LAWS.
NOT THE SKEWED VIEW FROM ADAM
SCHIFF'S BEADY EYES.
JOINING US WITH MORE IS TEXAS
SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US.
LET'S START WITH A QUESTION IN
YOUR WHEEL HOUSE TO YOUR GREAT
CREDIT.
NOW MY READING OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY CLEAR,
NOT VERY COMPLICATED.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THEY ALONE NOT THE SENATE, HAVE
THE ZOL POWER TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT.
IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND THE SENATE THEY HAVE THE
ZOL RESPONSIBILITY CONSTITUTION
AL AUTHORITY TO HAVE THE TRIAL,
CORRECT STPHEUPLGT THAT'S RIGHT.
NANCY PELOSI GOT A LITTLE
CONFUSED ON THAT BUT YOU'RE
RIGHT.
>> HELP ME OUT HERE.
I LOVE YOUR IDEA, YOU'RE THE
SAVING GRACE IN ALL OF THIS.
WHY WOULD REPUBLICAN SENATORS
THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO HEAR THE
CASE, WHY DID YOU IMPEACH HIM.
NOT ENHANCE THE CASE OR MAKE THE
CASE, THEIR JOB IS LET THEM
PRECEPT THE CASE.
MONTH CASE THEN THEY VOTE TO
ACQUIT.
WHY ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT
BRINGING IN OTHER PEOPLE
STPHURPBLGT LISTEN, I THINK
YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THE PARTISAN
CIRCUS IN THE HOUSE IS OVER.
NANCY PELOSI'S CIRCUS IS DONE.
WE WON'T SEE THE ONE SIDED SHOW
TRIAL THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN
ENGAGED IN FOR MONTHS AND
MONTHS.
THAT FARCE IS OVER.
HERE IS WHAT I HOPE HAPPENS.
THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT A FARE
TRIAL.
THAT MEANS WE WILL GIVE THE
HOUSE MANAGERS A CHANCE TO
PRESENT THEIR CASE.
WE WILL LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE
TO SAY.
WE WILL DO SOMETHING THE HOUSE
DIDN'T DO.
WE WILL GIVE PRESIDENT TRUMP A
FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIS
CASE AND LAY OUT THE FAX AND
EVIDENCE TO LAY OUT THE LAW THE
FACTS IGNORED.
ONCE THE PRESIDENT DEFENDS
HIMSELF I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE
RESULT WILL BE THE PRESIDENT IS
ACQUITTED.
THE REASON IS THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT ON THEIR FACE ARE
RIDICULOUS.
THEY DON'T SATISFY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISS DEMEANORS.
WE HAVE MOVED OUT OF NANCY
PELOSI'S WORLD.
SHE KNEW WHEN THE HOUSE DIDN'T
HAVE IT THEY COULDN'T PUT ON A
KANGAROO COURT LIKE THEY.
HAVE INSTEAD WE WILL MOVE TO THE
SENATE WHERE I HOPE AND BELIEVE
WE WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND
ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.
>> THE FEDERAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE, I UNDERSTAND THEM,
HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT, JOHN ROBERTS
WILL PROVIDE OVER THIS
SCHIFF-SHAM SHOW.
FEDERAL RULES.
GLAD YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR,
SENATOR SHOULD PEOPLE DON'T GET
IT, CONFIDENTIALLY.
NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE
FEDERAL EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.
HERE IS A EVIDENCE IS
INADMISSIBLE.
OPINION WITNESSES ARE NICE,
EXPERTS ARE ON ALL SIDES.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
TRIAL.
THERE IS ONE FACT WITNESS THE
HOUSE BROUGHT IN.
THE AMBASSADOR.
THEY WANT NOTHING NO QUI QUO
PRO.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT THE BULK OF THE
TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE WOULD BE
INADMISSIBLE IN ANY FEDERAL
COURT OR STATE COURT.
A LOT WAS HERE SAY.
PEOPLE WITH NO DIRECT EVIDENCE.
NEVER MET PRESIDENT TRUMPING -P
OR HEARD WHAT HE TO SAY.
A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY WAS
ESSENTIALLY I DON'T KNOW BUT I
KNOW A GUY WHO KNEW A GUY THAT
TOLD ME THIS HAPPENED.
THERE IS A REASON THAT COURTS
DON'T LET THAT IN, IT'S
NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE.
THAT BEING SAID IF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS GET UP AND WANT TO DO A
PRESENTATION ON THE SOMETHING
KNEW A GUY THAT KNEW A GUY I
FEEL CONFIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP
LAWYER WILL EAT THEIR LUNCH.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
THE REASON YOU KNOW IT'S
RIDICULOUS IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ARTICLES THE HOUSE VOTED OUT.
YOU REMEMBER FOR MONTHS AND
MONTHS THEY TALKED ABOUT QUI QUO
PRO.
THEY DIDN'T VOTE ON ANYTHING.
THEY TALKED WEEKS AND WEEKS FOR
BRIBERY.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY A
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IMPEACHED
WITHOUT AN ARTICLE EVEN ALLEGING
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
THEY DON'T ALLEGE A SINGLE
FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED, A CRIMINAL
LAW, CIVIL LAW.
THIS IS A PARTISAN SHAM.
THEY'RE MAD, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS
ARE MAD AT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FOR ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHY THE RESULT OF THIS IS
GOING TO BE REJECTING THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
YOU MENTIONED WITNESSES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE 51
SENATORS TO BRING WITNESSES IN
OR NOT.
I THINK THERE IS PLENTY ALREADY
TO REJECT THE RIDICULOUS
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> IF THEY'RE BRINGING ARTICLES
IN WE WON'T DO A ONE-SIDED SHOW
TRIAL.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE A BARE
MINIMUM ONE FOR ONE.
IF THE PROSECUTION BRINGS A
WITNESS.
IF THEY BRING JOHN BOLTON THEN
THE PRESIDENT CAN BRING IN A
WITNESS, HUNTER BIDEN.
IT SHOULD BE FARE AND EVEN.
THAT SCARES THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
OUT OF DEMOCRATS.
THEY KNOW THIS WOULD LOSE ON THE
FACTS.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SCHIFF
THE NON WHISTLE BLOWER, HERE
SIGH WHISTLE BLOWER, QUI QUO PRO
JOE AND NO EXPERIENCE HUNTER.
I WOULD LIKE ALL FOUR OF THEM.
WE CAN TRADE.
NONE OF THE MEETINGS THEY HAD
WAS AID DISCUSSION OR ON THE
CALL SENATOR.
>> THEY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO
THE FACTS.
WHAT THEY'RE TERRIFIED OF.
YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB
ADDRESSING IT, IT'S A
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF REAL
CORRUPTION.
YOU HAVE HUNTER BIDEN MAKING
$83,000 A MONTH FROM THE BIGGEST
NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN THE
UKRAINE.
WHAT WAS HE BEING PAID FOR?
HIS DAD HE OTHER WAS VICE
PRESIDENT AND INTERVENING IN A
DIRECT WAY.
THAT IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, I
BELIEVE, OF CORRUPTION.
AT A MINIMUM IT'S MORE THAN
ENOUGH FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SAY
WE WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND IN
VET GATE IT.
I EXPECT TO HEAR THAT AT
CONSIDERABLE LENGTH FROM THE
DEFENSE TEAM.
>> SENATOR I LOVE YOUR PROPOSAL.
HAVE THE WITNESSES ONE FOR ONE.
IF THEY GET TO PICK FOUR I GET
THE FOUR I WANT.
ADAM SCHIFF A WITNESS IN HIS OWN