>> Woodruff: GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP.

OVER THE WEEKEND THERE WAS A RARE SATURDAY SESSION OF THE SENATE THAT IS REQUIRED BY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL RULES.

TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS BEGIN WITH NEWS OF A UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN BY JOHN BOLTON WHO SAYS IN THE MANUSCRIPT THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM THAT HE SPECIFICALLY DELAYED THE RELEASE OF AIDE TO UKRAINE UNTIL A INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON HUNTER WAS ANNOUNCED BY THE UKRAINIANS.

THIS CONTRADICTS THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT THAT THE DELAY IN AIDE WAS UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.

THE NEWEST DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PROMPTED A NUMBER OF TWEETS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

JOINED BY OUR CORRESPONDENTS AT THE CAPITAL TODAY FOR THE TRIAL SESSION.

WHILE WE LOOK AT THE LIVE PICTURES OF THE SENATE CHAMBER WITH THE SENATE CHAPLIN, BARRY BLACK, TO THE RIGHT.

I THINK WE WILL USE THESE MINUTE TO GO TO LISA AND YAMICHE FOR WHAT SOME ARE CALLING A BOMBSHELL STATEMENT FROM THE BOOK THAT JOHN BOLTON WROTE.

THAT COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THE PRESIDENT'S VERSION OF EVENTS.

LISA WHAT ARE SENATORS SAYING?

>> REPUBLICAN SENATORS PARTICULARLY ARE THE ONES WE'RE WATCHING.

THEY'RE IN A LUNCH NOW JUST EMERGING.

WE KNOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT JUSTICE QUESTION.

THE REACTION SOME SAY THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

OTHERS LIKE SENATOR FROM INDIANA, I SPOKE TO HIM PERSONALLY.

HE SAYS HE'S OPEN MINDED ABOUT WITNESSES.

HE SAID HE THINKS THIS WILL FOR SURE CHANGE THE INTENSITY AND DISCUSSION OF WITNESSES.

>> Woodruff: LISA, WE HEARD FROM SENATOR MITT ROMNEY WHO SAID IN A STATEMENT OR INTERVIEW THAT HE DOES THINK THIS MEANS THE SENATORS NEED TO HEAR FROM MR. BOLTON.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

HE IS IN FIRMLY IN FAVOR OF WITNESSES AND WAS OPEN TO IT BEFORE.

IT'S A CHANGE IN MOMENTUM AND A STEP TOWARDS WITNESSES WELL.

NEED TO HEAR FROM AT LEAST TWO OTHER REPUBLICANS ASSUMING SUSAN COLLINS IS FOR WITNESSES.

SHE SAID THE BOLTON NEWS STRENGTHENS THE INDICATES FOR WITNESSES.

IF THAT'S TWO VOTES FOR WITNESSES WE ARE LOOKING FOR TWO MORE THAT'S HOW MANY ARE NEEDED TO PROVIDE WITNESSES FOR THIS TRIAL.

>> Woodruff: MEANWHILE YAMICHE, WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM MR. MULVANEY TO THE JOHN BOLTON NEWS.

>> YES.í&1 HIS LAWYER SAYS MULVANEY WAS NEVER TOLD BY JOHN BOLTON THAT HE HAD CONCERNS OF THIS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE M MANUSCRIPT BY JOHN BOLTON AND HAS NEVER HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH JOHN BOLTON.

THIS NEWS OF JOHN BOLTON SAYING HE WAS DIRECTLY TOLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THIS WAS TIED IS A BOMBSHELL.

LISA HAS NOTED ON THE HILL MANY REPUB HI CANS SAY WE STICK WITH THE PRESIDENT.

OTHERS ARE SAYING THIS IS DIFFERENT AND NEW.

ABOUT THIS, IT WAS A WEAK AND SICKECIRCUMSTANTIAL.

LINDSEY GRAHAM ALSO WANTS TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON AND SEE THE MANUSCRIPT.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE, THE PRESIDENT HAS A LOT GOING ON TODAY.

HE IS BEGINNING TALKS WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS WILL BE A MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROPOSAL THEY MAN TO RELEASE TOMORROW.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE PRESIDENT GO O ON HE CAN TENSIVELY IN EXO QUESTION HE'S WATCHING CLOSELY.

>> HE'S WATCHING CLOSELY.

HE SAYS THESE ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS FROM JOHN BOLTON.

THE BIG DEAL IS YOU NOW HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP VERSUS JOHN BOLTON AND FIONA HILL, A TOP AIDE FOR JOHN BOLTON.

SHE TESTIFYD THAT JOHN BOLTON SAID HE TRIED TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM TRYING TO TIE THE AIDE.

HE WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT.

THAT CONVERSATION JOHN BOLTON SAYS HAPPENED IN HIS BOOK AND THIS MANUSCRIPT TO BE PUBLISHED LATER THIS YEAR.

YOU DON'T JUST HAVE THE PRESIDENT SAYING IT'S ME AGAINST JOHN BOLTON.

YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT AGAINST SEVERAL TOP AIDS.

THAT'S PRESENTING A ISSUE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

A SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGED IT WILL BE HARDER TO BLOCK WITNESSES.

>> Woodruff: LET'S GO LIVE TO THE SENATE CHAMBER NOW THIS.

IS THE CHAPLIN BARRY BLACK.

>> MOURN THE DEATHS OF KOBE AND GIANA BRYANT AND THOSE WHO DIED WITH THEM, WE THINK OF LIFE'S BREVITY, UNCERTAINTY AND LEGACY.

REMEREMIND US WE ALL HAVE A LIMD TIME ON EARTH TO LEAVE THE WORLD BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT.

AS THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS UNFOLDS IF I HAVE OUR SENATORS THE DESIRE TO MAKE THE MOST OF THEIR TIME ON EARTH.

TEACH THEM HOW TO LIVE, OH GOD.

LEAD THEM ALONG THE PATH OF HONESTY.

MAY THEY HEAR THE WORDS OF JESUS OF NASRATH REVERB RATING DOWN THE CORRIDORS OF THE CENTURIES, AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.

LORD, THANK YOU FORGIVING OUR CHIEF JUSTICE ANOTHER BIRTHDAY, AMEN.

>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RESIGHTING THE HEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, IN DIVISION I BELIEVE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>> IF THIS IS TO OBJECTION THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MACH THE PRPROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YEE, HERE YEE, HERE YEE ALL PERSONS ARE TO KEEP SILENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, TREZ OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> AS THE CHAPLIN HAS INDICATED ON BE HALF OF ALL OF US, HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

I'M SURE THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU PLANNED TO CELEBRATE THE DAY -PBLG THANK YOU FOR THE KIND WISHES AND THANK YOU TO THE SENATORS FOR NOT ASKING FOR THE YAs AND NAYs.

>> FOR INFORMATION, ALL SENATORS WE SHOULD EXPECT A BREAK EVERY TWO TO THREE HOURS.

AT 6:00 O'CLOCK A BREAK FOR DINNER AND WITH THAT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I YIELD THE FLOOR.

>> PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE RESOLUTION 483 THE COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT HAS -- TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.

THE SENATE WILL NOW HEAR YOU.

EURPBGT WHAT WE HAVE DONE ON SATURDAY IS THE PATTERN WE WILL CONTINUE TODAY AS FAR AS HOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CASE.

WE DEAL WITH TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE.

WE DEAL WITH PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

WE DO NOT DEAL WITH SPECULATION, ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS AT ALL.

WE ARE GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THOSE VERY FACTS WE TALKED ABOUT, VERY QUICKLY.

ON SATURDAY, YOU WILL MERE ABOUT THAT.

I WILL GIVE YOU A OVER VIEW OF WHAT WE PLAN TO DO TODAY IN OUR PRESENTATION.

YOU WILL HEAR FROM A NUMBER OF LAWYERS.

EACH ONE OF THESE LAWYERS WILL BE ADDRESSING A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CASE.

I WILL TALK OF YOU SHALL USE AND THEY WILL COME UP AND TALKING.

WE WANT TO BE EXPEDITIOUS AND THOROUGH.

LET ME START WITH JUST FOR A BRIEF FEW MOMENTS TO TALK A LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO US AS WE LOOKED AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WAS THE LACK OF FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO SAY.

NOW WE HAVE HEARD, YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE DAYS AHEAD.

WE KNOW ABOUT MR. SCHIFF'S VERSION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

YOU HEARD IT, YOU SAW IT.

I WANT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO FACTS.

FACTS THAT ARE UNDISPUTED.

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS CONVERSATION WAS CLEAR ON A NUMBER OF POINTS.

SO WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

HE SAID I WAS UNDER NO PRESSURE.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS SAID AND HOW IT'S BACKED UP.

IT'S OUR DECISION AS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL THAT THE PRESIDENT AT ALL TIME WAS ACTING UNDER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, LEGAL AUTHORITY, INTERNATIONAL INTEREST, AND PURSUANT TO HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

ASKING THE FOREIGN LEAD TORE GET TO BOTTOM OF CORRUPTION IS NOT THE VIOLATION OF A OATH.

IT'S INTERESTING THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMAN.

HE HIM SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING OF CRIME OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

HE HAD DEEP POLICY CONCERNS.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT, DEEP POLICY CONCERNS, DEEP POLICY DIFFERENCES.

WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC WHERE YOU HAVE DEEP POLICY CONCERNS, DEEP DIFFERENCES.

THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE BASIS OF AN IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE BAR OF IMPEACH HADN'T HAS REACHED THAT LEVEL THEN FOR THE SAKE OF THE REPUBLIC THE DANGER THAT PUTS NOT JUST THIS BODY BUT OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN IT'S UNIMAGINABLE.

EVERY TIME THERE IS A POLICY DIFFERENCE OF SIGNIFICANCE OR APPROACH DIFFERENCE OF SIGNIFICANCE ABOUT A POLICY, WILL WE START AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING?

AS I SAID EARLIER I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS WAS ABOUT JUST A PHONE CALL.

THERE WAS A PATTERN IN PRACTICE AH TEMPTS OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD TO NOT ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CAPABILITY TO GOVERN WHICH THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AT.

LOOK AT THE STATE OF WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTRY.

>> ALSO INTERFERE WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.

I WILL SAY THIS.

WE WILL HAVE A SERIES OF LAWYERS ADDRESS YOU ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES.

THIS IS HOW WE ENVISION THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE GOING.

WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO START WITH AN OVER VIEW, IF YOU WILL OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL ISSUES, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THAT, I THINK THAT'S GOOD THAT WE DON'T AS A COUNTRY AND WE WOULD ALL AGREE.

IF THIS BECOMES THE NEW STANDARD THE FUTURE WILL LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT.

SO WE WILL HEAR NEXT FROM MY CO COUNCIL JUDGE KENNETH STARR.

JUDGE STARR IS A FORMER JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

HE ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON BE HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ARGUING A CASE ALONG SIDE JUDGE STARR, MANY YEARS AGO.

HE ALSO SERVED AS INDEPENDENT COUNCIL DURING THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY AND OFFERED THE STARR REPORT.

HE TESTIFIED FOR 12 HOURS WITH REGARD TO THAT REPORT.

JUDGE STARR IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS.

HE WILL ADDRESS A SERIES OF DEFICIENCIES.

LEGAL ISSUES WITH REGARD TO ARTICLES ONE AND TWO, CONSTITUTIONAL I IMPLICATIONS, HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS, AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OVER THIS CASE NOW STANDS.

I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TIME NOW TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE KENNETH STARR.

>> JUDGE STARR.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, HOUSE MANAGERS AND STAFF.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE MINORITY LEADER.

AT THE TKPWEUPING OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ON JANUARY 16, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF OFFICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.

AGAIN ON TUESDAY.

IN DOING SO THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS HONORING THE WORDS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

ARTICLE ONE, SECTION THREE.

WE ALL KNOW THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT ARTICLE BY HEART.

THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THEE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

THEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT GOES ONTO SAY THIS.

WHEN SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE THEY SHALL BE ON EARTH, OATH OR AFFIRMATION.

THAT OATH OR AFFIRMATION IN TURN REQUIRES EACH MEMBER OF THE SENATE TO BE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

NOW THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY ADMINISTERED OATH OR AFFIRMATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN EVERY PROCEEDING IN THIS BODY SINCE 1798.

INDEED TO SIGNIFY THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OCCASION THE SENATE'S MORE RECENT TRADITIONS CALL FOR YOU AS YOU DID TO SIGN THE BOOK.

THAT BOOK IS NOT SIMPLY PART OF THE RECORD, IT'S ENTRUSTED TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.

IN CONTRAST MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT TAKE AN OATH IN CONNECTION WITH IMPEACHMENT.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WELL KNEW WHEN AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED THE SENATE, YES.

THE HOUSE, NO.

THUS EACH MEMBER OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIVERABLE BODY NOW HAS SPECIAL, INDEED UNIQUE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS.

DUTIES IMPOSED UNDER OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT.

DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 21 YEARS AGO N THIS CHAMBER THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES RULED IN RESPONSE TO AN OBJECTION WHO WAS INTER POSED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN OF IOWA.

THE SENATORS ARE NOT SITTING AS JURORS, SENATOR HARKIN NOTED.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREED WITH THAT PROPOSITIONS.

RATHER THE SENATE IS A COURT.

IN FACT HISTORY TEACHES US FOR LITERALLY DECADES THIS BODY WAS REFERRED TO IN THIS CONTEXT AS THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT IN A LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS.

WE'RE IN A TRIBUNAL.

WE'RE IN COURT.

IN FEDERAL 78 AS EX &ER HAMILTON, QUOTED FREQUENTLY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN FEDERAL 78 HE DESCRIBED THE ROLL OF COURTS.

YOUR ROLL.

IN DOING SO HE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN WHAT HE CALLED THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON ONE HAND, WHICH IS WHAT COURTS DO.

AND THE EXERCISE OF WILL OR POLICY PREFERENCES, IF YOU WILL ON THE OTHER HAND.

THAT'S WHAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES DO.

ACCORDING TO HAMILTON COURTS WERE TO BE IN HIS WORD IMPARTIAL.

THERE IS THAT WORD AGAIN.

YOU KNOW THAT'S A DAUNTING TASK FOR JUDGES.

STRUGGLING TO DO THE RIGHT THING TO BE IMPARTIAL, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

IT'S CERTAINLY HARD IN LIFE TO BE IMPARTIAL.

IN POLITICS IT'S NOT EVEN ASKED OF ONE TO BE IMPARTIAL.

THAT'S THE TASK THAT THE CONSTITUTION CHOSE TO IMPOSE UPON EACH OF YOU.

SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE IN AMERICA'S HISTORY THE SENATE IS BEING CALLED TO SIT AS THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT ALL TOO FREQUENTLY.

INDEED WE ARE LIVING IN WHAT I THINK ABOUT APLEY BE DESCRIBED AS THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE HOUSE, RESOLUTION AFTER RESOLUTION, MONTH AFTER MONTH HAS CALLED FOR THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INVOKED FREQUENTLY?

IN IT'S INHERENTLY DESTABILIZING AS WELL AS A ACROMONIOUS WAY.

THE STORY BEGINS 42 YEARS AGO.

IN THE NIGHTMARE OF WATER GATE CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT JIMMIE CARTER USHERED IN A NEW CHAPTER IN AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.

TOGETHER IN FULL AGREEMENT THEY ENACTED THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL PROVISIONS OF THE ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

THE NEW CHAPTER WAS NOT SIMPLY THE AGE OF INDEPENDENT COUNCILS.

IT BECAME UNBENOUNCED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

DURING MY SERVICE IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AS COUNCIL AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO WILLIAM FRANK SMITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION, HOWEVER WELL INTENTIONED THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL PROVISIONS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WHY?

IN THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT THOSE PROVISIONS INTRUDED INTO THE RIGHTFUL DOMAIN AND PREROGATIVE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THE JUSTICE'S DEPARTMENT POSITION WAS REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY IN HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS NEW E.R.A., JUSTICE ANTHONY S. WAS IN DEEP CONSENT.

ALONG HIS -- HE WROTE THIS, THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUTE IS ACT RID WITH THE SMELL OF THREATENED IMPEACHMENT.

IMPEACHMENT.

JUSTICE SCALIA ECHOED THE CRITICISM OF THE COURT I SERVED AT THE TIME.

IT STRUCK DOWN THE LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A VERY IMPRESSIVE OPINION BY WREN OUPBED JUDGE LAWRENCE SILVERMAN.

WHY.

WHY WOULD JUSTICE SCALIA REFER TO IMPEACHMENT?

THIS WAS A REFORM MEASURE.

THERE WOULD BE MONTH NO MORE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRES.

THE FIRING OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AS HE WAS CALLED, ARCHIBALD COX BY PRESIDENT NIXON.

GOVERNMENT WOULD NOW BE BETTER, MORE HONEST, GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL WOULD BE PROTECTED.

BUT THE WORD IMPEACHMENT HAUNTS THAT DISSENTING OPINION.

IT'S NOT HARD TO DISCOVER WHY.

BECAUSE THE STATUTE BY IT'S TERMS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL TO BECOME IN EFFECT AN AGENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO WHAT END?

TO REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN A VERY LOW THRESHOLD OF INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT AN ITCH PEACHABLE OFFENSE LEFT UNDEFINED MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

TO PARAPHRASE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S VERY ABLE COUNCIL AT THE TIME, BERNIE NUSBALM, THIS STATUTE IS A DAGGER AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENCY.

PRESIDENT CLINTON, NONE THE LESS SIGNED THE REAUTHORIZED MEASURE INTO LAW.

THE NATION THEN WENT THROUGH THE LONG PROCESS KNOWN AS WHITEWATER.

RESULTING IN THE FINDINGS BY THE OFFICE WHICH I LEAD, THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNCIL.

IN A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT REFERRAL TO CONGRESS WAS STIPULATED IN THE ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

TO PUT IT MILDLY DEMOCRATS WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

THEY THEN JOINED REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE ISLE FOR WHO THEIR PART HAD BEEN OUTRAGED BY AN EARLIER INDEPENDENT COUNCIL INVESTIGATION.

THAT OF A DISTINGUISHED FORMER JUDGE, LAWRENCE WALSH.

DURING THE REGAN ADMINISTRATION JUDGE WALSH'S INVESTIGATION KNOWN AS IRAN CONTRA SA SPAWNED ENORMOUS CRITICISM ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE ISLE.

TO THE INVESTIGATION TO ITSELF AND ALSO TO THE STATUTE.

THE ACRIMONY SURROUNDING IRAN CONTRA.

THEN THE IMPEACHMENT, THE TRIAL, AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACQUIT AL BY THIS BODY LEAD TO THE END OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL E.R.A..

ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH.

LIVING THROUGH THAT WILDLY CONTROVERSIAL 21 YEAR BOLD EXPERIENCE WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL, THERE WAS A CHANGE OF HEART.

THE LAW HE CAN PAOEURD IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT'S TERMS IN 1999.

THERE WOULD BE A WELL UNTENSIONED REFORM MEASURE DIED A QUIET AND UNEVENTFUL DEATH.

IT WAS PROBABLY REPLACED WITH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS.

PROM HE WILL GELGATEED BY JANETO DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

ONE SEES TO REFERENCE TO IMPEACHMENT.

NONE.

NO LONGER WERE THE POISON PILL PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PART OF AMERICA'S LEGAL LANDSCAPE.

THEY WERE GONE.

THE RENO REGULATION SEEMED TO SIGNAL A RETURN TO TRADITIONAL NORMS.

IMPEACHMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE EMBEDDED P THE ACTUAL LAWS OF THE LAND BUT RETURNED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IN THE MEANTIME AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL DNA AND POLITICAL CULTURE HAD CHANGED.

EVEN WITH THE DAWN OF THE NEW CENTURY, 21st CENTURY IMPEACHMENT REMAINED ON THE LIPS OF COUNT LESS AMERICAS AND ECHOED FREQUENTLY IN THE PEOPLES HOUSE.

THE IMPEACHMENT HABIT PROVED TO BE HARD TO KICK.

IRONICALLY WHILE THIS HAPPENED HERE AT HOME ACROSS THE ATLANTIC THE USE OF ITCH PEOPLEMENT AS A WEAPON DISAPPEARED.

FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM WHERE WE INHERITED THE PROCESS IMPEACHMENT WAS FIRST USED TWO CENTURIES BEFORE THE FIRST SETTLERS CROSSED THE ATLANTIC.

BUT UPON THOUGHTFUL EXAMINATION A NUMBER OF MODERN DAY PARLIAMENT COMMITTEES LOOKED AND FOUND IMPEACHMENT TO BE OBSO OBSOLETE.

AMONG OTHER CRITICISMS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT CAME TO THE VIEW THAT THE PRACTICE WHICH LAST WAS ATTEMPTD IN BRITON IN 1868 FAILS TO MEET MODERN PROCEDURE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS.

FAIRNESS.

AS SIR WILLIAM McKAY RECENTLY REMARKED, IMPEACHMENT IN BRITAIN IS DEAD.

HERE AT HOME IN THE WORLD'S LONGEST STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC INSTEAD OF A ONCE IN A CENTURY PHENOMENON WHICH IT HAD BEEN.

PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT HAS BECOME A WEAPON TO BE YIELDED TKPWEFPBTS A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

IN HER THOUGHTFUL WALLSTREET JOURNAL OP ED A WEEK AGO SATURDAY PEGGY NUNAN WROTE THIS.

IMPEACHMENT HAS NOW BEEN NORMALIZED.

IT WON'T BE A ONCE IN A GENERATION ACT, BUT AN EVERY ADMINISTRATION ACT.

DEMOCRATS WILL REGRET IT WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE HANDING OUT THE PENS.

THE PENS OF THE SIGNING CEREMONY.

WHEN WE LOOK BACK DOWN THE CORRIDORS OF TIME WE SEE THAT FOR HMM OUR FIRST CENTURY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC THE SWORD OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT REMAINED SHIVVED.

-- THINK OF ANDREW JACKSON AND HENRY CLAY.

PARTISAN PASSIONS OCCASIONALLY INFLAMED DURING THAT FIRST CENTURY?

OF COURSE.

UNLESS THERE BE A DOUBT THE EARLY CONGRESSES FULL WELL KNEW HOW TO SUM AN IMPEACHMENT TO THE FLOOR.

INCLUDING AGAINST A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.

SENATOR WILLIAM BLAUNT OF TENNESSEE.

THE UNSUCCESSFUL IMPEACHMENT AGAINST SAMUEL CHASE.

ACQUITTED BY THIS CHAMBER.

BECAME AN EARLY LANDMARK IN MAINTAINING THE TREASURED INDEPENDENCE OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

IT TOOK THE NATIONAL CONVULSION OF THE CIVIL WAR, ASSASSINATION OF MR. LINCOLN, AND THE COUNTER RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED BY MR. LINCOLN'S SUCCESSOR ANDREW JOHNSON TO BRING ABOUT THE NATION'S VERY FIRST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

FAMOUSLY OF COURSE YOUR PREDECESSORS IN THIS HIGH COURT OF IMPEACH BEMENT ACQUITTED THE UNPOPULAR AND CONTROVERSIAL JOHNSON.

ONLY BY VIRTUE BY SENATORS OF THE PARTY OF LINCOLN BREAKING RANKS.

IT WAS OVER A CENTURY LATER THAT THE NATION WOULD TURN TO THE TUMULTUOUS WORLD OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

NECESSITATED BY THE RANK CRIMINALITY OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

RAPIDLY UNFOLDING FACTS, INCLUDING UNCOVERED BY THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.

AN OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN VOTE OF 410 TO 4 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRERY.

IN 1974 THE HOUSE DUE DISH AREAY COMMITTEE AFTER LENGTHILY HEARINGS VOTED AGAIN IN A BIPARTISAN MATTER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IMPORTANTLY PRESIDENT NIXON'S PARTY WAS MOVING TOWARDS FAVORING THE REMOVAL OF THEIR CHOSEN LEADER FROM THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.

WHO JUST WON REELECTIONS BY A LANDSLIDE.

IT BEARS EMPHASIS BEFORE THIS HIGH COURT, THIS WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

IT ALSO BEARS EMPHASIS IT WAS POWERFULLY BIPARTISAN, AND IT WASN'T JUST THE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

INDEED THE HOUSE SKWROU DISH AREAY CHAIR WAS INSISTENT TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE PROCESS HAD TO BE BIPARTISAN.

LIKE WAR, IMPEACHMENT IS HELL.

OR AT LEAST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS HELL.

TTHOSE OF US LIVING YOU THIS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THIS BODY FULL WELL UNDERSTAND THAT A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT MOUNTS TO DOMESTIC WAR.

THANKFULLY PROTECTED BY OUR BE LOVED FIRST AMENDMENT, A WAR OF WORDS, A WAR OF IDEAS.

IT'S FILLED WITH ACRIMONY AND DIVIDES THE COUNTRY LIKE NOTHING ELSE.

THOSE LIVING YOU THIS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT UNDERSTAND THAT IN A DEEP AND PERSONAL WAY.

NOW IN CONTRAST WISELY AND JUDICIOUSLY CONDUCTED UNLIKE THE UNITED KINGDOM IMPEACHMENT IS A VITAL CHECK WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

AFTER ALL IN THE CONSTITUTION'S BRILLIANT STRUCTURAL DESIGN FEDERAL JUDGES KNOW THIS BODY AS WELL IT KNOWS FROM IT'S DAILY WORK A PIVOTALLY IMPORTANT FEATURE, INDEPENDENCE FROM POLITICS.

EXACTLY WHAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS TALKING ABOUT IN FEDERALIST 78.

DURING THE CONSTITUTIONS TERM, GOOD BEHAVIOR AND PRACTICAL EFFECT LIFE TENURE.

IMPEACHMENT IS THUS A VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTION FOR WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST WHAT COULD BE SERIOUS ARTICLE THREE WRONG DOING WITHIN THAT BRANCH.

SO IT IS WHEN YOU COUNT OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT INQUIRE HE'S AUTHORIZED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVER OUR HISTORY, ONLY EIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED IN THIS HIGH COURT AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

EACH AND EVERY ONE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE.

THIS HISTORY LEAVES ME TO REFLECT ON THE NATURE OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES HERE IN THE HIGH COURT AS JUDGES IN THE CONTEXT OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THE FOURTH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, I'M COUNTING THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS, IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY.

BUT THE THIRD OVER THE PAST HALF CENTURY.

I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE SENATE IN IT'S WISDOM WOULD DO WELL IN IT'S DELIBERATIONS TO GUIDE THE NATION IN THIS WORLD'S GREATEST -- TO RETURN TO OUR COUNTRY'S TRADITIONS WHEN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WAS TRULY A MEASURE OF LAST RESORT.

MEMBER PERS OF THIS BODY CAN HELP AND END THIS VERY PROCEEDING, RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL TRADITIONS.

ABOVE ALL BY RETURN TO GET TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, ITSELF.

IT CAN DO SO BY IT'S EXAMPLE HERE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN WEAVING THE TAPESTRY OF WHAT CAN RIGHTLY BE CALLED THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S WHAT COURTS DO.

THEY WEAVE THE COMMON LAW.

THERE ARE INDICATIONS WHERE THERE IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT THAT THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS APPROPRIATE TO BE ASKED, IF FAMILIAR WITH THE ARGUMENTS, WAS THERE A CRIME OR OTHER VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW ALLEGED.

LET'S TURN TO THE TEXT THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION'S DESCRIPTION OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE TEXT SPEAKS ALWAYS, ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION IN TERMS OF CRIMES.

IT BEGINS OF COURSE WITH TREASON, THE GREATEST OF CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE AND AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE.

SO MISUSED AS A BLUDGEON IN PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCES TO LEAD THE FOUNDERS TO ACTUALLY DEFINE THE TERM IN THE KOBS AT TCONSTITUTION, ITSELF.

BRIBERY, A FORM OF LEGAL AND MORAL CORRUPTION.

ON THE BASIS OF SO MANY OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OVER THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY.

AGAIN ALMOST ALL OF THEM AGAINST JUDGES.

AND THEN THE MYSTERIOUS TERMS OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ONCE AGAIN THE LANGUAGE IS EMPLOYING THE LANGUAGE OF CRIMES.

THE CONSTITUTION IS SPEAKING TO US IN TERMS OF CRIMES.

EACH OF THOSE REFERENCES, WHEN YOU COUNT THEM.

COUNT SEVEN, COUNT EIGHT.

SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF OFFENSES AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW.

SPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENCY, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT A POLITICAL OFFICER NO MATTER HOW HONEST, NO MATTER HOW IMPARTIAL TO PRESIDE A TRIAL.

GUIDED BY HISTORY THE FRAMERS MADE A DELIBERATE AND WISE CHOICE TO CABIN, TO CONSTRAIN, TO LIMIT THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO IT WAS ON THE VERY EVE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON THE IMMINENT SCHOLAR AND DEAN OF THE COLUMBIAN LAW SCHOOL, THEODORE DWIGHT WROTE THIS, THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS THAT NO IMPEACHMENT WILL LIE ACCEPT FOR A TRUE CRIME, A BREACH OF A LAW BEING THE SUBJECT OF INDICTMENT.

I'M NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

I'M NOTING WHAT HE IS SAYING.

HE DIDN'T OVER ARGUE THE CASE.

HE SAID THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.

THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.

SO THIS ISSUE IS A WEIGHTY ONE.

HAS THE HOUSE OF HREP RECENT STIFFS, WITH ALL DO RESPECT N THESE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGED A CRIME OR VIOLATION OF A ESTABLISHING LAW OR NOT.

THIS S I DON'T WANT TO OVER ARGUE, AN APPROPRIATE AND WEIGHTY CONVERSATION FOR THE SEVENTH.

AS THE CASE I'M TRYING TO EMPHASIZE NOT AS A FEDERAL JUDGE BUT OF A PRESIDENT.

COURTS CONSIDER CREDENTIAL FACTORS.

THERE IS A HUGE CREDENTIAL FACTOR THAT THIS TRIAL IS OCCURRING IN AN ELECTION YEAR WHERE WE THE PEOPLE IN A MATTER OF MONTHS WILL GO TO THE POLLS.

IN DEVELOPING THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THIS THRESHOLD FACTOR CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY AND IMPEACHMENTS AS I WILL SEEK TO DEMONSTRATE, SERVE AS A CLEAR AND STAEUBIZING ELEMENT INCREASING PREDICTABILITY TO DO WHAT?

TO REDUCE THE PROFOUND DANGER THAT A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WILL BE DOMINATED BIPARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS, PRECISELY THE EVIL THAT THE FRAMERS WARNED ABOUT.

SO TO HISTORY.

HISTORY BEARS OUT THE POINT, THE NATION'S MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE, THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

EVEN THOUGH SEVERELY CRITICIZED CHARGES CRIMES.

THESE ARE CRIMES PROVEN IN THE CRUCIBLE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE OBSERVER'S DOUBT.

SO TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

THE ARTICLES CHARGED CRIMES.

WHAT ABOUT ARTICLE TWO IN NIXON WHICH IS SOMETIMES REFER TO AS ABUSE OF POWER.

THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE.

THE PRECURSOR OF ARTICLE ONE BEFORE THIS COURT.

NOT AT ALL.

WHEN ONE RETURNS TO ARTICLE TWO.

NIXON APPROVED BY A BIPARTISAN HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

ARTICLE TWO OF NIXON SETS FORTH A DEEPLY TROUBLING STORY OF NUMEROUS CRIMES.

NOT ONE, NOT TWO NUMEROUS CRIMES.

CARRIED OUT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

SO, THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION, WERE CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLES OF COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OF NIXON?

YES.

IN CLINTON?

YES.

HERE?

NO.

A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE JUDGES IN THE HIGH COURT COME AS YOU WILL INDIVIDUALLY TO YOUR JUDGMENT.

EVEN IN THE POLITICAL CAULDRON OF THE ANDREW JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE 11 CHARGED A VIOLATION OF OF THE ANDREW JACKSON IMPEACHMENT, THAT ACT WARRANT EXPRESSLY THE OVAL OFFICE THAT THE VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A HIGH MISDEMEANOR EMPLOYING THE VERY LANGUAGE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY COGNIZABLE CRIMES.

THIS HISTORY REPRESENTS AND I BELIEVE MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT EMBODIES THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THESE ARE FACTS GLEANED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND FROM THE GLOSS OF THE NATION'S HISTORY.

UNDER THIS VIEW THE COMMISSION OF AN ALLEGED CRIME OR VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW CAN APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED AGAIN A WEIGHTY AND AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AND ELEMENT OF A HISTORICALLY SUPPORTABLE PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

WELL, LAW PROFESSORS AGREE WITH TH THIS?

NO.

BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE ACADEMY, THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC INQUI INQUIRY.

WE'RE IN COURT.

WE'RE NOT JUST IN COURT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, WE'RE IN DEMOCRACY'S ULTIMATE COURT.

THE BETTER CONSTITUTIONAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS PROVIDED BY A RIGOROUS AND FAITHFUL EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND THEN LOOKING FAITHFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY TO OUR HISTORY.

THE VERY DIVISIVE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT WHILE HIGHLY RELEVANT, THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS BY NO MEANS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE REMOVAL OF OUR DUTY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

WHY?

THIS BODY KNOWS.

WE APPOINT JUDGES AND YOU CONFIRM THEM AND THEY'RE THERE FOR LIFE.

NOT PRESIDENTS.

THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.

THE PRESIDENCY STANDS ALONE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK.

BEFORE HE BECAME THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, JOHN MARSHALL THEN SITTING AS A MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE MADE A SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

AND THERE HE SAID THIS.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE ORGAN OF THE NATION AND ITS SOLE REPRESENTATIVE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

IF THAT SOUNDS LIKE HYPERBOLE, IT'S BEEN EMBRACED OVER DECADES BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BY JUSTICES APPOINTED BY MANY DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS.

THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.

THERE'S NO OTHER SYSTEM QUITE LIKE OURS.

IT HAS SERVED US WELL.

AND SO AS TO THE PRESIDENCY, IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL NOT ONLY OVERTURNS A NATIONAL ELECTION AND PERHAPS PROFOUNDLY AFFECTS AN UPCOMING ELECTION, IN THE WORDS OF YALE'S AKHEEL AMAR, IT ENTAILS RISK -- AND THESE ARE HIS WORDS "GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT."

THOSE WORDS WERE PENNED WITH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE.

GRAVE DISRUPTION.

WE WILL ALL AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENTS UNDER THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS AMENDMENTS ARE TO SERVE OUT THEIR TERM.

ABSENT A GENUINE NATIONAL CONSENSUS, REFLECTED BY THE 2/3s MAJORITY REQUIREMENT OF THIS COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST GO AWAY.

2/3s.

IN POLITICS, AND IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S CALLED A LANDSLIDE.

HERE I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT ALL FAIR-MINDED PERSONS WILL SURELY AGREE, THERE'S NO NATIONAL CONSENSUS.

WE MIGHT WISH FOR ONE.

BUT THERE'S THERE ISN'T.

TO THE CONTRARY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICA'S MODERN HISTORY, NOT A SINGLE HOUSE MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY SUPPORTED EITHER OF THE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

NOT ONE, NOT IN COMMITTEE, NOT ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

THAT PIVOTAL FACT PUTS IN BOLD RELIEF THE RADINO PRINCIPAL, CALL IT THE RADINO RULE, MUST BE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.

AGAIN, SITTING AS A COURT, THIS BODY SHOULD SIGNAL TO THE NATION THE RETURN TO OUR TRADITIONS.

BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

WILL THE PRESIDENT BE KING?

DO OVERSIGHT.

THE TRADITION OF OVERSIGHT.

AN ENORMOUS CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY AND IT CONTINUES AVAILABLE TODAY.

IN IRAN CONTRA, NO IMPEACHMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN.

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, A DEMOCRAT, JIM WRIGHT FROM TEXAS, FROM FORT WORTH WHERE THE WEST BEGINS KNEW BETTER.

HE SAID NO.

BY THIS BEFITS THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN WAS INTRODUCED.

IT WAS FILED.

AND THE EFFORT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS SUPPORTED BY LEADING LAW PROFESSOR WHOSE NAME YOU WOULD WELL-RECOGNIZE AND YOU'LL HEAR IT AGAIN THIS EVENING FROM PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ.

I'LL LEAVE IT TO HIM TO IDENTIFY, THE LEARNED PROFESSOR.

BUT THE SPEAKER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE ECHOING PETER RODINO SAID NO.

SO I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE SENATE SHOULD CLOSE THIS CHAPTER, THIS IDIOSYNCRATIC CHAPTER ON THIS INCREASINGLY DISRUPTIVE ACT, THIS ERA, THIS AGE OF RESORT TO THE CONSTITUTION'S ULTIMATE DEMOCRATIC WEAPONRFOR THE PRESIDENCY.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE THERE WAS A GREAT JUSTICE WHO SAT FOR 30 YEARS, JUSTICE JOHN HARLAND.

MID CENTURY OF THE 20th CENTURY.

AND IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING A VERY BASIC QUESTION CONSIDERS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY BEEN VIOLATED BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND AGENTS BRING AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

CONGRESS HAS NOT SO PROVIDED.

NO LAW THAT GAVE THE WOUNDED CITIZEN A RIGHT TO REDRESS THROUGH DAMAGES.

IN A MAGNIFICENT CONCURRING OPINIONS WITH BIVENS AND SIX UNNAMED FEDERAL AGENTS SUGGESTED THAT COURTS -- HERE YOU ARE -- SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN REACHING ITS JUDGMENT, THEIR JUDGMENT WHAT HE CALLED FACTORS COUNSELLING RESTRAINT.

HE WAS SOMEWHAT RELUCTANT TO SAY THAT WE, THE SUPREME COURT, SHOULD GRANT THIS RIGHT AND CREATE IT WHEN CONGRESS HAS ENACTED AND COULD COULD HAVE ACTED BUT IT HADN'T.

BUT HE RELUCTANTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF EMPOWERED THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CREATE THIS RIGHT FOR OUR INJURED CITIZENS.

TO GIVE THEM REDRESS, NOT JUST AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BUT DAMAGES, MONEY RECOVERY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

FACTORS COUNSELLING RESTRAINT.

HE ADDRESSED THEM AND CAME TO YOU THE VIEW AND SO HONEST AND SAID I CAME TO THE CASE WITH A DIFFERENT VIEW BUT I CHANGED MY MIND AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BIVENS FAMILY HAVING REDRESS AGAINST THE FEDERAL AGENTS THAT HAD VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS.

JUDGING IN ITS MOST IMPARTIAL ELEGANT SENSE.

I'M GOING TO DRAW FROM JUSTICE HARLAN'S MATRIX AND SIMPLY IDENTIFY THESE.

I THINK THERE MAY BE OTHERS.

THE ARTICLES DO NOT CHARGE A CRIME.

I'M SUGGESTING IT'S A RELEVANT FACTOR, I THINK.

IT'S A WEIGHTY FACTOR.

SECONDLY, THE ARTICLES COME TO YOU WITH NO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

THEY COME TO YOU AS A VIOLATION OF WHAT I'M DOCKET NUMBERING THE RODINO RULE.

THIRD, I WILL NOW DISCUSS THE PIVOTALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE OF PROCESS.

THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THIS COURT IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON.

ITS JUNE -- UNANIMITY IN RECOGNIZING THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUSTICE.

THE JUSTICES WERE MAN NEWS.

THIS IS A CONTRIVANCE BUILT INTO THE ORDER.

SO LET ME COMMENT BRIEFLY.

THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY-BASED RECOGNITION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND COMPANION PRIVILEGES, DELIBERATE PROCESS PRIVILEGE.

THE IMMUNITY OF CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISERS FROM BEING SUMMONED TO TESTIFY.

THESE ARE ALL FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN OUR LAW.

IF THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE ON DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES AND THERE'S IN EACH AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION, THEN GO TO COURT.

IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

I DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT.

HERE'S THE POINT I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE.

FREQUENTLY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ADVISES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENCY CALLS WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT MIGHT WANT TO DO AS A POLITICAL MATTER, AS A SPIRIT OF COMEDY TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

I'VE HEARD IT IN MY TWO TOURS OF DUTY AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

DON'T RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS, MR. PRESIDENT.

IF YOU DO, YOU'RE INJURING THE PRESIDENCY.

GO TO COURT.

WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS BE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE LITIGATION MIGHT TAKE.

THOSE OF US THAT HAVE LITIGATED KNOWS THAT LITIGATION TAKE LONGER THAN WE WOULD LIKE.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT OUR HISTORY, CHURCHILL'S MAXIM STUDIED HISTORY.

OUR HISTORY TELLS US THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SO.

TAKE BY WAY OF EXAMPLE THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE.

ORDERS ISSUED PREVENTING AND SANCTION AGO GROSS VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

AN ORDER ISSUED OUT OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUNE 15 OF 1971.

THAT ORDER WAS REVERSED IN AN OPINION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TWO WEEKS LATER.

JUNE 15.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PATH, COULD HAVE SOUGHT EXPEDITION.

THE COURTHOUSE IS SIX BLOCKS DOWN.

THE JUDGES ARE THERE.

THEY'RE ALL VERY ABLE.

THEY'RE HARD WORKING.

PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY.

FOLLOW THE PATH, FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE LAW.

GO TO COURT.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST ONE PROBLEM HAD THE HOUSE SEEN FIT TO GO TO COURT AND REMAIN IN COURT.

THE ISSUE IS BEFORE YOU.

BUT AMONG OTHER FLAWS, ALL OF THIS LEGAL COUNSEL DETERMINED AND I READ THE OPINION AND I BELIEVE IT'S CORRECT THAT WITH ALL RESPECT, ALL HOUSE SUBPOENAED ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME AUTHORIZED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS A HOUSE, ALL THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID.

THEY WERE VOID.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ALL OF HER ABILITIES AND HER VAST EXPERIENCE, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION SHE WAS POWERLESS TO DO WHAT SHE PURPORTED TO DO.

AS HAS BEEN SAID TIME AND AGAIN, THE CONSTITUTION DOES ENTRUST THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

BUT THAT'S THE HOUSE.

IT'S 435 MEMBERS ELECTED FROM ACROSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

NOT ONE NO MATTER HOW ABLE SHE MAY BE.

AND THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE EVERY CONGRESS PERSON GETS A VOTE.

WE KNOW THE CONCEPT.

ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

MORE GENERALLY, THE PRESIDENT AS I REVIEWED THE RECORD HAS CONSISTENTLY AND SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IN PARTICULAR THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.

HE'S BEEN OBEDIENT.

AS YOU KNOW, THAT IMPORTANT OFFICE, MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES PROFESSIONALLY WITH THAT OFFICE, IS STAFFED WITH LAWYERS OF GREAT ABILITY, IT HAS A REPUTATION FOR SUPERINTENDENT PURPOSE WORK.

IT HAS DONE SUCH THOUGHTFUL WORK IN DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.

THE OFFICE IS NOW HEADED BY A BRILLIANT LAWYER THAT SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY.

THE HOUSE MAY DISAGREE WITH THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE PRESIDENT BY THAT OFFICE.

THE HOUSE FREQUENTLY DOES DISAGREE.

FOR THE PRESIDENT THE FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO AN INTERBRANCH LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE CANNOT REASONABLY BE VIEWED AS AN OBSTRUCTION.

MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

HISTORY ONCE AGAIN IS A GREAT TEACHER.

IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REJECTED A DRAFT ARTICLE ASSERTING THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HERE ARE THE WORDS OF THE DRAFT ARTICLE, FRAUDULENTLY AND CORRUPTLY ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

STRONG WORDS.

FRAUDULENTLY AND CORRUPTLY.

THAT WAS THE DRAFT ARTICLE.

IN MY VIEW, HAVING LIVED THROUGH THE FACTS AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT, HE DID.

HE DID IT TIME AGAIN.

MONTH AFTER MONTH.

WE WOULD GO TO COURT.

WE WOULD WIN.

AND MANY MEMBERS, NOT EVERYBODY, ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD INDEED IMPROPERLY CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, REBUFFED TIME AND AGAIN BY THE JUDICIARY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT COMMITTEE CHAIRED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE CHAIRED BY HENRY HYDE WISELY CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON'S DOING SO SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

HERE'S THE IDEA.

IT IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEFEND THE ASSERTED LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THIS IS AND I'M QUOTING HERE FROM PAGE 55 OF THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL BRIEF A FUNCTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY JUDGMENTS.

NOT JUST A POLICY JUDGMENT, BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT.

I WOULD GUIDE THIS COURT AS ITS COM COMING THROUGH THE DELIBERATION PROCESS TO READ THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL BRIEF WITH RESPECT TO PROCESS.

IT WAS JUSTICE FELIX FRANKFURTER, CONFIDENT OF F.D.R., BRILLIANT JURIST, WHO REMINDED AMERICA THAT THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY IS IN LARGE MEASURE THE HISTORY OF PROCESS.

OF PROCEDURE.

AND IN PARTICULAR, I WOULD GUIDE THE HIGH COURT TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE LONG HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVER TWO CENTURIES IN PROVIDING DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS IN ITS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS.

ORIGINALLY HISTORIC DISCUSSION, THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU CAN READ THE CORE OF IT IN FOUR PAGES.

PAGES 62 TO 66 OF THE TRIAL BRIEF.

PUTS IN BOLD RELIEF I BELIEVE IN IRREFUTABLE FACT, THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH ALL RESPECT SOFT HIT TO TURN ITS BACK ON ITS OWN ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, PROCEDURES THAT HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FAITHFULLY DECADE AFTER DECADE REGARDLESS OF WHO WAS IN CONTROL.

REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY.

ALL OF THOSE PROCEDURES WERE TORN ASUNDER.

ALL OVER VIGOROUS INCEPTIONS FROM THE UNANIMOUS AND VOCAL MINORITY.

I NEED NOT REMIND THIS COURT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY, MINORITY RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT.

MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD BE PROTECTED EQUAL JUSTICE.

AGAIN, THE HOUSE MEMBERS TOOK NO OATH TO BE IMPARTIAL.

THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T REQUIRE THEM TO SAY BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION THAT WILL DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

WHEN THEY CHOSE TO TEAR ASUNDER THE PROCEDURES, THEY WERE OATHLESS.

RAW POWER.

HERE WE HAVE TRAGICALLY FOR THE COUNTRY AND I BELIEVE TRAGICALLY FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN ARTICLE 2 OF THESE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES A RUN-AWAY HOUSE.

IT IS RUN AWAY.

NOT ONLY FROM ITS LONGSTANDING PROCEDURES, ITS RUN AWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTION'S DEMAND OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, CAPTURED IN THOSE HALLOWED TERMS, DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

WE'VE CARED ABOUT THIS AS AN ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE SINCE MAGNA CARTA.

BY DOING SO, HOWEVER, THE HOUSE HAS INADVERTENTLY POINTED THIS COURT TO AN EXIT RAMP.

IT'S AN EXIT RAMP PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

IT'S AN EXIT RAMP BUILT BY THE MOST NOBLE OF BUILDERS, THE FOUNDING GENERATION.

DESPITE THE CLEAREST PRECEDENT REQUIRING DUE PROCESS FOR THE ACCUSED IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

TRULY ALL THE MORE SO IN A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHOSE TO CONDUCT A HOLY UNPRECEDENED PROCESS IN THIS CASE.

THEY DID SO KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY BECAUSE THEY WERE WARNED AT EVERY TURN.

DON'T DO IT.

DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

AND PROCESS.

THE PRESIDENT BEING DENIED THE BASIC RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO EVERY SINGLE ACCUSED PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.

EVEN TO THE RACIST ANDREW JOHNSON.

SEEKING TO UNDUE MR. LINCOLN'S GREAT LEGACY.

HE GOT THOSE RIGHTS.

BUT NOT HERE.

DUE PROCESS COULD HAVE BEEN HONORED.

THE HOUSE RULES COULD HAVE BEEN HONORED.

WHAT IS DONE IS DONE.

THESE TWO ARTICLES COME BEFORE THIS COURT, THIS HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, DRIPPING WITH FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS VIOLATIONS.

THE COURTS ARE CONFRONTED WITH THIS KIND OF PHENOMENON, A TRAIN OF FAIRNESS VIOLATIONS.

COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY DO THE RIGHT THING.

THEY DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

THEY INVOKE FIGURATIVELY WORDS OF AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION.

THE VERY FIRST ORDER OF OUR GOVERNMENT AFTER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION IS TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE EVEN BEFORE GETTING TO THE WORDS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, TO ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY.

THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS IN TERMS OF JUSTICE.

ESTABLISHING JUSTICE.

THE COURTS WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS.

THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS BECAUSE WHY?

THEY KNEW AND THEY KNOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF OUR FOUNDING INSTRUMENT IS TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES.

TO SAFEGUARD US, BUT TO SAFEGUARD US AS INDIVIDUALS.

AGAINST THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.

WHY?

IN THE BENEDICTORY WORDS OF THE PREAMBLE, TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR PROSTERITY.

LIBERTY UNDER LAW.

I THANK THE COURT.

>> MR. SEKULOW?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS.

JUDGE STARR LAID OUT BEFORE YOU THE SOLEMN NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

I WANT TO CONTRAST THE SOLEMN NATURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT BEFORE US FROM A BOTH HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE.

I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS, THE HISTORY, THE IMPORTANCE, THE SOLEMNITY OF WHAT WE'RE ENGAGED HERE IN THIS GREAT BODY WITH WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE SIGNING OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

PENS DISTRIBUTED TO THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS.

A CELEBRATORY MOMENT.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

THINK ABOUT THIS.

A POIGNANT MOMENT.

WE'RE NEXT GOING TO ADDRESS A FACTUAL ANALYSIS TO BRIEFLY REFLECT MY COLLEAGUE THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MIKE POPURA WILL BE JOINING US IN A MOMENT TO DISCUSS MORE OF THE FACTS, TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD SATURDAY.

LET ME JUST RECAP VERY QUICKLY WHAT WAS LAID OUT ON SATURDAY.

FIRST, THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION EITHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A MEANING ON ANYTHING.

THE PAUSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL.

SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

NO PRESSURE ON THEM TO REVIEW ANYTHING.

THIRD, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIGH-RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED TILL THE END OF AUGUST, OVER A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL.

FOURTH, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY INVESTIGATION AND SECURE.

FIFTH, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 11th IN PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 25th WITHOUT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

FINALLY, IN THE BLIND DRIVE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP IN REALITY STRATEGICALLY HAS BEEN THE BEST FRIEND AND SUPPORTER OF THE UKRAINIAN IN OUR RECENT HISTORY.

THESE ARE THE FACTS.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU.

DEPUTY WISE HOUSE COUNSEL WILL NOW ADDRESS ADDITIONAL FACTS RELATED TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THANK YOU.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. LEADER, I BELIEVE WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS IF IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL.

ON SATURDAY, WE WALKED THROUGH SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUT FOR WARD AND DIDN'T PUT FORWARD DURING THEIR 21-PLUS HOURS OF PRESENTATION.

THAT EVIDENCE WE RECOUNTED WAS DRAWN DIRECTLY FROM THE HOUSE MAN MANAGER'S OWN RECORD.

THE CASE THAT THEY CHOSE TO SUBMIT TO THIS CHAMBER.

TO ECHO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. SEKULOW, BRIEFLY THE HOUSE MANAGERS' OWN EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT CONDITION ANYTHING ON INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND DID NOT EVEN MENTION THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE CALL.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THAT HE FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT LEARN OF THE PAUSE ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL.

AND THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OWN RECORD, THEIR RECORD, THAT THEY DEVELOPED AND BROUGHT BEFORE THIS CHAMBER REFLECTS THAT ANYONE THAT SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT SAID THE PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.

THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DISTINCT AND UNRELATED TO INVESTIGATIONS.

THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS EVER ANNOUNCES ANY INVESTIGATIONS OR UNDERTAKING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

HERE'S AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> THE FACT IS, THE AID WAS GIVEN TO UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IN FACT MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN SEPTEMBER AT THE UNITED NATIONS, CORRECT?

>> HE DID.

>> AND THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THIS MEET SOMETHING.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THIS MEET SOMETHING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO WHILE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED, THEY DID WHAT YOU EXPECT.

THEY ADDRESSED THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE TWO ISSUES THAT I MENTIONED SATURDAY.

BURDEN SHARING AND CORRUPTION.

A NUMBER OF LAW AND POLICY MAKERS ALSO CONTACTED THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROVIDE I'M PUT ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ISSUE DURING THIS PERIOD, INCLUDING SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM.

THE PROCESS CULMINATED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.

ON THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT SPOKE WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND SENATOR ROB PORTMAN.

THE VICE PRESIDENT IN TIM MORRISON'S WORDS WAS ARMED WITH HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FROM THEIR MEETING JUST DAYS EARLIER IN WARSAW, POLAND AND BOTH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SENATOR PORTMAN RELATED THEIR VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND CONVINCED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE AID SHOULD BE DISBURSED IMMEDIATELY.

AFTER THE MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP TERMINATED THE PAUSE AND THE SUPPORT FLOWED TO UKRAINE.

I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK NOW AND TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHY THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BRIEFLY PAUSED.

AGAIN IN THE WORDS OF THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OWN WITNESSES.

WITNESS AFTER WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT CONFRONTING UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION WOULD BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR RIP POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE.

THEY ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD LONGSTANDING AND SINCERE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND UKRAINE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD YOU IT WAS LAUGHABLE TO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOLCKER, PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE BASED ON PAST CORRUPTION.

THAT IS A REASONABLE POSITION ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR VOLCKER.

MOST PEOPLE THAT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD THINK THAT.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT I THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY QUITE PUBLICLY SAID THAT HE WAS VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

IN FACT, HE'S NOT ALONE.

BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS EXPRESSED GREAT CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN WITH CORRUPTION IS DISINGENUOUS.

THEY SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 2017 OR 2018 AND HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT IN 2019.

THAT WAS THEIR WORDS.

NOT ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHARED HIS CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT POROSCHENKO IN THE FIRST MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

WHEN WAS THAT?

IN JUNE OF 2017.

THE PRESIDENT ALSO HAS WELL KNOWN CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN AID GENERALLY.

SCRUTINIZING IN SOME CASES CURTAILING FOREIGN AID WITH A CENTRAL PLANK OF HIS CAMPAIGN PLATFORM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ESPECIALLY WEARY OF SENDING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS ABROAD WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES REFUSE TO PITCH IN.

MR. MORRISON AND MR. HAIL TESTIFIED AT LENGTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN WITH BURDEN SHARING IN FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS.

HERE'S WHAT THEY SAID.

>> THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE UNITED STATES SEEMED TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, HE WANTED TO SEE THE EUROPEANS STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE MORE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> WE'VE OFTEN HEARD AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IS REVIEWED SCRUPULOUSLY TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN NATIONAL INTERESTS.

>> HAS THE PRESIDENT EXPECTS THAT HE EXPECTS OUR ALLIES TO GIVE THEIR SHARE OF FOREIGN AID OF EVIDENCE BY A POINT THAT HE RAISED IN THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THAT EFFECT?

>> THE PRINCIPAL OF GREATER BURDEN SHARING OF OTHER ALLY STAYS IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REVIEW.

>> THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED THESE PRECISE CONCERNS TO SENATOR RON JOHNSON WHO WROTE, "HE REMIND ED ME HOW CORRUPT UKRAINE WAS AND COMMITTED HIS FRUSTRATION THAT EUROPE DOESN'T DO ITS FAIR SHARE OF PROVIDING MILITARY AID."

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THIS.

WHY NOT?

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED THAT OTHER COUNTRIES WERE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

AS LAURA COOPER TEMPERATURES, U.S.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO UKRAINE ARE FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY AND SHE ALSO SAID E.U.

FUNDS TEND TO BE ON THE ECONOMIC SITE RATHER THAN FOR DEFENSE AND SECURITY.

SENATOR JOHNSON ALSO CONFIRMED THAT OTHER COUNTRIES REFUSE TO PROVIDE DEFENSIVE WEAPONS THAT THE UKRAINE NEEDS WITH ITS WAR WITH RUSSIA.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND ALSO THAT THE PAUSE OF THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WAS FAR FROM UNUSUAL OR OUT OF CHARACTER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN AID AND THAT ONE OF HIS TOM CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND PRIORITIES IN OFFICE HAS BEEN TO AVOID WASTEFUL SPENDING OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ABROAD.

MEANWHILE, THE SAME PEOPLE THAT TODAY CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WERE UPSET WHEN -- YES, AS A CANDIDATE PRESIDENT TRUMP CRITICIZED FREE-RIDING BY NATO MEMBERS.

THIS PAST SUMMER THE ADMINISTRATION PAUSED, REVIEWED AND IN SOME CASES CANCELLED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FOREIGN AID TO AFGHANISTAN, EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA AND LEBANON.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN AT THE VERY SAME TIME THAT THE UKRAINE AID WAS PAUSED.

SO WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME WHILE THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED?

PEOPLE WERE GATHERING INFORMATION AND MONITORING THE FACTS ON THE GROUND THERE UKRAINE.

AS THE NEW PARLIAMENT WAS SWORN IN AND BEGAN INTRODUCING ANTI-CORRUPTION LEGISLATION.

NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THE REASON FOR THE PAUSE WAS NO SECRET WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE AGENCIES.

ACCORDING TO MR. MORRISON, IN A JULY MEETING ATTENDED BY OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, THE REASON PROVIDED FOR THE PAUSE BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT UKRAINE WAS DOING ENOUGH TO MANAGE THAT CORRUPTION.

IN FACT, AS MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED, BY LABOR DAY THERE HAD BEEN DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS COMMITTED TO THE ISSUES HE CAMPAIGNED ON, ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS.

MR. MORRISON ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WORKING ON ANSWERING THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS REGARDING BURDEN SHARING.

HERE'S MR. MORRISON.

>> WAS THERE ANY INTERAGENCY ACTIVITY, WHETHER IT'S WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT COORDINATION BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR THE PRESIDENT?

>> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO UNDERSTAND WHO WAS CONTRIBUTING WHAT AND SORT OF IN WHAT CATEGORIES.

>> AND SO THE PRESIDENT VENTED CONCERNS ON THE INTERAGENCY AND TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM?

>> YES.

>> HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS AWAITING INFORMATION ON BURDEN SHARING AND ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN THE UKRAINE BEFORE RELEASING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

PAUSE THAT'S WHAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2019, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SCHEDULED TO ATTEND THE WORLD WAR II COMMEMORATION IN POLAND, BUT INSTEAD REMAINED IN THE U.S. TO MANAGE THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO HURRICANE DORIAN.

REMEMBER, THIS WAS THREE DAYS, THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THROUGH THE POLITCO ARTICLE ABOUT THE REVIEW OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

JUST AS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND HIS AIDES ANTICIPATED.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT ONCE THE CAMERAS LEFT THE ROOM, THE VERY FIRST QUESTION PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD WAS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPONDED BY ASKING ABOUT TWO THINGS.

BURDEN SHARING AND CORRUPTION.

HERE'S HOW JENNIFER WILLIAMS DESCRIBED IT.

THE VP RESPONDED BY EXPRESSING OUR ON GOING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE BUT WANTING TO HEAR FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE STATUS OF HIS REFORM EFFORTS WERE, THAT HE COULD THEN CONVEY BACK TO THE PRESIDENT AND ALSO WANTING TO HEAR IF THERE WAS MORE THAT EUROPEAN COUNTRIES COULD DO TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE KNEW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO HEAR FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS ECHOING THE PRESIDENT'S TWO RECURRING THEMES.

CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING.

IT'S THE SAME CONSISTENT THEMES EVERY TIME.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECEIVED A SIMILAR READ-OUT OF THE MEETING BETWEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT'S FOCUS ON CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING.

HERE'S AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 1, I RECEIVED A READ-OUT OF THE PENCE-ZELENSKY MEETING OVER THE PHONE FROM MR. MORRISON DURING WHICH HE TOLD ME THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD OPENED THE MEETING BY IMMEDIATELY ASKING VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE SECURITY COOPERATION.

THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT RESPOND SUBSTANTIVELY BUT SAID HE WOULD TALK TO PRESIDENT RUMP THAT NIGHT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT DID SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO DO MORE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND THAT HE WANTED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO MORE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.

>> ON SEPTEMBER 11, BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AND PRESENTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT LIFTED THE PAUSE ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AS MR. MORRISON EXPLAINED, OUR PROCESS GAVE THE PRESIDENT THE CONFIDENCE THAT HE NEEDED TO APPROVE THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING IS A RUSE.

NOBODY KNEW WHY THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS OWN EVIDENCE, THEIR OWN RECORD TELLS A DIFFERENT STORY, HOWEVER.

THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THIS.

NOT IN 21 HOURS.

WHY NOT?

THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE.

THE PRESIDENT WASN'T CAUGHT AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE.

THE MANAGERS ARE WRONG.

ALL OF THIS TOGETHER WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED ON SATURDAY DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.

WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS REALIZED THAT THEIR QUID PRO QUO THEORY ON ASSISTANCE WAS FALLING APART, THEY CREATED A SECOND TEARY.

ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITIONED THAT MEETING ON INVESTIGATIONS.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE MANAGER'S BACKUP ACCUSATIONS?

DO THEY FAIR ANY BETTER THAN THEIR QUID PRO QUO FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

NO.

NO, THEY DON'T.

A PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL MEETING HAPPENED WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY IN A WIDELY TELEVISED MEETING AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2019.

THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING EARLIER AT THE WHITE HOUSE OR IN WARSAW, BUT THOSE OPTIONS FELL THROUGH DUE TO NORMAL SCHEDULING AND A HURRICANE.

THE TWO PRESIDENTS MET AT THE EARLIEST CONVENIENCE WITHOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER ANNOUNCING OR BEGINNING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

THE FIRST THING TO KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO FOR A MEETING IS THAT BY THE END OF THE JULY 25 CALL, THE PRESIDENT HAD INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS EACH TIME WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO AN IN-PERSON MEETING ON THEIR INITIAL APRIL 21 CALL.

WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED IN AND REDID,ED LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

MAY 29, THE WEEK AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT A CONGRATULATORY LETTER AGAIN INVITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

AS YOU PREPARE TO ADDRESS THE MANY CHALLENGES FACING UKRAINE, KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WITH YOU AND ARE COMMITTED TO HELPING UKRAINE REALIZE THEIR VAST POTENTIAL.

TO HELP THOUGH THAT COMMITMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO MEET WITH ME AT THE WHITE HOUSE IN WASHINGTON D.C. AS SOON AS WE CAN FIND A MUTUALLY CONVENIENT TIME.

THEN JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING FOR A THIRD TIME.

WHENEVER YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE, GIVE US A CALL.

I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU.

THAT'S THREE SEPARATE INVITATIONS FOR A MEETING ALL MADE WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.

DURING THIS TIME AND BEHIND THE SCENES, THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO SCHEDULE A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.

TIM MORRISON WHO'S RESPONSIBILITIES HELPING ARRANGE HEAD OF STATE VISITS TO THE WHITE HOUSE OR OTHER HEAD OF STATE MEETINGS TESTIFIED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT ARRANGING THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A DO-OUT THAT CAME FROM THE PRESIDENT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T MENTION THE WORK, DID THEY?

WHY NOT?

SCHEDULING A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TAKES TIME.

MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HIS DIRECTORATE HAD A DOZEN SCHEDULE REQUESTS IN WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS THAT YES LOOKING TO LAND AND UKRAINE WAS BUT ONE OF THOSE REQUESTS.

DUE TO BOTHS PRESIDENT'S BUSY SCHEDULES, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE FIRST MEETING WOULD BE IN WARSAW AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER.

THE ENTIRE NOTION THAT A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SOMEHOW CONDITIONED ON A STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS IS COMPLETELY DEFEATED BY ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD FACT.

A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PLANNED FOR SEPTEMBER 1 IN WARSAW.

THE SAME WARSAW MEETING THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS SAYING A WORD ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

AS IT TURNED OUT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN WARSAW BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DORIAN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO ATTEND IN HIS PLACE.

EVEN THAT SCHEDULING GLITCH DID NOT PUT OFF THEIR MEETING FOR LONG.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE, SEPTEMBER 25 ON THE SIDELINES OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAS SAID, THERE WERE NO PRECONDITIONS FOR HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.

NO CONDITIONS.

SO YOU'RE PROBABLY WONDERING HOW COULD THE HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS DID MEET WITHOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS?

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MOVED THE GOAL POSTS A GAME.

HEY CLAIM THE MEETING COULDN'T JUST BE AN IN-PERSON MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WHAT IT HAD TO BE WAS A MEETING AT THE OVAL OFFICE AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

THAT'S NONSENSE.

PUTTING THE ONE SIDE THE ABSURDITY OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM OFFICE BECAUSE HE MET A WORLD LEADER IN ONE LOCATION VERSUS ANOTHER, THIS THEORY HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.

AS DR. HILL TESTIFIED, WHAT MATTERED WAS THAT THERE WAS A BILATERAL PRESIDENTIAL MEETING, NOT THE LOCATION OF THE MEETING.

SHE SAID "IT WASN'T ALWAYS THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING PER SE, BUT DEFINITELY A PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL, YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH ZELENSKY AND THE PRESIDENT.

I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN POLAND, IN WARSAW.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW A PROPER BILATERAL IN SOME OTHER CONTEXT BUT YOU KNOW, A WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING."

THE WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY.

WHY NOT?

IN FACT, THEY SAID JUST LAST WEEK THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STILL HASN'T GOTTEN HIS WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU ABOUT DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY?

SO YOU'D HAVE THE FULL CONTEXT AND INFORMATION.

THEY SPOKE FOR OVER 21 HOURS.

THEY COULDN'T TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO GIVE YOU THAT CONTEXT?

HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW THAT DR. HILL WAS RIGHT?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID SO ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

REMEMBER, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO WASHINGTON ON THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU AND HOST PRESIDENT TRUMP IN UKRAINE OR ON THE OTHER HAND, MEET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 1 IN POLAND.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION PLANNED TO DO.

IF IT WASN'T FOR HURRICANE DORIAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAVE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN POLAND ON SEPTEMBER 1.

JUST AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD REQUESTED.

AND WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS.

AS IT HAPPENED, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT INSTEAD IN JUST A FEW WEEKS LATER, MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NEW YORK.

ALL WITHOUT ANY ONE MAKING ANY STATEMENT ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

AND ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IN THE HOUSE RECORD THAT THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED THAT THEY DISCUSSED AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS PROVIDING ANY FIRST HAND EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER LINKED THE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SEIZED UPON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CLAIM THAT MR. GULIANI'S REQUEST FOR A QUID PRO QUO WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AGAIN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ONLY GUESSING BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.

HE TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD HIM THERE WAS ANY SORT OF A CONDITION FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHY THEN DID HE THINK THERE WAS ONE?

IN HIS OWN WORDS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE COULD ONLY REPEAT WHAT HE HEARD THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLCKER FROM GULIANI.

SO HE DIDN'T EVEN HEAR FROM MR. GULIANI HIMSELF.

BUT AMBASSADOR VOLCKER WHO WAS THE SUPPOSED LINK BETWEEN MR. GULIANI AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THOUGHT NOSUCH THING.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS.

I'M GOING TO READ THE FULL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BECAUSE THIS PASSAGE IS KEY.

THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR VOLCKER'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

QUESTION: DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER WITHHOLD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR DELAY A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNTIL THE UKRAINIANS COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED CONCERNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

ANSWER: THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS NO, IF YOU WANT A YES OR NO ANSWER.

BUT THE REASON THE ANSWER IS NO IS WE DID HAVE DIFFICULTY SCHEDULING A MEETING, BUT THERE WAS NO LINKAGE LIKE THAT.

QUESTION: YOU SAID YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE UKRAINIAN ALGATIONS AS YOU DESCRIBED THEM, CORRECT?

ANSWER: CORRECT.

ON NO FEWER THAN 15 SEPARATE OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST WEEK THE HOUSE MANAGERS PLAYED A VIDEO OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS A PREREQUISITE FOR A MEETING OR CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT.

15 TIMES.

THEY NEVER ONCE READ TO YOU THE TESTIMONY THAT I JUST DID.

THEY NEVER ONCE READ TO YOU THE TESTIMONY IN WHICH AMBASSADOR VOLCKER REFUTED WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CLAIMED HE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR VOLCKER.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MEET THREE TIMES WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.

THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING.

THE TWO PRESIDENTS PLANNED TO MEET IN WARSAW JUST AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD ASKED.

ULTIMATELY MET THREE WEEKS LATER WITHOUT UKRAINE ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

NO ONE TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT EVER SAID THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN A MEETING AND INVESTIGATIONS.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

SO MUCH FOR A QUID PRO QUO FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT.

BEFORE I MOVE ON, LET ME TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT TO ADDRESS A SIDE ALLEGATION THAT WAS RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINED AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE STILL TRYING TO PUSH.

THE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NOT TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IN FAVOR OF A LOWER-RANKING DELEGATION.

IN ORDER, ACCORDING TO THEM, TO SIGNAL A DOWN GRADING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

NUMEROUS FACTORS HAD TO ALIGN AS I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM CAN GREATLY APPRECIATE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND.

FIRST, DATES OF TRAVEL WERE LIMITED.

FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS, THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT GENERALLY AVOID BEING OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME TIME FOR MORE THAN A FEW HOURS.

THE PRESIDENT HAD SCHEDULED TRIPS TO EUROPE AND JAPAN DURING THE PERIOD WHEN OUR EMBASSY IN UKRAINE ANTICIPATED THE UKRAINIAN INAUGURATION WOULD OCCUR.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ADVISED THAT THE UKRAINIANS THAT IF THE VICE PRESIDENT WERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INAUGURATION, THE IDEAL DATES WOULD BE AROUND MAY 29, MAY 30, MAY 31 WHEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE IN THE UNITED STATES.

SHE SAID IF IT WASN'T ONE OF THOSE DATES, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND.

SECOND.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACT AS IF NO OTHER PRIORITIES IN THE WORLD COULD COMPETE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S TIME.

THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PLANNING A COMPETING TRIP FOR MAY 30 IN OTTAWA, CAN THE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EVENT SUPPORTING PASSAGE OF THE UNITED STATES MEXICO CANADA AGREEMENT.

ULTIMATELY THE VICE PRESIDENT TRAVELED TO OTTAWA ON MAY 30 TO MEET WITH PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND PROMOTE THE PASSAGE OF THE USMCA.

THIS DECISION ADVANCED THE TOP ADMINISTRATION PRIORITY AND AN ISSUE PRESIDENT TRUMP VIGOROUSLY SUPPORTED.

WHAT YOU DID NOT HEAR FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS IS THAT THE UKRAINIAN INAUGURATIONS DATES DIDN'T GO AS PLANNED.

ON MAY 16, MAY 16, THE UKRAINIANS SURPRISED EVERYONE AND PLANNED IT ON MONDAY, MAY 20.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

MAY 16, MAY 20.

GET EVERYBODY, SECURITY, ADVANCE, EVERYONE TO UKRAINE.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED IT WAS VERY SHORT NOTICE, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND, PARTICULARLY SINCE THEY HAD PRESIDENT SENT OUT THE ADVANCE TEAM.

GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE SHORT NOTICE LEFT ALMOST NO TIME FOR EITHER PROPER PREPARATIONS OR FOREIGN DELEGATIONS TO VISIT AND THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT SCRAMBLED ON FRIDAY THE 17th TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO WAS AVAILABLE.

MR. KENT SUGGESTED THAT SECRETARY OF ENERGY PERRY BE THE ANCHOR FOR THE DELEGATION AS SOMEONE WHO IS A PERSON OF STATURE AND WHOSE JOB HAD RELEVANCE TO OUR AGENDA.

SECRETARY PERRY LED THE DELEGATION, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AND SENATOR JOHNSON.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER TESTIFIED THAT IT S THE LARGEST DELEGATION FROM ANY COUNTRY THERE AND IT WAS A HIGH LEVEL ONE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU THIS.

WHY NOT?

THE CLAIM THE PRESIDENT INSTRUCTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IS BASED ON HOUSE MANAGER ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG.

FINALLY, IF THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SHOW A QUID PRO QUO, WHAT DOES IT SHOW?

UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS ONE OF THE FEW THINGS THAT ALL OF THE WITNESSES A INGREDIENT ON IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS STRENGTHENED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE U.S. AND UKRAINE AND THAT HE'S BEEN A MORE STALWART FRIEND TO UKRAINE AND A MORE FIERCE OPPONENT OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE.

THEY ARE ATTRIBUTING VIEWS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT ARE CONTRARY TO HIS ACTIONS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY'RE CONTRARY TO THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OWN EVIDENCE.

BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

AMBASSADORS YOVANOVITCH, TAYLOR AND VOLCKER ALL TESTIFIED TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POSITIVE NEW POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE BASED ESPECIALLY ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OVER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POLICY.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AGREED THAT AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HE CREDITED WITH APPROVING EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE MEANT THAT OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

SHE CALLED THE POLICY SHIFT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED VERY SIGNIFICANT.

LET'S HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

>> THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS INDEED PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL AID IN THE FORM OF LETHAL AID, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT IS MORE SO THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT?

>> THE TRUMP -- >> DEFENSIVE LETHAL AID.

>> YES.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY PROVIDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT?

>> AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISION TO UKRAINE OF ANTI-TANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS.

>> THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY TANK BUSTERS.

SO IF THE WAR WITH RUSSIA ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED IN SOME WAY AND TANKS COME OVER THE HORIZON, JAVELINS ARE A VERY SERIOUS WEAPON TO DEAL WITH THAT.

>> UKRAINE IS BETTER POSITIONED TO FIGHT RUSSIA TODAY THAN IT WAS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.

AS A RESULT, THE UNITED STATES IS SAFER, TOO.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT THIS TESTIFY FROM AMBASSADORS TAYLOR, VOLCKER AND YOVANOVITCH.

WHY NOT?

THESE ARE THE FACTS AS DRAWN FROM THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OWN RECORD ON WHICH THEY IMPEACHED THE PRESIDENT.

THIS IS WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT MUST FAIL.

FOR THE SIX REASONS I SET FORTH WHEN I BEGAN SATURDAY.

THERE WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A MEETING ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

UKRAINIANS SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND THEY FELT NO PRESSURE.

THE TOP UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED UNTIL A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL.

THE HOUSE MANAGER'S RECORDS REFLECT THAT ANYBODY THE PRESIDENT SPOKE WITH MADE SURE THERE WAS NO LINKAGE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENHANCED AMERICA'S SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN HIS THREE YEARS IN OFFICE.

THESE FACTS ALL REQUIRE THAT THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FAIL.

YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD AND WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON WHY THE SECOND ARTICLE MUST FAIL.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE CASE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS CHOSE TO BRING.

THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THEY BROUGHT BEFORE THE SENATE.

THE VERY HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THEM.

THEY SAY THEIR CASE IS OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED.

IT IS NOT.

THEY SAY THEY HAVE PROVEN EACH OF THE ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY HAVE NOT.

THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE BROUGHT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A BREAK.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> COLLEAGUES WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> AND WITH THAT, THIS SESSION OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TAKES WHAT YOU HEARD WILL BE A SHORT BREAK.

WE'VE SPENT THE LAST TWO HOURS OR SO LISTENING TO THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM MAKE THE CASE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE BEEN WRONG, THAT THEY LEFT OUT CRUCIAL EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID HAVE GOOD REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE.

THEY HAVE GONE DOWN A LIST OF STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES WHEN APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE.

IT HAS BEEN -- THERE'S BEEN SOME REPETITION OF WHAT WE HEARD SATURDAY, BUT IT'S CLEARLY THE BUILDING OF A CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACH, WHICH THE DEFENSE HAS ARGUED FROM THE BEGINNING.

I DO WANT TO BRING IN OUR GUESTS HERE AT THE TABLE.

THEY'RE PAUL ROSENSOMEONE WHO WE HEARD FROM, DAVID RIZKIN WORKED IN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE IN THE REAGAN AND GEORGE H.W.

BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS, VICTORIA NORSE AND ISN'TED WITH JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL.

FINALLY JOHN HART, WORK FOR CONGRESSMAN TOM COBURN, REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND LATER FOR SENATOR COBURN.

HELLO TO ALL OF YOU.

WELCOME YOU TO THE TABLE.

I WANT TO COME RIGHT AWAY, DAVID, TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD FROM KEN STARR WHO WAS OF COURSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT CLINTON, AN INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO THE IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE DID NOT REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.

BUT HOW STRONG WAS THE CASE THAT HE MADE THAT WHAT THE HOUSE DID WAS FLAWED AND THAT ESSENTIALLY THE SENATE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL, VERY RELUCTANT TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE?

>> I THINK HE MADE A VERY COMPELLING CASE.

HE MADE A COMPELLING CASE THAT THE HOUSE HAS FLOUTED NUMEROUS PROCEDURES IN FAILING TO SECURE A WELL-REASONED, WELL-JUSTIFIED IMPEACHMENT IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION.

HE ALSO TOUCHED UPON SOMETHING THAT I WOULD EXPECT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ TO SAY.

IT'S IF EVEN THE WORST INTERPRETATION, THERE WAS EX-ME IT IS LINKAGE WITH THE DISPENSATION OF AID OR THE PAUSING OF AID OR CORRUPTION, EVEN THAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE ANY LEGAL DUTY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE ALSO TALKED ABOUT, AGAIN, A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY PARTICULARLY IN THE SENATE AS A COOLING SAUCER TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

>> PAUL, QUESTION WERE DISCUSSING WHILE KEN STARR WAS SPEAKING AT THE SAME TIME.

WHEN HE MAKES THE CASE THAT IT'S ONE THING FOR JUDGES TO BE IMPEACH, THEY'RE GIVEN A LIFE TERM, APPOINTED FOR LIFE.

THE PRESIDENT ON THE OTHER HAND IS ELECTED FOR FOUR YEARS, PERHAPS RE-ELECTED.

SHOULD HAPPEN FAR LESS FOR PRESIDENTS.

FOR THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, WE DIDN'T HEAR THAT THEN.

>> WE DIDN'T HEAR IT FROM HIM THEN.

THE REASON IS CLEAR WHICH IS THAT JUDGE STARR STARTED OFF RIGHTLY WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THE PHRASES THAT IT USES, TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THERE'S IN CLAUSE IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS AND A DIFFERENT STANDARD APPLIES TO JUDGES THAN TO PRESIDENTS.

HE MAY BE MAKING A PRUDENTIAL ARGUMENT THAT IN HIS PERSONAL OPINION IT WILL BE BETTER TO DEFER TO THE BODY POLITIC THAN TO ACT WITH AN IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW.

AS A MATTER OF TEXT AND A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, THAT IS JUST WRONG.

TO CITE THE SIMPLEST EXAMPLE, ANDREW JOHNSON WAS IMPEACH IN HIS FIRST TERM OF OFFICE.

SO YEAH, THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO ONLY HAVE IMPEACHMENTS IN THE SECOND TERM OF OFFICE IS KIND OF AHISTORICAL AT A MINIMUM.

>> JOINING US NOW, SENATOR WARNER FROM VIRGINIA.

YOU HEARD THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND DAY OF ARGUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT OVERALL SO FAR?

>> WELL, THREE QUICK IMPRESSIONS.

ONE, I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR KEN STARR.

I'VE KNOWN HIM AND HIS WIFE A LONG TIME.

I THOUGHT IT WAS CURIOUS THAT HE RAISED THE POINT THAT YOUR GUEST RAISED THAT RAISING THIS ISSUE IN AN ELECTION YEAR MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE.

THE TRUTH IS, THIS -- AT LEAST THE ALLEGATIONS ARE ALL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING THE AID, WITHHOLDING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO USE THIS TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION.

SO IF THE TRANSGRESSION WAS INVOLVING THE ELECTION, THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD POSTPONE SOMEHOW DOESN'T CARRY A LOT OF WATER WITH ME NUMBER 1.

NUMBER 2, I STILL WONDER AND THIS IS WHY I'LL GET TO MY POINT IN A MOMENT THAT THERE'S A DOZEN EITHER SENIOR TRUMP APPOINTEES OR CAREER FEDERAL OFFICIALS THAT HAVE PUT THEIR CAREERS ON THE LINE COMING FORWARD EITHER BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL OR THEN ABSOLUTELY HAVING THE IMPRESSION OR AT LEAST IN MR. SONDLAND HEARING DIRECTLY THAT THERE WAS THIS WITHHOLDING OF THE AID DUE TO THE DESIRE TO HAVE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THIRD, I THOUGHT A POINT OF REFERENCE, IT WAS CURIOUS THAT I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MENTIONED THE NAME RUDY GULIANI AT ALL.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET THROUGH THE WHOLE PRESENTATION WITHOUT MR. GULIANI'S NAME BEING MENTIONED.

OBVIOUSLY A NAME THAT CAME UP FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND A LOT IN THE PRESIDENT'S ENTRANCE SCRIPT AND COMMENTS.

END OF THE DAY THOUGH, PROBABLY THE NEWS THAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO PROCESS AND I KNOW TALKING TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IS WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THIS NOTION THAT A GUY THAT WAS IN THE ROOM TO USE THE COMPARISON, YOU KNOW, JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS BEEN WILLING TO TESTIFY, THAT CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY TO WHAT HAPPENED AND AS WELL AS CAUSATION, I DON'T KNOW HOW IN ANY KIND OF SENSE OF FAIR TRIAL THAT YOU WOULDN'T GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO COME FORWARD.

>> I THINK ACTUALLY THERE WAS A BRIEF MENTION OF RUDY GULIANI IN CONNECTION WITH WHATúá' WHAT HEO AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

YES, REGARDING JOHN BOLTON THAT'S RECEIVING A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION.

WE ARE HEARING FROM SOME SOURCES THAT AS MANY AS AMBASSADOR ANGUS KING AS MANY AS FIVE OR TEN REPUBLICAN SENATORS MAYBE PREPARED TO VOTE TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT THAT SENATOR STPUFRPBLG I HAVE A LOST TPR-PDZ ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

WE'RE HAVING PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS.

IT'S AWFUL HARD WHEN THERE IS A SENIOR PERSON IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, SOMEONE JOHN BOLTON ON POLICY ISSUES.

I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM ON VIRTUALLY ANYTHING.

NO ONE CAN QUESTION JOHN BOLTON'S COMMITMENT TO CON SEVEN TIFCONSERVATIVE.

THIS WOULD HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT WE WOULDN'T GET THIS.

THE WHOLE SENATE WOULD LOOK LIKE A FARCE.

THE WHOLE PROCESS WOULD LOOK LUKE A FARCE IF WE DIDN'T BRING HIM FORWARD.

I THINK IT WILL BE TOUGH FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO TURN THAT DOWN.

AGAIN WE HAVE A FEW MORE CHAPTERS TO GO THROUGH FIRST.

>> I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE, SENATOR, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS REPORTED AS FALSE.

IF JOHN BOLTON WROTE THIS HE SAID IT WAS FALSE.

YOU HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING THIS LOOKS LIKING SOMETHING DONE TO SELL BOOKS.

>> AGAIN ONE THING I WILL GIVE THIS WHITE HOUSE CREDIT FOR.

THEY HAVE NO CONPUNCTION ABOUT ATTACKING ANYTHING.

CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL, ANYTHING WHO QUESTIONS ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

DOES THE MATTER WHERE YOU FALL ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM OR HOW LONG YOU HAVE SERVED.

YOU ARE FAIR GAME.

I'M NOT SURPRISED AT THAT.

THERE ARE A AWFUL LOT OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE WORKED WITH JOHN BOLTON.

I DON'T AGREE WITH JOHN BOLTON ON POLICY ISSUES.

I HEAVE HE WOULD COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY.

THERE ARE OTHERS THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF TO COME FORWARD.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF A OPINION HE WOULD GIVE.

IF HE CAME IN TO SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH WOULD I LOVE TO HEAR FROM HIM AS WELL.

.

Woodruff: I BELIEVE HE PUT OUT A STATEMENT THIS MORNING, NICK MULVANEY, SAYING MR. BOLTON NEVER CAME TO HIM WITH ANY SUCH CONCERN.

SENATOR, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE LAST PART OF THE ARGUMENT THE WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS WERE MAKING.

ESSENTIALLY THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION.

HE WAS NOT ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT ALSO LACK OF BURDEN SHARING AND LACK OF SUPPORT FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND A RELUCTANCE FOR THE U.S. TO BEAR MOST OR ALL OF THE BURDEN.

DOES THAT GIVE YOU PAUSE WHEN YOU THINK OF THE MOTIVATION THE PRESIDENT HAD.

>> I THINK IT'S ACCURATE DUE TO JOHN BOLTON AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE PRESENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THE LEVEL OF MILITARY A ASSISTANCE WENT UP O UKRAINE WHILE THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IN OFFICE.

SUDDENLY HE'S NOW CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION NOW THAT MR. BIDEN IS IN THE RICE.

HE'S SUDDENLY CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

THE FACT THAT HE HAD THOSE CONCERNS, IF HE HAD THEM, THEN HE RELEASED THE AIDE ONLY AFTER THIS WHOLE SCHEME WAS HE CAN POSED WHERE THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN BURDEN SHARING, THERE WAS NO FURREDDER INDICATION THAT THERE WERE DRAMATIC CHANGES, IT APPEARS BASED ON THE PRECEDENT'S OWN COMMENTS IN THE PHONE CALL THAT THE KIND OF CORRUPTION HE WAS INTERESTED IN WAS FOCUSED BOTH ON THE BIDENS AND THE COMPLETELY DEBUNCT THEORY.

THE NOTION OF UKRAINE NOT RUSSIA INTERVENING IN OUR ELECTIONS IN 2017.

SAOUFPLT SENATOR MARK WARNER CO-CHAIR OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR.

>> THANK YOU, JUDY.

Woodruff: AS WE HEAR FROM SENATOR WARREN THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION NOW ABOUT WHETHER SENATORS WILL VOTE BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE CLEARLY IN THE MAJORITY.

AT LEAST FOUR WOULD HAVE TO VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS FOR THERE TO BE AN AGREEMENT TO CALL WITNESSES BEFORE THE SENATE, TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS.

IN A MOMENT WE WILL SPEAK WITH THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR MARSHA BLACKBURN OF TENNESSEE.

I WANT TO ASK HER ABOUT THAT.

IT'S STRIKING TO RECALL TODAY'S ARGUMENTS.

INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE SPECIFIC OF THE FACTS WHICH THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM FOCUSED ON SATURDAY AND THE LATTER PART THIS AFTERNOON.

WE HEARD FROM KEN STARR MAKING THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNCIL OF WHITE WATER AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S I AM PAOERBMENT MAKING THE CASE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND IT'S THE WRONG TIME, PLACE, CIRCUMSTANCE TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT.

JOINING NOW IS THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.

MARSHA BLACKBURN, THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

Woodruff: I WAN TO POSE TO YOU A COMMENT WE HEARD FROM SENATOR MARK WARNER OF VIRGINIA.

GOING TO THIS POINT MADE BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR THE PRESIDENT NOW, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING AND SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN'S.

SENATOR WARREN POINTED OUT THAT MAY OF BEEN THE CASE BUT WHY WAS THE AIDE RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER WHEN UKRAINE MADE NO CHANGES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION AND NO CHANGE IN SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO ASSIST UKRAINE.

I WILL START WITH THAT.

>> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YOU KNOW I THINK ANYONE WHO LISTENED TO DONALD TRUMP AS HE RAN FOR OFFICE HEARD HIM TALK REPEATEDLY ABOUT THE LACK OF BURDEN SHARING THAT EXISTED.

BY SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES THAT SHOULD OF BEEN PARTICIPATING, SUPPORTING NATO IS A PRIME EXAMPLE WHERE HE CONTINUES TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND THE NEED FOR OTHERS TO HELP WITH THIS SO IT DIDN'T LAND, THE BURDEN DIDN'T LAND FULLY ON THE U.S.

TAXPAYER.

SO CORRUPTION, EVERYONE WAS INVOLVED OR CONCERNED ABOUT CORE UPPING AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

THERE WAS A CLIP PLAYED FOR US BY DR. HILL, MAKING THE POINT THAT EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, THERE IN THE UKRAINE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A ISSUE BROUGHT FORWARD.

IT WAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

HE TALKED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

HE TALKED ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION.

AS HE LOCKED AT UKRAINE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT HE HAD ABOUT AIDE GOING THERE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE PRESIDENT OWE OBAMA WITH HOLD AIDE AND THEN SEND THE BLANKETS AND MRE.

FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP YOU HAD THE MUCH NEEDED LETHAL AIDE GIVEN.

THAT'S A IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.

>> Woodruff: TO CIRCLE BACK TO SENATOR WARNER'S POINT IF THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN EITHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN HE DECIDED IN SEPTEMBER TO RELEASE THE AIDE.

WHAT DID HE BASE THE DECISION TO SUDDENLY RELEASE THE AIDE ON?

>> HE HAD BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS OF REVIEW.

AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT ONES THAT HAVE TESTIFIED, AS YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE REPU REPUBLICN SUMMARY FROM THE HOUSE ACTION.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD.

WHEN YOU READ THE SUMMARY FROM THE REPUBLICAN MANAGERS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SO MANY INTERVIEWS GIVEN.

THERE WAS NO ONE WHO SAID HE CONDITIONED THAT AIDE OR THAT AIDE, A CONDITION OF INVESTIGATIONS WAS GOING TO PRECEDE ANY RELEASE OF AIDE.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR, THE NEWS OVER NIGHT ABOUT THE BOOK WRITTEN BY JOHN BOLTON, THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL STKAOURT SY ADVISER, THAT PRESIDENT TOLD HIM IN A MOATING THAT HE WAS HOLDING UP THE AIDE UNTIL THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS 0 THE BIDENS.

WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

SECOND OF ALL, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WILL NOW BE SOME REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES VOTING TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES INCLUDING MR. BOLTON IS IT.

>> YOU KNOW, JUDY, I THINK WE WILL HAVE NEW REVELATION EVERY SINGLE DAY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

YOU CERTAINLY SAW THAT WITH THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS.

DURING THE MUELLER REPORT.

THE TIMES, THE TWO YEARS OF THAT THERE WAS REVELATION AFTER REVELATION.

AGAIN YOU HAVE REPORTING THAT IS ON HERE SAY.

THEMING IT WAS ABOUT PARAGRAPH 31 IN THE ARTICLE.

THEY MENTION THAT, MAKE THAT REFERENCE.

YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE HERE SAY AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND A FARE TRIAL.

>> Woodruff: IN THIS UNSTANCE MR. BOLTON SAYS THE PRESIDENT SAID IT TO HIM DIRECTLY.

>> IT'S A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE AND PACED ON HERE SAY.

>> Woodruff: SO YOU SAY YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT?

>> WE WILL FIND OUT.

James: Woodruff: WHAT ABOUT REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES VOTING FOR WITNESSES?

>> THE HOUSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES.

WHAT YOU HAVE TO REALIZE IS AS THE SENATE MOVES FORWARD AND CALLS WITNESS THAT'S WERE NOT PART OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE HOUSE.

THE PROCESS THEY WENT THROUGH WITH IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE IN PRECEDENCE.

I DON'T THINK THE SENATE WILL VOTE TO CALL WITNESSES.

TO DO THE HOUSE'S WORK FOR THEM.

WE'RE NOT HERE TO PROVIDE THE HOUSE A DO OVER.

>> Woodruff: SO, YOU SAY THE STORY WILL BE COMPLETE AS FAR AS SENATE IS CONCERNED EVEN IF THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BE CALLED TO TESTIFY -- >> IF THE HOUSE WANTS TO OPEN ANOTHER INVESTIGATION AND CALL WITNESSES THEY ARE FULLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT.

>> Woodruff: ANOTHER INVESTIGATION?

>> IF THE HOUSE WOULD LIKE TO CALL WITNESSES AND HAVE A INVESTIGATION THEY CAN DO THAT.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR MARSHA BLACKBURN OF TENNESSEE.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

Woodruff: WE APPRECIATE IT.

LET'S COME BACK TO OUR GUESTS AT THE TABLE.

WHAT WE'RE HEARING, PAUL, IS THAT YOU HEARD FROM SENATOR BLACKBURN SAYING SHE DOESN'T THINK THE REPUBLICANS WILL SUPPORT WITNESSES.

WE HEAR FROM SENATOR ANGUS KING THAT THERE MAYBE ENOUGH VOTES.

HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE FOR THE SENATE TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES OR NOT?

>> IT WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN HISTORY.

IT WILL MAKE SOME DIFFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.

I GUESS IT WON'T CHANGE THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

I THINK IT WOULD SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE NOT TO CALL WITNESSES.

WE HAVE NEVER HAD AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE WITHOUT SOME WITNESSES OF ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.

TO SAY OTHERWISE IT'S HISTORICAL.

>> Woodruff: HOW MUCH PRESSURE DOES IT PUT ON THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO CALL WITNESSES OR NOT NOW SEEING THIS NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ABOUT JOHN BOLTON'S BOOK?

URGE I THINK WE ARE OVER STATING THE PRESSURE THEY FEEL NOW.

TWO QUESTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.

ONE, WOULD THEY LIKE TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON.

ANGUS KING MAYBE RIGHT THERE ARE FIVE OR TEN STEERED.

BUT IS IT WORTH DELAYING THE TRIAL TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON.

I DON'T THEFRBG THIS ARE MORE THAN TWO SENATORS THAT WILL GO TO THAT.

-- I THOUGHT IT WAS STUNNING, KEN STARR DIDN'T EFFECTIVELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

HE SAID THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DIDN'T MEET THREE TESTS.

THE SECOND IS IT MUST BE BIPARTISAN.

HE WASN'T THE INSTIGATOR, PEOPLE MAY ARGUE THAT.

I THINK THAT WAS STUNNING.

THAT KEN STARR SAID A IMPEACHMENT HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN.

REPUBLICANS HAVE SUFFERED ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCES.

THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF WAR, AS HE USED, IS VERY HIGH.

SKWROUFPLT WHO DO YOU THINK ARE READY TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES ?

>> I THINK MITT ROMNEY AND SUSAN COLLINS HAVE ALL BUT SAID THEY WOULD VOTE TO HEAR JOHN BOLTON EVEN IF IT DELAYS THE SENATE TRIAL.

ASSUMING THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ATTEMPTS TO BLOCK IT.

IT HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED.

>> Woodruff: NOT OTHERS.

LISA, YOU HAVE TO á* BEEN WATCHIG AS WE ALL HAVE THIS AFTERNOON.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING AND SEEING FOR THE SENATOR'S REACTIONS.

>> IT'S INTERESTING TO HAVE THE BLOT FRONT KEN STARR AND JOHN BOLTON.

TWO CONTROVERSIAL FIGURES IN REPUBLICAN POLITICS.

FROM WATCHING KEN STARR, HE WAS ONE OF THE MORE QUITE SPOKEN IN THE CHAMBER.

IT WAS AUDIBLE, YOU COULD HEAR HIM.

HE DIDN'T USE THE POUNDING KIND OF CADENCE WE HAVE SEEN FROM OTHER SPEAKERS TO GET ATTENTION.

AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS REMARKS IT DIDN'T MATTER.

THE ENTIRE CHAMBER SAT IN THEIR DESK, NO ONE LEAVING TO LISTEN TO KEN STARR.

ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH IT COULD OF BEEN TONE, MANNER OR CONTENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS.

SENATORS WERE GLAZED OVER AND NOT TAKING NOTES.

IT WAS A LOFTY AND ACADEMIC PRESENTATION.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH GOT THROUGH OR THEY GET WHAT WAS BEING SAID.

FOR BOLTON THAT'S THE STORY HERE TODAY.

ANGUS KING THINGS THIS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH REPUBLICANS BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

I'M HOOKING AT SENATORS IN CLOSE RACES.

LIKE MIKE BRAUN OF END IND.

INDIANA.SENATOR CASSIDY PEOPLE E WATCHING CLOSELY.

AND LAMAR ALEXANDER A RETIRING SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.

IT'S WIDENING AS TO WHAT SENATORS MAYBE IN PLAY.

OF COURSE IT'S ONLY TWO SENATORS THAT JOHN HEART IS SAYING THAT WE KNOW WANT WITNESSES NOW.

>> Woodruff: DID WE MENTION LOS A MARKOWSKI?

>> NO, EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH HER.

SHE HAS INDICATED SHE'S VERY OPEN AND WARM TO WITNESSES LAST WEEK.

SHE HAD NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF'S PRESS EN TAKE ON FRIDAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S WEIGHING THAT IN HER WITNESS DECISION.

SHE HAS BEEN LEANING US BUT NO OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT MADE ABOUT THAT.

>> Woodruff: LISA AND YAMICHE ALSO AT THE CAPITOL TODAY.

UNLIKE MOST DAYS WHEN YOU'RE AT THE WHITE HOUSE REPORTING FOR US.

YAMICHE, OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM PLANS TO PRESENT IS IT YOUR SENSE THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE BULK OF IT OR A GREAT DEAL MORE TO COME.

ING THE PLAN ON MONDAY WAS TO GIVE ABOUT EIGHT HOURS OF DEFENSE FOR THE PRESIDENT.

OVER THE WEEKEND THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM SAID THEY WOULD BE DONE ON MONDAY.

NOW WE HEAR THEY MAY ACTUALLY GOING INTO TUESDAY.

WHAT YOU SEE IS AN ELONGATED TIME LINE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM.

WE'RE NOT SURE IF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE JOHN BOLTON REL VATIONS OR SOMETHING ELSE.

WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS CHALLENGING BLOCKING WUTNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.

PART OF THIS IS THE IDEA THEY WANTED TO STOP PEOPLE FROM TALKING TO WITNESSES.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE WE WILL INTERRUPT YOU.

THEY ARE BACK IN SESSION.

JAY SEKULOW, MR. PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY.

>> ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK RUDY GUILIANI.

HE WAS A LEADER DURING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

HE'S MENTIONED 531 ONE TIMES.

IN THE BRIEF AND ARGUMENT INCLUDING THE MOTION DAY.

WE HAD A ROBUST TEAM THAT WORKED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE DURING THE MUELLER PROBE.

CONSISTENT OF MAYOR GUILIANI AND OTHERS.

MAYOR GUILIANI OF COURSE AND MARTY RASKIN AND JANE RASKIN.

JANE WAS ONE OF THE LEADING ATTORNEYS ON THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE ISSUE OF MAYOR GUILIANI HAS COME UP HERE IN THIS CHAMBER, A LOT.

WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE NOW TO TURN TO THAT ISSUE.

THE ROLL OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, HIS PRIVATE COUNCIL IN THIS PROCEEDING.

I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TIME IN JUSTICE TO JANE SERENE RASKIN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

I EXPECT YOU HAVE HEARD AMERICAN POET CARL SANDBERG'S SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL LAWYER'S DILEMMA.

IF THE FACT ARE AGAINST YOU ARGUE THE LAW.

IF THE LAW IS AGAINST YOU ARGUE THE FACT.

IF THE LAW AND THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU POUND THE TABLE AND YELL LIKE HELL.

WE HAVE HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO SOME TABLE POUNDING AND A LITTLE YELLING.

IN THE MAIN THEY HAVE USED A DIFFERENT TACTIC HERE.

A TACTIC KNOWN TO TRIAL LAWYERS BUT NOT HELPINGED BY MR. SANDBERG.

IF BOTH THE LAW AND THE FACT ARE AGAINST YOU PRESENT A DISTRACTION.

EMPHASIZE A SENSATIONAL FACT.

PERHAPS A CHOREFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC FIGURE WHO APPEARS ON THE SCENE.

THEN DISTORT CERTAIN FACTS, IGNORE OTHERS, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE THE MOST PROBEATIVE AND INSINUATE THE SHINY OBJECT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ACTUAL FACTS ALLOWED.

IN SHORT DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE HOLES IN YOUR CASE.

RUDY GUILIANI IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS COLORFUL DISTRACTION.

A LEGENDARY MAN.

TOOK DOWN THE MAFIA, CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, WALLSTREET RACKETEERS.

A CRIME BUSTING MAYOR THAT TURNED NEW YORK AROUND.

A NATIONAL HERO.

AMERICA'S MAYOR AFTER 9-11.

AFTER THAT NOT TER NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HE CAN PERT ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

TO BE SURE IN GUILIANI HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE FOR HIS HARD HITTING TAKE NO PRISONER APPROACH.

IT'S NO STRETCH TO SAY HE WAS RESPECTED BY FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE FOR HIS INTELLECT, TENACITY, HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND HIS FIERCE LOYALTY TO HIS CAUSES AND HIS COUNTRY.

AND THEN THE UNTHINKABLE.

HE PUBLICLY SUPPORTED THE CANDIDACY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE ONE THAT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO WIN.

THEN IN THE SPRUNG OF 2018 HE STOOD UP TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, SUCCESSFULLY AS IT TURNS OUT.

AS WHAT WE KNOW NOW IS THE REAL DEPWUFRPBGT CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THAT THE TRUMP CAM PAWN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE IN GUILIANI IS AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY.

THEY HAVE ANOINTED HIM THE LEADER OF A ROUGE OPERATION.

THE PRESENTATIONS WERE FILLED WITH NAME CALLING, ATTACKS.

COLD BLOODED POLITICAL OPERATIVE.

POLITICAL BAG MAN.

SUGGEST TO YOU HE'S FRONT AND CENTER IN THEIR NARRATIVE FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ALONE.

TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.

SO WHAT'S THE FUSSER TELL THAT MR. GUILIANI'S ROLL ISN'T WHAT IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE?

THEY DIDN'T SUBPOENA HIM TO TESTIFY.

IN FACT MR. SCHIFF AND HIS COMMITTEE NEVER EVEN INVITED HIM TO TESTIFY.

THEY TOOK A STAB AT SUBPOENAING DOCUMENT IN SEPTEMBER.

WHEN HIS LAWYER RESPONDED WITH LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE PRODUCTION THE HOUSE WALKED AWAY.

IF RUDY GUILIANI IS EVERYTHING THEY SAY HE IS DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD OF SUBPOENAED AND PURSUED HIS TESTIMONY?

ASK YOURSELVES, WHY DIDN'T THEY?

IN FACT IT APPEARS THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WASN'T PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN PRESENTING YOU WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE OF WHAT MAYOR DUEL YANNI DID OR WHY HE DID IT.

STEED THEY ASK YOU TO RELY ON HERE IS A, SPECULATION AND ASSUMPTION.

>> -- BEFORE A FROING TO A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

THEY BASE THAT ON A STATEMENT TO THAT AFFECT BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T TELL YOU IS THAT SONDLAND ADMITTED HE WAS SPECULATING ABOUT THAT.

HE PRESUMED THAT MR. GUILIANI'S REQUESTS WERE INTENDED AS A CON DIAGNOSES FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

EVEN WORST HIS ASSUMPTION WASSING ON THIRD HAND INFORMATION.

AS HE PUT IT THE MOST HE COULD DO WAS REPEAT WHAT HE HEARD THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO GUILIANI WHO HE PRESUMED SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE ISSUE.

BY THE WAY AS EXPLAINED THE PERSON SPEAKING TO MR. GUILIANI, MR. VOLKER, TESTIFIED CLEARLY THERE WAS NO MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MAKE MUCH OF A MAY 23rd WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THEY SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE A DIRECTIVE AND A DEMAND.

THOSE WORDS DIRECTIVE AND DEMAND ARE MISLEADING.

THEY MISREPRESENT WHAT THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY SAID.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD BASED ON THE MEETING THAT GUILIANI WAS ONE OF SEVERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY WANTED OWE TPEURBLD TO SPEAK TO MR. GUILIANI BECAUSE HE KNOWS ALL OF THESE THINGS ABOUT UKRAINE.

AS VOLKER PUT IT THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENT WAS NOT A INSTRUCTION, BUT JUST A COMMENT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED.

HE TESTIFIED HE DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN ORDER.

HE ADDED THE PRESIDENT WASN'T EVEN SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED US TO TALK TO GUILIANI ABOUT.

SO, IT MAY COME AS NO SURPRISE TO YOU THAT AFTER THE MAY 23rd MEETING THE ONE DURING WITCH THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOLD YOU THE PRESIDENT TPHAPBDED UKRAINE TALK TO VOLKER NEITHER VOLKER OR SONDLAND FOLLOWED UP WITH MR. GUILIANI UNTIL JULY.

THE JULY FOLLOW-UP BY MR. VOLKER HAPPENED ONLY BECAUSE THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ASKED TO BE PUT IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZLENSKY'S SENIOR AIDE APPROACHED HIM TO CONNECT TO MR. HOUSE DEMOCRATS RELY ON TESTIMONY THAT MAYOR GUILIANI TOLD VOLKER AND SONDLAND IN HIS VIEW TO BE CREDIBLE A UKRAINIAN STATEMENT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY MENTION INVESTIGATIONS INTO 201 HE OTHER ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND BARISMA.

WHEN VOLKER WAS ASKED IF HE KNEW IF GUILIANI WAS CONVEYING MESSAGES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO CONVEY.

VOLKER SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THAT IMPRESSION AND BELIEVED GUILIANI WAS DOING HIS OWN COMMUNICATION IN WHAT BELIEVED HE WAS INTERESTED IN.

EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE RELIANCE ON ASSUMPTIONS, AND UNSUPPORTED CONFUSIONS IS THE MANAGER'S FAILURE TO PLACE IN MY FARE CONSENSUS GUILIANI'S ACTUAL ROLL.

TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION YOU MAY OF THOUGHT MAYOR GUILIANI PARACHUTED INTO THE PRESIDENT'S ORE BIT FOR A POLITICAL HIT JOB.

THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT MAYOR GUILIANI WAS ONLY THERE TO DIG UP DIRT AGAINST FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BECAUSE HE MIGHT BE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RIVAL IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

OF COURSE MR. GUILIANI'S INTENT IS NO SMALL MATTER HERE.

IT'S AN ESSENTIAL PREMISE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS CASE THAT MR. GUILIANI'S MOTIVE OF CORRECTION AND INTERFERENCE WAS A ENTIRE POLITICAL ONE UNDERTAKEN AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

BUT WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE THE MANAGERS OFFERED YOU TO SUPPORT THAT PROPOSITIONS?

ON CLOSE INSPECTION IT TURNS OUT VIRTUALLY NONE.

THEY JUST SAY IT, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

THEY OFFER YOU ANOTHER FALSE DICHOTOMY.

EITHER MR. GUILIANI WAS ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY TO FURTHER THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OR ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

THEY CONCLUDED THAT IF HE TAKES IT HIS MOTIVE TO FURTHER THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

-- CLEAR AND COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE FACT HE'S INDEED THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

THERE YOU HAVE IT, GUILIANI ADMITS HE'S ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

THERE HE HAD TO OF BEEN ACTING WITH A POLITICAL MOTIVE TO INFLUENCE THE 020 ELECTION.

NO OTHER OPTION, RIGHT?

WRONG.

THERE IS OF COURSE ANOTHER OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

WHAT MOTIVATED MAYOR GUILIANI TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF UKRAINIANS IN THE ELECTION.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS KNOW THE ANSWER, IT'S IN PLANE SIGHT.

MR. GUILIANI HAS TOLD ANY NUMBER OF NEWS OUTLETS WHEN AND WHY HE BECAME INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2020 ELECTION.

MAYOR GUILIANI BEGAN INVESTIGATING UKRAINE'S EN TER TPAOERPBS IN THE 020 ELECTION WAY BACK IN NOVEMBER 2018.

A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY.

AND FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

WHEN THE BIGGEST FALSE CONSPIRACY THEORY IN CIRCULATION THARBGTS TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN WAS STILL IN WIDE CIRCULATION.

AS THE HILL REPORTED AS PRESIDENT'S HIGHEST PROFILE DEFENSE ATTORNEY THE FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR KNOWN AS RUDY BELIEVED HE COULD ASSIST IN THE RUSSIA CONCLUSION UNINVESTIGATION AND ROBERT MUELLER'S FINAL REPORT.

SO GUILIANI BEGAN TO CHECK THINGS OUT IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019.

THE GENESIS OF MAYOR GUILIANI'S INVESTIGATION WAS REPORTED BY A NUMBER OF NEWS OUTLETS.

INCLUDING CNN RELATING GUILIANI'S ROLL TO UKRAINE CAN BE TRACED BACK TO NOVEMBER, 201.

HE WAS CONTACTED BY SOMEONE HE DESCRIBES AS A WELL KNOWN INVESTIGATOR.

THE WASHINGTON POST AND OTHER NEWS OUTLETS REPORTED THE SAME INFORMATION.

SO, YES, MAYOR TPWAOUL YANNI WAS PRESIDENT'S TRUMP PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

HE WAS -P THE ON A POLITICALLER RAND.

HE WAS TKWHAOG GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEYS DO.

HE WAS FOLLOWING A LEAD FROM A WELL KNOWN PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR.

HE WAS GATHERING EVIDENCE REGARDING UKRAINIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE TO DEFEND HIS CLIENT AGAINST THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL COUNCIL MUELLER.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T EVEN ELUDE TO THAT POSSIBILITY.

INSTEAD THEY JUST REPEATED THEIR MANTRA.

THE GULIANO MOE SIEVE WAS POLITICAL.

THAT SAEBGZ I SPEAKS TO THE BOT.

MR. GUILIANI DEFENDED PRESIDENT TRUMP VIGOROUSLY AND RELENTLESSLY IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT'S FOLLOWED.

INCLUDING THE MUELLER REDO WHERE THE MANAGERS WOULD LIKE TO SNEAK IN THE BACK DOOR HERE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MAY NOT LIKE HIS STYLE, YOU MAY NOT LIKE HIS STYLE, BUT ONE MAY ARGUE HE'S EVERYTHING CLARENCE DARO SAID A DEFENSE LAWYER MUST BE.

OUTRAGEOUS, IRREVERENT, BLAST BLASTPHEMOUS, ROUGE.

-- TURNS OUT RUDY WAS SPOT ON.

SEEMS TO ME IF WE'RE KEEPING SCORE ON WHO GOT IT RIGHT, ON ALLEGATIONS OF FISA ABUSE, EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE FBI, ALLEGED COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRAMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, SUPPOSED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH THE SPECIAL COUNCIL INVESTIGATION, THE SCORE IS MAYOR GUILIANI 4, MR. SCHIFF 0.

IN THIS TRIAL, IN THIS MOMENT, MR. GUILIANI IS JUST A MINOR PLAYER.

THAT SHINY OBJECTION DESIGNED TO DISTRACT YOU.

SENATORS, I URGE YOU MOST RESPECTFULLY DO NOT BE DISTRACTED.

THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE MANAGERS, WE WILL NOW MOVE TO A SECTION DEALING WITH THE LAW.

TWO ISSUES IN PARTICULAR THAT MY COLLEAGUE THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL WILL BE ADDRESSING, MR. PHIL BIN.

BIN.

ISSUES OF DUE PROCESS AND ISSUES OF THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

I YIELD MY TIME NOW, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TO MR. FILLBIN.

SEUFRPBLGT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, BA SKWROERT LEADER MCCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER.

THE OTHER DAY AS WE OPENED OUR PRESENTATION I TOUCHED ON TWO AREAS.

SOME OF THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS THAT CHARACTERIZE THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.

SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTAL MISS CHARACTERIZATION.

TODAY I WILL ROUND OUT THE UNFAIR PROCEDURE USED IN THE HOUSE AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS PROCEEDING BEFORE YOU NOW.

ALSO ADDRESS IN DETAIL THE PURPORTED ARTICLES OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IN DUE PROCESS THERE ARE THREE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS INFECTING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.

THE FIRST IS AS I EXPLAINED ON SATURDAY, THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FROM THE BEGINNING.

NO COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO LAUNCH AN INQUIRY UNDER THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT POWER UNLESS THE HOUSE HAS TAKEN A VOTE TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO A COMMITTEE.

THE PRINCIPALS SET OUT, GENERAL DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION TO EACH CHAMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

NOT TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR SUB COMMITTEES.

FOR AN AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A COMMITTEE THE HOUSE HAS TO VOTE ON THAT.

THE DC CIRCUIT HAS DISTILLED THE PRINCIPALS OF THOSE CASE THIS IS WAY.

TO ISSUE A VALID SUBPOENA A COMMITTEE OR SUB COMMITTEE MUST CONFORM STRICTLY TO THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE INVEST TKPWA TORY POWERS.

>> THE SPEAKER HAD THE HOUSE PROCEED ON NOTHING MORE THAN A PRESS CONFERENCE.

WHERE SHE PURPORTED COMMITTEES TO MOVE ON IMPEACHMENT POWER.

SHE LACKED THAT AUTHORITY.

AS POINTED OUT IN THE NIXON TRIAL IT WAS EXPLAINED SUCH A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PASSED BY THE HOUSE.

IT'S A NECESSARY STEP IF WE'RE TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS.

WE BEGAN THE PROCESS WITH UNAUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS.

NO EXPRESSION TO RESPOND.

I WILL COMPAQ TO THAT POINT.

THERB HOLD, FOUNDATIONAL POINT WHEN WE GET THE OBSTRUCTAL CHARGE.

>> THE SECOND IS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS DENIED THE PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEDURES THEY USED FOR THE HEARINGS.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO BACK IN DETAIL OVER THOSE.

AS WE HEARD FROM JUDGE STAR THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ESSENTIALLY ABANDONED PRINCIPLES IN THE HOUSE FOR OVER 150 YEARS.

I WILL TOUCH ON A FEW POINTS AND RESPOND TO A COUP POINTS HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE MADE.

THE FIRST IS IN DENYING DO YOU PROCESS RIGHTS THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS WERE A HUGE REVERSAL.

FROM A POSITION DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES HAVE TAKEN IN THE RECENT PASS.

PARTICULARLY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE NADLER'S DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED.

>> MANAGER NADLER WAS EXPLAINING THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THAT OF A MINIMUM, CHARGES BEFORE YOU, RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES AGAINST YOU, AND THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.

ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS WERE DENIED TO THE PRESIDENT.

NOW ONE OF THE RESPONSES THE MANAGERS HAVE MADE TO THE EFFECT THAT WE POINTED OUT IN THE SECRET PROCEEDINGS WHERE MANAGER SCHIFF BEGAN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE BASEMENT BUNKER IS THAT WAS BEST INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE.

THEY WERE OPERATING LIKE A GRAND JURY.

DON'T BE FOOLED BY THAT.

THOSE HEARINGS OPERATED NOB LIKE A GRAND JURY.

THERE IS SECRETC WHY.

Y FOR TWO REASONS.

KEEPING A SECRET FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO KEEP DEVELOPING THE EVIDENCE.

AND TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED.

IN THIS CASE ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS MADE PUBLIC EVERY DAY.

THE HOUSE DEMOCRAT DESTROYED ANALOGY TO A GRAND JURY.

THAT WAS ALL PUBLIC.

THIS WAS NO SOCK RECEIPT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS THE TARGET.

THEY ISSUED VIAL ACCOUNTS ON HIM EVERY DAY.

THEY DIDN'T KEEP THE DIRECTION OF THE INVESTIGATION SECRET.

WITNWITNESSES WERE PUB HEURBED DAILY, THE TESTIMONY THAT TOOK PLACE WAS SELECTIVELY LEAKED TO A COMPLIANT MEDIA TO ESTABLISH A FALSE NARRATIVE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

IF THAT SORT OF CONDUCT OCCURRED IN A REAL GRAND JURY THAT WOULD OF BEEN A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.

PROSECUTORS CAN'T DO THAT.

UNDER RULE 6E IT'S A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO LEAK WHAT HAPPENS IN A GRAND JURY.

ALSO THE KWRAPBD JURY EXPLANATION PROVIDES NO RATIONAL WHATSOEVER FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF HEARINGS.

AFTER THE BASEMENT BUNKER, THE SECRET HEARINGS WHERE THE TESTIMONY WAS PRESCREENED THEN THE SAME WITNESSES THAT WERE DEPOSED WERE PUT ON IN A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS STILL EXCLUDED.

ASK YOURSELF WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT?

IN EVERY PR á*D PRESIDENTIAL PRIR IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL AND CAN CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.

WHY WERE THERE PUBLIC TELEVISED HEARINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT EXCLUDED?

THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A SHOW TRIAL.

NOW I ALSO ADDRESSED THE OTHER DAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS CON T-PG THEY OFFERED THE PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS.

WHEN THINGS REACHED THE THIRD ROUND OF HEARINGS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THIS WAS NO GENUINE OFFER WILL.

BEFORE ANY HEARINGS KPWAPB OTHER HAN THE LAW PROCESSORS SEPL MAR THE SPEAKER HAD DETERMINED THE OUTCOME, SAID THIS WOULD BE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INFORMED THE COUNCIL OFFICE THEY HAD NO MANS TO CALL FACT WITNESSES OR HAVE FACTUAL WITNESSES WHATSOEVER.

IT WAS ALL DONE, LOCKED IN AND BAKED.

THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE HANGING OVER THAT WHEN THEY OFFERED REPORTEDLY TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

THAT WAS A SPECIAL PROVISION IN THE RULES FOR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY PRECEDINGS.

ALWAYS UNPRECEDENTED ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT ANY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AT ALL IF HE CONTINUED TO CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS OR NOT ALLOW WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

SO IF THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T GIVE UP HIS PREUF LEMMINGS AND PREUD IMMUNITIES THEN IT WAS UP TO NADLER.

YOU CAN'T CONDITION SOMEONE'S EXERCISE OF SOME RIGHTS ON THEIR SUR END -RG OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

YOU CAN'T SAY WE WILL LET YOU HAVE DUE PROCESS IN THIS WAY IF YOU WAVE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL PREUF HR-PBLGS ON ANOTHER ISSUE.

THE LAST POINT I WILL MAKE ABOUT DUE PROCESS IS THIS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT DUE PROCESS IS INSHRINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A REASON.

IT'S NOT JUST PROCESS IS AN END IN ITSELF.

INSTEAD IT'S A DEEP SEEDED PHOEFB IN OUR POSITION THAT -- CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES PARTICULARLY IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS FOR ANY AMERICAN.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED THAT FOR OVER 250 YEARS IT HAS BEEN CROSS EXAMINATION IS THE GREATEST DISCOVERY FOR TRUTH.

WHY IN THE WAY THEY DIVIDE THE HEARING PROCEDURES?

WHY DEVICE A PROCESS KEEPING THE PRESIDENT LOCKED OUT FOR ANY HEARINGS FOR 71 OF THE 78 DAYS OF THE INVEST STATION.

THE PROCESS WAS NOT ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH.

IT WAS ABOUT A PREDETERMINED OUT COME ON A TAME TABLE AND HAVING IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS.

THAT'S WHAT THEY ACHIEVED.

NOW THE THIRD FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS ERROR.

A INTERESTING FACT WITNESS SUPERVISED AND LIMITED THE COURSE OF THE FACT ACTUAL DISCOVER AOERBG THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS.

I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY THAT MANAGER SCHIFF HAD A REASON POTENTIALLY BECAUSE OF HIS OFFICE'S CONTACT WITH THE SO CALLED WHITS WILL BLOWER.

WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND HOW THE COMPLAINT WAS FRAMED WHICH IS ALL SECRET TO LIMITING.

WHICH IS RELEVANT.

THE WHISTLE BLOWER BEGAN THIS PROCESS, HIS BIAS AND MOTIVE.

IT'S RELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GENERATED THE PROCESS.

WILL IS NO INQUIRY INTO THAT.

WHAT CONCLUSION BUZZ THIS ALL LEAD TO.

TO THE DUE PROCESS ERRORS AFFECTING THE PROCEEDING UP UNTIL NOW?

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT CONCLUSION IS NOT THAT THIS BODY, THIS CHAMBER SHOULD TRY TO REDO EVERYTHING.

TO START BRINGING IN NEW EVIDENCE.

BRINGING IN WITNESSES BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WASN'T ALLOWED WITNESSES BELOW AND REDOING THE WHOLE PROCESS.

THAT'S FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE, AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DEMONSTRATED DESPITE THE ONE SIDED UNFAIR PROCESS IN THE HOUSE, THE RECORD THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS COLLECTED SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

IT EXONERATES THE PRESIDENT.

THE SECOND AND MORE IMPORTANT REASON IS BECAUSE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS IT WOULD HAVE FOR THISCHAMBER.

WHATEVER PRECEDENCE IS SET AND WHATEVER THIS BODY ACCEPTS NOW AS PAPER MISS I BELIEVE WAY TO BRING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING TO THIS CHAMBER BECOMES A NEW NORMAL.

IF THE NEW NORMAL WILL BE THERE TK-B AN I AM PAEPMENT PROCEEDING IN THE HOUSE VIOLATING DUE PROCESS, DOESN'T PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE BEING IMPEACHED.

DUE PROCESS WRITES FAILS TO COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION AND FAILS TO HAVE FACTS ESTABLISHED THAT THIS BODY SHOULD BE THE INVESTIGATION PARTY AND REDO WHAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO.

FIND NEW WITNESSES AND DO THINGS OVER AND GET NEW EVIDENCE.

THAT THEN THAT WILL BE THE NEW NORMAL AND THAT WILL BE HOW THIS CHAMBER HAS TO FUNCTION.

THERE WILL BE MORE IMPEACHMENTS COMING.

IT'S EASIER TO DO AN IMPEACHMENT IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS AND CAN COME HERE EXPECTING THE SENATE TO DO THE WORK THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO.

I SUBMIT THAT'S NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OF THIS CHAMBER SITTING AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

THIS CHAMBER SHOULDN'T PUT THIS ON A PROCESS IN THE HOUSE THAT WOULD FORCE THIS CHAMBER TO TAKE ON THAT ROLL.

NOW I WILL MOVE ONTO THE CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

ACCEPTING THAT HR-RL OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY DAMAGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BY PERMANENTLY ALTERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.

IN THE SECOND ARTICLE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT -- BY A CERTIFICATING ESTABLISHED LEGAL DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES BASED ON LEGAL DEVOICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LEGAL COUNCIL.

IN ESSENCE THE APPROACH IS IT WHEN WE PRESENT DOCUMENT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED SOLUTION PROCESS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE COURTS TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF OUR SUBPOENA.

AT ONE POINT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THAT ANYTHING MAKES THE HOUSE OWN CONTEMPLATE LITIGATION IS EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION.

INSTEAD THE HOUSE CLAIMS THEY CAN JUST STRAIGHT TO IMPEACH MENTMENT.

WHAT THAT MEANS IN THIS CASE IS THEY'RE SAYING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DENNED THE OFFICE, DEFEND CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED PRINCIPALS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IS A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

IF THIS CHAMBER AFFECTS THAT PRESS IS IT WILL FOREVER DAMAGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

UNDER MIND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE AND DESTROY THE BALANCE THAT WAS CRAFTED IN THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

AS PROFESSOR TURLY DID HE HAVED FACING IMPEACHMENT ON THIS OBSTRUCTION THEORY WOULD ITSELF BE AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR CONGRESS.

I WOULD LIKE TO UNPACK THAT AND EXPLAIN THAT.

I WILL START BY OUTLINING WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS THERE.

ARE THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS.

THREE DIFFERENT NEATLY BASED ASSERTIONS FOR RESISTING OPINIONS THAT WERE MADE.

I HAVE POINTED OUT, SATURDAY, THAT THERE WAS BLANKET DEFIANCE, BLANKET OBSTRUCTION.

AS IF IT WAS UNEXPLAINED OBSTRUCTION.

WE WON'T COOPERATE WITHOUT MORE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

THERE WERE SPECIFIC LEGAL GROUND PROVIDED.

EACH SUPPORTED BY A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL.

SO THE FIRST IS EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS DECHILD TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS NOT AUTHORIZED.

THAT WAS THE POINT FROM THE BEGINNING.

NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE.

WITHOUT THE VOTE FROM THE HOUSE THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED WHETHER NOT AUTHORIZED.

I POINT OUT IN AN OCTOBER 1st LETTER THAT SPECIFIC GROUND WAS EXPLAINED.

NOT JUST FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL, THERE WERE OTHER HRERDZ.

ON THE SCREEN NOW THERE IS AN OCTOBER 15th LETTER FROM OMB THAT EXPLAINS.

>> THE LETTER WENT ONTO EXPLAIN THAT RATIONAL.

THERE ARE LEGAL KROUPBDZ FOR RESISTING.

THE SECOND GROUND, THE SECOND PRINCIPLE THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION A CERTIFICATED WAS THAT SOME OF THE SUBPOENAS PURPORTED TO REQUIRE THE SENIOR ADVISORS TO TESTIFY.

FOLLOWING AT LEAST 50 YEARS OF PRECEDENCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL ADVISED THAT THREE SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT, THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE LEGAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WERE IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED CON TPREGS AL TESTIMONY.

BASED ON THAT ADVICE FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THOSE ADVISORS NOT TO TESTIFY.

ADMINISTRATORS FOR BOTH POLITICAL PARTY HAVE A CERTIFICATED THIS IMMUNITY SINCE THE 1970s.

PRESIDENT OWE BOMB A A CERTIFICATED IT.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH A CERTIFICATED IT AS HIS FORMER COUNCIL AND WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF.

PRESIDENT CLINTON A CERTIFICATED IT AS TO TWO OF HIS COUNCILS.

PRESIDENT REGAN TO HIS COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT NIXON SAERTD IT.

THIS WAS NOT JUST MADE UP RECENTLY.

THERE IS A DECADE LONG HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROVIDING THE OPINION THAT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT ARE IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED CON TPREGS AL TESTIMONY.

THAT'S THE SAME PRESENCE APPROXIMATELY A CERTIFICATED HERE.

THERE ARE IMPORTANT RATIONALES BEHIND THIS IMMUNITY.

ONE IS THAT THE SEN I DON'T REMEMBER ADVICERS ARE THE PRESIDENT'S ALTER EGOS.

FOR CONGRESS TO SUBPOENA THEM AND COMPEL THEM TO TESTIFY IS AS SUBPOENAING THE PRESIDENT TO FORCE HIM TO TESTIFY.

THTHAT UNDER THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS NOT TOLERABLE.

THERE IS ALSO A SECOND AND IMPORTANT RATIONAL BEHIND THIS IMMUNITY.

THAT RELATES TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THE IMMUNITY PROTECTS THE SAME INTEREST THAT UNDER LINE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE PROTECTS THE CONFIDENTIALITY WITH COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND DELIBERATIONS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

AS THE COURT PUT IT IN THE UNITED STATES AGAINST NIXON.

>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS THIS ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO ADVISED PRESIDENT CLINTON THE IMMUNITY THAT ADVISORS ENJOY IS ABSOLUTE AND MAY NOT BE OVERBORN BY COMPETING CONGRESSIONAL.

THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE, IT'S NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC ISSUE.

BOTH PARTIES HAVE A CERTIFICATED THIS IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISORS.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPAL BEHIND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IT'S NECESSARY FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS TO HAVE GOOD AND WORTHWHILE DELIBERATIONS.

IN ORDER TO HAVE PEOPLE PROVIDE THEIR CANDID ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> IF THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO SAY WOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGING OF THE WASHINGTON POST THE NEXT DAY OR THE NEXT WEEK THEY WOULDN'T TELL THE PRESIDENT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY THOUGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE GOOD DECISION MAKING THERE HAS TO BE THAT ZONE OF CONFIDENTIALITY.

THIS IS HOW THE SUPREME COURT PUT IT.

"HUMAN EXPERIENCE TEACHES THAT THOSE WHO EXPECT PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF THEIR REMARKS MAY WELL TEMPER CANNEDOR FOR APPEARANCES AND THEIR OWN APPEARANCES FOR THE DETRIMENT OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS."

THAT WAS ALSO FROM THE UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON.

THOSE ARE THE INTERESTS PROTECTED BY HAVING SENIOR ADVISORS IMMUNED.

ONCE SOMEONE IS COMPELLED TO SIT IN THE WITNESS SEAT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS IT'S HARD TO PROTECT THAT PRIVILEGE.

THAT THEY DON'T REVEAL SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

FOR A SMALL CIRCLE OF THOSE CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 40-50 YEARS ADMINISTRATIONS ON BOTH PARTIES HAVE INSISTED ON THIS PRINCIPLE.

NOW THE OTHER NIGHT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHEN WE WERE HERE LATE LAST WEEK, THEY SUGGESTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A DISTRACTION AND NADLER CALLED IT NONSENSE.

NOT AT ALL IT'S A PRINCIPAL RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THEY SAY THIS IMMUNITY HAS BEEN REJECTED BY EVERY COURT ADDRESSING THIS.

MAKING IT SEEM THERE ARE LOTS OF COURTS ADDR ADDRESSING THIS AND SAYING THIS THEORY DOESN'T FLY.

THAT'S NOT ACCURATE OR TRUE.

IN MOST INSTANCES ONCE THE PRESIDENT A CERTIFICATES IMMUNITY FOR A SENIOR ADVISER THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS BETWEEN THE BRAN SKP-FP LEGISLATURE BEGINS.

THERE IS USUALLY A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW SOME TESTIMONY IN A CLOSED HEARING OR DEPOSITION OR PROVIDE INFORMATION INSTEAD OF LIVE TESTIMONY.

THERE IS A COMPROMISE.

THE ONLY TWO TIMES IT'S BEEN LITIGATED, DISTRICT COURTS IT'S TRUE REJECTED THE I PHAOUPBLT.

ONE WAS THE CASE INVOLVING FORMER COUNCIL TO GEORGE W. BUSH, HARRIET MEYERS.

IMMEDIATELY ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DC CIRCUIT STAYED THE DECISION.

THAT DECISION MEANS TO STAY THAT DISTRICT COURT DECISION THAT THE APPELLATE COURT THOUGHT THERE WAS A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON APPEAL.

THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MAY SUCCEED.

AT A MINIMUM THEY QUESTIONED QUESTIONS SO SERIOUS, DIFFICULT AND DOUBT FULL TO MAKE THEM A FAIR GROUND FOR LITIGATION.

THE FIRST IS STAYED.

THE SECOND IS BEING LITIGATED NOW.

IT'S THE McGAN CASE THE HOUSE HAS BROUGHT GETTING TESTIMONY FROM DONALD McGAN.

THAT CASE WAS ARGUED IN THE DC CIRCUS JANUARY 3rd.

THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED LAW IT'S BEING LIT FATED NOW.

IT'S AN IMMUNITY THAT IS A STANDARD PRINCIPLE A A ASERTINGT PRINCIPLE.

THE THIRD ACTION THE PRESIDENT TOOK, THE ADMINISTRATION TOOK THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO SHUT OUT EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNCIL FROM THE DEPOSITIONS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES.

NOW THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL CON CHEWED THAT CON DEPRESSION AL COMMITTEES MAY NOT BAR AGENCY COUNCIL FROM ASSISTING AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITNESS WITHOUT CONVENING THE P PREROGATIVES.

BARRING WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THE PRESIDENT RELIED ON THE LOPE ADVICE HERE.

AS JUDGE STARR POINTED OUT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSULTING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

RECEIVING ADVICE FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL AND FOLLOWING THAT ADVICE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PER OG STIFFS OF HIS OFFICE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PER OG STIFFS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

AGAIN ADMINISTRATIONS FROM BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANT ROLL AGENCY COUNCIL PLAYS.

IN THE OBAMA INVESTIGATION IT WAS STATED EXCLUSION OF AGENCY COUNCIL COULD POTENTIALLY UNDER MINE THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND A CERTIFICATE WHERE APPROPRIATE.

WHY IS AGENCY COUNCIL IMPORTANT?

AS I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OF CON FENDENT KWRALT FOR COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

INTERNAL DELIBERATE COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM MUCH.

THOSE ARE IMPORTANT LEGAL RIGHTS.

THEY'RE NECESSARY FOR THE PROTER FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

AGENCY COUNCIL IS TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS.

WHEN A INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE GOES IN TO TESTIFY HE OR SHE MAY NOT KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS FOR WHAT IS COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR DELIBERATE OR PROCESSED PRIVILEGE.

IN THEIR PERSONAL COUNCIL IF THEY'RE PERMITTED TO HAVE PERSONAL COUNCIL WITH THEM SAME THING.

MOST COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYEES DON'T KNOW THE FINER POINTS OF EXECUTIVE PROGRAM MUCH CONFIDENTIALITY.

IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO PROTECT THOSE INTERESTS.

THEY'RE THE PERSONAL LAWYER FOR THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS TESTIFYING.

TRYING TO PROTECT THAT EMPLOYEE FROM POTENTIAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.

WE USUALLY HAVE LAWYERS TO PROTECT LEGAL RIGHTS.

IT MAKES SENSE WHEN THIS IS A IMPORTANT LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AT STAKE.

THERE WILL BE A HROUR TO BE LAWO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THAT'S THE LEGAL COUNCIL THAT WAS ENDORSED.

THIS DOESN'T RAISE PROBLEMS FOR CON DEPRESSION AL INVESTIGATIONS OR FINDING INFORMATION.

JUST AS RECENTLY AS APRIL 2019 THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM REACHED AN ACCOMMODATION WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION HAD DECLINED TO MAKE SOMEONE AVAILABLE FOR A DEPOSITION BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AGENCY COUNCIL.

THAT ISSUE WAS WORKED OUT AND AN ACCOMMODATION WAS MADE.

THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY PROVIDED IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS RESULT IN THE ESCALATION SEEN HERE STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT.

ACCOMMODATION PROCESS CAN WORK THINGS OUT.

HOUSE DEMOCRAT HAVE POINTED TO A HOUSE RULE.

A HOUSE RULE CAN NOT OVER RIDE A CONNING TO YOUS AL PRIVILEGE.

SO, THOSE ARE THE THREE PRINCIPLES THAT THE TRUMP ADMIN VATION A CERTIFICATED.

NOW I WOULD HIKE TO TURN TO THE THAT SOME HOW THE ASSERTION OF THESE PRINCIPLES CREATED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE IDEA THAT A CERTIFICATING DEFENSES AND IMMUNITIES.

ACTING ON ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS IMPEACHABLE.

IT'S ABSURD AND DANGEROUS FOR OUR GOVERNMENT.

LET ME EXPLAIN WHY.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS OBSTRUCTION THEORY IS WRONG FIRST AND FOR MOST BECAUSE IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS A CERTIFICATING PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS TO RESIST COMPULSION IS NOT OBSTRUCTION IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO PUNISH A PERSON FOR DOING WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS HIM TO DO IS A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF THE MOST BASIC SORT.

FOR AN AGENT OF THE STATE TO PURSUE A COURSE OF ACTION WHOSE OBJECTIVE IS TO PENALIZE A PERSON'S RELIANCE ON HIS LEGAL RIGHTS IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THIS WAS RECOGNIZED ACROSS THE BOARD AND IMPROPER TO MAKE A CERTIFICATING RIGHTS A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

LAURENCE TRIBE "THE ALLEGATIONS OF INVOKING -- IT S. AN ABUSIVE POW THAT SHOULD LEGAL TO IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVING OF OFFS IS NOT ONLY FRIVOLOUS BUT DANGEROUS.

"SE.

"NADLER -- AND SKHAOUPL EXPD THE SAME VIEW.

>> TO SUGGEST THAT ANY SUBJECT OF A INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT WITH ALLEGATIONS TO THE PRESIDENCY IS ABUSING POWER AND INTERFERING WITH A INVESTIGATION WITH LEGITIMATE CLAIMS WITH DUE PROCESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS BEYOND CONSIDERATION.

>> THAT WAS EXACTLY CORRECT THEN AND CORRECT NOW.

MORE IMPORTANT THE PRINCIPLE THAT A CERTIFICATING RIGHTS CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED OBSTRUCTION.

WHEN THE RIGHTS THE PRESIDENT A CERTIFICATES IS BASED ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

WHEN THEY'RE CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED PRINCIPALS FOR SEPARATION OF POWERS AND PROTECTING THE INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, TO CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION IT'S TO TURN THE CONSTITUTION ON IT'S HEAD.

DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CAN'T BE DEEMED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

ACCEPTING THAT APPROACH WOULD DO PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ALLOWING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TURN ANY AGREEMENT OVER INFORMATIONAL DEMANDS FOR A SUPPOSES BASIS CREATING FOR US THE PARLIAMENTARY REASON THE FRAMERS EMPLOYED.

GOATING THE EXECUTIVE TO A REFUSAL AND TREATING THAT AS A IMPEACHABLE THE HOUSE WOULD ABLE TO FUNCTION WITH A NO CONFIDENCE VOTE POWER.

NOW THAT IS NOT THE FRAMERS DESIGN.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FREQUENTLY CLASH INCLUDING CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION.

THESE CONFLICTS HAVE FOUNDED SINCE THE FOUNDING IN 1796.

GEORGE WASHINGTON RESISTED DEMANDS FROM CONGRESS FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON THE JADE TREATY.

THIS HAVE BEEN CONFLICTS WITH THE EXECUTIVE AND CON GRENZ SINCE THEN ABOUT CON KPREG AL DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS EXPECTED THE BRANCHES TO HAVE THESE CONFLICTS.

JAMES MADISON POINTED OUT THE LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE -- BE GUIDED BY THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION EACH ACCORDING TO IT'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF IT.

IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WOULD BE FRICTION.

SIMILARLY IN FEDERALIST 51 MADISON POINTED OUT THE GREAT SECURITY AGAINST A GRADUAL CONCENTRATION OF SEVERAL POWERS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT CONSIST IN IF I HAVING TO THOSE WHO ADMINISTER EACH DEPARTMENT THE NECESSARY CONS AT THIS ACTUALITY AL MEANS AND PERSONAL MOTIVES TO RESIST ENCROACHMENT OF THE OTHERS.

THIS IS FRICTION AND THE DOLLARING BEHIND THE BRANCHES IS NOT EVIDENCE OF A IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

IT'S A SEPARATION OF POWERS IN IT'S PRACTICAL OPERATION.

IT'S PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.

THE PROPER AND HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED WAY THE DISA TPROEPLTS HAVE BEEN RECOUGHED IS THROUGH THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.

COURT HAVE EXPLAINED THE BRANCHES ARE REQUIRED TO ENGAGE TO DISSOLVE DISAGREEMENTS WHERE THIS IS A CLASH OVER INFORMATION.

THE DC CIRCUIT HAS EXPLAINED WHEN CONGRESS ASKS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT TRIGGERS "A IMPLICIT MANDATE TO SEEK OPTIMAL OPTIMIZATION."

THE GOAL IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF BOTH BRANCHES TO REACH A COMPROMISE.

IF THAT FAILS CONGRESS HAS OTHER TOOLS AT IT'S DISPOSAL TO DISCUSS A DISAGREEMENT.

THE HOUSE TRADITIONALLY HAS PROCEEDED TO VOTE ON A CONTEMPT RESOLUTION.

IN REIS THE TIMES THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT SECURING THE COURT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE POINTED OUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TOOK THE VOW THE CASES ARE NOT -- ARTICLE THREE COURTS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S THE VIEW OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

THAT WAS THE VIEW OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

THIS IS A RESISTENCE IN THE COURT CASES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO ADDRESS THOSE.

I THINK HOUSE MANAGERS ARE MISSING THE POINT WHEN THEY IDENTIFY THAT POSITION THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN.

BECAUSE THE HOUSE CAN NOT CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE A MECHANISM FOR GOING TO COURT.

THEY'RE IN COURT NOW A CERTIFICATING THAT MECHANISM IN THE McGAN CASE.

THEN SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO BOTHER WITH THAT MECHANISM.

THEY CAN JUMP TO IMPEACHMENT.

IMPEACHMENT IS THE THERMO NUCLEAR WEAPON OF INNER BRANCH FRICTION.

WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING AT THE HOUSE DISPOSAL THAT'S THE NEXT STEP.

IT'S INCREMENTAL IN THE CONSTITUTION, NOT JUMPING STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT AS A SOLUTION.

IF THE HOUSE COULD JUMP STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT THAT WOULD ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

IT WOULD SUGGESTION THAT THE HOUSE COULD MAKE ITSELF SUE PEER KPROR OVER THE EXECUTIVE.

DANGLE THE THREAD OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE FRAMERS MAN.

IT WAS EXPLAINED IN FEDERALIST 49, THE BRANCHES COME INTO CONFLICT NEITHER HAVE A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO SETTLE THE BOUNDARIES OF RESPECTS TIFF POWERS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE A CERTIFICATED IN THIS CASE.

THEY HAVE SAID THAT THE HOUSE BECOMES SUPREME, NO NEED FOR THEM TO GO TO COURT, THE EXECUTIVE MUST BE WRONG.

YOUR RESISTENCE IS OBSTRUCTION.

IF YOU CLAIM THE SUB PONE A IS IN VALID WE DON'T ADDRESS THE CONCERN, WE WILL JUST IMPEACH YOU.

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE EVEN PUT IT THIS WAY IN THEIR REPORT.

THE HOUSE ITSELF, THEY EFFECTIVELY SAID THE HOUSE IS A JUDGE OF IT'S OWN POWERS.

WHAT THEY SAID IS THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE FINAL WORD.

THAT'S PAGE 154 OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT.

WHAT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, THEY POINT TO THE FACT THAT ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWO GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY CLAIM THAT BECAUSE IT'S THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLL.

THE HOUSE HAS THE FINAL WORD.

JUDGE OF IT'S OWN POWERS.

THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.

THERE IS NO POWER UNCHECKED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TPWEUFPB TO THE HOUSE MEANS THAT POWER IS GIVEN SOLELY TO THE HOUSE NOT ANYWHERE HE WILL.

THEY DON'T SAY THIS IS A PARAMOUNT POWER MAKING ALL OTHER RIGHTS AND PER OG STIFFS OF OTHER BRANCHES FALL AWAY.

THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THERE COULD BE PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.

IMPEACHMENTS FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

THEY DIDN'T STRIP THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF IT'S MEANS FOR PROTECTING IT'S OWN SPHERE OF AUTHORITY, OWN PER OG STIFFS PREROGATIVESUNDER THE CONSTITUT.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE HOUSE CAN SIMPLY FLIP A SWITCH AND SAY WE'RE IN A IMPEACHMENT AND THEY HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL KRYPTONITE MAKING THE POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE ELIMINATED.

WHEN THERE ARE THESE CONFLICTS EVEN IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE EXECUTIVE CAN CONTINUE TO A CERTIFICATE IT'S PRIVILEGES AND PREROGATIVES.

INDEED IT MUST TO TRUST THE INSTITUTIONAL OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND PRESERVE THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE BRANCHES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

PROFESSOR TURLY POINTED OUT BY CLAIMING CONGRESS CAN DEMAND THEY TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENT AND IMPEACH ANY PRESIDENT GOING TO THE COURTS -- IMPEACHMENT.

OTHER SCHOLARS AGREE IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IT WAS TESTIFIED THAT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR INVOKING LAW FULL PRIVILEGE IS A DANGEROUS AND OMINOUS PRECEDENCE.

>> IS IT WOULD ACHIEVE WHAT A FRAMER WARNED AGAINST AT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

HE EXPLAINED WHEN WE MAKE HIM, REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT, A MAMENABLE TO JUSTICE WE SHOULD TAKE CARE NOT TO MAKE HIM DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATURE.

THIS IS WHAT THIS ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD DO.

IT WOULD MAKE THE PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATURE.

ANY DEMAND FOR LEGISLATION COULD BE USED AS THE STREET OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE THEORY THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE A CERTIFICATED THIS ARE BE NO ASSERTION $OF PRIVILEGE, NO CONSTITUTIONALLY-BASED PREROGATIVES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO STAND IN THE WAY.

IF THAT THEORY WERE TRUE VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN EMPEACHED, VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES, PRESIDENT OBAMA IN THE FAST AND FURIOUS INVESTIGATION REFUSED TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL BEING HELD IN EQUIPMENT AND THERE COULD BE A LONG LIST AS PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED THERE WOULD BE A LONG LIST IF THIS WERE APPLIED TO ALL PASS PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY.

NOW, THE HOUSE HAVING GIVING A FEW JUFKTSZ FOR THIS APPROACH BUT I WOULD SUBMIT NON CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY SAY IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, THEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.

NOT SO.

AS I THINK I POINTED OUT, THE PRESIDENT IS STAYING WITHIN THE LAW, ASSERTING THE LAW, RELYING ON THE LEGAL ADVISE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS BASED ON LONG RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND INDEED IS MAKING THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENAS, IT IS CONGRESS THAT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW, IT'S THE HOUSE.

THE HOUSE HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS WELL, HAS TO ISSUE VALID SUBPOENAS.

IF THE LAW ISN'T FOLLOWED, THOSE SUBPOENAS ARE NULL AND VOID AND THE EXECUTIVE DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THEM.

THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY THAT THEY SHOULDN'T GO TO THE COURTS BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN IMPEACHMENT.

I THINK I'VE POINTED THOUGHT THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS CAN'T SAY JUST BECAUSE OF THE PROVISION OF THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT THAT IT'S THE PARAMOUNT POWER AND NO BRANCH PROVIDES ANY ROLE ON PROVIDING A CHECK IN HOW THAT PRAYER IS EXERCISED AND IN ADDITION, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVING TO ARE COURT.

IN THE McGHAN CASE THEY HAVE ASSERTED THAT IS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS EXPLAINED IT WAS NOT VALIDLY PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BUT THAT IS THE GROUND OFTEN THEY ARE LITIGATING THAT.

THEY SAY THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR THE COURTS.

I THINK WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND THE WAY THEY'RE PURSUING THE INQUIRY.

THE OTHER DAY ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ACTUALLY SAID ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT THEY HAD TO GET MOVING.

THEY COULDN'T WAIT FOR LITIGATION BECAUSE THEY HAD TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

THAT'S NOT A VALID REASON TO NOT PURSUE LITIGATION IN THE COURTS.

I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO BEAR IN MIND WHAT SORT OF DELAY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

IN THE McGHAN CASE THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA IN APRIL BUT THEY DID NOT FILE A LAWSUIT UNTIL AUGUST.

BY NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 25th, THEY HAD A DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND IT WAS ARGUED ON APPEAL IN THE D.C.

CIRCUIT JANUARY 3rd.

FOR LIT LAYINGS THAT'S PRETTY FAST AND IT CAN GO FASTER.

IN THE NIXON CASE DURING WATERGATE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ISSUED A SOUP ON APRIL 18TH, 1974.

ON MAY 20TH, SO IN LESS THAN A MONTH THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA.

ON MAY 31st, THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE AND ON JULY 24th THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS DECISION.

THAT'S LIGHTNING FAST.

SO WHEN THERE IS URGENCY TO THE CASE -- WHEN THERE IS A REASON FOR IT THERE CAN BE EXPEDITION IN THE COURTS AND A DECISION CAN BE HAD IN A TIMELY MANNER.

IN THE ONE CASE THAT AROSE FROM THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS THE HOUSE THAT DERAILED THE CASE.

THIS IS THE CASE INVOLVING DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CHARLIE PEPPERMAN.

WHEN HE RECEIVED A SUBPOENA HE WENT TO COURT AND ASKED FOR DCLARATORY JUDGMENT EXPLAINING HIS OBLIGATIONS.

SHOULD HE TAKE THE DIRECTIVE FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS IMMUNE AND NOT GO OR OBEY THE SUBPOENA?

IN THAT CASE HE FILED SUIT ON OCTOBER 25th.

THE COURT WITHIN A FEW DAYS SET AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE BUT THE HOUSE WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA JUST 11 DAYS LATER IN ORDER TO MOOT THE CASE.

SO I THINK LITIGATION IS A VIABLE AVENUE ALONG WITH THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AS A FIRST STEP.

THEN IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES IT CAN GO TO COURT AND LITIGATE THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENAS, THAT'S ALSO AVAILABLE TO THEM, BUT IMPEACHMENT AS THE FIRST STEP DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

I SHOULD POINT OUT IN MATTER WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THEY NOT DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LITIGATE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GO TO THE COURTS BUT THEY NOW COME TO THIS CHAMBER AND SAY THIS CHAMBER SHOULD ISSUE MORE SUBPOENAS, THIS CHAMBER SHOULD GET WITNESSES THAT WE DIDN'T BOTHER TO FIGHT ABOUT, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN THEN THAT THERE WON'T BE SIMILAR ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY, THERE WOULDN'T BE LITIGATION ABOUT THAT?

THIS GOES BACK TO THE POINT I MADE.

IF YOU PUT YOUR INFRAMATER AND SAY THIS WAS A GREAT PACKAGE TO BRING HERE AND WE'LL CLEAN UP THE MESS AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS AND DO ALL THE WORK THAT WASN'T DONE, THEN THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THIS BODY.

THE PROPER WAY TO HAVE THINGS HANDLED IS TO HAVE THE HOUSE IF IT WANTS TO BRING AN IMPEACHMENT HERE READY FOR TRIAL IT HAS TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

THE INFORMATION IT WANTS TO GET IF THERE IS GOING TO BE RESISTANCE, THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED AND READY TO PROCEED.

NOT TRANSFER THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS CHAMBER TO DO THE WORK THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE.

THEY ALSO ASSERT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ASSERTION OF THESE PRIVILEGES IS SOMEHOW DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S UNPRECEDENTED AND IT'S CATEGORICAL.

IT'S UNPRECEDENTED PERHAPS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WAS A BROAD STATEMENT THAT A LOT OF SUBPOENAS WOULDN'T BE COMPLIED WITH BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO BEGIN THESE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT VOTE TO GO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENA $.

THAT WAS THE FIRST UNPRECEDENTED STEP.

THAT'S WHAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN HISTORY.

OF COURSE THE RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE IN SOME SENSE UNPRECEDENTED.

THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY NOT POINTED OUT WITHOUT THAT VOTE, THERE WERE NO VALID SUBPOENAS.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN CATEGORICAL REFUSALS IN THE PAST, PRESIDENT TRUMAN ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO HIS ADMINISTRATION, ISSUED A DIRECTIVE TO THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT ANY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR SUBPOENA, REPORTS, OR FILES OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN THOSE SUBPOENAS SHALL BE RESPECTFULLY DECLINED ON THE BASIS OF THIS DIRECTIVE AND HE REFERRED ALL SUCH INQUIRIES TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR SUCH RESPONSE AS THE PRESIDENT MAY DETERMINE TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE TRUMAN ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED TO NONE OF THEM.

A LAST POINT ON THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THAT THE PRIVILEGES DISAPPEAR BECAUSE THIS IS THE IMPEACHMENT POWER OF THE HOUSE, THEY REFERRED TO UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON, A SUPREME COURT DECISION SUGGESTING THAT THAT DETERMINES WHAT YOU ARE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FALLS AWAY.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON WAS NOT ADDRESSING A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA IT WAS A SUBPOENA FROM A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT THE COURT DID NOT SAY THAT THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS.g2 INSTEAD THE COURT SAID "IT IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THESE COMPETING INTERESTS, THE INTEREST OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN ADMINISTERING A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION CASE AND THE EXERTED PRIVILEGES OF EACH BRANCH AND IT HELD OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN RELATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING APPROACHING AN ABSOLUTE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE FIELD WE'RE IN IN THIS CASE, FOREIGN O RELATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS.

ANOTHER THING YOU HAVE HEARD IS PRESIDENT CLINTON VOLUNTARILY COOPERATED WITH THE INVESTIGATION, PRODUCED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS.

BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY ACCURATE.

THAT WAS ONLY AFTER LONG, LITIGATION AGAIN AND, AGAIN ABOUT ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

THEY ASSERTED NUMEROUS PRIVILEGES.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY EXPLAINED DURING THE LEWINSKI INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT CLINTON ABUSED HIS POWER THROUGH REPEATED ASSERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BY AT LISA FIVE OF HIS AIDS."

UNLIKE THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STARR NEGOTIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND LITIGATED THOSE CLAIMS AND GOT THEM RESOLVED.

ULTIMATELY THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUE THAT ALL PROBLEMS WITH THEIR OBSTRUCTION THEORY SHOULD BE BRUSHED ASIDE AND THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTIONS OF IMMUNITIES AND DEFENSES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS SOMETHING NEFARIOUS BECAUSE AS MR. NADLER PUT IT ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE EVIDENCE AND THAT'S WHAT HE SAID LAST TUESDAY NIGHT AND MR. SCHIFF SAID "THE INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS WAY" REALLY?

IS THAT THE PRINCIPLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

THAT IF YOU ASSERT LEGAL PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS THAT MEANS YOU'RE GUILTY?

THAT THE INNOCENT DON'T ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE?

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT COMES DOWN TO A DISPUTE OVER A LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE ABILITY OF THE HOUSE TO COMPEL INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE.

NO MATTER HOW HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRY TO DRESS UP THEIR CHARGES, A DIFFERENCE OF LEGAL OPINION DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.

UNTIL NOW THE HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY REJECTED ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENTS BASED ON LEGAL ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

AS JUDGE STARR POINTED OUT IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDING THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT IMPROPERLY EXERCISED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE YET STILL CONCLUDED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SECOND GUESS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PRESIDENT OR WHAT WAS IN HIS MIND ASSERTING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND YOU COULD NOT TREAT THAT AS AN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE.

THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS OWN WITNESS, PROFESSOR GERHARDT EXPLAINED IN 1843 PRESIDENT TILER WAS INVESTIGATED FOR IMPEACHMENT.

HIS ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT AND ASSERT WHAT HE REGARDED AS THE PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE BECAUSE HE HAD RESISTED DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS, PROFESSOR GERHARDT EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A FUNCTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY JUDGMENTS.

THEY COULD NOT BE USED, THE CONGRESS DETERMINED, TO IMPEACH HIM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RESISTANCE WAS NO LESS A FUNCTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY JUDGMENTS AND PROVIDES NO BASIS TO IMPEACH HIM.

I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE WITH A FINAL THOUGHT.

ONE OF THE GREATEST ISSUES AND PERHAPS THE GREATEST ISSUE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE, IS HOW THE PRECEDENT SET IN THIS CASE WILL AFFECT THE FUTURE.

THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTISAN AND ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENTS, HAMILTON WARNED IN FEDERALIST 65 ABOUT IMPEACHMENTS THAT REFLECTED WHAT HE CALLED "THE PERSECUTION OF AN IMTEMPERATUREE OR DESIGNING AUTHORITY" THAT IS WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS CASE.

THE SENATE PROVIDED THE PROPER PLACE FOR TRYING IMPEACHMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THEY HAVE A GREATER OBLIGATION TO THE FUTURE, NOT TO BE SWAYED BY THE PASSIONS OF THE MOMENT.

ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS HERE IS: WILL THIS CHAMBER ADOPT A STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT, A DILUTED STANDARD, THAT FUNDAMENTALLY DISRUPTS, DAMAGES, ALTERS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT BOTH THE FIRST ARTICLE, FOR REASONS THAT JUDGE STARR AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAVE COVERED AND THE SECOND ARTICLE WOULD DO.

I WILL QUOTE A SENATOR WHO CROSSED THE AISLE AND VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHING PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, LIMON TRUMBLE.

HE SAID "ONCE WE SET THE EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR WHAT WHEN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL HAVE SUBSIDED WILL BE REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES, NO FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL BE SAFE AND WHAT THEN BECOMES OF THE CHECK AND BALANCES OF THE CONSTITUTION SO CAREFULLY DEVISED AND SO VITAL TO ITS PERPETUITY.

THEY ARE ALL GONE.

"THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I WILL YIELD TO MR. SEKULOW.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: MY COLLEAGUES AND IRGOING TO STEP AWAY NOW TO PREPARE NOR THE NEWSHOUR BROADCAST BUT NOT TO WORRY OUR COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE HERE AND ONLINE AND ON OUR YOU TUBE AND SOCIAL PAGES.

WE WILL BE BACK AFTER THE NEWSHOUR AT 8 P.M. EASTERN TO CONTINUE OUR LIVE COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL.

FOR NOW WE RETURN YOU TO THE LIVE PROCEEDINGS ON CAPITOL HILL IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.

>> JAY SEKULOW: MR. NADLER CALLED IT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND NONSENSE WHEN ATTORNEY HOLD DEVELOPER REFUSED TO COMPLY ARGUING "COMPELLED DISCLOSURE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION."

EXECUTIVE POWER AND OTHER NONSENSE.

MANAGER SCHIFF WROTE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE LEDGE WAS DEC DECK BACKED BY DECADES OF PRECEDENT AND IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE SENIOR ADVISORS TO RECEIVE CANDID ADVISE FROM TOP AIDES.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

THE NONSENSE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE OTHER NIGHT, IS TO TREAT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES AS IF THEIR ASBESTOS IN CEILING TILES.

UP CAN'T TOUCH THEM.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS DESIGNED.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO A SEPARATE TOPIC.

IT'S ONE THAT WAS DISCUSSED A LOT ON THE FLOOR HERE, AND WILL BE DISCUSSED NOW.

PRESENTING FOR THE PRESIDENT IS THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PAM BONDI.

SHE IS A CAREER PROSECUTOR, SHE HAS HANDLED COUNTLESS CASES.

SHE IS GOING TO DISCUSS AN ISSUE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PUT PRETTY MUCH AT THE CENTER OF THEIR CASE AND THAT'S THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO A COMPANY KNOW AS BERISMA.

I YIELD MY TIME, CHIEF JUSTICE, TO FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI.

>> PAM BONDI: CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS GAVE YOU THEIR PRESENTATION, WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR BRIEF THEY REPEATEDLY REFERENCED HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA.

THEY SPOKE TO YOU OVER 21 HOURS AND THEY REFERENCED BIDEN OR BURISMA OVER 400 TIMES.

WHEN THEY GAVE THESE PRESENTATIONS, THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING, NOTHING TO SEE, IT WAS A SHAM.

THIS IS NICKS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THEIR TRIAL BRIEF DESCRIBED THIS AS "BASELESS" WHY DID THEY SAY THAT?

WHY DID THEY INVOKE BIDEN OR BURISMA OVER 400 TIMES?

THE REASON THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE HERE SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM SERVICE FOR RAISING A CONCERN.

AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS TODAY.

THEY SAY SHAM, THEY SAY BASELESS.

BECAUSE THEY SAY THIS BECAUSE IF IT'S OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING HERE WORTH RAISING, THEN THEIR CASE CRUMBLES.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO RAISE THIS CONCERN.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW.

HERE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE PUBLIC SOURCES THAT FLAGGED QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THIS VERY SAME ISSUE.

THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE KENT, HUNTER BIDEN'S FORMER BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, AN ABC WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, ABC, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, UKRAINE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF.

THEY ALL RAISED THIS ISSUE.

WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE DISCUSSING THIS.

BUT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PLACED THIS SQUARELY AT ISSUE SO WE MUST ADDRESS IT.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS.

IN EARLY 2014 JOE BIDEN, OUR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, LED THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE WITH THE GOAL OF ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, DURING THIS TIME UKRAINE WAS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

IN UKRAINE THERE IS A NATIONAL GAS COMPANY CALLED BURISMA.

OWNED BY AN OLIGARC THIS, NAMED NIKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY.

BIDEN'S SON HUNTER ENDS UP ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, WORKING FOR OLIGARCH ZLOCHEVSKY.

ZLOCHEVSKY IS WELL KNOWN.

GEORGE KENT THE VERY FIRST WITNESS THE DEMOCRATS CALLED DURING THEIR HEARINGS, SAID ZLOCHEVSKY STOOD OUT AS THE MOST CORRUPT.

VOELKER SAID BURISMA HAD A BAD REPUTATION FOR MONEY LAUNDERING AND MISMANAGEMENT.

BURISMA WAS SO CORRUPT THAT GEORGE KENT SAID HE INTERVENED TO PREVENT U.S. AID FROM CO SPONSORING AN EVENT WITH BURISMA.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EVENT WAS?

A CHILD'S CONTEST AND THE PRIZE WAS A CAMERA.

THEY WERE SO BAD, BURISMA, THAT OUR COUNTRY WOULDN'T EVEN CO-SPONSOR A CHILDREN'S EVENT WITH BURISMA.

IN MARCH 2014 THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE OPENED A MONEY LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION INTO THE OLIGARCH ZLOCHEVSKY, AND LATER BIDEN JOINS THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

REMEMBER, EARLY 2014 WAS WHICH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BEGAN LEADING UKRAINE POLICY.

HERE IS HOW HUNTER BIDEN CAME TO JOIN.

HE WAS BROUGHT ON THE BOARD BY DEVIN AVERAGER, HIS BUSINESS PARTNER.

AVERAGER WAS COLLEGE ROOMMATES OF CHRIS BEHINDS, STEP STONE OF SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY.

ALL THREE MEN, BIDEN, ARCHER AND BEHINDS HAD STARTED AN INVESTMENT FIRM TOGETHER.

PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW THAT APRIL 16TH, 2014, DEVIN ARCHER MEETS WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

JUST TWO DAYS LATER ON APRIL 18TH, 2014, HUNTER BIDEN QUIETLY JOINS BURISMA, ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING.

REMEMBER THIS IS JUST ONE MONTH AFTER THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE OPENED A MONEY LAUNDERING CASE INTO BURISMA, HUNTER BIDEN JOINS THEIR BOARD.

AND NOT ONLY TEN DAYS AFTER HUNTER BIDEN JOINS THE BOARD, BRITISH AUTHORITIES SEIZE $23 MILLION IN BRITISH BANK ACCOUNTS CONNECTED TO THE OLIGARCH, ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OWNER OF BURISMA.

DID HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE BOARD?

NO.

THEY ANNOUNCED THEY WERE STARTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO MONEY LAUNDERING, DID HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE BOARD?

NO.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS THEN, ONLY THEN DID THE COMPANY CHOOSE TO ANNOUNCE THAT HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE BOARD, AFTER THE ASSETS OF BURISMA AND THE OLIGARCH OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY WERE FROZEN AND A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

HUNTER BIDEN'S DECISION TO JOIN BURISMA RAISED FLAGS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.

ONE ARTICLE FROM MAY 2014 STATED "THE APPOINTMENT OF JOE BIDEN'S SON TO THE BOARD UKRANIAN COMPANY BURISMA HAS RAISED EYEBROWS THE WORLD OVER.

HUNTER BIDEN'S ACTIVITIES CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR JOE BIDEN.

ARTICLES STATED THE MOVE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR JOE BIDEN.

EVEN CHRIS BEHINDS, HUNTER BIDEN'S OWN BUSINESS PARTNER HAD GRAVE CONCERNS.

HE THOUGHT THAT WORKING WITH BURISMA WAS UNACCEPTABLE.

CHRIS BEHINDS.

HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE CORRUPTION, THE GEO POLITICAL RISK AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK.

SO HE WISELY DISTANCES OIMSELF FROM HUNTER BIDEN AND DEVIN ARCHER'S APPOINTMENTS TO BURISMA.

HE DIDN'T SIMPLY CALL HIS STEPFATHER, SECRETARY OF STATE AND SAY, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

HE DIDN'T TELL HIS FRIENDS, HEY, GUYS, I'M NOT GETTING ON THE BOARD.

I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

HE WENT SO FAR AS TO SEND AN EMAIL TO SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, THIS IS CHRIS HEINZ.

HE WROTE APPARENTLY HUNTER AND DEVIN HAVE JOINED THE BOARD AT BURISMA.

I CAN'T SAY WHY THEY DECIDED TO BUT THERE IS NO INVESTMENT IN OUR FIRM FROM THEIR COMPANY.

WHAT DID HUNTER BIDEN DO?

HE STAYED ON THE BOARD.

WHAT DID CHRIS HEINZ DO?

H SUBSEQUENTLY STOPPED DOING BUSINESS WITH HIS COLLEGE ROOMMATES.

HEINZ' SPOKESPERSON SAID THIS WAS A CATALYST FOR ENDING HIS HE IS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH ARCHER AND BIDEN.

THERE WAS A QUESTION TO JAY CANCER ANY ABOUT IT.

>> HUNTER BIDEN HAS TAKEN A POSITION WITH THE LARGEST GAS HOLDING COMPANY IN UKRAINE, THERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE?

>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, I SAW THOSE REPORTS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BIDEN FAMILIES -- THEY ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS AND THEIR WORK DOES NOT REFLECT AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT BUT I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

>> PAM BONDI: THE NEXT DAY THE "WASHINGTON POST" RAN A STORY ABOUT IT.

IT SAID "THE APPOINTMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON TO THE UKRAINE OIL COMPANY LOOKS NEAPTIFIC AT BEST, NEFARIOUS AT WORST.

AND THE MEDIA DIDN'T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS HERE, IT KEPT GOING.

HERE IS ABC.

>> YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION.

>> BUT THEN SOMETHING STRANGE HAPPENED.

JUST THREE WEEKS LATER A UKRANIAN NATIONAL GAS COMPANY, BURISMA ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION APPOINTS HN SEEN HERE TO THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PAYING HIS FIRM MORE THAN $1 MILLION A YEAR.

>> PAM BONDI: HERE IS MORE FROM ABC.

>> AUKRAINE WASN'T THE ONLY PLAE WHERE THIS HAPPENED.

>> THIS SHOWS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AS HE ARRIVED IN DECEMBER OF 2013, BY HIS SIDE HN.

KNOW BODY /-á* HUNTER BIDEN WIT REPORTS THAT THEY HOPED TO RAISE $1.5 BILLION.

>> PAM BONDI: IN FACT, EVERY WITNESS WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA AGREED THERE WAS A POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

MULTIPLE HOUSE DEMOCRAT WITNESSES INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND OTHERS, UNANIMOUSLY TESTIFIED THERE WAS A POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THESE WERE THEIR WITNESSES.

HOW MUCH MONEY DID HUNTER BIDEN GET FOR BEING ON THE BOARD?

WELL, START LOOKING AT BANK RECORDS ACCORDING TO REPORTS BETWEEN APRIL OF 2014 AND OCTOBER OF 2015, BURISMA PAID MORE THAN $3.1 MILLION TO DEVIN ARCHER AND HUNTER BIDEN.

THAT'S OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR AND A HALF.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?

SOME OF DEVIN ARCHER'S BANK RECORDS WERE DISCLOSED DURING AN UNRELATED CRIMINAL CASE HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTER BIDEN.

THESE BANK RECORDS SHOW 17 MONTHS THAT BURISMA WIRED TWO PAYMENTS OF $83,333, NOT JUST FOR ONE MONTH, FOR TWO MONTHS, FOR THREE MONTHS, BUT FOR 17 MONTHS.

ACCORDING TO REUTERS SOURCES REPORT THAT OF THE TWO PAYMENTS OF 83,333 EACH, ONE WAS FOR HUNTER BIDEN AND ONE DEVIN ARCHER.

HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN BOARD MEMBERS FROM MAJOR U.S. FORTUNE 100 COMPANIES SUCH AS GOLDMAN SACH COMCAST, CITIGROUP.

THESE BOARD MEMBERS ARE TITANS OF THEIR INDUSTRY, WELL QUALIFIED AND AS SUCH THEY'RE WELL CAN BE COMPENSATED, EVEN SOW HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

THIS IS HOW WELL HE WAS BE COMPENSATED.

HUNTER BIDEN IS PAID OVER $83,000 A MONTH.

WHILE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY OF FOUR DURING THAT TIME EACH YEAR MADE LESS THAN $54,000.

THAT'S ACCORDING TO U.S. CENSUS BUREAU DURING THAT TIME.

THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN REPORTED ABOUT HIS WORK ON THE BOARD.

THE "WASHINGTON POST" SAID "WHAT SPECIFIC DUTIES HUNTER BIDEN CARRIED OUT FOR BURISMA ARE NOT FULLY KNOWN.

"THE NEW YORKER" REPORTED "ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR HE ATTENDED BURISMA BOARD MEETINGS AND ENERGY FORUMS THAT TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE" WHEN SPEAKING WITH ABC NEWS ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ON BURISMA'S BOARD, HUNTER BIDEN DIDN'T POINT IN ANY USUALLY QUALIFICATIONS OF A BOARD MEMBER.

HUNTER BIDEN HAD NO EXPERIENCE IN NATURAL GAS, NO EXPERIENCE IN ENERGY SECTORS, NO EXPERIENCE WITH UKRANIAN REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AS FAR AS WE KNOW HE DOESN'T SPEAK UKRANIAN SO NATURALLY THE MEDIA ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS BOARD MEMBERSHIP.

WHY WAS HUNTER BIDEN ON THIS BOARD?

>> IF YOUR LAST NAME WASN'T BIDEN DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA?

>> I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

PROBABLY NOT.

>> PAM BONDI: SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HIS TIME ON THE POURED.

REMEMBER HE JOINED BURISMA'S BOARD APRIL 2014 WHILE THE UNITED KINGDOM HAD AN OPEN MONEY LAUNDERING CASE AGAINST BURISMA AND ITS OWNER, THE OLIGARCH, ZLOCHEVSKY.

A MONEY LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED INTO THE BURISMA, AND THE OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY.

ACCORDING TO A RECENT PUBLIC STATEMENT MADE BY THE CURRENT PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

ON JANUARY 16, 2015, PROSECUTOR ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OWNER OF BURISMA ON WHO HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON HIS BOARD ON THE COUNTRY'S WANTED LIST FOR FRAUD.

WHILE HUNTER BIDEN IS ON THE BOARD.

THEN A BRITISH COURT ORDERS ZLOCHEVSKY'S $23 MILLION IN ASSETS BE UNFROZEN.

WHY WAS THE MONEY UNFROZEN?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT TESTIFIED TO IT.

>> SOMEBODY IN THE GENERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF UKRAINE, SHUT THE CASE, ISSUED A MONEY TO HIS LAWYER AND THAT MONEY WENT POOF.

>> SO A BRIBE TO MAKE THE CASE GO AWAY?

>> THAT IS OUR STRONG SUBPOENAINGS, YES, SIR >> PAM BONDI: HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE NOT UKRANIAN PROSECUTOR'S ACTIONS LED TO THE UNFREEZING OF THE ASSETS.

AFTER GEORGE KENT'S CONFIRMATION THAT PROSECUTOR WAS OUT.

VICTOR SHOKIN BECOMES THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU WILL HEAR THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE WANTED OUT OF OFFICE.

IN ADDITION TO FLAGGING QUESTIONS ABOUT PREVIOUS PROSECUTOR'S ACTIONS, GEORGE KENT PROVVOICED CONCERNEDS TO T VICE-PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

IN 2015 HE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE.

>> IN A BRIEFING CALL WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF OF THE VICE PRESIDENT I RAISED MY CONCERN THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S STATUS AS A BOARD MEMBER COULD CREATE THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> PAM BONDI: HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.

THIS IS ALL WHILE HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON BURISMA'S BOARD.

DID HUNTER BIDEN STOP WORKING FOR BURISMA?

NO.

DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN STOP LEADING THE OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY EFFORTS IN UKRAINE?

NO.

IN THE MEANTIME VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE.

HE PREJUDICED $1 BILLION IF THEY ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

OTHER PEOPLE RAISED THE ISSUE OF A CONFLICT AT THAT POINT.

SPECIAL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INVOICE FOR ENERGY POLICY TOLD THE NEW YORKER, IT RAISED HUNTER BIDEN'S PARTICIPATION ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, HE RAISED IT DIRECTLY WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT PRIMS, THIS IS THE SPECIAL INVOICE TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

THERE WAS AN ORAL THAT SHOKIN WAS INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND ITS OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY.

THE TIMES REPORT "THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPTION MESSAGE MAY HAVE BEEN UNDERMINED BY HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BOARD AND THE OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY.

IT WASN'T JUST ONE REPORTER WHO ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LINE BETWEEN BURISMA AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

AS WE LEARNED RECENTLY THROUGH REPORTING ON FOX NEWS ON JANUARY 19, 2016 THERE WAS A MEETING BETWEEN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND UKRANIAN PROSECUTORS.

KEN VOGEL ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS MEETING.

HE WANTED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE MEETING "WHERE U.S. SUPPORT FOR PROSECUTION OF BURISMA HOLDINGS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND UKRAINE WERE DISCUSSED."

BUT THE STORY NEVER RAN.

AROUND THE TIME OF THE UNREPORTED STORY JANUARY 16, MEETING BETWEEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND UKRANIAN OFFICIALS TOOK PLACE AS TRANSLATED SAYS, "THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE MADE IT CLEAR TO THE UKRANIAN AUTHORITIES THAT IT WAS LINKING THE $1 BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEES TO THE DISMISSAL OF PROSECUTOR GENERAL VICTOR SHOKIN."

NOW WE ALL KNOW FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE WORDS OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HIMSELF HE ADVOCATED FOR THE DISMISSAL.

THERE WAS ON GOING INVESTIGATION INTO ZLOCHEVSKY, THE OLIGARCH, OWNER OF BURISMA AT THE TIME.

WE KNOW THAT ON FEBRUARY 2 NORAH O'DONNELL, 2016 THE UKRANIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL OBTAINED A RENEWAL OF A COURT ORDER TO SEIZE THE UKRANIAN OLIGARCH'S ASSETS, A KIEV PUBLISHED ARTICLE SAYS OLIGARCH ZLOCHEVSKY IS "SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ENRICHMENT" OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD CALLED WITH OFFICIALS.

AN EMAIL WAS RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, AND A CONSULTANT EXPLICITLY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME AS A BOARD MEMBER.

IN AN EMAIL SUMMARIZING THE CALL THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL SAID THAT THE CONSULTANT "NOTED THAT TWO HIGH-PROFILE CITIZENS ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE COMPANY INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN AS A BOARD MEMBER."

SHE ADDED THAT THE CONSULTANT WOULD "LIKE TO TALK WITH UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE NOVELLI ABOUT GETTING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE U.S.

CAME TO THE DETERMINATION THAT THE COUNTRY IS CORRUPT" TO BE CLEAR THIS EMAIL DOCUMENTS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD CO. AND THE CONSULTANT WAS SEEKING A MEETING WITH AN EXTREMELY SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S POSITION.

HER PITCH FOR THE MEETING SPECIFICALLY USED, HUNTER BIDEN'S NAME.

ACCORDING TO THE EMAIL, THE MEETING WAS SET FOR A FEW DAYS LATER.

LATER THAT MONTH, ON MARCH 29th, 2016, THE UKRANIAN PARLIAMENT FINALLY VOTES TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

THIS IS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATING THE OLIGARCH, OWNER OF BURISMA ON WHOSE BOARD HUNTER BIDEN SAT.

TWO DAYS AFTER THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL IS VOTED OUT, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCES THE U.S. WILL PROVIDE $335 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

HE ANNOUNCES THAT THE U.S. WILL PROVIDE $1 BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEES TO UKRAINE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS'S CENTRAL WITNESSES, AMBASSADOR YUVANOVICH.

>> WE ASKED YOU HOW THE OBAMA BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BURISMA AND BE HUNTER BIDEN SPECIFICALLY, RECALL THAT?

>> YES >> OUT OF THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES IN THE UKRAINE THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU RECALL, THE OBAMA BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HAD THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON ON THE BOARD, HUNTER BIDEN, CORRECT?

>> YES >> PAM BONDI: DOESóFKBp SHE SE PREPARED TO COME BEFORE ALL OF YOU AND TALK ABOUT WORLD ISSUES?

GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE AND WHAT DID THEY FEEL THE ONLY COMPANY WAS IMPORTANT TO BRIEFER HER ON IN CASE SHE GOT A QUESTION?

BURISMA.

AMBASSADOR WAS CONFIRMED IN JULY 16 AS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS COMING TO A CLOSE.

ZLOCHEVSKY'S ARREST WARRANT WAS CANCELLED AND BURISMA ANNOUNCES THAT ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT AND ZLOCHEVSKY HAVE BEEN CLOSED.

BOTH OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED WHILE HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

AROUND THIS TIME VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE.

YEARS LATER NOW, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN PUBLICLY DETAILS WHAT WE KNOW HAPPENED, HIS THREAT TO WITHHOLD $1 BILLION UNLESS SHOKIN WAS FIRED.

HERE HE IS >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS THEY SAID YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY, THE PRESIDENT SAID AND I SAID CALL HIM.

I'M TELLING YOU YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE BILLION DOLLARS, I'M GOING TO BE LEAVING HERE, I'M LEAVING IN SIX HOURS AND THE IF THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.

SON-OF-A-BITCH!

HE GOT FIRED AND THEY PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE WHO WAS SOLID AT THE TIME.

>> PAM BONDI: WHAT HE DIDN'T SAY ON THAT VIDEO ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, THIS WAS THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING BURISMA, SHOKIN.

WHAT HE ALSO DIDN'T SAY ON THE VIDEO WAS THAT HIS SON WAS BEING PAID SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS BY THE OLIGARCH OWNER OF BURISMA TO SIT ON THAT BOARD.

ONLY THEN DOES HUNTER BIDEN LEAVE THE BOARD.

HE STAYS ON THE BOARD UNTIL APRIL 2019.

NOW, ON NOVEMBER 2019 HUNTER BIDEN SIGNS AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING HE HAS BEEN UNEMPLOYED AND HAS NO OTHER MONTHLY INCOME SINCE MAY 2019.

THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2019 SO WE KNOW FROM AFTER APRIL 2019 TO MAY 2019, THROUGH NOVEMBER 2019, HE WAS UNEMPLOYED.

BY HIS OWN STATEMENT.

APRIL 2019 TO NOVEMBER 2019.

DESPITE HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD THE MEDIA CONTINUED TO RAISE THE ISSUE RELATING TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

ON JULY 22 NORAH O'DONNELL, 2019, THE "WASHINGTON POST" WROTE "THE FIRED PROSECUTOR, GENERAL SHOKIN BELIEVES HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY" REFERRING TO BURISMA.

THE POST FURTHER WROTE THAT "HAD HE REMAINED IN HIS POST, HE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN."

ON JULY 25th, 2019, THREE DAYS LATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKS WITH PRESIDENT ZOLINSKY, THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE SHOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, LOOKS HORRIBLE TO ME."

THE HOUSE MANAGERS TALKED ABOUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA 400 TIMES BUT THEY NEVER GAVE YOU THE FULL PICTURE.

HERE ARE THOSE WHO DID.

THE UNITED KINGDOM SERIOUS FRAUD UNIT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT, CHRIS HEINZ, THE ABC WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, ABC, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, THE "WASHINGTON POST", THE "NEW YORK TIMES", UKRANIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF.

THEY ALL THOUGHT THERE WAS CAUSE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ABOUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

NOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS MIGHT SAY WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING WE JUST SAID HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED, THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS ENTIRELY AND UNEVE EQUIVOCALLY IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THAT IS A DISTRACTION.

YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY CONCERN TO RAISE HERE.

ALL OF THIS WAS BASELESS.

AND ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE WAS A BASIS TO TALK ABOUT THIS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE.

THAT IS ENOUGH.

I YIELD MY TIME.

>> JAY SEKULOW: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

NOT MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SHUMER, THIS WILL BE OUR LAST PRESENTATION BEFORE DINNER.

THE NEXT LAWYER REPRESENTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ERIC HERSCHMANN, HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND TRIAL LAWYER AND HE RAN A NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES.

HE IS GOING TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE HOUSE MANAGERS IGNORED OR MISSTATED AND HOW OTHER PRESIDENTS MIGHT HAVE MEASURED UP UNDER THIS NEW IMPEACHMENT STANDARD.

>> ERIC HERSCHMANN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I AM ERIC HERSCHMANN.

I HAVE THE HONOR AND PRIVILEGE LEDGE OF REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

I HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY LISTENING TO AND REVIEWING THE HOUSE MANAGERS' CASE.

THAT CASE PRETTY MUCH BOILS DOWN TO ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD CONTENTION.

THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER TO PROMOTE HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST AND NOT OUR COUNTRY'S INTERESTS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TAKE THE STEPS THEY ALLEGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COUNTRY BUT ONLY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

BUT IF THAT'S WRONG, IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED WOULD HAVE BENEFITED OUR COUNTRY, THEN THE MANAGERS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN AND THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE REJECTED.

AS WE WILL SEE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT COME CLOSE TO MEETING THEIR BURDEN.

LAST WEEK MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THAT THE INVESTIGATION'S PRETZ TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT WERE NOT CREDIBLE, AND THEY SAID THOSE HAD BEEN DEBUNKED.

WERE THEY REALLY?

THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN OVER 21 HOURS OF PRESENTATION NEVER FOUND THE TIME TO SUPPORT THOSE CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS.

WAS IT, IN FACT, TRUE THAT ANY INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN DEBUNKED?

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT IDENTIFY FOR YOU WHO SUPPOSEDLY CONDUCTED ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

WHO DID THE DEBUNKING?

WHO DISCREDIT IT?

WHERE AND WHEN WERE ANY INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED?

WHERE WERE THE RESULTS PUBLISHED AND MUCH MORE IS LEFT UNANSWERED.

ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI WENT THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT BURISMA, IN ITS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PAYMENTS TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON AND HIS BUSINESS PARTNER.

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT ANY RATIONALE PERSON WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS EASILY AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS BUT WHICH THEY NEVER SOUGHT OR CONSIDERED.

BASED ON WHAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI TOLD YOU IN THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, YOU CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELF WHETHER THE CONDUCT WAS SUSPECT.

AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ISSUES CONCERNED HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE UKRANIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY WHICH PAID HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE PRESIDENT AND WAS IN CHARGE OF THE UKRANIAN PORTFOLIO DURING THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION.

I'LL GET TO THOSE SUPPOSEDLY DISCREDITED ALLEGATIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN A FEW MINUTES.

THE OTHER ISSUE WAS WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF CALLED "THE BASELESS CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE NOT RUSSIA YA INTERFERED IN A 2016 ELECTION" MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THAT "PRESIDENT WANTED TO ERASE FROM HISTORY HIS POLITICAL MISCONDUCT.

"BUT THERE WAS NO PREVIOUS MISBE CONDUCT.

IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN DISCREDITED IT'S THE THEORY THAT PRESIDENT PRIMP CLUEDED WITH RUSSIA IN 2016.

IT WAS DISCREDITED BY MR MR. MEULLER'S INVESTIGATION, THE SAME INVESTIGATION THEY KNEW THEY WERE SURE WOULD EXPOSE COLLUSION, THE SAME INVESTIGATION WHICH AFTER 22 MONTHS OF EXHAUSTIVE WORK AT A COST TO THE TAXPAYERS OF $32 MILLION FOUND NO CONSPIRACY, NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND AS WE WILL SEE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AS WRONG NOW ABOUT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AS THEY WERE IN 2016 ABOUT THE RUSSIAN HE COLLUSION.

WHILE I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING UNDISPUTED.

UKRAINE HAD A PARTICULARLY BAD CORRUPTION PROBLEM.

IT WAS SO CORRUPT THAT DEALING WITH CORRUPTION AND SOLVING THE CORRUPTION WAS A PRIORITY FOR OUR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

HERE IS HOW ONE KNOWLEDGEABLE OBSERVER OF UKRAINE PUT IT IN NOT 2015 ON ITS NOT ENOUGH TO SET UP A NEW ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU AND ESTABLISH A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL PROSECUTOR DESPERATELY NEEDS REFORM.

THE JUDICIARY SHOULD BE OVERHAULED, THE ENERGY SECTOR NEEDS TO BE COMPETITIVE RULED BY MARKET PRINCIPLES, NOT SWEET HEART DEALS.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PUSH THROUGH LAWS TO INCREASE TRANCSPARENCY WITH REGARD TO OFFICIALS' INCOME, SENIOR OFFICIALS AVE TO REMOVE ALL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES."

NOW AS ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI SAID, HERE ARE THE FACTS WE KNOW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINE.

BURISMA, A UKRANIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY PAID HUNTER BIDEN'S MILLIONS TO SERVE ON ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

HE DID NOT HAVE ANY RELEVANT EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE.

HE HAD NO EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE IN THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY.

HE HAD NO KNOWN EXPERTISE IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE NOR ANY EXPERTISE IN UKRANIAN LAW HE DOESN'T, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, SPEAK UKRANIAN.

WHY DID BURISMA WANT HUNTER BIDEN ON ITS BOARD?

WHY DID THEY WANT TO PAY HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

HE DID HAVE ONE QUALIFICATION.

HE WAS THE SON OF THVICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE WAS THE SON OF THE MAN IN CHARGE OF THE UKRANIAN PORTFOLIO FOR THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION.

WE ARE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

THAT FOR ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE OR INQUIRE ABOUT THIS WOULD BE A SHAM, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

BUT TELLINGLY, HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEY ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2019 ISSUED A STATEMENT ON HIS BEHALF.

HE INDICATED THAT IN APRIL 2014 HUNTER BIDEN WAS ASKED TO JOIN THE BOARD OF BURISMA THEN STATES HUNTER STEPPED OFF THE BOARD IN APRIL OF 2019.

NOW LISTEN TO THE COMMITMENT THAT HUNTER BIDEN IS SUPPOSEDLY WILLING TO MAKE TO ALL OF US.

HUNTER MAKES THE FOLLOWING COMMITMENT.

UNDER A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, HUNTER WILL READILY COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL GUIDELINES OR STANDARDS A PRESIDENT BIDEN MAY ISSUE TO AFFECT ANY APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT RELATED TO OVERSEAS BUSINESS INTEREST.

THAT STATEMENT ALMOST TELLS US ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.

THAT'S THE RULE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN 2014 BECAUSE THERE ALREADY WAS AN OBAMA/BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT CHANGE SNIDE WHAT CHANGED?

REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO WHEN I QUOTED AN EXPERT ON UKRAINE, THE ONE THAT SAID UKRAINE MUST CLEAN UP THE ENERGY SECTOR?

THE ONE THAT SAID SENIOR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE TO REMOVE ALL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES?

YOU KNOW WHO SAID THAT ABOUT UKRAINE?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN DECEMBER OF 2015.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WENT TO UKRAINE APPROXIMATELY 12 TO 13 TIMES.

HE SPOKE WITH LEGISLATORS, BUSINESS PEOPLE, OFFICIALS.

HE PERPORTEDLY FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

ONE THING HE DID NOT DO IS TELL HIS FAMILY TO STAY AWAY FROM THE ENERGY SECTOR IN THE VERY CORRUPTION-RIDDEN COUNTRY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

AND MANAGER SCHIFF SAYS MOVE ALONG, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

WHAT ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS AFRAID OF FINDING OUT?

IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ABC IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, HUNTER BIDEN SAID HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA TO FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY.

>> BOTTOM LINE IS I KNOW THAT I WAS COMPLETELY QUALIFIED TO BE ON THE BOARD TO HEAD UP THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE ON THE BOARD AND THAT'S ALL THAT I FOCUSED ON.

>> ERIC HERSCHMANN: WHEN ASKED HOW MUCH MONEY BURISMA WAS PAYING HIM HE RESPONDED HE DOESN'T WANT TO OPEN HIS KIMONO AND DISCLOSE HOW MUCH.

HE DOES REFER TO PUBLIC REPORTS REGARDING HOW MUCH HE WAS BEING PAID BUT AS WE NOW KNOW HE WAS BEING PAID FAR MORE THAN WHAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD >> YOU WERE PAID $50,000 FOR YOUR -- >> LOOK, I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN, I DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH I'VE BEEN PAID.

IT'S ALL BEEN REPORTED.

>> ERIC HERSCHMANN: WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS BEING PAID BY BURISMA?

WAS IT BASED ON HIS UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE GAS INDUSTRY IN UKRAINE?

WAS HE GOING TO DISCUSS HOW OUR GOVERNMENT REGULATES THE ENERGY INDUSTRY HERE, WAS HE GOING TO DISCUSS GAS RATES, PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS?

HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY AT ALL.

OF COURSE NOT.

SO WHAT WAS THE REASON?

I THINK WE DO NOT NEED TO LOOK ANY FURTHER THAN THE EXPLANATION THAT HUNTER BIDEN GAVE DURING THE ABC INTERVIEW WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY.

HERE IS WHAT HE HAD TO SAY >> IT'S.

>> IF YOUR LAST NAME NOT WASN'T BIDEN DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

PROBABLY NOT.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN MY LIFE IF MY LAST NAME WASN'T BIDEN.

>> ERIC HERSCHMANN: AS IF TO CONFIRM HOW SUSPECT HIS CONDUCT WAS, THAT IT SHOULD BE A CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY, HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS LAWYER COULD NOT KEEP THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT.

COMPARE THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS ISSUED BY BURISMA ON MAY 12TH 2014 WITH HUNTER BIDEN'S LAWYER'S STATEMENT ON OCTOBER 13TH OF 2019.

THE MAY 2014 PRESS RELEASE BEGINS "ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN WILL BE IN CHARGE OF HOLDINGS LEGAL UNIT.

HE WAS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF A UKRANIAN GAS COMPANY OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH'S LEGAL UNIT.

HOWEVER IN HIS LAWYER'S STATEMENT IN OCTOBER OF 2019, AFTER HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA CAME UNDER RENEWED PUBLIC SCRUTINY, HE NOW CLAIMS AT NO TIME WAS HUNTER IN CHARNLEY OF THE COMPANY'S LEGAL AFFAIRS.

WHICH IS IT?

WHAT WAS HUNTER BIDEN DOING AT BURISMA IN EXCHANGE FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

WHO KNOWS?

WHAT WERE THEY LOOKING TO HIDE SO MUCH FOR HIS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY.

WELL, LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK AND REALIZE WHICH ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED.

BECAUSE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THIS HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH OUR GOVERNMENT OR OUR COUNTRY'S INTEREST, NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH OUR VICE PRESIDENT, NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

IT SIMPLY WAS PRIVATE CITIZEN HUNTER BIDEN DOING HIS OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS.

IT WAS PURELY COINCIDENTAL THAT IT WAS IN HIS FATHER'S PORTFOLIO SECTOR, THE ENERGY SECTOR THAT HIS FATHER SAID WAS CORRUPT.

BUT WE HAVE A DOCUMENT HERE AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT SHOW YOU OR EVEN PUT BEFORE THE HOUSE BEFORE VOTING THESE BASELESS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS EMAIL, IT'S AN EMAIL FROM CHRIS HEINZ ASK AS ATTORNEY BONDI TOLD YOU HE IS THE STEP-SON OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY AND WHO WAS THE OTHER BUSINESS PARTNER WITH ARCHER AND BIDEN.

IT WAS SENT TO THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT EMAIL ADDRESSES OF TWO SENIOR PEOPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND WHO ARE THESE TWO PEOPLE?

THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE SECOND OF STATE AND THE SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

THE SUBJECT LINE IN THE EMAIL SEVENTY CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY, IT'S NOT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, IT'S NOT HERE IS A HEADS UP, THE SUBJECT LINE IS "WHOOP CRANE" CHRIS HEINZ SNOOT THE SENSITIVITY TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

WHAT DOES HE SAY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND DEVIN ARCHER?

HE SAYS THIS: APPARENTLY THEY JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA AND A PRESS RELEASE PENT WENT OUT TODAY.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY DECIDED TO BUT THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THE COMPANY.

WHAT IS THE MOST TELLING THING ABOUT THIS?

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY ALREADY KNEW WHO DEVIN WAS, BECAUSE MR. HEINZ DID NOT INCLUDE HIS LAST NAME IT'S JUST DEVIN.

THEY OBVIOUSLY KNEW WHO HUNTER WAS BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S HUNTER BIDEN.

THIS IS CHRIS HEINZ SAYING I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY DECIDED TO JOIN THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

HE'S THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER.

NOT THAT THERE ARE GOOD CORPORATE REASONS AND THEY'RE GOING THERE FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, VENT THAT THEY'RE THERE TO ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY, NOT THAT THEY'RE THERE TO HELP FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, NOT THAT THEY ARE THERE TO HELP SEE THAT CORPORATE BENEFITS ARE DISCLOSED, NOTHING LIKE THIS.

HE CANNOT SAY THOSE THINGS BECAUSE HE KNOWS DEVIN AND HUNTER WELL AND HE KNOWS THEY HAVE NO PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER TO DO THOSE THINGS, ESPECIALLY FOR A UKRANIAN GAS COMPANY.

INSTEAD MR. HEINZ IS PLAINLY GOING ON THE RECORD TO REPORT WHAT HUNTER AND DEVIN WERE DOING THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AND TO TAKE PAINS TO DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

WHAT DID THE STATE DEPARTMENT DO WITH THIS INFORMATION?

APPARENTLY NOTHING.

THEY DID NOT TELL MR. HEINZ TO STAY AWAY, THEY DID NOT TELL MR. HEINZ NO PROBLEM, NOTHING.

ALL THIS THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT US TO BELIEVE DOES NOT MERIT INQUIRY.

ANYONE ASKING FOR ONE, ANYONE DISCUSSING ONE IS NOW CORRUPT.

DOES IT MERIT AN INQUIRY WHY A CORRUPT COMPANY IN A CORRUPT COUNTRY WOULD BE PAYING OUR VICE PRESIDENT'S SON $1 MILLION PER YEAR?

PLUS IT APPEARS SOME ADDITIONAL EXPENSES AND PAYING HIS BUSINESS PARTNER AN ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION PER YEAR?

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S STEP-SON THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO REPORT.

WHY AREN'T THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONCERNED?

I ASK YOU, WHY WOULD IT NOT MERIT AN INVESTIGATION?

YOU KNOW SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?

BACK IN JANUARY OF 2018 AS YOU HEARD, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BRAGGED THAT HE HAD PRESSURED THE UKRANIANS, THREAT NANED THEM, INDEED COERCED THEM INTO FIRING THE STATE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING THE VERY COMPANY THAT PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HIS SON.

HE BRAGGED THAT HE GAVE THEM SIX HOURS TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR OR HE WOULD CUT OFF $1 BILLION IN U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES.

>> I SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BILLION DOLLARS.

THEY SAID YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT SAID AND I SAID CALL HIM.

I'M TELLING YOU YOU'RE NOT GETTING A BILLION DOLLARS.

YOU'RE NOT GETTING A BILLION AND I'M GOING TO BE LEAVING HERE IN 6 HOURS, THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY.

SON-OF-A-BITCH!

[LAUGHTER] GOT FIRED.

AND THEY PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE WHO WAS SOLID AT THE TIME. "

>> ERIC HERSCHMANN: ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THE POLICY OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO WITHHOLD A $1 BILLION IN AID TO UKRAINE UNLESS THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR ON THE SPOT?

WAS THAT REALLY OUR POLICY?

WE HAVE ALL HEARD CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE MANAGERS AND MANY AGREE ABOUT THE RISKS TO THE UKRANIAN'S POSED BY THE RUSSIANS.

WE HAVE HEARD A SLIGHT DELAY ENDANGERS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND JEOPARDIZES OUR INTERESTS AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT MUST IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

YET THEY ALSO ARGUE THAT IT WAS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF OUR COUNTRY TO WITHHOLD $1 BILLION UNLESS ONE INDIVIDUAL WAS FIRED WITHIN A CERTAIN MATTER OF HOURS.

WAS THAT REALLY OR COULD IT EVER BE OUR UNITED STATES POLICY.

ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS' THEORY WE WERE WILLING TO JEOPARDIZE UKRANIANS UNLESS SOMEBODY WHO HAPPENED TO BE INVESTIGATING BURISMA WAS FIRED.

WERE WE GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THE UKRANIAN ECONOMY UNLESS SOMEONE WAS FIRED WITHIN SIX HOURS AS THE VICE PRESIDENT DEMANDED?

DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT WAS OR COULD BE OUR UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY?

AND JUST IN CASE THE MANAGERS TRY TO ARGUE, NO, NO, HE WAS JUST BLUFFING, HE WASN'T GOING TO DO THAT.

WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO THE RUSSIANS THAT WE WOULD BLUFF WITH THE UKRANIAN ECONOMY?

FROM 2014 TO 2017, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CLAIMED TO BE ON A CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

HE SPOKE ABOUT HOW THE CANCER WAS ENDEMIC AND HOBBLED UKRAINE AND HOW THEY FACED NO GREATER MISSION THAN KWON FRONTING THE CORRUPTION.

THE VICE PRESIDENT RAILED AGAINST MONOPOLISTIC BEHAVIOR WHERE A SELECT FEW PROFIT FROM SO MANY SWEET HEART DEALS THAT HAS CHARACTERIZED THAT CLTH FOR THE COUNTRY FOR SO LONG AND ON HIS LAST OFFICIAL VISIT TO UKRAINE FOUR DAYS BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE HE SPOKE ABOUT OLIGARCH AND CORRUPTION AND AGAINST CORRUPTION THAT CONTINUES TO EAT AWAY AT UKRAINE'S DEMOCRACY WITHIN.

WHY WAS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DOING THIS?

WAS HE SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE EVEN SINGLING OUT THAT COUNTRY'S ENERGY SECTOR?

BECAUSE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS A POLICY CONCERN FOR OUR COUNTRY.

BUT DURING THIS WHOLE TIME WHO ELSE WAS HAPPENING?

HIS SON AND HIS SON'S BUSINESS PARTNER WERE RAKING IN OVER A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR WHAT WAS REGARDED AS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT UKRANIAN COMPANIES IN THE ENERGY SECTOR OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT OLIGARCHS.

WERE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S WORDS HOLLOW?

ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEY WERE EMPTY WORDS AT LISA WHEN IT CAME TO ANYONE QUESTIONING HIS SON'S OWN SWEET HEART DEAL, HIS OWN SON'S DEAL WITH UKRAINE'S CORRUPTION AND OLIGARCH.

TO RAISE MANAGER SCHIFF'S OWN QUESTION WHICH KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND TO FUTURE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS YOUR FAMILY CAN ACCEPT MONEY FROM FOREIGN CORRUPT COMPANIES?

NO PROBLEM?

YOU CAN PAY FAMILY MEMBERS OF OUR HIGHEST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS?

WHAT WAS GOING ON?

WE HAVE TO JUST ACCEPT NOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS' CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS, SHAM, DISCREDIT, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAS INVESTIGATED.

WHY?

CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT HOUSE MANAGER SCHIFF AND HIS FELLOW REPRESENTATIVES WOULD SAY IF IT WERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHILDREN ON AN OLIGARCH'S PAYROLL?

AND WHEN IT FINALLY APPEARED THAT A TRUE UKRANIAN CORRUPTION FIGHTER HAD ASSUMED THE COUNTRY'S PRESIDENCY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO, HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO FOLLOW UP ON VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND TRY TO MAKE THOSE WORDS SOMETHING OTHER THAN EMPTY.

ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, UKRANIAN CORRUPTION IS NOW ONLY A PRIVATE INTEREST, IT'S NO LONGER A CONCERN FOR OUR COUNTRY.

NOW I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO COVER A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS ABOUT THE JULY 25th TELEPHONE CALL IN WHICH THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THEIR WORDS, WAS SHAKING DOWN AND PRESSURING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE TO DO HIS PERSONAL BIDDING.

FIRST OF ALL THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TELEPHONE CALL THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD WITH OTHER FOREIGN LEADERS.

THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT FOLLOW THE APPROVED TALKING POINTS AS IF THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, IS OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW APPROVED TALKING POINTS.

THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, AND I THINK THIS IS CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS HOW TO SPEAK HIS MIND.

BUT REMEMBER THE FAKE TRANSCRIPT THAT MANAGER SCHIFF READ WHEN HE WAS BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE?

HIS MOB GANGSTER-LIKE FAKE RENDITION OF THE CALL.

I PROSECUTED ORGANIZED CRIME FOR YEARS.

THE TYPE OF DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S GOING ON THAT MANAGER SCHIFF TRIED TO CREATE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY.

IT'S AS IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT MOBSTERS WOULD INVITE PEOPLE THEY DO NOT KNOW INTO AN ORGANIZED CRIME MEETING TO SIT AROUND AND TAKE NOTES TO ESTABLISH THE CORRUPT INTENT.

MANAGER SCHIFF AND THE PROSECUTORS HAVE BEEN A LOT EASIER IF THAT WERE WORKED.

THINK ABOUT WHAT HE'S SAYING.

THINK ABOUT THE MANAGER'S POSITION.

THAT OUR PRESIDENT DECIDED WITH CORRUPT INTENT TO SHAKE DOWNÑi THEIR WORDS ANOTHER FOREIGN LEADER AND HE DECIDED TO DO IT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE IN A DOCUMENT CONVERSATION, IN THE PRESENCE OF PEOPLE HE DIDN'T KNOW SO HE COULD GET THE PERSONAL BENEFIT AND THAT WAS NOT IN OUR COUNTRY'S INTEREST.

THE LOGIC IS FLAWED.

IT'S COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

THAT IS WHY MANAGER SCHIFF RAN AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT.

THAT IS WHY HE CREATED HIS OWN FAKE CONVERSATIONS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADDRESS ANOTHER POINT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE THAT AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS CRITICAL TO THE NEWLY-ELECTED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

IT WOULD SIGNAL TO RUSSIA, WHICH HAD INVADED UKRAINE IN 2014 AND STILL OCCUPIED UKRAINIAN TERRITORY, THAT UKRAINE COULD COUNT ON AMERICAN SUPPORT.

THEY ARGUE THAT IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO, THIS THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THIS CRITICAL OVAL OFFICE MEETING THAT WOULD DETER THE RUSSIANS AND SAVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAUSE HE WANTED SOMETHING PERSONAL.

NOW, IF THAT WAS IN FACT CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR THE SAFETY OF HIS OWN CITIZENS, HE WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY JUMPED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE OVAL OFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED HIM THAT INVITATION DURING THE JULY 25th CALL.

BUT LET'S SEE WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ACTUALLY SAYS WHEN HE'S INVITED TO WASHINGTON ON THAT CALL.

HE DOES NOT SAY OH, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.

IT'S CRITICAL FOR MY PEOPLE.

WE WILL ARRANGE IT IMMEDIATELY.

HIS RESPONSE IS I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO KEEP AND MEET YOU PERSONALLY AND GET TO KNOW YOU BETTER.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE ON SEPTEMBER 1 WE WILL BE IN POLAND AND WE CAN MEET IN POLAND HOPEFULLY.

IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING, THE MEETING WAS CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT WAS A TIME TO SAY SO.

NOT SUGGESTION OF ANOTHER VENUE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT TALKED ABOUT HAVING AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WERE LOWER LEVEL GOT EMPLOYEES WHO THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

THE PRINCIPALS INVOLVED, THOSE THAT MAKE THE DECISION, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THEM, WITH US NOT CRITICAL.

IT WAS NOT MATERIAL AND IT WAS DEFINITELY NEVER A QUID PRO QUO.

WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING BUT THE LETHAL WEAPONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPLIED TO UKRAINE AND THE SANCTIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ENFORCED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS.

THAT IS WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL DEMONSTRATES.

LET US KNOW CONSIDER WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY KNEW ABOUT THE SUPPORT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PROVIDED TO UKRAINE COMPARED TO THE SUPPORT OR MORE ACCURATELY LACK THEREOF THAT THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION HAD PROVIDED TO UKRAINE.

IN FEBRUARY 2004, RUSSIA BEGAN THEIR MILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE.

AGAINST THE ADVICE AND URGINGS OF CONGRESS AND MANY OF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED THEN AND THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER OF HIS PRESIDENCY TO PROVIDE LETHAL ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

IN THE HOUSE, MANAGER SCHIFF JOINED MANY OF HIS COLLEAGUES IN A LETTER-WRITING CAMPAIGN TO PRESIDENT OBAMA URGING THAT THE U.S. MUST SUPPLY UKRAINE WITH THE MEANS TO DEFEND ITSELF" AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND URGING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO QUICKLY APPROVE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT UKRAINE'S EFFORTS TO DEFEND THEIR SOVEREIGN TERRITORY INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF LETHAL DEFENSE WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE MILITARY.

ON MARCH 23, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED A RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO IMMEDIATELY EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY BY CONGRESS TO PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS.

THE VERY NEXT DAY, THIS SENATE PASSED A UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION URGING THE PRESIDENT TO PRIORITIZE AND EXPEDITE THE PROVIDE OF DEFENSIVE LETHAL AND NONLETHAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE CONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL INTERESTS AND POLICIES.

AS ONE SENATOR HERE STATED IN MARCH 2015, PROVIDING NONLETHAL EQUIPMENT LIKE NIGHT VISION GOGGLES IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT GIVING THE UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO SEE THE RUSSIANS COMING BUT NOT THE ABILITY TO STOP THEM IS NOT THE ANSWER.

YET PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED.

HE REFUSED EVEN THE FACE OF SUPPORT BY SENIOR CAREER PROFESSIONALS RECOMMENDING HE PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINIANS.

BY CONTRAST, WHAT DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE RUSSIANS KNOW?

THEY KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID, DID PROVIDE THAT SUPPORT.

THAT CLEARLY WAS THE MOST MATERIAL THING TO HIM.

MUCH MORE, MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MAKE MUCH OF THEIR CONTENTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ONLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION, NOT CONDUCT ANYTHING.

THAT CONTENTION MAKES NO SENSE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS IN JULY OF 2019.

ALMOST 1 1/2 YEARS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.

ONLY A BARE ANNOUNCEMENT SO FAR IN ADVANCE WITH NO FOLLOW UP HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE ELECTION AS THE MANAGER'S CLAIM?

WOULD ANYONE HAVE REMEMBERED THE ANNOUNCEMENT A YEAR OR MORE LATER?

IRONICALLY THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PUT BURR -- BURISMA FRONT AND CENTER WITH THE VOTERS AND PROBABLY WILL REMEMBER IT.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, THERE HE GOES AGAIN.

HE PUTTING WORDS IN THE PRESIDENT'S MOUTH THAT WERE NEVER THERE.

AGAIN, LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY CALL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER ASKED ABOUT ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TELLS PRESIDENT TRUMP "I GUARANTEE AS THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE DONE OPENLY AND CANDIDATELY.

THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU."

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT TO GET MIXED UP IN U.S.

POLITICS.

IT'S PRECISELY THE DEMOCRATS THAT POLITICIZED THE ISSUE.

LAST AUGUST THEY BEGAN CIRCLING THE WAGONS TRYING TO PROTECT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THEY'RE STILL DOING IT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THEY CONTEND THAT ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PAYMENTS BY A CORRUPT UKRAINE COMPANY OWNED BY A CORRUPT UKRAINE OLIGARCH TO THE SON OF THE SECOND HIGHEST OFFICE HOLDER IN OUR LAND WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THEY'RE CALLING THAT TYPE OF INQUIRY A SHAM DEBUNKED.

THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN INVESTIGATION.

HOW COULD IT BE A SHAM?

SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY SO?

WHICH BRINGS ME TO YET ANOTHER ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGER'S BASELESS CONTENTIONS.

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THE MATTER WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BECAUSE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD JUST ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT.

IT WAS FAR FROM A SECRET THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS PLANNING TO RUN.

WHAT HAD IN FACT CHANGED?

FIRST, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BEEN ELECTED IN APRIL ON AN ANTI CORRUPTION PLATFORM.

IN JULY, RUNNING ON THE SAME PLATFORM, HIS PARTY TOOK CONTROL OF THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT.

THAT MADE IT THE OPPORTUNE TIME TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

FINALLY THERE WAS A RECEPTIVE GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE COMMITTING TO FIGHTING PRECISELY THE KIND OF HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT DISPLAYED BY BURISMA IN HIS PAYMENTS TO HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS PARTNER JUST AS JOE BIDEN HAD RAISED YEARS BEFORE.

TWO OTHER THINGS.

IN LATE JUNE, ABC NEWS RAN A STORY ENTITLED" HUNTER BIDEN'S FOREIGN DEALS, DID JOE BIDEN PROFIT OFF OF HIS FATHER'S POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT?"

A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, NOT EXACTLY A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, RAN AN EXPOSE, "WILL HUNTER BIDEN JEOPARDIZE HIS FATHER'S CAMPAIGN."

GOING THROUGH THE FACTS THAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA AND A CHINESE COMPANY.

THE NEW YORK REPORTER -- AGAIN, IN JULY, JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL -- SAID THAT SOME OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S ADVISERS WERE WORRIED THAT HUNTER BIDEN WOULD EXPOSE THE VICE PRESIDENT TO CRITICISM.

AN AIDE TOLD THE NEW YORKER THAT HUNTER'S BEHAVIOR INVITED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS "LEVERAGING ACCESS FOR HIS BENEFIT."

THE REPORTER WROTE THAT WHEN I ASKED MEMBERS OF BIDEN'S STAFF WHETHER THEY DID RAISE THEIR CONCERN WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, SEVERAL OF THEM SAID THEY HAD BEEN TOO INTIMIDATED TO DO SO.

EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR HIM HAS BEEN SCREAMED AT A FORMER ADVISER TOLD THE REPORTER.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANYONE HAS BEEN INTIMIDATED BY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR SCREAMED AT BY HIM ABOUT BURISMA OR HIS SON'S INVOLVEMENT.

DO YOU WANT THE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT WHERE QUESTIONS ABOUT FACIALLY SUSPECT CONDUCT ARE SUPPRESSED OR DISMISSED AS ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE SOMEONE IS INTIMIDATING OR SCREAMS AT OR IS JUST TOO IMPORTANT?

NO.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHEN AN INVERIGATION IS MOST IMPORTANT.

NOW LAST THURSDAY NIGHT, MANAGER JEFFRIES PROVIDED US WITH THE DEMOCRATS' STANDARD FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

HE SAID "ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT EXERCISES HIS OFFICIAL POWER TO A CORRUPT BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR INJURING THE NATIONAL INTEREST."

MR. JEFFRIES AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONTEND UNDER THIS STANDARD, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

BUT IF MANAGER JEFFRIES APPLIES, WHERE WOULD THESE SAME DEMOCRATS CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT WHEN UNCONTROVERTING SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE OCCURRED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD VIOLATED THEIR STANDARD?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS BASIC NOTION AS EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.

IT'S AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE.

YET THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO APPLY THEIR OWN VERSION OF SELECTIVE JUSTICE HERE WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO THE POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THEY WANT ONE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR DEMOCRATS AND ANOTHER SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THE FACT.

MARCH 26, 2012, ON THE EVE OF THE 2012 NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT IN SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA, PRESIDENT OBAMA MET WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV TO DISCUSS MILITARY DEFENSE.

HOW IMPORTANT WAS MISSILE DEFENSE TO THE STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA?

AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES SAID IN JUNE 2010, UPGRADED MISSILE INTERCEPTERS IN DEVELOPMENT "WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS, OUR BASES, OUR FACILITIES AND OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE."

GATES CONTINUED "THERE'S NOTHING OF THE MINDS ON MISSILE DEFENSE -- THERE'S NO MEETING OF THE MINDS ON MISSILE DEFENSE.

THE RUSSIANS HATE IT.

THEY'VE HATED IT SINCE THE LATE 60s AND WILL ALWAYS HATE IT MOSTLY BECAUSE WE'LL BUILD IT AND THEY WON'T".

DURING THE NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD A PRIVATE EXCHANGE WITH THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, MEDVEDEV THAT WAS PICKED UP ON A HOT MICROPHONE.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES, BUT PARTICULARLY MISSILE DEFENSE, THIS CAN BE SOLVED, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO GIVE ME SPACE.

PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV RESPONDED, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR MESSAGE ABOUT SPACE.

SPACE FOR YOU.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, THIS IS MY LAST ELECTION.

AFTER MY ELECTION, I WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV RESPONDS, I UNDERSTAND, I WILL TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO VLADIMIR.

AS WE ALL KNOW, VLADIMIR PUTIN.

AS YOU JUST SAW IN 2012, PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKED THE RUSSIANS FOR SPACE UNTIL AFTER THE UPCOMING 2012 ELECTION.

AFTER WHICH HE WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY.

NOW LET ME APPLY MR. JEFFRIES AND THE HOUSE MANAGER'S THREE-PART TEST FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

ONE, THE PRESIDENT EXERCISES HIS OFFICIAL POWER.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ACTIONS CLEARLY MEETS THE TEST FOR EXERCISING OFFICIAL POWER BECAUSE IN HIS ROLE AS HEAD OF STATE, DURING A NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT AFTER ASKING PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV FOR SPACE, HE PROMISED HIM THAT "MISSILE DEFENSE CAN BE SOLVED."

WHAT ELSE CAN THAT MEAN SOLVED IN A WAY FAVORABLE TO THE RUSSIANS THAT WERE DEAD SET OF EXPANSION OF A U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE?

TWO, TO OBTAIN A CORRUPT PERSONAL BENEFIT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ACTIONS WERE CLEARLY FOR HIS OWN CORRUPT PARTIAL BENEFIT BECAUSE HE WAS ASKING AN ADVERSARY FOR SPACE FOR THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF FURTHERING HIS OWN ELECTION CHANCES.

AGAIN, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID THIS IS MY LAST ELECTION."

AFTER MY ELECTION, I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY."

PRESIDENT OBAMA KNEW THE IMPORTANCE OF MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE, BUT DECIDED TO USE THAT AS A BARGAINING CHIP WITH THE RUSSIANS TO FURTHER HIS OWN ELECTION CHANCES IN 2012.

THREE, WHILE IGNORES OR INJURING OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS.

AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEFENSE SECRETARY SAID, MISSILES WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS.

OUR BASES.

OUR FACILITIES AND OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE.

SURELY SACRIFICING THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS AND OUR ALLIES WOULD INJURE THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

YET PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS WILLING TO BARTER AWAY THE SAFETY OF OUR TROOPS AND THE SAFETY OF OUR ALLIES IN EXCHANGE FOR SPACE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION.

IN SHORT, PRESIDENT OBAMA LEVERAGED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO THE DETRIMENT OF U.S. POLICY WHEN MISSILE DEFENSE IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE THE 2012 ELECTION.

SOLELY TO HIS ADVANTAGE.

WE NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN PRESIDENT OBAMA REALIZED THAT THE MICROPHONE WAS ON, THAT THERE WAS A HOT MIC.

ONE COULD EASILY SUBSTITUTE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 2000 EXCHANGE WITH PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV INTO ARTICLE ONE OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

USING THE POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA SOLICITED INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, RUSSIA, IN THE 2012 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

HE DID SO THROUGH A SCHEME OR COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED SOLICITING THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA TO GIVE HIM "SPACE" ON MISSILE DEFENSE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS RE-ELECTION AND INFLUENCE THE 2012 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO HIS ADVANTAGE.

IN DOING SO, PRESIDENT OBAMA USED THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER THAT COMPROMISED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

HE THUS IGNORED AND INJURED THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION."

DOES IT SOUNDS FAMILIAR HOUSE MANAGERS?

IT SHOULD.

AS THE CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR STRONGER THAN THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ABUSE OF POWER TO BENEFIT HIS OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS WAS THERE AND IS HERE NOW FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR.

IT WAS A DIRECT UNQUESTIONABLE QUID PRO QUO.

NO MIND READING WAS NEEDED THERE.

WHERE WERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEN?

AND THAT POINTS OUT THE ABSURDITY OF THE HOUSE MANAGER'S CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA, NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO WAS WEAK ON RUSSIA AND WEAK ON SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAVED TO RUSSIA AND PUTIN ON MISSILE DEFENSE WHEN HE DECIDED TO SCRAP THE U.S. PLANS TO INSTALL MISSILE BASES IN POLAND, YET HE CRITICIZED SENATOR ROMNEY DURING THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHEN SENATOR ROMNEY SAID RUSSIA WAS THE GREATEST GEO POLITICAL 3 THREAT TO THE U.S. >> WHEN YOU WERE ASKED WHAT THE BIGGEST GEO POLITICAL THREAT FACING THE UNITED STATES, YOU SAID RUSSIAN, NOT AL-QUAIDA.

THE 80s ARE NOW CALLING ASKING FOR THEIR FOREIGN POLICY BACK.

THE COLD WAR HAS BEEN OVER FOR 20 YEARS.

>> NOW WHEN IT'S POLITICALLY CONVENIENT, THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THE SAME THING THAT.

OBAMA CRITICIZED SENATOR ROMNEY FOR SAYING.

IN FACT, THEY'RE BASING THEIR ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT ON THIS VERSION OF REALITY.

THIS CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT SUPPORTING UKRAINE FAR MORE THAN THE PRIOR SEPARATION.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAVED ON MISSILE DEFENSE IN LATE 2009.

HIS HOT MIC MOMENT OCCURRED IN MARCH 2012.

HIS RE-ELECTION WAS EIGHT MONTHS LATER.

TWO YEARS LATER IN MARCH 2014, RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE AND ANNEXED CRIMEA.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID -- I'M SORRY.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE TO ENABLE THEM TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

WHERE WERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEN?

THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A THREAT, AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY FOR WHICH THE PRESIDENT MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND.

BECAUSE OF WHAT?

BECAUSE HE HAD A PHONE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER AND DISCUSSED CORRUPTION?

BECAUSE HE PAUSED FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME GIVING AWAY OUR TAX DOLLARS TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY?

THAT IS THEIR THEORY.

IT IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE.

NOT ONE AMERICAN LIFE WAS IN JEOPARDY OR LOST BY THIS SHORT DELAY AND THEY KNOW IT.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY KNOW IT?

BECAUSE THEY WENT ON VACATION AFTER THEY ADOPTED THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY DID NOT CANCEL THEIR RECESS.

THEY DID NOT RUSH BACK TO DELIVER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE OF THE SUPPOSED TERRIBLE IMMINENT THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

WHAT DID THEY DO?

>> THE URGENCY -- >> TIMING IS DRIVEN BY THE URGENCY.

>> NOTHING COULD BE MORE URGENT.

>> URGENT.

URGENT.

>> AN URGENCY TO THIS.

>> WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY.

>> NOT ENOUGH TIME TO SCREW AROUND.

>> IT'S ABOUT URGENCY.

>> HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS STILL HOLDING ON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> URGENCY?

URGENCY?

FOR WHICH YOU WANT TO IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

YOU SAT ON THE ARTICLES FOR A MONTH.

THE LONGEST DELAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.

THEY ADOPTED THEM FRIDAY DECEMBER 13, 2019.

FRIDAY THE 13th.

WENT ON VACATION, FINALLY DECIDED AFTER ONE OF THEIR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES HAD FINISHED AND AFTER THE BCS FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME THAT IT WAS TIME TO DELIVER THEM.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS ARGUMENT?

WASN'T THAT THE REASON THAT THEY SAID THEY HAVE TO RUSH TO VOTE?

IT'S URGENT THEY TOLD US.

NO DUE PROCESS FOR THIS PRESIDENT.

IT IS A CRISIS OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTION.

OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT RISK.

EVERY ADDITIONAL DAY THAT HE'S IN OFFICE, THEY TELL US.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO USED THE SAME EXECUTION FOR NOT ISSUING SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY.

THEY HAD NO TIME FOR THE NORMAL JUDICIAL REVIEW.

THEY EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS SITTING IN THIS CHAMBER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

A JUDICIAL REVIEW IN WHICH THE JUDGE AGREED TO AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE.

EVEN THAT WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM WHEN THEY ISSUED THE SUBPOENAS.

ONE OF THE LAWYERS FOR THE SUBPOENAED WITNESSES WROTE TO THE HOUSE GENERAL COUNSEL "WE ARE DISMAYED THAT THE HOUSE COMMITTEES HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO JOIN US IN SEEKING RESOLUTION FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THIS MOMENTOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

HE CONTINUED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET A DEFINITIVE JUDGMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DETERMINING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DEW DID IN THE FACE OF CONFLICTING DEMANDS ON THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.

ISN'T THAT THE POINT?

ISN'T THAT HOW OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS?

IS THAT HOW IT'S ALWAYS WORKED?

ISN'T THAT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK?

THESE SAME DEMOCRATS DEFENDED OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS WHO FOUGHT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

I THINK WE ALL REMEMBER FAST AND FURIOUS.

THE SAME ATTORNEY WHEN HE WROTE TO THE HOUSE CHAIR SAID THE HOUSE CHAIRMAN, MR. SCHIFF AND MR. NADLER ARE MISTAKEN TO SAY THE LAWSUIT IS INTENDED TO DELAY OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCT THE COMMITTEES.

VITAL INVESTIGATORY WORK.

HE CONTINUED, MORE HAS THIS LAWSUIT BEEN COORDINATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

ANY MORE THAN IT HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

IF THE HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO PURSUE THROUGH SUBPOENA TESTIMONY, LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT IS THE HOUSE'S DECISION.

YET THEY COME BEFORE YOU, AND THEY BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION AND THEY BLAME YOU IF YOU DON'T SUBPOENAED WITNESSES AND HAVE THEM BEFORE YOU.

YET EVEN THE FACE OF THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, THEY CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT IS TO BLAME FOR THEIR DECISION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN SUBPOENAS OR NOT ISSUE OTHERS.

THEIR CHOICE BUT THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE.

THAT IS ONE OF THEIR CLAIMS.

IT'S LUDICROUS.

THEY'RE BLAMING THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY DECIDED ON THEIR OWN NOT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT FOR THEIR OWN SUBPOENAS.

IN THEIR MINDS, IT'S IMPEACHABLE.

MANAGER NADLER SPOKE ELOQUENTLY BACK BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING IN DECEMBER OF 1998.

HE SAID "THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTE AT IMPEACHMENT OR AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR PARTIES LARGELY OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.

SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WOULD LACK LEGITIMACY, WOULD PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS FOR YEARS TO COME AND CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

MANAGER NADLER WAS RIGHT THEN AND EQUALLY TRUE TODAY.

DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS.

DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS.

LICENSE TO HIS WORDS.

IMPEACHMENT BY ONE PARTY CAUSES DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN OUR COUNTRY.

THAT'S WHAT A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT LEADS TO.

SADLY HE ELOQUENTLY WARNED DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS, THE HOUSE DID NOT FOLLOW HIS ADMONITION.

THEY DID NOT HEED HIS ADVICE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE NOT FOUNDED IN OUR CONSTITUTION OR THE EVIDENCE AND ARE BROUGHT SIMPLY FOR PARTISAN POLITICS, THIS IS A SAD TIME FOR ALL OF US.

IT'S NOT A TIME FOR SOUVENIRS.

THE PENS USED TO SIGN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, TRYING TO IMPROPERLY TRYING TO IMPEACH OUR COUNTRY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE WORLD.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TRY THE GET DIGS IN THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACH.

BECAUSE WE HAD THE MAJORITY.

WE COULD DO IT TO YOU AND WE DID IT TO YOU.

IT IS WRONG, IT IS NOT WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE OR WANT.

SADLY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT TRUST THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN PRESIDENT.

THAT DO NOT THINK THAT THEY CAN LEGITIMATELY WIN AN ELECTION AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP SO THEY NEED TO RUSH TO IMPEACH HIM IMMEDIATELY.

THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT IS A SHAME.

WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRUST OUR FELLOW AMERICANS TO CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.

CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE.

LET SENATORS THAT ARE HERE TRYING TO BECOME THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE TRY TO WIN THAT ELECTION.

LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CHOOSE.

MAYBE THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE HISTORICALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THAT THEIR 401(k) ACCOUNTS HAVE DONE EXTREMELY WELL.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE PRISON REFORM AND GIVING PEOPLE A SECOND CHANCE.

TELLINGLY, SOME OF THESE HOUSE MANAGERS MORE CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE AMERICANS A SECOND CHANCE.

THAT WAS THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THAT IS WHAT THE COUNTRY DEMANDS.

THAT'S WHAT SOCIETY DESERVES.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS FIGHTING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE SECURE BORDERS.

MAYBE THEY LIKE BETTER TRADE AGREEMENTS.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE OTHER COUNTRIES SHARING IN THE BURDEN WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN AID.

MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE LOWER TAXES.

IN OTHER WORDS, MAYBE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THEIR CURRENT PRESIDENT.

A PRESIDENT THAT KEPT HIS PROMISES AND DELIVERED ON THEM.

IF YOU THINK THE AMERICANS -- IF YOU THINK AMERICANS WANT TO ENJOY THE SUCCESSES UNDER THIS PRESIDENT, CONVINCE THE ELECTORATE IN NOVEMBER AT THE BALLOT BOX.

DO NOT TRY TO IMPROPERLY INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION THAT IS MONTHS AWAY BASED ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IN YOUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM THAT YOU SUBMITTED HERE BEFORE THE SENATE, YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION BELIEVING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT IS THEIR "WORST NIGHTMARE" AND THAT THEY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

IN FACT, SADLY IT IS THE HOUSE MANAGER'S CONDUCT IN BRINGING THESE BASELESS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WILL CLEARLY BE THEIR AND OUR WORST NIGHTMARE.

THANK YOU.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT A 45-MINUTE BREAK FOR DINNER.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

YOU'LL HEAR FROM A NUMBER OF LAWYERS.

EACH LAWYERS WILL BE ADDRESSING A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CASE.

I WILL INTRODUCE THE ISSUES THAT THEY'LL DISCUSS AND THAT INDIVIDUAL LAWYER WILL COME UP AND MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

WE WANT TO DO THIS ON AN EXPEDITION AND THOROUGH BASIS.

LET ME START WITH JUST FOR A BRIEF FEW MOMENTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BECAME CLEAR TO US AS WE LOOKED AT THE PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS IS THE LACK OF FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO SAY.

NOW, WE'VE HEARD AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE DAYS AHEAD.

WE KNOW ABOUT MR. SCHIFF'S VERSION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

YOU HEARD IT, YOU SAW IT.

I WANT TO KEEP COMING BACK TO FACTS.

FACE ARE INDUS -- UNDISPUTED.

I MENTION THAT AT THE CLOSE OF MY ARGUMENTS EARLIER, IT WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT SAID "NO PRESSURE."

AGAIN, A READING OF MINDS, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE BOOK SAID AND HOW IT'S BACKED UP.

IT IS OUR POSITION AROUND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ALL-TIME ACTING UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER HIS LEGAL AUTHORITY, INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS AND PURSUANT TO HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

ASKING A FOREIGN LEADER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ISSUES OF JUDGMENT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF OATH.

IT'S INTERESTING.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REITERATE, HE DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS ANYTHING OF CRIME OF THAT NATURE.

HE HAD DEEP POLICY CONCERNS.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS REALLY ABOUT, DEEP POLICY CONCERNS.

DEEP POLICY DIFFERENCES.

WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTINAL REPUBLIC WHERE YOU HAVE DEEP POLICY CONCERNS AND DEEP DIFFERENCES.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF AN IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE BAR OF IMPEACHMENT HAS REACHED THAT LEVEL, THEN FOR THE SAKE OF THE REPUBLIC, THE DANGER THAT PUTS NOT JUST THIS BODY BUT OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK IN IS UNIMAGINABLE.

EVERY TIME THERE'S A POLICY DIFFERENCE OF SIGNIFICANCE OR AN APPROACH DIFFERENCE OF SIGNIFICANCE AGAINST A POLICY, WE'RE GOING TO START AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING?

AS I SAID EARLIER, I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS IS ABOUT JUST A PHONE CALL.

THERE WAS A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF ATTEMPTS OVER A THREE-YEAR PERIOD TO NOT ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CAPABILITY TO GOVERN, WHICH THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AT, JUST LIKE AT THE STATE OF WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTRY, BUT ALSO INTERFERE WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK.

I'M GOING TO SAY THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO BE BRIEF.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SERIES OF LAWYERS ADDRESS YOU.

SO WE'LL NOT BE ONE LAWYER FOR HOURS AND HOURS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SERIES OF LAWYERS ADDRESS YOU ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES, THIS IS HOW WE ENVISION THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE GOING.

WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO START WITH AN OVERVIEW, IF YOU WILL, OF SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL ISSUES AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVING EACH PROCEEDINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF THAT AND I THINK IT'S GOOD WE DON'T.

IF THIS BECOMES THE NEW STANDARD, THE FUTURE WILL LOOK DIFFERENT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HEAR NEXT FROM MY CO COUNSEL, JUDGE KENNETH STARR.

HE'S FROM THE A COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

HE ARGUES CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ARGUING A CASE ALONGSIDE JUDGE STARR.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER MANY YEARS AGO.

HE SERVED AS AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY.

HE TESTIFIED FOR 12 HOURS IN REGARDS TO THAT REPORT.

JUDGE STARR IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS.

HE'S GOING TO ADDRESS A SERIES OF DEFICIENCIES, LEGAL ISSUES WITH REGARD TO ARTICLES 1 AND 2, CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS, HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OVER THIS CASE NOW STANDS.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TEAM RIGHT NOW TO, IF IT WOULD PLEASE CHIEF JUSTICE, KENNETH STARR.

>> MR. STARR?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, HOUSE MANAGERS AND STAFF.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THE MAJORITY LEADER AND MINORITY LEADER.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ADMINISTERED IS THE OATH OF OFFICE TO THIS BODY.

AND AGAIN ON TUESDAY.

IN DOING SO, THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRESIDENT HONORING THE WORDS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3.

WE ALL KNOW THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT ARTICLE BY HEART.

THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

BUT THEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT GOES ON TO SAY THIS.

"WHEN SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE, THEY SHALL BE ON EARTH OATH OR AFFIRMATION."

THAT OATH OR AFTER FORMATION IN RETURN EACH MEMBER OF THE SENATE TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY ADMINISTERED OATH OR AFFIRMATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN EVERY PROCEEDING IN THIS BODY SINCE 1 1798.

INDEED TO SIGNIFY THIS IMPORTANCE OF THE OCCASION, THE SENATE'S MOST RECENT TRADITIONS CALL FOR YOU TO SIGN THE BOOK, AS YOU DID, AND THAT BOOK IS NOT SIMPLY PART OF THE RECORD, IT'S ENTRUSTED TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.

IN CONTRAST, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT TAKE ANEST IN CONNECTION WITH IMPEACHMENT.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WELL-KNEW WHEN AN OATH OF AFFIRMATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED, THE SENATE, YES.

THE HOUSE NO.

AND THUS EACH MEMBER OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY NOW HAS SPECIAL INDEED UNIQUE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS.

DUTIES IMPOSED UNDER OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT.

DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 21 YEAR AGO IN THIS CHAMBER, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES RULED IN RESPONSE TO AN OBJECTION THAT WAS INTERPOSED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN OF IOWA.

THE SENATORS ARE NOW SITTING AS JURORS.

SENATOR HARKIN NOTED.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREED WITH THAT PROPOSITION.

RATHER THE SENATE IS THE COURT.

HISTORY TEACHES US THAT FOR LITERALLY DECADES, THIS BODY WAS REFERRED TO IN THIS CONTEXT AS THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT IN A LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, WE'RE IN A TRIBUNAL.

WE'RE IN COURT.

IN FEDERALIST 78, ALEXANDER AM MILTON, WHO HAS BEEN QUOTED FREQUENTLY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HE WAS DESCRIBING THE ROLE OF COURTS.

YOUR ROLE.

IN DOING SO, HE DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN WHAT HE CALLED THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON THE ONE HAND, WHICH IS WHAT COURTS DO AND THE EXERCISE OF WILL OR POLICY PREFERENCES, IF YOU WILL, ON THE OTHER HAND.

THAT'S WHAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES DO.

ACCORDING TO HAMILTON, COURTS, WERE TO BE IN HIS WORD, IMPARTIAL.

THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN.

IT'S A DAUNTING TASK FOR JUDGES, STRUGGLING TO DO THE RIGHT THING TO BE IMPARTIAL, EQUAL JUSTICE.

IT'S HARD IN LIFE TO BE -- IT'S NOT EVEN ASKED OF ONE TO BE IMPARTIAL.

THAT'S THE TASK THAT THE CONSTITUTION CHOSE TO IMPOSE ON EACH OF YOU.

SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE?

AMERICA'S HISTORY, THE SENATE IS BEING CALLED TO SIT AS THE HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT ALL TOO FREQUENTLY.

INDEED, WE'RE LIVING IN WHAT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE HOUSE, RESOLUTION AFTER RESOLUTION, MONTH AFTER MONTH HAS CALLED FOR THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INVOKED FREQUENTLY, IN ITS INHERENTLY DESTABILIZING AS WELL AS ACRIMONIOUS WAY.

BRIEFLY TOLD, THE STORY BEGINS 42 YEARS AGO.

IN THE WAKE OF THE LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE OF WATERGATE, CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER USHERED IN A NEW CHAPTER IN AMERICAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.

TOGETHER IN FULL AGREEMENT, THEY ENACTED THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PROVISIONS OF THE ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

THE NEW CHAPTER WAS NOT THE AGE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSELS.

IT BECAME UNBEKNOWNST TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

DURING MY SERVICE IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AS COUNSELOR IN CHIEF OF STAFF TO ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM SMITH, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT WELL-INTENTIONED, THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PROVISIONS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WHY?

IN THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT, THOSE PROVISIONS INTRUDED INTO THE RIGHTFUL DOMAIN AND PREROGATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION WAS EVENTUALLY REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS NEW ERROR IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY.

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA WAS IN DEEP DESCENT.

AMONG HIS STINGING CRITICISMS OF THE LAW, JUSTICE SCALIA WROTE THIS.

"THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUE IS ACRID WITH THE SMELL OF THREATENED IMPEACHMENT."

IMPEACHMENT.

JUSTICE SCALIA ECHOED THE CRITICISM OF THE COURT IN WHICH I WAS SERVING AT THE TIME, THE DIRECT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

WHICH IT STRUCK DOWN THE LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A VERY IMPRESSIVE OPINION BY RENOWN JUDGE LAWRENCE SILVERMAN.

WHY?

WHY WOULD JUSTICE SCALIA REFER TO IMPEACHMENT?

THIS IS A REFORM MEASURE.

THERE'S NO MORE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRES, THE FIRING OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS, ARCHIBALD COX BY PRESIDENT NIXON.

GOVERNMENT WOULD NOW BE BETTER, MORE HONEST, THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WOULD BE PROTECTED.

BUT THE WORD IMPEACHMENT HAUNTS THAT DESCENDING OPINION.

IT'S NOT HARD TO DISCOVER WHY.

THE STATUE BY ITS TERMS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO BECOME IN EFFECT AN AGENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

AND TO WHAT END?

TO REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN A VERY LOW THRESHOLD OF INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE LEFT UNDEFINED.

MAY HAVE BASKETBALL COMMITTED TO PARAPHRASE THE PRESIDENT'S VERY ABLE COUNSEL AT THE TIME.

THIS STATUTE IS A DAGGER AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENCY.

PRESIDENT CLINTON, NONETHELESS, SIGNED THE REAUTHORIZED MEASURE INTO LAW.

THE NATION THEN WENT THROUGH THE LONG PROCESS KNOWN AS WHITEWATER.

RESULTING IN THE FINDINGS BY THE OFFICE WHICH I LED, THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

MANY A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THAT REFERRAL TO CONGRESS WAS STIPULATED AND THE ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

TO PUT IT MILDLY, DEMOCRATS WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

THEY THEN JOINED REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE AISLE WHO FOR THEIR PART HAD BEEN OUTRAGED BY AN EARLIER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INVESTIGATION BY A VERY DISTINGUISHED FORMER JUDGE, LAWRENCE WALSH.

IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, THERE WAS THE IRAN CONTRA.

SPAWNED ENORMOUS CRITICISM UNDER THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE.

BOTH AS TO THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF AND AS TO THE STATUTE.

THE ACRIMONY SURROUNDING IRAN CONTRA AND THEN THE IMPEACHMENT AND THE TRIAL AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACQUITTAL BY THIS BODY LED TO THE END OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ERA.

ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH.

LIVING THROUGH THAT WILDLY CONTROVERSIAL 21-YEAR BOLD EXPERIMENT WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE, CONGRESS IN A BIPARTISAN WAY HAD A CHANGE OF HEART.

IT ALLOWED THE LAW TO EXPIRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS IN 1999.

THAT WOULD BE A WELL-INTENTIONED REFORM MEASURE, DIED A QUIET AND UNEVENTFUL DEATH.

IT WAS PROMPTLY REPLACED BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY JANET RENO DURING THE WANING MONTHS OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

ONE CAN REVIEW THOSE REGULATIONS AND SEE NO REFERENCE TO IMPEACHMENT.

NONE.

NO LONGER WAS THE POISON PILL PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PART OF AMERICA'S LEGAL LANDSCAPE.

THEY WERE GONE.

THE RENO REGULATIONS SAME TO SIGNAL A RETURN TO TRADITIONAL NORMS.

THE IMPEACHMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE EMBEDDED IN THE ACTUAL LAWS OF THE LAND.

RETURNED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL DNA AND ITS POLITICAL CULTURE HAD CHANGED.

EVEN WITH THE DAWN OF THE NEW CENTURY, THE 21ST CENTURY, IMPEACHMENT REMAINED ON THE LIPS OF COUNTLESS AMERICANS.

ECHOED FREQUENTLY IN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

THE IMPEACHMENT HABIT PROVED TO BE HARD TO KICK.

IRONICALLY WHILE THIS WAS HAPPENING HERE AT HOME, ACROSS THE ATLANTIC THE USE OF IMPEACHMENT AS A WEAPON DISAPPEARED.

THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM WHICH WE INHERITED THE PROCESS, IMPEACHMENT WAS FIRST USED MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES BEFORE THOSE FIRST SETTLERS CROSSED THE ATLANTIC.

BUT UPON THOUGHTFUL EXAMINATION, A NUMBER OF MODERN-DAY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES LOOKED AND FOUND IMPEACHMENT TO BE OBSOLETE.

AMONG OTHER CRITICISMS, IT CAME TO THE VIEW THAT THE PRACTICE THAT HAD LAST BEEN ATTEMPTED IN BRITAIN IN 1868 FAILS TO MEET MODERN PROCEDURAL STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS.

FAIRNESS.

AS SIR WILLIAM McKAY RECENTLY REMARKED, IMPEACHMENT IN BRITAIN IS DEAD.

YET HERE AT HOME IN THE LONGEST STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, INSTEAD OF A ONCE IN A CENTURY PHENOMENON, WHICH IT HAD BEEN, PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT HAS BECOME A WEAPON TO BE WIELDED AGAINST ONE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

IN A THOUGHTFUL "WALL STREET JOURNAL" OP-ED A WEEK AGAINST SATURDAY, PEGGY NEWNAN WROTE THIS.

"IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN NORMALIZED.

WON'T BE A ONCE IN A GENERATION ACT BUT AN EVERY ADMINISTRATION ACT.

DEMOCRATS WILL REGRET IT WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE HANDING OUT THE PENS."

THE PENS OF THE SIGNING CEREMONY.

WHEN WE LOOK BACK DOWN THE CORRIDORS OF TIME, WE SEE IT FOR OUR FIRST CENTURY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, THE SWORD OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT REMAINED SHEATHED.

HAD THERE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL PRESIDENTS?

YES.

THINK OF JOHN MADISON.

THINK OF ANDREW JACKSON AND HENRY CLAY.

PARTISAN PASSIONS OCCASIONALLY FLAMED IN THAT FIRST CENTURY?

OF COURSE.

LET THERE BE ANY DOUBT, THE EARLY CONGRESSES KNEW HOW TO SUMMON AN IMPEACHMENT TO THE FLIER, INCLUDING AGAINST A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.

SENATOR WILLIAM BLOUNT OF TENNESSEE.

DURING THE JEFFERSON ADMINISTRATION, THE UNSUCCESSFUL IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SAMUEL CHASE.

A PARTIAL JURIST WHO WAS NONETHELESS ACQUITTED BY THIS CHAMBER.

BECAME AN EARLY LANDMARK IN MAINTAINING THE TREASURED INDEPENDENCE OF OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

IT TOOK THE NATIONAL CONVULSION OF THE CIVIL WAR, THE ASSASSINATION OF MR. LINCOLN AND THE COUNTER RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED BY MR. LINCOLN'S SUCCESSOR, ANDREW JOHNSON TO BRING ABOUT THE NATION'S VERY FIRST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

FAMOUSLY, OF COURSE, YOUR PREDECESSORS IN THIS HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, ACQUITTED THE UNPOPULAR AND CONTROVERSIAL JOHNSON.

BUT ONLY BY VIRTUAL OF SENATORS FROM THE PARTY OF LINCOLN BREAKING RANKS.

IT WAS OVER A CENTURY LATER THAT THE NATION RETURNED TO THE TUMULTUOUS WORLD OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

NECESSITATED BE THE RANK CRIMINALALITY OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

IN LIGHT OF THE RAPIDLY UNFOLDING FACTS INCLUDING UNCOVERED BY THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE.

AN OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN VOTE OF 410-4, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AUTHORIZED AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IN 1974, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AFTER A LENGTHY HEARING VOTED AGAIN IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IMPORTANTLY, PRESIDENT NIXON'S OWN PARTY WAS SLOWLY BUT MOVING TOWARD FAVORING THE REMOVAL OF THEIR CHOSEN LEADER FROM THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE WHO JUST WON RE-ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE.

IT BEARS EMPHASIS BEFORE THIS HIGH COURT.

THIS WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OVER 100 YEARS.

IT ALSO BEARS EMPHASIS, IT WAS POWERFULLY BIPARTISAN.

IT WASN'T JUST THE VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

INDEED, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIR, PETER RODINO OF NEW JERSEY WAS INSIST ABOUT THE TO BE ACCENTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE PROCESS HAD TO BE BIPARTISAN.

LIKE WAR, IMPEACHMENT IS HELL.

OR AT LEAST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS HELL.

THOSE OF US WHO LIVE THROUGH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, FULL WELL UNDERSTAND THAT A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO DOMESTIC WAR, PROTECTED BY OUR BELOVED FIRST AMENDMENT, A WAR OF WORDS AND A WAR OF IDEAS.

IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY LIKE NOTHING ELSE.

THOSE OF US THAT LIVED THROUGH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT UNDERSTAND THAT IN A DEEP AND PERSONAL WAY.

IN CONTRAST, WISELY AND JUDICIALLY CONDUCTED, UNLIKE THE UNITED KINGDOM, IMPEACHMENT REMAINS A VITAL AND APPROPRIATE TOOL IN OUR COUNTRY TO SERVE AS A CHECK TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

AFTER ALL, IN THE CONSTITUTIONS BRILLIANT STRUCTURAL DESIGN, FEDERAL JUDGES KNOW AS THIS BODY FULL WELL KNOWS FROM ITS DAILY WORK A PIVOTALLY IMPORTANT FEATURE, INDEPENDENCE FROM POLITICS, EXACTLY WHAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS TALKING ABOUT IN FEDERALIST 78.

DURING THE CONSTITUTIONS TERM, GOOD BEHAVIOR.

IMPRACTICAL.

IN FACT, LIFE TENURE.

IMPEACHMENT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTION FOR WE, THE PEOPLE, AGAINST WHAT COULD BE SERIOUS ARTICLE THREE WRONG DOING WITHIN THAT BRANCH.

SO IT IS THAT WHEN YOU COUNT OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES AUTHORIZED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OVER OUR HISTORY, ONLY EIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED IN THIS HIGH COURT AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

AND EACH AND EVERYONE HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE.

THIS HISTORY LEAVES ME TO REFLECT ON THE NATURE OF YOU'RE WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITIES HERE IN THIS HIGH COURT AS JUDGES IN THE CONTEXT OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THE FOURTH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, I'M COUNTING THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS, AND OUR NATION'S HISTORY, BUT THE THIRD OVER THE PAST HALF CENTURY.

I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE SENATE IN ITS WISDOM WOULD DO WELL IN ITS DELIBERATIONS TO GUIDE THE NATION IN THIS WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY TO RETURN TO OUR COUNTRY'S TRADITIONS WHEN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WAS TRULY A MEASURE OF LAST RESORT.

MEMBERS OF THIS BODY CAN HELP AND END THIS VERY PROCEEDING, RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL TRADITIONS.

ABOVE ALL BY RETURNING TO THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

IT CAN DO SO BY ITS EXAMPLE HERE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IN WEAVING THE TAPESTRY OF WHAT CAN RIGHTLY BE CALLED THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S WHAT COURTS DO.

THEY WEAVE THE COMMON LAW.

THERE ARE INDICATIONS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT THAT HAVE COME TO OUR HISTORY, THAT THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS APPROPRIATE TO BE ASKED.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE ARGUMENTS.

WAS THERE A CRIME OR OTHER VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW ALLEGED?

SO LET'S TURN TO THE TEXT.

THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTIONS DESCRIPTION OF IMPEACHMENT, THE TEXT SPEAKS ALWAYS, ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION IN TERMS OF CRIMES.

IT BEGINS, OF COURSE, WITH TREASON, THE GREATEST OF CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE AND AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE.

BUT SO MISUSED AS A BLUDGEON AND PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCES TO LEAVE THE FOUNDERS TO DEFINE THE TERM IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

BRIBERY.

A FORM OF MORAL AND LEGAL CORRUPTION.

THE BASIS OF SO MANY OF THE 63 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OVER THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY.

AGAIN, ALMOST ALL OF THEM AGAINST JUDGES.

AND THEN THE MYSTERIOUS TERMS OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ONCE AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS EMPLOYING THE LANGUAGE OF CRIMES.

THE CONSTITUTION IS SPEAKING TO US IN TERMS OF CRIMES.

EACH OF THOSE REFERENCES, WHEN YOU COUNT THEM, COUNT 7, COUNT 8, SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF OFFENSES AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW.

ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENCY, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT A POLITICAL OFFICER NO MATTER HOW HONEST, NO MATTER HOW IMPARTIAL TO PRESIDE AT TRIAL.

GUIDED BY HISTORY.

THE FRAMERS MADE A DELIBERATE AND WISE CHOICE TO CABIN, TO CONSTRAIN, TO LIMIT THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO IT WAS ON THE VERY EVE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, THE EMINENT SCHOLAR THEODORE DWIGHT WROTE THIS.

"THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS THAT NO IMPEACHMENT WILL LIE EXCEPT FOR A TRUE CRIME A BREACH OF THE LAW WHICH WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF INDICTMENT".

I'M NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

I'M NOTING WHAT HE'S SAYING.

HE DIDN'T OVERARGUE THE CASE.

HE SAID THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.

THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.

SO THIS ISSUE IS A WEIGHTY ONE.

HAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH ALL DUE RESPECT IN THESE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGED A CRIME OF ESTABLISHED LAW OR NOT?

THIS IS -- I DON'T WANT TO OVERARGUE -- THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE AND WEIGHTY CONSIDERATION FOR THE SENATE.

ESPECIALLY AS I'M TRYING TO EMPHASIZE IN THE CASE, ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE BUT THE PRESIDENT, COURTSES CONSIDER FACTORS AND THERE'S A HUGE FACTOR THAT THIS TRIAL IS OCCURRING IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

WHEN WE THE PEOPLE IN A MATTER OF MONTHS WILL GO TO THE POLLS.

IN DEVELOPING THE COMMON LAW OF IMPEACHMENT, THIS THRESHOLD FACTOR CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, CONSISTENT WITH A NATION'S HISTORY AND PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS AS I'LL SEEK TO SEEK TO DEMONSTRATE SERVES AS A CLARIFYING AND STABLE ELEMENT.

IT INCREASING PREDICTABILITY, TO DO WHAT?

TO REDUCE THE PROFOUND DANGER THAT A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WILL BE DOMINATED BIPARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS.

PRECISELY THE EVIL THAT THE FRAMERS WARNED ABOUT.

SO TO HISTORY, HISTORY BEARS OUT THE POINT, THE NATION'S MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE, THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, EVEN THOUGH SEVERELY AND ROUNDLY CRITICIZED CHARGED CRIMES.

THESE ARE CRIMES PROVEN IN THE CRUISABLE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEBATE.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE OBSERVER'S DOUBT.

SO TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

THE ARTICLES CHARGED CRIMES.

WHAT ABOUT ARTICLES 2 IN NIXON, WHICH IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS ABUSE OF POWER?

WAS THAT THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE, THE PRECURSOR TO ARTICLE 1 BEFORE THIS COURT?

NOT AT ALL.

WHEN ONE RETURNS TO ARTICLE 2.

APPROVED BY A BIPARTISAN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, ARTICLE 2 OF NIXON SETS FORTH A DEEPLY TROUBLING STORY OF NUMEROUS CRIMES, NOT ONE, NOT TWO, NUMEROUS CRIMES CARRIED OUT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

SO THE APPROPRIATE QUESTION, WERE CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLES IN THE COMMON LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN NIXON?

YES.

IN CLINTON, YES.

HERE, NO.

A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE JUDGES AND THE HIGH COURT COME AS YOU WILL INDIVIDUALLY TO YOUR JUDGMENT.

EVEN IN THE POLITICAL CAULDRON OF THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT, ARTICLE 11 CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE CONTROVERSIAL TENURE OF OFFICE ACT.

THAT ACT WARNED EXPRESSLY THE OVAL OFFICE THAT ITS VIOLATION WOULD CONS TUESDAY A HIGH MISDEMEANOR EMPLOYING THE VERY LANGUAGE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY COGNIZABLE CRIMES.

THIS HISTORY REPRESENTS I BELIEVE, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, THE COMMON LAWS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THESE ARE FACTS GLEANED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND FROM THE GLOSS OF THE NATION'S HISTORY.

UNDER THIS VIEW, THE COMMISSION OF AN ALLEGED CRIME OR VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW CAN APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED AGAIN A WEIGHTY AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AND ELEMENT OF A HISTORICALLY SUPPORTABLE PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

HE LAW PROFESSORS AGREE WITH THIS?

NO.

BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE ACADEMY, THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC GATHERING.

WE ARE IN COURT.

WE'RE NOT JUST IN COURT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WE'RE IN COURT.

THE BETTER CONSTITUTIONAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS PROVIDED BY A RIGOROUS AND FAITH FOUL EXAMINATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND THEN LOOKING FAITHFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY TO OUR HISTORY.

THE VERY DIVISIVE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT WHILE HIGHLY RELEVANT, THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS BRING NO MEANS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE REMOVAL OF OUR DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

WHY?

THIS BODY KNOWS.

WE APPOINT JUDGES AND YOU CONFIRM THEM AND THEY'RE THERE FOR LIFE.

NOT PRESIDENTS.

THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.

THE PRESIDENCY STANDS ALONE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK.

JOHN MARSHALL, THEN SITTING AS A MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, MADE A SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

AND THERE HE SAID THIS.

"THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE ORGAN OF THE NATION IN ITS EXTERNAL AND ITS SOLE REPRESENTATIVE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS."

IF THAT SOUNDS LIKE HYPERBOLE, IT'S BEEN EMBRACED OVER DECADES BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BY JUSTICES APPOINTED BY MANY DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS.

THE PRESIDENCY IS UNIQUE.

IT'S A SYSTEM THAT HAS SERVED US WELL.

SO AS TO THE PRESIDENCY, IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL NOT ONLY OVERTURNS A NATIONAL ELECTION AND PROFOUNDLY EFFECTS AN UPCOMING ELECTION, IN THE WORDS OF YALE'S AKILE OMAR, GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

PROFESSOR OMAR PENNED THOSE WORDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

GRAVE DISRUPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE.

GRAVE DISRUPTION.

WE WILL ALL AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE TO SERVE OUT THEIR TERM.

ABSENT A GENUINE NATIONAL CONSENSUS REFLECTED BY THE 2/3s MAJORITY REQUIREMENT OF THIS COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST GO AWAY.

2/3s.

IN POLITICS AND IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S CALLED A LANDSLIDE.

HERE I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT ALL FAIR-MINDED PERSONS WILL SURELY AGREE THERE'S NO NATIONAL CONSENSUS.

WE MIGHT WISH FOR ONE, BUT THERE ISN'T.

TO THE CONTRARY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICA'S MODERN HISTORY, NOT A SINGLE HOUSE MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY SUPPORTED EITHER OF THE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

NOT ONE.

NOT IN COMMITTEE, NOT ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, AND THAT PIVOTAL FACT PUTS IN BOLD RELIEF THE PETER RODINO PRINCIPAL.

CALL IT THE RODINO RULE.

IMPEACHMENT MUST BE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.

AGAIN, SITTING AS A COURT, THIS BODY SHOULD SIGNAL TO THE NATION THE RETURN TO OUR TRADITIONS.

BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

WILL THE PRESIDENT BE KING?

TO OVERSIGHT.

THE TRADITION OF OVERSIGHT.

AN ENORMOUS CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.

IT CONTINUES AVAILABLE TODAY.

IN IRAN CONTRA, NO IMPEACHMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN.

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, A DEMOCRAT, JIM WRIGHT, FROM TEXAS, FROM FORT WORTH WHERE THE WEST BEGINS, KNEW BETTER.

HE SAID NO.

BUT IT BEFITS THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST RONALD REAGAN WAS FOULED.

IT WAS SUPPORTED BY A LEADING LAW PROFESSOR WHOSE NAME YOU WOULD WELL-RECOGNIZED AND HEAR IT AGAIN THIS EVENING, FROM PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ.

I'LL LEAVE IT TO HIM TO IDENTIFY, THE LEARNED PROFESSOR.

THE SPEAKER OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE ECHOING PETER RODINO SAID NO.

SO I RESPECTFULLY THE SENATE SHOULD CLOSE THIS CHAPTER, THIS IDIOSYNCRATIC CHAPTER ON THIS INCREASINGLY DISRUPTIVE ACT, THE ULTIMATE DEMOCRATIC WEAPON FOR CONSTITUTION'S ULTIMATE DEMOCRATIC WEAPON OF THE PRESIDENCY.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

THERE WAS A GREAT JUSTICE WHO SAT FOR 30 YEARS, JUST JOHN HARLEN, MID-CENTURY OF THE 20TH CENTURY AND IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING A BASIC QUESTION, CAN CITIZENS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE CLEARLY BEEN VIOLATED BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND AGENTS BRING AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES?

WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SO PROVIDED.

NO LAW!

NO LAW THAT GAVE THE WOUNDED CITIZEN A RIGHT TO REDRESS THROUGH DAMAGES.

AND JUSTICE HARLEN IN A MAGNIFICENT CONCURRING OPINION IN BIVENS VERSUS SIX UNNAMED FEDERAL AGENTS SUGGESTED THAT COURTS, HERE YOU ARE, SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN REACHING ITS JUDGMENT, THEIR JUDGMENT, WHAT HE CALLED FACTORS COUNSELLING RESTRAINT.

HE WAS SOMEWHAT RELUCTANT TO SAY THAT WE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD CREATE THIS RIGHT WHEN CONGRESS HASN'T ACTED AND CONGRESS COULD HAVE ACTED BUT IT HADN'T.

BUT HE RELUCTANTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF EMPOWERED THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CREATE THIS RIGHT FOR OUR INJURED CITIZENS, TO GIVE THEM REDRESS, NOT JUST AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BUT DAMAGES, MONEY RECOVERY FROM VIOLATIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

FACTORS CON SELLING RESTRAINT AND HE ADDRESSED THEM AND HE CAME TO THE VIEW -- HE WAS SO HONEST AND SAID, I CAME TO THE CASE WITH A DIFFERENT VIEW, BUT I CHANGED MY MIND AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BIVENS FAMILY HAVING REDRESS AGAINST THE FEDERAL AGENTS WHO HAD VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS.

JUDGING ITS MOST IMPARTIAL ELEGANT SENSE I'M GOING TO DRAW FROM JUSTICE'S COUNSELLING OF RESTRAINT AND ARGUE THAT ARTICLES DO NOT CHARGE A CRIME, I'M SUGGESTING IT'S A RELEVANT FACTOR, I THINK IT'S A WEIGHTY FACTOR, WHEN WE COME TO PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT NOT JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT.

SECOND, THE ARTICLES COME TO YOU WITH NO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THEY COME TO YOU WITH WHAT I'M DUBBING THE RODINO RULE.

AND THIRDLY, AS I WILL NOW DISCUSS THE PIVOTAL ISSUE, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THIS COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON.

IT'S UNANIMITY IN RECOGNIZING THE PRESIDENT'S PROFOUND VIEW, REGARDLESS OF THE WORLD VIEW OR PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUSTICES, THEY WERE UNANIMOUS MUS, THIS IS BUILT INTO THE NATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

SO LET ME COMMENT BRIEFLY.

THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED RECOGNITION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THEN COMPANION PRIVILEGES, THE DELIBERATE ACTIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE, THE IMMUNITY OF CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS FROM BEING SUMMONED TO TESTIFY, THESE ARE ALL FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN OUR LAW.

IF THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES AND THERE IS IN EACH AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION THEN GO TO COURT.

IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT, I DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT.

HERE IS THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE: FREQUENTLY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ADVISES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENCY CALLS, WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT MIGHT WANT TO DO, AS A POLITICAL MATTER, AS AN ACCOMMODATION AND SPIRIT OF KOMMEDY TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

I'VE HEARD IT IN MY TWO TOURS OF DUTY AT THE JUSTICE SUPPORT, DON'T RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS, MR. PRESIDENT.

IF YOU DO, YOU'RE INJURING THE PRESIDENCY.

GO TO COURT.

WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE LITIGATION MIGHT TAKE.

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LITIGATED KNOW THAT SOMETIMES LITIGATION DOES TAKE LONGER THAN WE WOULD LIKE.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT OUR HISTORY, CHURCHILL'S MAXUM STUDIED HISTORY, OUR HISTORY TELLS US THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SO.

TAKE BY WAY OF EXAMPLE THE PENT GONE PAPERS CASE -- PENTAGON PAPERS CASE, ORDERS ISSUED, PREVENTING AND SANCTIONING A GROSSDg AMENDMENT GUARANTEED FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

AN ORDER ISSUED OUT OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUNE 15th, 1971.

THAT ORDER WAS REVERSED IN AN OPINION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TWO WEEKS LATER.

JUNE 15th.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT WELL-TRODDEN PATH, IT COULD HAVE SOUGHT EXPEDITION, THE COURTHOUSE IS SIX BLOCKS DOWN, THE JUDGES ARE THERE, THEY'RE ALL VERY ABLE, HARD-WORKING PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY.

FOLLOW THE PATH, FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE LAW.

GO TO COURT.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LISA ONE PROBLEM.

HAD THE HOUSE SEEN FIT TO GO TO COURT AND REMAIN IN COURT.

THE ISSUE IS BEFORE YOU, BUT AMONG OTHER FLAWS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL DETERMINED, AND I'VE READ THE OPINION AND I BELIEVE IT'S CORRECT, THAT WITH ALL RESPECT, ALL HOUSE SUBPOENAED ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME AUTHORIZED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS A HOUSE, ALL SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID, THEY WERE VOID.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ALL OF HER ABILITY AND HER VAST EXPERIENCE, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, SHE WAS POWERLESS TO DO WHAT SHE PURPORTED TO DO.

AS HAS BEEN SAID NOW TIME AND, AGAIN, ESPECIALLY THROUGHOUT THE FALL, THE CONSTITUTION DOES ENTRUST THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

BUT THAT'S THE HOUSE.

IT'S 435 MEMBERS ELECTED FROM ACROSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, NO MATTER HOW ABLE SHE MAY BE IN THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE EVERY CONGRESS PERSON GETS A VOTE.

WENT THE CONCEPT, ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

MORE GENERALLY, THE PRESIDENT AS I REVIEWED THE RECORD, HAS CONSISTENTLY AND SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IN PARTICULAR, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.

HE'S BEEN OBEDIENT.

AS YOU KNOW, THAT IMPORTANT OFFICE, MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES PROFESSIONALLY WITH THAT OFFICE IS STAFFED WITH LAWYERS OF GREAT ABILITY.

IT HAS A REPUTATION FOR SUPERB WORK.

IT HAS DONE SUCH THOUGHTFUL WORK IN BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION AND THE OFFICE IS HELD BY A BRILLIANT LAWYER WHO SERVED AS JUSTICE KENNEDY'S CLERK.

THE HOUSE COULD DISAGREE, THE HOUSE FREQUENTLY DOES DISAGREE BUT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO AN INTERBRANCH LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE CANNOT REASONABLY BE VIEWED AS AN OBSTRUCTION.

AND MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

HISTORY ONCE AGAIN IS A GREAT TEACHER.

IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REJECTED A DRAFT ARTICLE ASSERTING THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HERE ARE THE WORDS OF THE DRAFT ARTICLE, "FRAUDULENTLY AND CORRUPTLY ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE."

STRONG WORDS, FRAUDULENTLY AND CORRUPTLY.

THAT WAS THE DRAFT ARTICLE.

IN MY VIEW HAVING LIVED THROUGH THE FACTS, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT, HE DID!

HE DID THAT.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, HOUSE MANAGERS, WE'RE GOING TO DO TWO THINGS THIS EVENING.

WE'RE GOING TO FIRST HEAR FROM FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, ROBERT RAY.

HE'S GOING TO DISCUSS ISSUES OF HOW HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE LEGAL h@aS ISSUES, SOME OF THE HISTORY OF HOW THAT WORKS AND THEN WE WILL CONCLUDE THIS EVENING WITH A PRESENTATION FROM PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ.

I WOULD YIELD MY TIME TO ROBERT RAY.

>> ROBERT RAY: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, DISTINGUISHED HOUSE MANAGERS, AND MAY IT PLEASE THIS COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY IN DEFENSE OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS WHO IN NOVEMBER 2016 ELECTED DONALD TRUMP TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AS THEIR PRESIDENT.

THEIR REASONS FOR THAT VOTE WERE AS VARIED AS ANY IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE, BUT THEIR COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT ACCEPTED AS LEGITIMATE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IS DESERVING OF MY RESPECT AND YOURS.

FOR ONLY III TIME IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY, THE SENATE IS CONVENED TO TRY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THOSE ARTICLES DO NOT ALLEGE CRIMES.

THE CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS' INTENT AND HISTORICAL PRACTICE ALL DICTATE THAT WELL-FOUNDED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ALLEGE BOTH THAT A HIGH CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT AS SUCH REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IS WARRANTED ONLY WHEN SUCH AN OFFENSE ALSO CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.

THAT IS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT A VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

BOTH ARE REQUIRED, AND NEITHER ONE BY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN HERE BY THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I AM HERE THIS EVENING IN THIS CHAMBER DISTINCTLY PRIVILEGED TO REPRESENTATIVE AND DEFEND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE FACTS, ON THE LAW, AND ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT MUST BE PARAMOUNT TO YOU, MEMBER OF THE SENATE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THESE ARTICLES WARRANT, WITH OR WITHOUT WITNESSES, THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE, BECAUSE THERE IS AND CAN BE NO BASIS IN THESE ARTICLES OFTEN THE SENATE CAN OR SHOULD CONVICT THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT IS ALLEGED THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

THAT JUDGMENT IS RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ELECTIONS, THE NEXT OF WHICH IS JUST OVER NINE MONTHS AWAY.

40 YEARS AGO IN 1980, I FIRST CAME TO CAPITOL HILL AS A LEGISLATIVE INTERN FOR A CONGRESSMAN WHO ONLY SIX YEARS EARLIER HAD PLAYED AN IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL ROLE IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON.

THE CONGRESSMAN OF WHOM I SPEAK AND CAME TO RESPECT IMMENSELY SERVED THEN AND IN 1974 ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HE WAS TASKED TOGETHER WITH HIS COLLEAGUES IN EVALUATING AND VOTING ON AS MOST OF THE HOUSE MANAGES HERE HAVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THOSE INCLUDED THE CRIME OF OBJECTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

BUT UNLIKE HOW HOUSE MANAGERS AND INDEED THE ENTIRE HOUSE, 45 YEARS LATER IN DECEMBER 2019 PROCEEDED HERE, BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS IN 1974 AMONG BOTH HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND HOUSE REPUBLICANS WAS THE ORDER OF THE DAY.

INDEED IT BECAME APPARENT THEN THAT NARROW PARTISAN VIEWS ASIDE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD AT THE INTO THE BREACH ONLY INSOFAR AS CRIMINAL CONDUCT WARRANTED IT.

THE TAPES OF OVAL OFFICE CONVERSATIONS INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT PROVIDED THAT EVIDENCE.

THE SUPREME COURT IN EFFECT OVERRULED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND ORDERED THE RELEASE OF THE TAPES TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS A RESULT THREE DAYS LATER THE CRIME OF HIGH CRIME OF JUSTICE TETHERED TO A SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT TWO DAYS AFTER THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY A VOTE OF 27-11 AND 28-10 RESPECTIVELY.

THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ALLEGED AMONG OTHER THINGS UNLAWFUL USE OF THE CIA AND ITS RESOURCES INCLUDING COVERT ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF THE FBI TO ADVANCE THE COVER-UP, THAT IS THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE CRIMES ALLEGED WERE SERIOUS, INVOLVING UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF A POLITICAL PARTY, PAYING HUSH MONEY TO CO-SON SPUR TORS AND ATTEMPTS TO ALTER TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.

SIX REPUBLICAN HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS JOINED ALL 21 DEMOCRATS IN SUPPORTING THOSE TWO ARTICLES.

MY CONGRESSMAN WAS AMONG THOSE SIX HOUSE MEMBERS.

ANOTHER ONE OF THE SIX WAS A YOUNG CONGRESSMAN FROM MAINE WHO LATER BECAME A MEMBER OF THIS BODY SERVING WITH DISTINCTION AS A SENATOR AND LATER AS PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THAT WAS BILL COHEN.

A THIRD WAS A REPUBLICAN FROM VIRGINIA BOOZE PAPERS ARE HOUSED AT WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY IN VIRGINIA IN THE STATE WHERE I GREW UP AND LATER WENT TO LAW SCHOOL.

TOGETHER THESE SIX REPUBLICANS MADE HISTORY.

THEY DID SO WITH NO SENSE OF TRIUMPH AND NO FIST BUMPS BUT ONLY IN THE WORDS OF MY CONGRESSMAN WITH RELUCTANCE AND ONLY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES BY THE PRESIDENT CONCLUDED IN A COVER UP ACCORDING TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CONTRARY TO HIS TRUST AS PRESIDENT.

AS TO THE THIRD ARTICLE IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT THAT ARTICLE CHARGING OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS DID NOT ENJOY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT WAS VOTED ON ALONG PARTY LINES BY A VOTE OF 21-17.

REPUBLICANS OBTAINED THEN TO THE THIRD ARTICLE IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT'S GOOD FAITH PRIOR CLAIM TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BY WITHHOLDING CERTAIN EVIDENCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MATTER WAS DEFINITIVELY RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

MY POINT IN MENTIONING THESE THREE VOTES IS SIMPLY THIS: COUNT VOTES AND DO THE MATH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF YOUR PHONES AND THUS A CALCULATOR APP SO I WILL DO IT FOR YOU.

A 27-11 VOTE WAS NOT ONLY BIPARTISAN AS I HAVE INDICATED, BUT OVERWHELMINGLY SO, INDEED OVER 70%.

THAT IS TO SAY GREATER THAN A TWO-THIRDS SUPER MAJORITY.

THAT VOTE SENT A POWERFUL SIGNAL TO THE FULL HOUSE AND INDEED THE SENATE THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN AND THEREFORE POLITICALLY AND LEGALLY LEGITIMATE.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S FATE WAS SEALED AND THE RESULT WAS INEVITABLE.

THU LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT INITIAL COMMITTEE VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT RESIGNED.

MY CONGRESSMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS COMMENTED SIMPLY AND PLAINLY THAT IT WAS IN HIS WORDS A GREAT AMERICAN TRAGEDY.

BUT THE GREATER POINT WAS AND IS, THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS NEVER DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO BE A PARTISAN TOOL AND IT WAS TO BE UNDERTAKEN ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.

THIS BRINGS ME TO WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION RELATIVE TO IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT SOME LENGTH BY MY COLLEAGUE, PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ BUT IN RELIANCE ON HAMILTON'S STATEMENT NO.

65, THAT'S THE ONE REPEATEDLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND CITED IN FAVOR OF AN EXPANSIVE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION BY CONGRESS OVERLY ALLEGED OFFENSES IN HAMILTON'S WORDS WHICH PRECEDE FROM MISCONDUCT OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CONSTITUTING THE ABUSE OF OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

THE IRONY THAT HAMILTON, THE GREATEST PROPONENT IN THIS COUNTRY OF EXECUTIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD BE FRONT AND CENTER IN THIS IMPEACHMENT EFFORT TO REMOVE A DULY EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE IS LOST ON HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS.

I DARE SAY HAMILTON WOULD ROLL OVER IN HIS GRAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT HE ACKNOWLEDGE IN NO.

69 THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE UPON CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MERCHANDISE.

WE SHOULD READ THE WORD "CRIME" RIGHT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND PROCEED MERRILY ALONG THE WAY WITH WITNESSES NO LESS OF A PRESIDENT DULY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR WHAT?

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT DO NOT ALLEGE CRIMES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT, THAT COURSE IF SUSTAINED CHEAPENS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND THUS IS AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY ALL ITS OWN.

INDEED NONE OTHER THAN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CHARLES R.UFF DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN JANUARY 1999 STATED IT BEST "TO ARGUE AS THE MANAGERS DO THAT THE PHASE OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MERCHANDISE WAS MEANT TO ENCOMPASS A WIDE RANGE OF OFFENSES FLIES IN THEpçr THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE FRAMERS WHO CAREFUL CHOSE THEIR LANGUAGE, KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THOSE WORDS MEANT AND KNEW WHAT WORDS THEY INTENDED TO PROTECT AGAINST" ONE OF THOSE CONCERNS AND RISKS COUNSELLOR RUFF WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT IMPEACHMENT MUST BE WELL DEFINED.

FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE THAT THE CRIMES ALLEGED AND THAT THOSE CRIMES ARE SO SERIOUS THAT THEY, AGAIN, IN MR. RUFF'S WORDS SUBVERT OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND WOULD JUSTIFY OVERTURNING A POPULAR ELECTION.

OTHERWISE WHAT YOU HAVE IS LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY.

THAT, TAKEN IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT IS WHAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON WELL UNDERSTOOD AND MEANT AND SO DID MY CONGRESSMAN.

THAT CONGRESSMAN WAS, OF COURSE, HAMILTON FISK, JUNIOR.

ACTUALLY HE WAS HAMILTON FISH THE FOURTH.

HIS GRANDFATHER WAS BORN IN 1808, LATER SERVED AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, A UNITED STATES SENATOR BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR AND NOTABLY AS PRESIDENT GRANT'S SECRETARY OF STATE.

BUT WHAT I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME BACK IN 1980, EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS NOW IT'S OBVIOUS, THE ORIGINAL HAMILTON FISH WAS NAMED AFTER HIS PARENTS' BEST FRIEND NONYL OTHER THAN ALEXANDER -- NONE OTHER THAN HAMILTON HIMSELF.

THE FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY AT SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY WROTE ABOUT IN A CO-AUTHORED BOOK ON IMPEACHMENT, THE CHARGE MUST BE TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES OR MERCHAISDEMEANORS, SU THAT HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS IN THIS CASE THE 63 MILLION PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP ACCEPT HIS GUILT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN ORDER TO OVERWHELMINGLY PERSUADE A SUPER MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THUS THEIR SENATORS A MALFEASANCE AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND BECAUSE IT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WE ARE TALKITA TALKING ABOUT HERE, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE CANNOT BE BASED ON IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PARAPHRASING GERALD FORD NOW, WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE CONSIDERS THEM TO BE.

AND TO SUPPLEMENT THAT STATEMENT 50 YEARLINGS IN 1970 FROM THEN GERRY FORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROSPECT OF IMPEACHING A SPAM COURT JUSTICE FORD CLARIFIED THAT EXECUTIVE BRANCH IMPEACHMENTS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE VOTERS CAN REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT AND ALL PERSONS HOLDING OFFICE AT THEIR PLEASURE AT LISA EVERY FOUR YEARS.

TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT IN MID-TERM IT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE AND NEVER DONE WOULD INDEED REQUIRE CRIMES OF THE MAGNITUDE OF TREASON AND BRIBERY.

PROFESSOR AMAR MADE THE SAME ARGUMENT DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT ABOUT TRANSFORMING AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY REMOVE A DUALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT THEY UNDUE THE VOTES OF MILLIONS ON ELECTION DAY.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SENATORS SHOULD DO LIGHTLY LES WE SLIDE TOWARD A PARLIAMENT TEAR GOVERNMENT THAT OUR ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO REPUDIATE.

IN HAMMERING HOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNIQUENESS HE EMPHASIZED THE CASE OF RICHARD NIXON AND DISTINGUISHED IT FROM ANDREW JOHNSON, THAT IS TO SAY ONLY WHEN EXTREMELY HIGH CRIMES AND GROSS ABUSES OF OFFICIAL HOUR INDEED POSE A THREAT TO OUR BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, A THREAT AS HIGH AND TRULY ASTHMA LIANG NINETY TO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT SUCH AS BRIBERY WOULD THE SENATE BE JUSTIFIED IN NULLIFYING THE VOTES OF MILLIONS OF AMERICAN AND REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

MY POINT IS THIS: HISTORY, OUR AMERICAN HISTORY MATTERS.

TO LISTEN TO HOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE IT, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE MERELY AS CHARLES R.UFF WARNED A GENERATION AGO EMPTY VESSELS INTO WHICH CAN BE POURED ANY MONTH OF CHARGES EVEN THOSE CONSIDERED AND ABDOMENED AT LISA IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT THE ARTICLES CHARGE CRIMES AND THE SENATE THEREAFTER DETERMINED BY ITS VOTE IN THAT CASE THAT IN EFFECT WHILE THOSE CRIMES PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JOLLITY MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, THOSE CRIMES WERE NOT HIGH ENOUGH CRIMES DAMAGING TO THE BODY OF POLITIC TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

THAT JUDGMENT WAS, OF COURSE, WITHIN THIS BODY'S DISCRETION TO RENDER AND IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY SUCH.

WHETHER YOU AGREED WITH IT OR NOT AS LEGITIMATE IT IS ALSO ONE THAT IS HISTORICALLY CONSISTENT WITH HAMILTON'S VIEWS AND MADISON'S, TOO, CONCERNING THE PROPER SCRAPOPE OF IMPEACHMENT APPLIED TO A PRESIDENT.

WHEN I ENTERED THE SCENE AND SUCCEEDED JUDGE KENNETH STARR ANDS PENT COUNSEL IN OCTOBER OF 1999 IT WAS LEFT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS WARRANTED CONSISTENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION AND THAT MATTER WAS EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED IN THE MIDST OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION THAT I COMMISSIONED IN ORDER TO DECIDE FIRST WHETHER CRIMES, IN FACT, HAD BEEN COMMITTED.

I FOUND THAT THEY HAD.

I LATER SAID SO PUBLICLY IN THE FINAL REPORT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED AND MANDATED BY CONGRESS CONCLUDING THE LEWENSKI INVESTIGATION.

I ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE PROSECUTION OF THE PRESIDENT WHILE IN OR ONCE HE LEFT OFFICE WOULD NOT BE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST GIVEN ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE MEANS SHORT OF PROSECUTION IN ORDER TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT.

THOSE MEANS INCLUDED A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE PRESIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER HIS SENATE TRIAL THAT HIS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH BEFORE THE GRAND JURY HAD, IN FACT, BEEN FALSE AND A RELATED AGREEMENT TO SUSPEND HIS LAW LICENSE.

THE PRICE PAID BY PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS INDEED HIGH AND IT STEMMED IN THE END FROM THE NEED TO VINDICATE THE PRINCIPLE FIRST RAISED MOST PROMINENTLY DURING WATER GATE THAT NO PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW.

DESPITE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S SUBSEQUENT PROTEST IN HIS MEMIOIR THAT I WAS JUST ANOTHER PROSECUTOR OUT TO GAIN A "POUND OF FLESH" I CREDIT THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS NECESSARY IN THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY WHERE ANY PRESIDENT OCCUPIES IN OUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCRETION GO HAND-IN-HAND AND PERMITTED AND DEMANDED SUCH AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION.

IT ENABLED THE COUNTRY TO MOVE ON AND IT WAS AS MANY IF NOT MORE A CREDIT TO BILL CLINTON THAN TO ANY CREDIT I DESERVED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT AND AVOID ANY PARTISAN RECRIPPLE NATION OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN ELECTING AND REELECTING PRESIDENT CLINTON IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HIS SUCCESSOR, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.

I WAS MINDFUL AND EXCEEDINGLY CONCERNED THROUGHOUT MY TENURE AS INDEPENDENT COUNSEL THAT ALTHOUGH CRIMES HAD BEEN COMMITTED, BILL CLINTON WAS THE ELECTED OFFICIAL PLACED BY THE VOTERS INTO THE OFFICE AND HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND I WAS NOT -- THE LESSON FOR ME WAS A SIMPLE ONE THAT I'M SURE EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, WHATEVER THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE OR POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE COMPANY UNDERSTAND, BE HENLEY BELL AND ACT WITH HUMILITY, NEVER BEING TOO SURE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT.

TODAY, 20 YEARS LATER WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THAT EXPERIENCE?

I FEAR THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NOTHING AT ALL.

IF THESE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES NOW ARE SUSTAINED BEYOND SUMMARY RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF AKWILGTS, IMPEACHMENT IN THE FUTURE LITERALLY WILL MEAN PROOF OF HIGH CRIMES IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE EFFORT BUT THAT NO CRIME AT ALL IS SUFFICIENT AS LONG AS A PARTISAN MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE SAYS SO.

AND THUS DURING THE PAST FOUR MONTHS ALONE WE HAVE WITNESSED THE ENDLESS PROCESSION OF LEGAL THEORYS USED TO SUSTAIN THIS PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT FROM TREASON TO QUID PRO QUO TO BRIBERY TO EXTORTION TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO SOLICITING AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, TO A VIOLATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT TO WHO KNOWS WHAT ALL IS NEXT.

WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH, THEN, ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT ARTICLES, ABANDONING ANY PRETENSE TO THE ALLEGED CRIMES THAT ARE ANOTHER VEHICLE OR WEAPON, IF YOU WILL, IN ORDER TO DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT POLITICALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

IT IS, I SUBMIT, DECIDEDLY NOT IN THE COUNTRY'S BEST INTEREST TO HAVE THE PROSECUTION OF THE GRAVE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT AND THE DRASTIC PROSPECT OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BECOME JUST POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS.

ANY MORE THAN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE HUGE POWER OF PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES UNDER THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE TO BE EXERCISED NOT ON THE MERITS WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR BUT INSTEAD AS A RAW, NAKED AND PERNICIOUS EXERCISE OF RAW POWER AND ADVANTAGE.

I HAVE SPENT THE BETTER PART OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE FOR OVER 30 YEARS AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FOR 13 YEARS THROUGH TWO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONS AND NOW AS A DEFENSE LAWYER FOR OVER 17 YEARS TRYING MY LEVEL BEST ALWAYS TO ENSURE THAT POLITICS AND PROSECUTION DO NOT MIX.

IT MUST NOT HAPPEN HERE.

A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS ILLEGITIMATE AND SHOULD BE REJECTED AS SUCH.

OVERWHELMINGLY BY THIS BODY I HOPE AND SUBMIT, OR ALTERNATIVELY AND IF NEED BE, BY ONLY A PARTISAN REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

TURNING NOW TO WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE GONE ALLEGED.

REGARDING THE FIRST ARTICLE, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT ON IMPEACHMENT CONTAINS A STATEMENT "ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS NEED NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CRIMINAL VIOLATION TO JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT, HIS CONDUCT AHERE WAS CRIMINAL."

SO IN SHORT, WE NEED NOT BOTHER IN AN IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZING THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUCH A CRIME WAS COMMITTED BUT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL NONETHELESS.

ASIDE FROM BEING EXCEEDINGLY UNFAIR TO CALL SOMETHING CRIMINAL IS NOT STAND BEHIND THE ALLEGATION AND CHARGE IT, IT JUST AIN'T SO.

I HAVE HEARD HOUSE MANAGER HAKEEM JEFFRIES ARGUE THAT HE AND HIS TEAM HAVE AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO.

THAT IS AN EXPLICIT PURPORTED EXCHANGE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP OF SOMETHING OF PERSONAL BENEFIT TO HIMSELF IN RETURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

AS I HAVE EXPLAINED AS FAR BACK AS NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR IN A TIME MAGAZINE COVER STORY THE PROBLEM WITH THIS THEORY IS A QUID PRO QUO IS LIMITED TO THOSE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE CORRUPT, THAT IS TO SAY ONLY THOSE THAT ARE CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY I AM PORP AND THE BENEFIT OF AN INVESTIGATION OR AN ANNOUNCEMENT AGAINST THE BIDENS MIGHT BRING PRESIDENT TRUMP AT BEST SOMETHING NEBULOUS.

I SHOULD PURPORT THE THING OF VALUE THAT IT IS WITH REGARD TO A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION TO THE PRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, IS FRAUGHT WITH ISSUES.

ANTICORRUPTION LAWS TO SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WHEN AN IN-KIND BENEFIT IS ALLEGED TO BE ILLEGAL, NONE OF THIS WOULD PERMANENT THE REC CAVITY FINDING SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

BUT BACK TO MANAGER HAKEEM JEFFRIES STATEMENT, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED BY MR MR. CIPOLLONE, IT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A DIFFERENT TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO WOULD HAVE HAD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING TO HIS COUNTERPART IN UKRAINE, IN WORDS OR SUBSTANCE, "HERE IS THE DEAL" AND FOLLOW IT UP BY LINKING A DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDEN'S TO THE PROVISION OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN AID.

NONE OF THAT WAS SAID OR HAPPENED.

THE CALL TRANSCRIPT DEMONSTRATES THAT BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

IN THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS, READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

BY THE WAY THE DEMAND CHARACTERIZATION APPARENTLY CREEPS INTO THIS PHONE CALL LARGELY AS A RESULT OF COLONEL VINDMAN'S STATEMENT THAT IT'S THE STAPLE THING AS AN ORDER OF COMMAND.

IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS THE LEAD AND HEAD OF A SOVEREIGN NATION WAS NOT AND IS NOT IN OUR MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND.

I SAY THAT TO YOU AS THE SON OF A U.S. ARMY COLONEL AND VIETNAM WAR VETERAN BURIED IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND THE FATHER OF A SON WHO IS SERVING IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPACE FORCE COMMAND IN DENVER.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY IS DISTORTED AND UNPERSUASIVE.

NEXT, THE PURPORTED IMPLICIT LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS IS WEAK.

THE MOST THAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND WAS ABLE TO GIVE WAS THAT A QUID PRO QUO EXISTED BUT THAT WAS FLATLY DENIED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TO AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO, I JUST WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON.

AND TO SENATOR JOHNSON THE SAME THING, TWO WORDS "NO WAY.

RECOGNIZING THIS FLAW IN THE TESTIMONY HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE FOCUSED INSTEAD ON AN ALTERNATE QUID PRO QUO RATIONALE THAT THE EXCHANGE WAS CONDITIONED ON A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE IN RETURN FOR UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT IT STATES "IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE VISITS CONSTITUTE A FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF McDONALD" NOT SO FAST.

ACTUALLY THE SUPREME COURT IN MCDONALD BOILED IT DOWN TO ONLY THOSE ACTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT POWER AND THAT ARE MORE SPECIFIC AND FOCUSED THAN A BROAD POLICY OBJECTIVE.

AN EXCHANGE RESULTING IN MEETINGS, EVENTS, PHONE CALLS AS THOSE TURNS ARE TYPICALLY UNDERSTOOD AS BEING ROUTINE, ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT'S DINGS OF AN OFFICIAL ACT, DO NOT COUNT.

THE FACT THAT THE MEETING INVOLVED WAS A FORMAL ONE WITH ALL OF THE TRAPPINGS OF A STATE VISIT BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND HOSTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAKES NO WITH DIFFERENCE.

THE SUPREME COURT IS TALKING ABOUT A FORMAL EXERCISE OF lPí DECISION-MAKING POWER NOT THE FORMALITY OF THE VISIT.

EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE IT COULD NOT CONSTITUTE A QUID PRO QUO, I SHOULD KNOW, I ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN SUN DANCE VERSUS DIAMOND, THAT PROPORTION LOST UNANIMOUSLY, THE VOTE WAS 9-0.

IN ANY EVENT THE COVETED MEETING WHETHER AT THE WHITE HOUSE OR NOT WAS NOT PERMANENTLY WITHHELD.

IT LATER HAPPENED BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS AT THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019.

P FINALLY THE ARGUMENT BY GERRY NADLER REPRESENTED AN EXTORTION DEMAND IS PATENTLY RIDICULOUS.

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF EXTORTION IS PRESSURE.

NO PRESSURE WAS EXERTED DURING THE CALL, UKRANIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE SINCE REPEATEDLY DENIED ANY SUCH PRESSURE EXISTED AND INDEED TO THE CONTRARY THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS UKRAINE WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF RESISTING ANY EFFORTS TO ENTANGLE ITSELF IN THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC PARTY POLITICS AND PARTISANSHIP.

WHAT REMAINS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?

NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED, NO CRIMES WERE ALLEGED.

IN THAT REGARD CHANCE LEFT?

IT'S NOT TREASON.

UKRAINE IS OUR ALLEY NOT AN ENEMY OR ADVERSARY AND RUSSIA IS NOT OUR ENEMY, ONLY OUR ADVERSARY.

IT'S NOT BRIBERY THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, IT'S NOT EXTORTION, NO PRESSURE, IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, IT'S NOT TANGIBLE ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE AN IN-KIND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT, LET'S LOOK AT THAT LAST ONE SHALL WE?

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE AN ARM OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IN ITS WISDOM HAS DECIDED CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OMB THAT WHILE THE PRESIDENT MAY TEMPORARILY HOLD FUNDS FROM OBLIGATION BUT NOT BEYOND THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR HE MAY NOT DO SO WITH VAGUE ASSERTIONS OF POLICY PRIORITIES CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF THE CONGRESS.

THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE TO THIS INTERBRANCH DISPUTE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS TO ASSERT HIS AUTHORITY OVER FOREIGN POLICY TO DETERMINE THE TIMING OF THE BEST USE OF FUNDS.

ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A DISPUTE THAT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS UNDER SEPARATION OF POWER PRINCIPLES ABOUT WHICH THIS BODY IS WELL FAMILIAR.

IT PITS THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES TO CONTROL FOREIGN POLICY AGAINST CONGRESS'S REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION'S FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW REQUIREMENT OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS.

THERE IS A HUGE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE AMONG LEGAL SCHOLARS ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IT, ONE AS RECENTLY AS LAST JUNE IN THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

CONGRESS THROUGH ITS ARM, THE GAO, HAVE AN OPPOSING VIEW FROM THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND OMB.

BIG SURPRISE.

I AM REMINDED OF ONE OF THE PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S PRESS CONFERENCES WHERE HE WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ABOUT A REPORT THAT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE VOTED A RESOLUTION THAT CONCLUDED HE WAS A TOTAL FAILURE AS PRESIDENT.

HE FAMOUSLY QUIPED, "I AM SURE IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY" THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

IN THE END THE HOLD WAS LIFTED AND THE FUNDS WERE RELEASE.

AS IT HA TO BE UNDER THE LAW AND AS REQUIRED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MIC MULVANEY.

IN ANY EVENT AN ALLEGED VIOLATION CAN NO MORE SUSTAIN AN IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE THAN CAN ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ABSENT A TIME DECISION OF A COURT ORDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THAT SUBPOENA.

MERE ASSERTION OF A PRIVILEGE OR OBJECTION IN A LEGITIMATE INTERBRANCH DISPUTE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE.

IT SHOULD NEVER RESULT IN AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR ABUSE OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND YET IN A LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO REFRAME IT'S FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ON ABUSE OF POWER, HOUSE MANAGERS HAVING BACK INTO HISTORY ALWAYS A BIG ENDEAVOR FOR LAWYERS, THEY NOW ARGUE THAT JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT DURING RECONSTRUCTION WAS NOT ABOUT A VIOLATION OF THE TENURE OF OFFICE ACT WHICH AFTER ALL WAS THE VIOLATION OF LAW NULL CHARGED AS THE PRINCIPLE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT BUT RESTED ON HIS USE OF POWER WITH ILLEGITIMATE MOTIVES.

IN A HISTORICAL SLIGHT OF HAND WORTHY ONLY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES 1619 SERIES, HOUSE MANAGERS NOW CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S REMOVAL OF LINCOLN'S SECRETARY EDWARD STANTON WITHOUT CONGRESS'S PERMISSION IN VIOLATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE LATER FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS BEST UNDERSTOOD WITH THE BENEFIT OF REVISIONIST HINDSIGHT TO BE MOTIVATED NOT BY HIS DESIRE TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE BUT ON HIS ILLEGITIMATE USE OF POWER TO UNDERMINE RECONSTRUCTION AND SUBORDINATE AFRICAN AMERICANS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR.

THAT ALL MAY BE TRUE BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING ALL TOGETHER TO CLAIM THAT THAT MOTIVE WAS THE BASIS OF JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT.

PROFESSOR LAWRENCE TRIBE WHO WAS THE SOURCE FOR THIS MISGUIDED INTERPRETATION OF THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTES HIS OWN SELF-SUBSCRIBED COMPELLING BASIS FOR REMOVAL THAN THE ONE THE HOUSE VOTED ON AND WAS CONSIDERED AT THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF THAT GOING ON, PEOPLE SUBSTITUTING THEIR OWN IMPEACHMENT INTERPRETATIONS THAN THE ONES PRINC PRINCIPLES INSIST ON.

