HAVE MADE. FIRST IS THE ARGUMENT THAT

FIRST IS THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, AND I HAVE

YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU'LL HEAR AGAIN, THAT

NO DOUBT YOU'LL HEAR AGAIN, THAT THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE

THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE ARE INVALID.

HOUSE ARE INVALID. WELL, THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL.

WELL, THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL. I IMAGINE WHEN YOU ISSUE

I IMAGINE WHEN YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS, THEY WILL DECLARE

SUBPOENAS, THEY WILL DECLARE YOURS INVALID AS WELL.

YOURS INVALID AS WELL. WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM

WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THEY'RE INVALID?

THEY'RE INVALID? WELL, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T

WELL, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ISSUED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT

ISSUED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

WANTS. PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVE

PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THE WAY WE

TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THE WAY WE SAY, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE

SAY, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE AFTER THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT

AFTER THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT WE APPROVE OF ADOPTED BY THE

WE APPROVE OF ADOPTED BY THE FULL HOUSE.

FULL HOUSE. FIRST THEY COMPLAIN THERE IS NO

FIRST THEY COMPLAIN THERE IS NO RESOLUTION, NO FORMAL RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION, NO FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND

OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND THEN WHEN WE PASSED A FORMAL

THEN WHEN WE PASSED A FORMAL RESOLUTION, THEY COMPLAINED

RESOLUTION, THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT.

ABOUT THAT. THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DIDN'T

THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE.

HAVE ONE. THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DID HAVE

THEY COMPLAINED WHEN WE DID HAVE ONE.

ONE. WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THAT

WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT ALREADY IN COURT AND

ARGUMENT ALREADY IN COURT AND THEY LOST.

THEY LOST. IN THE McGAHN CASE, THEY

IN THE McGAHN CASE, THEY SIMILARLY ARGUED THIS SUBPOENA

SIMILARLY ARGUED THIS SUBPOENA FOR MR. McGAHN IS INVALID, AND

FOR MR. McGAHN IS INVALID, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID?

YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID? ESSENTIALLY THAT'S NONSENSE.

ESSENTIALLY THAT'S NONSENSE. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GEPHARDT

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GEPHARDT TO DECIDE HOW THE HOUSE CONDUCTS

TO DECIDE HOW THE HOUSE CONDUCTS AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER A SUBPOENA IT

DECIDE WHETHER A SUBPOENA IT ISSUES IS VALID OR INVALID.

ISSUES IS VALID OR INVALID. NO.

NO. THE HOUSE GETS TO DECIDE,

THE HOUSE GETS TO DECIDE, BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS GIVEN THE

BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS GIVEN THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, NOT

SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

STATES. NOW COUNSEL SAYS WHY ARE WE

NOW COUNSEL SAYS WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE

GOING THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS?

DOCUMENTS? AREN'T ALL THESE MOTIONS THE

AREN'T ALL THESE MOTIONS THE SAME?

SAME? AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DOCUMENTS HERE.

DOCUMENTS HERE. THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER

THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN FOR YOU TO KNOW NOTHING

THAN FOR YOU TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE SEEK.

ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE SEEK. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS THEY'RE WITHHOLDING.

THEY'RE WITHHOLDING. OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO

OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.

HEAR THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, WANT

THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT STATE

YOU TO KNOW WHAT STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ARE,

DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ARE, BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST ABSTRACT,

BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST ABSTRACT, IF IT'S JUST WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING

IF IT'S JUST WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING FOR DOCUMENTS, WELL, THEY CAN

FOR DOCUMENTS, WELL, THEY CAN SAY WELL, THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT

SAY WELL, THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT IMPORTANT, RIGHT?

IMPORTANT, RIGHT? IT'S JUST SOME GENERIC THING.

IT'S JUST SOME GENERIC THING. BUT WHEN YOU REALIZE YOU LEARN

BUT WHEN YOU REALIZE YOU LEARN TODAY AND TONIGHT WHAT THOSE

TODAY AND TONIGHT WHAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE, WHEN YOU SEE THE

DOCUMENTS ARE, WHEN YOU SEE THE EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THOSE FREEDOM

EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THOSE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT EMAILS MY

OF INFORMATION ACT EMAILS MY COLLEAGUE MR. CROW REFERRED TO

COLLEAGUE MR. CROW REFERRED TO AND YOU SEE IT RELEASED TO THE

AND YOU SEE IT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND IT'S ALL REDACTED AND

PUBLIC AND IT'S ALL REDACTED AND WE FIND OUT WHAT'S UNDER THOSE

WE FIND OUT WHAT'S UNDER THOSE REDACTIONS, AND WOW, SURPRISE.

REDACTIONS, AND WOW, SURPRISE. IT'S INCRIMINATING INFORMATION

IT'S INCRIMINATING INFORMATION THEY HAVE REDACTED OUT.

THEY HAVE REDACTED OUT. THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE

THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE BASIS FOR REDACTION UNDER

BASIS FOR REDACTION UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A COVER-UP.

THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A COVER-UP. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT

THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT TODAY.

TODAY. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE

THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER, THE

BEFORE AND THE AFTER, THE REDACTED AND THE NONREDACTED.

REDACTED AND THE NONREDACTED. THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR

THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE

FROM THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES THAT

DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES THAT THEY TOOK.

THEY TOOK. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES.

PERSONAL NOTES. NOW THEY WANT TO TRY TO CONTEST

NOW THEY WANT TO TRY TO CONTEST WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID

WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE

ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT. BECAUSE SONDLAND, AFTER HE

BECAUSE SONDLAND, AFTER HE TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT,

TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT, TALKED DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR

TALKED DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH

TAYLOR AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH MR. MORRISON, AND EXPLAINED THAT

MR. MORRISON, AND EXPLAINED THAT HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE

HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT. WELL, GUESS WHAT?

WELL, GUESS WHAT? MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR

MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED NOTES.

TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED NOTES. THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT

THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. SONDLAND.

THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. SONDLAND. WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THE

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THE NOTE?

NOTE? THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE NOTES EXIST.

NOTES EXIST. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS

THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DEBATE.

DEBATE. THEY'D RATHER JUST ARGUE IT'S

THEY'D RATHER JUST ARGUE IT'S JUST ABOUT DOCUMENTS.

JUST ABOUT DOCUMENTS. IT'S JUST ABOUT WHEN.

IT'S JUST ABOUT WHEN. WE WANT THE SENATORS TO ASK

WE WANT THE SENATORS TO ASK THEIR 16 HOURS OF QUESTION

THEIR 16 HOURS OF QUESTION BEFORE THEY CAN SEE ANY OF THIS

BEFORE THEY CAN SEE ANY OF THIS STUFF.

STUFF. AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT?

AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE CASE.

THE CASE. THE WHEN, AS I SAID EARLIER,

THE WHEN, AS I SAID EARLIER, MEANS NEVER.

MEANS NEVER. AND FINALLY, THE CLINTON

AND FINALLY, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.

PRECEDENT. CLINTON TURNED OVER 90,000 PAGES

CLINTON TURNED OVER 90,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL.

OF DOCUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL. I AGREE.

I AGREE. LET'S FOLLOW THE CLINTON

LET'S FOLLOW THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.

PRECEDENT. IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO TAKE

IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO TAKE 90,000 DOCUMENTS.

90,000 DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY

THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY COLLECTED.

COLLECTED. YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY ON

YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY ON THE SCREEN OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR

THE SCREEN OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYING OH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE

SAYING OH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TURNED OVER SHORTLY.

TURNED OVER SHORTLY. WELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING, BUT

WELL, WE'RE STILL WAITING, BUT THEY'RE STILL SITTING THERE AT

THEY'RE STILL SITTING THERE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT. WE CAN PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU OF

WE CAN PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU OF SECRETARY ESPER ON ONE OF THE

SECRETARY ESPER ON ONE OF THE SUNDAY SHOWS SAYING WE'RE GOING

SUNDAY SHOWS SAYING WE'RE GOING COMPLY WITH THESE SUBPOENAS.

COMPLY WITH THESE SUBPOENAS. WELL, THAT WAS ONE WEEK.

WELL, THAT WAS ONE WEEK. AND THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO HIM,

AND THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO HIM, AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE WAS

AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN HE WAS SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE.

SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE. YEAH, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO

YEAH, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS HOLD.

KNOW WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS HOLD. AND YES, WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT

AND YES, WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT THESE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU.

THESE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU. WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT MICK

WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT MICK MULVANEY COULD TELL YOU.

MULVANEY COULD TELL YOU. AND YEAH, WE'RE MAKING IT HARD

AND YEAH, WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU.

FOR YOU. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY NO.

SAY NO. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM

SAY I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THESE PEOPLE, I DON'T WANT TO

THESE PEOPLE, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.

SEE THESE DOCUMENTS. WE'RE MAKING IT HARD.

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EASY

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU.

FOR YOU. OUR JOB TO MAKE IT HARD, TO

OUR JOB TO MAKE IT HARD, TO DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF A