« Verdict with Ted Cruz

Ep. 66 - Trump on Trial (Again)


As if we rolled the tape back 12 months, the Trump impeachment trial is underway, and Michael Knowles is joined by Senator Ted Cruz to break it all down. Is there a legal argument for removal? Is it constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president? Plus, we get an answer to perhaps the most important question of all—how’s the food in the Senate cafeteria?

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
The first day of former president trumps impeachment trial- has just come to a close, and we are joined here by one of the jurors to help us break it all down. This is verdict with TED crews. I think I've heard it before. I think I've said it before. Maybe almost actually a year ago, and the very first episode of the show. Is that not word for word verbatim exactly how verdict began. It is because you know senator it would seem.
That we are just stuck suspended in mid air in this country, nothing is changing. I have to tell you when we started this show. It was because the first I'm eminence start singing. I got you baby, it is getting on and on when we first or as I had no idea really, what was it play in their first impeachment trial and that to me seems clear cut compared to this second sort of impeachment trial against the biggest question on people's minds is is this even impeachment trial, because obviously Trump is not the president anymore. You were there all day. We are. We are doing exactly what we did a year ago. We are here in the middle of the night. You you ve, just left the capital now say it. It is much more humane. So when we started this last year, I was too,
thirty seven in the morning we started this it's now. What is it tat? Ten twelve p m much more recent, yet you know that's positively civilized. Does that tell you something about the seriousness of this impeachment raw? Yes, look to be honest. Both sides are dialing it in the end. Result of this is is preordained that that this this trial, Ass Shakespeare put. It is full of sound and fury signifying nothing senator. You know I'm not to the most literary guy in the world. I thought that was William. Faulkner said that I must I was reading a tweet from Andrea Natural on NBC issues to want to make fun of you- and I forget that quote two thousand four hundred and eighty eight. It really was a a pretty stunning exchange that this happened a little over an hour ago and I guess Andrey Mitchell decided that she was going to upbraid me and then and demonstrate her intellect
superiority and better learn Agnes? And you know, apparently she does not. Ironically, I didn't know that she has its green english literature american literature. Amid all that would explain, I M so and so far no, she knows by a hut, but apparently Macbeth. She does not know. She does not that I think actually there's something in this exchange. That tells us a lot about the whole impeachment trial, which was this. This combination, not just of ignorance but also arrogance, to correct someone is using the correct. What well life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing while in one would think not only ABC Jennifer Reuben it at Washington Post chimed in agreeing with Andrea Mitchell. It really is kind of amazing that between NBC and the Washington Post, nobody has actually read Macbeth. I tell you senator if
spend as much time in the media and around journalists. As I do not surprising, it'll, absolutely not surprising N N, you know, I will say nothing is better than when Ernest Hemingway Road is this a dagger I see before me the handle towards my aunt. Come. Let me clutched the I have they not, and yet I see these still. I thought that was jerky rolling provider I so we can go through the whole literary cannon. You know that this does, though, this issue of ignorance and arrogance. It does bring me back to the question of the trial because out I'll confessed to ignorance here I dont get it I dont know is this: is this thing constitutional? Is it unconstitutional? Is the Senate have the right to hold the trial? Can there be enemy the trial of an Ex president. What you were there all day what's going is so that those are really important questions. We actually address this question yesterday, so so the trial itself started today. Today we had essentially a pre trial motion, Okra and in an argument about whether the Senate even has jurisdiction to consider this matter and
and what's it hard in the argument is, is that Donald J Trump is no longer the present right and so the argument that the Trump legal campaign made is that the Senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try a former office holder right that jurisdiction only extends to current office holders, and once he left the White House, the Senate could no longer have an impeachment trial. So this has been my understanding of it. But
you know I didn't go to law school and I'm no constitutional experts that went in you know it's interesting. The constitutional question is actually very close it. It is a difficult question. I'm sorry question I had examined. Until till we were faced with it an end. I gotta say as I looked at it. I actually think that better argument on the substance and on the merits it is that the Senate does have the jurisdiction to try a former office holder. That being said, I dont believe the jurisdiction is mandatory or that we have to take it, and so I don't think we should take and limit. Let me walk through that causes some complicated legal conceal its end, and I want to point out the generally speaking you ve heard people its binary they'll say either Senate has no jurisdiction here. This is, of course, of trot or
The Senate not only has jurisdiction, but we have to do it. It's our constitutional responsibility to throw trumpet the gulags in in you. As far as I can tell, this is a unique legal take. It may well be, although actually mightily bike leg. He and I are very close to agreement on this. We talked about this a lot MIKE as a serious legal scholars. Clerk firm just assimilate on this, bring cord MIKE, and I have spent many May hours talking about this issue in his view and minor, very, very close on this. Let me start on just the threshold question: do you have jurisdiction? So if you look at the constitutional text, you can take arguments from the text on on on both sides, so the constitution says the: how shall have the sole power of impeachment and the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment interesting way, those they only two places in the constitution.