AT ANY RATE A PRESIDENT'S ILLEGITIMATE MOEFSHZ IN WIELDING POWER CAN NO MORE FRAME AND LEE LEGITIMIZE IMPEACHMENT THAN COUNTY NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

ALL OF THE THINGS SURROUNDING NIXON MAY BE TRUE BUT IT'S NOT TRUE.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON WAS SAVED BY REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BY ONE VOTE, SAID KENNEDY, BY ONE SENATOR WHO RECOGNIZED OVERREACH THAT THE TENURE OF THE OFFICE REPRESENTED.

QUOTING FROM EDMUNDS G. ROSS IN PROCEED TILES IN SARGE EXPLAINED HIS VOTE "THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE AS A COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WAS ON TRIAL.

IF THE PRESIDENT MUST STEP DOWN FROM PARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS, THE OFFICE THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE DEGRADED. "

SO TO HERE.

CONTRARY APPARENTLY TO THE FASHION NOW, SENATOR ROSS'S ACTION WAS PRAISED AND ACCEPTED SEVERAL DECADES AFTER HIS SERVICE AND, AGAIN MANY YEARS LATER BY PRESIDENT KENNEDY AS A COURAGEOUS STAND AGAINST LEGISLATIVE MOB RULE.

PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT ANOTHER COURAGEOUS SENATOR FROM THAT IMPEACHMENT.

FOR NOW, THE POINT IS THAT OUR HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT PRESIDENTS SHOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT BASED UPON BAD OR ILL MOTIVES AND ANY THOUGHT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD STRIKE YOU AS EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT.

IF THAT WERE THE STANDARD, WHAT PRESIDENT WOULD EVER BE SAFE BY WAY OF IMPEACHMENT FROM WHAT HAMILTON DECRIED AS THE "PERFECTION OF A DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" THE CENTRAL IMPORT OF THE ABUSE OF POWER IMPEACHMENT WHEN ADDED TOGETHER WITH THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ARTICLE IS A RESULT NOT FAR FROM WHAT ONE CITIZEN DESCRIBED AS ARTICLE I DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ARTICLE I I, DEMOCRATS CAN'T BEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT REMOVABLE FROM OFFICE JUST BECAUSE A DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MANAGERS BELIEVES THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE DURING THE JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES MORE.

TO IGNORE THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVING THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IS TO SIDESTEP THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AS WELL AS THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.

I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT.

I HAVE SAID ON ANY NUMBER OF OCCASIONS PREVIOUSLY AND PUBLICLY THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN ATTEMPTING TO SPUR ACTION BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND COORDINATING LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT TO HAVE DONE SO THROUGH PROPERLY CHANNELS.

WHILE THE PRESIDENT ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO OTHERWISE, THERE IS CONSEQUENCE TO THAT ACTION, AS WE HAVE NOW WITNESSED AFTER ALL THAT IS WHY WE ARE ALL HERE.

S IT IS ANOTHER THING ALL TOGETHER TO CLAIM THAT SUCH SUCKED IS IMPEACHABLE AS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

THERE CAN BE NO SERIOUS QUESTION THAT THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT ACTS LAWFULLY IN REQUESTING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE WITH INVESTIGATIONS INTO POSSIBLE CORRUPTION EVEN WHEN IT MIGHT INVOLVE ANOTHER POLITICIAN.

TO ARGUE OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO ENGAGE IN THE CONTENTION THAT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY CANDIDATE ENJOYS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF A CAMPAIGN.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S NOT THE CASE FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE.

I DID SO DURING 2000 IN INVESTIGATING HILLARY CLINTON BEFORE SHE WAS ELECTED SENATOR OF NEW YORK.

MY POINT IS THIS, THIS PRESIDENT STANDS TRIAL HERE IN THE SENATE FOR ALLEGEDLY DOING SOMETHING INDIRECTLY ABOUT WHI'Ua HE WAS ENTIRELY PERMITTED TO DO DIRECTLY.

THAT CANNOT FORM A BASIS AS AN ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

TURNING NOW TO THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, AS WE ARGUED IN OUR WRITTEN TRIAL BRIEF AT THE OUTSET IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IT'S ODD FOR HOUSE MANAGERS TO BE ARGUING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOMEHOW OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS WHEN HE DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED WHAT IS THE CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND THAT'S, OF COURSE, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL AS WELL AS THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT PRECEDED IT ON APRIL 21, 2019.

RELEASE OF THAT FULL CALL RECORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THIS CLAIM OF OBSTRUCTION BUT APPARENTLY NOT.

INSTEAD AGAIN RELYING ON UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CLAIMED TO DOCUMENT NOTWITHSTANDING AN OBJECTION BY THE PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE OVERCOME IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED THERE WHERE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS ALSO MATERIAL TO THE PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE BY HIS CO SON SPIRITORS PDING INDICTMENT.

IN OTHER WORDS A DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIRLY TRIAL IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS WAS WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY FOUND DISPOSITIVE IN REJECTION OF THE WATERGATE TAPES.

ANY CLAIM OF ACCESS TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS, DOCUMENTS, AND WITNESSES WHO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSEST ADVISORS.

THUS, IT SHOULD BE A MATTER OF ACCEPTED WISDOM AND HISTORICAL PREMISES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR INVOKING SUSTAINED LEGAL RIGHTS, DEFENSES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES EVEN IN THE FACE OF SUBPOENAS FROM HOUSE COMMITTEES.

BACK IN 1998 PROFESSOR TRIBE CALLED OUT ANY ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY AS PRIVILEGE WILL YOU SAY AND DANGEROUS.

HOUSE MANAGERS RESPOND NOW BY ARGUING NONETHELESS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFY A LEGITIMATE SUBPOENA, PARTICULARLY, I SUPPOSED WHEN THEIR IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS ARE AT STAKE AND THUS IT IS THE ISSUE RISING TO THE LEVEL THAT IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ONLY ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES AND ULTIMATELY COURTS CAN FINALLY RESOLVE.

THE HOUSE CHOSE TO FOREGO THAT COURSE AND PLOW FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT.

THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEIR OWN STRATEGIC CHOICE SHOULD PLACE BLAME ON THE PRESIDENT AND IMPEACH HIM ON THAT BASIS IS IS SEEK EAU MAYFLY FROM OFFICE.

THAT'S NO BASIS AT ALL AS PROFESSOR TURLEY PERSUASIVELY HAS EXPLAINED.

COMPLIANCE WITH A LEGITIMATE SUBPOENA IS ENFORCED OVER A CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY ONLY WHEN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION SAYS SO IN A FINAL DECISION.

IN SUM, CALLING A SUBPOENA LEGITIMATE AS HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

AN ANALOGY TAKEN FROM BASEBALL THAT I BELIEVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MIGHT APPRECIATE, MAKES THE POINT: A LONG TIME MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE NAMED BILL CLEMM WHO WORKED UNTIL 1941 AFTER 37 YEARS IN THE BIG LEAGUES WAS ASKED BY A PLAYER WHETHER A BALL WAS FAIR OR FOUL THE UMPIRE REPLIED "IT AIN'T NOTHING UNTIL I CALL IT" I SAY THE SAME THING TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NOW IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE AND ENFORCEABLE SUBPOENA UNTIL THE COURT SAYS THAT IT IS.

PRECEDING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND IN RESPONSE NOT JUST FROM THE WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND THE OTHER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE ONGOING AT THAT TIME AND I KNOW I WAS IN ONE OF THEM, THE WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDLY ASSERTED CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS WERE LITIGATED FOR MONTHS, NOT WEEKS, AND IN SOME CASES FOR YEARS.

SO WHEN I HEAR MR. SCHIFF'S COMPLAINT THAT THE HOUSE'S REQUEST FOR FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGHAN'S TESTIMONY HAS BEEN DRAWN OUT SINCE APRIL OF LAST YEAR I CAN ONLY SAY IN RESPONSE "BOO HOO" DID I THINK AT THE TIME THAT MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS WERE AN ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS?

OF COURSE!

AND INDEED THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

WHAT DID THEY DO ABOUT IT?

NOTHING.

THEY CLAIMED THAT THE ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE EVEN IF"0ç( ILL-FD DID NOT PROCLAIM AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

YOU BET I DID AND I SAID SO IN THE FINAL REPORT BUT NEVER DID I SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT THOSE EFFORTS BY THE WHITE HOUSE ALTHOUGH ENDLESSLY FRUSTRATING AND DAMAGING TO THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION WOULD CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR ANY RELATED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

INSTEAD I AND MY COLLEAGUES DID THE BEST WE COULD IN REACHING ACCOMMODATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE POSSIBLE OR THROUGH LITIGATION WHEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE TASK AT HAND TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY TO DO SO.

ANY CONTENTION THAT WHAT HAS TRON SPIDER HERE INVOLVING THIS ADMINISTRATION'S ASSERTION OF VALID AND WELL-RECOGNIZED CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IS SOMEHOW CONTRARY TO LAW AND IMPEACHABLE IS LUDICROUS.

IN SHORT TO ADD STOTT PARADE OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES NOT SUSTAINED ON THIS IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR OF CONGRESS, PERIOD.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR ASSERTING SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHAT HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ASSERT, THAT IS TRUE NOW AS IT HAS BEEN TRUE OF EVERY PRESIDENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON.

IN SHORT AS TO BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ALL THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING FOR HERE IS BASIC FAIRNESS AND TO BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI PROFFERED IN MARCH OF 2019 AND WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ENDORSED DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IN STRIKINGLY SIMILAR LANGUAGE BY HOUSE MANAGER GERRY NADLER THE EVIDENCE MUST BE COMPELLING, OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN.

WE AGREE.

NO AMOUNT OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS, HIGH FIVES, FIST BUMPS, SIGNING PENS OR OTHERWISE ARE EVER GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THIS IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE DEMOCRATS OWN STANDARD.

WITH THAT I AM READY TO CONCLUDE.

THE PRESIDENT'S ONLY INSTRUCTION TO ME FOR THIS TRIAL WAS A SIMPL SIMPLE ONE: DO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT.

AS A COUNTRY WE NEED TO PUT A STOP TO EVERYTHING WE CAN DO AND START DOING WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE NATION'S BEST INTEREST.

A BRACINGLY IMPEACHMENT BY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS IS NOT I SUBMIT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS WE WILL ALL BE JUDGED IN THE EYES OF HISTORY ON WHETHER IN THIS MOMENT WE ACTED WITH THE COUNTRY'S OVERRIDING WELFARE FIRMLY IN MIND RATHER THAN ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF PARTISAN, POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT IN GOOD TIMES AND IN HARD TIMES AND EVEN IN BAD TIMES, WITH MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE AT STAKE THAT THIS COUNTRY GETS THE BIG THINGS RIGHT.

I HAVE SEEN THAT IN MY OWN LIFE AND FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, EVEN IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WELL, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE THIS WHAT LIES BEFORE YOU NOW IS JUST SUCH A "BIG THING" THE NEXT ELECTION AWAITS.

ELECTION DAY IS ONLY NINE MONTHS AWAY.

AS SENATOR DALE BUMPER'S CONCLUDED "THAT'S THE DAY WHEN WE REACH ACROSS THE AISLE AND HOLD HANDS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND WE SAY WIN OR LOSE WE WILL ABIDE BY THE DECISION."

IT IS A SOLEMN EVENT, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE UNDONE LIGHTLY OR JUST BECAUSE ONE SIDE HAS POLITICAL CLOUT AND THE OTHER ONE DOESN'T.

AS ABRAHAM LINCOLN WARNED "IF THE MINORITY WILL NOT ACQUIESCE, THE GOVERNMENT MUST CEASE SO THAT IN REJECTING THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE, ANARCHY IS ALL THAT IS LEFT" THIS IMPEACHMENT AND THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE LAST ELECTION CANNOT BE LEFT TO STAND.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEREFORE SHOULD BE REJECTED.

AND THE PRESIDENT MUST BE ACQUITTED.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I YIELD BACK TO MR. SEKULOW.

>> JAY SEKULOW: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE'RE GOING TO NOW DELVE INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR A BIT AND OUR PRESENTER IS PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ THE FELIX PROFESSOR AEMERITUS OF HAARVARD LAW SCHOO.

HE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AT AGE OF 28 HE BECAME THE YOUNGEST TENURED PROFESSOR AT HARVARD.

HE HAS SERVED FIFTY YEARS AS A FACULTY MEMBER AT HARVARD, TEACHING MANY LAW STUDENTS, INCLUDING SOME IN THIS CHAMBER, TEACHING LEGAL ETHICS AND COURSES ON IMPEACHMENT, HE WILL ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THESE ARTICLES.

>> ALAN DERSHOWITZ: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, OUR FRIENDS, LAWYERS, FELLOW LAWYERS, IT'S A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TOP PRESENT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL NOT ONLY OF THIS PRESIDENT BUT OF ALL AND ANY FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHO MAY BE CHARGED WITH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY AS I STOOD IN 1973 AND 1974 FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF RICHARD NIXON, WHO I PERSONALLY AWHORRED AND PERSONAL IMPEACHMENT I FAVORED AND IN FAVOR OF BILL CLINTON, WHO'S IMPEACHMENT I OPPOSED.

I STAND BEFORE YOU WITH THE APPLICATION AGAINST ANY PRESIDENT WITHOUT REGARD OF WHOSE POLICIES I SUPPORT, I WOULD BE MAKING THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT HAD HILLARY CLINTON, FOR WHOM I VOTED WERE ELECTED AND A REPUBLICAN HOUSE ELECTED TO IMPEACH HER ON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.

I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LOVE MY COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM SHARES THAT LOVE.

I WILL ARGUE THAT HOURLY CONSTITUTION AND ITS TERMS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS DO NOT SUPPORT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, I STAND IN THE FOOT STEPS AND IN TE SPIRIT OF JUSTICE CURTIS WHO WAS OF COUNSEL TO IMPEACH PREPS ANDREW JOHNSON AND WHO EXPLAINED TO THE SENATE THAT "A GREATER PRINCIPLE WAS AT STAKE THAN THE FATE OF ANY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT" AND OF WILLIAM EVERTS, ANOTHER WONDERFUL ANDREW JOHNSON'S LAWYERS WHO SAID HE HAD COME TO THE DEFENSE TABLE NOT AS A PARTISAN, NOT AS AN SYMPATHIZER BUT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

IN EXERCISING ITS POWER THE SENATE MUST CONSIDER THREE ISSUES IN THIS CASE.

THE FIRST IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS ESTABLISHES BY THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF PROOF, PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OCCURRED.

THE SECOND IS WHETHER IF THESE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OCCURRED DID THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

FINALLY, THE SENATE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT.

FIRST ISSUE IS LARGELY FACTUAL AND I LEAVE THAT TO OTHERS THE SECOND IS TRADITIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND I WILL TOUCH ON THOSE.

III IS A MATTER OF PURE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

DO CHARGES OF ABUSE AND OBSTRUCTION RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

I WILL BEGIN AS ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BEGINS WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION GOVERNING IMPEACHMENT AND I WILL EXAMINE WHY THE FOUNDERS SPOKE OF THESE AND I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO PATRIOTS THAT HELPED SHAPE OUR GREAT NATION.

TO PREPARE FOR THIS JOURNEY I HAVE IMMERSED MYSELF IN DUSTY OLD VOLUMES FROM THE 18TH AND 19th CENTURY I ASK YOUR INDULGENCE AS I QUOTE FROM THE WISDOM OF OUR FOUNDERS.

THIS RETURN TO THE DAYS OF YESTER YEAR IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THENCE NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE NOT WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL BODY MIGHT TODAY DECIDE ARE THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT, BUT WHAT THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY CHOSE AND WHAT THEY EXPRESSLY AND IMPLICITLY REJECTED.

I WILL ASK WHETHER THE FAMERS WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED SUCH VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS AS ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS GOVERNING CRITERIA.

I WILL SHOW BY A CLOSE REVIEW OF THE HISTORY THAT THEY DID NOT AND WOULD NOT ACCEPT SUCH CRITERIA, FOR FEAR THAT THESE CRITERIA WOULD INTO A BRITISH STYLE PARLIAMENT TEAR DEMOCRACY IN WHICH THE CHIEF'S EXECUTIVE TENURE WOULD BE IN THE WORDS OF JAMES MADISON, THE FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION, AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

THE CONCLUSION I WILL OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS SIMILAR ALTHOUGH NOT IDENTICAL TO THAT ADVOCATED OF HIGHLY RESPECTED JUSTICE CURTIS WHO AS YOU KNOW DISSENT FROM DREAD SCOTT AND WHO AFTER RESIGNING IN PROTEST SERVED AS COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

HE ARGUED "THERE CAN BE NO CRIME OR MISSDEMEANOR WITHOUT A LAW WRITTEN OR EXPRESS OR IMPLIED" IN CONCLUSION HE WAS REACHING THE SAME CONCLUSION AS DWIGHT, "UNLESS A CRIME IS SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF TREASON AND BRIBERY, IMPEACHMENTS LIKE DOCUMENTS CAN ONLY BE COMMITTED AGAINST THE STATUTORY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES" AS JUDGE STARR SAID EARLIER TODAY HE DESCRIBED THAT AS THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY BEING ON THE SIDE OF THAT PROPORTION AT A TIME MUCH CLOSER TO THE FRAMING THAN WE ARE TODAY.

THE MAIN THRUST OF MY ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, AND THE ONE MOST RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS IS THAT EVEN IF THAT POSITION IS NOT ACCEPTED, EVEN IF CRIMINAL CONDUCT WERE NOT REQUIRED, THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION IMPLICITLY REJECTED AND IF IT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM WOULD HAVE EXPLICITLY REJECTED SUCH VAGUE TERMS AS ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS AMONG THE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

YOU WILL RECALL AMONG THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT JOHNSON WERE ACCUSATIONS OF OUTRAGEOUS MISBEHAVIOR INCLUDING OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, ARM 10 CHARGED JOHNSON DID ATTEMPT TO BRING INTO AGREES RIDICULE, CONTEMPT AND HATED TREAD FOR THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

ARM 11 CHARGED HIM WITH DENYING THAT CONGRESS WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO EXERCISE THE LEGISLATIVE POWER AND DENYING THAT THE LEGISLATION OF SAID CONGRESS WAS OWE BILGE TO HER UPON HIM, SERIOUS CHARGES, HERE IS HOW JUSTICE CURTIS RESPONDED TO THESE NONCRIMINAL CHARGES "MY FIRST POSITION IS THAT WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS OF TREASON, BIB RAH AND OTHER CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, IT REFERS TO ONLY HIGH CRIMES MADE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES EXISTING WHEN THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE DONE AND I SAY HE CONTINUED THIS IS PLAINLY TO BE INFERRED FROM EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT AND I WILL REVIEW THOSE FROM THE CONSTITUTION WITH YOU.

JUDGE CURTIS'S STATEMENT IS SUPPORTED THAT TREASON AND HIGH SCRIMS AND MISDEMEANORS ARE HIGH CRIMES AND OTHERS MUST BE AKIN TO BRIBERY, HE REFERRED TO THE LATIN, REFERRING TO A CLASSIC RULE OF INTERPRETATION THAT WHEN A MEANING OF A WORD THAT IS PART OF A GROUP OF WORDS IS UNCERTAIN YOU SHOULD LOOK TO THE OTHER WORDS IN THAT GROUP THAT PROVIDE INTERPRETIVE CONTEXT, THE LATE JUSTICE AN ANTOIONE SCALIA SAID "IF ONE REFERS TO MICHAEL JIRD SON AND OTHERS, HE DID NOT REFER TO CERTAIN OTHERS.

THE LAST FIVE WORDS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE ONLY SERIOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY AND JUSTICE CURTIS REVIEWED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT RELATE TO IMPEACHMENT.

FIRST HE STARTED WITH THE PROVISION THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT REPREVIOUSES AND PARDONS, FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE ARGUED THAT IF IMPEACHMENT WERE NOT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT BASED ON AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANY CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTION.

HE THEN WENT ON TO A SECOND PROVISION.

THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT SHALL BE BY JURY.

THIS DEMONSTRATED, ACCORDING TO CURTIS THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES A CRIME.

BUT UNLIKE OTHER CRIMES IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A JURY TRIAL.

YOU ARE THE JUDGE AND JURY.

HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BY THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AN AKWILGTS OR A CONVICTION.

JUDGMENTS GENERAL RENDERED ONLY IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMES.

NOW, PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S LAWYERS ARGUED IN THE ALTERNATIVE AS ALLING LAWYERS DO ON THE QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW.

HE ARGUED THAT JOHNSON DID NOT VIOLATE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AS YOU HEARD FROM OTHER LAWYERS TODAY BUT EVEN IF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.

WATCHING IT ALL, I'M JOINED BY LIS LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

WE'LL GO TO ALAN DERSHOWITZ WHO IS SPEAKING AND WE'LL BE BACK LATER WITH ANALYSIS.

>> AFTER THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.

THOUGH HE DESPERATELY WANTED TO SEE PRESIDENT JOHNSON WHO HE DECEMBER SPICED OUT OF OFFICE.

HE BELIEVED THAT AN IMPEACHMENT REMOVAL WITHOUT THE VIOLATION OF LAW WOULD BE CONSTRUED INTO APPROVAL OF OF FUTURE POLITICAL MACHINERY.

ACCORDING TO THE PROFESSOR, JUSTICE CURTIS' CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUE MANAGEMENTS MAY HAVE LED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SEVEN REPUBLICAN DISSIDENTS TO DEFY THEIR PARTY AND VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL, WHICH WAS SECURED BY A SINGLE VOTE.

NOW TODAY THE PROFESSOR HAS AN ARTICLE IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN WHICH HE REPEATS HIS VIEW THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRE A CRIME.

BUT HE NOW ARGUES THAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO CHARGE CRIMES.

HE'S WRONG.

HE'S WRONG BECAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS HUDSON A CASE DECIDED ALMOST 2 -- MORE THAN 200 YEARS AGO NOW, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULED THAT FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CREATE COMMON LAW CRIMES.

CRIMES ARE ONLY WHAT ARE IN THE STATUTE BOOK.

SO PROFESSOR BUOY IS RIGHT THAT THE CRIMES CONSTITUTE IMPEACHMENT BUT WRONG WHEN HE SAYS COMMON LAW CRIMES CAN BE USED FOR A BASIS OF A PEACHING EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T APPEAR IN THE STATUTE BOOKS.

I'M NOT HERE ARGUING THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE IN ANY WAY BOUND, LEGALLY BOUND BY JUSTICE CURTIS' ARGUMENTS.

BUT I AM ARGUING THAT YOU SHOULD TELL THEM SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

THE CONSIDERS TO WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED BY THE EMINENCE OF THEIR AUTHOR AND THE ROLE THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED IN THE CLOSEST OUTCOME OF THE CURRENT CASE.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S A NUANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARGUMENTS OF CURTIS AND DWIGHT AND THE ARGUMENT I'M PRESENTING TODAY.

CURTIS ARGUED THERE MUST BE A SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF PRE-EXISTING LAW.

HE ARGUES THERE WERE NO FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUESES, OF COURSE NOT.

THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SO WE COULDN'T HAVE STATUTES PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

AND OUR NATION.

THIS ARGUMENT TODAY IS BY PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT.

FRAMERS COULDN'T HAVE INTENDED THE LIMIT OF CRITERIA TO IMPEACHMENT TO CRIMINAL-LIKE BEHAVIOR.

THE JUSTICE ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE IN THAT ARGUMENT HEAD ON.

HE POINTED OUT THAT CRIMES SUCH AS BRIBERY WOULD BE MADE CRIMINAL BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION KNEW WOULD BE TASKED.

HE ANTICIPATED THAT CONGRESS WOULD ENACT STATUTES, PUNISHING AND DEFINING CRIMES SUCH AS BURGLARY, EXTORTION, ET CETERA.

HE ANTICIPATED THAT AND HE BASED HIS ARGUMENT IN PART ON THAT.

AND THEN IT INCLUDED OTHER CRIMES.

BUT WHAT JUSTICE CURTIS SAID IS THAT YOU COULD INCLUDE LAWS WRITTEN, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED IN WHICH HE MEANT COMMON LAW, WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE IN COMMON LAW CRIMES AND THEY WERE ENFORCEABLE, EVEN FEDERALLY, UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT MANY YEARS LATER DECIDED THAT COMMON LAW CRIMES WERE NO LONGER PART OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION.

SO THE POSITION THAT I DERIVE FROM THE HISTORY WOULD INCLUDE CRIMINAL-LIKE CONDUCT AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY.

THERE NEED NOT BE IN MY VIEW CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF A TECHNICAL CRIME THAT WOULD RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

LET ME EXPLAIN.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF A PRESIDENT WERE TO RECEIVE OR GIVE A BRIBE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, HE COULD NOT TECHNICALLY BE PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR SUCH A CRIME.

I BELIEVE HE COULD BE IMPEACH FOR SUCH A CRIME BECAUSE HE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.

EVEN THOUGH HE COULDN'T TECHNICALLY BE ACCUSED OF IT IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S THE DISTINCTION THAT I THINK WE DRAW.

OR IF A PRESIDENT COMMITTED EXTORTION OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, HE COULD BE CHARGED OF THESE CRIMES AS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BECAUSE THESE CRIMES, THOUGH NOT SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY.

THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS, TIME AND PLACE, WERE ABSENT.

WHAT CURTIS AND DWIGHT AND I AGREE UPON AND THIS IS THE KEY POINT IN THIS IMPEACHMENT CASE, PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ARGUING, IS THAT PURELY NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

THAT'S THE KEY ARGUMENT I'M PRESENTING TODAY.

THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY TEXT WRITERS AND JUDGES CLOSEST IN TEAM TO THE FOUNDLE.

WILLIAM O. RUSSELL WROTE A BIBLE AMONG CRIMINAL LAW AND SCHOLARS TO DEFINE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS SUCH IMMORAL AND UNLAWFUL ACTS THAT ARE NEARLY ALIED AND EQUAL IN GUILT TO A FELONY BUT OWING TO THE ABSENCE OF SOME TECHNICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A FELONY.

SIMILAR VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED BY STATE COURTS, OTHERS DISAGREE.

CURTIS CONSIDERED VIEWS AND THOSE OF DWIGHT RUSSELL AND OTHERS BASED ON CAREFUL TEXT OF THE HISTORY ARE NOT BONGERS, ABSURDISTS, LEGAL CLAP TRAP OR OTHER DEMEANING EPITHETS THROWN AROUND BUT PARTISAN SUPPORTERS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT.

AS JUDGE STARR POINTED OUT, THEY HAD THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.

THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE GENERATION OF FOUNDERS AND THE GENERATIONS THAT FOLLOWED.

IF THEY'RE NOT ACCEPTED BY ACADEMICS TODAY, THAT SHOWS A WEAKNESS AMONG THE ACADEMICS, NOT AMONG THE FOUNDERS.

THESE WHO DISAGREE WITH CURTIS' TEXT YOU'LL ANALYSIS ARE OBLIGED I BELIEVE TO RESPOND WITH REASON, COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS, NOT NAME-CALLING.

IF JUSTICE CURTIS' ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF DEAN DWIGHT ARE REJECTED, I THINK PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT MUST OFFER ALTERNATIVE PRINCIPLES.

ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS.

WE HEARD THAT IN 1970 GERALD FORD WHO I GREATLY ADMIRED SAID THE FOLLOWING.

IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT OF A JUSTICE, IT'S WHATEVER THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONSIDERED IT TO BE AT A MOMENT IN MYSTERY.

YOU KNOW THE QUOTE.

CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS SAID IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, SHE SAID IMPEACHMENT IS WHATEVER CONGRESS SAYS IT IS.

THERE IS NO LAW.

BUT THIS LAWLESS VIEW WOULD PLACE CONGRESS ABOVE THE LAW.

IT WOULD PLACE CONGRESS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.

FOR CONGRESS TO IGNORE THE SPECIFIC WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENTS WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO DO WHAT IT IS ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF DOING.

AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

NOT THE PRESIDENT AND NOT CONGRESS.

THIS IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF VIEW EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS WHO FEARED HAVING THE PRESIDENT SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND IT'S PRECISELY THE VIEW REJECTED BY SENATOR JAMES GRIMES WHEN HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WOULD CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE LAW AT THE CENTER OF HIS JUDGMENT.

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IN THE WORDS OF GOVERNOR MORRIS THAT THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED.

THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IMPEACHMENT TODAY OBLIGED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE CRITERIA ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

THE COMPELLING TEXT YOU'LL ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY JUDGE CURTIS IS CONFIRMED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BUT THE FEDERALEST PAPERS, BY THE WRITINGS OF WILLIAM BLACKSTONE AND I BELIEVE BY THE WRITINGS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, WHICH WERE RELY ON BY LAWYERS AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S ADOPTION.

THERE WERE AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S ADOPTION TWO GREAT DEBATES THAT WENT ON.

VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO GREAT DEBATES.

THE FIRST HARD TO IMAGINE TODAY, BUT THE FIRST WAS SHOULD THERE BE ANY POWER TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AT ALL.

AND THERE WERE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDING GENERATION AND OF THE FRAMERS IN THE CONTRIBUTION THAT SAID NO.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPEACH.

THE SECOND IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT IN OUR CONSIDERATION TODAY.

IS IF A PRESIDENT IS TO BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT, WHAT SHOULD THE CRITERIA BE?

THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

AND THEY'RE OFTEN ERRONEOUSLY CONFLATED.

LET'S BEGIN WITH THE FIRST DEBATE.

DURING THE BROAD DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT, PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT USE VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS.

SUCH AS UNFIT, ON NOXIOUS, CORRUPT, MISCONDUCT, MISBEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE, MALPRACTICE, TREACHERY, INCAPACITY, MALADMINISTRATION.

THEY WORRY THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT PERVERT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO A SCHEME OF SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION.

THAT HE MIGHT BE CORRUPTED BY FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND YES, THIS IS IMPORTANT, THAT HE MIGHT HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS POWER.

THOSE WERE THE CONCERNS THAT LED THE FRAMERS TO DECIDE THAT A PRESIDENT MUST BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT.

BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE FRAMERS SUGGESTED THAT THESE GENERAL FEARS JUSTIFYING THE NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL MECHANISM SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ACCEPTED AS A SPECIFIC CRITERIUM FOR IMPEACHMENT.

FAR FROM IT AS GOVERNOR MORRIS APTALLY PUT IT.

CORRUPTION AND OTHER OFFENSES OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHABLE.

THE CAUSES OUGHT TO BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED.

THE GREAT FALLACY OF MANY CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS AND PUNDITS AND WITH DUE RESPECT, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION FOR THE BROAD REASONS OF NEEDING AN IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM AND THE CAREFULLY ENUMERATED AND DEFINED CRITERIA THAT SHOULD AUTHORIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OF THIS POWERFUL WEAPON.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT FACE CONGRESS.

LET'S ASSUME THAT THERE IS A DEBATE OVER REGULATING CONTENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA.

WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE REGULATIONS ON CRIMINAL CIVIL REGULATIONS OVER TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, ET CETERA.

IN THE DEBATE OVER REGULATING SOCIAL MEDIA, PROPONENTS MIGHT WELL CITE BROAD DANGERS LIKE FALSE INFORMATION, INAPPROPRIATE CO CONTENT, HATE SPEECH.

THOSE ARE GOODS REASONS FOR HAVING REGULATION.

WHEN IT CAME TO ENUMERATING WHAT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED, SUCH BROAD DANGERS WOULD HAVE TO BE BALANCED AGAINST OTHER IMPORTANT POLICIES.

THE RESULTING LEGISLATION WOULD BE MUCH NARROWER AND MORE CAREFULLY DEFINED IN THE BROAD DANGERS THAT NECESSITATED SOME REGULATION.

THE FRAMERS UBD AND ACTED ON THIS DIFFERENCE.

BUT I'M AFRAID THAT MANY SCHOLARS AND OTHERS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FAIL TO SEE THIS DISTINCTION.

THEY CITE THE FAILURES THAT LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM.

THEY CITED THEM AS A CRITERIA THEMSELVES.

IT'S A TYPE FALLACY AND CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE DISTINCTION BE SHARPLY DRAWN BETWEEN ARGUMENTS MADE IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHING AND THE CRITERIA THEN DECIDED UPON TO JUSTIFY THE IMPEACHMENT SPECIFICALLY OF A PRESIDENT.

THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THIS.

SO THEY GOT DOWN TO THE DIFFICULT BUSINESS OF ENUMERATING AND DECIDING WHICH OFFENSES AMONG THE MANY THAT THEY FEARED A PRESIDENT MIGHT COMMIT SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE AS DISTINGUISHING THOSE LEFT TO THE VOTERS TO EVALUATE.

SOME FRAMERS LIKE ROGER SHERMAN WANTED A PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED AT THE LEGISLATURE BY THEIR PLEASURE LIKE THE ESTABLISH LEGISLATURE AND PARLIAMENT.

THAT VIEW WAS REJECTED.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SAID MAKING THE EXECUTIVE QUOTE A MERE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE.

JAILS MADISON, EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BEING DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATURE.

OTHERS WORRY ABOUT A FEBILE EXECUTIVE.

THE LEGISLATURE HAD THE POWER TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, THE FRAMERS SET OUT TO STRIKE THE APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN THE BROAD CONCERNS THAT LED THEM TO VOTE NOR AUTHORIZING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE NEED INSPECTOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA NOT SUBJECT TO SATISFY ABUSE OR OVERUSE.

AMONG THE CRITERIA PROPOSED WERE MALPRACTICE, NEGLECT OF DUTY, MALCONDUCT, NEGLECT IN THE EXECUTION OF OFFICE AND IN THIS WORD WILL COME BACK, MALADMINISTRATION.

IT WAS A RESPONSE TO THE LAST TERM A TERM USED IN BRITAIN AS A CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT MADISON RESPONDED SO VAGUE A TERM WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO A TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE SENATE.

UPON HEARING MADISON'S OBJECTIONS, COLONEL MASON WITH DREW MALADMINISTRATION AND SUBSTITUTED OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HAD A DELEGATE PROPOSED INCLUSION OF ABUSE OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AS ENUMERATED IN THE FINE CREE -- CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED.

I'LL COME BACK TO THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.

INDEED MADISON WORRIED THAT A PARTISAN LEGISLATURE COULD EVEN MISUSE THE WORD "MISDEMEANOR" TO INCLUDE A BROAD AWAY OF NONCRIMES SO HE PROPOSED MOVING THE TRIAL TO THE NONPARTISAN SUPREME COURT.

THE PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED, THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOMEONE SUGGESTED THAT MADISON CHANGED HIS MIND IF FAVOR TO EXPAND MISDEMEANOR TO INCLUDE BROAD TERMS LIKE MISS BEHAVIOR.

NO.

IT MEANT THAT HE FEARED IT.

HE FEARED THE WORD MISDEMEANOR COULD BE ABUSED.

THAT PROVED TO BE TRUE BY THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE.

NOW, THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT THE BROAD CONCERN BY THE FRAMERS FOR IMPEACHMENT WERE NOT AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED AS CRITERIA JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT IS THE MANNER BY WHICH THE WORD INCAPACITY -- FOCUS ON THAT WORD -- WAS TREATED.

MADISON AND OTHERS FOCUSED HEAVILY ON THE PROBLEM OF WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PRESIDENT BECOME INCAPACITATED.

CERTAINLY A PRESIDENT IS INCAPACITATED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

EVERYONE SEEMED TO AGREE THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL INCAPACITY IS A GOOD AND POWERFUL REASON FOR HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT PROVISION.

WHEN IT CAME TIME TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT, INCAPACITY WAS NOT INCLUDED.

WHY NOT?

PRESUMABLE IT WAS TOO SUBJECTIVE OF A TERM.

IF WE HAD AN INCAPACITATED PRESIDENT IN THE END OF WILSON'S SECOND TERM, HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED AND REMOVED.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS CAREFULLY DRAWN PROCEDURAL SAFE GUARDS WAS REQUIRED TO REMEDY THE DAUNTING PROBLEM OF A PRESIDENT WHO WAS DEEMED INCAPACITATED.

ANOTHER REASON, INCAPACITATION WAS NOT INCLUDED, IT'S NOT CRIMINAL.

IT'S NOT A CRIME TO BE INCAPACITATED.

IT'S NOT AKIN TO TREASON OR BRIBERY AND IT'S NOT A HIGH CREAM AND MISDEMEANOR.

THE FRAMERS BELIEVED THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES MUST BE CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND AKIN TO THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES.

INCAPACITY DID FIT.

NOTHING CRIMINAL ABOUT IT.

THE CONSTITUTION HAS TO BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF NONCRIMINAL BEHAVIOR THAT WARRANTED REMOVAL.

I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER SERIOUSLY THAT IMPORTANT PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE ADOPTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

I THINK THE BLACKSTONE AND HAMILTON SUPPORT THIS VIEW.

THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT OR THE WORDS TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES.

THOSE WORDS REQUIRE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

THE DEBATE IS ONLY OVER THE WORDS MISDEMEANORS.

THE FRAMERS WERE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT THE WORD MISDEMEANOR WAS A SPECIES OF CRIME.

THE BOOK THAT WAS MUST OFTEN DEEMEDED AUTHORITATIVE WAS WRITTEN BY BLACKSTONE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT THIS IN THE VERSION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE FRAMERS.

A CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR IS AN ACT COMMITTED OR OMITTED IN VIOLATION OF A PUBLIC LAW EITHER FORBIDDING OR COMMANDING IT.

THE GENERAL PROVISION SAYS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WHICH PROPERLY SPEAKING ARE NEAR SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

MERE SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

HE WENT ON IN COMMON USAGE, THE WORD CRIMES IS MADE TO DENOTE SUCH OFFENSES OF A DEEPER AND MORE DIE ONE SMILE FAULTS AND OMISSIONS ARE COMPRISED UNDER THE GENTLER NAMES ALSO.

HE POINTED OUT THAT MISDEMEANORS WERE NOT ONLY SO GENTLE.

THERE WAS A CATEGORY CALLED CAPITAL MISDEMEANORS, WHERE IF YOU STOLE SOMEBODY'S PIG OR OTHER FOWL, YOU COULD BE SENTENCED.

THERE WERE MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE.

BLACKSTONE WROTE THAT PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENT IS A PROSECUTION OF ALREADY KNOWN AND ESTABLISHED LAW PRESENTED TO THE MOST HIGH AND SUPREME COURT OF CRIMINAL JJURISDICTION TO THIS GREAT COURT.

BLACKSTONE DEEMED HIGH CREAMS TO BE A SPECIES OF CRIME.

HAMILTON IS LESS CLEAR AND NOT SURPRISINGLY.

HE WAS WRITING IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65, HE WAS WRITES NOT TO DEFINE WHAT THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT WERE, HE WAS WRITING PRIMARILY IN DEFENSE HOFF THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN.

UNLESS TO DEFINE ITS PROVISIONS.

HE CERTAINLY CANNOT BE CITED IN FAVOR OF CRITERIA, ABUSE OF POWER.

MORE IMPEACHMENT VOTED ALONG PARTY LINES.

HE WARNED THAT THE GREATEST DANGER, THESE WERE HIS WORDS, THE GREATEST DANGER IS THAT THE DECISION WILL BE REGULATED MORE BY THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF PARTIES THAN THE REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT.

IN ADDITION TO USING THE CRIMINAL TERMS INNOCENCE OR GUILT, HAMILTON REFERRED TO "PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE."

HE CITED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT STATES THAT THE PARTY CONVICTED SHALL NEVERTHELESS BE LIABLE AND SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL AS A REASON FOR NOT HAVING THE PRESIDENT TRIED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

HE FEARED A DOUBLE PROSECUTION A VARIOUS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY, BEFORE THE SAME JUDICIARY.

THESE POINTS ALL SOUNDS IN CRIMINAL TERMS.

ADVOCATES OF A BROAD OPEN-ENDED NONCRIMINAL INTERPRETATION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS INSISTED HAMILTON IS ON THEIR SIDE.

AND THEY CITE THE FOLLOWING WORDS REGARDING THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

I THINK I'VE HEARD THESE WORDS QUOTED MORE THAN ANY OTHER WORDS IN SUPPORT OF A BROAD VIEW OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY'RE MISUNDERSTOOD.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

WHEN DESCRIBING THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE SAID THE SUBJECTS OF ITS JURISDICTION, IMPORTANT WORDS, BY WHICH HE MEANT TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THE SUBJECT OF THE JURISDICTION ARE THOSE OFFENSES FROM PERCEIVE FROM THE PUBLIC MEN OR ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

THEY'RE OF A NATURE THAT WITH PECULIAR PROPRIETY BE DENOMINATED POLITICAL AS THEY RELATE TO INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO SOCIETY ITSELF.

THOSE ARE HAMILTON'S WORDS.

THEY'RE OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD SUGGESTING THAT THE CRITERIA OVER IMPEACHMENT INCLUDE THE MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC, MEN OR ABUSE OF PUBLIC TRUST THAT IS A MISREADING.

THESE WORDS WE USE TO CHARACTERIZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, NAMELY TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THEY ARE POLITICAL IN NATURE.

THEY ARE THE CRIMES THAT INVOLVE MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEN AND THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST.

HAMILTON WAS NOT EXPANDING THE SPECIFIED CRITERIA TO INCLUDE MISCONDUCT, ABUSE OR VIOLATION.

IF ANYTHING, HE WAS CONTRACTING THEM TO REQUIRE IN ADDITION TO PROOF OF THE SPECIFIED CRIMES, ALSO PROOF THAT THE CRIME MUST BE OF A POLITICAL NATURE.

THIS WOULD EXCLUDE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S NONPOLITICAL CRIME.

IN FACT, THIS IS INTERESTING, HAMILTON'S VIEW WAS CITED BY CLINTON'S ADVOCATES AS CONTRACTING, NOT EXPANDING THE MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES.

TODAY SOME OF THESE SAME ADVOCATES, YOU LOOK AT THE SAME WORDS AND CITE THEM AS EXPANDING ITS MEANING.

CLINTON WAS ACCUSED OF A CRIME, PERJURY.

SO THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A CRIME FOR IMPEACHMENT.

INSTEAD THE ISSUE IS WHETHER CLINTON'S ALLEGED CRIME COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH CREAM.

DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I STATED IN AN INTERVIEW THAT I DID NOT THINK A TECHNICAL CRIME WAS REQUIRED.

I THINK THAT ABUSING TRUST COULD BE CONSIDERED.

I SAID THAT.

AT THAT TIME I HAD NOT DONE THE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE CLINTON CASE AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE COMPELLING COUNTER ARGUMENTS.

SO I ACCEPTED THE ACADEMIC CONSENSUS ON AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT ON THE FRONT BURNER ISSUE.

WHETHER CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS REQUIRED, I HAVE GONE BACK TO THE HISTORIC RELEVANT MATERIAL.

THE FRAMERS DID INCLUDE TO LIMIT THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT TO CRIMINAL-TYPE ACTS AKIN TO TREASON, BRIBERY AND DID NOT INACCIDENT IT TO BE VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED AND NONCRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS.

I PUBLISH THIS ACADEMIC CONCLUSION WELL BEFORE I WAS ASKED TO PRESENT THE ARGUMENTS TO THE SENATE IN THIS CASE.

MY SWITCH IN ATTITUDE PURELY ACADEMIC, PURELY NONPARTISAN.

NOR AM I THE ONLY PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCEEDING THAT HAS CHANGED HIS MIND.

SEVERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SEVERAL SENATORS DISCUSSED DIFFERENT VIEWS WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON THAN THEY DO KNOW.

WHEN IT WAS PRESIDENT CLINTON, PROFESSOR TRIBE WROTE THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

NOW HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND.

THAT'S WHAT ACADEMICS DO.

IF THERE'S REASONABLE DOUBTS ABOUT THE INTENDED MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THE SENATE MIGHT CONSIDER RESOLVING THINKS DOUBTS BY THE LEGAL CONCEPT.

THAT GOES BACK TO HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRIES AND CONCEPT OF GREAT BRITAIN WERE RELIED UPON BY MANY JUSTICES AND JUDGES OVER THE YEARS.

IT WAS WELL KNOWN TO THE LEGAL MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDING GENERATION.

IT REQUIRED THAT A CONSTRUING OR CRIMINAL STATUTE THAT IS CAPABLE OF MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, THE INTERPRETATION THAT FAVORS THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SELECTED UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE.

IT'S BEEN APPLIED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, FEEL LICKS FRANKFURTER, JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA AND OTHERS.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REQUIRES THAT THESE WORDS BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY TO LIKE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AKIN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF SENATORS ARE IN DOUBT ABOUT THE MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THE RULE OF LENNITY WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO ACCEPT A NARROWER BROAD INTERPRETATION.

NOW EVEN IF THE RULE OF LENNITY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S A QUESTION, CERTAINLY THE POLICIES UNDERLYING THAT RULE ARE WORTHY AND DESERVES OF CONSIDERATION AS GUIDES TO CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION.

NOW HERE I'M MAKING A VERY IMPORTANT POINTS.

EVEN IF THE SENATE WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT A TECHNICAL CRIME IS NOT REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT, THE CRITICAL QUESTION REMAINS AND THE QUESTION I NOW WANT TO ADDRESS MYSELF TO, DO ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE NEGATIVE.

EACH OF THESE CHARGES SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF BEING SO VAGUE A TERM THAT THEY WILL BE EQUIVALENT OF TENURE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE SENATE.

TO QUOTE THE FATHER OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

ABUSE OF POWER IS AN ACCUSATION.

EASILY LEVELLED BY POLITICAL OPPONENTS BY CONTROVERSIAL PRESIDENTS.

IN OUR LONG HISTORY, MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSING THEIR POWER.

I'LL GIVE YOU A LIST OF PRESIDENTS IN OUR HISTORY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSING THEIR POWER THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT ON THE HOUSE MANAGER'S VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION.

>> Dana: GEORGE WASHINGTON, REFUSAL TO TURN OVER DOCUMENT RELATED TO THE JANE TREATY.

JOHN ADAMS, SIGNING AND ENFORCING LAWS.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, PURCHASING LOUISIANA WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

I'LL GO ON.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, MARTIN VAN BUR WREN, ABUSE OF VETO POWER.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

HE WAS ACCUSED OF ABUSING HIS POWER FOR SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE CIVIL WAR.

AFTER THE, WILSON, ROOSEVELT, TRUEMAN, JIMMY CARTER, RONALD REAGAN.

CONCERNING IRAN CONTRA AND NOW I SAY PROFESSOR LAWRENCE TRIBE SAID THE FOLLOWING.

"THEREIN LIES WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE MOST SERIOUS BREACH OF DUTY BY THE PRESIDENT, COULD ENTAIL AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER.

GEORGE H.W.

BUSH.

THE FOLLOWING WAS RELEASED BYTY CLINTON GORE CAMPAIGN.

PAST WEEKS AMERICANS HAVE BEGUN TO LEARN THE EXTEND GEORGE BUSH AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION HAVE ABUSED THEIR POWER FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

THAT'S HOW ABUSE OF POWER SHOULD BE USED, CAMPAIGN RHETORIC.

THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TEAM.

ABUSE OF POWER IS A POLITICAL WEAPON AND SHOULD BE LEVELLED AGAINST POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE.

THAT'S TRUE.

BARACK OBAMA, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD AN ENTIRE HEARING ENTITLED OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ABUSE OF POWER.

BY THE STANDARD APPLIED TO EARLIER PRESIDENTS, NEARLY NEARLY ANY CONTROVERSIAL ACT COULD BE NOMINATED ABUSE OF POWER.

FOR EXAMPLE, PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF USING FOREIGN POLICY, WAR POWERS TO ENLANCE THEIR ELECTORAL PROSPECTS.

PRESIDENTS HAVE MIXED POWERS.

"IN 1864, PRESIDENT LINCOLN ENCOURAGED GENERAL SHERMAN TO ALLOW SOLDIERS TO RETURN TO INDIANA TO VOTE."

WHAT WAS HIS PRIMARY MOTIVATION?

HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIANA REMAINED REPUBLICAN LOYALISTS THAT WOULD CAN'T THE WAR UNTIL VICTORY.

LINCOLN'S REQUEST RISKED UNDERCUTTING THE MILITARY BY DEPLETING THE RANKS.

THE PROFESSOR CONTINUES, LINCOLN HAD DULY MOTIVES.

PRIVATELY HE SOUGHT THE SECURE OF VICTORY FOR HIS PARTY.

