♪ ♪
>> Bret: BREAKING TONIGHT,
ANALYSIS FROM ONE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS.
ATTORNEY JAY SEKULOW IS ON THE
IMPEACHMENT TEAM AND HE JOINS US
FROM CAPITOL HILL.
IT FEELS GOOD TO STAND UP.
>> IT DOES.
>> Bret: TELL ME WHAT YOU
THOUGHT OF TODAY SO FAR.
>> IT'S BEEN AS IT WAS
YESTERDAY, THESE ARE LONG DAYS.
SO FAR THE CONCLUSION TODAY, YOU
HEARD THROUGH THEIR STATEMENTS
AND THEIR PRESENTATION, THIS IS
WHAT SEEMS SO ODD TO ME.
THEY'RE COMPLAINING -- WE HAD A
WHOLE SECTION WHERE THEY WERE
COMPLAINING ABOUT NO OVAL OFFICE
MEETING BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS
AT THE UNITED NATION'S ASSEMBLY.
THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS GOING
ON.
THEY COMPLAINED THAT THE
DELEGATION SENT TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURAL
WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH.
THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.
THESE POLICY DISPUTES ARE NOT
WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND
WHEN IT CAME TO THE SERIOUSNESS
OF AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OR
CONVICTION.
I THINK LOOK, WE BASICALLY ARE
ALREADY INTO WHAT I WOULD CALL
REPEAT CYCLES.
WE ARE HEARING THE SAME THING
EACH TIME.
WE HAVE THEM PUT OUR CASE OUT
YET.
I'M QUITE CONFIDENT OF WHERE
THIS GOES AT THE END OF THE DAY.
WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
>> Bret: I WANT TO TAKE YOU
BACKWARDS TOO EARLY THIS MORNING
AND THEN I WANT YOU TO LOOK FOR
IT.
BACKWARDS EARLY THIS MORNING
THERE WAS THIS DUST UP BETWEEN
JERRY NADLER ON THE FLOOR AND
THEN YOU CAME UP AND ADMONISHED
HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE GOT IN THE
MIDDLE.
WHAT IS YOUR TAKE OF THAT
MOMENT?
>> LOOK, JERRY NADLER ACCUSED
THE UNITED STATES SENATE BEING
LIARS AND HAVE A COVER.
HE ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER OF BASICALLY
TRYING TO MAKE IT AS IF HE HAD
DONE SOMETHING THAT WAS
UNETHICAL.
HE WAS REPRESENTING HIS CLIENT.
HE MAKES THE STATEMENT ON THE
FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE WHEN HE SAYS, EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.
THESE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES RECOGNIZED BY THE SAM
GREEN COURT.
BY THE WAY, OVERWHELMINGLY
RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN MULTIPLE
ADMINISTRATIONS.
TO BE THAT CAVALIER ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE, ALBEIT IT WAS
LATE AT NIGHT AND -- EMOTIONS
WERE HIGH.
I APPEARED BEFORE JOHN ROBERTS
BEFORE OF COURSE AND HAVE KNOWN
HIM, HE IS DOING A GREAT JOB AS
THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE
SENATE.
HE BASICALLY SAID, LOWER THE
TEMPERATURE.
WHEN THEY KEY WAS MY CLIENT ON
THE FLOOR OR THE ACUTE SENATORS
OF NOT TO KEEP THEIR OATH AND
NOT BEING TRUTHFUL, WE ARE GOING
TO SAY SOMETHING.
WE WILL HAVE TO RESPOND.
>> Bret: THIS IS SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T DONE.
THE HOUSE, THESE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS, THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS WERE NOT THERE.
THE COUNTERARGUMENT WAS NOT
ESSENTIALLY MADE.
THE REPUBLICANS WERE MAKING IT
WITHOUT WITNESSES THERE.
HOW DO YOU STRUCTURE YOUR
ARGUMENT GOING FORWARD IF YOU
CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT?
>> WE ARE RESPONDING TO WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING, BUT WE WILL PUT
ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT LEGAL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERFECTLY
APPROPRIATE.
BUT THAT THE IDEA THAT THIS
REACHES THE LEVEL OF
IMPEACHMENT, LEGALLY SPEAKING IS
RARELY OBSERVED.
WE ARE GOING TO PUT ON A SERIES
OF LAWYERS THAT WILL BE DEALING
WITH THE ISSUES ON THE FACTS IN
GREAT DETAIL.
ON THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION, WE
HAVE TWO LAW PROFESSORS.
ONE FORMER GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ OF COURSE,
PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD LAW
SCHOOL.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE
FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO
RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT IS
IMPEACHABLE AND WHAT IS NOT.
WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS FACT
PRESENTATION AND WILL RESPOND
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEXT FEW
DAYS.
>> Bret: ZERO TO TEN, WHAT IS
YOUR LEVEL OF CONCERN?
YOU LOOK AT THIS LIST OF G.O.P.
SENATORS POTENTIALLY WHO SUGGEST
THAT WITNESSES MAY FACTOR IN.
SUSAN COLLINS, MITT ROMNEY,
CORY GARDNER.
YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, ZERO TO
TEN, WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF
CONCERN THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO
HAVE WITNESSES?
>> THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVE THE
NEED FOR WITNESSES THAT THEY ARE
PRESENTING ALL THIS INFORMATION.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO
DAYS.
I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT
THE SENATE DOES.
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
I KNOW THE FACTS AND I KNOW THE
LAW AND WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL GET
TO WITNESSES, BUT THAT WILL BE
THE SENATE'S DECISION.
HERE'S HOW I OPERATE, PREPARE
FOR EVERY CONTINGENCY.
WE ARE PREPARED FOR EVERY
CONTINGENCY.
WE WILL MAKE THE CASE ON WHY
IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE
WITNESSES.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES AND DEAL WITH WHAT THE
SENATE DECIDES.
OUR JOB AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING
THIS FOR 18 HOURS WAS TO GET
THIS PROCESS STARTED.
IT'S TAKEN 12 HOURS TO GET IT
EVEN STARTED.