To impeach or not to impeach?

with me, everyone, let's all learn together. If you've gotten into the habit of scrolling past the NonStop breaking news alerts dominating your notifications, I get it. Headline fatigue is very real. But so many names and titles it's almost impossible to keep them straight, especially when it comes to these latest impeachment hearings. That's why we're dedicating today's episode to all things impeachment. We'll talk about the arguments for and against, and why the country is almost split down

the middle. So to impeach or not to impeach? That is our next question today. I'm talking with two legal experts who represent two different sides of the debate. First up, Neil Cartiel. Neil was the acting Solicitor General under President Obama and drafted the Justice Department rules that guided the Muller investigation. So yeah, when it comes to investigating government officials, Neil really knows what he's talking about. Neil welcome. So

we've got a lot to talk about. But hot off the presses the US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Silan's testimony. You've called it every bit the bombshell we expected it to be. Why in your view was his testimony so particularly important because this was the guy that Trump pointed

to to exonerate him. There's been a whole bunch of characters in this thing, Ambassador Taylor and Colonel Vinman and this and that, but there's been one guy throughout that President Trump has said is going to exonerate him, who even said I hope testifies, but he won't be able to testify because he won't get a fair shake in the Congress and so on. Well, he did testify today, and before he walked in the door, he had a twenty page written statement. And that twenty page written statement

is remarkable. It says there's a whole section called there was a quid pro quote, which is of course exactly what for many months we've been hearing as the talking point of President Trump and his followers, so much so that actually Senator Lindsey Graham, who's one of the president's closest allies in Congress, said last month, well, if there's a quid pro quo then everything is different, then I want to look at it. But otherwise I don't see

anything here. Well, today, Trump's own guy, the person that Trump nominated to be the ambassador to the European Union and the guy who Trump took and put in control of Ukrainian Ukrainian matters, it said, yes, there was a quid pro quote. There's lots of other stuff too, but that to me is you know, incredibly significant. That's the high water mark of the Trump defense. Before we talk about this testimony some more, were you surprised, Well, I wasn't surprised in the sense of a couple of things

have happened recently. One is you've had Roger Stone get convicted essentially for obstructing justice in a congressional investigation. So, you know, I don't think anyone could have seen that. You know, if you're solon last weekend and you're watching that conviction and thinking to yourself, boy, I've already been accused by at least one member of the House Intelligence Committee for committing perjury. Um, and now all these people are coming forward and saying stuff that I didn't say

in my earlier statements. Yeah, I'm in trouble. So for example, you know, he said he was supposed to detail his conversations with the President about Ukraine in his earlier deposition on October eight. There's not a word about this phone conversation that he had with President Trump on July and set the one in the restaurant exactly unsecured line on a mobile phone. Random. And that's just random. It's a

total security threat. I mean, look, I mean when I was in the government, I wouldn't even talk on my home line at home land line because you know, you're always worried about interception. And the idea that you would be able to just sit in a restaurant in Kiev, of all places, and not just on a on a hard line, but on a cell phone and talking not just to any government official but the President of the

United States is baffling. What's even more baffling, of course, Katie, is that he forgot about the conversation, like he just mysteriously never mentioned it to the investigator. So do you think he came forward or came clean to save his own hide? Basically, I mean, you couldn't watch any one minute of the hearing today and think anything else. This

was a guy who was bent on self preservation. In his opening statement, he said he worked with Rudy Giuliani at the express direction of President Trump on matters involving Ukraine. So it was almost as if Rudy Giuliani was conducting a shadow government here right, Well, he was conducting a shadow a government, but at the president's request, So you know,

that's what you know. Sanlon also said, so it wasn't as if this was a circumstance in which it was some rogue private attorney for President Trump who was conducting Ukrainian foreign policy. So can you conduct a shadow government at the president's past. It's like a secondary government. That's very legal and very cool to Trump. But I think

in the real world, of course, presidents don't do such things. Um. It's an incredibly damaging and dangerous And you know, the reason why Katie I wrote this book Impeach is basically to make sure that everyone doesn't focus on these little twists and turns every day in this story of you know what Sonlon said one day or what Giuliani said another day. There's like a one central narrative, and it's actually one that the Republicans in President Trump doesn't disagree with.

And that central narrative which comes out in that July in script in which the President himself released between a conversation between him and the President of Ukraine, is the president of Ukraine it's wanting this aid, this military aid. And President Trump says, well, wait, though, I need a favor first. And that is the idea that a president or you know, our nation's most powerful official would use congressionally appropriated aid or a White House meeting in order

to advance his own political ends. Um, there's nothing I think that is a better definition of what is an impeachable offense. Well, let me yea, so help us understand this as as the expert you are, professor, Um, you know what laws? Were there actual laws that were broken? Even if you think it's grossly inappropriate or just obnoxious or weird or self serving, was there an actual law broken here? Yes, but that's actually not the question when

you think about impeachment. So there are Constitution and this, you know, the whole chapter about this in my book that the our Constitution says you impeach for what are called high crimes and misdemeanors. And that's a phrase of art the founders used, not to mean just actual crimes. But the core thing that our founders are getting at is is there an abuse of government power. And our founders didn't actually even want to put impeachment in the constitution.

Many of them didn't, and um, you know, uh, And ultimately what one the day was a series of Founders Alexander Hamilton and others who said, well, what if a president, a sitting president, goes and tries to get help from a foreign government to win an election. That's their example of impeachment. Now at the time, that's not criminal. It is now actually, and I'll talk about that in a minute.

By the time, there was no statute I get criminal statute on bribery and the like, but everyone understood that to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Today we actually do have statutes that prohibit bribery, and this is again a textbook definition of that. When did that come about? The bribery statutes? I think I've been around more than a hundred years, um, And so they've been they've been around for a long time. And what they do is they they criminalize asking for a thing of value in

order to get a certain government act. And that's what a bribery of any government are conducted by any government official, including the president exactly. So if you seek a bribe, if you're the president and said, and the president says, hey, Katie, you know that ambassadorship? Great, you know, if you'll donate you know, a hundred thousand dollars to my campaign, Um, I will make you ambassador. That is him seeking a thing of value hundred thousand dollars from you in exchange

for an official act, namely your ambassadorship. And here he did the same thing. Hey Ukraine, I'll give you this money. Um, that Congress is appropriated, but you've got to do a favor for me first. Though. Isn't it an implicit understanding that big donors become ambassadors? I mean, isn't that kind of an unspoken bride. Well, there's a there's a dance, a complicated dance that's done if you do it and is literally quit pro quo and exchange. It's it's illegal.

But if you do it as the way many people do, thank you, wink wink, I really appreciate it. There might be something really great for you if I get electric. Sometimes wink winks will get to the point of being actually criminal. But for that most part, what you have is fairly sophisticated actors in this kind of wealthy ambassadorial circle, of which looks like Sondlon traveled in donating a million dollars. And I'm not suggesting at all that you know, that

kind of thing happens. You know, someone donates a lot and some good plum job comes along for them later. That's very different than this, which is the president himself saying, hey, if you want the foreign aid, you know what you gotta do. You gotta go investigate my chief political rival. Why don't you think the president pleaded ignorance instead of claiming this call was perfect. Why wouldn't he just say, you know, I didn't think this was a problem. Well,

I mean, only he can answer that question. But but one point of speculation is this, that call took place on July. One day before on July, something pretty significant happened. Robert Mueller, who had been investigating the president for almost two years, testified in Congress, and I would say didn't testify particularly clearly. Um, there was a lot of garble and so on, and the president, I think, you know, and you just it comes across even in this fake transcript.

It's not a full transcript. We don't know exactly what was said, but even just what they released, it really shows kind of a person who has no appreciation for the rule of law. I mean, we've seen this in other ways, but I think on that day in particular, he was really feeling it explained though, why you think, you know, if if Muller was sort of garbled and didn't seem to come down that hard on the president, right, why would he have done this? Why would the president

of that? Because at that moment in time, because it seemed to me that Mueller was sort of wishy washy as everyone said. Yeah. So because of that, I think the President felt like, Okay, I can do I can do this kind of award by Muller Exactly, I can do this kind of stuff. I mean, Trump's instincts all along have been pretty much to not respect the rule of law, to not respect institutions. That pushed back against them, to call them never Trumpers or whatever at you know,

labels he wants to use. So that's always been his kind of m oh. But I think on that day in particular, he must have felt particularly empowered. You know, it was interesting that Salmon said that he really wanted the investigation to be announced, almost more than he wanted the investigation to take place, which is pretty significant. He wanted to do the damage and kind of a whisper campaign almost against Joe Biden as he was as he runs for president and against Hunter Biden and suggests this

sort of scandal. Katie, I'm so glad you brought that up, because to me, that was one of the most important things in today's testimony. Ambassador Snlon said that what Trump wanted was the announcement of an investigation by the Ukrainians, not them actually doing it. Now, you know, I've been a law enforcement in two different administrations. The idea that you're if you're conducting a criminal investigation, you would announce it.

Of course, not that's the last thing you do, because you want to do all the interviewing and all the confidential inquiries first in order to catch people in perjury and things like that, and so you know, they're the president has been saying this is about corruption, this is why he did this corruption in general. But when drilled down and asked and people say, well, did you ever care about corruption in any other country? There's a hundred

ninety four other countries you ever know Ukraine? And with respect to Ukraine, did you ever care about any other kind of corruption besides this one thing? If acting Vice President Biden? No, At some point this starts to smell. It's not a particularly powerful story. Let's talk about just because I want this to be impeachment one oh one for people. Um, But before we talk about sort of the nuts and bolts of the process. I think that even the suggestion of impropriety by Hunter Biden, you know,

as part of this Ukrainian oil company Barisma. Um, I think it's something that that President Trump is very good at sort of putting things out in the ether and kind of letting it kind of enter people's psyches in Layman's terms. Is there any there there, Neil with Hunter Biden? Well, because it does, it does sound a little fun. Yeah. Now, I mean in the book, I say, you know, I have a whole section about did Hunter Biden and Biden do something wrong. I think you did something, you know,

morally wrong, not legally wrong. But the idea that you take a job because of who your dad is, I have a problem with that. So it's a little sketchy, and it's a little sketchy. I don't think it means that you go in launch some secret investigation and hold up congressionally appropriated aid and do all the things that

the President did. That's you know, even if Biden did something that was let's say, criminal, which I don't think anyone agrees that there there was that on the part of the sun And indeed, even Trump's own witness Vulgar yesterday testified that I've known Biden for twenty four years and he would never do something that would compromise his

values to this nation's interests. So, you know, but even if you put all that aside and said, Okay, Trump's right, there was something really bad that was done here that would never justify you going and deputizing your private attorney to Rudy Giuliani, to go to another country and to threaten and hold up military aid that our taxpayer dollars have appropriated for the nation's interests and the Ukraine really

needs right to protect itself from guess who, Russia. Exactly, I'm so glad you brought that up, because again Trump's witness yesterday, Ambassador Vulcar said exactly that said, look, I'm opposed to the idea of holding up to say this aid is really important encountering Russian aggression in the region. So once again we see this thing in which the president is just out doing favors for Russia. Now, I

don't know that that motivated him here. It's probably he had more personal motivations here in terms of a political agenda, but it does demonstrate the stakes here in which you have a president who cares more about himself, who cares more about his re election than what the taxpayers and Congress have appropriated in the nation's interest. We're going to take a quick break. We'll have more from Neil Cartiel

when we come back. Solon said also in his testimony, everyone was in the loop, referring to senior administration officials, including Mike Pompeio, the Secretary of State, Vice President Mike Penn's acting chief of staff, Nick bolvany Um. So have they been implicated and what might the repercussions be for them. I mean, these guys aren't going to be impeached. What will happen to them anything? Uh? They I do think

things will happen to them. So Solon's testimony today really was a kind of detonation that he basically took the view, Look, if I'm going down, I'm picking a lot of other people with me. Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff, Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, Um, you know, Pompeio, the Secretary of State, Uh, you know, and the list goes on and on and quit sort of. And and didn't he direct the White House lawyers to be notified about this?

I mean, he clearly felt uncomfortable with this. Correct, that's what the reporting says. But you know, I think one of the hard things about this, Katie, is we don't know because the President has gagged every one of these people from coming forward and telling the truth to the Congress. Can you do that? I mean, can't they subpoena these folks? They can, but it's going to take some time in

the courts. And I think the Democrats have taken the view, which I actually agree with, is they've got enough evidence now to impeach and do we want to delay things

more and more in the courts. Now, there's gonna be a decision coming down in a few days by the d C Court on some privilege issues, and it may open the door for Bolton to testify in his own And I think it's notable that a lot of the testimony we've heard over the last week, like from Colonel Vinman or Ambassador Yanovov Yanevovich and people like that, are all folks have come forward despite the President's gag order and said I'm just going to tell the truth and

might do that. I think he might, you know, I think for the courts decide I do. I mean, at the end of the day, Bolton is a lawyer, um, and you know he's far more conservative than I am. But I do think that in you know, deep in his heart is a respect for the kind of common calling we have as a profession, the idea that you know, when you're a witness to important events, um, you tell them to the American people and let the chips fall

where they may. Meanwhile, Ambassador son Land said he never heard directly from President Trump that the military aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations, saying that assumption was his own personal guests. So is that enough? Well, I mean if he never heard those exact words, Hey, if this doesn't happen, there won't be foreign aid and ps

that White House visit will be canceled. If this were the If the case against President Trump was built all around the son Land testimony, I think it certainly wouldn't be enough. The problem for Trump is Sonland is not the is not the prosecution witness. He's the defense witness. So he's the best story Trump has got, and all he's got is well the President directly say this, but everyone knew and everyone was in the loop on exactly

what was going on. What do you think? What do you think President Trump was thinking when he watched this, If he watched it, even though he claims he wasn't watching it, right, Yeah, I I don't think that there's a way anyone can watch this, you know, if you're if you're the president, and watch this being said about you without having a deep pit in your stomach. And I think that's why we see the more and more

lashing out by this president. You know, um, but at some point he's going to have to face the facts. And the facts are not based on Sun Len's testimony alone, but on that July transcript in which the quid pro quo is right there. It's not you know, I need a favor from you, though, That's what the president says, and so you know, there isn't really a way for him to walk away from it. Well this really mattered, though, Neil. That's the question. Let's talk short term and long term.

Short term being uh, if he is impeached a trial in the Senate, is there anything that we heard today that might move the needle for Republican senators to vote to convict President Trump or for some of them to basically abandoned the president. I think so far they're only two. I do think that as senators go and look at the evidence and ask themselves, you know the question that I put in my book, which is, you know, just flipped the parties around. Pretend this is what we do

with law students in their first year. You say, everyone's got certain biases when they walk in and you say, well, just pretend you're representing the defendant instead of the plain

if if you are planiff focused and vice versa. I think the same thing has to be put to the Senators, and they've never actually been asked this simple question, which is, you know, if the shoes on the other foot, if it's President Obama who went and got secret help from a foreign governmor tried to do so and held up congressionally appropriated aid or doled out White House meetings to countries that investigated his political rivals, would you sit by

and say, oh, yeah, that's cool, he can be president. I just don't think that, you know, a senator could look at herself for himself in the mirror and say, yeah, that's the kind of government I want. And I know there are so many Americans who have been disparited over the last three years as Congresses look the other way on this and that, But we've never actually forced them to go and cast that vote. And here it will be one of the most solemn votes I'll ever cast

in their lives, most solemn things they ever do. And can they really do that? I don't know, um, but I have faith that in the Senate and that they will study this, think about it, ask the question that I just asked, What if the shoe were on the other foot, and reach the right judgment. I don't mean to be cynical, but politics seems to be the number

one priority for many these Republican senators. So why do you believe that suddenly they'll have an epiphany and uh, sort of a crisis of confidence in the president and their conscious consciences will emerge at this moment in time. Well, I have to think that two things. One is I have to think when you go into public office, you know, there are a lot of ways to make money or get power. I think you do it for some sense

of the public good. And so, um, you know, I think I think at first you do, and then it's all about staying in power, don't you But maybe but even if so, Um, the idea of associating yourself with this, with this kind of lawlessness, I don't know makes for very good politics, um in in the long term. Um. And you know, we're seeing this election after election, the elections just you know, last week, you know, again and

again the president is losing. And I do think one of the reasons he's losing is because of this corrosive view about the law. So even if the Senate does not vote to convict you think he there will be hell to pay in November President Trump. Oh my, yes, I mean, look, I I you know, I understand there's a lot of people out there who say we should have defeat President Trump at the ballot box and not

impeach and removed. And I think, look, I think that you know, with this kind of record, there's no way President Trump could be re elected. Um, you know so. But at the end of the day, I think worth setting something here that's far bigger than just the next election, which of course has moment to stakes. But we're setting the ground rules for what our American experiment is all about,

what our democracy means. And if we don't do this, if we say a president can go and in secret try and hold up foreign aid to investigate his chief rivals, and you know, what are we saying about our elections? But Neil, a new NPR PBS News Our poll found that while most Americans are paying attention to these hearings, less than a third say or you know, around a third say their minds could be changed. So there are a lot of people who say, we don't care whatever happens,

that it's a witch hunt. You know, they've bought the president's talking points and by the way. I watched Sean Hannity last night, and it's almost as if we live in two different countries or there are two different stories. If you have a steady diet of Fox News, you have a very different opinion about what's going on in Washington right now. Yeah. No, Look, I my argument is not that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram are going to

change their minds. So you know, they've got a certain, you know, set of incentives to say the things that they say. I'm talking about Fox viewers, and I do have more faith in those viewers and more generally the viewers across the American public and listeners and and so on. I'm not ready to give up on the idea that we live in such two different countries that there is no truth anymore, or that we shouldn't ask these questions and we throw in the towel because we're worried about

a you know, splintered, hyperpartisan environment. I mean, at the end of the day, every time America has transcended that we transcended it in seventeen seventy six and seventeen eighty seven, in eighteen sixty six and nineteen thirty seven, and the civil rights movement, marriage equality. So many other times people have said, Katie, the kind of stuff you're saying, and you know, I know you're just voicing, you know, a lot of the frustrations of a lot of people and

views of a lot of people. But there's also this other counter tradition in American history. You know, in the book, I talked about the Andrew Johnson impeachment, and uh, you know, Johnson was a terrible president and racist and and so on, but he was impeached not for that. He was impeached for a violation of the tenure of office at the

technical violation. And it was a really close vote in the Senate and Senator Ross, who hated at the Senor Russell was from camp Us and he hated President Johnson, but nonetheless cast the impeachment vote, the deciding vote the other way to not impeach, because he said that's not the right thing to do. It maybe the right thing to do for my party, but it's not the right thing to do for the country. And time and again we've seen examples of that, and um, we won't know

unless we try. And um, you know, that's I'm proud that to see our Congress trying and to force some attention by this administration to the rule of law. Let me ask you if you could break it down, how many articles of impeachment are there right now? And you know, how is this different from a criminal trial. Yeah, So the main differences are that it's not, of course about crimes. So so that's the first thing it's about, really, is

there an abusive power by the president. Is the president putting his nation his personal interests above those of the nation. That's really I think the best definition of what a high crime and misdemeanor and that can come into sort of shapes and forms exactly, and so here I think they're basically kind of three buckets that of offenses when we think about Ukraine, and you know, there may be

others involving the Moller investigation and so on. I personally don't think Congress should get into all of that here, but you know, because there's some indication that he might have lied on his questionnaire exactly. The the House General Counsel this week in the d C Court said they believe that there may be evidence that the President lie de Muller and that, of course is itself a criminal offense, So there may be other things going on. We'll have

to see. Um. In terms of the process, there is a big difference. I mean, the House does what's called impeachment, which is like the formal indictment of the president, like saying he did something wrong, and that is just by a majority vote, and that's kind of like a grand jury in the criminal context. And then you've got if the House impeaches, then it goes to the Senate for the punishment phase and uh, and the kind of trial about what, you know, what what the president did and

is it, you know, a convictible offense. Um. And there it's a two thirds vote of the Senate to convict. And unlike a criminal trial in which it's a jury of twelve peers who don't have any prejudices about the case, this is decided by a hundred senators, many of whom have already said certain things about their view of the case. So it is quite different in that sense. It's a mix of a legal proceeding and a political proceeding. Would President Trump ever be asked to go to the Senate

to testify? Oh? Absolutely, And would he be compelled to I think you can't formally compel him in the sense of, uh, you know, attached criminal sanctions to him. But you can create an adverse inference. You can say, look, Mr President, if you don't come forward and tell the truth, we'll take that as an admission that these accusations against you in these articles of impeachment are accurate. And you would ask before about what that case would look like. What

are those articles of impeachment? And it seems to me Article one is kind of abuse of power, the president saying I am going to cut off congressionally appropriated aid aida that our taxpayers approved to another country to benefit myself. Count Number two is bribery, the idea that we were talking about earlier, seeking something of value for yourself in order to exchange in order for the performance of an official,

and it would be called bribery absolutely. And indeed, one of the interesting things, Katie, is the Constitution actually says there are defines impeachable offenses as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's actually in the Constitution itself as one of the two things our founders said was impeachable, and cited by Alexander Hamilton as you said earlier about a foreign exactly, is that in the Constitution too, Well, what's in the Constitution is just the word bribery. No,

the foreign nation. What you mentioned that Alexander Hamilton's used as an example, So it's an example of what is an impeachable offense, but itself is not in the text of the Constitution. Like much of the Constitution, they used more capacious words like other high crimes and misdemeanors. And then we have methods to try and understand what those words are here in some of Hamilton's writings exactly. So Hamilton's writings in the Federalist papers. Indeed, Federalist sight, I

think is the critical one. Um, they make this argument about foreign interference, you're sure it's not and then uh, and then the last article of impeachment. And I think today we saw a lot of evidence of this is obstruction of justice, the idea that the president is gagging all these witnesses from coming forward. He's saying no documents

can come. And we started this interview, Katie, with you asking about the Ambassador Solilon testimony it six and its significance, and we've talked a lot about the substantial significance, like what did Simon say about Trump and Giuliani and so on, But there was a procedural significance to what he said today, which is really important. He said, and again, this is Trump's guy. He's saying, the President is acting wrongly by not allowing me to look at my emails, not provide

them to you, not provide my call records. He's preventing me from all of this. And that's preventing the American people from learning the truth. And that is quintessential obstruction of justice. And and what could happen to Rudy Giuliani. I'm just curious. Oh heavens me, I would not want to be. I mean, if in fact he did all the things he's being accused of doing in the course of these hearings and by various witnesses, what will happen

to him? Well, so, first of all, it's not just what he's being accused of in the hearings, which are about you know, this part of Ukraine and Barisma and all that. There's a separate criminal investigation in the Southern District of New York, his former office that he used to head, about whether or not he committed various cribes, whether it's you know, we don't know exactly what they are, um,

but you know, so he's facing legal liability there. Separately, now he's got a bunch to worry about here, um, with respect to the Ukrainian foreign aid scandal and so on. And you know, I think that there's a deep question here whether Giuliani is going to say, oh, I did this all on my own. Trump wasn't involved, hoping perhaps for a pardon or something like that, or he's going to say, hey, I wasn't a rogue agent here. I was doing all of this at the President's best, which

Mr Salmon today I think suggested was the truth. And is Roger Stone going to be pardoned? Who knows? Um? I would think so. I would think that a president, when there was that mountain of evidence from his own Justice Department to convict Rogers own, any decent president could not impeach, it could not pardon Roger Stone. But this is a president who pardoned Joe R. Pio, who pardoned a niche to Suza, who pardoned three war criminals just last week against the advice of his own Defense department.

So anything goes with respect to this guy. And his abuse of the pardon power. You made the case that President Trump's efforts to hinder the House investigation is as much of a threat to the rule of law as the case against him, and that it quote strikes at the heart of American democracy. Explain that, yes, I wrote it. I've be in the New York Times last week, which said, look, we're gonna obviously all focus on these witnesses and what what happened with respect to Ukraine. But there is a

kind of more fundamental thing. And you know, I saw it in two different tours in the government, which is when the Congress of the United States asks you, how are you doing your job? Why did you take certain actions and the like? You know, that's a sovereign and solemn obligation for you to go and explain what you did to the people. Uh. And this president has thumbed his nose at Congress, has said it's so illegitimate that he won't even bother turning over a single piece of

paper or a single witness. Um. And again I asked to go back to that kind of yardstick rule shoe. On the other foot, if this were a democratic president, how would the Republican senators and congresswoman and men feel about someone who stime me that. I mean even at the worst, you know, an air culture was accused of, you know, in Fast and Furious of various things. But he turned over thousands and thousands of pages of material. That was the only time President Obama invoked executive privilege

and his time in office. This president, you know, invokes it kind of like candy, you know, whenever and does it wantonly um and uh, you know, you'd have to go back to Nixon, to someone who did it with any frequency approaching approaching this president. But this president has done that and squared it many many times over. Do you see anyway the impeachment hearings Neil could help the president, could galvanize his base and that people might buy in

the idea that he's being unfairly targeted. And note that these people never thought his election was legitimate. YadA, YadA, YadA. I think that's Katie, with all respect, the wrong question. I don't think we can do this because of politics.

