Impeachment trial of President Trump | Jan. 30, 2020 (FULL LIVE STREAM)

ZAID YERMAK >>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS

DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WILL REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

AND THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE

>> THE HOUSE CASE IS RUSHED, WEAK AND INCOMPLETE

>> HISTORY WILL BE OUR FINAL JUDGE, WILL SENATORS RISE TO THE

OCCASION? >> THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE

THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG >> THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN GET BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTION >> FINAL DAY FOR SENATORS TO ASK QUESTIONS, U.S. CAPITAL WHERE IN ABOUT AN HOUR SENATORS WILL SUBMIT QUESTIONS I’M LINDSEY CASEY, WELCOME TO LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST WILL BE ANOTHER LENGTHY DAY UP TO 8 HOUR OF QUESTIONING JOINING ME IN THE STUDIO MATEA GOLD, WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT UNFOLDED YESTERDAY BUT SO MANY COMPETING NEWS STORIES IN THE QUESTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WITNESSES YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENTS THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM IS MAKING AND THEN THE JOHN BOLTON FIGHT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE WHAT IS RISING TO TOP LINE OF ATTENTION RIGHT NOW >> HELSINKI WHAT WE’RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS ALL EYES FOCUSED NOT NECESSARILY TODAY BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW. IS THERE GOING TO BE A VOTE ON WITNESSES AS HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI THE DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE JOHN ROBERTS TO SERVE AS CRUCIAL TIE BREAKING VOTE, IN A PROCESS WE HAVE NOT SEEN HIM DO SO FAR THAT IS WHERE THE DRAMA AND QUESTION IS I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESSED TO TREAD OVER SOME OF THE SAME GROUND WE SAW YESTERDAY AND PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE HINT ABOUT WHERE THE MODERATES IN BOTH PARTIES ARE AND UNCERTAINTY LIES. THIS IS BUILDING TOWARD A QUESTION WHETHER IS THIS TRIAL GOING TO END IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO OR WITNESSES THAT CONTINUE THAT FIGHT? AND THE BACKDROP OF THIS OF COURSE IS THIS IDEA THAT JOHN BOLTON HAS A LOT TO SAY OF WHAT WAS ON THE PRESIDENT’S MIND AND WHAT HE WANTED TO DO WITH UKRAINE AND A BUILDING FIGHT BETWEEN BOLTON’S CAMP AND THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH ASSERTED HIS MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT BOLT I DON’T KNOW’S ATTORNEY TOLD US YESTERDAY IS NOT TRUE. I THINK WE ARE SEEING SETUP FOR RADAR OVER QUITE A SIGNIFICANT FIGHT OVER THAT BOOK >> I WONDER HOW MUCH SENATORS WILL HOW THE TIME LINE MIGHT AFFECT THEIR JUDGMENT, EVEN MORE OF LIKE A TUSSLE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE WILL INFLUENCE THEM BECAUSE UNLIKE A REAL JURY, THEY ARE NOT SEQUESTERED BUT THEY ARE NOT DISALLOWED FROM CONSIDERING WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN TERMS OF THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WHAT EVIDENCE THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT’S NOT LIKE THEY ARE NOT READING THE NEWSPAPERS OR WATCHING THE NEWS >> I THINK IF ANYTHING WE’VE SEEN SOME REPUBLICANS MOVE AGAINST WITNESSES, THE MORE HAS COME OUT AGAINST — ABOUT BOLTON WE HEARD EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAY THEY MIGHT BE TO OPEN WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS HAVE EFFECTIVELY MADE THE ARGUMENT TO THE FELLOW REPUBLICANS IN THE CHAMBER THAT WHETHER IT’S THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID, WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IT’S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AGRICULTURE A YOU FROM THE GOP SIDE THAT NO WITNESSES ARE NEEDED, EVEN IF THESE FACTS ARE TRUE IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE PREEMPTING TO HAVE MORE EVIDENCE GATHERING WHICH IS OPPOSITE THE WAY YOU DO IN A TRIAL, FIRST GATHERING EVIDENCE AND MAKING DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED BUT WE SEE ALREADY MANY REPUBLICAN SENATORS COMING FORWARD AND SAYING I AGREE WITH WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID IT DOES NOT APPEAR WITH EVERYTHING SAID ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AND THOSE OF HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE TRUE, THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE >> IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IS REALLY A SHIFT FROM WHAT THEY WERE SAYING A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, EVIDENCE IS BEING UNEARTHED AND COMING OUT FOR SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, A QUID PRO QUO AND NOW EVEN AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MANUSCRIPTS THAT BOLT I DON’T KNOW ROAD CLEARLY SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS CALLING FOR A QUID PRO QUO LINDSEY GRAHAM CHANGING WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE A PROBLEM BEFORE THE SENATORS TAKE THEIR SEATS AT 1:00, THERE IS A FLURRY ON CAPITAL HILL, THERE IS A LOT OF COMPETING AGENDAS SO I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER SAID TODAY, THIS IS OF COURSE A TOP DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE AND HE SPOKE TO THE PRESS ABOUT WHERE HE STANDS ON WITNESSES >> TOMORROW WE’LL TAKE A CRUCIAL VOTE ON WHETHER WE WILL DEBATE HAVING FOUR WITNESSES, HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL

THE FATE OF MUCH OF THE FUTURE OF HOW THIS REPUBLIC CONDUCTS ITSELF IS ON THE SHOULDERS OF FOUR REPUBLICANS I BELIEVE SENATE REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE VOTE YESTERDAY MR. SEKULOW SAID IF THE SENATE ELECTS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THE PRESIDENT ACETYL WILL FORCE ALL SORTS OF MANNER OF DELAY TAKE THE MANAGERS TO COURT, ASSERT PRIVILEGE, DRAG IT ON FOREVER. IT WAS A SHOCKING ADMISSION FROM MR. SEKULOW REVEALING HOW CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM ARE. HOW AFRAID THEY ARE OF EYEWITNESSES TO THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT COMING BEFORE THE SENATE OF COURSE HIS ARGUMENT ISN’T TRUE THERE IS NO REASON FOR ENDLESS DELAYS THE DOCUMENTS ARE COMPILED ONE KEY WITNESS ALREADY SAID HE’D TESTIFY WE’D EXPECT THE OTHERS TO COMPLY IF SUBPOENAED AND QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE CAN BE SORTED OUT RIGHT HERE IN THE SENATE MR.SEKULOW’S ARGUMENT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A THREAT, A SHAKEDOWN HE TOLD SENATORS TO THEIR FACES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM WILL DO WHATEVER IT POSSIBLY CAN TO PREVENT THEM FROM SEEING THE TRUTH IT REMINDS YOU OF SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WOULD DO OR SAY AND IT SHOULD OFFEND MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AS MUCH AS AS IT OFFENDS US DEMOCRATS >> LEADER SCHUMER, MATEA WHAT SORT OF A MESSAGE DOES SCHUMER DEFEND RIGHT NOW? I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMPETENCE GAME THAT BOTH SIDES MIGHT BE PLAYING OR UNDER CONFIDENCE GAME WHAT DOES HIS MESSAGE NEED TO BE? >> ONE OF THE THINGS DEMOCRATS ARE ACUTELY AWARE, PUBLIC POLL SHOWS THE PUBLIC DOES SUPPORT THE IDEA OF WITNESSES, THEY ARE TRYING TO USE THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, USE IT AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS, REPUBLICANS HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESS STRATEGY MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THINGS AND THE SENATE WON’T BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO ITS OWN WORK THOSE ARGUMENTS SEEM MORE REALLY CASH FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME AND LESS PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE HAVE INDICATIONS THAT POSITIONS ON WITNESSES HAVE LARGELY TESTIFIED WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW ONE IS GOING TO VOTE. THE FACT THAT NANCY PELOSI CAME OUT AND SAID SHE REALLY WANTS ROBERT TO BE A TIE BREAKING VOTE INDICATES THAT THE DEMOCRATS SHALL WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER THEY HAVE ENOUGH VOTES OR WITNESSES IT DOES HELP THEM TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO REPUBLICANS, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET THE WHOLE STORY OUT THERE, WHY NOT BRING THESE PEOPLE BEFORE US AND DO YOU THINK ALSO STRESSING AN ARGUMENT THAT AS WE’VE SEEN HAS LEGITIMACY MORE AND MORE INFORMATION HAS COME OUT SINCE THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, SCHIFF MADE THIS ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVENTUALLY MORE OF THE STORY IS GOING TO BE TOLD, DO YOU WANT IT TO BE TOLD IN THIS FORUM WHILE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE A SAY OR AFTER YOU VOTE? >> THE QUESTION FOR THEM, CAN YOU DEFEND YOUR VOTE AGAINST OR REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. HOW DO YOU STAND UP AND SAY WELL WE HAD REALLY HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED IF THE JOHN BOLTON BOOK IS PUBLISHED IN A COUPLE MONTHS >> RHONDA, IT WAS A LATE LAST NIGHT VIEWERS AND VOTERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION, IF YOU WERE LAST MOMENTS OF THE DAY, WHAT QUESTIONS TO YOU IN THOSE FINAL HOURS THAT WE WERE WATCHING? >> YEAH, IF WE ALL NEED TO CATCH UP, ONE OF THE STANDOUT MOMENTS YESTERDAY WAS FROM KRISTEN SINNAMA, SHE ASK ADD POINTED QUESTION, STRAIGHT FORWARD AND ARTICULATED IN A WAY WE HAVEN’T HEARD YESTERDAY >> NOTE FIDE CONGRESS OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES FUNDS IN MARCH 2019 ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN SEPTEMBER 2019, AND WORK WITH CONGRESS FOR MONDAYS IN 2018 REGARDING FUNDS BEING WITHHELD DUE TO PAKISTAN’S LACK OF PROGRESS MEETING ITS COUNTER TERRORISM RESPONSIBILITIES IN THESE INSTANCES, THE — EXCUSE ME, THE RECEIVING COUNTRIES KNEW THE FUNDS WERE BEING WITHHELD TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR AND FURTHER PUBLICLY STATED AMERICAN POLICY WHY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION WITHHELD THE UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID IT NOT NOTIFY CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE OR PARTNER COUNTRIES PUBLICLY AWARE OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE HOLD >> SO THAT WAS A QUESTION FROM KRISTEN SINNAMA, A CLOSELY WATCHED SENATOR, SHE IS A DEMOCRAT BUT OFTEN VOTES

REPUBLICAN SHE AND SENATOR MANCHIN OFTEN BREAK AND VOTE FOR TRUMP NO, MA’AM NIECE, DIFFERENT POLICY INITIATIVE THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR. SO THAT WAS SORT OF GIVING US A GLIMPSE INTO WHAT PERHAPS A DEMOCRAT IS THINKING RIGHT NOW ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. AND IT WAS A VERY POINTED QUESTION, SHE WAS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT POTENTIAL INEQUITIES IN HOW AID WAS HANDLED BEFORE THE UKRAINE AND HOW IT WAS HANDLE WEEKEND THIS UKRAINE SITUATION THAT STOOD OUT TO MERE, THAT HAPPENED AROUND 11:00 IF YOU DID NOT CATCH IT WHEN IT REALLY HAPPENED GOOGLE AND TRY TO WATCH IT, IT’S VERY INTERESTING ABOUT TODAY WE’RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE THE SAME THING THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE QUESTIONS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE CALLS FOR WITNESS I SPOKE WITH A SENIOR DEMOCRATIC AID, THEIR SIDE IS HOPEFUL, THEY THINK YESTERDAY WENT WELL FOR THEM SO RIGHT HERE ON CAPITOL HILL THAT IS THE FOCUS TODAY IS ABOUT TOMORROW’S VOTE IF THERE WILL BE ENOUGH REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO COME OVER DEMOCRATS HAVE SORT OF A CONTINGENCY PLAN, SENATOR VAN HOLLAND OF MARYLAND INTENDS TO BRING A MOTION TOMORROW WHERE HE IS GOING TO ASK THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEP IN AND WEIGH IN ON THE WITNESS VOTE SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DRAMA AWAITS US FOR THIS VOTE TOMORROW >> RHONDA, QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, HEARING THAT TAPE FROM ONE OF THESE MODERATE DEMOCRATS THAT PEOPLE ARE ALSO WATCHING WE HEARD CHUCK SCHUMER PUTTING PRESSURE ON FOUR REPUBLICANS NEED TO JOIN US ON THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES OF THE LET’S TALK ABOUT MODERATE DEMOCRATS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE WONDERING IF THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PULL THEM OVER TO HAVE BASIC LEAH BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST REMOVING A PRESIDENT OF OFFICE >> YEAH, THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR WEEKS, BEFORE THE TRIAL EVEN BEGAN CLOSELY WATCHED SENATORS MODERATE DEMOCRATS DOUG JONES OF ALABAMA, AND MANCHIN OF WEST VIRGINIA SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK THEY ARE WEIGHING EACH DAY AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THINGS AS THEY GO ALONG I KNOW DOUG JONES SAID EACH DAY HE IS JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH WHATEVER EVIDENCE IS COMING OUT AND THAT IN THE END HE WILL VOTE BASED ON HIS CONSCIENCE AND SO ALL THREE OF THEM HAVEN’T REALLY SAID MUCH ABOUT THEIR ULTIMATE VOTE FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT I AM SURE THERE WERE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TALKING TO THEIR SIDE AS WELL AS DEMOCRATS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEM IN BASE >> RHONDA THANKS SO MUCH LET’S BRING BACK CONVERSATION TO THE TABLE, MATT JOINS US, MATEA I WANT TO SPEND A MINUTE ON MODERATE DEMOCRATS, NO INDICATION THEY WOULD VOTE ON CALLING WITNESSES, EVEN IF YOU ARE A HEAVILY TRUMP DISTRICT THE POLLS SHOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS INTERESTED IN WITNESSES, I WANT TO SEE MORE, I WANT TO HEAR MORE WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR THEM IN TERMS OF THE ULTIMATE VOTE IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE >> UP FOR REELECTION AND THESE VERY TIGHT CONTESTS THEY ARE FACING ENORMOUS PRESSURE FROM THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORTERS ON THIS VOTE. AND SO THEY ARE ACUTELY AWARE THAT AND TRYING TO NAVIGATE THAT IS A POLITICAL CALCULUS, THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE SEEN THEM BE QUIET THROUGH THIS PROCESS IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE SENATOR SINNAMA APPROACHING THE PRESIDENT’S ARGUMENTS WITH SKEPTICISM AND GIVES YOU HINT WHERE HER HEAD IS BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR CAUCUS ALTOGETHER AND THAT IS A PRESSURE THEY ARE FEELING ON INTERNAL FLANKS THAT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING ACUTE GOING INTO THE FINAL DAYS OF THIS >> MATT, HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THE JOHN BOLTON STORY LINE SO CAN YOU GIVE US THE LATEST WHERE THINGS STAND IN TERMS OF THIS FIGHT OVER PUBLICATION AND ALLOWING THE MANUSCRIPT TO MOVE FORWARD, WHO HAS THE DECISION MAKING POWER THERE >> THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL HAS THE DECISION MAKING POWER, THEY ARE THE LATEST THAT WE KNOW AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, PEOPLE WHO REVIEW EX GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MANUSCRIPTS HAS SAID TO BOLTON, WE THINK THERE IS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, A LOT OF IT HIS LAWYER JUST YESTERDAY SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES REPORTED THAT BOLTON’S LAWYERS FEEL LIKE THAT IS NOT TRUE, THEY FEEL THERE IS NOT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN THERE AND THEY WANT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY VISOR — THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO GET THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO HE CAN POTENTIALLY TESTIFY OR AT LEAST KNOW THE BOUNDS OF WHAT HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TALK TO >> IT LOOKS LIKE ADAM SCHIFF AND HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ARE APPROACHING THE MICROPHONE, WE ARE GOING THERE AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IF THEY COME FORWARD AND APPROACH IT IN THE MOMENT THAT WE HAVE THOUGH BEFORE THEY DO, MATEA THIS FIGHT OVER 0 THE MANUSCRIPT

RACES QUESTIONS WHETHER IT NOT ONLY BE SEEN, LET’S GO TO ADAM SCHIFF NOW >> ANSWER A COUPLE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET STARTED TODAY WHAT WE SAW YESTERDAY WERE THE MOST INCREDIBLE ARGUMENTS BORNE OF DESPERATION, IF THE SENATORS EVER FOLLOWED WOULD LEAD THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PATH YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENDERS ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD DO ESSENTIALLY WHATEVER HE WANTED TO SECURE HIS REELECTION NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT, IF HE BELIEVED THAT HIS REELECTION WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST AS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ARGUED, IF THE PRESIDENT DOES A QUID PRO QUO, EVEN ONE WHERE HE WITHHOLDS MILITARY AID FROM ALLY AT WAR, EVEN IF HE TAKES ACTIONS THAT GENERAL — INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AS LONG AS HE THINKS IT’S IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST THAT’S OKAY AND NOTHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO IT ABOUT IT AND WHAT’S MORE, IF PART OF THAT QUID PRO QUO INVOLVES AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, THE FACT THAT HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT GIVES IT GREATER LEGITIMACY NOT LESS, MORE CONSEQUENTIAL THAT IS THE MOST ABSURDLY DANGEROUS ARGUMENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE FACT THAT THEY MUST RESORT TO THIS LEVEL OF DESPERATION IS THE RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS PROVED THE DEFENDANT SCHEME INVOLVED WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID, WITHHOLDING OF A COVETED WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN ORDER TO COERCE, TO EXTORT, TO BLACKMAIL THAT COUNTRY INTO CONDUCTING OR ANNOUNCING THE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS, TO HELPING HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION, THEY WENT ON TO SAY THAT SOLICITING, INVITING, COORDINATING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN A U.S. ELECTION NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT THE FBI DIRECTOR SAYS OR ANY SELF RESPECTING AMERICAN SAYS THAT THEY VIEW THAT AS PERFECTLY FINE, IT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS. BUT IN A IS WHAT THEY’VE HAD TO RESORT TO AS EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO PILE UP OF THE PRESIDENT’S GUILT AND WHEN THAT EVIDENCE THREATENED TO GET EVEN GREATER WITH TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON THEY HAVE GONE TO EXTRA LENGTHS TO PUT A MUSCLE ON JOHN BOLTON TO AVOID CALLING HIM AS A WITNESS, LETTING AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, TO TRY TO STIFLE HIS BOOK TO ATTACKING HIM PUBLICLY BECAUSE THEY FEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE PRESIDENT’S SCHEME HAS BEEN EXPOSED SO THAT’S WHERE THEY ARE WE WILL CONTINUE TODAY TO MAKE THE CASE A CASE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT NEED TO BE MADE TO THIS SENATE AND THAT IS A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES FAIR TRIAL, IMPARTIAL OATH REQUIRES WITNESSES AND THAT’S WHAT THEY SHOULD DELIVER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NO TRIAL, NO VINDICATION NO VINDICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE ASKING >> AT 1:00 QUESTION ASKED REGARDING POTENTIALLY THE WHISTLEBLOWER, INVOLVING NAME DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE — >> AS I SAID YESTERDAY, WE PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS WE NEED THEIR COOPERATION, WE NEED THEIR SUPPORT IN MAKING IT THE COUNTRY WORK AND I’M NOT TALKING SPACE I CANNILY ABOUT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER, I’M TALKING ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS GENERALLY WE RELY ON PEOPLE OF GOOD CONSCIENCE TO REPORT MISCONDUCT THE ONLY POINT IN OUTING THIS WHISTLEBLOWER IS TO SATISFY THE DESIGN OF THE PRESIDENT FOR RETRIBUTION AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS SENATE SHOULD CONDONE >> SOME REPUBLICANS ARE POINTING TO THE [ INAUDIBLE ] >> GOING DOWN THIS FIELD DOCIEA RABBIT HOLD FOR WITHHOLDING MILITARY FOR ALLY AT WAR, TRYING TO COERCE THAT ALLY HELPING HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND TO CONTINUE AND I MAY GREAT FEW THE PRESIDENT AGAIN, PART OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ARE DOING MAY HAVE MEANT TO PERSUADE THE SENATORS, IT’S MEANT TO GREAT FEW THE GRIEVANCES OF THE PRESIDENT BY TALKING ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR JAMES COMEY OR PETER STROZK

OR LISA PAGE. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT, ONLY DONALD TRUMP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS MISCONDUCT AND HE MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT, THANK YOU >> NOW HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ADDRESSING THE CAMERAS TALK ABOUT A COUPLE POINTS THAT THEY MADE INCLUDING THE QUESTION OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. ARE YOU GETTING A SENSE IN HOW ADAM SCHIFF IS TALKING ABOUT MATEA CONCERN MUCH WITNESSES MAY ULTIMATELY NOT BE CALLED >> HELSINKI WHAT WE’RE SEEING IS SCHIFF AND THE DEMOCRATS MARY THEIR ASTONISHMENT DERSHOWITZ WAS MAKING ABOUT THE CONCERN OF WITNESSES, TRYING TO GIN UP OUTRAGE, REALLY EXPRESSING ASTONISHMENT AND SAY HE IS GOING THIS FAR, THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO BE SET AND WE ACTUALLY DO NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT ACTIONS COULD BE IMPEACHABLE BY A PRESIDENT AND ASSESS THAT IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WE NEED WITNESSES AND YOU KNOW, STRONG WORDS FROM ADAM SCHIFF THERE TALKING ABOUT HOW A RESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS THIS ARGUMENT IS WE SAW DERSHOWITZ TRY TO WALK BACK TODAY, HE DID SAY IF A PRESIDENT WAS ACTING IN THE NATION’S INTEREST QUID PRO QUO HE EXECUTE WEEKEND THAT MENTALITY WOULD BE LEGAL AND NOT IMPEACHABLE SO THE FACT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS HANGING OVER THE DEBATE ABOUT WITNESSES IS INTERESTING >> DERRY WHO IT DOESN’T MATTER, LET’S SAY THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO TO HELP TRUMP BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT >> LET’S LISTEN TO THIS THIS CAME FROM QUESTION FROM REPUBLICAN SENATOR TED CRUZ, LISTEN TO ALAN DERRY WHO WES >> ADDRESSED TO COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOES IT MATTER IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO? IS IT TRUE THAT KID PRO COULDS ARE OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN POLICY >> EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL I KNOW BELIEVES HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND MOSTLY YOU ARE RIGHT YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT I WANT TO BE ELECTED I THINK I’M A GREAT PRESIDENT THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IF THERE EVER WAS THAT CANNOT BE IMPEACH APP OFFENSE THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> WONDERING IF REPUBLICANS WOULD ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT AS ALAN DERSHOWITZ, WE DID HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE CITING ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AND THE SENATE REPUBLICANS KNOW AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE EMPHASIZING IF THEY VOTE TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS ARGUMENT THIS IS AN IMPLICIT ENDORSEMENT THAT THIS IS A RATIONAL >> MIKE RON REPUBLICAN FROM INDIANA, I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER, SO SOMEONE WHO IS APPROVING OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM HAD BEEN MAKING BEFORE TRIED TO USE THIS FREE CARD IS NOT BEING A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER THIS IS ONE OF THOSE LAW SCHOOL EXTREMES, TAKE THIS TO EXTREME CONCLUSION PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED THAT HE ALONE CAN MAKE THE NATION GREAT SO ANYTHING HE WOULD DO QUID PRO QUO OR NO, IF THAT’S IN THE INTEREST OF THE MISSION, THEN IT’S OKAY THERE IS A FAIRWAY TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS FOREIGN POLICY OFTEN INVOLVES QUID PRO QUOS, THEY CAN HAVE POLITICAL BENEFITS FOR THE PRESIDENT OR THE PERSON MAKING THEM, AND FOR THE COUNTRY AT LARGE, IF HE MAKES A GREAT DEAL WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE SEND TROOPS OVER SEAS AND GET BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HERE, THAT’S A QUID PRO QUO, THIS EXTREME LIKE GOES EVEN A TIP BEYOND THAT, WELL PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING ELECT SOUTH DAKOTA GOOD FOR THE NATION, ALMOST LIKE THEREFORE ANYTHING COUNTY DO IS OKAY I THINK THEY HAVEN’T SAID IT EX PRESIDENCYITILY REPUBLICANS DON’T GO WANT TO SAY >> HOW REPUBLICANS ARE REABILITYING TO THIS NOW, SO PAULA, START WITH THAT WHAT IS THE SENT >>BOB BRENLY: ON THE HILL FROM REPUBLICANS SO THEY LOVE DERSHOWITZ MONDAY NIGHT MAKING THIS ARGUMENT THAT THERE COULD BE MIXED MOTIVES ON THE ONE HAND TRUMP MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BENEFIT HIS CAMPAIGN BUT ALSO THERE WAS A REAL NATIONAL POLICY INTEREST, AND SO YOU CAN’T JUDGE, IT’S REALLY TOO HARD TO FIGURE OUT WAS IT 52% THIS OR 48% THAT IN THE END HE DID WHAT HE DID AND THERE WAS A REAL NATIONAL

INTEREST IN WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERSONAL BENEFIT ALSO, THAT’S OKAY 0 THEY LOVE THAT REPUBLICANS ON TUESDAY WERE JUST SINGING DERSHOWITZ’S PRICES, THEY FELT LIKE THEY COULD SAY, YEAH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, TRUMP DID WHAT HE DID BUT IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE, IT’S NOT REMOVABLE, IT’S NOT CONVICTABLE THEY LOVE THAT. YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THEY WERE REALLY CONFUSED, WENT DEEPER INTO LAWSUIT RATIONAL AND LIKE TAKING IT TO THE NNTH DEGREE, THE MIXED MOTIVE ON THE ONE HAND OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT’S FINE, TOO, THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE THAT GOT REPUBLICANS THEY GOT A LITTLE BIT UNEASY THEY REALLY WANTED TO GO BACK TO THAT MONDAY NIGHT DERSHOWITZ AND STICK TO THAT VERSION AND NOT MONDAY AFTERNOON VERSION >> TELL US ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI’S CALL FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO AN TIE BREAKER IN THE EVENT THERE IS A 50/50 VOTE >> YEAH, SHE WAS KIND OF DODGING A QUESTION THAT I THREW AT HER IN THE END THIS WOULD AN — CONGRESS IMPEACHED HIM OR END BOLD ENDED DONALD TRUMP HAVING BEEN ACQUITTED BY THE SENATE SHE BASICALLY SAID HE WILL NEVER BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE IT WILL BE A SHAM TRIAL. IF IT COMES TO A 50/50 VOTE SHE IS ONE OF THOSE THAT BELIEVES, 50/50 VOTE ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHOULD WEIGH IN AND ACTUALLY CAST A TIE BREAKING VOTE THERE. IS A LOT OF CONFLICTING BELIEFS, LEGAL, PARLIAMENT AIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CHIEF JUSTICE HAS THAT ROLE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A VOTE THAT HIT 50/50 WHEREIN THE CHIEF JUSTICE BROKE THAT TIE THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A SENATE VOTE IN THE REGULAR — AMENDMENT THAT WAS 50/50 AND THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BREAK A TIE IT’S REALLY SETTING UP A POTENTIALLY MASSIVE CONCENTRATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE FIRST BRANCH SUING TO TRY TO GET THE DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM THE ARTICLE 2 BRANCH YELLING AT ARTICLE 3 AND SUPREME COURT IN WHICH YOU HAVE ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT NOW IN THIS MASSIVE BRAWL SO, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN FIRST YOU HAVE TO GET TO A 50/50 AND WE DO NOT YET KNOW WHETHER THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE >> PAUL KANE FROM THE HILL THIS IS SUCH A BIG QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE ABLE TO BRING OVER REPUBLICANS LET’S TALK ABOUT THE DEGREE OF THE ROOM BASED ON WHAT THE QUESTIONS WERE AND WHO THEY WERE COMING FROM IT WAS REALLY SIGNIFICANT YESTERDAY NOT JUST TO LISTEN TO THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS, BUT THE MANNER THAT THE WAY THAT MODERATES OR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAD A SET OPINION WERE PRESENTING THEIR QUESTIONS >> YEAH, MOST OF THE DAY I FELT LIKE IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK, PEOPLE WERE ASKING MEMBERS OF THEIR FELLOW PARTY LITTLE SOFT BALL QUESTION THAT THEY PREPARED FOR I THINK WE GOT MORE INTERESTING QUESTIONS IN TICKET QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM ABOUT WHAT IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY SOUGHT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA BEFORE JOE BIDEN LAUNCHED A CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER SAID THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, THERE IS NOTHING THERE I CAN SPEAK TO AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS INCREDIBLY TELLING, THAT DOES GO TO MOTIVE AND THAT IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE SAW DERSHOWITZ, EXPLAIN YOU CAN HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE, TWO MODERATES MAY BE STRUGGLING WITH THAT QUESTION IS IT OKAY IF ALL THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS REALLY ONLY INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS ONCE JOE BIDEN WAS CLEARLY GOING TO BE ARRIVAL FOR 2020 >> SHORT OF ENGAGED IN FACTS, CRITICAL AND APPROPRIATE MODERATE WITNESSES ARE DEEPLY ENGAGED THIS IS MODERATE WITNESSES ENGAGED IN THE FACTS >> BEFORE WE LET YOU KNOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE QUESTION OF THE JOHN BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHERE IT’S AT SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN GOING ON OUTSIDE OF THE QUESTION OF THE MAN ADSCRIPT. BUT FINISH TELLING US ABOUT THE LEGAL FIGHT TAKING PLACE AND WHAT THE IMPLICATION MIGHT BE IF THE MANUSCRIPTS COULD BE SEEN BY SENATORS >> THERE ARE TWO LEGAL FIGHTS, ONE, WHAT IS THE FATE OF THIS TEXT THAT JOHN BOLTON HAS WRITTEN, WILL THE PUBLIC EVER GET TO SEE THAT, SENATORS GET TO SEE THAT SORT OF RELATED WILL HE GET TO TESTIFY. ONE OF THE THINGS IT SEEMS LIKE HE IS OUT TO DO IS PROVE THAT HE IS NOT JUST TRYING TO SELL BOOKS, THAT HE WANTS TO TELL HIS STORY TO SENATOR. BUT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT TRY TO BLOCK THAT, TAX AS

THEY SOUGHT TO BLOCK THE BOOK THEY MIGHT TELL HIM, HEY, JOHN, WE HAVE SERIOUS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CONCERNS AND THERE MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, HE WAS NATIONAL SECURITY VISOR, SO YOU MIGHT SEE A LEGAL BATTLE OVER WHERE HE CAN APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE AND LONGER TERM A LEGAL BATTLE OVER WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS MATERIAL IN THIS BOOK IT’S TOUGH, JUST COVERING OTHER CASES NOT BOLTON’S BUT OTHER CASES OF FBI EMPLOYEES ARE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES WHO WANT TO BUY A BOOK, PREPUBLICATION REVIEW, THE AGENCY STRIPPED OUT ALL THE GOOD STUFF THAT SHOULDN’T BE CLASSIFIED BUT THEY DEEM IT IS AND THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER IN THIS >> IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT PIECE THAT YOU FILED THIS WEEK POINTS OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND ALLIES ARE WORKING TO UNDERMINE JOHN BOLTON’S CREDIBILITY HAPPENING OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER, PUTTING PRESSURE ON SENATORS, THERE IS AN EFFORT TO DIMINISH HIM IN TERMS OF HIS IMPORTANCE AS WELL AS LOYALTY TO THE PARTY WHICH IS A SHOCKING PLACE TO BE GIVEN JOHN BOLTON’S CREDENTIALS LET’S GO BACK TO RHONDA WITH A MEMBER OF THE SENATE JURY, RHONDA >> THAT’S RIGHT, I’M HERE WITH SENATOR COREY BOOKER, CAN YOU TELL ME, CAN DEMOCRATS REALLY BE CONFIDENTS AS WE GO INTO THIS DAY BEFORE THE WITNESS VOTE THAT REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES >> HAVE YOU TO CONTINUE TO CALL OUT, I MEAN ABSURDITY, WE CAN’T LOSE — WE CAN’T LOSE OUR SENSE OF OUTRAGE, WE HAVE JOHN BOLTON LITERALLY, THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING, I TRUST — NOT JOHN BOLTON, JOHN KELLY, THAT I TRUST JOHN BOLTON AND SO, THIS TO ME IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPLICIT COMMENTS OF — WE CAN’T TRUST THE PRESIDENT, THAT HE WAS A PERSON WHO HAS FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IS SO PERTINENT TO A MAJOR ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT THAT WE SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE FACT THAT WE PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO BRING THAT INTO COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, NOT TO MENTION THIS HIGH COURT THAT WE’RE IN RIGHT NOW IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME. SO I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRAY ON IT, CONTINUE TO HOPE FOR IT AND UNTIL THAT LAST VOTE IS CAST I AM STILL GOING TO BELIEVE THAT COMMON SENSE AND PATRIOTISM CAN RULE OUT OVER FEAR AND PARTISANSHIP >> IF IT’S THE END OF THE DAY TOMORROW AND THIS VOTE IS DEFEATED, WHAT IN YOUR VIEW SHOULD BE NEXT? >> WELL, AGAIN, I COME FROM THE SAME HISTORY YOU DO IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WE’VE SEEN BAD LOSSES, WE’VE SEEN DARK TIMES, WE’VE SEEN MORAL VANDALISM, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, STONEWALL, THELMA, GO BACK TO THE DAWNING OF OUR HISTORY, WE’VE SEEN AWFUL TIME THINGS HAPPENING A FRONT TO THE IDEALS OF THIS NATION, BUNKER HILL, AND WE FOUND WAYS TO REGROUP AND COME BACK STRONGER THIS COMING ELECTION IS A — NOT RIGHT OR LEFT, THIS IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I KNOW MY FRIENDS IN THE SENATE WHEN THEY ARE TALKING PRIVATELY AN HORDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS GUY WE WOULDN’T — THIS IS A — THIS IS NOW A TIME FOR US TO REGROUP AND BRING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO THE FOCUS IT REALLY IS NOT RIGHT OR LEFT BUT RIGHT OR WRONG IT’S A MOMENT ABOUT BIGGER ISSUES, ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DEAL AS A PLANET WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, THAT IS ON THE BALLOT OUTRAGEOUS FEAR ABOUT GETTING SICK OR HOARDING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT IS ON THE BALLOT SEND OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL WITH THE IMPLICIT MESSAGE WE CAN’T PROTECT YOU NOW SO WE ARE GOING TO TEACH YOU HOW TO HIDE AND DO SHELTER IN PLACE DRILLS THIS IS ON THE BALLOT AND SO I’M READY TO FIGHT IN THESE LAST HOURS FOR TRUTH AND/OR GETTING THAT TRUTH ON THE SENATE FLOOR, IF THAT FAILS I WILL NOT GIVE UP YOU AND I WOULD NOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW IF OUR ANCESTORS GAVE UP WHEN THINGS WEPT WRONG OR WENT AGAINST OUR WAY >> I HAVE WORD TO ASK YOU, I HAVE SIGNAL YOU ARE ASKED TO RUN. LIBBY, BACK TO YOU >> THANKS SO MUCH, RHONDA DONNA, IT SEEMS LIKE COREY BOOKER HAS I WISH I WERE IN IOWA RIGHT NOW I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE TIME LINE OF THINGS, SENATOR BOOKER IS NO LONGER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, FOUR PEOPLE IN THIS JURY WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND WANT TO BE IN IOWA THE TIMING OF THIS IS SIGNIFICANT TO HOW THEY DEAL WITH THE FINAL PUSH BEFORE THE CAUCUS ON MONDAY NIGHT SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE TIME LINE OF THINGS? >> SO, THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS UNTIL 10:00, 11:00 TONIGHT >> THEY HAVE ALMOST 8 HOURS LEFT >> YES, EXACTLY SO, WE GOT ABOUT 70 QUESTIONS

LAST NIGHT I WOULD EXPECT THE SAME TODAY ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE’RE GOING TO DEAL WITH AT 1:00 IS SENATOR RAND PAUL IS TRYING TO PRESS FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER JOHN ROBERTS PUSHED BACK ON THAT YESTERDAY, WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS AGAIN TODAY >> AND SO JUST TO DIG INTO THAT FOR A MOMENT RAND PAUL WANTED TO PUT WHO HE BELIEVES IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THE QUESTION? >> RIGHT >> SO IT WOULD FALL ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO READ THIS >> RIGHT >> AND NAME WHO RAND PAUL BELIEVES TO BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER >> EXACTLY AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE PUSHED BACK ON THAT? >> YES SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS TODAY? I WOULD MENTION THAT MOST OF THE QUESTIONING HAS GONE THROUGH THE TWO LEADERS, McCONNELL AND SCHUMER SO I THINK THERE IS AN EFFORT BY McCONNELL AS WELL WHO DOESN’T WANT TO SEE THIS TURN INTO A CIRCUS AT THE START OF THE PROCEEDINGS >> THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT TURNING INTO A CIRCUS, ABOUT THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS AND ETHICS OF THIS MOMENT, IS THAT ALSO BEING CONSIDERED BY THE REPUBLICANS? >> I WOULD THINK SO, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY TELLING YESTERDAY ADAM SCHIFF’S RESPONSE TO THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER THAT HE TOOK QUOTES FROM CHARLES GRASSLEY, RICHARD BURR, DEVIN NUNES AND POSTED THEM ON THE VIDEO SCREEN SHOWING THEIR DEFENSE OF WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION >> SO THAT WILL BE THE FIRST BIT OF DRAMA TO UNFOLD AS WE SEE THINGS START OFF AROUND 1:00. WE GO THROUGH THE 8 HOURS OF QUESTIONING, UP TO ALMOST 8 HOURS OF QUESTIONING TODAY TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL WITNESSES. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF A TIME LINE, IS THAT ON TRACK FOR TOMORROW? >> YES. FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE WHEN THEY COME IN EQUALLY DIVIDED THEN A REQUEST OF WHETHER THEY GO TO PRIVATE DELIBERATIONS ON WHAT TO DO. THERE ARE SOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO ARE SAYING IT’S YOU UNNECESSARY OATHS WHO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD DO THAT AND THEN THEY WILL LIKELY HAVE A VOTE PROBABLY TOMORROW NIGHT ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHERE THOSE VOTES ARE McCONNELL SUGGESTED THE OTHER DAY THAT HE DIDN’T HAVE THE VOTES REPUBLICANS ARE EXPRESSING MORE CONFIDENCE SINCE THEN THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PREVENT CALLING ANY WITNESSES FOR NEW EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL AND DEMOCRATS I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT SEAMLESS OPTIMISTIC ABOUT PREVAILING ON THAT VOTE >> WE JUST HEARD PAUL KANE ONE OF THE REPORTERS ON YOUR TEAM TALK ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI PROPOSING THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE BREAK A TIE HE DUG INTO THE POTENTIAL TIE THAT MIGHT CREATE, I’M WONDERING ABOUT IF IT WOULD GIVE ANYONE COVER, A WAY THEN FOR REPUBLICANS TO NOT HAVE LIKE THE ONE REPUBLICAN WHO TURNED THE TIDE, OR DOES THAT PUT THEM IN A TOUGHER SITUATION OR EASIER SITUATION AS THEY TAKE A VOTE >> INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST CHIEF JUSTICE HAS WEIGHED IN 100 YEARS AGO OR SO ON SOME OF THE MINOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS TRIAL OR REGARDING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BUT THIS WOULD BE THE DECISION AND IT’S HARD TO SEE THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEPPING INTO THAT ROLE ESPECIALLY SINCE SO FAR AS BOB BARNES REPORTED YESTERDAY, HE HAS BEEN THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER AS OPPOSED TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE OR PRESIDING OVER THE TRIAL AND MAKING DECISIONS EVEN WHEN HE RECEIVES THE QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS, IT’S REALLY JUST READING THE QUESTIONS I CAN’T LOUD, HE’S NOT VETTING THE QUESTIONS OR MAKING ANY COMMENT AIRY ABOUT THE QUESTIONS >> CERTAINLY NOT FACT CHECKING THEM OR FACT CHECKING THE ANSWERS, DEFINITELY NOT DOING THAT MADE SURE TO KEEP PEOPLE ON THE 5 MINUTE RULE >> OKAY, SO BACK TO THE TIME LINE SO, YOU KNOW THAT SETS US UP FORD HARPER THE VOTE ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES ON A FRIDAY IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED, WHAT HAPPENS SATURDAY? >> SO, IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED I THINK SENATOR McCONNELL WOULD MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO TRY TO HAVE THE VOTES ON THE TWO CHARGES AND PUSH FOR THE ACQUITTAL >> ON FRIDAY NIGHT? >> ON FRIDAY NIGHT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER DEMOCRATS WOULD WANT TO FILE ANY SORT OF MOTIONS TO DELAY THAT TO SEEK WITNESSES, TO GET THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO DECIDE SENATOR VAN HOLLAND HAS SUGGESTED WOULD DO THAT IT COULD DRAG OUT THAT WE’RE LOOKING AT ONE OR 2 IN THE MORNING AS WE DID THE FIRST FULL

DAY OF THE TRIAL. THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY WANT THAT VOTE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO COME BACK LATER ON SATURDAY >> WHEN YOU SAY VOTE AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING NOT FOR THEIR COMFORT AND WELL-BEING, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL OPTICS AND CUT, GOSH, WEEKS, MINUTES AFTER THE VOTE IS CAST SAYING IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT THE REPUBLICANS VOTED THIS WAY >> EXACTLY >> OKAY DONNA, WHAT IS THE TALK AMONG REPUBLICANS IN TERMS OF LENGTHENING THIS OUT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS BLEEDS NOT INTO JUST THE WEEKEND BUT ALSO MONDAY AND A REMINDER OF THE CALL AN CAR, IOWA CAUCUS MONDAY NIGHT, STATE OF THE UNION TUESDAY NIGHT >> INTERESTING TO SEE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE 2020 CANDIDATES, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES, THEIR CONCERN ABOUT WHAT A LONGER TRIAL WOULD MEAN FOR SENATE BUSINESS >> 2020 SENATORS, PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPERVISOR PORE REELECTION >> SEVERAL QUESTIONS YESTERDAY ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON SENATE PROCEEDINGS IF THE TRIAL GOES ON FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND I KNOW THAT MARTHA Mc SALLY RAISED THAT QUESTION AND ALSO MADE THE POINT YESTERDAY THAT IT WOULD BE SHE ARGUED IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SENATE THE ISSUE HERE THOUGH IS THE SENATE HAS NOT BY ALL ACCOUNTS HAS NOT DONE A LOT OF LEGISLATION OVER THE PAST YEAR >> THE REPORTING HAD BEEN THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THIS DONE BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION IS THAT STILL THE READ FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? DOES THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ON HIS TEAM SEE A GAIN FOR FIGHTING IN THE MIDST OF THIS AND GIVING STATE OF THE UNION AT THE SAME TIME >> IT’S INTERESTING, SEVERAL DEMOCRATS AND I DON’T KNOW IF ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SUGGESTED THIS, BUT THE NOTION THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS THIS OVER BY THE SUPER BOWL AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPER BOWL IS ON FOX THIS YEAR, AND THE PRESIDENT TYPICALLY DOES AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NETWORK SO, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE INTERVIEWED ON SUNDAY SO I THINK THE IDEA IS TO GET THIS OVER WITH BY SUNDAY NIGHT >> INTERVIEW BY SEAN HANNITY A HOST IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CORNER BY NOT ONE OF A JOURNALIST WHO WOULD ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS RHONDA, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING IOWA CAUCUSES, CONSIDERING THE STATE OF THE UNION, WHAT IS THE CONVERSATION LIKE ON CAPITOL HILL ABOUT HOW THE NEXT WEEK PLAYS OUT? >> YEAH, LIBBY, I HAVE BEEN DOING A LITTLE BIT OF POLLING IN THE HALLWAYS AND ON MY PHONE TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT PEOPLE IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE ARE FEELING ABOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS, RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE STATE OF THE UNION YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO A DEMOCRATIC AID STATE OF THE UNION, WE ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE STATE OF THE UNION, EVERYTHING IS ON THE IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE THEY ARE DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL, PERHAPS ON TUESDAY WHEN WE HAVE THE STATE OF THE UNION IT WILL BE THAT A TYPICAL STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS MAYBE, I DON’T KNOW, IT’S ALSO GOING TO HAVE THIS, YOU KNOW, TRIAL OVER SHADOWING IT. I AM ALSO THINKING ABOUT THE POLITICS AT PLAY, TOO YESTERDAY WE KNOW WHEN THIS PRESIDENT SIGNED THE USMCA DEAL, THE TRADE DEAL THAT HAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT HE DID NOT INVITE ANY DEMOCRATS TO COME AND SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS TO GET THAT TRADE DEAL THROUGH. AND YOU KNOW, I DON’T THINK DEMOCRATS WERE SURPRISED THAT THEY WEREN’T INVITED SHOW YOU THE PRESIDENT’S THINKING RIGHT NOW. SO IF HE DID NOT INVITE THEM TO THAT, WHAT IS HIS STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH GOING TO BE LIKE RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE STATE OF THE UNION ON TUESDAY, WHEN IT COMES IT WILL BE FAIRLY INTERESTING TO SEE HOW EVERYONE APPROACHES IT >> THANKS SO MUCH, RHONDA LET’S BRING IN ROBERT BARNES OUR COLLEAGUE THAT COVERS THE SUPREME COURT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, BOB AS YOU SO WELL DESCRIBED IS THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER LEADING THE CLASS AS SOMEONE WHO HAS WATCHED HIM SO OFTEN IN THE COURT, TELL US ABOUT YOUR READ ON WHAT HE HAS DONE SO FAR AND WHAT HIS ROLE HAS BEEN, TEMPMENT HAS BEEN >> HE — HE WANTS TO PROTECT THE COURT THAT’S HIS GOAL IN ALL OF THIS THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT, HE HAS SPENT EVERY SORT OF WAKING MOMENT OUTSIDE THE COURT TALKING ABOUT ITS IMPARTIALITY, THE FACT THAT IT’S NOT PARTISAN, IT MAY BE AID AID LOGICALLY DIVIDED, TRYING NOT TO LOOK PARTISAN GOING FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER HE FOR THE LONGEST TIME DIDN’T HAVE MUCH TO DO, YOU KNOW, HE KEPT — HE KEPT WATCH OF THE CLOCK IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY TO THOSE OF

US WHO COVER THE COURT WHERE AN ADVOCATE HAS 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT HIS OR HER POINT OF VIEW, AND IT WAS A BIG DEAL THIS TERM WHEN THE COURT DECIDED THAI ADVOCATE WOULD HAVE 2 MINUTES OF UNINTERRUPTED TIME BEFORE THE JUSTICES STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER DAY — >> I AM GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WOULD DO, THE LAWYER PREPPING FOR THIS FOR SO LONG, START TO TALK AND JUSTICE WOULD JUMP IN RIGHT AWAY WITH A REALLY TOUGH QUESTION >> GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED SO THEN THE CHIEF WE WATCHED HIM GET UP THE OTHER DAY AND SAY THAT THEY HAD 16 HOURS AND 43 MINUTES OR WHAT IT WAS TO GO YOU KNOW, IT’S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING THAT HE IS PRESIDING OVER HERE THAN WHAT HE DOES AT THE SUPREME COURT >> IS THIS — YES, WATCHING SOME OLD FOOTAGE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE >> YOU KNOW, YOU SEE HIM TRYING TO BE I THINK VERY DOWN THE MIDDLE, YOU KNOW, HE DID APPARENTLY REJECT ONE QUESTION, TOLD THE SENATORS HE WOULD NOT RELAY A QUESTION THAT TO NAME THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THIS CASE >> THAT WAS FASCINATING, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH DON A, RAND PAUL, SENATOR WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION THAT HAD THE WHISTLEBLOWER, ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER’S NAME IN IT LIKE, SO THAT IS THE ONE MOMENT MUSCLE, HE DIDN’T DO IT IN AN OVERT SHOW WOULD WAY IT WASN’T THIS BIG HIGHLIGHT MOMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY NO, HE READ THE QUESTION WITHOUT ANY EFFECT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HE THINKS OF THEM I WAS AMUSED YESTERDAY HE WAS READING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS OWN POWER, DOES THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS? YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS, BY THE WAY, ARE VERY OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S POWERS ARE, ONLY TWO OTHER CHIEF JUSTICES HAVE PRESIDED AT A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS THE ONLY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT THE JUSTICE IS BROUGHT IN FOR AND SO THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH OF A TRACK RECORD >> WHAT COULD CHANGE THAT SUBSTITUTE TEACHER TYPE OF ROLE THAT HE HAS BEEN PLAYING? >> I GUESS A TIE VOTE IS WHAT WOULD CHANGE THAT AND AGAIN, THAT IS A QUESTION IN WHICH SCHOLARS DISAGREE, DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREAK A TIE VOTE? SOME ARGUE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS CONTAINED IN THE SENATE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION TALKS ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT’S ABILITY AS THE HEAD OF THE SENATE TO BREAK A TIE VOTE, IT DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHEN PRESIDING OVER ONE OF THESE TRIALS. AND SO THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK IF HE IS A ASSUMING ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SITS IN THIS POSITION, THEN YES, HE CAN BREAK A TIE OTHERS SAY NO, THAT’S — IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BORN SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION YOU HATE TO BE PUT IN THAT POSITION >> THAT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT POINT WHAT HE WOULD WANT TO DO, WHAT HE SEES HIS ROLE AS A ARREST BY TO ARBITER AS TO WHAT >> WELL DID HE AND IN THE SENATE HAS CHANGED ITS RULES SINCE THEN THAT MAKES THAT MUCH MORE AMBIGUOUS AND SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THEY WERE HAPPY WITH THAT PROCEDURE THE ONLY OTHER MODERN TRIAL WE’VE HAD WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST PRESIDED AT BILL CLINTON’S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HE DIDN’T FACE ANY TIE VOTES IN FACT, HE HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO BECAUSE OF THE SENATORS AGREED ON SO MUCH ABOUT THAT TRIAL, ABOUT WITNESSES, AND ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT HE WAS NOT REALLY CALLED UPON TO MAKE ANY KIND OF TOUGH DECISION >> DONNA, THIS WOULDN’T BE BREAKING A TIE VOTE OVER A PROCEDURAL MATTER OR WHETHER IT’S I CAN’T LOT MORE TIME TO BOTH SIDES, IT WOULD BE TIED BECAUSE THERE IS CONTROVERSIAL AND A QUESTION ON THE TABLE WHETHER OR NOT R NOT TO CALL WITNESSES >> INCENSE OF HIS DECISIONS ON OBAMACARE IN THE PAST, HIS PUSHBACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S

CLAIM ABOUT OBAMA JUDGES AND TRUMP JUDGES ALL OF THAT WOULD COME TO THE FLOOR IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE >> YEAH WELL YOU KNOW, IT’S INTERESTING, TOO. ROBERTS I AM SURE HE HAS A LOT OF RESPECT FROM THE SENATORS HE DOESN’T HAVE A LOT OF BUDDIES IN THE SENATE THE REPUBLICANS HOLD THE OBAMACARE VOTE AGAINST HIM SO MUCH THAT IT WILL ALWAYS BE THIS GIANT ASTERISK, UNIFORMLY CONSERVATIVE, THE DEMOCRATS DON’T LIKE HIM FOR THOSE BIG VOTES AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT LIKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS SORT OF THINGS THEY’VE GOT HIM >> SO WE MAY AGAIN EXPECT TO SEE THIS QUESTION FROM RAND PAUL ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWER NAMED IN IT, ROBERTS IS IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO FIGURE THIS OUT DO WE KNOW IF WE DEALT WITH REPUBLICAN RANKS BEFORE WE GET TO THAT PHASE CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF THE POWER DYNAMIC >> I’M LOOKING AT MY NOTES OF WHAT IS THE PLAN. RAND PAUL HAS A NEWS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED, I GATHER HE EXPECTS ROBERTS TO SAY YOU CAN’T DO IT OR AT LEAST DECIDE THAT IT’S NOT GOING TO — HE IS NOT GOING TO REVEAL THAT NAME SO PAUL WILL IMMEDIATELY HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT AND PERHAPS USE THE NAME OF THE ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWER >> ALL RIGHT >> SORE OF FELT TO ME, YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAT THE OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE IN LINE ON THIS, THEY DON’T PARTICULARLY WANT THIS TO HAPPEN EITHER, AM I RIGHT? >> YES, WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE I MEAN CHARLES GRASSLEY HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT IN PUSHING FOR WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AS SCHIFF POINTED OUT IN PUTTING THOSE QUOTES UP, THAT’S CERTAINLY THE CASE >> LET’S TALK ABOUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT’S DAY, EVERYONE FEELS THEY ARE LONG DAYS THE MORNINGS LIKE HOW IS HE SPENDING HIS MORNINGS, WHAT IS ON THE SUPREME COURT’S SLATE RIGHT NOW >> THERE IS COME AT A FAIRLY GOOD TIME FOR HIM IN THAT THE COURT ALWAYS TAKES A REGULARLY SCHEDULED BREAK ABOUT THIS TIME OF YEAR SO, THERE AREN’T ANYMORE ORAL ARGUMENTS UNTIL THE END OF FEBRUARY, ACTUALLY HE DID HAVE SOME DAYS WHERE THERE WERE — HE PRESIDED OVER ORAL ARGUMENTS AT THE COURT, THEN HE GOT IN THE CAR, DROVE A BLOCK TO THE CAPITAL AND STARTED IN THE SENATE AND THOSE WERE VERY LONG DAYS FOR HIM HE HADN’T SHOWN ANY COMPLAINT YOU MIGHT REMEMBER HE SPENT HIS 65th BIRTHDAY MONDAY PRESIDING OVER THE SENATE, I’M SURE THAT WASN’T HOW HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO TURN 65 BUT, YOU KNOW, HE ALSO IS A STUDENT OF HISTORY, HE KNOWS HOW IMPORTANT AND HISTORICAL THIS IS HE TAKES IT VERY SERIOUSLY, HE PREPARES WELL FOR EVERYTHING I WAS WATCHING AND SORT OF INTERESTED YESTERDAY WHERE HE WANTED TO KNOW WHERE EVERY SENATOR WAS, THE QUESTION THAT HE COULD IDENTIFY THE SENATOR, I’M SURE HE PREPARED FOR THAT VERY WELL. THERE WAS A STORY THAT HE ONCE WHEN SPEAKING TO A LAW SCHOOL CLASS AFTER HE HAD BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE ASKED FOR PHOTOS OF THE STUDENTS BEFORE HAND SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE FOR TO TALK TO A CLASS OF STUDENTS. SO I AM SURE HE REALLY PREPARED FOR PRESIDING OVER THE SENATE, YOU KNOW HE IS A GUY WHO DOESN’T LIKE THINGS LEFT TO CHANCE >> ANDREW PHILLIPS WAS OUR GUEST YESTERDAY, SHE POINTED OUT SHE HAS BEEN WATCHING OLD FOOTAGE HOW CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST PRESIDED OVER THE CLINTON TRIAL, HE WOULD READ MORE CLEARLY WHO THE QUESTION WAS COMING FROM, WE DON’T HAVE CONTROL OF THE CAMERAS, JOURNALISTS CAN’T CAN TROLL CAMERAS, WE ARE PLAYING GUESSING GAMES WHO IS ACTUALLY SUBMITTING THE QUESTIONS SOMETIMES IT’S OBVIOUS BY VOICE, WE KNOW WHAT STATE THEY ARE FROM, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS SENATOR FROM ALASKA, WE KNOW IT’S THE REPUBLICANS TURN, IT MUST BE, HE HADN’T BEEN SAYING ALL OF THE PEOPLE — BECAUSE HE CAN SEE IT, HE DOESN’T HAVE TO RELY ON THE CAMERAS >> REMEMBER, HE IS NOT A BIGGY ON CAMERA THERE ARE NO CAMERAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OBVIOUSLY, HE HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE WHO HAS BEEN OPPOSED TO TELEVISING THE COURT’S PROCEEDINGS THIS IS A NEW THING FOR HIM YOU KNOW, — AND IT’S A NEW THING FOR AMERICANS, WHEN DO YOU EVER SEE THE CHIEF JUSTICE? YOU SEE HIM SWEARING IN THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, STATING THE

OATH AND YOU SEE HIM SILENTLY AT STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES WHERE OF COURSE HE DOESN’T TALK OR, YOU KNOW, EVEN TRY TO SHOW EMOTION ONCE AGAIN AND SO THIS IS KIND OF THE FIRST CHANCE THAT AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LONG EXPOSURE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE EVEN THOUGH THEY’VE HEARD VERY LITTLE OF WHAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY SAY >> ROBERT BARNES THANK YOU SO MUCH DONNA, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY AND WHAT THEY REVEALED ABOUT SOME OF THESE MODERATES THE FIRST QUESTION CAME FROM A TRIO ALL WATCHING CLOSELY TO SEE HOW THEY MAY BE WEIGHING THIS VOTE FOR WITNESSES SO THIS IS SENATOR COLLINS SPEAKING FIRST >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR ROMNEY >> ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, AND PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTERESTS, HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE ONE? >> THE STANDARD THEY HAVE TO SET FOR THEMSELVES IS ESTABLISHING THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS A POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE, THAT DESTROYS THEIR CASE. SO ONCE YOU ARE INTO MIXED MOTIVE LAND, IT’S CLEAR THAT THEIR CASE FAILS, THERE CAN’T POSSIBLY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL >> I WHAT IT DEWPOINT THAT REVEAL TO YOU, POSED BY THE SENATORS RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE >> IT SUGGESTED TO ME THAT THEY ARE UNCERTAIN AT THIS POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO ARRIVE AT THEIR DECISION ON WITNESSES LOOKING FOR A STANDARD OF PROOF, WOULD POINT OUT THAT LATER ON IN THE PROCEEDINGS LAST NIGHT THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION FROM COLLINS REGARDING WHY THERE WAS NOT A CHARGE OF EXTORTION AND BRIBE EARLY, I BELIEVE WAS THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTION AND THERE WAS AN IDEA THAT MAYBE THE ANSWERS THAT SHE GOT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS WASN’T SUFFICIENT >> TALKING JEFFRIES WHO GAVE — WHAT THE SENATORS, MODERATE SENATORS WERE LAYING OUT WAS A QUESTION OF IF HONEST SERVICE IS FRAUD, ISSUES OF BRIBE REAR TREE — ULTIMATELY DIDN’T MAKE IT TO THE STAGE, WHAT GIVES? JEFFREYS DIDN’T ADDRESS IT IN A WAY THAT GIVE A LOT OF CLARITY AS TO TRUE DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW >> THAT’S RIGHT AND SCHIFF CAME ON TO TRY TO I GUESS TO CLEAN UP. I THINK — BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER THAT PATRICK PHILBIN THAT COLLINS WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH EITHER. IF YOU ARE READING THE TEA LEAVES OF WHERE THE MODERATE THE ARE GOING TO GO, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THEIR RESPONSE AS THEY HEAR THESE ANSWERS FROM BOTH THE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE TEAM >> I WANT TO PLAY ONE MORE BIT OF TAPE, THIS IS ALAN DERSHOWITZ ON THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT PERSONAL MOTIVE IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL IF THE PRESIDENT WINS REELECTION, INTERTWINED MOTIVE, LET’S LISTEN >> WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THEY THIS CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WOULD THAT BE AN UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO? NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, A BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST BUT B, HE BELIEVED THAT HIS OWN ELECTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO VICTORY IN CIVIL WAR EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT, THAT’S WHY IT’S SO DANGEROUS TO TRY TO PSYCHO ANALYZE A PRESIDENT, TO TRY TO GET INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN MIND EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES AND FOR THERE TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHED >> DONNA >> IT’S BEEN INTERESTING TO SEE THE RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ’S STATEMENTS YESTERDAY JUST AN ONSLAUGHT OF CRITICISM DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR HILLARY CLINTON WEIGHED IN

REPUBLICANS YESTERDAY, SEVERAL OF THEM HAD SOME DIFFICULTY TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROFESSOR WAS SAYING. AND EVEN HIS OWN COMMENTED TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS TRYING — HE IS SCRAMBLING TO EXPLAIN IT >> WALK IT IT BACK IN SOME WAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA >> YEAH, YOU KNOW, YOU READ THE STATEMENT AND IT’S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT >> HOW THAT SETTLE WITH REPUBLICANS GENERALLY, FOR MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO MAY BE LOOKING FOR A REASON TO SAY, OKAY BE I’M SATISFIED, THAT DIDN’T HELP THEM >> RIGHT, AS PAULA POINTED OUT EARLIER IN THE SHOW, THEY WERE ALL IN ON DERSHOWITZ TWO DAYS AGO, BUT YESTERDAY LEFT THEM FLUMMOXED >> WHAT ARE YOU LISTENING FOR TODAY? WATCHING FOR? >> THE QUESTIONS FROM THE MODERATES, THE POTENTIAL SWING VOTES I DON’T KNOW AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WHETHER SENATOR ALEXANDER POSED ANY QUESTIONS YESTERDAY >> I DIDN’T HEAR ANY >> I DIDN’T HEAR ANY AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT ROMNEY AND OTHERS PRESENT AND WHAT TYPE OF QUESTIONS THEY POSE. THOSE I THINK ARE THE KEYS >> IS THERE A DANGER THEY DON’T ARGUE A STRONG ENOUGH CASE AND THEIR MINDS COULD STILL BE INFLUENCED, NOT JUST BY AN ARGUMENT THAT IS PERSUASIVE BUT POTENTIALLY DAMAGING LIKE THE DERSHOWITZ, THE PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT’S IN THE PUBLIC GOOD >> THE MODERATES ARE LOOKING FOR THE ANSWER THAT THEY WANT FROM EACH ONE THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THEIR RATIONALE FOR HOW THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE ON WITNESSES AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY COULD LOSE IT, IT’S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE BUT I JUST WONDER WHETHER THERE IS THE FIX IS IN HERE BUT I STILL WONDER IF THERE IS SOMETHING SO DAMAGING, AND WHAT ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAID YESTERDAY, I WONDER IF THE DEFENSE TEAM WILL BE PULLING HIM BACK IN REIGNING HIMSELF IN GIVING THE REACTION THAT HE SAW >> RIGHT AND I ALSO WONDER WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM, THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD EARLY ON WHICH IS LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. 9, 10 MONTHS FROM THE ELECTION, LET THEM DECIDE, YOU DON’T TAKE THAT ROLE ON >> SO, DONNA, YOU LAID OUT THE TIME LINE FOR US WHICH IS SO HELPFUL TOMORROW SUCH A CRUCIAL DAY TO WATCH BECAUSE OF THIS QUESTION OF WITNESSES. WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO BE WATCHING OUTSIDE OF THE CHAMBER? YOU KNOW, THEY ARE OFTEN CAUCUS LUNCH THAT HAPPEN, TOMORROW’S FRIDAY, TOMORROW IS FRIDAY. DAYS ARE RUNNING TOGETHER WHAT MAY WE BE WATCHING IN TERMS OF MEETINGS OR CONVERSATIONS OR ACTIVITY ON CAPITOL HILL TOMORROW AFTERNOON? >> I THINK THE REPUBLICAN LUNCH BEFORE THEY GAVEL IN TOMORROW WILL BE CRITICAL AS TODAY AS WELL WHETHER WE GET ANY SORT OF CLUES AS TO WHERE THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS STAND >> DO WE HEAR ANYMORE THAT FROM BLACK? >> ANYMORE MOVEMENT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SPEAKING AS ASKING HIM TO GET SETTLED DONNIE ANYMORE MOVEMENT GETTING — SENATE REPUBLICANS SAY LET’S LOOK AT IT IN A SECURE ROOM, IS THERE A WAY TO CONTROL IT THAT DOES NOT CART BLANCH EVERYBODY GETS TO STEPH >> THAT’S RIGHT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT WOULD BE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS, IT’S NOT AS IF IF THEY AGREE ON WITNESSES JOHN BOLTON IS GOING TO BE APPEAR IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE

>> CHIEF JUSTICE GOING UP THERE TO TAKE THEIR SEAT THANK YOU SO MUCH, DOB IN A, CONGRESSIONAL EDITOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US GET BACK TO YOUR TEAM IN REPORTING I’M LIBBY CASEY WE WILL BRING THIS TO YOU LIVE UNINTERRUPTED TODAY >> ETERNAL LORD GOD, SEND YOUR HOLY SPIRIT INTO THIS CHAMBER, PERMIT OUR SENATORS TO FEEL YOUR PRESENCE DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ILLUMINATE THEIR MINDS WITH THE LIGHT OF YOUR WISDOM EXPOSING TRUTH AND RESOLVING UNCERTAINTIES MAY THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CREATED THEM WITH COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES AND MORAL DISCERNMENT TO BE USED FOR YOUR GLORY GRANT THAT THEY WILL COMPREHEND WHAT REALLY MATTERS, SEPARATING THE RELEVANT FROM THE IRRELEVANT LORD, KEEP THEM FROM FEAR AS THEY BELIEVE THAT YOUR TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH THROUGH THEM ELIMINATOR DISCORDANT STATIC WITH THE MUSIC OF YOUR WISDOM WE PRAY IN YOUR GREAT NAME, AMEN >> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF THE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ALLEGE APSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AL TO THE FLAG >> SENATORS PLEASE BE SEATED IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION >> HEAR YE HEAR YE ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES >> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED >> SENATE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD TODAY. WE WERE ABLE TO GET NEARLY 100 QUESTIONS YESTERDAY SENATORS POSED CONSTRUCTIVE QUESTIONS AND PARTIES WERE RESPECT AND RESPONSIVE, I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT ALL WHO PARTICIPATED YESTERDAY WE WILL AGAIN BREAK EVERY 2 TO 3 HOURS AND DINNER AROUND 6:30 WE’VE BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S UNIQUE POSITION IN READING OUR QUESTIONS AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ASSURE HIM THAI LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION FOR HIM WILL CONTINUE >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM WASHING TORCH >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU SENATOR MURRAY ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS, YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY THE HOUSE DID NOT AMEND OR REISSUE SUBPOENAS AFTER IT PASSED ITS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOUCHED UPON THE HOUSE HAVING THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS SPES IF ID BY ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION COULD YOU ELABORATE WHY THAT AUTHORITY CONTROLS BROUGHT FORT BY MEMBERS OF THE DEFENSE TEAM CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THOSE SUBPOENAS >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION THE ANSWER IS THAT THESE WERE VALIDLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS UNDER THE HOUSE RULES THE WHITE HOUSE ARREST YOU TO THE CONTRARY IS WRONG AND IT WOULD HAVE PROFOUND NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS HOW CONGRESS AND OUR DEMOCRACY FUNCTION ON JANUARY 9th, 2019 THE HOUSE ADOPTED ITS RULES LIKE WE DO

EVERY CONGRESS AND THESE RULES GAVE THE COMMITTEE THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS THEY ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS RULES AND HERE IS A RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 11 ON SLIDE 55 THE HOUSE’S STANDING RULES GIVE EACH COMMITTEE SUBPOENA POWER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES AS IT CONSIDER NECESSARY THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 9th BEFORE THE SPEAKERS’ AN JUNE NOT ON SEPTEMBER 24th THAT WOULD BECOME PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT UMBRELLA FULLY WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION THE ARGUMENT IS SOMEHOW BY DECLARING THAT THIS INVESTIGATION ALSO FALLS UNDER AN INQUIRY TO CONSIDER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH GIVES CONGRESS ACTUALLY GREATER AUTHORITY AT SOMEHOW NULLIFIES THE TRADITIONAL OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AND THIS DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE NOW THE PRESIDENT COUNTERS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A FULL VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT FIRST THAI’S WHAT’S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NEED ADD HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE SUBPOENA POWER AND THAT’S DIFFERENT THAN THE COMMITTEE STANDING RULES TODAY PRESIDENT ACTUALLY COMPELS THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, SEVERAL FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED, I AM PEEVED AND — HAVING EVER TAKEN A VOTE TO OUT RISE THE INQUIRY RECENTLY CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A FORMAL VOTE OF THE FULL HOUSE TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT EVEN ASSUMING A HOUSE THAT WAS NECESSARY, THERE WAS A VOTE, THE TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 DECLARED THAT THE SIX INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THEIR ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACHMENT AND THE COMMITTEE REPORT WHICH A COMPANIES THE RESOLUTION SPACE I CANNILY DESCRIBES THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE INVESTIGATION GATING COMMITTEES AND SAID, “ALL SUBPOENAS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REMAIN IN FULL FORCE” SO WHY DIDN’T THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REISSUE THE SUBPOENAS AFTER THE RESOLUTIONS? SHORT ANSWER IS THEY DIDN’T NEED TO THE SUBPOENAS WERE ALREADY FULLY AUTHORIZED IN ANY EVENT EVEN AFTER THE RESOLUTION PASSED, THE COMMITTEES ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO MICK MULVANEY, ROBERT BLAIR, FOUR OTHER WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK THOSE SUBPOENAS THE ARGUMENT ABOUT A FULL HOUSE VOTE IS AN EXCUSE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OBSTRUCTION THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSE SUBPOENAS BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE, AND AFTER THE HOUSE VOTE THE ONLY LOGIC ALEX MANSION IS THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE US ALL ALONG, HE WAS DETERMINED TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S VIEW, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SAID, COUNTY DO WHATEVER HE WANTS NOW THAT’S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC ENTRUSTED TO US BY THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND THIS ARGUMENT DOESN’T JUST IMPLY TO IMPEACHMENT, IT WOULD IMPLY TO ORDINARY OVERSIGHT VEST, IT DOESN’T APPLY TO THE HOUSE, IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE SENATE BY SANCTIONING THE PRESIDENT’S BLANKET OBSTRUCTION, THE SENATE WOULD BE CURTAILING ITS OWN SUBPOENA POWER IN THE FUTURE AS WELL AS THE HOUSE’S AND THE OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION THAT VERY HAVE AS WE NOW KNOW IT WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ALTERED I YIELD BACK >> THANK YOU, MS. MANAGER MR.CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY >> VIA QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGER SCHIFF AND FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL >> THE PRESIDING OFFICER DECLINES TO READ THE QUESTION AS SUBMITTED >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN IS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS GIVEN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL COULD NOT ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY’S REQUEST THAT ASKED FOR THE EXACT DATE THE PRESIDENT FIRST ORDERED THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHAT WITNESS OR WITNESSES COULD ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY’S QUESTION? >> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION. YOU’RE RIGHT, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, CONVERSATION AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT COACHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT INCLUDING AN E-MAIL FROM LAST SUMMER BETWEEN MR. BOLTON, MR. BLAIR, WHERE WE KNOW FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED BUT WE DO KNOW IS FROM MULTIPLE WITNESSES, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLACE ADD HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, SOON AFTER IT WAS ORDERED IN JULY OF 2019, SO WE KNOW THAT NOT ONLY DID U.S OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT, AND OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT, BUT UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS WELL FROM FORMER DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE SHE STATED PUBLICLY IN FACT THAT THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT IT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IN JULY WE ALSO KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF LAURA COOPER THAT HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25th REVEALING THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AND THAT QUOTE THAT HILL KNOWS ABOUT TO ASK THAT SITUATION TO ANNEX TENT SO DOES THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY ON JULY 25th THE SAME DAY AS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHE WAS SURPRISED AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY UKRAINE AN COUNTER PARTS DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT EARLY ON OR EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO WE ALSO KNOW THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL KNELL ALEXANDER VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT AMID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING STATUS OF UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE SO THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE SURROUNDING IT THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT WHOLLY OUR EFFORTS TO GET THE E-MAILS AND COARSE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE ASKED FOR. BOLT I DON’T KNOW TO TESTIFY AND A SUBPOENA TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHERS TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT MATERIAL LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS, LAST EVENING, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY DID THE HOLD FOR UKRAINE DIFFER FROM HOLDS IN THE NORTH EARN TRIANGLE AND OATH HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN. HE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION THAT I’M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND BECAUSE HE SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS AN EXPLANATION. AND AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THE EXPLANATION WAS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES ONE WAS PUBLIC TRYING TO PUT PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION PRIVATE EFFORT TO PUT PRESSURE IF THAT WERE TRUE THEN THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES AND INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT WE KNOW IS ROBUST THAT WOULD ILLUSTRATE THAT TO BE THE CASE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT LET ME FINISH WITH THIS I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITAL INCLUDING ME HAVE OFTEN DESCRIBED MUCH CONSTERNATION ABOUT RED TAPE AND BUREAUCRACY AND LAYERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT RUN TOO SLOW I SOMETIMES SHARE THAT CONCERN RIGHT, THAT SOMETIMES IT TAKE HAS LONG TIME, MEMOS FOR EVERYTHING, E-MAILS FOR EVERYTHING, PAPER TRAILS FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS TOWN. I THINK THAT IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE

AND IT IS TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY SEE THAT INFORMATION SO WE CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THIS BODY COULD GET THAT INFORMATION >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND BEHALF OF SASSE, Mc SALLY, >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR TUMEY IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT GIVEN THAT THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL ACTS IN WHICH WE AS CITIZENS ENGAGE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD THE SENATE GIVE TO THE FACT THAT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM HOLDING FUTURE FEDERAL OFFICE WOULD UNDO THAT DEMOCRATIC DECISION AND KICK THE PRESIDENT OFF THE BALLOT IN THIS YEAR ELECTION? >> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ONE OF THE CONCERN THAT WE’VE RAISED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS IN GOING BACK TO THE TIME WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DEALING WITH THIS IN THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES IS WE ARE IN AN ELECTION YEAR, SOME IN THIS ROOM THAT ARE DAYS AWAY FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES TAKES PLACE SO WE ARE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT ONLY DURING ELECTION SEASON, IN THE HEART OF THE ELECTION SEASON I THINK THAT THIS DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAIN, WE THINK THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS IS MOVED FORWARD IS IRREGULAR TO SAY THE LEAST DO YOU THINK IT COMPLICATES THE MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ARE LITERALLY AT THE DAWN OF A NEW SEASON OF ELECTIONS. WE ARE AT THAT SEASON NOW AND YET WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT AND I WANT TO TIE THIS INTO THE URGENCY THAT WAS SO PREVALENT IN DECEMBER WITH MY COLLEAGUES, THE MANAGERS, IT WAS SO URGENT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT BY MID DECEMBER BEFORE CHRISTMAS BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY WAS AT STAKE AND THEN THEY WAITED 33 DAYS TO BRING IT HERE. AND NOW THEY ARE ASKING TO YOU DO ALL THE INVESTIGATION ALTHOUGH THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, PROVED THEIR CASE BUT STILL NEED MORE TO PROVE IT OF COURSE WE BELIEVE, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THEIR ENTIRE PROCESS WAS CORRUPT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND PUTTING IT ON THIS BODY BUT TO DO IT WHILE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO BE THE HEAD OF THEIR PARTY, TO RUN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM AND TO TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I THINK THAT’S ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF IRREGULARITIES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SINCE THE BEGINNING, THE SPEAKER ALLOWED THE ARTICLES TO LINGER. IT WAS SUCH A NATIONALLY URGENT MATTER THAT THEY COULD LINGER FOR A MONTH SO WE THINK THAT THIS POINTS TO THE EXACT PROBLEM WHAT IS TAKING PLACE HERE, MY COLLEAGUE THIS IS REALLY TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL: >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> SENATOR TESTER ASKED, MR DERSHOWITZ STATED IF THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS ANY LIMIT TO THE TYPE OR SCOPE OF QUID PRO QUO A SITTING PRESIDENT COULD ENGAGE IN WITH A FOREIGN ENTITY AS LONG AS THE INTENT OF THE SITTING PRESIDENT IS TO GET RE-ELECTED IN WHAT HE OR SHE BELIEVES IS IN THE PUBLIC’S BEST INTEREST? >> CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD

LAST NIGHT FROM THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM, THAT IS IF THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET RE-ELECTED AND HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST THEN IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW CORRUPT A QUID PRO QUO IS IT’S ASTONISHING THAT ON THE — SOMEBODY WEEK MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IT DIDN’T BEGIN THAT WAY, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE DAYS IS A DISSENT INTO CONSTITUTIONAL MADNESS BECAUSE THAT WAY MADNESS LIES F WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT A PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ENGAGE IN WHATEVER QUID PRO QUO HE WANTS, I WILL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME THAT TO HELP ME GET ME ELECTED, I WILL GIVE MILITARY DOLLARS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME HELP IN MY REELECTION IF YOU WILL GIVE ME ELICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION NOW THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD TO RIGHTS THAT IS AN ARGUMENT MADE OF DESPERATION NOW WHAT IS SO STRIKING TO ME IS ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID, WELL WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL THAT OF COURSE WAS RICHARD NIXON WATERGATE IS NOW 40 TO 50 YEARS BEHIND US HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING IN THE LAST HALF CENTURY? HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL? IT SEEMS LIKE WE’RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT, IT’S NOT ILLEGAL OR DONALD TRUMP’S VERSION UNDER ARTICLE 2 CAN UNDO WHATEVER WANT OR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IN HIS REELECTION IT IS THERE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS IN FACT, MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WHEN WE PROGRESSED WATERGATE, WATERGATE REFORMS AND WE TRIED TO INSULATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENCY, WE TRIED TO PUT AN END TO THE POLITICAL ABUSES OF THAT DEPARTMENT AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WE ENACTED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS, WE ARE RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE WERE HALF CENTURY AGO AND WOULD ARGUE WE MAY BE IN A WORSE PLACE BECAUSE OF THIS TIME, THIS TIME THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED THAT ARGUMENT IS IF THE PRESIDENT’S SAYS IT CAN’T BE ILLEGAL FAILED, AND RICHARD NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN BUT THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED HERE NOW. THAT MEANS WE ARE NOT BACK TO WHERE WE ARE, WE ARE WORSE OFF THAN WHERE WE ARE THAT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS. I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERY AMERICAN WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT’S WRONG TO SEEK FOREIGN HELP IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, THAT MEANS SHOULD DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS I WOULD HOPE AND I BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND EVERY AMERICAN UNDERSTANDS THAT’S TRUE TO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN ONES I WOULD HOPE THAT WE UNDERSTAND I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS TRIAL WOULD BE ONE CONDUCIVE OF THE TRUTH, THE SENATOR ASKED WHAT WITNESSES COULD SHED LIGHT ON WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD AND WHY WELL WE KNOW MICK MULVANEY WOULD, THAT INSTRUCTION CAME FROM OMB YOU REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY TAYLOR, THE SHOCK THAT WENT THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SHOCK HE EXPERIENCED IN THAT VIDEO CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED AND THE INSTRUCTION WAS THIS COMES THROUGH THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF OMB BUT A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT MICK MULVANEY KNOWS WHY THAT ORDER WENT INTO PLACE AND HE MADE THAT STATEMENT PUBLICLY WHICH HE NOW REQUIRES TO RECANT, I’M SURE HE GOT AN ANYWHERE FULL FROM THE PRESIDENT AFTER HE DID. BUT APPARENTLY IT DOESN’T MATTER NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT’S IN HIS INTEREST, IT’S OKAY NOW, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ALSO, WHAT IF IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON, OF COURSE NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS A CREDIBLE REASON TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT’S RIVAL, LET’S SAY IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON, DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT? WHAT PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO THINK IT IS A CREDIBLE REASON NOT TO INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT, OR WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE ONE OR COME UP WITH SOME FIG LEAF THEY COMPOUNDED THE DANGEROUS ARGUMENT THAT NO QUID PRO QUO IS TOO CORRUPT, IF YOU THINK IT CAN HELP YOUR ELECTION, COMPOUNDED IT BY

SAYING AND IF WHAT YOU WANT IS TARGETING YOUR RIVAL IS MORE LEGITIMATE, THAT INLAY MADNESS LIES >> JUSTICE. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA >> ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR YOUNG >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KRAMER AND YOUNG IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT MANAGER SCHIFF REGULARLY STATES THAT IF THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT HE WOULD AGREE TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THAT THE MANAGERS WANT IS THE PRESIDENT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS? >> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS, OBVIOUSLY NO, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT WHO DECIDED NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS AND I THINK IT IS STRIKING AND SHOCKING THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DEPLOYED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS WE HEARD MANAGER NADLER SAY ONLY THE GUILTY HIDE EVIDENCE ONLY THE GUILTY DON’T RESPOND TO SUBPOENAS AND MANAGER NADLER — EXCUSE ME MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THIS IS NOT THE WAY INNOCENT PEOPLE ACT OF COURSE THAT’S CONTRARY TO THE VERY SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS AND ASSERTING THOSE RIGHTS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN INDICATION OF GUILT THAT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS AND BY THE CONSTITUTION. AND THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED VERSUS HAYES, THE CASE CITED IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM, THE VERY IDEA OF PUNISHING SOMEONE, WHICH IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WITH THEIR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, TO SAY THAT IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTS ON A CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT LIKE VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT AT LEAST SINCE NIXON AND SOME GOING BEYOND FURTHER BACK TO THAT, HE IS GOING TO ASSERT THE IMMUNITY OF HIS SENIOR VISORS TO COMPEL CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, HE IS GOING TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS BRANDED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST, WE ARE GOING TO CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND IMPEACH HIM FUNDAMENTAL THEME RUNNING THROUGHOUT THEIR OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND ARGUMENTS GENERALLY HERE THAT IF THE PRESIDENT STANDS ON HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IF HE TRIES TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, WHICH HE IS DUTY BOUND TO DO FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THAT OFFICE, THAT’S SOMEHOW AN INDICATION OF GUILT AND HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FUNDAMENTAL TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS, TO OUR PRINCIPLES OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RIGHTS CAN BE DEFENDED, THAT RIGHTS EXIST TO BE DEFENDED AND ASSERTS THOSE RIGHTS CAN BE NOT BE TREATED AS EITHER SOMETHING PUNISHABLE OR AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT THERE WOULD AN LONG LINE OF PAST PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENTS, EXCUSE ME, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT, PRESIDENTS BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER AND A LONG LINE OF PRESIDENTS WHO COULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CON TROPICAL DEPRESSION IF EVERY TIME A PRESIDENT INSISTED UPON THE PREROGATIVES OF THE OFFICE THE PRESIDENCY AND IN CYSTED ON DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF POWER THAT COULD BE TREATED AS SOMETHING IMPEACHABLE AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF REFUSED TO TURN OVER A LOT OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN THE FAST AND FURIOUS INVESTIGATION, HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT BUT NO ONE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THE CONCEPT OF SAYING THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS CONSTITUTIONALLY GROUNDED PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE THAT IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS A COMPLETELY BOGUS ASSERTION IT’S CONTRARY TO ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND FUNDAMENTALS OF FAIRNESS AND ULTIMATELY REJECTED BY THIS BODY >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL MR.CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU SENATOR JONES’ QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS

ASIDE FROM THE HOUSE’S CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY, PLEASE IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY WHICH PROVISION OR PROVISIONS IF ANY IN THE HOUSE RULES OR A HOUSE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEES PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 IN ADDITION, PLEASE LIST THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED AFTER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 >> SENATOR, WE WILL COMPILE THE LIST, WE DON’T HAVE IT ACCESSIBLE IN THE MOMENT IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION — WE DO HAVE IT LET ME JUST, IF I COULD. SPACE I CANNILY THE SUBPOENAS WENT OUT AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WERE SUBPOENAED TO JOHN EISENBERG, ROBERT BLAIR, MICHAEL ELLIS, GRIFFITH AND Mc MULVANEY BUT LET ME UNDERSCORE SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE HAD TO SAY, LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN, IF I CAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS WHAT THE PRACTICAL IMPORT OF WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD ARGUE AND IT IS THIS, LET’S SAY THAT A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER AND LET’S SAY THAT ANY ONE OF YOU THAT CHAIR A COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE DETERMINED THAT YOU THINK THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN SOMETHING QUESTIONABLE, MAYBE EVEN SOME WRONGDOING, AND YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION, AND WOULD IMAGINE THAT YOUR SENATE RULES LIKE OUR HOUSE RULES AND IT’S HOUSE RULE 10 SENATOR THAT HAS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE PART OF OUR NORMAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT POWER DIDN’T EXIST AT THE TIME OF WATERGATE SO THEY HAD TO HAVE A SEPARATE RISING INTEREST LEAGUE, BUT THAT HOUSE RULE PASSED EACH SESSION THAT EMPOWERS US TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS COMMITTEE CHAIRS SO, THERE YOU ARE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, YOU’RE A CHAIR, YOU START TO DO OVERSIGHT, YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS YOU START TO LEARN MORE AND WHAT YOU LEARN BECOMES MORE AND MORE CONCERNING AND YOU ISSUE MORE SUBPOENAS AND THE ADMINISTRATION IN AN EFFORT TO COVER UP THEIR MISCONDUCT SAYS WE ARE NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF YOUR SUBPOENAS, WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS AND THEY COME UP WITH ONE BAD FAITH EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER AS TO WHY THEY DON’T HAVE TO COMPLY AND AS YOU INVESTIGATE FURTHER, AND YOU ARE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE WALL OF OBSTRUCTION, THEN YOU BEGIN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND THAT LEADS TO THE PASSAGE OF YET ANOTHER RESOLUTION THEY WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DID BEFORE YOU DETERMINED THAT IT MERITED POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT MUSTING THROWN OUT, THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY EMPOWERED TO OBSTRUCT YOU IN YOUR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT YOU MUST BEGIN WITH YOUR CONCLUSION THAT YOU MUST BEGIN WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE YOU ISSUE ADD SINGLE SUBPOENA OTHERWISE THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU DID BEFORE YOU GOT TO THAT PLACE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT NOW WE DID NOT HAVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DO THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION HERE, WHY? BECAUSE BILL BARR TURNED IT DOWN SAME ATTORNEY GENERAL MENTIONED JULY 25th CALL SAID THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. SO THERE WAS NO DOJ INVESTIGATION, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION IT WASN’T AS IF SOMEONE LIKE KEN STARR HANDED US A PACKAGE AND SAID HERE IS THE EVIDENCE, NOW YOU CAN TAKE UP A RESOLUTION, IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK WE HAD TO DO THAT WORK FOR OURSELVES AND THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY SUBPOENA YOU ISSUE AS A PART OF YOUR OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY THAT DOWN THE ROAD REVEALS EVIDENCE THAT LEADS TO YOU EMBARK ON AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MUST BE DISREGARDED, THAT CANNOT AND IS NOT THE LAW IT WOULD RENDER THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION MEANINGLESS COURT AFTER COURT THAT HAS LOOKED AT THE CONGRESS’ POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS HAVE ALL REAPED THE SAME CONCLUSION, IF YOU HAVE THE POWER TO LEGISLATION YOU HAVE THE POWER TO OVERSEE WE HAVE A VIOLATION THAT IS CONGRESS PASSES MILITARY SPENDING, THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T SPEND IT, GIVES NO REASON, HE KEEPS IT A SECRET, WE ARE INVESTIGATING THAT, THAT CAN’T ARE MORE TO FIND OUT WHY AID WE APPROPRIATED WAS NOT GOING OUT THE DOOR YOU CAN’T LOOK INTO THAT UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND JUNE FIRSTHAND

THAT IS THE IMPORT OF THAT ARGUMENT IT WOULD CRIPPLE YOUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY AND WITHOUT YOUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY YOUR LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY IS CRIPPLED THAT’S THE REAL WORLD IMPORT OF THIS LEGAL WINDOW DRESSING THEY WOULD STRIP YOU OF YOUR ABILITY TO DO MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT AND PARTICULARLY HERE WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MISCONDUCT OF AN IMPEACHABLE KIND AND CHARACTER IT WOULD MEAN THAT A PRESIDENT CAN INSTRUCT THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION AND IF YOU NEED ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR BAD FAITH OF WHICH IS ABUNDANT, THE SHIFTING AND SPRINGING, RATIONALIZATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS, WHEN WE HAD COREY LIEU WANT DO YOU SKI IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HE WOULDN’T ANSWER QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE MIGHT, THEY MIGHT CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, SOMEONE WHO NEVER WORKED ER WORKED FOR THE EXECUTIVE >> TIME IS EXPIRED >> SENATOR FROM TEXAS >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS HOLLY AND GRAHAM >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRUZ HAWLEY AND GRAHAM IS FOR BOTH SIDES, THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS. ” YESTERDAY MANAGER DEMINGS REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER JOE BIDEN SOUGHT ANY LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON BURISMA, CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY PAYING HIS SON $1 MILLION PER YEAR USA TODAY REPORTED THAT WHEN ASKED ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID, EXCUSE ME, “HE HADN’T SPOKEN TO HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN ABOUT HIS OVER SEAS BUSINESS.” THAT ACCOUNT WAS CONTRADICTED BY HUNTER BIDEN WHO TOLD THE NEW YORKER HE TOLD HIS FATHER ABOUT BURISMA AND, ” DAD SAID, I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND I SAID I DO.” WHY DO JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN’S STORIES CONFLICT DID THE HOUSE ASK EITHER SIDE QUESTION.” THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GOES FIRST YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER — I’M SORRY CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS SENATORS YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER REGARDING THAT YESTERDAY BUT IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT HE SAID HE NEVER SPOKE TO HIS SON ABOUT OVER SEAS DEALINGS, JOE BIDEN WAS THE POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE INVESTIGATING AT THE TIME YOU UKRAINES WERE A CORRECT CUP BURISMA, ITS ANSWER OAR, ALI AL OLIGARCH, PAID $83,000 A MONTH, A MONTH TO SIT ON THAT BOARD WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN ENERGY, NO EXPERIENCE IN THE UKRAINE, DOESN’T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE, AND WE CLEARLY KNOW THAT HE HAD A FANCY JOB DESCRIPTION, HE ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD MEETINGS, ONE IN MONDAY A COULD AND WHEN ON A FISHING TRIP WITH JOE BIDEN’S FAMILY IN NORWAY. JOE BIDEN KNOWS THAT JOE BIDEN KNOWS THAT THIS OLIGARCH IS CORRUPT, NEWS REPORTS EVERYWHERE NO ONE WILL DISPUTE THAT IN FACT IT RAISED EYEBROWS WORLD WIDE BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT BY HIS ACCOUNT NEVER ONCE ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE THE BOARD WE WOULDN’T BE SITTING HERE IF HE DID HE NEVER ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE THE BOARD INSTEAD, HE STARTED INVESTIGATING THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS GOING AFTER BURISMA AND CORRUPT OLIGARCH WHO THEY SAY WAS CORRUPT EVEN BY OLIGARCH STANDARDS WHO HAD FLED THE COUNTRY, LIVING IN MONACO, HE DOES NOT ASK HIM TO LEAVE THE BOARD IN 2015 WE KNOW BY REPORTS HE HAS CLOSE CONTACTS, HE TRAVELS TO UKRAINE TWICE, HE LINKS THE AID TO THE FIRING, SAME THING IN 2016 AT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING LINKS THE AID TO THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR CALLS HIM FOUR TIMES IN THE EIGHT DAYS LEADING TO YOU THE PROSECUTOR THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING

HUNTER BIDEN, YET HE NEVER SAYS THAT, ALL CASE IS CLOSED DAYS BEFORE BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE HE JOKES THAT HE MAY HAVE TO CALL HIM EVERY COUPLE WEEKS TO CHECK IN HUNTER BIDEN STAYS ON THAT BOARD FOR THREE YEARS. THREE YEARS THEN WE HEAR THE VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN BRAGGING ABOUT FIRING THE PROSECUTOR LINKING IT TO AID THEN WE HAVE THE SIX MINUTE PHONE CALL MR.CHIEF JUSTICE >> I’M SORRY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 2.5 MINUTES >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND TO OUR SENATORS. SENT YACHT SENATORS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT A QUESTION ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A FATHER AND HIS SON LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER, THERE PROBABLY ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT I CAN’T REPEAT TO YOU ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MY SON. SO I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION SENATOR WHAT THAT EXACT CONVERSATION WAS BUT, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THIS. IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE, AND I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT WE ARE, IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT SPEAKING THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE TRUTH MATTERS, NOT JUST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PAID THE PRICE IN OUR HISTORY TO FORM A UNION AND PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY, BUT IT’S IMPORTANT FOR OUR FUTURE. AND IN THIS CASE, IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THAT, THEN I CAN TELL YOU THIS THAT WE ARE SERIOUS THEN ABOUT HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES LOOKING AT THE BIDENS NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE CALL THEIR NAME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO POINT TO THE FACT THAT EITHER BIDEN HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SHAKING DOWN A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION THE PRECIOUS ELECTION TRYING TO STEAL EACH INDIVIDUAL’S IN THIS COUNTRY’S VOTE I DON’T THINK EITHER BIDEN HAS INFORMATION ABOUT THAT BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHO I THINK DOES, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON IF WE’RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE TRUTH, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL HIM BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT SAY OR WHAT ABOUT MR. MULVANEY WHO HAD DAY TO DAY CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPLE IN OUR INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH? WELL WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WHEN DID WE KNOW? OR WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT PUT THE HOLD ON WE HAVE REPORTS THAT SAY ON JUNE 19th OF 2019 MR. BLAIR PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED THE DIRECTOR OF OMB TO HOLD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL. SO — THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION — >> SENATOR FROM NEVADA >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> ADDRESSED TOED HOT HOUSE MANAGERS. YOU HAVE TRIED TO MAKE A CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS OF OVER THOSE OF NATION RISKING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PROCESS. WHAT PRECEDENT DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS SET FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS? ” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, AND ONE THING THAI EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME IS THAT

WE ARE STRONG NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHICH IS EXTREME, AND APPEAR IN ALL OF ITS SENSE, AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER ACTUALLY APPRECIATES AND RESPECTS. WE ARE ALSO STRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE FRIENDS WE ARE STRONG BECAUSE AMERICA DOESN’T GO IT ALONE YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN I WORKED FREQUENTLY WITH AFGHAN, ARMY PARTNERS, IRAQI ARMY PARTNERS AND OTHERS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIAL, WE COULDN’T ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION WITHOUT IT BUT IF THOSE PARTNERS FEEL LIKE OUR POLICIES, WE SAY PUBLICLY, DON’T MATTER IF THEY FEEL LIKE WE ARE NOT A RELIABLE AND PREDICT I BELIEVE PARTNER IF THEY FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE ISN’T WORTH ANYTHING THEN THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US. FOR OVER 70 YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE PARTNERSHIPS, THE A LINES THAT WE HAVE BUILT, STRIVE TO CREATE THAT IS USHERED IN AN UNPRECEDENTED PERIOD OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WILL START TO FRAY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE WILL NOT MATTER UKRAINE HAS STARTED TO LEARN THAT. OUR 68,000 TROOPS THROUGHOUT EUROPE DESERVE BETTER, EVERY DAY THEY GET UP AND THEY DO THEIR JOB, THE JOB THAT WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO AND THEY RELY ON OUR CONSISTENCY, OUR PREDICTABILITY, THEY RELY ON THE INTEREST BEING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, NOT THE WHIMS AND THE PERSONAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT. WHETHER THAT BE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IT WILL CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION OUR BROADER ALLIANCES AND IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE DOESN’T MATTER WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE EVOLUTION OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENT THAT WE’VE SEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO SEE >> RUSSIA, IF YOU ARE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU’RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE REWARDED MIGHT ILLEGAL BY OUR PRESS LET’S SEE IF THAT HAPPENS >> FOREIGNERS, IF RUSSIA, IF CHAIN A, SOMEONE ELSE OFFERS YOU INFORMATION ON OPPONENT, SHOULD YOU ACCEPT OR CALL THE FACEBOOK HINT I THINK YOU DO BOTH I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO LISTEN, IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM A COUNTRY, NORWAY, WE HAVE INFORMATION ON YOUR OPPONENT, OH, I THINK I WOULD WANT TO HEAR IT >> YOU WANT THAT KIND OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> IT’S NOT INTERFERENCE, IT’S INFORMATION I THINK WOULD TAKE IT >> RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND IT SAYS, THE OTHER THING THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON, THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKING THAT BIDEN TOOD THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, SO WHATEVER CAN YOU DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE >> WELL I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY’D START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS VERY SIMPLE ANSWER >> IF WE FEEL THERE IS CORRUPTION LIKE I FEEL THERE WAS IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION AGAINST ME IF WE BUILD THIS CORRUPTION WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY >> BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH — WITH UKRAINE >> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHEN THEY GO TO BED TONIGHT THAT THERE IS A PRESIDENT THAT HAS THEIR INTEREST IN MIND, THAT WILL PUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY ABOVE HIS OWN POLITICAL SELF INTEREST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS AND YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME TO CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO TESTIFY >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER SENATOR FROM OHIO >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,

TUMEY CORNYN, AND MORAND >> THANK YOU >> I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED TO HEAR THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY EVOKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR JOHNATHAN TURNPIKELY WHO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION INCLUDING PLAYING A PART OF A VIDEO OF HIM >> ISN’T IT TRUE PROFESSOR TURLEY OPPOSED IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE AND SAID ABUSIVE POWER IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO PROVE ALONE WITHOUT ANY A COMPANYING CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER HAS NEVER BEEN THE SOLE BASIS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND NOT PROVEN IN THIS CASE >> MR. CHIEF USE TIS, SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE AND OF THE CHARGES THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE CONSIDERING HERE BOTH THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE AND THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A RUSHED PROCESS THAT HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PURSUED IN INVESTIGATION, THAT AS THE SENATORS POINT OUT IN THE QUESTION, ABUSE OF POWER IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT THEORY TO IMPEACHMENT A PRESIDENT AND NEVER USED WITHOUT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND I THINK IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE’VE HAD OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF WE’VE POINTED THAT OUT MULTIPLE TIMES, EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OUR HISTORY INCLUDING EVEN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH DIDN’T LEAD TO AN IMPEACHMENT, HAVE USED CHARGES THAT INCLUDE SPECIFIC VIOLATION THE OF THE LAW AND THE CRIMINAL LAW, ANDREW JOHNSON WAS CHARGED MOSTLY IN COUNTS THAT INVOLVED VIOLATION OF TENURE OFFICE ACT WHICH THE CONGRESS SPACE I CANNILY MADE BY PUNISHABLE FIND AN IMPRISON 89 VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE EITHER A HIGH CRIME OR A HIGH MISS DEMEANOR ONE OF THOSE TERMS TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT WAS GOING TO BE USED TO TRIGGER AN IMPEACHMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, EACH OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THERE, EXCEPT FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, IS SORT OF TREATED SEPARATELY ON THE OBSTRUCTION THEORY, INCLUDED SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW THERE WAS SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS OFTEN SORT OF REFERRED TO LOOSELY AS THE ABUSIVE POWER ARTICLE, WASN’T ENTITLED ABUSE OF POWER, IT DIDN’T CHARGE ABUSE OF POWER SPECIFICATIONS WERE VIOLATIONS OF LAW, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS VIOLATING THE LAWS GOVERNING EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE USING THE CIA AND OTHERS SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND CLEARLY IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE ARE CRIMES WHILE PROFESSOR TURLEY DOES NOT TANG THE VIEW A PRIME — HE POINTED OUT THERE WAS NOT NEARLY SUFFICIENT BASIS AND NOT NEARLY SUFFICIENT RECORD COMPILED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO JUSTIFY AN ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE. HE WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THEORY AND HE POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS DEMANDED INFORMATION, GOTTEN A REFUSAL FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BASED ON CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED PREROGATIVES OF THE EXECUTIVE, REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THEN SEVERALLY GO STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS, WITHOUT CONSIDERING CONTEMPT, WITHOUT GOING TO THE COURTS, THAT WAS PROFESSOR TURLE WHY IS’ THROUGH HOW INCREMENTALLY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE WAS HAVE TO PROCEED IF THEY WERE TRY TO REACH ULTIMATELY SOME THEORY OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO CITE PROFESSOR TURLEY IT’S TRUE, IN HIS TESTIMONY HE DID NOT ADOPT THE VIEW THAT YOU MUST HAVE A CRIME AND ONLY A CRIME AS THE CHARGE FOR AN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HE STILL THOUGHT THAT NEITHER OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE COULD BE JUSTIFIED OR SUFFICIENT OR COULD BE USED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BOTH THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLES AND THE OBSTRUCTION ARTICLE SO TAKING SNIPPETS OUT OF WHAT HE SAID REALLY DOES AN INJUSTICE

TO THE TOTALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE TOTALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY WAS ENTIRELY AGAINST WHAT THE HOUSE ENDED UP DOING HERE. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> THE SENATOR FROM OHIO >> CHIEF JUSTICE ON SENATOR WIDEN AND MYSELF, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS “DURING YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL FAILED TO GIVE AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE TO A QUESTION RELATED TO WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR CANDIDATE WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND WHETHER OFFICES OF SUCH INFORMATION SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE FBI FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER RAY WHO WAS A POINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID, “IF ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF ANY CAMPAIGN IS CONTACTED BY ANY NATION STATE OR ANYBODY ACTING ON BEHALF OF A NATION STATE ABOUT INFLUENCING OR INTERFERING WITH OUR ELECTION, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE FBI WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT.” AND WE’D LIKE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE TELL US INFORMATION PROMPTLY SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ” IF PRESIDENT TRUMP REMAINS IS OFFICE WHAT SIGNAL DOES THAT SEND TO OTHER COUNTRY’S INTENT INTERFERING WITH OUR ELECTIONS IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT MIGHT WE EXPECT FROM THOSE COUNTRIES AND THE PRESIDENT? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION TAKE THE LAST PART FIRST IT WOULD SEND A TERRIBLE MESSAGE TO AUTOCARTS, FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM TO ESSENTIALLY PUT OUT THERE FOR ALL TO CONSUME THAT IT’S ACCEPTABLE IN THE UNITED STATES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS OR ACCEPT POLITICAL DIRT, SIMPLY TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION I WAS CERTAINLY SHOCKED BY THE COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL YESTERDAY RIGHT HERE ON THE FLOOR WHEN HE SAID I THINK THE IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO COME FROM OVER SEAS IS NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE IS A MISTAKE NO, IT’S WRONG IT’S WRONG IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ONLY INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE THAT POTENTIALLY SHOWS WRONGDOING THAT HAPPENS BY SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, RELEVANT FOR THE VOTERS TO KNOW TO BE ABLE TO DIVIDE ON WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE THIS IS NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC IT’S THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IT’S WRONG NOW, SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON THAT WE LEARN FROM 2016 IS NOBODY SHOULD SEEK OR WELCOME FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS BUT NOW WE HAVE THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL ESSENTIALLY SAYING IT’S OKAY IT IS NOT OKAY. IT STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSUMER FUSION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE PRESIDENT OATH OF OFFICE, CORRUPTING THE INTEGRITY 6 OUR DEMOCRACY AND FREE AND FAIR ELECTION ENTANGLING WITH FOREIGN POWERS WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DON’T JUST TRUST ME, WE HAVE SEVERAL FOLK WHOSE HAVE MADE THIS OBSERVATION, FBI DIRECTOR, THE TRUMP FBI DIRECTOR SAID THAT THE FBI WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ANY A TEMPT AT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION ALSO ISSUE ADD STATEMENT REITERATING THE VIEW OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT, SHE SAID LET ME MAKE SOMETHING 100% CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ANYONE

RUNNING FOR OFFICE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT, ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL AND CONNECTION WITH A U.S. ELECTION THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT ELECTION INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OUR NATION IT IS WRONG IT IS CORRUPT IT IS LAWLESS IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER, IT’S IMPEACHABLE AND IT SHOULD LEAD TO THE REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM MISSOURI >> I SEND TO THE QUESTION ON MY OWN BEHALF AND BEHALF OF SENATOR LEE >> THANK YOU >> QUESTION FROM SENATORS HAWLEY AND LEE IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. , CUSHION FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HELD MOST PROMINENTLY IN THE CASE, THAT IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL FOR A PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO CONDITION HIS OFFICIAL ACTS ON THE OFFICIAL ACTS PERFORMED BY ANOTHER PUB PICK OFFICER IS THERE ANY APPLICATION TO THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION I THINK AN IMPORTANT THRESHOLD POINT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT WE’RE NOT EVEN IN THE REALM OF EXCHANGING OFFICIAL ACTS BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO HERE WE’RE NOT IN THE REALM OF A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS ONE OFFICIAL ACT BEING TRADED FOR ANOTHER I THINK THAT WE’VE GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT BOTH WITH RESPECT TO — A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, BILATERAL MEETING AND WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T STACK UP TO SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LINKED EITHER OF THOSE BOTH TOOK PLACE MEETING AND RELEASE OF THE AID, WITHOUT UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING, ANNOUNCING OR BEGINNING ANY INVESTIGATIONS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TRANSCRIPT LINKING THEM AS A QUID PRO QUO THE UKRAINIANS DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THAT THE THERE HAD BEEN A TEMPORARY PAUSE ON THE AID AND I COULD GO ON WITH A LIST OF POINTS ON THAT I THINK IF THERE WERE — ANY ABDICATION HYPE AT THE TIME I CANNILY, IT WOULD COME IN THE REALM THAT FOREIGN POLICY THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE CAN BE — SITUATIONS WHERE ONE GOVERNMENT WANTS SOME ACTION FROM ANOTHER AND WANT THAT ACTION FROM ANOTHER IN AWAY THAT WILL CONDITION OTHER POLICIES OF ONE COUNTRY, CAN YOU SAY WE WOULD LIKE YOU AS HAPPENS FOR WITH THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES, WE WANT YOU TO DO MORE TO STOP THE FLOW OF IMMIGRATION, POLICIES TOWARDS YOU AND UNTIL YOU START DOING A BETTER JOB STOPPING THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BECAUSE IT’S A REAL PROBLEM ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER, THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING LEGITIMATE TO LOOK INTO, THERE COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE UNITED STATES WOULD SAY, YOU’VE GOT TO DO BETTER ON CORRUPTION >> YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER ON THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF CORRUPTION, OR WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP HAVING THE SAME RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU ONE EXAMPLE LIKE THAT, I BELIEVE WE POINTED OUT THAT AID WAS HELD UP TO AFGHANISTAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP AID TO AFGHANISTAN SPACE I CANNILY BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER WITH CONDITIONING ONE POLICY APPROACH ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY MODIFYING THEIR POLICY TO BE MORE IN LINE TO ATTUNE MORE DIRECTLY TO U.S INTEREST, THAT IS WHAT FOREIGN POLICY IS ALL ABOUT, THAT COULD ARISE IN A SITUATION OF EVEN INVESTIGATIONS, AND I THINK IT’S INTERESTING TO POINT OUT THAT IN MAY OF 2018 THREE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SENT A LETTER TO THE THEN PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE, SUGGESTING THAT WE’VE HEARD SOME THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT BE COOPERATING WITH THE MUELLER

INVESTIGATION, THERE IS AN INPUT THAT INDICATION THAT BEHIND A LETTER THAT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AS MUCH SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, YOU HAVE TO BE HELPING WITH THAT ELECTION AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ENCOURAGING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL TO ASSIST WITH SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES. THAT’S PART OF FOREIGN POLICY HAPPENS ALL THE TIME SO TO THE EXTENT THAI CASE THE CASE IS RELEVANT I THINK IS IN A GENERAL CONCEPT THAT WE ARE WERE THERE SOME LINKAGE BETWEEN WE WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO PURSUE THESE POLICIES AFFECTING OUR POLICIES TOWARDS YOU, THAT’S ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE, THAT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OR IS IMPROPER I COME BACK TO THE POINT THAT HERE THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT LINKAGE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE WAS ANY SORT OF AS WE’VE COME TO CALL IT QUID PRO QUO IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> SENATOR CANTWELL IS THE FOR HOUSE MANAGERS” IN HIS OWNING REMARKS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID UKRAINE SCHEME WAS EXPANSIVE AND INVOLVED MANY PEOPLE IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, OR ANYONE ON THE OUTSIDE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS SCHEME TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AN SENATOR THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION IF WE REMEMBER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY HE SAID EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP WE DON’T HAVE TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT DURING HIS HEARING, MR. SONDLAND DISCUSSED A JULY 19th E-MAIL HE SENT TO THE PRESIDENT’S TOP AIDS INCLUDING SECRETARY MIKE POMPEO WAY I DON’T, MICK MULVANEY, MR MULVANEY SENIOR VISOR ROBERT BLAIR, RICK PERRY AND BRIAN MCCORMICK AND WE SHOULD AT LEAST START WITH IF WE’RE SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING TO THE TRUTH ISSUING A SUBPOENA FOR STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS IF YOU WILL PAY ATTENTION TO THE SLIDE IN THE E-MAIL SONDLAND STATED, “I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW, HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS’S CALL, INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE HE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A CALL PRIOR TO SUNDAY SO HE CAN PUT OUT MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLY AND PRODUCTIVE CALL NO DETAILS” ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT AND RESPONDS SHORTLY I ASKED TO SET UP THE CALL FOR TOMORROW, SIX DAYS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL IN WHICH HE TOLD PRESIDENT GEL ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUY LAND, MR. SONDLAND SENT AN E-MAIL UPDATING THIS ON THE STATUS OF THE SCHEME AGAIN, “EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. ” AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E-MAILED TO ASK HIM TO BRIEF SECRETARY POMPEO ON THE STATEMENT HE WAS NEGOTIATING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THE AIM OF MAKING THE BOSS HAPPY, THE BOSS BEING THE PRESIDENT ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE INVESTIGATION AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE, KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM Z, TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO, THE CONTENT WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION AND HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE INVITATION FOR A WHITE HOUSE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WHICH WE KNOW WAS MUCH MORE CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT THAN A SIDELINE MEETING AT THE UN YET FURTHER EVIDENCE AND I QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LIEUTENANT RESPONDED AT SOME POINT THERE WAS A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THAT WAS DONE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR RESPONDED TO THAT ARTICLE BY STATING HE WAS AWARE DOJ INVESTIGATIONS INTO SOME COUNTRIES AND THAT HE WAS CONCERNED PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVING WORLD LEADERS THE IMPRESSION HE HAD UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER WHAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS HE CITED CONVERSATIONS THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH LEADERS OF TURKEY AND CHINA FURTHER DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ABUSES OF POWER OF HIS OFFICE

FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL REASONS AGAIN IT PROVES THAT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP AND WE SHOULD WANT TO SUBPOENA AND REVIEW THOSE E-MAILS INVOLVING THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS >> THANK YOU MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> SENATOR ASKED FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT “SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID, “IMPEACHMENT IS TO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE IS SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON ALSO WARNED IN FEDERALIST 65 AGAINST THE “PERSIAN CAUTION IN TELL HELICOPTER OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT” IN EVALUATING A CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT SHOULD THE SENATE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE? .” >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ABSOLUTELY YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT THAT’S GUESS POSITIVE THAT SHOULD END IT BASED ON THE STATEMENTS WE HEARD LAST TIME FROM OUR FRIENDS ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THAT IS A REASON WHY YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT SPEAKER PELOSI WAS RIGHT WHEN SHE SAID THAT UNFORTUNATELY SHE DIDN’T FOLLOW HER OWN ADVICE WE’VE NEVER BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN AN ELECTION YEAR WITH THE GOAL OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT AS I SAID BEFORE, THAT IS THE MOST MOSS SUFFICIENT ELECTION INTERFERENCE WE’VE EVER WITNESSED IT’S DOMESTIC ELECTION INTERFERENCE IT’S POLITICAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND IT’S WRONG THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT THE HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR COUNTRY OF DOING THAT BUT THEY WOULD BE TERRIBLE, THEY WOULD TEAR US A PART FOR GENERATIONS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULDN’T ACCEPT IT LET ME ADDRESS IN THAT CONTEXT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOTE FOR THEIR INQUIRY WHICH ALSO HAD BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION NOW THEY SAID, WELL WE WERE FINE WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED IT WE DIDN’T NEED A VOTE THE SUBPOENAS WERE AUTHORIZED THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE A VOTE THIS THEY HAD A VOTE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD A BIG PROBLEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO FIX BUT WHAT’S MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT THE VOTE THAN THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE? THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THE VOTE IS THAT IF YOU’RE GOING TO START AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION PARTICULARLY ON AN ELECTION YEAR THERE NEEDS TO BE POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU CAN’T JUST GO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE. IF YOU’RE GOING TO SAY THAT THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO BE DISALLOWED, THAT ALL OF THE BALLOTS NEED TO BE TORN UP, THEN VERY VERY LEAST I NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR HOME DISTRICT FOR THAT DECISION AND NOW THEY ARE. AND NOW THEY ARE AND IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE, IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE, IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE, THAT THEY DON’T LIKE WHAT’S HAPPENED HERE, THAT THEY DON’T LIKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, THAT THEY DON’T LIKE THE ATTACK ON A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT FOR PURELY PARTISAN POLITICAL PURPOSES, THEN THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THEY CAN THROW THEM OUT THAT’S WHY A VOTE IS IMPORTANT BUT WE SHOULD NEVER EVEN CONSIDER REMOVING THE NAME OF A PRESIDENT FROM A BALLOT ON A PURELY PARTISAN BASIS IN AN ELECTION YEAR IMPORTANT, I WILL SAY IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THAT REASON ALONE AND FOR THE INTEREST OF UNITING OUR COUNTRY IT MUST BE REJECTED THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK

ON BEHALF OF DUCKWORTH AND HARRIS MYSELF, FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR REID AND OTHER SENATORS IS FOR BOTH PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS. “IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT PAY RUDY GIULIANI HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, FOR HIS SERVES CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHO HAS PAID FOR RUDY GIULIANI’S LEGAL FEES, INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEY AND REPRESENTATIVE? ” >> SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS, I DON’T KNOW WHO IS PAYING RUDY GIULIANI’S FEES AND IF HE IS NOT BEING PAID BY THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND THAT HE HAS DEVOTED SO MUCH TIME IF OTHER ARE CLIENTS ARE PAYING AND SUBSIDIZING HIS WORK IN THAT RESPECT, IT RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN’T ANSWER AT THIS POINT BUT THERE ARE SOME ANSWERS THAT WE DO KNOW AS HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, HE IS NOT DOING FOREIGN POLICY SO WHEN COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SAYS THIS IS A POLICY DISPUTE, YOU CAN’T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OVER POLICY BUT RUDY GIULIANI WAS ENGAGED IN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY LET ME MENTION ONE OTHER THING THIS SCHEME AND CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THAT IT’S QUID PRO QUOS ARE JUST FINE. LET’S SAY RUDY GIULIANI DOES ANOTHER ERRAND FOR THE PRESIDENT, AN ERRAND IN CHINA AND HE SAYS SO THE CHINESE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A FAVORABLE DEAL WITH RESPECT TO CHINESE FARMERS AS OPPOSED TO AMERICAN FARMERS, BETRAY THE AMERICAN FARMER IN THE TRADE DEAL BUT HERE IS WHAT WE WANT THE QUID PRO QUO IS, WE WANT YOU TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS, YOU KNOW THE ONE, THE ONE THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN CALLING FOR, THEY WOULD SAY THAT’S OKAY THEY WOULD SAY THAT’S A QUID PRO QUO TO HELP HIS REELECTION, HE CAN BETRAY THE AMERICAN FARMER THAT’S OKAY THAT’S THEIR ARGUMENT WHERE DOES THAT ARGUMENT LEAD US? THAT’S EXACTLY THE KIND OF DOMESTIC CORRUPT POLITICAL ERRAND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS DOING GRATIS WITHOUT PAYMENT, AT LEAST NOT PAYMENT APPARENTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT WHO IS PAYING THE FRAY FOR IT DIRECTLY PAYING FOR THE FRAY FOR IT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS PAYING THE FREIGHT FOR IT. BECAUSE THERE ARE LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD WHO ARE WATCHING THIS AND THEY ARE SAYING, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS THIS PRESIDENT WANTS OUR HELP AND IF WE HELP HIM HE WILL BE GRATEFUL HE WILL BE GRATEFUL IS THAT THE KIND OF MESSAGE WE WANT TO SEND TO THE REST OF THE WORLD? THAT’S THE RESULT OF NORMALIZING LAWLESSNESS OF THE KIND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS ENGAGED IN >> I’M SORRY, YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED COUNSEL >> CAME OUT OF THE MANAGER’S MOUTH, OPEN FOR BUSINESS I WILL TELL YOU WHO WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS CHARGED BY THE THEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH DEVELOPING POLICIES TO AVOID AND ASSIST IN REMOVING CORRUPTION FROM UKRAINE AND HIS SON WAS ON THE BOARD OF A COMPANY THAT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR UKRAINE, AND YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WAS DOING? WHEN HE WAS OVER TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE? BY THE WAY, IT’S A LITTLE BIT INTERESTING TO ME AND MY COLLEAGUE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFERRED TO THIS, IT’S IRONIC TO ME THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONING CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WHEN THREE OF YOU, THREE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SENATOR MENENDEZ, LEAHY AND DURBIN SENT A LETTER, THEY WROTE A LETTER TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE. THEY SAID THEY ARE ADVOCATES, STRONG ADVOCATES FOR ROBUST AND CLOSE RELATIONSHIP

WITH UKRAINE AND OUR COOPERATION SHOULD EXTENT TO LEGAL MARTERS REGARDLESS OF POLITICS AND THEIR CONCERN WAS ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS AND WHETHER THE MUELLER TEAM WAS GETTING APPROPRIATE — APPROPRIATE RESPONSES FROM UKRAINE REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT? THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! AND YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT WHETHER FOREIGN INVESTIGATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE? I THINK IT ANSWERS ITSELF. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA >> ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR ERNST >> THANK YOU THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR LANCASTER COUNTY FORD AND OTHER SENATORS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DESCRIBED ANY DELAY IN MILITARY AIDE AND STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS TO UKRAINE ANSWER 2019 AS A CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECRET SCHEME OR QUID PRO QUO BY THE PRESIDENT. IN 2019, 86% OF THE DOD FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED TO UKRAINE IN SEPTEMBER, BUT IN 2018, 67% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER AND IN 2017, 73% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 30, IN 2019 BUT OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 28 IN 2018 EACH YEAR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN THE FINAL MONTH OR DAYS OF THE FISCAL YEAR WAS THERE — EXCUSE ME, WAS THERE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO UKRAINE OR THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FUNDS GOING OUT AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER IN THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS? DID IT WEAKEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR AID WAS RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER EACH OF THE LAST THREE YEARS? >> THE FUNDS WERE ALSO OBLIGATED IN DECEMBER. THE FACT THAT THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED HERE ON SEPTEMBER 11, AND OBLIGATED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMING IN PAST YEARS THERE WAS — IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT AT THE END OF EVERY FISCAL YEAR THERE IS SOME FUNDING IN THIS UKRAINIAN MILITARY ASSISTANT THAT DOESN’T ACTUALLY MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR. IT IS AND OBLIGATED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. WE HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGERS POINT TO THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAD TO PUT SOMETHING INTO THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, THE SPECIAL PROVISION TO GET $35 MILLION OF THE EIGHT EXTENDED SO TO BE USED IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS EVERY FISCAL YEAR THERE’S SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS — NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AMOUNT BUT SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS TO BE DONE FOR EVERY YEAR BECAUSE IT DOESN’T GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR. NOW IT IS NOT JUST FROM THE RAW DATA THAT WE CAN SEE THAT THE FUNDS WENT OUT, ROUGHLY THE SAME TIMING TOWARD THE END OF THE YEAR THAT THEREFORE IT DOESN’T SUGGEST ANY GREAT RISK TO UKRAINE OR RISK TO NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE KNOW THAT FROM TESTIMONY AS WELL. AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT THE BRIEF PAUSE ON THE AID WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. AND UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, DAVID HALE EXPLAINED IT IS FUTURE ASSISTANTS. I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY THAT IT’S NOT LIKE THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT MONTH BY MONTH TO SUPPLY CURRENT NEEDS IN UKRAINE. IT IS FIVE YOUR MONEY. ONCE IT IS OBLIGATED IT CAN GO TO U.S FIRMS, WHO ARE PROVIDING MATERIAL YEAR TO THE UKRAINIANS AND IT DOESN’T GET DISPENSED DOWN FINALLY, AND MATERIAL SHIPPED TO UKRAINE FOR A LONG TIME SO A DELAY OF 48 OR 55 DAYS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT IT AND THE MONEY BEING RELEASED BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR ENDS UP HAVING NO REAL EFFECT. IT IS NOT CURRENT MONEY IT IS SUPPLYING IMMEDIATE NEED DESPITE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE IDEA THAT ON THE FRONT LINES THE UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS ARE BEING

PUT AT RISK. AND WE KNOW THAT ALSO FROM THE UKRAINIAN DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO THE “NEW YORK TIMES” AND EXPLAINED THAT THE HOLD CAME AND WENT SO QUICKLY THAT IT DID NOTICE CHANGED. AND THE UKRAINIANS DIDN’T EVEN KNOW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS ADVISORS, MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. IS ANOTHER INTERVIEW JUST THE OTHER DAY WITH — THE FOREIGN MINISTER AT THE TIME IT WAS AN INTERVIEW JUST THE OTHER DAY THAT WAS PUBLISHED AND EXPLAINED AGAIN THAT THEY DIDN’T KNOW THE AID HAD BEEN HELD UP. UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE ON AUGUST 28 THEN HE SAID THERE WAS A PANIC IN KYIV BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO. WITHIN TWO WEEKS IT HAD BEEN RELEASED SO WE ALSO HEARD THE IDEA THAT WELL, IT WAS JUST THE FACT OF THE DELAY THAT GAVE THE RUSSIANS THE SIGNAL AND IT GAVE THE UKRAINIANS THE SIGNAL. THAT WAS THE DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY WAS. THE WHOLE POINT IS THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE DIDN’T KNOW. IT WASN’T MADE PUBLIC. THEY WEREN’T BEING GIVEN A SIGNAL THAT AND THE RUSSIANS WEREN’T BEING GIVEN THE SIGNAL BY THAT THAT THEORY FOR DAMAGE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ALSO DOESN’T WORK. IT WAS A PAUSE TEMPORARILY SO THAT THERE COULD BE SOME ASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD RAISED THE MONEY WAS RELEASED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR THE WAS NO DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY IN TERMS OF MATERIAL NOT BEING AVAILABLE TO UKRAINIANS OR IN TERMS OF ANY SIGNAL SENT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER. THE MONEY GOT OUT THE DOOR, ROUGHLY THE SAME TIME AS IN PRIOR YEARS. A LITTLE BIT MORE LEFT OVER AT THE END. THAT HAD TO BE FIXED. THAT THERE IS SOME LEFT OVER AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAT HAS TO BE FIXED WITH A RIDER ON THE NEXT APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR CONTINUING RESOLUTION SO NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER TO NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU COUNCIL. SENATOR FROM HAWAII >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS. IN CONTRAST TO ARGUMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP A TO UKRAINE TO GET HIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS. HE CLAIMED, QUOTE, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN-POLICY AND QUOTE, GET OVER IT. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WITHHOLDING OF AID TO UKRAINE FROM PRIOR AID FREEZES? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT’S WHO HAVE WITHHELD FOREIGN AID AS A BRIBE TO EXTRACT PERSONAL BENEFITS? >> THANK YOU SENATOR. I WILL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. LET ME BEGIN WITH SOMETHING IN THE CATEGORY OF, YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. TODAY, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING WHETHER PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR ESSENTIALLY BOGUS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE FOR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE COURTS TO COVER UP MISCONDUCT, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN RESISTING HOUSE SUBPOENAS IS IN COURT TODAY AND WAS ASKED, IF THE CONGRESS CAN’T COME TO THE COURT TO ENFORCE IT SUBPOENAS BECAUSE AS WE KNOW THERE ARE IN HERE ARGUING THAT CONGRESS MUST GO TO COURT TO FORCE SUBPOENAS BUT THEY ARE SAYING CONGRESS SHALL NOT DO THAT. SO IF CONGRESS CAN’T ENFORCE SUBPOENAS IN COURT, WHAT REMEDY IS THERE AND THE JUST OF HARTMAN ROLE YEAR’S RESPONSE, IMPEACHMENT

IMPEACHMENT. YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED OF THE BAD FAITH OF THIS EFFORT TO COVER UP? AND I SAID THE OTHER DAY, IN THIS COURT MAKING THIS ARGUMENT DOWN THE STREET MAKING THE OTHER ARGUMENT AND I DIDN’T THINK THEY WOULD MAKE IT ON THE SAME DAY BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW, DOES THIS AID DIFFERENT, THE SOUL DIFFERENT FROM OTHER HOLDS? IT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE TO ASK THAT QUESTION THE LAWS THAT CONGRESS PASSED AUTHORIZING THIS APPROPRIATION DID NOT ALLOW FOR THE HOLD BY THIS PRESIDENT. AND AS THE GL, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE FOUND INVALIDATED THE LAW TO HOLD THE AID THE WAY DID. ONCE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE MET THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS REQUIRED UNDER LAW THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE HOLD. THE MONEY HAD TO FLOW THAT WAS INTENTIONALLY. MILITARY ASCENSION IS CRITICAL WITH OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE SPRING OF 2019 THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CERTIFIED UKRAINE MET ALL THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SENT THE SENATE A LETTER SAYING THE BENCHMARKS HAVE BEEN MET. THEY ISSUED PRESS RELEASE AND THE AID WAS MOVING FORWARD. IT BEGAN TO SPEND THE FUNDS TO HELP UKRAINE BUT THEN THE PRESIDENT STEPPED IN. WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY, HE SECRETLY PLACED A HOLD ON THE AID. THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL AND PRESENTATION GIVES SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PAST HOLES AS IF WE CANNOT DISTINGUISH ONE FOR A CORRUPT REASON AND ONE THAT IS FOR A POLICY REASON. MANY EXAMPLES THE LAW EXPLICITLY PROVIDED EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE AUTHORITY TO PAUSE THE AID, CANCEL FOREIGN AID AS A SITUATION EVOLVES. IN REGARD TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA, THE LAW SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO QUOTE SUSPEND OR HOLD IN PARTY ASSISTANCE IF AT ANY TIME THE SECRETARY DEEMS THAT QUOTE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ON A HOST OF PRIORITIES FROM RESPECTING HUMAN LIGHTS TO UPHOLDING THE LAW. THOSE ARE PRIORITIES THAT YOU, THE SENATE AGREED TO. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THEM SIMILARLY, AID TO AFGHANISTAN IS SUBJECT TO PERIODIC EVALUATIONS BY LAW AND THE LAW EXPLICITLY DIRECTS THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD SUSPEND ASSISTANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN IF THE GOVERNMENT IS FAILING TO MAKE MEASURABLE PROGRESS. IN MEETING CERTAIN ANTICORRUPTION HUMAN RIGHTS AND COUNTERTERRORISM BENCHMARKS. THE OVERTHROW OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN EGYPT, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. MEMBERS OF THIS BODY INCLUDING SENATORS McCAIN, LEAHY AND GRAHAM PRESS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO SUSPEND MILITARY AID. THAT WASN’T HIDDEN FROM THE SENATE. IT WAS URGED ON THE ADMINISTRATION BY THE SENATE. SENATORS PRESSED FOR THE AID TO BE WITHHELD BECAUSE THE LAW WAS CLEAR AND INSTANCES OF MILITARY COUP AID MUST BE SUSPENDED. SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE WASHINGTON POST THAT NOT ALL COUPS ARE CREATED EQUAL. A COUP IS STILL A COUP. THE LEADER WAS ELECTED BY MAJORITY OF VOTERS AND THE U.S. LAW SUSPENDS FOR ASSISTANCE. I CAN GO ON AND ON WITH EXAMPLES. NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED YOU CAN’T CONDITION AID BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT YOU CAN’T CONDITION AID FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE. TO TRY TO GET A FOREIGN POWER TO CHEAT IN YOUR ELECTION COUNSEL SAYS THAT IF YOU DECIDE TO PROSECUTE SHOW AND HAS PROVED HAS ENGAGED IN A KRUPS GAME, IF YOU DECIDE AS PARTIAL JURORS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT EXCEPT HER JUDGMENT. I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE — >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS >> I SENT AND AT QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> SENATOR BOZEMAN AND THE OTHER SENATORS POSE A QUESTION TO BOTH SIDES

IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ARGUED IT IS NECESSARY TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT CANNOT BE DECIDED AT THE BALLOT BOX. FOR WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON. HOW CAN ACQUITTING THE PRESIDENT PREVENT VOTERS FROM MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. THAT IS EXACTLY WHO SHOULD DECIDE, WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT. THE VOTERS ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HERE, THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE ELECTED IN THE HOUSE AND THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED. IT IS EXACTLY WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE QUESTION. PARTICULARLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS. WHERE IT IS PURELY PARTISAN. HERE’S THE OTHER THING WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS A POLITICAL WEAPON, THEY DIDN’T TELL YOU WHAT THEY TOLD THE COURT OVER THE HOLIDAYS. WHEN THEY WERE WAITING TO DELIVER THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES. THEY TOLD THE COURT, THEY ARE STILL IN PEACH MEETING IN THE HOUSE. DID YOU KNOW THAT? THEY ARE STILL IMPEACHING. THEY’RE COMING HERE AND TELLING YOU, PLEASE DO THE WORK WE DIDN’T DO. WHERE WE HAD TWO DAYS IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE HAD TO RUSH DELIVERY FOR CHRISTMAS AND WE WAITED. AND WAITED AND WAITED BUT NOW WE WANT YOU TO CALL WITNESSES THAT WE NEVER CALLED THAT WE DIDN’T SUBPOENA THEY WANT TO TURN YOU INTO AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY. IN THE MEANTIME THEY ARE SAYING BY THE WAY, WE ARE STILL DOING IT OVER THERE. WE ARE STILL IMPEACHING AND THEY WANT TO SLOW DOWN NOW THEY DON’T WANT TO SPEED UP THEY WANT TO SLOW IT DOWN AND TAKE UP THE ELECTION YEAR AND CONTINUE THIS POLITICAL CHARADE IT IS ALSO WRONG. IS ALSO WRONG LET’S LEAVE IT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. LET’S TRUST THEM. THEY ARE ASKING YOU NOT TO TRUST THEM. MAYBE THEY DON’T TRUST THEM. MAYBE THEY WON’T LIKE THE RESULT. WE SHOULD TRUST THEM. THAT IS WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHO THE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE. IT WILL BE A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW. AND THEY SHOULD DECIDE, THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF HIS ONGOING ABUSE OF POWER , THREATENS THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION. AS WE SAW FROM THE VIDEO MONTAGE, THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE NO BONES ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE’S WILLING TO SEEK FOREIGN INTERVENTION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAYS THE NEXT ELECTION IS THE REMEDY IT IS NOT THE REMEDY WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO SEEK TO CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDERS DID NOT PUT A REQUIREMENT THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE IMPEACHED IN THEIR FIRST TERM, INDEED AT THAT TIME THERE WERE NOT TERM LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENCY. IF IT WERE THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT NOT BE IMPEACHED AN ELECTION YEAR, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO THEY DID SO FOR REASON BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO MIGHT TRY TO CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION. COUNSEL, AS I WAS GETTING TO A MOMENT AGO, MADE THE ARGUMENT IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION AS IMPARTIAL JURORS, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND ABUSES POWER, HE SHOULD BE CONVICTED OR REMOVED FROM OFFICE OF THE COUNTRY WILL NOT ACCEPT IT. I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEN THAT BUT I WILL ASSURE YOU OF THIS IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION THAT A FAIR TRIAL CAN BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO A FAIR TRIAL. AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUR WITNESSES. WE WOULD LIKE TO RELY ON MORE THAN OUR ARGUMENTATION THERE ARE FEW THINGS ABOUT THIS TRIAL THAT AMERICANS AGREE ON ONE THING THAT THEY ARE SQUARELY IN AGREEMENT ON, WELL, TWO. THEY BELIEVE A TRIAL HAS WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON. THAT IS THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMMON SENSE. LET’S GIVE THE COUNTRY A TRIAL THAT CAN BE PROUD OF LET’S SHOW THAT AT LEAST THE PROCESS WORKED AND WE FOLLOWED THE FOUNDERS INTENT THAT A TRIAL HAVE WITNESSES. I DON’T THINK ANYONE CAN QUARREL WITH THE FACT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS BODY —

>> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER. MR CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KAINE TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS. IS THE SENATOR ACQUITS THE PRESIDENT ON THE ARTICLE TO AFTER YOU VIOLATED BOTH THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ACT TO HIDE THE UKRAINE SCHEME FROM CONGRESS, WHAT WILL STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM COMPLETE REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS ON ANY MATTER? >> THE CONSEQUENCE IS IF THERE IS NO CONSTRAINT ON THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER. THIS GETS TO A POINT THAT YOU’VE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT REPEAT OVER AND OVER. CAN YOU BE IMPEACHED OR ASSERTING PRIVILEGES, AND I WOULD ADD NO MATTER HOW BOGUS OR IN BAD FAITH THE ASSERTIONS MAY BE, NO MATTER WHETHER THEY ARE IN COURT TODAY, ARGUING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY WERE ARGUING BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND THE ANSWER IS, YES, THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR USING THE ASSERTION OF BASELESS CLAIMS TO COVER UP HIS MISCONDUCT THE HOUSE DID NOT IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OVER A SINGLE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE. WE IMPEACHED HIM FOR A FAR MORE FUNDAMENTAL REASON BECAUSE HE ISSUED AN ORDER CATEGORICALLY DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY EVERY SINGLE PART OF EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA SERVED BY THE HOUSE A PRESIDENT WHO ISSUES ORDERS LIKE THIS IS A PRESIDENT THEY CAN PLACE THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW IN A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND GET AWAY WITH IT USING HIS POWERS TO ORCHESTRATE A MASSIVE COVER-UP. THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS HAVEN’T DISPUTED THAT POINT. THEY CAN’T IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A PRESIDENT THAT IGNORES , THAT CAN IGNORE ALL OVERSIGHT IS A THREAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND SAID THEY ARGUED THE ASSERTION OF A GRAB BAG OF LEGAL VILLAGES WARRANTING THIS CRITICAL DEFIANCE THESE ARGUMENTS ARE UNPRECEDENTED AND WELL. THE FIRST THING TO KNOW AS THE ARGUMENTS IGNORE THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER SENT TO THE PRESIDENT — DECLARING THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT QUOTE PARTICIPATE, AND THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. I WON’T PARTICIPATE. THIS BLANKET DEFIANCE PROCEEDED ALL OF THE OTHER LETTERS AND CREATED OPINIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT RELIED UPON. IT MAY CLEAR THE RATIONALE FOR BLANKET DEFIANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT’S BELIEVE HE CAN DECLARE HIS OWN INNOCENCE AND MAKE IT ILLEGITIMATE TO INVESTIGATE HIM THIS WAS NOT ABOUT PRIVILEGES OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. THIS CAME LATER AS THE LAWYERS RUSH TO JUSTIFY THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER WHATSOEVER TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS AGAINST ANYONE. LET’S BE CLEAR THEY MAKE CLAIMS THAT THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER, WHERE THEY SAID THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE WAS SOMEHOW AN OFFER TO ACCOMMODATE BUT WHAT THE REAL CONDITION WAS, WAS THAT THE HOUSE SIMPLY DROPPED THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OR PLACE THE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF INSTRUCTION. THAT WASN’T A REAL OFFER. THAT WAS A POISONED PILL WHAT ABOUT THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS? THE FIRST ONE IS THAT NONE OF THEM JUSTIFIES ORDER TO DEFY ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS. HE NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER ANY DOCUMENTS HIS REMAINING ARGUMENTS THAT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR AGENCY COUNSEL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND DEPOSITIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DOCUMENTS. NOTHING SO NONE OF HIS LEGAL ARGUMENTS APPLIES TO HIS DIRECTION THAT EVERY SINGLE OFFICE AT AGENCY DEFY EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS. AND WHAT ABOUT THE TOTAL OBSTRUCTION OF WITNESSES? HERETO, HE NEVER ASKED INVOKE EXECUTIVE COVERAGE. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY COULD NOT APPLY TO LOWER-LEVEL OFFICIALS WE SUBPOENAED. THE ONLY REMAINING LEGAL GROUND FOR DEFIANCE WAS THE ARGUMENT THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CONGRESS TO PREVENT AGENCY COUNSEL TO GO TO DEPOSITIONS. THE FALLBACK OF FALLBACKS OF FALLBACKS. THIS ROLE ORIGINALLY PASSED BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND HAS BEEN USED BEAUTIFULLY BY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC LED MAJORITIES AND COMMITTEES. IT CAN’T POSSIBLY JUSTIFY OBSTRUCTION OF WITNESS SUBPOENAS. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PHONY COVER FOR INSTRUCTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED UPON AT THE OUTSET. IS ARGUMENTS ARE THUS INCORRECT ON THEIR OWN TERMS AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN HIS CATEGORICAL ORDER

ONE FINAL IRONY, EVEN BEFORE THE ARGUMENT IN COURT TODAY, AT A RECENT ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT THEY MADE THE SAME CLAIM THEY MADE TODAY. LET’S PULL SLIDE 66 — 56. LITIGATION AGAIN TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS, THE JUDGE SAYS THEY CAN MAKE IT A GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT’S OWN LAWYERS SAID, IMPEACHMENT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT CONGRESS HAS. WE AGREE. IT IS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT YOU HAVE. FOR WHEN A PRESIDENT WOULD USE A CATEGORICAL OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION IN HIS OWN WRONGDOING, IT IS A TOOL THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE. THERE CANNOT BE A BETTER CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT ON OBSTRUCTING A COEQUAL BRANCH OF CONGRESS THAN THE ONE BEFORE YOU WHERE THE OBSTRUCTION IS SO COMPLETE AND SO CATEGORICAL >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR BRAUN FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCOTT AND BRAUN FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT IF SPEAKER PELOSI, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN NADLER AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE SO CONFIDENT IN THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT, AND THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT PROMPTED THE INQUIRY, WHY WERE THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS DENIED THE PROCEDURAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT? ADDITIONALLY, WHY WERE THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL AND AGENCY ATTORNEYS DENIED ACCESS TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES DURING COMMITTEE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES IN DEFENSE OF THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW? >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE NUMBERS OF THE SENATE, I DON’T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT. I DON’T KNOW. THEY VIOLATED EVERY PAST PRESIDENT. THEY VIOLATED ALL FORMS OF DUE PROCESS. NOW THEY SAY THAT IS A PROCESS ARGUMENT, AND IT IS. BUT IT IS MORE THAN THAT. WITHIN THAT. IF YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN YOUR FACTS THEN WHY DO YOU DESIGN A PROCESS THAT COMPLETELY SHUTS OUT THE PRESIDENT? WHY DO YOU COOK UP THE FACTS IN A BASEMENT GIFT INSTEAD OF IN THE LIGHT OF DAY? WHY DO YOU DO THAT? WHY DON’T YOU ALLOW THE MINORITY TO CALL WITNESSES AS THEY HAVE HAD — HAD HAD THE RIGHT TO DO IN ALL PAST IMPEACHMENTS? THEN THEY COME AND SAY BY THE WAY, WE WERE FULLY IN CHARGE, COMPLETELY IN CHARGE THAT WE LOCKED OUT THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, DENIED ALL RIGHTS, DENIED THE MINORITY ANY WITNESSES AT ALL BUT WHEN WE COME HERE, THEY STILL DON’T GET WITNESSES. THEY WANT YOU, NOT ONLY TO DO THEIR JOB BUT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE, THE SAME VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS THAT THEY DID. LET’S PICK THE WITNESSES THAT WE WANT THE OTHER ONES ARE IRRELEVANT, NOT RELEVANT. IN LISTENING TO MR. SCHIFF OVER THESE MONTHS I’VE COME TO A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT HE MEANS ABOUT RELEVANT. HE MEANS THAT FOR THEM. OKAY? HE MEANS WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CALL. SO I DON’T KNOW WHY THEY DID THAT. I WILL SAY SOMETHING ELSE. I WILL SAY SOMETHING ELSE I HAVE RESPECT FOR YOU AND I HAVE RESPECT FOR THE HOUSE. AND WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS JOB, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID IS I WENT TO MR. SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. I WENT TO VISIT JIM ANOTHER. I WENT TO VISIT SHARON CUMMINGS AT THAT TIME AND I SAID, WE ARE HERE TO WORK WITH YOU, TO COOPERATE WHERE WE CAN IN THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEREST OBVIOUSLY WE WILL PARTICIPATE IN OVERSIGHT BUT IF WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POINTS TO MAKE WE WILL MAKE THEM AND MAKE THEM DIRECTLY. AND ADMINISTRATION HAS PARTICIPATED IN OVERSIGHT. MANY WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED IN OVERSIGHT HEARINGS. LARGE NUMBERS OF DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN OVERSIGHT HEARINGS. IN FACT, IN THE LETTER I SENT ON OCTOBER 8, I MADE THE

SAME OFFER. I SAID, LOOK, THIS IS NOT REALLY A VALID IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING FOR ALL THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED. IF THE COMMITTEES WISH TO RETURN TO REGULAR OVER OF OVERSIGHT REQUEST WE STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. SO I RESPECT CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION RESPECTS CONGRESS. THAT WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION TOO. AND WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND TO THE FUTURE PRESIDENCY — HOOSIER PRESIDENTS TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTION AND VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU COUNSEL THE SENATOR FROM OREGON >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT THE QUESTION FOR THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE FOR MANAGERS >> THANK YOU THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR FOR THE HOUSE MINIATURES INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS — COMMUNITY IS PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING A FOREIGN ENTITY TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ITSELF PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO IN 2017, DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO’S CONFIRMATION HEARING TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, HE TESTIFIED THAT QUOTE, IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO OUTSOURCE THAT WHICH WE CANNOT DO. SO ONE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ESTABLISHED LEGAL PREDICATE TO DO SO, HOW IS THAT NOT ABUSE OF POWER? >> IT IS ABSOLUTELY AN ABUSE OF POWER. AND ONCE MORE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ESSENTIALLY ENGAGE IN ANY CORRUPT ACTIVITY AS LONG AS HE BELIEVES THAT IT WILL ASSIST HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THAT CAMPAIGN IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHAT IS TO STOP A PRESIDENT FROM TASKING HIS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO DO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS? WHAT IS TO STOP HIM FROM TASKING THE JUST APARTMENT IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH CREDIBLE OR INCREDIBLE CLAIM HIS OPPONENT DESERVES TO BE INVESTIGATED FOR THEIR ARGUMENT WOULD LEAD YOU TO THE CONCLUSION HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT. TO USE THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE A RIVAL. AND WHEN THEY BECOME ARRIVAL, IT IS EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED. BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IF SECRETARY POMPEO WAS CORRECT AND YOU CAN’T USE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, YOU SURE SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO USE THE RUSSIAN ONES. OR UKRAINIAN ONES AND HERE, WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT ON THAT PHONE CALL, PUSHING OUT THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. THIS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE PROPAGANDA, CROWD STRIKE TO SERVERS, IF THERE WAS ONE SERVER AND IT WAS WHISKED AWAY TO UKRAINIAN, THE UKRAINIANS HACKED THE SERVER, NOT THE RUSSIANS. A MADE FOR YOU IN THE KREMLIN CONSPIRACY THEORY THEORY THAT SUITS THE POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LEGAL AGENT RUDY GIULIANI IS OUT THERE PEDDLING THE FICTION. THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF IS OUT PROMOTING THIS FICTION, STANDING SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN. BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL ABUSE OF POWER AND IT IS A MONUMENTAL ABUSE OF POWER. IF YOU DON’T THINK ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE, DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, DON’T TAKE BREATH — PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WORD FOR IT, LET’S LOOK TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID UNDER THE FRAMERS PLAN THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER PRESIDENT IS MAKING — BASED ON IMPROPER MOTIVES OR WHETHER HE’S FACED LEE DISCHARGING RESPONSE — FAITHFULLY DISCHARGING RESPONSIBILITY IS LEFT TO CONGRESS AND THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ANSWERABLE FOR ANY ABUSES OF DISCRETION AND IS ULTIMATELY SUBJECTED TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE THERE WOULD ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN’T AGREE WITH THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE. BUT AGAIN, WE DON’T HAVE TO RELY ON BILL BARR’S OPINION OR ALAN DERSHOWITZ OPINION OR MY OPINION. OR THE CONSENSUS OF THE

