Hit enter after type your search item
Wzy Word

HERE ARE THE WORLD'S NEWS

Trump Trial Lawyer Admits Abuse Of Power Is Impeachable, Previews 'Temporary' Defense | MSNBC

/
/
/
662 Views
img

>>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN >>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN ATTEMPTING TO SPUR ACTION BY A ATTEMPTING TO SPUR ACTION BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN COORDINATING LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATING LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT TO EFFORTS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT TO HAVE DONE SO THROUGH PROPER HAVE DONE SO THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS CHANNELS

WHILE THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY WHILE THE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO ENJOYS THE POWER TO DO OTHERWISE, THERE IS CONSEQUENCE OTHERWISE, THERE IS CONSEQUENCE TO THAT ACTION AS WE HAVE NOW TO THAT ACTION AS WE HAVE NOW WITNESSED WITNESSED AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHY WE ARE AFTER ALL, THAT IS WHY WE ARE ALL HERE ALL HERE >> ATTORNEY ROBERT RAY, YOU SEE >> ATTORNEY ROBERT RAY, YOU SEE RIGHT THERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE RIGHT THERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE MAKING THE UNITED STATES SENATE MAKING THE CASE DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP CASE DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

BUT, YOU KNOW, AS THIS THING GETS CLOSER TO FRIDAY, IT’S GETS CLOSER TO FRIDAY, IT’S THE — IT BECOMES APPARENT TO THE — IT BECOMES APPARENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS IS PRINCIPALLY A POLITICAL PROCESS PRINCIPALLY A POLITICAL PROCESS >> I HEAR YOU ON THAT >> I HEAR YOU ON THAT LET’S LOOK AT YOU ON THE SENATE LET’S LOOK AT YOU ON THE SENATE FLOOR

FLOOR >> NO AMOUNT OF WITNESS >> NO AMOUNT OF WITNESS TESTIMONY DOCUMENTS HIGH FIVES, TESTIMONY DOCUMENTS HIGH FIVES, FIST BUMPS, SIGNING PENS OR FIST BUMPS, SIGNING PENS OR OTHERWISE ARE EVER GOING TO BE OTHERWISE ARE EVER GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THIS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THIS IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE DEMOCRAT’S IMPEACHMENT UNDER THE DEMOCRAT’S OWN STANDARDS OWN STANDARDS >> YOU SAY THE EVIDENCE IS NOT >> YOU SAY THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT

LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF IT, RIGHT? LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF IT, RIGHT? >> SURE >> SURE >> YOU HAVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR >> YOU HAVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THIS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THIS ADMINISTRATION SAYING, WELL, ADMINISTRATION SAYING, WELL, THEY ARE WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE THEY ARE WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND NEW THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND NEW BOLTON BOOK SAID THAT THE BOLTON BOOK SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED FREEZING THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED FREEZING THE AID UNTIL THE OFFICIALS HELPED AID UNTIL THE OFFICIALS HELPED WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE WITH THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BIDENS IS YOUR CORE ARGUMENT IN THIS IS YOUR CORE ARGUMENT IN THIS SENATE TRIAL THAT IS FALSE OR IT SENATE TRIAL THAT IS FALSE OR IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT WERE TRUITT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT WERE TRUITT IT’S STILL OKAY? IT’S STILL OKAY? >> LET ME TELL YOU, THE >> LET ME TELL YOU, THE PRESIDENT IS ENTIRELY PERMITTED PRESIDENT IS ENTIRELY PERMITTED TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE TEMPORARILY TO SEE WHAT THE TEMPORARILY TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO

UKRAINIANS DO AND I THINK AT BEST THAT’S THE AND I THINK AT BEST THAT’S THE IMPORT OF WHAT EVEN IF YOU IMPORT OF WHAT EVEN IF YOU CREDIT WHAT IS IN A BOOK THAT I CREDIT WHAT IS IN A BOOK THAT I HAVEN’T SEEN YET AND DON’T KNOW HAVEN’T SEEN YET AND DON’T KNOW WHAT IT SAYS WHAT WOULD WHAT IT SAYS WHAT WOULD POTENTIALLY COME FROM MR POTENTIALLY COME FROM MR BOLTON BOLTON

AND THAT IS TO SAY SO LONG AS AND THAT IS TO SAY SO LONG AS AID IS NOT CONDITIONED WITH THE AID IS NOT CONDITIONED WITH THE UKRAINIANS ON THAT MATTER AND UKRAINIANS ON THAT MATTER AND THAT ISSUE THAT THERE’S NOTHING THAT ISSUE THAT THERE’S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT AND NOTHING — THEREFORE AND NOTHING — THEREFORE IMPEACHABLE ABOUT THAT IMPEACHABLE ABOUT THAT >> BUT IF THE AID IS CONDITIONED >> BUT IF THE AID IS CONDITIONED ON GETTING THE BIDEN PROBE ON GETTING THE BIDEN PROBE THAT’S ILLEGAL? THAT’S ILLEGAL? >> THAT’S FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT IS >> THAT’S FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT IS A QUID PRO QUO

A QUID PRO QUO BUT THE PART THAT MAKES THAT BUT THE PART THAT MAKES THAT CONDITION CORRUPT IS THAT THAT CONDITION CORRUPT IS THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN — IT WOULD HAVE WOULD HAVE BEEN — IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR THAT TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR THAT TO HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY TO BEEN COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY TO UKRAINE AND THEY HAVE DENIED UKRAINE AND THEY HAVE DENIED THAT THAT HAPPENED THAT THAT HAPPENED THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE

AND AGAIN, TO RE-EMPHASIZE THE AND AGAIN, TO RE-EMPHASIZE THE POINT THERE’S NOTHING UNLAWFUL POINT THERE’S NOTHING UNLAWFUL OR IMPERMISSIBLE ABOUT THE OR IMPERMISSIBLE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY PRESIDENT TEMPORARILY WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE TO SEE WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO >> LET’S DIG INTO THIS >> LET’S DIG INTO THIS BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE SOME HEADS BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE SOME HEADS ARE EXPLODING WHAT YOU’RE SAYING ARE EXPLODING WHAT YOU’RE SAYING ON THE FACTS THAT ARE ON THE FACTS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED

UNCONTESTED SO THERE IS A MORE THAN ONE SET SO THERE IS A MORE THAN ONE SET OF ARGUMENTS, THERE ARE TRUMP OF ARGUMENTS, THERE ARE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO SAY ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO SAY THAT THE UKRAINIANS NOT ONLY THAT THE UKRAINIANS NOT ONLY KNEW BUT WERE ASKING ABOUT IT KNEW BUT WERE ASKING ABOUT IT EVERYONE HAS A PUBLIC RECORD, EVERYONE HAS A PUBLIC RECORD, MR STARR WHO YOU REPLACED HAS A MR

STARR WHO YOU REPLACED HAS A PUBLIC RECORD PUBLIC RECORD HERE IS YOU TELLING US WHAT HERE IS YOU TELLING US WHAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL WOULD BE ILLEGAL >> WHAT’S ILLEGAL IS EXPRESSLY >> WHAT’S ILLEGAL IS EXPRESSLY EXPRESSLY — YOU KNOW, EXPRESSLY — YOU KNOW, CONDITIONING IT ON THAT ONLY ONE CONDITIONING IT ON THAT ONLY ONE WILL BE DONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WILL BE DONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OTHER

OTHER >> ONLY ONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE >> ONLY ONE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OTHER AND THE EVIDENCE I KNOW OTHER AND THE EVIDENCE I KNOW YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT WAS YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT WAS PLAYED IN THIS SENATE TRIAL PLAYED IN THIS SENATE TRIAL DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED WHAT DO DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO, TEMPORARILY YOU WANT TO DO, TEMPORARILY HOLDING UP HOLDING UP

THE DEAL IS WHAT HE WANTED IN THE DEAL IS WHAT HE WANTED IN RETURN AND HERE HE WAS ADMITTING RETURN AND HERE HE WAS ADMITTING HIS OBJECTIVE, HIS OWN WORDS HIS OBJECTIVE, HIS OWN WORDS LET’S SEE THAT LET’S SEE THAT >> MR

PRESIDENT, WHAT EXACTLY >> MR PRESIDENT, WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU HOPE THAT ZELENSKY WOULD DID YOU HOPE THAT ZELENSKY WOULD DO IN THIS PHONE CALL? DO IN THIS PHONE CALL? EXACTLY EXACTLY >> WELL, I WOULD THINK IF >> WELL, I WOULD THINK IF THEY’RE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY’D THEY’RE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY’D START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS THE BIDENS

>> AGAIN, MY POINT — >> AGAIN, MY POINT — >> IS THAT A CORRUPT GOAL? >> IS THAT A CORRUPT GOAL? >> NO, WHAT’S IN THE PRESIDENT’S >> NO, WHAT’S IN THE PRESIDENT’S HEAD AND WHAT HE WANTED WHICH IS HEAD AND WHAT HE WANTED WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT MR BOLTON THE ESSENCE OF WHAT MR BOLTON WOULD TESTIFY TO IF CALLED AS A WOULD TESTIFY TO IF CALLED AS A WITNESS WITNESS THAT ISN’T REFLECTIVE OF A THAT ISN’T REFLECTIVE OF A CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL QUID PRO QUO CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL QUID PRO QUO THAT WOULD LEAD TO BRIBERY

THAT WOULD LEAD TO BRIBERY AS WE HAVE ARGUED AND HAS MR AS WE HAVE ARGUED AND HAS MR DERSHOWITZ HAS ARGUED AND DERSHOWITZ HAS ARGUED AND FRANKLY THE ENTIRE PRESIDENT’S FRANKLY THE ENTIRE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE TEAM, EVEN YOU CREDIT DEFENSE TEAM, EVEN YOU CREDIT ALL THAT, THAT’S NOT SUFFICIENT ALL THAT, THAT’S NOT SUFFICIENT

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE GOING >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE GOING FARTHER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER FARTHER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER TRUMP LAWYERS TRUMP LAWYERS YOU’RE SAYING IT’S FINE TO YOU’RE SAYING IT’S FINE TO DEMAND A PROBE OF A DOMESTIC DEMAND A PROBE OF A DOMESTIC RIVAL? RIVAL? >> LOOK, I ADDRESSED THAT DURING >> LOOK, I ADDRESSED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS TO THE THE COURSE OF MY REMARKS TO THE SENATE AND I HAVE SAID THAT MANY SENATE AND I HAVE SAID THAT MANY OF THE SENATORS HAVE OR OF THE SENATORS HAVE OR POTENTIALLY WILL CONCLUDE THAT POTENTIALLY WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT THE CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE

THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OFFICE >> LET ME PRESS YOU ON THIS, >> LET ME PRESS YOU ON THIS, ROBERT ROBERT

ISN’T THIS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION ISN’T THIS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION OF THE GOAL? OF THE GOAL? ISN’T THIS THE QUESTION, HE SAYS ISN’T THIS THE QUESTION, HE SAYS I WANT YOU, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, I WANT YOU, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, I WANT YOU TO GO AFTER THE RIVAL I WANT YOU TO GO AFTER THE RIVAL THAT’S A CORRUPT GOAL? THAT’S A CORRUPT GOAL? >> WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS >> WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS IT WAS EXPRESSED IN "THE NEW IT WAS EXPRESSED IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT DONALD TRUMP WANTS ONLY TO THE DONALD TRUMP WANTS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT AS I SAID DURING MY EXTENT THAT AS I SAID DURING MY REMARKS THE CONVERSATION WOULD REMARKS THE CONVERSATION WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING LIKE, LISTEN, HERE’S SOMETHING LIKE, LISTEN, HERE’S THE DEAL THE DEAL YOU’RE NOT GETTING FOREIGN AID YOU’RE NOT GETTING FOREIGN AID UNLESS I GET WHAT I WANT

UNLESS I GET WHAT I WANT NOW, THAT’S ANOTHER QUESTION, NOW, THAT’S ANOTHER QUESTION, THAT NEVER HAPPENED THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND OUR POSITION IS THAT SHORT AND OUR POSITION IS THAT SHORT OF THAT, THE CONDUCT IS NOT OF THAT, THE CONDUCT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER WARRANTING THE ABUSE OF POWER WARRANTING THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND MY POINT IS IF YOU ACCEPT AND MY POINT IS IF YOU ACCEPT THAT PROPOSITION, NO AMOUNT OF THAT PROPOSITION, NO AMOUNT OF WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS ARE EVER WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS ARE EVER GOING TO CHANGE THAT GOING TO CHANGE THAT

THAT’S WHY WITNESSES ARE NOT THAT’S WHY WITNESSES ARE NOT NECESSARY NECESSARY AND I BELIEVE ON A BIPARTISAN AND I BELIEVE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS THAT SENATORS CAN UNITE BASIS THAT SENATORS CAN UNITE AROUND THAT PROPOSITION AROUND THAT PROPOSITION >> YOU MAY BE HITTING SOMETHING >> YOU MAY BE HITTING SOMETHING THAT SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS THAT SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS WELCOME

WELCOME >> I HOPE SO >> I HOPE SO >> YOU’RE RAISING THE BAR EVEN >> YOU’RE RAISING THE BAR EVEN IF IT’S A POTENTIALLY CORRUPT IF IT’S A POTENTIALLY CORRUPT INTENT, EVEN IT’S A DEMAND TO GO INTENT, EVEN IT’S A DEMAND TO GO AFTER RIVALS OR AN INTERFERENCE, AFTER RIVALS OR AN INTERFERENCE, EVEN IF THERE WASN’T AN EXCHANGE EVEN IF THERE WASN’T AN EXCHANGE IN THE QUID PRO QUO BRIBERY IN THE QUID PRO QUO BRIBERY YOU’RE GOOD? YOU’RE GOOD? >> YOU’VE RECONSTRUCTED THAT A >> YOU’VE RECONSTRUCTED THAT A BIT BIT

BECAUSE THE LAST PART MAKES IT BECAUSE THE LAST PART MAKES IT CORRUPT, NOT THE FIRST PART CORRUPT, NOT THE FIRST PART OKAY, IT IS ONLY CORRUPT IF OKAY, IT IS ONLY CORRUPT IF THERE’S CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE THERE’S CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROPER BARGAIN FOR EXCHANGE IMPROPER BARGAIN FOR EXCHANGE WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE UKRAINIANS DO IS NOT SEE THE UKRAINIANS DO IS NOT ILLEGAL

ILLEGAL AND AGAIN I’LL GO BACK TO THE AND AGAIN I’LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PREMISE ORIGINAL PREMISE IF IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IF IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TEMPORARILY WITHHOLD AID TO SEE TEMPORARILY WITHHOLD AID TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD DO, WHAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD DO, EVEN IF IT’S SOMETHING HE’D LIKE EVEN IF IT’S SOMETHING HE’D LIKE DONE, AS LONG AS HE DOESN’T DONE, AS LONG AS HE DOESN’T CONDITION IT ON ONE OR THE OTHER CONDITION IT ON ONE OR THE OTHER IT’S NOT BRIBERY, IT’S NOT IT’S NOT BRIBERY, IT’S NOT SUFFICIENT TO REMOVAL FROM SUFFICIENT TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OFFICE

>> THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER >> THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE CHARGE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE MAKE AN IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT ATTEMPT IS NOT ARGUMENT THAT ATTEMPT IS NOT FULLY AN ABUSE OF POWER FULLY AN ABUSE OF POWER >> NO

>> NO >> BUT IF’S UNSUCCESSFUL DOES — >> BUT IF’S UNSUCCESSFUL DOES — BECAUSE YOU WAITED OUT THE BECAUSE YOU WAITED OUT THE UKRAINIANS UKRAINIANS >> NO, THE INTENT IS IMPORTANT >> NO, THE INTENT IS IMPORTANT AS YOU SUGGEST AS YOU SUGGEST

AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THE AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROPOSITION THAT OBVIOUSLY AN — PROPOSITION THAT OBVIOUSLY AN — YOU KNOW, A NOT COMPLETED INTENT YOU KNOW, A NOT COMPLETED INTENT IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO CONSTITUTE CORRUPTION CONSTITUTE CORRUPTION BUT THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION BUT THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD AID IN ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD AID IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS ORDER TO SEE WHAT THE UKRAINIANS DO DO AND — AND — >> WHAT IF THEY DO THE BAD >> WHAT IF THEY DO THE BAD THING? THING? ANYONE LISTENING — SEE, YOU ANYONE LISTENING — SEE, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, SOMEONE IS HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, SOMEONE IS SAYING WAIT AND SEE WHAT THEY SAYING WAIT AND SEE WHAT THEY DO

DO WHAT IF YOU ANNOUNCE THE WHAT IF YOU ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND YOU GIVE THEM THE MONEY THAT’S YOU GIVE THEM THE MONEY THAT’S THE ALLEGED ABUSE THE ALLEGED ABUSE >> THAT’S WHY IT’S SO UNCERTAIN >> THAT’S WHY IT’S SO UNCERTAIN AND I GUESS TO GET BACK TO YOUR AND I GUESS TO GET BACK TO YOUR POINT, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT POINT, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT COULD STILL BE A PROBLEM, YOU COULD STILL BE A PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ALSO THAT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ALSO THAT YOUR PRINCIPAL WITNESSES HERE YOUR PRINCIPAL WITNESSES HERE WHICH WOULD BE THE UKRAINIANS PEOPLE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH ME OR US AND PART OF AGREE WITH ME OR US AND PART OF THAT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY THAT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY MAY BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND MAY BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND ADDRESS IT ADDRESS IT

AND THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AND THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO DO SO THERE ME TO DO SO THERE >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS STRIKING >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS STRIKING I MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT I MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT LOOKED REASONABLE

LOOKED REASONABLE WE HAVE TO GET INTO SOMETHING WE HAVE TO GET INTO SOMETHING ELSE ELSE YOU MENTIONED HONESTY YOU MENTIONED HONESTY

>> YES >> YES >> SOME OF YOUR CO-COUNSEL WHO >> SOME OF YOUR CO-COUNSEL WHO WENT TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND WENT TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAID SOMETHING THAT IS SAID SOMETHING THAT IS HISTORICALLY FALSE THAT HISTORICALLY FALSE THAT DISAGREES WITH PRECEDENT DISAGREES WITH PRECEDENT THEY CLAIM THAT ABUSE OF POWER THEY CLAIM THAT ABUSE OF POWER WHICH AS YOU KNOW AS A FORMER WHICH AS YOU KNOW AS A FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND YOU INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND YOU REPLACED KEN STARR AND HE KNOWS REPLACED KEN STARR AND HE KNOWS BECAUSE HE PURSUED IT WAS AN BECAUSE HE PURSUED IT WAS AN ORIGINAL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ORIGINAL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST NIXON AND BILL CLINTON

AGAINST NIXON AND BILL CLINTON YET, WE SEE THIS NEW FOUND YET, WE SEE THIS NEW FOUND ARGUMENT THAT THE ARGUMENTS FOR ARGUMENT THAT THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWERS LET THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWERS LET ME PLAY THAT ME PLAY THAT THEN YOU GET YOUR TIME THEN YOU GET YOUR TIME

HERE ARE SEVERAL LAWYERS ARGUING HERE ARE SEVERAL LAWYERS ARGUING ALONG THE LINES ALONG THE LINES >> IT WOULD HAVE INCONCEIVABLE >> IT WOULD HAVE INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE DEPLOYED A TEAM AS ABUSE OF DEPLOYED A TEAM AS ABUSE OF POWER TO BE WEAPONIZED AS A TOOL POWER TO BE WEAPONIZED AS A TOOL OF IMPEACHMENT OF IMPEACHMENT >> IMPEACHMENTS SHOULD BE >> IMPEACHMENTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF OFFENSES EVALUATED IN TERMS OF OFFENSES AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW

AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW >> VIOLATION OF LAW NECESSARY TO >> VIOLATION OF LAW NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ABUSE SUSTAIN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ABUSE OF POWER OF POWER >> WHY GO BEFORE THOSE SENATORS >> WHY GO BEFORE THOSE SENATORS WHO KNOW BETTER AND HAVE THE WHO KNOW BETTER AND HAVE THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AND OTHERS PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AND OTHERS WENT FARTHER THAN YOU, MR WENT FARTHER THAN YOU, MR

DERSHOWITZ, CERTAINLY THE DERSHOWITZ, CERTAINLY THE FARTHEST, AND TELL THEM FARTHEST, AND TELL THEM SOMETHING THAT’S HISTORICALLY SOMETHING THAT’S HISTORICALLY FALSE WHEN WE KNOW ABUSE OF FALSE WHEN WE KNOW ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE POWER IS IMPEACHABLE I WANT HAPPENED IN THE LAST — I WANT HAPPENED IN THE LAST — IT HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO IT HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO IMPEACHMENT PROBES IMPEACHMENT PROBES >> BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER I’M >> BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER I’M NOT SURE YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE NOT SURE YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE THAT AS BEING POTENTIALLY THAT AS BEING POTENTIALLY IMPEACHABLE WHEN IT HAS BEEN IMPEACHABLE WHEN IT HAS BEEN DONE IT HASN’T FARED WELL

DONE IT HASN’T FARED WELL IT HAS NOT ENJOYED BIPARTISAN IT HAS NOT ENJOYED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT SUPPORT >> WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS MORE >> WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS MORE ACCURATE — AGAIN, THIS IS FOR ACCURATE — AGAIN, THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, THIS MATTERS THE PUBLIC RECORD, THIS MATTERS

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL WHAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL WHAT YOU SAID IS MORE ACCURATE THAN YOU SAID IS MORE ACCURATE THAN PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ YOU SAID IT CAN BE IMPEACHABLE YOU SAID IT CAN BE IMPEACHABLE HE SAID ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED HE SAID ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT STATES ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE WHICH IS FALSE

IMPEACHABLE WHICH IS FALSE >> LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK IS >> LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK IS THE — HOPEFULLY THE CLEAREST THE — HOPEFULLY THE CLEAREST AND WELL STATED PROPOSITION AND WELL STATED PROPOSITION ABOUT WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN’T ABOUT WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN’T IMPEACHMENTABLE IMPEACHMENTABLE WELL FOUNDED REFERENCES TO THE WELL FOUNDED REFERENCES TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDERS’ INTENT AND SIGNIFICANTLY INTENT AND SIGNIFICANTLY HISTORICAL PRACTICE ARE THOSE HISTORICAL PRACTICE ARE THOSE THAT ALLEGE HIGH CRIMES, THINGS THAT ALLEGE HIGH CRIMES, THINGS TREASON, BRIBERY AND THINGS LIKE TREASON, BRIBERY AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT

OKAY? OKAY? THAT ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF THAT ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF POWER AND IN THE CONTEXT OF A POWER AND IN THE CONTEXT OF A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT ESSENTIALLY ARE TANTAMOUNT TO ESSENTIALLY ARE TANTAMOUNT TO THE VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S THE VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S OATH OF OFFICE OATH OF OFFICE >> YOU DON’T DENY THE HOUSE >> YOU DON’T DENY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID IMPEACH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID IMPEACH PRESIDENT NIXON FOR ABUSE OF PRESIDENT NIXON FOR ABUSE OF POWER? POWER? >> WELL, IT’S A LITTLE TRICKY >> WELL, IT’S A LITTLE TRICKY BECAUSE IT WAS TETHERED TO THE BECAUSE IT WAS TETHERED TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AS FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AS I EXPLAINED I EXPLAINED >> I APPRECIATE — >> I APPRECIATE — >> WHICH ALLEGED — >> WHICH ALLEGED — >> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU’RE >> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, BUT AGAIN, I CAN READ SAYING, BUT AGAIN, I CAN READ FROM IT

FROM IT IT’S THE ARTICLE THREE AGAINST IT’S THE ARTICLE THREE AGAINST NIXON WAS ABUSE OF POWER AS YOU NIXON WAS ABUSE OF POWER AS YOU SAY IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER SAY IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ARTICLE ARTICLE >> ARTICLE TWO >> ARTICLE TWO

THE THIRD WAS — THE THIRD WAS — >> WITH CLINTON — >> WITH CLINTON — >> OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS >> OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS >> YOU HAVE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF >> YOU HAVE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF THE HIGH OFFICE THE HIGH OFFICE MISUSE AND KEN STARR RECOMMENDED MISUSE AND KEN STARR RECOMMENDED THE CAPSTONE OF THE ARTICLE THE CAPSTONE OF THE ARTICLE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT AGAINST AGAINST IMPEACHMENT AGAINST CLINTON

CLINTON >> BUT THAT MADE NEVER MADE ITS >> BUT THAT MADE NEVER MADE ITS WAY TO THE SENATE TRIAL WAY TO THE SENATE TRIAL >> AGAIN, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE >> AGAIN, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE MIGHT BE ACQUITTED OF MURDER MIGHT BE ACQUITTED OF MURDER DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THE FACT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THE FACT THAT MURDER IS A POTENTIAL THAT MURDER IS A POTENTIAL OFFENSE OFFENSE

AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAS AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAS BEEN TELLING THE NATION YOU BEEN TELLING THE NATION YOU CAN’T IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER CAN’T IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND IT SEEMS YOU’RE AND IT SEEMS YOU’RE ACKNOWLEDGING THERE’S MORE TO ACKNOWLEDGING THERE’S MORE TO IT IT >> THERE’S ALWAYS MORE TO IT >> THERE’S ALWAYS MORE TO IT BECAUSE WE HAVE PRESIDENT FORD’S BECAUSE WE HAVE PRESIDENT FORD’S FAMOUS COMMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY, FAMOUS COMMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW IMPEACHMENT IS IN THE YOU KNOW IMPEACHMENT IS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE SAYS THAT IT IS

SAYS THAT IT IS BUT HE ALSO RECOGNIZED AND I BUT HE ALSO RECOGNIZED AND I ALLUDED TO THIS AS WELL DURING ALLUDED TO THIS AS WELL DURING MY REMARKS THAT IN CONNECTION MY REMARKS THAT IN CONNECTION WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS WITH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND WITH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND WITH REGARD TO PRESIDENTS IT TRULY REGARD TO PRESIDENTS IT TRULY DOES HAVE TO BE TREASON, BRIBERY DOES HAVE TO BE TREASON, BRIBERY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MY ONLY POINT IS THAT IN THE MY ONLY POINT IS THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER YOU OTHERWISE, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT STANDARDLESS IMPEACHMENT

WE’RE BEYOND WHAT THE HOUSE DID WE’RE BEYOND WHAT THE HOUSE DID THE POINT IS FOR HISTORICAL THE POINT IS FOR HISTORICAL PRACTICE AND ALSO FOR WHAT PRACTICE AND ALSO FOR WHAT FOLLOWS THIS IMPEACHMENT, PEOPLE FOLLOWS THIS IMPEACHMENT, PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO BE AT THAT VERY HIGH BAR WITH TO BE AT THAT VERY HIGH BAR WITH A TWO-THIRDS NECESSARY FROM THE A TWO-THIRDS NECESSARY FROM THE SENATE TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT SENATE TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE, ABUSE OF POWER IN FROM OFFICE, ABUSE OF POWER IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE HOUSE THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT MANAGERS HAVE DONE HERE DOES NOT ENJOY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND ENJOY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND IT’S THE REASON WHY WE’RE HERE IT’S THE REASON WHY WE’RE HERE NOW TALKING ABOUT THAT NOW TALKING ABOUT THAT WHERE EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WHERE EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND THERE’S REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND THERE’S A REASON FOR THAT

A REASON FOR THAT >> WELL, ROBERT RAY, YOU’RE IN >> WELL, ROBERT RAY, YOU’RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS TRIAL THE MIDDLE OF THIS TRIAL YOU CAME HERE AFTER PRESENTING YOU CAME HERE AFTER PRESENTING ON THE SENATE FLOOR

Source: Youtube

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar