PRESIDENT WILL NOT LIKE, AND WE WILL BE JOINED BY A REPORTER WHO
WILL BRING US THOSE BIGGEST
MOMENTS FROM THE Q&A A LITTLE
BIT LATER.
BIT LATER. BUT FIRST TONIGHT, HE KNEW.
NEW REPORTING FROM "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WEEKS
BEFORE NEWS OF THE COMPLAINT WAS
MADE PUBLIC.
MADE PUBLIC. QUOTE, TRUMP HAD ALREADY BEEN
BRIEFED ON A WHISTLE-BLOWER’S
COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS DEALINGS
WITH UKRAINE WHEN HE UNFROZE
MILITARY AID FOR THE COUNTRY IN
SEPTEMBER, ACCORDING TO TWO
PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH THE MATTER.
LAWYERS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL’S OFFICE TOLD MR. TRUMP
IN LATE AUGUST ABOUT THE
COMPLAINT EXPLAINING THEY WERE
TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY
WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO GIVE IT
TO CONGRESS.
TO CONGRESS. ACCORDING TO "THE TIMES" IT IS
UNCLEAR HOW MUCH DETAIL THE
LAWYERS PROVIDED TRUMP ABOUT THE
COMPLAINT, BUT THIS DOES MEAN
THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD ACCUSED HIM
OF WRONGDOING BEFORE HE TOLD EU
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND THERE
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.
AND BEFORE HE ORDERED THE
UKRAINE AID TO BE RELEASED.
AS THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION
MOVES FORWARD, SOMETHING WE’LL
GET TO IN A MOMENT.
AND THE WALLS CONTINUE TO CLOSE
IN ON THE PRESIDENT, IT SEEMS NO
ONE NOT EVEN ONE OF HIS CLOSEST
ALLIES IS IMMUNE FROM GETTING
THROWN UNDER THE BUS.
HERE’S TRUMP IN AN INTERVIEW
WITH BILL O’REILLY TALKING ABOUT
RUDY GIULIANI.
RUDY GIULIANI. >> WHAT WAS RUDY GIULIANI DOING
IN UKRAINE ON YOUR BEHALF?
>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO ASK THAT TO
RUDY BUT RUDY -- I DON’T EVEN
KNOW -- I KNOW HE WAS GOING TO
GO TO UKRAINE AND I THINK HE
CANCELED THE TRIP.
BUT, YOU KNOW, RUDY HAS OTHER
CLIENTS OTHER THAN ME.
I’M ONE --
>> SO YOU DIDN’T DIRECT HIM TO
GO THERE ON YOUR BEHALF?
>> NO.
>> NO. >> RUDY HAS OTHER CLIENTS.
BUCKLE UP, RUDY GIULIANI.
LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT.
DESPITE HOURS OF INTERVIEWS AND
DOZENS OF QUESTIONS ON UKRAINE
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS
INCLUDING AN HOUR ON FOX JUST
THE OTHER DAY, THE PRESIDENT HAS
NEVER SAID THAT BEFORE.
AND THIS WHOLE BUS MEET RUDY
THING IS COMING JUST DAYS AFTER
GIULIANI ONCE AGAIN MADE THIS
STRANGE REMARK ABOUT WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF HE WAS EVER THROWN
UNDER THE BUS.
>> YOU CAN ASSUME THAT I TALKED
TO HIM EARLY AND OFTEN.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> AND HAVE A VERY, VERY GOOD
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM.
AND ALL OF THESE COMMENTS WHICH
ARE TOTALLY INSULTING, I MEAN
I’VE SEEN THINGS WRITTEN LIKE
HE’S GOING TO THROW ME UNDER THE
BUS.
BUS. WHEN I SAY THAT I SAY HE ISN’T
BUT I HAVE INSURANCE.
>> I HAVE INSURANCE.
STAY TUNED FOR WHAT RUDY SAYS IN
RESPONSE TO TRUMP’S LATEST
COMMENTS.
COMMENTS. AND LESS WE FORGET ALL THIS IS
HAPPENING WHILE WE ARE ONE BIG
STEP CLOSER TO SEEING POSSIBLE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DRAWN UP
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
THE TITLE OF THE HEARING, THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. A DEMOCRATIC AIDE TELLS NBC NEWS
THAT THE WITNESSES FOR THIS
FIRST HEARING WILL BE ACADEMICS
LIKE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AND
IMPEACHMENT EXPERTS.
IMPEACHMENT EXPERTS. JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
JERRY NADLER SENT A LETTER TO
TRUMP ASKING WHETHER HE AND HIS
COUNSEL PLAN TO ATTEND THE
HEARING AND QUESTION WITNESSES.
CHAIRMAN NADLER REMINDED THE
PRESIDENT HOUSE RULES DO ENTAIL
HIM AS CHAIRMAN TO CURTAIL THAT,
IF QUOTE YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE
TO MAKE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
AVAILABLE RELATED TO THE
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. IN HIS LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN NADLER WRITES I REMIND
YOU THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF
THE PRESIDENT OR HIS COUNSEL HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE COMMITTEE
IN PAST INQUIRIES AS NOT A RIGHT
BUT A PRIVILEGE OR COURTESY
WHICH IS BEING EXTENDED TO THE
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL.
PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. I AM HOPEFUL YOU AND YOUR
COUNSEL WILL OPT TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE COMMITTEE’S HEARING
CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF
DECORUM AND WITH THE SOLEMN
NATURE OF THE WORK BEFORE US.
THIS HEARING WILL LIKELY TAKE
PLACE JUST AS THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SENDS ITS
WRITTEN REPORT SUMMARIZING THE
FINDINGS OF ITS INVESTIGATION
INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EFFORTS
TO ENLIST UKRAINE INTO
DISCREDITING HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL.
RIVAL. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
EXPECTED TO USE THAT REPORT TO
DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN
THE COMING WEEK.
I SPOKE EARLIER WITH CONGRESSMAN
MADELEINE DEAN, A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ABOUT WHAT
SHE WILL BE LOOKING FOR AS THIS
PROCESS UNFOLDS.
PROCESS UNFOLDS. >> I BELIEVE I HAVE TO BE AS
THOUGHTFUL AS POSSIBLE.
THAT’S WHY I WANT TO SEE THE
REPORT.
REPORT. I WANT TO READ AND DIGEST THE
REPORT AND SEE WHERE IT LEADS
US.
US. BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE TO COMBINE
IS THE EVIDENCE.
IT COULD BE ONE ARTICLE, THREE
ARTICLES, IT COULD BE FOUR.
BUT THEN THE EVIDENCE AND THE
JUDICIARY MATCHES THAT TO THE
LAW.
LAW. I SWORE ON JANUARY 3rd I WOULD
UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES. SO I WANT TO SEE ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE, NOT PREJUDGE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT.
OF IMPEACHMENT. PUT MERIT TO THE CONSTITUTION AS
WELL AS MY OWN OATH.
>> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION
TONIGHT IS JILL WINE-BANKS,
FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND LEGAL
ANALYST.
ANALYST. AND NEERA TANDEN, AND BILL
CRYSTAL, EDITOR AT LARGE FOR THE
BULLWORK AND DIRECTOR AND SERVED
IN SENIOR POSITIONS OF THE
REAGAN AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS.
EVERYONE, WELCOME.
EVERYONE, WELCOME. IT’S HARD TO BEGIN BUT I THINK
THE BIGGEST HEADLINE, JILL, IS
THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IN
LATE AUGUST.
LATE AUGUST. THAT MEANS HE KNEW ABOUT IT
BEFORE HE SPOKE TO GORDON
SONDLAND, THE EU AMBASSADOR
SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO
QUO.
QUO. HE KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE HE
RELEASED THE AID.
IF YOU WERE A PROSECUTOR WORKING
ON IMPEACHMENT, IF YOU WERE A
LAWMAKER OR HOUSE COUNSEL
WORKING ON IMPEACHMENT, WHAT
WOULD YOU BE ASKING?
>> I WOULD HAVE ALREADY ASSUMED
THAT WHAT YOU’VE SAID WAS TRUE
TO BEGIN WITH.
THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON FOR
THE RELEASE OF THE MONEY EXCEPT
THAT THEY GOT CAUGHT RED-HANDED.
SO I’D BE ASKING FOR ALL THE
DETAILS FROM THE OMB ABOUT THE
WITHHOLDING OF THE RELEASE OF
IT.
IT. I’D ALSO BE TRYING TO LET THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE
BUDGET ACT THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL
TO WITH HOLD MONEY THAT HAD BEEN
APPROPRIATED FOR A SPECIFIC
PURPOSE WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR
AND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH DOING
THAT.
THAT. AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE A TIME
LINE THAT HAS BECOME MORE AND
MORE AND MORE CONVINCING THAT
THERE’S NO CONCLUSION BUT THAT
DONALD TRUMP ACTED FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL INTERESTS AND AGAINST
THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC.
PUBLIC. AND THAT’S WHERE WE’RE AT IS
THAT HE HAS COMMITTED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, ALTHOUGH
THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED, AND
THAT’S WHAT THE HEARINGS IN
DECEMBER ARE FOR IS TO DEFINE --
AND THAT’S VERY MUCH WHAT
HAPPENED IN WATERGATE.
THE FIRST PART OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WAS DEFINING WHAT IS A
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, WHAT
IS AN IMPEACHABLE ACT, SO THAT’S
AN IMPORTANT STARTING POINT.
>> BILL, THIS HAS BEEN A
REPUBLICAN DEFENSE, IT’S BEEN
THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE THAT
THEY RELEASE THE AID, THERE
CAN’T BE A QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO QUID HERE, THERE
WAS NO PRO QUO PART IT.
THERE WAS NO FAVOR IN RETURN FOR
THE FAVOR.
THE FAVOR. BUT THIS SHOWS THERE WAS A
REALLY -- AND WE’D ALREADY KNOWN
THIS, BUT THERE’S AN EVEN MORE
SUSPECT TIME LINE.
WE ALREADY KNEW THE I.G. SENT
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT TO
CONGRESS TWO DAYS BEFORE THE
PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID AND
THAT THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND TWO
OTHER COMMITTEES STARTED AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THIS TWO DAYS
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT RELEASED
THE AID.
THE AID. NOW WE’RE LEARNING THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF KNEW ABOUT THIS
COMPLAINT IN LATE AUGUST.
WHAT DOES THIS DO TO THE
REPUBLICAN DEFENSE?
REPUBLICAN DEFENSE? >> YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT HE MAY
HAVE WELL HAVE PARTICIPATED IN
TRYING TO PREVENT THE REPORT
FROM GETTING OUT AND GETTING TO
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. I THINK THE COVER-UP OF THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORT IS ANOTHER
THING -- IT’LL BECOME CLEAR IN
THE NEXT FEW DAYS AND REALLY IS
CLEAR ALREADY THERE WAS A REAL
COVER-UP IN ADDITION TO THE
EXTORTION -- THE ATTEMPT TO
EXTORT FROM UKRAINE
INFORMATION -- FALSE INFORMATION
PROBABLY ABOUT JOE BIDEN.
I MEAN, TRUMP GETS TOLD ABOUT
THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORT, THAT
SEEMS A LITTLE ODD.
AND REMEMBER THEY DON’T SEND IT
TO THE HILL, RIGHT?
AND DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE McGWIRE TESTIFIES
AND WON’T SAY.
IT’S OBVIOUS WHEN TRUMP TALKS TO
SONDLAND AND READS THAT
STATEMENT THERE’S NO QUID PRO
QUO HERE, THAT’S BEEN WRITTEN BY
A LAWYER IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
THERE’S A REAL COVER-UP HERE AS
WELL AS AN ABUSE OF POWER.
>> DOES ANYF OF THIS MATTER TO
REPUBLICANS?
REPUBLICANS? DOES ANY REVELATION MATTER TO
REPUBLICANS?
REPUBLICANS? >> YEAH, IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT
THE FACTS AND DECIDE YOU’RE
GOING INTO YOUR TRIBAL DEFENSE
OF THE PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT.
IT IS STRIKING.
IT’S TWO MONTHS SINCE THIS STORY
REALLY BROKE.
REALLY BROKE. PUBLIC OPINION HAS MOVED MORE
THAN PEOPLE EXPECTED, A.
B, I DO THINK TRUMP HAS BEHAVED
MORE AND MORE ERRATICALLY AND
REALLY REMINDED ANY REPUBLICAN
WHO HAS THE EYES TO WANT TO SEE
HOW DANGEROUS IT IS REALLY FOR
HIM TO BE IN OFFICE, HONESTLY.
I THINK THE PARDON OF THE WAR
CRIMINALS, THE NOW SORT OF
PRAISING OF THEM AND ATTACKING
THE ENTIRE MILITARY SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE AS SOMEHOW THE DEEP
STATE THAT WAS OUT TO GET THESE
PEOPLE, I MEAN PEOPLE -- I DON’T
KNOW.
KNOW. I’VE TALK TODAY A LOT OF THESE
MEMBERS.
MEMBERS. THERE ARE A FEW.
THERE ARE MORE THAN PEOPLE
REALIZE I THINK WHO ARE OPEN
PERHAPS TO VOTING FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. THEY’RE GOING TO KEEP VERY QUIET
TO THE END BECAUSE THEY JUST GET
PUMMELLED IF THEY STICK THEIR
HEAD OUT.
HEAD OUT. I’VE GOT TO SAY THE NUMBER OF
CONSERVATIVE JOURNALISTS AND
SORT OF WRITERS, THE NUMBER OF
REPUBLICANS ALL OVER THE PLACE
WHO JUST DECIDED TO THROW IN
WITH TRUMP IS DEPRESSING.
>> LET’S TALK ABOUT RUDY
GIULIANI, NEERA.
GIULIANI, NEERA. THE PRESIDENT WAS ON WITH BILL
O’REILLY A LITTLE BIT EARLIER
TODAY, FORMERLY OF FOX NEWS.
AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING WHEN
THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO TRY
TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM RUDY
GIULIANI.
GIULIANI. HE HADN’T DONE IT UNTIL SUDDENLY
TODAY.
TODAY. LET’S LISTEN.
LET’S LISTEN. >> RUDY GIULIANI, BUT HE’S YOUR
PERSONAL LAWYER.
PERSONAL LAWYER. GIULIANI IS YOUR PERSONAL
LAWYER.
LAWYER. SO YOU DIDN’T DIRECT HIM TO GO
TO CREW CRANE OR PUT THE HEAT ON
HIM?
HIM? >> NO, I DIDN’T DIRECT HIM BUT
HE’S A WARRIOR.
RUDY’S A LAWYER.
RUDY WENT -- BUT YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND RUDY HAS OTHER PEOPLE
HE REPRESENTS.
HE REPRESENTS. >> YEAH, HE HAS A BIG FIRM THAT
DOESN’T WORK.
DOESN’T WORK. >> I THINK HE’S DONE WORK IN
UKRAINE FOR YEARS.
>> ISN’T IT INTERESTING AND A
REAL COINCIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF MENTIONED
THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th.
AND THEN RUDY GIULIANI JUST ALSO
HAPPENED TO BE LOOKING INTO THE
SAME THING BUT IT WASN’T
DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT?
NEERA, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> I MEAN, I WOULD -- IF I WERE
RUDY GIULIANI, I WOULD LOOK AT
DONALD TRUMP’S PATTERN OF
LOYALTY AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN FIRED BY DONALD TRUMP OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND
PERHAPS WHEN HE’S IN REAL LEGAL
JEOPARDY -- TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT
THIS THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK HAS A REAL
INVESTIGATION OF RUDY GIULIANI.
THEY HAVE -- I MEAN AS FAR AS WE
CAN TELL THEY HAVE ALREADY
INDICTED TWO PEOPLE, AND THEY
SEEM TO BE DOING AN EXTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WHO HAS USED THE DOJ TO
AS BASICALLY HIS OWN PERSONAL
LEGAL FIRM REFUSES TO PROTECT
RUDY, I THINK THAT’S A VERY BAD
SIGN FOR RUDY GIULIANI.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE ONE THING
BILL SAID WHICH IS WE ARE
LEARNING FACTS, OBVIOUSLY, IN
REALTIME.
REALTIME. BUT WE SHOULD BE CLEAR.
THE COVER-UP IS SOMETHING THAT
IS A NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION.
THE FACT THAT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER’S COMPLAINT WAS
ESSENTIALLY HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS
SEEMINGLY AT THE DIRECTION OF
DONALD TRUMP WHO WAS THE SUBJECT
OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT,
DOES SEEM TO BE AT LEAST
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. AND I THINK THIS IS A -- SEVERAL
LAYERS OF COMPLICATION THAT MAKE
GETTING RID OF THE DIRT HERE
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, WHICH WOULD
MAKE RUDY AN EASIER TARGET.
>> JILL, WOULD YOU WANT TO HEAR
FROM RUDY GIULIANI?
WOULD YOU BE MAKING EVERY EFFORT
TO HEAR FROM HIM IF YOU WERE
WORKING ON IMPEACHMENT?
>> I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO
HEAR FROM HIM, BUT I ALSO WANT
TO HEAR FROM ALL THE OTHER
WITNESSES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO
COME IN.
COME IN. I THINK THE COURT’S DECISION
YESTERDAY MAKES IT VERY CLEAR
THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND THAT
WITNESSES HAVE TO SHOW UP.
AND I THINK WITH RUDY THERE IS
SO MUCH EVIDENCE THAT HE IS KEY
TO THIS, I DON’T KNOW HOW THE
PRESIDENT CAN SAY, WELL, HE HAS
MANY OTHER CLIENTS, WHEN IN THE
PHONE CALL’S MEMORANDUM WE SEE
HE SAYS TALK TO RUDY.
SO HE’S TELLING THE CREW
CRANIANS TO TALK TO RUDY.
HOW CAN HE NOW SAY RUDY WASN’T
ACTING ON MY BEHALF EVEN THOUGH
I TOLD THE UKRAINIANS HE WAS AND
HE’S REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO THE DEFENSE BECOMES MORE AND
MORE UNBELIEVABLE, MORE AND MORE
IMPROBABLE, AND NO ONE CAN
ACCEPT IT ANYMORE.
I STILL HOLD OUT SOME HOPE THAT
REPUBLICANS WILL START TO ACCEPT
THE FACTS MUCH LIKE WHAT
HAPPENED IN WATERGATE.
AND I’D ALSO POINT OUT ONE OF
THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS
LYING TO THE PUBLIC.
AND CERTAINLY DONALD TRUMP HAS
OUTPERFORMED RICHARD NIXON IN
THAT REGARD.
THAT REGARD. AND THIS ONE IS CERTAINLY ONE OF
THEM.
THEM. >> BILL, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU
THINK ABOUT THE POLLS.
SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT HOW THE
PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT,
OR IS THIS SOMETHING WHOLLY
DIFFERENT FROM PUBLIC OPINION?
RIGHT NOW 50% SAY DONALD TRUMP
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED
FROM OFFICE.
FROM OFFICE. IT SEEMED TO LEVEL OFF.
SHOULD LAWMAKERS BE PAYING
ATTENTION TO IT OR VOTING AND
DECIDING BASED ON WHAT THEY
BELIEVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTIES ARE?
DUTIES ARE? >> THIS IS -- QUITE OFTEN
LAWMAKERS WILL TAKE THE
CONSTITUENTS VIEWS INTO ACCOUNT.
OFTEN THEY SHOULD GIVE THEM A
LOT OF WEIGHT IF ITS SOME
ECONOMIC INTEREST.
ECONOMIC INTEREST. THIS IS CASE, THOUGH, WHERE THEY
DID SWEAR AN OATH TO THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THERE’S A LONG
TRADITION OF LAWMAKERS IN
BRITAIN AND THE U.S. EXPLAINING
ON MATTERS OF THIS KIND OF
GRAVITY THEY’VE GOT TO DO THE
RIGHT THING, NOT SIMPLY THE MOST
EXPEDIENT THING IN TERMS OF A
POSSIBLE PRIMARY CHALLENGE OR
WHATEVER.
WHATEVER. IT’S NOT FOR ME AN ACCEPTABLE
EXCUSE, THEREFORE, FOR
REPUBLICANS TO PRIVATELY SAY,
OH, MY GOD, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS
NEW INFORMATION ABOUT TRUMP?
BUT, HEY, YOU KNOW, MY VOTERS
WILL BE UPSET IF I DO THE RIGHT
THING.
THING. AND I DO THINK IN A CERTAIN WAY
EVEN LIBERALS IN THE MEDIA AND
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN A LITTLE TOO
ACCEPTING OF THAT.
NONE OF US WANTS TO LOOK NAIVE
OR SIMPLEMINDED.
OR SIMPLEMINDED. SO WE ALL KNOW, COME ON, OF
COURSE THEY’RE NOT DWROEG TO DO
THE RIGHT THING IF THEIR
CONSTITUENTS, SOME OF THEIR
CONSTITUENTS, THEIR OWN PARTISAN
SUPPORTERS DON’T WANT THEM TO.
>> GO ON.
>> GO ON. >> 50% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
BELIEVE THAT DONALD TRUMP SHOULD
BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
THAT IS VERY HIGH NUMBER
GIVEN -- GIVEN WHERE
IMPEACHMENTS USUALLY ARE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IS A
STUNNING NUMBER.
STUNNING NUMBER. OF COURSE IT HASN’T MOVED A LOT
BECAUSE 50% IS VERY HIGH NUMBER.
AND I MEAN, STRONG MAJORITY OF
WOMEN.
WOMEN. 60% OF WOMEN THINK HE SHOULD BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
THAT IS I THINK SOMETHING NO
REPUBLICAN SHOULD TAKE COMFORT
IN.
IN. >> I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT
LAST GRAPHIC WE PUT UP.
CNN HAS BEEN ASKING FOR EVERY
PRESIDENT SINCE CLINTON, BUSH,
OBAMA AND TRUMP, JUST SUPPORT
FOR IMPEACHMENT IN GENERAL EVEN
THOUGH FOR BUSH AND OBAMA
IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT ON THE TABLE
AND ALWAYS HOVERED AROUND 30%.
AND TRUMP IS AT 50%, AND THAT IS