>>> WELCOME BACK. THE PANEL IS HERE.
HUGH HEWITT, HOST ON THE SALEM
RADIO NETWORK, FORMER
CONGRESSWOMAN DONNA EDWARDS,
CAROL LEONNIG, AND PHIL RUCKER,
AND CAROL AND PHILS NEW BOOK IS
"A VERY STABLE GENIUS, DONALD
TRUMPS TESTING OF AMERICA"
COMES OUT ON TUESDAY.
EXCERPTS HAVE BEEN FLOATING
AROUND.
AROUND.
YOU GUYS HAVE GOTTEN QUITE A BIT
OF BUZZ HERE.
CONGRATS ON THAT.
I WANT TO GET TO SORT OF HOW THE
BOOK AND IMPEACHMENT CONVERGE
HERE A LITTLE BIT.
DONNA AND HUGH, I WANT YOU GUYS
TO DEAL WITH THIS STATEMENT FROM
THE PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM
THATS NOT A LEGAL RESPONSE YET, THIS IS THE SUMMONS.SPONSE YET,
THIS IS THE SUMMONS. HOUSE DEMOCRATS -- EXCUSE ME.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID ON
THEIR FACE.
THEIR FACE. THEY FAIL TO ALLEGE ANY CRIME ON
VIOLATION OF LAW, LET ALONE HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
HUGH, YOURE A LAWYER.
TECHNICALLY THIS SENTENCE IS NOT
ACCURATE.
ACCURATE. THE HOUSE IMPEACHED.
YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT YOU DID,
ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, YOU
JUST MAY NOT LIKE WHAT THEY DID.
>> I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO
CONVEY EXACTLY THAT.
I READ LAST NIGHT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TRIAL MEMORANDUM AND
THEIR ENTIRE STATEMENT OF
MATERIAL FACTS.
MATERIAL FACTS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAVE
PRESENTED A CASE THAT RISE TO
THE LEVEL OF AN OFFENSE THAT IS
IMPEACHABLE, MUCH LESS ANY
OFFENSE AT ALL.
IN FACT I LOOKED WITH A LITTLE
BIT OF STUNNED AMAZEMENT AT
MATERIAL ALLEGATION 73, WHICH IS
ON PAGE 25 OF THE SECOND
SUBMISSION, IN WHICH THEY
CONTRADICT THEIR OWN ALLEGATION,
WHICH IS AT THE BEGINNING THE
PRESIDENT WAS ATTEMPTING TO
INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION.
THEY CITE IN THEIR OWN STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS, IT WAS ABOUT
THE 2016 ELECTION, A VOLKER TO
YERMAK TEXT.
YERMAK TEXT. I DONT THINK WERE GOING TO GET
THE WITNESSES NOW.
THEY DO NOT HAVE A CASE.
ON ARTICLE 2 I THINK IT WAS
ABSOLUTELY SILLY.
ABSOLUTELY SILLY. THERE WAS NO IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
OFFENSE.
>> DONNA EDWARDS, IS THAT HOW YOU SEE IT?WARDS, IS THAT HOW
YOU SEE IT? >> IT ISNT HOW I SEE IT AT ALL.
IM A LAWYER, MAYBE NOT AS GOOD
AS HUGH.
AS HUGH. BUT MY READING OF THE HOUSES
BRIEF IS THAT THEY STATE REALLY
CLEARLY, I THINK, A STRONG
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT IN THE
BEGINNING OF THE BRIEF THAT LAYS
OUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT,
REALLY REMINDING US THAT HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WAS LEFT
TO THE DEFINITION OF THE
LEGISLATORS.
LEGISLATORS.
IT DOESNT MEAN THE BREAKING OF
THE LAW.
THEY TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE
ABUSE -- ABUSE OF POWER ALLEGATIONS AND THAT THE ABUSE
OF POWER IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF
ABUSE OF PUBLIC TRUST THAT THE
FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND.
AND SO I THINK ITS A REALLY
STRONG AND COMPELLING ARGUMENT.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THERES GOING TO BE A FAIR TRIAL
SO THAT DEMOCRATS CAN REALLY
PRESENT THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT.
>> ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE
OBSTRUCTION ARTICLE. IN HINDSIGHT SHOULD THEY HAVE
WAITED LONGER TO FILE THAT ONE
AND FOUGHT IN THE COURTS OR USE
MUELLERS OBSTRUCTIONS TO
STRENGTHEN THAT ARTICLE?
>> NO, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE
ARTICLE IS STRONG ON ITS FACE
WITH THE EVIDENCE.
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BOLSTERED IF
WITNESSES WERE NOT OBSTRUCTED BY THIS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDD BY
THIS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND PREVENTED FROM GIVING
TESTIMONY, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN
BOLSTERED IF DOCUMENTS WERE
PRODUCED?
PRODUCED?
NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AND SO I THINK THAT THEY MADE
THE CASE THAT THEY COULD.
NOW ITS REALLY IMPORTANT TO
FOCUS ON WHAT KIND OF TRIAL THIS
IS GOING TO BE AND WHETHER ITS
GOING TO BE THE KIND OF TRIAL
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT.
>> THE WILD CARD IN THIS TRIAL,
GUYS, IS THE FACT THAT UNLIKE
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THERES
NEW CHARACTERS, NEW INFORMATION
AND THATS WHAT THIS WEEK HAS.
HERES ONE OF THE POTENTIAL NEW
CHARACTERS, LEV PARNAS.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW EXACTLY
WHAT WAS GOING ON.
HE WAS AWARE OF ALL OF MY
MOVEMENTS.
MOVEMENTS.
I WOULDNT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF RUDY GIULIANI OR THE PRESIDENT. RUDY GIULIANI OR
THE PRESIDENT.
>> OKAY.
YOU GUYS HAVE COVERED THIS NOT
JUST IN THE BOOK VERY WELL, PHIL, CAROL, PHIL, START WITH
YOU.
YOU.
LEV PARNAS, HOWS THE PRESIDENT HANDLING SOMEBODY WHOS --IDENT
HANDLING SOMEBODY WHOS -- ANOTHER PERSON WHOS TURNED ON
HIM?
HIM?
>> ITS LIKE MICHAEL COHEN, THE
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY
TURNING ON THE PRESIDENT.
LEV PARNAS IS SOMEBODY WHO TRIED
SO HARD TO GET INTO THE TRUMP
ORBIT.
THERE ARE PHOTOS ALL OVER THE
INTERNET WITH HIM POSING WITH
THE PRESIDENT, WITH HIS ALLIES
AT MAR-A-LAGO, A LOT OF THUMBS
UP.
NOW HES TURNING COMPLETELY.
HES PROVIDING THIS NEW
EVIDENCE.
THOSE NOTES THAT WERE SCRIBBLED
ON THE HOTEL STATIONERY AND HE WANTS TO TELL HIS STORY.AND HE
WANTS TO TELL HIS STORY. THE QUESTION, I THINK, BECOMES
WHETHER THE SENATE REPUBLICANS,
ENOUGH OF THEM, WANT TO HEAR
WITNESSES TO BRING HIM FORWARDLY
AND IMPORTANTLY JOHN BOLTON, THE
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR, WHOS HEAD HE WOULD BE
WILLING TO TESTIFY IF ASKED.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE
PRESIDENTS RELATIONSHIP NOW
WITH RUDY IF THE PEOPLE RUDY WAS
BRINGING INTO THIS THING ARE NOW
CAUSING POLITICAL PROBLEMS FOR
THE PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDENT?
>> FROM OUR REPORTING ITS
REALLY SHOCKING INSIDE THE WHITE
HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENTS
CLOSEST CONFIDANTS ARE ALL
SAYING, OH, MY GOSH, WHERE HAS RUDY LED US ESSENTIALLY.RE HAS
RUDY LED US ESSENTIALLY. HE WANTED TO BE SECRETARY OF
STATE AND HE WAS ESSENTIALLY
OPERATING AS A UBER SECRETARY OF
STATE, GOING AROUND THE COUNTRY,
MAKING SOME MONEY AND ALSO
TRYING TO DO THINGS LEADING OUR
FOREIGN POLICY.
FOREIGN POLICY. NOW THERE ARE ADVISERS TO THE
PRESIDENT WHO SAID HE LED US
DOWN A PATH THAT REALLY MAKES
THE PRESIDENT VULNERABLE.
>> HUGH, WHY ISNT THERE MORE
ANGER AT RUDY?
IM SURPRISED THERE ISNT.
DO YOU THINK WED BE HERE
WITHOUT RUDY GIULIANI?
>> NO.
>> NO. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THERES NOT
MUCH ANGER AT RUDY BECAUSE NOT
ANYONE ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE
BELIEVES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
OCCURRED.
OCCURRED.
I CANT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.
YOURE ON TO IT WITH YOUR QUESTION ABOUT ARTICLE 2.
THIS IS ABOUT FUTURE PRESIDENTS,
NOT JUST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
NOT ONLY DO I THINK HE DID NOT
COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR
ANY OFFENSE, IM ALSO CONCERNED
THAT THIS RUSHED JOB, ESPECIALLY
ON ARTICLE 2, IS A HORRIBLE
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS.
WHEN THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES
COMES BEFORE THE SENATE THIS
WEEK OR NEXT, I THINK A LOT OF
DEMOCRATS MAY BE TEMPTED TO VOTE
ON BEHALF OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS.
>> WHATS THE WORST -- GOING
BACK TO ABUSE OF POWER, DONNA,
WHATS THE WORSE PRECEDENT?
IF THE PRESIDENT DOESNT BELIEVE
WHAT HE DID WITH UKRAINE WAS
WRONG, THEN FUTURE PRESIDENTS
MAY DO THE SAME THING.
>> WELL, I THINK GOING BACK TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
FRAMERS, THIS IS EXACTLY THE
KIND OF VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
TRUST, AND PARTICULARLY AROUND
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN
ELECTION.
ELECTION.
WE HAD COME OFF OF A KING. WE DIDNT WANT THAT.A KING.
WE DIDNT WANT THAT. WE WANTED A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE
REALLY GOES RIGHT SQUARELY AT
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MAKING SURE
THERES NOT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
>> IT STRIKES ME, AND YOUR BOOK
CHRONICLES THIS WELL AND WELL
GET TO MORE OF THE EXCERPTS A
LITTLE LATER IN THE SHOW, BUT DO
YOU THINK, CAROL, AND PHIL, THAT
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE HERE IF
HIS FIRST OR SECOND TEAMS WERE
STILL AROUND HIM IN THE WEST
WING?
WING?
>> YOU KNOW, WHAT WE FOUND IN
OUR REPORTING IS THAT THE
GUARDRAILS ARE GONE.
THE TRAJECTORY OF THIS PRESIDENCY IS ESCALATING TOWARDS
A PRESIDENCY OF ONE.
MORE CHAOS, LESS DISCIPLINE IN
DECISION-MAKING.
DECISION-MAKING.
THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO HEM HIM
IN ARE OUT.
HE DROVE THEM OUT OF THE ROOM.
HE HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND
HIM WHO VIEW THEMSELVES AND
THEIR MISSION AS TELLING HIM
YES.
>> IS THERE A SINGLE PERSON LEFT
THAT TRIES TO RESTRAIN?
>> THE PEOPLE IN POWER LEFT,
LIKE MIKE POMPEO, THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, MICK MULVANEY, THE
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, THEY SEE
THEIR JOB AS TRYING TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO A YES OF EXECUTING
WHAT HE WANTS DONE IN A WAY THEY
CAN DEFEND PUBLICLY AND IN A WAY
THAT IS SOMEWHAT LEGAL BUT
THEYRE NOT TRYING TO CHALLENGE
HIM.
HIM.
THEYRE TRYING TO EXECUTE HIS ORDERS AND PLACATE HISTE HIS
ORDERS AND PLACATE HIS CONSPIRACIES TO SMP DEGREE.
>> YOU HAD ROBERT OBRIEN ON.
I COMPLETELY REJECT THE IDEA
THAT TEAM THREE, WHICH THIS IS,
IS SOMEHOW LESS ABLE TO TELL THE
PRESIDENT HARD FACTS.
IN FACT I THINK TEAM THREE IS
THE BEST TEAM HES HAD.
>> BUT HUGH, WHAT ABOUT THE PART
WHERE MICK MULVANEY AGREES TO
WITHHOLD THE AID WHICH TURNS OUT
TO BE AGAINST THE LAW, THE AID
TO UKRAINE.
TO UKRAINE.
>> I DONT KNOW THAT IT IS
AGAINST THE LAW.
I DONT BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE
CASE.
I DONT THINK THEY MADE THAT
CASE.
>> WELL THE GAO DOES.
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THATS BEEN