Because the best trip is wherever we go together.
>>> THE QUESTION BEFORE THE is wherever we go together.
>>> THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
SENATE TODAY WAS, IS IT
CONSTITUTIONAL TO HOLD AN
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FOR A FORMER
PRESIDENT?
DONALD TRUMP’S LAWYERS ARGUED
TODAY THAT IT’S NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL TO DO THAT.
THEY SAY THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL CAN ONLY BE
HELD TO REMOVE A CURRENT
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE, SO IF
YOU’RE NOT A CURRENT PRESIDENT,
THE PROCEEDINGS CAN’T EVEN BE
CONVENED.
ONE OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
MANAGERS POINTED OUT ONE
SPECIFIC AND AWKWARD PROBLEM
WITH THAT ARGUMENT FROM
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEFENSE TEAM.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LEGAL TRIAL
BRIEF, 75-PAGE BRIEF, THEY
STRUGGLED TO FIND ANY PROFESSORS
TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION.
THEY DID CITE ONE PROFESSOR,
THOUGH.
PROFESSOR KALT, AN EXPERT IN
THIS FIELD, WHO THEY CLAIMED
AGREED WITH THEM THAT THE ONLY
PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT IS
REMOVAL.
PROFESSOR KALT’S POSITION, WHICH
THEY HAD TO HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE
IT’S IN THE ARTICLE THAT THEY
CITE IN THE BRIEF, IS THAT
REMOVAL IS, QUOTE, NOT THE SOLE
END OF IMPEACHMENT.
ACTUALLY, IN THAT SAME ARTICLE,
HE DESCRIBES THE VIEW ADVOCATED
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LAWYERS AS
HAVING DEEP FLAWS.
AND AGAIN, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
YOU CAN TAKE PROFESSOR KALT’S
WORD FOR IT, THE PROFESSOR THEY
CITED IN THEIR BRIEF, FILED
YESTERDAY, BECAUSE HE TWEETED
ABOUT IT.
ON THE SCREEN HERE, THIS IS WHAT
HE HAD TO SAY.
I’M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH IT
IN GREAT DETAIL.
I’M SIMPLY GIVE YOU THE
HIGHLIGHTS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BRIEF CITES MY
2001 ARTICLE ON LATE IMPEACHMENT
A LOT, BUT IN SEVERAL PLACES,
THEY MISREPRESENT WHAT I WROTE
QUITE BADLY.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF
SUCH FLAT OUT
MISREPRESENTATIONS.
THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO BE
DISINGENUOUS AND MISLEADING LIKE
THIS.
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS TODAY
MADE THEIR CASE THAT IT IS
ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL TO TRY A
FORMER PRESIDENT IN THE SENATE.
WE KNEW THEY WOULD DO THAT.
WE KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT WAS
THEIR TASK TODAY.
WE DIDN’T NECESSARILY EXPECT
THEY WOULD GET AGREEMENT ON THAT
TODAY FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR THAT DONALD TRUMP’S
DEFENSE TEAM CITED IN ITS
ARGUMENTS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS APPARENTLY
WON THE DAY TODAY.
THE VOTE WAS 56-44 IN FAVOR OF
GOING AHEAD WITH THE TRIAL.
SIX REPUBLICANS SIDED WITH ALL
OF THE DEMOCRATS TO GET THOSE 56
VOTES IN FAVOR.
THAT VOTE HAS IMMEDIATE
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CASE
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT MEANS THE TRIAL WILL GO
FORWARD.
DID THE SENATE ALSO MAKE A
LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TODAY IN
THAT VOTE THEY TOOK?
WHEN THEY AFFIRMED BY 56 VOTES
THAT A FORMER PRESIDENT CAN BE
TRIED IN THE SENATE ON
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, DOES THAT
MEAN FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLARS WHO STUDY THIS STUFF
THAT THIS IS NOW AT ALL A MORE
SETTLED QUESTION NOW THAT THE
SENATE HAS LOOKED AT THE ISSUE
AND WEIGHED IN ON A BINDING
VOTE?
JOINING US NOW IS PROFESSOR
BRIAN KALT, MICHIGAN STATE LAW
PROFESSOR, HIS WORK ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF FORMER OFFICIALS
IS CITED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
DEFENSE TEAM.
HE HAS SAID THEY MISREPRESENTED
WHAT HE WROTE, QUOTE, QUITE
BADLY.
A REAL PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU WITH
US TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING
TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> SO I HAVE READ SOME OF YOUR
SCHOLARSHIP ON THE MATTER, AND
IT’S CLEAR THAT AT LEAST FROM MY
NONLAWYER’S LAYMAN’S TAKE ON IT
THAT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT LATE
IMPEACHABILITY IS A THING THAT
CAN BE DONE, BUT YOU ENGAGE WITH
BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, LAID
OUT WHAT REASONABLE PEOPLE MIGHT
ARGUE ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT
CASE, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT’S
MAYBE WHERE THE PRESIDENT’S
DEFENSE TEAM CHERRY PICKED OR
GOT THINGS WRONG IN A WAY THAT
MISREPRESENTED YOUR TAKE.
IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO REPRESENT
IT?
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, THE HOUSE MANAGERS CITED
MY WORK EVEN MORE THAN TRUMP’S
LAWYERS DID.
THE ARTICLE, I WROTE IT IN 2001
BEFORE THERE WAS AN ACTUAL CASE,
AND WHERE WANTED TO LAY OUT ALL
OF THE EVIDENCE, AND IT WAS 124
PAGES LONG.
SO ALL THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH
SIDES.
THERE WAS PLENTY FOR BOTH SIDES
TO LOOK AT THERE.
THE PROBLEM WAS TRUMP’S LAWYERS
TOOK THINGS I WR I SAID, WELL,
YOU COULD ARGUE THIS.
HERE’S WHERE THAT’S WRONG.
AND THEY JUST TOOK THAT FIRST
PART.
YOU COULD ARGUE THIS, AND THEN
CITED ME AS THOUGH I AGREED WITH
THAT, WHEN REALLY, WHAT I WAS
DOING IS EXPLAINING WHY THAT WAS
WRONG.
>> LOOKING AT A WHOLE, AT THE
TWO SETS OF ARGUMENTS MADE TODAY
OVER THESE THREE-PLUS HOURS OF
ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS
ISSUE, WHAT DID YOU THINK?
DID YOU THINK THAT THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS PUT FORWARD
SUPERIOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENTS TO THOSE OF TRUMP’S
TEAM OR VICE VERSA?
HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT HOW THEY
ARGUED THIS, GIVEN YOUR
EXPERTISE ON THE SUBJECT?
>> I THOUGHT THEIR ARGUMENTS
WERE STRONGER.
I AGREE BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT I
SAID IN MY 2001 ARTICLE, BUT I
ALSO THINK THAT THEY ENGAGED IN
THE EVIDENCE MUCH MORE
EFFECTIVELY.
INSTEAD OF SAYING IT’S SIMPLE,
LOOK AT THE TEXT.
IT SAYS X, AND JUST SORT OF
ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION, THEY
DUG INTO IT.
THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO THE
ARGUMENT.
AND THEY PRESENTED THEIR SIDE, I
THOUGHT, MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY
THAN TRUMP’S LAWYERS PRESENTED
THE OTHER SIDE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SORT