Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • ♪ ♪

  • >> Bret: BREAKING TONIGHT,

  • ANALYSIS FROM ONE OF THE

  • PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS.

  • ATTORNEY JAY SEKULOW IS ON THE

  • IMPEACHMENT TEAM AND HE JOINS US

  • FROM CAPITOL HILL.

  • IT FEELS GOOD TO STAND UP.

  • >> IT DOES.

  • >> Bret: TELL ME WHAT YOU

  • THOUGHT OF TODAY SO FAR.

  • >> IT'S BEEN AS IT WAS

  • YESTERDAY, THESE ARE LONG DAYS.

  • SO FAR THE CONCLUSION TODAY, YOU

  • HEARD THROUGH THEIR STATEMENTS

  • AND THEIR PRESENTATION, THIS IS

  • WHAT SEEMS SO ODD TO ME.

  • THEY'RE COMPLAINING -- WE HAD A

  • WHOLE SECTION WHERE THEY WERE

  • COMPLAINING ABOUT NO OVAL OFFICE

  • MEETING BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS

  • AT THE UNITED NATION'S ASSEMBLY.

  • THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS GOING

  • ON.

  • THEY COMPLAINED THAT THE

  • DELEGATION SENT TO

  • PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURAL

  • WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH.

  • THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

  • THESE POLICY DISPUTES ARE NOT

  • WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND

  • WHEN IT CAME TO THE SERIOUSNESS

  • OF AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OR

  • CONVICTION.

  • I THINK LOOK, WE BASICALLY ARE

  • ALREADY INTO WHAT I WOULD CALL

  • REPEAT CYCLES.

  • WE ARE HEARING THE SAME THING

  • EACH TIME.

  • WE HAVE THEM PUT OUR CASE OUT

  • YET.

  • I'M QUITE CONFIDENT OF WHERE

  • THIS GOES AT THE END OF THE DAY.

  • WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE

  • PROCESS.

  • >> Bret: I WANT TO TAKE YOU

  • BACKWARDS TOO EARLY THIS MORNING

  • AND THEN I WANT YOU TO LOOK FOR

  • IT.

  • BACKWARDS EARLY THIS MORNING

  • THERE WAS THIS DUST UP BETWEEN

  • JERRY NADLER ON THE FLOOR AND

  • THEN YOU CAME UP AND ADMONISHED

  • HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

  • THE CHIEF JUSTICE GOT IN THE

  • MIDDLE.

  • WHAT IS YOUR TAKE OF THAT

  • MOMENT?

  • >> LOOK, JERRY NADLER ACCUSED

  • THE UNITED STATES SENATE BEING

  • LIARS AND HAVE A COVER.

  • HE ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT THE

  • PRESIDENT'S LAWYER OF BASICALLY

  • TRYING TO MAKE IT AS IF HE HAD

  • DONE SOMETHING THAT WAS

  • UNETHICAL.

  • HE WAS REPRESENTING HIS CLIENT.

  • HE MAKES THE STATEMENT ON THE

  • FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES

  • SENATE WHEN HE SAYS, EXECUTIVE

  • PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

  • THESE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

  • PRIVILEGES RECOGNIZED BY THE SAM

  • GREEN COURT.

  • BY THE WAY, OVERWHELMINGLY

  • RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT

  • EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN

  • APPLIED IN MULTIPLE

  • ADMINISTRATIONS.

  • TO BE THAT CAVALIER ON THE FLOOR

  • OF THE SENATE, ALBEIT IT WAS

  • LATE AT NIGHT AND -- EMOTIONS

  • WERE HIGH.

  • I APPEARED BEFORE JOHN ROBERTS

  • BEFORE OF COURSE AND HAVE KNOWN

  • HIM, HE IS DOING A GREAT JOB AS

  • THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE

  • SENATE.

  • HE BASICALLY SAID, LOWER THE

  • TEMPERATURE.

  • WHEN THEY KEY WAS MY CLIENT ON

  • THE FLOOR OR THE ACUTE SENATORS

  • OF NOT TO KEEP THEIR OATH AND

  • NOT BEING TRUTHFUL, WE ARE GOING

  • TO SAY SOMETHING.

  • WE WILL HAVE TO RESPOND.

  • >> Bret: THIS IS SOMETHING YOU

  • HAVEN'T DONE.

  • THE HOUSE, THESE COMMITTEE

  • HEARINGS, THE PRESIDENT'S

  • LAWYERS WERE NOT THERE.

  • THE COUNTERARGUMENT WAS NOT

  • ESSENTIALLY MADE.

  • THE REPUBLICANS WERE MAKING IT

  • WITHOUT WITNESSES THERE.

  • HOW DO YOU STRUCTURE YOUR

  • ARGUMENT GOING FORWARD IF YOU

  • CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT?

  • >> WE ARE RESPONDING TO WHAT

  • THEY ARE SAYING, BUT WE WILL PUT

  • ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

  • NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT LEGAL

  • UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERFECTLY

  • APPROPRIATE.

  • BUT THAT THE IDEA THAT THIS

  • REACHES THE LEVEL OF

  • IMPEACHMENT, LEGALLY SPEAKING IS

  • RARELY OBSERVED.

  • WE ARE GOING TO PUT ON A SERIES

  • OF LAWYERS THAT WILL BE DEALING

  • WITH THE ISSUES ON THE FACTS IN

  • GREAT DETAIL.

  • ON THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION, WE

  • HAVE TWO LAW PROFESSORS.

  • ONE FORMER GENERAL OF THE

  • UNITED STATES.

  • ALAN DERSHOWITZ OF COURSE,

  • PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD LAW

  • SCHOOL.

  • WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE

  • FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO

  • RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT IS

  • IMPEACHABLE AND WHAT IS NOT.

  • WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS FACT

  • PRESENTATION AND WILL RESPOND

  • WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEXT FEW

  • DAYS.

  • >> Bret: ZERO TO TEN, WHAT IS

  • YOUR LEVEL OF CONCERN?

  • YOU LOOK AT THIS LIST OF G.O.P.

  • SENATORS POTENTIALLY WHO SUGGEST

  • THAT WITNESSES MAY FACTOR IN.

  • SUSAN COLLINS, MITT ROMNEY,

  • CORY GARDNER.

  • YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, ZERO TO

  • TEN, WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF

  • CONCERN THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO

  • HAVE WITNESSES?

  • >> THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVE THE

  • NEED FOR WITNESSES THAT THEY ARE

  • PRESENTING ALL THIS INFORMATION.

  • WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO

  • DAYS.

  • I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT

  • THE SENATE DOES.

  • I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

  • I KNOW THE FACTS AND I KNOW THE

  • LAW AND WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM.

  • I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL GET

  • TO WITNESSES, BUT THAT WILL BE

  • THE SENATE'S DECISION.

  • HERE'S HOW I OPERATE, PREPARE

  • FOR EVERY CONTINGENCY.

  • WE ARE PREPARED FOR EVERY

  • CONTINGENCY.

  • WE WILL MAKE THE CASE ON WHY

  • IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE

  • WITNESSES.

  • WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW

  • REQUIRES AND DEAL WITH WHAT THE

  • SENATE DECIDES.

  • OUR JOB AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING

  • THIS FOR 18 HOURS WAS TO GET

  • THIS PROCESS STARTED.

  • IT'S TAKEN 12 HOURS TO GET IT

  • EVEN STARTED.

♪ ♪

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