To impeach or not to impeach?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Next Question with Katie Curic is a production of I
Heart Radio and Katie Kuric Media. Hi everyone, I'm Katie Curic,
and welcome to Next Question, where we try to understand
the complicated world we're living in and the crazy things
that are happening by asking questions and by listening to
people who really know what they're talking about. At times,
it may lead to some pretty uncomfortable conversations, but stick

(00:24):
with me, everyone, let's all learn together. If you've gotten
into the habit of scrolling past the NonStop breaking news
alerts dominating your notifications, I get it. Headline fatigue is
very real. But so many names and titles it's almost

(00:44):
impossible to keep them straight, especially when it comes to
these latest impeachment hearings. That's why we're dedicating today's episode
to all things impeachment. We'll talk about the arguments for
and against, and why the country is almost split down
the middle. So to impeach or not to impeach? That
is our next question today. I'm talking with two legal

(01:10):
experts who represent two different sides of the debate. First up,
Neil Cartiel. Neil was the acting Solicitor General under President
Obama and drafted the Justice Department rules that guided the
Muller investigation. So yeah, when it comes to investigating government officials,
Neil really knows what he's talking about. Neil welcome. So

(01:32):
we've got a lot to talk about. But hot off
the presses the US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Silan's testimony.
You've called it every bit the bombshell we expected it
to be. Why in your view was his testimony so
particularly important because this was the guy that Trump pointed
to to exonerate him. There's been a whole bunch of

(01:53):
characters in this thing, Ambassador Taylor and Colonel Vinman and
this and that, but there's been one guy throughout that
President Trump has said is going to exonerate him, who
even said I hope testifies, but he won't be able
to testify because he won't get a fair shake in
the Congress and so on. Well, he did testify today,
and before he walked in the door, he had a

(02:15):
twenty page written statement. And that twenty page written statement
is remarkable. It says there's a whole section called there
was a quid pro quote, which is of course exactly
what for many months we've been hearing as the talking
point of President Trump and his followers, so much so
that actually Senator Lindsey Graham, who's one of the president's
closest allies in Congress, said last month, well, if there's

(02:38):
a quid pro quo then everything is different, then I
want to look at it. But otherwise I don't see
anything here. Well, today, Trump's own guy, the person that
Trump nominated to be the ambassador to the European Union
and the guy who Trump took and put in control
of Ukrainian Ukrainian matters, it said, yes, there was a
quid pro quote. There's lots of other stuff too, but

(03:00):
that to me is you know, incredibly significant. That's the
high water mark of the Trump defense. Before we talk
about this testimony some more, were you surprised, Well, I
wasn't surprised in the sense of a couple of things
have happened recently. One is you've had Roger Stone get
convicted essentially for obstructing justice in a congressional investigation. So,

(03:22):
you know, I don't think anyone could have seen that.
You know, if you're solon last weekend and you're watching
that conviction and thinking to yourself, boy, I've already been
accused by at least one member of the House Intelligence
Committee for committing perjury. Um, and now all these people
are coming forward and saying stuff that I didn't say
in my earlier statements. Yeah, I'm in trouble. So for example,

(03:43):
you know, he said he was supposed to detail his
conversations with the President about Ukraine in his earlier deposition
on October eight. There's not a word about this phone
conversation that he had with President Trump on July and
set the one in the restaurant exactly unsecured line on
a mobile phone. Random. And that's just random. It's a

(04:06):
total security threat. I mean, look, I mean when I
was in the government, I wouldn't even talk on my
home line at home land line because you know, you're
always worried about interception. And the idea that you would
be able to just sit in a restaurant in Kiev,
of all places, and not just on a on a
hard line, but on a cell phone and talking not
just to any government official but the President of the

(04:27):
United States is baffling. What's even more baffling, of course, Katie,
is that he forgot about the conversation, like he just
mysteriously never mentioned it to the investigator. So do you
think he came forward or came clean to save his
own hide? Basically, I mean, you couldn't watch any one
minute of the hearing today and think anything else. This
was a guy who was bent on self preservation. In

(04:50):
his opening statement, he said he worked with Rudy Giuliani
at the express direction of President Trump on matters involving Ukraine.
So it was almost as if Rudy Giuliani was conducting
a shadow government here right, Well, he was conducting a
shadow a government, but at the president's request, So you know,
that's what you know. Sanlon also said, so it wasn't

(05:11):
as if this was a circumstance in which it was
some rogue private attorney for President Trump who was conducting
Ukrainian foreign policy. So can you conduct a shadow government
at the president's past. It's like a secondary government. That's
very legal and very cool to Trump. But I think
in the real world, of course, presidents don't do such things. Um.

(05:32):
It's an incredibly damaging and dangerous And you know, the
reason why Katie I wrote this book Impeach is basically
to make sure that everyone doesn't focus on these little
twists and turns every day in this story of you
know what Sonlon said one day or what Giuliani said
another day. There's like a one central narrative, and it's
actually one that the Republicans in President Trump doesn't disagree with.

(05:56):
And that central narrative which comes out in that July
in script in which the President himself released between a
conversation between him and the President of Ukraine, is the
president of Ukraine it's wanting this aid, this military aid.
And President Trump says, well, wait, though, I need a

(06:16):
favor first. And that is the idea that a president
or you know, our nation's most powerful official would use
congressionally appropriated aid or a White House meeting in order
to advance his own political ends. Um, there's nothing I
think that is a better definition of what is an

(06:37):
impeachable offense. Well, let me yea, so help us understand
this as as the expert you are, professor, Um, you
know what laws? Were there actual laws that were broken?
Even if you think it's grossly inappropriate or just obnoxious
or weird or self serving, was there an actual law

(07:00):
broken here? Yes, but that's actually not the question when
you think about impeachment. So there are Constitution and this,
you know, the whole chapter about this in my book
that the our Constitution says you impeach for what are
called high crimes and misdemeanors. And that's a phrase of
art the founders used, not to mean just actual crimes.
But the core thing that our founders are getting at

(07:22):
is is there an abuse of government power. And our
founders didn't actually even want to put impeachment in the constitution.
Many of them didn't, and um, you know, uh, And
ultimately what one the day was a series of Founders
Alexander Hamilton and others who said, well, what if a president,
a sitting president, goes and tries to get help from

(07:43):
a foreign government to win an election. That's their example
of impeachment. Now at the time, that's not criminal. It
is now actually, and I'll talk about that in a minute.
By the time, there was no statute I get criminal
statute on bribery and the like, but everyone understood that
to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Today we actually
do have statutes that prohibit bribery, and this is again

(08:05):
a textbook definition of that. When did that come about?
The bribery statutes? I think I've been around more than
a hundred years, um, And so they've been they've been
around for a long time. And what they do is
they they criminalize asking for a thing of value in
order to get a certain government act. And that's what
a bribery of any government are conducted by any government official,

(08:28):
including the president exactly. So if you seek a bribe,
if you're the president and said, and the president says, hey, Katie,
you know that ambassadorship? Great, you know, if you'll donate
you know, a hundred thousand dollars to my campaign, Um,
I will make you ambassador. That is him seeking a
thing of value hundred thousand dollars from you in exchange
for an official act, namely your ambassadorship. And here he

(08:51):
did the same thing. Hey Ukraine, I'll give you this money. Um,
that Congress is appropriated, but you've got to do a
favor for me first. Though. Isn't it an implicit understanding
that big donors become ambassadors? I mean, isn't that kind
of an unspoken bride. Well, there's a there's a dance,
a complicated dance that's done if you do it and

(09:12):
is literally quit pro quo and exchange. It's it's illegal.
But if you do it as the way many people do,
thank you, wink wink, I really appreciate it. There might
be something really great for you if I get electric.
Sometimes wink winks will get to the point of being
actually criminal. But for that most part, what you have
is fairly sophisticated actors in this kind of wealthy ambassadorial circle,

(09:35):
of which looks like Sondlon traveled in donating a million dollars.
And I'm not suggesting at all that you know, that
kind of thing happens. You know, someone donates a lot
and some good plum job comes along for them later.
That's very different than this, which is the president himself saying, hey,
if you want the foreign aid, you know what you
gotta do. You gotta go investigate my chief political rival.

