tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN January 29, 2020 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
spite of the president's efforts to obstruct. in addition, republican members in congress had an equal opportunity to ask questions during the depositions and the hearings, and both the intelligence and the judiciary committee hearings. republican members called three witnesses during the intelligence committee's hearings, and an additional witness during the judiciary committee's hearings. of course, a house impeachment inquiry is not a full blown criminal trial. we do know that. but this is a trial. and obviously, the president is being afforded every due process right during these proceedings. >> thank you. >> chief justice? >> the senator from alaska? >> i send a question to the desk. >> thank you.
senator murkowski's question is for the house managers. in early october, mr. cipollone sent the letter saying none of the subpoenas issued by the house were appropriately authorized and thus invalid. when the house pass ad resolution authorizing the impeachment inquiry, and granting subpoena power to the intelligence and judiciary committees, the body could have addressed the deficiency the white house pointed out. and pro claimed those subpoenas as valid exercises of the impeachment inquiry. alternatively, the house could have reissued the subpoenas after the resolution was documented. please explain why neither of those actions took place.
>> i remember that your question. these arguments plain and simple are a red herring. the house's impeachment inquiry and its subpoena were fully authorized by the constitution, house rules, and president. it is for the house, not the president, to decide how to conduct an impeachment inquiry. the house's autonomy to structure its own proceedings for impeachment inquiry is root in the two provisions of article one of the constitution. first, article one, vests the house with the sole power of
impeachment. it contains no requirements no requirements as to how the house must carry out the responsibility. second, article one states that the house is empowered to determine the rules of proceedings. taken together, these provisions give the house sole discretion to determine manner in which to investigate, deliberate and vote for impeachment. in exercising its responsibility to investigate and consider the impeachment of a president of the united states, the house is constitutionally entitled to relevant information there the executive branch concerning the president's misconduct. the framers, the courts, and past presidents have recognized and honor congress's right to information in an impeachment
investigation and a critical safeguard to our system of divided powers. otherwise, a president could hide his own wrongdoing to prevent congress from discovering impeachable misconduct effectively nullifying, nullifying congress's impeachment power. that is precisely what president trump has tried to achieve. he has asserted the power himself which comingal subpoenas he will respond to and those that he will not. the president's counsel would have you believe that each time anyone in the executive branch gets a subpoena, it is open season for creative orders in the white house and doj to start inventing theories about house ruse and parliamentary president. this is not how the separation
of powers works. and to accept that argument would holy undermine the house and senate's ability to provide oversite of the executive branch. it would also make impeachment a nullity. the president argues there was no resolution fully authorizing the impeachment inquiry. but again, there is no requirement for the full house to take a vote before conducting an impeachment inquiry. president trump and his lawyers invented this theory. as chief judge howe in the district court has stated, and this is a direct quote, this claim has no support in the u.s. constitution or governing rules in the house. the constitution itself says nothing about how the house may exercise its sole impeachment, power of impeachment. but instead confirps the house shall have the role, the sole power to determine the ruse of
its own proceedings. this conclusion is also confirmed by precedent. numerous judges have been subjected to impeachment investigations in the house. and even impeached by the house and convicted by the senate without any previous vote of a house authorizing an impeachment inquiry. as recently as the 114th congress, the judiciary committee considered impeaching the irs commissioner, following a referral from another committee and absent a full house vote. the judiciary committee began an investigation in president nixon's misconduct for four months before approval of a full house resolution. the house rules also do not preclude committees from quirg into the potential grounds for impeachment. instead, those rules pass the committees of the house with robust powers including the power to issue subpoenas.
each of the three committee that's conducted the initial investigation of president trump's conduct in ukraine, intelligence oversight and foreign affairs, indisputably had oversight jurisdiction over these matters. the president's counsel has pointed to the nixon impeachment where the full house -- >> thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. i send a question to the desk and because my question references an earlier question, i have attached that earlier question as reference to the presiding officer in the parliamentarian in case it should be of interest. >> thank you.
