SENATOR MURRAY. >> LET’S GO TO MAYA.

>> LET’S GO TO MAYA. THAT WAS CHUCK SCHUMER OF

THAT WAS CHUCK SCHUMER OF COURSE.

COURSE. I’VE BEEN FOLLOWING POLITICS AND

I’VE BEEN FOLLOWING POLITICS AND YOU LOOK AT IT AS A LEGAL

YOU LOOK AT IT AS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL AND I’M LOOKING A

PROFESSIONAL AND I’M LOOKING A THE IT AS DRAMA.

THE IT AS DRAMA. AND IT ALWAYS SEEMS WHERE

AND IT ALWAYS SEEMS WHERE THERE’S A FIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT

THERE’S A FIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUES, IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN

THE ISSUES, IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO ONE PARTICULAR VOTE.

TO ONE PARTICULAR VOTE. YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT’S THE

YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT’S THE VOTE, A PRELIMINARY VOTE OR

VOTE, A PRELIMINARY VOTE OR AFTERWARDS TO MAKE UP FOR

AFTERWARDS TO MAKE UP FOR SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T WANT TO

SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T WANT TO DO.

DO. IT SEEMS LIKE THE VOTE IS GOING

IT SEEMS LIKE THE VOTE IS GOING TO BE ON WITNESSES.

TO BE ON WITNESSES. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK BUT

I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK BUT SCHUMER PULLED BACK A BIT THERE.

SCHUMER PULLED BACK A BIT THERE. HE’S NOT PUTTING ALL THE

HE’S NOT PUTTING ALL THE PRESSURE ON A

PRESSURE ON A REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED CHIEF

REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED CHIEF JUSTICE.

JUSTICE. I WOULD SAY TO THE DEMOCRATS,

I WOULD SAY TO THE DEMOCRATS, GET YOUR OWN CHIEF JUSTICE IF

GET YOUR OWN CHIEF JUSTICE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE ON YOUR

YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE ON YOUR SIDE.

SIDE. BUT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING

BUT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING PENCIL NECKS AFRAID OF JERRY.

PENCIL NECKS AFRAID OF JERRY. RIGHT TO THE END THIS PRESIDENT

RIGHT TO THE END THIS PRESIDENT IS PLAYING AN 8-YEAR-OLD’S GAME,

IS PLAYING AN 8-YEAR-OLD’S GAME, A SCHOOLYARD TAUNTER OF THE

A SCHOOLYARD TAUNTER OF THE LITTLE KID, THE PENCIL NECK HE’S

LITTLE KID, THE PENCIL NECK HE’S CALLING HIM, MAKING FUN OF THE

CALLING HIM, MAKING FUN OF THE AWKWARD MOMENT BETWEEN JERRY

AWKWARD MOMENT BETWEEN JERRY NADLER AND BEAT HIM TO THE DOOR,

NADLER AND BEAT HIM TO THE DOOR, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

COMMITTEE. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN TONE

THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN TONE HERE.

HERE. THE DEMOCRATS STILL PLAY IT

THE DEMOCRATS STILL PLAY IT STRAIGHT AND THE PRESIDENT STILL

STRAIGHT AND THE PRESIDENT STILL PLAYS IT SCHOOLYARD NASTY.

PLAYS IT SCHOOLYARD NASTY. >> THERE’S A LITTLE QUESTION

>> THERE’S A LITTLE QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

ABOUT THAT. IT’S HARD TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE

IT’S HARD TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE SENATE DEMOCRATS COULD PLAY IT

SENATE DEMOCRATS COULD PLAY IT DIFFERENTLY IN THE SENSE THAT

DIFFERENTLY IN THE SENSE THAT GIVEN WHAT’S AT STAKE AND GIVEN

GIVEN WHAT’S AT STAKE AND GIVEN HOW MANY FACT, THEY AMASSED, IT

HOW MANY FACT, THEY AMASSED, IT NOT CLEAR WHAT THEY COULD DO IN

NOT CLEAR WHAT THEY COULD DO IN THE MINORITY TO PLAY IN THE

THE MINORITY TO PLAY IN THE PRESIDENT’S DIRTY WAY AND

PRESIDENT’S DIRTY WAY AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD.

WHETHER THEY SHOULD. I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, AND

I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, AND I’M NOT SUGGESTING THE OUTCOME

I’M NOT SUGGESTING THE OUTCOME WOULD NECESSARILY BE DIFFERENT,

WOULD NECESSARILY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF GOING

BUT THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF GOING AFTER WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE

AFTER WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE WITH SUBPOENAS I THINK WOULD

WITH SUBPOENAS I THINK WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL --

HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL -- >> RIGHT NOW?

>> RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHT NOW, BEFORE, AT THE

>> RIGHT NOW, BEFORE, AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE

TIME WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE DOING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

DOING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND CERTAINLY NOW, BEING

AND CERTAINLY NOW, BEING EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE.

EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE

BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE NOT TALKED AS MUCH ABOUT IN

HAVE NOT TALKED AS MUCH ABOUT IN TERMS OF LAMAR ALEXANDER’S

TERMS OF LAMAR ALEXANDER’S STATEMENT IS THEY CALLED THE

STATEMENT IS THEY CALLED THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT

SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FRIVOLOUS.

FRIVOLOUS. WHAT HE ESSENTIALLY DID IS

WHAT HE ESSENTIALLY DID IS ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT NO COURT

ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT NO COURT HAS EVER DECIDED WHICH IS THAT

HAS EVER DECIDED WHICH IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ADVISERS HAVE

THE PRESIDENT’S ADVISERS HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CONGRESS.

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CONGRESS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS A

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS A PRESIDENT CAN BE IN A CONSPIRACY

PRESIDENT CAN BE IN A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE OF THE

TO DEFRAUD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO REMOVE THEIR

UNITED STATES, TO REMOVE THEIR PROTECTIONS CORRUPTLY AND NOT BE

PROTECTIONS CORRUPTLY AND NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THEY

HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE THEY WOULD NEVER BE CALLED BEFORE THE

WOULD NEVER BE CALLED BEFORE THE CONGRESS TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN

CONGRESS TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHAT THEY’VE DONE, WHY THEY’VE

WHAT THEY’VE DONE, WHY THEY’VE DONE IT AND WHAT THE DOCUMENTS

DONE IT AND WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOW.

SHOW. YOU WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO