>>> NOW WE TURN TO OUR SPECIAL REPORT, AND IT BEGINS WITH THE
CONTEXT.
CONTEXT. LET’S JUST TAKE A BREATH AND
CONSIDER WHERE WE ARE.
TONIGHT, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THE TRUMP ERA, AN APPROACHING
BARE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS ARE
BACKING AN IMPEACHMENT PROBE.
THEY ARE BY VARIOUS COUNTS A
VOTE OR TWO AWAY.
THIS JUMP COMES BECAUSE JUST
THIS WEEK, AS WE’VE BEEN
MENTIONING, 79 MORE DEMOCRATS
GOT ONBOARD SINCE THE NEWS BROKE
OF JUST THIS NEW INCIDENT,
TRUMP’S CALL WITH UKRAINE, WHICH
DEMOCRATS SAY IS NOW A CLEAR
IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER.
AND THEY’RE FOLLOWING, OF
COURSE, THE LEAD OF SPEAKER
PELOSI, WHO HAD HELD BACK UNTIL
NOW TO BACK THIS FORMAL
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. SO AMIDST ALL OF THESE
DEVELOPMENTS, I WANT TO GET
INTO, AT THIS POINT IN THE HOUR,
IF YOU’VE HEARD SOME OF THE
BREAKING NEWS AND SOME OF THE
INCRIMINATING NEWS, THE FACTS
AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT
COULD LEAD TO THE ULTIMATE
REMEDY IN THE CONSTITUTION,
WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, IT INVOLVES
REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
>> THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SHALL CHOOSE THEIR SPEAKER AND
OTHER OFFICERS AND SHALL HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES
AND USURPATIONS.
AND USURPATIONS. >> HE HAS OBSTRUCTED THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
>> IS UNFIT TO BE THE RULER OF A
FREE PEOPLE.
FREE PEOPLE. >> SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
ON IMPEACHMENT FOR AND
CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY,
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
MISDEMEANORS. >> WE ALL KNOW THE WORDS.
THE TEXT.
THE TEXT. BECAUSE CONGRESS HANDLES THIS
PROCESS, CONGRESS ULTIMATELY
DECIDES WHAT THAT TEXT "HIGH
CRIMES," MEANS.
CRIMES," MEANS. BUT MANY ALSO DO LOOK TO WHAT
THE FOUNDERS MEANT.
AND TONIGHT, DEMOCRATS ARE
SAYING, IT IS THE EVIDENCE IN
TRUMP’S OWN WHITE HOUSE RECORDS,
THESE CALL NOTES, THAT REVEAL A
HIGH CRIME, THEY SAY, OF
PLOTTING TO USE GOVERNMENT POWER
TO GO AFTER A RIVAL, VIOLATING
THE COURT TRUST THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS.
PRESIDENT HAS. IN FACT, THAT’S HOW ALEXANDER
HAMILTON DEFINED AN IMPEACHABLE
CRIME, THAT IT WOULD INVOLVE THE
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME
PUBLIC TRUST.
PUBLIC TRUST. HE WROTE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AS
DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE.
NOW, APPLY SOME OF THAT TO THE
CONTEXT OF THE NEW EVIDENCE
THAT’S OUT TONIGHT AND THIS
CONGRESS THAT’S CONSIDERING
GOING FORWARD, A VOTE OR TWO
AWAY OF A MAJORITY FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT PROBE.
IMPEACHMENT PROBE. WELL, TRUMP’S OWN WHITE HOUSE
HAS DOCUMENTED HIM LEANING ON
FOREIGN PROSECUTORS, HIS OWN
LAWYER, GIULIANI, AND THE
SITTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES NOT AS STATED IN
THESE RECORDS FOR THE PUBLIC
GOOD, BUT TO TRY TO TAKE OUT A
POLITICAL RIVAL.
POLITICAL RIVAL. THE END GOAL BEING 2020.
AND DEMOCRATS ARE LOOKING
TONIGHT FOUNDING FATHER GEORGE
BAYSON, WHO TALKS ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT TO DEAL WITH A
PRESIDENT WHO TRIES TO GET
APPOINTED, AKA, ELECTED BY
CORRUPTING HIS, QUOTE, ELECTORS.
TOP DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING THAT A
PRESIDENT PRESSING A FOREIGN
POWER TO MEDDLE IN THE COMING
ELECTION IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
STRIKE ZONE OF THAT OR CONSIDER
EDMOND RANDOLPH SAY THAT IMPEACH
IS ALSO THERE TO ADDRESS A
PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER
THROUGH MILITARY FORCE OR PUBLIC
MONEY.
MONEY. WHICH IS WHY WE’RE HEARING THESE
REPORTS THAT PEOPLE AROUND
SPEAKER PELOSI, WHO WERE
SKEPTICAL FIND THIS NEWS
DIFFERENT.
DIFFERENT. THINK ABOUT THAT REFERENCE THERE
TO MONEY IN EXECUTING
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. AND THEN THINK ABOUT THE NEWS,
DONALD TRUMP WITHHOLDING MONEY,
YOUR MONEY, TAXPAYER MONEY FROM
UKRAINE.
UKRAINE. AND NOW YOU HAVE CONGRESS
CONSIDERING THIS.
CONSIDERING THIS. AND THEN THERE’S THE MISUSE OF
INTELLIGENCE.
INTELLIGENCE. CONSIDER FEDERALIST JAMES IREDEL
WHO SAYS, IT’S THE PRESIDENT’S
DUTY TO IMPART TO THE SENATE
EVERY MATERIAL INTELLIGENCE HE
RECEIVES.
RECEIVES. IF IT’S APPARENT THAT HE
CONCEALS INTELLIGENCE, THAT
COULD BE THE KIND OF ABUSE OF
POWER YOU IMPEACH ON.
NOW, WHAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT THIS
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS THAT
IT, AS INTELLIGENCE, AGAINST
FEDERAL LAW, ALMOST NEVER MADE
IT TO THE SENATE, BECAUSE OF THE
TRUMP ORDERS.
TRUMP ORDERS. AND NOW TODAY, AS I WAS JUST
DISCUSSING WITH THE CONGRESSMAN,
WELL, NOW IT’S GONE TO THE
SENATE AND THE HOUSE.
ONE MORE THING TO CONSIDER AS
CONGRESS GEARS UP FOR WHAT COULD
BE A TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION.
QUESTION. JAMES MADISON SAID IT LIKE THIS
IN 1787, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE
IMPEACHED IF HE MIGHT BETRAY HIS
TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.
THAT’S WHAT’S SO DIFFERENT HERE.
WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT RUSSIAN
COLLUSION, THERE’S A LOT OF
DEBATES ABOUT THAT AND I’VE
REPORTED HERE THAT BOB MUELLER
NEVER FOUND CRIMES RELATED TO AN
ELECTION CONSPIRACY.
ELECTION CONSPIRACY. EVERYTHING IN 2016 WAS ABOUT
SOMEONE WHO WASN’T PRESIDENT
YET, AND REMEMBER, WHOSE
CAMPAIGN WAS ON THE RECEIVING
END, ACCORDING TO OUR
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF A
RUSSIAN INFLUENCE OPERATION.
THIS WEEK, ON THE FACTS, IS AT
LEAST DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT
REVEALS THE PLOT TO COLLUDE,
BEGINNING NOT IN ANOTHER
COUNTRY, NOT IN RUSSIA, BUT IN
THE WHITE HOUSE, WITH A
PRESIDENT WHO DEMOCRATS SAY HAS
ALREADY BETRAYED THE TRUST OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BETRAYED
HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
AS I ALWAYS SAY AROUND HERE,
WE’RE JUST REPORTING THIS OUT.
WHAT CONGRESS WILL DO, WHETHER
THEY DO ANYTHING, WHETHER THOSE
WORDS OR OTHER WORDS APPLY,
WELL, WE WILL SEE.
BUT IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT, WHICH THE
FOUNDERS SAID WAS THERE TO
REMOVE PEOPLE ABUSING POWER.
AND SOMETHING THAT RACHEL MADDOW
SAID JUST LAST NIGHT ABOUT THIS
IS PRETTY INTERESTING, THAT ONLY
TWO PRESIDENTS, REMEMBER, HAVE
EVER BEEN IMPEACHED, JOHNSON AND
CLINTON, BY THE HOUSE, BUT THEY
WERE NEVER REMOVED BY THE
SENATE.
SENATE. TAKE A LOOK.
>> THERE ARE ONLY TWO INSTANCES
IN AMERICAN HISTORY IN WHICH A
U.S. PRESIDENT HAS BEEN
IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. THE ONE PROCESS THE CONSTITUTION
GIVES CONGRESS TO REMOVE A
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT
PROCESS HAS BEEN USED TWICE TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
NEITHER OF THOSE GUYS GOT
REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THOUGH.
THE ONE GUY WHO DID BASICALLY
GET REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE
OF THE THREAT OF THAT PROCESS,
HE, TECHNICALLY, WAS NEVER
IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. >> THAT’S RIGHT.
PRESIDENT NIXON, OBVIOUSLY,
RESIGNED, BECAUSE IT CAME BEFORE
THE SENATE OR HOUSE ACTUALLY HAD
TO ACT, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE GOING
THAT DIRECTION.
THAT DIRECTION. THE NIXON EXAMPLE, THOUGH, MAY
APPLY ALSO ON THE FACTS.
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS SAY WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM, IT WAS
ABUSES OF POWER WHILE NIXON WAS
PRESIDENT, NOT A CAMPAIGN, NOT
2016, TO CONSIDER THE CURRENT
EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE IN THE
MUELLER REPORT, AND CONSIDER IN
THAT ERA HOW CONGRESSWOMAN
BARBARA JORDAN LAID OUT THE
CASE, THIS WAS IN HER FAMOUS
OPENING REMARKS BEFORE SOMETHING
THAT NANCY PELOSI NOW SUPPORTS
IN THIS NEW CONTEXT, A HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERING
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE
AND BE AN IDLE SPECTATOR TO THE
SUBVERSION, THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUBJECT SOFT ITS
JURISDICTION ARE THOSE OFFENSES
WHICH PROCEED FROM THE
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEN, AND
THAT’S WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, FROM THE ABUSE
OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC
TRUST.
TRUST. IF THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES WILL NOT REACH THE
OFFENSES CHARGED HERE, THEN
PERHAPS THAT 18th CENTURY
CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE ABANDONED
TO A 20th CENTURY PAPER
SHREDDER.
SHREDDER. >> THE ARGUMENT THERE WAS CLEAR,
SHE SAW IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND
SAID, IF YOU DON’T SEE THAT LAID
OUT IN THE GROUNDS IN THE
CONSTITUTION, MAYBE YOU NEED A
NEW CONSTITUTION.
NEW CONSTITUTION. TONIGHT, SPEAKER PELOSI AND
OTHERS ARE SUGGESTING THAT IT IS
ACTUALLY THE CONSTITUTION AND
THOSE FEDERALIST PAPERS I JUST
QUOTED THAT BASICALLY EXPLAIN
WHY UKRAINE IS DIFFERENT,
BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP HAS
PUBLICLY ADMITTED AND PROVIDED
THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY SEE AS
A VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST,
TO QUOTE THE FOUNDERS, TO BETRAY
THE NATION.
THE NATION. PELOSI IS DECLARING THAT THE
DEMOCRATS ARE NOW INVOLVED IN
SOMETHING THAT SHE WAS NOT
SUPPORTING AS OF TWO DAYS AGO,
AND THAT HAS TIPPED THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE IN THE CAPITAL WHO ARE
APPROACHING A MAJORITY FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR THAT