(09:58):
Why don't you think the president pleaded ignorance instead of
claiming this call was perfect. Why wouldn't he just say,
you know, I didn't think this was a problem. Well,
I mean, only he can answer that question. But but
one point of speculation is this, that call took place
on July. One day before on July, something pretty significant happened.

(10:20):
Robert Mueller, who had been investigating the president for almost
two years, testified in Congress, and I would say didn't
testify particularly clearly. Um, there was a lot of garble
and so on, and the president, I think, you know,
and you just it comes across even in this fake transcript.
It's not a full transcript. We don't know exactly what
was said, but even just what they released, it really

(10:43):
shows kind of a person who has no appreciation for
the rule of law. I mean, we've seen this in
other ways, but I think on that day in particular,
he was really feeling it explained though, why you think,
you know, if if Muller was sort of garbled and
didn't seem to come down that hard on the president, right,
why would he have done this? Why would the president

(11:05):
of that? Because at that moment in time, because it
seemed to me that Mueller was sort of wishy washy
as everyone said. Yeah. So because of that, I think
the President felt like, Okay, I can do I can
do this kind of award by Muller Exactly, I can
do this kind of stuff. I mean, Trump's instincts all
along have been pretty much to not respect the rule

(11:26):
of law, to not respect institutions. That pushed back against them,
to call them never Trumpers or whatever at you know,
labels he wants to use. So that's always been his
kind of m oh. But I think on that day
in particular, he must have felt particularly empowered. You know,
it was interesting that Salmon said that he really wanted
the investigation to be announced, almost more than he wanted

(11:51):
the investigation to take place, which is pretty significant. He
wanted to do the damage and kind of a whisper
campaign almost against Joe Biden as he was as he
runs for president and against Hunter Biden and suggests this
sort of scandal. Katie, I'm so glad you brought that up,
because to me, that was one of the most important
things in today's testimony. Ambassador Snlon said that what Trump

(12:15):
wanted was the announcement of an investigation by the Ukrainians,
not them actually doing it. Now, you know, I've been
a law enforcement in two different administrations. The idea that
you're if you're conducting a criminal investigation, you would announce it.
Of course, not that's the last thing you do, because
you want to do all the interviewing and all the
confidential inquiries first in order to catch people in perjury

(12:36):
and things like that, and so you know, they're the
president has been saying this is about corruption, this is
why he did this corruption in general. But when drilled
down and asked and people say, well, did you ever
care about corruption in any other country? There's a hundred
ninety four other countries you ever know Ukraine? And with
respect to Ukraine, did you ever care about any other

(12:57):
kind of corruption besides this one thing? If acting Vice
President Biden? No, At some point this starts to smell.
It's not a particularly powerful story. Let's talk about just
because I want this to be impeachment one oh one
for people. Um, But before we talk about sort of
the nuts and bolts of the process. I think that

(13:17):
even the suggestion of impropriety by Hunter Biden, you know,
as part of this Ukrainian oil company Barisma. Um, I
think it's something that that President Trump is very good
at sort of putting things out in the ether and
kind of letting it kind of enter people's psyches in

(13:39):
Layman's terms. Is there any there there, Neil with Hunter Biden? Well,
because it does, it does sound a little fun. Yeah. Now,
I mean in the book, I say, you know, I
have a whole section about did Hunter Biden and Biden
do something wrong. I think you did something, you know,
morally wrong, not legally wrong. But the idea that you
take a job because of who your dad is, I
have a problem with that. So it's a little sketchy,

(14:01):
and it's a little sketchy. I don't think it means
that you go in launch some secret investigation and hold
up congressionally appropriated aid and do all the things that
the President did. That's you know, even if Biden did
something that was let's say, criminal, which I don't think
anyone agrees that there there was that on the part
of the sun And indeed, even Trump's own witness Vulgar

(14:22):
yesterday testified that I've known Biden for twenty four years
and he would never do something that would compromise his
values to this nation's interests. So, you know, but even
if you put all that aside and said, Okay, Trump's right,
there was something really bad that was done here that
would never justify you going and deputizing your private attorney

(14:43):
to Rudy Giuliani, to go to another country and to
threaten and hold up military aid that our taxpayer dollars
have appropriated for the nation's interests and the Ukraine really
needs right to protect itself from guess who, Russia. Exactly,
I'm so glad you brought that up, because again Trump's

(15:03):
witness yesterday, Ambassador Vulcar said exactly that said, look, I'm
opposed to the idea of holding up to say this
aid is really important encountering Russian aggression in the region.
So once again we see this thing in which the
president is just out doing favors for Russia. Now, I

(15:23):
don't know that that motivated him here. It's probably he
had more personal motivations here in terms of a political agenda,
but it does demonstrate the stakes here in which you
have a president who cares more about himself, who cares
more about his re election than what the taxpayers and
Congress have appropriated in the nation's interest. We're going to

(15:46):
take a quick break. We'll have more from Neil Cartiel
when we come back. Solon said also in his testimony,
everyone was in the loop, referring to senior administration officials,

(16:07):
including Mike Pompeio, the Secretary of State, Vice President Mike
Penn's acting chief of staff, Nick bolvany Um. So have
they been implicated and what might the repercussions be for them.
I mean, these guys aren't going to be impeached. What
will happen to them anything? Uh? They I do think
things will happen to them. So Solon's testimony today really

(16:29):
was a kind of detonation that he basically took the view, Look,
if I'm going down, I'm picking a lot of other
people with me. Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff, Bolton,
the former National Security Advisor, Um, you know, Pompeio, the
Secretary of State, Uh, you know, and the list goes
on and on and quit sort of. And and didn't
he direct the White House lawyers to be notified about this?

(16:52):
I mean, he clearly felt uncomfortable with this. Correct, that's
what the reporting says. But you know, I think one
of the hard things about this, Katie, is we don't
know because the President has gagged every one of these
people from coming forward and telling the truth to the Congress.
Can you do that? I mean, can't they subpoena these folks?
They can, but it's going to take some time in

(17:12):
the courts. And I think the Democrats have taken the view,
which I actually agree with, is they've got enough evidence
now to impeach and do we want to delay things
more and more in the courts. Now, there's gonna be
a decision coming down in a few days by the
d C Court on some privilege issues, and it may
open the door for Bolton to testify in his own
And I think it's notable that a lot of the

(17:34):
testimony we've heard over the last week, like from Colonel
Vinman or Ambassador Yanovov Yanevovich and people like that, are
all folks have come forward despite the President's gag order
and said I'm just going to tell the truth and
might do that. I think he might, you know, I
think for the courts decide I do. I mean, at
the end of the day, Bolton is a lawyer, um,

(17:56):
and you know he's far more conservative than I am.
But I do think that in you know, deep in
his heart is a respect for the kind of common
calling we have as a profession, the idea that you know,
when you're a witness to important events, um, you tell
them to the American people and let the chips fall
where they may. Meanwhile, Ambassador son Land said he never

(18:20):
heard directly from President Trump that the military aid was
conditioned on an announcement of investigations, saying that assumption was
his own personal guests. So is that enough? Well, I
mean if he never heard those exact words, Hey, if
this doesn't happen, there won't be foreign aid and ps

(18:43):
that White House visit will be canceled. If this were
the If the case against President Trump was built all
around the son Land testimony, I think it certainly wouldn't
be enough. The problem for Trump is Sonland is not
the is not the prosecution witness. He's the defense witness.
So he's the best story Trump has got, and all
he's got is well the President directly say this, but

(19:07):
everyone knew and everyone was in the loop on exactly
what was going on. What do you think? What do
you think President Trump was thinking when he watched this,
If he watched it, even though he claims he wasn't
watching it, right, Yeah, I I don't think that there's
a way anyone can watch this, you know, if you're
if you're the president, and watch this being said about
you without having a deep pit in your stomach. And

(19:29):
I think that's why we see the more and more
lashing out by this president. You know, um, but at
some point he's going to have to face the facts.
And the facts are not based on Sun Len's testimony alone,
but on that July transcript in which the quid pro
quo is right there. It's not you know, I need
a favor from you, though, That's what the president says,

(19:51):
and so you know, there isn't really a way for
him to walk away from it. Well this really mattered, though, Neil.
That's the question. Let's talk short term and long term.
Short term being uh, if he is impeached a trial
in the Senate, is there anything that we heard today
that might move the needle for Republican senators to vote

(20:12):
to convict President Trump or for some of them to
basically abandoned the president. I think so far they're only two.
I do think that as senators go and look at
the evidence and ask themselves, you know the question that
I put in my book, which is, you know, just
flipped the parties around. Pretend this is what we do

(20:32):
with law students in their first year. You say, everyone's
got certain biases when they walk in and you say, well,
just pretend you're representing the defendant instead of the plain
if if you are planiff focused and vice versa. I
think the same thing has to be put to the Senators,
and they've never actually been asked this simple question, which is,
you know, if the shoes on the other foot, if
it's President Obama who went and got secret help from

(20:54):
a foreign governmor tried to do so and held up
congressionally appropriated aid or doled out White House meetings to
countries that investigated his political rivals, would you sit by
and say, oh, yeah, that's cool, he can be president.
I just don't think that, you know, a senator could
look at herself for himself in the mirror and say, yeah,

(21:15):
that's the kind of government I want. And I know
there are so many Americans who have been disparited over
the last three years as Congresses look the other way
on this and that, But we've never actually forced them
to go and cast that vote. And here it will
be one of the most solemn votes I'll ever cast
in their lives, most solemn things they ever do. And

(21:39):
can they really do that? I don't know, um, but
I have faith that in the Senate and that they
will study this, think about it, ask the question that
I just asked, What if the shoe were on the
other foot, and reach the right judgment. I don't mean
to be cynical, but politics seems to be the number
one priority for many these Republican senators. So why do

(22:02):
you believe that suddenly they'll have an epiphany and uh,
sort of a crisis of confidence in the president and
their conscious consciences will emerge at this moment in time. Well,
I have to think that two things. One is I
have to think when you go into public office, you know,
there are a lot of ways to make money or
get power. I think you do it for some sense

(22:24):
of the public good. And so, um, you know, I
think I think at first you do, and then it's
all about staying in power, don't you But maybe but
even if so, Um, the idea of associating yourself with this,
with this kind of lawlessness, I don't know makes for
very good politics, um in in the long term. Um.
And you know, we're seeing this election after election, the

(22:47):
elections just you know, last week, you know, again and
again the president is losing. And I do think one
of the reasons he's losing is because of this corrosive
view about the law. So even if the Senate does
not vote to convict you think he there will be
hell to pay in November President Trump. Oh my, yes,

(23:10):
I mean, look, I I you know, I understand there's
a lot of people out there who say we should
have defeat President Trump at the ballot box and not
impeach and removed. And I think, look, I think that
you know, with this kind of record, there's no way
President Trump could be re elected. Um, you know so.
But at the end of the day, I think worth

(23:30):
setting something here that's far bigger than just the next election,
which of course has moment to stakes. But we're setting
the ground rules for what our American experiment is all about,
what our democracy means. And if we don't do this,
if we say a president can go and in secret
try and hold up foreign aid to investigate his chief rivals,

(23:54):
and you know, what are we saying about our elections?
But Neil, a new NPR PBS News Our poll found
that while most Americans are paying attention to these hearings,
less than a third say or you know, around a
third say their minds could be changed. So there are
a lot of people who say, we don't care whatever happens,

(24:15):
that it's a witch hunt. You know, they've bought the
president's talking points and by the way. I watched Sean
Hannity last night, and it's almost as if we live
in two different countries or there are two different stories.
If you have a steady diet of Fox News, you
have a very different opinion about what's going on in
Washington right now. Yeah. No, Look, I my argument is

(24:36):
not that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram are going to
change their minds. So you know, they've got a certain,
you know, set of incentives to say the things that
they say. I'm talking about Fox viewers, and I do
have more faith in those viewers and more generally the
viewers across the American public and listeners and and so on.
I'm not ready to give up on the idea that
we live in such two different countries that there is

(24:58):
no truth anymore, or that we shouldn't ask these questions
and we throw in the towel because we're worried about
a you know, splintered, hyperpartisan environment. I mean, at the
end of the day, every time America has transcended that
we transcended it in seventeen seventy six and seventeen eighty seven,
in eighteen sixty six and nineteen thirty seven, and the

(25:20):
civil rights movement, marriage equality. So many other times people
have said, Katie, the kind of stuff you're saying, and
you know, I know you're just voicing, you know, a
lot of the frustrations of a lot of people and
views of a lot of people. But there's also this
other counter tradition in American history. You know, in the book,
I talked about the Andrew Johnson impeachment, and uh, you know,

(25:41):
Johnson was a terrible president and racist and and so on,
but he was impeached not for that. He was impeached
for a violation of the tenure of office at the
technical violation. And it was a really close vote in
the Senate and Senator Ross, who hated at the Senor
Russell was from camp Us and he hated President Johnson,

(26:03):
but nonetheless cast the impeachment vote, the deciding vote the
other way to not impeach, because he said that's not
the right thing to do. It maybe the right thing
to do for my party, but it's not the right
thing to do for the country. And time and again
we've seen examples of that, and um, we won't know
unless we try. And um, you know, that's I'm proud

(26:24):
that to see our Congress trying and to force some
attention by this administration to the rule of law. Let
me ask you if you could break it down, how
many articles of impeachment are there right now? And you know,
how is this different from a criminal trial. Yeah, So
the main differences are that it's not, of course about crimes.

(26:47):
So so that's the first thing it's about, really, is
there an abusive power by the president. Is the president
putting his nation his personal interests above those of the nation.
That's really I think the best definition of what a
high crime and misdemeanor and that can come into sort
of shapes and forms exactly, and so here I think
they're basically kind of three buckets that of offenses when

(27:12):
we think about Ukraine, and you know, there may be
others involving the Moller investigation and so on. I personally
don't think Congress should get into all of that here,
but you know, because there's some indication that he might
have lied on his questionnaire exactly. The the House General
Counsel this week in the d C Court said they
believe that there may be evidence that the President lie

(27:33):
de Muller and that, of course is itself a criminal offense,
So there may be other things going on. We'll have
to see. Um. In terms of the process, there is
a big difference. I mean, the House does what's called impeachment,
which is like the formal indictment of the president, like
saying he did something wrong, and that is just by
a majority vote, and that's kind of like a grand

(27:55):
jury in the criminal context. And then you've got if
the House impeaches, then it goes to the Senate for
the punishment phase and uh, and the kind of trial
about what, you know, what what the president did and
is it, you know, a convictible offense. Um. And there
it's a two thirds vote of the Senate to convict.
And unlike a criminal trial in which it's a jury

(28:16):
of twelve peers who don't have any prejudices about the case,
this is decided by a hundred senators, many of whom
have already said certain things about their view of the case.
So it is quite different in that sense. It's a
mix of a legal proceeding and a political proceeding. Would
President Trump ever be asked to go to the Senate

(28:37):
to testify? Oh? Absolutely, And would he be compelled to
I think you can't formally compel him in the sense of, uh,
you know, attached criminal sanctions to him. But you can
create an adverse inference. You can say, look, Mr President,
if you don't come forward and tell the truth, we'll
take that as an admission that these accusations against you

(29:00):
in these articles of impeachment are accurate. And you would
ask before about what that case would look like. What
are those articles of impeachment? And it seems to me
Article one is kind of abuse of power, the president
saying I am going to cut off congressionally appropriated aid
aida that our taxpayers approved to another country to benefit myself.

(29:24):
Count Number two is bribery, the idea that we were
talking about earlier, seeking something of value for yourself in
order to exchange in order for the performance of an official,
and it would be called bribery absolutely. And indeed, one
of the interesting things, Katie, is the Constitution actually says
there are defines impeachable offenses as treason, bribery, or other

(29:48):
high crimes and misdemeanors. It's actually in the Constitution itself
as one of the two things our founders said was impeachable,
and cited by Alexander Hamilton as you said earlier about
a foreign exactly, is that in the Constitution too, Well,
what's in the Constitution is just the word bribery. No,
the foreign nation. What you mentioned that Alexander Hamilton's used

(30:10):
as an example, So it's an example of what is
an impeachable offense, but itself is not in the text
of the Constitution. Like much of the Constitution, they used
more capacious words like other high crimes and misdemeanors. And
then we have methods to try and understand what those
words are here in some of Hamilton's writings exactly. So
Hamilton's writings in the Federalist papers. Indeed, Federalist sight, I

(30:33):
think is the critical one. Um, they make this argument
about foreign interference, you're sure it's not and then uh,
and then the last article of impeachment. And I think
today we saw a lot of evidence of this is
obstruction of justice, the idea that the president is gagging
all these witnesses from coming forward. He's saying no documents

(30:54):
can come. And we started this interview, Katie, with you
asking about the Ambassador Solilon testimony it six and its significance,
and we've talked a lot about the substantial significance, like
what did Simon say about Trump and Giuliani and so on,
But there was a procedural significance to what he said today,
which is really important. He said, and again, this is
Trump's guy. He's saying, the President is acting wrongly by

(31:18):
not allowing me to look at my emails, not provide
them to you, not provide my call records. He's preventing
me from all of this. And that's preventing the American
people from learning the truth. And that is quintessential obstruction
of justice. And and what could happen to Rudy Giuliani.
I'm just curious. Oh heavens me, I would not want

(31:39):
to be. I mean, if in fact he did all
the things he's being accused of doing in the course
of these hearings and by various witnesses, what will happen
to him? Well, so, first of all, it's not just
what he's being accused of in the hearings, which are
about you know, this part of Ukraine and Barisma and
all that. There's a separate criminal investigation in the Southern

(32:00):
District of New York, his former office that he used
to head, about whether or not he committed various cribes,
whether it's you know, we don't know exactly what they are, um,
but you know, so he's facing legal liability there. Separately,
now he's got a bunch to worry about here, um,
with respect to the Ukrainian foreign aid scandal and so on.

(32:23):
And you know, I think that there's a deep question
here whether Giuliani is going to say, oh, I did
this all on my own. Trump wasn't involved, hoping perhaps
for a pardon or something like that, or he's going
to say, hey, I wasn't a rogue agent here. I
was doing all of this at the President's best, which
Mr Salmon today I think suggested was the truth. And

(32:45):
is Roger Stone going to be pardoned? Who knows? Um?
I would think so. I would think that a president,
when there was that mountain of evidence from his own
Justice Department to convict Rogers own, any decent president could
not impeach, it could not pardon Roger Stone. But this

(33:07):
is a president who pardoned Joe R. Pio, who pardoned
a niche to Suza, who pardoned three war criminals just
last week against the advice of his own Defense department.
So anything goes with respect to this guy. And his
abuse of the pardon power. You made the case that
President Trump's efforts to hinder the House investigation is as

(33:29):
much of a threat to the rule of law as
the case against him, and that it quote strikes at
the heart of American democracy. Explain that, yes, I wrote it.
I've be in the New York Times last week, which said, look,
we're gonna obviously all focus on these witnesses and what
what happened with respect to Ukraine. But there is a
kind of more fundamental thing. And you know, I saw

(33:50):
it in two different tours in the government, which is
when the Congress of the United States asks you, how
are you doing your job? Why did you take certain
actions and the like? You know, that's a sovereign and
solemn obligation for you to go and explain what you
did to the people. Uh. And this president has thumbed

(34:12):
his nose at Congress, has said it's so illegitimate that
he won't even bother turning over a single piece of
paper or a single witness. Um. And again I asked
to go back to that kind of yardstick rule shoe.
On the other foot, if this were a democratic president,
how would the Republican senators and congresswoman and men feel

(34:33):
about someone who stime me that. I mean even at
the worst, you know, an air culture was accused of,
you know, in Fast and Furious of various things. But
he turned over thousands and thousands of pages of material.
That was the only time President Obama invoked executive privilege
and his time in office. This president, you know, invokes
it kind of like candy, you know, whenever and does

(34:55):
it wantonly um and uh, you know, you'd have to
go back to Nixon, to someone who did it with
any frequency approaching approaching this president. But this president has
done that and squared it many many times over. Do
you see anyway the impeachment hearings Neil could help the president,
could galvanize his base and that people might buy in

(35:16):
the idea that he's being unfairly targeted. And note that
these people never thought his election was legitimate. YadA, YadA, YadA.
I think that's Katie, with all respect, the wrong question.
I don't think we can do this because of politics.
I think we have to do this, and I think

(35:37):
this is where the Congress of the House is moving
because there is no other option when you have a
president who betrays the nation's interest and tries to do
in secret, and then gets caught and then doesn't even
admit to it and says he'd do it again, he'd
do it with China. You've got a president who's a fundamental,

(35:59):
existential threat to the rule of law, to everything the
country is built on. And if you lose elections over it,
so be it. Lose the election, because there's something far
greater at stake here, which is the operation and soul
of American democracy. You're a purist, but I would say
that there are plenty of Democrats in the House who

(36:20):
really weighed the political ramifications of this pretty long and hard. Neil, Sure, No,
I am not. I'm not denying any of that. And
you know, maybe that it's not bad politics for them
or good politics or whatever. I'm just saying, you know,
is some things have to rise above politics. And as
your listeners think about, you know, how do we think

(36:40):
about this question that we're about to embark in as
a nation over the next two months, what should we
do about the president? I think they have to ask,
you know, do they really want a system in which
a president can do this and put the politics aside
At least try to. It's, if nothing else, a thought experiment, because, Um,
the shoe will be on the other. Life is long

(37:01):
and the country hopefully has many, many years ahead. And
if we allow this president to do this, another president
can do it, and that president may not be one
that you politically agree with. I know, I'm asking you
to speculate, and that's something that current and former government
officials hate to do. Colin values to always tell me, Katie,

(37:24):
I will not speculate on that, but can you give
us an idea of the timeline and what ultimately you
think is going to happen? Neil, sure. So I'm not
afraid to speculate here. So I wrote a whole book
that's about this. Um and Uh. I think that by
the end of December. By December, I suspect we'll have

(37:44):
a vote in the House of Representatives and Merry Christmas.
And I do think that the president will be impeached
and representatives. It will then go to a trial in
the Senate in January. And January, you know, I think
the Senate rules require kind of an immediate trial to
move quickly. It required them to be I think in
session six days a week. UM and you know, some senators,

(38:07):
Republican senators have said it maybe as long as six
to eight weeks. I'm not sure that that's right. I
think it's probably the House has already taken a lot
of testimony, so I'm not sure that it will be
that long. But I again, I hope that it's a
thorough serious trial that everyone can see exactly what happened,

(38:28):
because the president's story has been shifting while this has
been going on in the House of Representatives and in
the early stages in the investigation. I mean, first it
was I didn't do it. Then it was it's all
perfect and beautiful. Then it was no, it's all hearsay,
and you know, there's no firsthand witnesses. Now that the
first hand witnesses have come forward, we're back to it's

(38:50):
beautiful and perfect. Um. And I don't really know that
guy som Blander whomever. So there's been a bunch of
shifting stories, um. And once it goes to trial in
the Senate, I suspect that they're gonna have to drill
down and pick one. And at that point, I do
think the eyes of the nation focus on the question.
The eyes in the Senate, they look at themselves in
the mirror and say what's the right thing to do here?

(39:12):
And I think that the president will be removed from office?
Do wow? So you think he'll be gone and Mike
Pence will run for president? I I don't know, but
you know you know that very well. Maybe or maybe
they have something else. Wow, Well, fasten your seatbelt. Do

(39:35):
you ever wish that you had waited to write your
book and impeach the case against Donald Trump? Since there's
so much happened since you I'm sure handed this in
no actually their verse. I mean I wrote the book
because I knew a lot was going to happen. I
knew there'd be all these witnesses coming forward, and I
you know, one of the things that Trump does, and
you actually started today's session by talking about it, is

(39:57):
the flood of information that happens. And it's so hard
to separate the wheat from the chaff, and remember what's important.
In the book, it's just a hundred fifty pages is
just designed to say, here's the central narrative. And yes,
there's going to be any number of details and people
saying this and that and taking pot shots at each other,
but here's the central narrative. That central narrative is not

(40:19):
going to change. Like you know I've done. I've argued
thirty nine cases at the Supreme Court and one hundreds
of other cases. You know, in a case and the
basics architecture of the case is done. That basic architecture
the case is done now and that's what the book
lays out. And go back to those three articles of impeachment,
high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution, abuse of power, bribery,

(40:44):
and obstruction of justice. Neo Cartiel, Neil, thanks so much
for helping us understand all this and make some sense
of it. Thank you. It's an honor to be with you.
Not everyone agrees with Neo Cartiel. Up next, we're going
to have a conversation with a vocal critic of the
impeachment inquiry, former Independent Council Robert Ray. Robert Ray made

(41:17):
a name for himself leading the Whitewater investigation as the
former head of the Office of the Independent Council. He
recently wrote a piece for Time magazine arguing that while
President Trump may have acted inappropriately, his actions do not
meet the constitution strict requirements for impeachment, which say that treason, briberary,

(41:37):
or other high crimes and misdemeanors need to be proven
in order to remove a president from office. Robert Ray,
thank you very much for coming on the podcast so
your predecessor as Independent Council can start. Described today's testimony
as quote one of those bombshell days and said that

(41:58):
quote things do not look it for the president substantively.
What do you think, Bob Well, I don't agree with that. Um.
I've dealt with media days throughout this saga for more
than the past two months, where every day is another
bombshell day. So I don't think there was really anything
that I heard today that was that much of a
surprise and what I had anticipated that we would hear.

(42:21):
His testimony, though, did confirm a quid pro quo. Right, well,
let's be careful about that, because you know, first of all,
I'm you know, the Hoorray Henry's who all want to
talk about quid pro quo as if they seem to
understand what bribery is. Let's just slow down. A second.
Bribery is something like the following, whoever, being a public official,

(42:47):
corruptly demands or seeks personally in return for the performance
of an official act is guilty of a crime, and
the in return for a language essentially is what people
understand to be the quid pro quo requirement of a
bribery offense. But that's not what we talk about and

(43:11):
what much of the discussion has been about. I mean,
for example, if there's an exchange of a quid pro
quo involving foreign assistance generally, and the linkage is over
something as benign as we want a particular country to
do more with regard to internally prosecuting or investigating corruption,

(43:36):
nobody would ever contend that that kind of an exchange
is something that the law is prepared to recognize as illegal.
But it doesn't it change when it's a political rival, Bob,
when it's specifically about Joe Biden and his son. And
according to son Land, Hello, that's not what Ambassador Sonland

(43:57):
testified to today. What his understanding is that it was
barisma and the origins of the two thousand and sixteen
election interference. He only came to learn, I think, he said,
and not until after the transcript of the call was
released between President Zelinsky and President Trump that uh, you know,

(44:19):
in his mind, he then came to a presumption that
there was a linkage between the two involving specifically the Bidens.
So you know, look, I think much of how you
would view this is colored by whether or not you
think there's any merit to an investigation of the Biden's
first second, I think it's colored by what your view

(44:41):
is about whether or not such an investigation is of
personal benefit to the president that would be sufficient to
um make out a crime. The Democrats have tried that
on for size. They first contended that that was an
illegal foreign campaign contribution. Well, that's an interesting legal theory,
but it runs up against the fact that the Justice Department,

(45:03):
apparently through the Criminal Division, after consultation with the Public
Integrity Section, said listen, that's not a thing of value
that the law is prepared to recognize as a campaign
contribution that would be of personal benefit to the president
United States, meaning an investigation into Hunter Biden and Barrisma. Right. Look,
and you know, the notion that a public official is,

(45:25):
as a result of running for office or being a candidate,
immune from uh an investigation is in my judgment, anathemas
and consistent with with our past history, and it's even
inconsistent with my own past history. I conducted an investigation
of Hillary Clinton, who was then at the time while
I was serving as Independent Council being investigated in connection

(45:45):
with a whole slew of investigations Whitewater, the Travel Office,
FBI files, a number of things, while she was a
candidate for office for the United States Senate in New York.
So are you suggesting that Joe Biden did something wrong here?
I don't and and it was in your estimation it's
worthy of an investigation. I don't know. I mean, apparently
the Attorney General has thought at least so that matter

(46:10):
has been referred, among a number of different specific issues
to John Durham, who is the currently serving U S
Attorney in the District of Connecticut. He enjoys a bipartisan
reputation as a kind a fine one as a bipartisan,
nonpartisan prosecute career prosecutor. I don't know whether that investigation

(46:32):
has any merit or not. I imagine he'll figure it
out one way or another. That's why we have investigations
to find out. I I wonder if you believe that
Ambassador Solon's claimed that the President was seemed to be
more interested in the announcement of an investigation rather than
the investigation itself, might sort of counter this assessment that

(46:55):
it wouldn't he wouldn't stand to gain from that in estigation.
Ambassador Simon made very clear, although that was completely overlooked
in the testimony today, that the primary reason to ask
for a public announcement was to fix their position publicly
so that they couldn't walk back the fact that they
were committed to rooting out corruption. I think that's separate
and apart from whether or not you think that's also

(47:18):
of personal benefit to the president, because of the fact
that it would have potentially had an impact on an election.
Everything has an impact on an election. The question is
whether there is anything inappropriate about that ask and I
have already commented publicly and I think, um, this is
where I do agree with Ken Starr. I do think

(47:39):
it was an error in judgment not to have done
this through the usual channels. Why Because the usual channels
provide you with insulation in the ordinary affairs of the
country where people don't second yes your political motivations, and
so one of the reasons that you'd go to the
FBI and the Justice Department and also admit what there's

(48:01):
already a treaty process to allow a request to the
Ukrainian government through official channels for what's referred to as
the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. That's the kind of appropriate
way in which you would be seeking in a sensitive
area assistance with an investigation. So I guess what I'm
saying is that, you know, it's hard for me to
imagine that the president does something directly that if he

(48:24):
did indirectly through usual channels, it certainly would be entirely appropriate.
But now all of a sudden it's illegal. You can
argue about a lack of judgment and whether or not
it would have been better practice and a better idea
not to have had what amounts to a second channel
through Rudy Giuliani to try to accomplish this end. But
I'm not sure that I would jump to the conclusion

(48:46):
that the end in itself was inappropriate. I think the
means are subject to question, but that doesn't mean that
the means were illegal. But having said that, I mean
it was in your view and error in judgment, but
does not necessarily qualified as a high crime or misdemeanor.
I don't think it qualifies as bribery either. I don't
think it. I don't think it involves extortion because I

(49:08):
don't think there was sufficient pressure applied. What about abuse
of power, Well, abuse of power is an interesting concept,
and I know you've talked to about that. I do
not think that abuse of power untethered from the constitutional language,
which requires that it be treason, bribery, or other high
crime and misdemeanor, is sufficient. I know there's reasonable disagreement

(49:31):
of opinion among legal scholars about that. I think. I mean,
I've read a lot of books. I've considered the question
of impeachment, going all the way back to Watergate and
historically even before um I think the better, more considered view.
And by the way, this was Neil cat y'all's view
and a Chiel Lamar and a number of other people
when they were trying on for size of the question
of the Clinton impeachment. I do not think abuse of

(49:54):
power on its own as a sufficient basis to remove
a president from office. I think it has to be both.
I think the lesson of the Clinton impeachment was very
few people were arguing over whether or not the president
had committed obstruction of justice or perjury. The only question
was whether or not those crimes were sufficient to rise
to the level of abuse of his office, abuse of

(50:16):
his oath of office. And I think the considered judgment
of the Senate following a trial was, you know what, Um,
there's a problem here, but it's not sufficient to remove
the president from office because he didn't abuse his office
this one. Um. You know, I sort of stepped back
and just look at it. And the Nixon cases, of
course entirely different because there I think it was clearly both.

(50:36):
It was not only that obstruction of justice was committed,
but it was committed in such a way that undermined
the president's oath of office to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed. And there was a slush fund
in the White House with cash coming out of a
safe in order to pay off witnesses to ultra testimony
in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation that the president orchestrated,
and he was on tape directing it. And everybody can

(50:59):
understand it appreciate that that's not only a crime, but
it's also a problem for a president to be involved in.
I don't think there's anything like that here. I mean,
are we seriously and I'm asking the American people this,
are we seriously going to impeach a president based upon
today's testimony about the announcement of an investigation tied to

(51:22):
a meeting at the White House, I really think tied
to foreign aid. Well, let's start with where they started today,
because the only thing Sonlon was able to say for
Ambassador son was able to say for sure is that
the link that he saw was with a meeting at
the White House, despite what you hear in much of
the media, and meeting at the White House as recently
as the Supreme Court's decision involving Governor McDonald is not

(51:45):
an official act under the bribery law, so that can't
be the predicate for a bribery offense. And I believe
Adam Schiff recognizes this because all before these hearings even started,
he was already saying, you know, we don't have to
prove the elements of a bribery offense like a prosecu
puter would bribery. It only has to be as the
founders understood it. Well, okay, fair enough, but bribery is mentioned,

(52:08):
and the founders did put in place a Congress which
was capable of passing laws, and among the other laws
that the Congress ultimately passed was the Federal Bribery Statute.
So there's no bribery with regard to a meeting in
the White House. Don't believe me, but that that's what
the Supreme Court says. So what about foreign aid? I mean,
maybe Somlon didn't say that he saw no connection, but

(52:32):
a lot of the other witnesses have said that, and
more witnesses are to come. Well, he said, So if
if in fact someone says, uh, there was an undeniable
link between an investigation of Hunter Biden and the delivery
of foreign aid to Ukraine, would that constitute bribery? Well,

(52:53):
no one is going to say that. And more importantly,
I'm not really interested in what other people have to say.
This is not an impeachment of an administration. This is,
after all, the impeachment of the President of United States. Said,
that doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. The question is
where does the president thing? And today you know, again
something skipped over. You know, largely the President was asked

(53:16):
directly by Ambassador Sunlin in no uncertain terms and emphatically,
because I think he was exasperated more than anything else
Mr President, what do you want? And the answer was,
I don't want anything from President Zelinsky. I want him
to do what it is he ran on and I
and I don't want any quid pro quotes. I'm not
asking him for anything. I'm asking him to do what

(53:37):
he said he was going to do. So. Look, I
do not think that investigations generally, including one's conducted overseas,
and including one's conducted overseas of United States nationals, which
by the way, is something that we do do. Um.
I have represented clients that have been on the receiving
end of that, so I know, UM, there's nothing inherently

(54:00):
wrong with that. That's you know, that's part of what
investigations are all about. I do not think that that notion,
and specifically what you're suggesting, which is the personal benefit
to the president of a politically motivated investigation of the bidens,
are mutually exclusive. I mean, the sense in the in
the in the in the country right now is it

(54:21):
it's either a legitimate investigation or it's this thing involving
the Biden's barisma and corruption in the Ukraine, and the
one is unlawful. It's a foreign campaign contribution and it's
the basis of a quid pro quo, and the other
one is entirely appropriate. I don't think life doesn't work
that way. They are not They are not mutually exclusive.
There is space enough for there to be. Again, depending

(54:44):
on how what your view is about whether or not
either Hunter Biden and or his his father, that then
vice president did anything wrong. And again I'm not suggesting
he did or he didn't. I don't know. That's why
we have investigations to find that, and in fact, we
are having one right now. That's what's going on. So
you basically don't believe when it comes to the specific
articles of impeachment that Neil identified, abuse of power, bribery,

(55:08):
and obstruction of justice, that you can check off any
of those. And if not, why not obstruction of justice? Bob.
If in fact President Trump is prohibiting many people from
testifying in the House hearings, well that's a process, fell
and I guess ultimately, you know, the American people will
decide whether they think that's significantly What do you think.

(55:29):
I don't think so, And I think you know, look,
if there are legitimate reasons and basses to object to
cooperating with the investigation that include the assertion of presidential
or executive privilege. I know that they tried this in
the Nixon impeachment. It wasn't particularly persuasive, nor was it,
frankly in the in the Clinton impeachment. UM, that's a

(55:50):
process argument and dispute between the branches of government. To
equate that with obstruction of justice seems to me to
be a bridge too far. Um, they're a legit him
reasons why you would object to uh subpoena compliance, both
for documents and for witnesses to protect the office of
the president, not the president, you know, Donald Trump personally himself,

(56:12):
not only for this administration, for administrations in the future. Uh.
That has been consistently the position of the White House,
not again, not just with regard to this administration, but
for administrations going back at least as far as President Eisenhower. UM. Uh,
you know, I I don't think that UH an attempt
to try to make that argument, you know, Adam Shifts.

(56:35):
UH typical approach to this has been every time the
White House objects to providing us with a document or
a witness, we're going to just add that as another
article of impeachment under obstruction it doesn't wash with me.
I don't think it will wash with the American people.
And more importantly, in this process, if you have any
hopes of trying to persuade the other party to join

(56:58):
with you, which after all, is necessary in order to
remove the president from office in the United States Senate,
you're not going to get there by making an argument.
Ah ha, we got you on obstruction of justice. You
didn't give us that document from the State Department. You know, Please,
we got more important things to worry about. That's not
one of them. But what about prohibiting witnesses from testifying.

(57:18):
I mean, we're not talking about handing over documents. We're
talking about saying to people you cannot appear well. Sure,
And and the reason for that is because the internal
discussions at the highest level within the White House are
subject to privilege. And it has long been recognized to
be the case. Uh, it's implied essentially in the Constitution
by virtue of separation of powers. And the President has

(57:39):
no obligation to try to make the House's case for
impeachment against him. He has constitutional rights as well, in
addition to the fact of his office. And I do
think that again, pushing that too far is encroaching on
an area that is long recognized to be a proper

(58:00):
separation of powers question. And and the related notion that
has expressed most recently by the Speaker of the House,
Nancy Pelosi, that the president has some obligation to come
forward and testify or explain or provide his people. Um again, Um,
that's that there's nothing in the constitution that requires that.
I don't think that's in the public interest. And again,

(58:21):
I think that the president is entitled to rely on
AIDS without having to worry about the fact that all
of those people are going to appear to testify against
him because the Congress is conducting an impeachment inquiry. And
if we really have reached the point in this country
for the future, which is one of the things that
I'm concerned about, that it simply as the result of
having the House of Representatives in the UH in the

(58:41):
hands of the opposite party, that we're going to now
be endlessly in a situation in which every administration is
going to be saddled with the potential of an impeachment inquiry.
I do not think ultimately that that is in the
country's best interests. I don't think that that's what the
founders intended, and the you know, recent history suggests now
that we sort of string together, you know, Nixon to
Clinton to Trump. You know, the question one has to

(59:04):
logically ask, and I think most fair minded Americans will
be asking when this when and if this gets to
the United States Senate is ultimately is that what we
want to see here? Is that really in the country's interests?
And I've even thought about things like, you know, I
wonder for the future whether or not a simple majority
vote in the House should be sufficient to warrant the
impeachment of a president. I mean, I think there perhaps

(59:27):
should be some serious question that a bipartisan vote be
required in the House before it ever gets to the Senate.
Not suggesting that it would be a two thirds majority,
but when you know, I think could think seriously about
whether or not it's in the country's interests with the
future to prevent just this sort of thing from happening,
that rather than fifty be required, which would would mandate

(59:47):
in effect, that you would have to have, in an
example like this one, not only all Democrats in favor
of impeachment, but you'd have to have bipartisan support, meaning
some Republicans to join along with it. So you think
there's m legitimacy to President Trump's contention, this is a
kangaroo court. He's kind of dismissed the whole process. He said,
you know, on Fox News they say it's a shift show.

(01:00:10):
You know, look, I hear all that. I've been on
Fox News. I'm a regular guest. Um, I do not
think it helps anybody or our institutions in the country's
best interest to be disparaging the mission of the House
of Representatives. I don't and I won't do it. Um.
You know they have a tough job to do. Are

(01:00:32):
is there partisan excess on both sides? Sure? Did anybody
think that that wouldn't be the case? Go all the
way back to Alexander Hamilton's He certainly recognized that this
would inflame partisan passions on both sides as the result
of impeachment, particularly involving a president, which is why the
protection was built in that it would require two thirds

(01:00:54):
in the Senate to actually remove a president from office
and overturn an election. Whow it is you know under
liably true that a president is subject to impeachment all
during his term in office. This obviously was intended by
the founders to be an extraordinary thing and and reserved
for the most extreme situations. My view is that there's

(01:01:15):
not ever going to be given these facts unless something
magically changes, clear and unmistakable evidence of both a crime
that fits the definition of trees and bribery or other
high crimes and misdemeanors, and uh one sufficient enough that
it constitutes abuse of the president's office. And I do

(01:01:37):
firmly believe, based upon history and practice and frankly good
common sense, which was ultimately where the American people are
going to weigh in here, I think that unless you
have both, that's not sufficient to warrant the removal of
a president from office. I think that's the considered judgment
of history and the idea that someone put forth in

(01:01:59):
his testament me that everyone was in the loop, from
Mike Pence to Mike Pompeo. UM, not that significant in
your view, Well, I don't. I don't know what in
the loop. I listened to it carefully to see what
exactly do you mean by in the loop and how
much knowledge did they really have. I think that it

(01:02:20):
is a reflection of the fact that Ambassador Sondling thought,
based upon the direction given by the President that this contention,
which is frankly contrary to what you heard the day before,
UM from Lieutenant Colonel vinman Um. You know, when the
President directs that wants something done, UM, that makes it

(01:02:41):
not an outside channel. That is the President's prerogative to
choose the channel that he would like in order to
troll accomplish what it is he's trying to accomplish. Frankly,
what I thought I saw here was the President was
prepared to temporarily withhold foreign aid to see what the
Ukrainians would do. He didn't make a demand that they

(01:03:04):
commence investigations in exchange for that aid. That's not the
tenor of the call, which is going to be ultimately
the best, probably the only real evidence of the President's intent,
other than the limited color that UM Ambassador Sonlon was
able to add today, I don't think you're going to
hear from anybody else. I think to answer your question, yes,
would there be potential benefit to hear from UM, the

(01:03:28):
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, UM, from the from the
Acting Chief of Staff McK mulvaaney, and potentially other people
Rudy Giuliani among them. Sure, but I think there's understandably
a concern that the President is asserting, and I think
in most situations that should be respected. That unless you're
prepared to say that these people were co conspirators in

(01:03:49):
connection with the illegal activity, which I don't think you're
gonna hear anybody say. No, one's gonna stand up and
then say, you know, I was involved in a in
a corrupt bargain here, and I was a co conspirator,
and now let me tell you what it is I
did and what the president thought. That's the difference between, frankly,
this case and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. No one's
going to say, oh, yeah, I was, Yep, I was.

(01:04:09):
We were all we were all involved, and we were
all involved in a conspiracy to commit bribery. You're not
going to hear that. You're not going to hear an
acknowledgment that they thought that what they were doing was illegal,
because I don't think they thought what they were doing
was illegal. Do you believe that any Republican senators will
change their minds after today's testimony or do you think
they'll still feel supportive of the President minus the two

(01:04:32):
who seemed to be wobbily or have said otherwise. I
think to be careful, honestly, you don't know right until
after both there's a vote in the House and you
see what the partisan lineup looks like. I expect I
think the import of your question is I expect that
it will be probably entirely along party lines. I think

(01:04:55):
that will send a message to the Senate, which is
likely to have a rejoinder that is going to be
equally partisan the other way. So I guess that's a
sort of a roundabout way of answering your question. At
least at the moment. I don't expect that that's going
to change the result. And I think what that will mean,
um is that it will it will it will not

(01:05:16):
succeed in the Senate. I guess the only question is
how long and painful will that process be? Will there
be a full trial? I mean, this is different then
our most recent history, which is the Clinton impeachment. In
this situation, the president's party is in control of the
United States Senate, so they they they set the rules,
and they determine how much of a proceeding there there

(01:05:39):
will be. They may I have suggested that if if
really uh, this should be short circuited because it doesn't
have merit, that it would be appropriate to consider emotion
to dismiss, which could be And I understand that there
are political consequences to this, particularly among Republicans in districts
where or I'm sorry, in states where they're for re

(01:06:00):
election this year. UM. I can think of a few
of them that would be vulnerable to a process that
was arguably curtailed in the Senate. But I mean it,
certainly it was. There was a moment put it this way.
There was a motion filed during the Clinton impeachment to dismiss.
It was denied. This situation is different because Republicans control
the president's party control the United States Senate, and so
if they have a majority vote UM plus in the

(01:06:23):
event of a tie the vice president of vote, they
can they can move to dismiss for indefinitely adjourned the proceedings.
And do you think that might happen? I think that's
a politically dicey thing. I think the safer course is
probably to allow there to be a trial, uh and
and for the members to give considered judgment to the question.

(01:06:43):
I think most people want to appear to their constituents
as having carefully considered this to the extent that you
were to short circuited. I suppose there would be a
reasonable argument about you're not taking it seriously, and so
a backlash from Democratic opponents and upcoming elections from Democrats,
from voters, and you know, look, we're undeniably we're in
an election year now, right and a third of the

(01:07:04):
Senator is up. So that's obviously something that they have
to keep an eye on. And that brings me to
my final question, what impact do you think, Bob, this
will have on Could this embolden the president, helped him
in fact get re elected if it is a long
party lines, or do you think that people will think

(01:07:25):
he just behaved, there was a serious error in judgment
and his actions were questionable at at the very least.
I don't know too many things. But what I do
know from having a review the history of all of
the impeachments is that they have consequence, whether intended or unintended,

(01:07:47):
and sometimes those consequences can be quite severe. We really
don't know how the electorate will view this at the
end of the day. I think there's a reasonable question
as a result of so much of what has surface.
Whatever you think the merit of it is, is that
I think already this is seriously damaged the Vice president's
prospects to become the nominee for the Democratic Party. I

(01:08:09):
don't think you can really argue to the contrary. Do
you think it's that or do you think there are
other factors? There may be, There may be other factors.
And of course we ultimately don't know if he became
the nominee, how what the long you know, run effect
of that would be all the way through November of
next year. We also don't even know in the primary process,
you know, how this will play out. I suppose it

(01:08:30):
depends on how this plays out before the United States Senate,
presumably in January of next year. The short answer is
one of the dangers of impeachment is that you go
down this road you never really know where it leads.
I mean, I the fall out of the Clinton impeachment,
I don't know. There was an intended or unintended consequences
that I think that probably cost al Gore the election

(01:08:51):
against George W. Bush. You know, you can talk about
whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but
that was one of the consequences I think of impeachment.
Were there other factors, sure, but I don't think that
that was an insubstantial factor. I think that was a
significant effect. I don't know that that would have been
anticipated at the time of impeachment. Only you would only

(01:09:13):
know that with the benefit of history. And I think
the same will be true here. We're not really going
to know all of the consequences of an impeachment until
probably years later. One thing is certain. Only time will tell, right,
Like a lot of things in life, But this is
a big one, right, this is a big one. Well,
it's really interesting to get your perspective, Bob Ray, Thank

(01:09:33):
you so much for stopping by. Thanks very us pleasure. Yeah,
nice to see you. Nice to meet you. Same here.
Thanks so much everyone for listening to this episode of
Next Question. We hope we've provided you with some information
in some context so you can better understand what's going
on these days on Capitol Hill with the impeachment hearings

(01:09:56):
and what constitutes or doesn't high crime and misdemeanors. If
you'd like to know what's happening every morning and have
some original content in the form of interviews, and inspiring stories.
Please sign up for our daily morning newsletter called wake
Up Call by going to Katie Couric dot com and

(01:10:17):
follow me, of course, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Next
Question with Katie Curic is a production of I Heart
Radio and Katie Curic Media. The executive producers are Katie Kuric,
Lauren Bright Pacheco, Julie Douglas, and Tyler Klang. Our show
producers are Bethan Macaluso and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer
is Dylan Fagin. Associate producers are Emily Pinto and Derek Clemens.

(01:10:41):
Editing is by Dylan Fagin, Derrek Clements, and Lowell Berlante.
Our researcher is Barbara Keene. For more information on today's episode,
go to Katie Kurik dot com and follow us on
Twitter and Instagram at Katie Curk. For more podcasts from
My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast,

(01:11:04):
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Katie Couric

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}To impeach or not to impeach?