how could the kupperman case have an impact on if? >> well, the kupperman case would have, had it been ultimately decided on the merit, had very serious implications whether or not john bolton could be compelled to testify. but now that's gone, it leaves us with a kind of vacuum, and we go back to the don mcgahn case, by the judge brown, which led to the conclusion, which is an issue that had only been addressed once before by another district court, that executive branch folks do not have absolute immunity. this very to come testify. and then assert privilege, as to individualized questions. so this still leaves the question open as to whether or not folks in the national security field are different from people like don mcgahn. it's still an open question. because the courts didn't reach any of the merits on kupperman's

kupperman, and of course dr. kupperman said no, we'd like to get our own judicial opinion. now had we gone to fruition, each though we don't believe and it would have created a bad precedent that they have standing to challenge subpoenas that way, had they lost, they would have gone to the court of appeals and the supreme court. they would have come back to the district court and now no longer arguing absolute immunity because they would have been we believe defeated. they would have claimed executive privilege and they would have litigated those up through the court of appeals to the supreme court. we knew because we were in it with mcgahn again. nine months after the appeal we're still litigating. and they're in court congress shouldn't do what they're saying we shouldn't do before this body. that's why through the subpoena we were not going to go through that exercise. now you have to ask the question, i think, why did fiona hill that she could come and testify? she worked for dr. kupperman. why was she willing to show the courage to come and testify when her boss wasn't

kupperman who did sue us when he was subpoenaed. we knew john bolton would make good on that threat. mr. sekulow says something about lawyer lawsuits, and i wasn't completely following the argument but something about lawyer lawsuits that we are arrogant lawsuits, i don't know what that means. i can tell you this, the trump justice department is in court in that case and other cases arguing congress cannot go to court to enforce its subpoenas. when they say something about lawyer lawsuits and they say there's nothing wrong with the house suing to get these witnesses that show up and they should have sued to get them to show up, their own other lawyers are in court saying the house has no such right. they are court saying "you can't have lawyer lawsuits." that argument can't be made in both directions. what's more in the kupperman litigation -- i'm sorry, in the don magana litigation which tested the same bogus theory of absolute immunity, involving the president's lawyer who was told to fire the special counsel and then lie about it

kupperman faced with a subpoena on the one hand and a presidential directive not to testify on the other side resolution of the constitutional conflict from the judiciary. i publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of this case. but the president and house of representatives opposed his effort on jurisdiction grounds and each other on the merits. the committee went so far as to withdraw the subpoena. leon in a careful opinion on december 30 held dr. dr. kupperman's case to be moot. i have had competing issues based on careful consideration and study. i have concluded that if the senate she's a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer address possible scenarios for a trial late last week. here is what they had to say. the senate will have to address some of the deepest institutional questions. will have to decide whether we are going to safeguard tradition or less short-term partisan raise -- rage overcome them. in december, i explained how mostrats sprint into the least fair and at least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history.

kupperman. i mentioned that earlier. and to recent published reports announcing that the house chairs do not intend to issue a subpoena to ambassador bolton. he said we are dismay that had the committees have chosen not to join us in seeking resolution of the judicial branch of this momentous constitutional question. and he ends the letter by saying, if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of dr. kupperman, and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear. that is the house's decision. and they made that decision. they never subpoenaed ambassador bolton. they didn't try to call him in the house. and they with drew the subpoena for charles kupperman before the judge could rule, and they asked that the case be mooted. now they ask you to issue a subpoena for john bolton. it's not right. i yield the remainder of my time the mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate. facts are a stubborn thing. let me give you some facts from the transcripts. ambassador sondland actually testified unequ

kupperman. so for them to come here now and demand that before we even start the arguments, that they ask you to do something that they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it's ridiculous. talk about out-of-control government. now, let me read you a quote from mr. nadler not so long ago. the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. well, you've just seen it for yourself. what happened, mr. nadler? what happened? the american people pay their salaries, and they're here to take away their vote. they're here to take away their voice. they've come here, and they've attacked every institution of our government. the

why did the house withdraw the kupperman subpoena?use pursue its legal remedies to enforce its subpoenas? >> senators, i thank you for the question. when we -- our practice in the house was to invite witnesses to come voluntarily, if they refuse, to give them a subpoena. in the case of dr. kupperman, he refused to come in voluntarily, and we subpoenaed him. almost instantly upon receipt of the subpoena, a lengthy complaint was filed in court where he sought to challenge that subpoena. interestingly and contrary to i think what you're hearing from the president's counsel here today, the house took the position that a

kupperman. why would they withdraw the subpoena on dr.perman when he was only threatening to tie you up endlessly in court? now, we suggested to counsel for dr. kupperman that if they had a good faith concern about testifying, if this was really good faith and it wasn't just a strategy to delay, if it wasn't just part of the president's wholesale fight all subpoenas, they didn't need to file separate litigation because there was actually a case already in court involving don mcgahn on that very subject that was ripe for a decision, indeed the decision would come out very shortly thereafter, and we said, let's just agree to be bound by what the mcgahn court decides. well, they didn't want to do that, and it became obvious once the mcgahn court decision came out because the mcgahn court said there's no absolute immunity. you must testify, and by the way, if you think people involved in national security, i.e. dr. kupperman and john bolton if you're listening, if you think you're somehow absolutely immune, you're not. so dr. kupperman said n

kupperman and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear. that is the houses decision and they made that decision. they never subpoenaed ambassador bolton. they didn't try to call him in the house andan they withdrew te subpoena for charles kupperman before the judge could rule and asked that the case be mooted. and now they come here and ask you to issue a subpoena for john bolton. it's not right. ideal the remainder of my time to mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate. facts are stubborn things. let me give you some facts. it's from the transcripts. ambassador sondland actually testified unequivocally that the president t did not tie aid to investigations. instead he acknowledged any leaky suggested was based entirely on his own speculation, unconnected to any conversationn with the president. here's the question. what about the aid? ambassador voelker said that they were tied, the aid was not tied. answer, i didn't say that they were conclusively tied either. i said i was presuming it. question, okay. and so the presiden

counsel brings up the case of charles kupperman who was a deputy to john bolton.said he did what he needed to. he went to court. the justice department said he can't do that. these lawyers are saying he should, they are saying they can't. they can't have it both ways. interestingly, while dr. kupperman went to court and they applaud him for doing that, his boss, john bolton says there's no necessity for him to go to court. he doesn't have to do it. he's willing to come and talk to you. he's willing to come and testify and tell you what he knows. the question is do you want to hear it. do you want to hear it? do you want to hear from someone in the meetings, someone that described what the president did, this deal between mulvaney and sondland as a drug deal. do you want to know why it was a drug deal? do you want to ask him why it was a drug deal? do you want to ask him why he told people go talk to the lawyers? you should want to know. they don't want you to know. they don't want you to know. the president doesn't want you to know. can you really live up to the o

what did kupperman do?led suit to try to get the courts to figure out who he should listen to. the house who says testify or the president who says don't. listen, bolton already knows all that. he's already been told by the president don't testify, and what has he done? he has recently said if subpoenaed i will testify. so i think that puts a lot of pressure on mcconnell and on the republicans to make sure the man that we all know has sharply incriminating information about the president needs to be called as a witness, and if he doesn't, if mcconnell somehow turns this into a sham, a witness list trial, then what i think that does is that is mitch mcconnell sending nancy pelosi a signal that bolton was willing to testify. i wasn't willing to let the american people hear what he wanted to say, so madame speaker, you might want to subpoena him in further house proceedings to take his testimony. >> and then even if his testimony had nothing to do with impeachment, at least with the senate trial, it would at l

kupperman did what any american should be allowed to do, used to be allowed to do. he was forced to get a lawyer. he was forced to pay for that lawyer. and he went to court. mr. schiff doesn't like courts. he went to court and he said, judge, tell me what to do. i have obligations that frankly rise to what the supreme court has called the apex of executive privilege in the area of national security. and then i have a subpoena from mr. schiff. what do i do? do you know what mr. schiff said? mr. kupperman went to the judge and the houseen said, never min, we withdraw the subpoena, we promise not to issue it again. and then they come here and ask you to do the work that they refuse to do for themselves. they ask you to trample on executive privilege. now, would theyge ever suggest that the executive could determine on its own what the speech and debate clause means? of course not. uswhat ever suggest that the hoe could invade the discussions that the supreme court has behind closed doors? i hope not. but they come here and the ask you to do what they refuse to do for t

kupperman when is only threatening to tie you up endlessly in court?e suggested to counsel for dr. kupperman that if they had a good faith concern about testifying, if this is really good faith that it wasn't just a strategy to delay, if the wasn't part of the president's wholesale fight all subpoenas, they did need to file separate litigation because there was a case in court involving don mcgahn on that very subject. that was right for a decedent, indeed the decision would come up very shortly thereafter. we said let's just agree to be bound by what the mcgahn court decides. they didn't want to do that and it became obvious once the mcgahn court decision came up because it said there's no absolute immunity, you must testify, and by the what you think people involved in national security i.e. dr. kupperman, john bolton if you're listening, if you think you're some absolutely immune, you are not. so to dr. kupperman said now i have the comfort i needed because the court has weighed in. the answer is of course not. counsel says we might have gotten a qu

kupperman. it's in our brief. as those three that had immunity. a doctrine asserted by every president since nixon. then there was a different problem with some of the subpoenas. some of the other witnesses who were not standard visor to the president that this president did not assert that they have absolute immunity. instead the subpoenas refuse to allow those executive branch personnel to have executive branch counsel accompanied them and the opinion has been published in its on line. it's unconstitutional to refuse to allow the executive branch personnel to have the assistance of the executive branch counsel to protect privileged information during questioning and therefore it's not valid to force them to appear. >> thank you counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice and senators you know we have received nothing as part of our impeachment inquiry. it's worth pointing out the house committee that subpoenaed before the house vote had standing authority under the house rules and they were the oversight committee which has under standard author

kupperman's case to be moot. i have had competing issues based on careful consideration and study.ave concluded that if the senate she's a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer address possible scenarios for a trial late last week. here is what they had to say. the senate will have to address some of the deepest institutional questions. will have to decide whether we are going to safeguard tradition or less short-term partisan raise -- rage overcome them. in december, i explained how mostrats sprint into the least fair and at least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history. it has jeopardized the foundation of our system of government. speaker pelosi told the country, " impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path." that was the speaker less than a year ago. back in 1998 when democrats were defending president clinton, jerry nadler said, " there must never be a narrow voted impeachment or an impeachment substant

well, the kupperman case has been decided. what does this mean? let's find out.also nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. what's it mean, danny? >> it means the case is muted. to understand this we have to go back to 2008 to the hair iot meyers case in which the court held there was no absolute immunity, but it left the crack open to the issues of national security. you fastforward to 2019 and the don mcgahn case where the judge holds that there is no absolute immunity. but perhaps even more important, the administration chose to make a vague arm that because don mcgahn was in the white house, he was in the vicinity of national security, so he may have picked up a little bit of it so that he should be allowed that national security protection that absolute immunity. and in terms of betting, this was like putting that argument with the detroit lions as opposed to the san francisco 49ers, this was not best game to bet on national security as an absolute immunity issue. and so judge brown dismissed that argument when the administration might have won if it was used with

kupperman. for them to come here now and demand before we even start the arguments that they ask you to do something that they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it's ridiculo ridiculous. talk about out-of-control government. let me read you a quote from mr. nadler, not so long ago. "the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. there must never be a narrowly about it impeachment or unimpeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions." you've just seen it for yourself, what happened, mr. nadler? what happened? the american people pay their salaries and they are here to take away their vote. they are here to take away their voice. they have come here and they have attacked every institution of our government. they

this lawyer cooper also represented bolton's deputy kupperman, and kupperman had been subpoenaed to testify gone to court to ask the court to decide whether kupperman would have to speak. and the court essentially ruled that the issue was moot, that it wasn't going to make a decision on that. and that was almost right before new year's, and here we are one of the first business days of 2020, and bolton basically coming forward and saying that he's willing to testify. so by this court decision not making a decision, it gave bolton sort of the political and legal cover on his own to go forward and make this decision and sort of raise his hand. >> michael schmidt, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. >>> coming up on "morning joe" as we all know from the north korea saga, president trump loves his letters to foreign leaders. but yesterday he brought that to a whole new level. how the pentagon is asking for a mulligan after a commanding general penned a note to baghdad suggesting the u.s. was poised to withdraw from iraq. "morning joe" is back in a moment. do you have concerns a

there's a man named charlie kupperman. use the deputy national security adviser. he is the number two to john bolton. -- he is. you have to remember, mr. schiff want you to forget what you have to remember how we got here. they threatened him. they sent him a subpoena. mr. kupperman did what any american should be allowed to do, used to be allowed to do. he was forced to get a lawyer. he was forced to pay for that lawyer. and he went to court. mr. schiff doesn't like courts. he went to court and he said, judge, tell me what to do. i have obligations that frankly rise with the supreme court has called the apex of executive privilege in the area of national security. and then i have a subpoena from mr. schiff. what do i do? do you know what mr. schiff did? mr. kupperman went to the judge and the house said, never mind, we withdraw the subpoena. we promise not to issue it again. and then they come here and they ask you to do the work that they refuse to do for themselves. they ask you to trample on executive privilege. now, would they ever suggest that the executive

and we had kupperman and we had the withdrawal of a subpoena.a lot of things happened, but the democrats' position in this has been all along we have more than sufficient evidence to proceed with these articles, except for the fact that the articles in effect are still being held hostage to what kind of trial procedure there will be actually in the senate. >> let's get into the articles. >> sure. >> because with your wealth of experience, i think it's really useful to hear your analysis and potential defense on behalf of the president as you look at these articles. here is, of course, article i, the abuse of power. let me read you the core of it. >> sure. >> solicit the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the presidential election. >> right circumstances the president's best defense that that's true or not impeachable? or you have the to argue that it's not true? >> i think the best defense honestly, first of all, is what articles? there aren't any articles in the senate. so we're not having a trial, at least as i understand senato

kupperman. it's in our brief. as those three that had immunity.ine asserted by every president since nixon. then there was a different problem with some of the subpoenas. some of the other witnesses who were not standard visor to the president that this president did not assert that they have absolute immunity. instead the subpoenas refuse to allow those executive branch personnel to have executive branch counsel accompanied them and the opinion has been published in its on line. it's unconstitutional to refuse to allow the executive branch personnel to have the assistance of the executive branch counsel to protect privileged information during questioning and therefore it's not valid to force them to appear. >> thank you counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice and senators you know we have received nothing as part of our impeachment inquiry. it's worth pointing out the house committee that subpoenaed before the house vote had standing authority under the house rules and they were the oversight committee which has under standard authority to i

we learned the judge dismissed the lawsuit by charles kupperman being watched closely by former nationalecurity adviser john bolton. explain to us the significance of that? what's that ruling mean, the significance it has on john bolton, whether we're likely to see him testify? >> bolton says he's not going to testify unless a court compels him to do so. clearly the courts are not rushing to compel him to do so. i just want to pull back for a second here. a few pieces of critical information. we know for a fact that pompeo, mulvaney, bolton, they're not going to testify without some sort of urging from a court and the white house, the administration has indicated it is not willing to put people forward. regardless of what you think about the substance here of the matter, the senate is a majoritarian institution in which a majority of people are needed to do things. i understand -- >> but you do have like susan collins now suggest -- >> you do. >> you have lisa murkowski, they could seek witnesses. >> those people, if they walked in, three people or more walked into mitch mcconnell's offi

. >> just richard leon, the judge in the kupperman case, he didn't even schedule a hearing for threei mean, he was lazy and incompetent. >> blame that on the courts. >> that's right. >> but the president has a right to invoke the courts. >> shouldn't be held hostage to the courts when the president is issuing blanket denials of their rights as a coordinate branch of government. >> if i as a criminal defense lawyer, my client, if somebody is asked to come and testify and i claim there's lawyer-client privilege, i will invoke a blanket say no, you get a court order. the house used to have a way of enforcing their own orders. they have a little cell in the basement. they haven't used that in years. now they go to the courts. it may take time. that's part of our system of checks and balances. our government -- >> so is impeachment. >> our government wasn't created for efficiency. >> so wasn't impeachment. >> but it has to be made on an offense, not on something like obstruction of congress. it's just made up out of whole cloth and it would be extremely dangerous if that went forward. i a

. >> dagen: speaker pelosi did not subpoena john bolton, and kupperman, they dropped that subpoena. if you want to here from john bolton you should have pushed. in the meantime, the bernie sanders and elizabeth warren feud -- let's move onto this -- it's heating up again. >> you know have a response, but let's move on! [laughs] >> dagen: commenting on the impact of gender in politics. >> do you think female candidates experience -- have a different experience running for president then you? do you think gender is still an obstacle for female politicians? >> look at -- the answer is yes, but i think everybody has their own sets of problems. nobody's perfect, there ain't no perfect candidate out there. >> dagen: sanders has denied telling elizabeth warren during the part of it 2018 meeting that he didn't think a woman could win the white house. then warren accused sanders of calling her a liar on the debate stage. his latest remarks, the same day warren was asked about dishonest politicians. listen to this. >> how could the american people want someone who lies to them? i think we jus

