>> Neil: THANK YOU, MY FRIEND.

MY NEXT GUEST IS PART OF THE

SHORTLISTS TO BE PART OF THE

PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.

HE JOINS US RIGHT NOW.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU.

>> THANK YOU, NEIL.

>> Neil: LET'S DISCUSS WHAT

THE STRATEGY COULD BE HERE.

AT THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS

OPEN TO THE PROSPECT OF

WITNESSES.

IT ISN'T THAT SIMPLE.

IT COULD GET PRETTY INVOLVED.

>> WHICH WITNESSES?

THE ONES THE HOUSE COULD'VE

CALLED BUT FAILED TO?

WHAT IS THE STANDARD ABOUT WHAT

YOU COULD DECIDE WHETHER TO CALL

A WITNESS?

IS IT RELEVANCY?

THAT IS A PRETTY LOW STANDARD.

YOU CAN'T JUST CALL A COUPLE.

THERE MAY BE A SENATOR WHO WANTS

TO HEAR FROM SOME WITNESS THAT

YOU AND I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF

BEFORE.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH

YOU JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD

WITNESSES?

MY POSITION IS, IT IS THE

HOUSE'S JOB TO INVESTIGATE.

IF THEY DIDN'T THINK ENOUGH TO

CALL A WITNESS DURING THE

INVESTIGATION, THAN FIVE SAID

THIS AND IT?

>> Neil: THEY CAN COUNTER THAT

THEY TRIED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE

AND THEIR PRESIDENT WAS

PREVENTING THEM FROM SPEAKING.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT RAISES AN

ISSUE -- IF THEY GET JOHN BOLTO

BOLTON, OBVIOUSLY, REPUBLICANS

WILL WANT JOE BIDEN AND/OR

HUNTER BIDEN.

AND ON AND ON WE GO.

>> NEIL, YOU GET JOHN BOLTON.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE STILL APPLY?

YOU CANNOT CALL A WITNESS THAT

YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO INVOKE

PRIVILEGE.

IT IS THAT TERRIBLE OBJECT.

YOU CAN'T DO IT IN A COURTROOM.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT

IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

I GOING TO CALL A WITNESS THAT

YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO INVOKE

THE FIFTH?

ARE YOU GOING TO CALL A WITNESS

THAT YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO

EVOKE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE?

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN THE REAL

WORLD, WHY WOULD YOU CALL A

WITNESS SIMPLY FOR THE APPLICANT

HAVING THAT WITNESS SAY THAT I

CAN'T ANSWER BASED ON EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE?

I GET THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE

PRIVILEGES.

THERE IS A REASON THAT WE HAVE

THEM.

AND WE HAVE THEM BECAUSE THE

RELATIONSHIP IS MORE IMPORTANT

THAN THE INFORMATION.

THAT IS TRUE WITH --

>> Neil: AND CONGRESS?

HOW DO THEY DO IT?

IT WOULD NOT BE LIVE SENATE

TESTIMONY.

IT GOES BACK TO THE CLINTON

MOTIF.

THEY HAVE THE DEPOSITION AND THE

SENATORS AND READ FROM PREPARED

REMARKS IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS.

IT IS NOT THE PERSON HIM OR

HERSELF TALKING.

>> BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, NEIL?

IF YOU HAVE EVER SERVED ON A

JURY, TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE

WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS

TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU NEED TO

EYEBALL THEM.

YOU NEED TO WATCH THE DEMEANOR.

HOW THE HILL DO YOU DO THAT IN A

DEPOSITION?

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING MORE

BORING THAN HAVING ADAM SCHIFF

GREET DEPOSITION EXCERPTS TO ME.

HOW WILL THAT HELP YOU DETERMINE

WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON IS

CREDIBLE?

YOU KNOW WHAT HERE SHE SAID?

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE CREDIBILITY

BASED ON THAT?

>> Neil: WHEN YOU HEAR THE SIX

WEEK TIME FRAME, THAT WILL TAKE

US PAST -- NOT ONLY THE IOWA

CAUCUSES, BUT THE PRIMARY INTO

SUPER TUESDAY POTENTIALLY.

THIS COULD REALLY BE A MESS,

RIGHT?

>> IT COULD BE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING SIX

WEEKS.

TALK ABOUT COOL AND UNUSUAL

PUNISHMENT, MAKE THEM WATCH THIS

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LG

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LT

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LC

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LS

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I LE

GROUP FOR SIX WEEKS BECAUSE I L.

THAT IS TORTURE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO LAST SIX

WEEKS.

I DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION TO

DISMISS, BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T

LIKE THINGS BEING SUMMARILY

DISMISSED.

AT THE HOUSE PRESENT ITS CASE.

DON'T THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF

PERSUASION?

THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WANT TO

REMOVE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

LET THEM GO.

THEN YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION

TO DISMISS.

I LIKE IT AT THE END.

GO AHEAD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE,

VOTE ON IT.

A VOTE ON IT LIKE A REGULAR JURY

VOTES ON IT.