>>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN ATTEMPTING TO SPUR ACTION BY A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN
COORDINATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE DONE SO THROUGH PROPER
CHANNELS.
CHANNELS. WHILE THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY
ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO
OTHERWISE, THERE IS CONSEQUENCE
TO THAT ACTION AS WE HAVE NOW
WITNESSED.
WITNESSED. AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHY WE ARE
ALL HERE.
ALL HERE. >> ATTORNEY ROBERT RAY, YOU SEE
RIGHT THERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE MAKING THE
CASE DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP
BEFORE THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AS THIS THING GETS CLOSER TO FRIDAY, IT’S
THE -- IT BECOMES APPARENT TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS IS
PRINCIPALLY A POLITICAL PROCESS.
>> I HEAR YOU ON THAT.
LET’S LOOK AT YOU ON THE SENATE
FLOOR.
FLOOR. >> NO AMOUNT OF WITNESS
TESTIMONY DOCUMENTS HIGH FIVES,
FIST BUMPS, SIGNING PENS OR
OTHERWISE ARE EVER GOING TO BE
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THIS
IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE DEMOCRAT’S
OWN STANDARDS.
OWN STANDARDS. >> YOU SAY THE EVIDENCE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT.
SUFFICIENT. LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF IT, RIGHT?
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> YOU HAVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION SAYING, WELL,
THEY ARE WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE
THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND NEW
BOLTON BOOK SAID THAT THE
PRESIDENT DEMANDED FREEZING THE
AID UNTIL THE OFFICIALS HELPED
WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE
BIDENS.
BIDENS. IS YOUR CORE ARGUMENT IN THIS
SENATE TRIAL THAT IS FALSE OR IT
DOESN’T MATTER IF IT WERE TRUITT
IT’S STILL OKAY?
>> LET ME TELL YOU, THE
PRESIDENT IS ENTIRELY PERMITTED
TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE
TEMPORARILY TO SEE WHAT THE
UKRAINIANS DO.
UKRAINIANS DO. AND I THINK AT BEST THAT’S THE
IMPORT OF WHAT EVEN IF YOU
CREDIT WHAT IS IN A BOOK THAT I
HAVEN’T SEEN YET AND DON’T KNOW
WHAT IT SAYS WHAT WOULD
POTENTIALLY COME FROM MR.
BOLTON.
BOLTON. AND THAT IS TO SAY SO LONG AS
AID IS NOT CONDITIONED WITH THE
UKRAINIANS ON THAT MATTER AND
THAT ISSUE THAT THERE’S NOTHING
ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT.
AND NOTHING -- THEREFORE
IMPEACHABLE ABOUT THAT.
>> BUT IF THE AID IS CONDITIONED
ON GETTING THE BIDEN PROBE
THAT’S ILLEGAL?
THAT’S ILLEGAL? >> THAT’S FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT IS
A QUID PRO QUO.
BUT THE PART THAT MAKES THAT
CONDITION CORRUPT IS THAT THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN -- IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN NECESSARY FOR THAT TO HAVE
BEEN COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY TO
UKRAINE AND THEY HAVE DENIED
THAT THAT HAPPENED.
THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.
AND AGAIN, TO RE-EMPHASIZE THE
POINT THERE’S NOTHING UNLAWFUL
OR IMPERMISSIBLE ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY
PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE TO SEE
WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO.
>> LET’S DIG INTO THIS.
BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE SOME HEADS
ARE EXPLODING WHAT YOU’RE SAYING
ON THE FACTS THAT ARE
UNCONTESTED.
UNCONTESTED. SO THERE IS A MORE THAN ONE SET
OF ARGUMENTS, THERE ARE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO SAY
THAT THE UKRAINIANS NOT ONLY
KNEW BUT WERE ASKING ABOUT IT.
EVERYONE HAS A PUBLIC RECORD,
MR. STARR WHO YOU REPLACED HAS A
PUBLIC RECORD.
PUBLIC RECORD. HERE IS YOU TELLING US WHAT
WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
>> WHAT’S ILLEGAL IS EXPRESSLY
EXPRESSLY -- YOU KNOW,
CONDITIONING IT ON THAT ONLY ONE
WILL BE DONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
OTHER.
OTHER. >> ONLY ONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
OTHER AND THE EVIDENCE I KNOW
YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT WAS
PLAYED IN THIS SENATE TRIAL.
DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED WHAT DO
YOU WANT TO DO, TEMPORARILY
HOLDING UP.
HOLDING UP. THE DEAL IS WHAT HE WANTED IN
RETURN AND HERE HE WAS ADMITTING
HIS OBJECTIVE, HIS OWN WORDS.
LET’S SEE THAT.
>> MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT EXACTLY
DID YOU HOPE THAT ZELENSKY WOULD
DO IN THIS PHONE CALL?
EXACTLY.
EXACTLY. >> WELL, I WOULD THINK IF
THEY’RE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY’D
START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO
THE BIDENS.
THE BIDENS. >> AGAIN, MY POINT --
>> IS THAT A CORRUPT GOAL?
>> NO, WHAT’S IN THE PRESIDENT’S
HEAD AND WHAT HE WANTED WHICH IS
THE ESSENCE OF WHAT MR. BOLTON
WOULD TESTIFY TO IF CALLED AS A
WITNESS.
WITNESS. THAT ISN’T REFLECTIVE OF A
CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL QUID PRO QUO
THAT WOULD LEAD TO BRIBERY.
AS WE HAVE ARGUED AND HAS MR.
DERSHOWITZ HAS ARGUED AND
FRANKLY THE ENTIRE PRESIDENT’S
DEFENSE TEAM, EVEN YOU CREDIT
ALL THAT, THAT’S NOT SUFFICIENT.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE GOING
FARTHER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER
TRUMP LAWYERS.
TRUMP LAWYERS. YOU’RE SAYING IT’S FINE TO
DEMAND A PROBE OF A DOMESTIC
RIVAL?
RIVAL? >> LOOK, I ADDRESSED THAT DURING
THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS TO THE
SENATE AND I HAVE SAID THAT MANY
OF THE SENATORS HAVE OR
POTENTIALLY WILL CONCLUDE THAT
THE CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT.
THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE.
OFFICE. >> LET ME PRESS YOU ON THIS,
ROBERT.
ROBERT. ISN’T THIS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION
OF THE GOAL?
ISN’T THIS THE QUESTION, HE SAYS
I WANT YOU, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
I WANT YOU TO GO AFTER THE RIVAL
THAT’S A CORRUPT GOAL?
>> WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS
IT WAS EXPRESSED IN "THE NEW
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT
DONALD TRUMP WANTS ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT AS I SAID DURING MY
REMARKS THE CONVERSATION WOULD
HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN
SOMETHING LIKE, LISTEN, HERE’S
THE DEAL.
THE DEAL. YOU’RE NOT GETTING FOREIGN AID
UNLESS I GET WHAT I WANT.
NOW, THAT’S ANOTHER QUESTION,
THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
AND OUR POSITION IS THAT SHORT
OF THAT, THE CONDUCT IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN
ABUSE OF POWER WARRANTING THE
PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
AND MY POINT IS IF YOU ACCEPT
THAT PROPOSITION, NO AMOUNT OF
WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS ARE EVER
GOING TO CHANGE THAT.
THAT’S WHY WITNESSES ARE NOT
NECESSARY.
NECESSARY. AND I BELIEVE ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS THAT SENATORS CAN UNITE
AROUND THAT PROPOSITION.
>> YOU MAY BE HITTING SOMETHING
THAT SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS
WELCOME.
WELCOME. >> I HOPE SO.
>> YOU’RE RAISING THE BAR EVEN
IF IT’S A POTENTIALLY CORRUPT
INTENT, EVEN IT’S A DEMAND TO GO
AFTER RIVALS OR AN INTERFERENCE,
EVEN IF THERE WASN’T AN EXCHANGE
IN THE QUID PRO QUO BRIBERY
YOU’RE GOOD?
YOU’RE GOOD? >> YOU’VE RECONSTRUCTED THAT A
BIT.
BIT. BECAUSE THE LAST PART MAKES IT
CORRUPT, NOT THE FIRST PART.
OKAY, IT IS ONLY CORRUPT IF
THERE’S CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE
EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN
IMPROPER BARGAIN FOR EXCHANGE.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THE UKRAINIANS DO IS NOT
ILLEGAL.
ILLEGAL. AND AGAIN I’LL GO BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL PREMISE.
ORIGINAL PREMISE. IF IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
TEMPORARILY WITHHOLD AID TO SEE
WHAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD DO,
EVEN IF IT’S SOMETHING HE’D LIKE
DONE, AS LONG AS HE DOESN’T
CONDITION IT ON ONE OR THE OTHER
IT’S NOT BRIBERY, IT’S NOT
SUFFICIENT TO REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE.
OFFICE. >> THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER
CHARGE.
CHARGE. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE MAKE AN
ARGUMENT THAT ATTEMPT IS NOT
FULLY AN ABUSE OF POWER.
>> NO.
>> NO. >> BUT IF’S UNSUCCESSFUL DOES --
BECAUSE YOU WAITED OUT THE
UKRAINIANS.
UKRAINIANS. >> NO, THE INTENT IS IMPORTANT
AS YOU SUGGEST.
AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PROPOSITION THAT OBVIOUSLY AN --
YOU KNOW, A NOT COMPLETED INTENT
IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO
CONSTITUTE CORRUPTION.
CONSTITUTE CORRUPTION. BUT THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS
ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD AID IN
ORDER TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS
DO.
DO. AND --
AND -- >> WHAT IF THEY DO THE BAD
THING?
THING? ANYONE LISTENING -- SEE, YOU
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, SOMEONE IS
SAYING WAIT AND SEE WHAT THEY
DO.
DO. WHAT IF YOU ANNOUNCE THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND
YOU GIVE THEM THE MONEY THAT’S
THE ALLEGED ABUSE.
>> THAT’S WHY IT’S SO UNCERTAIN
AND I GUESS TO GET BACK TO YOUR
POINT, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
COULD STILL BE A PROBLEM, YOU
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ALSO THAT
YOUR PRINCIPAL WITNESSES HERE
WHICH WOULD BE THE UKRAINIANS
PEOPLE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH ME OR US AND PART OF
THAT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY
MAY BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND
ADDRESS IT.
ADDRESS IT. AND THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
ME TO DO SO THERE.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS STRIKING.
I MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT
LOOKED REASONABLE.
LOOKED REASONABLE. WE HAVE TO GET INTO SOMETHING
ELSE.
ELSE. YOU MENTIONED HONESTY.
>> YES.
>> YES. >> SOME OF YOUR CO-COUNSEL WHO
WENT TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND
SAID SOMETHING THAT IS
HISTORICALLY FALSE THAT
DISAGREES WITH PRECEDENT.
THEY CLAIM THAT ABUSE OF POWER
WHICH AS YOU KNOW AS A FORMER
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND YOU
REPLACED KEN STARR AND HE KNOWS
BECAUSE HE PURSUED IT WAS AN
ORIGINAL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST NIXON AND BILL CLINTON.
YET, WE SEE THIS NEW FOUND
ARGUMENT THAT THE ARGUMENTS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWERS LET
ME PLAY THAT.
THEN YOU GET YOUR TIME.
HERE ARE SEVERAL LAWYERS ARGUING
ALONG THE LINES.
>> IT WOULD HAVE INCONCEIVABLE
THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE
DEPLOYED A TEAM AS ABUSE OF
POWER TO BE WEAPONIZED AS A TOOL
OF IMPEACHMENT.
OF IMPEACHMENT. >> IMPEACHMENTS SHOULD BE
EVALUATED IN TERMS OF OFFENSES
AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW.
>> VIOLATION OF LAW NECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ABUSE
OF POWER.
OF POWER. >> WHY GO BEFORE THOSE SENATORS
WHO KNOW BETTER AND HAVE THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AND OTHERS
WENT FARTHER THAN YOU, MR.
DERSHOWITZ, CERTAINLY THE
FARTHEST, AND TELL THEM
SOMETHING THAT’S HISTORICALLY
FALSE WHEN WE KNOW ABUSE OF
POWER IS IMPEACHABLE.
I WANT HAPPENED IN THE LAST --
IT HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO
IMPEACHMENT PROBES.
IMPEACHMENT PROBES. >> BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER I’M
NOT SURE YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE
THAT AS BEING POTENTIALLY
IMPEACHABLE WHEN IT HAS BEEN
DONE IT HASN’T FARED WELL.
IT HAS NOT ENJOYED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT.
SUPPORT. >> WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS MORE
ACCURATE -- AGAIN, THIS IS FOR
THE PUBLIC RECORD, THIS MATTERS.
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL WHAT
YOU SAID IS MORE ACCURATE THAN
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ.
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ. YOU SAID IT CAN BE IMPEACHABLE.
HE SAID ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE WHICH IS FALSE.
>> LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK IS
THE -- HOPEFULLY THE CLEAREST
AND WELL STATED PROPOSITION
ABOUT WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN’T
IMPEACHMENTABLE.
IMPEACHMENTABLE. WELL FOUNDED REFERENCES TO THE
CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDERS’
INTENT AND SIGNIFICANTLY
HISTORICAL PRACTICE ARE THOSE
THAT ALLEGE HIGH CRIMES, THINGS
TREASON, BRIBERY AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
THAT. OKAY?
OKAY? THAT ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF
POWER AND IN THE CONTEXT OF A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT ESSENTIALLY ARE TANTAMOUNT TO
THE VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S
OATH OF OFFICE.
>> YOU DON’T DENY THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID IMPEACH
PRESIDENT NIXON FOR ABUSE OF
POWER?
POWER? >> WELL, IT’S A LITTLE TRICKY
BECAUSE IT WAS TETHERED TO THE
FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AS
I EXPLAINED.
I EXPLAINED. >> I APPRECIATE --
>> WHICH ALLEGED --
>> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU’RE
SAYING, BUT AGAIN, I CAN READ
FROM IT.
FROM IT. IT’S THE ARTICLE THREE AGAINST
NIXON WAS ABUSE OF POWER AS YOU
SAY IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER
ARTICLE.
ARTICLE. >> ARTICLE TWO.
THE THIRD WAS --
>> WITH CLINTON --
>> OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
>> YOU HAVE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF
THE HIGH OFFICE.
MISUSE AND KEN STARR RECOMMENDED
THE CAPSTONE OF THE ARTICLE
AGAINST IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
CLINTON.
CLINTON. >> BUT THAT MADE NEVER MADE ITS
WAY TO THE SENATE TRIAL.
>> AGAIN, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE
MIGHT BE ACQUITTED OF MURDER
DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THE FACT
THAT MURDER IS A POTENTIAL
OFFENSE.
OFFENSE. AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAS
BEEN TELLING THE NATION YOU
CAN’T IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER
AND IT SEEMS YOU’RE
ACKNOWLEDGING THERE’S MORE TO
IT.
IT. >> THERE’S ALWAYS MORE TO IT
BECAUSE WE HAVE PRESIDENT FORD’S
FAMOUS COMMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY,
YOU KNOW IMPEACHMENT IS IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE
SAYS THAT IT IS.
BUT HE ALSO RECOGNIZED AND I
ALLUDED TO THIS AS WELL DURING
MY REMARKS THAT IN CONNECTION
WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS
YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE
ATTEMPTING TO TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND WITH
REGARD TO PRESIDENTS IT TRULY
DOES HAVE TO BE TREASON, BRIBERY
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MY ONLY POINT IS THAT IN THE
CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER YOU
OTHERWISE, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT.
STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT. WE’RE BEYOND WHAT THE HOUSE DID.
THE POINT IS FOR HISTORICAL
PRACTICE AND ALSO FOR WHAT
FOLLOWS THIS IMPEACHMENT, PEOPLE
NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER
TO BE AT THAT VERY HIGH BAR WITH
A TWO-THIRDS NECESSARY FROM THE
SENATE TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT
FROM OFFICE, ABUSE OF POWER IN
THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT
ENJOY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND
IT’S THE REASON WHY WE’RE HERE
NOW TALKING ABOUT THAT.
WHERE EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND THERE’S
A REASON FOR THAT.
>> WELL, ROBERT RAY, YOU’RE IN
THE MIDDLE OF THIS TRIAL.
YOU CAME HERE AFTER PRESENTING
ON THE SENATE FLOOR.