kupperman, dr.an went to court and they applaud him for doing that, his boss john bolton now says there's no necessity for him to go to court. he doesn't have to do it. he's willing to come and talk to you. he's willing to come and testify and tell you what he knows. the question is do you want to hear it? do you want to hear it? do you want to hear from someone who is in the meetings, someone who described what the president did, this deal between mulvaney and sondland as a drug deal. do you want to know why it was a drug deal? do you want to ask him why it was a drug deal? do you want to ask him why he repeatedly told people go talk to the lawyers? you should want to know. they don't want you to know. they don't want you to know. the president doesn't want you to know. can you really live up to the oath you've taken to be impartial and not know? i don't think you can. now, they also made the argument that you'll hear more later on from apparently professor dershowitz that, well, abuse of power is

shines a light on the fact that john bolton wasn't subpoenaed by the house and in fact, charles kuppermant to court over his house subpoena, looking for guidance on whether privilege applied to his testimony, the house dropped it so where we now? it's a political talking point on the left. >> harris: quickly because we are going into the bottom of the hour, i want to quickly get to you on material witnesses, where do we go with that? >> matt: the president is entitled to have whoever he wants argue his case. >> harris: can democrats call his lawyer? >> matt: this is one of those things, it takes 51 votes to do just about anything and i don't ultimately see pat being witnessed. >> harris: we've got mitt romney, republican, lisa murkowski, susan collins. there's a handful of them. >> matt: at some point in time, the senators are going to defend the institution of the senate and not how it evolved into some back and forth like we saw in the house. >> harris: the political side of this is that mitch mcconnell and others are up for reelection so the bulk of people that leslie is talking about,

>>they didn't try to call him in the house and they withdrew the subpoena for charles kupperman before the judge could rule and they asked that the case be mooted and now they come here. and they ask you to issue a subpoena. for john bolton. it's not right. >>and still senate minority leader chuck schumer introducing even more amendments including wanting to subpoena acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney that amdment failed also along party lines the chuck schumer saying she will contie which means they would likely be a very long night here on capitol hill reporting in washington, 'm camila for now back to >>thank you camilla and a stick with kron on for the latest on the impeachment trial. we will be carrying the trial live our 7 streaming news service. download the app >>greater star antonio brown may have hit rock bottom. the new legal trouble he faces tonight after a run-in with the moving truck drivers. >>plus adult and furry outfit sing alleged crime in the south bay and and trying to stop it what they did to the man accused of domest violence and next fresh off its in

kupperman, why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? i don't know that i can answer that question, but i just can tell you i have such admiration for the fact they did. i think -- and i think this is some form of cosmic justice, that this ambassador that was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her courage. there is justice in that. but what will really vindicate that leap of faith that she took is if we show the same courage. they risked everything, their careers. and, yes, i know what you're asked to decide may risk yours too. but if they could show the courage, so can we. i yield back. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 243 of the 100th congress, a single one-page classified document identified by the house managers for filing with the secretary of the senate that will be received on january 22nd, 2020, shall not be made part of the public record and shall not be printed, but shall be made available pursuant to the standing order from the 100th congress. the majority leader is recognized. >>

when he filed to join the charles kupperman lawsuit, what his attorney said he doesn't want to be thed in middle which has to choose following guidance from congressional regulators and the commander-in-chief. you all in the courts figure this out, let us know what you want to do. this is a way for bolton where he wanted to be anyway. a lot of conspiracy theories around why he is agreeing to do this now. i think it is probably simpler than people imagine. i think it is probably because he is going to get the outcome he wanted. he won't have to make the decision. chris: meanwhile, iowa caucuses are just three weeks from tomorrow. we're finally getting there, folks and, always reliable, often reliable, nobody is always reliable, new "des moines register" poll is out this weekend. it shows bernie sanders, back in the lead at 20%. that is up five points from november with warren and beauty beau and biden all closely bunched as you can see. with buttigieg who was leader in the previous november poll down nine points. donna, given his lead in that poll, given how well he is doing in new ham

kupperman went to court. they withdrew the subpoena.rk, that sets a new precedent as well, and it would change for all the future. it would change the relationship between the senate and the house and impeachment inquiries. it would mean that the senate has to become the investigatory body. and the principles that they assert, they did a process that was not fair. they did a process that was arbitrary, that arbitrarily denied the president's rights. they did a process that would not allow him. and then they came here on the first night, remember, when we were all here until 2:00, and in very belligerent terms said to the members of this body, you are on trial. it will be treachery if you do not do what the house manager say. that's not right. when it was their errors, when they were arbitrary and did not provide witness, they cannot project that on this body to try to say that you have to make up for their errors, and if you don't, the fault lies here. now, they also suggest that it is not going to take a long time, that they only want