>> the question from senator white house is to a question for the president. the white house counsel refused to answer a direct question from senator collins and senator murkowski saying he could only cite to the record. five minutes afterward, house counsel read recent newspaper stories to the senate from outside the house record. could you please give an accurate and truthful anxious to the senator's question. did the president ever mention the bidens in connection to corruption in ukraine before vice president biden announced his candidacy in april 2019? what did the president say to whom and when?
>> mr. chief justice, senator, thank you for the question. i don't think that i refused to answer the question at all of we had been advised by the house managers that they were going to object if we attempted to introduce anything that was not either in the public domain, so things that are in newspaper articles, things like that out there, we could refer to, or things that were in the record. so i can't, i'm not in a position to go back into things that the president might have said in private and there's been no discovery into that. it is not part of this inquiry. so i can't go telling now about things the president might have said to cabinet members. i'm not in a position to say that. i can tell what you is in the public and what's in the record. and i answered the question fully to the best of my ability based on what is in the public domain and what is in the record. i would like to take a moment to
also respond to the last question that was posed by senator murkowski. with respect to the vote and authorizing the issuance of subpoenas. because there hassal been a vote from the full house to authorize any impeachment inquiry into a presidential impeachment. it was that way in the johnson impeachment. it was that way in the nim impeachment. there have been referenced to the house judiciary committee began some investigate over work before the house voted on the resolution. i think it was resolution 803 to authorize the impeachment inquiry. all of that was gathering work in the public domain or by other committees and flofs come pulse over process issued. in fact, the chairman specifically determined when there was a move to have the house committee issue subpoenas after the saturday night
massacre, that the committee lacked the authority to issue any come pulsory process until there was a full vote to authorize the committee to do that. this is not an esoteric rule. this was just a fundamental rule under the constitution about how authority that has been given by we the people to chambers of the legislature, the house or the senate, once it is given there to the house, how does it get to committee? kit only get down to a committee if it is delegated by the house. that can only happen with votes. there no, sir longstanding rule that gives the house judiciary committee authority to use the power of impeachment as opposed to the authority to legislate. there is no rule that gives the power to use the authority of impeachment to issue couple pulsory process. the word doesn't appear. that's why it has been the understanding that there must be a vote from the house sow
authorize the house judiciary committee. or in this case, it was contrary to all prior practice. it was given on manager schiff's committee and other committees. the authority for subpoenas. it was very clear to the house of representatives that the position of the executive branch was all the subpoenas issued before 660 were invalleyoid their face and senator murkowski's question was correct. there was no effort in resolution 660 either to attempt to retroactively authorize those subpoenas, or to say that those subpoenas, to retroactively authorize the subpoenas or to reissue them under house resolution 660. so the subpoenas remained invalley and i had there was no response from the house today. >> counsel? senator from missouri? >> mr. chief justice, i sent to
the desk on my own behalf and on behalf of senator cruz, senator danes and senator braun. >> thank you. >> the president's clowney respond first to the question. when he took office, victor shokin, ukraine's prosecutor general vowed to investigate burisma before joe biden pressed on corruption, including pushing for the ruhle of shokin, did the white house counsel's office or the office of the vice president legal counsel issue ethics advice approving mr. biden's involvement in matters involving corruption in ukraine or shokin?
despite the presence of hunter biden on the board of burisma, a company widely considered to be corrupt. did vice president biden ever ask hunter biden to step down from the board of burisma? >> thank you for the question. we're not aware of any evidence that then vice president biden sought any ethics opinion. we are aware that both amos hawkstein and deputy assistant secretary of state kent testify, excuse me, deputy assistant kent testify before the house that they each raised the issue with vice president biden of the potential appearance of a conflict of interest with his son hunter being on the board of
burisma. the deputy assistant secretary kent said that although he raise that had issue, the response was the vice president's office, the vice president was busy dealing then with tilness of his other son and there was no action taken. so from what we know, there wasn't any effort to seek an ethics opinion. we're not aware of an ethics opinion being issued. the issue was flagged for the vice president's office, we're not aware that vice president biden asked his son to step down or any other action was taken. and that i believe vice president biden has said that he never discussed, he said, he said he never discussed his son's overseas business dealings with him. thank you.
>> mr. chief justice, and senator, i appreciate your question. the facts about vice president biden's conduct are clear and do not change. let's go through they will. first, every witness asked about this topic testified that mr. shokin was widely considered to be a corrupt and ineffective prosecutor. who did not prosecute corruption. he was so corrupt that the entire free world, the united states, the european union, the international monetary fund, pressed for his office to be cleaned up. so i would caution you to be skeptical of anything that mr. shokin claims. second, witnesses included in our own anti-corruption advocate ambassador yovanovitch. remember that very dedicated anti-corruption ambassador testified that shokin's removal made it more likely that
investigations of ukrainian companies would move forward. let me repeat that. the dismissal of shokin made it more likely that burisma would be investigated. third, burisma was not under scrutiny at the time joe biden called for shokin's ouster. according to the national anti-corruption in ukraine, several witnesses testified is effective at fighting corruption. shokin's office investigated burisma but the probe focused on a period before hunter biden joined the company. but again, in another investigation was warranted, dismissing shokin would have made that more likely. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, i have a question for the house managers.
i will send it to the desk. >> thank you. >> senator king's question for the house managers reads as follows. mr. giuliani jrudolph giuliani ukraine by his own admission. doesn't the president's mention of giuliani by 98 in the july 25th call could that exclusively establish the real purpose of the call?
>> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, mr. giuliani played a key role in president trump's months long scheme the pressure ukraine to announce political investigations to benefit president's re-election campaign. remarkably, the president's defense is wrapping themselves in rudy giuliani's role in ukraine. are texts, call records and other corroborating records establish mr. giuliani's key role in executing the president's pressure campaign beginning in early spring 2019 with the smear campaign against ambassador yovanovitch and then throughout the summer. everyone knew that rudy giuliani was thegate keeper to the president on had ukraine on. may 10th, mr. giuliani canceled a trip to ukraine on which he
planned to dig up dirt on joe biden. he admitted, we're not medding in an election. we're meddling in an investigation. you can say someone could say it's improper. someone could say it's improper and this isn't foreign policy. i'm asking they will to do an investigation that they're already doing and other people are telling them to stop. and he was talking about the investigation into the bidens. during a may 10th appearance on fox news, giuliani said he canceled his trim because there are enemies of trump around president zelensky. mr. giuliani's associate lev parnas produced a set of documents to the house tension committee that included a letter, i believe we have slide 50 here, mr. giuliani sent to president-elect zelensky during the type period. in letter dated may 10th, he said that he represented president trump as a private citizen. not as president of the united
states. he also requested a meeting with president zelensky on may 13 and 14 along with victoria toensing in his capacity as personal attorney to president trump and with his knowledge and consent. mr. giuliani confirmed the wakss regard to ukraine stating, he knows what i'm doing. as his lawyer, my only client is the president of the united states. he's the one i have an obligation to report. to tell him what happened. president trump repeatedly instructed senior ukrainian that's the to talk to rudy demonstrating that mr. giuliani was a key player in the corrupt scheme. in the may 23rd oval office meeting to discuss ukraine policy, president trump directed his hand picked three amigos to talk to rudy. in response, ambassador sondland testified, secretary perry, ambassador volker and i worked with rudy at the express direction of the president of the united states. after two explosive white house meetings july 10th on which
ambassador sondland explicitly conveyed the president's demand for political investigations to ukraine ukrainian that's the, top ukrainian aide this said, i feel that the key for many things is rudy. what was rudy asking? investigations of two american citizens. not corruption in general. investigations, in fact, he wasn't even asking for an investigation. he was just asking for an announcement of an investigation so that american citizens to the bidens could be smeared. on the july 25th call with president zelensky, president trump mentioned rudy giuliani by name no less than four times and said that rudy giuliani very much knows what's happening. he told mr. zelensky, as he very highly respected man of he add, rudy very much knows what's happening. in august he met with an aide and said that they must issue a public statement announcing investigations. ambassador volker then worked
closory with giuliani to insist that it would meet with mr. giuliani's demands. specifically, he insisted the statement include specific references to burisma and the 2016 election and biden. throughout this process, sondland stated that he knew they needed the approval of giuliani for the press statement. that they knew giuliani represented the interests of the president. rudy giuliani admitted on live tell stroigs pressure ukraine to look into joe biden. not into corruption. into joe biden. in september 2019, chris cuomo said, you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? in response, giuliani insisted, of course i do. he insisted they look into an american citizen on behalf of his client, president trump. finally during the impendancy of the impeachment proceedings, mr. giuliani has not ceased his efforts to dig up dirt. the president reportedly called
in immediately upon landing, asked what did you get? to which mr. giuliani responded, more than you can imagine. it is worth noting that in the presentation about giuliani -- >> thank you, mr. manager. >> for investigations into biden. not into corruption. >> mr. chief justice. >> the senator from florida. >> i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and several others. >> thank you. >> the question from senator rubio and the other senators is for counsel for the president.
how would the framers view removing a president without an overwhelming consensus of the american people and on the basis of the arrests of impeachment supported by one political party and opposed by the other? >> thank you. >> alexander hamilton discussed it. he said the greatest danger of impeachment is if it turns on the votes of one party being greater than the votes of another party in either house. so i think they would be appalled to see an impeachment going forward in violation of the schumer rule and the ruse of other congressmen that were good enough for us during the clinton impeachment but seem to have changed dramatically in the current situation. the criteria that have been set out are so lost, they basically
paraphrase congresswoman maxine waters who said, there is no law. anything the house wants to do to impeach is impeachable. that's what has happened today. that places the house of representatives above the law. we've heard much about no one is above the law. the house of representatives is not above the law. they may not use the maxine waters, gerald ford made the same point. it was about the impeachment of a judge. judges are different. there are many of they will. there is only one president. to pews criteria, that it is whatever the house says it is. whatever the senate says it is. turns those bodies into lawless bodies in violation of the intent of the framers. manager schiff confused my argument when he talked about intent and motive. you admitted i'm a criminal lawyer and i taught criminal law for 50 years at harvard.
and there is an enormous distinction between intent and motive. somebody shoots somebody. the intent is when you pull the trigger, you know the bullet will leave and may kill someone. that is intent to kill. motive can be revenge, it can be money. it almost is never taken into consideration except in extreme cases where motive counts. let's assume that president obama had been told by his advisers that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the ukraine. but then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser who says, we know it is in the national interests to send lethal weapons to the ukraine. but we're telling that you the left wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and getting into a
lethal war potentially with russia wolf anybody here say that is impeach schnabel or let's say, president obama said i promised to bomb syria if they have chemical weapons but i'm nowed by my pollster that's bombing syria would all right my electoral chances. certainly not impeachable at all. so let me apply that to the current situation. i said previously, there are three levels of possible motive. one is the motive is pure. only interest is in the way, what's good for the country. in the real world, that rarely happens. one is the motive is completely corrupt. i want money. kick alabama. and then a mixed motive in which you think you're doing good for the country but also for yourself. you're doing good for me, you're doing good for thee and you
altogether put night bundle in which you're satisfied that you're doing absolutely the right thing. let me give you a perfect example of that from the case. the argument has been made that the president of the united states only became interested in corruption when he learned that joe biden was running for president. let's assume hypothetically that the president was in his second term. and he said to himself, you know, joe biden is running for president. should i get concerned about whether his son is corrupt. he's not only a candidate, and he's not running against me. i'm finished with my term. but he could be the president of the united states. and if he's the president of the united states and he has a corrupt son, the fact he's announced his candidacy is a very good reason for upping the interest in his son. if he wasn't running for president, he is a has been. he's the former vice president of the united states. big deal. but if he's running for president, that's an enormous
big deal. so the difference is whether the president is in his first term or second term. whether he's running or not running for re-election. i think they would have to assume, if he were not running, it would be leaning on the side of national interests. if he is running for re-election, sudden reply turns it into -- >> thank you, thank you. >> the senator from minnesota? >> mr. chief justice, i submit a question to the desk. directed to the house managers. >> thank you. the question is from senator klobuchar to the house managers.
>> chief justice, senator, i'm quite familiar with the porteus impeachment trial. the answer is probably three years when i last tried a case except for the impeachment of thomas porteus when i last spent time with you. i would say impeachment for a president is far bigger than an impeachment of a judge. in an impeachment for a judge, how is it possible the time of the senate could be occupied by calling witnesses that as precious as your time is, we would occupy your time calling dozens of witnesses. but an impeachment of a president, it's not worth the time. it's too much of an imposition.
i would argue, when we are adjudicating the guilt of the president of the united states, is paramount. we've always argued the trial should be fair to the president and the american people. yes, it is a big deal to impeach a president and remove from office. it is also a big deal when it is proven that he has committed impeachable misconduct and likely to continue committing it. there is no doubt from the record that not donal the president solicit russian interference in 2016, but solicited ukraine's interference in the upcoming election. solicited clean's interference, as my colleague just said. had rudy giuliani, his personal agent in ukraine doing the same kind of thing just last month. in response to that question,
that giuliani, the personal agent of the president is running this biden operation rather than a department of government? spn i think the answer is yes. giuliani has made it abundantly clear. i'm not here to do foreign policy. that is his own lawyer. professor dershowitz just made a rather astounding argument that an investigation of joe biden that is unwarranted, unmerited, suddenly becomes warranted if he runs for president. now, he posited that if a president is in his second terp. it doesn't matter which terp. an investigation of joe biden doesn't somehow become legitimate because he's running for president unless you view your interests as synonymous with the nation's interests.
i think it is the most pro found conflict for a president of one party to suggest that all of a sudden, an investigation of a leading candidate in the opposite party is justified because now they're running for president. you have to step aside from what's going on to say that anyone could make that argument. that running for officie, runnig for president now means you're a more justified target of investigation than when you weren't. that can't be. that cannot be. but that's what's being argued here. to conclude. senator, the case for witnesses in a presidential impeachment where either on the one side, you remove a president or on the
other side, you leave in place a president who may continue a risk to the country, is far more compelling to hear from witnesses than a corrupt louisiana judge who only impacts those who come before his court. all of us come before the court of the american people. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice. >> the senator from montana. >> a question to the desk. >> thank you.
>> the question is for counsel for the pre. over the past 244 years, eight judges have been removed from office by the u.s. senate but never a president. the eight judges have been removed for bribery, perjury, tax evasion, waging war and other unlawful accidents. how did the current impeachment articles differ from previous convictions and removals by the senate? >> there is an enormous difference between impeaching and removing a judge, even a justice, and impeaching and removing a president. not even the chief justice is the judiciary branch.
the president is the executive branch. he is irreplaceable. there is their isn't always a vice president. we had a period of time when there was no vice president. we needed a constitutional amendment. so there is no comparison between impeaching a judge and impeaching a president. moreover, there is a textual difference. it provides judges serve during good behavior. that's the congressman schiff standard. and it is a great standard. we wish everybody served only during good behavior. but the constitution doesn't stay president shall serve only during good behavior. he runs for only four years. judges don't run. so there is only one judge for good behavior. namely the impeachment process. to make a comparison is to make the same mistake when people come fair british system to the american system. we've heard a lot of argument
that we adopted the british system by adopting five words. high crimes and misdemeanors. they may have been borrowed from great britain. it only operated for low level and middle level people. all the impeachment trial that have been cited, it involved this guy here and there. utterly replaceable people. the british system on the other hand, you can get rid of the head of state, the head of government, rather, by a simple vote of no confidence. that's what the framers rejected. the framers reject that had for a president. so it is backwards. we rejected the british system. we did not want the president to serve at the pleasure of the legislature. we wanted the president to serve at the pleasure of the voters. judges don't serve at the
pleasure of the voters. so there needs to be different criteria and broader criteria and they've been used in practice for the most part. judges have been removed for criminal behavior. take an example that was given. if a judge is completely drunk and incapacitated and cannot do his job, it is easy to imagine how a judge might have to be removed for that. but the president, there is a 25th amendment specifically providing, there was a gap in the constitution. and please, members of the senate. it is important to understand, your role is not to fill games that the framers deliberately left open. good arguments have been made. why is it important to make sure people don't abuse their power? they don't commit maladministration. the framers left those gaps. your job is not to fill in the
gaps. your job is to apply the constitution as the framers wrote it and that doesn't include abuse of power and obstruction of congress. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, the senator from delaware. >> i send a question to the desk for the president's counsel. >> thank you. >> the question from senator kuhns is this. the president's brief states, quote, congress has forbidden foreigners' involvement in american elections. however, in june 2019, president trump said that if russia or china offered information on his opponent, quote, there is nothing wrong listening, end quote, and he might not alert the fbi because, quote, give me a break. life doesn't work that way.
end quote. does president trump agree with your statement that foreigners' involvement in american elections is illegal? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for the question. i think congress has specified specific ways in which foreigners cannot be involved in elections. they cannot vote in elections. their restrictions on foreign contributions to campaigns, things like that. when the whistleblower originally made a complaint with this july 25th call, and that was reviewed for the intelligence community, he framed that whistleblower's complaint and wrote a cover letter in terms of those calls. he said there might be an issue related to soliciting foreign
contribution this in a campaign. campaign interference. that was specifically reviewed by the department of justice. they concluded there was no such violation so that's not involved in this case. president trump's interview with abc that you cited does not involve something that is a foreign campaign contribution. something addressed by the laws in congress. he was referring to something may come from a source. i think he poenltd out that he might contact the fbi. but near information is not something would violate the campaign finance laws. if there is credible information, credible information of wrongdoing by someone running for a public office, it's not campaign interference for credible information about wrongdoing to be brought to light if it is credible information.
so i think that the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake. that's a nonsecocond with ittur. if it is by someone running for office, it is relevant information for the voters to know about, for people the decide on who is the best candidate for an office. thank you. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i recommend we take a break until 10:00 p.m. and then finish up for the evening. >> without objection? so ordered. >> all right. we are watching this key component of the senators, asking questions of each side through the chief justice. the chief justice has been the one asking the questions. that doesn't mean they are his
questions. now, for most of the day, this has been about each side politically bolstering the arguments of their representative counsel. for instance, the democrats are asking the house managers things that largely reinforce their case already. and the republicans are doing the same. two notable ones, senator ted cruz asked a member of the house manager, specifically manager schiff about, the whistleblower. did he work for biden? did you know this or that? schiff didn't answer and went into how republicans have always wanted to protect whistleblowers until now. now we just heard something else that really makes you realize how partisan the case is to defend this president. what we were just listening to was the question from senator
kuhns, democrat. are you saying the. >> that kind of interference is right or wrong? counsel just argued, if i get it right. it's not always bad if a foreign entity gives you credible information about your opponent. something that is of value to the voters, then it is not interference and it is okay. i don't remember the carve out for information in the election law. what did i miss? >> they were doing a whole sleight of hand here. it's not relevant. there was no information being given by ukraine the president trump. president trump was asking them to dig up information.
>> for the purpose of smearing his most formidable opponent. and that it had been looked at already by ukraine and found there was no wrongdoing. >> and let me add, to the extent that it is important to the voters, let's remember that trump hid all of this. he tried to conceal it all. he tried to conceal the conversation. he tried to keep the whistleblower complaint from going forward and he is trying on block the witnesses right now. if this is super important to the voters, let's hear about it. >> there is no carve out for foreign informationful foreign interference means you don't take anything of benefit, tro or false, from a foreign agent. it has been about keeping out relative, relevant information
about the conduct of the president of the united states. we can't see bolton's book. we can't have bolton here. before they were saying, there is month proof. the president violated the law. floss witness that anybody saw him do it. now there is a witness. and they're saying, you can't have that witness. the most telling they know of all, to listen to the president's defenders saying, we can't do this because we're going to take too much time. and bad for the country to take that much time. tying up the senate is what one the of president's lawyers said today. wrong. the country has time. this is most important thing we can do is to find out the truth. the mechanism is in place. it can be ram i had because the chief justice can adjudicate these questions of relevance, what witnesses are relevant. of parliamentary questions.
it has been done in other impeachments of judges. this is all a red herring to keep the american people from knowing what the president of the united states did. >> let's see what the impact is so far during this break on the hill. we've got phil mattingly up there monitoring. thank you for jumping out. state of play. >> yeah. i think as you laid out, the white house argument is twofold. one is that we can only discuss the things within the four corners of the house impeachment inquiry that have been submitted to this point. however, we don't believe you should be willing to consider more witnesses going forward of the i think the sub text from both sides is the argument going on behind the scenes related to whether or not there will be 51 votes to move on to consider witnesses and subpoenas for documents. you've heard the white house team repeatedly say how they would do it in terms of time and elongating the process and
issues related to executive privilege. those are the same arguments that i'm told at this point in time have been pretty forgetive moving him in to block witnesses and documents. it's substantial. however if you want more or if you have questions, all you have to do is vote yes on the witnesses. >> thank you so much. let's bring in senator democrat of west virginia. remind the audience of the question you have for professor dershowitz. >> he said that what he had said 22 years ago and his during the clinton process, that you didn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. now that you have to commit a crime. i had researchers go back and 14th century really.
to find out the language used and how it's been used until then. i asked the question what changed in 22 years. he went into a tirade. we had the best lawyers on both sides. it's time to hear from the witnesses. hear from the people that really know. >> first of all, do you believe that dershowitz changed. his answer is i didn't know then. now i know better. >> i don't. he's too good. he's too thorough. 20 years ago, maybe we were sharper. i don't think he was on his a game back then too. he was on it. he had done his in depth research he needed to do to make the conclusion he made in the clinton impeachment. everybody is changing. so the public watching this how
can things change in 20 kbreyea? our framers 230 years ago didn't leave that much wiggle room. >> in terms of detoxifying. you were spied talking to senator collins. what is your sense about how many including senator collins how many republicans do you this feel about witnesses the way you do? >> well, i'm not going to speak for them. the count i thought two mornings ago it came out about bolton and the transcripts and people heard -- hear something now. things had jumped to a positive. maybe five, six, seven. i thought it jumped up that much interest. there was always three that were solid felt like i felt. how do you go home and explain
they asked me to have a trial. i'm sitting there and i'll be judging based on what i hear. and i can't have witnesses and documents held from me. it makes it hard i don't know how you explain it. >> since that time it has gotten better or worse in terms of people feeling the need for witnesses? >> if anything i think it might have been gone back down. i don't know. they're putting a tremendous amount of pressure on everybody. the bottom is line is you have to live with yourself. i have to go to west virginia and explain the vote i take. i want to have seen everything and heard everything and impartial. >> a couple things. why do you think this is a close call about whether or not the president did something wrong or is it about wrong it's about
removable? >> this is the probably the most difficult and most solemn thing we do. there's nothing more serious than what we're doing now. it is serious. the president didn't have and couldn't have had ha perfect phone call with zelensky. you can't tell me here comes a person never in the political arena. defending himself against russian aggression and gets a call from the most powerful person in the world and thinking their not intimidated. >> it was perfect because his goal was to get him to work with giuliani and get dirt. about the bidens. it was perfect. but how is it not wrong. >> it is wrong. does it rise to the level of impeachment. should we remove a president. is the law violated to the point and to remove the president. i want to cross every t and dot
every i. it's a long shot that we get enough republicans. my goodness don't you think we ought to be able to have a law to prevent any rogue proxy? such as giuliani or anybody else. or congress or public official elected to have a rogue person out there foreign policy. brokering foreign policy. >> you won't get one. it will be bad for the president. we should agree you shouldn't have foreign interference they wouldn't pass the rule either. and make our election safer. it's perceived bad for him. >> we couldn't even get republican friends -- i can't believe if we come to an impasse
we have the supreme court justice. the top person in the law. maybe he would be the most likely to be impartial to make a decision? can't we vote to be the referee and break the tie. >> no. >> couldn't do it. >> one more question about your position. how can you think any biden is relevant to an argument about why the president abused his power? >> i said this. what i meant and how it came out. i believe it has to be fair. if democrats get one or two or three. shornt shouldn't the republicans get the same amount. they should be relevant to the charges to the president. shouldn't it be relevant. you think biden is relevant. whether i think he is or not is immaterial. if they don't believe it is and the democrats contest it who will be the broker? i said let's have a vote first
on john roberts making the decision. >> i want to give you a chance to clear it up. good luck getting in there. >> appreciate it. >> jeff toob. that was an important clarification. he said biden was relevant. he's saying it's immaterial. >> remember this talk about a deal about biden for bolton. it doesn't have to be a deal. there are 53 republicans. they can call biden tomorrow. they don't need to have a deal for bolton. the issue is bolton testifying. if they want biden they'll get biden. >> that's why it would be interesting to have an -- >> they don't want -- mitch
mcconnell is running this program. and even if john roberts would make a decision about irrelevant or admissibility. he could be over ruled by the senator. i don't think politically they want to be in the position to over rule the chief skrus 'tis. so don't give him the authority. >> it might be two-thirds or majority. >> i'm not aware of a basis for two-thirds. >> professor dershowitz. your friend. you are friends. that makes the exchanges you have even more instructive for people. bravo for you and him having a good conversation. he left out solicitation. in his legal analysis tonight about when something is wrong motivated by a president.
if president obama said i'm not going to bomb syria because i just got some poll numbers that say it maybe bad for my reelection, so i'm not going to do it. assuming he were running again. is that impeachable? he left out soliciting a foreign power. >> the list of things i disagree with him on is we don't have time for all of them chl the key point is there's also quid pro quo in foreign policy. and there's nothing wrong with it. >> political benefit. >> the president goes to the government of saudi arabia and sell weapons if you help with the peace process in the middle east. that's foreign policy. there's no problem. the problem is when the president acts with bad intent. with the intent to do something that is an abuse of power. he said how can we know what's in the president's head. how can we know intent. that's what trial is about.
trials are always about intent. that's why you need witnesses. to look at the documents and see what how the views were characterized. and hear bolton. the idea that it's some unfathomable mystery to know intent is ridiculous. that's what trials determine all the time. it could be here if they want to hear witnesses. >> let's switch the watch over to don lemon. before the senate reconvenes for questioning. >> not so fast. we'll talk about what happened. i saw you with joe there. i'm glad you asked about the relevance of biden as witnesses. neither were on any of the phone calls or the call with president trump and leader of ukraine. i'm not sure how they are relevant to any investigation unless you want to muddy the water. >> the senator is a