'S WHY THE SUPREME COURT 
RECOGNIZED THAT IN NIXON VERSUS 
UNITED STATES AND POINTED OUT 
THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME VERY 
HIGH SHOWING OF NEED FROM 
ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IF 
THERE IS ANY BREACH OF THAT 
PRIVILEGE. 
AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS AN 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS. 
THE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT WHEN 
THE CONGRESS, THE LEGISLATURE 
SEEKS INFORMATION FROM THE 
EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE HAS 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS, BOTH 
BRANCHES ARE UNDER AN 
OBLIGATION TO COME TO SOME 
ACCOMMODATION TO ADDRESS THE 
INTERESTS OF BOTH BRANCHES. 
BUT IT'S NOT A SITUATION OF 
SIMPLY THE CONGRESS IS SUPREME 
AND CAN DEMAND INFORMATION FROM 
THE EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE 
MUST PRESENT EVERYTHING. 
THE COURTS MADE THAT CLEAR. 
THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE 
FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT. 
SO, HEAR IN THIS CASE, THERE 
ARE VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE 
AND, YOU KNOW, IN ONE OF THE 
>> THAT IS THE AREA THAT THE 
SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED THERE 
MIGHT BE SOMETHING APPROACHING 
AN ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT TO FEEL THAT NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 
THE CROWN JEWELS OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
SO, TO SUGGEST THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR, WE WILL JUST 
SUBPOENA HIM, HE WILL COME IN 
AND THERE WILL NOT BE A 
PROBLEM.  
THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WOULD 
WORK BECAUSE THERE IS A VITAL 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AT 
STAKE.  
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE 
INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY FOR EVERY 
PRESIDENT TO PROTECT THAT 
PRIVILEGE, BECAUSE ONCE 
PRECEDENT IS SET AND ONE 
PRESIDENT SAYS I WILL NOT 
INSIST ON THE PRIVILEGE THEN, 
LET PEOPLE INTERVIEW THIS 
PERSON, I WILL NOT INSIST ON 
IMMUNITY, THAT SETS A PRECEDENT 
AND THE NEXT TIME WHEN IT IS 
IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE 
PRIVILEGE, THE PRESIDENT IS 
RAISED AND THAT THE PRECEDENT 
HAS BEEN WEEKEND AND THAT 
DAMAGES THE FUNCTIONING OF 
GOVERNMENT.  
SO, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS 
ISSUE TO CONSIDER.  
IT IS IMPORTANT, THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS MADE CLEAR, FOR THE 
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND OUR 
GOVERNMENT, AND THERE WOULD BE 
GRAVE ISSUES RAISED, ATTEMPTING 
TO HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR COME UNDER SUBPOENA TO 
TESTIFY IN THAT WOULD 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 SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR 
IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.  
ALSO FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN.  
IF THE PRESIDENT WERE ACTING IN 
THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY, AS HE ALLEGES, WOULD 
THERE BE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 
OR TESTIMONY TO SUBSTANTIATE 
HIS CLAIM? 
IF YES, HAS ANY EVIDENCE LIKE 
THAT BEEN PRESENTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL? 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU SENATORS FOR THE
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.  
THE ANSWER IS YES.  
THERE ARE WELL-ESTABLISHED 
PROCESSES, MECHANISMS, AND 
AGENCIES IN PLACE TO PURSUE 
VALID AND LEGITIMATE NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE 
UNITED STATES.  
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR, AS IN AMBASSADOR JOHN 
BOLTON.  
AND MANY OTHER FOLKS WITHIN THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.  
AND AS WE HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED 
OVER THE LAST WEEK, NONE OF 
THOSE FOLKS, NONE OF THOSE 
AGENCIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 
INVOLVED AND HAVING THAT 
DELIBERATION, REVIEWING THAT 
EVIDENCE, HAVING THAT 
DISCUSSION, WERE INCORPORATED 
INTO ANY TYPE OF INTERAGENCY 
REVIEW PROCESS DURING THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF THE TIME THAT WE 
ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.  
FROM THE TIME OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL ON JULY 25, 
TWO THE TIME THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED, THOSE INDIVIDUALS, 
THOSE AGENCIES WERE IN THE 
DARK.  
THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING AND NOT ONLY WERE 
THEY IN THE DARK, BUT THE 
PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE LAW BY 
VIOLATING THE IMPOUNDMENT 
CONTROL ACT TO EXECUTE HIS 
SCHEME.  
NONE OF THAT SUGGESTS A VALID 
LEGITIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVE.  
MORE SO, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
AND HIS COUNSEL IS BRINGING AT 
ISSUE THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS 
AND WITNESSES.  
IF OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AS WE 
HAVE HEARD OVER THE PAST FEW 
DAYS, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
SIMPLY PURSUING A BALLOT, 
LEGITIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVE.  
IF THIS WAS A SPECIFIC DEBATE 
ABOUT POLICY, A DEBATE ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, A DEBATE ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING, THEN LET'S HAVE 
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD SHOW 
THAT.  
LET'S HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES 
THAT WOULD SHOW THAT BECAUSE 
THE DOCUMENTS IN THE WITNESSES 
THAT WE HAVE FORWARDED AND 
TALKED ABOUT SHOW THE OPPOSITE. 
SO, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THIS 
CHAMBER DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL.  
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES TO HAVE 
A FAIR TRIAL.  
IF HE IS ARGUING THAT THERE IS 
EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WAS A 
POLICY DEBATE, THEN I THINK 
EVERYONE WOULD LOVE TO SEE 
THOSE DOCUMENTS, WOULD LOVE TO 
SEE THE WITNESSES AND HEAR FROM 
THEM DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT 
EXACTLY WAS BEING DEBATED.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.  
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH 
CAROLINA.  
>> I SENT THE QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR MYSELF AND SENATOR 
CRUISE.  
>> THANK YOU.  
DESK.
>> SENATOR GRAHAM AND
>>> SENATOR GRAHAM AND SENATOR 
CRUISE POSE THIS QUESTION FOR 
THE MANAGERS.  
IN MR. ADAM SCHIFF'S 
HYPOTHETICAL, IF MR. OBAMA HAD  
EVIDENCE THAT MITT ROMNEY'S SON 
WAS PAID $1 MILLION PER YEAR BY 
A CORRUPT RUSSIAN COMPANY, AND 
MITT ROMNEY HAD ACTED TO 
BENEFIT THE COMPANY, WOULD 
OBAMA HAVE AUTHORITY TO ASK 
THAT THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION 
BE INVESTIGATED? 
>> FIRST OF ALL THE HYPOTHETICAL
IS A B
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE 
HYPOTHETICAL IS A BETTER OFF, 
BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THAT IN 
THAT HYPOTHETICAL THAT 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ACTING 
CORRUPTLY OR THERE WAS EVIDENCE 
HE WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY WITH 
RESPECT TO HIS SON, BUT 
NONETHELESS, LET'S TAKE YOUR 
HYPOTHETICAL ON ITS TERMS.  
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE 
IF BARACK OBAMA HAD TRIED TO 
GET HIM TO DO AN INVESTIGATION 
OF MITT ROMNEY WHETHER IT WAS 
JUSTIFIED OR UNJUSTIFIED.  
THE REALITY IS, FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM 
AN ALLY, OR IN THE 
HYPOTHETICAL, TO WITHHOLD IT TO 
BENEFIT AN ADVERSARY, TO TARGET 
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT IS 
WRONG AND CORRUPT, PERIOD, END 
OF STORY.  
AND IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO 
RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT AND 
RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE 
NATION SECURITY TO BENEFIT 
HIMSELF BECAUSE HE BELIEVES 
THAT HIS OPPONENT SHOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED BY A FOREIGN 
POWER, THAT IS IMPEACHABLE.  
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE 
REASON TO THINK THAT ANY U.S. 
PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE 
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO 
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.  
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO 
HAVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.  
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO TURN TO HIS 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND SAY I 
WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY 
POLITICAL RIVAL TAINTS WHATEVER 
INVESTIGATION THEY DO.  
PRESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE IN THE 
BUSINESS OF ASKING THEIR OWN 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE THEIR RIVALS.  
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TALK TO 
HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCE FROM THE 
POLITICAL DESIRES OF THE 
PRESIDENT.  
AND ONE OF THE DEEPLY TROUBLING 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CURRENT 
PRESIDENCY IS YOU DO HAVE A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SPEAKING OPENLY, URGING HIS 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS PERCEIVED 
ENEMIES.  
THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE 
EITHER.  
BUT, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO 
YOU GO OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN 
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT 
PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER 
TO INVESTIGATE YOUR ARRIVAL 
WHETHER YOU THINK THERE IS OR 
IS NOT CAUSE.  
AND YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT INVITE 
THAT FOREIGN POWER TO TRY TO 
IFLUENCE AN ELECTION TO YOUR 
BENEFIT.  
IT IS REMARKABLE TO ME THAT WE 
EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THIS 
CONVERSATION.  
OUR OWN FBI DIRECTOR HAS MADE 
IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND THAT 
SHOULD NOT REQUIRE AN FBI 
DIRECTOR TO SAY THIS, THAT IF 
WE WERE APPROACHED WITH AN 
OFFER OF FOREIGN HELP WE SHOULD 
TURN IT DOWN.  
WE SHOULD OF COURSE CERTAINLY 
NOT SOLICIT A FOREIGN COUNTRY 
TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION 
AND WHETHER WE THINK THERE ARE 
GROUNDS OR WE DO NOT, THE IDEA 
THAT WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN 
COUNTRY'S SECURITY HOSTAGE BY 
WITHHOLDING AIDS TO A NATION AT 
WAR TO EITHER DAMAGE OUR ALLY 
OR HELP OUR ADVERSARY BECAUSE 
THEY WILL CONDUCT AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO OUR 
OPPONENT, I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY 
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT IS 
JUSTIFIED.  
AND I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY 
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE WOULD 
WANT TO SAY THE PRESIDEN OF 
THE UNITED STATES CAN TARGET 
HIS RIVAL, CAN SOLICIT ILLICIT 
FOREIGN HELP IN AN ELECTION, 
CAN HELP HIM CHEAT, AND THAT IS 
OKAY.  
BECAUSE, THAT WILL DRAMATICALLY 
LOWER THE BAR FOR WHAT WE HAVE 
A RIGHT TO EXPECT IN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
AND THAT IS THAT THEY ARE 
ACTING IN OUR INTEREST.  
I WOULD SAY IT IS WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR POLITICAL 
PROSECUTIONS BY HIS OWN JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, I WOULD SAY IT IS 
WRONG TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO 
ENGAGE IN A INVESTIGATION OF A 
POLITICAL RIVAL.  
BUT, AS WE HAVE SHOWN HERE, 
THERE IS NO MERIT TO THAT 
INVESTIGATION.  
IT IS EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS AND 
YOU KNOW THERE IS NO MERIT TO 
IT BECAUSE HE DID NOT EVEN WANT 
THE INVESTIGATION.  
AND THE MORE ACCURATE PARALLEL, 
SENATOR, WOULD BE IF BARACK 
OBAMA SAID I DON'T EVEN NEED 
RUSSIA TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, 
I JUST WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE IT, 
BECAUSE THAT BETRAYS THE FACT 
THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE 
BASIS, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT EVEN NEED THE 
INVESTIGATION DONE, HE JUST 
WANTED IT ANNOUNCED IT AND 
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE 
EXPLANATION FOR THAT EXCEPT HE 
WANTED THEIR HELP IN CHEATING 
THE NEXT ELECTION.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.  
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN? 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THANK YOU.  
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
PETERS IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.  
DOES THE PHRASE, OR OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, IN THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRE A 
VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CRIMINAL 
CODE OR IS A BREACH OF PUBLIC  
TRUST SUFFICIENT? 
PLEASE EXPLAIN.  
>> FRAMERS WERE VERY CLEAR TH
>> THE FRAMERS WERE VERY CLEAR, 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND IN 
EXPLAINING WHY THE CONSTITUTION 
MUST ALLOW IMPEACHMENT, EDMUND 
RANDOLPH WARNED THAT THE 
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT 
OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS 
POWER.  
ALEXANDER HAMILTON DESCRIBED 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS 
OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED FROM THE 
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST.  
THE FRAMERS ALSO DESCRIBED WHAT 
IT MEANT.  
IT WAS IMPEACHABLE FOR A 
PRESIDENT TO ABUSE HIS PARDON 
POWER, TO SHELTER PEOPLE.  
THOSE HE IS CONNECTED WITHIN A 
SUSPICIOUS MANNER.  
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE LIABLE 
TO IMPEACHMENT IF HE A HAD 
ACTED FROM SOME CORRUPT MOTIVE 
OR OTHER OR IF HE WAS WILLFULLY 
ABUSING HIS TRUST, AS WAS LATER 
STATED IN A TREATISE 
SUMMARIZING CENTURIES OF COMMON-
LAW.  
ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS IF A 
PUBLIC OFFICER, ENTRUSTED WITH 
DEFINITE POWERS TO BE EXERCISED 
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE 
COMMUNITY WICKEDLY ABUSES, OR 
FRAUDULENTLY EXCEEDS THEM.  
SO, WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS, 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER WAS 
IMPEACHABLE, IT WAS NOT AN 
EMPTY, MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.  
REMEMBER, THE FOUNDERS HAD BEEN 
PARTICIPATING WITH OVERTHROWING 
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, A KING 
WHO WAS NOT ACCOUNTABLE.  
THEY INCORPORATED THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER INTO THE 
CONSTITUTION LATE ACTUALLY IN 
THE DRAFTING OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.  
THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE GIVING 
THE PRESIDENT MANY POWERS, AND 
THEY SPECIFIED IF HE ABUSED 
THEM, THAT THOSE POWERS COULD 
BE TAKEN AWAY.  
NOW, THE PRIOR ARTICLES THAT 
CONGRESS HAS HAD ON IMPEACHMENT 
DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
CRIMES.  
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CHARGED 
WITH ABUSING HIS POWER, 
TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS, 
ENGAGING IN A COVER-UP FOR IT 
NOW, THERE WAS CONDUCT 
SPECIFIED, SOME OF IT WAS 
CLEARLY CRIMINAL AND SOME OF IT 
WAS NOT RED BUT, IT WAS ALL 
IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE IT WAS 
CORRUPT, AND IT WAS ABUSING HIS 
POWER.  
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HAS WITNESSES CALLED BY BOTH 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, AND 
THE REPUBLICAN INVITED LAW 
EXPERT, JONATHAN TURLEY 
TESTIFIED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE 
TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR AN 
IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A 
NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE 
OF POWER.  
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, 
INCLUDING THIS ONE, HAS 
INCLUDED CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED 
THE LAW, BUT 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 AND IT WOULD NOT MAKE 
ANY SENSE TODAY.  
YOU COULD 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 
WOULD BE A BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.  
THAT IS NOT ABUSE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.  
IT MIGHT BE A CRIME, AND YET 
YOU COULD HAVE ACTIVITIES THAT 
ARE SO DANGEROUS TO OUR 
CONSTITUTION THAT ARE NOT A 
CRIME THAT WOULD BE CHARGED AS 
IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE 
THEY ARE AN ABUSE OF POWER.  
THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS 
WORRIED ABOUT.  
THAT IS WHY THEY PUT TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION, AND FRANKLY, THEY 
OPINED THAT BECAUSE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, NO 
EXECUTIVE WOULD DARE EXCEED 
THEIR POWERS.  
REGRETTABLY, THAT PREDICTION 
DID NOT PROVE TRUE, WHICH IS 
WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVING  ABUSED 
HIS BROAD POWERS TO THE 
DETRIMENT OF OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE, 
HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.  
THANK YOU.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
SENATOR, THANK YOU.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE 
SENATOR.  
THANK YOU, SENATOR.  
>>> SENATORS ASKED COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT, DESCRIBED IN 
FURTHER DETAIL YOUR CONTENTION 
THAT ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED PRIOR 
TO THE PASSAGE OF 660 ARE AN 
EXERCISE OF INVALID SUBPOENA 
AUTHORITY BY THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEES? 
>
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK 
YOU, SENATORS FOR THAT 
QUESTION.  
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, 
THIS CONTENTION IS BASED ON A 
PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID 
OUT IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT 
CASES, EXPLAINING THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS POWERS TO 
EACH HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH.  
TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, OR TO THE 
SENATE, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE 
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS 
CLEAR IN ARTICLE 1, THAT THE 
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS 
ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE.  
THAT IS TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AS A BODY.  
IT IS NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY 
COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE, OR ANY 
PARTICULAR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE, 
AND IN CASES SUCH AS REMLEY 
VERSUS UNITED STATES, AND THE 
UNITED STATES VERSUS WATKINS, 
THERE HAVE BEEN DISPUTES ABOUT 
SABRINA'S.  
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT BUT 
THEY ESTABLISH A GENERAL RULE, 
A PRINCIPAL, THAT WHENEVER A 
COMMITTEE OF EITHER BODY OF 
CONGRESS ISSUES A SUBPOENA TO 
SOMEONE, AND THAT PERSON 
RESISTS THE SUBPOENA, THE 
COURTS WILL EXAMINE WHAT WAS 
THE AUTHORITY OF THAT COMMITTEE 
OR SUBCOMMITTEE TO ISSUE THAT 
SUBPOENA? 
IT HAS TO BE TRACED BACK TO AN 
AUTHORIZING ROLE OR RESOLUTION 
FROM THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF FOR 
EXAMPLE OR A HOUSE 
SUBCOMMITTEE.  
AND THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE.  
THEY HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT IS 
THE CHARTER OF THE COMMITTEE'S 
AUTHORITY.  
IT GETS ITS AUTHORITY SOLELY 
FROM AN ACTION BY THE HOUSE 
ITSELF THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF 
THE HOUSE, EITHER TO ESTABLISH 
THE COMMITTEE BY RESOLUTION OR 
BY RULE THE STANDING AUTHORITY 
OF THAT COMMITTEE.  
AND IF THE COMMITTEE CANNOT 
TRACE ITS AUTHORITY TO A RURAL 
OR RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE, 
THEN IT SUBPOENA IS INVALID AND 
THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE 
CLEAR THAT SUCH SUBPOENAS ARE 
NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THEY ARE 
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE 
COMMITTEE TO ISSUE AND CANNOT 
BE ENFORCED.  
OUR POINT HERE IS SIMPLE.  
THERE IS NO STANDING ROLE IN 
THE HOUSE THAT PROVIDES THE 
COMMITTEES THAT ARE ISSUING 
SUBPOENAS HERE UNDER THE 
LEADERSHIP OF ADAM SCHIFF THE 
AUTHORITY TO USE THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER TO  ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS.  
RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE DEFINES 
THE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OF 
COMMITTEES, IT IS NOT MENTIONED 
THE WORD IMPEACHMENT EVEN ONCE. 
AND SO, NO COMMITTEE UNDER RULE 
10 WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR IMPEACHMENT 
PURPOSES.  
AND THIS IS ALWAYS BEEN THE 
CASE IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT 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 
IT ATTEMPTED TO ISSUE 
COMPULSORY PROCESS.  
SO, IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO 
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE.  
THE AUTHORITY AND THE SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT REMAINED 
WITH THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF AND 
SPEAKER PELOSI, BY HERSELF, DID 
NOT HAVE AUTHORITY NEARLY BY 
SPEAKING TO REPORTERS TO GIVE 
THE POWERS OF THE HOUSE TO 
START ISSUING SUBPOENAS.  
SO, THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE 
ISSUED WERE INVALID WHEN THEY 
WERE ISSUED, AND THEN FIVE 
WEEKS LATER, ON OCTOBER 31, 
WHEN THE HOUSE FINALLY ADOPTED 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 THAT 
AUTHORIZED FROM THAT POINT WERE 
PURPORTED TO AUTHORIZE FROM 
THAT POINT THE ISSUANCE OF 
SUBPOENAS, NOTHING IN THAT 
RESOLUTION ADDRESSED THE 
SUBPOENAS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN 
ISSUED.  
THEY DID NOT PURPORT TO SAY THE 
ONES THAT WERE ARTIE ISSUED WE 
WILL TRY TO RETROACTIVELY GIVE 
AUTHORITY FOR THAT.  
IT IS A SEPARATE QUESTION 
WHETHER THAT COULD HAVE BEEN 
DONE LEGALLY.  
THEY DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO 
IT.  
AND THIS IS ALL EXPLAINED IN 
THE OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH IS 
ATTACHED AS APPENDIX C AND IT 
IS A DETAILED AND THOROUGH 
OPINION, 37 PAGES OF LEGAL 
REASONING BUT IT EXPLAINS THE 
BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT APPLIES 
GENERALLY, THE HISTORY THAT IT 
HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS WAY.  
THERE IS ALWAYS IN EVERY 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, BEEN 
AN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION FROM 
THE HOUSE AND THE FACT THAT 
THERE WAS NONE HERE, THERE WAS 
NO AUTHORITY FOR THOSE 
SUBPOENAS.  
THAT MEANS THAT 23 SUBPOENAS 
THAT WERE ISSUED WERE INVALID 
AND THIS WAS EXPLAINED THE 
OTHER DAY IN LETTERS FROM THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO THE 
COMMITTEES, A LETTER FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE, FROM OMB AND I 
THINK THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND 
IN VERY SPECIFIC TERMS, IT SET 
OUT THIS RATIONALE.  
SO, THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH 
THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID 
AND PROPERLY RESISTED BY THE 
ADMINISTRATION.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA? 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.  
>> THANK YOU.  
>>
>>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.  
IN FEDERALIST 65, ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON WRITES THAT THE 
SUBJECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE 
QUOTE, THOSE OFFENSES WHICH 
PROCEED FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF 
PUBLIC MEN, OR IN OTHER WORDS, 
FROM THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF 
SOME PUBLIC TRUST.  
COULD YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO THE 
DUTIES OF BEING A PUBLIC 
SERVANT, AND NOW YOU BELIEVE 
THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS HAVE 
VIOLATED THIS TRUST? 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, M
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO 
SOLICIT A FOREIGN NATION TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS  FOR 
HIS OWN BENEFIT, THEN HE 
ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN 
HIS ATTEMPTS TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
ABUSES OF POWER.  
THESE ACTIONS ARE CLEARLY 
IMPEACHABLE.  
THE KEY PURPOSE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IS TO 
CONTROL ABUSES OF POWER BY 
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, THAT IS TO 
SAY, CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE 
PUBLIC TRUST.  
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE 
REPUBLIC, ALL IMPEACHMENTS HAVE 
BEEN BASED ON ACCUSATIONS OF 
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE 
PUBLIC TRUST.  
WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE THE 
PHRASE HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THE INTENDED TO 
CAPTURE THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC 
OFFICIALS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WHO SHOWED NO RESPECT FOR THE 
OATH OF OFFICE.  
HE IGNORED THE LAW, AND THE 
CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO GAIN A 
POLITICAL FAVOR.  
THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS OATH 
OF OFFICE PROHIBITED HIM FROM 
USING THIS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF 
RATHER THAN THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.  
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID.  
HE ILLEGALLY WITHHELD MILITARY 
AID UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE COMMITTED TO ANNOUNCING 
AN INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S OPPONENT.  
IN THE WORDS OF ONE SCHOLAR 
WHAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THE 
NOTHINGNESS.  
THIS IS THE MISCONDUCT THAT THE 
FRAMERS CREATED THE 
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING 
IMPEACHMENT, TO PROTECT 
AGAINST.  
I WANT TO ADD, AND IN REFERENCE 
TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT 
WERE MADE BY SOME OF THE 
PRESIDENTS COUNSEL A FEW 
MINUTES AGO, THEY TALK ABOUT 
THE SUBPOENA POWER, BUT THE 
FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO ACT 
PROPERLY IN THE SUBPOENA POWER, 
BECAUSE THEY SAID THE HOUSE DID 
NOT DELEGATE BY RULE, HAVE A 
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 
COMMITTEES TO OFFER SUBPOENA 
POWER.  
THEY APPARENTLY HAVE NOT READ 
THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE HAS 
GENERALLY DELEGATED ALL 
SUBPOENA POWER TO THE 
COMMITTEES.  
THAT WAS NOT TRUE WITH THE 
WATKINS CASE AND IT WAS NOT 
TRUE 15 YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS 
TRUE NOW.  
THE HOUSE IS SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE MANNER OF 
EXERCISE MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED 
FROM OUTSIDE, WHETHER WE DO IT 
WITH HIM BEING CONVICTED UPON 
THE ACCUSATION IS A QUESTION 
FOR THE SENATE, BUT HOW WE 
REACHED THE ACCUSATION IS A 
MATTER SOLELY FOR THE HOUSE.  
THIRDLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
AND THEY POINT TO THE NIXON 
CASE THAT ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVATE, TO 
CANDID ADVICE, AND THEREFORE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS 
ESTABLISHED.  
BUT, THE SAME CASE SAYS THAT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE 
USED TO HIDE WRONGDOING.  
AND IN FACT, PRESIDENT NIXON 
WAS ORDERED IN THAT CASE TO 
TURN OVER ALL THE MATERIAL.  
THIRDLY, THERE IS THE DOCTRINE 
OF WAIVER.  
YOU CANNOT USE ANY PRIVILEGE IF 
YOU WAVERED.  
THE MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THAT JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT 
TELLING THE TRUTH  WHEN HE SAID 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM OF 
THE IMPROPER QUID PRO QUO, HE 
WAIVED ANY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
THAT MIGHT HAVE EXISTED.  
HE CHARACTERIZED THE 
CONVERSATION, AND PUT IT INTO 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND THEN 
CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AGAINST IT.  
THE PRESIDENT, BY THE WAY, 
NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEG, EVER.  
HE HAS CLAIMED INSTEAD ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY, A RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY FROM ANY QUESTIONING 
BY THE CONGRESS OR ANYONE ELSE, 
A CLAIM REJECTED BY A RECORD 
THAT HAS EVER CONSIDERED IT AND 
FINALLY, THE DIFFERENCE FROM 
THIS PRESIDENT AND ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENT CLAIMING PRIVILEGE OF 
ANY SORT IS THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
TOLD US IN ADVANCE I WILL DEFY 
ALL SUBPOENAS, WHATEVER THEIR 
NATURE, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT 
THE CONGRESS GETS NO 
INFORMATION.  
IN OTHER WORDS, I AM ABSOLUTE.  
THE CONGRESS CANNOT QUESTION 
WHAT I DO, BECAUSE I WILL DEFY 
ALL SUBPOENAS AND I WILL MAKE 
SURE THAT THEY GET NO 
INFORMATION WHATEVER THE 
SITUATION.  
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF ARTICLE 
2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE 
THAT IS A CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE 
POWER.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.  
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST AFTER TWO
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED LIVES 
>> I'M GOING TO STICK TO 
SUGGEST AFTER TWO MORE 
QUESTIONS ON EACH SIDE OFÃ
ONE MORE, I HAVE BEEN 
CORRECTED.  
AS I FREQUENTLY AM.  
ONE MORE QUESTION ON EACH SIDE 
AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A 15 
MINUTE BREAK READ 
>> THANK YOU.  
>> MR. PRESIDENT, YES, THE 
SENATOR FROM KANSAS OFÃ
>> US INTO QUESTION FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.  
>> THANK YOU.  
DENT'S COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> S
>> SENATOR ROBERTS ASKS WOULD 
YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE IN 
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS 
QUESTIONS.  
IT IS DIRECTED TO THE COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, I WANT TO 
RESPOND TO A COUPLE, FIRST WITH 
REGARD TO THE QUESTION, OR THE 
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AS 
IT RELATES TO WITNESSES.  
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING THE WITNESSES THAT 
ACTUALLY GAVE DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY WERE WITNESSES THAT 
HAD EITHER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY 
DEPOSITION IN THE HOUSE 
PROCEEDINGS, THE GRAND JURY 
PROCEEDINGS, AND SPECIFICALLY 
THAT WAS SID BLUMENTHAL AND 
MONICA LEWINSKY, NEW WITNESSES 
WERE NOT CALLED RED THAT IS 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE, IN THEIR 
PROCESS, MOVED FORWARD WITH A 
FULL INVESTIGATION.  
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE.  
THERE WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT 
THAT WAS RAISED BY MANAGER ADAM 
SCHIFF  REGARDING THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE MAKING THE 
DETERMINATION ON EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
AGAIN, WITH NO DISRESPECT TO 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE IDEA 
THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF 
THIS RECEDING COULD DETERMINE A 
WAIVER, OR THE APPLICABILITY OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE 
QUITE A STEP.  
THERE IS NOTHING HISTORIC 
PRECEDENT THAT WOULD JUSTIFY 
IT, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING 
ELSE.  
IF WE GET TO THE POINT OF 
WITNESSES THEN, FOR INSTANCE, 
IF ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO BE 
CALLED WERE BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS WAS ADAM SCHIFF,  AND 
THE ROLE OF KENNETH STARR, HE 
PRESENTED THE REPORT MADE THE 
PRESENTATION BEFORE THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HAD 
ABOUT 12 HOURS OF QUESTIONING I 
BELIEVE.IF ADAM SCHIFF WAS 
CALLED AS A WITNESS,  WOULD IN 
FACT THEN ISSUES OF SPEECH AND 
DEBATE CLAUSE WHICH BE 
LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER, OR WOULD GO 
TO COURT? 
OR, MAYBE THEY WOULD WAIVE IT.  
BUT, THOSE WOULD BE THE ISSUES 
THAT WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT. 
SENATOR GRAHAM PRESENTED A 
HYPOTHETICAL, WHICH ADAM SCHIFF 
SAID THAT IS NOT REALLY THE 
HYPOTHETICAL, BUT HYPOTHETICALS 
ARE ACTUALLY THAT.  
THEY ARE HYPOTHETICALS.  
BUT, TO USE ADAM SCHIFF'S 
WORDS, IT WOULD BE WRONG  IF 
THE FBI OR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE WAS STARTING A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION OF 
SOMEONE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT 
AND I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, BUT 
ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED? 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
THE FBI ENGAGED IN AN 
INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE 
FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WHEN THEY STARTED THE 
OPERATION CALLED CROSSFIRE 
HURRICANE.  
IT WOULD BE TARGETING A RIVAL, 
THAT IS WHAT THE RETIC WOULD 
CALL FOR FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN 
THAT.  
WELL, IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS 
OF CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, IT HAS 
BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED NOW THAT 
IN FACT FUSION GPS UTILIZE THE 
SERVICES OF A FORMER FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE, TO PUT 
TOGETHER A DOSSIER AND THAT 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE RELIED ON 
HIS NETWORK OF RESOURCES AROUND 
THE GLOBE INCLUDING RUSSIA AND 
OTHER PLACES TO PUT TOGETHER 
THIS DOSSIER WHICH THEN JAMES 
COMAY SAID WAS UNVERIFIED AND 
SALACIOUS, YET IT WAS THE BASIS 
UPON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND THE FBI OBTAINED 
FISA WARRANTS AND THIS WAS IN 
2016 AGAINST A RIVAL CAMPAIGN 
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO 
HYPOTHETICALS, THAT IS 
PRECISELY THE SITUATION, BUT TO 
TAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL STEP, 
THIS IDEA THAT A WITNESS WILL 
BE CALLED, IF THIS BODY DECIDES 
TO GO TO WITNESSES, THAT A 
WITNESS WILL BE CALLED, WOULD 
BE A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL 
FAIRNESS.  
OF COURSE, IF WITNESSES ARE 
CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, 
THROUGH THAT MOTION, WELL, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE 
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL 
WITNESSES AS WELL, WHICH WE 
OULD.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
>> THANK YOU MR. COUNSEL.  
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR? 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.  
>> THANK YOU.  
cÑó
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
HARRISES FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.  
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS 
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.  
BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID WHEN YOU ARE A STAR 
THEY LET YOU DO IT, 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.  
THESE STATEMENTS SUGGEST THAT 
EACH OF THEM BELIEVED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.  
A BELIEF REFLECTED IN THE 
IMPROPER ACTIONS THAT BOTH 
PRESIDENTS TOOK TO AFFECT THEIR 
REELECTION CAMPAIGNS.  
IF THE SENATE FAILS TO HOLD THE 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
MISCONDUCT, HOW WOULD THAT 
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE? 
LD THAT UNDERMINE
OUR SYSTEM OF INTEGRITY OF 
JUSTICE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY THE 
FEAR.  
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE 
PATTERN IN THIS PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT IN HIS WORDS, WHAT YOU 
SEE IS A PRESIDENT WHO 
IDENTIFIES THE STATE AS BEING 
HIMSELF.  
WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT 
PEOPLE WHO REPORT HIS 
WRONGDOING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN 
HE DESCRIBES A WHISTLEBLOWER AS 
A TRAITOR OR A SPY, THE ONLY 
WAY YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF SOMEONE 
WHO REPORTS WRONGDOING AS 
COMMITTING A CRIME AGAINST THE 
COUNTRY IS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT 
YOU ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH THE 
COUNTRY, THAT ANY REPORT OF 
WRONGDOING AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OR THE PERSON OF THE 
PRESIDENT IS A TREASONOUS ACT.  
IT IS THE KIND OF MENTALITY 
THAT SAYS UNDER ARTICLE 2 I CAN 
DO WHATEVER I WANT, THAT I'M 
ALLOWED TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS 
NOW, COUNSEL HAS GIVEN A 
VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS FOR THE 
FIGHTING OF ALL SUBPOENAS THEY 
MIGHT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT 
IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAD GIVEN 
HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS, BUT 
RESERVED SOME AND MADE A CLAIM 
OF PRIVILEGE, OR THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID WE WILL 
ALLOW THESE WITNESSES TO 
TESTIFY, BUT WITH THESE 
WITNESSES, WITH THESE 
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS WE WANT TO 
ASSERT A PRIVILEGE.  
BUT, OF COURSE, THAT IS NOT 
WHAT IS DONE HERE.  
WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS A 
SHIFTING SERIES OF RATIONALES 
AND EXPLANATIONS AND 
DUPLICITOUS ARGUMENTS, SOME 
MADE IN IT AND SOME MADE HERE 
THAT HAVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
SUBPOENAS ARE NOT VALID BEFORE 
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION, AND THEN 
WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAS úISSU 
MULVANEY, THOSE ARE NO GOOD 
EITHER.  
YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT 
WE HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND A 
COURT THAT ADDRESSES THIS SAYS 
NO, YOU ARE NOT A KING.  
THAT ARGUMENT MAY BE THOUGHT OF 
WITH FAVOR BY VARIOUS 
PRESIDENTS OVER HISTORY BUT IT 
HAS NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANY 
COURT AND THERE IS NO 
CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR THAT 
EITHER.  
HER.
PRAIRIE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RELEASED 
RIGHT NOW AS WE SIT HERE, AND 
IT IS A MYSTERY TO THE COUNTRY 
AND SOME OF US HOW ARE PRIVATE 
LITIGANTS ABLE TO GET DOCUMENTS 
THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAS WITHHELD 
FROM CONGRESS? 
IF THEY WERE OPERATING IN ANY 
GOOD FAITH, WOULDN'T THAT BE 
THE CASE? 
AND OF COURSE, THE ANSWER IS 
NO.  
WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS, WE ARE 
GOING TO CLAIM IMMUNITY EVEN 
THOUGH THE COURT SAYS THAT DOES 
NOT EXIST.  
NOW, THEY SAID THE HOUSE 
WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA SO, WHY 
WOULD THEY WITHDRAW THE 
SUBPOENA WHEN HE WAS ONLY 
THREATENING TO TIE YOU UP 
ENDLESSLY IN COURT? 
WE SUGGESTED TO COUNSEL FOR DR. 
COOPERMAN, THAT IF THEY HAD A 
GOOD FAITH CONCERN FOR 
TESTIFYING.  
IF IT WAS NOT JUST A STRATEGY 
TO DELAY.  
IF IT WAS NOT JUST PART OF THE 
PRESIDENTS WHOLESALE FIGHT ALL 
SUBPOENAS, THEY DID NOT NEED TO 
FILE SEPARATE LITIGATION 
BECAUSE THERE WAS A CASE 
ALREADY AND WORK INVOLVING DON 
McGAHN  THAT WAS RIPE FOR A 
DECISION.  
INDEED, THE DECISION WOULD COME 
UP SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND RESET 
LET'S AGREE TO BE BOUND BY WHAT 
THE DON McGAHN  COURT SAYS.  
WELL, THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO 
THAT AND IT BECAME OBVIOUSLY 
ONCE THE DECISION CANNOT 
BECAUSE THEY SAID THERE IS NO 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, YOU MUST 
TESTIFY AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU 
THINK PEOPLE INVOLVED IN 
NATIONALS 30 LIKE DR. COOPERMAN 
AND JOHN BOLTON, IF YOU THINK 
THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW ABSOLUTELY 
INDIAN, YOU ARE NOT.  
SO, HE SAID WELL NOW I HAVE THE 
COMFORT I NEEDED BECAUSE THE 
COURT HAS WEIGHED IN.  
THE ANSWER IS OF COURSE NOT.  
NOW, COUNSEL SAYS WE MAY HAVE 
GOTTEN A QUICK JUDGMENT WITH 
GOVERNMENT.  
YEAH, IN THE LOWER COURT.  
DO ANY OF YOU BELIEVE FOR A 
SINGLE MINUTE THEY WOULD NOT 
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 
AND TO THE SUPREME COURT AND 
THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN 
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT 
AND THEY WOULD NOT BE BACK 
SAYING HE IS NOT ABSOLUTELY 
IMMUNE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO 
CLAIM EXECUTIVE WHICH OVER 
SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS THAT GO 
TO THE PRESIDENTS WRONGDOING.  
THAT IS A SIGN OF A PRESIDENT 
WHO BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE 
LAW.  
THAT ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERS THEM TO 
DO ANYTHING HE WANTS AND I WILL 
SAY THIS, IF YOU ACCEPT THAT 
ARGUMENT, IF YOU ACCEPT THE 
ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES CAN TELL YOU 
TO POUND SAND WHEN YOU TRY TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS WRONGDOING, 
THERE WILL BE NO FORCE BEHIND 
ANY SENATE SUBPOENA IN THE 
FUTURE.  
THE FIGHTING OF ALL SUBPOENAS 
STARTED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT. 
IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO 
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO COMPLETELY 
IN A WAY THAT NIXON COULD NEVER 
HAVE CONTEMPLATED, NOR WOULD 
THE CONGRESS OF THAT DAY HAVE 
ALLOWED, YOU WILL EVISCERATE 
YOUR OWN OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
 YOUR OWN 
OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  THANK
YOU, COUNS
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.  
>> I SUGGEST WE RESUME AT 4.  
ER IS 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED.  
NELL:  I SUGGEST
WE RESUME AT 4:00. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  
WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
>> THERE YOU HAVE IT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HAS 
GONE TO THE  QUESTION AND 
ANSWER STAGE OF THIS WHICH WAS 
A LIVELY BACK AND FORTH WHERE 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE NOT TO 
WRITE THEIR QUESTIONS ON A CARD 
LIKE THIS.  
IT LOOKED LIKE THEY HAD BEEN 
TRANSCRIBED SO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE COULD READ THEM AND NOT 
BE FORCED TO READ THERE 
HANDWRITING.  
THAT LED TO A LIVELY BACK AND 
FORTH.  
NANCY, WHAT DID YOU TAKE AWAY 
FROM WHAT HAPPENED THIS 
AFTERNOON? 
N? 
>> 
>> Reporter:  SO MANY OF THESE 
QUESTIONS WENT RIGHT AT THE 
MAJOR CONTROVERSY WHICH IS 
WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL 
WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL.  
WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE GO TO 
COURT TO COMPEL SOME OF THESE 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY? 
úWHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE TESTIF 
OFÃBLOCK THEM FROM 
TESTIFYING.  
IF THE SENATE DOES NOT TRY TO 
COMPEL THOSE WITNESSES TO 
TESTIFY, LIKE JOHN BOLTON AND 
MICK MULVANEY, HOW LONG WILL 
THAT TAKE? 
WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT WILL BUT 
SET? 
SO, IT GIVES YOU A LOT OF 
INSIGHT INTO WHAT SENATORS ARE 
WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW AS 
THEY TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER 
OR NOT TO VOTE TO HEAR FROM 
THOSE WITNESSES.  
 TO VOTE TO 
HEAR FROM THOSE WITNE
>> AND THIS MORNING ON THAT 
BASTION OF WITNESSES, WE ARE 
HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS NOW 
THAT IT LOOKS LESS LIKELY THAT 
THEY MAY HEAR FROM WITNESSES.  
DID ANYTHING CHANGE THAT TODAY? 
>> Reporter: WE ARE STILL ON 
THE RAZORS EDGE. 
THERE ARE THREE REPUBLICANS WHO 
HAVE SAID THEY ARE LEANING 
STRONGLY  TOWARDS VOTING TO 
HEAR FROM WITNESSES AND YOU 
HAVE ALL THE DEMOCRATS, SO IF 
YOU HAVE JUST ONE MORE 
REPUBLICAN WHO SAYS THEY WANT 
TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES, THEN 
THAT IS THE GAME.  
THEY WILL HAVE THE VOTES THEY 
NEED.  
BUT, IT IS THE HUNT FOR THE 
FOURTH REPUBLICAN THAT IS 
PROVING DIFFICULT FOR 
DEMOCRATS.  
THERE IS A SHRINKING POOL OF 
UNDECIDED REPUBLICANS FOR THEM 
TO CHOOSE FROM AND ONE OF THEM, 
CORY GARDNER OF COLORADO, JUST 
ANNOUNCED A SHORT TIME AGO THAT 
HE IS NOT WENT TO VOTE TO HEAR 
FROM WITNESSES.  
SO, THE QUESTION IS, AMONG 
THOSE UNDECIDED SENATORS, IS 
THERE ANYONE IS STILL TRULY ON 
THE FENCE RATHER THAN SIMPLY 
WAITING TO MAKE THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THEY DON'T 
FAVOR HEARING FROM THE 
WITNESSES AND THEY DON'T WANT 
TO DRAG THIS OUT.  
THEY WANT TO MAKE A FINAL VOTE 
ON WHETHER TO REMOVE THIS 
PRESIDENT OR ALLOW HIM TO STAY 
IN OFFICE.  
>> OKAY, NANCY CORTES FROM THE 
HILL. 
I KNOW THAT YOU WILL HAVE A 
WRAP UP  TONIGHT SO THANK YOU.  
LET'S BRING IN OUR SENIOR 
POLITICAL ANALYST AND CBS  
CONTRIBUTOR JAMAAL SIMMONS.  
THANK YOU TO ALL.  
SOME HOUSEKEEPING.  
THEY JUST WANT ABOUT 2 1/2 
HOURS, SO THERE IS 13 1/2 HOURS 
LEFT OF QUESTIONS.  
AS SOMEONE DID THE NUMBERS IF 
YOU GO ABOUT FIVE MINUTES EACH 
YOU COULD HAVE AS MANY AS 192 
QUESTIONS.  
WE ARE THROUGH 26 OF THEM.  
AND TO ANYONE QUESTIONING 
WHETHER IT WOULD BE DULL OR 
NOT, THE FIRST QUESTION OUT OF 
THE GATE, THE REPUBLICAN LEADER 
I THINK GAVE TO THOSE THREE 
SENATORS WHO HAVE SUGGESTED 
THEY WANT TO HAVE WITNESSES, 
SENATORS COLLINS AND ROMNEY AND 
MURKOWSKI, ALL ASKING THE TRUMP 
LEGAL TEAM IF THERE WAS MORE 
THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS CONDUCT 
IN UKRAINE.  
SHOULD THE SENATE STILL CONSIDER
THE JOE BIDEN PRESSURE AND 
ABUSE OF POWER? 
AND AS NANCY SAID, THIS IS AT 
THE HEART OF IT.  
IS IT A ABUSE OF POWER? 
IS THAT ENOUGH TO LEARN MORE? 
DO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM BOLTON? 
IS THIS ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM 
FROM OFFICE? 
>> THERE ARGUMENT IS IF THERE 
IS ONE DROP OF THE RATIONALE 
THAT IS IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST THAN EVEN IF THE REST 
IS IN HIS PERSONAL INTEREST, 
YOU CANNOT IMPEACH HIM.  
THE MANAGERS SAY THE OPPOSITE.  
ONE DROP OF ILL INTENT OR 
PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE 
COUNTRY AND IT IS IMPEACHABLE.  
IT SEEMS LIKE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WANT TO DRIVE ALL 
ROADS TO BOLTON, WHICH IS LET'S 
GET HIM IN HERE, HE CAN ANSWER 
THE FINAL QUESTIONS.  
THE PRESIDENTS DEFENSE WANT ALL 
ROADS OUT OF THIS WHICH IS TO 
GIVE REPUBLICANS REASONS NOT TO 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES.  
IF THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT 
WITNESSES THAT IS GOOD FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.  
IF THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT, THAT IS GOOD FOR THE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ADAM 
SCHIFF SAID .  HE SAID IF YOU 
HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
MOTIVATION, YOU NEED TO HEAR 
FROM THE MAN WHO HEARD IT 
FIRSTHAND IF IT WAS A FACTOR 
THERE IS ONE WITNESS AND HE IS 
A SUBPOENA AWAY AND HIS NAME IS 
JOHN BOLTON, AND DON'T WAIT 
UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN HIS BOOK 
COMES OUT, YOU CAN HEAR FROM 
HIM NOW.  
>> WHAT STRUCK ME WAS THE TONE. 
AND THE REPUBLICANS CHOOSING 
PATRICK TILLMAN TO ANSWER 
ALMOST ALL OF THE QUESTIONS, 
THEY CHOSE SOMEONE WHO WAS 
RESPECTFUL.  
THERE WAS NO SENSE OF A CIRCUS, 
WHICH YOU COULD HAVE EXPECTED 
IN THE SAME ON THE OTHER SIDE.  
