ANSWER FOR IT. SENATOR MURRAY.
SENATOR MURRAY. >> LET’S GO TO MAYA.
THAT WAS CHUCK SCHUMER OF
COURSE.
COURSE. I’VE BEEN FOLLOWING POLITICS AND
YOU LOOK AT IT AS A LEGAL
PROFESSIONAL AND I’M LOOKING A
THE IT AS DRAMA.
AND IT ALWAYS SEEMS WHERE
THERE’S A FIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT
THE ISSUES, IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN
TO ONE PARTICULAR VOTE.
YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT’S THE
VOTE, A PRELIMINARY VOTE OR
AFTERWARDS TO MAKE UP FOR
SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T WANT TO
DO.
DO. IT SEEMS LIKE THE VOTE IS GOING
TO BE ON WITNESSES.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK BUT
SCHUMER PULLED BACK A BIT THERE.
HE’S NOT PUTTING ALL THE
PRESSURE ON A
REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED CHIEF
REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED CHIEF JUSTICE.
JUSTICE. I WOULD SAY TO THE DEMOCRATS,
GET YOUR OWN CHIEF JUSTICE IF
YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE ON YOUR
SIDE.
SIDE. BUT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING
PENCIL NECKS AFRAID OF JERRY.
RIGHT TO THE END THIS PRESIDENT
IS PLAYING AN 8-YEAR-OLD’S GAME,
A SCHOOLYARD TAUNTER OF THE
LITTLE KID, THE PENCIL NECK HE’S
CALLING HIM, MAKING FUN OF THE
AWKWARD MOMENT BETWEEN JERRY
NADLER AND BEAT HIM TO THE DOOR,
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN TONE
HERE.
HERE. THE DEMOCRATS STILL PLAY IT
STRAIGHT AND THE PRESIDENT STILL
PLAYS IT SCHOOLYARD NASTY.
>> THERE’S A LITTLE QUESTION
ABOUT THAT.
ABOUT THAT. IT’S HARD TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE
SENATE DEMOCRATS COULD PLAY IT
DIFFERENTLY IN THE SENSE THAT
GIVEN WHAT’S AT STAKE AND GIVEN
HOW MANY FACT, THEY AMASSED, IT
NOT CLEAR WHAT THEY COULD DO IN
THE MINORITY TO PLAY IN THE
PRESIDENT’S DIRTY WAY AND
WHETHER THEY SHOULD.
I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, AND
I’M NOT SUGGESTING THE OUTCOME
WOULD NECESSARILY BE DIFFERENT,
BUT THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF GOING
AFTER WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE
WITH SUBPOENAS I THINK WOULD
HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL --
>> RIGHT NOW?
>> RIGHT NOW, BEFORE, AT THE
TIME WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE
DOING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
AND CERTAINLY NOW, BEING
EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE.
EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE
HAVE NOT TALKED AS MUCH ABOUT IN
TERMS OF LAMAR ALEXANDER’S
STATEMENT IS THEY CALLED THE
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
FRIVOLOUS.
FRIVOLOUS. WHAT HE ESSENTIALLY DID IS
ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT NO COURT
HAS EVER DECIDED WHICH IS THAT
THE PRESIDENT’S ADVISERS HAVE
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CONGRESS.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS A
PRESIDENT CAN BE IN A CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES, TO REMOVE THEIR
PROTECTIONS CORRUPTLY AND NOT BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THEY
WOULD NEVER BE CALLED BEFORE THE
CONGRESS TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN
WHAT THEY’VE DONE, WHY THEY’VE
DONE IT AND WHAT THE DOCUMENTS
SHOW.
SHOW. YOU WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO