Speaker 1: Next Question with Katie Curic is a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and Katie Kuric Media. Hi everyone, I'm Katie Curic,
Speaker 1: and welcome to Next Question, where we try to understand
Speaker 1: the complicated world we're living in and the crazy things
Speaker 1: that are happening by asking questions and by listening to
Speaker 1: people who really know what they're talking about. At times,
Speaker 1: it may lead to some pretty uncomfortable conversations, but stick
Speaker 1: with me, everyone, let's all learn together. If you've gotten
Speaker 1: into the habit of scrolling past the NonStop breaking news
Speaker 1: alerts dominating your notifications, I get it. Headline fatigue is
Speaker 1: very real. But so many names and titles it's almost
Speaker 1: impossible to keep them straight, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: these latest impeachment hearings. That's why we're dedicating today's episode
Speaker 1: to all things impeachment. We'll talk about the arguments for
Speaker 1: and against, and why the country is almost split down
Speaker 1: the middle. So to impeach or not to impeach? That
Speaker 1: is our next question today. I'm talking with two legal
Speaker 1: experts who represent two different sides of the debate. First up,
Speaker 1: Neil Cartiel. Neil was the acting Solicitor General under President
Speaker 1: Obama and drafted the Justice Department rules that guided the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation. So yeah, when it comes to investigating government officials,
Speaker 1: Neil really knows what he's talking about. Neil welcome. So
Speaker 1: we've got a lot to talk about. But hot off
Speaker 1: the presses the US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Silan's testimony.
Speaker 1: You've called it every bit the bombshell we expected it
Speaker 1: to be. Why in your view was his testimony so
Speaker 1: particularly important because this was the guy that Trump pointed
Speaker 1: to to exonerate him. There's been a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: characters in this thing, Ambassador Taylor and Colonel Vinman and
Speaker 1: this and that, but there's been one guy throughout that
Speaker 1: President Trump has said is going to exonerate him, who
Speaker 1: even said I hope testifies, but he won't be able
Speaker 1: to testify because he won't get a fair shake in
Speaker 1: the Congress and so on. Well, he did testify today,
Speaker 1: and before he walked in the door, he had a
Speaker 1: twenty page written statement. And that twenty page written statement
Speaker 1: is remarkable. It says there's a whole section called there
Speaker 1: was a quid pro quote, which is of course exactly
Speaker 1: what for many months we've been hearing as the talking
Speaker 1: point of President Trump and his followers, so much so
Speaker 1: that actually Senator Lindsey Graham, who's one of the president's
Speaker 1: closest allies in Congress, said last month, well, if there's
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo then everything is different, then I
Speaker 1: want to look at it. But otherwise I don't see
Speaker 1: anything here. Well, today, Trump's own guy, the person that
Speaker 1: Trump nominated to be the ambassador to the European Union
Speaker 1: and the guy who Trump took and put in control
Speaker 1: of Ukrainian Ukrainian matters, it said, yes, there was a
Speaker 1: quid pro quote. There's lots of other stuff too, but
Speaker 1: that to me is you know, incredibly significant. That's the
Speaker 1: high water mark of the Trump defense. Before we talk
Speaker 1: about this testimony some more, were you surprised, Well, I
Speaker 1: wasn't surprised in the sense of a couple of things
Speaker 1: have happened recently. One is you've had Roger Stone get
Speaker 1: convicted essentially for obstructing justice in a congressional investigation. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think anyone could have seen that.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're solon last weekend and you're watching
Speaker 1: that conviction and thinking to yourself, boy, I've already been
Speaker 1: accused by at least one member of the House Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee for committing perjury. Um, and now all these people
Speaker 1: are coming forward and saying stuff that I didn't say
Speaker 1: in my earlier statements. Yeah, I'm in trouble. So for example,
Speaker 1: you know, he said he was supposed to detail his
Speaker 1: conversations with the President about Ukraine in his earlier deposition
Speaker 1: on October eight. There's not a word about this phone
Speaker 1: conversation that he had with President Trump on July and
Speaker 1: set the one in the restaurant exactly unsecured line on
Speaker 1: a mobile phone. Random. And that's just random. It's a
Speaker 1: total security threat. I mean, look, I mean when I
Speaker 1: was in the government, I wouldn't even talk on my
Speaker 1: home line at home land line because you know, you're
Speaker 1: always worried about interception. And the idea that you would
Speaker 1: be able to just sit in a restaurant in Kiev,
Speaker 1: of all places, and not just on a on a
Speaker 1: hard line, but on a cell phone and talking not
Speaker 1: just to any government official but the President of the
Speaker 1: United States is baffling. What's even more baffling, of course, Katie,
Speaker 1: is that he forgot about the conversation, like he just
Speaker 1: mysteriously never mentioned it to the investigator. So do you
Speaker 1: think he came forward or came clean to save his
Speaker 1: own hide? Basically, I mean, you couldn't watch any one
Speaker 1: minute of the hearing today and think anything else. This
Speaker 1: was a guy who was bent on self preservation. In
Speaker 1: his opening statement, he said he worked with Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: at the express direction of President Trump on matters involving Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So it was almost as if Rudy Giuliani was conducting
Speaker 1: a shadow government here right, Well, he was conducting a
Speaker 1: shadow a government, but at the president's request, So you know,
Speaker 1: that's what you know. Sanlon also said, so it wasn't
Speaker 1: as if this was a circumstance in which it was
Speaker 1: some rogue private attorney for President Trump who was conducting
Speaker 1: Ukrainian foreign policy. So can you conduct a shadow government
Speaker 1: at the president's past. It's like a secondary government. That's
Speaker 1: very legal and very cool to Trump. But I think
Speaker 1: in the real world, of course, presidents don't do such things. Um.
Speaker 1: It's an incredibly damaging and dangerous And you know, the
Speaker 1: reason why Katie I wrote this book Impeach is basically
Speaker 1: to make sure that everyone doesn't focus on these little
Speaker 1: twists and turns every day in this story of you
Speaker 1: know what Sonlon said one day or what Giuliani said
Speaker 1: another day. There's like a one central narrative, and it's
Speaker 1: actually one that the Republicans in President Trump doesn't disagree with.
Speaker 1: And that central narrative which comes out in that July
Speaker 1: in script in which the President himself released between a
Speaker 1: conversation between him and the President of Ukraine, is the
Speaker 1: president of Ukraine it's wanting this aid, this military aid.
Speaker 1: And President Trump says, well, wait, though, I need a
Speaker 1: favor first. And that is the idea that a president
Speaker 1: or you know, our nation's most powerful official would use
Speaker 1: congressionally appropriated aid or a White House meeting in order
Speaker 1: to advance his own political ends. Um, there's nothing I
Speaker 1: think that is a better definition of what is an
Speaker 1: impeachable offense. Well, let me yea, so help us understand
Speaker 1: this as as the expert you are, professor, Um, you
Speaker 1: know what laws? Were there actual laws that were broken?
Speaker 1: Even if you think it's grossly inappropriate or just obnoxious
Speaker 1: or weird or self serving, was there an actual law
Speaker 1: broken here? Yes, but that's actually not the question when
Speaker 1: you think about impeachment. So there are Constitution and this,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole chapter about this in my book
Speaker 1: that the our Constitution says you impeach for what are
Speaker 1: called high crimes and misdemeanors. And that's a phrase of
Speaker 1: art the founders used, not to mean just actual crimes.
Speaker 1: But the core thing that our founders are getting at
Speaker 1: is is there an abuse of government power. And our
Speaker 1: founders didn't actually even want to put impeachment in the constitution.
Speaker 1: Many of them didn't, and um, you know, uh, And
Speaker 1: ultimately what one the day was a series of Founders
Speaker 1: Alexander Hamilton and others who said, well, what if a president,
Speaker 1: a sitting president, goes and tries to get help from
Speaker 1: a foreign government to win an election. That's their example
Speaker 1: of impeachment. Now at the time, that's not criminal. It
Speaker 1: is now actually, and I'll talk about that in a minute.
Speaker 1: By the time, there was no statute I get criminal
Speaker 1: statute on bribery and the like, but everyone understood that
Speaker 1: to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Today we actually
Speaker 1: do have statutes that prohibit bribery, and this is again
Speaker 1: a textbook definition of that. When did that come about?
Speaker 1: The bribery statutes? I think I've been around more than
Speaker 1: a hundred years, um, And so they've been they've been
Speaker 1: around for a long time. And what they do is
Speaker 1: they they criminalize asking for a thing of value in
Speaker 1: order to get a certain government act. And that's what
Speaker 1: a bribery of any government are conducted by any government official,
Speaker 1: including the president exactly. So if you seek a bribe,
Speaker 1: if you're the president and said, and the president says, hey, Katie,
Speaker 1: you know that ambassadorship? Great, you know, if you'll donate
Speaker 1: you know, a hundred thousand dollars to my campaign, Um,
Speaker 1: I will make you ambassador. That is him seeking a
Speaker 1: thing of value hundred thousand dollars from you in exchange
Speaker 1: for an official act, namely your ambassadorship. And here he
Speaker 1: did the same thing. Hey Ukraine, I'll give you this money. Um,
Speaker 1: that Congress is appropriated, but you've got to do a
Speaker 1: favor for me first. Though. Isn't it an implicit understanding
Speaker 1: that big donors become ambassadors? I mean, isn't that kind
Speaker 1: of an unspoken bride. Well, there's a there's a dance,
Speaker 1: a complicated dance that's done if you do it and
Speaker 1: is literally quit pro quo and exchange. It's it's illegal.
Speaker 1: But if you do it as the way many people do,
Speaker 1: thank you, wink wink, I really appreciate it. There might
Speaker 1: be something really great for you if I get electric.
Speaker 1: Sometimes wink winks will get to the point of being
Speaker 1: actually criminal. But for that most part, what you have
Speaker 1: is fairly sophisticated actors in this kind of wealthy ambassadorial circle,
Speaker 1: of which looks like Sondlon traveled in donating a million dollars.
Speaker 1: And I'm not suggesting at all that you know, that
Speaker 1: kind of thing happens. You know, someone donates a lot
Speaker 1: and some good plum job comes along for them later.
Speaker 1: That's very different than this, which is the president himself saying, hey,
Speaker 1: if you want the foreign aid, you know what you
Speaker 1: gotta do. You gotta go investigate my chief political rival.
Speaker 1: Why don't you think the president pleaded ignorance instead of
Speaker 1: claiming this call was perfect. Why wouldn't he just say,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't think this was a problem. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, only he can answer that question. But but
Speaker 1: one point of speculation is this, that call took place
Speaker 1: on July. One day before on July, something pretty significant happened.
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller, who had been investigating the president for almost
Speaker 1: two years, testified in Congress, and I would say didn't
Speaker 1: testify particularly clearly. Um, there was a lot of garble
Speaker 1: and so on, and the president, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: and you just it comes across even in this fake transcript.
Speaker 1: It's not a full transcript. We don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: was said, but even just what they released, it really
Speaker 1: shows kind of a person who has no appreciation for
Speaker 1: the rule of law. I mean, we've seen this in
Speaker 1: other ways, but I think on that day in particular,
Speaker 1: he was really feeling it explained though, why you think,
Speaker 1: you know, if if Muller was sort of garbled and
Speaker 1: didn't seem to come down that hard on the president, right,
Speaker 1: why would he have done this? Why would the president
Speaker 1: of that? Because at that moment in time, because it
Speaker 1: seemed to me that Mueller was sort of wishy washy
Speaker 1: as everyone said. Yeah. So because of that, I think
Speaker 1: the President felt like, Okay, I can do I can
Speaker 1: do this kind of award by Muller Exactly, I can
Speaker 1: do this kind of stuff. I mean, Trump's instincts all
Speaker 1: along have been pretty much to not respect the rule
Speaker 1: of law, to not respect institutions. That pushed back against them,
Speaker 1: to call them never Trumpers or whatever at you know,
Speaker 1: labels he wants to use. So that's always been his
Speaker 1: kind of m oh. But I think on that day
Speaker 1: in particular, he must have felt particularly empowered. You know,
Speaker 1: it was interesting that Salmon said that he really wanted
Speaker 1: the investigation to be announced, almost more than he wanted
Speaker 1: the investigation to take place, which is pretty significant. He
Speaker 1: wanted to do the damage and kind of a whisper
Speaker 1: campaign almost against Joe Biden as he was as he
Speaker 1: runs for president and against Hunter Biden and suggests this
Speaker 1: sort of scandal. Katie, I'm so glad you brought that up,
Speaker 1: because to me, that was one of the most important
Speaker 1: things in today's testimony. Ambassador Snlon said that what Trump
Speaker 1: wanted was the announcement of an investigation by the Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: not them actually doing it. Now, you know, I've been
Speaker 1: a law enforcement in two different administrations. The idea that
Speaker 1: you're if you're conducting a criminal investigation, you would announce it.
Speaker 1: Of course, not that's the last thing you do, because
Speaker 1: you want to do all the interviewing and all the
Speaker 1: confidential inquiries first in order to catch people in perjury
Speaker 1: and things like that, and so you know, they're the
Speaker 1: president has been saying this is about corruption, this is
Speaker 1: why he did this corruption in general. But when drilled
Speaker 1: down and asked and people say, well, did you ever
Speaker 1: care about corruption in any other country? There's a hundred
Speaker 1: ninety four other countries you ever know Ukraine? And with
Speaker 1: respect to Ukraine, did you ever care about any other
Speaker 1: kind of corruption besides this one thing? If acting Vice
Speaker 1: President Biden? No, At some point this starts to smell.
Speaker 1: It's not a particularly powerful story. Let's talk about just
Speaker 1: because I want this to be impeachment one oh one
Speaker 1: for people. Um, But before we talk about sort of
Speaker 1: the nuts and bolts of the process. I think that
Speaker 1: even the suggestion of impropriety by Hunter Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: as part of this Ukrainian oil company Barisma. Um, I
Speaker 1: think it's something that that President Trump is very good
Speaker 1: at sort of putting things out in the ether and
Speaker 1: kind of letting it kind of enter people's psyches in
Speaker 1: Layman's terms. Is there any there there, Neil with Hunter Biden? Well,
Speaker 1: because it does, it does sound a little fun. Yeah. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean in the book, I say, you know, I
Speaker 1: have a whole section about did Hunter Biden and Biden
Speaker 1: do something wrong. I think you did something, you know,
Speaker 1: morally wrong, not legally wrong. But the idea that you
Speaker 1: take a job because of who your dad is, I
Speaker 1: have a problem with that. So it's a little sketchy,
Speaker 1: and it's a little sketchy. I don't think it means
Speaker 1: that you go in launch some secret investigation and hold
Speaker 1: up congressionally appropriated aid and do all the things that
Speaker 1: the President did. That's you know, even if Biden did
Speaker 1: something that was let's say, criminal, which I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone agrees that there there was that on the part
Speaker 1: of the sun And indeed, even Trump's own witness Vulgar
Speaker 1: yesterday testified that I've known Biden for twenty four years
Speaker 1: and he would never do something that would compromise his
Speaker 1: values to this nation's interests. So, you know, but even
Speaker 1: if you put all that aside and said, Okay, Trump's right,
Speaker 1: there was something really bad that was done here that
Speaker 1: would never justify you going and deputizing your private attorney
Speaker 1: to Rudy Giuliani, to go to another country and to
Speaker 1: threaten and hold up military aid that our taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: have appropriated for the nation's interests and the Ukraine really
Speaker 1: needs right to protect itself from guess who, Russia. Exactly,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad you brought that up, because again Trump's
Speaker 1: witness yesterday, Ambassador Vulcar said exactly that said, look, I'm
Speaker 1: opposed to the idea of holding up to say this
Speaker 1: aid is really important encountering Russian aggression in the region.
Speaker 1: So once again we see this thing in which the
Speaker 1: president is just out doing favors for Russia. Now, I
Speaker 1: don't know that that motivated him here. It's probably he
Speaker 1: had more personal motivations here in terms of a political agenda,
Speaker 1: but it does demonstrate the stakes here in which you
Speaker 1: have a president who cares more about himself, who cares
Speaker 1: more about his re election than what the taxpayers and
Speaker 1: Congress have appropriated in the nation's interest. We're going to
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We'll have more from Neil Cartiel
Speaker 1: when we come back. Solon said also in his testimony,
Speaker 1: everyone was in the loop, referring to senior administration officials,
Speaker 1: including Mike Pompeio, the Secretary of State, Vice President Mike
Speaker 1: Penn's acting chief of staff, Nick bolvany Um. So have
Speaker 1: they been implicated and what might the repercussions be for them.
Speaker 1: I mean, these guys aren't going to be impeached. What
Speaker 1: will happen to them anything? Uh? They I do think
Speaker 1: things will happen to them. So Solon's testimony today really
Speaker 1: was a kind of detonation that he basically took the view, Look,
Speaker 1: if I'm going down, I'm picking a lot of other
Speaker 1: people with me. Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff, Bolton,
Speaker 1: the former National Security Advisor, Um, you know, Pompeio, the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, Uh, you know, and the list goes
Speaker 1: on and on and quit sort of. And and didn't
Speaker 1: he direct the White House lawyers to be notified about this?
Speaker 1: I mean, he clearly felt uncomfortable with this. Correct, that's
Speaker 1: what the reporting says. But you know, I think one
Speaker 1: of the hard things about this, Katie, is we don't
Speaker 1: know because the President has gagged every one of these
Speaker 1: people from coming forward and telling the truth to the Congress.
Speaker 1: Can you do that? I mean, can't they subpoena these folks?
