HE WAS THERE IN 2018.
>> Neil: THANK YOU, MY FRIEND.
MY NEXT GUEST IS PART OF THE
SHORTLISTS TO BE PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.
HE JOINS US RIGHT NOW.
GOOD TO HAVE YOU.
>> THANK YOU, NEIL.
>> Neil: LET'S DISCUSS WHAT
THE STRATEGY COULD BE HERE.
AT THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS
OPEN TO THE PROSPECT OF
WITNESSES.
IT ISN'T THAT SIMPLE.
IT COULD GET PRETTY INVOLVED.
>> WHICH WITNESSES?
THE ONES THE HOUSE COULD'VE
CALLED BUT FAILED TO?
WHAT IS THE STANDARD ABOUT WHAT
YOU COULD DECIDE WHETHER TO CALL
A WITNESS?
IS IT RELEVANCY?
THAT IS A PRETTY LOW STANDARD.
YOU CAN'T JUST CALL A COUPLE.
THERE MAY BE A SENATOR WHO WANTS
TO HEAR FROM SOME WITNESS THAT
YOU AND I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF
BEFORE.
WHAT IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH
YOU JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD
WITNESSES?
MY POSITION IS, IT IS THE
HOUSE'S JOB TO INVESTIGATE.
IF THEY DIDN'T THINK ENOUGH TO
CALL A WITNESS DURING THE
INVESTIGATION, THAN FIVE SAID
THIS AND IT?
>> Neil: THEY CAN COUNTER THAT
THEY TRIED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
AND THEIR PRESIDENT WAS
PREVENTING THEM FROM SPEAKING.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT RAISES AN
ISSUE -- IF THEY GET JOHN BOLTO
BOLTON, OBVIOUSLY, REPUBLICANS
WILL WANT JOE BIDEN AND/OR
HUNTER BIDEN.
AND ON AND ON WE GO.
>> NEIL, YOU GET JOHN BOLTON.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE STILL APPLY?
YOU CANNOT CALL A WITNESS THAT
YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO INVOKE
PRIVILEGE.
IT IS THAT TERRIBLE OBJECT.
YOU CAN'T DO IT IN A COURTROOM.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT
IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
I GOING TO CALL A WITNESS THAT
YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO INVOKE
THE FIFTH?
ARE YOU GOING TO CALL A WITNESS
THAT YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO
EVOKE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE?
IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN THE REAL
WORLD, WHY WOULD YOU CALL A
WITNESS SIMPLY FOR THE APPLICANT
HAVING THAT WITNESS SAY THAT I
CAN'T ANSWER BASED ON EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE?
I GET THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE
PRIVILEGES.
THERE IS A REASON THAT WE HAVE
THEM.
AND WE HAVE THEM BECAUSE THE
RELATIONSHIP IS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE INFORMATION.
THAT IS TRUE WITH --
>> Neil: AND CONGRESS?
HOW DO THEY DO IT?
IT WOULD NOT BE LIVE SENATE
TESTIMONY.
IT GOES BACK TO THE CLINTON
MOTIF.
THEY HAVE THE DEPOSITION AND THE
SENATORS AND READ FROM PREPARED
REMARKS IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS.
IT IS NOT THE PERSON HIM OR
HERSELF TALKING.
>> BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, NEIL?
IF YOU HAVE EVER SERVED ON A
JURY, TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS
TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU NEED TO
EYEBALL THEM.
YOU NEED TO WATCH THE DEMEANOR.
HOW THE HILL DO YOU DO THAT IN A
DEPOSITION?
I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING MORE
BORING THAN HAVING ADAM SCHIFF
GREET DEPOSITION EXCERPTS TO ME.
HOW WILL THAT HELP YOU DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON IS
CREDIBLE?
YOU KNOW WHAT HERE SHE SAID?
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE CREDIBILITY
BASED ON THAT?
>> Neil: WHEN YOU HEAR THE SIX
WEEK TIME FRAME, THAT WILL TAKE
US PAST -- NOT ONLY THE IOWA
CAUCUSES, BUT THE PRIMARY INTO
SUPER TUESDAY POTENTIALLY.
THIS COULD REALLY BE A MESS,
RIGHT?
>> IT COULD BE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING SIX
WEEKS.
TALK ABOUT COOL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT, MAKE THEM WATCH THIS
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LG
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LC
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LS
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE
GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I L.
THAT IS TORTURE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO LAST SIX
WEEKS.
I DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION TO
DISMISS, BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T
LIKE THINGS BEING SUMMARILY
DISMISSED.
AT THE HOUSE PRESENT ITS CASE.
DON'T THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF
PERSUASION?
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WANT TO
REMOVE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
LET THEM GO.
THEN YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION
TO DISMISS.
I LIKE IT AT THE END.
GO AHEAD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE,
VOTE ON IT.
A VOTE ON IT LIKE A REGULAR JURY
VOTES ON IT.