NOT THE SKEWED VIEW FROM ADAM

SCHIFF'S BEADY EYES.

JOINING US WITH MORE IS TEXAS

SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US.

LET'S START WITH A QUESTION IN

YOUR WHEEL HOUSE TO YOUR GREAT

CREDIT.

NOW MY READING OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY CLEAR,

NOT VERY COMPLICATED.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

THEY ALONE NOT THE SENATE, HAVE

THE ZOL POWER TO IMPEACH A

PRESIDENT.

IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND THE SENATE THEY HAVE THE

ZOL RESPONSIBILITY CONSTITUTION

AL AUTHORITY TO HAVE THE TRIAL,

CORRECT STPHEUPLGT THAT'S RIGHT.

NANCY PELOSI GOT A LITTLE

CONFUSED ON THAT BUT YOU'RE

RIGHT.

>> HELP ME OUT HERE.

I LOVE YOUR IDEA, YOU'RE THE

SAVING GRACE IN ALL OF THIS.

WHY WOULD REPUBLICAN SENATORS

THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO HEAR THE

CASE, WHY DID YOU IMPEACH HIM.

NOT ENHANCE THE CASE OR MAKE THE

CASE, THEIR JOB IS LET THEM

PRECEPT THE CASE.

MONTH CASE THEN THEY VOTE TO

ACQUIT.

WHY ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT

BRINGING IN OTHER PEOPLE

STPHURPBLGT LISTEN, I THINK

YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THE PARTISAN

CIRCUS IN THE HOUSE IS OVER.

NANCY PELOSI'S CIRCUS IS DONE.

WE WON'T SEE THE ONE SIDED SHOW

TRIAL THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN

ENGAGED IN FOR MONTHS AND

MONTHS.

THAT FARCE IS OVER.

HERE IS WHAT I HOPE HAPPENS.

THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT A FARE

TRIAL.

THAT MEANS WE WILL GIVE THE

HOUSE MANAGERS A CHANCE TO

PRESENT THEIR CASE.

WE WILL LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE

TO SAY.

WE WILL DO SOMETHING THE HOUSE

DIDN'T DO.

WE WILL GIVE PRESIDENT TRUMP A

FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIS

CASE AND LAY OUT THE FAX AND

EVIDENCE TO LAY OUT THE LAW THE

FACTS IGNORED.

ONCE THE PRESIDENT DEFENDS

HIMSELF I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE

RESULT WILL BE THE PRESIDENT IS

ACQUITTED.

THE REASON IS THE ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT ON THEIR FACE ARE

RIDICULOUS.

THEY DON'T SATISFY THE

CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF HIGH

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

WE HAVE MOVED OUT OF NANCY

PELOSI'S WORLD.

SHE KNEW WHEN THE HOUSE DIDN'T

HAVE IT THEY COULDN'T PUT ON A

KANGAROO COURT LIKE THEY.

HAVE INSTEAD WE WILL MOVE TO THE

SENATE WHERE I HOPE AND BELIEVE

WE WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND

ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.

>> THE FEDERAL RULES OF

EVIDENCE, I UNDERSTAND THEM,

HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT, JOHN ROBERTS

WILL PROVIDE OVER THIS

SCHIFF-SHAM SHOW.

FEDERAL RULES.

GLAD YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR,

SENATOR SHOULD PEOPLE DON'T GET

IT, CONFIDENTIALLY.

NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE

FEDERAL EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.

HERE IS A EVIDENCE IS

INADMISSIBLE.

OPINION WITNESSES ARE NICE,

EXPERTS ARE ON ALL SIDES.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE

TRIAL.

THERE IS ONE FACT WITNESS THE

HOUSE BROUGHT IN.

THE AMBASSADOR.

THEY WANT NOTHING NO QUI QUO

PRO.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT THE BULK OF THE

TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE WOULD BE

INADMISSIBLE IN ANY FEDERAL

COURT OR STATE COURT.

A LOT WAS HERE SAY.

PEOPLE WITH NO DIRECT EVIDENCE.

NEVER MET PRESIDENT TRUMPING -P

OR HEARD WHAT HE TO SAY.

A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY WAS

ESSENTIALLY I DON'T KNOW BUT I

KNOW A GUY WHO KNEW A GUY THAT

TOLD ME THIS HAPPENED.

THERE IS A REASON THAT COURTS

DON'T LET THAT IN, IT'S

NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE.

THAT BEING SAID IF THE HOUSE

MANAGERS GET UP AND WANT TO DO A

PRESENTATION ON THE SOMETHING

KNEW A GUY THAT KNEW A GUY I

FEEL CONFIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP

LAWYER WILL EAT THEIR LUNCH.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

THE REASON YOU KNOW IT'S

RIDICULOUS IF YOU LOOK AT THE

ARTICLES THE HOUSE VOTED OUT.

YOU REMEMBER FOR MONTHS AND

MONTHS THEY TALKED ABOUT QUI QUO

PRO.

THEY DIDN'T VOTE ON ANYTHING.

THEY TALKED WEEKS AND WEEKS FOR

BRIBERY.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE

HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY A

PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IMPEACHED

WITHOUT AN ARTICLE EVEN ALLEGING

CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

THEY DON'T ALLEGE A SINGLE

FEDERAL LAW VIOLATED, A CRIMINAL

LAW, CIVIL LAW.

THIS IS A PARTISAN SHAM.

THEY'RE MAD, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS

ARE MAD AT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

FOR ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT'S WHY THE RESULT OF THIS IS

GOING TO BE REJECTING THE

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

YOU MENTIONED WITNESSES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE 51

SENATORS TO BRING WITNESSES IN

OR NOT.

I THINK THERE IS PLENTY ALREADY

TO REJECT THE RIDICULOUS

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> IF THEY'RE BRINGING ARTICLES

IN WE WON'T DO A ONE-SIDED SHOW

TRIAL.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE A BARE

MINIMUM ONE FOR ONE.

IF THE PROSECUTION BRINGS A

WITNESS.

IF THEY BRING JOHN BOLTON THEN

THE PRESIDENT CAN BRING IN A

WITNESS, HUNTER BIDEN.

IT SHOULD BE FARE AND EVEN.

THAT SCARES THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

OUT OF DEMOCRATS.

THEY KNOW THIS WOULD LOSE ON THE

FACTS.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SCHIFF

THE NON WHISTLE BLOWER, HERE

SIGH WHISTLE BLOWER, QUI QUO PRO

JOE AND NO EXPERIENCE HUNTER.

I WOULD LIKE ALL FOUR OF THEM.

WE CAN TRADE.

NONE OF THE MEETINGS THEY HAD

WAS AID DISCUSSION OR ON THE

CALL SENATOR.

>> THEY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO

THE FACTS.

WHAT THEY'RE TERRIFIED OF.

YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB

ADDRESSING IT, IT'S A

SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF REAL

CORRUPTION.

YOU HAVE HUNTER BIDEN MAKING

$83,000 A MONTH FROM THE BIGGEST

NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN THE

UKRAINE.

WHAT WAS HE BEING PAID FOR?

HIS DAD HE OTHER WAS VICE

PRESIDENT AND INTERVENING IN A

DIRECT WAY.

THAT IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, I

BELIEVE, OF CORRUPTION.

AT A MINIMUM IT'S MORE THAN

ENOUGH FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SAY

WE WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND IN

VET GATE IT.

I EXPECT TO HEAR THAT AT

CONSIDERABLE LENGTH FROM THE

DEFENSE TEAM.

>> SENATOR I LOVE YOUR PROPOSAL.

HAVE THE WITNESSES ONE FOR ONE.

IF THEY GET TO PICK FOUR I GET

THE FOUR I WANT.

ADAM SCHIFF A WITNESS IN HIS OWN