Speaker 1: They can, but it's going to take some time in
Speaker 1: the courts. And I think the Democrats have taken the view,
Speaker 1: which I actually agree with, is they've got enough evidence
Speaker 1: now to impeach and do we want to delay things
Speaker 1: more and more in the courts. Now, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a decision coming down in a few days by the
Speaker 1: d C Court on some privilege issues, and it may
Speaker 1: open the door for Bolton to testify in his own
Speaker 1: And I think it's notable that a lot of the
Speaker 1: testimony we've heard over the last week, like from Colonel
Speaker 1: Vinman or Ambassador Yanovov Yanevovich and people like that, are
Speaker 1: all folks have come forward despite the President's gag order
Speaker 1: and said I'm just going to tell the truth and
Speaker 1: might do that. I think he might, you know, I
Speaker 1: think for the courts decide I do. I mean, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, Bolton is a lawyer, um,
Speaker 1: and you know he's far more conservative than I am.
Speaker 1: But I do think that in you know, deep in
Speaker 1: his heart is a respect for the kind of common
Speaker 1: calling we have as a profession, the idea that you know,
Speaker 1: when you're a witness to important events, um, you tell
Speaker 1: them to the American people and let the chips fall
Speaker 1: where they may. Meanwhile, Ambassador son Land said he never
Speaker 1: heard directly from President Trump that the military aid was
Speaker 1: conditioned on an announcement of investigations, saying that assumption was
Speaker 1: his own personal guests. So is that enough? Well, I
Speaker 1: mean if he never heard those exact words, Hey, if
Speaker 1: this doesn't happen, there won't be foreign aid and ps
Speaker 1: that White House visit will be canceled. If this were
Speaker 1: the If the case against President Trump was built all
Speaker 1: around the son Land testimony, I think it certainly wouldn't
Speaker 1: be enough. The problem for Trump is Sonland is not
Speaker 1: the is not the prosecution witness. He's the defense witness.
Speaker 1: So he's the best story Trump has got, and all
Speaker 1: he's got is well the President directly say this, but
Speaker 1: everyone knew and everyone was in the loop on exactly
Speaker 1: what was going on. What do you think? What do
Speaker 1: you think President Trump was thinking when he watched this,
Speaker 1: If he watched it, even though he claims he wasn't
Speaker 1: watching it, right, Yeah, I I don't think that there's
Speaker 1: a way anyone can watch this, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: if you're the president, and watch this being said about
Speaker 1: you without having a deep pit in your stomach. And
Speaker 1: I think that's why we see the more and more
Speaker 1: lashing out by this president. You know, um, but at
Speaker 1: some point he's going to have to face the facts.
Speaker 1: And the facts are not based on Sun Len's testimony alone,
Speaker 1: but on that July transcript in which the quid pro
Speaker 1: quo is right there. It's not you know, I need
Speaker 1: a favor from you, though, That's what the president says,
Speaker 1: and so you know, there isn't really a way for
Speaker 1: him to walk away from it. Well this really mattered, though, Neil.
Speaker 1: That's the question. Let's talk short term and long term.
Speaker 1: Short term being uh, if he is impeached a trial
Speaker 1: in the Senate, is there anything that we heard today
Speaker 1: that might move the needle for Republican senators to vote
Speaker 1: to convict President Trump or for some of them to
Speaker 1: basically abandoned the president. I think so far they're only two.
Speaker 1: I do think that as senators go and look at
Speaker 1: the evidence and ask themselves, you know the question that
Speaker 1: I put in my book, which is, you know, just
Speaker 1: flipped the parties around. Pretend this is what we do
Speaker 1: with law students in their first year. You say, everyone's
Speaker 1: got certain biases when they walk in and you say, well,
Speaker 1: just pretend you're representing the defendant instead of the plain
Speaker 1: if if you are planiff focused and vice versa. I
Speaker 1: think the same thing has to be put to the Senators,
Speaker 1: and they've never actually been asked this simple question, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, if the shoes on the other foot, if
Speaker 1: it's President Obama who went and got secret help from
Speaker 1: a foreign governmor tried to do so and held up
Speaker 1: congressionally appropriated aid or doled out White House meetings to
Speaker 1: countries that investigated his political rivals, would you sit by
Speaker 1: and say, oh, yeah, that's cool, he can be president.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that, you know, a senator could
Speaker 1: look at herself for himself in the mirror and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the kind of government I want. And I know
Speaker 1: there are so many Americans who have been disparited over
Speaker 1: the last three years as Congresses look the other way
Speaker 1: on this and that, But we've never actually forced them
Speaker 1: to go and cast that vote. And here it will
Speaker 1: be one of the most solemn votes I'll ever cast
Speaker 1: in their lives, most solemn things they ever do. And
Speaker 1: can they really do that? I don't know, um, but
Speaker 1: I have faith that in the Senate and that they
Speaker 1: will study this, think about it, ask the question that
Speaker 1: I just asked, What if the shoe were on the
Speaker 1: other foot, and reach the right judgment. I don't mean
Speaker 1: to be cynical, but politics seems to be the number
Speaker 1: one priority for many these Republican senators. So why do
Speaker 1: you believe that suddenly they'll have an epiphany and uh,
Speaker 1: sort of a crisis of confidence in the president and
Speaker 1: their conscious consciences will emerge at this moment in time. Well,
Speaker 1: I have to think that two things. One is I
Speaker 1: have to think when you go into public office, you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of ways to make money or
Speaker 1: get power. I think you do it for some sense
Speaker 1: of the public good. And so, um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think I think at first you do, and then it's
Speaker 1: all about staying in power, don't you But maybe but
Speaker 1: even if so, Um, the idea of associating yourself with this,
Speaker 1: with this kind of lawlessness, I don't know makes for
Speaker 1: very good politics, um in in the long term. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, we're seeing this election after election, the
Speaker 1: elections just you know, last week, you know, again and
Speaker 1: again the president is losing. And I do think one
Speaker 1: of the reasons he's losing is because of this corrosive
Speaker 1: view about the law. So even if the Senate does
Speaker 1: not vote to convict you think he there will be
Speaker 1: hell to pay in November President Trump. Oh my, yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I I you know, I understand there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people out there who say we should
Speaker 1: have defeat President Trump at the ballot box and not
Speaker 1: impeach and removed. And I think, look, I think that
Speaker 1: you know, with this kind of record, there's no way
Speaker 1: President Trump could be re elected. Um, you know so.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I think worth
Speaker 1: setting something here that's far bigger than just the next election,
Speaker 1: which of course has moment to stakes. But we're setting
Speaker 1: the ground rules for what our American experiment is all about,
Speaker 1: what our democracy means. And if we don't do this,
Speaker 1: if we say a president can go and in secret
Speaker 1: try and hold up foreign aid to investigate his chief rivals,
Speaker 1: and you know, what are we saying about our elections?
Speaker 1: But Neil, a new NPR PBS News Our poll found
Speaker 1: that while most Americans are paying attention to these hearings,
Speaker 1: less than a third say or you know, around a
Speaker 1: third say their minds could be changed. So there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who say, we don't care whatever happens,
Speaker 1: that it's a witch hunt. You know, they've bought the
Speaker 1: president's talking points and by the way. I watched Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity last night, and it's almost as if we live
Speaker 1: in two different countries or there are two different stories.
Speaker 1: If you have a steady diet of Fox News, you
Speaker 1: have a very different opinion about what's going on in
Speaker 1: Washington right now. Yeah. No, Look, I my argument is
Speaker 1: not that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram are going to
Speaker 1: change their minds. So you know, they've got a certain,
Speaker 1: you know, set of incentives to say the things that
Speaker 1: they say. I'm talking about Fox viewers, and I do
Speaker 1: have more faith in those viewers and more generally the
Speaker 1: viewers across the American public and listeners and and so on.
Speaker 1: I'm not ready to give up on the idea that
Speaker 1: we live in such two different countries that there is
Speaker 1: no truth anymore, or that we shouldn't ask these questions
Speaker 1: and we throw in the towel because we're worried about
Speaker 1: a you know, splintered, hyperpartisan environment. I mean, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, every time America has transcended that
Speaker 1: we transcended it in seventeen seventy six and seventeen eighty seven,
Speaker 1: in eighteen sixty six and nineteen thirty seven, and the
Speaker 1: civil rights movement, marriage equality. So many other times people
Speaker 1: have said, Katie, the kind of stuff you're saying, and
Speaker 1: you know, I know you're just voicing, you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of the frustrations of a lot of people and
Speaker 1: views of a lot of people. But there's also this
Speaker 1: other counter tradition in American history. You know, in the book,
Speaker 1: I talked about the Andrew Johnson impeachment, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Johnson was a terrible president and racist and and so on,
Speaker 1: but he was impeached not for that. He was impeached
Speaker 1: for a violation of the tenure of office at the
Speaker 1: technical violation. And it was a really close vote in
Speaker 1: the Senate and Senator Ross, who hated at the Senor
Speaker 1: Russell was from camp Us and he hated President Johnson,
Speaker 1: but nonetheless cast the impeachment vote, the deciding vote the
Speaker 1: other way to not impeach, because he said that's not
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. It maybe the right thing
Speaker 1: to do for my party, but it's not the right
Speaker 1: thing to do for the country. And time and again
Speaker 1: we've seen examples of that, and um, we won't know
Speaker 1: unless we try. And um, you know, that's I'm proud
Speaker 1: that to see our Congress trying and to force some
Speaker 1: attention by this administration to the rule of law. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you if you could break it down, how
Speaker 1: many articles of impeachment are there right now? And you know,
Speaker 1: how is this different from a criminal trial. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: the main differences are that it's not, of course about crimes.
Speaker 1: So so that's the first thing it's about, really, is
Speaker 1: there an abusive power by the president. Is the president
Speaker 1: putting his nation his personal interests above those of the nation.
Speaker 1: That's really I think the best definition of what a
Speaker 1: high crime and misdemeanor and that can come into sort
Speaker 1: of shapes and forms exactly, and so here I think
Speaker 1: they're basically kind of three buckets that of offenses when
Speaker 1: we think about Ukraine, and you know, there may be
Speaker 1: others involving the Moller investigation and so on. I personally
Speaker 1: don't think Congress should get into all of that here,
Speaker 1: but you know, because there's some indication that he might
Speaker 1: have lied on his questionnaire exactly. The the House General
Speaker 1: Counsel this week in the d C Court said they
Speaker 1: believe that there may be evidence that the President lie
Speaker 1: de Muller and that, of course is itself a criminal offense,
Speaker 1: So there may be other things going on. We'll have
Speaker 1: to see. Um. In terms of the process, there is
Speaker 1: a big difference. I mean, the House does what's called impeachment,
Speaker 1: which is like the formal indictment of the president, like
Speaker 1: saying he did something wrong, and that is just by
Speaker 1: a majority vote, and that's kind of like a grand
Speaker 1: jury in the criminal context. And then you've got if
Speaker 1: the House impeaches, then it goes to the Senate for
Speaker 1: the punishment phase and uh, and the kind of trial
Speaker 1: about what, you know, what what the president did and
Speaker 1: is it, you know, a convictible offense. Um. And there
Speaker 1: it's a two thirds vote of the Senate to convict.
Speaker 1: And unlike a criminal trial in which it's a jury
Speaker 1: of twelve peers who don't have any prejudices about the case,
Speaker 1: this is decided by a hundred senators, many of whom
Speaker 1: have already said certain things about their view of the case.
Speaker 1: So it is quite different in that sense. It's a
Speaker 1: mix of a legal proceeding and a political proceeding. Would
Speaker 1: President Trump ever be asked to go to the Senate
Speaker 1: to testify? Oh? Absolutely, And would he be compelled to
Speaker 1: I think you can't formally compel him in the sense of, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, attached criminal sanctions to him. But you can
Speaker 1: create an adverse inference. You can say, look, Mr President,
Speaker 1: if you don't come forward and tell the truth, we'll
Speaker 1: take that as an admission that these accusations against you
Speaker 1: in these articles of impeachment are accurate. And you would
Speaker 1: ask before about what that case would look like. What
Speaker 1: are those articles of impeachment? And it seems to me
Speaker 1: Article one is kind of abuse of power, the president
Speaker 1: saying I am going to cut off congressionally appropriated aid
Speaker 1: aida that our taxpayers approved to another country to benefit myself.
Speaker 1: Count Number two is bribery, the idea that we were
Speaker 1: talking about earlier, seeking something of value for yourself in
Speaker 1: order to exchange in order for the performance of an official,
Speaker 1: and it would be called bribery absolutely. And indeed, one
Speaker 1: of the interesting things, Katie, is the Constitution actually says
Speaker 1: there are defines impeachable offenses as treason, bribery, or other
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors. It's actually in the Constitution itself
Speaker 1: as one of the two things our founders said was impeachable,
Speaker 1: and cited by Alexander Hamilton as you said earlier about
Speaker 1: a foreign exactly, is that in the Constitution too, Well,
Speaker 1: what's in the Constitution is just the word bribery. No,
Speaker 1: the foreign nation. What you mentioned that Alexander Hamilton's used
Speaker 1: as an example, So it's an example of what is
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense, but itself is not in the text
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. Like much of the Constitution, they used
Speaker 1: more capacious words like other high crimes and misdemeanors. And
Speaker 1: then we have methods to try and understand what those
Speaker 1: words are here in some of Hamilton's writings exactly. So
Speaker 1: Hamilton's writings in the Federalist papers. Indeed, Federalist sight, I
Speaker 1: think is the critical one. Um, they make this argument
Speaker 1: about foreign interference, you're sure it's not and then uh,
Speaker 1: and then the last article of impeachment. And I think
Speaker 1: today we saw a lot of evidence of this is
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, the idea that the president is gagging
Speaker 1: all these witnesses from coming forward. He's saying no documents
Speaker 1: can come. And we started this interview, Katie, with you
Speaker 1: asking about the Ambassador Solilon testimony it six and its significance,
Speaker 1: and we've talked a lot about the substantial significance, like
Speaker 1: what did Simon say about Trump and Giuliani and so on,
Speaker 1: But there was a procedural significance to what he said today,
Speaker 1: which is really important. He said, and again, this is
Speaker 1: Trump's guy. He's saying, the President is acting wrongly by
Speaker 1: not allowing me to look at my emails, not provide
Speaker 1: them to you, not provide my call records. He's preventing
Speaker 1: me from all of this. And that's preventing the American
Speaker 1: people from learning the truth. And that is quintessential obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice. And and what could happen to Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: I'm just curious. Oh heavens me, I would not want
Speaker 1: to be. I mean, if in fact he did all
Speaker 1: the things he's being accused of doing in the course
Speaker 1: of these hearings and by various witnesses, what will happen
Speaker 1: to him? Well, so, first of all, it's not just
Speaker 1: what he's being accused of in the hearings, which are
Speaker 1: about you know, this part of Ukraine and Barisma and
Speaker 1: all that. There's a separate criminal investigation in the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New York, his former office that he used
Speaker 1: to head, about whether or not he committed various cribes,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, we don't know exactly what they are, um,
Speaker 1: but you know, so he's facing legal liability there. Separately,
Speaker 1: now he's got a bunch to worry about here, um,
Speaker 1: with respect to the Ukrainian foreign aid scandal and so on.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think that there's a deep question
Speaker 1: here whether Giuliani is going to say, oh, I did
Speaker 1: this all on my own. Trump wasn't involved, hoping perhaps
Speaker 1: for a pardon or something like that, or he's going
Speaker 1: to say, hey, I wasn't a rogue agent here. I
Speaker 1: was doing all of this at the President's best, which
Speaker 1: Mr Salmon today I think suggested was the truth. And
Speaker 1: is Roger Stone going to be pardoned? Who knows? Um?
Speaker 1: I would think so. I would think that a president,
Speaker 1: when there was that mountain of evidence from his own
Speaker 1: Justice Department to convict Rogers own, any decent president could
Speaker 1: not impeach, it could not pardon Roger Stone. But this
Speaker 1: is a president who pardoned Joe R. Pio, who pardoned
Speaker 1: a niche to Suza, who pardoned three war criminals just
Speaker 1: last week against the advice of his own Defense department.
Speaker 1: So anything goes with respect to this guy. And his
Speaker 1: abuse of the pardon power. You made the case that
Speaker 1: President Trump's efforts to hinder the House investigation is as
Speaker 1: much of a threat to the rule of law as
Speaker 1: the case against him, and that it quote strikes at
Speaker 1: the heart of American democracy. Explain that, yes, I wrote it.
Speaker 1: I've be in the New York Times last week, which said, look,
Speaker 1: we're gonna obviously all focus on these witnesses and what
Speaker 1: what happened with respect to Ukraine. But there is a
Speaker 1: kind of more fundamental thing. And you know, I saw
Speaker 1: it in two different tours in the government, which is
Speaker 1: when the Congress of the United States asks you, how
Speaker 1: are you doing your job? Why did you take certain
Speaker 1: actions and the like? You know, that's a sovereign and
Speaker 1: solemn obligation for you to go and explain what you
Speaker 1: did to the people. Uh. And this president has thumbed
Speaker 1: his nose at Congress, has said it's so illegitimate that
Speaker 1: he won't even bother turning over a single piece of
Speaker 1: paper or a single witness. Um. And again I asked
Speaker 1: to go back to that kind of yardstick rule shoe.
Speaker 1: On the other foot, if this were a democratic president,
Speaker 1: how would the Republican senators and congresswoman and men feel
Speaker 1: about someone who stime me that. I mean even at
Speaker 1: the worst, you know, an air culture was accused of,
Speaker 1: you know, in Fast and Furious of various things. But
Speaker 1: he turned over thousands and thousands of pages of material.
Speaker 1: That was the only time President Obama invoked executive privilege
Speaker 1: and his time in office. This president, you know, invokes
Speaker 1: it kind of like candy, you know, whenever and does
Speaker 1: it wantonly um and uh, you know, you'd have to
Speaker 1: go back to Nixon, to someone who did it with
Speaker 1: any frequency approaching approaching this president. But this president has
Speaker 1: done that and squared it many many times over. Do
Speaker 1: you see anyway the impeachment hearings Neil could help the president,
Speaker 1: could galvanize his base and that people might buy in
Speaker 1: the idea that he's being unfairly targeted. And note that
Speaker 1: these people never thought his election was legitimate. YadA, YadA, YadA.
Speaker 1: I think that's Katie, with all respect, the wrong question.
Speaker 1: I don't think we can do this because of politics.
Speaker 1: I think we have to do this, and I think
Speaker 1: this is where the Congress of the House is moving
Speaker 1: because there is no other option when you have a
Speaker 1: president who betrays the nation's interest and tries to do
Speaker 1: in secret, and then gets caught and then doesn't even
Speaker 1: admit to it and says he'd do it again, he'd
Speaker 1: do it with China. You've got a president who's a fundamental,
Speaker 1: existential threat to the rule of law, to everything the
Speaker 1: country is built on. And if you lose elections over it,
Speaker 1: so be it. Lose the election, because there's something far
Speaker 1: greater at stake here, which is the operation and soul
Speaker 1: of American democracy. You're a purist, but I would say
Speaker 1: that there are plenty of Democrats in the House who
Speaker 1: really weighed the political ramifications of this pretty long and hard. Neil, Sure, No,
Speaker 1: I am not. I'm not denying any of that. And
Speaker 1: you know, maybe that it's not bad politics for them
Speaker 1: or good politics or whatever. I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: is some things have to rise above politics. And as
Speaker 1: your listeners think about, you know, how do we think
Speaker 1: about this question that we're about to embark in as
Speaker 1: a nation over the next two months, what should we
Speaker 1: do about the president? I think they have to ask,
Speaker 1: you know, do they really want a system in which
Speaker 1: a president can do this and put the politics aside
Speaker 1: At least try to. It's, if nothing else, a thought experiment, because, Um,
Speaker 1: the shoe will be on the other. Life is long
Speaker 1: and the country hopefully has many, many years ahead. And
Speaker 1: if we allow this president to do this, another president
Speaker 1: can do it, and that president may not be one
Speaker 1: that you politically agree with. I know, I'm asking you
Speaker 1: to speculate, and that's something that current and former government
Speaker 1: officials hate to do. Colin values to always tell me, Katie,
Speaker 1: I will not speculate on that, but can you give
Speaker 1: us an idea of the timeline and what ultimately you
Speaker 1: think is going to happen? Neil, sure. So I'm not
Speaker 1: afraid to speculate here. So I wrote a whole book
Speaker 1: that's about this. Um and Uh. I think that by
Speaker 1: the end of December. By December, I suspect we'll have
Speaker 1: a vote in the House of Representatives and Merry Christmas.
Speaker 1: And I do think that the president will be impeached
Speaker 1: and representatives. It will then go to a trial in
Speaker 1: the Senate in January. And January, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the Senate rules require kind of an immediate trial to
Speaker 1: move quickly. It required them to be I think in
Speaker 1: session six days a week. UM and you know, some senators,
Speaker 1: Republican senators have said it maybe as long as six
Speaker 1: to eight weeks. I'm not sure that that's right. I
Speaker 1: think it's probably the House has already taken a lot
Speaker 1: of testimony, so I'm not sure that it will be
Speaker 1: that long. But I again, I hope that it's a
Speaker 1: thorough serious trial that everyone can see exactly what happened,
Speaker 1: because the president's story has been shifting while this has
Speaker 1: been going on in the House of Representatives and in
Speaker 1: the early stages in the investigation. I mean, first it
Speaker 1: was I didn't do it. Then it was it's all
Speaker 1: perfect and beautiful. Then it was no, it's all hearsay,
Speaker 1: and you know, there's no firsthand witnesses. Now that the
Speaker 1: first hand witnesses have come forward, we're back to it's
Speaker 1: beautiful and perfect. Um. And I don't really know that
Speaker 1: guy som Blander whomever. So there's been a bunch of
Speaker 1: shifting stories, um. And once it goes to trial in
Speaker 1: the Senate, I suspect that they're gonna have to drill
Speaker 1: down and pick one. And at that point, I do
Speaker 1: think the eyes of the nation focus on the question.
Speaker 1: The eyes in the Senate, they look at themselves in
Speaker 1: the mirror and say what's the right thing to do here?
Speaker 1: And I think that the president will be removed from office?
Speaker 1: Do wow? So you think he'll be gone and Mike
Speaker 1: Pence will run for president? I I don't know, but
Speaker 1: you know you know that very well. Maybe or maybe
Speaker 1: they have something else. Wow, Well, fasten your seatbelt. Do
Speaker 1: you ever wish that you had waited to write your
Speaker 1: book and impeach the case against Donald Trump? Since there's
Speaker 1: so much happened since you I'm sure handed this in
Speaker 1: no actually their verse. I mean I wrote the book
Speaker 1: because I knew a lot was going to happen. I
Speaker 1: knew there'd be all these witnesses coming forward, and I
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that Trump does, and
Speaker 1: you actually started today's session by talking about it, is
Speaker 1: the flood of information that happens. And it's so hard
Speaker 1: to separate the wheat from the chaff, and remember what's important.
Speaker 1: In the book, it's just a hundred fifty pages is
Speaker 1: just designed to say, here's the central narrative. And yes,
Speaker 1: there's going to be any number of details and people
Speaker 1: saying this and that and taking pot shots at each other,
Speaker 1: but here's the central narrative. That central narrative is not
Speaker 1: going to change. Like you know I've done. I've argued
Speaker 1: thirty nine cases at the Supreme Court and one hundreds
Speaker 1: of other cases. You know, in a case and the
Speaker 1: basics architecture of the case is done. That basic architecture
Speaker 1: the case is done now and that's what the book
Speaker 1: lays out. And go back to those three articles of impeachment,
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution, abuse of power, bribery,
Speaker 1: and obstruction of justice. Neo Cartiel, Neil, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for helping us understand all this and make some sense
Speaker 1: of it. Thank you. It's an honor to be with you.
Speaker 1: Not everyone agrees with Neo Cartiel. Up next, we're going
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with a vocal critic of the
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry, former Independent Council Robert Ray. Robert Ray made
Speaker 1: a name for himself leading the Whitewater investigation as the
Speaker 1: former head of the Office of the Independent Council. He
Speaker 1: recently wrote a piece for Time magazine arguing that while
Speaker 1: President Trump may have acted inappropriately, his actions do not
Speaker 1: meet the constitution strict requirements for impeachment, which say that treason, briberary,
Speaker 1: or other high crimes and misdemeanors need to be proven
Speaker 1: in order to remove a president from office. Robert Ray,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for coming on the podcast so
Speaker 1: your predecessor as Independent Council can start. Described today's testimony
Speaker 1: as quote one of those bombshell days and said that
Speaker 1: quote things do not look it for the president substantively.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Bob Well, I don't agree with that. Um.
Speaker 1: I've dealt with media days throughout this saga for more
Speaker 1: than the past two months, where every day is another
Speaker 1: bombshell day. So I don't think there was really anything
Speaker 1: that I heard today that was that much of a
Speaker 1: surprise and what I had anticipated that we would hear.
Speaker 1: His testimony, though, did confirm a quid pro quo. Right, well,
Speaker 1: let's be careful about that, because you know, first of all,
Speaker 1: I'm you know, the Hoorray Henry's who all want to
Speaker 1: talk about quid pro quo as if they seem to
Speaker 1: understand what bribery is. Let's just slow down. A second.
Speaker 1: Bribery is something like the following, whoever, being a public official,
Speaker 1: corruptly demands or seeks personally in return for the performance
Speaker 1: of an official act is guilty of a crime, and
Speaker 1: the in return for a language essentially is what people
Speaker 1: understand to be the quid pro quo requirement of a
Speaker 1: bribery offense. But that's not what we talk about and
Speaker 1: what much of the discussion has been about. I mean,
Speaker 1: for example, if there's an exchange of a quid pro
Speaker 1: quo involving foreign assistance generally, and the linkage is over
Speaker 1: something as benign as we want a particular country to
Speaker 1: do more with regard to internally prosecuting or investigating corruption,
Speaker 1: nobody would ever contend that that kind of an exchange
Speaker 1: is something that the law is prepared to recognize as illegal.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't it change when it's a political rival, Bob,
Speaker 1: when it's specifically about Joe Biden and his son. And
Speaker 1: according to son Land, Hello, that's not what Ambassador Sonland
Speaker 1: testified to today. What his understanding is that it was
Speaker 1: barisma and the origins of the two thousand and sixteen
Speaker 1: election interference. He only came to learn, I think, he said,
Speaker 1: and not until after the transcript of the call was
Speaker 1: released between President Zelinsky and President Trump that uh, you know,
Speaker 1: in his mind, he then came to a presumption that
Speaker 1: there was a linkage between the two involving specifically the Bidens.