the word solar power, and so it's just impeachment houses entirely in charge of engagements. The Senate is entirely in charge of trying impeachment nobody else has power were actually even on this point Angus worth tearing up his because we use these term yet loose. Why Trump has already been impeach wrecked, twice correct, because at the house voted they impeached him. He was in office both times then there's the trial he's been acquitted once during the first ever since a verdict, and now the court is Willie, be acquitted or convicted in. This is one of the things most misunderstood just in sort of general parley's, but to be impeached. Think of it like in the criminal context to be indicted, don't get the grand jury indict you. It means they bring charges against you if you're indicted for running over somebody,
doesn't mean you convicted? It means your charged with it and then, when you have a trial, if you're convicted, as when you're found guilty right, so the house in peaches, which is to bring the charges and the Senate, conducts the trial. Now there are a couple of textual arguments that were raised as to why former office holders do not fall into the impeachment power. One is that another portion of the constitution refers to the president, rather than a press right and Donald, J Trump right now is not the president. There's only one, the president any moment history. Today Joseph Biden is the President tromp, as a former president, that's attack she'll arguments. It is used to say well he's not the president, so it's not sought he's not subject to impeachment. What that provision actually says, though, is when the president is impeached. The chief justice shall preside because Trump isn't the president that you
justice is not preside right. There is another provision that says that that that, when the president is impeached, awe and convicted, he shall be removed uses the word shall yeah, so the arguments made well shall nobody camp. If you can't be removed, that means you can remove an Ex office holder. Look that's a real argument. That's a substantive arguments on the flip side. As we said he's not the president. He is a former president. If you look at the history as you examine it at the time the constitution was written, it turns out the question of what's called Laden, peach meant was actually a topic of discussion. Can former off
soldiers be impeached. Few looked a british commonwealth and end. The framers were very familiar with british common law. Often when you're interpreting, U S, constitution, provision should look to a what. Where did it come from right under british law, because many of the concepts the framers took from british law and- and there were two very the british impeachment one was in seventeen twenty five that was Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, who was impeached for public corruption, is very well known impeachment now I know all about. I was you know. I talked about the young. Is there a day you don't talk about the backup, failed and pledged? Well, mackerel field was impeached after he left office. A second impeachment was the impeachment worn Hastings now worn. Hastings was the governor general of India. Interesting enough is impeach. It began in seventeen eighty seven so literally, while the framers were in constitution, hole in Philadelphia and in the debates of the cost
should they discuss the impeachment award hastily now Hastings likewise was no longer the in general and yet none the less. He was impeach and by the way you know who led the charge to impeach Hastings, someone you're a big fan of. Would this be Edmund Burke, Edmund Burke, the great concern, the founder of modern conservative philosophy. Very, it's actually very important context for how these framers we're thinking about that. So their literally talking about at the constitutional convention, the impeachment of an out of office office, by the way right after the founding eighteen o six in great Britain, Lord Melville was increased impeached as well, so very shortly thereafter, so you ve got a fair amount. his truth, british common law, and then you look at at: U S, history, the first impeachment we have was of Senator blunt of Tennessee and he was in peachy, actually impeached
because he tried to essentially cell Florida Louisiana away, from the: U S and and he was impeached. He was thrown out of the sanity. Guy was crooked. This is like when someone says you know, if you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, he tried to sell, tried to sell image region in order. If so, there was a big debate during the blunt impeachment. So blunt was impeached. The house brought charges the Senate expelled, because he was a senator now and then there was a big debate on jurisdiction. There were two arguments on jurisdiction, one that the Senate couldn't impeach him because he was a senator and that impeachment didn't apply to members of Congress had only apply to members of the executive branch or the judicial branch and then, secondly, an argument that was given was he couldn't be impeach? Does he was no longer in
I couldn't be tried. Rather, the Senate ended up voting by a vote of fourteen to eleven that the Senate did not have jurisdiction over blood yoga. That has both arguments were presented, so it's not necessarily collusive near, but the predominant arguments that were raised were was that he was a senator, and so it was a comment about what kind of job he had, rather than being a former office holder, okra one other major precedent. Eighteen, seventy six secretary of WAR, William Bat Belkin up now, milk now resigned was crooked, was caught and corruption was
peached in the Senate actually had two weeks of debate over whether a former office holder could be impeach. His belt Batman Nap argued I'm out of office, you can peach right and end. The Senate ended up voting. Thirty, seven to twenty nine in favour of jurisdiction in favour of saying we can try a former offices. So as I look at this, the textual language of the constitution, there some ambiguity, but the grant of power to the Senate is really brought. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment. That's a very broad power. Given the history of british common law in american history. I think the better constitutional argument is. Yes, you can try a former office holder, an enemy given
imagine we discovered- we found evidence that a former president had sold american nuclear secrets to the chinese government that they were guilty of of treason and bribery. Both. and they eminence Workin was conclusive and by the way, treason and bribery are both mentioned explicitly in the constitution as grounds for impeach. I think in those circumstances, the hat I would conclude overwhelmingly. It had jurisdiction to impeach them. The Senate would conclude overwhelmingly it hadn't jurisdiction to try them, even though they were a former office right. So I included. I wrote an up at last night laying out these arguments as to why I think the right constitutional arguments close by The right argument is yes: we have jurisdiction over a former office hold. I think you ve actually manage to change my mind on this in this,
discussion, because I was leaning very much text of the constitution certainly made it seem to me as though send it doesn't have jurisdiction, but when you factor in british common law, when you factor in these other debates that are happening at the time, that is, that is a compelling argument, and yet and yet so yesterday, I voted against yardsticks. Yes, and the reason for that is is generally speaking, there two kinds of jurisdiction, mandatory jurisdiction and discretionary jurisdiction. Nokia mandatory jurisdiction means you must take the case. If you have the authority to take it, you must take the case and you have no choice discretionary jurisdiction, as you have the authority to take the case, but you can choose whether or not to hear it in the end. The easiest example is the: U S
court? The vast majority of the? U S Supreme Court stock. It is discretionary jurisdiction. We heard a lot about this during the election, rather where these cases that your didn't, I couldn t you were actually slighted to argue one of them courts had no thank you. We don't want to hear it they given year. The Supreme Court will get about eight thousand. What are called petitions for surgery which are requests for the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction here case out of those eight thousand, the court hears about, one percent adhered eighty out of those eight thousand, so seventy nine hundred as it says, go jumping to write. As I look at the constitution, there's nothing in the constitution. That says we have mandatory jurisdiction. The Senate has to take a case like it says. The Senate shall have the sole power to trial and
it's up to the Senate. The Senate makes those determination, and so what I argue to my colleagues and actually at lunch today. I made this argument to all my colleagues such for what it's worth hears. My thinking that in this case we should not exercise jurisdiction. We shouldn't take up the cat and the reasons we shouldn't take it up our number one- the house had zero due process. I considered it for seven days. They heard no witness. They held. No, they held no hearings, they examined no evidence. This was a political impeachment. It seems as though there changing their arguments and maybe we'll get into that little bit unjust. What happened today gap but yeah, just it seems it seemed like a shallow process in the house, and I don't think the Senate is obliged. Look this precedent. As you know, this is also been called a snap impeachment where they just vote out an impeach because we hate the guy. I dont think the Senate has any obligation if, if the house engages in a sham priests
eating to conduct a full trial. I think we are perfectly justified in saying we are declining to exercise jurisdiction over this because it doesn't mean the threshold of a credible, real, serious impeach right. Secondly, on merit I think there is no serious argument that this meets the legal threshold for impeachment. There's only one count that the House House alleges, which is incitement, insurrection, incitement to riot and violence. Neither clearly was riot. There was terrorist attack on the capitalist risk- and you know today, so we went through eight hours of of the House managers arguments and they did effective job. Let me start by saying that they look. Democrats have a lot of trial, oars and dance and trial, or is today that we're good storytellers who were
