with DOVATO is right for you.
>>> WELCOME BACK TO OUR SPECIAL. for you.
>>> WELCOME BACK TO OUR SPECIAL. NOW WE TURN TO THE ACTION IN
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. IF THE HOUSE DOES IMPEACH
PRESIDENT TRUMP THARKS IS OF
COURSE ONLY THE BEGINNING OF
THIS PROCESS, THEN THE SENATE
HOLDS A TRIAL.
AND THE BIG QUESTION EVERYONE IN
THE NATION WOULD WONDER THEN IS
COULD YOU REALLY GET A
CONVICTION?
CONVICTION? THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A VERY
HIGH TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE TO
GET CONVICTION.
GET CONVICTION. TRANSLATION, TODAY THAT WOULD BE
67 SENATORS VOTING YES.
SO IF EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT AND
INDEPENDENT VOTED YES, THEY
WOULD STILL NEED TO SWING 20
REPUBLICANS TO GET A CONVICTION
OF DONALD TRUMP.
THE SENATE HAS ACTUALLY HELD 19
DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPEACHMENT
TRIALING IN HISTORY.
THOSE ARE MOSTLY FOR TENURED
JUDGES.
JUDGES. 73% OF THE JUDGES WHO WERE
IMPEACHED WENT ON TO BE REMOVED
FROM OFFICE.
FROM OFFICE. NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT, THOUGH,
WHEN YOU LOOK AT POLITICIANS.
ONLY ONE OUT OF FOUR POLITICIANS
REMOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS, A
SENATOR IN THE 1790s WHO WAS
TECHNICALLY EXPELLED IN A
COMPLICATED DECISION.
COMPLICATED DECISION. THE SENATE HAS NEVER OF COURSE,
NEVER CONVICTED A SITTING
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. THE TWO WERE IMPEACHED.
DID NOT EVER REACH THAT SUPER
MAJORITY, MEANING A 0 PERCENT
CONVICTION RATE IN THOSE TWO
INSTANCES.
INSTANCES. NOW THAT’S THE HISTORY.
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL SAYS
THE SENATE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE UP
IMPEACHMENT AND HOLD A TRIAL.
HE HAS HINTED THAT TRIAL COULD
BE ANY LENGTH WHICH HE ALSO
STRESSED POTENTIAL SPEED AHEAD
OF THE CLINTON TRIAL.
>> I THINK WE COULD BE THROUGH
WITH THIS IF THE MAJORITY LEADER
SAID FROM THREE DAYS TO THREE
WEEKS.
WEEKS. IT IS NO, MA’AMT A COMPLICATED C
I BELIEVE IT CAN END VERY, VERY
QUICKLY.
QUICKLY. THE ONE THING BOTH THE OPPONENTS
OF PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS
FRIENDS AGREE WITH IS WE WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE IT OFFER QUICKLY.
>> SPEED AS A GOAL THERE.
WELL, IT WASN’T THREE DAYS.
IT WAS JUST OVER A MONTH FOR
CLINTON.
CLINTON. ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THERE WAS
A VOTE TO ALSO DISMISS THOSE
CHARGES.
CHARGES. >> A SURPRISE TWIST TODAY THAT
COULD BRING A QUICK END TO A
SENATE TRIAL THAT HAS PARALYZED
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. THE INFLUENTIAL UNPREDICTABLE
SENIOR DEMOCRAT SAYS THE TRIAL
SHOULD END, THAT THE SENATE WILL
NEVER HAVE THE VOTES TO CONVICT
THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT. >> THAT WAS A MAJOR MOVE.
IN A FEW DAYS THERE WAS A VOTE
ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND IT
FAILED.
FAILED. >> ON THIS VOTE THE YEAHS ARE
44.
44. THE NAHS ARE 56.
THE MOTION IS NOT AGREED TO.
>> THAT SENATE CASE WAS MANAGED
OR PROSECUTED BY 13 HOUSE
MEMBERS THAT INCLUDED LINDSEY
GRAHAM.
GRAHAM. HE ARGUED THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT
HAVE TO COMMIT A FORMAL
STATUTORY CRIME TO MERIT IT
BEING KICKED OUT OF OFFICE.
>> YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE TO BE
CONVICTED OF A CRIME TO LOSE
YOUR JOB IN THIS CONSTITUTION
REPUBLICAN.
REPUBLICAN. IF THIS BODY DETERMINES THAT
YOUR CONDUCT AS A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL IS CLEARLY
OUT-OF-BOUNDS IN YOUR ROLE,
IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT CLEANSING
THE OFFICE.
THE OFFICE. IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT RESTORING
HONOR AND INTEGRITY TO THE
OFFICE.
OFFICE. >> I COULD TELL YOU IN BOTH
PARTIES, WE KNOW FROM OUR
REPORTING TODAY’S SENATORS
LOOKING BACK TO SEE THE LESS
SONS AND MISTAKES, TO SEE THE
PRECEDENCE
PRECEDENCE PRECEDENCE, TO SEE WHAT’S
EXPECTED OF THEM.
THAT’S NOT ALL.
THE PEOPLE IN OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT THAT LOOK BACK FOR A
LIVING WHO INTERPRET PRECEDENCE,
WELL, THEY’RE DOING IT TOO,
INCLUDING, I CAN BET YOU, CHIEF
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS BECAUSE HE
WILL PRESIDE OVER ANY SENATE
TRIAL OF TRUMP, IF THERE IS A
TRIAL, JUST LIKE HIS PREDECESSOR
WILLIAM
WILLIAM WILLIAM DID.
WILLIAM DID. >> FOR YOUR NOTICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF JOINING WITH YOU FOR
THE TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
AND I AM NOW READY TO TAKE THE
OATH.
OATH. >> I’M JOINED NOW BY JUDGE TIM
LEWIS, APPOINTED TO THE FEDERAL
BENCH BY GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND
FORMER SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTA.
DAKOTA. HE VOTED NOT GUILTY ON BOTH
COUNTS AT THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. VERY SPECIAL AND RARE TO HAVE A
FEDERAL APPEALS JUDGE AND A
SENATOR HERE TOGETHER IN THIS
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION. THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ARI.
HAPPY TO BE HERE.
>> APPRECIATE IT.
JUDGE, LET’S BEGIN WITH YOU.
WHAT WOULD DEFINE A FAIR TRIAL
OF A PRESIDENT IN THE SENATE?
>> THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION.
THERE HAVE BEEN SO FEW THAT WE
REALLY -- WE REALLY KIND OF HAVE
TO LOOK AT HISTORY AND LOOK
FORWARD, AS YOU MENTIONED
EARLIER, TO THE LEGACY THAT
MIGHT BE LEFT TO DETERMINE HOW
BEST TO PERFORM I THINK AS BOTH
SENATORS AND AS THE CHIEF
JUSTICE PRESIDING.
JUSTICE PRESIDING. I THINK THAT PRIMARILY WE ARE
LOOKING FOR A DECORUM THAT RISES
ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO
ENSURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
GET WHAT THEY DESERVE, WHICH IS
A FAIR LOOK AT WHATEVER THE
CHARGES ARE THAT ARE BROUGHT BY
THE CONGRESS IN THE FORM OF AN
IMPEACHMENT MIGHT BE.
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AT
THIS POINT.
THIS POINT. I THINK THAT IN ADDITION THE
CHIEF JUSTICE IS GOING TO HAVE
TO ADJUST TO A DIFFERENT
ENVIRONMENT.
ENVIRONMENT. I’M NOT SURE HE’S EXACTLY
RELISHING PRESIDING AT AN
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT
HAS NO CAMERAS.
IT’S A VERY DIFFERENT CULTURE IN
A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.
AND, SO, HIS PRESENCE AND HOW HE
CONDUCTS BUSINESS IS GOING TO
ALSO LEND SOME DEFINITION TO
FAIRNESS AND HOW THINGS UNFOLD.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THAT AS
A FELLOW JUDGE, DO YOU THINK
THAT COULD BECOME ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS CHIEF
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS EVER DOES?
>> WELL, AS YOU KNOW, THE
SUPREME COURT TAKES UP THE
SEMINOLL ISSUES IN CASES THAT WE
HAVE TO ADDRESS AS A SOCIETY.
SO I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD GO
QUITE THAT FAR.
BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A SOLEMN
RESPONSIBILITY AND IT’S, AS I
SAID, IT’S IN A FORUM WITH WHICH
HE DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT
FAMILIARITY.
FAMILIARITY. SO I THINK THAT LEARNING ABOUT
THE RULES OF THE SENATE, THE
RULES OF -- THERE ARE SPECIFIC
RULES GOVERNING THE SENATE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, RELYING FOR
SOME INSIGHT AND ADVICE AND
REALLY LETTING THE SENATORS TAKE
CENTER STAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE TO DO WHAT THEY
MUST DO HOPING THAT THEY WILL
RISE TO THE OCCASION.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING.
THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS WATCHING.
AND IT’S ONLY CHARGES AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES THAT COULD VERY WELL
RESULT IN HIS REMOVAL.
>> LET ME BRING IN THE SENATOR
ON THAT POINT.
SENATOR, WHAT EVERYONE’S VIEWS
OF THE CASE WHICH BY THAT
TIME -- BY THE TIME THEY REACH
THE SENATOR THE CLINTON SCANDALS
HAD BEEN WELL DEBATED IN
AMERICAN LIFE.
AMERICAN LIFE. DID YOU, DID YOUR COLLEAGUES,
DID YOU SEE ANYONE WALK OUT TO
THE SENATOR FLOOR AS THE TRIAL
COMMENCED AND FELT THE GRAVITY.
WE SHOWED SOME OF THE CLIPS
WHERE THEY SAID, THIS IS A BIG
ONE.
ONE. >> I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD
THIS IS A SOBER MOMENT.
THERE IS NO JOY IN A UNITED
STATES SENATE THAT CONVENES AS A
TRIAL FOR PROSECUTION OF
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION.
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION. IT IS A TOUGH SITUATION.
LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT AS WE
BEGAN, THERE IS NOT MUCH OF A
TEMPLATE FOR HOW WE PROVIDE.
ALL 100 OF US MET IN THE OLD
SENATE CHAMBERS AND HAD AN OFF
THE RECORD DISCUSSION OF HOW DO
WE DO THIS?
SOME, FOR EXAMPLE, WANTED TO
CALL WITNESSES INTO THE CHAMBER
OF THE SENATE, BRING MONICA
BRING MONICA LEWINSKY IN, SOME
OF THEM SAID, SO SHE CAN BE A
WITNESS.
WITNESS. WELL, THE FACT IS THAT WAS
DISCARDED, AND ULTIMATELY WE GOT
VIDEOTAPES AND THEY WERE ABLE TO
HAVE VIDEOTAPES.
HAVE VIDEOTAPES. AS A TRIAL, AND WE HAD TO BE
SWORN IN SEPARATELY AS JURORS,
WE HAD TO SIGN AN OATH.
AS YOU SAW ON THE VIDEO, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE WAS THERE IN HIS
BLACK ROBE WITH HIS GOLD STRIPES
ON THE ARMS.
AND WE STARTED.
AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT.
I MEAN, IT WENT FOR -- IT
STARTED ON JANUARY 7th, 20 YEARS
AGO, AND COMPLETED I THINK ON
FEBRUARY 12th, 20 YEARS AGO.
>> DID THAT PRIVATE ROOM MEETING
YOU’RE REFERENCING, DID IT HAVE,
BY THE END, A CONSENSUS?
>> IT DID.
AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE
CONSENSUS WAS REACHED, AS I
RECALL, PRINCIPALLY BY TED
KENNEDY AND PHIL GRAHAM.
VERY DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH VERY
DIFFERENT POLITICAL
DIFFERENT POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES.
PERSPECTIVES. AND SO WE CAME OUT OF THAT WHOLE
SENATE CHAMBER WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE SHOULD
PROCEED.
PROCEED. AND NOT EVERYONE -- IT WAS A
VERY SOBER TIME BECAUSE WE
UNDERSTOOD THE GRAVITY OF IT.
>> IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE IN THIS
PITCHED ERA, WHEN BASIC FACTS
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, U.S.
SENATOR DORGAN, WE HAVE VIDEO
FROM THE DAY OF THE’ QUITTAL,
TAKE A LOOK.
>> EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE
FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT IS BUT I
THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION
WORKED TODAY.
WORKED TODAY. THE UNITED STATES SENATE DECIDED
NOT TO NULLIFY THE LAST ELECTION
IN THIS COUNTRY AS A RESULT OF
THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THIS
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> THE ISSUES MAY BE VERY
DIFFERENT BUT EAGLE-EYED VIEWERS
WILL NOTE YOUR REFERENCE TO NOT
NULLIFYING THE PAST ELECTION IS
WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
HAVE SAID THIS WEEK ABOUT THIS
EFFORT.
EFFORT. >> BUT ESPECIALLY NOT NULLIFYING
ELECTIONS IN PERSONAL BEHAVIOR.
THAT WAS ABOUT PERSONAL
BEHAVIOR, ABHORRENT AS IT WAS.
BUT THAT’S VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN
BEHAVIOR IN WHICH A PRESIDENT IS
ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
THE INTERVENE AND INVOLVE
THEMSELVES IN AN ELECTION IN
THIS COUNTRY.
THIS COUNTRY. THAT IS CRIMINAL.
THERE’S A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT
REALLY BAD THINGS HAVE BEEN
HAPPENING AND HAVE HAPPENED.
AND I THINK THIS SENATE WILL
HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. AND THEY ARE NOT QUESTIONS ABOUT
PERSONAL BEHAVIOR.
PERSONAL BEHAVIOR. >> JUDGE LEWIS, A QUESTION I
HAVE FOR YOU, I’VE BEEN WAITING
TO ASK ALL WEEK SINCE I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER, JAY SEKULOW.
HE’S TAKEN THE POSITION IT WOULD
BE UNFAIR AS A MATTER OF DUE
PROCESS TO TRY TO CONVICT A
PRESIDENT ON ANONYMOUS
TESTIMONY, PEOPLE WHO CAN’T BE
CONFRONTED.
CONFRONTED. MOST PEOPLE KNOW THE RULES ARE
DIFFERENT, THERE’S NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHAT
WAS MERITS DUE PROCESS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE
SUBSTANCE OF THAT ARGUMENT?
DO YOU THINK THERE’S FAIRNESS
THERE?
THERE? WOULD IT CONCERN YOU TO REMOVE
ANY PRESIDENT IF IT WAS
PRIMARILY ON ANONYMOUS
TESTIMONY?
TESTIMONY? >> LOOK.
>> LOOK. THE CONSTITUTION VESTS THE
AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
SENATE. AND OTHER THAN THAT, IT DOES NOT
SPELL OUT ANY SPECIFIC
GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS OR
SOME AMORPHOUS NOTION OF
FAIRNESS, ALTHOUGH WE DO HOPE
THAT IT IS A FAIR PROCESS AND
PROCEDURE.
PROCEDURE. IT’S A POLITICAL PROCESS BY
NATURE.
NATURE. THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.
AND IT WILL NOT WORK.
NO.
NO. THE COUNTRY REALLY DESERVES A
FULL AIRING OF ALL OF THE
CHARGES THAT MAY BE BROUGHT,
WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE, WHEREVER
THEY MIGHT LEAD.
AND WE HAVE REPOSED IN OUR
REPRESENTATIVES THE SOLEMN
RESPONSIBILITY TO RISE ABOVE
POLITICS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE
AND TO DO WHAT THEY MUST DO,
WHAT THEY’VE TAKEN AN OATH TO,
DO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
YOU HAD AN EARLIER CLIP IN WHICH
YOU PLAYED THAT SEGMENT FROM THE
WATER DATE HEARINGS WHEN BARBARA
JORDAN SPOKE.
JORDAN SPOKE. AND HER WORDS GIVE ME CHILLS
EVERY TIME I HEAR THEM.
MY FAITH IN THE CONSTITUTION IS
COMPLETE.
COMPLETE. MY FAITH IN THE CONSTITUTION IS
COMPLETE TOO, BUT IT IS ONLY AS
GOOD AND IT WILL ONLY RISE TO
THE LEVEL THAT WE HOPE AND
EXPECT TO THE EXTENT THAT OUR
REPRESENTATIVES ARE ABLE TO DO
THEIR JOB AND TO ASSUME THEIR
OATHS.
OATHS. AND SO NO, IT’S NOT AN ARGUMENT
THAT IS RECOGNIZED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
CONSTITUTION. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO RULES
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
PROCEDURE. THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. WHEN THE SENATE IS CONVENED FOR
THIS PROCEEDING, IT IS CONVENED
AS A COURT.
IT IS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND SO THEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT
THE RULES ARE AND HOW THINGS
UNFOLD.
UNFOLD. >> CLARITY, EXPERTISE, WISDOM.