>>> AS PROMISED, WE’RE BACK WITH FORMER EDITOR OF "FOREIGN
POLICY" MACK DAVID ROTHKOPFF.
LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS INVITED RUDY
GIULIANI TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
PROFESSOR, I GO TO YOU FIRST.
WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU THAT THERE
IS SUCH RESISTANCE TO HAVING
CERTAIN PEOPLE TESTIFY AND WHAT
DO YOU SEE IN THE RUDY GAMBIT?
>> WELL, ARI, YOU STARTED US OFF
WITH A DRAKE QUOTE.
IT’S ONLY FAIR THAT I RESPOND
WITH ONE, THAT THIS IS GO FROM
ZERO TO ONE REAL QUICK.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IT
VERY CLEAR THEY HAVE NO
INTENTION OF COOPERATING, THEY
HAVE NO INTEREST IN COOPERATING,
AND, YOU KNOW, THEIR PLAN IS
ESSENTIALLY TO STONEWALL, MOVING
FORWARD.
FORWARD. >> I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU’RE
GETTING AT HAS STARTED FROM
UKRAINE AND NOW WE’RE HERE.
>> ALL THE WAY, ALL THE WAY.
>> WAIT UNTIL DAVID GETS
INVOLVED.
INVOLVED. BUT GO ON.
YOU’RE SAYING THIS REALLY DOES
REVEAL BIGGER PROBLEMS TO COME?
>> IT DOES.
IT ALSO INDICATES, IN SOME
SENSES, IT’S ESSENTIALLY
PRESSING THE DEMOCRATS’
POSITION.
POSITION. IT’S SUGGESTING AND SAYING, YOU
KNOW WHAT, YOU WANTED TO DO AN
INQUIRY, YOU WANTED TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION, I’M SAYING WE’RE
NOT COOPERATING WITH THE
INVESTIGATION, WHICH LEAVES THEM
WITH VERY FEW OPTIONS.
THEY CAN PRESS THIS AND SAY
WE’RE GOING TO WRING OUR HANDS
AND PULL OUR HAIR OUT, OR THEY
CAN ACTUALLY MOVE AHEAD, SO THEY
CAN DO THINGS LIKE HOLD
REPUBLICANS AND CONTEMPT OR
WITNESSES IN CONTEMPT.
ALSO THEY CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
SO IT FEELS LIKE WE’RE MOVING
VERY RAPIDLY INTO NOT JUST A
STALEMATE BUT A FACE-OFF OF
SORTS.
SORTS. >> DAVID, AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS
FOREIGN POLICY WELL, IT CAN BE
COMPLICATED.
COMPLICATED. THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE
NUANCE AND SHADING.
THIS DOESN’T LOOK THAT
COMPLICATED ANYMORE.
COMPLICATED ANYMORE. >> THIS CASE DOESN’T LOOK
COMPLICATED.
COMPLICATED. THE PRESIDENT’S EVIDENCE, THE
EVIDENCE HE’S PUT IN, HAS
ALREADY SAID THAT HE ASKED FOR A
FAVOR, THAT HE WITHHELD
SOMETHING UNTIL THAT FAVOR WAS
PROVIDED.
PROVIDED. AND IN FACT EVEN BEFORE THAT,
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO BEFORE
THE QUID PRO QUO, BECAUSE THEY
SAID HE COULDN’T HAVE A PHONE
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE UNTIL HE WOULD AGREE
TO DEAL WITH THIS STUFF.
SO THE CASE IS VERY CLEAR ON THE
BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE THAT’S
THERE.
THERE. THE PROBLEM IS, AS WAS JUST
DESCRIBED, WE’RE HEADING RAPIDLY
TOWARDS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
WE’RE HEADING RAPIDLY TOWARDS
THE POINT WHERE THE PRESIDENT
SAYS I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE
LEGITIMACY OF THE CONGRESS TO DO
THIS, I DON’T BELIEVE IN PAST
PRECEDENT, LEAVE ME ALONE.
AND SOMEWHERE THIS IS GOING TO
HAVE TO BE TESTED.
IN A COURT, BY THE CONGRESS
TAKING AN ACTION AND PUTTING
SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, IN JAIL AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF IT, OR NOT.
I THINK THAT’S THE GAME THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS PLAYING.
>> YOU SAY THAT, AND SINCE WE’RE
HERE, WE JUST GOT THIS, AS I’VE
BEEN EMPHASIZING, WITHIN THE
LAST HOUR OR SO, THIS IS THE NEW
WHITE HOUSE LETTER.
I’M READING FROM IT.
IT SAYS THERE’S NO LEGITIMATE
BASIS FOR YOUR, QUOTE,
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE WHITE HOUSE IS PUTTING
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN SCARE
QUOTES LIKE IT’S NOT A THING.
THEN THEY SAY, ACTUALLY IT’S THE
COMMITTEE’S ACTIONS THAT RAISE
SERIOUS QUESTIONS, WHICH IS AN
OLD TRICK WE’VE HEARD, DAVID,
INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS.
YOU’RE SAYING YOU SEE A CRISIS
AFOOT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY’RE
HANDLING THIS.
HANDLING THIS. >> OF COURSE, BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION DOESN’T GIVE THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE RIGHT TO
MAKE THE DECISION ON
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THAT
SOLELY TO THE CONGRESS.
AND HISTORY GIVES THE RIGHT OF
CONGRESS TO PURSUE THIS THING.
AND WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS
DOING IS ESSENTIALLY THROWING UP
EVERYTHING THEY CAN BUT IT’S ALL
LIES, IT’S ALL FABRICATIONS.
WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THAT THEY
CAN STALL, AND THAT MAYBE SOME
COURT, PERHAPS THE SUPREME
COURT, AT SOME POINT MIGHT RULE
IN THEIR FAVOR.
THEY ALSO KNOW THAT THIS
CONGRESS THUS FAR HAS TAKEN IT A
LITTLE EASY ON THEM.
IT HASN’T PUSHED THEM HARD, IT
HASN’T GIVEN CONSEQUENCES FOR
NOT COOPERATING.
NOT COOPERATING. AND I THINK THAT’S WHERE WE’VE
GOT TO GO VERY QUICKLY.
AND THE SPEED WITH WHICH THIS
SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED TODAY IS A
SIGN THAT MAYBE THEY’RE TURNING
UP THE GAS A LITTLE.
>> I DEFINITELY NOTICE THAT AS
WELL, WHICH GOES TO HOW THIS ONE
IS DIFFERENT, WHICH HAS BEEN A
THEME IN SOME OF THE FACTS WE’VE
BEEN ASSEMBLING.
BEEN ASSEMBLING. LEAH, WHEN WE SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER JAY SEKULOW
LAST NIGHT, PEOPLE SAY, WHY
INTERVIEW THESE PEOPLE?
WELL, YOU CAN LEARN NEW THINGS
THAT THEY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY
GIVE OUT IN OTHER VENUES, SO
IT’S NOT IN THE PRESS RELEASE,
IT’S NOT IN THE TWEET.
ANDIVES ABLE IVES WAS ABLE TO PR
SEKULOW, WHEN DID YOU LEARN
ABOUT THIS, THE UKRAINE PLOT?
HE DIDN’T WANT TO GO THERE AND
SAID, I ONLY LEARNED ABOUT IT
WHEN IT CAME PUBLIC.
I THINK THAT’S PART OF WHY WE’RE
SEEING THIS MAKE UP STRATEGIES
ON THE FLY.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> IT WAS OUT OF MY
JURISDICTION, NOT ANYTHING I WAS
ENGAGED IN.
ENGAGED IN. >> WHEN DID YOU LEARN RUDY
GIULIANI WAS ASKING FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS TO INVESTIGATE JOE
BIDEN?
BIDEN? >> YOU KNOW, I LEARNED I GUESS
WHEN YOU DID.
THAT WAS NOT IN MY JURISDICTION.
>> I’M ASKING YOU WHEN YOU DID.
YOU DON’T KNOW WHEN I LEARNED
IT.
IT. >> I DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
IT UNTIL IT BECAME PUBLIC.
>> WHEN IT SPILLED INTO THE
PUBLIC REPORTING?
PUBLIC REPORTING? >> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> LEAH, YOU HAVE ONE LAWYER IN
GIULIANI WHO IS AN ACTUALLY
AGENT OF THE PLOT, WHETHER IT’S
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS YET TO
BE SEEN.
BE SEEN. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THESE
LETTERS, IT’S A LITTLE LATE TO
LEARN ABOUT ALL THIS WHEN YOU’RE
DEALING WITH AN EXISTENTIAL
THREAT TO THE PRESIDENCY.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. I THINK PART OF IT GOES TO TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS.
DIFFERENT THINGS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE PRESIDENT
IS AN AGENT OF CHAOS AND HAS
BEEN AN AGENT OF CHAOS SINCE THE
SECOND HE SET FOOT IN THE WHITE
HOUSE, PROBABLY EVEN BEFORE
THAT, MEANING THAT HE DOES AS HE
SEES FIT WITHOUT REGARD FOR
RULE, WITHOUT REGARD FOR LAW,
WITHOUT REGARD FOR PRECEDENT AND
HISTORY.
HISTORY. SO THERE’S CONSTANTLY A GAME OF
CATCH-UP AND PLOTTING AROUND
HIM.
HIM. WE’VE HEARD STORIES OF PEOPLE
INTERVENING TO ENSURE THAT THESE
THINGS THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO DO
ON A WHIM AREN’T CRIMINAL, THAT
THEY ARE LEGAL.
SO WE’RE SEEING THE CONSEQUENCES
THAT HAVE KIND OF ENVIRONMENT.
NUMBER TWO, THIS SPEAKS TO A
LITTLE BIT OF THE CHAOS ON THE
SIDE OF THE CLEANUP TEAM, THAT
THE STRATEGY RIGHT NOW IS, LET’S
THROW EVERYTHING AGAINST THE
WALL, SEE WHAT STICKS, AND
HOPEFULLY SOMETHING WILL COME
OUT THAT WILL ALLOW TO US
PERSIST AND/OR THE DEMOCRATS
ACTUALLY DON’T HAVE THE BACKBONE
TO ACT ON THIS.
YOU’RE SEEING THESE TWO THINGS
INTERSECT.
INTERSECT. BUT THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FROM
THE BEGINNING, HOW DO YOU DEAL
WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF A
PRESIDENT, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
THAT DOES AS IT CEASESEES FIT AN
CONGRESS THAT HASN’T HELD THAT
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE UNTIL
RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW. >> AND YOU SAID, QUOTE, CLEANUP
TEAM, WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE THING THAT I’M ABOUT
TO PLAY THAT YOU’RE GOING TO SEE
FROM A MEMBER OF THAT TEAM CAN
BE DESCRIBED, IN THE CASE OF MR.
GIULIANI, AS CLEANING UP
ANYTHING.
ANYTHING. >> DID YOU ASK THE UKRAINE TO
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN?
>> NO.
>> NO. >> SO YOU DID ASK UKRAINE TO
LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN?
>> OF COURSE I DID.
>> ALL RIGHT, RUDY, HOLD THAT
THOUGHT.
THOUGHT. >> 20 YEARS OF A WASHINGTON
PRESS CORPS THAT WAS -- I SAY,
BROTHER, CUT IT OUT, DAMN IT, AS
OPPOSED TO, I DON’T KNOW ABOUT
IT, I DIDN’T HEAR IT, AND YOU
ALL BUY THAT.
BULL.
BULL. >> WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
CALL.
CALL. >> SHH.
>> SHH. >> I MEAN, WHAT CAN YOU SAY?
>> YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN SAY,
TODAY LINDSEY GRAHAM DID
SOMETHING THAT THE DEMOCRATS
WERE HAPPY WITH.
LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID, I WANT TO
GET RUDY UP HERE ON THE HILL, I
WANT TO HAVE RUDY TESTIFY IN
FRONT OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. >> TO DO MORE OF THAT?
>> THAT’S THE THING, THE
DEMOCRATS MUST BE GOING, OKAY,
GET THIS GUY UP HERE, HE IS A
HOT MESS.
HOT MESS. IF HE COMES OUT AND HE STARTS TO
TALK LIKE HE DOES THERE, AND
THEN YOU COMBINE THAT WITH SOME
TOUGH QUESTIONING FROM SOME OF
THE PEOPLE ON THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THIS IS
GOING TO BE A DISASTER FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK,
LEAH, IN CLOSING, OF DAVID ACE
POINT.
POINT. AS FRUSTRATING AS MANY PEOPLE
FIND THE FARCE, IF HE DOES SOME
OF THAT SAME FARCE UNDER OATH,
IF THE CUOMO INTERVIEW WERE
UNDER OATH, IT WOULD LIKELY BE
PERJURY BECAUSE OF THE FALSE
STATEMENTS IN IT.
>> SO IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW
FAR RUDY GIULIANI IS WILLING TO
GO TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT.
IT’S QUITE CLEAR THAT HE’S NOT,
YOU KNOW, WILLING TO PROTECT
OTHER PEOPLE IN THE FOLD.
BUT HIS BREAD AND BUTTER RIGHT
NOW IS THE PRESIDENT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WILL SAY
THAT IS BECOMING QUITE APPARENT
IS THAT IN ADDITION TO KIND OF
GOING OUT THERE AND BEING MR.
DESTRUCTIVE, MR. CHAOS AGENT,
RUDY GIULIANI TRYING TO SAVE HIS
OWN SKIN, THERE IS ALSO AN
ELEMENT OF GIULIANI THAT IS
DEDICATED TO TRYING TO CHANGE
THE NARRATIVE AROUND WHAT WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT.
TALKING ABOUT. >> SURE.
>> SURE. >> SO ALL OF THIS FOCUS ON
BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN, AND
EMPHASIZING THAT THE SCANDAL IS
REALLY ABOUT BIDEN, TO THE POINT
THAT THE PUBLIC IS HEARING THIS
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ONE WONDERS
WHAT HE WOULD DO IF HE IS IN
FRONT OF CONGRESS AND IS
TESTIFYING AND PERHAPS
TESTIFYING IN TELEVISED
HEARINGS, AND IT’S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO, YOU
KNOW, USE THIS KIND OF PLATFORM
FOR MISINFORMATION, FOR
DISINFORMATION, AND TO TRY AND
CHANGE THE NARRATIVE AGAIN BACK
TO BIDEN AS OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP WHICH IS WHERE IT SHOULD
BE.
BE. >> I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT YOU
BOTH, AT YOUR INCREDIBLE
JUDGMENT IN YOUR SILENCE,
BECAUSE I’M SURE YOU COULD HAVE
SAID THINGS THAT WERE HARSHER
THAN YOUR SILENCE IN REACTION TO