I think we have to do this, and I think this is where the Congress of the House is moving because there is no other option when you have a president who betrays the nation's interest and tries to do in secret, and then gets caught and then doesn't even admit to it and says he'd do it again, he'd do it with China. You've got a president who's a fundamental, existential threat to the rule of law, to everything the country is built on. And if you lose elections over it,

so be it. Lose the election, because there's something far greater at stake here, which is the operation and soul of American democracy. You're a purist, but I would say that there are plenty of Democrats in the House who really weighed the political ramifications of this pretty long and hard. Neil, Sure, No, I am not. I'm not denying any of that. And you know, maybe that it's not bad politics for them or good politics or whatever. I'm just saying, you know,

is some things have to rise above politics. And as your listeners think about, you know, how do we think about this question that we're about to embark in as a nation over the next two months, what should we do about the president? I think they have to ask, you know, do they really want a system in which a president can do this and put the politics aside At least try to. It's, if nothing else, a thought experiment, because, Um, the shoe will be on the other. Life is long

and the country hopefully has many, many years ahead. And if we allow this president to do this, another president can do it, and that president may not be one that you politically agree with. I know, I'm asking you to speculate, and that's something that current and former government officials hate to do. Colin values to always tell me, Katie, I will not speculate on that, but can you give us an idea of the timeline and what ultimately you think is going to happen? Neil, sure. So I'm not

afraid to speculate here. So I wrote a whole book that's about this. Um and Uh. I think that by the end of December. By December, I suspect we'll have a vote in the House of Representatives and Merry Christmas. And I do think that the president will be impeached and representatives. It will then go to a trial in the Senate in January. And January, you know, I think the Senate rules require kind of an immediate trial to move quickly. It required them to be I think in

session six days a week. UM and you know, some senators, Republican senators have said it maybe as long as six to eight weeks. I'm not sure that that's right. I think it's probably the House has already taken a lot of testimony, so I'm not sure that it will be that long. But I again, I hope that it's a thorough serious trial that everyone can see exactly what happened, because the president's story has been shifting while this has been going on in the House of Representatives and in

the early stages in the investigation. I mean, first it was I didn't do it. Then it was it's all perfect and beautiful. Then it was no, it's all hearsay, and you know, there's no firsthand witnesses. Now that the first hand witnesses have come forward, we're back to it's beautiful and perfect. Um. And I don't really know that guy som Blander whomever. So there's been a bunch of shifting stories, um. And once it goes to trial in the Senate, I suspect that they're gonna have to drill

down and pick one. And at that point, I do think the eyes of the nation focus on the question. The eyes in the Senate, they look at themselves in the mirror and say what's the right thing to do here? And I think that the president will be removed from office? Do wow? So you think he'll be gone and Mike Pence will run for president? I I don't know, but you know you know that very well. Maybe or maybe

they have something else. Wow, Well, fasten your seatbelt. Do you ever wish that you had waited to write your book and impeach the case against Donald Trump? Since there's so much happened since you I'm sure handed this in no actually their verse. I mean I wrote the book because I knew a lot was going to happen. I knew there'd be all these witnesses coming forward, and I you know, one of the things that Trump does, and you actually started today's session by talking about it, is

the flood of information that happens. And it's so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, and remember what's important. In the book, it's just a hundred fifty pages is just designed to say, here's the central narrative. And yes, there's going to be any number of details and people saying this and that and taking pot shots at each other, but here's the central narrative. That central narrative is not

going to change. Like you know I've done. I've argued thirty nine cases at the Supreme Court and one hundreds of other cases. You know, in a case and the basics architecture of the case is done. That basic architecture the case is done now and that's what the book lays out. And go back to those three articles of impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution, abuse of power, bribery,

and obstruction of justice. Neo Cartiel, Neil, thanks so much for helping us understand all this and make some sense of it. Thank you. It's an honor to be with you. Not everyone agrees with Neo Cartiel. Up next, we're going to have a conversation with a vocal critic of the impeachment inquiry, former Independent Council Robert Ray. Robert Ray made a name for himself leading the Whitewater investigation as the

former head of the Office of the Independent Council. He recently wrote a piece for Time magazine arguing that while President Trump may have acted inappropriately, his actions do not meet the constitution strict requirements for impeachment, which say that treason, briberary, or other high crimes and misdemeanors need to be proven in order to remove a president from office. Robert Ray, thank you very much for coming on the podcast so

your predecessor as Independent Council can start. Described today's testimony as quote one of those bombshell days and said that quote things do not look it for the president substantively. What do you think, Bob Well, I don't agree with that. Um. I've dealt with media days throughout this saga for more than the past two months, where every day is another

bombshell day. So I don't think there was really anything that I heard today that was that much of a surprise and what I had anticipated that we would hear. His testimony, though, did confirm a quid pro quo. Right, well, let's be careful about that, because you know, first of all, I'm you know, the Hoorray Henry's who all want to talk about quid pro quo as if they seem to understand what bribery is. Let's just slow down. A second.

Bribery is something like the following, whoever, being a public official, corruptly demands or seeks personally in return for the performance of an official act is guilty of a crime, and the in return for a language essentially is what people understand to be the quid pro quo requirement of a bribery offense. But that's not what we talk about and

what much of the discussion has been about. I mean, for example, if there's an exchange of a quid pro quo involving foreign assistance generally, and the linkage is over something as benign as we want a particular country to do more with regard to internally prosecuting or investigating corruption, nobody would ever contend that that kind of an exchange is something that the law is prepared to recognize as illegal. But it doesn't it change when it's a political rival, Bob,

when it's specifically about Joe Biden and his son. And according to son Land, Hello, that's not what Ambassador Sonland testified to today. What his understanding is that it was barisma and the origins of the two thousand and sixteen

election interference. He only came to learn, I think, he said, and not until after the transcript of the call was released between President Zelinsky and President Trump that uh, you know, in his mind, he then came to a presumption that there was a linkage between the two involving specifically the Bidens.

So you know, look, I think much of how you would view this is colored by whether or not you think there's any merit to an investigation of the Biden's first second, I think it's colored by what your view is about whether or not such an investigation is of personal benefit to the president that would be sufficient to um make out a crime. The Democrats have tried that on for size. They first contended that that was an

illegal foreign campaign contribution. Well, that's an interesting legal theory, but it runs up against the fact that the Justice Department, apparently through the Criminal Division, after consultation with the Public Integrity Section, said listen, that's not a thing of value that the law is prepared to recognize as a campaign contribution that would be of personal benefit to the president

United States, meaning an investigation into Hunter Biden and Barrisma. Right. Look, and you know, the notion that a public official is, as a result of running for office or being a candidate, immune from uh an investigation is in my judgment, anathemas and consistent with with our past history, and it's even

inconsistent with my own past history. I conducted an investigation of Hillary Clinton, who was then at the time while I was serving as Independent Council being investigated in connection with a whole slew of investigations Whitewater, the Travel Office, FBI files, a number of things, while she was a candidate for office for the United States Senate in New York. So are you suggesting that Joe Biden did something wrong here? I don't and and it was in your estimation it's

worthy of an investigation. I don't know. I mean, apparently the Attorney General has thought at least so that matter has been referred, among a number of different specific issues to John Durham, who is the currently serving U S Attorney in the District of Connecticut. He enjoys a bipartisan reputation as a kind a fine one as a bipartisan, nonpartisan prosecute career prosecutor. I don't know whether that investigation has any merit or not. I imagine he'll figure it

out one way or another. That's why we have investigations to find out. I I wonder if you believe that Ambassador Solon's claimed that the President was seemed to be more interested in the announcement of an investigation rather than the investigation itself, might sort of counter this assessment that it wouldn't he wouldn't stand to gain from that in estigation.

Ambassador Simon made very clear, although that was completely overlooked in the testimony today, that the primary reason to ask for a public announcement was to fix their position publicly so that they couldn't walk back the fact that they were committed to rooting out corruption. I think that's separate and apart from whether or not you think that's also of personal benefit to the president, because of the fact that it would have potentially had an impact on an election.

Everything has an impact on an election. The question is whether there is anything inappropriate about that ask and I have already commented publicly and I think, um, this is where I do agree with Ken Starr. I do think it was an error in judgment not to have done

this through the usual channels. Why Because the usual channels provide you with insulation in the ordinary affairs of the country where people don't second yes your political motivations, and so one of the reasons that you'd go to the FBI and the Justice Department and also admit what there's already a treaty process to allow a request to the Ukrainian government through official channels for what's referred to as

the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. That's the kind of appropriate way in which you would be seeking in a sensitive area assistance with an investigation. So I guess what I'm saying is that, you know, it's hard for me to imagine that the president does something directly that if he did indirectly through usual channels, it certainly would be entirely appropriate.

But now all of a sudden it's illegal. You can argue about a lack of judgment and whether or not it would have been better practice and a better idea not to have had what amounts to a second channel through Rudy Giuliani to try to accomplish this end. But I'm not sure that I would jump to the conclusion that the end in itself was inappropriate. I think the means are subject to question, but that doesn't mean that

the means were illegal. But having said that, I mean it was in your view and error in judgment, but does not necessarily qualified as a high crime or misdemeanor. I don't think it qualifies as bribery either. I don't think it. I don't think it involves extortion because I don't think there was sufficient pressure applied. What about abuse of power, Well, abuse of power is an interesting concept,

and I know you've talked to about that. I do not think that abuse of power untethered from the constitutional language, which requires that it be treason, bribery, or other high crime and misdemeanor, is sufficient. I know there's reasonable disagreement of opinion among legal scholars about that. I think. I mean, I've read a lot of books. I've considered the question of impeachment, going all the way back to Watergate and historically even before um I think the better, more considered view.

And by the way, this was Neil cat y'all's view and a Chiel Lamar and a number of other people when they were trying on for size of the question of the Clinton impeachment. I do not think abuse of power on its own as a sufficient basis to remove a president from office. I think it has to be both. I think the lesson of the Clinton impeachment was very few people were arguing over whether or not the president

had committed obstruction of justice or perjury. The only question was whether or not those crimes were sufficient to rise to the level of abuse of his office, abuse of his oath of office. And I think the considered judgment of the Senate following a trial was, you know what, Um, there's a problem here, but it's not sufficient to remove the president from office because he didn't abuse his office this one. Um. You know, I sort of stepped back

and just look at it. And the Nixon cases, of course entirely different because there I think it was clearly both. It was not only that obstruction of justice was committed, but it was committed in such a way that undermined the president's oath of office to take care that the

laws be faithfully executed. And there was a slush fund in the White House with cash coming out of a safe in order to pay off witnesses to ultra testimony in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation that the president orchestrated, and he was on tape directing it. And everybody can understand it appreciate that that's not only a crime, but it's also a problem for a president to be involved in.

I don't think there's anything like that here. I mean, are we seriously and I'm asking the American people this, are we seriously going to impeach a president based upon today's testimony about the announcement of an investigation tied to a meeting at the White House, I really think tied

to foreign aid. Well, let's start with where they started today, because the only thing Sonlon was able to say for Ambassador son was able to say for sure is that the link that he saw was with a meeting at the White House, despite what you hear in much of the media, and meeting at the White House as recently as the Supreme Court's decision involving Governor McDonald is not an official act under the bribery law, so that can't

be the predicate for a bribery offense. And I believe Adam Schiff recognizes this because all before these hearings even started, he was already saying, you know, we don't have to prove the elements of a bribery offense like a prosecu puter would bribery. It only has to be as the

founders understood it. Well, okay, fair enough, but bribery is mentioned, and the founders did put in place a Congress which was capable of passing laws, and among the other laws that the Congress ultimately passed was the Federal Bribery Statute. So there's no bribery with regard to a meeting in the White House. Don't believe me, but that that's what

the Supreme Court says. So what about foreign aid? I mean, maybe Somlon didn't say that he saw no connection, but a lot of the other witnesses have said that, and more witnesses are to come. Well, he said, So if if in fact someone says, uh, there was an undeniable link between an investigation of Hunter Biden and the delivery of foreign aid to Ukraine, would that constitute bribery? Well,

no one is going to say that. And more importantly, I'm not really interested in what other people have to say. This is not an impeachment of an administration. This is, after all, the impeachment of the President of United States. Said, that doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. The question is where does the president thing? And today you know, again

something skipped over. You know, largely the President was asked directly by Ambassador Sunlin in no uncertain terms and emphatically, because I think he was exasperated more than anything else Mr President, what do you want? And the answer was, I don't want anything from President Zelinsky. I want him to do what it is he ran on and I and I don't want any quid pro quotes. I'm not asking him for anything. I'm asking him to do what

he said he was going to do. So. Look, I do not think that investigations generally, including one's conducted overseas, and including one's conducted overseas of United States nationals, which by the way, is something that we do do. Um. I have represented clients that have been on the receiving end of that, so I know, UM, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. That's you know, that's part of what

investigations are all about. I do not think that that notion, and specifically what you're suggesting, which is the personal benefit to the president of a politically motivated investigation of the bidens, are mutually exclusive. I mean, the sense in the in the in the in the country right now is it it's either a legitimate investigation or it's this thing involving the Biden's barisma and corruption in the Ukraine, and the

one is unlawful. It's a foreign campaign contribution and it's the basis of a quid pro quo, and the other one is entirely appropriate. I don't think life doesn't work that way. They are not They are not mutually exclusive. There is space enough for there to be. Again, depending on how what your view is about whether or not either Hunter Biden and or his his father, that then vice president did anything wrong. And again I'm not suggesting

he did or he didn't. I don't know. That's why we have investigations to find that, and in fact, we are having one right now. That's what's going on. So you basically don't believe when it comes to the specific articles of impeachment that Neil identified, abuse of power, bribery, and obstruction of justice, that you can check off any of those. And if not, why not obstruction of justice? Bob.

If in fact President Trump is prohibiting many people from testifying in the House hearings, well that's a process, fell and I guess ultimately, you know, the American people will decide whether they think that's significantly What do you think. I don't think so, And I think you know, look, if there are legitimate reasons and basses to object to cooperating with the investigation that include the assertion of presidential or executive privilege. I know that they tried this in

the Nixon impeachment. It wasn't particularly persuasive, nor was it, frankly in the in the Clinton impeachment. UM, that's a process argument and dispute between the branches of government. To equate that with obstruction of justice seems to me to be a bridge too far. Um, they're a legit him reasons why you would object to uh subpoena compliance, both for documents and for witnesses to protect the office of the president, not the president, you know, Donald Trump personally himself,

not only for this administration, for administrations in the future. Uh. That has been consistently the position of the White House, not again, not just with regard to this administration, but for administrations going back at least as far as President Eisenhower. UM. Uh, you know, I I don't think that UH an attempt to try to make that argument, you know, Adam Shifts.

UH typical approach to this has been every time the White House objects to providing us with a document or a witness, we're going to just add that as another article of impeachment under obstruction it doesn't wash with me. I don't think it will wash with the American people.

And more importantly, in this process, if you have any hopes of trying to persuade the other party to join with you, which after all, is necessary in order to remove the president from office in the United States Senate, you're not going to get there by making an argument. Ah ha, we got you on obstruction of justice. You didn't give us that document from the State Department. You know, Please, we got more important things to worry about. That's not

one of them. But what about prohibiting witnesses from testifying. I mean, we're not talking about handing over documents. We're talking about saying to people you cannot appear well. Sure, And and the reason for that is because the internal discussions at the highest level within the White House are subject to privilege. And it has long been recognized to be the case. Uh, it's implied essentially in the Constitution

by virtue of separation of powers. And the President has no obligation to try to make the House's case for impeachment against him. He has constitutional rights as well, in addition to the fact of his office. And I do think that again, pushing that too far is encroaching on an area that is long recognized to be a proper

separation of powers question. And and the related notion that has expressed most recently by the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, that the president has some obligation to come forward and testify or explain or provide his people. Um again, Um, that's that there's nothing in the constitution that requires that.

I don't think that's in the public interest. And again, I think that the president is entitled to rely on AIDS without having to worry about the fact that all of those people are going to appear to testify against

him because the Congress is conducting an impeachment inquiry. And if we really have reached the point in this country for the future, which is one of the things that I'm concerned about, that it simply as the result of having the House of Representatives in the UH in the hands of the opposite party, that we're going to now be endlessly in a situation in which every administration is going to be saddled with the potential of an impeachment inquiry. I do not think ultimately that that is in the

country's best interests. I don't think that that's what the founders intended, and the you know, recent history suggests now that we sort of string together, you know, Nixon to Clinton to Trump. You know, the question one has to logically ask, and I think most fair minded Americans will be asking when this when and if this gets to the United States Senate is ultimately is that what we want to see here? Is that really in the country's interests?

And I've even thought about things like, you know, I wonder for the future whether or not a simple majority vote in the House should be sufficient to warrant the impeachment of a president. I mean, I think there perhaps should be some serious question that a bipartisan vote be required in the House before it ever gets to the Senate.

Not suggesting that it would be a two thirds majority, but when you know, I think could think seriously about whether or not it's in the country's interests with the future to prevent just this sort of thing from happening, that rather than fifty be required, which would would mandate in effect, that you would have to have, in an example like this one, not only all Democrats in favor of impeachment, but you'd have to have bipartisan support, meaning

some Republicans to join along with it. So you think there's m legitimacy to President Trump's contention, this is a kangaroo court. He's kind of dismissed the whole process. He said, you know, on Fox News they say it's a shift show. You know, look, I hear all that. I've been on Fox News. I'm a regular guest. Um, I do not think it helps anybody or our institutions in the country's best interest to be disparaging the mission of the House of Representatives. I don't and I won't do it. Um.

You know they have a tough job to do. Are is there partisan excess on both sides? Sure? Did anybody think that that wouldn't be the case? Go all the way back to Alexander Hamilton's He certainly recognized that this would inflame partisan passions on both sides as the result of impeachment, particularly involving a president, which is why the protection was built in that it would require two thirds in the Senate to actually remove a president from office

and overturn an election. Whow it is you know under liably true that a president is subject to impeachment all during his term in office. This obviously was intended by the founders to be an extraordinary thing and and reserved

for the most extreme situations. My view is that there's not ever going to be given these facts unless something magically changes, clear and unmistakable evidence of both a crime that fits the definition of trees and bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and uh one sufficient enough that

it constitutes abuse of the president's office. And I do firmly believe, based upon history and practice and frankly good common sense, which was ultimately where the American people are going to weigh in here, I think that unless you have both, that's not sufficient to warrant the removal of a president from office. I think that's the considered judgment of history and the idea that someone put forth in his testament me that everyone was in the loop, from

Mike Pence to Mike Pompeo. UM, not that significant in your view, Well, I don't. I don't know what in the loop. I listened to it carefully to see what exactly do you mean by in the loop and how much knowledge did they really have. I think that it is a reflection of the fact that Ambassador Sondling thought, based upon the direction given by the President that this contention, which is frankly contrary to what you heard the day before,

UM from Lieutenant Colonel vinman Um. You know, when the President directs that wants something done, UM, that makes it not an outside channel. That is the President's prerogative to choose the channel that he would like in order to troll accomplish what it is he's trying to accomplish. Frankly, what I thought I saw here was the President was prepared to temporarily withhold foreign aid to see what the Ukrainians would do. He didn't make a demand that they

commence investigations in exchange for that aid. That's not the tenor of the call, which is going to be ultimately the best, probably the only real evidence of the President's intent, other than the limited color that UM Ambassador Sonlon was able to add today, I don't think you're going to

hear from anybody else. I think to answer your question, yes, would there be potential benefit to hear from UM, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, UM, from the from the Acting Chief of Staff McK mulvaaney, and potentially other people Rudy Giuliani among them. Sure, but I think there's understandably a concern that the President is asserting, and I think

in most situations that should be respected. That unless you're prepared to say that these people were co conspirators in connection with the illegal activity, which I don't think you're gonna hear anybody say. No, one's gonna stand up and then say, you know, I was involved in a in a corrupt bargain here, and I was a co conspirator, and now let me tell you what it is I did and what the president thought. That's the difference between, frankly,

this case and the impeachment of Richard Nixon. No one's going to say, oh, yeah, I was, Yep, I was. We were all we were all involved, and we were all involved in a conspiracy to commit bribery. You're not going to hear that. You're not going to hear an acknowledgment that they thought that what they were doing was illegal, because I don't think they thought what they were doing

was illegal. Do you believe that any Republican senators will change their minds after today's testimony or do you think they'll still feel supportive of the President minus the two who seemed to be wobbily or have said otherwise. I think to be careful, honestly, you don't know right until after both there's a vote in the House and you see what the partisan lineup looks like. I expect I think the import of your question is I expect that

it will be probably entirely along party lines. I think that will send a message to the Senate, which is likely to have a rejoinder that is going to be equally partisan the other way. So I guess that's a sort of a roundabout way of answering your question. At least at the moment. I don't expect that that's going to change the result. And I think what that will mean, um is that it will it will it will not succeed in the Senate. I guess the only question is

how long and painful will that process be? Will there be a full trial? I mean, this is different then our most recent history, which is the Clinton impeachment. In this situation, the president's party is in control of the United States Senate, so they they they set the rules, and they determine how much of a proceeding there there

will be. They may I have suggested that if if really uh, this should be short circuited because it doesn't have merit, that it would be appropriate to consider emotion to dismiss, which could be And I understand that there are political consequences to this, particularly among Republicans in districts where or I'm sorry, in states where they're for re election this year. UM. I can think of a few of them that would be vulnerable to a process that

was arguably curtailed in the Senate. But I mean it, certainly it was. There was a moment put it this way. There was a motion filed during the Clinton impeachment to dismiss. It was denied. This situation is different because Republicans control the president's party control the United States Senate, and so if they have a majority vote UM plus in the event of a tie the vice president of vote, they can they can move to dismiss for indefinitely adjourned the proceedings.

And do you think that might happen? I think that's a politically dicey thing. I think the safer course is probably to allow there to be a trial, uh and and for the members to give considered judgment to the question. I think most people want to appear to their constituents as having carefully considered this to the extent that you

were to short circuited. I suppose there would be a reasonable argument about you're not taking it seriously, and so a backlash from Democratic opponents and upcoming elections from Democrats, from voters, and you know, look, we're undeniably we're in an election year now, right and a third of the Senator is up. So that's obviously something that they have

to keep an eye on. And that brings me to my final question, what impact do you think, Bob, this will have on Could this embolden the president, helped him in fact get re elected if it is a long party lines, or do you think that people will think he just behaved, there was a serious error in judgment and his actions were questionable at at the very least.

I don't know too many things. But what I do know from having a review the history of all of the impeachments is that they have consequence, whether intended or unintended, and sometimes those consequences can be quite severe. We really don't know how the electorate will view this at the end of the day. I think there's a reasonable question as a result of so much of what has surface. Whatever you think the merit of it is, is that I think already this is seriously damaged the Vice president's

prospects to become the nominee for the Democratic Party. I don't think you can really argue to the contrary. Do you think it's that or do you think there are other factors? There may be, There may be other factors. And of course we ultimately don't know if he became the nominee, how what the long you know, run effect of that would be all the way through November of next year. We also don't even know in the primary process,

you know, how this will play out. I suppose it depends on how this plays out before the United States Senate, presumably in January of next year. The short answer is one of the dangers of impeachment is that you go down this road you never really know where it leads. I mean, I the fall out of the Clinton impeachment, I don't know. There was an intended or unintended consequences that I think that probably cost al Gore the election

against George W. Bush. You know, you can talk about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that was one of the consequences I think of impeachment. Were there other factors, sure, but I don't think that that was an insubstantial factor. I think that was a significant effect. I don't know that that would have been anticipated at the time of impeachment. Only you would only know that with the benefit of history. And I think

the same will be true here. We're not really going to know all of the consequences of an impeachment until probably years later. One thing is certain. Only time will tell, right, Like a lot of things in life, But this is a big one, right, this is a big one. Well, it's really interesting to get your perspective, Bob Ray, Thank you so much for stopping by. Thanks very us pleasure. Yeah, nice to see you. Nice to meet you. Same here. Thanks so much everyone for listening to this episode of

Next Question. We hope we've provided you with some information in some context so you can better understand what's going on these days on Capitol Hill with the impeachment hearings and what constitutes or doesn't high crime and misdemeanors. If you'd like to know what's happening every morning and have some original content in the form of interviews, and inspiring stories. Please sign up for our daily morning newsletter called wake Up Call by going to Katie Couric dot com and

follow me, of course, on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Next Question with Katie Curic is a production of I Heart Radio and Katie Curic Media. The executive producers are Katie Kuric, Lauren Bright Pacheco, Julie Douglas, and Tyler Klang. Our show producers are Bethan Macaluso and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer is Dylan Fagin. Associate producers are Emily Pinto and Derek Clemens. Editing is by Dylan Fagin, Derrek Clements, and Lowell Berlante.

Our researcher is Barbara Keene. For more information on today's episode, go to Katie Kurik dot com and follow us on Twitter and Instagram at Katie Curk. For more podcasts from My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.