ARTICLES IN EFFECT ARE STILL BEING HELD HOSTAGE TO WHAT KIND
OF TRIAL PROCEDURE THERE WILL BE
ACTUALLY IN THE SENATE.
>> LET’S GET INTO THE ARTICLES.
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> BECAUSE WITH YOUR WEALTH OF
EXPERIENCE, I THINK IT’S REALLY
USEFUL TO HEAR YOUR ANALYSIS AND
POTENTIAL DEFENSE ON BEHALF OF
THE PRESIDENT AS YOU LOOK AT
THESE ARTICLES.
THESE ARTICLES. HERE IS, OF COURSE, ARTICLE I,
THE ABUSE OF POWER.
LET ME READ YOU THE CORE OF IT.
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> SOLICIT THE INTERFERENCE OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
>> RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES THE
PRESIDENT’S BEST DEFENSE THAT
THAT’S TRUE OR NOT IMPEACHABLE?
OR YOU HAVE THE TO ARGUE THAT
IT’S NOT TRUE?
>> I THINK THE BEST DEFENSE
HONESTLY, FIRST OF ALL, IS WHAT
ARTICLES?
ARTICLES? THERE AREN’T ANY ARTICLES IN THE
SENATE.
SENATE. SO WE’RE NOT HAVING A TRIAL, AT
LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND SENATOR
McCONNELL UNLESS THERE IS A
CHANGE IN THE RULES, AND THERE
IS SOME DEBATE THAN WITH SENATOR
GRAHAM.
GRAHAM. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS
WHEN ARE THE ARTICLES GOING TO
GET THERE.
GET THERE. >> OKAY, THAT’S PROCEDURE.
BUT I’M PRESSING YOU ON THE
ACTUAL SUBSTANCE.
ACTUAL SUBSTANCE. >> FAIR ENOUGH.
LOOK, I THINK THE BEST DEFENSE
IS -- I’VE SAID FOR MANY, MANY
MONTHS BEFORE WE EVER WENT
THROUGH THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT
REPRESENTATIVES THAT WELL-FOUNDED ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT ALLEGE CRIMES.
IT SAYS HIGH CRIME FOR A REASON.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
HOUSE CHOSE TO PROCEED WITH
ARTICLES THAT DO NOT ALLEGE
BRIBERY, EXTORTION, OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
FINANCE VIOLATION.
FINANCE VIOLATION. >> YOU THINK IT WOULD BE
STRONGER HAD THEY GONE INTO
BRIBERY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE?
>> I THINK THEIR VIEW OF IT WAS
THEY DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE TO PASS
THROUGH THOSE HURDLES UNDER
FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW IN ORDER
TO PROVE THAT, WHICH LEADS ME TO
CONCLUDE THEY DIDN’T THINK THEY
COULD PROVE IT.
>> CAN I USE A NONLEGAL TERM?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> YOU SAYING THEY CHICKENED
OUT?
OUT? >> LOOK, I DON’T DISPARAGE THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVES. THEY PROCEED AS THEY DEEM
APPROPRIATE.
APPROPRIATE. NOW WE DEAL WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.
SO MY NEXT PROCEDURAL QUESTION
ALSO IS ARE THEY GOING WAIVE
WITH REGARD TO REOPENING THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RELATIVE
TO JOHN BOLTON?
>> YOU MENTIONED BRIBERY.
LET ME READ FROM ONE OTHER
ARTICLE FOR YOUR ANALYSIS.
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> IT SAYS A PRESIDENT
CONDITIONED THE $391 MILLION TO
OBTAIN THIS IMPROPER PERSONAL
BENEFIT.
BENEFIT. IT SEEMS TO ALLUDE TO BRIBERY
WITHOUT USING THE WORDS.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> AND DO YOU THINK THAT IS
TRUE?
TRUE? OR DO THEY HAVE TO, TO HAVE A
BEST DEFENSE, ARGUE THAT THAT
DIDN’T HAPPEN?
DIDN’T HAPPEN? BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF
EVIDENCE THAT IT DID.
>> I THINK THE BEST DEFENSE IS
TO SAY THAT THE IMPEACHMENT
MANAGERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
PROVE THAT THE AID WAS GIVEN IN
EXCHANGE FOR, YOU KNOW,
INVESTIGATIONS RELATIVE TO
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND
HIS SON.
HIS SON. >> BUT HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE
PRESIDENT ON WHITE HOUSE LAW
SAYING I WANTED THEM TO
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS?
SNORDS, AS A CLIENT, ANYONE
MAKING THIS CASE I THINK YOU
WOULD AGREE WOULD BE BETTER OFF
WITH A PRESIDENT WHO KIND OF
DIDN’T ADMIT AS MUCH.
>> THERE IS NOTHING WRONG ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT DOING SOMETHING
INDIRECTLY.
INDIRECTLY. WHAT HE’S ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED TO
DO DIRECTLY.
DO DIRECTLY. THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE
PRESIDENT SAYING THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, YOU KNOW,
LET’S GET LEGAL ASSISTANCE FROM
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD
TO A LAWFULLY CONSTITUTED
INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>> WHAT IF INSTEAD OF THAT HE
SAID I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE IT
ON TV SO IT MAKES THEM LOOK BAD.
>> THAT’S THIS WHOLE QUESTION
ABOUT WHAT WAS REALLY BEING
ASKED FOR HERE.
IS IT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION?
INVESTIGATION? WHAT YOU INTERPRET FROM THAT.
>> LET ME ASK YOU, THEY DIDN’T
FIRE GORD SONDLAND, THE
AMBASSADOR WHO SAID UNDER OATH
IT WAS THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
HE STILL WORK THERE’S.
YOU THINK IF THERE DEFENSE WAS
THAT’S NOT TRUE, DON’T THEY HAVE
TO SAY THAT AND GET RID OF HIM?
>> I THINK THE BETTER ARGUMENT
IS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO
IS LOCK IN THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT’S POSITION SO THEY
COULDN’T WALK THAT BACK.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION AND RECEIVING SOME
COMMITMENT.
COMMITMENT. AND ON HIS OWN, OR THROUGH THE
ADMINISTRATION, WITHHOLDING AID
TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO.
WHAT’S ILLEGAL IS EXPRESSLY
CONDITIONING ON IT THAT ONLY ONE
WILL BE DONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
OTHER.
OTHER. THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT BRIBERY.
I THINK THAT’S WHY THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AVOIDED AN
ALLEGATION THAT IT CONSTITUTED
BRIBERY UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
>> WE’RE OUT OF TIME.
AND AS YOU KNOW FROM EARLIER IN
THE BROADCAST, SENECA SAID THE
ISSUE IS WASTE:00 TIME.
I’M OUT OF TIME.
NOW THAT’S MY BEST SENECA
REFERENCE.
REFERENCE. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ONE.
>> LOOK, BEING SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
>> I HOPE WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE
JUDGED AT THE END OF THIS ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT WE ACTED IN THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY.
I DO THINK IT’S TIME FOR THE
ARTICLES TO COME OVER FOR THE
SENATE AND GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
PROCESS. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.