>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO THE PBS NEWSHOUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

TODAY IS THE FINAL DAY OF PRESENTATIONS FROM LAWYERS REPRESENTING AND DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT.

THE NEXT PHASE OF THE TRIAL WILL PERMIT SENATORS TO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS AND THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM.

WATCHING IT ALL, I'M JOINED BY LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR, BOTH ARE ON CAPITOL HILL THIS AFTERNOON FOR THE END OF THIS PHASE OF THE TRIAL.

WE WILL BE SEEING ANY MOMENT NOW LIVE PICTURES.

HERE IT IS.

VIDEO FROM THE SENATE CHAMBER AS WE HAVE EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS SINCE THIS TRIAL GOT UNDERWAY.

YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE MANAGERS THERE ON THE LEFT FOREFRONT.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT FOREFRONT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.

I BELIEVE THAT IS JAY SEKULOW.

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TEAM GATHERING THERE ON THE FAR RIGHT.

STANDING NEAR THE WALL, BARRY BLACK, A SENATE CHAPLAIN WILL BE GOING TO THE CHAMBERS WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS ARRIVES.

AS WE WAIT, I'M GOING TO QUICKLY GO TO YAMICHE AND LISA.

LET ME START WITH YOU.

WE'VE BEEN HEARING THE BULK SO FAR OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL DEFENSE TEAMS ARGUMENTS WHAT ARE REPUBLICANS SAYING THAT THEY EXPECT HAPPEN TODAY?

>> IT'S INTERESTING THE VIEW IN THE SENATE IS DIFFERENT VIEW OUTSIDE.

IN THE SENATE WE EXPECT THE CLOSING NOTES OR ARGUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

JUDY, OUTSIDE THE SENATE, A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

IT'S ABOUT HOW TO CONFRONT JOHN BOLTON AND THE MANUSCRIPT THAT HE'S WRITTEN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS REVIEWING.

THERE'S CALLS FROM REPUBLICANS TO REVIEW IT IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING.

THAT IS GET A LOT OF ATTENTION.

THERE'S CALLS FROM DEMOCRATS TO MAKE HIM A WITNESS.

SO THAT IS THE NEWS AND MOST OF THE CONVERSATION HERE AT THE CAPITOL.

>> I HEARD IN A NEWS CONFERENCE CHUCK SCHUMER, THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER REJECT OUT OF HAND THE IDEA OF SHARING THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT IN A CLOSED DOOR SESSION.

SAYING IT'S A BOOK.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT.

WHY DO THAT?

>> HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH HIM.

I SPOKE WITH TIM KAINE AND OTHERS THAT SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

SENATE OR DURBIN SAID IF THAT'S THE ONLY CHOICE THEY HAVE, THEY WOULD LIKE IT IN A CLASSIFIED SESSION.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR, LET'S GO TO YOU AT THE CAPITOL TODAY.

I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

IN GENERAL, HOW DO THEY THINK IT'S GOING AND WHERE DO THEY STAND AT THIS POINT ON WHETHER JOHN BOLTON SHOULD BE CALLED AS A WITNESS?

THEY HAVE ARGUED ARGUMENT THAT.

WHAT ABOUT READING THE MANUSCRIPT?

>> THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM DOESN'T WANT JOHN BOLTON TO BE TESTIFYING AND THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO BLOCK HIM AND TRY TO SAY THERE'S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING HE CAN'T DISCUSS HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL.

THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS GEARING FOR TWO TO THREE HOURS OF DEBATE.

THE MAIN THING THEY WANT TO DO IS WRAP UP THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

WHAT IS INTERESTING HERE, THIS CONVERSATION OF WHETHER OR NOT BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT.

JOHN KELLY WHO LEFT WITH SOME CONCERNS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, HE SAYS HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS AN INCREASING PROBLEM HERE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEY REALLY SEE IT AS A WITNESS PROBLEM.

OVERALL THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED.

>> THAT'S YAMICHE COVERING THE TRIAL.

LET'S GO TO BARRY BLACK, A SENATE CHAPLAIN.

>> PLAN EVIL IN THEIR HEARTS.

USE OUR SENATORS TO BRING PEACE AND UNITY TO OUR WORLD.

MAY THEY PERMIT GODLINESS TO MAKE THEM BOLD AS LIONS.

GIVE THEM A CLEARER VISION OF YOUR DESIRES FOR OUR NATION.

REMIND THEM THAT THEY BORROW THEIR HEARTBEATS FROM YOU EACH D DAY, PROVIDE THEM WITH SUCH HUMILITY, HOPE AND COURAGE THAT THEY WILL TO YOUR WILL.

LORD, GRANT THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL MAKE OUR NATION STRONGER, WISER AND BETTER.

WE PRAY IN YOUR STRONG NAME, AMEN.

>> JOIN ME IN RESITINGINGINGING LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.

[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE].

>> PLEASE BE SEATED.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

THE 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.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> WE EXPECT SEVERAL HOURS OF SESSION TODAY WITH PROBABLY ONE QUESTION BREAK IN THE MIDDLE.

>> THANK YOU.

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE RESOLUTION 483, THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT HAVE 15 HOURS AND 33 MINUTES REMAINING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE.

THOUGH WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE THE USE THE REMAINDER OF THAT TIME BEFORE THE END OF THE DAY.

THE SENATE WILL HEAR YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW OF TODAY, WE DO NOT INTEND TO USE MUCH OF THAT TIME TODAY, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

WE INTEND -- OUR GOAL IS TO BE FINISHED BY DINNER TIME AND WELL-BEFORE.

WE'LL HAVE THREE PRESENTATIONS.

FIRST IS PAT PHILBIN, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

THEN JAY SEKULOW WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION.

WE'LL TAKE A BREAK IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND THEN AFTER THAT, I'LL FINISH WITH A PRESENTATION.

SO THAT'S OUR GOAL FOR THE DAY.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PAT PHILBIN.

.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER, I'D LIKE THE START TODAY BY MAKING A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS RELATED TO THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO ELABORATE OR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ PRESENTATION FROM YESTERDAY EVENING WHICH I THOUGHT WAS COMPLETE AND COMPELLING BUT I WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF VERY SPECIFIC POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE THAT HE SET OUT.

IT BEGINS FROM A FOCUS ON THE POINT IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHERE MALADMINISTRATION WAS OFFERED BY GEORGE MASON AS A GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

JAMES MADISON RESPONDED THAT THAT WAS A BAD IDEA.

HE SAID SO VAGUE A TERM WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO A TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE SENATE.

THAT DEEP-SEEDED CONCERN THAT MADISON HAD AND IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE DESIGN OF OUR CONSTITUTION, FOR WAYS THAT CAN LEAD TO EXERCISES OF ARBITRARY POWER.

THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS AND CHECKS ON ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT POWER.

OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE GREAT MECHANISMS FOR THAT IS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OUR CONSTITUTION BUT ALSO COMES FROM DEFINING AND LIMITING POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITY.

A CONCERN THAT VAGUE TERMS, VAGUE STANDARDS ARE THEMSELVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EXPANSION OF POWER AND EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER.

WE SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AS WELL, THIS IS WHY AS MORRIS ARGUED THAT ONLY FEW OFFENSES, HE SAID FEW OFFENSES OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHABLE AND THE CASES OUGHT TO BE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED.

THAT IS WHY WE SEE IN THE DEBATES OF THE CONSTITUTION THERE WAS A -- MANY TERMS INCLUDED IN EARLIER DRAFTS WHEN IT WAS NARROWED DOWN TO TREASON AND BRIBERY AND THERE WAS A SUGGESTION TO INCLUDE MALADMINISTRATION WHICH HAD BEEN THE GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT IN ENGLISH PRACTICE.

THE FRAMERS REJECTED IT.

IT WAS TOO VAGUE, TOO EXPANSIVE.

WOULD ALLOW FOR ARBITRARY EXERCISES OF POWER.

YOU CAN SEE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION IN TERMS THAT RELATE AND FIT IN THE SAME CONCERN.

ONE IS IN THE DEFINITION OF TREASON.

THE FRAMERS WERE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE ENGLISH PRACTICE OF HAVING A VAGUE CONCEPT OF TREASON THAT WAS MALLEABLE AND COULD BE CHANGED EVEN AFTER THE FACT TO DEFINE NEW CONCEPTS OF TREASON WAS DANGEROUS.

IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WANTED TO REJECT FROM THE ENGLISH SYSTEM SO THEY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY WHAT CONSTITUTED TREASON AND HOW IT HAD TO BE PROVED.

AND IN THAT TERMS WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE.

SIMILAR FOR MALADMINISTRATION.

IT WAS VAGUE.

A VAGUE STANDARD, SOMETHING THAT WAS TOO CHANGEABLE THAT CAN BE REDEFINED, CAN BE MALLEABLE AFTER THE FACT, ALLOWS FOR THE ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER.

THAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO GIVE THAT POWER TO THE LEGISLATURE AS A POWER TO IMPEACH THE EXECUTIVE.

SIMILARLY, AND IT RELATES TO THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, ONE OF THE GREATEST DANGERS FROM HAVING CHANGEABLE STANDARDS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM WAS BILLS OF ATTAINDER.

EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T UNLAWFUL BEFORE THAT.

AND THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT ENTIRE CONCEPT.

IN ARTICLE 1 SECTION 9, THEY LIMIT NATED ATTAINDER LAWS.

IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM, THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IMPEACHMENT AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER.

BOTH WERE TOOLS OF THE PARLIAMENT TO GET AFTER OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT.

YOU COULD IMPEACH THEM FOR AN ESTABLISHED DEFENSE OR PASS A BILL OF ATTAINDER.

BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION OF IMPEACHMENT WAS BEING NARROWED THAT GEORGE MASON AS THE DEBATE SUGGESTED AND YOU POINTED OUT IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM, THERE'S A BILL OF ATTAINDER.

IT'S BEEN A USEFUL TOOL.

NOW WE'RE ELIMINATING THAT AND GETTING A NARROW DEFINITION OF IMPEACHMENT AND WE OUGHT TO EXPAND IT TO INCLUDE MALADMINISTRATION.

MADISON SAID NO.

THE FRAMERS AGREED.

WE HAVE TO HAVE ENUMERATED AND DEFINED OFFENSES, NOT A VAGUE CONCEPT.

NOTHING SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BLURRY AND INTERPRETED AFTER THE FACT.

IT COULD BE USED TO MAKE POLICY DIFFERENCES OR OTHER DIFFERENCES LIKE THAT, THE SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT.

ALL OF THE STEPS THAT THE FRAMERS TOOK IN THE WAY THEY APPROACHED THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WERE IN TERMS OF NARROWING, RESTRICTING, CONSTRAINING, ENUMERATING OFFENSES AND NOT A VAGUE AND MALLEABLE APPROACH AS IT HAD BEEN IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM.

I THINK THE MINORITY VIEWS OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THE TIME OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BECAUSE THEY SUMMED THIS UP AS WELL.

I'M QUOTING FROM THE MINORITY VIEWS IN THE REPORT.

THE WHOLE TENOR OF THE FRAMER'S DISCUSSIONS, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THEIR MANY CAREFUL THE PART -- DEPARTURES WAS ABOUT LIMITS AND STANDARDS.

AN IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WOULDN'T BE TANTAMOUNT TO TOEXPO FACTOR LAWS AND CONTRARY TO JUSTICE.

WHAT WE SEE IN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S CHARGES AND THEIR DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF POWER IS EXACTLY ANTITHETICAL TO THE FRAMER'S APPROACH.

BECAUSE THEIR VERY PREMISE FOR THEIR ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE IS IT'S ENTIRELY BASED ON SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE.

NOT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, NOT PREDEFINED OFFENSES.

THE PRESIDENT CAN DO SOMETHING THAT IS PERFECTLY LAWFUL, PERFECTLY WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY BUT IF THE REAL REASON AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT, THE REASON IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND IS SOMETHING THAT THEY FREROTTE OUT THAT THEY DECIDE IS WRONG, IT'S IMPEACHABLE.

IT ENDS UP BEING INFINITELY MALLEABLE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A TELLING FACTOR THAT REFLECTS HOW MALLEABLE IT IS AND HOW DANGEROUS IT IS.

IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

AFTER THAT DEFINE THEIR CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF POWER AND THEY SAY IT INVOLVES EXERCISE IN GOVERNMENT POWER FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS AND NOT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND IT DEPENDS ON YOUR SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES, THEY REALIZE THAT THAT IS INFINITELY MALLEABLE.

THERE'S NOT REALLY A CLEAR STANDARD THERE.

IT'S VIOLATING A FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE OF WHAT IS WRONG.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTICE OF AN OFFENSE.

SOMETHING THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ POINTED OUT LAST NIGHT.

HAS TO BE A DEFINED OFFENSE IN ADVANCE.

THE WAY THEY TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS IS TO SAY, WELL, IN ADDITION TO OUR DEFINITION, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS INVOLVE CONDUCT THAT IS RECOGNIZABLY WRONG TO A REASONABLE PERSON.

THAT IS THEIR KIND OF ADD-ON TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE AN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STANDARD.

THEY DON'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT DEFINE AS SPECIFIC OFFENSE, THEY DON'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT DEFINES INCOHERENT TERMS THAT ARE DEFINABLE.

IT'S GOT TO BE RECOGNIZABLY WRONG.

THEY SAY THEY'RE DOING THIS TO RESOLVE ATTENTION THEY CALL IT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY POINT OUT -- THIS IS QUOTING FROM THE REPORT -- THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONTRIBUTION INCLUDING ITS PROHIBITION ON BILLS OF ATTAINDERI APPLIES THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE.

EVERYTHING ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SPEAKING OF AN OFFENSE AND THE CONVICTION THAT IT'S ALL CRIMES TRIED BY JURY EXCEPT IMPEACHMENTS, THEY TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE TERMS.

THE TENSION HERE IS NOT WITHIN THE CONTRIBUTION.

IT'S BETWEEN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S DEFINITION WHICH LACKS ANY COHERENT DEFINITION OF AN OFFENSE.

THAT'S THE TENSION THEY'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE, BETWEEN THEIR MALLEABLE STANDARD THAT ACTUALLY STATES NO CLEAR OFFENSE AND THE CONTRIBUTION AND THE PRINCIPALS OF JUSTICE EMBODIED IN THE CONTRIBUTION THAT REQUIRE SOME CLEAR OFFENSE.

SO WE WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IN RELATION TO THE STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONAL PUZZLE THAT FITS IN WITH THE EXPOSITION THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SET OUT.

IT ALSO SHOWS AN INHERENT FLAW IN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT ONE ACCEPTS THE VIEW THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HAS TO BE A CRIME.

THEY DEFINED CRIME.

THERE'S STILL THE FLAW IN THEIR DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF POWER, THAT IT'S SO MALLEABLE BASED ON PURELY SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RECOGNIZABLE NOTICE OF AN OFFENSE.