Speaker 1: So you know, look, I think much of how you
Speaker 1: would view this is colored by whether or not you
Speaker 1: think there's any merit to an investigation of the Biden's
Speaker 1: first second, I think it's colored by what your view
Speaker 1: is about whether or not such an investigation is of
Speaker 1: personal benefit to the president that would be sufficient to
Speaker 1: um make out a crime. The Democrats have tried that
Speaker 1: on for size. They first contended that that was an
Speaker 1: illegal foreign campaign contribution. Well, that's an interesting legal theory,
Speaker 1: but it runs up against the fact that the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: apparently through the Criminal Division, after consultation with the Public
Speaker 1: Integrity Section, said listen, that's not a thing of value
Speaker 1: that the law is prepared to recognize as a campaign
Speaker 1: contribution that would be of personal benefit to the president
Speaker 1: United States, meaning an investigation into Hunter Biden and Barrisma. Right. Look,
Speaker 1: and you know, the notion that a public official is,
Speaker 1: as a result of running for office or being a candidate,
Speaker 1: immune from uh an investigation is in my judgment, anathemas
Speaker 1: and consistent with with our past history, and it's even
Speaker 1: inconsistent with my own past history. I conducted an investigation
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton, who was then at the time while
Speaker 1: I was serving as Independent Council being investigated in connection
Speaker 1: with a whole slew of investigations Whitewater, the Travel Office,
Speaker 1: FBI files, a number of things, while she was a
Speaker 1: candidate for office for the United States Senate in New York.
Speaker 1: So are you suggesting that Joe Biden did something wrong here?
Speaker 1: I don't and and it was in your estimation it's
Speaker 1: worthy of an investigation. I don't know. I mean, apparently
Speaker 1: the Attorney General has thought at least so that matter
Speaker 1: has been referred, among a number of different specific issues
Speaker 1: to John Durham, who is the currently serving U S
Speaker 1: Attorney in the District of Connecticut. He enjoys a bipartisan
Speaker 1: reputation as a kind a fine one as a bipartisan,
Speaker 1: nonpartisan prosecute career prosecutor. I don't know whether that investigation
Speaker 1: has any merit or not. I imagine he'll figure it
Speaker 1: out one way or another. That's why we have investigations
Speaker 1: to find out. I I wonder if you believe that
Speaker 1: Ambassador Solon's claimed that the President was seemed to be
Speaker 1: more interested in the announcement of an investigation rather than
Speaker 1: the investigation itself, might sort of counter this assessment that
Speaker 1: it wouldn't he wouldn't stand to gain from that in estigation.
Speaker 1: Ambassador Simon made very clear, although that was completely overlooked
Speaker 1: in the testimony today, that the primary reason to ask
Speaker 1: for a public announcement was to fix their position publicly
Speaker 1: so that they couldn't walk back the fact that they
Speaker 1: were committed to rooting out corruption. I think that's separate
Speaker 1: and apart from whether or not you think that's also
Speaker 1: of personal benefit to the president, because of the fact
Speaker 1: that it would have potentially had an impact on an election.
Speaker 1: Everything has an impact on an election. The question is
Speaker 1: whether there is anything inappropriate about that ask and I
Speaker 1: have already commented publicly and I think, um, this is
Speaker 1: where I do agree with Ken Starr. I do think
Speaker 1: it was an error in judgment not to have done
Speaker 1: this through the usual channels. Why Because the usual channels
Speaker 1: provide you with insulation in the ordinary affairs of the
Speaker 1: country where people don't second yes your political motivations, and
Speaker 1: so one of the reasons that you'd go to the
Speaker 1: FBI and the Justice Department and also admit what there's
Speaker 1: already a treaty process to allow a request to the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian government through official channels for what's referred to as
Speaker 1: the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. That's the kind of appropriate
Speaker 1: way in which you would be seeking in a sensitive
Speaker 1: area assistance with an investigation. So I guess what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is that, you know, it's hard for me to
Speaker 1: imagine that the president does something directly that if he
Speaker 1: did indirectly through usual channels, it certainly would be entirely appropriate.
Speaker 1: But now all of a sudden it's illegal. You can
Speaker 1: argue about a lack of judgment and whether or not
Speaker 1: it would have been better practice and a better idea
Speaker 1: not to have had what amounts to a second channel
Speaker 1: through Rudy Giuliani to try to accomplish this end. But
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that I would jump to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that the end in itself was inappropriate. I think the
Speaker 1: means are subject to question, but that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the means were illegal. But having said that, I mean
Speaker 1: it was in your view and error in judgment, but
Speaker 1: does not necessarily qualified as a high crime or misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: I don't think it qualifies as bribery either. I don't
Speaker 1: think it. I don't think it involves extortion because I
Speaker 1: don't think there was sufficient pressure applied. What about abuse
Speaker 1: of power, Well, abuse of power is an interesting concept,
Speaker 1: and I know you've talked to about that. I do
Speaker 1: not think that abuse of power untethered from the constitutional language,
Speaker 1: which requires that it be treason, bribery, or other high
Speaker 1: crime and misdemeanor, is sufficient. I know there's reasonable disagreement
Speaker 1: of opinion among legal scholars about that. I think. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've read a lot of books. I've considered the question
Speaker 1: of impeachment, going all the way back to Watergate and
Speaker 1: historically even before um I think the better, more considered view.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this was Neil cat y'all's view
Speaker 1: and a Chiel Lamar and a number of other people
Speaker 1: when they were trying on for size of the question
Speaker 1: of the Clinton impeachment. I do not think abuse of
Speaker 1: power on its own as a sufficient basis to remove
Speaker 1: a president from office. I think it has to be both.
Speaker 1: I think the lesson of the Clinton impeachment was very
Speaker 1: few people were arguing over whether or not the president
Speaker 1: had committed obstruction of justice or perjury. The only question
Speaker 1: was whether or not those crimes were sufficient to rise
Speaker 1: to the level of abuse of his office, abuse of
Speaker 1: his oath of office. And I think the considered judgment
Speaker 1: of the Senate following a trial was, you know what, Um,
Speaker 1: there's a problem here, but it's not sufficient to remove
Speaker 1: the president from office because he didn't abuse his office
Speaker 1: this one. Um. You know, I sort of stepped back
Speaker 1: and just look at it. And the Nixon cases, of
Speaker 1: course entirely different because there I think it was clearly both.
Speaker 1: It was not only that obstruction of justice was committed,
Speaker 1: but it was committed in such a way that undermined
Speaker 1: the president's oath of office to take care that the
Speaker 1: laws be faithfully executed. And there was a slush fund
Speaker 1: in the White House with cash coming out of a
Speaker 1: safe in order to pay off witnesses to ultra testimony
Speaker 1: in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation that the president orchestrated,
Speaker 1: and he was on tape directing it. And everybody can
Speaker 1: understand it appreciate that that's not only a crime, but
Speaker 1: it's also a problem for a president to be involved in.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything like that here. I mean,
Speaker 1: are we seriously and I'm asking the American people this,
Speaker 1: are we seriously going to impeach a president based upon
Speaker 1: today's testimony about the announcement of an investigation tied to
Speaker 1: a meeting at the White House, I really think tied
Speaker 1: to foreign aid. Well, let's start with where they started today,
Speaker 1: because the only thing Sonlon was able to say for
Speaker 1: Ambassador son was able to say for sure is that
Speaker 1: the link that he saw was with a meeting at
Speaker 1: the White House, despite what you hear in much of
Speaker 1: the media, and meeting at the White House as recently
Speaker 1: as the Supreme Court's decision involving Governor McDonald is not
Speaker 1: an official act under the bribery law, so that can't
Speaker 1: be the predicate for a bribery offense. And I believe
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff recognizes this because all before these hearings even started,
Speaker 1: he was already saying, you know, we don't have to
Speaker 1: prove the elements of a bribery offense like a prosecu
Speaker 1: puter would bribery. It only has to be as the
Speaker 1: founders understood it. Well, okay, fair enough, but bribery is mentioned,
Speaker 1: and the founders did put in place a Congress which
Speaker 1: was capable of passing laws, and among the other laws
Speaker 1: that the Congress ultimately passed was the Federal Bribery Statute.
Speaker 1: So there's no bribery with regard to a meeting in
Speaker 1: the White House. Don't believe me, but that that's what
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court says. So what about foreign aid? I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe Somlon didn't say that he saw no connection, but
Speaker 1: a lot of the other witnesses have said that, and
Speaker 1: more witnesses are to come. Well, he said, So if
Speaker 1: if in fact someone says, uh, there was an undeniable
Speaker 1: link between an investigation of Hunter Biden and the delivery
Speaker 1: of foreign aid to Ukraine, would that constitute bribery? Well,
Speaker 1: no one is going to say that. And more importantly,
Speaker 1: I'm not really interested in what other people have to say.
Speaker 1: This is not an impeachment of an administration. This is,
Speaker 1: after all, the impeachment of the President of United States. Said,
Speaker 1: that doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. The question is
Speaker 1: where does the president thing? And today you know, again
Speaker 1: something skipped over. You know, largely the President was asked
Speaker 1: directly by Ambassador Sunlin in no uncertain terms and emphatically,
Speaker 1: because I think he was exasperated more than anything else
Speaker 1: Mr President, what do you want? And the answer was,
Speaker 1: I don't want anything from President Zelinsky. I want him
Speaker 1: to do what it is he ran on and I
Speaker 1: and I don't want any quid pro quotes. I'm not
Speaker 1: asking him for anything. I'm asking him to do what
Speaker 1: he said he was going to do. So. Look, I
Speaker 1: do not think that investigations generally, including one's conducted overseas,
Speaker 1: and including one's conducted overseas of United States nationals, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is something that we do do. Um.
Speaker 1: I have represented clients that have been on the receiving
Speaker 1: end of that, so I know, UM, there's nothing inherently
Speaker 1: wrong with that. That's you know, that's part of what
Speaker 1: investigations are all about. I do not think that that notion,
Speaker 1: and specifically what you're suggesting, which is the personal benefit
Speaker 1: to the president of a politically motivated investigation of the bidens,
Speaker 1: are mutually exclusive. I mean, the sense in the in
Speaker 1: the in the in the country right now is it
Speaker 1: it's either a legitimate investigation or it's this thing involving
Speaker 1: the Biden's barisma and corruption in the Ukraine, and the
Speaker 1: one is unlawful. It's a foreign campaign contribution and it's
Speaker 1: the basis of a quid pro quo, and the other
Speaker 1: one is entirely appropriate. I don't think life doesn't work
Speaker 1: that way. They are not They are not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 1: There is space enough for there to be. Again, depending
Speaker 1: on how what your view is about whether or not
Speaker 1: either Hunter Biden and or his his father, that then
Speaker 1: vice president did anything wrong. And again I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: he did or he didn't. I don't know. That's why
Speaker 1: we have investigations to find that, and in fact, we
Speaker 1: are having one right now. That's what's going on. So
Speaker 1: you basically don't believe when it comes to the specific
Speaker 1: articles of impeachment that Neil identified, abuse of power, bribery,
Speaker 1: and obstruction of justice, that you can check off any
Speaker 1: of those. And if not, why not obstruction of justice? Bob.
Speaker 1: If in fact President Trump is prohibiting many people from
Speaker 1: testifying in the House hearings, well that's a process, fell
Speaker 1: and I guess ultimately, you know, the American people will
Speaker 1: decide whether they think that's significantly What do you think.
Speaker 1: I don't think so, And I think you know, look,
Speaker 1: if there are legitimate reasons and basses to object to
Speaker 1: cooperating with the investigation that include the assertion of presidential
Speaker 1: or executive privilege. I know that they tried this in
Speaker 1: the Nixon impeachment. It wasn't particularly persuasive, nor was it,
Speaker 1: frankly in the in the Clinton impeachment. UM, that's a
Speaker 1: process argument and dispute between the branches of government. To
Speaker 1: equate that with obstruction of justice seems to me to
Speaker 1: be a bridge too far. Um, they're a legit him
Speaker 1: reasons why you would object to uh subpoena compliance, both
Speaker 1: for documents and for witnesses to protect the office of
Speaker 1: the president, not the president, you know, Donald Trump personally himself,
Speaker 1: not only for this administration, for administrations in the future. Uh.
Speaker 1: That has been consistently the position of the White House,
Speaker 1: not again, not just with regard to this administration, but
Speaker 1: for administrations going back at least as far as President Eisenhower. UM. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I I don't think that UH an attempt
Speaker 1: to try to make that argument, you know, Adam Shifts.
Speaker 1: UH typical approach to this has been every time the
Speaker 1: White House objects to providing us with a document or
Speaker 1: a witness, we're going to just add that as another
Speaker 1: article of impeachment under obstruction it doesn't wash with me.
Speaker 1: I don't think it will wash with the American people.
Speaker 1: And more importantly, in this process, if you have any
Speaker 1: hopes of trying to persuade the other party to join
Speaker 1: with you, which after all, is necessary in order to
Speaker 1: remove the president from office in the United States Senate,
Speaker 1: you're not going to get there by making an argument.
Speaker 1: Ah ha, we got you on obstruction of justice. You
Speaker 1: didn't give us that document from the State Department. You know, Please,
Speaker 1: we got more important things to worry about. That's not
Speaker 1: one of them. But what about prohibiting witnesses from testifying.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're not talking about handing over documents. We're
Speaker 1: talking about saying to people you cannot appear well. Sure,
Speaker 1: And and the reason for that is because the internal
Speaker 1: discussions at the highest level within the White House are
Speaker 1: subject to privilege. And it has long been recognized to
Speaker 1: be the case. Uh, it's implied essentially in the Constitution
Speaker 1: by virtue of separation of powers. And the President has
Speaker 1: no obligation to try to make the House's case for
Speaker 1: impeachment against him. He has constitutional rights as well, in
Speaker 1: addition to the fact of his office. And I do
Speaker 1: think that again, pushing that too far is encroaching on
Speaker 1: an area that is long recognized to be a proper
Speaker 1: separation of powers question. And and the related notion that
Speaker 1: has expressed most recently by the Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, that the president has some obligation to come
Speaker 1: forward and testify or explain or provide his people. Um again, Um,
Speaker 1: that's that there's nothing in the constitution that requires that.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's in the public interest. And again,
Speaker 1: I think that the president is entitled to rely on
Speaker 1: AIDS without having to worry about the fact that all
Speaker 1: of those people are going to appear to testify against
Speaker 1: him because the Congress is conducting an impeachment inquiry. And
Speaker 1: if we really have reached the point in this country
Speaker 1: for the future, which is one of the things that
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about, that it simply as the result of
Speaker 1: having the House of Representatives in the UH in the
Speaker 1: hands of the opposite party, that we're going to now
Speaker 1: be endlessly in a situation in which every administration is
Speaker 1: going to be saddled with the potential of an impeachment inquiry.
Speaker 1: I do not think ultimately that that is in the
Speaker 1: country's best interests. I don't think that that's what the
Speaker 1: founders intended, and the you know, recent history suggests now
Speaker 1: that we sort of string together, you know, Nixon to
Speaker 1: Clinton to Trump. You know, the question one has to
Speaker 1: logically ask, and I think most fair minded Americans will
Speaker 1: be asking when this when and if this gets to
Speaker 1: the United States Senate is ultimately is that what we
Speaker 1: want to see here? Is that really in the country's interests?
Speaker 1: And I've even thought about things like, you know, I
Speaker 1: wonder for the future whether or not a simple majority
Speaker 1: vote in the House should be sufficient to warrant the
Speaker 1: impeachment of a president. I mean, I think there perhaps
Speaker 1: should be some serious question that a bipartisan vote be
Speaker 1: required in the House before it ever gets to the Senate.
Speaker 1: Not suggesting that it would be a two thirds majority,
Speaker 1: but when you know, I think could think seriously about
Speaker 1: whether or not it's in the country's interests with the
Speaker 1: future to prevent just this sort of thing from happening,
Speaker 1: that rather than fifty be required, which would would mandate
Speaker 1: in effect, that you would have to have, in an
Speaker 1: example like this one, not only all Democrats in favor
Speaker 1: of impeachment, but you'd have to have bipartisan support, meaning
Speaker 1: some Republicans to join along with it. So you think
Speaker 1: there's m legitimacy to President Trump's contention, this is a
Speaker 1: kangaroo court. He's kind of dismissed the whole process. He said,
Speaker 1: you know, on Fox News they say it's a shift show.
Speaker 1: You know, look, I hear all that. I've been on
Speaker 1: Fox News. I'm a regular guest. Um, I do not
Speaker 1: think it helps anybody or our institutions in the country's
Speaker 1: best interest to be disparaging the mission of the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. I don't and I won't do it. Um.
Speaker 1: You know they have a tough job to do. Are
Speaker 1: is there partisan excess on both sides? Sure? Did anybody
Speaker 1: think that that wouldn't be the case? Go all the
Speaker 1: way back to Alexander Hamilton's He certainly recognized that this
Speaker 1: would inflame partisan passions on both sides as the result
Speaker 1: of impeachment, particularly involving a president, which is why the
Speaker 1: protection was built in that it would require two thirds
Speaker 1: in the Senate to actually remove a president from office
Speaker 1: and overturn an election. Whow it is you know under
Speaker 1: liably true that a president is subject to impeachment all
Speaker 1: during his term in office. This obviously was intended by
Speaker 1: the founders to be an extraordinary thing and and reserved
Speaker 1: for the most extreme situations. My view is that there's
Speaker 1: not ever going to be given these facts unless something
Speaker 1: magically changes, clear and unmistakable evidence of both a crime
Speaker 1: that fits the definition of trees and bribery or other
Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors, and uh one sufficient enough that
Speaker 1: it constitutes abuse of the president's office. And I do
Speaker 1: firmly believe, based upon history and practice and frankly good
Speaker 1: common sense, which was ultimately where the American people are
Speaker 1: going to weigh in here, I think that unless you
Speaker 1: have both, that's not sufficient to warrant the removal of
Speaker 1: a president from office. I think that's the considered judgment
Speaker 1: of history and the idea that someone put forth in
Speaker 1: his testament me that everyone was in the loop, from
Speaker 1: Mike Pence to Mike Pompeo. UM, not that significant in
Speaker 1: your view, Well, I don't. I don't know what in
Speaker 1: the loop. I listened to it carefully to see what
Speaker 1: exactly do you mean by in the loop and how
Speaker 1: much knowledge did they really have. I think that it
Speaker 1: is a reflection of the fact that Ambassador Sondling thought,
Speaker 1: based upon the direction given by the President that this contention,
Speaker 1: which is frankly contrary to what you heard the day before,
Speaker 1: UM from Lieutenant Colonel vinman Um. You know, when the
Speaker 1: President directs that wants something done, UM, that makes it
Speaker 1: not an outside channel. That is the President's prerogative to
Speaker 1: choose the channel that he would like in order to
Speaker 1: troll accomplish what it is he's trying to accomplish. Frankly,
Speaker 1: what I thought I saw here was the President was
Speaker 1: prepared to temporarily withhold foreign aid to see what the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians would do. He didn't make a demand that they
Speaker 1: commence investigations in exchange for that aid. That's not the
Speaker 1: tenor of the call, which is going to be ultimately
Speaker 1: the best, probably the only real evidence of the President's intent,
Speaker 1: other than the limited color that UM Ambassador Sonlon was
Speaker 1: able to add today, I don't think you're going to
Speaker 1: hear from anybody else. I think to answer your question, yes,
Speaker 1: would there be potential benefit to hear from UM, the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, UM, from the from the
Speaker 1: Acting Chief of Staff McK mulvaaney, and potentially other people
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani among them. Sure, but I think there's understandably
Speaker 1: a concern that the President is asserting, and I think
Speaker 1: in most situations that should be respected. That unless you're
Speaker 1: prepared to say that these people were co conspirators in
Speaker 1: connection with the illegal activity, which I don't think you're
Speaker 1: gonna hear anybody say. No, one's gonna stand up and
Speaker 1: then say, you know, I was involved in a in
Speaker 1: a corrupt bargain here, and I was a co conspirator,
Speaker 1: and now let me tell you what it is I
Speaker 1: did and what the president thought. That's the difference between, frankly,
Speaker 1: this case and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. No one's
Speaker 1: going to say, oh, yeah, I was, Yep, I was.
Speaker 1: We were all we were all involved, and we were
Speaker 1: all involved in a conspiracy to commit bribery. You're not
Speaker 1: going to hear that. You're not going to hear an
Speaker 1: acknowledgment that they thought that what they were doing was illegal,
Speaker 1: because I don't think they thought what they were doing
Speaker 1: was illegal. Do you believe that any Republican senators will
Speaker 1: change their minds after today's testimony or do you think
Speaker 1: they'll still feel supportive of the President minus the two
Speaker 1: who seemed to be wobbily or have said otherwise. I
Speaker 1: think to be careful, honestly, you don't know right until
Speaker 1: after both there's a vote in the House and you
Speaker 1: see what the partisan lineup looks like. I expect I
Speaker 1: think the import of your question is I expect that
Speaker 1: it will be probably entirely along party lines. I think
Speaker 1: that will send a message to the Senate, which is
Speaker 1: likely to have a rejoinder that is going to be
Speaker 1: equally partisan the other way. So I guess that's a
Speaker 1: sort of a roundabout way of answering your question. At
Speaker 1: least at the moment. I don't expect that that's going
Speaker 1: to change the result. And I think what that will mean,
Speaker 1: um is that it will it will it will not
Speaker 1: succeed in the Senate. I guess the only question is
Speaker 1: how long and painful will that process be? Will there
Speaker 1: be a full trial? I mean, this is different then
Speaker 1: our most recent history, which is the Clinton impeachment. In
Speaker 1: this situation, the president's party is in control of the
Speaker 1: United States Senate, so they they they set the rules,
Speaker 1: and they determine how much of a proceeding there there
Speaker 1: will be. They may I have suggested that if if
Speaker 1: really uh, this should be short circuited because it doesn't
Speaker 1: have merit, that it would be appropriate to consider emotion
Speaker 1: to dismiss, which could be And I understand that there
Speaker 1: are political consequences to this, particularly among Republicans in districts
Speaker 1: where or I'm sorry, in states where they're for re
Speaker 1: election this year. UM. I can think of a few
Speaker 1: of them that would be vulnerable to a process that
Speaker 1: was arguably curtailed in the Senate. But I mean it,
Speaker 1: certainly it was. There was a moment put it this way.
Speaker 1: There was a motion filed during the Clinton impeachment to dismiss.
Speaker 1: It was denied. This situation is different because Republicans control
Speaker 1: the president's party control the United States Senate, and so
Speaker 1: if they have a majority vote UM plus in the
Speaker 1: event of a tie the vice president of vote, they
Speaker 1: can they can move to dismiss for indefinitely adjourned the proceedings.
Speaker 1: And do you think that might happen? I think that's
Speaker 1: a politically dicey thing. I think the safer course is
Speaker 1: probably to allow there to be a trial, uh and
Speaker 1: and for the members to give considered judgment to the question.
Speaker 1: I think most people want to appear to their constituents
Speaker 1: as having carefully considered this to the extent that you
Speaker 1: were to short circuited. I suppose there would be a
Speaker 1: reasonable argument about you're not taking it seriously, and so
Speaker 1: a backlash from Democratic opponents and upcoming elections from Democrats,
Speaker 1: from voters, and you know, look, we're undeniably we're in
Speaker 1: an election year now, right and a third of the
Speaker 1: Senator is up. So that's obviously something that they have
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on. And that brings me to
Speaker 1: my final question, what impact do you think, Bob, this
Speaker 1: will have on Could this embolden the president, helped him
Speaker 1: in fact get re elected if it is a long
Speaker 1: party lines, or do you think that people will think
Speaker 1: he just behaved, there was a serious error in judgment
Speaker 1: and his actions were questionable at at the very least.
Speaker 1: I don't know too many things. But what I do
Speaker 1: know from having a review the history of all of
Speaker 1: the impeachments is that they have consequence, whether intended or unintended,
Speaker 1: and sometimes those consequences can be quite severe. We really
Speaker 1: don't know how the electorate will view this at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. I think there's a reasonable question
Speaker 1: as a result of so much of what has surface.
Speaker 1: Whatever you think the merit of it is, is that
Speaker 1: I think already this is seriously damaged the Vice president's
Speaker 1: prospects to become the nominee for the Democratic Party. I
Speaker 1: don't think you can really argue to the contrary. Do
Speaker 1: you think it's that or do you think there are
Speaker 1: other factors? There may be, There may be other factors.
Speaker 1: And of course we ultimately don't know if he became
Speaker 1: the nominee, how what the long you know, run effect
Speaker 1: of that would be all the way through November of
Speaker 1: next year. We also don't even know in the primary process,
Speaker 1: you know, how this will play out. I suppose it
Speaker 1: depends on how this plays out before the United States Senate,
Speaker 1: presumably in January of next year. The short answer is
Speaker 1: one of the dangers of impeachment is that you go
Speaker 1: down this road you never really know where it leads.
Speaker 1: I mean, I the fall out of the Clinton impeachment,
Speaker 1: I don't know. There was an intended or unintended consequences
Speaker 1: that I think that probably cost al Gore the election
Speaker 1: against George W. Bush. You know, you can talk about
Speaker 1: whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but
Speaker 1: that was one of the consequences I think of impeachment.
Speaker 1: Were there other factors, sure, but I don't think that
Speaker 1: that was an insubstantial factor. I think that was a
Speaker 1: significant effect. I don't know that that would have been
Speaker 1: anticipated at the time of impeachment. Only you would only
Speaker 1: know that with the benefit of history. And I think
Speaker 1: the same will be true here. We're not really going
Speaker 1: to know all of the consequences of an impeachment until
Speaker 1: probably years later. One thing is certain. Only time will tell, right,
Speaker 1: Like a lot of things in life, But this is
Speaker 1: a big one, right, this is a big one. Well,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting to get your perspective, Bob Ray, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for stopping by. Thanks very us pleasure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: nice to see you. Nice to meet you. Same here.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much everyone for listening to this episode of
Speaker 1: Next Question. We hope we've provided you with some information
Speaker 1: in some context so you can better understand what's going
Speaker 1: on these days on Capitol Hill with the impeachment hearings
Speaker 1: and what constitutes or doesn't high crime and misdemeanors. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to know what's happening every morning and have
Speaker 1: some original content in the form of interviews, and inspiring stories.
Speaker 1: Please sign up for our daily morning newsletter called wake
Speaker 1: Up Call by going to Katie Couric dot com and
Speaker 1: follow me, of course, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Next
Speaker 1: Question with Katie Curic is a production of I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio and Katie Curic Media. The executive producers are Katie Kuric,
Speaker 1: Lauren Bright Pacheco, Julie Douglas, and Tyler Klang. Our show
Speaker 1: producers are Bethan Macaluso and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer
Speaker 1: is Dylan Fagin. Associate producers are Emily Pinto and Derek Clemens.
Speaker 1: Editing is by Dylan Fagin, Derrek Clements, and Lowell Berlante.
Speaker 1: Our researcher is Barbara Keene. For more information on today's episode,
Speaker 1: go to Katie Kurik dot com and follow us on
Speaker 1: Twitter and Instagram at Katie Curk. For more podcasts from
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.