IN ALL AVAILABLE WITNESSES AND
EVIDENCE.
>> Bret: ONE, THANKS.
LET'S BRING IN JIM JORDAN,
RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND A MEMBER
OF THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT
DEFENSE TEAM.
YOU HEARD JUAN THERE AT GOING
CHUCK SCHUMER ON THE FLOOR WHERE
HE SAID TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE
IS NOT A TRIAL BUT A COVER-UP.
YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> CHUCK SCHUMER SAID THE DARK
OF THE NIGHT BECAUSE SENATORS
MIGHT HAVE TO PAST DINNERTIME.
ADAM SHIFTED 17 DEPOSITIONS IN A
BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE
CAPITAL AND NOW THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE
DONE IN PRIME TIME, SO TO SPEAK.
I THOUGHT SENATOR SCHUMER'S
ARGUMENTS WERE WEAK, I THINK
THIS CASE IS STRONG ON PROCESS
GROUNDS, HE WAS DENIED DUE
PROCESS IN THE HOUSE AND MOST
IMPORTANT OF THE FACTS ARE ON
THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
THEY ALL SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S
POSITION, THAT'S WHY I THINK
HE'S GOING TO PREVAIL IN THIS IS
ALL DONE.
>> Bret: WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR
ROLE AS PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S
TEAM?
>> WE ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER
PAT INSTRUCTS US TO DO TO BE
HELPFUL, THEY'VE GOT GREAT
LAWYERS, THEY ARE GOING TO
PRESENT AN EXCELLENT CASE
BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE ON THEIR
SIDE, A TOP-NOTCH LEGAL TEAM AND
WE WILL DO WHATEVER THEY ASKED
US TO DO BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP
THE PRESIDENT IN ANY WAY
POSSIBLE.
THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS ENTITIES
FOR KOUFAX, THE IDEA THAT WE
HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS
NO QUID PRO QUO IN THE
TRANSCRIPT, TWO INDIVIDUALS ON
THE CALL HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID
THAT THERE WAS NO PUSHING, NO
PRESSURE, NO LEAKAGE BETWEEN THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS AND
ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION IN
UKRAINE, UKRAINE DIDN'T EVEN
KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE CALL
THAT EIGHT HAD BEEN HELD AND
THEY TOOK NO ACTION, NEVER
STARTED AN INVESTIGATION, NEVER
PROMISED TO START AN
INVESTIGATION, NEVER ANNOUNCED
AN INVESTIGATION.
THOSE FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER
CHANGE NO MATTER HOW LONG JERRY
NADLER AND ADAM SCHIFF TALK.
>> Martha: CONGRESSMAN JORDAN,
NO DOUBT, THE DEMOCRATS IN THE
SENATE WILL BRING UP A LOT OF
THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS HEARD
FROM THOSE 17 WITNESSES, OVER
100 HOURS OF TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE
WHO SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, THERE'S CLEAR
SIGNS OF THE WAS BEING WITHHELD
AND THAT IT WAS FOR POLITICAL
REASONS, THAT'S A DEMOCRAT
ARGUMENTS HERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE ARE
GOING TO HEAR THAT DRIFTED OUT
THIS MORNING IS THIS QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE WHITE HOUSE
ATTORNEY PAT CIPOLLONE YOU JUST
MENTIONED HAS FIRST-HAND
EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THESE THINGS
AND CAN HE BE PRESSED TO DIVULGE
IT?
OBVIOUSLY THAT GOES STRAIGHT TO
AN EXECUTIVE POWERS QUESTION
THAT I WOULD IMAGINE WOULD BE
TIED UP FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
>> THAT'S RIDICULOUS, THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER?
THAT IS JUST RIDICULOUS.
I DON'T SEE THAT EVER HAPPENING,
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT TO
HAPPEN, NO BASIS FOR THAT TO
HAPPEN.
TELL ME WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT
HAPPEN -- THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS
CASE, ONE OF THEIR WITNESSES --
WENT TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT
HAPPENED, THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE?
IT NEVER HAPPENED.
THOSE FOUR KEY FACTS I JUST
TALKED ABOUT ARE NEVER GOING TO
CHANGE, THE FACTS ARE SOLELY ON
THE PRESIDENT SIDE, I THINK
THAT'S WHY THEY UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS
IS WERE RIDICULOUS AND
THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT WILL
PREVAIL IN AS SHORT A TRIAL IS
POSSIBLE BECAUSE ALL THE FACTS
SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT.
>> Bret: SENATOR McCONNELL
IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, WHAT'S
THE FOCUS OF THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IF THEY ARE
GOING TO REOPEN THE CASE ON THE
SENATE SIDE.
HOW LONG IF YOU HAD TO GUESS DO
YOU THINK THIS GOES?
AND DO YOU THINK THAT THE SENATE
WILL HEAR FROM WITNESSES?
>> I DON'T.
THE FACTS ARE SO STRONG, AS I'VE
WHEN PAT CIPOLLONE'S TEAM
PRESENTED, THOSE OF THE FACTS,
THEY SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S
NARRATIVE, UKRAINE GOT THE MONEY
BEFORE THE END OF THE
FISCAL YEAR, THE WHOLE THING
DOESN'T MEAN MUCH SO I THINK
IT'S A STRONG CASE.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS THING
DISMISSED RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN, THEY WILL HAVE
THE MOTIONS TODAY, THEN THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE THE PRESENTATION
FROM THE HOUSE MANAGER ON THE
DEMOCRAT SIDE AND THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TEAM AND THE
NEGATIVE QUESTIONS.
I ASSUME THE PRESIDENT WILL BE
ACQUITTED SOMETIME NEXT WEEK.
>> Martha: CONGRESSMAN JORDAN,
YOU ARE A ARGUED VOCIFEROUSLY
FOR MINORITY WITNESSES ON THE
HOUSE SIDE WOULDN'T THAT
PRINCIPLE BE IN PLAY ON THE
SENATE SIDE?
>> WE DIDN'T GET ANY WITNESSES,
WE JUST ARGUED FOR A FAIR
PROCESS.
EVERY SINGLE WITNESS CALLED WAS
ADAM SCHIFF'S, IN THE BUNKER OF
THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL,
THERE WERE TIMES, MARTHA, WHERE
WE ASKED THE WITNESS QUESTIONS
AND ADAM SCHIFF PREVENTED THE
WITNESS FROM ANSWERING HER
QUESTION.
HE WASN'T JUST CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE AT THE MOMENT, HE TOOK
ON THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER FOR
THE WITNESS.
THEY WERE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY,
THE LAWYER CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT
IF THERE IS SOME PRIVILEGE HE
WANTS TO ASSERT AND PREVENT THE
WITNESS FROM ANSWERING A
QUESTION, NOT ADAM SCHIFF.
NO DUE PROCESS FOR THE
PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT WASN'T
ALLOWED TO BE THERE TO SEE WHAT
WAS GOING ON, WASN'T ALLOWED TO
CROSS-EXAMINE, WE WEREN'T
ALLOWED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES
AND NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
PROCESS WHEN SENATOR McCONNELL
IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE
PRECEDENT SET 21 YEARS AGO
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS.
>> Martha: YOU THINK THERE
WILL BE NO WITNESSES, PERIOD?
>> I DO, I THINK THEY HAVE THE
VOTES FOR THAT AND I THINK
THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO,
WHERE ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOULD B
BE.
FRANKLY, IF YOU GOT A STRONG
CASE, LET THE WITNESSES COME.
THAT'S THE TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
WE MADE ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
IF YOU HAVE A GOOD CASE, A
STRONG CASE, YOU WOULDN'T DENY