IT'S SO MALLEABLE, IT IN EFFECT RECREATES THE OFFENSE OF MALADMINISTRATION AS THE FRAMERS EXPRESSLY REJECTED AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED.

THE SECOND POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT HOW DO WE TELL UNDER THE HOUSE MANAGER'S STANDARD WHAT AN ILLICIT MOTIVE IS?

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET THE PROOF OF WHAT IS INSIDE THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD?

OF COURSE, MOTIVE IS INHERENTLY DIFFICULT TO PROVE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS THEY HAVE CONCEDED.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PERFECTLY LAWFUL ACTIONS ON THEIR FACE.

BUT THEY WANT TO MAKE IT IMPEACHABLE IF IT'S THE WRONG IDEA INSIDE HIS HEAD.

THEY EXPLAIN IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THE WAY WE TELL IF THE PRESIDENT HAD THE WRONG MOTIVE IS WE'LL COMPARE WHAT HE DID TO WHAT STAFFERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SAID HE OUGHT TO DO.

THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT "DISREGARDED UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE."

AND THAT HE IGNORED "OFFICIAL POLICY THAT HE HAD BEEN BRIEFED ON."

AND THAT HE "IGNORED, DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY AGENCY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH."

THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY COHERENT STATEMENT.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION VETS ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE ALONE IS AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

HE SETS POLICY FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

HE'S GIVEN VAST POWER.

OF COURSE, WITHIN LIMITS SET BY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS AND WITHIN LIMITS SET BY SPENDING LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS, HE WITHIN THOSE CONSTRAINTS SETS THE POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.

AND IN AREAS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MILITARY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THIS CASE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HEAD OF STATE COMMUNICATIONS, HE HAS VAST POWERS AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED FOR OVER TWO CENTURIES.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GUARDED AS THE HEAD OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SO THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD THE WRONG SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES BY COMPARING WHAT HE DID TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS AMONG STAFFERS IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL.

IT INVERTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE.

IT'S ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY DEMOCRATIC.

OUR SYSTEM IS RATHER UNIQUE IN THE AMOUNT OF POWER THAT IT GIVES TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE EXECUTIVE HERE HAS MUCH MORE POWER THAN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.

PART OF THE REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT WITH HAVE THAT POWER IS THAT HE'S DIRECTLY DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

THERE'S AN ELECTION EVERY FOUR YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THOSE PEOPLE.

BUT THE STAFFERS IN THE MEETINGS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

THERE'S NO LEGITIMACY TO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT AS HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET POLICIES AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STAFFERS MAY RECOMMEND.

THEY'RE THERE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT TO SET POLICY.

SO THE IDEA WE'RE GOING TO START IMPEACHING PRESIDENTS BUT DECIDING THAT THEY HAVE ILLICIT MOTIVES TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN AGREE WITH SOME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

THOSE ARE THE TWO OBSERVATIONS TO ADD TO SPECIFIC POINTS ON PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S COMMENTS FROM LAST NIGHT.

I WANT TO SHIFT GEARS AND RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE BROUGHT UP THAT ARE REALLY A COMPLETELY EXTRANEOUS TO THIS PROCEEDING.

INVOLVE MATTERS THAT ARE NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY DO NOT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, HIS ACTIONS.

THEY ARE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP SOMEWHAT RECKLESSLY IN ANY EVENT.

WE CANNOT CLOSE WITHOUT SOME RESPONSE TO THEM.

THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF COVER-UP RELATED TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL BECAUSE IT WAS STORED ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM.

SO LET ME START WITH THAT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE THIS ACCUSATION THERE'S SOMETHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON.

LET'S SEE WHAT THE WITNESSES HAD TO SAY.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN -- REMEMBER, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS THE PERSON LISTENING IN ON THE CALL AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT WENT AND RAISED A CONCERN WITH NSC LAWYERS THAT HE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE CALL.

EVEN THOUGH HE LATER CONCEDED THAT IT WAS REALLY A POLICY CONCERN.

HE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG.

HE HAD TO SAY THAT HE DID NOT THINK -- HE SAID SO I DON'T THINK THERE WAS MALICIOUS INTENT OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE TO COVER ANYTHING UP.

HE'S THE ONE THAT WENT AND TALKED TO THE LAWYERS, HE'S THE ONE THAT COMPLAINED SPURRED THE IDEA THAT WAIT, THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY SENSITIVE HERE, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO LEAK.

HE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMEBODY COVERING IT UP.

HIS BOSS, SENIOR DIRECTOR TIM MORRISON HAD SIMILAR TESTIMONY.

>> SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO MALICIOUS INTENT MOVING THE TRANSFER TO THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF COVER UP IS FURTHER DESTROYED BY THE FACT THAT EVERYONE THAT HAS PART OF THEIR JOBS NEEDED ACCESS TO THAT TRANSCRIPT.

STILL HAD ACCESS TO IT.

INCLUDING LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

THE PERSON THAT RAISES A COMPLAINT STILL HAS ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT THE ENTIRE TIME.

THIS IS THE WAY MR. MORRISON'S TESTIMONY EXPLAINED THAT.

>> AND EVEN ON THE CODE WORD SERVER, YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT?

>> YES.

>> AT NO POINT IN TIME DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ANYBODY ON THE NSC STAFF THAT NEEDED ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO ACCESS IT, CORRECT?

THIS HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND NEED TO ACCESS IT.

>> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE COMPARTMENTED >> YES.

>> YES.

>> AS MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED, HE RECOMMENDED RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT NOT BECAUSE HE HAD ANY CONCERN THERE WAS ANYTHING IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL, HE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LEAK.

AS HE PUT IT, HOW THAT QUOTE WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD "AFFECT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY UKRAINIAN PARTNERS CURRENTLY EXPERIENCE IN CONGRESS."

HE WAS RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT LEAKS BECAUSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS FACED NATIONAL SECURITY LEAKS AT AN ALARMING RATE.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN HIMSELF SAID THE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAKS SEEM JUSTIFIED AND IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL THAT SOMETHING WOULD BE PUT IN A MORE RESTRICTED CIRCULATION.

NOW, WHAT ELSE IS IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE?

MR. MORRISON EXPLAINED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE TRANSCRIPT ENDED UP ON THAT SERVER.

>> I SPOKE WITH THE NSC EXECUTIVE SECRETARY STAFF, ASKED THEM WHY.

THEY DID THEIR RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT WAS MOVED TO THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG WHO I THEN ASKED WHY.

THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE MADE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY MINE TO QUESTION.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.

HE ESSENTIALLY SAID I GAVE SUCH DIRECTION.

HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND REPRESENTED TO ME THAT IT WAS KIND OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR THAT WHEN HE ALSO GAVE DIRECTION TO RESTRICT ACCESS, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY STAFF UNDERSTOOD IT AS AN APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT OF THE MEMCON THAT COULDN'T EXIST ON THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

>> SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO MALICIOUS INTENT OF MOVING TO IT THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER?

>> CORRECT.

>> EVERYONE THAT KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND TESTIFIED AGREED THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT.

THE CALL WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE THAT NEEDED IT AS PART OF THEIR JOB AND CERTAINLY COVERED UP IN ANY WAY.

THE PRESIDENT DECLASSIFIED IT AND MADE IT PUBLIC.

WHY ARE WE EVEN HERE TALKING ABOUT THESE ACCUSATIONS OF A COVER-UP WHEN IT'S A TRANSCRIPT PRESERVED AND MADE PUBLIC IS SOMEWHAT ABSURD.

NOW, THE OTHER POINT I'D LIKE TO TURN TO, ANOTHER ACCUSATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WAS NOT FORWARDED TO CONGRESS, THEY'VE SAID THAT LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THIS TIME, THEY ACCUSED OLCIOF PROVIDING A BOGUS OPINION FOR WHY THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DID NOT HAVE TO ADVANCE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID THAT OLC OPINED WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS THAT THE ACTING DNI DID NOT HAVE TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS."

THE WAY HE -- THERE'S A STATUTE THAT SAYS IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FINDS A MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN, IT MUST BE FORWARDED TO CONGRESS.

MANAGER JEFFRIES PORTRAYED THIS AS IF THE ONLY THING TO DECIDE WAS WERE THESE CLAIMS URGENT.

HE SAID "WHAT COULD BE MORE URGENT THAN A SITTING PRESIDENT TRY TO CHEAT AN AMERICAN ELECTION BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

THAT'S NOT THE ONLY QUESTION.

THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY IF IT'S URGENT YOU HAVE TO FORWARD IT.

IT TALKS ABOUT URGENT CONCERN AS A DEFINED TERM.

IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO COME AND CAST ACCUSATIONS THAT THE POLITICAL AN CAREER OFFICIALS AT THE OLC, WHICH WE KNOW IS A RESPECTED DEPARTMENT, PROVIDES OPINIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ON WHAT GOVERNING LAW IS, THEY SHOULD COME BACKED UP WITH ANALYSIS.

SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

AND I THINK WE HAVE THE SLIDE OF THAT.

URGENT CONCERN IS DEFINED AS A SERIOUS OR FLAGRANT PROBLEM, ABUSE, VIOLATION OF LAW RELATING TO THE FUNDING ADMINISTRATION OR OPERATION OF AN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

SO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL WAS CONSULTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE DNI'S OFFICE.

THEY LOOKED AT THIS DEFINITION AND THEY DID AN ANALYSIS.

AND THEY DETERMINED THAT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IS NOT AN URGENT CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.

THEY'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT DO WE THINK IT'S URGENT, DO WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT?

NO.

THEY'RE ANALYZING THE LAW.

THEY LOOKED AT THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.

THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IS NOT AN URGENT CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONCERN THE FUNDING ADMINISTRATION OR OPERATION OF AN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DNI.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE.

THIS IS NOT SOME CIA OPERATION OVERSEAS.

THIS ISN'T THE NSA DOING SOMETHING.

THIS ISN'T ANY INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY GOING ON WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DNI.

IT'S THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXERCISES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ENGAGING IN FOREIGN RELATIONS WITH A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE.

SO IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL LOOKED AT THE STATUTE, CASE LAW, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS PHRASE OR URGENT CONCERN INCLUDES MATTERS RELATING TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THE DNI SUPERVISION BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF WRONG DOING ARISING OUTSIDE OF ANY INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY OR OUTSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ITSELF.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

THE STATUTE WAS MEANT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ABILITY OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OVERSEEING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO RECEIVE REPORTS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

THOSE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, IF THERE WAS FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, SOMETHING UNLAWFUL IN THOSE ACTIVITY.

IT WAS NOT MEANT TO CREATE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE PRESIDENCY.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE OVAL OFFICE.

TO PURPORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IN EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES HAD DONE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE REPORTED.

THIS LAW IS NARROW.

IT DOES NOT COVER EVERY ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LAW OLC EXPLAINED OR OTHER ABUSE THAT COMES TO THE ATTENTION OF A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND YOU HAPPEN TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE DOESN'T MAKE THIS LAW APPLY.

THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING ON ALLEGATIONS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

NONETHELESS, THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE JULY 25th CALL TRANSCRIPT.

IT WAS NOT THE END OF THE MATTER THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE ICIAG'S LETTER WERE NOT SENT TO CONGRESS.

OLC COMPLAINED THAT IF THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT INVOLVE AN URGENT CONCERN BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THERE THAT YOU WANT CHECKED OUT, THE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE DNI'S OFFICE DID.

THEY SENT THE ICIG'S LETTER WITH THE COMPLAINT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOOKED AT IT.

THIS WAS ALL MADE PUBLIC SOME TIME AGO.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXAMINED THE EXACT ALLEGATIONS OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THE EXACT FRAMING AND CONCERN RAISED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHICH HAD TO DO WITH A POTENTIAL PERHAPS A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW VIOLATION.

DOJ LOOKED AT IT, LOOKED AT THE STATUTES, ANALYZED IT AND DETERMINED THERE WAS NO VIOLATION IN A CLOSED MATTER.

IT ANNOUNCED THAT MONTHS AGO.

OR WHEN SOMETHING GETS SENT OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXAMINE, YOU CAN'T CALL THAT A COVER-UP.

EVERYTHING WAS DONE CORRECTLY.

THE LAWYERS ANALYZED THE LAW.

THE COMPLAINT WAS SENT TO THE APPROPRIATE PERSON FOR REVIEW.

IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRED TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS.

EVERYTHING WAS HANDLED ENTIRELY PROPERLY.

SO AGAIN, ACTUALLY EXTRANEOUS TO THE MATTERS BEFORE YOU, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THESE TWO POINTS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

BUT IT MERITS A RESPONSE WHEN RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AGAINST THOSE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I YIELD BACK MY TIME TO MR. SEKULOW.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, HOUSE MANAGERS, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WHAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN HERE AS WE CONCLUDE SO PERHAPS THE MOST SOLEMN OF DUTIES UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK.

THE TRIAL OF THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD AND THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT IS NOT A GAME OF LEAKS AND UNSOURCED MANUSCRIPTS.

THAT'S POLITICS, UNFORTUNATELY AND HAMILTON PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE HANDS OF THIS BODY, THE SENATE PRECISELY AND SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABOVE THAT FREY.

THIS IS THE GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY ON EARTH.

IN OUR PRESENTATION SO FAR, YOU'VE NOW HEARD FROM LEGAL SCHOLARS FROM A VARIETY OF SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT, FROM A VARIETY OF POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS.

BUT THEY DO HAVE SOME COMMON THEME WITH THE DIRE WARNING.

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER!

TO LOWER THE BAR OF IMPEACHMENT BASED ON THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD IMPACT THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THE FRAME WORK OF THAT CONSTITUTION FOR GENERATIONS.

I ASK YOU TO PUT YOURSELF -- QUOTING MR. SCHIFF, MANAGER SCHIFF'S STATEMENT HIS FATHER MADE ABOUT PUTTING YOURSELVES IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE ELSE.

I SAID, I'D LIKE YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE PRESIDENT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS WE CONCLUDE TODAY THAT WE'RE REMINDED OF THAT FACT.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BEFORE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT, WAS AN INVESTIGATION.

IT WAS CALLED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE.

IT WAS AN INVESTIGATION LED BY THE FBI.

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

JAMES COMEY EVENTUALLY TOLD THE PRESIDENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND REFERENCED THE STEELE DOSSIER.

JAMES COMEY, THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI SAID IT WAS SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED.

SO SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED THAT THEY USED IT AS A BASIS TO OBTAIN FISA WARRANTS.

MEMBERS, MANAGERS HERE, MANAGERS AT THIS TABLE RIGHT HERE SAID THAT ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THE ABUSE FROM THE FAR INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT USED TO GET THE FISA WARRANTS FROM THE COURT WERE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

I TOLD YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING, I ASKED TO PUT YOURSELVES IN THE SHOES OF NOT JUST THIS PRESIDENT, OF ANY PRESIDENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THIS TYPE OF ATTACK.

FISA WARRANTS ISSUED FROM PEOPLE AFFILIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN.

AMERICAN CITIZENS AFFILIATED WITH THE PEOPLE OF HIS CAMPAIGN.

CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BEING SURVEILLED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER THAT HAS NOW BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE VERY COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER THAT IT WAS BASED ON A FRAUDULENT PRESENTATION.

IN FACT, EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY CHA CHANGED, CHANGED BY THE VERY FBI LAWYER WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS.

CHANGED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE INTELLIGENCE COURT ISSUED TWO ORDERS SAYING THAT WHEN THIS AGENT, THIS LAWYER, MADE THESE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, THEY ALSO MADE A MISREPRESENTATION TO A FEDERAL COURT.

THE FEDERAL COURT.

THE FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE COURT.

A COURT WHERE THERE ARE NO DEFENSE WITNESSES.

A COURT WHERE THERE -- THERE IS NO CROSS EXAMINATION.

IT'S A COURT BASED ON TRUST.

THAT TRUST WAS VIOLATED.

AND THEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JAMES COMEY, DECIDES HE WILL LEAK A MEMO OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE IS LEAKING THE MEMO FOR A PURPOSE HE SAID.

TO OBTAINED THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL.

AND LO AND BEHOLD, A SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED.

JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT FBI AGENT, LAWYER, WHO COMMITTED THE FRAUD ON THE FISA COURT BECAME A LAWYER FOR THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

ONLY TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF POLITICAL ANIMUS AND BIAS FOUND BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THEN WE HAVE A SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.

LISA PAGE, AGENT STRZOK, I'M NOT GOING IN THE DETAILS.

YOU KNOW THEM.

THEY'RE NOT IN CONTROVERSY.

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR.

BUT DOES IT BOTHER YOUR SENSE OF JUSTICE?

EVEN A LITTLE BIT.

EVEN A LITTLE BIT.

THAT BOB MUELLER ALLOWED THE EVIDENCE ON THE PHONES OF THOSE AGENTS TO BE WIPED CLEAN WHILE THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

NOW, IF YOU DID IT, IF YOU DID IT, MANAGER SCHIFF, IF YOU DID IT MANAGER JEFFERS, IF I DID THAT, DESTROYED EVIDENCE, IF ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER DID THIS, WE'D BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.

THEIR SERIOUS TROUBLE IS THEY GET FIRED.

BOB MUELLER'S EXPLANATION FOR IT IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I CAN'T RECALL THE CONVERSATIONS.

YOU CAN'T VIEW THIS CASE IN A VACUUM.

YOU ARE BEING ASKED AND I SAY THIS WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE AN ELECTED -- DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS ISN'T SOME -- WE HAVE REFERENCES TO LAW SCHOOL EXAMS.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS GREAT ANALYSIS YESTERDAY.

I APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT.

BUT I WANT TO FOCUS TODAY ON MY SECTION, WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO.

YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IT IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THERE ARE SOME OF YOU IN THIS CHAMBER RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD RATHER BE SOMEPLACE ELSE.

THAT'S WHY WE'LL BE BRIEF.

I UNDERSTAND.

YOU'D RATHER BE SOMEPLACE ELSE.

WHY?

BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, THE NOMINATION OF YOUR PARTY.

I GET IT.

BUT THIS IS A SERIOUS DELIBERATIVE SITUATION.

YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CALL FOR, REMOVAL.

SO WE HAD A SPECIAL COUNSEL.

WE GOT THE REPORT.

JUST FOR A MOMENT PUTTING YOUR SERVES IN THE SHOES OF THIS PRESIDENT, YOU'RE NUMBER 4 AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

HIS WIFE IS WORKING FOR THE FIRM THAT IS DOING THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON HIM AND IS COMMUNICATING WITH THE FOREIGN FORMER SPY, CHRISTOPHER STEELE, THAT PUT TOGETHER THE DOSSIER AND BEING HANDLED BY CHRISTOPHER STEELE THROUGH NELLIE OHR TO HER HUSBAND, THE FOURTH RANKING MEMBER AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUST TIS, BRUCE OHR AND ALL OF THIS IS GOING ON AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO TELL AND HE'S TESTIFIED TO THIS, ORE AND ALL OF THIS THROUGH BRUCE ORE AND HE DOESN'T TELL EVERYBODY WHAT HE'S DOING BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID HE MIGHT HAVE TO STOP.

MIGHT HAVE TO STOP!

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

AND THEN WE ASK WHY IS THE PRESIDENT CONCERNED ABOUT ADVICE HE'S BEING GIVEN?

PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES.

PUT YOURSELF IN HIS SHOES.

WE'VE GIVEN YOU AND OUR APPROACH HAS BEEN TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW.

TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.

TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO.

FOR ESSENTIALLY POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT POLICY ALTHOUGH THE ONE THAT I STILL -- IT STILL TROUBLES ME AND THISQVp IDEA T THE PRESIDENT -- IT WASMP SAID SEVERAL OF THEfE MANAGERS, IS OY DOING THINGS FOR HIMSELF.

UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY AS WE'RE HERE.

THEY RAISED IT BY THE WAY, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, THEY RAISED IT.

THIS PRESIDENT IS ONLY DOING THINGS FOR HIMSELF WHILE THE LEADERS OF OPPOSING PARTIES BY THE WAY, AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, TO OBTAIN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THEY SAY YOU'RE ONLY DOING THAT FOR YOURSELF.

I THINK THE IRONY THAT THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WHILE ALL OF THAT WAS GOING ON AND OTHER ACTS THAT THIS BODY HAS PASSED, SOME OF THEM BIPARTISAN TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

POLICY DIFFERENCES.

THOSE POLICY DIFFERENCES CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DESTROY THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

HOUSE MANAGER SPOKE FOR I KNOW WE HAVE HAD DISAGREEMENTS ON THE TIME, IT WAS 23 HOURS, 21 HOURS, THEY SPOKE DURING THEIR TIME, A LOT OF TIME.

MOST OF IT ATTACKING THE PRESIDENT, POLICY DECISIONS, THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY HEARD, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THERE WAS A PAUSE ON FOREIGN AID, I LAID OUT BEFORE THAT THERE WAS PAUSES ON ALL KINDS OF FOREIGN AID, NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO DO IT.

PRAIRIE BUT THE ONE THING I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE MANAGERS' PERSPECTIVE AND MAYBE IT'S NOT FAIR TO ASK THE MANAGERS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE BUT REMEMBER THE WHOLE IDEA THATV DIRE NATIONAL SECRETARY THREAT, WE HAD TO GET THIS OVER HERE RIGHT AWAY,OUçs HAD TO BE DONE CHRISTMAS, THE COUNTRY WAS IN SUCH JEOPARDY, IT HAD TO BE DONE RIGHT AWAY LET'S HOLD ON TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR A MONTH TO SEE IF THE HOUSE DO FORCE THE SENATE TO ADOPT RULES THAT THEY WANTED.

WHICH IS NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS SET UP.

BUT IT WAS SUCH A DIRE EMERGENCY, IT WAS SO CRITICAL FOR OUR NATION'S NATIONAL INTEREST THAT WE COULD HOLD THEM FOR 33 DAYS.

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER!

THAT'S POLITICS.

AS I SAID, YOU'RE BEING CALLED UPON TO REMOVE THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT'S WHAT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CALL FOR.

THEY NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION WHY THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, MAYBE THEY WILL DURING QUESTIONS, I DON'T KNOW, THERE WAS SUCH A NATIONAL EMERGENCY THEY NEVER EXPLAINED WHY THEY WAITED.

THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T WAPITI TO HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS AS MY COLLEAGUES LAID OUT, THOSE PROCEEDINGS MOVED IN RECORD TIME.

I SUSPECT THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE MORE THAN THE HOUSE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IS THAT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO WORK?

IS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE CONSTITUTION?

AND THEN THE QUESTION OF COURSE CAME UP YESTERDAY ON THE WHOLE SITUATION WITH BURISMA AND THE BIDENS AND THAT WHOLE ISSUE.

MY COLLEAGUES NOT WENT THROUGH THAT A GREAT DEAL AND I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

DO WE HAVE A -- LIKE -- WE SHOULD HAVE CALLED THIS IN FREE SPEECH SPACES A FREE SPEECH ZONE, YOU COULD HAVE YOUR FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES OVER HERE, YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM OVER THERE, DO WE HAVE A BIDEN-FREE ZONE?

WAS THAT WHAT THIS WAS?

YOU MENTION SOMEONE OR YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A COMPANY, AND IT'S NOW OFF LIMITS.

YOU CAN IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ASKING A QUESTION?

I THINK WE SIGNIFICANTLY SHOWED THE QUESTION.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH IT DETAIL-BY-DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

YOU HEARD A LOT OF NEW FACTS YESTERDAY IN OUR PRESENTATION.

SATURDAY WHAT WE WERE POINTING TO IS A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW AND THEN YESTERDAY WE SPENT THE DAY AND WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE ON THAT, GOING THROUGH THE FACTS.

THEY SHOWED YOU THIS, BUT THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU THAT.

THE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT, THOUGH.

BECAUSE FACTS HAVE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS.

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS IMPACT THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE.

SO I DON'T TAKE FACTS LIGHTLY AND I CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE LIGHTLY AND WE CAN'T.

THE FACTS WE DEMONSTRATED YESTERDAY AND ON SATURDAY BRIEFLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, A PROPER GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN THE QUESTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED AND THE ISSUES THAT THE PRESIDENT RAISED ON THAT PHONE CALL.

A PHONE CALL -- LET'S, AGAIN, PUT YOUR FEET IN THE SHOES OF THE PRESIDENT, PUT YOURSELF IN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION.

DO YOU THINK HE THOUGHT WHEN HE WAS ON THE CALL IT WAS HIM AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE WAS TALKING TO AND THAT WAS IT?

OR I HEARD ONE COMMENT TART SAID IT WAS PEOPLE LISTENING IN ON THE CALL THE PRESIDENT AND 3,000 OF HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS.

LET'S BE REALISTIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES KNEW WHEN HE WAS ON THAT CALL THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING, FROM OUR SIDE AND FROM THEIR SIDE.

SO HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

HE SAID IT.

WE RELEASED A TRANSCRIPT OF IT.

THE FACTS ON THE CALL THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF THE FOCUS OF ALL OF THIS, REALLY FOCUSED ON FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES BOTH IN UKRAINE AND AROUND THE GLOBE.

THEY TALKED ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES CARRYING SOME OF THE FINANCIAL LOAD HERE NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A LEGITIMATE POSITION FOR A PRESIDENT TO TAKE.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

BUT HE IS THE PRESIDENT.

AS MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PHILBIN JUST SAID, THAT IS HIS PREROGATIVE, THAT IS HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE ROLE.

SO THE CALL IS WELL DOCUMENTED.

THERE WERE LOTS OF PEOPLE ON THE CALL.

THE PERSON THAT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER END OF THE QUID PRO QUO, IF IT EXISTED, WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WE ALREADY LAID OUT OTHER OFFICIALS FROM UKRAINE, HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, THERE WAS NO PRESSURE, IT WAS A GOOD CALL.

THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A PAUSE IN THE AID.

ALL OF THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE FACTS, WE DID THAT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR ADVISOR, ANDRIY YERMAK ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY PRESSURE THAT THIS AID WAS CONNECTED TO THIS AND HE SAID WE DID NOT HAVE THE IDEA THAT THE AID WAS COMING AND CONNECTED TO ANY ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE.

THIS IS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WERE RECEIVING THE AID.

SO WE TALK ABOUT THIS WHOLE QUID PRO QUO AND THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE.

THAT'S HOW THIS ACTUALLY REPORT BECAME AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, AS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGINNING, AND HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNDER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S ROLE, THERE WAS ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS, IS IT QUID PRO QUO, WAS IT EXTORTION?

BRIBERY?

WHAT WAS IT?

WE ARE CLEAR IN OUR POSITION THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

BUT THEN YESTERDAY MY CO-COUNSEL, PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED LAST NIGHT THAT THESE ARTICLES MUST BE REJECTED, HE'S TALKING ABOUT FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.

EVEN IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

WHICH WE HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THERE WAS NOT.

THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

I'M GOING TO QUOTE IT VERBATIM.

THE CLAIM THAT FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS CAN BE DEEMED ABUSES OF POWER BASED ON SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ABOUT MIXED OR SOLE MOTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INTERESTED ONLY IN HELPING HIMSELF DEMONSTRATE THE DANGERS OF EMPLOYING THE VAGUE, SUBJECTIVE AND POLITICALLY MAILABLE PHRASE "ABUSE OF POWER" AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS IF A PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, WERE TO HAVE DONE WHAT THE "TIMES" REPORTED ABOUT THE CONTENT OF JOHN BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT THAT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE THIS, NOTHING IN THE BOLTON ALLEGATIONS EVEN IF TRUE WERE RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THAT IS CLEAR FROM HISTORY, THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU CANNOT TURN CONDUCT THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE INTO IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT SIMPLY BY USING WORDS LIKE "QUID PRO QUO" OR "PERSONAL BENEFIT" IT IS INTENDED THAT THE FRAMERS SO LOADED A TERM AS ABUSE OF POWER TO BE WEAPONIZED, AGAIN, PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ AS A TOOL OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF VAGUE, OPEN-ENDED AND SUBJECTIVE TERM THE FOUNDERS AND THE FRAMERS FEARED AND REJECTED.

NOW, TO BE SPECIFIC: YOU CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON AN UNSOURCED ALLEGATION.

WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS SAYING, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE IT DOESN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY RISE TO THAT LEVEL.

I WANT TO BE HERE ON THIS BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF SPECULATION OUT THERE.

WITH REGARD TO WHAT JOHN BOLTON SAID, WHICH REFERENCED A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS, WE'LL START WITH THE PRESIDENT, HERE IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID "I NEVER TOLD JOHN BOLTON THAT IT WAS TIED TO INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS, IN FACT, HE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS, IF JOHN BOLTON SAID THIS, IT WAS ONLY TO SELL A BOOK.

WHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS NOT REVIEWED MR. BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT THE NEW YORK TIMES GROSSLY MISCHARACTERIZES WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

THERE WERE NO FAVORS OR UNDUE INFLUENCE, NOR WERE THEY IMPROPER.

THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF ISSUED A STATEMENT "IN EVERY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, IN PREPARATION FOR OUR TRIP TO POLAND, REMEMBER THAT WAS THE TRIP THAT WAS BEING PLANNED FOR THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED HIS FRUSTRATION THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS BEARING THE LION'S SHARE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR AID TO UKRAINEY@ AND THAT EUROPEA NATIONS WEREN'T DOING THEIR PART.

THE PRESS ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND AT NO TIME DID I HEAR HIM TIE UKRAINE AID INTO INVESTIGATIONS AND THE BIDEN FAMILY OR BURISMA.

THAT WAS THE RESPONSE.

RESPONDING TO AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT THAT MAYBE SOME REPORTERS HAVE AN IDEA OF MAYBE WHAT IT SAYS.

IF YOU WANT TO CALL THAT EVIDENCE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THAT.

I WOULD CALL IT INADMISSIBLE, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

TO ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ACTING IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST AND IS VIOLATING HIS OATH OF OFFICE WHICH MANAGERS HAVE PUT FORWARD IS WRONG BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION IS DESIGNED.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FULLNESS OF THE RECORD OF THEIR WITNESSES, THEIR WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES' STATEMENTS, THE TRANSCRIPTS, THERE IS ONE THING THAT EMERGES.

THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF LAW, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT ON POLICY DECISIONS.

MOST OF THOSE THAT SPOKE AT YOUR HEARINGS DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS.

THAT'S WHAT POLICY DIFFERENTIALS AND DIFFERENCES ARE DISCUSSED.

BUT TO HAVE A REMOVAL OF A DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT BASED ON A POLICY DISAGREEMENT?

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED AND IF YOU LOWER THE BAR THAT WAY, DANGER!

DANGER!

DANGER!

BECAUSE THE NEXT PRESIDENT, OR THE ONE AFTER THAT, HE OR SHE WILL BE HELD TO THAT SAME STANDARD?

I HOPE NOT.

I PRAY NOT.

THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS.

NOT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MY CLIENT, BUT FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU KNOW, PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ SPOKE ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND HOW IT COULD BE APPLIED TO MANY THINGS IF THIS IS THE STANDARD.

WE KNOW THIS IS NOT ABOUT A PRESIDENT PAUSING AID TO UKRIT' REALLY NOT ABOUT A PHONE CALL.

IT'S ABOUT A LOT OF ATTEMPTS ON POLICY DISAGREEMENTS THAT ARE NOT BEING DEBATED HERE.

MY GOODNESS.

HOW MUCH TIME?

HOW MUCH TIME?

HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOPING, THEY WERE HOPING, THAT THE MUELLER PROBE WOULD RESULT IN -- I'M NOT GOING TO -- I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT, PLAYING ALL THE CLIPS FROM ALL THE COMMENTATORS THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER TESTIFIED.

HE WAS UNABLE TO ANSWER UNDER HIS EXAMINATION BASIC AND NIJTSD QUESTIONS.

HE HAD TO CORRECT HIMSELF, ACTUALLY.

HE HAD TO CORRECT HIMSELF BEFORE THE SENATE FOR SOMETHING HE SAID BEFORE THE HOUSE.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN LIVING WITH.

THEN WE'RE HERE TODAY ARGUE ABOUT WHAT?

A PHONE CALL TO UKRAINE OR UKRAINE AID BEING WITHHELD OR A QUESTION ABOUT CORRUPTION OR CORRUPTION THAT HAPPENS TO INVOLVE A HIGH-PROFILE PUBLIC FIGURE.

IS THAT WHAT THIS IS?

IS THAT WHERE WE ARE?

AND THEN WHAT DO WE FIND OUT?

THE AID WAS RELEASED.

IT WAS RELEASED IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.

THE REFORMED PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER HIS PARTY WOULD TAKE TO PARLIAMENT, IT DID, THEY WORKED LATE INTO THE EVENING WITH THE DESIRE TO PUT FORWARD REFORMS SO EVERYBODY WAS WAITING INCLUDING -- AND YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY FROM, I WILL SAY, THEIR WITNESSES, YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY, EVERYBODY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT UKRAINE AND WHETHER THESE REFORMS COULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE.

EVERYBODY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

SO YOU HOLD BACK.

DIDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN THE FIELD, WE HEARD MR. CROW SPEAKING ABOUT THE SOLDIERS, I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT NONE OF THAT AID WAS AFFECTING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE BATTLE FIELD RIGHT THEN OR FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS BECAUSE IT WAS FUTURE AID.

AND ARE WE HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BECAUSE AID CAME OUT THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR?

FOR A SIX-MINUTE PHONE CALL?

BOIL IT DOWN, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.

IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT EVERYBODY IS SAYING WELL THE AID WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11th ONLY BECAUSE OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE WHISTLE BLOWER WHO WE HAVE NEVER SEEN, MR. PHILBIN DEALT WITH THAT IN GREAT DETAIL, I'M NOT GOING OVER THAT AGAIN.

BUT YOU KNOW THE NEW HIGH COURT, THE ANTICORRUPTION COURT DID NOT SIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5th, 2019.

SO WHILE THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS TRYING TO GET THINGS INTO PLACE, THE COURT THAT WAS ISSUES WAS NOT SET UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5th.

I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT, TOO.

THEY NEEDED A HIGH COURT FOR CORRUPTION.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

NOW THAT'S GOOD THAT THEY RECOGNIZED IT, BUT REMEMBER WHEN I SAID THE OTHER DAY YOU DON'T MAKE -- WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND NOW UKRAINE DOESN'T HAVE A CORRUPTION PROBLEM?

THE HIGH COURT OF CORRUPTION, WHICH THEY HAVE TO HAVE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST PAST CORRUPTION, THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ON GOING CORRUPTION ISSUES.

YOU COULD PUT ALL OF YOUR WITNESSES BACK UNDER OATH IN THE NEXT HEARINGS YOU'LL HAVE WHEN THIS IS ALL OVER AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE BACK IN THE HOUSE AND WE WILL BE DOING THIS AGAIN, PUT 'EM ALL BACK UNDER OATH AND ASK THEM, MR. SCHIFF, IS THERE A PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND IF THEY SAY NO, RING IS GREAT NOW, HALLELUJAH!

I SUSPECT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE WORKING REALLY HARD ON IT AND I BELIEVE THEM.

BUT THIS IDEA THAT IT WAS VANISHED AND NOW WE'RE BACK INTO EVERYTHING IS FINE, IT'S ABSURD.

MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT WHILE THE DEVELOPMENTS WERE TAKING PLACE THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW.

THAT WAS THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER FIRST.

THE ONE BY THE WAY WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE SAID, IN RESPONSE TO THIS NEW YORK TIMES PIECE, NOBODY TOLD HIM ABOUT AID BEING HELD OR LINKED TO INVESTIGATIONS.

ARE YOU GOING TO STOP -- ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW PROCEEDINGS ON IMPEACHMENT TO GO FROM A NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ABOUT SOMEONE THAT SAYS WHAT THEY HEAR IS IN A MANUSCRIPT?

IS THAT WHERE WE ARE?

I DON'T THINK SO.

I HOPE NOT.

WHAT DID MORRISON SAY?

YOU HEARD FIRSTHAND THAT THE NEW UKRAINE ADMINISTRATION WAS TAKING CONCRETE STEPS TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION, THAT'S GOOD.

HE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ZELENSKY IS ONE THAT COULD BE TRUSTED.

GOOD.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ALSO AGREED WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, THIS IS INTERESTING THAT THE EUROPEANS SHOULD BE DOING MORE.

( AND RELATED TO PENCE'S CONVERSATION HE HAD BEEN HAVING WITH EUROPEAN LEADERS ABOUT GETTING THEM TO DO MORE.

IN SUM THE PRESIDENT RAISED TWO ISSUES HE WAS CONCERNED WITH.

TO GET THEM ADDRESSED.

NOW, I'VE ALREADY WENT OVER AGAIN THIS IS JUST THE CLOSING MOMENTS HERE OF THIS PROCEEDING OR OUR PORTION OF THIS PROCEEDING, AID WAS WITHHELD OR PAUSED, PUT ON A PAUSE BUTTON, NOT JUST FOR UKRAINE, AFGHANISTAN, SOUTH KOREA, EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA, AND I'M SURE I AM LEAVING COUNTRIES OUT BUT DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS, BEFORE WE GIVE A COUNTRY, I DON'T KNOW, $550 MILLION, SOME COUNTRIES ONLY $400 MILLION, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH IT?

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GUARDIANS OF THE TRUST HERE.

IT'S THE TAXPAYERS MONEY WE'RE SPENDING.

THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY FROM DR. FIONA HILL, JOHN BOLTON'S DEPUTY, HERE IS WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT IT.

THERE WAS A FREEZE PUT ON ALL KINDS OF AID AND ASSISTANCE BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PROCESS AT THE TIME OF REVIEWS OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

OH, YOU MEAN THERE WAS A POLICY WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND HOW WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY.

BY THE WAY I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MONEY, WE WANT TO HELP, BUT WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND THOSE ARE VALID AND IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

MANAGER CROW TOLD YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT'S UKRAINE POLICY WAS NOT STRONG AGAINST RUSSIA, BUT AMBASSADOR JOHN WITCH, SHE SAID HER WORDS GOT STRONGER WITH RUSSIA THAN IT WAS UNDER OBAMA.

SO, AGAIN, POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, DISAGREEMENTS ON APPROACH, HAVE ELECTIONS, THAT'S WHEN WE DO IN OUR REPUBLIC LICK.

FOR THREE LONG DAYS HOUSE MANAGERS PRESENTED THEIR CASE BY SELECTIVELY SHOWING PARTS OF TESTIMONY.

GOOD LAWYERS SHOW PARTS OF TESTIMONY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THE WHOLE THING BUT OTHER GOOD LAWYERS SHOW THE REST OF THE TESTIMONY AND THAT'S WHAT WE SOUGHT TO DO, TO GIVE YOU A FULLER VIEW OF WHAT WE SAW AS THE GLARING OMISSIONS BY MY COLLEAGUES.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE LEGAL ISSUES HERE ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ONES.

I HAVE BEEN I THINK PRETTY CLEAR OVER THE LAST WEEK STASHGTSING WHEN WE HAD THE MOTIONS ARGUMENTS THAT MY CONCERN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER.

I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF MANAGER NADLER'S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.

TAKE OUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH AND OTHER NONSENSE.

THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND OTHER NONSENSE.

THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

OTHER NONSENSE.

THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS AND OTHER NONSENSE.

YOU CAN'T START DOING THAT.

YOU WOULD NOT DO THAT!

NO ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE THAT.

IN FACT, SINCE THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THEY WANTED INFORMATION HE THOUGHT IT WAS PRIVILEGED HE SAID IT WAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

BUT LOBITIS NOT START CALLING CONSTITUTIONALET'S NOT START CA CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OTHER NONSENSE, LUMPING THEM TOGETHER.

THIS IS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT BELIEVES THAT ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE DOESN'T APPLY WHICH SHOULD SCARE EVERY LAWYER IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MORE SCARY TO THE LAWYERS WOULD BE FOR THEIR CLIENTS.

THEY SAY THAT IN WRITING, IN LETTERS, THEY DON'T HIDE IT.

I WOULD ASK THEM, I'M NOT GOING TO, IT'S NOT MY PRIVILE THAT?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY IN A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE IF IT DOES APPLY THEN THERE IS NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

OR IS THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE?

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.

WE BELIEVE THAT ARTICLE I FAILS CONSTITUTIONALLY, THE PRESIDENT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE AND CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

IT IS OUR POSITION LEGALLY PRESIDENT AT ALL TIMES ACTED WITH PERFECT LEGAL AUTHORITY INQUIRED OF MATTERS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST AND HAVING RECEIVED ASSURANCES OF THOSE MATTERS CONTINUED HIS POLICY THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION PUT FORWARD OF WHAT REALLY IS UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE DELIVERY OF MILITARY AID PACKAGE THAT WAS DENIED TO THE UKRANIANS BY PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS.

SOME OF THE MANAGERS HERE, MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER TABLE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THOSE -- JOVE LYNN ANTITANK MISSILES FOR UKRAINE.

SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE DID NOT.

DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT, VOTED AGAINST THAT.

I'M GLAD WE GAVE IT TO 'EM.

I'M GLAD WE ALLOWED THEM TO PURCHASE JAVELINS.

I NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE EVERY DAY, TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND CONTINUE TO DO.

BUT THIS PRESIDENT ALLOWED THEM TO GO, SOME OF YOU LIKED THAT IDEA, SOME OF YOU DID NOT.

POLICY DIFFERENCE.

YOU GOING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT OBAMA BECAUSE HE DID NOT GIVE THEM LETHAL AID?

NO, NOR SHOULD YOU.

YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT.

POLICY DIFFERENCE.

POLICY DIFFERENCES DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED OR CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATIONS FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE!

IT IS POLICY DIFFERENCES.

BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT JUST ON LETHAL WEAPONS, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WITHHELD AID, HE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

YOU ALLOWED HIM TO DO THAT.

BUT WE DON'T LIKE THAT THIS PRESIDENT DID IT.

SO THE RULES CHANGE.

SO THIS PRESIDENT'S RULES RESPECT DIFFERENT THAN -- HE HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS HE HAS TO APPLY THAN WHAT YOU ALLOWED THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY OR THE FUTURE ADMINISTRATION TO APPLY.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THESE ARTICLES.

WE'VE LAID OUT, I BELIEVE, A COMPELLING CASE, ON WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.

WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PUTTING THIS TOGETHER DID THEY GO THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING?

NO, THEY DID NOT.

DID THEY RUN TO COURT?

NO.

THE ONE TIME IT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN THEY RAN THE OTHER WAY.

SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS SOMETHING, THAT SEPARATION OF POWERS AND OTHER NONSENSE.

IF WE HAVE REACHED NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT IN THE HIS OF OUR REPUBLIC A BAR OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE PRESIDENT UNDERTOOK POLICIES, BECAUSE WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT POLICY, IF PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS NOW THE RULE OF THE DAY, WHICH THESE MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THIS SENATE SAID SHOULD NEVER BE THE RULE OF THE DAY.

MY GOODNESS THEY SAID IT SOME OF THEM FIVE MONTHS AGO.

BUT THEN WE HAD THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, A PHONE CALL.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY, EXCEPT WE'LL JUST WAIT.

BUT IF PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT BASED ON POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS, AND PERSONAL PRESUMPTIONS, OR NEWSPAPER REPORTS AND ALLEGATIONS IN AN UNSOURCED MAYBE THIS IS IN SOMEBODY'S BOOK WHO IS NO LONGER AT THE WHITE HOUSE, IF THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORM, FUTURE PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS WILL BE PARALYZED THE MOMENT THEY ARE ELECTED.

BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE.

THE BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT BE CANNOT BE SET THIS LOW.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, HOUSE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, DANGER, DANGER, DANGER.

THESE ARTICLES MUST BE REJECTED, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT, JUSTICE DEMANDS IT.

SHH MAJORITY LEADER, WE WOULD ASK FOR A SHORT RECESS IF WE CAN.

15 MINUTES.

LY >> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: AS YOU HEAR THE CHIEF JEVUSTICE GAVELS THISO A CLOSE.

THEY SAY THEY WILL BE BACK IN 15 MINUTES.