there was a subpoena for his deputy, kupperman that was withdrawn in november.the articles were passed the court said essentially the venue is closed there is nowhere for this guy to testify. >> can this all happen in the senate? >> precisely. it will have to start over again. >> or with chief justice john roberts. >> i think they have to go back toll a federal court. >> steve, there is also -- it seems like everybody -- not everybody, a lot of senators are going into their corners on this. i want to play a moment that got a lot of attention that is telling about the ski of some parts of the senate, this is martha mcsally senator from arizona got her seat because she was appointed lost the general election initially interacting with a very well respected reporter from cnn. let's watch. >> should the senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial. >> you are a liberal hack. i am not talking to you. >> you are not going to comment? >> your a liberal hack. >> i think that was a fair question. i think most people have said that. since she said that tr

he talks about his colleague, former national security advisor, charles kupperman faced a subpoena andould testify and the house with drew the subpoena. after my counsel informed the house i, too, would seek judicial resolution of these constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. nonetheless i publicly resolve to be guided by the outcome of dr. ckupperman's case and the house of representatives chose to withdraw it. and the effort to mute the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. he goes on to say, this is the key line, i have had to resolve serious competing issues as best i could. based on careful consideration and study, i concluded if the senate issues a subpoena for my testimony i am prepared to testify. >> let's put this into context about john bolton. obviously, the former national security advisor who resisted efforts to pressure the ukrainian government, at the heart of this impeachment inquiry. notably, correct me if i am wrong, a prolific notetaker. this is someone who kept a detailed record of all of this as it was happening in real-time. >> right.

we did so with kupperman and bolton made the noise that he was going to litigate it in court. think litigate it in court doesn't make a lot of sense especially when he said that he's willing to testify in the senate forum. so that's why i think that at this point, proceeding with the trial and having him testify there makes all the sense in the world. >> okay. let me ask you about iran. i know tomorrow you will be among those who are able to attend a briefing from key administration officials regarding the intelligence behind what led to the strike on qassem soleimani. you heard secretary of state pompeo say this morning and not shed more light on what that intelligence may be. national security adviser o'brien said it was an attack or a threat against diplomats in facilities around the world presumably. is what you heard so far enough for you to support that strike on soleimani? what else do you need to hear? >> i need to hear a lot more details. we need to know if that threat would be carried out regardless of the existence of soleimani, whether it would be worse now that he

kupperman, why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? i don't know that i can answer that question, but i just can tell you i have such admiration for the fact they did. i think -- and i think this is some form of cosmic justice, that this ambassador that was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her courage. there is justice in that. but what really vindicates that leap of faith she took is if we show the same courage. they risked everything, their caree careers. and yes i know what you're asked to decide may risk yours, too, but if they could show the courage, so can we. i yield back. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 243 of the 100th congress, a single one-page classified document identified by the house managers for filing with the secretary of the senate, that will be received on january 22nd, 2020, shall not be made part of the public record and shall not be printed, but shall be made available pursuant to the standing order from the 100th congress. the majority leader is recognized. >> mr.

they did not pursue ambassador bolton, and they withdrew the kupperman. mr.o, for them to come here now and demand that before we even that they askment you to do something that they refused to do for themselves come then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it is ridiculous. host: let's hear from jerome in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am very disappointed this morning in c-span. let me tell you why. this is historic, what happened yesterday. think that you, pedro and john, would be on top of your game today. for example, three times yesterday the president's council lied in front of the chief justice. you guys this morning would not debunk it to inform and edify the world that is watching this. let me give you three examples. the first one, that the republicans are not allowed into the initial hearings. not true. if you were on the committee you were allowed. if you are not on the committee, you are not. the second, the president was not allowed in judicial hearings. not true. the third one, that the president is not being offe

around july 15th, ten morrison learn from deputy director -- or advisor charles kupperman, quote, that it was the president's direction to hold the assistance. several days later duffey and blair again exchanged emails about ukraine's security assistance, instead he testified in these e-mails duffey asked blair what the reason for the hold. blair provided no explanation. instead he said quote, we need to let the hold take place. and then, quote, revisit the issue with the president. between july 18 and july 31, the nsc staff convened several interagency meetings at which the hold on to get assistance was discussed. remember those dates, july 18 to july 31. according to marx and and other witnesses, several facts emerged. first, the agencies learned that the president himself had directed the hold to omb. second, no justification or explanation was provided for the hold, despite repeated questions. questions. third, except for omb, all agencies supported military aid because of sin the national security interest of the united states. and, orth, many were concerned that hopeless outright

kupperman went to court and they're putting for doing that, his boss john bolton now says there's no necessity for him to go to court. he doesn't have to do it. he's wanted to come and talk to you. he's wanted to come and testify and tell you what he knows. the question is, do you want to hear it lacks do you want to hear it? do you want to hear from someone who was in the meetings, someone who described what the president did, this deal between mulvaney as a drug deal? to want to know why it wasn't a drug to the joint ask why it was a drug deal? to want to ask why he would told people go talk to the lawyers? you should want to know. they don't want you to know. they don't want you to know. the president doesn't want you to know. can you really live up to the lcf taken to be impartial and not know? i don't think you can. now, they also made argument that you'll hear more later on from apparently professor schwartz that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. it's interesting that they had to go outside the realm of constitutional lawyers and scholars to a criminal defense to ma

kupperman and out of, you know, just due diligence, they just want a court to opine that it is okay for court blesses the testimony, they are more willing to come in, and they just are going to go to court to get a court opinion saying they could do it. and so they said there is a court to rule on this absolute immunity and shortly thereafter, they did. that is the court case in the mcgahn case and the judge said that the argument of the absolute immunity that, yes, the presidents have dreamed about and asserted which has never succeeded in any court in the land, and it is ridiculed in the case of harriat myers and made short shift in the case of don mcgann, and the judge said, no, we don't have kings here. in the 250 years of jurisprudence, there is not a single case to support the proposition for them to say that the president is subject to primus. and so in the case for a congress to enforce the subpoenas against witnesses or documents, the courts have said that the power to compel, compliance to the subpoena is co-equal, coextensive with the power to legislate, because you can't do

when judge leon, the federal judge decided to have an expedited schedule to decide on the charles kuppermanubpoena, adam schiff responded to that by losing interest in the subpoena, withdrawing it and submitting a motion to dismiss to judge leon. judge leon would've been on an expedited schedule. the legislative branch subpoena issue. >> bret: now we know at least what's being reported, i haven't seen it first hand, john bolton we should pu point out put out e entire chapter and o chapter of the book that we have this report, doesn't not change the dynamics now? it gets to the heart of the allegations of the articles of impeachment the president is facing. >> the facts don't change, president zelensky didn't even know there was a hold on aid until he read it in politico. president zelensky, ukraine didn't have to do anything, adam schiff, jerry nadler, they declared their evidence, overwhelming, and disputed, uncontested. they decided not to print pursue john bolton on the house side, they needed to impeach the president by christmas and two, judge leon might've ruled in favor of the presid

charles kupperman, the deputy national security advisor, he went to the court and sought to declare aaying the president told me i shouldn't go. i have a subpoena from the house saying i should go. please, court, tell me what are my obligations? and that was filed, i believe around october 25th, towards the end of october, very shortly within a few days. the court had sent an extra divided briefing schedule and scheduled a hearing for decembe. that was supposed to hear preliminary motions to dismiss, but also the merit issues. so they were going to get a decision after hearing december 10th, it will go to the issue. the house managers withdrew the subpoena. the house of representatives decided they wanted to root out the case so they wouldn't get a decision. so no, the house has not pursued litigation to get any of these issues resolved. and affirmatively avoided getting any litigation. and that seems to be, at least in part, based if you look at the house judiciary report, their assertion that under the sole power of impeachment signed to the house, the house believes the constitutio

kupperman went to court.n't the have to do it. he's willing to come and talk to you. he's willing to testify and tell you what he knows. do you want to hear it? do you want to hear from someone who is in the meetings, someone who describes what the president did, this deal between mulvaney and sondland as a drug deal. do you want to know why it was a drug deal? do you want to know why it's a drug deal? go want to know why he continually said, go talk to the lawyers? you should want to know. they don't want you to know. the president doesn'ten walt you to know. can you really live up to the oath you've taken to be impartial and not know? i don't think you can. they also made the argument you'll hear later on from professor dershowitz that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. they had to go outside the realm of constitutional lawyers to a criminal defense lawyer to make that argument, because no reputable expert would do that. the one they called in the house, jonathan turley said exactly the opposite.

kupperman, the answer was senator, you serve with us a subpoena and we will sue, you too. >> in thisf words, another development. you're looking at a brand new state of charles cooper, joel's lawyer, firing back and raising questions about how the white house is handling information that he says is not classified. it is about ukraine and it could be essential to this entire debate. i'm joined now as mentioned by on chris matthews, lawrence o'donnell, and host of the last word. lawrence on, bolton. you were eyeing some questions that really go to the utility of the testimony. >> well, bolton was the subject of more democrats' questions than any other thing. a very large percentage of the questions had the word bolton in it. the most recent ones about, 20 minutes ago, it was the simplest one. it was the democratic question to the house managers, what did john bolton mean by the phrase, drug deal? what did he mean by that? and adam schiff gave an answer that came down to, ask john bolton. bring him in here to testify and ask john bolton. and that's exactly what the democrats were going

charles kupperman, the deputy national security adviser, he went to the court and sought a declaretrygment, saying presidents told me i shouldn't go. i have a subpoena from the house saying i should go. please, courts, tell me what are my obligations. and that was filed i believe around october 25th. it was towards the end of october. very shortly within a knew days the court had set an expedited briefing schedule and scheduled a hearing for december 10th that was supposed to hear preliminary motions to dismiss and a merits issues. they were going to get a decision after hearing on december 10th that would go to the merits. the house managers withdrew the subpoena. the house of representatives decided they wanted to moot out the case so they wouldn't get a decision. so no, the house has not pursued litigation to get any of these issues resolved. it's a firmtively avoided getting any litigation. and it seems to be at least in part based on, if you look at the house judiciary committee report, their assertion that under the sole power of impeachment assigned to the house, the house beli

kupperman. you want to look back at strategic errors, that might have been one of them. lawsuit which was moot even before the judge ruled. i remember you saying from the train, i can barely get through law and order. what the heck is this lawsuit over? there is no subpoena out. the vote has been done. there was another, a door opened for john bolton sunday night when somehow "the new york times" got ahold of some knowledge of what was in the manuscript. that door stayed open from sunday until 25 minutes ago. and i think when you look back on this, that will be the period where maybe you rehash and reexamine some of your decisions. i wish he had spoken out. i do think, john bolton's story, the book was written by john bolton. if you're in the room, and you're chris christie, you've seen some of that stuff. he sent it to the mueller report. donald trump doesn't abide by norms and laws and who has sxleernls who doesn't. so chris christie has been in the room. never said anything like what john bolton had the courage to say. mattis wrote a book. said nothing hfl more scathi

this is the case involving white house adviser charlie kupperman, because he went to the court to askratory obligation to find out what his obligations were? should he take the directive from the president and not go or obey the subpoena? in that case, he sued on october 25th. the court within a few days sent out a briefing schedule, but the house withdrew the subpoena on november 5th, 11 days later to moot the case. so litigation is a viable avenue and accommodative process is the first step, and then if the house wants to litigate the jurisdiction and the validity of the subpoenas, that is also available to them. impeachment as the first step doesn't make any sense. i should point out in part when the house managers say they didn't have time to litigate, didn't have time to go to the court, but they now come to this chamber and say, this chamber should issue some more subpoenas, and this chamber should get some witnesses that we did not fight about. what do you think is going to happen then? there won't be more assertions of validity and again, this is going back to the point that i

charles kupperman, it is the president's direction to hold the assistance. duffy and blair again exchanged the emails, and then sandy testified that in the emails duffy asked blair about the reason for the hold. blair provided no explanation. instead, he said, quote, we need to let the hold take place. and then quote revisit the issue with the president. so between july 18th, and july 21st, the staff convened several intraagency meetings in which the hold on ukraine was discussed. remember the dates. july 18th to july 31st. according to mark sandy and other witnesses, several facts emerged. first, the agencies learned that the president, himself, had directed the hold through omb. second, no justification or explanation was provided for the hold. despite repeated questions. third, except for omb, all agencies were supported military aid, because it was in the national security interests of the united states. fourth, many were concerned that the hold was outright illegal. ambassador taylor learned of the hold on july 18th, and he said, quote, the drekty came

mulvaney, blair, bolton, eisenberg, ellis, griffith, kupperman, duffey, mccormick, it's not just one be legitimate, it's quite a list. what are the democrats saying with that argument? >> yeah, i think what the democrats are saying if you have nothing to hide, if it was a perfect call, if you did it because and frozen the aid and did not have the meeting with president zelensky for reasons that had nothing to do with your own re-election bid, then let's hear it. let people tell both the senators who have to make the call. but also the american public what happened here and why. because one of the points we hear over and over again yesterday is why. why if this was a legitimate call and you weren't shaking down just for a biden-announced investigation, then why were you raising it? if you had concerns about corruption in general, buy were you raising a question about one company, when there are 1800 companies. why did you not raise questions about ukraine aid in 2016 or 2017. >> why suddenly were you raising it now in 2019. so, i think those kinds of questions are not just questions.