THE PRESIDENT, AS A PRESIDENT AND AS A PART LEADER AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, HE MADE A DECISION WITH LIFE OR DEATH CONSEQUENCES.

PROFESSOR BLACK MAN DREW THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT CONCLUSION FROM THIS AND OTHER HISTORICAL EVENTS.

HE SAID POLITICIANS ROUTINELY PROMOTE THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GENERAL WELFARE WHILE IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS CONSIDERING HOUSE THESE ACTIONS WILL AFFECT THEIR POPULARITY.

OFTEN THE TWO CONCEPTS OVERLAP.

WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY IS GOOD FOR THE OFFICIALS RE-ELECTION.

ALL POLITICIANS HE SAID UNDERSTAND THAT DYNAMIC.

LIKE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, PRESIDENTS AND OTHER POLITICIANS SWAY THEMSELVES THAT THEIR ACTIONS SEEN BY THEIR OPPONENTS IS SELF-SERVING AND PRIMARILY IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

MIXED MODE OF ACTIONS CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER, OPPONENTS MIKE PSYCHO ANALYZE THE POWER AND A TRIBUTE THEM TO A SINGULAR SELF-SERVING MOTIVES.

THEY CANNOT BE THE LEGAL BASIS FOR A SERIOUS ACCUSATION OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT COULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF AN ELECTED PRESIDENT.

YET THIS IS WHAT THE MANAGERS ARE SAYING.

HERE'S WHAT THINK SAY.

"WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S REAL REASON, THE ONE IN HIS MIND ARE AT THE TIME LEGITIMATE.

WHAT A STANDARD.

WHAT WAS IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND ACTUALLY IN HIS MIND?

WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON?

WOULD YOU WANT YOUR ACTIONS TO BE PROBED FOR WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON WHY YOU ACTED?

EVEN IF A PRESIDENT WERE -- AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS IN MY MIND THAT THE FRAMERS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED THIS PSYCHO ANALYTIC APPROACH TO PRESIDENTIAL MOTIVES TO DETERMINE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE AND WHAT IS NOT.

HERE I COME TO A RELEVANT AND CONTEMPORANEOUS ISSUE.

PRESIDENT IF A PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT WERE TO DEMAND A QUID PRO QUO AS A CONDITION TO SENDING AID TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY, OBVIOUSLY HIGHLY DISPUTED MATTER IN THIS CASE, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE AND ABUSE OF POWER.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL CASE THAT IS IN OUR NEWS TODAY AS THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER COMES TO THE UNITED STATES FOR MEETINGS.

LET'S ASSUME A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TELLS ISRAEL THAT FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS WILL NOT BE SENT OR AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WILL NOT BE SCHEDULED UNLESS THE ISRAELIS STOP BUILDING SETTLEMENTS.

QUID PRO QUO.

I MIGHT DISAPPROVE OF SUCH A QUID PRO QUO DEMAND ON POLICY GROUNDS BUT IT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER.

QUID PRO QUO ALONE IS NOT A BASIS FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

IT'S PART OF THE WAY FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN OPERATED BY PRESIDENTS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

THE CLAIM THAT FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS CAN BE DEEMED ABUSES OF POWER BASED ON SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ABOUT MIXED OR SOLE MOTIVES, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INTERESTED ONLY IN HELPING HIMSELF DEMONSTRATE THE DANGERS OF EMPLOYING THE VAGUE SUBJECTIVE AND POLITICALLY MALLEABLE PHRASE ABUSE OF POWER AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT.

NOW, IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT IF A PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, WERE TO HAVE DONE WHAT THE TIMES REPORTED ABOUT THE CONTACT OF THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT, THAT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

LET ME REPEAT.

NOTHING IN THE BOLTON REVELATIONS EVEN IF TRUE WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN ABUSE OF POWER OR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE HISTORY, THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU CANNOT TURN CONDUCT THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE TO IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT BY USING WORDS LIKE QUID PRO QUO AND PERSONAL BENEFIT.

IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE INTENDED SO POLITICALLY LOADED AND PROMISCUOUSLY TERM LIKE ABUSE OF POWER TO BE WEAPONIZED.

IT'S PRECISELY THE LANGUAGE THAT THE FRAMERS FEARED AND REJECTED.

CONSIDER THE TERM MALADMINISTRATION.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO THAT TERM BECAUSE IT'S THE TERM THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS.

RECALL IT WAS RAISED AND OBJECTED TO IT AND WITHDRAWN AND NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA.

WE AGREE THAT MILLION ADMINISTRATION IS NOT A GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE HOUSE WERE TO IMPEACH ON MALADMINISTRATION, IT WOULD BE PLACING ITSELF ABOVE THE LAW.

NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

THE FRAMERS REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION WHAT IS MALADMINISTRATION?

IT'S COMPARABLE IN MANY WAYS TO THE ABUSE OF POWER.

MALADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN DEFINED TO INCLUDE ABUSE, CORRUPTION, MISRULE, DISHONESTY, MISUSE OF OFFICE AND MISBEHAVIOR.

PROFESSOR BUOY IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" EQUATES ABUSE OF POWER WITH "MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE."

MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.

THE SUPPORTING THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED MILLION ADMINISTRATION THEY ALSO REJECTED ABUSE OF POWER AS A CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT.

BLACKSTONE DENOMINATED MALADMINISTRATION AS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR.

THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY THE METHOD OF PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENT WHERE IN SUCH PENALTY SHORT HOFF DEATH IS INFLICTED.

HE INCLUDED IMPRISONMENT.

YOU CAN BE IN PRISON FOR MALADMINISTRATION.

DESPITE THIS BRITISH HISTORY, MADISON INSISTED IT BE REJECTED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE, AND I QUOTE AGAIN, SO VAGUE A TERM WILL BE ACQUITTED DURING THE TENURE OF THE SENATE.

IT WAS REJECTED AND WITHDRAW BY ITS SPONSOR.

THIS IMPORTANT EPISODE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT ACCEPT THE BRUSH WHOLE HOG TO IMPEACHMENT THAT SOME HAVE ARGUED.

SPECIFICALLY THEY REJECTED PIG AND OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA, EVEN THOUGH CARRYING PUNISHMENT OF IMPRISONMENT IN BRITAIN BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TURN OUR NEW RUB REPUBLIC TO TO A PARLIAMENTARY STYLE DEMOCRACY WHERE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE COULD BE REMOVED BY A VOTE OF NONE CONFERENCE.

NOBODY WAS ABOVE THE LAW BUT THEY CREATED A LAW BY WHICH CONGRESS COULD IMPEACH AND DIDN'T WANT TO EXPAND THAT LAW TO INCLUDE ALL THE CRITERIA THAT PERMITTED IMPEACHMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.

THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE NEVER INCLUDED AND DID NOT INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AS AN ENUMERATED CRITERIA.

BY REJECTING MALADMINISTRATION, THEY REJECTED ABUSE.

NOR WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

IT TOO VAGUE, INDEFINABLE.

IT'S SPECIALLY IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO HAMILTON IN FEDERALIST 78, THE LEGISLATIVE BODY THEMSELVES IS NOT CONCLUSIVE ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

INSTEAD HE SAID THE COURTS WERE DESIGNED AS AN INTERMEDIATE BODY BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AS DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LEGISLATURE IN ORDER TO KEEP THE LADDER WITHIN THE LIMITS ASSIGNED TO THEIR AUTHORITY.

UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWER AND CHECKS AND BALANCED, YOU CANNOT HAVE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND SOME OTHER LAWYERS HAVE MADE THIS ARGUMENT TODAY MORE THOROUGHLY, FOR A PRESIDENT TO DEMAND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUBPOENAS BEFORE THEY'RE COMPLIED WITH.

THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE OF ITS OWN POWERS INCLUDING POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

THE COURTS WERE DESIGNATED TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND IT CANNOT BE AN OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO INVOKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE COURT'S TO DO SO.

BY THAT VERY NATURE, WORDS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE STANDARDLESS.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT STANDARDS INTO WORDS LIKE THAT.

BOTH ARE SUBJECTIVE MATTERS OF DEGREES AND AMENABLE TO VARYING PARTISAN INTERPRETATIONS.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER A GIVEN ACTION WILL BE DEEMED TO BE ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER OF THE LINE.

INDEED THE SAME ACTION WITH THE SAME STATE OF MIND CAN BE DEEMED ABUSIVE OR OBJECTIVE WHEN DONE BY ONE PERSON BUT NOT THE OTHER.

THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT.

WHEN YOU HAVE A CRITERIA THAT COULD BE APPLIED IN ONE WAY AND ANOTHER PERSON IN ANOTHER WAY AND THEY FIT WITHIN THE TERMS ABUSE OF POWER, A FEW EXAMPLES WILL ILLUSTRATE THE DANGERS OF STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT CRITERIA.

MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN HAS ARGUED THAT A TWEET CONTAINING WHAT HE BELIEVED IS FALSE INFORMATION COULD GET THE CURRENT PRESIDENT IMPEACHED.

IF IT'S PART OF A BROADER COURSE OF CONDUCT.

A TWEET.

PROFESSOR ALAN LICTHMAN SAYS THAT HE COULD BE IMPEACH BECAUSE OF HIS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY.

I DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AS I DO MANY OTHER POLICIES BUT THAT'S NOT THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S A CRITERIA DECIDING WHO YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE A PRESIDENT'S POLICIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE, VOTE FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE.

FIND A CANDIDATE WHO HAS BETTER POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIS TWEETS, FIND SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T TWEET.

THAT WOULD BE EASY.

DON'T ALLOW SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

PROFESSOR TRIBE ARGUED UNDER THE CRITERIA NOR ABUSE OF POWER, PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACH.

WOULD ANY AMERICAN ACCEPT THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN WHICH PROSECUTORS COULD CHARGE A CITIZEN WITH ABUSE OF CONDUCT?

CAN YOU IMAGINE A CRIME, ABUSE OF CONDUCT?

FORTUNATELY WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE STATUTE THAT "EITHER FOR BIDS OR REQUIRES THE DOING OF AN ACT SO VAGUE THAT MEN AND WOMEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST GUESS AITS MEANING AND DIFFER TO ITS APPLICATION."

VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE CRITERIA THAT FIT THIS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID VIOLATES THE FIRST ESSENTIALS OF DUE PROCESS.

MORE CLOSELY THAN ABUSE OF POWER.

ANOTHER RULE OF CONGRESS, WHEN WORDS CAN BE INTERPRETED IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE MATTER OR CONSTITUTIONALLY PRECISE MATTER, THE LATTER MUST BE CHOSEN.

YOU'RE TOLD TO USE THAT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS OR ABUSE OF POWER CAN BE DEFINED AS FITTING WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

FOR THE SENATE TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT ON GROUNDS OF ABUSE OF POWER WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND BE CONSTRUED IN THE WORDS OF SENATOR JAMES GRIMES INTO APPROVAL OF IMPEACHMENT AS PART OF FUTURE POLITICAL MACHINERY.

THIS IS A REALISTIC THREAT TO ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHO SERVE WITH OPPOSING LEGISLATIVE MAJORITIES THAT COULD EASILY CONCOCT VAGUE CHARGES OF ABUSE OR OBSTRUCTION.

THE FACT THAT A LONG LIST OF PRESIDENTS THAT WERE ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT WERE NOT IMPEACHED DEMONSTRATES HOW SELECTIVELY THIS TERM HAS AND CAN BE USED IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT.

I'M SORRY, YOU JUST HIT THE WRONG CRITERIA.

YOU MUST THE MOST DANGEROUS CRITERIA TO SERVE AS A PRECEDENT FOR HOW WE SUPERVISE AND OVERSEE FUTURE PRESIDENTS.

THE IDEA OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE SO FAR FROM WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND THAT THEY SO CLEARLY VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND WOULD PLACE CONGRESS ABOVE THE LAW.

IN ORDER FOR THESE VAGUE OPEN AND UNENDED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY'RE NOT SAVED IN THE ARTICLES OF SOMEWHAT MORE SPECIFIC BUT TILL NONCRIMINAL-TYPE ARGUMENT.

THEY INCLUDE SUCH ACCUSATIONS LIKE COMPROMISING NATIONAL SECURITY A BECAUSING THE POWER OF PRESIDENCY.

IT'S THE ACTUAL ARTICLES THAT CHARGE ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

IT'S THE ACTUAL ARTICLES IN WHICH YOU MUST ALL VOTE.

NOT ON THE MORE SPECIFIC LIST OF MEANS INCLUDED IN THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLES.

AN ANALOGY MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

IF THE DEFENDANT WERE ACCUSED OF DISHONESTY, COMMITTING THE CRIME OF DISHONESTY, IT WON'T MATTER THAT THE INDICTMENT LISTED AS WELL THE MEANS TOWARDS DISHONESTY OF A VARIETY OF FAR MORE SPECIFIC POTENTIAL OFFENSES.

DISHONESTY IS NOT A CRIME.

IT'S TOO BROAD A CONCEPT.

IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTES.

IT'S NOT A CRIME.

THE INDICTMENT WOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE DISHONESTY IS A SIN.

IT'S NOT A CRIME.

EVEN IF THE DIAMOND INCLUDED A LONG LIST OF MORE SPECIFIC ACTS OF DISHONESTY.

NOR CAN IMPEACHMENT BE BASED ON A BUNCHING TOGETHER OF NONIMPEACHABLE SINS, NONE OF WHICH STAND AGAINST LONE MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA.

ONLY IF ONE CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED OFFENSE IS PROVED CAN THE SENATE THEN CONSIDER OTHER CONDUCT IN DECIDING THE DISCRETIONARY ISSUE OF WHETHER REMOVAL IS WARRANTED.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR JURISDICTION IS BASED ON COMMISSION OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

ONCE THAT JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENT IS SATISFIED, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER REMOVAL IS WARRANTED AND CONSIDER A WIDE ARRAY OF CONDUCT, CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL.

YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REMOVE UNLESS THERE'S AT LEAST ONE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IN THE THREE DAYS OF ARGUMENTS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TWIST AROUND WORD EVEN VAGUER AND MORE OPEN-ENDED THAN ABUSE AND OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTIFY THEIR CASE FOR REMOVAL.

TO INCLUDE TRUST, TRUTH, HONESTY AND FINALLY RIGHT.

THESE WORDS OF VIRTUE ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE OF THE MANAGERS TO DISTINGUISH THE ALLEGED POLITICAL SIGNS FROM CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WE ALL WANT OUR PRESIDENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO LIVE UP TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS SET BY WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN.

BOTH OF THEM WERE ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER BY POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THE FRAMERS COULD HAVE DEMANDED THAT ALL PRESIDENTS MUST MEET CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF'S STANDARDS OF BE HONEST, VIRTUAL AND RIGHT IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THEIR TERMS.

BUT THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD HUMAN FALLIBILITY.

AS MADISON PUT IT, IF MEN WERE ANGELS, NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

SPEAKING OF PRESIDENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS, IF ANGELS WERE TO GOVERN MAN, NEITHER INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS IN GOVERNMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THEY SET THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT TOO LOW, FEW PRESIDENTS WOULD SERVE THEIR TERMS.

INSTEAD THEIR TENURE WOULD BE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE AS IT WAS AND STILL IS IN BRITAIN.

SO THEY SET THE STANDARDS HIGH REQUIRING NOT SUNFUL BEHAVIOR, NOT DISTRUST OR DISHONOR BUT TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

I END THIS PRESENTATION TODAY WITH A NONPARTISAN PLEA NOR FAIR CONSIDERATION OF MY ARGUMENTS AND THOSE MADE BY COUNSEL AND MANAGERS ON BOTH SIDES.

I WILLINGLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACADEMIC CONSENSUS IS THAT CRIME CONDUCT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR IMPEACHMENT AND ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE SUFFICIENT.

I HAVE READ AND RESPECTFULLY CONSIDERED THE ACADEMIC WORK OF MY MANY COLLEAGUES THAT DISAGREE WITH MY VIEW AND THE FEW WHO ACCEPTED IT.

I DO MY OWN RESEARCH.

I DO MY OWN THINKING.

I HAVE NEVER BOWED TO THE MAJORITY ON INTELLECTUAL OR SCHOLARLY MATTERS.

WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING THERE HAVE BEEN FEW ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENTS AND OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS OPPOSED TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT.

INSTEAD OF ANSWERING MY ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF JUSTICE CURTIS AND PROFESSOR BOWIE AND OTHERS ON THEIR MERITS AND POSSIBLE DEMERITS, THEY HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITH NEGATIVE EPITHETS.

I URGE THE SENATORS TO IGNORE THESE EPITHETS AND TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON THEIR MERITS, ESPECIALLY THOSE DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

I NOW OFFER A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS, THE CRITERIA THAT I OFFER HAVE LONG CALLED THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT TEST.

IT'S A VARIATION OF THE TEST PROPOSED BY THE GREAT LEGAL AND POLITICAL THINKER AND MY FORMER COLLEAGUE, JOHN WALLS.

IT'S SPLIT IN A STATEMENT, BUT DIFFICULT IN ITS APPLICATION.

AS AN EXPERIMENT, I URGE EACH OF YOU TO IMAGINE BEING IMPEACHED WERE THE OPPOSITE PARTY.

BUT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE FACTS WERE THE SAME.

I APPLIED THIS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS I'M OFFERING TODAY.

I WOULD BE MAKING THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPEACHMENT ON THESE TWO GROUNDS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I VOTED FOR OR AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREED OR DISAGREED WITH HIS OR HER POLICIES.

THOSE OF YOU KNOW ME KNOW THAT THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

I AM NONPARTISAN IN MY APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT SUPPORT THIS IMPEACHMENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT OPPOSE THIS IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON.

I PROPOSED IT 20 YEARS AGO WHEN EVALUATING THE SUPREME COURT IN BUSH VERSUS GORE ASKING THE JUSTICES HOW THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED HAD IT BEEN CANDIDATE BUSH RATHER THAN GORE THAT WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED VOTES BEHIND AND SEEKING A RECOUNT.

IN OTHER WORDS, I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ISSUE.

I FOUGHT THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT CASE FAVORED THE REPUBLICANS OVER THE DEMOCRATS.

A AND I ASKED THEM TO APPLY THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT TEST.

I NOW RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS DISTINGUISHED CHAMBER TO CONSIDER THAT TEST IN EVALUATING THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE HEARD IN THIS HISTORIC CHAMBER.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT TEST BECAUSE HOW YOU VOTE ON THIS CASE WILL SERVE AS A PRECEDENT TO HOW OTHER SENATORS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES, DIFFERENT BACKGROUND AND DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES VOTE IF FUTURE CASES.

ALLOW AGO DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED ON THE BASIS OF THE STANDARDLESS SUBJECTIVE EVER-CHANGING CRITERIA ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS RISKS BEING CONSTRUED IN THE WORDS OF SENATOR GRIMES A REPUBLICAN SENATOR OF OHIO THAT VOTED AGAINST IMPEACHMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON.

AS I BEGIN, I WILL CLOSE.

I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I LOVE MY COUNTRY.

I LOVE THE COUNTRY THAT WELCOMES MY GRANDPARENTS AND MADE THEM INTO GREAT PATRIOTS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE FREEST AND MOST WONDERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

I LOVE OUR COUNTRY.

THE GREATEST ENDURING DOCUMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN KIND.

I RESPECT RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU NOT TO LET YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT ONE MAN STRONG AS THEY MAY BE TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD UNDUE THE WORK OF OUR FOUNDERS, INJURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES.

AS JUSTICE CURTIS SAID DURING THE TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON, A GREATER PRINCIPLE IS AT STAGE THAN THE FATE OF ANY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT.

THE FATE OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS, OF DIFFERENT PARTIES AND POLICIES IS ALSO AT STAKE AS IS THE FATE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.

THE PASSIONS AND FEARS OF THE MOMENT MUST NOT BLIND US TO OUR PAST AND FUTURE.

HAMILTON PREDICTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD AGITATE THE PASSIONS OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY AND ENLIST ALL OF THEIR ANIMOSITIES, INFLUENCES AND INTERESTS ON ONE OR THE OTHER.

THE SENATE WAS ESTABLISHED AS A WISE AND MATURE CHECK ON THE PASSIONS OF THE MOMENT WITH "A DEEP RESPONSIBILITY TO FUTURE TIMES."

I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THIS GREAT BODY TO THINK BEYOND THE EMOTIONS OF THE DAY AND TO VOTE AGAINST IMPEACHING ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES NOW BEFORE YOU, TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT AND TO PREVENT THE VOTERS FROM DECIDING HIS FATE ON THE BASIS OF THESE ARTICLES WOULD NEITHER DO JUSTICE TO THIS PRESIDENT, NOR TO OUR ENDURING CONSTITUTION.

THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE.

IMPEACHING WOULD DENY BOTH JUSTICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND JUSTICE TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLOSE ATTENTION.

IT HAS BEEN A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO ADDRESS THIS DISTINGUISHED MATTER ON THIS BODY ON THIS IMPORTANT MATTER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

I'M SORRY.

ARE YOU COMPLETE?

MR. CIPOLLONE?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, SENATORS, DON'T WORRY.

THIS WON'T TAKE VERY LONG.

WE'RE GOING TO STOP FOR THE DAY AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR PRESENTATIONS TOMORROW.

I JUST HAD THREE OBSERVATIONS THAT I WANTED TO BRIEFLY MAKE FOR YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND ALL THE PRESENTERS FROM OUR SIDE TODAY.

I WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, MY MIND WENT BACK TO LAW SCHOOL.

AND I BEGAN THINKING HOW WOULD THIS IMPEACHMENT LOOK AS A LAW SCHOOL HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ON AN EXAM?

HOW WOULD WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

AND I FOUND MYSELF THINKING, MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

THE QUESTION WOULD GO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

IMAGINE YOU ARE A UNITED STATES SENATOR AND SITTING IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN PASSED ON A PURELY PARTISAN BASIS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.

IN FACT, THERE WAS BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FROM THE MOMENT OF HIS INAUGURATION FOR NO REASON.

JUST BECAUSE HE WON THE ARTICLES BEFORE YOU DO NOT ALLEGE A CRIME OR ANY EVEN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL LAW.

ONE ARTICLES ALLEGES OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS SIMPLY FOR EXERCISING LONGSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS EXERCISED.

THE PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN NO RIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONDUCTED TWO DAYS OF HEARINGS.

YOU'RE SITTING THROUGH YOUR SIXTH DAY OF TRIAL.

THE HOUSE IS DEMANDING WITNESSES FROM YOU THAT THEY REFUSED TO SEEK THEMSELVES.

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH EXPEDITED COURT PROCEEDINGS, THEY HAD ISSUE.

THEY WITH DREW THE SUBPOENAS.

THEY'RE CRITICIZING YOU OF STRONG ACCUSATORY LANGUAGE IF YOU DON'T CAPITULATE TO THEIR UNREASONABLE DEMANDS.

SIT IN YOUR SEATS FOR MONTHS.

AN ELECTION IS ONLY MONTHS AWAY.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT.

THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES ALL PAST HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS THAT YOU HAVE STUDIED AND PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AND TAKE THE CHOICE A WAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IT WOULD CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOREVER.

QUESTION WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

YOUR FIRST THOUGHT MIGHT BE, THAT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL.

THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA.

BUT THEN YOU'D BE HAPPY BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE AN EASY ANSWER AND YOU CAN BE DONE WITH YOUR LAW SCHOOL EXAM AND IT WOULD BE YOU IMMEDIATELY REJECT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

BONUS QUESTION.

SHOULD YOUR ANSWER DEPEND ON YOUR POLITICAL PARTY?

ANSWER: NO.

MY SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S VERY INSTRUCTIVE TO WATCH THE OLD VIDEOS FROM THE LAST TIME THIS AND.

WHEN MANY OF YOU WERE SO MAKING SO ELOQUENTLY MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN WE ARE THE POINTS ABOUT THE LAW AND PRECEDENT.

NOT PLAYING A GAME OF GOT YOU.

THAT'S PAYING YOU A COMPLIMENT.

YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT THOSE PRINCIPLES.

YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT THEM.

IF YOU WON'T LISTEN TO ME, I WOULD URGE YOU TO LISTEN TO YOUR YOUNGERSELVES.

YOU WERE RIGHT.

THE THIRD OBSERVATION IN SITTING HERE TODAY, JUDGE STARR TALKED ABOUT THAT WE'RE IN THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE AGE OF CONSTANT INVESTIGATIONS.

IMAGINE, IMAGINE, IMAGINE IF ALL OF THAT ENERGY WAS BEING USED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IMAGINE IF THE AGE OF IMPEACHMENT WAS OVER IN THE UNITED STATES.

IMAGINE THAT.

AND I WAS LISTENING TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ TALKING ABOUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT RULE.

MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

I WOULD PUT IT DIFFERENTLY.

I WOULD MAKE CALL IT A GOD TEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT.

FOR DEMOCRATS, THE GOLDEN RULE COULD BE DO UNTO REPUBLICANS AS YOU'D HAVE THEM DO UNTO DEMOCRATS.

HOPEFULLY WE WILL NEVER BE IN A POSITION IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE HAVE ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT BUT VICE VERSA FOR THAT RULE.

THOSE ARE MY THREE OBSERVATIONS.

I HOPE THAT IS HELPFUL.

THOSE WERE THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAD LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATIONS.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT THOUGHT IS THIS.

THIS CHOICE BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THEY WILL MAKE IT MONTHS FROM NOW.

THE CONSTITUTION AND COMMON SENSE IN ALL OF OUR HISTORY PREVENT YOU FROM REMOVING HIM FROM THE BALLOT.

I WOULD URGE YOU TO QUICKLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION SO WE CAN HAVE AN ELECTION.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL ADJUST UNTIL 1:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28 AND THIS ORDER ALSO CONSTITUTES THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

>> JUST A COUPLE MINUTES AFTER 9 ANY THE EAST, THAT DOES CONCLUDE TODAY'S SESSION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

YOU'VE HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM MAKING ARGUMENTS UP UNTIL THE END.

PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ, THE HARVARD PROFESSOR, SPENDING ABOUT AN HOUR ARGUING THAT THE ARTICLES THE DEMOCRATS ARE PRESENTED ARE NOT ARTICLES THAT ARE WORTHY, THAT ONE PRESIDENT SHOULD OR COULD BE IMPEACH UPON AND IN THE FINAL ARGUMENT MADE BY THE PRESIDENT'S WISE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE, GOING BACK WHEN THE DEFENSE TOOK OVER SATURDAY SAYING WE'VE GOT AN ELECTION AROUND THE CORNER.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IT ALL WITH ME AROUND THE TABLE HERE.

BY THE WAY, JOINING US FROM THE CAPITOL, LISA DESJARDINS, YAMICHE ALCINDOR, VICTORY NOURSE.

SHE SERVED AS AN APPELLATE LAWYER UNDER GEORGE H.W.

BUSH AND AS JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL FROM 2015-16.

MARGARET TAYLOR WORKED FOR THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM 2013 TO 2018.

SHE WAS A STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY FOR TEN YEARS.

CURRENTLY A GOVERNANCE STUDIES FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS AND DAVID RIVKIN WORKED AT THE JUSTIN DEPARTMENT IN POST THE REAGAN AND THE GEORGE H.W.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND JOHN HART WHO WORKED FOR CONGRESSMAN TOM COBURN OF OKLAHOMA DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

HELLO TO ALL OF YOU.

LET'S GO AROUND THE TABLE.

I WANT YOUR RESPONSE MAINLY STARTING WITH YOU, VICTORIA, TO THE ALAN DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT THAT NONE OF THIS STANDS.

THE HOUSE MANAGER'S ARGUMENT STANDS BECAUSE THERE'S NO CRIME COMMITTED.

EITHER -- NEITHER ABUSE OF POWER NOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CONSTITUTES SOMETHING THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE OVER.

>> I THINK HE'S PLAYING A WORD GAME.

ABUSE OF POWER IS A VERY BROAD TERM.

THE ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS DO CONSTITUTE CRIMES ACCORDING TO MANY PROSECUTORS.

IF YOU ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO DIG UP ELECTION DIRT, IT COULD FALL UNDER A SERIES CRIMES.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS CHOSE NOT TO USE THESE SPECIFIC CRIMES BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THE TRIAL TO BE FOCUSED ON LEGAL NICETIES.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAMILTON SAID IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65, THIS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT LEGAL NICETIES.

REALLY WHEN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, A TERM THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ GERRYMANDERED, WHEN THEY MEANT IS EVIL CONDUCT.

THAT'S AN ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT ALL OF THIS DISPOSITION IS AVOIDING IS THE VERY FACT OF THE CASE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS USED A BECAUSE OF POWER JUST AS A GENERAL LABEL TO COVER MUCH MORE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ABOUT BEHAVIOR THAT IS.

IF ANY OTHER PERSON DID THIS, IF YOU SOLICIT FOREIGN MONEY, IT'S A FEDERAL ANY.

IF YOU USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S A FELONY.

BY THE WAY, I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I TAUGHT CRIME LAW FOR 15 YEARS.

I DIDN'T TEACH CRIME-LIKE LAW.

THAT WAS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT.

>> CRIMINAL-LIKE.

>> CRIMINAL-LIKE OFFENSE.

WE HAVE A VAST SCOPE OF CRIMINAL LAW.

IT COVERS A VAST AMOUNT OF TERRITORY.

AS I SAID EARLIER, IT'S A LOW BAR FOR A PRESIDENT.

THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS NOT ABOUT WHAT A COURT -- THIS IS DERSHOWITZ FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT A COURT WOULD SAY WAS A CRIME.

IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAY IS A VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST TO USE HAMILTON'S TERM.

>> DAVID RIFKIN, STEP IN ON THIS.

WE HAVE A DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE LOOK AT THE GROUNDS OF WHAT HOUSE MANAGERS SAY SHOULD BE THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THERE I CANNOT AGREE WITH PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MORE.

HE WENT FOR WHAT I CONSIDER ANALYSIS OF A GENESIS OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER, HOW IT FITS WITHIN THE OVERALL CONSTITUTIONS ARCHITECTURE, THE NOTION THAT ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS, NOT THE ONLY ONE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS, ALL THE STUFF ABOUT LET'S NOT HAVE A KING WAS A FACTOR BUT NOT THE PRIMARY FACTOR.

AND AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF HOW THE ACTUAL DEFINITE ANYTHING OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HAS EVOLVED.

>> HAS EVOLVED.

>> HAS EVOLVED.

GOING BACK AND FORTH.

REMEMBER, HE MENTIONED THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT DEBATES.

FRAMERS WERE NOT WHIPPING FOR JOY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT POWER.

HOWEVER, WHAT HE DID NOT MENTION TO WHO TO YOU GIVE IT.

THEY WANTED TO GIVE IT TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES.

AND THEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT.

THEY HATED GIVING IT TO CONGRESS.

BUT THE SIMPLEST ARGUMENT FOR THE VIEWERS TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS.

THEY REJECTED TERMS LIKE MALADMINISTRATIONS, MALVERSION, CORRUPTION, NEGLECT OF DUTY BECAUSE THEY THEY HAVE NO -- AN ABUSE OF POWER HAS NO PRINCIPLE.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WORD YOU'RE USING HAS WHAT?

>> HAS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE.

IT HAS TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL LIMITING PRINCIPLE.

IT WOULD SWALLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

ABUSE OF POWER, CORRUPT MOTIVE IS PURELY IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER.

WE HEAR WORDS LIKE INVITING A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERVENE.

LET ME ASK YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION.

IF YOU'RE ASKING CHAIRMAN XI TO GIVE YOU A GOOD TRADE DEAL AND YOU HAPPEN TO SAY IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR ME POLITICALLY -- HOW IS THAT NOT -- EVERY EXERTION OF DIPLOMACY HAS A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

CAN'T BE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

>> WHY -- MARCH GET TAYLOR, PICK UP ON THAT WHY CAN'T ANYTHING THAT A FOREIGN LEADER HAVE ASKED TO DO, THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IS ALMOST AT OR OVER THE LINE OF THE APPROPRIATE POWER OF THE OFFICE?

>> SO I MEAN, IT'S HELPFUL TO GO BACK TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S TALK WAS MUCH MORE GENERAL AND HISTORICAL SORT OF WALK THROUGH A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS.

I THINK WHEN WE GO BACK TO WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, WE'RE NOT TALKING IN GENERAL TERMS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT USED HIS POWER IN OFFICE TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING THAT BENEFIT HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AND DAMAGES ONE OF HIS MAIN OPPONENTS IN AN ELECTION.

SO IT STRUCK ME THAT, YOU KNOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS ASKING THE SENATE AND AMERICANS, IT WOULD SEEM, TO, YOU KNOW, TO ADOPT A RATHER NOVEL AND I'D S SAY -- THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS THAT WOULD AGREE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ALLEGATION OF A CRIME TO BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> YOU SAY IT'S UNUSUAL -- > IT IS UNUSUAL.

AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MANY SCHOLARS WOULD AGREE WITH.

I APPRECIATE HIS GOING BACK IN HISTORY AND LOOKING AT IT BUT IT'S NOT THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED LOOK INTO THIS.

IT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL COMMUNITY THAT THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A CRIME FOR THAT -- TO THERE TO BE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ONE LAST POINT.

WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CIPOLLONE'S CONSENTS BROUGHT THIS HOME.

I DID FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE THAT IS I THINK ARGUABLY MISLEADING.

SAYING THAT A COMPLETE STONE WALL BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NORMAL AND SOMETHING THAT PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE OR IMPLYING THAT.

IT IS MISLEADING.

IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.

THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR HISTORY HAS BEEN IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE ACCEPTED AS NORMAL PRESIDENT CHAT CAN DUCT.

>> JOHN HART, HOW DOES THE RESPONSE OF THAT POINT, HOW DOES THE ALLEGATIONS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE PERFECTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO NOT RESPOND TO CONGRESS' REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, FOR WITNESSES, FOR WHATEVER COOPERATION THE HOUSE WAS ASKING FOR AS THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS QUESTION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS?

>> PATRICK PHILBIN DID A GOOD JOB OF ADDRESSING THAT EARLIER IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION.

HE DESCRIBED HOW THE HOUSE FAILED TO PASS A RESOLUTION AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID IN HIS VIEW.

THE HOUSE HAD NOT FOLLOWED PREVIOUS PROCEDURE.

SO YOU HAD SEVERAL PRESENTATIONS TODAY.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS A COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, NOT AS AN ATTORNEY.

SOME ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS.

WHEN THEY SHOWED THE VIDEO OF NANCY PELOSI HANDING OUT THE PENS, THAT SHOWED -- THAT ILLUSTRATED A GRATUITOUSLY PARTISAN GESTURE.

THAT IS REALLY THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

THE HOUSE ITSELF HAS ACTED IN A WAY WITHOUT PRECEDENT.

UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF PARTISANSHIP WENT INTO THE WHOLE ARGUMENT.

THEREFORE WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID WAS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE MOTIVATION BEHIND.

>> Dana: >> VICTORIA, WHAT ABOUT THIS CONTINUOUS REFRAIN ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE DRIVEN BY A PART AN DESIRE TO REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY COOKED THIS SCHEME UP BECAUSE THEY WANT HIM OUT OF OFFICE QUICKER THAN ANY ELECTION CAN HAPPEN.

>> I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN SAY -- I DIDN'T LIKE THE PEN SIGNING CEREMONY.

IT WAS A MISTAKE.

I DON'T LIKE THAT ON THE EITHER.

IT'S THE PEOPLE'S LAW.

IT'S NOT ABOUT A PEN AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

IT TAKES ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER TO PASS THE LAW.

SO I DIDN'T LIKE THAT VERY MUCH.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S NOT COOKED UP.

IN THE LAST ELECTION -- THIS IS WHAT MANY DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID OF -- IN THE LAST ELECTION INVOKED FOREIGN POWERS TO HACK AN ELECTION.

THE WHITE HOUSE WAS HACKED IN 2015 AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS AS HAS BEEN REPORTED.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT THERE AND BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE TELLING PEOPLE HOW TANK ROUSE OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

IT'S NOT ANY TRADE OR ANY DEAL AT THE POLITICAL LEVEL OF FOREIGN POLICY.

IT'S ABOUT HACKING AN ELECTION.

WE NOW HAVE SEEN THAT BURISMA HAS BEEN HACKED BY RUSSIA.

IT'S ABOUT RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLAIM.

THE UNDERLYING CLAIM.

THE CLAIM ABOUT THE BIDENS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

HE WOULD HAVE HURT HIS SON INSTEAD OF HELPING HIS SON BY GETTINGRY OF SHOKIN.

ONE FINAL HYPOTHETICAL.

THE REASON YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE A LIMIT ON CRIME OR CRIME-LIKE HAVE THE FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL GIVEN BY THE GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOOL LATER FROM YALE, MENTIONED LOTS OF HARVARD, NOT YALE PEOPLE, CHARLES BLACK THAT SAID WHAT IF YOU HAD SOMEONE THAT DECIDED TO MOVE TO -- THIS IS 1974.

WHAT YOU HAD SOMEONE THAT AND RULE BY PHONE AND FAX.

MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK EVEN THOUGH THAT ISN'T A CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES.

HENCE THE PROBLEM.

>> Woodruff: ALL RIGHT.

ON THAT NOTE TURN TO ONE OF THE SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER, ALL OF TODAY HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THIS TRIAL GOT UNDERWAY SHE IS SENATOR DEBBY STABENOW OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEMOCRAT.

SENATOR STABENOW, YOU HEARD HOURS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TODAY CONCLUDING WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAYING THESE ARTICLES, THE DEMOCRATS COME FORWARD WITH ARE NOT ARTICLES THAT A PRESIDENT CAN EVEN BE REMOVED OVER.

WHY ARE WE HERE?

IN EFFECT.

>> JUDY, IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

SITTING AND THINKING ABOUT EVERYTHING WE HEARD TODAY, I DO HAVE TO SAY I HEARD A LOT OF HYPOCRISY.

I COULDN'T BELIEVE KEN STARR WAS CONCERNED THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS DIVISIVE.

I WAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE HE WAS THE LEADER OF THAT EFFORT.

AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR A LOT OF DIFFERENT KINDS EVER THINGS GOING ON.

BUT WHEN I STEPPED BACK AFTER SAYING NOTHING TAKES AWAY FROM THE UNDERLYING FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REACHING OUT TO YET FOREIGN INTERFERENCE TO HELP HIM WIN AN ELECTION.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE CALL TOOK PLACE.

WE KNOW THAT IN FACT HE WAS ASKING FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO POLITICAL FAVOR, TO BE ABLE TO PEOPLE CAN DEBATE WHETHER THERE WAS A BROADER ISSUE THERE, BUT I THINK VERY CLEAR WHAT HE WAS FOCUSED ON NOT EVERY BUSINESS.

BUT ONE BUSINESS AND THE VICE PRESIDENT WHO IS NOW A POTENTIAL OPPONENT OF HIS.

AND THEN E BASICALLY THERE'S A LOT OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS A LOT OF -- WE GOT VERY GOOD LAW SCHOOL LECTURES, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY SO I PICTURED MYSELF SITTING THROUGH ONE OF THOSE LECTURE HALL PRESENTATIONS.

BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, THAT BACK WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN WE DIDN'T HAVE A CODE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT OR CRIMINAL CODE LIKE WE HAVE TODAY.

WHAT WE HAD WERE GENERAL KINDS OF TERMS WHERE THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO STRUGGLE WITH HOW DO WE GET FLEXIBILITY FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS THAT IS VIEWED AS A THREAT TO THE COUNTRY AS SOMETHING SERIOUS.

THE SPECIFICS BUT NOT TOO SPECIFIC.

SO THAT IS WHERE THEY ENDED UP WITH THE TERM HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR ME LISTENING, I'M STILL WAITING TO HEAR THEM SAY THAT THE SPECIFICS AREN'T ACCURATE.

AND NOT JUST SAYING EVERYTHING IS PARTISAN OR JUST THROWING OUT OTHER KINDS EVER TERMS, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS OF THE ABUSE OF POWER, THE WITNESSES, WHAT WAS SAID, MULTIPLE PEOPLE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION THAT CAME FORWARD.

20 TIE TOGETHER THE ACTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO HAVE HAPPEN WITH WHAT HE WAS DOING AND WITHHOLDING AID OR A COVETED OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

>> Woodruff: IF YOU SET ASIDE THE LAW SCHOOL ARGUMENT, IF YOU WILL, IF YOU BRING IT DOWN TO ONE OF THE BASIC POINTS THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SAYING THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, CARED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING THE EUROPEAN SHOULD BE GIVING MORE MONEY FOR UKRAINIAN SECURITY, THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS MOTIVATING HIM.

AND NOT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS, WHAT ABOUT THAT BASIC POINTED?

>> SURE.

I DO THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT TALKED A LOT ABOUT BURDEN SHARE CAN IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT FORMATS WE KNOW THAT.

ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY WITH UKRAINE WE SAW THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OTHERS ARE STEPPING UP SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THEM.

BUT CERTAINLY HE TALKS BROADLY ABOUT THAT.

WE GET INTO THE AREA OF CORRUPTION FOR ME, WHAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M THINKING A LOT ABOUT, IS THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T RAISED IN THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE IN TERMS OF THE EFFORTS GIVING FUNDING FOR UKRAINE, IT WASN'T RAISED IN HIS SECOND YEAR OF OFFICE.

IN ANY WAY TO HOLD UP AID IF THEY DIDN'T INVESTIGATED CORRUPTION.

IT WASN'T IN THE AGAIN OF 2019, IT REALLY WAS ONLY AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED POTENTIAL OPPONENT.

AND SO I WANT TO HEAR SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT THAT, WHY NOW.

WHY NOT IN 2017 OR 2018 WHEN IT WAS VERY CLEAR, THERE HAD BEEN MAJOR CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

SO, WHY ONLY AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED FOR PRESIDENT.

>> Woodruff: VERY QUICKLY THERE WAS A REFERENCE THE PRESIDENT HAVING A MEETING WITH FORMER UKRAINE I DON'T KNOW PRESIDENT IN 2017 BRINGING UP CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION -- >> I WAS VERY -- >> Woodruff: THERE WAS.

>> THERE WAS NEVER AID WITHHELD.

I SUPPORT STRONGLY AID TO UKRAINE.

BUT THERE WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT OF AID BEING TIED TO DOING SOMETHING.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR DEBBY STABENOW OF MICHIGAN WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US TONIGHT.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

I'M GOING TO GO NOW TO OUR CORRESPONDENT WHO IS AT THE CAPITAL, YAMICHE ALCINDOR YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, WHAT ARE THEY SAYING TO YOU ABOUT WHAT ELSE THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO DO TO PROVE IN ORDER TO BEST MAKE THEIR CASE?

>> RIGHT NOW IT'S REALLY I THINK A RECAPPING OF MOST OF THEIR HIGHLIGHTS, WHAT WE SAW TODAY WAS A NUMBER OF OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS REALLY W WALKING THROUGH PIECE BY PIECE, BRICK BY BRICK WHY THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED.

FIRST PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTLY TIED AID TO UKRAINE, TO INVESTIGATORS OF JOE BIDEN OR DEMOCRATS.

THEY DIDN'T -- MOVED ON TO THE IDEA THAT IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN OVER USED.

THEY WENT TO THIS THE ARGUMENT EYE RAISING WAS WHEN ALAN DERSHOWITZ EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT SAID, EVEN IF JOHN BOLTON TO RIGHT HE DID PULL PEOPLE INTO HIS OFFICE I NEED TO YOU GET THAT AID -- GET INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN IN ORDER TO GIVE UP THAT $391 MILLION CONGRESS ALREADY APPROPRIATED.

BUT THAT STILL DIDN'T IMPEACHABLE.

HE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT ABUSE OF POWER IN AND OF SIFTS A POLITICAL TERM THAT IT IS OF IT BELONGS IN CAMPAIGN RHETORIC NOT HE SAID IN THE CONTEXT OF SENATE TRIAL.

OTHER THING NOTED THAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ IN LAYING OUT HIS ARGUMENT HE WAS MAKING SAME ARGUMENT THAT MICK MULVANEY MADE IN OCTOBER 2019 WHEN MICK MULVANEY SAID, GET OVER IT, POLITICAL INFLUENCE HAPPENS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

IT'S HOW THESE THINGS WORK.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE GOING TO DO TOMORROW IS REALLY DOUBLING DOWN ON THAT EARRING YOUMENT THEN WRAPPING IT UP WITH COUPLE HOURS OF PRESENTATIONS.

MY UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO VERY LONG.

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SEND TODAY BUT TIME GOT AWAY FROM THEM THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE ON.

>> Woodruff: YOU ARE RIGHT.

THE ARGUMENT WE HEARD QUICKLY FROMMAL A AN THAT QUID PRO QUO TAKES PLACE ALL THE TIME IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

IT WAS EXACTLY -- EXCUSE ME IT WAS EXACTLY ARGUMENT THAT MICK MULVANEY MADE THAT ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO GOT IN HOT WATER.

WE WILL SEE QUICKLY POSITIVELY SAW DESJARDINS WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS, LISA, ANY SENSE FROM THE SENATORS ABOUT ALL THIS IS GOING DOWN?

>> REPEAT THAT AGAIN, HOW -- >> Woodruff: ARE YOU ABLE TO GET A SENSE FROM TALKING WITH SENATORS OR YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE TALKING TO SENATORS HOW THEY ARE RECEIVING WHAT THESE ARGUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM?

>> WELL I ANY THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF SORT OF MEAT AND VEGETABLES.

A LOT OF DENSE, LAW SCHOOL ARGUMENTS, BUT THEY KNOW THEIR AUDIENCE.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, JUDY, 47 OF THE 100 CURRENT SENATORS HAVE LEGAL BACKGROUND, DECLARE THEIR PROFESSION AS LAW AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONGRESS ALMOST MAJORITY OF THE SENATE WHO HAVE BEEN IN LAW SCHOOL CLASSES.

THEY ARE USED TO THIS KIND OF LECTURE.

COULD YOU TELL THEY WERE PAYING ATTENTION.

I WANTED SAY THEY WERE ON THE EDGE OF THEIR SEATS WHEN MR. DERSHOWITZ WAS SPEAKING BUT THEY WEREN'T NODDING OFF THEY WERE TAKING SOME NOTES.

THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK IS WORTH DISCUSSING AND IS ON THE MINDS SOME OF SENATORS, IS THAT NOW THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM AS YAMICHE IS POINTING OUT NOT JUST ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT.

IT IS ABOUT ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND IDEA THAT ABUSE OF POWER MAY NEVER BE JUSTIFIED AS AN ITCH PEOPLABLE OFFENSE IF THIS SENATE DOES NOT SO JUSTIFY IT.

THEY REALLY RAISE THE STAKE SAYS HERE BEYOND THIS PRESIDENT.

>> Woodruff: THEY D. THEY WERE BRINGING UP TIME AND AGAIN IF YOU DO THIS, AND THINK ABOUT THE PRECEDENT IT SETS THEY KEPT BRINGING UP THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT.

IF YOU DO THIS TODAY TO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT THINK ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE IN POWER.

AND TRY TO DO THIS TO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO EACH SENATE TO INTERPRETER WHAT IS IMPEACHMENTABLE OR NOT.

THERE IS NO LAW DEFINING.

EACH SENATE MAKES THAT DETERMINATION, EACH SENATE CAN DETERMINE ITS OWN PRECEDENT OR NOT.

>> Woodruff: WHAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS SO FASCINATING AND SO INTERESTING AND WORTH CHEWING OVER AND DISCUSSING AS WE LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT.

LISA DESJARDINS JOIN CAN US FROM THE CAPITAL.

YAMICHE, ALSO AT THE CAPITOL I WANT TO THANK YOU -- THANK ALL OF YOU AT THE TABLE, VICTORIA NOURSE, MARGARET TAYLOR, DAVID AND JOHN HART THANK YOU VERY: WE APPRECIATE IT.

YOU ALL HAVE BEEN PATIENT WITH US THROUGHOUT TODAY WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW.

THAT DOES CONCLUDE OUR COVERAGE OF TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW AT 1:00 P.M. WITH THE TIME PORTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.

IF YOU MISSED ANY PART OF TODAY'S HEARING YOU WANT TO CATCH UP, YOU CAN SEE IT ALL GAVEL TO GAVEL THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR OR YOUTUBE PAGES.

HOPE TO SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT ON THE CBS "NEWSHOUR."

FOR ALL OF US, THANK YOU AND