IT'S CLEAR THAT THE DEFENSE TEAM IS ANXIOUS TO MOVE ON TO GET THEIR ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT, TO BRING IT TO A CONCLUSION.

THERE ARE REPORTS THAT THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER WANTS TO GATHER REPUBLICANS TOGETHER LATER THIS AFTERNOON TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT -- WHAT THEIR VIEWS ARE ON WITNESSES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD SUPPORT OR CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THE IDEA OF WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, ANCHORING OUR COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL, WITH ME, VICTORIA NOURSE, SERVED AS AN APPELLATE LAWYER UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH AND AS VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL.

DREW WILLISON SERVED AS A SERGEANT OF ARMS AND DEPUTY SERGEANT OF ARMS FOR SIX YEARS, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, BILL McCULLUM WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF BILL CLINT TO BE AND JOHN HART WORKED IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON BEFORE HE SPENT TEN YEARS WORKING FOR SENATOR COBURN IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.

I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU, VICTORIA, WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAKING THE POINT THAT EVEN IF WHAT JOHN BOLTON SAYS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES IS TRUE IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BUT P MAINLY GOING ON AS WE HEARD JAY SEKULOW STATING EMPHATICALLY THAT IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE LOWERING THE BAR.

>> I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PARTICULARS OF THE HOUSE'S CASE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE LABELS WHEN THEY SAY ABUSE OF OFFICE THAT'S THE LABEL THAT'S NOT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHARGE.

I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

IF THE PRESIDENT DECIDED TO SELL ALASKA TO THE RUSSIANS IT WOULD NOT BE A CRIME BUT IT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE EVEN IF SOME THOUGHT IT WAS A WISE POLICY.

POLICY DISAGREEMENTS, AGAIN, A POLICY IS A TERM THAT'S VAGUE AND PEOPLE USE THAT TERM WHEN THEY WANT TO SAY IT'S NOT LAW.

ALL WE KNOW FROM THE CONSTITUTION IS THAT IT PROVIDES FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THERE WAS SOME FLEXIBILITY PUT IN THERE JUST SOME BY GOVERNOR MORRIS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IN CASES LIKE THE ONE I HAVE SUGGESTED, ACADEMICS HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1974 IMAGINING CASES THAT MIGHT COME UP THAT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE NICETIES OF CRIMES, AS HAMILTON SAID.

MANY PEOPLE ON TWITTER AND MANY PROSECUTORS HAVE SAID THIS DOES CONSTITUTE BRIBERY, IT SHOULD CONSTITUTE A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS, AND A VARIETY OF LAWS THAT I WON'T GET INTO >> JUDY WOODRUFF: SO YOU'RE SAYING THE GROUNDS ARE BROADER THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS SAYING.

BILL, COMPARING THIS OR NOT TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, WHAT OF THE STRATEGY OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS IN SIMPLY SAYING WHAT THEY'RE ALLEGING DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED OVER?

>> WELL I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT'S VERY TRUE AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO VICTORIA, THERE ARE NO CRIMES, THERE WERE IN THE CLINTON CASE EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, MAYBE WE DISAGREE, MAYBE THERE ARE REASONS WE DON'T AGREE BUT WHY WOULD YOU TRIVIALIZE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS ON THE GROUNDS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE?

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ARGUING, THEY'RE SAYING, LOOK, THE QUESTION COMES DOWN TO THE MOTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE?

WAS IT CORRUPT?

DID HE INTEND AT DOING THIS SOLELY TO GET AT A PRESIDENTIAL OPPONENT OR WERE THERE OTHER REASONS?

AND THEY LAID OUT, JAY SEKULOW AND OTHERS IN THIS ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT, ALL THESE OTHER REASONS, ALL THE THINGS GOING ON, ALL THE CORRUPTION GOING ON IN UKRAINE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.

THE CORRUPTION AT BURISMA AND THE OBVMh3áUáHRááUQáHáAAT WERE THERE OF CONCERN TO THE PRESI1 NOT PARTICIPATING IN FOREIGN AID WHICH HAS BEEN BOTHERING HIM ALL ALONG SO THEY HAVE LAID OUT A VERY GOOD REAL BULGTS.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: HOW MUCH OF THIS IS STILL ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THAT PHONE CALL?

THEY KEEP CALLING IT A TRANSCRIPT, IN FACT, IT'S A MEMO, THERE WASN'T A RECORDING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE INTO A TRANSCRIPT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PRESIDENT TIED A REQUEST FOR AID TO ARE YOU GOING TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS STILL IN CONTENTION HERE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT A LOT OF IT IS STILL IN CONTENTION, AT LISA IT'S NOT DIRECTLY, AT LISA IT'S NOT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE AND MOST AMERICANS PROBABLY BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID THIS.

WE CAN DISAGREE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN OFFENSE WHERE YOU NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BUT I DON'T THINK THE FACTS THEMSELVES ARE BEYOND JUST THE CONTENT OF THE CALL.

IT GOES DEEPER THAN THAT, IT'S CORROBORATED BY WITNESSES, THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM TODAY WORKED VERY HARD TO DOWN PLAY SECRETARY BOLTON WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY THAT WAS OF ANY USE TO ALL THIS.

THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

HE'S AN EYEWITNESS TO WHAT WENT ON HERE.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: AND JOHN HART WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THE CONTENTS OF THAT PHONE CALL AND NOW YOU HAVE THE REPORT THAT IN JOHN BOLTON'S BOOK HE SAYS THE PRESIDENT MADE IT A QUID PRO QUO, HE SAID TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND AID IS BEING WITHHELD IN CONNECTION TO THAT THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF JOHN KELLY SAID HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON.

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE EVERYTHING >> JAY SEKULOW TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A 6-MINUTE PHONE CALL BUT HE SAID THIS WAS ABOUT THE PAST THREE YEARS OF POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES.

HE SAID THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN ON A VENDETTA, TRUMP SUPPORT A THREAT TO POLICY BUT HE'S A THREAT TO THE DEMOCRATS SO THE BOLTON BOOK IS LIKE A BOIL ON THIS PROCESS.

JAMES LANGFORD, FROM OKLAHOMA, HE HAS A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE THAT IS AN INGENIOUS SOLUTION.

HE WANTS TO HAVE MEMBERS GO AND READ THIS MANUSCRIPT IN A SECURE LOCATION OR PRIVATELY.

I THINK THE DETAILS ARE BEING DISCUSSED BUT WHAT THE LANGFORD PROPOSAL SUGGESTS IS THAT THERE IS A DESIRE FOR REPUBLICANS TO SEE MORE OF WHAT BOLTON HAS SAID BUT IT'S NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME.

BUT THERE IS A POLITICAL DEBATE, ADAM SCHIFF ASKED DO REPUBLICANS WANT TO ATTACH THEMSELVES TO THIS PRESS AND THAT IS A CLUE THAT THEY VIEW THIS AS A POLITICAL ARGUMENT.

THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR DEMOCRATS.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: JUST QUICKLY, READING THE MANUSCRIPT IS ONE THING BUT HAVING JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS WOULD ENABLE HIM TO BE PLACED UNDER OATH.

SO YOU0 PENALTY -- YOU WILL BE PUNISHED UNDER THE LAW >> THE REASON I THINK REPUBLICANS DON'T WANTING TO DOWN THAT ROUTE IS I THINK THERE IS A DESIRE TO HEAR MORE FROM HIM BUT THE PRACTICAL REALITY IS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS GOOD REASON FOR BLOCKING THAT ON THE GROUNDS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR DO REPUBLICANS WANT TO PAY THE PRICE OF A DELAY AND DEMOCRATS, QUITE FRANKLY, AS WELL.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: LISA, WHAT ARE SENATORS TELLING YOU ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF WITNESSES.

>> SPEAKING OF ADAM SCHIFF HE HAS JUST SPOKE IN A LARGER GROUP AND HE IS PUSHING BACK AND HE IS SAYING THAT JAY SEKULOW'S ARGUMENTS INCREASE THE NEED FOR BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

IN THE WORDS OF JAY SEKULOW HE MADE AN ALLUSION TO MOB POSITIVES POLITICS.

ADAM SCHIFF SAID THAT'S LIKE SAYING A MAN IN TRIAL WHO CAUGHT A MITT MAN TO TAKE OUT A BUSINESS PARTNER THAT THE CASE SHOULD CENTER ON THAT PHONE CALL, IT'S NOT THE PHONE CALL THAT'S THE ISSUE IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND INTENT SO HE'S GETTING READY TO PUSH BACK HARD BUT I THINK ON THE TOPIC OF SENATOR LANG FORD AND THE IDEA OF WHETHER SENATORS WOULD LOOK AT THAT MANUSCRIPT IN A SECURE SETTING THAT IS GAINING TRACTION FROM BOTH PARTIES HERE.

YOU NEED TO BE HONEST THE QUESTION A LOT OF US REPORTERS HAVE AND NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE PUTTING THIS IDEA OUT THERE IS HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW THAT TRANSCRIPT TO BE SEEN IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING OR WHETHER CLASSIFIED CLEARANCE WOULD BE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN, WOULD THE PUBLISHER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, HOW QUICKLY COULD THAT HAPPEN, THE LOGISTICS ARE A TRICKY QUESTION AT THIS MOMENT.

ONE OTHER THING, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE SENATE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO HAVE A MEETING AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY, I THINK THAT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT MEETING TO FIGURE OUT THEIR GAME PLAN, ARE THEY ON THE SAME GAME PLAN WITH EACH OTHER GOING FORWARD ON ALL THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT WITNESSES AND MANUSCRIPTS.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: FOR SURE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR IS WATCHING THIS AT THE CAPITOL, YAMICHE, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THIS POINT ABOUT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, HIS TEAM IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS?

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR: FIRST LET'S REMEMBER THAT SENATOR McCONNELL FELT BLINDSIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE HAD THIS FOR DAYS SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS PREPARING FOR THIS WITNESS TO BE CALLED AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT JOHN BOLTON WOULD FALL UNDER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THE PRESIDENT TREATED AND JAY SEKULOW READ INTO THE RECORD THAT HE NEVER HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH JOHN BOLTON AND I THINK IT'S PASHTO TO BALK THROUGH WHAT JAY SEKULOW DID.

HE SAID ESSENTIALLY EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO AND DID ALL THIS STUFF, HE CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT AND REALLY THE BREAKDOWN OF THAT ARGUMENT IS HE IS SAYING THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T STEAL THE CAR BUT EVEN IF HE DID THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED.

THE SECOND THING HE'S SAYING IS LOOKING AT THIS WITHOUT BEING IN A VACUUM, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE WORKING IN THE FBI WHO DIDN'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT, THERE IS A LOT OF TENSION BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATS AND JAY SEKULOW, WHEN HE WAS MAKING THIS ARGUMENT, ADAM SCHIFF LOOKED AT HIM WITH STEALY EYES AND THE OTHER THING THAT JAY SEKULOW WAS SAYING, I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF YOU IN THIS CHAMBER INCLUDING SOME OF YOU WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND AIM KLOBECHAR -- AMY KLOBECHAR STARTED LAUGHING AND STARTED TALKING TO OTHER SENATORS.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WE HEARD PAT PHILBIN SAY THE DEMOCRATS MADE RECKLESS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT REFERRING TO A NUMBER OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS -- I'M SORRY THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR: THAT'S RIGHT AND SENATOR KLOBECHAR IS GOING TO BE HEADING TO IOWA TONIGHT THEY TELL ME SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS DEMOCRATS FEELING LIKE JAY SEKULOW WAS GOING AFTER THEM IN AN UNFAIR WAY AND THESE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE ALL THERE TAKING NOTES BECAUSE WHAT JAY SEKULOW WAS DOING IS NOT JUST SAYING I'M HERE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT HE WAS GOING AFTER THEM INDIVIDUALLY SAYING THESE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS A DEEP-STATE ARGUMENT HERE AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WHILE WE'RE IN THE SENATE TRIAL WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS, WHAT MULVANEY SAID, THERE ARE GOING TO BE POLITICS IN FOREIGN POLICY, AND THE PRESIDENT SAYING THERE IS A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY AROUND ME, BUT IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS FROM TWITTER AND PRESS CONFERENCES, THE VERY FEW THAT WE HAVE, THAT THAT IS NOW MAKING ITS WAY INTO THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT THAT JAY SEKULOW AND PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS GOING TO BE COMING UP NEXT ARE MAKING IN FRONT OF SENATORS.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS COMING UP IS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, HE'S THE LEAD COUNSEL IN THE WHITE HOUSE REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, JAY SEKULOW HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO WAIT, THANK YOU, YAMICHE, WE'RE CONTINUING TO WAIT FOR THE SENATE TO RECONVENE.

I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE CENTRAL QUESTION, VICTORIA, I'LL TURN TO YOU AGAIN, WHAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

WE TALKED ABOUT IT A MOMENT AGO, THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM IS SAYING, WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE HSE MANAGERS IS NO WHERE NEAR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SAYING IT'S NOT ONE BUT TWO, IT'S BOTH OF THESE, ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

>> I THINK THE CORE OF IT IS THEY ARE SENSE AND GET PRESIDENT DID THIS EARLIER HE HAS CALLED ON FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE WITH AN ELECTION.

THIS IS WHAT HE DID IN THE CALL AND THIS MIGHT NOT FALL INTO SOME CAMPAIGN PARLANCE VIOLATIONS, BUT IT'S AN ESSENTIAL ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND IF THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, WHAT IS?

AS I SAID THERE HAS TO BE SOME ROOM IN THERE SO THAT -- AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IT IS "OTHER" IT IS BE NOT SIMPLY BRIBERY OR TREASON, AND SOME PEOPLE ARE ARGUING ON TWITTER THAT THIS IS A CORRUPT DEMAND FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT, A QUID PRO QUO IN THE CLASSIC BRIBERY SENSE.

I THINK TWO THINGS PUT TOGETHER: THE PUBLIC REALLY IS THE JUDGE OF WHAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE S IT'S THE PUBLIC, THIS IS A PUBLIC TRIAL, THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHETHER THIS WAS SO SERIOUS AS TO CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

AND IT SHOULD BE AN EXTREMELY HIGH BAR, I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO CONFUSE MY REMARKS.

I DO THINK AS IN MY EXAMPLE EARLIER OF SELLING ALASKA OR AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY WHO MOVED TO SAUDI ARABIA AND TRIES TO RUN THE COUNTRY FROM THERE THERE HAS TO BE PUNISHMENT FOR THE WORST ACTORS IN THE PRESIDENCY, JAY SEKULOW IS SAYING THIS IS POLICY, NO IT'S NOT, IF YOU ATTACK A SYSTEM OF ELECTION THERE HAS TO BE A WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO FIGHT BACK.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT, BILL, BECAUSE -- >> WELL IT'S NOT AN ELECTION ATTACK, I THINK THAT'S THE SPIN THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD ALL ALONG.

THE REALITY IS THE PRESIDENT WAS LOOKING AT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO LOOK AT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON AND THE BURISMA SITUATION, THE FACT THAT AN OLIGARCH WAS STILL RUNNING THAT WHO LEFT THE COUNTRY WHO THE OTHER PRESIDENT LEFT AT THE TIME RUSSIA CAME INTO PLAY WITH UKRAINE AND SO FORTH.

NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NOT CORRUPTION GOING ON TODAY, PROBABLY IS, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE A CORRUPTION COURT AS JAY SEKULOW POINTED OUT.

THE FACT IS IF YOU HAVE THE BIDENS INVOLVED, I'M NOT SURE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS, BUT MAYBE HE WAS, WHY NOT LOOK AT IT?

IT'S A POLITICAL HOT BUTTON, IT ISN'T ASKING BE UKRAINE TO GET INVOLVED WITH UNITED STATES ELECTIONS, IT'S ASKING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE A PROBLEM IT AS IN UKRAINE WITH A BIG UKRANIAN COMPANY THAT HAS HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD AT THIS TIME THAT LOOKS REALLY AWFUL SO THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT THE PRESIDENT DID EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT IS ULTIMATELY DECIDED AND CONCLUDED FROM BOLTON OR WHOEVER ELSE.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: NO DOUBT THERE ARE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S SON, DECISION TO GO ON THAT BOARD, WHY DID HE DO IT, HOW MUCH MONEY DID HE MAKE AND I THINK THOSE RECORDS HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS.

>> YES, AND -- >> JUDY WOODRUFF: BUT THE TIMELINE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUT FORWARD OF WHEN JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RUN, WHEN POLLS CAME OUT THAT SHOWED HE WAS BECOMING A SERIOUS THREAT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT THAT IT WAS ALONG THAT TIMELINE WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAME MUCH MORE INTERESTED, HE SENT RUDY GIULIANI TO UKRAINE TO LOOK AT THE BIDENS, SO THERE DOES SEEM TO BE MORE OF A CONNECTION THAN WHAT THE DEFENSE TEAM HAS ACKNOWLEDGE.

>> THAT GOES AFTER THE MOTIVE, IS THERE POLITICAL MOTIVE IN WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HERE?

SOME, PROBABLY IS, WAS THERE POLITICAL MOTIVE IN WHAT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND OTHERS HAVE DONE IN FOREIGN POLICY?

ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S THE DANGER, DANGER, DANGER THAT JAY IS TALKING ABOUT, WE SIMPLY ARE GOING DOWN A VERY UNUSUAL PATH, YOU CAN HAVE ABUSE OF POWER WITHOUT HAVING A CRIME THAT SOME.

)8 PRESIDENT COULD BE REMOVED FOR BUT IT'S GOT TO BE: CLEAR THAN WHAT'S INVOLVED HERE RATHER THAN INCIDENTALLY INVOLVEMENT THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OPPONENT OF YOURS THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE A SON WHO IS INVOLVED IN A SITUATION WHERE A COUNTRY HAS CORRUPTION AND SAY RECEIVING FOREIGN AID.

THE FOREIGN AID GOT THERE AND GOT THERE IN PLENTY OF TIME, IT WAS NEVER AT A LOSS IN TERMS OF MAKING IT CRITICAL TO THE COUNTRY OR TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY WHICH IS ANOTHER POINT THAT JAY SEKULOW POINTED OUT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WHAT ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT THAT YOU HEAR FROM BILL AND THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM, THIS IS SOMETHING PRESIDENTS DO.

WE MARRIED MICK MULVANEY TALK ABOUT THAT >> THE DIFFERENCE IS DO WE WANT TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE -- THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES APPEARS TO HAVE ASKED FOR A PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVOR IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE AID.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

HAVING A FOREIGN POLICY TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IS ONE THING BUT TO ASK FOR A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN LEADER POTENTIALLY TO INFLUENCE ONE OF OUR ELECTIONS IS THE PROBLEM HERE PRESIDENT IT'S NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE FOREIGN POLICY.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WHAT ABOUT THEIR PUSH BACK AS WE HEARD FROM BILL THAT THE AID EVENTUALLY FLOWED.

IT WAS A FEW MONTHS, THE AID WAS WITHHELD AND I WROTE DOWN ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MADE THE POINT THAT NONE OF THIS WAS GOING TO THE BATTLE FIELD WHERE THERE WAS A WAR GOING ON BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA, IT WAS FUTURE AID SO PUTTING MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS AID AND WHAT WAS REALLY HAPPENING >> WELL, THE SNPT TORE GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD INDEED HELD UP PROPPED FUNDS INPROPPEDLY.

THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE IS THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THE FUNDS WERE RELEASE.

THEY WERE RELEASED AFTER IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO CONGRESS THAT THEY HAD BEEN HELD UP AND THEN THEY WERE RELEASED WITHIN HOURS.

BASICALLY THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE WAS CAUGHT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: JOHN, HOW DOES THAT GET ANSWERED?

IT IS THE CASE THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE WHISTLE BLOWER CAME FORWARD AND IT BECAME CLEAR THAT CONGRESS WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO THIS, THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THAT CALL THAT WAS CONCERNING.

IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED.

>> WELL I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAS ADDRESSED THAT TO SOME EXTENT, THEY DESCRIBED AT THE MEETING IN POLAND IT WAS IN MOTION WITHOUT IT BEING CONNECTED TO THE RELEASE OF THE AID.

THEY DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT TIMELINE THAT THE REASON THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T DO IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HURRICANE AND SO FORTH.

I WOULD TALK MORE ABOUT -- I THINK THE TIMING OF THE AID ISSUE -- LET ME -- GO ON AND LET ME COME BACK TO MY NOTE ON THAT POINT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, BILL, THE FACT THAT THE AID AS DREW POINTED OUT ONLY WAS RELEASED AFTER YOU HAD THE WHISTLE BLOWER STATEMENT, IT WAS BECOMING PUBLIC AND THE WHITE HOUSE WAS FEELING PRESSURE.

>> YOU CAN READ INTO THAT POLITICS IN THE SENSE OF THE SMALL "P" THEY MAY WELL HAVE BEEN FEELING PRESSURE BUT I THINK THAT AID WAS GOING TO GO, ALL THE STAFF WANTED HIM TO GIVE THE AID AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IN THE END HE WAS GOING TO HOLD IT UP BUT DON'T FORGET THE MAIN POINT UNDERNEATH ALL THAT IS THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T LIKE FOREIGN AID, WHETHER IT WAS IN AFGHANISTAN OR ANYWHERE ELSE, OFTEN HELD IT UP AND IN MY EXPERIENCE DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS IN CONGRESS AND SINCE PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS JUST DESCRIBED BY DREW YOU HOLD UP THE AID, YOU DON'T GET A PENALTY FOR THAT AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GO PAST THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, IN THIS CASE THE AID GETS THERE IN TIME NO MATTER WHAT SO I THINK THIS IS MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL, JUDY THIS IS POLITICAL, IT'S FROM DAY ONE KNOWN BY DEMOCRATIC LEADERS THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THE PRESIDENT REMOVED OVER THERE, THIS IS PLAYING TO ELECTIONS IN THE FALL AND SENATE ELECTIONS AND THEY'VE BEEN CREATIVE WITH IT BUT IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

>> CAN I INTERJECT?

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: YES, AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO COME BACK IN SESSION.

>> AS A CITIZEN I'M WORRIED.

WE KNOW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS HACKED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BY THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE AND I THINK CITIZENS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA RIGHT NOW, FIONA HILL TESTIFIED THAT THE STORY ABOUT JOE BIDEN IS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT?

WHEN HE WENT THERE HE -- THE STORY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

HE FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS CORRUPT WHICH MEANT THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY THAT HIS SON WOULD BE INVESTIGATED SO THE STORY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AND SO I HAVE -- I LISTENED TO FIONA AND I WORRY THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTIONS IN WAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT INADVERTENTLY PERHAPS HAS ENCOURAGED AND I WANT AN ANSWER FOR THAT FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: OF WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> TWO QUICK POINTS, I THINK WE NEED A GEO POLITICAL REALITY CHECK, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE UNITED STATES VERSUS RUSSIA AND THE SOVIET UNION IN TERMS OF THE COLD WAR WE CRUSHED THE SOVIET UNION IN TERMS OF PROPAGANDA, SO IT'S SORT OF LIKE A FOOTBALL GAME WHERE THE RUSSIANS SCORED A TOUCH DOWN AT THE END.

WE SHOULD KEEP IT IN CONTEXT, WE HAVE GROSSLY OVERSTATED THE ROLE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION, IT'S THE BEST PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN MONEY SPENT IN THE WORLD >> JUDY WOODRUFF: ARE YOU DISPUTING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY -- >> I'M SAYING WE NEED TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT.

THE REASON HILLARY CLINTON LOST AND DAVID AXELROD HAS MADE THIS STATEMENT REPEATEDLY, IS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T RUN A GOOD CAMPAIGN, PRESIDENT TRUMP RAN A GOOD CAMPAIGN.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WE ARE GOING TO BE JOINED BY SENATOR SCHUMER OF NEW YORK.

THIS MORNING WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ARGUMENT THAT WHAT YOU AND THE REST OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ARGUING JUST DOESN'T MEET THE LEVEL OF PAVEMENT, THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE IMPEACHED FOR WHAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH.

>> THE BOTTOM LINE, JUDY IS VERY SIMPLE.

THESE ARE SERIOUS CHARGES.

IF FOREIGN LEADERS -- WHEN I WAS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL AND I READ THAT THE FOUNDING FATHER'S FEARED THE MOST WAS FOREIGN INTERFERENCE I SORT OF SHRUGGED MY SHOULDERS AND I THOUGHT WHAT THE HECK IS THAT NOW WE KNOW THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDING FATHER'S IS GREATER THAN ANY OF US.

THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF IF A PRESIDENT CAN AT WILL GET FOREIGN POWERS TO INTEFRN IN OUR ELECTIONS AND AMERICANS NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SOLELY WHO DECIDE WHO WINS ELECTIONS, OUR DEMOCRACY IS ERODE INNED A DRAMATIC WAY.

SO IT'S A VERY, VERY SERIOUS CHARGE.

THE KEY HERE IS SIMPLE: THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE CHARNLEY.

IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS NOTHING THEY WOULDN'T BE RESISTING OUR CALLS FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND THEY HAVE RESISTED THAT.

THEY'RE CALLING US BACK INTO THE CHAMBER SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO.

ALL WE'RE ASKING IS TO GET THE TRUTH, GET THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

I'VE GOT TO GO, JUDY.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE ARE -- THANK YOU MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE SENATE CHAMBER, THIS IS PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

>> PAT CIPOLLONE: FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, MR. LEADER AND THANK YOU DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER AND ALL OF YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SPEAKING ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

WE'VE MADE THREE BASIC POINTS, ONE, ALL YOU NEED IN THIS CASE IS THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR COMMON SENSE.

YOU JUST LOOK AT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE ARLTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FAL SHORT OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE WORDS FROM THE PAST THAT I THINK ARE INSTRUCTIVE AS I SAID LAST NIGHT, THEY'RE INSTRUCTIVE BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT NOW AND THEY'RE RIGHT NOW.

I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH SOME OF THOSE WORDS.

>> THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER, SUCH WILL PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS.

>> THIS IS UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BY THESE ACTIONS YOU WOULD UNDUE THE FREE ELECTION THAT EXPRESS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 1996, IN SO DOING YOU WILL DAMAGE THE FAITH THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION AND IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

YOU WILL SET THE PRECEDENT THAT THE CERTAINTY AT THIS OF PRESIDENTIAL TERMS WHICH HAS SO BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL AMERICAN WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PARTISAN USE OF IMPEACHMENT, FUTUREJé PRESIDENTS WILL FACE ELECTIONS, LITIGATION, THe THEwK POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WI DIMINISH IN THE FACE OF THE CONGRESS A PHENOMENON MUCH FEARED BY THE FOUNDING FATHER'S.

>> THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

THAT WE ARE DEBATING.

NOT AN IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE CROSSING OUT THE IMPEACHMENT STANDARD OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

AND THEY ARE INSERTING THE WORDS "ANY CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR."

WE ARE PERMITTING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHICH WILL HAUNT THIS BODY AND OUR COUNTRY FOREVER.

>> I WARN MY COLLEAGUES THAT YOU WILL REAP THE BITTER HARVEST OF THE UNFAIR PARTISAN SEEDS YOU SOW TODAY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT IS A WAY TO PROTECT OUR POLITICAL FRIENDS.

>> I EXPECT HISTORY WILL SHOW WE HAVE LOWER THE BAR SO MUCH WE HAVE BROKEN THE SEAL ON THIS EXTREME PENALTY SO CAVALIERLY THAT IT WILL BE USED AS A ROUTINE TOOL TO FIGHT POLITICAL BATTLES.

MY FEAR IS WHEN A REPUBLICAN WINS THE WHITE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL DEMAND PAY BACK.

>> PAT CIPOLLONE: YOU ARE RIGHT.

BUT I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU WERE ALSO PROPHETIC.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS IN YOUR HEART, YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS FOR OUR COUNTRY, YOU KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO THROW OUT A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT ON THE EVE OF AN ELECTION WHICH WOULD DANGEROUSLY CHANGE OUR COUNTRY AND WEAKEN FOREVER ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

YOU ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHY NOT TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS DECISION?

WHY TEAR UP THEIR BALLOTS?

WHY TEAR UP EVERY BALLOT ACROSS THIS COUNTRY?

YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

SO I ASK YOU TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION.

TO DEFEND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, TO DEFEND BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO RESPECT AND DEFEND THE SACRED RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN TO VOTE AND TO CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.

THE ELECTION IS ONLY MONTHS AWAY.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO CHOOSE THEIR PRESIDENT.

OVERTURNING THE LAST ELECTION AND MASSIVELY INTERFERING WITH THE UPCOMING ONE WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS AND LASTING DAMAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY.

THE SENATE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

IT IS TIME FOR THIS TO END.

HERE AND NOW.

SO WE URGE THE SENATE TO REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR ALL OF THE REASONS WE HAVE GIVEN YOU.

YOU KNOW THEM ALL.

I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THEM.

THEY'VE REPEATEDLY SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN, QUOTE FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN "IT'S A REPUBLICAN IF YOU CAN KEEP IT" AND EVERY TIME I HEARD IT, I SAID TO MYSELF, IT'S A REPUBLIC, IF THEY LET US KEEP IT.

I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE, EVERY CONFIDENCE IN YOUR WISDOM.

YOU WILL DO THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO.

WHAT YOU MUST DO, WHAT THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS YOU TO DO.

REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IT WILL SHOW THAT YOU PUT THE CONSTITUTION ABOVE PARTISANSHIP.

IT WILL SHOW THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND END THE ERA OF IMPEACHMENT FOR GOOD.

YOU KNOW IT SHOULD END.

YOU KNOW IT SHOULD END.

IT WILL ALLOW YOU ALL TO SPEND ALL OF YOUR ENERGY AND ALL OF YOUR ENORMOUS TALENT AND RESOURCES ON DOING WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SENT YOU HERE TO DO, TO WORK TOGETHER, TO WORK WITH THE PRESIDENT, TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS.

SO THIS SHOULD END NOW.

AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS.

WITH THAT, THAT ENDS OUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER ON HOW TO PROCEED DURING THE QUESTION PERIOD.

THEREFORE, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUESTION PERIOD FOR SENATORS START WHEN THE SENATE RECONVENES ON WEDNESDAY.

FURTHER THAT THE QUESTIONS ALTERNATE BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY SIDES FOR UP TO EIGHT HOURS DURING THAT SESSION OF THE SENATE.

FINALLY THAT ON THURSDAY THE SENATE RESUME TIME FOR SENATORS' QUESTIONS ALTERNATE BETWEEN SIDES FOR UP TO EIGHT HOURS DURING THAT SESSION OF THE SENATE.

>> IS THERE OBJECTION?

WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

>> WE WILL COMPLETE THE QUESTION PERIOD OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS.

I REMIND SENATORS THAT THEIR QUESTIONS MUST BE IN WRITING, WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

DURING THE QUESTION PERIOD OF THE CLINTON TRIAL, SENATORS WERE THOUGHTFUL AND BRIEF WITH THEIR QUESTIONS, AND THE MANAGERS AND COUNSEL WERE SUCCINCT IN THEIR ANSWERS.

I HOPE WE CAN FOLLOW BOTH OF THESE EXAMPLES DURING THIS TIME.

>> DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON CHIEF JUSTICE RENQUIST ADVISED COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES THAT THE CHAIR WILL OPERATE ON THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT EACH REQUEST CAN BE FULLY AND FAIRLY ANSWERED IN 5 MINUTES OR LESS.

THE TRANSCRIPT INDICATES THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MET WITH LAUGHTER.

NONETHELESS, MANAGERS AND COUNSEL GENERALLY LIMITED THEIR RESPONSES ACCORDINGLY.

I THINK THE LATE CHIEF'S TIME LIMIT WAS A GOOD ONE AND WOULD ASK BOTH SIDES TO ABIDE BY IT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL RESUME WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29th AND THIS CONSTITUTE AN AADJUSTMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION WE'RE ADJOURNED.dmxçp >> JUDY WOODRUFF: AS YOU HEAR THE SENATE HAS GONE INTO ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TOMORROW NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM HAS COMPLETED ITS STATEMENT OR ARGUMENT IN THE PRESS'S DEFENSE.

AS YOU JUST HEARD THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL TOMORROW AT 1:00 THE SENATE WILL RESUME WITH QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.

THIS IS ALL SET OUT BY RULES THAT THE SENATE ABIDES BY, ONE SIDE WILL HAVE UP TO EIGHT HOURS AND I BELIEVE THEY SAID THE OTHER SIDE EIGHT HOURS AS WELL, I MAY HAVE MISSED THE DETAILS, THERE.

I WANT TO COME BACK TO OUR GUESTS AROUND THE TABLE JUST QUICKLY.

WE'VE NOW, VICTORIA, IN A PRETTY EXACT PERIOD OF TIME WE'VE HEARD THE DEFENSE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, CERTAINLY FEWER HOWARDS THAN I THINK MAYBE 13 HOURS AS OPPOSED TO 24 HOURS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

DOES THAT SAY SOMETHING TO US ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE DEFENSE?

DOES IT IN PART SUGGEST THEY'RE DISMISSING MUCH OF WHAT WAS ALLEGED?

>> WELL, I'M ASKED TO SAY I THINK THEY HAVE NOT JOINED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CALL AND THE QUID PRO QUO.

I DON'T THINK THEY -- WE HAVE A WITNESS OUT THERE, JOHN BOLTON WHO SAYS HE WANTS TO COME TO THE SENATE AND A NUMBER OF THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND THERE IS THE OLD SAYING IF THE FACTS DON'T WORK FOR YOU, AND THIS IS A STANDARD THAT'S TOO LOW FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THEY HAVEN'T ENGAGED IN WHAT POSSIBLE CRIMINAL LIABILITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE AND THE HOUSE INVITED THAT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT NAME A CRIMINAL LAW IN THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: IS THAT SOMETHING HAVE DONE?

>> THEY COULD HAVE, AND THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON.

DURING THE CLINTON AND JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT THERE WERE LOTS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT MOTIVES, INTENT, WHAT IS THE NATURE OF PERJURY, MATERIAL, AND THAT WAS SNOOZE MATERIAL.

YOU SAW THAT IT GOT WORSE WITH THE LAW LECTURE LAST NIGHT SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN AVOID FULLY THAT, BUT I THINK THEY WANTED TO PAINT A BROADER PICTURE BECAUSE JUST AS IN JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT, THERE WAS -- >> JUDY WOODRUFF: YOU'RE TALKING IN THE 1800s.

>> YES, IT WAS TECHNICALLY ABOUT A STATUTE, THE TENURE OF OAFS ACT BUT REALLY WHAT THEY WERE FIGHTING ABOUT WAS ANDREW JOHNSON'S UNDO YOUING OF THE CIVIL WAR AND HERE BOTH SIDES -- JAY SEKULOW INVOKED MEULLER INVESTIGATION AND THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T BRING UP THE CRIMINAL LAW IN THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WHAT ABOUT THAT, BILL THAT THE HOUSE HAD THE CHOICE OF BUILDING THIS CASE ON SPECIFIC LAWS, VIOLATION OF LAWS AND IN ORDER TO AVOID WHAT VICTORIA IS DESCRIBING THEY DECIDED TO GO WITH IT AS THEY DID ONE ARTICLE ON ABUSE OF POWER AND THE SECOND ON OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

>> I THINK THEY DIDN'T GO FORWARD BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CASE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THAT, THEY BROUGHT IT UP, IT DIDN'T PASS MUSTER, THERE WAS NO BRASH RAH -- BRIBERY THERE, THE ELEMENTS WEREN'T THERE AND I THINK THERE IS WEAKNESS IN THE ARTICLES HERE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SECOND ARTICLE, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT TODAY BUT THEY DID YESTERDAY AND THAT IS THE ARTICLE OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THE REALITY IS THEY DID NOT CARRY FORWARD FOR REASONS THAT ARE OBVIOUS THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW UP ON SUBPOENAS TO GET THE DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT -- >> JUDY WOODRUFF: YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> RIGHT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS AS THEY BEGAN THIS PROCESS SO NOW THEY HAVE AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS FAR WEAKER THAN THE ONE WE BROUGHT IN THE CLINTON CASE WHICH INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT REFUSING TO ANSWER SPECIFIC INTERROGATORY QUESTIONS, WHICH IT WAS VOTED DOWN ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND I VOTED FOR IT BUT I DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE, BUT ON THE ABUSE OF POWER ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS WHAT CHUCK SCHUMER SAID A MINUTE AGO, I'VE KNOWN HIM A LONG TIME, I WAS SENIOR MEMBER OF HIS -- >> JUDY WOODRUFF: SERVED IN THE HOUSE?

>> IN THE HOUSE WITH HIM, HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME WHEN I WAS A RANKING MEMBER, HE IS HANGING HIS HAT ON ONE WORD, INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS.

THERE IS NOTHING IN MY VIEW ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE THAT IMPLIES ANYTHING SERIES ABOUT GETTING UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, NOT THE SAME WAY AS THE RUSSIAN'S TAMPERING WITH THE ELECTION AND PROBABLY WILL IN THIS ELECTION.

WE ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF A COMPANY AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THAT COMPANY THAT HAPPENED TO BE THE SON OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE AND ACTION THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTION.

YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT SENATOR SCHUMER IS DOING.

THIS IS CALLING ON HIM TO INTEGER IN THE ELECTION.

THIS IS BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

HE VIEWS THAT AS DEMOCRATS.

THEY MADE A GOOD CASE OF THAT.

BONDY DID A BIT OF THAT YESTERDAY.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS FOCUSED ON YOU WORKED WITH REED.

K MADE.

THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE INTERFERENCE BY UKRAINE.

HE WAS CANNING THEM TO WEAKEN THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONABLE ACCIDENT THETIVETY?

>> HE ASKED THE QUESTION AND THE FAVOR IN THE CONTEXT OF A VERY NARROW BIT OF ALLEGED CORRUPTION.

NONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN BORN OUT BY ANY OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED WAS FOR AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE BIDENS.

DIGS UP DIRT ON WHO HE STILL NOW BELIEVES IS HIS MOST DANGEROUS OPPONENT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET THE BEST FOREIGN POLICY VALUE WE CAN FOR THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE WERE PUTTING INTO THE COUNTRY.

WHEN IT'S BEING HELD UP FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL FAVOR THAT'S THE ISSUE.

>> LE JOHN, YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CO.MENT ON THAT AND TURN TO WHAT WE CAN LOOK FOR FROM THE SENATORS IN THE WAY OF QUESTIONS FROM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND.

>> THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN APPEARANCE OF IM PROPRIETY.

REPUBLICANS WILL PRIVATELY ADMIT, A LOT OF REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY THIS DIDN'T LOOK VERY GOOD.

WE TALKED ABOUT BEN EARLIER AND HE SAID THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.

IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.

THAT'S TOO LOW OF A BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THE TEAM ADDRESSED THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHER MOTIVATIONS SCHIFF ARTICULATED THIS.

UNLESS IT LOOKS PERFECT YOU WILL GET IMPEACHED.

THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS DANGER, DANGER, DANGER REPETITION.

THEY DID A GOOD JOB OF TALKING ABOUT THE SCHLEP SLIPPERY SLOPE.

>> THAT MASSAGE WAS LOUD AND CLEAR.

WE HEARD IT AGAIN FROM COUNCIL AND JAY HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY ANODE ELIST, WE HEARD IT IN THE FINAL MOMENTS FROM PAT, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL.

LISA, LET ME TURN TO YOU FOR WHAT COMES NEXT.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE.

>> SENATORS WILL WRITE OUT THE QUESTIONS.

THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SPACE FOR THE QUESTIONS.

THEY FILL OUT THE CARDS.

ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THEY WILL TURN THEM INTO SENATOR SCHUMER'S OFFICE.

THEY WILL LOOK FOR DUPLICATES.

THEY WILL SUBMIT THEM AS ONE QUESTION.

DICK HAD 50 QUESTIONS THAT HE WE OBJECT DOWN FROM 100.

THEY COULD USE ALL 16 HOURS.

THAT'S EIGHT HOURS FOR EACH SIDE.

DEMOCRATS WILL GET EIGHT HOUR HORSE HOURS WORTH OF QUESTIONS.

THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO EITHER SIDE PRESENTING IN THE CASE.

THIS WILL START TOMORROW AND LAST FOR THE NEXT TWO DAYS.

MOST SENATORS ARE FOCUSED ON THAT TONIGHT RIGHT NOW WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FOUR.

THOSE ARE THE FOUR RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

THEY MIGHT HAVE REACHED THE EXIT AND GOTTEN IN THEIR CAR AND TRIED TO GET TO IOWA.

AMY IS ON HER WAY TO A PLANNED EVENT TONIGHT.

WE WILL SEE IF THEY MAKE IT OR DO AN EARLY TOWN HALL.

THIS IS EARLIER THAN EXPECTED AND CRITICAL TIME FOR THOSE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

>> THEY HAVE TO BE BACK BY 1:00 TOMORROW.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

EY ALL HAVE TO BE IN THEIR SEATS AS IT NEXT PHRASE MOVES FORWARD.

>> DIRECT FLIGHTS ARE BOOKING UP QUICKLY.

SOME OF THEIR STAFF MIGHT HAVE BOOKED SEATS HOPING THEY CAN TAKE THEM.

ONE REPORTER BOOKED THREE DIFFERENT SEATS DEPENDING ON SENATE TRIALS TO GET TO IOWA.

THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC OR IMPORTANT TRAFFIC GOING TO THE AIRPORT RIGHT NOW.

>> I CAN IMAGE.

LISA, QUICKLY, WHICH SIDE WILL GO FIRST?

DO THE DEMOCRATS GO FIRST?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BUT I'LL FIND OUT.

>> QUICKLY, LISA.

WHAT DO YOU HEAR ABOUT ANY PLAN.

WE ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO.

ANY PLAN TO HAVE THE SENATORS GO TO A SECRET ROOM OR PRIVATE ROOM TO LOOK AT THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT.

>> WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR IF IT'S MORE THAN A PLAN.

I DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY SENATOR FOUND A MEANS TO BRING IT TO THE CAPITAL.

WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE PUBLISHER OR WHITE HOUSE?

BOTH NEED TO BE INVOLVED TO BRING IT TO THE CAPITAL.

I'M TOLD SOME OF THOSE I INQUIRIES ARE BEING MADE.

THAT MEANS IT'S EARLY STRATEGIES WHEN I HEAR THE LANGUAGE AT THE CAPITAL.

THERE IS NO KNOWN CONNECTION THERE IS INCRESTING INTEREST.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

THE NEXT FEW HOURS WILL GET MORE NEWS.

THEY CAN MOVE VERY FAST WHEN IT'S HIGH INTEREST.

RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THE MANUSCRIPT IS COMING.

THERE IS INTEREST THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON IT.

>> THERE WAS REPORTING EARLIER THAT THE PUBLISHER WAS LOOKING INTO RELEASING IT EARLIER AND HAVING AN EARLIER PUB I GUESSATION DATE THEN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY PLANNED.

I'LL COME TO YOU AND THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM, DO THEY FEEL THEY HAVE MADE THE BEST CASE.

>> THEY FEEL CONFIDENT THEY MADE THE BEST CASE THEY COULD MAKE.

MAINLY THE MAN PSYCHIATRIST OF JOHN BOLTON BEING LEAKED AND THIS NEWS THAT JOHN BOLTON IS AIMED AT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE STATED HE NEEDED TO LINK THE AID.

I THINK THE LEGAL TEAM WAS READY TO PUT FORWARD THE ARGUMENT.

I HAVE BEEN TOLD EARLY ON THEY WANTED TO USE MUCH LESS TIME THAN THE DEMOCRATS.

THEY WERE WASTING A LOT OF PEOPLES TIME.

THEY DID THAT TODAY WHICH IS IN TEHERAN MINDS.

THEY ENDED EARLIER THEN THAT THOUGHT THEY WOULD END.

THE LASTING IMAGE THEY HAD, JUDY WAS THE CLIP WHERE THEY WERE ARGUING IMPEACHMENT COULD BE A PARTISAN TOOLS AND USED AGOODIST A REPUBLICAN.

THAT'S THE IMAGE THEY WANTED SENATORS TO HAVE IN THEIR MINDS AS THEY LEFT.

>> IT WAS SO TELLING THEY ENDED WITH CHUCK SCHUMER.

IT WAS SCHUMER WHO WAS A HOUSE MEMBER AND ELECTED TO THE SENATE.

YOU ARE RIGHT THEY WERE MAKING THE CASE TO NOT IMPEACH FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

ANY SENSE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT WITNESSES.

IF THE PRESIDENT FEELS HE'S RIGHT IN ALL OF THIS WHAT IS THE DANGER AND CONCERN IN HEARING FROM WITNESSES IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO HURT HIS CASE?

>> THEY HAVE MADE TWO ARGUMENTS.

HE HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND SHOULDN'T BE PUBLICLY REVEALED.

JOHN BOLTON KNOWS TOO MUCH.

HE KNOWS WHICH LEADERS I HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND WHO I BAD-MOUTHED IN THE PAST.

THE PRESIDENT SAID WE DON'T WANT JOHN BOLTON TALKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

THERE IS THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THING.

HE WAVED IT BECAUSE HE TWEETED HE NEVER HAD THE CONVERSATIONS WITH JOHN BOLTON.

THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS HISTORICAL.

TAKEOUT PRESIDENT AND PUT YOURSELF IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SHOES AND HISTORY WON'T JUDGE US WELL.

THIS IS BEFORE SENATORS THIS COULD BE A PARTISAN BATTLE BEING PUT-ON FULL DISPLAY.

THEY SAID THIS IS BAD FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AMERICA, OF COURSE, DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING BACK ON THAT.

THEY HAVE NOT AND SHOULD NOT AS A RESULT WE SHOULD LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING.

THERE IS ONE BIG ISSUE UP IN THE AIR IF JOHN BOLTON DOES TESTIFY.

IF THEY PUT-OUT A STATEMENT OR PRESS CONFERENCE.

THEY ARE PREPARING TO APPROXIMATE YOU SHALL BACK AGAINST THAT.

HE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT BE DOING FAVORS FORRATOR TEARAN A -- FOR AUTN ISSUES.

>> BEFORE YOU LEAVE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THEEL US WHAT'S GOING ON NOW.

THE PRESIDENT HAD THE LEADER OF ISRAEL AT THE WHITE HOUSE TO ROLLOUT THIS LONG AWAITED PROPOSAL FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

THAT'S HOW HE'S BEEN SPENDING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS TODAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

HE'S BEEN FOCUSED ON HIS DAY WITH BENJAMIN, THE LEADER OF ISRAEL.

THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THE PRESIDENT IS BUSY AND NOT FOCUSED ON THE SENATE TRIAL.

HE'S NOT FOCUSED ON THIS PLAN.

HE WILL DO A POLITICAL RALLY AND OF COURSE HE WILL TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND WHILE MAKING THINGS BUSY FOR AMERICA THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING AFTER HIM.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TWEETING PRETTY CONSISTENCY ABOUT THE SENATE TRIAL.

I SPOKE TO LEGAL EXPERTS AND THOSE WHO WORKED ON THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE WASN'T THINKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

HE'S STILL FOCUSED ON IMPEACHMENT AND ROLLING UP HIS MIDDLE EAST PLAN.

>> BE YOUR PRESIDENCY IS UNDER CHALLENGE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.

QUICKLY BACK TO LISA AT THE CAPITAL.

WHAT ARE YOU LEARNING ABOUT WHAT LIES AHEAD.

>> WE SPOKE TO ELIZABETH WARREN SHE DID BE THE SAY ABOUT THE SHE WAS GOING TO IOWA TONIGHT.

SHE SUBMITTED TO ASK DURING THE IMPEACH.

TRIAL.

HER QUESTION IS ABOUT WITHHOLDING THE AID FOR UKRAINE.

WHAT DOES THAT REVEAL ABOUT HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS AND WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE WHICH IS A LEADING QUESTION.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR BOTH SIDES ANSWER IT.

SHE ALSO TOLD OUR TEAM, DAN BUSH, IF THERE IS A TRIAL ON MONDAY NIGHT WHICH IS THE NIGHT OF THE CAUCUSES SHE'LL BE HERE.

SHE DIDN'T LOOK PLEASED AS SHE SAID THAT.

SHE SAID SHE WILL BE HERE.

WE ASKED IF THEY WOULD ALLOW RECESS.

HE SAID NO ONE IS THINKING ABOUT IT.

>> I SAID YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE WIN THE CAUCUS AND BE HERE AT THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

HE SAID IF ANY OF THEM WIN THEY WILL BE HAPPY WHEREVER THEY ARE.

REPUBLICANS ARE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF HAVING A RECESS THAN DEMOCRATS.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THEY ARE FOCUSED ON THE TRIAL.

>> WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THIS PROCEEDING WILL GO.

IT COULD WRAP-UP BEFORE MONDAY OR BY THE WEEKEND ORITURRING THE WEEKEND AS YOU SAY.

IT COULD GO ON LONGER.

TO BE CLEAR.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT.

UNACCESS I HAVE HEALTH OR OTHER EMERGENCY REASONS THEY CAN'T SAY I CAN'T BE THERE BECAUSE I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

>> A SENATOR COULD MAKE THE DECISION NOT TO BE HERE FOR SOME REASON.

IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE CHOSE TO ENFORCE THE RULE THEY COULD ACTUALLY ASK THE SERGEANT ARMS TO GO AND GET THE SENATOR AND BRING THEM BACK.

THAT'S A RISKY MOVE FOR ANY SENATOR.

WARREN KNOWS SHE NEEDS TO BE HERE FOR A LOT OF REASONS.

THE TIMING IS NOT GOOD FOR HER.

THIS COULD END AS EARLY AS FRIDAY.

SATURDAY IS MORE LIKELY.

ONE THING THAT WILL DETERMINE THE TIMING IS IF WITNESSES WILL BE CALLED AND HOW LONG WILL THE DISCUSSION BE ABOUT WITNESSES.

IF THAT VOTE TO OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST AFTER QUESTIONS.

IF THEY OPEN THE DISCUSSION THAT COULD LEAD TO A VERY LONG DAY OF EMOTIONS AND VOTES FOR EVERY POSSIBLE WITNESS OR IF LEADERS COULD AGREE ON A COMBINATION OF WITNESSES.

THIS IS FACTORS IF ARE THE TIMING OF THE REST OF THE TRIAL.

NONE OF THEM ARE NONE BY ANYBODY BECAUSE OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL CHESS OF SENATE POLITICS.

>> LISA, JUST TO CLARIFY.

ALL OF THIS COULD BE THE START BEFORE FRIDAY, IS THAT RIGHT.

THE NEXT TWO DAYS ARE DEVOTED TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS.

>> ?

THE WITNESS DISCUSSION CAN'T START UNTIL THE QUESTION PERIOD HAS ENDED.

THERE CAN BE UP TO FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE ON THE CONCEPT OF WITNESSES.

WHETHER TO GOçó FORWARD WITH GENERALLY CALLING WITNESSES.

THAT'S FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE.

TWO HOURS OF EACH SIDE.

IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT FOUR HOURS WILL START ON FRIDAY.

AFTER THAT FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE THEY WILL GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE VOTE TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR MOTIONS ON SPECIFIC WITNESSES.

ABOUT THE IT FAILS, THAT MEANS THERE ARE NO WITNESSES AND NO DISCUSSION OF WITNESSES AND MOVE IMMEDIATELY OVER DEIBERATIONSMENT THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES.

>> FOR SURE.

LISA IS FOLLOWING IT.

SO MANY TWISTS AND TERNS.

WE HAVE TEN MINUTES OR SO LEFT IN OUR LOVE COVERAGE TIME HERE THIS AFTERNOON.

I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU ARE A SENATOR WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW AT THIS POINT.

DREW, IF YOU ASKED A QUESTION WHICH SIDE DO YOU DIRECT IT TO?

>> I WOULD DIRECT IT TO THE REPUBLICAN MANAGERS AND PROBABLY TRY TO PROBE AND GET THEM ON THE RECORD AS TO WHY THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A FULL LEGAL PROCESS THAT WOULD RUNOUT THE CLOCK TO GET THE SUPREME COURT OR LOWER COURTS TO MAKE A DECISION.

I WOULD WANT TO SEED OUT THERE THAT THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

>> WHAT ABOUT THAT?

I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION I WANT TO ASK.

I DO HAVE A RESPONSE TO SENATOR WARRANTS POTENTIAL QUESTION.

IF YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO OF YOUR PARTY, WHICH EVER POLICY IT IS, YOU WILL WANT TO HAVE YOUR PRESIDENT BEING WILLING TO HOLD BACK THE AID TO GET CERTAIN ANSWERS.

NOT PAST THE TIME WHICH IS THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

NO REAL PENALTIES WILL OCCUR FOR THAT AND IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED THAT WAY.

THERE WILL BE SENSES AMONG PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR.

I DON'T NEED TO HEAR WITNESSES AND NEITHER DO MOST OF THE SENATORS DO.

THEY PROBABLY KNOW HOW THEY WILL VOTE.

FROM THE PUBLIC PROSPECTIVE AND PRECEPTION ON ALL OF THAT IS REAL VENT TO SOME OF THE UNDERLINE QUESTIONS WE NEVER HAD THEM ON AS WITNESSES.

I'M LEANING IN FAVOR IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE WITNESSES?

>> JOHN HART, WHY NOT DO THAT?

>> SOME MIGHT DO THAT BUT THE COST IS IS HIGH IN TERMS OF TIMING.

IF THEY MAKE IT CLEAR THEY WILL FIND THAT YOU WILL HAVE SEVERAL WEEKS OR MONTHS OF DELAY AND I'M NOT SURE SENATORS WOULD WANT TO DO THAT.

IT'S A STAFFER.

WHEN I WAS A SPEECHWRITER THIS IS THE TIME TO WRITE THE SPEECH TO DEFINE AND SHAPE WHAT THE WHOLE EPISODE MEANT.

THEY SPEAK TO THE COUNTRY AND SAY THIS IS HOW THE BODY OF POLITICS SHOULD SHOULD THINK ABOUT DISCRETION OF IMPEACHMENT.

DEMOCRATS ALWAYS BRING UP THE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

TODAY, WE ARE A SUPER BOWER AND WROTE A SUPER POWER BY OUR FOUNDERS.

THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT RABID PARTISANSHIP.

WE WOULD LOSE IOWA SAID IS INTERNAL AFFECTION.

THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THEY ARE FACING.

HOW DO WE RESTORE THAT SENSE OF COMEDY.

>> THE PARTISANSHIP DEFINES AMERICAN POLITICS RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.

>> IT'S HARD TO DO WHEN THE PRESIDENT TWEETS IS 50 TIMES.

I KNOW THAT HOPE FOR ANOTHER AGE WE MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN SIMILAR SPEECHES.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS IS THE BIGGEST INTERBRANCH KINDA CONTRIBUTORY OF OUR HISTORY.

THE HOUSE FEELS THE POWERS HAVE BEEN DENIED REPEATEDLY AND GIVEN AWAY TO THE COURTS AND FEEL THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PLAYING FAIRLY ON THE GROUND.

I BELIEVE THE SECOND ARTICLE IS WEAKER.

THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING HE CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED AT ALL.

HE'S SAYING HIS AIDS HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

THEY NEVER SAID EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

IF SOMEONE NEEDS IT THE AIDS MIGHT TESTIFY AS THEY DID IN THE NIXON CASE.

BILL, WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU RAISED PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT.

>> BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T COVER THAT.

>> THERE IS A GOOD BOOK ABOUT IT.

THE BACKGROUND BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND CONGRESS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR THERE WAS A HUGE BATTLE GOING ON.

IT WAS HIS REMOVAL AND HIS DECISION TO TRY TO STAY AGAINST JOHNSON'S WISHES THAT TRIGGERED THAT.

THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT TEST OF POWERS THAN THIS IS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASON LOOKING BACK ON HISTORY AND THEY ACQUITTED HIM.

THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF REMOVAL.

IF HE DIDN'T GET REMOVED WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

>> WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS QUESTION QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, DREW, WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS.

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT SHOULD THE GROUNDS BE FOR IMPEACHMENT AND ARE THEY ASKING THE SENATE TO LOWER THE BAR TO A POINT THAT ENDANGERS THE CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK THAT WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFICULT IS THAT IF YOU DON'T DIRECTLY HAVE A CRIME THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T REQUIRE THE CASE NEEDS TO BE IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS SO OUTRAGEOUS IT'S A THREAT TO THE CONDUCT OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

YOU DON'T NEED AN ACTUAL CRIME AND STATUE TO DO THAT.

THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CODE.

AT THE TIME THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

>> I WANT TO TURN QUICKLY BACK TO YAMICHE.

I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTED ONE MORE WORD FROM WHERE YOU ARE.

>> I THINK THIS IS NOTHING BUT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING.

THAT QUESTION WAS SENATOR FEINSTEIN NOT WARREN.

SHE WAS SAYING SHE WOULDN'T COMMIT TO GOING TO IOWA.

SHE WILL HAVE A TELETOWN HALL AT THE LEAST TODAY.

WE ARE NOT SURE IF SHE WILL DO THAT BUT THAT'S THE PLAN FROM NOW.

>> NOT FROM IN IOWA BUT PRESUMABLY FROM WASHINGTON.

ONLY, NOT EVEN A MINUTE LEFT, YAMICHE.

YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT PLANS FOR THE STATE OF THE UNION.

>> THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO TAKE A VICTORY LAP SAYING HE WAS ACQUITTED.

THEY ARE PREPARING FOR THE TRIAL TO GO ON PAST THE STATE OF THE UNION.

HE WON'T BE ABLE TO TAKE THE VICTORY LAP.

>> YEAH, HE WANTED THE SENATE TRIAL TO BE OVER SO HE COULD GET UP IN FRONT OF THE LAWMAKERS AND SAY I'VE BEEN ACQUITTED.

HE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THEY ARE PREPARING FOR THE WORSE MEANING THE TRIAL WILL GO PAST THE STATE OF THE UNION.

>> THIS IS PROBABLY UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE THE STATE OF THE UNION WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS STILL IN THE MIDDLE OFFER A HEALTH AN IMPEACH.

TRIAL.

SO MUCH IS UNPRECEDENTED.

YAMICHE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

EVERYONE AT THE TABLE WITH ME.

THAT DOES CONCLUDE OUR COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THIS AFTERNOON.

WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW AT 1:00 FOR THE NEXT PORTION OF THE TRIAL.

THE SENATORS THAT HAD TO BE SILENT WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE LAWYERS FOR BOTH SIDES.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE TEAM WITH US AND WE JUST NAMED THEM.

IF YOU MISS ANY PORTION OF TODAY'S HEARING YOU CAN SEE IT ALL GAVEL TO GAVEL ON OUR WEBSITE PBS.ORG OR ON OUR YOUTUBE PAGES.

THANK YOU AND SEE YOU SOON.