 
SAYING, YOU HAVE SEEN ENOUGH. 
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST 
MOMENTOUS BOAT OF YOUR CAREER 
IN REGARDS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
TENURE AND IF YOU VOTE 
WITNESSES, THAT OPENS 
ESSENTIALLY PANDORA'S BOX. 
>> DOES THE WHITE HOUSE BELIEVE 
THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE A 51 
VOTES THAT THEY NEED TO IN THE 
TRIAL TOMORROW? 
>> TODAY, A LITTLE BIT OF 
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM ON THE PART 
OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS. 
THEY ARE NOT YET DECLARING 
VICTORY. 
BUT THEY ARE MORE HOPEFUL TODAY 
THAN THEY WERE YESTERDAY AND 
THEY SEEM TO THINK THAT THE 
MESSAGE WHICH HAS BEEN SORT OF 
HAMMERED IN EACH ONE OF THOSE 
ROUNDS OF QUESTIONING YESTERDAY 
AND PROBABLY WILL BE TODAY FROM 
úTHE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS IS 
THAT OPENING PANDORA'S BOX, 
CALLING WITNESSES COULD EXTEND 
THIS MUCH FURTHER AND FOUR 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS, THEIR 
OVERRIDING CONCERN IS TO NOT 
LET THIS TRIAL DRAG OUT DEEP 
INTO FEBRUARY. 
AND SO, THEY SEEM TO BELIEVE 
THAT THAT MESSAGE IS FINDING A 
DECENT AUDIENCE ON CAPITOL 
HILL, RIGHT NOW. 
SO THEY ARE NOT QUITE DECLARING 
VICTORY BUT THEY ARE A LITTLE 
BIT MORE HOPEFUL ON THAT FRONT. 
>> WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE 
DOING TO PUSH SENATORS TO VOTE 
AGAINST THESE WITNESSES? 
>> IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF THAT 
SCARE TACTIC REGARDING HOW LONG 
THIS TRIAL COULD GO ON. 
IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED OR THE 
DOOR IS OPEN TO WITNESSES, THE 
WHITE HOUSE -- IF DEMOCRATS 
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM JOHN 
BOLTON, THEY ARE GOING TO BRING 
IN THEIR OWN WISH LIST OF 
WITNESSES FROM ADAM SCHIFF TO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE 
BIDENS, OBVIOUSLY. 
SO ONE INTO THAT MESSAGE IS 
COMPELLING AND THE OTHER END OF 
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE HOUSE IS A 
PROPER PLACE TO DO 
INVESTIGATIONS AND IF THEY WERE 
TO APPROVE NEW WITNESSES, NOT 
ONLY BEING THE JUDGE AND JURY 
BUT TURNING THEMSELVES INTO 
DETECTIVES. 
THAT IS ANOTHER ARGUMENT WE 
HAVE HEARD. 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
THE QUESTION REMAINS TO BE SEEN,
WILL THAT BE THE DAY? 
CERTAINLY SENSITIVE TO THE 
PROCEDURES THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
RAISING SO IT IS A BALANCING 
TEST AND SORT OF A BIT OF A 
TOUGH SPOT. 
IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE 
HOW THAT SHAKES OUT. 
>> CHUCK SCHUMER WAS ASKED 
ABOUT NEEDING FOUR REPUBLICAN 
VOTES. 
I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU WHAT HE 
SAID ON CAPITOL HILL. 
>> OUR FOCUS IS ON GETTING FOUR 
REPUBLICANS. 
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON 
WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL OR 
WILL NOT DO. 
WE NEED FOUR REPUBLICANS TO 
UNDERSTAND THE CRISIS THE 
PRESIDENT HAS CREATED TO 
UNDERSTAND THE WEIGHTINESS OF 
THE ARGUMENTS AND THE FACT THAT 
IN IMPEACHMENT, YOU MUST HAVE A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
THAT IS WHERE OUR FOCUS IS. 
>> FROM YOUR SOURCES, WHAT ARE 
YOU HEARING AT THIS POINT? 
>> THEY ARE MAKING ALL OF THE 
ARGUMENTS THEY CAN. 
IF YOU ARE A GOOD FRIEND OF 
SHELLEY AND ROB PORTMAN AND YOU 
ARE A DEMOCRAT, YOU ARE TALKING 
UP YOUR POTENTIAL TARGET BOTH 
AND MAKING ARGUMENTS TO THE FACT
THAT, GUESS WHAT? 
THE EVENTUALLY, THIS JOHN 
BOLTON BOOK IS GOING TO COME 
OUT. 
AND WHAT IS IT GOING TO SAY 
ABOUT YOU IF YOU DID NOT HEAR 
ALL OF THE STUFF HE HAD TO SAY 
BEFORE IT CAME OUT AND YOU 
DECIDED TO CALL OFF THIS TRIAL. 
DONE! 
WHAT IS THAT GOING TO SAY IN 
TERMS OF YOUR NEXT ELECTION 
WHICH I THINK REPUBLICANS FIND 
A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS, REALLY! 
BUT ALSO, WHAT DOES THAT SAY 
ABOUT THE SENATE'S RIGHT TO 
HAVE INFORMATION THAT IT IS 
COMPELLING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE?
AND AGAIN, IT REALLY IS A 
NAILBITER BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE 
BOTH SIDES IN YOUR EAR, THIS 
FELT VERY MUCH WILL BE OF 
CONSCIENCE AND IT WILL BE A 
VERY TOUGH ONE AND JUST KEEP IN 
MIND THAT WHAT THEY WILL BE 
VOTING ON IS SIMPLY OPENING THE 
DEBATE TO CALLING ON THE DEBATE
. 
>> EXACTLY, KIND OF A MINI 
FILIBUSTER AND IF THE 
REPUBLICANS DO LOSE THAT VOTE 
AND DEMOCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO 
HAVE THAT DEBATE ON WHICH TO 
CALL WITNESSES, THAT DOESN'T 
MEAN ALL OF THE WITNESSES WILL 
BE AGREED UPON OR CALLED BUT IT 
SORT OF OPENS A PANDORA'S BOX 
AS REPUBLICANS ARE ARGUING TO 
THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE TOUGH 
VOTES ON INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES. 
>> SO ONE OF THE KEY SENATORS 
IS WEST VIRGINIA DEMOCRAT, JOE 
MANCHIN. 
HE SPOKE TODAY ABOUT THE NEED 
FOR WITNESSES. 
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FINISH 
THIS WITHOUT HAVING WITNESSES. 
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE AN 
INFORMED DECISION WITHOUT 
HAVING WITNESSES. 
AND BASICALLY, I THINK WE ARE 
SEEING THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD 
SAY, OKAY, YOU HAVE WITNESSES 
AND WE HAVE WITNESSES. 
I THINK AS ALWAYS THERE SHOULD 
BE A PARENT AS TO THE WITNESS 
PROCESS AND THE ONLY ADULT ICY 
IN THE ROOM HOPEFULLY WOULD BE 
JOHN ROBERTS. 
WE NEED TO VOTE BACK WHAT OUR 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES VOTED 
DOWN, FOR HIM NOT TO BE THE 
REFEREE, IF YOU WILL. 
>> WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR SENATE 
AND FUTURE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS? 
>> IT SAYS THE SENATE'S CURRENT 
BRANDING HAS THE MOST 
DELIBERATIVE BODY IN THE WORLD 
NEEDS A MAKEOVER. 
AND IT SHOULD BECOME THE MOST 
DELIBERATELY IGNORANT BODY IN 
THE WORLD, TO BE BLUNT ABOUT 
THIS. 
THIS IS THE MOST MOMENTOUS 
DECISION NEXT TO DECLARING WAR 
THAT A CONGRESS CAN MAKE AND 
YOU WOULD HOPE THAT THE 
SENATORS WOULD HAVE THE BEST 
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM 
AS A CORPORATE LAWYER. 
MY TOUCHSTONE, THE TOUCHSTONE 
FOR COURTROOM EVIDENCE IS 
RELEVANCE. 
AND JOHN BOLTON'S INFORMATION 
IS VERY CLEARLY RELEVANT ALONG 
WITH THE OTHER WITNESSES AND IT 
IS BECOMING EVEN MORE SO NOW 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS 
DISPUTING IT OUTSIDE THE SENATE 
TRIAL. 
>> THERE IS A SENSE THAT THERE 
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THREE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO WILL 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES. 
I KNOW THIS COULD CHANGE BUT 
SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID THAT IF 
THERE WERE 50, WOULD JOHN 
ROBERTS WEIGH IN AND BREAK THE 
TIE? 
>> RIGHT. 
SO THAT DEPENDS ON HOW JOHN 
ROBERTS VIEWS HIS ROLE. 
WHETHER HUGHES IS USE IT MERELY 
AS IT AND Mc. 
>> SO THIS IS OPEN TO 
INTERPRETATION. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> EVEN IF HE DOES TRY TO WEIGH 
IN ON THIS, THE SENATE COULD 
OVERTURN THAT DECISION BECAUSE 
IT ONLY TAKES 51 VOTES. 
AND IF YOU NOTICE IN THAT FIGHT 
THAT WE PLAYED EARLIER FROM 
CHUCK SCHUMER, HE SAID WE NEED 
TO GET THE FOUR BOATS AND WE 
DON'T WANT TO RELY ON CHIEF 
JUSTICE ROBERTS BECAUSE THERE 
IS A SENTIMENT THAT THIS CHIEF 
JUSTICE DOES NOT WANT TO GET 
INVOLVED EITHER WAY. SO IT IS 
KIND OF FUNNY AND I WOULD LOVE 
TO SEE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS 
FACE WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
ARE COMING UP AND ADAM SCHIFF 
SAYING, HEY! 
THERE IS THIS GUY BEHIND ME, 
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WHO CAN 
RULE ON THIS. 
I TRUST HIS DECISION AS TO 
WHETHER THESE WITNESSES ARE 
RELEVANT. 
I'M NOT SURE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
WANTS TO BE IN OPPOSITION. 
>> WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE PLAN 
IF THE BOAT ON THE WITNESSES 
PASSES OR ROBERTS DECIDES THEY 
ARE NECESSARY OR NEEDED? 
CAN YOU HEAR ME? 
MOLLY, YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF 
TIME TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE 
INSTITUTIONAL LISTS OVER THE 
COURSE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL SAYING HOW IMPORTANT 
THOSE INTEGERS ARE. 
NOT JUST THE MODERATE ONES. 
TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT FOLKS ARE 
SAYING ABOUT THE STANDARDS OF 
THIS. 
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS 
GOING ON. 
#1, YOU HAVE REPUBLICANS 
ARGUING. 
THE PRO-TRUMP PROBE WHITE HOUSE 
ARGUING. 
EVEN IF WHAT BOLTON SAYS IS 
TRUE, THIS IS NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SO WHY ARE 
YOU GOING TO PROLONG THIS? 
YOU ARE GIVING DEMOCRATS WHAT 
THEY WANT. 
DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY HAVE 
YOUR BEST INTEREST IN HEART AND 
A SENATE REELECTION RACE? 
NO, THEY WANT TO WIN AND CHUCK 
SCHUMER WANTS TO BE THE NEXT 
MAJORITY LEADER AND FLIPPED THE 
SENATE. 
THERE IS THAT ARGUMENT BUT 
AGAIN, YOU HAVE THOSE 
INSTITUTIONALIST WHO ARE 
SAYING, LISTEN, I'M NOT SURE 
THAT WHAT HE DID WAS 
IMPEACHABLE OR WASN'T WRONG OR 
THAT WE DON'T NEED MORE 
INFORMATION BECAUSE WHAT IS 
WRONG WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE 
INFORMATION? 
AND WILL IT REALLY DRAG THIS 
TRIAL OUT FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS 
AS SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN 
THREATENING. 
SOME ON THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE 
COUNSEL THREATENED. 
IN PART AS A THAT BECAUSE, 
AGAIN, EACH WITNESS THAT IS 
CONSIDERED WILL BE SUBJECT TO A 
VOTE OF THE SENATE. 
AND IF THERE IS NOT 51 SENATORS 
TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF CALLING 
HUNTER BIDEN, I MEAN, HE'S NOT 
GOING TO BE CALLED. AND IF YOU 
LOOK AND YOU LISTEN TO WHAT 
CHUCK SCHUMER SAID AND SORT OF 
PRIVATELY WITH SOME REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WHO REPRESENT PURPLE 
STATES ARE SAYING, THEY DON'T 
WANT TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN. 
IT WOULD BE A CIRCUS. 
THEY JUST DON'T. 
LET'S STICK TO THE FACTS. 
WE DON'T WANT THIS TO GET OUT 
OF CONTROL SO IT IS UNCLEAR HOW 
LONG THE PROCESS WOULD BE 
PROLONGED. 
>> WHEN WE HEARD THAT SOUNDBITE
, IT SOUNDED LIKE HE WILL VOTE 
TO ACQUIT IF THESE WITNESSES 
DON'T COME THROUGH. HOW 
IMPORTANT IS IT FOR THE WHITE 
HOUSE TO GET A DEMOCRAT ON 
THEIR SIDE? 
>> JUST LIKE WE SAW IN THE HOUSE
, TUESDAY NIGHT GOING TO NEW 
JERSEY TO CAMPAIGN FOR JEFF 
ANDREW WHO IS A DEMOCRAT, HE 
VOTED AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. THE PRESIDENT, 
BEING ABLE TO CLAIM THAT NOT TO 
PASS THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND I THINK HE IS 
REALLY HOPING TO BE ABLE TO SAY 
THAT. 
TO ACQUIT HIM OR NOT REMOVE HIM 
FROM OFFICE IN THE SENATE. SO 
THAT IS HIS DREAM, RIGHT NOW. 
THAT IS THE UPSIDE FOR THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY CLEAR 
THAT IT IS 100% ATTAINABLE ON 
BOTH ARTICLES. 
YOU CAN POSSIBLY SEE SOME 
SENATORS VOTE NO ON ONE BUT NOT 
BOTH. SO IT COULD BE A SPLIT 
DECISION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND, 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE 
PRIORITY IS KEEPING REPUBLICANS 
UNITED ON BOTH. BUT THEY ARE 
LOOKING AT THE UPSIDE OF TAKING 
OUT A COUPLE OF DEMOCRATS. 
>> THE FOCUS IS TRYING TO GET 
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY. 
ESPECIALLY WITH THIS BOOK THING 
BEING RELEASED YESTERDAY. 
CBS LEARNED ABOUT A LETTER 
TRYING TO BLOCK THIS BOOK FROM 
EVEN BEING PUBLISHED CLAIMING 
IT HAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. 
THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD WEIJIA 
JIANG THAT THE LETTER IS NOT A 
THREAT. 
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE GOAL 
OF THIS LETTER? 
>> THIS GOAL IS PART OF THE 
NORMAL BACK-AND-FORTH PROCESS 
THAT GOES ON WHEN A FORMER 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL HAS A 
SECURITY CLEARANCE. 
IS WRITING A BOOK OR SERVING AS 
A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OR 
OFFICER OF THE CENTRAL 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OR A 
PENTAGON ROLE WHERE THEY HAVE 
TO SUBMITTED FOR CLEARANCE TO 
MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOW 
PUBLISHING SOMETHING THAT IS 
CLASSIFIED. 
THE CHALLENGE IS THAT BOLTON 
SAYS THERE IS NOTHING CLASSIFIED
IN HIS MEMOIRS. 
THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS THERE WAS 
TOP-SECRET INFORMATION IN THERE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT 
INFORMATION IS AND IT IS NORMAL 
FOR THERE TO BE A SORT OF A 
TUCK IN WAR. 
THE TIMETABLE BECAUSE OF THE 
POTENTIAL SENATE INTEREST AND 
BECAUSE OF WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS 
TO SAY AND THE PUBLICATION DATE 
WHICH IS 45 DAYS AWAY AND THAT 
IS A CHALLENGE FOR ANY BOOK 
PUBLISHER AND FOR ANY SORT OF 
ACCOMMODATION THAT WILL TAKE 
PLACE. 
THIS COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS 
TAKING QUOTES, PARAPHRASING 
THEM OR SOMETHING SMALL FAR MORE
SUBSTANTIAL. 
WE ARE TOLD THAT THE ISSUES, 
THE CLASSIFICATION ISSUES WERE 
RAISED ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT 
UKRAINE CHAPTER THAT HAS BEEN 
SORT OF AT THE CENTER OF THE 
CONTROVERSY AND THAT REALLY 
BROUGHT THIS BOOK INTO THE 
PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT. 
MOST SEEM TO BE INCORPORATED IN 
OTHER AREAS OF BOLTON'S MEMOIR. 
>> THE TIMING OF THIS BOOK IS 
FASCINATING AND IT IS NOT 
UNUSUAL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
CIA TO GO BACK. 
YOU GIVE THEM THE BOOK AND YOU 
LET THEM LOOK THROUGH IT AND 
SOME PORTIONS HAVE TO BE 
REDACTED BUT CAN THE WHITE 
HOUSE COMPLETELY BLOCK THIS 
BOOK FROM BEING PUBLISHED? 
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
JOHN BOLTON HAS THE RIGHT TO 
PUBLISH INFORMATION. HIS 
THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS. 
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE CAN DO AS 
WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IS GO 
THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE 
PACIFIED MATERIAL IS REMOVED TO 
PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS 
BUT IF THIS PROCESS LOOKS LIKE 
IT IS BECOMING UNUSUAL. IF IT 
LOOKS LIKE IT IS STEPPING OUT 
OF THE ORDINARY BACK-AND-FORTH 
AS WE HAVE JUST TALKED ABOUT, I 
THINK THE SCRUTINY ON THIS 
PROCESS WILL BECOME INTENSE 
BECAUSE THERE IS AN OBVIOUS 
MOTIVE TO PUSH THIS BOOK PAST 
THIS SORT OF CRITICAL TIME IN 
OUR COUNTRY WHERE WE ARE 
FOCUSED ON THESE ISSUES. 
>> SO THE LEAD IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGER WE SEE, THE WHITE HOUSE 
PRESS SECRETARY. 
JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO, ADAM 
SCHIFF ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE 
NEED FOR BOLTON TO TESTIFY JUST 
A SHORT TIME AGO. 
>> THEY HAVE GONE TO 
EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PUT A 
MUZZLE ON JOHN BOLTON. 
TO AVOID CALLING HIM AS A 
WITNESS AND TO AVOID LETTING 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR WHAT 
HE HAS TO SAY. 
TO TRY TO STIFLE HIS BOOKS, TO 
ATTACKING HIM PUBLICLY. 
BECAUSE THEY FEAR WHAT HE HAS 
TO SAY. 
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE 
PRESIDENTS SCHEME HAS BEEN 
EXPOSED. 
>> DOES REPUBLICANS ON THE 
FENCE. 
DO YOU THINK ADAM SCHIFF'S CALL 
IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 
>> I THINK THAT THEY [ LAUGHTER 
] DOES ARE IN TOUGH SPOTS AND 
GETTING PRESSURE FROM BOTH 
SIDES. 
I THINK THAT REALLY WHAT IS 
GOING TO MATTER IS THAT THEY 
ARE HEARING FROM THEIR 
CONSTITUENTS. 
IF LISA'S SWITCHBOARD IS 
LIGHTING UP WITH CALLS FOR HER 
TO ESSENTIALLY VOTE IN FAVOR OF 
HEARING FROM JOHN BOLTON, THAT 
MAY SWAY HER. 
IF ROB PORTMAN, A REPUBLICAN 
FROM OHIO NOT UP FOR REELECTION 
THIS GO-ROUND BUT WILL BE. 
IF HE IS GETTING CALLS FROM 
OHIOANS SAYING YOU NEED TO 
LISTEN TO WITNESSES, THAT COULD 
SWAY SOME MINDS. 
AND IT IS ONE THING TO HEAR 
FROM ADAM SCHIFF WHO IS A HOUSE 
DEMOCRAT AND DEFINITELY HAS HIS 
OWN INTERESTS, HIS OWN PARTY'S 
INTERESTS AT HEART AND IT IS 
ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY TO HEAR 
FROM THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT 
AND ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO WHEN 
MAKING A DECISION LIKE THIS 
BECAUSE THERE IS SORT OF THIS 
TENSION. I THINK MIKE BRAUN 
FROM INDIANA SPOKE TO THIS OVER 
THE WEEKEND ON ONE OF THE 
WEEKEND SHOWS SAYING, THERE 
REALLY IS A SORT OF TENSION. DO 
YOU REPRESENT AS A SENATOR? 
DO YOU SOLELY REPRESENT WHAT 
YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT OR DO 
YOU SORT OF TAKE A STEP BACK 
AND REPRESENT WHAT YOU AND YOUR 
HEART FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING 
TO DO? THERE HAS TO BE A 
BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO. 
>> AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS 
AFTERNOON AND THE Q&A THAT IS 
GOING TO CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE
. HOW CAN THESE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN THE 
CASE BOTH FOR AND AGAINST 
WITNESSES? 
HOW DO YOU SEE THAT SHAPING UP? 
>> WE JUST DISCUSSED AND YOU 
JUST HEARD ADAM SCHIFF. 
SO THE ARGUMENT ON THE HOUSE 
MANAGER SIDE IS RELEVANT. 
ON THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL SIDE, 
I THINK MOLLY TOUCHED ON IT 
WHICH IS, IF YOU TAKE THE VIEW 
THAT THE CONDUCT HAS ALLEGED, 
EVEN IF IT WAS ALL PROVEN, IF 
YOU TAKE THE VIEW THAT THAT IS 
NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, 
THEN YOU CAN AT LEAST LOGICALLY 
AND CONSISTENTLY SAY, OKAY, 
EVEN IF BOLTON COMES IN AND 
SINKS THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT WE 
EXPECT HIM TO SAY, IF WE DECIDE 
IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, AND WE 
DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM THAT 
PARTICULAR WITNESS. 
SO I WOULD EXPECT THE ARGUMENTS 
TO PLAY OUT ALONG THOSE LINES 
AS THEY DID YESTERDAY. 
AND I THINK THAT RAISES 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE 
PROFESSOR SAID YESTERDAY. 
>> HERE IS THE REGAL IN ALL OF 
THIS. 
WHEN THIS AND IT ACTUALLY GETS 
TO THE POINT WHERE THEY GET TO 
DELIBERATE ON WITNESSES, THEY 
CAN DO THAT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 
BECAUSE UNDER THE STANDING 
RULES OF THE SENATE, WHEN IT 
COMES TO IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND 
IMPEACHMENT MATTERS ARE 
TYPICALLY DONE BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS MEETING NO CAMERAS, NO 
PRESS PEOPLE, VERY FEW 
EXTRANEOUS STAFF MEMBERS. 
THE DOORS ARE LOCKED AND THEY 
ARE ALL THERE AND I WOULD LOVE 
TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL DURING 
THAT CONVERSATION BUT THAT 
MEANS WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY 
HEAR THE ARGUMENTS MADE FOR AND 
AGAINST HAVING WITNESSES WHICH 
COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE, DO 
YOU REALLY WANT THOSE IF I AM A 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR, DO YOU 
REALLY THINK MR. SCHUMER THAT 
YOU REALLY HAVE MY BEST 
INTEREST AT HEART WHEN YOU ARE 
APPEALING TO ME TO DO THIS? 
SO IT COULD MAKE FOR SOME 
INTERESTING REPORTING AFTER-THE-
FACT. 
>> EXACTLY. 
>> YOU MENTIONED DERSHOWITZ . I 
WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PHASE LAST 
NIGHT AND I WANT TO PLAY FOR 
YOU AND ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY 
TURNED SOME HEADS. 
>> 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.
>> SO HE IS SAYING THERE MIGHT 
BE SOME PUBLIC INTEREST AND 
THAT IS SORT OF A COVER FOR US 
HERE. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ  HAS A 
LONG AND STORIED CAREER THAT HE 
IS FLAT-OUT WRONG ON THIS. 
HE TALKED ABOUT THE DEBATE 
BETWEEN MADISON AND MASON 
YESTERDAY, ABOUT WHETHER 
MALADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE A 
PART OF THE CONDUCT THAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE. 
AND I THINK HE JUST HONESTLY 
MISINTERPRETED WHAT THAT DEBATE 
WAS. AT THE TIME THAT WE ARE 
HAVING THIS DEBATE AND I'M 
GOING TO GET MY CONSTITUTIONAL 
GEEK IT IS ON JUST A LITTLE BIT 
HERE. 
TREASON AND BRIBERY WERE THE 
ONLY TWO THINGS ON THE LIST AND 
MASON AND MADISON WERE DEBATING 
HOW TO EXPAND, NOT HOW TO LIMIT 
THAT CONDUCT. 
AND A IS CONSIDERED 
MALADMINISTRATION AND REJECTED 
IT AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
NOTED  THAT WHAT THEY THEN 
TURNED TO WAS THIS PHRASE HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH 
IS ACTUALLY BROADER THAN THE 
LIMITED TERM ADMINISTRATION. 
IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO GET 
OUR HEADS AROUND IT BECAUSE IT 
DOES A HIGH CRIMES AND SO YOU 
THINK THERE MUST BE A CRIME BUT 
IT IS A TERM OF ART AND IT 
INCLUDES CORRUPTION IN 
PARTICULAR. 
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A 
PRESIDENT WHO HAS A MOTIVE TO 
GET REELECTED OR TO BURNISH 
THEIR LEGACY AND WE SAY THAT 
ALL PRESIDENTS AND ELECTED 
OFFICIALS HAVE THAT MOTIVE, 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
BUT THE THING THAT 
DISTINGUISHES A PRESIDENTIAL 
ACT AND TAKES IT INTO A CORRUPT 
ACT IS AND I WILL JUST READ 
FROM THE WIDELY ACCEPTED 
DEFINITION THAT AN ACT DONE 
WITH INTENT TO GIVE SOME 
ADVANTAGE, THAT IS INCONSISTENT 
WITH OFFICIAL DUTY AND THE 
RIGHTS OF OTHERS, THAT IS A 
CORRUPT ACT. 
AND THAT IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES 
THE MIXED MOTIVE CASES. 
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO 
SAY, WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THE 
MIXED MOTIVE QUESTIONS THAT 
WERE ASKED? 
IT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION BY 
THOSE THREE REPUBLICANS. 
>> RIGHT AND WE HIGHLIGHTED IT 
ON THIS SHOW. 
WE HIGHLIGHTED THAT QUESTION ON 
THE SHOW TO A DAY BEFORE, THE 
QUESTION CAME UP, FROM THE 
THREE MOST IMPORTANT REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS THAT YOU JUST NAMED. 
SO THE KEY THERE IS THAT IF YOU 
ACCEPT THIS COMMON NOTION OF 
CORRUPTION AND YOU ACCEPT THAT 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
IMPORTED 400 YEARS OF ENGLISH 
PRESIDENTS FOR CORRUPTION AS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ IS JUST FLAT OUT 
WRONG, THEN YOU WOULD LOOK TO 
WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IF YOU ACCEPT 
THE HOUSES ARGUMENTS, THAT HIS 
CONDUCT TO ACCEPT THE BENEFIT, 
THE IMPROPER BENEFIT WHICH IS 
THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND 
TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT IS 
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DUTY 
WHICH WAS TO DISPERSE THE 
LAWFUL AID THAT CONGRESS HAD 
BYLAW SAID SHOULD GO TO UKRAINE,
NOT TO VIOLATE THE IMPOUNDMENT 
CONTROL ACT, NOT TO VIOLATE HIS 
OATH OF OFFICE, TO FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTE THE LAWS TO PASS OUT 
THE AID. 
IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT 
ANALYSIS, THEN PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ IS JUST WRONG IN 
THIS CASE AND HIS ARGUMENT IS 
FRANKLY DANGEROUS  BECAUSE IT 
WOULD ALLOW ANY PRESIDENT WHO 
CLAIM TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN 
REELECTION TO BASICALLY DO 
ANYTHING HE OR SHE WANTED 
EXCEPT TO TAKE A BRIBE. 
>> HOW IS THE WHITE HOUSE 
REACTING TO LAST NIGHT'S 
QUESTION SESSION? 
>> THEY SEEM TO THINK IT WENT 
FAIRLY WELL FOR THEM. THEY 
THINK THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE 
SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS BUT THERE 
WAS CONCERN INTERNALLY THAT MAY 
LITTLE BIT TOO FAR. 
IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE 
IN SOME OF THE FOLLOW-UP 
QUESTIONS TODAY, IS THERE ANY 
ATTEMPT TO ROLL THAT BACK OR 
BACK OFF OF THAT JUST A LITTLE 
BIT? 
WE SAW A TWEET FROM DERSHOWITZ 
THIS MORNING THAT HE CLAIMED 
HIS ARGUMENT HAD BEEN 
MISCONSTRUED SOMEWHAT . IT WILL 
BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THERE 
IS AN ATTEMPT TO SORT OF SET 
THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THE PART 
OF THE RESIDENCE DEFENSE TEAM 
TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE 
NOT TRYING TO MAKE THESE BROAD 
AND SWEEPING ASSERTIONS OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND 
AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO 
THESE CASES BUT THAT IS NOT 
NECESSARILY WHAT THEY ARE GOING 
TO DO BUT WHAT SOME FACTIONS 
WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD 
LIKE TO SEE, THAT STEP TAKEN. 
>> RAND PAUL HAD QUESTIONS 
YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE 
ACTUALLY BLOCKED BECAUSE CHIEF 
JUSTICE ROBERTS WAS REFUSING TO 
ASK SOME QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT 
LEAD TO OUTING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND MADE IT VERY 
CLEAR HE WASN'T GOING TO DO 
THAT SO REMIND US AGAIN WHAT 
THE PROTECTIONS ARE FOR 
WHISTLEBLOWERS. 
SPECTRE PROTECTION, IT IS MORE, 
THERE IS AN INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, WHISTLEBLOWERS SET 
OF LAWS THAT COVER THIS AND A 
WHISTLEBLOWER EXCEPT IN VERY 
LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES IS 
ENTITLED UNDER THAT LAW TO 
CONFIDENTIALITY. 
SO THIS IS MAYBE A SIGN THAT 
JUSTICE ROBERTS IS NOT JUST 
GOING TO BE AN Mc BUT MAYBE 
WILL BE AN INTERVENTIONIST 
BECAUSE THERE ARE PATENT 
DANGEROUS TO DISCLOSE THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS. 
THIS WHISTLEBLOWER AND THERE IS 
VERY LITTLE TO BE GAINED BY 
DOING IT. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS JUST A 
MESSENGER, EFFECTIVELY, SAYING, 
THERE IS NEWS! 
AND READ THE NEWS. AND THE NEWS 
TURNED INTO THE UKRAINIAN 
TRANSCRIPT THAT WE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT NOW. 
>> WE RELY ON PEOPLE AND IN HIS 
WORDS, PEOPLE WITH GOOD 
CONSCIENCE TO COME FORWARD AND 
REPORT BEHAVIOR THAT IS WRONG. 
RIGHT? 
>> AND THAT SAID, IT DOESN'T 
MEAN THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD 
NOT NECESSARILY TRIED TO CALL 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME UP TO 
CAPITOL HILL BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS TO ACTUALLY SIT IN THE 
DEPOSITION BECAUSE AS THE RULES 
OF THE ROAD PACKAGE WAS LAID OUT
, INITIALLY, IF A WITNESS IS 
CALLED, THAT WHEN THIS WILL BE 
DEPOSED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 
FIRST AND THEN THAT DEPOSITION 
WILL BE SHARED WITH THE SENATE 
AND AT THAT POINT, THE SENATE 
WOULD DECIDE WHETHER TO HEAR 
FROM THE INDIVIDUAL IN PERSON 
AND WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
REPORT CAME OUT INITIALLY 
BEFORE WE HAD THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE CALL, ADAM SCHIFF HAD 
DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY AND 
THE DESIRE TO HEAR FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IN PERSON ON 
CAPITOL HILL BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING 
BECAUSE THEY CAN DO THAT. 
THEY HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST. 
SO THERE IS THAT POSSIBILITY 
BUT ACTUALLY OUTING THAT 
INDIVIDUAL BY SAYING HIS NAME, 
HIS OR HER NAME WAS ONE STEP 
TOO FAR IT SEEMS FOR CHIEF 
JUSTICE ROBERTS. 
>> WE SEE RAND PAUL WALKING IN 
AND WE ARE STANDING BY WAITING 
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO 
PICK UP AGAIN. A Q&A SESSION 
EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TODAY. 
THINK, BEFORE I LET YOU GO, 
WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE 
WATCHING FOR THIS AFTERNOON? 
>> SOME OF THOSE WING SENATORS 
AND INDICATIONS OF HOW THEY MAY 
VOTE WHEN IT COMES TO 
WITNESSES. 
THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DRIVE HOME 
THEIR ARGUMENT THAT WITNESSES 
WOULD EXTEND THE TRIAL MUCH 
FURTHER. 
AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, 
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOME 
SIGNALS FROM MAYBE SOME 
DEMOCRATS THAT THERE IS WIGGLE 
ROOM TO TAKE OFF. 
AND THEY MAY BE VULNERABLE WHEN 
IT COMES TO THE ULTIMATE BOAT 
ON WHETHER TO CONVICT OR ACQUIT 
THE PRESIDENT. 
SO THE SUBJECT OF THE SENATORS 
Q&A AND QUESTIONS, THEY ARE 
LOOKING AT AS MUCH TO THE 
SENATORS AND ASKING FOR SIGNALS 
AS TO HOW THIS TRAUMA PLAY OUT. 
>> IT IS HARD TO IGNORE THE 
IOWA CAUCUSES. 
WE HAVE NEW HAMPSHIRE, AS WELL. 
>> IT IS IN FOUR DAYS, ISN'T 
IT?! 
>> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 
DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF HOW THIS 
IS GOING TO PLAY OUT? 
>> I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY 
WHATEVER THE SENATE DOES, 
WHETHER IT DECIDES TO MOVE 
AHEAD WITH WITNESSES OR NOT 
PRETTY MUCH, PROCEEDINGS WILL 
WRAP UP EITHER LATE TOMORROW 
NIGHT, FRIDAY NIGHT OR IF THEY 
DO DECIDE TO KEEP DELIBERATING 
WITNESSES, CALL ON SATURDAY 
MORNING BUT AFTER THAT, IS THAT 
IT WILL NEED TO BE OUT TO DEPOSE
. 
>> I WANT TO THANK OUR PANELISTS
, MOLLY HOOPER, ZEKE MILLER AND 
WE 
>>> THIS IS A CBS NEWS SPECIAL 
REPORT. 
I AM NORAH O'DONNELL IN 
WASHINGTON WHERE WE ARE 
EXPECTING DRAMA ON DAY TWO. 
SENATORS HAVE UP TO EIGHT 
ADDITIONAL HOURS TO SUBMIT 
QUESTIONS. 
QUITE A FEW WERE ANSWERED 
YESTERDAY, ACTUALLY IT WAS 93, 
AT A SESSION THAT ENDED AFTER 
11:00 IN THE EAST. 
ONLY 106 WERE SUBMITTED AT BILL 
CLINTON'S TRIAL IN 1999. 
WE MAY BE CLOSER TO THE 
ANSWERING THE QUESTION WILL 
THERE BE WITNESSES? 
REPUBLICAN LEADERS SIGNALED 
THEY 
BELIEVE THEY HAVE ENOUGH 
SENATORS LINED UP TO BLOCK 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND 
WITNESSES. 
THAT VOTE IS EXPECTED TOMORROW. 
LET'S GO TO NANCY CORDES ON 
CAPITOL HILL FOR THE LATEST. 
LET'S DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF 
THE 
EXPECTED DRAMA THIS MORNING. 
WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED? 
>> Reporter: SENATOR RAND PAUL 
OF KENTUCKY MAY SEE SOMETHING 
AS 
FAR AS A DISTURBANCE AT THE 
START OF TODAY'S Q AND A 
BECAUSE 
HE HAS A QUESTION JUSTICE 
ROBERTS HAS UNTIL THIS POINT 
BEEN UNWILLING TO READ ALOUD. 
THAT'S BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS 
RAND PAUL HAVE GET TO THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
WHOSE MEMO SPARKED THE ENTIRE 
INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST 
PLACE. 
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS MADE 
IT CLEAR HE DOES NOT INTEND TO 
BE INVOLVED IN THE OUTING OF 
THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
HE IS NOT GOING TO READ THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME ALOUD AND 
THERE ARE LAWS THAT EXIST TO 
PROTECT THE IDENTITY. 
APPARENTLY SENATOR PAUL WASN'T 
SATISFIED WITH THAT SO HE AND 
AIDES SAY HE IS GOING TO SEEK 
TO 
BE RECOGNIZED ONCE AGAIN RIGHT 
AT THE START OF THE Q AND A 
SESSION TODAY TO SEE IF HE CAN 
GET HIS QUESTION ASKED AND 
ANSWERED. 
ACCORDING TO A GOP LEADERSHIP 
AIDE, THIS IS EXPECTED TO 
HAPPEN 
AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT. 
NEITHER REPUBLICAN NOR 
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS WANT TO GO 
DOWN THIS ROAD. 
THEY SEE THIS AS A SIDE SHOW. 
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A PARTY 
TO 
REVEALING THIS INDIVIDUAL'S 
IDENTITY, A, BECAUSE A LOT OF 
THE INFORMATION IN THE MEMO 
TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE AND, B, 
BECAUSE OF LAWS THAT EXIST TO 
PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS' 
IDENTITIES. 
>> WE HAVE BEGUN EVERY DAY WITH 
THE SERGEANT OF ARMS SAYING 
HEAR 
YE, HEAR YE ALL PERSONS
COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON 
PAIN 
OF IMPRISONMENT. 
DOES SENATOR PAUL FACE 
IMPRISONMENT? 
>> Reporter: THAT'S NEVER BEEN 
PUT TO THE TEST. 
THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. 
WE DO KNOW SENATOR PAUL IS NO 
STRANGER TO SPARKING 
CONTROVERSY 
ON SENATE FLOOR. 
HE HOLDS RECORD FOR FILIBUSTER, 
SPOKE FOR HOURS AND HOURS ON 
THE 
FLOOR. 
HE MIGHT NOT BE AFRAID TO DO 
SOMETHING SIMILAR THIS TIME. 
I THINK WHAT HE WILL PROBABLY 
TRY TO DO FIRST IS SUBMIT HIS 
QUESTION AGAIN AND SEE IF CHIEF 
JUSTICE READS IT. 
IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE DOESN'T 
READ IT, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS 
THEN AND WE'LL SEE IF JUSTICE 
ROBERTS HAS ANYTHING. 
HE HAS BEEN PRETTY SILENT, HAS 
READ QUESTIONS ALOUD FROM 
SENATORS BUT HASN'T EXPRESSED 
MANY OF HIS OWN THOUGHTS. 
WE'LL SEE IF HE EX POUNDS ON 
THE 
REASONS WHY HE DOESN'T WANT TO 
READ THIS NAME ALOUD. 
>> WE HAVE JOHN DICKERSON, 
SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST AND 60 
MINUTES CORRESPONDENT AS WELL 
AS 
MARGARET BRENNAN WITH FACE THE 
NATION THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT 
MADE YESTERDAY WHICH SAID IF A 
PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING HE 
BELIEVES WILL HELP GET HIM 
ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 
THAT CANNOT RESULT IN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THOSE WHO DISAGREE CALLED THAT 
ARGUMENT ABSURD, CRAZY. 
WHAT ELSE HAS BEEN THE 
REACTION? 
>> Reporter: IT'S BEEN ALL THE 
TALK TODAY NORAH WITH DEMOCRATS 
ARGUING THAT DERSHOWITZ IS 
CHANNELING THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF 
AND HIS IDEA THAT ANYTHING HE 
DOES IS ALLOWABLE, IS 
CONSTITUTIONAL. 
LET ME PLAY FOR YOU A SMALL 
SAMPLING OF WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE 
SAYING ON CAPITOL HILL. 
>> IT IS BEYOND RIDICULOUS, AND 
THERE WERE A COMBINATION OF 
LAUGHS AND GASPS. 
>> I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. 
IT WAS TOTALLY PRE-POST RUSS. 
I AM STILL SHOCKED. 
>> THE ARGUMENT FRANKLY WOULD 
UNLEASH A MONSTER. 
IT WOULD UNLEASH A MONARCH. 
>> I TALKED TO A REPUBLICAN 
ABOUT THESE COMMENTS AND HE 
SAID 
DERSHOWITZ IS JUST 
EXAGGERATING. 
I AM PRONE TO EXAGGERATING TOO. 
NO HARM, NO FOUL. 
PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE IT 
LITERALLY. 
THAT IS BASICALLY THE REACTION 
REPUBLICANS HAVE TO THE 
DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENTS. 
THEY'RE EITHER IGNORING THEM OR 
TRYING TO FOCUS ON OTHER 
ARGUMENTS DERSHOWITZ MADE THAT 
THEY LIKE BETTER. 
>> NANCY, THANK YOU. 
I WANT TO BRING IN MARGARET AND 
JOHN DICKERSON AS WELL. 
IN SOME WAYS DERSHOWITZ MADE 
THE 
DEMOCRATS' ARGUMENT THERE WHICH 
IS IF YOU DON'T SEND A SIGNAL 
WITH THIS VOTE, THEN THE 
PRESIDENT WILL FEEL AS IF HE 
CAN 
DO WHATEVER HE PLEASES. 
>> EXACTLY. 
TO REMIND PEOPLE WHAT 
DERSHOWITZ 
SAID, HE SAID PRESIDENTS 
OPERATE 
IN SELF INTEREST AND THEY THINK 
IT IS IN NATIONAL INTEREST. 
WHAT HE SAID WAS WHATEVER THEY 
DO IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
TO GET THEM REELECTED. 
WELL THAT MEANS THEY CAN DO 
ANYTHING. 
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING 
IS 
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO CHECK A 
PRESIDENT. 
THE CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS DID 
NOT WANT A SITUATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT WENT AHEAD AND DID 
WHATEVER HE WANTED. 
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT RAND 
PAUL THING IS WE HAVE ALL THREE 
BRANCHES HAVING A FIGHT. 
WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE 
CONSTITUTION 
WRAPPED UP IN THIS ONE. 
>> SOMEONE DID SAY OVER A YEAR 
AGO, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE 
MOST INTERESTING YEAR OF YOUR 
LIFE. 
YOU ARE HEADING TO A 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. 
I GUESS WE HAVE REACHED THAT 
MOMENT TODAY. 
>> THOUGH IF IT GETS SORTED, 
IT'S THE CONSTITUTION WORKING 
FINE. 
IF THEY CAN'T FIND A WAY TO 
HANDLE IT, WE ARE IN THE TRUE 
CRISIS. 
>> WITH THE INTRODUCTION RAND 
PAUL SAYS HE WANTS TO MAKE ON 
THE FLOOR, A REMINDER THAT THE 
SAFE PLAY FOR BOTH PARTIES IN 
IMPEACHMENT IS TO TRY TO MAKE 
THIS PARTISAN. 
THAT IS WHAT INTRODUCTION OF 
THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME, THE 
INJECTION OF MYSTERY INTO IT, 
REPUBLICANS COME BACK TO, IT IS 
MOTIVATED BY BECAUSE 
IMPLICATION 
AMONG REPUBLICANS IS THERE WAS 
ANOTHER MOTIVE FOR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WHO DID THIS 
COMPLAINT THROUGH HIS 
PROFESSIONAL CHANNELS GOING 
BACK 
TO HIS HOME AGENCY WITHIN ONE 
OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND 
RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPER 
CHANNELS TO FILE THIS REPORT 
ALL 
THE WAY BACK IN AUGUST. 
WE LEARNED ABOUT IT AT THE END 
OF SEPTEMBER. 
FOR THE MOST PART IT'S CHECKED 
OUT. 
>> DIDN'T WHISTLEBLOWER 
APPROACH 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE 
WHO TOLD THEM TO GO THROUGH 
OFFICIAL CHANNELS? 
>> WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS 
THERE 
WAS CONTACT BETWEEN THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND ONE OF THE 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. 
THAT IS WHERE YOU GET THE 
ALLEGATION THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
KNEW MORE. 
>> LET'S LISTEN TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL 
MAKE THE PROCLAMATION. 
>> HEAR YE, HEAR YE, ALL ARE 
COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON 
PAIN 
OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE SENATE OF 
THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING 
FOR 
TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> SENATE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD 
TODAY. 
WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH 
NEARLY 100 QUESTIONS YESTERDAY. 
SENATORS POSED CONSTRUCTIVE 
QUESTIONS AND PARTIES WERE 
SUCCINCT AND RESPONSIVE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT ALL 
THE WHO PARTICIPATED YESTERDAY. 
WE WILL BEGIN BREAK EVERY TWO 
TO 
THREE HOURS AND LOOK TO BREAK 
FOR DINNER AROUND 6:30. 
WE HAVE BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE'S UNIQUE POSITION 
IN READING OUR QUESTIONS. 
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE 
TO 
ASSURE HIM THAT THAT LEVEL OF 
CONSIDERATION FOR HIM WILL 
CONTINUE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR MURRAY ASKS HOUSE 
MANAGERS YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED 
ABOUT WHY THE HOUSE DID NOT 
AMEND OR REISSUE SUBPOENAS 
AFTER 
IT PASSED ITS RESOLUTION 
AUTHORIZING IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOUCHED UPON 
THE HOUSE HAVING THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT AS SPECIFIED BY 
ARTICLE ONE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
COULD YOU FURTHER ELABORATE AS 
TO WHY THAT AUTHORITY CONTROLS 
DESPITE ANY ARGUMENTS BROUGHT 
FORTH BY MEMBERS OF THE DEFENSE 
TEAM CONTESTING VALIDITY OF 
THOSE SUBPOENAS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THAT'S A GOOD 
QUESTION. 
THE ANSWER IS THAT THESE WERE 
VALIDLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS UNDER 
THE HOUSE RULES. 
THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT TO THE 
CONTRARY IS WRONG AND IT WOULD 
HAVE PROFOUND NEGATIVE 
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW CONGRESS 
AND DEMOCRACY FUNCTION. 
ON JANUARY 9, 2019, HOUSE 
ADOPTED RULES LIKE WE DO EVERY 
CONGRESS AND THESE RULES GAVE 
COMMITTEE POWER TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS. 
THEY'RE NOT AMBIGUOUS RULES. 
AND HERE IS THE RELEVANT 
PORTION 
OF RULE 11 ON SLIDE 55. 
THE HOUSE'S STANDING RULES GIVE 
EACH COMMITTEE SUBPOENA POWER 
FOR PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT ANY 
OF ITS FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES AS 
IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY. 
THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN ON 
SEPTEMBER 9 BEFORE THE 
SPEAKER'S 
ANNOUNCEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 24 
THAT IT WOULD BECOME PART OF 
THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UMBRELLA. 
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T DISPUTE 
THAT THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY 
COMMITTEES WERE FULLY WITHIN 
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SOMEHOW BY 
DECLARING THIS INVESTIGATION 
ALSO FALLS UNDER AN INQUIRY TO 
CONSIDER ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT 
WHICH GIVES CONGRESS ACTUALLY 
GREATER AUTHORITY THAT SOMEHOW 
NULLIFIES TRADITIONAL OVERSIGHT 
AUTHORITY AND THIS DOESN'T MAKE 
SENSE. 
THE PRESIDENT COUNTERS WE HAVE 
TO TAKE FULL VOTE OF 
IMPEACHMENT 
FIRST BECAUSE THAT'S DONE IN 
THE 
PAST. 
IN THE NIXON, THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE NEEDED HOUSE 
RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE SUBPOENA 
POWER AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN 
THE RULES TODAY. 
COMPELS OPPOSITION CONCLUSION, 
SEVERAL FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE 
BEEN 
INVESTIGATED IMPEACHED 
CONVICTED 
IN SENATE WITHOUT HOUSE EVER 
TAKING OFFICIAL VOTE TO 
AUTHORIZE INQUIRY AND FEDERAL 
COURT CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO 
NEED FOR FORMAL VOTE OF THE 
FULL 
HOUSE TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS. 
EVEN ASSUMING HOUSE VOTE WAS 
NECESSARY, THERE WAS A VOTE. 
THE TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660 
DECLARED THAT THE SIX 
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES OF 
HOUSE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE 
THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AS 
PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES' INQUIRY IN 
WHETHER THERE WERE SUFFICIENT 
GROUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE 
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO 
IMPEACH. 
COMMITTEE REPORT WHICH 
ACCOMPANIES RESOLUTION 
DESCRIBED 
SUBPOENAS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED 
BY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES AND 
SAID "ALL SUBPOENAS TO 
EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH REMAIN IN FULL FORCE SO 
WHY DIDN'T HOUSE COMMITTEE JUST 
REISSUE THE SUBPOENAS AFTER THE 
RESOLUTION? 
THE SHORT ANSWER IS THEY DIDN'T 
NEED TO. 
SUBPOENAS WERE ALREADY FULLY 
AUTHORIZED. 
IN ANY EVENT AFTER RESOLUTION 
PASSED COMMITTEES ISSUED 
SUBPOENAS TO MULVANEY, ROBERT 
BLAIR FOR OTHER WITNESSES AND 
PRESIDENT CONTINUED TO BLOCK 
THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
ARGUMENT ABOUT A FULL HOUSE 
VOTE 
REALLY IS JUST AN EXCUSE ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION. 
THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY 
WITH HOUSE SUBPOENAS BEFORE THE 
HOUSE VOTE AND AFTER THE HOUSE 
VOTE. 
THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS 
THE ONE PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE US 
ALL ALONG, HE WAS DETERMINED TO 
FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE 
IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW 
ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SAID, HE 
CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. 
THAT'S NOT WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL 
REPUBLIC ENTRUSTED TO THIS BY 
THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND. 
THIS DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IT WOULD APPLY TO ORDINARY OVER 
NIGHT INVESTIGATIONS AND 
DOESN'T 
JUST APPLY TO THE HOUSE. 
IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE 
SENATE BY SANCTIONING THE 
PRESIDENT'S BLANKET 
OBSTRUCTION, 
THE SENATE WOULD BE CURTAILING 
ITS OWN SUBPOENA POWER IN THE 
FUTURE AS WELL AS THE HOUSE AND 
OVER ITEM OBLIGATION THAT WE 
HAVE AS WE NOW KNOW IT WOULD BE 
PERMANENTLY ALTERED. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MS. MANAGER. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO PRESENT 
TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGER SCHIFF AND FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> PRESIDING OFFICER DECLINES 
TO 
READ THE QUESTION AS SUBMITTED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
BALDWIN IS ADDRESSED TO HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
GIVEN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL COULD NOT ANSWER 
SENATOR 
ROMNEY'S QUESTION THAT ASKED 
FOR 
THE EXACT DATE THE PRESIDENT 
FIRST ORDERED THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
WHAT WITNESS OR WITNESSES COULD 
ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S 
QUESTION? 
>> WHAT WE JUST SAW WAS CHIEF 
JUSTICE REFUSING TO READ A 
QUESTION BY SENATOR RAND PAUL 
WHO WE BELIEVE WANTED THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE TO READ ALOUD THE NAME 
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND HE 
SAID 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER DECLINES 
TO DO THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
YOU ARE RIGHT THEY WERE NOT 
ABLE 
TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION. 
WE BELIEVE THERE IS A 
TREMENDOUS 
AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OUT THERE IN 
THE FORM OF E-MAILS, TEXT 
MESSAGES, CONVERSATION, WITNESS 
TESTIMONY THAT CAN SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT 
INCLUDING E-MAIL FROM LAST 
SUMMER BETWEEN MR. BOLTON,  
MR. BLAIR WHERE WE KNOW FROM 
WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE 
WAS 
DISCUSSED WATCH WE KNOW IS FROM 
MULTIPLE WITNESSES, UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS KNEW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PLACED ON HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE SOON AFTER ORDERED 
IN 
JULY 2019. 
SO WE KNOW NOT ONLY DID U.S. 
OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT AND OMB 
COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT BUT 
UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS 
WELL. 
WE KNOW FROM FORMER DEPUTY 
FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE, 
SHE 
STATED PUBLICLY IN FACT 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT 
IT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IN 
JULY. 
WE KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF 
LAURA COOPER THAT STAFF 
REVEALED 
TWO E-MAILS FROM STATE 
DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25 REVEALING 
UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING 
ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
THAT THE HILL KNOWS ABOUT FMF 
SITUATION TO EXTEND AND SO DOES 
UKRAINIAN EMBASSY. 
THAT WAS JULY 25, THE SAME DAY 
AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
WHAT WE ALSO KNOW IS CAREER 
DIPLOMAT CATHERINE CROFT STATED 
SHE WAS SURPRISED AT THE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPART'S DIPLOMATIC TRADE 
CRAFT AS IN TO SAY THEY FOUND 
OUT VERY EARLY OR MUCH EARLIER 
THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED HE WAS GETTING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT STATUS OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE 
SURROUNDING IT. 
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO 
OBSTRUCT WHOLLY EFFORTS TO GET 
THE E-MAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE 
WE HAVE ASKED FOR. 
THAT OBVIOUSLY CAN BE REMEDIED 
BY THIS BODY WITH APPROPRIATE 
SUBPOENAS, MAINLY SUBPOENA TO 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO TESTIFY 
AND 
SUBPOENA TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT 
AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 
OTHERS 
TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT 
MATERIAL. 
LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY 
IS LAST EVENING COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ASKED THE 
QUESTION 
ABOUT WHY DID THE HOLD FOR 
UKRAINE DIFFER FROM HOLDS IN 
THE 
NORTHERN TRIANGLE AND OTHER 
HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN? 
HE PROVIDED EXPLANATION THAT I 
AM STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY 
BRAIN 
AROUND BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO BE 
THE ONLY PERSON IN 
ADMINISTRATION THAT ACTUALLY 
HAS 
AN EXPLANATION. 
AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THE 
EXPLANATION WAS ALONG THE LINES 
OF ONE WAS TRYING TO PUT PUBLIC 
PRESSURE ON COUNTRIES. IF THAT 
WERE TRUE THIN OF COURSE 
THERE WOULD BE PLENTY EVIDENCE, 
PLENTY E-MAILS, TEXTS, 
CORRESPONDENCE WITHIN ENTIRE 
INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT WE 
KNOW 
IS ROW BUEHLER THAT WOULD 
ILLUSTRATE THAT TO BE THE CASE. 
THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE 
EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT. 
I I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT A LOT 
OF 
PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER, PEOPLE 
ON 
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL 
INCLUDING ME HAVE DESCRIBED 
CONSTERNATION ABOUT RED TAPE 
AND 
BUREAUCRACY AND LAYERS OF 
GOVERNMENT THAT RUN TOO SLOW. 
I SOMETIMES SHARE THAT CONCERN. 
SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LONG TIME. 
THERE ARE MEMOS, E-MAILS FOR 
EVERYTHING, PAPER TRAILS FOR 
EVERYTHING IN THE TOWN. 
I THINK THAT'S TRUE WITH 
RESPECT 
TO THE ISSUE. 
IT'S TIME THAT WE SEE THAT 
INFORMATION SO WE CAN GET TO 
THE 
BOTTOM OF WHAT ACTUALLY 
HAPPENED 
AND THIS BODY COULD GET THAT 
INFORMATION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SASS, 
MCSALLY, YOUNG, EARNS, BRON. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
TUMEY AND OTHER SENATORS IS FOR 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
GIVEN THAT THE ELECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE MOST 
SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL ACTS IN 
WHICH WE AS CITIZENS ENGAGE IN 
OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM, HOW MUCH 
WEIGHT SHOULD SENATE GIVE TO 
THE 
FACT THAT REMOVING THE 
PRESIDENT 
FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFYING 
HIM FROM HOLDING FUTURE FEDERAL 
OFFICE WOULD UNDO THE 
DEMOCRATIC 
DECISION AND KICK THE PRESIDENT 
OFF THE BALLOT IN THIS YEAR'S 
ELECTION? 
>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, ONE 
OF 
THE CONCERNS WE HAVE RAISED 
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS OVER 
THE 
LAST SEVERAL MONTHS IN GOING 
BACK TO THE TIME WHEN HOUSE WAS 
DEALING WITH THIS IN VARIOUS 
COMMITTEES IS WE ARE IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR. 
THERE ARE SOME IN THE ROOM DAYS 
APE WAY FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES 
TAKING PLACE. 
SO WE ARE DISCUSSING THE 
POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT AND 
REMOVAL 
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES NOT ONLY DURING AN 
ELECTION SEASON, IN THE HEART 
OF 
THE ELECTION SEASON. 
I THINK THAT THIS DOES A 
DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
AGAIN WE THINK THE BASIS UPON 
WHICH THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD IS 
IRREGULAR TO SAY THE LEAST. 
I DO THINK IT COMPLICATES THE 
MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THAT WE ARE LITERALLY AT THE 
DAWN OF A NEW SEASON OF 
ELECTIONS. 
I MEAN, WE ARE AT THAT SEASON 
NOW. 
AND YET WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT. 
I WANT TO TIE THIS INTO THE 
URGENCY THAT WAS SO PREVALENT 
IN 
DECEMBER WITH MY COLLEAGUES THE 
MANAGERS. 
IT WAS SO URGENT TO MOVE THIS 
FORWARD THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT 
BY MID DECEMBER BEFORE 
CHRISTMAS 
BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY WAS 
AT 
STAKE. 
THEN THEY WAITED 33 DAYS TO 
BRING IT HERE. 
NOW THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO 
ALL 
THE INVESTIGATION ALTHOUGH THEY 
SAY THEY'VE PROVED THEIR CASE 
BUT STILL NEED MORE TO PROVE 
IT. 
I WANT TO BE CLEAR. 
WE BELIEVE THE ENTIRE PROCESS 
WAS CORRUPT FROM THE BEGINNING 
AND THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON THIS 
BODY. 
TO DO IT WHILE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ARE SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR 
NOMINATION TO BE THE HEAD OF 
THEIR PARTY, TO RUN AS 
PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OF 
YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM, AND TO 
TALK ABOUT REMOVAL OF A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
I THINK THAT'S ALL PART AND 
PARCEL OF THE SAME PATTERN AND 
PRACTICE OF IRREGULARITIES THAT 
HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SINCE 
THE 
BEGINNING. 
THE SPEAKER ALLOWED THE 
ARTICLES 
TO LINGER. 
IT WAS SUCH A NATIONALLY URGENT 
MATTER THAT THEY COULD LINGER 
FOR A MONTH. 
WE THINK THIS POINTS TO THE 
PROBLEM, MY COLLEAGUE  
MR. CIPOLLONE SAID, THIS IS 
TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM MONTANA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR TESTER ASKS HOUSE 
MANAGERS YESTERDAY  
MR. DERSHOWITZ STATED "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." 
DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS ANY 
LIMIT TO THE TYPE OR SCOPE OF 
QUID PRO QUO A SITTING 
PRESIDENT 
COULD ENGAGE IN WITH A FOREIGN 
ENTITY AS LONG AS INTENT OF THE 
SITTING PRESIDENT IS TO GET 
REELECTED IN WHAT HE OR SHE 
BELIEVES IS IN THE PUBLIC'S 
BEST 
INTEREST? 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR, THERE 
IS NO LIMITING TO THE ARGUMENT 
THAT WE HEARD LAST NIGHT FROM 
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM. 
THAT IS IF THERE IS A QUID PRO 
QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED AND 
HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION IS 
IN 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THEN IT 
DOESN'T MATTER HOW CORRUPT THAT 
QUID PRO QUO IS. 
IT'S ASTONISHING THAT ON THE 
FLOOR OF THIS BODY SOMEONE 
WOULD 
MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. 
IT DIDN'T BEGIN THAT WAY IN THE 
BEGINNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE. 
BUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE 
LAST DAYS IS  IS A DESCENT INTO 
CONSTITUTIONAL MADNESS THAT. 
WAY MADNESS LIES. 
IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE 
THAT A PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY 
CAN 
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ENGAGE IN 
WHATEVER QUID PRO QUO HE WANTS, 
I WILL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU 
WILL 
GIVE ME THAT TO ME GET ELECTED, 
I WILL GIVE YOU MILITARY 
DOLLARS 
IF IT YOU WILL GIVE ME HELP IN 
MY REELECTION, IF YOU WILL GIVE 
ME ILLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTION. 
NOW THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE 
THAT ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU 
KNOW YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND 
DEAD TO RIGHTS. 
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MAKE OF 
DESPERATION. 
WHAT'S SO STRIKING TO ME IS 
ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO, WE 
HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID WELL 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, 
THAT 
MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. 
THAT OF COURSE WAS RICHARD 
NIXON. 
WATERGATE IS NOW 40 TO 50 YEARS 
BEHIND US. 
HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING IN THE 
LAST HALF CENTURY? 
HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL? 
IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE BACK TO 
WHERE WE WERE. 
THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT, IT'S NOT 
ILLEGAL. 
OR DONALD TRUMP'S VERSION UNDER 
ARTICLE TWO, I CAN DO WHATEVER 
I 
WANT OR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ' 
POINT IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
IT HELPS HIS REELECTION, IT IS 
THEREFORE IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. 
IN FACT, MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WE 
PROGRESSED POST WATERGATE, 
ENACTED WATERGATE REFORMS, 
TRIED 
TO INSULATE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
FROM INTERFERENCE BY 
PRESIDENCY, 
TRIED TO PUT AN END TO THE 
POLITICAL ABUSES OF THAT 
DEPARTMENT, AS MUCH AS WE 
THOUGHT WE ENACTED CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE REFORMS, WE ARE RIGHT 
BACK TO WHERE WE WERE A HALF 
CENTURY AGO AND I WOULD ARGUE 
WE 
MAY BE IN A WORSE PLACE. 
BECAUSE THIS TIME, THIS TIME 
THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED. 
THAT ARGUMENT IF THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS IT, IT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL, 
FAILED AND  NIXON WAS FORCED TO 
RESIGN. 
BUT IT MAY SUCCEED NOW. 
THAT MEANS WE ARE WORSE OFF 
THAN 
WHERE WE ARE. 
THAT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF 
LAWLESSNESS. 
I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERY 
AMERICAN 
WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS 
WRONG 
TO SEEK FOREIGN HELP IN 
AMERICAN 
ELECTION, THAT AMERICANS SHOULD 
DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS. 
I WOULD HOPE AND I BELIEVE THAT 
EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS THAT 
AND EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS 
THAT'S TRUE FOR DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN ONES. 
I WOULD HOPE WE UNDERSTAND. 
I WOULD HOPE THIS TRIAL WOULD 
BE 
ONE CONDUCIVE OF THE TRUTH. 
THE SENATOR ASKED WHAT 
WITNESSES 
COULD SHED LIGHT ON WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERED HOLD AND WHY. 
WE KNOW MICK MULVANEY WOULD. 
THAT INSTRUCTION CAME FROM OMB. 
YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY OF 
TAYLOR, SHOCK THROUGH THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, 
SHOCK 
EXPERIENCED IN THE VIDEO 
CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS 
ANNOUNCED 
AND THE INSTRUCTION WAS THIS 
COMES THROUGH PRESIDENT'S CHIEF 
OF STAFF OMB BUT WAS DIRECT 
ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT. 
MICK MULVANEY KNOWS WHEN THAT 
WENT INTO PLACE, KNOWS WHY. 
HE MADE THAT STATEMENT PUBLICLY 
WHICH HE WISHES TO RECANT. 
I AM SURE I GOT AN EAR FULL 
FROM 
THE PRESIDENT AFTER HE DID. 
APPARENTLY IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE IF 
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT IS IN 
HIS INTEREST, IT'S OKAY. 
THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT, WHAT IF 
IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON. 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THIS WAS A 
CREDIBLE REASON TO INVESTIGATE 
THE RIVAL, SAY IT WAS A 
CREDIBLE 
REASON, DOES THAT MAKE IT 
RIGHT? 
WHAT PRESIDENT WILL NOT THINK 
HE 
HAS A CREDIBLE REASON TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT? 
WHAT PRESIDENT WILL THINK HE 
DOESN'T HAVE A CREDIBLE REASON 
OR WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO 
ARTICULATE ONE OR COME UP WITH 
SOME FIG LEAF? 
THEY COMPOUNDED DANGEROUS 
ARGUMENT THEY MADE THAT NO QUID 
PRO QUO IS TOO RESULT. 
IF YOU THINK IT WILL HELP 
REELECTION, THEY COMPOUNDED BY 
SAYING IF WHAT YOU WANT IS 
TARGETING YOUR RIVAL, IT IS 
EVEN 
MORE LEGITIMATE. 
THAT WAY MADNESS LIES. 
>> SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
YOUNG. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
KRAMER AND YOUNG IS FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MANAGER SCHIFF REGULARLY STATES 
IF THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT, 
HE 
WOULD AGREE TO ALL THE 
WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS THAT THE MANAGERS 
WANT. 
IS THE PRESIDENT THE FIRST 
INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE 
HIS RIGHTS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION 
BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUSLY 
NO, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE 
FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT WHO 
DECID NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS. 
I THINK IT IS STRIKING AND 
SHOCKING THAT ONE OF THE 
ARGUMENTS THAT'S BEEN 
REPEATEDLY 
DEPLOYED BY HOUSE MANAGERS 
THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, 
HEARD MANAGER NADLER SAY ONLY 
THE GUILTY HIDE EVIDENCE, ONLY 
GUILTY DON'T RESPOND TO 
SUBPOENAS, MANAGER SCHIFF SAY 
THIS IS NOT THE WAY INNOCENT 
PEOPLE ACT. 
OF COURSE THAT IS CONTRARY TO 
THE VERY SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN 
JUSTICE SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE 
HAVE 
RIGHTS AND ASSERTING THOSE 
RIGHTS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS 
INDICATION OF GUILT. 
THAT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY 
THE LAWS AND BY THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED IN 
VERSES HEYS, A CASE IN OUR 
TRIAL 
MEMORANDUM THAT THE IDEA OF 
PUNISHING SOMEONE, WHICH IS 
WHAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE 
ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WITH THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, 
TO SAY THAT IF THE PRESIDENT 
INSISTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
PERROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, IF 
THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT LIKE 
VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT AT 
LEAST SINCE NIXON AND SOME 
BEYOND FURTHER BACK TO THAT, HE 
IS GOING TO ASSERT IMMUNITY OF 
HIS SENIOR ADVISERS TO COMPEL 
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, IF HE 
IS GOING TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS 
GROUNDED IN SEPARATION OF 
POWERS 
AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING 
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY 
INTEREST, 
WE WILL CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION 
OF 
CONGRESS AND IMPEACH HIM. 
IT'S THIS FUNDAMENTAL THEME 
RUNNING THROUGHOUT BOTH 
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND 
ARGUMENTS 
GENERALLY HERE THAT IF THE 
PRESIDENT STANDS ON HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IF HE 
TRIES TO PROTECT INSTITUTIONAL 
PERROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, 
WHICH HE IS DUTY BOUND TO DO 
FOR 
FUTURE  OCCUPANTS THAT'S 
SOMEHOW 
AN INDICATION OF GUILT AND 
SHOWS 
HE OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED. 
IT IS ANTITHREATCAL TO THE 
AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND 
PRINCIPALS OF DUE PROCESS, 
PRINCIPALS OF ACKNOWLEDGING 
THAT 
RIGHTS CAN BE DEFENDED, THAT 
RIGHTS EXIST TO BE DEFENDED AND 
ASSERTING THOSE CANNOT BE 
TREATED EITHER AS SOMETHING 
PUNISHABLE OR AS EVIDENCE OF 
GUILT. 
THERE WOULD BE A LONG LINE OF 
PAST PRESIDENTS, AS PROFESSOR 
DERAILMENT SHOW WITNESS POINTED 
OUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF 
PRESIDENTS ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
THERE ARE ALSO A LONG LINE WHO 
COULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IF 
EVERY 
TIME A PRESIDENT INSISTED ON 
PERROGATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY AND INSISTING ON 
DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS THAT CAN BE TREATED AS 
SOMETHING IMPEACHABLE AND AS 
EVIDENCE OF GUILT. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF 
REFUSIONEDDED TO TURN OVER A 
LOT 
OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN 
THE 
FAST AND FURIOUS INVESTIGATION. 
HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD 
IN 
CONTEMPT. 
NO ONE THOUGHT THAT WAS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
THE CONCEPT OF SAYING WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT ASSERTS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED 
PERROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, 
THAT 
IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT, IS A 
BOGUS 
ASSERTION, CONTRARY TO 
PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN JUSTICE 
SYSTEM AND FUNDAMENTAL 
PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND 
OUGHT 
TO BE REJECTED BY THIS BODY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
 THANK YOU.
>> SENATOR JONES' QUESTION FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
ASIDE FROM THE HOUSE'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT 
AUTHORITY, PLEASE IDENTIFY 
SPECIFICALLY WHICH PROVISION OR 
PROVISIONS, IF ANY, IN THE 
HOUSE 
RULES OR A HOUSE RESOLUTION 
AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY 
HOUSE COMMITTEES PRIOR TO THE 
PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660. 
IN ADDITION, PLEASE LIST 
SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED 
AFTER 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. 
 660.
>> SENATOR, WE WILL COMPILE THE 
LIST. 
WE DON'T HAVE IT ACCESSIBLE AT 
THE MOMENT. 
OH WE DO HAVE IT. 
WE DO HAVE IT. 
SPECIFICALLY THE SUBPOENAS THAT 
WENT OUT AFTER THE PASSAGE OF 
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WERE 
SUBPOENAED TO ICEN BERG, 
McCORMICK, BLAIR, ELLIS, WELLS 
GRIFFITH, MULVANEY. 
LET ME UNDERSCORE SOMETHING MY 
COLLEAGUE HAD TO SAY. 
THIS ME BREAK THIS DOWN IF I 
CAN 
INTO PRACTICAL TERMS. 
WHAT IS PRACTICAL IMPORT OF 
WHAT 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
ARGUE. 
IT IS THIS. 
SAY A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED IN 
NOVEMBER. 
SAY ANY ONE OF YOU THAT CHAIR A 
COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE 
DETERMINE YOU THINK THAT THE 
NEXT PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN 
SOMETHING QUESTIONABLE, MAYBE 
EVEN SOME WRONGDOING, AND YOU 
BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION AND I 
WOULD IMAGINE YOUR SENATE RULES 
LIKE OUR HOUSE RULES, HOUSE 
RULE 
10 SENDER HAS THE SPECIFIC 
LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING ISSUE OF 
SUBPOENAS AS PART OF NORMAL 
OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT 
DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME OF 
WATERGATE SO THEY HAD TO HAVE A 
SEPARATE RESOLUTION. 
HOUSE RULE PASSED EACH THAT 
POWERS US TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS 
COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS PART OF 
OVERSIGHT. 
YOU ARE A CHAIR. 
YOU START TO DO OVERSIGHT. 
YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
YOU START TO LEARN MORE. 
WHAT YOU LEARN BECOMES MORE 
CONCERNING. 
YOU ISSUE MORE SUBPOENAS. 
ADMINISTRATION IN AN EFFORT TO 
COVER UP MISCONDUCT SAYS WE ARE 
NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF 
YOUR SUBPOENAS. 
WE WILL FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS. 
THEY COME UP WITH ONE BAD FAITH 
EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER AS TO WHY 
THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY. 
AS YOU INVESTIGATE FURTHER AND 
YOU ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE 
WALL OF OBSTRUCTION, THEN YOU 
BEGIN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
THAT LEADS TO PASSAGE OF YET 
ANOTHER RESOLUTION. 
THEY WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT 
ALL 
THE WORK YOU DID BEFORE YOU 
DETERMINED IT MERITED POTENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE THROWN OUT. 
THEY WERE PERFECTLY EMPOWERED 
TO 
OBSTRUCT YOU IN OVER SIGHT 
RESPONSIBILITY. 
YOU MUST BEGIN WITH THE 
CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE 
PREPARED 
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE 
YOU ISSUE A SUBPOENA. 
OTHERWISE THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER 
YOU DID BEFORE YOU GOT TO THE 
PLACE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. 
WE DID NOT HAVE THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT DO INITIAL 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHY? 
BILL BARR TURNED IT DOWN, SAME 
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT MENTIONED 
THE JULY 25th CALL SAID THERE 
IS NOTHING TO SEE. 
THERE WAS NO D.O.J. 
INVESTIGATION, NO SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. 
IT WASN'T AS IF SOMEONE LIKE 
KEN 
STARR HANDED US A PACKAGE AND 
SAID HERE IS THE EVIDENCE. 
YOU CAN TAKE UP IMPEACHMENT 
RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE 
THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK. 
WE HAD TO DO THE WORK 
OURSELVES. 
THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE ANY 
SUBPOENA YOU ISSUE AS PART OF 
YOUR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY 
THAT DOWN THE ROAD REVEALS 
EVIDENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO 
EMBARK ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
MUST BE DISREGARDED. 
THAT CANNOT AND IS NOT THE LAW. 
IT WOULD RENDER THE OVERSIGHT 
FUNCTION MEANINGLESS. 
COURT AFTER COURT THAT'S LOOKED 
AT THE CONGRESS' POWER TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS HAVE REACHED SAME 
CONCLUSION. 
THAT IS IF YOU HAVE POWER TO 
LEGISLATE, YOU HAVE POWER TO 
OVERSEE. 
WE HAVE A VIOLATION OF 
EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT, 
CONGRESS PASSES MILITARY 
SPENDING, PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
PENDLETON IT, GIVES NO REASON, 
KEEPS IT A SECRET. 
WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT. 
THAT CAN'T BE MORE SQUARELY 
WITHIN OVER SIGHT POWER OF 
CONGRESS, TO FIND OUT WHY AID 
WE 
APPROPRIATED WAS NOT GOING OUT 
THE DOOR. 
THEY WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T LOOK 
INTO THAT UNLESS YOU ARE 
PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT AND ANNOUNCE FIRST 
HAND. 
THAT'S THE IMPORT OF THAT 
ARGUMENT. 
IT WOULD CRIPPLE YOUR OVERSIGHT 
CAPACITY. 
WITHOUT OVERSIGHT CAPACITY, 
YOUR 
LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY IS 
CRIPPLED. 
THAT'S THE REAL WORLD IMPORT OF 
THIS LEGAL WINDOW DRESSING. 
THEY WOULD STRIP YOU OF YOUR 
ABILITY TO DO MEANINGFUL 
OVERSIGHT AND PARTICULARLY HERE 
WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
MISCONDUCT OF IMPEACHABLE KIND 
AND CHARACTER, IT WOULD MEAN A 
PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT THEIR 
OWN 
INVESTIGATION. 
IF YOU NEED EVIDENCE OF THEIR 
BAD FAITH OF WHICH IT IS 
ABUNDANT, SHIFTING AND 
SPRINGING 
RATIONALIZATIONS AND 
EXPLANATIONS, WHEN WE HAD 
LEWANDOWSKI AND INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE THEY SAID UNDER 
INSTRUCTION OF WHITE HOUSE HE 
WOULDN'T ANSWER BECAUSE THEY 
MIGHT CLAIM EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
THIS WAS SOMEONE LOWER BLOSSOM 
NEVER WORKED FOR THE EXECUTIVE. 
THEY MADE THE CLAIM THEY MIGHT 
USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
SORRY. 
IS MY TIME UP? 
>> TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR FROM TEXAS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATORS HOLLY 
AND 
GRAHAM. 
>> THANK YOU. 
GRAHAM.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CRUZ ALONG WITH HOLLY GRAHAM IS 
FOR BOTH SIDES, COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> YESTERDAY MANAGER DIMMINGS 
REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER JOE 
BIDEN SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE 
CONCERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
ON BURISMA, CORRUPT UKRAINIAN 
COMPANY PAYING HIS SON HUNTER 
$1 MILLION PER YEAR. 
USA TODAY REPORTED THAT. 
WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID "HE HADN'T 
SPOKEN TO HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN 
ABOUT OVER SEAS BUSINESS." 
THAT ACCOUNT WAS COULD NOT 
DICTATED BY HUNTER BIDEN WHO 
TOLD NEW YORKER HE TOLD HIS 
FATHER ABOUT BURISMA AND "DAD 
SAID I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU 
ARE DOING AND I SAID I DO." 
WHY DO JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN'S 
STORIES CONFLICT? 
DID THE HOUSE ASK EITHER ONE 
THAT QUESTION? 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GOES FIRST.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
SENATORS YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER 
REGARDING THAT YESTERDAY. 
BUT IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT 
HE SAID HE NEVER SPOKE TO HIS 
SON ABOUT OVER SEAING DEALINGS, 
SON SAID DIFFERENT THINGS. 
JOE BIDEN WAS POINT MAN FOR 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATING AT THE 
TIME, UKRAINIANS WERE A CORRUPT 
COMPANY, BURISMA AND ITS OWN, 
OLIGARCH. 
HUNTER BIDEN PAID $83,000 A 
MONTH, A MONTH, TO SIT ON THE 
BOARD WITH NO EXPERIENCE AND 
ENERGY, NO EXPERIENCE IN 
UKRAINE, DOESN'T SPEAK THE 
LANGUAGE AND WE CLEARLY KNOW HE 
HAD A FANCY JOB DESCRIPTION. 
HE DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS. 
HE ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD 
MEETINGS, ONE IN MONICO AND 
WENT 
ON A FISHING TRIP WITH JOE 
BIDEN'S FAMILY IN NORWAY. 
THE ENTIRE TIME JOE BIDEN KNOWS 
THIS OLIGARCH IS CORRUPT. 
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. 
THERE ARE NEWS REPORTS 
EVERYWHERE. 
NO ONE WILL DISPUTE THAT. 
IT RAISED EYEBROWS WORLDWIDE 
BUT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT BY HIS 
ACCOUNT NEVER ONCE ASKED HIS 
SON 
TO LEAVE THE BOARD. 
WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE IF 
HE DID. 
HE NEVER ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE 
THE BOARD. 
INSTEAD HE STARTED 
INVESTIGATING 
THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS GOING 
AFTER BURISMA AND THIS CORRUPT 
OLIGARCH WHO THEY SAID WAS 
CORRUPT EVEN BY OLIGARCH 
STANDARDS WHO FLED THE COUNTRY, 
LIVING IN CO, DOES NOT ASK HIM 
TO LEAVE THE BOARD. 
HE DOES THE OPPOSITE. 
IN 2015, WHAT DOES HE DO? 
WE KNOW BY REPORTS HE HAS CLOSE 
CONTACT WITH PRESIDENT FORCE 
SHANK OH, TRAVELS TWICE, LINKS 
AID TO THE FIRING, LINKS AID TO 
THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR, 
CALLS HAD I AM FOUR TIMES IN 
THE 
DAYS LEADING TO THE PROSECUTOR. 
THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
YET HE NEVER SAYS THAT. 
ALL CASES CLOSED. 
DAYS BEFORE BIDEN LEAVES HE 
JOKES HE MAY HAVE TO CALL EVERY 
FEW WEEKS TO CHECK IN. 
HUNTER BIDEN STAYS ON THAT 
BOARD 
FOR THREE YEARS. 
THREE YEARS. 
THEN WE HEAR THE VIDEO OF JOE 
BIDEN BRAGGING ABOUT FIRING THE 
PROSECUTOR LINKING IT TO AID. 
THEN WE HAVE THE SIX MINUTE 
PHONE CALL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> OH I AM SORRY, HOUSE 
MANAGERS 
HAVE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.
>> TO CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, SENATORS THANK YOU SO 
MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I KNOW YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT A 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN A FATHER 
AND HIS SON. 
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU PROBABLY 
LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN 
THE 
CHAMBER, THERE ARE PROBABLY 
SOME 
CONVERSATIONS I CAN'T REPEAT TO 
YOU ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH 
MY SON. 
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR 
QUESTION, SENATOR, WHAT THAT 
EXACT CONVERSATION WAS. 
BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS 
THIS, 
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT WHY WE 
ARE HERE, AND I HAVE NO REASON 
TO DOUBT THAT WE ARE, IF WE ARE 
SERIOUS ABOUT SEEKING THE 
TRUTH, 
BECAUSE THE TRUTH MATTERS NOT 
JUST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PAID 
THE 
PRICE IN OUR HISTORY TO FORM A 
MORE PERFECT UNION AND PROTECT 
OUR DEMOCRACY, BUT IT IS 
IMPORTANT FOR OUR FUTURE. 
IN THIS CASE IF WE ARE SERIOUS 
ABOUT THAT, I CAN TELL YOU 
THIS. 
WE ARE SERIOUS THEN ABOUT 
HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES. 
LOOKING AT THE BIDENS NO MATTER 
HOW MANY TIMES WE CALL THEIR 
NAME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO 
POINT TO THE FACT THAT EITHER 
BIDEN HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO 
TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
SHAKING DOWN A FOREIGN POWER TO 
HELP HIM IN ELECTION, THE 
PRECIOUS ELECTION TRYING TO 
STEAL EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THIS 
COUNTRY COUNTRY'S VOTE. 
I DON'T BELIEVE EITHER BIDEN 
HAS 
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. 
LET ME TELL YOU WHO I THINK 
DOES. 
MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON. 
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THE 
TRUTH MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL HIM. 
WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT WHAT 
HE MIGHT SAY. 
WHAT ABOUT MR. MULVANEY WHO HAD 
DAY TO DAY CONTACT WITH THE 
PRINCIPAL IN OUR INVESTIGATION, 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES? 
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH? 
WELL THE QUESTION WAS ASKED 
ABOUT WHEN DID WE KNOW OR WHEN 
DID THE PRESIDENT FIRST PUT THE 
HOLD ON? 
WELL, WE DO HAVE REPORTS THAT 
SAY ON JUNE 19, 2019, MR. BLAIR 
PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED DIRECTOR 
OF OMB TO HOLD UP SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE OVER A 
MONTH BEFORE THE INFAMOUS  
JULY 25th CALL. 
>> THANK YU MRS. MANAGER 
DIMMINGS. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM NEVADA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROSEN 
ADDRESSED TO HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR 
ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE TRIED TO 
MAKE 
A CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT 
PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THOSE 
OF 
THE NATION RISKING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY IN THE PROCESS. 
WHAT PRECEDENT DO YOU BELIEVE 
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SET FOR 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS? 
 PRESIDENTS?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
IT'S ONE THAT I HAVE WANTED THE 
ANSWER FOR SOMETIME NOW. 
YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE 
ABOUT SOME OF MY PERSONAL 
EXPERIENCE AND SERVICE TO THE 
COUNTRY. 
ONE THING THAT EXPERIENCE HAS 
TAUGHT ME IS THAT WE ARE STRONG 
NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE 
AND SACRIFICE OF MEN AND WOMEN 
IN UNIFORM WHICH IS EXTREME AND 
APPEAR IN ALL OF ITS SENSE AND 
SOMETHING I THINK EVERYBODY IN 
THE CHAMBER ACTUALLY 
APPRECIATES 
AND RESPECTS BUT WE ARE ALSO 
STRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE FRIENDS. 
WE ARE STRONG BECAUSE AMERICA 
DOESN'T GO IT ALONE. 
WHEN I WAS IN IRAQ AND 
AFGHANISTAN, I WORKED 
FREQUENTLY 
WITH AFGHAN ARMY PARTNERS, 
IRAQI 
ARMY PARTNERS AND OTHERS NOT 
BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT BUT 
BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIAL. 
WE COULDN'T ACCOMPLISH THE 
MISSION WITHOUT IT. 
IF THOSE PARTNERS FEEL LIKE OUR 
POLICIES, WHAT WE SAY PUBLICLY, 
DON'T MATTER, IF THEY FEEL LIKE 
WE ARE NOT A RELIABLE 
PREDICTABLE PARTNER, IF THEY 
FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN 
HANDSHAKE 
ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING, THEN THEY 
WILL NOT STAND BY US. 
THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US. 
FOR OVER 70 YEARS SINCE THE END 
OF WORLD WAR II, PARTNERSHIPS, 
THE ALLIANCES WE HAVE BUILT, WE 
HAVE STRIVED TO CREATE THAT IS  
USHERED IN, UNPRECEDENTED 
PERIOD 
OF PIECE AND PROSPERITY 
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WILL START 
TO FRAY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN 
HANDSHAKE WILL NOT MATTER. 
UKRAINE HAS STARTED TO LEARN 
THAT. 
OUR 68,000 TROOPS THROUGHOUT 
EUROPE DESERVE BETTER BECAUSE 
EVERY DAY THEY GET UP AND THEY 
DO THEIR JOB, THE JOB THAT WE 
HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO. 
THEY RELY ON OUR CONSISTENCY, 
PREDICTABILITY, RELY ON 
INTEREST 
BEING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, 
NOT WHIMS AND PERSONAL INTEREST 
OF THE PRESIDENT, WHETHER THAT 
BE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENT. 
IT WILL CONTINUE TO CALL INTO 
QUESTION OUR BROADER ALLIANCES 
AND IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT 
THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE DOESN'T 
MATTER. 
WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS 
EVOLUTION OF SOME OF THE 
DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS WE HAVE 
SEEN 
ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT I THINK 
IS IMPORTANT TO SEE. 
>> RUSSIA, IF YOU ARE 
LISTENING, 
I HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO FIND THE 
30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE 
MISSING. 
I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE 
REWARDED MIGHTILY BY OUR PRESS. 
LET'S SEE THAT HAPPEN. 
>> FOREIGNERS IF RUSSIA, CHINA, 
SOMEONE ELSE OFFERS 
INFORMATION, 
SHOULD THEY ACCEPT IT OR CALL 
THE FBI? 
>> I THINK MAYBE DO BOTH. 
I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO 
LISTEN. 
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 
LISTENING. 
IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM A 
COUNTRY, NORWAY, WE HAVE 
INFORMATION ON YOUR OPPONENT, 
OH, I THINK I WOULD WANT TO 
HEAR 
IT. 
>> WE WANT THAT INTERFERENCE IN 
ELECTIONS? 
>> IT'S NOT INTERFERENCE. 
THEY HAVE INFORMATION. 
I THINK I'D TAKE IT. 
>> THE THIRD EXCERPT MENTIONED 
RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN. 
IT SAYS THE OTHER THING, A LOT 
OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THIS 
IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKING, 
BIDEN STOPPED PROSECUTION AND A 
LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT 
ABOUT THAT. 
WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE 
GREAT. 
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE 
STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF 
YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS 
HORRIBLE. 
>> WELL I WOULD THINK THAT IF 
THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY 
WOULD START A MAJOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. 
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. 
IF THEY FEEL THERE IS 
CORRUPTION 
LIKE I FEEL THERE WAS IN THE 
2016 CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS 
TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION AGAINST 
ME, IF WE FEEL THERE IS 
CORRUPTION, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO 
GO TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY. 
BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA 
SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE BIDENS BECAUSE WHAT 
HAPPENED TO CHINA IS JUST ABOUT 
AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH 
UKRAINE. 
>> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO 
KNOW WHEN THEY GO TO BED 
TONIGHT 
THAT THERE IS A PRESIDENT THAT 
HAS THEIR INTEREST IN MIND THAT 
WILL PUT NATIONAL SECURITY OF 
THE COUNTRY ABOVE HIS OWN 
POLITICAL SELF INTEREST. 
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
ANSWERS. 
YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME TO 
CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM OHIO. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF SENATORS TUMEY, 
CORNYN, EARNST, MORAN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
PORT MAN AND OTHER SENATORS IS 
FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED TO HEAR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY 
INVOKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
PROFESSOR JONATHAN ACTUALLY TO 
SUPPORT THE POSITION INCLUDING 
PLAYING A PART OF A VIDEO OF 
HIM. 
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PROFESSOR 
TURLEY OPPOSED IMPEACHMENT IN 
THE HOUSE AND HAS SAID THAT 
ABUSE OF POWER IS EXCEEDINGLY 
DIFFICULT TO PROVE ALONE 
WITHOUT 
ANY ACCOMPANYING CRIMINAL 
ALLEGATION, ABUSE OF POWER HAS 
NEVER BEEN SOLE BASIS FOR 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND 
WAS 
NOT PROVEN IN THIS CASE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS CRITICAL 
OF 
THE ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE 
AND THE CHARGES THAT THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS WERE CONSIDERING 
HERE, 
BOTH ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE AND 
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE. 
HE EXPLAINED THIS WAS A RUSHED 
PROCESS THAT HAD NOT ADEQUATELY 
PURSUED INVESTIGATION, THAT AS 
SENATORS POINT OUT IN THE 
QUESTION, ABUSE OF POWER IS AN 
EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT THEORY TO 
USE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND 
IT HAS NEVER BEEN USED WITHOUT 
ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE LAW. 
I THINK IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE 
HAVE HAD OVER THE PAST WEEK AND 
A HALF, WE HAVE POINTED THAT 
OUT 
MULTIPLE TIMES. 
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
IN HISTORY INCLUDING EVEN NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH 
DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEAD TO 
IMPEACHMENT HAVE USED CHARGES 
THAT INCLUDE SPECIFIC 
VIOLATIONS 
OF THE LAW AND CRIMINAL LAW. 
ANDREW JOHNSON WAS CHARGED 
MOSTLY IN COUNTS THAT INVOLVED 
VIOLATION OF THE TENURE OF 
OFFICE ACT WHICH CONGRESS 
SPECIFICALLY MADE PUNISHABLE BY 
FINE AND IMPRISONMENT AND EVEN 
WROTE INTO THE STATUTE 
VIOLATION 
WOULD CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIME OR 
HIGH MISDEMEANOR, ONE OF THE 
TERMS, TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT WAS 
GOING TO BE USED TO TRIGGER 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY 
EACH OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THERE EXCEPT FOR 
THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE 
IS SORT OF TREATED SEPARATELY 
ON 
THE OBSTRUCTION THEATER 
INCLUDED 
SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW. 
THERE WERE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS 
ALLEGED IN THE SECOND ARTICLE 
WHICH IS OFTEN REFERRED TO 
LOOSELY AS THE ABUSE OF POWER 
ARTICLE. 
IT WASN'T ACTUALLY TITLED ABUSE 
OF POWER. 
IT DIDN'T CHARGE ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
SPECIFICATIONS WERE VIOLATIONS 
LAW, VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, VIOLATING 
LAWS GOVERNING EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
AGENCIES, UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC 
SURVEILLANCE USING CIA AND 
OTHERS, SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF 
LAW. 
CLEARLY IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT CLINTON 
WAS IMPEACHED FOR PURGE REUNION 
AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
THOSE ARE CRIMES. 
HE POINTED OUT HERE THAT THERE 
WAS NOT NEARLY A SUFFICIENT 
BASIS AND NOT NEARLY A 
SUFFICIENT RECORD COMPILED IN 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 
JUSTIFY AN ABUSE OF POWER 
CHARGE. 
HE ALSO WAS VERY CRITICAL OF 
THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THEORY 
AND HE POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE 
ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS 
UNDER 
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE 
CONGRESS HAS SIMPLY DEMANDED 
INFORMATION, GOTTEN REFUSAL 
FROM 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BASED ON 
CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
PERROGATIVES OF EXECUTIVE, 
REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THAT THAN TO 
SIMPLY GO TO IMPEACHMENT 
WITHOUT 
GOING TO ACCOMMODATIONS 
PROCESS, 
WITHOUT CONSIDERING CONTEMPT, 
WITHOUT GOING TO THE VOTE, THAT 
IS THE PROFESSOR'S VIEW, HOW 
INCREMENTALLY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD HAVE TO 
PROCEED IF THEY WERE GOING TO 
REACH SOME THEORY OF 
OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS. 
TO CITE, IT IS TRUE THAT IN HIS 
ACADEMIC WRITING AND TESTIMONY 
HE DID NOT ADOPT THE VIEW THAT 
YOU MUST HAVE A CRIME AND ONLY 
A 
CRIME AS THE CHARGE FOR ARTICLE 
OF IMPEACHMENT. 
HE STILL THOUGHT NEITHER OF THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE 
COULD BE JUSTIFIED OR 
SUFFICIENT 
OR COULD BE USED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT BOTH ABUSE OF POWER 
ARTICLE AND OBSTRUCTION 
ARTICLE. 
TAKING SNIPPETS OUT OF WHAT HE 
SAID REALLY DOES AN INJUSTICE 
TO 
THE TOTALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY 
BECAUSE TOTALITY OF HIS 
TESTIMONY IS ENTIRELY AGAINST 
WHAT THE HOUSE ENDED UP DOING 
HERE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM OHIO.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON
. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK 
FOR THE 
>>> SENATOR BROWN AND WIDEN ASK 
A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
DURING YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS, 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FAILED 
TO GIVE AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE AS 
TO WHETHER AN ACCEPTANCE OF 
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO A POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN OR CANDIDATE WOULD 
VIOLATE THE LAW AROUND WHETHER 
THEY SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE 
FBI. 
FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY 
APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS SAID "IF ANY PUBLIC 
OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF ANY 
CAMPAIGN IS CONTACTED BY ANY 
NATION STATE OR ANYBODY ACTING 
ON BEHALF OF A NATION STATE 
ABOUT INFLUENCING OR 
INTERFERING WITH OUR ELECTION, 
THAT'S SOMETHING THE FBI WOULD 
WANT TO KNOW ABOUT." 
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE 
PEOPLE TELL US INFORMATION 
PROMPTLY SO THAT WE CAN TAKE 
THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO 
PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
END QUOTE. 
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP REMAINS IN 
OFFICE, WHAT SIGNAL DOES THAT 
SEND TO OTHER COUNTRIES INTENT 
ON INTERFERING WITH OUR 
ELECTIONS IN THE FUTURE AND 
WHAT MIGHT WE EXPECT FROM THOSE 
COUNTRIES AND THE PRESIDENT?
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, THANK YOU FOR 
THAT QUESTION. 
LET'S TAKE THE LAST PART FIRST. 
IT WOULD SEND A TERRIBLE 
MESSAGE TO AUTOCRATS AND 
DICTATORS AND ENEMIES OF 
DEMOCRACY AND THE FREE WORLD 
FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM 
TO ESSENTIALLY PUT OUT THERE 
FOR ALL TO CONSUME THAT IT IS 
ACCEPTABLE IN THE UNITED STATES 
TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS 
OR ACCEPT POLITICAL DIRT. 
SIMPLY TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE 
NEXT ELECTION. 
I WAS CERTAINLY SHOCKED BY THE 
COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
YESTERDAY RIGHT HERE ON THE 
FLOOR WHEN HE SAID I THINK THE 
IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT 
HAPPENS TO COME FROM OVERSEAS 
IS NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN 
INTERFERENCE IS A MISTAKE. 
NO, IT'S WRONG. 
IT'S WRONG. 
IN THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA. 
HE ALSO ADDED INFORMATION THAT 
IS CREDIBLE THAT POTENTIALLY 
SHOWS WRONG DOING FOR SOMEONE 
RUNNING FOR OFFICE. 
IF CREDIBLE IT IS TO KNOW WHO 
IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. 
THIS IS NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC. 
IT'S THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
IT'S WRONG. 
NOW, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT 
LESSON WE LEARNED FROM 2016 IS 
NO ONE SHOULD SEEK OR WELCOME 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS. 
NOW WE HAVE THIS PRESIDENT AND 
HIS COUNSEL ESSENTIALLY SAYING 
IT'S OKAY. 
IT'S NOT OKAY. 
IT STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF 
WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT. 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
BETRAYAL BY THE PRESIDENT OF 
HIS OATH OF OFFICE. 
CORRUPTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 
DEMOCRACY IN OUR FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTIONS BY ENTANGLING ONE'S 
SELF IN FOREIGN POWERS. 
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT. 
DON'T JUST TRUST ME. 
WE HAVE SEVERAL FOLKS WHO HAVE 
MADE THIS OBSERVATION. 
THE FBI DIRECTOR. 
THE TRUMP FBI DIRECTOR SAID 
THAT THE FBI WOULD WANT TO KNOW 
ABOUT ANY ATTEMPT AT FOREIGN 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE. 
AND, THE CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL 
ELECTIONS COMMISSION ALSO 
ISSUED A STATEMENT REITERATING 
THE VIEW OF U.S. LAW 
ENFORCEMENT. 
SHE SAID IN PART, LET ME MAKE 
SOMETHING 100% CLEAR TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ANYONE 
RUNNING FOR OFFICE. 
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO 
SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE 
ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A 
FOREIGN NATIONAL CONNECTION 
WITH A U.S. ELECTION. 
THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT. 
ELECTION INTERVENTION FROM 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN 
CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE 
THE BEGINNING OF OUR NATION. 
IT IS WRONG, IT IS CORRUPT, IT 
IS LAWLESS, IT'S AN ABUSE OF 
POWER, IT'S IMPEACHABLE, AND IT 
SHOULD LEAD TO THE REMOVAL OF 
PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP. 
>> THANK YOU  MR. MANAGER. 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI? 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON MY OWN BEHALF AND 
BEHALF OF SENATOR LEE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
HOLLY AND LEE IS COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL 
COURTS HAVE HELD MOST 
PROMINENTLY IN THE LEGOLGAVICH 
CASE, THAT IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL 
FOR A OFFICIAL TO CONDITION HIS 
OFFICIAL ACTS ON OFFICIAL ACTS 
PERFORMED BY ANOTHER PUBLIC 
OFFICE. 
IS THERE ANY APPLICATION TO THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP?
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
I THINK AN IMPORTANT THRESHOLD 
POINT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT WE 
ARE NOT EVEN IN THE REALM OF 
EXCHANGING OFFICIAL ACTS 
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF 
OF A QUID PRO QUO. 
WE'RE NOT IN THE REALM OF A 
SITUATION WHERE WILL IS ONE 
OFFICIAL ACT BEING TRADED FOR 
ANOTHER. 
I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH 
THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT 
QUITE CLEAR THAT BOTH WITH 
RESPECT TO MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, A BILATERAL MEETING. 
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE 
TEMPORARY PAUSE ON THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, THE EVIDENCE JUST 
DOESN'T STACK UP TO SHOW THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP LINKED EITHER 
OF THOSE. 
BOTH TOOK PLACE, THE MEETING 
AND THE RELEASE OF THE AID 
WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS DOING 
ANYTHING. 
ANNOUNCING OR BEGINNING ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THERE IS NOTHING LINKING THEM 
AS A QUID PRO QUO. 
THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW 
THAT THERE HAD BEEN A TEMPORARY 
PAUSE ON THE AID. 
I COULD GO ON WITH THE LIST OF 
POINTS ON THAT. 
I THINK IF THERE WERE ANY 
APPLICATION, HYPOTHETICALLY, IT 
WOULD COME IN THE REALM OF THE 
FACT THAT IN FOREIGN POLICY, 
THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE 
THERE CAN BE SITUATIONS WHERE 
ONE GOVERNMENT WANTS SOME 
ACTIONS FROM ANOTHER. 
AND WANTS THAT ACTION FROM 
ANOTHER IN A WAY THAT WILL 
CONDITION OTHER POLICIES OF ONE 
COUNTRY. 
YOU CAN SAY WE WOULD LIKE YOU 
AND THIS HAPPENS FOR EXAMPLE 
WITH THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE 
COUNTRIES. 
WE WANT YOU TO DO MORE TO STOP 
THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL 
IMMIGRATION. 
WE WILL BE CONDITIONING SOME OF 
OUR POLICIES TOWARDS YOU UNLESS 
AND UNTIL YOU START DOING A 
BETTER JOB STOPPING THE FLOW OF 
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BECAUSE 
IT'S A REAL PROBLEM ON THE 
SOUTHERN BORDER. 
THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. 
WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING 
LEGITIMATE TO LOOK INTO, THERE 
COULD BE A SITUATION THE WHERE 
THE UNITED STATES WOULD SAY YOU 
HAVE TO DO BETTER ON 
CORRUPTION. 
ON THESE SPECIFIC AREAS OF 
CORRUPTION. 
OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP 
HAVING THE SAME RELATIONSHIP 
WITH YOU. 
ONE EXAMPLE WE POINTED OUT, AID 
WAS HELD UP TO AFGHANISTAN. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP AID TO 
AFGHANISTAN. 
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. 
AND, IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, 
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG 
WHATSOEVER WITH CONDITIONING 
ONE POLICY APPROACH ON A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY MODIFYING THEIR 
POLICY TO BE MORE IN LINE TO 
ATTUNE MORE DIRECTLY TO U.S. 
INTEREST. 
THAT'S PART OF WHAT FOREIGN 
POLICY IS ALL ABOUT. 
AND THAT COULD ARISE IN A 
SITUATION OF EVEN 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
IT IS INTERESTING TO POINT OUT 
THAT IN MAY OF 2018, THREE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SENT A 
LETTER TO THE THEN PROSECUTOR 
IN UKRAINE SUGGESTING THAT WE 
HAVE HEARD SOME THINGS YOU 
MIGHT NOT BE COOPERATING WITH 
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. 
AND THERE IS AN INDICATION 
BEHIND THE LETTER THAT THERE IS 
NOT GOING TO BE AS MUCH SUPPORT 
FOR UKRAINE, THIS IS SOMETHING 
IMPORTANT. 
YOU HAVE TO BE HELPING WITH 
THAT ELECTION. 
THIS IS PART OF FOREIGN POLICY, 
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. 
TO THE EXTENT OF THAT CASE THAT 
IT IS RELEVANT IS IN THE 
GENERAL CONCEPT THAT WERE THERE 
SOME LINKAGE BETWEEN WHETHER WE 
WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO PROCEED 
WITH THESE POLICIES, THAT IS 
ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE. 
IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY 
LAW OR IMPROPER. 
BUT HERE, THERE IS NO PROOF OF 
THAT LINKAGE. 
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE 
WAS ANY SORT OF AS WE COME TO 
CALL IT, A QUID PRO QUO IN THIS 
CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON. 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
SENATOR CANTWELL'S QUESTION IS 
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
IN HIS OPENING REMARKS, 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID THE 
UKRAINE SCHEME WAS EXPANSIVE 
AND INVOLVED MANY PEOPLE. 
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT 
ACTING HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF 
STATE POMPEO, BARR, OR ANYONE 
ON THE OUTSIDE WERE INVOLVED IN 
THIS SCHEME TO WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID OR OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS? 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR 
THAT QUESTION. 
IF WE REMEMBER AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY WHERE HE 
SAID EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, 
WE DON'T JUST HAVE TO TAKE HIS 
WORD FOR IT. 
DURING HIS HEARING,  MR. 
SONDLAND DISCUSSD A JULY 19th 
EMAIL. 
HE SENT TO THE PRESIDENT'S TOP 
AIDES INCLUDING SECRETARY MIKE 
POMPEO, MICK MULVANEY, 
SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AND BRIAN 
MCCORMICK. 
THE SECRETARY'S CHIEF OF STAFF. 
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING 
TO THE TRUTH, WE SHOULD ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA FOR THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT EMAILS. 
IF YOU WILL PAY ATTENTION TO 
THE SLIDE. 
IN THE EMAIL SONDLAND STATED "I 
TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW. 
HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE 
POTUS'S CALL. 
WE WILL ENSURE HIM HE PLANS TO 
RUN AN INVESTIGATION AND TURN 
OVER EVERY STONE. 
HE WOULD APPRECIATE A CALL 
SUNDAY SO HE COULD PUT OUT SOME 
MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLY AND 
PRODUCTIVE CALL. 
NO DETAILS." 
MR. MULVANEY IN THE EMAIL 
ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT AND AND TO 
ACCEPT THE CALL IN WHICH HE 
TOLD ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE 
THE BIDENS. 
MR. SONDLAND SENT AN EMAIL TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S TOP AIDES 
UPDATING THEM ON THE STATUS OF 
THE SCHEME. 
AGAIN "EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP 
ON AUGUST 11th. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EMAILED  
MR. BRETBALL TO BRIEF  MR. 
POMPEO ON A STATEMENT HE WAS 
NEGOTIATING WITH  MR. ZELENSKY 
WITH THE AIM OF "MAKING THE 
BOSS HAPPY," THE BOSS BEING THE 
PRESIDENT, ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE TO 
HIM, KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A 
STATEMENT FROM Z TO BE 
DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A 
DAY OR TWO. 
THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY 
MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO 
AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION. 
HE IS TALKING ABOUT AN 
INVITATION FOR A WHITE HOUSE 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING WHICH WE 
KNOW WAS MUCH MORE CRITICAL 
THAN A SIDELINE MEETING AT THE 
U.N. YET, FURTHER EVIDENCE AND 
I QUOTE, EARN WAS IN THE LOOP. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR 
REPORTEDLY RESPONDED AT SOME 
POINT, THERE WAS A NEW YORK 
TIMES ARTICLE AND ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BARR SAID HE WAS AWARE 
OF DOJ INVESTIGATIONS INTO SOME 
COUNTRIES AND THAT HE WAS 
CONCERNED PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
GIVING WORLD LEADERS THE 
IMPRESSION HE HAD UNDUE 
INFLUENCE OVER WHAT WOULD 
ORDINARILY BE INDEPENDENT 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
HE CITED CONVERSATIONS THE 
PRESIDENT HAD WITH LEADER OF 
TURKEY AND CHINA. 
FURTHER DEMONSTRATING THAT 
THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSING THE POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL 
POLITICAL REASONS. 
AGAIN, IT PROVES THAT EVERYBODY 
WAS IN THE LOOP AND WE SHOULD 
WANT TO SUBPOENA AND REVIEW 
THOSE EMAILS INVOLVING THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS. 
>> THANK YOU MRS. MANAGER. 
>>> I SEND A QUESTION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR THUN AND THE OTHER 
SENATORS ASKED THE COUNCIL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 6, 2019, 
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID 
"IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO 
THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE 
IS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND 
OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I 
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN 
THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES 
THE COUNTRY." 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WARNED IN 
FEDERALIST 65 AGAINST THE 
PERSECUTION IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IN EVALUATING THE CASE AGAINST 
THE PRESIDET, SHOULD THE 
SENATE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 
PARTISAN NATURE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE 
HOUSE? 
>> THANK YOU  MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
ABSOLUTELY YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT 
INTO ACCOUNT. 
THAT SHOULD END IT. 
BASED ON THE STATEMENTS THAT WE 
HEARD THE LAST TIME FROM OUR 
FRIENDS ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, 
THAT'S A REASON WHY YOU 
SHOULDN'T HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT. 
SPEAKER PELOSI WAS RIGHT WHEN 
SHE SAID THAT. 
UNFORTUNATELY, SHE DIDN'T 
FOLLOW HER OWN ADVICE. 
WE HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A 
SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR WITH THE GOAL 
OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM 
THE BALLOT. 
AS I SAID BEFORE, THAT IS THE 
MOST MASSIVE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE WE HAVE EVER 
WITNESSED. 
IT IS DOMESTIC ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
IT IS POLITICAL ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
AND, IT IS WRONG. 
THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE 
HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR 
COUNTRY OF DOING THAT. 
BUT, THEY WOULD BE TERRIBLE, 
THEY WOULD TEAR US APART FOR 
GENERATIONS. 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT. 
LET MY ADDRESS IN THE CONTEXT 
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOTE FOR 
THEIR INQUIRY WHICH ALSO HAD 
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION. 
WE WERE FINE WHEN PELOSI 
ANNOUNCED IT, THEY SAID. 
THE SUBPOENAS WERE AUTHORIZED. 
THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE A VOTE? 
THEY HAD A VOTE BECAUSE THEY 
UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD A BIG 
PROBLEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO 
FIX. 
BUT, WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT 
ABOUT THE VOTE THAN THE 
PROCEDURE ISSUE? 
THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THE 
VOTE IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO 
START AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION, PARTICULARLY IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR, THERE NEED TO 
BE POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE A PRESS 
CONFERENCE. 
IF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THE 
VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
NEED TO BE DISALLOWED, THAT ALL 
THE BALLOTS NEED TO BE TORN UP, 
AT THE VERY LEAST, YOU NEED TO 
BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR HOME 
DISTRICT FOR THAT DECISION. 
AND NOW THEY ARE. 
AND NOW THEY ARE. 
AND IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DECIDE, IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO 
VOTE, IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T LIKE 
WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, THAT 
THEY DON'T LIKE THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT 
HAVE HAPPENED, THAT THEY DON'T 
LIKE THE ATTACK ON A SUCCESSFUL 
PRESIDENT FOR PURELY PARTISAN 
POLITICAL PURPOSES, THEN THEY 
COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND 
THROW THEM OUT. 
THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. 
BUT WE SHOULD NEVER CONSIDER 
REMOVING THE NAME OF A 
PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT ON A 
PURELY PARTISAN BASIS IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR. 
IMPORTANT? 
I'LL SAY IT'S IMPORTANT. 
FOR THAT REASON ALONE. 
AND FOR THE INTEREST OF UNITING 
OUR COUNTRY, IT MUST BE 
REJECTED. 
THANK YOU  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM RHODE 
ISLAND. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF TO SENATOR 
DUCKWORTH, HARRIS, MYSELF TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR BOTH 
PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT PAY 
RUDY GIULIANI HIS PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY FOR HIS SERVICES. 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHO HAS PAID 
FOR RUDY GIULIANI'S LEGAL FEES, 
INTERNATIONAL TRAVELS, AND 
OTHER EXPENSES IN HIS CAPACITY 
AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY 
AND REPRESENTATIVE?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE 
QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW WHO IS 
PAYING RUDY GIULIANI'S FEES. 
AND IF HE IS NOT BEING PAID BY 
THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT THIS 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND FOR 
WHICH HE HAS DEVOTED SO MUCH 
TIME, IF OTHER CLIENTS ARE 
PAYING AND SUBSIDIZING HIS WORK 
IN THAT RESPECT, IT RAISES 
PROFOUND QUESTIONS. 
QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN'T ANSWER 
AT THIS POINT. 
BUT THERE ARE SOME ANSWERS THAT 
WE DO KNOW. 
AS HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, HE IS 
NOT THERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY. 
SO WHEN COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS THIS IS A POLICY 
DISPUTE, WHAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS 
ENGAGED IN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION 
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY. 
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
POLICY. 
LET ME MENTION ONE OTHER THING 
ABOUT THIS SCHEME THAT GIULIANI 
WAS ORCHESTRATING AND THE 
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARGUMENT 
THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THAT ITS 
QUID PRO QUOS ARE JUST FINE. 
LET'S SAY RUDY GIULIANI DOES 
ANOTHER ERRAND FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THIS TIME IN CHINA. 
AND HE SAYS TO THE CHINESE WE 
WILL GIVE YOU A FAVORABLE DEAL 
WITH RESPECT TO CHINESE FARMERS 
AS OPPOSED TO AMERICAN FARMERS. 
WE WILL BETRAY THE AMERICAN 
FARMER IN THE TRADE DEAL. 
BUT HERE'S WHAT WE WANT. 
THE QUID PRO QUO IS WE WANT YOU 
TO DO INVESTIGATION WITH THE 
BIDENS. 
YOU KNOW THE ONE. 
THE ONE THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN 
CALLING FOR. 
THEY WOULD SAY THAT'S OKAY. 
THEY WOULD SAY THAT'S A QUID 
PRO QUO TO HELP HIS REELECTION. 
HE CAN BETRAY THE AMERICAN 
FARMER. 
THAT'S OKAY. 
THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT. 
WHERE DOES THAT ARGUMENT LEAD 
US? 
THAT'S EXACTLY THE KIND OF 
DOMESTIC CORRUPT POLITICAL 
ERRAND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS 
DOING WITHOUT PAYMENT. 
AT LEAST NOT PAYMENT 
APARTICIPANTLY FROM THE 
PRESIDENT. 
SO WHO IS PAYING FOR IT? 
I DON'T KNOW WHO IS PAYING THE 
FREIGHT FOR IT, BUT I CAN TELL 
YOU THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS PAYING 
THE FREIGHT FOR IT. 
BECAUSE THERE ARE LEADERS 
AROUND THE WORLD WHO ARE 
WATCHING THIS AND THEY ARE 
SAYING THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY 
IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. 
THIS PRESIDENT WANTS OUR HELP 
AND IF WE HELP HIM, HE WILL BE 
GRATEFUL. 
HE WILL BE GRATEFUL. 
IS THAT THE KIND OF MESSAGE WE 
WANT TO SEND TO THE REST OF THE 
WORLD? 
THAT'S THE RESULT OF 
NORMALIZING LAWLESSNESS OF THE 
KIND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS 
ENGAGED IN. 
>> I'M SORRY. 
YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. 
COUNSEL? 
>> CAME OUT OF THE MANAGER'S 
MOUTH, OPEN FOR BUSINESS, I'LL 
TELL YOU WHO WAS OPEN FOR 
BUSINESS. 
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO WAS OPEN 
FOR BUSINESS? 
WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WHO WAS CHARGED 
BY THE THEN PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WITH DEVELOPING 
POLICIES TO AVOID AND ASSIST IN 
REMOVING CORRUPTION FROM 
UKRAINE AND HIS SON WAS ON THE 
BOARD OF A COMPANY UNDER 
INVESTIGATION FOR UKRAINE AND 
YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT 
RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER, WAS DOING? 
WHEN HE WAS OVER, TRYING TO 
DETERMINE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN 
UKRAINE? 
AND BY THE WAY, IT'S A LITTLE 
BIT INTERESTING TO ME AND MY 
COLLEAGUE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT 
IRONIC TO ME THAT YOU WILL BE 
QUESTIONING CONVERSATIONS WITH 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS WHEN THREE OF 
YOU, THREE MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATORS SENT A LET TEAR WENT 
LIKE THIS. 
THEY WROTE A LETTER TO THE 
PROSECUTION GENERAL OF UKRAINE. 
THEIR ADVOCATES, THEY ARE 
STRONG ADVOCATES FOR ROBUST AND 
STRONG RELATIONSHIPS WITH 
UKRAINE AND WE BELIEVE OUR 
COOPERATION EXTENDS TO SUCH 
LEGAL MATTERS REGARDLESS OF 
POLITICS AND THEIR CONCERN WAS 
ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AND 
WHETHER THE MUELLER TEAM WAS 
GETTING APPROPRIATE RESPONSES 
FROM UKRAINE REGARDING 
INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT? 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
AND, YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT 
WHETHER FOREIGN INVESTIGATIONS 
ARE APPROPRIATE? 
I THINK IT ANSWERS ITSELF. 
>> THANK YOU  MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, 
SENATOR EARNST AND CRECO. 
>> IT IS FOR THE COUNSEL OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DESCRIBED 
ANY DELAY IN MILITARY AID IN 
STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS TO 
UKRAINE IN 2019 OOZE A CAUSE TO 
BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECRET 
SCHEME OR A QUID PRO QUO BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IN 2019, 86% OF THE DOD FUNDS 
WERE OBLIGATED TO UKRAINE IN 
SEPTEMBER, BUT IN 2018, 67% OF 
THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN 
SEPTEMBER. 
AND IN 2017, 73% OF THE FUNDS 
WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER. 
IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE 
FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 
20 IN 2019. 
BUT, THEY WERE OBLIGATED 
SEPTEMBER 208 IN 2018. 
EACH YEAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 
THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN THE 
FINAL MONTH OR DAYS OF THE 
FISCAL YEAR. 
WAS THERE, EXCUSE ME, WAS THERE 
A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO 
UKRAINE OR THE UNITED STATES 
FROM THE FUNDS GOING OUT AT THE 
END OF SEPTEMBER IN THE TWO 
PREVIOUS YEARS? 
DID IT WEAKEN OUR RELATIONSHIP 
WITH UKRAINE BECAUSE THE VAST 
MAJORITY OF OUR AID WAS 
RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER EACH OF 
THE LAST THREE YEARS? 
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
AND, THE SHORT STRAIGHTFORWARD 
ANSWER IS THERE WAS NO JEOPARDY 
TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES 
FROM THE TIMING OF THE RELEASE 
OF THIS MONEY. 
AS THE QUESTION INDICATED, THE 
VAST BULK OF FUNDS IN EACH OF 
THE PRIOR TO FISCAL YEARS WERE 
OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER. 
SO, THE FACT THAT THE FUNDS 
WERE RELEASED HERE ON  
SEPTEMBER 11th, AND OBLIGATED 
BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR 
WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMING 
IN PAST YEARS. 
THERE WAS, IT IS ALSO THE CASE 
THAT AT THE END OF EVERY FISCAL 
YEAR, THERE IS SOME FUNDING IN 
THIS UKRAINIAN MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE THAT DOESN'T 
ACTUALLY MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR. 
THAT ISN'T OBLIGATED BY THE END 
OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
THAT CONGRESS HAD TO PUT 
SOMETHING IN THE CONTINUING 
RESOLUTION TO GET $35 MILLION 
OF THE AID EXTENDED. 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS EVERY 
FISCAL YEAR, THERE IS SOME 
AMOUNT OF MONEY. 
IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME 
AMOUNT. 
BUT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF 
MONEY THAT HAS TO BE DONE FOR 
EVERY YEAR BECAUSE IT DOESN'T 
GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF 
THE YEAR. 
NOW, IT IS NOT JUST FROM THE 
RAW DATA THAT WE CAN SEE THAT 
THE FUNDS WENT OUT ROUGHLY THE 
SAME TIMING. 
TOWARD THE END OF THE YEAR, 
THAT THEREFORE, IT DOESN'T 
SUGGEST ANY GREAT RISK TO 
UKRAINE OR RISK TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
WE KNOW THAT FROM TESTIMONY AS 
WELL. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THE 
BRIEF PAUSE ON THE AID WAS NOT 
SIGNIFICANT. 
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 
POLITICAL AFFAIRS DAVID HALE 
EXPLAINED THIS WAS FUTURE 
ASSISTANCE. 
I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY. 
IT'S NOT LIKE THIS MONEY IS 
BEING SPENT MONTH BY MONTH TO 
SUPPLY CURRENT NEEDS IN THE 
UKRAINE. 
IT IS FIVE YEAR MONEY. 
ONCE IT IS OBLIGATED, IT CAN GO 
TO U.S. FIRMS WHO ARE PROVIDING 
MATERIAL TO THE UKRAINIANS AND 
IT DOESN'T GET SPENT DOWN 
FINALLY AND MATERIALS SHIPPED 
TO UKRAINE FOR A LONG TIME. 
SO, A DELAY OF 48 OR 55 DAYS 
DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT IT 
AND THE MONEY BEING RELEASED 
BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR ENDS UP HAVING NO REAL 
EFFECT. 
IT IS NOT CURRENT MONEY THAT IS 
SUPPLYING IMMEDIATE NEEDS. 
DESPITE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD 
ABOUT THE IDEA THAT ON THE 
FRONT LINES, YOU CRANE JANUARY 
SOLDIERS ARE BEING PUT AT RISK. 
THAT'S JUST NOT ACCURATE. 
WE KNOW FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE THAT 
GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO THE NEW 
YORK TIMES AND EXPLAINS THAT 
THE HOLD CAME AND WENT SO 
QUICKLY THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN 
NOTICE ANY CHANGE. 
AND REMEMBER, THE UKRAINIANS 
DIDN'T EVEN KNOW PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND HIS ADVISERS HAVE 
MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THERE 
IS ANOTHER INTERVIEW JUST THE 
OTHER DAY WITH DANALOOK. 
I THINK I MIGHT GET HIS TITLE 
WRONG. 
I THINK HE WAS THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER AT THE TIME. 
THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW JUST THE 
OTHER DAY THAT WAS PUBLISHED 
AND HE EXPLAINED AGAIN THAT 
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE AID HAD 
BEEN HELD UP UNTIL THE 
POLITICAL ARTICLE ON AUGUST 28. 
AND HE SAID THERE WAS A PANIC 
IN KIEV BECAUSE THEY WERE 
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO 
DO. 
WITHIN TWO WEEKS IT HAD BEEN 
RELEASED. 
AND SO, WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE 
IDEA THAT WELL, IT WAS JUST THE 
FACT OF THE DELAY THAT GAVE THE 
RUSSIANS A SIGNAL AND IT GAVE 
THE UKRAINIANS A SIGNAL. 
AND THAT WAS WHAT THE DAMAGE O 
NATIONAL SECURITY WAS. 
THE WHOLE POINT WAS THE LEADERS 
OF THE GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE 
DIDN'T KNOW. 
IT WASN'T MADE PUBLIC. 
SO THEY WEREN'T BEING GIVEN A 
SIGNAL BY THAT AND THE RUSSIANS 
WEREN'T. 
SO THAT THEORY FOR DAMAGE TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY ALSO DOESN'T 
WORK. 
THERE WAS A PAUSE TEMPORARILY 
SO THERE COULD BE SOME 
ASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS 
THE PRESIDENT HAD RAISED. 
THE MONEY WAS RELEASED BY THE 
END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY, IDENTITY  
EITHER IN TERMS OF MATERIAL 
AVAILABLE TO THE UKRAINIANS OR 
SIGNALS SENT TO FOREIGN POWERS. 
IT GOT SENT OUT. 
A LITTLE MORE LEFT OVER AT THE 
END THAT HAD TO BE FIXED BUT 
THERE IS SOME LEFT OVER IN THE 
END THAT HAS TO BE FIXED EVERY 
YEAR. 
SO, NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER TO THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL. 
THE CENTER FROM HAWAII. 
>> ALOHA. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE SENATOR FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS. 
IN CONTRAST TO ARGUMENTS BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, ACTING 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY STATED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HELD UP AID TO UKRAINE TO 
GET HIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
HE CLAIMED "WE DO THAT ALL THE 
TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY ." 
"GET OVER IT." 
WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WITHHOLDING 
OF AID FROM UKRAINE FROM PRIOR 
AID FREEZES? 
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE WITHHELD 
FOREIGN AID AS A BRIBE TO 
EXTRACT PERSONAL BENEFITS? 
>> THANK YOU SENATOR, I'LL 
RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. 
BUT LET ME BEGIN WITH SOMETHING 
IN THE CATEGORY OF YOU CAN'T 
MAKE THIS STUFF UP. 
TODAY WHILE WE HAVE BEEN 
DEBATING WHETHER A PRESIDENT 
CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR 
ESSENTIALLY BOGUS CLAIMS OF 
PRIVILEGE FOR ATTEMPTING TO USE 
THE COURTS TO COVER UP 
MISCONDUCT, THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT IN RESISTING HOUSE 
SUBPOENAS IS IN COURT TODAY AND 
WAS ASKED IF CONGRESS CAN'T 
COME TO THE COURT TO ENFORCE 
THE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE AS WE 
KNOW, THEY ARE IN HERE ARGUING 
CONGRESS MUST GO TO COURT TO 
ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS BUT THEY 
ARE SAYING THOU SHALT NOT DO 
THAT. 
IF CONGRESS CAN'T ENFORCE ITS 
SUBPOENAS IN COURT, WHAT REMEDY 
IS THERE AND THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT LAWYER'S RESPONSE IS 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IMPEACHMENT. 
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP! 
WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED 
OF THE BAD FAITH OF THIS EFFORT 
TO COVER UP? 
I SAID THEY ARE DOWN THE STREET 
MAKING THE OTHER ARGUMENT. 
I DIDN'T THINK THEY WOULD MAKE 
IT ON THE SAME DAY. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING 
ON. 
NOW IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION 
OF HOW IS THIS AID DIFFERENT, 
IT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE TO 
ASK THAT QUESTION. 
THE LAWS OF CONGRESS PASSOUT 
RISING THIS APPROPRIATION DID 
NOT ALLOW FOR THE HOLD BY THIS 
PRESIDENT. 
AS THE GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE FOUND, IT 
VIOLATED THE LAW TO WITHHOLD 
THE AID THE WAY IT DID. 
ONCE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
AND CONSULTATION OF DEFENSE 
CERTIFIED, THEY HAD MET 
ANTI-CORRUPTION WORKSHOPS UNDER 
THE LAW, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT 
WOULD ALLOW FOR A HOLD. 
THE MONEY WOULD HAVE TO FLOW. 
THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
IS CRITICAL TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
IT HAS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT. 
I RECALL IN THE SPRING OF 2019, 
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
CERTIFIED UKRAINE HAD MET ALL 
OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
BENCHMARKS. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SENT 
THE LETTER SAYING THE 
BENCHMARKS HAD BEEN MET. 
THAT THE AID WAS MOVING FORWARD 
ISSUED IN A PRESS RELEASE. 
THEN THE PRESIDENT STEPPED IN. 
HE SECRETLY PLACED A HOLD ON 
THE AID WITHOUT AUTHORITY. 
NOW THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND 
THEIR PRESENTATION GIVES 
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PAST HOLD 
AS IF WE CANNOT DISTINGUISH ONE 
FOR A CORRUPT REASON OR ONE FOR 
A POLICY REASON. 
IN MANY EXAMPLES, THE LAW 
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THE AUTHORITY TO PAUSE, 
REEVALUATE, OR CANCEL FOREIGN 
AID PROGRAMS AS THE SITUATION 
IN A RECIPIENT COUNTRY EVOLVED. 
WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, TO EL SALVADOR, 
GUATEMALA, THE LAW EXPLICITLY 
ALLOWS THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
TO SUSPEND IN WHOLE OR PART THE 
ASSISTANCE IF THE SECRETARY 
DEEMS THAT SUFFICIENT PROGRESS 
HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY A CENTRAL 
GOVERNMENT. 
ON A HOST OF PRIORITIES FROM 
HUMAN RIGHTS TO UPHOLDING THE 
LAW, THOSE ARE THE PRIORITIES 
YOU THE SENATE AGREED TO AND 
THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRED TO 
IMPLEMENT THEM. 
SIMILARLY, AID TO AFGHANISTAN 
IS SUBJECT TO PERIODIC 
REEVALUATIONS BY LAW AND THE 
LAW DIRECTS THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE SHOULD SUSPEND ASSISTANCE 
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 
AFGHANISTAN SHOULD IT BE 
ASSESSED THAT THE AFGHAN 
GOVERNMENT IS "FAILING TO MAKE 
MEASURABLE PROGRESS." 
IN MEETING CERTAIN ANTI-
CORRUPTION HUMAN RIGHTS AND 
COUNTERTERRORISM BENCHMARKS. 
THE OVERTHROW OF THE 
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED 
GOVERNMENT IN EGYPT. 
WE HAD THAT BROUGHT UP AS 
ANOTHER EXAMPLE. 
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY INCLUDING 
SENATORS MCCAIN, LEHY, AN 
GRAHAM, PRESSED THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION TO SUSPEND 
MILITARY AID. 
IT WAS URGED ON THE 
ADMINISTRATION BY THE SENATE. 
SENATORS PRESSED FOR THAT AID 
TO BE WITHHELD BECAUSE THE LAW 
WAS CLEAR IN INSTANCES OF A 
MILITARY COUP, AID MUST BE 
SUSPENDED. 
SENATORS MCCAIN AND GRAHAM 
WROTE AN OP ED IN THE 
WASHINGTON POST. 
NOT ALL COUPS ARE CREATED EQUAL 
BUT A COUP IS STILL A COUP. 
THE LEADER OF EGYPT WAS ELECTED 
BY A MAJORITY OF VOTERS. 
I COULD GO ON AND ON WITH THE 
EXAMPLES. 
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED YOU CAN'T 
CONDITION AID. 
BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD 
ALL AGREE THAT YOU CAN'T 
CONDITION AID FOR A CORRUPT 
PURPOSE. 
TO TRY TO GET A FOREIGN POWER 
TO CHEAT IN YOUR ELECTION. 
COUNSEL SAYS IF YOU DECIDE, THE 
PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THAT HE 
ENGAGED IN THIS CORRUPT SCHEME, 
IF YOU DECIDE AS IMPARTIAL 
JURORS THAT THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES HIS REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE, THAT THE PUBLIC WILL 
NOT ACCEPT YOUR JUDGMENT. 
I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE. 
>> THANK YOU  MR. MANAGER. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, 
SENATOR COTTON, ERNST, YOUNG, 
HOLLY, RISH, FISHER, AND HOVAN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR BOSEMAN AN THE OTHER 
SENATORS POSE A QUESTION TO 
BOTH SIDES. 
IN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OPENING 
STATEMENT, THEY ARGUE THAT IT 
IS NECESSARY TO PURSUE 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE "THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT CANNOT 
BE DECIDED AT THE BALLOT BOX." 
FOR WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THE 
VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON. 
HOW CAN WE PREVENT VOTERS FROM 
MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION? 
>> THANK YOU  MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHO SHOULD 
DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. 
ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE 
IN THIS COUNTRY. 
THAT'S WHY YOU ARE HERE. 
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE WERE ELECTED 
IN THE HOUSE. 
AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT IS 
ELECTED. 
IT'S EXACTLY WHO SHOULD DECIDE 
THE QUESTION. 
PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE LIKE 
THIS. 
WHERE IT IS PURELY PARTISAN. 
HERE'S THE OTHER THING. 
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT AS A POLITICAL 
WEAPON. 
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY 
TOLD THE COURT OVER THE 
HOLIDAYS WHEN THEY WERE WAITING 
TO DELIVER THE IMPEACHMENT 
ARTICLES. 
THEY TOLD THE COURT THEY ARE 
STILL IMPEACHING OVER THERE IN 
THE HOUSE. 
THEY ARE STILL IMPEACHING. 
THEY ARE COMING HERE AND THEY 
ARE TELLING YOU PLEASE DO THE 
WORK THAT WE DIDN'T DO. 
WHERE WE HAD TWO DAYS IN THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
WE HAD THE RUSH DELIVERY FOR 
CHRISTMAS. 
AND THEN WE WAITED. 
AND WAITED AND WAITED. 
BUT NOW WE WANT YOU TO CALL 
WITNESSES WE NEVER CALLED THAT 
WE DIDN'T SUBPOENA. 
THEY WANT TO TURN YOU INTO AN 
INVESTIGATIVE BODY. 
IN THE MEANTIME, THEY ARE 
SAYING BY THE WAY, WE ARE STILL 
DOING IT OVER THERE. 
WE ARE STILL IMPEACHES. 
AND THEY WANT TO SLOW IT DOWN, 
NOT SPEED IT UP. 
THEY WANT TO SLOW IT DOWN AND 
TAKE UP THE ELECTION YEAR AND 
CONTINUE THIS POLITICAL  SHE 
CHERADE. 
IT'S ALL SO WRONG. 
THEY ARE ASKING YOU NOT TO 
TRUST THEM. 
MAYBE THEY WON'T LIKE THE 
RESULT. 
WE SHOULD TRUST THEM. 
THAT'S WHO DECIDES WHO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY SHOULD 
BE. 
IT'S A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW AND 
THEY SHOULD DECIDE. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF HIS 
ONGOING ABUSE OF POWER. 
THREATENS THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
NEXT ELECTION. 
AS WE SAW FROM THE VIDEO 
MONTAGE, THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE 
NO BONES ABOUT THE FACT HE IS 
WILLING TO SEEK FOREIGN 
INTERVENTION TO HELP HIM CHEAT 
IN THE NEXT ELECTION. 
COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAYS 
THE NEXT ELECTION IS THE 
REMEDY. 
IT IS NOT THE REMEDY WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO SEEK TO 
CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION. 
THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDERS DID 
NOT PUT A REQUIREMENT THAT A 
PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE IMPEACHED 
IN THE FIRST TERM. 
INDEED, AT THAT TIME, THERE 
WEREN'T TERM LIMITS ON THE 
PRESIDENCY. 
IF IT WERE THE INTENT OF THE 
FRAMERS TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT 
CAN'T BE IMPEACHED IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR, THEY WOULD HAVE 
SAID SO. 
NOW, THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON. 
BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO MIGHT TRY 
TO CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION. 
NOW, COUNSEL AS I WAS GETTING 
TO A MOMENT AGO MADE THE 
ARGUMENT IF YOU MAKE THE 
DECISION AS IMPARTIAL JURORS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS VIOLATED 
THE CONSTITUTION, ABUSED HIS 
BOWER, HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED 
AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THAT 
THE COUNTRY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT. 
I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN THAT BUT I 
WILL ASSURE YOU OF THIS. 
IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION THAT A 
FAIR TRIAL CAN BE CONDUCTED 
WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES, 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT 
ACCEPT THAT JUDGMENT. 
BECAUSE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT A FAIR 
TRIAL REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO 
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT 
THEIR CASE. 
WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR 
CASE. 
WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUR 
WITNESSES. 
WE WOULD LIKE TO RELY ON MORE 
THAN OUR ARGUMENTATION. 
THERE ARE A FEW THINGS ABOUT 
THIS TRIAL THAT AMERICANS AGREE 
ON BUT ONE THING THEY ARE 
SQUARELY ANY AGREEMENT ON. 
WELL, TWO. 
THEY BELIEVE A TRIAL SHOULD 
HAVE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THEY 
WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON. 
THAT IS THE OVERWHELMING 
CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND IT IS CONSISTENT 
WITH COMMON SENSE. 
LET'S GIVE THE COUNTRY A TRIAL 
THEY CAN BE PROUD OF. 
LET'S SHOW THE PROCESS WORKED 
AND WE PHYSICAL LOWED THE 
FOUNDER'S INTENT THAT A TRIAL 
HAVE WITNESSES. 
I DON'T THINK ANYONE COULD 
QUARREL WITH THE FACT WHEN YOU 
LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS 
BODY. 
>> THANK YOU  MR. MANAGER. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
CANE TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
IF HE VIOLATED THE IMPOUNDMENT 
CONTROL ACT AND THE WHISTLE 
BLOWER ACT TO HIDE THE UKRAINE 
SCHEME FROM CONGRESS, WHAT IS 
TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM 
COMPLETE REFUSAL TO COOPERATE 
WITH CONGRESS ON ANY MATTER?
>> IN SHORT, CONSEQUENCE IS 
THERE IS NO CONSTRAINT ON THIS 
PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER, THIS 
GETS TO A POINT YOU HEARD 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
REPEAT OVER AND OVER. 
CAN YOU BE IMPEACHED FOR 
ASSERTING PRIVILEGES? 
AND I WOULD ADD NO MATTER HOW 
BOGUS OR IN BAD FAITH THOSE 
ASSERTIONS MAY BE. 
NO MATTER WHETHER THEY ARE IN 
COURT TODAY ARGUING THE 
OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY ARE 
ARGUING BEFORE YOU TODAY. 
AND, THE ANSWER IS QUESTION. 
THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED 
FOR USING THE ASSERTION OF 
BASELESS CLAIMS TO COVER UP HIS 
MISCONDUCT. 
THE HOUSE DID NOT IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT OVER A SINGLE 
ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE. 
WE IMPEACHED HIM FOR A FAR MORE 
FUNDAMENTAL REASON. 
BECAUSE HE ISSUED AN ORDER 
CATEGORICALLY DIRECTING THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY EVERY 
SINGLE PART OF EVERY SINGLE 
SUBPOENA SERVED BY THE HOUSE. 
A PRESIDENT WHO ISSUES ORDERS 
LIKE THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO 
CAN PLACE HIMSELF ABOVE THE 
LAW. 
IN A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES. 
HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND 
GET AWAY WITH IT BY USING HIS 
POWERS TO ORCHESTRATE A MASSIVE 
COVER-UP. 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE 
NOT DISPUTED THAT POINT. 
THEY CAN'T. 
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT A PRESIDENT 
THAT IGNORES AND CAN IGNORE ALL 
OVERSIGHT IS A THREAT TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
INSTEAD, THEY ARGUED ASSERTION 
OF A GRAB BAG OF LEGAL 
PRIVILEGES WARRANTING THIS 
CATEGORICAL DEFIANCE. 
THESE ARGUMENTS ARE 
UNPRECEDENTED AND WRONG. 
THE FIRST THING TO NOTE IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS 
CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THE OCTOBER 
8 LETTER SENT TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHEST DECLARING 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT 
"PARTICIPATE" IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. 
I WON'T PARTICIPATE. 
THIS BLANKET DEFIANCE PRECEDED 
ALL OF THE OTHER LETTERS. 
MADE CLEAR THAT THE RATIONALE 
FOR BLANKET DEFIANCE WAS HE 
WOULD DECLARE HIS OWN INNOCENCE 
AND MAKE IT ILLEGITIMATE TO 
INVESTIGATE HIM. 
THESE WERE NOT ABOUT PRIVILEGES 
OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. 
THOSE CAME LATER AS THE LAWYERS 
RUSHED TO TESTIFY THAT CONGRESS 
HAS NO POWER TO ENFORCE 
SUBPOENAS AGAINST ANYONE. 
LET'S BE CLEAR. 
THEY MAY CLAIM THAT THEIR 
OCTOBER 8 LEATHER WHERE THEY 
SAID THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE 
WAS SOMEHOW AN OFFER TO 
ACCOMMODATE. 
BUT, WHAT THE REAL CONDITION 
WAS, WAS THAT THE HOUSE SIMPLY 
DROPPED THE IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION OR PLACED THE 
PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF ITS 
DIRECTION. 
THAT WASN'T A REAL OFFER. 
THAT WAS A POISON PILL. 
ARGUMENTS? 
NONE OF THEM JUSTIFIES ORDER TO 
DEFY ALL THE SUBPOENAS. 
HE NEVER EXERTED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE OVER ANY DOCUMENTS 
AND HIS REMAINING DOCUMENTS 
THAT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR 
AGENCY COUNCIL HAVE NOTHING TO 
DO WITH DOCUMENTS. 
NOTHING. 
SO, NONE OF HIS LEGAL ARGUMENTS 
EVEN APPLIES TO HIS DIRECTION 
THAT EVERY SINGLE OFFICE AND 
AGENCY DEFY EVERY SINGLE 
SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS. 
AND WHAT ABOUT THE TOTAL 
OBSTRUCTION ON WITNESSES? 
HERE, TOO, HE NEVER INVOKED 
EXEC TY PRIVILEGES. 
IT COULDN'T APPLY TO THE LOWER 
LEVEL OFFICIALS WE SUBPOENAED. 
THE ONLY REMAINING LEGAL GROUND 
FOR DEFIANCE WAS THE ARGUMENT 
THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR 
CONGRESS TO PREVENT AGENCY 
COUNSEL FROM GOING TO 
DEPOSITIONS. 
THE FALL BACK, THE FALL BACK, 
THE FALL BACKS. 
THIS RULE WAS ORIGINALLY PASSED 
BY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND HAS 
BEEN USED REPEATEDLY BY BOTH 
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC LED 
MAJORITIES AND COMMITTEES. 
IT CAN'T POSSIBLY JUSTIFY 
OBSTRUCTION OF WITNESS 
SUBPOENAS. 
IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PHONY 
COVER FOR AN OBSTRUCTION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED UPON AT 
THE OUTSET. 
HIS ARGUMENTS ARE INCORRECT ON 
THEIR OWN TERMS. 
AN FAIL TO EXPLAIN THIS 
CATEGORICAL ORDER. 
ONE FINAL IRONY BEFORE THE 
ARGUMENT IN COURT TODAY. 
AT A RECENT ORAL ARGUMENT IN 
THE DC CIRCUIT THEY MADE IN THE 
SAME CLAIM THEY MADE TODAY, 
LET'S CALL UP SLIDE 56. 
IN LITIGATION TO ENFORCE 
SUBPOENAS, THE JUDGE SAID THEY 
CAN MAKE IT A GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. 
AND THE PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYERS 
SAID IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE 
TOOLS CONGRESS HAS. 
WE AGREE. 
IT IS ONE OF THE TOOLS YOU 
HAVE. 
FOR WHEN A PRESIDENT WOULD USE 
A CATEGORICAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
INVESTIGATION IN HIS OWN WRONG 
DOING. 
A TOOL THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED 
HERE. 
THERE CANNOT BE A BETTER CASE 
FOR IMPEACHMENT ON OBSTRUCTING 
A COEQUAL BRANCH OF CONGRESS 
THAN THE ONE BEFORE YOU WHERE 
THE OBSTRUCTION IS SO COMPLETE 
AND SO CATEGORICAL. 
>> THANK YOU  MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATOR BRAUN TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTIONER FROM SENATOR 
SCOTT AND BRAUN FOR THE COUNSEL 
OF THE PRESIDENT. 
IF SPEAKER PELOSI, CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN NADLER, AND 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE SO 
CONFIDENT IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT AND THE OVERWHELMING 
EVIDENCE ON AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE, WHY WERE THE HOUSE 
REPUBLICANS DENIED THE PREDIAL 
ACCOMMODATIONS AND RIGHTS 
AFFORDED TO THE MINORITY PARTY 
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT? 
ADDITIONALLY, WHY WERE THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND AGENCY 
ATTORNEYS DENIED ACCESS TO 
CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES DURING 
COMMITTEE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT 
THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES IN 
DEFENSE OF THE ISSUES UNDER 
REVIEW? 
>> THANK YOU  MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD DO 
THAT. 
I DON'T KNOW. 
THEY VIOLATED EVERY PAST 
PRECEDENT. 
THEY VIOLATED ALL FORMS OF DUE 
PROCESS. 
NOW, THEY SAY THAT'S A PROCESS 
ARGUMENT AND IT IS. 
BUT, IT'S MORE THAN THAT. 
IF YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN YOUR 
FACTS, WHY DO YOU DESIGN A 
PROCESS THAT COMPLETELY SHUTS 
OUT THE PRESIDENT? 
WHY DO YOU COOK UP THE FACTS IN 
A BASEMENT SKIFF INSTEAD OF IN 
THE LIGHT OF DAY? 
WHY DO YOU DO THAT? 
WHY DON'T YOU ALLOW THE 
MINORITY TO CALL WITNESSES? 
AS THEY HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO 
DO IN ALL PAST IMPEACHMENTS? 
THEN THEY COME HERE AND SAID BY 
THE WAY, WE WERE FULLLY IN 
CHARGE, SO COMPLETELY IN 
CHARGE, WE LOCKED OUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
DENIALED ALL RIGHTS. 
DENIED THE MINORITY ANY 
WITNESSES AT ALL. 
BUT THEY STILL DON'T GET 
WITNESSES. 
THEY WANT YOU, NOT ONLY TO DO 
THEIR JOB, BUT TO MAKE THE SAME 
MISTAKE, THE SAME VIOLATION OF 
DUE PROCESS THAT THEY DID. 
THEY SAID LET'S JUST PICK THE 
WITNESSES THAT WE WANT. 
THE OTHER ONES ARE NOT 
RELEVANT. 
IN LISTENING TO  MR. SCHIFF 
OVER THESE MONTHS I HAVE COME 
TO DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT HE 
MEANS BY IRRELEVANT. 
HE MEANS BAD FOR THEM. 
OKAY? 
HE MEANS WITNESSES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTS TO CALL SO I 
DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID THAT, 
I'LL SAY SOMETHING ELSE. 
I'LL SAY SOMETHING ELSE. 
I HAVE RESPECT FOR YOU AND THE 
HOUSE. 
AND WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS JOB, 
I WENT, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS 
I DID, I WENT TO VET  MR. 
SCHIFF. 
I WENT TO VISIT CHAIRMAN NADLER 
AND CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS AND I 
SAID WE ARE HERE TO WORK WITH 
YOU, TO COOPERATE WHERE WE CAN. 
BUT IN THE INSTITUTIONAL 
INTEREST, WE WILL PARTICIPATE 
IN OVERSIGHT. 
BUT IF WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL 
POINTS TO MAKE, WE'LL MAKE THEM 
AND MAKE THEM DIRECTLY. 
AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS 
PARTICIPATED IN OVERSIGHT. 
MANY, MANY WITNESSES HAVE 
TESTIFIED IN OVERSIGHT 
HEARINGS. 
A LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS 
HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. 
IN FACT, IN THE LETTER I SENT 
ON OCTOBER 8, I MADE THE SAME 
OFFER. 
I SAID THIS IS REALLY NOT A 
VALID IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING 
FOR ALL OF THE REASONS WE 
STATED. 
WE STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN 
THAT PROCESS. 
BUT, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. 
I RESPECT CONGRESS, THE 
ADMINISTRATION RESPECTS 
CONGRESS. 
BUT WE RESPECT THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION 
TOO. 
AND, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AROUND TO 
THE FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO 
VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTION AND 
VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU.  
THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.  
THE COMMUNITY IS PROHIBITED 
FROM REQUESTING THAT A FOREIGN 
ENTITY TARGET AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN WHEN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY IS IT SELF PROHIBITED 
FROM DOING SO.  
IN 2017, DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO'S 
CONFIRMATION HEARING TO BE THE 
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, HE 
TESTIFIED THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL 
TO OUTSOURCE THAT WHICH WE 
CANNOT DO, SO WHEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED A FOREIGN COMPANY 
TO INVESTIGATE  AN AMERICAN 
WHEN THE U.S. HAD NOT  
ESTABLISHED A LEGAL PREDICATE 
TO DO SO, HOW IS THAT NOT AN 
ABUSE OF POWER? 
>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY AN ABUSE 
>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.  
AND WHAT'S MORE, IF YOU BELIEVE 
THAT A PRESIDENT CAN 
ESSENTIALLY ENGAGE IN ANY 
CORRUPT ACTIVITY AS LONG AS HE 
BELIEVES IT WILL ASSIST HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THEN WHAT 
IS TO STOP A PRESIDENT FROM 
TASKING HIS INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES TO DO POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
WHAT IS TO STOP HIM FROM 
TASKING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, 
IF HE CAN COME UP WITH A 
CREDIBLE OR INCREDIBLE CLAIM 
THAT HIS OPPONENT DESERVES TO 
BE INVESTIGATED, THEIR ARGUMENT 
WOULD LEAD YOU TO THE 
CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS EVERY 
RIGHT TO DO THAT, TO USE THE 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE A RIVAL, AND WHEN 
THEY BECOME A RIVAL IT IS EVEN 
MORE JUSTFIED.  
BUT, YOU ARE RIGHT, IF 
SECRETARY POMPEO IS CORRECT AND 
YOU CANNOT USE YOUR OWN 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, YOU 
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE 
RUSSIAN ONES, OR THE UKRAINIAN 
ONES AND HERE, WE HAVE THE 
PESIDENT ON THAT PHONE CALL, 
PUSHING OUT THIS RUSSIAN 
PROPAGANDA, THIS RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE 
PROPAGANDA, CROWD STRIKE, THE 
SERVER, AS IF THERE WAS JUST 
ONE SERVER AND IT WAS WHISKED 
AWAY TO UKRAINE.  
THE UKRAINIAN SACKED THE 
SERVER, NOT THE RUSSIANS.  
THEY MADE IN THE KREMLIN 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT 
UNDERMINES OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES BUT SUITS THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS LEGAL AGENT, 
RUDY GIULIANI, IS OUT THERE 
IDLING THIS FICTION.  
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF IS 
PROMOTING THIS FICTION STANDING 
SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH VLADIMIR 
PUTIN.  
VLADIMIR PUTIN.
BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL ABUSE
OF POWER AND IT IS A 
BUT, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  
IT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL ABUSE 
OF POWER, AND IT IS A 
MONUMENTAL ABUSE OF POWER AND 
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE, WELL, DON'T TAKE 
MY WORD FOR IT, DON'T TAKE ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ'S  WORD FOR IT, 
LET'S LOOK TO OUR ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.  
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.  
UNDER THE FRAMERS PLAN, THE 
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT IS MAKING 
DETERMINATIONS ON IMPROPER 
MOTIVE, SOMETHING THAT ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ SAID WE ARE NOT 
ALLOWED TO CONSIDER OR WHETHER 
HE IS FAITHFULLY DISCHARGING 
HIS RESPONSIBILITIES IS LEFT TO 
THE PEOPLE  THROUGH THE 
ELECTION PROCSS AND THE 
CONGRESS THROUGH THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.  
THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
ANSWERABLE FOR ANY ABUSES OF 
DISCRETION AND IS ULTIMATELY 
SUBJECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF 
CONGRESS THROUGH THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS MEANS THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT THE JUDGE IN 
HIS OWN CAUSE.  
THEIR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES 
NOT AGREE WITH THEIR THEORY OF 
THE CASE.  
BUT AGAIN WE
BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TO 
RELY ON THE BARS OPINION OR 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S OPINION OR 
THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS, WE CAN RELY ON OUR 
COMMON SENSE, BECAUSE  THE 
CONCLUSION THAT A PRESIDENT CAN 
ABUSE HIS POWER BY CORRUPTLY 
ENTERING INTO A QUID PRO QUO TO 
GET A FOREIGN LEADER TO DO 
THEIR POLITICAL DIRTY WORK AND 
HELP THEM CHEAT IN THE 
ELECTION, OUR COMMON SENSE 
TELLS US THAT CANNOT BE 
COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESIDENCY 
AND IF WE SAY IT IS OR IT IS 
BEYOND THE REACH OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER OR WE SAY 
BECAUSE YOU PUT IT UNDER THE 
RUBRIC OF ABUSE OF POWER, EVEN 
THOUGH THAT WAS THE FRAMERS 
CORE OFFENSE, AND HE DID NOT 
PUT IT UNDER SOME OTHER RUBRIC, 
WE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER IT IF 
WE ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THAT 
KIND OF LEGAL SOPHISTRY IT 
LEAVES THE COUNTRY UNPROTECTED. 
FROM THE KIND OF PRESIDENT THAT 
WOULD ABUSE HIS POWER IN THIS 
WAY.  
THIS CANNOT BE WHAT THE FRAMERS 
HAD IN MIND.  
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A 
SUICIDE PACT.  
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO 
SURRENDER COMMON SENSE.  
OUR COMMON SENSE, AS WELL AS 
OUR MORALITY TELLS US THAT WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG.  
WHEN A PRESIDENT SACRIFICES THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF 
THE COUNTRY, IT IS NOT ONLY 
WRONG, BUT IT IS DANGEROUS.  
WHEN A PRESIDENT SAYS HE WILL 
CONTINUE TO DO IT IF LEFT IN 
OFFICE, IT IS DANGEROUS.  
THE FRAMERS PROVIDED A REMEDY, 
AND WE URGE YOU TO USE IT.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.  
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  
>> THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA.  
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON MY BEHALF AND SENATOR 
BARRASSO FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL.  
 BARRASSO FOR
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU.  
>> THANK YOU.  
THE SENATOR FOR COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.  
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID 
THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED FROM 
THIS PRESIDENT, AND HE DOES NOT 
HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR 
FAMILIES IN MIND.  
DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT 
CLAIM? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, WHILE THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ARE COMING BEFORE YOU 
AND ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF 
DOING THINGS IN THEIR WORDS, 
SOLELY FOR PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL GAIN, AND CLAIMING 
THAT HE IS NOT DOING THINGS IN 
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU JUST THE 
OPPOSITE.  
THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL 
RATING, WHILE WE ARE SITTING 
HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS 
HIT AN ALL-TIME HIGH.  
A RECENT POLL SHOWS THAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE 
HAPPIEST THEY HAVE BEEN WITH 
THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY IN 
15 YEARS.  
WHETHER IT IS THE ECONOMY, 
SECURITY, MILITARY 
PREPAREDNESS, SAFER STREETS, OR 
SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE 
ALL THE WAY UP.  
WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ARE 
HAPPIER.  
AND YET, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TELL YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT 
NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE HE 
IS AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR 
COUNTRY.  
LISTEN TO THE WORDS THAT THEY 
JUST SAID.  
WEEK, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
CANNOT DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE AS THEY TELL 
US IN THESE ARE THEIR WORDS, 
QUOTE, WE CANNOT BE ASSURED 
THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY 
ONE.  
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT? 
DO YOU REALLY THINK SO LITTLE 
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? 
WE DON'T.  
WE TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO 
DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR 
PRESIDENT.  
CANDIDLY, IT IS CRAZY TO THINK 
UNDER THEÃOTHERWISE.  
SO, WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? 
WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IS THAT 
HE IS A THREAT TO THEM, AND HE 
IS A LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THEM, 
AND HE IS A IMMEDIATE 
LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THEIR 
CANDIDATES BECAUSE THE ELECTION 
IS ONLY EIGHT MONTHS AWAY.  
LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE 
THINGS THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE.  
WE HAVE REPLACED NAFTA WITH THE 
HISTORIC McA.  
WE HAVE KILLED A TERRORIST, WE 
HAVE KILLED -- SECURED $738 
MILLION TO REBUILD THE MILITARY 
AND 7 MILLION JOBS CREATED 
SINCE THE ELECTION.  
THE LEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS ARE 
DOWN 78% SINCE MAY AND 100 
MILES OF THE WALL HAVE BEEN 
BILLED.  
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE 
LOWEST IN 50 YEARS.  
MORE AMERICANS, NEARLY 160 
MILLION ARE EMPLOYED THAN BITÃ
BE EVER BEFORE.  
BUT, THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND 
HISPANIC AND ASIAN AMERICAN 
UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT THE LOWEST 
RATE EVER REPORTED.  
WOMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT AT THE 
LOWEST RATE IN 65 YEARS.  
EVERY METROPOLITAN AREA SAW PER 
CAPITA GROWTH IN 2018.  
REAL WAGES HAVE GONE UP BY 8% 
FOR THE LOW INCOME WORKERS.  
REAL MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS 
THE HIGHEST LEVEL EVER 
RECORDED.  
40 MILLION FEWER PEOPLE LIVE IN 
HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING GOVERNMENT 
ASSISTANCE.  
WE SIGNED THE BIGGEST PACKAGE 
OF TAX CUTS AND REFORMS IN 
HISTORY.  
SINCE THEN, OVER $1 TRILLION 
HAS POURED BACK IN TO THE U.S.. 
650,000 SINGLE MOTHERS HAVE 
BEEN LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY.  
WE SECURED THE LARGEST EVER 
INCREASE FOR CHILD CARE 
FUNDING, HELPING MORE THAN 
800,000 LOW INCOME FAMILIES 
ACCESS HIGH QUALITY AFFORDABLE 
CARE.  
WE PASSED, AS MANAGER JEFFRIES 
WILL RECALL, BIPARTISAN 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.  
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS HAVE SEEN 
THE LOWEST PRICE DECREASE -- 
THE LARGEST PRICE DECREASE IN 
OVER HALF A CENTURY.  
DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS FELL IN 
2018 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 
YEARS.  
A GALLUP POLL FROM JUST THREE 
DAYS AGO SAYS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S UPBEAT VIEW OF THE 
ECONOMY MILITARY STRENGTH, A  
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND 
QUALITY OF LIFE WILL LIKELY 
RESONATE WITH AMERICANS WHEN HE 
DELIVERS THE STATE OF THE UNION 
ADDRESS TO CONGRESS NEXT WEEK.  
IF ALL THAT IS SOLELY, SOLELY 
IN THEIR WORDS, FOR HIS 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN, 
AND NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS 
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEN I 
SAY GOD BLESS HIM, KEEP DOING 
IT.  
KEEP DOING IT.  
MAYBE IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
STOP OPPOSING HIM AND HARASSING 
HIM AND HARASSING EVERYONE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM WITH THE 
CONSTANT LETTERS AND 
INVESTIGATIONS, MAYBE WE CAN 
EVEN GET MORE DONE.  
LET'S TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT 
NOW.  
JOIN US.  
JOIN US, ONE NATION, ONE NATION 
AND ONE PEOPLE.  
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.  
STOP ALL OF THIS.  
THANK YOU.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO.  
>> I SENT A LETTER TO THE DESK 
FOR MYSELF AND SENATOR SHOTS 
AND MENENDEZ.  
>> THANK YOU.  
ATOR
MENENDEZ.
>> THANK YOU.
>> 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS.  
IF THE SENATE ACCEPTS THE 
PRESIDENTS BLANKET ASSERTION OF 
PRIVILEGE IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, WHAT ARE THE 
CONSEQUENCES TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE? 
HOW WILL THE SENATE ENSURE THAT 
THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, OR A 
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL REMAIN 
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE? 
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS? 
AND, IN THIS CONTEXT, COULD YOU 
ADDRESS THE PRESIDENTS 
COUNSEL'S CLAIM THAT HIS 
ADVISORS ARE ENTITLED TO THE 
SAMEPROTECTIONS AS A 
WHISTLEBLOWER? 
>> PRIVILEGES ARE LIMITED.  
WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FOR AMONG OTHER 
THINGS, ARTICLE 2 OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT IS TOTAL DEFIANCE 
OF HOUSE SUBPOENAS AND THE 
PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE 
THAT HE WILL DEFY ALL 
SUBPOENAS.  
THAT MEANS NO INFORMATION FOR 
CONGRESS AND A CLAIM OF 
DICTATORIAL POWER.  
IF CONGRESS HAS NO INFORMATION 
IT CANNOT ACT.  
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN DEFY, HE 
CAN DISPUTE CERTAIN SPECIFIC 
CLAIMS.  
HE CAN CLAIM PRIVILEGE, ETC., 
BUT TO DEFY CATEGORICALLY ALL 
SUBPOENAS AND TO ANNOUNCE IN 
ADVANCE YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT 
IS TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS NO 
POWER AT ALL, ONLY THE 
EXECUTIVE HAS POWER.  
THAT IS WHY ARTICLE 2 IS 
IMPEACHING HIM FOR ABUSE OF 
CONGRESS.  
THAT IS WHY RICHARD NIXON WAS 
IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF 
CONGRESS, FOR THE SAME DEFIANCE 
OF ANY ATTEMPT BY THE CONGRESS 
TO INVESTIGATE.  
ESTIGATE.
BUT THIS
BUT, AND WHAT ARE THE 
CONSEQUENCES? 
THE CONSEQUENCES, IF THIS IS TO 
BE, IF HE IS TO GET AWAY WITH 
IT, IS THAT ANY SUBPOENA YOU 
VOTE IN THE FUTURE OR ANY 
INFORMATION YOU WANT IN THE 
FUTURE MAY BE DENIED WITH NO 
EXCUSES, ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE 
IT EVISCERATES CONGRESS AND 
ESTABLISHES THE EXECUTIVE 
DEPARTMENT IS A TOTAL 
DICTATORSHIP.  
AND I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT, 
AND THE MOTIVES, THE MOTIVES 
ARE CLEARLY DICTATORIAL.  
BUT, ALSO WANT TO TAKE A POINT 
SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR TO 
ANSWER A QUESTION, TO COMMENT 
ON A QUESTION THAT SENATOR 
COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI ASKED 
YESTERDAY.  
ASKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF 
MIXED MOTIVES.  
WHAT IF, HOW DO YOU DEFINE, HOW 
DO YOU DEAL WITH A DEED, WITH A 
PRESIDENT WHO MAY HAVE A 
CORRUPT MOTIVE AND HOW DO YOU 
DEAL WITH IT? 
AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID  YOU 
HAVE TO WEIGH THE BALANCES.  
NONSENSE.  
NONSENSE.  
WE NEVER, AND AMERICAN LAW, 
LOOK AT DECENT MOTIVES IF YOU 
CAN PROVE A CORRUPT MOTIVE.  
IF I AM OFFERED A BRIBE AND I 
EXCEPT THE BRIBE FOR A CORRUPT 
MOTIVE, I WILL NOT BE HEARD IN 
DEFENSE TO SAY I WOULD HAVE 
VOTED FOR THE BILL ANYWAY, IT 
WAS A GOOD BILL.  
YOU DO NOT INQUIRE INTO OTHER 
MOTIVES.  
MAYBE YOU HAD GOOD MOTIVES, BUT 
ONCE THE CORRUPT MOTIVE AND THE 
CORRUPT ACT WAS ESTABLISHED, 
THERE IS NO COMPARISON.  
ALL OF THIS IS JUST NONSENSE TO 
POINT AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROVEN 
BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND 
THE DEFENERS DON'T EVEN BOTHER 
TO DEFEND, THEY JUST COME OUT 
WITH DISTRACTIONS.  
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT TO HAVE ABUSED 
HIS POWER BY VIOLATING THE LAW, 
TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY, TO EXTORT THAT 
COUNTRY, INTO HELPING HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN BY 
SLANDERING HIS OPPONENT.  
CORRUPT, NO QUESTION.  
A VIOLATION OF THE LAW? 
NO QUESTION.  
FACTUALLY, NO QUESTION.  
THEY DO NOT EVEN MAKE AN 
ATTEMPT TO DENY IT.  
EVERYTHING IS A DISTRACTION AND 
THE ONE CHIEF DISTRACTION IS 
ONCE YOU PROVE A CORRUPT ACT, 
THAT IS IT.  
YOU NEVER MEASURE THE DEGREE OF 
MAYBE THEY HAD DECENT MOTIVES 
ALSO. 
SO, ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND TALKING 
ABOUT THAT,  AND TALKING ABOUT 
THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF THE 
PRESIDENCY, WAS JUST ABSENT 
FROM AMERICAN LAW OR ANY KIND 
OF WESTERN LAW.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> SENAT
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.  
>> WE ARE WATCHING OF COURSE 
DAY 2 OF THE QUESTION AND 
ANSWER SESSION UP ON CAPITOL 
HILL.  
IN TWO DAYS THERE HAVE BEEN 116 
QUESTIONS ASKED, 23 TODAY.  
LET'S BRING IN NANCY TO BREAK 
IT ALL DOWN.>> Reporter: ONE A 
SURE SIGN THE SIDES ARE  FIRMLY 
ENTRENCHED IN THEIR CAMPS AT 
THIS POINT IS THE FACT THAT SO 
MANY DEMOCRATIC RUSSIANS ARE 
ABOUT JOHN BOLTON, AND WHETHER 
HE SHOULD BE BROUGHT IN TO 
TESTIFY AND THE REPUBLICAN 
QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT JOE BIDEN 
AND HUNTER BIDEN.  
AND THEIR ROLE IN ALL OF THIS.  
THERE WAS ONE REALLY 
INTERESTING POINT IN TODAY'S 
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 
WHERE A DEMOCRAT ASKED ABOUT 
THE SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR RUDY 
GIULIANI'S EFFORTS, THE FACT 
THAT HE WORKS AS THE PRESIDENTS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, BUT IS NOT 
PAID BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.  
THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHO IS 
PAYING HIM INSTEAD.  
AND THE PRESIDENTS COUNSEL DID 
NOT ANSWER THAT BUT THEY 
PIVOTED TO TALKING ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN AND HOW HE GOT PAID BY A 
UKRAINIAN ENERGY COMPANY WHILE 
HIS FATHER WAS SERVING AS ONE 
OF THE POINT PEOPLE AS VICE 
PRESIDENT, DEALING WITH UKRAINE 
AND UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION.  
DEMOCRATS WANT THE FOCUS TO BE 
ON THE LACK OF WITNESSES.  
THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE 
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND 
REPUBLICANS WANT TO FOCUS AWAY 
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF POSSIBLE 
AND TO SHINE ON THE BIDENS 
INSTEAD.  
>> IN SOME WAYS, GIVEN THAT IT 
LOOKS LIKE NOW THAT REPUBLICANS 
MAY HAVE THE VOTES TO BLOCK 
WITNESSES AND BRING A SPEEDY 
END TO THIS TRIAL, PERHAPS BY 
TOMORROW NIGHT, THE BURDEN OF 
PROOF IN SOME WAYS ARE ON THE 
DEMOCRATS TODAY TO MAKE THEIR 
CASE AND I FELT LIKE ADAM 
SCHIFF WAS TRYING TO PUSH THIS 
ARGUMENT, IF YOU DON'T STOP THE 
PRESIDENT NOW  HE WILL CONTINUE 
WITH MONARCH LIKE BEHAVIOR AND 
INVITE FOR AN INTERFERENCE.THAT 
WAS THE DANGER THAT IN SOME 
WAYS, TO USE THE WORD USED 
EARLIER, THAT ADAM SCHIFF  
SEEMS TO BE CONVINCING SENATORS 
WITH.  
>> ABSOLUTELY.  
AND BEYOND THAT, IF YOU DO NOT 
FORCE THIS WHITE HOUSE TO 
HANDLE OVER DOCUMENTS, TO ALLOW 
WITNESS TESTIMONY, THEN YOU SET 
A PRECEDENT THAT A FUTURE WHITE 
HOUSE CAN FOLLOW ANY TIME 
CONGRESS WANTS TO LOOK INTO 
THEIR ACTIVITY, WHICH IS THAT 
THEY CAN SIMPLY STALL AND STALL 
UNTIL CONGRESS GIVES UP.  
I PUT THAT QUESTION TO A 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR EARLIER 
TODAY.  
I SAID IF YOU DO NOT BRING IN 
WITNESSES, DOES THIS SEND A 
MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE THAT 
STONEWALLING WORKS? 
AND HE ARGUED NO.  
IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE 
THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED 
HARDER TO BRING INDIVIDUALS LIKE
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY BEFORE 
THEY SENT ALL OF THIS OVER TO 
THE SENATE.  
SO, THERE IS AN UNMOVABLE 
DIVIDE ON THIS POINT AND IT 
DOES NOT SEEM LIKE ANYTHING IS 
GOING TO CHANGE BEFORE 
TOMORROW.  
SO YOU ARE RIGHT, IN THE 
ABSENCE OF SOME MAJOR 
REVELATION FROM ONE OF THE FEW 
SENATE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE 
UNDECIDED, WE ARE UNLIKELY TO 
SEE A FOURTH SENATE REPUBLICAN 
VOTE IN FAVOR OF WITNESS 
TESTIMONY.  
SO, THAT VOTE WILL VERY 
NARROWLY FELL.  
>> OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER, WHAT IS SCHUMER TALKING 
ABOUT AS FAR AS OTHER OPTIONS 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO FORCE SOME 
MOVEMENT ON WITNESSES OR FORCE 
A VOTE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE? 
WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY? 
>> NORMALLY WHEN A VOTE ENDS UP 
TIED IN THE SENATE AS IT LOOKS 
LIKE THIS ONE COULD END UP 
TOMORROW.  
IF YOU HAVE ALL THE DEMOCRATS 
AND THREE REPUBLICANS VOTING 
YES ON WITNESSES AND THE OTHERS 
VOTING KNOW YOU WOULD HAVE A 50-
50 TYPE.  
TYPICALLY WHEN THAT HAPPENS THE 
VICE PRESIDENT BREAKS THE TIE.  
BUT, NOT WHEN YOU ARE IN THE 
MIDDLE OF IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.  
IN THAT CASE, THE MOTION, IF IT 
IS A TIE, FAILS, UNLESS THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE HIMSELF DECIDES 
TO STEP IN AND CAST THE TIE-
BREAKING VOTE.  
I CAN TELL YOU FROM TALKING TO 
A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS 
TODAY, THEY DON'T BELIEVE HE IS 
GOING TO DO THAT AND 
REPUBLICANS DON'T EITHER.  
BUT DON'T THINK YOU WOULD PUT 
HIS THUMB ON THE SCALE IN THAT 
WAY.  
THEY THINK THAT THE MOTION 
WOULD END UP FAILING, BUT THERE 
IS A POSSIBILITY HE COULD STEP 
IN AND THEN DEMOCRATS COULD 
OFFER MOTIONS AFTER THAT VOTE 
BUT, STILL THEY THINK IT WOULD 
GIVE THEM A SHOT AT TRYING TO 
GET MORE DOCUMENTS, TRYING TO 
GET MORE WITNESSES, BUT THE 
REALITY IS THE ONLY SUREFIRE 
WAY FOR THEM TO DO THAT IS TO 
FIND A FOURTH REPUBLICAN WHO 
SUPPORTS CALLING WITNESSES TO 
TESTIFY AND RIGHT NOW THAT 
FOURTH REPUBLICAN IS ELUSIVE.  
>> THEN TRACY IS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND IT SEEMS LIKE JUST 
YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE THE 
WAREHOUSE WAS AT DEVCON TWO, 
CONCERNED ABOUT WITNESSES.  
WHERE ARE THEY TODAY? 
>> WE CAN TELL YOU THE ALERT 
LEVEL HAS BEEN LOWERED A BIT AT 
THE WHITE HOUSE.  
I WOULD SAY THERE IS NOW 
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM HEAR THAT 
THEY ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH 
THIS WITHOUT HAVING WITNESSES 
AND PERHAPS GETTING AN 
ACQUITTAL BY THE END OF THE 
WEEKEND.  
THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE ARE FOCUSED ON.  
AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TOO FAR 
INTO THE SAYING WE THINK WE 
HAVE THIS IN THE BAG BUT THERE 
IS ALREADY TALK AMONG SOME 
SENIOR AIDES OVER WHETHER OR 
NOT THERE WILL BE DEMOCRATS 
THAT WOULD VOTE TO ACQUIT, 
LOOKING AT PEOPLE LIKE DOUG 
JONES IN ALABAMA SO, THAT IS 
STARTING TO BE THE THOUGHT 
PROCESS HERE.  
THAT IS A BIG CHANGE FROM 48 
HOURS AGO WHEN THERE WAS PANIC 
SETTING IN WHEN MITCH McCONNELL 
SAID I DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO 
BLOCK THE WITNESSES, BUT THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN IN CLOSE 
CONTACT WITH THE MAJORITY 
LEADER AND THEY HAVE LARGELY 
LEFT THIS IN HIS HANDS SAYING 
HE WILL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO 
THE ARM-TWISTING.  
WE ARE TOLD THE PRESIDENT IS 
NOT GETTING ON THE PHONE AND 
CALLING PEOPLE LIKE SUSAN 
COLLINS BECAUSE THEY FEEL ARM-
TWISTING LIKE THAT MIGHT 
BACKFIRE.  
>> THANK YOU.  
LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL.  
JOHN DICKERSON AND MARGARET 
BRENNAN, THE MODERATOR OF FACE 
THE NATION, AND HE MANAGED 
HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN 
AND BRENT'S PREVIOUS WHO WAS 
TRUMP'S FIRST CHIEF OF STAFF.  
WELCOME, ALL.  
IT IS A LAST-DITCH EFFORT BY 
THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE 
TODAY TO CONVINCE ONE OR MORE 
REPUBLICANS TO SAY WE SHOULD 
EXTEND THIS TRIAL AND THIS 
INQUIRY INTO THE PRESIDENT.  
>> ONE OF THE KEY DEBATES HAS 
BEEN ABOUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN 
IN RESPECT TO THE ELECTION.  
THEY HAVE SAID THAT THE VOTERS 
DECIDE DON'T GET IN THE WAY AND 
MANAGERS HAVE SAID NO.  
WHAT IS AT ISSUE IS THE SAFETY 
AND DURABILITY OF THE ELECTION 
AND AT SOME POINT THEY ARE 
GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE LAST 
CASE ON WITNESSES AND SAY YOU 
MUST DO THE FAIR THING BUT THEN 
THEY WILL TRY TO SHAPE THE 
FIELD FOR THE ELECTION WHICH IS 
TO SAY WHAT DOES THIS MEAN 
ABOUT, IF THEY CANNOT WIN IT IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT, THEN WHAT DOES 
ALL THE INFORMATION MEAN WITH 
RESPECT TO DONALD TRUMP'S 
REELECTION.  
>> SPEAKER PELOSI HAS SAID THE 
HOUSE MAY REOPEN THE 
INVESTIGATION.  
>> THEY HAVE LEFT THAT DOOR 
WIDE OPEN. 
ADAM SCHIFF HAS SAID SIMILAR 
THINGS INCLUDING  THAT THEY MAY 
LOOK TO SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON IF 
THE SENATE DOES NOT.  
IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM 
ADLER GO BACK TO WHERE WE 
STARTED THIS WITH THOSE 
QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS COLLINS 
AND MURKOWSKI ABOUT WHAT IF 
ESSENTIALLY CORRUPT INTENT 
OVERLAPPED WITH OTHER 
INTENTIONS THAT WERE NOT 
CORRUPT, HOW DO YOU PICK AND 
CHOOSE? 
HE WAS ARGUING YOU CANNOT.  
IF THERE IS ONE KRUPS OF THE 
OTHER.  
AS WE SIT HERE, I DON'T THINK 
IT IS A MISTAKE THAT THIS 
SENATE TRIAL DOVETAILS WITH THE 
ARRIVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE IN KIEV.  
MIKE POMPEO WENT THERE TO MEET 
WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT.  
THIS HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED A FEW 
TIMES IN HIS MESSAGES THAT THE 
U.S. STANDS STRONG  AGAINST 
RUSSIA.  
BUT, THIS WAS SCHEDULED FOR 
TODAY AMONG ALL DAYS AND 
ANOTHER ROUND OF VISITS 
TOMORROW.  
>> WHAT WAS THE INTENT? 
>> THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS 
SAID THAT THIS IS JUST 
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT 
HAD BEEN RESCHEDULED PREVIOUSLY 
OR THAT THE AID IS RELEASED A 
RELATIONSHIP CONTINUES TO BE 
STRONG.  
AND I'M GOING TO SIT ACROSS 
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.  
MEANWHILE, THERE IS NO U.S. 
AMBASSADOR OR ENVOY WORKING ON 
THE CONFLICT  IN THERE HAVE 
BEEN QUESTIONS INJECTED INTO 
ALL OF THIS THAT HAVE BEEN 
DEBATED IN TERMS OF THROWING 
INTO QUESTION U.S. SUPPORT  FOR 
UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIA.  
SECRETARY POMPEO WHETHER 
INTENTIONALLY OR NOT, IS TRYING 
TO SEND A MESSAGE OF NO HARM, 
NO FOUL.  
>> YOU HAVE NOT ONLY RUN THE 
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE 
BUT WERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CHIEF OF STAFF SO YOU HAVE BEEN 
IN THE ROOM WHERE MANY THINGS 
HAPPENED BUT NOT NECESSARILY 
NEFARIOUS SPREAD JUST DECISIONS 
MADE.YOU HEARD ADAM SCHIFF SAY  
IF THE SENATE DOES NOT MOVE TO 
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM 
OFFICE, IF THEY DO NOT CALL 
WITNESSES THIS IS THE 
NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS.  
THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL 
CONTINUE THIS BEHAVIOR.  
>> THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE 
EVIDENCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS PUT 
TOGETHER DOES NOT STACK UP.  
I AM ALSO AN ATTORNEY AND HAVE 
BEEN ONE FOR 22 YEARS AND A LOT 
OF TIMES CASES ARE BUNGLED AT 
THE INVESTIGATION LEVEL.  
THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT SUBPOENA 
ANY WITNESSES.THEY DID NOT 
ALLEGE A CRIME UNDER TITLE 18 
OF THE U.S. CODE.  
BOTH SIDES HAVE REALLY SMART 
LAWYERS THAT DON'T AGREE WITH 
EACH OTHER ON ALMOST ANY POINT 
AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU WANT 
TO YANK A PRESIDENT OUT OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND REMOVE THAT 
PERSON FROM THE BALLOT, YOU HAD 
BETTER HAVE EVERY SINGLE THING 
TIED DOWN AND HAVE OVERWHELMING 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.  
SO FAR, WE HAVE HAD BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT FOR NOT AGREEING TO 
IMPEACHMENT AND MY GUESS IS WE 
WILL HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT 
FOR AN ACQUITTAL IN THE SENATE. 
>> THAT POINT, YOU SAW, WE PUT 
UP THE THREE SENATORS THERE WHO 
COULD VOTE WITH REPUBLICANS FOR 
ACQUITTAL.  
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE WHITE 
HOUSE TO SAY THIS WAS A 
BIPARTISAN ACQUITTAL, IS THAT 
THE WORST NIGHTMARE FOR 
DEMOCRATS? 
>> SHORT-TERM, I'M SURE THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT ONLY GOING TO 
SAY THIS WAS BIPARTISAN, HE 
WILL SAY IT WAS AN OVERWHELMING 
REPRIEVE, I HAVE NEVER DONE 
ANYTHING WRONG.  
I NEVER DID ANYTHING, IT WAS 
ALL A HOAX.  
LONG-TERM, YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT THE ELECTION, I DON'T 
THINK THIS COULD BE A BIG PART 
OF THE ELECTION.  
I THINK THE ELECTION WILL BE 
LITIGATED OVER ECONOMIC 
REALITIES AND LEADERSHIP AND SO 
ON AND SO FORTH.  
MY GUESS IS IRONICALLY, IT IS 
THE PRESIDENT WHO IS GOING TO 
WANT TO FIXATE ON THIS WHEN IT 
IS DONE AND NOT THE DEMOCRATS.  
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS WILL WANT 
TO MOVE ON.  
>> IF JOE BIDEN IS STANDING ON 
THAT DEBATE STAGE ACROSS FROM 
HUNTER TRUMP, DON'T YOU THINK 
THESE ALLEGATIONS WILL COME 
RIGHT AT HIM? 
>> THE PRESIDENT WILL WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT THIS PLENTY BUT 
DEMOCRATS WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
ECONOMICS AND DO YOU WANT THIS 
MAN'S FINGER ON THE TRIGGER OF 
THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL.  
>> BUT, CHIEF AND THAT IS WE 
WASTED A LOT OF TIME ON THE 
SENATE NOT THE IMPORTANT STUFF. 
IF THAT IS THEIR ARGUMENT, THEY 
ARE BASICALLY SAYING WE SPENT 
ALL THIS TIME, SO THEY ARE 
HOPING THE PRESIDENT MAKE HIS 
OTHER CASE WHICH IS YOU WASTED 
A LOT OF TIME ON IMPEACHMENT 
READ WE HEARD HIM MAKE THE CASE 
TODAY, IF YOU ARE NOT DOING ALL 
OF THIS WE COULD BE DEALING 
WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE 
COUNTRY.  
>> LET ME BRING IN NANCY CORTES 
WHO IS ON CAPITOL HILL AND HAS 
SPOKEN WITH SENATOR JONES AND 
WHERE DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT 
THEY ARE LEANING? 
>> Reporter:  BOTH SENATORS 
THAT I SPOKE TO TODAY AND 
YESTERDAY ARE VERY WORKED UP 
ABOUT THIS IDEA OF WITNESSES.  
THEY SAY IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON AND JOE 
MANCHIN SAID HE WOULD BE HAPPY 
TO HEAR FROM HUNTER BIDEN, 
WHICH MAKES HIM A LOON 
CRUSADER.  
BUT, THEY BOTH SAID THAT THE 
DECISION AND VOTE ON WITNESSES 
WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR 
FINAL VOTE ABOUT WHETHER TO 
REMOVE OR ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT. 
JONES IN PARTICULAR SAID THE 
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
WORKING SO HARD TO PREVENT 
THESE WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING 
IS A SIGNAL OF HIS GUILT UNDER 
ARTICLE 2, OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, SO I DO THINK THAT 
THESE VOTES, ONE ABOUT 
WITNESSES AND ONE ABOUT 
ACQUITTAL OR REMOVAL ARE LINKED 
IN THE MINDS OF THESE SENATORS. 
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA HAS 
NOT BEEN TALKING TO THE 
REPORTERS IN THE HALLS BUT SHE 
DID SUPPORT WITNESSES ON THE 
FRONT END OF THIS TRIAL, 
WHETHER SHE WILL VOTE TO REMOVE 
OR WORK WITH THE PRESIDENT AT 
THE END OF THE DAY REMAINS TO 
BE SEEN.  
>> WE SHOULD NOTE, ON THE HILL 
WE ARE DAYS AWAY FROM THE IOWA 
CAUCUSES AND THEN ON FEBRUARY 3 
THE STATE OF THE UNION AND ON 
FEBRUARY 4 AND MANY AMERICANS 
WHO LIVE IN BATTLEGROUND STATES 
HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED ABSENTEE 
BALLOTS.  
THE VOTING IS IN SOME WAYS 
ALREADY UNDERWAY WHICH BOLSTERS 
THE WHITE HOUSE'S ARGUMENT, 
LOOK, YOU ARE TRYING TO 
INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION.  
LET THE VOTERS MAKE THE 
DECISION ABOUT HOW THIS 
ULTIMATELY GETSÃTHAT IS ONE 
OF THEIR STRONGEST ARGUMENTS.  
>> LET US NOT FORGET THE REASON 
WE ARE IN THE SITUATION IS 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TRYING TO INTERFERE IN THE 
ELECTION.  
HE WAS TRYING TO GET RESEARCH 
ON HIS OPPONENT.  
AND OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW, WE 
HEARD HIS COMMENTS EARLIER IN 
THE YEAR.  
IT IS FIND A FOREIGN LEADERS 
INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS.  
SO, THERE IS A RICH IRONY THERE 
BUT I THINK THAT IF THIS IS 
OVER BEFORE THE STATE OF THE 
UNION HE IS GOING TO GO OUT 
THERE AND IT WILL ALL BE TRUMP 
REPRIEVE, I AM THE GREATEST, 
STRONGEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.  
>> IN THE MEANTIME, THE 
PRESIDENT TODAY, IN MICHIGAN, A 
STATE THAT HE WON BY -- I KNOW 
YOU KNOW EVERY VOTE.  
10,704 VOTES.  
THIS IS HIS FIFTH VISIT TO 
MICHIGAN.  
THE PRESIDENT IS CHARGING AHEAD 
IN HIS REELECTION EFFORT.  
>> IN MY VIEW, THE PROBLEM THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE IS THE PRESIDENT 
IS GOING TO COME OUT WITH AN 
ACQUITTAL, HE IS GOING TO GET A 
BOUNCE, AND UNFORTUNATELY FOR 
THE DEMOCRATS OR FORTUNATELY 
FOR US, PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN AND 
WISCONSIN AND IOWA ARE NOT 
REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.  
I THINK IT WAS DAVID AXELROD 
THAT SAID THE OTHER DAY HE WENT 
TO A DEMOCRAT FOCUS GROUP AND 
THE FIRST 80 MINUTES 
IMPEACHMENT DID NOT EVEN COME 
UP.  
SO, I THINK THAT THE ONLY 
CASUALTY HERE IS GOING TO BE 
JOE BIDEN BECAUSE ULTIMATELY 
THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO COME 
OUT OF THIS IN HIS APPROVAL 
RATING IS GOING UP AND NOW YOU 
HAVE JOE BIDEN, IF HE DOES NOT 
WIN IOWA, HE WILL HAVE A 
PROBLEM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND 
NEVADA.  
AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO 
BE ON THEIR WAY TO POTENTIALLY 
A CONTESTED CONVENTION.  
>> JOHN BOLTON IS THE OTHER 
CASUALTY.  
HIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN MELTED 
BY HIS FORMER REPUBLICAN 
FRIENDS AND WHEN HIS BOOK COMES 
OUT IT WILL BASICALLY BURY HIM 
SO THIS DOES NOT COME UP AGAIN. 
>> IF THE BOOK COMES OUT.  
THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO 
BLOCK THAT.  
>> THAT IS ONE OF THOSE SHOES 
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT HAS 
YET TO DROP.  
>> WE WANT TO WRITE TELL-ALL 
BOOKS, USUALLY YOU DON'T COME 
OUT OF THAT TOO WELL OFF.  
OBVIOUSLY.  
>> THAT JOHN MADE THE ARGUMENT 
YESTERDAY THERE IS A CLOSET 
WITH A BUNCH OF SHOES AND IT 
AND THAT THE BOLTON BOOK IS 
JUST ONE OF THE MANY POTENTIAL 
SHOES THAT COULD FALL AND THAT 
IS THE DANGER FOR REPUBLICANS.  
IF THEY VOTE TO ACQUIT THE 
PRESIDENT AND THEN SOMETHING 
ELSE COMES, THAT IS DIFFICULT 
TO PREDICT.  
>> ALTHOUGH HE IS AN EXCITING 
PRESIDENT.  
HE DOES PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES.  
>> BUT, THAT IS MY THE POWER OF 
WHAT IS IN THE RECORD THAT WAS 
CREATED BY ADAM SCHIFF, AND THE 
RECORD IS VERY  THIN.  
>> NO DOUBT, THE CONTINUED 
FOCUS ON THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
ACTIONS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF 
WILL CONTINUE.  
OUR COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE ON 
OUR 24 HOUR STREAMING NETWORK, 
CBSN. 
YOU CAN WATCH AT CBSNEWS.COM OR 
ON THE FANTASTIC  CBS NEWS APP. 
THERE WILL BE MORE  ON YOUR 
LOCAL NEWS ON THE STATION.  
>> WE ARE CONTINUING OUR CBSN 
SPECIAL REPORT. 
WE NOW TAKE YOU BACK TO THE 
SENATE FLOOR. 
>> THE ISSUE OF THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE IS 
ACTUALLY THE ISSUE OF MAKING 
SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY, SO 
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.  
AND HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE 
UNDERSTANDS IT IS A ISSUE THAT 
HAS TO DO WITH, WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION THERE THAT THE 
PROSECUTOR WAS HANDLING 
DERAILED IN A WAY THAT AFFECTED 
THE ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS? 
IT IS SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING 
INTO.  
IT IS THE PRESIDENT MAKING 
CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT SAYING 
THAT IS OFF LIMITS, IT SOUNDS 
BAD TO THE U.S. AS WELL, BUT  
LET ME GET MORE SPECIFICALLY TO 
THE QUESTION, IS THERE ANY 
SITUATION WHERE IT MIGHT BE 
LEGITIMATE TO ASK FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION OVERSEAS? 
YES, IF THERE WAS CONDUCT BY A 
U.S. PERSON OVERSEAS THAT 
POTENTIALLY VIOLATED THE LAW OF 
THAT COUNTRY  BUT DID NOT 
VIOLATE THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY 
BUT THERE WAS A NATIONAL 
INTEREST IN HAVING SOME 
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, AND 
UNDERSTANDING WHAT WENT ON, 
THEN IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY 
LEGITIMATE TO SUGGEST THIS IS 
SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING INTO.  
WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN KNOWING 
ABOUT THIS, EVEN IF IT IS NOT 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEAN A 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HERE IN 
THE UNITED STATES.  
AND, SO THAT COULD ARISE IN 
VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A 
PERSON HAD DONE SOMETHING 
OVERSEAS BUT THERE IS A 
NATIONAL INTEREST IN 
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY HAD 
DONE.  
THANK YOU.  
>> THE 
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER 
RECOGNIZED? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE 
COUNCIL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.  
>> THANK YOU.  
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS 
QUESTION IS THIS, YESTERDAY, I 
ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, 
SPECIFICALLY, I ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO NAME A 
SINGLE DOCUMENT OR WITNESS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO 
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
IN RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST OR 
SUBPOENA MR. PHILBIN SPOKE FOR 
FIVE MINUTES AND TALKED ABOUT 
THE VARIOUS TYPES OF IMMUNITIES 
AND PRIVILEGES THE PRESIDENT 
COULD INVOKE, BUT DID NOT 
ANSWER MY QUESTION.  
SO, I ASK ONCE AGAIN, CAN YOU 
NAME A SINGLE WITNESS OR 
DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? 
IT IS DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES 
AND PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOES 
FIRST.  
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
MINORITY LEADER, SCHUMER.  
I APOLOGIZE IF I WAS NOT DIRECT 
IN GETTING TO THE QUESTION 
YESTERDAY.  
I WAS INTENDING TO EXPLAIN THE 
RATIONALE IS THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAD PROVIDED FOR 
ITS ACTIONS AND TO EXPLAIN, 
CONTRARY TO THE QUESTION, THAT 
IT WAS NOT ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE 
AND NOT SIMPLY BLANKET 
ASSERTION THAT WE WILL NOT DO 
ANYTHING, THAT IS THE WAY THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TRIED TO 
CHARACTERIZE IT.  
WHICH MAY BE CLEAR, THERE WERE 
DOCUMENTS AND SUBPOENAS ISSUED 
PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660.  
THE PRESIDENT AND 
ADMINISTRATION EXPLAINED IN 
VARIOUS LETTERS THAT THOSE WERE 
INVALID AND THERE WERE NO 
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN RESPONSE 
BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE SUBPOENAS 
WERE INVALID.  
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO REISSUE 
THOSE SUBPOENAS OR TO 
RETROACTIVELY ATTEMPT TO 
AUTHORIZE THEM.  
THERE WERE THEN SUBPOENAS FOR 
WITNESSES WHO WERE SENIOR 
ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT.  
THE PRESIDENT ADVISED THE 
COMMITTEES THAT HAD ISSUES 
THOSE THAT THEY HAD ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY AND THEY WERE NOT 
PRODUCED FOR IMMUNITY.  
THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED.  
THERE WERE THEN SUBPOENAS FOR 
WITNESSES TO OTHERS WHO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS INSISTED THEY WOULD 
BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY WITHOUT 
THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL.  
I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT 
PRINCIPLE.  
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
ADVISED THAT THOSE SUBPOENAS 
ATTEMPTING TO REQUIRE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY 
WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY 
COUNSEL WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  
SO, THOSE WITNESSES WERE NOT 
PRODUCED.  
STILL, THERE WERE 17 WITNESSES 
WHO TESTIFIED NOT INCLUDING THE 
18th WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY IS 
STILL SECRET.  
SO, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF 
TESTIMONY AND THERE HAVE 
SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN THE SUMMIT 
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED UNDER THE 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND 
IT MAKES CLEAR THAT IF YOU 
FOLLOW THE LAW AND YOU FOLLOW 
THE RULES AND YOU MAKE A 
DOCUMENT REQUEST THAT IS VALID, 
úDOCUMENTS GET PRODUCED.  
IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW, 
THE ADMINISTRATION RESISTS IT 
DID THAT IS WHY THE DOCUMENTS 
WERE NOT PRODUCED BECAUSE THE 
SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID AND WE 
MADE THAT VERY CLEAR, THANK 
YOU.  
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.  
>> NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS 
TURNOVER, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS 
WAS PRODUCED AND THOSE WHO CAME 
CAME IN DEFIANCE OF THE ORDERS 
OF THE PRESIDENT.  
COUNSEL HAS OBVIOUSLY MADE ALL 
OF THESE CLAIMS THAT WE THINK 
ARE COMPLETELY SPURIOUS, BUT 
WHAT THEY DO NOT ANSWER IS WHAT 
WAS THE MOTIVATION TO FIGHT ALL 
THE SUBPOENAS? 
THEY ARGUE THAT THIS 
INTERPRETATION, WHICH THE 
COURTS HAVE REJECTED THAT HAVE 
LOOKED AT IT, THAT SOMEHOW 
THESE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID, 
BUT WHY DID THEY NOT PRODUCE 
THE DOCUMENTS YOU MARK WHY DID 
THEY INSIST ON THIS DISCREDITED 
LEGAL THEORY? 
BECAUSE THEY WERE COVERING UP 
THE PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT.  
NOW, I WANT TO RETURN BRIEFLY 
TO FINISH THE COMMENTS I WAS 
MAKING EARLIER ABOUT THE 
SENATORS QUESTION EARLIER ON 
MIXED MOTIVES.  
THERE IS A GOOD REASON WHY 
MIXED MOTIVES ARE NO DEFENSE.  
OTHERWISE OFFICIALS WHO 
COMMITTED MISCONDUCT COULD 
ALWAYS CLAIM THAT EVEN IF IT 
WAS CORRUPT THEY MUST BE 
ACQUITTED BECAUSE THEY WERE 
ABLE TO INVENT SOME PHONY 
MOTIVATION AND INSISTED PLAYED 
A MINOR ROLE IN THEIR SCHEME.  
IMAGINE HOW THAT PRINCIPLE 
WOULD APPLY TO A PRESIDENT 
CHARGED WITH BRIBING MEMBERS OF 
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.  
MULTIPLE FRAMERS CITED THIS 
SPECIFIC THREAT WHILE 
DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT AT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  
COULD A PRESIDENT DEFEND 
HIMSELF ON THE GROUNDS HE WAS 
MOTIVATED IN PART BY A NOBLE 
DESIRE TO REWARD THOSE MEMBERS 
FOR THEIR PUBLIC SERVICE? 
EVEN AS HE HANDED OVER THE 
BRIBES HE WAS NOT JUST ACTING 
CORRUPTLY BUT ALSO SEEKING TO 
ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY 
KEEPING HIMSELF IN POWER? 
ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS, YES, HE COULD.  
INDEED, FOR THE REASONS WE 
PROVIDED THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT 
THE PRESIDENTS WOULD PRO QUOTE 
WAS SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE AND HIS USE OF 
ASKED TO COMPEL THAT 
INTERFERENCE WERE A 
FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT SCHEME BY 
WHICH I MEAN THE MOTIVE AND 
INTENT WAS TO HELP HIMSELF AND 
OBTAIN PERSONAL GAIN WHILE 
IGNORING AND INJURING CORE 
NATIONAL INTERESTS IN OUR 
DEMOCRACY AND SECURITY.  
WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WE 
BELIEVE THE SCHEME WAS ENTIRELY 
CORRUPT, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT THAT, ASK JOHN 
BOLTON, IF THERE IS ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE 
MOTIVE WAS MIXED OR NOT MIXED, 
ASK JOHN BOLTON.  
HE HAS RELEVANT TESTIMONY.  
YOU CAN ALSO ASK MICK MULVANEY. 
YOU CAN SUBPOENA THE DOCUMENTS 
AND ANSWER THE EARLIER QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE AID, 
WHETHER THERE WAS ANY 
INTERAGENCY DISCUSSION OF 
REFORMS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CHANGED WAS A 
CHANGE IN THE RADA.  
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT 
THAT IDEA.  
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.  
>> I ASKED THAT WE STAND IN 
RECESS UNTIL 4.  
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED RED 
>> HELLO, EVERYONE.  
THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ON A QUICK  
RECESS.  
THE LEGAL TEAM AND HOUSE 
MANAGERS ARE FACING A SECOND 
ROUND OF QUESTIONING.  
YESTERDAY'S SESSION LASTED MORE 
THAN NINE HOURS.  
BUT, TOMORROW MIGHT ACTUALLY BE 
THE BIG DAY WHEN WE WILL SEE A 
CRUCIAL VOTE ON POTENTIAL NEW 
WITNESSES.  
GOP LEADERS SAY THEY THINK THEY 
ARE NOW ABLE TO BLOCK DEMOCRATS 
AND IF THAT HAPPENS, 
REPUBLICANS WANT TO GO STRAIGHT 
TO A VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  
THAT MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COULD BE ACQUITTED IN A TRIAL 
THAT LASTED JUST 10 DAYS.  
SO, WANT TO BRING IN CURATIVE 
GO AND ZEKE MILLER.KIRA IS A 
CBSN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND  
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT 
ZEKE IS A CBSN POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR  AND WHITE HOUSE 
REPORTER FOR THE ASSOCIATED 
PRESS.  
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THIS LINE 
OF QUESTIONING THAT YOU HAVE 
HEARD TODAY? 
>> I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE 
SEEING IS A HARDENING OF THE 
POSITIONS.  
I THINK THAT WE ARE SEEING, 
FRANKLY, NOT NECESSARILY A LOT 
OF NEW ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH WE 
HAVE HEARD I THINK THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS OR EFFECTIVELY REBUT 
THE QUESTION THAT LED US OFF 
YESTERDAY ABOUT MIXED MOTIVES.  
THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT WE HAD 
FLAGGED HERE ON SATURDAY THE 
DAY BEFORE THE FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS BEGAN AS AN IMPORTANT 
ISSUE AND I HAVE BEEN GLAD TO 
SEE THE HOUSE MANAGERS SEEMING 
TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION MORE EFFECTIVELY.  
>> IS IT A LITTLE TOO LATE AT 
THIS POINT? 
IT SEEMS LIKE REPUBLICANS FEEL 
PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL 
BE ABLE TO WRAP THIS UP, THAT 
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BLOCK THE 
CALL FOR WITNESSES.  
EVEN IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE 
MORE EFFECTIVE NOW IN ANSWERING 
THE LINE OF QUESTIONING, IS IT 
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE? 
>> IT MAY BE.  
I'M NOT A POLITICAL ANALYST BUT 
THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM HAS 
ALWAYS BEEN BECAUSE OF THE 
MAKEUP OF THE SENATE, A VOTE 
FOR REMOVAL WAS UNLIKELY BUT I 
THINK THAT IF THIS BECOMES 
MERELY A LESSON FOR US AS TO 
WHAT IMPEACHMENT MEANS, IT IS 
IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE AN 
ACCURATE RECORD AND GOOD LEGAL 
ARGUMENT.  
>> ZEKE, I WANT TO BRING YOU 
INTO THIS QUESTION.  
AT ROMNEY LAST NIGHT ASKED THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE EXACT DATE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRST ORDERED 
THE HOLD ON THE UKRAINIAN AID 
AND THEY SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE 
THE EXACT ANSWER. 
THEY GAVE SOME OTHER DATES.  
TAMMY BALDWIN ASKED THE SAME 
QUESTION TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TODAY.  
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN.  
>> WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A 
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL 
OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF 
EMAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, 
CONVERSATION, AND WITNESS 
TESTIMONY, THAT CAN SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT, 
INCLUDING AN EMAIL FROM LAST 
SUMMER BETWEEN MR. BOLTON, MR. 
BLAIR, WHERE WE KNOW FROM 
WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE 
WAS DISCUSSED.  
BUT, WHAT WE DO KNOW FROM 
MULTIPLE WITNESSES THAT 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLACED A 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE  
SOON AFTER IT WAS ORDERED IN 
JULY 2019, SO WE KNOW THAT NOT 
ONLY DID U.S. OFFICIALS KNOW 
ABOUT IT, BUT THE UKRAINIANS 
KNEW ABOUT IT AS WELL.  
>> SO, ZEKE, EXPLAINED THE 
SUBTEXT HERE.  
WHY ARE LAWMAKERS SEEKING AN 
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT FIRST ORDERED 
THIS HOLD ON UKRAINIAN AID? 
>> Reporter: 21 AND IT GOES 
TOWARDS THE MOTIVE AND 
ESTABLISHING THE FACT PATTERN  
OF IF THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARED 
ABOUT WITHHOLDING UKRAINIAN 
ASSISTANCE ONCE JOE BIDEN WAS 
IN THE RACE.  
THAT WOULD BE AN INDICATION OF 
CAUSALITY THAT HOUSE MANAGERS 
WOULD DRAW A CONNECTION.  
ON THE OTHER END, WHILE YOU 
HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY 
ABOUT EMAILS AND THINGS LIKE 
THAT, AND WHAT WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED WAS THE 
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, 
WHICH DEALS WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.  
THAT HAS SORT OF TAKEN A 
BACKSEAT IN THE DISCUSSION 
ABOUT MIXED MOTIVE AND THAT 
DOMINATED THE DISCOURSE 
YESTERDAY.  
A LOT OF FOCUS TODAY ON WHAT 
WAS WITHHELD AS DEMOCRATS 
ALLEGE THAT IS IN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AND ITS OWN RIGHT.  
SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF 
PRECISION IN DETERMINING WHEN 
HE HELD UP THE AID AND THAT IS 
RELATED IN PART BECAUSE THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAS ORDERED 
AGENCIES AND DOES NOT TURN OVER 
DOCUMENTS TO THE WITNESSES 
INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION.  
>> YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS 
WHITE HOUSE FROM THE BEGINNING. 
ASED ON YOUR REPORTING IN THE 
REPORTING OF OTHERS, DO WE HAVE 
A SENSE OF AN ANSWER TO THAT 
QUESTION ON THE TIMELINE? 
>> Reporter: THERE IS NOT SORT 
OF A HARD AND FAST DATE THAT IN 
THE PUBLIC RECORD  HAS BEEN 
ESTABLISHED.  
THERE IS A BELIEF THAT IT IS 
SOMEWHERE IN THAT JANUARY, 
SORRY, JUNE OF 2019 TIMETABLE.  
A LITTLE BEFORE WHEN THE 
RUMBLING STARTED BUT WHEN THE 
PRECISE ORDER CAME OUT TO 
FREEZE THAT AIDE STARTED, IT IS 
NOT CLEAR.  
THERE WERE EMAILS THAT HAVE 
BEEN PRODUCED THAT SHOW THAT 
SOME OF THE ACTION TOOK PLACE 
HOURS AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT 
OFF THE PHONE ON THAT JULY 25 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
BUT,  WHEN THAT STARTED IS NOT 
ENTIRELY APPARENT YET.  
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ANOTHER 
QUESTION FOLLOWING OFF OF THAT. 
THE WASHINGTON POST HAS 
OBTAINED A VIDEO SHOWING LEV 
PARNAS  WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AT 
AN EVENT IN APRIL 2018.  
THE PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY 
CLAIMED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW 
THE TWO MEN PERSONALLY.  
WHY IS THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT KNEW LEV PARNAS SO 
IMPORTANT?  
>> Reporter: NUMBER ONE, IT  
GETS TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
CREDIBILITY.  
HE HAS ARGUED HE HAS DONE 
NOTHING WRONG AND HAD ONLY THE 
BEST INTENTIONS BUT, IN THIS 
INSTANCE AND IN TERMS OF HIS 
KNOWLEDGE, IT IS APPARENT THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN 
TRUTHFUL.  
HE SAT ACROSS THE TABLE FROM 
THEM AT A DINNER AND THEN 10 
DAYS BEFORE THAT THEY ATTENDED 
A SEPARATE EVENT WITH HIM IN 
MARA LAGO.  
IT IS ONE THING TO SORT OF SAY 
I DON'T KNOW THEM VERY WELL AND 
ANOTHER THING TO CATEGORICALLY 
DENY ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.  
AND DEMOCRATS ALLEGE THAT THEY 
WERE PART OF A YEAR-LONG 
CAMPAIGN BEFORE THE MONEY WAS 
HELD UP TO OUST THE AMERICAN 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, BUT THEN 
ASO TO CARRY OUT BUSINESS 
DEALINGS AND TAKE OTHER ACTIONS 
IN THE UKRAINE OUTSIDE OF THE 
MAINSTREAM OF AMERICAN FOREIGN 
POLICY.  
THAT IS PART OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT OF THAT ABUSE OF 
POWER CHARGED THAT DEMOCRATS 
HAVE BROUGHT.  
A LOT OF THE FOCUS HAS BEEN ON 
THE WITHHOLDING OF THE AID.  
BUT, WHAT THEY ARE INVOLVED 
WITH IS OF INTEREST AND PART OF 
THE ARTICLES ALSO, SO IT MAKES 
SENSE THERE IS AN EFFORT TO 
PIECE TOGETHER THE TIMELINE.  
>> WHAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS, 
THE PRESIDENT IS WELL WITHIN 
HIS RIGHTS TO REMOVE ANY 
AMBASSADOR HE DOES NOT WANT TO 
HAVE THERE, TO SET THE FOREIGN-
POLICY.  
WHAT IS THE RESPONSE FROM 
DEMOCRATS IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH 
THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT IS 
ENTITLED TO DO THOSE THINGS? 
HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER THAT 
THIS WAS GOING THROUGH HIS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY AS OPPOSED TO 
THE FORMAL CHANNELS.>> 
Reporter: DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT 
CHALLENGED  THAT REMOVING OF 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS  AGAINST 
THE LAW.  
THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE ABUSES 
OF POWER.  
THE HOLD UP THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE ABUSE OF 
POWER ARTICLE AND THAT IS NOT A 
CASE OF THAT.  
IT IS THE B OR C PLOT LINE.  
AND YOU CAN EXPLAIN ALL THE 
OTHER ACTIONS HE TOOK THE FACT 
THAT THIS CAME THROUGH HIS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND HAD THESE 
SHADOWY FIGURES WHO HAVE FOUND 
THEMSELVES UNDER SEPARATE 
CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, IT PAINTS 
A PICTURE MAYBE NOT TOWARDS THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BUT IN 
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION IN 
THE PARALLEL PROCEDURE FOR THE 
POLITICAL WRANGLING GOING ON 
THERE IS A SEPARATE PROCESS IN 
TERMS OF SELLING THIS TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE PART OF 
DEMOCRATS TRYING TO EXPLAIN 
THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS DOING DIFFERENT 
THINGS OUTSIDE THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE WITH HIS PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY IN THESE OTHER 
FIGURES.  
DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING THAT WILL 
BE A MESSAGE THAT RESONATES 
WITH AMERICANS.  
>> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING, 
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TRIALS, 
ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE TRIAL 
TAKING PLACE FORMALLY IN THE 
SENATE, BUT THEN IN THE COURT 
OF PUBLIC OPINION, IT SEEMS 
LIKE THE MOOD HAS CERTAINLY 
CHANGED.  
I WANT YOU TO TELL US A LITTLE 
BIT MORE ABOUT WHETHER 
DEMOCRATS REALLY MADE A 
STRATEGIC ERROR BY PUSHING FOR 
THIS TRIAL TO TAKE PLACE NOW 
WITH IT LOOKING LIKE IT COULD 
BE WRAPPED UP BY TOMORROW.  
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY 
DID.  
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROCESS 
CLOSE TO A CRIMINAL PROCESS 
WHERE YOU HAVE INVESTIGATION 
AND CHARGES RAISED IN THE GRAND 
JURY AND THEN GO TO TRIAL 
AFTERWARD, WHAT WE SEE WITH AN 
A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION WHEN 
THE DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THERE IS 
TIME PRESSURE WITH THE 
ELECTION, THAT THEY WOULD GO 
WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND YOU 
WOULD SEEK ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 
AT A TRIAL.  
THAT HAPPENS COMMONLY IN A 
CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHEN YOU'RE AT 
TRIAL OR AFTER THE GRAND JURY 
INVESTIGATION YOU WOULD SEEK 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THROUGH THE 
COURT.  
LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THE EYES 
OF A FORMER PROSECUTOR DOES NOT 
STRIKE ME AS A STRATEGIC ERROR 
OR A LEGAL ERROR.  
WHETHER ULTIMATELY IT TURNS 
INTO A POLITICAL MISSTEP I 
CANNOT SAY.  
BUT, AS A LEGAL MATTER, NO.  
>> ZEKE, WHAT ABOUT YOU? 
HOW IS THE WHITE HOUSE FEELING 
RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE IDEA THAT 
THIS COULD ALL BE WRAPPED UP 
RIGHT AWAY? 
>> Reporter: CAUTIOUSLY 
OPTIMISTIC ON THE PART OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE THAT THINGS WILL 
SHAPE OUT THAT WAY .  WHETHER 
THINGS WILL WRAP UP FRIDAY 
EVENING LATE OR SATURDAY OR 
MONDAY, DEPENDING ON THE 
PROCEDURAL WRANGLING'S THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO FORCE 
TO EXTEND THIS TRIAL AND TRY TO 
EXACT AS MUCH POLITICAL PAIN ON 
REPUBLICANS WERE NOT PROVIDING 
ENOUGH VOTES AS EXPECTED TO 
CALL WITNESSES.  
THAT REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED.  
BUT, EITHER WAY THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS LOOKING TOWARDS TUESDAY'S 
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS AS 
THE PRESIDENT SORT OF -- IS 
MOMENT TO, YOU KNOW, DECLARE 
VICTORY ON THE WORLD STAGE, 
REALLY.  
AND DO IT RIGHT TO THE FACES OF 
THE PEOPLE WHO IMPEACHED HIM.  
LITTLE BE QUITE THE SITE TO BE 
SEEN IF THE TIMELINE, IF THINGS 
WORK OUT AS THEY SEEM TO BE IN 
THE DIRECTION THEY'RE GOING 
FOR, WHERE THE PRESIDENT YOU 
KNOW, IS LIKELY TO BE ACQUITTED 
SOMETIME IN THE NEXT 96 HOURS 
OR SO.  
AND THEN YOU KNOW, GET IN FRONT 
OF THE HOUSE, IN THE HOUSE 
CHAMBER, WITH THE SENATORS WHO 
JUST ACQUITTED HIM AND, AND THE 
HOUSE LAWMAKERS WHO VOTED TO 
IMPEACH HIM A MONTH AND A HALF 
AGO OR SO, TWO MONTHS AGO, THAT 
WILL BE QUITE THE POWERFUL 
VISUAL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
ONE THAT HE HAS BEEN LOOKING 
FORWARD TO SINCE THIS PROCESS 
BEGAN.  
>> I WANT TO POP BACK OVER TO 
CAPITOL HILL WHERE WE ARE 
HEARING FROM SENATOR BLUMENTHAL 
RIGHT THERE.  
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN.  
>> WE SIMPLY WANT TO HEAR HIS 
TESTIMONY.  
IT MAY BE HIS BELIEF.  
HE MAY HAVE EVIDENCE THAT 
ACTUALLY EXONERATES THE 
PRESIDENT OR SHOWS HIS 
INNOCENCE.  
WE HAVE NO IDEA EXACTLY WHAT IS 
GOING TO SAY EXCEPT FOR THE 
REVELATIONS OF THIS BOOK.  
AND, SO THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE 
THAT SHOWS THE PRESIDENTS 
INNOCENCE.  
HE BY NO MEANS IS DEPICTED AS A 
HERO, AND SO FAR AS KENNETH 
STARR IS CONCERNED, I HEARD 
SOMEBODY SAY WHILE HE WAS 
TALKING, THEY WONDERED WHETHER 
WHETHER HE REALIZES WHO HE IS 
BECAUSE HIS SELF-AWARENESS IN 
TERMS OF HIS OWN BACKGROUND 
SEEMS SO SCANT.  
THANKS.  
>> SENATOR BLUMENTHAL, 
CRITICIZING ONE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, KEN STARR, 
XING HE IS NOT SURE THAT HE 
KNEW WHO HE WAS.  
AS THE PRESIDENTS, I'M GOING TO 
GO BACK TO YOU.  
HAS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
BEEN REALLY EFFECTIVE IN 
CRAFTING A NARRATIVE? 
IT SEEMS LIKE THE MAIN POINTS 
HAVE BEEN THE HOUSE DID NOT DO 
ENOUGH IN THE INQUIRY AND THAT 
THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS DID NOT 
RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND IN 
FACT, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER 
ABOUT THAT RESPONSE GIVEN BY 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ  WHERE HE SAID 
IF THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING IN 
THE NATION'S BEST INTEREST, 
EVEN IF THAT MEANT HE WAS 
PUTTING HIS THUMB ON THE SKILLS 
OF A FOREIGN POWER, THAT IT WAS 
SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE THE 
KIND OF PRAYER" QUOTE THAT 
RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT.  
JOHN TESTER WAS ASKING THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ABOUT THAT 
ARGUMENT TODAY. 
HERE IS ADAM SCHIFF'S RESPONSE. 
>> THERE IS NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT 
WE HEARD LAST NIGHT.  
THAT IS, IF THERE IS A QUID PRO 
QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED AND 
HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION IS 
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THAN 
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW CORRUPT 
THAT QUID PRO QUO IS.  
THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD 
TO RIGHTS.  
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF 
DESPERATION.  
>> IS THAT AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE 
BY ADAM SCHIFF? 
AND,  IF THE SENATE DOES IN 
FACT VOTE TO ACQUIT THE 
PRESIDENT WITH ONE OR MORE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS, DOES THAT 
CHANGE THE WAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO BEHAVE IN 
OFFICE? 
>> Reporter: THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IS DOING WHAT A DEFENSE 
COUNSEL WILL DO. 
THEY'RE TRYING TO COBBLE 
TOGETHER, AT A MINIMUM,  34 
VOTES FOR ACQUITTAL TO DENY A 
67th VOTE FROM OFFICE.  
SO, THEIR JOB IS TO OFFER 
POTENTIALLY A SMORGASBORD OF 
OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT 
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT.  
SO, DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT 
THEIR PRESENTATION IS NOT 
NECESSARILY SO THEMATIC READ AS 
FAR AS THIS QUESTION AND WE 
STARTED WITH THE FIRST QUESTION 
AND IT HAS BEEN RUNNING BACK 
AND FORTH BETWEEN THEM THAT AS 
LONG AS THE PRESIDENT IS ACTING 
IN A BELIEVE TO GET REELECTED, 
THAT'S NO THE CONDUCT EXCEPT 
PERHAPS A BRIBERY WOULD BE 
IMPEACHABLE.ADAM SCHIFF'S 
RESPONSE  WAS THAT WAY LIES 
MADNESS.  
THAT IS HIS QUOTE, THAT IS WHAT 
HE SAID AND THAT IS EFFECTIVE 
AND IS SOMEONE WHO HAS STUDIED 
THE CONSTITUTION, I THINK HE IS 
CORRECT.  
I THINK THAT MR. ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ  IS A VERY ABLE 
LAWYER AND SOMEONE WITH A LONG 
HISTORY OF SERVICE AND HE IS 
SIMPLY WRONG HERE.  
FLAT WRONG.  
SO, THE LARGER QUESTION THAT 
THE VIEWERS MAY WONDER AND IT 
HAS BEEN RAISED, WHAT DOES IT 
MEAN FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS? 
I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS 
CONCERN THAT A BAD PRECEDENT 
CAN BE SET HERE, WE HAVE TO 
REMEMBER THAT WHEN THE SENATORS 
VOTE TO REMOVE OR NOT REMOVE 
THE PRESIDENT, IT IS A BINARY 
VOTE.  
THEY WILL HAVE A CLOSED SESSION 
WHERE THEY HAVE 15 MINUTES TO 
EXPLAIN THEIR REASONS, BUT I 
WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THE 
SENATORS UNIFORMLY WERE TO SAY 
WE ALL AGREE WITH ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ'S VIEW OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.  
I THINK YOU MAY FIND SENATORS 
WHO WILL SAY THAT THE PROCEDURES
IN THE HOUSE WERE NOT QUITE 
RIGHT.  
THAT IS A REASONABLE VIEW, 
PERHAPS.  
OR, THEY MIGHT SAY SEARCHING 
THE RECORD AND UNDERSTANDING OR 
DECIDING WHAT LEVEL OF PROOF IS 
REQUIRED HERE, WHICH IS NOT SET 
FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION, 
INDIVIDUAL SENATORS GET TO 
DECIDE THAT AND THEY COULD SAY 
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE 
HERE.  
THEY COULD SAY ALTHOUGH A 
PRESIDENT, AT LEAST UNDER THE 
CRIMINAL LAW, AN ATTEMPT IS AS 
WRONG AS A COMPLETED CRIME.  
YOU COULD SORT OF SAY WELL, 
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN ATTEMPT, 
WE DON'T KNOW, THIS CONDUCT 
COULD HAVE RESULTED IN WORSE 
HARM.  
YOU KNOW, IT WAS STOPPED ALONG 
THE WAY.  
ACCORDING TO THE DEMOCRATS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT. 
ACCORDING TO THE REPUBLICANS, 
THERE WAS NO HARM THERE. 
BUT, EITHER WAY, WE DODGED  
MAYBE JUST A BULLET GOT BY BUT 
WE DODGED THE HOWITZER HERE.  
SO, ALTHOUGH THE CONDUCT IS 
WRONG, IT DOESN'T MERIT 
REMOVAL.  
SO, THE SENATORS -- 
>> SO, YOU ARE NOT AFRAID IT 
WILL SET A NEW PRECEDENT? 
>> I AM SAYING IF I WERE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL OF SOME FUTURE 
ADMINISTRATION AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WERE ACQUITTED I WOULD 
NOT BE ABLE TO CONFIDENTLY TELL 
THE PRESIDENT THAT I WAS 
SERVING THAT THIS ACQUITTAL ON 
THESE CHARGES MEANS THAT YOU 
CAN GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR DIRT 
ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT FROM A 
FOREIGN POWER AND DO SOMETHING 
THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE 
IMPOUNDMENT AND CONTROL ACT AND 
A VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF 
OFFICE. 
YOU CANNOT DO THOSE THINGS. 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS WRONG.  
>> LIGHTHOUSE COUNSEL PAT 
CIPOLLONE HAS RARELY SPOKEN  
BUT TODAY HE ADDRESSED A 
QUESTION ABOUT THE PARTISAN 
NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.  
>> WE HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A 
SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR WITH THE GOAL 
OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM 
THE BALLOT.  
AS I SAID BEFORE, THAT IS THE 
MOST MASSIVE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE WE HAVE EVER 
WITNESSED.  
IT IS DOMESTIC ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE.  
IT IS POLITICAL ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE AND IT IS WRONG.  
>> DOES THE WHITE HOUSE FEEL 
LIKE THIS IS A WINNING ARGUMENT 
FOR THEM? 
>> Reporter:  YOU DON'T NEED TO 
CONVINCE ALL OF THEM IT IS A 
SMORGASBORD AND THIS IS A 
MESSAGE THE WHITE HOUSE 
BELIEVES IS POWERFUL WITH A 
SUBSET OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF 
REPUBLICANS ALSO WHERE THERE IS 
THE ULTIMATE REMEDY HERE, WHICH 
IS THAT VOTERS WILL GO TO THE 
BALLOT BOX IN 10 MONTHS AND 
THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO EVALUATE EVERYTHING THEY 
KNOW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, BOTH 
IN THIS INSTANCE AND EVERYTHING 
HE HAS DONE AND MAKE AN 
INFORMED DECISION ABOUT THAT.  
THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY IN 
DEFENSE OF HIS CONDUCT, JUST 
AGAINST HIS REMOVAL THROUGH 
THESE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS ONE 
OF THE WAYS THAT THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS ATTACKING IT.  
I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE 
ENTIRELY CONFIDENT IN THE 
ARGUMENT BUT THEY ARE CONFIDENT 
IN OFFERING THAT IS A BROADER 
PACKAGE OF ARGUMENTS THEY ARE 
BRINGING TO REPUBLICANS TO 
CONVINCE ENOUGH OF THEM TO HOLD 
OFF, HOLD THE LINE ON NO 
WITNESSES AND NO ADDITIONAL 
EVIDENCE AND THEN POTENTIALLY 
ABLE TO ACQUIT TOMORROW OR 
SATURDAY.  
>> SENATOR IS SPEAKING, WANT TO 
HEAR WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY.  
>> EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE TWO COUNTRIES AND SOME OF 
THE PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND WITH 
THIS WHOLE SCHEME.  
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THEIR 
POSITION THAT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID WITH REGARD TO 
THIS CAUSE WAS PERFECTLY OKAY 
AND THE EVIDENCE IS NOT -- THAT 
IT IS NOT OKAY AND I WANT TO 
GET TO THE ALTERNATIVES HERE.  
IN THE SAME THEORY, OR ARGUMENT 
THAT WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT 
DOES IS OKAY.  
AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ AS PART OF 
THEIR TEAM SAYS TO ME THAT  
THEY ACTUALLY STAND BY THAT 
ARGUMENT, WHICH IS THE ARGUMENT 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT HE 
CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS UNDER 
ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION 
AND I SAY WE ARE WATCHING THE 
CROWNING OF THE PRESIDENT WITH 
MITCH McCONNELL HOLDING THE 
CROWN, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE 
WATCHING.  
>> IF REPUBLICANS DEFEAT THE 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES, SHOULD 
DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO KIND OF 
FIGHT THIS OUT AND SEE HOW MUCH 
FURTHER THEY CAN DRAG THE 
TRIAL? 
OR, IN YOUR VIEW, WOULD THIS BE 
SUCH A FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR 
SITUATION, SORT OF LIKE LYING 
ABOUT IT ? 
>> YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE A 
ARGUMENT, BUT AT SOME POINT WE 
ARE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE AND 
MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO 
TAKE THE VOTE WHEN HE SAYS HE 
HAS ENOUGH VOTES AND THAT IS 
KIND OF WHERE IT IS BUT WE ALL 
KNOW THAT THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY 
A RIGGED TRIAL AND IT IS NOT 
FAIR.  
WE WILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT.  
IF THEY THINK THIS IS THE END 
OF THE WHOLE THING FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP,  THERE IS 
EVIDENCE THAT WE SUSPECT WILL 
CONTINUE TO TRICKLE OUT, 
BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE HAS GOT 
TO BE MEMOS OUT THERE WITH OMB, 
WITH POMPEO, WITH TAYLOR.  
THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE OUT 
THERE.  
BECAUSE, REMEMBER, DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SOME 
90,000 DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED. 
THERE HAS GOT TO BE A LOT OF 
DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO WHAT 
WAS GOING ON WITH THE SCHEME.  
A LOT OF EMAILS GOING ON.  
A LOT OF DOCUMENTS 
>>> THE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH 
BASICALLY POTENTIALLY EXPOSING 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
IT IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR 
THAT NAME NOT TO HAVE COME OUT. 
I'M GLAD THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUST SAID I'M NOT DOING IT. 
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE 
PREDICT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
IDENTITY. 
THIS PERSON HAS ALREADY BEEN 
THREATENED. 
SOME RIGHT WING ENTITIES THAT 
ARE OUT THERE PUSHING OUT THE 
NAME. 
WE HAVE LAWS THAT PROTECT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
NOT TO MENTION BY THE WAY WE 
KEEP SAYING THE WHISTLE-
BLOWER'S TESTIMONY OR WHATEVER 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS TO 
PROVIDE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. 
WHAT SHOULD OVERRIDE IS THE 
NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-
BLOWER SO THAT WE'RE NOT 
PUTTING OUT THE MESSAGE TO ALL 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS OUT THERE. 
DON'T COME FORWARD BECAUSE 
YOU'RE GOING TO GET SMASHED, 
ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT. 
BOY, THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR 
COUNTRY. 
>> WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING 
OF HOW DEMOCRATS WILL PROCEED 
TOMORROW IF THERE IS A VOTE NOT 
TO CALL WITNESSES. 
WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? 
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO CHANGE THAT 
OR ADVANCE YOUR OWN CAUSE? 
>> I WOULD SAY THERE'S ALWAYS 
ALL OF YOU FOLKS. 
YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY I 
CONTINUE TO TALK. 
PROCEDURALLY THEY HAVE THE 
VOTES. 
PROCEDURALLY THEY CAN CONTINUE 
TO PUSH FORWARD THIS TRIAL. 
THERE YOU HAVE IT. 
HE CAN COUNT THE VOTES. 
HE KNOWS WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO. 
THIS IS WHY HE TOOK THE LAST 
DAY OR SO TO PUT PRESSURE ON 
THE CAUCUS SO THERE WOULD NOT 
BE THE FOURTH VOTE COMING 
FORWARD. 
>> YOU'RE SAYING THEY HAVE THE 
VOTES TO BLOCK  -- . 
>> I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED. 
WE'RE STILL HOPING. 
THAT'S WHAT WE DO AROUND HERE. 
CLEARLY IF WE ACTUALLY GET THE 
FORTH VOTE SO WE OVERCOME THE 
VOTE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE 
WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE 
WITNESSES, IF WE HAVE THE 
FOURTH VOTE THERE, THERE WILL 
BE MOTIONS TO CALL CERTAIN 
PEOPLE FOR WITNESSES. 
WE'LL GET THOSE MOTIONS. 
WE WON'T, IT WILL BE THE 
MANAGERS AND TRUMP TEAM. 
WE SHALL SEE. 
THE CRITICAL VOTE IN MY VIEW IS 
WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE 
WITNESSES. 
I THINK IT'S A SAD DAY WHEN YOU 
CAN FIND THREE COURAGEOUS 
REPUBLICANS TO FIND WHAT IS 
HAPPENING IS WRONG AND YOU 
CAN'T HAVE A PRESIDENT RUNNING 
AROUND THINKING HE IS THE KING. 
THIS IS WHY I SAY WE ARE 
WITNESSING, IN THE LAST SEVERAL 
DAYS, THE CORONATION OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AS KING. 
HE LOVES IT. 
>> IS THERE A FEELING THAT'S 
HOW THIS IS GOING? 
>> I WANT TO GET ZEKE TO 
COMMENT ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN 
HEARING FROM SENATOR MAZIE. 
SHE'S SAYING THIS A CORONATION 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MITCH 
MCCONNEL IS HOLDING THE CROWN. 
SHE SAYS THIS IS AN INSANE 
THEORY THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
DOES IS OKAY. 
FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION THAT 
KEIR AND I WERE HAVING EARLIER. 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE, HOW MUCH 
ARE FOLKS TALKING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT THAT THIS COULD 
POTENTIALLY SET? 
>> NOT MUCH AT ALL FROM A WHITE 
HOUSE SUBPOENAED. 
A WIN IS A WIN. 
THIS IS TRYING TO GIVE THE 
PRESIDENT THAT VINDICATION HE 
WANTED SINCE THIS PROCESS 
BEGAN. 
FROM THE STANDPOINT, I'M SURE 
SOME OF THE LAWYERS ARE WORRIED 
ABOUT PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 
SET. 
THERE WAS DISCOMFORT EARLIER 
WITH ALAN'S ARGUMENT, THE 
BREATH AND EXTENT OF THAT 
ARGUMENT EXTENDED AS FAR AS WE 
HEARD. 
DEMOCRATS THE ARGUED IT COULD 
BE EXTEND. 
FROM THIS STANDPOINT, THIS IS A 
WHITE HOUSE ALL THE WAY THROUGH 
THE ADMINISTRATION CONSISTENTLY 
ADVOCATED FOR EXPANSE OF 
EXECUTIVE POWERS. 
THE ARGUMENTS WE HEARD ON THE 
SENATE FLOOR ARE IN LINE WITH 
THAT. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S 
BELIEF IN PART OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE THAT ONCE THE PRESIDENT 
IS ACQUITTED THE PRESIDENT 
WON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHETHER 
THIS IS A CORONATION OR SENATE 
TRIAL OR OTHER TALKING POINTS 
WE'RE HEARING OVER THE NEXT 
COUPLE DAYS. 
THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL MOVE ON. 
>> WE'VE BEEN SEEING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
HE'S CAMPAIGNING RIGHT NOW. 
WE KNOW FROM THE RNC THEY SAY 
THIS HAS BEEN TREMENDOUSLY 
BENEFICIAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. 
ZEKE, THERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP USE A WIN, 
AN ACQUITTAL TO PUSH HIS RE-
ELECTION FORWARD? 
DOES IT GIVE HIM ROCKET FUEL? 
>> HOW MANY WITNESSES ARE 
PRESENTED TO THE SENATE AT THIS 
TRIAL? 
HOW MANY PAGES  DOCUMENTARY 
EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE 
RECORD BEFORE THE SENATE AND 
THIS TRIAL? 
HOW MANY OTHER TRANSCRIPTS OF 
EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO 
THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
RECOGNIZE THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE 
NEED FOR WITNESSES. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT 
WITNESSES. 
YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF WITNESSES. 
THERE WERE 17 WITNESSES WHO 
WERE DEPOSED AND TESTIFIED IN 
PUBLIC. 
12 IN PUBLIC, 17 WHO WERE IN 
CLOSED HEARINGS BELOW. 
SO FAR YOU'VE SEEN IN 
PRESENTATIONS 192 VIDEO CLIPS 
FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES. 
TESTIMONY WAS SHOWN HERE TO YOU 
JUST AS YOU WOULD IN A TRIAL 
AND ORDINARY COURTS SOMETIMES 
PLAY THE VIDEO OF THE 
CAPITALIZATION INSTEAD OF 
HAVING THE WITNESS TAKE THE 
STAND. 
YOU'VE SEEN VIDEO CLIPS FROM 13 
WITNESSES. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DRAMATICALLY 
WHEELED INTO THE SENATE A 
RECORD REPORTED AS BEING 29,000 
PAGES. 
I THINK THE MORE OFFICIAL 
NUMBER IS 28,578 PAGES. 
YOU'VE GOT OVER 38,000 PAGES OF 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED INTO THE 
RECORD, PROVISIONALLY IN 
EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL, SUBJECT 
LATER TO POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS 
FOR HEAR SAY AND OTHER 
OBJECTIONS. 
YOU'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS 
PRESENTED WITH THE PRESENTATION 
OF BOTH THE DOCUMENTARY AND 
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE BY CLIPS 
AND SLIDES PUT UP. 
WE DIDN'T TAKE ALL OF OUR TIME. 
HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUED OVER 21 
HOURS PUTTING ON VIDEO CLIPS 
AND EXCERPTS FROM DOCUMENTS IN 
THE RECORD THEIR CASE. 
AT THIS POINT, THERE HAS BEEN A 
LOT PUT ON HERE IN TERMS OF A 
TRIAL. 
OU'VE SEEN THE  
THE CLIPS, ALL THE MOST 
RELEVANT PARTS THE. 
YOU'VE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS PUT 
UP IN EXCERPTS ON THE SCREENS. 
AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN BEFORE THEY 
CAME HERE, THEY SAID THEY HAD 
AN OVERWHELMING CASE. 
IT WAS ALREADY BUTTONED DOWN. 
THEY DIDN'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE. 
THEY SAID WHEN THEY GOT HERE 
THAT IT WAS PROVEN. 
EVERY SINGLE ALLEGATION AND 
EVERY LINE IN EACH ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT THEY SAID PROVEN, 
PROVEN, PROVEN. 
WE DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. 
THAT'S THEIR WORDS. 
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU 
THAT THEY'VE HAD SUFFICIENT 
EVIDENCE TO MAKE THEIR CASE. 
THEY SAID PROVEN, SUFFICIENT, 
UNCONTESTED AND OVERWHELMING AT 
LEAST 68 TIMES IN THE 
PROCEEDINGS ON THE FLOOR HERE. 
MANAGER NADLER TOLD US JUST 
TODAY THAT THEY THINK THEY'VE 
NOT ONLY PROVED IT BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BEYOND ANY 
DOUBT BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE 
THEY'VE PUT ON IN FRONT OF YOU. 
WE DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. 
WE THINK WE DEMONSTRATED IT'S 
NOT. 
BUT THE POINT IS THAT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE ALREADY PUT ON A 
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF 
TESTIMONY. 
THEY'VE ALREADY PRESENTED TO 
YOU A LARGE PORTION OF THE MOST 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
28,000. 
YOU HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES. 
YOU'VE SEEN WHERE THEIR 
TESTIMONY CONFLICTS. 
YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS THE BETTER 
OR MORE PERSUASIVE VERSION OF 
THE FACTS. 
YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE  WHAT 
IT IS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE 
RECORD THAT THEY SAY WAS 
OVERWHELMING. 
ALREADY READY TO GO TO TRIAL. 
THIS PROCEEDING THEREFORE HAS 
ALREADY HAD A LOT OF EARMARKS 
OF A TRIAL. 
SO DON'T BE TAKEN IN BY THE 
IDEA WE CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL 
HERE, CAN'T HAVE A VALID 
PROCEEDING UNLESS THEY BRING 
SOMEONE IN HERE TO TESTIFY 
LIVE. 
BECAUSE PIT WOULDN'T BE JUST 
ONE PERSON. 
IF WE START TO GO DOWN THAT 
ROUTE, IT'S NOT PRESENTING THE 
CASE THAT WAS PREPARED IN THE 
HEARINGS BELOW. 
IT'S OPENING UP DISCOVERY FOR 
AN ENTIRELY NEW CASE. 
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE 
DEPOSITIONS AND WITNESSES ON 
BOTH SIDES. 
THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THAT IF 
THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE 
TELLING YOU, IT'S ALREADY 
OVERWHELMING, ALREADY PROVEN. 
THERE'S NO NEED TO GO ONTO 
ANYTHING ELSE WHEN YOU'VE SEEN 
SO MUCH. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THEIR 
CASE AND CHANCE TO PREPARE 
THEIR CASE. 
AGAIN, I WOULD ALSO JUST MAKE 
THE POINT TO BEAR IN MIND WHAT 
IS THE PRECEDENT SET IF THIS 
CHAMBER HAS TO BE THE 
INVESTIGATION BODY FOR THE 
HOUSE? 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU  COUNSEL. 
>> I PRESENT A QUESTION ON 
BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS 
MANCHIN, COLLINS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> THE QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS 
CINEMA AND OTHER SENATORS FOR 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
THE LOGAN ACT PROHIBITS ANY 
U.S. CITIZEN WITHOUT THE 
AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES FROM 
COMMUNICATING WITH ANY FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT WITH THE INTENT TO 
INFLUENCE THAT GOVERNMENT'S 
CONDUCT IN RELATION TO ANY 
CONTROVERSY WITH THE UNITED 
STATES. 
WILL THE PRESIDENT ASSURE THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT PRIVATE 
CITIZENS WILL NOT BE DIRECTED 
TO CONDUCT AMERICAN FOREIGN 
POLICY OR NATIONAL SECURITY 
POLICY UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN 
SPECIFICALLY AND FORMALLY 
DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT AND 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
LET ME PREFACE AND ANSWER IN 
SEVERAL PARTS. 
THE FIRST IS I WANT TO MAKE 
CLEAR THERE WAS NO CONDUCT OF 
FOREIGN POLICY BEING CARRIED ON 
HERE BY A PRIVATE PERSON. 
THE TESTIMONY WAS CLEAR FROM 
AMBASSADOR AND I ASSUME IT 
WOULD BE TO MR. GIULIANI, 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
MR. VOLKER WAS CLEAR HE 
UNDERSTOOD GIULIANI TO BE A 
SOURCE FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
SOMEONE THAT SPOKE TO UKRAINE 
AND KNEW THE PRESIDENT. 
THE FACT IT WAS UKRAINIANS WHO 
ASKED TO BE CONNECTED TO MR. 
GIULIANI BECAUSE HE WAS SOMEONE 
THAT COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION 
TO THE PRESIDENT. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED IT 
WAS NOT HIS UNDERSTANDING. 
HE DID NOT BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI 
WAS CARRYING OUT POLICY 
DIRECTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT BUT 
RATHER INDICATING HIS VIEWS OF 
WHAT HE THOUGHT WOULD BE USEFUL 
FOR UKRAINIANS TO CONVINCE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THEIR 
ANTICORRUPTION. 
I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. 
IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY TO 
ABIDE BY THE LAWS. 
I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE 
PLEDGES FOR THE PRESIDENT HERE, 
BUT THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY IS 
ALWAYS TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS. 
WE CONTINUE TO DO SO. 
IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT THAT 
MANY PRESIDENTS, STARTING WITH 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAVE 
RELIED ON PERSONS WHO ARE THEIR 
TRUSTED CONFIDANTS BUT WHO ARE 
NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOYEES OF THE 
GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST IN THE 
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN DIPLOMACY. 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON RELIED ON 
MORRIS TO CARRY MESSAGES IN 
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE 
FRENCH. 