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS EVERYWHERE. WE CAN RELY ON COMMON SENSE BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER BY CORRUPTLY ENTERING INTO QUID PRO QUO TO GET A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN LEADER TO DO LITTLE DIRTY WORK AND HELP THEM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION ARE COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT CANNOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. AND IF WE SAY IT IS, IF WE SAY IT IS BEYOND THE REACH OF IMPEACHMENT POWER OR WE ENGAGE IN THIS AND SAY IT BECAUSE HE PUT IT UNDER THE RUBRIC OF ABUSE OF POWER, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS THE FRAMERS’ CORE OFFENSE AND YOU DIDN’T PUT UNDER SOME OTHER RUBRIC, WE WON’T EVEN CONSIDER IT IF WE ARE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THAT LEGAL SOPHISTRY. AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY COMPLETELY UNPROTECTED. FROM A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS POWER IN THIS WAY. THAT CANNOT BE WHAT THE DREAMERS HAD IN MIND. THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO SURRENDER OUR COMMONSENSE. OUR COMMONSENSE AS WELL AS MORALITY TELLS US THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WRONG WHEN A PRESIDENT SACRIFICES NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT IT IS DANGEROUS. ONE OF PRESIDENT SAID, AS WE SAW OVER AND OVER AGAIN, HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT IF LEFT IN OFFICE, IT IS DANGEROUS. THE FRAMERS PROVIDED A REMEDY AND WE URGE YOU TO USE IT >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA >> I ASKED TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON MY BEHALF AND SENATOR BRUSSEL. FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL >> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THAT THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED FROM THIS PRESIDENT AND HE DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MIND. YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM? >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. WHILE THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE COMING BEFORE YOU AND ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF DOING THINGS IN THEIR WORDS, SOLELY FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN, AND CLAIMING THAT HE’S NOT DOING THINGS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU JUST THE OPPOSITE. THE PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL RATING, WHILE WE ARE SITTING HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE HIT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. IN A RECENT POLL IT SHOWS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE HAPPIEST THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY IN 15 YEARS. WHETHER IT IS THE ECONOMY , SECURITY, MILITARY PREPAREDNESS, SURFACE STREETS ARE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE ALL WAY UP. WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER AND YET, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TELL YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE HE’S AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY LISTEN TO THE WORDS THAT THEY HAVE JUST SAID. WE, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CANNOT DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT BECAUSE, AS THEY TELL US, AND THESE ARE THEIR WORDS, QUOTE, WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT? DO YOU REALLY THINK SO LITTLE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? WE DON’T. WE TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT CANDIDLY, IT IS CRAZY TO THINK OTHERWISE. SO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IS THAT HE IS A THREAT TO THEM. AND HE IS AN IMMEDIATE , LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THEM. AN IMMEDIATE, LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THEIR CANDIDATES BECAUSE THE ELECTION IS ONLY AID OUNCE AWAY. LET’S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE. WE REPLACED NAFTA WITH THE HISTORIC McA. WE KILLED THE TERRORIST QASSEM SOLEIMANI. WE SECURED $738 BILLION. 7 MILLION JOBS CREATED SINCE THE ELECTION ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS ARE DOWN 70% SINCE MAY AND 100 WHILES

— MILES OF WALL HAVE BEEN BILLED. ON A PLANE IS LOWEST IN 50 YEARS. MORE AMERICANS, 160 MILLION ARE EMPLOYED , MORE THAN EVER BEFORE. THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN UNEMPLOYMENT, HISPANIC UNEMPLOYMENT, ASIAN-AMERICAN UNEMPLOYMENT HAS THE LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED WOMEN’S ON THE PLANET RECENTLY HAD THE LOWEST RATE IN 65 YEARS EVERY U.S. METROPOLITAN AREA SAW THE CAPITAL GROWTH IN 2018. REAL WAGES HAVE GONE UP BY 8% FOR THE LOW INCOME WORKERS. REAL MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL EVER RECORDED. 40 MILLION FEWER PEOPLE LIVE IN HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE WE SIGNED THE BIGGEST PACKAGE OF TAX CUTS REFORMS IN HISTORY SINCE THEN OVER $1 TRILLION HAS PUT INTO THE U.S. 650,000 SINGLE MOTHERS HAVE BEEN LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY. WE SECURE THE LARGEST EVER INCREASE FOR CHILD CARE FUNDING, HELPING 800,000 LOW INCOME FAMILIES ACCESS HIGH-QUALITY AFFORDABLE CARE. WE PASS, AS MANAGER JEFFRIES WILL RECALL, BIPARTISAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM PRESCRIPTION DRUGS HAVE BEEN DECREASED — THE LARGEST PRICE DECREASE IN OVER HALF A CENTURY >> Reporter: OVERDOSE DEATHS NATIONWIDE FELL IN 2018 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS A GALLUP POLL FROM THREE DAYS AGO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S UPBEAT VIEW OF THE NATION’S ECONOMY, MILITARY STRENGTH, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE WILL LIKELY RESONATE WITH AMERICANS WHEN HE DELIVERS THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TO CONGRESS NEXT WEEK. IF ALL OF THAT, IS SOLELY, IN THEIR WORDS FOR HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN, AND NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEN I SAY, GOD BLESSED THEM, KEEP DOING IT KEEP DOING IT. KEEP DOING IT MAYBE IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS STOP OPPOSING HIM, HARASSING HIM, HARASSING EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTANT LETTERS AND CONSTANT INVESTIGATIONS. MAYBE WE CAN EVEN GET MORE DONE. LET’S TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT NOW JOIN US. JOIN US. ONE NATION, ONE NATION, ONE PEOPLE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP ALL OF THIS, THANK YOU >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO >> THANK YOU. I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR’S IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS IF THE SENATE ACCEPTS THE PRESIDENT’S BLANKET ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? HOW WILL THE SENATE ENSURE THAT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OR A FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL REMAIN TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE? HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS? AND IN THIS CONSTANT, ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ADVISORS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS A WHISTLE-BLOWER >> PRIVILEGES ARE LIMITED. WE HAVE LOADED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT , FROM AMONG OTHER THINGS, ARTICLE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT IS TOTAL DEFIANCE OF HOW SUBPOENAS THE PRESIDENT — I WILL DEFY ALL SUBPOENAS, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? IT MEANS THERE IS NO INFORMATION TO CONGRESS. IT MEANS THE CLAIM OF AN ARTICLE DICTATORIAL POWERS IF CONGRESS SAYS NO INFORMATION, IT CANNOT ACT. OF THE PRESIDENT CAN DEFY — HE CAN DISPUTE CERTAIN SPECIFIC CLAIMS. YOU CAN CLAIM VILLAGE, BUT TO DEFY QUOTE CORRECTLY ALL SUBPOENAS, TO DO IT IS THE CONGRESS HAS NO POWER AT ALL, ONLY EXECUTIVE HAS POWER. THAT IS WHY ARTICLE 2 IS IMPEACHMENT FOR ABUSE OF CONGRESS. THAT IS WHY RICHARD NIXON WAS IMPEACH, FOR ABUSE OF CONGRESS. FOR THE SAME DEFIANCE OF ANY ATTEMPT TO, ALLOW CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE. BUT

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? THE CONSEQUENCES, IF THIS IS — IF HE IS TO GET AWAY WITH IT, ANY SUBPOENA IN THE FUTURE, ANY INFORMATION YOU WANT IN THE FUTURE FOR MANY FUTURE PRESIDENT MAY BE DENIED YOU WITH THE NO EXCUSES. ANNOUNCE INTO FANS OF THE SUBPOENA. IT EVISCERATES CONGRESS AND THE ESTABLISHES EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AS TOTAL DICTATORSHIP. ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MOTIVES. THE MOTIVES ARE CLEARLY DICTATORIAL AND ALSO TAKE THE POINT, SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, A COMMENT AND QUESTION THAT SENATOR COLLINS ASKED YESTERDAY. ASKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF MIXED MOTIVES. WHAT IS — HOW YOU DEFINE, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH A DEED , A PRESIDENT THAT MAY HAVE A CORRUPT MOTIVE AND A FINE MOTIVE? AND HOW DO YOU DO WITH IT? PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT — YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE BALANCES. NONSENSE NONSENSE. WE NEVER IN AMERICAN LAW LOOK AT DECENT MOTIVES, IF YOU CAN PROVE CORRUPT MOTIVE. IF I AM OFFERED A BRIBE AND I ACCEPT THE BRIBE, CORRUPT MOTIVE I WILL NOT BE HEARD THE DEFENSE TO SAY, I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE BILL ANYWAY. IT WAS A GOOD DEAL. YOU DON’T INQUIRE INTO OTHER MOTIVES. MAYBE YOU HAD GOOD MOTIVES. BUT ONCE THE CORRUPT MOTIVE AND CORRUPT WAS ESTABLISHED, THERE IS NO COMPARISON. ALL OF THIS IS NONSENSE TO POINT AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND DEFENDERS DON’T BOTHER TO DEFEND, THEY COME OUT WITH DISTRACTIONS. IT IS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE ABUSE OF POWER BY VIOLATING THE LAW TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, TO EXTORT THAT COUNTRY INTO HELPING HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN BY SLANDERING HIS OPPONENT. CORRUPT, NO QUESTION VIOLATION OF LAW? NO QUESTION FACTUALLY? NO QUESTION. THEY DON’T EVEN MAKE A REAL ATTEMPT TO DENY IT. EVERYTHING IS DISTRACTION AND THE ONE CHIEF DISTRACTION IS, ONCE YOU PROVE A CORRUPT AT, THAT IS IT. YOU NEVER MEASURE THE DEGREE OF MAYBE DECENT MOTIVES TOO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND TALKING ABOUT THAT, IN TALKING ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF PRESIDENCY WAS ABSENT, FROM AMERICAN LAW OR OTHER WESTERN LAW. THANK YOU >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MYSELF >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR PURDUE FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT IS AS FOLLOWS. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THREE STAGE INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN EACH STAGE. COMBINED WITH MANAGER SHIPS REPEATED LEAKS DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION, DO THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS MAKE THE IMPEACHMENT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE? >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION THE SHORT ANSWER, IS, I THINK I HAVE INDICATED A COUPLE OF TIMES I’VE BEEN UP., YES. THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING HERE IS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE. IT IS THE FRUIT OF A PROCEEDING THAT WAS FATALLY DEFICIENT IN DUE PROCESS FROM THE START TO THE BEGINNING AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, HE PRODUCED A RECORD THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELIABLE , CAN’T BE RELIED ON FOR ANY CONCLUSION OTHER THAN ACQUITTING THE PRESIDENT. AND LET ME DETAIL THE THREE PHASES. FIRST, THE FIRST ERROR THAT THE HOUSE BEGAN PROCEEDING IN A TOTAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNLAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE MANNER. IT STARTED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WITHOUT ANY VOTE OF THE HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE THAT INQUIRY. AND I WANT TO SPEND THE SECOND ON THIS BECAUSE

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TODAY, TRYING TO GO BACK AND ARGUE ABOUT, WHY THEY ARE PROCEEDING WAS ALL RIGHT BUT THEY’RE NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGING THE REAL ISSUES IN ORDER FOR THE HOUSE TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, THERE HAS TO BE A DELEGATION OF THAT AUTHORITY TO A COMMITTEE. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES POWER TO THE HOUSE ITSELF, NOT TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, NOT TO THE SPEAKER. JUST HERE IN THE SENATE, YOU DON’T THINK THE MAJORITY LEADER COULD SAY IF IMPEACHMENT ARRIVED THAT THE MAJORITY LEADER COULD SAY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO A TRIAL, WITH THE WHOLE SET UP. BY THE MAJORITY LEADER, I WILL DECIDE I WILL HAVE A COMMITTEE HERE THE EVIDENCE, PROVIDE A SUMMARY AND YOU CAN VOTE. THE MAJORITY LEADER DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY ON HIS OWN TO DO THAT THE SPEAKER DOESN’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THE HOUSE TO GIVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO ANY COMMITTEE TO PURSUE INQUIRY. AND THIS IS THE KEY. THERE IS NO RULE, GIVING ANY COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. WILL 10 SPEAKS OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, NOT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. AND ALL THE SUBPOENAS CAME WITH LETTER SAYING ON THEM, PURSUANT TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THEY PURPORTED TO BE USING THE POWER THAT HADN’T ACTUALLY BEEN DELEGATED TO THE COMMITTEE. THAT IS THE FIRST FLAW. ILLEGITIMATE, UNLAWFUL PROCEEDING FROM THE START. THEN THE DUE PROCESS LAWS. THREE STAGES OF HEARINGS, AND, THE SPEAKER HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT BUNKER. THE PRESIDENT , LOCKED OUT. NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, TO SEE THE EVIDENCE, TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. AND THEN THEY GO FROM THAT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS WHICH REALLY IS A PUBLIC SHOW TRIAL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS STILL CUT OUT, TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS STILL CUT OUT CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE. THE MAJORITY MEMBERS DON’T HAVE EQUAL SUBPOENA 30. THE THIRD PHASE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THEY PURPORT TO HAVE OFFERED THE RIGHTS BUT I HAVE EXPLAINED IT WAS A LOSER BECAUSE THEY DECIDED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO RESPOND WITH WHAT RIGHTS HE WOULD LIKE TO EXERCISE, THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCED THE RESULT THAT THERE WOULD BE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED THEY WOULD NOT HEAR FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES THEY HAD NO PLANS FOR HEARINGS IT WAS ALL A FOREGONE CONCLUSION BECAUSE THEY HAD TO GET IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS. AND THE THIRD AIR, THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS IN CHARGE OF ALL THE FACT-FINDING AND HAD AN INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE INTERACTIONS OF HIS OFFICE WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THAT WAS — WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT. TO SHUT DOWN QUESTIONING ABOUT THE MOTIVE, THE BIAS. THE REASONS THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND HOW IT ALL CAME ABOUT. ALL 3 OF THE ERRORS AFFECTED THE PROCESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THE RESULTED IN A ONE-SIDED, SLANTED, FACT-FINDING THAT WAS RUSHED BY A PERSON CONTROLLING THE FACT-FINDING THAT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIMIT WHAT FACTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET INTO PROCEEDINGS. AND PRODUCED A RECORD THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE RELIED ON HERE. WE HAVE SAID MANY TIMES, THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT CROSS EXAMINATION IS THE GREATEST LEGAL ENGINE EVER INVENTED FOR THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. AND THEY DID NOT PRESENT THE PRESIDENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANYONE. AND THAT IS AN INDICATION THE GOAL WAS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. IT WAS A PARTISAN, CHARADE INTENDED TO JUSTIFY A PREORDAINED RESULT AND GET IT DONE BY CHRISTMAS. AND IT IS NOT A RECORD THAT CAN BE RELIED ON HERE. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? >> THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DUCKWORTH FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. AT THE HOLD ON AID TO UKRAINE WAS MEANT TO BE KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE PRESIDENT COULD GATHER INTERNAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, ON UKRAINE CORRUPTION AND EUROPEAN COST SHARING, THEN IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THIS? FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BRIEFED ON THE ISSUES BY THE NSC, DOD, OR STATE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE HOLD IN THE SUMMER OF 2019 OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE REQUESTED SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON ANTICORRUPTION REFORM MEASURES IN UKRAINE? PRIOR TO RELEASING THE AID ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, THE PRESIDENT ORDER ANY CHANGES TO ADMINISTRATION POLICY TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN

UKRAINE OR BURDEN SHARING WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES? >> CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR THAT COUNTRY — THAT QUESTION. LET’S TAKE A MOMENT AND ADDRESS WHAT THE PROCESS SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE. BECAUSE AS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AND AS PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL HAVE CONCEDED AND WE HAVE CONCEDED, THIS DOES HAPPEN BUT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND FOR DETERMINATION ON HOLD. BECAUSE THERE IS INDEED LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS TO WITHHOLD AID. AND WE HAVE NEVER SAID CORRUPTION IS NOT ONE OF THOSE OR BURDEN SHARING WOULDN’T BE ONE OF THOSE. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED OR ENGAGED IN THAT PROCESS. WHAT WOULD NORMALLY HAPPEN IS, CONGRESS WOULD COME TOGETHER, AS WE DID, AND PASS APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND MADE A DETERMINATION THAT FUNDING WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AID. WHICH 87 MEMBERS OF THE SENATE DID. THIS PAST YEAR. THE PRESIDENT WOULD THEN RELY ON ADVICE OF GOVERNMENT EXPERTS FROM NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, STATE DEPARTMENT AND OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REGARDING THAT AID. THAT IS THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS WE HAVE TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT. THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH EARLIER LAST YEAR AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT INTERAGENCY PROCESS IT WAS DETERMINED IT HAD MET ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR THE AID AND ALL THE AGENCY DETERMINATIONS TO GO FORWARD. THE PRESIDENT WOULD SEEK PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS — WOULD NORMALLY, IF THERE WAS A REASON THE PRESIDENT WOULD GO BACK AND SEEK PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS TO HOLD THE AID. LET ME REPEAT THAT. IF THERE WERE A REASON TO HOLD ADS, THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE THIS IN THE PAST UNDER LEGITIMATE PROCESSES SUCH AS TO GO BACK TO CONGRESS UNDER PRETTY GOOD SCRIBED — PRETTY SKY PROCESSES TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT VIOLATING THE ENTITLEMENT CONTROL ACT AND SEEK TO HOLD UP. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN CONGRESS WOULD WEIGH AND BY APPROVING OR DENYING THE REQUEST. UNLESS CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED THE REQUEST TO MID AID MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE. OF COURSE NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. AND IN THIS INSTANCE A HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE. WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT AND AGENCIES HAVE PREVENTED US FROM GETTING THAT INFORMATION. A HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE WITH NO REASON GIVEN. IN FACT THE ONLY ONE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT APPARENTLY KNOWS WHERE THE HOLD WAS PUT INTO PLACE AS PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WHO TRIED TO TELL US LAST NIGHT WHY HE THINKS THE HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE. NOBODY ELSE KNOWS. SO YES, THE ANSWER IS, IF THERE WAS LEGITIMATE POLICY PROCESS PUT IN PLACE, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, ABOUT CORRUPTION, BUT ANY OTHER CONCERNS TO WHICH WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE. AND OF BURDEN SHARING, TO THE LAST POINT OF THE QUESTION WAS A CONCERN, AND THE PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DISCUSS THOSE CONCERNS WITH THE EU AND OUR EUROPEAN PARTNERS WOULD HAVE BEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. BECAUSE HE IS THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. AND NOT ONCE DID PRESIDENT TRUMP GO TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SAY, DISCUSS THESE ISSUES WITH THE EU AND EUROPEANS SAYING THEY NEED TO PROVIDE MORE MONEY. NOT ONCE DID THAT HAPPEN AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE IT WASN’T THE REAL CONCERN. ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD TAXPAYER MONEY, FOREIGN AID TO A PARTNER AT FOUR TWO COURSE THEM TO START A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT HIS 2020 ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE STILL HERE AND THERE IS ONE PERSON THAT CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT. THAT IS AMBASSADOR BOLTON. AND YES IT IS A GOOD TIME TO SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER >> IN CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM MAINE >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND — AND RUBIO >> THANK YOU THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS AND THE OTHER SENATORS

FOR BOTH PARTIES , EITHER LEGITIMATE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PRESIDENT COULD REQUEST A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN, INCLUDING A POLITICAL RIVAL WHO IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE U.S GOVERNMENT? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY AND HOW THEY D — HOW DO THEY APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE? THE HOUSE WAS FIRST >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME TO COME SIMPLY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SEEK A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION OF AN OPPONENT. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POST-WATERGATE REFORMS WAS TO DIVORCE DECISIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES, SPECIFIC PROSECUTIONS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, TO BUILD A WALL. ONE OF THE MANY NORMS THAT HAS BROKEN DOWN UNDER THIS PRESIDENCY IS THAT WHILE IS OBLITERATED WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY AND AGGRESSIVELY SOUGHT TO INVESTIGATE HIS RIVALS. I CANNOT CONCEIVE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THAT IS APPROPRIATE IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY. AND IN GOOD FAITH TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION AS A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT, WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN MAKE REQUESTS UNDER THE RITUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY, WHEN A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAS EVIDENCE INVOLVING A CRIMINAL CASE, INVOLVING A U.S. PERSON. THERE IS A LEGITIMATE WAY TO DO THAT. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN HERE. IN FACT, WHEN BILL BARR’S NAME WAS FIRST REVEALED ON THAT TRANSCRIPT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY SAID WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THERE WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. HERE, THIS PARTICULAR ERRAND WAS DONE BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER. I WANT TO FOLLOW-UP ALSO WHILE I CAN, SENATOR ON MY COLLEAGUE’S COMMENTS OF MIXED MOTIVES. IF YOU CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT ACTED WITH MIXED MOTIVES, CORRUPT AND FORBIDDEN, SOME LEGITIMATE, YOU SHOULD VOTE TO CONVICT. THAT IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN LEGAL TRADITION. IT IS, PLACE GOING BACK CENTURIES FOR EXAMPLE IN DESCRIBING THE STANDARD FOR CORRUPT MOTIVE OR OBSTRUCTION, THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REJECTED REQUIREMENTS THAT THE DEFENDANTS ONLY OR MAIN PURPOSE WAS TO OBSTRUCT TO ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. AND SO THE COURT EXPLAINED, A DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF MOTIVES INCLUDED ANY CORRUPT, FORBIDDEN GOALS. THAT CASE, YOU THE U.S — IS NOT RELEVANT HERE BUT THAT CASE WAS ARGUED BY PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND HE LOST. HE MADE THE ARGUMENT HE HAS MADE AND PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS HAVE MADE TODAY. THEY LOST THE CASE FOR GOOD REASON. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE HISTORY OF LEGAL TRADITIONS IF SOMEONE, AND THIS IS THE FOUNDER’S CONCERN FOR EXAMPLE THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT BE CHARGED WITH BRIBING MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BARRASSO BARRASSO >> IN WHICH THE PROSECUTOR WAS BY A U.S. PERSON OVER SEAS THAT POTENTIALLY VIOLATED THE LAW OF

THAT COUNTRY, BUT DIDN’T VIOLATE THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY BUT THERE WAS A NATIONAL INTEREST IN HAVING SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT WENT ON, THEN IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE TO SUGGEST THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING INTO, WE HAVE AN INTEREST KNOWING ABOUT THIS, EVEN IF IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD MEAN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND SO THAT COULD ARISE IN VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PERSON HAD DONE SOMETHING OVER SEAS BUT A NATIONAL INTEREST IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY HAD DONE, THANK YOU >> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS QUESTION IS THIS, “YESTERDAY I ASKED THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIM ABOUT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY CANDIDATE THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS TO NAME A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR WITNESS THAT THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES IN RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST OR SUBPOENA MR.PHILBIN SPOKE FOR FIVE MINUTES AND SPOKE OF THE PRIVILEGES THE PRESIDENT CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE WITNESS OR DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IT IS DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES AND PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL GOES FIRST.” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER I WAS INTENDING TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD PROVIDED FOR ITS ACTIONS AND TO EXPLAIN CONTRARY TO THE QUESTION IF IT WAS NOT SIMPLY ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE AND NOT SIMPLY A BLANKET ASSERTION THAT WE WON’T DO ANYTHING THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT PRINCIPLE THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL ADVISED THAT THOSE SUBPOENAS, ATTEMPTING TO REQUIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT A BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SO THOSE WITNESSES WERE NOT PRODUCED STILL THERE WERE 17 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED NOT INCLUDING 18th WITNESS, THE ICIG WHOSE TESTIMONY IS STILL SECRET. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF TESTIMONY AND THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY SOME DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THIS PRODUCED UNDER FOYA, I RAISE THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES CLEAR IF YOU MAKE A DOCUMENT REQUEST THAT IS VALID, DOCUMENTS GET PRODUCED, IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW THE ADMINISTRATION RESISTED, THAT’S WHY THE DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED, WE MADE THAT VERY CLEAR >> NOW COUNSEL HAS OBVIOUSLY MADE ALL THESE CLAIM THAT WE THINK ARE COMPLETELY SPEW USE,

WHAT THEY DON’T ANSWER WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS THIS THEY ARGUE THIS INTERPRETATION COURTS REJECTED THAT LOOKED AT IT, SOMEHOW THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID, BUT WHY DIDN’T THEY PRODUCE DOCUMENTS? WHY DID THEY INSIST ON COURTS LEGAL THEORY? BECAUSE THEY WERE COVERING UP THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT I WANT TO RETURN BRIEFLY TO FINISH THE COMMENTS I WAS MAKING EARLIER ABOUT THE SENATOR’S QUESTION EARLIER ON MIXED MOTIVES L IS A GOOD REASON WHY MIXED MOTIVES ARE NO DEFENSE, COULD ALWAYS CLAIM EVEN IF THEY DID IT, EVEN IF IT WAS CORRUPT THEY MUST BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO EVENT SOME PHONY MOTIVATION AND PLAYED SOME MINOR ROLE IN THEIR SCHEME, MULTIPLE FRAMERS CITED THIS SPECIFIC THREAT, DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COULD A PRESIDENT DEFEND HIMSELF ON THE GROUND MOTIVATED IN PART BY A NOBLE DESIRE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE? COULD THEY DEFEND IT ON THE GROUND HANDED OVER THE BRIBES HE WASN’T JUST ACTING CORRUPTLY BUT SEEKING TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY KEEPING HIMSELF IN POWER ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS, YES, HE COULD INDEED FOR ALL THE REASONS WE PROVIDE THERE HAD IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S QUID PRO QUO, SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND OFFICIAL USE TO FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT SCHEME, BENEFITING HIMSELF TO OBTAIN PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN WHILE IGNORING AND INJURING CORE NATIONAL INTERESTS IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND IN OUR SECURITY WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED WE BELIEVE THIS SCHEME WAS ENTIRELY CORRUPT BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT, ASK JOHN BOLTON ANY REQUEST ABOUT WHETHER THE MOTIVE WAS MIXED OR NOT MIXED, ASK JOHN BOLTON BUT HE HAS RELEVANT TESTIMONY CAN YOU ASK ALSO MICK MULVANEY, CAN YOU SUBPOENA THE DOCUMENTS ANSWER TO EARLIER QUESTIONS, WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE AIDE, ANY INTERAGENCY DISCUSSION OF REFORMS IN, I MEAN PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CHANGED, NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA >> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED >> CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK THAT WE STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 4:00 >> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED >> YOU ARE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, WE’LL RECAP WHAT WE’VE SEEN TODAY AND TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE NEWS SURROUNDING THIS STORY THIS IS THE SECOND DAY OF QUESTIONS FOR HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TIME AND AFTER THE WE WILL SEE A VIET TOMORROW, WE DO BELIEVE HELD ON WHETHER TO CALL WITNESSES I’M LIBBY CASEY, I’M JOINED IN STUDIO FROM NATALIE JENNINGS ROBERT COST A POLITICAL REPORTER AND PAUL ZONEY NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER SO, NOTHING REALLY SURPRISING HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE HOURS SINCE THEY GAVELED IN.AROUND 1:00 DEMOCRATS ARE HAMMERING THIS AGAINST ALAN DERRY SO ITS IN DOING THINGS TO ENABLE THAT HE IS WORKING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WE’VE SEEN REPUBLICANS REPEATEDLY BRICK UP RATHER THE REPUBLICANS WHO WERE QUESTIONED AND TRUMP TEAM LAWYERS BRING UP THIS ISSUE OF THE PUBLIC WILL AND ELECTIONS MATTERS AND LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE SO WE’LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING LAID OUT I THINK WE NEED TO PIVOT TO THE NEWS HAPPENING AROUND THE CHAMBER THE QUESTION ON EVERYONE’S MIND WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WITNESSES >> EVERYONE STILL KEEPING THEIR NO ONE IS BEING OVERLY GIVING AWAY WHAT IS GOING ON, THERE IS MORE CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM FROM REPUBLICANS SPEAKING AND A LITTLE MORE TALK ABOUT HOW THEY MIGHT PROLONG THINGS, SENATOR SCHUMER ALLUDED TO THAT EARLIER BEFORE PROCEEDINGS STARTED TODAY SO, WE STILL DON’T KNOW ANYTHING BUT ALL SIGNS ARE SORT OF POINTING IN THE DIRECTION THEY THOUGHT WE WERE GOING YESTERDAY >> SO THERE IS THE SCENE UNFOLDING ON THE SENATE FLOOR, AND THE ARGUMENTS CONTINUE TO GO BACK AND FORTH THE QUESTIONS ARE FLYING, THE REAL NEWS HERE ON THURSDAY IS THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AT THIS TIME, TO CALL ANY WITNESSES IN THE SENATE PHASE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS

LEADER McCONNELL HAS SUCH A TIGHT GRIP OVER HIS CONFERENCE COULD END UP BEING THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE ON THE GOP SIDE WHO VOTE FOR WITNESSES ON FRIDAY. THAT’S GOING TO BE THE NEWS ON FRIDAY WILL SENATORS COME ALONG AT THIS POINT BASED ON MY REPORTING THEY ARE NOT SENDING ANY SIGNALS THAT THEY ARE MOVING TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESSES >> PAUL, DOES THE JOHN BOLTON NEWS HAS REALLY CHANGED THE DYNAMIC, WE WEREN’T EXPECTING TO BE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT REPUBLICANS WOULD BE DEFECTING OVER THIS CALL FOR WITNESSES McCONNELL IS LOCKING IT DOWN SO, AS BOLTON NEWS AS ENTERED THIS DYNAMIC, WHERE ARE WE AT RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE IS SOME PULL BACK NOW ON JUST HOW REPUBLICANS FEEL ABOUT GETTING HIS TESTIMONY AND PUBLIC SENTIMENT ABOUT GETTING HIS TESTIMONY >> WE SEE A LOT IN THE TRUMP ERA, SOME OF THE NEW PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT COMES OUT THERE IS THIS IMMEDIATE REACTION OH, MY GOD HOW IS THIS GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING? SOMETIMES PULL BACK BEING WELL MAYBE IT’S NOT GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING AS EXPECTED AND I THINK WHAT BOB IS SAYING IS RIGHT, WE ARE SEEING AS THERE IS SUCH A TIGHT CONTROL OF THE CAUCUS BY MITCH McCONNELL, THERE IS SO MUCH SENSE OF NOT WANTING TO AFFRONT THE PRESIDENT AMONG REPUBLICAN SENATORS ESPECIALLY GOING INTO AN ELECTION YEAR AND TO I’M NOT SURE IT WILL STERN OUT WHAT SEEMS LIKE EXPLOSIVE REVELATIONS ABOUT WHAT JOHN BOLTON KNEW, KNOWS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, HIS ACTIONS, RELATIONSHIP, COULD TESTIFY TO WHETHER THAT WILL END UP INFLUENCING THE WITNESSES OR NOT >> ABOUT YOUR TWEETER FEED JOHN BOLTON IS PLANNING TO SPEAK PUBLICLY AT DUKE NEXT MONTH, IN A COUPLE WEEKS >> IT WAS ANNOUNCED BY DUKE UNIVERSITY HE IS GOING TO SPEAK ON CAMPUS, I BELIEVE FEBRUARY 17th. JUST A FEW WEEKS FROM NOW YET HE IS NOT WILLING SO FAR TO GIVE AN INTERVIEW IN PUBLIC, HE HAS THIS BOOK COMING OUT IN MARCH AND FOR DEMOCRATS, IT’S SEXING WHY WON’T GAUZE BOLTON COME FORWARD, SO UNTEAR TESTIMONY, SO AMBASSADOR BOLTON LEGALLY, MITT I CANNILY RATING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE SO HE IS NOT MOVING MOVING T MOVING OT MOVING FORWARD TO TESTIFY BUT THAT HAS SOMETHING I HAVE MY ATTENTION ON >> IMPORTANT POINT THAT EVERYONE THINKS THE SENATE NEEDS TO AGREE TO A TESTIMONY TO HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO SAY, JOHN BOLTON CAN GIVE AN INTERVIEW AT ANY POINT SO, IT’S NOT AS IF IT’S NOT AS IF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ALL NEED TO AGREE IN ORDER TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY >> NATALIE THERE HAS BEEN A PRESSURE CAMPAIGN BY PRESIDENT AND OTHERS TO DIMINISH PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY AND STATURE >> IN A MATTER OF WEEKS, KNOWING ALL THE NEWS THAT HAS COME OUT OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE CHAMBER OVER THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, IT’S BEEN DRIVEN HOME FOR REPUBLICANS WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION THAT THERE IS A PROSPECT OF MORE INFORMATION COMING OUT, CLOSE AT HAND AT THAT PROSPECT THAT IS STILL NOT APPEARING TO SWAY MORE THAN A SMALL NUMBER OF THEM TO CONSIDER CALLING JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS THEY KNOW THE RISKS THEY ARE TAKING AND STILL STICKING WITH THE PRESIDENT >> LET’S GO TO OUR COLLEAGUE WHO IS LIVE ON CAPITOL HILL, FOLLOWING ALL OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWERS SO FAR TODAY SO WE’RE RELATIVELY EARLY IN THIS STATE CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT WE’VE SEEN SO FAR >> SO FAR WE’VE SEEN A LOT OF A SORTED QUESTIONS THAT AREN’T NECESSARILY GETTING AT HEART OF THE ISSUE, THE UKRAINE CALL, THEY ARE ABOUT ISSUES SURROUNDING IT FROM REPUBLICANS WE’RE HEARING A LOT OF ATTACK ON THE PROCESS, THE HOUSE PROCESS IT SEEMS LIKE THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT AS THEIR FINE 58 ARGUMENT AS WE GET THROUGH THIS LAST STRETCH OF THE OF THE Q AND A PROCESS, DEMOCRATS WANT TO HIGHLIGHT BRINGING BOLTON IN AS A WITNESS THEY CONTINUE ON THAT REFRAIN, THERE WAS A MOMENT WHERE ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS SHOWED FRUSTRATION ABOUT BRINGING BIDEN IN AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU ALL A CLIP, SHE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHY DIDN’T THE HOUSE MANAGERS INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THEIR

CONFLICTING REPORTS AND HERE IS HOW SHE ANSWERED IT >> PROBABLY SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT I CAN’T REPEAT TO YOU ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MY SON. SO I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION SENATOR, WHAT THAT EXACT CONVERSATION WAS BUT, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THIS, LOOKING AT THE BIDENS NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE CALL THEIR NAME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO POINT TO THE FACT THAT EITHER BIDEN HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SHAKING DOWN A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION THE PRECIOUS ELECTION TRYING TO STEAL EACH INDIVIDUAL’S IN THIS COUNTRY’S VOTE I DON’T BELIEVE EITHER BIDEN HAS ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHO I THINK DOES MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON IF WE’RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE TRUTH, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL HIM BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT SAY, OR WHAT ABOUT MR. MULVANEY? WHO HAD DAY TO DAY CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPAL IN OUR INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES >> , SO IN THIS LAST FEW HOUR, THAT’S WHAT WE’VE SEEN A LOT FROM THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS, THEY WANT TO CONTINUE BRINGING THIS BACK TO BOLTON AND CALLING FOR WITNESSES NOW THERE WERE A FEW OTHER SPECIFIC ON THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW HOURS, RAND PAUL IN ABOUT THE FIRST 15 MINUTES SUBMITTED THE QUESTION ASKING HIM TO >>> IT RAISES A LOT OF QUESTION

>> IT DOES RAISE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS TRIAL, OF COURSE THIS WILL SET PRECEDENTS BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. AND EVERY OTHER SENATE, THE VICE PRESIDENT IS THE PERSON PRESIDING. IF THEY THINK THERE WILL BE A TIME THE VICE PRESIDENT COMES DOWN WE PRETTY MUCH KNOW WHERE THAT WILL GO BECAUSE THE VICE PRESIDENT IS AFFILIATED WITH ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER. EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS THAT THIS CHIEF JUSTICE DOES NOT RELISH BEING PUT IN THIS POSITION. WE KNOW THERE WILL BE WHATEVER DEGREE OF PRESSURE THERE CAN BE EXUDED ON HIM. WE ALSO KNOW THE PRESSURE WILL FOLLOW HIM GOING FORWARD IN HIS JUDICIAL CAREER. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE HEARING ABOUT FOR A VERY LONG TIME >> A NEW RECORDING SHOWS THE ACCESS TO TRUMP AT A MAR-A-LAGO DONOR EVENT. THIS IS FROM VIDEO. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT DOES SHOW A PAST HISTORY AND CONNECTION WHICH PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DID TRY TO DOWNPLAY >> YES THIS IS AN APRIL EVENT WHERE DONORS AND THE HEAD OF THE RNC ARE ALL ATTENDING THE EVENT. IT SEEMS LIKE A RECORDING WAS TAKEN OF THIS EVENT, A FULL RECORDING OF WHAT THE QUESTIONS AROUND THE TABLE WERE. FOR NOW, WHAT THIS UNDERSCORES IS THAT BOTH MEN DID HAVE SIGNIFICANT ACCESS TO THE PRESENT, EVEN THOUGH TRUMP HAS CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW THEM. AND SO THIS EVENT HAPPENED JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE THEY HAD A PRIVATE DINNER WITH A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THE TRUMP HOTEL IN WASHINGTON THEY ARE NOT PROBABLY YOUR AVERAGE REPUBLICAN DONORS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT THE KIND OF GUYS YOU WOULD FORGET IF YOU WERE SITTING AROUND THE SMALL TABLE WITH THEM. ESPECIALLY WITH THIS TABLE OF REPUBLICAN DONORS THIS CALLS INTO QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESENT NOT HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS

>> WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT NOT CALLING WITNESSES? >> WHEN I WAS AT THE SENATE YESTERDAY, I RAN INTO LEV PARNAS , HE WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE CAPITAL BUT HE ULTIMATELY DID NOT BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING AN ANKLE MONITOR AND HE IS INDICTED AND ANDRE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION YOU CANNOT BRING METAL AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES INTO THE CHAMBER AND HE WAS NOT ALLOWED IN. I WENT UP TO LEV PARNAS AND ASKED WHAT HIS MESSAGE WAS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND LEV SAID TO ME THAT HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD SAY. I ASKED WHAT HIS MESSAGE WAS TO THE REPUBLICANS AND HE SAID THAT THEY WOULD KNOW. IT WAS VAGUE. BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT LEV PARNAS WAS IN THE CAPITAL AND ALL THESE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE WALKING BY AND THEY SEE THE ENTOURAGE OF LEV PARNAS AND THE CAMERAS, PEOPLE TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, EVERYBODY IS THERE AND THE REPUBLICANS JUST STREAM BY AS THE GIULIANI ASSOCIATE, POSSIBLE WITNESS IN THE TRIAL IS STANDING THERE AND TAKING QUESTIONS. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR LEV PARNAS, ONLY THE REPORTERS DID >> ONE OF THE LEGAL TEAM FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TALKED ABOUT GIULIANI AND TALKED ABOUT HIM DISTRACTING THE SENATORS AS THEY CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP >> YES I THINK THAT IS THE RESPONSE FROM DEMOCRATS GIULIANI IS MENTIONED ON THE PHONE CALLS, RIGHT? REMEMBER ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TRUMP SAID INVESTIGATE THE BITING AND IT WOULD BE — WITH THE BIDEN FAMILY AND THEN IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU COULD CORRELATE WITH GIULIANI ON THIS AND THEN HE HAD MEETINGS WITH STAFF TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE NEEDED IN ORDER TO SECURE. SO GIULIANI, IT’S POSSIBLE SOME OF HIS OTHER DEALINGS WITH VENEZUELA OR TURKEY ARE A BRIGHT SHINY OBJECT >> LET’S GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS INTERESTING MOMENT TODAY BETWEEN THESE SENATORS THE QUESTION IS ARE THERE EVER JUSTIFIABLE REASONS THAT A PRESIDENT MAY REQUEST A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS NOT ALREADY UNDER INVESTIGATION IN THE STATE >> IT OPPONENT >> A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION HERE IN THE UNITED STATES >> QUESTIONS GO TO BOTH SIDES CAN BE PROVEN A LITTLE MORE VALUABLE AND THOUGHT PROVOKES BECAUSE IT GIVES BOTH SIDE HAS CHANCE TO WEIGH IN AND LESS OF LIKE A THUMB ON THE SCALE THAN MORE AN AUTHENTIC QUESTION, WHAT ARE YOUR QUESTIONS HOW THAT WAS DEALT WITH >> ONE THING YOU HAVE TO STEP BACK, THINK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS REQUESTING UKRAINE UKRAINE INVESTIGATIONS, THE SORT OF POSITION OF THE U.S GOVERNMENT HAS LONG BEEN THAT WE WANT TO REFORM THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS OFFICE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE

CONFIDENCE IN THE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION, EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION, THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE PAID OFF THE SENSE THAT SOME PROSECUTORS ARE ESSENTIALLY ON THE PAYROLL, OLIGARCHS. THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO GET SOME GROUND TROOPS, YOU DON’T WANT TO DO THAT THROUGH UKRAINE INVESTIGATION, YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT THROUGH THE U.S AUTHORITIES HAVING SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING A REQUEST TO THE U.S AUTHORITIES AND HAVING THEM WORK WITH UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATORS, ALSO PROBABLY WANT IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A POLITICAL RIVAL INVOLVED YOU WOULDN’T WANT IT TO BE A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT, THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVOLVED SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT IT’S NORMAL FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF A SOMEBODY WHO IS A POLITICAL RIVAL, THAT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE’VE SEEN ANYTIME RECENTLY IN U.S ELECTORAL POLITICS >> LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW SENATOR SHERROD BROWN OHIO DEMOCRAT, I WALKED UP TO HIM RECENTLY AT THE SENATE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE REPUBLICANS AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING. HE THINKS THEY ARE ALL IN FEAR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HE HADN’T SEEN A MOMENT LIKE THIS IN THE SENATE IN TERMS PRESSURE ON A SENATE BODY THAN SINCE THE IRAQ WAR AND VOTE FOR INTERVENTION BACK IN 2003, 2003 REPUBLICANS PRIVATELY HE SAID FIVE TO SIX REPUBLICANS HE TALKS TO ALL THE TIME CAN’T STAND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT BUT BOXED IN POLITICALLY, IF THEY SPEAK OUT, IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT GETTING A BAD TWEET, SENATOR ROMNEY HE IS STICKING BY HIS POSITION ON WITNESSES, I SPOKE TO HIM YESTERDAY HE CAN’T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE AT THIS POINT BUT HE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR THEM >> AS WE WATCH SENATORS, IT HAS BEEN USEFUL TO HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT SHE AND THE OTHER MODERATES HAVE BEEN ASKING, IT’S BEEN REVEALING ABOUT THEIR STATE OF MIND, ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PROBE BUT BOB HAS IT GIVEN A SENSE OF ONE THEM BEING IN CONTROL OR HAVING THE REAL SORT OF LIKE HUTSPA TO PUSHBACK OR HAVE THEIR OWN THOUGHT BUS THIS IN A WAY THAT ISN’T BEING DICTATED BY ANYONE, ANY OF THE POWER LOVERS HERE? >> SENATOR ROMNEY’S QUESTIONS ARE THE MOST POINTED TO FIGURE OUT A TIME LINE, THAT COVERS 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, HE COMES OUT OF THIS BANING CAPITAL WHERE IT’S ALL DATA DRIVEN, METRICS, HE WAS POKING THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, WHEN DID PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKE DECISIONS, SHE IS ASKING MORE ABOUT THE PROCESS FROM HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND YOU JUST DON’T SEE THERE IS NO REVOLT THAT IS PART OF THE CHALLENGE OF THIS PROCESS AS A REPORTER, IT’S NOT THAT DR. MATT EC OF A MOMENT FINISHING THEIR ARGUMENTS, SENATOR McCONNELL, IF I WAS WRITING THE TIKTOK THE MOMENT THAT REALLY MATTERED WHEN MEMBER CONNELL CAME OUT, HE DIDN’T HAVE THE VOTES FOR WITNESSES. WHEN THAT WAS REPORTED, AND WE FOLLOWED UP AND REPORTED IT, I SAID TO OUR EDITORS, THIS IS THE MOMENT IT DIED. THE PUSH FOR WITNESSES BECAUSE McCONNELL WAS DOING BY SAYING THAT WAS PLAYING A POLITICAL GAME, AND I DON’T MEAN THAT AS A KNOCK ON HIM, HE IS SAYING TO THOSE ON THE FENCE, YOU GOTTA MAKE A HE DECISION, I’M PITTING YOU UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT, NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SWARM YOU AND ASK, IMMEDIATELY AFTER McCONNELL HE SUDDENLY HAD THE VOTES SENATOR GARDNER ISSUED A STATEMENT OTHER SENATORS ISSUED STATEMENTING THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PUSH FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES >> THEY WERE TRYING TO GET IT, ACTUALLY ABOUT READY TO GO TO THE FLOOR NOW, WE’LL SAVE THE REST OF OUR CONVERSATION FOR LATER. THANK YOU >> CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO >> I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS RICHE, FISCHER, CRUZ AND PURDUE >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRAPO AND OTHER SENIORITY ARES FOR COUNSEL OF PRESIDENT, “HOW MANY WITNESSES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THIS TRIAL? HOW MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL AND HOW MANY OTHER CLIPS AN TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED

TO THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR WITNESSES, YOU CAN’T HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF WITNESSES. THERE WAS 17 WITNESSES WHO WERE DEPOSED AND TESTIFIED IN PUBLIC, 12 AND PUBLIC 17 WHO WERE IN CLOSED HEARINGS BELOW SO FAR YOU HAVE SEEN THESE PRESENTATIONS 192 VIDEO CLIP FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES SO TESTIMONY WAS SHOWN HERE TO YOU, JUST AS YOU WOULD IN A TRIAL IN ORDINARY COURT SOMETIMES PLAY THE VIDEO A DEPOSITION INSTEAD OF HAVING THE WITNESS TAKE THE STAND, HAVE YOU SEEN VIDEO CLIPS FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES THE HOUSE MANAGERS DRAMATICALLY WIELD INTO THE SENATE A RECORD I THINK IT WAS REPORTED AS BEING 29,000 PAGES I THINK THE MORE OFFICIAL NUMBER IS 28578 PAGES SO, YOU HAVE GOT OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD PROVISION ALLEY IN EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL SUBJECT LATER TO POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS FOR HEARSAY AND OTHER EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS YOU ALSO HEARD HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED ALONG WITH THE PRESENTATION OF BOTH DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE BY VIDEO CLIP AND SLIDES PUT UP YOU HEARD ARGUMENT FOR UP TO 24 HOURS FROM EACH SIDE, WE DIDN’T TAKE ALL OF OUR TIME, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUED OVER 24 HOURS PUTTING ON WITH THEIR VIDEO CHIPS AND EXERTS AND DOCUMENT IN RECORD THEIR CASE SO, AT THIS POINT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT PUT ON HERE IN TERMS OF A TRIAL YOU HAVE SEEN THE WITNESSES IN THE CLIPS ALL THE MOST RELEVANT PARTS, YOU HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS PUT UP IN EXCERPTS ON THE SCREENS AS A RESULT OF THIS THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BEFORE THEY CAME HERE THEY SAID THEY HAD AN OVERWHELMING CASE IT WAS ALREADY BUTTONED DOWN, THEY DIDN’T NEED ANYTHING ELSE THEY SAID WHEN THEY GOT HERE THAT IT WAS PROVEN, EVERY SINGLE ALLEGATION, EVERY LINE IN EACH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY SAID PROVEN, PROVEN, PROVEN WE DON’T THINK THAI’S TRUE, THAT’S THEIR WORDS, THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY’VE HAD SUFFER EVIDENCE TO MAKE THEIR CASE THEY SAID PROVEN EFFICIENT UNCONTESTED AND OVERWHELMING AT LEAST 68 TIMES IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FLOOR HERE MANAGER NADLER TOLD US JUST TODAY THAT THEY THINK HEVEA NOT PROVED IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BEYOND ANY DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE THEY’VE ALREADY PUT ON IN FRONT OF YOU WE DONE THINK THAT’S TRUE, WE THINK WE’VE DEMONSTRATED IT’S NOT BUT THE POINT IS THAT HOUSE MANAGERS — AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES THROUGH CLIPS FROM HEARING TESTIMONY THEY’VE ALREADY PRESENTED TO YOU A LARGE PORTION OF THE MOST RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM THOSE 28,000 YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES, HAVE YOU SEEN WHERE THEIR TESTIMONY CONFLICTS, YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS THE BETTER OR MORE PERSUASIVE VERSION OF THE FACTS, YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE RECORD THAT THEY SAY WAS OVERWHELMING. ALREADY READY TO GO TO TRIAL AND THIS PROCEEDING THEREFORE HAS ALREADY HAD A LOT OF THE EARMARKS OF A TRIAL SO, DON’T BE TAKEN IN BY THE IDEA WE CAN’T HAVE A TRIAL HERE, CAN’T HAVE A VALID PROCEEDING UNLESS THEY BRING SOMEONE IN HERE TO TESTIFY LIVE BECAUSE IT WOULDN’T BE JUST ONE PERSON, IT WOULD START TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE IT’S NOT PRESENTING THE CASE THAT WAS PREPARED IN HEARINGS BELOW, IT’S OPENING UP DISCOVERY FOR AN ENTIRELY NEW CASE AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE DEPOSITIONS AND WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES AND THERE IS NO NEED TO DO THAT IF THEY REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU THAT IT’S ALREADY OVERWHELMING, IT’S ALREADY PROVEN THERE IS NO NEED TO GO ON TO ANYTHING ELSE WHEN HAVE YOU ALREADY SEEN SO MUCH AND HOUSE MANAGER HAD THEIR CASE, CHANCE TO PREPARE THEIR CASE AGAIN I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE POINT TO BEAR IN MIND WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT SAID, WHAT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT BE SET IF THIS CHAMBER HAS TO

BECOME THE INVESTIGATION BODY FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT WERE NOT PREPARED PROPERLY IN THE HOUSE, THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM ARIZONA >> I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTIONS FROM THE OTHER SENATORS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. , “THE LOGAN ACT PROHIBITS ANY U.S. CITIZEN WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH THE INTENT TO INFLUENCE THAT GOVERNMENT’S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO ANY CONTROVERSY WITH THE UNITED STATES WILL THE PRESIDENT ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN ALSO NOT BE DIRECTED TO CONDUCT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN SPACE I CANNILY AND FORMALLY DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION FIRST LET ME ANSWER IN SEVERAL PARTS THE FIRST IS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY BEING CARRIED ON HERE BY A PRIVATE PERSON THE TESTIMONY WAS CLEAR FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I ASSUME THE REFERENCE WOULD BE TO MR GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT’S PRIVATE COUNSEL AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS CLEAR THAT HE UNDERSTOOD MR. GIULIANI JUST TO BE A SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SOMEONE WHO KNEW ABOUT UKRAINE, AND SOMEONE WHO SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT AND IN FACT, IT WAS THE TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS THE UKRAINIAN YERMACK WHO ASKED TO BE CONNECTED TO MR. GIULIANI WHO COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS NOT HIS UNDERSTANDING, DID HE NOT BELIEVE THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS CARRYING OUT SORT OF POLICY DIRECTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT BUT RATHER INDICATING HIS VIEWS OF WHAT HE THOUGHT WOULD BE SOMETHING USEFUL FOR THE UKRAINIANS TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT OF THEIR ANTICORRUPTION BONE FIDE IT IS OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT’S POLICY IS ALWAYS TO A BIDE BY THE LAW, BY THE LAWS. I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE PLEDGES FOR THE PRESIDENT HERE BUT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICY IS ALWAYS TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS AND CONTINUE TO DO SO. I THINK IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT THAT MANY PRESIDENTS STARTING WITH PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, HAVE RELIED ON PERSONS WHO ARE THEIR TRUSTED CONFIDANTS, BUT WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN DIPLOMACY PRESIDENT WASHINGTON RELIED ON MORRIS TO CARRY MESSAGES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, I BELIEVE, TO THE FRENCH FDR HAD HIS CONFIDANT WHO HE RELIED ON IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE A GO-BETWEEN WITH FOREIGN POWERS AND A LIST OF OTHERS. THEY WERE MENTIONED IN SOME OF THE TESTIMONY DURING THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. SO I DON’T THINK THAT THERE IS ANYTHING AGAIN, AS I SAID IT WAS NOT HERE, BUT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING IMPROPER FOR A PRESIDENT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES TO RELY ON A PERSONAL CONFIDANT TO BE ABLE TO CONVEY MESSAGES, RECEIVE MESSAGES BACK AND FORTH FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD RELATE TO THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THAT IS NOT PROHIBITED BUT HIS AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 2 >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS >> YOUR HONOR, SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR ERNST I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK

FROM MR NADLER AND PHILBIN >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KENNEDY AND SENATOR ERNST FOR BOTH PARTIES, HOUSE MANAGERS WILL BE FIRST. “IF A PRESIDENT ASKS FOR INVESTIGATION OF A POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY POLITICAL RIVAL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT OBJECTIVELY ARE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE IMPEACHED IF MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT DID IT FOR THE WRONG REASON? .” >> THE PRESIDENT OF COURSE IS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY, IS ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE IS ENTITLED TO USE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE IS HE NOT ENTITLED TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SPECIFICALLY ONLY AFTER MR. BIDEN BECAME ANNOUNCED ACCOUNT FOR PRESIDENT THAT HE SUDDENLY DECIDED UKRAINE OUGHT TO LOOK INTO THE BIDENS HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR, HE MADE IT CLEAR HE WASN’T INTERESTED IN AN INVESTIGATION HE WAS INTERESTED IN AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION JUST SO THAT BIDENS COULD BE SMEARED SO, PROBABLY NEVER SUITABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZEN IF HE THINKS IT’S GENERAL CORRUPTION AND INVESTIGATION ON GOING, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN CERTAINLY ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE IN THAT INVESTIGATION, BUT THAT WASN’T DONE HERE THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL WITH AN OBVIOUS POLITICAL MOTIVE. AND I WOULD SIMPLY SAY, THAI IS SO CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT WAS A POLITICAL MOTIVE AGAINST SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS THERE ARE 1.8 MILLION COMPANIES IN UKRAINE HALF OF THEM WERE CORRUPT THE PRESIDENT CHOSE ONE THE ONE WITH MR. BIDEN >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE I AM PEEVED I THINK THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTION IS GETTING BACK TO A SITUATION OF MIXED MOTIVES WHICH HAS COME UP A COUPLE TIMES HERE IF THE PRESIDENT AS CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HEAD OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION TO BE PURSUED AND HE INDICATES IT SHOULD BE PURSUED, IS IT POSSIBLE HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT IF THERE’S SOME DISPUTE ABOUT MOTIVES WHERE THERE IS LEGITIMATE BASE FOR THAT CONDUCT? AND THE ANSWER IS NO AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES WHEN THEY FRAMED THEIR CASE HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT THEY SAY THE STANDARD THEY ARE GOING TO TO MEET, THESE ARE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS, THESE ARE BASELESS INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THEY ARE ALLEGING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO INITIATE AND THAT THEY HAD NO LEGITIMATE, THERE WAS NOT ANY LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR PURSUING INVESTIGATION I’M PRETTY SURE THAT IS PAGE FIVE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT AND THEY USED THAT STANDARD AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A SKIN TILL LA OF EVIDENCE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY WANT TO ASK ABOUT RELATED TO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN’T GET INTO A MIXED MOTIVE SCENARIO. IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE NATIONAL INTEREST THERE, IT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO START GETTING INTO THE FIELD WELL WE ARE GOING TO IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT AND REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE BY PUTTING THE PSYCHIATRIST COUCH TO FIND OUT WAS IT 48% THIS MOTIVE AND 52 THE OTHER OR DID HE HAVE OTHER RATIONALE? NO. IF IT’S A LEGITIMATE INQUIRY IN NATIONAL INTEREST, THAT’S THE END OF IT AND YOU CAN’T BE SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, REMOVE HIM OFFICE, DECAPITATE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, DISRUPT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY IN AN ELECTION YEAR BY TRYING TO PARSE

MOTIVES WAS THIS GOOD MOTIVE OR SOME OTHER MOTIVE IF IT WAS A LEGITIMATE INQUIRY INTO NATIONAL INTEREST IF THAT POSSIBILITY IS THERE, IF THE NATIONAL INTEREST IS THERE, THAT’S THE END OF IT, THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL I HAVEN’T SPECIFIED THIS BEFORE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST IF SENATORS DIRECTED THEIR QUESTIONS TO ONE OF THE PARTIES OR BOTH, LEAVE IT UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT WHO THEY WANT TO GO UP TO BAD RATHER THAN PARTICULAR COUNSELS SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DURBIN TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS GIVEN BY PRESIDENT COUNSEL — PRESIDENT AT COUNSEL TO SENATOR SINNAMA’S QUESTION >> SENATORS, CHIEF JUSTICE, WE HEARD A RATHER BREATHTAKING ADMISSION BY THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER AND IT WAS SAID IN AN UNDER STATED WAY, BUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL SAID WAS THAT NO NORTHERN POLICY WAS BEING CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY HERE. THAT IS RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT CONDUCTING U.S FOREIGN POLICY RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY THAT IS A REMARKABLE ADMISSION BECAUSE TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY HAVE A TEMPTED TO SUGGEST OR CLAIM OR INSINUATE THAT THIS IS A POLICY DIFFERENCE, THAT A CONCERN OVERBURDEN SHARING OR SOMETHING CORRUPTION WAS A POLICY ISSUE THEY HAVE NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THIS WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY THAT IS A STARTLING ADMISSION SO, THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT GIULIANI WAS CHARGED WITH TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INTO JOE BIDEN IN TO THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THEORY, THEY HAVE JUST ADMIT WEEKEND NOT PART OF POLICY, THEY WERE NOT POLICY CONDUCTED BY MR. GIULIANI SO WHAT WERE THEY? THEY WERE IN THE WORDS OF DR. HILL A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND NOT TO BE CONFUSE WEEKEND POLICY. THEY HAVE JUST UNDERMINED THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT, EVEN AS TO MIXED MOTIVES BECAUSE THE MAN IN CHARGE OF IT WAS UNDERGOING THIS DOMESTIC, NOW YOU HEARD A SUGGESTION THERE, HE WAS ONLY DOING THIS, GIULIANI WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE HE WAS BEING CANDIDATE THAT IS LAUGHABLE GIULIANI TRIED TO GET TO ZELENSKY, HE COULDN’T GET IN THE DOOR THEN HE ANNOUNCED THAT THERE ARE ENEMIES AROUND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND THEN THEY GO INTO THE PHONE CALL JULY 25th UKRAINIANS, WE ARE ONLY FRIENDS AND WHAT’S THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE? I WANT YOU TO TALK TO RUDY THAT’S NOT POLICY BEING CONDUCTED THAT IS A PERSONAL POLITICAL ERRAND THEY JUST UNDERMINED THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT NOW THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ALSO ESSENTIALLY ARGUES IN TERMS OF WITNESSES, IF THEIR CASE IS AS STRONG AS MR SCHIFF AND NADLER, THEN WHY DO THEY NEED WITNESSES? YOU KNOW YOU CAN IMAGINE THE SCENE IN ANY COURTROOM IN AMERICA WHERE BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS, DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT STANDS UP AND SAYS, YOUR HONOR, IF THE PROSECUTION CASE IS SO STRONG LET THEM PROVE IT WITHOUT WITNESSES THAT’S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS BEING ARGUED HERE I WILL MAKE AN OFFER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL WHO HAVE SAID THIS WILL STRETCH ON DONE NEVER LIGHTLY LET’S CABIN THE DEPOSITIONS TO ONE WEEK IN THE CLINTON TRIAL THERE WAS ONE WEEK OF DEPOSITIONS, AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SENATE DID DURING THAT WEEK? THEY DID THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE THE SEP ATE WENT BACK TO ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS WHILE THE DEPOSITIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED LET’S USE THE CLINTON MODEL LET’S TAKE A WEEK, LET’S TAKE A WEEK TO HAVE A FIRE TRIAL YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR BUSINESS WE CAN GET THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY DONE IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS? CAN WE FOLLOW THE CLINTON MODEL THAT WE TAKE ONE WEEK? I MEAN ARE WE REALLY DRIVEN BY THE TIMES OF THE STATE OF THE UNION, CAN’T WE TAKE ONE WEEK TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES?

I THINK WE CAN I THINK WE SHOULD I THINK WE MUST >> MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND TO THE DESK A QUESTION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SCHOTTS DIRECTED TO BOTH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS MURKOWSKI AND SCHOTSS” ANY ACTION THE VAST MAJORITY 0 OF POLITICIANS TAKE IS TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER INHERENTLY POLITICAL? WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE, POLITICAL ACTIONS AND IMPEACHABLE POLITICAL ACTIONS? ” COUNSEL WILL GO FIRST >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND I THINK THAT HITS THE QUESTION REALLY HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD AS I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, ELECTED OFFICIALS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST ONE EYE LOOKING ON TO THE NEXT ELECTION AND HOW THEIR ACTION, THEIR POLICY DECISIONS, ACTIONS IN OFFICE WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE ELECTOR RATE, THAT’S GOOD, IT’S PART OF THE WAY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WORKS. SO, HAVING PART OF YOUR MOTIVES BE LOOKING TOWARD THE NEXT ELECTION, LOOKING TOWARDS HOW THAT WILL AFFECT ELECTORAL CHANCES, THAT IS PART OF THE NATURE OF ELECTED OFFICE AND TO START GETTING INTO MOTIVES ABOUT WILL THIS AFFECT MY PROSPECTS IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND CALLING THAT CORRUPT, AND IF YOU HAVE GOT THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTIVE, LOOKING INTO WHETHER YOU WERE DOING SOMETHING FOR ELECTORAL ADVANTAGE AND SAYING, THAT’S GOING TO BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE, WE’LL SAY THAT YOU CAN BE CHARGED FOR WRONGDOING WITH THAT OR IMPEACHED, IS VERY DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS ALMOST NO WAY TO GET INSIDE SOMEONE’S HEAD AND PARCEL OUT WHICH PERCENTAGE WAS ONE MOTIVE, WHICH PERCENTAGE WAS ANOTHER MOTIVE IF YOU START DOWN THAT PATH, IT TOTALLY MORPHIS WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS MAKING, THIS IDEA OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT ON A TEARY OF ABUSE OF POWER DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON ANALYZING SUBJECT OF MOTIVE HOUSE MANAGERS SUGGESTED, WE ARE ASSUMING THERE IS AN ACT ON THE FACE THAT IS LEGITIMATE, WITHIN THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY NOT UNLAWFUL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT SOLELY BASED ON MOTIVE WE ARE GOING TO IMPEACH HIM AND BY SAYING THAT WELL IF IT WAS REALLY DIRECTED AT THE NEXT ELECTION THAT IS THE CORRUPT MOTIVE, THAT’S VERY DANGEROUS PATH BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS SOME EYE TO THE NEXT ELECTION. AND IT ENDS UP ABOUT BECOMING A STANDARD SO MALLEABLE IF WE DON’T LIKE YOUR POLICY WE A TRIBUTE TO BAD MOTIVE. THAT IS SOMETHING JUSTICE IREDELL WROTE ABOUT, IF YOU MACE SOMETHING JUST ON MOTIVE BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CALLS MALIGNANCE OF PARTY >> COUNSEL >> THANK YOU >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE INHERENTLY MITT I CAN ALAN ANIMAL, I DON’T MEAN THAT IN A DEROGATORY TERM, THEY RUN FOR OFFICE, HOLD OFFICE, CONDUCTS ACTS AS POLITICAL FIGURES BUT IF WE LOOK AT WHAT HAMILTON HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE CORE OF OFFENSES THAT WARRANT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER HE TALKED ABOUT THE CRIMES BEING POLITICAL IN CHARACTER AND THE REMEDIES BEING POLITICAL IN CHARACTER, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPRISONMENT, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY SOMEBODY’S LIBERTY, A POLITICAL FUNCTION THE FOR A POLITICAL CRIME YES, EVERYONE IN OFFICE HAS A POLITICAL MOTIVATION BUT CERTAINLY THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT WE CAN’T DRAW A LINE BETWEEN CORRUPT ACTIVITY THAT IS UNDER TAKEN, YES FOR A POLITICAL REASON, AND NON-CORRUPT ACTIVITY, INDEED WE HAVE TO DRAW THAT LINE

LET’S SHOW WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD DRAW THE LINE >> IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT THE FACT THAT HE HAS ANNOUNCED CANDIDACY IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE INTEREST IN HIS SIGHT, AT THE WASN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE IS A HAS BIN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OKAY, BIG DEAL. IF HE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, THAT’S AN ENORMOUS BIG DEAL. SO IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS TAKE ACTIONS THEY MAY HAVE BE MIND WHEN THEY MAKE A POLICY JUDGMENT, WHAT’S THE IMPACT ON MY POLITICAL CAREER GOING TO BE, OR IMPACT ON MY REELECTION PROSPECTS THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHETHER THEY CAN ENGAGE IN A CORRUPT ACT TO HELP THEIR ELECTION, IN THIS CASE TO GET FOREIGN HELP TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION. I THINK WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FACT THAT POLITICAL ACTORS HAVE POLITICAL INTERESTS WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE WOULD ARGUE AND THAT IS IF HE BELIEVES IT’S IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST THEN NO QUID PRO QUO IS TOO CORRUPT THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT THIS OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT CAN DO THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT FOREIGN POWERS WILL FEEL THEY CAN OFFER A CORRUPT PRESIDENT TO HELP THEIR REELECTION IF THAT IS THE PRESIDENT — >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ >> THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING INVESTIGATIONS FROM FOREIGN POWER BASED ON WHAT FIONA HILL CALLED “A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE PERPETRATED AND PROPAGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES.” THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS WARNED THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY PREPARING TO ATTACK OUR ELECTION IN 2020 AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY HE WOULD WELCOME FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS WHY SHOULD AMERICANS BE CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION LET’S OUTLINE THE FACTS THAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT TODAY NONE OF THE 17 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AS PART OF THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER RAY WHO IS CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY STATED AS RECENTLY AS THIS PAST DECEMBER THAT WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT INDICATES THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN HOMELAND SECURITY VISOR, TOM BOSSERT SAID, IT’S NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT’S COMPLETELY DEBUNKED HE ADDED, “LET ME REPEAT HERE AGAIN, IT HAS NO VALIDITY.” OF COURSE, MS. HILL, AS THE QUESTION INDICATED, SAID “FICTIONAL NARRATIVE BEING PERPETRATED AND PROPAGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES THEMSELVES.” THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO VALIDITY TO THIS, OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOUND RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC BUT DON’T TAKE OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY’S WORD FOR IT, LET’S HERE WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF SAID RECENTLY

ABOUT THIS IN NOVEMBER OF 2019, MR. PUTIN WAS OVERHEARD THANK GOD NO ONE IS ACCUSING OF US INTERFERING IN THE U.S. ELECTIONS, NOW THEY ARE ACCUSING UKRAINE LET ME END WITH THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY THIS MATTERS, THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD MATTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN COULD CARELESS ABOUT DELIVERING HEALTHCARE TO THE PEOPLE OF RUSSIA OR BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN RUSSIA, MANY IN THIS CHAMBER KNOW WELL, HAVE WORKED WITH SOME OF YOU ON THIS WAKES UP EVERY MORNING AND GOES TO BED EVERY NIGHT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GUESS CRY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, ORGANIZED THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF HIS GOVERNMENT AROUND THAT EFFORT. THIS IS A BATTLE OVER RESOLVE, IT’S A BATTLE OVER THE HEARTS AN MINDS OF OUR PEOPLE, IT’S A BATTLE OVER INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION AND IF A MESSAGE FROM THE VERY TOP OF OUR GOVERNMENT, FROM THE TOP OF OUR LEADERS, MESSAGE FROM SOME FOLKS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IS THAT FACTS DON’T MATTER THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT DONE MATTER IT, THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS DOESN’T MATTER. THAT IS DANGEROUS THAT IS WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIA ARE LOOKING FOR. AND THAT MAKES US LESS SAFE >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER MR.CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS HAWLEY, CRUZ, KRAMER, BRAUN, PURDUE, RUBIO, SULLIVAN, ERNST, SCOTT OF FLORIDA, DANES AND FISCHER FOR BOTH HOUSE MANAGERS WITH RESPONSE FROM COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON AND THE OTHER SENATORS FOR BOTH PARTIES. “RECENT REPORTING DESCRIBED TWO NFC STAFF HOLDOVERS FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTENDING AN ALL HANDS MEETING OF NFC STAFF HELD ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND TALKING LOUDLY ENOUGH TO BE OVERHEARD SAYING, WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT THE PRESIDENT ON JULY 2’6″, 2019, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HIRED ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THE REPORT FURTHER DESCRIBES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MISCO, VINDMAN AND AN INDIVIDUAL ALLEGED AS THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHY DOES YOUR COMMITTEE HIRE SEAN MISKO THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL AND WHAT ROLE HAS HE PLAYED THROUGHOUT YOUR COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION? ” THE HOUSE WILL BEGIN >> FIRST OF ALL, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ATTACKS ON MY STAFF >> WHEN I SAID WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP EARLIER, I’M APPALLED AT SOME OF THE SMEARING OF THE PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE NOW THIS QUESTION REFERS TO ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE WHICH ARE CIRCULATING SMEARS ON MY STAFF AND ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO THOSE SMEARS AND I WILL NOT DIGNIFY THOSE SMEARS ON MY STAFF BY GIVING THEM ANY CREDENCE WHATSOEVER NOR WILL I SHARE ANY INFORMATION THAT I BELIEVE COULD OR COULD NOT LEAD TO THE IDENTIFY CASE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. I AM GOING TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING MEMBERS OF THIS BODY USED TO CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWER IDENTITIES THEY DIDN’T USED TO ATTACK MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE STAFF BUT NOW THEY DO NOW THEY DO NOW THEY’LL TAKE UNSUBSTANTIATED REPRESSED ARTICLE AND USE IT TO SMEAR NEW STAFF I THINK IT’S DISGRATEFUL WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE A UNIQUE AND VITAL RESOURCE FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, UNLIKE OTHER WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO CAN GO PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION, IN THE INTELLIGENCE CANNOT BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH CLASSIFIED

INFORMATION THEY MUST COME TO A COMMITTEE, THEY MUST TALK TO THE STAFF OF THAT COMMITTEE OR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO OUR SYSTEM RELIED UPON IT WHEN YOU JEOPARDIZE A WHISTLEBLOWER BY TRYING TO OUT THEM THIS WAY, THEN YOU ARE THREATENING NOT JUST THIS WHISTLEBLOWER BUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM NOW THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN THAT AND I AM SURE THE PRESIDENT IS PLOTTING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE HE WANTS HIS POUND OF FLESH AND HE WANTS TO PUNISH ANYONE THAT HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO HIM WELL, I CAN’T TELL YOU WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, OR WHO SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE EVERYONE OF US EVERYONE OF US SHOULD BE WILLING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON PRESIDENTIAL MISS CONDUCT IF IT WEREN’T FOR THIS WHISTLEBLOWER WE WOULDN’T KNOW ABOUT THIS MISCONDUCT AND THAT MIGHT BE JUST AS WELL FOR THIS PRESIDENT BUT NOT GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY AND I WORRY THAT FUTURE PEOPLE THAT SEE WRONGDOING ARE GOING TO WATCH HOW THIS PERSON HAS BEEN TREATED, THE THREATS AGAINST THIS PERSON’S LIFE AND THEY ARE GOING TO SAY WHY STICK MY NECK OUT? IS MY NAME GOING TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD? WILL PEOPLE JOIN OUR STAFF IF THEY KNOW THAT THEIR NAMES ARE GOING TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD? >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> TWO RESPONSES I WOULD LIKE TO GET TO, ONE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, THE WHISTLEBLOWER MR.SCHIFF PUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ISSUE FRONT AND CENTER WITH HIS OWN WORDS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION TALKED ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIFYING RETRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE STATUTE AGAINST A WHISTLEBLOWER THAT’S WHAT WHISTLEBLOWER STATUE PROTECTS THAT THERE IS NO RETRIBUTION, IN OTHER WORDS NOT FIRED FOR BLOWING THE WHISTLE BUT, THIS IDEA THERE IS COMPLETE ANONYMITY, I’M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD DISCLOSE THE INDIVIDUALS NAME. YOU HANDLE THAT IN YOUR SESSION ANY WAY YOU WANT WE CAN’T SAY IT’S NOT AN IRRELEVANT INQUIRY TO KNOW WHO ON THE STAFF THAT CONDUCTED THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATION HERE WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THAT WHISTLEBLOWER, ESPECIALLY AFTER MR. SCHIFF DENIED HE OR HIS STAFF INITIALLY HAD EVEN HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER IT GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE WITNESS ISSUE, AND I WANT TO GO TO THAT FOR 30 SECONDS HERE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE DISCUSSION FOR WITNESSES I HEARD WHAT MR. SCHIFF SAID ABOUT THE — WE’LL DO DEPOSITIONS IN A WEEK DEMOCRATIC LEADER SAID I COULD HAVE ANY WITNESSES I WANT YESTERDAY, I HAVE IT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU COULDN’T GET THE DISCOVERY DONE IN A WEEK BUT IF IN FACT, IF IN FACT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED THIS OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY HAVE, ALL — THEY TALK ABOUT SUBTERFUGE AND SMOKE SCREEN, THE SMOKE SCREEN IS THAT THEY USED 13 OF THEIR 17 WITNESSES TO TRY TO PROVE THEIR CASE AND WE WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE VERY WITNESSES TO UNDER CUT THAT CASE SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON >> FOR THE HOUSE MANAGER >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM FOR THE WHOSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MURRAY. “IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO OPENLY DEFYING A VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA, HOW WILL CONGRESS BE ABLE TO PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE ANY ADMINISTRATION IS FOLLOWING THE LAW AND ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICAN FAMILIES? ” >> WELL THEY COULD HAVE VERY SERIOUS, DEVASTATING DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THE SENATE IGNORES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ON GOING OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, IT WOULD LEAD TO THE END OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AS WE KNOW IT TODAY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS ARGUES THAT CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES OTHERWISE

THEIR ARGUMENT IS FALSE, AND IT IS A TALKS ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWERS A VOTE AGAINST ARTICLE 2 IS A VOTE TO CONDONE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CORRUPTED VIEW OF AMERICA’S CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE VOTING AGAINST ARTICLE 2 WILL GRANT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANY OTHER PRESIDENT FROM NOW UNTIL FOREVER THE POWER TO SIMPLY IGNORE ALL CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SEEK TO A COURT TO ENFORCE IT UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN IF ALL OF THESE SENATORS WERE VOTE TO FAVOR TO ISSUE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES, ADMINISTRATION COULD STILL IGNORE THAT UNTIL A COURT RULES ON IT MR.SCHIFF ADDRESSED SOME OF THAT EARLIER IN OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU COULD GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE IT, THEN IT WOULD GET APPEALED, GO BACK TO COURT, WE COULD GO ON AND OWN BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY THAT IS WHAT THEIR POSITION IS SO AGAIN AS MR. SCHIFF SAID EARLIER, IMAGINE YOURSELVES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER AN ITEM THAT YOU CARED DEEPLY ABOUT AND YOU NEEDED INFORMATION, YOU HEARD OF SOME WRONGDOING, YOU HEARD THERE WAS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT ON SOMETHING AND YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO DO A HEARING IT’S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD JUST FLATLY REFUSE YOUR SUBPOENA BECAUSE IF WE IGNORE ARTICLE 2, THAT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT IGNORE ALL SUBPOENAS BUT WE NEED YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR US TODAY, NOT ONLY TO GET MR. BOLTON HERE, BUT MR DUFFY, MR. MULVANEY AND ANYONE ELSE WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE NOW, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION EXERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME PRIVILEGE, ONE, THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM ON ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS BUT THOSE HAVE TO BE ASSERTED WITH EVERY DOCUMENT AS WE SENT A SUBPOENA. SO DON’T BUY THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT THAT OUR SUBPOENAS ARE INVALID BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THEM. WE KNOW WE DO, YOU KNOW WE DO SO LET’S MAKE SURE THAT THIS BODY WILL MAKE SURE THAT NO FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL JUST SIMPLY DEFY, DISRESPECT AND IGNORE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE SOME DAY YOU MAY BE IN ARRISHES, WANTING TO GET INFORMATION, WANTING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE TO ENSURE THAT NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, MS. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR ARE FROM ALASKA >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS RISCHE, BLUNT, KENNEDY FOR THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FOR SENATOR SULLIVAN AND THE OTHER SENATORS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT “GIVEN THAT THE SENATE IS NOW CONSIDERING THE VERY EVIDENTIARY RECORD ASSEMBLED AND VOTED ON BY THE HOUSE, WHICH CHAIRMAN NADLER HAS REPEATED CLAIMED CONSTITUTES OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT, HOW CAN THE SENATE BE ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN WHAT MR. NADLER DESCRIBED AS A COVERUP IF THE SENATE MAKES ITS DECISION BASED ON THE EXACT SAME EVIDENTIARY RECORD THE HOUSE DID? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND I THINK THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT I THINK IT’S RATHER PREPOSTEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT THIS SEP ATE WOULD BE ENGAGING IN A COVERUP TO RELY ON THE SAME RECORD THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID IS OVERWHELMING THEY’VE SAID IT A DOZENS OF TIMES, THEY’VE SAID THAT IN THEIR VIEW THEY’VE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE PRESENTED ALREADY TO ESTABLISH THEIR CASE BEYOND ANY DOUBT, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TOTALLY IN COHERENT TO CLAIM AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THE SENATE TO RELY ON THAT RECORD YOUR JUDGMENT MAY BE AND SHOULD BE, QUESTION SUBMIT, DIFFERENT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGER’S ASSESSMENT OF THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT HADN’T ESTABLISHED THEIR CASE AT ALL BUT IF THEY ARE WILLING TO TELL

YOU THAT IT’S COMPLETE AND IT HAS EVERYTHING THEY NEED, HAS EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO ESTABLISH EVERYTHING THEY WANT I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT IT’S ALL THAT’S THERE THE SWITCH TO SAY NO, WE NEED MORE WITNESSES I THINK JUST DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY HAVEN’T PROVED THEIR CASE THEY DON’T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THEIR CASE AND AS I WENT THROUGH A MINUTE AGO, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED A RECORD WITH OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT’S HERE, PRESENTED VIDEO CLIPS OF 13 WITNESSES, YOU’VE HEARD ALL OF THE KEY EVIDENCE THAT THEY GATHERED, IT WAS THEIR PROCESS, THEY WERE THE ONES THAT SAID WHAT THE PROCESS WAS GOING TO BE, HOW IT WAS TO BE DONE, WHO WAS GOING TO TESTIFY, WHEN THEY DECIDED THEY’VE HAD ENOUGH YOU HEARD ALL OF THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THAT AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE A DECISION. IF IN THE TIME I HAVE REMAINING I WANT TO TURN TO ONE POINT IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO AND WE KEEP HEARING REPEATEDLY TODAY THE REFRAIN OF THE IDEA THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SOMEHOW TRYING TO PED HE WILL VLADIMIR PUTIN’S CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRY TO PRESENT THIS BINARY VIEW OF THE WORLD THAT ONLY ONE COUNTRY, AND ONE COUNTRY ALONE, COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION AND IT WAS RUSSIA AND IF YOU MENTION ANY OTHER COUNTRY, DOING SOMETHING RELATED TO ELECTION INTERFERENCE, YOU ARE JUST A PAWN OF VLADIMIR PUTIN TRYING TO PEDDEL HIS CONSPIRACY HERO THAT IS NOT TRUE COULD BE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND DIFFERENT WAYS TO TRY TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN AND THE TELEPHONE CALL, THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT HE MENTIONS CROWDSTRIKE, HE MENTIONS THE SERVER BUT HE TALKS ABOUT, HE SAYS THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT ON, THE WHOLE SITUATION I THINK YOU’RE SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE SO HE IS TALKING ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE DNC SERVER, AND HE CLOSES IT AGAIN SAYING, HE REFERS TO ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY AND HE SAYS THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED IN UKRAINE, A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON. TWICE IN THAT EXCHANGE HE SAYS THERE IS A LOT OF STUFF, THE WHOLE SITUATION AND WHAT IS THAT REFERRING TO? SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH SAME PEOPLE, CHANGING OUT THE AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS AMBASSADOR WHO ABOUT HUMIDITY BEEN THERE HAD WRITTEN AN OP ED CRITICIZING PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE ELECTION WE ALSO KNOW MULTIP ILL UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO DID THINGS EITHER TO CRITICIZE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ASSIST A DNC OPERATIVE, IN GATHERING INFORMATION AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AND SAID THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, NO ONE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING DONE BY UKRAINE THAT’S NOT TRUE ONE OF THEIR STAR WITNESSES, FIONA HILL, SPACE SPECIFICALLY TESTIFIED IN HER PUBLIC HEARING, SHE SAID SHE WENT BACK AND CHECKED BECAUSE SHE HADN’T REMEMBERED THE POLITICAL ARTICLE AND THEN SHE SAID THAT SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, BET HILLARY CLINTON CHINNING THE ELECTION.” IT WAS QUITE EVIDENT IN HER WORDS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FAVOR THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, COLLECT INFORMATION ON PEOPLE WORKING ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE DOING THAT THIS IDEA IT’S A BINARY WORLD, EITHER RUSSIA OR UKRAINE, IF YOU ARE MENTIONING UKRAINE YOU ARE DOING VLADIMIR PUTIN’S BIDDING IS TOTALLY FALSE AND YOU SHOULDN’T BE FOOLED BY THAT THE UKRAINIANS, VARIOUS UKRAINIANS WERE DOING THINGS TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> SENATOR FROM VERMONT >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I WOULD SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU, SENATOR >> SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL, IF A PRESIDENT IS

SOMETHING HE BELIEVES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT” HE ADD ADD HYPOTHETICAL, “I THINK I’M THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS AND IF I’M NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY THAT CANNOT BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.” UNDER THIS VIEW, THERE IS NO REMEDY TO PREVENT A PRESIDENT FROM CONDITIONING FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT ON RECIPIENTS TO DO THE PRESIDENT A POLITICAL FAVOR IF THE SENATE FAILS TO REJECT THIS THEORY, WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLD DISASTER AID FUNDING FROM A U.S. CITY UNTIL A MAYOR ENDORSES HIM STOP A PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLDING ANY PART OF THE HAD $4.7 TRILLION ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET SUBJECT TO HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. I THINK THE SENATORS FOR THAT VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION CERTAINLY WHAT WE HAVE ALLEGED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED A PERSONAL, POLITICAL BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OFFICIAL LIE SOLICITED DIRT ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID SOLICITED DIRT IN EXCHANGE FOR WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND IF THIS SENATE WERE TO SAY THAT’S ACCEPTABLE, THEN PRECISELY AS WAS OUTLINED IN THAT QUESTION COULD TAKE PLACE ALL ACROSS AMERICA IN A CONTEXT OF THE NEXT ELECTION AND ANY ELECTION GRANTS ALLOCATED, THE CITIES OR TOWNS OR MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE PRESIDENT COULD SAY YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT MONEY, MR MAYOR, MRS. COUNTY EXECUTIVE, MRS. TOWN SUPERVISOR, UNLESS YOU ARE ENDORSE ME FOR REELECTION PRESIDENT COULD SAY THAT TO ANY GOVERNOR OF OUR 50 STATES THAT’S UNACCEPTABLE THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC NOW, BY MY COUNT, AS OF THIS AFTERNOON, FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOUNDERS OF OUR GREAT REPUBLIC HAVE BEEN WROTED EITHER DIRECTLY OR MENTIONED BY NAME 123 TIMES ALEXANDER HAMILTON 48 TIMES JAMES MADISON 35 TIMES. GEORGE WASHINGTON 24 TIMES, JOHN ADAMS 8 TIMES THOMAS JEFFERSON AND BEN FRANKLIN PULLING UP THE REAR, 4 TIMES SEEMS TO ME BEN FRANKLIN AND THOMAS JEFFERSON NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE LOVE AND SO LET ME TRY TO DO MY PART THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE OBSERVED THAT TYRANNY IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY THAT IS WHAT WE CONFRONT RIGHT NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER, HE TARGETED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, PRESSURE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT IS OKAY BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT. THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD BY CLAIMING A FAKE INJURY AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT THE STOCK MARKET BY ENGAGING ON INSIDER TRADING AND THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THEIR CHILD INTO AN ELITE UNIVERSITY AND THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY WHY SHOULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE ALLOWED TO CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY? TYRANNY IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND

ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN DO ANYTHING, ANYTHING THAT HE WANTS AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY HE CAN CHEAT AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY HE CAN ENGAGE IN A COVERUP AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY HE CAN CORRUPTLY ABUSE HIS POWER, ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY ELEVATE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT’S THE FIFTH AVENUE STANDARD OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY CAN I DO ANYTHING I WANT, CAN I SHOOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE AND IT DOESN’T MATTER NO, LAWLESSNESS MATTERS ABUSE OF POWER MATTERS. CORRUPTION MATTERS THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS >> THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF TO BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGER AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND ALTHOUGH I CANNOT PICK IDEALLY MANAGER LOFGREN >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS CASS SID DEE AND RISCHE FOR BOTH PARTIES “IT IS AS FOLLOWS IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS WE SAW A VIDEO OF MANAGER LOFGREN SAYING, “THIS IS UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THESE ACTIONS YOU WOULD UNDO THE FREE ELECTION THAT EXPRESSED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 1996 IN SO DOING YOU WILL DAMAGE THE FAITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION AND IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. YOU WILL SET THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT THE CERTAINTY OF PRESIDENTIAL TERMS WHICH HAS SO BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL AMERICA WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PARTISAN USE OF IMPEACHMENT FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL FACE ELECTION THEN LITIGATION THEN IMPEACHMENT. THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WILL DIMINISH IN THE FACE OF THE CONGRESS, A PHENOMENON MUCH FEARED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.” WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW IF THE RESPONSE IS THAT THE COUNTRY CANNOT RISK THE PRESIDENT INTERFERING IN THE NEXT ELECTION, ISN’T IMPEACHMENT THE ULTIMATE INTERFERENCE? HOW DOES THIS NOT CHEAT THOSE WHO DID AND/OR WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS I ASK MANAGER LOFGREN TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY AND NOT AVOID AS MANAGER JEFFERS DID WITH A RELATED QUESTION LAST NIGHT” PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ANSWERS FIRST >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, I AGREE 100% WITH MANAGER LOFGREN’S COMMENTS FROM THE PAST AND I THINK THEY SHOULD GUIDE THE SENATE THERE IS REALLY NO BETTER WAY TO SAY IT. WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE, THEY KEEP FALSELY ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF WANTING TO CHEAT WHEN THEY ARE COMING HERE AND TELLING YOU, TAKE HIM OFF THE BALLOT IN A POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT, TALK ABOUT CHEATING, YOU DON’T EVEN WANT TO FACE HIM LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING WHILE I’M UP HERE. I LISTENED TO MANAGER SCHIFF COME UP HERE AND SAY, HE WON’T EVEN DIGNIFY A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT HIS STAFF WITH A RESPONSE BECAUSE HE WON’T STAND HERE AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE ON HIS STAFF BE BESMIRCHED, WHO WILL JOIN HIS STAFF. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONGRESS, MANAGER SCHIFF, THE OTHER HOUSE MANAGERS, AND OTHERS IN THE HOUSE HAVE FALSELY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT, AND THEY’VE COME HERE AND DONE IT THE VICE PRESIDENT THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CHIEF OF STAFF LAWYERS ON MY STAFF FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND THAT IS WRONG AND WHEN YOU TURN THAT AROUND

AND SAY, HE WILL NOT RESPOND TO A LEGITIMATE QUESTION THAT I ASKED IT’S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION WHO COMMUNICATE WEEKEND THE WHISTLEBLOWER? WHY WERE YOU DEMANDING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNEW ABOUT? I ASKED HIM IN ANOTHER PART OF MY OCTOBER 8th LETTER THAT DOESN’T GET A LOT OF ATTENTION FROM MR. SCHIFF I SAID YOU HAVE THE FULL AMOUNT TO RELEASE THESE DOCUMENTS ON YOUR OWN. NO RESPONSE SO I THINK I THINK YOU DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. AND I THINK IT’S TIME IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE START — THAT WE STOP ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY HAS HORRIBLE MOTIVES IN PURITAN CALL RAGE, IT’S UP FOR YOU, YOU CANNOT BE QUESTIONED, THAT’S PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> I WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT AND DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I FOUND MYSELF COMPARING WHAT WE WERE DOING IN CLINTON TO WHAT WE WERE DOING OR HAD DONE WITH NIXON AND HERE IS WHAT I SAW AND I STILL SEE TODAY A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR STARTED WITH WHITE WATER, BEND SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL THEY FOUND DNA ON A BLUE DRESS AND THEY HAD A LIE — THE PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR UNDER OATH AND THAT WAS WRONG, THAT WAS A CRIME, BUT IT WAS NOT A MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER ANY HUSBAND CAUGHT WOULD HAVE LIED ABOUT IT IT WAS WRONG BUT IT WAS NOT A MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND SO THROUGHOUT THE CLINTON MATTERS, I KEPT RAISING THE ISSUE THAT IT WAS A MISUSE AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PARTISAN MISUSE OF IMPEACHMENT TO EQUATE A LIE ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR TO A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS, MR MARKEY SAID THEY RUBBED OUT THE WORD HIGH AND MADE IT ANY CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, THAT WAS WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT COMPARED TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT WHERE RICHARD NIXON ENGAGED IN A BROAD SCOPE UP ENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, CORRUPTING THE GOVERNMENT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT IN THE ELECTION I WOULD ADD UNFORTUNATELY, AND I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE IN A THIRD IMPEACHMENT, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS WHAT WE SEE IN THIS CASE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP >> MS. MANAGER >> THE SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA >> CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF TO THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS MANCHIN GILLIBRAND >> ANY INVOLVED IN A TRIAL IN WHICH YOU WERE UNABLE TO CALL WITNESSES OR SUBMIT RELEVANT EVIDENCE? I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS FIRST HOUSE IS FIRST >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND THANK YOU TO THE SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION I WANT US TO IMAGINE FOR JUST A MOMENT IF SOMEONE BROKE INTO YOUR HOUSE, STOLE YOUR PROPERTY, POLICE CAUGHT THEM, THEY WERE RETURNED THE PROPERTY NOW THE FACT THAT THEY

RETURNED THE PROPERTY CHANGES NOTHING, IT WOULD STILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABILITY IMAGINE IF THEY HAD THE POWER TO OBSTRUCT EVERY WITNESS, PREVENT WITNESSES FROM APPEARING, IMAGINE IT IF THEY HAD THE POWER TO DESTROY OR OBSTRUCT ANY EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AGAINST THEM FROM BEING PRESENTED TO THE COURT I’VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN A LOT OF HEARINGS AND BE A PART OF BUILDING A LOT OF CASES, AND WE ALL KNOW, I KNOW EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ARE DOCUMENTATION IN A CASE IS EVERYTHING IT IS THE LIFE AND BREATH OF ANY CASE IT IS THE PROSECUTOR’S DREAM, POLICE OFFICERS OR DETECTIVES DREAM TO HAVE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE IT TRULY BAFFLES ME, REALLY, AS A 27 YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THEY WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT OR WELCOME OR BE DELIGHTED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM DIRECT WITNESSES, PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME WE KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY RULED ON THAT BUT THE REMEDY FOR THAT IS IMPEACHMENT THAT IS THE TOOL THAT AS WE KNOW HAS BEEN SOLELY GIVEN, THAT POWER SOLELY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SOLELY TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS EXTREMELY, LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY, ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE ARE NO AVAILABLE WITNESSES, ARE NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE HAVE I EVER SEEN THAT OCCUR THANK YOU >> MR. MANAGER, COUNSEL >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WOULD RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION IN THIS WAY AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONTROL THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THAT THEY WERE IN CHARGE AND THEY RAN IT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL TO HAVE ANY WITNESSES AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO CALL THE WITNESSES THAT THEY ARE NOW ASKING YOU TO CALL, DEMANDING YOU TO CALL, ACCUSING YOU OF COVERUP, IF YOU DON’T CALL, I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN ANY PROCEEDING, TRIAL OR OTHERWISE, WHERE YOU SHOW UP ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE JUDGE SAYS, LET’S GO AND YOU SAY, WELL I’M NOT READY YET, LET’S TAKE A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS WELL DID YOU SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES YOU ARE NOW SEEKING? WELL, SOME BUT NOT OTHERS WELL WHEN YOU DID SUBPOENA THEM, DID YOU TRY TO ENFORCE THAT SUBPOENA IN COURT? >> NO THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU DID SUBPOENA, DID THEY GO TO COURT? YES, WHAT DID DO YOU YOU? I WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA AND MOOTED OUT THE CASE I WANT THEM OTHERWISE YOU ARE DOING THE COVERUP WHAT WILL WE DO THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PRODUCING DOCUMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, OKAY THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HAD 2800 SUBPOENAS, 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, 500 WITNESSES, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MANY MANY OTHERS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TESTIFIED DOCUMENTS, VOLUME NOW DOCUMENT WERE PRODUCED, WHAT HAPPENED? BOB MUELLER CAME BACK WITH A CONCLUSION, THERE WAS NO COLLUSION. WHAT DID THE HOUSE DO? THEY DIDN’T LIKE IT DIDN’T LIKE THE OUTCOME WHAT DID THEY DO? THEY WANTED TO A DOOVER, THEY WANTED TO DO IT ALL AGAIN THEMSELVES DESPITE THE $34 MILLION OR MORE THAT WERE SPENT. SO I DON’T THINK ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVES THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HADN’T FULLY COOPERATED WITH INVESTIGATIONS THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN THEY DON’T LIKE THE OUTCOME, THEY JUST KEEP INVESTIGATING, THEY KEEP WASTING THE PUBLIC’S MONEY BECAUSE THEY DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT TRUTH, THEY CARE ABOUT A POLITICAL OUTCOME. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> THE SENATOR FROM UTAH >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF ON BEHALF OF HAWLEY, ERNST >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR LEE

AND THE OTHER SENATORS. “UNDER THE STANDARD EMBRACED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF THE BENGHAZI ATTACK, THE BERGDAHL SWAP OR DACA, SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF NSA SURVEILLANCE, DETENTION OF COMBATANTS OR USE OF WATERBOARDING? .” >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE HUMBERTO THE STANDARD WHICH IS NO STANDARD THAT THEY BRING THEIR IMPEACHMENT TO THE SENATE, ANY PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR ANYTHING. PRESIDENTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR EXERCISING LONGSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVEN WHEN THE HOUSE DIDN’T CHOSE NOT TO ENFORCE THEIR SUBPOENAS UNDER THEIR AUGUST THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER I GUESS ANY PRESIDENT AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ, HE HAD LONG LIST OF PRESIDENTS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT I DON’T WANT TO BESMIRCH PAST PRESIDENTS I DON’T THINK THE STANDARD THEY ANNOUNCED IS HELPFUL I THINK IT’S DANGEROUS, GET A LOCK ON THAT DOOR BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE BACK A LOT IF THAT’S THE STANDARD, OKAY AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, YOU YOU DON’T HAVE TO LOOK AT ANYTHING, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WITNESSES, YOU DON’T HAVE TO LOOK AT ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ARTICLES EVER IMPEACHMENT I TRIED TO SEEK AREAS OF AGREEMENT I THINK WE ALL AGREE THEY DON’T ALLEGE A CRIME THAT’S WHY THEY SPEND ALL THEIR TIME SAYING YOU DON’T NEED ONE. ONE OF THE CLIPS I SHOWED WHERE SOMEONE WAS SAYING WITH A LOT OF PASSION, THEY ARE TRYING TO CROSS OUT HIGH CRIME AND MAKE IT ANY CRIME, NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO CROSS OUT CRIME ANY CRIME NO CRIME IS NECESSARY OKAY THAT’S NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IT’S MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT’S AN ELECTION YEAR SO, YES, UNDER THE STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT ANY PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR ANYTHING, AND THAT IS WRONG THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THEIR ARTICLES EVER IMPEACHMENT A LOT OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL HERE, THEIR HOUSE COLLEAGUES WEREN’T BUYING, THEY DIDN’T MAKE IT INTO THE ART KELS OF IMPEACHMENT READ THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY DON’T ALLEGE A CRIME THEY DON’T ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF LAW YOU DON’T NEED ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, YOUR CONSTITUTION, AND YOUR COMMON SENSE AND YOU CAN END THIS. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL THE SENATOR PROSECUTE MICHIGAN >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR ROSEN >> THE QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR STABENAW AND ROSEN. “IN JUNE 2019 HELEN WINETRAUB WROTE IN A STATEMENT THAT, “IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT, ACCEPT OR ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL IN CONNECTION WITH A U.S. ELECTION.” THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT ELECTORAL INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR NATION.” IN A 2007 ADVISORY OPINION, THE FEC FOUND THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE PROHIBITED IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS EVEN IF “THE VALUE OF THESE MATERIALS MAY BE NOMINAL OR DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN.” VALUABLE WHEN A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN? BEGIN WITH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION

THE IDEA THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE A THING OF VALUE, SOMETHING THAT WAS SPACE I CANNILY EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WROTE A COVER LETTER ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT WHICH HE ACTUALLY EXAGGERATED IN THE COMPLAINT THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR SOME A DISTANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THAT WAS FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THEY EXAMINED IT. AND THEY ANNOUNCED BACK IN SEPTEMBER THAT THERE WAS NO ELECTION LAW VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY DID NOT QUALIFY AS A THING OF VALUE AND I THINK THAI ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HERE I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING, THE OTHER DAY — YESTERDAY THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION COMING FROM OVER SEAS. AND I WAS ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND I WANT TO BE VERY PRECISE THAT I UNDERSTAND A QUESTION WAS THERE IS A VIOLATION OF A VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN LAW IF SOMEBODY GOT INFORMATION FROM OVER SEAS AND THE ANSWER IS NO, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND THINK ABOUT THIS, IF PURE INFORMATION, IF INFORMATION THAT CAME TO SOMEONE IN A CAMPAIGN THAT COULD BE CALL ADD THING OF VALUE, IF IT COME FROM OVER SEAS, A THING OF VALUE IS A PROHIBITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION IT’S NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE COUNTRY IT HAS TO BE REPORTED SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANYTIME A CAMPAIGN GOT INFORMATION FROM WITHIN THE COUNTRY ABOUT AN OPPONENT OR ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE CAMPAIGN THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPORT THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION AS A THING OF VALUE UNDER THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, THAT’S NOT HOW THE LAWS WORK AND THERE WOULD BE TREMENDOUS FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS IF SOMEONE A TEMPTED TO ENFORCE THE LAW THAT WAY THAT IS SIMPLY THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PROHIBITED FROM BEING RECEIVED UNDER THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL MR.CHIEF JUSTICE >> SORRY I A APOLOGIZE >> YES, MR. MANAGER >> HOW VALUABLE WOULD IT BE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GETAWAY CRANE TO ANNOUNCE HIS INVESTIGATIONS AND THE ANSWER IS IMMENSELY VALUABLE. IF IT WASN’T GOING TO BE IMMENSELY VALUABLE WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT GO TO SUCH THINGS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN? WHY WOULD HE BE WILLING TO VIOLATE THE LAW, WILLING TO IGNORE THE ADVICE OF ALL OF HIS NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, WHY WOULD HE BE WILLING TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM AN ALLY AT WORK IF HE DIDN’T THINK IT WAS REALLY GOING TO BENEFIT HIS CAMPAIGN? YOU HAVE ONLY TO LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW VALUABLE HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE TO HIM HOW WOULD HE MAKE USE OF THIS? WELL IF WE LOOK IN THE PAST WE GET A PERFECT YOU LUSTRATION HOW DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE MADE USE OF THIS POLITICAL HELP FROM UKRAINE LET’S LOOK AT 2016 WHEN THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DCCC AND DNC AND DRIPPING OUT THESE DOCUMENTS THROUGH WIKILEAKS AND OTHER RUSSIAN PLATFORMS WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO? DID HE MAKE USE IT IT? DID HE CONDEMN IT? HE MADE BEAUTIFUL USE OF IT OVER HUNDRED TIMES IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF THE CAMPAIGN THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME RALLY AFTER RALLY AFTER RALLY THE CLINTON, RUSSIAN STOLEN DOCUMENTS NOW WE’VE HAD A DEBATE SINCE THEN WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTION THAT CLOSE WAS IT DEVICE I? NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW WAS IT VALUABLE? YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP’S ACTIONS TO KNOW HOW VALUABLE HE THOUGHT IT WAS. HE THOUGHT IT WAS IMMENSELY VALUABLE AND YOU CAN DARN WELL EXPECT IF HE GOTTEN HELP FROM UKRAINE HE WOULD BE OUT THERE EVERY DAY TALKING ABOUT HOW UKRAINE WAS INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN IT WOULD BE PROOF OF HIS ARGUMENT AGAINST HIS FEARED OPPONENT DARNED RIGHT IT WOULD BE VALUABLE WHAT’S MORE IT’S HE WILLLY AND DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE TURMOIL OF THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE FOR HIM TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN? ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND SO SIGNIFICANT WAS THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER REACHED HIS CONCLUSION THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS BACK ON THE PHONE ASKING YET ANOTHER COUNTRY TO HELP CHEAT IN ANOTHER ELECTION YOU’RE DARN RIGHT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VALUABLE >> HOUSE MANAGER >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS CRUZ AND CORNYN FOR BOTH

PARTIES >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS GRAHAM, CORNYN AND CRUZ IS FOR BOTH PARTIES “WHEN DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE SAID THEIR DOJ HAD A “LOW THRESHOLD” TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AT THE HEARING, SENATOR FEINSTEIN SAID, “YOUR REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE FBI HAD AN ADEQUATE PREDICATE REASON TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TIES TO RUSSIA, COULD YOU DEFINE THE PREDICATE ” HOROWITZ SAID YEAH, THE PREDICATE HERE IS THE INFORMATION FBI GOT AT THE END OF THE JULY FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. ” WHY IS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR INVESTIGATING TRUMP SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE STANDARD FOR INVESTIGATING BIDEN AND WHY WAS IT OKAY TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM A “FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT”? THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE FIRST >> INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT FOUND THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY PREDICATED THAT WAS THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NOT A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS WITH THE FISA COURT PROCESS THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS IN HOW FISA APPLICATIONS WERE WRITTEN AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS USED AND PRESCRIBED THE WHOLE SERIES OF REMEDIES WHICH THE FBI DIRECTOR HAS NOW SAID SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BUT THEY FOUND IT WAS PROPERLY PREDICATED THEY FOUND THEY DID NOT HAVE TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AS IT HAD COME TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS HAVING ELICIT CONTACTS POTENTIALLY, IT MAY BE CLOUDING COR SPOON FIRE WITH A FOREIGN POWER, IT WOULD BE DERELICT TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE THERE WERE PROBLEMS, ALBEIT SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE FISA COURT APPLICATION INVOLVING A SINGLE PERSON, THAT SOMEHOW WE SHOULD IGNORE THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT HERE THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES THE PRESIDENT’S EMBRACE OF THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES THE PRESIDENT’S DISTRUST OF THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES HIS IGNORING WHAT HIS OWN DIRECTOR OF THE FBI SAID WHICH LAWYERS IGNORE TODAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION BECAUSE OF A SINGLE FISA APPLICATION AGAINST THE SINGLE PERSON AND THE FLAWS IN IT, YOU SHOULD IGNORE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S WRONGDOING TURN AWAY FROM THAT LET’S NOT LOOK AT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED MILITARY AID AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON HELP WITH AN INVESTIGATION, LET’S LOOK AT FLAWS IN HOW THE FBI CONDUCTED A FISA APPLICATION THE ONE DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE OTHER THE REALITY IS THAT, WHAT MUST JUDGE HERE IS DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT THE CONDUCT HE IS CHARGED WITH? DID THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AND THE COVETED MEETING TO SECURE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION? AND IF HE DID, AS WE BELIEVE WE HAVE SHOWN, DOES THAT WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE? THAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU WHETHER THE FBI MADE ONE MISTAKE OR FIVE MISTAKES, WITH A FISA APPLICATION >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE LET ME ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID, IN A RESPONSE ACTUALLY FROM SENATOR GRAHAM WHEN JAMES COMEY SAID HE WAS VINDICATED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID NO ONE WHO TOUCHED THIS WAS VINDICATED WITH REGARD TO THE FISA — YOU MAKE SO LIGHT, SCHIFF WHAT THE FBI DID, THERE WAS AN ORDER UNSEALED JUST DAYS AGO, SAYING THAT THE PROCESS WAS COULD TAINTED BY THE FEDERAL BOROUGH OF INVESTIGATION, SO

TAINTED THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE NSD MISLED BUT SO WAS THE FISA COURT FOR THOSE THAT DON’T KNOW THAT ARE WATCHING, THE FISA COURT, YOU CAN’T BLAME THE COURT ON THIS, BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN ISSUES WARRANTS ON PEOPLE THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPIES, NO LAWYERS IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS, THERE ARE NO CROSS EXAMINATION THE COURT ITSELF IN ITS ORDER SAID WE RELY ON THE GOOD FAITH OF THE OFFICERS PRESENTING THE AFFIDAVITS ARE THE TWO STANDARDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS, THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT TO BE BELITTLE WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE FISA PROCEEDINGS FRANKLY MANAGER SCHIFF YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS >> THANK YOU THE QUESTION FROM SENT AT I DON’T REMEMBER DURBIN IS TO BOTH PARTIES. “E-MAILS BETWEEN DOD AND OMB OFFICIALS REVOLLY THAT BY AUGUST 12, THE PENTAGON COULD NO LONGER GUARANTEE THAT ALL OF THE $250 MILLION IN DOD AID TO UKRAINE COULD BE SPENT BEFORE IT EXPIRED DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NORQUIST THAT THE PENTAGON HAD REPEATEDLY ADVISED OFFICIAL THAT PAUSES BEYOND AUGUST 19, JEOPARDIZED THE ACCIDENT’S ABILITY TO OBLIGATE USAI FUNDING PRUDENTLY AND FULLY.” WHY DID THE PRESIDENT PERSIST IN WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS WHEN DOD OFFICIALS WERE SOUNDING THE ALARM THAT THE HOLD WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW AND SHORTCHANGE OUR ALLY A NEEDED MILITARY AID? ” IT IS THE TURN OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GO FIRST >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I THINK THE THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE WAS A SERIES OF COMMUNICATIONS REFLECTED I BELIEVE IN THE LETTER THAT OMB HAS SENT THE — AND SOME OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDING BELOW THAT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WAS ENCOURAGING DOD TO TAKE WHAT STEPS IT COULD TO GET EVERYTHING LINED UP, HAVE EVERYTHING READY TO OBLIGATE THE FUNDS, EVERYTHING WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY WHEN THE PAUSE WAS LISTED DOD IN THE MAIL YOU SUGGEST, WE ARE RETURNING OUT OF TIME, WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME WE ARE GOING TO HAVE DIFFICULTY DOING IT THE DEADLINE FOR OBLIGATING THE FUNS WAS NOT GOING TO BE UNTIL THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR AS IT TURNED OUT AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR LANG FORD’S QUESTION, THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th AND THE VAST MAJORITY 0 OF THEM WERE OBLIGATED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR SO THAT THE PROCEDURES THAT HAD BEEN USED TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING PREPLANNED WERE MOSTLY SUCCESSFUL, YES, THERE WAS SOME FUNDS, $35 MILLION THAT DID NOT GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR SLIGHTLY MORE THAN IN PAST YEAR, BUT EVERY YEAR IN FISCAL YEAR 2017, FISCAL YEAR 2018, THERE WERE FUND THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR, IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS THERE WAS A LITTLE FIX IN EITHER OF THE NEXT APPROPRIATIONS BILL OR THE CR TO ALLOW FUNDS TO CARRYOVER SO THE MANNING HAD BEEN TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO RELEASE THE FUNDS IT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR NOT QUITE ALL GOT OUT THE DOOR, THAT’S TRUE BUT THERE IS ALWAYS SOME THAT DOESN’T GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION YOU KNOW, AS WE GO FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THE 17 WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSE INTERVIEWED, NOBODY HAD AN EXPLANATION, AND YET AGAIN LIKE LAST NIGHT MR PHILBIN SEEMS TO KNOW MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MORE THAN ANYBODY IN DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OMB HOW EXACTLY THIS HAPPENED,

BUT, AGAIN, HERE ARE THE FACTS OMB INTERVIEWED ABOUT AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT THEY SUPPOSEDLY SAID WAS GOING ON, LONG AFTER THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS HAD ALREADY ENDED IN FACT, AS OMB WAS DOING THOSE FOOTNOTES, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, NEVER HAD BEEN DONE BEFORE, THAT MR SANDY HAD NEVER SEEN IN HIS 12 YEARS PLUS OF TIME WORKING THIS PROCESS, AS THAT WAS GOING ON DOD WAS ASKING THE YES, WHY WE ARE DOING THIS, THEY HAD NO IDEA WHEN THE RELEASE WAS FINALLY GETTING READY TO BE FINALLY LIFTED, THE HOLD RATHER, OMB E-MAILED — OMB E-MAILED DOD SAYING, LISTEN, AS WE’VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS HERE AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM IT’S YOUR FAULT TO WHICH DOD REPLIED BACK, AS YOU MAY RECALL, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, I’M SPEECHLESS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW, NOBODY HAD TOLD THEM ANYTHING NONE OF THE OTHER 17 WITNESSES KNEW ABOUT IT SO, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS BEFORE I FINISH ONE OTHER POINT THIS IDEA THAT THE DELAY DIDN’T MATTER IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT WAS A FOUR DAY DELAY, A 40 DAY DELAY OR 400 DAY DELAY EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS AND I WILL SAY, THEY TALKED ABOUT DELAYS IN THE PAST WELL IN PAST YEARS, THERE WAS ABOUT 3% TO 6% OF FUNDS OBLIGATED FOR LEGITIMATE REASON FOLLOWING THE PROCESS. 2019, 14% OF THE FUNDS WENT UNOBLIGATED FOR FORESEEABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE REASONS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE HELD IT AND TO THIS DAY — >> TIME IS EXPIRED >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING >> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, YOUNG, — >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. “IS IT WITHIN A U.S PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO PERSONALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION WITH A HEAD A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WHEN HE BELIEVES THE ESTABLISHED U.S. PROCESS HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENT AT I DON’T REMEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION SHORT ANSWER IS, YES THE PRESIDENT IS UNDER ARTICLE 2 VESTED WITH THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER AND IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR SINCE THE FOUNDING, SINCE THE EARLY PART OF THE 1800s IN DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE ORGANIZATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS HE IS VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE NATION, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DESCRIBED IT HE IS TO BE SOLE VOICE OF THE NATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THAT IS WHY THAT AUTHORITY WAS ASSIGNED IN THE CONSTITUTION TO THE EXECUTIVE, ALEXANDER HAMILTON IS EXPLAINED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE IS CHARACTERIZED BY UNITY AND DISPATCH, THE ABILITY TO HAVE ONE VIEW TO ACT QUICKLY AND ALSO THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SECRECY AND THEREFORE IT IS THE EXECUTIVE THAT IS UNIQUELY SUITED AND UNIQUELY HAS THE ABILITY TO CARRY AT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENGAGING WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND CARRYING OUT DIPLOMACY SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE OF INTEREST TO THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING CORRUPTION IN I CAN’T NORTHEAST OHIO COUNTRY AND THERE HADN’T BEEN PROGRESS HE WOULD WANT TO SEE IN DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, PERHAPS INTERACTIONS WITH PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS, PRIOR ADMINISTRATION THAT DON’T LOOK GREAT FROM AN ANTI CORRUPTION PER PENSION TESTIFY, IN PRESIDENT’S PREROGATIVE, IN HIS PROVIDENCE TO RAISE ISSUES WHERE HE BELIEVES THAT THERE NEED TO BE SOMETHING DONE IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED

STATES THAT IF THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO CONSIDER ROPINGS, OR WHETHER IT’S SOMETHING ELSE, AN ISSUE RELATED TO ECONOMIC MATTERS, TRADE MATTERS, ANY TRUST MATTERS, CROSS BORDER TRADE, THOSE ARE ALL THING THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN RAISE WITH A FOREIGN LEADER CORRUPTION IS NOT TAKEN OFF THE TABLE AND IT’S ALSO NOT TAKEN OFF THE TABLE IF IT’S AN ISSUE THAT HAPPENS TO INVOLVE AN OFFICIAL FROM A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION WHETHER THAT OFFICIAL IS NOT OR MAY HAVE RECENTLY DECIDED TO RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE IF IT RELATES TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, HE HAS A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR RAISING IT AND IT’S WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARREN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. “AT A TIME WHEN LACK MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS HAVE LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT, DOES THE FACT THAT ACHIEVE JUSTICE IS PRESIDING OVER AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN WHICH REPUBLICANS SENATORS HAVE THUS FAR REFUSED TO ALLOW WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LOSS OF LEGITIMACY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE CONSTITUTION? .” >> SENATOR I WOULD NOT SAY IT CONTRIBUTES TO A LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE I THINK THAT CHIEF JUSTICE HAS PRESIDED ADD MEREBLY, BUT I WILL SAY THIS, I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION THE OTHER DAY ON HOUSE FLOOR ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, FROM NEW JERSEY, A BRILLIANT COLLEAGUE, I WAS ARCHDIOCESE HARKENING BACK WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN SEPTEMBER WAS TALKING ABOUT ANDRE YARMOKC THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SHOULD NOT DO A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. AND IS HE MAKING THE CASE THAT WE OFTEN MAKE WHEN WE TRAVEL AROUND THE COUNTRY MEET WITH OTHER PARLIAMENT AARONS ABOUT NOT ENGAGING IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATION WHEN HE MAKES THAT REMARK, HE THROW IT IS RIGHT BACK IN HIS FACE AND HE SEAS LIKE THE INVESTIGATION YOU WANT US TO DO OF THE CLINTON AND THE BIDENS I WAS LAMENTING THIS TO MY COLLEAGUE, WHAT IS OUR ANSWER TO THAT? WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT FOR FROM A COUNTRY THAT PRIDES ITSELF ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF LAW HOW DO THEY ANSWER THAT? HIS RESPONSE WAS INTERESTING HE SAID THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR ANSWER THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR ANSWER YES, WE ARE A MORE THAN FALLIABLE DEMOCRACY AND DON’T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS, WHEN WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO DEMONSTRATES CORRUPTION OF HIS OFFICE, UNLIKE OTHER COUNTRY THERE IS IS A REMEDY AND SO YES, WE DON’T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS, BUT THIS TRIAL IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE THAT WE WERE GIVEN A POWER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT I DON’T THINK A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES REFLECTS ADVERSELY ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE I THINK IT REFLECTS ADVERSELY ON US I THINK IT DIMINISHES THE POWER OF THIS EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD IF WE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IN THE FACE OF THIS KIND OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THIS IS THE REMEDY THIS IS THE REMEDY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE. BUT IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON ANY OF US IF WE ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE HOLDS. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TRIAL IN AMERICA WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, IF THE PROSECUTION CASE IS SO GOOD, WHY DON’T THEY PROVE IT WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES? THAT’S NOT A MODEL WE CAN HOLD UP WITH PRIDE TO THE WEST OF THE WORLD YES, SENATOR THAT WILL FEED SIN SIMILAR ABOUT THIS INSTITUTION THAT WE MAY DISAGREE ON THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT OR NOT BUT WE CAN’T EVEN GET A FAIR TRIAL WE CAN’T EVEN GET A FAIR SHAKE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE CAN’T OH, MY GOD WE CAN’T HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO SAY GOD FORBID WE SHOULD HEAR WHAT A RELEVANT WITNESS HAS TO SAY

HEAR NO EVIL THAT CANNOT REFLECT WELL ON ANY OF US, IT’S CERTAINLY NO CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION OR VINDICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE IT MY COLLEAGUE SAYS I’M A PURITAN WHO SPEAKS IN DOLITONES I YES, I DO BELIEVE IN RIGHT AND WRONG AND I THINK RIGHT MATTERS, I THINK A FAIR TRIAL MATTERS. AND I THINK SO THAT THE COUNTRY DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL AND YES, SENATOR, IF THEY DON’T GET THAT FAIR TRIAL IT WILL JUST FURTHER A SIN SIMILAR THAT IS CORROSIVE TO THIS INSTITUTION AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY THANK YOU, MR. MANAGER >> CHIEF JUSTICE >> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA >> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SHELBY IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. “SO NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HOUSE MANAGERS AND OTHERS STATED THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED CRIMINAL BRIBERY CAN THIS CLAIM BE RECONCILED WITH THE UNANIMOUS DECISION IN Mc DONALD VERSUS THE UNITED STATES? .” >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS, NO IT CAN’T BE RECONCILED WITH THE Mc DONALD CASE AND LET ME MAKE A UP COAL OF POINTS IN MY ANSWER THE FIRST IS, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRIBE EARLY OR EXTORTION CHARGE IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THE MANAGERS CAN’T RELY ON THAT NOW TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THEIR CASE I POINT IT OUT YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE TO HAVE A CHARGING DOCUMENT AND THEN LEAVE OUT CERTAIN CHARGES IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT, THEN COME TO TRIAL AND SAY, WELL, IT’S NOT IN THE INDICTMENT >> IT’S NOT IN THE CHARGE, BUT ACTUALLY WHAT WE’VE SHOWN YOU IS HE DID SOMETHING ELSE WRONG, IT WAS THIS CRIME IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WELL KNOW THAT WOULD RESULT IN AUTOMATIC MISTRIAL IN ACTUAL MISTRIAL IN A COURT IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ST. INITIAL PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO GO THERE ON BRIBE EARLY OR SOMETHING ELSE THEN, AS SENATOR’S QUESTION RAISES, THE CASE MADE CLEAR, SIMPLY SETTING UP A MEETING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, COULDN’T BE TREATED AS A THING OF VALUE IN ANNEX CHANGE UNDER THE BRIBE EARLY STATUTE AND IT POINTED OUT PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ALL THE TIME ARE ASKED BY THE CONSTITUENTS TO INTRODUCE THEM TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, TO ARRANGE AN HAWAII MEETING, IT’S NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY DECISION, ACTION THAT IS DETERMINING SOME GOVERNMENT POLICY, IT’S SIMPLY ALLOWING SOMEONE TO HAVE A MEETING TO THEN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING IF THAT’S THE NATURE OF THE MEETING THAT COULDN’T BE A THING OF VALUE THAT IS BEING EXCHANGED AND CAN’T SUPPORT A CHARGE OF BRIBE EARLY SO THEY CAN’T RAISE IT BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IF THEY HAD WANTED TO CHARGE THAT THEY HAD TO CHARGE IT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY CAN’T COME HIRE NOW AND TRY A DIFFERENT CASE FROM THE ONE THEY FRAMED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVERDRAFTING EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY CAN’T MAKE OUT THE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, Mc DONALD CASE PROHIBITS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE OTHER POINT, THE HOUSE MANAGERSED TO HAVE BROUGHT UP A LOT, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN ABOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER AND WHERE THEIR SUBPOENA IS ACTUALLY VALID AND HOW IT’S GOING TO DESTROY OVERSIGHT IF THE PRESIDENT’S ARGUMENTS ARE ACCEPTED I WANT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED NOT UNDER OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY BUT PURSUANT TO EVERYBODY THIS CAME OUT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS MENTIONED THIS, LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO INFORMATION OR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES HAS TO ACTUALLY RELATE TO SOMETHING THAT LEGISLATION COULD BE PASSED ON, CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE SOUGHT, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF YOU ARE GOING UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT POWER BECAUSE THEN CAN YOU INVESTIGATE INTO SPECIFIC PAST FACTS MORE READILY IF THESE’ RELEVANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT QUESTIONLY, PURPORTED TO BE USING THE IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY THEY DIDN’T HAVE THAT

AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE THE SPEAKER’S PRESS CONFERENCE DID NOT VALIDLY GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORIZATION WE POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID THEY DID NOTHING TO TRY TO CURE THAT DEFICIENCY, THEY DIDN’T REISSUE THE SUBPOENA, VOTE OR REISSUE OR ANYTHING TO SAY ALL OVERSIGHT TOTALLY FALSE, TOTALLY MISLEADING, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T PURPORTING TO DO JUST REGULAR OVERSIGHT AND AS WE POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, THE OCTOBER 8th LETTER THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT SAID SPACE I CANNILY IF YOU WANT TO RETURN TO REGULAR OVERNIGHT WE’RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS WILL PARTICIPATE IN ACCOMMODATION PROCESS, IT WAS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS AT THAT DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE THAT ROUTE THEY INSIST ON USING THE IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY, WE POINTED OUT THAT THEY DIDN’T HAVE AND EKE SO TO CURE THAT PROBLEM ACCEPTING THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DESTROYING OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS FOR ALL TIME AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE MISTAKE THEY MADE TRYING TO A SERTA PARTICULAR AUTHORITY THEY DIDN’T HAVE IN IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU THANK YOU, COUNSEL >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR BENNETT, >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARNER AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS. “OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERSHIP UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED RUSSIAN INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES THOSE EFFORTS TOWARD THE 2020 ELECTION THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL SAID THAT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE COULD BE LEGAL IF IT’S RELATED TO CREDIBLE INFORMATION DOES THIS MEAN IT IS PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT OR ENCOURAGE RUSSIA, CHINA OR OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO PRODUCE DAMAGING INTELLIGENCE OR INFORMATION TARGETING HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS AS LONG AS HE DEEMS IT TO BE FROM CREDIBLE INFORMATION? ” FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS >> SENATORS, JUSTICE IT, THAT IS THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ARE ARGUING ESSENTIALLY THAT IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD SERVE HIS REELECTION INTEREST TO SEEK THE HELP OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, TO PROVIDE DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT OR IN OTHER WAYS ASSIST HIS CAMPAIGN, AS LONG AS HE THINKS HIS WINNING IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST THAT’S OKAY NOT ONLY OKAY, BUT NO RESTAURANT CAN BE PLACED UPON HIM EVEN IF HE WERE TO GO SO FAR AS CLAIM A QUID PRO QUO RUSSIA YOU HAVE AMONG THE BEST INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ON THE PLANET, ENGAGE THOSE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ON MY BEHALF I WILL REFUSE TO ENFORCE SANCTIONS ON YOU OVER YOUR INVASION OF UKRAINE THAT MAY INJURY THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY, LOOK I THINK MY REELECTION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT’S WHERE THIS BASTARDIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION LEADS US, THE IDEA THAT NO I CAN’T BIAS OF POWER IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE CONGRESS NOW I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OTHER QUICK POINTS, IF I CAN FIRST, COUNSEL NEGLECTS THE FACT WHEN WE ISSUED THOSE SUBPOENAS WE STATED IN THE LETTERS A COMPANYING THEIR ISSUANCE THAT THEY WERE BEING ISSUED CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND OUR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY. THEY NEGLECTED TO TELL YOU THE LATTER PART THAT WE EXPLICITLY MADE REFERENCE TO OUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY AS LEGISLATORS AND FINALLY, ON THE ISSUE OF BRIBE EARLY IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS AN UMBRELLA ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT LIST ADD SERIES EVER SPECIFIC ACTS SOME OF THOSE ACTS INVOLVED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND SOME INVOLVE JUST UNETHICAL ACTIVITY IF YOU ACCEPT COUNSEL’S ARGUMENT YOU WOULD HAVE SAID ALARMING COUNTIES PASSED IN NIXON WERE LIKEWISE INFIRMED BECAUSE IF THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE THE

PRESIDENT WITH ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL ACT THEY NEEDED TO MAKE A SEPARATE ARTICLE OF IT OTHERWISE THROWN OUT OF ANY COURT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND THE LIKE BECAUSE THAT IS NONSENSE. ON THE ONE HAND THEY WANT TO ARGUE THERE IS NO CONDUCT HERE THAT’S EVEN AKIN TO A CRIME WHEN UNDER Mc DONALD, IN FACT, THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBE EARLY WITHHOLDING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PROVISION OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID UNDER THE PRECEDENT Mc DONALD THAT WOULD BE BRIBE EARLY, NO DOUBT IT’S AKIN TO BRIBE EARLY, THEY SAY UNLESS YOU CHARGE THAT, UNLESS IN THE NIXON CASE THEY HAD 15 ARTICLES ON EACH PARTICULAR ACT CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL THAT YOU COULD NOT MAKE OUT A VIABLE CHARGE THAT’S NEVER BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE JUST AS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE HOUSE ORGANIZE IT’S IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION ALONG THEY DICTATE, THEY WANT TO DICTATE HOW WE CHARGE AN OFFENSE THE TASTING EVENT TO BE DETERMINE THE CONDUCT THAT HAS BEEN CHARGED HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND WHETHER THE ABUSE OF POWER RISES TO THE LEVEL WARRANTING IMPEACHMENT BUT TECHNICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT NO YOU HAVE TO CHARGE IT AS WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHARGE IT YOU CAN’T REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT SOMEHOW OFFENSIVE TO LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, IT’S NOT YES WE COULD HAVE CHARGED BRIBE EARLY, HAD TWO SEPARATE COUNTS, THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND HAD WE DONE THAT AS I SAID LAST NIGHT THEY WOULD HAVE ATTACKED TAKING ONE OFFENSE AND MAKING IT INTO TWO THAT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT VIOLATED OUR BRIBE EARLY LAWS PARTICULARLY AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS, NOT AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD 200 YEARS LATER, THEY VIOLATED WHAT THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD BRITISH LAW TO CONSTITUTE EXTORTION, MODERN DAY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT, MULTIPLE LAWS BUT THAT’S NOT EVENNESS WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THEY ABUSED THEIR POWER COUNSEL SAYS CLAIMS ARE MADE OF ABUSE OF POWER ALL THE TIME YES, THAT’S TRUE IN POLITICAL RHETORIC BUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE TOWARD IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT WAS NOT IMPEACHED OVER CLIMATE CHANGE OR ANY OF THE I AM NUMERABLE EXAMPLES, PEOPLE SAYING PRESIDENT IS ABUSING HIS OFFICE, WHAT BROUGHT US HERE WAS THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT HE COULD WITHHOLD MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY OR TO GET HELP IN HIS REELECTION >> THANK YOU MR. MANAGER >> >> AT SOME POINT YOU IF

SOMETHING YOU CAN TELL CONSTITUENTS HE IS

RETIRING, SO YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE LEGACY WHEN HE IS TIRED

HE WANTS TO GIVE THE POWER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT THE

JUSTICE

>> WHY MORE WITNESSES SHOULD BE CALLED, BUT THERE IS A QUESTION

ABOUT WITNESSES, AS COLBY WAS TELLING US, IS THERE GOING TO

BE A ONE FOR ONE, ANOTHER

REQUIREMENT PUT ON IT

>> RIGHT, THIS WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO

BRING ON WITNESSES AND WE ALREADY KNOW WHO THAT NUMBER

ONE PERSON IS LIKELY, HUNTER BIDEN

OR GO FOR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, BUT I AM HEARING THAT AS THEY

SAID, THE NBC CLIP, THAT WOULD BE TOO FAR TO BRING IN THE VICE

PRESIDENT BUT THEY WANT AT LEAST ONE

BIDEN TO TALK ABOUT BEREAVEMENT

YOU WILL LIKELY SEE REPUBLICANS GET THEIR LIST IN THERE

ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER

YOU KNOW, RAND PAUL TRIED TO GET THE NAME OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER

SAID TODAY BUT THAT IS A PERSON BACK IN

THE HOUSE DAYS OF THIS PROCESS,

THEY KEPT

SAYING THEY NEED WHISTLEBLOWERS HERE

ADAM SCHIFF SAID I’M NOT A PART OF IT, NOT A FACT WITNESS

BUT THEY ARE LIKELY GOING TO BRING PEOPLE IN TO DEFLECT TO

THEIR POSITION THIS WAS A RIGGED

PROCESS

>> AMBER, WRITER FOR THE FIX, AMBER, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT

THE NEWS, WE HAVE DECISIONS BY LAMAR AND SUSAN COLLINS

WHERE DOES THIS PUT US

>> IT PUTS US FOR A POTENTIAL

50/50 TIED VOTE THEIR

VOTES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT

SENATOR RAFE, AND WE ARE WAITING ON ONE MORE WITNESS, SENATOR

ZELENSKIE AND WE HAVE MORE REPUBLICANS TO VOTE FOR THE

WITNESSES AND IF REPUBLICANS DECIDE NOT TO VOTE FOR

WITNESSES, THAT WOULD BE A TIED VOTE AND WE SORT OF THOUGHT

THIS MIGHT BE COMING, SO LOOKING AT

THE DEBATE AMONG LEGAL SCHOLARS ABOUT THIS, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHES —

BASICALLY LEGAL SCHOLARS ARE SPLIT

THEY ARE SAYING JOHN COULD MAKE ONE POSITION, JUST LIKE THE

PRESIDENT WHEN THEY ARE DEADLOCKED

JOHN ROBERTS IS TAKING THE VICE PRESIDENT’S ROLE RIGHT NOW, SO

WHY CAN’T HE VOTE? MITCH MCCONNELL THROUGH HIS

OFFICE AND HIS OWN STAFF, WHO STUDIED THE SENATE RULES ON

IMPEACHMENT SAYS NO WAY, OF COURSE THAT’S SELF-SERVING

JOHN ROBERTS ISN’T THE 50 VOTE IF YOU DON’T GET TO MA SKRORT

OF WITNESSES, THE VOTE FAILS, WE

AREN’T GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES AND THERE ARE SOME LEGAL

SCHOLARS THAT ARE WITH THAT IF WE GET TO THAT, THIS IS

TOTALLY UNCHARTERED TERRITORY

>> I WANT TO READ TO YOU SENATOR COLLINS STATEMENT

IF THIS PASSES THE MOST SENSIBLE WOULD BE FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS

TO ATTEMPT A LIMITED AMOUNT OF WITNESS FOR EACH SIDE

IF THEY CAN’T AGREE, THE SENATE COULD CHOOSE THE NUMBER OF

WITNESSES SO WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU AS

YOU INTERPRET HER STATEMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD

NECESSITATE ESSENTIALLY A TRADE OR SWAP OF WITNESSES THE

DEMOCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO DO

>> RIGHT IT SOUNDS LIKE HE

RECOGNIZES THIS COULD GO INTO WACKY

CONSTITUTIONAL TERRITORY AND 50/50 VOTE AND FURTHER SPLIT

DOWN THE LINE WHAT I HEAR IS LET’S JUST

DECIDE THIS BEHIND CLOSED DOOR AND GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS BUT YOU ARE RIGHT JAY SUCHALO, SAYS, I WANT TO CALL THE WHISTLEBLOWERS ADAM SCHIFF IF THEY DO AGREE TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO GET WHO THEY WANT WITHOUT REPUBLICANS TRY TO EXTRACT POLITICAL REVENGS AND REVEFRJ AND THE OBVIOUS IS HAVING BIDEN TESTIFY >> WHAT THE REPUBLICANS PROPOSE IS GET AT THE BIDENS AND ALMOST OPEN THE DOOR FOR IMPEACHING A JOE BIDEN RIGHT? ALLENR SHOWITD SAYS THEY COULD DO POLITICAL GOOD, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATE BY BE FOR THE POLITICAL GOOD OR PERSONAL BENEFIT DERSHOWITZ SAID IT WOULD BE FOR MONETARY GAIN THEY HAVE SAID ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HOW POLITICAL GAIN WOULD BE SEEN AS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE TIED TO PERSONAL GAIN, BUT DERSHOWITZ SEPARATED OUT FINANCIAL GAIN AND SAID THAT WAS ONE BUT THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM ARGUING BIDEN WOULD BE UNDER SCRUTINY BECAUSE OF THIS QUESTION OF FINANCIAL GAIN, WHICH IS SHOCKING AND NEXT LEVEL BECAUSE HUNTER BIDEN IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR FINANCIAL WRONGDOING AND EVEN THOUGH THE BIDEN FAMILY SAID IT DIDN’T LOOK GOOD, THERE IS NO WRONGDOING THERE, THAT THEY ARE ACCUSED OF OR ADMITTING TO THAT WAS LIKE MOVING THE BAR AND ALSO KIND OF SHOWS HOW THROUGH THIS Q &A PROCESS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAS PICK AND CHOOSE THEIR POLITICAL ARGUMENTS AND THEY HAVEN’T ALL BEEN — OH, NO, WHEN IT’S POLITICAL GAIN, THAT’S A PROBLEM THEY SAY IF YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWER BY GETTING ANY SORT OF GAIN, POLITICAL GAIN, FINANCIAL GAIN, PERSONAL GAIN, WHATEVER THE GAIN, THAT IS A PROBLEM AND YOU SEE WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TRIED TO BEND CERTAIN ARGUMENTS TO FIT THE NARRATIVE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO AND PUT FORWARD THERE SO, YEAH, IT WAS KIND OF — FELT A LITTLE ALL OVER THE PLACE GET A SENSE OF HOW THE OTHER REPUBLICANS WEIGH IN WE MAY WITH A QUESTION MARK OF HOW THINGS MOVE FORWARD THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEY TALKED ABOUT BRINGING THE TRIAL TO AN END WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENTS LET’S HEAR HIS ARGUMENT >> YOU CAN NEGOTIATE AND HAVE ALL THE WITNESSES CALLED BE THEIR WITNESSES YOU CAN NEGOTIATE SINCE THEY HAVE 17 AND WE HAVE NONE, THEY GET 17 AND WE HAVE FOUR ALL THINGS CAN BE NEGOTIATED BUT THIS IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MANAGER THAT IS HAVE AN OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY PROVED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY THEY PROVED IT, IT’S OVERWHELMING IT’S INCREDIBLE WE WERE ABLE TO PUT IT TOGETHER IN A RECORD AMOUNT OF TIME AND NOW WE WANT YOU, THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO START CALLING WITNESSES FOR OVERWHELMINGLY PROVED CASE I WOULD JUST LIKE THIS, IF WE ARE NEGOTIATING, LET’S GO TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS, SEE WHAT THIS BODY DECIDES

>> JAY SECULA AS JAMES LA VAR TALKED ABOUT IT, HE HAD A LENGTHY EXMRA MACING AND HE WAS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, BUT ULTIMATELY STILL A NO >> LAMAR’S STATEMENT WAS OUTSTANDING HE SAID THEY PROVED THEIR CASE, BUT IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE THIS IS A DEFENSE WE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS AT THIS POINT THEY ALSO HEARD IT FROM CONSERVATIVE ACADEMICS AS WELL ONE OF 29 DIFFERENT OFFENSES, WE TRACKED SIX THAT REPUBLICANS AND TRUMP ALLIES TALKED ABOUT UKRAINE AND IMPEACHMENT ITS LENGTH AND SEEMINGLY ADMITTED A LOT OF THINGS TRUMP AND HIS TEAM HAVE BEEN DENIED THIS WHOLE TIME OR SAYING IT IS NOT TRUE, THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND THEY WERE USING MILITARY AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AND ENTER THIS LITIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND CONSPIRACY THEORY, BUT I’M ALSO SIMULTANEOUS NOT SURE HOW SURPRISING NECESSARILY THIS ALEXANDER ANNOUNCEMENT IS RIGHT? HE IS KIND OF STAUNCH MCCONNELL ALLY WE KNOW FROM REPORTING AND RUMBLING S RUMBLINGS HE DOES NOT WANT THIS DRAGGING ON AND NEITHER DOES TRUMP IT’S NOT SURPRISING THAT IT CAME OUT THIS WAY, BUT IT IS STILL VERY REMARKABLE >> SO THE 29 DEFERENCES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TRACKING, CAN YOU TAKE US THROUGH WHAT THE RANGE IS, EVERYTHING FROM LIKE THE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO, OKAY, THERE MAY BE SOME WRONGDOING LIKE ALEXANDER, BUT WE DON’T NEED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT DEFENSES EVEN THIS WEEK SO FAR, IN THE PAST WEEK OR TWO FROM TRUMP’S LAWYERS IN THE SENATE TRIAL FROM REPUBLICANS I MEAN, EVEN WITHIN THE LAST WEEK TRUMP’S LAWYERS WERE ARGUING THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS NEVER ON THE TABLE AS PART OF THIS ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO, WHICH KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF A NUMBER OF KIND OF PUBLIC REPORTING THAT’S OUT THERE, TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS THAT IS OUT THERE BUT YOU HAVE REALLY SEEN THIS KIND OF SPAN THE RANGE FROM FOLKS SAYING THAT THE CALL WAS APPROPRIATE, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT QUID PRO QUOS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN FOREIGN POLICY TO — EVEN IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IT WASN’T A “CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.” WE HEARD THAT FROM SENATOR CRUISE FROM LOUISIANA AND TEXAS, IT WAS A RED HERRING THAT WAS KIND OF IN THE MULVANEY WALK BACK, WHERE HE SEEMED TO ADMIT THIS ENTIRE PRID QUO PRO QUID PRO QUO TEAM AND YOU SAW TRUMP’S TEAM INTEGRATE THIS THERE IS TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS ONE IS YOU HAVE GOT 29 DIFFERENT OFFENSES, SO SOME FOLKS SAY THIS SHOWS THIS IS A SPAGHETTI ON THE WALL DEFENSE THEY ARE CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER AND WHICHEVER WAY THE WIND BLOWS IS THE WAY THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO GO >> NOW, DURING THE THE TRIAL THE TRUMP TEAM GAVE A NUMBER OF LINES AMBER, IT SEEMED THE DEFERENCE TEAM WAS GIVING ALL THESE OPTIONS SO SENATES COULD PICK, THIS ONE MAKES SENSE FOR ME OR I COULD BRING IT HOME TO MY CONSTITUENTS AND EXPLAIN MY VOTE >> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT THAT WAS SMART STRATEGY BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN AS JAY OUTLINED, SENATES REACH INTO THE BAG AND USE ONE TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTE AND WHY THEY ARE SUPPORTING PRESIDENT TRUMP I ALSO WONDER IF THAT STRATEGY WAS DRIVEN BY THE FACT THEY WERE STRUGGLING TO DEFEND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACTIONS ADAM SCHIFF HAD MOMENTS AT THE END OF TODAY’S QUESTION AND ANSWER WHERE HE GRABBED THE SENATES AND SAID LISTEN, WE ALL KNOW TRUMP DID WHAT WE ARE ACCUSING HIM OF AND A LOT OF THE FACTS DO BEAR THAT OUT UP TO THE POINT TRUMP ACTUALLY HELPED UKRAINIANS INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS THEY HAVE TO SWIVEL BACK AND FORTH AND THEY DIDN’T HAVE

ANYTHING TO WORK WITH WHEN THE PRESIDENT DECIDED TO HOLD DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD HELP THEM MAKE THEIR CASE MULVANEY TRULY DENIES, WHY COULDN’T THE DEFENSE BRING THAT UP? THEY HAD TO PUT THIS UNEVEN STACK OF DEFERENCES TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT >> WE ARE STILL WAITING ON TWO MODERATE REPUBLICANS WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING, LISA MAKOWSKI AND MITT ROMNEY MITT ROMNEY HAS SAID HE WANTS TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON HE WANTS A STATEMENT AND WE WILL SEE IF THINGS COME DOWN BEFORE THEY RETURN AT 1:00 SHE IS GOING TO LOOK AT HER NOTES, PUT IN HER EYEDROPS AND WEIGH HER OPTIONS THE GOOD THING IS SUSAN COLLINS SAID SHE WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES IF THEY CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT, BOTH SIDES, FINDING A NUMBER THE BIG NEWS, LAMAR ALEXANDER AS A NO VOTE THIS IS SIGNIFICANT, RHONDA BECAUSE WHY? >> IT’S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WE HAVE NAMES AND WE KNOW WHO WILL NOT BE VOTING AND WHO WILL BE IT’S CLOSER TO AN ANSWER >> IF WE HAVE ONE OF THESE MODERATES IN LINE STANDING WITH HIM, IT MAKES IT ALL THE HARDER FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO REACH WITNESSES, JAY >> CORRECT AND THIS IS WHERE THINGS SEEMED TO BE DRIFTING THERE WAS A QUESTION LATE TODAY FROM A NUMBER OF SENATORS, INCLUDING SENATORS MAKOWSKI AND ALEXANDER, ESSENTIALLY IF WE TAKE EVERYTHING BOLTON SAID IN THIS MANUSCRIPT AT FACE VALUE, DOES IT CHANGE ANYTHING? WE SAW THAT ECHOED IN ALEXANDER’S STATEMENT TONIGHT LIKE I SAID, I’M NOT SURE HOW NECESSARILY SURPRISING IT’S A HUGE DEAL, BIG NEWS, BUT HOW SURPRISING IT IS THAT ALEXANDER IS COMING DOWN THE WAY HE HAS AND WITNESSES WERE ALWAYS AN UPHILL BATTLE EVEN IF THEY GOT FOUR REPUBLICANS TO VOTE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THIS VOTE ON WITNESSES WAS JUST ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD CONSIDER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THEN THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL VOTES ON WHICH ONES THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT AND AT THAT POINT THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF DEAL, WHICH YOU HEARD A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS TALK ONE FOR ONE, YOU GET ONE WITNESS AND I GET ONE, THE BARE MINIMUM FOR NEGOTIATING FOR ADAM BIDEN OR CALLING ADAM SCHIFF, YOU HAVE HEARD DEMOCRATS HERE AND THERE BE HESITANT TO KIND OF ACCEPT THAT AS KIND OF TERMS FOR THIS, RIGHT? SO THE BIG NEWS, AS YOU SAID LAMAR ALEXANDER, AND THIS — IT WAS ALREADY AN UPHILL BATTLE THIS MAKES IT MORE OF AN UPHILL BATTLE FOR DEMOCRATS IN THEIR FIGHT FOR MORE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JAY REAGER AND YOU WILL BE BACK TOMORROW BASICALLY WE ARE LOOKING AT 12 HOURS HOW WE VIEW THE CLOCK FROM WHEN WE END TO START AGAIN THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US AT THE NEWS ROOM WE WILL BE HERE TOMORROW LIVE TO HEAR THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIAL UNFOLD WE COULDN’T DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT SO PLEASE BE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE WHEREVER YOU ARE WATCHING I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW GOOD NIGHT