Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • WASTE OF TIME IT A FURTHER DIVIDE IN THIS COUNTRY.

  • DIVIDE IN THIS COUNTRY. WITH THE VERY LATEST, HE’S BEEN

  • WITH THE VERY LATEST, HE’S BEEN A VERY COLORFUL VOICE THROUGHOUT

  • A VERY COLORFUL VOICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS

  • THE ENTIRE PROCESS SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US.

  • SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US. IT SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

  • IT SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU. I APPLAUD YOUR COLLEAGUES, I’M A

  • I APPLAUD YOUR COLLEAGUES, I’M A LITTLE BEWILDERED WHILE WE HAVE

  • LITTLE BEWILDERED WHILE WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL WEDNESDAY AND TO BE

  • TO WAIT TILL WEDNESDAY AND TO BE HONEST, BUT I GUESS WE ALL KNOW

  • HONEST, BUT I GUESS WE ALL KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THEN.

  • WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THEN. >> WELL, THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT

  • >> WELL, THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT THE LAST 24 HOURS WERE PIVOTAL

  • THE LAST 24 HOURS WERE PIVOTAL FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE

  • FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE PROCESSES IS OVER.

  • PROCESSES IS OVER. THE VOTE WE HAD TODAY, NOT TO

  • THE VOTE WE HAD TODAY, NOT TO EXPEND THE TRIAL OR ADDITIONAL

  • EXPEND THE TRIAL OR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, WE ALREADY HAD 18

  • WITNESSES, WE ALREADY HAD 18 WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE

  • WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE AND WEVE SEEN THOUSANDS OF

  • AND WEVE SEEN THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE

  • PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE

  • HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE LAWYERS

  • WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE LAWYERS FOCUSED ON.

  • FOCUSED ON. AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT, THE

  • AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER PROVE THEIR

  • HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER PROVE THEIR CASE AND SO COME OUT THEIR

  • CASE AND SO COME OUT THEIR STRATEGY AS YOU KNOW WAS JUST

  • STRATEGY AS YOU KNOW WAS JUST THE HAIL MARY AND THEY HAVE NOT

  • THE HAIL MARY AND THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE, THEIR ONLY

  • PROVEN THEIR CASE, THEIR ONLY HOPE WAS TO BRING ADDITIONAL

  • HOPE WAS TO BRING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND DRAG IT OUT WEEKS

  • WITNESSES AND DRAG IT OUT WEEKS OR MONTHS AND GO ON A FISHING

  • OR MONTHS AND GO ON A FISHING EXPEDITION HOPING THAT SOMEBODY

  • EXPEDITION HOPING THAT SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE

  • SAID SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE THEM SOME BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT

  • THEM SOME BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN IT.

  • BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN IT. AND THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE

  • AND THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS RIGHT ON THE EDGE

  • REPUBLICANS RIGHT ON THE EDGE AND TODAY HOLDING 51 OF THE

  • AND TODAY HOLDING 51 OF THE MAJORITY TO SAY WE ARE DONE, WE

  • MAJORITY TO SAY WE ARE DONE, WE HAD ENOUGH AND THIS IS OVER AND

  • HAD ENOUGH AND THIS IS OVER AND THAT MEANS WERE HEADED STRAIGHT

  • THAT MEANS WERE HEADED STRAIGHT TO WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE VOTE

  • TO WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE VOTE ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE

  • ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE

  • PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES AND HE

  • ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES AND HE SHOULD BE.

  • SHOULD BE. >> Tucker:>> Sean: NOW I KNOW TH

  • >> Tucker:>> Sean: NOW I KNOW TH THE CONGENITAL LIAR,

  • THE CONGENITAL LIAR, JERRY NADLER, HE KEPT REPEATING,

  • JERRY NADLER, HE KEPT REPEATING, WE HAVE SO PROVEN OUR CASE

  • WE HAVE SO PROVEN OUR CASE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

  • BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. IF I WANT TO STICK TO THE

  • IF I WANT TO STICK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND

  • CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID THAT

  • PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID THAT YOU ARE ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS

  • YOU ARE ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS AND HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ON

  • AND HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ON SITE AND A LITTLE BIT.

  • SITE AND A LITTLE BIT. BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

  • BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN HERE.

  • CONCERN HERE. AT THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH

  • AT THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH THAT LIES WITH THE HOUSE, AND

  • THAT LIES WITH THE HOUSE, AND THE TRIAL LIES WITH THE SENATE.

  • THE TRIAL LIES WITH THE SENATE. I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT

  • I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT IF THEY TOTALLY COMPLETELY PROVE

  • IF THEY TOTALLY COMPLETELY PROVE THEIR CASE WENT BEYOND ANY

  • THEIR CASE WENT BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT’S A CASE

  • REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT’S A CASE THAT’S A SLAM-DUNK CASE AND WHY

  • THAT’S A SLAM-DUNK CASE AND WHY WERE THEY TRYING TO GET YOUR

  • WERE THEY TRYING TO GET YOUR BUDDIES, THE UNITED STATES

  • BUDDIES, THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO TAKE ON THE

  • SENATE TO TAKE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE HOUSE

  • CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE HOUSE WHEN THEY RUSHED IT THROUGH SO

  • WHEN THEY RUSHED IT THROUGH SO URGENTLY SO THAT THEY COULD GO

  • URGENTLY SO THAT THEY COULD GO ON VACATION AND THEN HOLD IT

  • ON VACATION AND THEN HOLD IT BACK FROM THE SENATE FOR SO LONG

  • BACK FROM THE SENATE FOR SO LONG LONG?

  • LONG? >> WELL, LOOK, I WILL RETURN THE

  • >> WELL, LOOK, I WILL RETURN THE COMPLIMENT FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ,

  • COMPLIMENT FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HE WAS MY PROFESSOR AND LAW

  • HE WAS MY PROFESSOR AND LAW SCHOOL AND DEFINABLE AND MY

  • SCHOOL AND DEFINABLE AND MY PROFESSOR IN CRIMINAL LAW 101,

  • PROFESSOR IN CRIMINAL LAW 101, THE FIRST WEEK OF LAW SCHOOL WAS

  • THE FIRST WEEK OF LAW SCHOOL WAS AN AMAZING TEACHER AND I THINK

  • AN AMAZING TEACHER AND I THINK HIS PRESENTATION OF THE SENATE

  • HIS PRESENTATION OF THE SENATE WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL

  • WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL PRESENTATIONS OF THE ENTIRE

  • PRESENTATIONS OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL.

  • TRIAL. IN PARTICULAR HE WALKED THROUGH

  • IN PARTICULAR HE WALKED THROUGH THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE

  • THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT’S

  • CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT’S NOT JUST A VOTE ON WHETHER YOU

  • NOT JUST A VOTE ON WHETHER YOU LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT OR IF

  • LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT OR IF YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESENT OR

  • YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESENT OR NOT AND YOUR POLITICS ARE THE

  • NOT AND YOUR POLITICS ARE THE SAME.

  • SAME. THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE

  • THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS MET

  • CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS MET IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS FOR

  • IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT THE ONLY

  • IMPEACHMENT THAT THE ONLY GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE

  • GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH

  • TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHAT

  • CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WALKED

  • PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WALKED THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY AND

  • THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY AND ACTUALLY BEFORE HIM WHAT KEN

  • ACTUALLY BEFORE HIM WHAT KEN STARR WALK-THROUGH VERY

  • STARR WALK-THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL

  • EFFECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD REQUIRES A GRAVE

  • THRESHOLD REQUIRES A GRAVE SERIOUS CRIME OF THE LEVEL OF

  • SERIOUS CRIME OF THE LEVEL OF TREASON OR BRIBERY.

  • TREASON OR BRIBERY. HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TRY TO

  • HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TRY TO ALLEGE A CRIME AND THEY

  • ALLEGE A CRIME AND THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT PROVE ONE AND

  • CERTAINLY DID NOT PROVE ONE AND THAT IS WHY AS A MATTER OF LAW.

  • THAT IS WHY AS A MATTER OF LAW. BY THE WAY, WE DID THIS WHOLE

  • BY THE WAY, WE DID THIS WHOLE DIGRESSION ON QUID PRO QUO AND

  • DIGRESSION ON QUID PRO QUO AND ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT

  • ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHETHER

  • ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHETHER THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF

  • THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF THERE WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO,

  • THERE WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, AND THE MATTER OF LAW DID NOT

  • AND THE MATTER OF LAW DID NOT MATTER.

  • MATTER. IT WAS A SAD DIVERSION AND

  • IT WAS A SAD DIVERSION AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE

  • THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE CLARIFY DURING THE QUESTIONING

  • CLARIFY DURING THE QUESTIONING PERIOD.

  • PERIOD. I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CRITICAL

  • I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CRITICAL TO GETTING THE FOUR VOTES TO END

  • TO GETTING THE FOUR VOTES TO END AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL

  • AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND WE ASKED

  • WITNESSES AND WE ASKED LINDSEY GRAHAM TOGETHER AND I

  • LINDSEY GRAHAM TOGETHER AND I RODE THE QUESTION ASKING EVEN IF

  • RODE THE QUESTION ASKING EVEN IF YOU ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF

  • YOU ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS A

  • ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, DOES NOT CHANGE

  • QUID PRO QUO, DOES NOT CHANGE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THIS THIS

  • THE LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THIS THIS A HIGH CRIME OR DENSE DEMEANOR

  • A HIGH CRIME OR DENSE DEMEANOR AND THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS

  • AND THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ANSWERED EXACTLY RIGHT AND IF IT

  • ANSWERED EXACTLY RIGHT AND IF IT WERE A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE DISP

  • WERE A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE DISP IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THE

  • IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

  • PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND THERE

  • INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND THERE WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT

  • WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION

  • EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION WITH MARIE’S MOM AND THEREBY

  • WITH MARIE’S MOM AND THEREBY THAT’S WHERE

  • PRESIDENT TO ASK.

  • PRESIDENT TO ASK. >> Sean: WE KNOW FROM THE

  • >> Sean: WE KNOW FROM THE UKRAINIAN COURT AND POLITICO, ON

  • UKRAINIAN COURT AND POLITICO, ON ELECTION AND INTERFERENCE AND

  • ELECTION AND INTERFERENCE AND LAST QUESTION, SENATOR, DID YOU

  • LAST QUESTION, SENATOR, DID YOU GET AN A AND PROFESSOR

  • GET AN A AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS?

  • DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS? >> YOU KNOW, IT’S AN INTERESTING

  • >> YOU KNOW, IT’S AN INTERESTING STORY, FIRST-CLASS, CRIMINAL

  • STORY, FIRST-CLASS, CRIMINAL LAW, I DID AND I GOT A B+ IN HIS

  • LAW, I DID AND I GOT A B+ IN HIS FIRST CLASS, I TOOK A SECOND

  • FIRST CLASS, I TOOK A SECOND CLASS CALLED "THINKING ABOUT

  • CLASS CALLED "THINKING ABOUT THINKING" THAT WAS WITH STEPHEN,

  • THINKING" THAT WAS WITH STEPHEN, WORLD FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER AND I

  • WORLD FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER AND I GOT AN A+ IN THAT ONE.

  • GOT AN A+ IN THAT ONE. YOU CAN AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO