YOU.
JOINING US NOW FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, SENATOR LINDSEY
GRAHAM, ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CLOSEST ALLY
CLOSEST ALIES IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WELCOME BACK TO FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> Chris: AS THE DEMOCRATIC
HOUSE MANAGERS FILED THEIR TRIAL
BRIEF LAST NIGHT AND THEY SAID
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO
PUT HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW.
HERE IS THEIR KEY QUOTE.
THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
ATTEMPTED TO DO AND WHY
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IS THE
FRAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE.
YOUR RESPONSE, SIR?
>> WELL, AS TO OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO
EXERCISE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
HE SAID TO THE HOUSE, WHO WAS
TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM IN 48
DAYS, FROM THE TIME THEY
AUTHORIZED IMPEACHMENT UNTIL
THEY VOTED ON THE ARTICLES WAS
48 DAYS.
IT'S THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT
WITHOUT OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
IT WAS A PARTISAN RAILROAD JOB.
ONE OF THE REASONS HE'S BEING
IMPEACHED IS THEY HAD TO DO IT
IN SUCH A HURRY, HE COULD NOT
EXERCISE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
I HAVE A QUOTE THAT I WON'T READ
TODAY, BUT I'LL LET IT OUT
TOMORROW, SAYING THAT ANY
PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO
DEFEND THE OFFICE AND ARTICLE II
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT SAYING I WANT TO
GO TO COURT AND EXERCISE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES INSTEAD
OF ALLOWING HIM TO DO THAT, THEY
IMPEACHED HIM FOR OBSTRUCTING
CONGRESS.
THEY TRIED TO PUT TRUMP BELOW
THE LAW.
ABUSE OF POWER IS SO POORLY
DEFINED HERE, I DON'T KNOW HOW
PRESIDENTS IN THE FUTURE CAN
CONFORM THEIR CONDUCT.
THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY
WAS THERE'S NO ALLEGATION OF
CRIME BY THE PRESIDENT.
>>> Chris: YOU HAVE BEEN VERY
CLEAR OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS
WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS CASE.
HERE ARE A FEW OF YOUR CLIPS.
>> THIS IS UNAMERICAN AT ITS
CORE.
WHAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IS DOING IS A
PROCESS OF POLITICAL REVENGE.
I THINK THIS IS A BUNCH OF B.S.
THIS THING WILL COME TO THE
SENATE AND IT WILL DIE QUICKLY
AND I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN
TO MAKE IT DIE QUICKLY.
>>> Chris: ALL RIGHT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT DIE
QUICKLY.
FIRST OF ALL, COUNTING VOTES,
HAVE YOU GIVEN UP ON THE IDEA
THAT THE SENATE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY IS GOING TO VOTE TO
DISMISS THIS CASE RIGHT AWAY ON
TUESDAY?
IS THAT DEAD FOR PRACTICAL
PURPOSES?
>> YEAH, THAT'S DEAD FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES.
THERE ARE A LOT OF SENATORS WHO
I THINK WILL WIND UP ACQUITTING
THE PRESIDENT THAT BELIEVE THAT
WE NEED TO HEAR THE HOUSE'S
CASE, THE PRESIDENT'S CASE,
ANSWER TO THE HOUSE'S CASE AND
ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN THAT'S
WHEN THE WITNESS REQUESTS WILL
TAKE.
SO THE IDEA OF DISMISSING THE
CASE EARLY ON IS NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN.
WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR
THAT.
WE'LL PLAY IT OUT ALONG THE
CLINTON MODEL.
>>> Chris: THE NEXT BIG ISSUE,
YOU SAY THERE IS NO NEED TO HEAR
FROM WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL,
BUT, SIR, THAT DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID AS A
REPUBLICAN HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
MANAGER IN 1999 DURING THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
LET ME PUT UP A QUOTE FROM THEN.
YOU SAID THERE MAY BE SOME
CONFLICT THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED
BY PRESENTING LIVE WITNESSES.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN
COURT AND I THINK THE SENATE CAN
STAND THAT.
QUESTION, WHY WERE WITNESSES
OKAY THEN, BUT THEY'RE OVER THE
LINE NOW?
>> WELL, THE PEOPLE BEING ASKED
FOR BY SENATOR SCHUMER ARE THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CHIEF
STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISER TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE ACTING OMB DIRECTOR.
ALL THESE WITNESSES WERE
AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
IN THE HOUSE, THEY DID THIS IN
48 DAYS.
THEY NEVER ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT
TO EXERCISE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
WHEN HE SUGGESTED HE MIGHT, THE
IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTING
CONGRESS.
I'D LIKE YOU TO ASK MR. JEFFRIES
THE FOLLOWING.
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO IN
THE SENATE REGARDING EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE?
IF IT'S GOING TO BE INVOKED, WHO
DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE
PRIVILEGE APPLIES?
CLEARLY TO ME ANY PRESIDENT
WOULD ASK FOR EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE REGARDING THESE
WITNESSES.
AND IF THEY WERE THAT IMPORTANT,
WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL THEM IN THE
HOUSE?
THE PEOPLE CALLED BY THE SENATE
WERE BLUMENTHAL, JORDAN, MONICA
LEWINSKY.
BLUMENTHAL ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THE COURT RULED AGAINST
BLUMENTHAL.
THEY'VE DONE A RAIL ROAD JOB IN
THE HOUSE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO
FIX IT IN THE SENATE AND I'M NOT
GOING TO BE PART OF THAT.
>>> Chris: LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT
THIS QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT.
PRESIDENT SAID IF THE SENATE
TRIES TO CALL CHIEF OF STAFF
MULVANEY OR FORMER NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON,
THAT HE WILL ASSERT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
YOU'VE INDICATED YOU'LL SUPPORT
HIM.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DEFY
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD
INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
I HOPE NO REPUBLICAN WILL ENJOY
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
>> Reporter: IN THE 1974 CASE OF
THE UNITED STATES V. NIXON
DURING THE HEIGHT OF WATERGATE,
THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE
NIXON TAPES.
HERE WAS THE KEY QUOTE FROM THE
COURT.
THE GENERALIZED ASSERTION OF
PRIVILEGE MUST YIELD TO THE
DEMONSTRATED SPECIFIC NEED FOR
EVIDENCE IN A PENDING CRIMINAL
TRIAL.
SO, ISN'T THE PRECEDENT, THE
LEGAL PRECEDENT ABOUT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, IS IT MUST YIELD FOR
THE NEED OF EVIDENCE?
THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT JOHN
BOLTON COULD GIVE THAT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE TO GET ANY OTHER WAY,
ISN'T THE PRESIDENT CLEAR THAT
HE CANNOT INVOKE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE TO PREVENT JOHN BOLTON
FROM TESTIFYING?
>> NO, HE CAN INVOKE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THERE'S A SUPREME COURT CASE
THAT SAYS WHEN YOU DEAL WITH
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE PRESIDENT IS AT
ITS HIGHEST.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NEVER HAD A
CHANCE TO INVOKE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THEY'RE ASKING THE SENATE TO
DESTROY THAT PRIVILEGE.
YOU HAVE A SUPREME COURT CASE ON
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT
WENT TO COURT.
HERE'S WHAT SCHUMER SAID IN 19D
98.
TO SUGGEST ANY SUBJECT OF
INVESTIGATION MUST LET THE
PRESIDENT WITH OBLIGATIONS TO
THE INSTITUTION OF THE
PRESIDENCY IS ABUSING POWER AND
INTERFERING WITH INVESTIGATION
BY MAKING LEGITIMATE LEGAL
CLAIMS USING DUE PROCESS TO
INSERT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS
BEYOND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
THEY LITERALLY IMPEACHED
PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE
WANTED TO EXERCISE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THEY SAID NO, THAT IS
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.
THIS PRIVILEGE ATTACHING TO
BOLTON HAS NEVER BEEN TO COURT
AND AT A MINIMUM, I SHOULD GO TO
COURT.
>>> Chris: I DON'T WANT TO GET
TOO MUCH INTO THE WEEDS HERE AND
LITIGATE THIS, BUT THERE'S TWO
POINT.
ONE, IN THE NIXON TAPES CASE IN
1974, THE COURT SAID THE
AVERSION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
MUST YIELD TO EVIDENCE IN A
CRIMINAL CASE.
THE PRESIDENT IS BEING TRIED IN
A CRIMINAL CASE.
>> THERE'S NO CRIME.
>>> Chris: HE'S BEING TRIED FOR
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANERS.