THE ARGUMENTS WERE GOOD ON BOTH 
SIDES.  
AND WHENEVER ONE OR THE OTHER 
SIDE WAS SPEAKING YOU ARE 
SHAKING YOUR HEAD AND SAYING 
THAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT.  
I'M NOT SURE WHO CONVINCED 
THOSE PEOPLE ON THE FENCE ONE 
WAY OR THE OTHER.  
IT WAS A FASCINATING DEBATE.  
I HAVE TO SAY, THINKING IN THE 
BEGINNING THERE WOULD NOT BE 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, THAT IS 
BASICALLY WHAT THERE WERE, 
FOLLOW-UP, FOLLOW-UP, FOLLOW-
UP.  
AND, THE TOWN AND THE RESPECT 
SHOWN REALLY WAS WONDERFUL.  
IT WAS HISTORIC.  
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT.  
YOU COULD TELL THERE WAS 
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TEAMS 
AND THE SENATE LEADERSHIP 
BECAUSE WHEN THERE WAS AN 
OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY WANTED 
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, THE NEXT 
QUESTION WOULD SAY WOULD YOU 
LIKE TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE 
OTHER SIDE JUST SAID? 
>> I ALSO AM STARTING TO SEE 
THIS LOOK LIKE IT IS WINDING 
INTO A SLOW SPIRALING 
CONCLUSION AND ULTIMATE DEATH.  
AND ONE OF THE THINGS EVERYONE 
NEEDS TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN 
WATCHING ALL OF THIS IS THE 
ULTIMATE QUESTION THAT EVERY 
SENATOR IS THINKING OF, ARE 
THERE REALLY 20 REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS THAT ARE GOING TO 
REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM 
OFFICE AND THE BALLOT IN 2020  
AFTER ALMOST 10 STATES FARMING 
DEADLINES HAVE ALREADY PASSED? 
THE ANSWER TO THAT IS ALMOST 
CERTAINLY NO.  
SO YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION FIRST AND THEN GO 
ANALYZE WHETHER OR NOT THE 
SENATORS ARE GOING TO ADD 
WITNESSES TO A TRIAL THAT THEY 
KNOW IS CERTAINLY GOING TO AND 
WITHOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT.  
I DO NOT SEE IT.  
I THINK THIS WILL BE CONCLUDED 
BY THE END OF THE WEEKEND THEY 
WILL ACQUIT TO THE PRESIDENT 
AND THIS WILL BE THE END OF IT. 
>> THIS IS THE FORMER CHAIRMAN 
OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE.  
THE SEPTEMBER FILING STATES 
HAVE GONE THROUGH.  
I SPOKE WITH SOMEONE TODAY WHO 
SAID MY ABSENTEE BALLOT IS 
ALREADY IN THE MALE FOR THE 
PRIMARY. 
>> ARE YOU GOING TO FORCE THEM 
TO GO TO A  CONTESTED 
CONVENTION? 
>> AFTER ALL OF THIS, CAN THE 
REPUBLICANS RUNNING FOR OFFICE 
AROUND THE COUNTRY GO OUT AND 
SAY THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING 
WRONG? 
CAN THEY RUN ON THAT? 
>> IF THEY ARE IN THAT 
POSITION, SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY 
THAT AND SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY 
MAYBE I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT 
THAT WAY BUT WE ARE NOT GOING 
TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT NINE 
MONTHS BEFORE AN ELECTION AND 
THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT ADAM 
SCHIFF HAS IS HE KEEPS GOING 
BACK TO BOLTON, BUT THE BIGGEST 
IS HE NEVER SUBPOENAED JOHN 
BOLTON.  
HE ISSUED ONE SUBPOENA FOR THE 
ENTIRE INVESTIGATION AND THEN 
WITHDREW IT.  
THEY STARTED WITH QUID PRO QUO, 
THEN THEY WENT TO BRIBERY, AND 
IF YOU READ TITLE 18 OF THE 
U.S. CODE, THERE IS NO CRIMINAL 
CHARGE  FOR ABUSE OF POWER.  
>> MOST LEGAL ANALYSTS WILL SAY 
THAT IS THE FATAL FLAW THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS MADE, BECAUSE 
THE SUPREME HAS BEEN IN THEIR 
FAVOR AND BASED ON PRECEDENT IT 
WOULD HAVE FORCED THE WHITE 
HOUSE TO ALLOW NOT ONLY MICK 
MULVANEY BUT BOLTON AND OTHERS 
TO TESTIFY.  
>> THE POLITICAL FLAW IS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT KEEPS PUTTING UP 
IDEAS ABOUT WHAT HE DID AND WHY 
HE DID IT AND THEN THOSE IDEAS 
ARE CRUMBLED BY FACTS THAT COME 
TUMBLING OUT INTO THE PUBLIC 
SPHERE.  
AND AS WE'RE SITTING HERE WE 
ARE GETTING FACTS THAT ARE 
COMING OUT AND WE ARE FINDING 
OUT THAT OF THE WHITE HOUSE WAS 
SLOW ROLLING BOLTON'S BOOK AND 
TOLD HIM THERE IS A NATIONAL 
SECURITY PROBLEM AND YOU HAVE 
TO FIX THESE CHAPTERS AND MAYBE 
THAT IS WHY WE SEE SOME OF 
THESE THINGS.  
I INTERVIEWED JIM CLYBURN FOR 
THE HILL AND HE SAID HE THOUGHT 
IT WAS PREORDAINED.  
PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS 
QUESTION, BUT THEN YOU SEE ADAM 
SCHIFF TODAY  AND HE MAKES A 
COMPELLING POINT, THE PRESIDENT 
UNDERSTANDS LEVERAGE, THE ONE 
LEVER THAT CONGRESS HAS OVER 
THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT.  
SHOULD THAT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD 
NEVER IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IN 
THE FIRST TERM OF HIS SERVICE 
BECAUSE THE SENATE MAY NOT GO 
ALONG WITH THAT OR, BECAUSE THE 
PUBLIC WILL NOT HAVE A CHANCE 
TO HAVE A VOTE? 
>> THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS 
DID THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER? 
JOHN BOLTON CAN ANSWER THAT.  
THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT.  
BUT, THERE IS A POLITICAL 
QUESTION.  
REPUBLICAN SENATORS, THERE ARE 
SHOES IN THE CLOSET ABOUT TO 
DROP AND SINCE THIS TRIAL HAS 
BEEN GOING ON DON'T HAVE TO 
MAKE A CALCULATION, IF I DON'T 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES, WHEN THOSE 
OTHER SHOES DROP SOMEONE WILL 
SAY TO ME YOU HAD A CHANCE TO 
HEAR ABOUT THE SHOES BEFORE 
THEY DROPPED AND YOU CHOSE NOT 
TO DO IT.  
WON'T THAT BE THE CHALLENGE FOR 
THEM? 
THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE 
POLITICAL RISK FOR ANY SENATOR 
CALCULATING WHETHER OR NOT TO 
ALLOW IT.  
>> RIGHT NOW LEV PARNAS IS 
DOING INTERVIEWS IN THE HALLWAY 
DROPPING NEW INFORMATION. 
>> YOU BRING UP AN INTERESTING 
QUESTION.  
I THINK FOR MANY SENATORS THAT 
IS WHERE THE KNIFE'S EDGE IS 
BUT ALSO, DON'T FORGET, EVEN IF 
YOU ARE SUSAN COLLINS OR CORY 
GARDNER, YOU STILL HAVE A 
PRESIDENT ON THE BALLOT, A 
REPUBLICAN THAT IS AT 95% 
APPROVAL RATING IN THE PARTY 
PRETTY DON'T THINK THAT CORY 
GARDNER OR SUSAN COLLINS OR 
MARTHA McSALLY ARE GOING TO GET 
CRUSHED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN 
THEIR STATE IF THEY VOTE TO 
REMOVE, OR EVEN ON, LOOK 
DISLOYAL ON THE WITNESS ISSUE? 
AND THEN, WHAT ARE THEY GOING 
TO DO? 
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRIMARY 
THEN ON YOUR OWN SIDE AND IF 
THE FILING DATE IS PAST ARE YOU 
GOING TO HAVE A WRITE-IN 
CAMPAIGN? 
>> SHE HAS CALCULATED, 
NEVERTHELESS, THAT SHE WILL 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES.  
I THINK WHAT IS REALLY 
INTERESTING TOO, AND THE OTHER 
IMPEACHMENTS BEFORE, AT LEAST 
IN OUR TIME, NIXON AND CLINTON, 
THERE WAS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR 
WORKING AT THE SAME TIME, 
CALLING WITNESSES AND THE GRAND 
JURY WAS INVESTIGATING AND THAT 
TESTIMONY WAS SENT OVER TO THE 
CONGRESS AND YOU DON'T HAVE 
THAT HERE.  
AND IT CHANGES THE DYNAMIC.  
I REMEMBER IN WATERGATE, SOME 
OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED 
WERE INDICTED, PROSECUTED AND 
SENT TO JAIL WHILE THIS WAS 
GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.  
SO YOU CANNOT GO BACK AND TALK 
ABOUT WITNESSES IN THE PAST, IT 
IS CONFUSING.  
>> I WANT TO BRING IN WEIJIA 
JIANG  WHO HAS BEEN REPORTING 
ON THE LOBBYING THAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN WITH 
A NUMBER OF THESE UNDECIDED 
SENATORS OR SENATORS WHO MAY 
ALSO BE UP IN TOUGH REELECTION 
RACES THIS YEAR.
>> Reporter: THAT IS EXACTLY 
THE POINT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS MAKING.  
AS THEY SEND THEIR MESSAGE TO 
THE SENATORS RED YOU KNOW, THIS 
COULD BE OPENING PANDORA'S BOX 
IF YOU ALLOW WITNESSES.  
SO, WHO KNOWS HOW LONG THIS 
COULD DRAG ON AND WASTE A LOT 
OF TIME THAT COULD GO TOWARDS 
ACHIEVING OTHER THINGS THAT 
THEY CAN RUN ON WHEN AND THE 
AND THE CONCLUSION WILL BE THE 
SAME.  
THEY ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT ú 
THEN ALL THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO 
MIGHT VOTE FOR WITNESSES HAVE 
TO DEAL WITH A DISGRUNTLED 
RESIDENT WHO IS NOT GOING TO 
SUPPORT THEM AND WE KNOW THE 
POWER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN 
HAVE WHEN HE GOES TO STUMP FOR 
THEM  AS THEY TRY TO WIN 
REELECTION.  
THEY ARE ALSO ARGUING WHAT IS 
AT STAKE IS THE TOOL OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
AND THEY WARNED THAT IT COULD 
BE DAMAGED IF THESE HIGH 
PROFILE WITNESSES WHO ARE CLOSE 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO ARE 
PART OF HIS INNER CIRCLE  ARE 
CALLED TO TESTIFY, ALL OF A 
SUDDEN YOU WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT 
RULES WHEN IT COMES TO THAT 
PRIVILEGE IF THERE IS A TRIAL 
AND DURING OTHER TIMES.  
AND SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
TRYING TO MAKE THEIR CASE.  
WE ARE TOLD THE PRESIDENT HAS 
NOT PERSONALLY REACHED OUT TO 
ANY OF THE SENATORS BUT 
CERTAINLY MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM 
ARE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION 
WITH MITCH McCONNELL, WHO IS 
TALKING TO THOSE PEOPLE.  
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW 
WHAT HAPPENED TODAY.  
THAT LETTER WE SAW FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE TO BOLTON, 
EFFECTIVELY BLOCKING HIM FROM 
PUBLISHING HIS BOOK BECAUSE 
THEY CITE IT CONTAINS MATTERS 
OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
INFORMATION THAT IS LABELED A 
TOP SECRET.  
THAT IS NOT JUST ABOUT HIS 
MANUSCRIPT, THAT IS ABOUT TEEN 
UP THEIR CASE AS THEY TRY TO 
BLOCK BOLTON AS A POTENTIAL 
WITNESS READ IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
NOTE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS 
THAT LETTER WAS DATED ON 
JANUARY 20, THAT IS THREE DAYS 
BEFORE THE PUBLIC LEARNED ABOUT 
WHAT WAS IN THIS MANUSCRIPT.  
OF COURSE, THE TOP LINE IS THAT 
HE SAYS MR. TRUMP TOLD HIM THAT 
THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY AID WAS 
LINKED TO INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 
BIDENS.  
SO, ALL OF THAT TO SAY THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS AWARE OF THIS 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.  
THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE 
VOTES AND I DID SPEAK TO THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT THIS MORNING AND HE 
IS CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC THAT 
EVEN HE SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW 
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL 
FRIDAY.  
>> THANK YOU.  
LONG GONE ARE THE DAYS OF LBJ 
ON THE PHONE, OR BILL CLINTON, 
WHO USED TO RING SENATORS AFTER 
MID NIGHT.  
YOU KNOW, I CAN REMEMBER AS A 
REPORTER, BEING ONE OF THE 
FIRST TO REPORT THAT HILLARY 
CLINTON WAS CALLING MEMBERS OF 
THE HOUSE TO LOBBY ON BEHALF OF 
OF HER HUSBAND DURING 
IMPEACHMENT.  
NOW, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT 
NEED TO PICK UP THE PHONE.  
HE HAS ANOTHER MEANS TO DO IT.  
>> HE HAS TWITTER, WHICH IS 
HUGE.  
>> THE PRESIDENT IS CONSTANTLY 
ON THE TELEPHONE.  
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PERSON BE 
WILLING TO CONTINUE TO TALK AND 
TALK AND TALK.  
SENATORS CALL NONSTOP AND HE 
CALLS THEM BACK.  
I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THE 
PRESIDENT IS ON THE PHONE, BUT 
YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SEE AT THIS 
POINT IN THIS HEARING IS A 
POLITICAL EXERCISE THAT EACH 
SENATOR IS EVALUATING IN THAT 
HOW MUCH OF THIS DO I NEED TO 
KEEP PUTTING UP WITH TO LOOK 
REASONABLE BACK HOME? 
IN EACH STATE HAS A DIFFERENT 
SLIDING MEASURE TO WHAT THAT 
AMOUNT IS.  
SO, ULTIMATELY, I THINK THAT IS 
WHAT THIS IS COMING DOWN TO AND 
I AGREE.  
>> IS THERE A MORAL METER THAT 
EXISTS? 
>> I THINK THERE IS, BUT THE 
CONCLUSION THAT MOST 
REPUBLICANS, EVERYONE THAT I 
KNOW OF GENERALLY FITS IN THE 
BOX OF, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU 
THINK OF THE ACCUSATION, EVEN 
IF THE ACCUSATION IS TRUE IS IT 
ENOUGH TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT? 
THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE KNOW. 
>> WE ARE ALSO PAST THE AGE OF 
HAVING JOE LIEBERMAN WHO WENT 
TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, AND 
JUST TRASHED BILL CLINTON FOR A 
WHOLE SPEECH ON THE FLOOR AND 
TALKED ABOUT ALL THE THINGS HE 
DID WRONG, ALL THE WAYS IT WAS 
A BAD IDEA FOR THE REPUBLICAN 
THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEN THE 
SAID BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS 
IMPEACHABLE AND HE SHOULD BE 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE BUT THE 
PRESIDENT WILL NOT GIVE THESE 
REPUBLICANS THE ABILITY TO HAVE 
ANY MORAL STANDING AND THEN GO 
BACK TO THEIR PEOPLE AND SO 
YES, I THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID WAS WRONG, HOWEVER, I THINK 
WE SHOULD KEEP HIM.  
>> HE WON'T LET THEM DO IT.  
>> MAYBE, JUST MAYBE BACK IN 
WISCONSIN AND BACK IN 
MINNESOTA, PEOPLE DON'T CARE.  
JUST MAYBE WE ARE LIVING IN A 
BUBBLE WHERE WE THINK THAT 
EVERY LITTLE PLAY CALLED FROM 
SCRIMMAGE, EVERY SINGLE PERSON 
WATCHING EVERY PERSON CARES.  
TRUMP'S LATEST APPROVAL RATING 
WAS 49, FOX, 45, EMERSON 47.  
IT HAS GONE UP SINCE THIS HAS 
STARTED.  
>> BUT, THEY ARE ELECTED TO 
CARE.  
THEY ARE ELECTED TO CARE ONE 
WAY OR THE OTHER.  
>> THEY ARE ELECTED TO 
REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS 
AND IF THEY SAY YOU ARE NOT 
GETTING ANYTHING DONE -- 
>> THEY ARE ELECTED TO KAREN IF 
THEY WANT TO MAKE THE CASE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT, 
WHICH IS HIS POSITION, OR THEY 
WANT TO SAY IT WAS WRONG, BUT 
NOT IMPEACHABLE, OR IT IS 
IMPEACHABLE, THAT IS FINE.  
BUT, MAKING THAT CHOICE IS WHAT 
THEY ARE CALLED TO DO.  
IT SEEMS TO ME.  
IF YOU SAY IT IS WRONG BUT NOT 
IMPEACHABLE YOU NOW HAVE TO 
SIGN UP FOR ALL THE THINGS HE 
HAS DONE IN DEFENSE OF HIS 
POSITION OF PERFECTION WHICH IS 
HE HAS ATTACKED THEM AND YOU 
ARE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT.  
WHAT IS THE REMEDY? 
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE? 
>> WHAT ABOUT A PUBLIC REVIEW? 
>> THE PERFECT COMPROMISES THE 
CENSURE HE DID SOMETHING WRONG 
BUT IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, AND 
IT ALLOWS THE DEMOCRATS TO SAY 
OKAY, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.  
AND IT GETS ALL OF THESE 
DIFFERENT SENATORS WHO ARE 
FACING DIFFICULT RACES IN BOTH 
PARTIES TO GET OFF THE HOOK.  
>> IT IS NOT JUST THE SENATORS, 
IT IS ALSO THE PRESIDENT.  
AND WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH CLINTON IN 1998, 
HE WENT ON TELEVISION AND 
ADMITTED HE HAD DONE THINGS 
WRONG.  
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
A FORGIVING LOT, THE PROBLEM IS 
WHEN YOU DON'T ASK FOR 
FORGIVENESS YOU DON'T GIVE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THE OUT TO SAY 
YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T LIKE 
WHAT YOU ARE DOING, BUT WE ARE 
NOT WILLING TO LET YOU GO, AND 
YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR ALLIES AND 
FRIENDS WHO WANT TO MAKE THE 
SAME CASE.  
WHEN YOU HOLD THE LINE SO FAR, 
THE PRESIDENT IS CLEARLY DOING 
THINGS THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE, 
NOT JUST IN THIS CASE, BUT IN 
MANY OTHERS.  
IT GIVES PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO SIGN UP FOR EVERYTHING OR 
NONE OF IT.  
>> AS RYAN SAID, HIS RATINGS 
ARE GOING UP.  
DURING THIS WHOLE PROCEEDING HE 
IS GETTING STRONGER AS BILL 
CLINTON DID DURING HIS, AND YOU 
KNOW, MAYBE THE PUBLIC IS -- 
>> THERE IS ALSO A DEMOCRATIC 
CONSTITUENCY WITHIN THE UNITED 
STATES SENATE WHICH WOULD LIKE 
FOR THIS TO END.  
IT IS NOT JUST A REPUBLICAN 
CONSTITUENCY, IT IS THE FOUR 
DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING 
THE ONES STRONGEST LIKE 
SANDERS, WARREN, AND AMY 
KLOBUCHAR AND THE MORE MODERATE 
DEMOCRATS  WHO AS WELL WANT TO 
FOCUS ON OTHER ISSUES AND IT IS 
TRUE THAT THIS WOULD COME UP 
THE SENATE FOR ANOTHER AT LEAST 
FOUR OR FIVE WEEKS AS THEY WAIT 
FOR A DECISION FROM THE COURTS 
ABOUT A SUBPOENA.  
>> THE LAWYERS WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT HOW MUCH LONGER THEY 
WOULD HAVE TO BE THERE.  
I'VE NEVER SEEN AN EXECUTIVE 
RANCH CARE SO MUCH ABOUT SENATE 
TIME AS IN THIS DEFENSE THAT 
ARE BASICALLY SAYING IF YOU 
WANT WITNESSES IT WILL BE LONG 
AND DRAWN OUT.  
THAT WAS AN APPEAL TO THEIR 
BACKSIDES INSANE IF YOU 
CONTINUE THIS YOU ARE GOING TO 
BE HERE A LOT LONGER.  
>> THE OTHER ARGUMENT THAT YOU 
HEAR ADAM SCHIFF MAKING SO 
PASSIONATELY , SO MUCH OF THE 
ARGUMENT HAS BEEN SO METICULOUS 
AND PREPARED, BUT THE PASSION 
IS IF YOU LET THE PRESIDENT AND 
YOU DON'T IMPEACH HIM, YOU ARE 
SAYING HE IS ABOVE THE LAW.  
THAT IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS SAVED 
THAT FINAL QUESTION FOR HARRIS 
WHERE SHE BROUGHT UP NIXON.  
THE IDEA THAT IF YOU ALLOW THIS 
TO HAPPEN THERE WILL BE NO 
FORCE BEHIND SENATE SUBPOENA
POWER IN THE FUTURE 
. 
>> LAST NIGHT SENATE MAJORITY 
LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAID HE 
DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES YET TO 
BLOCK DEMOCRATS FROM CALLING 
WITNESSES. 
THE DEMAND FOR NEW TESTIMONY 
COMES AFTER REVELATIONS FROM 
THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURIT ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON. 
THE WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER 
TO BOLTON'S LAWYER THREATENING 
TO BLOCK THE BOOK FROM BEING 
PUBLISHED. 
THE MANUSCRIPT MAY NOT BE 
PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE 
DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE DELETION 
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. 
WITH THAT, LET'S BRING IN OUR 
PANEL. 
MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR. 
REBECCA IS OUR LEGAL 
CONTRIBUTOR. 
REBECCA, FROM A LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE DOES THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLOCK 
BOLTON'S BOOK FROM BEING 
PUBLISHED? 
WILL BOLTON'S LAWYERS SUE OVER 
PARTS OF THE BOOK THEY WOULD 
LIKE TO BLOCK. 
>> BOLTON HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT 
RIGHT TO PUBLIC HIS THOUGHTS 
AND OPINIONS. 
THEY CAN BLOCK PIECES OF THE 
BOOK THAT CONTAIN NATIONAL 
SECURITY SECRETS. 
THAT PROCESS IS NORMALLY DONE 
BACK AND FORTH. 
THE ADMINISTRATION IS ASSERTIVE
WITH NATIONAL SECURITY CLAIMS. 
THEY MAY MAKE THE CLAIM BUT 
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO WIN. 
>> THE WHITE HOUSE LETTER WAS 
DATED THREE DAYS BEFORE "THE 
NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE WHEN 
EVERYONE BECAME AWARE OF 
BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT. 
WHAT DOES THE TIMING TELL YOU? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE BACK MATTER 
BUT IT SEEMS SUSPICIOUS. 
HERE IS A GUY WHO WANTS TO 
PUBLISH A BOOK IN SEVERAL 
WEEKS. 
HE WANTS A BEST-SELLER. 
HE DOESN'T WANT THE WHITE HOUSE 
TO TELL HIM HE CAN'T PUBLISHED. 
>> PREORDERS ARE THROUGH THE 
ROOF. 
>> WHAT WILL BE INTERESTING IS 
TO HEAR WHICH DEMOCRATS OR WHEN 
THE DEMOCRATS ASKED THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL WHAT DID YOU KNOW 
ABOUT THIS MANUSCRIPT BEFORE 
YOU MADE YOUR ARGUMENTS TO US 
IN THE SENATE AGAINST 
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND AGAINST 
CALLING JOHN BOLTON AS A 
WITNESS. 
WE HAVE NOT ASKED THAT YET. 
WE ARE A FEW HOURS IN. 
THEY HAVE 16 HOURS. 
PERHAPS YOU WANT TO SAVE THOSE 
QUESTIONS FOR THE END. 
>> A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO COME. 
A LOT OF QUESTIONS WE HEARD 
TODAY. 
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, HOW 
DO YOU FEEL THE WHITE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL HANDLED QUESTIONS 
DIRECTED AT THEM TODAY? 
>> EACH SIDE IS HAVING A 
EXHIBIT THEY ARE HAMMERING. 
SOME ARE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN 
OTHERS. 
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THEY CAN 
SETTLE ON THE MOST PERSUASIVE 
ARGUMENTS. 
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A GOOD 
ARGUMENT IN SAYING WHAT IS THE 
LIMITING PRINCIPLE? 
IF YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
FOR ABUSE OF POWER COULDN'T WE 
IMPEACH EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT? 
WHAT IS THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE? 
THE HOUSE HAVE VERY GOOD 
POINTS, TOO. 
IF YOU CAN NOT IMPEACH FOR 
ANYTHING THAT IS NOT CRIMINAL, 
WE COULD HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO 
MOVED TO SAUDI ARABIA AND 
DECIDED TO PLAY VIDEO GAMES. 
HE COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. 
YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY WHO 
FIRED EVERY JEWISH EMPLOYEE IN 
THE GOVERNMENT. 
THAT IS NOT A CRIME. 
HE COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. 
WHEN YOU TAKE THIS TO THE 
EXTREME IT MAKES NO SENSE. 
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS TO 
DERSHOWITZ WAS YES, IF A 
PRESIDENT THINKS THAT HE THE 
COUNTRY, THAT THE COUNTRY'S 
INTEREST IS HAVING HIM AS 
PRESIDENT FOREVER, IF HE WERE 
TO CHEAT ON THE ELECTION, COULD 
YOU IMPEACH HIM? 
DERSHOWITZ SAID NO. 
>> WE HAVE THAT SOUND BITE. 
>> IF A PRESIDENT DOES 
SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN 
THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, THAT CAN 
NOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO 
THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT. 
>> I COULD SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, 
I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS TO 
THE ECONOMY. 
THAT WILL HELP ME GET ELECTED. 
I'M GOING TO HAVE THE FEDS 
RAISE INTEREST RATES BECAUSE 
THAT IS GOOD FOR ME. 
THAT IS A GOOD ARGUMENT. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUED THIS 
WAS DIRECTLY AGAINST CONTRARY 
TO OUR ESTABLISHED COUNTRY'S 
INTEREST. 
WHEN YOU PUSH DERSHOWITZ HERE 
IT MAKES NO SENSE. 
>> ADAM SCHIFF RESPONDS TO 
DERSHOWITZ'S ARGUMENT. 
>> THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES CAN ASK OF AN 
INVESTIGATION OF YOU. 
THEY CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THEIR 
NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY FOREIGN 
POWER. 
THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE, NO 
DONALD TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED FOR 
DOING THE SAME THING, THEREFORE 
IT MUST NOT BE IMPEACHABLE. 
>> IS THAT AN ARGUMENT THAT IS 
LIKELY TO RESONATE WITH 
REPUBLICANS? 
>> THAT IS TOUGH ONE. 
JAY CAME BACK AND SAID GUESS 
WHAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT DID 
HAPPEN. 
IT WAS OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND 
THEY WERE SPYING ON THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT OR 
NOT, THAT IS AN ARGUMENT HE 
CAME BACK W. OVER THE YEARS 
SENATORS LIKE SENATOR GRAHAM 
SAID HE HAD THE FBI LISTENING 
IN ON HIS PHONE CALLS AND HE 
HAS BEEN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOED 
BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
IT DOES HIT CLOSE TO HOME. 
WHETHER IT WILL MOVE THE NEEDLE 
IN TERMS OF HAVING WITNESSES, 
THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. 
>> AN INTERESTING PART OF THE 
DAY IS WHEN ADAM SCHIFF BROUGHT 
UP THIS IDEA OF FLIPPING IT ON 
ITS HEAD. 
AND ASKED SENATORS IF PRESIDENT 
OBAMA HAD ASKED THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE MITT 
ROMNEY, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN 
APPROPRIATE? 
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WAS WELL, IF MITT 
ROMNEY'S SON HAD PROCURED A JOB 
IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. 
>> THIS IS ONE THING I THINK IS 
INTERESTING, I'M SO SORRY. 
JUST AS THIS WAS GETTING GOOD 
WE HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF AND GO 
BACK AND LISTEN IN ON THE 
SENATE FLOOR. 
THAT IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS. 
>> AS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE 
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, WE 
LISTENED INTENTLY WHEN MANAGER 
CROW WAS DEFENDING SENATOR 
SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT LAST WEEK 
AS HE EXPLAINED HE WAS DENIED 
MILITARY AID WHEN HE NEEDED IT. 
DAVID HALE CONFIRMED THE LETHAL 
AID PROVIDED TO UKRAINE LAST 
YEAR WAS FUTURE AID. 
WHICH WOULD YOU SAY HAD THE 
GREATEST MILITARY IMPACT? 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEMPORARY 
PAUSE OF 48 DAYS ON FUTURE AID 
THAT WILL BE DELIVERED TO 
UKRAINE OR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 
STEADFAST REFUSAL TO PROVIDE 
LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE FOR THREE 
YEARS, MORE THAN 1,000 DAYS 
WHILE UKRAINE ATTEMPTED TO HOLD 
BACK RUSSIA'S INVASION AND 
PRESERVE ITS SOVEREIGNTY? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THANK YOU SENATORS FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
IT FAR MORE SERIOUS AND FAR 
MORE JEOPARDY, THE DECISION OF 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO NOT 
USE THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY 
CONGRESS. 
MANY OF YOU ALL, MANY MEMBERS 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
VOTED FOR GIVING THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO 
PROVIDE LETHAL AID TO THE 
UKRAINIAN. 
AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT 
AID. 
MULTIPLE WITNESSES CALLED IN 
THE HOUSE BY THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS TESTIFIED THAT UNITED 
STATES POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE 
GOT STRONGER UNDER THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION. 
IN PART, LARGELY BECAUSE OF 
THAT LETHAL AID. 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, OTHERS ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT U.S. POLICY IN 
PROVIDING THAT AID WAS GREATER 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE THAN WAS 
PROVIDED THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION. 
PARTICULARLY THE PROVISION OF 
JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES. 
WHICH THEY EXPLAINED WERE 
LETHAL AND WOULD KILL RUSSIAN 
TANKS AND CHANGE THE CALCULUS 
FOR AGGRESSION IN THE EASTERN 
PORTION OF UKRAINE WHERE THE 
CONFLICT IS STILL ON-GOING. 
IN TERMS OF THE PAUSE, THE 
TEMPORARY PAUSE ON AID HERE, 
THE TESTIMONY AND THE RECORD -- 
PUT ASIDE WHAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS 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 VOLKER TESTIFIED 
THAT THE BRIEF PAUSE ON 
RELEASING THE AID WAS QUOTE 
UNQUOTE NOT SIGNIFICANT. 
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
POLITICAL AFFAIRS, DAVID HALE 
EXPLAINED, QUOTE, THIS WAS 
FUTURE ASSISTANCE, NOT TO KEEP 
THE ARMY GOING NOW. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS ISN'T 
MONEY THAT HAD TO FLOW EVERY 
MONTH IN ORDER TO FUND CURRENT 
PURCHASES OR SOMETHING LIKE 
THAT. 
IT WAS MONEY, IT IS FIVE YEAR 
MONEY. 
ONCE IT IS OBLIGATED IT IS 
THERE FIVE YEARS. 
IT USUALLY TAKES QUITE A BIT OF 
TIME TO SPEND ALL OF IT. 
THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW DURING 
THE COUPLE OF MONTHS IN JULY, 
AUGUST AND UP TO SEPTEMBER 
11th, 55 TO 48 DAYS, DEPENDING 
HOW YOU COUNT IT, THAT THIS WAS 
DENYING CRITICAL ASSISTANCE TO 
THE UKRAINIAN ON THE FRONT 
LINES THEN. 
IT IS NOT TRUE. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TRIED TO 
PIVOT AWAY BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT 
IS NOT TRUE. 
THEY SAY IT WAS THE SIGNAL OF 
LACK OF SUPPORT THAT THE 
RUSSIANS WOULD PICK UP ON. 
EVEN THE UKRAINIAN DIDN'T KNOW 
THAT THE AID HAS BEEN PAUSED. 
PART OF THE REASON IS THEY 
NEVER BROUGHT IT UP IN ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT. 
AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED, 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT DIDN'T BRING IT UP 
TO THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T 
WANT ANYONE TO KNOW. 
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT OUT A 
SIGNAL THAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED 
BY THE RUSSIANS OR UKRAINIAN AS 
ANY SIGN OF LACK OF SUPPORT. 
IT WAS KEPT INTERNAL TO THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT. 
THEY POINTED TO SOME E-MAILS 
THAT SOMEONE AT THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE RECEIVED FROM UNNAMED 
EMBASSY STAFFERS SUGGESTING A 
QUESTION ABOUT THE AID. 
HER TESTIMONY WAS SHE COULD NOT 
REMEMBER WHAT THE QUESTION WAS 
AND SHE DIDN'T WANT TO 
SPECULATE. 
THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT ANY 
DECISION MAKERS IN THE UKRAINE 
GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT THE 
PAUSE. 
JUST THE OTHER DAY, ANOTHER 
ARTICLE CAME OUT, I BELIEVE IT 
WAS FROM DANIEL EXPLAINING WHEN 
THE POLITICO ARTICLE WAS 
PUBLISHED AUGUST 28th THERE WAS 
PANIC IN KIEV BECAUSE IT WAS 
THE FIRST TIME THEY REALIZED 
THERE WAS PAUSE ON THE AID. 
THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS 
PROVIDING ANY SIGNAL EITHER TO 
THE UKRAINIAN OR RUSSIANS 
BECAUSE IT WASN'T KNOWN. 
IT WAS TWO WEEKS LATER, AFTER 
IT BECAME PUBLIC, THAT THE AID 
WAS RELEASED. 
THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS 
THAT THE PAUSE WAS NOT 
SIGNIFICANT. 
IT WAS FUTURE MONEY. 
NOT FOR CURRENT PURCHASES. 
IT WAS RELEASED BEFORE THE END 
OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
SOME WASN'T OUT THE DOOR BY THE 
END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. 
THERE IS A PERCENTAGE THAT 
DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR BY 
THE END OF THE YEAR. 
AGAIN, IT IS FIVE-YEAR MONEY. 
IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS ALL GOING 
TO BE SPENT IN THE NEXT 30, 60, 
90 DAYS ANYWAY. 
THE FACT THERE WAS A LITTLE FIX 
TO ALLOW THE $35 MILLION ON THE 
SPENT, SOMETHING SIMILAR 
HAPPENS FOR SOME AMOUNT ALMOST 
EVERY YEAR, IT WAS NOT 
AFFECTING CURRENT PURCHASES. 
IT WASN'T JEEPLIZING ANYTHING 
AT THE FRONT LINES. 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT 
IN THE RECORD. 
THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE 
CONTRARY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A 
QUESTION FOR BOTH SETS OF THE 
COUNSEL, WHICH I'M SENDING TO 
THE DESK. 
>> IF THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN 
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS, EITHER 
INNOCENCE OR GUILT, I THINK 
THEY SHOULD BE HEARD. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH GENERAL KELLY 
THEY SHOULD BE HEARD? 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, IT 
IS YOUR TURN TO GO FIRST. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
THIS WAS A BIT OF A TOPIC I 
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. 
THAT WAS THE INFORMATION THAT 
CAME OUT OF "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES" PIECE ABOUT WHAT IS 
REPORTEDLY IN A BOOK BY 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON. 
AS I SAID, THE IDEA THAT A MAN 
SCRIPT IS NOT IN THE BOOK. 
THIS IS PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE 
STATEMENT MIGHT BE. 
THERE HAVE BEEN FORCEFUL 
STATEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT 
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
STATED WHILE THEY HAVE NOT 
REVIEWED MR. BOLTON'S 
MANUSCRIPT IT GROSSLY 
MISCALCULATED. 
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON 
PERSONAL FAVORS OR UNDUE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
NOR DID ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR 
STATE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN 
LEADERS WEREN'T PROPER. 
THAT GOES TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN 
THE ARTICLE. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID  
EVERY CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT IN 
PREPARATION FOR OUR TRIP TO 
POLAND, THE PRESIDENT 
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED 
FRUSTRATION THAT THE UNITED 
STATES WAS BARING THE LION'S 
SHARE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY. 
THERE WAS A CONVERSATION BOLTON 
SAID IT WAS A PERFECTLY 
APPROPRIATE ONVERSATION. 
THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY 
AVAILABLE NOW. 
TO MOVE THAT INTO A CHANGE IN 
PROCEEDING, SO TO SPEAK, I 
THINK IT IS NOT CORRECT. 
THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN 
PRESENTED, AN ACCUSATION THAT, 
IF YOU GET INTO WITNESSES, IF 
WE GET DOWN TO ROAD ON THE 
WITNESS ISSUES, LET'S BE CLEAR, 
IT SHOULD NOT BE THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS GET JOHN BOLTON AND 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS GET NO 
WITNESSES. 
WE WOULD EXPECT IF THEY ARE 
GOING TO GET WITNESSES WE WILL 
GET WITNESSES. 
BUT ALL THAT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, 
CHANGES THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF 
THE PROCEEDINGS. 
THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR IT BACK AND 
FORTH. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF SAYING HE BELIEVES JOHN 
BOLTON. 
HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THAT BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY. 
IT IS REALLY, AT THE END OF THE 
DAY, NOT WHETHER I BELIEVE JOHN 
BOLTON OR WHETHER GENERAL KELLY 
BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON BUT 
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE JOHN 
BOLTON. 
YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
EVALUATE HIS CREDIBILITY FOR 
YOURSELF. 
IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED TO 
HAVE WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL. 
WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY IDEA. 
AS MY COLLEAGUES SAID, IT WOULD 
BE EXTRAORDINARY NOT TO. 
THIS WILL BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY 
THAT INVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF 
YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO 
HEAR FROM ANY. 
YOU WANT TO RELY ON WHAT WAS 
INVESTIGATED IN THE HOUSE. 
THAT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED. 
YES, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL 
WITNESSES, AND YES, SO SHOULD 
THE PRESIDENT. 
RELEVANT WITNESSES. 
THE PRESIDENT SAYS YOU CANNOT 
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON. 
LET THE PRESIDENT CALL MICK 
MULVANEY. 
ANOTHER RELEVANT WITNESS WITH 
FIRST-HAND INFORMATION. 
IF HE IS WILLING TO SAY 
PUBLICLY, NOT UNDER OATH, THAT 
BOLTON IS WRONG, LET HIM COME 
AND SAY THAT UNDER OATH. 
YES, WE ARE NOT SAYING ONE SIDE 
GETS TO CALL WITNESSES. 
BOTH SIDES GET TO CALL RELEVANT 
WITNESSES. 
THEY ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT, 
WELL, THIS IS GOING TO TAKE 
LONG. 
A REAL TRIAL WILL REQUIRE 
WITNESSES AND THAT WILL TAKE 
TIME. 
I THINK THE UNDERLYING THREAT 
AND I DON'T MEAN THIS IN A 
HARSH WAY IS 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 THAT CAN RULE ON 
EVIDENCIARY ISSUES. 
THE PRESIDENT WAIVED ANY CLAIM 
ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY BY 
TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF AND 
DECLASSIFYING THE CALL RECORD. 
WE ARE NOT INTERESTING IN 
ASKING JOHN BOLTON ABOUT 
VENEZUELA OR OTHER PLACES OR 
OTHER COUNTRIES. 
JUST UKRAINE. 
IF THERE IS A QUESTION, THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE THESE 
QUESTIONS TO THE MATTER AT 
HAND. 
YOU CANNOT USE PRIVILEGE TO 
HIDE WRONGDOING OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE CHARACTER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> A QUESTION TO DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATORS CRUZ AND 
HOLLY. 
THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
IS IT TRUE THAT ABIGAIL GRACE 
AND ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER WERE 
DETAILED TO THE NATIONAL CITY 
COUNCIL BETWEEN JANUARY 2017 
AND THE PRESENT? 
DO YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE 
THEY KNEW EACH OTHER? 
DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO 
BELIEVE THAT THE ALLEGED 
WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATED TO 
FULFILL THEIR REPORTED 
COMMITMENT TO QUOTE DO 
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT 
THE PRESIDENT, END QUOTE? 
>> THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE I HAVE OF 
THIS COMES FROM PUBLIC REPORTS. 
I GATHER THERE IS A NEWS REPORT 
IN SOME PUBLICATION THAT 
SUGGESTS A NAME FOR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
SUGGESTS WHERE HE WORKED. 
THAT HE WORKED AT THAT TIME. 
WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. 
OTHER THAN WHAT IS IN THE 
PUBLIC REPORTS. 
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO 
SPECULATING ABOUT THAT. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT MAY BEEN 
ADDRESSED IN TESTIMONY OF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BEFORE 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S COMMITTEES. 
THAT TESTIMONY CONTEXT WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND CONTEXT 
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF MANAGER 
SCHIFF'S STAFF AND THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER ARE SHROUDED IN 
SECRECY TO THIS DAY. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 
TESTIMONY OF THE ICIG WAS. 
IT REMAINS SECRET. 
IT HAS NOT BEEN FORWARD. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MANAGER 
SCHIFF'S STAFF CONTACT WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAVE BEEN. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD SEEM 
TO BE RELEVANT SINCE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER STARTED THIS 
ENTIRE INQUIRY. 
I CAN NOT MAKE ANY 
REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE 
PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
FACTS SUGGESTED IN THE 
QUESTION. 
WE KNOW THERE WAS A PUBLIC 
REPORT SUGGESTING CONNECTIONS 
AND PRIOR WORKING RELATIONSHIPS 
BETWEEN CERTAIN PEOPLE. 
NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN 
COMMENT ON OTHER THAN TO SAY 
THERE IS A REPORT THERE. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ICIG 
DISCUSSED. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ICIG WAS 
TOLD BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
OTHER PUBLIC REPORTS ABOUT 
INACCURACIES ABOUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S REPORT TO THE 
ICIG, WE DON'T KNOW THE 
TESTIMONY ON THAT. 
WE DON'T KNOW THE SITUATION OF 
THE CONTEXT COORDINATION ADVICE 
PROVIDED BY MANAGER SCHIFF'S 
STAFF TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
THAT ALL REMAINS UNKNOWN. 
SOMETHING THAT, OBVIOUSLY, TO 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF 
MOTIVATONS, BIAS, HOW THIS WAS 
ALL CREATED COULD POTENTIALLY 
BE RELEVANT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL FIRST LEARN THAT THE 
BOLTON MANUSCRIPT BEING 
PRESENTED FOR VIEW. 
HAS ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO 
PROHIBIT, BLOCK, DISCOURAGING 
JOHN BOLTON OR HIS PUBLISHER 
FROM PUBLISHING HIS BOOK? 
>> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF 
MY HEAD THE EXACT DATE. 
THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN 
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 
IT IS WITH STAFF FOR REVIEW. 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE 
WAS NOTIFIED IT WAS THERE. 
NFC RELEASED A STATEMENT 
EXPLAINING IT HAS NOT BEEN 
REVIEWED FROM ANYONE OUTSIDE 
NFC STAFF. 
HAS THERE BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO 
BLOCK THE PUBLICATION? 
I THINK THERE WAS 
MISINFORMATION PUT OUT IN THE 
PUBLIC REALM EARLIER TODAY. 
I CAN READ A SHORT LETTER SENT 
FROM NFC STAFF TO CHARLES 
COOPER, WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR 
MR. BOLTON ON JANUARY 23rd. 
WHICH WAS LAST WEEK. 
THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING 
YESTERDAY BY TELEPHONE. 
AS WE DISCUSSED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN 
PROVIDED THE MANUSCRIPT, JOHN 
BOLTON FOR PREPUBLICATION 
REVIEW. 
THE MANUFACTURE SCRIPT CONTAINS 
SIGNIFICANTS AMOUNTS OF 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. 
IT APPEARS THE CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION IS AT THE TOP 
SECRET LEVEL. 
WHICH IS DEFINED BY EXECUTIVE 
ORDER AS INFORMATION THAT 
QUOTE, REASONABLY COULD BE 
EXPECTED TO CAUSE EXCEPTIONALLY 
GRAVE HARM TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 
IN DISCLOSED WITHOUT 
AUTHORIZATION. 
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND THE NON-
DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS YOUR 
CLIENTS SIGNED AS A CONDITION 
FOR GAINING ACCESS TO 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THE 
MANUSCRIPT MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED 
OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THIS 
INFORMATION. 
THE MANUSCRIPT REMAINS UNDER 
REVIEW BY IDENTIFYING 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHIN 
THE MANUSCRIPT WHILE ENSURING 
TE PUBLICATION DOES NOT HARM 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO WORK 
WITH YOU TO ENSURE YOUR 
CLIENT'S ABILITY TO TELL HIS 
STORY IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. 
WE'LL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU 
SHORTLY WITH MORE DETAILED 
GUIDANCE REGARDING NEXT STEPS 
THAT SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO 
REVISE THE MANUSCRIPT AND MOVE 
FORWARD. 
IT IS WITH THE NFC DOING THEIR 
PRELUBBLY CASE REVIEW, THROUGH 
HIS LAWYER, AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS NOTIFIED HIS MANUSCRIPT CAN 
NOT BE PUBLISHED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE YOU SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
. 
>>> SENATORS QUESTION IS 
DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IS IT TRUE THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION APPROVED 
SUPPLYING JAVELIN ANTITANK 
MISSILES TO UKRAINE? 
IS IT TRUE THIS DECISION CAME 
ON THE HEELS OF A THREE-YEAR 
DEBATE IN WASHINGTON OVER 
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSE 
WEAPONS TO COUNTER FURTHER 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE? 
BY COMPARISON, DID PRESIDENT 
OBAMA REFUSE TO SEND WEAPONS OR 
OTHER LETHAL MILITARY GEAR TO 
UKRAINE? 
WAS THIS DECISION AGAINST THE 
ADVICE OF HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY 
AND OTHER KEY MILITARY LEADERS 
IN HIS ADMINISTRATION? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION. 
YES, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE 
JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES. 
THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DEBATE 
ABOUT THAT FOR SOME TIME. 
AUTHORIZATION HAD BEEN GRANTED 
BY CONGRESS AND MANY OF YOU 
VOTED FOR THAT STATUTORY 
AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE 
LETHAL ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT. 
IT WAS ONLY THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE THAT 
LETHAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE. 
THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT 
OF TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE 
PROCEEDINGS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE 
WAS STRONGER. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER EXPLAINED 
THAT AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD'S 
UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED 
UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
EACH STEP ALONG THE WAY IN THE 
DECISIONS THAT GOT TO THE 
JAVELIN MISSILES BEING PROVIDED 
WAS MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS 
SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHENED OUR 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE AND 
STRENGTHENED THEIR ABILITY TO 
RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH 
SAID THE TRUMP DECISION TO 
PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS SAID THE 
POLICY GOT STRONGER OVER THE 
LAST THREE YEARS. 
SHE CALLED IT VERY SIGNIFICANT. 
ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE, IN 
RELATION TO THIS IS AT THE 
TEMPORARY PAUSE OVER THE SUMMER 
IS SOMETHING THAT THE UKRAINIAN 
DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER 
DESCRIBED AS BEING SO SHORT 
THEY DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICIES 
ACROSS THE BOARD HAVE BEEN 
STRONGER THAN THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATIONS IN PROVIDING 
DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY, TO THE 
UKRAINIAN. 
I THINK THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. 
THE SPECIFIC PART OF THE 
QUESTION, SENATORS, WHETHER IT 
WAS CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE 
SECRETARY AND OTHERS. 
I BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. 
IT WAS AGAINST THE ADVICE OF 
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. 
IT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL 
ASSISTANCE. 
THAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC IN 
THE PAST. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FEINSTEIN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR HARPER, TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND ON 
BEHALF OF MYSELF. 
THANK YOU. 
IT IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE 
POSITION THAT THERE SHOULD BE 
NO WITNESSES AND NO DOCUMENTS 
PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH IN RESPONSE TO THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS 
BLANKET REFUSAL TO COOPERATE. 
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF 
THE SENATE ACCEPTS THIS 
POSITION HERE? 
 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN AN 
EXTREME MEASURE TO HIDE THIS 
EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS. 
NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER ISSUED AN 
ORDER TO DIRECT A WITNESS TO 
REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEFORE 
THIS. 
DESPITE HIS FAMOUS ATTEMPTS TO 
CONCEAL THE MOST DAMAGING 
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, EVEN 
PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR 
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER 
OATH. 
NOT ONLY DID HE ALLOW THEM, HE 
TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS 
VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL 
RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY. 
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A 
BLANKET ORDER DIRECTING THE 
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO 
WITHHOLD ALL DOCUMENTS AND 
TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
THIS ORDER WAS UNPRECEDENTED. 
THE PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO 
PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS 
DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO 
HOLD 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 AND OFFICE OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS JUST 
NOT PRECEDENTED. 
IT WASN'T ABOUT SPECIFIC,
NARROWLY DEFINED PRIVILEGES. 
HE NEVER ASSERTED PRIVILEGES. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE 
HAD SOME REASON BECAUSE OF THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
WE ADOPT RULES ABOUT SUBPOENAS 
IN THE HOUSE. 
THE SENATE IS A CONTINUING 
BODY. 
THE HOUSE ISN'T. 
IN JANUARY, WE ADOPTED OUR 
RULES AND IT ALLOWS THE 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. 
HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE 
SUBPOENAS. 
NOT BECAUSE HE EXERTED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
HE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT WE WERE 
DOING. 
HE TRIED TO SAY IT WAS INVALID. 
IT WAS VALID. 
HE DOESN'T 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 IS STILL GOING ON. 
WE STILL HAVE FORMER 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO 
ARE REFUSING TO TESTIFY. 
WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS IN ANY 
OTHER CONTEXT. 
IF A MAYOR SAID I'M NOT GOING 
TO ANSWER YOUR SUBPOENAS, THEY 
WOULD BE DEALT WITH HARSHLY. 
IF IT WAS TO COVER UP MISDEEDS 
AND CRIMES, AS WE HAVE HERE. 
IF WE ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO 
AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY BY 
REFUSING TO BRIBE ANY 
DOCUMENTS, ANY WITNESSES, 
UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT 
WHO PROCEEDED HIM, WE ARE 
OPENING THE DOOR NOT JUST TO 
ELIMINATING THE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE IN CONSTITUTION. 
TRY DOING OVERSIGHT. 
WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT IN 
THE HOUSE. 
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN SAY WE ARE 
NOT SENDING WITNESSES, WE ARE 
NOT SENDING DOCUMENT, WE DON'T 
HAVE TO. 
WE DON'T LIKE YOUR PROCESSES. 
WE HAVE A WHOLESALE REJECTION 
OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING. 
THAT IS NOT THE WAY OUR 
CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED. 
THERE IS A SHARING OF POWER. 
I AND I KNOW YOU CHERISH THE 
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE. 
THAT WILL BE OVISRATED IF THE 
PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO PERSIST 
AND BE ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY. 
YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS 
MOMENT OF HISTORY. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
YOU SAID UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE ON 
AID UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2019 WHEN 
IT WAS REPORTED IN POLITICO. 
DIDN'T LAURA COOPER, DEPUTY 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA 
SAY MEMBERS OF HER STAFF 
RECEIVED QUERIES ABOUT THE AID 
FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY ON 
JULY 25th? 
DOES THAT MEAN UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD 
ON AID EARLIER THAN THE 
POLITICO ARTICLE? 
? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. 
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT. 
AS WE EXPLAINED ON SATURDAY, 
THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF 
EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN, AT THE HIGHEST 
LEVELS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
HIS TOP ADVISORS ONLY BECAME 
AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE 
AUGUST 28th POLITICO ARTICLE. 
I ADDRESSED ON SATURDAY AND SO 
THOSE COMMENTS WILL STAND. 
E-MAILS FROM THE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LAURA 
COOPER TESTIFIED WHAT SHE SAID 
WAS HER STAFF HAD GOTTEN E-
MAILS FROM SOMEONE AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT WHO HAD HAD SOME 
SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HERE. 
SHE DID 
NOT KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THE E-
MAILS. 
SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T WANT TO 
SPECULATE WHAT THE E-MAILS MEAN 
AND CAN NOT SAY FOR CERTAIN 
WHAT THEY WERE ABOUT. 
I PRESENTED ON SATURDAY, THE 
EVIDENCE, REFERENCING THE 
COMMON SENSE THAT WOULD BE IN 
PLAY HERE. 
ON AUGUST 28th THIS 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 JULY 9, 
JULY 10, JULY 25 CALL, JULY 16, 
AUGUST 27. 
AT NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WAS 
THE PAUSE ON AID REVEALED OR 
INQUIRED ABOUT? 
HOWEVER, AS SOON AS THE 
POLITICO ARTICLE CAME OUT, ON  
AUGUST 28th  WITHIN HOURS OF 
THAT POLITICO ARTICLE COMING 
OUT, HE TEXTED THE ARTICLE TO 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ASKED TO 
SPEAK WITH HIM. 
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE 
FINDING OUT ABOUT IT FOR THE 
FIRST TIME. 
THE UKRAINIAN MADE STATEMENTS 
THEY LEARNED ABOUT IT FOR FIRST 
TIME. 
MR. FILLBUN JUST REFERENCED AN 
ARTICLE YESTERDAY IN THE DAILY 
BEAST. 
WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WITH A 
HIGH-RANKING DEFENSE OFFICIAL 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN. 
THIS IS INTERESTING. 
I'M GOING TO READ THIS ARTICLE. 
IT IS IMPORTANT. 
I SUGGEST IT TO THE SENATE, IF 
THEY WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO 
CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS. 
HE SAID HE FIRST FOUND OUT THAT 
THE U.S. WAS WITHHOLDING AID TO 
UKRAINE AUGUST 28th. 
U.S. OFFICIALS AND UKRAINIAN 
DIPLOMATS, INCLUDING THE 
COUNTRY'S FOREIGN MINISTER HAVE 
SAID PUBLICLY THAT KIEV WAS 
AWARE THERE WERE PROBLEMS AS 
EARLY AS JULY. 
THAT IS THE ARTICLE THEY 
MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT THE 
HOUSE MEMBERS MENTIONED. 
HE SAID I WAS SURPRISED AND 
SHOCKED. 
A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO THAT 
I HAD A MEETING WITH JOHN 
BOLTON. 
THE LAST THING I EXPECTED TO 
READ WAS AN ARTICLE OF MILITARY 
AID BEING FROZEN. 
AFTER THAT, I WAS TRYING TO GET 
THE TRUTH. 
WAS IT TRUE OR NOT TRUE? 
HE SAID IT WAS A PANIC INSIDE 
THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION 
AFTER THE INITIAL NEWS BROKE 
SAYING ZELENSKY WAS CONVINCED 
THERE HAD BEEN A MISTAKE. 
HE PUT IN CALLS TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND ASKED 
OTHER OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON 
WHAT TO MAKE OF THE NEWS. 
AGAIN, AFTER AUGUST 28th. 
THE NEXT TIME WE MET IN 
SEPTEMBER WAS IN POLAND FOR THE 
COMMEMORATION OF THE BEGINNING 
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR. 
THE WARSAW MEETING DISCUSSED 
PREVIOUSLY. 
HE SAID HE MET WITH BOLTON ON 
THE SIDELINES OF THE 
COMMEMORATION. 
I HAD MY SUSPICIONS. 
THERE WAS A SPECIAL SITUATION 
WITH A DEFENSE COMPANY THAT 
WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CHINESE. 
THE U.S. WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
THIS. 
BOLTON MADE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS 
ABOUT THIS, AS WELL, SO SOMEHOW 
I LINKED THIS TO THINGS AND 
TRIED TO UNDERSTAND. 
OKAY, MAYBE THIS COULD BE 
RELATED TO THIS. 
NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT KNOW 
UNTIL AUGUST 28th , WHEN THEY 
DID FIND OUT, THEY DIDN'T LINK 
IT TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS. 
WHERE IS THE QUID PRO QUO? 
IF IT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF 
THEIR MINDS, SUCH PRESSURE THAT 
THE UKRAINIAN HAVE TO DO THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID, 
WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP, THEY 
DIDN'T THINK IT WAS CONNECTED 
TO THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF 
OF SENATOR BALDWIN AND MYSELF I 
SENT TO THE DESK. 
>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGER. 
IS THE WHITE HOUSE CORRECT IN 
ITS TRIAL MEMORANDUM AND IN 
PRESENTATIONS OF THE CASE THAT 
QUOTE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW 
THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
HAD BEEN PAUSED, END QUOTE, 
BEFORE SEEING PRESS REPORTS ON 
AUGUST 28, 2019 WHICH WAS MORE 
THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT'S 
ZELENSKY AND TRUMP. 
. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
THE ANSWER IS NO. 
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW 
THAT. 
WE KNOW DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED 
HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS 
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT JULY 
25th  REVEALING THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
BROUGHT UP THESE E-MAILS NOW. 
I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE SENATE 
SUBPOENA THOSE E-MAILS SO WE 
CAN ALL SEE FOR OURSELVES WHAT 
IS HAPPENING. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT CURRENT 
DIPLOMAT CATHERINE KROFT STATED 
SHE WAS SURPRISED AT THE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPART DIPLOMATIC TRADE 
CRAFT TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT 
EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM 
TO. 
VINDMAN TESTIFIED HE WAS 
GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
STATUS OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN FROM THE HOUSE 
INQUIRY THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF 
DISCUSSION. 
AND THERE SHOULD BE. 
WE ALSO KNOW DELAYS MATTER. 
THEY MATTER A LOT. 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD 
FOR IT. 
THIS IS NOT A 48 DAY DELAY. 
UKRAINIAN WERE CONSISTENTLY 
ASKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WAS 
URGENT. 
THEY NEEDED IT. 
THEY NEEDED IT. 
AMERICAN BUSINESSES WAS ASKING 
FOR IT. 
CONTRACTORS WHO WERE GOING TO 
PROVIDE WERE MAKING INQUIRIES 
BECAUSE THERE IS A PIPELINE. 
AS MY SENATE ARMED SERVICES 
COLLEAGUES KNOW VERY WELL, 
PROVIDING AID IS NOT LIKE 
TURNING ON AND OFF A LIGHT 
SWITCH. 
YOU HAVE TO HIRE EMPLOYEES. 
YOU HAVE TO GET EQUIPMENT. 
YOU HAVE TO SHIP IT. 
IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THE 
PIPELINE TO GO. 
IN FACT, WE HAD TO COME 
TOGETHER AS A CONGRESS TO PASS 
A LAW TO EXTEND THAT TIMELINE 
BECAUSE WE WERE AT RISK OF 
LOSING IT. 
TO THIS DAY $18 MILLION OF THE 
AID HAS STILL NOT BEEN SPENT. 
LET'S ASSUME FOR A MINUTE, ALSO 
BROADLY SPEAKING, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT 
THAT SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE HAS 
NEVER BEEN BETTER THAN IT IS 
TODAY. 
THAT UNDER THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE THE 
STRONGEST ALLY THAT UKRAINE HAS 
SEEN IN YEARS. 
JUST ASSUMING FOR A MINUTE THAT 
ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE, IT MAKES 
OUR OWN ARGUMENT. 
THEN WHY HOLD THE AID? 
WHY HOLD THE AID? 
BECAUSE NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 
'16, NOTHING CHANGED IN '17, 
NOTHING CHANGED IN '18. 
ONE THING HAD CHANGED IN '19. 
THAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. 
LASTLY, THE QUESTION BEFORE BY 
MY SENATE ARMED SERVICES 
COLLEAGUES, FRAME THIS IN TERMS 
OF THE MILITARY IMPACT. 
I ASKED WHAT WAS GREATER IN 
TERMS OF MILITARY IMPACT, NOT 
PROVIDING LETHAL AID OR A 48 
DAY DELAY? 
LET'S NOT FORGET THE REASON FOR 
THE DELAY. 
THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
TODAY ABOUT THE TECHNICALITIES 
OF THE DELAY. 
THE PRESIDENT'S MENTALITY 
MINDSET DOESN'T MATTER. 
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE 
INTENDED TO DO. 
I WOULD PAUSE THAT THAT IS WHY 
WE ARE HERE. 
2019 DOES MATTER WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO. 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN MATTERS OF 
NATIONAL SECURITY DESERVE TO GO 
TO BED EVERY NIGHT KNOWING THAT 
THE PRESIDENT, THE PERSON 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE THE 
SECURITY OF THE NATION EVERY 
NIGHT HAS THE BEST INTEREST OF 
THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES AND 
THAT COUNTRY IN MIND. 
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MY MYSELF AND 
SENATOR MURKOWSKI. 
WHY IT WAS THAT THE INFORMATION 
RELATED TO THE BIDENS AND 
BURISMA AFFAIR CAME UP WHEN IT 
DID. 
ONE IMPORTANT PIECE OF 
INFORMATION TO BEAR IN MIND IS 
HE WAS THE PERSON JOE BIDEN 
WENT TO TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR 
FIRED. 
AS LONG AS THAT PRESIDENT WAS 
IN CHARGE IN UKRAINE, HE WAS 
THE PERSON JOE BIDEN SPOKEN TO 
TO GET THE PROSECUTOR FIRED 
WHEN HE WAS LOOKING INTO 
BURISMA. 
AS LONG AS HE WAS STILL THE 
PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE, QUESTION 
THE UTILITY OF RAISING AN 
INCIDENT WHICH HE WAS THE ONE 
TAKING DIRECTION FROM VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN TO FIRE THE 
PROSECUTORS. 
IS HE GOING TO CHANGE THINGS? 
IS THERE GOING TO BE SOMETHING 
NEW IN UKRAINE? 
IT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
LOOK AT ANTI-CORRUPTION ISSUES 
AND RAISING QUESTIONS. 
THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING TO 
UNDERSTAND AND THE TIMELINE IS 
THAT WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT 
RUDY GILUIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIVATE LAWYER. 
WHAT HE INTERESTED IN UKRAINE? 
WHAT WAS HIS ROLE? 
WELL, MR. GILUIANI, AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE LAWYER HAD 
BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS IN 
UKRAINE DATING BACK TO FALL OF 
2018. 
IN NOVEMBER OF 2018 HE SAID 
PUBLICLY HE WAS GIVEN TIPS 
ABOUT THINGS TO LOOK INTO. 
HE GAVE A DOSSIER TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCES 
CANDIDACY APRIL 25th. 
IN MARCH RUDY GILUIANI GAVE 
DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT INCLUDING INTERVIEW 
NOTES FROM INTERVIEWS 
CONDUCTED. 
THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE FROM 
JANUARY 23, 25, 2019. 
MONTHS BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
ANNOUNCED A CANDIDACY. 
IT EXPLAINS HE HAD BEEN 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA. 
HUNTER WAS ON THE BOARD. 
IT RAISES ALL THE QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THAT. 
IT WAS MR. GILUIANI WHO HAD 
BEEN, AS JANE EXPLAINED THE 
OTHER DAY, COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT HERE, MR. GILUIANI'S 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT IS 
LOOKING INTO WHAT WENT ON IN 
UKRAINE. 
IS THERE ANYTHING RELATED TO 
2016? 
ARE THERE OTHER THINGS RELATED 
THERE? 
HE IS GIVEN TIPS ABOUT THIS AND 
STARTS PURSUING THAT. 
HE IS DIGGING INTO THAT IN 
JANUARY OF 2019. 
WE KNOW MR. GILUIANI IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL. 
I CAN NOT REPRESENT SPECIFIC 
CONVERSATIONS THEY HAVE HAD. 
WE DO KNOW FROM TESTIMONY THE 
PRESIDENT SAID IN A MAY 23rd 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING, TALK TO 
RUDY. 
RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE. 
THE PRESIDENT, IT SEEMS FROM 
THAT, GETS INFORMATION FROM MR. 
GILUIANI. 
MONTHS BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY 
MR. GILUIANI IS INTERVIEWING 
PEOPLE AND GETTING INFORMATION. 
IN MARCH OF 2019, ARTICLES 
BEGAN TO BE PUBLISHED. 
THREE ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED 
BY ABC, THE NEW YORKER AND BY 
THE "WASHINGTON POST" BEFORE 
THE JULY 25th  CALL. 
"WASHINGTON POST," ON JULY 
22nd, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE 
CALL HAS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE 
BIDENS AND BURISMA. 
THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT CURRENT, 
RELEVANT, PROBABLY TO BE IN 
SOMEONE'S MIND. 
THAT IS THE TIMELINE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR PATTY 
MURRAY AND MYSELF. 
. 
SENATOR HARRIS AND MURRAY ASK 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS 
NOT IN POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING OF 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH 
QUOTE, GET RID OF HER. 
GET HER OUT TOMORROW. 
I DON'T CARE. 
GET HER OUT TOMORROW. 
TAKE HER OUT. 
OKAY. 
DO IT. 
END QUOTE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS ORDER 
LEV PARNAS, TWO MEN WHO CARRIED 
OUT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN 
IN UKRAINE AT THE DIRECTION OF 
RUDY GILUIANI. 
DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE 
SUGGEST IF THE SENATE DOES NOT 
PURSUE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE 
INCLUDING WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS THAT NEW EVIDENCE 
WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT 
AFTER THE SENATE RENDERS A 
VERDICT? 
>> THE SURVEILLANCE YES. 
ON THAT ISSUE I WANT TO MENTION 
ONE OTHER THING IN RESPONSE TO 
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE BOLTON 
MANUFACTURE SCRIPT AND WHAT DID 
THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS KNOW. 
I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE 
ANSWER OF THE QUESTION. 
WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD THEM SAY 
IN THE ANSWER WHAT DO THEY KNOW 
ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT? 
THE STATEMENT WAS PRECISELY 
WORDED. 
NFC UNIT REVIEWING THE BOOK DID 
NOT SHARE THE MANUSCRIPT. 
THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION 
WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS 
FOUND OUT WHAT IS IN IT. 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CIRCULATE THE 
MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE SOMEONE WALK 
OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAY 
YOU DO NOT WANT JOHN BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY. 
LET ME TELL YOU, YOU DO NOT 
WANT JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY. 
YOU DON'T NEED TO READ THE 
MANUSCRIPT. 
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS IN IT. 
WE KNOW IF THE REPORTING IS 
CORRECT, AND YOU SHOULD FIND 
OUT THAT IT IS. 
JOHN BOLTON WILL TELL A 
DIFFERENT STORY. 
MEMBERS OF BOTH SIDES OF THE 
I'LL WILL HAVE TO ANSWER A 
QUESTION EACH TIME IT DOES. 
WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT TO NOW THAT 
WHEN IT WOULD HAVE HELPED 
INFORM YOUR DECISION? 
EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN THE LAND, 
YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND OUT 
WHAT YOU CAN. 
WE ARE NOT A COURT OF APPEALS. 
WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE 
RECORD BLOW. 
COUNSEL SAYS IN ANSWER TO THE 
SENATORS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER 
DONALD TRUMP BROUGHT UP THE 
HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM IN THE 
PAST AND SAYS WELL, WE ARE 
CONFINED TO THE RECORD BEFORE 
US. 
YOU ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE 
RECORD IN 
THE HOUSE. 
THEY ARE GOING TO TESTIFY THAT 
DONALD TRUMP BROUGHT UP HUNTER 
BIDEN TO THE PRESIDENT. 
THERE IS NOTHING PROHIBITING 
THEM FROM DOING THAT. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'LL 
CONTINUE TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE 
COME OUT ALL THE TIME. 
AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT 
EVIDENCE, WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS 
GOING TO BE. 
THE EFFORT TO SUGGEST THAT 
BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT WAS 
STRONGER 
>>> HE SAID HE WANTED A FAVOR. 
THE QUESTION WAS WHY DID HE 
STOP THE AID? 
WHAT HE STALKED THE EIGHTH THIS 
YEAR AND NO PRIOR YEAR? 
WAS IT MERELY A COINCIDENCE? 
ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS 
MERELY A COINCIDENCE THAT IT 
WAS THE YEAR THAT JOE BIDEN WAS 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? ARE WE 
TO BELIEVE THAT OF ALL OF THE 
COMPANIES AND ALL OF THE LAND 
OF UKRAINE THAT WAS JUST HUNTER 
BIDEN WALKING INTO THIS ONE AND 
THAT WAS THE REASON WHY HE WAS 
INTERESTED IN BURISMA AND IT 
WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE ? MORE 
AND MORE IS COMING OUT. 
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE 
AND WHATEVER YOU FEEL YOU NEED 
TO KNOW TO RENDER A JUDGMENT 
NOW WHEN IT CAN INFORM YOUR 
DECISION AND NOT LATER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA? 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK
. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE SENATORS AS COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL HAS 
UNDERSCORED THE ONGOING 
ANTICORRUPTION FOCUS WITH OUR 
ALLIES. 
AT WHAT POINT DID THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT ABOUT CONCERNS
ABOUT BURISMA IN RELATION TO 
CORRUPTION AND CONCERNS WITH 
RUSSIA ? 
>> I THINK IT BEARS ON THE 
ANSWER THAT I WAS GIVING TO THE 
LAST QUESTION. 
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAME 
OF COURSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 
HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY  AS THE 
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US BROUGHT UP 
A COUPLE OF THINGS. HE BROUGHT 
UP HER INSURANCE SPECIFICALLY 
AND HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF 
CORRUPTION IN TWO SPECIFIC 
>> THE SPECIFIC CASE OF 
POTENTIAL UKRAINIAN DIFFERENCE 
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 BURISMA, 
THE  COMPANY DESCENT OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS ON THE BOARD 
OF. 
AND THAT WAS THE WAY OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF PINPOINTING 
SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO 
CORRUPTION SO WHEN DID IT 
BECOME PART OF THE CONCERN WITH 
THOSE ISSUES RELATING TO 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE? 
WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT 
EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT, 
FIONA HILL TESTIFIED TO THIS 
THOUGHT THAT ANTICORRUPTION WAS 
A MAJOR ISSUE FOR U.S. POLICY 
WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE. WHEN 
THERE WAS A NEW PRESIDENT 
ELECTED IN APRIL, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THAT BROUGHT THE 
POSSIBILITY OF REFORM TO THE  
FOREFRONT AND THEN WE KNOW THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS RECEIVING 
INFORMATION FROM HIS PRIVATE 
ATTORNEY, RUDY GIULIANI, AND HE 
SPOKE IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT 
HE KNOWS ABOUT THE UKRAINE. 
U.S. GO TALK TO HIM BECAUSE HE 
WAS EXPLAINING TO THE 
DELEGATION THAT HAD JUST 
RETURNED FROM THE IMMIGRATION 
FOR THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT 
HIT  CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE 
BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT 
SAYING IT WAS A CORRUPT COUNTRY 
I DO NOT KNOW. 
THEY TRIED TO GET ME IN THE 
ELECTION. 
AND THERE IS HIS SPECIFIC 
EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINIAN 
CORRUPTION BECAUSE HE KNEW FROM 
THE PUBLIC REPORTS AS IN THE 
POLITICAL ARTICLE THAT HAS BEEN 
REFERENCED MANY TIMES, THE 
ARTICLE IN JANUARY 2017 
EXPLAINED A LAUNDRY LIST OF 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 
WHO HAVE BEEN OUT THERE 
ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND 
SPREAD MISINFORMATION OR BAD 
INFORMATION IN DIGGING UP DIRT 
ON MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN. 
RUDY GIULIANI HAVE BEEN 
INVESTIGATING THINGS RELATED TO 
UKRAINE IN 2016 AND WAS LED TO 
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
BURISMA SITUATION AND VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN  HAVING THE 
PROSECUTOR FIRED AND THAT IS IN 
JANUARY WHEN HE HAD THIS IN THE 
REASON HE TURNED OVER TO THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT IN MARCH AND 
THEN THERE WAS A SERIES OF 
PUBLIC ARTICLES PUBLISHED JOHN 
SOLOMON IN THE PUBLISHED AN 
ARTICLE IN MARCH AND RUDY 
GIULIANI TWEETED ABOUT IT IN 
WHICH THERE WAS AN ABC STORY IN 
JUNE  WITH A TWO PART NEW 
YORKER STORY ABOUT THE BIDENS 
AND BURISMA IN JULY AND THEN 
JULY 22 THE WASHINGTON POST HAD 
AN ARTICLE EXPLAINING  JULY 22 
THREE DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25 
CALL THE WASHINGTON POST 
REPORTED THAT THE PROSECUTOR 
BELIEVED HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE 
OF HIS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY 
AND HE SAID THAT HAD HE 
REMAINED IN HIS FIRST WOULD'VE 
QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN SO I 
THINK IT IS A REASONABLE 
INFERENCE THAT AS THERE WERE 
THESE ARTICLES BEEN PUBLISHED 
IN PROXIMITY TO THE TIME THIS 
WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS 
AVAILABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, AND 
BECAME AVAILABLE TO HIM IS 
SOMETHING THAT WAS A SPECIFIC 
EXAMPLE OF POTENTIAL SERIOUS 
CORRUPTION. 
REMEMBER EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED 
HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT DOESN'T 
SEEM THAT THERE IS AN 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST? 
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT IS 
FISHY? 
EVERYBODY TESTIFIED YES THERE 
IS AT LEAST INTERFERENCE OF A 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I THINK 
IT WAS AFTER THE INFORMATION 
HAD COME TO MR. GIULIANI  LONG 
BEFORE JOE BIDEN HAD ANNOUNCED 
A CANDIDACY THAT IT CAME TO THE 
ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
BECAME SOMETHING WORTH RAISING 
BECAUSE AGAIN PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO  IS THE ONE WHO 
FIRED THE PROSECUTOR. 
WHILE HE IS STILL THE PRESIDENT 
IT IS NOT REALLY AS MUCH OF AN 
OPPORTUNITY OR A POSSIBILITY OF 
RAISING A SO THINK IT WAS IN 
THAT TIMEFRAME ALONG THE PARK 
OF THE TIME AND THAT IT CAME TO 
THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT 
AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS RAISED 
IN THAT TIMING. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
CONNECTICUT. 
>> THANK YOU,  MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I HAVE A  QUESTION FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
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. 
THANK YOU SENATOR AND MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE FOR THE QUESTION. 
NO ONE FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE 
THE WHITE HOUSE  TOLD US THAT 
THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK 
WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
I THINK WE ASSUMED THAT MR. 
BOLTON WAS DISGRUNTLED , BUT NO 
ONE TOLD US ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS? 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATORS MORAN AND HOLLY AND IT 
IS A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE AUGUST LETTER FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE DISCUSSING THE SO-
CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER STATED 
THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
IDENTIFIED SOME ARGUABLE 
POLITICAL BIAS ON THE PART OF 
THE COMPLAINT AND IN FAVOR OF A 
RIVAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE. 
MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTED 
THAT THIS LIKELY REFERRED TO 
THE WORK OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
WITH JOE BIDEN. TO THE SO-
CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER WORK AT 
ANY POINT FOR HER WITH JOE 
BIDEN? 
IF SO, DID HE WORK FOR OR WITH 
JOE BIDEN AND ISSUES INVOLVING 
UKRAINE, AND DID HE ASSIST IN 
ANY MATERIAL WAY WITH THE QUID 
PRO QUO IN WHICH THEN VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN HAS ADMITTED
TO CONDITIONING TO UKRAINE ON 
THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA ?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN 
HOW I ANSWER IT SO AS NOT TO 
GIVE AN INDICATION THAT MAY 
ALLOW OTHERS TO IDENTIFY THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY 
WE ARE MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT TO 
PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
IF YOU COULD PUT UP SLIDE 48. 
THIS SLIDE SHOWS, AND MAY BE 
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO 
READ, SO LET ME TRY. 
ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD HAND ME 
A COPY OF THAT AS WELL SO THAT 
WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO 
DISTRIBUTE THAT TO EVERYONE. 
IT IS NOT JUST THAT WE VIEW THE 
PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS IS 
IMPORTANT THAT MEMBERS OF THIS 
BODY HAVE ALSO MADE STRONG 
STATEMENTS ABOUT SHOWS HOW 
IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS. 
SENATOR GRASSLEY SAID THIS 
PERSON APPEARS TO HAVE FOLLOWED 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION 
LAWS AND OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED. 
WE SHOULD ALWAYS WORK TO 
RESPECT THE REQUEST FOR 
CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
WHISTLEBLOWERS. 
SENDS ROMNEY WHISTLEBLOWERS 
SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO PRIVACY 
BECAUSE THEY PLAY A VITAL 
FUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY. 
SENATOR BURR WE PROTECT 
WITNESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
EVEN MY COLLEAGUE THE RANKING 
MEMBER MR. NUNEZ WE WANT PEOPLE 
TO COME FORWARD AND WE WILL 
PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE 
AT ALL COST THAT THIS HAS BEEN 
A BIPARTISAN PRIORITY AND ONE 
THAT WE HAVE DONE OUR BEST TO 
MAINTAIN SO THEY WANT TO BE 
VERY CAREFUL LET ME BE CLEAR 
ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
FOR SEVERAL I DO NOT KNOW WHO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS YOU 
HAVEN'T MET THEM OR 
COMMUNICATED WITH THEM IN ANY 
WAY. 
THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT 
READ THE COMPLAINT OR COACH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT TO PUT IN 
THE COMPLAINT. 
THEY DID NOT SEE THE COMPLAINT 
BEFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL. 
THE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING ITS 
STAFF, DID NOT RECEIVE THE 
COMPLAINT UNTIL THE NIGHT 
BEFORE THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WE HAD AN 
OPEN HEARING WITH THE ACTIVE 
DIRECTOR ON SEPTEMBER 26 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 THERE WAS 
WORK RELATED TO HATCH AND 
IMPEACHMENT IN CURRY'S TOTAL 
FICTION. 
THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE 
REMARKABLE ACCURACY AND IT IS 
THE EVIDENCE WE GATHERED. 
EXTREMELY TO THE REVELATION 
WHERE THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER BUT I CAN TELL 
YOU BECAUSE THE NAME OF MY 
STAFF HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO 
THIS PROCEEDING. 
MY STAFF ACTIVE AT ALL TIMES 
WITH THE MOST COMPLETE 
PROFESSIONALISM. I AM VERY 
PROTECTIVE OF MY STAFF AS I 
KNOW YOU ARE, AND I'M GRATEFUL 
THAT WE HAVE SUCH BRIGHT, HARD-
WORKING PEOPLE WORKING AROUND 
THE CLOCK TO PROTECT THIS 
COUNTRY AND HAVE SERVED OUR 
COMMITTEES THAT WILL. 
IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE 
THEM SMEARED, AND SOME OF THEM 
MENTION HERE TODAY HAVE 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND 
THE 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 THERE IS NO ONE 
WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH  THAN MY 
STAFF WHO NOW HAS CONCERNS FOR 
THEIR OWN SAFETY. 
YOUR SENATE COMMITTEE AND 
CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN CAN 
TELL YOU ENCOURAGE 
WHISTLEBLOWERS TO COME TO THE 
COMMITTEE AND SO DO WE AND WHEN 
THEY DO, WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT 
IS THERE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE 
SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION 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. 
ACCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT 
IS UNFORGIVABLE BECAUSE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER EXPOSED THE 
WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
IN THE VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT 
THAT MAKES HIM OR HER A TRAITOR 
OR A SPY. 
AND AS THE PRESIDENT TELLS US, 
THERE IS A WAY EAST TO TWEET 
TRAITORS AND SPIES  YOU WONDER 
WHY WE DO NOT WANT TO CALL THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER? 
FESTIVAL, WE KNOW FIRSTHAND 
WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WROTE 
AND SECONDHAND IN THE 
COMPLAINT. 
THERE IS NO NEED FOR THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWER ANYMORE EXCEPT TO 
FURTHER ENDANGER THAT PERSON'S 
LIFE THAT TO ME DOES NOT SEEM A 
WORTHWHILE OBJECT FOR ANYONE IN 
THIS CHAMBER, ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE BUILDING, IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE, AND WILL 
>> 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON  
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
BLUMENTHAL, AND PETERS I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
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 WE 
CAN SET UP FOR FAILURE TO 
REDUCE THE WINNERS AND THE 
PARTIES CONTROL WITH MATERIAL 
INFORMATION. 
ONE PARTY COMMITTEE PRESIDENT, 
HAS PREVENTED WITNESSES WITHIN 
HIS CONTROL FROM TESTIFYING OR 
PROVIDING DOCUMENTS. DO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE SENATORS 
SHOULD APPLY THE MISSING 
WITNESS RULE HERE? 
AND IF SO, WHATEVER HIS 
INFERENCES SHOULD WE DRAW ABOUT 
THE MISSING TESTIMONY AND 
DOCUMENTS? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS,  WE DO BELIEVE THEY 
SHOULD DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE 
AGAINST THE PARTY RESISTING THE 
TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES 
LIKE JOHN BOLTON. 
WHEN A PARTY HAS RELEVANT 
EVIDENCE WITHIN HIS CONTROL 
WHICH HE FAILS TO PRODUCE, THAT 
FAILURE GIVES RISE TO AN 
INFERENCE OF THAT EVIDENCE IS 
UNFAVORABLE TO HIM THAT THE 
COURTS ARE FREQUENTLY DRAWN 
ADVERSE INFERENCES WERE PARTY 
ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO CONCEAL 
EVIDENCE OR CONCLUDE FROM 
OFFERING TESTIMONY AND I WOULD 
SUGGEST IT IS BAD FAITH WHEN 
COUNSEL COUNSEL FOR YOU AND 
SAYS  THAT IF YOU REALLY WANTED 
THESE WITNESSES, WE SHOULD HAVE 
GOT THEM IN THE HOUSE AND GOES 
INTO THE COURTROOM DOWN THE 
STREET AND SAYS YOU CANNOT SEEM 
TO GET WITNESSES BEFORE THE 
HOUSE BUT THAT IS WHAT HAS 
HAPPENED HERE. 
YOU I THINK ARE NOT ONLY 
PERMITTED BUT ACTUALLY SHOULD 
DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT 
WHEN A PARTY IS MAKING THAT 
ARGUMENT, BOTH SIDES OF THE 
COURTHOUSE, THAT THE EVIDENCE 
THOSE WITNESSES WOULD PROVIDE 
RUNS AGAINST THEM. THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT PRODUCED 
A SINGLE DOCUMENT. 
NOT ONE. THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY. 
THEY CAN ARGUE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND MOST OF THAT HAS 
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THESE 
DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY FROM PROVIDING 
DOCUMENTS THAT THE VAST 
MAJORITY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING 
TO DO WITH PRIVILEGE, AND IF 
THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE 
REDACTIONS AND NONE OF THAT 
HAPPENED. 
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DRAWN 
ADVERSE INFERENCE OF THE REASON 
WHY THE TEAM OF THE PRESIDENT 
WHICH HAS POSSESSION OF THE 
EMAILS REGARDING INQUIRY BY 
UKRAINE INTO WHY THE AIDE WAS 
FROZEN, YOU ALLOWED TO DRAWN 
INFERENCE IF THEY WERE NOT SURE 
THOSE EMAILS BUT THOSE EMAILS 
WOULD CONFIRM THAT UKRAINE KNEW 
THE AIDE WAS WITHHELD JUST LIKE 
THE FORMER MINISTER OF UKRAINE 
SAID PUBLICLY WHEN SHE TOLD THE 
NEAR TIMES YES WE KNEW AND BY 
THE END OF JULY WHEN YOU THINK 
THIS IS THE DEPUTY FOREIGN 
MINISTER OF THE TIME AND WE 
KNEW THE AIDE WAS FROZEN BUT I 
WAS INSTRUCTED BY ANDRIY YERMAK 
NOT TO MENTION THEM. 
ARE YOU ENTITLED  TO DRAWN 
INFERENCE OF THOSE RECORDS THAT 
THEY REFUSED TO TURN OVER AND 
THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW 
THE NOTES OF JOHN BOLTON TO BE 
TURNED OVER TO LET AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR SNOWS TO BE TURNED OVER 
TO THE JOHN ENTERS INFERENCE? 
YOU SHOULD. 
THEY SAY WELL THE PRESIDENT 
ONLY TOLD GORDON SONDLAND NO 
QUID PRO QUO. 
YOU LEAVE OUT THE OTHER HALF 
WHERE HE TOLD TAYLOR BUT HE 
SAID NO QUID PRO QUO BUT YOU 
HAVE TO ENOUGH IS 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WROTE DOWN 
THE NOTES OF THE CONVERSATION 
THAT TOOK PLACE RIGHT AFTER THE 
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
YOU ALLOWED TO DRAWN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE ON THE FACT THAT THEY 
DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SNOWS FROM 
THE FACT THEY DO NOT WANT YOU 
TO SEE AMBASSADOR TAYLORS CABLE 
YOU ARE RIGHT YOU SHOULD DRAWN 
ADVERSE INFERENCE. 
AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO 
THIS BECOME A CENTRAL WINNERS 
HERE, I THINK THE ADVERSE 
INFERENCE SCREENS THAT YOU AS 
TO WHY THEY DO NOT WANT JOHN 
BOLTON. 
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON 
INFERENCE HERE. 
NOT WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO 
IS WILLING TO COME FORWARD. 
THERE IS NO NEED FOR INFERENCE 
HERE. THERE IS JUST A NEED FOR 
A SUBPOENA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE 
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA . I 
HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THE QUESTION OF SENATOR 
THUNE IS FOR PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ASSERTIONS 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 CITED ABOUT THE 
MISSING WITNESS RULE, SO I 
CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS 
IN IT, BUT I'M WILLING TO BET 
THAT THE MISSING WITNESS RULE 
DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THERE HAS 
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 
AND YOU CANNOT SUBPOENA HIM 
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GET AN 
ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT. 
AND THAT IS CRITICAL BECAUSE AS 
I HAVE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE 
TIMES, AND WE KEEP GOING BACK 
AND FORTH ON THIS. 
THEY KEEP REPRESENTING THAT 
THERE WAS A BLANKET DEFIANCE 
AND NO EXPLANATION AND NO LEGAL 
BASIS FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS 
DOING AND IT IS JUST NOT TRUE. 
THERE WERE LETTERS BACK AND 
FORTH AND PUT THEM UP ON THE 
SCREEN AND SPECIFIC IMMUNITY IS 
ASSERTED AND SPECIFIC LEGAL 
DEFICIENCIES 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. 
IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED. 
YOU HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE  BECAUSE THEY DO NOT 
RESPOND TO ANY OF OUR DOCUMENT 
SUBPOENAS. 
THEY WERE ALL ISSUED WITHOUT 
AUTHORIZATION. 
MAYBE THEY DISAGREE WITH US, 
BUT THEY CANNOT JUST SAY WE 
PROVIDED NO RATIONALE AND YOU 
HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE 
INFERENCE. 
THERE A SPECIFIC  LEGAL 
RATIONALE PROVIDED, AND THEY DO 
NOT TRY TO ENGAGE IN THE 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND THEY 
DID NOT TRY TO GO TO COURT. 
AND YES IT IS TRUE THAT OUR 
POSITION IS THAT WHEN THEY GO 
TO THE COURT ARTICLE REPORTS 
DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER 
THAT AND THEIR POSITION IS 
ARTICLE COURTS DO HAVE 
JURISDICTION. 
THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN GET A 
COURT ORDER TO REQUIRE US TO 
COMPLY WITH A VALID SUBPOENA. 
WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF A LEGAL 
DEFICIENCY ON ONE SIDE AND THEY 
THINK IT IS DIFFERENT. THEY DO 
NOT WANT TO GO TO COURT TO GET 
IT RESOLVED. 
WE HAVE THE ASSERTION OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM 
CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION FOR 
SENIOR ADVISERS TO THE PRESENT 
ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY EVERY 
PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON. 
THEY TRY TO SAY IT IS RELEVANT 
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY 
ABOUT THAT. 
THEY HAVE ASSERTED THAT. 
IT IS ONLY BEEN ENOUGH WITH TWO 
DISTRICT COURTS. 
THE FIRST ONE REJECTED IT, AND 
IT'S DECISION WAS STAYED BY THE 
APPELLATE COURT WHICH THEY 
THOUGHT PROBABLY ABOUT WRONG OR 
AT A MINIMUM IT IS A REALLY 
DIFFICULT QUESTION AND WE ARE 
NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. 
THE SECOND DISTRICT DECISION 
HAS BEEN LITIGATED RIGHT NOW. 
AND WHEN THEY SAY THAT WHEN 
CHARLES KUPPERMAN WENT TO COURT 
THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY WE DO 
NOT WANT TO  LITIGATE THIS WITH 
YOU AND YOU SHOULD JUST AGREE 
TO BE BOUND BY THE DON McGAHN 
DECISION. 
WHAT IS THE SAME EVERY LITIGANT 
GETS HIS DAY AT COURT WHY 
SHOULDN'T CHARLES KUPPERMAN GET 
ON HIS COUNSEL ARGUE THAT ISSUE 
ON HIS BEHALF BUT HE DID NOT 
WANT TO SAY I WILL TRUST IT TO 
THE OTHER PEOPLE LITIGATED IN 
THE OTHER CASE. 
I HAVE GOT MIKE. 
I WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT 
>> BUT THEY WERE NOT THAT  SO 
THEY METED OUT THE CASE AND 
WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA TO MOOD 
OF THE CASE BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
WANT GO TO THE HEARING ON 
DECEMBER 10. 
AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF THAT RATE 
THAT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN MORE 
READILY PRODUCED UNDER FOIA  
THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS IS THAT 
WHEN YOU TURNED SQUARE CORNERS 
AND FOLLOW THE LAW AND MAKE A 
REQUEST TO THE ADMINISTRATION 
THAT FOLLOWS THE, THE 
ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS THE LAW 
AND RESPONSEAND THAT IS RIGHT. 
INFORMATION CAME OUT. BUT THEY 
DO NOT GET IT BECAUSE THE 
ISSUED INVALID SUBPOENAS AND 
THEY DID NOT TRY TO DO ANYTHING
. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SLOPPY 
YOUR ELOQUENT GET A RESPONSE 
BUT IF SOME PRIVATE LITIGANT 
SUBMITS A FOIA REQUEST  THEY 
GET A RESPONSE OR DIRECTLY THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE 
SOME BLANKET DENIAL OF 
EVERYTHING SIMPLY ISN'T 
ACCURATE AND THERE IS NO BASIS 
FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE 
BECAUSE THERE IS A SPECIFIC 
PRIVILEGE OR BASIS FOR EVERY 
REASON NOT TO PRODUCE 
SOMETHING. 
THANK YOU.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL . 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
EXPECTING TO. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. DID ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY 
WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN 
HIS OCTOBER 17 PRESS CONFERENCE 
IN WHICH HE STATED THAT THERE 
WAS POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION 
TO WITHHOLD AID TO UKRAINE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , THANK YOU
FOR THAT QUESTION. 
MICK MULVANEY HAS ABSOLUTELY 
WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
HE HAS NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. IN FACT, AS 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL  HAS 
ACKNOWLEDGED, THEY HAVE NOT 
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
ONCE. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
SAID WHEN WE MADE THAT POINT 
DURING OUR OPENING ARGUMENTS 
THAT THAT WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE 
, NO IT IS TRUE. 
IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATE FACT. IT 
IS A FACT. YOU HAVE NEVER 
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN 
CONNECTION WITH MICK MULVANEY'S 
TESTIMONY ANYONE ELSE THAT WAS 
NOT ASSERTED AS IT RELATES TO 
ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED. 
12 OF HIM TESTIFIED PUBLICLY IN 
THE OTHER PHONY ARGUMENTS THAT 
HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED, 
RESPECTFULLY, THAT THE HOUSE 
NEEDED TO VOTE IN ORDER FOR THE 
SUBPOENAS TO BE VALID. THERE IS 
NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION 
THAT REQUIRED THE FULL HOUSE TO 
VOTE. 
NOTHING IN SUPREME COURT 
PRECEDENT  AND IT WAS A PHONY 
ARGUMENT AT THE HOUSE AFTER THE 
INITIAL STAGES OF THE 
INVESTIGATION DID FOLEY VOTE 
AND FOLEY VOTED ON OCTOBER 31. 
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, MICK 
MULVANEY WAS SUBPOENAED 
THEREAFTER. NOTES BEFORE. 
THEREAFTER. 
AFTER THE HOUSE HAD VOTED. 
SUBPOENAED ON NOVEMBER 7. HERE 
IT IS. THE NEXT DAY THE WHITE 
HOUSE RESPONDED. IT 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 MICK MULVANEY 
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM 
COMPELLED CONGRESSIONAL 
TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO 
MATTERS RELATED TO SERVICE AS A 
SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT
. WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT 
THIS LETTER FROM PAT CIPOLLONE 
IS IT DOESN'T CITE A SINGLE, 
LEGAL CASE ARE THAT OUTRAGEOUS 
PROPOSITION. 
A SINGLE LEGAL CASE FOR THE 
PROPOSITION THAT MICK MULVANEY 
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW TO 
STRESS SUPPORT IT. 
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT, 
HE 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. ANY PRIVILEGE 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 
TIAL. 
THE CONSTITUTION DESERVES A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
THAT INCLUDES MICK MULVANEY, 
JOHN BOLTON, AND OTHER RELEVANT 
WITNESSES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,  I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
THE QUESTIONS P DIRECTED TO 
BOTH PARTIES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
SPECIFY THE STANDARD OF PROOF 
TO BE USED  IN DRAWLS OF 
IMPEACHMENT, AND THE SENATE HAS 
NOT ADOPTED A UNIFORM STANDARD 
BY RULE. 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 
APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS, 
DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT IS A MEMBER OF THEIR 
PARTY WAS 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 IS THE TURN OF 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO GO FIRST. 
>> SENATORS AND MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE,  THERE IS NO COURT 
CASE ON THIS. 
THE HOUSE NEEDS STRONG 
EVIDENCE, BUT HAS NEVER BEEN 
DECIDED BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT IS THE PRESIDENT COUNSEL  
HAS SUGGESTED AND THE QUESTION 
NOW IS THE CONSTITUTION DOES 
NOT SPECIFY EITHER THE HOUSES 
EVIDENTIARY BURDEN OF PROOF OR 
THE SENATE. 
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 THAT THE 
DRIVER MUST HAVE A FIRM BELIEF 
IN THE SEXUALITY. IN THE 
CLINTON CASE, THE HOUSE DID NOT 
COMMIT TO ANY PARTICULAR BURDEN 
OF PROOF, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND 
AGAINST INCLUDING UNEXPRESSED 
STANDARD INSTEAD LIKE IN THE 
CLINTON CERTIFIED IN THE FACTS 
AND INFERENCES WITHOUT LEGAL 
TECHNICALITIES. 
IN THE END IT IS UP TO EACH 
SENATOR TO MAKE A JUDGMENT. 
I THINK THERE IS MUCH TRUTH TO 
THAT. 
EUROS HOLD YOU TO A FINDING OF 
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. I TRUST THAT 
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU IS 
HOLDING THAT OATH VERY DEAR TO 
YOUR HEART. 
IT WILL FIND THE FACTS AND 
LEADS TO A JUST RESULT FOR OUR 
COUNTRY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND 
FOR A FUTURE THAT HOPEFULLY IS 
AS FREE AS OUR PAST HAS BEEN. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
I THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION 
MAKES IT CLEAR  IN THE TERMS 
THAT IT SPEAKS OF IMPEACHMENT 
AND IT IS ALL RELATED TO THE 
CRIMINAL LAW. 
IT SPEAKS OF AN OFFENSE, 
CONVICTION, A TRIAL AND SAYING 
THAT CRIMES SHALL BE TRIED BY A 
JURY EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF 
IMPEACHMENT IN BOTH ART AND THE 
GRAVITY OF A PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT, WHICH IS AN ISSUE 
OF BREATHTAKING IMPORTANCE FOR 
THE COUNTRY. 
THAT COULD CAUSE TREMENDOUS 
DISRUPTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT. 
BOTH COUNSEL IN FAVOR OF THE 
TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL STANDARD 
OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT AND IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT  SENATORS BOTH 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED IN FAVOR 
OF THE STANDARD. 
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD SAID IN 
MAKING A DECISION OF THIS 
MAGNITUDE, IT IS BEST NOT TO 
HER AT ALL. IF WE MUSTER, WE 
SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF  THE 
WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE U.S. 
SENATE MUST NOT MAKE THE CHARGE 
BASED ON A HUNCH THAT THE 
CHARGES MAY BE TRUE. 
THE STRENGTH OF OUR NATION 
DICTATES THAT THE SETUP BE SURE 
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 
THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD IS 
WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT WHICH MEANS 
JUST 50.1% YOU THINK IT IS 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. 
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER EXPLAINED 
AT THE TIME OF THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT THAT MEANS IT IS 
PROVEN TO A MORAL CERTAINTY 
THAT THE CASE IS CLEAR THAT IS 
THE STANDARD THAT THE SENATORS 
SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE 
GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU 
WERE NOT PERMIT A PLANE ANY 
LEFT STANDARD. 
THANK YOU.  
>> COUNSEL?  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY? 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGER. 
EVEN IF A DOCUMENT IS COVERED 
BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THAT 
PRIVILEGE CAN BE OVERCOME BY 
SHOWING THE EVIDENCE IS 
IMPORTANT AND UNAVAILABLE 
ELSEWHERE ON JANUARY 22 ORDERS 
TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID I THOUGHT OUR TEAM 
DID A VERY GOOD JOB BUT HONESTLY
WE HAVE ALL THE MATERIAL. 
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MATERIAL. 
CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALLOWS A 
PRESIDENT TO CONCEAL 
INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS, 
PARTICULARLY IF THE EVIDENCE 
CANNOT BE OBTAINED ELSEWHERE? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 
FOR THIS QUESTION. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE HAS THE 
POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
AND AS COUNSEL ADMITTED , ON 
SATURDAY THE PRESIDENT HAD 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. AS I KNOW 
YOU'RE ALL AWARE, IT IS OFTEN 
THE CASE IN CONGRESSIONAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT A PRESIDENT 
WILL CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
OVER A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF 
MATERIAL. IN THAT CASE, WHAT 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH USUALLY 
DOES AND SHOULD DO IS TO 
PRODUCE EVERYTHING THAT IT CAN 
AND THEN PROVIDE 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 IS WHAT HAS 
TAKEN PLACE, AND THERE IS NO 
RIGHT TO DO THAT. 
EVERY QUARTER HAS CONSIDERED 
THE MATTER HAS ASSERTED THAT 
THE PUBLIC CANNOT ASSERT A 
PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT HIS OWN 
MISCONDUCT TO PROTECT WRONGDOING
OR TO PROTECT EVIDENCE THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION MAY HAVE BEEN 
VIOLATED. 
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO IT. 
IN AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE 
CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR 
INFORMATION AND IS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IS AT 
ITS GREATEST. IT IS IMPERATIVE 
TO INVESTIGATE SERIOUS 
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT 
MIGHT CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS AND THAT IS WHAT IS
BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW. 
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS SAID AND 
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE CLOSEST 
TO US WE FACE TODAY IN U.S. 
VERSUS NIXON IN THE CONTEXT OF 
A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FINDING 
HIS GENERAL'S ASSERTION OF 
PRIVILEGE MUST YIELD TO THE 
DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR EVIDENCE 
IN THE PENDING TRIAL IN THE 
FEDERAL COURT HERE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C. HAS RECOGNIZED 
THAT CONGRESS'S NEED FOR 
INFORMATION AND FOR DOCUMENTS 
DURING AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
IS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING. 
RETURNING TO THE FACTS OF THIS 
MATTER BRIEFLY IN THE ART WITH 
EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT REQUESTED 
BY CONGRESS IS SUBJECT TO 
PRIVILEGE OR SOME FORM OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS ABSURD. 
THERE ARE CALENDAR INVITATIONS, 
SCHEDULING EMAILS, PHOTOGRAPHS, 
CORRESPONDENCE WITH OUTSIDE 
PARTIES LIKE RUDY GIULIANI. 
THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES 
OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER 
AND NOT THE TYPE OF MATERIALS 
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 THE NOTES OF THE 
AMBASSADOR AND COLONEL VINDMAN 
SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO YOU 
SO THAT YOU CAN SEEK THE TRUTH 
THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING 
BUT THE TRUTH. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , SENATOR 
MORAN FROM KANSAS AND I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IS WHAT DID HUNTER 
BIDEN DO  FOR THE MONEY THAT 
BURISMA HOLDINGS PAID HIM? 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, 
ASFAR AS WE KNOW, HUNTER BIDEN 
HAS SAID  HE ATTENDED A COUPLE 
BOARD MEETINGS A YEAR. HERE IS 
WHAT WE DO KNOW. 
HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND ONE 
BOARD MEETING IN MONACO. WE 
ALSO HEARD THAT WHEN THE OWNER 
OF BURISMA  FLED UKRAINE HE WAS 
LIVING IN MONACO. THEY 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 . THAT IS AS MUCH AS 
WE KNOW OTHER THAN HIS 
STATEMENT THAT HE ATTENDED ONE 
OR TWO BOARD MEETINGS ACTUALLY 
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 
ACTUALLY IN THE RECORD THAT IS 
AS MUCH AS WE KNOW THAT HE DID 
INVOLVING BURISMA AND 
ZLOCHEVSKY. 
IT WAS JUNE 2015 . HE REMAINED 
ON THE BOARD UNTIL APRIL OF 2019
. WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO 
THEN THE UKRAINIAN COURT IN 
SEPTEMBER 2016 CANCELED 
ZLOCHEVSKY'S ARREST WARRANT AND 
DECEMBER 15  VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN CALLED PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO  AND THEN MID-JANUARY
2017 BURISMA  ANNOUNCES ALL 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE 
COMPANY AND ZLOCHEVSKY  HAD 
BEEN CLOSED. 
>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> IT IS A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS .
>> THE QUESTION READS AS FOLLOWS
. THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE 
PRESIDENT DEMANDS ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY. 
THE PRESIDENT'S 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 IS TIME FOR 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL TO GO FIRST 
. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU 
FOR THE QUESTION. 
LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR AND 
DISTINGUISH A COUPLE THINGS. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID 
THERE WAS A BLANKET DEFIANCE. 
THAT IS THE WAY THEY ADDRESS 
IT. 
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU 
ANYTHING, AND THAT IS ALWAYS 
SAID, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO 
RESPOND. 
WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN 
SEVERAL TIMES AS A THAT WAS NOT 
THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE. 
THERE WAS SPECIFICALLY 
ARTICULATED RESPONSES TO 
DIFFERENT REQUESTS, BASED ON 
DIFFERENT LEGAL RATIONALE 
BECAUSE THERE WAS DIFFERENT 
PROBLEMS WITH DIFFERENT 
SUBPOENAS THAT ONE PROBLEM IS 
ALL THE SUBPOENAS UP UNTIL 
OCTOBER 31 WERE NOT VALIDLY 
AUTHORIZED. 
SO THOSE SUBPOENAS BE SAID FOR 
NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO THOSE 
BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT VALIDLY 
ISSUED. 
IT WAS NOT AN ASSERTION OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR ANYTHING 
ELSE. IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY 
WERE NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED. 
THEY POINTED OUT THAT WE 
SUBPOENAED I THINK IT WAS THEY 
MENTIONED ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY AFTER OCTOBER 31. 
THAT IS TRUE. 
WE DO NOT RELY ON THE FACT THAT 
THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT 
AUTHORIZED. 
HE POINTED OUT THE DOCTRINE OF 
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF SENIOR 
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT. THIS 
IS NOT SOME BLANKET ABSOLUTE 
ENMITY FOR THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH. 
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL OF THE 
SUBPOENAS THE ISSUE. 
AS WE EXPLAIN IN OUR BRIEF, IT 
APPLIES TO THREE. 
THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THEY 
SUBPOENAED AS WITNESSES THAT 
WAS ON THIS BASIS ALONE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DECLINED TO MAKE 
THEM AVAILABLE. 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY, THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
JOHN EISENBERG AND ALSO MR. 
KUPPERMAN. 
SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO 
WERE NOT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE 
PRESIDENT  THE PRESIDENT DID 
NOT ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE 
OFFERED IMMUNITY AND INSTEAD 
THOSE REFUSED TO ALLOW THOSE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL TO 
HAVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL 
ACCOMPANY THEM, THERE WAS AN 
OPINION THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED 
AND IS ONLINE AND DECIDED IN 
OUR MEMORANDUM TO SAY IT IS 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFUSE TO 
ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE 
ASSISTANCE OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
COUNSEL TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION DURING THE 
QUESTIONING AND THEREFORE IT IS 
NOT VALID TO POST THEM TO 
APPEAR WITHOUT THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS,  WE HAVE RECEIVED 
NOTHING AS PART OF OUR 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT THAT 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE THAT 
SUBPOENAED BEFORE THE HOUSEBOAT 
OUTSTANDING AUTHORITY UNDER THE 
HOUSE RULES, AND THEY WERE THE 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS 
ENTERED 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 
INCOMPRESSIBLE TO THINK THAT 
SOMEHOW THIS CONCEPT OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS LURKED IN 
HIDING FOR CENTURIES FOR 
PRESIDENTS TO USE IT IN THIS 
DAY. 
WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES 
WITH THE MYERS CASE AND THE 
McGAHN CASE  COURTS REJECTED 
THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. 
THERE IS A DECISION RECENTLY 
MADE INSTEAD OF SIMPLY THE 
PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FOR THE PAST 
250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN 
HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE 
NOT KINGS. 
THAT IS THE JUDGE'S WORDS ARE 
NOT MINE WITH APPEARANCE BY A 
SUBPOENAS A LEGAL CONSTRUCT AND 
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. 
AS THE JUDGES POINTED OUT, THAT 
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT A KING 
WOULD ASSERT. IT IS SOMETHING 
OUR FOUNDERS SET UP AND ARE 
CHECKS AND BALANCES TO PREVENT. 
NOBODY HAS ABSOLUTE POWER IN 
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BUT 
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. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ? I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR BOTH PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUZ AND 
MYSELF. 
>> THANK YOU.  
>> THE QUESTION IS HE REFUSED 
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON 
POLITICAL BIAS. ARE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS REFUSING TO TELL THE 
SENATE WHETHER THE SO-CALLED 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD AN ACTUAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST? 
37 BILLION PEOPLE ON PLANET 
EARTH ALSO HAD NO INVOLVEMENT 
IN THE QUID PRO QUO OF JOE BIDEN
. ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WILLING TO SAY WHETHER THE SO-
CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER WAS IN 
FACT WITNESS WHO DIRECTLY 
PARTICIPATED IN AND COULD FACE 
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR 
JOE BIDEN'S DEMANDING UKRAINE 
FOR THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND WHY 
DID YOU REFUSE TO TRANSFER TO 
THE SENATE THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL TRANSCRIPT . WHICH SIDE?
I THINK PERHAPS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CAN GO FIRST. 
>> WITH RESPECT TO THE ICIG,  
IT IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED 
VETERAN OF THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AND IS HANDLING OF 
THE RESERVOIR COMPETE WITH AN 
EFFORT TO INCINERATE WRONGDOING 
ON THE PART OF THE RESERVOIR 
AND AN EFFORT TO INSINUATE 
WRONGDOING ON BEHALF OF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL DEBRIEFING 
THAT WE HAD WITH THE ICIG 
RELATED TO THE HANDLING OF THIS 
PARTICULAR  WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH WHICH TRAVERSED SHARPLY 
FROM AND WITHIN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS 
CONTINUING ITS ONGOING 
OVERSIGHT TO DETERMINE WHY AND 
HOW THIS COMPLAINT WAS 
INITIALLY CONCEALED IN 
VIOLATION OF THE LAW. 
THE ICIG  MICHAEL ATKINSON 
CONTINUES TO SERVE AS HE IS 
SUPPOSED TO AND LIKE THE SENATE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THE 
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
DOES NOT RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPT 
OF HIS ENGAGEMENTS WITH 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S ON 
SENSITIVE MATTERS BECAUSE DOING 
SO RISKS UNDERCUTTING AN 
IMPORTANT MAGAZINE FOR THE 
COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT. 
THE TRANSCRIPTS REMAIN PROPERLY 
CLASSIFIED TO PROTECT SENSITIVE 
INFORMATION.  THE ICIG  MADE 
EVERY EFFORT TO BRIEF US WITH 
EXPEDITION WITH THE EXPECTATION 
RATHER THAT IT WOULD 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 JUST 
REFER YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH IS 
AFTER EXAMINING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S BACKGROUND AND 
ANY POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF 
BIAS, THE WHISTLEBLOWER DREW 
TWO CONCLUSIONS PRETTY 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS CREDIBLE, 
MEANING THAT WHATEVER ISSUE 
PERCEIVED OR REAL, THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWER CREDIBLE WITH 
INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND 
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWERS 
COMPLAINT WAS HER AND THAT IT 
NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED TO 
CONGRESS. 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE 
ACCOUNT THAT WAS WITHHELD FROM 
CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE 
LAW AND A VIOLATION OF THE 
STATUTE. 
HER THAT HE IS BEING ATTACKED. 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT  RELY 
ON AN OPINION OF THE OUTSIDE 
LEGAL COUNSEL AS HIS 
JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 
NOT TRANSMITTING THE COMPLAINTS 
TO CONGRESS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ON PAGE 5 
OF THE REPORT  IS THAT ALTHOUGH 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
PRELIMINARY REVIEW IDENTIFIED 
SOME ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON 
THE PART OF THE COMPLAINT AND 
THAT IS IN THE ACTUAL STATEMENT 
THAT SHE GOES ON TO SAY 
INVOLVING A RIVAL POLITICAL 
CANDIDATE SUCH EVIDENCE DID NOT 
CHANGE WITH YOU ABOUT THE 
CREDIBLE NATURE OF THE CONCERNED
FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE CREDIBLE 
BUT YOU ARGUE THAT IT DOES NOT 
INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF POLITICAL 
BIAS INSPECTOR GENERAL HIMSELF 
SAYS THAT THAT IS IN FACT AT 
LEAST THAT THEY SAID THAT THE 
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS INDICATE 
SOME POLITICAL BIAS. 
THERE HAS BEEN REPORTS IN THE 
MEDIA THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY 
HAVE WORKED FOR JOE BIDEN WHEN 
HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT. 
HE MAY HAVE HAD SOME AREA UNDER 
HIS WATCH INVOLVING UKRAINE. 
BUT I ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS JUST 
INTERESTING THAT THEY SPOKE 
ABOUT HOW IT JUST RELATES TO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT 
BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE 
OF THOSE. 
DO NOT THINK THAT THE SENSITIVE 
NATURE OF INFORMATION SHARED BY 
THE PRESENCE MOST SENIOR 
ADVISORS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT 
TO THE SAME TYPE OF 
PROTECTIONS? 
OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS .
>> THE QUESTION READS AS 
FOLLOWS. 
THE FRAMERS TOOK THE WORDS HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS STREET 
AT 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 AND 
THE SENATE HAS CONVICTED OF 
ASSAULT FOR HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE NOT 
INDICTABLE CRIMES. 
EVEN ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID IN 
1998 THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
SYSTEM DOESN'T 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 IS THE TURN OF PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL.  
>> WHAT HAPPENED SINCE 1988 IS 
THAT I STUDIED MORE, DID MORE 
RESEARCH, READ MORE DOCUMENTS, 
AND LIKE ANY ACADEMIC ALTERED 
MY VIEWS AND THAT IS WHAT 
HAPPENS. 
THAT IS WHAT PROFESSORS OUGHT 
TO DO. 
AND I KEEP READING MORE AND I 
KEEP WRITING MORE AND I KEEP 
REFINING MY VIEWS. 
IN 1998 THE ISSUE OF FOR THIS 
SENATE IS NOT WHETHER A CRIME 
WAS REQUIRED. 
IT IS WHETHER THE CRIME THAT 
WAS A HIGH CRIME. 
WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT BEGINS 
THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER A CRIME 
WAS REQUIRED AND TWO YEARS 
EARLIER IN A BOOK AND THEN AN 
OP-ED I CONCLUDED NOT ON 
PARTISAN GROUNDS BUT COMPLETELY 
ACADEMIC GROUNDS THE CANNOT 
IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND 
THAT A TECHNICAL CRIME WAS NOT 
REQUIRED BUT CRIMINAL LIKE 
BEHAVIOR WAS REQUIRED. 
I STAND BY THAT REVIEW. 
THE FRAMERS REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION. THAT WAS A 
PRIME CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT 
UNDER BRITISH LAW. THE BRITISH 
NEVER IMPEACH PRIME MINISTER 
>> THE ONLY IMPEACHED MIDDLE 
LEVEL AND LOW LEVEL PEOPLE. 
THE FRAMERS DID NOT WANT TO 
ADOPT THE BRITISH FOR ROACH AND 
THEY WERE JUDGED BY REJECTING 
MALADMINISTRATION. 
AND WHAT IS A SYNONYM FOR 
MALADMINISTRATION? 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
WHEN THEY REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION THEY REJECTED 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
HE ASKED A RHETORICAL QUESTION 
OF CAN A PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
ABUSE OF POWER WITH IMPUNITY 
AND IN MY TRADITION WE ANSWER 
QUESTION WITH QUESTIONS WHY 
WITH REALLY QUESTION THAT CAN A 
PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
MALADMINISTRATION WITH 
IMPUNITY? 
THAT IS THE QUESTION YOU MIGHT 
HAVE ASKED JAMES MADISON HAD HE 
BEEN AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION WAS A NO PRESENT 
CANNOT ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY BUT 
IT IS NOT UNIMPEACHABLE CRIME. 
MALADMINISTRATION IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, AND PEACE OF POWER 
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. 
ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER A CRIME IS 
REQUIRED. 
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ABUSE OF 
POWER IS IT PERMISSIBLE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA AND THE 
ANSWER FROM THE HISTORY IS 
CLEARLY UNEQUIVOCALLY NO. 
THAT HAD EVER BEEN PUT TO THE 
FRAMERS, THEY WOULD'VE REJECTED 
IT WITH THE SAME CERTAINTY THE 
REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
SENTRIES IN A BRIBERY AND THAT 
WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT IS NOT 
INCLUSIVE ENOUGH. 
MASON PROPOSED 
MALADMINISTRATION IT WAS TO GET 
BACK SO THEY SET HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THAT WAS A WELL UNDERSTOOD TERM 
IN ENGLISH LAW. 
IS A WELL UNDERSTOOD TERM IN 
THE WARREN HASTINGS IMPEACHMENT 
GOING ON IN ENGLAND RIGHT THEN 
AND AMEND PRIMARILY ABUSE OF 
POWER AND THAT IS THE MAIN 
MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. 
CHARLES PICK ME SAYS THOSE 
BEHAVE AND BETRAY TRUST EDMUND 
RANDOLPH MISBEHAVES THAT EVERY 
IMPEACHMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY 
HAS BEEN FOR ABUSE OF POWER IN 
ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. 
THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 
A CRIME. 
BRIBERY IS RIGHT THERE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
BRIBERY WAS NOT MADE A 
STATUTORY CRIME UNTIL 1837 SO 
IT CANNOT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHMENT 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT 
CRIMES AND IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO 
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT PUNISHMENT 
FOR CRIMES. 
IMPEACHMENT IS PROTECTIONS OF 
THE REPUBLIC IT AGAINST A 
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS 
POWER AND THREATEN LIBERTY AND 
THREATEN THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS AND THE POWERS OF THE 
CONGRESS AND TRY TO AGGREGATE 
POWER TO HIMSELF AND THAT HIS 
WIFE PUNISHMENT ONLY GOES TO 
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE 
>> YOU CANNOT PUT THEM IN JAIL 
AS HE COULD FOR A CRIME. 
YOU CANNOT FINE HIM AS HE COULD 
FOR A CRIME. 
YOU HAVE TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS 
AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE NEED 
NOT BE A CRIME AND A CRIME MAY 
NOT BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TESTS. 
IT IS BEEN SO THAT WE 
THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY AND 
BY ALL SCHOLARS IN OUR HISTORY, 
EXCEPT FOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH 
CAROLINA? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.  
>> SENATOR BURR ASKS WE HAVE 
SEEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
REPEATEDLY PLAY VIDEO CLIPS OF 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY'S PRESS CONFERENCE IN 
WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID THAT 
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. 
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ALLEGATIONS THAT MICK 
MULVANEY SUPPORTED THEIR CLAIMS 
IN'S PRESS CONFERENCE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, THANK YOU FOR 
THE QUESTION. 
WE RESPOND AS MR. PHILBIN DID 
EARLY. 
MR. MULVANEY IS IS YOU TWO 
STATEMENTS ONE OF HIS PRESS 
CONFERENCE AND THEN ONE  MONDAY 
AFTER THE NURSE TIMES ARTICLE 
CONCERNING MR. BOLTON'S ELECTED 
STATEMENTS IN HIS MANUSCRIPT. 
I THINK THE EASIEST THING IS 
JUST TO READ THEM TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT HE SAID HAD TO PUT IT INTO 
CONTEXT FOR EVERYONE IN THE 
CHAMBER THIS IS THE DAY OF THE 
PRESS CONFERENCE. 
ONCE AGAIN THE MEDIA HAS 
DECIDED TO MISCONSTRUE MY 
COMMENTS TO ADVANCE THE BIAS 
AND POLITICAL WITCHHUNT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
LET ME BE CLEAR. 
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO QUID 
PRO QUO BETWEEN UKRAINIAN 
MILITARY AID AND AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO 
WITHHOLD ANY MONEY UNTIL THE 
UKRAINE 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 CONCERNS OVER CORRUPTION. 
MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE MORE 
THAN 30 MINUTE BRIEFING WHERE I 
TOOK OVER 25 QUESTIONS ARE 
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 THAT 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 WHO IS MR. 
MULVANEY'S ATTORNEY. 
I WILL READ IT. 
THE LATEST STORY FROM YOUR 
TIMES  COORDINATED WITH A BOOK 
LAUNCH HAS MORE TO DO WITH 
POLICY THE TRUTH. 
JOHN HUMMEL JOHN BOLTON NEVER 
INFORMED MICK MULVANEY OF ANY 
CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE 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 CRANE 
INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA,  THE 
BIDENS  OR THE 2016 ELECTION 
AND HE HAS NO RECORDS OF ANY 
CONVERSATION WITH RUDY GIULIANI 
AS IT WAS THE PRACTICE TO 
EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM 
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE 
PRESENT AND HIS PERSONAL 
COUNSEL TO  PRESERVE ANY 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. 
I WANTED TO READ THAT ALSO THAT 
EVERYONE HAD THE FULL CONTEXT. 
EVEN AFTER MR. PHILBIN  
REFERENCED THE STATEMENT AFTER 
THE PRESS CONFERENCE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS 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 , I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
IT IS FOR THE  PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS .
>> THE QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO 
FIRST. 
WHAT DETENTION SECURITY ADVISOR 
JOHN BOLTON MEAN WHEN HE 
REFERENCED WHATEVER DRUG DEAL 
GORDON SONDLAND AND MICK 
MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS 
AND DID HE EVER RAISE THAT 
ISSUE IN ANY MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
CENTERS, WHEN JOHN BOLTON , AND 
THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE 
TESTIMONY OF DR. HILL. IT WAS 
IN THE CONTEXT OF A JULY 10 
MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT 
THERE WAS TWO MEETINGS THAT DAY 
THERE WAS A MEETING AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WAS PRESENT FOR AND A 
FOLLOW-UP MEETING AFTER 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE FIRST MEETING. 
IN THE FIRST MEETING, THE 
UKRAINIANS NATURALLY WANT TO 
RAISE THE TOPIC OF GETTING THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED. 
AFTER RAISING THE ISSUE AT SOME 
POINT  AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID 
WE HAVE GOT A DEAL. THEY LOOK 
AT THE MEETING ONCE THEY KNOW 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
THIS IS THE POINT WHERE 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED. 
YOU CAN LOOK UP THE EXACT WORDS 
OF DR. HILL. I AM PARAPHRASING 
HERE. 
THIS IS THE POINT WHERE 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED AND 
HE ENDS THE MEETING AND DR. 
HILL FOLLOWS GORDON SONDLAND 
INTO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE WHERE THE MEETING 
CONTINUES BETWEEN THE AMERICAN 
DELEGATION AND UKRAINIAN 
DELEGATION AND THERE IT IS EVEN 
MORE EXPLICIT BECAUSE GORDON 
SONDLAND BRINGS UP THE BIDENS 
SPECIFICALLY AND  HILL THEN 
GOES TO TALK TO BOLTON  AND 
INFORMS HIM THAT IS TAKEN PLACE 
IN THE FOLLOW-ON MEETING. 
AND THE RESPONSE OF JOHN BOLTON 
IS GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS AND 
LET THEM KNOW I DO NOT WANT TO 
BE A PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL 
THAT THEY HAVE GOT COOKING UP. 
SO AT THAT POINT THAT SPECIFIC 
CONVERSATION IS A REFERENCE TO 
THE QUID PRO QUO OVER THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND WE NOW COURSE 
FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS AND 
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING AND ALL THE EFFORTS BY 
RUDY GIULIANI TO MAKE SURE 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
ARE MENTIONED IN ORDER TO MAKE 
THIS HAPPEN. 
BUT DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT 
OR WE CAN BRING IN JOHN BOLTON 
AND ASK HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS 
REFERRING TO WHEN HE DESCRIBED 
THE DRUG DEAL. DID BOLTON 
DESCRIBE AND DISCUSS THE 
STRUGGLE WITH THE PRESIDENT? 
ESSENTIALLY APPEARS FROM WHAT 
WE KNOW ABOUT THIS MANUSCRIPT 
THAT THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE 
FREEZE ON AID. 
AND WHETHER JOHN BOLTON 
UNDERSTOOD AND IT WAS PRETTY 3
INTERESTED THAT THE DRUG DEAL 
IS EVEN BIGGER AND MORE 
PERNICIOUS THAN HE THOUGHT 
INVOLVES NOT JUST THE MEETING 
BUT INVOLVE THE MILITARY AID, 
THERE IS ONE WAY TO FIND OUT. 
I WANT TO ADD THIS IN TERMS OF 
MICK MULVANEY BUT MAYBE I WILL 
ADD IT LATER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE , THANK 
YOU 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. 
WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THERE IS 
CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF THE 
JULY 10 MEETING AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
DR. HILL SAYS SHE WOULD 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY ONE 
THING, AND HE DENIES THAT HE 
SAID THAT. 
DR. HILL SAYS SHE WENT TO TALK 
TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND HE 
SAID SOMETHING TO HER ABOUT 
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETING 
WHERE HE WAS IN THERE BUT HE 
WAS CALLING IT A DRUG DEAL AND 
WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT I'M NOT 
GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT. 
IT IS A SURE SAY REPORT AND IS 
CHARACTERIZED IN SOME WAY. I'M 
NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT 
WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE SENATOR FROM THE SAKOTA? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
IT IS FOR MYSELF AND SENATOR 
PORTMAN  FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL . 
>> EQUATION AND 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 CONDITION THE 
AID ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS. 
DID THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR 
HIS GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY  BEAT 
ANY OF THE ALLEGED REQUIREMENT 
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE AID? 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
THE VERY SHORT ANSWER IS NO. 
I WILL EXPLAIN. 
I THINK THAT IS CLEAR. 
I THINK WE DEMONSTRATED IN OUR 
PRESENTATIONS ON FRIDAY AND 
MONDAY THAT THE AIDE WAS 
RELEASED. 
THE AIDE FLOWED. THERE WAS A 
MEETING AT THE U.N. GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED 
IN WARSAW PRECISELY AS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SUGGESTED 
AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS  UNDERTAKEN 
REGARDING THE BIDENS, BURISMA, 
THE 2016 ELECTION. 
NO STATEMENTS MADE AND NO 
INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED  OR 
BEGUN BY THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THE QUESTION IS DO YOU KNOW 
ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
RELATED TO RUSSIA DISSEMINATING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OR RUDY 
GIULIANI'S CONSPIRACY THEORIES? 
SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE THIS 
INFORMATION BEFORE WE DELIVERED 
ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
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. I WOULD 
ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO READ IT. 
I THINK IT SHEDS LIGHT ON THE 
VICE PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE MAY 
OR MAY NOT KNOW VIS-A-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 
THEY SHOULD ALSO READ. 
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 WHICH RAISES A 
VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM, AND 
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 THAT IT EXISTS, BUT 
THE NSA HAS BEEN ADVISED NOT TO 
PROVIDE IT. 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 BEEN 
PROVIDED THAT RAISES A VERY 
DIFFERENT CONCERN THAN WITH 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 WRITE 
IS THE BEST INTELLIGENCE NOW 
ALSO WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AT 
THE URGING OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION? 
THAT IS I THINK A DEEPLY 
CONCERNING AND A NEW PHENOMENON 
AND A PROBABLY A VAN WITH OTHER 
DEPARTMENTS THAT BEEN PART OF 
THE OBSTRUCTION BUT NOW IT IS 
REARING HIS HEAD WITH RESPECT 
TO THE IC BUT IS OR OTHER 
RELEVANT MATERIALS  ASKED THE 
ANSWER IS YES. 
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AND WE TO 
WORK TOGETHER TO FIND OUT HOW 
YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE NEXT 
TWO QUESTIONS ONE FROM EACH 
SIDE  OVER THE LAST BEFORE WE 
BREAK FOR DINNER AND I WOULD 
ASK THAT FOLLOWING THE NEXT 
QUESTIONS WE HAVE A RECESS FOR 
45 MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA? 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK.  
>> IT IS DIRECTED TO 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL . HOW DOES 
THE NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER 
STANDARD ADVANCED BY THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS DIFFERENT FROM 
MALADMINISTRATION AND AND 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARD REJECTED 
BY THE FRAMERS? 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT 
QUESTION BECAUSE THAT QUESTION 
I THINK HIS SPEAKING TO THE 
ISSUE BEFORE YOU TODAY. 
WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED 
MALADMINISTRATION AND RECALL 
THAT 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 AND IN THIS CASE 
A PRESIDENT CAN BE REMOVED AT 
THE PLEASURE OF THE 
LEGISLATURE. 
REMEMBER THAT IN BRITAIN 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT USED AGAINST 
THE PRIME MINISTER. 
IT WAS USED AGAINST LOWER-LEVEL 
PEOPLE AND SO MALADMINISTRATION 
WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON AND 
MADISON SAID IT WAS JUST TOO 
VAGUE AND GENERAL WHAT IS 
MALADMINISTRATION?  
IF YOU LOOK AT UP IN THE 
DICTIONARY THEY SEND THEM SICK 
INCLUDE CORRUPTION AND 
DISHONESTY AND MISUSE OF OFFICE 
AND MISBEHAVIOR. 
EVEN A HARVARD PROFESSOR WAS IN 
FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT SAYS ABUSE 
OF POWER IS THE SAME AS 
MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND HE 
SAYS THAT HIS RESEARCH WITH HIM 
TO CONCLUDE THAT A CRIME IS 
REQUIRED. 
BY THE WAY, THE CONGRESSMAN 
WHICH IS COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN 
HE SAID I'M THE ONLY SCHOLAR 
WHO SUPPORTS THIS POSITION IN 
THE 19 CENTURY. 
IT IS MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO IN 
THE FRAMERS WROTE THE COLUMBIA 
LAW SCHOOL DEAN WHITE THAT THE 
WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY AND THIS IS 
IN 1867 THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY 
IS IN FAVOR OF REQUIRING A 
CRIME. 
JUST AS CURTIS CAME TO THE SAME 
CONCLUSION. 
OTHERS HAVE COME TO A SIMILAR 
CONCLUSION AND HE ASKED WHAT 
HAPPENED BETWEEN 1988 AND THE 
CURRENT TO CHANGE MY MIND WHAT 
HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 19th 
CENTURY AND 20th CENTURY TO 
CHANGE THE MIGHT OF SO MANY 
SCHOLARS? 
THAT WON THE WHAT HAPPENED. 
WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT A CURRENT 
PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED. 
IF IN FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA OR 
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON HAD 
BEEN IMPEACHED THE WEIGHT OF 
CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP WILL BE 
CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF MY POSITION 
BECAUSE THESE SCHOLARS DID NOT 
PASS THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT 
TEST. THESE SCHOLARS ARE 
INFLUENCED BY THEIR OWN BIAS, 
BY THEIR OWN POLITICS, AND 
THEIR VIEWS SHOULD BE TAKEN 
WITH THAT IN MIND. 
THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE 
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
PROFESSOR TRIBE SUDDENLY HAD A 
REVELATION OF SO BY THE TIME 
CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED HE SAID 
THE LAW IS CLEAR YOU CANNOT 
CHARGE A PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME 
OR HE IS THE SITTING PRESIDENT 
AND NOW HAVE A CURRENT 
PRESIDENT. 
PROFESSOR TRIBE GOT WOKE AND 
CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THIS 
PRESIDENT  CAN BE CHARGED ALL-
CITY IN OFFICE. 
THAT IS NOT THE KIND OF 
SCHOLARSHIP THAT SHOULD 
INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION YOU CAN 
MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. 
GO BACK AND READ THE DEBATES. 
YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM RIGHT 
THAT THE FRAMERS REJECTED OPEN-
ENDED CRITERIA. 
ABUSE OF POWER AND WHAT WE HAD 
IS THE MANAGER MADE A 
FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AGAIN 
GIVING REASONS WHY WE HAVE 
IMPEACHMENT. 
YES WE FEAR ABUSE OF POWER. 
YES WE FEAR 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 AND HERE ARE THE 
REASONS WE FEAR GIVING CONGRESS 
TOO MUCH POWER SO WE STRIKE A 
BALANCE. 
TREES AND. IT IS A SERIOUS 
CRIME AND BRIBERY IS A SERIOUS 
CRIME. 
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. 
CRIMES AND WAS DEMEANORS ARE 
AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY. 
THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS 
INTENDED. 
THEY DID NOT INTEND TO GIVE 
CONGRESS A LICENSE TO DECIDE 
WHO TO IMPEACH AND WHO NOT TO 
IMPEACH. 
I READ YOU THE LIST OF 40 
AMERICAN PEASANTS HAVE BEEN 
ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER. 
SHOULD EVERY ONE OF THEM BE 
IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE? 
IT IS TOO VAGUE A TERM. 
RICHARD MARGARET BROWN CRIME. 
REJECTED IF YOU CHOOSE TO. 
DO NOT REJECT MY ARGUMENT THAT 
ABUSE OF POWER WOULD DESTROY 
IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA AND TURNED 
IT INTO THE WORDS OF ONE OF THE 
SENATORS TO MAKE EVERY MEMBER 
OF THE SENATE AND MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS BE ABLE TO DEFINE 
ITSELF FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN 
BILLS HIM WE HEARD EVERY 
SENATOR SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER 
YOU NEED PROOF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT OR PROOF BY A 
PREPONDERANCE. 
NOW HEAR THAT EVERY SENATOR.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL . 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,  I HAVE A 
QUESTION THAT I SEND A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK.  
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THE QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS. 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON 
WHITE IN A CONCURRING OPINION IN
UNITED STATES V. NIXON STATED 
THAT THE SENATE WOULD ABUSE ITS 
DISCRETION IF IT WERE TO INSIST 
ON A PROCEDURE THAT CANNOT BE 
DEEMED A TRIAL BY REASONABLE úJ 
ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 
AND TESTIMONY OF KEY WITNESSES 
WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF 
INTENTION WITH A REASONABLE 
JUDGE CONCLUDE THESE PROCEEDINGS
CONSTITUTE A FAIR TRIAL? 
>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. 
I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE NEED TO 
LOOK TO THE WORDS OF A PRIOR 
JUSTICE TO THOSE THAT A TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES IS NOT REALLY 
A TRIAL. 
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL IF THE HOUSE MOVES 
FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT AND IT 
COMES BEFORE THE SENATE AND 
WANTS TO CALL WITNESSES AND 
WANTS TO MAKE ITS CASE AND IS 
TOLD NO WITNESSES. THAT IS NOT 
A FAIR TRIAL. 
I THINK THAT THE CAN 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 AS 
THE GOVERNMENT MAKES ITS 
OPENING STATEMENT. 
THE DEFENSE MAKES THERE IS, AND 
THEN BEGIN CALLING THE WITNESSES
. YOU DO WANT TO TAKE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE 
ARGUMENT OF ALAN DERSHOWITZ. 
YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS 
ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND YOU 
CANNOT SAY HE IS UNPREPARED. 
AND TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD 
NOT HAVE READ 21 YEARS AGO WHAT 
MASON OR MADISON HAD TO SAY OR 
WHAT HAMILTON HAD TO SAY I DO 
NOT BUY THAT. 
I THINK 21 YEARS AGO HE 
UNDERSTOOD THAT 
MALADMINISTRATION WAS REJECTED 
BUT SO WAS  A PROVISION THAT 
COMBINED THE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES TO TREASON AND BRIBERY 
ALLOWED. I THINK THE ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ FROM 21 YEARS AGO 
UNDERSTOOD THAT YES WILL YOU 
CANNOT IMPEACH FOR POLICY 
DIFFERENCE, YOU CAN IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER 
AND THAT IS WHAT HE SAID 21 
YEARS AGO. 
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. 
I DO NOT THINK YOU CAN WRITE OFF
THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
BEEN WITHIN THEIR ALL NEVER 
TRUMPERS. 
IN FACT, LET'S PLAY FROM  
PROFESSOR TRULY WHO WAS IN THE 
HOUSE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT. 
>> ON ABUSE OF POWER IT IS CLEAR
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR 
ABUSE OF POWER AND FOR 
NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT. 
>> OKAY. 
WE CANNOT ARGUE PLAUSIBLY THAT 
HIS POSITION IS OWING TO SOME 
POLITICAL BIAS. RIGHT? 
JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO HE WAS IN 
THE HOUSE ARGUING THE CASE FOR 
MY GOP COLLEAGUES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE 
IMPEACHED. 
HE DID SAY IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY 
PROVE THESE THINGS AND PROVE, 
AS WE HAVE, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER BY HELPING HIS 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN THAT IS AN 
ABUSE OF POWER AND YOU CAN 
IMPEACH FOR THAT KIND OF ABUSE 
OF POWER. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE 
HERE. 
WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE A 
COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR. 
IF WE ARE TO INTERPRET THE 
CONSTITUTION NOW IS 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 CANNOT 
DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU 
CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT 
BECAUSE IF HE VIEWS IT AS 
PERSONAL INTEREST, THAT IS JUST 
FINE. 
HE IS ALLOWED TO DO IT. NONE OF 
THE FOUNDERS WOULD'VE ACCEPTED 
THAT KIND OF REASONING. 
IN FACT, THE IDEA THAT THE CORE 
OFFENSE THAT THE FOUNDERS 
PROTECT BEGINS, THAT CORE 
OFFENSE IS ABUSE OF POWER. IT 
IS BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS 
THROUGH IMPEACHMENT. IT WOULD 
HAVE TERRIFIED THE FOUNDERS BUT 
YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY NUMBER OF 
ABUSES OF POWER. 
THE PRESIDENT WHO WITHHOLDS AID 
FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AND WERE 
AS A THANK YOU FOR THAT 
ADVERSARY ALLOWING HIM TO BUILD 
A TRUMP TOWER IN THE COUNTRY. 
THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL, BUT 
ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SAY THAT 
WE HAVE TO PERMIT A PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID AS A THANK YOU FOR 
A BUSINESS PROPOSITION? 
COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGES  THAT A 
CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY BUT 
SOMETHING AKIN TO A CRIME, WE 
THINK THERE IS A CRIME HERE 
BRIBERY OR EXTORTION COMMITTING 
OFFICIAL ASK FOR PERSONAL 
FAVORS. 
THAT IS BRIBERY AND EXTORTION. 
YOU CANNOT ARGUE EVEN IF YOU 
ARGUE UNDER THE MODERN 
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY HAVE TO 
SHOW SUCH AND SUCH BUT YOU 
CANNOT ARGUE IT IS NOT AKIN TO 
BRIBERY. IT IS BRIBERY, BUT IT 
IS CERTAIN AKIN TO BRIBERY. 
THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT NO THE 
PRESIDENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHT AND HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE 
WANTS AND ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND 
DO SO BY SACRIFICING OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THERE'S 
NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT 
IT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
WE ARE IN RECESS. 
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. 
I AM ELAINE QUIJANO. 
HAS IMPEACH THE MANAGERS AND 
THE DEFENSE TEAM ARE FIELDING 
QUESTIONS ON ONE OF THE TOPICS 
THAT CAME UP  IS HAVING 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TESTIFY. 
SPECIFICALLY LAWMAKERS WOULD 
LIKE TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON, 
THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR, HE REPORTEDLY WRITES 
IN AN UPCOMING BOOK THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY LINKED 
THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID 
FOR UKRAINE TO AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE TRENTON AND ADAM 
SCHIFF SAID IT IS IMPERATIVE 
FOR BOLTON TO APPEAR. 
>> THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE A 
FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES 
WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO IS 
AS RELEVANT AS JOHN BOLTON WHO 
GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MOST 
SERIOUS OF THE PRESENCE 
MISCONDUCT WHO HAS VOLUNTEERED 
TO COME AND TESTIFY TO TURN 
THEM AWAY TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY 
I THINK IS IS DEEPLY AT ODDS 
WITH DEAN AND IMPARTIAL JUROR 
EXPECT MOST REPUBLICANS ARE NOT 
CONVINCED BY THAT LINE OF 
REASONING. 
HERE IS PART OF THE PRESIDENT 
DEFENSE. 
>> THEY DO NOT EVEN SUBPOENA 
JOHN BOLTON. 
THEY DON'T EVEN TRY TO GET HIS 
TESTIMONY. 
TO INSIST NOW THAT THIS BODY 
WILL BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE 
BODY THAT THIS BODY WILL HAVE 
TO DO ALL OF THE DISCOVERY AND 
THAT THIS INSTITUTION WILL BE 
PARALYZED FOR MONTHS ON END 
BECAUSE IT HAS TO SIT AS A 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT ON THE 
DISCOVERY IS DONE. 
>> CBS NEWS OBTAINED A WHITE 
HOUSE LETTER SENT TO THE LAWYER 
BOLTON SEEN THE MINISTER 
CONTAINED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS 
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND 
IT CANNOT BE PUBLISHED UNTIL IT 
IS EDITED BUT A SENIOR OFFICIAL 
TELLS CBS NEWS  THE LETTER IS 
NOT A THREAT IT WAS DATED THREE 
DAYS BEFORE THE BOOK REVELATION 
WAS PUBLISHED. 
BUT THEY POTENTIAL VOTE 
WITNESSES WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL 
THE QUESTIONING PHASE OF THE 
TRIAL WEBSITE. 
CENTERS HAVE 16 HOURS SPLIT 
BETWEEN TODAY AND TOMORROW TO 
SUBMIT QUESTIONS. 
LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL 
CATHERINE WATSON AND REBECCA 
ROIPHE . WELCOME TO YOU BOTH 
AND I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH 
YOU, REBECCA. 
HOW DO WE SEEK  EACH SIDE 
APPROACH THIS QUESTION AND 
ANSWER PHASE SO FAR? 
>> I THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
DOING WHAT THEY DO NOT DO IN 
THE PAST, WHICH IS TO FOCUS ON 
THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT TAKES 
THEM AWAY FROM THE QUESTION 
WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY CAN 
SUGGEST EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF DOING 
IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
AND THEN THEY CAN LOGICALLY 
RESIST CALLING AND WITNESSES 
AND THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN UP THE 
IDEA THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO BUT HAVE BACKED UP A LITTLE 
BIT OF THAT FOCUSING MUCH MORE 
ON ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND THE 
LEGAL ARGUMENTS I THINK THAT IS 
WHAT WE SEE. 
IN TERMS OF HOUSE MANAGERS, I 
THINK YOU'RE JUST REITERATING 
THE NEED FOR EXTRA TESTIMONY. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO IT
TED CRUZ SAID. 
HE SAID AS A MATTER OF LAW 
DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO? 
IS IT TRUE THAT QUID PRO QUO IS 
OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN POLICY? 
IS HOW ONE OF THE LAWYERS OF 
THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED. 
>> EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I 
KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION 
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
AND MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT. 
YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST AND IF A PRESIDENT 
DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE 
BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET 
ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 
THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID 
PRO QUO  THAT RESULTS IN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> REBECCA, IS THERE ANY LEGAL 
STANDING BEHIND THIS ARGUMENT? 
I THINK ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS SO 
SMART  AND HAS DONE AN AMAZING 
JOB. 
I THINK RIGHT HERE HE MADE A 
MISTAKE PUSHING THIS ARGUMENT 
FURTHER THAN HE NEEDED TO TO A 
POINT THAT I THINK ACTUALLY 
MAKES HIM WAS CREDIBLE BECAUSE 
THAT CANNOT BE TRUE. IF A 
PRESIDENT THINKS I AM WHAT IS 
GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY, WHICH 
ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENT THINKS, 
THEN THAT ESSENTIALLY EXCUSES 
ANYTHING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DOES IN ORDER TO WIN REELECTION
. I THINK MOST AMERICANS JUST 
KNOW CHEATING IS BAD. WE HAVE 
AN ELECTION AND SURE EVERYBODY 
THINKS THEY ARE THE BEST. 
BUT WE HAVE RULES, AND YOU 
CANNOT USE YOUR POWER TO GAIN 
AN ADVANTAGE IN THAT GAME. THAT 
IS WRONG. 
THAT IS CHEATING. 
SO I THINK HE JUST OVERSTATED 
HIS POINT. I DO NOT THINK HE 
NEEDED TO SAY THAT. 
I THOUGHT HE HAD SOME GOOD 
POINTS EARLIER ON AND I THINK 
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE AN 
ARGUMENT, BUT THIS WAS JUST 
WHY. 
WHY WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT? 
THAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE. 
TO ME. 
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS NO LEGAL 
ARGUMENT THAT THAT IS WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS MEANT. 
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO CAPITOL 
HILL WHERE REPUBLICAN CENTER 
MIKE BRAUN FROM INDIAN IS 
SPEAKING. 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> HE CAME BACK AND HE LISTED A 
GUY FROM 100 YEARS AGO. 
>> THE QUESTIONS WHAT YOU SAY 
TO THE CRITICS WHO SAY THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE ABANDONED ANY 
PRETENSE OF BEING INDEPENDENT 
AND I'M REALLY GOING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> HOGWASH. AT THE END OF THE 
DAY WE ARE BEING AS OBJECTIVE 
AS EITHER SIDE. 
BOTTOM LINE IS NO ONE WALKED 
INTO THE HEARING WITHOUT HAVING 
HEARD WHAT WAS BUT BEFORE THE 
HOUSE. 
WE HAVE HAD 192 VIDEO CLIPS OF 
WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN THE 
HOUSE. 
YOU'RE EITHER HAVING HER 
OPINIONS REINFORCED REJECTING 
THOSE OPINIONS. 
THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT 
A FLOOD CASE TO THE SENATE, 
THAT IS ON THEM TO MAKE IT 
BETTER. 
IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A BETTER 
THEY CAN DO THAT BY CALLING 
JOHN BOLTON IN THE HOUSE WHERE 
THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY INVITED 
HIM TO SPEAK BUT THEY DO NOT 
SUBPOENA HIM. 
>> HE THREATENED TO SUE. 
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY 
STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
HE SAYS HE IS HAPPY TO TESTIFY 
SO IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM 
JOHN BOLTON I HAVE TO DO IS 
HEAR FROM HIM IN THE HOUSE. 
IF YOU DON'T MIND ME FINISHING 
THE COMMENT, THAT WOULD BE 
WONDERFUL. 
YOU COULD HEAR FROM IN THE 
HOUSE WHERE THEY HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO HEAR FROM HIM AND 
CONTINUED TO WORK ON AMERICA'S 
PARITIES AND AS WE DO SO WE 
WERE ABLE TO DO AMERICA'S 
PARITIES IN THE SENATE AS WELL. 
> I WOULD GO ONE STEP FURTHER 
TO SAY EVEN IF EVERYTHING IN 
BOLTON'S BOOK HAPPENS TO BE 
TRUE IN EVERYTHING HE DOES THE 
BEST YOU HAPPENS TO BE TRUE IF 
HE HAPPENS TO BE CALLED I STILL 
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT RISES 
TO THE LEVEL OF THE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES THAT THE HOUSE HAS 
CHARGED THE PRESIDENT WITH. 
WE HAVE HEARD 54 QUESTION AND 
ANSWER SOFTWARE TODAY AND WILL 
PROBABLY HEAR 160 TOTAL SO WE 
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
ALL OF OUR MEMBERS TO HEAR MORE 
INFORMATION. 
I AM COMMITTED TO GO TO THE END 
OF THE DAY ON FRIDAY AND CAST A 
VOTE IF THEY ARE READY TO GO TO 
FINAL JUDGMENT. 
I DO NOT SEE ANY FOR ANY 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
AMERICA HAS HEARD ENOUGH. 
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THAT 
UNDER THIS SYSTEM THE SENATE 
CAN DO NO OTHER WORK UNTIL WE 
ARE THROUGH WITH IMPEACHMENT, 
WHICH MEANS WORKING ON THE COST 
OF DRUGS, WORKING ON THE 
HIGHWAY BILL AND WORK IN THE 
MANY PRIORITIES OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS TODAY 
ARE SAYING THIS IS A WASTE OF 
TIME BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO BE 
REMOVED, AND THEY KNOW THAT 
THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR AND 
THEY SO YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT 
THINGS TO DO TO ANNOUNCE THE 
COUNTRY THAN WHAT WE ARE DOING 
BY SITTING HERE IN A TRIAL OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. I 
THOUGHT THIS QUESTION PERIOD 
AGAIN WAS JUST SO GOOD FOR OUR 
SIDE. 
SOME OF DIFFERENT INSTANCES 
WHERE OUR ARGUMENTS PREVAILED. 
ONCE AGAIN, THE ARGUMENTS MAKE 
JUST ABOUT NO SENSE THAT HAS TO 
BE AT THE LEVEL OF BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION. 
I THINK ADAM SCHIFF AND THE 
OTHERS TOOK HIM TO THE CLEANERS 
AND THE ARGUMENT. AND THE IDEA 
THAT MALADMINISTRATION IS THE 
SAME AS ABUSE OF POWER ALMOST NO
SCHOLAR ACCEPTS. 
SECONDLY THEY SAID THEY DO NOT 
WANT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. 
I ASKED THEM THE QUESTION NAME 
ONE WITNESS OR ONE DOCUMENT YOU 
HAVE ALLOWED THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TO GET WHEN THEY REQUESTED IT 
AND MR. PHILBIN  FILIBUSTERED 
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE AN 
ANSWER. 
IF THAT IS NOT ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS. 
TWO OF THE SENATORS MOST 
INTERESTED IN DECIDING WHETHER 
TO VOTE WITNESSES ASKED IF THEY 
COULD FIND ANY INSTANCE WHERE 
THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT 
BIDEN BEFORE  AND THEY CAN 
ANSWER. 
THEY JUST SAID I ONLY HAVE THE 
RECORD. 
THAT IS NOT TRUE. 
AND THEN BACK AND FORTH. 
WHAT DID MICK MULVANEY MEAN 
WHEN HE SAID QUID PRO QUO? 
WHAT DID BOLTON MEAN WHEN HE 
SAID DRUG DEAL? 
IT IS BACK AND FORTH. 
IT MOVES. 
YOU WANT TO KNOW, ASK THEM. 
BRING THEM HERE AS WITNESSES. 
SO I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A 
GREAT AFTERNOON FOR US. 
I AM HOPEFUL WE CAN REJECT THE 
ARGUMENT FOR WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS. 
WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID IT IS APPEAL
AND THERE IS TREMENDOUS 
PRESSURE FROM A VINDICTIVE, 
NASTY PRESIDENT ON EVERY 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR BUT I THINK 
THEY SAID THERE AS THEY LISTEN 
TO THESE QUESTIONS, AND THEY 
KNOW THE PUBLIC IS TOTALLY ON 
OUR SIDE, AND WE HAVE GOT A 
REAL SHOT TO GET WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS. 
MY GUT TELLS ME WE ARE MAKING 
PROGRESS, AND I CERTAINLY AM 
HOPEFUL. 
>> I SAW ONE HUNTER BIDEN WAS 
MENTIONED SOME CHUCKLED. 
>> HUNTER BIDEN HAS NOTHING TO 
DO WITH THE CHARGES AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT, AND IT IS ALWAYS 
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A 
DIVERSION. 
BUT IT IS NOT OUR CALL. 
IF THEY WANT HUNTER BIDEN THEY 
HAVE 53 VOTES. 
THEY CAN CALL HIM IF THEY DO 
NOT WANT HIM BECAUSE THEY KNOW 
IT WOULD MAKE IT A CIRCUS AND I 
DO NOT THINK MITCH McCONNELL 
HAS THE VOTES ON HIS SIDE FOR 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
>> WE HAVE SEEN TIME AND TIME 
AGAIN IN THESE POLITICAL FIGHTS 
LEADER MITCH McCONNELL WIN 
THESE ARGUMENTS. 
>> YOU DO NOT WIN WHEN YOU 
STAND FOR A COVER-UP. 
YOU DO NOT WIN WHEN THERE IS 
NOT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND 
IT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. 
I THINK WE HAVE A REAL SHOT HERE
. BUT ANY CONCLUSION THAT 
DOESN'T ALLOW WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS IS GOING TO MAKE THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL, IF THAT 
SHOULD HAPPEN, WORTH VERY 
LITTLE. 
ZERO. 
YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IT WASN'T 
ACQUITTAL IF YOU DO NOT HAVE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 
>> SENATORS WHO WERE HERE FOR 
YOU SAID THEY CAN DO NO OTHER 
WORK AS LONG AS IT IS THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL EXPECT SOME 
OF THE COMMITTEES MET TODAY AND 
PASSED OUT BILLS. 
THEY SURE CAN. 
IN THE MORNING. 
WE HAVE MITCH McCONNELL, LEADER 
OF THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD, 
YOU HOW TO PUT A SINGLE BILL ON 
THE FLOOR FOR THE YEAR BEFORE 
IMPEACHMENT, AND NOW THEY ARE 
SAYING THAT THIS IS GETTING IN 
THE WAY. 
MITCH McCONNELL, WE WILL MEET 
EARLY IN THE MORNING TO GET 
SOME BILLS ON THE FLOOR. 
TAKE 10 OF THE BILLS THE HOUSE 
PASSED THE DAY AFTER 
IMPEACHMENT AND SEPARATE THEM 
ON THE FLOOR AND THEN TALK 
ABOUT IF THEY DO NOT DO THAT 
THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT GETTING 
NOTHING DONE. 
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN 
EXPERT AT GETTING NOTHING DONE. 
>> TODAY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS 
OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE THERE WAS 
THIS. 
>> I DO NOT THINK THEY NAMED IN 
NAME ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE
. 
>> I KNOW, BUT IF SOMEONE TRIED 
THAT. 
>> THIS IS DESPICABLE. THIS IS 
AN ADMINISTRATION IN THE QUEST 
FOR ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND IN 
DONALD TRUMP'S THREATS AND 
THINGS TOWARD PEOPLE LIKE JOHN 
BOLTON WHO WERE ONCE HIS GOOD 
FRIENDS. 
THEY ARE SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH 
TO GO TO ALMOST ANY LENGTH TO 
STOP IT FROM HAPPENING. IN THIS 
TRIAL AND SOMETIMES OUTSIDE THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRIAL. 
>> THE GOP SAYS THAT YOU BLEW 
IT IN THE HOUSE AND THAT THAT 
IS WHAT HAPPENED. 
>> FOR THE GOP TO BLAME THE 
HOUSE FOR NOT HAVING ALL OF THE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WHAT 
WAS DONALD TRUMP WHO STOPPED 
THEM WITH A SNAP OF HIS FINGER 
CAN HAVE THEM ALL IS THE 
ULTIMATE HYPOCRISY. 
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. 
>> YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO 
LAWMAKERS FOR DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS SPEAK IN A L LET'S 
BRING INTO THIS CONVERSATION 
SIOBHAN HUGHES REPORTS FOR THE 
WALL STREET JOURNAL AND I WOULD 
LIKE TO START OFF WITH GETTING 
YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHETHER OR 
NOT ANYTHING WE HAVE HEARD úTOD 
TRAJECTORY ON THE QUESTION 
WITNESSES WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE 
NOW CLOSER TO PERHAPS SEEING 
ANY MOVEMENT AND PERHAPS THOSE 
SENATORS THAT I KNOW HAVE BEEN 
LOOKED AT WITH SENATOR COLLINS 
AND SEND TO ROMNEY AND LISA 
MURKOWSKI AND LAMONT LETTER. 
WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARS THAT 
THOSE REPUBLICANS MAY BE ANY 
CLOSER TO CHOOSING TO WITNESSES.
>> Reporter: FOR SENATOR SUSAN 
COLLINS AND MITT ROMNEY IT 
SEEMS LIKELY THEY WILL VOTE IN  
FAVOR OF WITNESSES. 
THE OPEN QUESTIONS WHETHER 
THERE WILL BE FOUR AND LISA 
MURKOWSKI A POSSIBILITY. 
SHE MET WITH MITCH McCONNELL 
EARLIER TODAY AND THE CLIENT TO 
EVEN DISCUSS WITNESSES, WHICH 
WAS A SHIFT FROM WHERE SHE HAD 
BEEN EARLIER WHEN SHE SAID SHE 
WAS CURIOUS BUT HEARING FROM 
JOHN BOLTON AND WE ALSO HEARD 
FROM PAT TOOMEY WHO THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAD BEEN WORRIED ABOUT 
AND HE TOLD SOME REPORTERS WHO 
DO NOTHING WITNESSES ARE GOING 
TO CHANGE HIS FINAL VOTE SO A 
SCORE FOR THE REPUBLICAN 
LEADERSHIP. 
THEY HAD NOTES OF OPTIMISM 
TODAY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE 
TO STOP A VOTE BUT IT IS NOT 
CLEAR IF THAT WAS POSITIVE. 
SOME OF THIS IS ON THE PART OF 
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TO TRY TO 
STOP THEIR OWN MEMBERS INTO A 
CORNER. 
>> AND SIOBHAN YOU HAVE BEEN 
THERE. 
CAN I JUST GET YOUR SONS  OF 
WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN HAPPEN OVER 
THE COURSE OF THE AFTERNOON AND 
NOW INTO THE EVENING IN TERMS 
OF THE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION 
SENATORS APPEAR TO BE PAYING TO 
WHAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE? 
>> Reporter: THE SENATORS AS A 
GROUP SEEM FAR MORE ENGAGED  
THAN THEY HAD BEEN. 
PART OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE 
FACT THAT THEY ARE NOW PRACTICE 
AMONG BECAUSE THEY CAN ACTUALLY 
ASK QUESTIONS AND NOT ONLY ARE 
THEY ASKING QUESTIONS TO FILL 
IN SOME BLANKS OF AHAB BUT THEY 
ARE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE 
DESIGNED TO BRING UP POINTS 
THAT WILL BOLSTER THE POSITION 
THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE 
TAKING. 
THIS IS BECOMING A REAL CONTACT 
SPORT. 
IS BETWEEN THE LAWYERS AND ALSO 
THE SENATORS THEMSELVES WHO ARE 
NOW PARTICIPANTS. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOU 
IN, KATHRYN WATSON. 
LAST NIGHT MAJOR GARRETT 
REPORTS THE WHITE HOUSE  AND 
WHAT ARGUMENTS IS A 
DEMONSTRATION MAKE IT 
REPUBLICANS ON THE FENCE? 
>> Reporter: ABSOLUTELY. 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO 
WHITTLE DOWN  THE NUMBER OF 
SENATORS WHO MIGHT VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES THAT AT LEAST TWO TO 
KEEP THAT AT A MINIMUM TO NOT 
HAVE IT BE THAT FOUR THAT WOULD 
OF COURSE COMPEL THE SENATE TO 
CALL WHATEVER WITNESSES THERE 
IS A PARTICULAR EVENT ON BUT 
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SOME 
ARGUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN 
MAKING BOTH PUBLICLY AND 
PRIVATELY FOR A WHILE BUT WE 
KNOW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
LONG THREATENED IF YOU WANT TO 
USE THAT WORD TO ASSERT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IT IS 
SOMETHING THAT WE PRIDE WHEN IT 
COMES TO BOLTON. 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS 
ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS 
ECHOED IN A LETTER FROM THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN A 
LETTER TO BOLTON'S ATTORNEY. 
THAT IS WHEN ARGUMENT THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAS IS THAT WE ARE 
JUST GOING TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. WE CAN BE FIGHTING 
THE SOUTHERN COURT FOR AS LONG 
AS YOU WANT. 
IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT, 
SENATORS, TO HAVE THIS 
PROLONGED BATTLE? 
BUT OF COURSE AS WAS REPORTED, 
MITCH McCONNELL OF COURSE IS 
HIMSELF TRYING TO TALK TO SOME 
OF THE SENATORS BECAUSE HE HAS 
DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS OR 
DIFFERENT CASES THAT HE CAN 
MAKE TO THOSE SENATORS 
INDIVIDUALLY. IS SOMEONE WHO 
KNOWS HIS MEMBERS EXTREMELY 
WELL AND KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT 
THEIR WEAKNESSES ARE AND WHAT 
THEIR NEEDS ARE AND SO YOU ARE 
SEEING HIM LOBBY OR AT LEAST 
TALK TO THOSE SENATORS VERY 
CLOSELY IN A MUCH MORE INTIMATE 
WAY THAN PERHAPS THE WHITE 
HOUSE CAN EXPECT WANT TO FOCUS 
ON SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS. 
HERE'S WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY THIS 
MORNING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY 
OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
>> THIS PARALLELS WHAT WE DID 
WITH THE 1999 TRIAL OF 
PRESIDENT CLINTON. 
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HEARD 
BOTH SIDES PRESENT THEIR CASES 
BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T 
KNOW WHO WE MIGHT NEED, WHAT 
GAPS REMAIN. IT IS ALSO VERY 
IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE 
FAIRNESS THAT EACH SIDE BE ABLE 
TO SELECT A WITNESS OR TWO. 
>> SIOBHAN, AND I REPORTED ON 
HOW  THEY ARE APPROACHING THE 
PROCEEDINGS AND CAN YOU WALK US 
THROUGH THE POLITICAL CALCULUS 
THAT SHE IS MAKING? 
>> SUSAN COLLINS HAS A 
COALITION THAT INCLUDES 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND 
INDEPENDENTS AND SHE IS ALWAYS 
WON BY BEING SOMEWHAT OF A 
MODERATE AND IS SEEKING A FIFTH 
TERM IN NOVEMBER AND IT IS TO 
SHOW THAT SHE CAN WALK THIS 
METAL LINE THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS 
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WHO IN THE 
PAST HAVE VOTED FOR HER FEEL, 
AND SO FAR AT LEAST THE 
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN 
PRETTY TOLERANT SAFER THE FIGHT 
JOHN CORNYN PUT OUT A TWEET 
SAYING SAYING THERE IS A NEW 
POLL THAT SHOWS THE MAJORITY OF 
INDEPENDENTS JUST WANT TO MOVE 
ON. 
>> ON THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE,  REBECCA, I WANT TO 
GET YOUR SENSE OF HOW IT COULD  
OR MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE IN 
THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION. 
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS 
JUST NOT A THING TO EXERT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IF THERE IS 
A FORMER OFFICIAL WHO WANT TO 
TESTIFY THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO 
DO THAT BECAUSE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS AN AREA OF LAW 
THAT IS LARGELY UNSETTLED. 
THIS IS ONE AREA THAT IS 
SETTLED. 
IF YOU ARE A PRIVATE CITIZEN 
AND YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU 
WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THERE IS NO 
WAY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO 
PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING THAT. 
THERE IS NO INJUNCTION. 
THERE IS JUST NO MECHANISM 
PICKS UP THEY WENT TO COURT, 
THEY WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY 
KICKED OUT. 
AND YOU CAN CHOOSE AND SINCE 
BOLTON HAS SAID I WANT TO GIVE 
THIS TESTIMONY IF A SUBPOENA 
WERE ISSUED HE WOULD COME RIGHT 
IN AND GIVE THE TESTIMONIES OF 
THIS MOTION THAT IT WOULD BE A 
LONG DRAWN OUT BATTLE OVER 
BOLTON IS WRONG BUT MAYBE THEY 
COULD ASSERT PRIVILEGE WITH 
REGARD TO DOCUMENTS, BUT NOT 
WITH REGARD TO HIS TESTIMONY.  
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO 
SOMETHING SIOBHAN MENTIONED. 
ABOUT THE KIND OF QUESTIONS 
BEING ASKED  AND TRIED TO PROBE 
WITNESSES. 
WHAT HAS BEEN THE MOST EFFECTIVE
KIND OF QUESTIONS IT HAS  
AND WHY WOULD IT BE THAT EVERY 
SINGLE PRESIDENT COULD BE 
IMPEACHED BECAUSE THERE IS 
MIXED MOTIVES FOR LOTS OF WHAT 
PRESENCE DO. 
YES FOR SURE I WANT TO GET 
REELECTED AND THIS WILL TOTALLY 
THERE IS A TIE, THE DECISION 
THEN ALL TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN 
ROBERTS. 
WHAT QUESTIONS WOULD HE HAVE TO 
WAIT? 
>> IT DOES IF HE WANTS TO. 
THE DEFAULT IS IF IT IS A TIE 
THEN THE MOTION WOULD FAIL SO 
WITNESSES WILL NOT BE CALLED. 
IF HE WANTED TO HE WOULD WEIGH 
IN AND THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR 
THAT. 
AND THE ANDREW JOHNSON TRIAL 
CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE WEIGHED IN 
ON THE MOTIONS. 
IF HE DID WANT TO DO BUT COME 
HE COULD PICK UP THE HE HAS 
SHOWN VERY LITTLE APPETITE FOR 
ASSERTING HIMSELF IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. I REALLY DOUBT 
THAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY DO THAT. 
IF HE DID COME HE COULD BE THE 
TIEBREAKER. 
>> WHAT KIND OF COMPLICATIONS 
WOULD ARRIVE THAT HAVING 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES COME INTO 
THIS TRIAL AT THIS POINT? 
>> I THINK THE COMPLICATIONS 
ARE DRYING IT OUT AND 
ADDITIONAL ASSERTIONS OF 
PRIVILEGE AGAIN NOT STOPPING AN 
ENTIRE TESTIMONY OF A FORMER 
OFFICIAL BUT YOU COULD SEE 
THINGS TIED UP AND MOVING INTO 
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT 
COULD DRAG THINGS OUT. 
AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL DAY, 
THERE IS NOT A LOT OF APPETITE 
FOR THAT. 
ON THE OTHER SIDE, I THINK 
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT 
RESONATE AND IF YOU SAY THAT 
THERE IS A TRIAL WITHOUT 
WITNESSES, IT DOES NOT SEEM 
LIKE A LEGITIMATE TRIAL. 
PEOPLE HAVE THE COMMON SENSE 
NOTION THAT A TRIAL INVOLVES 
WITNESSES THAT HAS NOT BEEN 
LIKE THAT. 
>> AND IT IS UNABLE TO BE 
PUBLISHED. 
IS THE PRESENT CONCERN ABOUT 
WHAT THAT WOULD SAY? 
>> IT IS APPARENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT 
WHAT BOLTON COULD SAY. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS TWEETED ABOUT 
BOLTON EVEN IN THE LAST HOUR OR 
SO TWEETING OUT AN OLD 
INTERVIEW OF SOMETHING THAT HE 
TOLD FOX NEWS. 
THE PRESIDENT IS VERY CONCERNED 
ABOUT WHAT BOLTON MIGHT REVEAL. 
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE WHO 
WAS IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO 
THE PRESIDENT THAT HAD VERY 
CLOSE INTIMATE CONVERSATIONS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD NOT BE 
THREATENING TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IN ANY WAY IF THEY 
WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT 
BOLTON HAD TO SAY IS VERY FAIR 
TO SAY. 
IT WILL BE ABSOLUTELY 
FASCINATING TO SEE HOW THIS 
PLAYS OUT MOST LIKELY ON 
FRIDAY. 
>> AND WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT 
ANY PLANS TO HAVE BOLTON'S BOOK 
USED AS EVIDENCE, SIOBHAN, IF 
HE DOESN'T TESTIFY HIMSELF ? 
>> Reporter: THIS IS A QUESTION 
THAT IS STILL UP IN THE AIR . 
IT IS SOMETHNG THAT IS 
UNSETTLED. 
WHAT REPUBLICAN LEADERS WOULD 
LIKE TO DO IS HAVE THAT 
CRITICAL VOTE ON FRIDAY FAIL 
AND SIMPLY CALL THE QUESTION. 
WE DO NOT KNOW YET WHAT THAT IS 
GOING TO CENSOR THE QUESTION OF 
THE MANUSCRIPT BEEN AVAILABLE 
IS STILL HANGING OUT THERE. 
>> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STAY WITH 
US. 
WE WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND 
COME BACK WITH MUCH MORE ON THE 
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN .
>>> IF YOU JUST TUNING IN, 
SENATORS RRNA DIENER RECESS. 
TODAY IS THEIR FIRST CHANCE TO 
POSE QUESTIONS TO HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
LEGAL TEAM IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
SKYLER HENRY REPORTS FROM 
CAPITOL HILL.
>> Reporter: A RARE MOMENT OF 
LAUGHTER CAME DURING THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN 
BOLTON DOMINATED EARLY 
QUESTIONS TO HOUSE MANAGERS IN 
AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS. 
>> IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE 
SENATE TO RENDER A FULLY 
INFORMED VERDICT IN THIS CASE 
WITHOUT HEARING THE TESTIMONY 
OF BOLTON? 
>> NO. 
THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO 
HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CALL 
HIS WITNESSES AND THERE WOULD 
BE DEPOSITIONS AND THIS WOULD 
DRAG ON FOR MONTHS. 
>> Reporter: PRESIDENT TRUMP 
BASHED DEMOCRATS CALLS FOR 
TESTIMONY ON TWITTER TELLING 
REPUBLICANS DON'T LET THE DEMS 
PLAY YOU. 
SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERS SAY 
THEIR OPTIMISTIC THEY'LL HAVE 
THE VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES 
DESPITE A SPLIT IN THEIR 
CAUCUS. 
>> I'M GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE 
IN FAVOR OF CALLING WITNESS. 
I'M SURE THERE WILL BE OTHERS. 3
>> IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT 
THERE BE FAIRNESS, THAT EACH 
SIDE BE ABLE TO SELECT A 
WITNESS OR TO. 
>> Reporter: WEST VIRGINIA'S 
JOE MANCHIN THISOSE  PEOPLE THA 
ROBERTS SAID IS PERTINENT TO 
THE EVIDENCE, OR TO THE TRIAL, 
THEN ABSOLUTELY. TALKING ABOUT  
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS AND THE KINDS 
OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING 
USED TO SORT OF PROBE 
WEAKNESSES. 
AND I WONDER SOMETHING WE HAVE 
HEARD FROM REPUBLICANS IS THIS 
NOTION OF IF THE NEED FOR 
WITNESSES WAS SO GREAT, WHY DID 
THE HOUSE NOT FORCE JOHN BOLTON 
TO COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY AS 
THEIR PHASE OF THIS WAS TAKING 
PLACE? 
>> I THINK THAT'S PLAYING WELL. 
BUT I THINK THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS' SPONSTEAD THAT IS 
ALSO PRETTY GOOD WHICH IS WE 
TRIED TO GET HIM IN. 
THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO COME 
IN UNTIL THERE WAS A COURT 
ORDER. 
WE HAD THIS COURT PROCEEDING 
ALREADY UNDERWAY. 
THAT WOULD DECIDE WHETHER OR 
NOT HE CAN BE COMPELLED TO COME 
IN SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO 
BRING ANOTHER COURT CASE. 
IF WE HAD ISSUED ANOTHER 
SUBPOENA HE HAD RESISTED AND WE 
BROUGHT IT TO COURT, IT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN APPLICATIVE OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS WE HAD IN PLAY. 
SO WHILE THAT'S A COMPLICATED 
LEGAL ARGUMENT, IT IS ONE THAT 
MAKES SENSE. 
>> I WONDER IF YOU CAN TAKE US 
INTO THE CHAMBER AND GIVE US A 
SENSE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS 
THAT YOU HAVE WITNESSED AS 
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THERE IN 
THE PRESS GALLERY AS THESE 
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN POSED. 
ARE THERE ANY KIND OF 
PARTICULAR MOMENTS OR 
CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE STOOD 
OUT TO YOU PARTICULARLY AT A 
TIME WHEN WE KNOW ALL EYES ARE 
ON THOSE FOUR REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT 
EARLIER? 
TWO IN PARTICULAR, LAMAR 
ALEXANDER BEING ONE OF THEM 
WHOM I'M TOLD IS ACTUALLY ON 
ANOTHER CABLE NETWORK AT THIS 
POINT. 
>> LAMAR ALEXANDER, JUST 
ADDRESS HIM FIRST, IS GOING TO 
BE VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE 
WHEN THE ROLLCALL IS CALLED ON 
FRIDAY, THAT WILL BE CALLED IN 
ALPHABETICAL ORDER SO LAMAR 
ALEXANDER IS GOING TO BE THE 
VERY FIRST VOTE. 
RIGHT OFF THE BAT WE MAY KNOW 
WHAT DIRECTION THINGS ARE 
HEADED. 
THERE IS A POINT WHEN YOU SAW 
LISA MURKOWSKI AND SUSAN 
COLLINS IN THE CHAMBER, THEY 
SIT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, KIND OF 
SCRIBBLING NOTES BACK AND 
FORTH. 
SO IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THEY 
DRAW ENERGY, IDEAS FROM EACH 
OTHER. 
THE FACT THAT SUSAN COLLINS IS 
RIGHT NEXT TO LISA MURKOWSKI 
COULD HELP PERSUADE HER IN 
SPITE OF MS. MURKOWSKI'S 
MEETING THIS MORNING WITH MITCH 
McCONNELL. 
WHAT YOU DID NOT SEE WAS A LOT 
OF THE SLUMPING IN THE CHAIR, 
THE DOZING OFF THAT WE HAD SEEN 
EARLIER. 
>> OH, NO, REALLY? 
>> OPENING ARGUMENTS. 
THERE WAS A LOT MORE ALERTNESS. 
I DIDN'T SEE SOME OF THE 
TOBACCO CHEWING MAY BE. 
YEAH. 
>> SO FASCINATING. 
THIS IS WHY I ASKED. 
THERE'S SO MUCH THAT OUT OF 
CAMERA RANGE. 
ANOTHER POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL 
WITNESS IS RUDY GIULIANI'S 
FORMER AND NOW INDICTED 
ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS. 
HE WAS ON CAPITOL HILL AS A 
GUEST OF SENATE MINORITY LEADER 
CHUCK SCHUMER. 
WHY DOES SENATOR SCHUMER WANT 
HIM THERE FOR THE TRIAL? 
>> LEV PARNAS HAS SHARED SOME 
VERY INCRIMINATING INFORMATION. 
HE HAD A LOT OF TEXT THAT HE 
SHARED. 
AND WHILE HE IS AN INDICTED 
FIGURE, SOMEBODY WHO MAY HAVE 
SOME QUESTIONS SURROUNDING 
THEIR TESTIMONY, HE'S GOT 
DOCUMENTS TO BACK IT UP. 
HE'S VERY FORTHCOMING AND AS 
SORT OF A MADE-FOR-TV KIND OF 
MOMENT, LEV PARNAS COULD BE 
QUITE IMPACTFUL. 
>> YES. 
I WOULD IMAGINE SO. 
I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS SORT OF 
BIG PICTURE HERE, PATRICK 
PHILBIN SAID THE SENATE MUST 
FIND MR. TRUMP GUILTY BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT. 
HELP US UNDERSTAND, DOES THAT 
STANDARD OF PROOF ACTUALLY 
APPLY HERE? 
>> NO, IT DOES NOT. 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A CRIMINAL 
PROCEEDING. 
THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT 
APPLIES AND THAT'S NOT 
ACCURATE. 
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE 
STANDARD IS BECAUSE THIS IS 
SUCH A RARE OCCURRENCE BUT THAT 
CERTAINLY ISN'T IT. 
I THINK ONE OF THE BIG PICTURE 
QUESTIONS IS BOTH SIDES HAVE A 
BIG PICTURE CONCERN AND THE 
DEMOCRATS CONCERN IS IF WE LET 
THIS PRESIDENTS DO THIS, THEN 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS ARE GOING TO 
BE ABOVE THE LAW AND WHEN YOU 
DO THINK ABOUT IT, YOU THINK 
THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO SAID 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOT 
ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL 
ACTIVITY OR IF THEY DO THEY 
CAN'T BRING CHARGES. 
AND THEN HAS TURNED AND SAID 
CONGRESS HAS VERY LITTLE 
ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE ME 
EITHER. 
I DON'T HAVE TO COOPERATE, I 
DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANY 
INDIVIDUALS AND SO THERE IS A 
SENSE OF CONCERN. 
DOES THIS SET PRECEDENT FOR A 
FUTURE PRESIDENT BEING KIND OF 
LIKE A KING, THEY CAN DO 
ANYTHING? 
THERE'S A CONCERN. 
ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IF WE 
ALLOW YOU TO IMPEACH FOR THIS, 
WHAT'S THE STOPPING POINT? 
COULDN'T WE JUST TURN AROUND 
AND EVERY PRESIDENT COULD BE 
IMPEACHED EVERY TIME YOU DON'T 
AGREE WITH WHAT THAT PRESIDENT 
IS DOING? 
IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST AS I SEE IT AND 
THEREFORE WE CAN IMPEACH SO I 
THINK WE HAVE A REAL PARTISAN 
BATTLE BUT BEHIND THAT IS A 
CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY 
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY 
IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK BEYOND 
WHAT THE IMMEDIATE POLITICAL 
PARTISAN INTEREST IS TO THAT 
BROADER CONCERN. 
>> I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS 
TOO MUCH BUT I THINK SOMETIMES 
IT CAN BE CONFUSING TO THINK 
ABOUT THE IDEA OF BEYOND 
REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE YOU 
HEAR IN THE PHRASING, HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THIS IS WHAT IS SPELLED OUT IN 
THE CONSTITUTION. 
WHEN YOU HEAR CRIME, THEN 
LOGICALLY YOUR MIND GOES TO 
THIS IDEA OF REASONABLE DOUBT. 
CAN YOU JUST KIND OF CLARIFY 
HOW IT'S DIFFERENT? 
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT, IT'S SORT  
IS IT NOT? 
>> FOR SURE. 
SO THE WORDS HAVE VERY 
DIFFERENT MEANINGS BACK WHEN 
THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED 
AND THOSE WORDS DID NOT MEAN 
THAT AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID 
A VERY GOOD JOB OF HISTORICALLY 
EXPLAINING WHAT THOSE WORDS 
MEANT AT THE TIME. 
AND THEY DID NOT REFER, THERE 
WERE NO STATUTORY CRIMES AND 
THERE WERE SORT OF COMMON LAW 
CRIMES BUT THEY WERE MEANT TO 
REALLY REFER TO THIS NOTION OF 
ABUSING THE PUBLIC TRUST. 
AND PARTICULARLY ABUSING THE 
PUBLIC TRUST FOR YOUR OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST INSTEAD OF 
THE COUNTRY'S INTEREST. 
SO THAT'S THE MEANING OF THE 
TERM. 
THE NOTION OF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT APPLIES TO A 
KIND OF CRIME THAT CAN RESULT 
IN PUNISHMENT LIKE GOING TO 
JAIL. 
THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE 
STRIPPING OF OFFICE AND PERHAPS 
THE INABILITY TO RUN AGAIN SO 
THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT. 
IT'S CLOSER TO A KIND OF CIVIL 
TRIAL FOR WHICH THERE ARE 
PENALTIES BUT NOT PRISON OR 
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHICH IS A 
REAL KIND OF PUNISHMENT. 
>> MEANTIME, THERE HAS BEEN A 
LOT OF NON-IMPEACHMENT NEWS 
FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. 
TODAY, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED A 
NEW NORTH AMERICAN TRADE 
AGREEMENT. 
WHAT ELSE HAS THE PRESIDENT 
BEEN DOING THIS WEEK? 
>> SIGNED A COUPLE OF WHAT HE 
WOULD DESCRIBE AS REALLY MAJOR 
INSTRUMENTAL DEALS OVER THE 
LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. 
TODAY, WE SAW THE PRESIDENT 
WITH LOTS OF THESE REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS ACTUALLY WHO WERE AT 
THE TRIAL TODAY SIGNING THE 
USMCA AGREEMENT WHICH HE AND 
CAPITAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, OF COURSE 
FOR A VERY LONG TIME TO HAMMER 
OUT THOSE DETAILS. 
THE PRESIDENT DID SIGN THOSE 
TODAY. 
BUT IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT 
IMPEACHMENT WAS AT THE 
FOREFRONT OF HIS MIND. 
HE MADE A COUPLE OF JOKES 
THROUGHOUT THE CEREMONY ABOUT 
HOW HE WANTED TO KEEP THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAPPY, 
ABOUT HOW HE NEEDED THEIR 
VOTES. 
SO IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ON HIS 
MIND YESTERDAY. 
THE PRESIDENT HAD BIBI 
NETANYAHU, OF COURSE, THE 
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE, AND NOT SIGNED, 
BUT ANNOUNCED AN AGREEMENT OR A 
PLAN I SHOULD SAY OR A PROPOSAL 
REALLY, FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE 
EAST. 
WHICH THE PALESTINIANS VERY 
QUICKLY REJECTED. 
BUT AGAIN IT WAS ANOTHER 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PRESIDENT 
TO SAY WHILE YOU HAVE THIS 
IMPEACHMENT HOAX GOING ON ON 
CAPITOL HILL, THAT DEMOCRATIC 
SENATORS ARE PUSHING, I AM THE 
ONE WHO IS MAKING THESE DEALS 
FOR THE COUNTRY AND FOR THE 
WORLD. 
HE'S ALSO BEEN VERY BUSY 
POLITICALLY. 
HE HELD A RALLY FOR NOW 
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN JEFF VAN 
DREW. 
IN NEW JERSEY. 
AND HAS A RALLY TOMORROW IN 
IOWA AHEAD OF THE IOWA CAUCUSES 
SO HE IS KEEPING AN INCREDIBLY 
BUSY SCHEDULE TRYING TO MAKE 
THE CASE THAT HE IS FIGHTING 
FOR THE COUNTRY, MAKING THESE 
DEALS, WHILE THIS SHAM 
IMPEACHMENT AS HE CALLS IT IS 
HAPPENING. 
>> AND ON THIS TRADE DEAL I 
WONDER HOW ARE FOLKS ON CAPITOL 
HILL REACTING TO THIS NEW TRADE 
AGREEMENT? 
>> I THINK THAT THE REPUBLICANS 
ESPECIALLY ON CAPITOL HILL 
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE TALKING 
ABOUT THE TRADE AGREEMENT RIGHT 
NOW. 
AND UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY 
QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING POSED 
TO THEM ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT. 
BUT THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING 
MORE THAN TO BE ABLE TO TURN 
THE PAGE ESPECIALLY FOCUSING ON 
THE ECONOMIC MESSAGE COMING 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE OF 
COURSE THE ECONOMY IS ONE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S STRENGTHS AT 
LEAST AT THIS MOMENT HEADING 
INTO THE ELECTION. 
>> AND, YOU KNOW, IT OCCURS TO 
ME, THE PRESIDENT HAS JUST 
TWEETED, THERE IS QUITE A BIT 
OF OTHER URGENT BUSINESS THAT 
IS HAPPENING. 
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT IT 
A MINUTE AGO. 
JUST RECEIVED A BRIEFING ON THE 
CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA FROM ALL 
OF OUR GREAT AGENCIES WHO ARE 
ALSO WORKING CLOSELY WITH 
CHINA. 
WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE 
ONGOING DEVELOPMENTS. 
WE HAVE THE BEST EXPERTS 
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND THEY 
ARE ON TOP OF IT. 
24/7. 
I WONDER IF YOU CAN JUST TAKE 
US INSIDE THE WEST WING. 
AT THIS MOMENT, WHAT IS THE 
SORT OF LEVEL OF TENSION OR 
PERHAPS NOT TENSION, PERHAPS 
THERE IS CONFIDENCE, IF YOU 
COULD SORT OF ILLUMINATE FOR US 
HOW IT IS THAT NOT JUST THE 
PRESIDENT BUT SENIOR 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ARE 
FEELING WITH THIS PROSPECT OF 
JOHN BOLTON MAY BE PERHAPS 
BEING CALLED TO TESTIFY. 
>> SURE. 
ABSOLUTELY. 
PUBLICLY, OF COURSE, THERE IS 
AN AIR OF, A FRONT OF 
CONFIDENCE, WHATEVER 
CONVERSATIONS MAY BE GOING ON 
INSIDE AS MAJOR GARRETT 
REPORTED YESTERDAY. 
THERE IS THIS SENSE OF DEFCON 
TWO IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED. 
IF BOLTON DOES TESTIFY. 
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT TOOK 
MANY BY SURPRISE. 
THAT BOLTON, WHAT HE HAD TO SAY 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING 
TO BOLTON AS HAS BEEN REPORTED 
AT LEAST, BOLTON, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT LINKED AID TO UKRAINE 
TO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 
BIDENS THAT REALLY HAS THROWN A 
WRENCH INTO ALL OF THIS. 
SO OF COURSE THERE IS AN AIR OF 
UNCERTAINTY UNTIL THERE IS THIS 
VOTE ON WITNESSES ON FRIDAY. 
UNTIL THAT IS ALL LOCKED UP, IF 
IT DOES GO THE WAY THAT SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL WOULD 
LIKE. 
AND THIS IS WRAPPED UP WITHOUT 
CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES 
THAT'S WHEN WE ARE GOING TO SEE 
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 
BREATHE A SIGH OF RELIEF. 
BUT UNTIL THEN, IT'S NOT OVER 
UNTIL IT'S OVER. 
AND SO ABSOLUTELY, THERE IS A 
LITTLE BIT OF TENSION AND 
UNCERTAINTY UNTIL THAT'S 
DECIDED. 
>> PLEASE STAY WITH US. 
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY JUST 
BE TUNING IN, THE SENATE IS ON 
A DINNER BREAK ON DAY EIGHT OF 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
HERE IS SOME OF WHAT YOU MAY 
HAVE MISSED. 
>>> TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES, AND WHEN YOU 
HAVE A WITNESS WHO IS AS 
PLAINLY RELEVANT AS JOHN 
BOLTON, WHO GOES TO THE HEART 
OF THE MOST SERIOUS AND 
EGREGIOUS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT, WHO HAS VOLUNTEERED 
TO COME AND TESTIFY TO TURN HIM 
AWAY, TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY, I 
THINK IS DEEPLY AT ODDS WITH 
BEING AN IMPARTIAL JUROR. 
>> AND TO INSIST NOW THAT THIS 
BODY WILL BECOME THE BODY, THAT 
THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO DO THE 
DISCOVERY AND THAT THIS 
INSTITUTION WILL BE EFFECTIVELY 
PARALYZED FOR MONTHS ON END 
BECAUSE IT HAS TO SIT AS A 
COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, WHILE NOW 
DISCOVERY IS DONE, BECAUSE IT 
WOULD BE AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND 
IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE 
WITNESSES THEN THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE TO IN ORDER THEY 
SAID, FAIR TRIAL, FAIR 
ADJUDICATION THEN THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS 
WITNESSES. 
AND THERE WOULD BE DEPOSITIONS 
AND THIS WOULD DRAG ON FOR 
MONTHS. 
AND THAT'S THE NEW PRECEDENT. 
THAT'S THE WAY ALL IMPEACHMENTS 
OPERATE IN THE FUTURE. 
THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO 
THE WORK. 
THEY DO IT QUICK, THEY THROW IT 
OVER THE TRANSOM AND THIS 
INSTITUTION GETS DERAILED AND 
HAS TO DEAL WITH IT. 
>> THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT 
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED 
WITHOUT A STATUTORY CRIME BEING 
COMMITTED. 
THAT WAS THE POSITION AND THE 
QUESTION WAS REJECTED. 
AND PRESIDENT NIXON'S CASE, 
REJECTED AGAIN IN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON'S CASE. 
IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CASE. 
IMPEACHMENT AND CRIMINALITY 
MUST THEREFORE BE ASSESSED 
SEPARATELY EVEN THOUGH THE 
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION OF 
INDICTABLE CRIMES MAY FURTHER 
SUPPORT A CASE OF IMPEACHMENT, 
AND REMOVAL. 
THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE 
CONFIRMS THIS. 
A STRONG MAJORITY OF 
IMPEACHMENTS VOTED BY THE HOUSE 
SINCE 1789 HAVE INCLUDED ONE OR 
MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT DID NOT 
CHARGE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL 
LAW. 
>> IF THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT 
DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY 
AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONALLY 
INCOHERENT STATEMENT. 
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY THE 
AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT ARE SUBORDINATE TO 
HIM.
IT IS ONLY THEY WHO CAN DEFY 
THE PRESIDENT'S DETERMINATIONS 
OF POLICY. 
AND WHAT THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO 
REALLY IS IT SHOWS THAT THIS 
CASE IS BUILT ON A POLICY 
DIFFERENCE AND A POLICY 
DIFFERENCE WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
IS THE ONE WHO GETS TO 
DETERMINE POLICY BECAUSE HE'S 
BEEN ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO 
DO THAT. 
>> 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 
WS 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 TURN OVER WITNESSES. 
NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF 
INFORMATION. 
IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT 
THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
>> IF A PRESIDENT DOES 
SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED, IN 
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT 
CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO 
QUO THAT RESULTS IN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THAT'S SOME OF WHAT YOU MAY 
HAVE MISSED. 
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. 
YOU'RE STREAMING "RED & BLUE" 
ON CBSN. 
>>> WELCOME BACK TO OUR 
CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
RIGHT NOW WE ARE WAITING FOR 
THE SENATORS TO RETURN FROM 
THEIR DINNER BREAK. 
LET'S BRING OUR PANEL, REBECCA 
ROIPHE, KATHRYN WATSON AND 
SIOBHAN HUGHES. 
FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT 
ATTORNEY FOR NEW YORK COUNTY, 
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER FOR "THE 
WALL STREET JOURNAL," AND A 
WHITE HOUSE REPORTER FOR CBS 
NEWS. 
SIOBHAN, LET ME START WITH YOU. 
THERE ARE FOUR SENATORS RUNNING 
FOR THE NOMINATION. 
HOW ARE THEY HANDLING THE 
PROCEEDINGS SO FAR? 
>> I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT 
THIS AND THIS IS THE STAGE AT 
WHICH A GOOD TWITTER FEED 
REALLY COMES IN HANDY. 
BECAUSE WHILE THE SENATORS ARE 
HOLED UP IN THAT FILE ROOM, 
DEPRIVED OF ANY ELECTRONIC 
DEVICES FORCED TO FOCUS ON THE 
ISSUE AT HAND, THEIR TWITTER 
FEEDS HAVE BEEN KIND OF 
CHURNING OUT A STEADY STREAM OF 
TIDBITS FOR THEIR VOTERS AND SO 
THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY LOCKED OFF 
FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. 
THEY THEMSELVES ARE CLEARLY NOT 
TWEETING AND NOT ABLE TO DO 
THAT BUT THEY STILL ARE ABLE TO 
HAVE A PRESENCE. 
>> INTERESTING. %
HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE, 
I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW IS IT, TO 
ANY OF THEM APPEAR PARTICULARLY 
RESTLESS AS WE ARE DAYS AWAY 
NOW FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES? 
>> I'M SURE INTERNALLY THEY 
CLEARLY HAVE GOT TO BE RESTLESS 
BECAUSE THIS IS THE POINT AT 
WHICH YOU REALLY ARE CLOSING 
THE DEAL WITH A LOT OF THOSE 
VOTERS. 
BUT SO FAR WHAT I'VE SEEN IS AT 
LEAST TODAY ENGAGEMENT. 
>> ENGAGEMENT. 
OKAY. 
AS YOU ARE SPEAKING WE ARE 
SEEING A SHOT OF MITCH 
McCONNELL WALKING DOWN THE 
HALLWAY. 
WE'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THAT 
PICTURE OF COURSE IN CASE HE 
SPEAKS BUT WE SPOKE ABOUT SOME 
OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN 
UP TO THIS PAST WEEK. 
WHAT ABOUT HIS UPCOMING 
SCHEDULE? 
>> TOMORROW WHICH IS ONLY 
THURSDAY, SOMEHOW IT SEEMS LIKE 
THIS WEEK SHOULD BE OVER BUT 
THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
TOURING A MANUFACTURING PLANT 
IN MICHIGAN. 
KIND OF TOUTING THE PASSAGE AND 
THE SIGNING OF THE USMCA WHICH 
HE SIGNED EARLIER TODAY. 
THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR HIM SO HE 
IS GOING TO TRUMPET THAT. 
THEN TOMORROW EVENING HE IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE HOLDING A MAKE 
AMERICA GREAT AGAIN RALLY OR 
KEEP AMERICA GREAT RALLY IN 
IOWA. 
OF COURSE JUST A FEW DAYS 
BEFORE THE IOWA CAUCUSES. 
NOW, WE DON'T EXPECT ANYONE 
OTHER THAN HIM TO PREVAIL IN 
IOWA FOR REPUBLICANS OF COURSE. 
BUT HE IS STILL TRYING TO 
REALLY RALLY SUPPORTERS THERE. 
THEN ON FRIDAY, AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED 
TO SPEAK AT A HUMAN TRAFFICKING 
SCIENCE, IVANKA TRUMP HIS 
DAUGHTER AND SENIOR AIDE, HAS 
REALLY MADE PREVENTING AND 
FIGHTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING ONE 
OF HER KEY ISSUES. 
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WILL BE SPEAKING AT, 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON FRIDAY. 
THAT WE EXPECT HIM TO THE REST 
OF THE WEEKEND. 
WE AREN'T QUITE SURE. 
OF COURSE THERE'S A VERY REAL 
POSSIBILITY THAT THE SENATE 
TRIAL CONTINUES INTO SATURDAY. 
IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW IT 
DOESN'T. 
SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT WILL BE DOING 
THAT DAY BUT IT'S FAIR TO SAY 
THAT HE IS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE 
DAYS, GOING TO BE TAKING TIME 
OUT, HE HAS GAPS IN HIS 
SCHEDULE IN WHICH HE CAN KEEP 
TABS ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING ON 
THE SENATE FLOOR. 
>> AND, BY THE WAY, THE STATE 
OF THE UNION IS HAPPENING ON 
TUESDAY. 
YOU KNOW? 
IT'S SO HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF 
EVERYTHING GOING ON THAT IT HAS 
BEEN A WHIRLWIND OF NEWS EVENTS 
HAPPENING. 
I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU AND 
THIS NOTION OF THE DEMOCRATS 
WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. 
WHAT IS THE POLITICAL 
CALCULATION THAT THEY ARE 
MAKING HERE, AND AS IF ON CUE 
THERE'S SENATOR ELIZABETH 
WARREN , YOU SEE THAT IMAGE ON 
THE LEFT. 
WHAT IS IT THAT THEY ARE HOPING 
TO GET OUT OF THIS, I IMAGINE, 
THIS HAS GOT TO BE A MOMENT 
WHERE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SPEAK, 
BECAUSE THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK 
THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES 
DIRECTLY, THEY GO THROUGH THE 
CHIEF JUSTICES, WE'VE HEARD, 
THAT IT'S GOT TO BE FRUSTRATING 
AT TIMES FOR THEM. 
>> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY 
FOR THEM TO HAVE ANY VISIBILITY 
IN TERMS OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT 
ARE HAPPENING IN THE CHAMBER. 
OF COURSE THERE IS THE OPTION 
OF TELEVISION CAMERAS AND THERE 
WAS A TIME WHEN REPORTERS WERE 
SEEING A LOT OF AMY KLOBUCHAR 
FOR EXAMPLE AT THE MICROPHONE 
BUT YOU SAW JUST NOW ELIZABETH 
WARREN WALKING IN, WASN'T AS IF 
SHE USED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GO 
ADDRESS THE TELEVISION CAMERAS. 
IMPEACHMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS 
SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS KIND 
OF UNIVERSALLY SUPPORT, THERE 
STILL IS THIS ISSUE HERE OF A 
LOT OF VOTERS REALLY WANTING TO 
SEE THEIR LEADERSHIP RUN-ON 
ISSUES. 
SOMETHING GETTING DONE AND SO 
THERE'S KIND OF THAT 
UNDERCURRENT OF DISCOMFORT FOR 
ALL OF THESE LAWMAKERS. 
>> AND ON THAT POINT, THIS IS 
WHY NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER 
NANCY PELOSI, EXPRESSED SUCH 
RELUCTANCE TO INITIALLY GO 
FORWARD WITH AN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING. 
>> IT'S A BIG PART OF WHY SHE 
EXPRESSED RELUCTANCE AND IT'S 
ALSO WHY YOU SAW THE PAIRING OF 
THOSE TWO ISSUES. 
USMCA BEING DONE NEARLY 
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE 
IMPEACHMENT VOTE. 
SO THEY ARE TRYING TO KIND OF 
JUGGLE BOTH OF THOSE. 
SHOW AS THEY SAY AND IT'S TRITE 
BUT IT'S TRUE THAT THEY CAN 
WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME 
TIME. 
>> REBECCA ROIPHE IS OUR LEGAL 
EAGLE, I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE 
FORMAT OF THIS WHERE YOU HAVE 
THIS SORT OF BACK AND FORTH 
QUESTION AND ANSWER WHERE IT'S 
A QUESTION FROM EACH SIDE. 
AS THEY ARE GOING FORWARD HERE 
WITH THE TRIAL. 
HOW DOES THAT HELP OR PERHAPS 
HURT SOME MIGHT SAY THE OVERALL 
ARGUMENTS THAT EACH SIDE IS 
TRYING TO MAKE? 
BECAUSE IN A TRADITIONAL SORT 
OF SESSION YOU WOULD HAVE ALL 
OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABLE TO 
BUILD UPON EACH OTHER IN A WAY 
THAT WOULD BE UNINTERRUPTED IN 
A COURT OF LAW FOR INSTANCE. 
RIGHT? 
>> IT'S INCREDIBLY DISJOINTED 
AND UNFAMILIAR AND I THINK THE 
WHOLE QUESTION OF THIS BEING 
THE TRIAL LOOKS LIKE NO TRIAL 
I'VE EVER SEEN. 
I EAN IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK, 
THERE ARE NO WITNESSES, IT THE 
PERSON WHO HAS THE QUESTION IS 
NOT ASKING THE QUESTION WHICH I 
THINK, THERE'S SOME REASON FOR 
THAT. 
I THINK THAT MAKES IT BETTER 
BUT THERE'S LESS SHOWMANSHIP, 
KEEPS THE TEMPERATURE DOWN BUT 
AT THE SAME TIME IT LEADS TO A 
KIND OF SITUATION IN WHICH 
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN 
INCOHERENCE AND SORT OF A 
JUMPINESS OR NOT SORT OF 
BUILDING THE CASE AND SOME OF 
THE QUESTIONS ARE MEANT TO 
REINFORCE SO THEY ARE SENT FROM 
A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS AND SOFTBALL, 
CAN YOU RE-ARTICULATE WHAT OUR 
ARGUMENT WAS HERE AND SOME OF 
THEM ARE MEANT TO CHALLENGE AND 
IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE 
FOLLOWING AND IS THIS A 
CHALLENGING QUESTION OR IS IT 
NOT? 
HOW ARE LAWYERS HANDLING THOSE 
QUESTIONS? 
AND SO IT'S A UNIQUE SKILL AND 
SOME OF THEM HAVE DONE A PRETTY 
GOOD JOB OF REINFORCING THEIR 
MESSAGE. 
>> IT APPEARS THEY ARE READY TO 
GO. 
LET'S TAKE YOU BACK TO THE 
SENATE FLOOR. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SCOTT OF 
FLORIDA, HOLLY AND HOGAN. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR 
McSALLY, SENATOR SCOTT, SENATOR 
HOLLY AND SENATOR HOBAN. 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF JUST ARGUED 
THAT, QUOTE, WE THINK THERE'S A 
CRIME HERE OF BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION OR, QUOTE, SOMETHING 
AKIN TO BRIBERY, END QUOTE. 
DO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH 
BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANYTHING 
AKIN TO IT? 
DO THEY ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT 
TO PROVIDE A CRIME? 
IF NOT, ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DISCUSSION OF CRIMES THEY 
NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PROVED 
APPROPRIATE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
NO. 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO 
NOT CHARGE THE CRIME OF 
BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANY OTHER 
CRIME AND THAT'S A CRITICAL 
POINT. 
BECAUSE AS THE SUPREME COURT 
HAS EXPLAINED, NO PRINCIPLE OF 
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS MORE 
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAN THAT 
OF NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE
AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A 
TRIAL OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY 
THAT CHARGE. 
AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 
OF EVERY ACCUSED. 
THAT WAS THE SUPREME COURT IN 
COLE VERSUS ARKANSAS AND THE 
COURT IS ALSO, FOR OVER 130 
YEARS A COURT CANNOT PERMIT, IT 
HAS BEEN THE RULE THAT A COURT 
CANNOT PERMIT A DEFENDANT TO BE 
TRIED ON CHARGES THAT ARE NOT 
MADE IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST 
HIM. 
THAT IS THE RULE IN THE 
CRIMINAL LAW AND IT IS ALSO THE 
CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
IT IS THE HOUSE'S 
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN 
ACCUSATION AND A SPECIFIC 
ACCUSATION IN ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, THE HOUSE HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. 
AND THEY DID THAT AND THE 
CHARGES THAT THEY PUT IN THE 
ARTICLES WERE ABUSE OF POWER, 
ON A VAGUE STANDARD THEY MADE 
UP AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
THEY PUT SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT 
OTHER THINGS IN A HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT BUT 
THEY DID NOT PUT THAT IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AND IF THIS WERE A CRIMINAL 
TRIAL IN AN ORDINARY COURT AND 
MR. SCHIFF HAD DONE WHAT HE 
JUST DID ON THE FLOOR HERE AND 
START TALKING ABOUT CRIMES OF 
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION THAT WERE 
NOT IN THE INDICTMENT IT WOULD 
HAVE BEEN OUR AUTOMATIC 
MISTRIAL. 
WE'D BE DONE NOW. 
AND WE CAN GO HOME. 
MR. SCHIFF KNOWS THAT BECAUSE 
HE'S A FORMER PROSECUTOR. 
IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE 
HOUSE TO COME HERE, FAILING TO 
HAVE CHARGED, PUT INTO ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT ANY CRIME AT 
ALL, AND THEN TO START ARGUING 
THAT ACTUALLY WE THINK THERE IS 
SOME CRIME INVOLVED AND 
ACTUALLY WE THINK WE ACTUALLY 
PROVED IT EVEN THOUGH WE 
PROVIDED NO NOTICE WE WERE 
GOING TO TRY TO PROVE THAT. 
IT'S TOTALLY IMPERMISSIBLE. 
IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF 
DUE PROCESS. 
AND SCHOLARS HAVE POINTED OUT 
THOSE RULES APPLY EQUALLY IN 
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
CHARLES BLACK AND PHILIP 
BOBBITT EXPLAINED IN THEIR 
WORK, A HANDBOOK THAT IS 
REGARDED AS ONE OF THE 
AUTHORITIES COLLECTING SOURCES 
OF AUTHORITY ON IMPEACHMENT 
THEY SAY, 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 ANY MORE THAN A TRIAL 
JURY CAN FIND A DEFENDANT 
GUILTY OF SOMETHING NOT CHARGED 
IN THE INDICTMENT. 
END QUOTE. 
SO WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF 
ATTEMPTED HERE WAS TOTALLY 
IMPROPER. 
AND WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A 
MISTRIAL IN ANY COURT IN THIS 
COUNTRY. 
AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS 
BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE FACTS 
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, 
PROVIDING NO NOTICE THEY ARE 
GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ARGUE A 
CRIME AND THE QUESTION AND 
ANSWER SESSION TO TRY TO CHANGE 
THE CHARGES THAT THEY'VE MADE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, AND TO SAY THAT 
ACTUALLY, THERE'S BRIBERY AND 
EXTORTION, THAT'S TOTALLY 
UNACCEPTABLE. 
IT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE. 
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT 
CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS. THEY 
ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE BOUNDS FOR 
ARGUMENT. 
THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AND THEY 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. 
I'M JOINED IN THIS QUESTION BY 
SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, LEAHY AND 
WHITE HOUSE. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL 
JOINED BY SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, 
LEAHY AND WHITE HOUSE IS TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ARGUED THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S 
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 
MS. TRUMP'S CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST WITH FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS ALSO COME UNDER 
INVESTIGATION?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND TO THE 
SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR 
THAT QUESTION. 
LET ME JUST PREFACE WHAT I'M 
ABOUT TO SAY WITH THIS 
STATEMENT. 
THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH FEW DAYS. 
IT'S BEEN A TRYING TIME FOR 
EACH OF US. 
AND FOR OUR NATION. 
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IN 
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT 
HAS BEEN POSED. 
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 
DEMINGS. 
AND SO WHEN THEY GO OUT TO GET 
A JOB, I WONDER IF THERE ARE 
PEOPLE WHO ASSOCIATE MY SONS 
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'VE 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 
USED TO CALL IT WORKING WITH 
SMOKE AND MIRRORS. 
ANYTHING THAT WILL TAKE YOUR 
ATTENTION OFF OF WHAT'S 
PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, WHAT'S THEIR 
IN PLAINVIEW, THE REASON WHY WE 
ARE HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
ANYBODY'S CHILDREN. 
AS WE'VE TALKED 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'LL USE THAT TERM 
BECAUSE I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT, A 
FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE INTO 
THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. 
IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES TRIED TO 
CHEAT AND THEN TRIED 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'S WHY WE ARE HERE AND IT 
REALLY WOULD HELP, I BELIEVE, 
THE SITUATION, IF THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL PERHAPS, DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, HAS BEEN PRETTY 
SILENT, WOULD ISSUE A RULING 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 CLOSE MY REMARKS AS I 
BEGAN THEM. 
LET US STAY FOCUSED. 
THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO 
DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
CHILDREN OR THE BIDEN'S 
CHILDREN. 
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
WRONGDOING. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF, SENATOR RICHARD, 
SENATOR CRUZ, GRAHAM, MORAN AND 
BOZEMAN, I SENT A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK. 
FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CRAPO AND THE OTHER SENATORS 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
DOES THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
SHOW THAT AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE REESE MONA BIDEN MATTER IS 
IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND ITS EFFORTS TO STOP 
CORRUPTION?
-- BURISMA BIDEN MATTER? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
AND THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER 
IS YES, THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW 
THAT IT WOULD BE IN INTEREST OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 
IN FACT THE EVIDENCE ON THAT 
POINT IS ABUNDANT. 
HERE'S 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 THAT HIS APPOINTMENT 
RAISED SEVERAL RED FLAGS AT THE 
TIME. 
CHRIS HEINTZ THE STEPSON OF 
THEN SECRETARY OF STATE SEVERED 
HIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH 
HUNTER, CITING HUNTER'S LACK OF 
JUDGMENT IN JOINING THE BOARD 
OF BURISMA BECAUSE BURISMA WAS 
OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH WHO WAS 
REPEATEDLY UNDER INVESTIGATION 
FOR CORRUPTION. 
FOR MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER 
OFFENSES. 
CONTEMPORANEOUS PRESS REPORTS 
SPECULATED THAT HUNTER'S ROLE 
WITH BURISMA MIGHT UNDERMINE 
U.S. EFFORTS LED BY HIS FATHER 
THEN AT THAT TIME TO PROMOTE 
THE U.S. ANTICORRUPTION 
MESSAGING UKRAINE. 
"THE WASHINGTON POST" SAID, 
QUOTE, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S SON TO UKRAINE 
OIL BOARD LOOKS NEPOTISTIC AT 
BEST, NEFARIOUS AT WORST. 
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 MAY BE 
UNDERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION 
OF HIS SON WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
NATURAL GAS COMPANY, BURISMA 
HOLDINGS, WHICH IS OWNED BY A 
FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL 
SUSPECTED OF CORRUPT PRACTICES 
AND IT WENT ON, REPORTS FROM 
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" SAID 
THAT ACTIVISTS HERE THAT IS, IN 
THE UKRAINE, SAY THAT THE U.S.' 
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IS BEING 
UNDERMINED AS HIS SON RECEIVES 
MONEY FROM A FORMER UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL WHO IS BEING 
INVESTIGATED FOR GRAFT. 
AT THE SAME TIME, WITHIN THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, OFFICIALS 
RAISED QUESTIONS. 
THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY 
POLICY RAISED THE MATTER WITH 
THE VICE PRESIDENT. 
SIMILARLY DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY KENT TESTIFIED THAT 
HE TOO VOICED CONCERNS WITH 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 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, DEPUTY SECRETARY 
KENT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, DR. FIONA 
HILL AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. 
THEY ALL AGREED THERE WAS AN 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST. 
AND EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF 
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONNECTION 
BETWEEN THE BIDEN AND BURISMA 
INCIDENT. 
THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR 
WHO REPORTEDLY HAD BEEN LOOKING 
INTO BURISMA WHEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN OPENLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED HE LEVERAGED A 
BILLION DOLLARS IN U.S. LOAN 
GUARANTEES TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR WAS 
FIRED.
HE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS 
AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO. 
YOU DON'T GET A BILLION DOLLARS 
IN LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS AND 
UNTIL THAT PROSECUTOR IS FIRED. 
MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN SIX 
HOURS HE SAID ON THE TAPE. 
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT 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 AND 
HE IS REFERRING TO THE CASE OF 
BURISMA IS ACTUALLY THE ISSUE 
OF MAKING SURE TO RESTORE THE 
HONESTY SO WE WILL TAKE CARE OF 
THAT. 
AND HE LATER SAID IN AN 
INTERVIEW THAT HE RECOGNIZED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN 
SAYING TO HIM THINGS ARE 
CORRUPT IN UKRAINE AND HE WAS 
TRYING TO EXPLAIN WE ARE GOING 
TO CHANGE THAT. 
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE 
CORRUPTION. 
SO THAT EXPLICIT EXCHANGE IN 
THE JULY 25 CALL SHOWS THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED 
THAT THE BIDEN BURISMA INCIDENT 
HAD AN IMPACT ON CORRUPTION AND 
ANTICORRUPTION AND SO IT WAS 
DEFINITELY UNDERMINING THE U.S. 
MESSAGE ON ANTICORRUPTION AND 
IT WAS A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE 
ISSUE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO 
RAISE WITH RESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
MAKE CLEAR THAT THE UNITED 
STATES DID NOT CONDONE ANYTHING 
THAT WOULD SEEM TO INTERFERE 
WITH LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIONS 
AND TO ENFORCE THE PROPER 
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS? 
>> THANK YOU.
SENATOR DURBIN'S QUESTION IS 
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT UKRAINE'S 
HELP INVESTIGATING THE BIDEN'S 
ONLY AFTER REPORTS SUGGESTED 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN MIGHT 
ENTER THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL 
RACE AND WOULD SERIOUSLY 
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 
THE POLLS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO INTEREST 
IN BIDEN'S OBAMA ERA UKRAINE 
WORK IN 2017 OR 2018 WHEN BIDEN 
WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST HIM FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
NONE OF THE 17 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 
UKRAINE. 
INSTEAD, WITNESSES TESTIFIED 
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 
CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. 
IN SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE 
SIMPLY UNFOUNDED. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN HAND-
PICKED SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THEY 
WERE UNFOUNDED TOO. 
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE CONFRONTED 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY MR. 
GIULIANI ABOUT THIS 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 IS 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. 
SO 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 GENUINELY 
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 A MEANS THROUGH 
WHICH TO SMEAR A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT. 
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ASKING FOR 
THE REMOVAL OF THE FORMER 
PROSECUTOR ON THAT TO LIVE 25 
CALL. 
THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED. 
NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
HUNTER BIDEN, THIS IS YET 
ANOTHER REASON YOU KNOW THAT 
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR 
INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN. 
CAN WE GET SLIDE 52 UP? 
THE TIMING SHOWS CLEARLY THAT 
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS 
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 THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TARGETED BIDEN. 
HE WAS SCARED OF LOSING, THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED TO CAST A 
CLOUD OVER A FORMAL POLITICAL 
OPPONENT. 
THIS WASN'T ABOUT ANY GENUINE 
CONCERN OF WRONGDOING. 
THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THIS 
WAS SOLELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE 
COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO 
MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIN. 
SO HE FROZE THE CRITICAL MONEY 
TO UKRAINE TO COURSE UKRAINE, 
TO HELP HIM ATTACK HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND SECURE 
HIS REELECTION. 
WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES CANNOT USE OUR 
TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS 
PERSONAL BIDDING. 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH 
CAROLINA. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS 
CRAPO AND GRAHAM FOR THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL.
>> THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR 
SCOTT TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL. 
HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT THE 
BIDEN BURISMA AFFAIR HAS BEEN 
DEBUNKED. 
WHAT AGENCY WITHIN THE 
GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENT 
INVESTIGATION LED TO THE 
DEBUNKING?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ABOUT 
ANY INVESTIGATION LET ALONE 
DEBUNKED SHAM DISCREDITED OR AS 
MANAGER JEFFRIES TOLD YOU 
TONIGHT, PHONY. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEN'T 
CITED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE 
RECORD AND BECAUSE NONE EXISTS. 
A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, I READ TO 
YOU A QUOTE AND STATEMENTS FROM 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DEALING 
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
WHAT I DIDN'T 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 
FRONTS THE HUMAN DIGNITY. 
THOSE WERE VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S WORDS. 
SO THE REAL QUESTION IS, THIS, 
IS CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE 
ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE RUN BY 
A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH 
WHO WAS 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, MERIT ANY PUBLIC 
INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION OR 
INTEREST? 
THE ANSWER IS YES. 
AND SIMPLY BY SAYING IT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN IS RIDICULOUS. 
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, IN CITING TO 
OUR CHILDREN, THE MESSAGE TO 
OUR CHILDREN ESPECIALLY WHEN 
YOU ARE OVERSEEING A CORRUPTION 
AND TRYING TO ROOT IT OUT IN 
ANOTHER COUNTRY IS TO MAKE SURE 
YUR CHILDREN AREN'T BENEFITING 
FROM IT. 
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE 
HAPPENING. 
NOT TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT 
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 ILLEGITIMATE 
BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHEN IT 
HAPPENED. 
AND WE ALL REMEMBER THE E-MAIL 
THAT CHRIS HINES SENT. 
KEEP THIS IN MIND, HE IS THE 
STEPSON OF THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE JOHN KERRY. 
HE SAYS, AN OFFICIAL E-MAIL TO 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF, TO JOHN KERRY 
AND HIS SPECIAL ASSISTANT. 
THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE. 
THERE'S NO QUESTION WHEN YOU 
LOOK AT THAT E-MAIL, THAT IT'S 
A WARNING SHOT TO SAY I DON'T 
KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT WE 
ARE NOT INVESTED IN IT. 
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, JUST IN ONE-MONTH 
ALONE WHAT YOU ARE IN A YEAR 
AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT MERITS 
INQUIRY? 
DOES ANYONE HERE THINK WHEN 
THEY SAY IT'S A DEBUNKED 
INVESTIGATION THAT 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 YOU 
BEFORE HAND, THERE'S ANOTHER 
PART OF IT FROM OCTOBER OF 
2019. 
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHETHER HE 
THOUGHT IT DEALT WITH OUTSIDE 
OF UKRAINE AND JUST THE 
BURISMA, HE SAYS, HE WAS 
ADVISING BURISMA ON ITS 
CORPORATE REFORM INITIATIVES, 
AND IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FUELING 
BURISMA'S INTERNATIONAL GROWTH 
AND DIVERSITY, AND LISTEN TO 
THE STATEMENT BY HUNTER BIDEN'S 
ATTORNEY, VIBRANT ENERGY 
PRODUCTION PARTICULARLY NATURAL 
GAS WAS CENTRAL TO UKRAINE'S 
INDEPENDENCE, AND TO STEMMING 
THE TIDE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S 
ATTACK ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A 
DEMOCRATIC EUROPE. 
DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTOOD WHEN 
HE WAS GETTING THE MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS WHAT HIS FATHER WAS 
DOING? 
THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT 
STATEMENT DIDN'T COME OUT UNTIL 
OCTOBER 2019. 
ONLY WHEN THE NEW STORY STARTED 
TO BREAK, ONLY WHEN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS RAISED THESE ISSUES 
DID PEOPLE START TO TALK ABOUT 
IT. 
TELL US WHERE WE SAW JOE BIDEN, 
HUNTER BIDEN, JOHN KERRY 
TESTIFY, ABOUT IT. 
TELL US WHERE YOU DID IT WHEN 
YOU DID YOUR IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS. 
I DON'T FOR MEMBER SEEING THAT 
TESTIMONY. 
I DON'T MEMBER SEEING THE BANK 
RECORDS. 
WE PUT THE BANK RECORDS IN 
FRONT OF YOU. 
AD THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO 
KNOW WHAT EXACTLY WAS GOING ON. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
ON BEHALF OF THE SENATOR FROM 
NEW MEXICO, MARTIN HEINRICH AND 
MYSELF, I HAVE A QUESTION TO 
SEND TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
MERKLEY AND OTHER SENATORS IS 
FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. 
PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR PREVIOUS 
ANSWER ABOUT THE BOLTON 
MANUSCRIPT. 
WHEN EXACTLY DID THE FIRST 
PERSON ON 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 THE 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'S OFFICE OR 
ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
INVOLVED?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, TO 
ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION 
SPECIFICALLY, THE ALLEGATION 
THAT CAME OUT IN "THE NEW YORK 
TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT A 
CONVERSATION THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY 
REPORTED IN THE MANUSCRIPT, 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND 
AMBASSADOR  BOLTON, OFFICIALS, 
LAWYERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE 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'S CLASSIFIED 
OR NOT CLASSIFIED.
I CAN'T STATE THE SPECIFICS. 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S 
CONDUCTED BY CAREER OFFICIALS 
AT THE NSC BUT IT'S HANDLED BY 
THE NSC, SO I'M NOT IN POSITION 
TO GIVE YOU FULL INFORMATION ON 
THAT. 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S BEING 
DONE BY CAREER OFFICIALS BUT IT 
IS NOT BEING DONE BY LAWYERS IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE. 
AND I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR 
QUESTION, SENATOR. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATOR LANKFORD FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
SULLIVAN AND LANKFORD 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 
AMENDMENTS 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? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, IT WOULD TAKE A 
LONG TIME. 
IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME JUST 
TO GET THROUGH THOSE MOTIONS. 
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN 17 
WITNESSES. 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
THAT THE MANAGERS ARE PUT 
FORWARD AND THAT DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER SCHUMER HAS DISCUSSED, 
AS IF THIS BODY, IF IT WERE TO 
GRANT WITNESSES WOULD SAY, YES, 
YOU GET THOSE FOUR WITNESSES 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GETS WHAT? 
WHATEVER I WANT? 
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID, WHATEVER I 
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 WITHIN 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE THAT HAVE HAD 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
I GET ANYBODY WE WANT? 
IF WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT WE 
WILL BE HERE FOR A VERY LONG 
TIME. 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE 
ARE NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITNESSES 
TONIGHT. 
BUT IT, OBVIOUSLY, IS AN 
UNDERCURRENT. 
TO SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO 
EXTEND THIS PROCEEDING, MONTHS. 
BECAUSE UNDERSTAND SOMETHING 
ELSE. 
DESPITE THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AND OTHER NONSENSE I SUSPECT 
MANAGER SCHIFF, SMART GUY, HE'S 
GOING TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE. 
I'VE GOT SPEECH AND DEBATE 
PRIVILEGES THAT MAY BE 
APPLICABLE TO THIS. 
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE 
BUT THEY MAY RAISE IT. 
IT WOULD BE LEGITIMATE TO RAISE 
IT. 
THIS IS A PROCESS, THIS WOULD 
BE THE FIRST OF MANY WEEKS. 
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE CLEAR. 
THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN AN 
AGGRESSIVE AND FAST-PACED WAY, 
AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING NOW WE 
NEED WITNESSES. 
AFTER 31 OR 32 TIMES YOU SAID 
YOU PROVED EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR 
CASE. 
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. 
WELL YOU DIDN'T. 
HE JUST SAID 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 
THAT HE WITHHELD U.S. SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE 
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION. 
YET HIS PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT 
CORRUPTION DID NOT 
CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
EARLY 2019? 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
HE BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN 2019 BECAUSE VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR 
ELECTION FOR THE PRESIDENCY. 
THAT IS WHAT THE OVERWHELMING 
AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS. 
THERE IS NO OTHER LEGITIMATE 
REASON. 
FIRST, THE PUBLICLY RELEASED 
RECORDS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
APRIL 21 AND 25 CALLS WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NEVER 
MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION. 
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE 
TALKING POINTS FOR THESE CALLS 
PREPARED BY HIS OWN STAFF 
LISTED CORRUPTION. 
SECOND, MAY 2019, UKRAINE HAD 
TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS FOR 
THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING 
CORRUPTION, END QUOTE. 
AND MET THE BENCH MARKS THIS 
BODY ESTABLISHED WHEN IT 
APPROPRIATED $250 MILLION OF 
THE FUNDS. 
BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25 
CALL, UP. 
HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED HIS 
ANTI-CORRUPTION -- HAVING 
INTRODUCED REFORM BILLS IN 
UKRAINE. 
FOURTH, JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER 
HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE 
TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN 
UKRAINE, THE ONE QUESTION THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS NOT ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, BUT ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
FIFTH, THE RELEASE AID AS YOUR 
QUESTION POINTS OUT, THE 
PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID IN 
2017. 
IN 2018. 
IN 2019 ONLY AFTER HAVING 
GOTTEN CAUGHT AND IN THE WORDS 
OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
AND OTHER WITNESSES, THE 
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND HAD 
NOT CHANGED. 
WE ARE HEARING A LOT TONIGHT 
ABOUT THE CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION. 
BURISMA. 
RUSSIA. 
BUT THE FACTS STILL 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 IN 
THE TWO PRIOR YEARS THAT 
SUDDENLY WE ARE TO BELIEVE 
SOMETHING CHANGED, THE 
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUNDS 
CHANGED AND HE HAD AN EPIPHANY 
OF CORRUPTION WITHIN A WEEK OF 
JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCING HIS 
CANDACY, DOESN'T MAKE 
CANDIDACY. 
THE ASSERTION 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 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CONTENDED 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THERE IS 
NO REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID 
BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED. 
THIS LEADS US TO ONE 
CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS, 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MONEY, TO 
WITHHOLD AID FROM A ALLY AT WAR 
TO BENEFIT HIS POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN. 
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, 
THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. 
THE FACTS WILL INTO COME OUT. 
WHETHER THIS BODY SUBPOENAS 
THEM OR NOT. 
THE FACTS WILL COME OUT. 
THE QUESTION NOW IS WILL THEY 
COME OUT IN TIME AND WILL YOU 
BE THE ONES ASKING FOR THEM 
WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE MAKING 
THE DECISION IN A COUPLE OF 
DAYS TO SIT IN JUDGMENT. 
>> MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR 
FROM QUESTION. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
JOHNSON FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL, IF HOUSE MANAGERS WERE 
CERTAIN IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO 
LITIGATE A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN 
BOLTON, WHY SHOULDN'T THE 
SENATE ASSUME HEDGY LITIGATION 
AND MAKE THE SAME REJECTION, 
REJECT THE SUBPOENA FOR JOHN 
BOLTON. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, I THINK THAT IS 
THE POINT. 
AND THE FACT IS THAT IF IN FACT 
WE ARE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF 
A WITNESS OR WITNESSES THAT HAD 
NATIONAL -- IN THE CASE OF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIGH RANKING 
NSA, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT 
IS GIVING THE PRESIDENT ADVICE 
THAT HIGHEST LEVEL. 
THE SUPREME COURT IS 
CONSISTENT. 
THE PRESUME PRIVILEGE IS WHAT 
THE SUPREME COURT SAID. 
I THINK WE ARE GOING DOWN A 
ROAD, IF THE SENATE GOES THIS 
ROAD, OF A LENGTHY PROCEEDING, 
WITH LOT MORE WITNESSES AND 
THEN I WANT TO ASK THIS 
QUESTION, AND JUST PLANT IT AS 
A THOUGHT, IS THAT GOING TO BE 
THE NEW NORM FOR IMPEACHMENT? 
YOU PUT AN IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER 
IN A COUPLE WEEKS, WE DON'T 
LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, WE 
GET IT THROUGH IN A TWO-DAY 
PROCEEDING, WE SEND IT UP AND 
SAY GO FIGURE IT OUT. 
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS BECOMING. 
THAT IS WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS. 
SO I THINK IF WE ARE LOOKING 
THAT INSTITUTION INTERESTS 
HERE, THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS 
PRECEDENT. 
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WE HAVE 
ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE, THAT 
IS WHAT MANAGER SAYS, BUT NOT 
REALLY. 
SO WE REALLY NEED MORE 
EVIDENCE, NOT BECAUSE WE NEED 
IT, BECAUSE WE WANT IT. 
BUT WE DIDN'T WANT IT BAD 
ENOUGH IN THE HOUSE SO WE 
DIDN'T GET IT SO NOW YOU ISSUE 
THE SUBPOENA AND THEN LET'S SEE 
WHAT HAPPENS. 
SOUNDS LIKE, TO ME, THEY ARE 
ACTING LIKE THIS IS SOME 
TRAFFIC COURT PROCEEDING. 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNDER 
THEIR ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, 
THEY ARE REQUESTING THE REMOVE 
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ALREADY 
SAYING IN THE MEDIA THAT THEIR 
ONGOING INVESTIGATION, SO ARE 
WE GOING TO DO THIS EVERY THREE 
WEEKS? 
EVERY MONTH EXCEPT IN THE 
SUMMER? 
THERE IS AN ELECTION. 
MONTHS AWAY. 
THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT 
TO VOTE. 
PAT CIPOLLONE SAID THAT. 
WHEN I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, 
AFTER YOU SAID YOU PROVED YOUR 
CASE, THE PRIVILEGES APPLY OR 
NOT APPLY, WE GET ANYBODY WE 
WANT. 
WE WOULD BE HERE FOR A VERY, 
VERY LONG TIME AND THAT IS NOT 
GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
POLICE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER 
JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
>> I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT 
IS GOING ON HERE AND 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 
BOLTONHAS TO SAY, WE ARE GOING 
TO MAKE THIS ENDLESS. 
WE PROMISE YOU. 
WE WILL WANT ADAM SCHIFF TO 
TESTIFY, JOE BIDEN, HUNTER 
BIDEN, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, WE 
WILL WANT EVERYONE IN THE 
WORLD, IF YOU DARE, IF YOU WANT 
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL, WE WILL 
MAKE YOU PAY FOR IT WITH 
ENDLESS DELAY. 
THE SENATE WILL NEVER BE ABLE 
TO GO BACK TO THEIR BUSINESS. 
THAT IS HOUR ARGUMENT. 
HOW DARE THE HOUSE ASSUME THERE 
WILL BE WITNESSES IN A TRIAL. 
SHOULDN'T THE HOUSE HAVE KNOWN 
WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK ITS 
INVESTIGATION THAT THE SENATE 
WAS NEVER GOING TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES. 
THAT THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE 
HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC WITH NO 
WITNESSES. 
TESTIFY ABOUT HIS CONTEXT WITH 
MR. PARNAS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK 
QUESTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
PUT HIM UNDER OATH. 
BUT WE ARE NOT HERE TO INDULGE 
IN FANTASY OR DISTRACTION. 
WE ARE HEAR TO TALK ABOUT 
EVIDENCE. 
YOU KNOW SOMETHING? 
I TRUST THE MAN BEHIND ME. 
I TRUST HIM TO MAKE DECISIONS 
ABOUT WHETHER A WITNESS IS 
MATERIAL OR NOT, APPROPRIATE TO 
OUT A WHISTLE-BLOWER OR NOT, 
WHETHER A PARTICULAR PASSAGE IN 
A DOCUMENT IS PRIVILEGED OR 
NOT, IT IS NOT GOING TO TAKE 
MONTHS OF LITIGATION, ALTHOUGH 
THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IS THREATENING. 
THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING 
TO THE SENATE THEY DID TO THE 
HOUSE. 
YOU TRY INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT, TRY TO TRY THE 
PRESIDENT, WE WILL TIE YOU AND 
YOUR ENTIRE CHAMBER UP FOR 
WEEKS AND MONTHS. 
AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING? 
THEY WILL IF YOU LET THEM. 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THEM. 
YOU CAN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON, 
YOU CAN ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTS 
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN 
CAMERA, WHETHER SOMETHING IS 
RELEVANT, WHETHER IT DEALS WITH 
UKRAINE OR VENEZUELA, WHETHER 
IT IS PRIVILEGED OR ISN'T. 
OR BEING MISAPPLIED. 
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO UP AND DOWN 
THE COURTS. 
WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF 
JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME 
WHO CAN MAKE THE DECISION IN 
REAL TIME. 
SO DON'T BE THROWN OFF BY THE 
CLAIM IF YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT 
IT WE WILL MAKE YOU PAY WITH 
DELAYS, WE WILL CALL WITNESSES 
THAT WILL TURN THIS INTO A 
CIRCUS. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
AND YOU SHOULDN'T PRESUME THAT 
WHEN A HOUSE IMPEACHES THE 
SENATE TRIALS FROM NOW ON WILL 
BE WITNESS FREE, EVIDENCE FREE. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS 
MADE IT. 
THEY DIDN'T. 
THEY MADE YOU THE TRIERS OF 
FACT. 
THEY EXPECTED YOU TO EVALUATE 
THEIR CREDIBILITY. 
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT OF 
JOHN BOLTON. 
I AM NO FAN OF JOHN BOLTON, 
ALTHOUGH I LIKE HIM A LITTLE 
BIT MORE THAN I USED TO. 
YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM HIM. 
YOU SHOULD WANT TO. 
DON'T TAKE GENERAL KELLY'S VIEW 
FOR IT. 
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. 
WHETHER YOU ARE TO BELIEVE OR 
MICK MULVANEY, JOHN BOLTON OR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. 
YES, WE PROVED OUR CASE. 
BUT YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST THE 
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHELD MILITARY TIED COERCE 
AN ALLY. 
YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST IT. 
YOU CHOSE TO MAKE JOHN BOLTON'S 
TESTIMONY RELEVANT. 
IF YOU STIPULATED THE PRESIDENT 
DID AS CHARGED THEN YOU MIGHT 
MAKE THE ARGUMENT BUT YOU 
HAVEN'T. 
YOU CONTESTED IT AND NOW YOU 
WANT TO SAY BUT THE SENATE 
SHALL NOT HEAR FROM THIS 
WITNESS. 
THAT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. 
THAT IS NOT EVEN THE APPEARANCE 
OF FAIRNESS. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHANGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATE FROM LOUISIANA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATE CASSIDY 
AND RISH FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
BEGINNING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL FIRST. 
WE SAW A VIDEO OF MR. NADLER 
SAYING THERE MUST NEVER BE A 
NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR 
AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE 
OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES 
AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER. 
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL LACK 
LEGITIMACY, PRODUCE 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS FOR 
YEARS TO COME. 
AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE 
LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL 
INSTITUTIONS. 
END QUOTE. 
GIVEN THE WELL KNOWN DISLIKE OF 
SOME HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE STATED 
OF SOME TO IMPEACH BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS INAUGURATED AND 
THE VOTE IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT, DO THE CURRENT 
PROCEEDINGS TYPIFY THAT WHICH 
MR. NADLER WARNED AGAINST 20 
YEARS AGO? 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES. 
THESE ARE EXACTLY THE SORT OF 
PROCEEDINGS THAT MANAGER NADLER 
WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO. 