FDR HAD CONFIDANTS TO GO 
BETWEEN FOREIGN POWERS. 
THERE'S A LIST OF OTHERS 
MENTIONED IN TESTIMONY DURING 
THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. 
I DON'T THINK THERE IS 
ANYTHING, AGAIN AS I SAID IT 
WAS NOT HERE. 
THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING 
IMPROPER FOR A SUSPECT IN 
CIRCUMSTANCES TO RELY ON A 
PERSONAL  
CONFIDANT TO CONVEY OR RECEIVE 
MESSAGES BACK AND FORTH FROM A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD 
RELATE TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 
THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED. 
WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION, UNDER ARTICLE 2. 
THANK YOU. 
>>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
>> YOUR HONOR, SENATOR FROM 
LOUISIANA. 
THANK YOU YOUR HONOR. 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ERNST, 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR MR. NADLER AND MR. PHILBI. 
>>> FOR BOTH PARTIES THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WILL BE FIRST. 
IF THE PRESIDENT ASKS FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION BY POLITICAL RIVAL 
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT 
OBJECTIVELY ARE IN THE NATIONAL 
INTERESTS, SHOULD THE PRESIDENT 
BE IMPEACHED IF THE MAJORITY OF 
THE HOUSE BELIEVES THE 
PRESIDENT DID IT FOR THE WRONG 
REASON? 
>> THE PRESIDENT OF COURSE IS 
ENTITLED TO CONDUCT OUR FOREIGN 
POLICY, ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO 
CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES 
OR ELSEWHERE, IS ENTITLED TO 
USE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR 
ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT FOR THAT 
HAS PURPOSE. 
HE'S NOT ENTITLED TO TARGET AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN SPECIFICALLY, 
NOR DID HE DO SO INNOCENTLY 
HERE. 
IT WAS ONLY AFTER MR. BIDEN 
BECAME ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE FOR 
PRESIDENT HE SUDDENLY DECIDED 
UKRAINE OUGHT TO LOOK INTO THE 
BIDENS. 
HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE 
WASN'T INTERESTED IN AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
HE WANT INTERESTED IN THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION JUST SO THE 
BIDENS COULD BE SMEARED. 
IT'S PROBABLY NEVER SUITABLE 
FOR A PRESIDENT TO ORDER AN 
INVESTIGATION OF AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN. 
IF HE THINKS IT'S GENERAL 
CORRUPTION AND THERE'S AN 
INVESTIGATION ONGOING, THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN ASK A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR 
ASSISTANCE IN THAT 
INVESTIGATION. 
THAT WASN'T DONE HERE. 
THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY 
TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL WITH AN 
OBVIOUS POLITICAL MOTIVE. 
I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT THAT IS 
SO CLEAR. 
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT WAS 
A POLITICAL MOTIVE AGAINST 
SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS. 
THERE'S 1.8 MILLION COMPANIES 
IN UKRAINE. 
THE ESTIMATES WERE THAT HALF 
WERE CORRUPT. 
THE PRESIDENT CHOSE ONE. 
THE ONE WITH MR. BIDEN. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO, 
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED. 
I THINK THAT THE FOCUS OF THE 
QUESTION IS GETTING TO A 
SITUATION OF MIXED MOTIVES 
WHICH HAS COME UP A COUPLE 
TIMES. 
IF THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HEAD OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS IN A 
SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A 
LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION TO BE 
PURSUED AND HE INDICATES THAT 
IT SHOULD BE PURSUED, IS IT 
POSSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED FOR THAT IF THERE'S 
SOME DISPUTE ABOUT MOTIVES 
WHERE THERE'S A LEGITIMATE 
BASIS FOR THAT CONDUCT? 
THE ANSWER IS NO. 
THE HOUSE MANAGE HERS 
THEMSELVES AND THE WAY THEY 
FRAMED THEIR CASE RECOGNIZED 
THIS. 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT, 
THEY REPEATEDLY SAY THE 
STANDARD THEY'RE GOING TO MEET 
IS THESE ARE SHAM 
INVESTIGATIONS, BASELESS 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY'RE 
ALLEGING THE PRESIDENT WANTED 
TO INVESTIGATION. 
THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S PAGE 
FIVE OF THE REPORT. 
THEY USE THAT STANDARD AND 
TALKED ABOUT THERE NOT BEEN 
SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE FOR 
ANYTHING ANYONE WOULD WANT TO 
ASK ABOUT. 
THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T GET IN A 
MIXED MOTIVE SCENARIO. 
IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE BASIS 
FOR ASKING ABOUT SOMETHING, IF 
THERE'S A LEGITIMATE BASIS 
THERE, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO GET 
TO THE FIELD OF SAYING WE'RE 
GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, 
REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE BY 
PUTTING HIM ON THE PSYCHIATRIST 
COUCH AND TRYING TO GET IN HIS 
HEAD. 
WAS IT 42% THIS MOTIVE AND 52% 
THE OTHER? 
NO, IF IT'S A LEGITIMATE 
INQUIRY IN THE NATIONAL 
INTERESTS, THAT'S THE END OF 
IT. 
YOU CAN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, 
DECAPITATE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OF THE GOVERNMENT, DISCORRUPT 
GOVERNING OF THE COUNTRY IN AN 
ELECTION YEAR TRYING TO PARSE 
OUT SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES IN WHICH 
THE PERCENTAGE WAS WAS THIS 
GOOD OR SOME OTHER MOTIVE. 
IF IT'S A LEGITIMATE INQUIRY IN 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST, IF THAT 
POSSIBLE IS THERE, IF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST IS THERE, 
THAT'S THE END OF IT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
I HAVEN'T SPECIFIED THIS 
BEFORE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE 
BEST IF SENATORS DIRECTED THEIR 
QUESTIONS TO ONE OF THE PARTIES 
OR BOTH AND LEAVE IT UP TO THEM 
FOR WHO THEY WANT TO GO UP TO 
BAT RATHER THAN PARTICULAR 
COUNSELS. 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS? 
>> . 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
DURBIN TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
ANSWER GIVEN BY PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL TO  SENATOR CINEMA'S 
QUESTION. 
>> THE SENATOR AND CHIEF 
JUSTICE, ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
WE HEARD A RATHER BREATHTAKING 
ADMISSION BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER. 
IT WAS SAID IN AN UNDERSTATED 
WAY. 
YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT. 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
SAID WAS THAT NO FOREIGN FOLLOW 
SAY WAS CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE 
PARTY HERE. 
THAT IS RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT 
CONDUCTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT 
CONDUCTING POLICY. 
THAT IS A REMARKABLE ADMISSION 
BECAUSE TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY 
HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUGGEST OR 
CLAIM OR INSINUATE THIS IS A 
POLICY DIFFERENCE, CONCERN OVER 
BURDEN SHARING OR SOMETHING 
CORRUPTION WAS A POLICY ISSUE. 
THEY HAVE NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THE 
THAT THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF 
THIS WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY. 
THAT IS A STARTLING ADMISSION. 
SO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
GIULIANI WAS CHARGED WITH 
TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE INTO JOE BIDEN INTO 
THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THEORY, 
THEY HAVE JUST ADMITTED THEY 
WERE NOT PART OF POLICY. 
THEY WERE NOT POLICY CONDUCTED 
BY MR. GIULIANI. 
SO WHAT WERE THEY? 
THEY WERE IN THE WORDS OF DR. 
HILL A DOMESTIC POLITICALLER 
RAND NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 
POLICY. 
THEY HAVE JUST UNDERMINED THEIR 
ENTIRE ARGUMENT EVEN AS TO 
MIXED MOTIVES BECAUSE THE MAN 
IN CHARGE OF IT WAS UNDERGOING 
A DOMESTIC  --  YOU HEARD 
GIULIANI WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE 
HE WAS BEING ASKED. 
THAT IS LAUGHABLE. 
GIULIANI TRIED TO GET THE 
MEETING WITH ZELENSKY. 
REMEMBER? 
HE COULDN'T GET IN THE DOOR. 
THEN HE ANNOUNCED THAT THERE 
ARE ENEMIES AROUND ZELENSKY. 
THEN THEY GO TO THE PHONE CALL 
JULY 25th, UKRAINIANS TRY TO 
PERSUADE THE PRESIDENT. 
YOU DON'T HAVE ENEMIES. 
WHAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S 
RESPONSE? 
I WANT YOU TO TALK TO RUDY. 
THAT'S NOT POLICY BEING 
CONDUCTED. 
THAT'S A PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ERRAND. 
THEY UNDERMINED THEIR ENTIRE 
ARGUMENT. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ALSO 
ESSENTIALLY ARGUES IN  TERMS OF 
WITNESSES. 
IF THEIR CASE IS AS STRONG AS 
MR. SCHIFF, NADLER AND OTHERS 
SAY, WHY DO THEY NEED 
WITNESSES? 
YOU IMAGINE SITTING IN ANY 
COURTROOM IN AMERICA WHERE 
BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS, 
DEFENSE COUNSEL STANDS UP AND 
SAYS YOUR HONOR, IF THE 
PROSECUTION CASE IS SO STRONG, 
LET THEM PROVE IT WITHOUT 
WITNESSES. 
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S 
ARGUED HERE. 
I WILL MAKE AN OFFER TO 
OPPOSING COUNSEL WHO HAVE SAID 
THIS WILL STRETCH ON 
INDEFINITELY IF YOU HAVE A 
SINGLE WITNESS. 
LET'S CABIN THE DEPOSITIONS TO 
ONE WEEK. 
IN THE CLINTON TRIAL, THERE WAS 
ONE WEEK OF DEPOSITIONS. 
YOU KNOW WHAT THE SENATE DID 
DURING THAT WEEK? 
THEY DID THE BUSINESS OF THE 
SENATE. 
THE SENATE WENT BACK TO ITS 
ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 
WHILE THE DEPOSITIONS WERE 
BEING CONDUCTED. 
YOU WANT THE CLINTON MODEL? 
LET'S TAKE THE CLINTON MODEL 
AND TAKE A WEEK TO HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR BUSINESS. 
WE CAN GET THE BUSINESS OF THE 
COUNTRY DONE. 
IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK IN THE 
NAME OF FAIRNESS THAT WE FOLLOW 
THE CLINTON MODEL AND TAKE ONE 
WEEK? 
ARE WE REALLY DRIVEN BY THE 
TIMING OF THE STATE OF THE 
UNION? 
SHOULD THAT BE A GUARDING 
PRINCIPLE? 
CAN'T WE TAKE ONE WEEK TO HEAR 
FROM THESE WITNESSES? 
I THINK WE CAN. 
I THINK WE SHOULD. 
I THINK WE MUST. 
.
>> MANAGER? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND TO 
THE DESK A QUESTION SUBMITTED 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
SHOTS DIRECTED TO BOTH THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
MURKOWSKI AND SHOTS DIRECTED TO 
BOTH PARTIES. 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT ALMOST ANY 
, A PRESIDENT TAKES OR INDEED 
ANY ACTION THE FAST MAJORITY OF 
POLITICIANS TAKE IS TO ONE 
DEGREE OR ANOTHER INHERITTEDLY 
POLITICAL. 
WHERE'S THE LINE BETWEEN 
POLITICAL ACTIONS AND 
IMPEACHABLE POLITICAL ACTIONS? 
COUNSEL WILL GO FIRST. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK THAT HITS THE NAIL ON 
THE HEAD. 
I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY. 
IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, 
ELECTED OFFICIALS ALMOST ALWAYS 
HAVE AT LEAST ONE EYE LOOKING 
ONTO THE NEXT ELECTION AND HOW 
THEIR ACTIONS, THEIR POLICY 
DECISIONS, THEIR ACTIONS IN 
OFFICE WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE 
ELECTORAT. 
THERE'SNOTHING WRONG WITH 
THAT. 
IT'S GOOD AND PART OF THE WAY 
DEMOCRACY WORKS. 
HAVING PART OF YOUR MOTIVES 
LOOKING TOWARDS THE NEXT 
ELECTION, LOOKING TOWARDS HOW 
THAT WILL AFFECT ELECTORAL 
CHANCES, THAT'S PART OF THE 
NATURE OF ELECTED OFFICE. 
TO START GETTING INTO MOTIVES 
ABOUT WILL THIS AFFECT MY 
PROSPECTS IN THE NEXT ELECTION 
AND CALLING THAT CORRUPT. 
IF YOU'VE GOT THAT AS PART OF 
THE MOTIVE LOOKING INTO WHETHER 
YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR 
ELECTORAL ADVANTAGE IS VERY 
DANGEROUS. 
THERE'S ALMOST NO WAY TO GET 
INSIDE SOMEONE'S HEAD AND 
PARCEL OUT WHICH PERCENTAGE WAS 
ONE MOTIVE, WHICH PERCENTAGE 
WAS ANOTHER MOTIVE. 
IF YOU START DOWN THAT PATH, 
IT'S TOTALLY. THAT'S WHAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS SUGGESTED THAT 
WE'RE ASSUMING THERE'S AN ACT 
ON ITS FACE THAT IS LEGITIMATE, 
WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S 
AUTHORITY. 
IT'S NOT ON ITS FACE, IN ANY 
WAY UNLAWFUL OR 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
SOLELY BASED ON MOTIVE, WE'RE 
GOING TO IMPEACH  HIM. 
SAYING IF IT WAS DIRECT ADD AT 
THE TIME NEXT ELECTION, THAT'S 
THE CORRECT MOTIVE. 
THAT'S A DANGEROUS PATH. 
THERE'S ALWAYS SOME EYE TO THE 
NEXT ELECTION. 
IT ENDS UP BECOMING A STANDARD 
SO MILLIONABLE THAT IT'S SO 
MALIBLE. 
IF YOU BASE SOMETHING ON MOTIVE 
BECAUSE OF MA LIGAMENT MA 
MALIGNITY OF MOTIVES, THE OTHER 
PARTY WILL ALWAYS HAVE BAD 
MOTIVES. 
>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES 
THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE 
INHERENTLY POLITICAL ANIMALS. 
I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A 
DEROGATORY TERMS. 
THEY RUN FOR OFFICE, HOLD 
OFFICE, CONDUCT ACTS AS 
POLITICAL FIGURES. 
IF WE LOOK AT WHAT HAMILTON HAD 
TO SAY, HE TALKED ABOUT CRIMES 
BEING POLITICAL IN CHARACTER 
AND REMEDIES BEING POLITICAL IN 
CHARACTER. 
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
IMPRISONMENT HERE, TAKING AWAY. 
EVERYONE IN OFFICE HAS A 
POLITICAL MOTIVATION. 
CERTAINLY THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE 
CAN'T DRAW A LINE BETWEEN 
CORRUPT ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN YES 
FOR A POLITICAL REASON AND 
NONCORRUPT ACTIVITY. 
INDEED WE HAVE TO DRAW THAT 
LINE. 
LET'S SHOW WHAT PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ HAD TO SAY ABOUT 
WHERE WE SHOULD DRAW THE LINE. 
>> IF AMENT 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. 
THE FACT THAT HE'S ANNOUNCED 
HIS CANDIDACY IS A VERY GOOD 
REASON FOR UPPING THE INTEREST 
IN HIS SIGHT. 
IF HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT, HE'S A HASBEEN, 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, BIG DEAL. 
IF HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, 
THAT'S AN ENORMOUS BIG DEAL. 
>> IT'S TRUE WHEN PUBLIC 
OFFICIALS TAKE,  S, THEY MAY 
HAVE IN MIND WHAT'S THE IMPACT 
ON MY POLITICAL CAREER GOING TO 
BE? 
OR IMPACT ON MY RE-ELECTION 
PROSPECTS? 
THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION 
THAN WHETHER THEY CAN ENGAGE IN 
A CORRUPT ACT TO HELP THEIR 
ELECTION, IN THIS CASE TO GET 
FOREIGN HELP TO CHEAT AN 
ELECTION. 
I THINK WE CAN DISTINGUISH 
BETWEEN THE TWO. 
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE WOULD 
ARGUE IF HE BELIEVES IT'S IN 
HIS RE-ELECTION INTEREST, NO 
QUID PRO QUO IS TOO CORRUPT. 
IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, 
THERE'S NO LIMIT TO WHAT THIS 
OR ANY PRESIDENT CAN DO. 
THERE'S NO LIMIT TO  WHAT 
FOREIGN POWERS CAN FEEL. 
THEY CAN OFFER A CORRUPT 
PRESIDENT TO HELP THEIR RE-
ELECTION IF THAT IS THE PRESENT 
WE INTEND TO ESTABLISH. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
>> SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING 
INVESTIGATIONS FROM A FOREIGN 
POWER BASED PARTLY ON WHAT 
FIONA HILL CALLED QUOTE, A 
FICTIONAL NARRATIVE PROPAGATED 
BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY 
SERVICES, END QUOTE. 
THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
HAS WARNED THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY PREPARING 
TO ATTACK OUR ELECTION IN 2020 
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID 
PUBLICLY HE WOULD WELCOME 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS. 
WHY SHOULD AMERICANS BE 
CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE AND WHY DOES IT 
MAT THEIR THE PRESIDENT 
CONTINUES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
LET'S OUTLINE THE FACTS THAT WE 
DO KNOW ABOUT TODAY. 
NONE OF THE 17 WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED  IS PART OF THE 
HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
WE'RE AWARE OF FACTUAL BASIS TO 
SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT IT 
WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER RAY 
NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY 
STATED AS RECENTLY AS THIS PAST 
DECEMBER THAT WE HAVE NO REASON 
TO BELIEVE THAT UKRAINE 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. 
ELECTION. 
HE SAID, QUOTE, WE HAVE NO 
INFORMATION THAT INDICATES 
UKRAINE INTERFERED WITH THE 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN HOMELAND 
SECURITY ADVISOR TOM BOSSERT 
SAID, QUOTE, IT'S NOT ONLY A 
CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT'S 
COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, END QUOTE. 
HE ADDED, QUOTE, LET ME JUST 
REPEAT HERE AGAIN. 
IT HAS NO VALIDITY, END QUOTE. 
OF COURSE MISS HILL AS THE 
QUESTION INDICATED SAID, QUOTE, 
FICTIONAL NARRATIVE PROPAGATED 
BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY 
SERVICES THEMSELVES. 
THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
HAS UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT 
THERE'S NO VALIDITY TO THIS. 
OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT. 
SPECIAL COUNCIL MUELLER FOUND 
THE RUSSIANS INTERFERENCE WAS 
QUOTE, SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. 
DON'T TAKE OUR OWN LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITIES WORD FOR IT. 
LET'S HEAR WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN 
HIMSELF SAID RECENTLY ABOUT 
THIS. 
IN NOVEMBER OF 2019, MR. PUTIN 
WAS OVERHEARD SAYING, QUOTE, 
THANK GOD NO ONE IS ACCUSING OF 
US INTERFERING IN THE U.S. 
ELECTIONS ANYMORE. 
NOW THEY'RE ACCUSING UKRAINE, 
END QUOTE. 
LET ME END WITH THAT ONE. 
THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY 
THIS MATTERS. 
THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY 
ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD MATTER. 
VLADIMIR PUTIN COULD CARE LESS 
ABOUT DELIVERING HEALTH CARE 
FOR THE PEOPLE OF RUSSIA, 
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN 
RUSSIA. 
VLADIMIR PUTIN AS MANY PEOPLE 
IN THIS CHAMBER KNOW WELL 
BECAUSE I'VE WORKED WITH YOU ON 
THIS, WAKES UP EVERY MORNING 
AND GOES TO BED EVERY NIGHT 
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO 
DESTROY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 
HE'S ORGANIZED THE 
INFRASTRUCTURE OF HIS 
GOVERNMENT AROUND THAT EFFORT. 
THIS IS A BATTLE OVER RESOLVE. 
IT'S THE BATTLE OVER THE HEARTS 
AND MINDS OF OUR PEOPLE. 
IT'S THE BATTLE OVER 
INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION. 
IF THE MESSAGE FROM THE VERY 
TOP OF OUR GOVERNMENT FROM THE 
TOP OF OUR LEADERS, IF THE 
MESSAGE FROM SOME FOLKS OVER 
THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS IS THAT 
FACTS DON'T MATTER, THAT OUR 
LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T MATTER, 
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES 
UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS DOESN'T 
MATTER, THAT IS DANGEROUS. 
THAT IS WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN AND 
RUSSIA ARE LOOKING FOR. 
THAT MAKES US LESS SAFE. 
>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. 
>> SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATORS HOLLY, CRUZ, CRAMER, 
BROWN, PURDUE, RUBIO, DANES, 
FISHER FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WITH RESPONSE FROM THE COUNSEL 
OF THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
JOHNSON AND OTHER SENATORS FROM 
BOTH PARTIES. 
RECENT REPORTING DESCRIBED TO 
NSC STAFF HOLDERS FROM THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTENDING 
AN ALL HANDS MEETING OF NSC 
STAFF HELD ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO 
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND 
TALKING LOUDLY ENOUGH TO BE 
OVERHEARD SAYING WE NEED TO DO 
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT 
THE PRESIDENT. 
ON JULY 26, 2019, THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HIRED 
ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS SEAN 
MISCO, THE REPORT FURTHER 
DESCRIBES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 
MISCO, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINMAN AND INDIVIDUAL ALLEGED 
AS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
WHY DID YOUR COMMITTEE HIRE 
SEAN MISCO THE DAY AFTER THE 
PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND ZELENSKY? 
WHAT ROLE HAS HE PLAYED 
THROUGHOUT YOUR COMMITTEE'S 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> THE HOUSE WILL BEGIN. 
>> FIRST OF ALL, THERE HAVE 
BEEN A LOT OF ATTACKS ON MY 
STAFF. 
AS I SAID WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME 
UP EARLIER, I'M APPALLED AT 
SOME OF THE SMEARING OF THE 
PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT WORK 
FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
NOW THIS QUESTION REFERS TO 
ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEWSPAPER 
ARTICLE WHICH ARE CIRCULATING 
SMEARS ON MY STAFF AND ASKING 
ME TO RESPOND TO THOSE SMEARS. 
I WILL NOT DIG ANY DIGNIFY 
THOSE SMEARS. 
I WILL NOT SHARE INFORMATION 
THAT I BELIEVE COULD OR COULD 
NOT LEAD TO INFORMATION ABOUT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT 
SOMETHING. 
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY USE TO 
CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IDENTITIES. 
THEY DIDN'T USE TO ATTACK 
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE STAFF. 
NOW THEY DO. 
NOW THEY DO. 
NOW THEY'LL TAKE AN 
UNSUBSTANTIATED ARTICLE AND USE 
IT TO SMEAR MY STAFF. 
I THINK ITS DISGRACEFUL. 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS ARE A UNIQUE 
AND VITAL RESOURCE FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE UNLIKE OTHER WHISTLE-
BLOWERS THAT CAN GO PUBLIC WITH 
INFORMATION. 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CANNOT 
BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. 
THEY MUST COME TO A COMMITTEE. 
THEY MUST TALK TO THE STAFF OF 
THE COMMITTEE OR INSPECTOR 
GENERAL. 
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO 
DO. 
OUR SYSTEM RELIES UPON IT. 
WHEN YOU JEOPARDIZE A WHISTLE-
BLOWER BY TRYING TO OUT THEM 
THIS WAY, THEN YOU ARE 
THREATENING NOT JUST THIS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT THE ENTIRE 
SYSTEM. 
NOW THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE 
NOTHING BETTER THAN THAT. 
I'M SURE THE PRESIDENT IS 
APPLAUDING THIS QUESTION. 
HE WANTS HIS POUND OF FLESH. 
HE WANTS TO PUNISH ANYONE THAT 
HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO 
HIM. 
I CAN'T HAVE TELL YOU WHO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS BECAUSE I 
DON'T KNOW. 
IT SHOULD BE EVERY ONE OF US. 
EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD BE 
WILLING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. 
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS WHISTLE-
BLOWER, WE WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT 
THIS MISCONDUCT. 
THAT  MIGHT BE JUST AS WELL FOR 
THIS PRESIDENT BUT WOULD NOT BE 
GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY. 
I WORRY FUTURE PEOPLE THAT SEE 
WRONG DOING ARE GOING TO WATCH 
HOW THIS PERSON HAS BEEN 
TREATED, THREATS AGAINST THIS 
PERSON'S LIFE, AND THEY'RE 
GOING TO SAY WHY STICK MY NECK 
OUT? 
IS MY NAME GOING TO BE DRAGGED 
THROUGH THE MUD? 
WILL PEOPLE JOIN OUR STAFF IF 
THEY KNOW CENTER DURING 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
HE TALKED ABOUT THE WHISTLE-
BLOWER
BLOWER
TESTIFYING. 
RETRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED UNDER 
THE STATUTE. 
IN OTHER WORDS THEY'RE NOT 
GOING TO BE FIRED FOR BLOWING 
THE WHISTLE. 
THE IDEA THERE'S COMPLETE 
ANONYMITY. 
ESPECIALLY AFTER MR. SCHIFF 
DENIED THE ? INITIALLY HAD 
STAFF HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. 
IT GOES BACK TO THE WITNESS 
ISSUE. 
I WANT TO GO BACK TO 30 
SECONDS. 
IT SEEMS TO ME THE DISCUSSION 
FOR WITNESSES. 
I HEARD MR. SCHIFF WHAT HE SAID 
ABOUT DOING DEPOSITIONS IN A 
WEEK. 
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS SAID I COULD 
HAVE ANY WITNESSES I WANT. 
IT'S IN THE TRANSCRIPT. 
YOU COULDN'T GET THE WITNESSES 
DONE IN A WEEK AND COULDN'T GET 
THE DISCOVERY DONE IN A WEEK. 
IF IN FACT THEY BELIEVE THEY 
PRESENTED THIS OVERWHELMING 
CASE THEY HAVE, THEY TALK ABOUT 
SMOKE SCREENS. 
THE SMOKE SCREEN HERE IS THAT 
THEY USED 13 OF THEIR 17 
WITNESSES TO TRY TO PROVE THEIR 
CASE. 
WE WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE VERY 
WITNESSES TO UNDERCUT THAT 
CASE. 
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT 
IN PERSPECTIVE. 
THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MURRAY. 
IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO 
OPENLY DEFYING A VALID 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA, HOW 
WILL CONGRESS BE ABLE TO 
PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL 
OVERNIGHT RESPONSIBILITY TO 
MAKE SURE ANY ADMINISTRATION IS 
FOLLOWING THE LAW AND ACTING IN 
THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICAN 
FAMILYIES?
>>> WELL THEY COULD HAVE VERY 
SERIOUS DEVASTATING  , DIRE 
CONSEQUENCES. 
IF THE SENATE IGNORES PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ONGOING OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, IT WOULD LEAD TO END 
OF OVERSIGHT AS WE KNOW IT 
TODAY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS 
ARGUE OUR CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
INVALID UNTIL A COURT 
DETERMINES OTHERWISE. 
THEIR ARGUMENT IS FALSE AND AN 
ATTACK ON CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT POWERS. 
A VOTE AGAINST ARTICLE 2 IS A 
VOTE TO CONDONE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CORRUPTED VIEW OF 
AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL 
BALANCE. 
VOTING AGAINST ARTICLE 2 WILL 
GRANT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERY 
OTHER PRESIDENT FROM NOW UNTIL 
FOREVER THE POWER TO SIMPLY 
IGNORE ALL CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS. 
UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SEEK TO A 
COURT TO ENFORCE IT. 
MR. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW, 
EVEN IF ALL YOU SENATORS WERE 
TO VOTE TO FAVOR TO ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS OR 
WITNESSES, THE ADMINISTRATIONLE 
COULD STILL IGNORE THAT UNTIL A 
COURT RULED ON IT. 
I THINK MR. SCHIFF ADDRESSED 
SOME OF THAT EARLIER IN ANOTHER 
QUESTION. 
YOU COULD GO TO COURT TO 
ENFORCE IT. 
THEN IT WOULD GET APPEALED AND 
GO BACK TO COURT. 
WE COULD GO ON AND ON BECAUSE 
QUITE FRANKLY, THAT'S WHAT 
THEIR POSITION IS. 
AGAIN, AS MR. SCHIFF SAID 
EARLIER, IMAGINE YOURSELVES 
HAVING JURISDICTION OVER AN 
ITEM YOU CARE DEEPLY ABOUT. 
YOU NEEDED INFORMATION. 
YOU HEARD OF WRONG DOING. 
YOU HEARD THERE WAS A WHISTLE-
BLOWER COMPLAINT ON SOMETHING. 
YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO 
DO A HEARING. 
IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD JUST FLATLY 
REFUSE YOUR SUBPOENA BECAUSE IF 
WE IGNORE ARTICLE 2, THAT WOULD 
BE THE PRESIDENT TO IGNORE ALL 
SUBPOENAS. 
WE NEED YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA 
FOR US TODAY NOT ONLY TO GET 
MR. BOLTON HERE BUT MR. DUFFY, 
McVAINNY AND EVERYONE ELSE WITH 
RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE. 
NOW, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION 
EXERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, 
THERE MIGHT BE PRIVILEGE ONE 
THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM ON 
ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS. 
THOSE HAVE TO BE ASSERTED WITH 
EVERY DOCUMENT AS WE SEND A 
SUBPOENA. 
SO DON'T BUY THE WHITE HOUSE 
ARGUMENT THAT OUR SUBPOENAS ARE 
INVALID BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 
ANY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THEM. 
WE KNOW WE DO. 
YOU KNOW WE DO. 
SO LET'S TAKE SURE THIS BODY 
WILL MAKE SURE THAT NO FUTURE 
PRESIDENT WILL JUST SIMPLY 
DEFY, DISRESPECT, IGNORE 
SUBPOENAS BECAUSE SOME DAY YOU 
MAY BE IN OUR SHOES WANTING TO 
GET INFORMATION, WANTING TO GET 
TO THE BOTTOM LINE TO INSURE 
THAT NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE 
LAW. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU MRS. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF, SENATORS BLOUNT, 
KENNEDY, JOHNSON FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FOR SENATOR 
SULLIVAN AND OTHER SENATORS FOR 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
GIVEN THAT THE SENATE IS 
CONSIDERING THE RECORD 
ASSEMBLED AND VOTED ON BY THE 
HOUSE WHICH CHAIRMAN NADLER 
REPEATEDLY CLAIMED CONSTITUTES 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, HOW CAN THE SENATE 
BE ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN WHAT 
MR. NADLER DESCRIBED AS A COVER 
UP. 
IF THE SENATE MAKES A DECISION 
BASED ON THE EXACT SAME EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE RECORD THE HOUSE DID. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
I THINK IT'S RATHER 
PREPOSTEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT 
THIS SENATE WOULD BE ENGAGING 
IN A COVER UP TO RELY ON THE 
SAME RECORD THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE SAID IS OVERWHELMING. 
THEY'VE SAID IT DOZENS OF 
TIMES. 
THEY'VE SAID IN THEIR VIEW 
THEY'VE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE 
PRESENTED ALREADY TO ESTABLISH 
THEIR CASE BEYOND ANY DOUBT NOT 
JUST A BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT. 
IT'S INCOHERENT TO CLAIM AT THE 
SAME TIME IT WOULD BE IMPROPER 
FOR THE SENATE TO RELY ON THAT 
RECORD. 
YOUR JUDGMENT MAY BE AND SHOULD 
BE WE SUBMIT DIFFERENT FROM THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ASSESSMENT OF 
THAT EVIDENCE. 
IT HASN'T ESTABLISHED THE THEIR 
CASE AT ALL. 
IF THEY'RE WILLING TO TELL YOU 
IT'S COMPLETE AND HAS 
EVERYTHING THEY NEED, IT HAS 
EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO 
ESTABLISH EVERYTHING THEY WANT, 
I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THEM AT 
THEIR WORD THAT'S ALL THAT'S 
THERE. 
THE SWITCH NOW TO SAY WE NEED 
MORE WITNESSES, I THINK JUST 
DEMONSTRATES THEY HAVEN'T 
PROVED THEIR CASE. 
THEY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO 
MAKE THEIR CASE. 
AS I WENT THROUGH A MINUTE AGO, 
THEY HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED A 
RECORD WITH OVER 28,000 PAGES 
OF DOCUMENTS THAT'S HERE. 
THEY'VE PRESENTED VIDEO CLIPS 
OF 13 WITNESSES. 
YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF THE KEY 
EVIDENCE THAT THEY GATHERED. 
IT WAS THEIR PROCESS. 
THEY WERE THE ONES THAT SAID 
WHAT THE PROCESS WAS GOING TO 
BE, HOW IT HAD TO BE RUN, WHO 
ARE OUGHT TO TESTIFY AND WHEN 
TO CLOSE IT, WHEN TO DECIDE 
THEY HAD ENOUGH. 
YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE KEY 
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THAT. 
THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS 
BODY TO MAKE A DECISION. 
IN THE TIME I HAVE REMAINING, I 
WANT TO TURN TO ONE POINT IN 
RESPONSE TO SOMETHING SAID A 
COUPLE MINUTES AGO. 
WE KEEP HEARING REPEATEDLY 
TODAY THE REFRAIN OF THE IDEA 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
SOMEHOW TRYING TO PEDAL 
VLADIMIR PUTIN'S CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND 
NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION. 
THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRY TO 
PRESENT THIS BINARY VIEW OF THE 
WORLD. 
ONE COUNTRY AND ONE COUNTRY 
ALONE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING 
TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION 
AND IT WAS RUSSIA. 
IF YOU MENTION ANY OTHER 
COUNTRY DOING SOMETHING RELATED 
TO ELECTION INTERFERENCE, 
YOU'RE JUST A PAWN OF VLADIMIR 
PUTIN TRYING TO PEDDLE 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES. 
THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. 
FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM MORE 
THAN ONE COUNTRY COULD BE DOING 
DIFFERENT THINGS FOR DIFFERENT 
REASONS IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO 
TRY TO INTERFERE IN THE 
ELECTION. 
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN IN THE 
JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
PHONE CALL. 
HE TALKS ABOUT, HE SAYS THERE 
ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT 
ON. 
THE WHOLE SITUATION I THINK 
YOU'RE SURROUNDING YOURSELF 
WITH THE SAME PEOPLE. 
SO HE'S TALKING ABOUT MUCH MORE 
THAN JUST THE DNC SERVER. 
HE CLOSES IT AGAIN SAYING HE 
REFERS TO ROBERT MUELLER'S 
TESTIMONY. 
HE SAYS THEY SAY A LOT STARTED 
IN UKRAINE. 
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GOING 
ON. 
TWICE IN THAT EXCHANGE HE SAYS 
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF, THE 
WHOLE SITUATION. 
WHAT DOES THAT REFER TO? 
SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH THE 
SAME PEOPLE. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REFERS TO 
CHANGING OUT THE AMBASSADOR. 
THE PREVIOUS AMBASSADOR WHO HAD 
BEEN THERE WROTE AN OP-ED 
CRITICIZING PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DURING THE ELECTION. 
THERE'S A POLITICAL ARTICLE 
JANUARY 2017 CATALOGING 
MULTIPLE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
THAT DID THINGS EITHER TO 
CRITICIZE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR TO 
ASSIST A DNC OPERATIVE CHAPALUPA
IN GATHERING INFORMATION 
AGAINST THE CAMPAIGN. 
NO ONE SAID THERE WAS ANYTHING 
DONE BY UKRAINE. 
THAT'S NOT TRUE. 
ONE OF THEIR STAR WITNESSES, 
FIONA HILL, SPECIFICALLY 
TESTIFIED IN HER PUBLIC HEARING 
BECAUSE SHE SAID SHE WENT BACK 
AND CHECKED BECAUSE SHE HADN'T 
REMEMBERED THE POLITICAL 
ARTICLE. 
THEN SHE SAID SHE ACKNOWLEDGED 
SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, 
QUOTE, BET ON HILLARY CLINTON 
WINNING THE ELECTION, END 
QUOTE. 
IT WAS QUITE EVIDENCE IN HER 
WORDS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO 
FAVOR THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN 
INCLUDING BY TRYING TO COLLECT 
INFORMATION ON PEOPLE WORKING 
IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
THAT WAS FIONA HILL. 
SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS WERE DOING THAT. 
THIS IDEA THAT IT'S A BINARY 
WORLD, RUSSIA OR UKRAINE. 
IF YOU'RE UKRAINE, YOU'RE DOING 
BIDDING. 
IT'S TOTALLY FALSE. 
VARIOUS UKRAINIANS WERE DOING 
THINGS TO INTERFERE IN THE 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN. 
THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
REFERRING TO. 
>> SENATOR FROM VERMONT. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I WOULD 
ASK TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, 
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL, HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU SENATOR.
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM SENATOR LAHY AND 
BLUMENTHAL. 
THE SENATOR'S  COUNSEL CLAIMED 
IF THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING 
THAT HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM 
GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC 
INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE 
KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT 
RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT, END 
QUOTE. 
HE ADDED A HYPOTHETICAL, QUOTE, 
I THINK I'M THE GREATEST 
PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS. 
IF I'M NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY. 
THAT CANNOT BE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
END QUOTE. 
UNDER THIS VIEW, THERE'S NO 
REMEDY TO PREVENT A PRESIDENT 
FROM VIOLATION OF THE 
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT ON THE 
RECIPIENTS WILLINGNESS TO DO 
THE PRESIDENT A POLITICAL 
FAVOR. 
IF THE SENATE FAILS TO REJECT 
THIS THEORY, WHAT WOULD STOP A 
PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLDING STAR 
AID FUNDING FROM THE U.S. CITY 
UNTIL THAT MAYOR ENDORSES HIM? 
WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT 
FROM WITHHOLDING NEARLY ANY 
PART OF THE $4.7 TRILLION 
ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET SUBJECT 
TO HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL 
BENEFIT? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE. 
I THANK SENATORS FOR THAT VERY 
IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
CERTAINLY WHAT WE HAVE ALLEGED 
IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOLICITED A PERSONAL, 
POLITICAL BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE 
FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT. 
SOLICITED WERE TO SAY 
THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, PRECISELY AS 
WAS OUTLINED IN THAT
T
GRANTS ALLOCATED TO CITIES OR 
TOWNS OR MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY. 
THE PRESIDENT COULD SAY YOU'RE 
NOT GOING TO GET THAT MONEY MR. 
MAYOR, MRS. COUNTY EXECUTIVE, 
MRS. TOWN SUPERVISOR UNLESS YOU 
ENDORSE ME FOR RE-ELECTION. 
THE PRESIDENT COULD SAY THAT TO 
ANY GOVERNOR OF OUR 50 STATES. 
THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE. 
THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO 
HAPPEN IN OUR DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC. 
NOW BY MY COUNT, AS OF THIS 
AFTERNOON, THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS 
OF OUR GREAT REUBLIC HAVE BEEN 
QUOTED DIRECTLY OR MENTIONED BY 
NAME 123 TIMES. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON 48 TIMES. 
JAMES MADISON 35 TIMES. 
GEORGE WASHINGTON 24 TIMES. 
JOHN ADAMS 8 TIMES, THOMAS 
JEFFERSON AND BEN FRANKLIN 
PULLING UP THE REAR 4 TIMES. 
SEEMS TO ME THAT BEN FRANKLIN 
AND THOMAS JEFFERSON NEEDED A 
LITTLE MORE LOVE. 
SO LET ME TRY TO DO MY PART. 
THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE OBSERVED 
THAT TYRANNY IS DEFINED AS THAT 
WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE 
GOVERNMENT BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE 
CITIZENRY. 
LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT BUT 
ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY. 
THAT'S WHAT WE CONFRONT RIGHT 
NOW. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY 
ABUSED HIS POWER. 
HE TARGETED AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN, PRESSURED A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO CHEAT IN 
THE UPCOMING ELECTION. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL WOULD 
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT IS OKAY 
BECAUSE HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 
BUT OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT 
SHEET. 
THE WORK IS COMPENSATION BOARD 
BY CLAIMING A FAKE INJURY AND 
ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY. 
OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT 
CHEAT THE STOCK MARKET BY 
ENGAGING IN INSIDER TRADING AND 
THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY. 
OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT 
CHEAT THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS 
PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THEIR 
CHILD INTO AN ELITE UNIVERSITY 
AND THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY. 
WHY SHOULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES BE 
LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND 
ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY. 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CAN DO ANYTHING, ANYTHING THAT 
HE WANTS. 
AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN SOLICIT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
ELECTION AND ESCAPE 
ACCOUNTABLE. 
HE CAN CHEAT AND ESCAPE 
ACCOUNTABLE. 
ENGAGE IN A COVER UP AND ESCAPE 
ACCOUNTABLE. 
ELEVATE HIS PERSON POLITICAL 
INTEREST, AND ESCAPE 
ACCOUNTABILITY. 
THAT IS THE FIFTH AVENUE 
STANDARD OF PRESIDENTIAL 
ACCOUNTABLE. 
I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT. 
I CAN SHOOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH 
AVENUE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
NO, LAWLESSNESS MATTERS. 
ABUSE OF POWER MATTERS. 
CORRUPTION MATTERS. 
THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 
>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK TO BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGER 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND 
ALTHOUGH I CANNOT PICK, IDEALLY 
IT WOULD BE MANAGER LOFGREN. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS FOR BOTH PARTIES IS AS 
FOLLOWS:  IN THE CLINTON 
PROCEEDINGS WE SAW VIDEO OF THE 
MANAGER SAYING, QUOTE, THIS IS 
UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
COMPRESSED THE WILL OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 1976. 
IN SO DOING YOU WILL DAMAGE THE 
FAITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 
THIS INSTITUTION AND IN THE 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 
YOU WILL SET THE DANGEROUS 
PRECEDENT THAT THE CERTAINTY OF 
PRESIDENTIAL TERMS, WHICH HAS 
SO BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL 
AMERICA WILL BE REPLACED BY THE 
PARTISAN USE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL FACE 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WILL 
DIMINISH IN THE FACE OF THE 
CONGRESS, A PHENOMENON MUCH 
FEARED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. 
WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW? 
ISN'T IMPEACHMENT THE ULTIMATE 
INTERFERENCE, HOW DOES THIS NOT 
CHEAT THOSE WHO DID AND WOULD 
VOTE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM 
THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE 
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? 
I ASKED THE MANAGER TO ADDRESS 
THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY AND TO 
NOT AVOID AS MANAGERS JENNIFERS 
DID WITH MANAGER JEFFERS DID 
WITH A SIMILAR QUESTION LAST 
NIGHT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
AS I SAID BEFORE I AGREE WITH 
THE COMMENTS FROM THE PAST AND 
I THINK THEY SHOULD GUIDE THE 
SENATE. 
THERE IS REALLY NO BETTER WAY 
TO SAY IT. 
WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE, THEY 
KEEP FALSELY ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT OF WANTING TO CHEAT 
WHEN THEY ARE COMING HERE AND 
TELLING YOU TAKE HIM OFF THE 
BATTLE, IN A POLITICAL 
IMPEACHMENT. 
TALK ABOUT CHEATING. 
YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE HIM. 
LE ME SAY ONE MORE THING WHILE 
I AM UP HERE. 
I LISTENED TO THE MANAGER SAY 
HE WON'T DIGNIFY A LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION WITH A RESPONSE 
BECAUSE HE WASN'T STAND HERE 
AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE ON HIS 
STAFF. 
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS 
CONGRESS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AND OTHERS IN THE HOUSE HAVE 
FALSELY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT 
AND THEY HAVE COME HERE AND 
DONE IT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, 
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF, LAWYERS ON MY STAFF, 
FALSE ACCUSATIONS. 
AND THAT IS WRONG. 
AND WHEN YOU TURN THAT AROUND 
AND SAY HE WILL NOT RESPOND TO 
A LEGITIMATE QUESTION THAT I 
ASKED, IT IS A LEGITIMATE 
QUESTION, WHO COMMUNICATED WITH 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, WHY WERE 
YOU DEMANDING SOMETHING YOU 
ALREADY KNEW ABOUT, I ASKED HIM 
ANOTHER PART OF MY OCTOBER 8 
LETTER THAT DOESN'T GET A LOT 
OF ATTENTION, I SAID, YOU HAVE 
THE FULL ABILITY TO RELEASE 
THESE DOCUMENTS ON YOUR OWN, NO 
RESPONSE. 
SO I THINK -- I THINK YOU 
DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT 
QUESTION AND I THINK IT IS TIME 
IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE START 
-- THAT WE STOP ASSUMING THAT 
EVERYBODY HAS HORRIBLE MOTIVES, 
EVERYBODY IS DOING SOMETHING 
WRONG EXCEPT FOR YOU. 
YOU CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. 
THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM 
HERE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
. 
>> YOU KNOW, I WAS A MEMBER OF 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE STAFF 
OF A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE DURING THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT AND DURING HAD 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I FOUND 
MYSELF COMPARING WHAT WE WERE 
DOING IN CLINTON, TO WHAT WE 
WERE DOING OR HAD DONE WITH 
NIXON, HERE IS WHAT I SAW, A 
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, STARTED 
WITH WHITE WATER, SPENT SEVERAL 
YEARS UNTIL THEY FOUND DNA ON A 
BLUE DRESS. 
AND THEY HAD TO LIE -- THE 
PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT A SEXUAL 
AFFAIR UNDER OATH AND THAT WAS 
WRONG. 
AND IT WAS A CRIME. 
BUT IT WAS NOT A MISUSE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWER. 
ANY HUSBAND CAUGHT WOULD HAVE 
LIED ABOUT IT. 
IT WAS WRONG BUT IT WAS NOT A 
MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER 
AND SO THROUGHOUT THE CLINTON 
MATTERS, I KEPT RAISING THE 
ISSUE THAT WAS A MISUSE AND IT 
TURNED OUT TO BE PARTISAN 
MISUSE OF IMPEACHMENT TO EQUATE 
A LIE ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR TO 
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THEY SAID THEY RUBBED OUT THE 
WORD HIGH AND MADE IT ANY CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR. 
THAT WAS WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. 
COMPARED TO THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT WHERE RICHARD NIXON 
ENGAGED IN CORRUPTING THE 
GOVERNMENT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
BENEFIT IN THE ELECTION. 
I WOULD ADD, UNFORTUNATELY, AND 
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE IN A 
THIRD IMPEACHMENT, 
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS WHAT WE 
SEE IN THIS CASE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTIOUS SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN 
ANY TRIAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL OR 
OTHER, IN WHICH YOU WERE UNABLE 
TO CALL WITNESSES OR SUBMIT 
RELEVANT EVIDENCE. 
I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS FIRST. 
>> THE HOUSE IS FIRST. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND THANK YOU TO THE SENATOR 
FOR THE QUESTION. 
I WANT US TO IMAGINE FOR JUST A 
MOMENT IF SOMEONE BROKE INTO 
YOUR HOUSE, STOLE YOUR 
PROPERTY, POLICE CAUGHT THEM, 
THEY RETURNED THE PROPERTY, NOW 
THE FACT THAT THEY RETURNED THE 
PROPERTY CHANGES NOTHING, THEY 
WOULD STILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE 
BUT IMAGINE IF THEY HAD THE 
POWER TO OBSTRUCT EVERY 
WITNESS, PREVENT WITNESSES FROM 
APPEARING, IMAGINE IF THEY HAD 
THE POWER TO DESTROY OR 
OBSTRUCT ANY EVIDENCE IN THE 
CASE AGAINST THEM FROM BEING 
PRESENTED TO THE COURT. 
I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
APPEAR IN A LOT OF HEARINGS AND 
BE A PART OF BUILDING A LOT OF 
CASES AND WE ALL KNOW, I KNOW 
EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS THAT 
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE 
AND DOCUMENTATION IS 
EVERYTHING. 
IT IS THE LIFE AND BREATH OF 
EVERY CASE. 
IT IS THE DREAM TO HAVE 
INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. 
IT TRULY BAFFLES ME, REALLY, AS 
A 27 YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICER THAT WE WOULD NOT 
ACCEPT A WELCOME OR BE 
DELIGHTED ABOUT AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO HEAR FROM DIRECT WITNESSES, 
PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE. 
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. 
WE KNOW THAT. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 
ALREADY RULED ON THAT. 
IF THE REMEDY FOR THAT IS 
IMPEACHMENT, THAT IS THE TRUE, 
THAT IS WE KNOW HAS SOLELY BEEN 
GIVEN TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
SOLELY TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE. 
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT 
IS EXTREMELY, LET ME SAY IT 
THIS WAY, ONLY IN A CASE WHERE 
THERE ARE NO AVAILABLE 
WITNESSES, ARE NO AVAILABLE 
EVIDENCE, HAVE I EVER SEEN THAT 
OCCUR. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
COUNSEL? 
>> THANK YOU. 
I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT 
QUESTION IN THIS WAY, AND THANK 
YOU FOR THE QUESTION, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CONTROLLED THE PROCESS 
IN THE HOUSE. 
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE TO 
THAT. 
THEY WERE IN CHARGE AND THEY 
RAN IT. 
AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL TO HAVE ANY 
WITNESSES. 
AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO CALL THE 
WITNESSES THAT THEY ARE NOW 
ASKING YOU TO CALL, DEMANDING 
YOU TO CALL, ACCUSING YOU OF 
COVERUP IF YOU DON'T CALL. 
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN ANY 
PROCEEDING, TRIAL OR OTHERWISE, 
WHERE YOU SHOW UP ON THE FIRST 
DAY AND THE JUDGE SAYS LET'S GO 
AND YOU SAY I AM NOT READY YET. 
LETS STOP EVERYTHING. 
LET'S TAKE A BUNCH OF 
DEPOSITION. 
DID YOU SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES 
YOU ARE SEEKING? 
WELL, SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. 
DID YOU TRY ENFORCE THE 
SUBPOENA IN COURT? 
NO. 
THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU 
DID SUBPOENA, DID THEY GO TO 
COURT? 
YES. 
>> WHAT DID YOU DO? 
I WANT THEM. 
OTHERWISE YOU ARE DOING THE 
COVERUP. 
THEY KEEP MAKING THIS POINT, 
WHAT WILL WE DO, THE PRESIDENT 
IS NOT PRODUCING DOCUMENTS. 
I WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR 
RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE MUELLER 
INVESTIGATION, OKAY? 
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HAD 
2800 SUBPOENAS. 
500 SEARCH WARRANTS. 
500 WITNESSES. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF, MANY, MANY 
OTHERS. 
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION 
TESTIFIED. 
DOCUMENTS, VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS 
WERE PRODUCED. 
AND WHAT HAPPENED? 
BOB MUELLER CAME BACK WITH A 
CONCLUSION, HE ANNOUNCED IT, 
THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. 
WHAT DID THE HOUSE DO? 
THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. 
DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME. 
WHAT DID THEY DO? 
THEY WANTED A  DO OVER. 
THEY WANTED TO DO IT 
THEMSELVES. 
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY BELIEVES 
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
HASN'T FULLY COOPERATED WITH 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN THEY DON'T 
LIKE THE OUTCOME, THEY KEEP 
INVESTIGATING, THEY KEEP 
WASTING THE PUBLIC'S MONEY. 
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH, 
THEY CARE ABOUT A POLITICAL 
OUTCOME. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> THE SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
UNDER THE STANDARD EMBRACED BY 
úTHE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD 
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAVE BEEN 
SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES 
BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF THE 
BENGHAZI ATTACK, THE SWAP OR 
DACA, WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH BE 
SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES 
BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF NSA 
SURVEILLANCE OR USE OF 
WATERBOARDING? 
. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
UNDER THE STANDARD, WHICH IS NO 
STANDARD THAT THEY BRING THEIR 
IMPEACHMENT TO THE SENATE, ANY 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT FOR ANYTHING. 
PRESIDENTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT FOR EXERCISING LONG 
STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
EVEN WHEN THE HOUSE CHOSE NOT 
TO ENFORCE THEIR SUBPOENA. 
UNDER THEIR VAGUE THEORY OF 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
I GUESS ANY PRESIDENT, HE HAD A 
LUNG LIST OF PRESIDENTS WHO 
MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT, I AM NOT GOING TO 
GO THROUGH THE PARTICULAR 
INCIDENTS. 
I DON'T THINK THE STANDARD THAT 
THEY ANNOUNCED IS HELPFUL. 
I THINK IT IS VERY DANGEROUS. 
I MEAN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET A 
LOCK ON THEIR DOOR BECAUSE THEY 
WILL BE BACK A LOT IF THAT IS 
THE STANDARD. 
OKAY? 
AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT 
ANYTHING, THEY ARE TALKING 
ABOUT WITNESSES. 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT 
ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
I TRY TO SEEK AREAS OF 
AGREEMENT. 
I THINK WE ALL AGREE THEY DON'T 
ALLEGE A CRIME. 
THAT IS WHY THEY SPEND ALL 
THEIR TIME SAYING YOU DON'T 
NEED ONE. 
I REMEMBER ONE OF THE CLIPS I 
SHOWED WHERE SOMEONE WAS SAYING 
WITH LOT OF PASSION, THEY ARE 
TRYING TO CROSS OUT HIGH CRIME 
AND MAKE IT ANY CRIME AND NOW 
THEY ARE TRYING TO CROSS OUT 
CRIME, ANY CRIME. 
NO CRIME IS NECESSARY. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS 
ABOUT. 
THIS IS DANGEROUS. 
IT IS MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT 
IS AN ELECTION YEAR. 
SO YES, UNDER THE STANDARDLESS 
IMPEACHMENT, ANY PRESIDENT 
COULD B IMPEACHED FOR ANYTHING 
AND THAT IS WRONG. 
THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THEIR 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
LOT OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO 
SELL HERE, THEIR OWN HOUSE 
COLLEAGUES WEREN'T BUYING. 
THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
READ THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY DON'T ALLEGE A CRIME. 
THEY DON'T ALLEGE A VIOLATION 
OF LAW. 
YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE 
EXCEPT THEIR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, YOUR CONSTITUTION, 
AND YOUR COMMON SENSE. 
AND YOU CAN END THIS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
TO BOTH PARTIES. 
IN JUNE 2019, CHAIR OF THE 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 
WROTE IN A STATEMENT THAT 
QUOTE, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY 
PERSON TO SOLICIT, ACCEPT OR 
RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM 
A FOREIGN NATIONAL IN 
CONNECTION WITH A U.S. 
ELECTION. 
THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT. 
INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED 
UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE 
BEGINNINGS OF OUR NATION. 
END QUOTE. 
IN A 2007 ADVISORY OPINION, FEC 
FOUND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ARE 
PROHIBITED EVEN IF THE VALUES 
OF THESE MATERIALS MAY BE 
NOMINAL OR DIFFICULT TO 
ASCERTAIN. 
HOW VALUABLE WOULD A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A PUBLIC 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS 
BE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN? 
BEGIN WITH THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
THE IDEA THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE A THING OF 
VALUE, SOMETHING THAT WAS 
SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED BY THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS I 
EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WROTE A 
COVER LETTER ON THE WHISTLE-
BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHICH HE HAD 
EXAGGERATED IN THE COMPLAINT, 
THE IDEA THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR 
ASSISTANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THAT WAS 
FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, THEY EXAMINED IT AND 
THEY ANNOUNCED IN SEPTEMBER 
THERE WAS NO ELECTION LAW 
VIOLATION, DID NOT QUALIFY AS A 
THING OF VALUE. 
AND I THINK THAT THAT ISSUE HAS 
BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE HERE. 
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE 
THING, THE OTHER DAY THERE WAS 
-- YESTERDAY THERE WAS A 
QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION 
COMING FROM OVERSEAS AND I WAS 
ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND 
I WANT TO BE VERY PRECISE THAT 
I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION TO BE 
WAS WOULD THERE BE A VIOLATION 
OF A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IF 
SOMEONE GOT INFORMATION FROM 
OVERSEAS AND THE ANSWER IS NO. 
THINK ABOUT THIS, IF PURE 
INFORMATION, INFORMATION THAT 
CAME TO SOMEONE IN A CAMPAIGN 
COULD BE CALLED A THING OF 
VALUE, IF IT COMES FROM 
OVERSEAS, IT IS NOT ALLOWED, IF 
IT COMES WITHIN THE COUNTRY IT 
HAS TO BE REPORTED. 
ANYTIME A CAMPAIGN GOT 
INFORMATION FROM WITHIN THE 
COUNTRY ABOUT AN OPPONENT OR 
ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, THAT 
MAYBE IT WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE 
CAMPAIGN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO 
REPORT THE RECEIPT OF 
INFORMATION AS A THING OF 
VALUE. 
THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAWS WORK 
AND THERE WOULD IF YOUR 
INFORMATION IS CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION, NOT SOMETHING THAT 
IS PROHIBITED FROM BEING 
RECEIVED UNDER THE CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE LAWS. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> YES, MR. MANAGER? 
>> HOW VALUABLE WOULD IT BE FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO GET UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE HIS INVESTIGATIONS AND 
THE ANSWER IS, IMMENSELY 
VALUABLE. 
IF IT WASN'T GOING TO BE 
IMMENSELY VALUABLE WHY WOULD 
THE PRESIDENT GO TO SUCH 
LENGTHS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, WHY 
WOULD HE BE WILLING TO VIOLATE 
THE LAW, IGNORE THE ADVICE OF 
HIS NATIONAL SECURITY 
OFFICIALS, WHY WOULD HE BE 
WILLING TO WITHHOLD -- YOU HAVE 
ONLY TO LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW 
VALUABLE HE BELIEVED IT WOULD 
BE TO HIM. 
HOW WOULD HE MAKE USE OF THIS? 
WELL, IF WE LOOK IN THE PAST, 
HOW DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE 
MADE USE OF THIS POLITICAL HELP 
FROM UKRAINE, LET'S LOOK AT 
2016 WHEN THE RUSSIANS HACKED 
THE DNC AND THEY STARTED 
DRIPPING OUT THESE DOCUMENTS 
THROUGH WIKILEAKS AND OTHER 
RUSSIAN PLATFORMS. 
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO? 
DID HE MAKE USE OF IT? 
CONDEMN IT? 
HE MADE BEAUTIFUL USE OF IT. 
OVER 100 TIMES IN THE LAST 
THREE MONTHS OF THE CAMPAIGN 
THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP TIME 
AFTER TIME AFTER TIME RALLY, 
AFTER RALLY, AFTER RALLY, THE 
CLINTON, RUSSIAN STOLEN 
DOCUMENTS. 
NOW, WE HAD A DEBATE SINCE 
THEN, WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF 
THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 
2016, NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW, 
WAS IT VALUABLE, YOU ONLY HAVE 
TO LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP'S 
ACTIONS TO KNOW HOW VALUABLE HE 
THOUGHT IT WAS. 
HE THOUGHT IT WAS IMMENSELY 
VALUABLE AND YOU CAN DARN WELL 
EXPECT THAT IF YOU GOT HELP 
FROM UKRAINE HE COULD BE OUT 
THERE EVERY DAY TALKING ABOUT 
HOW UKRAINE WAS INVESTIGATING 
JOE BIDEN. 
UKRAINE IS CONDUCTING AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN. 
IT WOULD BE PROOF OF HIS 
ARGUMENT AGAINST HIS FEARED 
OPPONENT. 
YOU ARE DARN RIGHT IT WOULD BE 
VALUABLE. 
ONCE MORE, IT IS ILLEGAL. 
DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, THIS 
PRESIDENT WAS ASKING YET 
ANOTHER COUNTRY TO HELP CHEAT 
IN ANOTHER ELECTION. 
YOUR DARN RIGHT THAT WOULD HAVE 
BEEN VALUABLE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
IS FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
WHEN D.O.J. 
INSPECTOR GENERAL TESTIFIED 
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
HE SAID THEIR D.O.J. 
HAD A SLOW FRESH HOLD TO 
INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
AT THE HEARING THE SENATOR SAID 
YOUR REPORT CONCLUDED THE FBI 
HAD AN ADEQUATE PREDICATE 
REASON TO OPEN THE 
INVESTIGATION ON THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN TIES TO RUSSIA, COULD 
YOU DEFINE THE PREDICATE. 
REPLY, YEAH. 
THE PREDICATE WAS THE 
INFORMATION THAT THE FBI GOT AT 
THE END OF JULY FROM THE 
FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. 
END QUOTE. 
WHY IS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR 
INVESTIGATING TRUMP SO MUCH 
LOWER THAN THE STANDARD FOR 
INVESTIGATING BIDEN? 
AND WHY WAS IT OKAY TO GET THE 
INFORMATION FROM A QUOTE, 
FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, 
END QUOTE. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE FIRST. 
>> THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
REPORT FOUND THAT THE 
INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY 
PREDICATED. 
THAT WAS THE BOTTOM LINE 
CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS NOT A 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO 
FOUND THERE WAS SERIOUS FLAWS 
WITH THE FISA COURT PROCESS, IN 
HOW THE APPLICATIONS WERE 
WRITTEN AND THE INFORMATION 
THAT WAS USED AND PRESCRIBED A 
WHOLE SERIES OF REMEDIES, WHICH 
THE FBI DIRECTOR HAS NOW SAID 
SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. 
BUT THEY FOUND IT WAS PROPERLY 
PREDICATED. 
THEY FOUND THEY DID NOT HAVE TO 
IGNORE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAD 
COME TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT 
THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENT 
WAS HAVING ELICIT CONTACTS 
POTENTIALLY, IT MAY BE 
CONSPIRING WITH A FOREIGN 
POWER. 
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DERELICT FOR 
THEM TO IGNORE IT BUT THE 
ARGUMENT HERE IS BECAUSE THERE 
WERE PROBLEMS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS 
IN THE FISA COURT APPLICATION 
INVOLVING A SINGLE PERSON, THAT 
SOMEHOW WE SHOULD IGNORE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT HERE. 
THAT SOMEONE THAT JUSTIFIES THE 
PRESIDENT'S EMBRACE OF THE 
RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. 
THAT SOMEONE THAT JUSTIFIES THE 
PRESIDENT'S DISTRUST OF THE 
ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 
THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES, 
IGNORING WHAT HIS DIRECTER OF 
THE FBI SAID, WHICH HIS LAWYERS 
IGNORE TODAY, WHICH IS THERE IS 
NO EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
BECAUSE OF A SINGLE FISA 
APPLICATION AGAINST A SINGLE 
PERSON AND THE FLAWS IN IT, YOU 
SHOULD IGNORE THE EVIDENCE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S WRONG DOING. 
TURN AWAY FROM THAT. 
LET'S NOT LOOK AT WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT CONDITIONED MILITARY  
HELP WITH AN INVESTIGATION, 
LET'S LOOK AT FLAWS IN HOW THE 
FBI CONDUCTED A FISA 
APPLICATION. 
THE ONE DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM 
THE OTHER. 
THE REALITY IS THAT WHAT YOU 
MUST JUDGE HERE IS DID THE 
PRESIDENT COMMIT THE CONDUCT HE 
IS CHARGED WITH. 
DID THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID IN A MEETING TO 
SECURE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE ELECTION, AND IF HE DID, AS 
WE BELIEVE WE HAVE SHOWN, DOES 
THAT WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE. 
THAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU, 
WHETHER THE FBI MADE ONE 
MISTAKE OR FIVE MISTAKES WITH 
THE FISA APPLICATION. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, LET ME ANSWER 
THE QUESTION, THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL SAID IN A RESPONSE FROM 
SENATOR GRAHAM WHEN JAMES COMEY 
SAID HE WAS VINDICATED. 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID NO 
ONE WHO TOUCHED THIS WAS 
VINDICATED. 
WITH REGARD TO THE FISA -- YOU 
MAKE SO LIGHT OF WHAT THE FBI 
DID. 
IT WASN'T A FISA WARRANT, THERE 
WAS A ORDER UNSEALED DAYS AGO 
SAYING THE PROCESS WAS SO 
TAINTED. 
BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION. 
SO TAINTED THAT NOT ONLY WAS 
THE NDSD MISLED BUT SO WAS THE 
FISA COURT. 
FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW THAT 
ARE WATCHING, THE FISA COURT, 
YOU CAN'T BLAME THE COURT ON 
THIS, YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
FOR ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN. 
THAT IS THE COURT THAT ISSUES 
WARRANTS ON PEOPLE THAT ARE 
ALLEGED TO BE SPIES. 
THERE IS NO LAWYERS IN THE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
THE COURT ITSELF SAID WE RELY 
ON THE GOOD FAITH OF THE 
OFFICERS PRESENTING THE 
AFFIDAVITS. 
ARE THERE TWO STANDARDS FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS? 
THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. 
TO BELITTLE WHAT TOOK PLACE IN 
THE FISA PROCEEDINGS, YOU KNOW 
BETTER THAN THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION IS TO BOTH 
PARTIES. 
E-MAILS BETWEEN DOD AND OMB 
OFFICIALS REVEAL BY AUGUST 12, 
THE PENTAGON COULD NO LONGER 
GUARANTEE THAT ALL OF THE $250 
MILLION IN DOD AID TO UKRAINE 
COULD BE SPENT BEFORE IT 
EXPIRED. 
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
DRAFTED A LETTER THAT STATED 
THAT THE PENTAGON HAD QUOTE, 
REPEATEDLY ADVISED OMB 
OFFICIALS THAT PAUSES BEYOND 
AUGUST 19 JEOPARDIZE THE 
DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO 
OBLUIGATE FUNDING PRUDEPOINTLY 
AND FULLY END QUOTE. 
WHY DID THE PRESIDENT PERSIST 
IN WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS WHEN 
DOD OFFICIALS WERE SOUNDING THE 
ALARM THE HOLD WOULD VIOLATE 
THE LAW AND CHORT CHANGE OUR 
ALLY OF NEEDED MILITARY AID. 
IT IS THE TURN OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL TO GO FIRST. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I THINK THE THING TO UNDERSTAND 
IS THERE WERE A SERIES OF 
COMMUNICATIONS REFLECTED, I 
BELIEVE IN THE LETTER THAT OMB 
HAS SENT TO THE JAO AND IN SOME 
OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE 
PROCEEDING BELOW THAT THE 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
WAS ENCOURAGING DOD TO TAKE 
WHAT STEPS IT COULD TO GET 
EVERYTHING LINED UP, HAVE 
EVERYTHING READY TO OBLIGATE 
THE FUNDS SO IT COULD MOVE 
QUICKLY WHEN THE PAUSE WAS 
LIFTED. 
DOD WAS SAYING, WE ARE 
RETURNING OUT OF TIME, WE WILL 
HAVE DIFFICULTY DOING IT BUT 
THE FACT WAS THAT THE DEADLINE 
FOR OBLIGATING THE FUNDS WASN'T 
UNTIL THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR. 
AS IT TURNED OUT AS I EXPLAINED 
EARLIER, THE FUNDS WERE 
RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th AND 
THE MAJORITY WERE OBLIGATD BY 
THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR SO 
THE PROCEDURES THAT HAD BEEN 
USED TO GET EVERYTHING 
PREPLANNED WERE MOSTLY 
SUCCESSFUL. 
$35MILLION DID NOT GET OUT THE 
DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR. 
BUT EVERY YEAR IN FISCAL YEAR 
2017, 2018, THERE WERE FUNDS IN 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT OUT THE 
DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND 
THERE WAS ALSO THE LITTLE FIX 
IN THE NEXT BILL OR THE CR TO 
ALLOW THE FUNDS TO CARRY OVER. 
SO THE PLANNING HAD BEEN TO TRY 
TO ENSURE WHEN THE DECISION WAS 
NIDE RELEASE THE FUNDS IT WOULD 
BE DONE BY THE END OF THE 
FISCAL YEAR. 
NOT ALL GOT OUT THE DOOR, THAT 
IS TRUE, BUT THERE IS ALWAYS 
SOME THAT DOESN'T GET OUT THE 
DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. 
I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT 
CLEAR, THE 17 WITNESSES THAT 
THE HOUSE INTERVIEWED, NOBODY 
HAD AN EXPLANATION. 
AND YET AGAIN, LIKE LAST NIGHT, 
HE SEEMS TO KNOW MORE THAN 
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, 
MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT 
OF STATE, THE OMB, WHO CAME 
FORWARD WITH INFORMATION ABOUT 
HOW THIS HAPPENED. 
AGAIN, HERE ARE THE FACTS, OMB 
INTERVIEWED ABOUT AN 
INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT THEY 
SUPPOSEDLY SAID WAS GOING ON, 
LONG AFTER THE INTERAGENCY 
PROCESS HAD ALREADY ENDED. 
IN FACT, AS OMB WAS DOING THOSE 
FOOT NOTES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT 
LAST WEEK, THE FOOT NOTES THAT 
HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE THAT 
HE SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN IN 
HIS 12 YEARS, WORKING THIS 
PROCESS, AS THAT WAS GOING ON, 
DOD WAS ASKING WHY WE ARE DOING 
THIS. 
THEY HAD NO IDEA. 
AND THEN WHEN THE RELEASE WAS 
FINALLY GETTING READY TO BE 
FINALLY LIFTED, THE HOLD, 
RATHER, OMB E-MAILED DOD SAYING 
THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS HERE AND 
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, IT IS 
YOUR FAULT, TO WHICH DOD 
REPLIED BACK, AS YOU RECALL, 
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. 
I AM SPEECHLESS BECAUSE THEY 
DID NOT KNOW, NOBODY HAD TOLD 
THEM ANYTHING. 
NONE OF THE OTHER 17 WITNESSES 
KNEW ABOUT IT. 
SO I WANT TO ADDRESS BEFORE I 
FINISH ONE OTHER POINT, THIS 
IDEA THE DELAY DIDN'T MATTER. 
DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS A 40 
DAY DELAY, A 400 DAY DELAY, 
EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS. 
EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS. 
I WILL SAY THEY TALKED ABOUT 
DELAYS IN THE PAST. 
IN PAST YEARS, THERE WAS ABOUT 
THREE TO SIX PERCENT OF THE 
FUNDS UNOBLIGATED. 
TO THIS DAY -- 
>> THANK YOU. 
YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL TO 
THE PRESIDENT. 
IS IT WITHIN A U.S. PRESIDENT'S 
AUTHORITY TO PERSONALLY ADDRESS 
THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION WITH A 
HEAD OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
WHEN HE BELIEVES THE 
ESTABLISHED U.S. PROCESS HAS 
BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST? 
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. 
THE PRESIDENT IS UNDER ARTICLE 
2, VESTED WITH THE ENTIRETY OF 
THE EXECUTIVE POWER. 
IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR SINCE 
THE FOUNDING, SINCE THE EARLY 
PART OF THE 1800S IN DECISIONS 
BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS THE -- HE IS 
VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO 
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE NATION 
AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS 
DESCRIBED IT, HE IS TO BE THE 
SOLE VOICE OF THE NATION AND 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED 
THAT THE EXECUTIVE IS 
CHARACTERIZED BY UNITY AND 
DISPATCH, THE ABILITY TO HAVE 
ONE STROOAACT QUICKLY AND ALSO 
THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SECRECY 
AND THEREFORE IT IS THE 
EXECUTIVE THAT IS SUITED AND 
HAS THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT 
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF 
ENGAGING WITH FOREIGN NATIONS 
AND CARRYING OUT DIPLOMACY. 
SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
THERE IS AN ISSUE OF INTEREST 
TO THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING 
CORRUPTION IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, 
AND THERE HASN'T BEEN THE SORT 
OF PROGRESS HE WOULD WANT TO 
SEE IN DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE 
IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY, PERHAPS 
INTERACTIONS WITH PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATIONS, PRIOR 
OFFICIALS OF PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATIONS THAT DON'T LOOK 
GREAT FROM AN ANTI-CORRUPTION 
PERSPECTIVE, IT IS WITHIN THE 
PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE TO 
RAISE THOSE ISSUES WITH A 
FOREIGN LEADER. 
TO POINT OUT WHERE HE BELIEVES 
THAT THEIR NEEDS TO BE 
SOMETHING DONE IN THE INTEREST 
OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IF 
THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO 
CORRUPTION OR SOMETHING ELSE, 
ECONOMIC ISSUES, TRADE MASTERS, 
ANTI-TRUST MATTERS, TRADE, 
THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THE 
PRESIDENT CAN RAISE WITH A 
FOREIGN LEADER. 
CORRUPTION IS NOT TAKEN OFF THE 
TABLE AND IT IS ALSO NOT TAKEN 
OFF THE TABLE IF IT IS AN ISSUE 
THAT INVOLVES AN OFFICIAL FROM 
A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER 
THAT OFFICIAL IS NOT OR MAY 
HAVE DECIDED TO RUN FOR ANOTHER 
OFFICE. 
IF IT RELATES TO THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, 
HE HAS A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR 
RAISING IT AND IT IS WITHIN HIS 
AUTHORITY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTIONS TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
WARREN IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
AT A TIME WHEN AMERICANS LOST 
FAITH IN GOVERNMENT DOES THE 
FACT THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS 
PRESIDING OVER AN IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL IN WHICH REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE 
CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOSS OF 
LEGITIMACY OF THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT 
COURT AND AND THE CONSTITUTION? 
>> SENATOR, I WOULD NOT SAY 
THAT IT CONTRIBUTES TO A LOSS 
OF CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS 
PRESIDED AIMABLY. 
BUT I PRESIDED AIMABLEY. 
I WAS HARKENING BACK TO A KEY 
EXCHANGE. 
THIS IS WHEN VOKER IS MAKING 
THE CASE THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE SHOULDN'T DO AN 
INVESTIGATION AND HE IS MAKING 
THE CASE THAT WE OFTEN MAKE 
WHEN WE TRAVEL AROUND THE 
COUNTRY, ABOUT NOT ENGAGING IN 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND WHEN HE MAKES THAT REMARK, 
HE THROWS IT BACK IN HIS FACE 
AND SAYS YOU MEAN LIKE THE 
INVESTIGATION YOU WANT US TO DO 
OF THE CLINTONS AND THE BIDENS 
AND I WAS LAMENTING THIS TO MY 
COLLEAGUE, WHAT IS OUR ANSWER 
TO THAT? 
WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT FROM 
A COUNTRY THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON 
ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW, 
HOW DO WE ANSWER THAT. 
AND HIS RESPONSE WAS VERY 
INTERESTING. 
HE SAID THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR 
ANSWER. 
THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR ANSWER. 
YES, WE ARE A MORE THAN 
FALLIBLE DEMOCRACY AND WE DON'T 
ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS 
BUT WHEN WE HAVE A PRESIDENT 
WHO DEMONSTRATES CORRUPTION, 
SACRIFICES THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST FOR HIS PERSONAL 
INTEREST, UNLIKE OTHER 
COUNTRIES THERE IS A REMEDY. 
WE DON'T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR 
IDEALS BUT THIS TRIAL IS PART 
OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE 
THAT WE WERE GIVEN A POWER TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. 
I DON'T THINK A TRIAL WITHOUT 
WITNESSES REFLECTS ADVERSITY ON 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I THINK IT REFLECTS ADVERSELY 
ON US. 
IT DIMINISHES THE POWER OF THIS 
EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE 
WORLD. 
IF WE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
IN THE FACE OF THIS KIND OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THIS 
IS THE REMEDY. 
THIS IS THE REMEDY FOR 
PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE. 
BUT IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON 
ANY OF US IF WE ARE AFRAID OF 
WHAT THE EVIDENCE HOLDS. 
THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TRIAL IN 
AMERICA WHERE THE DEFENDANT 
SAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 
TRIAL, IF THE PROSECUTION'S 
CASE IS SO GOOD, WHY DON'T THEY 
PROVE IT WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES. 
THAT IS NOT A MODEL WE COULD 
HOLD UP AND YES, SENATOR, I 
THINK THAT WILL FEED CYNICISM 
ABOUT THIS INSTITUTION. 
THAT WE MAY DISAGREE ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT OR NOT BUT 
WE CAN'T EVEN GET A FAIR TRIAL. 
WE CAN'T EVEN GET A FAIR SHAKE 
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
WE CAN'T HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON 
HAS TO SAY. 
GOD FORBID WE SHOULD HEAR WHAT 
A RELEVANT WITNESS HAS TO SAY. 
HEAR NO EVIL. 
THAT CANNOT REFLECT WELL ON ANY 
OF US. 
IT IS NO CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION 
OR VINDICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE 
IT. 
MY COLLEAGUE SAYS I AM A 
PURITAN WHO SPEAKS IN DULC 
TONES. 
I THINK THAT IS THE NICEST 
THING HE EVER SAID ABOUT ME. 
I THINK RIGHT MATTERS. 
I THINK A FAIR TRIAL MATTERS. 
AND I THINK THAT THE COUNTRY 
DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL. 
AND YES, SENATOR, IF THEY DON'T 
GET THAT FAIR TRIAL IT WILL 
JUST FURTHER A CYNICISM THAT IS 
CURUSIVE TO THIS INSTITUTION 
AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, SO 
NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
OTHERS STATED THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS CONSTITUTIONED ACTIONS 
-- 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. 
IT CAN'T BE RECONCILED WITH THE 
McDONALD CASE. 
AND LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF 
POINTS IN MY ANSWER. 
THE FIRST, OF COURSE, IS 
BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRIBERY OR 
EXTORTION CHARGED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THE 
MANAGERS CAN'T RELY ON THAT NOW 
TO TRY ESTABLISH THEIR CASE. 
I POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, I 
BELIEVE, THAT THAT IS A DUE 
PROCESS VIOLATION OF THE MOST 
FUNDAMENTAL SORT, TO HAVE A 
CHARGING DOCUMENT AND THEN -- 
AND LEAVE OUT CERTAIN CHARGES 
IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT AND 
THEN COME TO TRIAL AND SAY, 
WELL, IT IS NOT IN THE 
INDICTMENT, IT IS NOT IN THE 
CHARGE BUT WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN 
YOU IS HE DID SOMETHING ELSE 
WRONG. 
IT WAS THIS CRIME. 
THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN 
AUTOMATIC MISTRIAL IN ANY 
ACTUAL TRIAL IN A COURT IN THIS 
COUNTRY SO THAT IS THE INITIAL 
PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO GO THERE 
ON BRIBERY OR SOMETHING ELSE. 
THE McDONALD CASE MADE CLEAR 
THAT SIMPLY ARRANGING A MEETING 
FOR SOMEONE, SETTING UP A 
MEETING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS COULDN'T BE TREATED 
AS A THING OF VALUE IN AN 
EXCHANGE UNDER THE BRIBERY 
STATUTE. 
AND IT POINTED OUT IN TERMS OF 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ALL 
THE TIME ARE ASKED BY THEIR 
CONSTITUENTS TO INTRODUCE THEM 
TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THE 
GOVERNMENT, TO ARRANGE A 
MEETING, THAT THAT IS NOT AN 
OFFICIAL ACT. 
IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY 
DECISION AND ACTION THAT IS 
DETERMINING SOME GOVERNMENT 
POLICY, IT IS ALLOWING SOMEONE 
TO HAVE A MEETING, THEN TALK 
ABOUT SOMETHING. 
IF THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE 
MEETING, THAT CAN'T BE THE 
THING OF VALUE THAT IS BEING 
EXCHANGED AND CAN'T SUPPORT A 
CHARGE OF BRIBERY. 
SO THEY CAN'T RAISE IT BECAUSE 
IT IS NOT IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, IF THEY HAD WANTED 
TO CHARGE THAT, THEY HAD TO 
CHARGE IT IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY CAN'T HERE NOW AND TRY TO 
TRY A DIFFERENT CASE FROM THE 
ONE THEY FRAMED IN THE CHARGING 
DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAD COMPLETE 
CONTROL OVER DRAFTING. 
EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY CAN'T 
MAKE OUT THE CLAIM WITH RESPECT 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
BECAUSE THE McDONALD CASE 
PROHIBITS THAT. 
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE OTHER 
POINT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TODAY 
HAVE BROUGHT UP A LOT. 
A LOT OF QUESTIONS AGAIN AND 
AGAIN ABOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER 
AND WERE THE SUBPOENAS VALUED 
AND HOW IT WILL DESTROY 
OVERSIGHT IF THE PRESIDENT'S 
ARGUMENTS ARE  ACCEPTED. 
THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED, PURSUANT 
TO THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, THEY PURPORTED TO BE 
EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT MAKES A 
DIFFERENCE. 
ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
MENTIONED THIS, LEGISLATIVE 
OVERSIGHT, THE AUTHORITY TO 
REQUIRE INTO INFORMATION FOR 
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES HAS TO 
RELATE TO SOMETHING LEGISLATION 
COULD BE PASSED ON. 
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF YOU ARE 
GOING UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN 
INVESTIGATE INTO SPECIFIC PAST 
FACTS BECAUSE THAT IS RELEVANT 
TO AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT 
MIGHT NOT BE FOR LEGISLATIVE 
PURPOSES. 
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT 
AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE THE 
SPEAKER'S PRESS CONFERENCE DID 
NOT GIVE THAT. 
WE POINTED OUT THE SUBPOENAS 
WERE INVALID. 
THEY DID NOTHING TO CURE THAT 
DEFICIENCIES. 
THEY DIDN'T REISSUE THE 
SUBPOENAS OR ANYTHING. 
TO SAY NOW ALL OF OVERSIGHT 
WILL BE DESTROYED FOREVER IF 
YOU ACCEPT THE PRESIDENT'S 
ARGUMENTS IS TOTALLY FALSE. 
IT IS MISLEADING. 
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T PURPORTING 
TO DO REGULAR OVERSIGHT. 
AS WE POINTED OUT, THE OCTOBER 
8 LETTER THAT IT WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL SENT SAID SPECIFICALLY 
IF YOU WANT TO RETURN TO 
REGULAR OVERSIGHT, WE ARE HAPPY 
TO DO THAT, AS WE HAVE IN THE 
PAST, WE WILL PARTICIPATE IN 
THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS AND 
IT WAS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS THAT 
DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT ROUTE 
SO THEY INSIST ON USING THE 
IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY, WE 
POINTED OUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE 
IT. 
SO ACCEPTING THE PRESIDENT'S 
POSITION HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO 
WITH DESTROYING OVERSIGHT BY 
CONGRESS FOR ALL TIME AND ALL 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE MISTAKE 
THAT THEY MADE IN TRYING TO 
ASSERT A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY 
THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE IN THIS 
CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A 
QUESTION TO SEND TO THE DESK 
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS. 
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERSHIP 
CONCLUDED RUSSIA INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION AND RUSSIA 
CONTINUES THOSE EFFORTS TOWARD 
THE 2020 ELECTION. 
THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE 
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION. 
YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL SAID IT COULD BE LEGAL 
IF IT IS RELATED TO CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION. 
DOES THIS MEAN IT IS PROPER FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT OR 
ENCOURAGE RUSSIA, CHINA OR 
OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO 
PRODUCE DAMAGING INTELLIGENCE 
OR INFORMATION TARGETING HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AS LONG AS 
HE DEEMS IT TO BE FROM CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION? 
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> SENATORS, JUSTICE, THAT IS 
THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE 
ARGUING. 
ESSENTIALLY THAT IF THE 
PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT IT 
WOULD SERVE HIS REELECTION 
INTEREST TO SEEK THE HELP OF A 
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, 
TO PROVIDE DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT 
OR IN OTHER WAYS ASSIST HIS 
CAMPAIGN, AS LONG AS HE THINKS 
HIS WINNING IS IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST, THAT IS OKAY. 
NO RESTRAINT CAN BE PLACED UPON 
IT. 
EVEN IF HE WERE TO PROCLAIM A 
QUID PRO QUO. 
RUSSIA YOU HAVE THE BEST 
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ON THE 
PLANET, IF YOU WILL ENGAGE 
THOSE SERVICES ON MY BEHALF I 
WILL REFUSE ENFORCE SANCTIONS 
ON YOU OVER YOUR INVASION OF 
UKRAINE. 
THAT MAY INJURE THE SECURITY OF 
OUR COUNTRY BUT LOOK, I THINK 
MY REELECTION IS MORE 
IMPORTANT. 
THAT IS WHERE THIS LEADS US. 
THEIOID THAT NO ABUSE OF POWER 
IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE 
CONGRESS. 
NOW I WANT TO TAKE THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A 
COUPLE OTHER QUICK POINTS, IF I 
CAN. 
FIRST, COUNSEL NEGLECTS THE 
FACT WHEN WE ISSUED THE 
SUBPOENAS, WE STATED IN THE 
LETTERS THAT THEY WERE BEING 
ISSUED CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND OUR 
OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY. 
THEY NEGLECTED TO TELL YOU THE 
LATTER PART THAT WE MADE 
REFERENCE TO OUR OVERSIGHT 
CAPACITY AS LEGISLATORS. 
AND FINALLY ON THE ISSUE OF 
BRIBERY, IN THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS AN 
UMBRELLA, ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT LISTED A 
SERIES OF ACTS, SOME INVOLVE 
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND SOME 
INVOLVE UNETHICAL ACTIVITY. 
IF YOU ACCEPT COUNSEL'S 
ARGUMENT YOU WOULD HAVE -- IF 
THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT WITH ENGAGING IN A 
CRIMINAL ACT, THEY NEEDED TO 
MAKE A SEPARATE ARTICLE OF IT. 
THAT IS NONSENSE. 
THEY WANT TO AUGUST THERE IS NO 
CONDUCT THAT IS AKIN TO A 
CRIME, UNDER McDONALD, IN FACT, 
THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE BIBERY. 
BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT IT IS 
AKIN TO BRIBERY BUT THEY SAY 
UNLESS YOU CHARGE THAT, UNLESS 
IN THE NIXON CASE THEY HAD 15 
ARTICLES ON EACH PARTICULAR 
ACT, CRIMINAL AND NOT CRIMINAL, 
YOU COULD NOT MAKE OUT A VIABLE 
CHARGE. 
THAT IS NEVER BEEN A 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE. 
JUST AS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE 
HOUSE ORGANIZE ITS IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION ALONG THE TERMS 
THEY DICTATE, THEY NOW WANT TO 
DICTATE HOW WE CAN CHARGE AN 
OFFENSE. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE TASK 
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 
CONDUCT THAT IS CHARGED HAS 
BEEN COMMITTED AND WHETHER THAT 
ABUSE OF POWER RISES TO THE 
LEVEL OF WARRANTING 
IMPEACHMENT. 
BUT THIS TECHNICAL LEGAL 
ARGUMENT THAT NO, YOU HAVE TO 
CHARGE IT AS WE WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO CHARGE IT, YOU CAN'T MAKE 
REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT YES, 
THESE ACTS ALSO CONSTITUTE 
BRIBERY, IT IS NOT. 
YES, WE COULD HAVE CHARGED 
BRIBERY, WE COULD HAVE HAD TWO 
SEPARATE COUNTS. 
THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL 
REQUIREMENT. 
AND HAD WE DONE THAT, AS I 
SAID, THEY WOULD HAVE ATTACKED 
THAT, TAKE ONE OFFENSE AND 
MAKING IT INTO TWO. 
THAT DOES NOT DETRACT THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIOLATED OUR 
BRIBERY LAW, THEY VIOLATED WHAT 
THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD FROM 
BRITISH COMMON LAW, EXTORTION, 
THEY VIOLATED THE CONTROL ACT, 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION 
ACT. 
MULTIPLE LAWS. 
WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THEY 
ABUSED THEIR POWER AND COUNSEL 
SAYS, CLAIMS ARE MADE OF ABUSE 
OF POWER ALL THE TIME. 
THAT IS TRUE. 
IN POLITICAL RHETORIC. 
BUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES 
WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT. 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT IMPEACHED 
OVER CLIMATE CHANGE OR THE 
OTHER EXAMPLES THEY GAVE OF 
PEOPLE SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS 
ABUSING HIS OFFICE. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT BROUGHT US 
HERE. 
WHAT BROUGHT US HERE IS THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDED HE COULD 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID TO AN 
ALLY TO GET HELP IN HIS 
REELECTION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. 
>> QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS FOR COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
EVEN IF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES 
ARE CALLED, DO YOU EVER 
ENVISION THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AGREEING THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR 
SENATE TRIAL IF IT ENDS IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, THE ANSWER IS 
NO. 
NOW, THEY WILL NOT AGREE THAT 
IS FAIR BECAUSE WHAT WILL 
HAPPEN IS IF THERE IS A 
DISCUSSION OF WITNESSES, AND IF 
WE GO TO WITNESSES, WE CAN HAVE 
ANYBODY WE WANT BUT THE REALITY 
IS, THAT ALSO INCLUDES 
DOCUMENTS AND THAT INCLUDES 
OTHER WITNESSES THAT IT MAY 
LEAD TO. 
SO AT SOME POINT YOU WILL SAY, 
BECAUSE THIS CANNOT GO ON 
FOREVER AND WE WILL BE AT THE 
ELECTION, THIS BODY WILL SAY 
THIS HAS TO COME TO AN END. 
AND THEY WILL SAY IT HAS BEEN 
BROUGHT TO AN END AS WE ARE 
ABOUT TO GET THE KEY EVIDENCE. 
THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES THAT THEY 
HAD. 
WHEN THE HEARING TOOK PLACE 
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
YOU HAD FOUR WITNESSES AT ONE 
POINT, WHEN YOU HAD THE LAW 
PROFESSORS AND THERE WERE THREE 
LAW PROFESSORS FROM THE 
DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND ONE FROM 
THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. 
SO IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT 
ANALYSIS, FOR EVERY ONE OF 
THEIR WITNESSES WE SHOULD GET 
FOUR. 
BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION 
EARLIER ASKED ABOUT THE FRUIT 
OF THE POISONOUS TREE, THE 
TAINT OF THE POISON DOES NOT 
AGE WELL. 
THE LONGER IT GOES DOES NOT 
MAKE THAT POISON GO AWAY. 
IT GETS DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO 
THE SOIL AND HERE THE SOIL WE 
ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A TRIAL 
THAT WOULD BE NOT ONLY ONGOING 
BUT THEY PUT UP 17 WITNESSES. 
YOU HEARD THEM. 
THEY ARE ACTING LIKE THERE HAS 
BEEN NO WITNESSES PRESENTED 
HERE. 
THEY PRESENTED TESTIMONY -- 17. 
THEY MAY NOT HAVE LIKED THAT WE 
WERE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE 17 
BY PLAYING THE WITNESS' WORDS. 
THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES 
WERE NEVER DONE WITH THE CROSS-
EXAMINATION BY THE COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
SO DOES THIS END? 
WILL IT EVER BE ENOUGH? 
IT WILL ONLY BE ENOUGH IF THEY 
GOT A CONVICTION. 
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS 
ABOUT. 
LET'S NOT FORGET THIS HAS BEEN 
GOING ON IN ONE STAGE OR 
ANOTHER FOR THREE YEARS NOW. 
MY CONCERN IS THERE IS NOT A -- 
WHERE IS THE END POINT IN THAT? 
SO THEIR END POINT IS JUST GIVE 
US JOHN BOLTON AND YOU GET ONE 
AND WE GET ONE. 
THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. 
THEY SAID OVERWHELMING, PROVED, 
63 TIMES. 
63 TIMES. 
THREE HOURS AWAY FROM ANSWERING 
THE END OF THE QUESTION 
SECTION. 
DO I THINK THERE WILL BE -- IS 
IT OUR POSITION THERE WILL BE A 
RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS DUE 
PROCESS HAS BEEN REACHED AND WE 
REACHED THE HAPPY ACCORD? 
NO. 
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. 
I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE WHAT CAN 
BE CURED HERE. 
I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID CAN 
BE CURED HERE. 
BY ANYTHING YOU WERE TO DO AS 
FAR AS WITNESSES OR ANYTHING 
ELSE. 
THAT PROCESS WAS SO TAINTED. 
I THOUGHT HE DID A VERY 
EFFECTIVE JOB OF EXPLAINING 
PAINSTAKINGLY, MULTIPLE TIMES, 
THE ISSUE OF THE SUBPOENAS. 
I THOUGHT THE PERFECT SIGNALS 
WAS, THEY SAID WHEN THE PEOPLE 
FILE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
REQUEST, THEY GET ANSWERS AND 
HE SAID THAT IS BECAUSE THEY 
FOLLOWED THE LAW. 
THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> SENATOR FROM DELAWARE. 
>> ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUES, 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
FOR OUR HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S AIDS AND 
DEFENDERS CLAIMED IT IS NORMAL 
OR USUAL TO USE U.S. FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED 
OUTCOME. 
HOW IS THE PRESIDENT'S ACT IN 
WITHHOLDING U.S. SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
DIFFERENT TO ACHIEVE FOREIGN 
POLICY GOALS AND NATIONAL 
SCOUTER OBJECTIVES AND HOW 
SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT 
THAT THIS IS DONE ALL THE TIME. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
SO TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO 
THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK 
INSIDE THE PRESIDENT'S MIND, 
YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT RECENT 
HISTORY AND THEN WHAT WAS DONE 
LAST YEAR. 
AS I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AND 
EVEN YESTERDAY, OTHER 
PRESIDENTS HAVE HELD HOLDS, AID 
FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS. 
EVEN THIS PRESIDENT. 
THERE ARE A VARIETY OF 
LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS FOR 
HOLDING AID. 
WHETHER IT BE CORRUPTION. 
OR BURDEN SHARING. 
EVEN IN THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER 
HOLD, AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE OF 
CONCERNS ABOUT TERRORISM, OR 
CENTRAL AMERICA, BECAUSE OF 
IMMIGRATION CONCERNS, EVEN 
THOUGH SOME MIGHT DISAGREE WITH 
THAT, THAT IS A LEGITIMATE 
POLICY DEBATE. 
THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT 
EVERY WINS TESTIFIED, THE 17 
WITNESSES THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT, 
TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO 
REASON PROVIDED FOR THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS HOLD. 
I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER HOW 
THERE IS A PROCESS FOR DOING 
THIS. 
RIGHT? 
THERE IS A WELL PRESCRIBED 
PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING THE 
FUNDS. 
LIKE WE ALL DID HERE IN THIS 
CHAMBER. 
87 OF YOU AGREED ON. 
INTERAGENCY PROCESS TO REVIEW 
IT TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE 
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA OUTLINED 
BY THIS BODY. 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS. 
THAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. 
THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS WAS 
FOLLOWED. 
THE CERTIFICATION WAS MADE. 
THE NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS 
WAS CONDUCTED. 
THE TRAIN HAD LEFT THE STATION 
JUST LIKE THE TRAIN HAD LEFT 
THE STATION IN 2018. 
IN 2017. 
IN 2016. 
AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE 
AGENCIES HAD BEEN ENGAGED AND 
SIGNED OFF. 
EXCEPT THIS YEAR, 2019, RATHER, 
THAT ALL CHANGED. 
A HOLD WAS IMPLEMENTED, THERE 
WAS NO NOTIFICATION GIVEN TO 
CONGRESS, WHICH VIOLATED THE 
ACT, DOD, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
IMPLORED THE PRESIDENT TO 
RELOSE THE AID BOUGHT IT NOT 
ONLY MET ALL THE 
CERTIFICATIONS, BUT IT WAS IN 
THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST AND 
CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY. 
AND YET NOBODY KNEW WHY IT 
HAPPENED. 
AND TO THIS DAY, THE INDIVIDUAL 
WHO COULD SHED LIGHT ON THIS, 
MR. BOLTON, IS BEING PROHIBITED 
FROM COMING FORWARD TO EXPLAIN 
WHY THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM IT 
HAPPENED. 
SO YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME 
TO SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
AND GET THAT INFORMATION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANGER. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH 
SET OF COUNSELS. 
>> THANK YOU.
. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR BOTH 
PARTIES, THE HOUSE WILL ANSWER 
FIRST. 
HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN AND 
AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE, UNDER THE HOUSE 
MANAGER'S STANDARD WOULD THE 
DOSSIER BE CONSIDERED AS 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN A U.S. 
ELECTION, AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
AND SENATORS. 
THANK YOU FOR QUESTION. 
THE ANALOGY IS NOT APPLICABLE 
TO THE PRESIDENT'S SITUATION 
BECAUSE FIRST, TO THE EXTENT 
THAT OPPOSITION RESEARCH WAS 
OBTAINED, IT WAS OPPOSITION 
RESEARCH THAT WAS PURCHASED BUT 
THIS SPEAKS TO THE UNDERLYING 
ISSUE OF THE AVOIDANCE OF 
PACTS, THE AVOIDANCE OF THE 
REALITY OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID IN THIS PARTICULAR 
CIRCUMSTANCE. 
NOW, I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL BUT 
ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE 
CONSISTENTLY HEAR ON THE FLOOR 
OF THIS SENATE, THIS GREAT 
INSTITUTION IN AMERICA'S 
DEMOCRACY IS CONSPIRACY THEORY 
AFTER CONSPIRACY THEORY AFTER 
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
WE HEARD ABOUT THE DEEP STATE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
ABOUT ADAM SCHIFF IS THE ROOT 
OF ALL EVIL CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
WE HEARD ABOUT THE BURISMA 
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
WE HEARD ABOUT THE CROWD STRIKE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
WE HEARD ABOUT THE WHISTLE-
BLOWER CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
IT IS HARD TO KEEP COUNT. 
THIS IS THE SENATE. 
THIS IS AMERICA'S MOST 
EXCLUSIVE POLITICAL CLUB. 
THIS IS THE WORLD'S GREATEST 
DELIBERATIVE BODY AND ALL YOU 
OFFER US IS CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE 
FACTS IN THIS CASE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ABUSED HIS 
POWER, HE TROYED TO TRIED TO 
CHEAT IN THE ELECTION. 
THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
THAT IS A CRIME AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THAT IS THE REASON THAT WE ARE 
HERE. 
THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE THIS 
GREAT BODY OF DISTINGUISHED 
SENATORS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
SOUNDS LIKE YOU CAN BUY A 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. 
IF YOU PURCHASE IT, YOU 
PURCHASE THE OPPOSITION 
RESEARCH, IT IS OKAY. 
LET ME TRY DEBUNK THE 
CONSPIRACY. 
THERE IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT 
CHRISTOPHER STEEL WAS ENGAGED 
TO OBTAIN AND PREPARE A DOSSIER 
ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 
DONALD TRUMP. 
IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY STEEL 
THAT HE UTILIZED HIS ASSETS TO 
DRAFT THE DOSSIER. 
IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT THE 
DOSSIER WAS SHARED WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THROUGH 
THE NUMBER FOUR RANKING MEMBER 
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT 
THAT TIME BECAUSE HIS WIFE 
HAPPENED TO BE WORKING FOR THE 
ORGANIZATION THAT WAS PUTTING 
THE DOSSIER TOGETHER. 
THIS IS ALSO NOT A CONSPIRACY. 
SOUNDS LIKE ONE EXCEPT IT IS 
REAL. 
IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT 
THAT DOSSIER WAS TAKEN BY THE 
FBI, SUBMITTED TO THE FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT 
TO OBTAIN A FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ORDER 
ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. 
IT IS ALSO NOT A CONSPIRACY 
THAT THAT COURT ISSUED AN 
ORDER, TWO OF THEM NOW, 
CONDEMNING THE FBI'S PRACTICE 
AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MANY OF 
THOSE ORDERS WERE NOT PROPERLY 
ISSUED. 
THAT IS JUST THE FACTS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION IS FOR BOTH 
PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT WILL ANSWER FIRST. 
CAN YOU ASSURE US THAT THE 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS DOCUMENTS 
SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE WAS NOT 
CLASSIFIED SECRET SUCH AS 
PREVENTING EMBARRASSMENT TO A 
PERSON. 
IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE THE 
SERIOUS DAMAGE TO NATIONAL 
SECURITY THAT WOULD BE CAUSED 
BY DECLASSIFYING THIS DOCUMENT 
PURSUANT TO THE SAME EXECUTIVE 
ORDER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR 
QUESTION, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY IS TO 
ABIDE BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF 
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL AND 
THE CLASSIFICATION -- MY 
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT 
DOCUMENT IS CLASSIFIED BECAUSE 
IT REFERS TO ANOTHER DOCUMENT 
THAT WAS CLASSIFIED. 
I CAN'T REPRESENT THE SPECIFIC 
REASONS THE CLASSIFICATION 
OFFICER CLASSIFIED THAT 
DOCUMENT BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT 
WAS ORIGINALLY CLASSIFIED 
ACCORDING TO PROPER PROCEDURES, 
IT IS A PROPERLY QUALIFIED 
DOCUMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE 
POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION, 
TO FOLLOW THE CLASSIFICATION 
PROCEDURES. 
THE MEMORANDUM SHE SUBMITTED IS 
CLASSIFIED BECAUSE OF THAT 
TRANSCRIPT. 
THAT TRANSCRIPT RELATES TO A 
CONVERSATION WITH A FOREIGN 
HEAD OF STATE. 
ALMOST ALL CONVERSATIONS WITH 
FOREIGN HEADS OF STATE ARE 
CLASSIFIED. 
CLASSIFIED BECAUSE THE 
CONFIDENTIALITY RELATED TO THE 
COMMUNICATIONS IS IMPORTANT FOR 
ENSURING THERE CAN BE CANDID 
CONVERSATIONS. 
THE PRESIDENT TOOK AN 
EXTRAORDINARY ACTION IN 
DECLASSIFYING TWO OF HIS 
CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN 
HEADS OF STATE. 
UNPRECEDENTED. 
HE WEIGHED THE BALANCE OF WHAT 
WAS AT STAKE IN THIS CASE AND 
THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY IN 
THOSE TWO CONVERSATIONS. 
BUT THAT WAS AN EXCEPTION TO 
THE USUAL RULE THAT SUCH 
CONVERSATIONS ARE PROPERLY 
CLASSIFIED. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IF YOU 
HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
READ THAT DOCUMENT YOURSELF. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS SAID 
THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF 
THIS SCHEME. 
HE DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE, 
INVOLVEMENT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE 
OR FORM. 
WE HAD THE TESTIFY THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED WITH 
THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE AID 
WAS BEING HELD UP AND WAS TIED 
TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN'T 
SAY WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, 
THE PRESIDENT WOULD NEVER ALLOW 
SUCH A THING. 
THERE WAS NOTHING BUT A SILENT 
NOD OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 
THE VICE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT HE 
KNEW NOTHING. 
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT POINTS 
TO THE OPEN TESTIMONY OF 
JENNIFER WILLIAMS TO SUPPORT 
THAT CONTENTION. 
BUT THE CLASSIFIED SUBMISSION 
GOES TO THAT PHONE CALL BETWEEN 
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
YOU SHOULD READ THAT AND ASK 
YOURSELF WHETHER THAT 
SUBMISSION IS BEING CLASSIFIED 
BECAUSE IT WOULD EITHER 
EMBARRASS OR UNDERMINE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE 
PRESIDENT ARE SAYING. 
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WANTED TO 
RELEASE THE RECORD OF HIS CALL. 
HE TALKED ALL ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 
IF IT WAS SO CLASSIFIED THEN 
WHY ARE THEY ALL TALKING ABOUT 
IT? 
WE ARE TO BE ASSURED THIS 
CLASSIFICATION DECISION WAS 
MADE ABOVE BOARD. 
I AM SURE THAT JOHN BOLTON'S 
MANU CRYPT WILL BE TREATED WITH 
THE SAME SCRUTINY. 
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CONCLUDE 
THAT IT IS. 
EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD BE 
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU ARE 
BEING TOLD AND WHAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD. 
WELL, THEY DESERVE THE WHOLE 
TRUTH AND THAT IS PART OF THE 
TRUTH SO LET THE PUBLIC SEE IT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
COMPARE THE BIPARTISANSHIP IN 
THE NIXON, CLINTON AND TRUMP 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, 
SPECIFICALLY, HOW BIPARTISAN 
WAS THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO AUTHORIZE 
AND DIRECT THE HOUSE COMMITTEES 
TO BEGIN FORMAL IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES FOR EACH OF THE THREE 
PRESIDENTS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, IN THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT, WE LOOK BACK AND 
WE THINK ABOUT THE VOTE ON THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT 
ENDED UP BIPARTISAN BUT IT 
DIDN'T START THAT WAY. 
THE PARTIES WERE AS DUG IN AS 
PARTIES ARE TODAY. 
THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
SAW IT DIFFERENTLY. 
BUT AS THE EVIDENCE EMERGED A 
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS EMERGED ON 
THE COMMITTEE. 
AND A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS, 
WHO LOVED RICHARD NIXON, BUT 
THEY COULDN'T TURN AWAY FROM 
THE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR 
PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED ABUSE 
OF POWER TO CHEAT IN THE 
ELECTION AND THAT THEY HAD TO 
VOTE TO IMPEACH  HIM.
WHEN IT CAME TO THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IT STARTED OUT ALONG PARTISAN 
LINES AND IT ENDED ALONG 
PARTISAN LINES AND I BELIEVE 
THE REASON WHY, WAS WE NEVER 
HAD A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR. 
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. 
WITH NIXON WE HAD CLEAR ABUSE 
OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO 
UPEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHEME, TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION 
AND MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES 
VOTED IMPEACH. 
WITH CLINTON, WE HAD PRIVATE 
MISCONDUCT, YES, I THINK A 
CRIME BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT 
THAT UNDER OATH BUT IT WASN'T 
MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL 
AUTHORITY. 
AS I SAID, ANY HUSBAND CAUGHT 
IN AN AFFAIR COULD HAVE LIED 
ABOUT IT AND IT DIDN'T INVOLVE 
THE CRUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL THE 
ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL 
AUTHORITY. 
IT DIDN'T REACH A HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR. 
IN THE TRUMP CASE, I WILL SAY, 
I HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED 
BECAUSE I SERVE WITH A NUMBER 
OF REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE WHO 
I LIKE, WHO I RESPECT, WHO I 
WORK WITH ON LEGISLATION AND I 
BELIEVE WHEN THIS EVIDENCE CAME 
OUT, AS WITH IN THE NIXON 
ADMINISTRATION, WE WOULD HAVE A 
COMING TOGETHER BUT IT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN. 
MUCH TO MY DISAPPOINTMENT. 
I THINK YOU HAVE A NEW 
OPPORTUNITY HERE IN THE SENATE, 
FOR ONE THING, THIS IS A 
SMALLER BODY, YOU ARE, AS HAS 
BEEN MENTIONED, THE GREATEST 
DELIBERATIVE BODY ON THE 
PLANET, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T 
HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO, WHICH IS 
TO CALL FIRSTHAND WITNESSES. 
AND HEAR FROM THEM. 
WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS HAPPEN 
SINCE THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES 
WERE ADOPTED. 
ONE OF THEM WAS -- WERE E-MAILS 
THAT HAD BEEN RELEASED. 
WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. 
IT HAS BEEN SAID BY COUNSEL 
THAT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 
ACT, INFORMATION TO SHOW IF YOU 
FOLLOW THE PROCESS YOU GET 
INFORMATION, NO, THEY HAD TO 
SUE AND THEY ARE STILL IN A 
LOCK DOWN FIGHT OVER THE 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND THE 
REDACTIONS THAT WERE NOT 
PROPER, SO THAT IS A BIG FIGHT 
THAT IS STILL GOING ON BUT WE 
GOT INFORMATION. 
MOST TELLINGLY, MR. BOLTON HAS 
NOW STEPPED FORWARD AND SAID HE 
WANTS -- HE IS WILLING TO 
TESTIFY. 
HE IS WILLING TO COME HERE AND 
TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND I THINK 
WE WOULD ALL LEARN SOMETHING 
AND I THINK WE CAN STRUCTURE 
THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL 
RESPECT THE SENATE'S NEED DO 
OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH WE ALSO 
FEEL IN THE HOUSE. 
LET'S GET THAT DONE AND LET'S 
SEE IF THAT KIND OF INFORMATION 
CAN HELP THE SENATORS COME 
TOGETHER AS HAPPENED IN THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SO 
MANY YEARS AGO WHEN WE DEALT 
WITH A SERIOUS PROBLEM OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, ABUSE 
OF POWER TO CHEAT IN AN 
ELECTION WHEN RICHARD NIXON 
SHOCKED THE NATION AND HAD TO 
RESIGN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION, MANY OF OUR 
COLLEAGUES ARE WORRIED THAT IF 
WE WERE ABLE TO BRING WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS IN THE TRIAL IT 
WOULD TAKE TOO LONG. 
WE COULD DO DEPOSITIONS IN ONE 
WEEK, PLEASE ELABORATE. 
WHAT CAN YOU SAY THAT WILL 
REASSURES US THAT IT CAN BE 
DONE IN A SHORT TIME, MINIMALLY 
IMPEDING THE BUSINESS OF THE 
SENATE. 
>> I THANK THE SENATOR FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO 
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE 
SUBPOENAED, THOSE DOCUMENTS 
HAVE BEEN COLLECTED. 
SO THAT WORK HAS BEEN DONE. 
WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN 
COLLECTED. 
THOSE COULD BE PROVIDED TO HAD 
SENATE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. 
WITH RESPECT TO WITNESS, IF WE 
DO A ONE-WEEK PERIOD, WE WOULD 
HAVE TO -- WE WOULD HAVE TO 
DECIDE ON WITNESSES WHO ARE 
RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE OF THE 
ISSUES. 
NEITHER SIDE WOULD HAVE AN 
UNLIMITED SIDE TOLIMITED TIME 
TO CALL WINDS. 
IF THERE WAS A WITNESS OVER A 
WITNESS IS MATERIAL AND 
PROBATIVE, THAT DECISION COULD 
BE MADE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 
IF THERE WAS A DISPUTE AS TO 
WHETHER A PASSAGE IS COVERED 
AND SHOULD THE WHITE HOUSE 
INVOKE A PRIVILEGE, THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE COULD DECIDE IS THAT 
PROPERLY LAID OR IS THAT AN 
ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL CRIME OR 
FRAUD. 
SO THIS CAN BE DONE VERY 
QUICKLY. 
THIS COULD BE DONE EFFECTIVELY. 
WE NEVER SOUGHT TO DEPOSE EVERY 
WITNESS UNDER THE FACE OF THE 
SUN. 
WE HAVE SPECIFIED FOUR IN 
PARTICULAR THAT WE THINK ARE 
PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE AND 
RELEVANT HERE. 
BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REACH 
AN AGREEMENT ON CONCLUDING THAT 
PROCESS WITHIN A WEEK. 
SO THAT IS HOW WE WOULD 
CONTEMPLATE IT BEING DONE. 
WE MAKE THAT PROPOSAL TO OUR 
OPPOSING COUNSEL. 
IT WOULD BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR 
TIME. 
I THINK IT WOULD BE A 
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. 
COUNSEL SAYS THAT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES A 
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. 
LET'S HAVE A REASONABLE 
ACCOMMODATION HERE. 
WE WILL TAKE ONE WEEK, YOU 
CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS IN 
THE SENATE, WE WILL DO THE 
DEPOSITIONS AND WE WILL COME 
BACK AND PRESENT TO YOU WHAT 
THE WITNESSES HAD TO SAY IN THE 
DEPOSITIONS AND THAT IS HOW WE 
CONTEMPLATE THE PROCESS WOULD 
WORK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> I AM ABOUT TO SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
BUT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST THAT 
FOLLOWING THE RESPONSE TO MY 
QUESTION AND ONE MORE 
DEMOCRATIC QUESTION, WE TAKE A 
45-MINUTE BREAK FOR DINNER. 
SO I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> I AM SURE THERE IS NO 
OBJECTION. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM THE 
MAJORITY LEADER, A QUESTION TO 
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE 
QUESTION ON BIPARTISAN AND ANY 
ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
MADE IN RESPONSE TO ANY OF THE 
PREVIOUS QUESTIONS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MAJORITY 
LEADER, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR LAMAR'S 
QUESTION ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP, 
EXCUSE ME, I BEG YOUR PARDON, 
SENATOR ALEXANDER. 
YOUR QUESTION, THE -- IN THE 
NIXON CASE, THE AUTHORIZING 
RESOLUTION, THIS IS IN THE 
HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE THE INQUIRY, 
WAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 410 TO 
4. 410 VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE 
INQUIRY, ONLY 4 VOTED AGAINST. 
232 DEMOCRATS, 175 REPUBLICANS 
AND ONE INDEPENDENT VOTED IN 
FAVOR. 
IN THE CLINTON RESOLUTION, THIS 
WAS -- HOW RESOLUTION 581, 
AUTHORIZED THE BEGINNING OF THE 
úINQUIRY. 
PASSED 258 TO 176. 
31 DEMOCRATS JOINED 227 
REPUBLICANS VOTING IN FAVOR OF 
AUTHORIZING THAT INQUIRY. 
THAT WAS SUBSTANTIAL BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT TO AUTHORIZE THE 
INQUIRY. 
IN THIS CASE, HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660, PASSED ON OCTOBER 31, HAD 
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION. 
THE VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE 
RESOLUTION WERE 231 DEMOCRATS 
AND ONE INDEPENDENT. 
THE OPPOSITION WAS ALL 
REPUBLICANS. 
194 PLUS TWO DEMOCRATS VOTING 
AGAINST. 
IN TERMS OF OTHER ASSERTIONS 
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, THERE ARE 
A COUPLE POINTS I WANTED TO 
TOUCH ON. 
A LOT SAID ABOUT HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT HAVE ARGUED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD DO 
ANYTHING HE WANTS NOW TO 
SOLICIT ANY FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN ANY ELECTION, 
IF HE THINKERS IT WILL HELP HIM 
GET ELECTED. 
THAT IS FALSE. 
THAT IS A GROSS DISTORTION OF 
WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. 
THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND 
1POINT THAT WE HAVE MADE IN 
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS 
IS THAT INFORMATION, LIMITED 
INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED TO 
A PARTY IS NOT A CONTRIBUTION, 
A THING OF VALUE UNDER THE 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. 
IT IS NOT JUST MY CONCLUSION, 
THAT IS WHAT THE MUELLER REPORT 
SAID. 
SAID NO JUDICIAL DECISION HAS 
TREATED THE PROVISION OF 
UNCOMPOSITION RESEARCH OR 
SIMILAR -- UNDER CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE LAWS. 
THAT WAS VOLUME 1. PAGE 187. 
THAT IS A LIMITED POINT. 
THE BIGGER POINT, THE 
SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE 
BECAUSE OF PROFESSOR'S COMMENTS 
THAT THE THEORY THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IS ADVICING IS THE 
PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING HE 
WANTS, IF HE THINKS IT WILL 
ADVANCE HIS REELECT, ANY QUID 
PRO QUO, ANYTHING HE WANTS, 
ANYTHING GOES. 
THAT IS NOT TRUE. 
THE PROFESSOR TODAY ISSUED A 
STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT THAT WAS 
AN EXAGGERATION OF WHAT HE WAS 
SAYING. 
ASIDE FROM WHAT THE PROFESSOR 
WAS SAYING THE OTHER NIGHT AND 
EXPLAINING IN ABSTRACT AND 
HYPOTHETICAL TERMS AND ACADEMIC 
TERMS, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC CASE 
HERE AND THE SPECIFIC CASE IS 
THE ONE FRAMED BY THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
AND THE DEFECTS IN THAT CASE 
ARE A THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER, 
THAT INVOLVES NO ALLEGATION OF 
A CRIME, NO ALLEGATION OF A 
VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW, 
INSTEAD, THE THEORY THAT YOU 
CAN TAKE ACTION ON ITS FACE IS 
PERMISSIBLE, UNDER THE POWERS 
OF THE PRESIDENT AND DETERMINE 
IT WILL BE TREATED AS 
IMPEACHABLE AND IMPERMISSIBLE, 
THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT 
SAYS. 
THAT IS A THEORY THAT IS 
MALLEABLE. 
IT PROVIDES NO REAL STANDARD AT 
ALL AND THAT WAS ONE POINT THE 
PROFESSOR WAS MAKING. 
THE OTHER POINT I WILL MAKE IS, 
THEY SET THE STANDARD FOR 
THEMSELVES WITH RESPECT TO 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE 
TO ESTABLISH IN ORDER TO 
ESTABLISH THEIR BAD MOTIVE THAT 
THERE IS NOTHING THAT YOU CAN 
LOOK AT THAT WOULD SUGGEST ANY 
POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE NATIONAL 
INTEREST IN INQUIRING INTO 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE OR THE 
BURISMA AFFAIR. 
THEY CAN'T MEET THAT STANDARD. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM DELAWARE. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ADDRESSED TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE HOUSE WILL GO FIRST IN 
ANSWERING THE QUESTION. 
THEY SAID EARLIER THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD EXPECT TO CALL THEIR OWN 
WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL IF MR. 
BOLTON OR OTHERS ARE CALLED BY 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
CAN YOU TELL THE SENATE IF ANY 
OF THOSE WITNESSES WOULD HAVE 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 
AND HIS ACTIONS? 
>> THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT COULD CALL WITH 
FIRSTHAND INFORMATION. 
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE WITNESSES 
THAT THEY HAVE DESCRIBED SO 
FAR, THEIR POSITION IF YOU ARE 
THE CHAIRMAN OF A COMMITTEE 
DOING AN INVESTIGATION THAT 
MAKES YOU A RELEVANT WITNESS. 
IT DOESN'T. 
OR YOU HAVE ALL BECOME 
WITNESSES IN YOUR OWN 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THEY WANT TO CALL JOE BIDEN AS 
A WITNESS. 
JOE BIDEN CAN'T TELL US WHY 
MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD FROM 
UKRAINE, JOE BIDEN CAN'T TELL 
US WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
COULDN'T GET IN THE DOOR OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE WHILE THE RUSSIAN 
FOREIGN MINISTER COULD. 
HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO 
ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. 
HE CAN'T TELL US WHETHER THIS 
RISES TO AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE 
OF POWER. 
ARE THERE WITNESSES THEY COULD 
CALL? 
ABSOLUTELY. 
THEY HAVE SAID MICK MULVANEY 
ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING THE 
PRESIDENT NEVER SAID WHAT I 
SAID HE SAID EARLIER. 
WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN 
WHY DON'T THEY CALL MICK 
MULVANEY. 
HE SHOULD BE ON THEIR WITNESS 
LIST. 
IF SECRETARY SECRETARY OF STATE 
MIKE POMPEO HAS EVIDENCE THAT 
THERE WAS A POLICY BASIS TO 
WITHHOLD THE AID, WHY DON'T 
THEY CALL HIM? 
THEY DON'T WANT TO ALLOW THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE TO DECIDE ISSUES 
OF MATERIAL BECAUSE THEY KNOW 
WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO 
INVOLVES WITNESSES THAT DON'T 
SHED LIGHT ON THE CHARGES 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. 
THEY DO CERTIFY THE APPETITE OF 
THEIR CLIENT. 
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE VALUE TO 
THE ISSUES HERE. 
SO YES, THERE ARE WITNESSES. 
NOW, THE REASON THEY ARE NOT ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS LIST IS 
BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TRUTHFUL 
UNDER OATH THEY WOULD 
INCRIMINATE THE PRESIDENT. 
OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD BE 
BEGGING TO HAVE MICK MULVANEY 
COME TESTIFY. 
THEY WOULD BE BEGGING TO HAVE 
THE HEAD OF OMB WHO HELPED 
ADMINISTRATOR THE FREEZE ON 
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT. 
LET'S BRING HIM IN. 
HE WILL TELL YOU. 
IT WAS INNOCENT. 
IT WAS ALL ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING. 
WHY DON'T THEY WANT THE HEAD OF 
OMB IN? 
WHY DON'T THEY WANT THEIR OWN 
PEOPLE IN? 
BECAUSE THEIR OWN PEOPLE WILL 
INCRIMINATE THE PRESIDENT. 
BUT THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF 
RELEVANT WITNESSES. 
THEY JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO 
HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> BESIDES THE FACT HE SAID IT 
IS ON PAGE 675 OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT THAT WE CAN CALL ANY 
WITNESSES WE WANT, HE SAID WE 
DON'T -- WE CAN CALL THEIR 
WITNESSES. 
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. 
CALL  THEIR WITNESSES. 
UNDER THEIR THEORY, IF WE WANT 
TO TALK TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, 
THAT IS IRRELEVANT. 
WE CAN'T TALK TO JOE BIDEN OR 
HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE THAT IS 
IRRELEVANT. 
EXCEPT THE CONVERSATION THAT IS 
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS 
INQUIRY, THE PHONE CALL, 
TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU SELECTIVE 
UTILITYALIZED, HAS UTILIZED, 
HAS HUNTER BIDEN. 
THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING 
THERE. 
WELL, LET ME FIND OUT THROUGH 
CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
BUT I JUST THINK THE IRONRY OF 
IRONY THAT WE CAN CALL ANY 
WITNESS EXCEPT -- IT IS THE 
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE. 
DOESN'T GET BETTER WITH AGE. 
THE IDEA THIS IS GOING TO BE A 
FAIR PROCESS, CALL THE 
WITNESSES THEY WANT, DON'T CALL 
THE WITNESSES YOU WANT BECAUSE 
THEY WERE IRRELEVANT. 
MAY BE IRRELEVANT TO THEM. 
THEY ARE NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AND THEY ARE NOT IRRELEVANT TO 
OUR CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE 45 
MINUTES. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE DO 
INDEED. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> HELLO. 
I AM ELAINE QUIJANO. 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS ON A 
DINNER BREAK. 
THEY ARE FIELDING THE 
INQUIRIES, THE TOPIC OF 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES REMAINS A 
MAJOR FOCUS. 
BUT MOST REPUBLICANS WANT THE 
TRIAL TO WRAP UP QUICKLY. 
WITHOUT NEW TESTIMONY. 
HERE IS WHAT SOUTH CAROLINA 
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID 
EARLIER. 
>> YEAH. 
I MEAN, INCREASINGLY OPTIMISTIC 
THAT REPUBLICANS WILL MOVE TO A 
FINAL VERDICT BEFORE TUESDAY. 
THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED 
IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER. 
WE ARE NOT BLOCKING ANYBODY'S 
WITNESSES. 
WE ARE JUST NOT GOING TO 
LEGITIMIZE THE HOUSE CHOOSING 
NOT TO CALL A WITNESS, DUMP IT 
IN OUR LAP. 
>> MOST DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING 
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK 
SCHUMER WANT WITNESSES TO 
APPEAR. 
AND HE IS TRYING TO APPEAL TO A 
SELECT GROUP OF REPUBLICANS WHO 
HAVE YET TO MAKE UP THEIR 
MINDS. 
>> TODAY WE WILL FINISH THE 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, 
THEN TOMORROW WE WILL TAKE A 
CRUCIAL VOTE ON WHETHER WE WILL 
DEBATE HAVING FOUR WITNESSES -- 
HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 
IN THIS TRIAL. 
THE FATE OF MUCH OF THE FUTURE 
OF HOW THIS CONDUCTS ITSELF IS 
ON THE SHOULDER OF FOUR 
REPUBLICANS. 
>> THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON 
POSSIBLE WITNESSES TOMORROW. 
IF THE MOTION FAILS, 
REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO 
CALL A VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
MEANING, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE 
ACQUITTED SOON. 
LET'S BRING IN MOLLY, JENNIFER, 
KATHERINE AND JESSICA. 
MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR AND CAPITOL HILL 
REPORTER. 
JENNIFER IS A REPORTER FOR "THE 
LOS ANGELES TIMES." 
AND KATHERINE IS A WHITE HOUSE 
REPORTER FOR CBS NEWS. 
AND JESSICA IS A PROFESSOR AT 
LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL. 
WELCOME. 
JENNIFER, YOU ARE THERE ON 
CAPITOL HILL, ARE REPUBLICANS 
CONFIDENCE THEY CAN BLOCK 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND 
TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT. 
>> Reporter: THEY ARE. 
THEY THINK THEY CAN WRAP THIS 
UP TOMORROW. 
SOME ARE SAYING THE TRIAL COULD 
BE WRAPPED UP TOMORROW. 
THAT SEEMS PRETTY FAST. 
EVEN IF THIS WITNESS VOTE FAILS 
AND REPUBLICANS ARE ABLE TO 
HAVE THEIR 51 VOTES, DEMOCRATS 
WANT TO FORCE VOTES ON 
WITNESSES. 
SO DESPITE REPUBLICAN'S 
OPTIMISM, A FEW REPUBLICANS 
HAVEN'T OFFICIALLY SAID HOW 
THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE. 
IT IS NOT LOCKED IN BUT AS THE 
TRIAL COMES TO THE QUESTION AND 
ANSWER COMES TO A CONCLUSION, 
REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ARE 
CONFIDENT. 
>> THE CENTRAL POTENTIAL 
WITNESS IN ALL OF THIS IS JOHN 
BOLTON. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING 
ABOUT HIM TODAY, ATTACKING HIS 
CREDIBILITY. 
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE WHITE 
HOUSE'S STRATEGY? 
>> Reporter: WE KNOW THE WHITE 
HOUSE HAS BEEN PREPARING FOR 
THE POSSIBILITY OF WITNESSES, 
EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THEIR HOPE 
THAT NO WITNESSES ARE CALLED. 
I WAS ASKING ABOUT THEIR LEVEL 
OF CONFIDENCE IN WHETHER 
REPUBLICANS WILL -- THERE WON'T 
BE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO VOTE 
FOR WITNESSES AND THE SOURCE 
SAID WE ARE LOOKING RIGHT NOW, 
WATCHING ALL THE QUESTIONS FROM 
THESE SENATORS, HUNDREDS OF 
QUESTIONS POSSIBLY BY THE TIME 
WE ARE DONE. 
SO THERE IS A CAUTIOUS APPROACH 
TO EVERYTHING HERE. 
BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARING 
ALL ALONG FOR THIS POSSIBILITY. 
>> JESSICA, LET ME TURN TO YOU, 
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID 
TODAY THE PRESIDENT'S POSSIBLE 
ACQUITTAL WOULD NOT BE 
LEGITIMATE IF ADDITIONAL 
TESTIMONY ISN'T INTRODUCED IN 
THE TRIAL. 
HERE IS PART OF HER COMMENTS. 
>> HE WILL NOT BE ACQUITTED. 
YOU CANNOT BE ACQUITTED IF YOU 
DON'T HAVE A TRIAL. 
YOU DON'T HAVE A TRIAL IF YOU 
DON'T HAVE WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTATION AND THAT. 
I WOULD HOPE THE SENATORS, IF 
IT COMES TO A TIE OR A QUESTION 
OF HEARING TESTIMONY OR 
RECEIVING DOCUMENTS, WOULD 
LEAVE IT UP TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF 
THOSE STATEMENTS? 
>> Reporter: ONE YOU HAVE TO 
THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
SUPREME COURT IS HORRIFIED 
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I THINK HE IS 
HOPING TO PLAY THE SMALLEST 
ROLE POSSIBLE IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
I THINK IF HE COULD WALK IN 
WITH A PAPER BAG OVER HIS HEAD, 
HE WOULD PREFER THAT TO A ROBE. 
IN TERMS OF WHAT SHE IS SAYING 
ABOUT AN ACQUITTING, SHE IS NOT 
REALLY MAKING A LEGAL 
CONCLUSION. 
IF THE SENATE DECIDES NOT TO 
CONVICT THE TECHNICAL TERM IS 
THAT HE WOULD BE ACQUITTED. 
I THINK THE POINT SHE TRYING TO 
MAKE IS THAT THIS ISN'T A REAL 
TRIAL. 
AND TWO, I THINK WHAT SHE IS 
TRYING TO SAY IS THE SENATE 
REALLY SET UP A SHAM GAME HERE 
WHERE THEY SET UP THE RULES TO 
PREDETERMINE THE OUTCOME. 
THAT NOTHING MOVES THEM FROM 
THEIR POSITION. 
THAT LESS INFORMATION IS 
BETTER. 
AND SO I DON'T THINK SHE IS 
MAKING A STATEMENT THAT IF THE 
PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED IT IS 
LEGALLY MEANINGLESS. 
IT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF LEGAL 
MEANING. 
I THINK SHE IS TRYING TO SAY I 
KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO 
RUN OUT THERE LIKE HE DID AFTER 
THE MUELLER REPORT AND SAY FULL 
EXONERATION. 
THIS IS NOT TRUE FULL 
EXONERATION. 
>> REMINDS ME, SHE WAS THE ONE 
WHO HAD THE DELAY, RIGHT, IN 
SENDING OVER THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE SHE WAS 
CONCERNED WITH HOW THE TRIAL 
WOULD PROCEED. 
FAIR TO SAY, REAL TRIAL IS VERY 
MUCH IN THE EYE OF THE 
BEHOLDER. 
>> Reporter: IF THIS WERE A 
ROLE TRIAL IT WOULD LOOK 
NOTHING LIKE WE ARE SEEING 
RIGHT NOW AND REALLY, I THINK 
IT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK 
AT WHAT IS HAPPENING. 
THIS IS A CONSEQUENTIAL EVENT 
THAT IS TAKING PLACE, SECOND 
ONLY TO, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS 
DECLARING WAR, SENDING TROOPS 
OVER SEAS TO FACE, YOU KNOW, AN 
ARMED EMERGENCY. 
THAT IS A VERY BIG. 
WE ARE ASKING TO ESSENTIALLY 
UNDO THE VOTES CAST BY MILLIONS 
OF PEOPLE IN THE LAST ELECTION. 
AND TO DO THAT IS A MAJOR, 
MAJOR, YOU KNOW, A MAJOR 
MOMENT. 
AND IT IS ONE OF THE REASONS 
WHY THE FOUNDERS -- I DON'T 
WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE FOUNDERS, 
OF COURSE, BUT IT IS A REASON 
WHY THERE IS A 2/3 REQUIREMENT 
IN THE SENATE. 
IN THE HOUSE IT IS A SIMPLE 
MAJORITY. 
YOU HAVE TO HAVE 2/3 VOTING IN 
FAVOR OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT 
FROM OFFICE. 
>> WHAT IS HIS ROLE WHEN IT 
COMES TO BREAKING A TIE AND HOW 
IS HE LIKELY TO APPROACH THAT? 
>> Reporter: I WILL DEFER TO 
JESSICA ON THE PREVIOUS CASES, 
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, IT IS AN 
EVENLY SPLIT SENATE AT THIS 
POINT. 
CALLING FOR WITNESSES, THAT 
DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SAME 2/3 
VOTE. 
IT ONLY REQUIRES A SIMP 
MAJORITY. 
SINCE REPUBLICANS HAVE 53 VOTES 
TO THE DEMOCRATS, YOU KNOW, 
ESSENTIALLY IF THREE -- IF THEY 
LOSE THREE VOTES, THERE IS A 
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE CAN WEIGH IN AND 
SAY YOU NEED SUBPOENA OR SAY 
NO, IT FAILS BECAUSE IT IS A 
SMIT VOTE AND HOW HE PROCEEDS 
IS GOING TO BE INTRIGUING 
BECAUSE SOME OF THE SCUTTLEBUTT 
ON CAPITOL HILL RIGHT NOW IS 
THEY ARE VERY -- THERE VERY 
WELL MAY BE A TIE VOTE WHEN IT 
COMES TO THAT ISSUE OF 
WITNESSES. 
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT 
JUSTICE WANTS TO INSERT HIMSELF 
IN THAT FIGHT POSES PROBLEMATIC 
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE 
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING 
SERVED SUBPOENAS, FIGHT THAT IN 
COURT. 
>> IT BECOMES COMPLICATED. 
WE SPOKE ON REPUBLICANS ON THE 
FENCE ABOUT WITNESSES, WHEN IT 
COMES TO ACQUITTAL, ARE THERE 
ANY DEMOCRATS THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS COURTING? 
>> Reporter: YEAH. 
WE HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY 
SPECIFIC COURTING BUT WE HAD 
INTERESTING THINGS. 
A COUPLE SENATORS, JOE MANSION 
OF WEST VIRGINIA AND SENATOR 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, JOE MANSION 
ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER TODAY, 
HE ASKED A QUESTION WITH 
REPUBLICANS WAS FASCINATING 
BECAUSE USUALLY THE QUESTIONS 
ARE COMING JUST FROM ONE SIDE 
OF THE AISLE OR THE OTHER. 
HE HASN'T REALLY SAID EXACTLY 
WHERE HE IS GOING TO LAND. 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN ALSO -- KIND 
OF A SURPRISE, AT LEAST, I 
THINK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, 
EXPRESSED THAT SHE IS A LITTLE 
BIT AMBIVALENT ABOUT ACQUITTAL. 
SHE GAVE COMMENTS EARLIER THIS 
WEEK, HEY, YOU KNOW, I THINK 
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD 
BE LEFT TO THE VOTERS. 
I THINK IT IS MORE "LIKELY" IN 
THE END THAT DEMOCRATS DO STICK 
TOGETHER. 
WE EXPECT DEMOCRATS TO STICK 
TOGETHER ON THE ISSUE OF 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. 
BUT ON ACQUITTAL, THERE IS 
ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF A 
SURPRISE. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
BACK TO CAPITOL HILL, YOU SEE 
CONGRESS MARK MEADOWS SPEAKING. 
>> WITHOUT ADDITIONAL 
WITNESSES, THAT MOST OF MY 
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES SHOULD VOTE 
FOR ACQUITTAL. 
THE DEMAND IS SO DEAFENING FROM 
ADAM SCHIFF HE NEEDS JOHN 
BOLTON TO APPEAR. 
IT MUST BE ADAM SCHIFF 
QUESTIONS WHETHER HE HAS A CASE 
THAT IS WORTHY OF A GUILTY 
VERDICT. 
WE WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY 
QUESTIONS. 
>> Reporter: [ INAUDIBLE 
QUESTION ] 
>> OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU LOOK AT 
THE STATES HE REPRESENTS, THIS 
IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, 
YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE THE 
PRIVILEGE OF CALLING HOME, IT 
WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT I THINK 
FOR HIM TO VOTE FOR A GUILTY 
VERDICT. 
AND BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO 
THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORTERS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS IN WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
THE FACT IS THAT GUILTY VERDICT 
WOULD BE TELLING EVERY ONE OF 
THE TRUMP VOTERS IN WEST 
VIRGINIA THAT PERHAPS THEY MADE 
THE WRONG CHOICE IN 2016. 
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING HE WILL 
HAVE TO CALCULATE ON HIS OWN 
AND AS HE LOOKED AND EVALUATED, 
HE IS A THOUGHTFUL SENATOR AND 
CERTAINLY ONE OF THE FEW THAT I 
WOULD VIEW AS A POSSIBILITY OF 
COMING ACROSS FOR A BIPARTISAN 
ACQUITTAL.
. 
>> Reporter: [ INAUDIBLE 
QUESTION ] 
>> OF COURSE, AS OUR COUNSEL 
HAS EXPLAINED ON THE FLOOR, YOU 
HAVE LOTS OF VERY IMPORTANT 
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW FAR 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD GO, 
TO WHAT EXTENT. 
THIS WOULD BE TIED UP IN THE 
COURTS. 
THIS SCHEDULE THAT HE PROPOSED, 
THIS IS SILLY. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS TO EXERT AND 
DEFEND THAT PRIVILEGE BECAUSE 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE 
INSTITUTIONS HERE. 
WE HAVE SEPARATIONS OF POWERS. 
THERE IS NO WAY THIS WOULD BE 
WRAPPED UP ANYTIME SOON. 
IT WOULD DRAG ON INTO THE 
SUMMER. 
THE WHOLE THING HE IS 
PROPOSING, HE KNOWS WOULD NOT 
HAPPEN. 
IT IS HARD TO LISTEN TO IT WITH 
A STRAIGHT FACE. 
>> YEAH. 
I THINK, ENOUGH IS EVER ENOUGH. 
THE DECLASSIFICATION OF TWO 
PHONE CALLS, NOW THEY WANT ONE 
MORE PHONE CALL DECLASSIFIED. 
IT IS THE REQUEST THAT 
CONTINUES TO GET MADE AND NEVER 
IS SATISFIED SO WE ALSO KNOW 
THAT JUST GETTING COUNSEL AND 
GETTING DEPOSITIONS HERE, THIS 
IS NOT A WEEK PROCESS. 
AND ANYONE WHO IS HONEST WILL 
KNOW THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD 
EVER BE DONE IN A WEEK BUT IT 
DOESN'T MATTER. 
THEY HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO 
PROVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
GUILTY, THEY HAVE NOT MADE THAT 
CASE AND WHEN WE SEE THE 
EVIDENCE THAT IS BEFORE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THERE IS NO 
DOUBT THAT THE OVERWHELMING 
MAJORITY OF THE SENATE WILL 
VOTE TO ACQUIT. 
>> Reporter: [ INAUDIBLE 
QUESTION ] I. 
>> IS THAT A SERIOUS QUESTION? 
WE WILL ANSWER ANY OTHER SERIOUS
QUESTION. 
>> Reporter: [ INAUDIBLE 
QUESTION ] 
>> WE WILL ANSWER ANY OTHER 
SERIOUS QUESTION FROM A SERIOUS 
JOURNALIST. 
>> Reporter: [ INAUDIBLE 
QUESTION ] 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD 
BE APPROPRIATE FOR -- YOU KNOW, 
FOR US TO BE DISCUSSING THAT 
WITH DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS. 
HONESTLY. 
AND SO THEY HAVE THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT AND I 
THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT 
THEY HAD THOSE INTERNAL DEBATES 
THEMSELVES. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO 
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN THERE ON 
CAPITOL HILL. 
WE ARE NOW IN A DINNER BREAK 
DURING THE QUESTION AND ANSWER 
PORTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
AND PERHAPS THERE MAY BE 
DEMOCRATS AT THAT CAMERA 
POSITION SHORTLY. 
WE WILL BRING YOU BACK THERE IF 
THAT IS THE CASE BUT RIGHT NOW 
I WANT TO TURN BACK TO JENNIFER 
ON CAPITOL HILL. 
SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD FROM 
THE CONGRESSMAN THERE, 
ADDRESSING A PROPOSAL FROM ADAM 
SCHIFF, SUGGESTING THE WITNESS 
PHASE OF THIS COULD ONLY LAST 
FOR ONE WEEK. 
LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAD TO 
SAY EARLIER. 
>> I WOULD MAKE AN OFFER TO 
OPPOSING COUNSEL, WHO HAVE SAID 
THIS WILL STRETCH. 
LET'S CABIN TO ONE WEEK. 
IN THE CLINTON TRIAL THERE WAS 
ONE WEEK O♪F DEPOSITION. 
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SENATE DID 
DURING THAT WEEK? 
THE SENATE WENT BACK TO ITS 
BUSINESS WHILE THE DEPOSITIONS 
WERE BEING CONDUCTED. 
LET'S USE THE CLINTON MODEL. 
LET'S TAKE A WEEK. 
LET'S TAKE A WEEK TO HAVE A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
JENNIFER, HOW REALISTIC A 
PROPOSITION IS THAT? 
WE KNOW WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS A MOMENT 
AGO. 
>> Reporter: IT IS HARD TO KNOW 
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW 
HOW MANY WITNESSES THAT WOULD 
BE. 
CLEARLY, HE IS TRYING TO GET AT 
A KEY CONCERN THAT REPUBLICANS 
RAISED. 
OPENING THE DOOR TO WITNESSES 
IS A PANDORA'S BOX. 
WHO SHOULD BE TESTIFYING AND 
WHO SHOULDN'T AND WHO SHOULD 
APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE AND 
WHO SHOULDN'T. 
HE MADE CLEAR HE WANTS THIS 
PROCESS TO GO FAST. 
HE SAID YESTERDAY HE WOULD 
COMMIT TO ADHERING TO ANYTHING 
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE 
JOHN ROBERTS SAID. 
HE WANTS TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT 
ALLOWING WITNESSES IS NOT AN 
ENDLESS PROCESS AND WHO HE IS 
SPEAKING TO IS THE KEY 
REPUBLICAN SWING VOTES. 
AND THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER 
THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO 
RESONATE WITH THEM. 
>> DEMOCRATS MIGHT TRY TO SLOW 
DOWN THE PROCESS, HOW WOULD 
THAT WORK? 
>> Reporter: HERE IS THE 
HYPOTHETICAL. 
ON FRIDAY, TOMORROW, THE SENATE 
VOTES IN THE EVENING ON THE 
ISSUE AND IT FAILS. 
SO THEN IT IS TIME FOR THE 
SENATE A CALL UP THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AND VOTE. 
WELL, WHEN THEY DO THAT, WHEN 
MITCH MCCONNELL SAYS I MOVE TO 
MOVE TO THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, SENATOR CHUCK 
SCHUMER AT THAT POINT CAN START 
OFFERING MOTIONS TO AMEND THAT 
MOTION. 
THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GETTING 
INTO PROCEDURAL STUFF. 
ESSENTIALLY, EACH TIME HE DOES 
THAT AND CALLS FOR A VOTE ON 
WHATEVER HIS MOTION IS, AND HE 
COULD TRY TO SNEAK IN WITNESS 
STUFF AND GUM UP THE -- 
>> AND HE COULD STOP THAT? 
>> NO. 
>> Reporter: THEY GET AN HOUR 
TO DEBATE THAT. 
THE FIRST DAY OF THE PRETRIAL 
MOTIONS. 
11 AMENDMENTS SENATOR CHUCK 
SCHUMER MADE AND HE KEPT GOING. 
THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT 
THE SENATE -- SENATE 
REPUBLICANS COULD FORCE A 
CHANGE IN THE RULES. 
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. 
BUT I THINK THAT GIVEN THE -- 
YOU KNOW, THE -- THE SOLEM NATE 
OF SOLEMNITY, I AM NOT SURE THE 
REPUBLICANS WOULD WANT TO MAKE 
A HEAVY HANDED MOVE TO EXPEDITE 
THIS PROCESS WITHOUT GIVING DUE 
PROCESS. 
>> INTERESTING. 
THE TRIGGER WORD OF THE DAY. 
EXACTLY. 
EXACTLY. 
>> Reporter: AND SO ESSENTIALLY 
THIS COULD GO ON. 
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD 
GO ON LONGER THAN MAYBE 
SATURDAY MORNING, BUT I MEAN, 
FILIBUSTER BY PROCEDURE. 
AND IT COULD MAKE FOR A LONG 
NIGHT TOMORROW NIGHT. 
>> WE WILL BE STANDING BY. 
ALL RIGHT. 
STAY WITH US. 
>>> THE SENATORS ARE ON A 
DINNER BREAK IN THE FINAL DAY 
OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PART 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
THE DAY BEGAN WITH DRAMA OVER 
WITNESSES. 
KATHERINE JOHNSON REPORTS FROM 
CAPITOL HILL.
>> THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
DECLINES TO READ THE QUESTION 
AS SUBMITTED. 
>> Reporter: JOHN ROBERTS 
BLOCKED A QUESTION FROM 
KENTUCKY SENATOR RAND PAUL. 
IT INCLUDED THE NAME OF AN 
INDIVIDUAL SOME CONSERVATIVE 
MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE TRIED TO OUT 
AS THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
PAUL LEFT THE CHAMBER TO DEFEND 
HIS QUESTION. 
>> MY QUESTION IS ABOUT TWO 
PEOPLE WHO ARE FRIENDS WHO 
WORKED TOGETHER AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL WHO ARE, HAVE 
BEEN OVERHEARD TALKING ABOUT 
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT. 
>> Reporter: INSIDE THE TRIAL 
THERE WERE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE UPCOMING ELECTION. 
>> WE HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT OF A 
PRESIDENT IN AN ELECTION YEAR 
WITH THE GOAL OF REMOVING THE 
PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT. 
IT'S DOMESTIC ELECTION  
INTERFERENCE. 
>> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS THE NEXT ELECTION IS THE 
REMEDY. 
IT'S NOT THE REMEDY WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO SEEK TO 
CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION. 
>> Reporter: SENATE REPUBLICANS 
ARE HOPING TO MOVE TO VOTE ON 
ACQUITTAL FRIDAY. 
BUT SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE 
PUSHING TO VOTE ON WITNESSES 
FIRST. 
>> I MAY KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO 
CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
>> IF FOLKS VOTE TOMORROW 
úAGAINST ANY WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS, THEY'RE VOTING FOR A 
COVER UP. 
>> Reporter: ONLY TWO 
REPUBLICANS SAY THEY TEND 
INTENT TO SUPPORT CALLS FOR 
WITNESSES. 
>>> LET'S BRING BACK IN OUR 
PANEL, MOLLY HOOPER, JENNIFER, 
KATHRYN WATSON AND JESSICA 
LEVINSON. 
JESSICA, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THE CURRENT PHASE OF THE TRIAL. 
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS FACING 
SCRUTINY OVER COMMENTS FROM 
YESTERDAY. 
LET'S LISTEN TO HIS DEFENSE OF 
THE QUID PRO QUO AT THE HEART 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
>> EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I 
KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION 
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
AND MOSTLY YOU'RE 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. 
>> THIS WAS HOW LEAD HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF 
RESPONDED TODAY. 
>> THERE IS NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT 
WE HEARD LAST NIGHT. 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, THAT 
IS, IF THERE'S A QUID PRO QUO, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED, 
AND HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION 
IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, 
THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW 
CORRUPT THAT QUID PRO QUO IS. 
THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD 
TO RIGHTS. 
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF 
DESPERATION. 
>> JESSICA, DOES EITHER SIDE 
HAVE A DEFENSE THAT WOULD HOLD 
UP LEGALLY? 
>> YES. 
WELL, THE FIRST THING I WOULD 
SAY IS IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HOLD 
UP LEGALLY. 
BECAUSE OF COURSE THE AUDIENCE 
HERE ISN'T A LEGAL AUDIENCE. 
IT'S A POLITICAL ONE. 
AND SO WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS 
DOING IS HE'S ESSENTIALLY 
GIVING SENATE REPUBLICANS 
COVER. 
NOW, I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF 
SETTING PRECEDENT, THIS WOULD 
COMPLETELY ERASE THE LINE 
BETWEEN POLITICAL DECISIONS AND 
POLICY DECISIONS. 
AND THIS KIND OF GETS BACK TO 
MICK MULVANEY'S FAMOUS LINE, 
YEAH, IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO, 
GET OVER IT. 
AND SO MICK MULVANEY IS RIGHT. 
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE 
OFTEN USED QUID PRO QUO WHEN IT 
COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY. 
AND IT'S ENTIRELY PERMISSIBLE 
IF THE THING THAT YOU WANT IN 
RETURN IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, 
IS GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC, IS SERVING THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC. 
BUT THEN WE HAVE A STRONG 
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN IF THE 
THING YOU WANT WHEN YOU'RE 
CONDUCTING FOREIGN POLICY IS 
SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU, 
GOOD FOR YOU PERSONALLY, GOOD 
FOR YOUR REELECTION. 
THAT IS WHAT IS QUINTESSENTIAL 
PROBLEMATIC ABUSE OF PUBLIC 
TRUST. 
AND SO I WOULD SAY PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ IS SO FAR OUTSIDE OF 
THE MAINSTREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT 
WHEN HE SAYS BASICALLY, WELL, I 
KNOW THAT THIS IS ABOUT A 
REELECTION BUT MAYBE YOU 
GETTING REELECTED BECAUSE YOU 
THINK YOU'RE SO GOOD AT YOUR 
JOB, YOU THINK THAT THIS IS 
WHAT'S BEST FOR THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC. 
THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL BLURRING 
OF THAT LINE AS I SAID BETWEEN 
POLICY AND POLITICS. 
AND IF YOU READ THE FEDERALIST 
PAPERS, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE 
FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT, 
IT'S THIS. 
IT'S SOMEBODY WHO COULD ABUSE 
THE PUBLIC TRUST ALLEGEDLY FOR 
THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT. 
THERE'S NO WORLD IN WHICH WE 
ENVISIONED THAT REELECTION 
WOULD BE VIEWED AS A POLICY 
DECISION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. 
>> JENNIFER, I WANT TO ASK YOU 
ABOUT A MOMENT EARLIER TODAY, 
WHERE WE WERE EXPECTING THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS TO 
READ THE NEXT QUESTION AS WE'VE 
SEEN TAKE PLACE OF COURSE OVER 
THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. 
LET'S GO AHEAD AND PLAY IT. 
IT'S VERY QUICK. 
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT ON 
THE OTHER SIDE. 
>> PRESIDING OFFICER DECLINES 
TO READ THE QUESTION AS 
SUBMITTED. 
>> WE DIDN'T SEE WHAT HIS 
REACTION WAS WHEN HE ACTUALLY 
READ THAT QUESTION TO HIMSELF 
QUIETLY WITHOUT SAYING OUT LOUD 
WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. 
BUT INTERESTING MOMENT THERE, 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECIDED NOT 
TO ACTUALLY READ THAT QUESTION. 
SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT 
THAT? 
>> SO THAT WAS A QUESTION FROM 
SENATOR RAND PAUL. 
HE DID A PRESS CONFERENCE 
AFTERWARDS IN WHICH HE DEFENDED 
HIS RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTION. 
HE WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, IF YOU REMEMBER 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT 
STARTED THIS WHOLE PROCESS. 
AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECIDED 
BACK BEHIND THE SCENES THAT HE 
WASN'T GOING TO ALLOW THAT 
QUESTION TO BE ASKED. 
SENATOR RAND PAUL WANTED TO ASK 
THE QUESTION THAT HE BELIEVED 
WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY OUTED 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
AND IF YOU RECALL, THAT'S BEEN 
A DEBATE THROUGH THIS ENTIRE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, WHETHER 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY 
SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AND 
WHETHER IT'S RELEVANT HERE. 
REPUBLICAN CRITICS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS SAY THAT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD POLITICAL 
MOTIVES IN FILING HIS REPORT 
AND THAT HIS IDENTITY IS 
RELEVANT TO THE  PROCESS. 
AND SENATOR RAND PAUL WANTED TO 
ASK THIS YESTERDAY. 
THERE WAS A BACK AND FORTH AS 
TO WHETHER THIS QUESTION WAS 
GOING TO MAKE IT TO THE 
FOREFRONT AND, OBVIOUSLY, HE 
FORMALLY TRIED TO ASK THE 
QUESTION TODAY AND WAS SHOT 
DOWN LATER. 
A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR QUESTION 
ACTUALLY MADE IT THROUGH THE 
PROCESS THAT APPARENTLY THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE RULED WAS NOT 
GOING TO POTENTIALLY BRING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME TO THE 
PUBLIC. 
>> JESSICA, CAN YOU REMIND US 
WHAT LEGAL PROTECTIONS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS IN CASES LIKE 
THIS? 
>> YES. 
AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, JUST TO 
PICK UP ON WHAT YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT, THE IDEA THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER MIGHT BE HUGELY 
POLITICALLY BIASED, LET'S 
ACCEPT THAT. 
LET'S ACCEPT THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER JUST DETESTS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAKES UP EVERY 
MORNING AND GOES TO BED EVERY 
NIGHT AND THINKS WHAT IS THE 
WAY THAT I CAN GET PRESIDENT 
TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE? 
IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS, IF YOU CAN 
CORROBORATE WHAT'S IN THE 
COMPLAINT. 
THIS IS TRUE FOR THE WITNESSES, 
úAND WHETHER OR NOT THINK ABOUT 
PEOPLE LIKE LEV PARNAS WHO HAVE 
HUGE CREDIBILITY ISSUES. 
THE QUESTION REALLY IS, CAN YOU 
CORROBORATE WHAT THEY'RE 
SAYING, IS THERE EVIDENCE TO 
BACK IT UP, CAN WE BELIEVE 
THEIR SWORN UNDER OATH 
TESTIMONY? 
AND SO THIS SEARCH FOR, IT 
REMINDS ME OF WHEN WE TALKED 
ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER AND 
WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS STARTED 
AS IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FOR 
POLITICAL OPPOSITION. 
THE ISSUE IS SO WHAT? 
WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S IN THE 
DOCUMENTS IS ACTUALLY TRUE. 
TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS AND WHY WE WANT 
TO GIVE THEM PROTECTION, FOR A 
COUPLE OF REASONS, ONE IS 
BECAUSE WE WANT IN THIS MOST 
BASIC LEVEL, WE WANT TO SAVE 
THEM AND PROTECT THEM AGAINST 
RETALIATION. 
WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO GO 
TO SOMEBODY LIKE THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL, AND SAY SOMETHING IS 
UNTOWARD HERE, SOMETHING'S NOT 
RIGHT BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE 
MY JOB OVER IT. 
I DON'T WANT TO FACE PERSONAL 
AND PROFESSIONAL RETALIATION 
AND SO I'M GOING TO FLAG THIS 
FOR YOU. 
IT'S UP FOR YOU TO LOOK INTO IT 
NOW, BUT I DON'T WANT TO RISK 
MY LIVELIHOOD AS A RESULT. 
THAT'S WHY WE PROTECT THE 
IDENTITY OF THOSE PEOPLE 
BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT 
IN OUR SOCIETY TO HAVE PEOPLE 
WHO ARE WILLING TO GO FORWARD 
AND SAY I WAS PRIVY TO A 
SITUATION IN WHICH I SAW 
SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC. 
I DON'T WANT TO RISK MY WHOLE 
LIFE ON IT BUT I WANT YOU TO 
KNOW ABOUT IT. 
SO THAT'S THE BASIS OF 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION. 
>> KATHRYN WATSON, AT THE END 
OF THE DAY, DO WE KNOW HOW 
CONFIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
FEELING IN THE CASE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM HAS 
PRESENTED SO FAR? 
>> SURE. 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS GENERALLY 
PLEASED I WOULD SAY WITH WHAT 
WE HAVE HEARD SO FAR, VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE 41 WHO IS 
IN THE MIDWEST RIGHT NOW, TOLD 
REPORTERS HE'S TRAVELING WITH 
THAT HE'S VERY IMPRESSED WITH 
THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM, 
THAT HE THINKS THAT THEY HAVE 
LAID OUT GOOD ARGUMENTS, AND 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS 
REALLY HAVE GIVEN AN ARGUMENT 
THAT ALMOST ANY OF THE 
REPUBLICANS CAN REALLY LATCH 
ONTO. 
ALL OF THESE VERY VARIED 
ARGUMENTS. 
SOMETIMES AS MANY HAVE POINTED 
OUT OR SOME HAVE POINTED OUT I 
SHOULD SAY, HAVEN'T ALWAYS EVEN 
BEEN CONSISTENT. 
THEY'VE CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER 
AT TIMES. 
BUT THERE HAS BEEN AN ARGUMENT 
THAT VIRTUALLY ANY REPUBLICAN 
WHO IS LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT OR 
LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN 
CLING ONTO AND IF THEY ARE 
GOING TO VOTE AGAINST WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS, SOMETHING THEY 
CAN POINT TO, SO THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS GENERALLY PLEASED WITH 
THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN 
SO FAR. 
>> MOLLY HOOPER, BEFORE I KIND 
OF GET WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE 
KEEPING YOUR EYE ON IN THE NEXT 
FEW HOURS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO 
THIS NOTION OF THIS PROPOSAL 
THAT ADAM SCHIFF PUT FORWARD 
ABOUT KEEPING WITNESS 
DEPOSITIONS TO A WEEK 
POTENTIALLY. 
THERE'S SOME CONTEXT HERE THAT 
YOU WERE TELLING ME OFF CAMERA 
A MINUTE TO GO. 
>> THERE IS SOME CONTEXT HERE 
BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS IS BASED 
ON WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND AT THAT 
TIME, WHEN SENATORS DECIDED 
AGAINST DISMISSING THE MOTION, 
AGAINST DISMISSING THE CASE AND 
AGREED TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES 
AT THE DEPOSITIONS WHAT THEY 
DID WAS THEY HAD TO ESSENTIALLY 
AGREE TO ANOTHER RULES OF THE 
ROAD PACKAGE FOR HOW THAT WOULD 
PLAY OUT. 
AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT TIME 
WAS REPUBLICANS PUT FORWARD 
RESOLUTION THAT HE ESSENTIALLY 
GAVE BOTH PARTIES, THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND HOUSE MANAGERS, ABOUT 
A WEEK AND A HALF BY WHICH TIME 
THEY HAD TO BE DONE WITH THEIR 
DEPOSITIONS AND REPORT BACK TO 
THE SENATE. 
AND THEN AFTER THAT, IDEALLY 
THEY SHOT FOR AN END DATE OF 
FEBRUARY 12. 
THE WHOLE TRIAL WILL BE DONE BY 
EX-DATE. 
AND SO THAT WAS AGREED TO ON A 
MORE PARTISAN VOTE BUT IT WAS 
AGREED TO AND SO WHEN ADAM 
SCHIFF SAYS THEY DID IT DURING 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, YES, 
THEY DID. 
HOWEVER, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT 
ADDED WRINKLE OF THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT THESE 
INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE SUBPOENAED 
WOULD CONTEST THOSE SUBPOENAS 
OR THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
>> THOSE ARE COMPLICATIONS. 
AND SO NOW, WHAT ARE YOU GOING 
TO BE LOOKING FOR DURING THESE 
FINAL HOURS OF QUESTIONING BY 
THE SENATORS TONIGHT? 
>> I'M GOING TO KEEP MY EYE ON 
THOSE FOUR VULNERABLE 
REPUBLICANS. 
I ALSO WANT TO HEAR MORE 
QUESTIONS FROM ROB PORTMAN, 
SHELLY MOORE CAPITO, OTHER 
INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD POSSIBLY 
VOTE FOR WITNESSES. 
I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BUT 
IT'S POSSIBLE. 
IT'S ANY INDICATION AS TO HOW 
AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE 
VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS WAS 
THINKING, LAMAR ALEXANDER, HE 
ASKED A PRETTY TELLING QUESTION 
TOWARDS THE END OF THE PERIOD 
THIS AFTERNOON IN WHICH HE 
ASKED TO COMPARE THE 
PARTISANSHIP OF THE CLINTON AND 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 
WITH THAT OF TODAY'S 
PROCEEDINGS. 
AND SO IF WE HEAR MORE 
QUESTIONS LIKE THAT I THINK 
IT'S A PRETTY GOOD INDICATION 
THAT THE REPUBLIANS DO HAVE HIM
VOTING AGAINST WITNESSES. 
>> MOLLY HOOPER, JENNIFER 
HABERKORN, KATHRYN WATSON AND 
JESSICA LEVINSON. 
STAY WITH US. 
IF YOU JUST JOINING US, TODAY 
IS DAY NINE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
RIGHT NOW SENATORS ARE ON A 
DINNER BREAK. 
HERE IS SOME OF WHAT YOU MAY 
HAVE MISSED. 
>> WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A 
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL 
OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF E-
MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, 
CONVERSATION AND WITNESS 
TESTIMONY THAT COULD SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT. 
INCLUDING AN E-MAIL FROM LAST 
SUMMER BETWEEN MR. BOLTON, MR. 
BLAIR, WHERE WE KNOW FROM 
WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE 
WAS DISCUSSED.
BUT WE DO KNOW, FROM MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
PLACED A HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, SOON AFTER IT WAS 
ORDERED IN JULY OF 2019, SO WE 
KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DID U.S. 
OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT, AND 
OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT BUT 
THE UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS 
WELL. 
>> WE'VE NEVER BEEN IN A 
SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR, WITH THE GOAL 
OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM 
THE BALLOT. 
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THAT IS 
THE MOST MASSIVE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE WE'VE EVER 
WITNESSED. 
IT'S DOMESTIC ELECTION  
INTERFERENCE. 
IT'S POLITICAL ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
AND IT'S WRONG. 
>> THERE IS NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT 
WE HEARD LAST NIGHT. 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, THAT 
IS, IF THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED, 
AND HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION 
IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, 
THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW 
CORRUPT THAT QUID PRO QUO IS. 
THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD 
TO RIGHTS. 
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF 
DESPERATION. 
>> WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FOR AMONG OTHER 
THINGS, ARTICLE TWO OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT IS TOTAL DEFIANCE 
OF HOUSE SUBPOENAS. 
AND THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IN 
ADVANCE I WILL DEFY ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS NO 
INFORMATION TO CONGRESS. 
IT MEANS A CLAIM OF DICTATORIAL 
POWER, IF CONGRESS HAS NO 
INFORMATION IT CANNOT ACT. 
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN DEFY, HE 
CAN DISPUTE CERTAIN SPECIFIC 
CLAIMS, HE CAN CLAIM PRIVILEGE 
ET CETERA BUT TO DEFY 
CATEGORICALLY ALL SUBPOENAS, TO 
ANNOUNCE IN ADVANCE AND TO DO 
IT IS TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS 
NO POWER AT ALL, ONLY THE 
EXECUTIVE HAS POWER. 
>> TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO 
START GETTING INTO THE FIELD OF 
WE ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT AND REMOVE HIM FROM 
OFFICE, BY PUTTING HIM ON THE 
PSYCHIATRIST COUCH AND TRYING 
TO GET INSIDE HIS HEAD TO FIND 
OUT WAS AT 48% IN THIS MOTIVE 
AND 52 THE OTHER OR DID HE HAVE 
SOME OTHER RATIONALE? 
IF IT'S A LEGITIMATE INQUIRY IN 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THAT'S 
THE END OF IT. 
AND YOU CAN'T BE SAYING THAT WE 
ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, REMOVE HIM FROM 
OFFICE, DECAPITATE THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DISRUPT THE 
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT 
OF THE COUNTRY IN AN ELECTION 
YEAR, BY TRYING TO PARSE OUT 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES. 
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS BECAUSE I 
DON'T KNOW BUT I CAN TELL YOU 
WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER SHOULD 
BE. 
IT SHOULD BE EVERY ONE OF US. 
EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD BE 
WILLING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. 
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WE WOULDN'T KNOW 
ABOUT THIS CONDUCT, AND THAT 
MIGHT BE JUST AS WELL FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT BUT IT WOULD NOT BE 
GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY. 
AND I WORRY THAT FUTURE PEOPLE 
THAT SEE WRONGDOING ARE GOING 
TO WATCH HOW THIS PERSON HAS 
BEEN TREATED, THE THREATS 
AGAINST THIS PERSON'S LIFE, AND 
THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHY STICK 
MY NECK OUT? 
>> JUST SOME OF WHAT YOU MAY 
HAVE MISSED. 
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. 
YOU'RE STREAMING "RED & BLUE" 
ON CBSN. 
>>> WHILE WE'VE BEEN COVERING 
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, ANOTHER 
POLITICAL EVENT IS HAPPENING ON 
MONDAY. 
THE IOWA CAUCUSES. 
FOUR SENATORS ARE RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT, WHICH MEANS THEIR 
TIME HAS BEEN RECENTLY SPLIT 
BETWEEN CAPITOL HILL AND THE 
CAMPAIGN TRAIL. 
FURTHERMORE LET'S BRING IN ED 
O'KEEFE, CBS NEWS POLITICAL 
CORRESPONDENT, AND HE JOINS ME 
NOW FROM DES MOINES, IOWA. 
GOOD TO SEE YOU. 
HOW QUICKLY CAN WE EXPECT 
SENATORS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 
TO BE BACK ON THE CAMPAIGN 
TRAIL AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL? 
>> FIRST OFF, I LOVE THAT 
OPENING LINE. 
OH, BY THE WAY, THERE'S AN 
ELECTION GOING ON BUT WE 
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TALK ABOUT 
IT. 
WE EXPECT THEM HERE AS EARLY AS 
TOMORROW NIGHT IF THERE IS A 
VOTE THAT ESSENTIALLY DOES AWAY 
WITH THE IDEA OF BRINGING IN 
WITNESSES AND THEY MOVED 
QUICKLY TO ACQUITTAL. 
BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO 
ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT AT THIS 
POINT. 
THEY HAVE ALL BEEN SCHEDULING 
EVENTS FOR AS EARLY AS FRIDAY 
AFTERNOON. 
BUT THEY ARE THE KIND OF EVENTS 
THAT CAN BE PEELED AWAY QUICKLY 
SO SATURDAY IS MORE LIKELY 
GOING TO BE THE DAY THAT THEY 
ACTUALLY GET BACK OUT ON THE 
TRAIL. 
ACROSS THE STATE WHETHER IT'S 
CONCERTS, OR RALLIES WE EXPECT 
SANDERS AND WARREN AND 
KLOBUCHAR ESPECIALLY TO GET 
HERE AND CAMPAIGN AS FURIOUSLY 
AS THEY CAN SATURDAY AND 
SUNDAY. 
>> I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS 
EARLIER IN THE WEEK. 
THERE IS SPECULATION THAT JOE 
BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN COULD BE IN 
THE PROCESS OF FORMING CAUCUS 
ALLIANCES WITH OTHER CAMPAIGNS. 
WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD FROM HIS 
CAMP ON THIS? 
>> WE'VE HEARD THAT 
REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS CAMPAIGN 
ARE SNIFFING AROUND LET'S SAY 
FOR POTENTIAL ALLIANCES WITH 
VARIOUS CANDIDATES IN HOPES 
THAT THEY CAN HAVE OTHER 
CANDIDATES WHO MAY NOT HIT THE 
15% REQUIRED TO CAUCUS SITES TO 
HAVE THEIR SUPPORTERS OR AT 
LEAST ENCOURAGE THEM TO 
CONSIDER VOTING FOR THE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT. 
THE CANDIDATE WHO'S BEEN THE 
MOST VOCAL ABOUT THIS IS ONE OF 
THE ONLY ONES HERE IN IOWA, 
ANDREW YANG, WHO ADMITTED 
YESTERDAY HE HAD BEEN 
APPROACHED BY A FEW CAMPAIGNS. 
WE HERE AT CBS HAVE CONFIRMED 
WITH HIS CAMP THAT THEY'VE BEEN 
APPROACHED BY BIDEN ALLIES OR 
BIDEN STAFFERS ABOUT A 
POTENTIAL ALLIANCE OF SOME 
SORT. 
EARLIER TODAY AND AFTER AN 
EVENT HE HELD IN A SUBURB OF 
DES MOINES, WE PUT IT TO THE 
IOWA GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK, 
FORMER AGRICULTURE SECRETARY 
WHO IS SUPPORTED BY BIDEN, I 
ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THE BIDEN 
CAMPAIGN WAS DOING THIS AND HE 
SIDESTEPPED THE QUESTION. 
DIDN'T CONFIRM OR DENY. 
BUT SAID ULTIMATELY WHAT'S 
GOING TO MATTER ON CAUCUS NIGHT 
IS THE FACE-TO-FACE PERSUASION 
THAT DIFFERENT PRECINCT 
CAPTAINS ARE ABLE TO USE WITH 
PEOPLE WHOSE CANDIDATE MAY NOT 
BE MAKING IT ONTO THE SECOND 
ROUND OR WHO MAY SHOW UP TO A 
CAUCUS SITE UNDECIDED. 
AND SO IF PERHAPS IN THAT 
ESSENCE HE WAS CONFIRMING IT, 
THEN WE'LL SEE. 
BUT THIS IS THE HORSETRADING 
THAT GOES ON IN WHAT IS 
ARGUABLY THE MOST BYZANTINE 
ELECTION PROCESS IN THIS 
COUNTRY. 
YOU GATHER IN ABOUT 1600 
PRECINCTS ACROSS THE STATE, YOU 
HOLD SMALL CAUCUSES THAT REPORT 
INTO BIGGER NUMBERS THAT 
ULTIMATELY DETERMINE WHAT THE 
STATEWIDE RESULT WAS AND WHO 
GETS HOW MANY DELEGATES AND IT 
COULD TAKE MOST OF THE NIGHT TO 
FIND OUT. 
AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. 
>> BYZANTINE IS AN APT 
DESCRIPTION. 
I WANT TO ASK ABOUT "THE NEW 
YORK TIMES" REPORTS THAT JOE 
BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN HAS ROLLED 
BACK HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS OF TV ADS IN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTH CAROLINA IN 
RECENT WEEKS AND REDIRECTED THE 
FUNDS TO BUY MORE ADS IN IOWA. 
WHAT MIGHT THAT INDICATE? 
>> IT INDICATES THAT THEY SEE 
GOOD THINGS FOR THEM HERE AND 
THEY'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO 
FINISH AS STRONGLY AND AS WELL 
AS POSSIBLE. 
REMEMBER THIS STARTED 
ESSENTIALLY AROUND CHRISTMAS 
TIME WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT 
THE TIME HE SPENT IN NOVEMBER 
AND EARLY DECEMBER WAS PAYING 
OFF. 
AND HIS NUMBERS CAME BACK UP 
AFTER SLIDING OVER THE SUMMER. 
THE COMMITMENT HE PUT INTO 
TRAVELING ACROSS THE STATE 
ESPECIALLY IN SMALLER 
COMMUNITIES APPEARED TO BE 
PAYING OFF AND SO THEY SAID, WE 
ARE DOING WELL ENOUGH IN SOUTH 
CAROLINA THAT WE DON'T NEED TO 
BE SPENDING MUCH MONEY THERE. 
NEW HAMPSHIRE MAY BECOME A 
CONTEST BETWEEN ITS NEIGHBORS, 
ELIZABETH WARRREN AND BERNIE 
SANDERS, WHY NOT START AS BIG 
AS POSSIBLE HERE AND SEE IF 
THAT CATAPULT US INTO A GOOD 
SHOWING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE? 
KNOWING THAT SOUTH CAROLINA IS 
ALL RIGHT, NO BETTER PROBABLY 
WILL BE OKAY AND THAT MORE 
MONEY WILL COME IN IF HE WINS. 
SO THIS IS A STRATEGIC MOVE 
THAT OTHER CAMPAIGNS HAVE MADE 
AS WELL. 
WHAT'S DIFFERENT FOR BIDEN 
GIVEN HIS STRENGTH IS THAT HE 
IS ABLE TO MOVE IT ADD MONEY 
AND NOT NECESSARILY PERSONNEL 
OR LAY OFF PERSONNEL TO SAVE 
MONEY. 
>> INTERESTING. 
PETE BUTTIGIEG UNVEILED NEW 
LINES IN ONE OF HIS IOWA STUMP 
SPEECHES TODAY. 
HE DIRECTLY WENT AFTER BERNIE 
SANDERS AND JILL BIDEN BY NAME. 
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN TO WHAT HE  
SAID. 
>> I HEAR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
SAYING THAT THIS IS NO TIME TO 
TAKE A RISK ON SOMEONE NEW. 
THEN I HEAR SENATOR SANDERS 
CALLING FOR A KIND OF POLITICS 
THAT SAYS YOU'VE GOT TO GO ALL 
THE WAY HERE AND NOTHING ELSE 
COUNTS. 
AND IT'S COMING AT THE VERY 
MOMENT WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE A 
HISTORIC MAJORITY NOT JUST 
ALIGNED AROUND WHAT IT IS WE 
ARE AGAINST BUT AGREE ON WHAT 
IT IS WE ARE FOR. 
>> ED, WHAT IS HIS STRATEGY 
HERE IN THE FINAL STRETCH? 
>> TO WIN. 
AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT HE'S 
GOT TO GET BEYOND OR ABOVE 
BERNIE SANDERS AND JILL BIDEN 
AND IF YOU LOOK AT MOST 
POLLING, BIDEN OR SANDERS END 
UP BEING ONE AND TWO DEPENDING 
ON THE SURVEY AND BUTTIGIEG IS 
USUALLY THIRD OR FOURTH. 
SO BY NOW FINALLY AFTER WEEKS 
OF BEING POKED AND PRODDED BY 
VOTERS AND BY REPORTERS, HE 
SEEMS IN THE CLOSING HOURS TO 
BE CALLING THEM OUT EXPLICITLY. 
THAT MAY SIGNAL THAT THEY ARE 
SEEING SOMETHING THAT SUGGESTS 
HE HAS A CHANCE TO DO THAT. 
OR IT MAY JUST BE THAT HE HAS 
COME TO GRIPS WITH THE FACT IN 
ORDER TO WIN HE'S GOT TO BE 
MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT WHAT 
EXACTLY HE OFFERS THAT THOSE 
OTHERS DON'T. 
>> ED O'KEEFE IN IOWA, I WILL 
SEE YOU VERY SOON, MY FRIEND. 
>> WE CAN'T WAIT TO SEE YOU, 
ELAINE. 
IT'S LOVELY HERE IF YOU ARE 
INTO WHETHER IN THE 30s. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> FOR A CLOSER LOOK AT IOWA 
AND OTHER STATES, LET'S BRING 
IN 2020 CAMPAIGN REPORTERS ADAM 
BREWSTER, NICOLE SGANGA AND 
LACRAI MITCHELL. 
ADAM JONES ME FROM DES MOINES, 
IOWA, NICOLE SGANGA IS IN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE AND LACRAI MITCHELL 
IS IN CHARLESTON. 
WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU. 
ADAM, WHAT ARE CANDIDATES 
SAYING IN THEIR FINAL PITCHES 
TO IOWANS? 
>> THERE MIGHT BE SNOW ON THE 
GROUND BUT I'M NOT WEARING A 
HAT AND I CAN FEEL MY FINGERS 
SO I WILL ECHO ED'S SENTIMENT 
THAT THE WEATHER IS GREAT HERE 
IN IOWA. 
FOUR DAYS AHEAD OF THE 
CAUCUSES. 
YOU HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT MAYOR 
PETE BUTTIGIEG BRINGING UP 
BIDEN AND SANDERS BY NAME 
TODAY. 
SANDERS HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON 
A BIT, HE HAS HAD TO SEND TO 
SURROGATES BUT PART OF HIS 
ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THIS IS WHERE 
THE MOVEMENT CAN BEGIN. 
HE DID VERY WELL IN IOWA, FOUR 
YEARS AGO AND HE SAID THE WORLD 
IS GOING TO BE WATCHING THIS 
TIME AROUND. 
AS FOR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HE 
HAD A SPEECH TODAY TAKING ON 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE HAS MADE 
THE ARGUMENT THAT HE IS BEST 
SUITED TO TAKE ON THE PRESIDENT 
AND HE IS THE BEST CHOICE THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO THAT. 
NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS 
EXPERIENCE BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF 
WHAT HE SEES AS HIS ABILITY TO 
RESTORE CHARACTER TO THE OFFICE 
OF THE PRESIDENCY. 
SENATOR WARREN WHO HAS BEEN IN 
WASHINGTON HAS BEEN CHAMPIONING 
WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS THE 
ELECTABILITY OF A FEMALE 
CANDIDATE IN THE ERA OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SHE HAS 
BEEN BRINGING BACK SOMETHING 
THAT SHE TALKED ABOUT OVER THE 
SUMMER, THAT SHE'S A FIGHTER. 
SHE SAID THAT I'M IN THIS 
BECAUSE I'M A FIGHTER. 
SENATOR KLOBUCHAR WHO HAS BEEN 
TRYING TO BREAK INTO THAT TOP-
TIER HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON BUT 
SHE HAS REALLY TOUTED HER 
RECORD, LEGISLATIVE 
ACHIEVEMENTS AND HER ABILITY TO 
WIN ALL OVER THE BOARD 
ESPECIALLY IN A STATE LIKE 
MINNESOTA AND SHE HAS BEEN 
TELLING IOWANS IF YOU ARE 
UNDECIDED, PICK UP THE PHONE, 
CALL ONE OF THE 5 MILLION 
PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR IN 
MINNESOTA AND ASK THEM WHAT 
THEY THINK OF ME. 
THAT'S BEEN ONE OF HER CLOSING 
ARGUMENTS. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RALLYING 
SUPPORTERS IN IOWA TONIGHT. 
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S SUPPORT 
LIKE IN THE STATE? 
>> WELL, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON 
IOWA BY A LITTLE OVER NINE 
POINTS FOUR YEARS AGO AND IT 
APPEARS HIS SUPPORT IS STILL 
STRONG. 
"DES MOINES REGISTER" POLL 
SHOWED AMONG REPUBLICANS WHO 
ARE NOT PLANNING TO GO TO A 
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS HE HAD AN 85% 
APPROVAL RATING AND PULLING IN 
"THE NEW YORK TIMES," SHOWED 
THE PRESIDENT LEADING 
DEMOCRATIC POTENTIAL 
CHALLENGERS IN HEAD-TO-HEAD 
MATCHUPS IN A GENERAL ELECTION 
IN IOWA, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
HERE IN IOWA FEELS GOOD ABOUT 
THEIR CHANCES BUT DEMOCRATS 
WILL TELL YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA 
WON THIS STATE TWICE AND THEY 
ARE GOING TO MAKE AN AGGRESSIVE 
PUSH. 
DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD A LOT OF 
TIME IN THIS STATE. 
THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2200 
EVENTS OR APPEARANCES BY 
CANDIDATES AT EVENTS JUST ON 
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE. 
DURING THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE. 
BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS A STRONG 
BASE OF SUPPORT AND IT WILL BE 
A CHALLENGE FOR DEMOCRATS IN 
NOVEMBER. 
>> AS WE SPOKE ABOUT WITH ED, 
THERE IS SPECULATION THAT 
CAUCUS ALLIANCES ARE BEING 
FORMED. 
IS THIS SOMETHING CAUCUSGOERS 
ARE THINKING ABOUT AS WELL? 
>> ED TALKED ABOUT SOME OF 
THOSE ALLIANCES AND SECOND 
CHOICE CAN BE SO CRITICAL ON 
CAUCUS NIGHT. 
YOU NEED AT LEAST 15% OF 
SUPPORT IN THE ROOM IN ORDER 
FOR YOUR CANDIDATE TO BE VIABLE 
TO WIN SOMETHING OUT OF THAT 
ROOM. 
WHICH MEANS SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO 
GO TO THEIR SECOND OR THIRD 
CHOICE. 
IOWANS HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT 
NOT JUST WHO THEIR A TOP CHOICE 
IS BUT WHO ELSE THEY LIKE AND 
MAY HAVE TO END UP SUPPORTING 
IN THOSE ROOMS IF THERE 
CANDIDATE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH 
SUPPORT. 
AND SOME OF THE CAMPAIGNS WE'VE 
TALKED TO HAVE SAID WE DON'T 
EVEN KNOW IF WE COULD TELL OUR 
SUPPORTERS WERE TO GO. 
THEY'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS SO 
MUCH, THEY'VE THOUGHT ABOUT 
THIS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THAT 
WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD 
NECESSARILY LISTEN IF WE TOLD 
THEM TO GO STAND WITH ONE OR 
ANOTHER BECAUSE THEY PUT SO 
MUCH TIME AND EFFORT INTO 
THINKING ABOUT THAT DECISION 
AND HOW THAT WILL PLAY IN ON 
CAUCUS NIGHT. 
>> NICOLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE IS 
NEXT ON THE CALENDAR AFTER 
IOWA. 
HISTORY HAS SHOWN THE STATE IS 
ALWAYS RIGHT FOR A SURPRISE. 
WHAT ARE CAMPAIGNS DOING ON THE 
GROUND TO GALVANIZE SUPPORT? 
>> ELAINE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT 
COLDER HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
VERY CHILLY BUT THAT STILL 
MEANS THAT THERE ARE ORGANIZERS 
AND BOOTS ON THE GROUND THAT 
ARE KNOCKING OUT ON DOORS. 
THIS IS THE START OF THE TV GET 
OUT THE VOTE EFFORTS FROM ALL 
OF THESE CAMPAIGNS AND YOU HEAR 
US TALK A LOT ABOUT GROUND 
GAME, GROUND GAME, NOW IS THE 
TIME THAT IT PAYS OFF ACCORDING 
TO A RECENT CNN UNH POLL, JUST 
ABOUT HALF OF LIKELY DEMOCRATIC 
VOTERS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE 
PRIMARY ARE STILL UNDECIDED. 
AND THAT'S CHANGED THINGS UP 
FOR SOME OF THESE DEMOCRATIC 
CONTENDERS AND THEY'RE 
CAMPAIGNS ON THE GROUND. 
NOT ONLY ARE THEY IDENTIFYING 
THEIR VOTERS AND ARE TRYING TO 
CONVINCE THEM TO TURN OUT ON 
FEBRUARY 11, THERE'S NO EARLY 
VOTING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, BUT 
THEY'RE TRYING TO CONTINUALLY 
PERSUADE THOSE UNDECIDED VOTERS 
WHO ARE A LITTLE BIT ON THE 
FENCE ABOUT WHICH CANDIDATE TO 
TOE SUPPORT. 
AFTER THIS CBSN HIT I'M GOING 
TO A HOUSE PARTY A FEW BLOCKS 
AWAY FROM HERE IN MANCHESTER, 
WHERE MEMBERS OF THE BUTTIGIEG 
CAMPAIGN ARE MEETING WITH 
UNDECIDED VOTERS TO TRY TO 
CONVINCE THEM. 
EARLIER TODAY I RAN INTO A 
GROUP OF SENATOR AMY 
KLOBUCHAR'S LOCAL SURROGATES, 
LOCAL MAYORS AND LAWMAKERS WHO 
WERE IN COFFEE SHOPS TRYING TO 
CONVINCE UNDECIDED VOTERS THERE 
MEETING VOTERS WHERE THEY WERE 
AT AND CONVINCING THEM TO VOTE 
FOR THE SENATOR. 
WE'VE BEEN SAYING A TON OF 
SURROGATES ESPECIALLY DURING 
THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C. TAKING THEIR 
CANDIDATES MESSAGE TO THE 
GROUND, THEY KNOW WHAT'S AT 
STAKE, THEY KNOW HOW MANY 
UNDECIDED VOTERS ARE OUT THERE. 
>> I IMAGINE THOSE UNDECIDED 
VOTERS ARE PRETTY POPULAR RIGHT 
ABOUT NOW. 
NICOLE, JOE BIDEN HAS PICKED UP 
KEY ENDORSEMENTS IN THE GRANITE 
STATE. 
HOW IS HIS CAMPAIGN DOING 
THERE? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
SO WE SAW FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN PICK UP A NUMBER OF 
ENDORSEMENTS INCLUDING BILLY 
SHAHEEN, A GRANITE STATE 
POLITICAL OPERATIVE FOR MANY 
DECADES, HUSBAND TO SENATOR 
JEANNE SHAHEEN. 
ALSO ON THAT LIST, FORMER 
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE SYLVIA 
LARSON, THE STATE SENATE IN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE. 
AND HE HAS BEEN ROLLING OUT 
THOSE SURROGATES. 
FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR 
JOHN LYNCH HAS MADE A SEVEN-DAY 
TRIP ACROSS THE STATE OF NEW 
HAMPSHIRE TRYING TO CONVINCE 
VOTERS. 
THAT BEING SAID, THE BIDEN 
CAMPAIGN AS YOU HEARD ED 
O'KEEFE MENTIONED EARLIER HAS 
CURTAILED ITS ADS AND ITS AD 
BUYS IN THE STATE. 
EDIT HAS BEEN DARK SINCE THE 
BEGINNING OF 2020. 
IT HAS MADE JUST ONE TELEVISION 
AD BUY FOR UNDER 100,000. 
COMPARE THAT TO THE 1.7 MILLION 
THEY'VE INVESTED IN IOWA SINCE 
THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR. 
SO NOT EXACTLY TAKING OVER THE 
AIRWAVES OF COURSE. 
WE KNOW NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS A 
VERY EXPENSIVE MEDIA MARKET. 
BUT INSTEAD TRYING TO DEPLOY 
THOSE TROOPS ON THE GROUND TO 
CONVINCE VOTERS HERE. 
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT WAS 
IN THE STATE EARLIER THIS 
MONTH. 
HE HELD THREE DIFFERENT EVENTS 
OVER THE COURSE OF TWO DAYS, 
BUT WE SHOULD NOTE HE DID NOT 
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM VOTERS 
OR HOLD A PRESS AVAILABILITY. 
HIS CAMPAIGN TRYING TO KEEP HIM 
ON MESSAGE IN THE FINAL STRETCH 
OF THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE. 
>> INTERESTING. 
ON TO SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH 
CAROLINA'S PRIMARY IS FEBRUARY 
29. 
WHAT HAVE CAMPAIGNS BEEN DOING 
TO CONNECT WITH VOTERS THERE 
AHEAD OF THE IOWA CAUCUSES ON 
MONDAY? 
>> WELL, WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS 
THAT CAMPAIGNS HAVE BEEN 
EMPLOYING A NUMBER OF 
STRATEGIES TO MAKE SURE THAT 
VOTERS ARE STILL REMEMBERING 
THAT THEY ARE HERE AND THAT 
THEY ARE VYING FOR THEIR VOTE. 
TODAY ACTUALLY MARKED THE LAST 
DAY THAT A VOTER CAN REGISTER 
TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY. 
AND SO AS WE ARE COMING CLOSER 
AND CLOSER TO THAT DATE, YOU'VE 
SEEN DIFFERENT CAMPAIGNS BRING 
SURROGATES INTO TOWN, LAST 
WEEKEND, SENATOR WARREN, ONE OF 
HER COCHAIRS, AYANNA PRESSLEY, 
MADE A VISIT. 
SHE DID A HANDFUL OF EVENTS 
WHERE SHE COURTED VOTERS AND 
BROUGHT THE GOOD NEWS OF 
SENATOR WARREN'S MESSAGE. 
SHE ATTENDED A GALA THAT WAS 
PUT ON BY ONE OF THE LOCAL 
DEMOCRATIC PARTIES, AND SHE 
GAVE A SPEECH THAT WAS WELL-
RECEIVED WITH THIS CROWD AND 
THEN ON SUNDAY AFTER GOING TO 
DIFFERENT CHURCH SERVICES IN 
THE AREA SHE WENT AND MET WITH 
VOLUNTEERS AND SUPPORTERS AND 
GAVE THEM AN INSPIRING MESSAGE 
AND THANKING THEM FOR THEIR 
SUPPORT AND TELLING THEM THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THEIR WORK. 
ANOTHER PERSON WHO'S BROUGHT 
SURROGATES INTO TOWN IS SENATOR 
BERNIE SANDERS COCHAIR NINA 
TURNER IN NEARBY NORTH 
CAROLINA. 
AND THIS WEEK ANDREW YANG'S 
FRIEND COMMITTEE AND DAVE 
CHAPELLE IS IN TOWN. 
HE GOT HERE YESTERDAY AND CAME 
AND STOPPED BY ONE OF THE FIELD 
OFFICES IN COLUMBIA AND TALKED 
TO VOTERS AND DID AN IMPROMPTU 
GAGGLE WITH PRESS AS WELL AND 
HE TALKED ABOUT HOW ANDREW YANG 
HAS INSPIRED HIM AND HE'S 
HOPING TO INSPIRE SUPPORTERS OF 
HIS IN THE AREA AND GET THE 
WORD OUT. 
IN ADDITION TO SURROGATE 
VISITS, YOU'VE ALSO SEEN 
DIFFERENT CAMPAIGNS CONTINUE TO 
ROLLOUT ENDORSEMENTS AS WELL. 
SO JUST THIS WEEK FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED 
THE ENDORSEMENT OF NEARLY 200 
úEDUCATORS IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 
AND THIS CAMPAIGN FORM 
COALITION SOUTH CAROLINA 
EDUCATION FOR BIDEN IS IN PART 
COCHAIRED BY A TWO-TIME 
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR HERE, 
FORMER GOVERNOR, AND ALSO HE 
WAS THE FORMER EDUCATION 
SECRETARY IN THE AREA,  RILEY. 
HE IS COCHAIRING THIS GROUP AND 
SO THEY HAVE ROLLED OUT THAT 
ENDORSEMENT, HE WAS ABLE TO GET 
THE ENDORSEMENT OF TWO FORMER 
HARRIS COCHAIRS IN THE AREA, 
AND IN ADDITION TO SURROGATE 
VISITS AND ENDORSEMENT 
ROLLOUTS, YOU'VE ALSO HAD 
DIFFERENT CAMPAIGNS 
STRATEGIZING. 
YOU HAD PETE BUTTIGIEG'S TEAM 
HAVE A ROUNDTABLE WITH LOCAL 
MAYORS AND EVEN TONIGHT, THEY 
ARE HAVING A STRATEGY MEETING 
ON HOW THEY'RE GOING TO 
CAPITALIZE ON WHAT THEY ARE 
HOPING TO BE MOMENTUM AFTER THE 
IOWA CAUCUS. 
SO THEY'VE GOT SOME WATCH 
PARTIES SET UP IN THE STATE AND 
THEY ARE STRATEGIZING TO SEE 
WHAT EVENTS WILL LOOK LIKE TO 
CAPITALIZE ON MOMENTUM THAT 
THEY ARE SAYING THEY ARE SURE 
TO HAVE COMING OUT OF IOWA. 
>> THINGS ARE HEATING UP. 
ADAM BREWSTER, NICOLE SGANGA 
AND LACRAI MITCHELL, FEBRUARY 
IS ALMOST HERE. 
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. 
>>> SENATORS ARE STILL ON THEIR 
DINNER BREAK IN DAY NINE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
LET'S BRING BACK IN MOLLY 
HOOPER, JENNIFER HABERKORN, 
KATHRYN WATSON AND JESSICA 
LEVINSON. 
MOLLY IS A POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR, JENNIFER IS A 
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER FOR "THE 
LOS ANGELES TIMES," KATHRYN 
WATSON IS A WHITE HOUSE 
REPORTER FOR CBS NEWS, JESSICA 
IS A PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA LAW 
SCHOOL. 
WELCOME BACK TO ALL OF YOU. 
JENNIFER, LET ME START WITH YOU 
BECAUSE I WANT TO ASK YOU 
SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD 
FROM PUP CONGRESSMAN MARK 
MEADOWS. 
EARLIER IN THE EVENING JUST 
ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE 
SENATORS HAD GONE ON THEIR 
DINNER BREAK, HE AND HIS 
COLLEAGUES WENT TO THE CAMERAS 
AND HE MENTIONED OR PERHAPS WAS 
ASKED ABOUT JOE MANCHIN. 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR FROM WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
AND THE POSSIBILITY PERHAPS OF 
JOE MANCHIN BEING SUBJECT TO 
SOME POLITICAL FALLOUT IF HE 
DECIDED TO GO ALONG WITH 
DEMOCRATS. 
AND VOTE TO CONVICT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF THE 
REALITY OF JOE MANCHIN'S 
POLITICAL WORLD? 
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'VE SEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WEST 
VIRGINIA MANY, MANY TIMES. 
COALMINER COUNTRY, EXPRESSING 
HIS DEEP ADMIRATION AND 
CONNECTION AND AFFECTION FOR 
THE PEOPLE OF WEST VIRGINIA. 
REALISTICALLY WHAT KIND OF 
POLITICAL PRESSURE IS JOE 
MANCHIN UNDER NOW? 
>> HE'S DEFINITELY UNDER SOME 
POLITICAL PRESSURE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WON HIS STATE 
BY ENORMOUS NUMBERS. 
PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST 
SWING STATES IN TERMS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S POPULARITY THERE 
AND DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. 
SO HE'S DEFINITELY UNDER 
PRESSURE TO NOT VOTE TO CONVICT 
THE PRESIDENT. 
AT THIS POINT MANCHIN HAS 
PLAYED HIS CARDS CLOSE TO HIS 
VEST. 
HE KEEPS REPEATING HE WANTS A 
FAIR TRIAL WHICH IS ONE OF THE 
DEMOCRATS' TALKING POINTS. 
SO WE MAY SEE A SITUATION IN 
WHICH HE VOTES TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES. 
THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE 
PUSHING THIS WEEK. 
BUT HIS VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT 
THAN THAT. 
OR WE MAY SEE A SITUATION IN 
WHICH HE SPLITS HIS VOTE ON THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE 
THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON THE TWO 
ARTICLES SEPARATELY. 
THERE IS ONE ARTICLE ON ABUSE 
OF POWER AND ANOTHER ON 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
THERE WAS ONE DEMOCRAT WHO DID 
THAT IN THE HOUSE. 
WE MAY SEE SOMEONE IN THE 
SENATE PERHAPS MANCHIN OR ONE 
OF THE OTHER MODERATE DEMOCRATS 
DO THE SAME THING SO THE 
PRESIDENT'S POPULARITY IN HIS 
STATE MUST BE WEIGHING ON HIS 
MIND AS HE IS THINKING ABOUT 
HOW HE'S GOING TO VOTE ON BOTH 
WITNESSES AND THE ARTICLES 
TOMORROW. 
>> MOLLY, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT 
THE TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO 
ARE PERHAPS THE BIGGEST 
QUESTION MARKS AT THIS POINT. 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR LISA 
MURKOWSKI, SENATOR LAMAR 
ALEXANDER OF TENNESSEE, IF YOU 
ARE MITCH McCONNELL, WHAT IS 
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH 
RESPECT TO THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN 
MAJORITY LEADER AND THOSE TWO 
SENATORS? 
>> WELL, IF YOU ARE MITCH 
McCONNELL YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND 
PRESSURE POINTS AND IT'S NOT 
JUST THOSE TWO SENATORS. 
THERE ARE SOME OTHERS THAT WE 
HAVEN'T HEARD DEFINITIELY FROM 
LIKE SHELLY MOORE CAPITO ALSO 
WEST VIRGINIA AND ROB PORTMAN 
PERHAPS. 
AND MITCH McCONNELL KNOWS THEIR 
PRESSURE POINTS. 
TALKING ABOUT LISA MURKOWSKI 
WHO IS CURRENTLY THE CHAIRWOMAN 
OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC 
WORKS COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS 
UNDER ITS PORTFOLIO, INCLUDES 
ENERGY, ENERGY RESOURCES WHICH 
IS HUGE FOR HER, IN ALASKA, 
THINK OF DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC 
NATIONAL WILD. 
AND SHE ALSO IS IN CHARGE OF 
THE MONEY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. 
IN THE APPROPRIATIONS 
COMMITTEE. 
SO HE COULD BE PUSHING THIS 
BUTTON SAYING WE MIGHT NEED 
SOMEONE MORE LOYAL. 
>> INTERESTING. 
LET'S TAKE YOU BACK TO CAPITOL 
HILL WHERE THEY ARE RESUMING 
AFTER THEIR DINNER BREAK. 
>>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
GRASSLEY AND THE OTHER SENATORS 
IS ADDRESSED TO COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HE ARGUED 
THAT QUOTE, NO CIVIL OFFICER, 
NO PRESIDENT, NO JUDGE, NO 
CABINET MEMBER HAS EVER BEEN 
IMPEACHED BY SO NARROW A MARGIN 
AND THAT THE CLOSENESS AND 
PARTISAN DIVISION OF THE VOTE 
REFLECTED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
DUBIOUS NATURE OF THE CHARGES 
AGAINST HIM. 
END QUOTE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS RAISED 
SIMILAR CONCERNS DURING THESE 
PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUES THAT THE 
LACK OF BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS 
HIGHLIGHTS THE PARTISAN NATURE 
OF THE CHARGES. 
ARE THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS 
WELL-FOUNDED? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK THE CONCERNS ARE VERY 
WELL-FOUNDED. 
I THINK THAT THEIR CONCERNS 
THAT ECHO BACK TO OUR FOUNDING 
WHEN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WARNED 
IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65 
PRECISELY AGAINST PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENTS. 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF 
THE GREATEST DANGERS THAT THE 
FRAMERS SAW IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER AND IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 
65, HAMILTON SPECIFICALLY SAID 
THAT IMPEACHMENT COULD BECOME 
PERSECUTION BY AN INTEMPERATE 
OR DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE 
HOUSE. 
IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE IN 
THIS CASE. 
IN FACT, THERE WAS BIPARTISAN 
OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT HERE. 
IN THE HOUSE. 
SO THIS IS ONE OF, IT IS THE 
MOST DIVISIVE SORT OF 
IMPEACHMENT COULD BE BROUGHT 
HERE. 
AND IT REFLECTS VERY POORLY ON 
THE PROCESS THAT WAS RUN IN THE 
HOUSE, WHICH DID NOT HAVE 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, AND THE 
CHARGES THAT WERE ULTIMATELY 
ADOPTED IN THE HOUSE. 
BECAUSE IT IS A PURELY PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S 
IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND ALSO 
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
THEMSELVES AND SOME OF THE 
MEMBERS OF THIS CHAMBER AT THE 
TIME OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
WARNED VERY ELOQUENTLY AGAINST 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY RECOGNIZED THAT A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT WOULD NOT BE VALID. 
THAT IT WOULD DO GRAVE DAMAGE 
TO OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY, TO 
OUR POLICY, TO THE COUNTRY, 
CREATE DEEP DIVISIONS THAT 
WOULD LAST FOR YEARS. 
AND IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
THEY MADE THOSE WARNINGS WHEN 
IT WAS NOT EVEN ARISING IN THE 
CONTEXT OF AN ELECTION YEAR. 
NOW WE HAVE A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT AS WE POINTED OUT 
WHEN THERE'S AN ELECTION ONLY 
NINE MONTHS AWAY. 
AND IT WILL BE PERCEIVED AND IS 
PERCEIVED BY MANY IN THE 
COUNTRY AS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO 
INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION AND 
TO PREVENT THE VOTERS FROM 
HAVING THEIR CHOICE OF WHO THEY 
WANT TO BE PRESIDENT FOR THE 
NEXT FOUR YEARS. 
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
SAID WE CAN'T ALLOW THE VOTERS 
TO DECIDE BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE 
SURE IT WILL BE A FAIR 
ELECTION. 
THAT CAN'T BE THE WAY WE 
APPROACH DEMOCRACY IN THE 
UNITED STATES. 
WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE ABILITY 
OF THE VOTERS TO TAKE IN 
INFORMATION BECAUSE ALL THE 
INFORMATION IS OUT NOW. 
THEY'VE HAD PLENTY OF 
OPPORTUNITY WITH THE PROCESS 
THAT THEY RAN IN THE HOUSE TO 
MAKE ALL OF THE INFORMATION 
PUBLIC THAT THEY WANT. 
AND TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR 
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WE THINK THEY'VE BEEN DISPROVED 
AND THE VOTERS SHOULD BE ABLE 
TO DECIDE. 
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, 
THE GREATEST DANGER FROM THIS 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT I BELIEVE 
IS THE ONE THAT MINORITY LEADER 
SCHUMER WARNED ABOUT BACK IN 
1998. 
WHICH IS THAT ONCE WE START 
DOWN THE ROAD OF PURELY 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, ONCE WE 
START TO NORMALIZE THAT PROCESS 
AND MAKE IT ALL RIGHT TO HAVE A 
PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
ESPECIALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR, 
THEN WE JUST TURNED IMPEACHMENT 
INTO A PARTISAN POLITICAL TOOL 
AND IT WILL BE USED AGAIN AND 
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND MORE 
FREQUENTLY AND MORE FREQUENTLY.
AND THAT'S NOT A PROCESS. 
THAT IS NOT A FUTURE FOR THE 
COUNTRY. 
THAT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD 
ACCEPT. 
INSTEAD, THIS CHAMBER SHOULD 
PUT AN END TO THE GROWING 
PATTERN TOWARDS PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENTS IN THIS COUNTRY, 
PUT AN END TO THAT PRACTICE AND 
DEFINITIVELY MAKE CLEAR THAT A 
PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT NOT 
BASED ON ADEQUATE CHARGES, NOT 
BASED ON CHARGES THAT MEET THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD WILL 
NOT GET ANY CONSIDERATION IN 
THIS CHAMBER AND WILL BE 
REJECTED. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
KLOBUCHAR, I SENT A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK DIRECTED TO BOTH 
PARTIES. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR VAN 
HOLLEN IS TO BOTH PARTIES. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL GO 
FIRST. 
IN HIS RESPONSE TO AN EARLIER 
QUESTION THIS EVENING, MR. 
SEKULOW CITED INDIVIDUALS LIKE 
THE BIDENS AS BEING, QUOTE, NOT 
IRRELEVANT TO OUR CASE, END 
QUOTE. 
ARE YOU OPPOSED TO HAVING THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THE INITIAL 
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE 
RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES PARTICULARLY AS THE 
SENATE COULD DISAGREE WITH THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING BY A 
MAJORITY VOTE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AGAIN, TO 
MAKE OUR POSITION CLEAR WE 
THINK CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT 
WOULD NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE 
WAY TO GO. 
AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE AT ALL, WHO'S 
PRESENTING HERE AS THE 
PRESIDING OFFICER, BUT OUR VIEW 
IS THAT IF THERE ARE ISSUES 
THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED ON 
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS, THAT IT 
SHOULD BE DONE IN THE 
APPROPRIATE WAY. 
YOU HAVE SENATE RULES THAT 
GOVERN THAT AS TO WHAT YOU 
WOULD DO. 
AND THEN IF LITIGATION WERE TO 
BE NECESSARY FOR PARTICULAR 
ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE 
LOOKED AT BUT THIS IDEA THAT WE 
CAN SHORT-CIRCUIT THE SYSTEM 
WHICH IS WHAT THEY'VE BEEN 
DOING FOR THREE MONTHS IS NOT 
SOMETHING WE ARE WILLING TO GO 
WITH. 
I'VE SAID THAT ALL DAY 
YESTERDAY AND AGAIN NO 
DISRESPECT TO THE SENATORS 
QUESTION BUT THAT'S NOT A 
POSITION THAT WE WILL ACCEPT. 
AS FAR AS MOVING PROCEEDINGS 
FORWARD. 
THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS THAT WOULD NOT BE 
CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE. 
WHY NOT? 
WHERE IS IT PROHIBITED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UPON THE 
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE CANNOT RESOLVE 
ISSUES OF THE MATERIALITY OF 
WITNESSES? 
OF COURSE THAT IS PERMITTED BY 
THE CONSTITUTION. 
NOW, COUNSEL EARLIER SAID THAT 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANTED TO 
DECIDE ON WHICH WITNESSES THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO 
CALL. 
WE WANT THEM TO CALL OUR 
WITNESSES.
WELL, YOU WOULD THINK THAT MICK 
MULVANEY, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF 
OF STAFF, WOULD BE THEIR 
WITNESS. 
IF INDEED HE SUPPORTS WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS CLAIMING. 
IF INDEED HE IS WILLING TO SAY 
UNDER OATH WHAT HE'S WILLING TO 
SAY IN A PRESS STATEMENT. 
YOU WOULD THINK HE WOULD BE 
THEIR WITNESS. 
BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE GET 
TO DECIDE. 
THAT'S NOT THE PROPOSAL HERE. 
THE PROPOSAL IS WE TAKE A WEEK, 
THE SENATE GOES ABOUT ITS 
BUSINESS, WE DO DEPOSITIONS, 
THE WITNESSES ARE NOT WITNESSES 
ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF THAT 
WE GET A DECISION ON AS HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
BUT RATHER, THAT WE ENTRUST THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO MAKE A FAIR AND 
IMPARTIAL DECISION AS TO 
WHETHER A WITNESS IS MATERIAL 
OR NOT. 
WHETHER A WITNESS HAS RELEVANT 
FACTS OR NOT OR WHETHER A 
WITNESS IS SIMPLY BEING BROUGHT 
BEFORE THIS BODY FOR THE 
PURPOSES OF RETRIBUTION IN THE 
CASE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, OR 
TO SMEAR THE BIDENS WITHOUT 
MATERIAL PURPOSE RELEVANT TO 
THESE PROCEEDINGS. 
WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT YOU 
ACCEPT OUR JUDGMENT ON THAT. 
WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE MAKE THAT DECISION. 
AND I THINK THE REASON OF 
COURSE THEY DON'T WANT THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THAT 
DECISION AS I INDICATED THE 
OTHER NIGHT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY 
DON'T TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
TO BE FAIR. 
IT'S BECAUSE THEY FEAR THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE WILL BE FAIR. 
AND I THINK THAT TELLS YOU 
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW 
ABOUT THE LACK OF GOOD FAITH 
WHEN IT COMES TO THE ARGUMENTS 
THEY MAKE ABOUT WHY THEY WENT 
TO COURT, WHY THEY REFUSED TO 
COMPLY WITH ANY SUBPOENAS, WHY 
THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE 
DOCUMENTS, WHY THEY ARE HERE 
BEFORE YOU SAYING THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS MUST SUE TO GET 
WITNESSES AND THEY ARE IN COURT 
ON THE SAME DAY SAYING YOU 
CAN'T SUE TO GET WITNESSES. 
AND THIS IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THAT 
DECISION BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE 
WITNESSES, THEY'RE REQUESTING, 
OR FOR PURPOSES OF RETRIBUTION 
OR DESTRUCTION. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR 
FROM NORTH CAROLINA -- 
>> THANK YOU. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
CRUZ. 
>> THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
TILLIS AND CRUZ IS FOR THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
YOU HAVE BASED YOUR CASE ON THE 
PROPOSITION THAT IT WAS UTTERLY 
BASELESS AND A SHAM TO ASK FOR 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION OF BURISMA AND THE 
BIDENS. 
CHRIS HEINTZ, THE STEPSON OF 
THEN SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN 
KERRY, E-MAILED JOHN KERRY'S 
KEY CHIEF OF STAFF THAT, QUOTE, 
APPARENTLY DEVON AND HUNTER 
BOTH JOINED THE BOARD OF 
BURISMA AND A PRESS RELEASE 
WENT OUT TODAY. 
I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY 
DECIDED TO BUT THERE WAS NO 
INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THEIR 
COMPANY. 
HEINZ SUBSEQUENTLY TERMINATED 
HIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH 
DEVON ARCHER AND HUNTER BIDEN 
BECAUSE, QUOTE, WORKING WITH 
BURISMA IS UNACCEPTABLE, END 
QUOTE AND SHOWED A, QUOTE, LACK 
OF JUDGMENT END QUOTE. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH CHRIS HEINTZ 
THAT WORKING WITH BURISMA WAS 
UNACCEPTABLE, DID JOHN KERRY OR 
JILL BIDEN AGREE WITH CHRIS 
HEINTZ, IF NOT, WHY NOT?
>> THE REASON WHY JILL BIDEN IS 
NOT MATERIAL TO THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, THE REASON WHY 
THIS IS A BASELESS SMEAR IS 
THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER 
HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD HAVE SAT ON 
THAT BOARD OR NOT SET ON THAT 
BOARD. 
THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER HUNTER 
BIDEN WAS PROPERLY COMPENSATED 
OR IMPROPERLY COMPENSATED OR 
WHETHER HE SPEAKS UKRAINIAN OR 
HE DOESN'T SPEAK UKRAINIAN. 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR 
WAS AN INVESTIGATION OF JILL 
BIDEN. 
AND THE SMEAR AGAINST JOE BIDEN 
IS THAT HE SOUGHT TO FIRE A 
PROSECUTOR BECAUSE HE WAS 
TRYING TO PROTECT HIS SON. 
I GUESS THAT'S THE NATURE OF 
THE ALLEGATION AND THAT IS A 
BASELESS SMEAR. 
AS WE DEMONSTRATED AS THE 
UNEQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY IN THE 
HOUSE DEMONSTRATED, WHEN THE 
VICE PRESIDENT SOUGHT THE 
DISMISSAL OF A CORRUPT AND 
INCOMPETENT PROSECUTOR IT HAD 
NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTER 
BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BOARD. 
IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH 
THE FACT THAT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, OUR ALLIES, 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, 
WERE IN UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT 
THAT THIS PROSECUTOR WAS 
CORRUPT. 
AND THE UNCONTRADICTED 
TESTIMONY WAS ALSO THAT IN 
GETTING RID OF THAT PROSECUTOR 
WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCES OF 
REAL CORRUPTION PROSECUTED 
PROSECUTIONS GOING FORWARD NOT 
THAT IT WOULD DECREASE THEM. 
SO THE SHAM IS THIS, THE SHAM 
IS THAT JOE BIDEN DID SOMETHING 
WRONG WHEN HE FOLLOWED UNITED 
STATES POLICY. 
WHEN HE DID WHAT HE WAS ASKED 
TO DO BY A EUROPEAN ALLY. 
WHEN HE DID WHAT HE WAS ASKED 
TO DO BY INTERNATIONAL 
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 
AND THE OTHER SHAM IS THE 
RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA SHAM. 
THAT THIS CROWD STRIKE KOOKY 
CONSPIRACY THEORY, THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS NOT THE RUSSIANS 
HACKED THE DNC AND THAT SOMEONE 
WHISKED THIS SERVER AWAY TO 
UKRAINE TO HIDE IT. 
THAT IS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE 
PROPAGANDA. 
AND YES, IT'S A SHAM. 
AND IT'S WORSE THAN A SHAM. 
IT'S A RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA, A 
COUP IS WHAT IT IS. 
THANK GOD PUTIN SAYS, THAT 
THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE ANYMORE, 
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UKRAINIAN 
INTERFERENCE. 
NOW, COUNSEL SAYS WELL, ISN'T 
IT POSSIBLE THAT TWO COUNTRIES 
INTERFERED? 
BUT YOU HEARD WHAT OUR OWN 
DIRECTOR OF THE FBI CHRISTOPHER 
WRAY SAID. 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTION. 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. 
SO, YES, I THINK WE CAN CITE 
THE FBI DIRECTOR FOR THE 
PROPOSITION THAT THAT'S A SHAM. 
AND THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY WE 
REFERRED TO IT AS SUCH. 
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT 
THIS IS ALL ABOUT IS THE 
PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE, ABUSING THE POWER
OF THAT OFFICE, TO ENGAGE IN 
SOLICITING INVESTIGATIONS AND 
ACTUALLY JUST THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF THEM. 
IF THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT THERE 
WAS SO MUCH MERIT THERE, THEN 
WHY WAS IT THAT HE JUST NEEDED 
THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT? 
AND WHAT'S MORE, AS COUNSEL 
JUST CONCEDED BEFORE THE BREAK, 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT PURSUING 
THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
OKAY. 
IF IT WASN'T THE POLICY, THEN 
WHAT WAS IT? 
IF IT WASN'T THE POLICY TO 
PURSUE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS THEN WHAT WAS IT? 
IT WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
ERRAND IS WHAT IT WAS. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON. 
>> ON BEHALF OF SENATOR 
MENENDEZ, SENATOR BROWN, AND 
MYSELF, I SENT A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU.
SENATORS WYDEN, MENDEZ AND 
BROWN ASKED THE HOUSE MANAGERS, 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS 
ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS ARE BASED ON HIS DESIRE 
TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. 
HOWEVER, NO REPORTING INDICATES 
THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM 
BARR AND FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON 
SHARED CONCERNS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS GRANTING PERSONAL 
FAVORS TO AUTOCRATIC FOREIGN 
LEADERS LIKE PRESIDENT ERDOGAN 
OF TURKEY. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO 
ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PRIVATE 
BUSINESS INTEREST IN THE 
COUNTRY LIKE TRUMP TOWERS 
ISTANBUL.
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS NOT 
DENIED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED TREASURY AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO 
INTERVENE IN THE CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION OF THE TURKISH 
STATE-OWNED BANK, WHICH HAS 
BEEN ACCUSED OF A SCHEME TO 
EVADE IRANIAN SANCTIONS. 
HAS THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A 
PATTERN OF CONDUCT IN WHICH HE 
PLACES HIS PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE 
SENATORS AGAIN FOR YOUR 
HOSPITALITY AND FOR LISTENING 
TO BOTH SIDES AS WE'VE 
ENDEAVORED TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS. 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST 
THERE HAS BEEN A TROUBLING 
PATTERN OF POSSIBLE CONFLICTS 
OF INTEREST THAT WE'VE SEEN 
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS 
ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THIS 
MOMENT, BUT THE ALLEGATION HERE 
RELATED TO THE ABUSE OF POWER 
CHARGE IS THAT IN THIS SPECIFIC 
INSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT TRIED 
TO CHEAT BY SOLICITING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE. 
IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION. 
BY TRYING TO GIN UP PHONY 
INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
NOW, WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SAID IS THAT WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY 
INTERESTED IN IS CORRUPTION. 
THAT HE IS AN ANTICORRUPTION 
CRUSADER. 
FOR YOU TO BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S NARRATIVE, YOU HAVE 
TO CONCLUDE THAT HE IS AN 
ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER. 
PERHAPS HIS DOMESTIC RECORD AS 
PART OF WHAT SENATORS CAN 
REASONABLY CONSIDER BUT LET'S 
LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE 
CENTRAL CHARGE HERE. 
THE PRESIDENT HAD TWO CALLS 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
ON APRIL 21 AND ON JULY 25. 
IN BOTH INSTANCES, HE DID NOT 
MENTION THE WORD CORRUPTION 
ONCE. 
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS. 
THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NOT 
MENTIONED BY DONALD TRUMP ONCE. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN MAY OF 
LAST YEAR, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
OWN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR 
DEFENSE INDICATED THAT THE NEW 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAD MET 
ALL NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR 
THE RECEIPT OF THE MILITARY AID 
INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS. 
THAT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAYING 
THERE IS NO CORRUPTION CONCERN. 
AS IT RELATES TO THE RELEASE OF 
THE AGE. 
NOW, I THINK WE CAN ALL 
ACKNOWLEDGE AS THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL INDICATED THAT THERE 
WAS A GENERAL CORRUPTION 
CHALLENGE WITH UKRAINE, I THINK 
THE EXACT QUOTE FROM MR. PORRO 
WAS SINCE THE FALL OF THE 
SOVIET UNION UKRAINE HAS 
SUFFERED FROM ONE OF THE WORST 
ENVIRONMENTS FOR CORRUPTION IN 
THE WORLD. 
CERTAINLY I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S 
THE CASE BUT HERE'S THE KEY 
QUESTION. 
WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAIT 
UNTIL 2019 TO PRETEND AS IF HE 
WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT úC 
LET'S EXPLORE. 
DID UKRAINE HAVE A CORRUPTION 
PROBLEM IN 2017? 
GENERALLY? 
THE ANSWER IS YES. 
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP DISLIKE 
FOREIGN AID IN 2017? 
THE ANSWER IS YES. 
WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP DO 
ABOUT THESE ALLEGED CONCERNS IN 
2017? 
THE ANSWER IS NOTHING. 
UNDER THE SAME EXACT CONDITIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT NOW CLAIMS 
MOTIVATED HIM TO SEEK A PHONY 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST 
THE BIDENS AND PLACE A HOLD ON 
THE MONEY, THE PRESIDENT DID 
NOTHING. 
HE DID NOT SEEK AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS 
IN 2017. 
HE DID NOT PUT A HOLD ON THE 
AID IN 2017. 
BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
OVERSAW $560 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO 
UKRAINE IN 2017. 
IN 2018, THE SAME CONDITIONS 
EXISTED. 
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRULY AN 
ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER, BUT 
WHAT HAPPENED IN 2018? 
HE DIDN'T SEEK AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE BIDENS. 
HE DIDN'T PUT A HOLD ON THE 
AID. 
RATHER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
OVERSAW $620 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO 
UKRAINE. 
WHICH BRINGS US TO THIS MOMENT. 
WHY THE SUDDEN INTEREST? 
IN BURISMA, IN THE BIDENS, IN 
ALLEGED CORRUPTION CONCERNS 
ABOUT UKRAINE? 
WHAT CHANGED IN 2019? 
WHAT CHANGED IS THAT JOE BIDEN 
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED, WITH 
THAT CANDIDACY, POLLS HAD HIM 
LOSING TO THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS 
DETERMINED TO STOP JOE BIDEN BY 
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THE 
ELECTION, SMEAR HIM, SOLICIT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, IN 2020. 
THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. 
THAT IS CORRUPT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM MAINE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK   
>>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED 
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, 
MANAGERS, THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH DREW ITS 
SUBPOENA, WHY DID THE HOUSE 
WITH DREW THE SUBPOENA, WHY 
DIDN'T THE HOUSE PURSUE ITS 
LEGAL REMEDIES TO ENFORCE ITS 
SUBPOENAS. 
>> SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
WHEN WE PRACTICE IN THE HOUSE, 
'TWAS INVITE WITNESSES TO COME 
VOLUNTARILY. 
IN THE CASE OF DR. CUPPERMAN, 
WE SUBPOENAED HIM. 
ALMOST INSTANTLY A LENGTHY 
COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN COURT 
WHERE HE SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE 
THE SUBPOENA. 
INTERESTINGLY, THE HOUSE TOOK 
THE POSITION THAT A WITNESS 
CANNOT CHALLENGE, DOES NOT HAVE 
STANDING TO CHALLENGE A 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA. 
WE WERE JOINED BY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT WHICH ALSO SAID THAT 
THE -- THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE 
JURISDICTION TO CHALLENGE OR 
GET A JUDGMENT TO SEE THE 
VALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA. 
IN THAT LITIGATION WE WERE 
OFTEN ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BUT MORE 
MEANINGFUL TO US IS WE WERE NOT 
GOING TO ENGAGE IN A YEAR'S 
LONG PROCESS OF DELAY TO GET 
THE ANSWERS THAT WE NEEDED AND 
WE PROPOSED TO COUNSEL THAT IF, 
AS YOU CLAIM, THIS IS REALLY 
ABOUT JUST WANTING TO GET COURT 
BLESSING, THERE IS A 
WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD BUT 
WE WANT IT MAKE SURE IT IS 
APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO SO, 
THERE IS ALREADY A CASE THAT 
HAS BEEN FILED THAT IS ABOUT TO 
BE DECIDED. 
LET'S AGREE TO BE BOUND BY WHAT 
CONCLUSION THE JUDGE REACHES IN 
THAT CASE AND THEIR ANSWER WAS 
NO. 
AND INDEED THAT OPINION WOULD 
COME OUT, THAT OPINION SAID 
THIS CLAIM OF IMMUNITY IS 
NONSENSE. 
AND THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR 
IT IN THE 250 YEARS OF 
JURISPRUDENCE ON THIS SUBJECT 
AND THE DOCTOR SAID WE WOULD 
LIKE TO GET OUR OWN JUDICIAL 
OPINION. 
HAVE WE GONE TO FRUITION EVEN 
THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE CREATED A 
BAD PRECEDENT TO CHALLENGE 
SUBPOENAS THAT WAY, HAD THEY 
LOST THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO 
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE 
SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD MAKE 
CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
AND THEY WOULD LITIGATE THOSE. 
WE KNOW THAT COURSE BECAUSE WE 
ARE IN IT WITH DON McGAHN. 
THEY ARE IN COURT SAYING 
CONGRESS SHOULDN'T DO WHAT THEY 
ARE SAYING WE SHOULD DO BEFORE 
THIS BODY. 
SO THAT IS WHY WE WITHDREW THE 
SUBPOENA. 
YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, 
WHY DID FIONA HILL FEEL SHE 
COULD COME AND TESTIFY. 
SHE WORKED FOR THE DOCTOR, WHY 
WAS SHE WILLING TO SHOW THE 
COURAGE TO COME AND TESTIFY 
WHEN HER BOSS WASN'T. 
THERE IS NOT A GOOD ANSWER TO 
THAT QUESTION. 
BUT I AM GLAD SHE DID BECAUSE 
WITHOUT HER WE WOULD BE THAT 
MUCH LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME. 
SO THAT WAS THE HISTORY OF THE 
SUBPOENA. 
LIKE WISE, JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS 
THE SAME COUNSEL TOLD US IF WE 
SUBPOENAED HIM HE WOULD SUE. 
NOW, WHY IS IT THAT HE IS 
WILLING TO TESTIFY NOW? 
YOU SHOULD ASK HIM THAT 
QUESTION BUT THAT WAS WHAT WE 
FACED AND IN OUR VIEW, A 
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO 
DEFEAT AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
HIS WRONGDOING BY ENDLESSLY 
LITIGATING THE MATTER IN COURT, 
PARTICULAR WHEN THEY ARE SAYING 
YOU CAN'T USE THE COURT TO 
ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM HAWAII. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATOR IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED TO WHISTLE-BLOWERS 
WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN OUTED 
AGAINST THEIR WILL, WHAT ARE 
THE CONSEQUENCES OF REVEALING 
THEIR IDENTITY, PARTICULARLY 
WHEN WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO 
HAS TRIED TO BULL ANY THREATEN 
BULLY IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES. 
>> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT 
WE CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS WHO ARE THE 
SUBJECT OF RETALIATION. 
THIS GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY 
SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT A 
POINT I MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE 
UNIQUE IMPORTANCE OF WHISTLE-
BLOWERS IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY. 
OUR AREA OF INTELLIGENCE IS 
UNIQUE IN THIS RESPECT, IF 
YOU'RE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO WANTS 
TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON A 
FRAUDULENT CONTRACT IN A 
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, YOU CAN 
GO PUBLIC. 
IF YOU ARE BLOWING THE WHISTLE 
ON MISCONDUCT IN HOUSING, YOU 
CAN GO PUBLIC. 
YOU CAN HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE 
ASK DECLARE THE WRONG DOING 
THAT YOU HAVE SEEN. 
IF YOU ARE A WHISTLE-BLOWER IN 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, 
HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT GO PUBLIC. 
YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE TO BRING 
TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION WRONG 
DOING EXCEPT ONE OF REALLY TWO 
VEHICLES. 
YOU CAN GO TO AN INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE OR THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL. 
AND IN THIS AREA WHERE OUR 
HEARINGS ARE IN CLOSED SESSION, 
WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE OUTSIDE 
STAKE HOLDERS THAT CAN POINT 
OUT IN THE FLAWS IN WHAT AN 
AGENCY HAS REPEATEDLIED, IF YOU 
ARE IN THE TRANSCOMMITTEE -- IN 
THE INTEL WORLD WHERE HEARINGS 
ARE IN CLOSED SESSIONS, THERE 
ARE NO OUTSIDE STAKE HOLDERS 
THAT COULD HOLD THE AGENCIES TO 
ACCOUNT SO WE ARE UNIQUELY 
DEPENDENT ON SELF-REPORTING BY 
THE AGENCIES AND THE 
WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE OF GOOD 
FAITH TO COME FORWARD AND BLOW 
THE WHISTLE. 
AND WE DO INJURY TO THAT WHEN 
WE EXPOSE THOSE WHISTLE-BLOWERS 
TO RETALIATION. 
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD 
IMAGINE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH 
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE NOW WOULD HAVE 
CALLED A WHISTLE-BLOWER A 
TRAITOR OR A WAY TO OR SUGGEST 
PEOPLE WHO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON 
HIS WRONG DOING ARE TRAITORS 
AND SPIES. 
I DON'T THINK WE COULD IMAGINE 
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES THAT THE U.S. AMBASSADOR 
IN UKRAINE WAS GOING TO GO 
THROUGH SOME THINGS. 
I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE 
IMAGINED THAT HAPPENING BEFORE 
THIS PRESIDENT AND SOMETIMES 
YOU JUST HAVE TO STEP BACK AND 
REALIZE JUST SHOW STRIKING AND 
ABORRANT THIS IS AND WHAT A 
RISK IT IS. 
ATTACKS ON ANYONE WHO WILL 
STAND UP TO THIS PRESIDENT. 
AND OF COURSE, THE RISK IS THE 
VERY REASON WE HAVE WHISTLE-
BLOWER PROTECTION, THE REASON 
WHYS WHISTLE-BLOWERS SHOULD 
ENJOY A RIGHT OF ANONYMITY, IS 
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, 
MISCONDUCT AND WRONG DOING WILL 
PROLIFERATE. 
IF THERE IS NOT A MECHANISM FOR 
PEOPLE TO EXPOSE WRONG DOING, 
YOU CAN BET WRONG DOING IS 
GOING TO INCREASE AND THAT IS 
WHY THE ARE GREAT CHAMPIONS, 
WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTIONS. 
BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTAND, AT 
LEAST WE DID, THE VITAL 
IMPORTANCE AND CONTRIBUTION 
THAT ARE MADE BY AMERICAN 
CITIZENS THAT BRING WRONG DOING 
TO OUR ATTENTION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS ADDRESSED TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE TO SAFEGUARD THE 
USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR 
FOREIGN AID AND WORK TO ROOT OUT
CORRUPTION? 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS AN IMPORTANT 
RESPONSIBILITY TO SAFEGUARD 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT ARE USED 
IN FOREIGN AID OR USED 
ANYWHERE, FRANKLY. 
AND TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. 
NOW, IT IS NO SECRET THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, FROM THE 
BEGINNING, FROM THE TIME HE 
CAME DOWN THE ESCALATOR, HAS 
BEEN COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT 
AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE 
USED APPROPRIATELY, ARE USED 
APPROPRIATELY. 
AND IF THEY ARE GOING TO 
FOREIGN HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THEY ARE USED WISELY AND 
THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF 
THAT, AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THAT. 
I DON'T THINK THAT IS EVEN 
DISPUTED OR DISPUTABLE. 
AND HE IS FULFILLING THAT 
OBLIGATION. 
AND THEN THE OTHER POINT THAT 
HE MAKES REPEATEDLY IS THAT IF 
WE ARE HELPING COUNTRIES AROUND 
THE WORLD, OTHER COUNTRIES 
SHOULD HELP US HELP THEM. 
WE USE THE WORD BURDEN SHARING. 
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 
IT MEANS IF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS 
ARE GOING TO HELP WITH A 
PROBLEM IN A COUNTRY AROUND THE 
WORLD AND WE DO A LOT, BILLIONS 
AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WHEN 
HERE IN OUR COUNTRY, WE NEED TO 
FIX OUR ROADS, WE NEED TO FIX 
OUR BRIDGES, SO IF WE ARE GOING 
TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THOSE 
IMPORTANT PROJECTS IN AMERICA 
THAT COME FROM THE HARD EARNED 
DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS, WHY CAN'T 
OTHER COUNTRIES HELP US? 
THAT IS CALLED BURDEN SHARING. 
IT IS ALSO CALLED FAIRNESS. 
HE HAS THAT OBLIGATION AND 
EVERY DAY HE FULFILLS THAT 
OBLIGATION. 
LET ME MAKE ANOTHER POINT, IN 
RESPONSE TO SENATOR WARREN'S 
QUESTION, THE MOST IMPORTANT 
THING IN TERMS OF THE FAIRNESS 
OF THIS PROCEEDING, AND THAT IS 
WHY I QUOTED -- I HAVEN'T 
PLAYED THE VIDEOS OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN BUT YOU REMEMBER THEM, 
THE WISE WORDS, THE TRUE WORDS 
OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT YOURS. 
AND THE ONLY POINT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, THEY 
UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK EVERYONE 
IN THIS BODY UNDERSTANDS IT, 
THERE CAN'T BE ONE STANDARD FOR 
ONE POLITICAL PARTY AND ANOTHER 
FOR THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTY. 
THAT IS IMPORTANT. 
THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE APPLIED 
HERE. 
WE CAN'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT 
CHANGES DEPENDING ON WHAT 
SOMEBODY THINKS ABOUT POLITICAL 
ISSUES. 
IN ORDER TO BE FAIR, THE SAME 
STANDARD HAS TO BE APPLIED 
REGARDLESS, REGARDLESS OF YOUR 
PARTY. 
SO THAT IS THE CRITICAL ISSUE 
HERE. 
AND THAT IS THE BEDROCK 
PRINCIPLE, NOT A DOUBLE 
STANDARD FOR JUSTICE IN THE 
SENATE. 
BUT ONE STANDARD, THE TRUE 
STANDARD, THE STANDARD THAT HAS 
BEEN ARTICULATED BY DEMOCRATS, 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IN THE 
CLINTON PROCEEDINGS, THAT IS 
THE STANDARD THAT IS RIGHT. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT WE 
ASK FOR. 
REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM MAINE. 
>> I AM SENDING A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> SENATOR KING ASKS THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, WOULD IT 
BE PERMISSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO INFORM THE PRIME MINISTER OF 
ISRAEL HE WAS HOLDING MILITARY 
AID UNLESS THE PRIME MINISTER 
PROMISED TO COME TO THE UNITED 
STATES AND PUBLICLY CHARGE HIS 
OPPONENT WITH ANTI-SEMITISM IN 
THE MIDST OF AN ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND 
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION BUT THE QUESTION HAS 
NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. 
SEEMS TO BE GETTING AT THE 
HYPOTHETICAL RELATED TO A 
MISINTERPRETATION, IT IS 
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT HERE. 
WHAT THE CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN 
BROUGHT HERE IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE BASED ON A 
THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER, THAT 
DEPENDS TO MAKE THEIR CASE THAT 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT RACED TWO 
ISSUES ON THE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE RAISED 
THE 2016 REELECTION 
INTERFERENCE AND HE MENTIONED 
THE BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT. 
THERE WAS NOT ANY FOREIGN 
POLICY INTEREST. 
THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY SET 
FOR THEMSELVES. 
IT IS ON PAGE 5 AND PAGE 4 THEY 
WILL SHOW IT IS A SHAM 
INVESTIGATION. 
I THINK IT IS ON PAGE 6, THEY 
SAY IT IS A BOGUS 
INVESTIGATION. 
THAT IS THEIR STANDARD BECAUSE 
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO 
ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO 
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST 
POLICY IN ORDER TO COME CLOSE 
TO BEING ABLE TO ASSERT 
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A 
WRONGFUL CONDUCT BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE 
INTEREST, IF THERE IS SOMETHING 
THERE THAT IS WORTH ASKING, 
THEY DON'T HAVE A CASE. 
THAT IS WHY THEY TRY TO TELL 
YOU THERE IS NOT A IS INTELA 
NOT EVIDENCE. 
IT IS ALL DEBUNKED AND THE 
QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED WHERE 
WAS IT DEBUNKED, WHERE IS THE 
REPORT FROM THAT INVESTIGATION, 
WHO ESTABLISHED THERE IS 
NOTHING THERE? 
THERE IS NO SUCH REPORT. 
THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED, THEY 
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CITE IT. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 
WE KNOW THAT EVERY WITNESS THAT 
WAS ASKED ABOUT IT SAID THERE 
WAS AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT 
OF INTEREST. 
TWO MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION RAISED THE ISSUE 
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN'S OFFICE. 
WE KNOW THAT THE STEPSON OF 
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY WHO 
HAD BEEN A BUSINESS PARTNER 
WITH HUNTER BIDEN, BROKE OFF 
HIS BUSINESS TIES WITH HIM 
BECAUSE HUNTER BIDEN TOOK A 
SEAT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA. 
SO TO SAY THAT THERE IS NOTHING 
THAT COULD POSSIBLY MERIT 
ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS 
UTTERLY DISINGENUOUS. 
IT CAN'T BE SAID WITH A 
STRAIGHT FACE. 
EVERY WITNESS SAID THERE WAS 
SOMETHING AT LEAST THAT GAVE 
THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST. 
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY SESSION 
TO DEBUNK THIS THEORY. 
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY INQUIRY 
TO FIND OUT IS THERE THERE OR 
NOT. 
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO JUST WITH 
WELL, WHY WAS HUNTER BIDEN ON 
THE BOARD, IT IS THE WHOLE 
SITUATION. 
THE WHOLE SITUATION OF OFF THE 
FIELD HE IS PUT ON THE BOARD AT 
THE TIME WHEN HIS FATHER IS PUT 
IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY AND 
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT IT 
APPEARED THAT BURISMA WAS 
TRYING TO WHITE WASH THEIR 
REPUTATION BY PUTTING PEOPLE 
WITH CONNECTIONS ON THEIR BOARD 
AND THERE IS THE PROSECUTOR 
BEING FIRED. 
IT IS JUST NOT REASONABLE TO 
SAY THAT NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY 
SAY THAT LOOKS FISHY. 
THERE IS SOMETHING MAYBE 
SOMEBODY SHOULD LOOK INTO 
THERE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
YOU EXPLAIN THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND SENATOR JOHNSON 
BOTH SAID THE PRESIDENT DENIED 
THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR A QUID 
PRO QUO WITH YOU CAN. 
THE REPORTING ON AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S BOOK SUGGEST THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD BOLTON THE AID 
WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL 
UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT 
DESIRED. 
THIS DISPUTE ABOUT MATERIAL 
FACTS WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF 
CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES 
WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. 
WHY SHOULD THIS BODY NOT CALL 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I THINK THE PRIMARY 
CONSIDERATION HERE IS TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE HOUSE COULD 
HAVE PURSUED AMBASSADOR BOLTON, 
THE HOUSE CONSIDERED WHETHER OR 
NOT THEY WOULD TRY HAVE HIM 
COME TESTIFY, THEY CHOSE NOT TO 
SUBPOENA HIM. 
AND THIS ALL GOES BACK TO THE 
MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION, I 
THINK, THAT THIS CHAMBER HAS 
BEFORE IT, ESPECIALLY ON THIS 
THRESHOLD ISSUE OF WHETHER 
THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES OR 
NOT, HAS TO DO WITH THE 
PRECEDENT THAT IS ESTABLISHED 
HERE FOR WHAT KIND OF 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING THIS 
BODY WILL ACCEPT FROM NOW GOING 
FORWARD. 
BECAUSE WHATEVER IS ACCEPTED IN 
THIS CASE BECOMES THE NEW 
NORMAL FOR EVERY IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING IN THE FUTURE. 
AND IT WILL DO GRAVE DAMAGE TO 
THIS BODY AS AN INSTITUTION TO 
SAY THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE 
HOUSE DON'T HAVE TO BE 
COMPLETE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO 
SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES THAT YOU 
THINK ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE 
YOUR CASE, YOU DON'T REALLY 
HAVE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER 
BEFORE YOU BRING THE PACKAGE 
HERE. 
WHEN YOU ARE IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
THE GRAVEST IMPEACHMENT THAT 
THEY COULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER, 
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL OF 
THAT WORK BEFORE YOU GET TO 
THIS INSTITUTION. 
INSTEAD, WHEN YOU COME TO THIS 
CHAMBER, IT COULD BE HALF 
BAKED, NOT FINISHED, WE NEED 
OTHER WITNESSES AND WE WANT 
THIS CHAMBER TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION THAT WASN'T DONE 
IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
AND THEN THIS CHAMBER WILL HAVE 
TO BE ISSUING THE SUBPOENAS AND 
DEALING WITH THAT. 
AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT 
THIS CHAMBER SHOULD ALLOW 
IMPEACHMENTS TO BE PRESENTED TO 
IT. 
AND WE HAVE HEARD THERE WAS 
SOME EXCHANGE THE OTHER DAY 
ABOUT WELL, THERE WERE A LOT OF 
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
AND THAT WAS -- THIS CHAMBER 
WAS ABLE TO HANDLE THAT. 
IT IS VERY DIFFERENT IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE WHICH IS 
HANDLED BY COMMITTEE. 
UNDER RULE 11, THERE WAS A 
COMMITTEE RECEIVING THAT 
EVIDENCE. 
BUT IN THE PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT THERE IS NOT JUST 
GOING TO BE A COMMITTEE, IT IS 
THE ENTIRE CHAMBER THAT WILL 
SIT AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT 
AND THAT WILL AFFECT THE 
BUSINESS OF THE CHAMBER. 
AND SO I THINK THE IDEA THAT 
SOMETHING COMES OUT BECAUSE 
SOMEONE MAKES AN ASSERTION IN 
THE BOOK, ALLEGEDLY, ONLY 
ALLEGEDLY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
HASN'T COME OUT TO VERIFY THAT, 
THEN WE SHOULD START HAVING 
THIS CHAMBER CALL NEW WITNESSES 
AND ESTABLISH THE NEW NORMAL 
FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AS 
BEING THAT THERE DOESN'T HAVE 
TO BE A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION 
IN THE HOUSE. 
I THINK THAT IS VERY DAMAGING 
FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS 
INSTITUTION. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM HAWAII. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A 
QUESTION. 
THIS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
CAN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY NOT 
ADMIT THAT SENATOR KING'S 
HYPOTHETICAL WOULD BE WRONG? 
WE BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> SENATOR, WE HAVE NO TROUBLE 
RECOGNIZING HOW WRONG THAT 
WOULD BE. 
BUT MORE THAN THAT IT IS THE 
NATURAL EXTENSION OF THE 
PROFESSOR'S ARGUMENT THAT IF 
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THAT 
THAT KIND OF QUID PRO QUO WOULD 
HELP HIS REELECTION, THEN IT IS 
PERFECTLY FINE AND 
NONIMPEACHABLE. 
THERE WAS A REASON THEY DIDN'T 
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT 
HYPOTHETICAL. 
THE OTHER WRITTEN REPORTS THAT 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BARR WAS CONCERNED THE 
PRESIDENT WAS INTERVENING IN 
INVESTMENTS, IF THE PRESIDENT 
THINKS SOMEHOW THAT THAT IS IN 
THE UNITED STATES INTEREST 
BECAUSE IT IS IN HIS INTEREST, 
THAT IS FINE. 
IT IS UNIMPEACHABLE. 
IS IT A CRIME TO GIVE 
PREFERENCE, TO GIVE SPECIAL 
CONSIDERATION TO AUTOCRATS? 
THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL BUT IT 
IS IMPEACHABLE, IT SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHABLE IF WE ARE GOING TO 
SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
OF THE COUNTRY, WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID, BESTOW FAVORS IN 
U.S. RESOURCES, TO COUNTRY 
WHERES THE PRESIDENT HAS 
INVESTMENTS, IS THAT WHAT WE 
WANT DRIVING U.S. POLICY? 
BUT THAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF 
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
I AGREE ABOUT ONE THING THEY 
SAID, IF WE HAVE A TRIAL WITH 
NO WITNESSES, THAT WILL BE A 
NEW PRECEDENT. 
WE SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE PRECEDENT WE SET HERE 
BECAUSE IT WILL MEAN THAT WHEN 
A PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED, THAT 
ONE PARTY CAN DENY THE OTHER 
WITNESSES AND THAT WILL BE THE 
NEW NORMAL, THERE WILL BE 
TRIALS WITHOUT WITNESSES AND I 
DON'T THINK THAT IS THE 
PRECEDENT WE SHOULD BE SETTING 
HERE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
LET ME JUST BEGIN BY NOTING, I 
THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT RICH 
FOR MANAGER SCHIFF TO SAY THAT 
ONE PARTY, THE PRESIDENT, IS 
GOING TO DENY THEM WITNESSES. 
IT IS THE PRESIDENT WHO DENIED 
ANY WITNESSES BUT TO GET BACK 
TO THE QUESTION ON SENATOR 
KING'S HYPOTHETICAL, IF THE 
PRESIDENT INSISTED A FOREIGN 
LEADER COME HERE AND LIE ABOUT 
SOMEONE ELSE AND HE WAS HOLDING 
UP MILITARY AID ORGRETS AID AND 
SAY YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT THIS, 
THAT WOULD BE WRONG BUT THAT IS 
NOT THIS CASE AND HAS NOTHING 
TO DO WITH THIS CASE BUT I 
WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING 
MANAGER SCHIFF SAID, WHAT IS IN 
THE NEWSPAPER, WHAT ELSE CAN 
WE BRING IN FROM THE 
NEWSPAPERS. 
CONVERSATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON HAD WITH THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED A 
STATEMENT SAYING THAT THAT 
ALLEGATION, THAT ASSERTION IS 
NOT ACCURATE. 
THAT THAT IS FALSE. 
AND THERE ARE OTHER ALLEGATIONS 
ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE IN THE 
MANUSCRIPT. 
SO TO PLAY THE GAME OF THERE IS 
GOING TO BE ANOTHER LEAK, 
SOMEBODY MIGHT WRITE A BOOK, 
THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE AND 
THAT IS WHAT -- AGAIN, TURNING 
THIS BODY INTO THE ONE DOING 
INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE THE 
HOUSE DIDN'T PURSUE THE 
INVESTIGATION, IT IS NOT A WISE 
MOVE FOR THIS CHAMBER TO TAKE 
ON THAT TASK. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> YOUR HONOR? 
>> SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATOR IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
HAS THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES IN ITS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OR 
OTHERWISE, INVESTIGATED THE 
VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT BY 
VICTOR SHOWCON THAT HE BELIEVES 
HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS 
INTEREST IN BURISMA AND HIS 
CLAIM HAD HE REMAINED HE SAID 
HE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER 
BIDEN. 
IN AN ARTICLE IN "THE 
WASHINGTON POST" ENTITLED AS 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID 
UKRAINE SHOULD INCREASE GAS 
PRODUCTION. 
THEN HIS SON GOT A JOB WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
THE ANSWER IS NO. 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE 
VERACITY OF THE TRUTH OF THAT 
REPORTING ABOUT THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL. 
THAT WAS PART OF THE POINT AS 
MANAGER SCHIFF WAS SAYING, THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS' POSITION IS 
THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE 
ENTIRE INCIDENT OF THE BIDENS 
AND BURISMA AND WHAT WAS GOING 
ON, IT IS ALL DEBUNKED. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE THERE, 
MOVE ALONG. 
BUT THEY DIDN'T INVESTIGATE IT 
AND THEY CANNOT POINT TO ANYONE 
WHO INVESTIGATED IT. 
THEY CAN'T POINT TO ANYONE WHO 
INVESTIGATED IT. 
EVERY WITNESS WHO WAS ASKED 
SAID THAT THEY THOUGHT THERE IS 
THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST THERE AND AT LEAST ONE 
WITNESS, AND THERE IS A PUBLIC 
REPORTING OF ANOTHER ONE IN THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, RAISED 
THE ISSUE WITH VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S OFFICE. 
NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. 
IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT NO 
ONE HAS ACTUALLY INQUIRED INTO. 
THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS 
RAISED ABOUT WHY NOW, WHY WAS 
IT RAISED NOW AND THE 
IMPLICATION THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TRIED TO MAKE, IT IS JUST 
BECAUSE JOE BIDEN DECIDE IN 
APRIL HE WAS GOING TO RUN FOR 
THE PRESIDENCY. 
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, 
RUDY GIULIANI IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL, 
WAS EXPLORING MATTERS IN 
UKRAINE IN THE FALL OF 2018. 
HE HAD TIPS BECAUSE HE WAS -- 
REMEMBER THE MUELLER 
INVESTIGATION WAS STILL ONGOING 
AT THAT POINT. 
WASN'T CLEAR WHAT THE OUTCOME 
OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION 
WAS GOING TO BE. 
HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT 
WERE THE ORIGINS OF RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE, OF THE -- THE 
DOSSIER, ALLEGATIONS OF 
COLLUSION BY THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN, AND THAT LED HIM TO 
UKRAINE AND HE GOT INFORMATION 
THAT LEAD HIM TO VARIOUS 
STRANDS TO PURSUE AND ONE OF 
THEM BECAME THE ISSUE OF THE 
BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT AND 
HE PREPARED A PACKAGE ON IT. 
JANUARY 23 AND JANUARY 25 OF 
2019, MONTHS BEFORE JOE BIDEN 
ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RUN 
FOR THE PRESIDENCY. 
RUDY GIULIANI WROTE DOWN IN 
INTERVIEW NOTES STUFF ABOUT THE 
BIDEN AND THE BURISMA INCIDENT. 
HE DELIVERED IT TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IN MARCH. 
STILL BEFORE JOE BIDEN SAID HE 
WAS GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL APRIL 
25. 
IT WAS ALL PUT IN A PACKAGE, 
ALL DELIVERED. 
AND THAT IS PUBLIC NOW BECAUSE 
THAT PACKAGE WAS RELEASED 
PUBLICLY. 
AND THE NOTE THAT HE TOOK, 
INTERVIEW NOTES, PUBLICLY. 
THE TIMING DATES BACK TO WHEN 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS PURSUING 
THAT, FALL 2018, TAKES TIME TO 
PURSUE LEADS. 
COULDN'T GET HIM A VISA. 
HAD TO INTERVIEW HIM BY PHONE. 
HE WAS IN NEW YORK. 
HE PREPARES THIS PACKAGE. 
THAT IS WHY THERE IS THAT 
TIMING. 
AND THEN THERE WERE PUBLIC 
ARTICLES PUBLISHED ABOUT THE 
BIDEN-BURISMA AFFAIR. 
A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE, 
JULY 22, 2019, ABOUT THE 
FIRING, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE 
JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL. 
IT WAS IN THE NEWS. 
IT WAS TOPICAL. 
THANK YOU. 
>> COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH 
HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS FOR BOTH PARTIES, HOW 
WOULD THE VERDICT IN THIS TRIAL 
ALTER THE BALANCE OF POWER 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES IN THE 
FUTURE. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOES 
FIRST. 
>> A VERDICT, A FINAL JUDGMENT 
OF ACQUITTAL WOULD BE THE BEST 
THING FOR OUR COUNTRY AND WOULD 
SEND A GREAT MESSAGE THAT WILL 
ACTUALLY HELP IN OUR SEPARATION 
OF POWERS. 
HERE IS WHY. 
AS I SAID, AND ACCORDING TO THE 
STANDARD DURING THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT. 
WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE? 
A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WITH 
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION, NO 
CRIME. 
NO VIOLATION OF LAW. 
IN AN ELECTION YEAR. 
NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. 
NO INVESTIGATION. 
NO DUE PROCESS. 
NOTHING. 
AND WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU, 
I MEAN, WE CAN TALK ALL WE 
WANT, AND WE WILL, BUT -- BUT 
WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AT 
THE END OF THE DAY? 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FROM A BALLOT FROM AN ELECTION 
IN A COUPLE MONTHS. 
WHO THINKS THAT IS A GOOD IDEA? 
PARTICULARLY DEALING WITH A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT WAS 
WARNED ABOUT FROM THE FRAMERS. 
OKAY? 
SO THE ONLY APPROPRIATE RESULT 
THAT WON'T DAMAGE OUR COUNTRY 
HORRIBLY IS A VERDICT FOR 
ACQUITTAL. 
GETTING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF 
WITNESSES, MR. SCHIFF IS UP 
HERE, LET'S MAKE A DEAL. 
HOW ABOUT WE HAVE THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE AND WE HAVE THE 
GREATEST RESPECT FOR THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE, HERE IS THE PROBLEM, 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CRITICAL 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE 
BEEN PROTECTED BY THE SUPREME 
COURT FOR OUR HISTORY. 
SO WHAT IS HE REALLY SAYING? 
HE IS SAYING THE SENATE CAN 
DECIDE ABOUT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE BY A VOTE. 
MAJORITY VOTE. 
IF -- WITH THE GREATEST 
RESPECT, IF THE SENATE CAN 
DECIDE THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, YOU ARE DESTROYING 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
WHEN WE ASKED FOR DOCUMENTS 
FROM MR. SCHIFF AND HISSTAFF, 
ARE YOU GOING TO DECIDE THAT? 
ARE WE GOING TO -- IS THAT HOW 
WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS? 
ARE WE GOING TO FLIP A COIN? 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN 
ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT. 
THERE ARE CRITICAL 
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WILL 
ALTER OUR BALANCE OF POWER FOR 
GENERATIONS IF WE GO DOWN THAT 
ROAD. 
DOWN THIS ROAD IS THE PATH 
PROVIDED BY THE DEMOCRATS SO 
WISELY DURING THE CLINTON -- 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> IT MAY BE DIFFERENT IN THE 
COURT THAN IT IS IN THIS 
CHAMBER AND THE HOUSE, BUT WHEN 
ANYBODY BEGINS WITH THE PHRASE 
I HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT 
FOR, YOU HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR 
WHAT FOLLOWS. 
WE TRUST THE JUSTICE WILL MAKE 
THE RIGHT DECISION. 
THE JUSTICE HAS CONDUCTED THE 
PROCEEDINGS IN A FAIR WAY. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD 
PRECLUDE US FROM TAKING A WEEK 
FROM HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES 
AND ALLOWING THE CHIEF JUSTS TO 
MAKE THE CALLS. 
WITH RESPECT TO AN ARGUMENT 
ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
WHERE THE SENATE DESIGNATED 12 
SENATORS TO HEAR THE WITNESS 
TESTIMONY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN 
AN IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THAT IS ONLY HALF CORRECT. 
THE OTHER HALF IS YOU CAN DO 
DEPOSITIONS IN WHICH A COUPLE 
MEMBERS OF THE BODY NEED TO 
PARTICIPATE SO IT IS A FALSE 
ARGUMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE 
WHOLE BODY WOULD NEED TO 
CONDUCT THE DEPOSITIONS. 
WE OFFERED A COMPROMISE. 
THE QUESTION OF WHAT WILL IT DO 
TO THE BALANCE OF POWER, AS I 
MENTIONED EARLIER, OUR 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE WILL 
SURVIVE THIS DEBACLE. 
BUT IF WE HOLD THAT A PRESIDENT 
CAN DEFY ALL SUBPOENAS, CAN TIE 
UP THE CONGRESS AND WITH BAD 
FAITH CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE, 
CLAIMING HERE ONE THING, IN 
COURT SOMETHING ELSE. 
IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO 
DECIDE WHICH SUBPOENAS THEY 
WILL CONSIDER VALID AND WHICH 
THEY WILL CONSIDER INVALID, 
YOUR OVERSIGHT POWER, OUR 
OVERSIGHT POWER IS GONE. 
IF A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS 
POWER, CAN DO SO BY HOLDING 
ANOTHER COUNTRY HOSTAGE BY 
WITHHOLDING FUNDS, CAN VIOLATE 
THE LAW IN DOING SO, AS LONG AS 
THEY THINK IT IS IN THEIR 
INTEREST, IMAGINE WHAT THAT 
WILL DO TO THE BALANCE OF 
POWER. 
ARTICLE TWO WILL MEAN WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS IT MEANS, WHICH 
IS HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. 
SO YES, THE STAKES ARE BIG 
HERE. 
ARTICLE TWO GOES TO WHETHER OUR 
OVERSIGHT POWER, PARTICULARLY 
IN A CASE OF INVESTIGATING A 
PRESIDENT'S WRONG DOING, 
CONTINUES TO HAVE ANY WEIGHT, 
WHETHER THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
IS NOW A NULLITY. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. 
>> Kevin: I. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK. 
>> THANK YOU.
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATORS IS DIRECTED TO BOTH 
PARTIES AND WE BEGIN WITH 
COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
THE QUESTION READS:  IF I 
UNDERSTAND THE MANAGER'S CASE, 
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER 
BECAUSE HE ACTED CONTRARY TO 
THE ADVICE OF HIS ADVISERS BUT 
HE IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS BECAUSE HE ACTED IN 
ACCORDANCE TO THE ADVICE OF HIS 
ADVISERS. 
>> THAT IS NOT OUR ARGUMENT AT 
ALL. 
THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED ON 
ARTICLE ONE NOT BECAUSE HE 
ACTED CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF 
HIS ADVISERS. 
WE ARE NOT SAYING THE PRESIDENT 
IS FREE TO DISREGARD THE ADVICE 
OF HIS COUNSEL. 
HE IS. 
WHAT HE IS NOT FREE TO DO IS 
ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION. 
WHAT HE IS NOT FREE TO DO IS 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID. 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT DOING 
POLICY. 
WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED IS FOR A 
PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD MONEY FOR 
A CORRUPT PURPOSE, TO SECURE 
HELP IN AN ELECTION. 
THAT IS NO POLICY DISAGREEMENT. 
ARE WE ARGUING HE SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED FOR FOLLOWING HIS 
LAWYER'S ADVICE? 
NO. 
THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS ADVICE. 
HIS ADVICE WAS FIGHT ALL 
SUBPOENA. 
THEY WERE GOING TO COURT AND 
ARGUING ONE THING AND COMING 
BEFORE YOU AND ARGUING ANOTHER. 
HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THEIR 
ADVICE. 
THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS. 
YOU CAN SAY A LOT ABOUT DONALD 
TRUMP BUT HE IS NOT LED AROUND 
BY THE NOSE OF HIS LEGAL 
COUNSEL. 
DON McGAHN STOOD UP TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND BOB MUELLER, THE 
MUELLER REPORT, FOUND SEVERAL 
INCIDENCES IN WHICH HE SOUGHT 
TO OBSTRUCT THAT INVESTIGATION, 
BY TELLING THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER HE SHOULD FIRE THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND HE SHOULD 
LIE ABOUT THAT INSTRUCTION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANGER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, YOU ARE 
RIGHT. 
THAT IS YET ANOTHER WAY IN 
WHICH THE HOUSE MANAGERS' 
THEORY OF IMPEACHMENT ARE 
DANGEROUS. 
WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE TWO, 
AGAIN, I WON'T RESPOND TO THE 
ATTACKS THAT KEEP COMING. 
I WILL SAY, JUST FOR THE 
RECORD, I HAVEN'T BEEN ELECTED 
TO ANYTHING BUT WHEN I SAY WITH 
THE GREATEST RESPECT, I MEAN 
IT. 
ARTICLE TWO, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
BEEN IMPEACHED FOR EXERCISING 
LONG STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS. 
HE IS LOOKING OUT FOR 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE 
FACE OF A HOUSE PROCESS THAT 
VIOLATED ALL OF THEM. 
AGAINST ALL PRECEDENT. 
HE IS LOOKING OUT FOR FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS AND FOR THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
HOW? 
IF HE SAID OKAY. 
FINE. 
NO RIGHTS. 
NO COUNSEL. 
NO WITNESSES. 
NO RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE. 
HERE IS EVERYTHING YOU ASKED 
FOR. 
WHAT SORT OF PRECEDENT WOULD 
THAT SET? 
THAT WOULD DAMAGE THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS. 
SO AGAIN, ALL YOU NEED TO LOOK 
AT ARE THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO 
NOT ALLEGE A CRIME. 
THEY DO NOT ALLEGE A VIOLATION 
OF LAW. 
THEY ARE PURELY PARTISAN. 
THEY WERE OPPOSED BY DEMOCRATS 
IN THE HOUSE. 
IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR. 
AND THEY ARE HERE SAYING 
INSTEAD OF AN ELECTION, LET'S 
CONFRONT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 
THAT HAVE NEVER REALLY BEEN 
CONFRONTED AND LET'S DO IT IN A 
WEEK. 
LET'S DESTROY EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
MAYBE LET'S DESTROY -- LET ME 
POINT OUT ONE ANOTHER THING, IT 
IS NOT RIGHT TO ACCUSE SOMEBODY 
FALSELY OF SOMETHING AND THEN 
SAY UNLESS YOU WAVE YOUR -CONST 
GUILTY. 
THAT IS NOT RIGHT. 
WE SHOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT IN 
THIS COUNTRY. 
THESE ARE LONG STANDING 
PRIVILEGES. 
THEY HAVE BEEN RESPECTED FOR 
HUNDREDS OF YEARS. 
AND WE SHOULD INTO RESPECT 
THEM. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU.
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE 
SENATOR FOR BOTH PARTIES, WE 
BEGIN WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL, OVER THE PAST TWO 
WEEKS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
HAD DETAILED ALL THE PROBLEMS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOUSE'S 
DECISION TO MOVE QUICKLY 
THROUGH THEIR IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS. 
WHY SHOULDN'T THIS BODY HEED 
THEIR ADVICE AND SLOW DOWN AND 
AT LEAST ALLOW THE JUDGE TO 
RULE IN THE CASE TO ALLOW THE 
MEMBERS AN OFFICIAL OPINION 
FROM THE JUDICIARY ON ARTICLE 
TWO. 
. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I THINK THE KEY POINT HERE IS 
THE DON McGAHN CASE WILL 
ADDRESS A LEGAL ISSUE WITH 
RESPECT TO AN ASSERTION OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR DON 
MCGAHN. 
THERE SHOULD BE A DECISION 
SOMETIME TOO BUT THAT WILL GO 
TO THE SUPREME COURT. 
THAT IMMUNITY IS BEING 
CHALLENGED AND RELIED UPON FOR 
OVER 40 YEARS, THAT IS AN ISSUE 
DESTINED FOR THE SUPREME COURT. 
IT IS NOT JUST SLOW DOWN HERE A 
LITTLE BIT, THIS TRIAL CAN'T BE 
HELD OPEN PENDING THAT 
LITIGATION. 
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. 
THIS IS SOMETHING ALEXANDER 
HAMILTON POINTED OUT WHEN HE 
WAS DISCUSSING WHO SHOULD BE 
THE BODY TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS 
AND ONE CONSIDERATION WAS 
POTENTIALLY DRAWING IN JUDGES 
FROM VARIOUS STATES TO CREATE A 
NEW BODY TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS 
AND THE RATIONAL THAT HAMILTON 
GAVE, THERE HAD TO BE SWIFT 
PROGRESSION BECAUSE THIS IS 
WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE 
PERSECUTION OF A MAJORITY IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
HE RECOGNIZED THERE COULD BE 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS AND THAT 
ACCUSATION THAT IMPEACHMENT 
SHOULDN'T  HANGING OUT THERE. 
THERE SHOULD BE A SWIFT TRIAL 
TO DETERMINE THINGS FINALLY. 
AND THAT IS WHY ALL OF THE 
PREPARATION OUGHT TO BE DONE IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 
ENSURE THERE IS AN 
INVESTIGATION, A CASE PUT 
TOGETHER AND THEY ARE READY 
TOIMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, THEY BETTER HAVE 
THEIR CASE READY BECAUSE THEY 
CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT, HAMILTON WARNED 
AGAINST THAT, HANGING OVER THE 
COUNTRY FOR MONTHS ON END. 
AND SO TO PUSH OFF THIS TRIAL 
TO SAY WE WILL WAIT FOR 
LITIGATION AND AT THAT POINT, 
THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS IDEA. 
AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE 
TRIAL HERE SHOULD OPERATE. 
IT OUGHT TO BE FINISHED ON THE 
BASIS OF THE CASE THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS CAME READY TO 
PRESENT. 
IF THEY WEREN'T READY TO 
PRESENT A CASE THEY SHOULD WIN, 
THERE SHOULD BE AN ACQUITTAL. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
WE HAVE ANOTHER HALF OF THE 
PRESENTATION. 
>> IF WE COULD PULL UP SLIDE 
37. 
THIS IS WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT 
HAD TO SAY. 
EXECUTIVE BRIDGE OFFICIALS ARE 
NOT IMMUNE FROM PROCESS, NO 
MATTER HO MANY TIMES EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH ASSERTED AS MUCH OVER 
THE YEARS. 
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 
DECISION WHERE THE COURT SAID 
CLEAR PRECEDENT AND POLICY 
REASONS CONFIRM EXECUTIVE 
CANNOT BE THE JUDGE OF ITS OWN 
PRIVILEGE. 
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE COURT 
SAID ON SLIDE 38. 
THE JUDGE SAID THE TAKE AWAY IS 
THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS. 
AND PER THE CONSTITUTION NO ONE 
IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
THIS IS THE DISTRICT COURT 
SAYING THOU SHALL APPEARANCE. 
SLIDE 39. 
THE COMMITTEE LACKS ARTICLE 3 
STANDING TO SUE TO ENFORCE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL SUBPOENA 
DEMANDING TESTIMONY FROM AN 
INDIVIDUAL. 
SO HERE WE ARE, WE ARE IN THE 
COURT OF APPEALS, THE JUSTICE 
IS SAYING YOU CANNOT ENFORCE 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. 
TO WHAT END? 
TO WHAT END? 
YES, I SUPPOSE WE COULD WAIT 
FOR A COURT OF APPEAL'S 
DECISION BUT THEY WOULD SAY 
THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH 
THAT. 
WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD 
JUSTICE RIGHT HERE THAT CAN 
MAKE THESE DECISIONS. 
LET'S LET HIM MAKE THE CALL. 
LET'S LET HIM MAKE THE CALL. 
LET'S TRUST THAT HE WILL BE 
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANGER. 
THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH 
CAROLINA. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND 
OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS REFERENCED 
THE CHAIRMAN AND THE HOUSE 
BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION, THE 
FINAL REPORT ON BENGHAZI SAYS 
THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT 
COOPERATE WITH THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
END QUOTE. 
THAT COMMITTEE FOUGHT FOR TWO 
YEARS TO ACCESS INFORMATION AND 
OFTEN HAD INFORMATION REQUESTS 
IGNORED OR DENIED. 
YET THIS HOUSE INVESTIGATION 
AFTER JUST THREE MONTHS ALREADY 
JUSTIFIES IMPEACHMENT. 
DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP OWE MORE 
COMPLIANCE THAN OTHER 
PRESIDENTS DID? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
PART OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING, I 
BELIEVE, IS A TWO FOLD ATTACK 
OR APPROACH. 
WE JUST SAW CITATION TO TWO 
DISTRICT COURT OPINIONS. 
AS IF THE FINAL ARBITER OF AN 
ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS 
GOING TO BE IN THE DISTRICT 
COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
YOU ARE RIGHT. 
IT IS GOING TO BE THE SUPREME 
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IF 
IT GOES IN THAT DIRECTION. 
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE 
QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT IN 
THE BENGHAZI REPORT, THE SAME 
IS ALSO TRUE WITH FAST AND 
FURIOUS AND THE INVESTIGATION 
THERE. 
AND IN THAT PARTICULAR 
INVESTIGATION IT READS A 
SIGNIFICANT POINT THAT MEMBERS 
OF THE HOUSE DETERMINED THAT 
THE THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE 
HELD IN CONTEMPT. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA EXERCISED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER 
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY RELATED 
TO FAST AND FURIOUS. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS WAS 
FOLLOWED. 
NOW, I AM NOT THE ONE THAT 
MAKES THE DECISION WHETHER THAT 
WAS PRIVILEGED OR NOT 
PRIVILEGED. 
IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A 
CHALLENGE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 
ADJUDICATED. 
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, 
AT LEAST 10 TIMES TONIGHT 
MANAGER SCHIFF SAID WE HAVE 
COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE. 
IGNORING THE FACT THAT IT IS 
NOT HIS CALL. 
AND I MEAN THAT WITH ALL 
SINCERITY, IT IS NOT -- THAT IS 
NOT THE WAY IT IS SET UP. 
YOU COULD AGREE TO ANYTHING. 
SURE, YOU COULD NEGOTIATE THAT 
ALL THE WITNESSES CALLED WILL 
BE THE WITNESSES THEY REQUESTED 
OR YOU CAN NEGOTIATE, SINCE 
THEY HAD 17 AND WE HAVE NONE WE 
GET 17 AND THEY GET FOUR. 
ALL THINGS TO BE NEGOTIATED. 
THIS IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE 
MANAGERS WHO HAVE A 
OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY 
PROVED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
THEY PROVED IT. 
IT IS OVERWHELMING. 
IT IS INCREDIBLE. 
WE PUT IT TOGETHER IN A RECORD 
AMOUNT OF TIME. 
AND NOW WE WANT YOU, THE UNITED 
STATES SENATE TO START CALLING 
FOR AN OVERWHELMING PROVED 
CASE. 
GO TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND SEE 
WHAT THE BODY SAYS. 
I RESPECT THE PROCESS. 
TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONS. 
TOMORROW THERE WILL BE AN 
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION. 
THERE WILL BE A DECISION ON THE 
MOTION AND THAT IS THE SYSTEM 
THAT IS IN PLACE. 
THAT IS THE SYSTEM WE SHOULD 
FOLLOW BUT THIS IDEA THAT TWO 
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES DECIDE AN 
ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AND 
THAT IS NOW THE DETERMINATION, 
THEY WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT IF THEY 
WERE IN OUR POSITION. 
THEY WOULD SAY THE DISTRICT 
COURT DECIDED, THAT WILL BE IT. 
SO I THINK WHEN WE HAVE TO LOOK 
AT WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE. 
THESE ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT 
ISSUES. 
THESE ARE SERIOUS. 
I MEAN, THE IDEA THAT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE SHOULD JUST BE WAVED 
OR DOESN'T EXIST, THAT IN OUR 
VIEW ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY COULDN'T 
POSSIBLY EXIST. 
PROFESSOR GAVE YOU A LIST OF 
PRESIDENTS THAT HAVE PUT 
FORWARD EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
AND HE TALKS ABOUT IT. 
TO SAY TONIGHT WE WILL JUST CUT 
A DEAL. 
WE WILL DO IT IN A WEEK. 
WE WILL GET DEPOSITIONS AND 
THAT WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. 
DOESN'T MAKE THE CONSTITUTION 
HAPPY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM OHIO. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM THE SENATORS IS AS
FOLLOWS:  YESTERDAY YOU
REFERENCED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
PROPAGATING RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES UNDER CUT OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY OBJECTIVES, IF 
ACQUITTED IN THE SENATE, WHAT 
WOULD PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM
DECIDING WITH OUR ADVERSARIES 
AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS 
ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA 
IF SUCH BEHAVIOR CONTINUES 
UNCHECKED? 
. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
I HAVE TALKED A LOT TONIGHT AND 
THROUGHOUT THE LAST WEEK ABOUT 
WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE BECAUSE, 
YOU KNOW, IT IS GETTING LATE 
INTO THE NIGHT, WE HAVE BEEN 
HAVING THIS DEBATE FOR SEVERAL 
DAYS NOW, THERE IS LOT OF 
DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS 
OF THIS, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN 
TO THE TROOPS IN EUROPE, THE 
HOT WAR THAT CONTINUES TO 
HAPPEN RIGHT NOW AS WE ARE 
SPEAKING IN UKRAINE BUT I WILL 
REITERATE THE PRECEDENT THAT WE 
SET WITH REGARD TO RUSSIA AND 
FOREIGN ADVERSARIES. 
THIS IDEA IT IS OKAY TO INTO 
PEDAL IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND 
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
BECAUSE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE YOU 
BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS 
A POLICY DISCUSSION. 
THAT WE HAVE NOT RESOLVED THIS. 
THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DEBATE 
ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 
IF THAT IS INDEED THE CASE, IF 
WE CONCEDE THAT, THERE ARE 
WITNESSES THAT COULD SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT BUT THE 
FACT PATTERN WE ARE SITTING AT 
RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS 17 WITNESSES 
THAT WERE CALLED IN THE HOUSE, 
NONE OF WHOM HAD ANY DATA TO 
PROVIDE THAT ANY OF THESE 
THEORIES WERE ACCURATE. 
WE HAVE THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE 
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY 
OF THE UNITED STATES, 
UNANIMOUSLY SAYING THAT THERE 
IS NO INDICATION THAT UKRAINE 
WAS INVOLVED IN 2016 ELECTION. 
THAT IT WAS RUSSIA. 
AND DON'T BUY THE RED HERRING, 
BY THE WAY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT BROUGHT FORTH, THIS 
IDEA IT COULD ONLY BE RUSSIA. 
THEY SAID EARLIER WE ARE 
CLAIMING IT COULD ONLY BE 
RUSSIA. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING. 
NOBODY EVER SAID IT CAN ONLY BE 
RUSSIA BECAUSE INDEED WE KNOW, 
AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER 
KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF 
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THE CAPABLE 
AND REGULARLY TRY TO ATTACK US, 
WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS RESPECT 
TO THIS ISSUE, BEFORE THIS BODY 
RIGHT NOW, IS UNANIMOUSLY THE 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS OF THE 
UNITED STATES SAID IT WAS 
RUSSIA WHO INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 ELECTION. 
SO THE PRECEDENT, BRINGING IT 
>>  
THAT THEY CAN PLAY TO THE WHIMS 
OF ONE-PERSON. 
WHETHER THAT BE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
OR SOME FUTURE PRESIDENT, 
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, THAT 
CAN PLAY TO THE WHIMS AND THE ú 
POLITICAL AMBITIONS OF ONE 
PERSON, AND GET THAT INDIVIDUAL 
TO PROPAGATE THEIR PROPAGANDA. 
GET THEM TO UNDERMINE OUR OWN 
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITIES, THAT 
IS A PRESIDENT THAT I DO NOT 
THINK ANYBODY HERE IS WILLING 
AND INTERESTED IN SENDING, AND 
THAT IS TRULY WHAT IS AT STAKE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NORTH 
DAKOTA. 
>> I'M SENDING A QUESTION TO 
THE DESK FROM MYSELF FOR 
SENATOR BOSEMAN, SENATOR ROOKER,
AND SENATOR O. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
HOUSE MANAGERS CONTEND THAT 
THEY HAVE AN OVERWHELMING CASE 
AND THAT THEY HAVE MADE THEIR 
CASE IN CLEAR AND CONVINCING 
FASHION. 
DOESN'T THAT ASSERTION DIRECTLY 
CONTRADICT THE REQUEST FOR MORE 
WITNESSES? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
AND I THINK IT DOES DIRECTLY 
CONTRADICTS THEIR CLAIM NOW, 
THAT THEY NEED MORE WITNESSES. 
THEY SAID FOR WEEKS THAT IT WAS 
AN OVERWHELMING CASE, THEY CAME 
HERE AND THEY HAVE SAID 63 TIMES
THAT IT IS OVERWHELMING OR 
PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT, MANAGER NADLER SAID 
TWICE TODAY, BASED ON WHAT THEY 
HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU, IT HAS 
BEEN PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, 
RIGHT? 
IF THAT IS THEIR POSITION, WHY 
DO THEY NEED MORE WITNESSES OR 
EVIDENCE? 
IT IS COMPLETELY SELF-
CONTRADICTORY. 
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A 
COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS WHILE I 
AM HERE AND I HAVE THE TIME, 
AND WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH 
ON THIS AND I DO NOT KNOW WHY 
HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS KEEP COMING 
UP HERE, AND SAYING AND ACTING 
AS IF, IF YOU MENTION UKRAINE, 
IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE, YOU EVEN MENTION 
IT, YOU ARE A PAWN OF VLADIMIR 
PUTIN. 
BECAUSE ONLY THE RUSSIANS 
INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION. 
AND THERE IS NOT ANY EVIDENCE 
IN THE RECORD, THEY SAY, THAT 
THE UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING. 
I READ IT BEFORE, I WILL READ 
IT AGAIN. 
ONE OF THEIR STAR WITNESSES, 
FIONA HILL, SAID THAT SOME 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, QUOTE, BUT 
ON HILLARY CLINTON WINNING THE 
ELECTION,". 
SO IT WAS QUOTE UNQUOTE EIGHT 
EVIDENT THAT THEY WERE TRYING 
TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN, INCLUDING BY TRYING 
TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON MR. 
MANAFORT AND OTHER PEOPLE AS 
WELL. 
SO, THAT WAS FIONA HILL. 
THERE WAS ALSO THE EVIDENCE IN 
THE RECORD FROM POLITICO 
ARTICLE IN 2017, THAT LISTED A 
WHOLE BUNCH OF UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS WHO HAD DONE THINGS 
TO TRY TO HELP THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN AND DNC AND TO HARM 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
IN ADDITION, TWO NEWS 
ORGANIZATIONS, BOTH POLITICO 
AND THE FINANCIAL TIMES, DID 
THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIVE 
REPORTING. 
AND, THE FINANCIAL TIMES 
CONCLUDED THAT THE OPPOSITION 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP LED THE 
WATER POLITICAL LEADERSHIP TO 
DO SOMETHING AND THEY WOULD 
NEVER HAVE ATTEMPTED BEFORE, TO 
INTERVENE, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY, 
IN A U.S. ELECTION, THAT IS THE 
FINANCIAL TIMES. 
SO, THE IDEA THAT THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, IF 
UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING TO 
INTERFERE IN ANY WAY, IS JUST 
NOT TRUE. 
THEY COME UP HERE AND SAY IT 
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND IT IS JUST 
NOT TRUE. 
THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO 
POINT OUT, MANAGER SHIFT KEEPS 
SUGGESTING THAT SOMEHOW WE ARE 
COMING HERE AND SAYING ONE 
THING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE IS SAYING SOMETHING 
ELSE IN COURT ABOUT LITIGATION. 
THAT IS ALSO NOT TRUE. 
WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR EVERY 
TIME. 
THE POSITION OF THE JUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, LIKE THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT WHEN 
CONGRESS SUES IN AN ARTICLE 3 
COURT TO TRY TO ENFORCE A 
SUBPOENA AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OFFICIAL THAT IS NOT A 
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AND 
THERE IS NOT JURISDICTION OVER 
IT. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE 
HOUSE, THOUGH, TAKE THE 
POSITION THAT THEY HAVE THAT 
AVENUE OPEN TO THEM. 
SO, OUR POSITION IS, WHEN WE GO 
TO COURT WE WILL RESIST 
JURISDICTION AND THE COURT. 
BUT IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT 
TO PROCEED TO IMPEACHMENT, 
WHERE THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE AN 
ALTERNATIVE MECHANISM AVAILABLE 
TO THEM, OUR POSITION IS, THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES 
INCREMENTALISM IN CONFLICTS 
BETWEEN THE BRANCHES. 
AND THAT MEANS THAT FIRST THERE 
SHOULD BE AN ACCOMMODATION 
PROCESS, AND THEN CONGRESS CAN 
CONSIDER OTHER MECHANISMS AT 
ITS DISPOSAL, SUCH AS CONTEMPT, 
OR SUCH AS SQUEEZING THE 
PRESIDEN'S POLICIES BY 
WITHHOLDING APPROPRIATIONS OR 
OTHER MECHANISMS TO DEAL WITH 
THAT INTERBRANCH CONFLICT. 
OR, IF THEY CLAIM THAT THEY CAN 
SEE YOU IN COURT, SUE IN COURT, 
BUT THAT IMPEACHMENT IS A 
MEASURE OF LAST RESORT. 
NOW, EARLIER, MANAGER SHIFT 
SUGGESTED THAT TODAY, IN COURT, 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WENT 
IN AND SAID, THERE IS NO 
JURISDICTION AND WHEN THE JUDGE 
SAID IS THE IF THERE IS NO 
JURISDICTION TO SUE, THEN WHAT 
CAN CONGRESS DO? 
AND THE DOJ, AS HE REPRESENTED 
IT, SIMPLY SAID, WELL, IF THEY 
CANNOT SUE, THEN THEY CAN 
IMPEACH. 
AS IF THAT WAS THE DIRECT 
ANSWER, JUST GO FROM, IF YOU 
CANNOT SUE, THE NEXT UP IS 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT DID NOT SEEM RIGHT TO ME, 
BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK THAT 
WAS WITH DOJ WOULD BE SAYING, 
AND DOJ HAS PUT OUT A 
STATEMENT. 
I DO NOT HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE HEARING, THEY DO NOT HAVE A 
TRANSCRIPT READY AS FAR AS I 
KNOW, BUT DOJ SAID, AND THIS IS 
A QUOTE FROM THE STATEMENT, THE 
POINT WE MADE IN COURT IS 
SIMPLY THAT CONGRESS HAS 
NUMEROUS POLITICAL TOOLS IT CAN 
USE IN BATTLES WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
APPROPRIATIONS, LEGISLATION, 
NOMINATIONS, AND POTENTIALLY IN 
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
FOR EXAMPLE, IT CAN HOLD UP 
FUNDING FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
PREFERRED PROGRAMS, PASS 
LEGISLATION HE OPPOSES, OR 
REFUSE TO CONFIRM HIS NOMINEES. 
THIS IS CONTINUING THEIR 
STATEMENT. 
BUT IT IS ABSURD FOR 
CHAIRMANSHIP TO PORTRAY OUR 
MERE DESCRIPTION OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AS SOMEHOW 
ENDORSING HIS RUSHED 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
BLUMENTHAL TO THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
ON APRIL 24th, 2019, ONE DAY 
AFTER THE MEDIA REPORTED THAT 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WOULD FORMALLY ENTER THE 2020 
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE, THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT EXECUTED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER TO 
RECALL AMBASSADOR MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH, A WELL-REGARDED 
CAREER  SUPPLEMENT AND 
ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER. 
WAITED PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT, IN 
HIS WORDS, TO QUOTE, TAKE HER 
OUT.? 
>> WELL, MR. GIULIANI HAS 
PROVIDED THE ANSWER TO THAT 
QUESTION. 
HE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THE 
REASON THEY NEEDED TO GET 
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH  
OUT OF THE WAY WAS THAT SHE WAS 
GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY 
WANTED. 
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
LAWYERS EXPLANATION FOR WHY 
THEY HAD TO PUSH OUT, WHY THEY 
HAD TO SMEAR, AMBASSADOR MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH. 
SO, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYER 
GIVES US THE ANSWER.  
AND THAT OUGHT TO TELL US 
SOMETHING. 
IN A COUPLE RESPECTS. 
ONE, THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
AGENT HAS SAID THAT SHE WAS AN 
IMPEDIMENT TO GETTING THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, THIS 
ANTICORRUPTION CHAMPION, THIS 
ANTICORRUPTION CHAMPION WHO IS 
AT AN AWARDS CEREMONY OR 
RECOGNITION CEREMONY FOR 
UKRAINIAN ANTICORRUPTION 
FIGHTER, A WOMAN WHO HAD ACID 
THROWN IN HER FACE AND WHO DIED 
A PAINFUL DEATH AFTER MONTHS, 
SHE IS AT THAT VERY CEREMONY, 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS OTHER 
CHAMPION FIGHTING CORRUPTION, 
WHEN SHE GETS THE WORD, YOU 
NEED TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT 
PLANE. 
NOW, ONE OF THE REASONS THE 
UKRAINIANS KNEW THEY HAD TO 
DEAL WITH RUDY GIULIANI IS THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS TRYING TO GET 
THIS AMBASSADOR REPLACED, AND 
YOU KNOW, HE SUCCEEDED. 
HE SUCCEEDED. 
AND, THAT SENT A MESSAGE TO THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT IF RUDY GIULIANI
HAD THE JUICE WITH THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, THE POWER 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES TO RECALL 
AMBASSADOR FROM HER POST, THIS 
WAS SOMEBODY THAT NOT ONLY HAD 
THE AIR OF THE PRESIDENT THAT 
COULD MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. 
SO, THE SHORT ANSWER IS, RUDY 
GIULIANI TELLS US WHY SHE HAD 
TO GO. 
NOW, WHERE THEY HAD TO SMEAR 
HER? 
WHY THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T 
SIMPLY RECALL HER? 
THAT IS HARDER TO EXPLAIN. 
BUT THE REASON THEY WANTED HER 
OUT OF THE WAY IS THEY WANTED 
TO MAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS GO 
FORWARD, AND THEY KNEW SOMEONE 
THERE FIGHTING CORRUPTION WAS 
GETTING IN THE WAY OF THAT. 
NOW, I WANT TO SAY WITH RESPECT 
TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS 
AGAINST HAVING THE TESTIMONY OF 
JOHN BOLTON. 
THESE ARE SOME OF THE FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS WHO 
HAVE BEEN CALLED TO HEARINGS 
AND DEPOSITIONS. 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
FOR PRESIDENT CARTER, PROVIDED 
EIGHT HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARING 
TESTIMONY AND ADDITIONAL 
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY BEFORE THE 
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE 
INDIVIDUALS REGARDING THE 
INTERESTS OF FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS. 
ADMIRAL DEXTER TESTIFIED, 
PROVIDING OVER 25 HOURS OF 
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY AND 20 
HOURS OF DUST BUT DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE 
SELECTED COVERT ARMS ACTIONS 
WITH IRAN. 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
FOR RONALD REAGAN PROVIDED OVER 
20 HOURS OF TESTIMONY, SAMUEL 
BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR OF PRESIDENT CLINTON 
PROVIDED TWO HOURS OF PUBLIC 
HEARING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE 
SENATE COMMITTEE ON 
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. 
IT IS IN ORIENTED CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE. PRESIDENT GEORGE W 
BUSH, THREE HOURS OF TESTIMONY. 
SUSAN RICE, PROVIDED CLOSED 
SESSION TESTIMONY, THE HOUSE 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOW THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HANDLED 
IDENTIFICATION OF U.S. AND 
ASCENDS AND U.S. INTELLIGENCE 
REPORTS. 
THERE IS AMPLE PRECEDENT WHERE 
IT IS NECESSARY, TO DO HAVE 
TESTIMONY OF NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISORS. 
NOW, YOU SAW, I THINK, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DANCING ON 
THE HEAD OF A PIN AND TRYING TO 
EXPLAIN BEFORE YOU, ARGUING WE 
CANNOT HAVE THESE PEOPLE COME 
HERE, THE HOUSE SHOULD SUE IN 
COURT AND WHY THEY ARE IN COURT 
SAYING THE COURT CANNOT HEAR 
IT. 
AND I HAVE TO SAY, I HAVE A 
GREAT UNDERSTANDING FOR THE 
DIFFICULTY OF THAT POSITION. 
I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN THE 
POSITION OF HAVING TO ADVOCATE 
THAT ARGUMENT. 
BUT, IT GOES TO THE 
DEMONSTRATION OF, HAVE FAITH 
HERE. 
HOW CAN YOU BE, BEFORE THIS 
BODY, SAYING YOU HAVE GOT TO GO 
TO COURT, THE HOUSE WAS 
DERELICT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GO 
TO COURT, AND GO TO THE SAME 
COURT AND SAY, THE HOUSE SHOULD 
NOT BE HERE. 
HOW DO YOU DO THAT? 
NOW THEY SAY, THE HOUSE IS IN 
COURT SO THE HOUSE MUST THINK 
IT IS OKAY, EVEN THOUGH WE DO 
NOT THINK SO AND WE ARE DOING 
THAT AND WE WILL TAKE IT ALL 
THE WAY UP TO SUPREME COURT IF 
WE HAVE TO. 
WE DO NOT THINK THAT IS AN 
ADEQUATE REMEDY, THAT IS THE 
WHOLE PROBLEM. 
WHEN YOU HAVE BAD FAITH AND 
VOCATION OF PRIVILEGE, WHEN YOU 
HAVE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE, A 
PRESIDENT WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE 
TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING 
INDEFINITELY. 
A PRESIDENT WHO IS TRYING TO 
GET FOREIGN HELP IN THE VERY 
NEXT ELECTION, THAT PROCESS OF 
GOING ENDLESSLY UP AND DOWN THE 
COURT'S WITH A DUPLICITOUS 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
ARGUING ONE PLACE, YOU CAN DO 
IT AND THE OTHER PLACE YOU 
CAN'T. 
IT SHOWS THE FLAW WITH A 
PRESIDENT THAT CONGRESS MUST 
EXHAUST ALL REMEDIES BEFORE IT 
CAN INSIST ON ANSWERS WITH THE 
ULTIMATE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE TAKE A 
FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
ORDERED. 
>>> WE ARE NEARING THE END OF 
THE NINTH DAY OF THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
AND, THE SECOND DAY OF THE 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PHASE. 
IF YOU'RE JUST JOINING US, WE 
ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME OF 
WHAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED. 
>> WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A 
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL 
OUT THERE, IN THE FORM OF 
EMAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, 
CONVERSATION, AND WITNESS 
TESTIMONY, THAT CAN SHED 
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT, 
INCLUDING AN EMAIL FROM LAST 
SUMMER BETWEEN ESTHER BOLTON, 
MR. BLAIR, WHERE WE KNOW FROM 
WITNESS TESTIMONY, THIS ISSUE 
WAS DISCUSSED. 
BUT WE DO KNOW FROM MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
PLACED A HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, SOON AFTER IT WAS 
ORDERED IN JULY OF 2019. 
SO, WE KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DID 
U.S. OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT, 
AND OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT, 
BUT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT 
IT AS WELL. 
>> WE HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A 
SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR, WITH THE GOAL 
OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM 
THE BALLOT. 
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THAT IS 
THE MOST MASSIVE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE WE HAVE EVER 
WITNESSED. 
IT IS DOMESTIC ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
IT IS POLITICAL ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
AND, IT IS WRONG. 
>> THERE IS NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT 
WE HEARD LAST NIGHT. 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, THAT 
IS, IF THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES 
WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED, 
AND HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION 
IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, 
THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW 
CORRUPT THAT QUID PRO QUO IS. 
THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW 
YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD 
TO RIGHTS. 
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF 
DESPERATION. 
WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS. 
ARTICLE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT IS 
TOTAL DEFIANCE OF HOUSE 
SUBPOENAS. 
AND THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IN 
ADVANCE, I WILL DEFY ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 
IT MEANS THERE IS NO 
INFORMATION TO CONGRESS. 
IT MEANS A CLAIM OF DICTATORIAL 
POWER. 
IF CONGRESS HAS NO INFORMATION, 
IT CANNOT ACT. 
THE PRESIDENT CAN DISPUTE 
CERTAIN SPECIFIC CLAIMS, HE CAN 
CLAIM PRIVILEGE, ETC., BUT TO 
DEFY CATEGORICALLY ALL 
SUBPOENAS TO ANNOUNCE IN 
ADVANCE HE IS GOING TO DO THAT 
AND TO DO IT, IS TO SAY THAT 
CONGRESS HAS NO POWER AT ALL, 
ONLY THE EXECUTIVE HAS POWER. 
>> IT IS TOTALLY INEXPLICABLE 
TO START GETTING INTO THE FIELD 
OF SAYING, WE ARE GOING TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND 
REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, BY 
PUTTING HIM ON THE PSYCHIATRIST 
COUCH AND TRYING TO GET INSIDE 
HIS HEAD TO FIND OUT, WAS A 48% 
THIS MOTIVE AND 50 TO THE 
OTHER? 
OR DID HE HAVE SOME OTHER 
RATIONALE? 
NO, IF IT IS A LEGITIMATE 
INQUIRY IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST, THAT IS THE END OF IT.
AND YOU CAN'T BE SAYING WE ARE 
GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, 
REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, 
DECAPITATE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OF THE GOVERNMENT, DISRUPT THE 
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT 
OR THE COUNTRY IN AN ELECTION 
YEAR, BY TRYING TO PARSE OUT 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES. 
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS BECAUSE I 
DON'T KNOW BUT I CAN TELL YOU 
WHO IT SHOULD BE. 
IT SHOULD BE EVERY ONE OF US. 
EVERYONE OF US SHOULD BE 
WILLING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. 
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER, WE WOULD NOT 
KNOW ABOUT THIS CONDUCT -- 
MISCONDUCT. 
AND THAT MIGHT BE JUST AS WELL 
FOR THIS PRESIDENT BUT IT WOULD 
NOT BE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY. 
AND I WORRY THAT FUTURE PEOPLE 
THAT SEE WRONGDOING ARE GOING 
TO WATCH HOW THIS PERSON HAS 
BEEN TREATED, THE COURTS 
THREATS AGAINST THIS PERSON'S 
LIFE AND THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, 
WHY STICK MY NECK OUT? 
>> AND, THE SENATORS ARE ON A 
SHORT RECESS RIGHT NOW, THEY 
WILL RESUME THE QUESTION AND 
ANSWER PERIOD OF THE TRIAL IN 
JUST A BIT. 
BUT LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL 
NOW. 
MOLLY HOOPER IS A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR, JESSICA 
LEVINSON JOINS US FROM LOS 
ANGELES, SHE IS A PROFESSOR AT 
LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, AND ON THE 
PHONE IS WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, 
CATHERINE WATSON. 
WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU. 
MOLLY, I WANT TO START WITH YOU 
BECAUSE AS ALL THIS IS GOING ON 
THAT WE ARE WATCHING, THE 
SENATORS ASKING AND ANSWERING 
THESE QUESTIONS, TENNESSEE 
SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER IS 
SAYING THAT HE WILL ANNOUNCE 
TONIGHT HIS VIEW ON WHETHER HE 
WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES OR NOT. 
>> RIGHT, LAMAR ALEXANDER IS 
THE ONE WILDCARD IN ALL OF 
THIS, BECAUSE HE DOES HAVE DEEP 
LOYALTY WITH MITCH McCONNELL. 
THEY GO BACK DECADES. 
AND, MERYL ALEXANDER IS 
LEAVING, HE IS RETIRING AT THE 
END OF HIS TERM, WHICH ENDS AT 
THE END OF 2020, AND IS SEEN, 
AGAIN, AS AN INSTITUTIONALIST 
WHO REALLY HAS NOTHING TO LOSE, 
BY BUCKING HIS PARTY, SO TO 
SPEAK. 
BUT AGAIN, THOSE TIES WITH 
McCONNELL RUN FAIRLY DEEP, AND 
SO WHO KNOWS. 
HE DID ACTUALLY ASK THE 
QUESTION, I THINK TODAY WAS THE 
FIRST DAY HE DID SUBMIT A 
QUESTION, AND IT MAY BE KIND OF 
OMINOUS FOR THE DEMOCRATS WHO 
WANT WITNESSES, BECAUSE 
ALEXANDER ASKED, ESSENTIALLY, 
CAN YOU COMPARE THE BIPARTISAN 
NATURE OF THE VOTES DURING THE 
NIXON IMPEACHMENT EFFORT AND 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, WITH 
THAT OF THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT? 
AND THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF 
SIMILARITIES, GIVEN THAT THE 
ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE, 
REPUBLICANS LIKE TO ARGUE ON 
THE HOUSE, WAS A VOTE AGAINST 
IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> SO, CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT 
TO WEIGH IN ON THIS? 
ARE WE LIKELY TO GET A 
BELLWETHER SENSE OF HOW THE 
OTHER MODERATE REPUBLICANS OR 
THOSE WHO ARE PRESUMABLY ON THE 
FENCE OF THE QUESTION OF 
WITNESSES ARE LIKELY TO VOTE 
AFTER WE HEAR FROM SENATOR 
ALEXANDER TONIGHT? 
>> SURE. 
WE DID HAVE AN INTERESTING 
QUESTION FROM LISA MURKOWSKI 
THIS EVENING TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYERS SAYING THAT BECAUSE 
THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN 
BOLTON'S ACCOUNT AND WHAT 
SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAVE SAID, 
THAT THAT MIGHT QUOTE, WEIGH IN 
FAVOR OF CALLING WITNESSES, 
REALLY WANTS THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS TO EXPLAIN, WHY NOT? 
WHAT IS YOUR BEST ARGUMENT FOR 
NOT CALLING BOLTON SPECIFICALLY?
SO, I THINK THAT IS ONE REALLY 
INTERESTING INDICATOR, OF 
COURSE EVEN IF, SAY, WE 
OBVIOUSLY DO NOT KNOW YET, BUT 
SAY MURKOWSKI DOES, WOULD BE IN 
FAVOR OF WITNESSES, ROBBIE 
CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE, AND 
SUSAN COLLINS HAS GIVEN 
INDICATIONS THAT SHE IS VERY 
INTERESTED IN WITNESSES, THAT 
IS STILL JUST THREE SENATORS, 
AND THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE 
PROBLEMATIC. 
POTENTIALLY, THERE WOULD BE 
SOMEPLACE FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
TO WEIGH IN, BUT THERE IS 
DEBATE OVER WHETHER HE WOULD, 
YOU MIGHT JUST LET IT FALL 
FLAT. 
LET IT BE AN EVEN 50-50 VOTE, 
IN WHICH CASE, THE MOTION TO 
CALL WITNESSES OR SPECIFIC 
WITNESS, WOULD NOT MOVE 
FORWARD. 
SO, IT IS GOING TO BE VERY 
TELLING, WHAT LAMAR ALEXANDER 
SAYS, IF HE IS A NO ON 
WITNESSES, AND WE WILL KNOW IN 
THE NEXT COUPLE OF HOURS, THEN 
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY, UNLESS 
THERE IS A SENATOR OUT THERE WE 
HAVE NOT REALLY HEARD FROM 
SIGNIFICANTLY YET, THAT COULD 
BE IT. 
>> AND CORRECT ME IF I AM 
WRONG, I HEARD JAY SEKULOW 
ESSENTIALLY ADDRESSED THE 
ISSUE, IF JUICE JUSTICE ROBERT 
DID WEIGH IN ON A TIE, THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL 
WOULD NOT STAND FOR IT. 
IT WOULD CONTEST THAT DECISION. 
IS THAT, JESSICA, SOMETHING 
THAT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL COULD 
DO? 
>> THEY CAN CONTEST WHATEVER 
THEY WANT, AND SO I NEED TO 
LOOK BACK AT THE SENATE RULES, 
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 
THEY CAN CONTEST BUT I'M NOT 
SURE THAT WOULD BE A 
PARTICULARLY STRONG CONTEST. 
I THINK IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY 
STRONG IN THE SENSE THAT THEY 
ARE SIGNALING TO THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE, DO YOU WANT TO BE 
INVOLVED IN THIS? 
GUESS WHAT. 
IF YOU ENTER THE FRAY, WE ARE 
NOT GOING TO TAKE IT SITTING 
DOWN. 
AND SO, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, YOU 
ARE GOING TO VOTE AND IF IT IS 
A SPLIT AND NOTHING HAPPENS, IT 
IS ESSENTIALLY A FAIL. 
ONE THING TO REMEMBER WHEN WE 
KEEP TALKING ABOUT, SHOULD WE 
CALL WITNESSES AND, YOU KNOW, 
THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION OF, 
WHY SHOULD THE SENATE TO THE 
HOUSES WORK? 
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO 
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS 
WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT. 
THE HOUSE IS BASICALLY, IF YOU 
THINK ABOUT A REGULAR CRIMINAL 
CASE, THE HOUSE IS JUST 
DECIDING, IS THERE ENOUGH TO 
INDICT? 
IS THERE ENOUGH TO HAND THIS TO 
A PROSECUTOR AND SAY, GO TO 
TRIAL? 
SO, IF YOU LIKEN THIS TO, 
AGAIN, A CRIMINAL COURT 
SITUATION, WHICH OBVIOUSLY 
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES, FOR 1 
MILLION REASONS, IS ACTUALLY 
QUITE DIFFERENT, THEN YOU WOULD 
OF COURSE CALL WITNESSES, EVEN 
IF THOSE WITNESSES TALKED TO 
THE INVESTIGATORS, TALKED TO 
THE PROSECUTORS, YOU KNOW, GIVE 
STATEMENTS BEFORE THE 
INDICTMENT, ONCE YOU HAVE THE 
TRIAL, YOU WOULD SAY, WE NEED 
TO HEAR FROM MORE PEOPLE. 
THIS IS WHERE ALL THE ISSUES OF 
DUE PROCESS KICK IN, THIS IS 
WHERE THE FACT-FINDING REALLY 
KICKS IN. 
AND SO, IT IS NOT AT ALL A 
DUPLICATE OF PROCESS, IT IS 
VERY SEPARATE. 
SO THE IDEA THAT THE SENATE 
SOMEHOW PICKING UP ON SOMETHING 
THE HOUE DIDN'T DO, IS JUST 
SIMPLY NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION 
IS SET UP WHEN IT COMES TO 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
>> SO, MOLLY, YOU'RE GOOD AT 
WATCHING LAWMAKERS VERY CLOSELY 
AND SORT OF DIVINING THOSE TEA 
LEAVES. 
DO YOU FEEL THAT REPUBLICANS 
ARE STILL CONFIDENT THAT 
REGARDLESS OF WHAT SENATOR 
ALEXANDER SAYS TONIGHT, LET'S 
SAY HE SAYS YES, I AM GOING TO 
VOTE TO ALLOW WITNESSES, DO YOU 
THINK THERE IS STILL CONFIDENCE 
THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO DEFEAT 
THE OPTION OF HAVING WITNESSES? 
>> NO, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE 
ENOUGH. 
AND I AM NOT QUITE SURE HOW 
CONFIDENT THEY ARE. 
I THINK THAT, I WOULD SAY THEY 
ARE PROBABLY 75% CONFIDENT? 
NO. 
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY ARE 
MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN NOT, THE 
SENATOR ALEXANDER WILL VOTE 
AGAINST CALLING WITNESSES, BUT 
IT IS ANYBODY'S GUEST. 
REMEMBER, SENATOR McCAIN ON THE 
VOTE FOR THE HEALTHCARE, THE 
PRESIDENTS HEALTHCARE BILL, 
EVERYBODY THOUGHT OKAY, McCAIN 
CAME BACK FROM ARIZONA, HE CAME 
BACK TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE 
PRESIDENTS HEALTHCARE BILL, AND 
WHAT DID HE DO? 
HE WALKED ON THE FLOOR AND PUT 
HIS THUMB DOWN. 
AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT 
SENATOR McCONNELL WAS 
ANTICIPATING. 
SO, AGAIN, EACH SENATOR, THEY 
ARE HIS OR HER OWN PERSON AND 
HAS TO RESPOND TO HIS OR HER 
OWN CONSTITUENTS, AND THAT 
CALCULATION IS A LITTLE BIT 
DIFFERENT, THUGH, WHEN YOU ARE 
RETIRING FROM THE SENATE, AND 
YOU WANT TO LEAVE A LEGACY. 
ANWHAT IS THAT LEGACY, RIGHT? 
CATHERINE I AM SURE CAN BUILD 
ON THIS, BUT FROM WHAT I 
UNDERSTAND, WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS ARE REALLY MAKING 
THIS CASE THAT THE VOTE, ON 
WITNESSES, WILL BE ONE OF THE 
MOST CONSEQUENTIAL VOTES THESE 
SENATORS WILL TAKE, IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM IN 
OFFICE. 
AND WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A CASE 
LIKE THAT, IT IS PRETTY HARD, 
GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE 
PRESIDENT OF YOUR PARTY. 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
CATHERINE, THE CENTRAL 
POTENTIAL WITNESSES ALL OF THIS 
IS JOHN BOLTON. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING 
ABOUT THE FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR TODAY, 
ATTACKING HIS CREDIBILITY. 
SO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE 
WHITE HOUSE'S STRATEGY TO 
IMPRESS BOLTON? 
SAVE THAT QUESTION, WE HAVE TO 
GO BACK TO THE SENATE WHERE THE 
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD HAS 
RESUMED ONCE AGAIN. 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
ERNST AND LANGFORD IS FOR THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PERMANENT 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE, OF WHICH MANAGER 
SHIFT SITS AS CHAIRMAN, 
CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF 
DEPOSITIONS RELATED TO THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS DEPOSED 
WAS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
SPEC ARE GENERAL MIKE ATKINSON. 
AS THE WHITE HOUSE BEEN 
PROTECTED PROVIDED A COPY OF 
THIS TRANSCRIPT? 
DO YOU BELIEVE THIS TRANSCRIPT 
WOULD BE HELPFUL? 
IF SO, WHY? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND 
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT 
QUESTION. 
WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED THAT 
TRANSCRIPT. 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, MR. AT 
BENSON, TESTIFIED AN EXECUTIVE 
SESSION, AND HIPS HE HAS 
RETAINED THAT TRANSCRIPT AN 
EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WAS NOT 
TRANSMITTED TO THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
THEREFORE UNDER THE TERMS OF 
PAST RESOLUTION 660 WAS NOT 
TURNED OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL. 
SO WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT. 
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WE DO 
NOT THINK THERE IS ANY NEED TO 
START GETTING INTO MORE 
EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES, BUT IF 
ONE WERE TO START GOING DOWN 
THAT ROAD, I THINK THAT THAT 
TRANSCRIPT COULD BE RELEVANT, 
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM 
PUBLIC REPORTS IS THAT THERE 
ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT HIS 
INTERACTIONS WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
AND, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS, 
PUBLIC REPORTS, ABOUT WHETHER 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS ENTIRELY 
TRUTHFUL WITH THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL ON FORMS THAT WERE 
FILLED OUT, AND WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU KNOW, CERTAIN 
REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN 
ANY CONTACT WITH CONGRESS, AND 
THAT THAT AND KAIZEN TO THE 
CONTACT THE WHISTLEBLOWER UP 
EARLY HAD WITH THE STAFF AND 
THE COMMITTEE WHICH WE ALSO DO 
NOT KNOW ABOUT. 
SO, IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THE 
ROAD, WE DO NOT THINK IT IS 
NECESSARY. 
WE THINK THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED, 
BUT IF ONE WERE TO GO DOWN THE 
ROAD OF ANY MORE EVIDENCE OR 
WITNESSES IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE 
RELEVANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD TO 
SAY ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
ALONG WITH THE OTHER ISSUES 
THAT WE MENTIONED ABOUT, 
WHISTLEBLOWERS BIAS, MOTIVATION,
WHAT WERE HIS CONNECTIONS WITH 
THE WHOLE SITUATION OF THE 
BIDENS? 
AND, APPARENTLY IF YOU WORKED 
WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND 
HE WORKED ON UKRAINE ISSUES 
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, 
HOW DOES THAT ALL TIE IN? 
ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD 
BECOME RELEVANT IN THAT EVENT. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK 
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR'S 
MANSION AND SENATOR CINEMA. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
JOHN, MANSION, AND CINEMA, IS 
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
SO MUCH OF THE QUESTIONS AND 
ANSWERS AS WELL AS THE 
PRESENTATIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON 
THE COMPLETENESS OF THE HOUSE 
RECORD. 
SHOULD THE HOUSE HAVE INITIATED 
A FORMAL ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS 
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, TO 
NEGOTIATE FOR DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES AFTER THE PASSAGE OF 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. 
AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE 
HOUSE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT OR 
INSUFFICIENT, TO FIND THE 
PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, 
WHAT DUTY, IF ANY, DOES THE 
SENATE GO TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
TO ENSURE THAT ALL RELEVANT 
FACTS ARE MADE KNOWN IN THIS 
TRIAL AND NOT AT SOME POINT IN 
THE FUTURE? 
>> SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
IT WAS APPARENT FROM THE VERY 
BEGINNING WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WOULD FIGHT 
WELL SUBPOENAS THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL ISSUED ITS OCTOBER ITS 
DIATRIBE SAYING THEY WOULD NOT 
PARTICIPATE IN THE INQUIRY, 
THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED 
IN ANY ACCOMMODATION. 
WE TRIED TO GET DON McGANN TO 
TESTIFY, WE TRIED THAT ROUTE, 
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING THAT ROUTE 
FOR NINE MONTHS NOW. 
AND WE TRIED FOR QUITE SOME 
TIME BEFORE WE TOOK THAT MATTER 
TO COURT, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO 
SUCCESS. 
AND, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SEEN 
IS, THERE WAS NO DESIRE ON THE 
PART OF THE PRESIDENT TO REACH 
ANY ACCOMMODATION. 
QUITE THE CONTRARY, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ADAMANT THAT THEY 
WERE GOING TO FIGHT IN EVERY 
SINGLE WAY. 
NOW, IF THEY HAD AN INTEREST IN 
ACCOMMODATION, WE WOULD NOT BE 
BEFORE YOU WITHOUT A SINGLE 
DOCUMENT. 
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS 
AND HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS, 
WOULD HAVE ENTERED AN 
CCOMMODATION PROCESS OVER 
CLAIMS, NARROW CLAIMS OF 
PRIVILEGE, AS TO THE SENTENCE 
OR THAT SENTENCE, THEY WOULD 
HAVE HAD TO MAKE A 
PARTICUARIZED CLAIM THAT WE 
COULD HAVE NEGOTIATED OVER. 
BUT OF COURSE, THEY DID NONE OF 
THAT. 
THEY SAID, YOUR SUBPOENAS ARE 
INVALID, YOU HAVE TO DEPART 
FROM THE BIPARTISAN ROLES OF 
HOW YOU CONDUCT YOUR 
DEPOSITIONS, ESSENTIALLY, OUR 
IDEA OF A COMBINATION IS, YOU 
HAVE TO DO IT OUR WAY OR THE 
HIGHWAY. 
AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
INSTRUCTIONS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
MARCHING ORDERS WERE GO POUND 
SAND. 
NOW, WHAT IS THE SENATE'S 
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CONTEXT 
OF A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT FOR 
WHICH THERE WAS SUCH BLANKET 
OBSTRUCTION? 
AND BEAR IN MIND, IF YOU 
COMPARE THIS TO THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT, RICHARD NIXON TOLD 
HIS PEOPLE TO CORROBORATE. 
PROVIDED DOCUMENTS TO THE 
CONGRESS, YES, THERE WERE SOME 
THAT WERE WITHHELD AND THAT LED 
TO LITIGATION AND THE PRESIDENT 
LOST THAT LITIGATION. 
BUT, THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ARE 
VERY DIFFERENT. 
FRANKLY, THE PRESIDENT COULD 
HAVE MADE THIS A DIFFICULT 
CASE, BUT DIDN'T, BECAUSE OF 
THE NATURE OF THE OBSTRUCTION. 
IN TERMS OF THE SENATE AS 
POSSIBLE TO, THE CONSTITUTION 
SAYS THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE 
SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS. 
WHEN SETTING UP FOR THAT 
PURPOSE, THEY SHALL BE ON OATH 
OR AFFIRMATION. 
AND SO, YOU HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER. 
THAT EXPRESSION WAS USED I 
BELIEVE ONLY TWICE IN THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
ONE, WHEN IT TELLS THE HOUSE WE 
HAVE THE SOLE POWER, TO CONDUCT 
AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AND 
AGAIN THE PROCESS WE USED, AND 
THEY CAN REPEAT THIS AS OFTEN 
AS THEY WOULD LIKE, THE SAME 
PROCESS USED IN THE CLINTON AND 
NIXON IMPEACHMENTS, AND I'M 
SURE CLINTON AND NIXON THOUGHT 
THAT WAS UNFAIR, BUT 
NONETHELESS, WE USED THE SAME 
PROCESS. 
BUT HERE, YOU HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER TO TRY THE CASE, AND IF 
YOU DECIDE THAT ONE WEEK IS NOT 
TOO LONG, IN THE INTEREST OF A 
FAIR TRIAL, TO HAVE DEPOSITIONS 
OF KEY WITNESSES, THAT IS FOR 
YOU TO DECIDE. 
YOU GET TO DECIDE HOW TO TRY 
THE CASE. 
AND SO, IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU 
HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO 
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THE 
MATERIALITY AND RELEVANCE AND 
PRIVILEGE AND MAKE THOSE LINE 
BY LINE REDACTIONS IF THEY ARE 
WARRANTED, IF YOU DECIDE, YOU 
TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO 
DECIDE WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE IS 
BEING APPLIED PROPERLY OR 
IMPROPERLY, YOU HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
THAT IS WITHIN, EVERY BIT 
WITHIN YOUR RIGHT. 
AND, WE WOULD URGE YOU TO DO SO.
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAYS, 
CONSTITUTION DOESN'T REQUIRE 
THAT. 
THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T 
PROHIBIT THAT, IT GIVES YOU THE 
SOLE POWER. 
TO TRY THIS CASE. 
AND, UNDER YOUR SOUL POWER, YOU 
CAN SAY WE HAVE MADE A 
DECISION, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE 
THE PARTIES ONE WEEK, WE ARE 
GOING TO LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MAKE A FAIR DETERMINATION OF 
WHO IS PERTINENT AND WHO IS 
NOT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET 
THE HOUSE DECIDE TO THE 
PRESIDENTS WITNESSES ARE, WE 
ARE NOT GOING TO LET THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDE TO THE HOUSE 
WITNESSES ARE, WE ARE GOING TO 
LET THEM BOTH SUBMIT THEIR TOP 
PRIORITIES AND WE WILL LET THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE DECIDE WHO IS 
MATERIAL AND WHO IS NOT. 
THAT IS FULLY WITHIN YOUR 
POWER. 
AND SO, IN SOME AND SUBSTANCE, 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN 
INTENTIONAL WILLINGNESS IN ANY 
WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO ACCOMMODATE
IN THE HOUSE. 
IF THERE WAS, WE WOULDN'T BE 
HERE. 
INSTEAD, THERE WAS. 
WE WILL FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS AND 
UNDER ARTICLE 2, I CAN DO 
WHATEVER I WANT. 
AND NOW, WE ARE HERE. 
AND MAKE THE ASTOUNDING CLAIM, 
THAT THEIR CASE IS SO GOOD, LET 
THEM TRY IT WITHOUT WITNESSES. 
THAT WOULD NOT FLY BEFORE ANY 
JUDGE IN AMERICA. 
AND IT SHOULD NOT FLY HERE 
EITHER. 
THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR, I AM SORRY. 
IS, THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE. 
>> I SEND TO THE DESK A 
QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MYSELF 
AND SENATORS LEE AND JOHNSON. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
BLACK AND SENATORS LEE AND 
JOHNSON IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE FIRST 
CONTACT BETWEEN ANY MEMBER OF 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER REGARDING THE 
INFORMATION THAT RESULTED IN 
THE COMPLAINT? 
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS 
OR STAFF COMMUNICATED IN ANY 
FORM WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
SINCE THAT FIRST DATE OF 
CONTACT? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, 
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. 
THE ANSWER IS, WE DON'T KNOW. 
NOBODY KNOWS. 
WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE FIRST 
CONTACT WAS, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW 
MANY CONTACTS THERE WERE, WE 
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUBSTANCE 
OF THE CONTACT WAS. 
THAT ALL REMAINS SHROUDED IN 
SOME SECRECY. 
AND AS I SAID A MOMENT AGO, WE 
THINK THAT THE WAY THIS CASE 
HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THIS BODY 
SHOULD SIMPLY ACQUIT. 
THERE IS NO NEED TO GET MORE 
EVIDENCE TO PROBE INTO THAT. 
BUT, IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THE 
ROAD OF ANY EVIDENCE OR 
WITNESSES, THEN THOSE ARE 
CERTAINLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS 
AND RELEVANT THINGS TO KNOW 
ABOUT, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE 
CONTACTS WERE, WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S MOTIVATION WAS, 
WHAT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND ANY STAFFERS 
AND HOW THAT PLAYED ANY ROLE IN 
THE FORMULATION OF THE 
COMPLAINT. 
THAT WOULD ALL BE RELEVANT TO 
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WHOLE 
PROCESS BEGAN. 
NOW, I DO WANT TO MENTION 
SOMETHING ELSE, WHILE I HAVE 
THE MOMENT. 
IN RESPONSE TO SOME THINGS THAT 
MANAGER SCHIFF  SAID, AGAIN, 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS COME UP AND 
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY KEEP SAYING 
THE SAME THING AND WE KEEP 
POINTING TO ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND 
LETTERS THAT DISPROVE WHAT THEY 
ARE SAYING. 
THEY COME UP AND SAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAID IT IS MY WAY OR 
THE HIGHWAY, BLANKETS AFFIANTS. 
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO. 
AND THEY SAY WELL, THEY WOULD 
HAVE ACCOMMODATED, IF WE WERE 
WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS. 
THE OCTOBER 8th LETTER THAT THE 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, SO 
MR. SCHIFF SAYS ASK INBOUND FACE
AND CALL DUPLICITOUS HERE ON 
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, SENT A 
LETTER ON OCTOBER 8th TO MR. 
SCHIFF AND OTHERS, EXPLAINING, 
QUOTE, "OF THE COMMITTEES MAY 
WISH TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR 
ORDER OF OVERSIGHT REQUESTS, WE 
STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT 
PROCESS AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST, 
IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH 
WELL-ESTABLISHED BIPARTISAN 
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, AND 
A RESPECT FOR THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS ENSHRINED IN OUR 
CONSTITUTION." 
THAT WAS FOLLOWED UP IN AN 
OCTOBER 18th LETTER THAT I 
MENTIONED BEFORE, A LETTER THAT 
SPECIFIED THE DEFECTS IN THE 
SUBPOENAS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED. 
NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE, NOT 
SOMETHING WE DO NOT COOPERATE, 
SPECIFYING THE LEGAL ERRORS IN 
THE SUBPOENAS. 
AND, IT CONCLUDED, QUOTE, "AS I 
STATED IN MY LETTER OF OCTOBER 
8th, IF THE COMMITTEES WISH TO 
RETURN TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF 
OVERSIGHT REQUESTS, WE STAND 
READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS 
AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST IN A 
MANNER CONSISTNT WITH WELL-
ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROTECTIONS, AND A RESPECT FOR 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS 
ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. 
THE PRESIDENT STOOD READY TO 
ENGAGE IN ACCOMMODATIONS 
PROCESS. 
IF ANYONE SAID MY WAY OR THE 
HIGHWAY HERE, IT WAS THE HOUSE, 
BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS DETERMINED
THAT THEY WANTED JUST TO GET 
THERE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DONE, 
ON THE FASTEST TRACK THEY 
COULD, THEY DID NOT WANT TO DO 
ANY COMMENDATION, ANY 
LITIGATION, THEY DID NOT WANT 
ANYTHING TO SLOW THEM DOWN, 
THEY WANTED TO GET IT DONE AS 
FAST AS THEY COULD, SO IT WAS 
FINISHED BY CHRISTMAS. 
IT WAS A PARTISAN CHARADE FROM 
THE BEGINNING. 
IT RESULTED IN A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT WITH BIPARTISAN 
OPPOSITION, AND IT IS NOT 
SOMETHING THIS CHAMBER SHOULD 
CONDONE. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE 
DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
úROSEN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGER.
DURING THE PRESIDENTS PHONE CALL
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HE 
INSISTED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO INVOLVING THE EXCHANGE OF 
AID AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION. 
THAT HE ALSO SAID, ACCORDING TO 
SONDLAND, THAT THE STALEMATE 
OVER AID WILL CONTINUE UNTIL 
PRESIDENTS ZELINSKI ANNOUNCES 
THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
ISN'T THAT THE DEFINITION OF 
THE EXACT QUID PRO QUO THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CLAIMED DID NOT EXIST?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A QUID PRO 
QUO IS. 
WHEN SOMEONE SAYS, I AM NOT 
GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS, 
BUT THEN SAYS I AM GOING TO ASK 
YOU TO DO THIS, THAT IS EXACTLY 
WHAT HAPPENED HERE. 
SONDLAND CALLS THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF HIS 
MOUTH ARE NO QUID PRO QUO. 
NOW, THAT IS SUSPICIOUS ENOUGH. 
WHEN SOMEONE BLURTS OUT WHAT WE 
WOULD FIND OUT IS A FALSE 
EXCULPATORY. 
BUT THEN, THE PRESIDENT GOES ON 
NONETHELESS TO SAY, NO QUID PRO 
QUO, AT THE SAME TIME, ZELINSKI 
HAS GOT TO GO TO THE MIKE TO 
ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS. 
THAT IS THE IMPLICATION. 
AND, HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT. 
SO, NO QUID PRO QUO OVER THE 
MONEY, BUT ZELINSKI HAS GOT TO 
GO TO THE MIKE. 
AND, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION 
ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THAT, YOU 
SHOULD DEMAND TO SEE AMBASSADOR 
TAYLORS NOTES, TIM MORRISON'S 
NOTES, AND OF COURSE, SONDLAND 
GOES AND TELLS UKRAINE ABOUT 
THIS COUPLING OF THE MONEY IN 
ORDER TO GET THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND LET ME JUST, IF I CAN, GO 
THROUGH A LITTLE OF THE HISTORY 
OF THAT. 
YOU HAVE GOT RUDY GIULIANI AND 
OTHERS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE 
UKRAINIANS MAKE THESE STATEMENTS
IN THE RUN-UP TO THE JULY PHONE 
CALL. 
THIS IS THE QUID PRO QUO OVER 
THE MEETNG. 
SO, THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE 
STATEMENT THAT THEY WANT, THEY 
ARE TRYING TO GET THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND AROUND THIS TIME, PRIOR TO 
THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT PUTS A 
FREEZE ON THE MILITARY AID. 
AND THEN, YOU HAVE THAT CALL 
AND THE MINUTE THAT ZELINSKI 
BRINGS UP THE DEFENSE SUPPORT 
AND THE DESIRE TO BUY MORE 
JAVELINS, THAT IS WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY GOES TO 
THE FAVOR HE WANTS. 
SO THE UKRAINIANS AT THIS POINT 
NO THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING 
IS CONDITIONED ON GETTING THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCE. 
BUT IN THAT CALL, THE MINUTE 
MILITARY AID IS BROUGHT UP, THE 
PRESIDENT PIVOTS TO THE FAVOR 
HE WANTS OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS THEY ALREADY 
KNOW ABOUT. 
NOW, AFTER THAT CALL, THE 
UKRAINIANS QUICKLY FIND OUT 
ABOUT THE FREEZE IN AID. 
ACCORDING TO THE FORMERLY 
MINISTER, THEY FOUND OUT WITHIN 
DAYS, JULY 25th IS THE CALL, BY 
THE END OF JULY, UKRAINE FINDS 
OUT THE EIGHT IS FROZEN. 
THE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER IS 
TOLD BY ANDRE HEAR, KEEP THIS 
SECRET. 
WE DO NOT WANT THIS COMING OUT. 
SHE HAD PLANNED TO COME TO 
WASHINGTON, THEY CANCELED HER 
TRIP TO WASHINGTON BECAUSE THEY 
DO NOT WANT THIS MADE PUBLIC. 
AND SO, IN AUGUST, THERE WAS 
THIS EFFORT TO GET THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCE, THAT 
IS THE ONLY PRIORITY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN. 
SEE UKRAINE KNOW THE EIGHT IS 
WITHOUT, THEY CANNOT GET THE 
MEETING, THEY KNOW WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTS THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND UKRAINIANS, 
LIKE THE AMERICANS, CAN ADD UP 
TO +2 EQUALS FOUR. 
BUT IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTION 
ABOUT THAT, SONDLAND REMOVES 
ALL DOUBT IN SEPTEMBER 1st IN 
WARSAW, WHEN SONDLAND GOES OVER 
AFTER THE PENCE/SALON SKI 
MEETING. 
HE GOES OVER AND SAYS THAT 
UNTIL YOU ANNOUNCE THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, YOU ARE NOT 
GETTING THIS AID. 
HE MAKES EXPLICIT WHAT THEY 
ALREADY KNEW. 
THAT MATCHES THE MEETING, BUT 
THE IT ITSELF, WAS TIED. 
AND ON SEPTEMBER 7th, SONDLAND 
TELLS ZELINSKI DIRECTLY, THE 
EIGHT IS TIED TO YOU DOING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND IT IS AT THAT POINT, ON 
SEPTEMBER 7th, WHEN ZELINSKI IS 
TOLD BY SONDLAND DIRECTLY OF 
THE QUID PRO QUO THAT ZELINSKI 
FINALLY CAPITULATES AND SAYS 
ALL RIGHT, IT WILL MAKE THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT ON CNN. 
AND THEN, THE PRESIDENT IS CUT. 
THE SCHEME IS EXPOSED, THE 
PRESIDENT IS FORCED TO RELEASE 
THE AID. 
AND WHAT DOES ZELINSKI DO? 
HE CANCELS THE CNN INTERVIEW. 
BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS FORCED TO 
BE RELEASED WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
GOT CAUGHT. 
BUT THAT IS THE CHRONOLOGY HERE.
LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE. 
UKRAINIANS ARE SOPHISTICATED 
ACTORS, AS ONE OF THE WITNESSES 
SAID, THEY FOUND IT FAIRLY 
SHORTLY AFTER THE HOLD. 
UKRAINIANS HAD GOOD TRADECRAFT, 
THEY UNDERSTOOD VERY QUICKLY 
ABOUT THIS HOLD. 
AND WHAT WE DO EXPECT, WHEN YOU 
ARE FIGHTING A WAR AND YOUR 
ALLY IS WITHHOLDING MILITARY 
AID WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE 
ONLY THING THEY TELL YOU THAT 
THEY WANT FROM YOU ARE THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND IF IT 
WASN'T CLEAR AND YES, THE 
HAMMER THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH 
IT. 
THEY TOLD HIM ON SEPTEMBER 1st, 
YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY 
WITHOUT ANNOUNCING THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THEY TELL ZELINSKI HIMSELF ON 
SEPTEMBER 7th, YOU ARE NOT 
GETTING THE MONEY WITHOUT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND FINALLY, 
THE RESISTANCE OF THIS 
ANTICORRUPTION REFORMER, 
ZELINSKI, IS BROKEN DOWN. 
HE DEFINITELY NEEDS THE AID, 
FINALLY THE RESISTANCE IS 
BROKEN DOWN, ALL RIGHT, I WILL 
DO IT. 
HE IS GOING TO GO ON CNN. 
>> MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU, I HAVE A MESSAGE 
TO BE SENT TO THE DEATH, A 
QUESTION. 
AND IT IS ON MY BEHALF, ON 
BEHALF OF SENATOR RUBIO, 
SENATOR CRAPO, AND SENATOR 
RISH. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
MORAN, CRAPO, AND RISH, READS 
AS FOLLOWS. 
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE COUNSEL FOR 
TE PRESIDENT. 
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL ARE 
DRAMATIC AND CONSEQUENTIAL 
RESPONSES TO PRESIDENTIAL 
CONDUCT. 
ESPECIALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR 
WITH A HIGHLY DIVIDED CITIZEN 
READ. 
HIT, CHECKS AND BALANCES IS AN 
IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL 
PRINCIPLE. 
DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE OTHER 
MEANS, SUCH AS APPROPRIATIONS, 
CONFIRMATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 
HEARINGS LESS DAMAGING TO OUR 
NATION? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SANDERS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
AND, YES, CONGRESS HAS A LOT OF 
INCREMENTAL STEPS, A LOT OF 
NAMES SHORT OF IMPEACHMENT, TO 
ADDRESS FRICTION OR CONFLICTS 
WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
AND THAT WAS A POINT I WAS 
MAKING A MOMENT AGO WITH 
RESPECT TO WHAT THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE HAD SAID IN 
LITIGATION TODAY. 
WHERE THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR 
SENIOR ADVISORS, ACTUALLY I 
THINK IT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE 
IN THAT CASE. 
BUT ANYWAY, THERE IS A DISPUTE 
IN THAT CASE ABOUT INFORMATION 
REQUESTS. 
AND THE POINT THAT DOJ WAS 
MAKING THERE IS, THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES 
INCREMENTAL STEPS, WHERE THERE 
IS FRICTION BETWEEN THE 
BRANCHES. 
AS I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, 
FRICTION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES 
AND BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE 
EXECUTIVE ON INFORMATION 
REQUESTS IN PARTICULAR IS PART 
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN. 
IT HAS BEEN WITH US SINCE THE 
FIRST ADMINISTRATION. 
GEORGE WASHINGTON DENIED 
REQUESTS FROM CONGRESS FOR 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE 
NEGOTIATION OF THE JAY TREATY. 
AND SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, 
THERE HAS BEEN THIS FRICTION 
LEADING TO ACCOMMODATIONS AND 
CONFRONTATION AND WAYS OF 
WORKING THINGS OUT WHEN 
CONGRESS DEMANDS INFORMATION 
FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE 
EXECUTIVE ASSERTS TO PROTECT 
THE INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES 
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO 
SPHERE WHERE THE EXECUTIVE CAN 
BE ABLE TO KEEP CONFIRMATION 
CONFIDENTIAL. 
THE FIRST DEATH IN RESPONSE TO 
THAT SHOULD BE THE 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS AND THE 
COURTS HAVE DESCRIBED THAT AS 
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY 
FURTHERS THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHEME, TO HAVE THE BRANCHES 
NEGOTIATE AND TRY TO COME TO AN 
ARRANGEMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE 
LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF BOTH 
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
HEART OF THAT ACCOMMODATIONS 
PROCESS, OR AS IT, AS THE 
CONFRONTATION CONTINUES, CAN 
INVOLVE CONGRESS EXERCISING THE 
LEVERAGE OF AUTHORITY THAT IT 
HAS UNDER ARTICLE 1, TO TRY TO 
PUT PRESSURE ON THE EXECUTIVES. 
SO FOR EXAMPLE, APPROPRIATION. 
IT IS NOT FUNDING THE POLICY 
PRIORITIES OF A PARTICULAR 
ADMINISTRATION, OR CUTTING 
FUNDING ON SOME POLICY 
PRIORITIES. 
OR LEGISLATION, NOT PASSING 
LEGISLATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
FAVORS.'S OR PASSING OTHER 
LEGISLATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DOESN'T FAVOR. 
OR THE SENATE HAS THE POWER TO 
APPROVE NOMINEES. 
I'M SURE AS MANY OF YOU WILL 
KNOW, LETTING HIM KNOW MANY IN 
MANY CAN BE EFFECTIVE AT SOME 
POINT IN PUTTING PRESSURE ON AN 
ADMINISTRATION TO GET 
PARTICULAR POLICIES TAKE LOOSE, 
THINGS ACCOMPLISHED, IN A 
PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT OR 
AGENCY. 
ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS AND THE 
INTERPLAY OF THE BRANCHES OF 
GOVERNMENT THAT IS PART OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN, BUT 
IMPEACHMENT IS THE VERY LAST 
RESORT FOR THE VERY MOST 
SERIOUS CONFLICT, WHERE THERE 
IS NO OTHER WAY TO RESOLVE IT. 
SO, THERE ARE ALL OF THESE 
MULTIPLE INTERMEDIATE STEPS, 
AND THEY ALL SHOULD BE USED, 
THEY ALL SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN 
AN INCREMENTAL FASHION. 
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. 
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT AT THE 
ACCOMMODATIONS, THERE IS NO 
ATTEMPT EVEN TO RESPOND TO THE 
LEGAL ISSUES, THE LEGAL DEFECTS 
THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE DEPARTMENTS 
AND AGENCIES POINTED OUT IN 
EACH OF THE SUBPOENAS, THAT 
WERE ISSUED BY THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEES. 
AND EVEN THE ISSUE OF AGENCY 
COUNSEL, THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO 
TRY TO NEGOTIATE ON THAT, AND 
THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT 
IN THE PAST, EVEN LAST APRIL, 
WITH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
, THERE WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT 
THAT. 
AND WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A 
WITNESS TO GO WITHOUT AGENCY 
COUNSEL, AND THEN WE HAD A 
MEETING, WITH GERMAN CUMMINGS, 
AND IT GOT WORKED OUT. 
AND IT WAS TURNED INTO A 
TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW, I THINK. 
AND, THE AGENCY COUNSEL WAS 
PERMITTED TO BE THERE. 
BUT THE COMMITTEE GOT THE 
INTERVIEW, THEY GOT TO TALK TO 
THE PERSON, THEY GOT THE 
INFORMATION THEY WANTED, BUT 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH GOT TO 
HAVE AGENCY COUNSEL THERE TO 
PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
INTERESTS. 
AND THAT IS THE WAY IT IS 
SUPPOSED TO WORK. 
BUT, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT AT 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM THE 
HOUSE IN THIS CASE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. 
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. 
>> THANK YOU, I SEND A QUESTION 
TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> SENATOR MARK'S QUESTION FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS 
FOLLOWS. 
IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN REPORTED 
THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE HACKED 
THE UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS 
COMPANY BURISMA, PRESUMABLY 
LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON 
HUNTER BIDEN. 
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS 
WARNED US THAT THE RUSSIANS 
WILL BE INTERFERING IN THE 2020 
ELECTION. 
IF DONALD TRUMP IS ACQUITTED OF 
THESE PENDING CHARGES, BUT IS 
LATER FOUND TO HAVE INVITED 
RUSSIAN OR OTHER FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2020 
ELECTION, WHAT RECOURSE WILL 
THERE BE FOR CONGRESS UNDER THE 
DERSHOWITZ STANDARD FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, WHICH REQUIRES A 
PRESIDENT TO HAVE COMMITTED A 
STATUTORY CRIME? 
>> SENATOR, ABSOLUTELY NO 
RECOURSE. 
NO RECOURSE WHATSOEVER. 
IF IN FACT IT WERE LATER TO BE 
SHOWN THAT NOT ONLY DID THE 
RUSSIANS HACK BURISMA TO TRY TO 
GET DIRT ON THE BIDENS AND DRIP 
DRIP DRIP IT OUT AS THEY DID IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION, LET'S SAY WE 
FOUND THAT THEY DID SO AT THE 
REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, THAT IN ONE OF 
THESE MEETINGS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD WITH BALTIMORE 
PRUDENT, WHOSE CONTENTS IS 
UNKNOWN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA TO HACK 
BURISMA BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET
THE UKRAINIANS TO DO WHAT HE 
WANTED, SO NOW HE WAS TURNING 
TO THE RUSSIANS TO DO IT. 
UNDER THE DERSHOWITZ THEORY OF 
THE CASE, UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S 
THEORY OF THE CASE, THAT IS 
PERFECTLY FINE. 
BUT THAT IS NOT HOW BAD IT IS. 
BECAUSE, IT GOES FURTHER THAN 
THAT. 
IF THE PRESIDENT WENT FURTHER 
AND SAID TO PUTIN IN THAT 
SECRET MEETING, I WANT YOU TO 
HACK BURISMA, I COULD NOT GET 
THE UKRAINIANS TO DO IT, AND I 
WILL TELL YOU WHAT. 
IF YOU HACK BURISMA, AND YOU 
GET ME SOME GOOD STUFF, THEN I 
AM GOING TO STOP SENDING MONEY 
TO UKRAINE. 
AND I WILL GO A STEP FURTHER, I 
WILL STOP SENDING MONEY TO 
UKRAINE SO THEY CANNOT FIGHT 
YOU, AND WHAT'S MORE, THE 
SANCTIONS THAT WE IMPOSED ON 
YOU FOR YOUR INTERVENTION ON MY 
BEHALF IN THE LAST ELECTION, 
I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS GO AWAY. 
I WILL SIMPLY REFUSE TO ENFORCE 
THEM, I AM GOING TO CALL IT A 
POLICY DIFFERENCE. 
THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE. 
UNDER THEIR STANDARD. 
THAT IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER. 
YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IS 
CRIMINAL. 
YEAH, IT IS AKIN TO CRIME OR 
MAYBE IT IS NOT, BUT THAT IS 
WHAT AN ACQUITTAL HERE MEANS. 
IT MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
FREE TO ENGAGE IN ALL THE REST 
OF THAT CONDUCT AND IT IS 
PERFECTLY FINE. 
AND, WHAT IS THE REMEDY THAT MY 
COLLEAGUES REPRESENTED THE 
PRESIDENT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO 
THAT ABUSE? 
WELL, YOU CAN HOLD UP A NOMINEE.
THAT SEEMS WHOLLY OUT OF SCALE 
WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE 
PROBLEM. 
THAT PROCESS OF APPROPRIATIONS 
OR NOMINATIONS IS NOT 
SUFFICIENT FOR A CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE UNITED 
STATES WHO WILL BETRAY THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST. 
HE GOT ON THE PHONE WITH 
ZELINSKI, ASKING FOR THIS 
FAVOR, THE DAY AFTER BOB 
MUELLER TESTIFIES. 
WHAT DO YOU THINK HE WILL BE 
CAPABLE OF DOING THE DAY AFTER 
HE IS ACQUITTED HERE. 
THE DAY AFTER HE FEELS, I 
DODGED ANOTHER BULLET. 
I REALLY AM BEYOND THE REACH OF 
THE LAW. 
MY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS I 
CANNOT BE INDICTED, I CANNOT 
EVEN BE INVESTIGATED. 
HE CLOSED THE INVESTIGATION 
INTO THIS MATTER BEFORE HE EVEN 
OPENED IT. 
AND, I CANNOT BE IMPEACHED 
EITHER. 
I GOT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS, 
I GOT BILL, SAYING I CAN'T BE 
INVESTIGATED, I CAN'T BE 
PROSECUTED. 
I CAN BE IMPEACHED, HOWEVER. 
THAT IS WHAT BILL BARR SAYS, 
BUT I HAVE GOT OTHER LAWYERS 
THAT SAY I CANNOT BE IMPEACHED. 
THAT IS A RECIPE FOR A 
PRESIDENT WHO IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
THAT ONLY IS NOT REQUIRED BY 
THE CONSTITUTION, QUITE THE 
CONTRARY. 
THE FOUNDERS KNEW COMING FROM A 
MONARCHY THAT IF THEY WERE 
GOING TO GIVE EXTRAORDINARY 
POWERS TO THEIR NEW EXECUTIVE, 
THEY NEEDED AN EXTRAORDINARY 
CONSTRAINT. 
THEY NEEDED A CONSTRAINT 
COMMENSURATE WITH THE EVIL 
WHICH THEY SOUGHT TO CONTAIN. 
THAT REMEDY IS NOT HOLDING UP A 
NOMINATION. 
THE REMEDY THEY GAVE FOR AN 
EXECUTIVE THAT WOULD ABUSE 
THEIR POWER AND ENDANGER THE 
COUNTRY, THAT WOULD ENDANGER THE
INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTIONS, 
WITH THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AS ONE OF THE EXPERTS SAID IN 
THE HOUSE, IF THIS CONDUCT IS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THEN 
NOTHING IS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH 
CAROLINA. 
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE 
DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND 
SENATORS ALEXANDER, CRUZ, 
PORTMAN, TOOMEY, SULLIVAN, 
MURKOWSKI, TO THE COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
GRAHAM AND THE OTHER SENATORS 
IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE 
THAT BOLTON WERE TO TESTIFY IN 
THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE 
ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T 
IT TRUE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS 
STILL WOULD NOT RISE TO THE 
LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE, AND THAT THEREFORE, 
FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS, HIS 
TESTIMONY WOULD ADD NOTHING TO 
THIS CASE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
LET ME START BY JUST MAKING 
VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO. 
THERE WAS NO, AND THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT. 
THERE WAS NOT THAT SORT OF 
LINKAGE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE SUGGESTED. 
BUT, LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION 
DIRECTLY. 
WHICH I UNDERSTAND TO BE, 
ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF 
ARGUMENT, THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WOULD COME AND TESTIFY 
THE WAY THE NEW YORK TIMES 
ARTICLE ALLEGES, THE WAY HIS 
BOOK DESCRIBES THE 
CONVERSATION, THEN IT IS CORRECT
THAT EVEN IF THAT HAPPENED, 
EVEN IF HE GAVE THAT TESTIMONY, 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
STILL WOULD NOT RISE TO AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
AND THAT IS FOR AT LEAST TWO 
REASONS, LET ME EXPLAIN THAT. 
THE FIRST IS, ON THEIR FACE, 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AS 
THEY HAVE BEEN LAID OUT BY THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, EVEN IF YOU 
TAKE EVERYTHING THAT IS ALLEGED 
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEN'T 
CHARACTERIZED HIM AS INVOLVING 
A CRIME. 
SO THAT'S ONE LEVEL OFF THE 
ANSWER, THAT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE WOULD REQUIRE A CRIME. 
EVEN GOING BEYOND THAT TO THE 
SECOND LEVEL, THE THEORY OF 
ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY HAVE 
ALLEGED -- PUT DECIDE WHETHER 
IT'S A CRIME -- THE THEORY OF 
ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY HAVE 
ASSERTED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT 
CONFORMS WITH THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
IT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON 
SUBJECTIVE INTENT. 
AND IT IS SUBJECTIVE INTENT 
ALONE. 
AND AS PROJECTOR PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED AND I 
EXPLAINED I DON'T MEAN IN THE 
MORE RADICAL PORTION OF HIS 
EXPLANATION AS ERIE. 
I MEAN JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT IS 
EYE CREAMS AND MISDEMEANORS. 
HE EXPLAINED THAT SOMETHING 
THAT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON 
SUBJECTIVE INTENT IS EQUIVALENT 
TO MALADMINISTRATION. 
IT'S EQUIVALENT TO EXACTLY THE 
STANDARD THAT THE FRAMERS 
REJECTED. 
BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY 
MALLEABLE. 
IT DOESN'T DEFINE ANY STANDARD 
FOR AN OFFENSE. 
IT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE ANY 
CONDUCT THAT ON ITS FACE IS 
PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE AND ON 
THE BASIS OF YOUR PROJECTION OF 
A DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT 
CONDUCT, A DISAGREEMENT WITH 
THE REASONS FOR IT, TO 
ATTRIBUTE A BAD MOTIVE JUST TRY 
TO SAY THAT THERE IS A BAD 
SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE FOR DOING 
THAT AND I WILL MAKE IT IMPEACH 
IMPEACHABLE. 
THAT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD. 
SO AT THE COMMON LAW THEY WOULD 
CALL THE REACTION TO A CHARGE 
LIKE THIS A DEMUR YOU DEMUR AND 
SAY THAT EVEN IF EVERYTHING IS 
TRUE, THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE UNDER THE LAW. 
AND THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE 
RESPONSE HERE. 
EVEN IF YOU EVERYTHING ALLEGE 
IS TRUE AND JOHN BOLTON WOULD 
SAY IS TRUE, THAT'S NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD. 
BECAUSE THE WAY YOU HAVE TRIED 
TO DEFINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
STANDARD IS THEORY OF ABUSE OF 
POWER IS FAR TOO MALLEABLE. 
IT GOES PURELY TO SUBJECTIVE 
INTENT AND IT CAN'T BE RELIED 
UPON. 
THEN THE THIRD LEVEL OF MY 
ANSWER IS THIS. 
WE'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE 
IS A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY 
INTEREST IN BOTH OF THE MATTER 
IS THAT WERE RAISED ON THAT 
TELEPHONE CALL. 
THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, 
AND THE BIDEN BURISMA AFFAIR. 
BECAUSE THERE IS LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN BOTH 
OF THOSE ISSUES, EVEN IF IT 
WERE TREE THAT THERE WERE SOME 
COLLECTION, EVEN IF IT WERE 
TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD 
SUGGESTED OR THOUGHT THAT WELL, 
MAYBE I SHOULD HOLD UP THIS AID 
UNTIL THEY DO SOMETHING, THAT'S 
PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE WHERE 
THERE IS THAT LEGITIMATE PUBLIC 
POLICY INTEREST. 
IT'S JUST THE SAME AS IF THERE 
IS AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON, 
THE PRESIDENT ONCE A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY TO PROVIDE SOME 
ASSISTANT. 
IT'S A LEGITIMATE FOREIGN 
POLICY INTEREST TO GET THAT 
ASSISTANT. 
IT'S LEGITIMATE TO USE THE 
LEVERS OF FOREIGN POLICY TO 
SECURE THAT ASSISTANT. 
BECAUSE THERE IS A LEGITIMATE 
PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN BOTH 
THOSE ISSUES -- AND I THINK WE 
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT CLEARLY 
-- IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO 
BE THAT LINKAGE. 
I WILL CLOSE AGAIN WITH WHERE I 
BEGAN. 
THERE WAS NO LINKAGE HERE. 
I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT TO 
THE QUESTION IS PHRASED, EVEN 
IF AMBASSADOR (INAUDIBLE) 
TESTIFIED TO THAT, EVEN IF YOU 
ASSUME IT WERE TRUE, THERE IS 
NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE STATED 
IN THE IMPLY ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THANK. 
YOU 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOB 
AND FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WOULD, YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO 
THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN 
BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL? 
>> SENATORS, IT'S BEEN A LONG 
COUPLE OF DAYS. 
SO LET ME BE BLUNT ABOUT WHERE 
I THINK WE ARE. 
I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT 
HAPPENED HERE. 
I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID HEAR. 
I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY 
MUCH QUESTION AT THIS POINT 
ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS 
WITHHELD OR WHY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY COULD NOT GET IN THE 
DOOR OF THE OVAL OFFICE. 
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 
CONFUSION ABOUT WHY HE WANTED 
JOE BIDEN INVESTIGATED OR WHY 
HE WAS PUSHING THE CROWDSTRIKE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 
I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY 
MUCH A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE COULD 
EXPECT IF AND WHEN JOHN BOLTON 
TESTIFIES, ALTHOUGH THE DETAILS 
OF WHICH, WE CERTAINLY DON'T 
KNOW. 
I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY MUCH 
QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
BUT WHAT'S EXTRAORDINARY IS, 
ALTHOUGH THEY CAN TO CLAIM THAT 
THIS IS A RADICAL MISTAKE OR 
NOTION OF PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ 
THAT THEY SEEM TO BE DISTANCING 
THEMSELVES FROM RIGHT NOW 
BECAUSE THEY ARE ACCUSING 
DERSHOWITZ NOW OF SOME 
MALADMINISTRATION IN HIS 
ARGUMENT TO THE DEFENSE. 
THEY ARE STILL EMBRACING THAT 
IDEA, BECAUSE WHAT THEY JUST 
TOLD YOU ADMITTEDLY IN OUTLINE 
OF A, B, AND SEE, WHAT THEY 
JUST TOLD YOU IS ACCEPT 
EVERYTHING THE HOUSE SAID 
EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
THE MILITARY AID TO FORCE 
UKRAINE INTO HELPING HIM TREAT 
IN THE ELECTION. 
EXCEPT THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS ARE A SHAM. 
EXCEPT THAT HE OBSTRUCTED ALL 
SUBPOENAS AND WITNESSES. 
EXCEPT ALL OF THAT. 
TOO BAD. 
THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO. 
THAT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE. 
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THIS IS NOW WHERE WE 
HAVE COME TO IN THIS MOMENT IN 
OUR HISTORY, A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES CAN WITHHOLD 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
IN AID THAT WE APPROPRIATED. 
CAN DO SO IN VIOLATION OF THE 
LAW, CAN DO SO TO FORCE AN ALLY 
IN ORDER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN 
AN ELECTION, AND YOU CAN'T DO 
ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT HOLD 
UP A NOMINATION. 
THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE. 
THEY CAN ABUSE THE POWER ALL 
THEY WANT, THE PRESIDENT -- 
THIS PRESIDENT, THE NEXT 
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THE POWER 
ALL THEY WANT -- IN THE 
FURTHERANCE OF THEIR 
REELECTION, AS LONG -- HERE'S 
THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE -- AS 
LONG AS THEY THINK THEIR 
REELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST. 
WELL, THAT'S QUITE A 
CONSTRAINT! 
THAT'S WHERE WE'VE COME NOW 
AFTER TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES 
OF OUR HISTORY. 
I THINK OUR FOUNDERS WOULD BE 
AGHAST THAT ANYONE WOULD MAKE 
THAT ARGUMENT ON THE FLOOR OF 
THE SENATE. 
I THINK THEY WOULD BE AGHAST, 
YOU KNOW, HAVING COME OUT OF A 
MONARCHY, HAVING LITERALLY 
RISKED THEIR LIVES, HAVING 
TAKEN THIS GREAT GAMBLE THAT 
PEOPLE COULD BE TRUSTED TO RUN 
THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND CHOOSE 
THEIR OWN LEADERS, RECOGNIZING 
THAT WE ARE NOT ANGELS, WITH A 
SYSTEM THAT WOULD HAVE AMBITION 
COUNTER AMBITION, THAT WE WOULD 
SO WILLINGLY ABDICATE THAT 
RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY THAT A 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE NOW IS HAS FULL 
POWER TO COERCE OUR ALLIES, OF 
FOREIGN POWER TO INTERVENE IN 
OUR ELECTION BECAUSE THEY THINK 
IT'S IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
THAT THEY GET REELECTED. 
IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE THINK 
THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE 
CONDONED? 
OR DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS 
PRECISELY THE KIND OF CHARACTER 
AND CONDUCT THAT THEY PROVIDED 
A REMEDY FOR? 
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO 
THAT. 
THEY WROTE A BEAUTIFUL 
CONSTITUTION. 
THEY UNDERSTOOD A LOT ABOUT 
HUMAN NATURE. 
THEY UNDERSTOOD AS WE DO THAT 
ABSOLUTE PROW OR CORRUPTS 
ABSOLUTELY. 
AND THEY PROVIDED A CONSTRAINT. 
BUT IT WILL ONLY BE AS GOOD OR 
STRONG AS THE MEN OR WOMEN OF 
THIS INSTITUTION'S WILLINGNESS 
TO UPHOLD IT. 
TO NOT LOOK AWAY FROM THE 
TRUTH. 
THE TRUTH IS STARING US IN THE 
EYES! 
WE KNOW WHY THEY DON'T WANT 
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY. 
IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T 
REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE. 
THEY JUST DON'T WANT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR IT AT 
ALL THAT'S IN ITS UGLY, GRAPHIC 
DETAIL. 
THEY DON'T WANT THE PRESIDENT'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ON 
LIVE TV OR EVEN A NON LIVE 
DEPOSITION TO SAY, I TALKED 
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE TOLD 
ME IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, JOHN 
-- 
>> THANK YOU MISTER MANAGER. 
>> TO BE CONTINUED. 
>> (LAUGHS) 
>> THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. 
>> QUESTION TO THE DESK ON 
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS 
HOLLY, CRUZ, PURDUE, GARDNER, 
LANKFORD, HOEVEN, SCOTT OF 
FLORIDA, WORKMAN, AND FISHER. 
>> THINK. 
YOU (INAUDIBLE) (TECHNICAL 
PROBLEM) EXCUSE ME. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
LAFLEUR AND THE OTHER SENATORS 
IS FOR THE COUNCIL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AS REPORTED BY POLITICO, QUOTE, 
IN JANUARY 1999, THEN SENATOR 
JOE BIDEN ARGUED STRONGLY 
AGAINST THE POSING ADDITIONAL 
WITNESSES OR SEEKING NEW 
EVIDENCE IN A MEMO SENT TO 
FELLOW DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF -- 
EXCUSE ME -- OF BILL CLINTON'S 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AND QUOTE. 
POLITICO REPORTS THAT SENATOR 
SCHUMER AGREED WITH BIDEN. 
WHY SHOULD THE BIDEN RULE NOT 
APPLY HERE? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE. 
IN A MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 
5TH 1999, THAT IS CAPTURED 
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SENATOR 
BIDEN DISCUSSED SOME HISTORY 
FIRST, REGARDING TO SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT 
WERE PUT FORWARD IN THE SENATE, 
THAT WERE SUMMARILY DECIDED. 
AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID. 
THESE TWO CASES DEMONSTRATE 
THAT THE SCENT MAY DISMISS 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT 
HOLDING A FULL TRIAL OR TAKING 
ANY EVIDENCE. 
PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE 
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT IMPOSE ON 
THE SENATE THE DUTY TO HOLD A 
TRIAL. 
IN FACT, THE SENATE NEED NOT 
HOLD A TRIAL EVEN THOUGH THE 
HOUSE WISHES TO PRESENT 
EVIDENCE AND HOLD A FULL TRIAL 
IN THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION 
OF PRESIDENT. 
HE WENT ON TO SAY, IN A NUMBER 
OF PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, 
THE SENATE HAS REACHED THE 
JUDGMENT THAT ITS 
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IS SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT 
REQUIRED TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE 
OR HERE WE LIVE WITNESS 
TESTIMONY. 
THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE SENATE'S 
CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOTIONS FOR 
SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN AT LEAST 
THREE TRIALS AND ENLISTED THE 
THREE TRIALS OF (INAUDIBLE) AND 
NIXON AND EACH THE SEVEN 
CONSIDERED SUMMARY. 
IT (INAUDIBLE) THOUGH NO POINT 
DID THE SCENT CONSIDER THAT 
SUMMARY DISTURB DISPOSITION WAS 
AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. 
IT WAS NOT TO BE A PARTISAN 
PROCESS. 
(INAUDIBLE) INSTEAD THEY MEANT 
IT TO BE POLITICAL IN THE 
HIGHER SENSE. 
THE PROCESS WAS TO BE CONDUCTED 
IN THE WAY THAT WOULD DEATH BUT 
SECURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR 
IN THEIR PHRASE, THE GENERAL 
WELFARE. 
THAT WAS THE BIDEN DOCTRINE. 
OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
NOW, SOME MEMBERS IN THIS 
CHAMBER AGREED WITH THAT. 
SOME MEMBERS THAT SERVE ON -- 
AS MANAGERS, ALSO AGREED WITH 
THAT. 
BUT NOW THE RULES ARE 
DIFFERENT. 
THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE 
MANAGER SHIP JUST MOMENTS AGO 
DID WHAT HE IS FAMOUS FOR AND 
CREATED A CONVERSATION 
PURPORTEDLY FROM THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, REGARDING 
RUSSIA HACKING OF BURISMA. 
AND HE DOES IT'S THE SAME THING 
HE DID WHEN HE STARTED HIS 
(INAUDIBLE). 
SO THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE. 
BUT IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT 
COMMON PRACTICE AND COMMON 
PROCEDURES, THE BIDEN RULE IS 
ONE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS 
SOMETHING ELSE. 
BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD IT TIME AND 
TIME AGAIN ABOUT TWO JUDGES 
HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALLOWING TO 
ADDRESS TWO THINGS VERY 
QUICKLY. 
MY FIRST CASE IN THE SUPREME 
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -- 
AND IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO -- 
OVER 30 YEARS AGO. 
33 YEARS AGO. 
MY FOOT CLIENT LOST IN THE 
DISTRICT COURT. 
THEY SAID WE'LL APPEAL TO THE 
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
WENT TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT 
OF APPEALS, WAS NOT SO 
SUCCESSFUL, WE DIDN'T WIN THERE 
EITHER. 
MY CLIENT SAID, WELL, WHAT DO 
WE DO? 
I SAID WE HAVE ONE OPTION. 
WE HAVE CAN FILE A PETITION TO 
(INAUDIBLE) SUPREME COURT OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 
CHANCES ARE THEY'RE NOT GOING 
TO TAKE THE CASE BUT AT THIS 
POINT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO 
YOU SO WHY DON'T WE PREPARE FOR 
A SEAT? 
MY CLIMB TO BREED TO PROCEED? 
A PETITION WAS GRANTED AND THE 
COURT REVERSED, NINE TO ZERO, 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE 
DISTRICT COURT. 
AND THAT'S WHY YOU CONTINUE TO 
USE COURTS WHEN APPROPRIATE. 
THAT'S WHY YOU DO IT. 
AND YOU DON'T RELY ON WHAT A 
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SAYS. 
AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO 
SAY, THEY ARE ASKING YOU AS A 
SENATE BODY TO WAVE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
NOW YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT 
THAT. 
FOR A MOMENT THEY ARE ASKING 
YOU. 
TO VOTE TO DETERMINE OR HAVE 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN HIS 
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS 
PRESIDING JUDGE TO VOTE TO 
WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES. 
AND THAT IS WHAT THEY THINK IS 
THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THIS 
PROCEEDING TO CONTINUE. 
I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD UPPED 
UP THE BIDEN ROCK. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO. 
>> THANK YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO 
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON 
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR 
WARNER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
BENNETT AND WARNER IS TO THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS. 
MR. SECULARIST SAYS THAT IF THE 
SENATE VOTES FOR WITNESSES, HE 
WILL CALL A LONG CHAIN OF 
WITNESSES THAT WILL GREATLY 
LENGTH IN THE TRIAL. 
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE SENATE 
WILL ESTABLISH BY MAJORITY VOTE 
WHICH AND HOW MANY WITNESSES 
THERE WILL BE, ISN'T IT ALSO 
TRUE THAT PRIOR IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS IN THE SENATE COMMONLY 
HAVE HEARD WITNESSES WHO DID 
NOT TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE? 
>> I THANK YOU MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I THANK THE 
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS FOR 
THEIR QUESTIONS. 
IT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE THAT 
ALL WE ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO 
DO IS TO HOLD A FULL AND FAIR 
TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH THE 
SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY. 
ARTICLE ONE SECTION THREE OF 
THIS CONSTITUTION, THE SENATE 
STILL HAS THE SOLE POWER WITH 
RESPECT TO AN IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
IN THIS GREAT INSTITUTION HAS 
INTERPRETED THAT DURING THE 15 
DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 
THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING 
OUR NATION'S HISTORY THAT A 
FULL AND FAIR TRIAL MEANS 
WITNESSES BECAUSE THIS 
INSTITUTION, EVERY TIME A TRIAL 
AS HEARD WITNESSES ALL 15 
TIMES. 
INCLUDING IN SEVERAL INSTANCES 
WHERE THERE ARE WITNESSES WHO 
DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE, 
WHO TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE. 
THE POINT WAS RAISED EARLIER 
ABOUT BENGHAZI AND TRADE GOWDY, 
HE IS A GOOD MAN, I SERVED WITH 
HIM, HE'S A VERY TALENTED 
LAWYER. 
I AM SURE HE'S PLEASED THAT 
DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN THAT 
HIS NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO 
THIS PROCEEDING. 
TRADE GOWDY, ACCORDING TO ONE 
OF THE QUESTIONS SAID THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT 
COOPERATE. 
THE WHITE HOUSE, IN THAT 
INSTANCE AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, TURNED OVER TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS PURSUING 
TO A HOUSE SUBPOENA. 
THAT IS COOPERATION. 
SEVERAL WITNESSES APPEARED 
VOLUNTARILY IN BENGHAZI 
INCLUDING GENERAL DAVID 
PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR. 
SUSAN RICE, WHO AT THE TIME WAS 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, 
BEN RHODES THE DEPUTY NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER FOR. 
FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT 
CHIEF OF STAFF. 
JANET OR CARTER HAM, FORMER 
COMMANDER OF AFRICAN. 
THE FENCE EQUALITARIAN, LEON 
PANETTA, HE ALSO SHOWED UP 
ACROSS. 
GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN FORMER 
DEA DIRECTOR. 
WHO ELSE SHOWED UP? 
THE FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE 
HILLARY CLINTON, SHE TESTIFIED 
PUBLICLY UNDER OATH FOR 11 
HOURS. 
THAT IS COOPERATION. 
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS 
PARTICULAR INCIDENT IN THE 
HOUSE, NO DOCUMENTS, NO 
WITNESSES, NO INFORMATION, NO 
COOPERATION, NO NEGOTIATION, NO 
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, 
BLANKET DEFIANCE. 
THAT IS WHAT RESULTED IN THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
ARTICLE. 
ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR THE 
SENATE TO HOLD A FAIR TRIAL 
CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRACTICE 
IN EVERY SINGLE TRIAL THE 
SENATE HAS HELD. 
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WITNESSES 
IS 33. 
WE CANNOT NORMALIZE 
LAWLESSNESS, WE CANNOT 
NORMALIZE CORRUPTION, WE CANNOT 
NORMALIZE ABUSE OF POWER, A 
FAIR TRIAL. 
LASTLY, OF THE WITNESSES THAT 
DID TESTIFY VOLUNTARILY SHOWED 
UP. 
WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO SAY? 
THESE WERE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
WITNESSES. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HOW DID HE 
CHARACTERIZE THE SHAKEDOWN 
SCHEME, THE GEOPOLITICAL SHAKE 
DOWN AT THE HEART OF THESE 
ALLEGATIONS? 
AMBASSADOR SOLID, QUID PRO QUO. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, CRAZY. 
DOCTOR FIONA HILL, A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ERRAND. 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
IMPROPER. 
JOHN BOLTON, DRUG DEAL. 
WHAT WERE THE FRAMERS HAVE 
SAID? 
THE HIGHEST OF HIGH CRIMES 
AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> THANK YOU MISTER MANAGER. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM UTAH. 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO 
THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
ROMNEY IS FOR BOTH PARTIES AND 
I BELIEVE THE HOUSE MANAGER 
WILL GO FIRST. 
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT 
ANYONE WAS DIRECTED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TELL THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UPON 
THE CONDITION OF AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS? 
>> SENATOR, THE EVIDENCE THAT 
IS CURRENTLY IN THE RECORD 
THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THAT HAD 
DIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT THE 
CONDITIONING OF AID ON THE 
PERFORMANCE OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THE FIRST WAS GORDON SONDLAND, 
WHO ON SEPTEMBER 7TH HAD A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
THE DAY AFTER HE RELATED TO TIM 
MORRISON AS WELL AS AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR. 
IN THE CONVERSATION THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED 
AT THE TIME, HE SAID THE 
PRESIDENT ON THE ONE HAND SAID 
NO QUID PRO QUO BUT THEN WENT 
ON TO SAY THAT ZELENSKY HAS TO 
ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS 
AND HE SHOULD WANT TO. 
THE PRESIDENT MADE THE DIRECT 
LINK TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN MADE 
THE DIRECT LINK, HAD ALREADY 
MADE THE DIRECT LINK TO ANDRE 
YEAR MOCK BUT AFTER THE 
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
HAD A CONVERSATION WITH 
ZELENSKY HIMSELF AND CONVEYED 
WHAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED BY 
THE PRESIDENT THAT ZELENSKY WAS 
GOING TO HAVE TO CONDUCT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT IS WHEN 
ZELENSKY MADE THE COMMITMENT TO 
GO ON CNN. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS 
ACKNOWLEDGED THE TIME BETWEEN 
THE TWO. 
SO DID MICK MULVANEY. 
I THINK THAT VIDEO IS NOW 
ETCHED IN OUR MINDS FOR 
HISTORY. 
TRY TO WALK THAT BACK AS HE 
MAY, HE WAS QUITE ADAMANT WHEN 
HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT. 
THE REPORTER EVEN FOLLOWED UP 
WHEN HE SAID PART OF THE REASON 
WHY THEY HELD UP THE AID WAS 
THE DESIRE FOR THIS 
INVESTIGATION INTO 2016. 
THE REPORTER SAID, WHAT YOU ARE 
SAYING IS A QUID PRO QUO. 
YOU DO NOT GET THE MONEY UNLESS 
YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION ONTO 
THE DEMOCRATS. 
THE CHIEF OF STAFF ANSWER WAS, 
WE DO IT ALL THE TIME, GET OVER 
IT. 
YOU HAVE IT FROM THE PRESIDENTS 
OWN CHIEF OF STAFF, YOU HAVE IT 
FROM ONE OF THE THREE AMIGOS 
ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POINT 
PEOPLE AND BEAR IN MIND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OF COURSE, 
1 MILLION DOLLAR DONOR TO THE 
TRUMP INAUGURAL, SOMEONE THE 
PRESIDENT DEPUTIZED TO HAVE A 
SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE 
UKRAINIAN PORTFOLIO. 
SOMEONE WHO WAS AN AMBASSADOR 
WOULD HAVE SAID THIS WAS ABOUT 
A BURDEN SHARING, HE DID NOT OF 
COURSE. 
HE SAID IT WAS ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
THE THIRD DIRECT WITNESS WILL 
BE JOHN BOLTON. 
IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO BRING HIM 
BEFORE YOU BUT THERE ALREADY 
ARE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE OF 
THE RECORD WHO PEOPLE WHO SPOKE 
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT 
THIS TO WHICH THE 
CONDITIONALITY WAS MADE CLEAR. 
AFTER THE CONVERSATION -- 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> SENATOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
QUESTION, I BELIEVE THE 
QUESTION WAS IS THERE ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE TOLD THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ANYONE TELL 
THE UKRAINIANS DIRECTLY THAT 
THE AID WAS LINKED? 
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE 
QUESTION. 
AND THE ANSWER IN THE HOUSE 
RECORD IS NO AND I DESCRIBED 
THIS ON SATURDAY WHEN I WALKED 
THROUGH AT LENGTH AND I SO 
REFER BACK TO THE PRESENTATION. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR 
JOHNSON. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INDICATED, 
IN APPROXIMATE THE SEPTEMBER 
9TH TIMEFRAME AS WE HAVE ALL 
HEARD THE STATEMENT, HE HAS THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT 
SAID I WANT NOTHING, I WANT 
NOTHING, I WANT NO QUID PRO 
QUO. 
YOU HEARD A LOT FROM THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS ABOUT GOING OUT TO THE 
MICROPHONE OR MAKING IT SEEM 
LIKE THE RIGHT THING. 
I BELIEVE A STATEMENT WAS HE 
DOES DO THE RIGHT THING AND 
WHAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON. 
EVEN EARLIER, SENATOR JOHNSON 
AGAIN BECAUSE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOLD AMBASSADOR -- 
SENATOR JOHNSON THAT THERE WAS 
A LINKAGE. 
SENATOR JOHNSON ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTLY AND WE KNOW 
THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
THE PRESIDENT SAID, WAS THERE 
-- WHEN SENATOR JOHNSON ASKED 
IF THERE WAS ANY -- PRESIDENT 
ANSWERED, NO WAY I WOULD NEVER 
DO THAT, WHO TOLD YOU THAT? 
AND THE ANSWER WAS, SONDLAND. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD COME TO 
THAT PRESUMPTION PRIOR TO 
SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT AND 
WE SAW THE MONTAGE FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT 
PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 
AND GUESSING AND SPECULATING 
AND BELIEF. 
WE ALSO REMEMBER THE MONTAGE IN 
WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
ASKED, DID ANYONE ON THE PLANET 
TELL YOU THAT THE AID WAS 
LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATION? 
HIS ANSWER WAS NO. 
IN THE HOUSE RECORDS BEFORE US 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD ANYONE TO TELL 
THE UKRAINIANS THAT THE AID WAS 
LINKED. 
IN FACT, THE ARTICLE FROM THE 
DAILY BEAST YESTERDAY -- THANK 
YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM OREGON. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A 
QUESTION TO THE DESK FROM 
SENATOR SHOTS, SENATOR 
CARPENTER AND MYSELF. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM SENATORS MERKLEY, 
SHOTS AND CARPER. 
YESTERDAY, ALEXANDER SHOE IT'S 
STATED THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT 
BE IMPEACHED FOR SOLICITING 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN IF HE 
THINKS IT IS IN THE PUBLICS 
INTEREST. 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STATED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE 
PROSECUTED FOR COMMITTING A 
CRIME AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
HAS SAID QUOTE, I HAVE THE 
RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS 
PRESIDENT, AND QUOTE. 
AREN'T THESE VIEWS EXACTLY WHAT 
OUR FRAMERS WARNED ABOUT, AN 
IMPERIAL PRESIDENT ESCAPING 
ACCOUNTABILITY? 
IF THESE ARGUMENTS PREVAIL, 
WON'T FUTURE PRESIDENTS HAVE 
THE UNCHECKED ABILITY TO USE 
THEIR OFFICE TO MANIPULATE 
FUTURE ELECTIONS LIKE CORRUPT 
FOREIGN LEADERS IN RUSSIA AND 
VENEZUELA? 
>> SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE 
QUESTION. 
BEFORE I ADDRESS I WANT TO 
COMPLETE MY ANSWER TO THE LAST 
QUESTION. 
ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, THE PRESIDENT 
HAS A CONVERSATION WITH GORDON 
SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS, NO QUID PRO QUO BUT 
ZELENSKY HAS GOT TO GO TO THE 
MIC AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO 
SO. 
THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF 
WHETHER THE AID HAS BEEN 
WITHHELD IN ORDER TO SECURE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
AFTER THAT CALL, ON THE SAME 
DAY, SONDLAND CALLS ZELENSKY, 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND 
SAYS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET 
THE MONEY UNLESS YOU DO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
YOU HAVE THE COMMUNICATION 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND 
SONDLAND AND SONDLAND CONVEYING 
THE MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS. 
AND SHORT SUCCESSION BUT. 
I THINK YOU SEE THAT THE 
MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT GAVE TO 
SONDLAND WAS IN FACT 
COMMUNICATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE 
UKRAINIANS. 
OF COURSE ON AND WENT ON TO 
EXPLAIN TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
AND TO TIM MORRISON THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED ZELENSKY IN A 
PUBLIC BOX AND WHAT WAS MEANT 
BY THAT IS, HE WANTED TO HAVE 
TO GO OUT AND ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS IF HE WAS 
GOING TO GET THE MONEY. 
REMEMBER SONDLAND EXPLAINED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS A 
BUSINESSMAN AND BEFORE HE GIVES 
AWAY SOMETHING, HE WANTS TO GET 
THEM DELIVERABLE. 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS, THAT 
DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, 
UKRAINE DOES NOT OWE HIM 
ANYTHING. 
IT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE 
INCLUDING THE UKRAINIANS THAT 
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET THE 
MONEY UNLESS THEY DID THE 
INVESTIGATION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED AND THAT IS 
THE CONNECTION ON SEPTEMBER 
7TH. 
IT MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. 
IN TERMS OF THE DERSHOWITZ 
ARGUMENT, ONE COUPLED WITH THE 
PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES THAT 
UNDER ARTICLE TWO HE COULD DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS. 
THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION OF A 
PRESIDENT, NOT JUST AN IMPERIAL 
PRESIDENT BUT AN ABSOLUTE 
PRESIDENT WITH ABSOLUTE POWER 
BECAUSE IF A PRESIDENT CAN'T 
TAKE THIS ACTION AND EXTORT BUT 
WHAT A COUNTRY YOU CAN EXTORT 
ANY COUNTRY. 
IF HE CAN MAKE A DEAL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA OR TAKEN 
ACTION ANTAGONISTIC TO WHAT 
CONGRESS HAS RESPECTED, THAT 
COUNTRY CAN VIOLATE THE LAW 
INTO DOING IT TO GET HELP IN 
HIS REELECTION AND I THINK THAT 
EXAMPLE THAT SENATOR KING ASKED 
ABOUT IS DIRECTLY ON POINT. 
THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE 
HERE AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT 
THINKS IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF 
HIS REELECTION. 
SO YES, HE CAN ASK ISRAELI 
PRIME MINISTER TO COME TO THE 
UNITED STATES AND CALL HIS 
OPPONENT AN ANTISEMITE IF HE 
WANTS TO GET U.S. MILITARY AID. 
THAT PRINCIPLE CAN BE APPLIED 
ANYWHERE TO ANYTHING. 
TO THE GRAVE GINGER OF THE 
COUNTRY, THAT IS THE LOGICAL 
EXPANSION NOT WHAT PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ SAID YESTERDAY BUT 
TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT SAID 
TODAY. 
YOU CAN ACCEPT EVERY FACT IN 
THE ARTICLE, WE STILL THINK IT 
IS FINE AND BEYOND THE REACH OF 
THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE PRESIDENT CAN'T 
EXTRAORDINARILY BY WITHHOLDING 
MILITARY CLES AID, CAN WITHHOLD 
MEETINGS, CAN ASK THEM TO DO 
SHAM INVESTIGATIONS EVEN IF YOU 
ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THEY 
ARE A SHAM. 
IN FACT THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO 
BE DONE, THEY JUST HAVE TO BE 
ANNOUNCED, AND THERE'S NOTHING 
CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT. 
NOW THAT IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR 
A PRESIDENT WITH NO CONSTRAINT. 
>> THANK YOU MISTER MANAGER. 
MR. STEEDS CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA. 
>> I ALONG WITH SLENDER LEAD 
SENT TO THE DESK THE PRESIDENT 
FOR THE PRESIDENTS THE QUESTION 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS 
BRAUN AND ALI IS FOR THE 
COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
UNDER PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HIS 
THEORY, IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS 
ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE 
POTENTIALLY IMPEACHABLE IN 
CONTRAST TO WHAT HAS BEEN 
ALLEGED AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP? 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
AND I BELIEVE THAT UNDER 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HISTORY, 
REMEMBER, HE TRIED TO 
CATEGORIZE THINGS INTO THREE 
BUCKETS. 
ONE IS PURELY GOOD MOTIVES. 
ONE IS WELL, YOU MIGHT HAVE 
SOME MOTIVE FOR YOUR PERSONAL 
POLITICAL GAIN AS WELL AS 
PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVES FOR 
DOING SOMETHING OR INTENT. 
AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD 
BUCKET OF PURELY PRIVATE 
PECUNIARY GAIN. 
AND HE SAID THAT'S THE ONE IF 
YOU'RE DOING IT FOR PURELY IN 
YOUR DAY PURELY PRIVATE 
PECUNIARY GAIN, THAT'S A 
PROBLEM. 
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE 
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR IN WHAT 
IS POTENTIALLY A PRESIDENT IN 
THE FACT KNOWN ABOUT THE BAR UP 
BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT. 
BECAUSE THE CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST THAT WOULD BE A PARENT 
ON THE FACE OF THE FACTS THAT 
ARE KNOWN IS THAT THERE WOULD 
BE A PERSONAL FAMILY FINANCIAL 
INTEREST IN THAT SITUATION. 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS IN 
CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY, HIS 
SON IS SITTING ON THE BOARD OFF 
A COMPANY THAT IS KNOWN FOR 
CORRUPTION. 
THE PUBLIC REPORTS ARE THAT 
APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL WAS INVESTIGATING THAT 
COMPANY AND ITS OWNER, THE 
OLIGARCHY AT THE TIME, THEN 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S QUITE 
OPENLY SAID THAT HE LEVERAGED A 
BILLION DOLLARS IN U.S. LOAN 
GUARANTEES TO ENSURE THAT THAT 
PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED 
AT THAT TIME. 
ONE COULD PUT TOGETHER FAIRLY 
EASILY FROM THOSE KNOWN FACTS 
THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS A 
FAMILY FINANCIAL BENEFIT COMING 
FROM THE END OF THAT 
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT 
PROTECTED THE POSITION OF THE 
YOUNGER BIDEN ON THE BOARD. 
SO, AND THAT WOULD BE A PURELY 
PRIVATE PECULIARLY PECUNIARY 
FINANCIAL GAIN. 
THAT'S THE THIRD BUCKET THAT 
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS 
DESCRIBING ON THE ONE THAT HE'S 
IS NECESSARILY PROBLEMATIC, 
WHERE HE SAID THAT THAT'S WHERE 
THERE IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, 
THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A 
CRIME AND POTENTIALLY PROVEN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
SO THAT WOULD BE THE 
DISTINCTION THERE THAT THAT IS 
ONE THAT IF ALL OF THOSE FACTS 
LINED UP, UNDER PROFESSOR 
DERSHOWITZ CATEGORIZATION OF 
THINGS, WOULD BE THE 
PROBLEMATIC CATEGORY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF 
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR CARTON 
AND SENATOR VAN HOLLEN, I HAVE 
A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS THAT I WILL SUGGEST 
SUBMIT TO THE DESK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> 
>>. THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
KLOBUCHAR AND THE OTHER 
SENATORS. 
YES, THIS ONE. 
SORRY. 
THIS ONE FROM SENATOR CARTON. 
-- JUST PICK WHICHEVER ONE. 
-- I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT 
QUESTION, AND IT IS DIRECTED TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS. 
NO. 
WE DON'T HAVE THE QUESTION. 
BEFORE US. 
FROM SENATOR KAREN. 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
(LAUGHS) 
>>. 
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR 
KLOBUCHAR IS FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS. 
COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ANY 
OTHER COMMENTS THE SENATE WOULD 
BENEFIT FROM HEARING BEFORE 
ADJOURNING FOR THE EVENING? 
STUFF 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE. 
WE HAVE JUST HEARD FROM THE 
HOUSE -- FROM THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL IS THE USUAL NONSENSE. 
THERE ARE ONLY THREE AS -- WE 
DROP TO A CLOSE TONIGHT -- 
THERE ARE ONLY THREE THINGS TO 
REMEMBER. 
ONE, THIS IS A TRIAL. 
AS A TRIAL AS ANY TEN YEAR OLD 
KNOWS, WE SHOULD HAVE 
WITNESSES. 
WE ARE TOLD WE CAN'T HAVE 
WITNESSES BECAUSE AFTER ALL, 
THE HOUSE SAYS WE PROVED OUR 
CASE, AS WE HAVE. 
AND SO WHY SHOUD WE NEED 
WITNESSES? 
WELL THAT IS LIKE SAYING THAT 
IN A BANK ROBBERY, THE DA 
ANNOUNCES THAT HE HAS PROVED 
HIS CASE. 
HE'S HAD ALL THE WITNESSES. 
AND THEN AN EYEWITNESS SHOWS UP 
AND HE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO 
TESTIFY BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE 
DA WAS SURE HE HAD PROVED HIS 
CASE FIRST. 
THAT'S ABSURD. 
ANY TEN-YEAR-OLD KNOWS IT'S 
ABSURD. 
AND THAT THE PRESIDENTS CASE 
AGAINST WITNESSES. 
THAT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH. 
THERE IS ALWAYS MORE. 
THERE AREN'T TOO MANY MORE 
HERE. 
THE FACT IS, WHEN THERE ARE 
WITNESSES TO BE ASKED, THEY 
SHOULD BE ASKED. 
SECOND. 
THERE IS ONLY ONE REAL QUESTION 
IN THIS TRIAL. 
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A 
DISTRACTION. 
THE THREE GOT A THREE GUARD 
MONTE GAME BEING PLAYED BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
DISTRACTIONS. 
DON'T LOOK AT THE REAL 
QUESTION. 
LOOK AT EVERYTHING ELSE. 
EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT. 
LOOK AT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, 
IRRELEVANT. 
LOOK AT THE HOUSE PROCEDURES, 
IRRELEVANT. 
LOOK AT HUNTER BIDEN, 
IRRELEVANT. 
LOOK AT WHETHER PRESIDENT 
OBAMA'S POLICY WAS AS GOOD AS 
OR BETTER THAN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO 
UKRAINE, IRRELEVANT. 
LOOK AT THE STEELE DOSSIER, 
IRRELEVANT. 
THERE'S ONLY ONE RELEVANT 
QUESTION. 
DID THE PRESIDENT ABUSE HIS 
POWER BY VIOLATING THE LAW TO 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM A 
COUNTRY FOREIGN COUNTRY TO 
EXTORT THAT COUNTRY INTO 
HELPING HIM -- INTO HELPING HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN BY 
SLANDERING HIS OPPONENT. 
THAT'S THE ONLY RELEVANT 
QUESTION FOR THIS TRIAL. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PROVED 
THAT QUESTION BEYOND ANY DOUBT. 
THE ONE THING THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS -- THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL GOT RIGHT IS PRO 
POINTING ME AS SAYING BEYOND 
ANY DOUBT. 
IT IS INDEED BEYOND ANY DOUBT. 
THAT IS WHY ALL THESE 
DISTRACTIONS. 
THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT'S 
PEOPLE ARE TELLING HIM TO AVOID 
WITNESSES, BECAUSE THEY ARE 
AFRAID OF THE WITNESSES. 
THEY KNOW THE WITNESSES, THEY 
KNOW MR. BOLTON AND OTHERS WILL 
ONLY STRENGTHEN THE CASE. 
AND YES, WE HEAR, WELL IF THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE CASE IS 
SO STRONG, WHY DO YOU NEED MORE 
WITNESSES? 
BECAUSE THE TRUTH CAN BE 
BOLSTERED. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK FOR 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE 
TRIAL ADJOURNED UNTIL 1 PM 
FRIDAY, JANUARY 31ST. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE TRIAL 
IS ADJOURNED. 
HELLO EVERYONE I'M TANYA 
RIVERA. 
THANKS FOR JOINING US. 
DAY NINE OF THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS JUST WRAPPED UP. 
ANY MOMENT NOW, WE EXPECT TO 
LEARN HOW REPUBLICAN SENATOR 
LAMAR ALEXANDER WILL VOTE ON 
THE QUESTION OF WITNESS 
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THAT PIVOTAL VOTE IS EXPECTED 
ON FRIDAY AND COULD DICTATE HOW 
THE TRIAL PROCEEDS. 
THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PHASE 
OF THE TRIAL ENDED TODAY. 
BUT IT DIDN'T END WITHOUT SOME 
DRAMA ON THE SENATE FLOOR. 
>> THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
DECLINED TO READ THE QUESTION 
AS SUBMITTED. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, WHO 
IS PRESIDING OVER THE TRIAL, 
BLOCKED A QUESTION, AS YOU 
HEARD THERE, FROM REPUBLICAN 
SENATOR RAND PAUL. 
THE QUESTION INCLUDED THE NAME 
OF THE PERSON BELIEVED TO BE 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER. 
THIS COMPLAINT IS AT THE CENTER 
OF THE IMPEACHMENT CASE AGAINST 
MR. TRUMP. 
THAT DID NOT STOP THE SENATOR 
FROM HAVING HIS MOMENT. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFFER 
SEAN MISS GO HAS A CLOSE 
RELATIONSHIP WITH (INAUDIBLE) 
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL TOGETHER? 
ARE YOU AWARE, AND HOW DO YOU 
RESPOND TO REPORTS THAT 
(INAUDIBLE) AND MISCALL MAY 
HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO PLOT IS 
THE IMPEACHMENT IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT BEFORE THERE WERE 
FORMAL HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS? 
>> WE SHOULD NOTE, CBS NEWS HAS 
DECIDED NOT TO AIR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH A STANDARDS. 
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, OF 
QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ALLOW 
CONSIDERATION OF NEW WITNESSES 
IS EXPECTED TO BE ADDRESSED ON 
FRIDAY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM 
STOOD FIRM ON WHITE DOESN'T 
BELIEVE THAT SHOULD HAPPEN. 
>> THEY PUT UP SEVEN TEEN 17 
WITNESSES. 
YOU HEARD THEM. 
THEY ARE ACTING LIKE THERE HAS 
BEEN NO WITNESSES PRESENTED 
HERE. 
THEY HAVE PRESENTED TESTIMONY 
-- 17! 
THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT WE 
WERE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THOSE 
17 BY PLAYING THOSE WITNESSES 
WORDS. 
>> MEANWHILE, LEAVE IMPEACHMENT 
AND MANAGER ADAM SCHIFF AGAIN 
EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF 
HAVING WHAT HE CONSIDERS A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
>> I DON'T THINK A TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES REFLECT 
ADVERSELY ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I DO THINK IT REFLECTS 
ADVERSELY ON US. 
I THINK IT DIMINISHES THE POWER 
OF THIS EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF 
THE WORLD. 
IF WE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
IN THE FACE OF THIS KIND OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. 
THIS IS THE REMEDY. 
THIS IS THE REMEDY FOR 
PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE. 
>> AS A REMINDER, THESE ARE THE 
FOUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
DEMOCRATS HOPE TO CONVINCE IN 
FAVOR TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF 
ALLOWING WITNESSES. 
IF THAT HAPPENS THE TRIAL WOULD 
STRETCH INTO NEXT WEEK AND 
POSSIBLY LONGER. 
LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL NOW. 
MOLLY HOOPER IS A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND 
VETERAN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER. 
SHE'S HERE WITH ME ON SET. 
JESSICA LEVINSON JOINS US FROM 
LOS ANGELES. 
SHE'S A PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA LAW 
SCHOOL. 
AND ON THE PHONE IS CBS NEWS 
WHITE HOUSE REPORTER CATHERINE 
WATSON. 
WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU. 
SO MOLLY AS, WE MENTIONED 
EARLIER, TENDENCIES CENTER 
LAMAR ALEXANDER SAYS HE'S GOING 
TO ANNOUNCE TONIGHT HIS 
POSITION ON WHETHER TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES. 
WE DO KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION 
EARLIER THAT WAS FROM A GROUP 
OF SENATORS, INCLUDING HIM AND 
SENDING THEIR LEASE ON MICHAEL 
SKI, WHO'S ANOTHER ONE WHO IS 
REPORTEDLY ON THE SCENT. 
FENCE LET'S LISTEN TO THAT 
QUESTION 
>> A FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE THAT 
BOLTON WERE TO TESTIFY IN THE 
LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE 
ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T 
IT TRUE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS 
STILL WOULD NOT RISE TO THE 
LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
AND THAT THEREFORE FOR THIS 
ANOTHER REASONS IS TESTIMONY 
WOULD ADD NOTHING TO THIS CASE? 
>> NOW THERE ARE A LOT TO 
UNPACK IN THAT QUESTION THERE. 
LISA, HELP US GET INTO WHAT WE 
CAN READ FROM THAT. 
>> JESSICA COULD TAKE A BITE OF 
THIS ONE. 
ISN'T IT TRUE THE WORDING -- WE 
ALREADY AGREED TO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID WAS NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT THEY 
ARE GOING TO DO BECAUSE REALLY 
BARRING SOME EXPLOSIVE LAST-
MINUTE BOMBSHELL REPORT. 
>> IT'S NOT GIVING YOU A CLUE 
INTO MURKOWSKI AND ALEXANDER'S 
STATE OF MIND? 
>> IT IS GIVING A CLUE INTO 
THEIR STATE OF MIND HOWEVER YOU 
HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT THESE 
INDIVIDUALS CAME INTO OFFICE AT 
AROUND 2002, 2003, BOTH WERE 
ATTORNEYS AND WHAT IS THE HARM 
IN HEARING FROM MORE WITNESSES? 
IS MORE INFORMATION ULTIMATELY 
GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT 
THEY VOTE TO ACQUIT OR REMOVE 
THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE? 
THAT IS UNCLEAR. 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS SETTING THIS 
BOAT UP AS THE ULTIMATE VOTE, 
THIS IS THE ONE, THE MOMENTOUS 
VOTE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE 
GOING TO CALL WITNESSES. 
IT IS ALMOST AS IF THIS 
UPCOMING VOTE IS MORE IMPORTANT 
THAN THE ACTUAL FINAL VOTE AS 
TO WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO 
ACQUIT OR REMOVE THE PRESIDENT. 
>> HOW ARE REPUBLICANS FEELING 
RIGHT NOW IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE A 
READ OF THE TEA LEAVES? 
DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FEELING 
CONFIDENT THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH 
VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES? 
>> I DO NOT KNOW IF I EVER USE 
CONFIDENT WHEN IT IS A 
SITUATION LIKE THIS. 
AGAIN, THOSE TEA LEAVES AND WE 
ARE RUNNING SHORT ON TEA LEAVES 
UP HERE THESE DAYS BUT 
LISTENING TO THE QUESTIONS IT 
DOES CERTAINLY SEEM AS IF 
ACROSS THOSE SENATORS 
PARTICULARLY MURKOWSKI AND 
ALEXANDER ARE A LITTLE 
SKEPTICAL AS TO WHETHER THEY DO 
NEED TO HEAR FROM MORE 
WITNESSES. 
>> JESSICA, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE 
ON THAT QUESTION? 
IT'S SORT OF SEEMS TO PRESUME 
GUILT IN AWAY AND SAY HEY I 
GUESS IT IS NOT SO GREAT BUT IS 
NOT REALLY IMPEACHABLE, RIGHT? 
>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IS WHAT 
YOU TEACH IN THE FIRST DAY OF 
TRIAL AS A LEADING QUESTION. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT MY 
HUSBAND, WHO IS A TRIAL 
ATTORNEY, IT'S SOMETHING HE HAS 
BEEN WARNED ABOUT. 
WE DO NOT SAY THINGS LIKE ISN'T 
IT TRUE THAT AND THEN FELL IN 
THE BLIND IT IS YOUR TURN TO 
UNLOAD THE DISHWASHER. 
TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE 
QUESTION, WHAT HE IS SAYING IS 
NOT JUST A LEANING QUESTION BUT 
IF YOU UNWRAP WHAT IS IN THERE, 
IF YOU UNWRAP AND LOOK AT THE 
SUBSTANCE, WHAT HE IS SAYING IS 
WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME AGAIN, BY 
WHICH I MEAN WANTED TO TELL 
EVERYONE IN THE SENATE WAS 
LISTENING AGAIN THAT WHAT 
PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID 
IS TRUE, WHICH IS EVEN IF ALL 
OF THE ALLEGATIONS TAKEN ON 
THEIR FACE ARE FACTUALLY 
CORRECT, IT STILL DOES NOT RISE 
TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
I THINK HE IS TRYING TO 
TELEGRAPH OR OTHER SENATE 
REPUBLICANS BASICALLY WHAT 
THEIR COVER WILL BE, WHICH IS 
SOMETHING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT 
OVER THE LAST WEEK, WHICH IS 
SOME VERSION OF TWILIGHT THAT 
CONDUCT? 
NO. 
WHAT I HAVE ENGAGED IN THAT 
CONDUCT? 
NO. 
DO I THINK IT RISES TO THE 
LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, 
THE MOST SERIOUS THING THAT WE 
CAN DO WITH RESPECT TO A 
PRESIDENT REMOVE HIM FROM 
OFFICE? 
NO. 
I THINK IT IS TRYING TO GIVE A 
GOLDEN PARACHUTE TO THE 
REPUBLICANS OR BASICALLY A SAFE 
LANDING, I SHOULD SAY. 
ALLOWING THEM A PLACE WHERE WE 
CAN SAY WE DO NOT LIKE IT BUT 
WE HAVE FULFILLED OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. 
IT DOES NOT REACH THAT HIGH 
THRESHOLD. 
>> ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY ARE 
SAYING THAT EVEN OF JOHN BOLTON 
WERE TO TAKE THE STAND AND SAY 
THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD 
ME, THIS IS WHY HE WITHHELD THE 
AID FROM THE UKRAINE. 
HE WANTED THIS OUTCOME. 
EVEN IF HE WERE TO TESTIFY TO 
ALL OF THAT, THESE REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS ARE SAYING THAT IS 
STILL NOT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE, CORRECT? 
>> I THINK THAT IS THE 
ARGUMENT. 
I WOULD SAY, LEGALLY SPEAKING 
THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD 
WATER. 
LET ME REITERATE, THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE 
SAYING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR 
NOT THEY HAVE AN ARE NEXT TO 
THEIR NAME OR 18 X TO THE NAME. 
THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE 
FRAMERS DECIDE TO PUT IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AT ALL, I 
MEAN THE FRAMERS COULD'VE SAID 
LOOK YOU HAVE AN ELECTION EVERY 
FOUR YEARS, THAT IS YOUR FAIL-
SAFE. 
THEY SAID NO, THERE COULD BE 
SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, SO 
EGREGIOUS THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO 
ADD MECHANISM TO ALLOW OUR 
REPRESENTATIVE TO REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THEY DECIDED TO PUT AN 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN, THEY 
DECIDED TO PUT THE CAUSE OF 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THEY WERE TALKING OF ABUSE OF 
POWER, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT 
IF TRUE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT 
ARE CONTAINED IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THIS SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING 
THAT IS BASED ON YOUR POLICY 
VIEW OF THE WORLD. 
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT LOWER 
TAXES, WHETHER YOU WANT A 
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR 
ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM OR 
IMMIGRATION REFORM. 
THIS SHOULD BE ABOUT LOOKING AT 
THE CONSTITUTION AND LOOK AT 
THE ALLEGATIONS. 
>> CATHERINE, IN THE EVENT THAT 
THE SENATE DOES VOTE TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES TOMORROW, HOW DOES 
THE WHITE HOUSE PLAN TO ADDRESS 
THAT PARTICULARLY IF JOHN 
BOLTON IS CALLED? 
>> FOR ONE THING, THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF IS GOING TO BE IN 
FLORIDA AS OF TOMORROW 
AFTERNOON. 
HE IS FLYING DOWN NO MATTER 
WHAT. 
A SCHEDULE JUST CAME OUT. 
OR OF COURSE HE HAS ACCESS TO 
TELEVISION IN AIR FORCE ONE AND 
SHOULD GET TO FLORIDA AROUND 
SIX OR SO. 
WE ARE EXPECTING THAT TO BE THE 
HEIGHT OF WON THE SENATE WOULD 
BE DEBATING WITNESSES. 
AS FAR AS HOW THE WHITE HOUSE 
WOULD RESPOND, MY COLLEAGUES 
AND I HAVE BEEN REPORTING FOR A 
WHILE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
LONG PLANNED TO AND THE 
PRESIDENT HAS PLANNED TO SAY 
ALMOST PUBLICLY TO ATTEMPT OR 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ANY WAY 
POSSIBLE TO KEEP BOLTON FROM 
TESTIFYING. 
BOLTON OF COURSE BEING THE MAIN 
WITNESS BUT WE THINK SENATOR 
WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO CALL 
UPON. 
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE 
EXACTLY? 
BOLTON COULD STILL 
THEORETICALLY SHOW UP AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE COULD JUST ATTEMPT 
TO EXERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
OVER THE THINGS HE MIGHT 
ATTEMPT TO SAY. 
THEY CANNOT NECESSARILY 
ENTIRELY KEEP BOLTON FROM 
SHOWING UP TO THE SENATE IF HE 
WANTS TO PHYSICALLY SHOW UP. 
IT IS GOING TO BE VERY 
INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS ALL 
PLAYS OUT. 
>> IF THE WHITE HOUSE DOES 
HOWEVER ISSUE A STATEMENT 
SAYING JOHN BOLTON CANNOT 
TESTIFY WE ARE EXERTING 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
IT'S BOLTON LIKELY TO DEFY 
THAT? 
HE IS PROBABLY NOT, RIGHT? 
IT WILL GO INTO THE COURTS? 
>> THAT SEEMS LIKE THE MOST 
LIKELY OPTION. 
BOLTON COULD HAVE TESTIFIED 
BEFORE NOW IF HE WANTED TO. 
HE INITIALLY SAID HE WAS NOT 
GOING TO AT ALL BUT THEN SAID 
HE ONLY WOULD IN THE SENATE 
UPON SUBPOENA. 
THERE HAS BEEN SOME FRUSTRATION 
AMONG SOME THAT HE HAS BEEN 
PLAYING COY BUT HE HAS NOT 
SHOWN UP WILLINGLY. 
IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT 
WILL MOST LIKELY GO TO THE 
COURTS IF THAT WERE THE CASE. 
>> JESSICA, LEGALLY THEN HOW 
WOULD THAT PAN OUT? 
CAN THE PRESIDENT USE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE EVEN IF THE SENATE 
ULTIMATELY DECIDES TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES? 
>> YES, JUST A SMALL 
CLARIFICATION. 
IT WOULD NOT GO TO THE COURTS, 
IT WILL GO TO THE MOST POWERFUL 
JOURNALIST IN THE WORLD. 
IF YOU GO TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN 
ROBERTS. 
THIS IS NOT A NORMAL 
LITIGATION, THIS IS NOT A 
NORMAL CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. 
WE ARE WITHIN THE IMPEACHMENT 
CLAUSE. 
WE KNOW WHAT THE REMEDY WOULD 
BE IF THE PRESIDENT EXERTS 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD GO 
STRAIGHT TO CHIE JUSTICE JOHN 
ROBERTS. 
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
DISENTANGLE TO THINGS THAT VERY 
NATURALLY HAVE BEEN TALKED 
ABOUT AS IF THEY ARE THE SAME. 
ONE IS, WILL SOMEONE COMPLY 
WITH THE SUBPOENA, MEANING WILL 
THEY SHOW UP AT ALL? 
THE CASE ON THAT IS PRETTY 
CLEAR, YOU DO NEED TO WALK IN 
THE DOOR. 
THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN DIFFERENT 
ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT IS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID 
BASICALLY DO NOT COMPLY AT ALL, 
PRETEND LIKE THE SUBPOENA NEVER 
APPEARED, IT DID NOT HAPPEN. 
THE SECOND PART IS WHAT WE ARE 
MORE USED TO, WHICH IS SOMEONE 
WILL COME, THEY WILL WALK TO 
THE DOOR AND WILL NOT TESTIFY. 
THEY WILL TALK ABOUT THIS BUT 
NOT THAT. 
WHAT'S THE PERSON IS ACTUALLY 
IN THE SENATE CHAMBERS, AT THAT 
POINT IT IS UP TO CHIEF JUSTICE 
JOHN ROBERTS TO -- THAT IS WHY 
HE IS THERE. 
TO DO HIS DUTY. 
TO RULE ON THE ISSUES. 
>> JESSICA, I'M SORRY TO 
INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MOMENT. 
WE JUST GOT SOME BREAKING NEWS 
THAT SENATOR COLLINS SAID SHE 
WILL VOTE TO ALLOW 
