ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOU COME
IN.
>> YOU BET.
>> Martha: HERE TO RESPOND
REPUBLICAN JUDICIARY MEMBER
MATT GAETZ FROM FLORIDA WITH
THIS SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
YOUR RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU
JUST HEARD FROM CONGRESSMAN
SWALWELL FIRST OF ALL?
>> I THINK IT WAS A TOUGH
DAY FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THEY THOUGHT BRINGS US INTO
THE FACULTY LOUNGE OF
AMERICA'S LAW SCHOOLS WOULD
SOMEHOW MOTIVATE AMERICANS
TO SUPPORT AN IMPEACHMENT
THAT THEY HAVEN'T TO LARGE
PART OVER THE LAST THREE
WEEKS DEMOCRATS HAVE SEEN
PUBLIC OPINION FOR THEIR
IMPEACHMENT EFFORT DIMINISH.
NOT ENHANCE.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU SAW
ANYTHING TODAY THAT IS GOING
TO HELP THEM IN THAT REGARD.
>> Martha: YOU KNOW, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT I THINK WAS
KIND OF AN INTERESTING
MOMENT HERE AND IT MAY SEEM,
YOU KNOW, SORT OF, YOU
CALLED IT MEAN AND I'M GOING
TO PLAY YOUR RESPONSE IN A
SECOND, WAS WHEN WE HEARD
FROM PROFESSOR CARLIN
TALKING ABOUT HOW THE
PRESIDENT ISN'T A KING.
AND THEN SHE MADE SORT OF A
INSIDE REMARK ABOUT BARRON
TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT'S SON.
AND YOU CAME BACK AT HER
WITH THIS.
WATCH.
>> WHEN YOU INVOKE THE
PRESIDENT'S SON'S NAME HERE,
WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A
LITTLE JOKE OUT OF
REFERENCING BARRON TRUMP,
THAT DOES NOT LEND
CREDIBILITY TO YOUR
ARGUMENT.
IT MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN.
IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU
ARE ATTACKING SOMEONE'S
FAMILY.
THE MINOR CHILD OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
>> Martha: SHE LATER
APOLOGIZED FOR THAT BUT I
THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BEYOND
THE OBVIOUS, YOU KNOW,
INSENSITIVITY OF WHAT SHE
SAID, IS THAT IT REVEALED
EMOTION.
AND I THINK IT STARTED TO
UNRAVEL AS WE WENT THROUGH
THE AFTERNOON IN TERMS OF
WHERE THESE PROCESS SOLAR
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WERE
COMING FROM.
>> THESE WERE NOT
DISPASSIONATE PEOPLE.
THEY ARE ADVOCATES.
AS I POINTED OUT THE
DEMOCRAT WITNESSES, THE
MAJORITY OF THEM ARE DONORS
TO DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS.
THEY HAVE WRITTEN
EXTENSIVELY ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT.
EVEN HAD THE GENTLEMAN FROM
HARVARD WRITING ARTICLES
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
IMPEACHED FOR CRITICIZING
CNN, FOR PARDONING SHERIFF
JOE ARPAIO AND FOR SEVERAL
OF HIS TWEETS ABOUT WIRETAP
TAPPING IT.
SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO IMPEACHMENT
THEORY THAT THEY WOULDN'T
HAVE SUPPORTED.
>> Martha: LET'S PLAY THIS
FROM THE HARVARD LAW
PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN ON
THE ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH
WAS REALLY THE THRUST OF
THEIR ARGUMENT TODAY.
WATCH.
THIS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS ARE ABUSES OF
POWER AND OF PUBLIC TRUST
CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENCY.
ON THE BASIS OF THE
TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE HOUSE, PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
BY CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
>> Martha: ALL RIGHT.
SO LOOKING AT IT FROM THE
DEMOCRATS' PERSPECTIVE
INTEREST FOR A MOMENT HERE,
THEY LOOK AT YOUR LINE OF
QUESTIONING AND SAY YEAH, SO
WHY DIDN'T YOU DEFEND THE
PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE OF
ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU SPENT MOST OF YOUR TIME
GOING AFTER THEM AS
PARTISANS AND TRYING TO
UNDERMINE THEIR ARGUMENT
THAT WAY.
BUT YOU DIDN'T TRY TO
DISMANTLE THEIR ARGUMENT
THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED
HIS POWER.
WHY NOT?
>> BECAUSE I ONLY HAD 5
MINUTES, MARTHA.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS
LOT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE PRESIDENT'S REASONABLE
AND WELL-FOUNDED SUSPICION
THAT THERE WAS CORRUPTION IN
THE UKRAINE.
I THINK THE BEST EVIDENCE
PROBABLY CAME FROM GEORGE
KENT WHO SAID THAT BURISMA
WAS SO CORRUPT THAT OUR
EMBASSY HAD TO PULL OUT OF A
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
TO AVOID ANY ASSOCIATION
WITH THEM.
IN FACT, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WAS SO
CONCERNED ABOUT HUNTER
BIDEN'S ASSOCIATION WITH
BURISMA THAT WHEN THEY WERE
PREPPING AMBASSADORS FOR
SENATE CONFIRMATION, THEY
HAD TO SPEND SPECIAL TIME ON
THEIR.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S ARGUMENT
WOULD BE MORE CREDIBLE IF HE
WASN'T SO WILLING TO
REFLECTIVELY SUPPORT
IMPEACHMENT IN EVERY CASE OF
LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
>> Martha: I JUST THOUGHT IT
WAS INTERESTING.
YOU KNOW, I WAS SITTING
THERE WATCHING MOST OF THE
COVERAGE TODAY.
AND I SAW VERY LITTLE IN
TERMS OF AN EFFORT ON THE
PART OF REPUBLICANS TO TRY
TO DISMANTLE THEIR ARGUMENTS
ON SUBSTANCE.
>> I MADE SUBSTANTIVE
ARGUMENTS.
I REFERENCED IN MY FIVE
MINUTES THE TESTIMONY OF
TAYLOR OF HALE OF VINDMAN OF
HILL AND I POINTED OUT WHERE
A LOT OF THE UNDERGIRDING OF
THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS HAD
BEEN AN ABUSE WAS NOT BASED
ON FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
IT WAS BASED ON PEOPLE'S
PERCEPTION AND BELIEF WHAT
WAS GOING ON AROUND THEM.
NOT WHAT THEY HAD WITNESSED
AND OBSERVED.
>> Martha: AND THE SCHEDULE,
FROM WHAT WE ARE HEARING
FROM ERIC SWALWELL, WE WILL
NEVER HEAR FROM ANYBODY WHO