IT IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
AND IT HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT AT 
LEAST SOME FACTIONS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, 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 BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN. 
THAT IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR 
COUNTRY. 
TO ALLOW PARTISAN VENOM LIKE 
THAT TO BECOME THE NORM FOR 
DRIVING IMPEACHMENT IS WHAT THE 
FRAMERS WARNED AGAINST. 
NUMBER 65. 
HAMILTON WARNED AGAINST IT. 
HE WARNED AGAINST PERSECUTION 
BY A DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
FRAMERS DID NOT WANT 
IMPEACHMENT TO TURN INTO. 
AND YET THAT IS CLEARLY WHAT IT 
IS TURNING INTO HERE. 
AND BOTH MANAGER NADLER AND 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER WERE WARNING 
IF WE START TO GO DOWN THIS 
RHODIC ONE THING THAT IS SURE 
IN WASHINGTON, WHAT GOES 
AROUND, COMES AROUND. 
IF IT IS DONE ONCE TO ONE PARTY 
IT WILL HAPPEN FROM THE OTHER 
PARTY TO THE OTHER PARTY AND IT 
WILL GET WORSE AND WORSE AND 
THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE. 
AND EVERY PRESIDENT WILL BE 
IMPEACHED. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS 
INTENDED AND THIS BODY 
SHOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN 
HERE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL? 
>> THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED 
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET 
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. 
AS PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CORRUPT EFFORT TO CHEAT AND 
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION. 
THERE IS A REMEDY FOR THAT 
STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER AND 
THAT REMEDY IS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
IT IS IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, WHICH 
IS WHAT THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY 
IS DOING RIGHT NOW. 
THAT IS NOT PARTISAN. 
THAT IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY PLAY BOOK. 
THAT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY PLAY BACK. 
THAT IS BOOK. 
THAT IS GIVEN TO US IN A 
PRECIOUS FASHION BY THE FRAMERS 
OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE IMPEACHMENT IN THIS 
INSTANCE, OF COURSE, AND THE 
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL, IS 
NECESSARY BECAUSE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT STRIKES AT THE 
VERY HEART OF OUR FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTIONS. 
AS NORTH CAROLINAN DELEGATE 
NOTED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION, IF HE BE NOT 
IMPEACHABLE WHILE IN OFFICE, HE 
WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS 
WHATSOEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED. 
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
UNDERSTOOD THAT PERHAPS THIS 
REMEDY WOULD ONE DAY BE 
NECESSARY. 
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HEAR. 
RIGHT NOW. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD 
DECIDE AN 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 IS APPROPRIATE 
FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, NOT AS 
PARTISAN, AS AMERICANS TO HOLD 
THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
HIS STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATE  FROM VERMONT. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR SANDERS ASKS THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, REPUBLICAN 
LAWYERS HAVE STATED ON SEVERAL 
OCCASIONS THAT TWO PEOPLE, 
SENATOR JOHNS ANDS AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WERE TOLD BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THERE IS 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 
LIES WHILE IN OFFICE, MORE THAN 
16,200 AS OF JANUARY 20th, WHY 
SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO 
BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAYS HAS CREDIBILITY?
>> WELL, I AM NOT QUITE SURE 
WHERE TO BEGIN WITH THAT 
QUESTION EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IF 
EVERY DEFENDANT IN A TRIAL 
COULD BE EXONERATED JUST BY 
DENYING THE CRIME THERE WOULD 
BE NO TRIAL. 
IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. 
I THINK IT IS TELLING WHEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE FIRST WORDS 
OUT OF HIS MOUTH WAS QUID PRO 
QUO. 
THAT IS THE KIND OF THING YOU 
DO. 
YOU BLURT OUT WHEN YOU HAVE 
BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT AND YOU 
SAY IT WASN'T ME. 
I DIDN'T DO IT. 
BUT EVEN THEN THE PRESIDENT 
COULDN'T HELP HIMSELF BECAUSE 
THE OTHER HALF OF THE 
CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO, BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
NEEDS TO GO TO THE MIC AND HE 
SHOULD WANT TO. 
NO QUID PRO QUO BUT QUID PRO 
QUO. 
THIS REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING 
THAT CAME UP EARLIER, WHY WOULD 
THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL, JULY 
25, KNOWING THERE ARE OTHER 
PEOPLE LISTENING, WHY ON EARTH 
WOULD THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN 
THIS KIND OF SHAKE DOWN WITH 
OTHERS WITHIN EAR SHOT? 
I THINK THIS QUESTION COMES UP 
IN EVERY CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHY 
WOULD THE DEFENDANT DO THAT. 
SOMETIMES JUST PEOPLE MAKE 
MISTAKES BUT I THINK IN THE 
CASE OF THIS PRESIDENT HE TRULY 
BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
HE TRULY BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW. 
DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS 
LISTENING. 
DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS 
LISTENING. 
IF IT IS GOOD FOR HIM, IT IS 
GOOD FOR THE STATE. 
BECAUSE HE IS THE STATE. 
IF IT HELPS HIS ELECTION, IT IS 
GOOD FOR AMERICA. 
WHATEVER MEANS HE NEEDS, 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID OR 
WHAT HAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT 
GETS HIM GET ELECTED, IT IS 
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. 
NOT JUST THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WHO LEAVE 
THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHY DO 
THEY WALK AWAY FROM THIS 
PRESIDENT, WITH SUCH A 
CONVICTION THAT HE IS 
UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY, THAT 
YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT HE 
SAYS. 
THINK ABOUT THIS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S NOW FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF, GENERAL KELLY, DOESN'T 
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON. 
I MEAN, CAN EVERYBODY BE 
DISGRUNTLED? 
CAN IT ALL BE A MATTER OF BIAS? 
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER. 
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER. 
I MEAN, HOW DO YOU BELIEVE A 
PRESIDENT THAT "THE WASHINGTON 
POST" DOCUMENTED SO MANY FALSE 
STATEMENTS? 
THE SHORT ANSWER YOU CAN'T. 
REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT ONCE 
AS PRESIDENT YOU LOSE YOUR 
CREDIBILITY, ONCE AS PRESIDENT 
YOUR COUNTRY OR YOUR FRIENDS OR 
ALLIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 
CANNOT RELY ON YOUR WORD, JUST 
HOW DESTRUCTIVE AND DANGEROUS. 
AND SO WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE 
DENY. 
IT IS A FALSE DENIAL, IT IS A 
FALSE DENIAL. 
THE CONVERSATION WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE 
SINKING FEELING, HE DIDN'T WANT 
THOSE TWO THINGS TIED TOGETHER. 
IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS TWO PLUS 
TWO EQUALS FOUR. 
PROBABLY GIVEN THE PRESIDENT'S 
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 MICK MULVANEY RECANTING 
WHAT YOU ALL SAW ON TV. 
HOW DOES SOMEONE WHO SAYS 
WITHOUT A DOUBT THIS WAS A 
FACTOR, THIS IS WHY HE DID IT 
AND BY THE WAY, HE ARGUED IF A 
CORRUPT MOTIVE WAS ONLY PART OF 
THE MOTIVE YOU CAN'T CONVICT 
AND THE COURT SAID YES, YOU 
CAN. 
IF A CORRUPT MOTIVE IS ANY PART 
OF IT YOU CAN CONVICT. 
HE LOST THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE. 
HE MAKES THE ARGUMENT AGAIN 
BEFORE THIS COURT. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOUGH, 
THERE IS NO MORE INTERESTED 
PARTY HERE THAN THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES. 
AND I THINK WE HAVE SEEN HE 
WILL SAY WHATEVER HE BELIEVES 
SUITS HIS INTERESTS. 
LET'S INSTEAD RELY ON THE 
EVIDENCE AND RELY ON OTHERS AND 
ONE IS JUST A SUBPOENA AWAY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM COLORADO. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR IS 
FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. 
ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT 
ANY ASSERTION OF PROTECTION 
FROM DISCLOSURE IS INDICATIVE 
OF GUILT AND THAT THE HOUSE'S 
ASSERTION OF IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BY THE 
EXECUTIVE. 
IS THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE 
HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT POWER 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION AND WHAT PROTECTS 
THE EXECUTIVE FROM THE HOUSE 
ABUSING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
IN THE FUTURE? 
. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS' ASSERTION 
THAT ANY EFFORT TO ASSERT A 
PRIVILEGE, A LEGAL IMMUNITY, TO 
DECLINE DISCLOSING INFORMATION 
IS A SIGN OF GUILT IS NOT THE 
LAW. 
IT IS ACTUALLY FUNDAMENTALLY 
CONTRARY TO THE LAW. 
LEGAL PRIVILEGES EXIST FOR A 
REASON. 
WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASSERT THEIR 
RIGHTS. 
IT IS A BASIC PART OF THE 
AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND 
ASSERTING YOUR RIGHTS, 
PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, DUE 
PROCESS RIGHTS, EVEN IF IT 
MEANS LIMITING THE INFORMATION, 
IS NOT AND CAN NOT BE TREATED 
AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT. 
THE SECOND PART OF THE 
QUESTION, AS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGER'S THEORY THAT THE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT MEANS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CAN'T RESIST ANY 
SUBPOENA THEY ISSUE PURSUANT TO 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, IT IS 
NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
HOUSE THE SOUL POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
WHICH MEANS ONLY THE HOUSE IS 
THE ONLY PLACE, THE ONLY PART 
OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THAT 
POWER. 
IT DOESN'T SAY THEY HAVE A 
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
THAT DESTROYS ALL OTHER 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES. 
DOESN'T MEANS EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CITED NIXON 
VERSUS UNITED STATES, OR UNITED 
STATES VERSUS NIXON, INVOLVING 
PRESIDENT NIXON, IN 1974, THE 
SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT 
I THAT PARTICULAR CASE AFTER 
AN AMBULANCING OF INTERESTS, 
ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE 
PAY BUT IT DID NOT SAY THERE IS 
A BLANKET RULE THAT ANY TIME 
THERE IS AN ALLEGATION OF WRONG 
DOING OR IMPEACHMENT GOING ON 
IN THE BACKGROUND, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS. 
THAT IS NOT THE RULE FROM THAT 
CASE. 
IN FACT, EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT 
THE COURT POINTED OUT THERE 
MIGHT BE AN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
OR PRIVILEGE IN THE FIELD OF 
FOREIGN ROYALS AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY, WHICH IS THE FIELD WE 
ARE DEALING WITH HERE. 
THE FRAMERS RIGHT THERE COULD 
BE PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS. 
THEY RECOGNIZE THE HOUSE COULD 
IMPEACH FOR THE WRONG REASONS. 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITIES 
ROOTED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, 
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR 
SENIOR ADVISERS, STILL APPLIES 
EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY DON'T FALL AWAY SIMPLY 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE SAYS NOW WE 
WANT TO PROVIDE ON IMPEACHMENT. 
IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER 
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT 
AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS 
FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO 
PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 
INTERESTS, TO PROTECT THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND 
FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO FAIL TO 
ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS AND PROTECT 
THEM WOULD DO LASTING DAMAGE TO 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY 
FOR THE FUTURE AND I THINK THAT 
IS 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 TO THE 
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, TO 
HAVE THE IDEA BE AS SOON AS THE 
HOUSE FLIPS THE SWITCH THEY 
WANT TO START PROCEEDING ON 
IMPEACHMENT, THE EXECUTIVE HAS 
NO DEFENSES AND HAS TO OPEN 
EVERY FILE AND DISPLAY 
EVERYTHING. 
THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE FRAMERS 
HAD IT IN MIND. 
BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
HAS TO HAVE ITS DEFENSES FOR 
ITS FEAR OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THAT IS PART OF THE CHECKS AND 
BALANCES. 
BEFORE I SIT DOWN, I WOULD LIKE 
TO CLOSE, GOING BACK TO THE 
SENATOR WHO ASKED THE REVIEW 
PROCESS ON THE BOLTON BOOK, TO 
THE EXTENT THE SENATOR WAS 
ASKING FOR AN ASOUTHERN ONLY 
CAREER OFFICIALS REVIEW IT FOR 
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW, I CAN'T 
MAKE THAT ASSURANCE. 
I AM NOT SURE THE LEVELS IT 
PROCESS, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER 
REVOWS. 
I DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE AND I 
DON'T WANT IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD 
AS GIVING THAT ASSURANCE TO 
YOU. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM 
MASSACHUSETTS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL 
RESPOND FIRST TO THIS QUESTION 
FROM SENATOR WARNING. 
IF UKRAINE PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND OFFERED DIRT ON PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS IN 
EXCHANGE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS IN MILITARY AID, THAT 
WOULD CLEARLY BE BRIBERY AND AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
SO WHY WOULD IT BE MORE 
ACCEPTABLE AND SOMEHOW NOT 
IMPEACHABLE FOR THE REVERSE? 
THAT IS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
PROPOSE THE SAME CORRUPT 
BARGAIN?
. 
>> BRIBERY IS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
BRIBERY IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE 
ACCUSATION THAT THE HOUSE LEVEL 
OF -- OF ABUSE OF POWER. 
WE EXPLAINED, THE PACTS OF 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE UNITED 
STATES INREVELLED CHARGES OF 
BRIBERY WITH OTHER HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY ARE 
ESTABLISHED HERE. 
THE ABUSE OF POWER IS CLEARLY 
ESTABLISHED WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES OFFERS 
SOMETHING OF -- EXTORTS A 
FOREIGN POWER TO GET A BENEFIT 
FOR HIMSELF, WITHHELD MILITARY 
AID IN ORDER TO GET THE FOREIGN 
POWER TO DO SOMETHING THAT WILL 
HELP HIM. 
THAT IS BRIBERY AND THAT IS 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. 
THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO 
WHAT THE PROPER STANDARD OF 
PROOF IS. 
THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY. 
BUT THE HIGHEST PROOF IS BEYOND 
A REASONABLE DOUBT. 
AND THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN 
PROVEN, NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT, BEYOND ANY DOUBT. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION, I THINK -- 
THIS IS AN EFFORT TO SMUGGLE 
INTO ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT -- 
I WEPT THROUGH THAT EARLY. 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
SPECIFY A THEORY OF THE CHARGE 
HERE THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER. 
THEY DO NOT ALLEGE BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION. 
IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANTED TO 
BRING THOSE CHARGES, THEY HAD 
TO PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IF YOU DON'T AND YOU COME TO 
TRIAL AND THEN TRY START 
ARGUING, WELL, WE THINK THERE 
IS BRIBERY GOING ON HERE, THAT 
IS MISCONDUCT. 
AND SO A HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS 
CONTRARY TO WHAT THE FACTS WERE 
HERE TO TRY TO SUGGEST THAT 
MAYBE THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF 
BRIBERY, THAT IS BESIDE THE 
POINT. 
WE HAVE SPECIFIC FACTS. 
WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN 
PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, WE 
HAVE A SPECIFIC ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
DOESN'T SAY BRIBERY, EXTORTION. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME THEIR 
CASE, THEY HAD EVERY 
OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME IT ANYWAY 
THEY WANTED BECAUSE THEY 
CONTROLLED THE WHOLE PROCESS, 
ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WENT IN, 
ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WERE 
CALLED AND THEY COULD FRAME IT 
ANYWAY THEY WANTED AND THEY 
DIDN'T PUT IN ANY CRIME. 
IT IS NOT PART OF THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AND CAN'T BE 
CONSIDERED NOW. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS CITY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IS IT TRUE THAT IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE ISSUE 
OF PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND 
THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES OVER 
THE OBJECTION OF THE MANAGERS 
OR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, 
WOULD A DETERMINATION BY THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE BE SUBJECT TO 
JUDICIAL REVIEW? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
AND LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY, 
LAY OUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
PROCESS. 
IF WE ARE GOING TO START 
TALKING ABOUT SUBPOENAING 
WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS, HAVING 
THINGS COME INTO EVIDENCE THAT 
WAY, THE FIRST QUESTION IS 
SUBPOENA WOULD HAVE TO BE 
ISSUES AND IF THOSE SUBPOENAS 
WERE RESISTED ON THE GROUNDS OF 
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY, THEN 
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED 
OUT BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT 
ASSERTED FOR EXAMPLE, THE 
IMMUNEY OR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, 
THE SENATE WOULD HAVE TO 
DETERMINE IF IT WAS GOING TO 
FIGHT THAT ASSERTION AND HOW OR 
IF THE SENATE WERE GOING TO GO 
TO COURT TO LITIGATE THAT AND 
THAT PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO PLAY 
OUT. 
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE GONE 
THROUGH ANYTIME THE PRESIDENT 
RESISTED THE SUBPOENA ON THE 
WITNESSES OR THE DOCUMENTS. 
THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
DECIDED TO DO IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
THEN, ONCE THERE HAD BEEN 
EVERYTHING RESOLVED ON A 
SUBPOENA, SOUNDS LIKE THE 
QUESTION ASKS FURTHER IN TERMS 
OF QUESTIONS HERE IN THE TRIAL 
ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTICULAR 
EVIDENCE, IT IS MY 
UNDERSTANDING THEN THAT THE 
PRIDING OFFICER, THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN INITIAL 
DETERMINATION IF THERE WERE 
OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF 
EVIDENCE BUT ALL SUCH 
DETERMINATIONS CAN BE 
CHALLENGED BY THE MEMBERS OF 
THE SENATE AND WOULD BE SUBJECT 
TO A VOTE. 
SO IT WOULD NOT BE -- I THINK 
THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS 
EARLIER, WE DON'T NEED ANY 
OTHER COURTS. 
WE DON'T ENEED ANYTHING 
INVOLVING ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS HERE. 
THAT IS NOT CORRECT. 
ON THE SUBPOENAS, THAT IS NOT 
GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS 
DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD 
HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN THE 
COURTS OR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
IF WE HAVE A WITNESS AND THERE 
ARE OBJECTIONS DURING 
DEPOSITIONS, THEY HAVE TO BE 
RESOLVED OR WITNESS ON THE 
STAND, OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR 
DOCUMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN 
INITIAL RULING BUT EVERY ONE OF 
THOSE RULINGS COULD BE APPEALED 
TO THIS BODY TO VOTE BY A 
MAJORITY VOTE ON WHETHER THE 
EVIDENCE WOULD COME IN OR NOT 
AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CONSIDER 
RULES, WHETHER YOU WILL HAVE 
THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 
APPLY. 
SORTED OUT. 
I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD GET 
TO THE STAGE THEN OF ANY 
DETERMINATION IN EVIDENCE HERE 
BEING ANYWAY APPEALED OUT TO 
THE COURTS. 
BUT THAT WOULD BE A PROCESS 
THAT THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO 
DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE 
IN THE TRIAL. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION -- 
>> I AM SORRY. 
EXCUSE ME? 
YES. 
SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
SMITH TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT STATED MULTIPLE 
TIMES IN PUBLIC THAT HIS 
ACTIONS WERE PERFECT. 
YET HE . -- ABOUT WHAT HE HAS 
SAID PUBLICLY. 
>> WELL, THE SHORT ANSWER IS, 
IF THE PRESIDENT WERE SO 
CONFIDENCE THIS WAS A PERFECT 
CALL, AND THAT THOSE AROUND HIM 
WOULD AGREE THAT THERE WAS 
NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON, HE 
WOULD WANT WITNESSES TO COME 
AND TESTIFY BUT OF COURSE HE 
DOESN'T. 
HE DOESN'T WANT HIS FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO 
TESTIFY, HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO 
HEAR FROM ANY OF THEM. 
I THINK THAT IS INDICATIVE HE 
KNOWS WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND 
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR 
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE 
DOCUMENTS HE HAS BEEN 
WITHHOLDING FROM THIS BODY AS 
HE DID FROM THE HOUSE. 
I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAST 
QUESTION, IF I COULD. 
IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE EMPOWERED 
UNDER THE SENATE RULES TO 
ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS OF 
WITNESSES AND PRIVILEGE AND THE 
ANSWER IS YES. 
CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE 
THOSE DETERMINATIONS QUICKLY, 
THE ANSWER IS YES. 
IS THE SENATE EMPOWERED TO 
OVERTURN THE CHIEF JUSTICE, 
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THE VOTE IS SOMETHING WE WOULD 
HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
BUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS IT 
POWER TO DO IT. 
UNDER THE SENATE RULES YOU WANT 
EXPEDITED PROCESS, WE ARE HERE 
TO TELL YOU WE WILL AGREE WITH 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING ON 
WITNESSES, ON THEIR MATERIAL, 
THE APPLICATION OR 
NONAPPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE. 
WE WILL NOT SEEK TO LITICATE AN 
ADVERSE RULING. 
WE WILL NOT SEEK TO APPEAL AN 
ADVERSE RULING. 
WILL THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DO 
THE SAME? 
IF NOT, JUST AS THE PRESIDENT 
DOESN'T TRUST WHAT THESE 
WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY, THE 
LAWYERS DON'T WANT TO RELY ON 
THE RULING. 
WHY IS THAT? 
WE UNDERSTAND THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
WILL BE FAIR. 
I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEY DON'T 
THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS 
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. 
THEY JUST WANT TO SUGGEST TO 
YOU THAT THEY WILL DELAY AND 
DELAY AND DELAY. 
I THINK THOMAS PAIN SAID THOSE 
WHO WOULD ENJOY THE BLESSINGS 
OF LIBERTY MUST UNDERGO THE 
RIGORS OF DEFENDING IT. 
THE FATIGUES 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 WE 
ARE WILLING TO INCUR? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> QUESTION, DIRECTED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MR. SIP THE GOLDEN RULE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
CAN YOU OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON THE 
PRINCIPLES, BOTH IN THE NATURE 
OF OFFENSES THAT SHOULD BE 
CONSIDERED AND IN THE PROXIMITY 
TO ELECTIONS FOR FUTURE 
IMPEACHMENTS TOWARD THE END OF 
SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC TRUST BY 
PUTTING GUARDRAILS ON BOTH 
PARTIES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I WOULD SAY PRINCIPLE NUMBER 
ONE, IF WE LISTEN TO WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAID IN THE 
CAST AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 
THAT SHOULD GUIDE US. 
THAT PRINCIPLE IS, IT IS BASED 
IN PRECEDENT, YOU SHOULDN'T 
HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT. 
IF YOU HAVE A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT THAT IS A DANGER 
SIGN. 
BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT THERE 
IS NOT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. 
IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN 
ELECTION. 
IN ADDITION, IT IS THE REMOVAL 
OF THIS PRESIDENT FROM AN 
ELECTION THAT IS OCCURRING IN 
JUST MONTHS FROM NOW, WHICH IS 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT  PRINCIPLE. 
THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACT IS 
THERE IS BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION 
TO THIS IMPEACHMENT. 
DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT. 
IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. 
THE OTHER PRINCIPLE WOULD BE 
THAT IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT 
IS UNPRECEDENTED, IF YOU HAVE A 
PROCESS THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED, 
THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED. 
ALWAYS IN THE PAST, THERE HAS 
BEEN AN AUTHORIZED, A VOTE 
AUTHORIZING AN IMPEACHMENT. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE THEY SAY THE HOUSE IS 
THE SOUL AUTHORITY OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT BUT THAT IS THE 
HOUSE. 
NOT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AT 
A PRESS CONFERENCE. 
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT 
CONSIDERATION. 
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION 
IS, ALL OF THE HISTORICAL PRES 
DEBATES OF RIGHTS GIVEN TO A 
PRESIDENT IN THE PROCESS HAVE 
BEEN VIOLATED. 
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
THAT IN OUR HISTORY. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WASN'T 
ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION 
WITNESS, WASN'T ALLOWED TO CALL 
WITNESSES. 
THEY ARE ASKING YOU, NUMBER 
ONE, CALL WITNESSES THAT THEY 
REFUSE PURSUE. 
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK 
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, DO WHAT 
THEY DID, ONLY CALL WITNESSES 
THAT THEY WANT. 
DON'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO 
CALL WITNESSES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTS. 
THAT DOESN'T WORK. 
THAT IS NOT DUE PROCESS. 
THE OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE 
THERE IS WE HEAR ABOUT FAIRNESS 
BUT IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE 
SYSTEM, FAIRNESS IS ABOUT 
FAIRNESS TO THE ACCUSED. 
FAIRNESS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS TO 
THE ACCUSED. 
HOW YOU COULD SUGGEST WHAT WE 
ARE GOING TO DO IS HAVING A 
TRIAL, WE WILL GET THE 
WITNESSES THAT WE WANT, EVEN 
THOUGH YOU GOT TO CALL NO 
WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE, YOU GOT 
TO CROSS-EXAMINATION NONE OF 
THE WITNESSES WE CALLED AND 
HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU. 
LET'S CALL ANOTHER WITNESS BUT 
YOU CALL NONE. 
THAT IS ANOTHER PRINCIPLE. 
AND I THINK THE REALITY IS 
THAT, I THINK WHEN YOU ARE 
THINKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS 
MUCH AS WE CAN AS HUMAN BEINGS, 
THE PRESIDENT IS THE PRESIDENT 
REGARDLESS OF PARTY. 
HOW WOULD WE TREAT A PRESIDENT 
OF OUR OWN PARTY IN SIMILAR 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
I THINK THAT IS THE GOLDEN RULE 
OF IMPEACHMENT. 
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GUESS 
HERE BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE 
LOTS OF STATEMENTS FROM 
DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE 
LAST TIME AROUND, AND 
PRINCIPLES AND I SAID -- I 
AGREE WITH THEM. 
I AGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES. 
I JUST ASK THEY BE APPLIED 
HERE. 
THAT IS MY ANSWER. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATORS THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS IF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WERE TO INVOKE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IN THIS PROCEEDING 
WOULDN'T HE BE REQUIRED TO 
IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENT THOSE 
COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING 
SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE 
SEEKS TO PROTECT?
>>  AS STATED BEFORE, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS A VERY LIMITED 
PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE CLAIMED 
BY THE PRESIDENT. 
HE HAS AT NO TIME CLAIMED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
RATHER HE CLAIMED ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY. 
NON-EXISTENT CONCEPT THAT EVERY 
COURT HAS REJECTED. 
INSTEAD HE SAID WE WILL OPPOSE 
ALL SUBPOENAS. 
WE WILL DENY TO THE HOUSE ALL 
INFORMATION. 
ALL INFORMATION. 
WHATEVER THEY WANT. 
THEY CAN'T HAVE. 
THIS IS WAY BEYOND. 
IT IS INTENDED BECAUSE HE FEARS 
THE FACTS. 
THE FACTS ARE HE TRIED TO 
EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMET 
THROUGH WITHHOLDING MILITARY 
AID THAT THIS CONGRESS HAD 
VOTED HE BROKE THE LAW TO 
WITHHOLD THE AID THE CONGRESS 
MANDATED BE SENT TO THEM IN 
ORDER TO PRESSURE THEM INTO 
ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION OF 
HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. 
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. 
THOSE FACTS ARE PROVEN BEYOND 
ANY DOUBT AT ALL. 
WHAT DO WE HAVE? 
WE HAVE DIVERSION AFTER 
DIVERSION. 
DIVERSIONS ABOUT WHAT HUNTER 
BIDEN MAY HAVE DONE IN UKRAINE. 
IRRELEVANT. 
WHATEVER HE DID IN UKRAINE -- 
THE QUESTION IS, DID THE 
PRESIDENT WITHHOLD FOREIGN 
MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO EXTORT 
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO 
HELPING HIM RIG AN AMERICAN 
ELECTION. 
WE HEAR DIVERSIONS ABOUT 
PRIVILEGE. 
WE HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WITNESSES. 
WE KNOW HE IS TELLING THE 
SENATORS DON'T ALLOW WITNESSES. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THE 
WITNESSES WILL SAY. 
WE HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM HIS 
COUNSEL, WE HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH 
TIME WITH WITNESSES. 
THE HOUSE SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED 
IF IT DIDN'T HAVE PROOF 
POSITIVE. 
WE HAVE PROOF POSITIVE. 
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT MR. BOLTON 
SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED TO 
TESTIFY. 
HE TOLD US HE WILL TESTIFY WITH 
A SUBPOENA. 
SO ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE 
DIVERSIONS. 
THEY ARE DIVERSIONS BY A 
PRESIDENT WHO IS DESPERATE 
BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN THE 
FACTS THAT HE THREATENED A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT JUST 
THREATENED THEM, DID IN FACT 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM THEM 
IN ORDER TO BLACKMAIL THEM INTO 
SERVING THIS POLITICAL PURPOSES 
FOR PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSES. 
WE KNOW THAT. 
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A DIVERSION. 
NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE 
THOSE WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY IN 
A WAY HE DOESN'T WANT. 
PRIVILEGE, WHEN YOU ARE DEALING 
WITH ACCUSATIONS OF WRONG DOING 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, SUPREME 
COURT TOLD US IN THE NIXON 
CASE, YIELDS. 
ALL THESE ARGUMENTS ARE 
DIVERSIONS. 
KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FACTS. 
THE FACTS WE HAVE PROVEN. 
LET'S SEE THE ADDITIONAL 
WITNESSES. 
WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE A 
THREAT, NOT TO THE SENATE, NOT 
TO ANYBODY ELSE. 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RULE ON 
RELEVANCY OR PRIVILEGE OR 
ANYTHING ELSE. 
BUT THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS. 
THE PRESIDENT IS A DANGER TO 
THE UNITED STATES. 
HE TRIED TO RIG THE NEXT 
ELECTION. 
HE ABUSED HIS POWER AND HE MUST 
BE BROUGHT -- AND THE CONTINUE 
MUST BE SAVED. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE COUNSEL 
TO THE PRESIDENT, ON WHAT 
SPECIFIC DATE DID PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ORDER THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
AND DID HE EXPLAIN THE REASON 
AT THAT TIME?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF A 
SPECIFIC DATE. 
THE SPECIFIC DATE. 
BUT THERE IS TESTIMONY IN THE 
RECORD THAT INDIVIDUALS AT OMB 
AND ELSEWHERE WERE AWARE OF A 
HOLD AS OF JULY 3. AND THERE IS 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S RATIONALS FROM EVEN 
EARLIER THAN THAT TIME. 
THERE IS AN E-MAIL FROM  JUNE 
24th THAT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY 
RELEASED, PUBLICLY RELEASED IN 
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT -- 
EXCUSE ME, FROM THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF, DOWN TO A STAFFER IN DOD 
RELATING ON POTUS FOLLOW UP. 
FOLLOW UP WITH A MEETING FROM 
THE POTUS, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, WHAT WAS THE 
FUNDING USED FOR, DID GO TO 
U.S. FIRMS, WHO FUNDED IT, AND 
WHAT DO OTHER NATO MEMBERS 
SPEND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. 
THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED HIS 
CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING. 
SIMILARLY IN THE JULY 25th 
TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS A -- THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SPECIFICALLY, HE 
RAISED THE ISSUE OF BURDEN 
úSHARING. 
IN ADDITION, IT WAS -- I 
BELIEVE MR. MORRISON WHO 
TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AWARE 
FROM OMB THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD 
EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION. 
AND THAT THERE WAS A REVIEW 
PROCESS TO CONSIDER CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE. 
THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
SHOWS THE PRESIDENT RAISED 
CONCERNS AT LEAST OF JUNE 24 
THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE 
HOLD AS OF JULY 3. THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING IN THE E-MAIL, 
IN THE JULY 25th CALL, 
TESTIMONY FROM LATER IN THE 
SUMMER THAT THE PRESIDENT 
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND THE 
-- SO THAT IS THE EVIDENCE IN 
THE RECORD THAT REFLECTS THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION IS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL HAS CLAIMED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS UNFAIRLY EXCLUDED 
FROM HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESSES. 
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE DUE 
PROCESS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
RECEIVED DURING HOUSE 
PROCEEDINGS, COMPARED TO 
PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS. 
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF ANY OPPORTUNITIES 
TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL 
PARTICIPATE? 
>> 
>> MR. CHIEF COUNSEL AND TO THE 
SENATOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH 
FOR THAT QUESTION. 
LET ME MAKE THIS PLAIN, THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT THE VICTIM 
HERE. 
THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE IS THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INVITED TO 
ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS. 
HE COULD HAVE HAD ANY OF THE 
ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE JOINED AT 
THE COUNSEL'S TABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE THROUGHOUT THE 
JUDICIARY COSMETICKY 
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE. 
THEY COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF 
THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS AND 
IMAGINE THIS, PRESENT EVIDENCE 
FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT IF 
THEY HAD ANY TO PRESENT. 
AND THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED 
TO HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP OWN 
WITNESSES CALLED BUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP REFUSED TO HOUSE. 
HE WROTE IF YOU ARE GOING TO 
IMPEACH ME DO IT NOW, FAST. 
SO WE CAN HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IN 
THE SENATE. 
IN EVERY EVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY 
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE 
DURING THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION BUT HE 
REFUSED AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TO PRODUCE 
ANY 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 
IN CONGRESS HAD AN EQUAL 
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS 
DURING THE DEPOSITIONS AND THE 
HEARINGS AND BOTH THE 
INTELLIGENCE AND THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS. 
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS CALLED THREE 
WITNESSES DURING THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE'S HEARINGS, OF COURSE 
THE PRESIDENTDUE PROCESS DURING 
PROCEEDINGS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> SENATOR MURKOWSKI'S 
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
IN EARLY OCTOBER, MR. CIPOLLONE 
SENT THE LETTERS SAYING NONE OF 
THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE 
HOUSE WERE A PROPERLY 
AUTHORIZED  AND THUS INVALID. 
WHEN THE HOUSE PASSED THE 
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND 
GRANTING SUBPOENA POWER TO THE 
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEES, THE BODY COULD HAVE 
ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENCY THE 
WHITE HOUSE POINTED OUT. 
AND PROCLAIMED THOSE SUBPOENAS 
AS VALID EXERCISES OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE COULD 
HAVE REISSUED THE SUBPOENAS 
AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS 
ADOPTED. 
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NEITHER OF 
THOSE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE. 
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION. 
THESE ARGUMENTS, PLAIN AND 
SIMPLE, ARE A RED HERRING. 
THE HOUSES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
AND ITS SUBPOENA WERE FULLY 
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, 
HOUSE RULES, AND PRESIDENT. 
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE, NOT THE 
PRESIDENT, TO DECIDE HOW TO 
CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
THE HOUSE IS A TOMMY TO 
STRUCTURE ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS 
FOR AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS 
ROOTED IN TWO PROVISIONS. 
OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
FIRST, ARTICLE 1 VESTS THE 
HOUSE WITH A SOUL POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IT CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENTS, NO 
REQUIREMENTS, AS TO HOW THE 
HOUSE MUST CARRY OUT THAT 
RESPONSIBILITY. 
SECOND, ARTICLE 1 STATES THAT 
THE HOUSE IS EMPOWERED TO 
DETERMINE THE ROLES OF 
PROCEEDINGS. 
TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE PROVISIONS
GIVE THE HOUSE SOLE DISCRETION 
TO DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH
TO INVESTIGATE, DELIBERATE, AND 
VOTE, FOR GROUNDS OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IN EXERCISING ITS 
RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE 
AND CONSIDER THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THE HOUSE IS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO 
RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONCERNING THE 
PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT. 
THE FRAMERS, THE COURTS, AND 
PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE RECOGNIZED 
AND HONORED CONGRESS IS RIGHT 
TO INFORMATION IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION AND 
IS CRITICAL SAFEGUARD. 
OTHERWISE, A PRESIDENT COULD 
HIDE HIS OWN WRONGDOING TO 
PREVENT CONGRESS FROM 
DISCOVERING IMPEACHABLE 
MISCONDUCT, EFFECTIVELY 
NULLIFYING, NULLIFYING, 
CONGRESSES IMPEACHMENT POWER. 
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO 
ACHIEVE HERE. 
PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED THE 
POWER TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF 
WHICH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS 
HE WILL RESPOND TO, AND THOSE 
THAT YOU WILL NOT. 
THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WOULD 
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT EACH TIME 
ANYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
GETS A SUBPOENA, IT IS OPEN 
SEASON FOR CREATIVE LAWYERS OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ TO 
START INVENTING THEORIES ABOUT 
HOUSE RULES AND PARLIAMENTARY 
PRESIDENT. 
THIS IS NOT HOW THE SEPARATION 
OF POWERS WORKS. 
AND, TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT 
WOULD WHOLLY UNDERMINE THE 
HOUSE AND SENATE'S ABILITY TO 
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
IT WOULD ALSO MAKE IMPEACHMENT 
AND NOVELTY. 
THE PRESIDENT ARGUES THAT THERE 
WAS NO RESOLUTION FULLY 
AUTHORIZING THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
BUT 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, AS CHIEF 
JUDGE HOWELL OF THE U.S. 
DISTRICT COURT OF DC HAS STATED
, 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 THE HOUSE MAY 
EXERCISE ITS SOLE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. 
BUT INSTEAD, CONFIRMS THE HOUSE 
SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO 
DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS OWN 
PROCEEDINGS. 
THIS CONCLUSION IS ALSO 
CONFIRMED BY PRESIDENT. 
NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE BEEN 
SUBJECTED TO IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HOUSE. 
AND EVEN IMPEACHED BY THE 
HOUSE, AD CONVICTED BY THE 
SENATE, WITHOUT EVEN ANY 
PREVIOUS VOTE OF THE HOUSE 
AUTHORIZING AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
AS RECENTLY AS THE 114th 
CONGRESS, THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE CONSIDERED IMPEACHING 
THE IRS COMMISSIONER, FOLLOWING 
A REFERRAL FROM ANOTHER 
COMMITTEE AND ABSENCE, A FULL 
HOUSE VOTE. 
THE JEWISH HISTORY COMMITTEE 
BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S MISCONDUCT 
FOR FOUR MONTHS BEFORE APPROVAL 
OF A FULL HOUSE RESOLUTION. 
THE HOUSE RULES ALSO DO NOT 
PRECLUDE COMMITTEES FROM 
INQUIRING INTO THE POTENTIAL 
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
INSTEAD, THE COMMITTEES OF THE 
HOUSE WITH ROBUST INVESTIGATORY 
POWERS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
EACH OF THE THREE COMMITTEES 
THAT CONDUCTED THE INITIAL 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE, 
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT IN 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND 
INDISPUTABLY HAD OVERSIGHT 
JURISDICTION OVER THESE MATTERS.
THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL, AS 
POINTED TO THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT, WHERE THE FULL 
HOUSE PLUS 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. PRESIDENT. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM RHODE 
ISLAND. 
>> MR. PRESIDENT I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK, AND 
BECAUSE MY QUESTION REFERENCES 
AN EARLIER QUESTION, I HAVE 
ATTACHED THAT EARLIER QUESTION 
AS A REFERENCE TO THE PRESIDING 
OFFICER AND THE PARLIAMENTARIAN 
IN CASE IT SHOULD BE OF 
INTEREST. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
WHITE HOUSES TO COUNCILMAN 
PRESIDENT. 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO 
ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FROM 
SENATOR COLLINS AND SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI, SAYING HE COULD ONLY 
CITE TO THE RECORD. 
FIVE MINUTES AFTERWARD, HOUSE 
COUNSEL READ RECENT NEWSPAPER 
STORIES TO THE SENATE FROM 
OUTSIDE THE HOUSE RECORD. 
COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE AN 
ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO 
THE SENATOR'S QUESTION? 
DID THE PRESIDENT EVER MENTION 
THE BIDENS IN CONNECTION TO 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BEFORE 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED 
HIS CANDIDACY IN APRIL, 2019? 
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY, TO 
WHOM, AND WHEN? 
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I DON'T THINK THAT I REFUSED TO 
ANSWER THE QUESTION AT ALL. 
WE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS THAT THEY WERE 
GOING TO OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED 
TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WAS 
NOT EITHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
, SO THINGS THAT ARE IN 
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, THINGS LIKE 
THAT BETTER OUT THERE WE COULD 
REFER TO, OR THINGS THAT WERE 
IN THE RECORD. 
AND, SO I AM NOT IN THE 
POSITION TO GO BACK INTO THINGS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE 
SAID IN PRIVATE AND THERE HAS 
BEEN NO DISCOVERY INTO THAT. 
IT IS NOT PART OF HIS INQUIRY, 
SO I CANNOT GO TELLING THEM 
ABOUT THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
MIGHT HAVE SAID TO CABINET 
MEMBERS. 
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY 
THAT. 
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS IN THE 
PUBLIC, AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT 
IS IN THE RECORD. 
AND I ANSWERED THE QUESTION 
FULLY TO THE BEST OF MY 
ABILITY, BASED ON WHAT IS IN 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND WHAT IS 
IN THE RECORD. 
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 AND 
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 
SUBPOENAS. 
BECAUSE, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN 
A VOTE FROM THE FULL HOUSE TO 
AUTHORIZE ANY IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY INTO A PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IT WAS THAT WAY IN THE JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS THAT WAY IN 
THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT. 
THERE HAVE BEEN REFERENCES TO 
THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEGAN SOME 
INVESTIGATORY WORK BEFORE THE 
HOUSE ACTUALLY VOTED ON THE 
RESOLUTION, I THINK IT WAS 
RESOLUTION 803, TO AUTHORIZE 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
BUT ALL OF THAT WORK WAS SIMPLY 
GATHERING THINGS THAT WERE IN 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, OR THAT HAD 
BEEN ALREADY GATHERED BY OTHER 
COMMITTEES. 
AND, THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY 
PROCESS ISSUE AND IN FACT, 
CHAIRMAN RODINO OF THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED WHEN 
THERE WAS A MOVE TO HAVE THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS AFTER THE SATURDAY 
NIGHT MASSACRE, THAT THE 
COMMUNITY LACKED THE AUTHORITY 
TO HAVE ANY COMPULSORY PROCESS 
UNTIL THEY HAD AUTHOR AS THE 
COMMUNITY TO. 
THIS IS NOT SOME ESOTERIC 
SPECIAL ROLE ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENTS, AS I HAVE TRIED 
TO EXPLAIN. 
THIS IS JUST A PHENOMENAL RULE 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT 
HOW AUTHORITY THAT HAS BEEN 
GIVEN BY WE THE PEOPLE TO 
CHAMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, 
TYLER THE HOUSE OR SENATE, ONCE 
IT IS GIVEN THERE TO THE HOUSE, 
HOW DOES HE GET TO A COMMITTEE? 
IT CAN ONLY GET DOWN TO A 
COMMITTEE IF IT IS DELEGATED BY 
THE HOUSE, THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN 
IF THE HOUSE VOTES. 
AND, THERE IS NO STANDING RULE 
THAT GIVES THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AUTHORITY TO USE THE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS OPPOSED 
TO THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE, 
THERE IS NO RULE THAT GIVES YOU 
THE POWER TO USE AUTHORITY OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO ISSUE COMPULSORY 
PROCESS, RULE 10 DOES NOT 
MENTION IMPEACHMENT AT ALL. 
THE WORD DOES NOT APPEAR IN IT. 
AND THAT HIS WEIGHT HAS ALWAYS 
BEEN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT 
THERE MUST BE A VOTE FROM THE 
HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, OR IN THIS 
CASE, IT WAS CONTRARY TO ALL 
PAIR PRACTICE, IT WAS GIVEN TO 
MANAGER SHIFTS COMMITTEE AND 
OTHER COMMITTEES, THE AUTHORITY 
TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE 
POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH WAS THAT ALL OF THE 
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BEFORE HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660 WERE INVALID ON 
THEIR FACE AND SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI'S QUESTION IS EXACTLY 
CORRECT, THERE WAS NO EFFORT IN 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 OTHER TWO 
ATTEMPTS TO RETROACTIVELY 
AUTHORIZE THE SUBPOENAS, OR TO 
SAY THAT THOSE SUBPOENAS -- TO 
RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THOSE 
SUBPOENAS, OR THAN TO REISSUE 
THEM UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
SO, THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED 
INVALID AND THERE WAS NO 
RESPONSE FROM THE HOUSE TO 
THAT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> YOUR COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASCEND 
TO THE DESK A QUESTION FOR BOTH 
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT AND 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON MY OWN 
BEHALF ON ON BEHALF OF SENATOR 
CRUISE, SENATOR DAINES, AND 
SENATOR BRAUN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WILL 
RESPOND FIRST TO THE QUESTION 
FROM SENATOR HOLLY AND THE 
OTHER SENATORS. 
WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, VICTOR 
SHOGUN, UKRAINE'S PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL, VOWED TO INVESTIGATE 
BURISMA. 
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 
PRESSED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON 
CORRUPTION INCLUDING PUSHING 
FOR THE REMOVAL OF SHOGUN, DID 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE OR THE OFFICE OF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL COUNSEL 
ISSUE ETHICS ADVICE APPROVING 
MR. BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT IN 
MATTERS INVOLVING CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE OR ASHOKAN? 
DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF HUNTER 
BIDEN. DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
EVER ASKED HUNTER BIDEN TO STEP 
DOWN FROM THE BOARD OF BURISMA? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT THEN VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN SOUGHT ANY 
ETHICS OPINION, WE ARE AWARE 
THAT BOTH AMOS HOCHSTEIN AND 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
STATE CAN'T TESTIFIED, EXCUSE 
ME, AMOS HOCHSTEIN IS IN THE 
PUBLIC DOMAIN, DEPUTY TERRY KENT
IN THE HOUSE, THEY EACH RAISE 
THE ISSUE WITH VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN OF THE POTENTIAL 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST WITH HIS SON HUNTER 
BEING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA. 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT 
TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH HE 
RAISE THAT ISSUE WITH THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, THE 
RESPONSE WAS THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS BUSY DEALING WITH 
THE ILLNESS OF HIS OTHER SON, 
AND THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN. 
SO, FROM WHAT WE KNOW, THERE 
WASN'T ANY EFFORT TO SEEK AN 
ETHICS OPINION, WE ARE NOT 
AWARE OF AN ETHICS OPINION 
HAVING BEEN ISSUED. 
ALTHOUGH, THE ISSUE WAS LIKE 
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
OFFICE, WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT 
VICE -- THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN 
ASKED HIS SON TO STEP DOWN OR 
THAT ANY OTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN.
AND I BELIEVE THE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN HAS SAID THAT HE NEVER 
DISCUSSED, HE SAID PUBLICLY HE 
NEVER DISCUSSED HIS SON'S 
OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH 
UKRAINE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR 
QUESTION. 
THE FACTS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S CONDUCT ARE CLEAR AND 
DO NOT CHANGE. 
LET'S GO THROUGH THEM. 
FIRST, EVERY WITNESS ASKS ABOUT 
THIS TOPIC, TESTIFY THAT MR. 
SHOKO WAS WIDELY CONSIDERED TO 
BE A CORRUPT AND INEFFECTIVE 
PROSECUTOR. 
WHO DID NOT PROSECUTE 
CORRUPTION. 
HE WAS SO CORRUPT THAT THE 
ENTIRE FREE WORLD, THE UNITED 
STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, 
PRESSED FOR HIS OFFICE TO BE 
CLEANED UP. 
SO, I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO BE 
SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING THAT HE 
CLAIMS. 
SECOND, WITNESSES INCLUDED IN 
OUR OWN ANTICORRUPTION 
ADVOCATE, AMBASSADOR MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH.  
THAT VERY DEDICATED 
ANTICORRUPTION AMBASSADOR 
TESTIFIED THAT HIS REMOVAL MADE 
IT MORE LIKELY THAT 
INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPT 
EUROPEAN -- UKRAINIAN 
COMPANIES, WOULD MOVE FORWARD. 
LET ME REPEAT THAT. 
THE DISMISSAL OF HIM MADE IT 
MORE LIKELY THAT BURISMA WOULD 
BE INVESTIGATED. THIRD, BURISMA 
WAS NOT UNDER SCRUTINY AT THE 
TIME JOE BIDEN CALLED FOR 
ASHOKAN'S OUSTER. 
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL 
ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU OF 
UKRAINE, AND ORGANIZATIONS 
SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED IS 
EFFECTIVE AT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION. 
HIS OFFICE BEFORE EMPEROR BIDEN 
JOINED THE COUNTRY BUT AGAIN 
ANOTHER INVESTIGATION WAS 
WARRANTED DISMISSING HIM WOULD 
HAVE MADE THAT MORE LIKELY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
I WILL ASCEND TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR KING'S QUESTION FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS 
FOLLOWS. 
MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS IN 
UKRAINE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE 
POLITICAL AIR AND BY HIS OWN 
ADMISSION, SO DOESN'T THE 
PRESIDENT'S MENTION OF GIULIANI 
BY NAME IN THE JULY 25th CALL 
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THE REAL 
PURPOSE OF THE CALL? 
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE. 
MR. GIULIANI PLAYED A KEY ROLE 
IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MONTH-LONG 
SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT THE 
PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.
REMARKABLY, THE PRESIDENTS 
DEFENSE IS WRAPPING THEMSELVES 
IN RUDY GIULIANI'S INVOLVEMENT 
IN UKRAINE WHILE TRYING TO 
MINIMIZE HIS ROLE. 
THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, 
NOT JUST TESTIMONY, BUT TUSKS, 
RECORDS, AND OTHER 
CORROBORATING DOCUMENTS 
ESTABLISHING MR. GIULIANI'S KEY 
ROLE IN EXECUTING THE 
PRESIDENTS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN 
BEGINNING IN EARLY SPRING 2019 
WITH THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST 
AMBASSADOR GIVEN WHICH AND THEN 
THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER. 
EVERYONE KNEW THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI WAS THE GATEKEEPER TO 
THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE. 
ON MAY 10th, MR. GIULIANI 
CANCELED THE TRIP TO UKRAINE 
DURING WHICH HE PLANS TO DIG UP 
DIRT ON FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN, AND DISCREDITED 
CONSPIRACY THEORY AFTER HIS 
PLANS BECAME PUBLIC. 
HE ADMITTED, WE ARE NOT 
MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE 
MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. 
HE EXPLAINED THAT SOMEONE COULD 
SAY IT IS IMPROPER AND THIS IS 
NOT -- SOMEONE COULD SAY IT IS 
IMPROPER AND THIS IS NOT 
FOREIGN POLICY. 
I'M ASKING THEM TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION THEY ARE ALREADY 
DOING AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE 
TELLING THEM TO STOP. 
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS. 
DURING A MAINTENANCE APPEARANCE 
ON FOX NEWS, GIULIANI ALSO SAID 
THAT HE CANCELED HIS TRIP 
BECAUSE THERE ARE ANY AREAS OF 
TRUMP AROUND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
MR. GIULIANI'S ASSOCIATE  (OFF, 
THAT INCLUDED A LETTER AND I 
BELIEVE WE HAVE SLIDE 50 HERE. 
MR. GIULIANA SEND TO PRESIDENT-
ELECT ZELENSKY DURING THIS TIME 
PERIOD.  
THE LETTER DATED MAY 10th, MR. 
GIULIANI INFORMED ZELENSKY THAT 
HE REPRESENTED PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN ,  NOT AS 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
HE ALSO REQUESTED MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON MAY 13th 
AND 14th , ALONG WITH VICTORIAN 
SAYING HIS CAPACITY TO PERSONAL 
COUNSEL PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT. 
MR. GIULIANI CONFIRMED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S KNOWLEDGE OF 
HIS ACTIONS WITH YOUR GUARDS TO 
UKRAINE STATING HE KNOWS WHAT 
I'M DOING, SURE AS HIS LAWYER, 
HE IS MY ONLY CLIENT, THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
HE IS THE ONE WHO HAD AN 
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, TELL 
THEM WHAT HAPPENED. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY 
INSTRUCTED SENIOR AMERICAN AND 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO TALK TO 
RUDY. 
DEMONSTRATING TO MICHELLE MR. 
GIULIANI WAS A KEY PLAYER IN 
THE CORRUPT SCHEME. 
IN A MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED HIS HAND-PICKED THREE 
AMIGOS TO TALK TO RUDY. 
IN RESPONSE, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED, SECRETARY 
PERRY, INVESTOR VOELKER AND I, 
WORKED WITH MR. RUDY GIULIANI 
ON UKRAINE MATTERS AT THE 
EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
AFTER TWO EXPLOSIVE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETINGS ON JULY 10th IN WHICH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXPLICITLY 
CONVEYED THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND 
FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, 
TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, TOP 
UKRAINIAN AID TEXTED AMBASSADOR 
VOELKER, I FEEL THE KEY FOR 
MANY THINGS IS RUDY AND WHAT 
WAS RUDY ASKING? 
INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO AMERICAN 
CITIZENS. 
NOT CORRUPTION IN GENERAL, 
INVESTIGATIONS, IN FACT HE WAS 
NOT EVEN ASKING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
HE WAS JUST ASKING FOR AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION SO THAT AMERICAN 
CITIZENS, THE BIDENS, COULD BE 
SMEARED. 
ON THE JULY 25th CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELINSKI, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MENTIONED RUDY GIULIANI 
BY NAME. 
NO LESS THAN FOUR TIMES. 
HE INFORMED ZELINSKI THAT RUDY 
VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT IS GOING 
ON. 
HE TOLD HIM MR. GIULIANI IS A 
HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN AND ADDED 
RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT IS 
HAPPENING. 
IN AUGUST, MR. GIULIANI MET 
WITH A TOP UKRAINIAN AID AND 
CONVEYED THAT UKRAINE MUST 
ISSUE A PUBLIC STATEMENT 
ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOELKER 
THEN WORKED CLOSELY WITH 
GIULIANI AND THE UKRAINIANS TO 
ENSURE THE PLANNED STATEMENT 
WOULD MAKE MR. GIULIANI'S 
DEMANDS, SPECIFICALLY MR. 
GIULIANI INSISTED THAT THE 
STATEMENT INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
REFERENCES TO BURISMA AND THE 
2016 ELECTION, AND BIDEN. 
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, 
SONDLAND STATED HE KNEW THEY 
NEEDED THE APPROVAL OF GIULIANI 
FOR THE PRESS STATEMENT, AND 
THAT THEY KNEW GIULIANI 
REPRESENTED THE INTERESTS OF 
THE PRESIDENT. 
RUDY GIULIANI ADMITTED ON LIVE 
TELEVISION TO PRESS RING 
UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN. 
NOT INTO CORRUPTION, INTO JOE 
BIDEN. 
IN SEPTEMBER, 2019 CHRIS, ASKED 
TO GIULIANI, SAID YOU DID ASK 
UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN? 
IN RESPONSE HE INSISTED, OF 
COURSE I DID. 
MR. GIULIANI INSISTED THAT 
UKRAINE LOOK INTO AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN ON BEHALF OF HIS 
CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
ITALY DURING THE PENDENCY OF 
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS HE 
IS NOT CEASING IN HIS EFFORTS 
TO DIG UP DIRT TO BENEFIT THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IN DECEMBER, HE AGAIN TRAVELED 
TO UKRAINE TO MEET WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHICH HE 
DESCRIBED AS A SECRET 
ASSIGNMENT. 
AFTER WHICH, THE PRESIDENT 
REPORTEDLY CALLED HIM 
IMMEDIATELY UPON LANDING AND 
ASKED WHAT DID YOU GET TO WHICH 
MR. GIULIANI RESPONDED, MORE 
THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE. 
IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT IN THE 
PRESENTATION ABOUT GIULIANI -- 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
>> REPEATED REQUESTS INTO 
BIDEN, NOT ANTICORRUPTION. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, 
SENATOR SOFT, BROWN, WISH, 
McSORLEY, ROBERTS, AND HOBAN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
RUBIO AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS VIEW 
REMOVING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN 
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ON THE 
BASIS OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY
AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHERS? 
BY THE OTHER. 
>> THANK YOU, SENATORS. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON ADDRESSED 
THAT ISSUE VERY DIRECTLY. 
HE SAID THE GREATEST DANGER OF 
IMPEACHMENT IS IF IT TURNS 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 AN IMPEACHMENT 
GOING FORWARD IN VIOLATION OF 
THE SCHUMER ROLE AND THE RULES 
OF OTHER CONGRESSMEN THAT WERE 
GOOD ENOUGH FOR US DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT BUT SEEMED 
TO HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALY IN 
THE CURRENT SITUATION. 
THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN SET 
OUT ARE SO LOST, THEY BASICALLY 
PARAPHRASE MAXINE WATERS WHO 
SAID THERE IS NO LAW. 
ANYTHING THE HOUSE WANTS TO DO 
TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE. 
THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED 
TODAY. 
THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW. 
WE HAVE HEARD MUCH ABOUT, NO 
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS 
NOT ABOVE THE LAW, THEY MAY NOT 
USE THE MAXINE WATERS, GERALD 
FORD MADE THE SAME POINT, BUT 
IT IT WAS ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT 
OF A JUDGE. 
JUDGES ARE DIFFERENT. 
THERE ARE MANY OTHER, THERE IS 
ONLY ONE PRESIDENT. 
BUT HE IS THAT CRITERIA THAT IT 
IS WHATEVER THE HOUSE AS IT IS, 
WHATEVER THE SENATE SAYS IT IS, 
TURNS THOSE BODIES INTO LAWLESS 
BODIES, IN VIOLATION OF THE 
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. 
MANAGER SHIFT CONFUSED MY 
ARGUMENT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT 
INTENT AND MOTIVE. 
YOU HAVE SAID I'M NOT A 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BUT YOU 
ADMITTED I AM A CRIMINAL AND I 
TALKED CRIMINAL LAW FOR 50 
YEARS AT HARVARD AND THERE IS 
AN ENORMOUS DISTINCTION IS 
BETWEEN THEM. 
SOMEBODY SHOOT SOMEBODY THE 
INTENT IS THAT WHEN YOU PULL 
THE TRIGGER YOU KNOW I BELIEVE 
AND HIT SOMEBODY AND MAY KILL 
THEM, THAT IS THE INTENT TO 
KILL. 
MOTIVE CAN BE REVENGE, IT COULD 
BE MONEY, IT CAN ALMOST NEVER 
BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION 
EXCEPT IN EXTREME CASES, THERE 
ARE CASES WHERE MOTIVE COUNTS. 
BUT LET'S CONSIDER A 
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WE HAVE 
DISCUSSED. 
LET'S ASSUME THAT PRESIDENT 
OBAMA HAD BEEN TOLD BY HIS 
ADVISORS THAT IT REALLY IS 
IMPORTANT TO SEND LETHAL WEAPONS
TO THE UKRAINE. 
BUT THEN, HE GETS A CALL FROM 
HIS POLITICAL ADVISOR WHO SAYS 
WE KNOW IT IS IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST TO SEND LETHAL WEAPONS 
TO THE UKRAINE, BUT WE ARE 
TELLING YOU THAT 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 LETHAL WAR, 
POTENTIALLY WITH RUSSIA. 
WOULD ANYBODY HERE SUGGEST THAT 
WAS IMPEACHABLE? 
OR LET'S ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA 
SAID, I PROMISED TO BOMB SYRIA 
IF THEY HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS, 
BUT I AM NOW TOLD BY MY POSTERS 
THE BOMBING SYRIA WOULD HURT MY 
ELECTORAL CHANCES? 
CERTAINLY NOT IMPEACHABLE AT 
ALL. 
SO, LET ME APPLY THAT TO THE 
CURRENT SITUATION, AS YOU KNOW, 
I SAID PREVIOUSLY THERE ARE 
THREE LEVELS OF POSSIBLE 
MOTIVE. 
ONE IS, THE MOTIVE IS PURE. 
ONLY INTEREST IS IN THE WAY OF 
WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY. 
AND THE REAL WORLD, THAT REALLY 
HAPPENS. 
THE OTHER ONE IS THE MOTIVE IS 
COMPLETELY CORRUPT. 
I WANT MONEY, BUT THEN THERE IS 
THE THIRD ONE THAT IS SO 
CONSTITUTED AND THAT IS OFTEN 
MISUNDERSTOOD. 
WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE, A 
MOTIVE IN WHICH YOU THINK 
YOU'RE DOING GOOD FOR THE 
COUNTRY, BUT YOU'RE ALSO DOING 
GOOD FOR YOURSELF. 
YOU'RE DOING GOOD FOR ME, FOR 
ME, AND YOU ALTOGETHER PUT IN A 
BUNDLE IN WHICH YOU ARE 
SATISFIED. 
THAT YOU ARE DOING ABSOLUTELY 
THE RIGHT THING. 
LET ME GIVE YOU A PERFECT 
EXAMPLE OF THAT FROM THE CASE. 
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ONLY BECAME INTERESTED 
IN CORRUPTION WHEN HE LEARNED 
THAT JOE BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IN HIS 
SECOND TERM. 
AND HE SAID TO HIMSELF, YOU 
KNOW, JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
I REALLY SHOULD NOW GET 
CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER HIS SON 
IS CORRUPT. 
BECAUSE HE IS NOT ONLY A 
CANDIDATE, HE IS NOT RUNNING 
AGAINST ME, I'M FINISHED WITH 
MY TERM, BUT HE COULD BE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
AND IF HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND HE HAS A 
CORRUPT SON, THE FACT THAT HE 
HAS ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY IS 
A VERY GOOD REASON FOR UPPING 
THE INTEREST IN HIS SON. 
IF HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT, HE IS A HAS-BEEN. 
HE IS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES. 
OKAY, BIG DEAL. 
BUT IF HE IS RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT, THAT IS AN ENORMOUS, 
BIG DEAL. 
SO, THE DIFFERENCE, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WOULD MAKE, IS WHETHER 
THE PRESIDENT IS IN HIS FIRST 
TERM OR SECOND TERM. 
WHETHER HE IS RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION OR NOT RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION. 
I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE TO 
CONCEDE THAT HE WAS NOT RUNNING 
FOR REELECTION, THIS WOULD NOT 
BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE OR IT WOULD 
BE A MIXED MOTIVE BUT LEANING 
ON THE SIDE OF NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
IF HE IS RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION, SUDDENLY THAT TURNS 
IT INTO AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SUBMIT 
A QUESTION TO THE DESK, 
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR 
CLAIRE BASHAR TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
I WAS ON THE TRIAL COMMITTEE 
FOR THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
IN THE SENATE. 
WHICH INVOLVED JUDGE THOMAS 
PORTEOUS WHO WAS ULTIMATELY 
REMOVED. 
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 A PRESIDENTS TRIAL? 
>>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, AS 
YOU KNOW I AM QUITE FAMILIAR 
WITH THE PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT. 
SOMEONE ASKED ME THE LAST TIME 
I TRIED A CASE, THE ANSWER IS 
PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO, EXCEPT 
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS 
PORTEOUS. 
WHEN I LAST SPENT SOME QUALITY 
TIME WITH YOU, THERE IS NO 
DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED FOR 
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES IS A FAR MORE 
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE THAN 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE. 
NOW, YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, 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 YOUR TIME IS, WE 
WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME CALLING 
DOZENS OF WITNESSES, BUT AN 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT, IT 
IS NOT WORTH THE TIME. 
IT IS TOO MUCH OF AN 
IMPOSITION. 
AGAIN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE 
IMPERATIVE CALLING JUDGES AND 
HAVING A FAIR TRIAL, WHEN WE 
ARE ADJUDICATING THE GUILT OF 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, IS PARAMOUNT. 
NOW, WE HAVE ALWAYS ARGUED THAT 
THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
AND YES, IT IS A BIG DEAL TO 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND REMOVE 
THAT PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. 
IT IS ALSO A BIG DEAL IF YOU 
LEAVE A PLACE OF PRESIDENT 
WHERE THE HOUSE HAS PROVEN THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED 
IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT, AND IS 
LIKELY TO CONTINUE COMMITTING 
IT. 
BECAUSE, THERE IS NO DOUBT, I 
THINK FROM THE RECORD, THAT NOT 
ONLY DID THE PRESIDENT SOLICIT 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016, 
BUT SOLICITED UKRAINE'S 
INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING 
ELECTION, SOLICITED CHINA'S 
INTERFERENCE, AS MY COLLEAGUE 
JUST SAID, HAD RUDY GIULIANI, 
HIS PERSONAL AGENT, IN UKRAINE 
DURING THE SAME KIND OF THING, 
JUST LAST MONTH, AND SENATOR, 
IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, 
ISN'T IT DISPOSITIVE THAT 
GIULIANI, THE PERSONAL AGENT TO 
THE PRESIDENT, IS RUNNING THIS 
BIDEN OPERATION RATHER THAN ANY 
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT? 
ISN'T THAT REALLY THE POSITIVE 
OF THE WEATHER THIS IS POLICY 
OR POLITICS? 
AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. 
GIULIANI HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY 
CLEAR, I AM NOT HERE TO INFORM 
POLICY. 
THAT IS A PRESIDENTS OWN 
LAWYER. 
I AM NOT HERE TO DO FOREIGN-
POLICY. 
NOW, PROFESSOR DRESCHER IT'S 
JUST MADE A RATHER ASTOUNDING 
ARGUMENT, THAT AN INVESTIGATION 
OF JOE BIDEN IS UNWARRANTED, 
UNMERITED, SUDDENLY BECOMES 
WARRANTED IF HE RUNS FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
NOW IF HE POSITED THAT IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S SECOND TERM, BUT IT 
DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE IS IN 
HIS FIRST TERM OR HIS SECOND 
TERM, AND ILLEGITIMATE 
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN 
DOESN'T SOMEHOW BECOME 
LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE IS 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? 
UNLESS YOU VIEW YOUR INTERESTS 
AS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE NATION'S 
INTERESTS. 
I THINK IT IS THE MOST PROFOUND 
CONFLICT FOR A PRESIDENT OF ONE 
PARTY WHETHER HE IS RUNNING FOR 
REELECTION OR NOT, TO SUGGEST 
THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN, AN 
INVESTIGATION OF A LEADING 
CANDIDATE IN THE OPPOSITE PARTY 
IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NOW THEY 
ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. 
I MEAN, YOU REALLY HAVE TO STEP 
ASIDE FROM WHAT IS GOING ON TO 
IMAGINE THAT ANYONE COULD MAKE 
THE ARGUMENT. 
THAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE, 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT NOW, 
MEANS THAT YOU ARE A MORE 
JUSTIFIED TARGET OF 
INVESTIGATION THEN WHEN YOU 
AREN'T. 
THAT CANNOT BE. 
THAT CANNOT BE. 
BUT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS 
BEING ARGUED HERE. 
TO CONCLUDE, SENATOR, THE CASE 
FOR WITNESSES IN A PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT, WHERE EITHER ON 
THE ONE SIDE YOU REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT, OR ON THE OTHER SIDE 
YOU LEAVE AND PLACE A PRESIDENT 
WHO MAY POSE A CONTINUING REST 
TO THE COUNTRY, IS FAR MORE 
COMPELLING TO TAKE THE TIME TO 
HEAR FROM WITNESSES, THE AND A 
CORRUPT LOUISIANA JUDGE. 
WHO ONLY IMPACT THOSE WHO COME 
BEFORE HIS COURT. 
ALL OF US COME BEFORE THE COURT 
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK AND I HAVE OF MYSELF, 
SENATORS LANKFORD, AND SENATOR 
HOLLY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
DINGS, LANGFORD AND HOLLY, IS 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
OVER THE PAST 244 YEARS, EIGHT 
JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE, BUT 
NEVER A PRESIDENT. 
THE EIGHT JUDGES HAVE BEEN 
REMOVED FOR BRAVERY, PERJURY, 
TAX EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST 
THE UNITED STATES, AND OTHER 
UNLAWFUL ACTIONS. 
HOW DO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT 
ARTICLES DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS 
CONVICTIONS AND REMOVALS BY THE 
SENATE? 
>> THERE IS AN ENORMOUS 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPEACHING 
AND REMOVING A JUDGE, EVEN A 
JUSTICE, AND IMPEACHING AND 
REMOVING A PRESIDENT. 
NO JUDGE HIM AND NOT EVEN A 
CHIEF JUSTICE, IS THE JUDICIAL 
BRANCH OR THE HEAD OF THE 
JUDICIAL BRANCH, BUT THERE IS A 
JUDICIAL BRANDS. 
THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH. 
HE IS IRREPLACEABLE. 
THERE ISN'T ALWAYS A VICE 
PRESIDENT. 
REMEMBER WE HAD A PERIOD OF 
TIME WHERE THERE WAS NO VICE 
PRESIDENT, WE NEEDED A 
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
SO THERE IS NO COMPARISON 
BETWEEN IMPEACHING A JUDGE AND 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT. 
MOREOVER, THERE IS A TEXTUAL 
DIFFERENCE. 
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT 
JUDGES SERVE DURING GOOD 
BEHAVIOR. 
THAT IS THE CONGRESSMAN SHIFT 
STANDARD AND IT IS A GREAT 
STANDARD. 
WE WISH EVERYBODY SERVED ONLY 
DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. 
BUT, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL 
SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR. 
THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS, THE 
PRESIDENT RUNS EVERY FOUR 
YEARS, AND THE PUBLIC GETS THE 
JUDGES GOOD BEHAVIOR. 
THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE WITH 
GOOD BEHAVIOR, NAMELY THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
AND SO, TO MAKE A COMPARISON, 
IS TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE 
WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE THE BRITISH 
SYSTEM TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. 
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENT 
THAT WE ADOPTED THE BRITISH 
SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE WORDS. 
AND HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, YEAH, THOSE WORDS 
MAY HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM 
GREAT BRITAIN BUT THE WHOLE 
CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT. 
FIRST OF ALL, IMPEACHMENT NO 
LONGER EXISTS IN GREAT BRITAIN 
BUT WHEN IT DID IT ONLY 
OPERATED FOR LOW-LEVEL AND 
MIDDLE LEVEL PEOPLE, ONLY 
IMPECHMENT TRIALS HAVE BEEN 
CITED INVOLVED THIS GUY IN 
INDIA, THIS GUY IN THE 
COMMERCE, THE SKY HERE, THIS 
GUY THERE, UTTERLY REPLACEABLE 
PEOPLE. 
THE BRITISH SYSTEM, ON THE 
OTHER HAND, YOU CAN GET RID OF 
THE HEAD OF STATE, THE HEAD OF 
GOVERNMENT, RATHER, BY A SIMPLE 
VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE. 
THAT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS 
REJECTED. 
THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT FOR A 
PRESIDENT. 
AND SO THE NOTION THAT WE 
BORROWED THE BRITISH SYSTEM IS 
EXACTLY BACKWARDS. 
WE REJECTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM, 
WE DID NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT 
úTO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF TH 
LEGISLATURE. 
WE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO 
SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE 
VOTERS. 
JUDGES DO NOT SERVE AT THE 
PLEASURE OF THE VOTERS, SO 
THERE NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT 
CRITERIA AND BROADER CRITERIA 
AND THOSE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN 
USED WITH PRACTICE. 
FOR THE MOST PART, JUDGES HAVE 
BEEN IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FOR 
MENTAL BEHAVIOR, BUT TAKE AN 
EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVEN. 
IF A JUDGE IS COMPLETELY DRUNK 
AND INCAPACITATED AND CANNOT DO 
HIS JOB, IT IS EASY TO IMAGINE 
HOW A JUDGE MIGHT HAVE TO BE 
REMOVED FOR THAT. 
BUT, THE PRESIDENT, THERE IS AN 
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, 
THE 25th AMENDMENT, 
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING, BECAUSE 
THERE IS A GAP IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
AND PLEASE, MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
UNDERSTAND, YOUR ROLE IS NOT TO 
FILL GAPS THAT THE FRAMERS 
DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN. 
GOOD ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, 
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE 
SURE PEOPLE DO NOT ABUSE THEIR 
POWER. 
PEOPLE DO NOT COMMIT 
MALADMINISTRATION. 
BUT THE FRAMERS LEFT OPEN, LEFT 
THOSE GAPS, YOUR JOB IS NOT TO 
FILL IN THE GAPS, YOUR JOB IS 
TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION AS 
THE FRAMERS WROTE IT AND THAT 
DOES NOT INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER 
AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
ESTHER CHIEF JUSTICE, THE 
SENATOR FROM DELAWARE. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS 
THIS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEF  STATES, 
QUOTE, CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN 
FOREIGNERS INVOLVEMENT IN 
AMERICAN ELECTIONS,". 
HOWEVER, IN JUNE 2019, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT IF 
RUSSIA OR CHINA OFFERED 
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.". 
DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP AGREE WITH 
THAT STATEMENT THAT FOREIGNERS 
INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN 
ELECTIONS IS ILLEGAL? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I THINK CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED 
SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH 
FOREIGNERS CANNOT BE INVOLVED 
IN ELECTIONS, FOREIGNERS CANNOT 
VOTE IN ELECTIONS, THERE ARE 
RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS, 
THINGS LIKE THAT. 
WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
ORIGINALLY MADE A COMPLAINT 
ABOUT THE STYLI 25th CALL AND 
WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, HE FRAMES THE 
WHISTLEBLOWERS COMPLAINT AND 
WROTE A COVER LOVED HER FRAMING 
IN TERMS OF THOSE LAWS AND SAID 
THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE 
HERE RELATED TO SOLICITING 
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION TO 
CAMPAIGN, THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY 
REVIEWED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO 
SUCH VIOLATION HERE, SO, THAT 
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS 
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S -- THE 
INTERVIEW WITH ABC THAT YOU 
CITED, DOES NOT INVOLVE 
SOMETHING THAT IS A FOREIGN 
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, 
SOMETHING THAT IS ADDRESSED BY 
THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. 
HE WAS REFERRING TO THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT INFORMATION 
COULD COME FROM A SOURCE. 
AND I THINK HE POINTED OUT IN 
THE INTERVIEW THAT HE MAY 
CONTACT THE FBI, HE MIGHT 
LISTEN TO SOMETHING. 
BUT MERE INFORMATION IS NOT 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE 
THE CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAWS. 
AND, IF THERE IS CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION, CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION OF WRONGDOING, BY 
SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING FOR 
PUBLIC OFFICE, IT IS NOT 
CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE FOR 
CREDIBLE INFORMAON ABOUT 
WRONGDOING TO BE BROUGHT TO 
LIGHT. 
IF IT IS CREDIBLE INFORMATION. 
SO, I THINK THE IDEA THAT ANY 
INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO 
COME FROM OVERSEAS IS 
NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN 
INTERFERENCE. 
IT IS A MISTAKE. 
THAT IS A NON SEQUITUR. 
INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE, 
THE POTENTIALLY SHOWS 
WRONGDOING BY SOMEONE WHO 
HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE
, IF IT IS CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION, IS RELEVANT 
INFORMATION FOR THE VOTERS TO 
KNOW ABOUT, FOR PEOPLE TO BE 
ABLE TO DECIDE ON WHO IS THE 
BEST CANDIDATE FOR AN OFFICE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL, THE MAJORITY LEADER 
IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I RECOMMEND 
WE TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 10:00 
P.M., AND THEN FINISH UP FOR 
THE EVENING. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
AWARDED. 
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
SENATORS HAVE BEEN ANSWERING 
QUESTIONS FOR HOURS NOW, THEY 
HAVE JUST TAKEN A SHORT BREAK 
BUT I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS 
HERE WITH CBSN CONTRIBUTOR 
MOLLY HOOPER, AND WE HAVE BEEN 
TALKING, MOLLY, OR RATHER, THEY 
HAVE BEEN TALKING IN THE 
SENATE, AT LENGTH. 
>> IT FEELS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN 
TALKING. 
>> THEY WERE TALKING MOST 
RECENTLY ABOUT PREVIOUS 
IMPEACHMENTS THAT HAVE 
HAPPENED, AND IN THE PREVIOUS 
DAYS, A LOT OF THE IMPEACHMENTS 
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT OR THE 
IMPEACHMENTS OF PRESIDENTS, AND 
THEN SENATOR CLOVER SURE JUST 
ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE 
JUDICIAL -- THE PROCESS OF 
JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT AND HOW 
SHE SAID THAT REQUIRED 26 
WITNESSES IN THE SENATE BUT IN 
THE PRESIDENT'S CASE, 
REPUBLICANS ARE ARGUING 40 
WITNESSES. 
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
AND THIS IS WHERE IT IS SO 
INTERESTING AND IT DEPENDS ON 
WHICH PARTY YOU ARE A MEMBER 
OF, BECAUSE BACK IN THE CLINTON 
DAYS WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE 
PUSHING TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES, 
THE DEMOCRATS SAID NO, IT WAS 
TAKING CARE OF. 
WE DO NOT NEED TO HEAR FROM 
THESE PEOPLE. 
BUT ULTIMATELY THE SENATE 
DECIDED TO HEAR FROM AS 
INDIVIDUALS. 
AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, IT 
IS UNCLEAR WHAT THE SENATE WILL 
DO, BECAUSE IT IS SO DIVIDED. 
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, WELL, 
THIS PRESIDENT BEING THE THIRD, 
THE THIRD PRESIDENT THE SENATE 
HAS ACTUALLY TRIED IN TERMS OF 
IMPEACHMENT, IT IS DIFFERENT 
FROM JUDGES IN THAT USUALLY 
WHEN THEY JUDGES, OVER, GO OVER 
TO THE SENATE AND THE SENATE 
NEGOTIATES ALL THAT AND MOVES 
FORWARD WITH IT, THERE IS A 
SENATE COMMITTEE THAT IS 
CREATED, AND IMPEACHMENT 
COMMITTEE, AND AMY KLOBUCHAR 
SAID SHE WAS A PART OF IT AND 
THAT IS WHERE A LOT OF THAT 
WITNESS TESTIMONY IS TAKEN. 
I THINK CLAIRE WAS ON THERE, 
JUDGE PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT, A 
FEW YEARS AGO, ADAM SCHIFF 
SAID, AND 17 ADDITIONAL 
WITNESSES WERE INTERVIEWED AT 
THAT TIME. 
THE JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA WAS 
ULTIMATELY REMOVED FROM OFFICE, 
AND HE CANNOT BECOME A JUDGE 
AGAIN. 
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE 
CANNOT RUN FOR OFFICE. 
JUST A FUN FACT HERE, HASTINGS, 
A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE, 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBER FROM FLORIDA, 
WAS IN FACT IMPEACHED AND 
REMOVED AS A SITTING JUDGE. 
AND NOW HE IS A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS AND HE HAS BEEN FOR A 
LONG TIME. 
>> THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT THAN 
BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, 
THAT IT IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND A 
JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT. 
>> EXACTLY. 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS 
ARGUING IS THAT IF THIS WAS 
THAT IMPORTANT, WHICH THE HOUSE 
IS ARGUING IT IS, THE HOUSE 
SHOULD HAVE INTERVIEWED ALL 
THOSE WITNESSES AND GONE 
THROUGH ALL THE PROCEDURAL 
MOTIONS, WHEN THEY HAD THE 
CHANCE IN THE HOUSE, INSTEAD OF 
RUSHING IT TO THE SENATE. 
AND, THE HOUSE ALSO BRINGS UP 
THIS OTHER POINT SAYING, YOU 
KNOW, YOU DID NOT REISSUE 
SUBPOENAS, ONCE THE HOUSE DID 
VOTE TO FORMALLY AUTHORIZE AND 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE 
COMMITTEE COULD HAVE ISSUED 
SUBPOENAS TO PEOPLE LIKE BOLTON 
AND BLAIR AND THESE INDIVIDUALS 
BUT THEY DIDN'T. 
AND, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL'S ARE SAYING LISTEN, 
YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH THE 
MOTIONS HERE. 
AND IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO 
THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE IN SUCH A 
RUSH TO GET THIS VOTE DONE BY 
CHRISTMAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS 
THE REAL MOTIVATION BEHIND 
IMPEACHING THIS PRESIDENT? 
IT LOOKS PRETTY PARTISAN. 
>> DEFINITELY, THERE'S A LOT OF 
PARTISANSHIP HAPPENING AND I 
WANT TO BRING INTO THIS 
CONVERSATION, CATHERINE WATSON, 
SHE IS JOINING US ON THE PHONE. 
SHE IS A CBS NEWS WHITE HOUSE 
REPORTER. 
CATHERINE, THE PRESIDENT WE DID 
STAY ON THIS QUESTION OF 
WITNESSES, CAME OVER. 
ACTUALLY, IT IS STILL HIS 
PENNED TWEET AND HE HAS A LINK 
TO VOTE IN HAVING AN INTERVIEW 
TO FOX NEWS IN AUGUST. 
HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT BOLTON 
HIMSELF HAS GIVEN ALL THE 
INFORMATION HE NEEDS PREVIOUSLY 
AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO 
CALL WITNESSES. 
>> YEAH, EXACTLY. 
THAT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS MADE, CERTAINLY I 
WOULD SAY MORE BROADLY, AND 
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS MAKING, 
THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR 
BOLTON TO SAY ANYMORE. 
ALTHOUGH, ALSO THE WHITE HOUSE 
HAS THREATENED, MAYBE 
THREATENED ISN'T QUITE THE 
RIGHT WORD, BUT -- 
>> THEY PUSHED BACK ON THE 
QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY HAVE 
THREATENED HIM, RIGHT? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
INITIALLY THE REPORTS EARLIER 
TODAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS 
THREATENING BOLTON IN REGARDS 
TO HIS UPCOMING BOOK OR RATHER, 
THE MANUSCRIPT OF HIS BOOK, 
THAT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
THAT IF ANY OF IT WERE RELEASED 
THAT THERE WOULD BE 
REPERCUSSIONS. 
BUT THAT SEEMED TO BE SLIGHTLY 
OVERBLOWN, OR AT LEAST 
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS TOP, 
TO THE EMAILS WE HAVE, AT THIS 
POINT, THE WHITE HOUSE OR 
SPECIFICALLY, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL OF COURSE, 
WHICH BOLTON OVERSAW AND WHICH 
IS WHERE VIEWING THE 
MANUSCRIPTS HE HAS SUBMITTED 
FOR HIS BOOKS, HE WROTE LAST 
WEEK TO BOLTON'S LAWYER AND 
SAID BASICALLY, WE HAVE A LOT 
OF CONCERNS ABOUT 
CLASSIFICATION ISSUES, THERE 
ARE CLASSIFIED MATERIALS IN 
HERE, POTENTIALLY SOME TOP-
SECRET INFORMATION, BUT 
BOLTON'S LAWYER HAS SAID THAT 
HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO GET A HOLD 
OF IN SC, HAS ATTEMPTED TO 
CLEAR UP THESE ISSUES, SO THAT 
THIS MANUSCRIPT CAN MOVE 
FORWARD QUICKLY. 
NOTING THAT BOLTON MAY HAVE TO 
TESTIFY SOON. 
AND, BOLTON'S LAWYER SAYS AT 
LEAST AS OF THIS EVENING, 
AROUND 6:00 OR SO, BUT THEY HAD 
NOT HEARD BACK WITH ANY FURTHER 
CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ABOUT 
WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. 
>> CATHERINE, AS YOU HAVE BEEN 
SPEAKING, WE SAW THE WHITE 
HOUSE THERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE 
THERE IS STILL A LIGHT ON THERE 
IN THE RESIDENCE, IF I AM 
LOOKING AT THE MONITOR 
CORRECTLY. 
HAVE WE HEARD ANYTHING MORE 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OR FROM 
THE PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF HOW 
THEY FEEL THAT THE DEFENSE IS 
GOING? 
>> WELL, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE DAY TO 
SEND OUT TALKING POINTS THAT 
ARE SENT TO SURROGATES AND SOME 
REPORTERS, JUST KIND OF ECHOING 
THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY WHO ARE 
THEY SPEAKING OR COMBATING THE 
ARGUMENTS FROM CHEF AND THE 
OTHER HOUSE MANAGERS. 
PUBLICLY, THERE IS VERY MUCH A 
CONFIDENCE COMING FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE, AND THERE IS I 
WOULD SAY, JUST GENERALLY SO, 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A STRONG 
SENSE, AND IT IS JUST GENERALLY 
BELIEVED HERE IN WASHINGTON, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO 
BE ACQUITTED. 
OF COURSE, THE REAL CONCERN 
REMAINS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, 
AND PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU THIS 
PRIVATELY, THAT IF BOLTON WERE 
TO TESTIFY, HE COULD HAVE 
POTENTIALLY DAMAGING 
INFORMATION OR AT LEAST 
CERTAINLY KNOWS MORE THAN HAS 
BEEN RELAYED PUBLICLY. 
SO, THAT IS OF COURSE WHY THE 
WHITE HOUSE IS -- HAS LONG SAID 
THAT IT MIGHT EXERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF HAS SAID PUBLICLY THAT 
HE HAS POTENTIAL NATIONAL 
SECURITY CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT 
BOLTON MIGHT SAY. 
>> I WANT TO BRING IN NOW, 
JESSICA LEVENS, SHE IS A 
PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL 
IN LOS ANGELES. 
AND JESSICA, ONE OF THE THINGS 
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 
TONIGHT HAS BEEN THIS GOLDEN 
RULE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD 
HOPE THEY WOULD DO UNTO YOUR 
OWN PARTY. 
SO, WHAT IMPLICATIONS MIGHT 
THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HAVE FOR 
THE FUTURE? 
>> WELL, I THINK THIS COULD 
HAVE VERY DAMAGING APPLICATIONS 
FOR THE FUTURE. 
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE 
FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT WHEN 
THEY DECIDED TO INCLUDE AN 
IMPEACHMENT CLASS, IT WAS A 
FAILSAFE AGAINST ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 
PARTISAN AFFILIATION, THE IDEA 
BEHIND GIVING CONGRESS OUR 
ELECTED OFFICIALS THE RIGHT TO 
IMPEACHMENT, GIVING THE SENATE 
OR ELECTED OFFICIALS THE RIGHT 
TO TRY AND IMPEACHMENT, IS THAT 
THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT THAT OUR 
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD RISE 
ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS, THAT 
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THERE 
HAS BEEN AN ABUSE OF POWER, IT 
DOES NOT MATTER IF YOUR 
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. 
WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE, 
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN 
LOOK AT HERE IS HOW MANY 
REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE SENATE, 
HOW MANY DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE 
SENATE. 
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHERE 
THERE IS A DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT, THERE WILL BE A TIME 
WHERE THE TABLES WILL TURN ON 
ALL OF THESE ISSUES, ON 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, ON 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
ON ASSERTING NATIONAL SECURITY, 
AND THE QUESTION WILL BE 
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMOCRATIC 
PREIDENT WILL ACT IN THE SAME 
WAY. 
THE NORMS HAVE BEEN BROKEN, AND 
THE QUESTION IS, GOING FORWARD, 
HOW WILL THEY TREAT THE NEXT 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE? 
>> THERE ARE CERTAIN TIMES WHEN 
AMERICANS COUNT ON THEIR 
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO NOT BE 
PARTISAN, TO BE STATES PEOPLE. 
AND ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM 
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM 
WAS THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT. 
JESSICA, WHAT SAY YOU? 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT, WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE 
OBVIOUSLY, IT WILL BE INFUSED 
WITH POLITICS. 
YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS GOING 
TO BE THE HOUSE THAT IS GOING 
TO IMPEACH. 
THE SENATE THAT IS GOING TO 
TRY. 
AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO 
PARTISAN AFFILIATION. 
THE IDEA BEHIND THE FOUNDERS IS 
THAT EVERYONE WOULD RISE ABOVE 
THAT, THAT THEY WOULD SAY 
COUNTRY OVER PARTY, AS WE HAVE 
SAID. 
BUT, THIS IDEA THAT YOU CANNOT 
GET A FAIR SHAKE, BECAUSE YOU 
KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE OUT TO GET YOU 
ARE THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUT TO 
GET YOU, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT 
WHAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO DO. 
THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO 
WORK SUCH THAT PEOPLE WILL 
CROSS THE AISLE ON BOTH SIDES, 
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT 
THE FACTS, LOOK AT THE LAW, AND 
MAKE A DECISION. 
NOT LOOK AT PARTISAN 
AFFILIATION AND THEN LOOK AT 
PARTY LOYALTY, AND MAKE A 
DECISION. 
>> I SEE MOLLY SHAKING HER HEAD 
HERE.'S 
>> IT IS FUNNY BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY 
EFFECTIVE, OR AT LEAST HAS 
SHAKEN THINGS UP ON THE FLOOR, 
IS THE USE OF VIDEO, RIGHT? 
AND ONE OF THE VIDEOS WE HAVE 
SEEN HAS BEEN FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE, ESSENTIALLY PLAYING 
CLIPS OF DEMOCRATS LIKE CHUCK 
SCHUMER AND JERRY NADLER, BACK 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
BASICALLY MAKING THE ARGUMENT, 
AND WHEN THEY MADE THE ARGUMENT 
ESSENTIALLY THAT ONE DAY, NOT 
TOO FAR OFF, THERE IS GOING TO 
BE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND A 
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, AND THIS 
IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, AND 
IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE OKAY, 20 
YEARS LATER, IT IS HAPPENING 
AGAIN. 
THAT IS ONE OF THE UNUSUAL SORT 
OF BIZARRO WORLD SITUATIONS 
PLAYING OUT ON THE FLOOR, IS 
WATCHING THESE MEMBERS, WHO 20 
YEARS AGO SAID ONE THING. 
>> CONTORTING THEMSELVES. 
>> EXACTLY. 
TRYING TO MAKE IT ENTIRELY 
DIFFERENT. 
>> MOLLY, I ALSO SAW YOU GET 
VERY ENTHUSIASTIC WHEN SENATOR 
ROMNEY ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT 
THE SPECIFICS OF THE DATE THAT 
UKRAINIAN AID WAS HELD. 
CAN YOU! 
TO OUR VIEWERS WHY THAT IS SUCH 
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION? 
>> WELL, IT IS UNCLEAR WHEN, 
NUMBER ONE, UKRAINE FOUND OUT 
THAT THE AIDE WAS WITHHELD. 
UKRAINE, MEANING THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE AND HIS TOP ADVISERS 
WHO WOULD KNOW THERE WAS SOME 
SORT OF PRESSURE THEY NEEDED TO 
FEEL TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
AND, NUMBER TWO, WHAT THE 
TIMING WAS, AT ONE POINT DID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY, WE ARE NOT 
GOING TO WITHHOLD AID AND HERE 
IS WHY? 
THE REASON THAT IS IMPORTANT IS 
BECAUSE IF YOU ARE LISTENING TO 
GORDON SONDLAND, EVEN GORDON 
SONDLAND, THE INVESTOR TO THE 
EU WHO WAS PLAYING AN INTEGRAL 
ROLE IN FACILITATING 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND THE KENYAN PRESIDENT, 
HE SAID TO ME YOU KNOW, EVEN 
WEEKS BEFORE THE AIDE WAS 
RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER, NOBODY 
WAS GIVING HIM ANSWERS AS TO 
WHY THE AIDE WAS WITHHELD. 
RON JOHNSON, A REPUBLICAN 
SENATOR, CALLED THE PRESIDENT, 
THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS CALLED, 
AND THEY COULD NOT GET AN 
ANSWER AS TO WHY THE AIDE WAS 
WITHHELD. 
>> WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING SOME 
OF THOSE SENATORS AND AIDES 
THERE IN THE HILL, WE WILL 
CONTINUE WATCHING ALL OF THIS. 
MOLLY, JESSICA AND CATHERINE, 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHT. 
STAY WITH US, WE WILL TAKE A 
QUICK BREAK AS WE WAIT FOR THE 
SENATORS TO RETURN TO THE FLOOR,
THE Q&A PORTION OF THE TRIAL. 
THERE IS SO MUCH MORE AHEAD, WE 
WILL HAVE IT ALL FOR YOU. 
YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN.
