0:00

Next Question with Katie Curic is a production of I

0:02

Heart Radio and Katie Kuric Media. Hi

0:05

everyone, I'm Katie Curic, and welcome to Next

0:07

Question, where we try to understand the

0:09

complicated world we're living in and

0:11

the crazy things that are happening by

0:14

asking questions and by listening

0:16

to people who really know what they're talking about.

0:19

At times, it may lead to some pretty

0:21

uncomfortable conversations, but

0:23

stick with me, everyone, let's all learn

0:26

together. If

0:32

you've gotten into the habit of scrolling past

0:34

the NonStop breaking news alerts dominating

0:37

your notifications, I get it. Headline

0:40

fatigue is very real. But

0:42

so many names and titles it's almost

0:44

impossible to keep them straight, especially

0:47

when it comes to these latest impeachment

0:50

hearings. That's why we're dedicating

0:52

today's episode to all things impeachment.

0:54

We'll talk about the arguments for and against,

0:57

and why the country is almost split down

0:59

the middle. So to impeach

1:02

or not to impeach? That is

1:04

our next question today.

1:09

I'm talking with two legal experts who

1:11

represent two different sides of the debate.

1:14

First up, Neil Cartiel. Neil

1:16

was the acting Solicitor General under

1:18

President Obama and drafted

1:20

the Justice Department rules that guided the

1:22

Muller investigation. So yeah,

1:24

when it comes to investigating government officials,

1:27

Neil really knows what he's talking about.

1:30

Neil welcome. So

1:32

we've got a lot to talk about. But hot

1:34

off the presses the US Ambassador

1:37

to the EU, Gordon Silan's

1:39

testimony. You've called it every

1:41

bit the bombshell we expected it to be.

1:43

Why in your view was his testimony

1:46

so particularly important because

1:48

this was the guy that Trump pointed

1:51

to to exonerate him. There's been

1:53

a whole bunch of characters in this thing,

1:55

Ambassador Taylor and Colonel

1:57

Vinman and this and that, but there's been

1:59

one guy throughout that President Trump

2:01

has said is going to exonerate him, who even

2:04

said I hope testifies, but he

2:06

won't be able to testify because he won't

2:08

get a fair shake in the Congress

2:10

and so on. Well, he did testify

2:12

today, and before he walked in the door, he

2:14

had a twenty page written statement. And

2:17

that twenty page written statement is remarkable.

2:20

It says there's a whole section called

2:22

there was a quid pro quote, which

2:25

is of course exactly what for many

2:27

months we've been hearing as the talking point of

2:29

President Trump and his followers, so much so

2:31

that actually Senator Lindsey Graham,

2:33

who's one of the president's closest allies

2:36

in Congress, said last month, well,

2:38

if there's a quid pro quo then everything is

2:40

different, then I want to look at it. But otherwise I don't

2:42

see anything here. Well, today,

2:44

Trump's own guy, the person that Trump

2:47

nominated to be the ambassador

2:49

to the European Union and the guy who

2:51

Trump took and put in control

2:53

of Ukrainian Ukrainian matters, it

2:56

said, yes, there was a quid pro quote.

2:58

There's lots of other stuff too, but that to

3:00

me is you know, incredibly significant.

3:03

That's the high water mark of the Trump defense.

3:05

Before we talk about this testimony

3:07

some more, were you surprised, Well,

3:10

I wasn't surprised in the sense of

3:12

a couple of things have happened recently.

3:15

One is you've had Roger Stone get

3:17

convicted essentially for obstructing

3:19

justice in a congressional investigation.

3:22

So, you know, I don't think anyone could have seen that. You

3:24

know, if you're solon last weekend and

3:26

you're watching that conviction and thinking

3:28

to yourself, boy, I've already been

3:30

accused by at least one member of the House Intelligence

3:33

Committee for committing perjury. Um,

3:36

and now all these people are coming

3:38

forward and saying stuff that I didn't say in my earlier

3:40

statements. Yeah, I'm in trouble. So for example,

3:43

you know, he said he was supposed to

3:46

detail his conversations with the President

3:48

about Ukraine in his earlier deposition

3:50

on October eight. There's not a word

3:53

about this phone conversation that

3:55

he had with President Trump on July

3:58

and set the one in the restaurant exactly

4:01

unsecured line on a mobile phone.

4:04

Random. And that's just random. It's a

4:06

total security threat. I mean, look, I mean

4:08

when I was in the government, I wouldn't even talk on

4:11

my home line at home land line because

4:14

you know, you're always worried about interception. And the

4:16

idea that you would be able to just sit

4:18

in a restaurant in Kiev, of all places,

4:21

and not just on a on a hard line, but

4:23

on a cell phone and talking not just to any

4:25

government official but the President of the United

4:28

States is baffling.

4:30

What's even more baffling, of course, Katie, is that he

4:32

forgot about the conversation, like he just mysteriously

4:35

never mentioned it to the investigator.

4:38

So do you think he came forward or came clean

4:40

to save his own hide? Basically, I mean, you

4:42

couldn't watch any one minute

4:44

of the hearing today and think anything

4:46

else. This was a guy who was bent on

4:48

self preservation. In his opening statement,

4:51

he said he worked with Rudy Giuliani at

4:53

the express direction of President

4:55

Trump on matters involving Ukraine.

4:58

So it was almost as if Rudy

5:00

Giuliani was conducting a shadow government

5:03

here right, Well, he was conducting

5:05

a shadow a government, but at the

5:07

president's request, So you know, that's what you

5:09

know. Sanlon also said, so it wasn't as if

5:12

this was a circumstance in which it was some rogue

5:14

private attorney for President

5:16

Trump who was conducting Ukrainian foreign

5:18

policy. So can you conduct a shadow government

5:21

at the president's past. It's

5:24

like a secondary government. That's

5:26

very legal and very cool to Trump. But I

5:28

think in the real world, of course, presidents

5:31

don't do such things. Um. It's an

5:33

incredibly damaging and dangerous And you know, the

5:35

reason why Katie I wrote this book

5:37

Impeach is basically to make

5:39

sure that everyone doesn't focus

5:42

on these little twists and turns

5:44

every day in this story of you know what

5:46

Sonlon said one day or what Giuliani

5:49

said another day. There's like a one central

5:51

narrative, and it's actually one that the

5:53

Republicans in President Trump doesn't disagree

5:55

with. And that central narrative which comes

5:57

out in that July in

6:00

script in which the President

6:02

himself released between

6:04

a conversation between him and the

6:06

President of Ukraine, is the president

6:09

of Ukraine it's wanting

6:11

this aid, this military aid.

6:13

And President Trump says, well,

6:15

wait, though, I need a favor first.

6:18

And that is the idea

6:21

that a president or

6:23

you know, our nation's most powerful official

6:25

would use congressionally appropriated

6:28

aid or a White House meeting in order to

6:30

advance his own political ends.

6:32

Um, there's nothing I think

6:34

that is a better definition

6:37

of what is an impeachable offense. Well, let me yea,

6:39

so help us understand this as

6:41

as the expert you are, professor,

6:44

Um, you know what laws?

6:47

Were there actual laws that were

6:49

broken? Even if you think it's

6:51

grossly inappropriate or

6:54

just obnoxious or weird

6:56

or self serving, was

6:58

there an actual law broken

7:00

here? Yes, but that's actually not

7:02

the question when you think about impeachment. So there are

7:05

Constitution and this, you know, the whole chapter about

7:07

this in my book that the

7:09

our Constitution says you impeach

7:11

for what are called high crimes and misdemeanors.

7:14

And that's a phrase of art the founders used,

7:17

not to mean just actual crimes.

7:19

But the core thing that our

7:21

founders are getting at is is there an abuse

7:23

of government power. And our founders

7:26

didn't actually even want to put impeachment in the

7:28

constitution. Many of them didn't, and um,

7:31

you know, uh, And ultimately what

7:33

one the day was a series

7:35

of Founders Alexander Hamilton and others

7:37

who said, well, what if a president,

7:40

a sitting president, goes and tries to

7:42

get help from a foreign government

7:44

to win an election. That's their example

7:47

of impeachment. Now at the time, that's

7:49

not criminal. It is now actually, and I'll

7:51

talk about that in a minute. By the time, there was

7:53

no statute I get criminal statute on bribery

7:56

and the like, but everyone understood

7:58

that to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Today

8:00

we actually do have statutes that prohibit

8:02

bribery, and this is again

8:05

a textbook definition of that. When did

8:07

that come about? The bribery statutes?

8:09

I think I've been around more than a hundred years, um,

8:11

And so they've been they've been around for a long

8:14

time. And what they do is they they

8:16

criminalize asking for a

8:18

thing of value in order to get

8:21

a certain government act. And that's what a

8:24

bribery of any government are

8:26

conducted by any government official, including

8:29

the president exactly. So if you seek a

8:31

bribe, if you're the president and said, and the president

8:33

says, hey, Katie, you know that ambassadorship?

8:36

Great, you know, if you'll donate you know, a hundred

8:38

thousand dollars to my campaign, Um,

8:41

I will make you ambassador. That is him

8:43

seeking a thing of value hundred

8:46

thousand dollars from you in exchange for

8:48

an official act, namely your ambassadorship.

8:50

And here he did the same thing. Hey

8:52

Ukraine, I'll give you this money. Um,

8:55

that Congress is appropriated, but

8:57

you've got to do a favor for me first. Though. Isn't

9:00

it an implicit understanding that big

9:02

donors become ambassadors? I mean,

9:05

isn't that kind of an unspoken bride.

9:07

Well, there's a there's a dance, a complicated

9:09

dance that's done if you do it and

9:12

is literally quit pro quo and exchange.

9:14

It's it's illegal. But if you do it

9:16

as the way many people do, thank you,

9:19

wink wink, I really appreciate it.

9:21

There might be something really great for you if I

9:23

get electric. Sometimes wink winks will

9:25

get to the point of being actually

9:27

criminal. But for that most part, what

9:29

you have is fairly sophisticated

9:31

actors in this kind of wealthy ambassadorial

9:34

circle, of which looks like Sondlon traveled

9:36

in donating a million dollars. And I'm

9:39

not suggesting at all that you know, that kind

9:41

of thing happens. You know, someone donates a

9:43

lot and some good plum job comes

9:45

along for them later. That's very

9:47

different than this, which is the president

9:49

himself saying, hey,

9:52

if you want the foreign aid, you

9:54

know what you gotta do. You gotta go investigate

9:56

my chief political rival. Why don't

9:58

you think the president pleaded

10:00

ignorance instead of claiming

10:02

this call was perfect. Why

10:05

wouldn't he just say, you know, I didn't

10:07

think this was a problem. Well,

10:09

I mean, only he can answer that question. But

10:11

but one point of speculation

10:14

is this, that call took place on July. One

10:17

day before on July, something

10:19

pretty significant happened. Robert Mueller, who

10:21

had been investigating the president for almost two

10:23

years, testified in Congress,

10:26

and I would say didn't testify particularly

10:28

clearly. Um, there was a

10:30

lot of garble and so on, and the

10:33

president, I think, you know, and

10:35

you just it comes across even in this fake

10:38

transcript. It's not a full transcript. We don't know exactly

10:40

what was said, but even just what they released,

10:42

it really shows kind of a person

10:45

who has no appreciation for

10:47

the rule of law. I mean, we've seen this in other ways,

10:49

but I think on that day in particular,

10:51

he was really feeling it explained though,

10:54

why you think, you know, if if Muller

10:57

was sort of garbled and didn't

10:59

seem to come down that hard on the president,

11:01

right, why would he have done this? Why

11:04

would the president of that? Because at

11:07

that moment in time, because it seemed

11:09

to me that Mueller was sort of wishy washy

11:11

as everyone said. Yeah. So because

11:13

of that, I think the President felt like, Okay, I

11:16

can do I can do this kind of award

11:19

by Muller Exactly, I can do this kind

11:21

of stuff. I mean, Trump's instincts all

11:23

along have been pretty much to

11:25

not respect the rule of law, to not respect

11:28

institutions. That pushed back against them,

11:30

to call them never Trumpers or whatever

11:33

at you know, labels he wants to use. So

11:35

that's always been his kind of m

11:37

oh. But I think on that day in particular,

11:39

he must have felt particularly empowered.

11:42

You know, it was interesting that Salmon

11:44

said that he really wanted

11:46

the investigation to be announced,

11:48

almost more than he wanted the

11:51

investigation to take place, which is

11:53

pretty significant. He wanted to

11:55

do the damage and kind of a

11:57

whisper campaign almost against Joe

12:00

Biden as he was as he

12:02

runs for president and against Hunter Biden

12:04

and suggests this sort of scandal.

12:07

Katie, I'm so glad you brought that up, because to

12:09

me, that was one of the most important things in today's

12:11

testimony. Ambassador Snlon said

12:14

that what Trump wanted was the announcement

12:16

of an investigation by the Ukrainians, not

12:18

them actually doing it. Now, you know, I've been

12:21

a law enforcement in two different administrations.

12:23

The idea that you're if you're conducting

12:25

a criminal investigation, you would announce

12:28

it. Of course, not that's the last thing you

12:30

do, because you want to do all the interviewing and

12:32

all the confidential inquiries

12:34

first in order to catch people in perjury

12:36

and things like that, and so you

12:39

know, they're the president has been saying

12:41

this is about corruption, this is why he did

12:43

this corruption in general. But when

12:46

drilled down and asked and people say, well,

12:48

did you ever care about corruption in any other country?

12:50

There's a hundred ninety four other countries you ever know

12:53

Ukraine? And with respect to Ukraine,

12:55

did you ever care about any other kind of corruption

12:58

besides this one thing? If acting

13:00

Vice President Biden? No, At some

13:02

point this starts to smell. It's not a particularly

13:05

powerful story. Let's talk

13:07

about just because I want this to

13:09

be impeachment one oh one for people. Um,

13:12

But before we talk about sort of the nuts and

13:14

bolts of the process. I

13:16

think that even the suggestion of

13:19

impropriety by Hunter

13:21

Biden, you know, as

13:23

part of this Ukrainian oil company Barisma.

13:27

Um, I think it's something that

13:29

that President Trump is very good at

13:31

sort of putting things out in the ether

13:34

and kind of letting it kind

13:36

of enter people's psyches in

13:39

Layman's terms. Is there any there

13:41

there, Neil with Hunter Biden?

13:43

Well, because it does, it does sound a little

13:46

fun. Yeah. Now, I mean in the book, I say,

13:48

you know, I have a whole section about did Hunter Biden

13:50

and Biden do something wrong. I think you

13:53

did something, you know, morally wrong, not legally

13:55

wrong. But the idea that you take a job

13:57

because of who your dad is, I have a problem with

13:59

that. So it's a little sketchy, and it's

14:01

a little sketchy. I don't think it means that you

14:03

go in launch some secret investigation

14:05

and hold up congressionally appropriated aid

14:08

and do all the things that the President did.

14:10

That's you know, even if Biden

14:13

did something that was let's say, criminal,

14:15

which I don't think anyone agrees that there

14:17

there was that on the part of the sun And indeed,

14:20

even Trump's own witness Vulgar yesterday

14:22

testified that I've known Biden

14:24

for twenty four years and he would never do

14:26

something that would compromise his

14:28

values to this nation's interests. So, you

14:31

know, but even if you put all that aside and

14:33

said, Okay, Trump's right, there

14:35

was something really bad that

14:37

was done here that would never justify

14:40

you going and deputizing your private

14:42

attorney to Rudy Giuliani,

14:45

to go to another country and

14:47

to threaten and hold up military

14:49

aid that our taxpayer dollars have

14:51

appropriated for the nation's

14:53

interests and the Ukraine really needs

14:56

right to protect itself from guess

14:59

who, Russia. Exactly, I'm

15:01

so glad you brought that up, because again Trump's

15:03

witness yesterday, Ambassador Vulcar

15:05

said exactly that said, look, I'm opposed

15:08

to the idea of holding up to say this aid is

15:10

really important encountering Russian

15:12

aggression in the region. So

15:15

once again we see

15:17

this thing in which the president is just out

15:20

doing favors for Russia. Now,

15:23

I don't know that that motivated him here. It's probably

15:25

he had more personal motivations here in terms

15:27

of a political agenda, but it does

15:30

demonstrate the stakes here in which you

15:32

have a president who cares more

15:35

about himself, who cares more about

15:37

his re election than what the

15:40

taxpayers and Congress have appropriated

15:43

in the nation's interest. We're

15:45

going to take a quick break. We'll have more

15:47

from Neil Cartiel when we come back.

16:00

Solon said also in his testimony,

16:02

everyone was in the loop, referring

16:04

to senior administration

16:07

officials, including Mike Pompeio,

16:09

the Secretary of State, Vice President Mike Penn's

16:12

acting chief of staff, Nick bolvany

16:14

Um. So have they been

16:16

implicated and what might the

16:18

repercussions be for them. I mean, these

16:21

guys aren't going to be impeached. What will happen

16:23

to them anything? Uh? They I do

16:25

think things will happen to them. So Solon's testimony

16:28

today really was a kind of detonation

16:30

that he basically took the

16:33

view, Look, if I'm going down, I'm picking a lot of other people

16:35

with me. Mulvaney, the acting

16:37

Chief of Staff, Bolton, the former National

16:39

Security Advisor, Um, you know, Pompeio,

16:42

the Secretary of State, Uh, you know, and

16:44

the list goes on and on and quit sort

16:46

of. And and didn't he direct

16:49

the White House lawyers to be notified about

16:51

this? I mean, he clearly felt uncomfortable

16:53

with this. Correct, that's what the reporting says.

16:56

But you know, I think one of the hard things about this,

16:58

Katie, is we don't know because the President

17:01

has gagged every one of these

17:03

people from coming forward and telling

17:05

the truth to the Congress. Can you

17:07

do that? I mean, can't they subpoena these

17:10

folks? They can, but it's going to take some

17:12

time in the courts. And I think the Democrats

17:14

have taken the view, which I actually agree with,

17:16

is they've got enough evidence now to impeach

17:18

and do we want to delay things more

17:21

and more in the courts. Now, there's gonna

17:23

be a decision coming down in a few days by

17:25

the d C Court on some privilege

17:27

issues, and it may open the door for Bolton

17:30

to testify in his own And I think it's

17:32

notable that a lot of the testimony

17:34

we've heard over the last week, like from Colonel Vinman

17:37

or Ambassador Yanovov Yanevovich

17:40

and people like that, are all folks have

17:42

come forward despite the President's gag

17:44

order and said I'm just going to tell the truth

17:47

and might do that.

17:49

I think he might, you know, I think for the

17:51

courts decide I do. I mean, at the end

17:53

of the day, Bolton is a lawyer, um,

17:56

and you know he's far more conservative

17:59

than I am. But I do think

18:01

that in you know, deep in his heart is

18:04

a respect for the kind of common calling

18:06

we have as a profession, the idea

18:09

that you know, when you're a witness to important

18:11

events, um, you tell

18:14

them to the American people and let the chips

18:16

fall where they may. Meanwhile, Ambassador

18:18

son Land said he never heard

18:20

directly from President Trump

18:22

that the military aid was conditioned on

18:24

an announcement of investigations, saying

18:27

that assumption was his own personal guests.

18:30

So is that enough? Well,

18:34

I mean if he never heard those

18:36

exact words, Hey, if

18:38

this doesn't happen, there

18:40

won't be foreign aid and ps

18:43

that White House visit will be canceled. If

18:46

this were the If the case against

18:48

President Trump was built all around the son

18:50

Land testimony, I think it certainly wouldn't

18:52

be enough. The problem for Trump is

18:54

Sonland is not the is

18:56

not the prosecution witness. He's the

18:59

defense witness. So he's the best

19:01

story Trump has got, and

19:03

all he's got is well the President

19:05

directly say this, but everyone

19:08

knew and everyone was in the loop on exactly

19:10

what was going on. What do you think? What do you think

19:12

President Trump was thinking when he watched this, If

19:15

he watched it, even though he claims he wasn't

19:17

watching it, right, Yeah,

19:20

I I don't think that there's a way anyone

19:22

can watch this, you know, if you're if

19:24

you're the president, and watch this being said about

19:26

you without having a deep pit in

19:28

your stomach. And I think that's why we see the

19:30

more and more lashing out by this president.

19:33

You know, um, but at some point he's

19:35

going to have to face the facts. And the facts

19:38

are not based on Sun

19:40

Len's testimony alone, but on that July

19:42

transcript in which the

19:44

quid pro quo is right there.

19:47

It's not you know, I need a favor from

19:49

you, though, That's what the president says,

19:51

and so you know, there isn't really

19:53

a way for him to walk away from it. Well

19:55

this really mattered, though, Neil. That's the question.

19:58

Let's talk short term and long term. Short

20:00

term being uh, if he is impeached

20:02

a trial in the Senate, is there anything

20:05

that we heard today

20:07

that might move the needle for Republican

20:10

senators to vote to convict

20:12

President Trump or for some of them to basically

20:16

abandoned the president. I think so far

20:18

they're only two. I do think

20:21

that as senators go and look

20:23

at the evidence and ask

20:25

themselves, you know the question

20:28

that I put in my book, which is, you know, just

20:30

flipped the parties around. Pretend this

20:32

is what we do with law students in their first year. You

20:34

say, everyone's got certain biases when they

20:36

walk in and you say, well, just pretend you're

20:38

representing the defendant instead of the plain if if

20:40

you are planiff focused and vice

20:42

versa. I think the same thing has to be put

20:45

to the Senators, and they've never actually been asked

20:47

this simple question, which is, you

20:49

know, if the shoes on the other foot, if it's President

20:51

Obama who went and got secret

20:53

help from a foreign governmor tried

20:55

to do so and held up congressionally

20:58

appropriated aid or doled out White

21:00

House meetings to countries that investigated

21:03

his political rivals, would

21:05

you sit by and say, oh, yeah, that's cool,

21:08

he can be president. I just don't think

21:10

that, you know, a senator could look at

21:12

herself for himself in the mirror and

21:15

say, yeah, that's the kind of government

21:17

I want. And I know there are

21:20

so many Americans who have been disparited over

21:22

the last three years as Congresses

21:25

look the other way on this and that, But

21:28

we've never actually forced them

21:30

to go and cast that vote.

21:33

And here it will be one of the most solemn votes I'll ever cast

21:35

in their lives, most solemn things they ever

21:38

do. And can they really do

21:40

that? I don't know, um, but I

21:42

have faith that in the Senate

21:44

and that they will study

21:46

this, think about it, ask

21:49

the question that I just asked, What if the shoe

21:51

were on the other foot, and reach the right judgment.

21:54

I don't mean to be cynical, but politics

21:57

seems to be the number one priority

21:59

for many these Republican senators.

22:02

So why do you believe that suddenly they'll

22:04

have an epiphany and uh,

22:07

sort of a crisis of confidence

22:09

in the president and their conscious

22:12

consciences will emerge

22:14

at this moment in time. Well, I have to

22:16

think that two things. One is I have to think when you

22:18

go into public office, you know, there are

22:20

a lot of ways to make money or get power. I

22:22

think you do it for some sense of the public good.

22:25

And so, um, you know, I think

22:27

I think at first you do, and then it's all about

22:29

staying in power, don't you But maybe but

22:31

even if so, Um, the idea

22:34

of associating yourself with this, with

22:36

this kind of lawlessness, I don't

22:38

know makes for very good politics, um

22:41

in in the long term. Um. And

22:44

you know, we're seeing this election after election, the

22:47

elections just you know, last week, you

22:49

know, again and again the president

22:52

is losing. And I do think one

22:54

of the reasons he's losing is because

22:56

of this corrosive view about

22:59

the law. So even if the Senate

23:01

does not vote to convict you

23:03

think he there will be hell to pay

23:06

in November President

23:08

Trump. Oh my, yes, I mean, look,

23:10

I I you know, I understand there's

23:12

a lot of people out there who say we

23:15

should have defeat President Trump at the ballot

23:17

box and not impeach and

23:19

removed. And I think, look, I think that you

23:21

know, with this kind of record, there's no way

23:23

President Trump could be re elected.

23:26

Um, you know so. But at the end

23:28

of the day, I think worth setting

23:31

something here that's far bigger than

23:33

just the next election, which of course has moment

23:35

to stakes. But we're setting the ground rules for

23:38

what our American experiment is all

23:40

about, what our democracy means.

23:43

And if we don't do this, if

23:45

we say a president can go and

23:48

in secret try and hold

23:50

up foreign aid to investigate

23:52

his chief rivals, and

23:55

you know, what are we saying about our elections?

23:58

But Neil, a new NPR PBS

24:00

News Our poll found that while most Americans

24:03

are paying attention to these hearings, less

24:05

than a third say or you

24:07

know, around a third say their minds could

24:10

be changed. So there are a

24:12

lot of people who say, we don't care whatever

24:15

happens, that it's a witch hunt. You know, they've

24:17

bought the president's talking points

24:20

and by the way. I watched Sean Hannity

24:22

last night, and it's almost

24:25

as if we live in two different countries or

24:27

there are two different stories. If you have a steady

24:29

diet of Fox News, you have a very different

24:31

opinion about what's going on in

24:33

Washington right now. Yeah. No, Look,

24:35

I my argument is not that Sean Hannity

24:38

and Laura Ingram are going to change their minds. So you know,

24:40

they've got a certain, you know, set of incentives

24:42

to say the things that they say. I'm

24:44

talking about Fox viewers, and I do have

24:46

more faith in those viewers and more

24:49

generally the viewers across the American

24:51

public and listeners and and so on.

24:53

I'm not ready to give up on

24:55

the idea that we live in such two different

24:57

countries that there is no truth anymore,

25:00

or that we shouldn't ask these

25:02

questions and we throw in the towel because

25:04

we're worried about a you know, splintered, hyperpartisan

25:07

environment. I mean, at the

25:10

end of the day, every time America

25:12

has transcended that we transcended it

25:15

in seventeen seventy six and seventeen eighty

25:17

seven, in eighteen sixty six and nineteen

25:19

thirty seven, and the civil rights movement,

25:22

marriage equality. So many other times

25:24

people have said, Katie, the kind of stuff

25:26

you're saying, and you know, I know you're

25:28

just voicing, you know, a lot of the frustrations

25:31

of a lot of people and views of a lot of people. But

25:34

there's also this other counter tradition in American

25:36

history. You know, in the book, I talked about the

25:38

Andrew Johnson impeachment, and uh,

25:41

you know, Johnson was a terrible president

25:43

and racist and and so on,

25:46

but he was impeached not for that. He was impeached

25:48

for a violation of the tenure of office

25:50

at the technical violation. And

25:53

it was a really close vote in the Senate and

25:55

Senator Ross, who hated at

25:57

the Senor Russell was from camp Us

26:00

and he hated President

26:02

Johnson, but nonetheless

26:05

cast the impeachment vote, the deciding

26:07

vote the other way to not impeach, because

26:09

he said that's not the right thing to do. It maybe

26:11

the right thing to do for my party, but it's not

26:13

the right thing to do for the country. And

26:16

time and again we've seen examples of

26:18

that, and um,

26:20

we won't know unless we try. And um,

26:22

you know, that's I'm proud that to

26:24

see our Congress trying and

26:26

to force some attention

26:29

by this administration to the rule of law. Let

26:31

me ask you if you could break it down,

26:33

how many articles of impeachment are there

26:36

right now? And you

26:39

know, how is this different from

26:41

a criminal trial. Yeah,

26:43

So the main differences are that

26:46

it's not, of course about crimes. So

26:48

so that's the first thing it's about, really,

26:50

is there an abusive power by

26:52

the president. Is the president putting

26:55

his nation his personal interests

26:57

above those of the nation. That's really

26:59

I think the best definition of what a high

27:01

crime and misdemeanor and that can come into

27:03

sort of shapes and forms exactly,

27:05

and so here I think they're basically

27:08

kind of three buckets that of

27:11

offenses when we think about Ukraine, and

27:13

you know, there may be others involving

27:16

the Moller investigation and so on. I personally

27:18

don't think Congress should get into all of that here,

27:20

but you know, because there's some indication

27:23

that he might have lied on his questionnaire

27:25

exactly. The the House General Counsel

27:28

this week in the d C Court

27:30

said they believe that there

27:32

may be evidence that the President lie de Muller

27:34

and that, of course is itself a criminal offense,

27:37

So there may be other things going

27:39

on. We'll have to see. Um. In terms of

27:41

the process, there is a big difference. I

27:43

mean, the House does what's called impeachment,

27:45

which is like the formal indictment of

27:48

the president, like saying he did something

27:50

wrong, and that is just by a

27:52

majority vote, and that's kind of

27:54

like a grand jury in the criminal context.

27:57

And then you've got if the House impeaches,

27:59

then it goes to the Senate for the punishment

28:01

phase and uh,

28:03

and the kind of trial about what,

28:05

you know, what what the president did and is

28:07

it, you know, a convictible offense.

28:10

Um. And there it's a two thirds

28:12

vote of the Senate to convict. And unlike

28:15

a criminal trial in which it's a jury of twelve

28:17

peers who don't have any prejudices

28:19

about the case, this is decided

28:21

by a hundred senators, many of whom have already

28:24

said certain things about their

28:26

view of the case. So it is quite different

28:28

in that sense. It's a mix of a

28:31

legal proceeding and a political

28:33

proceeding. Would President Trump ever be

28:35

asked to go to the Senate to testify?

28:38

Oh? Absolutely, And would he be compelled

28:40

to I think you

28:42

can't formally compel him in

28:44

the sense of, uh, you

28:47

know, attached criminal sanctions to him.

28:49

But you can create an adverse

28:51

inference. You can say, look, Mr President,

28:54

if you don't come forward and tell the truth, we'll

28:56

take that as an admission that

28:59

these accusations against you in these articles

29:01

of impeachment are accurate.

29:03

And you would ask before about what that case

29:05

would look like. What are those articles of impeachment?

29:08

And it seems to me Article one is

29:10

kind of abuse of power, the

29:12

president saying I

29:14

am going to cut off congressionally

29:17

appropriated aid aida that our taxpayers

29:19

approved to another country

29:22

to benefit myself. Count

29:24

Number two is bribery, the idea

29:26

that we were talking about earlier, seeking

29:29

something of value for yourself in

29:31

order to exchange in order for the

29:35

performance of an official, and it would

29:37

be called bribery absolutely. And indeed,

29:39

one of the interesting things, Katie, is the Constitution

29:42

actually says there are defines

29:44

impeachable offenses as treason,

29:47

bribery, or other high crimes

29:49

and misdemeanors. It's actually in the Constitution

29:51

itself as one of the two things

29:53

our founders said was impeachable,

29:56

and cited by Alexander Hamilton as

29:58

you said earlier about a foreign exactly,

30:01

is that in the Constitution too, Well,

30:03

what's in the Constitution is just the word bribery.

30:06

No, the foreign nation. What you mentioned that Alexander

30:09

Hamilton's used as an example, So

30:11

it's an example of what is an

30:13

impeachable offense, but itself is not in

30:15

the text of the Constitution. Like much of the

30:17

Constitution, they used more capacious

30:19

words like other high crimes and misdemeanors.

30:22

And then we have methods to try and

30:24

understand what those words are here in some

30:27

of Hamilton's writings exactly. So Hamilton's

30:30

writings in the Federalist papers. Indeed, Federalist

30:32

sight, I think is the critical one. Um,

30:35

they make this argument about foreign

30:37

interference, you're sure it's not and

30:41

then uh, and then the last article

30:43

of impeachment. And I think today we saw a

30:45

lot of evidence of this is obstruction of justice,

30:48

the idea that the president is

30:50

gagging all these witnesses from coming

30:52

forward. He's saying no documents can

30:54

come. And we started this interview, Katie,

30:56

with you asking about the Ambassador Solilon testimony

30:59

it six and its significance, and we've

31:01

talked a lot about the substantial significance,

31:04

like what did Simon say about Trump

31:06

and Giuliani and so on, But there was a

31:08

procedural significance to what he said

31:10

today, which is really important. He said, and

31:12

again, this is Trump's guy. He's saying,

31:15

the President is acting

31:17

wrongly by not allowing

31:19

me to look at my emails, not

31:21

provide them to you, not provide my call records.

31:24

He's preventing me from all of this. And

31:26

that's preventing the American people from learning

31:28

the truth. And that is quintessential

31:31

obstruction of justice. And

31:34

and what could happen to Rudy Giuliani. I'm

31:36

just curious. Oh heavens me, I would

31:38

not want to be. I mean, if

31:42

in fact he did all the things

31:44

he's being accused of doing in the course

31:46

of these hearings and by various witnesses,

31:49

what will happen to him? Well, so, first of all,

31:51

it's not just what he's being accused of in the hearings,

31:53

which are about you know, this part of

31:55

Ukraine and Barisma and all that. There's

31:58

a separate criminal investigation in the Southern

32:00

District of New York, his former office that

32:02

he used to head, about whether

32:05

or not he committed various cribes, whether

32:07

it's you know, we don't know exactly what they are,

32:09

um, but you know, so he's facing

32:11

legal liability there. Separately,

32:14

now he's got a bunch to worry about

32:17

here, um, with respect to the

32:19

Ukrainian foreign aid scandal

32:22

and so on. And you know, I

32:24

think that there's a deep question here whether Giuliani

32:26

is going to say, oh, I did this all on

32:29

my own. Trump wasn't involved, hoping

32:32

perhaps for a pardon or something like that,

32:34

or he's going to say, hey, I wasn't

32:36

a rogue agent here. I was doing all of this at

32:39

the President's best, which Mr

32:41

Salmon today I think suggested was

32:43

the truth. And is

32:45

Roger Stone going to be pardoned? Who

32:49

knows? Um? I would think so. I

32:51

would think that a president, when

32:54

there was that mountain of evidence from

32:56

his own Justice Department to convict

32:59

Rogers own, any

33:01

decent president could not impeach,

33:04

it could not pardon Roger Stone.

33:07

But this is a president who

33:09

pardoned Joe R. Pio, who pardoned

33:11

a niche to Suza, who pardoned three

33:13

war criminals just last week

33:16

against the advice of his own Defense

33:18

department. So anything

33:21

goes with respect to this guy. And

33:23

his abuse of the pardon power. You made

33:25

the case that President Trump's efforts to hinder

33:27

the House investigation is

33:29

as much of a threat to the rule of law

33:31

as the case against him, and that it quote

33:33

strikes at the heart of American democracy.

33:37

Explain that, yes, I wrote it. I've

33:39

be in the New York Times last week, which said, look, we're

33:41

gonna obviously all focus on these witnesses

33:44

and what what happened with respect

33:46

to Ukraine. But there is a kind of more

33:48

fundamental thing. And you know, I saw it in

33:50

two different tours in the government, which is

33:53

when the Congress of the United States asks

33:55

you, how are you doing your job? Why did

33:57

you take certain actions and the like? You

34:00

know, that's a sovereign and

34:02

solemn obligation for you

34:04

to go and explain what

34:07

you did to the people.

34:09

Uh. And this president has thumbed

34:12

his nose at Congress, has said it's so illegitimate

34:15

that he won't even bother turning over

34:17

a single piece of paper or a

34:19

single witness. Um. And again

34:21

I asked to go back to that kind of yardstick

34:24

rule shoe. On the other foot, if this

34:27

were a democratic president,

34:29

how would the Republican senators and

34:31

congresswoman and men feel about

34:34

someone who stime me that. I mean even

34:36

at the worst, you know, an air culture was

34:38

accused of, you know, in Fast

34:40

and Furious of various things. But he

34:42

turned over thousands and thousands

34:45

of pages of material. That was the only

34:47

time President Obama invoked executive

34:49

privilege and his time in office. This

34:51

president, you know, invokes it kind of like candy,

34:54

you know, whenever and does it wantonly

34:57

um and uh, you know, you'd have to go

34:59

back to Nixon, to someone who did it

35:01

with any frequency approaching approaching

35:03

this president. But this president has done

35:06

that and squared it many many times

35:08

over. Do you see anyway the impeachment

35:10

hearings Neil could help the president, could

35:13

galvanize his base and

35:15

that people might buy in the idea that

35:17

he's being unfairly targeted.

35:20

And note that these people

35:22

never thought his election was legitimate.

35:26

YadA, YadA, YadA. I

35:28

think that's Katie, with all respect,

35:30

the wrong question. I don't think we can do this

35:32

because of politics. I think we have

35:35

to do this, and I think

35:37

this is where the Congress

35:39

of the House is moving because

35:42

there is no other option when

35:44

you have a president who betrays

35:47

the nation's interest and tries to do in

35:49

secret, and then gets caught and

35:51

then doesn't even admit to it and says he'd

35:54

do it again, he'd do it with China. You've

35:56

got a president who's a fundamental, existential

35:59

threat to the rule of law, to everything

36:02

the country is built on. And if you lose

36:04

elections over it, so be it. Lose

36:06

the election, because there's

36:09

something far greater at stake here, which

36:11

is the operation and soul

36:13

of American democracy. You're

36:16

a purist, but I would say that

36:18

there are plenty of Democrats in the House who

36:20

really weighed the political ramifications

36:22

of this pretty long and hard. Neil,

36:25

Sure, No, I am not. I'm not denying

36:27

any of that. And you know, maybe that

36:29

it's not bad politics for them or

36:31

good politics or whatever. I'm just saying, you

36:34

know, is some things have to rise

36:36

above politics. And as your listeners

36:38

think about, you know, how do we think

36:40

about this question that we're about to embark

36:43

in as a nation over the next two months, what should

36:45

we do about the president? I think they have

36:47

to ask, you know, do they really want

36:49

a system in which a president can do this

36:52

and put the politics aside At least

36:54

try to. It's, if nothing else, a thought experiment,

36:57

because, Um, the shoe will

36:59

be on the other. Life is long and

37:01

the country hopefully has many, many years

37:04

ahead. And if

37:06

we allow this president to do this, another

37:09

president can do it, and that president may not

37:11

be one that you politically agree with. I

37:14

know, I'm asking you to speculate, and that's

37:16

something that current

37:18

and former government officials

37:21

hate to do. Colin values to

37:23

always tell me, Katie, I will not speculate

37:25

on that, but can you give

37:27

us an idea of the timeline and what ultimately

37:30

you think is going to happen? Neil, sure.

37:33

So I'm not afraid

37:35

to speculate here. So I wrote a whole

37:37

book that's about this. Um and

37:39

Uh. I think that by the

37:41

end of December. By December, I

37:44

suspect we'll have a vote in the House of Representatives

37:46

and Merry Christmas. And I do think that the

37:48

president will be impeached and representatives.

37:51

It will then go to a trial in the Senate in

37:54

January. And January, you know,

37:56

I think the Senate rules require kind of

37:58

an immediate trial to move quickly.

38:00

It required them to be I think in session six

38:02

days a week. UM and you

38:06

know, some senators, Republican senators

38:08

have said it maybe as long as six to eight

38:10

weeks. I'm not sure that that's

38:13

right. I think it's probably the House has

38:15

already taken a lot of testimony, so

38:17

I'm not sure that it will be that long.

38:19

But I again, I hope that it's

38:21

a thorough serious

38:23

trial that everyone can see

38:26

exactly what happened, because

38:28

the president's story has been shifting while

38:31

this has been going on in the House of Representatives

38:33

and in the early stages in the investigation.

38:35

I mean, first it was I didn't

38:38

do it. Then it was it's

38:40

all perfect and beautiful. Then it was

38:42

no, it's all hearsay, and you

38:44

know, there's no firsthand witnesses. Now

38:47

that the first hand witnesses have come forward, we're

38:49

back to it's beautiful and perfect. Um.

38:51

And I don't really know that guy som Blander

38:54

whomever. So there's been a bunch of shifting

38:56

stories, um. And once it goes to trial in

38:58

the Senate, I suspect that they're gonna have

39:00

to drill down and pick one. And

39:02

at that point, I do think the eyes of the nation

39:05

focus on the question. The eyes in the

39:07

Senate, they look at themselves in the

39:09

mirror and say what's the right thing

39:11

to do here? And I think that

39:13

the president will be removed from office? Do

39:19

wow? So you think he'll

39:21

be gone and Mike

39:24

Pence will run for president? I

39:26

I don't know, but you know you know that

39:28

very well. Maybe or maybe they have something else.

39:31

Wow, Well, fasten

39:33

your seatbelt. Do you ever wish

39:36

that you had waited to write your book and

39:38

impeach the case against Donald Trump? Since

39:40

there's so much happened since

39:43

you I'm sure handed this in

39:45

no actually their verse. I mean I wrote

39:47

the book because I knew a lot

39:49

was going to happen. I knew there'd be all these witnesses

39:51

coming forward, and I you know, one of the things

39:53

that Trump does, and you actually started today's

39:56

session by talking about it, is the flood of information

39:59

that happens. And it's so hard to

40:01

separate the wheat from the chaff, and remember

40:03

what's important. In the book, it's

40:05

just a hundred fifty pages is just designed

40:08

to say, here's the central narrative.

40:10

And yes, there's going to be any number of details

40:12

and people saying this and that and

40:14

taking pot shots at each other, but here's

40:17

the central narrative. That central narrative is

40:19

not going to change. Like you know I've done.

40:21

I've argued thirty nine cases at the Supreme Court

40:23

and one hundreds of other cases. You know, in

40:25

a case and the basics architecture

40:28

of the case is done. That basic

40:30

architecture the case is done now and

40:32

that's what the book lays out. And go back

40:35

to those three articles of

40:37

impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors

40:39

in the Constitution, abuse

40:41

of power, bribery,

40:44

and obstruction of justice. Neo

40:47

Cartiel, Neil, thanks so much for helping

40:49

us understand all this and make some sense

40:51

of it. Thank you. It's an honor to be with you. Not

40:55

everyone agrees with Neo Cartiel.

40:58

Up next, we're going to have a conversation with a vocal

41:00

critic of the impeachment inquiry, former

41:03

Independent Council Robert Ray.

41:16

Robert Ray made a name for himself leading

41:18

the Whitewater investigation as the former

41:21

head of the Office of the Independent Council.

41:24

He recently wrote a piece for Time magazine

41:26

arguing that while President Trump

41:28

may have acted inappropriately, his

41:30

actions do not meet the constitution

41:33

strict requirements for impeachment,

41:35

which say that treason, briberary,

41:37

or other high crimes and misdemeanors

41:40

need to be proven in order to remove

41:42

a president from office. Robert

41:45

Ray, thank you very much for coming on the podcast

41:49

so your predecessor as Independent

41:51

Council can start. Described today's testimony

41:54

as quote one of those bombshell

41:56

days and said that quote things

41:59

do not look it for the president substantively.

42:02

What do you think, Bob Well, I don't agree with that.

42:05

Um. I've dealt with media

42:07

days throughout this saga

42:09

for more than the past two months, where every day

42:12

is another bombshell day. So I

42:14

don't think there was really anything that I heard today

42:16

that was that much of a surprise and what I

42:18

had anticipated that we would hear. His

42:21

testimony, though, did confirm a

42:23

quid pro quo. Right, well, let's

42:26

be careful about that, because you know, first of

42:28

all, I'm you

42:30

know, the Hoorray Henry's who all

42:32

want to talk about quid pro quo as if

42:34

they seem to understand what bribery is.

42:37

Let's just slow down. A second. Bribery

42:41

is something like the following, whoever,

42:45

being a public official, corruptly

42:49

demands or seeks personally

42:53

in return for the performance

42:55

of an official act is

42:57

guilty of a crime, and

43:00

the in return for a language essentially

43:02

is what people understand to be the quid pro

43:04

quo requirement of a bribery offense.

43:08

But that's not what we talk about

43:11

and what much of the discussion has been about.

43:13

I mean, for example, if

43:15

there's an exchange of a quid pro quo

43:18

involving foreign assistance

43:20

generally, and the linkage

43:23

is over something as benign as

43:25

we want a particular country

43:28

to do more with regard

43:30

to internally prosecuting

43:33

or investigating corruption, nobody

43:36

would ever contend that that kind of an

43:38

exchange is

43:40

something that the law is prepared to recognize

43:43

as illegal. But it doesn't it change

43:45

when it's a political rival, Bob,

43:47

when it's specifically about Joe

43:49

Biden and his son. And

43:53

according to son Land, Hello,

43:55

that's not what Ambassador Sonland testified

43:58

to today. What his understanding is that

44:00

it was barisma and the

44:02

origins of the two thousand and sixteen election

44:05

interference. He only came to learn,

44:09

I think, he said, and not until after

44:11

the transcript of the call was released

44:13

between President Zelinsky and President

44:16

Trump that uh,

44:18

you know, in his mind, he

44:20

then came to a presumption that

44:23

there was a linkage between the

44:25

two involving specifically the

44:28

Bidens. So you know, look,

44:30

I think much of how you would view

44:32

this is colored by whether or not you think

44:34

there's any merit to an investigation

44:37

of the Biden's first second,

44:39

I think it's colored by what your view is

44:41

about whether or not such an

44:43

investigation is of personal benefit

44:46

to the president that would be sufficient

44:48

to um make

44:51

out a crime. The Democrats

44:53

have tried that on for size. They first contended

44:55

that that was an illegal foreign campaign contribution.

44:58

Well, that's an interesting legal theory,

45:00

but it runs up against the fact that the Justice Department,

45:03

apparently through the Criminal Division, after consultation

45:05

with the Public Integrity Section, said listen,

45:08

that's not a thing of value that the law is prepared

45:10

to recognize as a campaign

45:12

contribution that would be of personal benefit

45:14

to the president United States, meaning an

45:16

investigation into Hunter

45:19

Biden and Barrisma. Right. Look,

45:21

and you know, the notion that a public

45:23

official is, as a result

45:25

of running for office or being a candidate,

45:28

immune from uh an investigation

45:31

is in my judgment, anathemas and

45:33

consistent with with our past history,

45:35

and it's even inconsistent with my own past history.

45:37

I conducted an investigation of Hillary

45:40

Clinton, who was then at the time while

45:42

I was serving as Independent Council being investigated

45:44

in connection with a whole slew of investigations

45:47

Whitewater, the Travel Office, FBI

45:49

files, a number of things, while she was a

45:51

candidate for office for the United States Senate in

45:53

New York. So are you suggesting that Joe

45:56

Biden did something

45:58

wrong here? I don't and and it

46:00

was in your estimation it's

46:02

worthy of an investigation. I don't know. I mean,

46:04

apparently the Attorney General has

46:06

thought at least so that

46:09

matter has been referred, among

46:11

a number of different specific issues

46:14

to John Durham, who is

46:16

the currently serving U S Attorney

46:18

in the District of Connecticut. He enjoys

46:20

a bipartisan reputation

46:23

as a kind a fine one as a

46:25

bipartisan, nonpartisan prosecute

46:29

career prosecutor. I don't

46:31

know whether that investigation has any merit or not.

46:33

I imagine he'll figure it out one way or

46:35

another. That's why we have investigations to find

46:37

out. I I wonder if you

46:39

believe that Ambassador Solon's claimed

46:41

that the President was seemed

46:44

to be more interested in the announcement

46:46

of an investigation rather

46:49

than the investigation itself, might

46:52

sort of counter this

46:54

assessment that it wouldn't he

46:57

wouldn't stand to gain from

46:59

that in estigation. Ambassador Simon

47:01

made very clear, although that was completely overlooked

47:03

in the testimony today, that the primary reason

47:06

to ask for a public announcement was to fix

47:08

their position publicly so that they couldn't walk

47:10

back the fact that they were committed to

47:12

rooting out corruption. I think that's

47:15

separate and apart from whether or not you think that's

47:17

also of personal benefit to the president,

47:19

because of the fact that it would have potentially had an

47:21

impact on an election. Everything

47:24

has an impact on an election. The

47:27

question is whether there is anything inappropriate

47:29

about that ask and

47:32

I have already commented publicly

47:34

and I think, um, this is where I

47:36

do agree with Ken Starr. I

47:38

do think it was an error in judgment

47:41

not to have done this through the usual channels.

47:43

Why Because the usual channels

47:46

provide you with insulation in

47:48

the ordinary affairs of the country

47:50

where people don't second yes your political

47:53

motivations, and so one of the reasons that you'd go

47:55

to the FBI

47:57

and the Justice Department and also admit

48:01

what there's already a treaty process to

48:03

allow a request to the Ukrainian

48:05

government through official channels for

48:09

what's referred to as the Mutual Legal Assistance

48:11

Treaty. That's the kind of appropriate way in

48:13

which you would be seeking in a sensitive

48:15

area assistance with an investigation.

48:18

So I guess what I'm saying is that, you

48:20

know, it's hard for me to imagine that the president

48:22

does something directly that if he did indirectly

48:24

through usual channels, it certainly would be entirely

48:27

appropriate. But now all of a sudden it's

48:29

illegal. You can argue about a

48:32

lack of judgment and whether or not it would have

48:34

been better practice and a better idea not

48:36

to have had what amounts to

48:39

a second channel through Rudy Giuliani

48:41

to try to accomplish this end. But I'm

48:44

not sure that I would jump to the conclusion that

48:46

the end in itself was inappropriate. I

48:48

think the means are subject

48:50

to question, but that doesn't mean that the means were

48:52

illegal. But having said that, I

48:54

mean it was in your view

48:57

and error in judgment, but does not

48:59

necessarily qualified as

49:01

a high crime or misdemeanor. I don't

49:03

think it qualifies as bribery either. I

49:05

don't think it. I don't think it involves extortion

49:07

because I don't think there was sufficient pressure applied.

49:10

What about abuse of power, Well, abuse

49:12

of power is an interesting concept, and I

49:14

know you've talked to about

49:17

that. I do not think that abuse

49:19

of power untethered from

49:21

the constitutional language, which requires

49:24

that it be treason, bribery, or other

49:26

high crime and misdemeanor, is sufficient.

49:29

I know there's reasonable disagreement of

49:31

opinion among legal scholars about that. I think.

49:33

I mean, I've read a lot of books. I've considered the question

49:36

of impeachment, going all the way back to Watergate

49:39

and historically even before um

49:41

I think the better, more considered view. And

49:43

by the way, this was Neil cat y'all's view

49:46

and a Chiel Lamar and a number of other people

49:48

when they were trying on for size of the question

49:51

of the Clinton impeachment. I do not

49:53

think abuse of power on its own as

49:55

a sufficient basis to remove a president from

49:57

office. I think it has to be both.

50:00

I think the lesson of the Clinton impeachment was

50:03

very few people were arguing over whether

50:05

or not the president had committed obstruction of

50:07

justice or perjury. The only question was

50:10

whether or not those crimes

50:12

were sufficient to rise to the level of abuse

50:14

of his office, abuse of his oath of office.

50:17

And I think the considered judgment of the Senate following

50:19

a trial was, you know what, Um,

50:22

there's a problem here, but it's not sufficient to

50:24

remove the president from office because he didn't abuse

50:26

his office this one. Um.

50:29

You know, I sort of stepped back and just look

50:31

at it. And the Nixon cases, of

50:33

course entirely different because there I think it was clearly

50:36

both. It was not only that obstruction

50:38

of justice was committed, but it was committed in

50:40

such a way that undermined the president's

50:42

oath of office to take care that the laws be faithfully

50:45

executed. And there was a slush fund in the White House

50:47

with cash coming out of a safe in

50:49

order to pay off witnesses to ultra testimony

50:51

in connection with an ongoing criminal

50:53

investigation that the president orchestrated,

50:56

and he was on tape directing it. And

50:58

everybody can understand it appreciate that

51:00

that's not only a

51:03

crime, but it's also a problem for

51:05

a president to be involved in. I

51:07

don't think there's anything like that

51:09

here. I mean, are we seriously and

51:12

I'm asking the American people this, are we seriously

51:14

going to impeach a president based upon today's

51:17

testimony about the announcement

51:19

of an investigation tied

51:22

to a meeting at the White House,

51:25

I really think tied

51:27

to foreign aid. Well, let's start with

51:29

where they started today, because the only thing Sonlon

51:31

was able to say for Ambassador son was able

51:33

to say for sure is that the link that he saw was

51:36

with a meeting at the White House, despite

51:38

what you hear in much of the media, and meeting

51:40

at the White House as recently as the Supreme

51:42

Court's decision involving Governor McDonald

51:45

is not an official act under the bribery law,

51:47

so that can't be the predicate for a bribery

51:49

offense. And I believe Adam Schiff recognizes

51:52

this because all before these hearings even

51:54

started, he was already saying, you

51:56

know, we don't have to prove the elements of a bribery

51:58

offense like a prosecu puter would bribery.

52:01

It only has to be as the founders understood

52:04

it. Well, okay, fair enough, but

52:06

bribery is mentioned, and the

52:08

founders did put in place a Congress which

52:10

was capable of passing laws, and among the other

52:13

laws that the Congress ultimately passed was

52:15

the Federal Bribery Statute. So there's no bribery

52:18

with regard to a meeting in the White House. Don't

52:20

believe me, but that

52:23

that's what the Supreme Court says. So what

52:25

about foreign aid? I mean, maybe

52:28

Somlon didn't say that he

52:30

saw no connection, but a

52:32

lot of the other witnesses have said

52:34

that, and more witnesses are to come. Well,

52:36

he said, So if if in fact someone says,

52:40

uh, there was an undeniable

52:42

link between an investigation

52:45

of Hunter Biden and

52:48

the delivery of foreign aid to

52:50

Ukraine, would that constitute

52:52

bribery? Well, no one is going to say

52:54

that. And more importantly, I'm not really interested

52:57

in what other people have to say. This is not an

52:59

impeachment of an administration. This

53:02

is, after all, the impeachment of the President

53:04

of United States. Said,

53:06

that doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. The question

53:08

is where does the president thing? And today you

53:10

know, again something skipped

53:13

over. You know, largely the President

53:15

was asked directly by Ambassador

53:18

Sunlin in no uncertain

53:20

terms and emphatically, because I think he was exasperated

53:23

more than anything else Mr President, what do

53:25

you want? And the answer was,

53:28

I don't want anything from President

53:30

Zelinsky. I want him to do what it is he ran on

53:32

and I and I don't want any quid

53:34

pro quotes. I'm not asking him for anything. I'm asking

53:36

him to do what he said he was going to do. So.

53:39

Look, I do not think that

53:42

investigations generally, including

53:45

one's conducted overseas, and including

53:47

one's conducted overseas of United States

53:50

nationals, which by the way, is something that we do

53:52

do. Um. I have represented

53:54

clients that have been on the receiving end of that,

53:57

so I know, UM,

53:59

there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

54:01

That's you know, that's part of what investigations

54:04

are all about. I do not think

54:06

that that notion, and specifically what

54:08

you're suggesting, which is the

54:11

personal benefit to the president

54:13

of a politically motivated investigation of

54:15

the bidens, are mutually exclusive. I

54:17

mean, the sense in the in the in the in

54:19

the country right now is it it's

54:21

either a legitimate investigation or it's

54:23

this thing involving the Biden's barisma

54:26

and corruption in the Ukraine, and the one

54:28

is unlawful. It's a foreign campaign

54:31

contribution and it's the basis of a quid pro

54:33

quo, and the other one is entirely appropriate.

54:35

I don't think life doesn't work that

54:38

way. They are not They are not mutually

54:40

exclusive. There is space enough

54:42

for there to be. Again, depending

54:44

on how what your view is about whether or not

54:47

either Hunter Biden and or his

54:49

his father, that then vice president did anything

54:51

wrong. And again I'm not suggesting he did or he didn't.

54:53

I don't know. That's why we have investigations

54:55

to find that, and in fact, we are having one right

54:58

now. That's what's going on. So

55:01

you basically don't believe when it comes

55:03

to the specific articles of impeachment

55:05

that Neil identified, abuse of

55:07

power, bribery, and obstruction of justice,

55:10

that you can check off any of those. And

55:12

if not, why not obstruction of justice?

55:15

Bob. If in fact President

55:17

Trump is prohibiting many

55:20

people from testifying in the

55:22

House hearings, well that's a process, fell and

55:24

I guess ultimately, you know, the American

55:26

people will decide whether they think that's significantly

55:28

What do you think. I don't think so, And

55:31

I think you know, look, if there are legitimate reasons

55:33

and basses to object to cooperating

55:36

with the investigation that include the assertion

55:38

of presidential or executive privilege.

55:41

I know that they tried this in the Nixon impeachment.

55:44

It wasn't particularly persuasive, nor was

55:46

it, frankly in the in the Clinton

55:48

impeachment. UM, that's a process

55:50

argument and dispute between the branches

55:52

of government. To equate that with

55:54

obstruction of justice seems to me to

55:57

be a bridge too far. Um,

55:59

they're a legit him reasons why you would object

56:01

to uh subpoena compliance,

56:03

both for documents and for witnesses to

56:06

protect the office of the president,

56:08

not the president, you know, Donald

56:10

Trump personally himself, not

56:13

only for this administration, for administrations

56:15

in the future. Uh. That has been consistently

56:18

the position of the White House, not again, not just

56:20

with regard to this administration, but for administrations

56:23

going back at least as far as President Eisenhower.

56:26

UM. Uh, you know, I I don't think

56:28

that UH an attempt

56:31

to try to make that argument, you know,

56:33

Adam Shifts. UH

56:36

typical approach to this has been every

56:38

time the White House objects to providing

56:41

us with a document or a witness, we're

56:43

going to just add that as another article of

56:45

impeachment under obstruction it

56:48

doesn't wash with me. I don't think it will wash

56:50

with the American people. And more importantly,

56:52

in this process, if you have any hopes

56:55

of trying to persuade the other party

56:57

to join with you, which after all, is necessary

57:00

in order to remove the president from

57:02

office in the United States Senate, you're not

57:04

going to get there by making an argument. Ah

57:06

ha, we got you on obstruction of justice. You didn't

57:09

give us that document from the State Department.

57:11

You know, Please, we got more important

57:13

things to worry about. That's not one of them. But what about

57:16

prohibiting witnesses from testifying.

57:18

I mean, we're not talking about handing over

57:20

documents. We're talking about saying to people

57:22

you cannot appear well. Sure, And

57:25

and the reason for that is because the internal

57:27

discussions at the highest level within the

57:29

White House are subject to privilege. And it

57:31

has long been recognized to be

57:33

the case. Uh, it's implied essentially

57:36

in the Constitution by virtue of separation

57:38

of powers. And the President has no obligation to

57:40

try to make the House's case for

57:42

impeachment against him. He has

57:44

constitutional rights as well, in addition

57:47

to the fact of his office.

57:49

And I do think that again,

57:52

pushing that too far is

57:55

encroaching on an area that

57:57

is long recognized to be a proper

58:00

separation of powers question. And and the

58:02

related notion that has expressed most recently

58:04

by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,

58:07

that the president has some obligation to come

58:09

forward and testify or explain

58:11

or provide his people. Um again,

58:14

Um, that's that there's

58:16

nothing in the constitution that requires that.

58:19

I don't think that's in the public interest. And again,

58:21

I think that the president is entitled to rely

58:23

on AIDS without having to worry about

58:25

the fact that all of those people are going to appear

58:27

to testify against him because the Congress is

58:29

conducting an impeachment inquiry. And if

58:31

we really have reached the point in this country

58:34

for the future, which is one of the things that I'm concerned

58:36

about, that it simply as the result of having

58:38

the House of Representatives in the UH

58:41

in the hands of the opposite party, that

58:43

we're going to now be endlessly in

58:45

a situation in which every administration

58:47

is going to be saddled with the potential

58:49

of an impeachment inquiry. I do not think

58:51

ultimately that that is in the country's best interests.

58:53

I don't think that that's what the founders intended, and

58:56

the you know, recent history suggests now that we sort

58:58

of string together, you know, Nixon

59:00

to Clinton to Trump. You

59:02

know, the question one has to logically

59:05

ask, and I think most fair

59:07

minded Americans will be asking

59:09

when this when and if this gets to the United

59:11

States Senate is ultimately is that

59:13

what we want to see here? Is that really in the country's

59:16

interests? And I've even thought about things like, you know, I

59:18

wonder for the future whether or not a simple

59:20

majority vote in the House should be sufficient

59:23

to warrant the impeachment of a president. I

59:25

mean, I think there perhaps should be some serious

59:28

question that a bipartisan vote

59:30

be required in the House before it ever gets

59:32

to the Senate. Not suggesting that it would be a

59:34

two thirds majority, but when you know, I think

59:36

could think seriously about whether or not it's in the country's

59:38

interests with the future to prevent just this sort

59:41

of thing from happening, that rather

59:44

than fifty be required, which would would

59:46

mandate in effect, that you

59:48

would have to have, in an example

59:51

like this one, not only all Democrats

59:53

in favor of impeachment, but you'd have to have bipartisan

59:56

support, meaning some Republicans to join along

59:58

with it. So you think there's m legitimacy

1:00:01

to President Trump's contention, this is

1:00:03

a kangaroo court. He's kind of dismissed

1:00:05

the whole process. He said, you know, on

1:00:07

Fox News they say it's a shift

1:00:10

show. You know, look, I hear all

1:00:12

that. I've been on Fox News. I'm

1:00:14

a regular guest. Um, I

1:00:16

do not think it helps anybody

1:00:20

or our institutions in the country's

1:00:22

best interest to be disparaging the mission

1:00:24

of the House of Representatives. I don't and I won't

1:00:26

do it. Um. You know they

1:00:29

have a tough job to do. Are

1:00:32

is there partisan excess on both

1:00:34

sides? Sure? Did anybody think

1:00:36

that that wouldn't be the case? Go

1:00:38

all the way back to Alexander Hamilton's He certainly

1:00:41

recognized that this would inflame partisan

1:00:43

passions on both sides as

1:00:45

the result of impeachment, particularly involving

1:00:48

a president, which is why the protection

1:00:50

was built in that it would require

1:00:53

two thirds in the Senate to actually remove

1:00:55

a president from office and overturn an election.

1:00:58

Whow it is you know under liably true

1:01:00

that a president is subject to impeachment

1:01:02

all during his term in office. This

1:01:05

obviously was intended by the founders

1:01:08

to be an extraordinary thing

1:01:10

and and reserved for the most extreme

1:01:12

situations. My view

1:01:15

is that there's not ever going to be

1:01:17

given these facts unless something magically

1:01:20

changes, clear and unmistakable

1:01:22

evidence of both a crime

1:01:25

that fits the definition of trees and

1:01:27

bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and

1:01:30

uh one sufficient enough that

1:01:33

it constitutes abuse

1:01:35

of the president's office. And I do firmly

1:01:37

believe, based upon history

1:01:39

and practice and frankly

1:01:42

good common sense, which

1:01:44

was ultimately where the American people are going

1:01:46

to weigh in here, I think that unless

1:01:48

you have both, that's not sufficient

1:01:51

to warrant the removal of a president from office.

1:01:53

I think that's the considered judgment of history

1:01:55

and the idea that someone

1:01:58

put forth in his testament me that

1:02:01

everyone was in the loop, from

1:02:03

Mike Pence to Mike Pompeo. UM,

1:02:07

not that significant in your view, Well,

1:02:09

I don't. I don't know what in the loop.

1:02:11

I listened to it carefully to see

1:02:14

what exactly do you mean by in the loop and

1:02:16

how much knowledge did they really have. I

1:02:19

think that it is a reflection

1:02:21

of the fact that Ambassador Sondling

1:02:23

thought, based upon the direction given by

1:02:25

the President that this contention, which

1:02:28

is frankly contrary to what you heard the day

1:02:30

before, UM from Lieutenant

1:02:33

Colonel vinman Um.

1:02:35

You know, when the President directs that wants

1:02:37

something done, UM, that

1:02:39

makes it not an

1:02:42

outside channel. That is the President's

1:02:44

prerogative to choose the channel that he would

1:02:47

like in order to troll accomplish what

1:02:49

it is he's trying to accomplish. Frankly,

1:02:51

what I thought I saw here was

1:02:53

the President was prepared to temporarily

1:02:56

withhold foreign aid to

1:02:58

see what the Ukrainians

1:03:01

would do. He didn't make a demand

1:03:04

that they commence investigations

1:03:06

in exchange for that aid.

1:03:08

That's not the tenor of the call, which

1:03:10

is going to be ultimately the best, probably

1:03:13

the only real evidence of the President's

1:03:15

intent, other than the limited color that UM

1:03:18

Ambassador Sonlon was able to add

1:03:20

today, I don't think you're going to hear from anybody else.

1:03:23

I think to answer your question, yes, would there

1:03:25

be potential benefit to hear from

1:03:27

UM, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,

1:03:30

UM, from the from the Acting

1:03:32

Chief of Staff McK mulvaaney, and

1:03:35

potentially other people Rudy Giuliani

1:03:37

among them. Sure, but I

1:03:39

think there's understandably a concern that

1:03:41

the President is asserting, and I think

1:03:43

in most situations that should be respected.

1:03:46

That unless you're prepared to say that these people

1:03:48

were co conspirators in connection with the illegal

1:03:50

activity, which I don't think you're gonna hear

1:03:52

anybody say. No, one's gonna stand up and then say,

1:03:54

you know, I was involved in a in a corrupt bargain

1:03:57

here, and I was a co conspirator, and now let

1:03:59

me tell you what it is I did and what the president thought.

1:04:02

That's the difference between, frankly, this case

1:04:04

and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. No

1:04:06

one's going to say, oh, yeah, I was, Yep,

1:04:09

I was. We were all we were all

1:04:11

involved, and we were all involved in a conspiracy

1:04:13

to commit bribery. You're not going to hear

1:04:15

that. You're not going to hear an acknowledgment

1:04:17

that they thought that what they were doing was illegal, because

1:04:19

I don't think they thought what they were doing was illegal.

1:04:22

Do you believe that any Republican senators

1:04:24

will change their minds after today's

1:04:26

testimony or do you think they'll still

1:04:29

feel supportive of the President minus

1:04:31

the two who seemed to be wobbily

1:04:34

or have said otherwise. I think to

1:04:37

be careful, honestly, you don't

1:04:39

know right until after both

1:04:42

there's a vote in the House and you see what the partisan

1:04:45

lineup looks like. I expect I think

1:04:47

the import of your question is I expect that

1:04:49

it will be probably entirely

1:04:52

along party lines. I

1:04:55

think that will send a message to

1:04:58

the Senate, which is likely to

1:05:00

have a rejoinder that is going to

1:05:02

be equally partisan the other way. So I

1:05:04

guess that's a sort of a roundabout way of answering

1:05:07

your question. At least at the moment.

1:05:09

I don't expect that that's going to change the result.

1:05:12

And I think what that will mean, um

1:05:14

is that it will it will it

1:05:16

will not succeed in the Senate. I guess the only

1:05:18

question is how long and painful

1:05:20

will that process be? Will there be a full

1:05:22

trial? I mean, this is

1:05:24

different then our most recent

1:05:27

history, which is the Clinton impeachment. In this situation,

1:05:30

the president's party is

1:05:33

in control of the United States Senate, so

1:05:35

they they they set the rules, and they determine

1:05:37

how much of a proceeding there there will be.

1:05:40

They may I have suggested that if

1:05:42

if really uh, this should

1:05:45

be short circuited because

1:05:47

it doesn't have merit, that it would be appropriate

1:05:49

to consider emotion to dismiss, which could

1:05:51

be And I understand that there are political

1:05:53

consequences to this, particularly among Republicans

1:05:57

in districts where or I'm sorry,

1:05:59

in states where they're for re election this year.

1:06:01

UM. I can think of a few of them that would be

1:06:03

vulnerable to a process

1:06:06

that was arguably curtailed in the Senate.

1:06:08

But I mean it, certainly it was. There was a moment put

1:06:10

it this way. There was a motion filed during the Clinton

1:06:12

impeachment to dismiss. It was denied. This

1:06:14

situation is different because Republicans control

1:06:17

the president's party control the United

1:06:19

States Senate, and so if they have a majority

1:06:21

vote UM plus in the event of

1:06:23

a tie the vice president of vote, they can they can

1:06:25

move to dismiss for indefinitely adjourned

1:06:28

the proceedings. And do you think that might happen?

1:06:31

I think that's a politically dicey

1:06:33

thing. I think the safer course is

1:06:35

probably to allow there to

1:06:37

be a trial, uh and

1:06:39

and for the members to give considered

1:06:42

judgment to the question. I think most people

1:06:44

want to appear to their

1:06:46

constituents as having carefully considered

1:06:49

this to the extent that you were to short circuited.

1:06:51

I suppose there would be a reasonable argument about you're not taking

1:06:53

it seriously, and so a backlash from Democratic

1:06:56

opponents and upcoming elections from

1:06:58

Democrats, from voters, and you know, look,

1:07:00

we're undeniably we're in an election

1:07:02

year now, right and a third of the Senator

1:07:05

is up. So that's obviously something

1:07:07

that they have to keep an eye on. And that brings

1:07:09

me to my final question, what impact do you

1:07:11

think, Bob, this will have on Could

1:07:14

this embolden the president, helped him

1:07:16

in fact get re elected if

1:07:18

it is a long party lines, or

1:07:21

do you think that people will

1:07:24

think he just behaved,

1:07:27

there was a serious error in judgment

1:07:30

and his actions were questionable

1:07:32

at at the very least. I

1:07:34

don't know too many things. But what I do

1:07:36

know from having a review

1:07:38

the history of all of the impeachments is

1:07:41

that they have consequence,

1:07:44

whether intended or unintended,

1:07:47

and sometimes those consequences can

1:07:49

be quite severe. We really don't

1:07:51

know how the electorate

1:07:54

will view this at the end of the day. I think there's

1:07:56

a reasonable question as a result of so

1:07:58

much of what has surface. Whatever you

1:08:00

think the merit of it is, is that I think already

1:08:03

this is seriously damaged the

1:08:05

Vice president's prospects to become the nominee

1:08:08

for the Democratic Party. I don't think you

1:08:10

can really argue to the

1:08:12

contrary. Do you think it's that or do you

1:08:14

think there are other factors? There may be, There

1:08:16

may be other factors. And of course we ultimately

1:08:19

don't know if he became the nominee, how what the

1:08:21

long you know, run effect of that

1:08:23

would be all the way through November of next year.

1:08:25

We also don't even know in the primary process,

1:08:27

you know, how this will play out. I

1:08:29

suppose it depends on how this

1:08:32

plays out before the United States Senate, presumably

1:08:34

in January of next year. The short

1:08:36

answer is one of the dangers

1:08:38

of impeachment is that you go down this road

1:08:40

you never really know where it leads. I mean, I the

1:08:43

fall out of the Clinton impeachment, I don't know. There was

1:08:46

an intended or unintended consequences

1:08:48

that I think that probably cost

1:08:50

al Gore the election against

1:08:52

George W. Bush. You know, you can talk about

1:08:54

whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but

1:08:57

that was one of the consequences

1:08:59

I think of impeachment. Were there

1:09:01

other factors, sure, but

1:09:03

I don't think that that was an insubstantial factor.

1:09:06

I think that was a significant effect.

1:09:08

I don't know that that would have been anticipated at

1:09:11

the time of impeachment. Only you would only know that

1:09:13

with the benefit of history. And

1:09:15

I think the same will be true here. We're not really going

1:09:17

to know all of the consequences of an impeachment

1:09:20

until probably years later. One

1:09:23

thing is certain. Only time will tell, right,

1:09:25

Like a lot of things in life, But this is a big one,

1:09:28

right, this is a big one. Well,

1:09:30

it's really interesting to get your perspective,

1:09:32

Bob Ray, Thank you so much for stopping by.

1:09:35

Thanks very us pleasure.

1:09:37

Yeah, nice to see you. Nice to meet you. Same

1:09:39

here. Thanks so

1:09:41

much everyone for listening to this episode

1:09:43

of Next Question. We hope we've provided

1:09:46

you with some information in some context

1:09:49

so you can better understand what's going

1:09:51

on these days on Capitol Hill

1:09:54

with the impeachment hearings

1:09:56

and what constitutes or

1:09:58

doesn't high crime and misdemeanors.

1:10:01

If you'd like to know what's happening every

1:10:04

morning and have some original

1:10:06

content in the form of interviews, and

1:10:08

inspiring stories. Please sign

1:10:10

up for our daily morning newsletter

1:10:13

called wake Up Call by going to Katie

1:10:15

Couric dot com and follow

1:10:17

me, of course, on Instagram,

1:10:19

Facebook, and Twitter. Next

1:10:23

Question with Katie Curic is a production of I Heart

1:10:25

Radio and Katie Curic Media. The executive

1:10:27

producers are Katie Kuric, Lauren Bright Pacheco,

1:10:30

Julie Douglas, and Tyler Klang. Our

1:10:32

show producers are Bethan Macaluso and

1:10:34

Courtney Litz. The supervising producer

1:10:36

is Dylan Fagin. Associate producers

1:10:38

are Emily Pinto and Derek Clemens. Editing

1:10:41

is by Dylan Fagin, Derrek Clements, and

1:10:43

Lowell Berlante. Our researcher

1:10:46

is Barbara Keene. For more information

1:10:48

on today's episode, go to Katie Kurik dot

1:10:50

com and follow us on Twitter and Instagram

1:10:52

at Katie Curk. For

1:11:00

more podcasts from My Heart Radio, visit the

1:11:02

I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or

1:11:04

wherever you listen to your favorite shows.