BOGUS. >> Martha: SENATOR HAWLEY,
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
JOINING ME NOW, TREY GOWDY NELLY
FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TONIGHT.
TONIGHT. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
IS IT OKAY FOR RAND PAUL TO
MENTION THE NAME IN HIS TWEET
TODAY.
TODAY. HE SAID HE MENTIONED A NAME,
KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON
IS WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT WANTS TO
KNOW ABOUT THAT PERSON’S
POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE
BEGINNING OF ALL THIS.
>> MARTHA, I ACTUALLY THINK BOTH
SIDES ARE WRONG IN THE SPIRIT WE
MAKE 4-YEAR-OLDS TESTIFY IN
COURT.
COURT. WE MAKE WOMEN WHO WERE SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED IN COURT.
YOU COULD ESCAPE THE
CROSS-EXAMINE, WE DON’T DO IT
FOR ANYONE ELSE, WHY THIS
WHISTLE-BLOWER?
WHISTLE-BLOWER? THE OTHER THING, ABOUT THIS
WHISTLE-BLOWER, I DON’T NEED
HIM!
HIM! WHY DO I CARE SOMEONE WHO
OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION FELT
ABOUT IT OR THOUGHT ABOUT IT OR
BELIEVED ABOUT IT.
I CAN READ IT FOR MYSELF.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS RELEVANT
BUT HE’S NOT MATERIAL AND THERE
ARE PLENTY OF WITNESSES I THINK
WOULD BE MORE PROBATIVE THAN THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER OF A TRANSCRIPT
YOU AND I CAN READ OURSELVES.
>> Martha: TO THE POINT THAT I
HAD BEEN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER,
PUSHED OPEN A PROCESS THAT
VIOLATES THE ISSUE OF THE
PRESIDENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE
DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE NOT PUBLIC,
PUSHED OUT IN THE PUBLIC, EVEN
THOUGH HE KNOWS OR KNEW AT THAT
TIME THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE ON
THE CALL BUT THEY ARE IN THE
CIRCLE FOR THAT REASON.
ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE
PRECEDENT THAT’S BEEN SET WITH
THAT WITH ALL OF THIS?
>> THE REMEDY OF THAT IS TO
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON
THOSE CALLS.
THOSE CALLS. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES ANYBODY
TAKES UNPRECEDENTED ACTS, IF YOU
LISTEN TO A CONVERSATION OF A
PRESIDENT AND THE LEADER OF
ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THEN YOU
VOIDED TO NULLIFY THAT
CONFIDENCE AND TELL SOMEBODY
ABOUT IT, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
SHRINK THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON
THE CULPRIT THAT’S THE REMEDY OF
THAT.
THAT. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, A DOZEN
PEOPLE OUT OF THIS CALL, DO YOU
REALLY NEED A DOZEN PEOPLE TO
TAKE NOTES?
TAKE NOTES? >> TAKE IT TO A VOTE ON
WITNESSES?
WITNESSES? >> YOU KNOW, MARTHA, I TALKED TO
MY SENATE BUDDIES ON THE WAY
OVER TONIGHT IN MY TRUCK ON THE
CELL PHONE.
CELL PHONE. I’M NOT CONVINCED THAT THEY HAVE
THE VOTES FOR WITNESSES.
I THINK THAT’S STILL VERY MUCH
UP IN THE AIR AND I THINK MY
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS IN THE SENATE
ARE WORRIED THAT THEY -- SOME
FOLKS MAY VOTE FOR BOLTON AND NO
FOCUS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THAT MAY BE AN UNMITIGATED
DISASTER FOR REPUBLICANS.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE BOLTON
AND HAVE HUNTER BIDEN, IF YOU
ARE GOING TO HAVE MULVANEY, YOU
ARE GOING TO NEED JOE BIDEN.
THE NOTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO
HAVE THE HOUSE WHO COULD’VE
CALLED ALL OF THEIR WITNESSES,
BUT DID NOT, WE ARE GOING TO
REWARD THAT WITH AN APPEARANCE
IN THE SENATE?
I WOULD JUST CAUTION MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE, DO NOT FALL FOR THAT HE
WOULD EITHER HAVE NO WITNESSES
OR HAVE SOME PARITY AMONG THE
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. I DO NOT THINK IT’S A FOREGONE
ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL NOT
VOTE TO HAVE WITNESSES.
NOT YET.
NOT YET. >> Martha: INTERESTING.
EVEN SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
SOUNDING PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT
ALL OF THIS.
SENATOR McCONNELL SEEMS TO
HAVE MORE OF A SPRING IN A STEP
THAT HE DID YESTERDAY ON THIS
ISSUE, ARE THERE SPECIFIC
SENATORS YOU ARE GETTING WORD OR
MAYBE NOT SURE AT THIS POINT?
COLLINS?
COLLINS? LAMAR ALEXANDER?
LAMAR ALEXANDER? >> I MEAN, ROMNEY FOR SURE.
MAKOWSKI, COLLINS.
MAKOWSKI, COLLINS. I THINK YOU GET A SENSE OF THE
QUESTIONS BEING ASKED.
MOST OF THE QUESTIONS ARE
LEADING ANSWERS DOWN THE
QUESTIONS THAT ASSUME THE ANSWER
BUT THERE ARE SOME SENATORS THAT
ARE REALLY ASKING A LEGITIMATE,
DIRECT OPEN QUESTION.
SOLICITING MORE INFORMATION.
TO THE EXTENT THOSE ARE
REPUBLICANS AND I’VE HEARD IT
FROM COLLINS, I’VE HEARD FROM
MURKOWSKI --
MURKOWSKI -- BE WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION BY
COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI
ASKING IF THE PRESIDENT HAD DISC
THE BIDENS WITH REGARDS TO THE
LARGER ISSUE OF CORRUPTION AND
WHEN THE FIRST TIME THAT CAME
UP.
UP. IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU SAW AS
A RED FLAG?
>> THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION
THAT I HEARD WHICH WAS IS IT
EVER APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE
A POLITICAL OPPONENT?
AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?
I REMEMBER ADAM TOOK A PASS ON
THAT AND I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS A
GREAT ANSWER FROM THE
PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS.
PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS. BUT THAT’S A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION.
QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?
THE FACT THAT SOMEONE’S RUNNING
AGAINST ME DOES NOT GIVE ME AN
IMMUNITY FROM CRIME.
IT MEANS I SHOULDN’T INVESTIGATE
THEM BUT DOESN’T MEAN THEY
SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION.
QUESTION. I THINK KYRSTEN SINEMA PROBABLY
NOT ON THE WITNESSES, CERTAINLY
ON THE ISSUE OF ACQUITTAL OR
CONVICTION, I THINK SINEMA ASKED
A GREAT QUESTION LAST NIGHT AND
KNOWING HER THE WAY I DO I WOULD
BE SURPRISED IF YOU ARE NOT
GENERALLY UNDECIDED ON THE
VERDICT BUT NOT ON WITNESSES.
>> Martha: DO YOU THINK WE’LL
SEE SOME DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
VOTE TO ACQUIT?
>> FOR SURE YOU’LL SEE ONE FROM
ALABAMA IF HE WANTS TO BE CALLED
SENATOR AGAIN, HE’LL BE CALLED
CALLED TO ACQUIT, JOE MANCHIN.
SINEMA IS HER OWN PERSON AND
SHE’S NOT AFRAID OF ANYONE AND
SHE IS GOING ABOUT HER
CONSCIENCE AND DOESN’T MATTER
WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS AND
THAT’S PART OF WHY I LIKE AND
RESPECT HER SO MUCH.
I HAVE NOT TALKED TO HER ABOUT
IT.
IT. I DO NOT THINK YOU’LL LOSE ANY
ANY REPUBLICANS.
ANY REPUBLICANS. YOU MAY PICK UP COLLINS MANCHIN