>> Bill: I'M BILL HEMMER.
LAST HOUR HOUR TOGETHER, KID.
LET'S ROCK IT.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
SWEARINGEN SENATORS, ONLY THE
THIRD TIME IN OUR NATIONS
HISTORY.
THIS IS THE ONE TIME GIULIANI
ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS CLAIMING AN
ATTORNEY MADE A VISIT TO HIM IN
JAIL AND ASKED HIM TO FALL ON
HIS SWORD.
>> I DIDN'T FEEL THEY WERE
TRYING TO GET ME OUT.
AT THAT POINT, I HAD A MEETING
WITH JOHN DOWD INSIDE THE JAIL.
JOHN DOWD, INSTEAD OF COMFORTING
ME AND TRYING TO CALM ME DOWN,
TELLING ME IT'S GOING TO BE
OKAY, DON'T WORRY, BASICALLY
STARTS TALKING TO ME LIKE A
DRILL SERGEANT.
"IF YOU DON'T GET OUT OF HERE
RIGHT NOW, SOMETHING BAD IS
GOING TO HAPPEN."
AT THAT POINT DOWNING HIT THE
EMERGENCY BUTTON.
>> WHERE THEY TELL YOU TO
SACRIFICE YOURSELF IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I FELT.
>> Sandra: LET'S GET RIGHT TO
IT WITH OUR HEADLINER THIS
MORNING, TREY GOWDY.
FORMER HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN OF FOX NEWS
CONTRIBUTOR.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE WHEN YOU
HEAR THAT?
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOUR
VIEWERS TO LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE
INTERVIEW, NOT JUST THE
SNIPPETS.
REMEMBER, PARNAS WAS UPSET
BECAUSE HE EXPECTED GIULIANI AND
TRUMP TO COME TO HIS DEFENSE.
THIS IS A GUIDE CHARGED WITH
FALSIFYING RECORDS, MAKING THE
FALSE STATEMENT, CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD.
JOHN DOWD IS NOT TRUMP'S WHERE
THE DOUGH MY FORMER LAWYER.
THAT'S NOT
HOW I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THEM.
HE IS PARNAS' HANDPICKED LAWYER.
THAT'S WHO HIRED HIM, LEV
PARNAS.
IF HE'S UPSET HE HIRED THESE
TWO, HE'S GOT NOBODY TO BOOM IT
HIMSELF.
HE WANTED GIULIANI AND TRUMP TO
COME TO HIS DEFENSE, IN THESE
THREE CHARGES THAT HE'S FACING.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S UPSET.
YOU ONLY GET THAT FROM WATCHING
THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW, NOT FROM
READING THE STORIES AND
LISTENING TO THAT SNIPPET.
>> Bill: WAS HE ASKED
PRECISELY -- IF HE SAID THE
PRESIDENT KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE
WAS DOING, AS HE DESCRIBED WHAT
THESE MEETINGS WERE ABOUT OR
CONVERSATIONS WERE ABOUT, HAVE
YOU HEARD THAT YOU?
>> YOU KNOW, BILL, WHAT I DIDN'T
HEAR WAS THE FOLLOW-UP.
OPEN GROUP WITH TOTAL CERTITUDE
YOU SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW WE
WERE DOING.
CONVINCE US OF THAT.
GIVE US THE EVIDENCE."
REMEMBER, HE ALSO SAID BILL BARR
WAS IN THE LOOP.
WHEN CITED FOR EVIDENCE, HE SAID
-- AND HIS NAME WAS MENTIONED IN
THE TRANSCRIPT.
IF THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU
HAVE THAT BILL BARR IS PART OF A
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES AND GET A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A
POLITICAL OPPONENT, IF THE ONLY
EVIDENCE YOU HAVE IS WHO HE'S
FRIENDS WITH, AND HIS NAME IS
MENTIONED IN THE TRANSCRIPT,
THAT AIN'T MUCH EVIDENCE, BILL.
I NEED TO HEAR THE FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT KNOCKING PEOPLE IN YOUR
LINE OF WORK.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT INTERVIEW
STYLE.
WITH THE WAY LAWYERS INTERVIEW
PEOPLE, WHEN YOU CROSS-EXAMINE
THEM, PARNAS GAVE THREE
DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THE SAME
QUESTION ABOUT MIKE PENCE.
HIS FIRST ANSWER, "I'M
ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN HE KNEW ABOUT
IT."
THREE SECONDS LATER, "WELL HE
HAD TO HAVE, RIGHT," AND THEN,
"IT'S POSSIBLE."
THOSE DON'T DO WELL THE
COURTROOM, THEY DO GREAT IF
YOU'RE WRITING HEADLIGHTS.
THEY DO NOT DO WELL IN THE
COURTROOM.
SPEECH AND ITS ABILITY TO RULE
OUT TALKING TO HIM IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO THINK
THE IMPACT OF THOSE INTERVIEWS
WILL HAVE AS THIS IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL IS OFFICIALLY UNDERWAY NO
NOW?
>> I WAS STUNNED AT HOW LITTLE
IT TAKES, IN SPEAKER PELOSI'S
EYES, TO CALL FOR SPECIAL
COUNSEL.
A UKRAINIAN UNDER INDICTMENT
THAT NOBODY WOULD HAVE BELIEVED
SIX MONTHS AGO, IS THAT IT'S
POSSIBLE BILL BARR MAY HAVE BEEN
IN ON IT BASED ON THE FACT THAT
HIS NAME WAS IN A TRANSCRIPT.
AND SHE IS WILLING TO CALL FOR
SPECIAL COUNSEL.
I THINK THE THRESHOLD FOR
BESMIRCHING SOMEONE'S
REPUTATION, PARTICULARLY
SOMETHING LIKE BILL BARR, OUGHT
TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN
RELYING ON 1 OF 6 OR SEVEN
DIFFERENT ANSWERS THAT LEV PARNS
GAVE TO THE SAME QUESTION
AND IN AN MSNBC INTERVIEW.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE LEV
PARNAS THE CENTER OF YOUR
PROSECUTION, YOU'RE OPENING
YOURSELF UP TO HAVING TO CALL
THE HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES WHO
HAVE AN OPINION ON HIS VERACITY
AND CREDIBILITY.
SO IT'S NOT JUST LEV PARNAS WHO
WAS A WITNESS, IT'S ANYONE WHO
HAS AN OPINION ON HIS
CREDIBILITY.
WERE UP TO WHAT, 27 WITNESSES?
HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN WE FIND TO
SAY THEY DON'T BELIEVE
LEV PARNAS?
WE DON'T BELIEVE HIM UNDER OATH.
NOW THE SIX WEEK TRIAL IS A SIX
MONTH TRIAL.
>> Bill: GENERALLY SPEAKING,
AND BASED ON THAT ANSWER, DO YOU
THINK THEY USE WITNESSES IN THIS
TRIAL OR NOT?
WHAT IS THE AGREED-UPON
DECISION, DO YOU THINK?
>> I THINK THEY DON'T.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, "WE WANT
JOHN BOLTON BUT WE DON'T WANT
THIS WITNESS.
WE WANT MICK MULVANEY BUT WE
DON'T WANT THIS WITNESS."
EITHER CALL THEM ALL OR MAKE THE
HOUSE DO WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE
DONE, WHICH IS TALK TO ALL OF
THESE WITNESSES THEMSELVES.
THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE
CHARGING POWER.
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO MADE THE
DECISION NOT TO CALL MIKE POMPEO
OR MICK MULVANEY OR JOHN BOLTON
OR RUDY GIULIANI.
EITHER CALL THE WITNESSES OR
DON'T CALL ANY OF THE WITNESSES,
AND MAKE THE HOUSE PROVE ITS
CASE BASED ON WHAT IT HAS.
>> Bill: LET'S MOVE TO
CHUCK SCHUMER, HE SAID THIS
YESTERDAY AFTER HE WATCHED CHIEF
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND OTHERS.
>> PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS
ACCUSED OF COERCING A FOREIGN
LEADER INTO INTERFERING IN OUR
ELECTIONS, AND DOING EVERYTHING
IT HAS POWER TO COVER IT UP.
THESE ARE EXACTLY THE KIND OF
OFFENSES THE FOUNDER'S FEARED.
THIS IS WHAT THE NATION HAS
FEARED FOR CENTURIES, AND REFUTE
TODAY MORE THAN EVER.
WITH THIS PRESIDENT.
>> Bill: WE ARE GOING TO HEAR
ON TUESDAY THE CASE BEGIN AT
1:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THE MEAT OF
THE CASE IS NOT PRESENT THE
MAYBE EVEN THURSDAY OF NEXT
WEEK.
DEMOCRATS WILL GO FIRST, THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM WILL
FOLLOW THAT.
IF YOU'RE ON THE WHITE HOUSE
DEFENSE TEAM, TREY, HOW DO YOU
FRAME HIS DEFENSE BEFORE THOSE
HUNDRED SENATORS?
>> THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE TRANSCRIPT IS THE SINGLE
BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE THE
PRESIDENT HAS.
WHO BROUGHT UP RUDY GIULIANI'S
NAME?
IT WASN'T DONALD TRUMP.
IT WAS RESIDENT ZELINSKI.
THIS WAS THE SECOND CALL, BUT
NOT THE FIRST CALL.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP
WERE REALLY HELL-BENT ON
ENSURING THAT THE UKRAINE AND
ESCAPE THE BIDENS, WOULD HE NOT
HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP IN THE
FIRST TELEPHONE CALL HE HAD WITH
ZELENSKY?
WAIT WAIT FOR THE SECOND?
WHO BROUGHT UP BILL BARR AND
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WAS HIS
NAME BROUGHT UP?
I THINK THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
SINGLE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS.
LAYING ASIDE THE REALITY THAT
THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATION, THERE WAS NO
INVESTIGATION, AND THE AIDE WAS
ULTIMATELY RELEASED.
I DON'T THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE
A GREAT CASE FOR CONVICTION.
ALSO THEY WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED
TO FIND FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS
JURY THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY MADE
UP THEIR MINDS.
>> Sandra: BREAKING NEWS HERE,
WE ARE STARTING TO GET A LOOK AT
WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM
LOOKS LIKE ANY OF THIS FROM OUR
OWN JOHN ROBERTS REPORTING JUST
A FEW MOMENTS AGO.
PAT CIPOLLONE OF COURSE, THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
JAY SEKULOW, KEN STARR, FORMER
FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR, WILL BE
PARTING WAYS WITH THE NETWORK.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ROBERT RAY, PAM
BONDI, AND JANE RASKIN.
I WANT TO GET YOUR IMMEDIATE
THOUGHTS IN REACTION TO THAT,
TREY.
>> ALL GOOD LAWYERS.
WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN
HAVING GOOD LAWYERS IS HAVING
GOOD FACTS.
THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD
LAWYERS.
JOHN RATCLIFFE I THINK WOULD
HAVE BEEN A GREAT ADDITION IF
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEMBER OF
THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF HIS
BACKGROUND AS A U.S. ATTORNEY.
THEY ARE GOOD TRIAL LAWYERS.
THEY ARE FOLKS THAT ARE GOOD IN
FRONT OF A JURY, AND KEN STARR
WAS ONE OF THE PREMIER APPELLATE
ADVOCATES IN THE COUNTRY.
I'M NOT SURE THAT HE WOULD TELL
YOU HE WAS A GREAT TRIAL LAWYER,
BUT I THINK PAT CIPOLLONE AND
JAY SEKULOW WOULD BE REALLY GOOD
TRIAL LAWYERS.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S GOT A
REALLY GOOD MIX.
BUT WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN
HAVING GOOD LAWYERS IS GOOD
FACTS.
>> Bill: PAT CIPOLLONE, WE
HEARD THE NAME BEFORE.
JAY SEKULOW, WE EXPECTED THAT.
BUT THE ADDITION OF KEN STARR IN
HIS EXPERIENCE IS INTERESTING.
ROBERT RAY I BELIEVE WORKED WITH
KEN STARR DURING THE 1990s,
DURING THAT CASE.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS A NAME THAT
HAD BEEN FLOATED OUT THERE BUT
REALLY WAS NOT CONFIRMED UNTIL
TODAY.
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THEY
MAKE GOOD LAWYERS IN A PUBLIC
VENUE.
DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY ON THA
THAT?
>> ONLY ONE LAWYER CAN TALK AT A
TIME, SO IDEALLY THE OTHERS ARE
THINKING WHAT EYE IS TALKING.
WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IS SEVERAL
DIFFERENT LAWYERS TRYING TO MAKE
A CONNECTION WITH THE JURY OR
THE PUBLIC, IN THIS CASE, IF YOU
THINK THE PUBLIC IS THE JURY.
I EXPECT JAY AND PAT TO TAKE THE
LEAD IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATING
AND I EXPECT THE OTHERS TO BE
THINKING WHILE THEY ARE TALKING.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ I'M SURE IS A
GREAT CON LAW PROFESSOR.
I'M SURE THEY WEIGHT AND BALANCE
THE PLUSES AND MINUSES OF ADDING
HIM TO THE TEAM.
BUT YOU CAN ONLY TALK ONE AT A
TIME, AND I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF
PAT AND JAY DID NOT DO MOST OF
THE TALKING AND THIS TRIAL.
>> Sandra: AS FAR AS THE
TIMING OF THIS TRIAL IS
CONCERNED, TREY, THEY ARE
ESTIMATING IT COULD BE AS MUCH
AS SIX WEEKS.
WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF TIME?
>> GOD HELP US IF IT LASTS SIX
WEEKS.
THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER, SO
IT'S ADAM SCHIFF JUMP TO PRESENT
THE CASE.
IT SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG.
I DON'T NEED HIM TO READ THE
DEPOSITIONS TO ME, THE JURY CAN
CARRY THEMSELVES.
IF THEY OPEN IT UP TO WITNESSES,
THERE ARE REPUBLICANS THAT WANT
FOUR OR FIVE OTHER WITNESSES, IT
COULD LAST SIX WEEKS.
SANDRA, I JUST HAVE NOT MET
ANYONE WHOSE OPINION HAS CHANGED
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS
INVESTIGATION.
I CAN'T IDENTIFY -- MAYBE THREE
OPEN-MINDED JURORS IN THE U.S.
SENATE.
I JUST DON'T, NO MATTER HOW LONG
IT LASTS, I DON'T THINK IT'LL
CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND IN THE
SENATE WERE AMONG MY FELLOW
CITIZENS.
THE SHORTER THE BETTER.
>> Bill: I DIDN'T NEED TO CUT
YOU OFF.
DID YOU WANT TO GIVE US A
TIME FRAME?
>> NO COMMISSARY.
>> Sandra: YOU ARE PREDICTING
WHAT?
>> I AM SAYING TWO WEEKS.
IF IT GOES SIX WEEKS, THEY WILL
HAVE TO MAKE SMART DECISIONS ON
WHICH WITNESSES ARE IMPORTANT
ENOUGH TO HEAR FROM AND WHICH
ONES -- THEY MAY HAVE RELEVANT
EVIDENCE, WE JUST DON'T -- I
THINK IN TERMS OF A REAL TRIAL.
WHY WOULD YOU EVER NOT CALL A
WITNESS THAT WITNESS HAS
RELEVANT INFORMATION?
HOW DO YOU PICK WHICH ONES TO
CALL AND WHICH ONES NOT TO?
YOU CAN NEVER DO THAT IN A REAL
TRIAL.
IF WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THIS
THING UP A NEW TO A BRAND-NEW
INVESTIGATION, CALL EVERYBODY.
GOD KNOWS HOW LONG THAT'LL TAKE.
>> Bill: LAST TOPIC,
JAMES COMEY APPARENTLY UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR LEAKING THIS
TRUST DOCUMENT.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" BROKE THE
STORY LAST NIGHT.
YOU READ IT, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF
IT, SIR?
>> BILL, I'M NOT A FAN OF
JIM COMEY'S, BUT I AM A FAN OF
BEING FAIR.
EVEN TO PEOPLE WHO I DON'T
PERSONALLY LIKE.
I AM FAMILIAR WITH THIS.
I'M ALMOST CERTAIN IT CAME UP AT
A HOUSE UNTIL CLASSIFIED
BRIEFING.
COMEY WOULD NOT DISCUSS IT.
HE WOULDN'T DISCUSS IT EVEN
THOUGH IT BENEFITED THEM TO
DISCUSS IT.
LET ME BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR
TO ALL OF MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS,
I'M NOT A COMEY FAN.
BUT I'M ALSO NOT A FAN OF
INDICTING AND CONVICTING PEOPLE
BASED ON "NEW YORK TIMES"
REPORTING.
HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US
ABOUT THAT FACT PATTERN AND HE
DID THE HABIT EVEN THOUGH IT
WOULD HAVE BENEFITED HIM.
I WOULD BE REALLY SURPRISED IF
JIM COMEY COMMITTED A FELONY,
AND LEAKING THIS INFORMATION,
WHEN HE DIDN'T EVEN SHARE IT