Shall I mean they? They got up, they walk through, they were well organised and it was. We watched a lot of videos today. They seem to rely a lot on these very charged videos that drove evoked a lot of and it was powerful. It was horrified mean there were a lot of moments in the Senate, where you could hear a pin drop because you're watching this and it's horrific, a terrific seeing violent criminals and terrorists assaulting beating police officers loudly proclaiming their desire to carry out murder. and succeeding in murdering one police officer in during over a hundred I mean it. It was all of us- and I think, all of the country who watched today was horrified at what happened then, and that that this was a grotesque terrorist attack carried out by violent
criminals who should be fully prosecuted and spend a long long time in jail. I think, is unequivocal short, but but the emotional effect of the videos and even the stories that these impeachment managers were saying. It's not the same thing as an argument that the President commit an individual events well and ninety plus percent. At the time of the house, managers day was on how horrific the attack What job and if we were in teaching you know the guy with the Viking war, were beating people up right sign me up
Where do I vote right, but at the end of the day, incitement the standard for incitement is, is it has to be a very direct call for violence? And if you look at what the President said, the president and endless in the presents rhetoric at times, I think, is over heated I'd die, wish some of the things he says. Some of the things you tweet it I wish I didn't say I tweet, but if you look at what he actually said at this speech on January six, the Democrats are making a big deal, only kept saying fight Ye D fight like hell when we take we take every person who has ever said you gotta fight. You had a fight like hell, you get a win, we gonna take our country back. You would literally be prosecuting every single political candidate in Amerika for incitement ever like a guarantee of of all the
all fifty democratic centres, every single one and if you ever given stumps maitre. If you ran for seventh grade class president Unwell, I'm willing to bet Michael, you stood up and said we gotta fight. Yes, I did. I want my re start up there, very because it its effective political rhetoric and everybody knows it is ubiquitous. At any rate, it is commonplace language to say fight, and in this case president Trump said peacefully explicitly said peacefully. not a call to violence and where the house managers argument falls apart is is whatever
and they haven't really articulated a standard for incitement. Maybe they'll do that tomorrow, but they haven't even tried to say this is how you distinguish ordinary political speech or even hot rhetoric. I mean from truly criminal incitement any standard they would articulate right after this trial. We better start moving forward against Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Chuck Sumer Hillary Clinton for them Hillary Clinton commonly Only Booker look, you look at Nancy Pelosi, call police officers nazi. It there's some rich irony. Now, all these democratic, defending police officers given a year vilified, cops and saying abolish the police, an ace
a b there, there motto all cops are bastards is what that stands for, and these are now the defenders of law enforcement. I mean it right, you know, if God were were still in the business of throwing lightning bolts. Isnt Democrats might have been struck down right right. You look at trucks humor who went to the steps of the Supreme Court called out to Supreme Court, just says by name and says you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price he threatened them directly. Now. Look that if what trumped set as incitement, what tumor citizens or Maxine Water said when you see Republicans and public go up, get in their face, made a sign art, a confrontation. Shell explicitly urged violence and I'll take a common harris. Right who who the media's right now in the midst of Beata fine calmly,
Harris when we had violent riots and we three year riots across this country, cities being burned mostly peaceful. Least, cars, CNN, apologizing forum, like crazy police, cars being firebomb police officers being murdered, and these Democrats, who are now high and mighty, were apologizing for celebrating, encouraging commonly Harris raised, bail money. Yeah who bail out not peaceful protesters, the violent criminals who, literally after they had committed acts of violence. She was raising money do bail them out now the truthful matter. The truthful, assess it is none of this is incitement right, but
There is no coherent standard that says what trumped set as incitement and what common shimmer said is not eat. You can't have it. You can't have the only people guilty of the ones politically I dislike, and that's really what the Democrats are. This is the issue because I dont think any Republicans out. There are really saying we need to kick Corey Book or out of the sand out, because you know he said something went on, but there are actually believe in free speech. Even I've done speech, you have a right right to it, but if we're going to take this unprecedented action, impeach a former president now private citizen in Florida for this language re said it maybe was over
at times, but he did say at the moment be peaceful, don't be vital for going to do that. Why on earth are we letting Nancy Pelosi off the hook? Hillary Clinton Maxie Wars, always people, because this is not a legal argument. It's not a constitutional argument and it's not a principled argument. There's a reason why ninety percent of what they did to day was emotional. It was just designed to have you go. Oh my god. This was horrible, yeah and was horrible. It was a terrorist attack. Now there is a difference which is that you and I, and most people on the right on equivocally, condemn this via its bad at all, and let me be clear: whoever is responsible for killing officer, sick, Nick. Assuming it was deliberate. I think those facts are still being investigated, but assuming it was deliberate, I'd execute
ever murdering awry, sir. As far as I'm concerned, if that's deliberate and not met, maybe the facts come out that they were somehow accidental, in which case it wouldn't fall under capital punishment. Wrought you'd instead prosecute them and put him away for a long time, but you and I are perfectly happy to unequivocally condemn the violence. The difference with the Democrats is most the Democrat still haven't, condemn the violence and rioting rob the alarm of Antigua when they agree poetic. with some one violent somehow doesn't count for it. So the Democrats, the seem to not have any coherence standard here and the Republican seem not particularly interested in this and other a handful of Republicans who seem gung ho on me. The impeachment trial, but most seem really uninterested. I think there was a report that some Republicans
We were like reading books today, gazing off in the distance. Yeah. Look to be honest, that's a little bit of gotcha journalism there, while case going, you were in the room you so yes, I was in the room. We were all sitting at our desks. Most senators were at their desks. The entire time people would occasionally get up and go to the restroom. Looked median age in the Senate is about ninety seven, so people have to go to the restroom You know you would also have so periodically you would get up and down. The cloakroom is something we talked about in the last impeachment trial. There were multiple times during the trial. When I went back and cloakroom I went back to talk with Linsey Graham went back to talk with ran Paul. I went back to talk with John Kennedy. I dont want ask for tales out of school.
But I do cannot give us anything of what was going on. You know. I don't necessarily want to get into it, because a lot of what I was talking with them about was strategy for the next couple of days got out where the arguments are going. What are the responses? So look a lot of what we are talking about a somewhat we're saying here, which is that the double stand yeah that that that, by any measure in a Lindsey was pointing out. That said, I guess one of the people who was bailed out from this fund the camel a raised money for Went out and committed violence, and yet another riot and evil, somebody else so I mean it was. It was not. You know not just once but twice, and so we were talking about we're going to have probably on Saturday four hours of questioning member, the first impeachment trial. We have senator questions yet and so on
What I was talking with Lindsey IN and John and ran about is what sort of questions to ask you, but there's a fair amount of that strategy. Energizing that goes on just off of the just off the floor and the cloakroom. Now I know some reports are I mean you yesterday with greater focus its the left wing media, but that the house, impeachment managers they're doing a great job, as you say, was emotionally persuasive, if not logically or that persuasive. So how long is this gonna go? Is there any chance that the Democrats succeed, or is this full of sound and fury, signifying nothing so stop putting factor, so I don't think it will go much longer. I think we are likely to be done Saturday night. So what's currently scheduled the House man
Yours have to day sixteen hours to present their case, so where one day until they have tomorrow we'll go, my guess is: will wrap up eight or nine o clock tomorrow night and then trumps lawyers have sixteen hours over two days to present their case. I think it's quite likely. Trumps. Lawyers will not take the whole sixteen hours. I think virtually every senator thinks they should not take the whole sixteen hours when that is completed, there will be a vote
whether we should call additional witness soon now right now, my understanding is the democratic senators. Don't want additional witnessed, so everyone expects that vote to be now member. We had a big fight in the last one about calling witness right right, but it is the idea here. What's the point, what would be the point of additional witnesses? I think so, and I think also, I think, a lot of the democratic senators wish they weren't there that this impeachment luck. Fear Democrat your guy, just one, the White House, you got a new administration, you'll get a new democratic captain members, you ve got a democratic majority in the house and you just got a democratic majority in the Senate
a bunch of democratic senators who suddenly or committee chairman they have gambles they wanna get onto the business of destroying the country and in and by the way. That is what they're going to be doing right right. They are eager to pass their radical agenda, and this is just sort of an impediment is a waste of money. I think they're frustrated. It was really the House Democrats, the drove this are so the House Democrats are just consumed with hatred for trumped up, and so I think the Senate Democrats felt like they didn't, have much of a choice they had go through with it. I don't get the sense binds very happy about this. I mean you know, look if you were. You know we were in weak three of the Gnoles presidency.
Now that you would be all that interested in impeaching former President bench apparently wrought belie well, you know and have maybe, but of course, if you, if you get in these, I especially if someone like Joe Biden has been running for president since nineteen. Eighty eight may have been a long time this guy knows what he wants to do. He wants to wield power and he's got a hold up to keep talking about the guy that he just booted out of the White House. Anyway, you know, Biden was accused of plagiarism too like Andrey Mitchell gives me so that I don't know. Maybe that augurs well for future future political endeavours at, but look Biden wants to get on with it. I think there are lots of my sense of the Democrats. They don't want to see witnesses. We too want to see what this is like will vote on, that I think witnesses will they will not be called and then we'll have four hours of questioning and the way the questioning works. Is it
alternates Democrat Republican Democrat Republican under the agreement. If we seated back our time, you just have four hours democratic questions. I don't think we'll do that. I am, I think, if we can actually get back our time we might, but given that we just be giving it to the Democrats, I think we're unlikely to do. Right and then my guess is at the end of that, which will be probably Sunday evening or Saturday evening. I think, will vote And to take to cut to the ending Donald Trump will be acquitted your conference. There is not a meme hunter percent. Ok, it is to convict tromp, takes sixty seven votes.
There's not gonna, be sixty seven votes, there's gonna, be fifty five votes to convict and I'd, say, plus or minus two yoga, so it could be as high as fifty seven as low as fifty three in Indian close to sixty Serbia and end. We actually saw a proxy of that. We ve had to to vote now on the jurisdictional question. The first vote: there were fifty five votes on jurisdiction, IQ the second vote. There were fifty six and I think those are proxies for where the final vote is going to be will. Presumably, if, if you're one of the forty five senators who said the Senate doesn't have jurisdiction, here, can imagine you're gonna vote to convict right, Seeing the whole trials of force, one would certainly thinks. But, but who knows I mean that's, why I say, plus minus two could have one or two who share
he's their mind. You know you look at the first vote. We had was a procedural about on the jurisdictional question right at the outset that there were forty five, the vote. Yesterday there were forty four so bill. Cassidy Republican from Louisiana sits next May on the floor. He changed his vote. In the reason he changed his vote. He thought the trumpeters too terribly found you no matter what kind of an interesting I built a doctor. he's listening to the two sides and he just said well gosh. You know the democratic Florida motto, better jobs and then the republican wires, and then he said so I'm going to vote for them. This is something that surprised me. The first did this in a year ago, which is that it does matter what arguments are making in the room. You know these are he's a real people in the room there responding in real time may be in this case. It's not gonna be enough to change the outcome, but it does it does, It does matter and it matters price.
Thirdly, more for those without legal training and a deep constitutional background like mills, very talented doctor. If we were having couple people arguing about the right medical procedure to do I wouldn't know anything I guess I'd have to depend on who ever presented the best argument Eve if I were asked to judge right how to great some disease or injury at I'd have to listen to that, like the site I don't know what a guy sounds like you know, restoring, particularly with those look for four for people who have a lot of experience in these issues. Frankly, the arguments of the lawyers you listen to them, but I'm spending time studying the text of the constitution, the history I'm assessing the arguments on my own, and so this is not a debate. Tournaments, you're you're not filling out a ballot for who who gave the best speech you're trying to reach them.
conclusion, and so I felt very comfortable with the conclusion how I voted yesterday, which has no jurisdiction. Otherwise, I said not that we don't have the authority, but that we should exercise jurisdiction right and I'm very comfortable,
that on Saturday whenever without that, although not guilty in- and I think there will be, the president will be acquitted. I think one hour as always over time, but one important mailbag, but before we do that, I do have to take out of a funny thing that happened at the end. Ok, so we we are almost completely done and in fact Jamie Rascal than the lead Democrat House. Impeach manager stands up and says: ok, we're done for the day when you wrap up and everyone's relief because they finished deliberately tonight they went. They didn't go quite as long as they told us they would as we're getting ready to leave MIKE Lee stands up and- and he raises an objection so in the course of the Democratic House managers presentation they talked about on January, sex right as the capital riot was beginning that President Trump Card,
old, MIKE Lee's cell phone, and he was looking for Tommy Tuberville, the new Saturday on Alabama and apparently the White House had the wrong number so so, like Trump calls and says Tommy and and as they related MIKE said, no, it's not it's MIKE leave it here. Let me give you something so brought the phone over and put Tumbrel on the phone with Trump so they relay that those events, but but the Democratic House manager also describe some things that he says likely said, and I guess this came from some newspaper article about what MIKE said contempt.
Any asleep at the time so might got up and raise. An objection is that I asked for this to be stricken from the record, because I didn't say that it's a lie, its false there's, no evidence of it, and I ask that it be stricken from the record that now this is where several it's kind of confused and not sure- and this is where some of the dynamics yet understand- normally the presiding officer would be the chief just saw- who is prepared to make rulings and has legal training, because the chief justice is not there, because Donald Trump is not the president. Today right, the presiding officer is Pat lay now tat lay. He is the present approach enemies, the most senior most senator in the mature young. Now, by the way, he is also a Parson Democrat, whose already said that that Trump should be convicted, so pause for a moment to think about what kind of fair and impartial judges that whose adjure in the case and as already stated before it starts that he.
at once the defendant convict next, the whole thing seemed even more ridiculous. Actually already it is a big talk, top circus so lay he is kind of confused and he's not sure what to do so. The Senate parliamentarian sits right in front of let him in pats not a spring chicken. The present approach- him never is run definition everywhere. They are the most senior said. in the majority- and so there are typically in there pieties Senate parliamentarian and we ve talked about her quite a bit on on verdict as well. She hands lay he ate a piece of paper that she's written that says under the agreement for the trial. Ah, the house managers are not choir to limit their arguments to the record. So the key, I rule your objection out of war. Now, Michael, I couldn't. What are you talking about? I'm not saying that
the record, I'm sinks false, I'm saying they send argue about me. That's a total lie in there's no evidence of an end lay. He is just kind of confute dazed, and so he reads the same ruling again, which is just the pre tight piece of paper. The parliamentarians handed it point MIKE stands up and says I appeal the ruling of the chair, which is at any point of senator, can appeal the ruling of the chair, and it goes to a vote to the body and and Lay he's kind of living for the parliamentarians like art, fine asked for the asian days, which, as you have to have sufficient senators, raise their hand and second it yeah, and if there is enough seconds Then you have a roll call vote and everyone votes, and so we all second, then they start the roll call vote now chuck shimmers. Looking at this Gonna wait a crap. This is a problem
and it's a problem on a couple of fronts, number one. Just on the merits. It's a little bit ridiculous that you ve got a senator hearsay and House member came in said some totally false about me and what should be out of the record fats pretty messed up right by the way Joe Mansion Democrats stands up and says: well what was false about it. So it's chaos on the above mentioned. Concern like yeah. Look, no senator once house members to come. Proceeding in those say stuff about libel on the record, my right so on the substance. Humor recognise it's a problem. not only that, if we have a vote, lay he's gonna have to vote the house, a path going to vote on whether to overrule his own rule, and it really does underscore how asinine it is to have a partisan Democrat presiding over this report that it is important that the judge right not only that if it ends up being a party line boat that all the diva one when all the arts go. The other way. That's a fifty fifty vote
so maybe they have to call Kamel Harris adviser Residence present rate the time. So it was chaos and they're. Just going ahead with the vote and an Schumacher to his credit- and you won't hear me often shimmered, but I will say, humor stepped in the way majority leader like they don't like. What's going on, they stand up and say I suggest the absence of a core which a sort of magic words that pause. Everything is just like hitting pause, right, ok and the clerk start calling the role just there to see if there's a corner by the way, every once in the rue, like everyone knows yes, there's no one disappeared, and today there are a hundred senators in the room, but when you suggest the absence of a quorum is like freezes, everything here and so shimmer goes over. The house managers like guys this is stupid, come on. What are you doing? This to little likely- you mean he's talking to the to the House Democrats and do you care about this and there like? No, we don't care about. So then it goes talked MIKE Mike
and I love might but he's emotionally like set them about me. This false and I want to add the wreck. I understand and humour to his credit, says art I'll, tell you what he tells the house managers you withdraw it and MIKE will you withdraw your jacket MIKE says our right, and so they get up in the half Jenner asking led house manager say we withdraw it, and so MIKE withdraws objections that that's how the night ended as funny MIKE was still pissed. I'm like might be one like they surrendered, they withdrew it and took it out and in an Franklin Us Tellin, one of the democratic senators after I said look shimmer was really smart. Do that that was the right thing to do is a clever guy nuclear, but so that's just a bit of it. It was the night. You know people were kind of
Woke everyone up startled everyone does. It was a bit of drama chaos that no one knew what would happen then it was and is a sort of its a minor issue. Only relatively that some journalist lied and somehow matter, impeach will manage. Allied mightily was upset about it, but it it raises all of these major issues about the nature of this impeachment. Well ended it does, and it also shows in a thing, seem so ordered and structured. It was chaotic yet like nobody knew at their so when MIKE appeal, the ruling of the chair and the clerk starch calling in Ms Baldwin, Mr Barroso starts calling the names. You should get someone is what was the ruling of the chair like we were voting on it. How do you have a yes or no? Usually things are Orderly, it was truly chaotic, where no one even knew whether to vote yes or no cause. We didn't know what to do.
had ruled and what we were like? What yes, or no means you know the it. I think it's a good symbol of the of the entire impeachment trial. I also have to say this. This may be the first episode where you have changed my opinion about something from the beginning to the end of it. So because we ve been dealing with these, very intricate, sophisticated issues and arguments. I wanted and even our way over time, a one and on what I consider to be a much more important question you spending what eight hours at a clap or more in this, this kind of long proceedings from Brian has the food in the Senate. Cafeteria crappy, so it's actually normally quite good. In normal times, we have lunch together. Republican senators have lunch together, Tuesday, Wednesday Thursday and the foods quite decent Thursdays, a different route lookin Senator HO sit, and so you bring in are often you'll fly in food from your home states I flown in barbecue and mexican food, and you you huh,
didn't you normally give a goody bag, treats to your other senators and you'll, give you know all sorts of staff I've given people shiner Bach. We give each other lots electorates, interesting, that I've, given salsa things from Bucky's and you kind of from Euro State you get up and right, Brigham stuff. Tuesday and Wednesday that that the Senate Foolish usually quite good that wheat, because of covert were eating all pre, packaged and so like for lunch. Today I had well- and I am also and a new kind of Kido I'm trying to avoid car we're all trying to do? Keep are you now- I we hear it supposed to work harder, and so I come in and the choices are really like. I got a salad which I hate silently feel ichorous the food water food, it's not I I tell Heidi all the animals are either budgetary.
and then they had like this sort of shrimps, salad sandwich. That was like packaged and, to be honest, it was almost like what you'd see and like a grocery store like a gas station yeah and since I'm doing Kido I'd just scrape this trip stuff off the like didn't eat the bread, so it was, I will be glad when covert is over and and meals can return to some semblance of normal. Senator of all the stories that I expected to hear today about this awful just disgusting impeachment trial, I didn't realize the food would really would be as grotesque would match. In road sir says so for dinner tonight, as we did have a debt or break that they had something we could order some stuff actually had a guy and my staff go down to union station and get a cheese steak with no bread, just cheese, take on a better, let us, and so just chopped up beef and cheese, and that that was my dinner, which we went to union station. You get that
equally sense, more exciting. It was good and the then the entire impeachment trial you, you really have a really really explain it to me- makes me makes me actually long for this impeachment trial to continue, because I wanted to stave off whatever kind of crazy legislation the Democrats want to push on soil. It's coming in, there's gonna be a lot to talk about, but we did get a chance to do. Wait, a minute logic stuff tonight. Looking I know it's what you always enjoy doing it, because you know all the stuff- and I always enjoyed I don't know any of it. So it's pretty pretty helpful to me, but there'll be there'll, be a whole lot more once the silly season is over and that will have probably far greater consequences for the country will have to wait until then I might knows. This is verdict with TAT Ruth.
Transcript generated on 2021-08-16.