YOU CAN ARGUE THAT IT DOESN'T
RISE TO THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT
THE TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT.
AND SECONDLY, THE SUPREME COURT
HAS ALSO RULED THAT WHEN IT
COMES TO DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT'S NOT
GOING TO THE COURT.
THERE WAS A JUDGE, JUDGE WALTER
NIXON, IN WHICH THE COURT
BASICALLY SAID, WE'RE NOT GONNA
WEIGH IN.
WHEN THE SENATE IS INVOLVED IN
AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THEIR WORD
STANDS.
>> SO THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO
MAKE IS WE'VE GOT A SUPREME
COURT CASE THAT WAS LITIGATED
AFTER NIXON INVOKED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NEVER BEEN
ABLE TO GO TO COURT BECAUSE THEY
WOULDN'T LET HIM.
I'M NOT GOING TO LEGITIMATIZE A
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS THAT
CALLS THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER OF ANY
PRESIDENT AND DENY THEM THEIR
DAY IN COURT TO PROTECT THOSE
ESSENTIAL NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISERS COME TO THE SENATE AND
DESTROY THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT
CAN NEVER BE USED IN THE HOUSE.
THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS IF THESE
PEOPLE WERE THAT IMPORTANT TO
THE CASE, THEY SHOULD HAVE
CALLED THEM IN THE HOUSE.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WAS RAISED
BY CLINTON.
HE WENT TO COURT AND LOST.
YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THE SENATE
TO LEGITIMATIZE WHAT I THINK IS
A POLITICAL RAILROAD JOB.
I'M GONNA VOTE TO HONOR THE
PRIVILEGE.
IF THE PRIVILEGE IS TO BE
DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES
SENATE, I HOPE WE WILL ALL HONOR
THE PRIVILEGE.
HERE'S THE WAY TO DESTROY IT.
YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT, YOU
DON'T ALLOW HIM TO EXPERT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE
HOUSE, YOU DENY THEM THEIR DAY
IN COURT, YOU COME TO COURT AND
DESTROY THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THAT WOULD MAKE THE PRESIDENCY
FAR LESS EFFECTIVE AND WOULD
HURT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE
OF POWER.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO GET US TO DO.
LISTEN TO SCHUMER '98 IF YOU
DON'T BELIEVE ME.
>>> Chris: LET'S GET OUT OF LAW
AND GET BACK TO POLITICS.
MORE AND MORE OF YOUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING, NOT
COMMITTING TO IT.
WE PUT FIVE UP HERE ON THE
SCREEN.
THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST OPEN TO
THE POSSIBILITY OF WITNESSES.
NOW, THE DEMOCRATS, IF THEY HOLD
FIRM, WOULD NEED ONLY FOUR GOP
SENATORS TO COME OVER TO THEIR
SIDE SO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
CALL WITNESSES.
YOUR BEST GUESS AS A VOTE
COUNTER, WILL THE SENATE END UP
CALLING WITNESSES?
>> IF WE CALL ONE WITNESS, WE'RE
GONNA CALL ALL THE WITNESSES.
THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A PROCESS
WHERE THE DEMOCRATS GET THEIR
WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT GETS
SHUT OUT.
I'M GONNA BE CONSISTENT.
I'M GOING AGAINST CALLING THE
FOUR WITNESSES REQUESTED BY
SENATOR SCHUMER, ALL COVERED BY
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THEY'RE
PART OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
TEAM OF THE PRESIDENT.
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED IN
THE HOUSE.
THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
APPARENTLY THEY DON'T NEED THEM
TO MAKE THE CASE.
HUNTER BIDEN AND JOE BIDEN AND
THE WHISTLE BLOWER, WE CAN LOOK
AT THOSE ALLEGATION OF
MISCONDUCT OUTSIDE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
I WANT THIS TRIAL TO GET OVER AS
QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
I WANT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PICK THE NEXT
PRESIDENT, NOT A COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT.
I'D LIKE TO BE SPENDING MY TIME
WORKING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES
INSTEAD OF THIS.
>>> Chris: I JUST GOT TWO MORE
QUICK QUESTIONS TO ASK YOU.
WE'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
YOU TALK ABOUT WANTING TO GET
THROUGH THIS, THE TRIAL AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THERE ARE REPORTS THAT
REPUBLICAN SENATE LEADER
MCCONNELL IS GOING TO PUT OUT A
RULE ON TUESDAY THAT, FOR THE
OPENING ARGUMENTS, 24 HOURS FOR
EACH SIDE.
HE'S PREPARED TO PUT THE SENATE
IN SESSION 12 HOURS A DAY.
HOUSE PROSECUTORS WOULD GET TWO
12 HOUR DAYS AND THE DEFENSE
WOULD GET TWO 12 HOUR DAYS TO
MAKE THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS.
ONE, IS THAT TRUE?
TWO, IF IT IS, HOW DO YOU
RESPOND TO THE DEMOCRATIC
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS WHO SAY
THIS IS JUST A RUSH TO GET THIS
OVER WITH?
>> WELL, TO MY FRIENDS ON THE
DEMOCRATIC SIDE, YOU KNOW, I
LIKE NANCY PELOSI.
I HAVE KNOWN HER FOR YEARS.
SHE IS A VERY RELIGIOUS PERSON.
WHEN IT COMES TO DONALD TRUMP,
NANCY PELOSI MAY PRAY PRIVATELY,
BUT SHE'S ORCHESTRATED THE TRIAL
OF HOLY HELL.
FROM THE TIME TRUMP'S BEEN SWORN
IN TO NOW, IT'S BEEN ONE THING
AFTER ANOTHER.
YOU TOOK 48 DAYS TO IMPEACH THIS
PRESIDENT.
YOU DID NOT ALLOW HIM TO CALL
ANY WITNESSES.
HE COULD NOT HAVE A LAWYER
PRESENT DURING THE HOUSE INTEL
COMMITTEE.
THIS HAS BEEN A PARTISAN
RAILROAD JOB.
AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR FAIRNESS
IN THE SENATE?
YOU VIOLATED EVERY NORM OF WHAT
WE DO.
IT TOOK FIVE YEARS FOR STARR TO
LOOK AT CLINTON.
MUELLER LOOKED AT TRUMP FOR
ALMOST TWO YEARS.
YOU TOOK 48 DAYS.
SO HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.
THE SOONER THIS IS OVER, THE
BETTER FOR THE COUNTRY.
WE CAN GET BACK TO DOING THE
BUSINESS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND DO THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER
TO THEM.
I HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT.
I HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED MUELLER.
I TRUSTED HIM TO BE FAIR.
THIS HAS BEEN A POLITICAL HIT
JOB.
THIS IS POLITICAL REVENGE.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO THE
PRESIDENCY IS A DANGER TO THE
INSTITUTION ITSELF.
>>> Chris: FINALLY IN 30
SECONDS, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO
SAY THAT YOU ARE THE SENATOR WHO
IS PERSONALLY CLOSEST TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND AT VARIOUS POINTS YOU SAID
HE'S MAD AS HELL, HE'S DEMANDING
HIS DAY IN COURT.
I ASSUME YOU'VE SPOKEN TO HIM
RECENTLY.
WHAT'S HIS MOOD?
HOW DOES HE FEEL ABOUT THE FACT
THAT HE'S ABOUT TO UNDER DO A
TRIAL FOR REMOVAL IN THE SENATE?
AND WHAT DOES HE WANT FROM THE
SENATE?
>> I THINK HE WANTS TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT
THAT HE DIDN'T GET IN THE HOUSE.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A
LAWYER PRESENT.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO REQUEST
WITNESSES.
I GUARANTEE YOU, HE'LL GET A
BETTER DEAL IN THE SENATE THAN
IN THE HOUSE.
HIS HOPE IS TO GO TO THE STATE
OF THE UNION AND TALK ABOUT WHAT
HE WANTS TO DO FOR 2020 AND THE
NEXT FOUR YEARS.
HE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA
THAT THIS IS GOING TO TURN OUT
WELL FOR HIM.
HE THINKS IT'S A THREAT TO THE
PRESIDENCY.
ONE THING HE TALKS TO ME
CONSTANTLY ABOUT IS, WHAT TKU
THE NEXT PRESIDENT DO AFTER THIS
IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL?
HE TKU NOT WANT TO LEGITIMATIZE
ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENCY.
THAT'S MY NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO
DO THIS IN A FASHION THAT NO
HOUSE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT