WASTE OF TIME IT A FURTHER DIVIDE IN THIS COUNTRY.
WITH THE VERY LATEST, HE’S BEEN
A VERY COLORFUL VOICE THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE PROCESS
SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US.
IT SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU.
I APPLAUD YOUR COLLEAGUES, I’M A
LITTLE BEWILDERED WHILE WE HAVE
TO WAIT TILL WEDNESDAY AND TO BE
HONEST, BUT I GUESS WE ALL KNOW
WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THEN.
>> WELL, THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT
THE LAST 24 HOURS WERE PIVOTAL
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE
PROCESSES IS OVER.
THE VOTE WE HAD TODAY, NOT TO
EXPEND THE TRIAL OR ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES, WE ALREADY HAD 18
WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE
AND WE’VE SEEN THOUSANDS OF
PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE LAWYERS
FOCUSED ON.
FOCUSED ON. AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT, THE
HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER PROVE THEIR
CASE AND SO COME OUT THEIR
STRATEGY AS YOU KNOW WAS JUST
THE HAIL MARY AND THEY HAVE NOT
PROVEN THEIR CASE, THEIR ONLY
HOPE WAS TO BRING ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND DRAG IT OUT WEEKS
OR MONTHS AND GO ON A FISHING
EXPEDITION HOPING THAT SOMEBODY
SAID SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE
THEM SOME BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN IT.
AND THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE
REPUBLICANS RIGHT ON THE EDGE
AND TODAY HOLDING 51 OF THE
MAJORITY TO SAY WE ARE DONE, WE
HAD ENOUGH AND THIS IS OVER AND
THAT MEANS WERE HEADED STRAIGHT
TO WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE VOTE
ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE
ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES AND HE
SHOULD BE.
SHOULD BE. >> Tucker:>> Sean: NOW I KNOW TH
THE CONGENITAL LIAR,
JERRY NADLER, HE KEPT REPEATING,
WE HAVE SO PROVEN OUR CASE
BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
IF I WANT TO STICK TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID THAT
YOU ARE ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS
AND HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ON
SITE AND A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONCERN HERE.
CONCERN HERE. AT THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH
THAT LIES WITH THE HOUSE, AND
THE TRIAL LIES WITH THE SENATE.
I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT
IF THEY TOTALLY COMPLETELY PROVE
THEIR CASE WENT BEYOND ANY
REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT’S A CASE
THAT’S A SLAM-DUNK CASE AND WHY
WERE THEY TRYING TO GET YOUR
BUDDIES, THE UNITED STATES
SENATE TO TAKE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE HOUSE
WHEN THEY RUSHED IT THROUGH SO
URGENTLY SO THAT THEY COULD GO
ON VACATION AND THEN HOLD IT
BACK FROM THE SENATE FOR SO LONG
LONG?
LONG? >> WELL, LOOK, I WILL RETURN THE
COMPLIMENT FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ,
HE WAS MY PROFESSOR AND LAW
SCHOOL AND DEFINABLE AND MY
PROFESSOR IN CRIMINAL LAW 101,
THE FIRST WEEK OF LAW SCHOOL WAS
AN AMAZING TEACHER AND I THINK
HIS PRESENTATION OF THE SENATE
WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL
PRESENTATIONS OF THE ENTIRE
TRIAL.
TRIAL. IN PARTICULAR HE WALKED THROUGH
THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT’S
NOT JUST A VOTE ON WHETHER YOU
LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT OR IF
YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESENT OR
NOT AND YOUR POLITICS ARE THE
SAME.
SAME. THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS MET
IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS FOR
IMPEACHMENT THAT THE ONLY
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE
TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHAT
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WALKED
THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY AND
ACTUALLY BEFORE HIM WHAT KEN
STARR WALK-THROUGH VERY
EFFECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
THRESHOLD REQUIRES A GRAVE
SERIOUS CRIME OF THE LEVEL OF
TREASON OR BRIBERY.
HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TRY TO
ALLEGE A CRIME AND THEY
CERTAINLY DID NOT PROVE ONE AND
THAT IS WHY AS A MATTER OF LAW.
BY THE WAY, WE DID THIS WHOLE
DIGRESSION ON QUID PRO QUO AND
ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHETHER
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF
THERE WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO,
AND THE MATTER OF LAW DID NOT
MATTER.
MATTER. IT WAS A SAD DIVERSION AND
THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE
CLARIFY DURING THE QUESTIONING
PERIOD.
PERIOD. I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CRITICAL
TO GETTING THE FOUR VOTES TO END
AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND WE ASKED
LINDSEY GRAHAM TOGETHER AND I
RODE THE QUESTION ASKING EVEN IF
YOU ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF
ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS A
QUID PRO QUO, DOES NOT CHANGE
THE LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THIS THIS
A HIGH CRIME OR DENSE DEMEANOR
AND THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
ANSWERED EXACTLY RIGHT AND IF IT
WERE A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE DISP
IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND THERE
WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION
WITH MARIE’S MOM AND THEREBY
THAT’S WHERE
PRESIDENT TO ASK. >> Sean: WE KNOW FROM THE
UKRAINIAN COURT AND POLITICO, ON
ELECTION AND INTERFERENCE AND
LAST QUESTION, SENATOR, DID YOU
GET AN A AND PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS?
DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS? >> YOU KNOW, IT’S AN INTERESTING
STORY, FIRST-CLASS, CRIMINAL
LAW, I DID AND I GOT A B+ IN HIS
FIRST CLASS, I TOOK A SECOND
CLASS CALLED "THINKING ABOUT
THINKING" THAT WAS WITH STEPHEN,
WORLD FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER AND I
GOT AN A+ IN THAT ONE.
YOU CAN AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO
OUT.
OUT. >> Sean: WOW.
IT THEN AVERAGES TO A B+, A+,
SENATOR, YOU DID GREAT WORK AND
YOU EDUCATED PUBLIC THANK YOU